Subclasses, Variants, and Filters (P. 3)

[continued from here...]

So, yeah: filters. What is an appropriate filter? Something that requires players to make a choice. Setting requirements that ask the question, "what are you willing to PAY to play this character?" Or rather, "are you willing to give up X, Y, and Z to have this particular concept?"

The basic classes already do this:

• Cleric: will you give up edged (better damage) weapons for some miscellaneous/healing magic and some ability against the undead?
• Fighter: will you give up any other special abilities for the use of all arms and armor, good HPs, and the best attack matrix?
• Magic-User: will you give up all arms, armor, and combat fortitude for a chance to gain fantastic power over the long haul?
• Thief: will you give up being mighty in combat for some sneaky skills?

Part of the trade-off for the basic classes is also with regard to one's expected role in the party. The cleric often seems over-powered for its class advantages, whether in AD&D (with its D8 hit dice and attack-oriented spells) or B/X (especially when using the default D6 damage)...at least, when compared to the cleric's rate of level advancement. But the cleric's player is also being asked the additional question: "Are you willing to take on the role of healer and cooperative/assisting party member in exchange for all these bennies?" The cleric character is generally the most "put-upon" of any party member, followed by either the fighter (expected to be the front-line combatant) or the thief (expected to walk point and disarm poison needles). The damn magic-user gets a "free pass" in most parties (and then bitches loudly that he's got "nothing to do").

The choices for the basic classes are BASIC choices. They define the role the player wants to take in an adventuring party. With exceptional variant classes, classes that "one-up" other classes, it's not enough to require a basic choice...an appropriate filter requires an EXCEPTIONAL choice.

For example, let's look at the AD&D ranger class: XP costs are about 10% higher (reasonable for any variant, in my opinion) plus the arbitrary ability score restrictions. Other penalties for taking the class include the following:

- Only receiving D8s for hit dice (but they receive 2D8 at 1st level giving them a better average HP total than equal level fighters up until 6th level..and their HD go up to eleven, not just nine)

- Must be of good alignment

- May not have hirelings until 8th level

- No more than three rangers may ever operate together at any time (because otherwise the entire party would consist of rangers?)

- May only own the goods and treasure they can carry upon their person and mount

In exchange for which they receive the following bonuses: gradually increasing bonus damage to giant-class creatures with includes such "giants" as goblins and orcs; bonuses to surprise; bonuses to resist surprise; tracking ability; druidic spells beginning at 8th level; magic-user spells beginning at 9th level; ability to employ magical scrying devices at 10th level; attraction of 2-24 loyal (unpaid!) henchmen at 10th level...said henchmen generally consisting of exceptional adventuring types and monsters (including copper dragons and storm giants!).

You know, a copper dragon mount carries a lot of treasure.

Assuming you're playing AD&D 1E sans the weapon specialization rules of the UA (and even rangers are allowed some weapon specialization), what's the real trade-off here? That your character has to be chaotic good instead of chaotic neutral? Other than the "no more than three rangers can operate together" clause, I see no real reason why all the fighting men of a (cooperative) party would not want to play rangers. I don't recall any PCs in my old campaigns hoarding so much treasure they needed a war galley to store it in (and why do you think portable holes were invented anyway?).

No...the restrictions on an obviously exceptional class are restrictions, but they ain't particularly stringent. Not enough to act as the filter I'm talking about.

Filters should have the following characteristics:

- they should be performable even at low (1st) level, making the class open to dedicated players

- they should be based on role-playing and/or player choice, not random dice roll

- they should be appropriate to and emphasize the class concept

- they should be a pain in the ass

And that is a pain in the ass for the player that wants to play the concept, not a pain in the ass for the rest of the players in the group. Filters should involve sacrifice for the player that wants to play the exceptional class, not a sacrifice for the other players. For example, it would be inappropriate for an assassin requisite to be "must kill a friend or ally in cold blood," when that would generally entice the PC to murder a fellow PC or one of her fellow's henchmen. See how that's not cool?

So what are some appropriate filters? Well, unfortunately, they're kind of setting specific...of course,  variant classes themselves are setting specific (including paladins in your fantasy world says something very specific about that world)...but most DMs will have to decide how "tight" a filter is needed for his or her own campaign. I suppose I could give some suggestions...but this would just be spit-balling. 

[oh, well...when have I ever balked at voicing a half-baked idea?]

Much Maligned

The thief-acrobat subclass of thief is a problematic one for a variety of reasons: it requires PCs to obtain a certain level (6th), it has a bunch of fiddly feet/inches based skills, it's written poorly...and yet just about every thief in my old AD&D campaign would eventually switch over to the thief-acrobat route once they had the required levels under their belt. Why? Because their concept of a thief was more in-line with the daring cat-burglar than the skulking pick pocket...plus you get to keep all the "cool" skills (backstabbing, moving silently, etc.) and picking up all this acrobatic nonsense. My campaign was absolutely filthy with thief-acrobats...and no one ever had a problem making the ability pre-requisites.

