Dealing With Despair

Dragons of Despair, that is. 

; )

Just a quick update or two before getting back to my crickets-inducing posts on retooling languages (only two more to go!). The after school "D&D Club" has been moved from Tuesday/Thursday to Monday/Friday, due to scheduling issues. How it expanded to twice weekly so fast is a bit of a mystery (I'm not sure I ever actually agreed to that...). Meanwhile, my son's schoolyard Star Wars game continues. Maybe I should show him White Star...

That means that my home game is back on Thursdays (it was on temporary hiatus). Which means I've got some prep work to do. The Forest Oracle, fortunately, doesn't really need "prep;" unfortunately, that's because it needs a real overhaul. I've set it up so that most of the strange and awful things the party has come across can be traced back to the desperate "gypsy clan" (re-skinned as a matriarchal clan of migrant farmers, led by a powerful bruja) but the basic resolution idea is so dumb (I see no way for "benevolent druids" - *gag* - to manufacture a "potion" that will lift the curse...certainly not in the time frame allowed) there's a strong temptation to simply turn this into a seek-and-destroy exercise. That would certainly fly with the party's mercenaries, but doesn't make much sense when you consider that the party could probably buy-off the bruja with just the treasure in the yeti's den. And I really don't want to take the time to stat up the whole clan (being a "party immune plot point" in the original adventure, there are no demographics given for the gypsies...possibly to hide the fact that they're packing enough firepower to take down their single ogre issue without breaking a sweat, and have no real need of the party's help).

*sigh*

No, what I think I'll do instead is start my mini-Dragon War campaign, i.e. I'm going to have Verminaard swoop in with a couple dragons and burn the whole Druid Grove to the ground. This will prove so immensely satisfying on so many levels, as well as opening up a whole new arena of adventure for the party. Besides, I want to get these guys pointed at an actual dungeon, not this lackadaisical railroad.

Enter DL1: Dragons of Despair. I've been working on this the last couple days, and I'm kind of in love with it. Well, obsessed anyway. Not the adventure, mind you...that's still mostly shit (if imaginative shit). But the dungeon of Xak Tsaroth...it's kind of fantastic.

The map is amazing...I mean, it's really, really good. Non-linear design. Lots of verticality. Multiple entrances and exits. Neat stuff going on here. And legibility/usability is pretty high considering the isomorphic map (I'm not usually a fan). David LaForce ("Diesel") really hit it out of the park with this one. I am suddenly interested in reviewing all his cartography work.

Not that the adventure itself does the map justice. Here's my best Bryce impression:

This 32 page "classic" adventure uses nine pages to present an 84 encounter dungeon in the form of a sunken, ruined city. Excessive box text abounds; some encounter areas consist of nothing but box text, while others bury important room information within the "read aloud" portion, cutting down on usability. Also not terribly helpful is the numbering sequence, which matches letters as well as numbers, although the map is generally clear and legible.

[okay, I don't do a very good Bryce impression. That's why he's who he is and I'm not]

Treasure is generally poor/minimal for a 1E adventure of this scale: only nine areas have treasure of any type (under 11%), with the bulk of it being impossibly heavy doors of gold or "precious steel" weighing thousands of pounds each. However, the overall challenge of the adventure is equally low: while only 25 of the 84 encounters include monsters (31%, which is almost the B/X recommended level of 33%), most of these are harmless, comical, or non-combative encounters:

• nine encounters consist entirely of "gully dwarves" (the comic relief, possible allies, and general incompetents).
• five encounters consist of spectral minions (non-aggressive ghosts)
• two "monsters" are NPC prisoners who will join the party (there is a 3rd such NPC in the dungeon but he is held by actual monster antagonists)
• at least five encounters with hostile draconians find the creatures drunk, sleeping, or distracted by their own arguments, allowing easy surprise situations.
• one encounter with poison snakes that is more of a "trap" and fairly navigable
• one encounter (the black dragon) is repeated...so if the monster is defeated, there is one less creature encounter

SO, if you do the math, that really only leaves...um...two combat encounters? Out of 84? Is that right? I might have done some weird math there; hold on.

[skims text]

Okay, I missed something there because it looks like there are FIVE combat encounters (not counting the second appearance by the dragon...which is actually the THIRD appearance of the monster in the module). Five out of 84 is pretty paltry: that's about 6%. Which, of course, really ups the survival rate of Plot Immune Heroic PCs (hmm...was that on purpose?). Even the black dragon, a natural born PC killer, can be one-shot-slain with a magic artifact already in the PCs possession. Considering there are only seven "traps" (some fairly beefy, but most telegraphed and easily avoidable), there's little danger in exploring this otherwise titanic adventure site. Five levels! Waterfalls and flooded sections! Sideways buildings! Ancient treasures and dragons! Come on, let's go D&D!

These guys are soooo dead.

I'm sure I've mentioned it in the past but...just in case I haven't...please let me say again: I absolutely LOVE black dragons. Oh, I like the others well enough (except, maybe for the blues), but the blacks are my favorite. There's something so wonderfully scary about there space-black scales, their swampy abodes, their ability to dissolve player characters in a gob of acid spit. And because of their (relatively) low hit dice, they can still half-cook high level PCs, yet leave them alive with terrible, disfiguring injuries and horrific scars. And have you seen the item saving throws for acid in the DMG? I once ran I2: Tomb of the Lizard King as a one-off and I'm pretty sure it ended in a TPK with the first "road encounter," an ambush by black dragon. I'm pretty sure that was both the first and last time I've had a chance to use this magnificent monster, and I want to see another in action!

Interesting that DL1 includes the following random encounter in the swamp: 1-10 hatchling black dragons. While they're not much of a threat (6 hit points each) there's an interesting implication here that Khisanth (the black dragon of Xak Tsaroth and the module's major antagonist) is a breeding mother. Even if these aren't her hatchlings (she is, after all, an ancient dragon) they might be the offspring of her own offspring. How long has she resided in these ancient ruins? How many other dragons may be in the vicinity? 

