U is for Uprising

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for this year's #AtoZchallenge? Revamping the Grand Duchy of Karameikos in a way that doesn't disregard its B/X roots. I got behind by a couple days because of the Easter weekend, but I'm trying to catch up as quickly as possible]

U is for Uprising, specifically the Marilenev Uprising, a suggested adventure for a campaign set in the Grand Duchy, and one of many included in GAZ1. The description reads like this:

The Lady Magda finally snaps. She and her subordinates begin fomenting revolution in the streets. The adventure is the riot that ensues in the Grand Market when Lady Magda is making the greatest speech of career; all her own soldiers are in the crowd, pretending to be passerby and whipping the crowd into a cheering frenzy. Then the city guard shows up and the riot ensues -- between the city guard and the Marilenev guardsmen, with more arriving to help both sides every minute. The characters can be on one side or another, or trying to keep innocent people from being hurt. (After this adventure is over the Estate of Marilenev will probably have another master and another name...)

Bleah. Just...bleah.

The background for this adventure takes place thirty years ago with an earlier uprising led by the Marlilenev clan. Well, actually, I suppose its origin starts 100 years prior with the Thyatia conquest. Marilenev, named (presumably) for its ruling family, was a flourishing trade city and the chief port of the Traladara region. After its conquest, the Thyatians renamed it Specularum, built walls, and stationed a contingent of Thyatian soldiers to ensure (nominal) taxes were paid and everyone knew who the new boss was. As the wealthy families retained their properties (if not self-rulership) business and life went on, more-or-less, as usual.

Some folks, however, appear to have been less than satisfied with the new situation. When Stefan took over (70 years after the conquest), "the powerful Traladaran families in Specularum saw the political change as an opportunity to reestablish Traladaran independence" and plotted to kill the Duke while still in the early stages of his settling in. The thought was that if they could take the town and erect a strong enough defense, they might make it economically unfeasible for Thyatis to launch a second conquest attempt. Unfortunately:

"...the Marilenev clan prematurely led an armed revolt against the Duke and was decisively beaten by the Duke and the garrison. Most of the Marilenev men died in the attack. Naturally, from that point on the Duke had his eyes on the other powerful families, especially the Radu and Torenescu clans."

The Estate of Marilenev remains, just outside of Specularum: a small farming village of 900 souls watched over by Castle Marilenev, "a Gothic monstrosity of depressing walls and crumbling towers." Lady Magda Marilenev is its ruler. "Magda was the young wife of Lord Marilenev 30 years ago, when the Marilenev Rebellion was put down." Now a bitter, resentful widow in her 50s, she is described as "a barrel of resentment:" resentful of the Duke, resentful of the other clans whose help she required after the Rebellion, resentful of her state of affairs in comparison to that of the city...she is primed with hatred and ready to "snap," as she does in the suggested adventure. Allston (thankfully) stats her as a Normal Human, rather than a classed character; a surprisingly average woman with an Intelligence of 10, Wisdom of 10, and Charisma of 13. Hardly, a scheming revolutionary or inspiring rabble-rouser, she's just a bitter old woman and (as I infer from the final line of the Marilenev Uprising adventure) an obstacle to the "heroic" player characters being given a castle and township just outside the capital city.

This is Lady Magda and her background as presented by Allston in GAZ1 (the first appearance of the Marilenev clan and its history). There's a little more embellishment in the later Karameikos: Kingdom of Adventure. I haven't written much about K:KoA, an AD&D 2E campaign setting credited to Allston and Jeff Grubb, published in 1994 (seven years after the Gazetteer). While it takes into account the events of 1992's Wrath of the Immortals, advancing the GAZ1 timeline ten years and changing Archduke Stefan to King Stefan I, nearly all of the text is a reprint of the material in GAZ1...word-for-word content, with stats slightly altered for the AD&D rule system (BECMI was very close to 2nd edition AD&D at this point, so not much was needed).  If I had to guess, I'd suspect Allston receives co-credit because so much of the text is taken from GAZ1...Grubb's name is listed first in the byline and I imagine he's responsible for what little new material is found in K:KoA.

But as I said, there's not much (for Magda, especially)...but what there is, is very interesting. She's still the average ability, 0-level character, though aged a decade (she's now in her 60s); she's still the bitter, "barrel of resentment" waiting to "snap" (no Uprising has yet taken place in the advanced timeline). However, now we learn that Magda's own children, Britan and Caspar,

"...were captured by Stefan's forces, who were in turn ambushed by orcs, killing all."

Yowza! This is a much darker portrait of the Marilenev Rebellion (quick historical note: if it fails, it's a a "rebellion;" if it succeeds, it's a "revolution"). K:KoA provides genealogical ancestry for noble houses (each going back three to four generations), and Magda was the only known survivor of the Rebellion, with Magda's husband and his three brothers perishing, and her sister-in-law (Melanie Marilenev) disappearing and never again being seen (in 40 years!). Now "widowed, childless, and stripped of much of her power" no wonder Magda's ready to snap. I'd think she'd be closer to the edge of madness...after all, how old could her sons have been at the time of the Rebellion? Magda herself was only in her early to mid-20s at the time.

Lady Magda now...but
not at the time of the Rebellion.

Of course, now I have to wonder: why. Why has this woman been left to fester for four decades? A young widow, a landed, titled noble, still of childbearing age (and proven as such having had two healthy children), and yet possessing no heirs to her estates...WHY wouldn't she have married into some other wealthy or noble family (Traladaran or Thyatian)? This was no Lady Olenna Tyrell (yes, another Game of Thrones reference), long past her childbearing years who, upon seeing the death of her son, grandchildren, and heirs by the hand of Cersei Lannister, had nothing left to live for but "fire and blood." Lady Magda had EVERYTHING left to live for...including sweet, sweet revenge on Duke Stefan. She should have gotten herself married to someone ("Hey! I've got a castle! And lands!"), and got about the business of breeding new kids too carry on a legacy of hatred and vengeance against the Thyatian invaders. 30 years wasted (40 by K:KoA)?! Aleena was a 12th level cleric by the age of 22! Come on!

But, hey, let's talk about these dead children for a moment. Clearly, the authors want to steer away from the idea of any cruel impropriety by our "good" Duke Stefan. "Oh, yeah, sorry...orc ambush. Been known to happen." Yeah, sure, pal. How about having one of your MANY clerical cronies cast raise dead on my kids?! Both Sherlane Halaran and Oliver Jowett accompanied Stefan to Karameikos, and both were prominent Thyatian patriarchs (and, thus, high enough level to raise dead) prior to embarking on their Karameikan adventure. I can understand not raising the adult members of the Rebellion as a suitable punishment to their treason, but the kids? What was their particular crime, Mr. Lawful Good Archduke, sir? Just worm food (or orc food), huh?

