[over the course of the month of April, my plan was to post a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. While I was unable to complete the project on time, I find I still have things to say. Our topic in question is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: how to approach it, how to run it, how to enjoy a system that deserves to be played NOW, nearly 50 years after its inception. Consider this a 'crash course' in the subject]
O is for Originality...something that is overrated within the so-called "Old School" community.
Not that this series is meant to slam the (mostly commercial) venture that is the OSR these days. But many of the new DMs coming to the AD&D game these days...or even old DMs returning to AD&D after decades of hiatus...are doing so by way of the Old School Revival that's rumbled along these last 17+ years. And in the commercial offerings that carry the "OSR" branding...specifically the for-purchase, pre-written adventure modules (of the kind that new and/or rusty DMs lean on to both inspire themselves and polish their chops), you find a particular type of pathology on display: the urgent need to add "original content" that never was to their offerings.
As if the game didn't offer enough content already.
I write quite a lot of adventures for use at my own table (both for my home campaign and for gaming conventions I attend). And when it comes to designing adventures, especially for convention play, I do not include "original content;" that is, I do not create "new, original" monsters, or magic items, or spells. Oh, you'll see some adventures I've penned for various writing contests that include one or two of these things (because they are elements of the contest), but these adventures don't see actual running at my table except when/if "play-testing." For my own campaign...and when demonstrating AD&D at cons...my adventures don't include anything you wouldn't normally find in the books...for a number of reasons:
- The content already included in the books is (for the most part) tried and true and already tested within and against the (long-tested) rules of the game.
- There is more content in the books than I have ever used in totality...which is to say, I've yet to use EVERY monster, or EVERY magic item, or EVERY magic spell over my 40+ years of gaming.
- For purposes of playing (and "mastering") a game, players need a consistent structure within which to learn and hone their skills, not a rug that gets pulled out from under them with every new dungeon. As I wrote earlier, I am all for metagaming as it IMPROVES player engagement.
Thus, I have no need or desire for adding "original content" to my games...in fact (as per reason #3), I find original content can be detrimental to one's campaign if used in a less-than-judicious fashion.
And it's really not needed! Again, I will make use of a metaphor suggested to me by a DM of far more experience and wisdom than myself: AD&D can be compared to a piano. Consider the ubiquitous piano with its 88 keys...the industry "standard" since 1890. How many people have studied and learned and composed music on a piano over the years, challenging themselves and entertaining others? And how many of them have attempted to add "more keys" to the piano to make the thing "more original?" How many have said, man, these 88 keys aren't enough...there's just not enough sound here to make a decent song!
The idea is ridiculous, as anyone with the slightest passing interest in music might tell you. And, yet, how many DMs are unsatisfied with the content of the core D&D books? How many have said that the 350+ monsters in the Monster Manual or the 300+ magic items in the Dungeon Masters Guide or the 400+ spells in the Players Handbook are insufficient for their crafting of adventures? Are you kidding me?
There is a TON you can do with the "limited" amount of content in the books: writing an adventure is much like composing a piece of music on a piano. And just as a piece of piano music can be played differently by different musicians (softly, loudly, quickly, slowly, jazzy, or arranged with other instruments, or whatever), a single adventure can be "interpreted" differently by different DMs...or run differently by the same DM on different occasions depending on the players involved.
Orcs aren't "boring." YOU are boring. What is needed is NUANCE, not novelty. Situationally, there are as many different ways to use orcs in your game as there are to use humans...these are intelligent (if imaginary) creatures after all. Consider all the way humans can differ...not just in form or function, but culturally. I know that many of my fellow American look at all Latin American people as one big mass of brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking people (I know this as I was once one of those Americans) but it is so, so not the case. Even if you ignore the individual differences of individual Mexicans (for example), Mexicans are VERY different from Ecuadorians who are VERY different from Panamanians who are VERY different from Paraguayans who are VERY different from Brazilians who are VERY different from Argentinians or Chileans, etc., etc.. In fact, they are SO DIFFERENT from each other, that unless their country is right next to another they tend to know NOTHING about the differences they have...yeah they know the people there speak Spanish (and, perhaps, have a decent soccer team) but they are often completely ignorant when it comes to someone else's history, politics, customs, food, etc.
