These Characters Suck

So, I was home watching my boy yesterday, and during one of his naps decided to roll up my "posse" of characters for the scheduled Thursday game of Dungeon Crawl Classics. Here's what I ended up with (and just by the way, I am naming them right now, as I am posting this...everything else was pure random roll):

Old Orin Pig-Keeper

Strength 11, Agility 6 (-1), Stamina 3 (-3), Personality 18 (+3), Intelligence 12, Luck 12

Luck: Bountiful Harvest (bonus to hit points)

Hit Points: 1

Occupation: Dwarven Herder (alignment: Neutral)

Gear: Staff, sow, 29 copper pieces

Bow-Legged Bill

Strength 9, Agility 8 (-1), Stamina 10, Personality 7 (-1), Intelligence 7 (-1), Luck 11

Luck: Conceived on Horseback (bonus to mounted combat)

Hit Points: 1

Occupation: Caravan Guard (alignment: Lawful)

Gear: Short sword, linen (1 yard), 29 copper pieces

Young Yorin Assistant Pig-Keeper

Strength 9, Agility 8 (-1), Stamina 11, Personality 9, Intelligence 8 (-1), Luck 9

Luck: Fox's Cunning (bonus to find/disable traps)

Hit Points: 2

Occupation: Dwarven Herder (alignment: Neutral)

Gear: Staff, goose, 39 copper pieces

Derrick the Blue

Strength 10, Agility 11, Stamina 14 (+1), Personality 15 (+1), Intelligence 8 (-1), Luck 5 (-2)

Luck: Raised by Wolves (bonus to unarmed attacks)

Hit Points: 3

Occupation: Indentured Servant (alignment: Chaotic)

Gear: Staff, locket, 20 copper pieces

Wow...this is definitely NOT your father's B/X! Four characters with a combined total of 7 hit points, and cumulative ability bonuses of (-1), (-3), (-2), and (-1)...I am anticipating quite the bloodbath!

; )

As I wrote earlier, I intend to be comparing the DCC rules to B/X over the next couple days/weeks due to their superficial similarity (not the least of which is DCC's recycled art from B/X). A few initial observations about the system, specifically with regard to chargen:

• The idea with funnel system is that playing multiple characters will ensure some survival over time to higher levels, where your character will no longer suck, in the process developing a background and emotional attachment to the peon that had the fortune to survive.
• Unlike B/X, initial viability of characters is NOT a concern, due to the funnel system...which means that unless one is fortunate with the random dice rolls, each individual character rolled tends to look like a walking meat puppet. Viability is thus determined "in play" (if a character is viable, it is assumed he or she will survive to 1st level).
• B/X, on the other hand, provides some basis for viability in its chargen process. Ability scores are subject to some adjustment (based on prime requisite), class (and thus prime req) is chosen by players based on those scores, and "hopeless characters" may be discarded. Two of the characters above (Bill and Yorin) would be discarded as "hopeless" under the usual terms given in B/X (all ability scores are below 12 with multiple scores in the less-than-nine range), and Orin would definitely fit the rules-given criteria as well (as a character with both a below-average agility and a 3 for stamina), though his 18 in personality might make the character a fun challenge to play as a very sickly priest.
• Even should these characters survive to 1st level, I'm not sure they would suddenly become "viable." An extra +1 or +2 hit points probably wouldn't make up for the character's other deficiencies, and if my reading of the DCC rules is correct, then Orin would be forced to become a Dwarf due to his initial occupation (dwarven herder). A dwarf with a strength of 11 and a stamina of 3? Such a stat-line would not even have the option of being a dwarf in B/X; but assuming it did, one could at least "sell down" personality to raise strength. Here the character is left with a high score in an ability that is of little use to his class, and no choice in class due to the random nature of the DCC occupation system.
• Because of this (the lack of potential viability), the game would seem to defeat its own purpose with its "funnel system;" having multiple characters is supposed to (in part) take the sting out of death and allow one to be a bit more cavalier and adventuresome with characters. Not worrying if one or two bite the dust. And yet, with only one real candidate with decent future prospects, the temptation would be to play UBER-cautious with that single fragile character, "guarding" him with the three other "meat shields."
• Even should Derrick reach 1st level, my choice of class is somewhat constrained by his ability scores; again, in B/X I have the option of adjusting the character's abilities based on Prime Requisite. If I wanted to play a fighter, I could reduce his personality score to 9 (average) and raise his strength to 13 (bonus to combat and earned XP). This is not an option in DCC...I can play a cleric, or I can choose to suck in a different class - and NOT a demihuman class, as I did not roll the required occupation type.
• With average (or less) scores in Luck, it would appear the only thing the score is good for is "burning" to gain bonuses, and the random birth aspect is of little use.

