D is for Dungeon

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for the month is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: how to approach it, how to run it, how to enjoy a system that deserves to be played NOW, nearly 50 years after its inception. Consider this a 'crash course' in the subject]

D is for Dungeon...specifically dungeon design.

The "dungeon" is (as one might expect) a rather important concept in a game called Dungeons & Dragons. Gygax's glossary in the DMG provides us with the following definition:

Dungeon -- A generic term for any castle, location, or ruin that serves as the site of an underground adventure.

Okay, straightforward enough. Or is it? 

The thing is this whole idea...this whole concept, the premise on which the game is built...is about as clear as mud. We are told in the PHB that "individual adventuring usually takes place in an underworld dungeon setting" until 

"play gradually expands to encompass other such dungeons, town and city activities, wilderness explorations, and journeys into other dimensions, planes, times, worlds, and so forth."

However, when it comes to the three types of adventures described in the PHB (p.101) between dungeons, wilderness, and city and town adventures

"Adventures into the underworld mazes are the most popular."

The reason the word dungeon is central in the game's title is because exploring dungeons is the most elementary part of game play. It is the reason the players are here...the reason they're willing to work together, cooperatively, towards a common objective. The dungeon...an underworld death trap filled with dangerous monsters and monstrous dangers while tempting players with the promise of fame and fortune...is the draw. When we say, D&D is a game of adventure, the DUNGEON is the location where that adventure takes place. For the most part (we'll get to the caveats in a bit).

Which is why it's so unfortunate that the AD&D books provide ALMOST ZERO INFORMATION ON HOW TO BUILD OR DESIGN A DUNGEON.

Unfortunate, I say, but true. A gross oversight on the part of the author, and one I didn't even realize till a few years ago, when I was writing a series of posts comparing the DMGs of various editions. None of them are "good" when it comes to this topic...in fact, "terrible" would be a more apt description. But it took me years to notice this lack of information because I learned the basics of how to design dungeons decades before...from Tom Moldvay.

Moldvay's Basic Dungeons & Dragons Rulebook (published in 1981...two years after the DMG) gives a pretty similar definition of the word "dungeon:" a place underground and often among ruins, where characters adventure. However, unlike Gygax's DMG, Moldvay outlines a step-by-step process for designing an adventure...in two pages, no less! His system, while simple, provides the foundational building blocks of design:

Step 1: Choose A Scenario. Moldvay calls this the "background theme or idea which ties the dungeon together," and notes that a "good scenario always gives the players a reason for adventuring." 

Step 2: Decide On A Setting. This is the actual location where the scenario takes place, the "dungeon" in question. Examples of adventure sites include castles, caverns, crypts, temples, mines, stronghold, towns, and towers...most any fixed location can serve as an adventure site, i.e. a "dungeon." But regardless, they all have in common the following elements:

- removed from "normal" (game) civilization

- stocked with danger

- contain the promise of reward

Step 3: Decide On Special Monsters. The D&D game, in all its editions, thrives on conflict, and requires adversaries for the players to struggle against. The scenario and setting suggests monstrous opponents that players can expect to encounter while exploring the dungeon.

Step 4: Draw The Dungeon Map. The first practical step (everything up till now has been thought exercise and/or brainstorming). You draw a map of the area the players intend to explore. For me, this is the most difficult part of dungeon design, as I tend to be a bit hard on myself. I often pull blueprints of actual buildings and cave complexes to use as templates, but I also steal maps from old adventures and re-work/re-purpose them. 

Good maps have sensible layouts, often with multiple means of ingress and exit, multiple levels (both up and down) with more than one way to access each, and enough asymmetry of design to be interesting. Maps for less experienced (generally lower level) players should be easier to map than those you design for experienced veterans, because players tend to want to make sketches during play to aid in their explorations. Making a nightmare labyrinth of non-Euclidean angles and shifting walls is going to be hard on players with fewer resources...and "actual play experience" is one of those resources.

In addition to being clear and legible enough for YOU, the DM, to read, it should have a number of encounter areas...rooms, chambers, special points on the map...that you should meticulously label with a numerical key. I strongly advise using simple numbering for these encounters, not an alphabetical key or (Lord no) Roman numerals.

