Let Slip The Dogs Of War (Part I)

In which I discuss in detail the games I ran at Cauldron 2025, spoiling secrets and providing insights into the cracked mind of a geezer DM....

FRIDAY BLOCK I: Silver Temple of Transcendent Flame

Friday Block I was billed as a “Temple of Doom/Sidekick:” a short gaming session (only three hours in length compared to the other, four-hour time slots) designed to ease people in as they arrived for the con. People were given time to check in, find their rooms, gather their bedding (we made our own beds), and snack and coffee-up prior to the session, which ran from 4pm to 7pm (at which time dinner would be served). Quickly dressing my bed (deducing…correctly…that I’d be in no shape to do so at the end of the night), I discovered that my room had been stuffed full of Americans, many of whom I knew by reputation (and voice) from the internet, but whom I’d never met. Great guys, all around. Gus has a tremendous mustache of which I am tremendously jealous.

Silver Temple of Transcendent Flame is not a “Becker” original; it is, rather, a tactical exercise Anthony Huso designed and wrote as an introduction to his players when he first re-booted his AD&D campaign some ten or so years ago. He details this on his blog: as a campaign starter, he had his players create new, 1st level PCs, but then RAN them through a high mid-level adventure using EVIL pre-gens of his own design, sacking a temple of goodness. Following the scenario, he returned the players their original character sheets and kicked off the campaign proper with the PCs dealing with the aftermath of the destructive raid.

It's a fine idea; quite clever, in my opinion. The adventure itself (the map and his game notes) are freely available on his blog, and I decided to run the thing at Cauldron…something different, something fast, something that I knew had already been play-tested by one of the modern masters of the AD&D craft. Easy-peasy.

Unfortunately, Huso long ago lost the character sheets for the pre-gens, and I was forced to recreate them (best as I could) from the notes he provided. This was the bulk of my prep, made more than a bit challenging by his use of three evil NPC classes (the anti-paladin, the necromancer, and the witch) from Dragon Magazine. I am familiar with these, but I’m not particularly enthused by their implementation or execution in the mag. As such, I altered the classes rather drastically from how they appear. Here’s what I brought to the tournament:

• Caul, Flayer of Men: 8th level “Anti-Paladin:” abilities taken from Hackmaster…basically as a paladin except with reversed abilities (cause wounds instead of heal, befriend undead instead of turning, protection from good instead of evil, etc.).
• Vessvka Vith, Drow “Witch:” female Dark Elf cleric/magic-user of 6th/6th level.
• Tergomant Glim: 7th level cleric and a monster of a man (18 STR, 6’1”, 270#; wields a footman’s mace with one hand).
• Ergonin Hews: 6th level half-orc fighter, wielding double-fisted hand axes. Agile for an orc (Dex 17).
• Nicodemus Plath: 7th level half-elf assassin, based loosely on my son’s main PC of the same type.
• Sable Croft: 7th level human fighter; exceptional strength (though less than Caul) with a magic bardiche. More beef.
• Vlaimir Sush: 5th level Necromancer; totally unchanged from the Dragon mag entry and given a scythe for a weapon because evil necromancers with two-handed scythes are the height of coolness, even if the class kind of sucks.
• Barthax Brunst: 6th level dwarven fighter/thief. NOT one of Huso’s originals (he only lists seven characters, probably because he only had seven players). I wanted more PCs in the party because Huso throws psionic couatls, silver dragons, clay golems, and magic-user/monks at people (he’s a bad, bad man). Also, the fighter/thief built in some skill redundancy for the party.

For the adventure itself, I reformatted and (partially) rewrote what Huso had done. Anthony, God love him, has a penchant for writing the purplest of prose…he is an actual author, after all…but I needed things terse and punchy, both to match my personal style as well as the three hour widow with which I was working.

Likewise, I had to remove the various “Huso-isms” throughout the text: monks getting DEX bonuses to AC, or bonuses from wearing “silk armor,” anything that appeared to come from the UA, nutty magical “eye traps” that had multiple effects and would be a bear to adjudicate without a battle map (something I don’t use). Huso loves nothing better than a protracted siege battle a la The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, but I didn’t plan on forcing the PCs to charge in guns ablaze. Why would they, when so many of their party members were more powerful in subtler ways? 

Besides, the adventure was plenty deadly as is.

Oh, yes…I also removed encounters #29-#33 and their associated sections of the map (too long, mostly empty, and redundant) and axed some of the other weird, none-too-normal weirdness (room #27 is simply empty and I switched the "Starfire Neonate" for a more Golden Child-like "Celestial Being").

[everyone knows the old Eddie Murphy “Golden Child” movie, right? The adventure gives off quite a bit of that vibe anyway]

Thing is, Huso made a divine being in need of slaying, but then gave it immunity to weapons of less than +3 while only arming his pre-gens with +2 weapons (come on, Anthony!); as such, capture/kidnapping had to be on the table, unless I really wanted to spend time re-stocking the dungeon (but, then, that would have made the adventure more drawn out as PCs would have to search for items to use to destroy the child and yadda-yadda-yadda. No).

Interested people who want my pre-gens and the re-tooled/formatted adventure I used at Cauldron can download them HERE and HERE, respectively. In play, I changed/improvised the last paragraph of the “START” to explain their mission: find and destroy…or capture…the “Celestial Child” (with no more information given as to what exactly a “Celestial Child” is).

