Quick Tuesday News & Notes

Spent all of yesterday doing my taxes, so I'm taking a bit of a day for myself. Apologies. Hope to post something later this week.

For the curious: our volleyball season is over. We lost in the semi-final to a very good team that received some very questionable line-judging calls from the parent/volunteer. By my count we won the first set 25-21 (rather than lost 21-25), and if that's judged differently, we go to a third set with our strongest players and a good chance to win. Maybe. They were still a very good team.

And you can call it sour grapes, but we did go to the championship on Sunday (by "we" I mean myself and half the team), and watched a game with neutral (i.e. official league ref) line judges and watched them play extremely mediocre and get beat in straight sets. To a team that (I think) we also could have handled.

Ah, well...it is what it is. We had a very good, very successful season with a group of kids (most of whom were new to the sport) who had a great time. Losing is a part of sport...a valuable part, as it helps build resilience. You don't die from a loss: you pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and move on to the next challenge, hopefully taking a moment to glance over your shoulder at the road you just navigated for the length of the season (12 weeks for us, and a lot of victories under the belt). There's even some discussion about a couple/few of our players moving into club volleyball. Diego's one of them...though he intends to see how his soccer try-outs go first.

Volleyball. Such fun.

 

And good for the boys. Been listening to Steven Bartlett's Diary of a CEO podcast lately and I found this one with Logan Ury and Scott Galloway was really thought provoking. While it doesn't address Dungeons & Dragons or the place of fantasy RPGs in the scheme of the declining demographic of young males, it made me consider what could be the benefit of such groups (something that has been broached before by others in our community). Noisms definitely had a point with the importance of male role-models to young men...and yet, I'm NOT a humongous fan of "all dude gaming groups," finding it pretty neat/useful to have people of different genders playing/operating together in a cooperative fashion that lets all sides see others' strength and value to the collective. For me, growing up playing D&D with young women was immensely helpful...and yet, I also had the benefit of many male role models in my life (my father was around till I was seventeen, and I had male teachers, male coaches, male Scout masters, etc.). There are plenty of boys...including those I grew up with...who didn't have the same luxury. And that sad state of affairs is, it seems, becoming more common not less.

Mm. Just something I'm thinking about this week, as my own "young man" (who is now taller than his mother) is gearing up for high school. Probably I should just keep coaching.

Funny observation from coaching both boys and girls sports teams: with regard to boys, the main issue is keeping them disciplined and focused; for girls, the main issue is stoking their "competitive fire." Doesn't mean there aren't boys who are disciplined (like Diego) or girls who are fiery competitors (like Sofia), I'm just talking about "general trends." But you know what? I think one of the things that has helped BOTH my kids in this regard is the game of Dungeons & Dragons: playing D&D has forced Diego to reign back his more reckless impulses and had forced Sofia to step up and be more assertive. Yet another great reason to encourage your kids to play D&D from an early age!

*ahem*

The last thing I'll mention is that I am, indeed, working on some D&Dish stuff; ending vball, getting the taxes filed, and getting through all D's high school enrollment stuff means I suddenly have some extra "free" time. Today, I've been going through a LOT of old stuff that's been lingering in open windows on Ye Old laptop...adventures I'm writing and whatnot...and I came across this old (I mean old) post that any fan of T1 or The Temple of Elemental Evil might enjoy perusing. It's not the blog post itself, but the discussion in the comments (spearheaded by the once prolific scottsz) that is worth the read. This kind of discussion...minus all the Greyhawk-ian "lore"...is the kind of thought process I go through these days when I'm rewriting/repurposing a Hickman adventure module. Not that they don't "function" (well...) adequately for an evening's D&D entertainment. But it's possible to do a deeper dive and dig into the "why" of a thing such that it translates into stronger world building in your campaign.

Which is a VERY GOOD thing. For me, anyway. Because I'm not into superficial ("cheap") thrills when it comes to my game. Oh, it doesn't matter to me that such information will probably NEVER matter to anyone besides myself (certainly not the players!)...it helps me understand and grasp how the adventure works and how it fits with everything else going on in my game world. Which gives a comprehension of my campaign world such that I can answer any insipid questions the players come up with in a reasoned and meaningful way. Which makes me a better Dungeon Master. Hard to be a Dungeon Master if you can't even 'master' your own world.

ANYway...good post, good discussion. I'm not a Greyhawk dude, but between that, Joe Bloch, and Trent (whose new book you should take a look at if you're interested in 1E adventure material) I feel like I might want to do something with ToEE. And I have a pretty good idea what (although let me get through these other three projects first!).

Also, it may be time to revisit cosmology in my AD&D game. That should be the subject of my next blog post.  When I have the time.

; )

Something To Listen To

It's Friday, which means (I suppose) that it's time to pen another post for the slowest readership day of the week. *sigh* 

I've been busy (yes, yes, we know...). My birthday was on Wednesday, and the family went down to the Paramount to watch the stage musical Wicked. Never seen it before, but I remember when the book came out (back in the mid-90s). I've enjoyed these "retellings from the villain's perspective" stories immensely over the years (Maleficent, Circe, etc.). Of course, Marion Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Avalon was probably the first and best of of these...then again, I've never read Mr. Maguire's novel. Certainly, no one's made a musical out of MZB's book, but I'd guess that's due to Morgan Le Fay having less 'cultural cache' then the Wicked Witch of the West.

Anyway, it was pretty good. The performances were top notch, especially Ephaba whose technical proficiency (voice wise) was pretty impressive...I don't remember witnessing that kind of singing ability since (perhaps) Phantom of the Opera. The production itself was pretty spectacular (some really elaborate set and costume design), even if the story was a little light-weight. Our family enjoyed it.

[by the way, I find it a little weird this recent theme in media of humanizing both the 'outsider' and the 'establishment' and bringing them together in these kumbaya stories (Wednesday Addams, anyone?). Maybe that's just me, but...well, whatever. Sign of the times, I guess]

The other thing I spent half the week listening to was the exceptionally good When We Were Wizards podcast. 15 episodes of oral history about the foundations of Dungeons & Dragons, TSR, and the rise and fall of Gary Gygax as told by the people who were there...and there were a lot of people interviewed for the show. Yes, quite fascinating, and rather compulsive listening...even my 10 year old got sucked into listening to multiple episodes.  Gary's personal story is as incredible as it is tragic.  Few people in this world are propelled into immense fame and fortune by falling into the exact right set of circumstances for their time and talent...and fewer still (if any) are prepared to handle it with wisdom and maturity. 

For those of us who enjoy the game of Dungeons & Dragons, we owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Gygax and to all those people who helped in the game's creation. But mostly, I think, to Gygax.

Okay, that's enough. I have a couple things to work on today (perhaps for a weekend blog post? We'll see...). But right now, I might enjoy another slice of this delicious pineapple upside down cake that my wife bakes me every year for my birthday. Goes perfect with the morning coffee.

Cheers!

: )

Answering the Dragon's Call

In my last post, I discussed my discovery of the old podcast "Chasing the Dragon" (a somewhat amusing title, considering I associate it with heroin smoking) in which a young-ish DM discusses his foray into learning 1st edition AD&D...a project I think is great. In his first episode, he asked a couple gamer buddies...both of whom had some 1E experience...a series of questions, getting their thoughts on the game.

I didn't like the answers they gave.

Of course, this was 2016. Back then, I wasn't worried in the slightest about AD&D (being rather preoccupied with living in Paraguay and raising a 5 year old boy and 2 year old girl). However, if Jason "the Mad Cleric" were to ask me this same set of questions, right now in 2024, here's what I would say:

(02:33)  "Have I absolutely lost my mind? Is learning AD&D and trying to go through all of Gygax's modules just absolutely crazy? What are your thoughts?"

I assume that by "crazy" you mean, 'Is this a waste of my time?' Specifically with the context that there have been some half-dozen D&D editions published since 1E and 1E not being supported by the company currently publishing the brand. The short answer is "no." There are plenty of people still playing 1E, plenty of of folks still interested in learning to play 1E. These people are all over the world, united by the internet, and many of them are kids and young people. It is a viable system, and one that is readily available...currently...via 'print-on demand.' In my own opinion, it is the only edition worth playing (I'm a busy guy). Most (if not all) of the editions published since 1E were done so MAINLY for business reasons.

(04:36)  "When did you first play? What do you remember from that first experience? What did you take away from it?"

