Huh. Just discovered Roger's A Life Full of Adventure blog, which is kind of crazy considering he's been around since 2008 and lists a host of shared game interests with Yours Truly, including D&D (B/X and 2E), WFRP (of the oldest variety), Blood Bowl (!), and Shadowrun.
I really need to get together with some of these guys (Steve C. and Mike Davison included) and do some sort of D&D-Warhammer mash-up. I know, I know...I've talked about this in the past and never brought anything to fruition. I'm BUSY, people! Anyway...
Huh. I can't believe I have only a single posting under the topic "Nurgle" (not counting my single post under the topic "Deathguard"). Might have to rectify that.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Ignorance
I don't want to say that I hate ignorance. It really, really irritates me, but "hate" is such a strong emotion, even for such an amorphous entity as ignorance. Hating ignorance itself, really just translates into hating the ignorant people that display it. And I really don't want to hate people (as individuals or groups).
No, I don't. But you know, I really hate ignorance.
And it's not like I know everything. I'm ignorant about a lot of stuff. A lot of stuff. I'm always finding new shit out. Even about games that I blather on about like some expert...like, say, Basic D&D. I've been playing the thing for 30+ years, I've been blogging and writing about it since June of 2009 (nearly six years!), and I'll still discover the occasional thing about which I'm ignorant.
[though admittedly, with regard to D&D, I'm a bit less ignorant than in other arenas of knowledge]
So I'M ignorant, too...about a great many things. And I prioritize what it is I want to enlighten myself about, just as everyone else does. I know a lot more about the current state of the NFL, for example, then the state of the NBA. I have a tiny smidgeon of knowledge about South American history, and effectively zero knowledge of Thailand or southeast Asia (other than that shitty bit of U.S. history involving armed conflict in the region). Do I hate myself for being ignorant? Do I hate myself for being selective about that which I choose to learn? No...but I'm sometimes disappointed or frustrated with myself, and folks might consider me a bit obsessive when it comes to researching things about which I find myself ignorant.
[this can be chalked up to a Scorpio Mercury in the 12th House, by the way...not everyone has that drive to know everything about everything]
So maybe I don't "hate" ignorance in others, either. Maybe I'm simply frustrated and disappointed she I see it. Like people who believe Fox News has even the slightest accuracy. Or that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
[wow...how is that bullshit going to be explained in schools in 2021?]
The internet is a wonderful place to learn stuff about which you're ignorant. It's also a fantastic place to get distracted for hours by stupid memes, dumb videos, and free porn. But even if you manage to avoid wasting too much time in idle surfing, your search for enlightenment can often be roadblocked by the conflicting opinions of various parties on the subject of study that you're pursuing. I suppose this might be slightly better than listening to a single professor giving his/her single opinion on a topic...but it really depends on the quality of teacher and the quality of school, no? I went to a pretty good school and received a fairly decent education (when I bothered to show up to class), and while the wikipedia is uber-convenient, there's something about studying a multitude of books from your local library that just seems to cover subjects in more depth. Not that the people of Paraguay have bothered to build any libraries in this damn country.
[oh, wait...they do have one: the Biblioteca Roosevelt. It's 69 years old, was named for the the 32nd president of the United States (FDR), and is part of the Centro Cultural Paraguayo Americano (the Paraguayan American Cultural Center). Huh...I wonder who's responsible for that? I should probably check it out, but it's located downtown, which is inconvenient for a number of reasons. Ah, well]
Anyway...I'm all for youthful fire being injected into all things old and crusty and having the cantankerous, conservatives give up their seats at the high table, but would it be too much to ask that they do at least a minimal amount to alleviate their ignorance? When I read about teenagers not knowing Cameron's Titanic film was based on an actual event, I get...well, irritated.
I'm sure there are plenty of intelligent young people out there who will help to make the world a better and brighter place. In fact, I know there are. But there's still a shit-ton of ignorance out there and a lot of folks (young and old) who just don't seem to care enough to educate themselves. Sorry for the ranty-ness; it depresses me at times.
Okay...back to gaming stuff.
No, I don't. But you know, I really hate ignorance.
And it's not like I know everything. I'm ignorant about a lot of stuff. A lot of stuff. I'm always finding new shit out. Even about games that I blather on about like some expert...like, say, Basic D&D. I've been playing the thing for 30+ years, I've been blogging and writing about it since June of 2009 (nearly six years!), and I'll still discover the occasional thing about which I'm ignorant.
[though admittedly, with regard to D&D, I'm a bit less ignorant than in other arenas of knowledge]
So I'M ignorant, too...about a great many things. And I prioritize what it is I want to enlighten myself about, just as everyone else does. I know a lot more about the current state of the NFL, for example, then the state of the NBA. I have a tiny smidgeon of knowledge about South American history, and effectively zero knowledge of Thailand or southeast Asia (other than that shitty bit of U.S. history involving armed conflict in the region). Do I hate myself for being ignorant? Do I hate myself for being selective about that which I choose to learn? No...but I'm sometimes disappointed or frustrated with myself, and folks might consider me a bit obsessive when it comes to researching things about which I find myself ignorant.
[this can be chalked up to a Scorpio Mercury in the 12th House, by the way...not everyone has that drive to know everything about everything]
So maybe I don't "hate" ignorance in others, either. Maybe I'm simply frustrated and disappointed she I see it. Like people who believe Fox News has even the slightest accuracy. Or that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
[wow...how is that bullshit going to be explained in schools in 2021?]
The internet is a wonderful place to learn stuff about which you're ignorant. It's also a fantastic place to get distracted for hours by stupid memes, dumb videos, and free porn. But even if you manage to avoid wasting too much time in idle surfing, your search for enlightenment can often be roadblocked by the conflicting opinions of various parties on the subject of study that you're pursuing. I suppose this might be slightly better than listening to a single professor giving his/her single opinion on a topic...but it really depends on the quality of teacher and the quality of school, no? I went to a pretty good school and received a fairly decent education (when I bothered to show up to class), and while the wikipedia is uber-convenient, there's something about studying a multitude of books from your local library that just seems to cover subjects in more depth. Not that the people of Paraguay have bothered to build any libraries in this damn country.
[oh, wait...they do have one: the Biblioteca Roosevelt. It's 69 years old, was named for the the 32nd president of the United States (FDR), and is part of the Centro Cultural Paraguayo Americano (the Paraguayan American Cultural Center). Huh...I wonder who's responsible for that? I should probably check it out, but it's located downtown, which is inconvenient for a number of reasons. Ah, well]
Anyway...I'm all for youthful fire being injected into all things old and crusty and having the cantankerous, conservatives give up their seats at the high table, but would it be too much to ask that they do at least a minimal amount to alleviate their ignorance? When I read about teenagers not knowing Cameron's Titanic film was based on an actual event, I get...well, irritated.
I'm sure there are plenty of intelligent young people out there who will help to make the world a better and brighter place. In fact, I know there are. But there's still a shit-ton of ignorance out there and a lot of folks (young and old) who just don't seem to care enough to educate themselves. Sorry for the ranty-ness; it depresses me at times.
Okay...back to gaming stuff.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Counting Coins (Part 2)
[continued from here; while the pertinent rules will be presented in this post, you might be interested in the motivation and basis for it (described in Part 1). Then again, maybe you aren't!]
Just to pick up where we left off, we had our three containers: the small sack, the backpack, and the large sack (yes, yes...we'll get to Jeff's treasure chests, too. Just not yet). In B/X terms they hold 200 coins, 400 coins, and 600 coins respectively. Since, in B/X:
10 coins of weight = 1 pound
we can happily convert these containers to units of "poundage:" 20 pounds for the small sack, 40 pounds for the backpack, and 60 pounds for the large sack.
It might be helpful to imagine exactly what these look like. A small sack is something that can be carried in one-hand, even by a spindly adventurer (when I was a fairly scrawny teenager working a summer gig at Kentucky Fried Chicken, I was routinely asked to carry 20# sacks of flour under each arm). The space age, ultra-light backpacks you find at REI these days have capacities up to 80 liters or so (180 pounds of water weight)...but they can measure liters because your back is likely to give out long before you put enough "weight" in to burst its frame and fabric. The primitive pack of D&D was probably based on something that looked like my father's (circa 1950's) wood frame and cloth, Boy Scout pack. Small, clunky, and painful compared to the ergonomic camping gear of the last 20-30 years. It's designed to be worn on the back (hence the name).
The 60# large sack (leather? burlap?) is designed to be carried over the shoulder, probably using two-hands. I picture something like this (or probably half-again as big):
Anyway, these are our basic containers for carrying treasure. You can see that they break down into an easy ratio of 1-2-3. And it is from here we (well...me) extrapolate our basic unit of measurement: the treasure unit. For my purposes:
20# of treasure = 1 treasure unit
So, a small sack holds one treasure unit, the backpack holds two, and the large sack holds three.