Step 5: Stock The Dungeon. Now that you have the map for your dungeon (based on your scenario and setting you've chosen for that scenario), you key the dungeon with your notes of what will be found at each and every encounter area. This is the "meat" of dungeon design...the map is just the skeleton, and without the guts and muscle and sinew, it's not yet an adventure proper.

Moldvay identifies four forms of "contents" for encounter areas, and I find these useful categories for design. ALSO, while I don't determine contents of encounter areas randomly (as Moldvay suggests), I do place them in the same proportions given by his random chart:

• Monster (1-in-3 encounter areas): these are NPCs that are likely to be antagonistic towards exploring adventurers and who are combat-worthy and inclined to fight if provoked.
• Trap (1-in-6 encounter areas): these are obstacles and hazards designed to damage, delay, confuse, or inconvenience players.
• "Special" (1-in-6 encounter areas): these are anything not a "trap" or straightforward "monster." It could be a special (modified or non-book) monster, a magical effect of some kind (healing pools, teleportation gates, magic mouths, etc.) non-hostile NPCs (hostages that might be rescued or hired to join the group), riddles and tricks, etc.
• Empty (1-in-3 encounter areas): an encounter area devoid of Monsters, Traps, and Specials. It does not mean a literally "empty" chamber; it can still invite interaction (players may search it for traps, secret doors, etc.), and still take real game time from players determined to give it a thorough going over. But these areas are necessary places of respite from the stresses and danger of the dungeon, and I don't recommend going without.

It should be understood that these proportions are guidelines, not hard/fast rules. That being said, I always try to hew close to these proportions as they give a nice rhythm of play in practice. Since you'll only get perfect proportionality in dungeon designs that feature encounter areas in multiples of six, some rounding often occurs. For me, I tend to round the number of "empty" and "trap" areas DOWN while rounding "monster" and "special" encounter areas UP.

For example: given a 20 encounter area, I'd go with seven monsters, four specials, three traps, and six empties.

Treasure, of course, is equally important to stocking as danger, and as with types of encounter areas Moldvay's suggestions for treasure proportions aren't terrible (1-in-2 for monster encounters, 1-in-3 for trap encounters, 1-in-6 for empty encounters). Along with the proportion of encounter types, this indicates that slightly fewer than one-third of all encounter areas will have SOME sort of treasure present. For me, I prefer a slightly higher presence of treasure...something closer to 40+%, but this varies based on scenario and setting.

[please keep in mind that "treasure" takes many forms. If prisoners can be rescued for a reward, they are treasure. If the local magistrate has put a bounty on bugbear scalps, then bugbears become treasure. Etc. We are not just talking bags of gold and silver]

For AD&D, a game of adventure (in which players brave danger in pursuit of reward), treasure is the primary motivator, the "spur" that drives players to action. A steady drip-drip of treasure with the occasional discovery of a large cache, is the primary formula that keeps players on the move and willing to engage and struggle with the challenges of the dungeon environment.

At this point, we are done with Moldvay, and can speak to the concept of scale.

Each dungeon should be designed for a particular level of party; this is what I refer to as its "scale." Actually, it may be more precise to say a particular experience point total of individual player character. Often, you'll see an adventure designated as being for a specific level range...an adventure for levels 4th-6th, for example. They might as well say "for characters of roughly 22,000 x.p." which would yield PCs in the given level range (paladins and multi-class PCs being at the low end, druids and thieves at the high). Everything in the dungeon is scaled off this level range: the types of monsters used, the deadliness of traps present, and...most certainly...the amount of treasure to be found.

Scale is important. Reward should be commensurate with the degree of challenge faced by the players: too much treasure for too little challenge is too easy and leads to boredom and disenchantment, while too little treasure for too much challenge leads to frustration and resentment; both are undesirable. Your campaign will have adventure sites (i.e. "dungeons") scaled to various levels...some low-level, some high...but you must strive to be consistent with your scales. It is fine for high level adventurers to take on a low-level dungeon, wiping it out 'on a lark.' But they should find the takings therein to be of dubious value and not worth the energy expended. Likewise, it is just dandy to have high level "killer" dungeons in your game that players should (rightly) shun until they feel strong enough to tackle them...they provide incentives for their ambition with the promise of rich reward.