I've detailed my personal history with D&D elsewhere; my friends and I started playing "full AD&D" (i.e. not some hybrid/Frankenstein game) circa November/December of 1984. I played till roughly 1990, when I put it aside in favor of other RPGs. I returned to 1E play in November of 2020, and have played it ever since. With regard to my first experience, I don't remember much specifically, save that it was exhilarating and exactly the creative outlet my friends and I needed. What I took away in 1990 (when I quit the game) was the false idea that one needs the right mix of friends/chemistry to make the game work, something I never thought I'd achieve again. However, I now understand that making the game work is largely a matter of commitment, something that (until I restarted four years ago) I had been unwilling and/or unable to do. As I wrote previously, I now consider it the only edition worth playing.

(10:03)  "So how long did you play AD&D?"

Roughly six years the first stint (1984-1990). After that I played many other RPGs NOT named Dungeons & Dragons. I got back into D&D play circa 2000 and back into old edition play around 2009. I've played 1E exclusively since November 2020...however, I've continuously owned and studied all my old books since the days of my youth, so even when I wasn't playing I had plenty of exposure to the system and Gygax's writings.

(12:34)  "Where do you think the AD&D mechanics excel?"

AD&D's mechanics excel at facilitating adventure gaming, a type of role-playing utterly unconcerned with "role-playing" (in the sense of portraying some sort of fictional character) or "creating stories" (in a literary sense). It does this by providing the tools...both in terms of mechanics and (what I'll call) "attitude" for long-term, engaging game play.

(15:16)  "Tell us how the skill checks would be dissimilar from Pathfinder or another game you might be familiar with?"

With the exception of a handful of highly specific classes (thieves, assassins, monks, and bards) there are no ubiquitous "skill checks" in AD&D. All classes in AD&D have their own suite of capabilities, but the ability scores are not used (unlike post-2000 editions of D&D) for determining "chance to succeed," instead providing modifiers to specific, targeted mechanics. Later books in the 1E series (Oriental Adventures, the Dungeoneers Survival Guide, the Wilderness Survival Guide) offered a rudimentary "skill system" (as the term would be thought of in modern "trad" gaming) based on "non-weapon proficiencies," but these were never integral to the 1E game (being given in HIGHLY OPTIONAL supplementary texts) contribute nothing of note and are (IMO) poorly done. With regard to the "skill checks" of the specific classes mentioned, "thief skills" are rolled using percentile dice; actual targets are based on the level of the character and slightly modified by race and DEX scores...success is accomplished by rolling UNDER the target number; in 1E, "higher" does not always equal "better."

(25:30)  "Why is this game, 1st edition, like that [an adversarial, tactical skirmish game instead of a 'role-playing game'], do you think?...and it's been kind of passed down to the other editions...do you think it's because it was written by one guy, and he was a war gamer in the past? And it just kind of bled over into his book? What's your take on that?"

It is like "that" because it was specifically designed in this way; D&D originally carried the subtitle "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames." Modern understanding is poor when it comes to what D&D is and was, let alone its potential. Why was it written as a "war game?" Because it was created by war gamers Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. The "role-playing" part grows out of game play organically, but AD&D is first and foremost a GAME, as Gygax makes abundantly clear in the text of his Dungeon Masters Guide. People who want to make it something other than "that" would be better served by finding an RPG aimed specifically at the type of gaming their looking for. Plenty of RPGs on the market to meet different needs.

(28:52)  "Have you guys actually played any of [Gygax's] modules? Because my understanding...and I haven't read any of them yet...is that a lot of them are just meatgrinders, absolute meatgrinders. And your character's going to die, and there's no time to pause, there's no real storyline to get to the end...is that descriptive of all of his stuff? What have y'all played of his modules? And what'd you take away from it?"

Your "understanding" is poor. Gygax wrote exactly 17 adventure modules for D&D, only 16 of which were written for (or adapted to AD&D (The Keep on the Borderlands was written to be included with the introductory Basic D&D box set). Of these 16, I own all but three and have run 11 of those 13 (I will note that I have run B2 KotB MANY TIMES, but only for B/X, never AD&D...it is not designed for AD&D). I wouldn't characterize any of Gygax's modules as "meatgrinders," with the possible exception of Tomb of Horrors...then again, much depends on how you define the term "meatgrinder." AD&D is intentionally designed to be adversarial, and poor play often results in character death; if your only experience with D&D play is a latter day edition in which death is rare (5E, for example) then, sure, you might consider ANY of the old TSR modules fairly bloody (with the notable exception of UK1). Gygax's modules specifically apply pressure and challenge in masterful fashion to provide a rich gaming experience; his adventures are widely considered some of the best published, and I don't disagree.

(33:57)  "Do you think players today would have patience for that [losing a high number of PCs...like one for every 1-2 hours of play...to in-game "death"]? Do you think people would be like 'this game sucks, let's play another game?'"

Having introduced the AD&D game to MANY players over the years, some as young as 9 or 10, my experience is that players love AD&D and are just fine with the level of danger it presents. And I kill a LOT of PCs in my games...I don't really 'pull punches' when it comes to running D&D. However, losing a character every 1-2 hours is pretty exorbitant...my players (all under the age of 14) can go many sessions without losing a PC to death. 1E is actually quite forgiving compared to OD&D or the various Basic D&D games and their clones: higher PC hit points, more clerical/healing magic, and a negative hit point "buffer" all provide AD&D characters with more staying power. And yet TPKs still happen (when players really screw up)...and that constant threat of death makes the game experience very fun, even as the plethora of "raise dead" options means a beloved character can usually be brought back to life...for a price. No, I don't ever hear cries of 'this game sucks' at my table. 

(39:39)  "You don't hear about a lot of people that are playing 4th edition saying, 'Hey, I'm going back to 1st edition because it was so awesome, and that was the game that was so much fun!' So what about AD&D is just not good? Like, what is it that was a misstep, that you're so glad they fixed...in 2nd edition or some later form?"

You don't hear a lot of 4E players saying they want to "go back" to 1E, because many of them...like YOU...have no experience playing 1E. They started with 4E...or 3E or 2E...and, frankly, don't know what they're missing. Others may have started with 1E but are slaves to playing whatever new hot edition is supported by "the company" and don't have the gumption to stick with something "outdated." Still others played 1E poorly...or had poor experiences with the system...and have never experienced the edition's full potential. Again, what you may not understand is that the company moved on from 1E mainly for business reasons: TSR ousted Gygax from the company but he continued to collect royalties for any book that carried his name, and 2E was a means of breaking that financial leash. But after Gygax's removal, TSR largely became a paperback novel publishing company (rather than a game company) and the quality of gaming material went down the tubes. 3E was published after TSR was purchased by WotC and a new system was designed to rehab the brand using "modern" game mechanics. 4E was published to give the company a cash infusion (i.e. forcing players to re-buy the new core books) and to capitalize on the MMORPG craze of the time (specifically World of Warcraft). 5E was rolled out as a "great compromise edition" specifically with the goal of recapturing marketshare and brand recognition after the disaster that was 4E. So, NO...1E wasn't "fixed" by any of the later editions. Later editions of D&D have only served to make the game worse in various ways. I have my own house rules...as any long-running 1E Dungeon Master is inclined to have...but NONE of those come from later editions of D&D. The vast majority of later edition changes have only served to make the game worse (although they also served to make the company money).

(44:30)  "So...do you think this game punishes players? It sounds like it's a 'DM's game' more than a 'players' game.'"

Again, the game is designed to be adversarial...it is designed to challenge the players. For the challenge to be real (i.e. for the challenge to matter) there must be consequences to failure. If there isn't, then there's little point to playing except mental masturbation. So does the game "punish" players? No, it "punishes" poor play (if you want to call those consequences "punishment;" I don't). But I've found most players ENJOY the type of adventure experience the AD&D game provides. 

(47:38)  "So, for myself or for anyone else who wants to learn AD&D what advice would you give? And with your advice I'd also ask for your two best house rules that you can remember."

I put these questions to my kids (ages 13 and 10) and they gave great advice: know the adventure you're running, know the rules you're running, prepare to adapt your game to the actions of the players. The house rules  they felt were most important included all dice rolls in the open, no PVP ('player vs. player conflict) at the table, no cell phones at the table, and no goofing off.  With regard to specific rule tweaks, the two most important ones I use are A) clerics need not memorize their spells ahead of time (they pray for their spell when a specific miracle is needed), and B) spells that are "ruined" in combat (because the spell-caster is damaged during the casting) are not "lost;" spells are only expended upon a successful casting. If I could ONLY change two rules in the game, those would be the ones...and if I could only change ONE rule, it would be the first (regarding clerical spells). Everything else in AD&D (especially racial class restrictions and level caps) I either enjoy or can easily live with.

