I know that there's been a lot of interest in the new book...there are even a couple people in town who are trying to pick up a copy before they hit the road for Toronto! Unfortunately, I've got a few last things to put into place before I can begin offering it for sale. Keep watching the blog...soon, soon!
: )
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Old Time Religion (part 2)
[continued from here]
Here’s the GENERAL question:
What is the reason for XP being awarded in the way it is?
Here’s the SPECIFIC question (asked as a follow-up to the general question):
What the heck is a cleric doing in a dungeon?
The specific question should be ask-able (and answerable) for any of the character classes, of course, but cleric seems to be the hardest for most folks to wrap their head around.
And it isn’t helped by asking the specific question FIRST. Sure, that’s easier (kind of) to do, but doing so doesn’t resolve the disconnect. Let me give you some examples of what I mean when I say “asking the 2nd question first:”
Primary Reward: Treasure Acquisition. 1gp value = 1xp
Secondary Reward: Defeating Opponents. XP varies based on edition, but generally XP is much less than for treasure found.
The characters that gain the most XP (thereby advancing the fastest, thereby showing themselves to be the most successful) will be those that recover the most monetary treasure. Sure, your fighter can kill 400 orcs (at 5xp a pop) to get to 2nd level, but it’s generally easier to fill a couple large sacks with gold…and certainly easier to recover a jeweled tiara worth a couple grand. Old school D&D is about working smarter, not harder.
So knowing this…knowing that the game (the unadulterated game, the Rules As Written game) rewards characters for acquiring treasure…that O So Base and Material reward that seems a superfluous after-thought to the lofty, high-minded ideals of the heroic personal…knowing THIS, and accepting it, THEN we can set about asking the specific question: what the heck is the cleric doing in the dungeon looking for treasure?
Because that’s what he (or she) is doing. Forget anything you think you learned from Mentzer about clerics in his version of the basic (Red) book. That girlie Bargle fried was naïve and ridiculous at best…or self-deluding at worst. Clerics of Old School D&D earn XP (and thus advance and become more accomplished, effective, powerful) through the acquisition of CASH-MONEY. And that’s why they’re in the dungeon, same as their buddies.
But WHY are they doing it?
Well, first you have to put yourself in a medieval frame of mind. I think “medieval” is most helpful (even if your clerics are worshipping Asgardians or Olympians Great Old Ones) because the game was written with a particular medieval sensibility. I mean, it was based off the “Chainmail” rules, right? And back during medieval times in Europe and the Near East, religion was kind of a Big Player on the world stage. Western students of history spend a lot of time learning about the impact of the One Universal Holy Church on the civilized world because, well, for the most part it was the main driving force of everything. And after the fall of Rome to the barbarians, it was pretty much the ONLY thing going on that provided any beacon of sanity and civilization (even as it did tremendously terrible things to solidify its own secular power).
To do that…to maintain itself, to build its power, to bring light to the masses, and to preserve its foothold in the world…required money. Lots and lots of money.
Consider that when it comes to your cleric class; regardless of whether you’re running Tolkien-esque high fantasy, or ancient Bronze Age adventures, or Vancian weirdness. If you include the cleric class as one of your adventuring archetypes, it’s easy to see reasons for adventuring:
If it feels “un-Christian” for your Lawful cleric to rob a tomb or ancient temple, you’re not thinking with the proper mindset. While the Romans were “all inclusive” when it came to allowing other cultures to retain their own religions as part of their beneficent Empire, those other religions were still second class citizens (and outlawed entirely after the adoption of Christianity). And consider this: today’s widely held idea that “we are all children of the same God, just using different names and practices” is a recent belief and was NOT the historic norm. Another culture’s holy places/shrines/temples were considered fair-game, totally lootable at best, and outright delusional or evil at worse. The Christians burned many a pagan and the Muslims stomped out a lot of other religions in their conquest of the Middle East and North Africa. Sometimes this was done for political reason (less chance of facing an organized rebellion when the spiritual heart of a city-state has been cut out), but often the folks doing the conquest were actual, devout “True Believers” in their faith. And, as said, for most of our history people have believed its “my way or the highway,” with regard to religion (and to some folks that way of thinking is still alive and well as seen in our dehumanization of those who don’t share our own cultural beliefs).
Does this mean your character (lawful cleric or paladin that she is) can’t be a “hero?” No.
Look, being motivated by money (which adventuring PCs are) does NOT mean there’s no room for heroic action. DCC might have the line about your characters being scurrilous rogues, but that doesn’t mean heroic behavior is proscribed. It just means you might have to reconsider what heroic behavior is within the context of the game.
You can perform feats of courage and nobility and self-sacrifice during the course of your adventure…that is the essence of being a hero. Heck, even setting foot into a dungeon (and plumbing its mysterious depths) is a bold and extraordinary action and can be considered heroic. And there’s plenty of room for cleverness and social interaction (rather than turning every encounter into a slaughter-fest) which are traits of many heroes of myth and legend…it’s not all punching someone in the nose and stealing their goodies.
But remember the context. Stealing that jade statue worshipped by the foul denizens of the Underworld is doing a SERVICE to your own theology…and if you can convert it into cash for the building of a synagogue, all the better. Robbing some ancient tomb isn’t sacrilege…only bizarre pagan idol-worshippers bury their wealth along with the dead (their souls are resting with their gods, there’s no need to leave jewels rotting in the earth, and their baubles can be used for the betterment of one’s own Church). In your character’s mind he or she is doing “the right thing” by pulling off a big haul.
D&D is, of course, a game. Most of us wouldn’t stab someone with a sword in real life, but we don’t have a second thought about doing so in the game. Why? Because it fits the CONTEXT (sometimes justice is “rough” in those days that followed the oceans drinking Atlantis…). So, too, with your cleric’s religion. Remember that the cleric character class is not just some church-going dude with a holy-symbol around his neck. You are a divine agent of your faith. Your god speaks through you, granting you the ability to perform miracles. You are a righteous, holy roller…if you dig up an ancient Indian burial ground to put in a mini-mall that will directly fund your local Cathedral you will be REWARDED…in THIS life as well as the next.
