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.

Genre Conventions & PC Death (Redux)

Hmm, it might appear some people missed the point of my earlier post.

Let’s start out with a different tact: if there are rules incorporated in an RPG for characters to DIE (say, for example, when they reach 0 or -10 “hit points”), then there should be no bones made about characters dying. It’s part of the game.

Don’t bitch at me that your character died. And please don’t save my character because he only died due to “unlucky chance.” If unlucky chance is part of the game, and I die because of that, then that’s part of the game.

Don’t save me (or fudge death) until I “do something stupid” or “make some critical mistake.” That’s just saying, “wait until the GM decides you are deserving of death.” And what the hell kind of arbitrary rule system is that?

SO…

If you don’t like that a poisoned arrow or dart or spiked pit or spider hiding in the bed sheets bit you and you failed your poison save (and thus are foaming at the mouth, dying in agony), then don’t play a game that has poison saves. If you don’t like being surprised by a pair of medusa and failing your “turn to stone” save, then don’t play games that have petrifaction. If you don’t like a pair of random spear hits reducing you to zero hit points and killing your second level character…well, shit, you are probably playing the wrong damn game.

Now having said that, for some genres it may be inappropriate to make death a part of the game. If you watch a James Bond movie, you don’t expect Bond to get greased in the second act…and if you’re watching an action TV serial like Burn Notice, you don’t expect the principle characters to die unless it’s a “very special episode” or the series finale or something. After all, if a member of the A-Team got axed every episode, well, it would be a pretty short season.

For other genres, character death is totally fine and expected. If you’re playing a game based on the film Red Dawn, one expects the occasional PC to die in order to emphasize the tragedy of the situation and the horror of war. Otherwise, the themes of the game become comical or (at the least) lose their gravity…and then why even bother playing?

In the typical Western genre, the default trope is one where life is cheap and enforcement of the Law is a matter of personal responsibility (taking down outlaws because the sheriff can’t or riding posse as a deputized citizen or acting like a Clint Eastwood-style bounty hunter). When these tropes are used, then it must be possible for PCs to get killed…both by well-placed shots or random-flying bullets. If your Western is NOT typical, and about something other than casual lead poisoning, then you need other rules…and probably ones that don’t require dying mechanics at all (or where the dying only occurs in the context of something greater: see Dogs in the Vineyard).

Here’s the thing, though (and the point of my prior post): RPG design tends to include rules for killing folks or getting killed, even when that’s NOT what the game is supposed to be about. Is ElfQuest really about fighting and killing? I don’t think so (in the comics, the violence was generally incidental to the rest of the story). But the EQ RPG had an elaborate Chaosium-based combat system built in…and whenever we ran the game, combat became the centerpiece of the game play (as did PCs getting their limbs hacked off).

I think it’s silly that RPGs just don’t come out and say “players don’t die.” The original (D6) Star Wars system basically tells GMs that PCs should never be allowed to die…so why put rules for “mortally wounding” player characters in the game. I mean, ANY wound takes out a stormtrooper and other extras; the main reason for an elaborate damage table is determining how badly hurt a PC is...and it's pretty pointless to list "mortal wounds" and provide rules for how long a character takes to die if the GM isn't supposed to let 'em give up the ghost anyway.

What I’m asking is: should we (designers) really be slaves to the old chestnut that “well, death has to be modeled SOMEhow in the game.” Does it? Does it really?

I don’t think so.

Forget You, Infravision

I have made a command decision: no more infravision.

Infravision…the whole concept…has annoyed me for years. Really. I can remember (really!) first reading about in my Tom Moldvay Basic Set and thinking “What the F?” And today, I’m still saying the same thing.

Hell, in my own games, I’ve long since given up on infravision. “Certain species (like elves and dwarves) can see in the dark…period.” Otherwise the whole thing is just…what? I mean, where does this idea come from?

Certainly Tolkien elves and dwarves (and the Norse myths from which they descend) still make use of light sources…torches and such. Faerie folk may have better vision than normal people (as noted in their increased ability to find secret doors and traps and such), but if they see better in the evening, it’s because those sharp eyes are making better use of moonlight and starlight…NOT because they see heat sources like the Predator monster.

I mean, isn’t that what “infravision” is? Some kind of infrared or thermographic vision? “Your character sees heat sources,” why exactly? I just don’t get it.

