On Role-Playing (Part 6 of 11)

It’s funny…all those years of denigrating the alignment rules for not adding value to the game and here they’re the KEY instructions on role-playing found in the B/X edition of D&D…the system that shaped a ton of us role-players all those decades ago. The game wouldn’t be the same without it!

Now this was all written and published back in 1981. You’d think there’d have been progress made over the years as role-playing became better understood and as the later designers reviewed the work of their predecessors and built on this feature of the game, yeah? Amazingly enough you’d be at least partially right. Enter Frank Mentzer’s Basic set (1983) and the Rules Cyclopedia (1991).

[sadly, I must skip any analysis of 2^nd Edition AD&D because I don’t own the books anymore. However, I know from previously reading them that they followed many of the trends found in Mentzer and the later RC compilation, and I recall that a lot of “experimental” changes to XP and advancement was tried, all in the name of bringing the game out of the “wargaming” mindset and into the realm of “heroic fantasy.” I would guess that the act of role-playing is much more explicit and encouraged in 2^nd edition AD&D base with this as a goal…remember that 2^nd Edition is published post-Dragon Lance, and DL was based on a series of novels with characters, personalities, and soap opera dramas and the accompanying adventure models allowed players to take the role of these dramatic personas. Even without having the books in front of me, I’m going to guess that role-playing was well-mentioned in 2E, even if the rules surrounding it were (probably) inarticulate and clunky as hell…but I might be wrong]

Mentzer O Mentzer: how I’ve bad-mouthed you over the years (and then retracted my bad-mouthing just to then do it all over again). As an introduction to role-playing…not to role-playing games, but to the act of role-playing itself…Frank Mentzer’s basic set may be the best edition of D&D ever published.

Wow. Can’t believe I just wrote that.

And actually, that’s probably too much praise for Frank. Most of the information in the Mentzer players manual is word-for-word taken from Moldvay (including those role-playing “notes” in the classes, and the entire alignment section).  Of course, Mentzer changes up the thief notes saying they’d only “rarely” steal from members of their own groups and admonishing that those that do so are “usually not permitted to adventure with them ever again.” So damn goodie-goodie…go pick an owl bear’s pocket, Frank!

However, it’s the tutorial included with the book that really starts to get the wheels turning in the ol’ noggin. Now, let me say from the get-go that I’ve never been a huge fan of the whole “choose your adventure” scenario presented in Mentzer’s Basic; being shoehorned into an adventure path where you have one of Choice A or B is NOT role-playing…and folks who think it is are operating under a really egregious assumption. The scenario presented isn’t even a very good example of a “D&D adventure” as D&D is mainly geared towards a PARTY of adventurers, not a single hero exploring on his or her own. As with the (otherwise dynamic) Elmore cover illustration, it ignores one of the main assumptions of D&D: that it is a cooperative game.

[and by cooperative I’m not talking about PCs necessarily getting along and not stabbing each other in the back…I’m talking about the way the creation of the imaginary fantasy world takes the input of multiple players to make it happen in the organic way it works best. A single person creating a world and exploring it is NOT playing a role-playing game…he or she is simply engaging in the act of creating fiction. And not necessarily good fiction]

Player characters (and players themselves!) may not get along with each other, but by playing together (even if competitive or in conflict) they create a greater fantasy world…so long as they are still playing by the rules and not attempting to sabotage the game’s integrity. I am, by the way, including the DM as a “player” in this particular instance.

But again, I’m digressing and going off-topic (that may be a post for another day). Even though I’m not a FAN of the tutorial, it does grab the reader by the shoulders and sit him down in the character’s brain, using the 2^nd person voice to describe what “you” (the character) are doing while at the same time explaining how “your” attributes (your character’s attributes) describe “you” (your character).

That’s some powerful stuff and it sets a precedent for the new player being introduced to the Dungeons & Dragons game. It teaches the new player that when I play D&D, I need to put my mind in the mind of my character, exploring the world through the character’s eyes and senses and mind.  Moldvay’s examples are not nearly explicit as Mentzer’s description of how the death of Aleena affects “you” and what “you” are going to do about it. Cheesy and heavy-handed? Sure…but this is a book designed for beginners, new to the hobby.  Best to hit them with the hammer and then let them pull back on the throttle with their own play.

Or (more likely) the idea might have been to give them an obvious intro they couldn’t miss as something to aspire to while “baby-stepping” into their new world of role-playing. Heavy-handed? Yeah, probably. But it’s better than earlier editions that offered nothing in this regard…instead, you had to figure it out yourself (inferred from the non-explicit rules) or evolve it naturally over a long period of play or learn it from veteran players (who had figured it out themselves in a similar hard-to-do fashion).

Now, even Mentzer is pretty scant on explicit exhortations to role-play (“…you will be like an actor, imagining that you are someone else, and pretending to be that character.”) but the Rules Cyclopedia (compiled and developed by Aaron Allston from the BECM of Mentzer’s BECMI) is probably the MOST explicit of any edition on the act of role-playing. Though eight years separate their publication, BECMI and the RC are nearly always linked in my mind because the RC really doesn’t differ all that much from BECMI, neither in rules nor tone (I find the differences between Moldvay and Mentzer to be much more stark, even after just two years…look at the differences in awarding XP for treasure!). However, that’s not really fair. Allston adds a LOT to BECM (not all of it good…see the “General Skills” section)…but it is his information on role-playing that is especially interesting.

Right from page one he has a section titled What is Role-Playing? in which he writes:

Role-playing games are much like [old fashioned] radio adventures, except for one important detail: they’re interactive. One player provides the narrative and some of the dialogue, but the other players, instead of just sitting and envisioning what’s going on, actually participate. Each player controls the actions of a player in the story, decides on his actions, supplies his character’s dialogue, and makes decisions based on the character’s personality, and his current game options.

[emphasis added by Yours Truly]

In what other game, besides a role-playing game, would you ever make (game) decisions based on your character’s personality? Certainly, when I played D&D Next recently neither I, nor (it appeared) any of my fellow party members, made any in-game decisions based on the “personality” of our characters. My character was a dwarf fighter with a handful of resource-based (fire-and-forget) special abilities…my game decisions were based solely on the tactical need of the moment. Where do I move? Who’s left to kill? How many “deep strikes” do I have left in my feat quiver? There was no “personality” involved…Allston’s entire paragraph could be X’d from the thought-process completely.