All right, as stated these are just my initial observations. I am still looking forward to play and will be interested to see how the game works in practice. Personally, I intend to play all the characters with as much skill and enthusiasm as I can muster. Already, I find "Bow-Legged Bill" is my favorite, and can only hope he survives to 1st level despite his gross limitations (I realize this is unrealistic in light of his 1 hit point but, there you have it). At first I thought Orin and Yorin might be brothers, but after careful consideration have decided they are father and son (extremely aged father, considering Orin's ability scores), and would like to see at least one of 'em survive. Despite Derrick's superficial viability, he strikes me as a bit of a jerk (any indentured servant with ability scores greater than the freemen of the group is going to be looking down his nose at them), and believe I shall have him walking "point."

: )

Genre Conventions & PC Death (Redux)

Hmm, it might appear some people missed the point of my earlier post.

Let’s start out with a different tact: if there are rules incorporated in an RPG for characters to DIE (say, for example, when they reach 0 or -10 “hit points”), then there should be no bones made about characters dying. It’s part of the game.

Don’t bitch at me that your character died. And please don’t save my character because he only died due to “unlucky chance.” If unlucky chance is part of the game, and I die because of that, then that’s part of the game.

Don’t save me (or fudge death) until I “do something stupid” or “make some critical mistake.” That’s just saying, “wait until the GM decides you are deserving of death.” And what the hell kind of arbitrary rule system is that?

SO…

If you don’t like that a poisoned arrow or dart or spiked pit or spider hiding in the bed sheets bit you and you failed your poison save (and thus are foaming at the mouth, dying in agony), then don’t play a game that has poison saves. If you don’t like being surprised by a pair of medusa and failing your “turn to stone” save, then don’t play games that have petrifaction. If you don’t like a pair of random spear hits reducing you to zero hit points and killing your second level character…well, shit, you are probably playing the wrong damn game.

Now having said that, for some genres it may be inappropriate to make death a part of the game. If you watch a James Bond movie, you don’t expect Bond to get greased in the second act…and if you’re watching an action TV serial like Burn Notice, you don’t expect the principle characters to die unless it’s a “very special episode” or the series finale or something. After all, if a member of the A-Team got axed every episode, well, it would be a pretty short season.

For other genres, character death is totally fine and expected. If you’re playing a game based on the film Red Dawn, one expects the occasional PC to die in order to emphasize the tragedy of the situation and the horror of war. Otherwise, the themes of the game become comical or (at the least) lose their gravity…and then why even bother playing?

In the typical Western genre, the default trope is one where life is cheap and enforcement of the Law is a matter of personal responsibility (taking down outlaws because the sheriff can’t or riding posse as a deputized citizen or acting like a Clint Eastwood-style bounty hunter). When these tropes are used, then it must be possible for PCs to get killed…both by well-placed shots or random-flying bullets. If your Western is NOT typical, and about something other than casual lead poisoning, then you need other rules…and probably ones that don’t require dying mechanics at all (or where the dying only occurs in the context of something greater: see Dogs in the Vineyard).