What exactly IS a treasure unit (besides its weight)? What's it's value? Well, I give it the same value as a small sack full of gold coins. No, not 200 gold coins...I've really gotten over the 10 coins to the pound thing (this happens when you do a bunch of research into silver marks and gold dihrams and other ancient currencies). No, I mean a sack of coins of the basic currency (whatever that is for your game world)...remember its all relative. For my purposes, I think Alexis's 7g Roman-era coins are perfectly reasonable. At 64 coins to the pound, that means one small sack (i.e. one "treasure unit") consists of 1280 coins. And if each of these "gold pieces" is worth 1 x.p. to your intrepid treasure-seeking adventurer, than you can say:
1 treasure unit = 1280 XP
"But JB," you cry, "This is madness! Are you saying a sack of gold is equal to a sack of silver is equal to a sack of gemstones?" Yes...with caveats. But let me come back to that in a moment. You're interrupting my train of thought!
The advancement scheme for your normal fighter class looks a bit like this:
Level 2: 2000 XP needed
Level 3: 4000 XP needed
Level 4: 8000 XP needed
Level 5: 16,000 XP needed
Level 6: 32,000 XP needed
Level 7: 64,000 XP needed
If we divide that up by 1280 XP we can find the number of treasure units needed to advance the character...oh, and here I'll be rounding UP when we have remainders (no fractions of treasure units!):
Level 2: 2 treasure units needed
Level 3: 4 treasure units needed
Level 4: 7 treasure units needed
Level 5: 13 treasure units needed
Level 6: 25 treasure units needed
Level 7: 50 treasure units needed
Level 8: 100 treasure units needed (if you double 64K, you get 128K, yeah? Look how easy that is!)
My game only goes up to 8th level because there aren't any domains being awarded to "name level" characters in my game...however, if you wanted to extrapolate, you could just add an extra 50 units per level after eight.
100 treasure units...2000 pounds (1 ton) of treasure. It can take you a long time to move that much wealth...especially if you multiply it by the number of characters in the adventuring party. Pulling that much treasure out of the ground can give you a nice, long campaign with plenty of adventure. And if you do "earn your ton," I can't see how your character could find herself wanting to do anything but retire and enjoy the fabulous life of luxury she's earned for herself and her descendants.
Now, back to your question: isn't some treasure "worth more" than others? Sure...but we're talking about convertible, spendable wealth. A bag of jewels will go farther (with a lot less effort) than one big jewel. And who's to say small or fragile items aren't likely to get misplaced, broken, and pilfered between their dungeon resting place and "wherever-it-is" that you want to take your items to convert it. And who's to say you'll get "fair market value" even should your cartage go off without a hitch?
Plus, consider this: adventurers in a dirty, dimly lit, and hazardous subterranean environment...fearful of being beset by monstrous foes at any moment...aren't going to get terribly caught up in sorting the dross from the treasure hoard. I picture much more of a "dump-your-rations-and-rake-in-as-much-as-your-pack-will-carry" approach to treasure gathering, not a careful sifting for platinum coins among the silver. Call the treasure unit an "average" of what is found and carted off.
HOWEVER: I would allow for some treasure units being more or less valuable. Just not on the scale of your usual D&D campaign; simply a "double value" treasure unit, or a "half value" treasure unit. I would also allow the occasional worn piece of jewelry or pocketed gemstone to be considered a half treasure unit (or even a "full" treasure unit for an extremely rare and valuable piece...think the Eye of the Serpent in the film Conan). BUT as a basic rule, if it's not portable, it ain't spendable.
You found a golden throne that took 12 guys to carry out of the dungeon? Who cares? Unless you know of a shop that deals in giant, golden thrones, you're not going to get anything out of it until you break it up, melt it down, pry out the gemstones, and/or otherwise reduce it to a portable form...a standard treasure unit form. Bags of cash, in other words.
Hey, it's what the conquistadors did.
Now as for how much one can carry...well that brings us back to the encumbrance question. In Holmes Basic, a character is considered "heavily loaded" (with a halved movement rate) when carrying 60# of treasure in addition to their normal adventuring equipment (including armor). AD&D is more specific (and granular) giving a reduced movement for up to 70# (all equipment and treasure) or halved movement at 105# (again, for everything). However, AD&D gives a bonus for high strength (up to +75# for 18, the highest possible for non-fighter characters).
Moldvay Basic is a bit more generous and more granular going up to 160# for everyone (high strength is not considered). However, anything over 80# of combined treasure and equipment QUARTERS movement, effectively slowing the character to a crawl...maybe a stagger.
All three systems give a range of unencumbered movement of 30# to 40# (30# being for Holmes Basic which doesn't count the PC's "standard gear"...30# of treasure weight in other words). Personally, I like the Holmes bit about PCs being used to their own adventuring gear and only worrying about treasure...however, I also like Gygaxian "strong backs carry more treasure" thing. As such, here's how I factor encumbrance:
Normal gear +1 treasure unit = Unencumbered (12" or "normal" movement)
Gear +2 treasure units = Light Load (9")
Gear +3 treasure units = Heavy Load (6" or half movement)
Gear +6 treasure units = Staggering Load (3" or quarter-movement)
For every point of Strength over 12, add +1 to treasure units that can be carried. A character can dump their normal gear (though still retaining armor and maybe a weapon or two) to carry one extra treasure unit.
Characters can combine their treasure allowance to carry really heavy items, like Jeff's treasure chests. Just to sum up these, here's how they measure out in my game:
Small coffer/strong box = small sack (1 treasure unit), though more durable
Medium chest = 10 treasure units. Such a container can be carried by two individuals working together, or by one (fairly strong) individual.
Large chest = 20 treasure units. These are really a four-man job (like carrying something the size of a coffin).
Note that since treasure units can be converted to weight (in 20# increments) it's easy to figure how hard it is to carry, say, a fallen comrade or other bulky, non-standard item.
Last note (since this is running long again): lest you think your iron-thewed, 1st level barbarian is going to come out of the dungeon with two large sacks and a backpack full of treasure and advance to 4th level, keep in mind the following limitations:
Even so, a dragon hoard (average treasure valued at 50,000gp in standard B/X), could be worth a staggering 39-40 treasure units. That's a big haul to divide amongst such a bold group of adventurers.
All right...that really is enough for now.
[oh, wait - one more thing! some folks might be wondering how to figure XP for defeating monsters if you're measuring advancement in "treasure units" recovered instead of individual points? Short answer: you don't. I've decided XP will only be gained from treasure recovery. More on this later!]
Just to pick up where we left off, we had our three containers: the small sack, the backpack, and the large sack (yes, yes...we'll get to Jeff's treasure chests, too. Just not yet). In B/X terms they hold 200 coins, 400 coins, and 600 coins respectively. Since, in B/X:
10 coins of weight = 1 pound
we can happily convert these containers to units of "poundage:" 20 pounds for the small sack, 40 pounds for the backpack, and 60 pounds for the large sack.
It might be helpful to imagine exactly what these look like. A small sack is something that can be carried in one-hand, even by a spindly adventurer (when I was a fairly scrawny teenager working a summer gig at Kentucky Fried Chicken, I was routinely asked to carry 20# sacks of flour under each arm). The space age, ultra-light backpacks you find at REI these days have capacities up to 80 liters or so (180 pounds of water weight)...but they can measure liters because your back is likely to give out long before you put enough "weight" in to burst its frame and fabric. The primitive pack of D&D was probably based on something that looked like my father's (circa 1950's) wood frame and cloth, Boy Scout pack. Small, clunky, and painful compared to the ergonomic camping gear of the last 20-30 years. It's designed to be worn on the back (hence the name).
The 60# large sack (leather? burlap?) is designed to be carried over the shoulder, probably using two-hands. I picture something like this (or probably half-again as big):
 |
| Getting lighter every minute. |
20# of treasure = 1 treasure unit
So, a small sack holds one treasure unit, the backpack holds two, and the large sack holds three.
What exactly IS a treasure unit (besides its weight)? What's it's value? Well, I give it the same value as a small sack full of gold coins. No, not 200 gold coins...I've really gotten over the 10 coins to the pound thing (this happens when you do a bunch of research into silver marks and gold dihrams and other ancient currencies). No, I mean a sack of coins of the basic currency (whatever that is for your game world)...remember its all relative. For my purposes, I think Alexis's 7g Roman-era coins are perfectly reasonable. At 64 coins to the pound, that means one small sack (i.e. one "treasure unit") consists of 1280 coins. And if each of these "gold pieces" is worth 1 x.p. to your intrepid treasure-seeking adventurer, than you can say:
1 treasure unit = 1280 XP
"But JB," you cry, "This is madness! Are you saying a sack of gold is equal to a sack of silver is equal to a sack of gemstones?" Yes...with caveats. But let me come back to that in a moment. You're interrupting my train of thought!
