Happy Juneteenth!

From Wikipedia

I had never heard of Juneteenth before the summer of last year (2020). Like never. This probably has more to do with my geographic location (Seattle) than with the company I keep, which includes all colors of the rainbow. When I first heard about Juneteenth, it was through my wife (who heard about it through her company which is based out of Washington D.C.). I believe my introduction to the holiday was her asking me, "Have you ever heard of this?"

Now for the obligatory post on racism.

I'm a white American. I'm a racist. Not the kind that would spit on a Mexican (like someone once spit on my Mexican wife in a Seattle bar). Just the kind that you are when you grow up in a culture that was built on the blood and exploitation of other people. The kind that needs to be constantly on guard against a false sense of "everything's fine" when injustice is still being perpetrated on folks who don't look like myself.

I prefer to not be part of the problem. Part of the problem is ignoring that a problem exists. Sometimes I talk about the problem (of racism). I don't think orcs are racist. I think people are racist. I've heard stories from non-white people about white racist gamers treating them badly (treating them like orcs). Some of these people feel there are problematic parts of the D&D game that promote bad attitudes/behavior or permit/encourage such. I don't see it that way, but I understand some do. 

I have sympathy for those folks' point of view. I acknowledge that racism is an inherent problem in my culture and society.

My children are half-Mexican (not the same as black but, even so, non-white). They enjoy the hell out of D&D. They enjoy killing orcs. Sometimes they enjoy talking to orcs (and goblins, etc.) and reaching resolutions that don't involve killing. This is part of the game...combat can kill player characters, too, not just orcs. My son runs an on-line AD&D game for his friends (they are age 10). He goes to a diverse school; nearly half of his class is "non-white." 

All the players in his campaign are caucasian. His dungeons have orcs. These things are unrelated, just facts. 

Inherent racism is a problem; probably more than overt racism (though the latter leads to more violence). My children are too young (or too fortunate) to have directly experienced overt racism. But we watch the news in our home. We talk about things. We talk about the problems of racism in this country. It's worth talking about. 

D&D isn't a problem for us. For some people, it is. 

It's good to be aware of racism; sometimes, on my blog, I feel I have a responsibility to bring up the subject. Rather than ignore it. Even though I haven't been affected it by it like other people. Even though I'm a white American dude.

Or, perhaps, BECAUSE of these things.

Juneteenth is a good thing. Acknowledging and understanding our history is a good thing. Realizing that there's still work to be done to make our society equitable is a good thing. 

Hope everyone has a good holiday weekend.

Killing Gods, Final Thoughts

There's a lot to write about deities and their place in D&D...so much so that it would be the epitome of easy to allow this series to spiral endlessly down endless digressions. As such, I think it's time to bring it to a close; I'm sure I'll have the chance to revisit the topic in the future.

For ease of reference:

Part 1

Part 1 Addendum

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

The initial impetus for this series was Prince of Nothing's (probably facetious) comment on an earlier post:

I think if you could manage to distill the right approach to portraying S&S style deities in DnD, complete with a few examples, you'd be doing the OSR a huge favor.

Never one to pass up doing a "favor" for the OSR (!!) I set out in my normal meandering fashion, throwing out the odd barb and jab as is my wont. While I despair of having distilled "the right approach" to the subject of S&S style deities, the series has at least helped me to distill my own thoughts. Here then is what I believe:

While D&D draws inspiration from the Sword & Sorcery genre, for long-term play it is probably best to draw parallels to long form fiction...which S&S ain't. S&S generally applies to short stories, dealing with a particular situation that a protagonist must face. Many of D&D's major influences (Leiber, Howard, Moorcock) wrote in this form...the books of Conan or Elric or Mouser are compilations of short stories rather than actual novels. A distinguishing characteristic of the novel is that a protagonist changes over the course of the book; such is not the case with the short story. Elric is much the same asshole at the end of the series as he is in the beginning; Bilbo or Frodo, on the other hand, are changed drastically by the course of events in their respective novels. D&D can be played like short fiction (i.e. in episodic fashion) but PCs that survive are forced to change by the very rule system by which we play (a 12th level wizard or fighter or thief bears no resemblance to a 1st level character with regard to capability or responsibility). 

S&S deities are reflective of the genre, i.e. they serve the needs of the situation at hand whether you're talking the mysterious entity encountered by Jirel in Black God's Kiss, Arioch's whimsical cruelty in Elric of Melnibone, or the soon-to-be-beheaded naga in God in a Bowl. Attention to continuity and coherence are of secondary importance to telling the story of the protagonist's particular adventure of the moment. For the same reason, there's no single particular way gods are portrayed in the S&S genre: Crom may be a mythical non-entity for all his appearances in Howard's work, while Death is an incarnate being in Leiber's Nehwon setting.

D&D, however, is meant to be played as a campaign over a lengthy (perhaps endless!) period of time, and thus a coherent cosmology is imperative to the setting, in order to facilitate the players' engagement with the game. If the rules for the cosmology shift constantly, depending on the needs of the DM's "story," it works to break the players' immersion and undermine their faith in the DM as a fair and impartial arbiter of the rules. 

And D&D has rules for deities baked into the game. Every edition I've played or read, with the exception of un-supplemented OD&D, has some version of "gods" inherent in the system, followed and worshipped by clerics (Mentzer's BECMI tries to take them out, but then adds the Immortal rules, many of which are named/modeled after the same gods found in historic religions of the world). Finding the "proper way" to portray gods in the game is a non-issue when the rules for modeling divinities are already hard-coded into the system.

Essential Reading

SO...if there is no specific S&S way to portray gods, and D&D already has rules for modeling gods in the game, and if (as I propose) the best way to play D&D is long-term with consistent attention to  setting cosmology (to allow maximum familiarity and, thus, immersion of the players), what then do I postulate is the best way to write gods into adventures?

