Dave Arneson's Blackmooor (Part 2)

Despite a cough, I'm feeling much better today. Thanks.

All right, let's pick up where we left off yesterday, i.e. reviewing D&D in its basest, primeval form.

Oh, is that what we're doing? Well, kind of. I mentioned "deconstructing" Dungeons & Dragons which I meant in the same fashion that the term is used on the Bravo reality show Top Chef (a guilty pleasure). When a master chef (which I am not, just by the way...I make a burritos using canned chili, okay?)...ahem...when a master chef deconstructs a dish, the guy (or gal) takes the base components of the entree, disassembled, analyzes them for how they go together to evoke a particular flavor combination, than reconstructs the dish in a way that bears no semblance to the original dish but still evokes the essence of the dish such that it is immediately recognizable in its most enjoyable pieces.

That's kind of what I aim to do. But before I can reconstruct D&D, I really need to get down into the nitty-gritty of the base design. And stuff like that quote from Mr. Arneson is immensely helpful to that objective.

[and in case anyone wants to ask, 'why the hell bother?' ...well, I could do what I've done before, what everyone seems content to do: tweak and edit and house-rule and twist until the game resembles something "acceptable" OR I can tear it down and do a complete rebuild. Which, by the way, may not be entirely possible (at least to mine or anyone else's complete satisfaction)...but there's always the possibility the rebuild will turn out to be more satisfying (or, at least, have less unsatisfactory parts) than the usual hot mess most of us play with]

Okay, on with the show.

I think it's safe to give credit to Dave Arneson as the guy who invented the base CONCEPT of Dungeons & Dragons. That in no way is meant to diminish the importance of Gary Gygax to the overall project. In astrology there are three qualities of astrological signs: Cardinal, Fixed, and Mutable. Cardinal signs are the creators and originators, Fixed signs are the organizers and controllers, and Mutable signs are the communicators and moderators. In business, you often see Cardinal signs in the position of the entrepreneur/idea guy...but without a Fixed sign to act as an organizer or CEO-type, they can lack "staying power." The Fixed sign may never have the original idea, but without their power the Cardinal sign may flare out.

Arneson, as a Libra, is a Cardinal sign. Gygax, a Leo, is a Fixed sign.

But, whatever...I know many of my readers don't give a hoot about astrology, so I'll try not to mix too much of that in with my premise. As I said, I believe it's fair to credit Arneson with the creating the concept of D&D: a role-playing game (where players are individual heroes as opposed to squads or armies), guided by a neutral referee, through a monster-infested dungeon, seeking treasure/loot. Gygax's Chainmail game (designed for table-top mass warfare) was the earliest set of rules used with the basic design concept, and then this got changed and refined overtime...by both Arneson and Gygax.

Just to jump forward a bit for a quick sec: this is understandable, jah? Every edition of D&D that has come out since the first published Little Brown Books has been an attempt to refine the game, to perfect it and make it better...even if by "better" one simply means "more understandable" or "more logical" or "more consistent" or even just "more fun."

AD&D - is Gygax's attempt to "flesh out" the game.

Holmes Basic - Dr. Holmes's attempt to make D&D accessible to the novice.

B/X - Moldvay's (and others) effort to streamline and refine OD&D.

BECMI - Mentzer's attempt to extend B/X with consistent scaling.

AD&D2 - Zeb's attempt to refine AD&D and make it a viable, consistent engine.

D&D3 - WotC's attempt to bring D&D into the future with serious design considerations and attention to consistency and coherence.

D&D3.5 - WotC's attempt to refine D&D3, work out the kinks, make the game more "balanced"

D&D4 - Hasbro's attempt to make the game even more "fun" and "balanced" while adding recognizable tropes of other 21st century entertainment types (i.e. video games).

D&D Next - Hasbro's attempt to save the cash cow by reconciling the disapproving (earlier edition) fan base with those new fans turned on by D&D4.

Does that about sum it up? Hopefully, none of it sounds too biased...if one leaves out the (*shudder*) capitalist notion of making more money for one's business by putting out new editions, one can easily see how every new edition has been created with the best of intentions. That is to say, each new version of D&D (even those I personally dislike) have been created with the idea of IMPROVING the product in order to provide a BETTER GAME to those who play it (and hopefully, helping to grow the hobby by producing a better system for new, happy customers).