[to be continued...just by the way, I'm winging my way to Mexico as of today. The series will continue, however, as scheduled. Be back in a week or so!]

On Role-Playing (Part 5 of 11)

Alignment in Moldvay is not a matter of determining “which side” your character is on in the fight between Law and Chaos, nor is it simply a means of determining the effect of spells or magical items that operate differently with respect to a creature’s alignment (there are no such items in Basic), nor is it a means of restricting certain character classes. This is an exhortation on how to think like your character within the game, and it is quite specific. It even provides an “Example of Alignment Behavior” showing how each type of alignment should act…as well as how the character should feel:

The [chaotic] character will not care what happens to the rest of the party.

Oh, I won’t, will I? Who is Tom Moldvay to say how I or my character will feel, or what I (or my character) will care about?

The game designer, that’s who.

Moldvay spends a full page on the subject of Alignment which, considering Basic is only a 64 page book (including glossary, literary appendix, coverleaf, and GenCon advertisement) is an absolutely huge amount of space to devote to the subject. 3^rd Edition devotes roughly three pages to alignment out of nearly eight hundred pages spread between three core volumes. Giving that much space to alignment shows that Moldvay thought it was an important (perhaps core) concept that needed to be clarified (and was further described in a later example). And yet the whole concept of “alignment” is often denigrated, even by (or especially by) game designers who find it a “throwaway” system due to its lack of mechanical impact. You can count me as one of those people, by the way.

So, okay…I’ve since changed my mind.

D&D is a role-playing game, created at a time when role-playing (as a concept of gaming) was a new and radical concept…one which I believe was a complete side-effect outside of the original designers’ intention. I believe wargamers Arneson and Gygax were trying to create a different kind of wargame: one based on heroic myth and fantasy literature. I believe that the game they designed facilitated role-playing incidentally…by accident, in other words…but that it was precisely because of this “accident of design” that the game gained the popularity (across all walks of gaming life) that it did. I don’t know this is the case, I can only speculate based on my 21^st century retrospective view point…but that’s what I believe.

By the time Moldvay came along to provide an additional editing of the rules, the role-playing subculture participating in the D&D game was an entrenched part of the group playing…and even if it wasn’t properly understood, it was recognized by the powers-that-be. Moldvay, in his writing, emphasizes alignment as a system, because it is the easiest and clearest way (at that point) of teaching players how to “get inside the mind of their character,” i.e. teaching new players how to role-play. It’s clunky and it’s simplistic, but it’s there and ready-made with a slight twist and re-purposing of the alignment “mechanic.” The alternative would be to include some sort of section on “how to role-play” which (even if understood at the time) may have been a “turn-off” for some players, notably wargamers, who may have still been a target demographic. Or perhaps there was a perception at TSR at the time that (regardless of “target demographic”) the idea of role-playing was viewed with suspicion and it was felt better to just kind of “sneak it up on players” in the course of play…the same way it had incidentally sneaked up on those early players.

Look at the great Example of Combat on page 28. This is a pretty well-written example, displaying all the facets of an encounter in Basic D&D: reaction rolls, initiative, morale checks, melee, missile fire, spell use, and character death. If the example had simply stopped where the hobgoblins provided instructions for finding treasure (and disarming the trap), the page would easily have fit the instructions to any small-scale skirmish game…from D&D4E to Mordheim or Necromunda. But then you add the last three paragraphs and you get something else entirely.

From the D&D Basic Rules (Tom Moldvay, page B28):

Before the party leaves, they gag the hobgoblins to make sure that no alarm will be raised. Morgan is Neutral in alignment, and argues that it is not safe to leave a sure enemy behind them, even if that enemy is temporarily helpless. Silverleaf is also Neutral, but he believes that the hobgoblins are too terrified to be of any further threat. If Morgan wants to kill the prisoners, he won’t help her, but he won’t stop her, either.

Sister Rebecca, a Lawful cleric, is shocked by Morgan’s suggestion. She tells Morgan that a Lawful person keeps her word, and that she promised the hobgoblins that they would be spared. Her god would never allow her to heal someone who killed helpless prisoners…

Morgan agrees that killing captives is wrong, and that it was only the great pain from her wound which caused her to say such things. Sister Rebecca casts her cure light wounds spell on Morgan. It does 5 points of healing, bringing Morgan back to her normal 6 hit points.

Note that all proper names here are the names of characters not players, though throughout the example players are referred to by their characters’ names; for example, “Silverleaf rolls a 4 for initiative.”

There are plenty of things to discuss here, but the most important for purpose of the topic at hand is the passage as a specific example of character motivation influencing player behavior. We recognize that characters are run by their players, not vice versa, and as such the decision of “Sister Rebecca” to withhold healing from a party member is a decision being taken by the PLAYER that is running the cleric.

And why the hell would he (or she) choose to do that?

If the purpose of the game is “to explore dungeons, not characters” then withholding a needed spell from the only surviving front-line fighter is kind of a dick move. You’ve got one player down to 1 hit point (and no other wounds in the surviving party members), but you’re just pulling this manipulative, passive-aggressive shit to exercise control over another player at the table? Is this what’s going on? If so, what an ass!

In Moldvay Basic, one can’t even argue the player is withholding the spell for the possibility of needing another in the future since clerics memorize (“pray for”) their spells ahead of time, just like magic-users. In other words, the ONLY spell available to Sister Rebecca is cure light wounds, and so she has to find SOME way to use it. Again, unless you’re some kind of jerk, you’d think a cooperative player would help further the party’s ambition by using her spell resources constructively (assuming the player remembers having the spell, which this one obviously does).

Here we see an explicit example of players matching their behavior and in-game choices to the motivations of their characters. THIS is role-playing, folks. It’s the only way the exchange between players makes sense in a non-dysfunctional gaming group. “Sister Rebecca” is “shocked” by “Morgan” and her suggestion to slay the (completely imaginary!) prisoners. There is nothing truly shocking to the players about this…it’s a logical course of action even for non-wargamey players. Hobgoblins are evil…hell, they just killed your dwarf buddy, Frederick!...and it’s not like REAL blood is going to wash all over your new, doeskin boots or something. It’s a game…a game in which survival (or rather, lack thereof) is the only real measure of whether or not you, as a player, have “lost.”

