Montana

 6:41am, Big Sky…about an hour NW of Yellowstone’s west entrance.

I am writing this on my phone (apologies) as I purposefully decided to NOT bring my ever trusty laptop on this trip. I have very little time at the moment anyway (apologies) as I will shortly be prepping the family for an early morning excursion to the country’s first national park. Thoughts of Yogi Bear playing in my head.

This is my first road trip to cross the Continental Divide, though I am still in “the West” if not the Northwest. As is the case with much (most) of Montana, the land is beautiful and still largely undeveloped, though probably far too developed for long-time locals. The place I’m staying in…some sort of resort town equivalent to Whistler, B.C….is the kind of thing that Montanans like my relatives absolutely hate. Just catering to outside money that makes it harder for Average Joe to afford the best scenery, hunting, and fishing. Prices at the local grocery are about 150-170% of Seattle (that’s withOUT the 10% sales tax Seattleites pay!). Just ridiculous.

Ah, well. The way of things. “Progress.” Except that Montana has its own homelessness crisis (in cities like Missoula) that are proportionally equivalent to what I see in my hometown. 

Lewis & Clark Caverns, by the way, are pretty awesome and gave me a lot of info/insight into exploring subterranean depths, especially the phenomenon known as “cave darkness.” Perhaps more on that later.

Hope folks are having a good week.

10:21, Wednesday, June 22nd, 2021

Mmm.

I started writing something but it was just...sad. And, no, it wasn't about the state of the world or anything; it was about the state of my publications. Or (rather) the lack thereof.

But I'm not really depressed. I'm not really sure what I feel...I don't have a simple word to describe it. It's a kind of mental constipation. Ideas are stuck in my head that I'm not sure how to express. Books are on my laptop that I'm not sure how to publish. Concepts are crystalizing that I'm not sure how to best articulate in a literate format. I feel blocked.

This blog has received nearly 3 million views over its life; based on the rate at which people "check-in" that number should be surpassed by the end of July (thanks to all my readers). The last book I published was in 2013. That's a long ass time ago. I'm hopeful that I'll be able to add a new one to my resume fairly soon...just waiting on a half dozen or so illustrations from my artist (he's already given me three times that many) to complete this book that's been sitting (finished) on my hard drive since, oh, 2019 or so. Most of it was written while still in Paraguay.

One of these days I'm going to have to learn to draw.

And speaking of artwork and books: in January of 2020 I commissioned an artist to pen a total of SIX illustrations for Cry Dark Future so that I could finally publish that book. To date, I have received ZERO finished pieces. This has been my second attempt at paying artists to give me illos for this book (the last time was 2014 or 2015??)...I don't know why people hate money so much. Maybe if I offered a thousand dollars per B&W illo? Is this why people use Kickstarter? 

Erol Otus charged less for a color cover...at least he did back in 2010. Just saying.

Anyway, despite having several ideas for various books and publications, I think the next thing I want to work on publishing is a handful of adventures. I don't know if these will be for sale or just "for download." My "Tomb of Bendan Fazier" post had over 600 views, though the PDF was downloaded less than 200 times (perhaps if I hadn't put all the text in the blog post...hmmmm...). Probably, though, they will be on DriveThru for a small amount of scratch...the price of a beer, maybe.

(*sigh*) This is a terrible idea; I can already feel it in my bones. 

Okay, everyone is (finally) awake in my house. Back to the mundane grind. Later, Gators!

Taking A Day Or Three

Yes, it's Father's Day...again.

[Sheesh! So many holidays this month...and we completely missed Flag Day!]

As per usual, my family has not bothered to ask me what, if anything, I'd prefer to do today to celebrate my own fatherhood. In fact, they are all soundly sleeping (as usual) while I was awakened at the crack of dawn to feed and water the beagles. Probably (once they awaken) they'll have me make tea and do dishes and make a run to the store for some missing item or other. And they'll complain bitterly if I, say, want to spend time in solitude working on my laptop (ah! the time I must steal!).

