Go Long

Eh. I really don't have time for this. But....

So, I was reading this post by Mr. Maliszewski the other day, as well as its associated links. All things considered it feels a little disjointed which is (perhaps) understandable given his focus at the moment on his current writing project. I can dig that.

Still. It bears a response.

There are RPGs and there are RPGs. And in addition there is Dungeons & Dragons. I think it's important to understand how distinct these things are from each other...and from a fiction franchise like the ones described in James's article. Whether you're talking Star Wars or Game of Thrones or whatever, such things are simply settings designed to TELL STORIES. Specifically, to tell a particular story. 

In the case of Star Wars (for example) we're talking about the "story" of Luke Skywalker, from his humble beginnings to his heroic triumph over the forces of evil. The setting of the Star Wars universe...including both its interplanetary geography, its history/timeline, its imagined "culture," its cast of characters, its pseudo-religions, etc....all exist specifically as BACKDROP for the story being told. They provide a rich and (for many folks) inviting tapestry that intrigues and engages the imagination, but they are only as important as they apply to the story at hand. That there is room enough in the setting to tell other stories (the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker, for example, or the story of parental love and identity found in The Mandalorian series) is evidence of the broad consistency and richness of its fantasy landscape. 

[I'd be tempted to say the same about the various book series set in the Star Wars universe, except that A) I've read almost none of them, and B) what I have read all seems to be filled/fraught with blatant "fanservice," in the same annoying fashion as most of the cinematic installments in the franchise history]

Similar statements could be said of Martin's ASoFaI series except that it is far more limited in scope, being (for the most part) medieval mudcore with extremely limited fantasy elements often subverted (especially in the teleplay) to visual porn (both of violence and sexuality).

[I say that as someone who is a fan of the series and who has found it fascinating in spite of its more prurient elements. In other words, not trying to hate, just calling it like I see it]

Franchises...whether you're talking Lucas and Martin or the ones created by Roddenberry, Herbert, Rowling, Tolkien, Clancy, etc....all have something in common: they have become a means of generating reliable income for their producers (either the creators or those who hold the IP) because of their built-in fan/customer base. Every installment of the franchise...whether it be a book, a movie, a TV show, or some example of lifestyle branding/signaling (t-shirts, merch, etc.)...becomes an investment destined to yield a rich return. When Disney allows some company to create coffee mugs with superheroes branded on it, you can be sure that they are reaping some sort of royalty return, even as they allow the cup company to make money themselves (and continue promoting their franchise). Every franchise is a money-making cash cow designed to milk fan loyalty. Pure and simple. This is what the capital behind the franchise is (excuse the pun) banking on.

But D&D is a game, not a franchise.

At least the D&D I play. Unlike certain RPGs that are based on specific, story-based IP (think: most Chaosium RPGs, many "trad" RPGs of the 90s, etc.) D&D invites players to create THEIR OWN WORLD...their own campaign...in which to play the game. Unless you're going to buy into a specific piece of setting IP (say, DragonLance or Greyhawk or whatever), the game you run is your own...with no story involved.

Which is important! Stories have beginnings and (generally speaking, Mr. Martin) endings as well. As such, they are designed to stop. That corporations (it is always corporations of some sort) decide to turn a story into a money-making franchise does not change this essential fact. Luke Skywalker's story is over, once it's told. So is the story of succession for the Iron Throne (once the matter is decided). It is a LOT harder to find reasons to create adventures in a setting/world for which the major events have already been chronicled. 

Not impossible mind you. Creative minds will find a way.

But not all RPGs are created equally. Dungeons & Dragons doesn't come with a built in setting. Instead, it provides a set of rules for playing a game. Individual Dungeon Masters are the parties responsible for creating their worlds/settings. And with a focus on that (i.e. world creation) why would anyone ever tire of their campaign?

DMs are not storytellers. We are lords of creation. We are gods.

D&D is not played with an end goal in mind. Yes there are "win" (and "loss") conditions built into the system; yes, there are objectives of play. But these are of secondary importance to the experiential nature of play itself. DMs do not create stories; DMs create worlds. And then they run those worlds using the rules of the game.  

Some might say that any confession that an RPG (especially one not tied to a specific setting or fiction franchise) could, eventually, be "played out" shows a distinct lack of creativity. As was pointed out to me the other day, a piano has only 88 keys, and yet people continue to find ways to create new music with those same keys, even after centuries of use. And that's only using two hands! How many more combinations of situations can one create with a Monster Manual and a blank sheet of graph paper? How many more iterations can you have with multiple human players, each bringing their own experiences and personalities to the table?

I am certain there are those who look at the game of AD&D...the game I've yet to tire of after 40-odd years...and say, what a boring game. What a boring premise. Killing monsters and getting gold. How long can that stay exciting? How long till that grows tiresome? I am certain of this because people have said as much to me...more than once.

And yet most of us have had the experience of having to "work for a living." Even those of us blessed with an exciting, fulfilling job/career/vocation have known days that were humdrum and boring, or challenging in non-fun ways...dealing with irate clients and unresponsive vendors and the fluctuation of markets affected by the stupid, stupid actions of an utterly corrupt and incompetent American president. 