Here’s the thing, though (and the point of my prior post): RPG design tends to include rules for killing folks or getting killed, even when that’s NOT what the game is supposed to be about. Is ElfQuest really about fighting and killing? I don’t think so (in the comics, the violence was generally incidental to the rest of the story). But the EQ RPG had an elaborate Chaosium-based combat system built in…and whenever we ran the game, combat became the centerpiece of the game play (as did PCs getting their limbs hacked off).

I think it’s silly that RPGs just don’t come out and say “players don’t die.” The original (D6) Star Wars system basically tells GMs that PCs should never be allowed to die…so why put rules for “mortally wounding” player characters in the game. I mean, ANY wound takes out a stormtrooper and other extras; the main reason for an elaborate damage table is determining how badly hurt a PC is...and it's pretty pointless to list "mortal wounds" and provide rules for how long a character takes to die if the GM isn't supposed to let 'em give up the ghost anyway.

What I’m asking is: should we (designers) really be slaves to the old chestnut that “well, death has to be modeled SOMEhow in the game.” Does it? Does it really?

I don’t think so.

Genre Conventions & PC Death

Here's something I've been thinking about the last couple days/weeks/hours (it just keeps popping into my head, yo):

Must the same RPG conventions be applied to ALL role-playing games?

The answer to this (as with most rhetorical questions) is "of course not," but I'm thinking of two very specific conventions with regard to "traditional" (read "not-experimental-nor-Indie") role-playing games. The two I'm thinking of are:

- character improvement over time

- character death

Whether you're looking at D&D (any edition) or Vampire the Masquerade or even Amber Diceless, you can see there are rules presented in each for A) improving one's character over time, and B) "dying" in the game (assuming your GM isn't going to fudge survival when your character's number is up).

These hoary conventions, the basic "win/loss" philosophy 'ported directly from the original D&D game to most every RPG ever since, are so standard that I wonder if that's not the first consideration most designers have when creating a new game. "What's the advancement/death mechanic going to be in THIS one?"

[by the way, I'm not covering a whole lot of new ground here...the Indie folks have already addressed this both in theory and in their games. However, I'm looking at it with regard to more traditional, i.e. Old School, traditional style RPG design]

But (and here's the thing I keep pondering) are they necessary for ALL RPG genres? That is, are they necessary conventions for games based on literary (or other) antecedents that don't normally have character death or improvement over time? And specifically here, I am talking about permanent character death. In any adventure serial (the basis for a multi-session RPG campaign), it is anthesis for the continuing story to have the principal characters die, right? How can you continue to sell the serial when the main character gets offed?

And I'm not just talking about comic books (though that's the first one that springs to mind)...look at space opera serials like Buck Rogers and Star Trek and Firefly. Sure, characters DO die (eventually) in the movies...but a movie is the RPG equivalent of a "one-off" adventure, meant to stand alone on its own merits. In the series, you don't see the main characters dying.

Would it be appropriate to have two different systems in place for an RPG? A one-off, no improvement, death-on-the-table version and an opposite number (serial, improvement over time, death-off-the-table)? Just a random thought.

Here's what I think: some genres (I realize that's a loaded term) are conducive to a high death count, even amongst PCs, including sword & sorcery fantasy (though perhaps not Hanna Barbarra He-Man fantasy...), post-apocalyptic, and the western genre. Also, any kind of mob/crime or war game (major characters die fairly often in the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series, but to me that's a war story similar to Japanimation space serials rather than "space opera adventure").

Genres that are NOT conducive to character death include:

• Superhero
• Space Opera
• Anything that might be a WB show (witches, vampire hunters, etc)
• Super Spy (of the James Bond, Avengers, Mission Impossible TV series variety)

Genres that may or may not be conducive to character death:

• Pulp serial (modern day, like Lost, or early 20th century)

Genres that are pure RPG inventions like Shadow Run? I don't know, though probably death is okay (seeing as how they were invented with the standard RPG conventions in mind).

I've been told on more than one occasion that PC death "isn't fun," something with which I totally disagree. However, sometimes it is inappropriate depending on the genre one is seeking to emulate.

More on this later...as I said, it's something that keeps popping into my head lately.