And, for this, I look to the early (pre-1982ish shift) adventure modules as my examples. Here are the conclusions I draw:

• Gods exist, they are immensely powerful (by PC standards) yet still fallible; there is no "eternal Supreme Being" in D&D, that role being taken by the Dungeon Master, who creates the entirety of the campaign setting, including the gods worshipped by the player characters.
• There are creatures that attempt to imitate and/or are worshipped as gods but who are not; likewise, there are priests that promote false practices and/or worship false deities. Such deceptions can be sniffed out by the simple fact that no spell powers are granted to these would-be clerics.
• Being that the gods exist, they may be encountered by the player characters. Being that the gods' power is an order of magnitude far greater than that of the PCs, the way and manner of such encounters should be commensurate with the capability of the characters, as defined by the game rules. Having the gods (mainly) inhabit the outer planes is an altogether practical approach, as planar travel is generally limited to high level characters.
• Divinities may still be encountered indirectly...through agents, avatars, and relics...even by low- to mid-level characters, and such encounters with divine forces often break standard rules (helping imply the immensity of the divinity's power). Examples include the chaotic chapel in The Keep on the Borderlands, the temples to the Elder Elemental in the Giant modules, the Shrine of the Kuo-Toa, and (of course) Lolth in Vault of the Drow. Being that D&D is a magical world and the PCs are bold adventurers, such indirect encounters may be more common than one might suppose...unlike actual encounters with divine entities.
• Given the rules as written, PCs can kill gods. Doing so should be damn near impossible, which is not the same thing as "impossible." The consequences of such a deicide would be profound: the permanent death of Lolth would eliminate the Drow as a meaningful threat both above and below ground (and would probably lead to their genocide at the hands of the other Underdark species). Such scenarios should never be taken lightly, and are probably best suited as a capstone adventure to a campaign that is coming to a close. Definitely nothing I'd want to see for PCs below name level.

And there it is: the end of this series. Probably NOT as specific as Prince wanted, but still some guidelines to follow. And I honestly feel I've said about all I have to say on the subject...for now. Though, as always, I am happy to field questions, comments, and discussion.

Pax.

: )

Killing Gods, Part 4

All right…that’s a long enough break since my last post on “killing gods.” More than enough. 

As a precursor, I need a moment to talk about the relationship between clerics and deities; I realize this will seem yet another digression, but it’s pertinent to the conversation. You see, this whole subject came up because I was unsatisfied with the way I feel (many) adventure designs of recent years have been unreasonable with their treatment of gods…but it’s quite possible that this trend (and my preferences) come in part from learning different styles of play. 

I will elaborate.

I’ve written before about the shift in perspective of What Exactly A Cleric Is that came about in 1983 with the publication of the Mentzer version of Basic. As I’ve recounted (often enough) this was NOT the brand of D&D by which I learned the game. The clerics in my first campaign (which I ran up till circa 1988) didn’t receive their spells from “the strength of their beliefs.” No. Un-uh. Spells come from the gods they worship…they are divine favors, pure and simple, miracles granted by higher powers. 

This is, of course, EXPLICIT in the text. The 1981 Moldvay Basic set described it thusly:

Since clerical spalls are divinely given, they do not have to be studied; the cleric need only rest and pray for them.

"Divinely given" is the key phrase here. I can understand if there is some confusion caused by the actual description of the cleric class in Moldvay; its text ("...they are trained in fighting and casting spells. As a cleric advances in level, he or she is granted the use of more and more spells...") could be interpreted as meaning that their magic is separate from their deity, that magical training is something only those who are initiated into the cult's higher secrets are taught. But unless Moldvay is speaking metaphorically (I don't think he is), the phrase divinely given in the Spell section makes clear just who is "granting" access to clerical magic...not higher level priests and patriarchs, but the god or goddess whom the cleric serves.

And Gygax is even more clear in the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide:

It is well known to all experienced players that clerics, unlike magic-users, have their spells bestowed upon them by their respective deities.

The DMG text (page 38) goes on for more than half a page detailing exactly how clerics receive their magic directly from their gods, either by being divinely empowered (1st and 2nd level spells), bestowed upon them through intermediaries (saints, angels, demigods, etc. for 3rd through 5th level spells), or granted by direct communication with the deity itself (6th and 7th level spells). It is not a cleric's "inner strength," "strong beliefs," or "mystical training" that allows the character to create miracles...it is the god itself. A cleric with no god receives no magic. Period.

As said, Mentzer changes this in his 1983 Basic rulebook...a book I never owned until the 2000s, and certainly not the book I learned to play with. But a subtle shift in thinking is evident in TSR's publications as early as 1982. I refer here to two classic modules published that year: N1: Against the Cult of the Reptile God and B4: The Lost City. I imagine both modules might be held up as inspirations for the works of recent designers I cited earlier, examples of "sword & sorcery" style adventures featuring "godlike beings" who are nothing more than actual (non-divine) monsters needing to be killed...respectively a spirit naga named Explictica Defilus and the tentacled monstrosity known as Zargon. These false gods, whether through longevity and fear or powerful mind control, have created cults of worship around themselves, followers who hold them in awe and carry out their "divine will, much as one might expect of followers duped by a charlatan.

And yet both modules include actual cleric followers of these monsters...clerics with the ability to access clerical magic. N1 has multiple clerics of Explictica using spells of up to 4th level (7th level clerics). B4 features Darius, a 6th cleric (also with access to spells up to 4th level) of the "cult of Zargon" as one of the Big Bads of the adventure. None of these characters make sense under the rules of the game; none of these characters should have ANY spells whatsoever.

Contrast this with the backstory found in the 1980 module C1: The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan:

Eventually a new Archon mounted the throne in Pontylver, one who claimed [lawful neutral] Alia as her patron. The Temple of the Correct and Unalterable Way grew in followers and prestige, and as time passed, Myrrha noticed that her peers and superiors were becoming increasingly arrogant and arbitrary....Myrrha saw they were falling into the heresy of believing that law is concentrated in the individual and not the community. Investigating, she discovered a well-kept secret: many members of the ecclesiarchy were no longer able to cast high-level spells, thus proving their estrangement from their deity!

If N1 was properly designed (that is, written to follow the instructions laid out in the rule books), neither Abramo nor Misha would have access to clerical spells above 2nd level (and maybe not even those) and Gareth Primo would have no magic at all because a spirit naga is not a god and, thus, not capable of granting spells.

That is the game, folks, and I honestly don't think it's "open to interpretation." But...perhaps because of "satanic panic" pressure over the pretending to worship strange gods (see the 1982 Mazes and Monsters where Tom Hanks plays a batshit-crazy cleric)...TSR started to move away from its own rules. Started to say, hey, being a cleric isn't really about worshipping a god, it's about your character's training and "strong beliefs" manifesting powers...you're just a magic-user in priest's clothing and it doesn't matter whether you're worshipping the One True God or some tentacled space slug that crashed on the planet a thousand years ago. We aren't teaching children about the worship of strange pagan gods...heavens, no! There is no god except God, these are just strangely deluded fantasy priests. Pay no attention!