Isn't it nice to have an escape to a world where your problems can be solved with a sword or a magic spell? Isn't it fun to have some pulse-pounding, adrenaline surging excitement that doesn't end in real world injury...or even sore muscles? And for the creative individual, isn't it nice to have an ENTIRE UNIVERSE to shape and mold as you please, and to share that universe with our fellow humans, astounding them with pulse-pounding, adrenaline surging experiences?

There is a deeper game beyond the surface play one first discovers as a kid opening a boxed "basic set" of D&D...but one only finds it if they spend the time and effort to grow and develop their game. Just as we, humans, grow and develop ourselves.  We need to stop selling ourselves short.

Go long.

 

WTF

Talking to a colleague today, he suggested I at least throw up a couple sentences on Ye Old Blog explaining that I'm not dead in a ditch, seeing as how I pretty much dropped off the face of the earth in the middle of my blog series.

So, yeah. No car accident, no heart attack, no brain aneurysm. Health is fine (other than I work up with a stiff neck today and right ankle's bothering me and yadda-yadda-yadda...). Just BUSY, folks. Real busy. Volleyball practices and playoffs. Kids birthday parties. In-laws in town. Track and field. Soccer tryouts and games. School auctions. Other things. Family stuff, you know?

Gaming even. Spencer was in town for a couple weeks (back from Japan) and, of course, he wanted to play some D&D. So I ran a little something I whipped up for Cauldron ('26)...a four hour fright fest, cavern -crawl with some beefy-ass threats and treasure. Went very, very well. TPK in the end (six PCs down), but everything went off pretty much smooth as silk...threats need to be upped a tad, in fact, because I think an eight-PC party might have cake-walked it. This is why we playtest.

Anyway.

I was still planning on coming back to the A to Z series because, well, I had the whole thing planned out and there's still good stuff to say on the subject. But it's not going to get done in April, unfortunately (bruh). Maybe May...but then we have MORE things going on (guitar and piano recitals, school concerts, sports travel, etc.). Truth is, my schedule is booked solid till (roughly) mid-July.  It's kind of nuts.

Still. Even with all this going on...

Okay, no. Stop. No promises (yet). I'll provide info as it's ready to come out not ephemeral "maybes." For now, at least you all know I'm alive and Just Fine. Thank you to all the folks who emailed me checking up...your concern is truly touching.

That's enough (I'm writing this while my kid is getting his hair cut). Time to go...more later.

L is for Limits

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for the month is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: how to approach it, how to run it, how to enjoy a system that deserves to be played NOW, nearly 50 years after its inception. Consider this a 'crash course' in the subject]

L is for Limits...and believe it or not, we really, really like limits in our Dungeons & Dragons game.

Limits are what makes a game a game...at least a game worthy of play. When you play basketball with your friends, you don't score a point just for touching the ball...to score a point you must put the ball through an elevated hoop, suspended higher than (most) people can jump. It is a simple game, but it is a challenging game, and the challenge is a large part of what compels people to play and enjoy it.

AD&D has LOTS of limits built into its rules. There are limits to what classes a given species can play. There are limits to what level a given class-species combination can achieve. There are limits to ability scores based on species and gender (we'll talk about that one in a second). There are limits to how a character may advance and how experience points are acquired. There are limits to what may be carried, limits to resources (arrows, oil, torches, potions, spells). Limits to the number of hit points of damage a character may sustain before winding up dead-dead-dead. Heck, there are even limits to WHICH characters are eligible to be raised from death by magic (sorry to all the elves and orcs!).

All these limits provide boundaries that shape the look and feel and play of the game. They all provide challenges to the participants' desire to do "anything they want," despite ad copy claims to the contrary ("...a game of limitless imagination!"). 

And challenge is what makes it a game worth playing.

FOR EXAMPLE: the character is the player's tool and vehicle for exploring the game world; however, that "tool" is only as effective as the limits of its level. A 1st level character is VERY limited in effectiveness, compared to a 10th level character...even if the two were equipped in similar fashion (equipment and magic items tend to act as a "force multiplier;" they do not (usually) "make" the character). Advancing in level requires the player to earn experience points. Experience points are earned through finding and recovering treasure (these are adventurous treasure-hunters, after all) OR...more minimally...by defeating opponents in combat (valid, given that much of a character's effectiveness is measured in combat ability).  However, engaging opponents in combat COSTS RESOURCES...players lose time, lose hit points, lose consumable equipment, lose spells...and this cost must be weighed against the potential gain.  Because depletion of resources means a reduction in the RANGE at which the player can operate.

[if I spend an hour of my four-hour game session locked in a large combat, I'm using up a quarter of my real world game time in a single encounter, leaving LESS time for more exploration/adventuring. If I lose a large amount of hit points (or fellow player characters) or spells and resources in this large encounter, that leaves me with a decreased amount for further exploration/adventuring. The question becomes: was the battle WORTH it? If pursing this large combat resulted in a large treasure, or opened access to a large treasure, or provided a clue for finding a large treasure...then, maybe. If not, that large combat may end up being a Pyrrhic victory. Assuming it results in victory at all]

But that is the challenge of game play...it is what makes AD&D the game it is. In the present D&D culture, it is a common practice to NOT award experience points but simply to "level up" players at arbitrary chosen places as a reward for accomplishing story goals set by the DM. This is pretty much the opposite of "player agency." Players must jump through the hoops specified by their DM in order to get their cookie. And since the award is subjective and arbitrary (the DM can choose to award a level whenever they "feel like it") nothing the players actually DO or accomplish in the game matters in the slightest. It only matters how generous the DM is feeling on a particular day (which may ranged from "overly generous" to "downright stingy").

