Old Time Religion (part 1)

Can I please get some gaming content in my blog-o-sphere?

[all apologies to Jeff Rients with his recent DCC adaptation]

Ugh…life has been rough lately, but no one wants to hear about it (not that they don’t care, it’s just that that’s not why they tune it). So now that we’ve passed the All-Star break and Seattleites can officially stop paying attention to pro sports (at least till September) it’s time to start leading by example.

Let’s talk clerics.

It’s funny: as a kid growing up I never played clerics as PCs. Not that they didn’t provide SOME interest to me. As a kid with his grubby hands on a Basic set, I have to say Sister Rebecca was no huge role-model (all apologies to Mrs. Moldvay)…the examples show her to be a secondary bludgeon and “Jimminy Cricket” type conscience to party members. Now if there’d been a turning example in the rules my feelings might have been different. Instead clerics just felt kind of “meh” to me…at least compared to the Elf (Silverleaf) and Fighter (Morgan Ironwolf) examples.

[and let me tell you, reading about the Dwarf and Thief getting off’d quickly didn’t endear me to THOSE classes either…though perhaps not as much as not seeing ANY examples of Magic-users and Halflings]

[note to self: need to put more examples in D&D Mine and make the characters interesting]
Now it was a different story when I got to the Expert set a year (or less) later. The ability of Name level clerics to inspire fanatically loyal followers is, frankly, awesome and had me absolutely invested in the idea of clerics as a viable class. The first “pre-gen” Expert character we made was a cleric for my buddy Matt (though less than 9th level) so that he could lead some hired mercenaries into a desert wilderness to fight a blue dragon. This character would go on to be his staple PC when we converted over to AD&D later.

Clerics in AD&D became even MORE awesome with spells up to 7th level and the fantastic Deities and Demigods rulebook. Man, there were a lot of bulls sacrificed on altars back in those days (and not just by the clerics)…a lot more than you find in your average 21st century D&D game anyway. I did write up a priestess of Thor (complete with poorly drawn picture with horned helmet), but it was a character I never had a chance to play.

As I said, I had some interest in clerics, but they just weren’t my normal “type.” Which is funny because the last couple years (ever since rekindling an interest in D&D) has found me playing a LOT of clerics. Well, two clerics and a paladin, but that’s three holy types out of a total of four D&D campaigns I’ve played in since I got back into this “old school thang”…75%? Pretty darn unusual considering my past track record.

[I’m NOT counting DCC play-testing as “D&D” by the way]

Now, I play clerics a little different from the way some folks do…I say this as a long time Dungeon Master who’s seen a lot of clerics pass through his campaigns (with varying degrees of success). I tend to be a “lead from the front” guy, rather than a “support/medic” person. Now part of this is due to my (generally) forward and abrasive personality, but part of it is my personal take on the cleric character class…and this is the only way I can justify the character concept.

Now let’s back up for a moment: why the heck am I talking about this? ‘Cause that’s pertinent to the discussion. Well, a guy over at the dragonsfoot forums asked a question about how XP was awarded for treasure and provided the following hypothetical:

“…let’s say the party willingly leaves treasure behind (the cleric doesn’t want to desecrate the tomb, as is often the case). What do you do then? Do you award any XP at all?”

The responses were many and varied. I provided my own answer – the B/X answer – that XP is only awarded for treasure recovered. Why? Because XP earned represents a character’s skill as an adventurer treasure hunter (which is why XP is awarded for treasure found). Part of my response included the following:

“If characters choose to leave a chest of gold behind because “it’s too heavy” or refuse to take a jade idol because it’s “sacred to someone’s deity” then they aren’t very good adventurers are they? The proficient, experienced adventurer (i.e. the one with the higher level) will demonstrate his or her ability at treasure retrieval. This is a PROFESSION…if they don’t intend to make money at it they might as well work as shop keepers or blacksmiths or fisher folks or whatever.”

What was not immediately apparent from the post (but what was explained later by the poster) was this:

“Indeed, no XP should be awarded for leaving treasure behind because it’s too heavy, but the Cleric example still strikes me as a potential problem. I understand that players should be adventurers (i.e. “treasure retrieval experts”), but there’s just something odd about a cleric robbing tombs. I’m not really arguing anything here; just making an observation. I guess he could just be an adventuring cleric.”

