Different Strokes

The other day, I was looking for video reviews of old adventure modules (something to listen to while doing housework) and stumbled across an old Goodman Games video in which four of their prominent designers, listed their Top 10 D&D modules (TSR era) of all time. 

As such videos go it was...eh. Par for the usual (as in, no mind-blowing opinions/info got dropped). And, yet, I was fascinated enough to go back and re-watch the thing and make up a spread sheet charting everyone's individual list. Because what was interesting was just how surprisingly crappy their favorite picks were and their justifications for including specific adventures.

That's "crappy" in my opinion...but my opinion is one of an adventure designer. And these guys are adventure designers...like long-time ones with more book credits under their belts than I will ever have. That is what caused me to sit up and take notice. You know, if three out of four designers list Sinister Secret of Salt Marsh as one of their Top Ten faves, then, hey, maybe there's something to take a look at there. On the other hand, when they blather on about Ravenloft being one of the greatest of all time with regard to design, it makes me question their abilities at all.

So I rewatched the thing and dived deeper. Some of the dudes had picks I agreed with. Some (clearly) did not. But what I came to realize, as I watched this video was that their lists were largely based on something more than "design." They were influenced by nostalgia, reputation, size/scope and...more than anything else...fond memories they've had of times actually running/playing these particular adventures. The guy who picked Ravenloft as his number one claims to have run it 5 or 6 times (even taking the same players through it more than once). The guy who listed the Desert of Desolation series as his favorite has run the entire thing more than once and had a blast doing so. 

The fact that they have fond memories of playing/running Ghost Tower of Inverness or Palace of the Silver Princess or whatever...because that's what they had the opportunity to play/run as a youth...should not be a knock against their opinions, any more than it should be a knock against MY lofty opinions of Forbidden City or Tomb of Horrors or whatever. The fact is, it's tough for MOST of us to be critical against the things we hold in esteem due to rose-colored glasses of the past.

And as my son likes to point out: different folks have different tastes. 

[of course he only points that out when it excuses his enjoyment of a song like Pitbull's "Fireball," which I am absolutely convinced is THE WORST SONG I'VE EVER HEARD. I don't know that it's the worst song ever written (that "honor" may go to some other Pitbull song), but it is hands down the absolute most awful piece of trash masquerading as "song-writing" that has ever tortured my ears. Worse than "Party in the USA." Worse than "I'm Too Sexy For My Shirt." Worse than "You Remind Me Of My Jeep." Worse than Crazy Town's "Butterfly." I would almost...almost...be willing to put it second to that stupid "Good Is The New Bad" song I had the misfortune to hear on Disney radio the other day (that one even makes Diego cringe), but then I hear Pitbull's opening "lyrics" and want to punch my face through a wall of glass. 

Yet everyone else in my family dig that stupid-stupid song. Even my wife (who claims to not like Pitbull). There's no accounting for tastes. I consider "The Hotel California" one of the best songs of all time, and some people hate the Eagles. But I would rather listed to Ice-T singing "Evil Dick" (from his Body Count days) than Fireball. F**k that garbage. I won't say I hope Pitbull dies a gruesome death...but if he were to spontaneously combust some day and all his gazillions of dollars be donated to some worthy charity, well, I can't deny I'd be more than content]

*ahem*

Now, as I wrote in my last post, all RPGs provide rules for participants to explore an imaginary environment, but they are distinguished from each other by HOW they execute this exploration. And it is in the execution of these "HOWs" that we can best judge them.

And, yes, because of the limitlessness of the (RPG) medium, it is possible to contort mechanics into doing all sorts of things that the design doesn't support. Back in the day, we transported a couple of our high level AD&D characters to the Marvel Superhero version of earth, converting all their stats and abilities to standard FASERIP scores. That was some bunch crazy (and I don't recommend it)...but for us, it worked and we had half-elf weather goddesses and psionic-slinging bards brushing up against mutants, cyborgs, and aliens...for a while anyway.

BUT, as I wrote about recently, different RPG groups have different priorities of play, similar to what Ron Edwards once termed "creative agendas," a term from the (now more-or-less obsolete) GNS theory postulated on the Forge. Dungeons & Dragons (the old pre-1983 version about which I'm concerned) pushed a particular priority of play and conceptually executed it rather well:

• the premise contained a joint objective (everyone wants treasure)
• deadly challenges force engagement (pay attention or die)
• asymmetry forced players to cooperate (different classes bring different skills to the table)
• simple mechanics increase accessibility (roll dice, look at chart)
• kitchen sink setting provides many possibilities for exploration (the length and breadth of pulp fantasy fiction)

For those who wonder why it is that D&D has remained "king" of the market for so long, one really only has to look at the excellent way in which the game executes its objectives. It's not that people LOVE "pseudo-medieval fantasy" ...some people want to retch at the idea of "high fantasy." It's the fashion in which the system functions and interacts that makes it the master of the RPG realm. 

The ONLY game that really comes close is Shadowrun. It has a joint purpose (players need to complete missions...for money). It has high pressure (i.e. deadly) stakes. It has SOME asymmetry...magic and cybertechnology don't mix well, and both are (generally) useful for completing missions. Plus the priority system of chargen ensures PC types have different strengths. But its setting...being both near future and far more defined...is far less mysterious (less avenues of exploration). And EVERYone has the ability to use firearms (the great equalizer) making many teams feel a bit "same-y." Also, the premise (PCs being beholden to missions given by Mr. Johnson) makes the game the equivalent of "quest-giver-at-the-tavern" Every Single Time...a rinse-n-repeat that gets old with no endgame in sight.

Unlike Dungeons & Dragons.

And that's the BEST of other RPGs...most fall down in even more ways. Asymmetry is the usual one; while most of the challenging RPGs do well forcing cooperation between PCs (safety in numbers!) none have quite the distinction...nor emphasis...between different PC types, even in games that have "classes" (including Marvel's "power types," Rifts' "O.C.C.s," Vampire's "clans," etc.). It's not like the VtM group is saying, "man, we really need a nosferatu to round out our coterie!" 

Here's the thing, though: that ain't a priority of play for MANY players of RPGs. Being challenged is a priority of play supported (and enhanced) by the design of Dungeons & Dragons, but some people aren't looking for that. Some people just want to explore a particular genre/setting. 

Westerns, outer space, superheroes, Lovecraftian exploration, Cold War spies, post-apocalypse, secret vampire society, zombie survival, steampunk time travelers, whatever...there are RPGs written to provide rules for just about any "imaginary environment" one might want to experience. You read it in a fiction novel, you saw it in a movie, you had a weird dream...wherever the strange inspiration came from you think it would be "cool" to live in that particular setting for a while. And that kind of play appeals to some folks: a shared daydream, if you will. 