So it goes. Some fathers will use the day as an excuse to play18 holes away from their family (I'm sure that's what my father is doing in his California retirement community). My children make me take them to the Green Lake Pitch-and-Putt for nine, mind-numbingly slow holes while being eaten by mosquitoes (as happens when you stick your fairways next to a lake...standing water, you know?).

A few years back, our family rented a house outside Bilbao with a couple other families (friends of ours). In talking over wine and grilled meat, one of the fathers commented how much he disliked Peppa Pig (a staple of all our children at the time), because the Papa Pig is always made to look like a fool by the rest of his family. "But that's what fatherhood IS," we all told him...and it's true. Parenthood is what it is, regardless of the culture or circumstance of the family. The mother is (for the most part) the emotional support/crutch for the children. And the father is (for the most part) the comic relief. Both parents are punching bags in their own fashion.

It just may be a bit tougher for the male ego to find acceptance of the fact.

SO...I will not be "checking out" of my family today. My in-laws are in town from Mexico right now...the first we've seen them since November of 2019 which is waaaay too long. They'll be with us for a few weeks, and we have a good sized road trip to Yellowstone planned, which should be...well, a bit of a logistical nightmare, but I'm sure it will work out in the end. 

But I plan to be too busy over the next month to do much in the way of blogging...certainly not as much as the last couple months...and this next week will probably see very little posting as we gear up for our trip and settle all the stuff that needs to be settled around the house. 

Just so folks know. 

Anyway. Have a good one folks. Don't take yourselves too seriously. Enjoy your families (and your lives) as best you can. And if I don't talk to you before the 4th of July, please don't blow your fingers off.

; )

Happy Juneteenth!

From Wikipedia

I had never heard of Juneteenth before the summer of last year (2020). Like never. This probably has more to do with my geographic location (Seattle) than with the company I keep, which includes all colors of the rainbow. When I first heard about Juneteenth, it was through my wife (who heard about it through her company which is based out of Washington D.C.). I believe my introduction to the holiday was her asking me, "Have you ever heard of this?"

Now for the obligatory post on racism.

I'm a white American. I'm a racist. Not the kind that would spit on a Mexican (like someone once spit on my Mexican wife in a Seattle bar). Just the kind that you are when you grow up in a culture that was built on the blood and exploitation of other people. The kind that needs to be constantly on guard against a false sense of "everything's fine" when injustice is still being perpetrated on folks who don't look like myself.

I prefer to not be part of the problem. Part of the problem is ignoring that a problem exists. Sometimes I talk about the problem (of racism). I don't think orcs are racist. I think people are racist. I've heard stories from non-white people about white racist gamers treating them badly (treating them like orcs). Some of these people feel there are problematic parts of the D&D game that promote bad attitudes/behavior or permit/encourage such. I don't see it that way, but I understand some do. 

I have sympathy for those folks' point of view. I acknowledge that racism is an inherent problem in my culture and society.

My children are half-Mexican (not the same as black but, even so, non-white). They enjoy the hell out of D&D. They enjoy killing orcs. Sometimes they enjoy talking to orcs (and goblins, etc.) and reaching resolutions that don't involve killing. This is part of the game...combat can kill player characters, too, not just orcs. My son runs an on-line AD&D game for his friends (they are age 10). He goes to a diverse school; nearly half of his class is "non-white." 

All the players in his campaign are caucasian. His dungeons have orcs. These things are unrelated, just facts. 

Inherent racism is a problem; probably more than overt racism (though the latter leads to more violence). My children are too young (or too fortunate) to have directly experienced overt racism. But we watch the news in our home. We talk about things. We talk about the problems of racism in this country. It's worth talking about. 

D&D isn't a problem for us. For some people, it is. 

It's good to be aware of racism; sometimes, on my blog, I feel I have a responsibility to bring up the subject. Rather than ignore it. Even though I haven't been affected it by it like other people. Even though I'm a white American dude.