Captain America

Two Fridays ago, I had the opportunity to see the new Captain America film.

This is significant for a number of reasons. For one thing, it's the first film I've seen in the theater since before my child was born (that was back in January). Even before my child was born, there weren't a whole lot of films I was going to see...my days as a cinephile went away sometime in my mid-twenties, and these days it's much easier (and cheaper) to rent Blue-Rays for the big screen TV (or stream Netflix or On Demand) than it is to go out to the theater.

But I really wanted to see this one.

That my wife gave me her blessing to take off while she watched the baby (and even set it up with my buddy Steve-O) was weird enough (it's not like I whined about seeing it or something...come on, I have some parental responsibility!). But I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth, and I took the opportunity when it presented itself.

Oh yeah.

It may come as a surprise to some that Captain America was probably my favorite comic book superhero growing up. Oh, he didn't have a Saturday morning cartoon or anything and I didn't collect any comics really (I'd just occasionally purchase whatever looked good on the rack, if my parents had recently given me some money). But The Avengers were generally always a good buy (back in the early 1980s), and Captain America was always Mister Avenger.

But there were a ton of good Marvel comics back in those days. Daredevil was fighting ninja with Electra, Spiderman hadn't been saturated with Hobgoblins and black sentient outfits, Thor was still a skinny dude with a walking stick when he wasn't hammering foes with his "naked fist." And Ghost Rider, searing people's souls with hellfire touch? Badass. Much as I liked Green Arrow and Green Lantern (from their cartoon characters) DC could never hold a candle to Marvel characters. Batman...a dude with a utility belt that beat up people...was a total wuss back then.

And of the Marvel characters, time and time again Captain America was the guy that came to the forefront as the leader in every situation.

He was always good, back then. Always did the right thing whenever possible. Always took the high road. And yet he never backed down, never gave up, never surrendered...always gave it 100%.

I can still remember reading the first Secret Wars series (speaking of Spidey's black suit) circa age 12 and wondering how the heck the heroes could to prevail against Doctor Doom when he had the Godlike power of the Beyonder at his beck and call. I mean, he'd just wiped out the entire cadre of good guys at the end of the prior issue, and it was only crazy fortune (or Deus Ex Machina...I was fairly unsophisticated back then) that had allowed them to get back in the game.

And there's Cap, shattered shield in hand, leading the charge against Doom and his legion of monsters...and there's Cap breaking the line and confronting Doom...Cap with no super powers to speak of, just dauntless courage and a high level of fitness.

Never say die, never give up, give it your all, always do what's right...even when it's the hard thing to do. For me, Captain America represented what America the country was supposed to be about.

It might also surprise some people, in light of prior blog posts of condemnation, that I am an American patriot. I've got an American flag hanging outside my house and happily champion the ideals this nation's forefathers set down for us...ideals that to me are much more progressive and leftward-leaning (especially with regard to civic duty) than some folks would have people believe. Just because some people appropriate the idea of "American values" and twist it to their own purposes, leading to death, destruction, and the impoverishment of others doesn't mean we should stop fighting for those ideals.

[*sigh* I'm Roman Catholic, too, and the Catholic church has done terrible, terrible things to many, many people over the centuries of its history. Doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to "love our neighbors" or use the example of Christ as a model for good living. And, no, Jesus was not a capitalist]

But, back to Captain America, whose Underoos I proudly owned and wore as a child...in recent years, the good Captain has received a bit of a makeover, playing up his wartime (i.e. WWII) background as a soldier. The version of Cap found in the Ultimates imprint (a re-imagining of many Silver Age heroes) is much more martial in tone, combined with a certain...um...simplistic (or perhaps "un-nuanced") morality that has him experience the same anger management mood swings one might find in a steroid abuser. At the same time, the re-imagined character is quite the badass, and in many ways a more believable character (if any such Marvel creation can be described as such) than the wing-headed guy found in the comics the 70s and 80s. For me, reading The Ultimates revived an interest in Cap (and The Avengers) that hadn't been there since before Yellow Jacket was kicked out of the team. And I like the Falcon/Cap team-ups!