[and who’s to say your politically incorrect actions won’t be for the best in the long run? The Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica was both damnable and outrageous. But would the alternative be to allow human sacrifice to continue to this day? Another sticky philosophical question]
Anyhoo, that’s the attitude I choose when I take up the mantle of the cleric class. It’s why I don’t “hang back” and wait for my chance to heal the wounded or turn undead or whatever. No way, man…I am leading the way (and the charge, when it comes to that) in the party’s quest to find treasure. It’s all for the Greater Glory of my character’s god, you see? And my character believes his righteousness will be rewarded… he’ll make his saving throws or his turning checks or his attack rolls…by doing the will of his divine patron. And if he should fall in battle, well, it was probably in his god’s plan and all things serve that higher purpose, right?
Not that there’s a “wrong way” to play a cleric (far be it from me to suggest such a thing, *ahem*) but I personally find the proactive choice to be the right one for me. I mean, I am wearing the heavy armor, right? Most of a cleric's allowable weapons are one handed (allowing the use of a shield). And don’t you need to stand in front of the group to reveal your holy symbol to the undead? How else are they going to see it (and thus fear it?) if you’re hiding behind the dudes with the pole arms? It seems to me that a character “strong in his/her faith” isn’t afraid to lead from the front; providing a holy light in the darkness, as it were (the better to shine off gold and jewels in the dungeon).
Huh… I should probably institute some house rule about how faithless skulkers (i.e. “weak-sauce clerics”) lose some of their spell-casting ability or take a penalty to turning checks. Boy, that would sure piss some people off! But dammit how else are you going to justify the cleric class’s swift rate of advancement and fantastic saving throws?
Oh, right…I suppose some people don’t think about that kind of thing.
; )
Here’s the GENERAL question:
What is the reason for XP being awarded in the way it is?
Here’s the SPECIFIC question (asked as a follow-up to the general question):
What the heck is a cleric doing in a dungeon?
The specific question should be ask-able (and answerable) for any of the character classes, of course, but cleric seems to be the hardest for most folks to wrap their head around.
And it isn’t helped by asking the specific question FIRST. Sure, that’s easier (kind of) to do, but doing so doesn’t resolve the disconnect. Let me give you some examples of what I mean when I say “asking the 2nd question first:”
- “My cleric is in the dungeon because it is a place of vast (or rumored) EVIL and it is my holy obligation to smite it.” The ‘I’m in the business of hunting evil’ theory.
- “My cleric is in the dungeon because there are innocent captives that need to be rescued (or a holy relic that needs to be found or an ancient demon that needs to be slain, etc.). The ‘I’m on a quest with a specific objective’ theory.
- “My cleric is in the dungeon because these are my companions and I’m here to lend my services as a healer and undead specialist.” The ‘I’ve got a bankable skill set’ theory.
But NONE of these answers work in conjunction with the MAIN question. Sure, they provide a reason your cleric character is present, but NOT in terms of the game as written and designed. Because D&D, at least in the "old school," pre-1985 versions does not reward these things:
- Hunting evil isn’t rewarded.
- Accomplishing a specific objective isn’t rewarded.
- Being a “role-player” (i.e. playing a role in the group) isn’t rewarded.
Primary Reward: Treasure Acquisition. 1gp value = 1xp
Secondary Reward: Defeating Opponents. XP varies based on edition, but generally XP is much less than for treasure found.
The characters that gain the most XP (thereby advancing the fastest, thereby showing themselves to be the most successful) will be those that recover the most monetary treasure. Sure, your fighter can kill 400 orcs (at 5xp a pop) to get to 2nd level, but it’s generally easier to fill a couple large sacks with gold…and certainly easier to recover a jeweled tiara worth a couple grand. Old school D&D is about working smarter, not harder.
So knowing this…knowing that the game (the unadulterated game, the Rules As Written game) rewards characters for acquiring treasure…that O So Base and Material reward that seems a superfluous after-thought to the lofty, high-minded ideals of the heroic personal…knowing THIS, and accepting it, THEN we can set about asking the specific question: what the heck is the cleric doing in the dungeon looking for treasure?
Because that’s what he (or she) is doing. Forget anything you think you learned from Mentzer about clerics in his version of the basic (Red) book. That girlie Bargle fried was naïve and ridiculous at best…or self-deluding at worst. Clerics of Old School D&D earn XP (and thus advance and become more accomplished, effective, powerful) through the acquisition of CASH-MONEY. And that’s why they’re in the dungeon, same as their buddies.
But WHY are they doing it?
Well, first you have to put yourself in a medieval frame of mind. I think “medieval” is most helpful (even if your clerics are worshipping Asgardians or Olympians Great Old Ones) because the game was written with a particular medieval sensibility. I mean, it was based off the “Chainmail” rules, right? And back during medieval times in Europe and the Near East, religion was kind of a Big Player on the world stage. Western students of history spend a lot of time learning about the impact of the One Universal Holy Church on the civilized world because, well, for the most part it was the main driving force of everything. And after the fall of Rome to the barbarians, it was pretty much the ONLY thing going on that provided any beacon of sanity and civilization (even as it did tremendously terrible things to solidify its own secular power).
To do that…to maintain itself, to build its power, to bring light to the masses, and to preserve its foothold in the world…required money. Lots and lots of money.
Consider that when it comes to your cleric class; regardless of whether you’re running Tolkien-esque high fantasy, or ancient Bronze Age adventures, or Vancian weirdness. If you include the cleric class as one of your adventuring archetypes, it’s easy to see reasons for adventuring:
- Building temples, shrines, and churches.
- Building strongholds to defend those churches and their followers.
- Hiring troops to supplement the faithful.
- Funding wars to bring the Good News or defend against Infidels.
- Supporting and maintaining non-adventuring clergy members and institutions (including monasteries and convents).
- Acting as patrons of divinely inspired artwork (sculpture, painting, architecture, etc….the European Renaissance was kicked off by religious artwork funded by the Church).
- Precious treasures found can become part of the ritual implements for religious services (or be sold for money to commission creation of the same).
If it feels “un-Christian” for your Lawful cleric to rob a tomb or ancient temple, you’re not thinking with the proper mindset. While the Romans were “all inclusive” when it came to allowing other cultures to retain their own religions as part of their beneficent Empire, those other religions were still second class citizens (and outlawed entirely after the adoption of Christianity). And consider this: today’s widely held idea that “we are all children of the same God, just using different names and practices” is a recent belief and was NOT the historic norm. Another culture’s holy places/shrines/temples were considered fair-game, totally lootable at best, and outright delusional or evil at worse. The Christians burned many a pagan and the Muslims stomped out a lot of other religions in their conquest of the Middle East and North Africa. Sometimes this was done for political reason (less chance of facing an organized rebellion when the spiritual heart of a city-state has been cut out), but often the folks doing the conquest were actual, devout “True Believers” in their faith. And, as said, for most of our history people have believed its “my way or the highway,” with regard to religion (and to some folks that way of thinking is still alive and well as seen in our dehumanization of those who don’t share our own cultural beliefs).
