O is for Originality

[over the course of the month of April, my plan was to post a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. While I was unable to complete the project on time, I find I still have things to say. Our topic in question 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]

O is for Originality...something that is overrated within the so-called "Old School" community.

Not that this series is meant to slam the (mostly commercial) venture that is the OSR these days. But many of the new DMs coming to the AD&D game these days...or even old DMs returning to AD&D after decades of hiatus...are doing so by way of the Old School Revival that's rumbled along these last 17+ years. And in the commercial offerings that carry the "OSR" branding...specifically the for-purchase, pre-written adventure modules (of the kind that new and/or rusty DMs lean on to both inspire themselves and polish their chops), you find a particular type of pathology on display: the urgent need to add "original content" that never was to their offerings.

As if the game didn't offer enough content already.

I write quite a lot of adventures for use at my own table (both for my home campaign and for gaming conventions I attend). And when it comes to designing adventures, especially for convention play, I do not include "original content;" that is, I do not create "new, original" monsters, or magic items, or spells. Oh, you'll see some adventures I've penned for various writing contests that include one or two of these things (because they are elements of the contest), but these adventures don't see actual running at my table except when/if "play-testing." For my own campaign...and when demonstrating AD&D at cons...my adventures don't include anything you wouldn't normally find in the books...for a number of reasons:

1. The content already included in the books is (for the most part) tried and true and already tested within and against the (long-tested) rules of the game.
2. There is more content in the books than I have ever used in totality...which is to say, I've yet to use EVERY monster, or EVERY magic item, or EVERY magic spell over my 40+ years of gaming.
3. For purposes of playing (and "mastering") a game, players need a consistent structure within which to learn and hone their skills, not a rug that gets pulled out from under them with every new dungeon. As I wrote earlier, I am all for metagaming as it IMPROVES player engagement.

Thus, I have no need or desire for adding "original content" to my games...in fact (as per reason #3), I find original content can be detrimental to one's campaign if used in a less-than-judicious fashion.

And it's really not needed! Again, I will make use of a metaphor suggested to me by a DM of far more experience and wisdom than myself: AD&D can be compared to a piano. Consider the ubiquitous piano with its 88 keys...the industry "standard" since 1890. How many people have studied and learned and composed music on a piano over the years, challenging themselves and entertaining others? And how many of them have attempted to add "more keys" to the piano to make the thing "more original?" How many have said, man, these 88 keys aren't enough...there's just not enough sound here to make a decent song!

The idea is ridiculous, as anyone with the slightest  passing interest in music might tell you. And, yet, how many DMs are unsatisfied with the content of the core D&D books? How many have said that the 350+ monsters in the Monster Manual or the 300+ magic items in the Dungeon Masters Guide or the 400+ spells in the Players Handbook are insufficient for their crafting of adventures? Are you kidding me?

There is a TON you can do with the "limited" amount of content in the books: writing an adventure is much like composing a piece of music on a piano. And just as a piece of piano music can be played differently by different musicians (softly, loudly, quickly, slowly, jazzy, or arranged with other instruments, or whatever), a single adventure can be "interpreted" differently by different DMs...or run differently by the same DM on different occasions depending on the players involved.

Orcs aren't "boring." YOU are boring. What is needed is NUANCE, not novelty. Situationally, there are as many different ways to use orcs in your game as there are to use humans...these are intelligent (if imaginary) creatures after all. Consider all the way humans can differ...not just in form or function, but culturally.  I know that many of my fellow American look at all Latin American people as one big mass of brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking people (I know this as I was once one of those Americans) but it is so, so not the case. Even if you ignore the individual differences of individual Mexicans (for example), Mexicans are VERY different from Ecuadorians who are VERY different from Panamanians who are VERY different from Paraguayans who are VERY different from Brazilians who are VERY different from Argentinians or Chileans, etc., etc.. In fact, they are SO DIFFERENT from each other, that unless their country is right next to another they tend to know NOTHING about the differences they have...yeah they know the people there speak Spanish (and, perhaps, have a decent soccer team) but they are often completely ignorant when it comes to someone else's history, politics, customs, food, etc.

