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.

Adventure Site Contest Wrap-Up

While these review posts have been rolling out on the daily, I actually wrapped up reading, reviewing, and writing them back on January 13th...I didn't want to overwhelm everyone with multiple posts at once.

Welp, it's been a few days (I'm writing this post on January 17th), and I've had a moment to reflect on the contest and the various entries and compile some thoughts on the whole exercise.

The original ASC only had 18 entries...this year's has 30. I was not a judge in the prior year, but reading through the Adventure Sites I compilation, I can examine the top eight and compare their quality to my (personal) top 8-10 of this year's crop. Here are some things that (I think) are worth noting:

50% of the first ASC's top entries were written for AD&D, and all were "solid D&D"...the kind of entry I'd award four(+) stars. My only quibble with any of them, really, is that Lipply's Tavern needs to be set to a higher level than 2nd-4th based on the amount of danger AND the potential treasure take; but it's still a great adventure. Of the other four, one was S&W (also very good), two were for some form of Basic (though only one would get a 3* from me), and the last is a monstrosity that I would not have included, had it been my competition.

In comparison, less than half of the 30 entries for ASCII were for AD&D, and while four of those did crack my "top eight," only one of those would have rated as "solid" (4+) for me...the others were merely "playable" (3*). The other four in my top...two B/X and two OD&D...received better ratings generally.

Now, I want to choose my next words carefully: while there was definitely a lot of enthusiasm and creativity on display in ASC2...and I mean a LOT...I found myself somewhat disappointed by the overall results. The average number of stars awarded was 2.30 out of 5 possible and, just to be clear, THREE stars is what I deemed as the minimum for playable D&D. As in, an adventure that if you sat down at a table with the designated rulebook(s) you would be able to run the adventure for your table, without needing to cobble things "on the fly." If I removed the Stars Without Number entry (because it doesn't really fit with the overall treasure-seeking goals of old edition D&D), that number drops to 2.28. That's...not fantastic.

The best of the bunch (surprisingly to me) were the five OD&D/S&W entries: they scored a 2.80; three of the five were in the top 15, two of which had 4* ratings, and a fourth (The Two Spires) barely missing the cut. The fourteen AD&D/OSRIC entries ended up with 2.29, while the eight Basic entries clocked only a 2.00 average. If you were only to look at the best 18 (the same number as the submissions for the first ASC), the average is 2.94...but I'm sure that even the original contest had a few stinkers in it.

Would the ratings have been higher if we'd had some of last year's "best" writers return? Hard to say, but it's true no entries were submitted by Scott Marcley, Trent Smith, Grutzi, and GiantGoose. However, even past best nominees (DangerIsReal, Peter McDevitt, and Stooshie & Stramas) had a more difficult go of it, this time around.

One difference that really stood out was the extra pages that ASC2 entrants were afforded.  Last year's submissions were allowed three pages total, including the map...this year, we received three pages of text PLUS maps (some entries had two or three pages of maps!). This led to bigger entries, many of which stretched well outside the parameters of "adventure site," instead being more "mini-module." And for many authors, this brought with it a compulsion to create elaborate backgrounds, rumors, plots, NPCs, etc. The focus of "adventure site" is (with the possible exception of Lipply's) clearly evident in the original ASC's final compilation. For ASC2? Not so much. 

If I was going to advise Mr. Gibson of ways to improve the contest for ASC3, I'd tell him to tighten the parameters of the contest. I'd tell him to limit the contestants to an 8-15 encounter range...about all that can be done in "an evening's play," while still being larger than a simple "lair." I would limit the entries to ONE PAGE of maps, TWO PAGES of text, plus ONE PAGE of "appendix" to detail non-system monsters, treasures, or NPCs...four pages total unless authors wanted to attach a cover sheet. Lock it down, dial it in...I think that would help the designers set achievable objectives.

For the authors, I'd offer the following advice: pick a system, learn a system, write for the system. I don't care that "that's not how I run my game at home." You are not writing for your home table!  If you want to be a game designer/author, then you have to kowtow to your audience. My home game has a bunch of odds and ends and houserules, too. But when I write an adventure for the public (for a contest like ASC or NAP, for example), I can't put in my "house rules." Characters need alignment. Magic-users need the read magic spell. Etc. Allow your audience (the judges, the customers) decide what THEY want to modify to fit their Frankenstein mash-up at home...don't you do it for them!

And if you don't already have a system that you know and love...why not?  It's D&D, not rocket science. Learn B/X...it's the easiest and cheapest...and write for that, while you're learning the AD&D game. Or if you want something a little looser, check out S&W. I was impressed by the S&W adventures I saw in this contest, both how people used it and what it allowed. 

Or don't, I guess. You don't have to take my advice (duh). Heck, I'm not even sure Ben would want me judging again (after downgrading his adventure), so you needn't worry (much) about me saying "mean things" about your hard-wrought efforts.

REGARDLESS (i.e. regardless of whether or not you place any value in my advice AND regardless of whether or not I'm passing judgment on adventures in the future): please remember that the proof of whether or not ANY adventure is "good"...or worth a damn at all...is in the playing of the adventure. You really don't know HOW an adventure will play until you sit down at the table with some friends (new or old) and give it a whirl. Everything else...treasure counts, "interesting" encounters, level ranges, etc...is just guesstimating. At best.

Anyway.

Fun little contest. Nice to see so many people doing awesome stuff.  Lots of variety, different styles, nice maps, creative ideas. People playing these old D&D games are a pretty marvelous bunch...still. And that's great...that's hopeful. And all the enthusiasm...double the number of submissions as last year!...is also very cool. It would seem that a lot of folks have been hipped to Ben's contest, either through his web site, or the CAG server, or other people discussing it on-line. That's wonderful to see. Very positive.

Yeah.

All right, that's enough for now. I'm scheduling this to post February 3rd. Hope people found something useful in my reviews. For other reviews...focusing on different aspects of the same adventures, and many offering differing opinions from Yours Truly...you should check out the following links:

https://coldlightrpgpress.weebly.com/

https://thegloomyforest.blogspot.com/

https://www.youtube.com/@OwenEdwardsBooks/videos

https://tinypinktentacle.wordpress.com/

Cheers, folks!

: )

Back in 1986...

...two films were released in theaters, films that were similar in many respects. Both were of the comedy-action-adventure variety. Both were produced by Hollywood production companies. Both were made for under $25 million. Both had special effects that were "iffy" (especially seen through the lens of our jaded 21st century eyes). Both featured a male, American "everyman" type being drawn into an east Asian world of supernatural strangeness, with the American being an individual of destiny.

Both films had a supernatural, demonic, Big Bad Guy adversary armed with magic and minions. Both films centered around a plot of abduction that required the hero to perform a "rescue" in addition to combatting various mooks and monsters. Hell, both had Victor Wong in supporting roles.

I was 13 in 1986; both films carried the (then fairly new) PG-13 rating. I saw both in the theater. At the time, I enjoyed both. When I rewatched them, a few years later (on video) I found one to be clearly superior...so much so that I've watched it many times over the years, have owned it on VHS and currently own a deluxe BluRay version of it. The second film was so bad, I couldn't believe I'd even liked it (hey, I was 13!)...so much so that I've never bothered to watch it again.

The first film was Big Trouble in Little China from John Carpenter; it earned barely over $11 million, a bonafide box office flop. The second film was Eddie Murphy's The Golden Child: it earned over $149 million. 