Does this mean your character (lawful cleric or paladin that she is) can’t be a “hero?” No.
Look, being motivated by money (which adventuring PCs are) does NOT mean there’s no room for heroic action. DCC might have the line about your characters being scurrilous rogues, but that doesn’t mean heroic behavior is proscribed. It just means you might have to reconsider what heroic behavior is within the context of the game.
You can perform feats of courage and nobility and self-sacrifice during the course of your adventure…that is the essence of being a hero. Heck, even setting foot into a dungeon (and plumbing its mysterious depths) is a bold and extraordinary action and can be considered heroic. And there’s plenty of room for cleverness and social interaction (rather than turning every encounter into a slaughter-fest) which are traits of many heroes of myth and legend…it’s not all punching someone in the nose and stealing their goodies.
But remember the context. Stealing that jade statue worshipped by the foul denizens of the Underworld is doing a SERVICE to your own theology…and if you can convert it into cash for the building of a synagogue, all the better. Robbing some ancient tomb isn’t sacrilege…only bizarre pagan idol-worshippers bury their wealth along with the dead (their souls are resting with their gods, there’s no need to leave jewels rotting in the earth, and their baubles can be used for the betterment of one’s own Church). In your character’s mind he or she is doing “the right thing” by pulling off a big haul.
D&D is, of course, a game. Most of us wouldn’t stab someone with a sword in real life, but we don’t have a second thought about doing so in the game. Why? Because it fits the CONTEXT (sometimes justice is “rough” in those days that followed the oceans drinking Atlantis…). So, too, with your cleric’s religion. Remember that the cleric character class is not just some church-going dude with a holy-symbol around his neck. You are a divine agent of your faith. Your god speaks through you, granting you the ability to perform miracles. You are a righteous, holy roller…if you dig up an ancient Indian burial ground to put in a mini-mall that will directly fund your local Cathedral you will be REWARDED…in THIS life as well as the next.
[and who’s to say your politically incorrect actions won’t be for the best in the long run? The Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica was both damnable and outrageous. But would the alternative be to allow human sacrifice to continue to this day? Another sticky philosophical question]
Anyhoo, that’s the attitude I choose when I take up the mantle of the cleric class. It’s why I don’t “hang back” and wait for my chance to heal the wounded or turn undead or whatever. No way, man…I am leading the way (and the charge, when it comes to that) in the party’s quest to find treasure. It’s all for the Greater Glory of my character’s god, you see? And my character believes his righteousness will be rewarded… he’ll make his saving throws or his turning checks or his attack rolls…by doing the will of his divine patron. And if he should fall in battle, well, it was probably in his god’s plan and all things serve that higher purpose, right?
Not that there’s a “wrong way” to play a cleric (far be it from me to suggest such a thing, *ahem*) but I personally find the proactive choice to be the right one for me. I mean, I am wearing the heavy armor, right? Most of a cleric's allowable weapons are one handed (allowing the use of a shield). And don’t you need to stand in front of the group to reveal your holy symbol to the undead? How else are they going to see it (and thus fear it?) if you’re hiding behind the dudes with the pole arms? It seems to me that a character “strong in his/her faith” isn’t afraid to lead from the front; providing a holy light in the darkness, as it were (the better to shine off gold and jewels in the dungeon).
Huh… I should probably institute some house rule about how faithless skulkers (i.e. “weak-sauce clerics”) lose some of their spell-casting ability or take a penalty to turning checks. Boy, that would sure piss some people off! But dammit how else are you going to justify the cleric class’s swift rate of advancement and fantastic saving throws?
Oh, right…I suppose some people don’t think about that kind of thing.
; )
Old Time Religion (part 1)
Can I please get some gaming content in my blog-o-sphere?
[all apologies to Jeff Rients with his recent DCC adaptation]
Ugh…life has been rough lately, but no one wants to hear about it (not that they don’t care, it’s just that that’s not why they tune it). So now that we’ve passed the All-Star break and Seattleites can officially stop paying attention to pro sports (at least till September) it’s time to start leading by example.
Let’s talk clerics.
It’s funny: as a kid growing up I never played clerics as PCs. Not that they didn’t provide SOME interest to me. As a kid with his grubby hands on a Basic set, I have to say Sister Rebecca was no huge role-model (all apologies to Mrs. Moldvay)…the examples show her to be a secondary bludgeon and “Jimminy Cricket” type conscience to party members. Now if there’d been a turning example in the rules my feelings might have been different. Instead clerics just felt kind of “meh” to me…at least compared to the Elf (Silverleaf) and Fighter (Morgan Ironwolf) examples.
[and let me tell you, reading about the Dwarf and Thief getting off’d quickly didn’t endear me to THOSE classes either…though perhaps not as much as not seeing ANY examples of Magic-users and Halflings]
[note to self: need to put more examples in D&D Mine and make the characters interesting]
Now it was a different story when I got to the Expert set a year (or less) later. The ability of Name level clerics to inspire fanatically loyal followers is, frankly, awesome and had me absolutely invested in the idea of clerics as a viable class. The first “pre-gen” Expert character we made was a cleric for my buddy Matt (though less than 9th level) so that he could lead some hired mercenaries into a desert wilderness to fight a blue dragon. This character would go on to be his staple PC when we converted over to AD&D later.
Clerics in AD&D became even MORE awesome with spells up to 7th level and the fantastic Deities and Demigods rulebook. Man, there were a lot of bulls sacrificed on altars back in those days (and not just by the clerics)…a lot more than you find in your average 21st century D&D game anyway. I did write up a priestess of Thor (complete with poorly drawn picture with horned helmet), but it was a character I never had a chance to play.
As I said, I had some interest in clerics, but they just weren’t my normal “type.” Which is funny because the last couple years (ever since rekindling an interest in D&D) has found me playing a LOT of clerics. Well, two clerics and a paladin, but that’s three holy types out of a total of four D&D campaigns I’ve played in since I got back into this “old school thang”…75%? Pretty darn unusual considering my past track record.