The advancement scheme for your normal fighter class looks a bit like this:
Level 2: 2000 XP needed
Level 3: 4000 XP needed
Level 4: 8000 XP needed
Level 5: 16,000 XP needed
Level 6: 32,000 XP needed
Level 7: 64,000 XP needed
If we divide that up by 1280 XP we can find the number of treasure units needed to advance the character...oh, and here I'll be rounding UP when we have remainders (no fractions of treasure units!):
Level 2: 2 treasure units needed
Level 3: 4 treasure units needed
Level 4: 7 treasure units needed
Level 5: 13 treasure units needed
Level 6: 25 treasure units needed
Level 7: 50 treasure units needed
Level 8: 100 treasure units needed (if you double 64K, you get 128K, yeah? Look how easy that is!)
My game only goes up to 8th level because there aren't any domains being awarded to "name level" characters in my game...however, if you wanted to extrapolate, you could just add an extra 50 units per level after eight.
100 treasure units...2000 pounds (1 ton) of treasure. It can take you a long time to move that much wealth...especially if you multiply it by the number of characters in the adventuring party. Pulling that much treasure out of the ground can give you a nice, long campaign with plenty of adventure. And if you do "earn your ton," I can't see how your character could find herself wanting to do anything but retire and enjoy the fabulous life of luxury she's earned for herself and her descendants.
Now, back to your question: isn't some treasure "worth more" than others? Sure...but we're talking about convertible, spendable wealth. A bag of jewels will go farther (with a lot less effort) than one big jewel. And who's to say small or fragile items aren't likely to get misplaced, broken, and pilfered between their dungeon resting place and "wherever-it-is" that you want to take your items to convert it. And who's to say you'll get "fair market value" even should your cartage go off without a hitch?
Plus, consider this: adventurers in a dirty, dimly lit, and hazardous subterranean environment...fearful of being beset by monstrous foes at any moment...aren't going to get terribly caught up in sorting the dross from the treasure hoard. I picture much more of a "dump-your-rations-and-rake-in-as-much-as-your-pack-will-carry" approach to treasure gathering, not a careful sifting for platinum coins among the silver. Call the treasure unit an "average" of what is found and carted off.
HOWEVER: I would allow for some treasure units being more or less valuable. Just not on the scale of your usual D&D campaign; simply a "double value" treasure unit, or a "half value" treasure unit. I would also allow the occasional worn piece of jewelry or pocketed gemstone to be considered a half treasure unit (or even a "full" treasure unit for an extremely rare and valuable piece...think the Eye of the Serpent in the film Conan). BUT as a basic rule, if it's not portable, it ain't spendable.
 |
| Worth a full treasure unit...though hard to split up. |
Hey, it's what the conquistadors did.
Now as for how much one can carry...well that brings us back to the encumbrance question. In Holmes Basic, a character is considered "heavily loaded" (with a halved movement rate) when carrying 60# of treasure in addition to their normal adventuring equipment (including armor). AD&D is more specific (and granular) giving a reduced movement for up to 70# (all equipment and treasure) or halved movement at 105# (again, for everything). However, AD&D gives a bonus for high strength (up to +75# for 18, the highest possible for non-fighter characters).
Moldvay Basic is a bit more generous and more granular going up to 160# for everyone (high strength is not considered). However, anything over 80# of combined treasure and equipment QUARTERS movement, effectively slowing the character to a crawl...maybe a stagger.
All three systems give a range of unencumbered movement of 30# to 40# (30# being for Holmes Basic which doesn't count the PC's "standard gear"...30# of treasure weight in other words). Personally, I like the Holmes bit about PCs being used to their own adventuring gear and only worrying about treasure...however, I also like Gygaxian "strong backs carry more treasure" thing. As such, here's how I factor encumbrance:
Normal gear +1 treasure unit = Unencumbered (12" or "normal" movement)
Gear +2 treasure units = Light Load (9")
Gear +3 treasure units = Heavy Load (6" or half movement)
Gear +6 treasure units = Staggering Load (3" or quarter-movement)
For every point of Strength over 12, add +1 to treasure units that can be carried. A character can dump their normal gear (though still retaining armor and maybe a weapon or two) to carry one extra treasure unit.
Characters can combine their treasure allowance to carry really heavy items, like Jeff's treasure chests. Just to sum up these, here's how they measure out in my game:
Small coffer/strong box = small sack (1 treasure unit), though more durable
Medium chest = 10 treasure units. Such a container can be carried by two individuals working together, or by one (fairly strong) individual.
Large chest = 20 treasure units. These are really a four-man job (like carrying something the size of a coffin).
Note that since treasure units can be converted to weight (in 20# increments) it's easy to figure how hard it is to carry, say, a fallen comrade or other bulky, non-standard item.
Last note (since this is running long again): lest you think your iron-thewed, 1st level barbarian is going to come out of the dungeon with two large sacks and a backpack full of treasure and advance to 4th level, keep in mind the following limitations:
- There's still a limit to how much treasure is found at an adventure site (as determined by the DM).
- Treasure units found must still be divided between the characters (and if a bag of treasure is divided too far between henchmen, there may not be enough for advancement).
- Characters are still limited to a maximum level gain of one per adventure (standard B/X rule) regardless of how much treasure is brought out at once.
Even so, a dragon hoard (average treasure valued at 50,000gp in standard B/X), could be worth a staggering 39-40 treasure units. That's a big haul to divide amongst such a bold group of adventurers.
All right...that really is enough for now.
[oh, wait - one more thing! some folks might be wondering how to figure XP for defeating monsters if you're measuring advancement in "treasure units" recovered instead of individual points? Short answer: you don't. I've decided XP will only be gained from treasure recovery. More on this later!]
Counting Coins (Part 1)
I've been wanting to write this post since Friday. Unfortunately, I figured that I should probably write a couple-three other posts first in order to "set the stage" for my ideas. But, well, spending the last two days solid on taxes (just got 'em e-filed at 1am this morning, thank you very much) has pushed back all my posting...and anyway, now I've got money on the brain.
[speaking of push-backed posts: still have returned to the Crowns of Blood series and Game of Thrones just started up again...at least in South America. Haven't had a chance to watch it yet...maybe later today...but I'm sure it'll inspire me to get back to my hack of Pendragon]
One of the things I'm doing these days with my designs is to abstract equipment/items, cutting out that particular "hard aspect" of resource management. This is something that's been evolving for me over the last several years. It started a while back with my B/X play when I created basic equipment lists for each class based on a player's 3D6 roll for "starting gold" (I was kind of tired of low-income characters blowing their wad on plate mail and having nothing left over for standard adventuring equipment). A large part of this was in aid of speeding the chargen process: hand the player a card, cross-reference the number rolled and then note your starting possessions. It worked fairly well.
Later, when working up my DMI (card-based) game system, I was even more abstract...the cards dealt to players determined their "important characteristics" (I think I use a different term in the rules, but I don't want to look it up right now), and diamonds dealt to the character's hand represented any kind of important "resources," including special equipment. It was very non-specific, but (without going into too much detail), say you were playing my DMI "supers" game: a character like the Hulk would probably have no diamonds dealt to him (because the Hulk doesn't use equipment), whereas a Batman-type guy would have lots of diamonds to represent the shtick he pulls out of his bat-belt or his various vehicles and Bat Cave and whatnot. The "items" the diamonds represent might change from session to session (just as the specific gear ol' Batman uses changes from adventure to adventure) but the basis of his powers (lots of goodies/gadgets) doesn't change. A Reed Richards type might have a single (big) diamond in his hand to represent the one Earth-shaking invention Mr. Fantastic pulls out of his stretchy brain every few comics.
ANYway...abstract. But not very Old School.
Cry Dark Future...my B/X-based "Shadowrun" style game (which has since morphed into something much more post-apocalyptic) was a return to B/X gear-counting sensibilities. You had "New Dollars" (or whatever) to spend instead of gold, and you were picking up similar NDs from adventures instead of D&D-type treasure...such ca$h being used to provide all the upgrades to your adventurer that you'd expect in an Old School-type game (instead of magic items you're upgrading your automatic weapons and cybernetic-implants, etc. Spell research remains largely the same). Very resource-based in the traditional sense.
However, a funny thing happened during play-testing: I observed (and other groups, too) that players weren't really interested in "bullet-counting." Or worrying about how many hours of juice was in a particular piece of gear. The resource management of individual equipment items was a real secondary concern (if that!) to the slam-bang action of blazing away in cinematic fashion. As opposed to aiding the immersion, forcing players to track every nuanced resource was breaking their immersive process. Asking a sniper character's player what type of ammunition he was going to use for a long shot, he replied "the best one." The granularity of gear wasn't as important to the action at hand. And away, who am I to say how much a bionic limb costs in a futuristic economy?
Plus chargen for a game like CDF takes a shit-long time if players are buying their own gear...there's simply too much, compared to the short lists of D&D.
So when I started revising CDF I figured a way to abstract gear selection. CDF was reworked as a class-based system (with classes determining the character's available suite of cybernetic gear), and then a choice of equipment based on the character's Intelligence (INT) score, such picks being limited when it comes to "expensive" selections from the gear list.