It's like the way MUCH of the western world thinks of Africa as one big, homogenous country with border lines drawn on it. There are THOUSANDS of different ethnic identities in Africa and wildly differing genetic diversity even amongst people who share the same color of skin. Would a westerner consider all white people to be one big group? Is a Dutchman really the same as a Sicilian? My Basque friends from Bilbao certainly don't consider themselves "Spanish" in any way, shape, or form. "Your Catalan is getting quite good" they tell me (in English). 

As an American I know there are huge differences of culture between our 50 States. Yes, there are plenty of similarities, but a Washingtonian is a LOT different from a Hawaiian or a Georgian or a New Yorker or a Texan. It's not just politics that divides my country: we are (and always have been) separated by regional and cultural identity, even if we've been united (for most of our history) by some rather singular and lofty ideals that...once upon a time...we all agreed on. But are we different? Do we vary? Hell yes! Even within my own State of Washington, there is a vast difference between the "island folk" of the San Juans and the hard drinking/snorting fisher folk and lumberjacks of the Olympic Peninsula and the multi-generational farmers of the Palouse and the military folks in Everett and the very complicated metro area that is Seattle. Seattle, itself, is large enough that different neighborhoods have their own cultural identity...we're not all elitist tech-savvy "Lib-tards." Far from it! I've lived here since I was born (in '73) and MOST of that time, Seattle was pretty darn "working class" and that's how a lot of us "long timers" still see ourselves. Besides, everyone knows the elitist, tech-money d-bags live in Bellevue.

[haha. I joke. Bellevue is full of wealthy Asians, duh]

The POINT is, just saying an orc is a 1 HD antagonist and that we need a blue-skinned version that explodes when you hit it or one that has feathered wings or an orc that shoots lasers from its eyes in order to "spice things up" is simply showing a profound LACK of imagination. And it's short-changing both your players (who are trying to master the system...something they can only do when there is consistency of application) and yourself (as a designer and Dungeon Master).  What? Are you afraid that if you start "humanizing" orcs (or goblins or lizard folk or giants, etc.) by giving them nuance and ethnical variety that you're going to somehow turn them into something the players don't want to kill and then there goes the game? Have you not noticed how many different motivations, excuses, and justifications humans have found to kill each other over the centuries? My cup runneth over!

Yes, I am well familiar with the classic TSR modules of early days of AD&D and how the MAJORITY of them (pre-'85, i.e. "the good years") would include a new monster or two. I would just point out the following for consideration: A) you almost never see new magic items or spells, things which (in my estimation) have the highest potential for unbalancing or "breaking" the game, B) many times these new monsters are unique encounters and/or thematically linked to the adventure (i.e. not likely to show up elsewhere in a campaign), C) compared to the MAJORITY of the monsters in a 30-60+ encounter area, one or two new critters are a pittance, and D) you generally do NOT see these shenanigans in adventures designed for introductory, low-level play (no new monsters in B1, B2, N1, N2, etc.). Players have to learn the ropes before you start serving up curve balls!

SO...to bring this entry to a summation and close: it is NOT a mark of "creativity" or "good Dungeon Mastery" to be adding new, unique content to your game. Anyone can do that; the Fiend Folio is an entire book filled with new creatures created by a wide swath of designers (more than 70). Pursuing "originality" (in terms of content) as a goal in and of itself isn't the best use of your time and energy as an adventure designer. In my estimation, you'll get far more value out of finding ways to use that which is already present in ways that are unusual, challenging, surprising, and in ways both deeper and more nuanced. Engage your players through good system use, rather than novelty. 

AD&D campaigns can last a long time and you can get a lot of mileage out of it as written. However, when it comes to the vehicle's actual components, there's still a lot of tread left on the tires; no need to change them out so soon!

; )

N is for Newbies

[over the course of the month of April, my plan was to post a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. While I was unable to complete the project on time, I find I still have things to say. Our topic in question 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]

N is for Newbies...which is to say "new players." We love new players.