This seemingly innocuous question (at least, it appears the poster feels the question is innocuous) is…to me, at least…one with tremendous implication to one’s D&D campaign. I mean it strikes right at the heart of “what is this game all about?” And depending on how it is answered, it drastically changes the color of one’s game.

Well, it does if you care about such things or are even slightly introspective about your role-playing. I know there are plenty of people who don’t give a shit…but that’s a separate post.

There are two basic parts to this question, one general and one specific…and if you can’t reconcile the two you are going to run into disconnects between players and the game. Disconnects with regard to the underpinnings of the game’s “fantasy logic” anyway; I suppose you can still play D&D like an over-complicated version of Munchkin instead of an RPG.

[to be continued due to sheer bulk]

Thursday Night Recap

Just a few quick notes, as I've got a long and busy Saturday (still!) ahead of me.

Thursday night was a good one. Both Josh and Randy were able to come down to the Baranof and I was managed to play-test the most recent iteration of D&D Mine. We also played Dungeon! (1980 edition) which was pretty cool, and the closest contest I can remember having with that particular game.

Huh, might as well provide a little synopsis on it, since I bothered to mention it.

We each selected a different character: Randy took a wizard (with nearly a full spell roll: 11!); Josh selected a superhero, and I went with the True Blue hero. We could tell out of the gate that Josh was going to have a rough time of it when his superhero was roughed up by a giant rat in the first room. Meanwhile, Randy (in his first time playing Dungeon!) went balls-to-the wall, working his wizard like a champ and not being afraid to mix it up, mano-a-mano.

My hero picked up a magic sword in the 2nd level, and made his way downward with a good chunk of change in his pack. Unfortunately, he met his match in the form of an ogre who wounded him (“drop all treasure, place piece at start, lose next turn”), just as he’d crept over the 7500gp mark. This provided Josh with the incentive to give up his struggles in the 4th level and make a beeline for my abandoned hoard, hoping to put his total over the top.

Randy, on the other hand, had cleaned house, finding half his 30,000gp goal in the forms of a huge diamond (10k) and huge sapphire (6k). Counting his loot and realizing the wizard had enough to win, he set off for the entrance, only to get there the hard way by being wounded by a black pudding.

Realizing I had only a very brief reprieve, my hero hurried back towards the 3rd level, despairing a bit when I saw Josh’s superhero was going to get there first. Unfortunately, Josh’s anticipated triumph was short-lived as a chance encounter with a second ogre in the 3rd level storeroom (“just looking for a snack”) led to HIM being wounded as well, dropping his entire trove! Knowing I would have to fight an ogre (sans magic sword) either way, I changed my route to snatch the superhero’s bulging backpack, and finally was able to roll the 9 I needed to slay the beast.

It came down to a footrace: Randy fireballed the pudding and headed straight for the entrance. His route was more direct than mine, but he had to fight his way past a giant he’d left alive on his way down to the loot. Because of that extra stop, my hero was able to squeak out a victory (by one-turn!). Josh, did kill the ogre that had done for my hero (and thus earned himself a magic sword), but unlike Randy and I, his total treasure was far less than that which he needed for victory. As is usual in such cases, this allowed us to heap ridicule upon his head.

Yay!

After Dungeon! we drank and shot the breeze for awhile (talking mostly about fatherhood and our own childhood relationships with our parents) before figuring out it was after 10:30 and we still had some serious play-testing to get to! Loading up on another pitcher of beer, we managed to get through character generation and the first couple encounters of an adventure I’d whipped up earlier in the afternoon. And amazingly enough, I was able to get some good info/feedback despite the limited time spent on the game.

Chargen was surprisingly fast...like, I blinked with surprise when it was over. Having them add their bonuses for use with die rolls didn't take long (nor did encumbrance and armor calculations or equipment selections). Both players, I think, had fun with it, even alignment and motivation. Note to self: have to make alignment more mechanically relevant, as I've done with motive.