[as an aside, by 6th level the clerics can detect traps and the magic-user can knock locks, so what's lost in making the transition? See...not much of a SUBclass]

Now, as said, the variant is still problematic because of its level restriction...but if you re-wrote the class to start at 1st level (HINT: subtract 5 from each number in the leftmost column of the Thief-Acrobat Function Table in the Unearthed Arcana), what filters might you put in place to prevent all your aspiring thieves from jumping into the T-A archetype?

How about ALL of the following requirements:

1. Character must pay all starting gold to her instructor; part of her "schooling" will include some basic tools of the trade (generally, climbing gear, some pouches, and her two formal weapons...no armor). Thereafter, she must give one-half (or more) of all treasure found to her instructor between adventures, at least for the first three to five levels...acrobatic training is rigorous, and on-going teaching necessary for an apprenticeship period.
2. Character is restricted to staff and lasso as her weapons at first level (these take her two proficiency slots)...both are tools as much as weapons, and it is necessary to be as accustomed to them as to her own limbs.
3. Character must demonstrate her dedication to the craft by performing (or attempting to perform) at least one feat of daring in each session during the apprentice period. Such a death defying act might be a solo wall scale or over-head hang or any use of the acrobatic skill function. Failure to at least make a single attempt results in NO EXPERIENCE being earned for the session. Likewise, there's no respite from this penalty should "no appropriate opportunity" be presented; in the acrobat's mind, such an adventure might be deemed a waste of time and training! Once the apprentice period is over (after the first three to five levels) such demonstrations are unnecessary for advancement, but should have become a routine part of the player character's gameplay.

I'm sure I could think up some other appropriate filters for the paladin class (most involving vows to a Church or temple and based on the knightly trials of chivalric literature) and the others...but, then, you folks can probably do that, too, right?

: )

Hope this gives people some food for thought!

Subclasses, Variants, and Filters (P. 2)

[continued from here]

So, okay, we should probably think of something different from "subclasses" to call these aberrant classes...just so the discussion can keep going. Because I DO mean this post to be about these things, misnamed or not, and we've got to get back to the point. "Variant classes?" Because they vary from the original classes of OD&D (which constitute three of the four human classes found in B/X: cleric, fighter, magic-user, and thief)? Sure...that's good enough. When I say "variant class" I mean a class found in AD&D (or later iterations) other than cleric, fighter, magic-user, or thief. Okay? Okay.

Back to the discussion.

Variant classes since AD&D have been presented in two different styles: one pre-3rd edition, and one post 3rd-edition. I have issues with both, but let's go ahead and describe what that presentation entails:

Pre-3E Variants

- ability score minimums for entry

- generally higher XP requirements than their "parent" class

- unique spell lists, for spell-caster classes

- widely differing adherence to parent class abilities

- some non-standard role-playing requirements (alignment restrictions, treasure acquisition restrictions, guild requirements, behavioral restrictions, etc.)

Post-3E Variants

- no ability minimums

- no XP penalties

- no unique spell lists

- treated as their own "standard class" though save bonuses, BA bonuses, etc. may mimic the non-variant classes

- generally unique "skill lists"

- some variant classes of earlier editions now "prestige classes"

Now, as stated, B/X doesn't include variant classes except in its incarnation as Labyrinth Lord (with the AEC as described above...this uses the pre-3E style, deliberately aping AD&D). But if you wanted to add variant classes to B/X, or if you wanted to re-examine a different (house ruled) way to handle variant classes in your own game, or if you wanted to create you own version of D&D (i.e. a "D&D Mine" project)...if you wanted to do any of these things, you might want to consider the best approach to the concept of variant classes. Because...as that unnamed blogger pointed out...it seems a little hard to swallow parts of either approach.

For example, there aren't any real restrictions to variant classes in 3E or 3.5...which means a paladin or ranger or bard or barbarian is at least as common as the basic four classes. Which not everyone wants to be the case in their setting. One thing the heightened "point of entry" (ability score restrictions) did for AD&D was to ensure that it was a lot harder to roll up a paladin (with that 17 Charisma restriction) than to roll up a plain old fighter. Less than 2% of characters (4 in 216) have a CHA of 17 or 18...at least when rolling your ability scores with the standard 3D6. Add in the other ability score minimums and you're increasing the rarity of the class exponentially.

But are ability scores really a barrier to entry? After all, nothing prevents a player from rolling-rolling-rolling till the right numbers come up...and the DMG and UA provide plenty of "variant methods" of rolling ability scores to give players a better chance of achieving the stat line desired. 