But to the Lawful character, playing in the explicit manner presented means honoring your word, not killing prisoners, being merciful, etc…and not standing by while others act against the tenets of your creed.

This doesn’t earn the PC any extra experience points. It doesn’t give the character a bonus to hit, or double the amount of gold found. It doesn’t do ANYTHING mechanically, system-wise. But in addition to “playing by the rules” (as described in the Alignment section), it allows the player to escape for a moment into the character being portrayed. And because the other players are on the same page and willing to do the same thing (as opposed to Morgan’s player bitching and moaning about what an ass and buzz-kill Sister Rebecca’s player is) it allows the entire group to experience an imaginary drama that enriches the entire play experience.

This isn’t a game of just moving miniature figures, throwing D20s, and maneuvering to avoid “attacks of opportunity.” This is a role-playing game, in which you get to experience (vicariously, through your imaginary avatar) the thrill of BEING ANOTHER PERSON IN A FANTASY LANDSCAPE ENGAGING IN HEROIC RISKS AND ADVENTURE. Instances like this within a game are what ADD to this escapist feature of D&D gaming, and is what is addicting in terms of play.

[to be continued]

On Role-Playing (Part 4 of 11)

The PHB, DMG, and MM all bear the same phraseology on their gold corner bar: Adventure Game. At least, that’s what MY books say…I know there are some older printings that simply say Advanced D&D. “Role-playing” in other words, is something neither TSR nor Gygax were advertising or promoting at this stage. The books were compilations of “essential reference information”…the definitive version of the D&D (fantasy adventure) game, in other words, and if you wanted there to be “role-playing” well fine and dandy, but that’s not what was being offered.

And it really isn’t. Despite the inclusion of thieves and assassins and paladins and monks and alignment, there’s nothing to be found about role-playing within the pages of these books. Certainly alignment has an effect (mainly with regard to spells and magic item functions and there are penalties to be faced for going off the reservation with regard to alignment), but it appears to serve mainly as a description of the various “cosmic forces of the universe” not a behavioral guide. The section on alignment in the PHB is cold and clinical in my opinion, simply stating “this is what it is” and nothing about playing alignment (though it does mention the difficulty in voluntarily changing one’s alignment…probably due to the otherwise “break the game” effect that would occur if one could switch at the drop of a hat to make use of both evil and good magic items).

In fact, the ONLY thing I could find in the AD&D books that I’d construe as role-playing advice or encouragement is a single blurb taken from the foreword of the Players Handbook (guideline #5 for “making the experience more fun”):

Get in the spirit of the game, and use your [character] to play with a special personality all its own. Interact with the other player characters and non-player characters to give the campaign a unique flavor and “life.” Above all, let yourself go, and enjoy!

Quite the admonishment, though one easily skipped over in the quest to “get to the good stuff.” No such directive is given in the later sections of the book…and even the “racial preference charts” seem fairly dry and non-role-play-y in nature.

[EDIT: Yes, I realize there's a bit on page 7 of the PHB in the section titled "The Game" that discusses becoming an artful thespian as you constrain yourselves to the limits of your character...i.e. ability scores and "moral ethics (called alignment)." But while folks who already understand role-playing may retrospectively point to this as proof positive of the rules presenting information on the act, the sections seems (to me) to be more of a call for limitation with the main feature of the game being the unleashing of the imagination (the allowing of fantasies to "enter your life"), not the escape presented in role-playing. As will be explained a bit later, I don't consider play-acting in and of itself to be "role-playing."]

Which is not to say that people weren’t role-playing (in the sense of the term I’m using) back in the 1970s…before people start jumping down my throat please allow me to say, yes, of course a creative gaming group could take a dry and clinical racial preference chart and extrapolate all sorts of role-playing (mental perspective shift) goodness out of it. I am NOT saying that role-playing wasn’t found at the gaming table…fact of the matter is, I think role-playing as I use the term (and its potential within the system and its actual occurrence) are the things that MADE Dungeons & Dragons such a unique, and popular gaming experience!

But I can also see where that old grognard chestnut of “we don’t explore character, we explore dungeons” comes from. One could pick up any of these early rule sets and (especially with a wargaming background) simply use it for small scale wargames and fantastic military campaigns. Such players would be just as creative and kit-bashy as any other “role-playing” oriented individual but with a mind towards “making a better wargame” complete with random hit locations, weapon versus armor, variable weapon damage, critical hits, etc. Oh, wait…that was ALREADY DONE BY GYGAX AND ARNESON. This is the kind of thing that IS present in those old supplements for OD&D:  a plethora of tables and combat charts enough to put it close to par with D20 (if not as slick and elegant as D20) with the aim of bringing more crunch to the game in the war/fighting arena.

No such effort or additional rules are provided to bring "more role-playing" to the game.

Again (and to reiterate)…I am NOT saying role-playing (in the sense I use the term) wasn’t occurring back in the 1970s. I believe it was happening…with at least some folks and probably with more as the hobby grew and spread outside the original wargaming community. What I am trying to point out here is that this “role-playing phenomenon,” whereby players took on the mindset of their character, shifting their perspective to that of the fantasy persona (at least for the duration of a game session)…what I’m trying to point out is that this was happening without a guide or roadmap or explicit instruction (or even much encouragement!) as to HOW to do it…or that such was an eventual or even possible outcome of play.

Why is this role-playing thing important? Because that is the one feature offered by role-playing games that cannot be found in any other medium of entertainment. It’s the only real goddamn reason to play these games. You can get fantasy adventure swinging a sword with a video game. You can get your acting “thang” on with a LARP session if you can find one that suits your taste (and perhaps, in the future, V-R technology will enable a true “live action RP” experience). You can get your beer & pretzel camaraderie over a variety of board games and card games of varying difficult and “challenge” levels. But no other entertainment medium harnesses the human power of imagination to such a degree that you can live a vicarious (and safe!) method of escape and exploration while building an intimate rapport (and strengthening communal ties) through play.

And it’s pretty damn inexpensive, too. If I had my druthers, RPGs would be the Great American Indoor Pastime.

Okay, but that’s side-tracking (sorry)…right now, we’re only up to 1979 or so. It was 1981  (where I first entered the hobby) when the whole role-playing thing got a huge kick of encouragement from the minds of TSR: that’s the year of the release of Tom Moldvay’s Basic Dungeons & Dragons set.