In practice, I've found that a 30 encounter adventure should yield (in total) treasure sufficient to advance PCs of the designated number and experience range one level. For determination of gold piece value needed, I always use the fighter advancement table.

For example: a 30 encounter dungeon scaled for 5 characters of levels 5th-7th should yield a total treasure of roughly 175,000 gold pieces in value. With regard to magic items, I look at their gold piece (i.e. sale) value for this calculation.

Dungeon of fewer or more encounter levels get proportionally less or more treasure. For example, one with 15 encounters would have only HALF the treasure (in gold piece value) needed to advance the party one level. Dungeons with 60 encounters would give players enough x.p. (in gold) to achieve TWO levels...which is probably not the same as just doubling the treasure amount. If that dungeon for five PCs of level 5th-7th had 60 encounters, it would need 450,000 g.p. because the amount of x.p. needed to get one fighter from 6th level to 8th is 90K, not 60K. 

Why do I scale based on 30 encounter areas? Time...real world, actual time. It takes time for players to play the game...to explore dungeons, to participate in combats. In practice, I find a rate of three to five encounters per solid hour of play to be average, with about 12 encounters being the practical (max) upper limit for a four hour play session (9-11 being more usual). Smaller groups of players can be more agile in their decision making, but larger groups of players have more resources to throw at encounters...speed at which players get through a dungeon is tied largely to experience (with the game) and group dynamics (leadership, organization). Also, DMs should understand that the longer a session goes on, the more resources are expended by the players, the fewer resources they have at their disposal, and the slower and more cautious they become.

So 30 encounter areas can take three to five game sessions to fully explore (depending on the quality of your players and the length of your game sessions). This could be a month or more of play depending on how often you run games (we'll talk scheduling in a later installment). And a couple more things to keep in mind:

1. It is rare for player to recover every last scrap of treasure from a dungeon. More than just "missing" things, players will tend to abandon a dungeon for greener pastures at some point...mainly because it feels "picked over" with too much challenge for too little reward remaining. And that's okay! We want players to have agency and letting them walk is a part of the AD&D game.
2. We (Dungeon Masters) want players to advance in level. It is an imperative for our game. Leveling up allows designers to expand the scope of what we do, breaking out bigger challenges, more ferocious monsters, more extravagant treasures. Allowing the PCs to level expands what we, DMs, can do with the game.

As far as scaling challenges/danger to players, this is as much an art form (refined in practice) as the distribution of treasure. With regard to traps and hazards, are you considering the player characters' ability to circumvent these things? It's not really appropriate to include half a dozen poison encounters when the party cleric is under 7th level (and thus has no access to neutralize poison). Stone to flesh is a spell only available to magic-users of 12th level so petrifaction becomes, effectively, a death sentence for mid-level parties...these are things to consider. Consider also potential hit points of PCs when assigning damage for traps: A 50' pit drop may not kill a 6th level fighter, but it can deplete hit points enough that another fight or two will finish the poor brute; damage accumulates over time, after all.

With regard to monsters and their placement, these will largely be determined by the scenario and setting you chose at the beginning. If the adventure involves invading a stone giant stronghold, the opponents will probably be stone giants (duh) and their pets and allies. This by itself should suggest the proper scale of the dungeon you're designing. It might sound cool to have the players sneak into the fortress of a lich or demon lord, but they're not going to be doing that before they hit double-digits in terms of level!

If you review the Dungeon Random Monster Level Determination Matrix on page 174 of the DMG, you'll see that every dungeon level has a particular range of "monster levels" (designated as 1-10, or I-X). When considering the scale of a dungeon, I use "equivalent level of the dungeon" the same as the average PC level of the adventure I'm designing. Thus, an adventure for 7th level PCs would see the bulk of their monster encounters come from charts IV-VI, with only few encounters being outside this range (and with reduced or increased numbers, depending on whether or not you're talking greater or lesser charts). Treasure types of monsters (given in the Monster Manual) can be key indicators for treasure distribution (both placement and amounts), and can serve as 'red flags' to the beginning dungeon designer.