And you see that carried all the way down to today's designers. From Jason Sholtis's magnificent Operation Unfathomable:

...clerics operate under the delusion that their deities actually exist (they do not!). In truth, clerics are merely a distinct variety of magic-user, devoted to one or more of the ten thousand Gods of Order. Clerics manipulate chaos to achieve their results through the mental constructs of their religious practices, rather than rote memorization of arcane mummery.

From 2017's Lamentations of the Flame Princess (James Raggi):

Cleric magic is divinely inspired, and is granted to Clerics through prayer. Whether these powers are granted to Clerics by higher powers, if these higher powers are what the Cleric believes them to be, or if all Cleric spells are merely ritualized forms of sympathetic magic, are all subjects frequently debated...

I would include the 2018 adventure The Red Prophet Rises in this mix of confusion, in which a heretical priest (Khazra), mistakenly worshipping an ancient vampiric entity, still (inexplicably) retains access to the spells of a 6th level cleric of "the Bull God." Why? Is the Obelisk that Thirsts a divine entity? No. Does it serve the Bull God? No. One would think spells would be withheld from the priest, if only to inform him of his delusional apostasy.  Guy uses a sword in combat anyway.

These authors (and others) seem to have been influenced somewhat by these later (post-1982) influences when it comes to explaining the relationship between clerics and their gods. Which is to say, there is little relationship, if any. Any failure of clerical magic can simply be attributed to the cleric losing faith in herself: it is not the deity that withholds magic, but the cleric's own psychological barriers to accessing a purely internal mechanism. 

I'm not a big fan of that interpretation. It doesn't jibe with the D&D I learned to play. It is not the AD&D of Gygax; it runs counter to the DMG and the information found in Deities & Demigods. And while I'll be the first to admit to being a stodgy, groggy, grumpy old man when it comes to my D&D, I'd even say that it's not very "Sword & Sorcery," either...despite what (many of) these authors hope to emulate.

Because as discussed in my first post on the subject, much of D&D is inspired by fantasy fiction of the pulp variety...and in pulp fantasy you see PLENTY of deluded cultists following charlatans and false gods, but they aren't getting any magical powers by doing so. False priests don't get spells: they use tricks and psychoactive powders or rule through fear and tradition and superstition. Real magic linked to worship is generally called sorcery and rightly so, as it is linked to the favors granted by demonic entities...but such infernal divinities are still "divine," supernatural and extra-dimensional. Only divinities grant divine powers: when Jagreen Lern or Elric conjure in the names of their chaos gods, THEN magical stuff happens. 

But maybe I need to rein in a bit and bring this all back around to the subject at hand ("killing gods"). There is, I think, a certain prevalence or attitude or orientation in the Old School Role-playing circles that has wandered far afield from the game as it was originally envisioned. Maybe. Maybe I'm wrong. But here's how I see it:

• As Mike Mornard writes, the original designers "made up some shit they thought would be fun." It involved exploring strange environs, finding treasure, building worlds. It was inspired and influenced by adventure fiction, much of it "fantasy" in nature.
• As a game, D&D has a system; it has rules. It models something (a fantasy world of adventure) and the rules are applied to the thing it models (the fantasy world of adventure) up to and including things like "how/why a cleric gets spells" and "how many hit points a god like Zeus might have."
• That divine architect that Elric is always searching for? The supreme being that orders the lives of even the gods of his world? D&D has that, too: it's called the Dungeon Master. And just like Elric's "supreme being" (who would be Michael Moorcock...duh), the DM is not a creature to be encountered by the protagonists (in D&D's case, the player characters). The DM creates the world but is not OF the world. What will be encountered are game constructs, up to and including the gods that inhabit the game world.
• As a constructed fantasy world D&D has a cosmology. As a game that models a fantasy world, that cosmology can be exactly and minutely defined...right down to just how much damage Thor can do with a hammer blow, or how many greater devils inhabit the 3rd layer of the Nine Hells...should such info ever become necessary for play.
• The game (D&D) has parameters (structure) of play. It has assumptions and expectations of how play resolves.  These expectations of play resolution are determined by 1) the rules, 2) the way the rules model the world, and 3) the fiction that inspires the game...in that order. Don't (for example) tell me "well, Gandalf used a sword!" The inspiring fiction (#3) comes behind the rules (#1) and the modeled fantasy world (#2).

As originally conceived, Dungeons & Dragons was never about "telling stories." It was about playing a game of exploration and survival (adventure!) in a fantasy game world. However, some folks were quite unimaginative with how they worked within those parameters, creating murder-hobo funhouses of the poorest variety and this caused pushback in the form of front-loaded drama. We shall not wait for a story to emerge from our adventures! We shall make sure there is MEANING to these characters' (fake) lives!

Combine the success of that front-loaded drama (through company supported publications like Ravenloft and Dragonlance) with an imperative to cut anything perceived as controversial (i.e. impacting the bottom line) from a game now being marketed to children (this being the shift that began circa 1982), and one can readily see the consequences: we don't kill gods. We kill demons. We kill immortal liches. We kill creatures masquerading as gods. We kill surrogates in order to have our high stakes, high drama, emotionally invested play.

Because, originally, emotional investment in a character was mainly found in long-running (i.e high level) characters. And high level characters, by necessity, required greater challenges to stay engaged...tackling gods (modeled as part of the cosmology) and godlike beings (that giant ape from WG6) are a natural evolution of challenge for characters of the highest echelon, because lesser challenges don't cut it anymore. If you want to run a high level campaign, you're going to want to study up your copy of Sailor on the Seas of Fate because that's about "par" when it comes to suitable challenges. Good old Demogorgon has been a part of the D&D tapestry since 1976...and for good reason. 

[hell, I used to fight Demogorgon...on the playground...waaaay back before I ever laid eyes on ANY D&D book. Before I even opened my first box of the Dungeon! board game, even]

Not low level characters (I'm guessing).