Some decent questions, unanswered by module...because, of course, that's not the objective of DL1. The objective was to start players down an epic story arc published by The Company (thus filling the company coffers) rather than creating a truly modular adventure that could be inserted into one's home campaign. Which is a darn shame, because these maps are some of the best I've come across, and the Hickmans weren't slouches in the adventure-writing department (I rather like most of the Desert of Desolation series). 

Here's my grand plan for today: first I need to tidy the kitchen, clean the floor, and figure out dinner. THEN I'm going to restock the dungeon of Xak Tsaroth to fit a more classical (B/X) delving style:

• Monster encounters should be around 28-30
• Traps/hazards should be at least a dozen (easy enough to add cave-ins, floodings, and unstable buildings), not seven.
• Rewrite about half the "special" encounters; I count 15 which is about right for an adventure this size
• Increase interactivity...about one note for every two "empty" rooms (that would be 14 total as B/X calls for one-third of all encounter areas to be empty)
• Up the treasure amount. I'd say about 200,000 - 300,000 x.p. worth of treasure should be about right. The value as it stands (including x.p. for magic items) is 38,370 [EDIT: actually under 30K] later changed to 60,170 with the 2E conversion (more gems were added to the dragon's hoard and the value of the thousands pound doors increased). That's ridiculous for a death trap this size, especially as I'm removing the Disks of Mishakal...although I'll probably replace them with some other holy relics.
• Except for the black dragon (natch) almost all the other monsters need to be replaced/reskinned. Gully dwarves become kobolds of the "wizened goblin" variety...possibly enslaved "swamp gnomes" (why not?). Draconians will be replaced with hobgoblins and goblins, based on intelligence level (all these monsters are pretty dumb), with the bigger dracos being chief-type gobbos, Maybe an ogre mage can replace a spell-using "boss" draco. The vermin here are okay, but the adventure needs a lot more (it's a swamp...let's fire up the lizards and snakes, maybe throw in a giant slug). No spectral minions but a wraith or three (maybe some shadows, too) sound like good ideas. Black dragon hatchlings, duh. Also, probably some sort of ancient guardian golem, damaged by the city's fallen into its subterranean cavern...still functionally dangerous, but slow and limping.

Aaaand, I think that should just about do it. Coming soon, to a swamp near you: The Sunken City of Doom!

Literacy

I'm guessing this post will be shorter than the last one. Yay!

Continuing the discussion of languages in D&D, we move on to the subject of literacy which for game purposes I'm going to define as "the ability to communicate through writing." That's a little more than the literal definition of the term (which is simply the ability to read and write), but for purposes of a game rule/system I want to make sure I'm considering "practical application."

The history of writing is a long and interesting one that predates the invention of paper. Mainly, the need for a written form of communication seems to have been tied to the rise of administration/bureaucracy (which itself was only made possible by the advent of agrarian culture and large communities of people starting to congregate). This is a gross simplification (I am as much a hack academic as I am a hack writer), but it works well enough for where I'm going with this (plus I said I wanted this to be shorter!).

The main part of originating writing is the development of an alphabet: illustrative characters that can represent sounds, words, or whole concepts. The alphabet I use (that I'm typing in right now) is the Latin alphabet, first developed some 2700 years ago (though it wasn't the same then as it is today). Other alphabets developed other places. Some of these are still used today, many have fallen by the way (or been subsumed into others). 

The latin alphabet is used throughout most of the "western world," because of the reach of the old Roman Empire and its influence on the rise of western culture. Romans needed writing because they had a gigantic bureaucracy to administer. Prior to its fall, folks living within the empire (both citizens and non-) enjoyed a high level of literacy and writing seems to have been quite proliferate. After the disintegration of the Empire...and the loss of a cheap source of writing material (papyrus from Egypt), literacy fell drastically in western Europe, and would remain low for centuries. 

[one might ask which came first: loss of literacy or loss of governmental cohesion. They probably fed into each other in a death spiral of de-evolution]

Again...I am grossly simplifying because it's not my objective to write a long essay on the subject (lots of good sources on this stuff exists for interested folks). However, for purposes of world building...and then rule design...this gross simplification provides the foundational material I'm working with.

Does the Dungeons & Dragons world need literacy? That's not a terrible question to ask. Originally, the main things PCs were supposed to read included spell books, magic scrolls, and treasure maps (all of which I intend to discuss in a follow-up post). And other then scribing ones own scrolls, the only thing a character was presumed to need to write were hiring notices posted at taverns...and, of course, one could hand-wave even this, given the likely illiteracy of desirable hires (especially considering it's the exact same cost for simply "having servitors circulate in public places, seeking such persons"). 

Spells like read languages (from OD&D, book 1), magic items like a helm of reading magic and languages (from OD&D, book 2), and the thief's ability to read languages are all explicit to reading treasure maps:

Thieves of the 3rd level and above are able to read most (80%) languages, so treasure maps can be read and understood by them without recourse to a spell.

- Supplement I (Greyhawk), page 4

Reading doesn't otherwise appear to have been all that important (note the low level associated with both the spell and the thief ability) to the D&D game. As Alexis pointed out the other day, having written text for PCs to discover is generally just finding a different, novel way of delivering exposition to the players. And if that writing is in a language that they don't understand (or can't read), the only thing you're gaining is time; i.e. the DM is delaying the delivery of exposition to the PCs, which is only rarely useful.

And yet, in my mind's eye I always remember that scene in 1952 film Ivanhoe in which Robert Taylor seeks out a local priest to read a letter confirming the location of King Richard (Ivanhoe is not a stupid man but obviously an illiterate nobleman...not terribly unusual for the 12th century). It's not "exposition" that's gained from the priest's literacy, but a useful clue. Such a clue isn't necessary to your typical D&D adventuring party (who could just as easily decide to assault every keep in Austria until they find their king or die terribly), but it is a useful piece of information, helping to save resources (and lives). And the prospect of a literate captive (one with whom a literate party might communicate via message) ALSO has uses. 

Even so, that's a fairly singular example of mundane literacy being useful (the party cannot be expected to rescue a king in durance vile every week!), and as far as using written messages with each other, nothing prevents party members from working out their own coded signs...or hiring scribes to read/write for them. 