I was rereading Moldvay as part of my prep for doing this series and, once again, I’m extemely impressed with the book. To me, it really is the best version of the game ever published…simple, straightforward, educational (in the sense of “teaching the rules”), and entertaining to read. Yes, it has problems (no book is perfect), but you could take Moldvay as a base and extrapolate many worlds of adventure from it. One day, it might be a fun exercise to try building a version of D&D Mine using only Moldvay’s book (skipping everything in the Expert set and later, for example)…I find it fascinating that it has such a more “sword-and-sorcery” feeling due to its lack of monsters and treasures; consider that most of the mythological monsters (hydras, Cyclops, manticores, giants, etc.) and movie/literature monsters (vampires, mummies,  ring-wraiths, purple worms, etc.) are found in the Expert book.  Anyway, that’s another digression (sorry).

Moldvay starts his book with a foreword describing a possible (if fairly unlikely) example of play. However, he tells it from the perspective of the character, not the player (what the player might imagine is happening in his or her mind’s eye). It does not contain flowery prose, but is straightforward in its description…and yet it is not “the DM said this” and “the player rolled X dice.” Anything game or mechanics related is removed from the telling…what we are left with is an anecdote of heroic adventure, as well as Moldvay’s explanation that when playing D&D, one can forget it is a game and instead feel as if it is a novel or film in which you participate.

[role-playing theory, still in its infancy, is understandably difficult to articulate in plain language for the newbie audience]

Class takes the center-stage in the character creation system, and yet while we’ve reverted to the simple options available in OD&D (and Holmes) we have a subtle injection of what I’d consider “role-playing notes” that starts laying the groundwork for players:

RE Dwarves: “Stubborn but practical , dwarves love hearty meals and strong drink. They value good craftsmanship and are very fond of gold.”

RE Elves: “They can be dangerous opponents…but prefer to spend their time feasting and frolicking in wooded glades. They rarely visit the cities of men.”

RE Halflings: “They are outgoing but not unusually brave, seeking treasure as a way of gaining the comforts of home which they so dearly love.”

RE Thieves: “As their name indicates, however, they do steal – sometimes from members of their own party.”

And comparing fighters and magic-users to Hercules and Merlin (respectively) also impresses ideas into a person’s mind, based on the reader’s concept of those iconic figures.

These notes are a waste of space and absolute nonsense for a straightforward “explore the dungeon, kill the monster, take the treasure” game. If D&D is really only as simple as its premise, why would players care what their characters’ motivations are or what kind of food they prefer? If I only gain “points” by finding treasure and fighting monsters, it is ridiculous to even consider stealing from my fellow party-members (who are likely to be irritated by such), let alone waste time “frolicking in wooded glades.”

From a role-playing perspective, however, these notes are golden. Jaded veteran gamers of 30 years might find them to be pretty well-worn “stereotypes” and thus uninteresting, but for a NEW player, they imprint the mind (with a minimal use of words) the beginning of what it means to play a role-playing game.

Hell, I even find LaForce’s illustration on page 6 to be extremely useful…the first time in any D&D edition that there is a visual presentation of the process of conceptualizing one’s character.  I’m sure this is how a lot of us go through the character generation process…at least, I know I do. I check my ability scores and try to come up with an image in my head (i.e. a concept) of how my character might appear. The PC is more than the statistics written down on the page: it is an imaginary avatar allowing exploration of the fantasy landscape, and visualizing the character is an important part of the identification process.

But all that’s just the warm-up; it’s the alignment section that I find to be chock-full of specific role-playing instruction (even if it is not framed as such). Here, Moldvay states definitively that:

Players may choose the alignments they feel will best fit their characters…the alignments give guidelines for the characters to live by. The characters will try to follow these guidelines, but may not always be successful.

Behavioral guidelines for CHARACTERS…as if the character was a real person and not simply a piece on the playing board.

[to be continued]

On Role-Playing (Part 3 of 11)

Yes, yes, I realize that parts of this essay are pure speculation on my part: I wasn’t playing D&D pre-1980 and there are no rules sidebars of the Great Divine Founders to give us insight into their design philosophies and besides they’re all dead now anyway (well, Gygax and Arneson and Holmes and Moldvay are)…but if you’ll allow me to speculate tangentially for a moment (this series is going to take a few pages anyway):

• D&D was designed as a wargame (not just like a wargame…the title says it all!) by wargamers for wargamers. It was certainly a different TYPE of wargame (small scale, fantasy in setting), but still very playable as such…and written to use a wargame’s resolution mechanics (specifically, CHAINMAIL).
• While the game begs for additional rules to fill the gaps, it is still MECHANICAL in nature. Want to hire someone? Spend X gold and roll a certain dice looking at a certain target number. Want to run a kingdom? Here’s the code to show how many citizens you have and your tax basis. And that hoary old code of “alignment” is simply a mechanic to tell the referee/players whose side a critter is running with.
• Combat: whether on foot, or naval, or in the air is TACTICAL and movement/mechanically based. No, it doesn’t have the bells and whistles of D20 or 4^th Edition, but it can play like a cheap version of this.
• No personality or role-playing is required: gamers are simply defined by their courage (do we fight this monster or run?), their cunning (where are you searching for treasure, concealed items), and creativity (how are you going to circumvent this trap you discovered).

So how did we get from that to Holmes? “Good characters should not be torturing prisoners.” Why would they even want to? And even if so, who cares? I mean, “points” (XP) are only gained from finding treasure and defeating monsters…why would you bother torturing anyone?

As I said, I can only speculate, but I’d think the “morphing” of the game can be linked to a couple possibilities (one, the other, or both):

1. Long term play and character identification. Over time, players playing the same PC develop a bond with the character (the “My Guy” syndrome) and begin to invest the character with personality…whether through actions/behavior or out of simple boredom from “moving the piece around the (imaginary) board.” The game STARTS as a wargame…but survive long enough and you develop an attachment (and dare I say, “infatuation?”) with your heroic imaginary persona.
2. Supplement I: Greyhawk. Gygax’s first supplement introduces two new character classes to the game that change the whole dynamic of play: the THIEF and the PALADIN.