Some of us prefer our actions to matter. Some of us prefer to have agency.

HOW ABOUT ANOTHER EXAMPLE: when creating their character in the game, players are LIMITED by two factors: 1) the ability scores they roll, and 2) the class-race combinations that are allowed. Since ability scores are randomly determined, this tends to create a broader swath of "humanity" (including demi-humanity) among the players in some semblance (verisimilitude...again!) of "real life." Not everyone has what it takes to be a paladin, or a ranger, or a monk, or a bard. And so those classes appear with less frequency than simple fighters and clerics and magic-users and thieves...as they should. Likewise, not every species trains the same type of profession. Elves are not particularly religious (perhaps because they cannot be raised from the dead?) and there are no adventuring clerics among their number (their priests are all "stay-at-home" types and limited to NPCs)...this is implied world/setting material as well as a LIMIT on what players can choose.

While the non-humans have limits of choice when it comes to their profession, they also have limits to their maximum achievable effectiveness. 8th level might seem to be an impossibly lofty rank to low-level sloggers of OSR "lite" games, but it's barely more than "mid" for an AD&D campaign...my players can hit 8th pretty easily within a year of play (even with level draining undead). As one might expect, this means the bulk of long-term characters...especially fighter types...are going to end up as humans (who have no level restrictions). The trade-off? Humans gain none of the special abilities of the non-human species (and there's a LOT, especially for dwarves, elves, and halflings), nor do humans have the ability to multi-class (advance in two classes simultaneously) which is a decided advantage of the non-humans, especially at the low-mid levels of play.

Again, we can contrast this with present day (5E) game culture where any character can be any species-class and can achieve any level. Without boundaries, there is no particular challenge save, perhaps the challenge of playing something "original" in a world where all is permitted. However, that by itself (for me) breaks any semblance of verisimilitude as such a world of half-orc bards and halfling paladins, where the greatest fighter in the land can be a gnome and the greatest wizard a dwarf, is just a little too "gonzo" for my taste. I like my fantasy grounded in an accessible world of SOME naturalism, not the cartoon anti-logic of the wildest anime-come-to-screen. There are other RPGs for anime play.

ONE FINAL EXAMPLE: and here I'll talk about the ability score discrepancies between males and females. AD&D places limits on ability scores based on species and that is fine...I have no issue with one species being less agile than another, or less educated, or not built as robustly as another. These are issues of culture (setting/world building) and fantasy physiology. However, with regard to the STRENGTH ability score, AD&D places limits based on female strength in comparison to male strength for each individual species. It looks like this:

• Halfling (M/F)       Max: 17 / 14      +1/+1 or 0/0
• Gnome (M/D)        Max: 18(50) / 15     +1/+3 or 0/0
• Elf (M/F)               Max:  18(75) / 16    +2/+3 or 0/+1
• Half-Elf (M/F)       Max: 18(90) / 17    +2/+4 or +1/+1
• Dwarf (M/F)          Max: 18(99) / 17    +2/+5 or +1/+1
• Half-Orc (M/F)      Max: 18(99) / 18(75)   +2/+5 or +2/+3
• Human (M/F)         Max: 18(00) / 18(50)   +3/+6 or +1/+3

For those who are new to AD&D, understand that the strength ability score goes from 3 to 18, but fighters (including rangers and paladins) with an 18 score roll percentile dice to achieve a "bonus" score of 01 to 00 ("100"). High strength scores provide a bonus to melee combat (very important for sword-swinging fantasy, doubly important for fighter types), as well as a +10% bonus to experience points for fighters with a score of 16+ in strength. Consequently, even though the a max STR male halfling is only getting a +1/+1 to attack/damage rolls versus his female counterpart, the female halfling will be earning less x.p. (as a fighter) because her STR is capped at 14. With this in mind, female gnomes and halflings should probably not even consider fighter as a class.

In my youth, we just rolled with these, as is. Our group included two girls (one my co-DM), both of whom played fighters, and it was never an issue (as in, it simply never came up). There may have been one or two complaints from BOYS in our group (who occasionally played female characters), but we'd simply say "them's the rules, fella." Any player was allowed to play any gender, and we stuck by the rules as written. These days, I'm of a different mind. 

For one thing, while combat issues the major part of STR, in AD&D the issue only starts to get crazy with fighter percentiles...all non-fighters are limited to a max 18 STR, and that's never giving you more bonus than +1/+2. In other words, not much bonus. However, the real issue for me is the added weight allowance, in which any character with STR greater than 11 gets additional carrying capacity. ENCUMBERANCE is one of the limits we LOVE, as it keeps the game firmly grounded in pseudo-reality, rather than the "Minecraft mentality" of unlimited inventory.

Real world carrying capacity is tied to BODY WEIGHT. Yes, men (on average) have a more upper body strength than women, but their ability to carry loads over distance is pretty much the same percentages: 20-30% of body weight for sustainable load over distance; 10-20% of body weight is optimal for speed and endurance, 30-35% sharp drop off in pace with fatigue/injury risk...this latter amount would be a military-style "heavy" load. Military and trekking studies show that women can average 15-25% of their body weight for sustained movement, while men average 20-30% and that fitness and experience matter more than gender for carrying capacity.