A better Lady Magda

Sorry, I'm not buying any of this. If we make the Duke a more recent entrant on the scene (as I suggested a couple posts back), the Marilenev Rebellion can be a more recent affair as well, with the fallout still being sorted. Instead of a bitter, spiteful old woman, Lady Magda can be a vengeful, fiery young woman, ready to put the wheels of revenge in motion. This isn't Lady Tyrell; this is Cersei Lannister, trying to rebuild an empire on the smoldering remains of her family. She has absolutely no faith in the Duke's "orc ambush" story (and, of course, this is a barefaced lie...Stefan wants no young Traladaran nobles growing up with resentment over the deaths of their fathers), and she's willing to make whatever deals with the devil necessary to enact justice on the murderous usurpers. A good model would be the (fictionalized) Kwenthrith of Mercia from the Vikings television series. She's a complex character: manipulative, vengeful, and ambitious as hell, but still possessing some love and compassion that she supresses with ruthless practicality. The only thing she's truly "resentful" of is being born a woman in a society that makes her sex less worthy to rule than...well, than any number of flawed, terrible, male human beings. And, yet, she doesn't resent being a woman, she resents the patriarchy that would denigrate and devalue her for the fact of her birth.

Give Magda/Kwenthrith a real uprising, not some paltry riot quickly supressed by the Duke's Elvenguard. Give her a real chance at revenge, maybe some child-for-a-child payback (make sure you feed the bodies to orcs so they can't be raised...that's a Kwenthrith kind of thing to do). And make sure there are opportunities for the player characters to get involved, and not just "keeping innocent people from getting hurt." I just don't see that many innocent people in Karameikos.
: )

"The Witch Game" Response

This was meant to be a comment on Tim's blog, in response to his response to my earlier comments. Unfortunately (and as usual) my words ran to the "long-winded" variety (it's 4am and I've been having a little sangria...hey, I gave up beer for Lent, cut me some slack!) and I was prohibited from posting. So I'm posting it here, though I'm not sure it will hold much interest for anyone besides Mr. Brannan and myself...

@ Timothy:

Since you appear to be addressing me directly, allow me to respond to a couple things:

I may have been a tad unclear in my earlier comments. When I say "culture" is the defining part of "witch-ness" in fantasy (other than magic-use), I'm not talking about a cosmetic change. A cosmetic change would be saying (like in Rowling's books), "all magic-users need wands to do magic; without wands they can't cast spells." This would take the place of, say, the restriction that magic-users can't be bound and/or require spell components...that's a cosmetic ("color") change to the way the character works.

"Cultural" means (in terms of a game) tied to the setting in an intimate fashion that affects the system. Even while D&D is "setting-less" in its default form, there are default assumptions one can make based on the systems. Paladins can only be lawful good; acting evil robs them of their abilities. Clerics must act in a certain fashion of lose their spell abilities. Turning undead is tied to being an agent of the divine. The existence of "guilds" (and guild rules) for thieves and assassins. These things define setting. Notice magic-users aren't required to belong to some guild...though that could have been written into the rules (schools of magic, organizations of wizards, etc.).

Consider the Dresden Files setting (which I only know about from having played the FATE RPG at a convention): here you have a wizard society with some fairly strict rules...like not using magic to kill people (in play, our magical investigators had to hunt down a rogue magician that had been using magic "against the rules" - my character ended up shooting her with a gun in order to "stick to the law"). Imagine how such a proscription would change play in D&D! What if wizards were subject to a Law of Three type rule? That's not a "cosmetic" change...that's going to shift system and play in a big way!

The witch culture, in both fiction and "real life" has a lot of ties to womanhood. Kind of. I'm not really sure how to say it...I don't mean feminism or female empowerment (though you see aspects of that), and there are certainly men who practice the craft (in both fiction and reality) but there is something distinctly feminine about it...in a traditional, "this is the female experience" kind of way. Witches share spells the way women (traditionally) share recipes...the Book of Shadows is a lot like a personal cookbook. That's very different from the traditional (and very D&Dish) archetype of wizards being guarded with their secrets, not wanting to share power. Witches work in groups...over and over in fiction and folklore you see this...and they are more potent when doing so. Real witches also involve others in their rituals...ritual magic is very much like performing religious rites, and you get more "oomph" from a bigger participating congregation (just like any church service). There's a sharing of knowledge, and a sharing of wisdom, and a sharing of suffering/experience that is very different from the solitary path of the lonely wizard.

Which may be part of why witches have a history (in fact and fiction) of persecution. They are subversive in a way that wizards aren't. Wizards are weird to normal folks, sure, but they aren't trying to undermine the underlying power structure. They're more likely to use it to make money (getting a job as a "court magician," figuring out how to turn base metal into gold, etc.). Witches are driven out of society (or hide their practice while living within it), because their very culture is subversive. Not because they're "powerful women in a patriarchy" but because of what they embody in the manner in which they work. Helping others, sharing knowledge, helping others to become powerful...these things undermine any power structure by empowering community. Communion with nature, understanding and working with natural forces...these things undermine a (human) culture built mainly on the exploitation of nature and an attempt to master it for human purposes.

The concept of the witch fails, at least in part, due to the structure of the D&D game. Take alignment, for example. Witches can certainly be "good" or "evil" people, but alignment is much more of a "cosmic" concept in D&D (especially AD&D) being based on the whole Law/Chaos struggle of sword & sorcery literature. Which side of the Eternal Struggle are you on? Except in B-horror films (the kind that inspires the "evil NPC witch" found in games like Palladium), most witches have a long history of being on the side of HUMANS (their community, their coven, or - selfishly - themselves)...humans who may be good or evil. On which side of the cosmic struggle are humans? Law? Do witches have to be lawful? What about the wicked crones giving people the evil eye? Shouldn't they be chaotic evil? Does that mean they worship Cthulhu?

Much of witch magic falls into the clerical realm, but (while spiritual) they're not dependent on "the gods" for their magic. Does a witch lose his/her spell-casting ability because she's "on the outs" with the Horned God? No, of course not. But other witches will look at such a practitioner (one who ignores the spiritual component) with disdain and as a rebel who's asking for heavy karma to pay 'em a visit. Similarly, witches don't really fit in the "all things balanced" realm of the D&D druid...they respect nature, they don't work for it. They are humanists (or at least "human centric" or human concerned) first.

The D&D magic-user is much more of a scientist, with the spell research and laboratory thing. You can re-skin it all to be "witchy" making it more of a kitchen/hearth thing, but that's going to call for a restructuring of the rules. Witches don't require thousands of coins to develop spells (especially low-level ones!)...if they did, no archetypal D&D village would be able to support the local wise woman.

