"Just A Game"

A long, long time ago...probably in the first year or two of this blog...I tried (at least on one or two occasions) to communicate my feelings for the RPG hobby and D&D specifically...the profundity of the thing, this activity, this game. Yes, yes, it's FUN...of course it's fun, duh...but I somehow have long felt that it is somehow important, too. And I tried to name why I felt that way (that this silly game of fantasy adventure was somehow "important"), and pretty much failed to find the words. Or even the reason.

Over the years (sheesh, 15+ I've been blogging!), I gradually came to the conclusion that the reason, if there was one, didn't really matter at all. The game was important to me, and that was enough. Perhaps whatever intuition I had that made me feel D&D somehow mattered on a larger scale than "personal" was confused narcissism: a justification of my own passion/obsession for the hobby. Lots of people have passions and obsessions; just throw me in the same category as collectors of stamps or baseball cards, rather than the research scientist looking for a cancer cure.

[by the way, I can make a case for the value of collecting; apologies if I offended with that last sentence]

However, as time has continued to pass and our world has continued to trend in a particular direction, I've come back to this inner feeling, this idea that gaming...specifically D&D gaming...is important and does have value beyond just being a "fun game." Surprisingly, I feel its importance more than ever in its value of creating human connection between people. Not just in the way that shared fandom of a sports franchise cuts across boundaries of race, gender, religion, economic background, etc. (one of the great things about sports), but in the way it promotes shared activity between people. If I'm wearing my Seahawk jersey (as I will be tonight in a Lord-I-hope-we-win game against the damnable Rams) I can make eye contact, nod, high five, or dap up any other person wearing the same jersey, no matter what our respective backgrounds happen to be. But playing D&D, I can sit down with someone and share an intimate imaginative space, holding discourse and trading ideas. D&D allows people to have a 'meeting of the minds' on a deeper level than most any activity outside our non-shared spaces (family, school, church, workplace, etc.). 

That shared activity is so much more profound than just shared recognition. 

So there's that. And I think that meaning and value and "importance" is going to become more meaningful and more valuable and more important as our world continues to move in the same direction it's been going the last decade or two. We'll see.

By the way, this holds true for any RPG, or any edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Those 5E people who are playing the game in a fashion unrecognizable to moi? They're still making human connections. That's a good thing...we NEED more human interaction between our fellow humans. So...yay!

HOWEVER, while that's the underlying importance of RPGs (as I see it), and something many (most?) of us might agree on, there are additional benefits to playing AD&D that I hadn't quite noticed until just recently...this morning, in fact...that, in my estimation, elevates my chosen edition in certain subtle ways above the hoi polloi of other RPGs, especially those with "modern sensibilities" like 5E and Shadowdark.

AD&D, in particular, is not about self-expression or collaborative storytelling. It is a structured game with fixed procedures, real consequences, non-subjective objectives of play, and an impartial referee. That structure creates trust which, in turn, enables risk. The risk makes choices matter, and out of that comes real camaraderie.

AD&D quietly teaches...and reinforces...things that modern life tends to erode:

• Respect for External Authority (the game has rules that exist outside personal preference)
• Negotiation Within Constraints (you can't just "try anything;" choices have costs)
• Delayed Gratification (progress is earned, not guaranteed or a matter of fiat)
• Risk Acceptance (failure is real and consequential)
• Social Trust (the DM is neither adversary nor servant, but the facilitator of the game/world)

While many modern games claim to support "social play," they generally shift authority inward (play "what feels right"), cushion failure, automate judgment, and prioritize individual expression over group coherence. Meanwhile, in AD&D authority (i.e. the rules) is external and known, the outcomes are constrained by procedure, failure is both possible and meaningful, and the group (based on the PREMISE OF THE GAME) is forced to work and adapt together.

This produces consistency, and it is through that consistency that trust is earned; it is not negotiated minute by minute.

What makes this especially powerful is that AD&D does all this while masquerading as nothing more than a game. It doesn't lecture, or moralize, or have some grand statement of "this is important." Instead, it presents the rules, a dungeon, and asks 'what do you do?' And week after week, the people playing:

• learn to listen
• learn to plan
• learn to balance risk
• learn to accept loss
• learn to trust someone else's judgment

All in the presence of others.

There is something deeply valuable about a game that requires presence, attention, cooperation, and acceptance of outcomes that cannot be endlessly revised or curated. Yes, AD&D is "just a game," but it's the kind of game that we could stand to have more of. The longer I live, the more I appreciate it.

Learning To DM

Sometimes I forget...or (perhaps more truthfully) fail to even consider...that I've been doing this DMing thing for a long time. A long, long ass time.

Some people say I'm a "good" DM. I am decidedly uncomfortable with this praise. But I AM competent. I can run a solid game of AD&D with very few "flubs" or mistakes. Certainly nothing that can't be easily and quickly corrected in play...which makes for a fairly smooth game. Which allows players to be fully engaged in play. 

Usually. Generally. I don't always poll my players or ask for feedback...maybe they just keep their complaints to themselves; after all, there are worse DMs than me out there.

And maybe that's it. I'm fine being "adequate." Being adequate is hard enough. I don't need to be anything more than that. 

And all my "holding forth" and advice giving I do on this blog and elsewhere? All of that is just me trying to instill adequacy in others. I don't want people to be "good DMs." I just don't want them to be "bad DMs." I want them to be competent. 

Competence can take a long time to achieve.

I talk a lot about how I was not mentored or taught D&D...I learned it from a book. And when it came to learning how to run AD&D I likewise learned it from the (AD&D) books, not from an adult, older sibling, teacher, cousin or anything like that. I read the books. I found where AD&D differed from B/X (the system I initially learned on), and then I discarded and/or replaced the old B/X systems with the AD&D mechanics. I was 11 at the time and in the 5th grade. Mrs. Martinson's class, St. Luke elementary.

But by age 11, when I (and thus "we," my circle of friends who were my first group of players) decided to go "full Advanced," I was already a Dungeon Master. Had been a Dungeon Master for at least a couple years.

Doesn't mean I was a "good" one...nor even "adequate."

It wasn't enough to just read the books and make characters and run fights and hand out treasure and draw labyrinthine maps. It wasn't enough, even, to practice managing complex group social dynamics with my peers, developing patterns and strategies for organizing a table and keeping people focused. I certainly wasn't thinking in those terms back in those years. Heck, I couldn't even arrange my own outings and "play dates" (my friends and I all lived too far from each other for just bicycling to each others' houses). When we did manage to get together to play, I had to be ON IT...because you never knew when would be the next time we could all get together again.

But learning to be "on it?" That took a while. A good long while. I got my B/X boxes sometime around the age of 8 or 9. I was not even able to run a B/X game with anything approaching competence (or confidence, for that matter) until age 10...certainly over a year. 

That's right: it took me well over a year just to learn to run B/X. Even with modules like The Keep on the Borderlands and Isle of Dread providing additional information.

I often write as if learning to run D&D is as simple as "just read the book, stupid." That's not really the case, especially if you have NO reference point. Granted...I was a wee young lad at the time, and I'd imagine an adult with enough education could probably learn how to run the game from the B/X books alone. But AD&D? That's not as easy. Certainly not as easy as "just read the PHB and DMG."