However, I'd ask that you forget randomness for a second...I mean, what is it that you are really trying to limit? Given random dice rolls, it's possible, however improbable, that a player might NEVER roll the scores desired, just given bad luck. And then what have you really succeed in doing except preventing a player from creating and playing the character concept they desire? What are you doing except blunting a player's creativity and imagination with your arbitrary barrier?

Here's what I think:

1) I can see the value of including exceptional variant classes in one's game, not just subclasses that fulfill a concept. Often, these might be setting specific, and certainly they should have a degree of scarcity because of their exceptional nature (if "paladins" are the "default fighter" in your game world, then they're not a variant class, they replace the usual basic one).

2) By including such class in a campaign, you are setting up an expectation (and desire) for your players to play them...for sheer novelty if nothing else. When my old DM said she was going to include half-ogres in her new D&D campaign, my first response was "sign me up for THAT!"

3) Players allowed to play the concept they want are generally happy players. That's just a personal,  unproven theory, I realize...

4) Random, arbitrary barriers (high ability scores) are a non-starter. They don't actually cut-down on entry (due to the ability for all players to re-roll...or "commit PC suicide" and re-roll). And  personally I find it puts too much emphasis on ability scores in a game where such is already too often the case.

5) Likewise, arbitrary level restrictions (for example, 3rd edition prestige classes), is a no-go as it prevents players from running the concept of their choice for (often) a long-ass time. I came up with a dwarven duelist concept for a PC in my buddy's 3.0 game a few years back and it was the height of frustration, plowing along as a fighter and rogue for the six or seven levels necessary to get the correct pre-reqs just to switch classes...and then he ended the campaign around the time I reached eighth level. That's bullshit, folks...again, if the concept is possible in the setting, players should have the option of exercising that possibility from the get-go.

5) What we're looking for is a FILTER, not a barrier...something to weed down the number of people that would take the character class. Ability scores and level restrictions aren't a filter...they simply delay player gratification. Slow advancement (XP penalties) is appropriate to an exceptional variant (it's harder for the Elf to learn both fighting and magic, you know?) but is neither a filter nor a barrier.

[to be continued, where we'll pick up talking about filters]

Subclasses, Variants, and Filters (P. 1)

Dammit...sometimes my blog-hopping takes me farther afield than I normally "surf" and I end up leaving comments somewhere that...later...I can't find anywhere. Which is too bad, because I like to give credit when I'm ripping off someone else's thoughts and musings.

Oh well.

[EDIT: Thanks to Red for the suggestion...have I mentioned how terrible I am with this computer stuff? The "dude" in question was Talysman (duh) over at Nine and Thirty Kingdoms. Jeez, JB...here's the link to the post, along with my half-assed comments at the time]

So some dude was writing recently that he's having a hard time with the ability score prerequisites for subclasses. Which, I'd gather, means he's playing/complaining about AD&D (at least one of its iterations) since that's the only edition that really has "subclasses." Well, okay, both Supplement II (Blackmoor) and Supplement III (Eldritch Wizardry) use the terms "sub-class" when referring to the monk, assassin, and druid classes...and these, too, have ability score prerequisites...so I guess he might have been playing OD&D. But the term and concept is more ubiquitous to AD&D.

Anyway...

B/X doesn't, of course, have subclasses, only classes, and except for the demihumans (dwarf, elf, and halfling) it doesn't even have ability prerequisites. Do you want to play a skinny fighter? A clumsy thief? A stupid magic-user? Sure, you can do that...it's a longer, slower row to hoe (with that prime requisite XP penalty) but you can certainly do it.

Ahem...

BUT, there are no subclasses. Even my B/X supplements (the B/X Companion and The Complete B/X Adventurer) steer clear of the term "subclass." The former has a full enough plate just dealing with a rules expansion for the basic B/X classes...and the NEW classes in TCBXA are just that: "new classes," i.e. classifications of adventurer. The scout is not a subclass of anything, nor is the bounty hunter, nor the summoner. I suppose I could call them "subclasses" but that's not how they were designed. Like the beastmaster or gnome, all were created to fill specific niches not already covered in the B/X rule book.

But what if you wanted to adapt subclasses to your B/X game? Certainly, the Advanced Edition Companion (AEC) for Labyrinth Lord provides all the AD&D subclasses cut to the B/X mold, though they are inconsistently referred to as "subtypes," "types of," "varieties of," and "sub-types." Not that the lingo matters terribly; they're the same things you find in AD&D. The real question is, are they really subclasses? And if they are, is this the best way to present them?

We'll get to what I mean by "presentation" in a second. My own game, 5AK, does indeed have subclasses, but they are true "subclasses." Each main class has two subclasses, the subclass being the exact same as the main class, save that each loses a few class features while gaining a couple (minor) advantages not present in the usual class. This is generally done in order to provide niche or setting specific concepts for the players. For example, the mountebank subclass fills the concept of the magician that failed out of his apprenticeship (he couldn't hack it for whatever reason), but turned to thievery and flimflammery with the few "tricks" he learned in order to have an adventuring career. As a subclass of the thief class, the mountebank is exactly like the thief (same HPs, saves, attacks, skills, etc.) but he's spent less time honing his thieving abilities, in exchange for some of the knowledge of an apprentice magician.