So how did it actually go? Great! The players decided NOT to charge into the dungeon, but scouted ahead with their assassin instead, who was able to completely surprise and recon the couatl and monks in room #1 and report back without sounding the alarm. Using silence to first neutralize the spell-casting ability of all within the chamber, the PCs then charged into battle and put paid to the initial guardians without sounding the alarm. Pretty good start.

In the great hall, however, they were forced to decide on a course of action…and had trouble doing so. Eventually they decided to just start “opening doors” and seeing what was behind them, which led to them alerting the four clerics in room #7, the bulk of whom would sell their lives while the other two retreated through the many redoubts of the map to alert the temple proper. The players pursued, but the need to unlock doors (and getting hit by fire glyphs, etc.) slowed them down. They managed to NOT activate the clay golems in chamber 14, found the secret door, and the corridor that led to the trapdoor in area #6 (wherein resides a silver dragon). However, before going through that they waited for Chomy (playing the necromancer), who had been gathering dead monks and clerics to make maximum use of his one animate zombie spell. The party waited below while they sent a pair of their “undead soldiers” up the ladder to scout around.

And then watched as the zombies were vaporized with fire.

By this time (of course) the bell had started sounding in the grand hall, the temple was on alert, and minions were rallying to their battle positions, as they had been trained to do. The party knew that time was of the essence, but they were still trying to compose a battle plan of their own, arguing the virtues of one form of action or another.

While they were doing that, the trapdoor opened above and the magic-user launched a fireball into the narrow corridor below. So much for the necromancer and his zombies.

The PCs returned fire…perhaps Nicodemus with his poisoned darts and/or Barthax with his crossbow…slaying the magic-user. The group then decided to posse to head up the ladder and not wait around anymore. Of course, they saw the dragon, as well as the other magic-user (with a wand of lightning). Much hilarity ensued as more PCs were cooked but, in the end, they slew both and made their way to the battle royale with THE TWILIGHT PRINCESS herself. Much fun, but the forces of evil eventually triumphed (I think Marcellia was felled with a hold person spell, a common theme of the con...), and the remaining survivors (which I believe only included Caul, Tergomant, and Vessvka), made their way to the Child, who was fairly obvious considering the lilac skin, single blue eye, and enormous halo of light. All good: they removed the child, the temple started to shudder, and everyone headed for the exits (including the surviving defenders of the temple).

A good, solid game and just a few minutes over our three-hour time slot…we still made it to dinner with plenty of time to spare. 

*****

FRIDAY BLOCK II (Friday Night): the Battle Emridy Meadows. 

As I described in my prior post, I played in Settembrini's Chainmail game…at least until I could no longer physically stand without the risk of collapse. I bowed out around midnight and hit the hay at roughly 12:30am. I was then awakened at 6:45am by several successive members of the American contingent marching through my room to use the shower (the one bathroom being located nearest to my bed). The person occupying the cot next to me slept like the dead and snored like a chainsaw (so loudly that individuals from two doors down commented on it)…fortunately, for me he was a bit of a “white noise generator” and actually led to a fairly restful repose.

I finally dragged myself out of bed around 7:30, as much to use the bathroom myself (which I had to go down four flights and leave the building to do, given the person occupying the shower), and headed for breakfast.

*****

SATURDAY BLOCK I: Rivers of Blood, Death, and Glory. 

I will talk about this in a separate post.

*****

SATURDAY BLOCK II: Caul’s Dark Citadel

The afternoon session, after lunch, and this time I would be doing a “Becker Original.” Ever since seeing WotC’s use of “the D&D kids” (from the 1981 D&D cartoon) as “content” for their new 5E 2024 books (and on the cover of their Stormwreck Isle starter set), I’ve wanted to write my own adventure that featured these characters. And for Cauldron, I decided that I would use them in a sequel adventure to Huso’s Silver Temple of Transcendent Flame.

My plan was to make the adventure more of a stealth/infiltration in contrast to the Caul's destructive raid to showcase different styles of play. The PCs would be tasked with the recovery of the Celestial Child’s remains: a mercy mission fitting their 'good guy' ethos, as opposed to a task of vengeance. I figured the PCs could return the ashes (or whatever) to the Silver Temple, where the surviving monks would use the power of "transcendent flame" (or whatever) to raise it from the dead. This was my idea for quite a while, even after I realized it was a long shot that Caul and his buddies would actually figure out a way to kill the Child.

And yet, that wasn’t my main problem. The main problem was the actual adventure site, i.e. the map. I needed a stronghold for Caul...and while it couldn’t be too large, it still had to feel like an “epic evil fortress.” Or, at least, weird. Or both. But with a capped number of encounters.

*sigh*  Let me explain.

In a convention time block...even a four hour one (which is long enough that you need to give the players at least a break, in my opinion)...there’s a limit to how many encounters they can get through. An excellent example is the tournament scenario found in Dave “Zeb” Cook’s module I1: Dwellers of the Forbidden City. The scenario is a linear gauntlet: each encounter area needs to be bypassed, one after another. There are no branching decision points, no side treks, no work arounds. You have ten encounter areas…TEN…and that’s it. I’ve run this scenario countless times over the years, but the last two times were for Cauldron 2023, one in playtest (at home) and once at the convention itself, and both times with strict attention paid to the time limit. And in BOTH instances, I found it impossible for the players involved to navigate the entire length within the time frame…NINE encounters was the most anyone ever got through in four hours.