[I’m NOT counting DCC play-testing as “D&D” by the way]
Now, I play clerics a little different from the way some folks do…I say this as a long time Dungeon Master who’s seen a lot of clerics pass through his campaigns (with varying degrees of success). I tend to be a “lead from the front” guy, rather than a “support/medic” person. Now part of this is due to my (generally) forward and abrasive personality, but part of it is my personal take on the cleric character class…and this is the only way I can justify the character concept.
Now let’s back up for a moment: why the heck am I talking about this? ‘Cause that’s pertinent to the discussion. Well, a guy over at the dragonsfoot forums asked a question about how XP was awarded for treasure and provided the following hypothetical:
Well, it does if you care about such things or are even slightly introspective about your role-playing. I know there are plenty of people who don’t give a shit…but that’s a separate post.
There are two basic parts to this question, one general and one specific…and if you can’t reconcile the two you are going to run into disconnects between players and the game. Disconnects with regard to the underpinnings of the game’s “fantasy logic” anyway; I suppose you can still play D&D like an over-complicated version of Munchkin instead of an RPG.
[to be continued due to sheer bulk]
[all apologies to Jeff Rients with his recent DCC adaptation]
Ugh…life has been rough lately, but no one wants to hear about it (not that they don’t care, it’s just that that’s not why they tune it). So now that we’ve passed the All-Star break and Seattleites can officially stop paying attention to pro sports (at least till September) it’s time to start leading by example.
Let’s talk clerics.
It’s funny: as a kid growing up I never played clerics as PCs. Not that they didn’t provide SOME interest to me. As a kid with his grubby hands on a Basic set, I have to say Sister Rebecca was no huge role-model (all apologies to Mrs. Moldvay)…the examples show her to be a secondary bludgeon and “Jimminy Cricket” type conscience to party members. Now if there’d been a turning example in the rules my feelings might have been different. Instead clerics just felt kind of “meh” to me…at least compared to the Elf (Silverleaf) and Fighter (Morgan Ironwolf) examples.
[and let me tell you, reading about the Dwarf and Thief getting off’d quickly didn’t endear me to THOSE classes either…though perhaps not as much as not seeing ANY examples of Magic-users and Halflings]
[note to self: need to put more examples in D&D Mine and make the characters interesting]
Now it was a different story when I got to the Expert set a year (or less) later. The ability of Name level clerics to inspire fanatically loyal followers is, frankly, awesome and had me absolutely invested in the idea of clerics as a viable class. The first “pre-gen” Expert character we made was a cleric for my buddy Matt (though less than 9th level) so that he could lead some hired mercenaries into a desert wilderness to fight a blue dragon. This character would go on to be his staple PC when we converted over to AD&D later.
Clerics in AD&D became even MORE awesome with spells up to 7th level and the fantastic Deities and Demigods rulebook. Man, there were a lot of bulls sacrificed on altars back in those days (and not just by the clerics)…a lot more than you find in your average 21st century D&D game anyway. I did write up a priestess of Thor (complete with poorly drawn picture with horned helmet), but it was a character I never had a chance to play.
As I said, I had some interest in clerics, but they just weren’t my normal “type.” Which is funny because the last couple years (ever since rekindling an interest in D&D) has found me playing a LOT of clerics. Well, two clerics and a paladin, but that’s three holy types out of a total of four D&D campaigns I’ve played in since I got back into this “old school thang”…75%? Pretty darn unusual considering my past track record.
[I’m NOT counting DCC play-testing as “D&D” by the way]
Now, I play clerics a little different from the way some folks do…I say this as a long time Dungeon Master who’s seen a lot of clerics pass through his campaigns (with varying degrees of success). I tend to be a “lead from the front” guy, rather than a “support/medic” person. Now part of this is due to my (generally) forward and abrasive personality, but part of it is my personal take on the cleric character class…and this is the only way I can justify the character concept.
Now let’s back up for a moment: why the heck am I talking about this? ‘Cause that’s pertinent to the discussion. Well, a guy over at the dragonsfoot forums asked a question about how XP was awarded for treasure and provided the following hypothetical:
“…let’s say the party willingly leaves treasure behind (the cleric doesn’t want to desecrate the tomb, as is often the case). What do you do then? Do you award any XP at all?”The responses were many and varied. I provided my own answer – the B/X answer – that XP is only awarded for treasure recovered. Why? Because XP earned represents a character’s skill as an adventurer treasure hunter (which is why XP is awarded for treasure found). Part of my response included the following:
“If characters choose to leave a chest of gold behind because “it’s too heavy” or refuse to take a jade idol because it’s “sacred to someone’s deity” then they aren’t very good adventurers are they? The proficient, experienced adventurer (i.e. the one with the higher level) will demonstrate his or her ability at treasure retrieval. This is a PROFESSION…if they don’t intend to make money at it they might as well work as shop keepers or blacksmiths or fisher folks or whatever.”What was not immediately apparent from the post (but what was explained later by the poster) was this:
“Indeed, no XP should be awarded for leaving treasure behind because it’s too heavy, but the Cleric example still strikes me as a potential problem. I understand that players should be adventurers (i.e. “treasure retrieval experts”), but there’s just something odd about a cleric robbing tombs. I’m not really arguing anything here; just making an observation. I guess he could just be an adventuring cleric.”This seemingly innocuous question (at least, it appears the poster feels the question is innocuous) is…to me, at least…one with tremendous implication to one’s D&D campaign. I mean it strikes right at the heart of “what is this game all about?” And depending on how it is answered, it drastically changes the color of one’s game.
Well, it does if you care about such things or are even slightly introspective about your role-playing. I know there are plenty of people who don’t give a shit…but that’s a separate post.
There are two basic parts to this question, one general and one specific…and if you can’t reconcile the two you are going to run into disconnects between players and the game. Disconnects with regard to the underpinnings of the game’s “fantasy logic” anyway; I suppose you can still play D&D like an over-complicated version of Munchkin instead of an RPG.
[to be continued due to sheer bulk]
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Thursday Night Recap
Just a few quick notes, as I've got a long and busy Saturday (still!) ahead of me.
Thursday night was a good one. Both Josh and Randy were able to come down to the Baranof and I was managed to play-test the most recent iteration of D&D Mine. We also played Dungeon! (1980 edition) which was pretty cool, and the closest contest I can remember having with that particular game.