Because no matter how rich characters get, the kind of "missions" they go on in CDF only allows them to carry so much gear anyway. And tying that gear to INT helps to model a lot of real world "inconveniences" in an abstract fashion. Gear that a person forgot to bring (even though he meant to and even laid it out on the table the night before). Gear that's batteries died, or that suffered a break in transport to the drop site. Gear that hasn't been well-maintained due to laziness or ineptitude. Gear that's been misplaced or stolen or sold for food between adventures. Gear that gets brought along but that the character forgets he has in his pocket/pack. Gear that just mysteriously breaks or stops working because you're living in a post-apocalyptic region where resources are scarce to fix or repair equipment...you've got to prioritize what's important. INT determines the absolute number of "useful" pieces of equipment the character has for a particular session...and yes, the number is modified by the character's level of experience (because experienced adventurers are more prepared...duh).
[characters automatically start with a couple weapons regardless of INT, of course, because those are your livelihood and necessary survival tools and I know you're maintaining those without me having to ask]
The most recent stab at a "new" fantasy heartbreaker (which is currently being revised...see last post) uses a similar "useful item" system, except that it's based on an ability score called Wit (because there are seriously learned wizard-types who are a little too addled/befuddled to remember to pack the tinderbox). Now this was fine when my FHB was about heroic heroes doing heroic things and not worrying about finding treasure (they had a much "grander quest" to accomplish). But with the recent revisions...to one of conquest and colonization in a Brave New World...there's a need to account for coin counting and the collection of goodies. After all, in a fantasy adventure game based on treasure hunting, counting treasure is the way we count points.
"JB, you're losing me," says one of my readers. "I can see simplifying gear selection (maybe), but why does that create any issue with acquiring treasure (and counting it) in the 'normal' fashion? You find 2000 shiny gold doubloons, and you get 2000 XP...no big deal, right?" Um, sure, except there's the little part about encumbrance to consider, another thing I intend to abstract.
[see, this is why I needed to log earlier topics BEFORE starting this one]
While I haven't (yet) written about it, I had all but decided to axe STRENGTH as an ability score from the list of abilities describing characters. The multiple reasons will be dealt with in soon-to-be-forthcoming post. But then I got hipped to this post from GusL (remember me talking about him?) on using a super-simple abstract method of counting encumbrance which, while not perfect, is the perfect complement to my abstract gear-selection-process. Because while "what you remembered to bring along" might be set by the limits of your character's Wit, what you find (and pick up) along the way is not.
But THAT is actually putting the cart before the horse. I've been thinking a lot about treasure lately (being in the presence of a lot of real world treasure does that), and then I stumbled across this year-old post from Alexis...
[I can almost hear him yelling at me to leave him the fuck out of my abstract B.S. schemes. Sorry, pal]
...and its precursor prompt post from John Arendt (just for reference; not nearly as pertinent). It's really not a new gripe...it's something I was blogging about waaaay back in 2010. While Alexis's post points to a different issue (how much treasure monsters have in relation to each other), he rightly points out that the system is fundamentally arbitrary (numbers of value...both for character advancement and for cost of in-world goods...is largely subjective). Combined with this earlier post of his...and, yeah, throw in this excellent one, too, on gemstones...and you start to get an idea of where my brain is headed: abstract treasure accounting.
[just BTW, Alexis's posts on gems...see here and here...went a long way towards explaining my befuddlement at the rinky-dinkness of medieval jewelry. I've been to a lot of museums over in Europe...in Bavaria, Prague, Spain, Italy, France...and seen a lot of crowns and tiaras and bracelets and whatnot that looked like so much battered costume jewelry. Granted, many pieces were hundreds of years old, the precious metal bent and dinged, but what really disappointed me were the gemstones set in the pieces. They didn't LOOK like gems (at least, to my UNeducated historical mind) but rather like polished, shiny stones. They were not cut, you see, and were probably plenty valuable for their luster and color and rarity. I was expecting cut gems (like something from, oh say, an illustration in one of my gaming books) rather than colorful smooth circles of what could have been "pretty glass." The lighting in the museums probably didn't help much]
Part of this also has to do with my research into the history of South America's conquest (much of what might have been deemed "treasure hunting" as well). The thing is this: not only is the value of treasure arbitrary and fully modifiable in terms of it's game worth (i.e. what amount of treasure constitutes enough XP to "level up"), but it is of relative value in the game world as well. It doesn't matter that a gemstone is "worth 500 g.p." if my character has no way to determine, nor collect the value. So what if I find a platinum and ruby-studed crown worth 50,000 gold...who will be willing (and able!) to buy such a thing? It's doubtful the local "gem-changer" has 2.5 tons (the D&D weight of 50K coins) of gold sitting in his back room, waiting for such a piece to come along.
It's been an acceptable statement for years that adventurers would much prefer precious items like gems and jewelry over sacks of coins. But sacks of coins are readily spent, easily converted to real goods, easy to divide amongst companions. There's no need to find reliable (competent and honest) appraisers or fences for the loot. There's no need to know kings who MIGHT have access to stacks of coins and be interested in acquiring such items (the wealth of the nobility is mainly tied to their land...and who's to say an unscrupulous lord wouldn't consider treasure found within his domain to be his "by right" and simply take it?). If I want to buy a horse, I can probably get one for a ruby...but I might not get exact change in the bargain.
[and when the local tax man comes a-calling, what are you going to pay him with if all you picked up was a fancy silver bracelet? Your magic boots?]
Treasure is treasure is treasure. Some is more valuable, some is less, but in a primitive society that doesn't have, say, a global economy like ours with auction houses (on-line and off) and plenty of extremely wealthy folks keeping an eye out for desirable stuff...well, you may just be better off with a sack of silver or gold. At least you won't be much worse off than the guy with a sack of "the good stuff."
SO...now we come back to encumbrance. We have three basic containers in D&D, with (per B/X) an extremely easy measure of how much each holds:
Small sack: 20 pounds of treasure
Backpack: 40 pounds of treasure
Large sack: 60 pounds of treasure
Nice easy numbers, which will be the basis for a whole new method of treasure accounting, encumbrance, and (drum roll, please) experience point acquisition and advancement.
All of which will be laid out in Part 2 (since this post is getting long).
[speaking of push-backed posts: still have returned to the Crowns of Blood series and Game of Thrones just started up again...at least in South America. Haven't had a chance to watch it yet...maybe later today...but I'm sure it'll inspire me to get back to my hack of Pendragon]
One of the things I'm doing these days with my designs is to abstract equipment/items, cutting out that particular "hard aspect" of resource management. This is something that's been evolving for me over the last several years. It started a while back with my B/X play when I created basic equipment lists for each class based on a player's 3D6 roll for "starting gold" (I was kind of tired of low-income characters blowing their wad on plate mail and having nothing left over for standard adventuring equipment). A large part of this was in aid of speeding the chargen process: hand the player a card, cross-reference the number rolled and then note your starting possessions. It worked fairly well.
Later, when working up my DMI (card-based) game system, I was even more abstract...the cards dealt to players determined their "important characteristics" (I think I use a different term in the rules, but I don't want to look it up right now), and diamonds dealt to the character's hand represented any kind of important "resources," including special equipment. It was very non-specific, but (without going into too much detail), say you were playing my DMI "supers" game: a character like the Hulk would probably have no diamonds dealt to him (because the Hulk doesn't use equipment), whereas a Batman-type guy would have lots of diamonds to represent the shtick he pulls out of his bat-belt or his various vehicles and Bat Cave and whatnot. The "items" the diamonds represent might change from session to session (just as the specific gear ol' Batman uses changes from adventure to adventure) but the basis of his powers (lots of goodies/gadgets) doesn't change. A Reed Richards type might have a single (big) diamond in his hand to represent the one Earth-shaking invention Mr. Fantastic pulls out of his stretchy brain every few comics.
ANYway...abstract. But not very Old School.
Cry Dark Future...my B/X-based "Shadowrun" style game (which has since morphed into something much more post-apocalyptic) was a return to B/X gear-counting sensibilities. You had "New Dollars" (or whatever) to spend instead of gold, and you were picking up similar NDs from adventures instead of D&D-type treasure...such ca$h being used to provide all the upgrades to your adventurer that you'd expect in an Old School-type game (instead of magic items you're upgrading your automatic weapons and cybernetic-implants, etc. Spell research remains largely the same). Very resource-based in the traditional sense.
However, a funny thing happened during play-testing: I observed (and other groups, too) that players weren't really interested in "bullet-counting." Or worrying about how many hours of juice was in a particular piece of gear. The resource management of individual equipment items was a real secondary concern (if that!) to the slam-bang action of blazing away in cinematic fashion. As opposed to aiding the immersion, forcing players to track every nuanced resource was breaking their immersive process. Asking a sniper character's player what type of ammunition he was going to use for a long shot, he replied "the best one." The granularity of gear wasn't as important to the action at hand. And away, who am I to say how much a bionic limb costs in a futuristic economy?