The main reason that I want literacy is from a world building perspective. I like the idea of there being books in the world to be read, and useful information to be gleaned from their pages. Sages are hella' expensive after all...though that might simply reflect the fact that few persons can read the texts in the sage's library (ooo...I like the idea of a book thief campaign!). Useful hints, rumors, legends, and even magical command words should be available to the person able to read the memoirs and journals that have been left behind by other, literate folk. And the quest for folks who can read ancient alphabets...well that can be an adventure in and of itself!

SO...to the rules. There are two parts to comprehending writing: understanding the alphabet, and understanding the language the alphabet is expressing. I can read the Latin alphabet just fine, but if the words are in Danish, I'm not going to grasp what's been written down. In my campaign world, there are only a handful of written alphabets, all developed by their own cultures (generally long ages prior to the start of the campaign) for the purpose of administering their civilizations:

• the "Common" alphabet used by humans
• ancient elvish, a script not used in a thousand years
• "common" elvish
• runic dwarf (mainly used for counting and/or religious/magical purpose)

NOTE: ancient elvish can only be used by someone with fluency in elvish; runic dwarf may only be used by someone with fluency in dwarfish. These symbols used in both these languages communicate concepts, not just sounds, and cannot be used to transliterate the languages of other cultures.

There are at least two other languages I'm toying with adding: one will be related to an ancient snake-man (yuan ti) civilization, lost in the southern jungles. The other would be an "Underdark alphabet" used as a common script by the various deep dwellers (drow, svirfneblin, etc.); though drow themselves will mainly use a "tarted up" version of ancient elvish. Mind flayers, being big-brained telepaths, have never needed to develop an alphabet. 

Most of the other sentient humanoids of game world neither have nor use alphabets of their own. Goblins, orcs, gnolls, lizard men...none of these creatures have ever had the administrative needs to develop their own forms of writing, and few have access to learning the writing of others. That doesn't mean there aren't literate humanoids! They are just few and far between and the ones that do write are most likely to use the "Common" alphabet of humans.

[though to whom would they write?]

Learning any single alphabet requires only one point from the character's pool of language points (see the rules in my fluency post). Some DMs might want to make particularly rare or difficult languages "cost more" to learn...I don't. It amuses me to have a halfling academic who knows how to write "good morning" in common elvish without actually being able to speak elvish, or to have a rather low intelligence dwarf who still knows his holy runic writing.

Oh, and just by the way: with the inclusion of these rules I will be removing the thief skill of reading languages from the game. But that will be discussed in my next post regarding secret languages.

: )

Fluency

First: a quick reality check. Before I start diving into discussions of language (and language design), please understand that your humble author has no academic background in linguistics or communication, nor historical anthropology applying to the subject, nor even any background in teaching or education. I write for (i.e. "design") games. The games I design for (tabletop RPGs) seek to emulate specific particulars of my choosing, and they try to do so with an eye towards playability, balancing "fun" and "practicality," and my tastes for these two elements may well run counter to other folks' tastes. 

In the case of language fluency, what I want to emulate is based largely on a combination of "adventure fiction" and personal experiences, not necessarily in that order.

Your humble author is pretty much crap at learning foreign languages. Here's the brief history: took French class in the 8th grade and got straight A's. Took three years of Japanese in high school and got a B'ish average, yet retain ALMOST NOTHING despite actually traveling/living in Japan for three weeks or so (I did manage to acquire a girlfriend who later came to the U.S. and had an interest in marriage, but she was fluent in English). Took a year of French at University where I bottomed out in my third trimester (I believe the mark I received was a "D+") due to me skipping a LOT of class to be with my romantic interest of the time (another train wreck story). Took some night classes in Spanish at the local community college, years later, in order to get enough grounding in the language to fake holding a conversation with my Mexican in-laws (this AFTER a couple years of marriage and certain spousal threats relating to my inability to communicate with the family). And that's about it, education-wise...unless you count a couple-four CDs used to "try" learning foreign languages: Russian (that was for a different girl), German (for travel), Czech (for travel), and Italian (?? I think...for fun? Maybe, but we did travel there as well eventually. Regardless, I speak NO Italian).

These days, I'm fairly fluent in Spanish, but that's after 20+ years of marriage to a woman from Mexico (we've been together since '98), annual or twice annual trips to Mexico (where all the friends/relatives reside), three years or so living in Paraguay, several excursions to various Spanish-speaking countries (Panama, Guatamala, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, and Spain). I knew NO Spanish before I met the wife, other than what was on the menu at a Tex-Mex joint...at least, nothing but bad words (picked up working in restaurant kitchens). 

"Fairly fluent" means the following: I can hold a conversation with someone in Spanish, though generally not a profound or deep one. I can follow (comprehend) a conversation between native Spanish speakers, so long as they are not A) speaking too fast, B) using a lot of "slang" or specific terminology, C) talking about anything particularly complex. I can communicate with native Spanish speakers enough that they understand (more-or-less) what I am trying to communicate to them (the reverse does NOT always hold true). I can teach simple concepts in Spanish (on par with what you'd teach a small child up to the age of 5 or so); we raised our kids to speak Spanish as their first language, and could only do this by only speaking Spanish in the home. 

Oh...and I can generally follow movies in Spanish, even without subtitles (though it's easier with...yes, even with subtitles in Spanish).

My reading comprehension is actually better than my listening/speaking ability because reading is a slower process, allowing me time to distinguish recognizable root words, make sense of syntax and context, and because writing is (generally) more formal in composition than the way people talk. Also: no accents in writing. I can distinguish (some) cultural accents these days, and some accents are so thick they don't even sound like Spanish at times. This was an issue for us when we liven in Paraguay...even my wife only understood two-thirds of what people were saying the first year we were there. 

My wife, unlike me, is amazing at learning languages (except French. Terrible, terrible French). She is fully fluent in English (with an extensive vocabulary) and "fairly fluent" in Italian. She can get by in Portuguese, and picked up Czech pretty quickly (though I doubt she remembers any now). She left the German stuff to me (when we were in Germany) but I doubt she'd have much issue with it, seeing as how closely related it is to English. But then, her work and education are in the field of communications (and she LOVES to travel).