I was pleased one player (Randy) chose a magician subclass, as I was able to see how the retooled (i.e. "non-Vancian") magic system worked. Early verdict? Good (another happy surprise). Also, the spell choices made had a nice range of utility to them (mainly because they're all utility spells). How often do you see a 1st level wizard with read languages (or its equivalent)? Awesome. My nerfed sleep spell worked as intended: useful without being the uber-spell/monster nuke found in other editions...now it's an appropriate 1st level spell.

Rule Zero (MY "rule zero," not the rz found in other games) was in full effect tonight and worked great, though it did necessitate a couple "roll overs" during chargen. No one tried using the "push" mechanic, and I'm not sure if this is due to the fact that our only encounter was an easy one (see below) or that it wasn't well understood. The D6 mechanic worked fine, and the "high roll always = good roll" was much more intuitive than standard Old School D&D. I've got to tip my hat to WotC for that one folks, sorry.

We ran a single combat encounter: two PCs on three "quasi-goblins." The PCs achieved surprise and murdered the hell out of 'em. I wish we'd had a little more time to play as I would have liked to gotten to a larger or tougher (i.e. more complex) encounter. But the new "ironed-out" order of combat worked much better than the crocodile fight of the week before. I'm really liking it.

I also REALLY dig my new HP rules, though I actually screwed up when doing the players' HPs (fighters get bonuses and magicians get penalties and I awarded neither); ah, well...next time.

RE: monster cosmology...um, actually that's a little too much for right now. We'll blog about that later this week. Gotta' run now!

: )

Birthing the New Product

The expected due date for the new B/X book is a week from today. More updates will follow in the next few days, but right now I just want y'all to be quivering with anticipation. Go ahead and set your calendar alerts.

; )

Dungeon?! Oh, wait...

For a variety of reasons, I've decided to change my gaming night back to Thursday, i.e. tomorrow. Maybe no one will show up...but you've got to start somewhere, and Thursday is the night that works best for me. If I'm going to run a game dammit, it's got to be on a night I want to go out!

Here's a text I sent Josh (one of my regulars, and one who's no longer available on Tuesdays anyway) a couple days ago...or at least a rough approximation:

"I'm changing the game to Thursday night. And if it turns out no one's showing, I'm just going to go down to Prost! with my battered copy of Dungeon! and drink large amounts of beer."

[Prost! is a German semi-pub in the neighborhood that sells Hofbrauhaus beer by the liter]

But then I know Josh's weakness.

; )

Ugh...you know I did a lot of "research" last night (i.e. spent a couple hours surfing the internet) on Dungeon!, it's designer, rules variations, connections with TSR and Arneson and Blackmoor, etc. in anticipation of a big, cool blog post. And guess what? Turns out all my machinations and theories (conspiracy or otherwise) have already been plumbed...and in depth...by others. On forums (Old School and otherwise), with discussion with Arneson and members of his Blackmoor campaign, and on web sites completely devoted to Blackmoor, not to mention Havard's blog.

Reinventing the wheel...again. My usual M.O.

So right...I'm not going to blog about Dungeon! tonight. Instead, I'm going to hit the hay in anticipation (and in preparation) for tomorrow's game and potentially copious drinking. Did a bit of writing/work today on D&D Mine, so that's probably what I'll be running...but we'll see.

Later, gators.

Red Sonja (and Swords)

So besides Dave Arneson’s Blackmoor, the other thing I picked up over the weekend was Volume 1 of Red Sonja, the latest re-boot of the Marvel Comics heroine from their Dynamite imprint. I don’t buy many comics these days (trade paperback or otherwise), and lately I’ve mainly purchased them for “research” purposes (i.e. because the story somehow pertains to a game I’m designing). Heck, I think the last one I bought was Xenozoic Tales when I was first tinkering with the idea of a “dinosaur game;” and that was…when? August or September of last year (2011)? Oh, yeah…I picked up a collection of The War That Time Forgot (again, for the dinosaur game) back in September, too.