Big Trouble in Little China has a 74% Rotten Tomato rating and an 82% audience ("popcorn") rating; by comparison, The Golden Child has a 22% Tomato and a 47% audience score. Both of these scores reflect and echo my own feelings on the films. John Carpenter and Kurt Russell (the star of Big Trouble) have stated they are proud of the film they created. Eddie Murphy has referred to his own film as "a piece of shit" (that was in '89)...and time has not been any kinder to the thing.

Thirty-five years later and I'm no longer 13. While I can see Big Trouble in Little China for the lightweight (if fun) film that it is, it still remains a personal favorite. It's not great cinema, but it's good...and it may be the best use of Asian American actors in a non-period Hollywood film prior to the turn of the century. Lots of reasons can be given as to why (financially) it failed so miserably in comparison to its inferior contemporary but, really, who cares? As far as I (and tens of thousands of others) are concerned, time has told the tale that ticket receipts alone could not.

There's something there that can (maybe) be applied to the various "edition wars" that crop up with regard to Dungeons & Dragons.  Maybe.

Back in 1986 my friends and I played Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, not B/X. We used all the hardcovers published to that date. We worked in certain aspects of Mentzer's Companion rules (where we could fit them into an advanced game), and we made use of some (not all) articles published in Dragon magazine. Of course, we also had house rules and variants that were regular parts of the game.

But that was thirty-five years ago. A lot of different editions of D&D have been published since then. A lot of tinkering, a lot of changes. And a lot of changes in Yours Truly. I'm not 13 anymore; I'm a bit more discerning in my tastes...even my tastes when it comes to "fun." 

All right, more on this subject (well, on the subject of different D&D issues) later. Maybe tomorrow. Hopefully tomorrow. 

Have a great week, folks.

The Art Of Peril

 Continuing from the prior post...

As several astute commenters deduced, this discussion on art in D&D was "goosed" into action by Delta's blog post on "old school" art from Monday. Delta's main point was that:

"...one of the biggest sensibility differences between old-school D&D art and and newer-school art is the amount of violence depicted against ostensibly player-character-types..."

I have some quibbles with Delta's conclusion ("flipping through the earliest 1st Edition materials, you're going to get the idea that in D&D, player-character life is cheap") but not with his declarative that the images presented are going to create particular ideas in the minds of the reader. Again, returning to my prior post, our imagination constructs ideas and images from memories, and memories at their base are generated from external (sensory) stimuli.

Dungeons & Dragons is a fantasy game that absolutely requires imagination (in all participants) to play effectively. I would go so far as to say imagination is probably the defining characteristic of role-playing games, as opposed to computer (video) games, board games, or card games, ALL of which are playable without imaginative input from the participants involved. As such the importance of exercising one's imagination (both through use and through assimilation of pertinent memories for use) cannot be understated. The ability to play the game is limited by one's imagination (or lack thereof), and as we wish to pay attention to how that imagination is cultivated, we should take a hard look at the purpose and objective of the game.

Dungeons & Dragons is a game of facing peril and overcoming its challenges.

This is clearly evident from the rules of the game. No, D&D is not a game about "telling stories;" as I have written (often) before, there are MANY role-playing games that are designed to create/tell stories (in many genres!) and that serve that purpose better than D&D. Folks using D&D as a vehicle to tell stories are pretty lazy (or else suckers for the marketing). Systems are not included to be ignored; dice are not rolled because players "like rolling dice." The fantasy world of role-playing IS designed to amuse, entertain, fascinate, astound, and escape reality. Yes, absolutely. But the game is designed with the mechanics it's given in order to face peril and overcome challenge. This is the reason for combat rules. And armor class. And hit points. And saving throws. Etc.

SO...given the above raison d'etre of D&D, let's take a look at the artwork that is Oh So Necessary for implanting those building blocks of imagination (integral to the game) and the job they do at conveying the perilous nature of the game.

I spent roughly three hours this morning combing through the core books (PHB, DMG, and MM) of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions of D&D making notes on the artwork and just how much "peril" was communicated. Things I looked for were instances of evident fear (either on terrified faces or actual flight), instances of helplessness or restraint/capture, killing blows (i.e. an attack from which the individual was most definitely NOT going to walk away from without clerical assistance), "zaps" (from traps or magical monster attacks that may or or may not be lethal), and the presence of Already Dead Bodies. At first, I attempted to do a simple count for each book, giving more weight to some illustration over other (half a point for a scared face, two points for a killing blow that shows entrails/viscera, etc.), but the results were somewhat confused and, for my purposes, not nearly descriptive enough. So I went back through all the illos (again) and simply made tallies for each particular instance of each category for each book.

For an illo to be counted, the recipient of the "peril" had to be a PC type (the dragon on p.21 of the 1E DMG doesn't count, for example, as all the creatures being killed are kobolds). Overwhelming odds (the purple worm on p.166 of the 1E DMG) or potential surprise (p.91 of the MM, p.99 of the DMG3) were NOT counted for purposes of "peril" as such illustrations could simple be viewed as "precursors to heroism," or some such. Neither were the cover illustrations of ANY edition counted in any way (as covers are prone to change, even within editions)...only interior artwork was reviewed. Artwork taken from earlier products (2E illos include a LOT of previously published artwork from 1st edition) still count towards peril, as the illos were used in the core books and thus help teach the game to prospective players.

Here then are the results, as I calculated them:

1st Edition (AD&D)

Fear: 18

Held/Helpless: 12

Kill Shot: 8

Dead Body: 6

Zapped!: 7

Total: 51

AD&D 2E

Fear: 4

Held/Helpless: 1

Kill Shot: 2

Dead Body: 4*

Zapped!: 1

Total: 12

DND3 (3rd Edition)

Fear: 6

Held/Helpless: 10

Kill Shot: 1

Dead Body: 2*

Zapped!: 3

Total: 23

*Dead bodies! Okay...let's talk about these for a moment. Three of these four instances in 2E feature "bodies in repose" that may or may not simply be sleeping, they looked so peaceful (and no evidence of violence...see p.125 of the PHB2 and p.24 of the DMG2). The final one seems obvious; equally obvious, however, is the party's intention to raise their companion (p.116, DMG2). The "dead bodies" in 3E are even more "iffy" in nature: the caption on p.153 of the PHB3 tells me the individual is dead, but he looks more like someone having his leg regenerated. The other image (from the MM3) appears to be a mermaid helping a drowned man (p.135)...hardly "peril."

Oh, and speaking of iffy...the thing that's really absent from 3E, compared to the first two editions is any sensations of fear...hell, there's hardly any trepidation illustrated. The six instances of "fear" counted for DND3 all come from the MM3. Four counts come from the illustration of the tarrasque (where four small figures are seen running from one of the most tremendous threats of the D&D universe, p.174). Yes, I count each character as one "instance"...more fear, more death makes more impression from a single illo. The other two instances of fear in the MM3 are also instances of small figures running from gigantic foes: the remorhaz (p.155) and the red dragon (p.67). There are plenty of other illos where small figures stand toe-to-toe with impunity against huge and colossal monsters.

Yeah...no.

And that's what really causes me to shake my head in looking at these late editions. Just what do the art directors think D&D is about? What are they conveying to the reader? Because, I'll tell you that any adventurer who thinks he's going to stare down a purple worm in ANY edition is probably asking to be eaten. 