It's like the way MUCH of the western world thinks of Africa as one big, homogenous country with border lines drawn on it. There are THOUSANDS of different ethnic identities in Africa and wildly differing genetic diversity even amongst people who share the same color of skin. Would a westerner consider all white people to be one big group? Is a Dutchman really the same as a Sicilian? My Basque friends from Bilbao certainly don't consider themselves "Spanish" in any way, shape, or form. "Your Catalan is getting quite good" they tell me (in English).
As an American I know there are huge differences of culture between our 50 States. Yes, there are plenty of similarities, but a Washingtonian is a LOT different from a Hawaiian or a Georgian or a New Yorker or a Texan. It's not just politics that divides my country: we are (and always have been) separated by regional and cultural identity, even if we've been united (for most of our history) by some rather singular and lofty ideals that...once upon a time...we all agreed on. But are we different? Do we vary? Hell yes! Even within my own State of Washington, there is a vast difference between the "island folk" of the San Juans and the hard drinking/snorting fisher folk and lumberjacks of the Olympic Peninsula and the multi-generational farmers of the Palouse and the military folks in Everett and the very complicated metro area that is Seattle. Seattle, itself, is large enough that different neighborhoods have their own cultural identity...we're not all elitist tech-savvy "Lib-tards." Far from it! I've lived here since I was born (in '73) and MOST of that time, Seattle was pretty darn "working class" and that's how a lot of us "long timers" still see ourselves. Besides, everyone knows the elitist, tech-money d-bags live in Bellevue.
[haha. I joke. Bellevue is full of wealthy Asians, duh]
The POINT is, just saying an orc is a 1 HD antagonist and that we need a blue-skinned version that explodes when you hit it or one that has feathered wings or an orc that shoots lasers from its eyes in order to "spice things up" is simply showing a profound LACK of imagination. And it's short-changing both your players (who are trying to master the system...something they can only do when there is consistency of application) and yourself (as a designer and Dungeon Master). What? Are you afraid that if you start "humanizing" orcs (or goblins or lizard folk or giants, etc.) by giving them nuance and ethnical variety that you're going to somehow turn them into something the players don't want to kill and then there goes the game? Have you not noticed how many different motivations, excuses, and justifications humans have found to kill each other over the centuries? My cup runneth over!
Yes, I am well familiar with the classic TSR modules of early days of AD&D and how the MAJORITY of them (pre-'85, i.e. "the good years") would include a new monster or two. I would just point out the following for consideration: A) you almost never see new magic items or spells, things which (in my estimation) have the highest potential for unbalancing or "breaking" the game, B) many times these new monsters are unique encounters and/or thematically linked to the adventure (i.e. not likely to show up elsewhere in a campaign), C) compared to the MAJORITY of the monsters in a 30-60+ encounter area, one or two new critters are a pittance, and D) you generally do NOT see these shenanigans in adventures designed for introductory, low-level play (no new monsters in B1, B2, N1, N2, etc.). Players have to learn the ropes before you start serving up curve balls!
SO...to bring this entry to a summation and close: it is NOT a mark of "creativity" or "good Dungeon Mastery" to be adding new, unique content to your game. Anyone can do that; the Fiend Folio is an entire book filled with new creatures created by a wide swath of designers (more than 70). Pursuing "originality" (in terms of content) as a goal in and of itself isn't the best use of your time and energy as an adventure designer. In my estimation, you'll get far more value out of finding ways to use that which is already present in ways that are unusual, challenging, surprising, and in ways both deeper and more nuanced. Engage your players through good system use, rather than novelty.
AD&D campaigns can last a long time and you can get a lot of mileage out of it as written. However, when it comes to the vehicle's actual components, there's still a lot of tread left on the tires; no need to change them out so soon!
; )
Again, spot on. I feel that I was guilty of gotcha monsters when I played in the 80s. Now, I really dislike all the humanoid options outside of goblins, ogres, trolls and giants (though the exception is the bullywug). Even D&D's variety of giants and spectrum of dragons sits a bit uncomfortably with me. It reduces everything to functional differences. These days I try to give my goblins a motivation and set of interests - even if that's as simple as robbery.