[if I find myself creating a "slime themed" dungeon with all the monsters being puddings, jellies, and oozes, I'm going to have a pretty hard time justifying much in the way of treasure placement, for example]

These are the nuts-and-bolts of dungeon design, the elementary building block that is the foundation of the Dungeons & Dragons game. There are, of course, other types of adventure, but exploration of dangerous sites in pursuit of treasure is the MAIN form that game play takes in AD&D. Even the old Dragonlance modules, heavily railroaded story acs that they were, made sure to include at least one dungeon in each of their 14 published adventures. If you don't like exploring dungeon, well, there are a LOT of other RPGs on the market that are not called Dungeons & Dragons. 

We'll get into other types of adventures in a later post.

ASC Review: Rockall

Rockall (Stooshie & Stramash)

B/X adventure for four to six PCs of levels 5th-7th

I am reviewing these in the order they were submitted. For my review criteria, please check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (two page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews brief.

This one is great. I mean it's really, really good.

Full of terms and words ("sea stack," "menhir") that I had to look up because I am just not nautical enough (curse me for a landlubber!), this is just a really great adventure site. Written for levels 5th-7th, you won't find much here that you wouldn't find in say, X1: Isle of Dread (another B/X adventure for the given levels), it's just tidier and more tightly themed. 

Includes a new special monster: the sea hag, Morag. Perfectly done. There is, of course, no such monster in B/X, but here the authors give us a full stat block in the proper format, along with a solid description of her abilities (and a VERY brief note on her personality). That's all you need, folks.

Treasure is fine. I'm looking for something in the mid-90s range, and the site gives me just over 90K in loot...not the easiest thing to do with mid-level B/X play (which is why B/X isn't so great for long-term campaign play), but Stoosh and Stram make it work.  Pretty light on magic-items overall (Morag doesn't own a single enchanted item? Are you kidding me? And neither do the mermen?) but profitable nevertheless.

Underwater stuff is tricky (one of the reasons you see so few of these types of adventures) but this one is really nice: an undersea shelf that can be reached through a rocky sea stack crowned with the nest of some VERY unhappy rocs. Under the water, PCs can explore/loot various sunken wrecks, blundering into all sorts of undead sailor types. This one is HIGH on danger, especially for a party this small (average five?), but by 6th level B/X characters can look beefier than the castellan in Keep on the Borderlands...I just worry there might not be ENOUGH bodies in the party to go around.

This is good, solid D&D. Easy four stars (****). Also, kudos for coming up with some simplified underwater rules and (rightly) noting that you won't find help in the B/X rules. Very well done.

ASC Review: Temple Of The Blood Bat

Temple of the Blood Bat, AKA Lair of the Night Scourge (Jason Blasso)

OSE (B/X) adventure for four to six PCs of levels 1st-2nd

I am reviewing these in the order they were submitted. For my review criteria, please check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (two page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews brief.

Last year, I dinged Blasso hard for misidentifying his adventure as OSE when he was using "OSE Advanced." This year, the cover page states up front that the thing is written for both "OSE Classic" OR "OSE Advanced."

Soooo...which is it?

I'm treating it as OSE Advanced which makes it hard to judge. I assume it's pretty close to Labyrinth Lord + the AEC ("Advanced Edition Companion"), or something close enough. 

This adventure is...

*sigh*

Mr. Blasso's previous adventure offered way too much treasure and was a little scant on challenge. This season, he goes the opposite way. Treasure is light...about 4,300 g.p. when it should be pushing 6K...and the danger is off the charts. 17 keyed areas include 15 hostile encounters; no rest, no respite. Encounters include large numbers of zombies (killers of low level characters), multiple save or die poison encounters, encounters with large numbers of creatures (again, at low levels multiple attacks are a killer and a fight against 10 giant rats or 30(!!) giant bats is no joke), and a carrion crawler.  

The main baddie, the "Night Scourge," seems to be some invention of Blasso's (it doesn't appear in any of my "Advanced" books): a swarm of "vampire bats" who drain blood and leave animated corpses (zombies) behind. This is not how zombies are created, like, ever. And why all the skeletons? Where are they coming from? Who's making those?