Once upon a time, it felt like the hardest thing just to find people who were interested in playing D&D...any kind of D&D. For the most part, that barrier no longer exists. Oh, it might not be possible for me to sling together six people at the drop of a hat for a game this weekend, BUT if you live in a community of most any size and have a ready means of reaching out to people (using, for example, the internet), and so long as you're willing to exercise a little patience, a committed DM can attract a table of enthusiasts in fairly short order. The phrase if you build it they will come has never been truer than at this moment in time.

I'm sure there are those who laugh at that whole paragraph...for multiple reasons. However, I assure you it's true, including about this being the "hardest bit" for me at one time. I have always been bad at marketing and (especially) self-promotion (I still am)...and in pre-internet days I was even worse. That I had any reputation at all in my local community says more about my weird-ness (mm..."unique-ness") than any talent for sales (I failed at all types of "sales opportunities" in my youth; I'm just not that kind of person).

And yet, somehow, I always seemed to be able to end up DMing or GMing games, even during the "lean years" of the 1990s. I have said it before and will say it again: players are easy to come by. People LOVE to play games. Their main barrier is having to do any kind of WORK including LEARNING STUFF.   I often (half-)joke that players are lazy as hell, but the truth is that the vast majority of us prefer things to be EASY...especially in a world that is so often difficult. It's why we tend to continue in the same job or vocation for years (often shaped by what our parents did or taught us), or why we persist in being the same religion or political persuasion with which we were raised, or enjoy the same hobbies and pastimes we have since we were kids. Learning new things takes time and effort, and the old adage about "teaching an old dog new tricks" is LESS about our ability to learn as we get older, and far more about our resistance to GIVE UP what comes so easy to us after years (or decades) of experience. Even after letting my vocal chops get rusty the last twenty-ish years, I can still mimic Geoff Tate on Revolution Calling or belt out Man In The Box note-for-note...but I can't play three chords on a guitar with any proficiency, or play anything more complex than "one-two-three-a-leary" on the piano (hell, I can't even play chopsticks). It's just "too hard"...and I have too many other things occupying my attention.

Here's the other great realization I've come to over the last couple decades: one of the main "turn-offs" for potential players was telling them D&D is a "hard" game...that it is a "hard game to learn." Because people, especially OLDER people (and by "older" I mean adults) generally don't have the time or inclination to learn new, hard things. Not unless it means more money in their bank account. This is why you don't see people picking up the guitar or a new sport or changing their religion or switching their vocation to something drastically different from what they've been doing. Unless they have had some crisis in their lives, something that's upended their world view. A brush with their own mortality (either a cancer scare or seeing a loved one die), for instance. Maybe a divorce or some sort of serious disillusionment with their profession or the proverbial "midlife crisis." Barring something of that nature, most people tend to "keep on keeping on" unless you're talking about small, not inconvenient, mostly "fun" modifications to their lifestyle.

The easiest way to get people to play D&D is to explain to them how EASY it is. 

And it IS easy...from the player's side. And if you're a longtime DM (like myself) who has a ton of extra dice and a spare PHB to occasionally loan out, the barrier to entry is even easier. Most of the stigma attached to D&D of being "too nerdy" or "satanic" has fallen away over the last 20 years. If you tell people it's a fun, easy game with zero barrier to entry (because YOU, the DM, will be providing the dice, books, adventure, and know-how), you'd be surprised at just how many people you'll find willing to give it a try. Assuming, of course, that you don't present yourself as someone too weird, nerdy, or satanic for a particular individual's taste.

And new players are GREAT because they come to the game without preconceived notions. I prefer kids under 16 or older adults (folks in their 40s+) who've never played because they're far less likely to have been influenced by what they've read or (more likely) watched on the internet. This is where you'll be able to cultivate real enthusiasm for the game because you can find people who enjoy fantasy and adventure and games, but who have NOT learned that D&D is about "telling stories" or that D&D requires performance ("acting in character") or substantial "creative collaboration" (writing backstories, working with other "performers"/players). These misconceptions are HARD THINGS for most people because most people have no background or experience in acting or story telling or creative collaboration. And...as I wrote above...people are NOT attracted to things that are hard (unless there is some money in it for them).  To cultivate such people as potential players, you have to first disabuse them of these notions...which is not (usually) an easy ask. Once people have an idea in their head, they are reluctant to let go of it without being presented with evidence (i.e. getting them to sit down and actually play). If it is a friend of yours, they might be willing to do so (if only to humor you, or on a 'one-off' basis)...but for a stranger or acquaintance with whom you have little or no connection? 