It's a fascinating thing to study...and once you do you start seeing the STR chart in the PHB is INSANE. A +300# weight allowance? Even the +100# of a woman limited to 18/50 STR seems outrageous...unless these were additions to the maximum encumbered (staggering around) load. However, it is explicit that this amount is added to the unencumbered rate of movement. Probably because it's a fantasy game and some rules are written for the sake of expedience.

And if it's a fantasy game, then it doesn't matter to me whether the the women-folk are equally strong as the men-folk. As such, in my campaign all members of a species (male, female, and...I suppose...non-binary) use the same maximum STR score (i.e. they all use the number listed for the "male" of their species). 

I guess we only really, really like MOST limits.

; )

K is for Killers

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for the month is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: how to approach it, how to run it, how to enjoy a system that deserves to be played NOW, nearly 50 years after its inception. Consider this a 'crash course' in the subject]

K is for Killers...the stone cold, natural born variety. Your players' characters, in other words.

Was a tough day today which is why this is coming out so late. And so I'm going to punt slightly and repurpose an earlier post to talk about "murder hobos."

"Murder hobo" is one of those terms that has changed over time. When I first heard the phrase, it playfully referred to the average (D&D) adventure party. Why? Because adventurers are a group of folks without homes (until Name level) that wander about the fantasy world engaging in violence as a means to make their living. It was a wink-and-a-smile at the basic premise of the original fantasy RPG: combat (even against "evil" and "monsters") is still just a form of killing (i.e. murder) and these protagonists were outside the norms of whatever established society the game world has.

It was a way to jokingly refer to the PCs, purposefully ignoring the nuance and context that makes a game of (essentially) killing and looting enjoyable by viewing it through the perspective of non-gamer eyes.

These days, however, the term has come to mean something else...instead of being used to describe ANY adventuring party, it is used to describe a specific type of player: one who indiscriminately kills (i.e. engages in combat) during the game, even when doing so is deemed inappropriate or counter-productive to the goals/objectives of the party.  And in SOME instances, it is used to describe a player who engages in ANY form of combat without just cause...and sometimes even with just cause!

More often, though, the "murder hobo" label is applied to a character who decides to slay non-combatant NPCs for little reason. A tavern keeper giving the PC lip. A shopkeeper that won't lower their prices. A "quest giver" NPC who the player(s) find annoying. These kinds of in-game actions are considered to be disruptive and/or derailing to the story the DM is attempting to tell.

Here's the deal: DMs, the problem is not "murder hobos;" the problem is YOU.

I do not have, nor have I ever seen, "murder hobos" at my table (in 40+ years of play), unless you mean in the tongue-in-cheek original sense of the term (i.e. when all un-settled adventurers are little more than wandering, murderous hobos). But if you mean in the "disruptive" or "derailing" present day use of the term, then nope, no murder hobos here.

And these days I'm (usually) playing with kids. 

First off, how boring must your game be that the players can find nothing better to do than stab some NPC shopkeeper? I mean, really. Players never even interact with NPC shopkeepers in my game! "Do you guys want to buy some equipment before heading out?" Yeah. "Okay, tell me what you buy and how much it costs and let's go." 

The only reason to go into any detail about a particular non-dungeon location (such as a tavern or inn or shop) is because that location is pertinent to the adventure (say, the Golden Grain Inn from module N1). The tavern in B2 has a chance of containing men-at-arms or adventurers for hire...you roll up how many are there (if the PCs express an interest in hiring people) and you ask what they're offering as payment. That's it! Let's get on with the game!

Dungeons & Dragons is a game where violence is an inherent part of its concept. I know that doesn't sit well with some people, and that's fine...D&D is probably not the game for them! Not everyone likes every form of entertainment out there! I'm not big into horror movies or playing tennis...that doesn't mean other people don't love-love-love those things. And more power to them. 

But if I went into a game of tennis and complained that people kept score because 'how lame to just make it about getting points' than guess what? I'm the jerk...not the tennis player or the game of tennis.

I have the occasional "quest giver" type NPC that shows up in my campaign. A duke with a treasure map who's willing to finance an expedition (that he doesn't want to go on) in exchange for a cut of the profits. An innkeeper who had a break-in through her cellar and was willing to pay brave souls to go into the mysterious tunnel and see what was going on. A drunken man at a tavern crying about how his sister had been taken by the evil vampire lord of the village and maybe the PCs would be interested in avenging his family. Etc.

Did my players decide to roll the duke? Slay the innkeeper? Stomp the rambling drunk? No! Because they were mature individuals? No way! Because they wanted to get onto the adventure, and they saw the profit in dialing in to the game we were playing. Not just actual "profit" (treasure for their PCs) but a profit of time (for the players)...time better spent playing the damn game we'd all sat down to play!

Hey, DMs: how seriously do you take your game? Do you make a world that is sensible and consequential? If players pick a fight with the town guardsmen (and lose), do they end up swinging from a rope and needing to roll up new characters? They do in my game. Do you have "magic shops" on the street corner just begging to be robbed by the PCs because the potential profit far outweighs the risk of killing the owner and his body guards? I don't...because I want my players to have reasons to go into dungeons, rather than loot townsfolk.