So, yeah...what about the movie?

It's great. I've seen pretty much all the Marvel films of the last decade or so (with the exception of the recent Thor film...baby, remember?), and for me, it's high on the list. I think the first Iron Man is probably still the best of the bunch (thanks in large part to Robert Downey Jr.), but it definitely rivals Spider Man 2 (which would have been my shoe-in for second favorite). As a film, I can say that the beginning parts are a little too slow, and the ending/denouement goes a little too fast...but it's always tricky with these "origin stories" to get the pacing right while both a) providing the necessary exposition, and b) providing a fully generated plot.

However, I don't have the same gripes a film critic would...after all, films based on comic books have a different set of grading criteria (for me) than your average film. And what I'M looking for is: how true to the comic book is the portrayal of the character? Certainly, those who've seen the previews will have seen that Cap's costume is much more modeled off the Ultimate Cap imprint than the guy with the red buccaneer boots (though that guy does make an appearance). And the film does mostly take place in the 1940s...would they play him up as a violent, take-no-prisoners killer?

Nope. Asked if he wants to join the army to kill Nazis, he replies:

"I don't want to kill ANYone. I just don't like bullies."

That's a great f'ing line.

This Captain America IS a badass. He's got a totally practical costume, the fancy shield, and a fantastic montage of action sequences to show just why he's the go-to guy when the going gets tough.

But he's still a superhero...that is, someone embodying ideals above and beyond what we might call heroism. Trying to save lives, not take them. Going above and beyond the call of duty. Self-sacrifice. Courage in the face of overwhelming odds. Never say die, never surrender.

Oh, yeah...and he's an artist, too, just like the old Steve Rogers. Not to mention the motorcycle.

I've seen every Captain America movie that's ever been made, and wow are they terrible. But this film, they get so much right, I can totally forgive any oversights and discrepancies that fail to match the comic. Whoever created THIS film knew what they were doing. And knew what Captain America was all about. And they embraced it and ran with it and made a killer movie.

I'd certainly watch it again.

Back On-Line, (Near) Awards, and Reflections

So it appears my internet woes have finally been resolved as of this time yesterday. Turns out my internet provider upgraded the technology of my area without upgrading my modem, causing me to have on-going "spectral interference" for the last several months. And because the "tech support" people I've called, oh, half-a-dozen times are in f'ing India (or some Asian country overseas) they had no idea what the hell was going on and simply read me the same damn script every time I called.

Bunch o BS.

Anyway, now I've got the new modem and I can get on-line and check my email without running down to the damn library on my lunch breaks (only open Monday to Thursday) and I can stream the Bakshi/Frazetta film Fire & Ice from Netflix without wanting to throw something through my TV screen.

[by the way, if anyone was wondering why I hadn't posted anything till now, the weather's been absolutely gorgeous this weekend, and me and the fam spent most of the day down on the waterfront, feeding seagulls and browsing high-class toy stores for rubber blocks. Nice]

But right now it's back to business...catching up on forums and email and the blogs and such. Found out that my B/X Companion placed in the Indie RPG awards this year (no, I did not enter it in the Ennies, though I was tempted to do so). "Placing" isn't really the right term, as there was no 2nd place award, but I came in as 1st runner up to the winner for Best Indie Supplement of the Year with 20 points. Pretty good considering this is my first (self-)published product and I didn't do anything particularly innovative (um...compared to many indie RPG game designers that is...).

You know, I used to spend a LOT of time over at The Forge and swimming in indie waters the same way I now sail through the OSR blog-o-sphere. I enjoy playing other games, especially the weird and intimate or desperate or innovative or straight-up bizarre...but I don't get the chance to do so as much.

