O is for Originality

[over the course of the month of April, my plan was to post a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. While I was unable to complete the project on time, I find I still have things to say. Our topic in question is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: how to approach it, how to run it, how to enjoy a system that deserves to be played NOW, nearly 50 years after its inception. Consider this a 'crash course' in the subject]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

; )

ASC3 Wrap-Up & Thoughts

Yesterday rolled out the last of my ASC3 reviews, reviews that I finished writing some weeks ago. This post (yes, the one you're reading right now...) was written many days later, giving myself some time and space to think about the contest as a whole.

Not that I've done a lot of that. I'm a busy guy and I've been exceptionally busy since the holidays finished in early January. "Non-stop" is the phrase that comes to my head...for most of these reviews, I read and wrote them in BUNCHES...huge, heaping piles of them...in order to get through my obligation as a judge. At times, it was a bit of a slog, and I'd guess that (as much as anything) contributed to the curtness of some of these reviews.  For those who wanted MORE feedback, I've done my best to provide extra thoughts in the comments section of each entry. For those who'd prefer a more private forum for complaining or questioning my methodology, I'm generally responsive to emails.

Overall, I was somewhat disappointed by the quality of the submissions this year. 'Course, it's not MY contest (Ben will be the final arbiter of what he feels is worthy of the compilation), but there seemed to be a real dearth of...what I would call..."complete" entries.  Lots of problems, and many of the adventures with the strongest creativity and best theming were often the ones that lacked proper execution. Some of the two-star entries had me more jazzed/excited than the handful of four-star entries...which shouldn't happen. But it did. And none of the adventure sites (in my opinion) warranted a five-star rating. Not one...despite receiving nearly 40 entries this year.

The types of entries was also a little disappointing. Of the 38 adventure sites, eight were written for AD&D and four were were written for some form of TSR Basic. That's less than one-third. Everything else was written for various retroclones or...other. Six for ACKS. Two for Seven Voyages. A Hyperborea, a Savage Swords. That's more for "non-D&D" than there was AD&D...what's up with that?

My question is not meant to be rhetorical. There's something going on here that is interesting. And, if you'll permit me, I'd like to speculate about it for a moment:

I enjoy the gaming community. But for me, the community is a secondary consideration to gaming. I already mentioned I'm a busy guy. Most of that "busy-ness" revolves around my family and all our various "stuff," very little of which involves gaming. Sports, music, socializing with (non-gamer) friends, school stuff, house stuff, day-to-day living stuff...this occupies the bulk of my time and attention. And it gives me a full life...a happy, satisfying life. The gaming stuff...which, for me, is a vocation and calling and a part of my basic identity...is always there. Like my eye color. Or my wedding ring. 

But the gaming community? I play game, I write games, I teach games. But games aren't a lifestyle for me. And I don't need to be immersed in the community of gamers to know what I'm about. 

And I am different from some gamers in this way. There are gamers...many gamers...who not only want this community but NEED it. They need to kabitz and be friends with likeminded folks who encourage them and validate them and accept them and relate to them. This is a HUMAN thing...we all "need" community to one degree or another to give us all these things. We are SOCIAL creatures; we do not enjoy being LONELY. 

Most of us. I've always been a little odd in that I like my solitude. But not always. And, generally speaking, I love people...gamers and non-gamers alike.

What does all that have to do with adventure writing? Gibson's contest is an on-line thing...something marketed to an on-line community. And those communities (like my blog readers, or Ben's) gravitate towards a particular type of gaming...an older style, an FAG-oriented style (what's now being called "classic"). And in larger community, you see vocal visionaries promoting particular games...games like ACKS and OSRIC and OSE, etc. And some gamers gravitate towards these vocal proponents, and a small handful becomes a small group and then a small community. Like-minded folks finding ways to be together with other humans.

And togetherness is something we all want and desperately, desperately need in these times.

The particular edition of D&D I play has a following, too...but it is older and more diffuse. Pocket tables (like my own) teaching and playing a game the same way  it's been done for 40+ years, long before "communities" and social platforms made networking dead simple. Geezers, in other words...geezers like myself who decry the way the hobby has disintegrated over the years but who (again, like me) can't be bothered to create a gravitational force that drags in folks searching for "community." AD&D is not a Church; a gaming session is not a Mass. For me, that is. For other people, the wider gaming community has replaced for them part of the thing that religion has done for so many people over the years. Provided a feeling of belonging. Provided a higher purpose outside themselves. Provided a way and a reason to bond with others.

All very good stuff. As I said: we're humans. Humans need this kind of stuff.

So while I'm disappointed not to see more AD&D adventure sites, I get it. And I'm okay with it...the "disappointment" I expressed was more personal than conceptual. I like AD&D...I'd like to see more AD&D adventures being written, published, play-tested. But it's a GOOD thing that we have so many people going out and creating...doing work...for the larger hobby. More entries this year than last year...Gibson's contest has grown with every season. That's fantastic. Because people need creative outlets and gamers need adventures and adventures writers are only going to get better the more they write, the more practice they get.

I look back at some of my own stuff, and I'm appalled at my earlier efforts.

Thank you to everyone who took the time and made the effort to participate in the Adventure Site Contest this year. Thank you for sharing your creativity; thank you for contributing to the hobby. Thank you for putting up with my slights and nit-picks and taking my sourness in stride. Thank you for making me THINK and READ and helped me sharpen and crystallize my own thoughts on design. And thank you for being an inspiration to others who haven't yet found the time...or the courage...to create their own adventures.

RPGs are meant to be played with others. By providing adventures, you provide more opportunities for people to play together. Appreciate you folks.

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.

Foot, Meet Ass

AKA "A Discussion of the Principia Apocrypha"

Reader Steam Tunnel, God bless him, has made it clear to me that a discussion of the "work" known as Principia Apocrypha needs to be reviewed and analyzed. I had not planned on doing this today (I hadn't planned on posting anything, actually...) but best to nip this kind of thing in the bud.