Hey, DMs: are you providing enough treasure in your games that knocking over citizens isn't worth their time? If you're not, guess whose fault that is.

Yes, I have seen "evil PCs" that would actively engage in reprehensible behavior. In my youth, I had one player who created a (male) Drow cleric of Llolth that was trying to set up a secret temple in a (surface) town and murdered a goodwife and at least a child or two, mainly as random acts of wanton violence. However, the character was caught and imprisoned (for being Drow, I think...not sure if the murders were initially discovered) and the player lost interest in playing the character after that first and only session. A different player, playing an insane, evil priest (Father Cornelius...still remember his name) engaged in some sort of heinous acts that I honestly can't remember. But that was back when I still allowed PvP and the other players killed him for being too much of a loose cannon. 

In neither of these cases was this an issue of "disruptive" behavior. They were brief experiments into "playing evil" and being transgressive, the kind of thing you do when you're young and new to role-playing. Murdering (and 'hoboing') was neither new, nor outside the norms of play at our table. Many of our characters were chaotic neutral (or worse) back in the day, simply because we played By The Book, and those non-goody alignments allowed PCs more freedom of action ("agency"). It didn't turn them into random stabbers of non-combatants. 

But they would have wanted the option (even though it wasn't exercised), which explains why we never saw any paladins and precious few rangers or Lawful Good types (the main LG cleric was the same player who created "Father Cornelius"); just too many strictures over player behavior for our taste. However, my co-DM and I provided enough adventure in our games (as well as a consequential game world) that giving the players such leeway was never an issue.

Do you give your players enough adventure?

Every single AD&D character is fight-worthy. Every one of them has an attack matrix, a set of hit points, a number of weapons with which they are proficient. This is not by accident.  Not every character is a fighter, and not every challenge faced requires violence.  But violence is inherent to the game...and every player and DM should know this when they sit down at the table.

Okay, that's it. I should have more time tomorrow.

J is for Jaded

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for the month is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: how to approach it, how to run it, how to enjoy a system that deserves to be played NOW, nearly 50 years after its inception. Consider this a 'crash course' in the subject]

J is for Jaded...the cynical, tired, world-weary view many have when it comes to this nearly 50-year old game that is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.

I mean, that's the real reason people don't want to play AD&D, right? Not because it's out-of-print (it isn't), but because it's old and creaky and un-supported compared to the new hotness with its DM's Guild and D&D Beyond and corporate-sponsored community. First edition is just some odd relic for nostalgic wargamers...curmudgeonly, grey-bearded grognards, yeah?

I mean 1E is just so much "Oh, no! Yet another group of orcs! And, oh, look...these ones have a pet cave troll." (*yawn*)  I mean that's just a sleep spell followed by flaming oil, no?  If you've seen one bag of gold and a +1 sword, you've seen them all, amirite?  BORING.

Oh, and AD&D combat. Sure. Roll for initiative. Roll to hit. Roll for damage. Repeat. Over and over and over. How TEDIOUS...and yet that's 90% of D&D combat, no? Maybe with a charge thrown in for good measure. Lighting torches and dutifully marching down stone stairways into dark passages...again and again. A grinding slog of searching for coins so one can level up and do it all over again...didn't that type of play go out of style circa 1988?

And the players of this edition...boy-howdy, what kind of neck bearded mouth-breathers these guys are. All jokes about their appearance aside, what kind of MENTALITY drives a person to find this kind of game "fun?" To want to butcher monsters and rob them of their (imaginary) possessions? What kind of sick, freakish behavior is this?

Is it any wonder that the "OSR" is filled with "rules lite" games? After all, if all you want to do is go down a hole, stab some things with a sword, and steal their stuff, what do you really need for rules? Why NOT just run a simplified game with streamlined procedures and let your imagination carry the day when it comes to creating monstrous challenges and fantastical magic treasures? I mean, don't these "lite" RPGs give you the same gameplay for a lower cost in terms of time and effort? 

And even if you MUST have your "complex," pseudo-wargame (because you're a big ol' nerd who likes the crunch), just how long can you sustain interest in running the same six scenarios time and again? Ancient tomb, labyrinthine cavern, evil temple/shrine...is it really six scenarios? Maybe four if you count stronghold of tyrannical overlord as one. Maybe.

These are the words of the jaded. Know them. Let them penetrate you. Flow through you. And then continue on their merry way. 

Do not apologize for your hobby. Do not make excuses for it. Do not even try to justify it to people. You like what you like. There are far worse vices and far sillier pastimes than playing AD&D.

But what about YOU? Are YOU feeling jaded by the game play of AD&D? Well...let's talk about that.

A jaded AD&D player, unfortunately, doesn't have much recourse available to them. Chances are that any cynicism they've acquired is largely due to the Dungeon Master. You can try to 'up your game,' looking for adventures elsewhere (i.e. outside the dungeon), pushing your DM to expand the scope of play...but sometimes that's a no-go. In those cases, your best choice of action (IMO) is to become a Dungeon Master yourself, modeling the change you want to be.