***EDIT: It has been pointed out to me that, per Moldvay Basic, "5% of all giant bat encounters will be groups of giant vampire bats" which function exactly as Blasso's Night Scourge, including those being drained of blood needing to save vs. Spells "or become an undead creature 24 hours after death." I will point out that it ALSO states that if using the Expert rules, this creature "may be a vampire" and that this contradicts the zombie description. However, it certainly gives off an old horror film vibe to have a plague of restless dead caused by a bat scourge.***

I don't like this one, sorry. For me, it only barely falls under the category of "playable" D&D. I'll give it a low ***, mainly because the bat theme is nice and fairly tight. The map is also interesting. But this one needs some work and polish. ***EDIT: I am changing my opinion of this one...slightly. Treasure is still too low and danger is still too high, but this is definitely playable (***) AND the tight theming is worth a "+" moving the thing up higher in my personal rankings.***

Learning To DM

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

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

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

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

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

Competence can take a long time to achieve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why NOT Shadowdark

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

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

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

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

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

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

BUT FIRST. Let's pause for a moment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT IS SHADOWDARK?

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

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

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

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

(from the Shadowdark Player Quickstart Guide, page 7)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If what you want is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mm.

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

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

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

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

Look, here are the things to understand:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: The Tower in the Lake

The Tower in the Lake (Matthew Lake)

B/X for four to seven PCs of 3rd-5th level

And so we come to the end of our list. The Tower in the Lake was actually the 25th adventure received, but it was updated with a re-scanned map to make the walls clearer...no big deal. Will we go out with a bang or a whimper? That's the real question.

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.

I'll save you the suspense: this adventure is so good that I have almost no notes.

Only quibble would be with the Magical Library: magic mouth isn't a spell in B/X (although a wizard like Thassalius certainly might have researched one), and spell books don't work like this in B/X (PCs only know the spells they know)...but since they don't impact anything (not even treasure), that doesn't matter at all. 

B/X system mastery is on full display. Wonderful...really shows what can be done with the system. The problem with B/X is the lack of durability at low levels and the lack of long-term play value after reaching Name level. But for a small, mid-level adventure like this? B/X can be really effective. 

This is an adventure site, but it's a large one: 23 encounter areas. It will probably take more than one night to complete, but not necessarily because its many nods to verticality (pits, slides, whirlpools, etc.) can be used to bypass content. However, the adventure is so cool, players will probably want to plumb its (literal) depths.

Danger level is fairly high...but not impossible!...for this level range. Probably should take at least six PCs into this one. For a party of six 4th levels, I'd expect treasure take to be about 34K total. Treasure total? 40K (and up to 8K of that is destroyable). So...perfect?

Theme is tight and well done. Creativity is delightful. I'm not going to tell you anything about this adventure, because you should have your B/X DM run it for you. If you play a different edition, you can try converting it, although for AD&D you'll want to increase the level range...maybe a 5th-6th average with adjusted magic/treasure. Monster use is excellent, making good use of B/X stuff with a couple unique guys (well-described and fully statted) that are perfectly acceptable. Some DMs will complain there are no hit points listed for the monsters, but that doesn't bother me when everything can be found in the rule book.

This adventure is a triumph and gets the full five stars (out of five). Matthew Lake should be very proud of what he's wrought. Exceptionally nice way to finish these reviews.

*****

ASC Review: The Grand Retreat of the Great Sage Tellah

The Grand Retreat of the Great Sage Tellah (thanateros777)

"B/X, etc." for PCs of "mid-level"

Man, people reading these are just going to think I'm a jerk, huh?

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.

A "mid-level drop-in funhouse adventure for B/X, etc." That's what it says on the box. Well, now. I know B/X like the back of my hand, and "mid-level" for B/X is 7th level. So that's how I'm going to treat this one. ALSO: please note that I do enjoy the (occasional) "funhouse" adventure...see my numerous blog posts on White Plume Mountain over the years.

How much should I drag this out?