Outside of WotC's latest-greatest editions, D&D designers have (mostly) moved away from front-loaded drama and railroad story arcs, but they've still passed some sort of threshold from which they can't seem to return. They want high stakes, high challenge, high weirdness in their adventure...but they don't want high level player characters. They want their players to continue playing "small ball" forever after, retiring (I suppose) should they ever, somehow, reach 8th or 10th level of play. "Too superheroic," is the refrain I hear. "The game is no fun after around 5th (or 6th or 7th) level."

Bull. Crap. But that discussion is for another post.

Throwing high level challenges (like godlings) into low level adventures is an attempt by designers to have their cake and eat it, too. It's an attempt to inject Elric-levels of amazeballs fantasy into the lives of grubby, Warhammer Fantasy-level adventurers in order to draw out low-level play while still keeping long-since-jaded players engaged with the game in front of them. Is that as bad as playing pre-generated snowflakes traveling the Dragonlance railroad? Absolutely not. But it's got to be grating after a while. It would certainly bug the shit out of me.

All right, that's it. I lied about this being the concluding post...just had too much more to say. The NEXT post will definitely be the conclusion to this series. 

Has Anyone...?

Has anyone ever played I6: Ravenloft as written, using the AD&D system?

Clearly, the adventure module was extremely popular. And I have no doubt there was a time when people used to sit around the kitchen table reading boxed text to each other and eyes didn't "glaze over" (I know there was a time for me and my gaming buddies when this was the case). 

But did anyone run the adventure proper, as written, using the wandering monster tables, the dictated motivations (and tactics) of Strahd, the paltry treasure, poisonous fog, and the labyrinthine castle as an insert into their normal campaign world?

And, if so, did the players LOVE it?

I'm just curious. As I mentioned before, I never had a chance to play Ravenloft when it was first published: my DM ran it for our playgroup when I was out-of-town one weekend. The reports I recall hearing were more about the antics of the players (bickering with and killing each other) and I think (if I remember correctly) they simply got fed up with adventure and decided to leave (poison mist or no) after frying Strahd with a lightning bolt. Which is to say: they hand-waved a lot of the thing. None of them gushed about it, or spoke highly of it, or offered to re-run it for my benefit...nor did anyone ask me to run it for them. It made extremely minimal impression (as far as I can tell) on our group of kids aged 12 to 14.

I'm not going to fault anyone their nostalgia...not when I've spent years of wallowing in my own, here on Ye Old Blog. But I am curious, because (as I commented to Dennis in my last post) I'm not sure I've met anyone who's played the adventure and "loved" it. Maybe the love comes from DMs who enjoyed the novelty of the thing? I don't know...and I am curious.

Please feel free to leave your comments. I promise I won't judge you for what you enjoyed thirty years ago. 

Ravenloft Numbers

Man, this D&D subject...always something to write about, huh?

I've been continuing my examination of the I6: Ravenloft module the last few days, even checking out a little bit of its sequel I10 (which is a terrible hash of an adventure...oh my goodness!). Talk about "going back to the well," Ravenloft must have sold an awful lot of copies (and/or received a ton of fan mail) to necessitate that particular publication. I shan't be discussing it any time soon, but I think it's interesting to note that it includes pregenerated player characters for use in both modules (including one whose secondary weapon is a normal longsword), and that some...mmm..."liberties" have been taken with the AD&D rules when it comes to their construction. 

One of the reasons I continue to poke at this thing, is that I'd LIKE to have a fun "vampire adventure" to throw at my players, and Ravenloft is more than halfway there. A while back (like years back...around the time I finished my first book) I had this idea to write a vampire adventure module of my own, somewhat modeled after Palace of the Vampire Queen, but I never got around to it...and the thought of re-purposing Ravenloft honestly never entered my mind. Now, though...well, there's grist here to work with. 

So...let's talk some numbers with regard to tackling Ravenloft as a monster hunt.

I'll admit that when I read through the adventure before, I glossed over a lot of the "getting there" part of the module, instead focusing on the dungeon (castle) proper. It's mostly box text anyway, and I don't really "do" box text these days...I don't even read it when looking at an adventure even (since I'm not planning on reading it when running), unless it's necessary to explain just what the heck an encounter area IS (there's a lot of this issue in the Dragonlance modules). It's...straightforward enough, if full of typos and inconsistencies. We are told the mayor has been dead ten days, then (in the same paragraph) we're told he's been dead "nearly a week." Sometimes the gypsies are listed with 4 hit dice, sometimes 5, sometimes 6 with no explanation. Ability scores are dropped altogether from NPCs. Just some glaring errors...not sure who "Curtis Smith" is, but he wasn't much of an editor.

But I'm getting side tracked again (per usual). As an adventure hook, it's not a terrible lure of the "false pretense variety." Promises of obscene wealth is actually better than usual (certainly better than the "we have nothing to offer you please help us out of the goodness of your hearts" story found in adventures like N2: The Forest Oracle). 'Oh, look, we can do a good deed AND get paid.' Simultaneously play to the party's compassion (or desire for fantasy heroism) and greed. Problem is, once they find out about the false pretenses, it becomes apparent why the magical poison mist is needed to keep the party in place (because otherwise, they'd just blow off the joint). And while that might work to incentivize a vengeful group of players into launching a raid on Strahd's castle, the adventure is designed to be a spooky/scary mood piece with creepy narration and jack-in-the-box scares. What we want (well, what I would want) is an adventure that draws players to it like moths to a flame...and then creeps them out along the way. Thus heightening the player tension, despite their incentive to press on. Also, it'd be nice to make them sweat a bit.

All that means juggling the risk-reward factor of the thing. Now for D&D players of all stripes, vampires should strike some fear into their hearts. In going over this module, I constantly struggle with NOT trying to tinker with the vampire monster as written in the MM...the urge to "improve" the thing (making it more sensible or more in-line with a particular movie version of Dracula) is immense. And it's totally unnecessary: the D&D vampire is its "own thing" and works just fine as written for putting the fear of the God into players (with good reason! They're vicious!). At the same time, they have some solid weaknesses that a prepared party can exploit...which can make the risk seem low enough to attempt bearding such a beast, given a reward that is high enough.

Does a hundred and fifty thousand gold pieces worth of treasure PLUS ownership of a dilapidated castle sound like a decent enough reward? For a party of 3rd to 5th level characters? Especially if it was known that the current owner was a powerful sorcerer with a decent-sized spell book (AD&D magic-users are always looking to add to their spell lists, right?)...yeah, it sounds pretty hefty. It's not really (for reasons related to castle ownership), but it's still a tasty hook for players to bite on. So what's the risk?