So, yeah, once every 10-12 months I might pick up a comic book, so the fact that I pick up Red Sonja should say something. Mainly that I am and have been a huge fan of Red Sonja. Back in the waaay back past I owned the first half dozen or so issues of her original Marvel series, and I had several of the later issues of the original series as well (after artists started drawing her with more clothes than the chainmail bikini). Red Sonja was one of my favorite titles to pick up, though once I actually got into my “collecting phase” (which wasn’t till high school and didn’t last all that long) her regular series had been cancelled. Many of her comics I picked up at Ye Old Used Book Store in Missoula, Montana. And as with many of those comics I read them many, many times with great enjoyment.

Now unlike other boys of the 12-14 year old range that may have collected or enjoyed the “She-Devil with a Sword,” my interest in Red Sonja had absolutely zero to do with her usual state of undress, nor her voluptuous body. Really. Comic book “titillation” has never done anything for me, no matter how sexy or how risqué. It doesn’t; it hasn’t. I was never “turned on” by Vallejo art, either, for what that’s worth (or any other chainmail bikini-type artistic imitators)…which may make me weird by the standards of male gamers, but I came to grips with MY weirdness a long time ago. I design RPGs for fun, folks: I’m strange.

So then what made me such a huge Red Sonja fan as a young pre-teen? Simple: I wanted to see her kill shit with a sword. Red Sonja was badass, man…and if I’m guilty of any vice with regards to the red-haired temptress it’s the average American male’s addiction to visual violence and action. I guess you could call it “sword porn.”

Sure, there were several Conan titles I collected on occasion, including Conan the King and the beautifully drawn, black and white, Savage Sword of Conan. But you know what? Conan was never as badass as Sonja. For all his toughness, Conan has always been based on the Howard character, and Howard was a man of his time: 1930s gentleman/chauvinist. Which made Conan into a character that was capable of gullibility or soft-heartedness, especially with regard to the “fairer sex” or other defenseless, innocents. It’s something that always felt dated and a bit out of place in the lawless, ancient “Hyborian Age” tales.

Red Sonja had no such softness. She killed EVERYone, without compunction. Oh, she could be merciful, and championed the weak, but she never got taken in by a pretty face. In the new graphic novel I just picked up, she only hesitates a moment before butchering a pack of knife-wielding children (demon-spawn children, we learn, but still…). Sonja had a particular idealistic code she held herself, too, different from Conan’s “lusty gusto for life.” She was a much more “non-nonsense” slayer. And that’s what made her and interesting character and (for me) a better comic to read.

Because it reminded me much more of D&D and my D&D games. It still had weirdness and monsters and the supernatural and perilous danger. But for the most part, I don’t think the Red Sonja stories were based on anything in particular (as opposed to, say, Savage Sword which was based directly on Howard stories). I mean, I realize the character is based on Howard’s Sonya of Rogatino (though to me the She-Devil personality is much more reminiscent of Howard’s Dark Agnes), but the stories are spun from whole cloth as much as I can tell. And they (the stories) could and can serve as a great inspiration for D&D adventures. I know because I’ve used ‘em for such in the past, more than once.

The new Red Sonja is pretty darn good, though I was never a huge fan of the chainmail bikini (I mean, the artwork is great, but I always enjoyed the more “clothed” style of the later-day Marvel issues). However, the artwork IS top notch and the story is better than passable, and a couple days after reading the book, I kept catching myself thinking back on it as if I’d watched a FILM rather than reading a trade paperback. Which is different from pretty much any other comic book I’ve ever read.

Now, there...I’ve said my piece on Red Sonja (except to say that I saw the Red Sonja movie in the theater when in was released…it was PG-13 and I was 13 and by God I was going to see Red Sonja…and was subsequently disappointed. Not just by the cheesy, spring-loaded decapitations, but mainly by the poorly cast lead who A) was not a very good actress, and B) looked NOTHING like the Red Sonja of the comic books. And I say this as a kid who LOVED The Golden Child at the same age…I was not a kid of hugely discerning tastes!). *ahem!* Now let me put my game designer goggles on for a moment to point out something that stood out bright and clear to me in the latest Red Sonja comic:

Where’s the shield?