Dwellers is pretty dastardly, and it’s a good example for study: you have two large, “set piece” encounters. You have two “tricky” encounters that can be avoided through cleverness. You have one “trick/trap” room, you have two “small” encounters that should be resolved quickly, and you have one “medium” encounter that would normally be okay, but due to its position (at the end of the adventure), the party will be low on resources like hit points and spells and so it will PLAY harder than it might otherwise play. The last two encounters are (effectively) “empty” locations with nothing there except possible time wasting by the party. Generally speaking, a good overall formula…but, again, still too long for the time slot (it runs about 15-20 minutes over four hours, and I run the thing like a machine).

And anyway, this is supposed to be a fortress…a CASTLE, not a linear gauntlet. Dwellers works because of the scenario itself…you are burrowing through a mountain following a tunnel into the heart of the forbidden city. But I wanted something that could be explored with branches and loops and whatnot…an environment for exploration in other words. Where and how to even begin. So, I started thinking about what Caul’s castle would like like…something gifted to him by Dark Patrons (of course) since he was only 8th level and not stout enough to build his own. As such, it could be as twisted and fantastic as I wanted. And, of course, it would need ways to sneak in (because, duh, stealth mission, not “Avengers Assemble” frontal assault). So probably through a cistern or catacomb or something.

IN FACT, my original idea was to simply re-purpose the Pax Tharkas mission from DL1…even using the map from that module. How easy! (mmm…now that I’m remembering I was ALSO planning on using warped version of the DL heroes as the pre-gens before I finally decided on the D&D Kids). But after looking over Pax Tharkas, I realized that it was really, really crappy. I needed something else.

Eventually, after bouncing off several different ideas (including a Harold Lamb description of the Hashashin's lair..and having my daughter draw me a castle map), I finally decided on something I could live with: the castle from the Jim Henson film, The Dark Crystal. It had everything I needed…a way in through the tunnels beneath (in addition to a front gate), a crazy-ass interior, vivid rooms/chambers (from the film), verticality, etc., etc. A place for Caul to set his throne, a lab for Caul’s evil wizard to do apothecary stuff, a “temple room” (the crystal chamber) for the witch to perform her dark rites, etc. Now all I needed was a MAP of the place…and I found THIS on-line:

Look at that thing, ain’t it a beauty? Except of course, it’s got the cutaway floor plan that doesn’t work for me and actually making the thing make sense was going to require a whole bunch of scribbling and erasing and scribbling on my part.

SO…I procrastinated. I detailed the actual encounter areas, numbered at 15. 'Hey! 15 is more than nine,' you say…heck, it’s more than ten! Yes, but this is not a "linear gauntlet." I wrote the thing in such a way that there were some nine-ish encounter areas for the PCs to surpass to both A) reach the Child’s destination (which would be determined by the results in the earlier “Silver Temple” adventure), and B) escape the dungeon. Because…stealth, right? We don’t need to confront Caul and his minions (though, if you do, it's frosting…). In addition, I threw in a bunch of slave areas (people for 'good guys' to rescue) because, of course there are slaves (like the podlings in the movie) AND...because I wanted to go “full Henson”...I also stocked in all the DC’s “Garthim” (giant black crabs…same stats as the MM) as Caul’s mutated guardian minions. Chef’s kiss.

HOW’D IT GO? Well, I'd hoped to get some of the same players from my Friday, Silver Temple adventure (continuity), but no such luck. Sign-up sheets filled FAST. And "Best DM" winner Grutzi…who had contacted me before the con and left this session open specifically to play this adventure at my table was unable to get a spot! Crap. I had only seven pre-gens (my other games were all 8+) because, of course, there aren’t all that many “D&D kids.”

[no, there was no “Uni the Unicorn;” my characters are a decade older and Uni has long since left ‘em to join a herd or something. The seventh pre-gen PC was a grown up version of Varla the Illusionist, a minor character introduced as a love interest for Presto in an episode I believe is called The Last Illusion. Yeah…an illusionist girlfriend. Suck it, Hank!]

Adult Varla

But at the last second, I decided that I was being stupid and I just went and grabbed Grutz and told him: get one of his own pre-gens and join the party. We went with eight and he brought a cleric, which was a welcome addition...although I had converted the older “Sheila” into a (dual-classed) thief/cleric to ensure the party sported some divine power. Now they had more.

ANYway...despite finishing the maps only two days before I hopped a plane and not getting a chance to play-test the thing…it played surprisingly well! The players decided to climb the castle (forgot to put rope on their equipment list…whoops!) and enter through the highest tower, working their way DOWN rather than UP. Which was fine…that, too, was a way I'd coded my encounters for the con. Their first encounter was with the assassin Nicodemus Plath, contemplating his life choices in the lookout. They got into a scrap with him and should have been poisoned five ways to Sunday, but my die rolls were pretty horrendous, and they beat the snot out of him. I had him surrender and then they got to tie him up and do some "role-playing" as they interrogated him about the layout of the place. “Well, it’s kind of hard to describe...”

Thing is, my map was all wonky with “non-Euclidean geometry:” due to me trying to crib together a vertical map into something horizontal I just ended up using no corners (nor even many straight lines), just a lot of “bendy,” wrap-around tunnels and a great many stairwells and changes of elevation. It worked well to make the whole expedition confusing, frustrating, and painful for the characters, as the slaves they encountered had only partial information and even then could only say, “Well, it’s kind of hard to describe…” Much hilarity.

However, the players were determined to kill Caul, Divine Child or not. One of the players, Dillon, was a self-professed Huso fan and knew all about Caul and really wanted to off the guy (Dillon was very enthusiastic about everything, actually…I think he was having a pretty good time as his first Cauldron…). They figured out where Caul’s throne room was and hatched some cockamamie plan to disguise themselves as a Drow (Diana wearing the witch’s clothes from a ransacked bedroom) and a slave (Varla using change self) with an invisible Sheila in tow to backstab the guy or some such. Caul wasn’t buying it of course…everyone in his castle was cleared by him and he knew there wasn’t any other Drows or “new cultists,” and also knew that slaves weren’t allowed in the throne room (other than his chained up scribe), so he dispatched his cadre of gnolls to round up the obvious imposters.