Or, perhaps, BECAUSE of these things.

Juneteenth is a good thing. Acknowledging and understanding our history is a good thing. Realizing that there's still work to be done to make our society equitable is a good thing. 

Hope everyone has a good holiday weekend.

Killing Gods, Final Thoughts

There's a lot to write about deities and their place in D&D...so much so that it would be the epitome of easy to allow this series to spiral endlessly down endless digressions. As such, I think it's time to bring it to a close; I'm sure I'll have the chance to revisit the topic in the future.

For ease of reference:

Part 1

Part 1 Addendum

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

The initial impetus for this series was Prince of Nothing's (probably facetious) comment on an earlier post:

I think if you could manage to distill the right approach to portraying S&S style deities in DnD, complete with a few examples, you'd be doing the OSR a huge favor.

Never one to pass up doing a "favor" for the OSR (!!) I set out in my normal meandering fashion, throwing out the odd barb and jab as is my wont. While I despair of having distilled "the right approach" to the subject of S&S style deities, the series has at least helped me to distill my own thoughts. Here then is what I believe:

While D&D draws inspiration from the Sword & Sorcery genre, for long-term play it is probably best to draw parallels to long form fiction...which S&S ain't. S&S generally applies to short stories, dealing with a particular situation that a protagonist must face. Many of D&D's major influences (Leiber, Howard, Moorcock) wrote in this form...the books of Conan or Elric or Mouser are compilations of short stories rather than actual novels. A distinguishing characteristic of the novel is that a protagonist changes over the course of the book; such is not the case with the short story. Elric is much the same asshole at the end of the series as he is in the beginning; Bilbo or Frodo, on the other hand, are changed drastically by the course of events in their respective novels. D&D can be played like short fiction (i.e. in episodic fashion) but PCs that survive are forced to change by the very rule system by which we play (a 12th level wizard or fighter or thief bears no resemblance to a 1st level character with regard to capability or responsibility). 

S&S deities are reflective of the genre, i.e. they serve the needs of the situation at hand whether you're talking the mysterious entity encountered by Jirel in Black God's Kiss, Arioch's whimsical cruelty in Elric of Melnibone, or the soon-to-be-beheaded naga in God in a Bowl. Attention to continuity and coherence are of secondary importance to telling the story of the protagonist's particular adventure of the moment. For the same reason, there's no single particular way gods are portrayed in the S&S genre: Crom may be a mythical non-entity for all his appearances in Howard's work, while Death is an incarnate being in Leiber's Nehwon setting.

D&D, however, is meant to be played as a campaign over a lengthy (perhaps endless!) period of time, and thus a coherent cosmology is imperative to the setting, in order to facilitate the players' engagement with the game. If the rules for the cosmology shift constantly, depending on the needs of the DM's "story," it works to break the players' immersion and undermine their faith in the DM as a fair and impartial arbiter of the rules. 

And D&D has rules for deities baked into the game. Every edition I've played or read, with the exception of un-supplemented OD&D, has some version of "gods" inherent in the system, followed and worshipped by clerics (Mentzer's BECMI tries to take them out, but then adds the Immortal rules, many of which are named/modeled after the same gods found in historic religions of the world). Finding the "proper way" to portray gods in the game is a non-issue when the rules for modeling divinities are already hard-coded into the system.

Essential Reading

SO...if there is no specific S&S way to portray gods, and D&D already has rules for modeling gods in the game, and if (as I propose) the best way to play D&D is long-term with consistent attention to  setting cosmology (to allow maximum familiarity and, thus, immersion of the players), what then do I postulate is the best way to write gods into adventures?