Plus chargen for a game like CDF takes a shit-long time if players are buying their own gear...there's simply too much, compared to the short lists of D&D.
So when I started revising CDF I figured a way to abstract gear selection. CDF was reworked as a class-based system (with classes determining the character's available suite of cybernetic gear), and then a choice of equipment based on the character's Intelligence (INT) score, such picks being limited when it comes to "expensive" selections from the gear list.
Because no matter how rich characters get, the kind of "missions" they go on in CDF only allows them to carry so much gear anyway. And tying that gear to INT helps to model a lot of real world "inconveniences" in an abstract fashion. Gear that a person forgot to bring (even though he meant to and even laid it out on the table the night before). Gear that's batteries died, or that suffered a break in transport to the drop site. Gear that hasn't been well-maintained due to laziness or ineptitude. Gear that's been misplaced or stolen or sold for food between adventures. Gear that gets brought along but that the character forgets he has in his pocket/pack. Gear that just mysteriously breaks or stops working because you're living in a post-apocalyptic region where resources are scarce to fix or repair equipment...you've got to prioritize what's important. INT determines the absolute number of "useful" pieces of equipment the character has for a particular session...and yes, the number is modified by the character's level of experience (because experienced adventurers are more prepared...duh).
[characters automatically start with a couple weapons regardless of INT, of course, because those are your livelihood and necessary survival tools and I know you're maintaining those without me having to ask]
The most recent stab at a "new" fantasy heartbreaker (which is currently being revised...see last post) uses a similar "useful item" system, except that it's based on an ability score called Wit (because there are seriously learned wizard-types who are a little too addled/befuddled to remember to pack the tinderbox). Now this was fine when my FHB was about heroic heroes doing heroic things and not worrying about finding treasure (they had a much "grander quest" to accomplish). But with the recent revisions...to one of conquest and colonization in a Brave New World...there's a need to account for coin counting and the collection of goodies. After all, in a fantasy adventure game based on treasure hunting, counting treasure is the way we count points.
"JB, you're losing me," says one of my readers. "I can see simplifying gear selection (maybe), but why does that create any issue with acquiring treasure (and counting it) in the 'normal' fashion? You find 2000 shiny gold doubloons, and you get 2000 XP...no big deal, right?" Um, sure, except there's the little part about encumbrance to consider, another thing I intend to abstract.
[see, this is why I needed to log earlier topics BEFORE starting this one]
While I haven't (yet) written about it, I had all but decided to axe STRENGTH as an ability score from the list of abilities describing characters. The multiple reasons will be dealt with in soon-to-be-forthcoming post. But then I got hipped to this post from GusL (remember me talking about him?) on using a super-simple abstract method of counting encumbrance which, while not perfect, is the perfect complement to my abstract gear-selection-process. Because while "what you remembered to bring along" might be set by the limits of your character's Wit, what you find (and pick up) along the way is not.
But THAT is actually putting the cart before the horse. I've been thinking a lot about treasure lately (being in the presence of a lot of real world treasure does that), and then I stumbled across this year-old post from Alexis...
[I can almost hear him yelling at me to leave him the fuck out of my abstract B.S. schemes. Sorry, pal]
...and its precursor prompt post from John Arendt (just for reference; not nearly as pertinent). It's really not a new gripe...it's something I was blogging about waaaay back in 2010. While Alexis's post points to a different issue (how much treasure monsters have in relation to each other), he rightly points out that the system is fundamentally arbitrary (numbers of value...both for character advancement and for cost of in-world goods...is largely subjective). Combined with this earlier post of his...and, yeah, throw in this excellent one, too, on gemstones...and you start to get an idea of where my brain is headed: abstract treasure accounting.
 |
| This one's a fancy piece. |
Part of this also has to do with my research into the history of South America's conquest (much of what might have been deemed "treasure hunting" as well). The thing is this: not only is the value of treasure arbitrary and fully modifiable in terms of it's game worth (i.e. what amount of treasure constitutes enough XP to "level up"), but it is of relative value in the game world as well. It doesn't matter that a gemstone is "worth 500 g.p." if my character has no way to determine, nor collect the value. So what if I find a platinum and ruby-studed crown worth 50,000 gold...who will be willing (and able!) to buy such a thing? It's doubtful the local "gem-changer" has 2.5 tons (the D&D weight of 50K coins) of gold sitting in his back room, waiting for such a piece to come along.
It's been an acceptable statement for years that adventurers would much prefer precious items like gems and jewelry over sacks of coins. But sacks of coins are readily spent, easily converted to real goods, easy to divide amongst companions. There's no need to find reliable (competent and honest) appraisers or fences for the loot. There's no need to know kings who MIGHT have access to stacks of coins and be interested in acquiring such items (the wealth of the nobility is mainly tied to their land...and who's to say an unscrupulous lord wouldn't consider treasure found within his domain to be his "by right" and simply take it?). If I want to buy a horse, I can probably get one for a ruby...but I might not get exact change in the bargain.
[and when the local tax man comes a-calling, what are you going to pay him with if all you picked up was a fancy silver bracelet? Your magic boots?]
Treasure is treasure is treasure. Some is more valuable, some is less, but in a primitive society that doesn't have, say, a global economy like ours with auction houses (on-line and off) and plenty of extremely wealthy folks keeping an eye out for desirable stuff...well, you may just be better off with a sack of silver or gold. At least you won't be much worse off than the guy with a sack of "the good stuff."
SO...now we come back to encumbrance. We have three basic containers in D&D, with (per B/X) an extremely easy measure of how much each holds:
Small sack: 20 pounds of treasure
Backpack: 40 pounds of treasure
Large sack: 60 pounds of treasure
Nice easy numbers, which will be the basis for a whole new method of treasure accounting, encumbrance, and (drum roll, please) experience point acquisition and advancement.
All of which will be laid out in Part 2 (since this post is getting long).
Friday, April 10, 2015
15 Minutes to Blog
It is 5:46pm my time. In (roughly) fifteen minutes, hell will more or less break lose in my home as one-half the help leaves and I am left managing my small children with one less person and no mother coming home tonight. "Cry me a river," says the single parents living in the USA that can't afford the kind of childcare that small money buys in Paraguay. I know that. I'm not saying I'm suffering terribly...just that what is a "non-usual" situation for me and my family creates (some) discomfort. And that my writing time is limited.
(11 minutes to go)
Probably people think I've been futzing around the last so-many odd hours since my last post. Or doing taxes. Or have run out of inspiration after so many thousands of words pumped out in recent days. Nope...that's not it. Well, maybe the "futzing around" part...but that's what I might (deprecatingly) call my "research." I've just been slogging through the internet you know. Today spent several hours intensely researching the conquest ("colonization" if you want to use the Wikipedia term) of South America. The Pizarro's were assholes (as were the Portuguese), and they took up entirely too much of my time...I really don't care much about what's west of Argentina or north of the Brazil's southern border.
Mostly I've been spending time catching up on Paraguayan history (which I haven't done for a few months since first coming down here). It's depressing as shit.
(7 minutes)
Other than real world history, I've been reading blogs, blogs, blogs. A lot of Tao. A lot of Hill Cantons. A few others. Old Dragon magazine articles by Ed Greenwood (as suggested by HC), and MAR Barker essays (and commentary on same in other blogs). Because I'm doing fucking-A world building.
Which I hate and which is daunting and which I'd like to do right for a change.
Because the FHB I was working on waaaay back in the September-November months (you can check previous blog posts labeled under Moon) is getting an overhaul. Because (and I'll explain this in a future post) I doubt it could be taken quite as seriously as I had originally intended.
Plus I want to do something that makes use of my time down here. The stupid environment in which I live. This fucking country with its heat and ants and bullshit "social values."
And treasure finding. This isn't a land of heroes. My FHB was going to be a fairytale, "heroic" fantasy adventure game. Nah. People want to dig coin out of ancient temples in jungles. Let's go with that.
(two minutes over)
More later. People are (nicely) sticking around as a I type this up. There will be posts in the near future on the following:
The Magnificent Seven
The Big Six
Skill Trees
Counting Coins
And maybe some stuff about world building in South America. Maybe not till next week...but then again, maybe tonight (I've been having serious bouts of insomnia lately).
More later.
(four minutes over)
(11 minutes to go)
Probably people think I've been futzing around the last so-many odd hours since my last post. Or doing taxes. Or have run out of inspiration after so many thousands of words pumped out in recent days. Nope...that's not it. Well, maybe the "futzing around" part...but that's what I might (deprecatingly) call my "research." I've just been slogging through the internet you know. Today spent several hours intensely researching the conquest ("colonization" if you want to use the Wikipedia term) of South America. The Pizarro's were assholes (as were the Portuguese), and they took up entirely too much of my time...I really don't care much about what's west of Argentina or north of the Brazil's southern border.
