Learning to DM

Most Dungeon Masters are "self-taught" (that is, they are themselves solely responsible for their own training), for the simple reason that there isn't all that many (any?) teachers taking on students for this particular curriculum.

[and, yes, I am excluding Alexis, whose on-line classes are aimed at individuals who are already "DMs;" he is, in effect, providing a higher level of training to individuals already possessing a degree of knowledge and ability in the art of Dungeon Mastering]

And yet, in the great scheme of things that can be taught, learning to DM isn't one of those things that fall in the "easy" or "straightforward" category. My eight year old is currently learning how to write in cursive...a simple enough task for someone who already has a grasp of the alphabet, consisting mostly of memorization and practicing the proper hand motions. My five year old is in the process of learning to read: much more complex (despite having a working knowledge of the 26 alphabet characters) because of the various rules and exceptions found in the English language.

Personally I have a bit of a phobia (well, more like trepidation) when it comes to working technology, yet even I can learn to configure a printer (or to change its toner cartridge) by following a simple instruction sheet...and rather quickly. Cooking simple dishes for my family (frying eggs and bacon for my children's breakfast, as I did this morning), took very little time to master...though it's a bit trickier than pouring cereal in a bowl and adding milk. And as far as learning new games (of the board and card variety)...well, it really doesn't take me long to digest the small pamphlets of instructions that come in the box, whether you're talking Happy Salmon or Axis & Allies (both games I've learned in the last couple years).

But learning to DM? No, that's a whole different level of learning.

Still, I have learned how to DM...as have ALL the DMs and GMs I've ever sat with at table (as a player). And regardless of their particular level of competence, or base adequacy (proficiency, of course, varies between individuals) we've all shared the common thread of having been forced to learn for ourselves how to do this thing that we're doing. I've yet to meet a single person who was trained in the art of running and refereeing an RPG.

Now, for the rest of this post, I'll only be discussing Dungeons & Dragons specifically.

So, how does one learn to be a DM? For myself, I've run (as a DM) at least five different versions of D&D, not counting "half" editions (3.5, etc.). My longest and most memorable campaigns were run using the 1st edition AD&D rules...but I didn't learn how to DM from those books. I learned from Tom Moldvay's Basic set (the "B" in B/X). And I think, if you polled most DMs running pre-WotC versions of Dungeons & Dragons, you'd find MOST of them got their initial "chops" from some form of Basic D&D: either Holmes or B/X or Frank Mentzer's rewrite of Basic (the one with Bargle and Aleena). Prior to 1977 (Holmes) the haphazardness of dis-integrated rules that made up "D&D" was such that unless you were one of the primogenitors of the game (Gygax and Lake Geneva folks) your D&D quite possibly looked wildly different from what would eventually become mainstream Dungeons & Dragons.

[see Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign notes, Hargrave's Arduin, St. Andre's Tunnels & Trolls origin story, Barker's Tekumel, etc. The operable phrase here is "wildly different;" certainly most (if not all) campaigns, mainstream or not, exhibit differences in table/house rules]

But I believe that it is only with the advent of "basic" that D&D has any chance of proliferating at all. DMing is just too complex a task without an entry level set of instructions.

Looking at the cover of my Jeff Easley-illustrated AD&D books, the game is explicitly written for players "ages 10 and up," an age range exactly duplicated on the covers of the later 2nd edition books. But while I don't deny (or doubt) that there are some brilliant 10 year olds abounding in the world, I find it difficult to believe that there are all that many who could pick up the AD&D books alone and start running a campaign. Can a 10 year old play AD&D? Yes, of course...my younger brother was probably 9 years old when the campaign of our youth went "full Advanced." But learn to run a game? Mmm...it's hard to believe. I could...but only because I had a basic set as an entry point.

Self-teaching...the only route open to most (if not all) would-be DMs...involves learning the rules (i.e. reading the instruction manual), integrating them, and then practicing them. Competency and skill are acquired from the practice of being a DM: designing/prepping adventures and running the game for live players. But you cannot design, prep, or run if you cannot first learn the rules...and for most individuals that means putting them in an accessible, readily digestible format. 600 pages of instructions (the combined count for the 5E PHB and DMG) isn't what I call "readily digestible." But then neither is first edition's 300+ pages. Is it any wonder that we see so many folks running games of Basic or Basic retro-clones or cutdown "semi-clones" (like Microlite20 and Black Hack)?

Dungeons & Dragons is still a game that people want to play, but play requires someone to run the game as a DM. Running a game of D&D isn't rocket science, but it is complex, requiring the internalization of a number of different systems and mechanics as well as an ability to manage a number of unique personalities (i.e. the players) while providing engaging situations/scenarios through a combination of pacing and tension based (mostly) in narration. That's a lot to juggle. And while many players have come to the game through a form of "mentorship" (being shown the ropes by more experienced players), there ain't a whole lot of mentoring available for those willing to pick up the mantle of "Dungeon Master." Videos showing actual play or providing advice on how to create a campaign are just another tool for a person engaged in "self teaching," but it's not the same thing as being addressed and coached by an actual teacher. And hell, a lot of these videos have information that is bad or downright incorrect.

Forget certification...can we get some sort of apprenticeship program for prospective DMs?

Learning to play D&D is simple. Learning to run D&D isn't. And learning to run D&D well? That's a whole 'nother level.

I suppose this might work in lieu of
a Basic rulebook. Is it 64 pages?

Round and Round We Go

I plan on getting back to the Karameikos subject this week; this is just an interlude.

Over the last ten years I've been posting to this blog, there are some subjects that I've spent an inordinate amount of time on. One of my main areas of speculation/musing has been combat rules, specifically as they relate to the B/X system, and my various ideas, proposals, and thoughts on how best to tinker them to better model what I'd like to see.

Mm. Mm-mm-mm.

This post is a "placeholder" of sorts, so that when I am (once-again-sometime-in-the-future) wondering about my past thoughts on the subject and going through this blog by "tag," this particular post will come up FIRST and save me a bit of time. Here goes:

I like the B/X encounter ("combat") rules as written. For the most part, they model exactly what I want.

Variable combat damage by weapon? Yes, exactly as written. Two-handed weapons losing initiative? Yes (though among the missile weapons this only applying to crossbows, not bows). Armor class and ability score adjustments? Yes. Shields? Yeah, with some liberal interpretation of the "cover rules" when it applies to shield walls. Initiative and surprise? Yep. Hit dice and hit points and healing? Yes, though I reserve the right to change the way monsters heal damage, should the issue ever arise in play.

After all the "thought experiments," "practice runs," and actual table play, I am fine and dandy with the way the rules model the basics of combat. Every variation or adjustment I've made has all ended up being for naught....the simple, abstract system as it exists perfectly replicates the way I want my combats to run, right down to ten second beats (rounds).

Now this doesn't mean there aren't some existing "holes" in the system; there are, and they could sure stand to be plugged. Here are things that will (probably, eventually) need to be worked out and adjudicated in the long run, as they aren't found in the B/X system:

• Disarming
• Grappling
• Long-term injuries, maiming, scarring
• Partial or piecemeal armor
• Required space for maneuvering (long weapons)
• Stunning, knockouts
• Take-downs (overbearing, tripping, etc.)
• Weapon breakages

I'd also like to add some simple rules for multiple attacks (for fighters only) as B/X proper does not include any of the other editions' options. I can also see limiting the damage of a "normal sword" to 1d6 unless it is used with two hands...but probably not. Much more likely is simply giving a +1 bonus to attack rolls when using any melee weapon two-handed but...again...probably not (I don't want to be giving a low-strength character an advantage for using a heavy, two-handed weapon).

But other than "plugging holes," I have come to terms with all aspects of the Encounter rules (Chapter 5) of the B/X rulebooks. Other aspects of the game (evil clerics, alignment language, equipment costs) still need some adjustment, and I will almost certainly fiddle with monsters and magic items (if only to make the game a bit more interesting and campaign specific). But as far as combat goes, I'm just going to consider the matter SETTLED. It functions...both practically speaking and as a model. And after nearly a decade of tuning it, I am satisfied. Finally.

The ultimate justification for 18 strength receiving
a damage bonus is B/X...

Old Time Religion (part 1)

Can I please get some gaming content in my blog-o-sphere?

[all apologies to Jeff Rients with his recent DCC adaptation]

Ugh…life has been rough lately, but no one wants to hear about it (not that they don’t care, it’s just that that’s not why they tune it). So now that we’ve passed the All-Star break and Seattleites can officially stop paying attention to pro sports (at least till September) it’s time to start leading by example.

Let’s talk clerics.

It’s funny: as a kid growing up I never played clerics as PCs. Not that they didn’t provide SOME interest to me. As a kid with his grubby hands on a Basic set, I have to say Sister Rebecca was no huge role-model (all apologies to Mrs. Moldvay)…the examples show her to be a secondary bludgeon and “Jimminy Cricket” type conscience to party members. Now if there’d been a turning example in the rules my feelings might have been different. Instead clerics just felt kind of “meh” to me…at least compared to the Elf (Silverleaf) and Fighter (Morgan Ironwolf) examples.