I mean, setting aside the general uselessness of it (infravision is fouled by torchlight and most parties have humans in needs of real light anyway…plus picking out “heat images” doesn’t tell you where a door or doorknob is, nor read the writing on the tomb wall!)…SETTING ASIDE the uselessness of infravision, what the hell is it based on exactly? Where in myth and legend does it say elves “see heat.”

Be honest, don’t most of you ignore infravision most of the time anyway?

Maybe this comes from Wendy Pini’s “wolf rider” elves…but most elves in ElfQuest still need and use torches (the wolf riders simply having heightened senses…smell and hearing…like wolves).

I don’t know…what I DO know is that I’m tired of it. I found myself putting it in my “fantasy punk” game and then thought, why? Why bother? Because it’s in “D&D?” Because Shadowrun uses “low-light vision” for its elves and orcs?

Nope, screw it. No allergies to sunlight and no friggin’ “infravision.” If an elf wants to see in the dark, he can wear night vision goggles. That’s a cooler image anyway.

Infravision: Deleted.

Fantasy Females

I just started re-reading Jennifer Roberson’s Cheysuli books, a series I started years ago but stopped collecting due to a lack of funds (a frequent occurrence in my high school and college years). They’re pretty darn good…I had originally thought they’d make a decent B/X campaign setting (and still think that), but now I’m enjoying them just for themselves. Back in high school (my non-D&D years) I attempted to emulate the setting with SSI’s DragonQuest RPG (DQ has a lot of “ups” on D&D for a Cheysuli setting, including shapechanger characters, more accessible magic-use, and knife wielders that don’t totally suck), but in the end no one really wanted to play DQ, not even me.

[side note: If anyone would like to see the equivalent of a literary justification of “all weapons do D6 damage,” check out the Cheysuli books…these guys are like Apache knife-fighters extraordinaire!]

Anyhoo, I was thinking to myself this morning: what the hell is it with all the chick fantasy authors?

That is to say: why do I seem to be drawn to the fantasy writings of women authors? And how has that colored my ideas of fantasy and story and the application of both to my gaming?

Because (after all), the baseline foundation of the DM craft is emulating the stuff that you enjoy or read or watch in the various media available to us: books, comics, film, TV. You can say “well, I base MY D&D campaign on actual history” but I would say you are STILL getting that version of “history” from something: books, comics, film, TV (or possibly university lecture hall).

I think it’s nigh impossible to create something out of a vacuum…and SINCE I’m drawing on my own “memory banks” of fantasy to run my campaigns, and SINCE I’m reading so much fantasy written by female authors, HOW is that influencing me?

Because I do think there are differences in story-telling technique and priorities between genders. That may just be me (I was never an English major, as you may be able to tell from my blog-writing style, so I don’t know if there’s any study/analysis of this kind of thing)…but I certainly tend to gravitate to the woman story authors. Allow me to list some of my authorial inspirations (in no particular order):

Jennifer Roberson (despite only having read 2-3 of her books, she turned me into a knife fan many years ago…also prefer her version of “high fantasy” to others).

Elizabeth Boyer (duh…Vikings. I’ve blogged about this many times; she had major influences on the B/X Companion).

Marion Zimmer Bradley (the Big MZB…one of the All Time Greats. Her books are wonderful and pretty much un-translatable to a visual medium making them real “book books”).

Margaret Weiss (I know she only co-authored Dragon Lance, but her name does get first billing, and not out of alphabetical order…the DL books renewed D&D for me in middle school).

Wendy Pini (artist and writer of ElfQuest comics…probably the most engaging and gripping fantasy graphics of all time).

[Colleen Doran, artist and author of the weird sci-fi comic A Distant Soil has also had some small, if strong influence]

Anne McCaffery (mixing SciFi and fantasy is a good thing!).

J.K. Rowling (not an influence in my formative years, and certainly fairly cheesy compared to my usual literary fare, but I admit I have read all seven Hairy Bottom novels…probably the most books I’ve read from a single author in the last ten years).

[regarding my formative years, I will say that before I started reading fantasy, I read quite a few (10 or more) of the old Nancy Drew books at my school library. Although “Carolyn Keene” is a pseudonym, the authors of most of these books were women, with Mildred Benson and her daughter Harriet Adams being the ones primarily credited]

Susan Cooper (this one WAS during my formative years…read the entire Dark is Rising series. Wouldn’t mind revisiting that one, one of these days).

Robin McKinley (another one from my youth; author of The Hero and the Crown and The Blue Sword. The plots of these books impacted much of my early D&D gaming).