Taking a cue from Bryce Lynch, I'm going to read this so YOU don't have to.

David Perry's Principia (subtitled "Elementary Axioms & Aphorisms On Running & Playing Tabletop RPGs In The Old School Style From Ben Milton & Steven Lumpkin") is freely available from Perry's web site, although it can also be picked up (in German!) from DriveThruRPG. 

I first became aware of it (near as I can recall) in September of 2021, at which time I referred to it as "a huge steaming pile of nonsense." After Steam Tunnel's assertion that "everything" Alexis wrote about in his posts of 10/14 and 10/15 "was largely covered in the Principia Apocrypha," I decided I better re-read the thing and make sure I hadn't missed some brilliant changes that had been made to the body of the text.

Nope: it's still just a pile of crap.  But let's discuss why!

Principia is a Latin word meaning "beginnings" or "fundamental principles." Apocrypha is a Greek word meaning "hidden" or "secret." Setting aside the question of why we are mixing languages (other than the pretension of making it sound like some sort of scholarly treatise), I found it interesting that my Google AI also returned the following meaning for the latter term: "of doubtful authenticity." Now THAT makes sense.

The pamphlet (for lack of a more accurate term) is 31 pages long, and is a mostly rambling essay of some 4,500 words (including Chapter titles). How is that even possible, one might ask? Well, it uses a REALLY LARGE FONT and offers a TON of blank space (I assume 'for effect') and then adds some illustrations. But 4,500 words is nothing, especially in THIS case, where the author/editor insists on using pithy phrases, needless prattle, elementary examples, and mind-numbing padding. Here's an example:

As GM (or Judge or Referee, perhaps more appropriate for old school style games), you are not an antagonist to the players or characters.

Twenty-four words. Just to communicate the obvious (i.e. not "secret" or "hidden") idea that "DM's should not be jerks." Needless padding and neglects the use of the term Dungeon Master which is common parlance for ALL "old school" games.

In contrast, here are two blog posts I wrote in response to exactly this kind of tripe explaining the fallacies in treating Finch's "Old School Primer" as Gospel, and what the ACTUAL fundamental parts of AD&D are:

Dispel Myth(s)

Seven Elements

Total word count combined: 5,125 words, very little of which is "filler." I really, REALLY hate to toot my own horn, but I daresay these are worth reading if you're confused about what is and is not "old school" D&D play...especially if you're using docs like Principia Apocrypha as your holy writ. 

But let's not bury the lead, JB...what about the actual CONTENT in this pamphlet? Sure...we can go through the various "principles" (though my post might end up longer than the original document):

Rulings Over Rules 

The principle that rulings should override rules misunderstands AD&D’s core structure. While flexibility is necessary, the rules exist to create a common game language and ensure fairness. Disregarding them casually undermines the consistency that makes D&D a game rather than an improv exercise. True “rulings” occur within the framework of rules comprehension...not as a replacement for it...and, generally, only when necessary.

Divest Yourself of Their Fate

The suggestion that the DM must be impartial to the point of detachment ignores that the universe (the DM) does care. The Dungeon Master isn’t a mere “arbiter” of dice rolls, but a world-builder and caretaker who invests meaning in the results. Dice add risk and impartiality, but the DM’s human judgment ensures coherence and care for the campaign’s ongoing legacy. 

Leave Preparation Flexible

This principle conflates player freedom with DM aimlessness. True D&D requires strong preparation: dungeon architecture, treasure placement, encounter balance, and world logistics. The illusion of spontaneity rests on thorough planning. A flexible campaign still demands an exacting DM who prepares intelligently and consistently applies world logic (along with a firm knowledge and application of the rules).

Build Responsive Situations

The emphasis on “situations” rather than “adventures” or “scenarios” reflects a modern narrative bias. In D&D, the dungeon or wilderness is not a “situation”—it is an objective challenge space. While dynamism between factions is valuable, the focus should remain on concrete, actionable design—not on “responsive narrative ecosystems.” 

Embrace Chaos… But Uphold Logic

Randomness has value, but is not the be-all and end-all of design. Random tables and dice rolls are tools of constrained uncertainty, not invitations to surrealism. When logic and consistency is cast aside in favor of randomness, the game world loses credibility and denies both intelligent play and player engagement. Dice should surprise, not confuse. 

Let Them Off the Rails

Sound advice, but hardly a "secret principle." Early D&D’s non-linear structure (wilderness maps, keyed dungeons, hex crawls) already presumes no rails. The real issue isn’t railroading—it’s whether the DM has prepared enough substance for players to meaningfully explore when they go off the expected path. 

XP for Discovery and Adversity

This re-frames XP-for-treasure into a vague “XP for discovery,” which dilutes the economic core of D&D. The treasure-based XP system is elegant: it unifies risk, exploration, and player motivation under one measurable mechanic. Replacing it with “discovery and adversity” invites subjectivity and erodes the economy’s balancing function. 

Player Ingenuity Over Character Ability

This principle is sound but the Principia often presents it as if rediscovered wisdom rather than baked into D&D’s mechanical DNA. D&D already privileges player skill through exploration, problem-solving, and resource management. However, it also presumes mastery of rules and tactics; this isn’t “freeform creativity,” it’s applied ingenuity within constraints. 

Cleverness Rewarded, Not Thwarted

Again, this echoes D&D’s ethos but strips away the mechanical teeth that make cleverness meaningful. Rewarding cleverness only matters when failure is real and the stakes are economic and mortal. If the GM is merely “generous,” cleverness becomes theater. In D&D, cleverness is rewarded by treasure, survival, and advancement: quantifiable consequences. 