Most RPGs fall into the category of facilitating this style of play. Most. 

D&D isn't about genre/setting satisfaction: there are better games that explore "pseudo-medieval" (Chivalry & Sorcery, Pendragon, Ars Magica, etc.)...better games, even, that explore struggles between law and chaos (Stormbringer, Warhammer) in a "realistic" fashion. D&D, as originally written, is wholly unconcerned with realism and almost unconcerned with genre emulation...save for the tropes of adventure fiction. 

The idea of genre emulation or setting exploration has a vast appeal. It's super cool! I get drawn into it myself! My shelves are filled with RPGs for settings/genres that are wicked-awesome. Zombie cowboys (Deadlands), pulp adventure (Hollow Earth Expedition), time traveling zeppelins (Airship Pirates), etc. In my experience all these games tend to be extremely short-lived, no matter how heavy-handed the GM (and it generally takes a heavy-handed GM to get the game even beyond the chargen stage). None have any long-term duration. And yet some people desire nothing more from their RPG than the type of exploration afforded by these genre-specific RPGs, happily jumping from one to another. One day ElfQuest; the next day Star Trek.

Different strokes for different folks.

There are other priorities of play found in those who regularly play RPGs...two more really. I don't really want to discuss either one of them, however, as I have nothing positive to say about them (different tastes, fine); likewise, of the two "unmentionables," one is only designed for incidentally. But neither is conducive to long-term play except in the most toxic and/or insular fashion. And these days, I am all about the long-term play. 

What I am now wondering...and what I have sometimes wondered in the past: is it possible to design an RPG that functions conceptually as well or better than D&D. AND...a "flip-side" thought...is it possible to write a genre/setting-specific RPG that generates the same type of "perpetual game experience" that D&D does. 

Considering it right now, I actually think the latter has already been done, at least in one genre. Heavily developed Traveller or games like Ashen Stars or Bulldogs...RPGs in which the PCs represent the crew of a single ship provide a reason for players to cooperate and "adventure" together, unfettered from the needs of being challenged in a D&D-type fashion...so long as the table is cool with that type of play. Lots of "imaginary environment" to explore in space; shared/joint concern (maintaining the ship); need for cooperation among the PCs...although the asymmetry isn't quite there. And with good reason: if each PC is responsible for one aspect of "ship survival" (engineer, pilot, etc.) and any PC gets killed, the entire ship goes down. The perils of operating in a hostile environment (same would hold true in submarine-type RPG).

Genre exploration is most usually executed with scripted stories...and while that's functional for that priority of play, it cuts out the beating heart of D&D, destroying what makes D&D great. And, yet, that is what many MANY individuals equate with fun, authentic D&D play...so much so that some DMs simply cannot run a game of Dungeons & Dragons without some sort of storyline/plot. Sad (to me), because the game as written takes care of player motivation, leaving nothing for the DM but to construct a world that is sound...an imaginary environment worthy of exploration. 

Why must you force story down the players' throats? What are you trying to prove? What has destroyed your trust in your players?

Different tastes. 

All right, that's enough for today. I want to take the dog for a walk before I pick up the kids from school. Next week they have the week off, so posting will (probably) be light. Have a happy one, folks!

"Everyone Has A Gimmick"

This is a bit of a "throwaway post," but I feel like I've got to get something down on Ye Old Blog, and I've just had a hard time writing anything lately. Oh, I've started a couple-three things...I've got a post titled "Time Warp," one called "Down Rabbit Holes," and a third called something like "World Without End." Oh yeah...something-something about encumbrance. But I really don't have the mental brain sweat at the moment to address all these potentially O-So-Profound subjects with the requisite gravitas they so richly deserve. 

So F it.

Instead, I'm going to hearken back to someone else's blog post of yesteryear, specifically this little doozie from Necropraxis called Only Ten from back in 2012. For some reason I've had this old post open on some random tab of my laptop for I-don't-know-how-long and I don't even remember why I was looking at it (let alone what I was thinking saving it). Maybe it came up when I was doing some search for Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play? I don't know...really I don't.

Anyway, for the disinterested, the gist of Necro's subject was the following question: if you could only keep 10 printed RPG books, which would make the cut?  Now I'm not sure about my lovely readers, but I happen to be a middle-aged dude who's been playing (and collecting) RPG material for close to 40 years, and while much of it has been sold, lost, or stolen over the years, I still hang on to a substantial amount of printed material. Enough to fill a bookshelf and a half plus a cupboard, and (perhaps) a large plastic crate or two.  And that's just the printed material. That's a LOT of books to pare down to just 10...and a particularly tall order for a packrat like myself.

Still, while I'm glad I don't actually have to burn the bulk of my library, it's an interesting thought exercise. And it's one I went through in my head earlier today: just what would I keep? Strangely enough, B/X didn't make the cut (due partly to me having memorized most of it, and partly having purchased PDFs from DriveThru...when I absolutely have to look something up these days, B/X is quite searchable on the ol' laptop). Mainly I was thinking of games that would allow me to play (or recreate) multiple genres of fantasy, interesting systems, or thoughtful design. Here's  my list at the moment (in no particular order of priority):

1. AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide
2. AD&D Players Handbook
3. AD&D Monster Manual
4. Heroes Unlimited
5. Maelstrom
6. Warhammer 40,000 Rogue Trader
7. Sorcerer
8. Vampire the Masquerade (1st edition)
9. Hollow Earth Expedition

I can't really bring myself to choose a 10th book...there are a few that could make the cut. The Fiend Folio, of course (and almost certainly would be). Deities & Demigods (the original) makes a strong case if only for its official ability score tables up to 25 and discussions on clerics, worship, and divine ascension. Beyond the Supernatural, Rifts, Gamma World, Deadlands could all go in there...even Ars Magica (1e), Orkworld, ElfQuest, or Over the Edge. And I hardly need not be mentioned how much I love both Ken St. Andre's Stormbringer (1e) and Marc Miller's Classic Traveller (I have the core book compilation from GDW)...that last one (Traveller) might even be able to edge out HEX in the #9 spot. 

Ugh...I completely forgot Twilight 2000. But it's box set technically consists of multiple books. If the original system had a single hardcover, it would leapfrog several of the "possibles" for the #10 slot. It just has a wonderful system for near-future post-apocalyptic games. 

