Beyond The Supernatural

More personal history:

I wrote in my last post that while Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was the first Palladium game I purchased, I wasn't really introduced to Palladium as a system until high school when a trio of friends (Ben, Mike, and Michael) showed me how such disparate games as TMNT, Heroes Unlimited, Robotech, and Ninjas & Superspies all worked together off the same universal engine. And, unlike the blandness of GURPS, these were games that lit up all my bells and whistles as far as getting an adolescent's creative juices flowing.

However, I ALMOST got into Palladium before high school through a different friend: Scott.

I believe Scott still lives in Seattle; we were 'friends' on Facebook (an app I almost never use) but he recently deactivated his account (as people tend to do). We were on-again/off-again best friends through elementary school (eight years), but went our separate ways in high school, reconnecting a bit during college, and passing into the realm of casual acquaintance / old (nostalgia) friend after that. The last time I actually sat down with him was before my kids were born; we had a coffee and forgave old grievances and talked about his mom who was dying of cancer at the time. It was a good chat...but I haven't seen him since.

ANYway. I've talked about Scott before, mostly in relation to my old (original) AD&D gaming group. But Scott, like myself, was interested in games outside of D&D. He introduced me to BattleTech (and CityTech and AeroTech and MechWarrior) and we played many battles around his dining room table. He was the first one of us to pick up Advanced Marvel Superheroes and was my GM for that, before those duties migrated to myself. He purchased GURPS (which we never used) and Warhammer 40,000 Rogue Trader (which we WANTED to play, but couldn't, lacking miniatures and not really grokking war games). And, Shadowrun, of course, which was a bit over our heads at age 12 (but which I would play quite a bit in later years).

But one of the last games he picked up, right before the end of middle school...and I can still remember how excited he was by it...was Beyond the Supernatural. And he was excited by it...so much that this was the one game of his that he didn't let me borrow (back in those days we were always swapping our game books with each other so that we could read them and learn the rules). Looking back, I'm not sure if this is because he wanted to keep the 'secrets' of the game to himself (considering that he would be the GM for the game), or because there was just SO MUCH to read and dive into...first edition BTS is over 250 pages long (a lot bigger than 1E Shadowrun, for example) and is chock full of all the lore and high concept stuff that would become a hallmark of trad RPGs of the '90s. Maybe he just never finished reading the thing before we graduated 8th grade and transitioned to high school.

It was many years later...probably college...that I would come across the game in a shop and, flipping through it, realized that it was a Palladium system and thus compatible with Rifts and all the rest. Astounding. As an old hand at Rifts (by that time) it was fascinating to see where all the PPE and ley-line mumbo-jumbo first appeared. 

Of course, by the time I was in university, Palladium was pretty much dead to me (except for the collecting of their always inspirational world books). I had tried running the game multiple times and it always collapsed under the weight of its own clunk. I had resigned myself to the fact that there were far better systems out there (at that time, I was all about White Wolf, and I could run their "Storyteller" system blindfolded). In fact, I had some college buddies who invited me to play in a one-off Rifts game with them (I wouldn't even have to run the thing)...I wasn't interested.

But their interest in Rifts was unusual at that time. Most of us were playing some sort of White Wolf game in the early 90s. Or some version of BRP. I was running Stormbringer every now and again, and there was an on-going Call of Cthulhu game in the dorms that I never got into...despite my love of Lovecraft and that whole "eldritch horror" genre that his work spawned/inspired. I own CoC (and the GUMSHOE game Trail of Cthulhu), but playing a game where you're powerless in the face of existential horror just never felt fun in the same way reading creepy stories did.

Which maybe why BTS still appeals to me...despite the turn-off of Palladium's system.

I mean: just look at that cover. This is EXACTLY what I want out of a "horror" game. A bunch of dudes in jumpsuits (obviously non-military) firing off automatic weapons while getting chewed up by some Monstrosity-That-Should-Not-Be while trying desperately to locate an exorcism spell in an ancient grimoire (do you read Sumerian?). I mean, THAT's the kind of "modern adventure RPG" I can get behind. No matter how much dumb-dumb might be in it, there's an energy there that's missing from the more staid and polished efforts on the market. Apologies to Unknown Armies, Chill, Delta Green, Esoterrorists, etc. but BTS got it pretty much right the first time.

Yeah, sure. It's my opinion. Others may beg to differ.

Just reading BTS takes me straight back to 1987. Man, I wasn't reading Shanarra books back then (not that I ever have); hell, I didn't even read The Lord of the Rings till the 1990s. No, I was reading books by Steven King, Peter Straub, Clive Barker. Mostly King, though...everything I could get my hands on. You can see a LOT of King-type tracings in BTS; ideas cribbed from The Dead Zone, Firestarter, and IT. Of course, you can also see a lot of the shlock horror that we were watching back in those days, too...things like Hellraiser and Phantasm and Poltergeist.

Beyond the Supernatural is a game that asks, 'What if Ghostbusters wasn't a comedy? And what if it was  written and directed by John Carpenter?'  

That doesn't sound pretty rad to you? It does to me.

And, yet, I confess it is a game for a different time. And I don't just mean "because it has an old-school'ish, clunky system." For someone of a particular age/generation (i.e me and the friends of my youth...who do you think got me into all that horror nonsense, back in the day?), it has tropes and ideas that we are intimately familiar with, lacking only some sort "dream fighting" psychic ability a la Dreamscape, Elm Street, or Masterton's Night Warriors series.

[come to think of it, I could use a little more Cronenberg/Scanners-style head exploding psychic powers, too...but that's just me]

The really nice thing about BTS is that it's self-contained: it is a complete game in and of itself. Or, at least, it was. There is (of course) a 2nd edition of Beyond the Supernatural that cuts out all the magic stuff (!!) and significantly reduces the bestiary...these things were going to be covered in two "later supplements." Which has never happened. 2E BTS was published in 2005, twenty-one years ago. Not sure we'll EVER see these books...at least not in Siembieda's lifetime.

Which is fine. My advice (as usual) is: stick with the first edition. Especially as it's still available for purchase as a PDF (in print some places as well). I'd say more on the subject but it would probably amount to flogging a dead horse...plus I'm digressing. 

As I was starting to say, Beyond the Supernatural is a game for people of a certain age and generation: people who remember what life before smart phones and the internet was like. Yeah, my kids love Stranger Things, too, but that series is just a period piece for them...like watching Downton Abbey. If I tried running a game for them set in 1987 (the year BTS was originally published), they'd have tremendous blindspots in the subject matter...not just with regard to history, but with regard to tropes and genre conventions.

You know how little kids know these days even about such 'old hat' monsters as vampires and werewolves? Seriously...they have no idea.  

Whatevs. I'm sure people are wondering why the heck I'm even talking about Beyond the Supernatural right now...other than it is another Palladium game that I've said I might find useful for the Heroes Unlimited campaign I'm developing. Well, that's just it: I DO think it would a useful piece to my campaign "puzzle" and, while Palladium takes a fairly secular view of supernatural evil (I'd guess Satan would simply be another "alien intelligence" on Rifts Earth...get the railgun!), unlike Mr. Siembieda, I AM a fan of "magic" in my comic book properties. Yes, aliens and galactic adventuring is fun (and I'm still reading the Galaxy Guide...we'll get to that), but I was a big fan of Doctor Strange, too. Hell, I like mixing both scifi AND mysticism...always dug that Syzygy Darklock guy from the Dreadstar comics.

Probably because he was a cyborg.

; )

Making Choices

First, a bit of personal history. 

My introduction to Palladium RPGs came care or Erick Wujcik's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles & Other Strangeness, circa 1985 or '86. As with most of my RPG purchases in the '80s, this was something I picked up at The Book Exchange (used book store) in Missoula, Montana while visiting family for the Thanksgiving holiday...something we did every year. I'd already been introduced to the TMNT comics by a friend (an acquaintance from Boy Scouts) and this was back in the days before they'd become a punchline/media franchise. 

*sigh* The good old days...

Anyway, my brother and I made some characters and ran some fights over the holiday, but that was about it. TMNT went on the shelf when we got home, my gaming group still firmly in the TSR universe of AD&D and Marvel Superheroes.

Flash forward to '88/'89. I am a freshman at Seattle Prep high school with nary a friend to my name. My gaming group had broken up over the summer, and my prospects for gaming are lukewarm at best...I can run games for my younger brother and his middle school buddies (which I do a little of) or I can "solo game" (which is not to my taste). Instead, I go about the painful business of putting myself out there and trying to create a new social circle as your standard self-conscious, self-doubting adolescent while simultaneously being overwhelmed by the sheer size and scope of high school. However, I am fortunate to be placed in homeroom class that features "the smart kids" (since we all tested into the higher math) and here I meet some kids who play RPGs...specifically, Michael, Ben, and Mike. 

These three have been best friends for years (Ben and Mike are twin brothers), and they are into all sorts of nerd stuff, especially comic books and Robotech. In fact, if memory serves, they were playing the Robotech RPG (or discussing it) which led me to ask them what game they were talking about, as my knowledge of "anime" ended with the Star Blazers serial I had watched (on occasion) as a kid of 7 or 8. The trio introduced me to the show (loaning me videos to watch) and the RPG, another Palladium jam; however, I never had a chance to play with them as they were just running a short campaign. 