Ask Them How They Do It

This section advocates for descriptive play over die rolls, which is garbage; it promotes an aesthetic dance over practical game play. It is not necessary to ask "How are you checking for traps?" Players interact with the mechanics (I check for traps), DM arbitrates (make your roll), and the session continues. Just what are we doing here? D&D is not performative in the way of a story-teller; promoting procedural clarity over performative guesswork keeps the gaming moving.

Let Them Manipulate the World

More garbage. Brute force (i.e. violence) is one of the core tenets of the game (hence the reason so much of the instructional text is devoted to combat). While other methods of problem solving are available, there are material limits to player manipulation: encumbrance, time, spell limits, reaction rolls, morale, etc. “Tools” are not permission slips for freeform creativity; they are resources to be husbanded, just like hit points and gold. Manipulation without limitation ceases to be game play. 

Good Items Are Unique Tools 

Sure, magic can be wondrous and weird, but Principia leans toward “whimsical toys” instead of meaningful campaign resources. D&D’s magic items have weight: they alter logistics, balance, and risk, and their strategic use are an important aspect of meeting in-game challenges. Magical scarcity and consequence...not cuteness...are what define the "old edition" gameplay. 

Don’t Mind the Fourth Wall

This principle is careless. “Metagaming” is a natural part of gameplay, and leads to engagement and immersion in a way that "strict personification" of one's character does not.

Offer Tough Choices

Choices ARE offered in D&D, but the emphasis should be on MEANINGFUL choices, not "tough" choices. Meaningful choices are usually grounded in resource pressures (time, light, HPs, spells, etc.) rather than narrative morality or dilemma-for-drama. Real tension is practical, not thematic. 

Subvert Their Expectations

Subversion is not a design goal in D&D; it is a byproduct of coherent world-building. If monsters and magic follow clear logic, surprises will emerge organically. Deliberate “twisting of tropes” risks drawing attention to the author instead of the world, and discounts the effort players apply to game mastery. Novelty should arise from authentic unpredictability, not clever meta-jokes. 

Build Challenges with Multiple Answers

True in principle—but only when those answers arise from the rules and world physics, not from DM fiat. D&D’s openness comes from simulationist consistency, not improvisational flexibility. If every problem has multiple answers because “the DM says so,” then the world is arbitrary, not logical. Multiple real solutions, not infinite possible ones. 

And Challenges with No Answer

This advice is a design indulgence. Challenges with “no answer” contradict the purpose of play: D&D is a game to be solved through risk and ingenuity. “No-answer” problems exist only when the DM withholds tools or logic. True D&D thrives on fairness: every obstacle is deadly, but all are beatable through intelligence, magic, treasure, or sheer luck.

Deadly but Avoidable Combat

Entirely consistent with D&D—combat should be dangerous and not the default. However, Principia frames this in terms of “story stakes,” whereas D&D grounds it in mechanical reality: hit points, armor, morale, and logistics. Combat’s lethality emerges from rules and scarcity, not DM philosophy. “Avoidable” is good; “cinematic lethality” is a distortion. And always remember that D&D offers many ways to recover from death.

Keep Up the Pressure

Run correctly, the game applies its own pressure. DMs performing their job correctly need not resort to 1-in-6 "chance for trouble;" just nonsense.

Let the Dice Kill Them...

The dice may be the heralds of death, but it is the DM's choices that determine when those dice are rolled. Make no mistake: the DM is adversarial...not antagonistic in malice, but in purpose. This is the game, and the players know and expect this; it's the DM's job to challenge the players and place deadly perils in their path. You can say "it's just the dice!" all you want...the players will feel otherwise.

Reveal the Situation / Give Them Layers to Peel

Transparency is good, but the Principia’s tone implies the DM should curate the mystery for narrative effect, not model an environment. D&D’s exploration procedures already structure discovery. The DM doesn’t need to “peel layers”; the dungeon does that itself. The focus should remain on spatial and procedural revelation, not narrative pacing. 

Keep the World Alive 

The section is mostly fine other than the first sentence ("Old school RPGs shine with improvisation and extrapolation, not rigid plots."). We are not looking for scripted plots and stories, but situations and scenarios lend structure, whereas a game run on 100% "improvisation and extrapolation" can lead to chaos and boredom.

NPCs Aren’t Scripts

This part is fine except for the last section that extolls "liberal" use of Reaction and Morale rolls. If you "treat NPCs like real people" with motivations, the random rolls need apply only rarely.

Annnd...is that about it? I suppose I didn't go over the "Principles for Players," but they're mostly self-evident, misleading, or contrary to the game as designed. Let's see if I can hit these in lightning round fashion:

Learn When To Run: Right. You're not playing 5E anymore.

Combat As War, Not Sport: Sure. But fortune favors the bold.

Don't Be Limited By Your Character Sheet: You should ABSOLUTELY know and make use of what's on your character sheet; failing to do so is your failure! Make use of your abilities, skills, and equipment; ask questions! What's the DM going to say besides "no?" Learn from your mistakes.

Live Your Backstory: You don't have a backstory.

Power Is Earned, Heroism Proven: Huh? This some narrativist BS here. Play your character like it's you in the situation with the skills available to you. YOU decide whether you want to act heroically (at whatever power level your character is). Heroism is NOT about slaying the dragon single-handedly; heroism is making the hard choice for the right reason. 

Scrutinize The World, Interrogate The Fiction: This is mostly fine, but (just like the "other games" referenced), D&D also has rules for doing things. If you fail your secret door roll, you don't find the secret door...don't expect your "descriptive narration" to override the baked-in game mechanics.

The Only Dead End Is Death: Sometimes a dead end is just a dead end. I put them in my adventures all the time. And there are a TON of ways to overcome death in the game, just by the way.