Mostly I've been spending time catching up on Paraguayan history (which I haven't done for a few months since first coming down here). It's depressing as shit.
(7 minutes)
Other than real world history, I've been reading blogs, blogs, blogs. A lot of Tao. A lot of Hill Cantons. A few others. Old Dragon magazine articles by Ed Greenwood (as suggested by HC), and MAR Barker essays (and commentary on same in other blogs). Because I'm doing fucking-A world building.
Which I hate and which is daunting and which I'd like to do right for a change.
Because the FHB I was working on waaaay back in the September-November months (you can check previous blog posts labeled under Moon) is getting an overhaul. Because (and I'll explain this in a future post) I doubt it could be taken quite as seriously as I had originally intended.
Plus I want to do something that makes use of my time down here. The stupid environment in which I live. This fucking country with its heat and ants and bullshit "social values."
And treasure finding. This isn't a land of heroes. My FHB was going to be a fairytale, "heroic" fantasy adventure game. Nah. People want to dig coin out of ancient temples in jungles. Let's go with that.
(two minutes over)
More later. People are (nicely) sticking around as a I type this up. There will be posts in the near future on the following:
The Magnificent Seven
The Big Six
Skill Trees
Counting Coins
And maybe some stuff about world building in South America. Maybe not till next week...but then again, maybe tonight (I've been having serious bouts of insomnia lately).
More later.
(four minutes over)
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Flashpoint
I was up very late last night as my wife was prepping for a three-day business trip (she'll be back late Saturday...I'm on single parent duty till then) and, while flipping channels, came across an animated "Justice League" film showing on late night HBO.
Seeing as how my son is a fan (we watch a lot of old Super Friends reruns that I downloaded on the ol' iTunes), I watched a bit to see what the latest version of the old DC heroes looks like.
Wow.
Talk about brutality! The plot was something about the Flash having created an alternate reality by traveling through time and changing the past, whereby he created a world embroiled in an apocalyptic war being fought between the Atlanteans and Amazonians with all the normal supers ramped up to "extra special anti-hero" status and just brutal, brutal violence as the titans beat the living hell out of each other. It was nuts...a "What If" style film that seems to have been put together by folks who were thinking 'how can we get the Justice League members to fight each other? What would that look like?'
It was VERY age inappropriate for my child.
Personally, I thought it was quite interesting and clever, and superheroes (especially ulta-powerful ones like the JL) translate well to the animated medium. So I enjoyed it...seeing things like a murderous, pistol-packing Batman and a child-slaying Wonder Woman are ridiculous (of course), but it's all just goofy (mature audience) fun in a "divergent dimension" plot. Like enjoying the evil Star Trek characters in their Mirror-Mirror episode. I especially liked Superman's accidental incineration of folks with his uncontrollable eye beams. And death, death everywhere.
Oh, wait...here it is: Justice League: the Flashpoint Paradox. A straight-to-video film it would appear (sorry...the name of the film was in Spanish so it took me a while to figure out what the heck I'd been watching). Interesting. If I'd had more DC like that as a kid, I'd probably have picked the JL over the Avengers (you can't inflict that kind of suffering in the Marvel Superheroes RPG). But even as an adult it was a surprising little diversion.
Just one I won't be showing Diego anytime soon.
Seeing as how my son is a fan (we watch a lot of old Super Friends reruns that I downloaded on the ol' iTunes), I watched a bit to see what the latest version of the old DC heroes looks like.
Wow.
Talk about brutality! The plot was something about the Flash having created an alternate reality by traveling through time and changing the past, whereby he created a world embroiled in an apocalyptic war being fought between the Atlanteans and Amazonians with all the normal supers ramped up to "extra special anti-hero" status and just brutal, brutal violence as the titans beat the living hell out of each other. It was nuts...a "What If" style film that seems to have been put together by folks who were thinking 'how can we get the Justice League members to fight each other? What would that look like?'
It was VERY age inappropriate for my child.
Personally, I thought it was quite interesting and clever, and superheroes (especially ulta-powerful ones like the JL) translate well to the animated medium. So I enjoyed it...seeing things like a murderous, pistol-packing Batman and a child-slaying Wonder Woman are ridiculous (of course), but it's all just goofy (mature audience) fun in a "divergent dimension" plot. Like enjoying the evil Star Trek characters in their Mirror-Mirror episode. I especially liked Superman's accidental incineration of folks with his uncontrollable eye beams. And death, death everywhere.
Oh, wait...here it is: Justice League: the Flashpoint Paradox. A straight-to-video film it would appear (sorry...the name of the film was in Spanish so it took me a while to figure out what the heck I'd been watching). Interesting. If I'd had more DC like that as a kid, I'd probably have picked the JL over the Avengers (you can't inflict that kind of suffering in the Marvel Superheroes RPG). But even as an adult it was a surprising little diversion.
Just one I won't be showing Diego anytime soon.
 |
| Whole Lotta' Bloodletting |
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Trying For Dwarves-Sake
I like dwarves. I hate dwarves. I want dwarves in my game. I want all fantasy dwarves I've seen in the last 25 years to burn in their campaign setting's lowest ring of hell.
What exactly is going on here?
When it comes to fantasy mythology there are dwarves and then there are dwarves. I'm inclined to draw a historical delineation across whatever year it was that J.R.R. Tolkien published his Lord of the Rings trilogy. After The Hobbit. Maybe even after The Fellowship of the Ring. Gimli the dwarf, while most assuredly the main culprit responsible for the dwarves downfall from fanciful fairy tale creature to hardened badass warrior wasn't all that bad prior to the Battle of the Hornburg ("Helm's Deep") where his portrayal goes from dwarf companion to "orc-slaying-axe-machine." Where he shows that a dwarf is some kind of melee titan of destruction.
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh,
Okay, just please stop for a second. Lots of folks hate on Tolkien's "vanilla-flavored fantasy" and its influence on D&D. People have been trying to re-skin D&D dwarves in all sorts of ways for years. Gygax's dwarves (see his Gord fiction) have been reviled in some circles, but at least they're deemed to be somewhat different. As an archetype, the D&D dwarf usually ends up looking something like the dwarves in DragonLance...well, they did prior to 3rd edition and the advent of their ascendance as fighters par excellence.
Let's set aside the game for a moment. As a a child, I loved fairy tales. As an adult, I still do...though I'm hard-pressed to find the same sort of magical worlds I did when I was younger (I don't know if this is because of my adult outlook, the lack of decent fairy tale literature at my disposal, or some combination of the two). Fairy tale dwarves...whether they're little miners found in Snow White, sinister wish-granting types like Rumpelstiltskin, or Unseelie faerie-folk...are cool. Even if I set aside my normal shtick of dwarves as inhuman aliens, giving them human-ish traits and personalities (for the purpose of taking up the role of "adventurer"), I like the idea of these little guys with beards that possess their own brand of "earthy" magic. Certainly, all fairy tale dwarves seem to have a "thing" for gold (a relationship with it and ability to produce it, if not the outright avarice depicted in many tales). And "treasure-seeking" has always been the heartbeat the propelled adventurers into the wonder and mysteries of the fantasy RPG.
Well, originally, anyway.
Thorin Oakenshield of Tolkien's The Hobbit is one such adventurer. Yes, he's got human traits...a little arrogance (a sense of self-importance), desires for wealth and revenge, a loyalty to his people and kin, etc. But he's still just a little dwarf. Not a great hero nor a great warrior, though an experienced one. He manages to bash a troll in the face with a log, but he doesn't go armed until after finding an elven sword (and later, after putting on the still-remaing armor of his people lying in Erebor). He has to be told by Gandalf to turn, draw sword, and do battle with the goblins during the dwarves' flight below the Misty Mountains, and it is only the treasure-inspired avarice (and madness) of the dragon hoard that compels him to gird for war against the humans and elves that lay siege to his mountain.
And this is an experienced dwarf...one that fought against the goblins of Moria. The rest of the dwarves in his company are far less fight-worthy, simply fleeing from one opponent after another (as they can), until cornered and compelled to make a stand. These are not warriors. They are not useless, mind you, and they show great courage in facing the perils and travails of their venture (not to mention skill and cunning at times and an ability to loyally stick together even through hardship that might drive them apart). But warriors-born? No.
And this is reflected in the original version of D&D. Men & Magic (volume 1 of the little brown books) allows characters to play dwarves who advance as fighting men with a maximum level of six. 6th level ain't much of a step up from hobbits (er...halflings) or elves, both of whom are limited to 4th level fighting ability. A 4th level fighter uses the exact same save tables as a 6th level fighter; if using the variant combat system presented in OD&D (as opposed to the Chainmail combat system), they have the exact same attack chance (which, incidentally, is the same as a 4th-6th level fighter in B/X). The only advantage a dwarf receives from their two extra levels is an extra 2D6 worth of HPs (plus bonuses if the dwarf has a high CON score). This is nothing compared to the human warriors who can reach the breakpoint of 7th level with its +3 bonus to attacks, +2 to all saves (except dragon breath, which is +3), and an extra D6+1 hit points. And, of course, human fighters have no restriction on levels and can reach those even loftier breakpoints at 10th, 13th, and 16th levels.