That's tough.

Still, it's possible. And I've found that if you can get people in the door (or, rather, at the table) and run a solid game of D&D for them, you'll find many of them will be "hooked" by the experience in the same way YOU once were (the standard origin story for vocational DMs). More often than not, you'll find you have a willing and able player whose main barrier to play is the one all enthusiasts face (including myself): time and priorities.  

[I love D&D immensely. I love my children more. Consequently, I don't play D&D as much as I'd like]

On the other hand having to introduce modern day D&D players to the joys of AD&D can be a rougher slog specifically because of the preconceived notions and baked-in expectations they've already experienced (and, for many, have learned to love). Not to be too harsh, but many of these folks might be a "lost cause," unless they've somehow become disenchanted with the current brand. And that's OK...as I said, there are still plenty of fish (er, players) in the sea. 

Only slightly easier...and in some ways more tricky...are the people who come to the game inexperienced but completely "bought in" to the idea of D&D as a performative art. These folks are enthusiastic about the game precisely because they want the experience of "playing pretend" and "collaborative story creation;" their enthusiasm for the fantasy adventure premise makes them happy and willing participants...participants who lack the shyness and inhibition a DM initially finds in many new players. However, their expectations of game play can be quickly dashed...possibly with severe disappointment...the first time their 'Original Character' dies ignominiously in some filthy subterranean cave or tomb.  For AD&D players, the struggle to overcome challenges (to survive and thrive in hostile fantasy world) brings immense satisfaction, and the experience of doing it with other players brings great joy and forges bonds of camaraderie.  But for the story-minded player, the experience of AD&D play does not always (nor often) synch up with the expectation of evolving a meaningful narrative. Creating a "meaningful narrative" is not the objective of AD&D play, and players who come to the table hoping for this outcome are unlikely to find what they seek.

Disabusing them of this notion is very much a matter of giving them the same explanation as you give ANY newbie...and hoping they can grok it. I give pretty much the same spiel to anyone who sits down at my table to play AD&D for the first time; it goes something like this:

"AD&D is a game of fantasy adventure. Each of you players will create [or "play" if running pre-gens, such as at a convention] a character with which you'll explore the imaginary world. I will be taking the part of the Dungeon Master; it is my job to referee the game and describe the imaginary world you are exploring via your character. Your characters are "adventurers:" people that go to dangerous places and face dangerous threats and monsters that the average person are unwilling or unable to face. You do this in hopes of obtaining fortune and fame; this is your job, it is how you get paid.  If you're successful at your job (meaning you survive dangers and find treasure) you will get better at your job...meaning you'll become more skilled, able to face GREATER danger in hopes of finding GREATER reward.  

"Your choice of character will determine what skills you bring to your adventuring party; each of you will contribute to the group's success. Working together, cooperating with each other, will give you your best chance of surviving and thriving. The fantasy world has many dangers and there are many ways for your character to die; however, even if your character dies, you can always make a new character."

That's about all the explanation I ever give as an introduction to new players of any stripe. When invariably asked the rules of the game, I explain that the mechanics will be explained (by me) as they come up in play; however, for the completely inexperienced newbie I always provide an overview of the following concepts:

• Class and "race" (species)
• Level (and experience points)
• Hit points
• Armor class
• Attack/damage rolls
• Saving throws

Ability scores are explained during the character creation process (or, if using pre-generated characters, explained in the process of pointing out what is on the character sheet).  The economy of the game (gold pieces, etc.) is usually described as the player purchases their character's equipment.

It is not unusual that a newbie player will want to play a spell-casting character, and I do not discourage this (in other words, I never force a new player to play a 'plain Jane fighter'). When they voice this desire, I give them an overview of AD&D spell-casting including the limitations inherent in the Vancian magic system. This explanation by itself discourages most newbies from taking on the role of a magic-user (or even a cleric!) but before they become too crestfallen I usually suggest a multi-class character...a fighter/magic-user, for example...as a means of dipping their toe while still playing a fairly durable character. Similarly, I only bother explaining the thief skills (and the thief's limitations) if a player expresses an interest in playing such a character...and explaining that multi-class fighter/thieves are also a more durable option for a first-time player.

