[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for the month is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: how to approach it, how to run it, how to enjoy a system that deserves to be played NOW, nearly 50 years after its inception. Consider this a 'crash course' in the subject]
I is for IRON...the will you must have to run AD&D and the fist you must rule with at your table. If you are going to be an AD&D Dungeon Master, your resolve must be iron clad.
Perhaps that sounds like 'petty tyrant nonsense.' It is not. The game play of Dungeons & Dragons is built upon TRUST...the trust the players have in the Dungeon Master. For the game to function...whether in the short-term or (especially) over the long-haul, the players must have unshakeable trust that the DM will be a fair and impartial arbiter, abiding by the rules of the game, whether those rules are set by the DM or by the instructional text of the game itself.
This is yet another reason why the knowledge of the books (and the instructions within them) is so important and why it is best to keep any house rules (especially those that upend the standard systems and procedures in the text) should be kept to a minimum. The game texts are the 'holy scripture' of the game, that set out the rules that govern the (game) world...yes, they produce a fun game for us to play, but they set the "laws of the universe" by which all participants must abide...just as real humans are subject to the laws of gravity or the turns of the seasons.
For the players, any wavering on the part of the DM, any wishy-washyness, any chink in their armor that can be exploited or manipulated...any BREAK in their iron...can prove disastrous to trust. If one player or another can wheedle (or weasel) the Dungeon Master into giving an inch, the game risks becoming a farce...a sham. No longer a game of playing adventure, but a game of playing the DM.
You must rule your table with an iron fist. This does not mean bullying your players; rather, you must have a unbreakable grip of you own game. When a player complains "But Gandalf used a sword! Friar Tuck used a sword!" you must be able to look them in the eye, and calmly say, "Yes, I know...but this is not The Lord of the Rings or Robin Hood, and in this game world wizards and priests don't use swords." Those that still want to play will accept the rules of play and stay at the table...and, so long as you apply the rules consistently, they will find their foundation of trust strengthening.
Because you demonstrate integrity.
I've written about this before with regard to DMs who allow themselves to be flummoxed or cajoled into accepting the complaints and whining of players, in some misguided attempt to "keep everyone happy." Trying to keep everyone happy is a fool's errand. No...you are a baseball umpire. Sometimes people are called out on strikes and THAT is the rules of the game...the rules that everyone playing have agreed to abide by.
AD&D is no different from baseball in this regard.
Does this mean that people watching my table will observe me constantly shouting down my players, belittling them, telling them to sit down, shut up, and play the damn game? No, of course not. When someone asks a question about game procedures, I provide them with an explanation as to why I'm doing something. Any "house rules" I may have are explained at the outset of the session, such that there isn't a question later, in the middle of play. And if a person challenges me...which happens on occasion...with a rule of which I was unaware, we pause the game and look up the rule and assess it. And then CORRECT our game play as necessary. Because I, too, have an interest in playing the game right.
Again, this demonstrates integrity.
And I want to demonstrate integrity. I want players to trust me in my role as Dungeon Master...that I hold myself to a standard they can count on, rely on.
Because the DM is given enormous power within the game. Even though AD&D characters do not have the floofy backstories and dramatic arcs of a 5E character, players still become (over time) emotionally invested in their characters...their actions create history and meaning and memories of shared experiences. The AD&D character becomes as much a part of their player as the university they went to, the career they've chosen, the spouse they married. And the Dungeon Master can BLAST THAT CHARACTER INTO NOTHINGNESS AT ANY TIME. The DM can have a bottomless pit open beneath the character's feet, or a river of lava break though the dungeon wall, or a cave-in crush every member of the party ('rocks fall, everyone dies'). The DM can send wave upon wave of monsters (such as the Dragonlance modules do to those who step off its railroad path) or create magic traps that do all manner of despicable, de-protagonizing things to characters (see Tomb of Horrors for examples). The DM is explicitly empowered (via the text in the DMG) with destroying characters with "bolts from the blue" simply for behaving badly (as judged by the DM).
Who wants to play in a game like that? Who can feel engaged in a game that is subject to such arbitrariness? Why put in the time and effort and emotional commitment just to have everything you've worked for stripped away by a capricious individual?
If you, as a DM, cannot demonstrate integrity, your players will not be able to trust you. If you break your own rules, or the rules of the game, they will have no choice but to see you as a person given to subjective bouts of whimsy. And that's someone they cannot trust. This will break your game.
You must have an iron will and an iron resolve when it comes to running your game. You cannot allow yourself to be subject to the "rule of cool." If you want a game that is meaningful over the long-term, you must be as UNcool, as the parent who says to the child, "No, you cannot stay up till 2am watching videos while swilling soda and stuffing your face with ice cream." For the benefit of your campaign and your players, you must be totally uncool in the face of complaints.