Play To Win, Savor Loss: Loss happens. You can choose to learn from your mistakes...and become a better player with fewer losses...or you can learn to "love failure" (as the Principia Apocrypha suggests), in which case you'll never grow or develop as a player. Which means you'll never open the whole range of game play available to you, instead being relegated to the role of a perpetual punching bag.

Pathetic.

Man, that was rough, right? What gives me the authority to be so mean to yet another form-over-function, style-over-substance offering from some bright corner of the OSR community? Who the heck am I to pontificate on the subject? Just a blowhard blogger with some 2500+ posts over 16+ years? Just a guy who's been playing these games, running these games, and teaching these games for 40+ years, publishing a handful of books along the way? How do my credentials stack up against these fine people writing their manifesto on "old school gaming?" Well, let's see...

Principia Apocrypha was "assembled and amended" by David Perry, and appears on his web site. Perry has two blogs, one with a grand total of 17 entries between 2021 and 2023, the other with 26 entries between 2018 and 2025. Aside from this steaming pile, I found only one credit for him on DriveThruRPG, as one of 29 authors that contributed to a 46 page "collaboratively stocked dungeon" called The Halls Untoward (system agnostic). Oh...and he has some stuff on itch.io.

Ben Milton is a longtime game reviewer at Questing Beast and the author of the OSR game Knave, which I believe I've mentioned before.He's been around since at least 2014 (back when he was big on Pathfinder), and has several game credits to his name on DriveThruRPG, including the much beloved The Waking of Willowby Hall. You can purchase Knave, 2nd Edition (PDF only) for $19.99. Perry credits Milton's other game, Maze Rats, as being one of the primary sources for his Principia Apocrypha.

Steven Lumpkin is a video game designer who started a blog in 2014 (inactive since 2018 with only 27 entries) which, per Mr. Perry, is the source of the original principles text of the Principia Apocrypha and a primary source for the document as a whole. In addition to his defunct blog, Lumpkin is a GM for a net series (like Critical Role?) called Rollplay: The West Marches, which I've never heard of. His credits on DriveThruRPG include the German version of Principia Apocrypha...and that's it.

So...yeah. Real authorities, there, huh? Paragons of "Old School" cred?

Let's be serious for a moment: the so-called "OSR" isn't anything more than a branding moniker these days. No longer is it a "movement" of any sort; rather, it is "marketing," pure and simple. Principles like those put forward in Principia Apocrypha or like those worshipped in Matt Finch's Old School Primer are nothing more than empty platitudes that only partially describe old edition play and mainly serve as distraction and misinformation. Even bothering to write this post is a colossal waste of my time...this is the kind of thing that shouldn't NEED to be written as it should be utterly obvious to anyone picking it up that these "secret principles" are nothing but lukewarm blog ramblings that most AI algorithms could easily spit out, upon command. Easy.

Newbies to Old School gaming: don't be grifted and swayed by these petty "influencers" looking to define gameplay in a way that makes their own products more enticing or adds laurels to their names. Forget that crap...look to the people doing the work as examples and models to follow and then do what they do. Because if they've been doing it for years (or decades!) without fail, then maybe they know what the hell they're doing. Beware of false prophets and monetization for the sake of monetization.

*sigh* That's it for today.

(2,778 words)

Why "Light Games" Suck

Oh, look! An actual post from JB that isn't just dredging Reddit for click bait...

I'm sure I've tangentially referred to this subject in the past, and my apologies if there's already some long-winded post floating around my archives somewhere...I've been writing this blog for a bit now, and it's hard to keep track of all my various rants. However, James M's blog re-post post today hipped me to something that I've been reminded of before but never (so far as I can recall) in a moment of my free time when I had a laptop close at hand.

So you get this today.

These days the "OSR" is well-known for its plethora of "light" (as in "rules light" or even "rules lite") role-playing games. O So Many of them. From the retro-clones based on primordial (OD&D) or introductory (Basic D&D) game systems, to even cheaper, lighter knock-offs of those games. You know who I'm talking about: the Cairns, the Knaves, the ShadowDarks, etc. Everything to make the rules LIGHTER and EASIER so that it doesn't shackle the imagination, right? Just trying to increase accessibility, yeah?

And, of course, this sentiment...a sentiment of making games EASIER, LIGHTER, MORE ACCESSIBLE isn't limited to JUST the OSR. Despite the 700-800 pages of instruction found in 5E's "core" game books, there are precious little hard and fast rules. How difficult is it to understand a target number? How complicated is it to grasp "advantage/disadvantage?"  5E is, in many ways, fairly similar to other "light" versions of D&D...it just provides MORE OPTIONS. More character classes. More spells. More magic items and monsters. But ease of instructional game play? Check, check, checkity, check.

[not that 5E is "easy enough" for a lot of its players/DMs (as evidenced by Reddit posts). *ahem*]

Heck, I'd argue that this predominance of "ease" isn't even restricted to D&D and D&D-adjacent games. The days of GURPS and MektonZeta and Vampire: the Masquerade and Deadlands are a waaaays behind us. Every RPG I pick up and look at these days seems built around A) a really simple system, wrapped around with B) a bunch of options with regard to color and flavor. Which might be why I haven't purchased any new RPGs in a while. 

When was the last installment of Champions/HERO System? Are they out of business yet? Or have they issued a version of "HERO Lite?" Kids these days, you know? They can't even be bothered to READ, let alone do math.

[man O man, the state of this country]

But let's not dwell on those "other guys." I want to keep my focus squarely on the so-called "Old School" community. Because the "Old School" community is bigger than it ever was...and is YOUNGER than it ever was, filled with people born long after the original "hay day" of the D&D game. And there is a major disconnect with their understanding of what "Old School Gaming" is all about, specifically with regard to the "heaviness" (or "crunchy-ness") of rule systems.

I want to explain that.