Now let's return to the past, i.e. to the days of Blackmoor, or what we might call pre-D&D. We have the basic concept, provided by Arneson. But let's look at some of the specific specifics, which I shall infer from his preface to the D20 campaign setting quoted earlier:

- DA (Dave Arneson) was NOT a proponent of "sandbox play" (he set the game in a dungeon specifically to "keep the players from running all over the place"). That he bothered to create a town and country around the dungeon speaks more to Arneson the college history major and his interest in historical wargaming and (even more so) his interest in alternative history or "what if" scenarios (he liked the fluff).

- DA was NOT interested in any kind of "tight plot" (i.e. linear adventure, adventure path, railroad, etc.)...he wanted players to have a loose environment for exploration but the freedom to do "just about anything...for better or for worse."

- The original dungeon consisted of six levels infested with monsters. Characters were searching for treasure (loot) and magic items. Major combat (see below) consisted of rolling a pair of dice to determine victory. If this sounds familiar to some folks, it's because it perfectly describes the game and game play of the 1975 board game Dungeon! I have a whole 'nother post planned for Dungeon! (again, with regard to deconstructing D&D); at this time, suffice is to say it was designed by David Megarry who is listed in the DA's Blackmoor credits as one of the original players of the Blackmoor campaign.

- DA writes, "Major combat changed from rolling a pair of dice that resulted in victory or death to one where the hero could fight beyond the first swing just like in the movies!" There are two interesting parts to that sentence. The first is the term "Major combat;" how exactly would that be defined? Or better yet, what would constitute minor combat, since we might infer (from the statement) that minor combats did NOT change (i.e. not every battle needed the detailed battle of attrition that became the mainstay norm...and clunky slow-ness...of all future D&D editions). The second interesting part has to do with how the statement relates to the NEXT sentence in DA's preface:

- DA writes, "Killing critters in one blow was fine but not when it meant getting your character killed." There are two different ways I can interpret this statement (in conjunction with the prior one) in explaining how early Blackmoor combat worked. Chainmail (which, as noted, was first used as a base rule set for Blackmoor) provided a semi-complex man-to-man (i.e. one-on-one or individual) combat system in which one character would strike a blow and, if failing to kill his opponent, would receive a blow in return. In Chainmail, your attack either kills your opponent or it does not, and there are many tables provided that show the chance needed to down your foe based on the combatants armor, weapon, mount, etc. For the fantasy monsters of Chainmail (ghouls, giants, ogres, wizards, dragons, etc.) a simple 2D6 roll is cross-referenced against the chance to kill such a beast. For example a Hero needs to throw an 11 to kill a giant, but only a 9 to kill an ogre. However, against lesser foes (orcs, goblins, bandits, etc.) a character uses the weapon vs. armor table (so a character with a mace needs a 9+ against leather and shield or a 7+ against plate armor...oh yes, folks, your choice of weapon in OD&D really DOES matter if you use the standard Chainmail combat instead of the "alternative combat rules" that later become the norm of the game). So keep these Chainmail rules in mind, while considering Mr. Arneson's recollection.

As I said, there are two ways I can interpret DA's statements here: #1 He used the Chainmail system (with some restructuring: the average Joe is neither a "Hero" nor a "Wizard" and thus has NO chance to single-handedly kill a great monster) giving one character a first strike (i.e. chance to kill) and thus risking a return blow (and auto-kill). This, in turn, led to the development of hit points due to players lack of enjoyment at being "one-shotted." #2 DA had a modified version of Chainmail that featured a SINGLE ROLL of 2d6 that would either result in "victory or death." #2 would actually be a literal (if radical!) interpretation of the statements and I think unlikely (as it's unclear how that would lead to the development of hit points, nor be used in conjunction with armor class, which DA reports to have adapted to his game from an earlier naval warfare game system he designed).

However, if I use interpretation #1, then I have to ask: WHY did you insist on using the SAME SYSTEM for both players and monsters? Dave writes "Killing critters in one blow was fine;" okay, so why change that? Because it wouldn't be fair to the monsters that they can be one-shotted when players can't be? What do the monsters care?!