Again, I was BLESSED by having already mastered the B/X books by the time I started AD&D. After that, it was a matter of filling in the differences. Okay, combat is more complex with these extra considerations. Okay, spells are more complex with their material components and casting times. Okay, monsters have a couple more bells and whistles, alignment comes in additional flavors, we have this whole new system of PSIONICS to learn. Okay. Okay. Okay.

It took TIME to integrate all these rules into our game. Because, in our youth, we were interested in getting the game RIGHT. My friends and I had been raised to play by the rules when you played a game. No one had ever told us, "just make shit up." And we approached AD&D the same way: we didn't just cut stuff or edit what we didn’t like...instead we studied it, corrected our mistakes, and worked hard to play the game better. 

Fortunately, AD&D is not rocket science, and even 12 year olds can figure it out.

But it took us time. It took us EFFORT. It did not happen over night or after one read through of the books. If the stuff I've written implied that it was just a 'walk in the park' to roll out an AD&D campaign, I apologize. Mea culpa. 

NOW...now, forty years later, I can run AD&D with very little effort. I have my house rules that I use, but I don't have to. I could make clerics memorize their spells at the beginning of the day. I could make everyone choose an alignment. I've run the game strictly By The Book in the past, and it's no problem falling back into that. In point of fact, it's pretty darn easy. Hell, I could easily incorporate all the stupidness found in the Unearthed Arcana (we used that from 1985-1990) with Drow cavaliers and Upper Lower Class barbarians and comeliness and hierophants, etc. Not A Problem.

Heck, if I dredged my memory a bit, I might even be able to remember how to use the non-weapon proficiencies found in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide. Man...what a waste THAT book was!

But the LEARNING to use and run the game with all that stuff came with time. These days, I’m more mature and sophisticated and (Lord knows!) patient as a DM, but for the most part I run the game exactly the same as I did when I was 15. I would say I was definitely “adequate” by 15…but that means it took (roughly) THREE to FOUR years to achieve competency in AD&D. And even then there was a LOT that I didn’t understand…things I really didn’t start comprehending till the last ten years or so.

I just knew how to run the game. Worrying about nuance and “game theory” is the purview of old geezers.

SO...about five years of training to become an AD&D Dungeon Master. Which, actually, is the typical length of time for most tradesmen to go from "apprentice" to "journeyman." Three to five years. That sounds about right. Probably not 8,000 hours...maybe 2,000 hours? Hours spent reading, writing, studying, and running games (the actual running being the smallest portion compared to the preparation). Hard to come to an exact figure...I never really kept track of all the hours I spent on D&D over the years.

Regardless...it's a long ass time.

For the most part, you can open the box of your average board game and figure out how to play it in an afternoon. But Dungeons & Dragons...especially Advanced Dungeons & Dragons...is not your "average board game."

I apologize if I've misled people into thinking otherwise.

Why NOT Shadowdark

Not a "Dear JB" letter per se, but Ilya asked the following on a different post a couple days ago:

Hi JB, I’ve been enjoying reading your thoughts on old editions of D&D, and as someone fairly new to the older editions, I really value your perspective.

I’ve been looking into Shadowdark. Due to my lack of experiences, the systems feel very similar. Both have light rules, use dungeon turn structure and overland travel rules. The big shift seems to be that Shadowdark streamlines things by combining saves, attacks, and skills into a single d20 roll 

I was wondering if you might have a moment to share why you would not recommend Shadowdark?

Shadowdark, from what I can gather is the latest, greatest hotness in the OSR...not quite OSE in level of popularity but it seems to be quite well-liked by the more serious minded of "rules lite" aficionados. 

However, while I've already given an overview of why I (JB) spurn "rules light" games, Ilya is asking for a specific recommendation (or non-recommendation) on a specific game system. Far be it from me to hesitate when it comes sharing an opinion! So here it is: the brass tacks, the full skinny, the real McCoy:

BUT FIRST. Let's pause for a moment.

It should be understood by everyone reading this post (yes, here's where the meandering starts) that folks are free to play any game they choose. You can play Monopoly. You can play chess. You can play Axis & Allies. Lot of games out there...a LOT of games. It's the holiday season, and I always try to pick up a new game or two for my household (much to the chagrin of my wife). 

There are a LOT of games, and a lot of different ways to occupy our time. Pickleball, for example...that's fun. And it gives you a little light exercise. Ilya you can play pickleball just as readily as you can play Shadowdark.

But maybe your knees are worse than mine, or maybe you don't have a pickleball court near you, or the ones you have always seem to be occupied (pickleball is pretty popular out in my neck of the woods)...even in December with an "atmospheric river" bringing floods to the region. Or maybe you just don't like playing pickleball in the rain. I don't.

So you want to play an indoor game...and you want to play an RPG. Because you're an imaginative sort of person. Okay. Lots of RPGs on the market...a TON of RPGs on the market. I own scores of them myself (I honestly have never tried to come up with an exact count...). Apologies to all the GURPS and HERO and D20 fans on the internet, but I'm not a big believer in universal systems; I find they tend to make for dull gaming. Instead, I prefer RPGs that are focused around their own individual themes, with rules tailored to their objectives of game play. Yeah, I'm an old fuddy-duddy that way.

SO...why would I not recommend Shadowdark? Why would I recommend Shadowdark? 

What's Shadowdark about? Well, let's see...(*ahem*):

WHAT IS SHADOWDARK?

Shadowdark RPG is a fantasy adventure game where you and your companions delve into buried ruins, lost cities, spider-infested forests, and even fearsome dragon lairs in search of gold and glory.

The Shadowdark is any place where danger and darkness hold sway. It clutches ancient secrets and dusty treasures in its rotting claws, daring fortune seekers to tempt their fates.

With your adventuring companions at your side, you confront the Shadowdark's sinister traps, formidable magics, and ruthless monsters.

If you survive, you'll bring back untold riches plucked from the jaws of death itself. And before long, you'll hear the Shadowdark's call once again!

(from the Shadowdark Player Quickstart Guide, page 7)

Huh. That sounds an awful lot like this game called Dungeons & Dragons.

So, there's this game called Dungeons & Dragons...great game, love it. You and your friends make characters and go into "dungeons" (a euphemism for subterranean adventure locales) and face danger and monsters and traps and magical threats, searching for treasures that you can bring back to the surface world. It's a lot of fun, even if you only play it in its most BASIC fashion...which is what "dungeon delving" is.

It's also HELLA easy to learn. You can pick up the Moldvay Basic book for under $5 on DriveThruRPG, and it gives you all the procedural info you need to run the game in its Basic form...and when you're ready to get out of the dungeon and explore the perilous wilderness you can pick up the Cook/Marsh Expert set (also under $5, but in print form for $13.99) and continue the adventures all the way up to level 14. Heck, if you like that simple system, you could even pick up something like my B/X Companion book to continue adventuring beyond those levels...although my book, sadly, is not as cheap ($12.99 for the PDF...but it IS a 'platinum bestseller' and people seem to dig it).