And, in addition, I want to APOLOGIZE for that disconnect, because it was ME (and people like me...bloggers from the early 2000s) who did a poor job of explaining stuff to people, back when we were championing systems like "B/X" (basic) D&D. This post (despite the catchy, click-bait title) is meant to rectify something that should have been rectified a long, long time ago...

See, Back In The Day (that's the 1980s for me but, presumably, the late 70s also) Dungeons & Dragons was a game for NERDS. Not just any kind of nerd, but a particular brand of intelligent, imaginative nerds that were into things like fantasy and science fiction and mythology, MOST OF WHICH was found in BOOKS (which, being nerds, we tended to read a lot of). Most of us being somewhat challenged athletically, too (being bookworms), we still wanted to have FUN and so playing games substituted for the types of group activity that might otherwise be filled up with Rec basketball or Little League in the summer time. At least if we were playing D&D with our friends (especially if we were biking miles to our friends' houses to play) our parents were less likely to yell at us to stop reading trash novels and go outside and get fresh air and sunshine.

SO...Dungeons & Dragons was totally our jam. Here was a game that appealed to our interest in all the fantasy literature we enjoyed reading (quality fantasy film and television being extremely hard to come by, back in those days) AND required a high degree of intelligence to parse and make sense of (as the designers, while erudite, imaginative nerds themselves, had rather stumbled into their profession and had, perhaps, NOT the best technical writing chops for communicating what the D&D experience was all about). 

And O how it gripped our imaginations! How it occupied our all our waking moments! How we discussed it, in and out of school, weekdays and weekends, on Boy Scout retreats, and while sitting on the bench during our soccer games! It was fortunate that the game forced us to stretch our minds, do math, look up words in the dictionary (and terms in the encyclopedia) which made all our homework a snap...because otherwise, we probably would have fallen far behind for the amount of effort we put into school work. I know that would have been the case for me...as it was, I still managed straight As (big nerd over here) with about as little effort as I could manage.

But here's the thing, Youngsters: "light rules" was ZERO part of the appeal of these games. We WANTED our rules "crunchy." The more crunch, the better! 

This is why Dragon Magazine sold so well to members of our community: Dragon offered NEW RULES and new ideas that we could incorporate into our games...making our games heavier, and filled with MORE rules. Articles like the (previously cited) Gamma World article that ADDED to character creation. Or (for D&D) new rules for training, or weapon proficiencies, or building libraries, or specific "thieves tools," or random pick pocketing tables, or urban adventure rules, or animal training rules, or...whatever! Never mind the new "NPC" classes (which tended to become "PC" classes) or the new monsters or the new magic items (which were also incorporated)...I'm talking about whole SYSTEMS. When the Unearthed Arcana was published in 1985 (with the Gygax name on the cover), we adopted the entire thing, sight unseen: social classes, spell books, Comeliness, read illusionist magic, demi-human deities, simplified unarmed combat rules...we took in every single bit of it, stupid or not. 

Rules. Instruction. These provide more than "limits" to game play, more than structure. Rules provide ANSWERS...answers to all those questions that arise during play, questions that lead to arguments and discussions and that (in the end) lead to game play stopping. We did NOT want game play to stop...we wanted it to continue and continue and continue. Having answers from (presumably) neutral third-party authorities (whether in a rule book or a magazine) provided an official "stamp" or reliability, respectability, and authority...something that allowed us to say: "See, there's the answer, in black-and-white. Now let's move on and get back to playing."

Because it's all well and good to say 'The Dungeon Master is the final arbiter of the game.' But what if the Dungeon Master is a 13 or 14 year old peer who doesn't have their shit together in other areas of their life? How do you trust THAT guy (or gal) to do the right thing, to be impartial and fair, to remember the correct rule/system at the right time, every time? How do you expect a hormonal 16 or 17 year old to exercise prudence and good judgment? Are you f'ing kidding me?

RULES. We wanted rules...the more rules the better. No one played BECMI in those days (though it was purchased and mined for ideas), because it was TOO simple, TOO basic. If you told someone you wanted to play a (B/X) dwarf, you'd have been laughed out of the room. "A dwarven what?" we would have asked. 

No, "rules lite" was definitely NOT on the agenda. When we took breaks from D&D (which we did) it was to play other games of similar crunch that we'd have to learn. Sure Marvel Superheroes was fun, but as soon as Advanced Marvel Superheroes was published, we junked all out MSH stuff for the new version (check out the falling rules! And the whole chapter on different inventions and kit-bashing!). We'd play Chaosium's Stormbringer whose chargen system could take half a session by itself (for a character who would be gutted by the end of the session on a critical impalement). We'd spend hours using the Top Secret rules (and the various Dragon Mag article supplements) crafting our own awesome handguns. Point-buy game systems...like James Bond, GURPS, Mekton...could provide hours of mind-numbing entertainment by themselves even before getting to actual game play.

We were young people with strong minds and no internet or smart phones to to distract and dull our brain power. We wanted stimulation and EXERCISE for our think-boxes.

So What Happened? What happened that led to blogs like "B/X Blackrazor" (and many, many others) promoting a style of play that was streamlined and easy and neither advanced, nor "crunchy?" Why O Why, for so long, did people like ME actively disparage more complex games, even as others were trying to either preserve the fire and evolve/develop the complexity?

Eh. I don't have a great answer to that question. It was 2008. I was busy: wife, job, life. I'd just gotten out of 3E...probably the "crunchiest" edition of D&D ever designed; so crunchy that I'd deem it soulless, a mechanical monstrosity, "twisted and evil" (yes, like Darth Vader). Going back to B/X, rediscovering and reexamining it through wiser, adult eyes was a way to reclaim the energy, exuberance, and passion of my youthful self for the D&D game. FOR ME: I needed to go back to the beginning to start over. And the simplicity of the system was about all I could fit into the routine of my adult life and adult responsibilities...and even that faded in significance with the birth of my children in 2011 and 2014. Dungeons & Dragons (of ANY edition) wasn't even on my list of priorities when I was dealing with children that young!