(56:34)  "Do you have any final thoughts?"

So many. 1st edition AD&D may be difficult to parse and figure out, even for an experienced Dungeon Master, but it IS possible. My friends and I did it...at the age of 11 and 12...without any mentoring or parental help. I understand that the rapidly declining literacy of our culture may make this more difficult, but it's still possible. And its embarrassingly easy to teach people how to play (as players), even kids as young as 7 and 8 years old. I grok that some folks may be intimidated to play 1E, but it's really not rocket science, and there are many on-line groups, forums, discords, etc. where one can find advice, support, and help with learning. The game is easily (and cheaply) purchased through P.O.D. sources, and even cheaper if you just want a PDF/ebook. For less than $50, you can buy all three core books (PHB, DMG, and MM) plus a set of dice and you'll have a game that can provide DECADES of enjoyment. It's the greatest game ever published. And it's unfortunate that so many RPGamers...probably the majority...will never figure this out. However, there are some of us out here that are willing and able to help...willing and able to provide whatever knowledge we can, to aid in spreading the love for this game.

Best wishes.

: )

Chasing The Dragon

So, I like podcasts. As a stay-at-home dad, I'm busy (a lot) but usually not doing stuff that takes up too much of my 'mental attention.' Throwing on the headphones while cooking, cleaning, or driving is something I do.

[okay, no, I don't use headphones while driving...but you get the drift]

Most often, it's sports or news-related, but...as often as I can find it...I like to listen to podcasts about gaming. At least, about the type of gaming I do.

So it was Tuesday, that I was searching through my iHeart radio app, looking for podcasts...any kind of podcast!...about 1st edition AD&D. Because I needed something to occupy my mind, and throwing on CNN in the background was not my idea of "relaxing white noise."

And LO I found one: Chasing the Dragon, by a guy named Jason Wood, AKA The Mad Cleric. Started in 2016 (jeez...pre-Covid), he dropped all of six episodes, documenting his "quest" to learn and play AD&D (1E). No idea if he's still playing AD&D...his last 1E-related blog post appears to be from 2017 (though he did attend GaryCon in 2024). His is not a very active blog.

ANYhoo, I listened to the whole series. It's pretty good (very listenable) but also...so, so frustrating.

I'll explain: Jason (or "TMC," as I'll hereafter refer to him) first started playing D&D in 2011 with the 4th edition. Would have been in his mid-20s at the time (a little older than most folks stumble into D&D). at the time of the podcast he was 32 years of age. 

And yet he wanted to learn 1E!  Mainly, he wanted to play all those classic 1st edition adventure modules using the actual system for which they'd been written. It was a gaming experiment...and a pretty cool idea...for a guy who'd never had the chance to play in the heyday of the 70s and 80s.

[ha! Funny thing...the television series Stranger Things came out in 2016. TMC makes reference to it in his final podcast...the serendipitous coincidence of people becoming interested in 1E at the same time]

And me? I feel like a heel listening to this. Because I was so NOT into AD&D in 2016 (remember that it wasn't till 2020 when I finally broke down and returned to 1E). If TMC started his podcast today, I could actually help him and provide him with good information and context for much of the weirdness of the game...but in 2016 it wasn't even on my radar. Hell, I probably would have advised him to play B/X if he'd asked me my opinion back then.

And this is SAD. I feel sad about that. Because when it came to trying to LEARN the game, TMC ended up tapping a bunch of different people for advice, most of whom had no good advice (or very little) to give. And some of whom actually gave him counterproductive stuff...the kind of stuff that, in my opinion, would result in a frustrating, crappy game and (even worse) probably just lead him back into the stifling WotC embrace of 5E.

Does that sound harsh? Uber-hyperbolic? Okay, maybe it is. But yesterday, in anticipation of this post, I was re-listening to Episode 1 and jotting down notes (mainly timestamps) and my son asked me what I was listening to (he was doing geometry homework at the kitchen counter at the time). I told him: I'm listening to an old podcast about a guy trying to learn AD&D and the questions he's asking from these guys who don't have much expertise with the system. Kid asked if he could listen, too (i.e. take off the headphones, papa). So I did. After a few minutes he said: "These guys have no idea what they're talking about! They're just yapping; they're not actually SAYING anything!"

Yeah. I know.

The time stamps I was making note of were questions that TMC was asking his guests...because I figured I'd list them here, on Ye Old Blog, and write out the answers I would have given him. But after seeing how aghast my son was, I decided to do something different: I forwarded the podcast to one of the questions, played it for my son, and then asked him what answer he would have given the interviewer (stopping the podcast so he didn't hear the guests' answers). My daughter wandered into the kitchen at about this time, and I ran her through the same exercise.

Here's the question (from 47:36 of the podcast):

"So, for myself or for anyone else who wants to learn AD&D what advice would you give? And with your advice I'd also ask for your two best house rules that you can remember."

Diego's answer: Advice? Be prepared. Know the adventure you're running. Know the rules. Two best house rules? #1: all dice rolls 'in the box.' #2: no PVP.

[we have a puzzle box lid that we roll all our dice in. Only dice that land in the box "count;" any die that bounces out of the box gets rerolled]

Sofia's answer: Be prepared for anything. Best house rules? No "goofing." No phones at the table.

My kids. So smart. Their answers were ten times better than the ones I would have given. 

SO...maybe I won't harangue and berate and belittle the poor guy for his near-decade old podcast. Hopefully, TMC has continued his 'experiment' and is still playing 1st edition today...hopefully, he's discovered for himself how and why the game works...I mean, nine years? That's a pretty good chunk of gaming under the belt. Plenty enough time to "figure things out."

Isn't it?

For me, I suppose I have a burning question of my own: if a person sits down to learn AD&D with a concept of role-playing shaped by latter day editions, are they going to be able to realign their expectations? Shift their paradigm, so to speak? For myself, who played plenty of "trad" RPGs in the 1990s, I can tell you there were subtle tweaks of reprogramming that needed to be rewired in my brain. You can see it in my older, dumber blog posts. Fortunately (for me), I already had a foundation of D&D play from my youth...I'd been witness to successful D&D play, and it was just a matter of digging out WHY it had been successful.

Which is easier said than done (no one really knew anything about this damn hobby when I was a kid). But after two decades (!!) of speculation on gaming and game design, I've got a pretty good handle on it. Maybe a smarter, wiser person than me could figure this out in half that time, without the foundational play experience? Maybe?

Ah, well.

I know...I know..that I have readers who are going to see this line of thought as incredibly presumptious and arrogant. Because, in a nutshell, I seem once again bent on dragging "edition wars" into this glorious hobby of ours, being judgmental and thick-headed about what makes "good play" or "bad" and yadda-yadda-yadda. Yeah, I know. "D&D has evolved," right? It ain't the same game it was, it serves different needs, the people playing it are different, etc., etc.  Okay, sure...I don't want to fight you folks (much) over the subject. I'm just a salty curmudgeon made saltier by the trends I see in the country I live in.

[and that's all I'll say about the election other than: boy, am I glad I live in Washington State!]

Anyway, I'm NOT (really) trying to come down hard and "judge-y" on people who play D&D differently from me. My frustration...which I feel the need to express...is that there are people out there, who might want to play D&D the way that I do...and who could!...if they only could get the few, simple answers they need. There ARE simple answers! Not easy ones, perhaps, but simple. There is a roadmap to (what I call) "solid D&D play." But getting it into the hands of the right people at the right time (2016! 2016!) is a tough ask.

SO...if you're a buddy of TMC, or happen to have run into him or gamed with him at GaryCon, give him a shout out from me. Tell him there are people who have only just discovered his stuff and are curious to know how it's all worked out for him in the intervening years. We'd like to hear more about his travails with AD&D 1E, and see how much (if any) they mirror our own. Tell him, the system is still being played by folks...many folks...around the world. 

Just let him know. And happy Thursday folks.

; )

[posted Friday because my Thursdays always seem to bog down. Darn it!]

Metagaming & Myopia

From the D&D Basic set, Sample Expedition (Moldvay, page B59):

Morgan: "...I'll search through the rags. Anything that looks like a cloak or boots?"

DM: "...Morgan, you do find a pair of old boots, but nothing like a cloak."

Morgan: "Fred will dump the silver and look for hidden compartments in the box. I'll try on the boots to see if I move silently -- we could use a pair of elven boots!"

DM: "...Morgan seems to be moving very quietly."

Morgan: "GREAT!"