[and let me tell you, reading about the Dwarf and Thief getting off’d quickly didn’t endear me to THOSE classes either…though perhaps not as much as not seeing ANY examples of Magic-users and Halflings]

[note to self: need to put more examples in D&D Mine and make the characters interesting]
Now it was a different story when I got to the Expert set a year (or less) later. The ability of Name level clerics to inspire fanatically loyal followers is, frankly, awesome and had me absolutely invested in the idea of clerics as a viable class. The first “pre-gen” Expert character we made was a cleric for my buddy Matt (though less than 9th level) so that he could lead some hired mercenaries into a desert wilderness to fight a blue dragon. This character would go on to be his staple PC when we converted over to AD&D later.

Clerics in AD&D became even MORE awesome with spells up to 7th level and the fantastic Deities and Demigods rulebook. Man, there were a lot of bulls sacrificed on altars back in those days (and not just by the clerics)…a lot more than you find in your average 21st century D&D game anyway. I did write up a priestess of Thor (complete with poorly drawn picture with horned helmet), but it was a character I never had a chance to play.

As I said, I had some interest in clerics, but they just weren’t my normal “type.” Which is funny because the last couple years (ever since rekindling an interest in D&D) has found me playing a LOT of clerics. Well, two clerics and a paladin, but that’s three holy types out of a total of four D&D campaigns I’ve played in since I got back into this “old school thang”…75%? Pretty darn unusual considering my past track record.

[I’m NOT counting DCC play-testing as “D&D” by the way]

Now, I play clerics a little different from the way some folks do…I say this as a long time Dungeon Master who’s seen a lot of clerics pass through his campaigns (with varying degrees of success). I tend to be a “lead from the front” guy, rather than a “support/medic” person. Now part of this is due to my (generally) forward and abrasive personality, but part of it is my personal take on the cleric character class…and this is the only way I can justify the character concept.

Now let’s back up for a moment: why the heck am I talking about this? ‘Cause that’s pertinent to the discussion. Well, a guy over at the dragonsfoot forums asked a question about how XP was awarded for treasure and provided the following hypothetical:

“…let’s say the party willingly leaves treasure behind (the cleric doesn’t want to desecrate the tomb, as is often the case). What do you do then? Do you award any XP at all?”

The responses were many and varied. I provided my own answer – the B/X answer – that XP is only awarded for treasure recovered. Why? Because XP earned represents a character’s skill as an adventurer treasure hunter (which is why XP is awarded for treasure found). Part of my response included the following:

“If characters choose to leave a chest of gold behind because “it’s too heavy” or refuse to take a jade idol because it’s “sacred to someone’s deity” then they aren’t very good adventurers are they? The proficient, experienced adventurer (i.e. the one with the higher level) will demonstrate his or her ability at treasure retrieval. This is a PROFESSION…if they don’t intend to make money at it they might as well work as shop keepers or blacksmiths or fisher folks or whatever.”

What was not immediately apparent from the post (but what was explained later by the poster) was this:

“Indeed, no XP should be awarded for leaving treasure behind because it’s too heavy, but the Cleric example still strikes me as a potential problem. I understand that players should be adventurers (i.e. “treasure retrieval experts”), but there’s just something odd about a cleric robbing tombs. I’m not really arguing anything here; just making an observation. I guess he could just be an adventuring cleric.”

This seemingly innocuous question (at least, it appears the poster feels the question is innocuous) is…to me, at least…one with tremendous implication to one’s D&D campaign. I mean it strikes right at the heart of “what is this game all about?” And depending on how it is answered, it drastically changes the color of one’s game.

Well, it does if you care about such things or are even slightly introspective about your role-playing. I know there are plenty of people who don’t give a shit…but that’s a separate post.

There are two basic parts to this question, one general and one specific…and if you can’t reconcile the two you are going to run into disconnects between players and the game. Disconnects with regard to the underpinnings of the game’s “fantasy logic” anyway; I suppose you can still play D&D like an over-complicated version of Munchkin instead of an RPG.

[to be continued due to sheer bulk]

B/X Compatible?

Looking over The Complete B/X Adventurer (as I put the new book together), I am of course struck by the awesomeness that sometimes spews forth from my brain (duh) and the creativity that spews from the pens of my artists (double-duh). It’s a nice little bit (or bunch) of “extra stuff” to throw into anyone’s B/X or Labyrinth Lord campaign…heck, it would probably work with BECMI or the RC or even the LBBs with minimal fuss and muss...and it’s neat enough to make me want to break out the ‘ol B/X books again and stop messing around with all these play-testing shenanigans.

But, but, but (isn’t there always a “but?”)…BUT then I went and opened up my old D&D Mine documents to look through my own “5E Variation” rules I’d been working on a couple months back. And the reason I was doing that was because I had a fantastic brainstorm of how to make the combat system into a simple, yet cinematic, D6 base system that still utilized levels and Hit Dice while cutting out all the extra dice rolling that goes into combat. And I wanted to see what I’d done with the combat system before so that I had something with which to compare the new idea…and, well, I couldn’t well remember what I’d thrown in the ol’ D&D Mine book previously.

[yes, yes, I’ll explain how this relates to the new book soon]

Let me take one more step off into a blue tangent before pulling this back and tying it all together.

I’m kind of tired of D&D combat. I know I’ve written about this before (to varying degrees) and certainly planned several blog posts (that I haven’t had a chance to write) on the subject, but I’ve been finding the base mechanics of D&D’s combat system unsatisfying of late. And I’m talking about the base system, found in pretty much all editions:

- Roll Initiative
- Roll D20 to attack
- Roll damage
- Subtract damage from hit points
- Rinse and repeat ad nauseum

Without active narrative, the system is pretty gutless. Against larger (or large numbers of) opponents, it can become tedious in the extreme…just a long series of dice rolling to see who wins the war of attrition. In the old days, fights could be sped up with judicious use of morale rules; later editions rely instead on critical strikes to help finish fights quicker. But those are just patches on a system issue.

Why should it take me 10 or 20 minutes to fight an orc? As we strive to get initiative from each other and then roll-roll-roll until we finally hit and then subtract a couple points and then roll-roll-roll, over and over hoping our luck (with rolling) will overcome our opponent’s armor class…just for the sake of a few coins in the creature’s belt pouch.

Recently, I’ve been participating in a play-by-post game using (slightly modified) Labyrinth Lord. As people who’ve tried PBP know, it can be sloooow going, even with the DM making the dice rolls. Our characters are 1st level, we’re in the middle of a dungeon delve…the usual fare, in other words. And I have found the only thing that makes the combats short enough to be bearable is A) the hefty attack/damage bonuses we receive (using the standard B/X ability adjustments) coupled with B) the very low (3-5) hit points (and AC) of our opposition. My character has a 16 strength and gains a +2 to attack and damage bonuses, meaning he hits AC 6 (average goblin) 50% of the time, often killing the suckers. But if I miss, then Ope! Got to wait till next round. And my character has one of the higher strength scores. Via PBP, a combat with half-a-dozen sprogs takes a couple-three days to play out.

And that’s just too long. I mean, heroes in stories (or movies) mow through runtlings like they’re reaping wheat, even when they’re not using “magic swords.” Even at mid-levels this kind of scene isn’t really possible in D&D, unless your character is ‘roided out (huge strength bonus) and/or armed with magic gear. Even then, if your opposition is “scaled up” (say, a handful of ogres) you get bogged down in the same tedium of attrition, unless your party contains spell-casters sporting beefy area-effect spells.

[which aren't very Sword & Sorcery might I add? Just as an aside...]

Look, I’m sounding harsher than I probably mean to sound…but when my imaginary character FINALLY hits someone in the game, I want the opponent to go down with a crushed skull, not hang around taunting me to hit it again. Assuming we're not talking about some sort of giant troll or dragon or something.

Which is why I started thinking up a whole new method of combat.

But then (as I wrote earlier) I started reading through my beautifully scripted Book 1 of my "new edition" of D&D and the very nicely written combat rules and I realized, gosh, not only would I have to over-haul everything to include this new “D6 system” in the book, but:

1) The already written, close-to-B/X-rules are pretty well done as is, and
2) If this really IS supposed to be “D&D,” shouldn’t it resemble D&D?

In other words, shouldn’t it include an Initiative roll, a D20 attack roll, and a damage roll (with said damage being subtracted from a hit point pool)? Isn’t that what D&D combat is all about?

And THEN I was thinking: wow, even though I do NOT plan on publishing my D&D Mine for any type of monetary gain, wouldn’t it be appropriate to make it at least moderately B/X compatible? Not just so other people will use it, but so that it can be used in conjunction with my other B/X books like the B/X Companion and The Complete B/X Adventurer?

[see, I told you this all tied together]

And now I come to the point of this post, in the form of a question: How compatible do you want your D&D “stuff” (i.e. books, supplements, retro-knock-offs) to be with your preferred version of the Original Fantasy Role-Playing Game?

I mean, you don’t need to use “kits” when playing 2nd Edition AD&D…you don’t need to add non-weapon proficiencies to early editions. Monsters in earlier editions are nearly all covered in 3rd and 3.5 edition books (with the possible exception of that three-headed monstrosity from module B3)…it’s not hard to convert back-and-forth between most editions. Plate mail and shield comes up AC 3 in all editions with descending armor class and a +3 dwarven thrower is always a +3 dwarven thrower.