These guys were very much Siembieda super-fans...at least when it came to game design. Of course they knew (and had played) AD&D, but Palladium was their system of choice, and being comic book junkies, Heroes Unlimited was their main drug of choice. And not just HU; they were using TMNT, Ninjas & Superspies, and Transdimensional TMNT (and, perhaps, After the Bomb) all to fuel their campaign. Reading through their books introduced me to the Palladium 'universal' system, which I found remarkably interesting and exciting, in a way that GURPS (which a buddy owned in middle school) never had. I started to realize that games like TMNT and Beyond the Supernatural (which had been demo'd for me a couple years earlier) were all related...and compatible!...with this comic-driven super-system.

One of these days, I'll write a  more in-depth "profile" post on these guys; suffice is to say, they gave me a "gamer lifeline" at a time when I very much needed it, and while I didn't get the opportunity to play with them as much as I'd have liked, it was enough to keep me sane, and I'll always be grateful and appreciative of them. Even as we've gone our separate ways in life, I have fond memories of those guys.

ANYway. When it comes to HU, they played Heroes Unlimited Revised, which was really the second edition of the game...pretty confusing because there's an even larger, later version of the game called Revised Second Edition (or just 2E); I think many folks just like to ignore the first edition was even a game...and it's not that easy to come by, as I've discussed before.

But have it I do...as well as a copy of Revised (my first introduction to the game) as well as Second Edition, a real monstrosity of a book that incorporates a lot of extra material that makes the system even more "universal" -- i.e. compatible with Palladium's flagship game, Rifts. All three versions of HU are different enough to refer to them as different systems, although the casual observer might disagree. Of course, the casual observer probably considers OD&D, AD&D, and AD&D 2E to be (largely) the same system, and I'd smack them about the head & shoulders with my books for claiming such.

Let's go ahead and distinguish the three (because, inevitably, someone will ask me to do so in the comments); I will talk only about the rules, not the layout, inclusion/exclusion of adventures, comprehensibility, etc. (if that kind of thing interests you, the later books are worse than the earlier books):

1st edition Heroes Unlimited: characters with superpowers get ONE power; only nine power categories (no magic); skill selection is much more granular and education based; no class-specific abilities -- physical training, hardware, and special training characters are simply skill based; ranged combat is more "realistic"/fiddly; includes rules for occupations/jobs, law enforcement (all later removed).

Revised Heroes Unlimited: adds magic category to make ten power types; addition of class specific features; hardware adds weapons expert and option for multiple specialties; special training divided into five specific/distinct categories; super powers divided into "minor" and "major" and characters may possess multiple powers; mutant animal rules (in abbreviated form) added from TMNT; robot and vehicle combat rules added (cribbed from Robotech); modern/ranged combat system updated; skill system "streamlined" into packages, cutting some skills and adding others; more "stuff" in sections for characters with budgets (bionics, robotics, hardware); adds "Crazy Hero" option and includes a bunch of stuff for making insane characters; experiments add "super soldier" option.

Second Edition Heroes Unlimited: a LOT of "Rift-isms" and "power creep." Physical strength is divided into several distinct categories (normal, extraordinary, superhuman/robot, supernatural). Combat gets an overhaul thanks to Rifts: knockdowns, sprays/straffing, inability to dodge lasers, death blow no longer kills (but can be done at will and takes two actions), more vehicle stuff, etc.; aliens updated with tables from Aliens Unlimited; bionics updated with 'borg conversion rules (Rifts); hardware adds "analytical genius" for people who want to play Tony Stark/Iron Man; magic system changed wholesale to Rifts/BTS PPE system including levels of spells, etc.; physical training divided into two distinct, superhuman twink options; psionics updated to Rifts version so that you can play your cyber-knight character in HU; special training characters beefed up, including an ancient master who now has supernatural strength(!); substantial increases in budgets for characters that use them; includes the mega-hero option allowing the creation of Justice League (or Thor/Hulk) level characters.

While 2E does not substantially increase the number of super-powers available, it should be noted that the "Powers Unlimited" trilogy was written for 2E and contains a large number of new powers (some of them quite good/needed) as well as TEN additional power categories (classes), some of which are specific to the "mega-hero" level of character.

Mm.

It's funny. Those high school buddies that introduced me to Heroes Unlimited never liked the idea of Rifts (unlike ME, who loved it immediately). Well, maybe Michael, a little. But never Ben...and he was always the Palladium game master/guru of the group.

And yet, Ben probably would have LOVED 2E Heroes, had he seen it (so far as I'm aware, he stopped gaming long before it was published). Ben was the real comic book guy; all those cats could draw, but Ben was the only one who went and and became a professional artist. He used to decry how the powers in Revised weren't powerful enough to emulate the characters in Marvel...he even went so far as to develop his own "third tier" of super-powers above "Minor" and "Major" in order to model the X-Men, the Fantastic Four, etc. Ben would have appreciated a mega-hero option.

Me? Well, I appreciate that Siembieda is a business man and he has customers AND fans that he wants/need to please. I"m not going to bitch too much about decisions he makes in the name of keeping his small press company alive. His sustained success over the decades is evidence enough that he's sharper than most of the folks in this industry. That being said....

I've spent a lot of time over the last few days reading and rereading these books. I'm not terribly interested in running a "Franken-brew" system...I simply want ONE book that I can hold up as the "game bible" for my refereeing. Let me focus on building and running the campaign, not cobbling and tinkering with mechanics. 

For my purposes, that means I have to come down to making a choice...and, surprisingly, the choice I"ve decided on is Revised Heroes Unlimited. I say "surprisingly" because going into this project, I assumed I was going to end up going with the original, cut-down version of the system or else the whole hog 2E with all its bells and whistles.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the market (as they say)...I realized that I really didn't need ANY of the new stuff in 2E. Rifts is Rifts, and I don't plan on mixing my post-apocalyptic weirdness in my 70s/80s style comic-world. I certainly don't need the power creep (necessary from a Palladium POV if you want to 'port HU characters into Rifts Earth). Meanwhile, the original version of the game...didn't have enough. I like a lot of what's there, but I need MORE...a more robust amount of content, if I'm going to create a sustainable cmpaign world.

Sound familiar? The original HU is very much like OD&D (except better organized and illustrated); it's not enough on its own, it has holes, it lacks "oomph" in places. It's a first pass...a first try. The Revised version? That's like AD&D. More tested, more solid, incorporating ideas that occurred after the initial offering. 2E HU, on the other hand, is like incorporating the Unearthed Arcana and subsequent books (here: add NWPs and weapons specialization!). No thank you.

So, there you have it...I can put 2E Heroes Unlimited back on the shelf for now, right next to all the Rifts books that I'm not using. Heroes Unlimited Revised will be my ruleset; it is, for the most part, "the Good Parts Version" that will meet my needs. As for the other Palladium books in my collection, several of them are candidates for (eventual) inclusion in my campaign setting:

My Coffee Table At The Moment

Aliens Unlimited Revised: published in 1994, this expands the alien power category, generally in good ways, and helps make the type more distinct from the other, while not succumbing to all the new Rift-isms of the 2E HU rulebook (yes, AUR "includes Rifts conversion notes," but this consists of two paragraphs saying treat all the SDC as MDC. Thanks, Tips).

Beyond The Supernatural: if you're going to add magic, hokum, and goofy woo-woo hoodoo to your game, this is the book to have. I might even replace the "mystic study" subcategory of the magic power type with the Arcanist OCC from BTS (yes, yes, including PPE and all that). Really depends on how "mystical" my campaign ends up becoming. I mean, Dr. Strange was a Defender for a while, wasn't he? First edition BTS only (mainly because my 2E copy is digital and I prefer actual books at the table).

Heroes Unlimited  G.M.'s Guide (2nd Edition): most of what's here is non-useful. The job/salaries, geo-political hot spots, and random crime tables are all stuff that were in the original HU and left out later, and I'm not sure how much I need the random thug/villain tables. I dislike all the "power slam" combat maneuvers, and the extra spells and psychic powers seem fairly extraneous. Eh. Probably a skip unless I get desperate for an adventure (there are several scenarios included, some of which are fairly rough/challenging).

Ninjas & Superspies: Ah, one of my son's favorite RPG books. Personally, I kind of hate it, having some familiarity with real world martial arts, including Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, Hwa Rang Do, and Wing Chun. It adds a LOT of extra fiddly to it, and I dislike turning the physical training character into a martial artist...this archetype was (for me) always best represented by the Megalith character from Continuity Comics. Of course, the nerfing of the ancient master is even more annoying (wtf? he only gets 10th level ninjitsu? That's just six attacks!). As you can see, N&S has actual conversion notes for how to use the game with HU, not only allowing PCs to pick up martial arts (at the costs of big bunches of skills), but allowing N&S OCCs to stand in for specific power categories, including hardware and secret operative. Eh, this one is mostly a pass for me unless someone REALLY wants to play a non-ancient martial artist...and I'm okay with that. Shang-Chi is pretty cool, as is (of course) Iron Fist (though I put the latter more in the "ancient master" category).