In Dungeons & Dragons, knowledge of a language is a binary switch: your character either knows how to speak "troll" (or whatever) or she doesn't; degree of fluency doesn't enter into the equation. In D&D, the number of languages you speak is the resource that is counted, and it is tied directly to a character's intelligence attribute: the higher your character's INT, the larger the quantity of languages known and understood.

Which doesn't jibe with my experience. Your O-So-Humble Scribe (me) is a pretty smart guy...on a day of extreme modesty, I'd probably rate myself a 15 on the ol' INT scale. But despite years of effort (especially the last ten or so) my ability to speak ANY language other than Inglais has met with a LOT of frustration...you can be smart all day, and it just ain't easy (at least, nor for me). On the other hand plenty of folks (especially those raised outside the USA) speak multiple languages just as a matter of course. Native Paraguayans, from the most educated professor to the lowliest laborer, speak two languages fluently: Spanish and Guaranii. And those with ANY degree of education (i.e. anyone with some family money) speaks unaccented, fluent English (care of The American School) and probably some Portuguese as well (due to the country's history and cultural exchange with Brazil). "Intelligence" is not the issue; so far as I can determine, the main drives of "fluency" (i.e. the ability to communicate in a language) come down to use, opportunity, and access. Roughly in that order.

These days, I only rarely use my Spanish language, except for the habitual phrases and sentences I use (yelling at my children, buying chicharon at the Mexican grocery store), and as a result I'm quite "rusty." My kids are worse: since the pandemic, they've cut the Spanish class from our school (one of the reasons we were sending them there) and sometimes they forget even phrases like "merry Christmas"...at least, until their mother takes them aside and lectures/communicates with them for a couple hours in Espanol. Usually that's enough to knock the rust off. For me, my Spanish improves remarkably after a week in a country where I'm surrounded by the language, my fluency "amping up" to two or three times its normal level...but never more than what I've had the opportunity to learn.

Should an elf or wizard be able to hold a jovial conversation with a couple orcs when they spend most of their free time "in town?" Should the gnome illusionist using a change self spell be able to pass as a native speaking kobold? Personally, I don't think so...unless the character is some serious student of the language/culture. And yet, in Seattle I know many folks of non-American birth, switch seamlessly between their native tongue (still spoken in the home) and the English language that is all around them. Though many (including my wife) will at times complain of a loss of fluency in their original language due to living and working on foreign soil.

[actually, when we first returned from living in Paraguay, I would accidentally slip into Spanish quite often the first few months we were back. I don't do that anymore]

SO...how to model this in game terms? Well, what's the (game) objective here...besides making a more nuanced game world for the players to live in? For me, I want to give the PCs some options that will aid them in their navigating the challenges...specifically hostile NPCs...through the time honored means of negotiation and deception (or both).  And because this is a game, the system needs some abstraction. Here's how it works:

For any language, there are four degrees of fluency:

• Non-fluent (0 points): the character cannot communicate in the language. Oh, a person might be taught a word or two ("Breeyark," "yes/no," "please"), but the character will not understand what the language speaker is saying; communication is only one way, or very rudimentary and bolstered by gesture (point at food, point at mouth, etc.).
• Moderately fluent (1 point): character is "fairly" fluent...about the same as what I describe for my ability to speak Spanish (see above). Complex ideas cannot be conveyed, but basic conversations - both ways - are possible. Topics of conversation will be limited to the character's general interests, perhaps chitchat (food, treasure, directions, danger, etc.) not profound philosophies, deep matters of the heart, or intricacies of political situations.
• Fully fluent (2 points): character can communicate as well as befits a person of his or her station (type and level of education, intelligence, profession, etc.). The character cannot pass as a native speaker, and will exhibit a marked accent; subtleties of conversation (including humor and condescension/disdain) may be missed, but the character should "get it" most of the time. Character will have insights into the culture, but may still be thrown for a loop by rare words, new slang, or unique concepts.
• Native speaker (3 points): character speaks as well as someone born to the culture; the only limitations being the character's particular class/stature/station in life (this can be eyeballed based on a character's class, level, and CHA score). Appearance will be the only mark of a character's "foreignness," and perhaps not even that if the culture is sufficiently diverse enough to include members of the character's species. Character will be familiar with customs, clothing, food, etc. of the culture and will understand idioms, expressions, and subtleties as much as INT/WIS allows.

Characters start the game with 4 points worth of languages so long as their INT is at least six, otherwise they have only 3 points worth of languages. Elves and dwarves receive one bonus point (total of 5) so long as their INT is at least six. This number is modified by the character's Intelligence score as noted in the PHB for "number of additional languages spoken." For example, a halfling with a 13 intelligence would have 7 points to spend; a dwarf with an 18 intelligence would have 12 points; an elf with a 4 intelligence would only have three points, the same as a human of 4 intelligence.

Some languages (in my game world) share the same root "language family" such that a native or fully fluent speaker counts as moderately fluent without the need to expend additional points. These include:

• Dwarf to Gnome (and the reverse)
• Goblin to Kobold (and the reverse)

There may be others. "Bugbear" is not a goblin in my world. Hobgoblins are a larger form of goblin, but otherwise the same species (see dialect, below).

Creatures/characters of the same species share the same language but may have different "dialects." Native speakers may communicate as fully fluent when communicating with a speaker of a different dialect. Some examples from my world include:

• Humans (those West of the Cascades versus those to the East)
• Elves (wood elves versus high elves, etc.)
• Giants (hill, frost, stone, fire, etc.)

[Drow, if such exist (I haven't yet decided) are far enough removed culturally to be considered a different language family, rather than a different dialect. The same would probably apply to svirfneblin, derro, and duergar]

Mechanic-wise, characters should receive a bonus to reaction checks of +1 if fully fluent and +2 if a native speaker. Characters who are non-fluent should receive a -2 penalty when attempting to communicate (moderately fluent character receive neither bonus, nor penalty). These are in addition to the normal adjustments for CHA and circumstance (a group of adventurers with blades drawn are going to be seen as a threat regardless of their communication skills!).