Fighting ensued; damage was done, Bobby stunned the hell out of everyone with a thunderclap (including his own people), but Sheila got off a hold person on Caul and the party carried the day to much fanfare. They found Caul’s hidden treasure vault, trapped with a necrophidius (credit to ChatGPT for that idea), but still: no Divine Child.

“We’ve got to find that temple with the witch…maybe we need to keep going lower.” But the party really did not want to end up in the catacombs…they had a sneaking suspicion that would be a BAD IDEA (and they were right because...you know...Garthim). But a little lower they went and ended up in the slave pens and fought and killed an ogre with a big old whip (not as dangerous as it could have been) and then said “AHA! Let’s cast speak with dead on the ogre and see if he can tell us where we find the Child!” Okay, cleric, you get two questions:

“Where’s the Divine Child, dead guy?” With the witch…

“How do we get to the temple?” Well, it’s kind of hard to describe…

Hahaha…no, just kidding. He told them go up the stairs to the main hall and take a right. How hard is that?!

They found the temple, the child, and the her cultist acolytes worshipping a stone obelisk, roughly shaped like a spider, that floated above a red glowing pit (Dark Crystal, right?). Eric was dressed in Caul’s armor, Varla was doing her illusion thing and they got close enough to the witch to trap her INSIDE Erik’s “dome of force” (that his magic shield could project 1/day), while the others blasted the cultists and Diana grabbed the Child and ran like hell (as a 6th level monk she was uber-fast) up to the top tower where she could feather fall off. Pretty sure Shiela ran behind her as backup.

Well, that wasn’t so hard…what the--?! As the GIANT MUTANT CRABS in the shadowed alcoves came out to attack. More combat but they won the day, the witch surrendered, and the party made her divest herself of all her gear and commanded her to return to the UnderDark, never to return.

All with minutes to spare before the dinner bell. Good stuff.

[to be continued...]

A moment of unbridled joy...

Unearthed Arcana Revisited

From Dragon Magazine, issue #59:

What follows is strictly for the AD&D game....

With plenty of labor and even more luck, there will be an ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS expansion volume next year. It will be for both players and DMs, with several new character classes, new weapons, scores of new spells, new magic items, etc. What will follow here in the next few issues is a sampling of the material slated for inclusion in the expansion.

E. Gary Gygax, March 1982

There would be no expansion volume in 1983. Nor in 1984. The "next book of monsters" (also mentioned in the article) which was to be released afterwards, instead appeared in 1983 under the title Monster Manual II. Presumably, being mainly a compilation of new monsters appearing in prior publications...especially TSR adventure modules...it was a much easier matter of transcribing existing creature entries in alphabetical order. 

Unearthed Arcana, the 'Book That Was Promised,' was finally published in the summer of 1985.

Pause for a minute. Why am I writing this? Just what is this all about?

Let's talk some straight talk for a moment:  as long time readers know, I got back to playing AD&D again in November of 2020. Since that time, I've introduced a lot of young 'uns to the game, written a lot of adventures, and spent a bunch of time spreading "the Good News" of the game (as I see it). However, in all that time...now entering my 5th year of 1E campaigning...I've limited my game to the only books I consider good and essential, namely the PHB, the DMG, and the various monstrous manuals (MM, FF, and MM2). The adventures I've written (approximately 6 or 7) have all carried the notation that I strongly recommend against using the rules in the Unearthed Arcana.  I haven't even cracked the UA in front of my kids; I've mentioned the book to Diego, but given only a cursory (and negative) overview of the tome to him. Neither of my kids know much...if anything!...about it, which should come as a surprise considering just how much lore they know of the history of the D&D game, its publications, and the various changes its seen over the decades.

[f.w.i.w.  my kids get curious about stuff and I tend to be a wind-bag of a talker]

Just why have I excised the Unearthed Arcana from my 1E table? It's not like I never used it...as I mentioned the first month I started this blog (!), we absolutely adored the UA, back in the day, and implemented every rule it had: Comeliness, traveling spell books, social standing and birth order, bronze armor, etc., etc. If it was in the UA, it was in our game. Chain lightning was a staple spell. Heward's Handy Haversack was a staple magic item...as were magic quarterstaffs (had to have something for all those thief-acrobats in our game). My brother ran multiple barbarian characters. We used weapon specialization; maybe even double specialization. There were Hierophant Druids. We replaced the unarmed combat system in the DMG with the simplified version found in the UA. I mean, we used it all.

So why have I not used it at all since returning to the King of Games, four years ago?

There is a stigma to the UA these days. The Grogtalk folks refer it as "The Book That Shall Not Be Named." Published in 1985 it is deep into the decadent years of TSR (post-Mentzer Basic, post-cartoon, post-DragonLance)...the years that led to the spiraling issues that would (eventually) cost Gygax his company. There is a commonly held belief that the Unearthed Arcana was solely cobbled together from past Dragon magazine articles in an effort to bring one more Gygaxian cash-cow to the table to save the company from debt. This idea is echoed in the Wikipedia article on the book:

The original Unearthed Arcana was written by Gary Gygax with design and editing contributions by Jeff Grubb and Kim Mohan, respectively, and published by TSR in 1985. Gygax reportedly produced the book to raise money as TSR was deeply in debt at the time. He announced in the March 1985 issue of Dragon magazine that Unearthed Arcana would be released in the summer of that year. He proposed the book as "an interim volume to expand the Dungeon Masters Guide and Players Handbook", as the information was spread out in several places and difficult to keep track of. Unearthed Arcana was to include material previously published in Dragon, written by Gygax and updated and revised for the book.