I promoted B/X and the Labyrinth Lord retroclone (which allowed one to play the...at the time...out-of-print B/X), because it was a lovely little game that could be easily customized for a smart person who wanted to do extra work, and would serve the purpose of providing a D&D game experience without the need to teach one's players a bunch of "advanced" rule mechanics. It was certainly more accessible than other editions and...for me, as a Dungeon Master...was far less of a headache than 3E ever had been. And it was still D&D (IMO) unlike, say, 4E. 

But, as I've detailed before (more than once) there is a LIMIT to how far a game designed as a basic, introductory system can take you. And since all the ways needed to transform B/X into a robust, long-lasting game system would (in essence) simply amount to "re-writing AD&D," I eventually decided to cut the middle man and just jump back into The King of Games. 

And what I found is that it's really not any harder to teach players 1E than it was to teach them B/X...as with B/X it's really only a matter of ME (the Dungeon Master) knowing and understanding the game, while having a firm grasp of table dynamics. The latter bit comes from being an experienced game master, and can't really be taught, but the former? Yeah, any nerd can do that, if they're willing to read the instructions manual.

But while I was on my own (personal) role-playing journey, the rest of the "Old School" movement took on a life entirely its own. Chalk that up to the commercialization of the OSR: once some people started making serious money (i.e. more than you need to buy a six-pack or two), there became a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. And the status quo was light, OD&D or Basic-based retro-clones (sorry OSRIC) and derivative Rules Light systems: Mork Borg, Into the Odd, Troika!, etc. Systems that worked fine (perhaps) for a pick-up game, but that ARE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE THE GAMES PLAYED OR DESIRED 30+ YEARS AGO. There is nothing "old school" about these games...NOTHING. Original D&D...the three Little Brown Books that started the whole "role-playing craze"...are the most streamlined, "light" version of the D&D game system ever published. And, at that time, might have been the most complex tabletop game ever to be sold on the open market, requiring not just itself to be played, but also CHAINMAIL and the OUTDOOR SURVIVAL board game to play (and fill in knowledge gaps). It was neither written, nor designed to be "simple and streamlined" and was almost immediately followed by Supplement I ("Greyhawk") increasing the game complexity radically (introducing multi-class characters, different hit dice and damage dice, weapon vs. AC adjustments, new advancement systems, etc.). And OD&D only continued to evolve (that is gain MORE complexity, MORE rules) from there...all per the desire of both the designers and the people purchasing/playing the game. 

"Old School" does not mean "dumbing down" or "making things simpler." Anyone who thinks this or who promote "rulings over rules" are operating under a misapprehension, a false premise. The true "old school" was all about the rules. More Rules...not less.

NOW, let me say there are plenty of Old Geezers like myself that played D&D back in the 70s and/or 80s who still play today using Rules Light systems...just as there are plenty of Old Geezers that play 5E or Pathfinder or WHATever. Yes, I know there are a NUMBER of experienced, AD&D veterans, who long ago moved on from AD&D and have never looked back, and they have their reasons (good reasons!) for this. And, yes, some of those reasons might include wanting to play a simpler, more streamlined game because the priorities of their life makes a "full 1E game" non-viable. Similar to MY state of mind when I was busy with my new parental duties. I don't fault Old Geezers who know the 1E system from making a different choice for themselves...those guys (and gals) are operating from a place of KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING.

But the rest of you?

There's a part of me...a big part of me...that wants to yell, YOU'RE WASTING TIME. Not just your own time, but the time of your players (yes, my admonition only applies to Dungeon Masters, as players get very little say in what game is run at the table). You are short-changing yourself of the game you COULD be running, of the experience you could be having, of the world you could be developing, the benefits you could be reaping, if you were bold enough, and patient enough, and diligent enough to put your nose to the proverbial grindstone and step into the shoes of an Advanced DM. 

Yeah, I want to yell that. But the truth is: we all come to the mountain at our own pace. When I was a kid...i.e. back before I turned 35...people gave me all sorts of advice that I failed to follow. Don't wait too long to have kids, for example (I almost did), or invest more money in the stock market, rather than booze and smokes (yeah, right). Heck, even the importance of a "spiritual practice;" it took me a lot of years before I fully appreciated the practical value of church-going in my life. Yes, a lot of us are slow to heed the wisdom of our elders...that "know-it-all teenager" attitude gets carried around for a lot longer than our teen years. Of course, it doesn't help when the elders giving the advice seem hopelessly clueless themselves (man, I had to set-up my parents' VCR for them back in the day...and I was 12 at the time! Jeez!...).

Anyway.

The title of this post promises a reason (or list of reasons) that I've yet to provide. Let's see if I can make this succinct:

1. They confuse minimalism with "elegance." The result is bland, undifferentiated, and tactically shallow. Without a structure to push against (and a system to master), there is no depth of play.
2. They prioritize "flow" over meaningful decision-making. By eliminating friction and meaningful constraints, they eliminate the tension that makes exploration and combat interesting. A meaningful game requires pressure; if everything is smooth, nothing is earned.
3. They forgo substance for style. I don't think I need to say more about ArtPunk.
4. They exist in a culture that fears complexity. The players coming to this game are actively afraid of mechanical systems, leading to design by subtraction...they don't want rules to get in the way of their improv theater. But it is complexity that gives a game its richness and provides a more robust experience. We shouldn't fear complexity; we should fear emptiness dressed up as accessibility.
5. They forget that D&D was always a game first. Instead, these "light games" end up being toolboxes for vibe-heavy improvisation. What D&D originally had...and what these "light" systems often lack...is a world that runs independently of the players.