Do you need your D20 roll to hit? For that matter do you need dice of unusual sidedness? Certainly it’s fun (and novel) to play a game requiring dice of different sides, but is it NECESSARY for the game to “feel” like D&D and not, say, GURPS Fantasy?

Those are not rhetorical questions: I'm looking for feedback.
; )

Hmmm…for a moment there, I thought I was going to end this post with my queries, but I decided I wanted to bring up one more bit of thought to consider:

When D&D was first published (in the format we now call OD&D, consisting of three Little Brown Books or LBBs), the rules presumed its participants would be using the Chainmail rules to resolve combat, though it presented an “alternate system” of combat. Over the years, the alternate has become the standard, all the way down to the 21st century (with a lot of add-ons and doo-dads). It wasn’t always the form of “roll D20 to hit, roll for damage” and who’s to say that is (or ever was) the best method of resolving small-scale skirmishes? At the time, it allowed players to use those neat new dice (Chainmail only rolled D6s) and the level of simplicity in OD&D allowed it to move pretty swiftly (roll, check table, subtract D6 damage from characters/monsters whose hit points had not yet been terribly inflated). But since then, those two (small!) pages of combat rules have suffered the most amazing amount of “rules bloat” I can find in any RPG published in multiple editions. How many pages are needed in 4E to provide a primer on combat in comparison to the game's original form? That’s kind of disgusting.

Okay, end last aside...now, back to the compatibility question (and thanks for your indulgence).

Cold Snow Bloggery

Okay, back to work.

Now that the Seahawks have tanked for the season, I can get back to work. Not literally, of course...today I have the day off (though I've been watching my boy all morning; he's asleep right now). And I think it's high time I returned to a bit of B/X madness...specifically with a wintery twist.

Before I explain exactly what I mean, I'd like to make a note of JM's recent post over at Grognardia. I didn't get involved in the discussion (and, frankly, stopped reading the comments after the first 60 or 70) because he specifically asked folks to be polite and respectful and I'm not sure I could have been such on something I consider to be a fairly silly topic.

What do I mean "silly?" Well, there seems to be an implication (and JM's own comments lead me to infer this also, not just the initial post) that there is a greater value to RPG material ("product") that arises organically from play. James isn't just talking about product that's been playtested versus product that hasn't...he's talking about "the origin of the content."

To me, the whole discussion is ridiculous. Look, there are folks who fancy themselves designers and publishers (like myself, in my own admittedly poor, small fashion) and there are those who simply "play." If the latter are creating material/settings/adventures, they probably are NOT interested in publishing their stuff (i.e. for money or "professionally"). If the former, than most ANYthing they create is given at least a cursory glance with an eye for profit.

I know I do...whether it's a one-page micro-system or an adventure for bar-hopping gaming group, there's a part of me that says, "hmmm...should I type this up and sell it as a .pdf for a handful of bucks?" That's just how it is. And when writing adventures for said game group, there's always the idea (in the back of one's mind) that this might be, or could be, a "future product."

Now, perhaps Mr. Maliszewski himself wasn't originally intending to publish Dwimmermount...it appears this was originally more of a thought experiment/blog stunt to see how the whole OD&D/megadungeon thing works. Maybe he never intended it (in the beginning) to be published and it is only now that he has amassed a substantial amount of material that he sees potential (monetary) value in a Dwimmermount product.

Fine and dandy...but most of us in the publishing business (and, yes, I again count myself as one of these, despite having printed only a single book) have more definite objectives in our own adventure creation from the outset. Why? Well:

- few of us have the resources to devote to game design full time

- time to actually game/play is limited

- writing and playtesting takes time as well

- the best way to kill two birds with one stone is to make sure your game/play time is being used to playtest that which you've written

Again, only so long as you consider yourself a game designer/publisher. If you don't, than play/game whatever the hell you want.

Anyway, having said that, I'm interested in writing up a little something-something on the blog for those folks who are into the B/X thang...specifically a series of posts detailing a possible world setting for a B/X campaign. This will, of course, be done with an eye towards future publishing (for the reasons outlined above) rather than for any particular game I'm running (since I'm still intent on playtesting my space game at my weekly session). However, if the series is never compiled/printed, that's fine too...this ain't something I'm particularly attached to, and it IS something of a thought exercise; I'm just not ruling out money as a background motive for the stuff I write.

Jeez...I do live in the real world after all.

; )

So, right...there are two ideas I want to postulate/discuss on this post ('cause I'm not sure how I want to approach them in the series):

Idea #1 - The Setting

My setting is going to be a very specific one, rather than a generic World of Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms/Etc. It's going to be set in a cold and snowy environment...something like the planet Fenris from the WH40K fluff/novels. This is due to my own interest/fear/fascination with things snowy, arctic, and mountainous. Monsters, characters, rules, magic, etc. are all going to be adapted/skewed to this setting. Here's the part I haven't decided: Do I make the default character assumptions one of Norse Mythology? Or do I do something more in line with MZB's Darkover novels (including ancient space colonists and psychic powers)? I have an attraction to both styles of "snow" and can see value in both, but to keep the setting specific, I feel I need to keep on a single tract. Since this is going to be published in installments on my blog, what would readers like to see?

Idea #2 - The Style

A while back I started working on my own Fantasy Heartbreaker, just to get the damn thing out of my system (basically, "knocking off" D&D with my own "fixes" or "what I would have done different from Gygax & Arneson"). While I made quite a bit of progress on the thing (about 30 pages, last count), it remains backburnered at this time because A) it's a FHB, and B) I have non-FHBs (i.e. potentially lucrative products) waiting in the wings. However, there are plenty of things about "my system" that I like...prefer in fact...to standard D&D. Should I incorporate some of them? A new setting book is a great time/opportunity to throw in some "house rules" that are setting specific. OR should I make the game adhere closer to the standard B/X rules? Or Labyrinth Lord for that matter...I could toss an OGL on the thing and see about making it a semi-official supplement for LL rather than a setting for an out-o-print game system. Again, the only plan at the moment is to post the thing up on my blog (I have one or two other books that need printing before this one)...what style would my readers be interested in? Do you want Vancian magic and Gygaxian combat? Or something different entirely?

All right...so now you know what I'm thinking about/plotting. Depending on feedback, I'll probably start the posts this week.

And whadya' know...I finished my post and the baby is still asleep! Maybe I'll take a little nap!

: )

Indie-Gaming?

I've mentioned before that long before I got back into D&D, I spent a lot of time swimming the waters of the indie-gaming scene, especially with regard to thoughtful design theory. In fact, it's the kind of thing one really can't "turn off" once you've started doing it...you just end up getting a much more narrow (dare I say, "elitist") perspective on this RPG hobby.

For example, I look at D&D through the same design lens with which I view any new game I pick up, purchase, or play. The reason I'm so hip on the B/X Dungeons & Dragons is that I find this particular edition to be an incredibly excellent game. No, it does not do some of the things indie games do, but it does everything D&D does (at least, everything I want it to do) very well. Like 9 stars out of 10 for me.

This is why, after playing it nearly non-stop for nearly a year (more?) and trying various house rules and tinkerings, my current game is almost completely "straight B/X." The only deviations from the original Red & Blue books?

- Clerics don't have to memorize spells in the morning (cast on demand)

- Thief skills (and dwarf, halfling abilities) automatically work, no roll

That's it. My "weapon variations?" Dropped. Firearms? Phased out. Magic-user studies/spell learning? Exactly as written. New classes? Well, we still have one guy playing a "scout," but for the most part he works just like any other character...I mean, it's such a basic concept you can't really distinguish him from a leather clad fighter (one that can read tracks).

Anyway, it's a great game, something I don't need to harp on (again) to my readers, I'm sure. But what about that whole indie community with which I used to spend so much time prior to (allegedly) joining the OSR?

The last few days I've been buzzing around those sites again, mainly The Forge (which has gotten considerably more streamlined in the last year...yow!). I just wanted to see what I was missing, you know? If anything.

What I found in the "Actual Play" forum (the place I used to go to learn about and read about and get excited about new indie games) is: 4th Edition D&D.

What the F*CK?

Certainly, it's not ALL 4E, but enough of it...5 posts on the first page, 10 on the 2nd, with pages and pages of discussion thread. To me, this is so...gross. I mean, it's like going to your neighborhood farmer's market and seeing a Walmart has set up a stand. If you read the "about" page of The Forge you'll find the following:

This site is dedicated to the promotion, creation, and review of independent role-playing games. What is an independent role-playing game? Our main criterion is that the game is owned by its author, or creator-owned.

Hmm...it's strange enough to see ANY discussion of D&D on the site (not that it's not a touch-stone subject for most of us who "grew up in the hobby;" but so much of the indie-theory is about alternate approaches to game design). But isn't Hasbro's latest-greatest kind of the antithesis of independent, creator-owned games? Aren't these the folks that killed (or cut the legs off) the OGL, making their product even more faceless and corporate and soulless than it already was?

I guess I've become an elitist's elitist. Man, I am such a jerk!

I can't even bring myself to engage in these on-line discussions. Ideas and questions about how to tinker with 4E and "make it better" just makes me want to ask, "why the hell even bother?" But even that is a losing discussion...I mean, why would I want to waste time - any amount of time - discussing how to "tinker" 4E on a site that purports to be devoted to the promotion and creation of indie RPGs?

I mean, what could such a discussion possibly be in aid of?