ReplyDeleteException to the beginner's modules introducing monsters is Jean Wells' B3. There's a squadron of odd new monsters in there and I confess to liking the bubbles and marble snake.
If only Gygax had given us a dozen giants instead of six and two score of dragons instead of twelve, amirite?
Delete; )
I recommend that NO ONE feel guilty for how they played in their youth (or even in their later years). "Go and sin no more," is my general philosophy...we make mistakes and (hopefully) we learn and grow from them. It's only a PROBLEM if you continue to repeat the same mistakes. I can tell you for certain that I have PLENTY of mess in my own past...gradual refinement/development is so much more useful than demanding "perfection" of ourselves.
With regard to the "B" modules: sure. And B6 has some sort of new plant creature (a "sundew" or something? I'm currently out of town and don't have my modules to reference). But these are the exception that prove the rule: the BULK of both B3 and B6 (and ALL of B1 and B2) are standard book fare.
I agree with what you say, but as a cheeky counterpoint, have you seen the band Angine de Poitrine? The guitarist uses a custom microtonal guitar. Definitely not limited to the solfege!
ReplyDeleteGranted, like your point with the modules, 99.999% of musicians make do with standard instruments and do just fine. AdP is the exception that proves the rule.
Allow me to introduce you to an RPG called Risus....
Delete; )
Great observation that it is the "higher level" adventures where the designer (often Gary) introduced new monsters and treasure. Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, granted that was technology more so than magic, but still. To some extent I think the "gotchas" were all the rage as players gained access to and used the information gleaned from MMs and the DMG to "thwart" the DM's creations.
ReplyDeleteS3 and S4 both contain a plethora of new content (S4 includes many spells and magic items, in addition to a mini-bestiary). But then, those modules are both under the "Special" label. S4 especially is almost like a mini-campaign supplement for Greyhawk, as it is very specific to Gary's lore.
DeleteW.r.t. "thwarting DMs (using book knowledge)"
This, for me, is just another form of metagaming, something I'm generally permissive (if not encouraging) of. If a player or group of players can remember all the weaknesses and limitations of the monsters in the MM, have at it! That's not one of the things I can really control anyway (just as Gygax couldn't control Rob Kuntz's eidetic memory for remembering map layouts).
I actually think that particular worry is overblown...I run games for veteran AD&Ders (DMs themselves) and find the bog-standard critters plenty capable of inspiring terror and inflicting casualties. Funny enough, it's the most experienced, veteran players who end up falling first (more often than not)...perhaps because A) hubris is a bitch, and B) we (I put myself in this category) THINK we know what we're facing but (unfortunately) forget things. I see it all the time. It's why, when I'm running adventures, I closely read monster entries and make notes for myself, and then STILL keep the books close at hand for when combat inevitably occurs.
Here's the main thing, though: the Dungeon Master has ALL THE POWER. The ENTIRE(GAME) WORLD stands arrayed against the PCs...I can conjure 10 orcs or 100 orcs or 1000 orcs just by speaking them into existence. I have all the "DM's creations" I'll ever need. Let the players have their breaks (as they can find them)...they need all the help they can get! The odds are ALWAYS stacked against them and the house (i.e. the DM) always wins in the end. For the players, the game is really just a matter of seeing how long they can stay on the ride before they get thrown...and whether or not they can look good doing it.
So, I take it you won't be contributing monsters to my fanzine? 😉
ReplyDeleteI’m generally happy to contribute stuff…when asked!
Delete; )
Well, if you are interested you can send monsters, magic items, spells, and any other "Gygaxian building blocks" to monsterclosetzine@yahoo.com and they may be featured in an adventure in an upcoming issue.
DeleteIronically, despite new monsters being the focal point of the zine, I've actually used more book monsters in writing the first issue 's adventure than I ever have in my home campaign (my general DMing style, for better or worse, is basically the exact opposite of this post) because I've been trying not to detract from the reader submissions by including a bunch of other non-standard monsters in the adventure.