In the end, it doesn't matter all that much the kind of character the newbie plays because, in practice, that first character usually dies before the end of the first adventure session even with the aid of experienced players helping them. New players often underestimate threats they've never encountered and overestimate the 'staying power' of their characters. And this is FINE...the new player is learning the rules and limits of the game, and it is good for them to discover that A) death happens and is a real risk in the game, and B) it is NOT the 'end of the world' (as they can quickly create a replacement PC).  Besides which, a player will OFTEN discover...after that initial foray or two into the AD&D world...that the character they were using was not to their liking; that they would prefer to play a dwarf or a ranger or whatever. It is the rare player who falls in love with the first type of character that introduces them to the world of D&D.

What DOES matter, far more than the player's character, is the experience provided to the player by the DM running the game. The DM must have compassion for the new player which (for me) does not mean "going easy" on the player; rather, it means being patient and willing to explain (in simple, non-condescending fashion) the rules and systems of the game as they come up in play. It means reining in experienced players (who might have limited patience for the newbie) reminding them that they were once beginners, too. Having compassion means understanding that the experience of AD&D...and perhaps the experience of playing an RPG at all...is a NEW one to the player, and they cannot be expected to know even things that seem "elementary" in nature.

What ALSO matters is that the player gets a real taste of what AD&D is. Advanced D&D play is about more than just going down into a hole and fighting orcs...and, yet, this is still a basic building block of the game's premise. The newbie player must experience what it IS to be an adventurer in a fantasy world. As such, they will be served best by being given a "dungeon" (i.e. an adventure site) to explore that has real threats along with adequate rewards (in terms of treasure) so that they can learn the rudiments of the game...concepts like surprise and initiative, procedures like searching for secret doors and wandering monster encounters, as well as the tracking of resources (torches, hit points, arrows, spells, etc.). These things should be central to game play, right from the beginning, so that the new player can begin to grasp and internalize the game's mechanism and play loop.  By the end of the session, the player (either with their first PC or their quickly rolled substitute) should be receiving a share of the party's experience points so that they can see feel and understand the incentive structure of the game.

Finally, it is important for the longtime DM to realize that for a TRUE newbie, one who has never played an RPG, in can be EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to even conceptualize the idea of a gaming experience played entirely in the imagination. Building an experience in the new player's mind, describing in detail the sights, sounds, and smells of the dungeon goes a long way towards instilling this "idea" of Dungeons & Dragons. The DM's narrative description of the environment is what "sets the mood" for the player...far more than any music, battlemap, or illustration. Once the action starts (combat, usually) description matters LESS...describing how blows are struck and pain and suffering is inflicted is far less engrossing than simply watching one's dwindling supply of hit points and panic at the thought of (character) death. But in the lead up to the action, the DM's descriptions build tension and atmosphere that set the stage for cathartic release in mechanical procedure...do not underestimate how this tension-frenzy dynamic functions!  

And if there's a chest of gold coins on the other side of the bloody conflict...so much the better.

Yes, we love newbies. They bring new blood to our game: new energy, new enthusiasm. We can vicariously experience their fresh perspective and we can re-experience the same amazement and horror of dangers and challenges that astound their unvarnished nerves. The other day, I got to watch as my players experienced the mighty beholder, a monster I hadn't included in an adventure since I was 12 or 13 years old. What a rush! It ended in a TPK (bruh) but it gave my players a fantastic experience that they can reminisce about for years to come. For the newbie, ANY encounter, run properly, can result in the same legendary memories. It's what can turn the curious novice into a passionate practitioner. 

The more of those, the merrier.

M is for Metagame

[over the course of the month of April, my plan was to post a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. While I was unable to complete the project on time, I find I still have things to say. Our topic in question 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]

M is for Metagame...a subject of which I've spoken (at length) in the past. However, if I'm going to do a series on how to approach and run AD&D, it's something worth addressing again.