Each of these books (yes, even mine) clock in at 64 pages apiece, and they are an easy read...the Moldvay book especially has some lovely examples that can teach even a kid as young as 10 how to play the game (I was able to figure it out at age 9, but I was a sharp young lad). This Shadowdark RPG? The Quickstart Players Guide alone is 66 pages...so's the Quickstart Masters Guide.  I don't have a copy of the Shadowdark RPG "core rulebook," but my Google machine tells me it's 330 pages long.

Okay. 330 pages to learn how to play Basic D&D? Hm.

Of course, these days I don't play B/X, I play Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D), which has a lot of similarities in theme and objectives to Basic Dungeons & Dragons, but provides you with a more robust system for longer, more extended game play. It's a little heftier than B/X...about 350 pages in the PHB and DMG combined, plus the various "monster guides"...but it can provide you with decades of entertaining game play. 

See, here's the thing Ilya: it's not that I recommend you pass on Shadowdark; what I'm actually recommending is that you play AD&D. That's pretty much what I'm recommending to EVERYONE these days...unless you don't yet know the basics (in which case, I always recommend reading Moldvay's Basic instructions to set you on the path). Maybe Shadowdark is a great system...I couldn't tell you, having never played it. What I CAN tell you, is that AD&D is a great system, one that I've been playing for 40+ years.

If what you want is:

• a role-playing game
• of fantasy adventure
• searching for treasure in the dark
• fighting monsters, avoiding traps, etc.
• while taking on the persona of a fantasy hero
• played cooperatively with your friends

Then you probably are looking for a game like Dungeons & Dragons. And fortunately for you, that game already exists. And if you want to take the game to the "next level," then you should probably pick up a copy of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and start learning its system. 

Uh-oh...I can hear my readers yelling at me from across the ethers: "But JB! Old D&D...especially AD&D...is so clunky! Even if I was willing to parse Gygax's ruminations, or organize the dishevelment that is 1E, its systems are all wonky and weird. Look at how easy these "new" games are with their streamlined mechanics! That makes it EASIER to play...and we want easier!"

Sure. I get it. I mean, here's a "unified mechanic" for you: give every monster a kill number and when you encounter it, you roll 2d6 to try to exceed that number...if you do, the fight's over, you win! Otherwise you roll on a random table (you folks just LOVE your random tables, don't you) to determine what kind of injury/loss you sustained before escaping with your life. Hey, there may even be ONE result on the loss table that results in DEATH...but it's a low probability (maybe if you roll 'snake eyes' or something).

[this game system already exists, just by the way...it's called Dungeon!, the board game]

Even EASIER would be to just have you roll a die (die type decided by class and level) against the Dungeon Master (rolling a die type determined by how dangerous the monster is). Easy-peasy, as they say. Why bother with all that back-and-forth initiative junk? 

I mean, why not just flip a coin every time a character tries to do something with a chance of failure? Doesn't get much easier than that, does it?  "Can I free climb the fortress wall?" Sure...so long as the quarter comes up 'heads!'

D&D (and AD&D) both came out a long time ago. And almost immediately, there were people who said "these game mechanics stink...I can write a better system than THIS." Thus you have all the many imitators: Tunnels & Trolls. Arduin. RuneQuest. Talislanta. All the various "fantasy heartbreakers" that have been published over the years...so, so many. Shadowdark is yet another such fantasy heartbreaker; the only difference is that with the branding and marketing of the "OSR" machine (which is nothing but a marketing brand at this point), it's been able to make some money.  It's still the same game. Just with a better publicist and a dumbed-down system.

"Dumbed-down, JB? You just said you've never played it! What you call simple, I call elegant!" Okay, let's take a look under the hood:

Mm.

Okay, I've read through both Quickstarter guides. If you were to take out the padding, the illustrations, and the random tables (most of which I'd also call "padding"), you could probably write the entirety of the rules as a one-page micro-game (I say this having penned many such games in the past). It's a really, really simple system...and one that relies mostly on subjective referee fiat, which I hate.

"Fiat? But there are hard target numbers!" Sure...challenges might be "easy" or "hard" or "normal" or "extreme." But those are all determined by the GM (possibly after discussion with the player). That's garbage...you're not playing a game at that point, you're playing the GM. When I play D&D (which is what Shadowdark is, regardless of its name), I like having a hard target for finding a secret door, or picking a lock, or lifting a portcullis...I don't want to have to rely on the arbitrary whim of the DM.

And shall we talk about the advancement system? Again, it's all subjective DM fiat. An "unexciting" treasure is worth 0 XP...but "unexciting" to whom? The player? The DM? All the players in consensus? Same goes for the "clever thinking award." Being a jerk with a low opinion of "cleverness" amongst players, I'd probably NEVER award this XP.

Not that it matters...the whole system is boring. And advantage/disadvantage is one of the laziest, worst mechanics ever invented (I've changed my mind on this over the years). The fact that they do their whole thing about "Total Darkness"...and then make it nothing more than disadvantage(!) is outrageous. If I'm fighting an invisible opponent, do I simply have "disadvantage?" Because, let me tell you, in total darkness EVERYONE is effectively invisible. Just crap.

Look, here are the things to understand:

1. Life is not simple. Life is complicated and messy. Depending on where you are and what you are doing, it operates under different rules. If you're stranded in the middle of a wilderness, you act differently from how you do at your 9 to 5 office job, or how you do in Vegas hanging with your buddies. There's no "one streamlined system" for life...I think everyone can understand that. Games model particular aspects of life (the parts to which the game pertains, or imagines), and if it models MULTIPLE aspects of life, it may well need multiple systems...this helps give the game verisimilitude which, I would argue, is IMPORTANT in a role-playing game where the players are trying to put themselves in the shoes/mindset of their characters.
2. Because life is life and games are games, our mechanics and rules are, at best, imperfect in their modeling...and that's okay! And it's okay to boil something down to (for example) a single die roll that combines many different abstract concepts into one: the D&D combat roll is an example of such a mechanic, as is the D&D initiative roll, the D&D saving throw, etc. That's fine.
3. It is also quite all right to take these mechanics and make them simple, especially when introducing these concepts. When we teach little kids to play baseball, we start them off hitting the ball off a tee, rather than pitching to them. When we start little kids in soccer, they use smaller fields, with fewer players, and don't worry about teaching them "off-sides" rules. This is normal.  Basic (B/X) D&D...which is as much a basis for Shadowdark as 5th Edition...is a similar example when it comes to teaching role-playing games to beginners.
4. Having said THAT, there comes a time when you're ready to move from tee-ball to actual pitching. Simplified systems only satisfy for so long. At least, that's been MY experience over the last few decades. There's a reason I prefer chess to checkers. There's a reason my days of playing CandyLand are far behind me. And there's a reason I'm done playing B/X, even though I like and appreciate the system for what it is: an introductory rule set to the greatest game ever published.

Shadowdark is just another version of B/X with a couple 5Eisms hammered on (and a few bits and pieces from other games...I see some DCC in the magic system). Don't be wowed by the random tables. The magic item list is pathetic...I was doing that kind of thing in my 2014 game Five Ancient Kingdoms, but I provided over 100 different items on MY random tables, not just a D20 roll. Random tables don't wow me...they are insulting to the intelligence of the reader. Better that you teach a man to fish, rather than give him a D20 roll to see what kind of sea life ends up on the skillet.