[as a side note, the reverse concept...i.e. the thief taken off the streets and apprenticed to become a true magician...is NOT represented by a subclass. Instead such a character would simply be a magician with the randomly generated advantage, "misspent youth." Becoming a true magician takes years of study compared to picking up some minor ability at picking pockets. But I digress]

Similarly my temple knight subclass (the closest thing 5AK has to a "paladin") provides additional martial training not found in the saint/shaman class, at a cost of some of the divine favors (spells) the saint would normally access. No, it is not a subclass of fighter.

See that's one of the things that irk me about AD&D...the subclasses aren't really "sub-" in the true meaning of the prefix, which would indicate beneath, below, imperfect (as in subpar), or subordinate to. Paladins and rangers aren't subordinate to fighters...they fight the same, have the same or better saves, and have additional bonuses and powers that make them superior to the fighter class. An assassin has all the abilities of a thief, albeit as two levels lower, but has the ability to use all weapons, shields, the express ability to use and manufacture poisons, as well as the ability to disguise and assassinate targets. How does that make an assassin a "sub-" thief?

Other subclasses...like the druid and illusionist...are so expressly different from their parent classes that they might as well be their own. I suspect the reason monks were deemed to be their own class (as opposed to a subclass of cleric as originally stated in Supplement II) was for exactly this reason.

[to be continued]

CRY DARK FUTURE - Artists Wanted!

Last night, my wife was drawing some comparisons between my son and I, to which I said, “Look, he’s two years old, and I’m 39…I think I’ve got a few years on him.” And she replied, “You’re turning 40 this year?!”

Yes. Yes I am.

And THEN she asked what I wanted special for my fortieth birthday…and after about ten seconds of deliberation I decided I actually did have something that I wanted: to publish two new books. I want to be able to say I’ve published four books/games by the time I hit 40…one book for each decade I’ve been hanging around this planet. Of course, my past track record suggests my ability to actually meet my own deadlines (I turn 40 in November) is ZERO, so it would appear I’ve set myself up for failure and disappointment. But we all need goals, right? Goals are good things.

So yeah, the two books I’ve got in mind are 5AK (my “D&D Mine” project) and CDF. CDF’s just about ready to go…except that I still need interior artwork.

Here comes the begging.

CRY DARK FUTURE (CDF) is a role-playing game that gives you the opportunity to take on the persona of a covert adventurer in the imaginary future…a future filled with magic and fantasy as well as cyborgs and automatic weapons. Whether you choose to play an idealistic hero or a sociopathic scumbag is entirely up to you; the game provides you with the tools you need to try either path. And once your character retires in style or goes down in a bloody hail of bullets, you can create a new persona and try playing from the other side of the fence…if it suits your fancy.

That’s part of the blurb from the back cover. Here’s the front cover:

 What I need now is interior artwork. I’m looking for BLACK & WHITE drawings that depicts the setting of my Dark Mythic Future…a setting that’s equal parts Cyberpunk and B/X D&D. If you are a decent artist and like to doodle things like elvish cyborgs or goblins with machine guns or Blade Runner like city-scapes…well, I’d sure like to include your work in my book. If you’re interested in contributing, you can email me at:

bxblackrazor AT gmail DOT com

Here’s the standard offer: you send me your own, original B&W pieces (jpegs work best). You get full credit in the book and retain the rights to your own artwork. Compensation is slim: if I use three or more of your illustrations, I will send you a copy of the finished product, free of charge. Right now, I’m expecting the book will retail at $30-35 plus shipping and handling, so you’ll have to be the judge of whether or not your time and efforts are worth it.

If you require actual MONETARY compensation, and I really like your work, we may be able to come to a financial arrangement instead…that is to say I’m open to the idea. But payment will only be made upon receipt of the actual artwork.

Oh, yeah…and space is limited. The book is going to clock in at about 80 pages (soft cover), so were probably only talking about 18-24 pieces, depending on the size. Originally, the book was written as a 64 page masterpiece, but I’ve decided to increase the font size and leave space for more than three illos, so there.

If you’re interested in submitting artwork, EMAIL ME. If you’re interested but need ideas for subject matter, email me. If you have doodles just lying around that you want to “throw in the mix,” just scan ‘em and email me. If you’re an artist and think it would be cool to see your work in a book but don’t know if your stuff is “good enough” just email me…the worst thing that could happen is I won’t use your art (and you can still sell it to someone else).

Thanks, folks. Looking forward to getting this project completed.