But isn't this game supposed to be fun? And imaginative? And chock-full of amazing cool fantasy? Yes, of course. And it is! In what other game can you catch and train winged horses for riding? In what other game can you find yourself leading a band of mercenary soldiers into battle against the unwashed hordes of beast-men bent on ruin? In what other game can you fight dragons and plunder their lairs? In what other game can you turn yourself invisible, fly, and rain fiery death on your enemies? In what other game can you travel to both the depths of Hell and the heights of Olympus to personally commune (or combat) gods and demons? In what other game can you start as a lowly pawn and elevate yourself to living legend through your own deeds? AD&D allows you do ALL of this...and more!...all within the standard rules of the game. Is that not amazingly cool, imaginative fun?
But that is digression (and the subject of a post yet to come). The point of THIS post is that you must be as rigid as iron when it comes to running the game by the rules you've accepted to play (whether or not they've been modified by "house rules"), and not allow yourself to be swayed or "buffaloed" into deviation. Every time you allow yourself (as DM) to be "gamed" by the players, you erode their trust in your ability to be fair and impartial...even for those players who BENEFIT from this manipulation. Sure, you were willing to fudge the dice rolls for them this time, but what about next time? And can any victory feel earned with the knowledge that your DM is willing to tamper with the results?
Best to build your campaign on a strong, solid foundation. Be iron, my friends.
I have to admit. I have played and run AD&D for many years. I still use the Rule of Cool. I have enough things in my life that have to be iron clad rules, my leisure time is not going to be one of those.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm the odd duck, as I find AD&D to be pretty cool as is.
DeleteI see what you are saying, and I can see this in various life principles as well, although I also see the need for flexibility. How to define it though, I really struggle with. I think I would err on the side of rule of iron - Machiavellian principle is that if you give something to someone, they hate you much more if you have to take it away then if you never gave it. Patching errors in judgement is so much harder then being firm.
ReplyDeleteFor the campaign, which is the basis for AD&D, it requires adherence to law rather than whimsy, and each act of whimsy has a real cost. Are you sure you don't play alignments? :)
Absolutely. No alignment. Removing it solves far more problems than it creates, and opens up far more potential gaming with more interesting complications.
DeleteW.r.t. flexibility:
Being flexible is important, and I am NOT the most flexible person by nature (which might make me biased in regard to this subject). However, it's simply far more easy to stick with a standard when it comes to game rules. Once everyone understands (and agrees to abide by) the rules of a given system, it frees EVERYONE (players and DMs alike) to work within the constraints of that system. When we play volleyball, we know what counts as a ball being "in" or "out" and can act accordingly; we can settle down and simply PLAY. The same holds true with AD&D.
I get what you're saying, Quint. But having flexibility/compassion for our fellow humans (something I am immensely in favor of) is NOT the same as competitive game play. One of the aspects of D&D that makes it intense/exciting is the CHALLENGE of it. I'm not interested in diminishing or watering down that challenge.
Maybe other folks are?
Out of curiosity, in your game, what would happen if a Cleric or MU tried to pick up a sword and use it in combat?
ReplyDeleteThe way I run my game, they wouldn't even try. In a life-or-death situation (combat against real foes, for example) a character is going to fall back to the weapons they feel most comfortable using, i.e. the ones that they've been trained to use. A magic-user or cleric wouldn't even know the first thing about how to best use a sword, how to strike with it, how to parry, how to keep a proper distance...they'd have no tactical or theoretical knowledge to apply. It's completely outside their sphere of knowledge.
DeleteThe "useable weapon" list provides all the weapons they HAVE been trained in using; however, just knowing the weapons doesn't make them PROFICIENT in their use. Each character has only a limited number of weapon proficiencies...these are the trained weapons that the character is actually GOOD at using. The other weapons on the list? Yeah, they know the BASICS but that's about it.
Items not on the list? Nope, not a clue.
That's how I run it. Which, by the way, makes the fighter a far more interesting (and enticing) character option for players.
; )
I understand the appeal and even the good motives that lead to “rule of cool” style tables. For me, steering clear of that has little to do with “dogma” vs. “fun”; it is purely about what type of game I want to play.
ReplyDeleteWhen the DM is willing to fudge or guide events in such a way as to enhance what the DM and/or players will find cool, then this starts to feel like “magical tea party” to me rather than a game where the stakes and outcomes are delineated. For me, that kind of deliberate steering toward cool moves into some storygame-esque territory that is not what I want when I play D&D.
Besides, interpreting things like, for example, the results of random table rolls, still provides plenty of opportunity for the DM to push things in cool directions without breaking the spirit of impartiality and predictability expected by the game’s system.