The thing is, MANY of the games I own would be simple enough to recreate, and many could stand a rewrite using a different, more convenient system. Such was definitely the case with Shadowrun (my B/X style knockoff Cry Dark Future is a testament to that). Beyond the Supernatural or Gamma World could both be remade quite easily using B/X (see Mutant Future for an example of the latter). I've run great Top Secret games using the Story Engine system (first published with the Maelstrom RPG)...it can easily be used for other genres asking for "rules-light-story-heavy" mechanics. Of course, OD&D is easy enough to make out of AD&D...if one wanted...

Some may find it curious that 40K makes the list when it's not really an RPG. What can I say other than it provides exactly the kind of science fiction I want...one day, far in the future, I'll completely rewrite both it and HEX (Hollow Earth Expedition) using a different system from what they've been given. But I find their books to be incredibly imaginative and inspirational, as is. Nice art, too.

Folks might note there are no "supplements" making my list. I generally can write my own supplemental material (that's kind of what I do). That being said, I love Ron Edwards's Sorcerer supplements, especially Sorcerer & Sword. Unfortunately, Sorcerer makes the list because of its elegant design principles (and diabolic themes) more than because it's a game I play a lot (I don't). It's an inspirational reference, especially for its narrative sensibilities, and I like it better than other story driven games like Fiasco, Polaris, and Capes.

The real odd duck on the list though is (duh) Palladium's Heroes Unlimited, an RPG I've written enough of in the past. You'll note the cop out above where I don't pick any single particular edition of the game...there are a plethora of differences between 1e, "revised," and 2e HU, enough so as to really alter game play for the participants. 1e was the best written, but "revised's" tweaks to certain classes are really welcome (including the addition of the magical power set) and I would probably go with that. 2e is just a tad over-the-top...although if you want to include uber-powerful characters (equivalent to Thor or the Hulk) you really need to check out the "mega-hero" option in 2e. It's rather beastly, though nothing one couldn't work out for their own campaign (my buddies' long-running HU campaign in high school created their own "mega-powers" list using only the revised rules...long before the advent of a 2nd edition).

And, yeah, for those who hadn't already guessed, this is all just a rambling preamble to talk about superhero stuff.

As I wrote in my last post, my in-laws have been in town, and were supposed to fly back to Mexico on...mmm, Tuesday? Yeah, Tuesday last. But after our last road trip with them, the kids discovered that abuelo (their grandpa) hadn't watched any of the Marvel movies (The Avengers, etc.) and so decided to embark on an epic marathon of film watching...basically one movie per night for 2+ weeks (in chronological order), culminating in Avengers Endgame the night before they were supposed to leave town. And since it's summer time, and we still have things going on during the days and evenings (and we don't watch movies during dinner) this has meant starting 2-3 hour films around 10pm every night and not getting to bed till near 1am.  Um...yeah. And I still get up around 6:30 to take care of the one beagle I have left.

Consequently, I've been in something of a fugue state with a mind inundated by cinematic superheroics for much of the last month. Makes it a little hard to focus.

[hmm...wonder if that's had anything to do with my lack of a "will to write" lately. Certainly can't help]

Anyway: I am NOT about to start dipping back into designing superhero RPGs (again) as happened last April (wow! A month long tangent that started with this post!)...I've just got too many D&D irons in the fire at the moment (and little enough time for juggling those). But that Necropraxis article made me consider long and hard which hero game I'd bring with me to a desert island and I was, well, a little surprised at my own answer. Despite having written on or about the subject a thousand times in the past.

But in consideration for having the MCU force-shoved into my brain lately...well, sometimes I have to do something to spew the excess waste material from my cranium. Here are my current (as in, today, this morning) thoughts on the subject of superhero role-playing games (SRPGs):

• an SRPG should be run in real time, as much as possible. Day 1 of the campaign should start on a real world date (even if heroes/villains have been "training" or whatever for years). 
• an SRPG should be grounded in as much "reality" as possible (no picking up buildings by the corner, or flying faster than the speed of light). Super-technology can make impossible things possible, within reason, but shouldn't be readily accessible/understood by Earth humans (so as not to disrupt what passes for "daily life" in the real world)...at least when starting the campaign. Magic falls under the category of a "super-technology" (with the same stipulations).
• the campaign world should be set in the real world. Imaginary cities/countries (Metropolis, Atlantis, Wakanda) should be avoided. Extraterrestrial and extradimensional entities are okay, which can explain mythological-type beings (Thor or whatever).
• the campaign world should be allowed to spin out of control based on the occurrences of the game.
• all heroes/villains should start as "unknowns" to the general public, i.e. they have no reputation for being "super-anythings" before the start of play. Actions taken by characters will determine public perception.
• Day 1 marks the first appearance of super individuals in the campaign world
• an SRPG should be generally "free-wheeling" with logical consequences to follow
• no weapon fetishes: make and model of firearms and caliber of ammunition should have near zero impact on game play.
• experience increases effectiveness of characters. Active superpowers (things that turn on-and-off) either increase in scope/impact, or ability of character to use. Experience is gained through play. Time spent not playing will not result in experience.
• an SRPG is not a comic book. There is no plot immunity for characters.
• an SRPG is not a film. There are no guaranteed happy endings.
• an SRPG is a game about super (i.e. "greater than human") individuals in a human scale world and those individuals impact on the world. The PCs may become champions of the people or conquerors of the world. 
• The referee's job is to establish challenges for the PCs. For villainous PCs, these challenges can take the forms of law enforcement, task forces, and heroic super teams. Challenges should be commensurate with the scale of the PCs' abilities. Scale is determined by sphere of operation as mutually decided by the referee and the players.
• All PCs have a drive that allows them to push beyond the boundaries of ordinary humans.
• All PCs have a flaw that can be exploited by adversaries.
• All PCs have enough humanity to allow players (including the referee) to relate to the character. Thus, no artificial beings or alien creatures lacking human emotions, feelings, etc. The game is not about how well a player can portray a plant thing, inhuman monster, or celestial/infernal being. Likewise all PCs must be sentients of at least minimal intelligence for operating on planet Earth (the campaign setting); the game is not a comedy of errors based on an ignorance of cultural norms.
• There should be at least some randomness in determining a PCs particular "power set;" players are neither allowed, nor expected to come to the table with a fully formed character concept.