Can fluency be lost? Yes, of course. So long as a character has the chance to use their conversation (either talking to NPCs, practicing with fellow party members, or residing in a "base town" where the language is spoken), fluency may be maintained at the purchased level. It takes 2d6 months for fluency to diminish (call it seven months) from non-use; fluency will never diminish more than one step, and never below moderately fluent. Former fluency level can be regained after immersing themselves in the language for 1d3 weeks.

[folks who want even more nuance can add a somewhat fluent category under moderately fluent; this degree of fluency is never purchased but may be fallen to from non-use. It carries a -1 reaction penalty]

Now, I'd bet there are some folks out there, reading this and saying "Eh? Who cares? Why add this needless complexity to the D&D game?" And, of course, you don't have to. You don't have to use weapon proficiencies either (B/X doesn't). Heck, if you really wanted to simplify the game you could remove all coinages besides gold pieces, lots of "simpler" fantasy board games get by with nothing else (games like Dungeon!, Dark Tower, Talisman...).

For me, some amount of complexity (no more than I can handle) makes for a richer, deeper gaming experience. For other folks it just adds to an already dizzying array of overwhelming rules. To each their own. But I think this is kind of neat, and I plan to put it into play pretty much immediately.

Next post, I'll talk about literacy.

; )

Language!

I like languages in my D&D games. I get that not everyone does. What I don't like is the system for languages, which has varied from edition to edition.

Welp, a couple nights ago I woke up with pretty much a complete idea formed in my head about how I might manage the issue in my games. I'm pretty excited by it. But before I share, please allow me to first write a bit about the whys and wherefores of languages in Dungeons & Dragons; I'll be quick, I promise!

Communication and interaction with non-player characters is one of the more important aspects of D&D; it is one of the elements of play that elevate the game, making it more than a complex way of counting points. It's the reason the game absolutely requires a Dungeon Master. Plenty of mechanics have been introduced over the years to do random adventure creation, and players can as easily do record keeping and chart/table tracking as a designated "referee." But NPC interaction? You generally want a neutral 3rd party to handle that part of D&D, so that players can stay firmly in the minds of their own characters, viscerally experiencing the game.

And from the beginning, the game's authors have had rules for a multiplicity of languages in the fantasy world. To me, this makes good design sense from both a "play" and "world building" perspective:

• With regard to play, the ability to speak another language (or lack of ability) adds both challenges and options to game play. The inability to communicate can lead to hostilities and resource draining problems where no such issue need to exist; conversely, the ability to communicate can open up opportunities to skirt danger and hostilities, develop allies, and engage in both tactical and strategic "faction play." And the finite number of languages spoken by PCs (and the plethora of sentient creatures in the fantasy world) means players have yet another way to contribute to a party...as well as another reason to rely on fellow party members...bringing the group closer together. 
• With regard to world building we are well familiar with the burdens and challenges of a multi-language world: we live in one! Cultural differences are tied deeply to language differences, and while the diversity of our human species makes for a far more interesting place, it also creates a multitude of issues and challenges (yes, that's a gross simplification) that have been documented throughout history. We can draw on this in our world building to make a richer game for exploration!

So, then...the problems with the rules as written with regard to language:

• Languages spoken being tied to intelligence offers different numbers known depending on edition: up to 10 (14 for elves and dwarves) in OD&D, up to 5 (9 for elves and dwarves) in B/X, and up to 9 (regardless of species) in AD&D. AD&D also adds some "class" languages (druid, thief, and illusionist writing) as well as classes that can learn additional languages (assassin, bard).
• "Common" tongue spoken "continent-wide."
• "Alignment language."
• Lack of mechanics regarding level of fluency.
• No mechanic provided with regard to learning language (or losing fluency through lack of practice).
• No mention (outside of B/X) with regard to literacy. B/X places literacy rate at 95% (and character with an intelligence above 5) compared to the real world average of 86%. And that's the present day; Europe circa 1500 was somewhere around 11% (somewhere in the 14-15+ range of intelligence). And this doesn't take into account class/profession-based training (most literate folks were clergy members, for example).
• Issues of language/writing with regard to magic spells, spell scrolls, spell books, magic-users vs. illusionists vs. clerics, and a thief's ability to read languages and magic.

That's a lot of issues to work through, and I could probably write two or three separate posts on the subjects. In fact, maybe I should...just to break up the giant "wall of text" that I was planning to smack my readers' eyes with!

Because the thing is: I've gotten a lot of mileage out of the language rules over the years, both as a DM and as a player. When you're dealing with sentient monsters that speak their own languages, suddenly that 1st level magic-user with the high INT score isn't quite so useless after expending her one spell. Hiring translators becomes a useful thing (and a nice little treasure sink). Challenges can be navigated in a different way than force of arms with communication. For the editions of D&D I play....where death comes easy through violent confrontation...talking is often a good thing. 

And language is important to me personally: my life has been filled with language-based challenges. Having in-laws that don't speak English (they're coming to visit in June). Living in a foreign country for years. Raising my children to be bilingual. Translating complex issues for non-English speaking clients and coworkers (back in my former occupation). Traveling in Asia, Europe, and Latin America. All as a dude who's spent the bulk of his life learning and perfecting just a single form of communication (English)...and I've still got miles to go on that (the journey from brain to words is often a stumbling-bumbling one for yours truly...especially regarding my "feelings"). 

Language is amazing...and frustrating. And I want to include that amazement AND frustration in my D&D game. Just not with the rules as currently written.

All right, I am going to break this one up. Expect a couple more posts on the subject.

Making The Insanity Work

This is more about this nonsense posted earlier.

I'm going to come right out and say it: I have a newfound appreciation for Dragonlance, the project/product. There is a crap-ton of work that was put into these original adventure modules by the staff at TSR...the artwork, the maps, the story line, the box texts. Just immense. So much, in fact, that if one considers their objectives with regard to the publication, one could almost forgive the thing's failings as an actual D&D adventure. 