And that's fine. I mean, my current game group is a bunch of guys who work in the computer industry and are returning to Old School tabletop gaming for the first time in years (or ever, for some). This process of starting a game, theorizing, and testing has allowed me to do some serious deconstruction of the D&D game, and I've just gotten a greater and greater appreciation for it over time (as well as gotten a lot of good insight into game design).

One thing I've noticed...just about all the "house rules" I've implemented have been discarded by this point. They just haven't been necessary at all to the play of the game and the game works better without 'em. Other than the new classes I've been play-testing, there are only two house rules that continue to stick around:

- Clerics don't need to "memorize" spells at the beginning of the day

- Thief skills automatically succeed

Oh, yeah...we're also continuing to use the "two-handed weapons strike last and do D8 damage" (as opposed to all other weapons, which do D6), but since no one is using a two-handed weapon, it's kind of a moot rule.

I'll have a chance to write more about B/X game play in the coming days, as I fully expect to be drawing comparisons between it and the game play of DCC (have to go make some characters!). But it's just something on which I've been reflecting lately.

All right...that's enough blogging for now. Have to go check some forums!

: )

Breaking on a High Note

[due to continuing internet woes, who knows when this will be posted? I’m typing it up while it’s fresh in my mind...***EDIT: found a coffee shop that serves beer...righteous***]

Welp, we gamed again at Café Mox (where the food, beer, and service were all exemplary…as usual) for what will be our last B/X game for the foreseeable future (we will be trying the Beta of DCC beginning next week). Fortunately, it was a pretty good session.

Pretty damn good, actually…I have few complaints this week, and the session featured some of my favorite things: player character death, energy drain, inter-party conflict (and combat!), adventurers running scared from encounters, negotiations with demons. I mean, really, what more can you ask for?

There was also a lot of laughter and smiles from the players, which is probably the thing I most enjoy hearing and seeing.

In fact there were so many highlights it’s tough to single out a person for the XP bonus. Andrew’s play of Normal Man-turned-Fighter would be pretty deserving for his fearless confrontation of the cambion-minotaur…if he hadn’t died (thus rendering his character ineligible). Stanley the thief would be a shoe-in for his attempted waylaying/sacrifice of Randy’s retainer, but unfortunately his grand scheme failed. Randy/Orestes’ misfiring sleep spell and the protectiveness he showed for his Halfling, um, “friend” was pretty good, but he got the bonus last week so he’s ineligible this week. Greg’s smuggled whisky flask puts him in the running, but for now I’m going to confine bonus considerations only to IN-game actions. Zeebd didn’t shoot any of his fellow party members in the back this week, though only because he didn’t take a single shot (the most near-sighted Halfling archer that ever was). And while Spunk showed his usual gumption, he continually gets himself in trouble due to that Charisma of 3…and I have to admit I found his whining about a “restoration” spell to be a bit unseemly.

SO…after careful thought and reflection, I’ve decided the bonus for last night’s session will go to the surly Elf, Ellephaino, for his constant swooping in and taking the glory from the other meat-and-potato characters (specifically his use of holy water to take down the demon…though too late to save poor Garrett). Good work, Josh!

Some highlights/thoughts from the evening:

• After tallying the evening’s take, I found several PCs leveled up: Orestes, Ellephaino (even without the bonus), Zeebd, and Spunk (yep, back up to “Escort” status). Even Randy’s retainer, Laurel the Halfling, leveled up. Kung did NOT level up, but he’s less than 900 away from “hero” status.
• Garrett the Normal Human adventurer was nearly the pawn that became a queen (or at least a knight). After surviving last week (and earning a couple hundred XP) he was allowed to choose a class and became a level 1 fighter; appropriate since he was already wearing plate and shield and armed with a +1 spear. If he had not been gored to death by the demon minotaur he would have earned enough XP to level up to 2 after last night. Quite an accomplishment!
• Garrett’s death speech (something about “you sons of bitches”) was entertaining, though fruitless, as was the party’s discussion/debate over whether or not to try giving him a healing potion. Since he had been reduced to 0 hit points exactly, I ruled he was mortally wounded but “had a little life left in him” (enough to make a farewell speech). If the party HAD given him the potion, would I have allowed him to live? Probably…but even Andre wanted a burlier character (I, on the other hand, kind of liked the “Garrett – Underdog” story).
• I did not use D20 for the session, and that’s probably a good thing.
• Wraiths are a tasty little undead, but I think I might actually prefer the D20 version of the monster: an incorporeal touch attack that bypasses armor and drains CON instead of levels makes it the equivalent of a souped-up shadow, which is pretty neat. On the other hand, a fast-flying level drainer is nothing to sniff at.
• Charisma 3 is turning out to suck for the PCs. Both the demon and the wraith were encounters that could have been negotiated withOUT combat, but the surly scout certainly jinxed up the latter encounter. Using reaction rolls for making contacts/searching out items in the city (like a restoration spell) is also a lot tougher when your charisma score is poor.
• You know what’s a useful spell? Knock. You know what else is a useful spell? Read magic. If either of these spells had been possessed by the party, the wraith would have been a NON-ISSUE…the wraith was a “bonus encounter,” unnecessary to the accomplishment of the adventure (though it had some extra treasure that was nice…as I said, a bonus). Unfortunately, despite having two magic-users and a 2nd level elf, none of these spells are in the PCs spellbooks. On the other hand, every single one of ‘em carries sleep.
• It was interesting to see the characters sweat and debate over whether or not to take the demon up on his offer (basically, the life of a party member for his promise of non-conflict). In the end, the majority of the party (with the exception of the Chaotic thief) decided NOT to give up any of their party, not even a henchman/retainer. It’s interesting because there’s no GAME reason not to give up a retainer for safe passage…what’s the retainer going to do anyway but eat into one’s share of the treasure/XP? It’s not like you can’t find a new retainer back in town. However, the idea was fairly repulsive to most of the party and Orestes was willing to use magic against a fellow PC to protect his henchperson (it didn’t work, but it was a valiant attempt).

As a DM, I have no problem with players fighting each other or stabbing one another in the back…this is the kind of thing that happened all the time back in the glory days of my youth. As players grow with their characters, there is a tendency for players to invest more interest in their characters and their characters’ motivations/desires. And sometimes those character desires come in conflict with each other.

Considering that these are scurrilous rogues and tomb raiders, it makes perfect sense for PCs to have falling outs with each other. Most often, these conflicts occur over particularly valuable treasure items (specifically magic gear…recall Blackrazor?). My current batch of players are so darn nice and consensus driven that there haven’t been any such “incidents” at the table…though I’m sure it’s just a matter of time.

Well, whatever…the players made it safely back to Markesh (their current base of operations) dragging five huge chests (200 pounds each!) all brimming with treasure. Even with the HEFTY cut the galley captain took for providing them safe passage, they’re still filthy rich, most having enough to buy a good-sized house (if not an actual leopard farm…sorry, Greg!). We still have to see whether or not Laurel will stay on as Randy’s retainer/bodyguard, and the spell-casters need to learn their new spells, but other than that there’s nothing for the PCs to do but take in some much deserved R&R while scheming their next adventure.

The DM is looking forward to the break as well.
; )

Traps (Part 2)

[continued from here; and yes, I fixed the formatting so it’s easier to read]

As I continue my discussion on traps, keep in mind Moldvay’s version of “trap theory” and remember that this is not only the edition I play, but the edition of the game that I FIRST played/learned to play.

The following excerpts on BOOBY TRAPS come from Ye Old Wikipedia:

“A booby trap is a device designed to harm or surprise a person, unknowingly triggered by the presence or actions of the victim. As the word trap implies, they often have some form of bait designed to lure the victim towards it. However, in other cases the device is placed on busy roads or is triggered when the victim performs some type of everyday action e.g. opening a door, picking something up or switching something on. Booby traps should not be confused with mantraps, which are designed to catch a person. Lethal booby traps are often used in warfare, particularly guerilla warfare, and traps designed to cause injury or pain are also sometimes used by criminals wanting to protect drugs or other illicit property, and by some owners of legal property who wish to protect it from theft. Booby traps that merely cause discomfort or embarrassment are a popular form of practical joke.”