Powers Unlimited: There are some good powers here, including battle rage, hardened skin, heavyweight, gateways, and regenerate ultima (I'm also a fan of mega-wings and super consumption, but I'm cheesy like that). This is a good one for creating the occasional NPC character (especially villains) with powers the PCs haven't encountered. I'm okay with that...don't really want to adopt it wholesale.

Powers Unlimited 2: Mm. One of MY favorite books in the franchise...I picked this bad boy up some time around 2009 or so? The delightful thing about this one is NOT the new powers (there are only four, and none worth mentioning), but the new power TYPES (HU's version of 'character classes') that are O So Stellar. I mean, you've got your empowered character (everything from Daredevil to Captain Marvel), your gestalt (Firestar to Swamp Thing), super soldiers (duh), the natural genius (for super-villains like Lex Luthor or Baron Zemo), invention (Ant-Man to Falcon), and...everyone's favorite...the immortal character (from godlings to undead). That is a huge extension of variety for the game, and most of these fill niches that needed to be filled.  I really dig the "minor hero" option, too, as it can easily be used for small-fry supers OR some hero's wunderkind sidekick. Batman's still a bit of a tough character to model in HU, but at least you've got the Boy Wonder potential.

[haha! That reminds back in my early days of making characters for HU, I had a dynamic duo called Dark Knight and Red Boy. I should probably try to rebuilding them, just to see remind myself how frustrating the system can be.  Or how amusing...]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles & Other Strangeness: The book that started it all. I have the first printing of the game, and Wujcik does a masterful job with it; of course, the Eastman/Laird artwork doesn't hurt, and the whole thing is about as elegant and self-contained as any Palladium game gets. Has several nice adventure scenarios as well. The anthropomorphic animal thing doesn't appeal to me the same as it did when I was a kid (how could you not want to play a porcupine?), but I'd be willing to use it for anyone interested in playing a mutant animal, expanding on the abbreviated rules found in HU. Just who that interested person might be, I couldn't say...while a human-sized animal that can walk and talk is pretty amazing, it doesn't really classify as "super-powered" in the standard sense. Still...Rocket Raccoon? Really easy build using Bio-E.

Aaaand...that's about it. Recon (and Advanced Recon) use different systems, and Robotech just isn't right for the kind of game I'm envisioning. No giant mecha, thank you (I pivoted, remember?). I DID just receive my copy of the Aliens Unlimited "Galaxy Guide" in the mail today (purchased because I though it might be useful for intergalactic adventures in spaaaaace...a solid cornerstone of most comic book franchises), but I haven't yet had the chance to read it...I'll be doing that this evening and see if it actually fits. The "2nd ed." tag on the front doesn't give me too much confidence, but I never planned on using Palladium's own in-house creations (planets and species and timelines and such); I just wanted FTL spaceship rules. Here's hoping. 

All right, all right...that's enough for now. Later, people!

Learning To DM

Sometimes I forget...or (perhaps more truthfully) fail to even consider...that I've been doing this DMing thing for a long time. A long, long ass time.

Some people say I'm a "good" DM. I am decidedly uncomfortable with this praise. But I AM competent. I can run a solid game of AD&D with very few "flubs" or mistakes. Certainly nothing that can't be easily and quickly corrected in play...which makes for a fairly smooth game. Which allows players to be fully engaged in play. 

Usually. Generally. I don't always poll my players or ask for feedback...maybe they just keep their complaints to themselves; after all, there are worse DMs than me out there.

And maybe that's it. I'm fine being "adequate." Being adequate is hard enough. I don't need to be anything more than that. 

And all my "holding forth" and advice giving I do on this blog and elsewhere? All of that is just me trying to instill adequacy in others. I don't want people to be "good DMs." I just don't want them to be "bad DMs." I want them to be competent. 

Competence can take a long time to achieve.

I talk a lot about how I was not mentored or taught D&D...I learned it from a book. And when it came to learning how to run AD&D I likewise learned it from the (AD&D) books, not from an adult, older sibling, teacher, cousin or anything like that. I read the books. I found where AD&D differed from B/X (the system I initially learned on), and then I discarded and/or replaced the old B/X systems with the AD&D mechanics. I was 11 at the time and in the 5th grade. Mrs. Martinson's class, St. Luke elementary.

But by age 11, when I (and thus "we," my circle of friends who were my first group of players) decided to go "full Advanced," I was already a Dungeon Master. Had been a Dungeon Master for at least a couple years.

Doesn't mean I was a "good" one...nor even "adequate."

It wasn't enough to just read the books and make characters and run fights and hand out treasure and draw labyrinthine maps. It wasn't enough, even, to practice managing complex group social dynamics with my peers, developing patterns and strategies for organizing a table and keeping people focused. I certainly wasn't thinking in those terms back in those years. Heck, I couldn't even arrange my own outings and "play dates" (my friends and I all lived too far from each other for just bicycling to each others' houses). When we did manage to get together to play, I had to be ON IT...because you never knew when would be the next time we could all get together again.

But learning to be "on it?" That took a while. A good long while. I got my B/X boxes sometime around the age of 8 or 9. I was not even able to run a B/X game with anything approaching competence (or confidence, for that matter) until age 10...certainly over a year. 

That's right: it took me well over a year just to learn to run B/X. Even with modules like The Keep on the Borderlands and Isle of Dread providing additional information.

I often write as if learning to run D&D is as simple as "just read the book, stupid." That's not really the case, especially if you have NO reference point. Granted...I was a wee young lad at the time, and I'd imagine an adult with enough education could probably learn how to run the game from the B/X books alone. But AD&D? That's not as easy. Certainly not as easy as "just read the PHB and DMG."

Again, I was BLESSED by having already mastered the B/X books by the time I started AD&D. After that, it was a matter of filling in the differences. Okay, combat is more complex with these extra considerations. Okay, spells are more complex with their material components and casting times. Okay, monsters have a couple more bells and whistles, alignment comes in additional flavors, we have this whole new system of PSIONICS to learn. Okay. Okay. Okay.

It took TIME to integrate all these rules into our game. Because, in our youth, we were interested in getting the game RIGHT. My friends and I had been raised to play by the rules when you played a game. No one had ever told us, "just make shit up." And we approached AD&D the same way: we didn't just cut stuff or edit what we didn’t like...instead we studied it, corrected our mistakes, and worked hard to play the game better. 

Fortunately, AD&D is not rocket science, and even 12 year olds can figure it out.

But it took us time. It took us EFFORT. It did not happen over night or after one read through of the books. If the stuff I've written implied that it was just a 'walk in the park' to roll out an AD&D campaign, I apologize. Mea culpa. 

NOW...now, forty years later, I can run AD&D with very little effort. I have my house rules that I use, but I don't have to. I could make clerics memorize their spells at the beginning of the day. I could make everyone choose an alignment. I've run the game strictly By The Book in the past, and it's no problem falling back into that. In point of fact, it's pretty darn easy. Hell, I could easily incorporate all the stupidness found in the Unearthed Arcana (we used that from 1985-1990) with Drow cavaliers and Upper Lower Class barbarians and comeliness and hierophants, etc. Not A Problem.

Heck, if I dredged my memory a bit, I might even be able to remember how to use the non-weapon proficiencies found in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide. Man...what a waste THAT book was!

But the LEARNING to use and run the game with all that stuff came with time. These days, I’m more mature and sophisticated and (Lord knows!) patient as a DM, but for the most part I run the game exactly the same as I did when I was 15. I would say I was definitely “adequate” by 15…but that means it took (roughly) THREE to FOUR years to achieve competency in AD&D. And even then there was a LOT that I didn’t understand…things I really didn’t start comprehending till the last ten years or so.

I just knew how to run the game. Worrying about nuance and “game theory” is the purview of old geezers.

SO...about five years of training to become an AD&D Dungeon Master. Which, actually, is the typical length of time for most tradesmen to go from "apprentice" to "journeyman." Three to five years. That sounds about right. Probably not 8,000 hours...maybe 2,000 hours? Hours spent reading, writing, studying, and running games (the actual running being the smallest portion compared to the preparation). Hard to come to an exact figure...I never really kept track of all the hours I spent on D&D over the years.

Regardless...it's a long ass time.

For the most part, you can open the box of your average board game and figure out how to play it in an afternoon. But Dungeons & Dragons...especially Advanced Dungeons & Dragons...is not your "average board game."

I apologize if I've misled people into thinking otherwise.

B is for Borders

I missed the April A-Z Blog Challenge this year, so I'm doing my own...in June. This year, I will be posting one post per day discussing my AD&D campaign, for the curious. Since 2020, this is the ONLY campaign I run. Enjoy!

B is for Borders...the borders of (my game) reality.

Probably I should have led with this...but then, "borders" doesn't begin with the letter "A," does it? Thing is, I have mentioned my campaign in passing (several times) over the last five years, so most people know that the setting for my world is the Pacific Northwest of our real world.

That's a very specific portion of our reality. Let me tell you how I got there.