And, for this, I look to the early (pre-1982ish shift) adventure modules as my examples. Here are the conclusions I draw:

• Gods exist, they are immensely powerful (by PC standards) yet still fallible; there is no "eternal Supreme Being" in D&D, that role being taken by the Dungeon Master, who creates the entirety of the campaign setting, including the gods worshipped by the player characters.
• There are creatures that attempt to imitate and/or are worshipped as gods but who are not; likewise, there are priests that promote false practices and/or worship false deities. Such deceptions can be sniffed out by the simple fact that no spell powers are granted to these would-be clerics.
• Being that the gods exist, they may be encountered by the player characters. Being that the gods' power is an order of magnitude far greater than that of the PCs, the way and manner of such encounters should be commensurate with the capability of the characters, as defined by the game rules. Having the gods (mainly) inhabit the outer planes is an altogether practical approach, as planar travel is generally limited to high level characters.
• Divinities may still be encountered indirectly...through agents, avatars, and relics...even by low- to mid-level characters, and such encounters with divine forces often break standard rules (helping imply the immensity of the divinity's power). Examples include the chaotic chapel in The Keep on the Borderlands, the temples to the Elder Elemental in the Giant modules, the Shrine of the Kuo-Toa, and (of course) Lolth in Vault of the Drow. Being that D&D is a magical world and the PCs are bold adventurers, such indirect encounters may be more common than one might suppose...unlike actual encounters with divine entities.
• Given the rules as written, PCs can kill gods. Doing so should be damn near impossible, which is not the same thing as "impossible." The consequences of such a deicide would be profound: the permanent death of Lolth would eliminate the Drow as a meaningful threat both above and below ground (and would probably lead to their genocide at the hands of the other Underdark species). Such scenarios should never be taken lightly, and are probably best suited as a capstone adventure to a campaign that is coming to a close. Definitely nothing I'd want to see for PCs below name level.

And there it is: the end of this series. Probably NOT as specific as Prince wanted, but still some guidelines to follow. And I honestly feel I've said about all I have to say on the subject...for now. Though, as always, I am happy to field questions, comments, and discussion.

Pax.

: )

Killing Gods, Part 4

All right…that’s a long enough break since my last post on “killing gods.” More than enough. 

As a precursor, I need a moment to talk about the relationship between clerics and deities; I realize this will seem yet another digression, but it’s pertinent to the conversation. You see, this whole subject came up because I was unsatisfied with the way I feel (many) adventure designs of recent years have been unreasonable with their treatment of gods…but it’s quite possible that this trend (and my preferences) come in part from learning different styles of play. 

I will elaborate.

I’ve written before about the shift in perspective of What Exactly A Cleric Is that came about in 1983 with the publication of the Mentzer version of Basic. As I’ve recounted (often enough) this was NOT the brand of D&D by which I learned the game. The clerics in my first campaign (which I ran up till circa 1988) didn’t receive their spells from “the strength of their beliefs.” No. Un-uh. Spells come from the gods they worship…they are divine favors, pure and simple, miracles granted by higher powers. 

This is, of course, EXPLICIT in the text. The 1981 Moldvay Basic set described it thusly:

Since clerical spalls are divinely given, they do not have to be studied; the cleric need only rest and pray for them.

"Divinely given" is the key phrase here. I can understand if there is some confusion caused by the actual description of the cleric class in Moldvay; its text ("...they are trained in fighting and casting spells. As a cleric advances in level, he or she is granted the use of more and more spells...") could be interpreted as meaning that their magic is separate from their deity, that magical training is something only those who are initiated into the cult's higher secrets are taught. But unless Moldvay is speaking metaphorically (I don't think he is), the phrase divinely given in the Spell section makes clear just who is "granting" access to clerical magic...not higher level priests and patriarchs, but the god or goddess whom the cleric serves.

And Gygax is even more clear in the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide:

It is well known to all experienced players that clerics, unlike magic-users, have their spells bestowed upon them by their respective deities.