Sunrise in Transylvania on October 31st (a good enough place/date as any) is at 7:21am. Sunset the same day (and same location) is 6:15pm. That gives players a nearly eleven hour window of time in which to hunt up Strahd's coffin and kill him in the traditional fashion (stake through the heart, etc., etc.). All well and good...except  that PCs aren't going to be camped outside the gates, ready to break in at first light of dawn. I mean, they could be...if they don't mind being food for the immortals.

The village of Barovia is about one-third of a mile from Castle Ravenloft...if, like Strahd, you can fly. Otherwise, the road is from the village to the castle gates is 2.7 miles long. A horse with a rider can trot/canter about 8 miles in an hour, which puts Strahd's stronghold about 20 minutes away by horse. Assuming a party is really on the ball, they can probably be up, saddled and ready to go within 10-15 minutes of sunrise (since it only takes Strahd six minutes to fly home from the village...three when mounted on his nightmare...smart adventurers won't want to poke their heads out till first light of day). That means the earliest PCs can expect to get to the mountain stronghold is 7:50am, with 8am being more likely...if they are as expedient as possible, working like a well-oiled machine.

Let's assume they are pretty good and are thus able to arrive by 8 (there are always delays). The party will (hopefully) want to give themselves some time to get back to the safety of the village, just in case they aren't able to locate the vampire lord's coffin. 5:50pm would be a good mark to exit the castle, giving the adventurers a full 25 minutes to get back to Barovia, get the horses unsaddled, and get under cover (i.e. into a house that the vampires can't enter). Such speed will only be possible, of course, if the party brings along one or two henchfolk to hold/guard the horses (while they explore the castle interior), and make them ready for departure (upon their swift exit).

8am to 5:50pm is nine hours and fifty minutes...the equivalent of 59 turns for exploration. Ten torches worth of time (or two and a half flasks of lantern oil). That is all the time the party has to locate Strahd's tomb and end him. 

Every thirty minutes they are inside the castle, they have a 2 in 6 chance of facing a wandering monster. On average, they can expect to face 20 encounters. Each encounter will cost them one turn of exploration time. With only 39 turns to work with, a conservative group of adventurers will leave themselves at least half the allotted time to return to the front door (20 turns). 19 turns of movement to penetrate into the heart of Strahd's lair, where the monster lies sleeping.

As one might expect, Strahd's coffin is [SPOILER!] located in the castle's crypt. There are only two entrances into the crypt area, unless characters have the ability to assume gaseous form (like Strahd) or have thought to bring pickaxes for tunneling through a masonry wall and thirty feet of rubble. Assuming such isn't the case, the shortest distance to travel is 770' from the front door of the castle. It involves avoiding two traps (neither of which is deadly, but both of which will derail the party's exploration), a secret door, an encounter with a crazy (human) servant, a fight with a shadow demon that automatically attacks, and a puzzle involving two iron golems which might also result in combat. If the party wears no armor heavier than chain (9" movement) the distance could be covered in nine turns...plus three turns of searching (assuming success) for secret doors and traps, and another three turns to deal with other encounters. Finding the entrance to Strahd's specific tomb is no easy feat (there are 40 possible crypts to open), but the party will have 40 extra minutes to search.

The second method of entering Strahd's tomb is 980' from the front door, and includes a 390' drop down a smooth stone shaft. So long as the party brought 60 pounds of good rope, this might be the "easiest," most viable and most obvious means of entry. At only 11 turns, it leaves them a bit over an hour to locate the correct tomb in the crypt (assuming the same movement rate as above), but returning the way they came (a nearly 400' rope ascent?!) may take longer than the initial entry time, depending on the generosity of the DM. Doubling the time to descend (43 minutes) would make it a nine turn climb.

None of which is accounting for mandatory rest breaks; parties "should be required to rest one turn in six" (per the DMG; bottom of p.38). Unlike B/X, AD&D does not provide specific penalties for fatigue...but then it doesn't say DMs must give PCs an option regarding rest. Knock one turn off the trap/secret way in, or two turns off the rope climb method. That would STILL leave enough time for a well-organized, well-prepared party to make a deep foray into Castle Ravenloft and stake Strahd while he sleeps. A party with any way to spy out his location and map a route ahead of time (via a crystal ball, scroll with wizard eye, etc.) would be able to execute a true surgical strike with minimal losses, even at low level...depending on how well they deal with the wandering monster encounters.

Of course, Strahd isn't the only vampire on the premises. There are both two "brides" (one located in the crypts, one acting as...a maid?!) and the possibility of encountering 1d4 on the wandering monster tables ("hapless past victims" of Strahd). All of these should be half-strength vampires (per the DMG, page 119), but presumably the death of the Count would launch them into a feeding frenzy, as they drained the other living inhabitants of the castle (gypsies, witches and such) bringing them up to full hit dice. The possibility of the dungeon suddenly containing half a dozen, free-willed vampires, plus their newly created "half-vamp" minions, should be a daunting situation for ANY party of adventurers, regardless of level. Under Strahd's yoke, they did little more than bemoan their fate (and scrub his floors). But now...hoo-boy! What's been unleashed!

That's the ugly truth of Ravenloft. Strahd might be an evil undead creature (or "Creature" as they call him in I10), but at least he maintains control over the situation; he IS still 'lord of the manor,' after all. His continued existence allows him and Barovia to live in a state of perpetual detente...taking him out is, in many ways, a "nuclear option." Perhaps, to some degree, the villagers even realize this; perhaps they don't want the party to exterminate "the Devil Strahd," understanding that the county would face a worse fate should their liege and tormentor meet the final death...being overrun by a horde of undead monsters!

Welcome to vampire country.

[assuming there are "only" six half-strength vampires in Ravenloft...the two ladies and up to four encountered wanderers...a total of 24 hit dice would have to be drained to get all six up to full-strength. 7 witches would provide 21 hit dice and three 0-level humans would provide 1 each. Wandering (6HD) gypsies can also be encountered in the castle...up to eight at a time...but these others are all known and sedentary and would thus probably be targeted first. That makes a total of sixteen vampires (six master, ten thrall) for Barovia...and possibly the PCs...to deal with]

Um, yeah. Real ugly.