The illustrations of post-1st AD&D simply fail in communicating the perils inherent in the game. Keep in mind that 1E has plenty of illustrations that do NOT contain peril: images showing heroic confrontation, or fantasy and wonder abound in the pages of the PHB and DMG (whose share of "peril images" I count as 9 and 12, respectively). Yet, 1E still manages to communicate the danger of the game world to the reader. Not (as Delta concluded) that "life is cheap," but that fear and death are a part of the game.  This is preparation for the imagination. 

Failing to prepare the mind with art showing only heroic confrontation, victorious parties, and happy tavern scenes (a lot of these in 2E for some reason...) is going to lead to false expectations and, I can only imagine, DM fudging and protectionism to stave off player disappointment. At least in 2nd edition, which is close enough to 1E that players should be gaffled just as readily for stupid shit as in the original Advanced game.  In 3E, I suppose disappointed expectations can be avoided with careful use of that edition's complex challenge system and obsessive attention to optimal "character builds."

Anyway... some folks asked me about B/X and how its art helps illustrate the perils of that particular edition. By my method of calculation there are only two instances of character peril illustrated in the contents (both in the Basic book; both of the "zapped!" variety). My own B/X Companion (which was illustrated to my specifications and in like vein to the original books) contains only two instances of peril, one each of the "kill shot" and "dead body" variety (actually, just a severed arm being gnawed by a Baba Yaga-like hag). That ain't much peril. However, Moldvay's basic book supplements this by providing detailed play examples (in both the Encounter/Combat section and the Dungeon Mastering section) featuring player character death. Gygax does likewise in the 1st edition DMG (p.71 and then p.97-100...the latter describes a particularly gruesome PC demise). While such textual examples are helpful in making explicit the perilous nature of the D&D game, I don't think there's any debating the old saw "a picture is worth a thousand words." More images of peril would go a loooong way.

Fortunately, we also have adventure modules to help us out:

"Uh-oh."

By the way, I also calc'd out the first edition Fiend Folio art because I consider it part of my personal "core" AD&D volumes, even if the numbers weren't added above. Here's how that most grim and perilous tome stats out in terms of communicating "peril" through its artwork:

Fiend Folio (1E)

Fear: 12

Held/Helpless: 22

Kill Shot: 8

Dead Body: 2

Zapped!: 2

Total: 46

I think the fact that the total instances of character peril in the FF alone is more than the combined core books of 2E and 3E says quite a bit about the game's art direction post-1988.

[I don't own copies of 4E or 5E so I can't comment on those particular volumes. However, as game play for those two editions are fairly distinct from earlier editions...even 3E...perhaps those editions' artwork conveys exactly what they're supposed to communicate]

Comments, as always, are welcome.

: )

Cap's "Civil War"

[yes, there WILL be SPOILERS. Consider yourselves warned]

[***EDIT 5/28/16: Having just watched Captain America: Civil War a second time, I have revised much of my (negative) opinions of the film. You can see my new post here, if you're interested. I leave this comparison review up as a true recount of my initial impressions. But as with Age of Ultron (also discussed below) the film greatly benefits with a second viewing***]

My wife got me a copy of Avengers: Age of Ultron for Christmas last year (actually, she bought me two copies...accidentally. No, this was not something I asked for or really wanted; would have preferred some software to help with book layout...). ANYway, today [EDIT: yesterday] I took the time to re-watch the thing in anticipation of finishing this post (started a couple days ago) because I drew some comparisons between that film and the new Captain America: Civil War (AKA "Avengers Part III"). I'm glad I did, because now I can pretty much scrap most of what I wrote previously.

Here's what I'll keep:

...when you really examine it, the whole film [Civil War] is pretty flimsy...a weak plot with the sole objective of giving the audience what we all want: a brawl of epic proportions between the various superheroes of the Marvel universe. There are some nice, emotional moments scattered throughout the thing, but really they're just the bridge between fight scenes. The villain is particularly weak...especially considered next to the arch-menace of Ultron...which makes it more apparent and galling what chumps these "superheroes" really are. The movie is a popcorn flick, pure and simple. A good popcorn flick, sure, but nothing deeper than your average, decent James Bond flick.  

[hey, who doesn't like a good James Bond film?]

And...CUT.

Previously, despite these criticisms, I was holding it head-and-shoulders above the second Avengers film. I'm going to stop that now. Age of Ultron is a very good comic book film in the style of...well, of The Avengers. Even if one gets fatigued watching dudes bash thousands of robots, it LOOKS like the kind of credible threat that would drive the plot of a film containing so many superheroes from so many different walks of life. The story...and the way the story unfolds...fits the genre. Prior to my re-watch this morning, I was buying into the hype of various reviews I'd read, decrying the huge ensemble cast that prevented real character development from occurring.

Um...okay. Character development isn't really what the comic book film genre is about. The characters have a long history of development...hell, many of them are OVER-developed, going through changes every couple decades that make them unrecognizable all in the name of doing something "new" (in order to keep selling comics with a popular character...). What's interesting about these films...what's fun about these films...is seeing how the filmmakers (producers, writers, directors, actors) translate these established characters to screen. How they choose to interpret or re-interpret the characters in the new medium, especially considering the 21st century timeframe for supers that had their glory years in the '60s, '70s, and '80s.

Right or wrong, I'm not expecting the same thing from a Marvel film that I expect from other films. Likewise, I'm not expecting 100% faithful adaptations of comics. I'm looking for something that allows the characters room to be comic book-y, that allows them to hold true (somewhat) to their roots, and that holds my interest in the same way that a good story arc in the comics can.

And neat F/X and action sequences, sure. These are punch-drunk superheroes, after all.

You dig me? And so suddenly, I realize that the main thing shaping my "first impressions" of these films isn't the overall "is this a good film" but actually the interpretation of characters that I already know and (in some cases) love. It doesn't matter if Wanda Maximoff is wearing a red tiara and cape, and it's not even all that pertinent whether her abilities come from being a mutant or some weird genetic experiment with a magic crystal. Does she go from being a villain to an Avenger? Does she exhibit both self-doubt and vengeful bad ass-ness? Do the filmmakers figure out a way to make it believable she'd want to get it on with a robot?

Here's what I hate about Age of Ultron: the characterizations of Captain America and Hawkeye. That's it. For whatever reason, when Joss Whedon directs an Avengers film, he makes a truly wimpy Captain America...a guy who's the butt of other character's jokes, who is frequently at a loss or questioning his abilities or responsibilities. I don't see the confident, self-assured war veteran, pillar of virtue that was the rock of the Avengers...the go-to leader because, hey, who else would you rather have leading you in battle? This guy...I find it hard to believe that hard cases like Black Widow and Hawkeye can take this guy seriously. Iron Man certainly doesn't.

And Hawkeye? I respect the filmmaker's decision to draw their inspiration from the dour, mask-less family man found in The Ultimates (the re-imagined, updated "Avengers"). But...well, I prefer the ex-criminal, Circus-trained dude. I mean, the thing that was endearing about the guy was his sense of humor about his own lack of super-powers and the comical way he'd run out of arrows. It made him different from a Green Arrow clone. The way this Ultimate Hawkeye translates to the screen is a little too much like WB's Arrow, what with his awesome reflexes and tactical ability (he makes Cap look like a rank chump). I find him terribly unbelievable as portrayed, but I guess that's just me...