The DMG text (page 38) goes on for more than half a page detailing exactly how clerics receive their magic directly from their gods, either by being divinely empowered (1st and 2nd level spells), bestowed upon them through intermediaries (saints, angels, demigods, etc. for 3rd through 5th level spells), or granted by direct communication with the deity itself (6th and 7th level spells). It is not a cleric's "inner strength," "strong beliefs," or "mystical training" that allows the character to create miracles...it is the god itself. A cleric with no god receives no magic. Period.

As said, Mentzer changes this in his 1983 Basic rulebook...a book I never owned until the 2000s, and certainly not the book I learned to play with. But a subtle shift in thinking is evident in TSR's publications as early as 1982. I refer here to two classic modules published that year: N1: Against the Cult of the Reptile God and B4: The Lost City. I imagine both modules might be held up as inspirations for the works of recent designers I cited earlier, examples of "sword & sorcery" style adventures featuring "godlike beings" who are nothing more than actual (non-divine) monsters needing to be killed...respectively a spirit naga named Explictica Defilus and the tentacled monstrosity known as Zargon. These false gods, whether through longevity and fear or powerful mind control, have created cults of worship around themselves, followers who hold them in awe and carry out their "divine will, much as one might expect of followers duped by a charlatan.

And yet both modules include actual cleric followers of these monsters...clerics with the ability to access clerical magic. N1 has multiple clerics of Explictica using spells of up to 4th level (7th level clerics). B4 features Darius, a 6th cleric (also with access to spells up to 4th level) of the "cult of Zargon" as one of the Big Bads of the adventure. None of these characters make sense under the rules of the game; none of these characters should have ANY spells whatsoever.

Contrast this with the backstory found in the 1980 module C1: The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan:

Eventually a new Archon mounted the throne in Pontylver, one who claimed [lawful neutral] Alia as her patron. The Temple of the Correct and Unalterable Way grew in followers and prestige, and as time passed, Myrrha noticed that her peers and superiors were becoming increasingly arrogant and arbitrary....Myrrha saw they were falling into the heresy of believing that law is concentrated in the individual and not the community. Investigating, she discovered a well-kept secret: many members of the ecclesiarchy were no longer able to cast high-level spells, thus proving their estrangement from their deity!

If N1 was properly designed (that is, written to follow the instructions laid out in the rule books), neither Abramo nor Misha would have access to clerical spells above 2nd level (and maybe not even those) and Gareth Primo would have no magic at all because a spirit naga is not a god and, thus, not capable of granting spells.

That is the game, folks, and I honestly don't think it's "open to interpretation." But...perhaps because of "satanic panic" pressure over the pretending to worship strange gods (see the 1982 Mazes and Monsters where Tom Hanks plays a batshit-crazy cleric)...TSR started to move away from its own rules. Started to say, hey, being a cleric isn't really about worshipping a god, it's about your character's training and "strong beliefs" manifesting powers...you're just a magic-user in priest's clothing and it doesn't matter whether you're worshipping the One True God or some tentacled space slug that crashed on the planet a thousand years ago. We aren't teaching children about the worship of strange pagan gods...heavens, no! There is no god except God, these are just strangely deluded fantasy priests. Pay no attention!

And you see that carried all the way down to today's designers. From Jason Sholtis's magnificent Operation Unfathomable:

...clerics operate under the delusion that their deities actually exist (they do not!). In truth, clerics are merely a distinct variety of magic-user, devoted to one or more of the ten thousand Gods of Order. Clerics manipulate chaos to achieve their results through the mental constructs of their religious practices, rather than rote memorization of arcane mummery.

From 2017's Lamentations of the Flame Princess (James Raggi):

Cleric magic is divinely inspired, and is granted to Clerics through prayer. Whether these powers are granted to Clerics by higher powers, if these higher powers are what the Cleric believes them to be, or if all Cleric spells are merely ritualized forms of sympathetic magic, are all subjects frequently debated...