The game of Dungeons & Dragons is a game. I know I've written that many times before; I know that other people have expounded on this idea many times before. It's not a new statement.

And yet, folks are constantly forgetting the fact.

"Your character wouldn't know that!" How many times has this phrase (or a variation of it) been uttered at the gaming table. How many times have DMs (or "helpful" PCs) policed would-be actions in the name of preventing a player from metagaming?

Per Ye Old Wikipedia, "metagaming" (i.e. approaching a game from outside the normal rule structure of the game in question) as applied to role-playing games

...often refers to having an in-game character act on knowledge that the player has access to but the character should not. For example, tricking Medusa to stare at a mirror when the character has never heard of Medusa and would not be aware of her petrifying stare.

In the above example from Moldvay's Basic, the Morgan's player is metagaming: she (the player) realizes there is a magic item called elven boots. She understands she is playing a game where players find magical treasures in dungeons. When she discovers an old pair of boots in a locked chest, she tries them to see if they function like the magical item...she uses player knowledge to inform and direct her character's action. Same as the player trying to trick Medusa into viewing her own reflected gaze.

Metagaming in roleplaying games is, generally, frowned upon. I was reminded of that recently when listening to the excellent first episode of the The Classic Adventure Gaming Podcast...a bunch of FAGs ("fantasy adventure gamers") discussing the fundamentals of fantasy adventure gaming, i.e. old edition D&D gaming.  These worthies bemoaned attempts to curtail metagaming as disrupting player agency...a bad thing in their estimation. A good example they cited was the DM disallowing a player from using flaming oil on a troll until AFTER seeing the thing regenerate from wounds sustained. 

As a longtime FAG myself, I found myself in total agreement with these youngsters (pretty sure I'm older than all of them...EOTB only started playing circa '87). But I wanted to consider WHY that is. I may be a cranky geezer, but I'm not so clueless as to believe I'm in the majority opinion here. What's the pushback against metagaming...and why do I find myself taking the opposite stance?

Back to wikipedia (*sigh*) where I find that the dislike of metagaming stems from two main issues:

1. It upsets the suspension of disbelief.
2. It affects game balance.

I'll address the second issue first. Metagaming for advantage has a loooong history, and applies to all sorts of competitive endeavors, not just roleplaying. If an umpire is calling pitches tight, you can draw more walks by making yourself smaller at the plate; if your boss cares more about friendship than performance when it comes promotion time, you go out of your way to be a "buddy." 

Gaming the system in this manner is certainly a form of cheating, but whether it is perceived as such is a matter of degree. Stealing signs in baseball wasn't illegal until 2017...and only then became illegal to use electronic devices to aid in sign stealing. Spreading rumors to your boss about a rival employee (in order to raise the boss's comparative estimation of yourself) would definitely be underhanded behavior.

But in a game like Dungeons & Dragons...a cooperative game of survival...what's the issue?  So what if the players know they need fire to defeat the troll? Oil, torches, fireballs...these are finite resources. The DM's ability to apply challenge (create monsters, etc.) is infinite. Why would a DM sweat players finding ways to circumvent challenge? Win or lose, the DM is going to responsible for creating NEW challenges anyway (in an on-going campaign). 

"Okay, JB, sure...but what about breaking the game? What about players that use the rules to their advantage such that there's no challenge AT ALL, EVER, EVER AGAIN?!"  Um...not sure what game you're playing there, pal. I guess I'd suggest you need to play something more robust...like 1st edition AD&D. In all my years of playing, I've never seen someone 'break' the system...and I've seen some pretty munchkin-y attempts.  The game scales amazingly well.

If the players aren't challenged by the game, it's the fault of the Dungeon Master, not "the meta."

So, let's look at the other complaint: upsetting the suspension of disbelief. Breaking the "immersion." Throwing sand in the well-oiled gears of the "role-playing" machine.

Mm.

D&D is a fantasy adventure game, i.e. a game that allows one to experience fantasy adventures. I know it is a "role-playing" game, but the role-playing is not the point of play...it is the medium through which the "play" gets done. You have a role to play. You are the fighter. Or the cleric. Or the All-Powerful Dungeon Maestro (trademark pending). What you are allowed to do in the game is based on the role you are playing. If you're a fighter, you don't get to turn undead or cast spells. If you are a player character, you don't get to design the dungeon. Got it?

"Immersion" (which I suppose could be loosely defined as "losing oneself in imagined escapist fantasy") DOES occur in the process of playing D&D, and for many participants...perhaps most participants...it is the main draw and attraction of the hobby. 

[I can tell you that my wife strongly dislikes playing RPGs because she is incredibly uncomfortable with the immersion experience: for her, it is NOT fun...rather it is disconcerting]

But in my experience, immersion does not come as the result of playing a role, or a character, or attending to one's background, backstory, character arc, etc.  Instead, immersion ONLY comes from being directly engaged with the gameplay at the table. That requires interest in the material and pressure applied by the circumstances of the game, as facilitated by both the DM and the system mechanics.

Now, I understand there are LOTS of human beings out there who don't give a rip about armor-clad, sword-swinging elves confronting slimy monsters in underground caves while looking for gold and jewels. I get that! Just like there are LOTS of people (like me) who care absolutely zero about whether or not they can put a round rubber ball through a netted hoop 10' off the ground. Different strokes for different folks. Hard to be engaged in a game whose premise you're just not into.

But it's the play of the game you are interested in that creates the immersive experience, the time loss where you look up and say "we've been playing for HOW long?"  You might get a kick out of pretending (internally or externally) that you are Michael Jordan, LeBron James, etc., but it's the action of playing basketball that draws you in, not the play-acting on the court. Likewise, I might enjoy putting on an accent and referring to myself as Wendell the Wondrous Wizard at the game table...but ACTING like an imaginary person is NOT the game. Confronting the challenge of the fantasy adventure at hand is the game.

Metagaming, then, does not discourage immersion...and, in many cases, can lead to deeper immersion as it allows players to more actively engage with the material at hand:

"Oh My God: a TROLL? We need fire to kill these guys!" "Who has the oil?" "I only have two flasks left and we're going to need the lantern to get out of the dungeon!" "I still have a light spell left." "Okay, we can risk it...see, this is why you save the fireball spell!"

D&D is a game. It is not a film, not a story. It does not require suspension of disbelief, because the immersion that occurs does not come (as with a film) from sitting down and passively absorbing the story that is fed through our senses. The immersion comes from participation and active engagement...as with any game.

No DM should worry about metagaming. Just worry about building the world...the game parts, run correctly, will take care of themselves. 

: )

Change

Yesterday was my daughter's 8th birthday. It was a lot of fun, lots of crazy kids running around, enjoying themselves. A house full of 2nd grade girls, doing crafting projects, making tortillas, playing hide-n-seek, breaking pinatas (well, one pinata), etc. Fun, fun, fun.

And, of course, a time for reflection and nostalgia when (later, after the guests had left) my daughter and mother and I went through photos from 2014 when she had just been born and was still a little red-faced babe with a spiky mohawk. *sigh* Change. So inevitable. So uncomfortable...at times.

My D&D journey has taken me back to the beginning of my personal history, now that I'm (pretty exclusively) playing first edition AD&D. To an outside observer I can understand how my adherence to that old edition of the game can seem like a curmudgeonly way of clenching my fists and trying to hold tight to some piece of history, resisting the inevitable march of change...of progress. I can see how the AD&D aficionado must often seem like dowager Lady Grantham pining for the pomp and tradition of the previous century (sorry...the fam has been rewatching the Downton Abbey series for, like, the third time through). 

Image of the inner
soul of a typical
first edition gamer.

But that's...not quite right. Nor is it simple nostalgia, nor is it the flighty/flakiness of the gamer of a person unwilling to commit to a single version and must constantly play and try other games. These things...obstinance, nostalgia, flakiness...are certainly present in me (all to a great degree, actually), but that's not what's going on here. And I want to talk about just what IS going on...at least from my perspective.

As I mentioned at the end of my last post, German AD&D enthusiast Settembrini recently interviewed Trent Foster Smith (in English) for his Zock-Bock-Radio podcast. Trent's been doing the AD&D thing for a long, long time, and I think some of his insights on that edition are pretty spectacular (and, no, I'm not just talking about the bad AC numbers in the MM). However, he and Settembrini both seem to have some blind spots about B/X, its appeal, and why it seems to have taken such a strong hold on the "old school" D&D community, especially through the OSE (Old School Essentials) clone. Let me start with that, as B/X is a large and significant part of my journey.