See, to me, this is a major design over-sight. Sorry, Dave, it is. And the rest of us (those who have played any of the upteen iterations of D&D post-Blackmoor) have been paying for it ever since. There's no law that says the combat rules have to go the same both ways (the rules for monsters aren't the same as for players anyway...I mean, they don't get experience and advance in level for killing adventurers do they?). I've already worked out a way to reconcile this is my own D&D Mine (about three-four weeks ago), but to do so I had to go back to the Chainmail method of combat using D6s and kick the D20 to the curb...something that will no doubt cause people to say, "your game does NOT resemble D&D." To which I'll reply: it resembles the EARLIEST version of D&D before the "alternative combat tables" became standard.

- *ahem* Moving on...according to DA, the goal of his game was the acquisition of treasure. Not saving the world or killing monsters (in order to acquire XP and raise in level). Nope, the goal was to acquire wealth and "cool magic items." From this standpoint, the XP for treasure found continues to be the only sensible way of measuring an adventurer's proficiency. As it always has.

- And with regard to XP and leveling up, DA writes (towards the end of his preface), "Within the first month the players were getting quite attached to their characters. Then came the next big question...'Shouldn't we be getting better at killing stuff like our experienced troops on our Napoleonic campaign?' Okay, let's work something out." Wow, to all those who feel some sort of reward or advancement system needs to be inherent in the process of designing an RPG, even one that facilitates a gamist agenda (as D&D does), this little tidbit is a big "F-- you!" That the idea of experience points and levels were afterthoughts (and only brought up after a month of solid gameplay!) should be an eye-opener to folks who've simply come to expect "that kind of thing."

I mean, certainly counting points (experience or otherwise) and earning advancement (in levels or otherwise) are things that have great merits, design-wise. Putting them into the game was one of the smartest things that could have been done as far as keeping folks interested via constant struggle for achievement. There's a reason why so many RPGs contain reward mechanics! However, that struggle to achieve was NOT the original goal or intention behind Arneson's concept (see the bit about gold). According to DA's statements, the chronological order of development was:

#1) Objective/Goal Created: Acquire Wealth

#2) Players play, become attached to their characters

[note, #2 has nothing to do with achievement/status/power-gaming]

#3) Players ask if their characters should be getting better, more experienced

#4) Advancement mechanics implemented in response

That's fairly frigging mind-blowing to me, folks. In my game designs I almost always use some sort of level/experience advancement scheme and it occupies a helluva' lot o y attention: how XP is awarded, how much XP to level, rate of advancement, benefits of advancement, etc. In many ways, this is the CORE of most gamist RPGs: #1 What behavior is rewarded, and #2 How does that reward increase a character's in-game effectiveness.

But THAT wasn't the point of pre-D&D Blackmoor! It was never, "how does my peon become a 'roid-raging Conan somewhere down the line?" Conan doesn't "advance" in Howard's stories (Arneson's inspiration for Blackmoor)...Conan simply goes on adventures and kicks ass. Period!

All right, all right...that's enough for you folks to chew over for now (I know I'VE been chewing it over the last couple days). We'll do some more "deconstruction" in the next few posts.

: )

Dave Arneson's Blackmooor (Part 1)

I've been sick for three days.

Or four, maybe. Yeah, it really was Thursday that I started getting "bad" and that turned "real bad" by Friday. In past years I had a habit of getting a cold at least once every 1-2 months due to a combination of over-work, poor nutrition, lack of exercise, lack of sleep, etc. However, I started taking a daily multivitamin shortly before my son was born and this has resulted in me retaining near solid health despite averaging 5 hours of sleep at night. Unfortunately, I ran out o vitamins a week or two ago and I've been lazy about replacing 'em (they bulldozed the nice little grocery across the street from my house where I used to get 'em)...so combine that with my child being sick (Tuesday-Wednesday) and short sleep all week and the stress of putting out the new book; well, it was a recipe for disaster.

I'm still sick. Which has made an otherwise beautiful weekend kind of miserable.

[actually, I haven't been resting as much as I could due to the beautiful weekend and going out with friends and family, etc. resulting in lingering illness...at least I did pick up the vitamins]

Being sick has prevented me from blogging (till now) but hasn't stemmed the flow of blog ideas and inspiration. I picked up a couple-five books this weekend, several of which have been idea fodder for my feverish brain. The first one I want to talk about is Dave Arneson's Blackmoor. Published by Zeitgeist Games in 2006 for use with D&D 3.5, you might have missed this one. I certainly did...the copy I picked up was in the used book section for $8.