Now this isn’t to say that I haven’t read and enjoyed the works and writings of male authors over the years…however, most of these guys (like woman author Anne Rice) are folks that I’ve read once and not returned to…or authors I’ve grown beyond. For example, I read quite a bit of Piers Anthony back in my youth, but I can’t stand his stuff anymore, and none of it has impacted my gaming (I don’t do puns of the Xanth variety, and his Apprentice Adept series is the kind of simplistic fantasy/scifi that makes me wretch)…despite the sex and violence of his books, they seem squarely aimed at the age 12-15 demographic.

Sometimes, it seems like male fantasy authors only fall into two camps: the humorous/whimsical and the ugly. Humorous/whimsical would include Robert Aspirin’s books (which, like Anthony, can get tired after awhile), while “ugly” is the term I use to describe, say, Stephen King’s Gunslinger series. The latter is a series I read compulsively/raptly as it was published, but as with all of King’s books, it doesn’t shirk from the coarse, the gross, the gritty side of life, instead delighting in showing off just how bad things can be. Reading his books isn’t always “fun.”

However, there ARE male authors that fall into the “inspiring, impactful fantasy” category for me: Howard, Moorcock, Lovecraft, Tolkien, George Lucas, Lloyd Alexander, and C.S. Lewis (especially The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, which I have read half a dozen times at least). Interesting that of these authors, Howard, Lovecraft, and Tolkien had very strong female influences on them from a young age (Tolkien’s father died when he was 3 years old and he was raised by his mother)…but then, who’s to say that the female authors I cited didn’t have strong masculine influences?

The point is: it is the female fantasy authors that have had the larger impact on my concepts of fantasy (and directly translated to my fantasy gaming). ESPECIALLY with regard to gaming, only the Big 3 (Howard, Moorcock, and Tolkien) have had as much impact; the first two with regard to tone, the third with regard to mythology (and I would cite the Silmarillion and Children of Hurin as the main influence, not LotR). “Character,” “setting,” and “plot” (for what that last is worth; call it “scenario”), as well as “theme” (if any) comes from my female authors with the occasional random dude (Beagle’s Last Unicorn, Ellison’s Run for the Stars, Steakley’s Armor, and Boyett’s Ariel) sometimes throwing up an especially noteworthy piece of fiction.

[this, of course, is only in reference to my fantasy fiction influences; history and folklore also has a major impact/influence on my gaming and “fantasy life”]

Well, anyway, I thought it was interesting. I'll think about the subject a bit more and see if there are specific things about woman-penned fantasy that I really admire or if the whole discussion is ridiculous...more (hopefully) later...

: )

The Lowest Guys on the Totem Pole

At least they didn't make 'em play in traffic.

I've said before that I'm not really into LARPing...never have been. Unless you count running through the woods as a 10 year old pretending you're a member of the Wolf Riders (complete with bows and arrows). Of course, we didn't have any "rules" associated with those games...maybe "don't shoot arrows into each other," but that's just common sense.

That the Convention chose to sequester the live-action folks away from the rest of the gamers (and the hotel)...well, I can't help but think that's saying something. Sure, maybe the LARP people wanted a "big space without distraction from the rest of the con." But an unattached garage? I mean, people were parking cars in it!

I wandered over to the garage Saturday afternoon, curious as to what I would find. A trifle nervous to be honest. I mean, MY basic inclination would have been to sequester LARPers off-site myself, but I understand that this prejudice comes from my own "fear of the unknown." They're just people, right? Right?

In the garage, there was one long table with chairs, and a bunch of scattered papers and junk...probably left over from the last game. There were also three people who had set themselves up in three folding chairs in the middle of the garage. One was a guy with a long ponytail, probably around my age or a little older (late 30s, early 40s). One was a woman probably in her 20s or 30s. The third was a kid, a girl, who must have been around 13-15, maybe 12. They were sitting side by side in the chairs, with the little girl in the middle.

The dude with ponytail beckoned me over. I approached semi-hesitantly.

"Do you want to role-play," they (the adults) asked.

I shook my head...no just 'checking stuff out,' seeing what's going on.

"Come on...just a quick one? It's fun..."

I told them I was actually just waiting for my ride to pick me up (this was true) and brushed them off...but I was creeped out the way they were trying to tempt me. Like evil gnomes trying to get me to eat fairy food.

When they saw I wouldn't budge, they went back to their "game," which appeared to involve sitting on a bus (?) with the two adults trying to tempt the kid into something (?!) though what I didn't get...they seemed to be having some sort of philosophic or academic argument/discussion while the girl verbally defended her position.