While the latter part of that quote is indeed from Gygax's own pen (in March of '85), the inference is clearly inaccurate...as stated at the beginning of this post Gygax had already planned on an expansion volume in 1982, and the articles he penned over the next many issues (which would compose the bulk of the UA) were written expressly for the book that was coming. This was not some sort of cash grab...THAT statement in the wikipedia article is accredited to a 2006 article in The Believer magazine, in which the author (Paul La Farge) asserts:

By 1984, the company was $1.5 million in debt, and the bank was ready to perfect its liens on TSR’s trademarks: in effect, to repossess Dungeons & Dragons. Gygax got word that the Blumes were trying to sell TSR, and he returned to Lake Geneva, where he persuaded the board of directors to fire Kevin Blume and published a new D&D rulebook to raise cash.

But La Farge's research is suspect. He notes in his footnotes that the book was Unearthed Arcana, a tome that "introduced the gnome race;" a gross misstatement (the gnome had been around since the 1978 PHB), done mainly, I believe, for effect (the gnome race was rather reviled by 2006, due to changes of characterization over the years). But I draw this conclusion because much of the article seems snarky and sensational.

While TSR was definitely facing financial difficulty due largely to mismanagement, it is a fact that Gygax had every intention of publishing Unearthed Arcana long before 1984. His time spent in California (which would result in three seasons of the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon...from '83-'85) was the main reason for any delay in publishing the projects that envisioned...and I believe that, and the personal issues he had during this time (his 1983 divorce and his new "Hollywood social life") contributed as much as anything to the declining quality of the products with his name on it post-1983.

But much, if not MOST, of the UA was created before 1983. Not only that, much of it was play-tested...if one is willing to believe the statements/updates given in Dragon magazine in 1982.

And so...perhaps this material is worthy of the game?

That's the conclusion that I am...slowly (and somewhat reluctantly)...beginning to come to. Why were the acrobat, barbarian, and cavalier featured in the D&D cartoon (first airing in September of 1983)? Because, they provided a good advertising vehicle for a planned book that had already published and tested said classes (the last one, the cavalier, being found in the April '83 issue of Dragon). I have no compunction with the feelings that the UA, as published, was somewhat rushed, slap-dash, and error-riven. But much of the stuff in the book...both its ideas and its mechanics/rules...were far less so. 

Rather, they were thoughtful or interesting...and worth a gander.

What took me down this particular rabbit hole? Well, a couple weeks ago I had this "great" idea of statting up the "D&D kids" for the 1E system. But while most every one of them is easy enough, Diana the acrobat was throwing me for a loop. And since I certainly didn't want to use the UA (because of the reputation the thing is currently carrying), I figured I'd 'go back to the source' and check out the original Dragon article that had been "ransacked" for Gygax's "company needed cash infusion." And what I found (in issue #69) was an article, pretty much word-for-word the same as in the UA, and written by Gygax himself (whereas, I had assumed most if not all the UA material had been culled from the work of other authors). There was also this introduction:

"This time, rather than reveal a new sub-class such as the Barbarian, I though the Enlightened Readership of this splendid vehicle might enjoy another concept. What you are about to read is the information so far developed pertaining to a split class. This a first. To my knowledge, such a possibility has not been expressed before in any similar game system. There is nothing similar to it in the AD&D game system although choosing to change from one profession to another is not too unlike the idea. Let us then get to the business at hand. I bring you, without further ado, the official new split-class for thieves."

"This time?" "The information so far developed?" "Official new split-class?"  This was not some highlight piece deemed to have enough traction for inclusion in a cash grab book...this is a sneak peak at mechanics already in development! By Gygax himself! In January of 1983!

I quickly found a copy of Gygax's "barbarian" from July of 1982 (issue #63); more information helped crystalie the picture:

"As usual, I am working on too many projects at once, and each gets a bit of attention but seems to never get done. At some point quite a few should suddenly be completed, and my productivity will seem great indeed. Meanwhile, I have dusted off the barbarian character class which the testers have enjoyed the most of the new classes I have proposed for the expansion of the AD&D rules. While the other classes seem to need more work, barbarians were instantly used and enjoyed by those eager for a change. Now you, Gentle Readers, have a chance to test the class for yourselves and see if you agree."

Okay, so...wow. This was a project in active development since at least 1982. It was being worked on in conjunction with other projects (in issue #59...March 1982...he details these as including the Monster Manual II, the never-would-be-released T2, The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun (WG4), and yet another adventure called "Wasp Nest -- The City State of Stoink" which I don't think I've ever heard of). It is being tested in play. It is to be part of an actual, planned expansion to the AD&D rules.

And what, exactly, was my problem with this rule set again? Re-reading the barbarian entry, I don't see anything terrible with it. Nothing over-powered, considering the x.p. cost...and while the magic item restrictions can be 'bought off' at higher levels (the levels where those restrictions can really matter), doing so negates many of the barbarian's special abilities. And above 8th level, a normal fighter will be going up TWO levels for every ONE of the barbarian. 

No looking back, my main issue with the barbarian appears to have been all the "world building" required to use the class effectively...and that's exactly what I like about it now, in my (more mature) elder years. This bit (from the UA):

Cavemen, dervishes, nomads, and tribesmen (see Monster Manual, "Men") are now considered barbarians.