The main difference between my beginning in the hobby and other folks starting around the same time is that I came to the game through Tom Moldvay's Basic set (the "B" of B/X) NOT the Frank Mentzer authored, two volume hand holder that started the BECMI odyssey of completeness. I would agree with Trent's assessment of the basic game feeling too staid and closed (as a system) compared to AD&D...if the discussion were limited to a comparison between Gygax's opus and Mentzer's series. But Mentzer's series...despite the B and E containing near identical content to the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B and X are quite different in terms of scope and tone. That "fuzziness around the edges" that Trent finds so inviting of addition and extrapolation is likewise found in the B/X books...books of a series that were never completed (they author's talk about a forthcoming "Companion" book that was never published until the series was re-booted by Mentzer with a shift in focus, direction, and...for my money...target demographic). 

This is why...when I returned to "serious" D&D play, I came back to B/X rather than AD&D. Both B/X and AD&D have the ingredients that inspire. Both have the fuzziness to invite additional (design) exploration. Both of them are fairly simple to run (one more so than the other). And of the two, B/X is far more accessible to the Average Joe or Jane. That's why, when teaching the game to others, I always start with the B/X system (or Labyrinth Lord, back before B/X became readily available)...it is a far easier method of ingraining the basic premise and understanding of the game before moving into any sort of "advanced" play.

But as a game, B/X is limited. Sure, all D&D is limited...because there are only so many words you can put down in a text/manual and the human imagination quickly and easily surpasses the scope of that which is contained in the books. But B/X's limitations...which I found so charming and that opened so many possibilities ten years ago (back when I was writing my B/X Companion, The Complete B/X Adventurer, and blogging other material for the B/X system)...its limitations stop short of what AD&D offers, namely expanded campaign play. And while the open-ended nature of B/X certainly leaves space to develop that extended campaign play, AD&D's robust system already offers a paradigm for such, including extensive play-testing to resolve (or at least make note of) flaws of design that require addressing.

The world building cosmology on display in the AD&D books is the thing that's missing from B/X and its clones (including LL, OSE, etc.). AD&D shows the evolution of the mindset that is required to continue compelling D&D play. You see it in the extensive world-building of all three core books:

• The MM: the hierarchies of demons, devils, the congress between lower plane denizens (night hags and their trading in souls), elementals, the various sub-races of elves and halflings, etc. and the various tribes of orcs (with their siege equipment and above-ground villages) and men (dervishes and pilgrims and whatnot).
• The PHB: you see it in the bardic colleges, the druid and monk hierarchies, the "guilds" of thieves and assassins, the economy hinted at via the equipment lists, the sketches of the inner and outer planes and their cosmology, and various hints here and there (which races can be psionic, which races may NOT be resurrected, etc.)...all things which say SOMEthing about the world.
• The DMG: an opening into the inner workings of the Gygax mentality regarding campaign construction and world building and yet again MORE examples of world building through the extrapolation of PHB material and the inclusion of more legendary items (artifacts and relics and whatnot) from the author's own campaign and imagination.

Without this evolution...without this attention to world building...the game becomes tired. It becomes just a matter of how one can run tricks and tart the thing up, creating new classes, creating new monsters, adding new (minor) rule tweaks and systems...none of which amount to deepening or enriching the play experience. Instead, it only amounts to sitting down at the table and saying, "well, what's our adventure tonight?"

Advanced play engrosses the participants in a way that basic play does not.

You can see this in the difference between the introductory modules T1 (for AD&D) and B2 (for Basic). T1: The Village of Hommlet spends an enormous amount of space (some would say an inordinate or excessive amount) on the village proper...its history (old and recent), its inhabitants, its various factions.  Who cares? The B/X player cries. Where can I buy a two-handed sword? When do we get to the dungeon? This is, of course, the basic approach to the game...it does not invite players to live in the fantasy world or engage with it in more than a cursory manner.

The advanced version of the game does. And while DMs can take what B2: The Keep on the Borderlands offers and extrapolate from it, breathing life into the module, detailing the Keep's denizens, imagining the factions that might exist between Cave denizens, and the secret histories that connect various wilderness encounters with each other and the wilder world...well, most don't. It's more work than what's needed...it's more effort than the need for what the adventure was designed (i.e. an introduction to the game, its systems, its premise, etc.). It is a great introduction to the basic game...for both the players AND the DM. But trying to back-engineer it for advanced play...well, that's an interesting thought experiment, but you might as well be developing your own world.

[see, that's the part that (I think) the Greyhawk aficionados miss. DMs who dive deep into the Greyhawk lore for inspiration are, in a way, still playing just a LARGE version of Basic, juggling all the moving parts of someone else's campaign world...like some sort of mega-normous wilderness/dungeon combo. Not all of them, of course, but...well, that's a post for another time]

I got back into old edition D&D after realizing that there was nothing really preventing me from going back and playing old edition D&D except (perhaps) the need to find willing players. Previously, I had some sort of "block" about this idea of playing "old" games. I chose B/X because it was a well-written, well-designed version of the D&D game that, while streamlined and sensible, left enough out to still fire the imagination and not shut down possibilities with what happens after level 14 (as did Mentzer's BECMI series and the later Rules Cyclopedia compilation by Aaron Alston). 

B/X alone no longer satisfies me...at this point, only Advanced play will do. And I have settled on the 1E rules as my vehicle/delivery system of choice for that type of play experience, as later editions seem to have missed the point, instead worrying about appealing to the changing gamer demographic, most likely due to, you know, the need to make money as a business:

• 2E tried to tell heroic stories (and sell novels/book series)
• 3E created complex systems that incorporated universal principals and unique character builds.
• 4E was designed to emulate MMORPG play/terminology (especially World of Warcraft)
• 5E ORIGINALLY attempted to appeal to as many prior gamer generations as possible, seeking to reclaim market share/brand identity by reaching out to individuals who felt alienated by earlier editions and create the One Great Compromise edition. However, due to the overwhelming popularity of the video series Critical Role (and its imitators) 5E continues to morph in a direction that is more about...well, something else. Storytelling, grandstanding, performance art...I don't know. I don't really want to dig into it. It appeals to some folks...that's fine; do you. That's not what/why I play D&D.

To draw this post to a close, I'm not playing first edition AD&D because it's the game I played as a kid (I did play it as a kid, which has given me insight into just how the game is played and its potential greatness). I am not playing AD&D because it is some mark of prestige or curmudgeonly badge of honor. I'm not playing it because its systems are perfect or elegant or the height of RPG design theory. And I'm not playing it because it's the edition with which I have the most familiarity (that would probably be B/X).

No, I'm playing AD&D because I've changed my mindset about what I want from this game and what I want from this hobby, and the 1E books deliver this in a method and manner better than any of the other editions. Its root and core is sound; its author, for all his faults and flaws, was able to convey the experience of advanced gaming in a way that I have yet to see equalled (which, considering the quality, may be a sad statement about the RPG industry).

Change is uncomfortable...and inevitable. More changes, I'm sure, will come. And I'm sure this blog will continue to document my own. Cheers.

; )

Reclamation Project

Despite my recent posts on running campaigns, I have to say I'm not in a position at the moment to actually start up a campaign. Not really. And that's okay! Because: A) I now have some NEW ideas about how to run/manage a campaign (based on my recent reflections) that give me a hopeful "pathway" to what I'm looking for, and B) My "position" (with regard to running a campaign) may well be turning around in the near future; there's a light at the end of that particular tunnel.

However: not now and not yet.

In the meantime, I've got a new idea buzzing around in this bonnet of mine and given how (in the past) those have morphed into some of my best ideas (maybe...it feels like that's the case, though I haven't been keeping count) I've decided to bat it around a bit and see what comes of it. Though I know it's going to bore and/or irritate the hell out of some of my readers.

Dragonlance. That's what I'm talking about.

First, the preamble: my actual knowledge of Dragonlance only goes so deep. Here's the summary of it: I read the first two trilogies (when they were first published). My friend owned a handful of the old TSR adventure modules, but we never ran any of them. I read one or two of the later short story anthologies, maybe played an "Endless Quest" book or two based in the DL setting, and have (in recent years) read/skimmed many of the old 1st edition modules. Anything else Dragonlance related (later books/stories, SAGA edition DL, conversions and setting books for 3E - 5E etc.) makes no nevermind to me; I have ZERO interest in ANY of it.