Now, of course, I don't play D20 or Pathfinder or anything would lend DA's Blackmoor any semblance of usefulness to my gaming library. However, as it was published in 2006, three years before Arneson's death, and was a book on his original campaign world ("Blackmoor") I figured it might have some useful tidbits to help me in my present pursuit of deconstructing the Dungeons & Dragons game. In fact, it appears this post will be the first in an on-going series of deconstruction posts I intend to write...as I find the time to do so.

And, no, I was not disappointed. I own the original Supplement II ("Blackmoor") for OD&D but there's precious little of Arenson's home-brew campaign world. There's a lot one can infer from Supp. II (I've written before that it has a much more Sword & Sorcery vibe...almost a weird Eastern flavor to it, with its assassins and monks and whatnot)...but there's no detailed narrative from Mr. Arneson that accompanies the text.

Dave Arneson's Blackmoor, on the other hand, DOES have a preface from Dave himself (Arneson is credited as "lead designer" for the book), and it is this preface that contains the bulk of useful information I was hoping to find.

The first part, talking about getting the idea for dungeon delving while spending a boring weekend watch TV and reading fantasy books isn't anything that's not available from other sources. The part that perked my interest most was the following bits:

"By Sunday night the first six levels of the dungeon were done and the gaming table in the basement had been transformed into a small medieval town with a castle. A dungeon seemed like a good idea since it would keep the players from running all over the place. We still needed some more details... Ah! I drew a map of the town and the country around it. These last details took me most of the rest of the week to complete. I was really excited about this idea. Now everyone could be a hero like in a book but without a tight (and often dumb!) plot. They could do just about anything they wanted to do, for better or for worse.

"In that short time, Blackmoor was born. I had few rules and no plans for anything beneath the 6th level in the dungeon, or beyond the tabletop boundaries into a greater world. With the basic idea laid out, there were still questions to answer.

"Where did the players meet? Inns were popular in a lot of books and it was logical that the guys would meet in a public establishment. And there had been this neat medieval restaurant in Chicago called The Comeback Inn.

"What was their goal? Why, money, of course. They sought great treasure and cool magic items. These were quite popular quests in fantasy novels and movies. Maybe they will quest after the "Magic McGuffin Amulet!"

"The campaign setting now known as Blackmoor was done within the month with additional details added as needed. Both the setting and the rules continued to grow over the weeks. Most, but alas, not all, the guys liked the game and wanted to keep playing. So the next few weeks were spent fleshing things out and trying to maintain structure...

"Major combat changed from rolling a pair of dice that resulted in victory or death to one where the hero could fight on beyond the first swing just like in the movies! Killing critters in one blow was fine but not when it meant getting your character killed. Within the first month the players were getting quite attached to their characters. Then came the next big question... "Shouldn't we be getting better at killing stuff like our experienced troops on our Napoleonic campaign?" OK, let's work something out..."

All right, this post is getting a bit long and it's getting a bit late. I'll come back to it tomorrow.

Companion Now Only A Click Away

I've updated the blog, so you can now click on the B/X Companion picture (right) to get directly to RPGNow, if you want to download a (PDF) copy of the book.

And hopefully, I'll have a NEW button for the NEW book, sometime today. Hopefully...as usual there appears to be a last minute computer SNAFU between myself and the printer. We're working it out.

: )

Instant Karma

And you see, this is why you don't complain when you have nothing to complain about...the Universe sends you a 6-alarm pooping.

[for those who don't have small children, anything over 2-alarm generally requires changing at least one layer of clothing in addition to the diaper; a 5-alarm will usually require a full new outfit and possibly a bath. With a 6-alarm, you have a baby that has managed to poop every piece of clothing he's wearing...including socks and shoes!...AND manage to poop papa's clothing, too, necessitating a change of pants for the parent]

The beagles were NOT helpful in this incident.

Ah, well...having resolved said crisis (and now wearing sweat pants), we can return to our normal July 4th festivities (including gaming, designing, and blogging). Without further complaint, may I hasten to add!