...is, frankly, amazing. And says a LOT about how Gygax expected DMs to approach the AD&D campaign in their individual settings.  The standard classes are all a part of a civilization; and everything outside of that civilization are considered superstitious, magic-fearing savages. Political correctness be damned; in a post-apocalyptic fantasy setting, I kind of like this...a lot!  And it makes the humanoid tribes even MORE savage. Something to think about.

But...okay. The barbarian is cool. The thief-acrobat is cool. What about the other stuff: things like comeliness, weapon specialization, and the (*shudder*) cavalier class? 

Here's the thing: going through these Dragon magazines, issue-by-issue, it's clear that not al of the items that ended up included in the Unearthed Arcana were created equal. The new attribute Comeliness, which I detest immensely, was simply a rambling thought exercise by Gygax as part of an update/letter to the "Loyal Readers" regarding the state of the project (see issue #67). Weapon specialization, another poorly thought out concept, is simply mentioned in passing (after a larger section featuring new illusionist spells) as a conversation Gygax had with Len Lakofka with some hastily sketched out (and un-tested) rules, based on Len's unofficial "archer" class. There is no "double specialization" mentioned. 

[sorry, folks, I'm not a big Lakofka fan]

And the cavalier? It was not an off-the-cuff musing like some of these other articles. But it IS different from how it finally appears in the Unearthed Arcana. For one thing, the cavalier is a sub-class of fighter...as it should be!...a horseman specialist based on the chivalric knights of myth and legend.  It is, however, generally a mess, trying to shoehorn the half-baked weapon specialization rules with the theme-specific weapon restrictions, and focus on mounted (i.e. lance combat). Except that elven cavaliers (another concept I abhor) get archery specialization because...elves?  It's pretty dumb/bad, though perhaps not as terrible as the UA version which changed the nature of the paladin class, all for the bad.

However, Gygax admits the cavalier is only half baked; again this is April 1983 and life was pretty complicated (he'd just finalized an acrimonious divorce with his wife of 25 years in March); in his intro to the class he writes:

"As usual, your comments are invited. Input is most desirable, for what appears here is the basis -- not the final form -- of the sub-class. As is also usual, it is unlikely that comments sent to us will receive a direct reply -- there just isn't anyone on staff at this time to handle such work. While I am working to put together AD&D material, and Frank Mentzer is engaged in the revision and expansion of the D&D game system, the Industrious Staff of TSR are seekingpersonnel to fulfill the needs of you, the Understanding Readers. Thus, we should soon have the wherewithal to respond properly to all correspondence. Meanwhile, suffer along and accept my general thanks to all of you."

Sure, Gary. On to California.

So, the Unearthed Arcana is a mixed bag. New weapons, spells (perhaps), barbarian and acrobat classes? Good. Cavalier, comeliness, and weapon specialization? Frigging awful. Yes, the thing was rushed to production without adequate play-testing (or, even, proof-reading) probably because the company was strapped for cash to pay the bills. But this was a planned project, and much of it has Gygax's imagination and good design work imprinted in it. 

And, for me, that's enough to give the UA a second try. Not the whole book, mind you, but much of it. I will, of course, want to go through the old Dragon magazine articles and see which ones need pruning, which ones are unworkable, which ones were 'good enough' before other fingers stepped in to "help" get the book together. It isn't a big deal...something to amuse myself (culling these idea). And, hopefully, something to amuse my players.

[it is, perhaps unfortunate that I have altered the 1E magic system for my home game, as the plethora of new spells and the spell book rules (not to mention cantrips and apprentice MU mechanics) would be far more useful with "standard" 1E. But my system works too good to change it just to add a handful of beloved spells (like dismissal, chain lightning, and teleport without error). Well...we'll see. We'll see]

All right, that's enough for now. My expanded mind has been emptied, and I'll try to get some sleep. Signing off from Mexico!

; )

Just look at this geezer...

Addendum to "Certifying Dungeon Masters"

This is a follow-up to this post over here.

I feel like I touched off a bit of madness with my last post, and that I need to add some clarifying remarks.

Here's the short and sweet:

1. I've been reading a lot of old (ancient, really) Dragon magazine articles.
2. I found an interesting one about awarding "experience points" and "levels" to both players and Dungeon Masters based on particular actions they've taken. I thought it was kind of fun.
3. It got me thinking/remembering an idea I had about certifying Dungeon Masters. This comes back to...oh, a bunch of jumbled theories/ideas in my head. Stuff like: the confusion amongst new DMs about how to run a game/campaign, the lack of information, training and teaching, the lack of coaching, and the problem that some folks who might otherwise be interested in playing the game get utterly turned-off based on bad experiences with poorly run games.
4. I then muddled #2 and #3 because I lack the patience to do systematic posts and was in a rush to puke all my ideas onto the internet as quickly as possible.

That's what that post was all about. Here's what I could have/should have/would have said if I'd been a bit more thoughtful and measured:

I believe it would be a good thing to have a hobby full (or mostly full) of competent Dungeon Masters. Good Dungeon Masters would be preferred, great Dungeon Masters would be awesome...but I'm willing to settle for competent.

[normally, I'd insert an essay-and-a-half attempting to define "competence," but I'm trying to be measured and systematic, so I'll leave that for a future post]

So when I talk about "certifying" individuals as Dungeon Masters, what I'm getting at is finding a way to qualify a person as "objectively competent" to run a game of Dungeons & Dragons. Because anyone can call themselves a "Dungeon Master," even a person who's never cracked the book to read the rules. I know there are folks who, in fact, have done this very thing.