A loooong ways back...long before I even started playing AD&D again...I decided that I was ready to run a serious campaign. What I like to call a perpetual campaign; that is: a campaign that is always "on," whether I have the luxury of playing in it or not, something that I pour all my world building creativity into when I can. And after reading many posts by the sharpest DMing mind on the internet, I figured that the smartest thing...the damn easiest thing...that I could do, would be to set the game in our Real World. Not only does our real world have all the benefits of actual geography, climate, history, etc. it's already mapped out (thanks Google Earth!) and all I have to do is overlay it with my own version of "reality."

This is not the most original idea in the world: plenty of people have used "the real world" as the basis of their fantasy world. Gygax's Oerth is a stretched version of North America. Martin's Westeross is just a greatly enlarged UK. Warhammer's Aulde World is just Europe by way of Tolkien. Etc. Even Mystara is pretty obviously a Pangea-like version of Earth. However, I knew I didn't want to do the entirety of our planet...way, waaay too much work. I just needed a small portion to use as my setting.

I chose South America.

To be fair, this was my first attempt at doing a "serious campaign" (well doing the "serious work" of an actual campaign)...it's only natural I'd make the mistake of biting off a LOT more than I could chew. And not just in terms of size (South America is huge!)...but in terms of history and culture and knowledge of fauna and flora and whatnot? I was just way over my skis. Dumb.

So after futzing around with that for a couple-few years (seriously...I first considered South America as a potential world setting in 2015 while still living in Paraguay and returned to the idea in 2019 when I was first deciding I needed a more "advanced" game), I finally gave up and did the "normal thing" of sketching out a vanilla "fantasy land" in which to set adventures, complete with dumb, pseudo-fantasy stuff like Lizard Cults and Purple Sorcerers. The usual, in other words...but that was back when I was still in the dumb-dumb phase of wavering between B/X and OD&D.

I would stick with dumb-dumb "nowhere land," until after I started playing 1E again (in 2020).

Then, sometime around the Spring of 2021, I was eating BBQ with my brother at the best place in the area for such things (Gabriel's Fire in Mountlake Terrace), and I saw a poster on the wall of the bathroom: an absolutely beautiful map of Northwest Washington State entitled The Evergreen Playground, published by the Kroll Map Company in 1994 (you can still buy a copy of this poster today). Beneath its title, it carries the following words:

Neither Europe nor Asia nor South America has a prospect in which sea and woods and snow mountains are so united in a landscape.

And just like that, my search for the perfect campaign world was over. It had been under my nose for decades, but I had simply failed to see it. 

Since then (March '21) I've been using Washington State and the surrounding area for ALL my gaming. My range has expanded considerably; it was (originally) focused on the area just east of the Cascades...Cle Elum and Ellensburg were the largest settlements I was interested in detailing, and other places (Seattle, Spokane) were "far off places," rife with rumor and legend. Now, though, my world has grown to encompass the entire state, plus Idaho, Oregon, northern California, western Montana, and (southern) British Columbia. Basically, the entire disputed (in the 1800s) territory west of the Louisiana Purchase, north of (formerly) Spanish Mexico, and south of (formerly) Russian Alaska.

I once thought such a region...roughly five-ish states in size...was "too small." That, like George Martin, I'd have to stretch and expand the area by double or treble, simply to give enough "space" to fit in everything I'd need or want in a D&D campaign: Huge mountain ranges. Vast plains. Unknowable forests, etc. 

As with "South America," I was being ridiculous. Actually, I was simply thinking like a 21st century human...a person who lives in a world of cars and automobiles, who can cross an entire state in a matter of hours, and who can fly to the other side of the world in less than a day. At that time (just four years ago! Four!) I hadn't put in much time reading up on the Lewis & Clark Expedition. I hadn't delved deeply into the adventure fiction of Lamb and Burroughs and Haggard. I didn't understand how a wilderness devoid of four lane highways and suspension bridges and airports is so treacherous that only the foolish, reckless, or heroic would dare to traverse it with little more than the supplies they could carry. 

Take away the Industrial Revolution and the railroads and there is a LOT of wilderness in my home state.

So much so that, for D&D purposes, I can't see myself ever exhausting the region. Not in my lifetime, anyway. I am currently writing this series of posts, providing an overview of my campaign setting and, while just barely scratching the surface, probably still represents ten times as much "travelogue" as I've ever written down about campaign.

Because, for the most part, I don't write it down. Most of it, I keep in my head. I have some scattered notes...mostly about populations. But it's just so much background text...so much background lore that I just keep in my noggin for when I write adventures and adventure scenarios. Which is the only thing that my players see, anyway...the only thing they care about. They don't give a rip about "lore." 

Where's the dungeon? Where's the treasure? How do we get it? That's what the players care about.

But for ME, the Dungeon Master, the world...my world...IS the thing I care about. It's the thing that gives me "juice." It's what provides me with context for creating adventures. And having this lovely, lovely patch of planet earth, chock full of mountains and forests and deserts and ocean, provides the perfect plate on which to lavish an exquisite dish to serve my players. I can put Pax Tharkas (from DL2) in the shade of the Cascades, because I know where the gold is/was mined from the mountains. I can stash the lich's stronghold at the best spot on the Fraser river, because I know where it becomes impossible to move upstream by boat. I can seed towns and settlements throughout the region and determine population density because I can research where and why actual communities congregated, and make pronouncements about their local produce and industry.

The Pac Northwest has a lot going for it...and a lot going on. It also...today, in the 21st century...has huge sections of unexplored wilderness perfect for lairs and monsters and places that a D&D party would want to explore. 

I love it. 

As for what lies outside the borders of my world? Nothing...nothing at all. "Death" is what I imagine, but more likely just miles and miles of inhospitable, impenetrable, landscapes. Radioactive wastelands. Frozen tundra. Barren Deserts. Unending oceans. It doesn't much matter. No one knows...certainly not the NPCs my players encounter. Because I don't know; nor do I care. Because there's plenty going on right here, thank you very much. It's already packed with adventure.

My world has borders. It's a game. The map is the board. Play occurs on the board, not off.

Action

My recent posts about writing "How to GM" help-books touched off a flurry of posts over at The Tao of D&D...which is great for a number of reasons. First off, Alexis is sharp as hell and brings a lot of good insight/knowledge to the discussion (and being a seasoned D&D ref, it's generally practical knowledge). Second off, he's a great writer and his posts are often entertaining to read. 

Third off, he also gives me ideas to riff off. This post is one of those. Alexis writes:

If you ask what "story" does for actual gameplay, you may find yourself in a conversation with someone fervently explaining that story provides "a structured overarching narrative or series of interconnected scenarios and encounters that serves to facilitate gameplay by providing the context and information necessary for players to make informed decisions and take meaningful actions within the game world." Except that it doesn't. The DM, without telling anything like a story, describes a set of circumstances that the players see in the immediate here and now, that they're free to make a decision about. No "overarching narrative" is in anyway necessary to this; in fact, it's detrimental the player's freedom to make immediate choices, as they've been primed in advance to acknowledge and prostrate themselves to a narrative that the DM invented, or the company invented, or some writer invented, but certainly not that the players themselves invented.

Game play works in a specific manner. The DM provides immediate context of what the player characters' senses tell them. The players make a MOVE. This produces a response from the DM, describing what has changed in the immediate context due to the players' move. Then the players move again. This goes on indefinitely.

The reasons why a player moves, or what motivates them, or the fact that the may collaborate first before moving, is irrelevant to the ACTION of the game. The notion that players need a "story" to captivate their interest, or draw them into the game world, because it provides context for their actions, is SALES JARGON. The argument that the story gives the players clear goals, objectives and challenges to pursue, motivating them as a driving force for game play, is SALES JARGON. These phrases sound terrific and encouraging, but since no definition is ever provided that explains how these things motivate or engage the players, it's just so much blubblesput.

Or, as he summarizes more succinctly at the end of the essay:

...the ongoing description provided by the DM serves as the immediate backdrop for gameplay, providing the players with the information they need to make their moves and decisions. This description includes details about the environment, characters and events that are directly relevant to the current situation and the players' interactions.

The essence of gameplay lies in the dynamic exchange between players making moves and the DM responding. Extraneous detail beyond the immediate circumstances is not essential to gameplay itself. 

Gameplay in D&D has nothing to do with "creating stories" (yes, yes...a point ol' JB has attempted to make many times over the last few years)...it is about taking action, and experiencing the fruits (and consequences) of that action. The world built by the DM is the thing that provides opportunities for action...one of the reasons ol' JB is always harping on world building, since (duh) insufficient work by the DM is going to end up curtailing and/or stunting action.

And players want action.

It makes me wonder just how many people out there playing this modern, new-fangled D&D are really, truly satisfied with the game play. I mean, other than the actors on live-streamed shows that are getting paid to perform (that is, I assume and hope they are being paid...actors have to eat, too!). But the normal shmoes (like me), sitting around a table, playing 5E...how many of them are truly satisfied with a game experience that consists of sticking to a plot, or exploring their character's "story arc," or posturing and improvising dialogue, and rolling dice only to determine how effective their posturing and dialogue was on swinging the opinion of the guardsman at the gate or whatever.  How many 5E players are simply going through the motions, jonesing for ANY opportunity to make a die roll, and (perhaps) wish they were brave enough to stand up and say "the emperor has no clothes!" or (in this case) "this game sucks!"