Sorry for yet another mini-rant. I guess I've just been in a bad mood today.

Best Basic B/X Monsters (Top Ten)

And by "best" I mean, "best at killing players."

I've read more than a few times that the Holmes basic edition is the most dangerous, mortality producing version of the game ever written. This is due in part to certain "expert level" monsters (like the purple worm, manticore, hydra, and vampire) being included in a game where the characters only go from levels 1-3.

Well, I beg to differ...I mean, dead is dead, right? If you're digested by a purple worm you're not anymore dead than being smacked for max damage by an ogre; there's a point of diminishing returns on that kind of thing (i.e. "death").

[unless, of course, you're killed by a vampire...then I suppose you can be "even more dead."]

But Moldvay's red book has plenty of monsters that will wipe out characters in the 1-3 range...many of whom are listed as standard wandering monsters for those very same levels. The idea that Moldvay's version of Basic D&D is somehow safer or "more balanced" is completely ridiculous. At least in Holmes characters with a high Dexterity will (on average) gain initiative (and thus, the upper hand or opportunity to run) in any encounter. In B/X, initiative is always a crap shoot.

The following list is my Top Ten Most Deadly Monsters from Moldvay's red book. Most of them are also my favorite monsters in the Moldvay set (these I've marked with an "*"). Not surprisingly, they are very real PC killers...only a true asshole of a DM would use these in an adventure for characters under 4th level, at least in the numbers listed in the rules (a singular, lone creature is much easier to deal with than a group, at least for a large adventuring party).

Oh, by the way...dragons (of any color) are NOT on the list. While I will be the first to say there aren't ENOUGH dragons in your average D&D campaign, dragons have such wildly varying ability that one can't really say whether they are consistently deadly (a stupid, sleeping, dragon of young age and no spell-casting ability isn't much of a threat if the party can get the drop on it and reduce its hit points before its first breath attack).

Here's the consistent badasses:

#10 Zombies: If there was any question in my mind whether or not "the damned dead" should be here, it was answered by last Thursday's decimation of adventurers. Unlike every other edition of D&D (including AD&D and Holmes), Moldvay's zombies are CHAOTIC (all undead in B/X are Chaotic), which is to say "unholy" and "evil;" probably the reason holy water is so effective on 'em. I already wrote how nasty these guys are...they beat out other 2HD monsters (like gnolls) due to their fearlessness (no morale checks) and immunity to sleep spells. Used in large numbers they are likely to take apart any 2nd level parties they encounter.

#9 Shadows: Again, a change-up from other editions of the game, B/X shadows are NOT undead, and thus NOT subject to turning...however, they are still immune to charm and sleepspells and being incorporeal, can only be hit by magic weapons. They show up on the 3rd level of a dungeon (1-8 appearing!); how many of your 3rd level character are carrying magic weapons? Strength drain is delicious and even if a party survives the confrontation, will probably be left deep in the dungeon in a weakened condition.

#8 Minotaurs*: I've always loved the minotaur as a monster; dug it in the legend of Theseus, dug it in Saturday morning cartoons (an episode of the old Godzilla, if I'm not mistaken), and loved Willingham's illustration in B2: The Keep on the Borderlands. A 6HD monster that gets a +2 on damage when using a weapon. Being larger than an ogre, it is immune to both charm person, hold person, and sleep, and will probably kill at least one or two PCs before being brought down, even by large parties. Minotaurs are also intelligent, and unlike other monsters "will pursue as long as its prey is in sight" (this one isn't distracted by dropped rations). Vicious...did I mention that the normal number appearing is 1-6? What the hell is this doing in the Basic game?

#7 Harpies*: As with minotaurs, I've always loved the harpy; I've been a fan of Peter S. Beagle's The Last Unicorn (both the book and the very faithful film adaptation) for years, and the harpy is an awesome villain...but which is the adventure module where, if PCs fail their save versus the harpy's song it comes and (automatically) "rips their eyes out?" One of the Slavers series maybe? Or the Master of the Desert Nomads? Regardless, that's the kind of encounter I love to see in adventure modules (and that some players...hi, Luke!...absolutely loathe). But if any monster should be a malicious, de-protagonizing bitch, it should be the harpy. Monsters that fly mean monsters that are hard to bring down (and that circle to keep out of range of spells). Three attacks per round (claw-claw-weapon) makes them exceptionally nasty, even without the charming. I used surgically-modified harpies in my Paschendale Necropolis adventure (no singing and no weapon attacks) and they still killed both hirelings and wounded several party members in nothing flat. The fact that they don't rate higher on this list should tell you something about numbers 1 though 6.

#6 Bears*: My love for the bear as a B/X monster is, I think, fairly well known. The only thing that doesn't rate them higher is their low "number appearing" stat (usually only 1, unless in their lair). Often totally underestimated...what? It's just a bear, right?...they will kill party members very quickly before they even know what hit 'em. Except for the black bear, all bears are larger than the ogre and are thus immune to the sleep/charm/hold spells of low level characters, and being animals are fairly immune to reasoning or negotiation (and since you usually only encounter ONE, they're generally NOT subject to morale checks!). Of the bunch, my hands down favorite is the polar bear (even the non-armored variety), because they seem so mundane...right up until they kill you. "Oh...and the bear hits you several times and does [*roll*roll*] ...30 points of damage to you! Holy crap!"

#5 Ghouls*: While these are a personal favorite (nothing says "terror" in the dungeon like a pack of flesh-eating undead) I almost never use them except in high level games or very small moderation. Why? Because they are Total Party Kills waiting to happen. 2HD creatures with claw-claw-bite ability are nasty enough...I've seen a half-dozen troglodytes with the same D4/D4/D4 take down two plate armored fighters and a plate-and-shield cleric without batting an eye. Ghouls do D3/D3/D3 with the same chance to hit, and every attack that hits forces a save versus paralysis (requiring a 12-14 save roll on the D20 for characters under 4th level). Did I mention they travel in packs of 1-6? And being undead they're immune to sleep/charm/hold? That gives 'em a leg up over the tentacled carrion crawler. Did I also mention that per Moldvay they start showing up on level two of the dungeon? Do you know what a 2nd level cleric needs to roll to turn a ghoul at 2nd level? A nine. Fairly long odds...and if you happen upon a lair (treasure type B = 2,000gp average), you'll encounter 2-16. That's a lot of diseased nails raking the flesh from your bones. 'Course it could be worse: in OD&D and AD&D being killed by a ghoul turns you into a ghoul!

#4 Mediums: 1st level magic-users come in packs of 1-4. The only reason they don't rate higher is it's always possible the PCs might get the drop on 'em and take 'em down with a sleep spell of their own. Otherwise, it should be short work for one of the mediums to get off a sleep spell and drop an entire adventuring party. Heck, a magic-missile might well finish off that rival party mage hiding in the back ranks, and if accompanied by their "master" (only a 3rd level magic-user in the B/X monster description!) the party may well find themselves trying to push their way through a web spell to get to said magic-users. In the lair (a school?) mediums are encountered in groups of 1-12...that's a lot of charm spells. Personally, I'm surprised it only rates as a 3rd level encounter.

#3 Lycanthrope: Werewolves*: Although these don't show up in B/X until the 4th level of the dungeon, they are present in the Basic book, and are one of my all-time favorite monsters. I almost never use them. Generally found singularly in old TSR adventure modules (a la the standard horror cinema "wolfman"), when used as written, they can be one hell of an encounter: number appearing 1-6 (2-12 in lair/wilderness). In addition, lycanthropes can each summon 1-2 normal animals to aid them and werewolves "summon normal animals to form large packs with them." On average that's nine monsters (3-4 werewolves and 5-6 normal wolves) or double that (around 18!) in the wilderness or dungeon lair. Any group of five or more has a 5HD, 30 hit point leader that does +2 damage (and is, of course, immune to sleep and charm and hold person spells...at least in wolf form), and all werewolves require silver or magic weapons to injure. Assuming you can tell which wolves are the lycanthropes and which are the normal wolves (how many silver arrows are the low level archers packing?). Wolf packs tend to maul the hell out of characters anyway (I saw three or four normal wolves take down a charmed ogre during a run of M1: Blizzard Pass) and werewolves fight and attack like dire wolves. Such an encounter with "average" numbers will kill several PCs, especially the lighter armored party members. And even should they run, wolves are some of the fastest pursuit critters in the game (180' move compared to the un-armored PC's 120' move). It would be a small matter for such scent hounds to run the PCs down.

#2 Owl Bears*: Probably my all-time, hands down favorite monster of the Moldvay Basic book, they are also probably the baddest of badasses. Cross a grizzly with a griffin and what do you get? A creature that can't be stopped by the spells available to characters level 1st through 4th and that can do up to 40 points of damage in a single round. Claw-claw-bite at D8/D8/D8 plus "bear hug" for 2D8...and did I mention they hunt in packs of 1-4? A normal grizzly is only ever found solo in a dungeon...you can encounter up to 4 times that many owl bears on the 4th level of a dungeon, and they will rip you to shreds. Bears of a feather flock together, I guess. Need it be mentioned that with 5 hit dice they're immune to charm, sleep, hold person, etc.? Oh, yeah...I already said that. When these bad boys come out, even 4th and 5th level fighters tremble in their boots.