The point to all this being you need a system overhaul that really addresses specific setting issues in order to include the witch as a playable character class. At least, if you want to have something that feels "witchy" in the traditional sense. There is very little "witch" to the Hermione Granger character, true enough (though Rowling's overall magic society with its tight community, structured rules, flying broomsticks, and love of potion brewing feels witchy in many ways)...if you wanted, to go that route, you could simply say:

male magic-users are called "wizards," female magic-users are called "witches"

But that would be doing a bit of a disservice to all those male witches out there (not to mention Wiccans!). A similar tact would be in the vein of Bewitched, where the magical society is broken down into "witches" and "warlocks." That's a bit more pulpy (in a kind of Vincent Price The Raven way) but it could work. Give everyone find familiar as a starting spell instead of read magic...you don't really need read magic in a witch-based setting (at least not in the current fictional tradition of needing to be "born a witch" to have access to spell-casting).

*sigh* I could go on and on for days on this subject but its 4am my time and I have to get up soon.

Changing Stations

First thing's first: congrats to the New England Patriots for their win in the Super Bowl. The dark elves took advantage of our injury-laden defense to take the lead in the 4th quarter, but it was the great play by undrafted rookie, Malcolm Butler that really snatched victory from the Seahawks. MVP Tom Brady (who was out-dueled by Russell Wilson for most of the day...even with the last minute pick, Wilson finished with a higher QBR and passer rating) was nice enough to give his free pick-up truck (the MVP prize) to Butler for his part in helping Tom achieve another championship ring.

[I know a lot of Seahawks fans...including myself...were distressed at the passing play called on 2nd down at the end of the game that led to Butler's interception. However, it wasn't a terrible call to pass due to the time remaining in the game. The more egregious issues was the burning of time outs leading up to that play, the specific play-call itself, AND the execution of the play by the players. In this regard, it was much more of a "team fail" than the fault of a single offensive coordinator]

Dark elves: smart, if sometimes underhanded.

Okay...now to the gaming stuff. Kind of.

I've been thinking a lot about princes and princesses the last few days. Princesses especially. As the father of a small girl-child (she's nine months old), the amount of clothing and toys and books and whatnot aimed as little girls that is "princess-themed" is just...ugh. Ugh.

[Lego actually has a line of "girl-oriented" sets that are NOT princess themed and that explore a lot of cool female characters, but A) they're a bit old for either of my children at this point, and B) I've never been big into Lego. But I might go that way if the market looks the same five years from now. Those Monster High dolls are still "princesses," just ones of the horror variety]

In a way, I suppose, it's a triumph of creativity that people can continue to find ways to rehash the princess theme...Disney's made their bread and butter on variations of the princess film for decades.

[by the way, I know we all love Pixar, but out of their fourteen feature films we have exactly one with a female protagonist? That would be Merida of the film Brave...and, yes, she's a princess]

ANYway...while princesses and princes and their travails are well-known in fantasy fiction (fairy tales, film, literature), they don't appear all that much in RPGs...at least not as playable character types. Being a member of royalty? Not really an option in D&D. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of the "adventuring thing:" your characters are supposed to be poor folk (well, poorer folk) out seeking their fortunes in the wide, dangerous world. The player characters may aspire to join the ranks of nobility by achieving great wealth (and being granted lands and titles upon reaching sufficient level) but the chances they'll ever become royalty themselves are pretty slim.

Which, when you think about it, is pretty strange considering the wealth of fantasy and folklore involving this exact subject which (presumably) D&D and its ilk is somewhat drawn from. Whether you're talking about Perseus or Cinderella or King Arthur or Aragorn or Taran the Assistant Pig-Keeper or Shrek, there's always someone changing their station from commoner/outsider to royal ruler. Changing one's station (for the better) is often the objective of the story or a driving force of the plot, generally through a combination of their own actions/decision-making and the (authorial) Hand of Destiny. More than half of the stories that make up the "Disney Princess" franchise incorporate one person (either the princess herself or her male love interest) being elevated to the ranks of royalty through marriage.

But that was the fairy tale. In the pre-modern era, there wasn't a whole lot one could do to change one's birth rank...social mobility was a lot more difficult and the amount of movement (up or down) much smaller. And to be in the echelons of the wealthy and pampered (I think nearly all humans, at one time or another have wished for the comfort that comes with money) being royalty...or at least nobility...was really the only way to go. Most wealth was derived from being a land-owner, something restricted to the upper ranks, and while one could (and did) go pillage a richer town or nation for an extra cash infusion, such actions were generally under the purview of those who could afford to hire a fighting force, i.e. the same royal/noble folks deriving money from their lands.

The premise of D&D certainly falls on the more "magical" end of the story spectrum (rather than the "historical"), providing a means of achieving wealth other than soaking the peasants and tenants for taxes: treasure-finding. But this idea...of finding and securing secret or hidden wealth...is pretty anachronistic. It is a 19th century concept, based in stories like Treasure Island and The Count of Monte Christo...stories in which characters were able to elevate their station by digging up sufficient hidden wealth (through their courage and ingenuity) that others were unable to do. In a way, it is allegorical of the increase in social mobility (or what we might call today "The American Dream") through "hard work." But that's not the standard fantasy fare associated with magic and fairies and dragons.

[even though one might find a pot of gold or golden goose or dragon hoard in an old fairy tale, it was usually only a means to an end...like using it to buy into the royal family (i.e. marrying the princess) and becoming royalty]

People might believe that "treasure-hunting" is as old as the colonization...that 16th century conquistadors were looting lost tombs and ancient temples for treasure. Such was not the case...what the Spanish engaged in was the same type of war and conquest that Europeans had waged against each other since before Roman times. The treasure being pulled from the New World was not "lost" or "secret" but booty and plunder of the same type the Templars brought back from the Middle East. It was wealth taken from living nations and living people, not gold secreted in hidden caves and subterranean passages.

No, the idea of discovering "non-owned treasure" like that from a buried pirate chest or being held by an illegitimate owner (dragons and monsters and brigands) is a 19th (and early 20th) century concept...it's Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, not Beowulf. It's a modern fairy tale placed in a pseudo-medieval setting, a strange juxtaposition upon reflection, and perhaps the reason I find the premise of D&D so at odds with my idea of what fantasy (in the fairy tale-esque sense) "should" be.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to catch-up on the most recent Downton Abbey episodes.
; )

[sorry this took a couple days to post...school starts again on the 16th and I should have more time for blogging then]

Fighting Women (Redux)

[checking my privilege as I walk through the Valley of Darkness]

So in the comments section of this morning's post explaining my reasons for male-female specific mechanics (found in the chargen section of ability scores), Monkapotomus wrote the following:

"Ultimately I suppose it is no different than racial caps on attributes but it seems strange to me that you would have a specific type of female character in mind that you want to model but not a specific type of male character you want to model."

Ouch. That hurts.

What Monk has hit on, is a basic in fallacy in my thinking and design process. "Justified" or not, my design choice places a restriction on the character concepts of half the population...and no corresponding restriction on the other half.