Almost.

But "appreciation," I say, and I mean it: a lot of brows sweated to create this thing. There's a lot of crappiness in it, I won't lie, but they get props for the effort in the undertaking. Truly.

Making it work for my own game is pretty ridiculous. There is...hmm...just so little that is actually of use, given that I'm not even intending to use the world of Krynn. And there are LOTS of folks (I can think of one for sure) who would reach through my computer screen, grab me by the lapels, and give me a good shake if they could. Yell in my face, "My God, man! Make your own silly campaign! Don't sweat over this pile of horseshit!" Call it my way of honoring and paying back the enjoyment I received from the DL novels 'back in the day.' I owe those folks, something. Maybe.

But let's talk about these (first world) problems in depth. I've got four modules I'm working with: Dragons of Despair, Dragons of Flame, Dragons of Hope, and Dragons of Desolation (collectively: DL1-4). I do have a practical reason for limiting myself to these four: the only DL products I own are DL3 (picked up a while back from a used bookstore), and the Dragonlance Classics Volume 1 collection (originally published for 2nd edition) which includes all the info found in DL1-4. This one I also picked up used, but it's more or less word-for-word the same...text-wise...as the original modules; you just don't get the PC updates.

[not that my copy includes the PCs anyway...that handout was lost sometime before I ever picked the thing up in a bargain bin]

My "Series Bible"

Each of the four modules features a string of quantum events (the "Dragonlance railroad" one hears so much about) based on the ongoing "story" of the series, and each features a single dungeon. By "dungeon" I mean a static adventure site with a keyed map that includes traps, monsters, and treasure...often plot required treasure.

• In DL1 Dragons of Despair, the dungeon is Xak Tsaroth, a ruined sunken city. A black dragon has been tasked with guarding platinum "holy disks" that could usher back faith in the True Gods to the people of Krynn. PCs are expected to kill the beast and retrieve the disks.
• In DL2 Dragons of Flame, the dungeon is Pax Tharkas, a mountain fortress. The PCs' hometown was wrecked by an evil priest (and his red dragons) and characters are supposed to infiltrate and free the enslaved townsfolk form his clutches.
• In DL3 Dragons of Hope, the PCs are presumed to be leading a ragtag band of 800 refugees, liberated from Pax Tharkas. Hoping to find a place of protected shelter, the dungeon they plumb is Skullcap, the ruined fortress and last resting place of the archmage Fistandantilus, which supposedly holds the key to finding the secret, lost dwarf city of Thorbardin. Spoiler alert: yes, the key is there, as well as Fistandantilus (now a demilich). 
• In DL4 Dragons of Desolation, the dungeon is a floating tomb that holds the hammer of Kharas, a magical artifact players need to recover to pay off the dwarves for letting the refugees stay with them. The tomb has a bunch of traps, but only a single creature (a gold dragon) that the PCs probably shouldn't be fighting. 

These adventures are pretty terrible. I know Bryce doesn't do reviews of old stuff, but I'm sure he'd have a few choice words here regarding usability, linear nature, lack of factions, and overuse of "box text" (among other things). Of the four dungeons, the one I find most interesting is Skullcap (from DL3): it has some of the more interesting encounters (a shadow dragon, stone golems, skeletal warriors!), interaction with potential NPC allies, some gigantic treasure hoards (nearly 500K g.p. worth of non-magical items), and a potential TPK in the demilich...plus Skullcap itself is perhaps the most evocative of the Krynnish dungeons, even if it is (in many ways) a bit of a Tomb of Horrors knockoff. 

Still, I can't see how most DL campaigns wouldn't END after a foray into Skullcap, either due to a total party kill (more than one encounter here is pretty deadly for the 6th to 8th level range of the module) OR because the characters are going to pick up a vorpal longswords, plate +3, and multiple dwarven artifacts.

[seriously: a stone golem? and not one fire-breathing 12 HD iron hydra but two? And the party magic-user is 5th level with only tongues and phantasmal force as his top spells? Come on, Hickman...looks like you got tired of the project by DL3 and wanted everyone dead!]

But...whatever. Here's the thing with regard to MY campaign: I don't intend to run the thing as a railroad, nor even as a larger "war story." So there's no pressing need to - for example - find the "lost dwarven kingdom" or the dwarves' missing artifact of power. And because I'm not running the War of the Lance, there's no urgency in involving the PCs in politics, trying to organize elven allies or send missions to Palanthas, Solamnia, and Tarsis...not that these places even exist in Washington State (my default map).

Oh, there can still be a sense of urgency with regard to Wenatchee being burned to the ground and its people being hauled off to Cle Elum (about where I'd put Pax Tharkas), but this isn't the post-Cataclysmic world of Krynn. Rescued refugees could be taken to Ellensburg or Yakima (albeit with similar food issues if winter's coming on), but PCs could just as easily choose to flee to greener pastures...the Tri-Cities to the south or the Red Empire (Spokane) in the east...rather then stick around. Verminaard's band of fanatics will be able to conquer the area within a day's flight from Pax Tharkas, but overextending his "army" would show, well, a profound lack of wisdom for a cleric.

SO: enemy stronghold (Pax Tharkas)...check. Ancient lich-ridden ruins (for high level characters)...check, by placing Skullcap in the foothills east of Yakima (same area as the tomb of Bendan Fazier). Sunken ruin with black dragon overlord? Checkity-check...deep in the swamplands surrounding Lake Chelan (not the jet-ski vacation spot of 21st century Washington).

And, sure, I've even got a Thorbardin-like dwarf city (which may or may not have a floating tomb citadel in a nearby, hidden valley)...it is the ONLY pass through the Cascades unless someone wants to take a hundred mile detour south through Yakima, and Rimrock Pass is full of giants and monsters and whatnot. Currently. the [yet unnamed] "dwarfgate" remains closed...not because of any Dragon War or Cataclysm but because few folks are willing to pay the exorbitant tolls the dwarves demand. It is, however, the most expedient passage to western Washington (Sea-town and all the rest), which PCs will surely want to visit at some point. 

