2nd Edition: The Birth Of Customization

Had a reader post on an old post of mine, asking if...with regard to starting a D&D campaign focused on adventure gaming...I would recommend "hacking" 2E (a system the commenter is familiar with) or instead learning 1E. After all, it's not much more than replacing 2E's advancement system with a "gold for x.p." model, right?

Wrong.

2nd Edition AD&D is the birthplace of what I call the customization (or "build") culture. 2E is the first edition of AD&D to support...through its systems...the ability to generate unique and divergent characters. These systems include weapon specialization, schools of magic, priests domains, and rogues' allocation of "skill percentage" points, not to mention non-weapon proficiencies (i.e. skills). Even before the advent of "kits" and the Players Options books (what some refer to as "AD&D 2.5"), 2nd edition was providing players with methods of building characters that were special. Even the methods of ability score generation offered a primitive point allocation variant ("Method VI" of the 2E PHB).

Contrast that with first edition AD&D, in which character creation is a matter of rolling and placing one's ability scores, picking a class-race combination for a set of options, and then buying equipment, generally based on the character's (limited) number of weapon proficiencies. That's it, as far as "choice" goes. Heck, even the spells in a magic-user's spellbook are randomly generated. Pretty quick set-up to get down to play, all things considered.

Why is 2E's customization bad? That's the question that all 2E (and later edition) aficionados are bound to ask. Isn't the ability to create ultra-specific, unique characters a "good" thing? Isn't variety the "spice of life?" Don't we want to give players MORE options, not less? Didn't YOU, JB, say that one of the problems with running a BASIC D&D system over an Advanced one was the LACK of variety for sustaining long-term play interest?

Here's the skinny:

When I sit down to run a game of Dungeons & Dragons, I want the players focused and engaged on the task at hand...specifically, facing the world/adventure, working together to further their common goal of surviving and thriving in a hostile fantasy world.  The character is nothing more (or less) than a player's vehicle for exploring the game environment. 

Customization promotes an inward-facing disposition. Excessive options for character choice encourages players to focus on themselves, their own individual needs and wants, distracting from the objectives of play. For the players, the more choices presented for character "builds," the more that attention is drawn away from the exploration/experience of game play, focusing players (instead) on the 'game-within-a-game' of character construction. 

Character building is not the game.

Couple THAT with an advancement mechanic in 2E that provides different, conflicting objectives of reward-based play among PCs of different class category, and you have the makings of a game that is both divisive and narcissistic. Certainly it is both those over the long-term, and (in my admittedly limited 2E experience) fairly quickly from the start of play.

The potential for making special and unique players also produces ATTACHMENT in players towards their characters...another unwanted development. Attachment is a bad thing. It leads to hard feelings when "bad things" happen to a character. It leads to DMs "fudging" dice rolls (something that leads to a loss of trust in a DM and a complete loss of integrity in a game) in order to "save" favorites...or to forestall bitching-moaning from players. Of course, with the extra burden of a more detailed character creation process, fudging or "dialing down" challenge may already be on the table, because no one wants to wait around for a player to create a new, detailed, uniquely customized character...50 page backstory or not.

Later editions have, unfortunately, only compounded the problem of customization, adding MORE options and MORE choices for the creation of even more "unique" and specialized characters. Feats. Skills. Prestige classes. Class "tracks." Class "builds." Point-buys. For some players, character creation and character development IS the game. It is no wonder that the soap opera style of play favored (and supported) under the 5.5E rules is so focused on creating drama and side-stories and 'character arcs.' 

The game, as currently promulgated, ain't about "adventuring." 

So, yeah: the advice I gave to the reader was to skip any attempt at "fixing" 2E and (instead) just diving into 1E. It's more than just the divisive experience point system that is an issue...it's the whole paradigm shift to character customization which MORE THAN DRAGONLANCE is the root cause of the game's fall from a fun game of fantasy adventure to amateur improv night at the kitchen table.  You don't think there are enough PC "options" in the 1E PHB? There are some 50 different class/race combinations (including bards and multi-class characters)...how many different options do your five to seven players require?

Focus on the GAME, not the character. Character is not the game. Character is the vehicle for playing the game. AD&D is great for people who want pulse-pounding adventure. Why waste that just so you can show off your "original character?"

Woo-hoo! Look at me! I'm
soooo special with my
longsword specialization and
my horsemanship NWP. Right?!

"Dear JB" Mailbag #50

I think I can do one more of these before 2026...man, these were nearly one-third of my posts in '25...

Dear JB:

Honestly I just need help trying to decide between AD&D 1e or 2e. I like both games, and different aspects of both. I lean more towards 1e but think 2e is easier to use at the table. 