Hell. This starter set has 52 monsters. It has 36 spells. It has 19 magic items. That's in 132 pages of text. The Moldvay Basic book, in 64 pages, provides 100 monsters, 38 spells, and 54 magic items. If you want to include the Expert set (another 64 pages), you can increase those totals to nearly 200 monsters, over 100 spells, and over 100 magic items NOT including magic weapons, swords, or armor. That's just a lot more bang for your buck.

And the B/X edition of D&D cannot hold a candle to the sheer numbers and varieties of these items found in the AD&D books. As I said, AD&D gives you material for YEARS of play.

SO...Ilya. You asked why I would not recommend Shadowdark, and the answer is simple: there's already a game on the market that gives you everything Shadowdark purports to do, except that it does it BETTER, and gives you MORE, and has been successfully played by folks for DECADES. Given that, why would you...why would anyone, really...want to waste their time with something of lesser value? Just because you dig on the artwork? Um...

[please note: I said lesser "value" not "cost." The core AD&D books cost slightly more...you can buy PDFs of the PHB, DMG, and MM for a total of $29.97, but a PDF of the Shadowdark RPG is only $29.00. For me, though, AD&D is well-worth the extra buck...]

Anyway...that's about all I have to say on the subject of Shadowdark. Time to call it a night.

Tamoachan

Notes on Tournament Play:

The purpose of tournament play is to get out of the ruins before time runs out. Choosing less direct paths, arousing monsters, or searching for treasure will cost players precious time. There is a real time limit of 2 hours on tournament play. If a shorter playing tournament is desired, it may be played that when the party reaches room #39 they have reached safety. This shorer version may have a time limit from 1 to 1.5 hours.  The DM should note the time at which play begins and halt play when the predetermined length of time has elapsed...

- From module C1: The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan

It's been decades since I've run the C1 adventure. In the past, I've run it as both a "standard" camaign adventure, and in its "tournament" format...minus the time limit.  Having now experienced tournament play (and run several timed tournament sessions) I have a pretty good idea of what it takes and how much is possible when it comes to running such adventure sites.

Tamoachan is too big for the time allotted. That much was crystal clear from the outset.

Still, "nephew" Spencer was coming over Wednesday to play D&D, and by God we were going to give him a game! He picked up Sofia from school, and showed up around 3:30ish...about ten minutes after Diego got home. We sat down to play a bit after 4pm, pre-gens in hand, determined to tackle our "two hour" adventure. Meanwhile, my wife was working in her office, and had already agreed to make dinner (pozole...nummy!) after she knocked off work...figured we'd be eating around 7ish or thereabouts.

Then...at roughly 5:30pm...we heard a distant explosion and all the lights went out.

It's been "atmospheric river" up in Seattle over the last week...perhaps you've seen the images of flooding on CNN through some parts of the state (most notably Pierce County...south of Seattle). Well, it's been accompanied by a hell of a lot of wind, too. An enormous tree took out a swath of power lines and blacked out some 10 city blocks in my neighborhood. Our electricity wasn't restored till 3:20am.

Still...the show must go on. My wife moved out to the car where she could charge her phone and use her laptop to finish sending emails. Pizza was ordered from a place outside the dark zone (still had to go pick it up...but that gave me an excuse to get a six pack of beer). Candles and electric torches were lit, and we continued our game by lamplight, only breaking to eat.  

We finished up sometime around 9:40 (and then played a few rounds of laser tag in the dark house).

So...about four hours? And I ended the thing just after area #39, stating that the stairs beyond led "out" rather than to the slightly more complex (if shorter) 2nd level of the dungeon.

I should point out that the kids are no slouches, by the way, not even Spencer...who has less experience with AD&D than my kids at this point. He is very no-nonsense and decisive, maybe even more so than Diego who, I have to say, had a spot of difficulty wrapping his head around the scenario's parameters ("get out") when he's so used to the usual objective ("get treasure"). But he was able to buckle down pretty quickly, even as he decried the LACK of treasure within the adventure.

Sofia, on the other hand, was quite on her game. Of the pre-gens, she chose Rhialle the fighter (her standard class) which is the only character that speaks "Olman," the language of the various monsters and critters in the adventure. Which is great, because she tends to be a "talk first THEN kill" type player. She quickly won the friendship of the crayfish and guardian crab, scoring an off the charts natural "00" on her reaction roll, and likewise managed to 'talk down' the awakened monks and buy them off with a potion of climbing that she had little use for. She was also quite generous with the Keoughtom's ointment in her inventory and they'd used the entire thing before the end of the adventure. 

Diego, playing as Cair the magic-user/thief, and Spencer, playing Myrrha the cleric, alternated taking the lead for the party, though there weren't many disagreements (the one time they couldn't come to a consensus on a direction, they used augury to make a decision/achieve consensus). Both players ranged from good to great with their chosen characters:

Diego's an old hand at playing "thief types" (usually assassins) and had no issues knowing when to search for traps, picking locks, etc. and he's played plenty of elves and half-elves in the past. What was new for him was playing a magic-user...especially one with access to so many mid-level spells (he just couldn't wait to let that fireball off the chain), but he did just fine: killed the nereid's eel with magic missile, used detect magic on the statue's sword, knock to open the door in the flooded room (in order to safely empty the water), and light once the party ran out of torches (which just got them to the fire beetle chamber...thank goodness!). He did have a chance to use fireball...on the giant slug (in a chamber large enough to take the thing), boiling its hide and collapsing the wall on the thing...a fine use of the spell. And while he got his arm trapped in the beak of the eagle stature, he used his potion of stone to flesh to soften the thing so they could just cut him free without bashing his arm. 

Meanwhile, Spencer was fantastic as the cleric...quickly deducing that slow poison would help them with the poison gas of the place. using create water to wash the silt out from below the stuck door, and using snake charm on the two-headed amphisbaena in the final chamber, as well as the aforementioned augury and (duh) cure light wounds. He also made made excellent use of his wand of secret door and trap detection to (narrowly) avoid the sand box trap and to discover the secret door in the cat-faced wall (after Sofia had already failed her attempt to search for secret doors there) which would eventually lead to freedom...I think he ended the session with only 3 or 4 charges left after starting with 15. Kudos also for destroying 9 of the 15 zombies and knocking down another two with his quarterstaff.

And kudos to the whole group for simply ignoring the gas spore (Sofia did try to talk to it in Olman). Though Diego was tempted to take a swing at it (which would have been disastrous), they decided to simply not waste the time. I should note that NONE of the three players have the slightest idea what a beholder is, having never encountered one in the game (and not being the kinds of kids who fawn over a Monster Manual), so that probably accounts for their nonchalance about the thing.

All in all, the three of them hit some 24 of the 39 encounters that comprise the "lower chambers" and the "first tier" of the adventure. Even though many of these are designed to be easily bypassed or ignored for the sake of expedience, that's still remarkably  good time. Generally speaking, 3 to 5 numbered (i.e. "interact-able") encounter areas per hour of play is what I expect from an experienced group of players. Even accounting for the fact they weren't searching and looting for treasure, knocking down 6 numbers per hour is solid play.