You take those irritations away, however, an Age of Ultron is a fantastic genre film. It sucked that they offed Baron Strucker so fast, but everything else (including the various subplots) were perfectly to my taste.

Civil War gives me a better "first impression" only because I prefer the characterizations. There's blessedly little of Hawkeye, and this is the baddest ass version of Captain America I've yet seen in film. He kicks a truck! His shield defies the laws of physics! He is willing to take a stand for his principles, even though it means going against his friends, colleagues, and country! He is large and in charge...and he's a guy that others like, trust, and want to follow.

This guy? Awesome.

I also love the current interpretation of the Falcon. I could hardly give a shit about the Black Panther (he's fine, but the character is fairly bland...bulletproof suit? fighting ability? retractable claws? tracking?...hmm, where have I seen a similar power set?), save that my son thought it was pretty cool they'd put BP in a movie (no, I have not allowed my 5 year to watch either of these films). But the Falcon just gets more awesome every time he makes an appearance. Anthony Mackie is great, the updated backstory is a far cry from the original comic book version (giving the character a real reason to make a "buddy connection" with Cap), and his flying suit? Awesome. Making Red Wing into a portable drone? Awesome. All his little built-in gadgets...believable experimental military tech? Awesome. And his relationship with Cap? Great. I only had a chance to read some of the Cap-Falcon comics later in life, and they were okay, but I'll watch any film that has this Falcon in it, with to without the good Captain. He has definitely climbed into my Top 5 list of film superheroes.

But fun as it was to watch the heroes lay a beat down on each other in exciting fashion...Ant-Man's scene stealing was worth the price of admission for me (sorry, but we've had waaaay too many Avengers films to not have Giant Man make an appearance)...fun as it was, the film played too small.  Which would be fine if this was a film that (as the title implied) was simply focused on Captain America and his particulars. These individual titles, unlike the Avengers, are places where it's appropriate to have that individual "character development." Civil War was a little too crowded with too little pay-off.

SPOILER: This does not
happen in the film.

I mean, the Civil War story arc (that is the direct inspiration for this film) spans most every title in the Marvel Universe and raises issues regarding "registration," WWII-style internment, security versus privacy, and all sorts of ugliness. Heroes and allies turn on each other, one-time criminals become "good guys," and yes, Iron Man and Cap end up on opposite sides. The whole arc is big and bold and beautiful, culminating in Captain America being assassinated on the steps of a federal courthouse following his arrest and arraignment. That's some serious, serious subject matter to be having in 2006 and 2007 in the last years of the second Bush administration (when we were still dealing with our self-made Middle East shit-storm).

This Civil War? We get a dozen heroes having street brawl on an airport tarmac.

It's just weak. Crossbones to Captain America is like Bane to Batman...and here he's in and out in less than ten minutes. Helmut Zemo is one of the coolest, baddest adversaries in Captain America's rogues gallery. He's an evil mastermind, a genetic engineering genius who makes mutants that wouldn't be out o place in the latest TMNT film. Here? He's a sad, lonely mercenary who has somehow stumbled on Cold War secrets that eluded the U.S. Government for decades and uses them to punk "Earth's Mightiest Heroes."

Few people can rock the purple costume like
crazy mad scientist Baron Zemo II.

I don't know. Just...weak. I mean, I used to order bacon and black coffee for breakfast, too...though with a side of plain oatmeal (I guess my death wish wasn't quite as pronounced). This and a saved voicemail is the extent of this villain's characterization?

[sorry...if the bias isn't apparent, I'm a big Zemo fan. His stories gave me real chills as a child]

But, again...even such a "mini-Zemo" might be a fine antagonist if the film was confined to Cap's personal circle...Bucky, Falcon, one or two others. Throwing the Avengers (minus the Hulk and Thor, but plus Spider-Man and Ant-Man) into the mix requires a world-shaking menace: omnipotent A.I.s, alien invasions, or Ragnarok, in other words. The bar has been set too high for this many "enhanced beings," even if you take the heaviest hitters off the table.

Doesn't mean I didn't like the film...I enjoyed a lot of it. As I said, for this genre of film, the long-time-comic-book-translated-to-big-screen, it's the characterizations that are important. Watching Hawkeye fire Ant-Man on an arrow (a classic tactic)? Awesome. Watching how Paul Bettany brings life to a character (The Vision) who was always pretty flat and lifeless (to me)? Awesome. Watching Downey as Stark make a hash of things (again) despite some fairly WTF plot/writing? Still fun...as was watching his inevitable beat-down (must Iron Man fight every Avenger at some point? He has now picked fights with Thor, Hulk, and Cap...oh, and War Machine, too, if you count his fight with Rhodey in IM2).

But...(*sigh*) I guess I just wanted more. I guess I've turned into one of those "impossible to please" fanboy-types. I mean, it was cool to see all the "diversity" on display in film...if by diversity, you mean "black dudes." Even without an appearance of Sam Jackson's Nick Fury, you still have a film that prominently featured War Machine, Black Panther, and Falcon (I'm don't think I count Vision as "a person of color," though some might...at least allegorically). That's quite a few POCs for ANY comic book movie (considering the source material)...but where are the ladies? The Avengers have had a number of prominent female characters over the years (Wasp, Ms. Marvel, Monica Rambeau, Tigra, She-Hulk...those just off the top of my head) and while most suffer from the "pants-less" trope, I'm sure they could get updated costumes, same as the Scarlet Witch. Instead, we had ladies "checking out" of the film...Pepper Potts and Agent Carter have both departed (in different ways) and they're never shown on screen, even in flashback. Stark's new Girl Friday hardly counts as a female protagonist.

*sigh* (again). I liked Civil War as the popcorn film it was, and some of it was truly excellent stuff. But I found myself disappointed mere minutes after exiting the theater as the "refrigerator moments" started hitting me one after another. I don't like that. Especially considering the film contained several of my favorite all-time comic characters (Ant-Man, Cap, Bucky/Winter Soldier, and Falcon...and I'm an Iron Man fan from waaay back in the day), I wanted more. With the material they had to work with and the talent they managed to hire and the budget the film possessed, I expected...well, I expected to NOT be disappointed. And yet, here I am.

Probably should have been
a novel, not an RPG.

One final (really) note: when I watch a superhero film, I often get a vibe, and an itch, to play or run a particular RPG based on the action/story that's presented. This was no different. However, the RPG I found myself drawn to (based on the themes expressed) was Aberrant, which is unusual. I almost found myself picking up the PDF off DriveThruRPG (since I don't have my book here in Paraguay to flip through). Fortunately, I slept on it and woke up slightly saner remembering that characters like Iron Man and the Falcon don't fit into the world of Novas and Teragen. Still, I'm thinking a bit about Aberrant now, and how packed it is with cool ideas. Maybe more on that later.

Comparing DMGs (P. 3b)

In my last post on this series, I reviewed the second (middle) part of the DMG5, ostensibly devoted to explaining how a DM goes about creating an adventure for D&D. This is, by the way, makes the DMG5 something of a necessity for the aspiring 5E DM because WotC's free "Basic game" PDF still offers ZERO information on how to create or run adventures in 5th Edition, basic or not.