[however, I somehow doubt the dwarves will want PCs despoiling the magical tombs of their fallen heroes]

If all this seems like a very small scale operation compared to the Dragonlance saga (even just the first four modules): it isn't. The places I'm choosing to place these locations are quite to scale with "the lands of Abanasynia." I mentioned before that Washington feels a little too "small scale" for a campaign world, but Krynn is REALLY small.  Distance from Solace to Xak Tsaroth? 40 miles. Distance from Solace to to Pax Tharkas? 60 miles. Distance from Solace to Skullcap? 100 miles. That's only a five day hike from your idyllic fantasy treetop village to the blasted, ancient fortress of Krynn's (historically) most powerful archmage! There's even a decent road to ride on for most of the way! The fantasy equivalent of taking Interstate 5 from Seattle to Bellingham (on the Canadian border)...something we'd do on a Friday night back before we were old enough to drink legally in the U.S.A.

[actually, we'd go all the way to Vancouver...about 150 miles. But we'd be back in Seattle the next day in time for brunch]

That's the thing: if you remove the idea of the Krynnish gods invading the world and massing an army of dragons and whatnot...well, all you're left with is kind of "small potatoes" adventures. Ones with neat maps and some interesting antagonists, but nothing particularly epic. And that's okay, because my players aren't at a level where they need anything "epic." Let's just give them some interesting things to explore (hopefully with decent loot to acquire). That should be enough...for the time being.

Anyway, that's the progress report. Happy Friday!

Young Grognards

Maybe that should say, Young Groglings?

Yesterday, my son ran his first AD&D game for his friends (also aged 10) via a Zoom meeting. He had exactly two players (Evan and Caroline) who played a human ranger and a half-elf assassin, respectively.

[I later asked him about the potential alignment conflicts from such a pair to which he replied that he wasn't using alignment in his game...]

Per my suggestion, he is running the Tower of Zenopus from the back of the Holmes Basic book. For a first time adventure, Zenopus makes an excellent introduction to the game, offers multiple types of interaction with the game mechanics, and is easily converted to the AD&D system. 

[it is also an adventure my son has experienced first-hand (as a player) and is fairly short to read and prep]

Besides the suggestion (and providing the books), I did nothing but set-up the Zoom meeting for the kids...that is to say, I did not interfere with the experience. Diego has already been running his Star Wars game at school for the last few weeks (he's up to 7 or 8 players), so there's no reason for me to butt in and undermine his authority. It's his game, not mine. 

And they all had fun (of course), and want to meet on Thursday (tomorrow) rather than waiting till next Tuesday (of course)...because it's D&D and it's awesome (duh).

[some notes about their game: they encountered the ghouls and were able to survive. Only the ranger was hit, but he managed to make his save versus paralysis. Treasure was discovered, tunnels explored, and I believe they just finished (or are in the middle of combatting) a skeleton. They spent the first part of the session rolling characters; all the children have their own dice (provided by my son). He's using all the AD&D rules he can remember...yes, including weapon length and speed factor, etc...and is keeping careful track of time and light sources and wandering monsters and all that jazz. The main difference...besides dropping alignment...is that he is using Alexis Smolensk's experience system, which has been standard in our house since May 2019. It necessitates tracking damage inflicted and received, but that's still a lot easier than it sounds (as even a ten year old Dungeon Master can manage it)]

My kid's rulebook.

Prior to the appointed game time I did take the time to reach out to the kids' parents (via email) to explain a bit about what was going on and assuage any concerns they might have...there is still, to this day, left over impressions of negativity surrounding Dungeons & Dragons among folks who grew up in the 1980s. never played, and yet heard rumors the game was "Satanic." And, of course, our kids go to a Catholic school (though, of course, so did I and all my friends and our teachers/parents never had an issue). There were, it turned out, no worries at all, though both child's parents thanked me for taking the time to reach out to them.

Evan's mom wrote this to me as well (after the kids' game):

Thanks for giving Evan dice and letting him borrow your books too! He actually received a D&D starter kit for Xmas but Chris was overwhelmed and I didn't even try to learn, so it's great that Diego is teaching him how to play.

This...this is so much of what is wrong with the hobby as it is being marketed by its current Keepers of the Flame. Hey, does anyone remember that old red book, penned by Tom Moldvay that said "Ages 10 and Up" right on the cover? I was able to teach myself AND my ten year old friends how to play D&D just using that book. Hell, the thing even came in a box with dice and an adventure to boot!

But now, even the "Starter" set is too much for adults (let alone kids) to be bothered to learn. And the damned thing doesn't even come with dice.

And I've written about this before...multiple times...at least since 2015. These are not stupid people; they are actually very smart, educated professionals. Creative professionals even. Ones with fairly open minds...

*sigh* I will stop beating this dead horse.

ANYway...my son ran a game of AD&D for his friends, without supervision. They enjoyed it, they want to do it again. The culmination of a decade of waiting for my child to take his first step into his father's world.

I am proud.

Not as proud, perhaps, of the kids' athletic accomplishments - scoring goals, hitting fastballs, recording strikeouts - as these are things I was never able to do in my youth (still not sure where he gets it from). And, also, it is pride tempered with knowledge that the journey is long and he has only just begun. But still...I feel proud. 

And content in a way also. Even should he turn away from D&D or transition to a different form of the game (6th edition? 7th?) or even a different game altogether...at least, at least he has the knowledge now. The acquired experience of knowing "Hey, I can do this. It's fun, people enjoy it, and I can even teach it if necessary." I have passed on what I know...he, in turn, can develop it further (delving deep into the game even as I have), or even pass it on to his friends or his own children some day. I have assured that my love of gaming will not die with me.

Legacy. I think I've written about that before, too. 

Happy Wednesday, y'all. I have some dishes to clean up from last night and then I'm going to start combing through these Dragonlance modules to make my notes. Busy-busy!

: )

Dragons of Insanity

This morning, I spent far too much time catching up on the news and all the crazy and hate going on. This took more time than I care to spend, because I have to hit multiple sources (and perspectives) to find some sort of non-sensationalized version of reality. It's all so...exhausting. 