What are y’all’s preference?

1E or 2E

Dear Questioner:

I prefer first edition AD&D. That is the short answer to your final question.

But you want more than just my "preference;" you want "help trying to decide" between the two editions. I know there are quite a few people out there who, if asked, would simply suggest you combine BOTH editions into one Franken-brew mash-up that you can live with...but I assume you've already considered this option and discarded it, else you'd have no reason to write.

SO...you want me to go all "Edition Wars" in print?

Here's the level truth, friend: beginning with 1E, every edition of D&D was purposefully designed. Regardless of whether I (or anyone else) says otherwise, there are reasons each rule set includes the instructional text it has. And let me further add THIS: when I (or anyone else) tells you that one ruleset works better or best in comparison to other editions, what we mean is "better" or "best" for ME. For MY sensibilities.

Got that? I dislike 2E, but I dislike it because it fundamentally changes aspects of game play in a way that the game then fails to fulfill the promise of what it was in the version I learned, thus failing to meet the expectations that were instilled in me from the game that initially introduced me to Dungeons & Dragons.

These expectations are no small things, and is why D&D gamers tend to be most loyal to whatever edition they first grokked and that first EXCITED them about D&D.  IF (for example) you were first drawn to D&D because it provided you with the means to tell epic stories of heroism (a la 2E) with a more streamlined ruleset, then guess what? 2E may well be your huckleberry, and you'll find 1E's draconian nuance as off-putting as 3E's micro-managed construction set.

What is it that you want from your D&D game? This is the fundamental question you have to ask (and answer) for yourself. You write that you "lean towards 1E?" Why? What is it about first edition that tickles your fancy? Half-orc assassins? Wandering harlots? Obfuscated combat procedures? Random disease and parasite tables?  I mean, sure...what's not to like?

; )

Each edition is designed to meet certain types of play objective. I'm not talking about objectives like "game goals" (finding treasure or creating stories)...I'm talking about the STYLE of play that occurs at the table. Each edition of D&D creates a very different gaming experience when run in the manner in which it was intended. The play of By The Book second edition is DIFFERENT from first edition despite 2E's "backwards compatibility" with 1E materials and surface similarities. Customization of characters (specialist wizards, adjustable skilled rogues, themed clerics, "kits," etc.) focus players on their characters; advancement systems based on profession encourage players to have different priorities IN PLAY. That makes the 2E game VERY UNLIKE first edition AD&D, despite the inclusion of similar spells, monsters, and terminology. It is a different way of playing, not "better" or "worse," but DIFFERENT.

And that difference is going to hold different levels of appeal for different people. For me, it holds little appeal...but I can only speak for myself. Other people have different expectations of play.

SO...it would behoove you to determine what are YOUR priorities and expectations of play. "Easier to use at the table" is a dumb reason for choosing a system...plenty of editions of D&D have simpler systems than 2E if that's the main thing driving you! But the fact of the matter is this: you can get good at ANY edition's system with practice and dedication...or, what some might call TIME and EFFORT. I find first edition AD&D to be quite easy to use at the table (certainly a lot easier than editions that require me to create "battle maps" for every encounter)...but, as I wrote in an earlier post, the process of learning AD&D took a few years.  For me, I'd say it was worth the trouble. Then again, back in the min-80s I had no other choice (there was only ONE version of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons prior to 1989)!

Anyway, reading over this missive, I can guess I'm probably not giving you what you want. Here are what the two editions in question have to offer:

• 1E: cooperative, tactical game play, with a robust rule system that encourages long-term (extended) campaign play and world building with attention to "real world" considerations like economic stresses and political/military movements, while still providing fantasy escapism on an undreamt of scale, supported by system.
• 2E: character customization, prioritization on "story" or "meaning" with focus on the individual, generally of a "good" or "wholesome" nature (I think it's easier to make 1E clean and shiny than it is to make 2E grim and dirty), rewarding groups who are "on the same page," thematically. Unclear how extended game play is supported by system, but short-term thematic play is definitely supported in 2E.

You'll note that neither of these descriptions say anything about "ease of play" at the table. Figure out which one you want to run/play and then learn the rules (which were designed to facilitate their objectives of play). Don't be lazy; the job of being a Dungeon Master entails a lot of work, so you might as well start on the right foot by studying up the system that best delivers the game you want.

Sincerely,

JB

YOU Are The Story

Jeez Louise...so many topics to get to (none of which are OGL-related, thank goodness!) and so little time. I'm trying to write a damn blog post about an orc (not just any old orc, but a SPECIFIC orc), and then THIS comes up. Sheesh.