On the other hand, if you're a jaded AD&D DM, you're going to need to take a long, hard look at yourself in the mirror. For the DM who feels stuck in a rut, who no longer feels the "fire" of enthusiasm for the game, it's never an issue of "bad players" or "burnout" (although people will often advise the jaded DM to switch groups or 'take a break' from running). No, if you're feeling your game is dull, staid, repetitive, and/or lackluster there is only one way to rekindle your spark: work harder. That your game feels lackluster is a direct result of failing to meet your own expectations.

What? There's not enough fantasy in your game? There's more fantasy in the core books than you'll probably get to in a lifetime...I've been playing for more than four decades and *I* haven't used every monster, magic item, and spell. If your orcs are "boring," it's only because you're using them as cardboard cutouts, the RPG equivalent of pixels spawning only to be killed. Give them motivations, give them agendas, give them plans. Tie them to the environment, to your campaign world. Enjoy them...tart them up with personalities, names, idiosyncrasies. NOT because you're trying to entertain your players with "funny/weird NPCs;" players are far more likely to simply beat such creatures to death instead of interacting with them (this IS D&D, after all). No, you are entertaining yourself...AND you are world building. Those 'cheap deaths' at the hands of bloodthirsty players can have consequences.

What if the orcs aren't "bad" at all, but a  tribe of surface dwelling types that are engaged in a brisk trade with a local human community...perhaps the town or village that the players use as a base of operations. Maybe the mayor was actually paying the orcs a small stipend to keep the road clear of bandits; maybe some of the orcs had intermarried with members of the human population. Or perhaps not...perhaps the orcs were steering well clear of the humans (only occasionally ambushing the lone villager or lost merchant that wandered into their territory) but was instead engaged with a more remote group of more vicious humanoids...for example an alliance with some gnolls against a small group of ogres. Killing the orcs might upset the gnolls; it might also overturn the balance of power in the region as the dissolution of the orc-gnoll "buffer" incites the ogres to come down from the hills and raid the human village. Lots of possibilities.

But perhaps you feel you've already exhausted ALL possibilities with orcs. If you have, my question to you is: why are you still using orcs in your scenarios? Are you not awarding enough treasure to advance your players to a level where they can come into conflict with bigger prey?  How many years, how many sessions have you been playing "small ball?"  Long enough to get bored, sure...does that mean years? Because after a year or two of regular play, you should have players of a high enough level that they can start exploring other planes of existence...where the weirdness is both expected and encouraged.  But if, after two to three years of solid play, your players are still under 7th level in experience, then you're probably doing something wrong. Either your players are complete numbskulls (which means you could/should be helping them, teaching them how to tackle/handle challenges more effectively). OR you're simply not opening enough possibility for them by seeding your game with adequate amounts of treasure. 

Trust me on this: you want new, exciting, ennui-breaking potential in your game? Give your players treasure. Level them up and you'll have whole new horizons to explore.

No AD&D Dungeon Master should ever feel bored or jaded by their own campaign. Your campaign is YOUR world. If it's not exciting enough, or interesting enough, that's something YOU need to fix...by making it more interesting and exciting. The fault of a dull, uninteresting game lies solely with the Dungeon Master running the game. 

And the good news is: knowing that it's your own fault gives you all the power in the world to change it. Just dig a bit deeper...you can do better if you try.

I is for Iron

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for the month is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: how to approach it, how to run it, how to enjoy a system that deserves to be played NOW, nearly 50 years after its inception. Consider this a 'crash course' in the subject]

I is for IRON...the will you must have to run AD&D and the fist you must rule with at your table. If you are going to be an AD&D Dungeon Master, your resolve must be iron clad.

Perhaps that sounds like 'petty tyrant nonsense.' It is not. The game play of Dungeons & Dragons is built upon TRUST...the trust the players have in the Dungeon Master. For the game to function...whether in the short-term or (especially) over the long-haul, the players must have unshakeable trust that the DM will  be a fair and impartial arbiter, abiding by the rules of the game, whether those rules are set by the DM or by the instructional text of the game itself.

This is yet another reason why the knowledge of the books (and the instructions within them) is so important and why it is best to keep any house rules (especially those that upend the standard systems and procedures in the text) should be kept to a minimum. The game texts are the 'holy scripture' of the game, that set out the rules that govern the (game) world...yes, they produce a fun game for us to play, but they set the "laws of the universe" by which all participants must abide...just as real humans are subject to the laws of gravity or the turns of the seasons.

For the players, any wavering on the part of the DM, any wishy-washyness, any chink in their armor that can be exploited or manipulated...any BREAK in their iron...can prove disastrous to trust.  If one player or another can wheedle (or weasel) the Dungeon Master into giving an inch, the game risks becoming a farce...a sham. No longer a game of playing adventure, but a game of playing the DM. 

You must rule your table with an iron fist. This does not mean bullying your players; rather, you must have a unbreakable grip of you own game. When a player complains "But Gandalf used a sword! Friar Tuck used a sword!" you must be able to look them in the eye, and calmly say, "Yes, I know...but this is not The Lord of the Rings or Robin Hood, and in this game world wizards and priests don't use swords."  Those that still want to play will accept the rules of play and stay at the table...and, so long as you apply the rules consistently, they will find their foundation of trust strengthening.

Because you demonstrate integrity. 