; )

Hard to Mope on July 4th

I'm not going to lie: last night was a disappointment.

I hate to complain and whine and say, "o poor me," but I AM human, after all, and we all have days where we wish things had gone better. For me, I have even less excuse than the average human...I live in the richest country in the world (still, I think) and I do have health care, and a job, and a loving family. AND I've got a hot-selling PDF on RPGNow that was occupying the #1 spot most of yesterday.

[what we like to call, "#1 with a bullet"]

And it's still at #2, which is just fine by me...it ain't a competition, after all.

So, why O why was I feeling disappointment last night when the new PDF sales gave me the money I needed to buy beer at the Baranof? Because I was drinking that beer alone; none of my players showed up for the evening's play-test.

Here I am, writing and selling games, and I can't even entice people to play 'em.

Now, I'll be honest...Tuesday night play-testing is a drag anyway. I hardly want to go out that early in the week (Wednesday mornings are almost always hectic at my house, due to a variety of scheduling reasons). But dammit, when there's a holiday the next day, most people get to sleep in, right? You'd think it would be easier to get out (and being in the exact middle of the week, folks are less likely to take a two day bridge to make a long weekend).

Ugh...here I am whining again with no real reason. I've got a buddy in San Diego who's been unemployed for more than a year and whose wife just quit her job to start their own business AND they have a newborn baby...and he's doing proof-reading for me in his spare time. For free! What have I got to complain about?!

Well maybe this (and I wrote a whole blog post on the subject yesterday, though now it feels a bit obsolete due to circumstance): play-testing is kind of a drag anyway. I would rather just be sitting down and gaming with everyone enjoying the hell out of each other and the game, without having to keep an eye on what's broken and what needs tweaking. And yet, if you don't test there's little chance that your newly designed game is actually going to work as designed. Theory-hammer alone just doesn't cut it...as I've discovered pretty much every time I've tested something new, from game systems to house rules.

So I suppose the question arises: if you don't like the testing process, why bother writing games at all? I mean, B/X works right? And it's a cinch (well, as "cinchy" as writing gets) to write material for B/X. I have to say, I've become something of a "B/X master" over the last couple years, and I've still got a ton of ideas that I could bang out and sell and give Labyrinth Lord players goodies for years to come. Why bother busting your buns trying to do new games at all?

I don't have a good answer for that question. Look, it's fun to come up with "nifty" mechanics (or even cannibalize existing ones from other systems), but that doesn't mean one HAS TO write or design games. Heck, you can just post 'em to your blog and let other, more ambitious types run with 'em. You don't have to pour out all the blood, sweat, and tears yourself.

But maybe that's it...maybe I'm one of those "ambitious types." Maybe I want to find a way to make a name or way or pile of ducats for myself in the game industry because I've always wanted to do that with something, and gaming is the only thing that holds my interest long enough to make a go of it. I mean, it would be cool to be a professional football coach, but seeing as how I have zero experience playing professional football, my chances of breaking into that field seem pretty darn slim.

But...ugh...doing that means relying on other people, something I've been historically bad at. I mean that with all sincerity: doing anything worthwhile usually involves some level of collaboration, and game design is no exception (artists, proof-readers, printers, and play-testers AT MINIMUM go into the process...and then there are distributers, reviewers and marketing, lay-out folks, dudes that can do the on-line PDF thing, etc.). And collaboration has never been my strong suit.

But let's get back to the title of this post: it is difficult to mope on the 4th of July. Especially when it is such a sunny and beautiful day (as it is today). The 4th is a celebration of independence, but NOT of independence from each other...if our forefathers had not worked together in their revolutionary struggle, they would never have achieved their independence...the freedom to govern themselves and pursue their own independent agenda in the New World.

And their struggle was a lot tougher than MY personal struggles.

So, yeah, I was disappointed last night and I'm not looking forward to the work that's going to go into the two or three new games I'm working on in my spare time. But this whole experience is a good one for me...for my personal growth as a human. Sure, I can blog on my lonesome without anyone's help, but that's just like working out between matches (to use a sports analogy). The blog-o-sphere is a transitory arena...things whizzing around the Web, disappearing into oblivion at the blink of an eye. My game design is about something more than just passing ideas into space. And that's worth a bit of a struggle.