Their scoring (tournament-wise) was pretty good as well. They had +46 positive points and only accruing -14 negative points. Adding +100 for all PCs surviving and the 100 point base, that gives the group a very respectable 232 point score. Not bad at all, despite struggling a bit with the whole nereid encounter and nearly losing Cair in the "plant pits" right before the end.

[to be fair, that one's a little "iffy;" Cair was healed...using the last of the Keoughtom's ointment...at the same time he was being reduced to zero hit points. We diced for initiative but the rolls came up tied, and I allowed him to continue on. Regardless, the PC wouldn't have "died;" he would have been "zeroed out," and still could have been dragged from the dungeon by his companions. Since they entered the final encounter area directly thereafter...and Spencer neutralized the snake threat immediately...Cair being down would not have altered the outcome of the session in the slightest]

Showing the map to the players afterwards, they were incredulous that the scenario could be completed in only two hours. Diego, a solid chip off the old block, was disgusted by the pitiful lack of treasure in the place (although I haven't actually run the numbers yet...). I did explain that treasure hunting was not the actual point of the adventure but, rather, escape...and the PCs could always go back, now that the air was somewhat cleared, and try plundering the Shrine. He grudgingly conceded the point.

[okay, I should probably look at this now: C1 should have an expected treasure yield of around 190,000 g.p. given that is it designed for five to seven PCs averaging 5th level and contains 54 numbered encounter areas. Total treasure count for the place is more like 90K-100K depending on how you want to price the many unique and weird magic items in the place. I suppose you COULD make up some of the shortfall by stocking an excessive abundance of "stucco figures" in area #1 (there's no specific number given, only their value) but an upwards limit of 4,000 g.p. worth seems appropriate. Still...only about half of what I'd like to see, and the upper tiers are especially meager. One podcast review of the adventure I listened to suggested doubling the value of all the ornamental jewelry and gemstones, and that seems like a reasonable (and easy!) fix, if you want to make the treasure count more palatable]

But it was fun; everyone had a good time, especially Spencer who loves "old school" D&D and just does not get enough of it. But isn't that something we ALL could say?

Okay, that's enough...hope I didn't spill too many spoilers on this (nearly 50 year old) adventure!  Cheers!

The Kids

The Busiest Time Of The Year

"Oof magoof," as my man, Chris Crawford would say. It's nuts around here.

This will be a short one: I've got my "nephew" Spencer coming over this afternoon, which means (in addition to having the house cleaned and straightened), I've got to do a little D&D prep work. Pulled out my ancient copy of C1: The Hidden Shrine of Tamaochan yesterday, and printed up the pre-gens. For an adventure I bought new in the early 80s (and saw considerable use), the module's held up remarkably well. 30 years of being stacked in a cupboard tucked in a closet (away from natural light), I suppose. Not that I am TRYING to preserve these things like National Treasures...my wife doesn't like me leaving my toys scattered all over the place.

One of the pre-gens got lost years ago, however...had to buy a PDF on DTRPG to have the full roster. Just looking over the thing now (something I haven't done in 20+ years, probably) it seems a little long for tournament play...55 encounter areas in two hours?...but then, the adventure is designed such that players are NOT supposed to screw around, and there are hefty (scoring) penalties for groups that deviate or wander off the preferred track. That being said, it is rather UNlike the tourney section of Dwellers of the Forbidden City, in that there are plenty of ways to get distracted. Eh, we'll see how it goes. Philipp ran this at Cauldron 2025 in a four hour time slot, which seems a LOT more doable (maybe), but I'm probably not going to have more than two hours tonight. Kids like to eat dinner and do homework, after all.

And SPEAKING of the "OSR Euro Con," Cauldron 2026 opened for registration at 9am PST last Saturday...and filled up in roughly 22 minutes. I had all-but-forgotten about it (I've been pretty swamped lately, as said), but I happened to be up (as usual, drinking coffee while the rest of the fam slept in), and was able to grab a roster spot when I saw the note on the Cauldron discord. Not that I had decided to go back to Germany in '26...in fact, I was about 90% sure I was NOT going to be attending. 

However: after mentioning it to my family Saturday evening (after a loooong day of basketball, soccer, volleyball, and Christmas shopping)...I found them all enthused about the prospect, none more so than my wife! Like myself, she's a big fan of Germany, and while she has ZERO interest in gaming, she loves the idea of getting back to Europe and tooling around with Sofia while Diego and I are off at the Con.

Yes, I've got my son signed up, too. 

The whole thing seems, objectively, like madness...just the cost of plane tickets alone! But...hell. It's only money which (IIRC) you still can't take with you. Spending a few shekels for a four day AD&D tournament in Deutschland with my boy? Isn't that one of those experiences/fond memory things parents are always trying to create? 

Hopefully, the memories won't be of his father slurring his way through a game after too many shots of palinka. 

Anyhoo, talked to D about it and he is "cautiously" enthused, once I assured him he does not HAVE to game, but can mingle and observe and such. He doesn't plan on running anything himself, and he thinks he'd only be comfortable playing if he did it alongside me (as a fellow player) or if I was the Dungeon Master. I assured him that this could be arranged. 

I'm going to guess he'll warm up once he's there. My kids, for whatever reason, are like this. Yesterday, my daughter had an audition for Blanchet High School's production of The Music Man (they need a handful of smaller kids for the show) and her nervous "yeah" had turned into second-guessing and outright "I don't want to go to this thing" right up until the day before. After spending the two hours doing the singing, dancing, and side-reading she told me the experience was so awesome she wanted "to do it again!"  Diego was like that when I took him to his volleyball try-outs...I almost literally had to force him out of the car to go to the thing (that he had asked to sign up for). Once he got on the court, however...different story.

[chalk it up to parenting: my wife and I aren't hugely demonstrative of "bold" action in the world. We prefer to stay home, snug and comfy with our kids. But that's because we already did most of our "bold" and "daring" stuff in the decades BEFORE we had kids. A double-edged sword, that]

So, yeah...I've gone from 90% not likely to go to 90% that I'll be on-board an IcelandAir with my whole family come next October. Jeez, what a world....

Tomorrow afternoon, I'll be heading to Los Angeles with Diego for a 4-day volleyball tournament. We get home Sunday night and then leave the following Saturday evening (after Sofia's guitar recital) for Mexico. My shopping is done, but the wrapping and the packing and planning and...

[*deep breath*]

It's busy. The book is coming along. I hope to work on that in between matches at the tourney. I'm thinking of junking the first couple chapters and starting from scratch...I'm not sure about the original approach I was taking. I'll let you know once I've made some real progress.

That's all the gaming-related news (I won't bore you with the other hassles in my life). Later, gators!

; )

The "Competition"

Today, I purchased a 500+ page guidebook purporting to "provide the key" to unlocking your imagination and teaching you how to be an RPG game master.  Well-stocked on the shelf of my local Barnes & Noble, well reviewed on Amazon, this book is a USA Today bestseller (meaning it's one of the top 150 books by volumes sold considering all media across all outlets) and its author a winner of numerous game-related awards.