It's not good. We'll start with the basics: for a B/X adventure of this size (20 encounters...a tad big but within contest parameters) a "mid-level" party could expect to find somewhere in the neighborhood of 261K, all monetary (because B/X doesn't give x.p. for magic items). If the PCs were able to pull out every last scrap of loot, they get a grand total of 21,100 g.p. value. Pitiful.

Then there are the encounters: illusionists (no such thing in B/X). A necrophidius (not in B/X). "Clockroaches," "assassin vine," "mycelian," and "shocker lizards" (I've never even heard of these things). Water weirds (not in B/X). Guardian familiar (not in B/X). That's a helluva' lot of "etc." No stat blocks are provided for any of the monsters.

Usability is an issue. Decent map, nice and clear. But the three pages of text are not only crammed together, but using a font that makes reading this a thing of torture...it is the proverbial "wall of text" which makes table use a nightmare, even on maximum magnification. At least the monsters are highlighted.

Yes, it's another negative review. And I'm sure many readers assume/believe that I take great glee in being negative, of being critical, of looking for every possible flaw. And probably I do...to some degree. 

But part of why I'm doing this is in aid of helping folks. Not just the author, but other people who might want to write/design adventures. Because writing an adventure for publication...something to be read and used by other people...requires a different standard from what DMs do when jotting down notes for their home game. It requires a different degree of care and attention. Because other DMs aren't you, Mr./Ms. Author...and they can't read your mind.

Let's elevate our design chops. Yeah, we're all amateurs (for the most part). If you're writing/designing for WotC you're probably not reading this blog; you're probably not entering contests like these. If you're a professional adventure writer, this info ain't for you. But if you, like me, are just an amateur or (glory be!) a semi-pro, please take this advice to heart:

Choose one system. Learn that system. Design/write for that system. 

System matters. This adventure gets one star (out of five) because the author decided that system doesn't...and it thus fails to work as a functional module for anyone looking for a "B/X, etc." adventure.

*

ASC Review: Arena AEmilia

Arena AEmilia (Zed)

B/X for PCs of 4th-6th level

Mm. I was wondering if I'd see one of these.

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.

Well, now. It seems I must explain what an "adventure" is. 

Strictly speaking, adventuring is the activity that players engage in when they play D&D; Moldvay's (B/X) glossary defines an adventure as "any session where a DM and players meet to play a D&D game." However, the textual description is a bit more specific:

Each game session is called an adventure. An adventure lasts for as long as the players and the DM agree to play. An adventure begins when the party enters a dungeon, and ends when the party has left the dungeon and divided up treasure. An adventure may run for only an hour, or it might fill an entire weekend! The amount of playing time depends on the desires of the players and the DM. Several related adventures (one adventure leading to another, often with the same player characters) is called a campaign.

In the (later) Expert set, the scope of where an adventure takes place is broadened to include the wilderness, defined as all the area outside of the dungeon. And yet, the dungeon is ever the focus of the Dungeons & Dragons game.

A "dungeon" is defined by Moldvay as "a place, underground and often among ruins, where characters adventure." Again the textual description is more broad than that:

It is the DM's job to prepare the setting for each adventure before the game begins. This setting is called a dungeon since most adventures take place in underground caverns or stone rooms beneath old ruins or castles.

Note that Moldvay states MOST adventures take place underground...not all. In the Dungeon Master Information section of the Basic D&D rules, Moldvay provides a "step-by-step guide to creating a dungeon." The second step, DECIDE ON A SETTING, makes clear that not all settings need be underground, as his list of "common settings" include castles, towers, ancient temples, strongholds, and towns. Not every "dungeon" need be a ruin, cavern, or tomb.

However, the setting (where the adventure takes place) is, as stated, the second ("B.") step of creating a dungeon, i.e. creating the place where adventuring will take place during the game. The FIRST ("A.") step is the choosing of a scenario:

A. CHOOSE A SCENARIO

A scenario is a background theme or idea which ties the dungeon together. A scenario will help keep a dungeon from becoming a boring repetition of "open the door, kill the monster, take the treasure." A good scenario always gives the players a reason for adventuring. The DM should also design a dungeon for the levels of characters who will be playing in it. A good scenario will also give the DM a reason for choosing specific monsters and treasures to put in the dungeon.