Huh, might as well provide a little synopsis on it, since I bothered to mention it.
We each selected a different character: Randy took a wizard (with nearly a full spell roll: 11!); Josh selected a superhero, and I went with the True Blue hero. We could tell out of the gate that Josh was going to have a rough time of it when his superhero was roughed up by a giant rat in the first room. Meanwhile, Randy (in his first time playing Dungeon!) went balls-to-the wall, working his wizard like a champ and not being afraid to mix it up, mano-a-mano.
My hero picked up a magic sword in the 2nd level, and made his way downward with a good chunk of change in his pack. Unfortunately, he met his match in the form of an ogre who wounded him (“drop all treasure, place piece at start, lose next turn”), just as he’d crept over the 7500gp mark. This provided Josh with the incentive to give up his struggles in the 4th level and make a beeline for my abandoned hoard, hoping to put his total over the top.
Randy, on the other hand, had cleaned house, finding half his 30,000gp goal in the forms of a huge diamond (10k) and huge sapphire (6k). Counting his loot and realizing the wizard had enough to win, he set off for the entrance, only to get there the hard way by being wounded by a black pudding.
Realizing I had only a very brief reprieve, my hero hurried back towards the 3rd level, despairing a bit when I saw Josh’s superhero was going to get there first. Unfortunately, Josh’s anticipated triumph was short-lived as a chance encounter with a second ogre in the 3rd level storeroom (“just looking for a snack”) led to HIM being wounded as well, dropping his entire trove! Knowing I would have to fight an ogre (sans magic sword) either way, I changed my route to snatch the superhero’s bulging backpack, and finally was able to roll the 9 I needed to slay the beast.
It came down to a footrace: Randy fireballed the pudding and headed straight for the entrance. His route was more direct than mine, but he had to fight his way past a giant he’d left alive on his way down to the loot. Because of that extra stop, my hero was able to squeak out a victory (by one-turn!). Josh, did kill the ogre that had done for my hero (and thus earned himself a magic sword), but unlike Randy and I, his total treasure was far less than that which he needed for victory. As is usual in such cases, this allowed us to heap ridicule upon his head.
Yay!
After Dungeon! we drank and shot the breeze for awhile (talking mostly about fatherhood and our own childhood relationships with our parents) before figuring out it was after 10:30 and we still had some serious play-testing to get to! Loading up on another pitcher of beer, we managed to get through character generation and the first couple encounters of an adventure I’d whipped up earlier in the afternoon. And amazingly enough, I was able to get some good info/feedback despite the limited time spent on the game.
Thursday night was a good one. Both Josh and Randy were able to come down to the Baranof and I was managed to play-test the most recent iteration of D&D Mine. We also played Dungeon! (1980 edition) which was pretty cool, and the closest contest I can remember having with that particular game.
Huh, might as well provide a little synopsis on it, since I bothered to mention it.
We each selected a different character: Randy took a wizard (with nearly a full spell roll: 11!); Josh selected a superhero, and I went with the True Blue hero. We could tell out of the gate that Josh was going to have a rough time of it when his superhero was roughed up by a giant rat in the first room. Meanwhile, Randy (in his first time playing Dungeon!) went balls-to-the wall, working his wizard like a champ and not being afraid to mix it up, mano-a-mano.
My hero picked up a magic sword in the 2nd level, and made his way downward with a good chunk of change in his pack. Unfortunately, he met his match in the form of an ogre who wounded him (“drop all treasure, place piece at start, lose next turn”), just as he’d crept over the 7500gp mark. This provided Josh with the incentive to give up his struggles in the 4th level and make a beeline for my abandoned hoard, hoping to put his total over the top.
Randy, on the other hand, had cleaned house, finding half his 30,000gp goal in the forms of a huge diamond (10k) and huge sapphire (6k). Counting his loot and realizing the wizard had enough to win, he set off for the entrance, only to get there the hard way by being wounded by a black pudding.
Realizing I had only a very brief reprieve, my hero hurried back towards the 3rd level, despairing a bit when I saw Josh’s superhero was going to get there first. Unfortunately, Josh’s anticipated triumph was short-lived as a chance encounter with a second ogre in the 3rd level storeroom (“just looking for a snack”) led to HIM being wounded as well, dropping his entire trove! Knowing I would have to fight an ogre (sans magic sword) either way, I changed my route to snatch the superhero’s bulging backpack, and finally was able to roll the 9 I needed to slay the beast.
It came down to a footrace: Randy fireballed the pudding and headed straight for the entrance. His route was more direct than mine, but he had to fight his way past a giant he’d left alive on his way down to the loot. Because of that extra stop, my hero was able to squeak out a victory (by one-turn!). Josh, did kill the ogre that had done for my hero (and thus earned himself a magic sword), but unlike Randy and I, his total treasure was far less than that which he needed for victory. As is usual in such cases, this allowed us to heap ridicule upon his head.
Yay!
After Dungeon! we drank and shot the breeze for awhile (talking mostly about fatherhood and our own childhood relationships with our parents) before figuring out it was after 10:30 and we still had some serious play-testing to get to! Loading up on another pitcher of beer, we managed to get through character generation and the first couple encounters of an adventure I’d whipped up earlier in the afternoon. And amazingly enough, I was able to get some good info/feedback despite the limited time spent on the game.
Chargen was surprisingly fast...like, I blinked with surprise when it was over. Having them add their bonuses for use with die rolls didn't take long (nor did encumbrance and armor calculations or equipment selections). Both players, I think, had fun with it, even alignment and motivation. Note to self: have to make alignment more mechanically relevant, as I've done with motive.
I was pleased one player (Randy) chose a magician subclass, as I was able to see how the retooled (i.e. "non-Vancian") magic system worked. Early verdict? Good (another happy surprise). Also, the spell choices made had a nice range of utility to them (mainly because they're all utility spells). How often do you see a 1st level wizard with read languages (or its equivalent)? Awesome. My nerfed sleep spell worked as intended: useful without being the uber-spell/monster nuke found in other editions...now it's an appropriate 1st level spell.
Rule Zero (MY "rule zero," not the rz found in other games) was in full effect tonight and worked great, though it did necessitate a couple "roll overs" during chargen. No one tried using the "push" mechanic, and I'm not sure if this is due to the fact that our only encounter was an easy one (see below) or that it wasn't well understood. The D6 mechanic worked fine, and the "high roll always = good roll" was much more intuitive than standard Old School D&D. I've got to tip my hat to WotC for that one folks, sorry.