I went to the store, deliberately, with the intention of purchasing the book, for the following reasons:

• As someone working on a similar work, I thought it only "due diligence" to check out the competition and see what was deemed to warrant such rave reviews. 
• As someone working on a similar work, I thought it only "common sense" to see if there was anything left for me to ADD with a book of my own, seeing as how this one was designed to take you "right from the beginning of prep to running a successful game" (in the words of one reviewer).
• I needed to do some Christmas shopping at the bookstore anyway.
• I recently received a fat payment and had money burning a hole in my wallet.

So, I picked it up and, after a hearty meatball sandwich lunch, spent the afternoon reading it from cover-to-cover, mainly skimming it (there are a lot of examples and diagrams) but diving into the parts that seemed to present newer info, thoughtful advice, or deep(ish) ideas and "guidance."

Then I drove back to the store and returned it, getting a full refund.

You will notice that I am not naming the author nor the book in question. I have two reasons for this:

1. As a person who has written books before, and who is undertaking a similar gargantuan task of explaining how to DM this game I love, it is clear that the author put a crap-ton of effort into this book...a monumental investment of time and energy. While I may have a negative opinion of the work itself, I'm going to give the author some credit just for birthing this thing. 
2. In general, I don't believe in "bad publicity," and as such I usually don't name things...positive or negative...unless I'm okay with people putting 'em in their shopping cart. That's just a me thing. Yeah, I broke that rule when I wrote about the 2024 DMG, but that was more akin to a public safety announcement...I knew people were going to buy that (regardless) and felt a "warning label" of sorts was necessary.

The bottom line is this: yeah, a book like the one I'm writing is still needed. Maybe I'm not the one to write it, but if THAT thing is considered the pinnacle of "how to DM" books, than the bar has been set extremely low.  Most of the information in it wasn't anything more than what you'd get reading Moldvay's Basic book (a lot of the "adventure design" seemed to be taken directly from Moldvay with slight adjustments and a LOT of extra word count) and the NEW "guidance" was...bad. Just bad from the opening chapters. Always saying yes to players, just as a default...um, no. Explicitly stating that the DM's job is EASIER than the players' job? Um, sure...if you SUCK at being a Dungeon Master.

Do we really need a book to explain dice nomenclature? Isn't that on page one of every edition of every RPG ever? And you state right up front that you're not going to teach the rules, so they need to read the instructions so then what's with the elementary intro crap?

*sigh* That's enough. I could keep piling on but that's not productive. And it wasn't a waste of my time to read through it...it gave me solid ideas of what I should and shouldn't be doing with my own book, AND boosted my spirits that I'm not totally reinventing the wheel. That's a comfort. 

Now back to work.

; )

Your "Story" Is The Problem

I am nearly done with Reddit. The other day I wrote I was seeing a "common theme" of discontent, but there is an even greater, pervading and UNDERLYING theme that I see over and over again, in complaint and questions alike...it goes something like this:

"Person (X) is being a jerk but I can't kick them because they're integral to the story..."

"Person (X) and (Y) don't get along but..."

"I'm trying to save my campaign that's been going on for (X number) of (months/years), but..."

"Our campaign is getting derailed because people aren't showing up..."

And blah blah blahdiddy-blah.

It's all the same problem: the "story" is getting wrecked, and everything is (thus) CHAOS. Pain and suffering and sorrow...oh, my!

I can't relate.

I can't relate because this has never been a problem for me. Just...never. Not even when I was a player in other people's games. Not even back when I was running Vampire the Masquerade, acting as the "Storyteller" of a "Saga" (rather than the Dungeon Master of a campaign).

We are playing a game...a GAME. The players are playing a game. No one is so "integral" to what's going on that the loss of one or more is going to END EVERYTHING. I mean...

(*sigh*)

Forget for a moment that we are playing (or discussing) Dungeons & Dragons. Let's just...for the sake of discussion...say you're running a game of Vampire. Oh, man, I ran so many "stories" (VtM's word for "adventures") back in the day. Blood Bond. The Succubus Club adventures. Diablerie: Mexico. Ashes to Ashes. The stuff in Denver by Night. Those are just off the top of my head...after all, it's been 30 years since I did the Vampire thing.

Did I ever have players who didn't show up, couldn't show up, or (in one guy's case) just did not want to show up (because he decided he hated VtM and would rather play Toon instead)? Yes, of course. Did it bother me if one of the regular players didn't show up to a session? Yeah, it did. Did it stop the session from happening? Nope...not once. Did it ever "derail" the campaign...er, "saga?"

Never. 

Because even when I was playing a game that used rather explicit language about how it was a "storytelling" game, even when the "adventure" being told was about a particular "story" (for example, a vampire girl who falls in love with one of the PCs but is already blood bound/enslaved to another vampire, etc., etc., blah-blah-blah)...the story is about the story, NOT about the characters. It doesn't matter how "integral" a character is to the story being told (and...spoiler...no PC is "integral")...you're running a world and a situation and if the PC isn't there (because the player isn't there)...so frigging what?

Look, an example: in the Blood Bond adventure (if I'm remembering right...Jeez it was a long time ago) there's this girl (Alicia? I think) who's supposed to fall in love with a PC. And then maybe she gets murdered. Or maybe she doesn't. Regardless it cause a big cluster that has to be resolved by the players. In my game, the PC she fell for was this guy named Michael. But what if I'd had her fall for Ben instead (the guy who really didn't want to play a vampire game but was only doing it because of his friends)...and Ben decided to ditch the campaign? Well, then, we'd say Ben's character disappeared one night (and who knows what happened to him...another mystery to solve!)...and then Alicia would either die or not die, maybe turn to a different PC for love/affection/protection (or not)...and the story would continue on, being a big cluster BUT WITHOUT BEN. Because you have to treat these NPCs as if they have lives and motivations of their own. And Ben (or Michael or Mike) is just ONE PERSON in the (imagined) "world" of the game. And that's how you treat the world as a Game Master.

Back to Dungeons & Dragons.

First off, what part of "Dungeons" and "Dragons" don't these whining people understand? Do their games not have dungeons? Do they not have dragons? What a jaded, sorry-ass world we live in when these things are not enough to get the juices of adventure flowing. NO. We must add DRAMA. And STORY. And BACKSTORY. Because MEANING.

Okay, sure, whatever. So you have some Big Bad Person who has "beef" with one of your PCs and you've laid out this whole series of events...plot points...to try to make an "engaging story" (i.e. "railroad") for the dumbass, er ignorant, er young and inexperienced players to enjoy. And then one of the players turns out to be a secret Nazi or something and the group needs to kick her Hitler-saluting ass to the curb. 

Oh, Nos! Our story!

What on earth is the problem? So, the PC just got eaten by a passing wyvern while relieving herself by the side of the road (it's D&D...shit happens) and now you simply need to adjust your Big Bad's actions to account for the fact that his beefing partner is out of the picture. What? Is he going to retire to a hermit hut and grow strange fruit a la Thanos? Or does he have some other nefarious plan to carry out now that the object of his ire is gone? 

Dungeon Master! Wake up! It is YOUR JOB to think for the NPCs!