Haha! Interesting...and a little ironic!
DeleteSo, with regard to your home campaign with its original creations: how is that working out for you? I ask because I'm genuinely curious. You're running a 1E game and devising new content for your players, rather than running "book stuff?" How do the players respond to a world that is constantly new and strange? How long has your campaign been running? Is there ANY consistency to it (for, example, if you've replaced orcs with fire-breathing duck-people...or whatever...are these new creatures as ubiquitous and knowable/game-able as orcs in a "standard" campaign)?
I'll check out your "monster closet" zine when I have a chance. Good luck with the first issue!
; )
Thanks for the encouragement!
DeleteAs for my home campaign, when I said I don't use many "book monsters," what I really meant was not that I create new monsters myself but that I make extensive use of monsters from outside the three 1e monster manuals, whether that is from Dragon, White Dwarf, and other zines; from third party books like the Role Aids books; conversions from Basic and other D&D adjacent games, modern OSR bestiaries, blog posts, etc. I maintain an online database with all the monsters I've found in my collection sorted by dungeon level, environment, etc., which currently has over 6,000 entries and counting. I have created a fair few monsters myself as well, but so far none of my creations have been encountered by the players.
My campaign is mainly centered around a megadungeon, the Mystery House, a sprawling haunted mansion built by a family of insane wizards and modeled on the real life Winchester Mystery House. I've been running it off and on for about two years now as scheduling allows for two different player groups, none of whom have reached level 2 yet. Lately the action has shifted to a smaller dungeon nearby as the players in one group found the mansion too intimidating.
Not having much of a frame of reference, I'm not sure I can accurately ascribe specific player behaviors to the use of non-standard monsters, but I would also note that all my players are new to D&D and RPGa as a whole and so they don't really have any preconceived notions about non-TSR monsters being any more or less strange than stuff from the monster manuals. I have noticed that my players tend to be cautious when dealing with encounters, but that could just be because they are new. In some ways, creating an off-kilter atmosphere is actually beneficial to the horror theme of the megadungeon; one particular fight against a monster that cloaked itself in 5' darkness and created illusions of the characters' worst fears still stands out in my memory as the one time I've ever seen people experience genuine fear during a roleplaying game, as they had no idea what they were up against (of course, the fact it was 8:00 at night and we were playing by candlelight with The Rite of Spring as a soundtrack might also have had something to do with it).
Second part of my comment, since the whole was too long to post:
DeleteI do try to maintain some consistency. The standard monsters are all there, though by a combination of me under-utilizing them in adventures and players happening not to run into the ones I do include, only zombies, giant rats, and mountain lions have actually been encountered so far as opposed to the many non-book monsters encountered; goblins were conversed with through a locked door once, but not actually seen. Besides that, I tend to pick a few monsters that recur commonly in certain areas based on theming or faction territory, which makes those monsters more familiar. I also like to tell players what their characters would know about monsters that are well-known, and feature NPCs in the dungeon who can provide information about the more obscure ones - for a price. Even when players know nothing about a monster going in, a lot of the time players bring outside knowledge about how they probably work. Undead probably are weak to holy water, and if they shrug it off (as happened in a memorable encounter from my second play group's second session) it probably means they aren't really undead and are some kind of construct or, as it happened in that case, are being telepathically puppetted by another monster from hiding. A giant praying mantis is probably tough but non-magical, an animated suit of armor probably has a low AC but is mindless and easy to maneuver into traps, etc.
Overall, I'm of two minds about this. I can see where you are coming from about a lack of consistency harming player agency and will try to take that into account in the future, but at the same time a megadungeon campaign will get stale quickly if it's just the same old monsters again and again and I have too strong of an addiction to collecting new monsters to ever truly stop. I have toyed with the idea of writing guide books for the players presenting what is known in-universe about different types of monsters, for example a guide book to the undead written by a paranormal researcher or a treatise on demonology by an excommunicated cleric. I'm curious what your take on this is.
Hmm. Well, Cornelius, if neither of your play groups have reached 2nd level after two years of play, you've got bigger issues to deal with then whether or not you're using enough "book monsters" in your game.