And the reason I have ZERO interest in it is this: it's all a goddamn cash grab. The first six novels aren't great; they have a certain nostalgic value to me that I'd compare to what my 30-some year old readers have in their relationship with Harry Potter (I've read the Potter books and find them to be...mostly...trash; however, they weren't published till I was an adult and kids who grew up with them will always have a special place in their hearts for Rowling's series). But once the War of the Lance was over (i.e. gods returned to Krynn, balance restored) and the "matter of Raistlin" settled, the story for me was over. I did not need to know anything about the children (or children's children) of the original protagonists or any of that...that's the same kind of BS that leads to a continuing Star Wars saga that must always feature Skywalker-Solo-Palpatine relatives. 

[and I'm not just talking about Episodes VII - IX. I'm talking about the entire "Expanded Universe" of books and novels and comics and whatnot...the merchandising machine that is the Star Wars franchise]

I'm not terribly interested in IP franchises. Some are more interesting than others, sure. But mostly I find them as callously and/or ill-thought out ways to fleece fans out of money. And while I may sound cynical with my derogatory tone and terms, I'm just trying to acknowledge the facts of the world: that's how this stuff works these days. 

• Someone creates something that is a labor of love. 
• It achieves an enormous popularity. 
• Creators make some money. 
• Corporation buys creation for exorbitant sum. 
• Corporation milks creation in order to profit from investment. 

That's fine and dandy (I mean, it's the model we're stuck with) but that doesn't mean I'm required to "buy in" and read up on the "Chaos Wars" or the further adventures of Kronin Thistleknot or whatever. And since I'm not required, I'm choosing to opt out.

*AHEM* Preamble out of the way. So why am I looking at Dragonlance again? Welp, I was checking up on some of my old fave podcasts and saw the Boiz from Alabamia (ggnore) are still at it, and most recently have been running through DL1: Dragons of Despair. This being one of the DL modules I actually own (and being from a formative stage of D&D's evolution) I was more than a little excited to give it a listen and see how THEY handled it...especially given their penchant for "rage-quitting" every time they attempt to run a typical WotC "adventure arc" (DL being the original railroad campaign). Figured I'd check it out.

And how'd it turn out? Meh, mostly. The ggnore guys are highly amusing/entertaining, but the adventure itself was pretty mediocre. And mostly that's because the adventure itself is pretty mediocre (or worse)...though I will be the first to admit that 5th edition (which the kids use to run the game) bug the shit out of me, and is a constant source of annoyance. But I'm aware that's my hangup...and even I liked 5E it wouldn't change my opinion of the module as a module.

But if anything (this is the ridiculous part), listening to the failure or a "straight take" on Dragonlance As Written (DAW) fires me up to rehabilitate the damn thing. As I said: ridiculous. But I keep thinking about (and re-reading) GusL's old posts on the subject...and I keep thinking DL isn't that bad. Actually, it's better than "not bad:" it's downright intriguing, if one is willing to divorce it from the overall narrative structure, and from the adventure modules' attempts to execute that narrative structure within an illusionary "D&D campaign."

Post-apocalyptic fantasy world is great, in other words! For one thing (and I admit this is completely selfish of me), one can totally explain the fantasy world landscape to be "screwed up" with regard to things like geography and population centers being outside of realistic paradigms. Why is this ruined seaport town in a desert? Because of the Cataclysm! Why is this empire broken up over multiple islands? Because of the Cataclysm! It all made sense before the world was hit by a divine meteor strike...duh!

SO...here's what I'm thinking: I'm going to take a couple "exploratory steps" which (at the moment...very late at night over here) will look something like this:

Step 1: Dispense with the sundry. Boil the setting history down into a couple paragraphs. Most everything "historical" about Krynn (its basic timeline) will be myths, legends, and half-truths at best. It's a post Cataclysm world and no one really knows why there are dwarves and gnomes (for example) or why the gods abandoned the world...and it doesn't really matter. Survival does.

Step 2: REALLY dispense with the sundry. There are no "Heroes of the Lance" (Raistlin, Tanis, all those folks)...at least not as "player characters." Major NPCs (especially antagonists and allies) will be retained, though with more realistic bios and motivations...no mustache-twirling villains! Fortunately, most of the characters ARE pretty good (if one uses the later novels as a guide)...they just need a little polishing. NPCs that become "heroes" in the books (and PCs in the modules: Laurana, Gilthanas, Gunther, etc.) will probably skip the development arcs of the Hickman/Weiss novels. But no great plot-armored "heroes with destinies;" they're all dead in ditches somewhere (yes, even Riverwind and Gold Moon...Jesus, the whole "barbarian plainsman" thing really needs a re-skin!).

Step 3: Correct one or two missteps. I've written before about my issues with the gold and religion "tweaks" in the DL campaign setting. These will need to be rethought and corrected. I like the idea of spell-less clerics (or, rather, the idea of spell-casting clerics as "expandable content" to the setting), but it needs a little reworking as presented. No, Elistan does not simply show up as a 7th level "true cleric." Un-uh. And basic issues of economy and fungible types of exchange will be better worked out when I work through the post-apocalyptic world and the population centers that exist. I haven't decided on kender, yet...or even draconians. I mean, are they (draconians) really necessary? A whole 'nother topic.

Step 4: Overhaul a module or two. Not nearly as gruesome a task as it sounds; mainly consists of editing out the bulk of the useless (flavor text, railroad arcs, pre-gen PCs, and moralistic motivations) and see what's left...I'm guessing it will look something like a handful of maps, some NPC placements (lairs, villages, and whatnot), and some kind of timeline with regard to movements and logistics of the Dragon Army. Ideally, I'd like to strip down the 12 modules that made up the original saga (DL1-4, 6-10, and 12-14) to get a general outline of the coordination of the "Krynn Conquest" and use that as the basis of play. 

The more I think about it, the more I want to do it. But man o man, it is LATE and I really need to get some sleep...there's been a lot less than normal this week, if you can imagine. Maybe I'm just a bit loopy.

; )

Essential Repurposing (Part 1)

AKA "Fixing Stuff For Fun And Profit"

I'll cut to the chase: I picked up a copy of the D&D Essentials Kit. Yes, I put money in WotC's pocket ($12 and change), although I do have 90 days to return the thing to Target.

The reason for this? I wanted a copy of the included adventure, Dragon of Icespire Peak. I have a bit of a "thing" for white dragons. That may not have been obvious over the years (though the last time I created an adventure with a dragon...nine years ago!...it was a white), but they're probably my second faves, after black dragons. Their Superman-like, liquid nitrogen breath is not only a cool image, and it's a bit easier to justify than a monster that breathes fire...plus, they have the best natural camouflage (IMO) of all the dragons.

I'm rooting for the dragon.

Besides, I dig on snow and ice settings (duh...see Land of Ice for examples); heck, I almost picked up a copy of Frostburn, long after I'd chucked DND3 from my life. Probably would have purchased it, if it'd had a white dragon on the cover.

Anyway, I wanted to see the type of adventure being constructed over at Wizards of the Coast and see if it was anything I might use...or modify...for my own ends. Here's what my $13 bought me:

- An "Essentials Kit Rulebook" that I have zero interest in reading. Really. I've read the 5E books, I've played a session (or two?) of 5E, and I've listened to multiple hours of 5E "actual play" podcasts. I know that the game, as it's currently being produced, is extremely irritating to my psyche and outside the sphere of "things-I-want-to-engage-with." I'd go back to AD&D RAW long before I'd sit down to a 5E game session.

[well, not quite RAW. I will never again play AD&D with character limitations based on sex/gender. Yes, we did this in my youth...even our female players, who generally ran fighter characters...but I'm done with that particular brand of machismo stereotype]

- A nice set of (eleven) dice.

- A DMs' screen that has a lovely illustration on it. If I was crafty at all, I'd find some way to cut it up into some sort of decorative doo-dad. Unfortunately, I'm not.

- Some 5E tools (cards for initiative, conditions, magic items) that I probably won't be able to use. Actually, the "sidekick cards" might work fine as a stack of random NPCs.

- A map of the Sword Coast portion of the Forgotten Realms campaign setting.

- The 64 page adventure book that was my impetus for buying the box.

Let's see, anything else? Some blank (5E) character sheets. A box for holding cards. Some codes to unlock additional on-line content (not sure if I need to be enrolled in D&D Beyond to use that). Eh. All-in-all, I suppose it's not a bad value for a "starter set"...dice alone would probably cost $5-6. What price would you put on 14 easily re-purposed "dungeon" maps; a quarter a piece? Maybe $.50 to $1, given that they include some possible ideas/inspiration in the text?