Prior to Greyhawk, your choice of character was both limited and fairly straight-forward. Fighters fight. Magic-users use magic. Clerics occupy a place somewhat in-between, and providing some necessary support skills, including a means of repelling those especially dangerous undead monsters. The different races provided a little variation/variety but otherwise your place in the adventuring hierarchy (your “role”) was fairly set…unless you started taking an active role-playing stance (due to long term play and identification). Of course, as said there are no guidelines or advice on “role-playing” at all in those Little Brown Books.

That changes with Supplement I. With the inclusion of the paladin class, players are suddenly forced to think about character behavior and motivation. The character class didn’t have to have the inherent behavior restrictions: Gygax could have simply made paladins dependent on the proper ability scores (17 Charisma) and an XP penalty that normal fighters don’t suffer. Instead, players are forced to start putting their mind into the mind of their character: why does my character go into these dungeons? What is the best use of the treasure I’ve acquired (since I’m not going to keep it)? How do I interact with NPCs in a way that’s upright and noble? How do I “embody goodness” in-play? Are these actions going to cost me my powers (due to being “selfish” and/or “evil”)? Just making such a character class available in the game can cause players of other classes to consider their own characters’ motivations.

The thief kind of seals the deal. The paladin class provides a system of behavioral strictures that impact actual play (do the wrong thing and you lose your special abilities). The thief, by its very name and level titles, describes a character of mean and honor-less nature. Such doesn’t have to be the case, of course (there are no behavior strictures that will cause the thief to lose HER skills, for example), but the definition of the character (a thief!) opens up the idea of PERSONALITY for the character. Not just a party role, but a means and way of life.

And the pick pockets skill. I mean, how many dragons (or trolls or worms or giant rats or shriekers) have pockets? How many creatures in the Underworld…or the Wilderness, for that matter? Fauns and nymphs and giant beavers?  Treants? Patrols of plate-armored knights? For the most part, this is a skill to be used within an urban environment (a type of adventure environment NOT discussed in the LBBs)…or against one’s own party members. And in the latter case, what is that in aid of? Nothing…from a wargaming “accomplish-the-objective” mentality.

On the other hand, if you are role-playing a character with a less-than-savory personality, then the ability makes perfect sense within context. And it helps push that mental shift by giving you (the player) one more thing to be paranoid about besides the possibility of a pit trap or Big Ugly lurking in the dark.

The OD&D rules tell you how to make a character. They tell the referee how to create a challenging environment. They provide information on what monsters and magic items might be encountered. But they tell you nothing of the attitude or mind-set you should have in the game…nothing about role-playing, in other words.

Sprinkling in a dash of paladin and thief starts to put your head in the game. At least, that’s my speculation.

Back to Holmes: we can see there’s no paladin, but the thief is definitely present…has been present in every edition ever since, by the way. The addition of the thief PLUS the updated take on alignments (that they are some sort of gauge for…and provide judgment of…a player based on the character’s behavior)…and we start to see the emergence of a new type of game. A role-playing game.

Just not one with any real guidelines on how to role-play.

When AD&D comes out shortly thereafter (the next iteration of Dungeons & Dragons) we see no mention of “role-playing” in the title. Not terribly surprising considering that

1. Gygax and Arneson’s original game wasn’t designed to be a “role-playing” game, and
2. Gygax’s AD&D set out to be a definitive codification and compilation of OD&D, its supplements, and various magazine articles, and
3. It seems fairly clear (based on the results) that Holmes’s and Gygax’s AD&D were not on entirely the same page. There are clear and substantial differences between the two editions despite Holmes Basic’s explicitly stated intention of being a bridge and introduction to AD&D.

Is it any wonder that nowhere on the AD&D covers can the phrase “role-playing” be found? Despite Holmes promoting the game as the original fantasy role-playing game?

[to be continued]

OLD School Inspiration

I've been up since 4:30 or so, but I passed out a little after 11 last night, which means I got more than five hours of sleep and am thus feeling more rested than usual. It's the "wee hours" of the morning (I think...I don't really know the definition of that phrase) and because my wife's out of town and it's Wednesday, I'm going into work late today due to the need to drop the boy off at daycare. Since I don't need to wake him up till 8, that gives me some time to drink some coffee, eat a slice of week-old apple pie, and catch up on "things."

I really hadn't intended to post ANYthing to Ye Old Blog until after the total publication of my eleven part monstrosity on role-playing, but it would seem I've been especially inspired to write this, and while that may mean a few double or triple posts, I'm sure you folks can handle it, right? After all, I'll be out of the country here pretty soon, and I doubt I'll have much time to write while on my trip (more's the pity...I still need to finish my edits/rewrites of volumes one and three of 5AK...*sigh*...man, I hope that's finished before the end of the month).

Some of the things I wanted to post about: The Lone Ranger movie, the television show Defiance, and the recent posts making the blog rounds regarding "D&D summer camp." Of all those, the only one that's really time sensitive is The Lone Ranger, because it's gotten a mixed reception and will probably be leaving the theaters soon. Since I'm not going to take the time to post on that today, you might want to go check out the movie now before it's gone: it's a weird little film, and I liked it...but for pretty different reasons than one might expect (that would be the subject of the post). However, if your budget's tight, you grew up in a time post-Ranger (I, at least, had the Saturday morning cartoons and the 1980s feature film), and if you aren't a fan of the kind of twisted-campy-action that made the first Pirates of the Caribbean film so successful you might want to skip it.

Oh, and I wouldn't take small children to see the movie, by which I mean "children under 13."

So if I've got all these things to post about and I'm NOT going to do so at this time, what exactly is the subject of this post? Inspiring old school junk, my friends. Specifically old Grenadier miniatures for AD&D.

My buddy Kris is crazy. I mean literally (he's on medication for this, not to mention SSI). But even without that, the Doc (as I call him) is nutty about stuff. He's a fairly smart guy, but he doubts himself and his own abilities a lot (he's a talented musician and painter for instance but is a bit self-consicous of both). I don't see Doc as much as I once did because he resides in a small town in Oregon where the cost o living is a lot less and where he's closer to his parents...however, we still keep in touch and our conversations are often about gaming.

So a few weeks ago he told me he was getting rid of all (or most of) his miniatures and he asked me if I wanted them. I, of course, asked "how much?" and he said something like $15 plus S&H. I believe I ended up sending him a check for $25, because I already felt like I was ripping him off. But Kris wanted to get the stuff off his hands and out of his apartment, so he felt like we were doing each other a mutual favor.