*Whew!*  Aaand...that's about it. I've decided that I'm no longer all that interested in forcing players to act cooperatively or assign them to super-powered task forces...I'm not even (particularly) interested in them acting as "heroes." Instead, I'd rather just offer them opportunities...multiple...just as one might with, say, an AD&D campaign setting. Being a planet such as we have, it's not like the PCs couldn't hop a plane and be most anywhere in less than 24 hours, so lot of possibilities for adventures are possible...and "story arcs" have nothing to do with any of it.

It's a little different from how I've thought about SRPGs in the past. 

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.

: )

National Blood Bowl League

This should be my last Blood Bowl post for a while...everyone can heave a sigh of relief.

I've been blogging about Blood Bowl since 2009...basically since I began this blog. Not terribly surprising since I've been playing the game since the second edition (published 1989) and been a ravenous fan of my hometown team since pretty much its inception.

[okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration...I wasn't a "ravenous fan" at age three (though my parents perhaps were)...my love for the team started circa 1983 with the inaugural season of Chuck Knox. I would have been nine years old at the time. I was already playing Dungeons & Dragons back then]

I've written before how I enjoy slipping on my gamer glasses and viewing the National Football League through a Blood Bowl perspective...it continues a snarky tradition of the "fluff" that I first encountered in 2E BB when the designers took the time to file off the NFL serial numbers for their own fictional Blood Bowl league, with teams like the "Darkside Cowboys" and the "Kichargo Werebears." It's all meant to be done in good fun; as I explained in this earlier post (from 2012):

The humorous fantasy world of Blood Bowl isn’t built on the standard, “logical” fantasy tropes. We’re talking about a fantasy world that imagines fans of many disparate cultures (Chaos mutants and high elves and orks and hobbits) rubbing shoulders in the stands and waiting in queue together for half-time refreshments. It’s not a RATIONAL fantasy world; it’s a silly and entertaining one. Sure the orkish team might eat any fallen opponents that aren’t carted off the field fast enough…but I don’t think that reflects necessarily on any real life pro-football team associated with the orks. Just as an orkish Blood Bowl team doesn’t really reflect the nature of ork tribes found in “standard” fantasy games and fiction (i.e. bloody awful, genocidal maniacs championing the cause of Chaos and evil by their very nature). In a standard fantasy world, one wouldn’t deal with an ork tribe in any way except at the end of a sword…in the Blood Bowl universe, one might trade them a high draft pick in exchange for a star blocker and a guarantee they won’t snack on the Halfling cheerleaders in the 3rd quarter.

Choosing the proper fantasy "team type" for the various NFL franchises is a mental exercises that I find amusing, engaging, and nicely intersects my love of both the sport and the game. Also, it's great for helping with color schemes for my painting (I must have enough BB minis these days to field 20+ teams). Generally, I base my decisions on a team's history and tendencies and overall "character" though I try to keep a particular proportion of species to the league (rarer team types show up in fewer numbers than, say, human or orcish ones), and this has been further influenced by the teams offered in various editions of the game, now in its 7th (?) edition.

While some teams are easy to pigeonhole as a particular type (the Seahawks have always been orcs, for example), others have been a lot harder to figure out, and many have shifted conceptually in my mind, generally due to rising and falling fortunes. For example, for the longest time I pegged the Buffalo Bills as a "human" team, generally based on my memory of them as a powerhouse in the 90s with an all-around slate of stars (Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Bruce Smith, Andre Reed, Don Beebe, etc.). However, their two decades of missing the playoffs (only one playoff appearance...in 2017!...since 1999), and a general failure to hit on draft picks, free agent trades, and coaching hires, has caused me to revise my opinion of them to a "halfling" team (nothing says futility like a team of halflings). A consistent lack of "team identity" contributes to this. Plus, of course, Buffalo wings.

[halflings in the Blood Bowl setting, are more known for their chef skills than their play]

The solid Bills' teams of the 90's are more the outlier...they show the potential of the team (yes, halfling teams can be competitive...I've seen them win tournaments in my home games. They're just a challenging team to use). Anyway, as I'm using the current 32 team league as currently constructed, I generally give more weight to team histories since the realignment in 2002. Generally.

With that being said, here's how I see the NFL currently; there are quite a few differences from my thoughts back in 2010, when I first went through this exercise:

AFC East

Bills: Halfling
As explained above.

Dolphins: Wood Elf
They thrived for years on a good passing attack, but they've just had a tough time (in recent decades) in putting it together. Wood elves are notorious for being very expensive and very fragile and running them for long term success is a tricky bit. The 'Fins miss Don Shula.

Jets: Halfling
Like Buffalo, I had these guys down as "human" for a long time, but despite a handful of playoff appearances the J-E-T-S have been a mess for a long time. Joe Namath's famous bravado I chalk up to that of a precocious (and slightly skewed) Hobbit, who somehow managed to survive long enough to acquire a decent suite of passing skills. The antics of these guys (name me a Jets QB of the last 15 years and I'll name you a ridiculous incident or scandal associated with him) borders on the comical, and halflings are the court fools of the Blood Bowl circuit. Prove me wrong Adam Gase.

Patriots: Dark Elf
I've held the Patriots to be elves for a long time, but I long ago changed my mind to think of them as the Dark variety, rather than High Elves. Sure there's the whole cheating thing, but more than that is the fashion in which they thrive in the passing game without the use of star wide receivers. Dark elves don't have true "catchers" (haven't since 2nd edition anyway) instead making use of a running game and dangerous "bashy" types (witch elves, assassins, etc.). For a while in 4E they were allowed to field a minotaur, and I'd be willing to stat one out as Rob Gronkowski. Anyway, they always seem to be playing cold night games in December (and January) and that's says "Dark Elf" to me far more than the sunny goody two-shoe variety of point-ears.

AFC North

Bengals: Wood Elf
Best as a fast, passing attack, but prone too breakage and expensive.

Browns: Chaos Dwarf
Mostly hobgoblins.

Ravens: Chaos Renegade
I had these guys as Norse for a while. They're not. They're a bashy group of miscreants that sometimes get the combination right. Lamar Jackson is a skaven...we'll see how long he lasts before his leg gets broken a la Randall Cunningham (yes, I know he's compared a lot to Michael Vick, but his physical profile is much more like Cunningham, and Vick was a far better passer). "Chaos Renegade" is a new team type for the latest BB edition, a throw-back to the original Chaos All-Stars of 2E that features neither Beastmen nor Chaos Warriors, just cast offs from various team types (generally of the evil variety) and a bunch of Big Guys (trolls, ogres, minotaurs). Tough to reign in, but Harbaugh's proven to be a solid coach.