Yes, any player can choose to play a character of either sex. Over the years, I've had several players (both male and female) choose to "play for the other team." But the majority of the time, my players (both male and female) have preferred to play characters with whose sex they gender-identify. All the women with whom I've played (more than a dozen as I count in my head), more often than not, chose to play female characters...regardless of whether they were straight, bi-, or gay.

[yes, even when playing fighters in 1st edition AD&D with its sex-related strength restrictions]

As Monk says, it's not really the arbitrary cap that I'm using that's a problem...especially considering I have a particular concept that I'm trying to model. But I'm only trying to model something for female characters...characters that will (probably) usually be played by female gendered players. And yet, I'm saying to the male folks, "Have at it! You can do anything you want! You're male, after all!"

Which is, of course, unfair.

So much as it irritates me to A) admit I was wrong, and B) change my carefully crafted mechanics (I thought it was a pretty neat effect/cool, myself), I will be rewriting this part of the book. Players can still swap (one) ability score for another, so I'll leave it to them to decide what they want to model conceptually. And that freedom of choice will be the same for all players, regardless of gender.

Sorry for my short-sightedness. Thanks for calling me on it.
: )

Stop looking at me like that! It's being changed!

Fighting Women

[in which JB starts down the road to crucifixion]

Forget Robert E. Howard's Conan character for a moment. Or Karl Wagner's Kane character. Protagonists that are uber-strong, super-cunning, catlike in their speed, steely-thewed, and charismatic "leaders of men." In other words, forget the characters that (if modeled in D&D) would not only have a high level and (perhaps) multiple classes, but exceptionally high ability scores across the board. Forget that.We used to see the occasional character like that back when we used the ability score tables from the 1E Unearthed Arcana (Type VI method of generating abilities? I think that's what it was called), but since then I've seen very few uber-statted character's rolled up at my B/X sessions. Maybe one (named Farnsworth). And he ended up down four levels to a vampire and fleeing for his life, so I'd hardly compare the dude to "Conan."

Heroes in fiction are known for being exceptional...usually in one or two ways...but for me, the best heroes aren't exceptional in every regard. They have some normalcy that we can relate to (if not outright weakness). Superheroes are fun and all, but if they are infallible godlings most of the time...well, they can get boring.

In the new FHB ("fantasy heartbreaker") I'm writing, I have players (mostly) roll 2D6+6 for their ability scores  (this is something I've started to incorporate in all my "B/X based" designs lately. Um...a total of three, at the moment). This gives a range of 8 to 18 for player character ability scores with an average rating of 13. Since the normal human range of ability is still 3 to 18 (average 10-11) this makes the heroic player characters a "cut above" the average slappy.

Mechanical bonuses for ability scores start at 13. Exceptional range of abilities is 15 to 18. Since a player would need to roll a 9 or better on 2D6 to hit 15 (a 28% chance), most PCs on average will have one or two "exceptional" attributes...like the fictional heroes I prefer.

Please note: there is no mechanical disadvantage for a low ability score. The game doesn't even have a "roll under ability" mechanic, so there's really no penalty for having a low score. You just don't receive any bonus.

Now, I did said "mostly." As I wrote in yesterday's post the exception to this is female characters (not players) who roll 2D6+3 for their strength (STR) score. This is done with the purpose of reducing the average strength of a female character (from 13 to 10) and capping a female character's maximum strength at 15. Now there is some recompense for this...female heroes have learned to compensate for their lesser muscle mass in other ways, and receive 3 bonus points to distribute among their ability scores (which is pretty good since each point increase above 12 is it's own "breakpoint").

Why would I do this? And no, I don't just mean, "why would I open myself to criticism" (I can be something of a masochist at times). Instead, I mean:

"Why bother to write sex-specific game mechanics in a day and age when we are striving for inclusivity and working hard not to be part of the problem by carrying forward old fashioned stereotypes into fantasy tropes...especially given a fantasy setting with magic and dragons, etc.?"

[notice, I said "sex-specific," not "gender-specific." Spent half a day yesterday researching transgender lingo to make sure I've got my brain on straight when it comes to sensitivity. "Sex" is considered distinct from "gender" because the former is a product of biology and the latter is a mental-societal construct and, thus, open for interpretation: see Uruguay for the logical reinterpretation of this census datapoint. Regarding my game mechanic: it doesn't matter what gender the player or the character consider himself/herself to be, the mechanic is tied to the biological status of the character's sex: male or female]

*ahem* Where was I? Oh, yeah...why would I do this? Well, two reasons: one good and one bad.

The Bad: I hate Wizards of the Coast. Well, "hate" is probably too strong a word, but they have been rubbing me the wrong way for years now. And their abstract ability scores that (in 3rd-4th edition) went "to infinity an beyond" with no real rhyme or reason or justification just bugs the hell out of me. What does it mean that a 16th level elf girl fighter has a strength of 22 (for example) and a burly half-orc dude has a strength of 17? Not a blessed thing. It's just abstract numbers giving you a mechanical bonus that makes ability scores O So Important for killing folks and collecting those XPs.

[yes, I realize ability scores are capped in the new 5E rules]

So given a choice between being like WotC and "doing something different," I usually opt for the latter (usually...I'm totally stealing the advantage/disadvantage mechanic for Cry Dark Future). I want ability scores to represent something...and if a character can have a strength of 20-30, just what does that represent? By my game's definition of the Strength ability score, that would be "one big honking brick shithouse of a person." Which leads me to my better reason...

The Good (or, at least, "Justifiable in My Mind"): I'm trying to model something specific. 

No, no, not that "women are the weaker sex." Even if that is a biological reality (across most of the animal species on planet Earth), we're still talking about a fantasy game. There's no reason to say that women (or for that matter, men) of a certain subset can't grow to a size and muscle mass of equal proportion to any NFL linebacker. Call them the "titan" sub race of humanity. I can even picture them: they are all (male and female) around 7' tall with big hair (80's style), anime-fantasy garb, and sporting two-handed great swords in back sheaths that "normal" humans couldn't even lift. They only live in the southeastern part of the continent, but some have emigrated to other portions of the game world where they mix and mingle freely with other humans. People with strength over 15 are presumed to have at least some "titan blood" in their ancestry.

See how easy that is? Easy-shmeezy.

What I'm trying to model is what I see in fantasy fiction: the heroic female adventurer. They're there, though sometimes it can be hard to find them. Teres in Wagner's Bloodstone. Jirel of Joiry. Howard's Dark Agnes de Chastillon and Red Sonya of Rogatino (and their directly inspired Red Sonja...she really deserves her own post) as well as his character Valeria from Red Nails. Eowyn. Lythande and (many) other characters by MZB. Aspirin's character Tananda (from the Myth series). Kildee Wu (from Steve Perry's otherwise fairly bland Black Steel novel; I haven't read the other Matador books, but they appear to feature female assassins as protagonists). "Harry" from Robin Kinley's The Blue Sword (and Aerin Dragon-Killer from the prequel-sequel). And, sure, Brienne of Tarth.