My wife and daughter have been in Mexico this last week, visiting family, while the boy and I have been 'batchin it.' No D&D play, but we played Space Hulk, Axis & Allies (Global), Blood Bowl Team Manager, went golfing, played pickleball, went bowling, shot pool, did a trivia night at a local pub, and (of course) did all the practices...soccer (his) and volleyball (ours). It's been a fine vacation for both of us...an active vacation. Oh, we've sat around and watched some movies, too, but only at night and we both (usually) would fall asleep on the couch, tuckered after a long day.

Action. Play. This is what a kid wants. And buried under all the responsibilities and worries that come with adulthood, that's what our inner kid wants as well...certainly those geezer gamers like myself that enjoy (or want to enjoy) playing D&D. Why are dungeons so easy to run? Because they provide direct, immediate opportunities for action. Players LOVE dungeons. The bitch and moan if there isn't one on the immediate horizon...in general, most players aren't self-motivated enough to execute bold schemes on their own...they'd rather go down a hole with torches and ropes and risk certain death for a bagful of treasure.

And, perhaps, this was the original impetus for giving characters "backstories" and personalities prior to play...to provide some motivation or impetus for action OUTSIDE of jus throwing down a new dungeon. That is, admittedly, how my group used them in the days of our youth...even though we played 1E. When we rolled up our multitudes of characters...generally away from the table...we'd assign them personalities and backgrounds, crafted mainly from a combo of race, class, secondary skill, and social class (that's from the Unearthed Arcana, folks...). I mean, if the character was going to be an NPC anyway, the DMG had random tables for generating personalities, too.  But we used these motivating backgrounds as an impetus to action in a developed setting (our own) that provided little in the way of traditional "dungeons." Our fantasy world, developed over years of play, was a more interesting environment for exploration than another hole in the ground. 

[examples: here's a character whose ex-spouse lives in this town...we want to go the opposite way. Here's a character whose father was a mean, abusive a-hole...but also the general of the army...let's avoid that territory. This guy was trained as an assassin...his guild is in town X, and whether or not we're showing up depends on his standing with the guild, etc.]

But for the most part, even then we didn't make much use of them...that is to say, "exploration of character" was not really on the agenda. The agenda was ACTION...whether in a town, or a lonely road, or in the occasional (few and far between) dungeon sites we were able to discover. Fighting, stealing, wheeling, dealing...and then (more often than not) running from the consequences of our trouble-making. When the DM(s) HAS an established, developed world but LACKS a story arc or plot that they're following, THEN players are free to do what they want in the game world. Assuming CONSEQUENCES EXIST; otherwise their actions are...literally...inconsequential, and the players lose interest (and respect!) for the game being played.

Players want action and...AT FIRST...they will want (and need) directed action. They will want a dungeon to explore, to give their characters...and the world!...a "test-drive." And after their first dungeon adventure, they'll (probably) want another, and a juicy hook or treasure map will lead them out into the (game) world. And then, perhaps, a third dungeon...a bit harder or trickier to find then either of the first two, but also Very Dangerous & Rewarding. And the fourth is even harder to discover than the third...

And the whole time, you (the DM) will be crafting a world around the players (because dungeons are simple enough to run, especially if you simply adapt premade adventures). You'll be establishing local politics and economies and situations for the players to get embroiled in. You'll be sketching out NPCs that become established personalities in your campaign: the patriarch that's always getting tasked with raising characters from the dead, the wizard/sage who can identify their magical items, the tax collector whose always showing up at inopportune times to skim the cut for the local lord, the various inns (and innkeepers) along the road where PCs stay when out on safari, the locals in the town where they buy houses and set up their base of operations, the thief or jewel merchant (or both) who they use as a fence for their loot, the wandering ranger or paladin who they run into time and again who provides them with news of "the realm" and occasional aid (as necessary), the crazy druid who knows the local wilderness like the back of his hand and is a useful font of advice on the region, etc., etc. 

And as you build your world and the (imaginary) people in it, the players will come to care more and more about IT and less and less about being directed in their action. As the actions they take begin to have consequential impact on the world, they will be motivated to make MORE impact, to take their own actions: establishing domains, crafting artifacts, establishing cults and guilds, raising armies, seeking immortality, whatever. Heck, you want to know how romance gets introduced into your campaign? First allow the PCs to obtain some lands and a title, and then suggest that they have no heir(s) to whom they can leave their legacy...just watch them then start seeking out eligible suitors/brides in the region!

[not every player is interested in seeking out lichdom, you know?]

I am not...and never have been...a big proponent of the "tent-pole, mega-dungeon" concept of D&D play. That is certainly ONE way to ensure that the players get plenty of visceral action, but the action presented is fairly narrow in scope and cannot take advantage of ALL that D&D has to offer...at least, not without the cost of verisimilitude (which leads to lack of respect / lack of engagement of the players and, eventually, sabotage of your campaign). But there is no doubt in my mind that dungeons ARE the best ways to introduce players to the concepts of being active and taking action in the game world...something they desperately want and need for the game to be successful. 

Everything else is just color.

Okay, more later. Have a good weekend, folks.

: )

What High Level D&D Looks Like

I can already tell I'm going to get in trouble for this post. Ah, well. No one reads blogs on Fridays, right?

; )

As my group gears up for another campaign start (the players need to generate PCs after our last TPK, and I need to find yet more low-level scenarios for 1st level characters...*sigh*), some questions arise in Ye Ol' Brain. Questions like: What's the aim here? What's the direction? Where do I hope to see the campaign go? What do I hope to accomplish with this thing? Why do I want to run a game at all?

To which the answer almost always comes back the same: I just want to play D&D.

What's the aim? Direction? Um...I don't really care. Where do I want to see the campaign go? I have no destination in mind. Accomplishments? It's just D&D.  My joy is in playing...and as a DM, "play" for me means creating a world and various scenarios/challenges for my players and then running those and seeing how they pan out. I am a mad god, with no ultimate divine plan...because, of course, I am not a TRUE God, and my life is as finite as any other human and will some day end. So I play to play. Because I enjoy it.  My players seem to enjoy my game (and why would they not when it is D&D, a magical realm of fantastic possibility, perilous danger, amazing rewards/loot). And so I run the game, hoping to see it last and last and last.

The world building is, thus, of paramount importance. Why? Because for a game to last it must have far more possibility and potential than what can be explored and consumed within the lifetime of the DM. Fortunately, our own world is a wonderful example of just how big a world can be. How many "adventures" (and misadventures) of large and small variety have you had in your own town? Or in towns that you've visited? Or wilderness areas outside of towns? And how many THOUSANDS or TENS OF THOUSANDS of towns and cities and wilderness areas have you NOT visited in your lifetime? Heck, I've been to Europe four or five times, visited three times that many cities (at least) on the continent and had amazing experiences, and that has barely scratched the surface of the possibilities...and all without a single combat encounter or larcenous incident.

This is why I can take an area as small as the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and British Columbia) and know that this TINY CORNER of planet Earth can provide all the "world" I need for the rest of my days. Throw in western Montana, parts of the California coastline, extraplanar adventures, and (possibly) some sort of "Underdark" like what you find in the classic "D" module series? There's far more than I could ever "finish;" far more than I'll ever probably need. My world map is set. Everything else is just keeping track of population points, resources, political factions (only if/as needed!) and "adventure sites" (i.e. dungeons). 

"Um...JB? You mentioned 'high level play' in your post title?"

Right, sorry...getting to that. My current world...the one I've been using since I started playing AD&D again (a couple years back), has yet to see high level characters as I define them. The players I've been working with are, after all, kids who are still learning the ropes of the game...but mainly it's just that 1E isn't a cakewalk game to play. Characters die...and with SMALL parties (less than six or seven characters), any single loss can lead to cascade failure and disaster. Eventually, some combination of skill and luck will enable a number of player characters to reach the higher levels, and once they do the "PC EcoSystem" will become much more stable and secure. They just haven't got there yet.

But I have seen high level campaign play in the past...both as a DM and a player. And with much talk about high level play being bandied about in recent months (both here and elsewhere), I thought I'd share my experiences, so that people can understand my perspective on this somewhat mythical level of play. 

BECAUSE...IF you share my joy of the game, and ARE committed to the long haul, and have a robust world that will LAST for the long haul, THEN with committed, determined players, you WILL eventually have high level PCs to deal with.

SO...there are two ways to end up with high level characters in your game: players "work them up" in standard fashion (aka The Hard Way), or they are "gifted" to players in the form of pre-gens or scenario specifics characters (which might be just one-offs or they might be allowed to linger in campaigns). I've run...and played...both types in past campaigns.

My first "campaign" lasted from circa 1982-1985 and mostly consisted of my friends and I learning to play the game (for the interested, I documented a rough history of my gaming history last June). I hesitate to even call it a proper campaign: much of it was dissociative, like a series of con-games...or FLAILSNAILS type adventures...with no common thread aside from the characters being used. Because our game started with B/X it was deadly but not punitive: resurrections didn't reduce CON for example, wishes did not age individuals and the DM (me) was fairly lenient with giving PCs means to reverse failures. However, there was NO world building to speak of, no real "town play" (just dungeons and wilderness), nothing for PCs to spend treasure on besides castles and specialist hirelings (B/X doesn't have upkeep and training costs).  Towards the end of this period, we began incorporating AD&D books into our game: high level spells, artifacts and relics, demon princes and arch-devils, etc. But the game was generally a mess...as one might expect from a bunch of pre-teen kids with little knowledge of the "real world" (history, geography, politics, economics, etc.). Just low-level D&D with bigger, fancier toys.