It was weird. And kind of creepy. I didn't really want to know how the scene was going to play out, and decided to leave. I did my best not to run.

Regarding Facial Hair

No, there are no random tables incorporated with this post. You can play with the random hats I already gave you…sheesh!

As far as facial hair goes, it would be easy enough to come up with a random table or two (any piece of physical appearance can be incorporated into such…haven’t you folks ever played Chaosium’s ElfQuest RPG? Check it out!) but I don’t really think it’s necessary for B/X.

Why not, JB? Well mainly because:

a) All women in B/X are clean-shaven (unless you have bearded female dwarves), and
b) All male player characters have beards, with the following exceptions:

- Elves
- Halflings (sideburns)
- Thieves (mustaches and stubble or goatee only)

That’s just how it is. If I say, “you see three men, dressed in chainmail,” every single one of ‘em has a beard. If I say, “three elves” or “halflings,” then none of them do. And if you encounter a guy with just a mustache only, you probably ought to keep a hand on your purse.

Ridiculous? I suppose, but I think a person’s personal headgear is a more appropriate method of recognizing and distinguishing characters. First off, it’s not like there’s a straight razor (let alone a Mach3 Turbo) on the equipment list. Secondly, in a society without a white-collar work force, the beard is a status symbol, a rite of passage for men as well as a visible sign of manhood. Those who can grow them, do...and are proud of ‘em.

Thieves, on the other hand, are misfits that live outside the laws of the common society. After all, it’s against the Law to steal. Whether a character becomes a thief because he is unable to grow a beard, or perhaps fails to grow a beard because of some divine karmic law (recall that in D&D, divine intervention is a common and knowable force of the universe)…REGARDLESS of the reason, thieves do NOT grow beards. Well, no more than a "soul patch" or petite goat. Certainly not the true and full beard of a productive member of society (warriors, clerics, farmers, etc.).

Magic-Users, in contrast, are a strange lot generally living outside of normal society themselves. However, a magician’s beard is his vanity and it can be assumed that any wizard worth his salt has the ability to magic his beard to grow, long and full…even if such isn’t in his natural DNA.

Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings are, of course, alien species and as such their facial hair growth is somewhat different ("alien") from humans (and is part of the physical appearance that sets them apart). All dwarves have beards, male and female, probably from infanthood (it is easier for me to picture a bearded baby dwarf than a non-bearded one). On the other hand, neither male nor female elves have facial hair, both genders being completely bare from chin to chest. To a human woman, and elf would look exceedingly alien, fey and effeminate compared to the male of her own species. It is doubtful that a female human would ever mate with such a creature unless some sort of fairy bewitchment was involved.

; )

Halflings are more similar to humans in their facial hair, but no one would mistake a Halfling for a human anyway. What they cannot grow on their chin and upper lip, they make up for with a full head of hair on each foot (thanks Professor Tolkien!)…and as with elves and dwarves, there is no distinction between Halfling genders in THIS regard.

So, no…I find no reason whatsoever to draft up charts or random tables for beards and facial hair. Suffice is to say someone is a dwarf, or elf, or adult male human, and you should have a pretty good idea of what the NPC or PC looks like. Well…that plus a description of his or her hat.
: )

Playing In Spirit, not Character

Anyone who’s played West End Games’ Star Wars RPG knows that one thing the game does absolutely right is emphasize the spirit of Star Wars…both the original RPG and the 2^nd edition were very much about recreating the tropes of Star Wars and the feel of the movies within their game.

Now this was, of course, PRIOR to the “Expanded Universe” or the Prequel Trilogies (the Darkforce Rising comics and and Admiral Thrawn trilogy that opened up the expanded universe came AFTER the release of WEG Star Wars and drew plenty of info/inspiration from the game supplements). As such, the only thing WEG had to go on was the original trilogy (and some minor Lucas apocrypha) and for the most part the emphasis was on re-creating a Star Wars-like adventure environment. This included:

- Space Opera over hard sci-fi

- Starship “dog fights” and explosions (with sound!) in space

- Endless ammunition

- Everything bigger than life and twice as loud

- “Fudging” to prevent player character death (don’t kill the actors!)

- Catch-phrases and Star Wars-isms (“I have a bad feeling about this”)

It’s the last one on the list that I want to write about.