Ride, Harry, Ride!

These are all "warrior women" of some form or another. There are other female sorcerers and thieves and minor "adventurer" characters scattered through fantasy literature (Cythera from David Chandler's Ancient Blades trilogy comes to mind as a good one), but right now I'm just talking about good fighters in fantasy fiction...fighters that happen to be female.

Some are exceptionally clever, some are fairly ignorant and uneducated. Some are charming seductresses, some are awkward with potential partners. Some are lesbians, though not the majority. Some use magic or sport "psychic powers." All are deadly combatants in hand-to-hand.

None of them are iron-thewed, 'roided-out monsters.

But then, my new fantasy heartbreaker doesn't require a character to have a high strength to be deadly in combat. "Fighting skill" (that is, one's capability in mortal combat) is a product of the character's experience...i.e. the character's level. And remember, a character that gets a better "roll over" result on his or her attack is going to score more damage. Strength does not add to one's attack roll (though a character with "exceptional" (15+) agility does receive a +1 bonus); instead, it simply increases the maximum damage the weapon can do. You still need to hit...and hit well...to do that damage.

My purpose here is to model the types of female adventurers one finds in fantasy fiction. Outside of video games and the superhero genre, I don't generally see super strong or brawny heroines. Instead, I see highly capable women who use their other attributes...brains, fighting spirit, whatever...to make up for any "deficiencies" their lack of muscle might cost them. And that's what I want to represent. Not all male adventurers are "brawny" types either (see Elric, for example)...but then, that's why all players have the option to swap an ability score to better fit their character concept, right?

But perhaps, perhaps, perhaps I am being insensitive here or marginalizing female players by having sex-specific creation mechanics. Because even though a male or female player can choose to play a character of either sex, real live people reading the game book are going to say, "O look...girls are so weak!" and we will have all sorts of mayhem ensue because of it.

If that's the case, um...sorry? Should I put in some sort of disclaimer in the book? Or essay? Or apology? Because I really, really don't want to change the mechanic. I have another B/X game (a more pulpy action game) that doesn't even have a "strength" score because, you know, who cares how much Indiana Jones can bench press? Fitness and physical prowess are better ability scores for that type of genre...and in such a game, biological sex really doesn't matter.

Okay...gotta' go. Please comment as I'd like to hear folks thoughts. Thanks!

Gaming Romance (Redux)

Happy (belated) Valentine’s Day!

That is to  say, I assume this will be belated since I’m writing it on February the 14^th (in my home) and my internet connection is currently disconnected…so you are probably reading this on the 15^th.

[I hope this is posted by the 15^th]

[***EDIT: it is still the 15th...barely...took more than 24 hours and two calls to India but I'm back on line...finally***]

Anyway, my original plan was NOT to be blogging, but instead to be playing…that is, play-testing…the new game, 5AK, my version of D&D Mine and one hell of a fantasy “heartbreaker” (appropriate for Valentine’s Day, ja?).

Unfortunately, for some damn reason all my players had plans with their wives or families tonight. Go figure.

My family ended up going out for pizza (yes, yes, my wife received flowers and a nice card, but we’re going to do our “romantic thang” on the weekend, when it’s easier to make reservations). And now here I am blogging.

Funny enough, I’ve been working on the “romance” rules for 5AK all afternoon. This really had nothing to do with the holiday…it just happened to be the thing I was working on. Romance and romantic entanglements play a large part in fairy tales and fantasy, so it’s important to have rules that model this in a fantasy adventure game (which is what I’m writing).

Yes, I realize that many folks don’t bother with such things in the standard dungeon crawl campaign, and the closest thing to romance in the AD&D books is Gygax’s “wandering harlot” table. To me, this is just another example of the unfortunate fashion in which D&D was designed (i.e. a perfectly fine dungeon delving board/war game that morphed into “something bigger” and had additional stuff “tacked on”). You’re welcome to disagree, of course…but I’d bet there’s a lot of cold and lonely Name level characters shivering in their strongholds and wishing they had a Valentine!

; )

Anyhoo, as a starting point I’ve gone back and read this old blog post from a couple years back (said reading being done earlier today, prior to coming home and finding my internet down). The brief rules therein are good enough for a standard (i.e. “semi-generic”) B/X game, but I need something a little “beefier” for my Arabian Nights-flavored setting, where social class distinctions are semi-important. Also, I have this “thing” about wanting “game content” to be open at all levels (not just waiting till you reach high levels in order to “do neat stuff”), so that has to be taken into account.

And, oh yeah, there’s that part about my game just using D6s so I have to work out systems that DON’T involve the use of percentile dice.

Still, it’s coming along (play-testing, of course, will be needed...*sigh*). I’m toying with the idea of making different systems depending on player character gender; I have a pet peeve with fantasy games that make all genders universally interchangeable.

No, I am not talking about imposing AD&D-style “ability score limits” and their thus consequential class/level limits. THAT, to me, is pretty dumb given the role and abstract nature of ability scores and class/level.

In fact, let me (briefly) go off on a tangent for a quick moment: in my game, “class” is short for “classification;” it’s not a career path or some apprenticeship program, either of which might be limited by the social mores or patriarchal (or matriarchal) laws of a given setting. Male or female, player characters are “adventurers;” that is their profession and its open to anyone. Now, what is the manner in which you go about adventuring? If your tendency is to wear armor and hit things with a sword, you get classified as a “fighter.” If you use magical arts (regardless of whether you were taught at a wizard school or by the witch/wise woman down the street) then you are a “magician.” Get it?

This is why you won’t see arbitrary armor and weapon restrictions in my game. You’re an adventurer…you can use whatever is available. Of course, some things require training/practice to use them more effectively, and some maneuvers (like free-climbing a sheer cliff) might preclude the wearing of bulky armor, but that’s just sensible to what I'm trying to model. And, no, there is no “skill system” in sight…the abstract classification still provides a description of the “skills” your character knows/practices. Duh. It’s just not a “job,” per se.

[and ability scores measure characters’ effectiveness against themselves, by the way, not against others…so an 18 strength means someone is very large, strong, and fit for their gender, but doesn’t necessarily mean she’s bigger and bulkier than the 7’ hulk with the 14 strength. Just means she’s more effective at using what she’s got. I can get away with this because ability scores have very little effect on in-game effectiveness…it really is a throwback to OD&D in this regard]

*whew*

Back to Valentine’s Day and romance…having said all that, there are still some gender differences, mainly setting related (the non-setting ones concern childbirth which does NOT need a game system to model, by the way). Being based on Arabian culture there is, for example, the bride price that needs to be paid by the potential groom. There is no reverse “groom price” that a female adventurer would have to procure in order to tie the knot…and in fact if she can expect to receive a big fat wad of cash from whatever dude happens to get ensnared with her feminine wiles. Then there’s the issue of concubines and marrying your slaves (the latter was permissible for free women, but frowned upon) as well as the (small) differences regarding inheritance and titles.