First off, let's start directly with some quotes from the wikipedia entry for "Metagame:"

In tabletop role-playing games, metagaming has been used to describe players discussing the game, sometimes simply rules discussions and other times causing the characters they control to act in ways they normally would not within the story...

In tabletop role-playing games, metagaming can refer to aspects of play that occur outside of a given game's fictional universe. In particular, metagaming often refers to having an in-game character act on knowledge that the player has access to, but the character should not. For example, having a character bring a mirror to defeat Medusa when they are unaware her gaze can petrify them, or being more cautious when the game is run by a merciless gamemaster.

Some consider metagaming to benefit oneself to be bad sportsmanship. It is frowned upon in many role-playing communities, as it upsets suspension of disbelief, and affects game balance. However, some narrativist indie role-playing games deliberately support metagaming and encourage shared storytelling among players.

Okay, first understand that this entirely starts with the faulty premise that tabletop role-playing games are about "creating stories." While this may be true for some RPGs (not most in my experience), it is certainly not true of AD&D. 

However, setting that aside...a lot of this is simply bullshit.

AD&D, like many RPGs, counts part of its "fun" as being a form of escapist entertainment...a break from the humdrum of daily life. AD&D does this by providing an imaginary world fraught with challenges that players must confront in order to reach their objectives. That is the core system of play, the thing that focuses players attention, allowing them to "tune out" the real world.  When players can do this, their perception rests solely on the action of game play, rather than the events and situations happening away from the table (i.e. the real world). This is the essence of escapism, what is sometimes referred to as immersion or "immersive roleplaying" (the latter because it is immersion during the act of roleplaying).

Most people trying to sell you the bit about crafting stories think immersion is something different. They think "immersion" is something akin to being inside a story. The players become their character, thinking as they do, feeling as they do, reacting "instinctively" as if they were the character, rather than as a person playing a game. 

For these people the idea of metagaming...of considering the game as a game during gameplay...would break this psychotic dissociative identity disorder that they seek to cultivate. In practical reality, however, the majority of players are perfectly sane and, thus, wholly incapable of identifying in such a way with the imaginary character that is their vehicle for exploring the situations of the fantasy game world. It is a fool's errand to even attempt such an exercise.

As such, the proper way to pursue immersion...the state of being in which time slips away from the player's perspective as they completely engage with their pastime...is to lean HARD into the rules and actual play of the game. The Dungeon Master facilitates this by challenging the players with situations ad obstacles that provide real threat to their characters and objectives, with potentially painful (mentally, emotionally) consequences.

Thus challenged, the player(s) must be allowed to use every device at their disposal to survive, INCLUDING (but not limited to) 'outside game knowledge'..,that very thing referred to as "metagaming." 

In play, we are already modeling the "lived experience" of a fantasy world  imperfectly. Mortal combat is not a matter of one side moving in organized fashion, followed by the other. Secret doors are not always found exactly 16% of the time. Poison is rarely, if ever, a binary exercise in life or death. These things are conventions of play, necessary precisely because we ARE playing a game. What sucks players into the moment such that they forget their outside cares and worries and instead zoom in on the roll of a single die is the fact that the stakes of the game...winning and losing, success and failure, death or survival...are ruled by these simple game mechanics. The dice matter, as do the rules and procedures that lead to that all-consuming, attention grabbing dice roll.

Trying to pretend that the game is NOT a game...forbidding "metagaming" in an effort to create some sort of 'lived (fantasy) experience'...is not only missing the point of what makes AD&D an exciting game, but is actually detrimental to the very play that makes the game an exciting, challenging pastime. Best for players to metagame the hell out of it...players should be plotting and planning together, picking the equipment and spells and tactics they think will net them the best chance of success. Players should be rightly frightened at the potential TPK situation when they lose an integral part of their team's resources/capabilities.  Players should be doing their best to pool whatever game knowledge they have in order to best "win" at the adventure that faces them.

As a Dungeon Master you WANT players who are doing this, because such players are ENGAGED ENTHUSIASTS...the kind that will put YOU through the paces, forcing a DM to up their own game. This makes game play just as exciting for you as it is for them.

I'd much rather have THAT at my table then a bunch of folks pretending to be ignorant in the name of "good sportsmanship."

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.