I've written about this before with regard to DMs who allow themselves to be flummoxed or cajoled into accepting the complaints and whining of players, in some misguided attempt to "keep everyone happy." Trying to keep everyone happy is a fool's errand. No...you are a baseball umpire. Sometimes people are called out on strikes and THAT is the rules of the game...the rules that everyone playing have agreed to abide by.

AD&D is no different from baseball in this regard.

Does this mean that people watching my table will observe me constantly shouting down my players, belittling them, telling them to sit down, shut up, and play the damn game? No, of course not. When someone asks a question about game procedures, I provide them with an explanation as to why I'm doing something. Any "house rules" I may have are explained at the outset of the session, such that there isn't a question later, in the middle of play. And if a person challenges me...which happens on occasion...with a rule of which I was unaware, we pause the game and look up the rule and assess it. And then CORRECT our game play as necessary.  Because I, too, have an interest in playing the game right.

Again, this demonstrates integrity.

And I want to demonstrate integrity.  I want players to trust me in my role as Dungeon Master...that I hold myself to a standard they can count on, rely on.

Because the DM is given enormous power within the game. Even though AD&D characters do not have the floofy backstories and dramatic arcs of a 5E character, players still become (over time) emotionally invested in their characters...their actions create history and meaning and memories of shared experiences. The AD&D character becomes as much a part of their player as the university they went to, the career they've chosen, the spouse they married.  And the Dungeon Master can BLAST THAT CHARACTER INTO NOTHINGNESS AT ANY TIME. The DM can have a bottomless pit open beneath the character's feet, or a river of lava break though the dungeon wall, or a cave-in crush every member of the party ('rocks fall, everyone dies'). The DM can send wave upon wave of monsters (such as the Dragonlance modules do to those who step off its railroad path) or create magic traps that do all manner of despicable, de-protagonizing things to characters (see Tomb of Horrors for examples). The DM is explicitly empowered (via the text in the DMG) with destroying characters with "bolts from the blue" simply for behaving badly (as judged by the DM).  

Who wants to play in a game like that? Who can feel engaged in a game that is subject to such arbitrariness? Why put in the time and effort and emotional commitment just to have everything you've worked for stripped away by a capricious individual?

If you, as a DM, cannot demonstrate integrity, your players will not be able to trust you. If you break your own rules, or the rules of the game, they will have no choice but to see you as a person given to subjective bouts of whimsy. And that's someone they cannot trust. This will break your game.

You must have an iron will and an iron resolve when it comes to running your game. You cannot allow yourself to be subject to the "rule of cool." If you want a game that is meaningful over the long-term, you must be as UNcool, as the parent who says to the child, "No, you cannot stay up till 2am watching videos while swilling soda and stuffing your face with ice cream." For the benefit of your campaign and your players, you must be totally uncool in the face of complaints.

But isn't this game supposed to be fun? And imaginative? And chock-full of amazing cool fantasy? Yes, of course. And it is!  In what other game can you catch and train winged horses for riding? In what other game can you find yourself leading a band of mercenary soldiers into battle against the unwashed hordes of beast-men bent on ruin? In what other game can you fight dragons and plunder their lairs? In what other game can you turn yourself invisible, fly, and rain fiery death on your enemies? In what other game can you travel to both the depths of Hell and the heights of Olympus to personally commune (or combat) gods and demons? In what other game can you start as a lowly pawn and elevate yourself to living legend through your own deeds?  AD&D allows you do ALL of this...and more!...all within the standard rules of the game.  Is that not amazingly cool, imaginative fun?

But that is digression (and the subject of a post yet to come). The point of THIS post is that you must be as rigid as iron when it comes to running the game by the rules you've accepted to play (whether or not they've been modified by "house rules"), and not allow yourself to be swayed or "buffaloed" into deviation. Every time you allow yourself (as DM) to be "gamed" by the players, you erode their trust in your ability to be fair and impartial...even for those players who BENEFIT from this manipulation. Sure, you were willing to fudge the dice rolls for them this time, but what about next time? And can any victory feel earned with the knowledge that your DM is willing to tamper with the results?

Best to build your campaign on a strong, solid foundation. Be iron, my friends.

H is for House Rules

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for the month is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: how to approach it, how to run it, how to enjoy a system that deserves to be played NOW, nearly 50 years after its inception. Consider this a 'crash course' in the subject]

H is for House Rules...a subject that is likely to meet with more consternation than some of these other essays.

I'd imagine that most D&D players, when asked about their "house rules," will consider all the ways they (or their group) have altered the rules of their game to better meet their expectations of play. All sorts of modifications have been proposed and used by folks over the years, in every edition of the game...far too many to make any kind of comprehensive list. Some groups have decided they don't like level restrictions, or race/class restrictions. Some groups have decided to use a "silver standard" instead of gold for their economy. Others have decided to axe various rules and systems from the game...everything from languages and training, to alignment, to whole races or classes (several folks, for example have decided they dislike the inclusion of clerics in the game, feeling it diminished the "sword & sorcery" feel of the game), while ADDING new procedures that subvert or undermine the existing system...things like "luck points" or a shields will be splintered rule.

In many cases, the DMs making these changes to their game do so with the claim that D&D's authors meant the game to be changed and adjusted at any time; that, rather than actual rules, the instructional text serves only as "guidelines" that a Dungeon Master should feel free to rewrite to their liking, at any time, broadly interpreting the final afterword of OD&D's initial rule set as carte blanche for wholesale changes. 