The game is not actually meant to be a snap-shot setting of 8th century Arabia…I’m sure GURPS has probably put out a book for that already. This is a fictional land (a la Al-Qadim) modeled on our real world one and with the traditional fantasy ramped up a half-notch...no, you won’t find elves and dwarves and orcs (sorry), but you will find more necromancy (undead) and dragons then your average Arabian Nights tale. And the Underworld (from OD&D and Holmes) IS a part of the game setting, though it doesn’t share the prominence you find in D&D. Instead, it is just another realm to explore, alongside the Wilderness and the Palace.

By which I mean: it’s important that there ARE rules for romance, and having gender differences add to the game setting, but it doesn’t have to be a perfect model of the historic real world. ‘Cause it’s not. It’s a fantasy adventure game, perhaps steeped in a little more “real world” stuff then, say, Krull.

Now, I’m still debating whether or not to include tarnsmen…er, “roc riders"…or not. Maybe that should be the “secret weapon” of the Arabs even as the Byzantines pull out their fewer (but terribly potent) “dragon knights.” Cool or not cool?

Later Gators!

And Speaking of Secret Histories...

...had the chance to watch Anonymous the other night. Wow. Quite an interesting tale for folks who are into Shakespeare and Elizabethan England, etc. But I'm not going to write about that. It IS a good film for folks who like, um, good film.

Instead, just wanted to say I"m still waiting for my book (damn mail order), AND to bide my time I've been reading all the articles on Mr. Kasmink's web site. And I am just more and more intrigued about the "stuff" that has gone into the making of the Star Wars franchise, especially the input (credited or not) of strong female creative types, specifically Marcia Lucas (GL's first wife) and Leigh Brackett.

Unfortunately (or not) I am not someone who is particularly well-versed in science fiction literature. Oh, I've read a bit more than perhaps the average person (I've probably read a few more books than the average American anyway), but I am by no means a "SciFi buff" unlike, say, my buddy Steve. And especially unlike ol Steve-O, I could care less about most of the semblance of "hard science" (whether well done/researched or not)...I care far less for the "real possibilities" of "what could be." As with nearly all my fiction reading, I am drawn far more to "fantasy adventure" (whether in space or not). Stirling's recent retreads of Burrough's planetary romances are much more my speed than anything involving nanoware or AI or plasma rocket powered space travel.

And, man, doesn't it sometimes feel like women authors/artists are the ones creating the best fantasy adventure stories?

I know I spoke about this before (if briefly)...at least my attachment to female authors of the fantasy genre, not specifically the SciFi genre. Although, last year about this time I was mulling over the role of family in science fiction (with regard to game design), and it seems like I'm once again contemplating it...especially in light of Marcia Lucas's admonishment for George to pay more attention to the human element in his films (from THX on...). Maybe that's what's missing from the Star Wars prequels...maybe that's what's missing from my own space opera game. The "human interest" element of the speace opera genre.

Because unlike, say, the indie RPG Shock I'm not really interested in the "what if" of science fiction...I don't really care much about the affects of future technology on our recalcitrant human race's inability to deal with change and on-going evolution (I have a hard enough time trying to figure out my damn "smart" phone in real life...why do I want to deal with these issues in an RPG?). What I AM interested in is (duh) fantasy adventure and laser swords and blasters and androids and space ship dog fights...and maybe all that means I need to have something very intimate and human as part of the mix, so as not to be a coldly mechanical (think GURPS) role-playing game.

After all, it's not like the PCs are looking to find gold coins in outer space. I need SOMEthing to encourage the players to take action in the game.

[by the way, I have much more to say about player character motivation based on recent play-tests and conversations with other gamers; I just don't have the time for it at the moment. Soon, I hope]

Tarnsman of Gor

Just finished reading Tarnsman of Gor, the first book in John Norman's 30+ fantasy book series begun in the 1960s and still being written today (Mariners of Gor was just published in 2011 and Conspirators of Gor planned for 2012 according to wikipedia).

Norman's books are technically of the "science fiction" variety, though there are a lot of the trappings of sword & sorcery fantasy in them. In the tradition of Burroughs's protagonist John Carter, Norman's character Tarl Cabot is a man of earth who is frequently brought to another planet (in this case, Gor or "Counter-Earth," a planet that shares the same orbit as the Earth but on the opposite side of the sun). On that planet he is a great warrior, or "tarnsman," trained to ride the gigantic hawk-like birds called tarns and becomes embroiled in the politics and sword-wielding adventure of that world.

Now, Norman and his books has received a lot of bile and revulsion over the years due to his subject matter; critics have panned his books for outright misogyny and gross tastelessness due mainly to its depiction of women as slaves and masochists and the "rightness" of the slave-master dynamic as a social system. I first got a sense of that from the description of the series in Fantasy Wargaming (published 1981):

Unfortunately, John Noman suffers from a deeply rooted bondage fetish which he obviously expects his readers to share, for all of these books are full of nubile slave girls who are forced to call men, "master," who are kept permanently chained and whose erotic instincts are usually aroused by a touch of a whip.

[this passage comes from the chapter on inspirational reading material for possible fantasy settings]

I'd read other reviews (prior to acquiring the book) that described Tarnsman as "the epitome of misogyny" or "having horrendous levels of misogyny." Apparently the series as a whole is responsible for inspiring a niche subculture of the BDSM community.

Well, maybe that's true of the later books, but I've only read the first one and I don't find any of that.

Yes, there are slaves, male and female. The male slaves feature most prominently as resources used during the siege of a major city. The female slaves are dealt with more explicitly because Cabot (the main character) interacts with them in the story...usually finding their treatment abhorrent and spending his time freeing them and rejecting Gorean society.

To me, the books read more as a "stranger in a strange land" type of story. The book, narrated in the first person by Cabot, often has the character not just questioning but outright rebelling against the values of an alien culture when they fail to match his own civilized Earth values, which are pretty standard 1960s American/British and male...perhaps a bit chauvinistic (though less than, say, Jack Hamm's character on Mad Men) but certainly he falls on the side of "right," decrying Gor's customs as "rude" and "barbaric" most of the time (and while he comes to take up their warrior code as his own, he is happy to question it and modify it when it doesn't suit his personal ethics).

The one female character portrayed as (perhaps) having a mild fetish for bondage is only that: a single example...and she herself is a free woman who gleefully admits to abusing her own slaves. Another female character, while accepting of her slavery as part of the tradition of Gor (whereby prisoners of wars and raids are enslaved) is still happy to have her freedom and leave her shackles behind given the chance. There's no promotion of slavery being a "happy state of affairs" by the author, speaking through the protagonist's narrative. One gets the impression that Tarl would, if permitted, attempt to overthrow those parts of Gorean society that oppress others...which is why he's returned to Earth, unhappily, at the end of the novel.