You are not writing a script. Stop it! You are not writing a teleplay. Stop it! You are running a D&D game...I don't care if its 4E or 5E or 5.5 or Pathfinder 2 or whatever. You are supposed to BUILD A WORLD with CHALLENGES for the players to EXPLORE. Yes, it is OKAY for those challenges to take the form of an Apocalypse Clock situation or Yet Another Big Bad Evil Guy (emphasis on the YA part of the acronym)...but once you create the thing and set it in motion you must run it without attachment to an outcome. 

This is not scripted television. You are not Matt Mercer. You will (probably) not be paid money for running this game. FORGET PLOT. Forget it! Stop it! Your attachment to outcomes is the thing that causes every one of your complaints. "But, but, Sheila's supposed to defeat Baron Badness and avenge her father's death! I can't let Sheila walk from the game!" Why the hell not? Baron Badness can't make enemies of the other PCs? Heck, the other PCs can't avenge Sheila?

"But, but I created this awesome encounter that can only be resolved by a cleric of the time sphere with a specialization in abjuring magic..." [or insert some other gibberish that means nothing to me...a "Circle of the Moon Druid" or an "Oath of Vengeance Paladin"...whatever] So f'ing what? What would happen if something happened to the character BEFORE your quantum ogre encounter showed up? Huh? Would it happen at all? Is it logical for this shit to go down and mash the PCs? Then best to telegraph it so they know (and can either avoid the encounter or find a suitable replacement for the missing PC). That's nicer than how things work in the real world (where they'd just get mashed) which is FINE because, guess what, it's a game, not the real world. But don't throw a hissy fit about it!

Your "story" IS the problem...that's what this all comes down to. You want to tell me that you're the one who plays D&D the right way, that I am behind the times, that the game has moved on from my clunky 1E, etc., etc....fine. But I'm not the one bitching and moaning about how my game has gotten wrecked because one player or another misses a session or quits or had to get shit-canned for being an [insert-]phobe of some type. I've been playing RPGs for a long time and I've NEVER had this problem...but sure, pal, YOUR way of playing is the "right" way. Got it.

*sigh* Tell your stories if you must. Play your no stakes, no threat, "tea party" version of D&D if that's what floats your boat. Dive into "character development" and your character's inner mental space with all the fervor of a Freud fanboy psych major. Coolio...you do you. 

BUT, for the love of all things holy, STOP having an attachment to how you think said story "should" go or which particular PC is supposed to be "protagonizing" in any given session. Rather than spotlighting players, spotlight the WORLD...the campaign that you are created through the adventures/situations you are (hopefully) designing for your players to tackle. Let the "story" unfold as it unfolds, not as scripted by you...that script is the reason you can't have nice things.

Okay. I'm done.

AD&D Assumptions

The Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game operates under a few assumptions that need to be understood by both the Dungeon Master and the players at the table. If these are NOT understood, then "trouble" can arise during the session.

Assumption #1: the game SCALES:

When you pick up an adventure module that says its written for PCs of "6th-8th (or whatever) level," you can bet that it has challenges and rewards suitable for characters of that level range...at least, if the designer is worth a damn. A bulette is not an encounter for low level characters...neither is a mind flayer. Likewise, if an adventure is written for 10th level characters, the only orcs are going to be encountered in staggeringly huge numbers and are led by real hard cases: powerful warlords, fiendish sorcerers, etc. 

Now, of course, by "encounter" I mean combat encounter. It's perfectly acceptable to place (for example) a high level Druid in a low level adventure (N1: The Forest Oracle) assuming the party is not so stupid as to pick a fight with the guy. Likewise, it's acceptable to have individual weaklings pop up in a mid-high level adventure if they are simply there for information purposes and/or (sigh) "comic relief" (see gully dwarves in DL1: Dragons of Despair). 

IN GENERAL, when DMs write adventures for their group, they should be keeping these scales in mind. The DMG encounter tables gives a good baseline for a standard range of encounters for PCs of a particular level, and the later monster books (the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II) list "LEVEL" for each of their entries. Make use of these resources.

As for treasure...well, I've already discussed its importance (and the importance of stocking appropriately) on upteen numerous occasions. No need to rehash that all here.

Assumption #2: you need a TEAM:

You can play AD&D as a 1-v-1 game (I've done it...as both a DM and as a player); heck, you can even play the game SOLO using the random dungeon generation tables from the DMG. But the scope of play, even with allied NPCs is going to be extremely limited without additional players. The game assumes you have a party of adventurers...more bodies to give (and receive) blows from opponents, more shoulders to carry bags of treasure recovered from the dungeon (or haul fallen companions). The monster scale (i.e. difficulty to dungeon level) is based on a GROUP of characters not a single PC.

Likewise, because of asymmetric skill sets, it is assumed that this team is going to be a mixed bag of character types. Just like a sports team needs different players with different talents playing different positions, the adventuring party NEEDS a mix of skills: fighting prowess, magic, healing, and thieving. Not only that, it helps to have redundancy...to have more than one type of teammate to fill positions when one individual is downed. I still remember when one of my groups abandoned an entire three-level necropolis I'd designed for them after their only cleric got killed in one of the first couple encounters...a wise choice on their part (given the sheer number of undead) but something that could have been offset with more than one cleric in the group.

[to be fair, we were playing B/X at the time and just creating a new cleric would not have proven helpful given the relative worthlessness of the 1st level cleric in B/X]

It's the best reason to include multi-class characters: they add skills and redundancy to an existing party, filling holes. For players who play solo, multi-class is the only viable way to go (my days of solo campaigning were always with a bard character). 

Assumption #3: the RULES that exist are IMPORTANT

Although I'll add the caveat that I'm only referring to rules given in the first three books (the Monster Manual, Players Handbook, and Dungeon Masters Guide). These books codified YEARS of play-testing, and are not just thrown in for shits-and-giggles. The AD&D core books were purposefully designed and built upon each other, each book adding its own adjustments to the game. Where concepts were considered "optional," they are usually labeled as such...where there is room for elaboration of a concept, this is often explicit in the text. 

Some rules seem non-sensical until used in play. Some rules work on unstated assumptions of "common sense" that may not be readily apparent. Some rules are what they are because they facilitate the GAME that is being played, even if they don't seem to model a particular reality. The game has its own "reality" (as all games do), and within the game's reality the rules and procedures are the "natural laws" of that reality...as important to AD&D as gravity is to real world humans. They are not to be ignored or discarded willy-nilly. 

Assumption #4: the game is about ADVENTURERS

When you sit down to play AD&D, the players should understand that in this game they are fortune-seeking adventurers. NOT (necessarily) "scurrilous rogues" but treasure hunters nonetheless. Even the paladins and rangers, heroic paragons of good and virtue, are there to earn a buck. That is what they do; that is their job. 

Why is the paladin digging around in subterranean ruins instead of defending a village or holy temple from (potential) danger and depredation? The same reason the adventuring cleric is out in the wilderness rather than home 'minding the flock.' These are adventurers,  taking wealth from the wicked for a just cause (i.e. the enrichment of the righteous who need funds to stave off evil). Whether you buy such justifications of murder and robbery, in the minds of the characters (i.e. in the paradigm of the game and its reality) it is clear that THEY buy it...and the gods who give them their holy powers do as well.  