Still.  There were some beefy dungeons back then. And even uber-high level characters fear black puddings and rust monsters. No nerfing required.

In the fall of 1985, we decided to blow up the entire thing and start over from scratch using By The Book AD&D...as best we could. Characters started at 1st level and had to "work their way up." But, again, we didn't do much in the way of world building: a lot of "town adventures," but the towns were (mostly) nameless and unconnected other than by nameless roads. Mostly we were learning the AD&D rules, including the incorporation of the Unearthed Arcana. The campaign was short-lived...I would guesstimate my character earned a maximum of 300,000 x.p. over the course of the entire thing (and my PC was the most consistently played of all our group, now that we were sharing DM duties). That's only "mid-level" in my book...the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth was one of the last adventure modules we ran, and the party ended up abandoning the quest sometime in the upper caves. 

Sometime circa 1986ish (I'm guessing the summer, maybe fall), we started over a final time, and this time went hard. We used the World of Greyhawk map, but far less of its background/history, and our pantheon of gods were strictly Grecian (as had been the case since moving to AD&D). Characters initially had to be started at level one, although replacement PCs, brought in to fill out decimated parties, were allowed to start at higher levels as per Gygax's stipulations on page 12 of the DMG. Over the course of the next two+ years, these PCs DID reach high levels...my own character, started as a first level fighter, eventually became a bard in at least the high teens (16th+) range. That's well over a million x.p. earned, and while some of that was certainly acquired magically, he definitely lost levels to level drain as well. 

In all honesty, it is my experience in that final, grand campaign that provided most of my concept of what "proper" AD&D adventuring should look like. This was not a sit-down, weekly session with the same six friends kind of thing: the campaign was always "on," always being played. Whenever the DM was with one or more players...and had his/her books, dice, etc....and an idea, the game was run. Records were tracked (time and location) to ensure continuity, but this was not otherwise an 'organized' affair. Hell, a lot of our games were conducted over (landline) telephone, and we had party lines and three-way calling to enable this kind of activity.

Sure: the campaign started off with 3-4 players and a DM with some introductory scenario, in some small town. After a few small successes, the characters would move onto the next adventure "lead" to another town. Many of the characters in the campaign were reiterations of past characters...I played the same half-elf bard in all three of these campaigns (I don't believe he even reached bard status in the second campaign)...and thus many had established "backgrounds" and personality quirks even if we did minor tweaks (alignment was OFTEN changed) between re-boots. Anyway, with "known" characters...and being experienced players...many of us had ideas and ambitions of what we wanted to accomplish in the game world, and set out to achieve those ambitions. First, of course, there was always the need to make a little coin and get some levels under the belt, then we'd move on to grander schemes...often causing the party to drift apart.

However, since the game was always "on," this separation allowed all of us to adventure independently while still maintaining the same world. Players would have secondary (or tertiary) characters that could join a group when their "main" PC was doing magical research or building their fortress or whatever. We would eventually have a total of eight players participate at one time or another, four of whom were "regulars," and two of whom acted as co-DMs of the world.  That's EIGHT players...but the number of PLAYER CHARACTERS that showed up was more like three-four times (?) that. "Main PCs" (for lack of a better term), like my bard, were the major characters by dint of their high levels, which gave them access to considerable resources (hirelings and henchmen, magic items and money, hit points and spells, etc.)...of these, my PC was the closest thing to a high level "murder hobo" since, being a bard, he never settled down, never had henchmen, and was fairly self-sufficient with a wide range of abilities. But I was still DMing, too...usually with modules (I ran a pair of 12th level PCs through D1: Descent Yadda-Yadda, though they never made it to the Grand Cavern before chickening out).

Because AD&D scales so well, the game never devolved into cartoony, superhero D&D. Any character can fail a poison save. Any character can fall off a cliff or be assassinated or get hit with an arrow of slaying. BTB wizards (who should ALL have INT 18) are still extremely limited in the spells they know, unless they are actively pursuing spell books/scrolls OR spending a tremendous amount of treasure on research...and all the best spells have serious restrictions (expensive components or side effects like aging/system shock). Because it's a bit of a grey area we only reduced CON for raise dead and resurrection, but PCs wished back to life had no such loss...even so, that knocked out a lot of wishing rings and luck swords and we still had characters with CON drain (my PC must have been brought back to life seven or eight times). 

Even at high level, you STILL didn't traipse lightly into the Abyss to see what kind of treasure Jubilex (or whoever) had in his hoard...nether planar creatures will F you up in a Very Bad Way very quickly.  Adventures tended to be less "wahoo" gonzo and more grounded: rival baron with army is causing problems in your domain, or an unsullied Really Bad Dungeon so dangerous that any explorer under 10th level gets vaporized looking at it. You don't really need to nerf PCs when a dragon can strafe everyone in the party for 88 points of damage...that's a deterrent for dumb-dumb play right there.  So is grappling by hordes of 2HD humanoids (bullywugs are a good choice). So is energy drain. Hit points (and spells) always run out eventually. Yes, the fighter's armor class may be so low as to be un-hittable in melee...but there's no to hit roll needed for falling damage. And traps saved for half-damage will still whittle you down.

What you DO get with high level characters is the ability of PCs to operate far more independently of one another. No longer do you NEED to huddle together in groups of five to seven, pooling your resources and abilities. One high level PC...solo or accompanied by a pair of trusted henchmen...can make their own forays into forbidden cairns and tombs. And often they'll WANT to go solo: acting first to acquire some rare magic item or coveted spell scroll before another PC can acquire the same. As PCs become high level movers and shakers, it's not unusual to see more inter-player conflict as rivalries develop...which can work, sometimes, but isn't conducive for the long-term health of one's campaign.

[which is why I play with a strict, no-PVP policy these days]

But even with the ability to operate as independent agents, high level PCs can do MORE working together than apart. Yeah, invading the Demonweb Pits is probably a bad idea anyway, but it's a lot easier when you've got five or six stalwarts and as many lieutenants at your back. I've never run megadungeons myself, but I'd imagine you want as many spell batteries as possible when your group is pushing into the 6th (and deeper) levels below ground.

Regardless, in running a campaign that includes high level characters, it is important for the DM to provide carrots for the players to keep them engaged. GENERALLY SPEAKING, the world building by itself is the most important thing, because for long-term satisfaction, players must feel like they are having substantive impact on the imaginary environment and that is ONLY possible with a solid foundational setting. 

"Can I start a thieves guild?" Sure. "Can I run a tavern/brothel?" Yep. "Can I marry the prince, have him secretly killed and become Queen of the country?" Why not? All these things and more should be on the table for the enterprising player...and how they accomplish these goals IS the thing that becomes the adventure. High level characters have more grandiose dreams: my character, for example, wanted to become a deity and usurp Hades spot as the God of Death and the Underworld. It never happened for him (duh), but it was fun trying to figure out how one might go about doing it. As a DM of a long-running campaign with players who have put in the time and effort and earned their high levels you should expect...and be prepared!...for players to want to do more than look for the next 20-chamber labyrinth.

Because they'll want more. They always do. 

This is why the vast majority of the (very few) "high level" adventure modules fall into the range of fairly bad to nigh unplayable. High level characters are not only defined by their increased abilities and extraordinary gear, but by the relationship they've built over time with the campaign world. The constant interactions...necessary to achieve a high character level...over time embeds the character and builds them a place in the world's structure. I'm not just talking about strongholds and hideouts, but the relationships they build with the fantasy people (NPCs) of the world.

For example: the characters, mid-level (5th - 7th or thereabouts) get beat up pretty badly in some poorly thought-out venture. They have at least one or two beloved characters in need of resurrection, but they are far from the nearest city that might have a fundable patriarch (too far to arrive within the time limit of a raise dead spell). However, it just so happens that there is a rather seriously powerful druid (L13+ nearby) who is friendly to adventurers that are "forest helpers" (or non-orcs or whatever) who can give 'em some healing. 

And so they build a relationship with the archdruid (or whatever) and this EXTENDS their operating range as they can now push deeper into the wilderness, and...

Damn. Just got a call from my aunt. My 93 year old grandmother appears to be on her way to joining my mother in the Great Beyond. Ugh.

Sorry to cut the post short. The family and I are driving to Montana. I'll check in later.

Sand Zones, Star Scepters, And Pharoid's Legacy

SO...looking back over my old blog posts, I thought for sure I'd mentioned my love/fascination with Micronauts somewhere. Clearly this isn't the case. I suppose another dive into my personal history is necessary.

My earliest memories of Micronauts are, of course, the toys which for several years (I'm guessing 1977 to 1980 based on release dates) would inexplicably appear beneath my Christmas tree on Christmas morning.