All right, that's enough number crunching. Lots to do this week (last full week of school for the kids). Hope everyone has a good one!

: )

Killer DM

The Oregon Trail: no mercy from this DM

In other news: my son (and his class) were introduced to the old Oregon Trail video game by their 4th grade teacher. The game was a little after my time (I never had a chance to play it in school), but I'm familiar with the game by reputation. In class, the teacher did a demonstration with kids voting to see what choices they would make and, of course, it all ended in tragic death for the would-be pioneers.

My son was excited to try the thing solo when he got home with his Chromebook (he did not have positive things to say about his classmate's choices). He beat the game his first try through, paying careful attention to logistics and supply. "It's like D&D," he stated simply.

So proud.

; )

I6: Ravenloft

A few days ago, Sir Rob asked me if I'd review I6: Ravenloft, not to critique it so much as to analyze whether or not I thought it truly was the Hickmans who started the "Adventure Path" trend (with I6 and/or Dragonlance), and ALSO how I might go about making the game more "player-centric" while still maintaining its "gothic vibe." In other words, how would I un-couple the thing from its railroad aspects while not killing the mood. Being the gracious (and egomaniacal) type of guy I am, I said 'sure, why not?'

THIS. IS. RAVENLOFT!

But first, allow me to say this: when they look back at their lives, I'm going to guess that the Hickmans (Tracy and Laura) are going to say that the greatest thing they ever did for their careers, was to take a job offer at TSR and move from Utah to Wisconsin. Had they not done that...had they instead taken other gigs locally, gotten help from their parents, continued to raise their kids in the same town they'd grown up...I just can't see them going on to having the success they managed to achieve. Without the backing of TSR (and the built-in fan base)...would they have ever been much more than independent publishers of the occasional D&D module? Would they have even continued to do that?

The fact is, Hickman wasn't a great writer...and I say that as someone who has read the first six Dragonlance novels (multiple times!) and enjoyed the hell out of them. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think Hickman becomes a famous, bestselling novelist without TSR. Steinbeck he was not.

[sorry, I've had Steinbeck on the brain a lot recently, considering the parallels between The Grapes of Wrath and our current pandemic-enhanced homeless crisis. But I digress]

What he was...what both the Hickmans were...were rather good adventure designers. I have no experience with Rahasia (one of two modules that got the Hickmans hired by TSR), but I've run I3: Pharaoh two or three times, I4: Oasis of the White Palm at least three times, and I5: Lost Tomb of Martek once or twice...both as "one-offs" and as part of on-going campaigns. While I have a notable soft-spot for anything Arabian Nights related, the adventures were quite interesting, filled with ingenious dungeon design, evocative situations, and (yes) whimsy (the floating tomb of Martek was written/published a year before the rather paltry knock-of appears in DL4: Dragons of Desolation). I especially like the combination of ancient Egyptian mythos with Golden Age Islam fairy tale stuff (this is best seen in I4: Oasis of the White Palm)...but skating over a sea of glass with light-powered sky-ships, avoiding sunspots and purple worms...I mean, come on, that shit is cool!

But it's been twenty years since I've read those modules and it's certainly possible I'd see them today in a less favorable light. The clever intertwining of adventure sites (with actual treasure!) is a bit of a "railroad" but the idea of needing to "solve an adventure to escape" (as in I5) has been around long since before the Hickmans came on board at TSR: Moldvay did this with X2: Castle Amber in 1981, and there's a bit of that in 1980's Q1: Queen of the Demonweb Pits as well. Likewise, there are other examples prior to the Hickmans' career of both "backstory" and forced compliance with the adventure (a common gripe with the I3-I5 series): you see the former in modules like N1: Against the Cult of the Reptile God and B3: Palace of the Silver Princess, and the latter in the introduction to the G-series...all adventures that (generally) receive high praise and/or are considered "classics."

So, now...Ravenloft. For me, I think Ravenloft is best understood (and judged) by looking at what the adventure was and why it was designed. Published by TSR in 1983, the Hickman's wrote the adventure circa 1977 (long before they joined the company) as an adventure to be played on Halloween. It is thus best viewed as a one-off theme-style adventure, NOT something to be viewed as part of an existing or on-going campaign. It is NOT a regular, ordinary adventure.

Viewed in this light, many of the design choices not only make sense, they are...quite frankly...brilliant. The well-themed card mechanic that randomly determines locations of important artifacts, the adventure's antagonist, and the overall motivation of said-antagonist? THAT is an elegant method of ensuring the annual "spooky adventure" is different from year-to-year. Yes, we already know that the living tower is going to attack us with halberds if we aren't careful, but Strahd (or some needed McGuffin) might be up there this year! 

It's almost like a tournament challenge: will we get Strahd this Halloween, or will he get us? Who knows?!

Many of the adventure's problems, I think, can all be laid at the feet of publishing the thing as an ordinary "I-type" adventure, and the changes made thereof. People attending an annual themed get-together are already going to be on-board with the spirit of the adventure...there's no need to add all the heavy-handed stuff that forces a party to act in a particular way (2 hit die villagers, 5 and 6 hit die gypsies, impassable mists, etc.). In a "true" adventure module, there's no need to randomly pull cards to determine locations of important items and adversaries...they should simply be placed in the most suitable, appropriate locations. You can still "read the tarot cards" (or whatever) but with all the "signs" fixed, i.e. set in place. Even though Ravenloft was never run at tournament, it would have fit well with the C series (there's a lot of 1980's C1: Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan in this adventure in Ravenloft), and probably would have benefitted well from a set of pre-generated characters, rather than mandating one PC "must be a fighter with a longsword" or other stipulations.

So then, what if you WANT to make Ravenloft an "actual adventure" for insertion into your campaign?

Well, the module has another rather large issue (besides being purposed for something other than it is) and that is a matter of scale: Ravenloft really wants to be a low-level adventure rather than a mid-level one. I think there are three main reasons it is written for levels 5-7, and they lead to a host of cascading problems:

1. Being placed in the "I" (intermediate) series suggests mid-range (though suggested levels fluctuate wildly across I modules).
2. Having a big, bad Vampire suggests a higher level of character (because vampires are one of the most powerful forms of undead...THE most powerful undead in OD&D and Basic play).
3. General survivability: more levels mean more hit points, which means a longer game experience (especially appropriate in a one-off, theme-night adventure).