[my buddy, Steve, told me about his introduction to D&D in elementary school: a neighbor kid "ran" a game using nothing but a Monster Manual. All the players had to pick a monster out of the book to be their character. How they accomplished anything is beyond me...Steve didn't remember, but he still referred to the kid running the game as his "Dungeon Master" and said he (the DM) would tell the players what they needed to roll; I get the impression the PCs of this game mainly fought each other for their treasure]

Even owning the necessary rulebooks is no guarantee of an individual knowing the rules; I've owned rulebooks that I've never bothered to finish reading and fully integrate into my game (The Dungeoneers Survival Guide comes to mind). And even reading the rulebook might not make some individuals competent to run the game...they might not even be adequate, depending on the level of expectation from the players at the table.

Now, before I go any further, please allow me to say that I'm NOT trying to excise DMs from the table based on inadequacy. My goal is to bring every would-be Dungeon Master "up to snuff;" my whole idea of having a certification process is in aid of that goal. It's not about exclusion...it's about elevating the level of play, in order to provide a more enjoyable experience AND help sustain and grow the hobby.

OKay...so, HOW does one go about achieving certification? I don't know. That's the part where my romantic pipe-dream always falls down. I don't have an idea, and I'm not proposing one. This is the bit that got confused in my prior post. The idea that popped into my head (upon reading Jon Mattson's article) is that, hey, maybe there are some objective ways to measure a person's ability to act as Dungeon Master...and objective measurements are the first step towards certification.

[I've never been a doctor, but I assume that there is some sort of testing of knowledge and skill necessary before an individual can be licensed to perform medicine...it's not simply a matter of paying a fee like you're picking up a permit to fish during the season]

Subjective measurements...like how many players show up to your table and whether or not they have "fun" (as written on some sort of feedback/evaluation form)...are not good means of certifying anything. And I wouldn't leave such a thing in the hands of the industry that publishes the game (for profit)...that's like putting the FDA in the hands of private pharmaceutical companies. But actually coming up with objective measurables...and finding ways of assigning weight and ranking to those measures...is a tough chore. What I found interesting and exciting about the Mattson article was that someone had taken the time to put together SOMETHING that wasn't just based on subjectivity (see DeAnn Iwan's article "How Do You Rate As A DM" in Dragon #43 as an example of a subjective...and poor...means of evaluating skill). I found it interesting and exciting...but I did not see it as an answer to the question "how can we certify DMs." I just see it as opening the crack of potential for the possibility.

Does that make sense? While the level titles make me chuckle, and it's fun (for me) to tabulate my "XP" with regard to Dungeon Mastering, I'm not saying one needs to achieve 12th level (or whatever) in order to receive some sort of diploma or certificate. Levels are fun because I think there ARE tiers of experience when it comes to some professions/skills...and Dungeon Mastering is one. But certifying competence is something on a much different scale from what Mattson's proposed "leveling" system. My apologies for confusing the two things.

Over the next few days I'm going to be very busy with a bunch of things and...for my own mental health...I'm going to be limiting my posting. However, I do plan on thinking about this more; maybe I'll come up with some of my own "objective measures" that I think would apply towards basic DM competence.

Later, Gators.

How about some sort of
"official cap" instead of a certificate?

Certifying Dungeon Masters

Man, my brain has really been addled by all things D&D lately ("The Sleeper has awakened!")...if I wasn't so busy with a gazillion other things, I could/would be posting multiple blog entries on a daily basis (and probably still find the time/energy for drafting some campaign notes/house rules). *sigh* Such is life...when I have LOTS of time on my hands, my inertia always seems to be the other direction.

ANYway, I was combing through a bunch of old Dragon magazines the other day (specifically the first 50 or so), looking for a particular article, and kept coming across little buried "gems," pertinent to my own thoughts and musings. As I've often found over the last ten years of blogging/researching there really isn't all that much new under the sun...people have been obsessing and coming up with ideas and putting 2 and 2 together for a long, long time. The execution wasn't always quite right, but the early days of the hobby were still "early days;" lots of stuff hadn't been worked out yet. And yet some of our adaptations of these ideas (or decisions to go 180 degrees directions, in certain instances) are/were even more flawed than the original stab at the kernel of a concept.

[I'll give you one quick example: I've recently come to the conclusion that Alexis Smolensk's system of awarding experience points based on damage inflicted and received (in addition to XP for treasure found), is really the only sensible way of handling combat/encounter XP, and have decided that I'll probably adapt it wholesale in my next campaign. Welp, Dragon #36 (April 1980) already proposed this variant system ("Experience Points to Ponder: A New System" by William Fawcett). Alexis has the advantage of a bit more thoughtful design and about a decade of play testing...but someone had a similar idea (and for the same reasons) almost thirty years prior]

But I don't want to get sidetracked...the reason I decided to open up Ye Old Laptop and post something (instead of doing what I should be doing) is because I just have to mention this idea from Dragon #28 (August 1979). In an article entitled "Level Progression for Players and Dungeon Masters," writer Jon Mattson proposes a method of awarding experience points to players and DMs (not characters) based on their actual gaming experience, in order to provide an objective measure of ability.

This is something I've been thinking about for years, and only more so since considering the discussions I've had (both on the internet and in-person with other designers) about the possibility of training or certification for game masters. My opinion is that some sort of training for individuals who want to run games is not only desirable but necessary, and that the lack of good, codified training is detrimental to the hobby (some of my blog posts have mentioned this in passing). But I've often wondered how one would go about certifying a person as a credible, proficient GM.