Steelers: Orc
I kind of hate this pick because I hate the Steelers, but it fits, and Pittsburgh's wa-agh is nearly as good as Seattle's. Also, I dislike it because "Big Ben" Roethlisberger is far easier to model as a chaos warrior than an orc thrower...I guess you just have to give him a couple "+s" to strength (he's still tough to bring down). On the other hand, Roethlisberger's been more injury prone in recent years which fits with an orc thrower's lesser AV (armor value) score. Yeah, orc.

AFC South

Colts: High Elf
Is there anything more High Elf than a team that sported Johnny Unitas, Peyton Manning, and Andrew Luck? Come on. Plus those Royal Blue jerseys and shining white helmets? Really?

Jaguars: Amazon
I'm relying a bit on fluff here, but the Jags have had such a difficult time finding consistency over the years that it's tough to go on anything else. Besides the jaguar is found in the same region of the world from whence come the warlike Amazons (in the Warhammer world). And Gardner Minshew's headbands and cut-off shorts would certainly fit with normal Amazon attire.

Texans: Undead
See this post.

Titans: Goblin
I held these guys as orcs for a long time, but they're not. Just a bunch of goblins with the occasional troll or goblin looney/fanatic/bomma/pogoer thrown into the mix.

AFC West

Broncos: Dwarf
Nothing changed from 2010. Manning had to fall down to dwarf levels of effectiveness to wind up on this team.

Chargers: Elf Union
I'm convinced. The chargers are elves, not orcs as I wrote nine years ago. They're not quite Wood Elves, but they are much more of the "traditional" (2E) elf team that the latest Elf Union type seems to model. From Fouts to Rivers these guys can sling the rock...and face all the usual downfalls of that team type. LaDainian Tomlinson was one of those rare (and expensive) elf blitzers that thrived in both the running and passing game.

Chiefs: Human
I have gone back and forth on this one. How do you classify a team that had both Christian Okoye and Priest Holmes? Tony Gonzalez and Derrick Thomas? Trent Green and Patrick Mahomes? Marty Schottenheimer and Andy Reid? Though they haven't had a Super Bowl championship since 1969, they've had success and consistency, but in vastly different ways. As such, I'm most inclined to make them "humans" with the occasional ogre ally, rather than a pure ogre team as I wrote previously...comparing them to the Oldheim Ogres (hardly a successful franchise) is grossly unfair. They've showed versatility and the ability to thrive in multiple strategies, even as ultimate victory has often eluded their grasp...that's part and parcel of a human team in Blood Bowl.

Raiders: Goblin
I don't know what I was smoking before. The Raiders are a goblin team, just for their pure goblin mayhem. There are no Chaos Warriors or Beastmen on this team...just goblins (they traded their troll to Chicago last year). Jon Gruden is a goblin. Raider Nation are goblins. The Oakland Colisseum (don't give me this "RingCentral" BS) is as goblin a stadium as they come. And Las Vegas is a city packed to the brim with goblins and their ilk. Goblin goblin goblin.

NFC East

Cowboys: Dark Elf
Any team that chooses Pepsi over Coke is evil. 'Nuff said.

Eagles: Human
Ugh...this one is so hard. I keep wanting to make them skaven or "underworld" (skaven-goblin) but mainly due to the city's rather notorious fanbase. But they're humans. Hooligans, sure...these ain't the Bright Crusaders (maybe if "Saint Nick" was still starting for the team?), but that's not reflective of the team on the field. The Eagles have been at their best when they've been an all around, versatile team. Balanced is the proper term...which is another trait indicative of the humans in Blood Bowl.

Giants: Dwarf
Nothing's changed here.

'Skins: Orc
Ditto these guys. Amazing the difference that ownership and coaching makes...just like in Blood Bowl.

NFC North

Bears: Chaos
Still an easy pick.

Lions: Underworld Denizens
I've upped my opinion of the Lions. With the addition of the Underworld Denizens team to BB (a combo of goblins and skaven based on the famous Underworld Creepers), I'm inclined to upgrade them from a pure goblin team...they've just had too many stars that fail as "goblins." Matthew Stafford...man, Detroit is going to miss him when he's gone...as I'm sure they miss Calvin Johnson.

Packers: Human
The prototypical "human" team.

Vikings: Norse
Ha ha very funny. But this is another tough one. Fran Tarkenton versus Daunte Culpepper versus Kirk Cousins? Plus throw in Adrian Peterson, Chris Carter, and Randy Moss. The one constant seems to be a very tough defense, on both good teams and bad. Give me the slow-footed Norsemen who all carry the "block" skill.

NFC South

Buccaneers: Chaos Dwarf
Still.

Falcons: Skaven
Still.

Panthers: ???
I'm at an absolute loss. I have "lizard man" written in my notes, but that's one Blood Bowl team I've never owned, used, or played against so I really don't know how they handle. I mean, Steve Smith was small and speedy like a skink, but he was also a mean SOB who didn't shy away from contact. Is Cam Newton a kroxigor? What about Kerry Collins or Jake Dehomme? And how do you classify Kuechly, Peppers, and Olsen...let alone Christian McCaffrey (Kyle Allen is just "Collins 2.0"). The Panthers have had success, but not fantastic success (a couple Super Bowl appearances but no trophies). They fling it around a little too much to be called a serious running team, but they run too much to leave that out of the discussion...plus a feisty, tough defense that (for me) takes human teams off the table. Plus there's "River Boat" Ron Rivera, willing to gamble on crazy schemes and unorthodox coaching decisions. They're a little too coherent to be called a Chaos Renegade, but maybe straight Chaos? Maybe...Newton could definitely be a solid Chaos Warrior out of the Carolina wasteland.

Saints: Nurgle
See this post.

NFC West

Cardinals: Undead
I know I've referred to the Cards as halflings many times over the years. But two things have changed my mind on them in the last decade+ besides they're changing fortunes. One is the continued presence of the immortal Larry Fitzgerald; apparently, the star is a vampire who sleeps away the off-season in a restful torpor, only to be revived in August by whichever necromancer has taken the helm of the franchise. The other reason is that Arizona is where old players go to resurrect their careers.

Forty-Niners: Dwarf 
The running game is imperative, but it seems to be back, as is the violent defensive front. Dwarves are a pain in the ass...just like the Niners. They have all the tools they need to become a new force in the west, if they can get competent play out of "Jimmy G."

Rams: Skaven 
Nothing's changed here. Steve Jackson's been replaced by Todd Gurley. Aaron Donald provides a lot of destruction in a small (for a defensive lineman) package. And Sean McVey is doing what he can to recreate his own "greatest show on turf" with an elaborate offensive attack. Moving the team from the subterranean caverns of the St. Louis "Dome" to the glitter and sleaze of Los Angeles means nothing: the rats are still the rats.