Personally, there are two different ways that I prefer to look at (and play) Star Wars, neither of which goes very well with the WEG version of the RPG:

1) Star Wars as Heavy Metal magazine (i.e. the “non-Jedi version”). Players are random mercenaries a la the Han Solo adventures, hanging out at bars, picking up cargo to smuggle, getting in trouble with whatever passes for an authority figure in the region (Hutts, Imperials, whatever), and basically being crass and blaster-happy.

2) Star Wars as Paladin the RPG (i.e. the “Jedi-centric version”). Everyone is a Jedi or Force-user or aspiring Force-user and must struggle to walk the straight-and-narrow path even as they learn and grow in power to prevent falling to the Dark Side.

Notice these two different themes, while both possible in a “Star Wars Universe,” are fairly mutually exclusive. But these are MY kind of Space Opera…there’s always that exploration of the seedy/shadow side of life. The Star Trek exploration/do-gooder thing just doesn’t appeal to me at all.

Of course, neither of my preferred styles jibes with playing “in the spirit” of Star Wars the Original Movie Trilogy.

To me, playing in the spirit of an established intellectual property takes a lot of balls, and I just haven’t known all that many ballsy gamers. Or maybe I did, but I didn’t personally give them the space to explore their “cheesy side.” Because in a way, playing In The Spirit requires a certain amount of hamming it up with a healthy dose of cheese…and that requires trust and commitment on the part of the players.

That’s asking for more than simple “investment in one’s character.”

It’s definitely led to trouble for my groups in the past…I think I’ve mentioned before that I’ve played a lot of ElfQuest and Marvel Superheroes, both games that have (or did have at the time the RPGs were published) well established conventions/tropes of their respective intellectual properties. Unfortunately, attempting to run long-term campaigns with either of these games proved problematic. With EQ, the games with groups of players always degenerated into “going to war with the trolls (again).” And Marvel…well, I believe I previously mentioned how my buddy/GM Scott had to institute “negative karma?” One would hardly say we were playing in the spirit of Marvel “heroes!”

Asking people to get on-board with the spirit of a specific IP is asking a lot…that’s my point. Let me give a specific example of how that backfired with Star Wars:

The original WEG Star Wars includes a beginning/sample adventure scenario… "Rebel Break-Out" I believe it’s called (I don’t have the book with me). It involves one-long running battle through a mine (shades of dungeon crawling/Mines of Moria) to pair of Y-Wing fighters to escape with a set of plans vital to the rebellion. Basically one medium-long linear adventure. Fine and dandy…it’s a sample so you don’t expect much.

But to get the players IN THE SPIRIT of Star Wars, it provides an actual script that it expects players to read at the beginning of the game. The adventure begins in media res if I remember correctly, and here your character is expected to speak AUTHORED DIALOGUE written by someone else…in order to show you HOW TO PLAY RIGHT.

Ugh! Double ugh! I’ve run Rebel Break-Out two or three times and my players have always HATED the script thing. They’ve railed, they’ve scoffed, they’ve ridiculed, they’ve done everything EXCEPT take the damn thing seriously. If anything it feels so awkward and fake (and contrived) that if they were in the mood to play a space opera/Star Wars game by the time they’re done with the script they’re no longer very interested.

After all, these were not actors auditioning for a role…they were players of a game. They had created their own characters with their own personalities (however two- or three-dimensional those personalities were made no difference). You just can’t script role-playing. It’s a different artistic genre from theater.

Now having written all THAT, let me do a bit of a 180 and say that while it’s been my experience that you cannot script role-playing AND furthermore it is incredibly difficult to get players to play “in the spirit” of a particular creative license that does NOT mean:

1) that playing in the spirit may still be appropriate to certain game systems, and

2) it may be possible to facilitate playing in the spirit by working it into the rules/design

I look at the Dying Earth RPG as an example. DE is based on the excellent stories of the same name by Jack Vance, and Mr. Vance is known for his own Vancisms of flowery, elaborately obscure language…characters in Vance’s Dying Earth stories speak like they’ve swallowed huge dictionaries and practice verbal fencing every day (as well as their regular swordsmanship). To facilitate creating the proper Vancian flavor, the actual reward/advancement system is tied to the use of this Vancian language…each player is handed a list of properly erudite phrases at the beginning of the session, and being able to work them into your dialogue in play earns you points with which you may improve your character. Simple and fun. It’s un-necessary to participate (there’s no script) and the player’s have the choice of how and when to use the phrases (if they want to use them at all), and they are rewarded for it…AND it helps everyone at the table get into the spirit of the game.