I say "inexplicably" because (as far as I can remember) I never asked Santa (or my parents) for a Micronaut toy ever (at least, not till the very final series) and they were largely off my "kid radar;" I didn't see ads on TV for them (Saturday morning cartoons had not yet started marketing toys via serial tie-ins to children), my cousins/friends didn't own them (so far as I knew), nor did I ever see them in the stores (not that I frequented these regularly as a small child).  In later years, following the first batch's appearance on Christmas morning, my brother and I, now familiar with them, would sometimes pore over the Sears "wishbook," divvying up which Micronauts each of us would eventually own (as we did with ALL toys appearing in such catalogues)...but we never went so far as to actually LIST these, so far as I can recall.

Typical Micronaut
Antagonist

As a matter of fact, this led to tears (on my part) one Christmas morning when I received a Galactic Command Center and my brother received a Star Wars "landspeeder." While the Micronauts base was, by far, the more interesting and useful toy of the two gifts, all my young mind could process was the fact that my brother had received a Star Wars spaceship...and I had not. Where was my tie fighter? Where was my X-wing? Ah, well, I did get over it (even the same day) as children do, and while I have immense affection for all the Star Wars toys and action figures I received over the years of my childhood, the Micronauts, in retrospect, are far more interesting. There are many times I've thought that I'd wished I'd been a bit older when they'd been released so that I'd appreciated them more.

Then again, if I had been older would they have gotten so tightly woven into my subconscious imagination?

If you had asked me, as a child, which was my favorite Micronaut toy EVER, I would probably cite the last one received: centaurus, with his laser crossbow and glow-in-the-dark (removable!) brain. That's a figure I absolutely wanted and asked for...even saw it on a store toy rack before Christmas. And even today, it's still solid...one of the coolest action figures I remember owning. But two other figures stand out as being exceptionally loved and played with by Yours Truly. One was the (original) Acroyear, whose dagger I managed to retain for years, despite being of the age when one loses accessories right and left. The other was Pharoid and his Time Chamber which fascinated me endlessly. I took it with me to Christmas morning Mass (the only toy I ever treated with such reverence) and recall spending long hours just...fiddling...with the thing. Opening the tomb. Putting him in the tomb. Taking him out. Repeat. What was the story of this guy?

Such a weird toy.

[if I had to guess, the Egyptian motif probably had much to do with the fascination. The King Tut exhibit traveled to Seattle in 1978, and was another momentous experience in my formative years]

But regardless of childhood toys, it was the Marvel comics written by Bill Mantlo that really cemented my love of the Micronauts.  I am 99.9% sure I started reading Micronauts with issue #34 (circa 1981) in the middle of the whole "Enigma Force" storyline (guest starring Doctor Strange!). I mean, talk about starting with a bang: mysticism, magic, super science, alien species, drama, betrayal...and, of course, a murderous band of gunslinging adventurer-heroes...all in the desert environment ("Sand Zone") of Aegyptia, with its towering tomb monuments, said to house the giant ancestors of the Microversians.

In addition, there was also Pharoid and Acroyear, Force Commander and Baron Karza. 

Well, whatever. I collected more than a few of the comics during its 50-some issue runs, including several of the back issues...mostly ones that were Micronauts-specific rather than crossovers with the X-Men and such. See, I wanted stories steeped in the lore of the specific IP, strange as it was, weird as it was...and, often, quite "dark" in nature (considering the concept's origin as a children's toy line). Some of those body bank stories...brr, frighteningly gruesome. A lot of body horror in Ye Old Micronauts, even the first issue of "The New Voyages" (the last issue I ever purchased, summer of '84) when protagonist Commander Rann was forced to sever his own hand at the wrist. 

[and people wonder why I like to make player characters suffer...]

Okay, okay, enough with the nostalgia: why am I writing about the Micronauts? Well, the last few days I've been working with the Desert of Desolation module series (I3: Pharaoh, I4: Oasis of the White Palm, and I5: Lost Tomb of Martek), seeing if there is some way, somehow, that I can twist them into something fun and functional for use in my own D&D campaign.  After all, they ARE just sitting there on my shelf, and I have fond memories of them as a child. Plus, they seem to be...more or less...in the proper "level range" for my current batch of players.

Mm. I won't lie. They're all pretty bad. Or, maybe, "inconsistent" is the operative word. Take Martek, for example: it's got some pretty cool ideas in it. The Cursed Garden. The Abyss. The Moebius Tower. But it's a real stinker of an adventure...just really poorly designed and fatally flawed in several gross ways (the Skysea is AWESOME...but it also one of the easiest TPKs I've ever seen in a TSR module). As well, it is just...missing...stuff. Things to do. Monsters to fight. Places to explore...in a non-linear, nor railroad fashion. There are several "here's a place that the DM can develop...so long as it doesn't PCs too long from the story being told" instances. Why the heck not? Because we're in such a hurry to get onto the next story? 

[probably...considering the absolute dearth of requisite treasure levels in these modules]

SO...interesting concepts/ideas, poor-to-terrible execution...and as with my analysis of I6: Ravenloft, I find that a LOT of this adventure would work just fine for LOWER LEVEL CHARACTERS. There is really nothing "mid-level" about this adventure, save that all the Hit Dice of encounters have been pumped up...to no good end.

FOR EXAMPLE: You don't need these unique "noble class" djinni and efreeti...a normal 10 HD efreet with max hit points would work JUST FINE for characters of levels 3 to 5 (remember also that the MM specifically says there are noble djinni with the same HD as an efreet). You don't need all these 4 hit dice dervishes and air lancers...just make them standard dervishes and nomads of the MM. And these new undead? They're just 8 and 10 hit dice NOTHINGS that cause fear and hit for 1d10 points of damage. Just what the hell are we playing at Hickman? It's not like the treasure count justifies a party of 6th - 8th level!

And remember that whole post about how much water you need to carry? In AD&D (the edition for which these adventures were...ostensibly...written) a cleric receives the create water spell at 1st level. By 5th level (the minimum suggested level for I3: Pharaoh), a cleric with a 16 WIS can cast five such spells per day, each casting conjuring 20 gallons of water per day...enough for some 25 humans. As with my review of I6: Ravenloft, it appears that Hickman's design assumptions are based on an earlier rule set (in OD&D, only a 6th level bishop can create water...and doing so leaves the character without the ability to neutralize poison, cure serious wounds, or cast protection from evil 10' radius). 

[side note: when I ran the Desert of Desolation series in my youth, the party tackled it withOUT a cleric, making the adventure considerably more difficult]

*ahem*

SO...the modules are crap, but they're crap with interesting bits. They're railroads and poorly stocked, but they've got a bunch of maps that ain't terrible. So when I think of how to fix them...to take their interesting bits, and make them both playable and (if possible) more interesting...I keep coming back to the Micronauts and those images from my youth: Giant, upright sarcophagus-tombs. Ancient tech/magic lost centuries before. Techno-bedouins riding giant, domesticated "ostras" (think: axebeak) against horse-headed "centauri" (re-skinned centaurs) in tribal warfare. And somewhere, lost in the sands, a laboratory-temple housing the ghost of Baron Karza, waiting to be resurrected and resume his conqueror's ways.

Lots of ways to spin and 'skin this thing. And probably a lot of ways to do it in a way that doesn't require a large group of mid-level characters. A post-apocalyptic, desert wasteland concealing generational secrets buried beneath riddles, legends, and sand. Sand and blood and treasure. Dig it.

Who needs "Sambayan air lancers"
and "Thune dervishes?"

Jeffro's D&D

This is a post about the style of play being promulgated by the #BrOSR.

I first became aware of Jeffro Johnson and his particular method of D&D play about a year ago (circa July 2021).  Read through his blog, picked up his Appendix N book, had a little friendly back-and-forth with fellow BrO BDubs (on his blog). Meant to write a post or two about the whole thing MONTHS ago, but, well, time got away from me.

But then a couple days ago, I had the chance to watch Aaron the Pedantic's video interview of Jeffro and James Streissand and I found that I had a few thoughts to share, regarding this...rather interesting...version of old school D&D play.

• RE Appendix N and retracing roots: I haven't finished Jeffro's book (it sits on my nightstand along with several others), but I've read large sections of it and skimmed others. In addition to providing general overviews of the Appendix N books I haven't read, there are some good insights into certain books impact on the D&D game. There are also (at times) some minor diatribes and obnoxiousness that I find grating, and some "points" that I find a bit wide of the mark. Still, just as I find the main value of the DMG to be in its insight into Gygax's mind (that is, his approach to the game...which one may or may not disagree with), I think going back and reviewing this literature can give one an understanding of how that mind (and, thus, the game) was formed. It's a starting point from which to evolve and build.