We ran a single combat encounter: two PCs on three "quasi-goblins." The PCs achieved surprise and murdered the hell out of 'em. I wish we'd had a little more time to play as I would have liked to gotten to a larger or tougher (i.e. more complex) encounter. But the new "ironed-out" order of combat worked much better than the crocodile fight of the week before. I'm really liking it.
I also REALLY dig my new HP rules, though I actually screwed up when doing the players' HPs (fighters get bonuses and magicians get penalties and I awarded neither); ah, well...next time.
RE: monster cosmology...um, actually that's a little too much for right now. We'll blog about that later this week. Gotta' run now!
: )
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Birthing the New Product
The expected due date for the new B/X book is a week from today. More updates will follow in the next few days, but right now I just want y'all to be quivering with anticipation. Go ahead and set your calendar alerts.
; )
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Dungeon?! Oh, wait...
For a variety of reasons, I've decided to change my gaming night back to Thursday, i.e. tomorrow. Maybe no one will show up...but you've got to start somewhere, and Thursday is the night that works best for me. If I'm going to run a game dammit, it's got to be on a night I want to go out!
Here's a text I sent Josh (one of my regulars, and one who's no longer available on Tuesdays anyway) a couple days ago...or at least a rough approximation:
"I'm changing the game to Thursday night. And if it turns out no one's showing, I'm just going to go down to Prost! with my battered copy of Dungeon! and drink large amounts of beer."
[Prost! is a German semi-pub in the neighborhood that sells Hofbrauhaus beer by the liter]
But then I know Josh's weakness.
; )
Ugh...you know I did a lot of "research" last night (i.e. spent a couple hours surfing the internet) on Dungeon!, it's designer, rules variations, connections with TSR and Arneson and Blackmoor, etc. in anticipation of a big, cool blog post. And guess what? Turns out all my machinations and theories (conspiracy or otherwise) have already been plumbed...and in depth...by others. On forums (Old School and otherwise), with discussion with Arneson and members of his Blackmoor campaign, and on web sites completely devoted to Blackmoor, not to mention Havard's blog.
Reinventing the wheel...again. My usual M.O.
So right...I'm not going to blog about Dungeon! tonight. Instead, I'm going to hit the hay in anticipation (and in preparation) for tomorrow's game and potentially copious drinking. Did a bit of writing/work today on D&D Mine, so that's probably what I'll be running...but we'll see.
Later, gators.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Red Sonja (and Swords)
So besides Dave Arneson’s Blackmoor, the other thing I picked up over the weekend was Volume 1 of Red Sonja, the latest re-boot of the Marvel Comics heroine from their Dynamite imprint. I don’t buy many comics these days (trade paperback or otherwise), and lately I’ve mainly purchased them for “research” purposes (i.e. because the story somehow pertains to a game I’m designing). Heck, I think the last one I bought was Xenozoic Tales when I was first tinkering with the idea of a “dinosaur game;” and that was…when? August or September of last year (2011)? Oh, yeah…I picked up a collection of The War That Time Forgot (again, for the dinosaur game) back in September, too.
So, yeah, once every 10-12 months I might pick up a comic book, so the fact that I pick up Red Sonja should say something. Mainly that I am and have been a huge fan of Red Sonja. Back in the waaay back past I owned the first half dozen or so issues of her original Marvel series, and I had several of the later issues of the original series as well (after artists started drawing her with more clothes than the chainmail bikini). Red Sonja was one of my favorite titles to pick up, though once I actually got into my “collecting phase” (which wasn’t till high school and didn’t last all that long) her regular series had been cancelled. Many of her comics I picked up at Ye Old Used Book Store in Missoula, Montana. And as with many of those comics I read them many, many times with great enjoyment.
Now unlike other boys of the 12-14 year old range that may have collected or enjoyed the “She-Devil with a Sword,” my interest in Red Sonja had absolutely zero to do with her usual state of undress, nor her voluptuous body. Really. Comic book “titillation” has never done anything for me, no matter how sexy or how risqué. It doesn’t; it hasn’t. I was never “turned on” by Vallejo art, either, for what that’s worth (or any other chainmail bikini-type artistic imitators)…which may make me weird by the standards of male gamers, but I came to grips with MY weirdness a long time ago. I design RPGs for fun, folks: I’m strange.
So then what made me such a huge Red Sonja fan as a young pre-teen? Simple: I wanted to see her kill shit with a sword. Red Sonja was badass, man…and if I’m guilty of any vice with regards to the red-haired temptress it’s the average American male’s addiction to visual violence and action. I guess you could call it “sword porn.”
Sure, there were several Conan titles I collected on occasion, including Conan the King and the beautifully drawn, black and white, Savage Sword of Conan. But you know what? Conan was never as badass as Sonja. For all his toughness, Conan has always been based on the Howard character, and Howard was a man of his time: 1930s gentleman/chauvinist. Which made Conan into a character that was capable of gullibility or soft-heartedness, especially with regard to the “fairer sex” or other defenseless, innocents. It’s something that always felt dated and a bit out of place in the lawless, ancient “Hyborian Age” tales.
Red Sonja had no such softness. She killed EVERYone, without compunction. Oh, she could be merciful, and championed the weak, but she never got taken in by a pretty face. In the new graphic novel I just picked up, she only hesitates a moment before butchering a pack of knife-wielding children (demon-spawn children, we learn, but still…). Sonja had a particular idealistic code she held herself, too, different from Conan’s “lusty gusto for life.” She was a much more “non-nonsense” slayer. And that’s what made her and interesting character and (for me) a better comic to read.
Because it reminded me much more of D&D and my D&D games. It still had weirdness and monsters and the supernatural and perilous danger. But for the most part, I don’t think the Red Sonja stories were based on anything in particular (as opposed to, say, Savage Sword which was based directly on Howard stories). I mean, I realize the character is based on Howard’s Sonya of Rogatino (though to me the She-Devil personality is much more reminiscent of Howard’s Dark Agnes), but the stories are spun from whole cloth as much as I can tell. And they (the stories) could and can serve as a great inspiration for D&D adventures. I know because I’ve used ‘em for such in the past, more than once.