This sounds like what we’re talking about when we discuss traps in a dungeon, right? Devices designed to harm someone who unknowingly triggers the device. In the section on historical usage of booby traps, they begin the entry with the Vietnam War and move forward from there…though, of course, explosive devices (the main form of booby trap used by the VC or US special forces or the Irish Republican Army), are NOT going to be the usual traps found in D&D.

In general, D&D uses more farfetched fiendish, mechanical devices.

Regardless, here’s the part that I find most interesting: the EFFECTS of booby traps:

"In addition to the obvious ability of booby traps to kill or injure, their presence has other effects. These include the ability to:
- demoralize soldiers as booby traps kill or maim comrades
- keep soldiers continually stressed, suspicious and unable to relax because it is difficult for them to know which areas, buildings or objects are safe
- slows down troop movement as soldiers are forced to sweep areas to see if there are more booby traps.
- make soldiers cautious instead of aggressive and confident
- create no-go areas (real or imagined) after a booby trap has killed or wounded someone
- cause a section or platoon to have to stop in order to deal with casualties, thus slowing and delaying those troops
- create confusion and disorientation as a prelude to an ambush"


Now, to me, this list is the real meat and potatoes of trap design, and we can see how these various effects were incorporated (or not) throughout the different editions of D&D.

Killing and Injuring: as discussed earlier, this particular aspect of traps has been emphasized with later editions of D&D, though the WAY in which it occurs (B/X’s auto-kill versus D20’s ramped up damage and ability drain) has differed.

Demoralizing PCs by killing/injuring comrades: as a side effect of the first, this has also become emphasized…though how many delves have been abandoned by a party for this particular reason? Isn’t the dungeon created so that players will explore it?

Keeping PCs stressed: This is exactly the "keeping PCs off-balance" thang espoused in the LBBs...and again, the ramping up of the DANGER involved (damage/death) has made PCs far more cautious with later editions of D&D. The design of DCC (“add more player characters so players need not be cautious”) defeats this aspect of trap theory, though at the benefit of (hopefully) speeding play. I haven’t yet played DCC so I’m not sure this is the case.

Slows down movement while searching: absolutely…which gives wandering monsters (or guard patrols) a chance to catch up to them (an emphasis of Holmes). For the Gygax defined (in the PHB) confining traps, the trap itself can slow PC movement if sprung.

Makes PCs cautious instead of aggressive and confident: Yep…and the more traps, the more one finds this occurring.

Creating “no-go” areas: An interesting idea. It asks the question, “Do DMs want players to go into areas?” The dungeon does not exist independent of the DM/players…it is designed and run by the DM for the players. If the DM does not want the PCs to experience something, they don’t need to include it in the dungeon. It’s an interestingly perverse idea to create places that are extremely difficult to get into in hopes that the players won’t find it/explore it (see The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun for an example). I have been sticking similar locations in my recent adventures (the current one having the toughest)…but then, some might call me a naturally perverse individual.

Inconveniencing PCs with wounded comrades: this is an excellent idea/alternative to the instant death or damaging traps…blind or hobble victims of the trap so that the other party members are forced to abandon them or deal with their handicap. With magical traps, all sorts of curses can cause this effect. I need to include more such in my adventures!

Confusion as a prelude to ambush: This is similar to what Gygax describes (again, in the PHB) as channeling traps…things that throw off map-makers and force PCs into confrontations they might not want. The traditional “chute to next level” that lands a PC in the midst of monsters is one I’ve been toying with for a larger dungeon I’m working on.

There’s some food for thought here, and I want to continue this series with some specific examples from my own games and the effect traps have on players (as well as discuss some other possibilities that can cause different forms of consternation). Why? Because I think “traps” are an area ripe for an over-haul, and I'm interested in using them in unusual ways.

Have a good day folks!

: )