Seahawks: Orc 
And the orcs are still the orcs.

All right...that's waaaay more than enough. Sheesh! In between actually watching football and doing the usual family stuff (including multiple games of Blood Bowl with the kids), this post took nearly three days to write. As I wrote at the top, this should be my last BB post for the foreseeable future...and probably my last post period for a bit. I'm heading out of town at the end of the week for an early vacation and we won't be back till after the Thanksgiving holiday.

Later Gators. : ) 

RPGaDAY 2017 #22

From the #RPGaDAY2017 challenge (info here):

Which RPGs are the easiest for you to run?

Ha! Note the plural in the question: RPGs, not RPG. If it was only the singular, the answer would be self-evident...I can run B/X Dungeons & Dragons practically in my sleep (actually, most editions of D&D, if you're just asking me run the thing and not prep and run). When I was running a regular game down at the Baranof, I could prep a multi-session adventure of B/X over my lunch break and run the thing despite two pitchers of beer and a very loud karaoke bar next door. Very easy.

But the reason it's so easy is because I've run it a lot. With practice, everything becomes easier (assuming you're approaching a thing with mindful intention). And so, when asked which games (plural) are easiest for me to run, it's really simple a matter of listing the games I've had the most experience (i.e. "practice") running. These would be (in order):

1. Dungeons & Dragons (including 1st edition AD&D, B/X, BECMI, and 3E)
2. Marvel Superheroes (the Jeff Grubb original, both Basic and Advanced)
3. Vampire the Masquerade (1st & 2nd edition)
4. Gamma World (2nd edition)
5. Stormbringer (1st edition)

Boot Hill (2nd edition is my favorite) is fairly easy for me to run as a one-off session, but I've had pretty much zero experience running it as a long-term...or even multi-session...campaign. I imagine that doing so would be fairly tough without a real investment of time and attention to a particular setting (Western films and stories, the main inspiration for BH, all tend to center on a single town and scenario/situation).

These RPGs I've listed are systems in which I've run long campaigns, and I've an idea of how their games evolve and develop over time. These days, I'd probably stay away from Marvel (sorry, Jeff!) because I'm not a huge fan of its system/scale, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be easy for me to run...it's VERY easy, just not something I'm interested. The same holds (mostly) true for Vampire and Gamma World (the way they're written), though they might be more fun (for me) with a little modification to the basic rules and setting premise. Stormbringer is probably the easiest of the BRP games to run, mainly because its combat is more abstract, but putting together an actual campaign that doesn't bump into the albino sorcerer and his trail of wreckage (and making the campaign meaningful prior to the PC inevitable grisly demises) can be a real challenge.

I've run plenty of other games, but none of them are what I'd call "easy," either due to absurd fiddlyness, unfamiliarity, or badly flawed systems (examples include, Albedo, Sorcerer, and Rifts, respectively). The easiest ones are those I've listed...pretty sure that's enough for this post.

Jessica Jones (Addendum)

My main review still holds true.

"You don't want to watch? Fine."

Just took the time to finish watching the last couple episodes of the Jessica Jones series on Netflix. Excellent. Ends on a perfect note. The last two episodes are great, and are as tough to watch as the earlier stuff (though for more gruesome reasons). Very clever, very well done.

I see now the reasons for the inclusion of IGH (as a set-up for the following season). Still dissatisfied that this ended up involving the Simpson character (too much coincidence)...but from a filmmaking perspective it just "tightens the strings." Part of the problem with shows that involve large ensembles (take Lost as an example) is you end up with a lot of loose ends flapping in the breeze...which might be "realistic" (in the real world sense) but perhaps unsatisfying to the paying audience who wants to see everything resolved.

On the other hand, the wife and I just finished watching the series finale of Downton Abbey last week, and the ending held exactly zero surprises...everything, more or less, perfectly resolving the way folks would like it to resolve. Which is fine, because, in the end Downton Abbey is a feel-good drama, a type of show that you don't really see (it doesn't usually make for compelling television).

Jessica Jones is not "feel good," and it would have felt wrong to end on a 100% positive, upbeat note. The last shot is a great one...I'm not sure if this brand of darkness really fits with the Marvel milieu, but it sure as hell is great television. As I was saying the other day, these comic-to-screen adaptations don't have to be cannon. What the show's creators have done with the Jones property is pretty amazing.

Sweet Christmas.

And the adjustments they've made to Luke Cage are fantastic, too...Michael Colter's portrayal gives us a much more interesting, nuanced character than the caricature that was too often on display in comics and animation (though I haven't read any of his recent stories...like any of the New Avengers stuff...so it's possible I've missed a lot of character development). Most of what I've liked about Cage in the past is his interaction with Danny Rand, the way the two complement each other. But the interaction between Cage and Jones is even better, bringing out additional layers I've never seen in the comics. It's much more interesting (to me) than the usual romantic relationships in action-dramas...or even your average romantic-comedy, come to think of it.

[I say "interaction" not "chemistry," as the latter doesn't seem to really be there. However, I'm not sure how much of that is by design...Jessica Jones, as written for the show, is not the type of person to easily have chemistry. And Cage has always been a hard-case...the unbreakable skin has been a metaphor for his personality for much of the character's existence]

So, it was good. Good enough that the series as a whole easily makes my Top Ten list of live-action Marvel fare. That's not hyperbole, just by the way...I actually went through the current list of live action Marvel films and television series to make sure. My current list (solely based on alphabetical order):

1. Ant-Man
2. Captain America: The First Avenger
3. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
4. Daredevil (the Netflix series)
5. Guardians of the Galaxy
6. Incredible Hulk (the Ed Norton film)
7. Iron Man
8. Jessica Jones
9. Spiderman 2 (the Alfred Molina/Doc Ock film)
10. X2: X-Men United (that's the second film)

I mean, I like the Avengers films an awful lot...they probably fall just outside of my Top 10, and the films listed aren't without their warts. In fact, a couple of 'em may not even be great cinema...but each of them has something special that (for me) distinguishes it. A really awesome villain for example (Alfred Molina, Tim Roth), or a fun and playful version of a traditional protagonist (Ant-Man, Iron Man, Star Lord) or jut a damn good marathon of storytelling (Daredevil and Jessica Jones).

[actually, just looking over the list I see that all of these films have great antagonists. I'm a villain guy, I guess...it's the Dungeon Master in me]

Okay, that's it. Time to do some chores (including some work on the book).