The new Red Sonja is pretty darn good, though I was never a huge fan of the chainmail bikini (I mean, the artwork is great, but I always enjoyed the more “clothed” style of the later-day Marvel issues). However, the artwork IS top notch and the story is better than passable, and a couple days after reading the book, I kept catching myself thinking back on it as if I’d watched a FILM rather than reading a trade paperback. Which is different from pretty much any other comic book I’ve ever read.
Now, there...I’ve said my piece on Red Sonja (except to say that I saw the Red Sonja movie in the theater when in was released…it was PG-13 and I was 13 and by God I was going to see Red Sonja…and was subsequently disappointed. Not just by the cheesy, spring-loaded decapitations, but mainly by the poorly cast lead who A) was not a very good actress, and B) looked NOTHING like the Red Sonja of the comic books. And I say this as a kid who LOVED The Golden Child at the same age…I was not a kid of hugely discerning tastes!). *ahem!* Now let me put my game designer goggles on for a moment to point out something that stood out bright and clear to me in the latest Red Sonja comic:
Where’s the shield?
Here’s a character who’s a fighter-type. Sure she doesn’t wear armor (no, her outfit does NOT count as “half-chain”), relying instead on agility, sword-play, and sheer berserk fury…but why not use a shield? She occasionally makes use of an off-hand weapon, but she’s no Moonglum or Drizzle the Drow. What’s the deal?
Well, besides being a stylistic choice of the artists, one can see that having a free off-hand gives Sonja a degree of versatility and control she wouldn’t have otherwise…the ability to one-hand OR two-hand her blade as the need arises within the moment of combat.
With a little thought, I realized this isn’t quite as uncommon as it might appear. For example, I’m still watching those Game of Throne episodes on the DVD and one often sees a character wielding only a single blade sans shield, and using it to good measure. Same holds true for a number of films that feature the use of a long blade, from more recent films (like Conan and John Carter) to historical movies featuring crusaders in armor.
Now I’ll admit my sword training is limited to fencing, not broadsword. But I know that historically one of the strengths of the long blade was its versatility. Sometimes you WANTED to put that second hand on the hilt (or even grip the forte of the blade with your off-hand gauntlet) in order to put extra “oomph” into a blow, especially when facing a foe in stout armor and wanting to drive the point home (literally).
Wearing a shield provides you additional DEFENSE, but limits your versatility on OFFENSE, reducing you to chopping or one-handed slashes or clumsy (with a long blade) one-handed thrusts. And isn’t the best defense (at times) a good offense?
Nice as “sword and board” sounds, a simpler weapon…like an axe or mace or short bladed gladius…works better with the shield because the offensive action with the simple weapon is already limited based on its capability. You don’t lose anything (or not much) by carrying a shield with such a weapon. Carrying a shield with a LONG sword, though, you gain defense at the cost of some of your offensive technique…or so it appears to me.
But perhaps I’m completely ignorant. I will say that all the long blade “slashing demonstrations” I’ve seen on YouTube…whether with a broadsword or a katana…have been done with a two-handed grip. And since my fantasy games tend to be more cinematic or literary (or comic book inspired), this is something I want to take into consideration and model within the game.
Which, of course, flies in the face of all the D&D rules I’m familiar with. Right now, you have three choices for sword wielders:
- Sword and board (er, “shield”)
- Two-handed sword
- Dual wielding (sword plus off-hand weapon)
No one just uses a sword by itself. At least, not in the game. But in film and television and comics and literature? Characters use a sword all by its lonesome ALL THE TIME.
I have an idea how to do this with D&D Mine. For B/X? Well, off the top of my head I’d say:
“Fighters who choose to wield a normal sword with two hands receive a +2 bonus to attack rolls.”
[NOTE: that’s fighters only, not thieves, though some DMs might apply it to elves and/or dwarves as well]
That’s actually a pretty hefty bonus for B/X (the equivalent of giving the character +3 levels of experience). Maybe +1 would be enough (need to play-test it)…but I know a lot of people think shields should be “more useful” in D&D than a simple +1 bonus to armor class. If you choose to give a +2 bonus to AC for shields instead of +1 then the attack bonus for using a normal sword with two hands should definitely be +2 to compensate.
Of course, I’d probably ONLY to do this when using the standard B/X rule “all weapons do D6 damage.” If you use variable weapon damage, you might want to consider the following instead:
“Normal swords do only D6 damage (instead of D8) if the character wields a shield or 2nd weapon in her off-hand.”
With that, normal swords don’t achieve the “be-all, end-all” default melee weapon status they currently receive…you have to sacrifice some armor class to get that awesome D8 damage. However, I personally consider “offensive versatility” better modeled by “bonus to attack roll” than by “extra damage.” You’ll have to decide how YOU prefer to model it in your game world.
How you decide to model the rules for a chainmail bikini, on the other hand, is a subject for an entirely different post.
; )
So, yeah, once every 10-12 months I might pick up a comic book, so the fact that I pick up Red Sonja should say something. Mainly that I am and have been a huge fan of Red Sonja. Back in the waaay back past I owned the first half dozen or so issues of her original Marvel series, and I had several of the later issues of the original series as well (after artists started drawing her with more clothes than the chainmail bikini). Red Sonja was one of my favorite titles to pick up, though once I actually got into my “collecting phase” (which wasn’t till high school and didn’t last all that long) her regular series had been cancelled. Many of her comics I picked up at Ye Old Used Book Store in Missoula, Montana. And as with many of those comics I read them many, many times with great enjoyment.
Now unlike other boys of the 12-14 year old range that may have collected or enjoyed the “She-Devil with a Sword,” my interest in Red Sonja had absolutely zero to do with her usual state of undress, nor her voluptuous body. Really. Comic book “titillation” has never done anything for me, no matter how sexy or how risqué. It doesn’t; it hasn’t. I was never “turned on” by Vallejo art, either, for what that’s worth (or any other chainmail bikini-type artistic imitators)…which may make me weird by the standards of male gamers, but I came to grips with MY weirdness a long time ago. I design RPGs for fun, folks: I’m strange.
So then what made me such a huge Red Sonja fan as a young pre-teen? Simple: I wanted to see her kill shit with a sword. Red Sonja was badass, man…and if I’m guilty of any vice with regards to the red-haired temptress it’s the average American male’s addiction to visual violence and action. I guess you could call it “sword porn.”