[that's as of v.4, by the way...just checked today. Remember this old post from January? Yep, still a crippled fucking product]

ANYway, today I want to write the comparison of the original (AD&D) Dungeon Masters Guide approach to the same subject in order to compare the two, and fortunately for all my readers it will be a blessedly short post, because there's not much to say: the original DMG is sadly lacking in any such information.

And I was pretty surprised at that, but it is what it is. The AD&D DMG provides a lot of information, rules, and guidance for running a game or campaign, but precious little information on actually creating adventures. There's some information in THE CAMPAIGN section ("Setting Things In Motion") in which Gygax tells the reader to design a dungeon with multiple levels of gradually escalating danger/reward. There's a sample dungeon ("The First Dungeon Adventure") that includes both a map and key. There are treasure tables and wandering monster tables and appendices describing TRAPS, TRICKS, and DUNGEON DRESSING...mostly just random tables and ideas. There are things that can be inferred by the reader from other sections of the book, but even the section of the book called THE ADVENTURE provides only additional rules (this is one of those sections meant to be read in parallel to the same section of the PHB) with little real guidance other than making sure you have a well-detailed map. There's nothing like what's found in the DMG5...it's enough to make me wonder how I ever learned to DM the damn game in the first place!

But then I remember that long before I ever picked up a copy of the DMG, I cut my teeth on Moldvay's Basic D&D set, with its step-by-step guidance for DMs and how to create adventures. Using Moldvay's book (and having a copy of B2: The Keep on the Borderlands) gave me information and a ready model to follow. And then, of course, I remember that Gygax's Dungeon Masters Guide is a book for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons...it is not a book for teaching the game but an a guidebook for a DM who wishes to play an advanced version of the fantasy role-playing game called D&D.

And because of that, I'm a little willing to give the author a pass. However, I don't see anything to this effect in the Introduction...in fact, what Gygax writes is:

"There are sections on the development of the campaign milieu, dungeon design, random creation of wilderness and dungeon levels, and the development of non-player characters. In fact, I have attempted to cram everything vital to the game into this book, so that you will be as completely equipped as possible..."

I suppose that, if one's game consists solely of delving dungeons in a fantasy world than you will have everything you need within the book. But one would hope for some guidance on adventure design other than how to draw a map on grid paper...the intro itself says there is information on "dungeon design," but I see very little of this, certainly not set out in any particular place/section of the book.

Required reading for the AD&D DM.

If taken as an advanced guidebook to a basic game (as I did, in my youth), then the original DMG is passable. If, however, the edition we call "1E" is to be taken as a standalone game (as I think Gygax intended), then I'm going to call it a failure. I may disagree with the actual organization and design choices of the DMG5 with regard to the subject of adventure creation, but at least that book requires no additional context to learn its material.

Disappointing. As I wrote, I consider adventure creation to be the main responsibility of a Dungeon Master. It would be nice to have more than a handful of scattered references strewn haphazardly through more than 200 pages of text.

And that's about all I want to say on the matter. See? Told you this would be short.

Comparing DMGs (P. 3a)

As we continue our comparison of the original (AD&D) Dungeon Masters Guide and the 5th edition version, we leap into the nitty gritty of "what it's all about," i.e. adventure creation. Without adventures, there's really no game play, and creation of adventures is the main responsibility of all Dungeon Masters. Well, unless you just want to run pre-packaged adventures all the time (but then, what are you getting out of being a DM? Free beer?).

Starting with the DMG5, we come to the largest section of the book: Masters of Adventure (Part 2), consisting of five chapters (Creating Adventures, Creating NPCs, Adventure Environments, Between Adventures, and Treasure). After reading the first three posts of this series, folks are probably expecting me to rant even more about how much 5E sucks (in and of itself, or in comparison to older editions). Au contraire, mon frere! There's actually a lot of good stuff in this section of the DMG5, and some of it that I quite like. 

That being said, it's still something of a mixed bag, and (for me, anyway) gets off to a rocky start. I'm an old school D&D player from way back (by which I just mean "I'm old" and have been playing the game since before the TSR overhaul of '83), so I take some umbrage with the idea that D&D adventures are "stories," at least in the same way as a TV show, novel, or film. For me, D&D adventures are stories in the sense of a horrific weekend camping trip: something you can talk about, complain about, laugh about, and have fun embellishing once you're back, safe and sound in your "normal" environment (home, office, etc.). Some camping stories are so memorable that they'll be brought up and discussed years later...some are only have enough pizazz for the Monday morning water cooler talk. They are "war stories" for people who don't actually go to war...that's kind of how I look at them. The "story" that's told is simply of the experience...an experience that was exciting and/or traumatic at the time, but really just an excursion, an escape from the usual "daily life."

No, no: D&D adventures (for me) are not formulaic stories. They don't involve heavy use of theme, they don't have rising action, twists, climax, and denouement except and unless such is provided by the characters' actions and the random fall of the dice. Certainly such things shouldn't be scripted like a film or TV show, nor should there be written dialogue or narration to perform. Fantasy gaming is fiction, but we are not creating a work of fiction in the literary sense.

[by the way, I'm only talking about D&D here; there ARE role-playing games designed for creating stories, addressing premise, etc. and I appreciate and enjoy those on occasion. They are a different type of RPG from D&D and have different elements of design that facilitate their objectives and style of play. Those DO create something like a work of fiction through the shared experience of role-playing...that is their purpose. But I'm talking about D&D gaming in this series, okay?]

So the introduction to this section of the DMG5 isn't great when it states that adventures are fundamentally stories and compares them to works of fiction. However, it follows with Elements of a Great Adventure, all of which are good (except for the Something For All Players portion...I disagree strongly with their "three pillars" bullshit), and seems to fly in the face of their "adventures are stories" statement (see the Heroes Who Matter paragraph). There's good, actual guidance here. But then it gets back to this "story" concept (after a rather large section justifying why you should buy published adventures...Gygax might write a sentence or two in passing suggesting you check out a published TSR module, but 5E will fill a third of a page to sell you on the idea), and how to structure your adventure like a story, with a beginning, middle, and end that just smacks of leading down the road to railroad style play, even if the authors are fairly explicit in advising DMs against railroading.

After that is 9-10 pages of tripe (random tables of "ideas" to create your adventure "story") before we get to what is arguably the most important part of the DMG5: Creating Encounters. Here's the section that finally tells us how we DMs are going to bestow rewards that lead to that improvement of character every player salivates for. First there's the obligatory braindead section entitled Character Objectives that seems completely out-of-place with everything that follows (especially as there are no guidelines presented as to how to reward non-combat character objectives like those suggested. Yes, players will want their characters to do things other than fight...why do you need to list "some of those things here" when they're not pertinent to the rules being presented? Just let them do stuff...STOP FILLING YOUR PAGE COUNT). Then we get to the nitty-gritty of Creating Combat Encounters. And even though I dislike and disagree with the method of earning XP in these later editions of D&D, this isn't a bad section and seems fairly good at estimating challenge level based on the few numbers I ran.

For example, I applied their number schemes to the old tournament portion of I1:Dwellers of the Forbidden City (after converting monsters to those of the 5E MM), and found the challenges appropriate for the 6-person, tournament party with a good mix of all four difficulty levels. I don't know how well their math holds up for their "Adventuring Day" chart, but at least I could follow their instructions...here, where there are actual rules, the DMG5 does a good job explaining a complex concept. Likewise, much of the "advice" section here is good (even in the Random Encounters section...though I dislike scaling random world encounters based on PC level). One thing seems clear: after making D&D all about the combat the last 15 years, they've gotten pretty good about the balancing act of challenging player characters.