#1 Medusa*: Another monster I almost never use. Interesting that the OD&D version had the lower body of a snake, like the classic gorgon of Greek myth...not sure why they changed it in later editions except possibly to not confuse it with the (confusingly-named) bull-like creature. Moldvay's description of the monster constantly refers to it in the singular, which I find strange as the number appearing is 1-3 (1-4 in lair). An average of 2 medusa per encounter, each one of which is 4HD with an auto-death attack (poison) AND and an auto-petrifaction effect (no attack roll necessary). The medusa (in numbers of 1-3) first show up on the 3rd level of the dungeon. What party of 3rd level characters is going to survive a wandering encounter with three medusa? That's just a ridiculously tough encounter...you might as well call 'em half-hit dice mind flayers. I feel mean just putting ONE medusa in an adventure; as I said, most of the time I just leave 'em completely out of the game. Too bad, though, because Perseus and the gorgon is probably my 2nd favorite Greek myth, right after Theseus and the minotaur.

All right, that's the list...and glad I am to get it off my chest. One of the monsters on this list will be featured in blog posts all week long, starting tomorrow, but for right now I'll let you contemplate the sadism of Tom Moldvay's "Basic" set and the death and destruction it is possible to unleash even before opening the "Expert" box. I know I did, back in the day, as I owned the Basic set probably for a whole year prior to getting the Cook/Marsh Expert rules.

Prost!

: )

Social Interaction Rules, Non-Theater Majors, and "Neoclassical" Gaming

Ugh. What even qualifies me to write about something like this? I don't know. Common interest? Having a blog? Being a pompous ass?

Maybe a little bit of all of that.

Let me first get some standard disclaimers out of the way. I DID major in theater; however I DM/GM a lot more often than I play as a player. I play old school B/X D&D (and will be speaking from that perspective), and for my money, the random Reaction table is perfect for what I want in a D&D game. On the other hand, I totally buy into a lot of more sophisticated game design theory, specifically of the "Forge-y" type, and my return to "old school" gaming was after a loooong hiatus...I like story-type games.

Okay...so where to begin...

To me, it really seems that there are two (or three) different discussions flying around the blogosphere, all touched off by Ryan Dancey's proposal to add some more serious social mechanics to the D&D game (or narrative/story mechanics in order to inject added meaning and story objectives into a D&D game). Trollsmyth's take on this (if I'm reading this correctly) is this:

D&D is a game about exploration, not social interaction. For players who want social interaction in their D&D, any "rules" tacked on should be those that facilitate D&D's premise of adventure/exploration, not elaborate mechanics required to determine the results of social interaction. Adding mechanics for social interaction to D&D to make it a more social/intrigue/political style game would turn it into something "not D&D," and certainly there are already "not D&D" games that one can play if they want. Changing an Old School game into a "new school" game kind of defeats the whole point of exploring the simplified glory of old school gaming.

Erin's point is that this approach (letting the sleeping dogs lie) unfairly hampers players who might want to play a "socially-minded version of D&D" (like Troll & Odd's solo adventures) but who don't know the way to go about it...'cause they don't get the idea of "forging alliances and relationships" (those things that might lead to exploration "bonuses" in Troll's game) and even if they did, they wouldn't feel comfortable with "role-playing" in the fashion of "acting in character" to somehow be suave and smooth enough to forge those alliances and get those bonuses.

Whew! Is that an adequate summary?

Okay, so here's how everyone's looking at this thing wrong.

I happened to recently read Moldvay's Basic set...again. Specifically the introduction and the DM section. And you know what? D&D, as originally conceived, is a lot damn simpler than any of us long-time gamers or "neo-classicists" might think. In fact, B/X D&D has a lot more in common with the combat-oriented "D&D Encounters" than it does with most any edition in between. At least, as written.

The difference of course is with the game's potential.

But if you don't know the game's potential, if all you have is the "rules as written," and if you don't read to deep into the game, it's pretty damn simplistic...make dungeon, make characters, explore dungeon, period. Trying to make it about anything else requires a bit of "drift" (to use the Forge term), at least thematically. Even without rules tweaks.

But if you're willing to do that thematic drift...which I suppose happens when there are other advantages to playing D&D that prevents people from seeking a different type/style of RPG...you still have all the tools you need to play a game that is a social or political or intrigue or romance -oriented game. As opposed to the standard "make dungeon, make character, explore dungeon, period."

The character is your vehicle for this. Your character tells you everything you need to know about your characters raw abilities. Your character's raw abilities are equal to his or her ability scores...that's what abilities are. The character is the avatar for the player in the imaginary game world, and what your abilities are tell you what you are.

However, some might not get what these things measure.

A character may have a 17 Intelligence and thus have a lot of knowledge...they know a number of additional languages, have the ability to read and write, and can comprehend the workings of magic more quickly (i.e. wizards gain a bonus on earned XP to rise in level). Having a 17 intelligence does NOT mean your character doesn't do stupid things. Hell, your character might do stupid things A LOT. I know guys (and gals) that are plenty bright and have lots of education and they still do bone-head things...hell, some of 'em aren't even good at simple games like Scrabble, or Charades. I've known very bright players who were not great at riddles and solving in-game challenges...doesn't mean they weren't good attorneys or lawyers or software programmers. And I've known guys without much education that were pretty darn ingenious.

Having a low or high intelligence score just influences your literacy, languages, and spell comprehension...that's all it means.

A character with an 18 Charisma has a magnetic personality...they get bonuses to reactions (including negotiations...for example, with hirelings) and they inspire trust and loyalty. Characters with a low charisma are the exact opposite...that's the mechanics of the ability.

It doesn't mean your character isn't good looking or an eloquent speaker. You can be a gifted speaker or a great looking person and still have something that "turns people off." Likewise, you can be a homely simpleton, that is surrounded by friends who hang on his every word and who can easily find people to go to bat for 'em. I've known unattractive guys who had no problem dating attractive ladies...and it had nothing to do with money or physique or smooth talking. Just natural confidence and charisma.

Your character's charisma score measures something specific: in-game effectiveness. How you use it is up to you (and the rules are nice enough to point out a PC can get bonuses or penalties to Reaction rolls depending on how the character "sweetens the deal").

Need I say Wisdom is the same? I've known old codgers, wise in the ways of the world who were taken in by sham artists or who made unwise (one might say "undisciplined") personal decisions. In D&D, wisdom measures only one's resistance to magic (through an increased willpower I suppose) and one's ability to advance as a cleric. But I've known several willful guys, well versed in the Holy Writings of the Bible who've made very "unwise" decisions...like a guy wo hasn't spoken with his brother in 30 years over some long forgotten argument, even though they live in the same town...and this is a guy who goes to Church and reads the Bible every day! He must have missed that part about forgiveness...

D&D characters provide a vehicle for players to explore the game world. Ability scores measure certain types of in-game effectiveness pertinent to that exploration. Can there be other types of "adventure" of a non-combat, non-treasure-seeking variety? Sure...though it may not cause you to advance in level ("experience points" and "levels" measure your character's accomplishments with regard to combat and treasure seeking and increase effectiveness in these arenas). The "role" you play is that of a heroic adventurer in a fantasy world. The game provides rules for your interaction with the imaginary environment and your ability scores tell you how well you do...any additional color or description you provide is up to you. And this will get easier for players to add with time and practice.

Anyway, I'll have more to say on the matter when I post about last Thursday's game and some of the stuff that went down...hopefully some examples will serve to illustrate that I'm not just talking out of my ass. Regarding the original posts on the matter? Well:

a) I think Ryan's a bit silly in his premise. But that's me. Not sure why he's playing D&D if he wants to play a different game, mechanics-wise.

b) I think Trollsmyth's a bit naive or deluded to think 1) folks can play in his style without rules/training/guidance, 2) that his type of game is un-Drifted itself (at least thematically), and 3) that a game should not have mechanics that address what the game is about. Again, though, this is just me.

c) I think Erin's not giving her players enough credit...or is giving theater majors too much. I believe D&D can be played just fine (even thematically drifted) as written...but that's just been my experience.

All right...that's about it folks.

B/X Advancement Problems (Redux)

Got quite a bit of feedback on my last post in a very short time, and I can already see that people are not quite grokking my beef. let me just elaborate a little bit (and thank you for your indulgence):

RE: Slow Advancement = Normal Advancement

I understand that Holmes D&D is very specific in terms of loooong advancement times (i.e. many sessions between advancing). B/X does not specify a "fairly slow rate of advancement" and (I would say) implies a shorter time between levels...in design if not in outright text (see page B61). Part of B/X play (the "X" part) is definitely geared towards adventuring outside the dungeon and taking your games to other realms of adventure (including establishment of strongholds)...three years to reach Name level is waaay outside of my "acceptable limits" for advancement. Three years to get to the additional content? That's just crazy.

RE: Awarding XP for Hours Played

This is the absolute LAST thing I want to do. Reward systems shape behavior...I want players playing smarter, not just "showing up" to the game. I don't ever want to get in the habit of rewarding someone for sitting down at the table...folks have to do something!

RE: Awarding XP for "Mission Objectives"

Similar to the last note, I want to reward creativity...and mission objectives tend to put players on directional courses (i.e. they have the ability to railroad player behavior, even without railroading player action). For this reason, I don't like "mission objectives." I don't mind handing out the occasional XP bonuses for good play, but I want players to know up front what actions accumulate XP (for example, defeating monsters and acquiring loot), and then give them their own method of accomplishing those generic tasks. It's easy for mission objectives to become too specific.