But it's (kind of) important. 

So, Adam (Barking Alien, for those in the know) posted a comment on my last post (Boring Old D&D) saying:

"It's posts like this that confuse me in regards to what it is you enjoy and why you enjoy it. You don't go in for the Story, Narrative driven games but 'it's not just about killing monster and taking stuff'. How does that work? 

"How do you have no story but it's not just a video game with paper and dice?"

For the record, this is (perhaps) the thousandth time BA and I have danced this little dance. He is very much of the (now old) New School of RPG game play...the kind that came out of Dragonlance and 2E-era D&D, the kind that in the '90s led to White Wolf games like Vampire and all its many imitators. Games that wanted to explore story and genre until birthing (and being killed by) the rise of the indie, Story Now (or Narrativist-oriented) games. For those of us who've been around since 1981 (and followed the evolution of the hobby), its pretty easy to recognize the foibles of 5E D&D as the second coming (and rebranding/marketing) of 2E AD&D. 

[that's probably a whole 'nother post. What'd I say? Too many topics these days. However, here's a hint: WotC/Hasbro's quest to "more monetize" the D&D brand has direct parallels with post-1985 TSR]

ANYway. Adam is no 'spring chicken.' He's been playing RPGs nearly as long (or perhaps longer) than I have. He came in with Basic...Holmes, if I remember correctly...long before Dragonlance. Certainly long before 2E. One might jump to the question, "Hey, why isn't this guy on the same page as JB? He's an old geezer...doesn't he have the same sensibilities?" Just remember: the story-centric "role playing" that followed Wargamers Gygax/Arneson initial creation was created by folks OLDER than us. The Hickmans are OLDER than me...they were married adults in their 20s when they were writing epic Dragonlance modules.  This is not an issue of age, generation, or "wargamer background."

[in case anyone's wondering, I don't have a wargaming background]

The way I see it, the problem here is one of confusion and misunderstanding. There is a (LARGE) segment of the hobby that sees RPGs as vehicles for "telling stories." That "telling stories" is the OBJECTIVE of play. "This game [insert name] allows you and your friends to tell stories, just like [insert favorite book, film, or genre one wishes to emulate]."

Before going any further, in this post you need to BREAK that presumption. Even if the game instructions SAY that's the objective of play, you need to nip that right in the bud because there's a good chance that A) the game writer had a poor understanding of what was going on, AND/OR B) was simply emulating prior games description of 'what an RPG is' when they wrote it.

BREAK THAT PRESUMPTION. DO NOT PRESUME THE GAME IS DESIGNED TO TELL STORIES.

Okay. Are we clear? Blank slate everyone? Now we can advance.

There ARE games on the market that are specifically designed to tell stories. Once Upon A Time is a good example. Story Cubes are another. The Adventures of Baron Munchausen is yet another and also includes some elements of 'role-playing' in it. 

There are ALSO many RPGs (and pseudo-RPGs...like Fiasco) that have been published over the years that have the objective of telling stories, using recognizable RPG elements, that can somewhat succeed presuming everyone is on board with genre emulation. The Dying Earth RPG. My Life With Master. New Fire: Temikamatl. OrkWorld (maybe). Dust Devils. Prince Valiant. Maybe Amber Diceless. Christian Aldridge's Maelstrom (i.e. Story Engine) The degree to which the telling stories is supported by the game's mechanics (rules/systems) varies between games, but they are GENERALLY supportive of creating stories...in their particular genre...and they don't do much else. 

[there are other examples...really, too many to list]

Then there are...the other games. Games that are based on D&D concepts, mechanics, and play dynamics. "Role-playing games" they are called...games run and moderated by a game master while the other participants play the role of a single character. Games with explicitly stated (or else assumed) objectives of "telling a story." Of creating a narrative with a point to it. Because OTHERWISE the act of play is deemed to have no point or reason to play. 

Or, to use Adam's words, "How do you have no story but it's not just a video game with dice?"

This is coming at the game from the wrong angle. It is starting with the presumption that playing the game must be about something (it is), about something meaningful (it is), like creating a narrative with a plot a climax and heroic...or at least worthy...protagonists (it is not).  

Dungeons & Dragons was...originally...never about creating stories in the way an actual story telling game is designed. That doesn't mean stories didn't result from the antics of the players, stories that might emulate much of the genre books that inspired D&D (i.e. the infamous Appendix N). But any story creation was the by-product of play, not the point of play. The point of playing Dungeons & Dragons was playing Dungeons & Dragons.  And any textual statements to the contrary should be chalked up as either:

1. a failure to understand/grasp the appeal of a very new, very unusual game by the original authors, AND/OR
2. blatant lies and/or terrible attempts at marketing a game that was poorly understood even by its own publishers.