And probably we are...I'm sure my wife would be less than happy with me adding another big box of clutter to my office.

Here's the deal, Kris had picked up the 4th Edition core books when they came out and acquired a few minis and battle mats over the years and such for use with the game (to be fair, I believe the accumulation started earlier with edition 3.5, but I couldn't say for sure). Anyway, after reading the 4E books and (maybe) playing once or twice, he decided the whole game was huge stinking pile of crap. Doc got rid of the books, but he's been holding onto the minis because A) he likes to paint (he usually paints things besides minis, but painting is painting), and B) he could still use the minis in D&D games (he last ran an AD&D game for a neighbor couple a couple months back.

However, he finally decided it was time to clear some space and the minis weren't fantastically necessary to his life and so shipped me a box. Which I got (finally) a couple days ago, and which I opened last night. This morning I've been going through the specific contents and it was enough to get me to start blogging.

Wow. In addition to a rolled battle map (vinyl, I think) with squares on one side and hexes on the reverse. I received four sets of Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Tiles (kind of like three dimensional dungeon geomorphs, but with cooler artwork), each with a different theme. The sets I got included Ruins of the Wild, Dire Tombs, Lost Caverns of the Underdark, and Fane of the Forgotten Gods. They are most unassembled and appear to have been unused or almost never used. I'll have to check these out in more detail later.

Kris also sent me a large tackle box filled with foam trays containing minis in various states of paintedness. This is a mixed bag (ranging from Ral Partha to Citadel to Reaper), but includes some really nice pieces. There's an unopened Reaper blister back with what looks like a Type V demons and another unopened back of "crossbowmen," though the latter come with equipment packs and whatnot that would put any older adventuring minis to shame. Diego and I were looking these over last night and he made me put a couple of the pieces at the very bottom of the box because he found them to be too scary. The most scary? Something that appears to be a ring-wraith or something (it's just a black cloak and hood with no face or hands). D did not like the looks of that one one bit!

But that's not all! The Doctor also sent me five boxes of Grenadier models of the kind that used to be advertised in the old Dragon magazine. Four of these are specifically for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and are complete in their entirety. The fifth is from their "Fantasy Lords" line and says it is "for use with Dungeons & Dragons and other fantasy games." This one, called Skeletons: Raiders of the Undead, is not complete (it's at least missing the "free starter scenario" that is supposed to be included), but since it's packed with a bunch of extra minis, I'm not too worried about it. Besides, I'm more excited by the other boxes.

The four complete boxes are all from 1980, and include the following:

5002 "Monsters"
2006 "Specialists"
2010 "Denizens of the Swamp"
2007 "Females"

These are fantastic. I've collected a lot of minis over the years (mainly from Citadel for GW games), so I've seen a huge range of quality when it comes to miniatures. These minis of 1980 are pretty substandard as far as actual modeling (they're small, their features obscured, their details simplistic at best), but they exude a charm in their themes and their forms that I just find incredibly fascinating. These figures don't feel like they were pumped out with the specific aim of flooding tournaments around the world with armies (like Warhammer), but were instead designed to be used in intimate surroundings...perhaps around a kitchen table...by people who wanted to put their imagination into a physical form. These things were NEW once upon a time...and I mean a whole new CONCEPT in what was a miniature. You don't have a dozen similar lizard men in a box; instead, you have two ("lizardman" and "lizardman with club"), along with a troll, a basilisk, a giant snake, a shambling mound, a sahuagin, and two gnolls (one of whom is a "gnoll leader"). It's like the company didn't know WHAT might be needed or required of the players, and so just put together a likely group.

The "monsters" box is a similar hodge-podge, including one of each undead type, a couple lycanthropes, a balrog (though referred to as a Type III demon which is completely inaccurate in any edition), a wind elemental, a medusa, a gargoyle, an ochre jelly (though who's to say it couldn't double as ANY particular slime), a couple goblins, and a couple orcs. The orcs and goblins are very similar in appearance (big headed thugs) but the orc figures are physically bigger and meaner looking. There is a "naga spirit" that looks like a giant hooded cobra topped by the head of a bearded old man. Stylistically weird, but interesting...it makes me want to design an adventure or dungeon or board game using ONLY the models found in the box (and I'm sure there were people "back in the day" that did just that!).

The "specialists" include ten different character types (half-orc, monk, druid, paladin, mage, ranger, bard, assassin, cleric, and gnome illusionist). What's interesting is that the specialists appear to be simply "non-fighting men." Again, they are stylistically interesting: the druid appears to be a Cossack or Hungarian, the monk is wearing a karate gi and looks like something out of a Bruce Lee movie, and the only way I can tell the paladin and ranger are the devices on their shields (a cross and tree respectively). The half-orc, too, is undistinguished except that he looks poor and filthy (slovenly) compared to the others...the assassin has a cloaked/hooded appearance with a mace raised high to brain someone. The mage has a high collared robe but is still wearing a backpack for adventuring. The cleric has a cross, a Pope hat, and something that looks like an urn of frankincense or something.

The "females" box is quite nice, as it contains all female character classes (none of the "specialists" are female). They are, for the most part, fully clothed and proportioned and outfitted as you would expect for adventurers. They include: a lady with her panther (scantily clad), a fighter, an archer, a "guardswoman," a magic-user (high collared cape and crawling with snakes!), a "swordswoman" (with a terrifically giant hat that mounts a small dragon!), a cleric (who actually looks like an adventuring cleric), a dwarf (no beard), and a thief with sling (the only other model that is scantily clad).

Despite a lack of polish, all of these characters are interesting to look at, and would provide easy inspiration when creating a character. For the most part, none of them look "superheroic" (or even really "heroic")...they look like non-nonsense adventurers in a fantasy setting, willing to do battle in their search for treasure. These old and clunky minis makes me want to play in an Old School Way...something like AD&D without being AD&D. Maybe "Advanced B/X" or something.