All right, time to go eat some chorizo and eggs that my wife has cooked up. Like I said, I really have nothing to complain about.

; )

B/X Companion PDF Available - Finally!!!

Welp, it only took a couple years (*sigh*) but the B/X Companion is finally available as a PDF from RPGNow. All thanks to Jeff Johnson from Dragonsfoot for his invaluable assistance getting this thing together over the weekend.

You can purchase it HERE.

I will be updating the links on the blog later today, and (hopefully) adding a print-on-demand version sometime in the near future. However, for those who missed out on a print copy, you can at least get an e-book now.

Cheers, folks! Happy Tuesday morning!

: )

Just About the Worst Thing I Could Do…

…is neglect my blog right now; and yet that’s what I’ve been doing. Sorry.

The REASON I shouldn’t be neglecting it is I’ve got a new book that’s going to the printer (hope-hope) THIS week (yay!) AND (wait for it) I’m hoping to have the PDF of my B/X Companion available for download as well.

Yes, yes…the latter is not due to me suddenly become any kind of techno-genius. A very kind soul has generously offered to help me out in putting the PDF into a downloadable format so that the thing can be offered on-line. Which I know will be thrilling for a lot o folks (like everyone who’s been asking me about it for two years!)…and ESPECIALLY as the B/X Companion is referenced several times within the new book.

So, yeah…lots of good stuff coming out from Ye Old Blackrazor which I should be pumping up and advertising…except I’m not really a marketing genius. My BEST form of marketing is to simply make my blog relevant (so that people keep coming back to read it) and that, I’m afraid, has been sadly neglected.

Now long-time readers will know that the purpose of this blog was never to hawk my wares on-line. In fact, when I first started this thing, writing ANY book (especially a game book) was pretty far and away from my mind. And now that I’m doing so (I’ve even got a couple more “in the works”), I’m still not very interested in using this blog as a marketing pulpit.

On the other hand, I’ve been too busy to write much of anything else on the blog.

Over the next few days, I am going to try to get back on track. I’m sure I’ve lost some people over the last few months talking about the other games I’ve been play-testing: CDF, DMI, D&D Mine, etc. A couple days ago I received a helpful email from Brian Wood of awesomedice.com regarding “edition war statistics” and how Pathfinder seems to be the most popular version of D&D floating around. Well it just so happens that I conducted a poll back in February in an attempt to gather demographic info on RPG gamers throughout the internet (I advertised on a bunch of different forums, not limited to Old School D&D sites), and thought I’d do a quick check to see if I had the same results.

[yes, I know there are people still waiting for the compilation of this data…hell, there are still people waiting for the rest of the LAND OF ICE posts…sorry, folks, life is busy!]

After downloading and perusing the first 10% or so of surveys submitted, what I found instead was the majority of folks seem to prefer B/X or Labyrinth Lord as their favorite form of D&D…like 7 out of 10. Now perhaps that’s just the luck of the draw (i.e. once I compile the other more than 116 or so surveys, I might get different results), or it might be due to ME being the one asking for surevey submissions, but the preliminary results would seem to indicate something different from these “edition wars” stats.

I should also note that the preliminary surveys I looked at were ALL for older (over age 30) gents, who cut their teeth on versions of D&D other than 3rd Edition, and that might make a difference. On the other hand, there was one 30+ year old who started with AD&D and listed Pathfinder as his “preferred edition of D&D;” I know they are out there. And hell, I’M pushing 40 and I’ve played 3rd (and 3.5) edition in the past, too, so being old doesn’t mean one lacks “exposure” to later editions. Maybe it ain't an age thang.

Well, whatever…it would appear (at least for the people that cared enough to answer my survey) that B/X is kind of a big deal (or, at least, a "preferred edition") for at least a few people…and I should probably get back to blogging about B/X (cue sighs of relief from around the blog-o-sphere). FINE. I will do so. Hopefully, I will be announcing some B/X related materials in the next couple-few days. That might well include previews of the new book (which will for sure include a summary of its contents) and possibly some compare-and-contrast regarding B/X-vs.-D&D Mine play-testing AND some book reviews (finally) discussing a nice, little B/X-compatible setting.

Stay tuned, folks.
: )