And just to unpack that last point: AD&D (and the confused, constantly evolving jumble that was OD&D) had an internal logic to it, with rules for running consequential ecosystems. The DM's role is to simulate a dynamic, responsive world that the players are exploring...NOT a variety of scenes and narrative beats adapted to create "dramatic moments" or "emotional catharsis." This living simulation that is the AD&D campaign creates a powerful sense of immersion, consequence, and discovery for the players...not to mention a feeling or real achievement for the progress they make within the game world. That just isn't present in these "lighter" versions of the world's greatest game.

All right. I've said my piece for the day. Happy Tuesday, folks.

ASC Review: Pit of the Red Wyrm

Pit of the Red Wyrm (Jakob McFarland)

S&W for four to six PCs of (average) 5th level

Swords & Wizardry is an OD&D retroclone. I own it; I've read it. I don't play it. It varies a bit from OD&D (which I have played), and I'll try to take those variations into account. But I may not be aware of all the nuances of the system.

For my review criteria, you may check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (three page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews short.

Again, this one is a "real" adventure: a three level, 23 encounter location. The system (S&W/OD&D) really allows the space to fit such a scenario into a short (three page) publication, without needing to shrink font or cram the text. 

I don't particularly like this one, but the encounters seem about right for the system/character level. Found no grimlocks, naiads, or vampire moss in my copy of S&W; author should note where to reference these. Shambling mound is under-hit diced. Berserkers are over-hit diced, but assume this is an effect of the "insanity peppers" they consume. 

A lot of this doesn't make much sense to me. Why do the berserkers have the box? If the PCs just saw the dragon flying with it in its claws (the "hook" for the adventure) then when did the berserkers have the chance to kidnap the thief, imprison her, get her to unlock it, etc.  Do grimlocks use ballistae? Do the grimlocks manning the ballistae sit around hiding all day without eating anything? Etc., etc.

Treasure is good: 105K for an adventure that should clock in around 80K; however, several loot items are extremely heavy or hard to retrieve. This is fine. Magic is okay...maybe a little low for OD&D, but sensible and well-themed.

The map is tough to parse, especially Level 1 and how it interacts with the wilderness...however, I think I've got it figured out enough. I like the hot springs: good effects, good interactive hazard. The bank notes are also a nice treasure item (especially as value can be adjusted by DMs for inflation rates or currency valuations, etc.). Not sure why a dragon would want these, though...or be robbing banks.

This one gets the "playable D&D" rating from me...barely. It can use some refinement, but an OD&D crowd should be able to stumble through this without too much Fridge Logic bonking their noggins. I might not like it, but it gets three stars (out of five), with a negative asterisk.

***-

ASC Review: The Lair of the Lamia

Lair of the Lamia (J. Blasso-Gieseke)

AKA The Monastery of the Cenobitic Order of the Starry Brotherhood

OSE (ostensibly) for four to six PCs of 4th-6th level

*facepalm*

For my review criteria, you may check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (three page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews short.

Okay, I'll start with the good. Nice idea...local landmark/mountain has a monster prob and PCs are offered 25K by the local merchants to clean it up. Off they go and encounter a fairly decent swath of monsters (peryton, leucrotta, lamia) hanging out near/in an old monastery of some star cult.

Mm. 

Map is serviceable and the right size for this competition: about a dozen encounter areas. Stocking is fairly close to Moldvay (counting the "shrieking thralls" as traps).

Okay, that's about it.

I don't have a lot of experience with OSE. My understanding is that it is "just B/X reorganized." Great...I know B/X very, very well (note the name of the blog I've been writing since 2009). There is no Leucrotta, Lamia, or Peryton monsters in B/X.

Now I only own the free copy of OSE, so I checked the "OSE SRD" (that's System Reference Document for you non-nerds out there)...nope no sign of those monsters, either. ALSO, no sign of most of the magical treasure items found in the adventure ("long swords," bracers of defenselessness, staff of the woodlands, gem of monster attraction, periapt of foul corruption, ring of charm monster). With regard to the monsters, he offered stat blocks at the end, but no description of the creatures which seem to be taken directly from the (AD&D) Monster Manual...just as the named magic items seem taken from the (AD&D) DMG and UA.

SO, either Blasso-Gieseke is using OSE Advanced (a book I don't own and thus can't reference) and hasn't described his adventure accurately as such, OR he is adapting AD&Disms to to OSE. Either way: not cool in my book. If I was an OSE DM picking this thing up to run for my table (because it says "Designed For Use With Old School Essentials"), I'd be lost.

Then we have the treasure.

For an adventure this size, with the indicated levels, I'd be hoping to see something in the 27K range, maybe 30K considering a lamia is pretty dangerous (as are peryton and leucrotta). Since this is B/X...which doesn't offer x.p. for magic items...all that has to come from monetary treasure. 

This adventure? 236,855 g.p.

Okay, no. While it's refreshing to see an author going the OPPOSITE direction of the usual (most authors are too low-ball in their treasure stocking), providing the PCs with ten times the usual amount is Monty Haul in the extreme. Just the merchant's fee (25K!) nearly covers the expected treasure take for a party of 5th level characters. A quarter million in treasure? No, man. It's not that challenging of an adventure.

One star (out of five).  ***EDIT: raised to one-and-a-half. See note.***

*+

***EDIT: I have been informed by knowledgable individuals that the AD&Disms ARE, in fact, in the Advanced OSE book. Having reviewed the entries, they appear to be what the author was using as reference. Rating increased by half-a-star (to 1.5) as the misidentification is still problematic.***

The European OSR: Tourney

Happy All Saints Day! Time for another Friday morning blog post to read as you recover from your candy and booze hangovers!  Had a frightfully good Halloween myself (okay, sorry, bad pun).

As I mentioned in my original post of this series, even though I couldn't get over to Cauldron this year, I provided them with "tournament adventure" to run. Since I've fielded several questions about this the last few days, I figured a blog post might be the best way to disseminate information.