Holmesian Subclass and Race Index

Sorry...nearly forgot about this. Just for ease of reference here are the links I promised for the whole slew:

Cleric Subclasses
- Druid (and Spells)
- Monk

Fighter Subclasses
- Paladin
- Ranger

Magic-User Subclasses
- Illusionist (and Spells)
- Witch

Thief Subclasses
- Assassin
- Bard

New Race Hybrids
- Half-Elf
- Half-Orc

A very fun exercise for Yours Truly. I'll be interested in seeing how they compare to the versions in Blueholme Compleat, once Mr. Thomas finally gets the book published (I'm making an assumption about what I'll find in BC...I didn't actually have the opportunity to peruse Michael's play test documents). Regardless, these will serve my purposes.
: )

Basic Weapons

Most of my blog posts are fairly "off the cuff" (in case anyone hadn't noticed), something that gets me in trouble more times than I'd like. Of course, even when I do "plan out" posts, things don't always go as planned, so most of the time I'm, like, "why bother?"

Well, here's one of the times I'm bothering (just a little)...I wanted to talk about the weapons I'm including in the new "heartbreaker," but then I realized that just a little explanation might need an extra post or two, and then I thought, shit, I probably need to explain where these damn weapon list come from in the first place. Because, you see, I'm not terribly interested in including "design notes" in my publications. It's not that such design notes aren't useful or interesting (usually I find them interesting, when I'm reading other people's work), but A) I try to NOT pad page count (to keep costs down), and B) I have a blog to ramble on about why I do stuff.

[for instance, remember last month's multi-part discussion on chopping saving throws? See, that kind of stuff I don't want to have to explain in the game book itself. Putting it on the blog allows interested people to see my bizarre thought process...it also provides a forum of sorts for feedback in the form of dissenting opinions expressed in the comments section]

ANYway...basic weapons. Let's talk about where these weapons come from.

Prior to AD&D (1st Edition) with its extensive list of diverse and different pole arms and swords, we had an extremely simple list of weapons to choose from. The list in Holmes Basic (published prior to the release of the 1E PHB) is the exact same as the list found in Men & Magic, LBB #1 of OD&D. For the sake of the post, here it is (exactly as it appears in OD&D):

Dagger 3
Hand Axe 3
Mace 5
Sword 10
Battle Axe 7
Morning Star 6
Flail 8
Spear 1
Pole arm 7
Halberd 7
Two-Handed Sword 15
Lance 4
Pike 5

[the number listed next to the name is the cost of the weapon in gold pieces. There's no difference between OD&D and Holmes, save that Holmes charges 2 gold for a spear instead of one]

I won't bother with the missile weapons but the list is the same in both OD&D and Holmes.

It's not a bad starting list but there are a couple interesting things to consider. First, it has separate entries for "pole arm," "halberd," and "spear," and "pike." Second, it's listed in no discernible order: the list is neither alphabetical, nor arranged in ascending order of cost, nor by grouping of weapon type (for example, axes together). There's also some conspicuous absences that we find in later editions (like the "short sword" and "war hammer"), yet it includes weapons that are missing from later Basic editions (morning stars, flails, halberds, and pikes).

So where does this list come from? I mean, sure, Holmes gets its list from OD&D, but where does the list originate? And why was this the list the one finalized for inclusion in OD&D?

As usual, we need to go back to Chainmail to answer these questions.

The weapons found in OD&D are the exact same weapons (and presented in the same order) as those found in the Man-To-Man combat section of Chainmail. Chainmail has, in fact, three different combat systems within its contents: a mass combat system for troops on the battlefield, a "fantasy combat" system (for fantasy types engaged with other fantasy types: hero versus dragon, etc.), and a "man-to-man" system for one-on-one fights between individual, normal folks.

[actually, it has separate rules for tournament jousting, too, but I'm not sure I'd count that as "combat"]

Note I'm saying normal, non-heroic types: "hero versus hero" falls into the "fantasy combat" system (a hero kills another hero on a 2D6 roll of 8+, regardless of weapons and armor...well, unless the hero's wielding a magic weapon), and "hero versus normal" is better represented by the standard battlefield system (as heroes and superheroes mow through groups of troops). Nope, the man-to-man is strictly for two normal dudes facing off in a duel. The man-to-man system is supposed to be used for "small battles and castle sieges" and it compares the attacker's weapon with the defender's "armor protection type" to arrive at a (2D6) target number for killing the dude.

The classes of "armor protection" will be familiar to players of the basic D&D: no armor, shield only, leather, leather & shield, chain, chain mail & shield, plate armor, and plate with shield. Each weapon has a different "kill" number depending on the armor type: for example, a battle axe only needs a 7+ against chain (even with shield), but an 8+ against lighter armor types, a 9+ against plate, and a 10+ against plate and shield. A dagger is great against "no armor" (6+), but it's chance of success goes steadily downward from there up to 12 for plate (with or without shield).

The weapon types are classified by numbers, from #1 through #12 in the exact order presented in both OD&D and Holmes Basic:

1. Dagger
2. Hand Axe
3. Mace
4. Sword
5. Battle Axe
6. Morning Star
7. Flail
8. Spear
9. Pole Arms & Halberd*
10. 2-Handed Sword
11. Mounted Lance
12. Pike

[*halberds are indistinguishable from pole arms in man-to-man combat but provide an extra die in mass combat]

Here, the number or "class" of the weapon makes a difference in who hits first in melee, whether or not the defender has a chance to parry, and whether or not either party receives additional blows in the exchange. This is provided by comparing the weapon class of each opponent to one another. For example, the attacker (person who initiates combat) always strikes the first blow, unless the defender has a weapon "two classes higher" (say, if the defender had a spear (#8) and the attacker was using a morning star (#6) or lesser weapon).

This can get rather complex. For example, a person using a sword (#4), attacks a Swiss pikeman (or "piker," as I prefer to call 'em). The piker (#12) gets the first blow in the 1st round (defender with weapon two classes higher), but strikes second in all subsequent rounds (opponent with weapon class two classes lower than the other strikes first). However, because the swordsman is eight classes below the pike, "the defender gets the first blow and may parry the second or strike the second." Based on the text that follows, it appears that this only applies when the defender is the swordsman, although pikes still always receive first blow over lower class weapons if there is a charge. Furthermore, because the sword is more than eight classes lower, the swordsman is allowed to strike three blows every round. If the swordsman was wielding a flail instead, he'd only get one extra blow (two total)...though when exactly these blows occur (prior to the piker? divided before and after the piker's blow?) and how the parries apply are mysteries unsolved by the text.