The adventure would have been served better by writing it for levels 2-4. This mitigates a lot of issues: the treasure is more appropriate for this level of party (it's pretty slim for any adventure this size, but downright criminal for a 1E adventuring party of levels 5-7...again, remember this was not designed for an on-going campaign!!!). Villagers can be level 0 in stead of 2 hit dice (otherwise, we're going to cast charm person on that 9th level fighter with the intelligence of 3 and retain him FOREVER). The "evil gypsies" can be re-scaled as ordinary bandits rather than wandering minotaurs. Madame Eva doesn't need to be a 10th level cleric (I mean "she never gives aid and never needs any" so why does she need to have spells like raise dead or cure serious wounds available to her? Just make her high enough level to curse insolent players!). Get rid of the wandering specters, banshees, and ghosts (all too powerful as is), maybe substituting a wraith or two, knock the Strahd Zombies down to 2HD (and have them turned as zombies not mummies), and re-do trap damage where appropriate.

[actually the traps are all pretty good, even for low-level parties. The sleep trap at #38 doesn't need to carry a -4 penalty...low level characters fail saves just fine...and the crushing trap at #31 should probably just be an auto-kill anyway (how are they going to pull a party member out that survives the damage?!). Most of the killer traps (thousand foot falls and whatnot) simply need to be telegraphed better to give players a choice of risk/reward]

But what about All The Vampires, JB?! First off, vampires DO have vulnerabilities. Garlic, mirrors, and holy symbols will hold a vampire at bay, and don't require a cleric "turning" roll (would a 7th level cleric really have much chance anyway?). The module gives specific ways that Strahd will attack the party and stipulates he will only attack three times (once each of three methods)...and only ONE attack will be direct combat. 

[of course, the module appears to assume that the adventure will be completed in a single 24 hour time period. Remember! The thing was designed to be played one night (Halloween) per year!]

Whatever happened to half-strength undead? Why are all these "brides of Strahd" full hit dice vampires? Is that not a thing in AD&D? Oh, wait...it is (page 119 of the DMG). As I wrote when first exploring the Dragonlance stuff, the Hickmans come off as DMs used to only using OD&D + Greyhawk, and here's another example. Half-strength (4 hit die) vampires are fine opponents for low-level characters, assuming they don't attack in packs (they don't in Ravenloft)...I might even rule they only suck one level on a hit, rather than two, which puts them on the same footing as an encounter with a single wight, right? Except that they have all the extra (vampiric) vulnerabilities, too. Give them a lesser charming ability (no save penalty) if you like.

As for Strahd ("The First Vampyr"), parties have multiple resources for aiding in their fight, including the Icon of Raveloft and the Sunsword (just allow the entire sword to be found, instead of only the hilt) while using normal preventative measures (listed above) for holding him off till they can find the artifacts. OR they could just use that time-honored method of hunting vampires: wait till daytime and hunt for his coffin, stake in hand. Even low-leveled parties can handle that, and properly hit diced monsters can serve as great guardians. 

Strahd himself isn't all that great shakes as an antagonist. He's not the earliest "classed" vampire to appear in a TSR module (Drelzna the fighter vamp in Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth might be the first) nor even the first magic-user vampire (see Vlad Tolenkov in Q1 or Sakatha in I2). He's not the first antagonist to have a "motivation" that involves more than killing every murder-hobo that enters his lair. He's a Dracula knock-off (much as Vlad was) and there's nothing wrong with that...for an annual Halloween adventure. But there was nothing particularly original or outstanding about Strahd, even in 1983. Regrets over a dead sibling? Unrequited NPC romance plots? See X2 and B3 respectively.

All four of Strahd's possible goals are pretty lame, actually. If he wanted to switch identities, why do so now? What's so special about the PCs? Would a genius level intelligence really make the mistake about the black opal spell component (never mind the fact that a 10th level magic-user is incapable of manufacturing magical items!)? The missing sunsword is pretty dumb, unless you set this up in an earlier adventure with the thought of later running Ravenloft...and the "reincarnated love" living in the local village...I mean, this thing worked for Bram Stoker's Dracula when she was living in faraway London, but do you really need the machinations for the local damsel? And would such an adolescent ploy ever work better than simply offering her a castle and immortality? And didn't we say this guy has genius intelligence?

[just by the way, can I just say I HATE the whole polymorphing undead thing? A walking corpse...or incorporeal spirit...is NOT an animal to be polymorphed, so should fall under the purview of polymorph any object, if such transformation is possible at all. The idea of Strahd polymorphing a PC into a vampire is just...so...arrghh! That is NOT how one makes vampires!And even if it was, why not do that with one of your willing gypsy henchmen?!]

In the final analysis, I think the best way to uncouple Ravenloft from its story is to treat it as a straightforward monster hunt. IGNORE Strahd's "motivations." Who cares what turns his crank...what is it that motivates the PCs? The Hickmans' original impetus for writing Ravenloft came from playing in a dungeon that had some random vampire sitting in a room next to the oozes and goblins for no good reason. Yeah, that's dumb: but that's not what you have here. This vampire has a reason for being in this room: it's his castle! He's been the lord of the realm for a couple hundred years! The villagers are his prey! Etc. Etc.

[I actually really like the idea of Strahd being a greedy bastard. If you draw the card that says Strahd is in his treasury, you find him gleefully "counting his ill-gotten gains." That's motivation right there! The guy is milking the surrounding territory...and any would be passers-through (like the PCs)...to add to his ever-growing treasure hoard. He's the undead equivalent of a miserly dragon! Love it...probably killed his brother over some piece of treasure. Oh My Precious!]