I would include the 2018 adventure The Red Prophet Rises in this mix of confusion, in which a heretical priest (Khazra), mistakenly worshipping an ancient vampiric entity, still (inexplicably) retains access to the spells of a 6th level cleric of "the Bull God." Why? Is the Obelisk that Thirsts a divine entity? No. Does it serve the Bull God? No. One would think spells would be withheld from the priest, if only to inform him of his delusional apostasy.  Guy uses a sword in combat anyway.

These authors (and others) seem to have been influenced somewhat by these later (post-1982) influences when it comes to explaining the relationship between clerics and their gods. Which is to say, there is little relationship, if any. Any failure of clerical magic can simply be attributed to the cleric losing faith in herself: it is not the deity that withholds magic, but the cleric's own psychological barriers to accessing a purely internal mechanism. 

I'm not a big fan of that interpretation. It doesn't jibe with the D&D I learned to play. It is not the AD&D of Gygax; it runs counter to the DMG and the information found in Deities & Demigods. And while I'll be the first to admit to being a stodgy, groggy, grumpy old man when it comes to my D&D, I'd even say that it's not very "Sword & Sorcery," either...despite what (many of) these authors hope to emulate.

Because as discussed in my first post on the subject, much of D&D is inspired by fantasy fiction of the pulp variety...and in pulp fantasy you see PLENTY of deluded cultists following charlatans and false gods, but they aren't getting any magical powers by doing so. False priests don't get spells: they use tricks and psychoactive powders or rule through fear and tradition and superstition. Real magic linked to worship is generally called sorcery and rightly so, as it is linked to the favors granted by demonic entities...but such infernal divinities are still "divine," supernatural and extra-dimensional. Only divinities grant divine powers: when Jagreen Lern or Elric conjure in the names of their chaos gods, THEN magical stuff happens. 

But maybe I need to rein in a bit and bring this all back around to the subject at hand ("killing gods"). There is, I think, a certain prevalence or attitude or orientation in the Old School Role-playing circles that has wandered far afield from the game as it was originally envisioned. Maybe. Maybe I'm wrong. But here's how I see it:

• As Mike Mornard writes, the original designers "made up some shit they thought would be fun." It involved exploring strange environs, finding treasure, building worlds. It was inspired and influenced by adventure fiction, much of it "fantasy" in nature.
• As a game, D&D has a system; it has rules. It models something (a fantasy world of adventure) and the rules are applied to the thing it models (the fantasy world of adventure) up to and including things like "how/why a cleric gets spells" and "how many hit points a god like Zeus might have."
• That divine architect that Elric is always searching for? The supreme being that orders the lives of even the gods of his world? D&D has that, too: it's called the Dungeon Master. And just like Elric's "supreme being" (who would be Michael Moorcock...duh), the DM is not a creature to be encountered by the protagonists (in D&D's case, the player characters). The DM creates the world but is not OF the world. What will be encountered are game constructs, up to and including the gods that inhabit the game world.
• As a constructed fantasy world D&D has a cosmology. As a game that models a fantasy world, that cosmology can be exactly and minutely defined...right down to just how much damage Thor can do with a hammer blow, or how many greater devils inhabit the 3rd layer of the Nine Hells...should such info ever become necessary for play.
• The game (D&D) has parameters (structure) of play. It has assumptions and expectations of how play resolves.  These expectations of play resolution are determined by 1) the rules, 2) the way the rules model the world, and 3) the fiction that inspires the game...in that order. Don't (for example) tell me "well, Gandalf used a sword!" The inspiring fiction (#3) comes behind the rules (#1) and the modeled fantasy world (#2).

As originally conceived, Dungeons & Dragons was never about "telling stories." It was about playing a game of exploration and survival (adventure!) in a fantasy game world. However, some folks were quite unimaginative with how they worked within those parameters, creating murder-hobo funhouses of the poorest variety and this caused pushback in the form of front-loaded drama. We shall not wait for a story to emerge from our adventures! We shall make sure there is MEANING to these characters' (fake) lives!