Now in discussing advancement systems for my B/X space opera game, one thing I might be willing to consider is something of this nature to encourage the Star Wars-isms and playing In The Spirit…not necessarily specific lines of dialogue (“I have a bad feeling” and “May the Force be with you” are the only oft repeated lines from the film), but something a little more open-ended.

Think of any drinking game for a beloved television: everyone takes a drink whenever regular character says or DOES something often repeated and well-established as their particular pattern of behavior. It may be possible to incorporate some system like this (the Drinking Game Advancement System! Need to trademark that!) into an RPG where players earn bonus “points” for their characters by adding interactions to the game that promote the flavor of the licensed IP.

Reward systems encourage behavior patterns, that’s a damn fact (and one of the reasons I don’t like the idea of just rewarding simple participation…assuming they want to play a space game in the first place or they wouldn’t show up at the table). If you want people to play a certain way, encourage a particular behavior rather than trying to discourage the “wrong” action.

Now, unfortunately, this is not necessarily helpful to me in light of my “preferred ways of playing Star Wars” (see above), because Star Wars-isms from the original movie trilogy tend to be a little more goody-good than my exploration of the game world…but even so, this train of thought may be helpful to folks that ARE trying to develop RPGs based on specific licenses. And who knows…maybe my game will be more goody-go when finished than I’m currently envisioning it.

; )

Axioms & Elves

A couple posts ago I mentioned a third possible axiom of game design, but I didn’t bother to still it down or discuss it at length, partly as it wasn’t pertinent to the discussion at hand, partly due to the post being even more long-winded than usual already. But I wanted a chance to discuss it now. AXIOM #3:

Good game design rewards behavior meeting the objectives of play.

As with my prior axioms that’s me trying to be as pithy as possible. To elaborate a bit, I’m saying that the system of a game (it’s rules and how they function) should promote the behavior the designer wants to see occur around the gaming table.

Now I realize I’m making a gross assumption here: that rewards systems have ANY influence on behavior within a game. Well, they do all right?…they have AN influence I’m certain, even though it may not be the ONLY influence…which is why there are so many different ways RPGs are played, not always as originally intended by the designer.

But that’s what we’re talking about: “GOOD” game design. A designer has objectives when designing a game, whether as simplistic as “I want to play a game of ass-kicking robots” to as specific as “an intimate exploration of love, pity, and self-loathing in a remote Transylvanian village” to as nuanced as “a version of D&D that delves into cosmic/creepy horror.”

Designers have objectives, even beyond “making a quick buck.” Now, how well they meet those objectives is where we start defining what is “good” versus “non-good” game design. And the way we measure this success (or lack thereof) is by observing how easily the objectives are met IN PLAY.

In other words: are people playing the game right? And by “right” I mean, “in the manner in which its designer intended it to be played.”

Now for the record, a game design doesn’t have to be good to be successful. Like the movie that is supposed to be a masterpiece of horror, but instead becomes a campy and unintentionally funny “cult classic,” games may be used with much enjoyment in manners not foreseen by the designer when he or she originally sat down at the keyboard. If your intention was to get published or make a few bucks, well okay then, “mission accomplished.” But if you intended people to play YOUR game YOUR way and it’s NOT…well, then you missed something as a game designer.

So acknowledging that “reward systems” in games are NOT the only reasons we play games (for example, we also play for the enjoyment of camaraderie, the chance to exercise our imagination, our interest in a particular source of licensed material, etc.) and thus are not the ONLY influences on player behavior…acknowledging THAT right off the bat, we then ask: Does the system as designed reward behavior that promotes the way the game is “supposed to be played?”

If it does, then bam! – good game design. If not…well, then not. An example or two might be useful.

Chaosium’s ElfQuest is a game I’ve owned for a long time, and one I’ve played and ran many times. Based on the Wendy Pini comics of the same title (at least the first 20 issues), the game’s objective appears to be “to allow players to experience adventure in the World of Two Moons” either by recreating the original comic book plots or by inventing one’s own pastiche of ElfQuest.

And who doesn’t like ElfQuest? For that matter, who doesn’t like elves in general? Even for folks not into the particular comic IP, people who are into psionic (“magic”) elves, faeries, and trolls are going to be just fine with a little escapist fantasy. Hell, when I was a kid, my friend and I used to spend hours running around the forest behind her house, carrying bows and pretending to be Wolfriders. It helped that her dog, Molly, was a big ‘ol German Shepherd that looked very wolfish in appearance (though we did not attempt to “ride” Mol).