Mmm...looks like I'm going to have to break this post up like the last one. Chapter 4: Creating Non-Player Characters is on par with the random tables provided in the original DMG; however, the latter book does more with less (managing to include detailed examples of NPC organizations/reactions, how interactions vary based on type of NPC, costs for spell-casters' services, hiring of non-human troops and how they get along). This section really needs to be used in conjunction with the spot NPC write-ups in the MM5 and the hireling section of the PHB5. While I like the villain options, I dislike them being here...if they are player options, put them in the PHB. Make a decision, take a stand: are evil player characters an option? Or are you going to go the "heroic" way of 2nd Edition? In the latter case, throw death clerics and anti-paladins in the MM and be done with it. Oh, and find a rogue archetype to replace the assassin while you're at it (how about a mountebank?). Why is there an assassin option in the PHB5, but the Death domain and Oath-Breakers are in the DMG? Because assassins are Sooo Heroic, right Assassins Creed lovers? Jesus H.

Okay, the last three chapters of this section are all good, mostly good, or excellent. I'll deal with Treasure first (even though it is the last chapter of the section). I'm not going to comment on the actual treasures or the new way of distribution: they're the same old-same old for a different edition that has its own system of parceling 'em out. What's great here is the Other Rewards section, which nicely consolidates a lot of different prizes adventurers might achieve: land grants and titles, blessings and charms, strongholds and medals and special training. A lot of good ideas here (many new) for carrots to dangle in front of the noses of players. And since 5E doesn't award XP for gold, this is a good way to make rewards mean something, as well as provide incentives for adventure.

Backing up, Chapter 5: Adventure Environments is the true "Creating Adventures" chapter, not that earlier, rollin-random-table-to-find-arch-villain-motivation thing. There's still a bunch of filler random tables that are high on my dumb-dumb scale (ah, yes...this dungeon, found beneath a farmhouse, was created by a lawful good beholder (without hands) to serve as his tomb until it was conquered by invaders...). After THAT, however, you get good sections on dungeon inhabitants and factions, dungeon ecology, MAPPING the dungeon, standard features (doors, secret doors, etc.), lighting, air quality, and hazards (molds, slimes, webs...what, no bottomless crevasse?). These are real rules and guidance, not random tables of ideas. This is followed by the WILDERNESS section, which is also good, detailing travel, mapping (finally those different scales from Chapter 1 become important!), movement, weather, environmental hazards (including high altitude and slippery ice...nice!), foraging, and random settlements...the latter of which is actually pretty cool and the most useful set of random tables in the whole book. This is followed by information on how to map a settlement, urban encounters, and law and order...a short, pointed, and useful section. After this is Underwater and Sky environments (both good and more streamlined than their AD&D counterparts), before (strangely) ending the chapter with Traps which, despite its strange placement, is good section, short with specific rules, and a tidy selection of sample traps (and no random table in sight? Was this part written by a different author?). This chapter (minus the beginning) plus the Elements of a Great Adventure and Creating Challenges (minus the "character objectives") sections from Chapter 3 could have been combined to create a real, useful tutorial in D&D adventure creation for 5th Edition.

Finally, we have Chapter 6: Between Adventures, which has a great compilation of downtime activities with real rules and no random "filler" tables. I'd skip the part about story arcs and such, but adventure seeding isn't bad and the campaign tracking section is much more in line with Gygax's notions of time...again, was this written by a different person than the one who gave us the sample calendar in Chapter 1? A list of maintenance/upkeep costs (including hirelings), simple stronghold construction and magic item crafting, plus rules for running businesses and finding buyers of magic items (not as easy as prior editions) are all great, simple systems, nicely compiled. The carousing table is a good one, though I'm not sure why higher level characters are more likely to be better gamblers...I'd probably make the last entry the "Makes an Enemy" option, instead. From my point of view, this was the most interesting and useful chapter through the first two sections.

Okay...I'll write my comparison with the original DMG's take on adventure creation in my next post.

Comparing DMGs (P. 2b)

[continued from here...I really hate to break this up, but the thing was already a giant wall of text]

In part 2a of this series, I went over Chapter 1 of the 5th edition Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG5). Chapter 1 forms the bulk of the first section of the DMG5 (which consists of three sections, total, plus four appendices). The rest of Part 1 (i.e. Chapter 2) consists entirely of a discussion on Creating a Multiverse for high level play: other dimensions, planes of existence outside the material plane, etc. As with the earlier chapter, there are few hard, fast rules here but mainly suggestions, or ideas. For example, the section on Planar Portals states "a portal can have any conceivable requirement" for opening, then lists a handful of possibilities. There are suggestions for which planes to include in one's campaign (one for fiends, one for celestials, one for elementals, etc.), but no default multiverse. Much of the chapter is taken up with sample planes, most of which are recognizable from the earliest editions of D&D, and there are "Optional Rules" scattered throughout the text. However, it's clear that uniformity is not on the list of priorities for 5E. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

[and that's really all I want to say on Chapter 2 of the DMG5; at least you won't need to buy a Manual of the Planes with this edition]

As stated in the initial post of this series, the AD&D DMG opens with a parallel of the Players Handbook, providing expanded information "for the DM's eyes only," prior to getting into any new material. This "new material" begins on page 86 with a section entitled THE CAMPAIGN. In this regard, there is some similarity between Gygax and the 5E design team: as with 5E, AD&D moves right to world building once the "nuts & bolts" are out of the way (5E just puts their nuts & bolts in the PHB5).

Gygax gets right down to it but, unlike the DMG5, he advocates a bottom-up approach to campaign creation. After congratulating the perspective DM on their new career as a "universe maker," he writes:

"...To belabor an old saw, Rome wasn't built in a day. You are probably just learning, so take small steps first. The milieu for initial adventures should be kept to a size commensurate with the needs of the campaign participants - you available time as compared with the demands of the players. This will typically result in your giving them a brief background, placing them in a settlement, and stating that they should prepare themselves to find and explore the dungeon/ruin they know is nearby. As background you inform them that they are from some nearby place where they were apprentices learning their respective professions, that they met by chance in an inn or tavern and resolved to journey together to seek their fortunes in the dangerous environment, and that, beyond the knowledge common to the area (speech, alignments, races, and the like), they know nothing of the world. Placing these new participants in a small settlement means that you need do only minimal work describing the place and its inhabitants. Likewise, as player characters are inexperienced, a single dungeon or ruins map will suffice to begin play. 

"After a few episodes of play, you and your campaign participants will be ready for expansion of the milieu. The territory around the settlement - likely the "home" city or town of the adventurers, other nearby habitations, wilderness areas, and whatever else you determine is right for the area - should be sketch-mapped, and places likely to become settings for play actually done in detail. At this time it is probably that you will have to have a large scale map of the whole continent or sub-continent involved, some rough outlines of the political divisions of the place, notes on predominant terrain features, indications of the distribution of creature types, and some plans as to what conflicts are likely to occur. In short, you will have to create the social and ecological parameters of a good part of a make-believe world. The more painstakingly this is done, the more "real" this creation will become. 