Greyhawk (Supplement I) extended dwarves abilities considerably by allowing them to advance to 7th and 8th levels (with a STR score of 17 or 18), as well as allowing dwarves to roll D8s for hit dice. However, the latter isn't that fantastic a bonus...ALL fighting men (including Hobbits and Elves) receive D8s for hit dice in Greyhawk; there was no cursory restriction placed on them for their species as occurred in the later Basic volumes. In many ways, I see Greyhawk as a response to the (perhaps unforeseen) popularity of the game...people were playing a lot of D&D and working their characters characters into the stratosphere, level-wise. These level extensions (along with the unlimited leveling of the Greyhawk-introduced thief class) allowed demihuman PCs to "keep up with the Joneses." A concept (the dwarf) that had been conceptualized in a particular way was slowly morphing into something else.
Consider the dwarf soldier of Chainmail's fantasy armies. The dwarf figure is very much of Thorin's ilk: a 2 point figure, it attacks as Heavy Foot, but only defends as Light Foot. Against giant-sized humanoids (specifically trolls/ogres and giants) they only count half the number of kills (they are twice as hard for the big guys to catch). The only other advantage they have is an ability to function equally well in night and day, and they are drawn to immediately charge/attack goblins, regardless of orders. They are also slower than normal heavy foot (who also cost 2 points to field). Oh...and their morale is no greater than normal heavy footmen.
Yes, they hit hard with their two-handed mauls and axes, but these are not thick-skinned, iron-boned juggernauts; they break easier than men (except when their size gives them an advantage; i.e. versus the "big guys"). They are not "heroic," possessing none of the elves' ability to affect fantasy monsters when armed with magic swords. They're just little fantasy soldiers...though well-modeled by Tolkien standards (if you're just looking at The Battle of Five Armies).
Holmes Basic doesn't address dwarves past level three, but it does "nerf" elves and halflings by reducing their HD to D6s for no given reason. My assumption is that this is a simplification based on the ubiquity of multi-classed fighter-thieves (halflings) and fighter-mages (elves) making "D6" an average of the D8+D4 that these class combos carry. But that's just speculation. Thing is, it ends up having the effect of making dwarves look hardy in comparison to their fellow demihumans...equal to the superior human fighting-man...which wasn't the case before.
[hmm...okay, just perused my Holmes and I do see reasons given for the HP reduction: elves because of their class-mix, but halflings due to their "small size;" though this is in spite of the halfling having the same CON requirements of a dwarf and the same saving throw bonuses. To me, that says "equal stamina" and simply allow the extra levels allow the dwarf fighter to outpace the halfer...but that's just me]
AD&D comes next and here we just see the logical progression of power increase six years into play: dwarves now have a "natural" level restriction of 7 (not six) and can reach as high as 9 (not 8) with an 18 strength. Considering fighter breakpoints for attacks/saves went from every three levels to every two levels in AD&D, this is a considerable improvement in fighting ability for our little fairy tale miners. Unearthed Arcana (1985) took this farther with the inclusion of "mountain dwarves:" a superior brand of dwarf with superior fighting ability based on...well, who cares.
[actually, "mountain dwarves" as a concept of superior dwarfness was introduced in the 1977 Monster Manual. Released prior to the AD&D PHB, it presumably works off the earlier (OD&D) books, as it states that mountain dwarves are superior and can work up to 9th level with an 18 STR. In other words, it appears the dwarves of the PHB are "mountain dwarves" while the dwarves of the LBBs are the inferior "hill dwarves." Unfortunately, this appears to be contradicted in the AD&D text, first by the PHB (who states PC dwarves may equally be either of the hills or the mountains) and then by the already mentioned new rules in the Unearthed Arcana]
Next we come to B/X which gives dwarves the ability to advance to level 12, flying in the face of all that's gone before. I can only assume this is an early attempt at "game balance," as a 12th level dwarf is remarkably similar to a 14th level human fighter (the maximum printed level in the B/X books). Maximum hit points are only one point off from the human fighter at level 14, and a slightly lesser attack ability is balanced by superior saves and additional special abilities. Where the idea of a 12th level fighting dwarf came from is totally beyond my ken...this is double Gygax's original 6th level limit. Crazy.
But not as crazy as the 21st century dwarf. Since the advent of D20, dwarves have become the archetypal fighter of latter edition D&D (including Pathfinder). A CON bonus that adds to staying power (particularly since HP bonuses from CON don't "cap" as they do in earlier editions), at the cost of dump-stat CHA? Sure they lose the bonus feat of the human fighter, but their darkvision ability, racial saving throw bonuses (equivalent to feat save bonuses), stackable dodge bonuses, heavy armor movement, exotic weapons, and racial attack bonuses makes them first choice for a badass fighter. Whereas Thorin and Company lamented the fact that they hadn't brought along a "hero" to slay the dragon, any such dragon slayer hired in D20 would have a high percentage of being from the line of Durin.
[since when did humans get upstaged in the arena of bloody warfare? I mean, isn't that humankind's claim to fame...killing folks? We used to be bigger, stronger, and better than it than any other species in the D&D game world...now we've been relegated to the role of "utilitarian dude." Oh, yeah...you get a bonus a skill point every level and can treat any class as "favored," but you run in 3rd place behind dwarves and half-orces when it comes to fighting prowess]
20th level dwarf fighters. Bite me.
And yet, this is now the expectation. "I want to play a dwarf" is the phrase heard by the player who wants a tough as nails, badass fighter. Even in B/X play, where a dwarf's level is capped (at 12!) it's not an unusual request, because it's so rare for campaign play these days to progress beyond the point where the demihumans lose viability. It's not impossible, mind you...just unlikely. Folks these days have a lot more to distract them from the table-top gaming experience than they did in the old days.
So what's the point of this post? Is it that I hate this expectation? That I want to somehow derail it (or kick its teeth in) so people don't have it? That ain't very likely to happen. Do I want to go back to a time when dwarves were stilted at 6th level and were barely mechanically different from hobbits? If I wanted that, I could just play OD&D (or Swords & Wizardry...I own copies of both).
No. I guess I just want to say that dwarves...fairy tale, fantasy dwarves, an archetype that I love...have been completely ruined for me. They simply don't fit into any RPG that I want to play, no matter how interestingly they might be re-skinned. They just don't fit for me, not in any version of the game (D&D) that I'm interested in running/playing. The Lord of the Rings isn't a sandbox world of adventure. The Hobbit isn't much of one either. Both are good reads (the latter more so, for my money), but they aren't suitable to the type of gaming I have in mind. Maybe if dwarves took over the niche currently reserved for the B/X halfling (i.e. re-skin the "halfling" class as a bearded little dwarf)? Maybe. Then again, didn't I already re-skin halflings to get a wood elf class? Maybe I need to have one "catch-all" demihuman class with options to build the weird little fey of your choice...elf, hobbit, dwarf, whatever. But my most recent fantasy projects haven't had settings of the fairy tale variety...so why bother?
*sigh* I need to go to bed. I've got a loooong three days ahead of me.
What exactly is going on here?
When it comes to fantasy mythology there are dwarves and then there are dwarves. I'm inclined to draw a historical delineation across whatever year it was that J.R.R. Tolkien published his Lord of the Rings trilogy. After The Hobbit. Maybe even after The Fellowship of the Ring. Gimli the dwarf, while most assuredly the main culprit responsible for the dwarves downfall from fanciful fairy tale creature to hardened badass warrior wasn't all that bad prior to the Battle of the Hornburg ("Helm's Deep") where his portrayal goes from dwarf companion to "orc-slaying-axe-machine." Where he shows that a dwarf is some kind of melee titan of destruction.
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh,
Okay, just please stop for a second. Lots of folks hate on Tolkien's "vanilla-flavored fantasy" and its influence on D&D. People have been trying to re-skin D&D dwarves in all sorts of ways for years. Gygax's dwarves (see his Gord fiction) have been reviled in some circles, but at least they're deemed to be somewhat different. As an archetype, the D&D dwarf usually ends up looking something like the dwarves in DragonLance...well, they did prior to 3rd edition and the advent of their ascendance as fighters par excellence.
Let's set aside the game for a moment. As a a child, I loved fairy tales. As an adult, I still do...though I'm hard-pressed to find the same sort of magical worlds I did when I was younger (I don't know if this is because of my adult outlook, the lack of decent fairy tale literature at my disposal, or some combination of the two). Fairy tale dwarves...whether they're little miners found in Snow White, sinister wish-granting types like Rumpelstiltskin, or Unseelie faerie-folk...are cool. Even if I set aside my normal shtick of dwarves as inhuman aliens, giving them human-ish traits and personalities (for the purpose of taking up the role of "adventurer"), I like the idea of these little guys with beards that possess their own brand of "earthy" magic. Certainly, all fairy tale dwarves seem to have a "thing" for gold (a relationship with it and ability to produce it, if not the outright avarice depicted in many tales). And "treasure-seeking" has always been the heartbeat the propelled adventurers into the wonder and mysteries of the fantasy RPG.