RE: Re-Vamping the System

Re-doing the XP tables for monsters, changing D&D to a "silver standard" instead of gold...all this is, frankly, more work than I want to do. And re-calibrating the economy to make it more "medieval realistic" is definitely out of the question...I don't care that plate mail in B/X costs 60gp and leather armor costs 20gp...a rich adventurer (like any PC above 2nd level or so) should be able to afford whatever personal equipment he/she wants! My main concern is with requiring PCs to figure out ways to haul TONS and TONS of treasure.

I don't think Moldvay's Castle Amber is an aberration of adventure design...I think he stocks his adventure with the proper amount of treasure for a group of adventurers of the suggested numbers (6-10) or the suggested levels (3rd to 6th). He is working with the rules, and it won't take more than six or eight medium length sessions to get through the entire module...and the lower level characters will gain MULTIPLE levels during their stint in Castle Amber (I know, having run this module before). Higher level characters (6th) should still get one, or close to one, full level for completing it...and with weekly sessions, that still leaves at least 44 weeks of the year left over. Enough for 5 or 6 more (similar length) adventures with similar level advancement (i.e. 5 or 6 levels per year).

The PROBLEM with this is that he does it, by stocking the dungeon with a quarter million gold coins worth of treasure. Sometimes this is a single expensive piece of jewelry, sometimes it's 10,000 copper pieces (equal to 1,000 gp in value, but not in bulk/weight). Yes, for converting White Plume Mountain to B/X, I should have upped the treasure amount 5 or 6 times...but how the hell are PCs going to carry that much treasure out of the dungeon? Yes, that IS an interesting "challenge to the intellect;" but it is NOT the kind of challenge I'm interested in throwing at my players...compared to the frictionless room, the heat induction plates, the inverted ziggurat, the boiling bubble, or the mud cavern. The latter challenges are much more interesting, but the way the B/X game is written, the "treasure haul" challenge is going to be a large part of any adventure for characters of 5th level or higher...and it is a challenge that will be happening over and over again!

Reducing the amount of XP needed to advance seems the easiest solution to the dilemma, and the one I will probably end up taking. This is a subject I've found myself returning to (in my head anyway) repeatedly the last few months as I've considered level/advancement design for new role-playing games I'm considering.

Just In Case Anyone Missed This Exchange...

RE: B/X Halflings kicking the ass of the AD&D halfling fighter-thief.

Will wrote:

I call foul. None of this BECMI attack rank stuff or optional rules from fan publications. Pure B/X halfling versus pure AD&D halfling only.

Plus, we all know the thief would sneak right up and open with a big backstab anyway. :)

So here's the real skinny folks: no BECMI, no B/X Companion. My halfling gets nothing but the Basic and Expert set rules (typos and all) versus the AD&D fighter-thief, in all its glory.

8th level Halfling, AC 2, HPs 29, Strength 13 (all else average), D6 damage

Fighter-Thief, AC 8, Strength 12, Dexterity 14 (all else 13), D8 damage. Maximum fighter level is 4th, of course. No we're not going to be nice and give him a 17 strength.

The fighter-thief's average damage per round (DPR) is 1.125 against the B/X Halfling. With 29 hit points under his belt, it will take the fighter-thief 26 rounds to kill the Sheriff in a one-on-one fight.

The B/X Halfling's average damage per round (DPR) against the fighter-thief is 3.6. This is calculated from an 80% chance to hit (per the Expert rules, an 8th level Halfling needs a 6 or better to hit AC 8, +1 for the 13 strength) multiplied by his average damage of 4.5 (D6 for all B/X weapons, +1 for the 13 strength). In order for the fighter-thief to survive 27 rounds...the only way to ENSURE he will win the fight, since the Sheriff gets an individual initiative bonus (not available to the AD&D character) and is thus more likely to kill the multi-class character in round 26...in order to last 27 rounds, the fighter-thief will need at least 94 hit points.

That means he'll need to be level 4th / 43rd. That's 43rd level thief...which requires an experience point total of 14,520,002. Fucking ridiculous. Yes...your fighter-thief WILL be more powerful IF YOU HAVE 121 TIMES AS MANY EXPERIENCE POINTS.

But, hey...what about that whole backstab thing?

Well, leaving aside the whole "fair fight" question (and who's to say my halfling with his 90% chance to vanish into the underbrush wouldn't get the drop on the cowardly fighter-thief?)...LEAVING aside that question, WHAT IF we spot the pansy fighter-thief a free attack?

Well, assuming he's at least a 13th level thief, that's quintuple damage in AD&D. He also receives a +4 bonus to hit AND the halfling loses his shield bonus. His average damage from such an attack will thus be 11.25 (50% chance to hit X 4.5 average damage X five), reducing the stalwart Sheriff's hit points from 29 to 17.75.

The AD&D character will then be in a fight for his life. It will STILL take him another 16 rounds to finish my B/X character. He'll need to have at least 58 hit points himself to sustain the onslaught of my 8th level character. That means, on average, he'll need to be AT LEAST level 4th / 25th.

That's a total of 6,600,002 experience points. Only 55 TIMES the number needed for the B/X thief to reach 8th level (120,000). Wouldn't that mean the B/X Halfling is 55 times as powerful as the fighter-thief?

What does that say to you? To ME, it confirms that the very IDEA the AD&D halfling fighter-thief is more powerful than the B/X Halfling is patently ridiculous. Even giving him a surprise attack with QUINTUPLE damage, the AD&D character is probably a dead f'ing duck, except in the highest level AD&D campaigns.

An Epic Level character...to take out an 8th level Halfling?

I don't know if folks are insane or just ignorant. Leave the thieving to the thieves, and be proud to play the Halfling character. Jeez...I don't know what else I can say here.

B/X Companion ???s

RE: The B/X Companion

Okay, folks, I've sold two-thirds of my print run so far...that's not bad considering the fact that I'm not advertising, I don't have an active forum presence on any of the gaming sites (Dragonsfoot, RPG.net, ENWorld, whatever...), don't have .pdfs or a box set, and have no distributor for my game besides myself and the U.S. Post Office. Heck, I haven't even had a review by Maliszewski yet (probably because he hasn't bought a copy. Am I supposed to send him a gratis book? I don't even have his address!).

Anyway, two-thirds gone...and I'm not bragging about that 'cause it was only a small print run and I'm not trying to make a living off the thing like Raggi, this is just enough to cover my costs and do a couple more print runs. BUT...I HAVE had reviews (in print and YouTube)...generally pretty good ones...and there's one thing I've completely NOT heard word one about.

The new magic items.

Excuse me - I have heard "there are new magic items." But while folks have talked with interest and excitement regarding the monsters, the high level class options (especially for thieves), the mass combat system, and some of the new spells...no one's mentioned that I added a whole new category of magic item to the game!

I suppose this is somewhat my own fault. I kept a few things "under wraps" as purposeful surprises (for example, the "new Bard class" in Part 8 - though this was picked up and mentioned in reviews)...and I suppose there are a LOT of new magic items for folks just thumbing through the book (six pages of text descriptions...nearly 10% of the book!).

But really...no one noticed the new category?

Well, as I said, I kept some things under wraps...though I did hint at the "unrevealed category" in a couple past blog posts while writing the thing. Well, anyway, it WAS supposed to be a surprise, but now that the book's been published (and purchased!) the secret should be out. Hell, I'm just surprised it isn't already.

Magic Books.

Well, when you say it like that JB, it's kind of anticlimactic. Yeah, I guess so, but as I said, I'm not trying to brag right now. Especially when many of the magical books in the Companion (more than half, actually) are similar to magical tomes and manuals found in the 1st edition DMG. However, I wouldn't mind a little feedback on the other 10 or so...frankly, I wouldn't mind knowing what folks think of the fact that I added books at all to the game. And as their own category no less (took a few percentage points off of scrolls to make room). After all, these certainly weren't present in Basic or Expert (or Labyrinth Lord for that matter)!

So please, folks, drop me a line (or a comment) and let me know what you think. I always thought that in a game where a low intelligence score meant your character was freaking illiterate, it would be cool to take advantage of that little game mechanic by putting some genuine readable treasure in the game.

After all, that's kind of how I look at the B/X Companion itself: readable treasure.

; )

D&D at the Baranof (Part 3)

[continued from here]

I'll spare you the suspense: my brother's character was killed.

By owl bears.

How awesome is that?

It went down like this:

Asked AB what marching order he wanted to assign to his party. He replied (after only slight deliberation): Halfling, then Dwarf, then Cleric, then Meaty (the fighter), then the Magic-User last.

Really? You're really going to let everyone march in front of you? When your character is a 7th level fighter with an AC of 1 and, like, 30+ hit points?

'Yeah. How do you think my character got to 7th level?'

I can see why the Dwarf with the 3 charisma is your best friend. C'mon...you're going to let your ex-fiancee walk point before you do?

'Ok, fine, Meaty will walk IN FRONT of the cleric...jeez!'

And so off they went.