"Eventually, as player characters develop and grow powerful, they will explore and adventure over all  of the area of the continent. When such activity begins, you must broaden your general map still farther so as to encompass the whole globe. More still! You must begin to consider seriously the makeup of your entire multiverse - space, planets and their satellites, parallel worlds, the dimensions and planes. What is there? why? can participants in the campaign get there? how? will they? Never fear! By the time your campaign has grown to such a state of sophistication, you will be ready to handle the new demands."

- Gary Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, 1979

Here we see Gygax's blueprint for campaign creation: start small, expand as necessary. Don't overwhelm yourself from the beginning, focus on the needs of the players, mastery (for the DM) comes with time. Detail is good for creating the immersive process (making the game more "real").

My first DMG; mostly destroyed.

Note that much of what is discussed in these three paragraphs (I've included everything from the opening section of the chapter, minus the introduction), is similar to the advice provided in the DMG5, just minus the extra padding. Later on, he writes about considering ecology and climate, typical inhabitants and social class/rank in society, all with an aim towards a singular goal: creating a world that is "real enough" to create an enjoyable experience while still being fun, and not detracting from the game. The DMG, he explains:

"...this is a rulebook, not a text on any subject remotely connected to climatology, ecology, or any science soft or hard."

He writes that while there's a presumption of some sort of social rank/title structure in Dungeons & Dragons, it may be defined by individual DMs depending on their needs, and that some may prefer to draw on historical data (though as I wrote in the last post, Gygax provides a list of noble titles...both eastern and western...as well as a list of possible governments, both real and fantastical). This in addition to an overview of medieval classes and townsfolk of the kind that (presumably) fits his paradigm view of D&D as having a fantastical medieval society.

Following this information (sorry...I skipped the part about designing the first adventure; I'll return to that when comparing the DMG5's adventure creation section), he has a large section on economics, taxes, tariffs, and the like. Again, this information has specific, pertinent use for Gygax: it addresses how to deal with all the treasure the PCs will be accumulating (as the objective to the game system) and how this accumulation will interact with the campaign world. It is practical information, not simple "color" for one's campaign setting; it has consequence and reason for being in the DMG. He does mention different coin types (for his campaign) in passing, but there is no detailed thesis on designing money for one's campaign.

Directly after Economics, etc. (but still in  THE CAMPAIGN) comes three large sections describing Placement of Monsters, Placement of Treasure, and Placement of Magic Items. While there are no tables or charts in these sections, they are still "rules," directions as to how DMs should structure their campaigns for maximum benefit. These are less ideas or suggestions, more admonishments and warnings. They pertain to creating adventures within the campaign setting, with an eye towards preserving the campaign integrity, all towards that previously discussed priority of enabling long-term play and enjoyment. It may come off as heavy-handed ("How dare the author tell me how to run MY campaign?") and only actual experimentation with his methods over time will tell how if his assertions will be born out. I know that I've seen similar essays from more than one of our present day "Old School" writers, based on their decades of experience.

The final portions of the AD&D campaign section concerns the development of territory by players (not just building strongholds, but affects on the monster ecology) and a small section on "the chattel" (Peasants, Serfs, & Slaves). Again, these are actual rules regarding how fast (or if) monsters will repopulate areas, how land can be developed, and how strong armed uprisings of the populace will become if revolutions aren't put down quickly. This part of "The Campaign" is something fairly foreign to current editions of D&D, and I wouldn't expect to see its parallel. The point to note is that these are still rules, and ones pertinent to an older style of D&D gaming.

Oh, yeah...the Campaign section of the DMG ends with a sample dungeon and example of play. But we'll look at that in a later section of this comparison.

Comparing DMGs (P. 2a)

[continued from here]

Exactly what information should be in a guide for Dungeon Masters? This is probably a question that's been asked by every author/designer that set out to pen one since Gygax himself sat down in front of Ye Old Typewriter.

Mind you, I'm not asking this as mere hot air rhetoric...it's a serious question. One would probably want some sort of information on how to organize and run a game, probably something on designing adventures and maintaining (long-term) campaigns, and of course something about the "mysteries players should not know" (like exact descriptions of magic items). However, just how much detail is required on each subject, and what other subjects should be placed in such a guide (rather than in the handbook written for players)? Probably, the answer is subjective, and based on each group's view of the DM's role and scope of authority. I'm not saying that to be simplistic, by the way, just giving a little leeway for why two editions' DMGs might prioritize info differently.

Gygax's priority appears decipherable from his text, and it is two-fold. One priority (that I'd judge the lesser) is to present a certain uniformity of rules with regard to certain systems. Certainly not all systems..in the Preface, he admits the limitations of his own imagination and that even a codification of every eventuality would be undesirable, were such possible. The other priority, which he hammers on again and again, is to produce a superior gameplay experience, by giving the DM the tools to draw out a campaign...to provide a steady challenge to players that allows steady progress (not too fast, not too slow) while maintaining interest and engagement, thus prolonging the experience of adventuring in the fantasy "milieu" (which he terms as the world/setting). This appears to be his main priority, to such an extent that he obfuscates basic systems, leaving them to be discovered by adventurers in the course of play, rather than known from the beginning. Exploration of system (and eventual mastery) is, thus, one of the implied objectives/rewards of AD&D.

The 5E priority is a little different (and a bit tougher for me to articulate). What I get from the text is that it seeks to teach a person how to act as a DM, though not (like Gygax) with any particular aim in mind, save to provide a fun game for the players. It seems to be a bit of a "rah-rah" for world building, a "hey-this-is-the-fun-of-being-a-DM" as if the reader needed to be coaxed into believing such. Yes, yes, maybe I'm being too hard on the thing...like I said, it's tough to articulate (or guess) when the authors aren't particularly explicit about their objectives. Anyway, as we review, you can see if you agree or not.

Our basis for comparison review.

But let's get down to the actual comparison. Because the original DMG was laid out in such a way as to (first) be read in line with the AD&D Players Handbook, I will be using the DMG5 as the primary text and then referencing the corresponding parts in the original (AD&D) version. Cool? Okay.

As I wrote in my previous post, the DMG5 breaks up into three parts. The first part, Master of Worlds, sets out to show the aspiring DM how to create a campaign. This is what I'd call a "top down" approach, and not really "beginner level" stuff. I mean, you want to know how to make adventures and run games, right? Well, no, that comes later (which is why I think the priority here is to fire up the reader about DMing..."Look! You get to play God!" See?). First, there are the core assumptions of "default D&D" which, as I said in my 4E review, I think are pretty good, and nice to have spelled out. It is immediately followed by a "feel free to change them, here are examples" section. Which is like...what? Can I just learn the game before I start tinkering with it?

By The Way: I might as well get this out of the way because it's a recurring gripe. The DMG5 has a lot of...well, what I call "padding," but what others might call patronizing text. A lot of "helpful suggestions" of how to tweak things, and random tables with "ideas," just in case the reader is lacking in the imagination department. Presumably, anyone who's set out to play D&D (let alone RUN the game) is probably, hopefully, already oozing in the imagination department, or at least competent enough to appear imaginative by knocking off derivations of their favorite fiction (if you're not someone who likes to read, are you really going to be willing to read these giant rulebooks?). Some might find it insulting, some might find it a waste of space, and some might consider it both, but...well, you're going to find it throughout the DMG5.