Because here's the thing: it really doesn't matter all that much to me how experienced a player is at a table (neither as a DM or a fellow player), but it matters a LOT to me how competent a Dungeon Master is running the game. Because my enjoyment of a game session hinges on whether or not the DM can do his or her job at the table. And it is, frankly, very difficult for me to come back to the table of a DM whose game I neither appreciate nor respect (I don't think I've ever walked away mid-game from such a DM...I'm a little too polite for that...but I have come away from game sessions feeling frustrated, angry, and vowing to never waste another chunk of my time with that same dungeon master)...even if the person running the game is a friend that I like and respect.

Mattson's article provides the following experience point awards for DMs (he also provides some awards for playing/running other games that might have a certain "carryover" effect, but I'm just going to stick to the ones that are Dungeons & Dragons specific):

Per campaign* of basic D&D you play:  60
Per campaign* of basic D&D you DM:  900**
Per campaign* of Original D&D you play:  80
Per campaign* of Original D&D you DM:  1200**
Per campaign* of Advanced D&D you play:  100
Per campaign* of Advanced D&D you DM:  1500**

* Mattson considers a campaign to be "one full adventure, i.e. if a group of characters set out to explore a five level dungeon, the whole five levels (and only those five levels) would count as one campaign." While I take this to mean that XP is not awarded every session for a multi-session, site-based adventure, the article does not indicate what counts as finishing a "campaign;" should a DM be awarded full XP if a party abandons an adventure site, or if the delve ends in a Total Party Kill? I'm inclined to say "Yes" since that's the outcome of the "campaign," but I'm not sure that's the author's intent.
** Per Mattson, only two-thirds of this amount is awarded if the DM did not design the adventure (for example, if a published module was used). This seems reasonable to me, awarding one-third XP each for writing/designing, game prep, and actual running. 

Being written in 1979, the only "basic D&D" the author could be referring to is the Holmes-written basic set. B/X (published in 1981) is much more similar in complexity and rule scope to OD&D and I'm inclined to put both it and the later BECMI in that category. 2nd edition AD&D would go into AD&D, and you could probably put all "later editions" (3rd, 4th, 5th) there as well...but then some might argue that the objectives of play are so different for later systems (especially 4E) that they really need to be put into the "other games" category for simple "carryover" XP.

[maybe you'd need to have "multi-class DMs" these days with XP split between Old and New school. Ha!]

The advancement table for Dungeon Masters in the article looks like this:

Level 1: Initiate     0-1499 experience points
2: Apprentice     1500-2999
3: Expert     3000-4499
4: Overseer     4500-5999
5: Supervisor     6000-8999
6: Moderator     9000-11,999
7: Mediator     12,000-17,999
8: Arbitrator     18,000-24,999
9: Referee     25,000-34,999
10: Referee, 1st Class     35,000-49,999
11: Judge     50,000-74,999
12: Dungeonmaster     75,000-99,999
13: Dungeonmaster, 13th level     100,000-124,999
14: Dungeonmaster, 14th level, etc.     125,0000 plus 25,000 per level after 14th

[ha! There's also a note that Dungeonmasters of 18th level or higher may also be called "Overlord." I dig on that!]

I'm sure that some folks reading this are going to just shake their heads and call it all ridiculous. After all, the mark of a good DM should include something about how they're evaluated by their players, right? How they interact, how they arbitrate, how they smooth over difficulties and deal with troublesome issues? Not to mention how they improvise and adapt, how they role-play monsters and how much fun is had by all? Certainly, if a DM is giving the impression to everyone who joins the game that he/she is an asshole, it shouldn't matter whether they've run five adventures or five hundred, right?

Maybe. But maybe we need to have some concrete "measurables" to measure. Maybe there is something about a person who writes, preps, and runs a game getting better at writing, prepping, and running games. And maybe that's kind of important when you're emphasizing the game aspect of the hobby and not the "oh, it's just another way to socialize and interact with buddies in a casual, geeky fashion." Sure, yes, that's a thing...but some folks want a higher standard of gaming. I know I do.

Mattson's article isn't a bad starting place for such a discussion. Going over my own DMing history (as best I can remember it), and sticking with only these XP awards (and counting B/X play as "basic" rather than OD&D, and not counting any post-2E experience), I'll say I conservatively calculate my own experience as 65,420, giving me a rank of "Judge," but being about 10,000 shy of "name level." If I upped the awards for B/X campaigns and included awards for other games I've run (there have been many...including 3E D&D), it's possible I might crack 12th or even 13th level, but I'm inclined to leave it as is...a good indication of my "rank" in terms of Old School D&D.

Which...frankly...is about all I care about these days.

And which ALSO means, I've got room to grow. I'd certainly like to be worthy of the "Dungeon Master" title ("Overlord" seems like a pipe dream any time in this lifetime). But, being honest here, I've still got plenty to learn and discover. "Judge" actually sounds about right (I'm pretty judgmental). "Mastery" is something I'm working on.

Anyhoo, I welcome thoughts and ideas on the subject, and ways one might use this (or a similar) objective system to analyze quality, skill, and competence...or any differing opinions from folks who feel this line of thought is unnecessary or impossible. Also, I invite anyone who feels so inclined to post how they level themselves (using this system) in terms of "old school DM experience." To be perfectly honest, I'd like to see how I rank in comparison to the other DMs out there.

Just please: no taking XP for 5E games. I don't care if they're run in an "old school" way or not.