DeleteI understand the "off and on" thing...I do. But generally speaking, a group of players should expect to reach 2nd level in (roughly) four to eight hours of game play, give or take. That's four to eight HOURS...not years, not game sessions, but hours spent at the table playing. Regardless of whether or not the players are "new."
I run games for brand-spanking new kids...some as young as seven or eight. They can still level up by fighting monsters and finding treasure...they get the premise of the game quite clearly.
That doesn't seem to be what's going on at your table. SOMEone here has a disconnect about what D&D is...either you or your players or both. D&D is not Pokemon...we are not "collecting" monsters. Monsters are a means to an end: a way of challenging the players. If your players are perpetually 1st level, you'll never be able to use the monsters in the game the way they're intended...if there's no advancement, you'll never be able to challenge the players as the game is designed, and your players will never experience the game the way it's meant to be experienced. You'll be left with novelty "trick" encounters like the nightmare one you describe, and you'll be left wondering why your game doesn't consistently rock the way you read about on-line.
This isn't an originality issue. Sorry.
I think my main problem is that I initially didn't include enough treasure, but I'm working to correct that but using your formula of providing enough treasure for the party to level up every 30 rooms. Also, so I don't give the wrong impression, when I say off and on I mean REALLY sporadic. As in, sometimes a month will go by with only a single session that runs for an hour or less. That's mainly a problem with my original group, and that group's progress is now even more slow because of helping me playtest for my zine. My second group, on the other hand, only started a few months ago and are already making pretty good progress towards leveling up after a few false starts where they got TPKed in early sessions by going after higher level challenges out in the world. I attribute their performance both to playing more regularly and to the smaller dungeon they have moved to exploring being designed more recently than the megadungeon and thus taking into account treasure amounts. They are also pretty sporadic but not nearly as bad as my other group's scheduling problems.
DeleteRight on. It sounds like you have a pretty good handle on what you need (more treasure)...self-analysis/reflection is one of the ways we improve our game.
DeleteAs I said, I understand the sporadic gaming thing. This year has been pretty busy...I've had (maybe?) three sessions in the last six months. Maybe there was another one or two in there. Summer time should see more. But my sessions are usually at least four hours (the ones I remember), and my players are pretty "dialed in" when we sit down to play...we all know our limited time is precious.
TPKs happen, especially in the early days with new players. And that's okay. But it's definitely good to have some dungeons designed that are "level appropriate." Personally, I don't really do the megadungeon thing...and I never have. My first dungeon was based on the Keep on the Borderlands...the Keep itself, that is (I made a castle for the players to besiege). Using modules like B2 as a model, my adventures have always been individual sites, not 6+ or 10+ level megadungeon affairs. Because my adventures are all individual sites, they can be scaled to a particular level, and you don't have players accidentally ending up in hot water.
[note: I say "accidentally." They can always CHOOSE to bite off more than they can handle]
So doing a small site scaled to your players' abilities is (IMO) a good idea...at least until they've got their feet under them (and a level or two under their belts). Once they have a better feel for the game...what works, what doesn't...they SHOULD become less risk averse. Bolder, in other words.
Again, this ties back to why I advocate for "standard" monsters from the book. These critters have already been "playtested" over years, and their knowable consistency gives players something to latch onto and develop tactics around. "Oh, here's a creature that our ranger gets a damage bonus against." "Oh, here's a monster that requires blunt weapons to fight." "Oh, these guys require fire to stop their regeneration." Etc.
Scheduling is a bitter pill for most people. Even the DM who is single, childless, and independently wealthy probably does NOT have a group of players in the same boat. We all deal with it as best we can. But give your players as good a game as you can, and THEY will make the effort to get to your game. That's how it works.
I came back here because I was just reminded that when Ed Greenwood was interviewed on Grognardia a while back he said that his original motivation for submitting so many monsters and magic items to Dragon was that he didn't feel it was fair to his players to throw stuff at them unless it had been published somewhere so they had a fighting chance of recognizing it. Food for thought in regards to our discussion on originality and consistency.