This, I would argue, is the HEART of adventure design. Without a scenario, there is little reason to adventure...D&D simply becomes a game of rolling dice until resources are expended or boredom overtakes us. The scenario provides context for adventuring; it helps focus the players and promotes active engagement with the setting (i.e. "the dungeon") where the adventuring is taking place. Readers might note that this paragraph on scenario choice provides at least part (if not most) of my judging criteria. 

SO...let's look at this Arena AEmilia. It provides a setting...a place. The place is stocked mostly with NPC characters, though there are a few beasties in animal pens. The NPCs are given some personality notes. The setting has a map. There is treasure listed...in exceptionally poor amounts for adventurers of levels 4th-6th.

But there is no scenario presented. 

There is no reason for PCs to go here. There is no adventure. There is an arena. There are people. There are shiny silver coins in their purses. I suppose you can kick open doors and stab people for their purses of silver coins, but I'd like to think we've long since evolved past that type of play. This is D&D, not Greg Costikyan's Violence RPG.

This is not an adventure. It receives the coveted zero stars (out of five) award.

ASC Review: The Bridge of Ptelemegesser

The Bridge of Ptelemegesser (Peter McDevitt)

B/X or OSE (B/X) for...huh? (no level range listed)

Well, at least it's short. 

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.

One page plus a map. Seven numbered encounters. Even though it calls itself an "adventure site" (and to be fair, Gibson suggests an encounter range of "5 to 25"), this is too short, too devoid of adventure to really be an "adventure site." It's more of a single encounter scenario...at best I might classify it as a "lair."

Site is written to be dropped into a mountainous area when PCs are "hexcrawling." This suggests a group of 4th/5th ("Expert") level characters. Group finds a long, stone bridge spanning a gorge with a drop of some 140' into a  narrow lake. But there's a giant rhagodessa hanging on the bottom of the bridge, waiting to ambush the last crossing party member (or the "lone scout") and drag them back to its lair: a cave some 50' below the bridge in the cave wall.

As a single encounter of a larger adventure this is pretty good...though bridge encounters are the kind of thing you can only ever do once, or they get old (see the pterodactyls of X1 or the Tasloi throwing boulders in I1 for other examples). This one is creative and probably won't elicit too many boos-hisses when you spring it on the players (they were looking for pterodactyls...how were they supposed to know the threat would come from underneath!). I like it, and could see myself dropping it somewhere.

But it's not going to provide "an evening's entertainment." Even if the PCs decide to explore the other two (connected) caves, there's just not much here to occupy their attention.  Treasure is weak...maybe a couple thousand? Not much for a party of 4th-5th level characters (which, again, seems about right for this encounter). 

This one should probably get ZERO stars out of five, because it's incomplete (in my opinion). However, it's within the guidelines set by Ben, and it's a fine little encounter. I'll give it two stars (out of five) because it's a creative bridge encounter, with the caveat that the "work" needed to make it a playable adventure site is "filling out more adventure site."

However, it also gets a "-" ding because the stat block is wrong for the giant catfish. See page X31 for corrections.

**-

ASC Review: The Herbalist's Son

The Herbalist's Son (Jacob72)

"Classic" D&D for four to seven PCs of 3rd-5th level

Even though there's a ruined "druid chapel" in this one, there are no druids and the author takes all the monsters and treasure "from the Basic and Expert books." As far as I can tell, it's a B/X adventure and I am reviewing it as such.

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.

Man, I went into this one expecting to rant and rage. Written for "Classic D&D?" That ain't a thing! However: this is one of the better small-scale B/X adventures I can remember reading.

Simple enough premise:PCs receive some info that might lead to a lost elvish tomb in a nearby settlement. Going to the settlement, they find some locals...an herbalist and his son...were already investigating the rumors, but have disappeared after hiring some "woodsmen" to help them out. Turns out the woodsmen were actually bandits led by a couple werewolves.

PCs follow the map, find the dug-out entrance to the tomb...actually more of a fairy mound...and explore. 