Next up we have a section on creating the gods of your fantasy world. This is not establishing a cosmology mind you (why magic works, why there are monsters, etc.), but basically coming up with a list of strange syllable combos and their spheres of power. It's four pages of padding. There's nothing really useful here, just recycling some of the best concepts from the 3rd edition DDG (explaining monotheism, animism, etc. and discussing mystery cults) while providing no actual rules. Yes, there's a time and place for fleshing out the religions of the campaign, but that generally comes later. Again, this just seems to be "Look! You get to create the universe! Yay for you!" kind of stuff. And it's less useful than the example pantheons found in the PHB5 appendix.

Continuing the top down theme, we now move into mapping your world, and deciding which scale to use (province, kingdom, or continent). Interesting that the DMG5 actually says you can start with a top-down or bottom-up approach ("bottom-up" being small scale and expanding to suit the needs of the campaign), but there's no advocation for either approach...just a "whatever works for you." So far, not a lot of guidance going into this Guide. What is the importance of using a 1 mile scale for provinces, 6 miles for kingdoms, and 60 miles (per hex) for continents? Who knows...it's an unexplained mystery.

Next we talk about building settlements (villages, towns, cities) how to give them local color and atmosphere (aesthetic), and a list of government types that is cribbed almost completely from the 1E DMG (page 89), save that the original did not provide a table to randomize the list (because randomly dicing for the governments of your campaign world is good setting design?). We also have the same list of monarch ranks and titles (again, page 89) except that the DMG5 leaves out the Asian forms, the German/French translations, and the religious hierarchies which Gygax provides. Also, the DMG5 doubles the space it takes to describe their governments because it cites examples from the various prepackaged campaign settings that WotC is trying to hawk rather than actually giving you a useful guide for building your own.

Next is a section on commerce (a couple-three paragraphs) followed by a whole page on currency, most of which is used to describe the coinage of the Forgotten Realms setting as an example of how your money can be shaped. I mean...I don't know how to describe this without being insulting. It's padding and (again) it's stupid. Especially in a game where collecting wealth is such a small part of game play, due to there being no game mechanic reward tied to it (because 5E uses the same "XP for defeating monsters/challenges" paradigm we've seen since 3E). If cash means nothing, who gives a shit what it looks like? Even in games where it's valued (for accumulating XP or performing spell research or building strongholds), I've never seen a player who cared whether the copper piece was called a "nib" or a "thumb" or...aaaaaaagh! Stupid stupid stupid waste of space!

Then we have a section on "creating your own" currency (gah!) followed by languages and dialects (more useless padding...wasn't this info in the PHB5?). Then a section on factions and organizations and, no, we're not talking about factions in the dungeon or anything. This is about groups and guilds a player character might join and the way to gain status through a new mechanic called "Renown." And this entire concept (right down to acquiring Renown) is pretty much stolen directly from Gamma World (1st and 2nd editions) and their Cryptic Alliances. If you've played GW and want to add the (fantasy) equivalent of Cryptic Alliances to your D&D world, here are some "ideas" about it.

We follow this with a section discussing ways you might incorporate magic restrictions (in the legal sense), schools of magic (a la Dragonlance), "teleportation circles" (a la...video games?) and some ideas for making it harder to raise the dead (like if the soul has a different alignment from your character) all of which is, well, not worth the word count in my opinion.

After all this, on page 25 (really? I would've thought we'd be around 80-some by now), we finally come to a section called: CREATING A CAMPAIGN. And here we get what probably should have come first AND (here's the kicker) it's right in line with the sensibilities outlined by Gygax in the original DMG: start small, limit players' information, worry only about the immediate locale. Create a home base with a small starting region (about a day's travel from the base) and a nearby starting adventure.

Why wasn't this all up front? Why did I spend all this time figuring out the shapes of the continents, the gods of the multiverse, the politics of the various kingdoms...hell, the name of the currency...just to come back to this? No, it's not top-down; it's bottom-up! Now you tell me.

[remember how I said this edition was dumb? This kind of design is the reason I write things like that]

This nice little (less than a page) instructional for the beginning DM ends with the following words: "Most important, visualize how this area [the home base] fits into the theme and story you have in mind for your campaign. Then start working on your first adventure!" Nope, I guess it's still top-down!

I'm going to blow through the last twenty pages or so of Chapter 1 pretty fast because it's mostly filler, and this post is already long (I'm going to have to do my comparison with the 1E DMG in a separate post). The next section is Campaign Events which are basically ideas of cataclysmic, "world shaking" happenings to inject spice into your campaign. Why is this here? Are we already concerned that your campaign can't sustain play long-term? We haven't even been told how to stock an adventure site, and you're already giving us random tables for invasions, rebellions, setting changing discoveries, and extinction events. Talk about putting the cart before the horse! That's about five pages that could probably go in an appendix.

We have a section on tracking time and making holidays that is as about as useful as the currency section. There's nothing explaining WHY creating your own fantasy calendar or tracking time is useful EXCEPT THAT it helps you (the DM) schedule your world shaking events. So useless.

Look at Gygax's section on time in the AD&D DMG (pages 37-38) for contrast. He is very specific about why recording time is necessary: because it is yet another resource to track and be utilized by the players. Time is everything, and "superior players" (EGG's words) will make the best use of it rather than squandering it. He provides specific examples of how exacting time-keeping works in a campaign, and how it can track player action (including training levels, learning languages, constructing magic items, and paying rent). He, too, talks (briefly) about creating your own "fantasy calendar," but the part that is stressed is the time keeping itself. Everything that 5E focuses on (with regard to campaign time) is little more than color.

Okay back to the DMG5: after the section on time, we read how one should run their campaign with regard to Play Style, and we're told the two ends of the pole are Hack and Slash and Immersive Storytelling, with most campaigns falling to Something In Between. Again, this is pretty useless stuff.  Why are we worried about customizing play style (or Campaign Theme...that's the next section) when we haven't yet been instructed how to run the game? There's an issue here of a game that lacks a default paradigm of play...the DMG5 wants to give you ideas for creating your own paradigm ("it's a tool box!") but it's just a bunch of abstract thought exercises, rather than real rules or tools or direction.

We end Chapter 1 with a couple pages describing the four Tiers of Play, based on the player characters' level (Local Heroes, Heroes of the Realm, Masters of the Realm, Masters of the World) and what types of adventures they should be having at each tier, FOLLOWED BY three or four pages describing the different Flavors of Fantasy (broken down as Heroic Fantasy, Sword & Sorcery, Epic Fantasy, Dark Fantasy, Intrigue, Mystery, Swashbuckling, War, and Wuxia). Oh, yeah...and some examples from the game's past (all from when it was still published by TSR) that mixed the flavors (my word!). This is simply more pages of padding...the only actual "tools" here is a table that shows how much equipment PCs should start with if you want to start a campaign with higher level characters, and a list of Chinese/Japanese names for standard weapons (in case you want to inject "Wuxia flavor," you'd better know that in Japan a longsword would be a katana and a longbow a daikyu. Too bad that wuxia is a Chinese term for a Chinese genre, and 5E's cultural appropriation of the concept as applicable to "all Asian fantasy" - including ninjas and samurai - is a little embarrassing, and probably offensive to some).

OKAY...we're going to end this post there, and start writing a comparison with the original DMG, at least with regard to pertinent sections that parallel this opening chapter of the fifth edition Dungeon Master's Guide.

[here's part 2b]