Maybe. They aren't great. If you're interested in WHY they're "not great" (or, as some might say, "terrible") I'd direct you to this recent ggnore podcast (episode 175) for the informed opinion of a group of regular 5E users who bothered to play through most of the adventure (their actual play podcasts...about 12 hours worth...comprise four or five of their earlier episodes).

But I already knew that...I mean I did research the thing before I bought it.

Here's the thing, though: I (me) am not quite ready to say the ideas here are "terrible." Many of the quests presented here (the term used to describe the dozen plus micro adventures that make up the whole of this mini-campaign) aren't anything worse than what I'd come up with for a single session or two at the table. Maybe that says more about me (and my lack of creativity), but not every adventure need be a giant, six level dungeon filled with world-destroying threats nor does every event occurring in a campaign require some sort of clever inter-woven story/plot construction. Sometimes a simple kernel of an encounter can yield hours of entertainment.

The real problem, in my opinion, is more one of execution...that is to say, I'm not the fan of how these quests/adventures are supposed to unfold. And that is mainly a 5E issue rather than a lack of imagination on the part of the author. The Essentials Kit wants to provide an introductory adventure (rid this region of its dragon problem), that's a bit too steep in challenge for a a band of newbie adventurers. So it provides a bunch of "warm-up" adventures that the player characters will need to grind in order to achieve the requisite power level to face the ultimate encounter (the eponymous dragon).

Grind is the operative word here...there is little reward offered in any of the adventures, save for the promised leveling that comes with the completion of the "quests." Players need to seek out and check off every notice on the town's job board in order to achieve the necessary milestones (i.e. "auto-level ups") that will eventually (around 6th level) allow them to face down the dragon. Since treasure means little to the 5E character (most of their best upgrades come from levels not equipment...and gold doesn't earn XP) there's nothing to really motivate characters except what "meta" story you want to give your party.

Hell, even the dragon has bupkis in the way of treasure (whoops! SPOILER). One would imagine that the main incentive for fighting a dragon would be, you know, claiming its hoard or getting showered with gold by a grateful community. Not here! The dragon of Icespire Peak is broke as a joke...it lairs on the roof of a ruined castle, eating the occasional mountain orc that it manages to catch, and has exactly zero as far as a hoard. The grateful villagers? Well, the townmaster "might plan a feast in the heroes honor" (emphasis added by yours truly).

So there's very little reason I can think of for a group of adventurers to hang around an area being threatened by a dragon, let alone take the time to grind a bunch of step-and-fetch/kill adventures for little reward beside the leveling. It reminds me quite a bit of a video game script...but if I wanted to play a video game I'd be doing that. Video games do video games better than tabletop RPGs do.

And just in case anyone's wondering, this isn't a rant...it's just weary observation.

Back to the point: Dragon of Icespire Peak isn't a great adventure, but that's mainly due to 5E not being a great system. Oh, I know folks love 5E and all that (or are resigned to playing it or whatever) but for my money (and I did spend actual money on this thing) you really start to see the warts on the thing when you look at this kind of product. The ggnore boyz say it's the best WotC adventure since Phandelver...but based on some reviews I've read, that may be damning with faint praise.

Still, I do love white dragons. I love them as a feature monster, not just some knightly mount or frost giant pet. I think they do make a good antagonist for a party of low level adventurers: a sizable (though not insurmountable) risk to balance against a presumably rich reward. That IS what Dungeons & Dragons is supposed to be about after all, right? You defeat the dragon, you divvy up the spoils.

What I'd like to do...now...is rewrite the adventure. Make it a little more "old school friendly;" something with a B/X (or even AD&D) sensibility. File off the serial numbers, prune the edges, maybe slap an OGL on it and sell the PDF for a couple bucks. Try my best to make the thing a bit more useable as a campaign jumpstart.

Would anyone have any objections to me giving it a go?

My favorite white dragon pic.

Grumpy Old Man

Jeez, I have been a grump lately. Posted a couple feisty comments on other people's blogs...something I generally try *not* to do (especially with gaming blogs...everyone should have a kind space in which to express their geeky ideas). But my "tolerance dial" for certain types of bullshit is close to zero at the moment, and I guess I've got an itchy trigger finger.

And I'm not sure what exactly is making me a grump. Stress? Lack of sleep? Financial pressures? The state of the world in general? I don't know. Bunches of stuff combining, probably (duh). So, as a way of hitting reset on Ye Old Dial, this post will give me a chance to vent my spleen on a few things. Feel free to come back on a later post if you're not interested...

Been listening to several podcasts lately, of various types. Let's just say I've had a lot of stuff I've been doing that doesn't require much cognitive thought (I can't read, write, or research with headphones on). Some of it has been NPR-type stuff...stuff on health or parenting or whatever. But much of it has been game related...not just reviews and analysis (which I dig, both for info and for different perspectives/ideas), but also actual play stuff (when I can get it) or folks' recaps, thoughts, and observations on actual play.

Two of my favorites (which I haven't mentioned in previous posts) are GGNORE and Unlikely Adventurers. They are very different from each other but are similar in several ways that interest me:

- both I find to be VERY amusing (though Unlikely Adventurers is NSFW material)
- both are podcasts by "young" gamers: Unlikely Adventurers are in their early 20s, GGNORE are (I think) around age 30 or so.
- both podcasts are by folks who LOVES the "D&D"
- both podcasts are very knowledgable (they know their subject matter)
- both feature active gamers that use the 5E rule sets, though they all started with earlier editions of the game

GGNORE has been running longer (since 2015). I haven't had a chance to go though their entire catalogue (they have some multi-hour AP episodes), but I've hit a dozen or so since I found them a couple months back. They appear to be young professionals (with families) who live in the south (southeast) United States. They are very funny but their humor is mostly "clean" while still plenty irreverent. Despite using 5E as their preferred rule set, DM Daniel has some very "old school" sensibilities. They make use of pre-published adventures (everything from T1: Village of Hommlet to the more recent Tomb of Annihilation) but set it in their own campaign world of "Alabamia." While they still make use of "rests" and "death saves" they've taken any kind of raise dead/resurrection magic out of their world...dead is dead in Alabamia. In addition to AP recordings, they provide recaps and analysis, and I find them to be both thoughtful and insightful on things from adventure design to convention play. If you're a damn Yankee like myself, whose only exposure to southerners has been the American southwest or movie stereotypes, GGNORE is well worth a listen. I haven't caught the most recent podcasts (last one I heard they were running Dogs in the Vineyard using 5E tropes and DitV rules/themes...crazy bastards), but...well, that's only because of these other folks...

[EDIT: I did go back and listen to the most recent couple podcasts. Roll Tide]

Unlikely Adventurers features two young ladies (Becca and Macy) shooting the shit about D&D and ridiculous character ideas they have. They are extremely funny and foul-mouthed, self-deprecating and irreverent in the extreme. They are also exceptionally knowledgable about D&D...both play in regular campaigns and DM their own campaigns. I've heard they have an AP episode or two, but I haven't found it yet (while they've only been 'casting since 2018, they have more than 50 episodes and I've only hit about seven). Especially interesting was their recent discussion with fellow DM/guest host Travis, in which he discusses his ideas on running a campaign (and his comparisons between D&D and other "long-form" storytelling mediums, specifically anime and pro wrestling). All of the people on this show are under 25, and they're from this area (the Pacific Northwest, if not Seattle proper).

[EDIT NUMERO DOS: Found some actual play podcasts where Becca runs a one-off for the ladies from Unnatural Twenties, a podcast group I hadn't heard of before. Again, very entertaining, and an interesting window into the way one might run a 5E game. Shades of White Wolf with the cinematic "cut scenes," but vid gamers (I'm sure) are versed in this kind of thing and (perhaps) have come to expect it]

[I should probably note that I've met Becca Morgan before...briefly, and years ago. I do not know her personally, but she is the daughter of an acquaintance]

What I find fascinating in comparing these podcasts is that while "role-playing" (both playing a character and playing in character) is an important aspect of the gaming experience for both, the importance of "storytelling" is very different between the two. The GGNORE "boiz" aren't particularly interested in playing out story arcs...they're reviews of WotC's Adventure Paths are pretty telling. They're also sincere and explicit with what what they find to be interesting and enjoyable in their gaming, what works for them and what doesn't, and while they dutifully jump through 5E's hoops of character creation (creating backgrounds, bonds, choosing factions, etc.) it's clear that any kind of backstory is near useless to the immersive experience they're seeking in the game.