But, okay…kids playing in the woods, pretending they’re elves living in a tree is one thing. At the gaming table? What the hell are you supposed to do?

Go to war with the trolls, of course…over and over again.

See, for those who’ve read Mrs. Pini’s remarkable comics there’s a lot to love besides the spectacular artwork. She paints a lot of drama into her work even if there isn’t much combat/action. Oh, there’s ACTION, just not much of the fighting with swords and daggers variety. There’s plenty of CONFLICT…elves trying to make homes for themselves, trying to find/fight love/attraction, new cultures misunderstanding each other, finding one’s origins when others try to keep it hidden, political games/intrigue, proving oneself to one’s tribe/community. There’s some “exploration” that occurs, but mostly “the road” is glossed over…the main exploration that occurs is the exploration of CHARACTER.

There are conflicts that lead to bloodshed in the books...a total of four by my count. Two very brief, bloody encounters with humans, one flashback scene with a big monster that needs to be put down, and the war with the trolls that occurs over the last five issues…a war encompassing three pitched battles. But that’s really it…and even after the “war” is done, there’s plenty more drama that occurs. After all, Pini is describing a world and a people, their growth and development, and it’s not all “storm the tower and kick ass” stuff. Human life IS drama much of the time, and the elves of ElfQuest, while an alien species, are still sculpted on the human experience with human emotions…which is one of the reasons they’re such beloved comics.

OK…so now, how do you translate that into an RPG?

Well, if you’re Chaosium, you use a derivative of the BRP to simulate the characters found in the comics, including a detailed and tailored-specific chargen system…and then you drop the ball. That is, there is nothing in the design of the game that supports the creation of ElfQuest-esque stories. A few sample scenarios (including a war with humans and a war with trolls, a conflict with a mad High One…call it the “evil wizard encounter”…and a fight with a monster based on the aforementioned monster fight of the comics) are provided…and that’s it.

Oh, wait…there ARE rules for “recognition” provided in the system (a percentage chance that any elves upon encountering new elves might have a couple involuntary romantic relationships formed)…but none of the provided scenarios deal with recognition, romance, or “soul names”…despite this being a major focus of much of the conflict/drama in the comics (for example, issues #2-5, issues #11-15, and issue #20).

The “reward system” of ElfQuest is limited to the normal BRP Increase-Skill-Check-For-Skills-Used. Elves don’t have money or attachment to personal possessions (in general), so there’s no adventuring for treasure or need to purchase equipment. There’s no fame points or measurement of status/prestige, no levels or experience points that are gained, nada. There’s no In-System rules that are going to lead to the exploration of character or that will lead to social conflict/drama…the design simply provides the chassis of the vehicle without a goddamn engine to run it.

Which to me is an excellent analogy. ElfQuest is a beautiful book (it has Pini’s artwork for one thing), well written with an enjoyable chargen system (we have created many elves…including illustrations!...using the rules). But it’s like owning a sports car with no engine…sure, it will move IF I get out and push the damn thing myself!

And I don’t want to have to push the car. I don’t want to have to draw inspiration (i.e. “rip off”) Pini’s stories or force/manipulate players with my plot lines and GM-designed NPCs simply to get an ElfQuest-like game. Besides being more work than I want to do (I might as well start writing short stories about elves!) it kind of defeats the whole purpose of playing an RPG, which is a collaborative effort between GM and players.

Unfortunately, ElfQuest is a poorly designed RPG in this regard. It doesn’t have a system that Rewards the behavior that is expected to lead to “EQ-style” game play. It doesn’t give you any more than what you bring to it, in other words. Well, shit…so what am I paying for? Something for my comic collection I guess.

Contrast that with the greatest fantasy adventure game ever designed: B/X Dungeons & Dragons. Characters are rewarded for adventuring, i.e. “overcoming monsters/obstacles and recovering treasure.” The reward system (XPs, leveling up) creates the desired behavior (let’s go adventure!).

Now realize that Axiom #3 does NOT say a game must have a “reward system” of any particular type…there’s no need for a game to include levels or skill boosts or any such thing. But the system that REWARDS BEHAVIOR…behavior conducive to the design goals of its author(s)…is the good game design. Ron Edward’s Sorcerer rewards behavior. So does My Life With Master, Dust Devils, and Dogs in the Vineyard.