Combine the success of that front-loaded drama (through company supported publications like Ravenloft and Dragonlance) with an imperative to cut anything perceived as controversial (i.e. impacting the bottom line) from a game now being marketed to children (this being the shift that began circa 1982), and one can readily see the consequences: we don't kill gods. We kill demons. We kill immortal liches. We kill creatures masquerading as gods. We kill surrogates in order to have our high stakes, high drama, emotionally invested play.

Because, originally, emotional investment in a character was mainly found in long-running (i.e high level) characters. And high level characters, by necessity, required greater challenges to stay engaged...tackling gods (modeled as part of the cosmology) and godlike beings (that giant ape from WG6) are a natural evolution of challenge for characters of the highest echelon, because lesser challenges don't cut it anymore. If you want to run a high level campaign, you're going to want to study up your copy of Sailor on the Seas of Fate because that's about "par" when it comes to suitable challenges. Good old Demogorgon has been a part of the D&D tapestry since 1976...and for good reason. 

[hell, I used to fight Demogorgon...on the playground...waaaay back before I ever laid eyes on ANY D&D book. Before I even opened my first box of the Dungeon! board game, even]

Not low level characters (I'm guessing).

Outside of WotC's latest-greatest editions, D&D designers have (mostly) moved away from front-loaded drama and railroad story arcs, but they've still passed some sort of threshold from which they can't seem to return. They want high stakes, high challenge, high weirdness in their adventure...but they don't want high level player characters. They want their players to continue playing "small ball" forever after, retiring (I suppose) should they ever, somehow, reach 8th or 10th level of play. "Too superheroic," is the refrain I hear. "The game is no fun after around 5th (or 6th or 7th) level."

Bull. Crap. But that discussion is for another post.

Throwing high level challenges (like godlings) into low level adventures is an attempt by designers to have their cake and eat it, too. It's an attempt to inject Elric-levels of amazeballs fantasy into the lives of grubby, Warhammer Fantasy-level adventurers in order to draw out low-level play while still keeping long-since-jaded players engaged with the game in front of them. Is that as bad as playing pre-generated snowflakes traveling the Dragonlance railroad? Absolutely not. But it's got to be grating after a while. It would certainly bug the shit out of me.

All right, that's it. I lied about this being the concluding post...just had too much more to say. The NEXT post will definitely be the conclusion to this series. 

Has Anyone...?

Has anyone ever played I6: Ravenloft as written, using the AD&D system?

Clearly, the adventure module was extremely popular. And I have no doubt there was a time when people used to sit around the kitchen table reading boxed text to each other and eyes didn't "glaze over" (I know there was a time for me and my gaming buddies when this was the case). 

But did anyone run the adventure proper, as written, using the wandering monster tables, the dictated motivations (and tactics) of Strahd, the paltry treasure, poisonous fog, and the labyrinthine castle as an insert into their normal campaign world?

And, if so, did the players LOVE it?

I'm just curious. As I mentioned before, I never had a chance to play Ravenloft when it was first published: my DM ran it for our playgroup when I was out-of-town one weekend. The reports I recall hearing were more about the antics of the players (bickering with and killing each other) and I think (if I remember correctly) they simply got fed up with adventure and decided to leave (poison mist or no) after frying Strahd with a lightning bolt. Which is to say: they hand-waved a lot of the thing. None of them gushed about it, or spoke highly of it, or offered to re-run it for my benefit...nor did anyone ask me to run it for them. It made extremely minimal impression (as far as I can tell) on our group of kids aged 12 to 14.

I'm not going to fault anyone their nostalgia...not when I've spent years of wallowing in my own, here on Ye Old Blog. But I am curious, because (as I commented to Dennis in my last post) I'm not sure I've met anyone who's played the adventure and "loved" it. Maybe the love comes from DMs who enjoyed the novelty of the thing? I don't know...and I am curious.

Please feel free to leave your comments. I promise I won't judge you for what you enjoyed thirty years ago.