SO...y'all have heard of OSRIC, right? For those who haven't, OSRIC was one of the first D&D retro-clones published...in fact, I believe it was The First retro-clone published (unless you want to count HackMaster).  OSRIC is a clone of 1st edition AD&D; originally compiled by an attorney with the free time and passion for the project, its goal was to provide a framework through which hobbyists could write 1st edition adventures ("written for OSRIC") without getting C&D letters.

[if any of that info is incorrect, please feel free to ream me in the comments]

Anyway, the folks behind OSRIC are working on releasing a NEW edition of OSRIC; cleaned up, clearer, better usability, etc. While I don't see any news about this on their web site, this isn't some big secret: it's been a topic of conversation on several discords I read, and there have been forum announcements about it. The kickstarter hasn't launched yet, but I know it's in the works.

What might be a secret (apologies for the spoiler) is that, some months back, several folks were asked to help with the KS by writing adventures...presumably for 'stretch goals' or the like. I was one of the people invited to participate, and I offered to do "something with pirates and saints' relics," this idea rising from the world/setting concept presented.

Enter my adventure: Children of the Sea. Here's the blurb from the intro:

A holy relic has been stolen, and the Church of Sacramental Bliss has offered a substantial reward to anyone that can recover it. Careful investigation has revealed the lair of the pirates holding the blessed item: an abandoned temple on a small, craggy island. Can brave adventurers recover the relic before someone else claims the prize?

That was written in early October; I can see from my laptop that I created the document that would become Children of the Sea on September 30th (for the interested, the maps were created October 4th). 

But I'd had several months to ponder the project: I was first contacted about penning an adventure in May...but summers are busy 'round these parts (I told them it would be tough for me to get it to them by August but November/December wouldn't be an issue). It would sit percolating on the mental 'back burner' for a while...

However, in July the fam and I travelled to Europe and I had a chance to meet up with Prince of Nothing in Amsterdam (that will be the subject of a later post...). Even by then I'd started thinking about offering "something" to the Cauldron people...some way to 'keep my hand in,' even if I couldn't make it to Germany. When I broached the idea of an adventure to Prince, he suggested I just take the idea direct to Settembrini (the main con organizer), whom we'd both met and knew to be an amiable guy.

So I did...in September. As I said, summers are busy times for us and the start of the school year ain't anything close to a "slowdown" in the action. On September 16th I mustered the courage to send an email, writing:

"While I won't be at Cauldron this year, I'd like to offer a new adventure that can be run at the convention. Similar to the old tournament modules of GenCon's yesteryear, this would be a short 1E module, fleshed and prepped, that willing DMs could run and (hopefully) help fill out your event schedule. I'll include pre-gens, etc. to make the thing as easy to "read and run" as possible, and it will be of suitable length for a 4 hour time slot. 

"My thought is that (if several DMs were willing to run the adventure) such a thing could be a shared "touchstone" for Con-goers."

However, I did not start writing (being busy and then suffering a bout of Covid) and, instead, waited for a very busy man to get back in touch with me. Which he did on the 28th. Buoyed by this affirmation,  I set to work and had the whole thing out the door by October 5th.

Cauldron is a fairly small convention..."cozy" is the word that comes to mind. Some 54 (55?) people live, eat, and game together in a German manor house over a long weekend; in 2024 folks arrived Thursday afternoon and departed Sunday morning. Games are played in four hour blocks from 9am till...well, till whenever people decide to sleep...with meal breaks in-between. Seven "official" gaming blocks were assigned Thursday through Saturday, with Sunday being reserved for brunch, awards, packing up, etc.

Children of the Sea was run by six different DMs for 43 total players, providing a shared gaming experience for 90% of Cauldron participants. Better than I'd hoped for when I first had the idea.

I don't know if GenCon still runs tournament adventures. But I know they used to, and several adventure modules rightly called "classics" started their lives as tournament scenarios. We laud those old adventures because they are so ubiquitous...so many people have played them over the years, the S-series, the G-series, the C-series. That shared experience is the thing that keeps them in our memories, more than whether or not they are exceptionally written and/or designed. So many of us can crow about how we dealt with the giants or bitch about getting murdered in a Tomb of Horrors trap or whatever. Common war stories...THAT is what we get from these things. Like the way I've seen war veterans from different social classes and different ethnic backgrounds still bond with each other. 

Yeah, it's fun to have a D&D "competition," but the tournament exercise also strengthens the community.

Or so it seems to me.

Anyway. Much fun was had by all. Certificates for winning play groups (and runners up) were given out. One group's score sheet was misplaced and was later found to have actually had the most measurable success of all (they will be acknowledged in the published version of the adventure). From all the reports I've received and read on-line, it was a good experience with all groups managing to "win" the scenario to one degree or another and with only a fifth of the players being killed or "transformed without their consent." 

The Cauldron people have decided to make it an annual con event: the "Blackrazor Cup." Named for the iconic AD&D sword, not for me (the "Becker Cup?" Hell no...hard pass on that!). It will not, of course, always be an adventure penned by myself (though I am already thinking of what I might write for next year), but it will...I hope!...always be done in a similar spirit: providing a shared gaming experience where teamwork and cooperation and ingenuity are needed to overcome challenges and obtain great reward.

As for the adventure? I am currently in the process of polishing the thing for the OSRIC release, incorporating the feedback I received from both players and DMs alike...that's a lot of playtesting that got done in Germany!  My own gaming group didn't have a chance to play it till this week (Wednesday afternoon). We ran Children of the Sea exactly as written for the tournament, including drawing our six PCs from the tournament pre-gens, and setting a time limit of four hours.

The result was a TPK with 105 minutes still left on the timer. But I'm a pretty ruthless DM.

; )

[the kids still had a blast]

Happy Friday, folks!