To run Ravenloft for a NORMAL campaign adventure (as opposed to a one-off) I'd do the following:

• First, decide on a motivation for the party to confront Strahd. Maybe they are looking for an artifact that he's rumored to have in his hoard. Maybe they're looking for a friend, relative, or colleague ('what's up Jonathan Harker?') that's being held in the castle. Maybe they've been sent to collect outstanding back taxes due to a greater lord. Maybe their deity visited them in a dream and told them they had a sacred duty to stamp out the undead fiend (or face excommunication). Whatever. If nothing else, appeal to their greed (that guy's been sitting on a load of loot for generations, people!)...it IS AD&D, after all.
• Next, figure out why the villagers remain in this cursed locale. Look, Dracula had his peasants, too, and they weren't sticking around because of some magic, poisonous fog. There are many reasons why a community might decide that sticking it out is better than the alternative: persecution in other lands, friends and relatives, food supply, the devil you know versus the unknown. Vampires only attack at night, right? So as long as you're indoors after dark (and have your garlic/cross nailed over the door) you're safe to go about your daily farming business during the daylight hours and only need worry about the occasional gypsy abduction. Treat Strahd like any other nobleman/lord and his "gypsy servants" as his equivalent of patrols and men-at-arms (which they basically are anyway).  Decide who might be helpful/sympathetic to the PCs, and who is firmly in the pocket of Strahd (for example, the town mayor or anyone else who benefits from Strahd's magnificence...i.e. not being eaten...in exchange for cooperation and spying). Remember that Strahd has some human servants, who may actually be "hostages" of village families. Other village families might have made "deals" with Strahd (given over daughters to be his "brides" in exchange for concessions). We are talking a campaign game, not a Sunday night movie!
• Re-write the thing for a low-level party. I'd say 3rd or 4th would be best (because one vampire hit to a 2nd level character is going to end her adventuring career), but definitely nothing 5th or higher (no need to be flinging fireballs and lightning bolts around your gothic castle mood piece). Gypsies as bandits, villagers as villagers, village idiots as strong villagers (not 9th level fighters...dude should have his own castle!). Shadows and wraiths in place of banshees and ghosts and specters. Half-strength vampire wives instead of full strength ones (treat as wights in all regards). Strahd zombies exactly as written except they only have 2 hit dice and turn as ghasts (inside the castle...outside, they should turn as normal zombies). Probably get rid of the 12 HD trapper (make that the lair of the wandering rust monsters, if you like...clever PCs will find a way to use those on the iron golems). Much as I like the jack-in-the-box of three hell hounds in a crypt, they'll probably destroy most low level parties...knock 'em down to two at 4 HD, if you want to keep Strahd's "hunting dogs" (who wouldn't?). And I kind of love the nightmare (Strahd's "steed") and like the idea of him riding through the streets, bellowing challenges and calls for vengeance the night after the party's first foray into his home.
• Figure out where you want to put the Holy Symbol of Ravenkind, the Tome of Strahd, and the Sunsword; I would not stash any in his crypt, but you could still draw cards to figure out where they are, if you don't have a preference (I would not use the bonuses/penalties associated with card suit). Since Strahd (presumably) moves around a lot during the night, I'd just roll a D6 whenever the party enters one of his possible encounter areas, perhaps with a cumulative chance of finding him (1 in 6, 2 in 6, etc.). I would NOT have Strahd in his crypt except during daylight hours (when he'll always be present).
• Treasure: the total value of monetary treasure in Ravenloft is a bit more than 120,000 g.p. -- close to double what eight 4th level characters need to level. However, in an adventure with this much expected energy drain, I don't mind the extra experience points. Magic items range from good (helpful scrolls and potions) to weird (three maces +3 in the treasury?) to wow (a deck of many things!). Probably needs some modification with regard to the blander magic weapons. 
• Stocking: however, the distribution of treasure needs work. In a dungeon this size, I'd expect to find some type of treasure in around 30 encounter areas, not 10. Monsters should be in one-third of the areas, not one-fourth. Around 56% of the castle is EMPTY...just box text description...and while there's fairly good interactivity (especially for DMs that don't mind doing some improvisation when they see "carriage room," for example) I'd want to spread things around a bit more, and probably add a couple more encounters (gypsy henchmen and the like...especially during the daytime). The crypt area especially is a little bland...I can see PCs simply knocking down tombs, one after another, which is more-or-less the same as the (often lambasted) Kick-In-The-Door style of dungeon. Rather than an empty tomb with a bag of coins, I'd prefer to furnish the castle a bit more with golden candelabrum (never lit) and decorative china- and silverware (never used)...maybe a well-stocked wine cellar full of expensive vintages. Maybe figure out where the vampire wives go during the nighttime hours and what the witches are doing when they're not brewing in Ye Old Cauldron. Maybe give the witches a few potions, and give their 42,750 g.p. spellbook to Strahd (they only peruse it when they need to memorize a spell). Hell, put it in his study...simple enough.

With regard to RUNNING the adventure, I'd want to make sure I was keeping excellent track of time, because sundown and sunset becomes VERY important when you're hunting vampires. Party encumbrance and movement rates are going to be essential for tracking time, and every ten minute turn spent searching for secret doors is going to bring the party closer to the witching hour. Probably need to prep some sort of graph beforehand, just to make it all go smoothly. The adventure lists "types of attacks" for Strahd, but they're kind of nonsensical for a character with genius intelligence and centuries of experience. A situational list of actual tactics (based on party location, party defenses, level of vampiric ire, etc.) probably needs to be mapped out and available to the DM so that your players aren't asking 'hmmm...where did these 15 Strahd zombies suddenly appear from when we locked ourselves in this tower room?'  Anyway...

It is doable. That is, it's an adventure one could run FAIRLY EASILY with MINIMAL MODIFICATION. Nothing nearly as extensive as what I'm doing with the Dragonlance modules, because Ravenloft IS a fairly straightforward adventure. It was not the advent of (or precursor to) the Adventure Path or "story driven" adventure design, with its railroads and plot-protected NPCs. Heck, you can't even blame box text on the Hickmans, as that was certainly showing up as early as 1980 (see C1: The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan as Exhibit A). Ravenloft is not some sort of linear rail path requiring specific action from the PCs (besides destroying Strahd, of course). Nothing compels the PCs to deal with (lovely NPC) Ireena Kolyana in any particular fashion...or even keep her alive! The fact that she only has six hit points (as a 4th level fighter?) and no CON score (um...) means she's probably not long for the world anyway.

There is no way in hell I would ever rank Ravenloft "the second greatest adventure module of all time." I wouldn't even call it the second greatest adventure module written by the Hickmans!  But it's not terrible...it's pretty great as a light-hearted one-off played for a spooky theme night. And considering it was written by the Hickmans in their early 20s (they weren't even 25! Just kids!), it is a remarkable testament to their abilities as game designers that they were able to craft something that touched so many people and launched an entire game line and setting.

Then again, it may be that people just love vampires. 

; )