[by the way, regarding DEADLINES: if you ARE interested in doing artwork, I’d really like it within the next two to three months (i.e. by June) so that I can get everything formatted and laid out and to the printer, etc. before the end of summer. I AM working on a second game, after all, so I need time to do BOTH if I’m going to make my November due date. Thanks, again]

Respecting Ogres - 5AK Combat (Part 2)

Don’t you want YOUR ogre to be tougher?

For me, in designing 5AK (or D&D Mine or whatever you want to call it), the ogre was one of the “baseline” monsters in designing the game. Ogres are a part of the D&D tradition, sure, but they show up so often in fantasy folklore…representing the large, bestial, BULLY of the human psyche. The abuser. The monster that is O-so-human, and yet a hulking fiend of destruction, too. How do you represent that, and do it justice?

In the end I gave ogres HD 4+2 and the equivalent of light (chain) armor.

Now, granted, that may not seem like much difference compared to the usual AC 5, HD 4+1 ogre found in D&D, but rest assured those numbers mean far more to MY game than your run-o-the-mill, B/X equivalent. In fact, it’s closer to the 700 pound bruiser detailed in Alexis’s recent post (no, his point is something very different from mine…I just like it as an illustration of what an ogre should be like).

Assuming a party similar to the one Alexis describes (of course, there are no halflings or burning hands spells in 5AK, and I don’t have a “ranger” in my game for obvious reasons, though we can assume something equivalent to an archer or temple knight), the outcome in 5AK might have been pretty close to the same. My thief’s “bushwhacking” ability only extends to “living, humanoid targets of roughly human size” specifically so that you don’t find ‘em backstabbing giants and jinn, but it’s really up to the individual DM to determine whether or not an ogre is close enough or not. I’d probably rule “not,” but the character would still have a good 75% chance of doing damage (if not higher based on the creature’s position sleeping).

Then, assuming the monster was awakened and combat ensued we could expect the killing to begin. Average HPs for such a group would be, mmm, 22 for the fighter, 17 for the thief, 9 for the mage, 7 for the cleric, 4 for the “ranger.” A HD 4+2 creature in 5AK is bigger, faster, and stronger than just about everyone in the party, and would likely crush the cleric or ranger with a single shot (average 7 damage, hits the cleric 86% of the time or the ranger 92% presuming heavy armor)...though if this was their first fight of the day that might be mitigated by other factors.

Meanwhile, the chance of the PCs actually harming the ogre would be pretty slim with the exception of the fighter. The high level thief would have a 42% chance of damaging it (actually pretty close to the 45% chance a B/X thief of the same level would have against a “normal” ogre) with a 3% chance of killing the creature outright with a lucky attack (the dagger in the eyeball attack). The 5^th level hero would actually have a 67% chance to injure the creature (better than a standard B/X fighter unless you're including high ability scores) with a 17% chance of killing it outright (the same chance a hero in Chainmail has of killing such a monster). The other party members would have a lot smaller chance to even scratch the beast (17% for the cleric or ranger, 28% for the wizard assuming he wants to mix it up in melee)…but then fighting monsters IS an activity best left up to heroes. Non-fighters would do better to use the tried and true method found in folklore when dealing with ogres: trickery.

In point of fact, a group of non-fighting PCs venturing into an ogre’s den with the intention of slaying such a creature in hand-to-hand combat deserve to have their heads handed to them. I mean, what are you thinking of? Sure, David was able to slay Goliath with a rock…but he had the power of God on his side (and/or it was a one-in-a-million shot...you decide). When your PC doesn’t happen to be the divinely chosen king of the divinely chosen people, then you better be the rough-and-tumble equivalent of Beowulf…otherwise, what are you doing except getting in Beowulf’s way?

To write D&D Mine, I’ve been deconstructing the game of D&D and looking at it piece-by-piece and you can see where there’s stuff that’s been broken. I mean, the reason that so much of D&D game play is treated like “our many different ways to kill a monster” is precisely because the rules are written in that fashion. An ogre should just be a walking sack of hit points waiting for a few low level characters to down him with half a dozen arrows…what kind of adventure is that? It cheapens the whole thing, in my opinion.  At the same time, it’s not enough to simply assign bunches of extra HPs to monsters. Didn’t I just read that WotC’s research shows players enjoy SHORTER combats? No shit, Sherlock…shorter combats mean more time spent adventuring (which might include a lot of things besides rolling dice and tracking damage).

That’s why “hit dice” in my game have been returned to their proper place as the number of “hits” a creature can suffer before going down. For example, a four hit dice ogre can take four human-incapacitating wounds before being brought down (which is what a successful attack roll measures…the ability to apply a man-incapacitating wound to a target). Yes, I realize that’s less than the six wounds needed in Chainmail (so my ogre is still less than the Ogre of Gormely Keep), but quite a handful for your average adventurer to deal with…like an intelligent bear.