But as I said, maybe the later books are different. For me, Tarnsman of Gor is a fairly good book if you enjoy pulpy, sword-wielding fantasy, though I get tired of the first person narrative and the 1960s moralizing...again, I find Cabot to be a bit of a goody-two-shoes (more on that in a bit). For being a 45 year old book, it still holds up remarkably well...it doesn't feel as dated as say, some of Heinlein or Bradbury. And part of that has to do with the setting which, from the snatches of description provided, seems to be well-thought out and fairly rich, containing social structures and traditions, language and politics, alien flora and fauna (much more than just the giant tarns), and an interesting premise: alien "priest-kings" abduct earth humans and strand them in this Lord of the Flies situation for their own whimsical amusement.

The priest-kings...who are never actually encountered, only described through hearsay in the novel...are fascinating individuals. They provide the humans of Gor with a certain level of high technology (for example, electrical lights and lifts and doors, high caliber structural engineering, and medicine and medical advances that exceed 20th century earth medicine), but forbid the use of any weapon of greater technology than a crossbow, and do not even allow the crafting of chain mail armor. The penalties for trying to break these taboos is pretty severe: offenders are incinerated in a ball of blue fire by the unseen priest-kings.

Not a bad little mechanism for enforcing arbitrary conventions in an RPG: yeah, your magic-user can't wear armor or wield a sword because he'll be horribly and immediately destroyed by the local divinity. Nice. Despite the lack of supernatural magic, the world of Gor would make an excellent campaign setting for an RPG. The Gorean caste system is a good basis for character class archetypes (ha! there's even an "assassin caste"), and there are more than a few adventure ideas in the game. Plus, the premise provides a way to include 21st century Earth personality and morality in a pseudo-primitive/medieval setting, something that might be fun around the gaming table ("yes, you know what a car is but they don't have them: you can ride a giant bird or a giant lizard"). Oh, yeah...and impalement is the main form of Gorean justice/punishment for criminals, which I found amusing considering my own posting on the subject a few months back.

There are a couple thoughts that came out of reading this book that I'd like to elaborate on, both regarding elements of the writing/subject matter and how they apply to (role-playing) game play, but those are going to have to wait for separate posts. Tarnsman of Gor wasn't "the best" fantasy book I've ever read, but it was a good read, and the quality of the writing was a big step up from some of the other fantasy series on my book shelves (sorry, James Silke, Steve Perry...). It made me put my reading of David Chandler's trilogy on hold (I'm currently on the third book of his Ancient Blades series), though I'll probably return to that before starting Outlaw of Gor.

Probably.

; )

Once More Into The Breach

Wasn't it just last Thursday I was comparing my relationship with AD&D to an on-again-off-again romantic fling with a neurotic significant other?

Yeah, it was.

For those readers who are too young to know what I'm talking about, let me paint you a picture. This is a standard type of coming-o-age experience found amongst folks who spent their 20s in the USA during the 1990s. Those of us born in the 70s, often coming from broken or "semi-broken" homes (with regard to the nuclear family) had an interesting mental dichotomy when it came to relationships...being brought up to hold that monogamy and "till-death-do-us-part" was an ideal, and yet all the libertine freedom from convention that had been built up in the wake of the swinging 70s, the hedonistic 80s, and the "intellectual" (pseudo-intellectual?) 90s. Leading us to have relationships with people when we really didn't know what the hell a relationship...or even a real commitment to another human being...entailed. That is, trying to make a relationship work without the actual work and sacrifice that goes with it (and which helps develop character and growth in an individual), but instead trying to be "true to yourself" even though "yourself" was a selfish, insecure, and/or inconsiderate bastard.

And, yeah, it went both ways.

For male heterosexual folks, like myself, this generally manifested in the long-term relationship with the "neurotic" girlfriend..."long term" being more a state of mind than anything else (three months, a year, multiple years...the point is, it felt long). Neurotic is the term generally given to the girl in the situation because she seems to have multiple personalities...sometimes the sweet, sexy person you want to spend the rest of your life with, sometimes the "crazy bitch from hell." That's the male perspective.

The thing is, there was really nothing wrong with the girl, save for the same lack of maturity and unrealistic expectations found in both parties. You'd stick together, trying to "make it work" when often you weren't doing any work on yourself...leading to break downs and then break ups. And, sometimes, repeat cycles where you'd start the relationship back up and go through the whole damn thing again.

The problem was, no one was learning a damn thing. Relationships spur growth in a person and help one develop into a higher level of human being...if you let it. But it takes awhile (and some practice) to get ahold of THAT little lesson. Oh, yeah...and some letting go of one's own ego. I know for me it took several relationships and a number of years to grasp the concept. Once I did, I met my wife...and we've been married since 1998. And still happily (despite our individual foibles).

So, yeah, AD&D...when you first get AD&D (assuming that, like me, you start with some "basic" edition of the game: Holmes, B/X, BECMI) it feels like you've finally found the Holy Grail of your fantasy role-playing. I mean, look at it! How awesomely wonderful it is. It's complex and complicated compared to the basic editions, but most of its complexity is simply elaboration, and for the most part it's all stuff you WANT to have elaborated. Look at all these classes! Look at all these new magic items! Look at these awesome spells and diabolic monsters! Look: saving throws for equipment! Look: drowning rules and astral plane wandering monster charts! Look: ingestible poisons and ranger followers and NPC personality tables and Secondary Skills and using weapons in your off-hand, etc.

Things that you always wanted to know, but had to "make rulings on" before. Things that you didn't know you wanted to know...like gambling dens and wandering prostitutes and random urinary tract infections and other diseases. The seedier side of medieval fantasy!

Demons and devils and liches and golems and Bigby's Clenched Fist and a well of many worlds. Really, what more do you need for your fantasy adventure? Look at all the different pole arms! Look, you can buy chickens and pigs! Look at all the special powers of monks! And new class choices for demihumans that don't have level restrictions (not to mention multi-class characters and "exceptional strength" and druid shapeshifting, etc.). It's everything you ever wanted...everything you think you ever needed.

And so you play AD&D. My friends and I played AD&D...we played the hell out of it, for years. And we pushed it and pulled it, and added to it, and tweaked it in little ways to make it work better for our particular game group and incorporated rules and ideas from Dragon Magazine.

Well anyway, that was a loooong time ago. Years ago, like 1997 (with maybe a "one-off" adventure or two in '99 or 2000). The reasons for AD&D falling by the wayside are many, but some include over-complexity, poorly designed systems open for abuse, lack of agreement/uniformity in which rules are "important/necessary," excessive "power creep," and the silliness of its particular hodge-podge of fantasy/literary tropes.