Hmmm...okay, I'll have to think about it. Right now it's time to put the house (and myself) in order before D wakes up. Installment #3 of my series "On Role-Playing" should be appearing in the next couple-few hours.
: )

On Role-Playing (Part 2 of 11)

I did a very lightweight, informal poll on my way home from work today (Monday). One guy I called; two I spoke with (briefly) at Gary’s Games in Greenwood. All were gamers; none of them read this blog. I asked all three the following questions:

• How would you describe role-playing to a novice (the act of role-playing, not “what’s a role-playing game”)? How do you know when you’re role-playing? When can you say (to yourself about yourself), hey, that was a pretty good bit of role-playing?
• How did you learn how to role-play?

All three folks had a pretty good handle on what it meant to role-play, though it took them a while to articulate (I did not give them my definition first). All were pretty much on the same page: they considered it something of taking on the personality of the character they were playing, considering the imaginary game world from their character’s point of view rather than their “real world” player perspective. In other words, modifying their own behavior to the tone of “what would my character do in this situation,” i.e. matching player objectives (wants/desires) to those of the imaginary character.

However, while the first question was easy to answer (if difficult to articulate succinctly), the second question (how did you learn to do this) gave them pause.

Kris thought he’d learned it from watching other gamers when he first started, and from reading the books. “There’s a section on ‘how to role-play’ in the Players Handbook that I think I read.”

[there is no such section]

Kayce said “trial and error…a lot of it” and also cited having read a lot of role-playing books over the years (she’s played everything from AD&D to Mouse Guard to 5AK)…but she couldn’t think of anything specifically. Her parents had been the first ones to introduce her to role-playing (through 1^st edition AD&D).

The other dude I with whom I spoke (whose name I didn’t get and who’s played everything from 1^st edition D&D and D6 Star Wars to Pathfinder) cited the “core D&D rule books,” but when I asked him which ones, he backtracked. Instead he cited play-by-mail role-playing of the fan fic variety: taking on a recognizable character from fiction (he used Star Trek as an example) and then writing “in character.”

It was an interesting (if completely unscientific and tiny) poll: all three had played many RPGs in their lives including multiple editions of D&D (their first experiences all being with D&D) All were older (Kayce, the youngest of the three, is 30), and “veteran gamers.” All had a good handle on “role-playing recognition,” but found it difficult to say exactly how they’d come to that recognition.

Which isn’t too surprising when you consider the “how to role-play” section is conspicuously missing in many RPGs, including pretty much all editions of D&D.

[yes, yes, I realize there are plenty of other RPGs out there, but for purposes of this discussion, I will be looking solely at D&D, a common touch-stone for most of my readers and the “gateway drug” to role-playing for a multitude of gamers]

Let’s start at the beginning.

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS

Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames

Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil

and Miniature Figures

That’s the title on the cover of my Little Brown Books, three volumes of which comprise OD&D (“original D&D”). Nowhere is the term role-playing to be found within the (rather long) title, nor in the pages. In fact, the only use of the word “role” that I find is on page 6 of volume 1 (top of the page) where Gygax writes:

Before they begin, players must decide what ROLE they will PLAY in the campaign, human or otherwise, fighter, cleric, or magic-user.

That’s it. No real use of the term “role-playing” in the modern gaming sense of the term only in the non-fiction, organizational usage: who’s going to be the quarterback? Who’s going to block? Who’s going to return kick-offs? Etc.

If OD&D had been marketed as a role-playing game (i.e. if it had been labeled as such on its cover/box…it wasn’t), then these words might have lent credence to the definition as used in, say, 4^th edition D&D wherein one player takes the role of a tank (“fighter”), or of a support member (“cleric”), or of an artillery piece (“wizard”). But OD&D wasn’t billed as an RPG…it was a medieval wargame that would morph (over time) into an RPG.

[Ha! Note that even terms like “tank” and “support” are militaristic sounding. Never thought about that before…]

There are no examples of players investing personality in their characters, and despite the admission that the rules are less than complete (and thus need to be bolstered by the referee’s own addition) there’s still an assumption that the game is one of working within the rules to have an exciting (war) campaign, not delve into the inner psychology of one’s character. No notion of the fantasy escapism that comes to be a defining measure of the RPG as an activity. The example of play in Volume 3 seems to be a simple dialogue (as in two people) between the referee (DM) and the “caller” (lead player)…like two wargamers facing off across the table from each other. No kibitzing or synthesis of personality is on display.

That doesn’t mean role-playing didn’t occur…but right now, we’re just discussing the explicit rules of various D&D editions and their evolution.

Next up: Holmes Basic. Billed as “The Original Adult Fantasy Role-Playing Game” (at least on the cover). Created as a bridge between to AD&D (and thus, presumably, written before AD&D) it is clear from the title that “role-playing” and D&D were linked in the minds of the publishers. And yet, the only reference I can find to role-playing in the game (besides the front cover) is the first sentence of the introduction:

Dungeons & Dragons is a fantastic, exciting and imaginative game of role playing for adults 12 years and up.

That’s it. Everything else in the introduction (and in the text of the book) seems as straight-rules-oriented as the “medieval wargame” we call OD&D.  Note that Holmes does not use the hyphenated term “role-play” in the body of his text, but rather (like in OD&D) seems to be talking about “playing” a “role” (like taking the role of a character in a film or book). He talks a bit about engaging the game, but only (from my reading) in the meaning of “to play again and again” rather than losing oneself in the fantasy escape that is role-playing.

[have I not yet returned to the definition? Don’t worry…I will]

In Holmes, there is no mention in the character creation section of imagining your character’s appearance, background, or personality, and even the idea of giving the character a name is practically thrown away…the only place one finds reference to the absurd notion of naming your character is in the middle of the paragraph on the player’s responsibility for recording character information (“Characters can be either male or female. The character’s name, class, ability scores and other information is recorded by the player on a separate sheet of paper or other record.“). At least the book contains some examples of character names (“Bruno the Battler” and “Malchor” the magic-user, in the combat section). However, the sample adventure (mostly featuring the same DM-Caller dialogue of the earlier book) has the participants simply referring to their characters by class, as opposed to name (“the fighter opens the door” or “elf and dwarf search for traps” or “dwarf will search the body” etc.).

It’s actually the alignment section (no longer used solely to determine “sides” of the battle) where we start to see an inkling of behavior-personality in imaginary characters:

If the DM feels that a character has begun to behave in a manner inconsistent with his declared alignment he may rule that he or she has changed alignment…an example of such behavior would be a “good” character who kills or tortures a prisoner.