And it’s quite a bit stronger than even an AD&D ogre. Oh sure…an average superhero equivalent in 5AK will put one down pretty fast (exactly as fast as a superhero in Chainmail at 9^th level, actually), but it’s never for-sure-for-sure. And it’s nothing like AD&D. I remember converting my old AD&D bard to 2^nd edition (and for those who don’t know, there’re major differences between the 1E and 2E bards) in order to solo-test the 2E adventure Return to White Plume Mountain, which is practically filled to the brim with ogres dressed in +5 armor (to give them an AC of 0). It was a pretty silly exercise, but in some ways it’s a pretty silly adventure, and the point is the character could still handle the creatures pretty handily. It just necessitating rolling a LOT of dice to get through the war of HP attrition.

ANYway… point is, as I was saying, that THAT type of game is pretty soft. As far as our adventure gaming goes, we have been coddled a bit…the RPG equivalent of everyone getting a juice box and a trophy at the end of the season. As with sports, part of the whole purpose of playing the games is THE PLAY ITSELF, not the accolades that may (or may not) be deserved for the playing. And if you make the fighting the centerpiece…and the fighting too easy…then the game starts to lose its luster, becoming less of an adventure and more of a…well, I don’t really know what you’d call it.

Actually, I guess that wasn’t really my point. My real point is that I like ogres. I need to mix some in to my next 5AK play-test. I wonder if I put them on-board a ship? Ooo-oo…maybe the PCs travel by ship to the Isle of Ogres. Oh, that sounds good!

; )

Respecting Ogres - 5AK Combat (Part 1)

I was actually going to write something completely different in defense of my non-B/X posting of late, but eh…that’s boring. Or, at least, it will take more mental power from me to make it at all interesting to read. So let’s talk about ogres.

Any of you folks follow college basketball?

I don’t (well, I did keep an eye on my sister-Jesuit school, Gonzaga, till they got knocked out of the tournament…go Wichita State!)…but I do listen to the “sports talk radio,” often. I used to be a big NPR guy, but a lot of the stories tend to be big bummers (or worse, get me really, REALLY worked up and angry), so the sports talk is much easier to have droning in the background. Plus, I can turn it off once football season officially ends and not feel like I’m missing a whole lot.

[I know, I know…this is sounding really random. Just bear with my weird-o brain, please]

So anyway, there’s this coach name Mike Rice who was recently fired from his gig as basketball coach of Rutgers. And while being fired from a coaching job isn’t generally a big deal, this one has drawn news because of the reason he was fired: namely, that he was abusive to his players. Interestingly, (well, interesting to me) some people have taken issue with this as yet another example of the “wussification of America;” how “soft” we’ve become as a society with regard to our children compared to “the good ol’ days.”

As opposed to how evolved we’ve become as a culture.

Now that’s not to say we’re NOT soft…that we’ve become permissive in some ways, hesitant to criticize, slow to discipline, all to our own detriment. But there’s a difference between discipline and abuse. There’s a difference between making a kid do laps or push-ups for goofing off and throwing a basketball at their head. As I’m sure most folks will agree.

So what does that have to do with ogres? Ah, so glad you asked. Going “soft” is a term that can be applied to certain gaming circles…especially of the “fantasy adventure” variety. I’m not sure I’ve had the chance to sling this particular epithet myself in relationship to later editions of Dungeons & Dragons (if I didn’t, I’m sure I’ve thought about it)  and I think that in some ways it’s an apt term to use. We’ve let players “slide” a little too much in recent decades (yes, decades); we’ve been too easy on our adventurers, we’ve allowed them to “win” just a little too often…and by doing so, have soured a bit the tasty savor of victory.

And it starts with the ogre.

I love the ogre. As a monster, as a concept. No, not Schrek…I’m talking about the straight-up D&D ogre. Burly, ugly, nasty. I’ve had a love affair with this monster since I was a kid…ever since that TSR Endless Quest book, Mountain of Mirrors (published 1982). Ogres figured prominently in that one. Ogres that killed a LOT of elves (as a veteran DM of Moldvay’s Basic by that time, I’d seen more than my share of friggin’ elves, and could really appreciate a good “elf-slaying”).

Hell, I even included the Ogre Noble in my B/X Companion as an homage to the Ogre King toy produced by TSR (a toy that I never owned, but one that I was endlessly fascinated with…where was MY plate-armored ogre lord?).

Why are ogres so cool? Well, for one thing they are something that I think are easily imagined. A GIANT is really a mythical creature…I mean, they’re as big as mountains in some stories, the kinds of things fought by Thor and the Norse gods. You can’t really imagine a group of human-sized adventurers fighting such a creature (at least, not without a certain degree of ridiculous absurdity, unless you “shrink it down” to a manageable size). But an ogre is something you can look at with a degree of perspective…they’re like Beowulf’s Grendel…they’re the troll under the bridge of the Billy Goat’s Gruff.