Contrast this with the UA ladies (and buddy Travis), whose war stories imply a deep interest in exploring situation as it impacts the characters they create. They talk about story arcs and recurring (NPC) characters and how the backgrounds/personalities of their various characters interacts with the game in-play. Yes, it's still D&D...they also discuss combats and broken rules and normal adventure-type stuff, too.

[also their simultaneous loathing/fascination with bards, which I'm starting to believe is a universal thing across all editions and generations of players]

...but their approach to the game feels (to me) far more "meta" and far less "immersion." These appear to be folks really bent on creating a story out of their game, rather than an experience...or, rather, the story IS the experience they're looking for, regardless of whether or not it's absurd or serious as hell. I may be misinterpreting, but it reminds me very much of the type of gaming I was doing back in the 90s...just, you know, 25 years later.

Anyhoo, they're both fun, both educational (in terms of "educating grumpy archair grognardia like myself about the varying states of D&D"), and both worth a listen. Neither one has convinced me to give 5th edition a whirl...quite the opposite, in fact. But they're helping to crystalize my ideas on what's important to my game, while still providing entertainment as I run around doing stuff. Check 'em out.

Rules

You know what I love? Dan ("Delta") Collins's Original Edition Delta rules. You know why? Because he provides a massive number of design notes explaining exactly why he has decided on these particular rulings for his personal D&D game. Sometimes he references later D&D texts (his foundational system is OD&D); sometimes he references his own blog; sometimes he references specific historical treatise or reenactments.

This is awesome. This is what I want to do. I want to "footnote the hell out of" my rulebooks so that every time I get some random idea or notion I can check my notes and see EXACTLY WHY I made a decision to go the way I already did...and put the matter to rest.

It doesn't mean you can't change your rules later on! Listening to Dan's and Paul's webcasts, Dan is often heard taking to heart tweaks and modifications Paul has found useful/helpful in actual play, and added or updated his rules because of it (Paul is also using OED for some of his games, but with personal modifications). To me this is perfectly acceptable; even when a new rule or system appears to work well in play, over time it may shape your campaign in ways you don't necessarily want.

[a quick example...and one NOT incorporated by Dan...comes from this recent podcast: Paul's critical hit table, based in part on WHFRP's system, resulted in every PC in his campaign having some number of amputated limbs by 5th level. Amusing though that might be, not every DM wants a motley group of peg-legs and hook-hands populating their game (I did that back when I used to run ElfQuest...gets old after a while). It actually shaped the tone of Paul's campaign, and he has since reduced the chance of maiming]

Just having a "bible" of sorts that explains your rules is an idea I find incredibly useful. Yes, it can be time consuming (check out Tao's Wiki if you want to look at a more massive example)...but just having the reference available must be invaluable in the amount of time you save: seeing that note by the text means you have examined the rule, tested the rule, reasoned why you want the rule the way it is (either to model something specific or to better facilitate play)...and then you can just leave it alone. And if questioned by your table you have the explanation right there to point to...though I'd suggest holding all questions for after the session concludes.

I really need to take the time to do this. I balk at making the effort because I realize it will be time consuming. But it will save me so much time later...once I get back to running a regular game. Best to get as much ruling out of the way now, so that I can focus on playing when the time comes.

Revisiting Karameikos

Sometimes (often?), when I have a blog idea that really gets me jazzed up, I end up doing a bunch of "research"on the subject, that can distract or derail me for days (or weeks) on end. Such is the case with this post, which has been sitting in "draft form" since January 18th. While this info doesn't matter all that much to the subject at hand, I feel like folks might be interested in the fact that I'm not (always) pulling these missives out of my ass, and that when I have a delay in posting it's (sometimes) due to me trying to get more info for my readers' benefit.

[BTW: I put "research" in quotes, because a lot of my study is simply culling and collating stuff from various places on the internet...it's hardly locking myself in some shadowy corner of the library. Not trying to put on airs, people!]

GAZ1; Published 1987

The Grand Duchy of Karameikos is a campaign setting that's been around (in published form) at least as long as I've been in the hobby. As I mentioned the other day, Aaron Allston did the bulk of the work fleshing out the Duchy in the BECMI supplement Gazetteer #1 of the same name. I won't go over too much of what's covered in the Gaz; interested folks can get a brief overview of the setting from this podcast (which draws from multiple sources post-1983, i.e. after the advent of Mentzer's BECMI edition).

[there's another video review specific to the Gazeteer itself, but while longer it has a lot of extemporaneous nonsense, ranging from opinionated asides to factual errors regarding both the setting and the game's development...I gather Mr. McCoy is more of a 2E/Forgotten Realms enthusiast, so his musings may be pertinent to folks interested in his perspective]

Karameikos first appears in published form in 1981, both as a territory of "the Known World" in module X1: The Isle of Dread, and detailed as a "sample wilderness" in the Cook/Marsh Expert set (the "X" rulebook of B/X). As has been noted by others, the Known World setting was originally created by Tom Moldvay and Lawrence Schick for their home campaign and in that setting (per Schick's old notes) Karameikos appears to have been little more than a Thyatian city-state existing on a skinny peninsula.

Besides changing the city to a Grand Duchy (and much larger territory), the Expert rulebook offers the following details of the land of Karameikos:

"The Duchy is a large tract of wilderness and unsettled land claimed by Duke Stefan Karameikos the Third. Although he claims control of a large area of land on paper, large portions of it are held by humanoids and monsters. The two main settled areas are the coast near the main city of Specularum and the Black Eagle Barony on the Gulf of Halag.

"The weather throughout the area represented...is generally temperate and mild with short winters of little or no snowfall and long summers. Rainfall is ample but not heavy and easterly winds blow cool breezes from over the sea.

"The mountain range running along the north edge of the map is known by different names by the peoples of the territory including the Black Peaks, the Truth Mountains, or the Steach. The two large river systems that provide drainage from the area are left for the DM to name.

"Due to the climate, large sections of this map are heavily forested. Humans engage in lumber operations near the edges of the forests, but are loathe to venture too deeply without good cause. Timber, both hardwood and softwood, is a prime resource of the area, and is either exported or used to build ships in the shipyards of the port of Specularum."

- D&D Expert Set, Page X60

In addition to this overview of the territory, the book (briefly) describes the three areas primarily inhabited by humans (Specularum, the Black Eagle Barony, and Luln) and the gnome community residing in the foothills of the mountain range (north of the coastal capitol). The map shows three inhabited castles (not counting the Duke's fortress), two ruins (Wereskalot and the Haunted Keep from the Basic set), and several humanoid areas within the Duchy: two forests of "elves," three different tribes of "goblins," some "orcs," and a region of "frost giants" (!!) in the mountains of the northeastern border.

I'll discuss the "human lands" in a later post. What's most interesting to me, in light of the development that has occurred in the years since its first appearance, are all the things that are NOT mentioned in the description here that became later "plot points." Missing is any mention of a Thyatian connection, nor is there any discussion of conquest or of an indigenous (Traladar) people. There is no discussion of native religion, mythology, or history...the Lost Valley (site of the 1986 adventure module B10: Night's Dark Terror) isn't even part of the territory (being located over the northern border). No familial connection is made between Baron Ludwig and Duke Stefan, and the baron isn't portrayed as quite the "scheming villain" he becomes later in the Gazeteers (also: no mention of any mage named "Bargle"). The gnomes are not the Duke's silver-smiths...they don't even seem to be allied with Karameikos at this point, though this appears to be a possible adventure opportunity (building an alliance with the community). For folks only familiar with Mentzer's Expert set, there is no mention of Threshold at all...it's not even on the map (and I'm inclined to believe it was entirely a Frank Mentzer invention).

Mainly, Karameikos is presented as an underpopulated area ripe with adventure opportunities; a place to be explored and (at higher levels) settled by the player characters. Specularum appears far more of an Old West style "border town" than a place rife with intrigue and feuding merchant clans (as detailed in B6: The Veiled Society and GAZ1). For me, a guy who mostly ignored BECMI when writing my "what-could-have-been" B/X Companion, I find myself intrigued by the possibility of re-inventing (re-imagining?) Karameikos along my own lines...something a little less "good two shoes" with its O So Noble Archduke, his pleasantly banal family, and the mustache-twirling Baron of "Fort Doom." While I did play a good deal of BECMI in the past, my players never spent much time in Karameikos (at least, after exploring the various scenarios in Threshold and the Keep on the Borderlands), instead spending most of their time in Glantri, Darokin, and (to a lesser extent) Ethengar. I think that the Grand Duchy, even with slight twists to the existing "canon," could be a pretty neat setting for a campaign.

I'd definitely like to dig a bit deeper into it.
: )