Here’s a character who’s a fighter-type. Sure she doesn’t wear armor (no, her outfit does NOT count as “half-chain”), relying instead on agility, sword-play, and sheer berserk fury…but why not use a shield? She occasionally makes use of an off-hand weapon, but she’s no Moonglum or Drizzle the Drow. What’s the deal?

Well, besides being a stylistic choice of the artists, one can see that having a free off-hand gives Sonja a degree of versatility and control she wouldn’t have otherwise…the ability to one-hand OR two-hand her blade as the need arises within the moment of combat.

With a little thought, I realized this isn’t quite as uncommon as it might appear. For example, I’m still watching those Game of Throne episodes on the DVD and one often sees a character wielding only a single blade sans shield, and using it to good measure. Same holds true for a number of films that feature the use of a long blade, from more recent films (like Conan and John Carter) to historical movies featuring crusaders in armor.

Now I’ll admit my sword training is limited to fencing, not broadsword. But I know that historically one of the strengths of the long blade was its versatility. Sometimes you WANTED to put that second hand on the hilt (or even grip the forte of the blade with your off-hand gauntlet) in order to put extra “oomph” into a blow, especially when facing a foe in stout armor and wanting to drive the point home (literally).

Wearing a shield provides you additional DEFENSE, but limits your versatility on OFFENSE, reducing you to chopping or one-handed slashes or clumsy (with a long blade) one-handed thrusts. And isn’t the best defense (at times) a good offense?

Nice as “sword and board” sounds, a simpler weapon…like an axe or mace or short bladed gladius…works better with the shield because the offensive action with the simple weapon is already limited based on its capability. You don’t lose anything (or not much) by carrying a shield with such a weapon. Carrying a shield with a LONG sword, though, you gain defense at the cost of some of your offensive technique…or so it appears to me.

But perhaps I’m completely ignorant. I will say that all the long blade “slashing demonstrations” I’ve seen on YouTube…whether with a broadsword or a katana…have been done with a two-handed grip. And since my fantasy games tend to be more cinematic or literary (or comic book inspired), this is something I want to take into consideration and model within the game.

Which, of course, flies in the face of all the D&D rules I’m familiar with. Right now, you have three choices for sword wielders:

- Sword and board (er, “shield”)
- Two-handed sword
- Dual wielding (sword plus off-hand weapon)

No one just uses a sword by itself. At least, not in the game. But in film and television and comics and literature? Characters use a sword all by its lonesome ALL THE TIME.

I have an idea how to do this with D&D Mine. For B/X? Well, off the top of my head I’d say:

“Fighters who choose to wield a normal sword with two hands receive a +2 bonus to attack rolls.”

[NOTE: that’s fighters only, not thieves, though some DMs might apply it to elves and/or dwarves as well]

That’s actually a pretty hefty bonus for B/X (the equivalent of giving the character +3 levels of experience). Maybe +1 would be enough (need to play-test it)…but I know a lot of people think shields should be “more useful” in D&D than a simple +1 bonus to armor class. If you choose to give a +2 bonus to AC for shields instead of +1 then the attack bonus for using a normal sword with two hands should definitely be +2 to compensate.

Of course, I’d probably ONLY to do this when using the standard B/X rule “all weapons do D6 damage.” If you use variable weapon damage, you might want to consider the following instead:

“Normal swords do only D6 damage (instead of D8) if the character wields a shield or 2nd weapon in her off-hand.”

With that, normal swords don’t achieve the “be-all, end-all” default melee weapon status they currently receive…you have to sacrifice some armor class to get that awesome D8 damage. However, I personally consider “offensive versatility” better modeled by “bonus to attack roll” than by “extra damage.” You’ll have to decide how YOU prefer to model it in your game world.

How you decide to model the rules for a chainmail bikini, on the other hand, is a subject for an entirely different post.
; )

Dave Arneson's Blackmooor (Part 2)

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, on with the show.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#1) Objective/Goal Created: Acquire Wealth

#2) Players play, become attached to their characters

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

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

#4) Advancement mechanics implemented in response

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

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

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

: )

Dave Arneson's Blackmooor (Part 1)

I've been sick for three days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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