We’ll talk about that more in a second (not done with Holmes yet!) but just consider for a moment the shift that had occurred within a few years…from “wargame” to “role-playing game.” Because…despite the lack of good hard information on WHAT role-playing is or HOW to do it…I think it’s clear that by the time of Holmes, this is exactly what had occurred: a shift in perception of what the game is.

[to be continued]

On Role-Playing (Part 1 of 11)

Role-playing. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph…where to start?

I’ve looked back over my blog posts of the last few years and while there are quite a few that address aspects of role-playing…why it’s of value, how to encourage it, in relationship to objectives and player satisfaction, reward systems, games that discourage role-playing, etc…*ahem*…while I’ve broached the subject many, many times in the past (this IS a blog about role-playing games, after all), I’ve never really addressed the topic specifically for itself. Never focused on the definition, never discussed its history, never explained how to do it.

Kind of a gross oversight, huh?

Fact is, I fall into the same conceit as most RPG designers (and most RPG players for that matter): I just presume everyone knows what the hell I mean when I say “role-playing.” That everyone reading my blog (or my games) just “gets it.” That it’s a no-brainer, so-to-speak, and even if they don’t have a PHD in role-playing, they’re practiced “old hands” at the task based on dint of being a gamer. As if some system had actually taught them how to do the thing.

Of course, that’s not the case; just fallacious thinking on my part. And actually, I’ve known that (or suspected it) for a while, but I just didn’t bother dealing with it. I’ve had bigger (at least more immediate) fish to fry than to write an incredibly pretentious series of posts entitled Role-Playing 101 or something. But damn, it’s about time somebody did!

Now, before I begin, let’s get the mandatory ground rules laid out:

1) There are a lot of different uses for the term “role-player,” and I’m not concerned with those. I am addressing the act of role-playing as it pertains to fantasy adventure games, not the speedy pass-rusher that only plays on 3^rd down or the pinch-hitting lefty that comes in to win it in the 9^th. Nor am I talking about playing a role (like in the theater or historic reenactment), nor about role-playing as used in the field of psychology. Nope, this is just with regard to the exercise of GAMING…if you can’t get that, then we aren’t on the same page.

2) This post is NOT intended to describe or define “what is a role-playing game” (though we might touch on that in passing). Just to reiterate, I am talking about the ACT of ROLE-PLAYING. There are lots of ways to play a role-playing game, and some of those don’t involve role-playing…though that might lead one to ask why they’re bothering to play an RPG at all.

[ha!…that last bit is facetious. People play RPGs for all sorts of reasons besides role-playing, and I am well aware of the fact]

3) Finally, pretentious or not, I am writing this post to educate and enlighten folks because, frankly, I think there is a lot of misconceptions (or plain ol’ ignorance) that many people are operating under. Some of what I write may seem harsh because…well, because that’s how I am sometimes. If what I write seems to be putting you down or makes you feel downright disagreeable…well, I’m expecting a bit of that and you’re welcome to rant and rave and whatnot. But I’d challenge you to take a good hard look at yourself and consider whether or not YOU are the one that needs a paradigm shift in perspective before you go off on me. I can assure you that I’ve thought about this shit long and hard, and you’re not likely to change MY mind on the matter…but I welcome you airing your opinion. And just by the way, I’m not about judging people for their past mistakes, so long as they start the process of rectifying the situation. In other words, if you’ve been a dumb-dumb for years (or decades) and decide to turn over a new leaf, I won’t hold your former ignorance against you.

Okay, we got all that? Let’s get to work.

Here’s the definition:

The act of role-playing is the matching of the player's objectives to the objectives of the character.

That is as simple and succinct as I can make it. There will be elaboration. However, before we do that, let’s talk about what is NOT “role-playing.”

Playing an RPG is not in and of itself “role-playing.” A true role-playing game is one that allows and (hopefully) facilitates the ACT of role-playing…but just because a game is a role-playing game does NOT mean any one who plays it is “role-playing.” Role-playing is an action…it is active. It is quite possible to play a role-playing game without actually engaging in the act of role-playing, per se (we’ll return to this point later with some examples).

Note that I write “true role-playing games.” There are many games that market themselves as “RPGs” that have little or no role-playing potential, but are simply branded as such to conjure a particular notion to mind. Computer RPGs for example are, for the most part, NOT role-playing games. Just because you have an imaginary persona in your video game does not make it an RPG. Is Super-Mario Brothers and RPG because I take on the “role” of Mario and attempt to save the princess? Is PacMan an RPG because I forget myself as JB and focus my consciousness as Pac, eating-eating-eating and attempting to escape ghosts?

No…PacMan is a game with no objective of character, simply rules that are to be followed to achieve an end. And so, too, is a game like Knights of the Old Republic or Mass Effect or Fable despite being marketed as “role-playing games.” One is forced to conform to the plot and personality scripted in the computer game, the player’s own will subjugated to that of the game designer.

An MMORPG (“massive multi-player on-line RPG”), such as the World of Warcraft is not by nature a game that actually facilitates “role-playing,” but it can be somewhat adapted to it (note that some servers for MMORPGs are designated as “role-playing” servers with the explicit purpose that players on the server will engage in a particular style of behavior, simulating role-playing). For the most part, the designation of “role-playing” in ANY computer game is simply a branding mechanism used to conjure to mind tropes from the earliest true RPGs…things like:

•        Increased effectiveness through achievement (i.e. “leveling” as a reward)
•        Variety of character type and skill sets (class, race, etc.)
•        Fantasy (i.e. fictional) setting and context for adventure
•        Dramatic conflict most often resolved through combat

 These are tropes of D&D and other early RPGs, but (here’s the important part) NONE OF THESE ELEMENTS ARE WHAT MAKES AN RPG A “ROLE-PLAYING” GAME.

You can have these elements in a game…or not…but that doesn’t necessarily make it a game that allows, encourages, or facilitates role-playing. But having those tropes will recall to mind the fantasy adventure games of our youth that were labeled as “role-playing games.” Well…it will recall the concept to some people’s minds. After all, Dungeons & Dragons wasn’t always billed as a “role-playing game.”

But we’ll get to that in a moment. 

[to be continued...just FYI, this is a very loooong post, so it will be posted in daily installments. What do you think I've been working on for the last week?]