I am of a different opinion on the matter.

Leaving aside OD&D (not the subject of this series anyway), I find little in the AD&D books to indicate Gygax wanted anyone to modify or change the rules of the game at all. Quite the opposite, in fact:

Dictums are given for the sake of the game only, for if ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is to survive and grow, it must have some degree of uniformity, a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign within the whole. ADVANCED D&D is more than a framework around which individual DMs construct their respective milieux, it is above all a set of boundaries for all of the "worlds" devised by referees everywhere. These boundaries are broad and spacious, and there are numerous areas where they are so vague and amorphous as to make them nearly nonexistent, but they are there nonetheless. 

...The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign...Variation and difference are desirable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system. Imaginative and creative addition can most certainly be included; that is why nebulous areas have been built into the game. Keep such individuality in perspective by developing a unique and detailed world based on the rules of ADVANCED D&D. No two campaigns will ever be the same, but all will have the common ground necessary to maintaining the whole as a viable entity about which you and your players can communicate with many thousands of others....

[from the DMG, page 7]

No, the game does not cover the entirety of possible (fantasy) experiences, but it does have functional rules, and the areas where creativity is not only allowed but encouraged are those places where the rules are "vague and amorphous." In other words, only the areas of play where there are no systems or procedures to cover the subject in question...those places (and there are many) are where DMs should be adding specificity and using their own creativity. As needed.

Conversely, where there are already rules, they are there for a reason. And maintaining uniformity (by adhering to those rules) is an explicit objective of the game designer as pointed out MANY times in the text (see the PHB preface and the DMG afterword, in addition to the quotes above).

Now, please allow me to stem the tide of readers jumping down my throat about how they love their dwarven clerics and how unlimited demihuman advancement "saved" their campaign.  I am not so obtuse as to believe that the majority (or ANY) of the DMs running the game are doing it entirely "by the book."  Neither do I want to be hypocritical in professing to be a completely RAW ("rules as written") Dungeon Master when it comes to running AD&D. As a youth, we strove to abide by the rules as much as humanly possible, but there were things we missed and things we got wrong, and for the sake of expedience there was definitely a time when we adopted the rather lenient Moldvay version of encumbrance for our otherwise granular AD&D campaign.

But then, we didn't have the tools (laptops and spreadsheets) that we do today.

Still, even today, my own game deviates in multiple ways from AD&D as written. While mostly done to shore up some inconsistencies and problems found in certain magical (spell) effects, other changes...like the wholesale removal of alignment or the magic-user's need to read magic...are far more significant in scope, if not impact.

All that being confessed, I strive to run MOST of the game in a manner that "hews the line with respect to conformity with major systems and uniformity of play in general" (as Gygax stipulates in the afterword of the DMG). Because these days I run games for all sorts of players, not just my own "regulars." And I want to make sure that anyone who sit down at my table to play AD&D...whether at a "demo," a game shop, or a convention...and has an INKLING (or more) of the game are going to be able to dive in with little or no trouble. Yes, they can even 'choose an alignment' (if they must)...they simply won't find it mattering much (or at all) in play. But everything else? The actual nuts-and-bolts of game play? That they should find more-or-less 'as Gary intended.'

That uniformity that the author hammers on about is quite useful. AD&D is not a particularly 'hard' game to play, but it is not a simple game...certainly not in comparison to, say, the Basic editions written to introduce new players to D&D concepts. But because of that uniformity I can (and have) run AD&D games without issue for players from many different countries. It has allowed me to write adventures that have been run in German and French and Hungarian (to be clear. NOT my native language). It has allowed me to correspond with folks all over the world (via the wonderful technology of today), explaining the rules and how they work (based on my personal interpretations of the text) and citing where they can find the same information themselves. 

The important thing, however, is that it provides a shared understanding and a shared lexicon for communication. When I play chess with my (Mexican) father-in-law, we use different terms for the pieces, but the pieces still move in the same fashion. By playing as close to 'standard' AD&D procedures as I do, I stave off a lot of questions and...I believe...a lot of possible frustrations and resentment. Just being able to say, "yeah, that half-orc paladin (or whatever) ain't allowed in the rules," cuts off a lot of potential issues that might otherwise arise at the table. Yes, some folks will find it galling that their elven fighter can't advance past a certain level...but at least they know what they're signing up for when they join an AD&D game. And my game world doesn't end up looking all that much different from someone else's campaign (assuming they play with the same rules in place).

So, if you were to ask MY players what my most important house rules are (and I have), THESE are the ones they've most often cited:

• No cell phones or electronic devices allowed at the table (this includes the DM...I use my laptop between sessions for calculating and tracking various numbers, but in play, I only use printed documents and hardcopy manuals).
• All dice are rolled "in the box" (all my dice are rolled in the open and in a flat-lying box top; dice that bounce out of the box do not count and are re-rolled in the box).
• No PVP ("player versus player") conflict allowed (players are on the same team; the DM is the adversary)

My fifteen year old son (one of my players) adheres to these house rules in his game, too, although he insists on running everything else "by the book" (including the use of alignment, etc.). Which is his prerogative, of course. And it doesn't bother me in the slightest, because I already know how to play AD&D by the book.