Look at Boot Hill, which I consider to have great economy of game design. BH is designed to recreate the brutal, fast paced deadliness of the Old West. Right down to the name (most PCs are going to eventually end up on Boot Hill), the thing does nothing BUT “reward” the proper behavior. If your character insists on getting into gun fights, he’ll improve in ability until he gets dead. If he instead uses his wit to escape shoot-outs, he won’t ever increase his gun fighting ability…but he probably won’t get killed (I don’t seem to recall any stray bullet rules). The game CAN be used by the more ambitious players to create grand, sweeping epics of the Old West…but its basic design is to allow one to create gunfights in the street (both historic and fictional) like the Battle of Coffeyville or the OK Corral, and it’s well-designed to do so.

Ah, well...more design theory later I'm sure. Prost!

: )

From Gil-Galad to Leafy Tights

I am very enamored with the concept of the “elf lord,” these days, though I admit that I was none too keen on elves back in the hay-day of my D&D play. Very few of my fellow players ever used an elf as a regular character (well…until the UA and the Drow, but that’s another post, folks).

Although the earliest character sheet I can find (in my 3rd or 4th grade hand writing) is for a 1st level elf called Silver Fox, I and my players all developed deep aversions to elven characters based, I believe, on the following:

- Lack of power
- Lack of elvish “role-models”

The first is pretty easy to explain. Starting with B/X, the rate of advancement for an elf character is extremely slow; the elf requires (on average) twice as much XP as any other character to go up in level. Certainly elves are versatile with their weapons and wizardry, but you’re still limited to a single action per round (i.e. cast a spell or swing a sword)…if you’re half the level of your companions, then you have half the hit points, and thus half the staying power.

Furthermore, elf characters in B/X have their levels capped at 10. In AD&D there is some variation to the levels, but compared to humans with unlimited advancement, the elf is a poor choice for the long-term campaign (well, unless you want to play an elvish thief…but who wants that? See “role-models” below). It just makes gamist sense to play a human character.

Look at the World of Warcraft…the closest thing most people are playing to a “long term RPG campaign” these days. If elves could only reach levels 5/11 in fighter-magic-user, even multi-classed, how many players would be choosing elves over humans? Very, very few. It is this type of gamist sensibility that informed our early D&D campaigns.

Regarding “role-models;” well, there just weren’t that many elven heroes to model our characters after. For one thing, none of us had read Tolkien in those days (or much of it…the Two Towers is so slooooow, to a kid). The elves of Dragon Lance were fairly mundane and petty (hey, just like humans! Except with level caps, so they suck!). What else is there? Faeries and leprechauns of English folklore?

Well, now that I’m older…and a bit wiser, perhaps…my sensibilities have changed. For one thing, I’ve read more. I’ve read the entire LotR, the Silmarillion, and the Children of Hurin. I‘ve read Elizabeth Boyer’s fantastic The Wizard and the Warlord, providing great insight into the ljosalfar and dokkalfar, the Sandanavian elves Tolkien borrows for his books. I’ve read up on Norse mythology. And, of course, I’ve seen Peter Jackson’s movies…if the opening scene of armored elves battling orcs doesn’t give you a bit of respect for the elder, I don’t know what will.

I’ll admit the ability to create elven fighters in the vein of Gil-Galad or Glorfindel…or even half-elf heroes like Elrond…was one of the initially very cool things that drew me to D20 and back into D&D role-playing. However, having divorced myself from THAT game, and going back to my Old Scool roots, I find myself strangely disappointed.

I find very few illustrations of elves in my B/X rules…nothing that really jazzes me up. And BECMI is worse what with the pictures of elves in leaf-patterned jump suits. Ugh! It’s like TSR was purposefully trying to push me away from elves. Hell, look at the Gazeteers: the de Belcadiz of Glantri are the worst stereotypes of Spanish (NOT elfish) nobility, and Alfheim…well when it features obvious pastiches of Wendy Pini’s Cutter, Leetah, and Skywise I have to chuck the whole thing.

AD&D (and HackMaster) is too complex for my interests now, and OD&D is too…um…basic. What to do, what to do. It’s quite frustrating; despite my posted “variable damage” posts, I am not much for wholesale house-ruling, figuring game designers know a fair bit about their trade. And yet, I don’t want to design my own “fantasy game” that basically knocks off D&D.

There’s no plan for a follow-up “elf” post at this time. I’m open to suggestions of how to create a real “Elf Lord” in a B/X (or Labyrinth Lord) setting. Maybe cutting the XP to advance in half, forcing a choice between fighting and magic, and extending the level cap to 12 or 14?

Or I suppose I could move over to WFRP where elves kick ass over humans.