The point here is that these weapons and (especially) their arrangement matters. They are classified by length and weight, because this is Very Important Thing in melee combat. Not damage (they all kill their opponents, though the degree of success they have is dependent on their effectiveness versus the type of protection utilized). Timing and distance, folks.

I used to hate combat in ElfQuest (the RPG) back in the day because its "strike rank" system based on combatant size and weapon length did not model the fighting found in the comic books. In the comic, Cutter and his short sword makes quick slice-n-dice work of trolls with their spears and pole arms, he's so fast on the scamper...in the game, he'd have his arm cut off before he could strike a blow. What I didn't realize was that the Chaosium's combat system was taken from RuneQuest (I presume) which tries to model a more historically accurate form of combat. At least, that's what I've read (never having played RQ).

Prepare to die, shorty.

This is very different from how combat in D&D eventually developed, using the D20 roll and the "Alternative Combat System." The advantage the ACS has is that it's applied consistently...there's only one method of combat in D&D, whether you're dealing with man-to-man duels, man-on-troop brawls, or man-on-monster slaughterfests. One unified system. Unfortunately, the system leaves quite a bit to be desired (see prior discussions on ghost-fighting and dragon slaying, not to mention everyone's usual bitches about mass combat, armor reducing damage, etc.).

Moldvay's Basic game at least steps away from the Chainmail battlefield and gives us a weapon list more befitting what one might take into a dungeon setting. No pikers here, though even a spear is a stretch (and I'm with Charles on the 10' pole, too). Here (in Moldvay) we also see the advent of two-handed weapons striking last...not a terrible attempt to model the difficulty of fighting with a large weapon in cramped spaces. However, Moldvay has its own problematic parts, like short swords and "throwing hammers."

But we're going to talk about those in subsequent posts this week.
: )

By the way, one thing I do NOT intend on discussing is the extensive AD&D weapon charts...they're a hot mess because of their attempt to "patch" the realism that got dropped in the move from Chainmail combat to abstract combat. Yes, "realism"...Chainmail wasn't supposed to be abstract, it was blow-for-blow, only intended to model killing an opponent (anything that wasn't a "kill" - lesser wounds and fatigue, for example - are ignored outright). But all that space requirements and attack versus armor and speed factor jive...all that just served to complicate (and render absurd) the abstractness of the Alternative Combat System suggested in OD&D. For folks who love it...have at it. I don't plan on discussing in much in the coming days.

Fat Frog Challenge Winners!

I am sorry to have been so late in getting this out, but there were quite a few good entries, and my weekend was exceptionally busy (hope everyone had a happy Father's Day...I did!). However, I did go over all the entries for the Fat Frog Challenge, and yes, I have picked out my Favorite Five...actually, there was a near-tie for 5th place, so you've got six to peruse!

As I said in the beginning, "judgment" was rendered by nothing more scientific than "what appealed to me." I do enough statistical analysis and empirical consideration in my regular life and game design...this was supposed to be fun. So without further ado, here's how I ranked 'em:

#6 The Frog God's Sinkhole (by Rorschachhamster) - I just couldn't leave this one out. Even though it's a bit less polished than the Top Five, the guy used my own idea...at least, it's pretty close to my original idea (I, too, was planning on a sinkhole entrance to the frog god's lair). That and the extensive use of frog critters (froglings, frog champions, undead frogs) made this an excellent example of "unified theme." It also made me re-think my own "froggy dungeon" as I, of course, wanted to be different.

#5 Madness of the Frogmen (by David Brawley) - A nice little RC/BECMI adventure, this one not only incorporated Mr. Short's statue as a new magic item, it added several new monsters (including illustrations) and a backstory of the war/rivalry between frog men and croc people. A nice touch with good potential for role-playing and non-combat problem-solving. Though why not simply use the Frog Folk from my B/X Companion?

#4 Deceit of the Demon Frog (by Dwayne Gillingham) - One of several entries that incorporated a romance theme, a play on the "frog prince" fairy tale, AND a "switcheroo" at the end. Of the bunch, this was the best done...it was simple, yet had plenty to do and had a bit of light-heartedness to it. It is also the only adventure that credits maps to someone other than the author (cartography: Robert Conley); a little amazing that my no-prize challenge warranted collaboration!

#3 Sir Froig (by ze bulette) - Not even an adventure per se, but a plug-in encounter with an interesting NPC. This kind of thing is great to throw into any campaign...it makes players stop-and-think, putting them (at least momentarily) into the shoes of their characters while they figure out just how to approach such an individual. Is it dangerous? Humorous? Would it make a good retainer? What the heck are we supposed to do here? The fact that ZB included a cardboard miniature of Sir Froig was the perfect extra touch of thoughtfulness...well done!

#2 Sunken Abode of the Batrachian (by Brian Russell) - Now THIS is old school dungeon design. I almost, ALMOST chose this as my #1 choice...very close. It is only four pages long, the first page of which is simply an illustration "cover." One page is a beautiful map, and the last two pages include all the keyed encounters in a clean, easy to use format. There's no introduction, no background...a DM can add whatever color they desire to this sweet little dungeon delve. My favorite part, though? The Batrachian Curse. Simply brilliant. Excellent, excellent work.

#1 Challenge of the Frog Idol (by Dyson Logos) - Just because someone sends me a 21 page document (plus two pages of OGL legalese) does NOT mean they automatically walk off with top honors. Personally, there's a lot to be said for short and sweet (one of the reasons I liked the #2 entry so much). But after taking the time to read it, I found Dyson's adventure excellent in many regards. In essence, he's crafted a mini-campaign including four maps (the wilderness hex map is beautiful...it's my inability to do this kind of work that has stopped me from publishing my adventure modules). There are random encounters, several helpful side-bars, and four adventure sites ("dungeons") to explore. The adventure itself is fairly straight-forward bit of step-and-fetch, but it still manages to be both interesting and clever, and there's no "switcheroo" at the end...this is a WYSIWYG. Finally, there's plenty of room here for an enterprising DM to expand this into a small sandbox world. For a free download, there's a lot of good stuff here and it's well written. If you haven't already downloaded it from Dyson's blog, you should definitely take a look.

All right, that's it folks. Sorry it took so long to to get this typed up, but I have been busy. Congrats to everyone that entered the contest...all the entries were entertaining and creative, and I look forward to seeing your work elsewhere!

; )

Best Basic B/X Monsters (Top Ten)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the consistent badasses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prost!

: )