[there are a LOT of things in the game that are "unreal:" goblins, dragons, magic spells. A universe that rewards the tomb robber is no more "unreal" than anything else in the game]

Adventurers can accomplish their objective (acquisition of treasure) through guile, diplomacy, or force of arms (including magic), but usually "force of arms" is going to be the default...which is why the game includes so many rules for the adjudication of combat encounters.

Assumption #5: the DM is IMPARTIAL to the results

For AD&D to function, the Dungeon Master cannot have attachments to expected outcomes...it is assumed that the DM gets their "jollies" from the process of creation. That is, the DM relishes their role of "playing God" (building a world, designing dungeons, imagining situations and scenarios) and is less concerned with whether or not their creations are demolished by the players or do the demolishing. The DM's job is not to make sure a game ends in "victory" or "defeat" but whether or not it continues...because continuing allows the DM to continue the play of creation. 

Each adventure, each "dungeon" built and/or run by the DM is thus a TEST, a means for the DM to evaluate their own creativity. Was this adventure too difficult? Was it too easy? Were the players engaged with the game at the table such that they enjoyed themselves and want to come back the next week?

THESE questions are the ones that matter. And for those questions to be answered truthfully and objectively, the DM needs to remove themselves from any expectation of what the results might be; the DM must be able to view the game being played objectively in order to improve their craft. Because it is only through a constant refinement and improvement that players can remain indefinitely engaged. And since JOY is found in making memories of good times with other people, the creation process is only ultimately satisfying when it can be shared. 

Thoughts of the day.

: )

No Compromise

AKA "Dear JB" Mailbag #50

Happy December! I am not quite waist-deep in the holiday season, but the water's certainly rising. With a trip to Los Angeles coming in the next couple weeks, followed immediately by a two week "jaunt" to Mexico, we'll see how the pressure ramps up. For today...I'm okay.

[and to be fair, other than the actual commute involved, Mexico should be fairly relaxing]

But I figured I might as well throw out a little something-something for the month of December...just on the off-chance this is my last opportunity to blog in 2025, a year that's been a bit of a banner year for my blogging (the most posts I've gotten up in ten years!). Not sure if they're any good, but at least I'm putting a little time and effort into the thing.

SO...yeah, the post. 

I was combing the Reddit "slush pile" this morning, and a common theme was popping up...people flummoxed or bitter or unhappy about being unable to work with (or continue to play with) players, despite attempts to communicate, negotiate, and compromise on various things, and asking how, HOW can they prevent their group from splintering, from completely demolishing the campaign into which they'd poured so much time and effort.

Typical DM problem, right? I'm sure you've heard it before...I'm sure some of you have experienced it before. You spend a few weeks or months or YEARS building a play group, learning to get on with everyone, dealing with people's flaws and foibles (everyone has them, and being able to remain friends AND accept each other for our flaws is not only a sign of maturity, but also a mark of real friendship), negotiating the group dynamic/chemistry, and then BAM...the "rift" occurs. Not because someone has to move away, or gets married, or has a kid, or changes jobs, but because the person WANTS DIFFERENT THINGS FROM THE GAME. Or, to put it another way, has DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS OF PLAY. 

And now it's threatening to derail everything.

How could this have happened in our carefully cultivated and curated play group? Well, IF the play group was "carefully cultivated" it usually only comes up because a new player enters the game (a good friend, or significant other of the DM or another player) and throws a wrench in the machine. However, in newer groups it could simply be that A) the group was formed with the assumption everyone was, more-or-less, on the same page ("we're all best friends, right? We can make it work!") and/or B) because one or more players were ALWAYS dissatisfied but was simply hiding their resentment but has now found the stones to assert themselves in a fashion that's counter to other players' wants/needs/expectations.

Sad when it happens. Usually not "tragic," but it's generally okay to shed a tear for the end of an era.

BUT...is this a preventable problem? Are there ways to "work this out" and "save the campaign?" 

The answers to those questions are "yes" and "maybe," respectively.  I say, maybe because it can be tough to shut Pandora's box once it's opened. Jim's girlfriend might be a pain in the neck, but kicking her out is probably going to cost you Jim, and might cost you Bill, too, if Bill only plays because he's Jim's best friend (see how that works?). But, sure, it's preventable from the get-go, in a fairly simple manner:

Never compromise.

If you want a campaign that's going to endure, you must be the rock against which the waves of whimsy break. You must be immune to the wheedling and cajoling of players who'd have you modify the game to their preferences. You must be steadfast against a "rule of cool" mindset, instead steeling yourself to be firm AND fair because, when it comes to being a referee, firmness is fairness. 

I probably sound harsh. It's not meant to be. Just assume I am giving you this practical advice in a soft, kindly voice...like a parent  putting their child down to sleep on a school night rather than allowing them to stay up till the wee hours eating ice cream and watching TV. You may think it's a delightful idea to give in to the player's whimsical request of the moment, but it's not. It's really not. 

Do not compromise. If you're running a game of AD&D and someone shows up asking you to adapt some 5E-ism to the game, you must say no. If someone asks you to make the game "less dangerous" or implies there's "too much combat" you have to say, sorry but we're playing D&D here. If you have a personal house rule that you don't allow evil characters or PvP at your table, you cannot make an exception for the player who "loves" Drow or who wants their thief to pick the pockets of fellow party members.

As the Dungeon Master it is your job...your responsibility...to set the ground rules and terms of play. If you want to go full-bore 2nd edition with only "rogue" types getting x.p. for treasure, that's FINE...that's your choice of how you want to run your game; don't let the players talk you out of it. If Sally doesn't like it, she can walk.

I understand that it sounds like I'm extolling the virtues of being a stubborn ass, but it is important to be unwavering in this regard...important for both YOU and your players. Players who know and understand the game that is being run have the freedom to work and grow within the system, playing the game...as opposed to having to learn how to play the DM. Which is what happens when the DM "loosens up" and starts acting in a fickle or whimsical manner. The dice are fickle enough. The game has plenty of whimsy. What is needed from the DM is not someone who's "adaptable," but someone who is dependable and trustworthy.  

You only get that reputation by refusing to compromise.

Does that mean your particular game "isn't for everyone?" Yes it does, and there may well be some players who you wish would stay who won't. But making accommodations for people is simply putting off the inevitable...it's attempting to mask a foundational flaw that will fester like an untreated wound. Do not bend: be up front with what your game is, and run your game. There is no D&D game without a Dungeon Master. And there are plenty of players or would-be players in the world. How many people are in your small town? 500? 1,000? And you can't find two or three who are interested in playing D&D the way you want to play D&D? Are you sure you've been turned down by ALL of them?

Well, there's always a few billion people on the internet to solicit.

I'm not going to bother transcribing any of the Reddit letters on this subject because it always boils down to the same thing: DM capitulation. Doesn't matter if they play 5E or "old school" D&D...once you start trying to please people because of the endorphins you get from a momentarily happy player, well, the jig is up. You have to stick to your guns from session 1 (I don't do "session zero") and accept that what you run or enjoy isn't the same for everyone else. And that's okay.  Variety is the spice of life...you can play games with one type of person and drink beer while watching hockey with another type of person and make love to a third type and argue politics with a fourth. 

Never give in. Never surrender. No compromise. Not for the DM. Other areas of life...sure, absolutely. For Dungeons & Dragons? No. Hard pass.