There are quite a few doors in B1...stuck, wooden doors that need to be kicked open. AB liked to go through doors...they would break down most every door they encountered. Generally, he would have Grouch (the dwarf) do the honors. Unfortunately, I was rolling extremely poorly for door opening rolls and despite his 16 strength, ol' Grouch ended up bruising his shoulder more than half the time. After every failed roll, Meaty would shoulder his way to the front of the line and blast the door down with his 18 strength...grumbling the whole time.

The first inhabitants the party encountered was in the stronghold's kitchen: a trio of kobolds were busy cooking up something for the lords of the Fortress Q.

[yes, Rogahn and Zelligar were both healthy and present in the stronghold. Remember that all False rumors were True and vice versa. Rumor #18(F): Zelligar and Rogahn have actually returned to their stronghold and woe be to any unwelcome visitors!]

Do you want to attack the little dog men?

'Um, well, no...let's try diplomacy first. Does anyone speak kobold?'

[I have to say, I was shocked with this approach from my WoW-addled sibling...is it standard practice in 4th edition games to talk to the encounters rather than attack? I guess my brother is a throwback as well]

Hmm...it appears the only character that speaks kobold is your best friend, Grouch the dwarf.

'Grouch will talk to them!'

I roll reaction modifying for Grouch's Charisma of 3 and the kobolds attack, only to die quickly and messily. My brother and I laugh over our beers at Grouch's attempt at "tactful greeting."

A few long corridors, a couple storerooms, and a bit of being lost in the twisting turns of Castle Q and the party finds itself in Zelligar's indoor garden chamber. Unfortunately, I'm mean and there are several shriekers present who start to give off a keening wail as the party's harsh torchlight lights the darkened room.

Shriekers are 3HD apiece (!!) and it takes several rounds for the characters to kill them. Dicing for wandering monsters, I find a lumbering owl bear ambling down the corridor to investigate the noise. The characters nut up and gang bang the thing dropping it in a single round, though Meaty takes a blow from a forepaw (a taste of what was to come). As usual, I was rolling 6s for initiative, even though I couldn't open a door with the same six-sider.

The next encounter took place in the "visitor's lounge" where my notes read "evil centaur." The evil centaur was checking out the life-size marble statue of a beautiful nude woman. Deciding to try negotiating again, the party this time put forth "Lady Troy" (the cleric) to do their talking. At first, the horse-man was well-disposed to the pretty lady in the chain coif as they tried to bluff their way into some useful info. However, he was eventually tipped off by their drawn and bloodied weapons and when Meaty opened his mouth to lie his ass off, the Reaction dice came up snake-eyes and the centaur attacked.

And died. Quickly.

Per the module, the statue is "obviously of great value" but is nearly impossible to move due to its great weight. AB decided Meaty would throw his bag of holding over the thing and knock it over (possibly using the party's 10' pole as a suitable lever). I'd had a couple by this time and decided this was a fine plan, though the statue took up most of the room in his bag (which can hold half a ton!).

More wandering, including finding and perusing Zelligar's bedroom (Big Z wasn't there...I had him located in his workshop/lab) didn't net them any more treasure...I can't recall why they didn't loot the wizard's bedroom; I believe they even left the books that looked valuable if un-decipherable.

I should note that my Virgo brother was mapping the whole time...drawing on a spread-open napkin with a pencil. Despite a lack of graph paper and my conspicuously dubious measurements ("the corridor extends 50 or 80 feet and then turns left...") he actually did a pretty good job of mapping. Later he remarked:

"Keeping a good map...or even a half-assed map...is a real time-saver. That part in the southeast where we were lost was mainly due to beer, but otherwise I had a good idea where to go and how to get out with just a few scratch marks."

[I am paraphrasing]

Eventually their lack of a thief (or their general disregard for safety) got the better of them and they blundered into a false door/pit trap that dropped most of the party 40' into a deep pool of cold water. Faced with dis-encumbering themselves or risk drowning, AB decided that Meaty would dump the statue and Grouch would strip off his plate mail, while the Lady Troy would try to tread water in her armor. Fortunately, all of the party members were able to make their swimming checks and the magic-user (who had NOT fallen in the drink) was able to help them out with a length of rope. 'I'll come back for the statue,' vowed Meaty. Such was not to be.

Finding the stronghold's armory was not nearly as big a coup as they'd expected...most of the gear was broken, old, or otherwise useless. However, they could smell treasure nearby and they anxiously pressed on. Kicking in the door at the opposite end of the armory they found themselves in the stronghold barracks facing several "guards:" three owl bears!

While the magic-user's lightning bolt spell left one monster in smoking ruins, AB may have overestimated his chances against the remaining two beasts as Meaty and Crouch waded into melee, Lady Troy providing healing and Carey doing his usual 'floating.'

[by the way, a 6th level halfling with a 12 strength and a +3 dagger does just fine in combat when you're using the All-Weapons-Do-D6-Damage rule]

Grouch, no longer wearing plate mail, was quickly scooped up in a bear hug and took massive amounts of damage. Meaty, still wearing his +3 chain, was also hit with every single attack of the owl bear (including the automatic hug attack). Unlike the dwarf, Meaty did not have 42 hit points. Despite the cleric focusing all her healing power on the fighter, the second round saw him take enough damage from the beast's hug to bring him to -2 hit points.

Quickly I rolled on my 50 Ways to Die table: "a massive blow crushes your spine killing you instantly." The owl bear had broken Meaty's meaty back!

As we had finished our pitcher at this point and it was 10pm (we' been playing close to two hours), I decided to call the session rather than finish out the fight with the NPCs. As it was, the fight was shaping up to be at least a half-TPK (Grouch was well on his way to joining his best buddy in the Happy Hunting Grounds)...and since Lady Troy was NOT carrying a raise dead spell (I guess she was level 6 after all), I figured it was time to head home to wife and beagles.

"It was the damn claw-claw-bite that did me in," analyzed my brother, something I've discussed on this blog before myself. Beware the big creature with the multiple attacks, for they are truly the most dangerous game!

I have to say that I really had fun gaming with my brother, and just being able to walk into Gary's the next day and tell Tim, "yeah, my brother got taken apart by owl bears"...man, is that just a fun phrase to say! Makes me smile just thinking about it (owl bears are definitely on my Top Ten List of favorite D&D monsters).

Anyhoo, AB is thinking of playing again, and perhaps I'll skip the Thursday ECGF game in favor of beers and B/X at Baranof's from now on...Lord knows, it was one of the best times gaming I've had in awhile (face-to-face play, adult company, booze...what more could you want?). If we do, we might pick up where we left off and we might not...ABles has been saying he's interested in play-testing the B/X Companion, so perhaps we'll take my half-finished adventure module for a spin. It might be just the push I need to get the damn thing ready for publishing!

; )

No Gladiators

So right now, two of the books I’m working on were to feature gladiators in some shape or capacity. At least that was my original intention…I am now nearly 99% sure there will be no gladiators in either one.

I’ve written before about my mixed feelings on gladiators. On the one hand I love ‘em, and I have no idea why…maybe for the same reason I dig the NFL. Quite possibly I was some sort of ancient Roman fan in a past life…perhaps a bookie of some sort. Who knows…I seriously doubt I was a gladiator or I’d probably have very different feelings (and nightmares!) about the “sport.”

ANYway, in working up a gladiator class for B/X, I’m inclined to look at a variety of sources, including BECMI’s Thyatis campaign book, Bard Games’ The Compleat Adventurer, 2nd Edition’s Dark Sun campaign setting…hell, even the gladiator prestige class from the 3rd edition splat books. After reviewing everything, as well as a little thoughtful consideration (if not careful deliberation), I come to the conclusion that the gladiator as class doesn’t need to happen.

In B/X, a gladiator is a fighter. Period.

Strangely enough, in the end it comes down to a matter of game balance. Now personally I’ve never given much of a rip about game balance, at least not as a hard science (c.f. the last 2 editions of D&D). But as an idea…well…

The B/X fighter fights. He/She uses all weapons, wears all armor, rolls D8s for hit points, and advances in attack and save progression every 3 levels. They can build a fortress at any time, but any followers/hirelings/retainers need to be found and hired. There are no “gimmes.”

So then what’s a gladiator going to be?

Well, gladiators have used all types of weapons and armor. Hit dice should probably be D8. I can’t see their attack progressions as higher or lower than a standard fighter. And even slave gladiators may one day free themselves and buy a castle (as with the fighter, no “gimmes” seem appropriate). So what sets gladiators apart?

Um...special abilities?

So glads can fight with two weapons, or exotic weapons, or have Greco-Roman wrestling skills, or receive bonuses to AC when wearing certain armor pieces, or receive some bonuses to certain maneuvers or something?

Um…that just ends up being a “Fighter Plus.”

If that’s what a gladiator would be (a fighter plus bonuses) why would anyone play a fighter? Are the gladiators limited in level? Human classes aren’t normally limited in B/X. Do they have a penalty to XP? I can’t believe it would be very much…dwarves are only 10% more for a host of abilities, languages, and save bonuses. And elves are double, but cast spells as a magic-user of the equivalent level.

In the end, I just can’t justify making gladiators anything “special,” even though it might be fun to come up with various “level titles.” Gladiators are fighters…just like boxers are. Just like fencers were as recently as the 20th century (and, yes, professional fencers referred to themselves as “fighters” just like prize-fighters…check out the autobiographies of Aldo Nadi).