DeleteHa! Good on Greenwood!
DeleteAs usual, I basically agree with you. I do think it's worthwhile for a worldbuilder to make adjustments to the "vanilla" game in order to add their own highlights, but that's things like me dropping halflings/hobbits in favor of my similar rabbit-folk (but not exactly the same - for example they can jump far and have sharp teeth rather than a talent for hitting things with missiles) who dwell in holes in the ground and live mildly sybaritic lives. As I've been sitting down to revise and reboot my AD&D setting, though, I find myself doing more pruning than innovating. There are a gazillion humanoids in AD&D, I don't need or want them all. I don't need my setting of Hearth to be Oerth or Toril, no matter how I feel about those other settings*, I want it to feel like Hearth.
ReplyDelete*Love Oerth so much, indifferent to Toril, hate Krynn. Enjoy Cerillia and Spelljammer's crystal spheres - but not very fond of making Oerth, Toril, and Krynn part of that, as they get distorted by including spaceships. I was more interested in Athas before it became the world of epic superheroes. Don't care much for Planescape. Thank you for listening to this pointless digression, now please feel free to return to the main comment, already in progress.
Haha! Feel free to vent!
Delete; )
It’s not even (necessarily) a matter of “pruning.” You only need to add what you need to your world…and when you need something else, you add something else. You don’t have to come out of the gate saying “there ain’t no goblins here.” The goblins may simply be scarce around the parts where the PCs are (and may stumble across them later…when you feel it’s appropriate to include them). World building is a constant refining process…wha is the joy of it.
Hey JB, Apologies if this question is kind of "off topic." In your campaign what do you offer as far as "faiths" or "Gods" for Clerics? Do you provide a brief description/outline of individual choices, use a book (DDG) or just "hand wave" that particular aspect as generally outside the perview (of concern) of the Adventuring Cleric? I know you forego alignment in most cases so I'm genuinely curious.
ReplyDeleteHa! Not terribly off-topic: creating pantheons of gods and their attendant cults definitely falls under the subject of "original content."
Delete; )
The short answer is this: these days I don't offer ANYTHING. When a character creates a cleric, it is just assumed that they worship some sort of benevolent god (though one that can provide protection for their followers in the form of offensive magic, too). The churches/temples in my campaign are REALLY "glossed over;" I don't spend much time detailing them at all, rarely (if ever) giving them a name, unless the players ask (which they usually don't). When I think about it, I figure that they are similar to the Catholic Church of our real world, each building/parish/community dedicated to a specific saint or aspect of a single Holy one...something like the medieval RC church, but without a Pope figure (although the Red Emperor has a bit of the ol' Henry VIII in him...). Creatures without clerics (most humanoids and non-civilized orcs) don't have temples or "gods"...at least not benevolent ones. And other creatures with clerics may worship their own divine beings, both dark or light...but it remains an issue that hasn't been raised in the last SIX YEARS of play. Because while dwarves may have their own "dwarfy god," I don't allow PC dwarf clerics (I'm By The Book when it comes to PHB race-class combos). All the humans, half-elves, and orc PC clerics worship the same god, even if they belong to their own church community (or hope to build/found their own church community).
Prior to starting up this campaign (the one I intend to run for the rest of my life) I used to ALWAYS create a pantheon of beings for worship...which meant every time I started a campaign it was a new shot an rewriting the cosmology! How exhausting! And all for ZERO to LOW benefit...we mostly ignored it in play. In practice, my method of handling clerics hasn't changed...only the background "grunt work." But players don't give a rip about "role-playing" their cleric when they're hip-deep in blood and treasure in some subterranean cavern.
In the days of my youth, when we were "strictly AD&D," we always used the DDG, and we ran a Greek pantheon (we were all Greek mythology buffs) PLUS the non-human deities for elves and orcs and dwarves, etc. We used all the DDG/LL rules and ALL the PCs (not just the clerics) were required to have patron gods and alignments that matched. It was kind of neat to have a fighter that would sacrifice a bull to Ares before going into a dungeon, but these days I'm inclined to roll that kind of thing into standard "upkeep" costs.