So let's not talk about any of that.

The last few days, I've been "figuring out" what I want to do with my home Dungeons & Dragons game...the only game I'm currently playing at the moment (and the only one I plan on playing any time in the near future). Here's what I've come up with:

• First off: I'm NOT killing my campaign world. Not yet, and not in any foreseeable way in the future. I've been using Washington State as my "world map," and it still has everything I need: mountain ranges, coastline, forests, deserts, etc. The state's not big enough (in my opinion) for a D&D campaign, but I'm going to increase the scale two or three fold, and that should be enough. We'll see...I can always "go bigger" (i.e. stretch the scale larger).
• Second off: I've figured out how to incorporate the various inspirations for my campaign (and my favorite "D&Disms") into the world, and it goes back to interdimensionality (briefly mentioned towards the end of this post). See my original idea was for the campaign to be post-apocalyptic in nature, as a PA setting takes care of so many issues (like 'why are their dungeons and ruins all about?' and 'where did all this loose treasure come from?'). It does not, however, account for the sheer abundance and variety of hostility in such a world: humans, being fairly resilient, are going to be able to rebuild much of their original might long before "the monsters take over." And I don't want that; I don't want (human) population density anywhere near a the scale of...well, any time in recorded history. And yet, how to account for D&Dish technology and anachronisms without population density? Answer: transplanted human cultures. These people are "earth folks" (or something similar) somehow brought to this strange mirror world, this Red Earth, three or four generations back. They've been around long enough to establish a solid foothold and adapt to their environment (if "killing hostiles with sword-and-axe" can be considered adaptation), but they haven't quite taken over...yet. Ancient ruins, ripe for exploration, are from fallen nonhuman types (or earlier instances of interdimensional human colonization). Magic is a science developed either pre- or post-arrival, but its origins aren't known at this point...and, frankly, don't matter all that much.
• AD&D will continue to be the "basic" system for the game, albeit with some mods. But no one cares about those, right? Probably not. Maybe another post.
• Finally, because of the setting, various old adventure modules can work as static sites or events. Is there an Underdark? Sure. Active volcanoes for places like A3 (Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords) and S2 (White Plume Mountain)? Of course...it's the Pac Northwest! Swamps and jungles? Absolutely...all of northern Oregon (the south border or the map) is Amazon-style rainforest in my world, plenty ripe for Forbidden Cities and Lizard King Tombs...just as most of British Columbia is going to be snow and ice, and a good haven for giants of various stripes.

And so it is that the home game will continue, pretty much the same as it was...but with new inspiration breathing life into the thing. I feel...content.

Now...regarding the title of this post: once again returning to Dragonlance territory (cue collective groans), I think that some of the DL problems I've written about in the past disappear if you take the adventures out of the "Krynn" setting as written and throw them into something like what I'm putting together here. For example: Newly arrived humans might NOT have a link to the (spell-granting) "gods/powers" of this new world. Newly arrived humans might indeed value steel over gold (up until they're able to get their own mines up and running). Newly arrived humans may consider dragons to be "fairy tales" right up until they fly in and wreck the joint.

The idea that's currently poking at my brain is similar to my original "reclamation project" (remember that?), but on a much smaller scale...in fact, it would incorporate ONLY the first four adventure modules of the series (DL1 through DL4), leaving even the "lore" of DL 5 off the table. The wilderness maps would be adapted to my fantasy Washington map, and restricting the scope/scale would allow me to place the whole of the thing in central/eastern Washington (no need for Tarsis/Icewall or Solmania, Ergoth, etc.). You've got whatever passes for Solace down to Thorbardin and the Plains of Dust....probably just flip the whole map 90 degrees...and then pick your most likely origin point of a conquering Dragon Army. Probably the Idaho Deathlands (as they're called in my world). Easy-shmeasy.

Of course, I wouldn't be running the thing as a four-part adventure/story arc/railroad. The four modules will (for my purposes) simply be the scope of a single adventure scenario in its entirety. We've got A) a bunch of places (tree town, elf town, dwarf fortress, etc.), B) a timetable of events (culled from the first couple modules), C) logistics/tactics of the Bad Army (culled from the last couple modules), D) a number of adventure sites (floating citadels, demolished wizard fortress, ruined swamp city, etc.), and E) already named and numbered NPCs requiring a minimal amount of extra polish. 

Bow down.

Hell, perhaps I'll ignore the entirety of the "4th Dragon War" background and simply play it out as "Verminaard's Grab At Conquest." I mean: evil high priest, right? The NPC is already an 8th level "patriarch;" just make Pax Tharkas his stronghold, populate it with the usual fanatically loyal minions and henchmen (see PHB p. 20 and DMG p. 16), and then add delusions of grandeur (er..."conquest in the name of [deity]"). With an adult red dragon henchman (Ember acts too immature to really consider him "very old"), the dude has a good shot at carving out a little empire for himself and his followers.

To me, that all sounds, well, refreshing. How many adventures have we seen over the years that had evil-aligned cultists, sitting in their temple/lair, minding their own business, etc. just waiting for PC adventurers to show up and murder/loot them? More than a few, right? I mean, even my recently acquired The Red Prophet Rises has its cultists not doing much of anything besides self-bloodletting and a little demonic conjuration...what's the big deal? Indifferent PCs can simply move on, and the cult will (more-or-less) resolve itself with extreme prejudice. The part about the village raids and slave-taking all occurred prior to the PCs involvement...it's just background chatter.

And that's what's fun about Dragonlance...rather than passive observers, the player characters get swept up in the war. It's not just their (fictional) hometown and (NPC) families that are getting wrecked...and for whom a real life player may have little empathy. The PCs themselves are threatened with death and/or enslavement by an invading army. That's neat! And it motivates them to do stuff like find demihuman allies or lost magical gear that might help them against a force that's overwhelming.

Dig it.

Anyway, that's the most recent stuff going on with my homebrew stuff. If I do decide to go down that road, I'll probably post some notes here. Later, folks!

: )