Later RPGs tried to take the "magic" of D&D into their own genres, settings, with tweaks to the system (as TSR did with Top Secret, Boot Hill, Gamma World, Star Frontiers, etc.). But for a number of reasons (which I might get to in a later post) these were LESS successful...and not just because people prefer elves and swords and magic. 

[like I said...needs its own post]

But SOME folks really still wanted elves and swords and magic but with something MORE. For the Hickmans, they had very specific design goals: they wanted objectives that weren't limited to pillaging and looting, they wanted an "intriguing story" that was "intricately woven into play itself," and they wanted scenarios that could be finished in an evening's play. When the Hickmans were hired by TSR, they incorporated these design priorities into their adventures and when those adventures were successful, the design priorities of the (for profit) company shifted to match.

And all the imitators of D&D followed suit.

Again, realize that creating a story was NEVER the "point of play" for the D&D game. The systems (i.e. rules) it has are there to facilitate playing D&D, not to facilitate "telling stories." People like playing D&D (it's why the game is so successful...and will be explained in that later post), just like people enjoy playing baseball or soccer despite there being no real "point" to the game. The point of play is the play of the game. You are not creating stories...you ARE the story. 

Some of the biggest name designers in the story-oriented RPG industry never understood this. Here's Mark Rein-Hagen, designer of Vampire: The Masquerade:

"I have always been in love with roleplaying. Slap-happy mad over it. Ever since that first Sunday afternoon when my father and I sat down with the church intern and played Dungeons & Dragons, it has been my passion....

"In short order we'd created our characters and begun our adventure. I rolled up a Dwarf and my father made a Cleric...we were prepared to encounter all manner of fell beasts and sinister mysteries, but not to be caught up by it the way we were. The adventure was called In Search of the Unknown. How apropos that title was I was not to realize until much later.

"After a few hours of play we found ourselves hopelessly lost due to a magical portal...(description of adventure follows)...I was so excited that I couldn't sit still whenever the gamemaster rolled the dice...and when we finally got out of the dungeon with our treasure and our lives intact, I raced around the house screaming with relief and exaltation.

"It was wonderful. It was exhausting. It was miles beyond any other experience I've ever had.

"In that afternoon I was transformed, elevated to a new plane. I had a profound, almost spiritual experience. My entire goal in roleplaying has been to once again visit that mystical garden in which I so enjoyed myself, and discover a means by which I might remain there...it is the sort of thing that changes a life.

"But the trouble is, it didn't happen every time I played. In fact, it didn't happen for a very long time...(long description of seven years of gaming, going from dungeon crawling to wilderness crawling to PVP to min-maximing munchkinism)...sure we had fun, but it wasn't exhilarating, it wasn't transforming, and it wasn't what I really wanted....

"Eventually, it grew altogether too wearisome, and I began to roleplay less and less. Roleplaying became a hollow experience, a sad reenactment of the rites of youth. 

"Then it suddenly happened again, while playing Runequest and exploring the ruins of Parvis. An experience just as intense and transforming as the first. All of a sudden I realized what I had been missing, and I was horrified. A skilled and intense gamemaster had brought back the magic.

"These two experiences are what, for me at least, define what roleplaying is about. Is is what attracts me, and continues to compel me."

[all excerpt taken from The Players Guide for V:TM, essay: "A Once Forgotten Dream," copyright 1991]

That's not the end of Rein-Hagen's essay, as he goes on to explain his thoughts about how to create that exciting, transformative experience in your own games. He arrives at the wrong (practical) conclusion despite having the right answers. He gives four simple points to follow, none of which require one to play a "deeply personal," "intense," "story focused game" like Vampire: The Masquerade:

1. Make you mind as open and receptive as you possibly can
2. Believe in the world and scenario created by the game master
3. Identify with your character (the character is your avatar for interacting with the world)
4. Exercise (grow/develop) your imagination

Of course, all that is just player-facing advice (this is the advice section in the PLAYERS Guide, after all). The part that he glossed over...or ignored/forgot/discarded...was the most important revelation of his essay: All of a sudden I realized what I had been missing, and I was horrified. A skilled and intense gamemaster had brought back the magic.

It's not about creating a story...it's about experiencing the fantasy. And to do that requires a skilled, intense, and committed GM...and players who are open, receptive, and committed to operating in the GM's world. When THAT happens...whether you're playing D&D, RuneQuest, Vampire, whatever...THEN you're getting the point of play. The point of play is the experience of playing. YOU are the story.