Much as I like the idea of a gladiator class, I’m afraid I’ll be leaving it on the cutting room floor of my B/X workshop. Damn it, B/X! Why do you have to be so un-forgivingly perfect in your system symmetry?!

; )

Poison (Final Thoughts)

Had a chance to review both the Little Brown Books and Holmes regarding their take on poison.

Holmes doesn’t include neutralize poison in his spell list…no surprise, really when you consider no one makes it past 3rd level. Meanwhile all monsters with poison attacks seem to be of the instant variety…snakes or spiders or medusa, if you blow a poison save in Holmes you’re dead. This certainly fits with the high mortality rate of this particular edition.

[I’m going to say a word or two about Holmes elsewhere…it deserves its own post]

The LBBs poison is all of the “instant variety” as well. However, the LBB DOES have neutralize poison in the clerical spell list. However, similar to AD&D neutralize poison will NOT save you if you’re already poisoned (i.e. DEAD)…as with AD&D there is no ten round “grace period” of writhing in one’s death throes during which time an antidote might be administered.

However, there’s no “Slow Poison” either…which means that poison is much more deadly in OD&D than even AD&D.

When viewed through this lens, I can't help but hypothesize that Slow Poison was a “fix” instituted for AD&D. This appears to be the case if we review the chronology:

#1 OD&D: Poison kills instantly. Neutralize poison can only detoxify objects, not “cure” poisoned individuals.

[interestingly, OD&D’s neutralize poison is the only version with a duration: 1 turn. This means that after ten minutes the item becomes toxic again? So even if you “de-poisoned” a corpse and raised it from the dead, it would need to make an additional save ten minutes later? Poison isn’t just deadly, it’s continuous and permanent with no means of curing AT ALL!]

#2 Holmes D&D: Poison kills instantly. No neutralize poison because clerics only go to 3rd level.

#3 AD&D: Poison kills instantly. Neutralize poison only detoxifies. Slow poison (a lesser spell) keeps individuals from dying until that poison can be neutralized.

#4 B/X: Poison kills ten rounds after taking effect; i.e. a person blows their save and poison “goes off” instantly (giant snakes, purple worms) or after a delayed period (medusa bite, giant spider). “Going off” means the 10 round timer starts running. Neutralize poison cast within that 10 round span saves the victim, otherwise they’re dead. There is no “slow poison.”

#5 BECMI: Continues B/X.

#6 AD&D 2E: ???

#7 DND3+: Poison is nerfed of its “instant kill” effects.


Now, since I started playing D&D with B/X where “neutralize poison” actually cured individuals, I just carried that “cure” assumption over to my AD&D playing (I was 11 years old…give me a break!). In fact, the ONLY time I can recall using Slow Poison at all was when running the 1980 tournament module C1: The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, in which Slow Poison figures prominently to the plot (interestingly, a plot that might seem to break with the use of NP…or not. I don’t remember…I know that more tournament points were awarded for casting Slow Poison).

Okay, I think I’ve written all I can on this particular subject. I know some people consider “instant death” effects to be a bit “un-fair.” The way I look at it? Getting chomped by a T-Rex or swatted by a fire giant and ending up with 0 hit points makes you just as dead. D&D is a game about people risking their lives (and often finding death) in pursuit of “fantastic treasure.” Dead is dead is dead…and D&D at least gives you some creative options for escaping death, INCLUDING spells like raise dead and neutralize poison. This is why I never sweated offing my players (we always found a way to “bring back” the ones we liked)…”killer DM” though I may have been, I was a always a softie when it came to cheap resurrection.

After all, I see death in the game as a penalty (for both bad luck and poor play) but it shouldn’t be a penalty that stops game-play completely, right? ‘Cause if play stops, well…so does the fun!

So anyway I always liked poison…and truth be told it rarely killed anyone in my games. Hell, people get saving throws after all, right?

[case in point: when I was playing the cleric in our B/X on-line game last year, I went toe-to-toe with a giant spider while the other party members…um, were they cowering? No…I think I was just off exploring a cistern by myself or something. Anyway, the creature only hit me once or twice before I was able to squash it…and I made all my saves. Sure I was sweating the prospect of death a little bit…but at 2nd level you’re nearly as likely to be “instantly killed” by a good damage roll from an orc or ogre. Poison? Eh – no big deal]

Still, of all the versions of poison across editions, I do prefer the B/X. It makes more sense, it’s simpler, it’s fun…and there’s no confusion between slowing and neutralizing poison.

‘Course, when you think of poor Black Dougal writhing on the floor, foam coming from his mouth as his nervous system shuts down…perhaps still able to watch Fredrik the dwarf clean out his pack as his eyes glaze over…you can’t help but think his buddies were even bigger shmucks than you ever imagined. Couldn’t Sister Rebecca at least cover the poor guy with a blanket to ease his last few moments of suffering? Sheesh!

; )

What the Hell IS a "B/X Companion?"

Okay, so I've received enough questions...in emails and comments (here and elsewhere) regarding my B/X Companion project that I figured I should probably tell new folks what it's all about. After all, I just picked up another six followers today...I'm sure they don't relish the idea of combing through the 500+ post on this blog just to "put it all together."

Thing is, I sometimes (often?) forget that I have an audience reading my blog. It's not really designed at hyping/promoting my wares (not yet, anyway), and most of what I share is just my own thoughts and ideas, my excitement about a project or game, reminisces about my personal history...and more often than not serious rants about something or other that's bugging the crap out of me.

So here's the skinny on the B/X Companion:

My B/X Companion is intended to be the mythical 3rd volume designed to complete the work begun with Tom Moldvay's Basic Rules and continued in the Dave Cook/Steve Marsh Expert Rules, both published in 1981. Both promised a "Companion" volume that would conclude the series...instead TSR (and Frank Mentzer) re-wrote and re-published a five volume series (BECMI) that, while certainly interesting, failed to deliver on the promise of those earlier works.

What do I mean by that? A few different things:

- in many ways, B/X edition of Dungeons & Dragons (the 1981 rules) are a codified version of OD&D...the Little Brown Books of 1974. Most everything present in the LBBs are present in B/X. Some of the exceptions (stuff left out) are added back.

- rather than "add to" the rules as written, Mentzer re-wrote the rules. An example are the thief abilities: originally, they were supposed to top at level 14 and NEW ABILITIES were to be presented for higher level thieves. Instead, Mentzer "changed the math" so that they simply stretched to 36. I want my amp to go to 11...I don't want to simply make 10 "a little louder."

- in many ways, the style of the BECMI (Mentzer edition) books is toned WAY down from the mature form of the B/X edition. B/X was designed "for Adults" (as it says on the cover)...the bibliography includes books by Kurt Wagner, Robert Howard, Moorcock, Leiber, Aspirin, etc. as inspirational reading. In every example of play, a Player Character dies and the players exhibit much more cutthroat tendencies (Exhibit A: Frederik's death and the party's treating of the goblin prisoners; Exhibit B: Black Dougal's death and the party's treating of him!).

This mature tone/style is absent from the Mentzer version. In fact, while the B/X edition bears the epigram "for 3 or More Adults, Ages 10 and Up," the Mentzer version says only "For Any Number of Players, Ages 10 and Up" seeming to imply the game is for 10 year old kids. Likewise, there is no bibliography of inspirational reading (adult or not), there is only the imperative for the DM to "BE FAIR" (again, as if telling a child to "play nice") and an introduction to the game where one is forced to learn the rules vicariously through a Lawful hero type as his friendly, Lawful companion...rather than expose young innocents to the whole gamut of human possibility I suppose.

ANYway...

The B/X Companion is not a "stepping stone" to AD&D or a "missing link" between the two editions (as is the Advanced Edition Companion published by Goblinoid Games). It IS mostly compatible with Labyrinth Lord, as LL is mostly patterned after B/X itself. It does not use "intellectual property" of TSR/WotC/Hasbro...you won't find mind flayers or beholders, for example. You will find a lot of other creatures from myth and legend (which is where most of the original D&D monsters came from) as well as spells and magic items inspired by both literature and film. You will also find additional rules for high level play, including rules for managing domains and ideas for running high level campaigns. Also, some cool artwork from several talented (and very generous) artists.

All in a paperback, 64-page rule book...the same size as the original Basic and Expert sets.
: )

When I first started this project (June 2009), I don't think I ever really thought I'd make it this far. It was a lark...a vanity project for my own enjoyment. Kind of like this blog. Now...well, one thing I remember now is how much I really, REALLY wanted those Companion rules to be published as a kid. They're mentioned on the first column of the first page of the introduction to the Moldvay Basic rules...my first RPG as a kid. I played the hell out of the Basic and Expert Rules (itself promising a Companion set) and finally moved onto AD&D long before we even realized Mentzer's Companion set had been published...and as IT was incompatible with our (then) preferred edition, we kept what we liked (magic items, huge dragons, Domain rules) and junked the rest. It wasn't until my 20s that I realized how sweet and coherent Mentzer's design was...and it wasn't until my 30s that I realized it was actually B/X (that 1981 edition) that I preferred and that Mentzer's "closed system" design felt hollow and toothless, a pale shadow of the thing that had originally fired my imagination.

Looking back over my B/X Companion, I am pleased to discover that it, too, fires my imagination. It's almost ready, folks...just wait a little bit longer.

; )