And, of course, now that I've spent a couple years analyzing and deconstructing D&D, I've come to love the B/X edition...and have come to see AD&D as simply one man's house ruled version of the "original fantasy role-playing game." Not a bad thing, but my adult mind has different wants and needs for a role-playing experience and AD&D feels lacking in many areas. As a kid, I wanted it to be "the game" so much that I was able to look past its flaws...or I was simply blind to them. Now I want a game that will help me grow, either by spurring my imagination (and leaving some questions unanswered) and/or by providing a rule system that "gets the hell out of its own way" and lets me get down to the role-playing. Now, I don't have the same rose-colored glasses I once did when it comes to AD&D.

Only nostalgia.

So then, it's a tribute to how sick I've been lately (I spent half of Tuesday at the doctor, being poked and prodded, x-rayed and medicated for this stupid bronchial infection) that I've jumped head first into Alexis's on-line AD&D campaign. I haven't been to work a single day this week, but I've managed (in between sleeping jags) to create a new blog for my character and tally up a page worth of equipment, calculating the encumbrance to the ounce and noting the location of every scabbard and small belt pouch...engaging in the complexity that I profess to loathe. Hell, I spent my time in the waiting room Tuesday playing 30+ rounds of rock-paper-scissors just for the privilege of doing so.

And I find I'm REALLY looking forward to running in this guy's game.

[see why I hold onto these books?]

I've been on antibiotics for a couple days now, and the doctor says I'm clear to get back to work tomorrow, so I'll be working up more LAND OF ICE posts for those who've been waiting (treasure lists are easy to write up, right?). But readers can expect the grim possibility of some very un-B/X game reports and/or observations to be posted here in the near future as I take a wild ride in an elaborate, exotic AD&D landscape.

Heck, I nearly considered playing a halfling thief. Ha!

; )

Ooo-oo, Witchy Woman...

SO...having a couple martinis in me and a little spare time, I thought I might pen some of my "design notes" regarding my B/X Witch class. After all, I'm not putting any designer's notes in the book and I'm sure some folks are curious about this stuff.

[or not...but as I said, the gin HAS been flowing, ever so gently...]

Now, I've written about witches (in a "where are they?" kind of way) before on this blog, and NO, I've never owned the Dragon magazine that provided a sample witch class. But I'm sure I would have been mainly dissatisfied with it. Not just because I "respect witches" or have known the odd witch or two (I have)...no, I'm sure Dragon, or any TSR/WotC product would have treated the poor beleaguered witch far better than, say, Kevin Siembieda.

No, the reason for my dissatisfaction would center around the way witches would be written to be just another "variant magic-user" like the AD&D illusionist or something.

I hate that.

Not because "I know witches and their magic isn't Vancian." Look, I know guys (and gals) that dress up in armor and beat on each other, but I wouldn't call them the equivalents of "fighters" (really). I understand it's a game and games take liberties and do gamey things. But I hate the intellectual LAZINESS of it.

Clerics are different from magic-users. Why can't witches be different from either of those classes?

Answer: they can be. You just have to figure out a way to do it.

Enter my version of the witch. They've got a big book of spells called their Book of Shadows (a real world term, though you could call it a witch's cookbook or witch's bible if you wanted). They need material components (unlike other B/X spell-casters) which ties them to the natural world/Laws of Sympathy (standard witch stuff). They can collaborate with each other to perform greater magics than they could individually.

That last one was probably the most important. Whether you study real world Wicca or New Age druidism...or, hell, if you watch any cheesy movie/TV show about witches...you see the importance of witches working in groups (or covens). Few there are of the solitary witch...ritual is much more powerful when worked with a circle of the initiated or a couple of close friends. I needed to make a way for NUMBERS to have power...hence the "effective level" based on participating witches, as well as the ability to write/scribe/learn spells of higher level than the witch could individually cast. You may know the theory of doing a big enchantment, but you need a couple buddies to stand at different points of the pentagram to get the ju-ju right.

This has the effect of both balancing the witch (10th level spells! Holy cow!) and making it play different from any other spell-casting class. Whereas magic-users are solitary practitioners, pursuing their own spell research alone, and hoarding their spell books, WITCHES are all about the sisterhood, baby...and the occasional "brother witch" that happens to join the circle. Magic-users are taking individual roads to power...witches can accomplish great things by working in tandem with each other.

To me it's a nice parallel of the male-female difference in peer interaction.

The spell components? Well, I never thought magic-users should have spell components. For Shame! cries the AD&D grognards. "Get over it," says I...magic-users were originally based on Vancian magic...and Vance doesn't use spell components. Gygax's inclusion of spell components in AD&D is (I believe) his attempt at slowing down the too rapidly escalating power of the high level magic-user. Game balance be damned anyway.

But for the witch...when ISN'T a witch looking for "eye of newt" or "fat from an un-baptized baby" to make some potion or work some spell. Tea leaves and entrails and wands and salt and sand and crystals and "voodoo dolls"...these are just some of the many ingredients used by witches in their craftwork. Witchcraft is (traditionally speaking) "magic of the hearth;" these magical wise-women are cooks, and they're baking up hexes and love potions and all sorts of goodies with their ingredients. Tying them to spell components ties them to the natural world (witches use sympathies to cause supernatural effect on nature)...plus it puts a very real limit on just how many spells they can sling.

Not that they're slinging all that many on an adventure. Craftwork takes time: brewing a potion or working up a charm to give one back their youth takes time...and the more powerful the spell, the longer and more complicated the ritual. Aside from the expenditure of money on material components (which can be offset somewhat by harvesting magical monsters), time is the main limiting factor for witches. Why do they enchant a broom to fly? So they don't have to waste time casting the same spell over and over again.

And witches will have a lot of spells to choose from...mid- to high-level witches with a decent intelligence score will have quite a few spells in their cookbook...er, Book of Shadows. So many that it might be tough figuring out which one she wants to use at any given time. That's on purpose...I want the character to PLAY like a witch. A ditzy or indecisive witch might indeed spend a lot of time hemming and hawing and picking her way through her book looking for the right spell...this is not the wizard who simply stuffs his brain with magical formulae. The wizard is the Mentat of the D&D spell-casters. The witch is something altogether different.

And that's how I wanted it.

Other than her magic...which sets the witch apart considerably from the other spell-casting classes...she is a non-combatant, non-adventurer type and thus uses the magic-user saves and attack matrices, and only rolls D4 for hit points. Despite access to potent magic (especially when working in a group) witches are vulnerable to the sword and axe, just like any other non-fighter. She is not an "all powerful" character....and the diligent witch-hunter will do what he can to root out her coven before it can complete its ritual.

Lots of good adventure potential with the witch class...both as a PC and as an NPC. One could construct a whole campaign around a small coven of witches (if the players were so inclined to all play the same class), and the cost of spell components for high level spells would still offset the "combined might" of the player characters.

Well, unless they can somehow bring down a Bane Lord. Properly rendered, such a greater demon would yield a great deal of magical material to conjure by.

; )