[hmm...I'm probably not explaining that right, and will receive a lot of complaints from all sides. However, that's not the point of this post. I guess I'd just say: I find it useful to understand the origins of things in order to contextualize certain ideas, even if those ideas were larger (and later) influenced more by the context of how they functioned as a matter of play. Understanding that context can determine how imperative or intrinsic they are to the overall concept/paradigm. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that these things are sacrosanct...and this point also applies to the next bullet]

• RE the Value of playing AD&D RAW: I have almost zero quibbles with Jeffro's reasons for playing AD&D "by the book." I think the points he makes regarding this (in his interview with Aaron) are pretty spot-on. As I wrote myself (a couple weeks back): the more I play, the more I simply default to the book instruction. Even his explanations of why to use, for example, player grading with regard to training time makes sense: it encourages a particular style/method of play. THAT being said: I'll reiterate that I find SOME of these rules to be A) crutches that are unneeded when proper world building is applied, and B) detrimental to player autonomy that (again) are unnecessary in a richly developed world. Factional play based on alignment, for example, is a limiting and rather elementary approach to determining motivation. It's possible to have a deeper world than that (especially given an adult mindset). I think some of these things, played long enough, can naturally melt away. Still, similar to having an understanding of Appendix N, it's good to have an understanding of the original rules (hopefully based on actual play) BEFORE discarding/replacing them.

• RE running your campaign with 1:1 time keeping ("JeffroGaxian Time Keeping"): First, I'll state the obvious: it is clear that Jeffro is running a wonderfully fun, kick-ass campaign that players are enjoying. He's excited, they're excited, everyone's feeling happy and fulfilled. That's wonderful...keep on keeping on, Bros. Now the less obvious: I think Jeffro is pretty clearly incorrect to state this is the fashion D&D is intended to be played in, or was played in during the 70s. He's made some gross misinterpretations of the AD&D text (and other, early wargaming sources) which are easily cleared up by checking them against the original text of OD&D (from which the bulk of AD&D rules are derived). The section on TIME is the last main portion of LBB3 (before the Afterword, pages 35&36) and states:

As the campaign goes into full swing it is probable that there will be various groups going every which way and all at different time periods. It is suggested that a record of each player be kept, the referee checking off each week as it is spent. Reconcile the passage of time thus:

Dungeon expedition = 1 week

Wilderness adventure = 1 move = 1 day

1 week of actual time = 1 week of game time

The time for dungeon adventures considers only preparations and a typical, one day descent into the pits.

The time for Wilderness expeditions would include days of rest and recuperation.

Actual time would not be counted off for players "out" on a Wilderness adventure, but it would for those sequestered in their dens, hidey-holes, keeps, castles, etc., as well as for those in the throes of some expedition in the underworld.

TIME in the D&D (and AD&D) game is, as has been pointed out by those from The Old Days is meant to be elastic.   When Frank Mentzer states he was in "training jail" for a couple weeks and had to play a different character in Gygax's campaign, I wouldn't see that as a literal need to wait two (real world) weeks for playing a particular character; rather, that's two (or three or four) game weeks that need to be waited out...weeks that could be passed in a hand wave of time during, for example, travel from one town to the next. To the player, of course, it would still seem like a penalty...if the rest of the group was getting to delve some dungeon during the time (in game weeks) that the character was out doing "down-time" activity. But the impetus here is on keeping careful records of character action within the campaign (in order to order/structure where folks are and account for any anomalies/discrepancies...like those outlined in the DMG). 

Using 1:1 time in ALL matters, makes the careful tracking of time UN-necessary; "Let's see it's July 8th and it you want to rest for two weeks and then train for three? Okay, we'll see that PC again on August 11th." Certainly that's easier than tracking individuals by day (as I interpret the DMG outlining as the correct procedure), and especially easier if your campaign has a large number of characters. But that's what we did back in the day, taking the HARDER road...and without the advantage of computer spreadsheets. It's what I still do (albeit with spreadsheets)...but fortunately the number of characters in our campaign is small (six at the moment) and they're still in the EARLY stages of their careers (thus adventuring together).

With regard to the "best to use 1 actual day = 1 game day when no play is happening" quote on DMG page 37, I've always interpreted "no play" as nothing going on: PCs aren't on adventures, they're not traveling, they're not doing anything "game related" (like training, spell research, hiring experts, etc.). The party's out of the dungeon, back at the village tavern, and our group doesn't meet/play for a couple weeks or a month...okay, then, a couple weeks (or a month) have passed in the campaign. But time spent on game stuff is game time and game time is elastic. Without elastic time, I would argue that Jeffro & Co. is neglecting a LARGE part of the AD&D game, namely the deeper delves that are possible (expeditions into the Underdark, massive castle/tomb structures, journeys to other planes of existence...or other planets/dimensions). I'm not saying what they're doing ain't fun...I'm just saying there's more fun to be had.

• RE "Patron Play" (giving PCs high level NPCs to run):  When I started reading about Jeffro's experiments with (what he calls) "Patron Play," I didn't really grok what he was doing or how. After hearing him discuss it on the aforementioned video, I now have a better grasp of what he's talking about: basically, he's shortcutting what would be a normal part of the long-term (organically grown) AD&D campaign. On page 7 of the PHB, Gygax writes:

Players will add characters to their initial adventurer as the milieu expands so that each might actually have several characters, each involved in some separate and distinct adventure form, busily engaged in the game at the same moment of "Game Time". This allows participation by many players in games that are substantially different from game to game as dungeon, metropolitan, and outdoor settings are rotated from playing to playing. And perhaps a war between players will be going on (with battles actually fought out on the tabletop with miniature figures) one night, while on the next, characters of these two contending players are helping each other to survive somewhere in a wilderness.

What occurs organically in play...and what I experienced in the multi-year campaigns of my youth...is that player characters that achieve great success (i.e. achieve high level, build strongholds, acquire followers) become the faction leaders and 'patrons' of the campaign setting. This does not mean they are retired from play...far from it! Generally they become the movers-and-shakers, hatching their own plots, pursuing their own schemes/goals, raising their own armies of conquests...and, at the same time, starting new, young characters who would be adventuring in small delves, or acting as agents of these powerful scions of the realm. Most players in our old campaign had multiple characters: Jocelyn had half-a-dozen, Matt had five, Scott had (at least) five. One or two PCs of each player were powerful figures with all the trappings and ambitions of such...the rest were minor characters, started because someone wanted to play a Drow or illusionist or whatever. Minor players (i.e. players who didn't play regularly, like Crystal, Jason, and Rob) would only have one character, but some of these were still high enough level to be factions of their own (like Jason's thief guildmaster) or had dedicated henchmen (like Crystal's fighter, Tangina). 

While the presence of these power brokers didn't preclude "normal" adventuring (my co-DM and I still ran modules, including Tsojcanth, Ravenloft, and the Demonweb Pits), much of the campaign action was driven by these high level characters, their agendas and their rivalries. My own character...a high level bard with no stronghold...often acted a wandering monkey wrench / force of destruction (something like Elric in the Young Kingdoms, perhaps...but with more dying and resurrection)...and there were many times when some characters would stumble across the evidence of another (player) character's passing army or the remains of a crucified rival, or one group would plan to assassinate another character at his wedding. Things were happening all the time, at multiple levels/layers, all while being (semi-)coordinated between two teen Dungeon Masters. It IS a fun way to play...but it is also prone to a lot of inter-player conflict and PVP issues which, at this particular time (and for many reasons), I'm disinclined to allow in my campaign. 

Then again, my players haven't yet reached the "mover/shaker" levels of experience...that critical mass of self-sustaining campaigning, that I was trying to explain the other day. Jeffro doesn't have this issue: instead, he's distributed high level non-player characters of his setting amongst his players. Which is...admittedly...one way to get to the same place. I don't mind this approach (terribly), but right now I'm trying to train up young players in the art of AD&D. Different level ranges have different "feels" to them: a 5th level character doesn't sweat the same encounter as a 1st level character, and a 10th level character looks at 5th level challenge much the same.  Likewise, the goals and objectives of play change at the various tiers of play: a first level character isn't going to get as much out of the knocking over the Sultan's treasure vault, while such a score is EXACTLY what a 9th level fighter could use to fund her army and add a curtain wall to her stronghold. 12th level magic-users aren't (usually) going to find coveted 6th level spell scrolls lying around hobgoblin lairs.

Dungeons & Dragons absolutely works...and rocks!...on multiple levels of play simultaneously, just as Jeffro describes.  And it is a style of play that probably seems very foreign and alien sounding to folks who grew up with D&D post-DragonLance era (with a story centered on one small group of heroes), or the computer RPG era (limited by its medium to a single party), or post-WotC era D&D (where each "campaign" represents a single story arc to be played out prior to players creating new characters for the "next campaign"). My own D&D play started years prior to those eras and, over time, evolved into something very much like what Jeffro (or Arneson, in The First Fantasy Campaign) describes. However, done "organically" (i.e. without just handing our various NPC faction leaders as "patrons"), this evolution takes years of sustained, committed play to develop. Maybe that sounds like a long time...but remember that D&D is a game that can last your whole life; it's okay to put in the time to do it. In fact, I personally believe it makes for a richer campaign, as the participants have a greater depth of care and commitment to something they've grown and developed themselves.

All right, that's all my thoughts on what Jeffro and the BrOSR is doing as far as their game goes. As far as some of their other stuff (cultivating a particular brand of hostility), I won't say much more than I think it's detrimental...both to the hobby and to what they're trying to promote. But...well, that's all I'll say.

I am now officially back from vacation (pulled into the driveway last night). It was very enjoyable and restful, but I'm glad to be home.

: )