Sure, there were several Conan titles I collected on occasion, including Conan the King and the beautifully drawn, black and white, Savage Sword of Conan. But you know what? Conan was never as badass as Sonja. For all his toughness, Conan has always been based on the Howard character, and Howard was a man of his time: 1930s gentleman/chauvinist. Which made Conan into a character that was capable of gullibility or soft-heartedness, especially with regard to the “fairer sex” or other defenseless, innocents. It’s something that always felt dated and a bit out of place in the lawless, ancient “Hyborian Age” tales.
Red Sonja had no such softness. She killed EVERYone, without compunction. Oh, she could be merciful, and championed the weak, but she never got taken in by a pretty face. In the new graphic novel I just picked up, she only hesitates a moment before butchering a pack of knife-wielding children (demon-spawn children, we learn, but still…). Sonja had a particular idealistic code she held herself, too, different from Conan’s “lusty gusto for life.” She was a much more “non-nonsense” slayer. And that’s what made her and interesting character and (for me) a better comic to read.
Because it reminded me much more of D&D and my D&D games. It still had weirdness and monsters and the supernatural and perilous danger. But for the most part, I don’t think the Red Sonja stories were based on anything in particular (as opposed to, say, Savage Sword which was based directly on Howard stories). I mean, I realize the character is based on Howard’s Sonya of Rogatino (though to me the She-Devil personality is much more reminiscent of Howard’s Dark Agnes), but the stories are spun from whole cloth as much as I can tell. And they (the stories) could and can serve as a great inspiration for D&D adventures. I know because I’ve used ‘em for such in the past, more than once.
The new Red Sonja is pretty darn good, though I was never a huge fan of the chainmail bikini (I mean, the artwork is great, but I always enjoyed the more “clothed” style of the later-day Marvel issues). However, the artwork IS top notch and the story is better than passable, and a couple days after reading the book, I kept catching myself thinking back on it as if I’d watched a FILM rather than reading a trade paperback. Which is different from pretty much any other comic book I’ve ever read.
Now, there...I’ve said my piece on Red Sonja (except to say that I saw the Red Sonja movie in the theater when in was released…it was PG-13 and I was 13 and by God I was going to see Red Sonja…and was subsequently disappointed. Not just by the cheesy, spring-loaded decapitations, but mainly by the poorly cast lead who A) was not a very good actress, and B) looked NOTHING like the Red Sonja of the comic books. And I say this as a kid who LOVED The Golden Child at the same age…I was not a kid of hugely discerning tastes!). *ahem!* Now let me put my game designer goggles on for a moment to point out something that stood out bright and clear to me in the latest Red Sonja comic:
Where’s the shield?
Here’s a character who’s a fighter-type. Sure she doesn’t wear armor (no, her outfit does NOT count as “half-chain”), relying instead on agility, sword-play, and sheer berserk fury…but why not use a shield? She occasionally makes use of an off-hand weapon, but she’s no Moonglum or Drizzle the Drow. What’s the deal?
Well, besides being a stylistic choice of the artists, one can see that having a free off-hand gives Sonja a degree of versatility and control she wouldn’t have otherwise…the ability to one-hand OR two-hand her blade as the need arises within the moment of combat.
With a little thought, I realized this isn’t quite as uncommon as it might appear. For example, I’m still watching those Game of Throne episodes on the DVD and one often sees a character wielding only a single blade sans shield, and using it to good measure. Same holds true for a number of films that feature the use of a long blade, from more recent films (like Conan and John Carter) to historical movies featuring crusaders in armor.
Now I’ll admit my sword training is limited to fencing, not broadsword. But I know that historically one of the strengths of the long blade was its versatility. Sometimes you WANTED to put that second hand on the hilt (or even grip the forte of the blade with your off-hand gauntlet) in order to put extra “oomph” into a blow, especially when facing a foe in stout armor and wanting to drive the point home (literally).
Wearing a shield provides you additional DEFENSE, but limits your versatility on OFFENSE, reducing you to chopping or one-handed slashes or clumsy (with a long blade) one-handed thrusts. And isn’t the best defense (at times) a good offense?
Nice as “sword and board” sounds, a simpler weapon…like an axe or mace or short bladed gladius…works better with the shield because the offensive action with the simple weapon is already limited based on its capability. You don’t lose anything (or not much) by carrying a shield with such a weapon. Carrying a shield with a LONG sword, though, you gain defense at the cost of some of your offensive technique…or so it appears to me.
But perhaps I’m completely ignorant. I will say that all the long blade “slashing demonstrations” I’ve seen on YouTube…whether with a broadsword or a katana…have been done with a two-handed grip. And since my fantasy games tend to be more cinematic or literary (or comic book inspired), this is something I want to take into consideration and model within the game.
Which, of course, flies in the face of all the D&D rules I’m familiar with. Right now, you have three choices for sword wielders:
- Sword and board (er, “shield”)
- Two-handed sword
- Dual wielding (sword plus off-hand weapon)
No one just uses a sword by itself. At least, not in the game. But in film and television and comics and literature? Characters use a sword all by its lonesome ALL THE TIME.
I have an idea how to do this with D&D Mine. For B/X? Well, off the top of my head I’d say:
“Fighters who choose to wield a normal sword with two hands receive a +2 bonus to attack rolls.”
[NOTE: that’s fighters only, not thieves, though some DMs might apply it to elves and/or dwarves as well]
That’s actually a pretty hefty bonus for B/X (the equivalent of giving the character +3 levels of experience). Maybe +1 would be enough (need to play-test it)…but I know a lot of people think shields should be “more useful” in D&D than a simple +1 bonus to armor class. If you choose to give a +2 bonus to AC for shields instead of +1 then the attack bonus for using a normal sword with two hands should definitely be +2 to compensate.
Of course, I’d probably ONLY to do this when using the standard B/X rule “all weapons do D6 damage.” If you use variable weapon damage, you might want to consider the following instead:
“Normal swords do only D6 damage (instead of D8) if the character wields a shield or 2nd weapon in her off-hand.”
With that, normal swords don’t achieve the “be-all, end-all” default melee weapon status they currently receive…you have to sacrifice some armor class to get that awesome D8 damage. However, I personally consider “offensive versatility” better modeled by “bonus to attack roll” than by “extra damage.” You’ll have to decide how YOU prefer to model it in your game world.
How you decide to model the rules for a chainmail bikini, on the other hand, is a subject for an entirely different post.
; )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)