And funny enough, they first started out as “trolls.” It’s only that Poul Anderson monster of Three Hearts and Three Lions that screwed up the whole concept of the Norse troll (I’ve written before how I feel the stat-line for the bugbear is more appropriate) giving us the rubbery, regenerating monstrosity found in every edition of D&D and most of its knock-offs (Warhammer Fantasy, for example). In CHAINMAIL, where they first appear, it is under the heading of “trolls;” the description states the following:

“What are generally referred to as Trolls are more properly Ogres – intermediate creatures between men and Giants.”

An ogre in Chainmail attacks as six heavy footmen, which is to say they deal out damage like half-a-dozen chainmail clad Vikings. While they’re not quite as tough to kill as a “true Troll” (Gygax’s term for the Anderson monstrosity) they can still soak up the hits and keep coming, unless cut down by a hero-type…and unlike true Trolls, they can fight in formations (meaning you can encounter a unit of ‘em as opposed to a single, lone opponent).

In D&D, they lose quite a bit of this badassed-ness once you move to the “alternative combat system” provided in the LBBs. Oh, they still pack a punch (doing two dice of damage with successful attack, unlike most weapons and monsters), but they only get one strike per round. And while their thick hide still makes them the equivalent of chainmail with AC 5, it doesn’t take six simultaneous hits to bring one down (as in Chainmail)…heck, any first level character has a 35% chance to hit AC 5 with a D20, and three or four solid hits will do enough damage to “whittle one down.” Sure, in Chainmail a “hero” can “one-shot” an ogre…but only with a roll of 10+ on 2D6. That’s only a 17% chance…and the ogre’s probably going to get his licks in before that happens.

By AD&D and B/X the ogre’s been even more “wimpified.” Oh, sure, he’s got D8s for hit dice now, but so do fighters (or D10s in the case of the AD&D fighter), while in both editions his damage output has been dropped to 1D10. Whereas previously that two dice of damage meant an average of 7 per hit, now he was down to 5.5 with a chance of a glancing bitch-slap of 1 point? Fie on that! Hardly worth the bonus gold that had been included in the ogre’s treasure type since OD&D (possibly originally included due to the sheer toughness of the creature under the “default” Chainmail combat system, if not a reference to Puss in Boots).

Still, I’ve always loved the ogre, even the “wimpy” B/X ogre that I started play with (and the original Monster Manual ain’t any different). There’s no denying that it makes for a nice little “boss monster” for 1^st level PCs to encounter, as evidenced many times in running B2:Keep on the Borderlands. It is still vulnerable to the 1^st level magic-user’s usual sleep or charm person spells (assuming they’ve retained that arrow in their magic quiver by the time of the encounter), and encountered singly, they are a fightable encounter, giving players the kind of “rah-rah,” team-up moment they really seem to relish. At the same time, the damage output of 1D10 is so random in its application (a crap-shoot, feast-or-famine roll with every successful hit) that it keeps the adrenaline pumping from danger…even if such damage is only imaginary.

Because it IS imaginary. Oh, sure, I’ve killed plenty of PCs with Ye Old Ogre encounter, but not nearly as many as you’d imagine. Especially with regard to Keep on the Borderlands, far more PCs have met their end on the point of a well-thrown goblin spear than by the club of the O So Terrible ogre. The fact of the matter is this: in low level D&D play (of the first few editions), survival IS a crap shoot, only somewhat mitigated by the inflation of character HPs and ability score bonuses found in AD&D. And when survival has a high degree of randomness, the thing that decreases survival rate the most is running into a large number of dice rolls: one ogre is less dangerous than six goblins…who themselves are far less dangerous than eight or nine kobolds (or a dozen giant rats). It’s why B/X troglodytes (or ghouls) with their three attacks each are so superior in numbers, despite the “low damage” done with each individual hit. It’s not the POTENTIAL amount of damage, it’s just the rolling of MORE DICE; thrown out more grenades, and eventually the shrapnel’s gonna’ tag something.

[to be continued]

News & Updates & Well...News

Hope everyone had a good Easter weekend (whether or not you celebrate Easter)…I know I did. Had a pretty good week in general: the family got back into town Tuesday, and I spent the last week enjoying a “full house.” Today, the wife is back again in the air (business is a bitch) and I will be back on “daddy duty” for the next few days…but now that I have the luxury of letting the house go to hell, I can find a little time to blog again.

Plus, I finally got my taxes done.