Decent encounters, including angry elves looking for payback on the ruined fairy village, giant weasels, wraiths (because dead elves become wraiths...duh), a changeling (doppelganger) masquerading as the herbalist's son, insect swarms, and...of course...the aforementioned bandits.  Good mix, good map, good interactivity, good use of tricks/traps.

The imprisoned fire elemental is kind of silly and unnecessary...also, it's probably one monster too many for the size of this thing. And the treasure take is fairly light: not even 7,000 for an adventure that should be rocking close to 20K.  But there's silver jewelry and gems that can be upped in value, and the bandits really do need more loot (assuming they're the ones that crushed the fairy village). The fix is pretty easy here. 

Good theme, good B/X adventure. Wraiths are pretty vicious for 4th level characters, but the PCs get plenty of warning...and I dig the underground river and the "gateway to the land of the Fairies." Really nice. Three and a half stars (out of five). Nicely done!

***+

ASC Review: Sausages of the Devil Swine

Sausages of the Devil Swine (John Nash)

B/X for four PCs of 5th level

A banger (no pun intended) right out of the gate; nevertheless, this adventure suffers from a number of flaws.

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.

Strong theming in this one, though it's hard to tell if it's meant to be humorous/satirical. I'd err on the side that it's more serious than jokey, despite pig themes bordering close to ridiculous ("Porcs" instead of orcs, "Porcus, the Demon Lord of Swine," etc.), without ever actually taking it too far. Overall, I'd say the concept is well-conceived, the adventure is easy to read/parse, and the map is good. High points here.

Nuts-and-bolts, however, require a little work.

I like devil swine a lot...they are a classic, if often underutilized, staple of B/X-BECMI play. They are also an EXPERT level creature: a shape-changing, 9 hit die hammer with a powerful charming ability (equivalent to a vampire), and a gore attack that does 2d6 damage. It's a pig demon of the first order; they don't show up on the B/X encounter tables till level 8. Are they appropriate critters for a party of four 5th level characters? Especially when encountered in groups of three, five, and two, throughout the dungeon? Not really, no.

But Nash doesn't use the devil swine entry from the rulebooks, instead making up his own creature: 3 hit dicers with an AC 7, 2d4 damage, no charm...um, what? You want to rename your pig-faced variety of orcs...okay. But nerfing the devil swine for your low-level theme? No. Use were-boars instead or else up the level. "Porcus," the Demon Prince of Swine is only 8 hit dice (less than a B/X devil swine) so here again we see an adventure designer wanting to nerf gods and entities so that their 5th level characters can duke it out with Great Powers. Man, I hate that kind of 'small ball.'

Treasure is light for my taste: an adventure this size, I'm thinking something in the range of 20K+ for ta party of the listed levels. The author states in the introduction that there is 14,404 g.p. worth of treasure (and since he bothered to do the math, I didn't bother to add it up). So, yeah...a bit light.  But the variety and distribution is good; it wouldn't be too hard to fatten things up. A minor knock.

Stocking in general is pretty good...very standard Moldvay (one-third monster, one-sixth trap, one-sixth 'special,' one-third empty). And treasure distribution (as stated) is good: 10 of the 17+ encounter areas have something worth discovering which, while high for Moldvay, is great to keep players poking along. Danger level appears a little weak for 5th level characters, unless one uses ACTUAL devil swine, in which case it is far, far too hard. Nash's swine are just half-strength trolls: three hit dice with a minor regen ability? Yeah, it just doesn't have the same teeth (tusks?). 

The Wand of Porcus is also anti-climactic, being a +2 mace with an effect that only triggers upon killing someone. Porcus himself is a bit of a pushover demon prince, having no special abilities besides a handful of (defensive) immunities. While he's nicely described, the fact that he's content to sit around doing the bidding of a mortal is lame. I don't like it.

The competing butchers are nifty. So are the strangling sausages.

This is a strong first entry to read, but it has (for me) some glaring problems. Love the concept and theming, but the execution needs work. I'll give this one a bit more than two stars (out of five).  For B/X, it's neither "B" nor "X" but something that tries to split the difference...and doesn't really succeed. Nash shows excellent potential...but it is potential yet un-realized.

**+