Well, originally, anyway.
Thorin Oakenshield of Tolkien's The Hobbit is one such adventurer. Yes, he's got human traits...a little arrogance (a sense of self-importance), desires for wealth and revenge, a loyalty to his people and kin, etc. But he's still just a little dwarf. Not a great hero nor a great warrior, though an experienced one. He manages to bash a troll in the face with a log, but he doesn't go armed until after finding an elven sword (and later, after putting on the still-remaing armor of his people lying in Erebor). He has to be told by Gandalf to turn, draw sword, and do battle with the goblins during the dwarves' flight below the Misty Mountains, and it is only the treasure-inspired avarice (and madness) of the dragon hoard that compels him to gird for war against the humans and elves that lay siege to his mountain.
And this is an experienced dwarf...one that fought against the goblins of Moria. The rest of the dwarves in his company are far less fight-worthy, simply fleeing from one opponent after another (as they can), until cornered and compelled to make a stand. These are not warriors. They are not useless, mind you, and they show great courage in facing the perils and travails of their venture (not to mention skill and cunning at times and an ability to loyally stick together even through hardship that might drive them apart). But warriors-born? No.
And this is reflected in the original version of D&D. Men & Magic (volume 1 of the little brown books) allows characters to play dwarves who advance as fighting men with a maximum level of six. 6th level ain't much of a step up from hobbits (er...halflings) or elves, both of whom are limited to 4th level fighting ability. A 4th level fighter uses the exact same save tables as a 6th level fighter; if using the variant combat system presented in OD&D (as opposed to the Chainmail combat system), they have the exact same attack chance (which, incidentally, is the same as a 4th-6th level fighter in B/X). The only advantage a dwarf receives from their two extra levels is an extra 2D6 worth of HPs (plus bonuses if the dwarf has a high CON score). This is nothing compared to the human warriors who can reach the breakpoint of 7th level with its +3 bonus to attacks, +2 to all saves (except dragon breath, which is +3), and an extra D6+1 hit points. And, of course, human fighters have no restriction on levels and can reach those even loftier breakpoints at 10th, 13th, and 16th levels.
Greyhawk (Supplement I) extended dwarves abilities considerably by allowing them to advance to 7th and 8th levels (with a STR score of 17 or 18), as well as allowing dwarves to roll D8s for hit dice. However, the latter isn't that fantastic a bonus...ALL fighting men (including Hobbits and Elves) receive D8s for hit dice in Greyhawk; there was no cursory restriction placed on them for their species as occurred in the later Basic volumes. In many ways, I see Greyhawk as a response to the (perhaps unforeseen) popularity of the game...people were playing a lot of D&D and working their characters characters into the stratosphere, level-wise. These level extensions (along with the unlimited leveling of the Greyhawk-introduced thief class) allowed demihuman PCs to "keep up with the Joneses." A concept (the dwarf) that had been conceptualized in a particular way was slowly morphing into something else.
Consider the dwarf soldier of Chainmail's fantasy armies. The dwarf figure is very much of Thorin's ilk: a 2 point figure, it attacks as Heavy Foot, but only defends as Light Foot. Against giant-sized humanoids (specifically trolls/ogres and giants) they only count half the number of kills (they are twice as hard for the big guys to catch). The only other advantage they have is an ability to function equally well in night and day, and they are drawn to immediately charge/attack goblins, regardless of orders. They are also slower than normal heavy foot (who also cost 2 points to field). Oh...and their morale is no greater than normal heavy footmen.
Yes, they hit hard with their two-handed mauls and axes, but these are not thick-skinned, iron-boned juggernauts; they break easier than men (except when their size gives them an advantage; i.e. versus the "big guys"). They are not "heroic," possessing none of the elves' ability to affect fantasy monsters when armed with magic swords. They're just little fantasy soldiers...though well-modeled by Tolkien standards (if you're just looking at The Battle of Five Armies).
Holmes Basic doesn't address dwarves past level three, but it does "nerf" elves and halflings by reducing their HD to D6s for no given reason. My assumption is that this is a simplification based on the ubiquity of multi-classed fighter-thieves (halflings) and fighter-mages (elves) making "D6" an average of the D8+D4 that these class combos carry. But that's just speculation. Thing is, it ends up having the effect of making dwarves look hardy in comparison to their fellow demihumans...equal to the superior human fighting-man...which wasn't the case before.
[hmm...okay, just perused my Holmes and I do see reasons given for the HP reduction: elves because of their class-mix, but halflings due to their "small size;" though this is in spite of the halfling having the same CON requirements of a dwarf and the same saving throw bonuses. To me, that says "equal stamina" and simply allow the extra levels allow the dwarf fighter to outpace the halfer...but that's just me]
 |
| "Our build might be the same, but I get an extra two hit points thanks to my nose and beard, you fool!" |
AD&D comes next and here we just see the logical progression of power increase six years into play: dwarves now have a "natural" level restriction of 7 (not six) and can reach as high as 9 (not 8) with an 18 strength. Considering fighter breakpoints for attacks/saves went from every three levels to every two levels in AD&D, this is a considerable improvement in fighting ability for our little fairy tale miners. Unearthed Arcana (1985) took this farther with the inclusion of "mountain dwarves:" a superior brand of dwarf with superior fighting ability based on...well, who cares.
[actually, "mountain dwarves" as a concept of superior dwarfness was introduced in the 1977 Monster Manual. Released prior to the AD&D PHB, it presumably works off the earlier (OD&D) books, as it states that mountain dwarves are superior and can work up to 9th level with an 18 STR. In other words, it appears the dwarves of the PHB are "mountain dwarves" while the dwarves of the LBBs are the inferior "hill dwarves." Unfortunately, this appears to be contradicted in the AD&D text, first by the PHB (who states PC dwarves may equally be either of the hills or the mountains) and then by the already mentioned new rules in the Unearthed Arcana]
Next we come to B/X which gives dwarves the ability to advance to level 12, flying in the face of all that's gone before. I can only assume this is an early attempt at "game balance," as a 12th level dwarf is remarkably similar to a 14th level human fighter (the maximum printed level in the B/X books). Maximum hit points are only one point off from the human fighter at level 14, and a slightly lesser attack ability is balanced by superior saves and additional special abilities. Where the idea of a 12th level fighting dwarf came from is totally beyond my ken...this is double Gygax's original 6th level limit. Crazy.
 |
| Tordek. I hate this asshole. |
[since when did humans get upstaged in the arena of bloody warfare? I mean, isn't that humankind's claim to fame...killing folks? We used to be bigger, stronger, and better than it than any other species in the D&D game world...now we've been relegated to the role of "utilitarian dude." Oh, yeah...you get a bonus a skill point every level and can treat any class as "favored," but you run in 3rd place behind dwarves and half-orces when it comes to fighting prowess]
20th level dwarf fighters. Bite me.
And yet, this is now the expectation. "I want to play a dwarf" is the phrase heard by the player who wants a tough as nails, badass fighter. Even in B/X play, where a dwarf's level is capped (at 12!) it's not an unusual request, because it's so rare for campaign play these days to progress beyond the point where the demihumans lose viability. It's not impossible, mind you...just unlikely. Folks these days have a lot more to distract them from the table-top gaming experience than they did in the old days.
So what's the point of this post? Is it that I hate this expectation? That I want to somehow derail it (or kick its teeth in) so people don't have it? That ain't very likely to happen. Do I want to go back to a time when dwarves were stilted at 6th level and were barely mechanically different from hobbits? If I wanted that, I could just play OD&D (or Swords & Wizardry...I own copies of both).
No. I guess I just want to say that dwarves...fairy tale, fantasy dwarves, an archetype that I love...have been completely ruined for me. They simply don't fit into any RPG that I want to play, no matter how interestingly they might be re-skinned. They just don't fit for me, not in any version of the game (D&D) that I'm interested in running/playing. The Lord of the Rings isn't a sandbox world of adventure. The Hobbit isn't much of one either. Both are good reads (the latter more so, for my money), but they aren't suitable to the type of gaming I have in mind. Maybe if dwarves took over the niche currently reserved for the B/X halfling (i.e. re-skin the "halfling" class as a bearded little dwarf)? Maybe. Then again, didn't I already re-skin halflings to get a wood elf class? Maybe I need to have one "catch-all" demihuman class with options to build the weird little fey of your choice...elf, hobbit, dwarf, whatever. But my most recent fantasy projects haven't had settings of the fairy tale variety...so why bother?
*sigh* I need to go to bed. I've got a loooong three days ahead of me.
 |
| "What? You expected a resolution to this mess?" |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)