So, let’s see…news, news. Lots of exciting stuff going on over down Running Beagles way. So much so that I’m not quite sure where to start, nor what my readers want to hear about. You know, I don’t really know why people bother “tuning in” to this blog. I spend a lot of my work days (especially during the football season) listening to the sports-talk radio station in the background. Over the course of the day you end up hearing several different radio personalities, all talking about the same thing, all with their own personal spin, and it reminds me a lot of the OSR blog-o-sphere…at least, the way it was a couple years ago. People taking the same stories and running with ‘em. People voicing their own opinions with different degrees of intellectual integrity. But all covering the same thing that’s of interest to me: local sports teams (for the radio) or Old School role-playing (for the blogs).

But these days, we (the bloggers) all have slightly different agendas and/or projects they’re working on or writing about. And that’s not a bad/terrible thing. It’s just…well, never mind. This post isn’t a musing-rambling one about the evolving changes in the ‘net presence of the OSR. I’m just saying I know my own blog has changed a bit in tone, and I’m not sure what it is my readers want from me. Besides more posts about gaming, that is.

Not that it matters…I’m not getting paid to write this thing.

; )

SO…news. Here’s the stuff that’s going on (some of these might require elaboration and/or their own blog posts this week):

-        Work on D&D Mine progresses rapidly…which is to say, I’m about 5-8 pages away from a completely finished project (including formatting and illustrations and everything). This would be 5AK, which I’ve been play-testing for the last couple months. It will be a three volume set when complete (like OD&D, though organized differently) and the first two books are complete and third nearly there. I do still need to reorganize the third volume (still being written), and I may be stuffing some pertinent parts from Book 3 into Book 1 due to space considerations…but maybe not. I’m pretty sure I will be releasing it as both a PDF and as a hard copy, “bundled” pack and am considering including dice with the latter (I want to be able to offer the thing as a complete game system). It really is looking pretty good.

-        The work on Volume 3 has actually slowed a bit this week due to the necessity of researching maritime travel and naval warfare. Fascinating stuff and it really deserves its own blog post (maybe tomorrow)...it’s what I’ve been spending most of my “free time” on the last week. My hope is that the next play-test includes some “ship-on-ship” action.

-        And regarding play-testing: last Thursday I was down at the Baranof play-testing 5AK and had FIVE players show up, including two new/old faces in the form of Randy and Steve-O…both of whom died horribly (their character, that is). Man, it felt just like old times. There were some good bits with a goat, an angry abomination, the requisite ghouls and gore, and a fabulous treasure trove (which I drunkenly allowed the PCs to walk off with, forgetting the traps in the treasure chamber). Good times…and again, I heard from players that they appreciate a game that involves…duh…role-playing and not just rolling dice and gaming mechanics. Players surprised me by dealing with the abomination by releasing it from its chains (rather than…um…slaying it or something) unleashing a scourge upon their town. But that’s totally cool with me…especially as they’ll be on-board a boat (hope-hope) next session anyway. Grandma has even offered to babysit Thursday so I can make the session…but do I really want to make my mom drive home at midnight on a work night so I can slosh around at the bar? Maybe.

-        Cover art for CDF is progressing rapidly…like, REALLY rapidly…and my two proof-readers are both about halfway through their review. And I’ll be sending the manuscript out to at least one or two more readers (I am NOT going to have a repeat of the typos in TCBXA). I intend to have a general solicitation for artwork sometime this week…I just want to get this one off my computer and into general circulation. At this point it appears I’ll be issuing it as an 80 page, perfect bound book. Why not 64 pages and saddle-stitched? A couple-few reasons: A) I want to increase the font to a more average size type (it’s a tad small at the moment), B) I think the perfect bound looks nicer (TCBXA turned out nice and had a LOT fewer printing issues than the B/X Companion), C) I want room for more artwork. Still, for those wondering, those 80 pages will actually consist of:

One page cover leaf plus one page table of contents.

Three pages of charts.

Three pages of “appendices” including sample characters and spells.

8+ pages of interior artwork.

A one page character sheet.

And I might just include some sort of legalese/free use agreement so people can write their own CDF-compatible adventures and supplements. See? Still under 64 pages of actual "rules."

Yeah, that one’s getting close, too, which is pretty exciting. It’s possible (though not especially likely) that I’ll have TWO books coming out in the next three to six months. Tim down at Gary’s jokingly refers to me as a “publishing mogul” and if I DO have four books on the market, I’m sure going to feel like one…which is pretty darn nutty. I mean, am I going to have to create a web site with forums for discussion about rules and errata and whatnot?

*sigh* I don’t know why I’m so dumb and isolationist/stand-offish when it comes to this stuff. Well, I know the astrological reasons (this 7^th house Saturn and Capricorn Venus not to mention my uber-Scorpio stuff combined with a Mars-Uranus opposition)…but that doesn’t change the fact that I KNOW I could get more accomplished if I were more open to collaboration. I’m just silly about working with others and/or asking for help.

ANYway…it’s still exciting, and slowly but surely things are coming together. I’ll try to get something less “news-related” and more substantive posted this week.

Later, gators!

: )