: )

"Story Awards"

[file this under the "bashing someone's edition" category]

Comments on my Wednesday post had me going back and forth a bit with Dan regarding 2nd Edition AD&D and its reward mechanics...so much so that I had to go back to my battered copy of the 2E DMG (I keep one on hand for reference) and try parsing out the system yet again. 

First, a note on my experience with 2E: it ain't much. I quit playing AD&D around 1988 after my original gaming group "broke up." Met some kids in my high school who still played, but A) they continued to play 1E even into the '90s, and B) D&D just wasn't my "scene" any more (at that time). We gamed together, but it was generally Palladium, Vampire, Stormbringer, or something weird (Toon or random shit). Later on, in my 20s and looking to get back into D&D I delved deep into the RC/BECMI realm...and could find no takers. So I decided to buck up and get the 2E books. Ran one aborted game (the group dissolved in argument before we even started) and played in another with an experienced 2E DM...however, while I had fun with the latter the whole thing degenerated into a shit-storm because:

A) we wouldn't play on the DM's rails, and

B) all the PCs had different agendas

[the party consisted of a ranger, a rogue, and a "war-priest" (this latter being a mechanical fighter who fashioned himself the holy man of a god who did not grant spells or turning ability, but instead allowed edged weapons and better combat prowess). The ranger was happy to do whatever (as long as he could shoot guys with arrows), the "priest" wanted to build his religion (asserting dominion over bandit groups and whatnot by besting their leaders and converting them), and the rogue was being played like an old-school thief, picking pockets, sneaking around and stealing shit, etc. The DM eventually threw his hands up at trying to manage us into his adventure]

I own exactly three 2E-era modules, and only one of them have I tried running (as a 1E adventure); two of them I picked up for...um..."research" purposes. We'll get to those in a minute. Point is: not much experience with 2E. Had a buddy in college that wanted to start a 2E campaign (can't remember, but he might have wanted ME to run it. Didn't happen), but that never got off the ground. Still, while I have read the books, once or twice, I'm far from an expert on 2E, nor have I any experience of running or playing in a 2E campaign. Its nuances are bound to escape me.

[oh, wait...I did some SpellJammer stuff with/for Steve-O. That's 2E, right? But that was a loooong time ago; we played far more Rifts than SJ]

Back to yesterday...Dan wrote:

You keep calling Individual XP "standard" when it's specifically called out in the book as an optional rule. Never used it, and never played with any else who used it either.

Dan is correct. On page 46 of the 2E DMG; here is what it says in the Experience Point Awards section:

There are two categories of experience point awards: group and individual. Group awards are divided equally among all members of the adventuring party, regardless of each individual's contribution. The idea here is that simply being part of a group that accomplishes something teaches the player character something useful.

From a strictly game mechanics point of view, this ensures that all player characters will have the opportunity to advance in experience points at roughly the same rate. Individual awards are optional, given to each player based on the actions of his character and his character's class.

Emphasis added by moi. This is the only place where it is noted that class XP awards are optional...it is NOT noted on page 48 (where the class awards are listed), although there is a side bar regarding individual awards for clever ideas, role-playing, encouragement of others, etc. that is EXPLICITLY noted as being an "optional rule." When you list one "optional rule" in a sidebar to another section, I think you can be forgiven for making my mistake (especially when the section text begins with "there are two categories of XP awards: group and individual..."). Ah, well. 

[I will note my one stint playing in someone's 2E game, these individual awards were NOT deemed optional, which was part of what led to our breakdown in play: fighter was trying to fight, thief was trying steal, etc. Does not make for a cooperative atmosphere]

SO there are only two ACTUAL, non-optional XP awards in 2E: combat awards (hello 3E, 4E, and 5E!) and story awards. Combat awards are strictly mechanical: there's a table based on a defeated opponent's level/HD which is modified by special abilities...very similar to all prior editions of D&D. The "story award" is different; here's what the text says:

This other group award is that earned for the completion of an adventure. This award is determined by the DM, based on the adventure's difficulty. There is no formula to determine the size of this award, since too many variable come into play. However, the following guidelines may help:

The story award should not be greater than the experience points that can be earned defeating the monsters encountered during the adventure...

The story award should give a character no more than 1/10th the experience points he needs to advance a level...

Within these guidelines you have a great deal of leeway. 

There is more to the section but it offers nothing concrete, only discussing how XP is used to monitor (and regulate) character progress, some notes about handing out arbitrary "survival" awards (properly noting "survival is its own reward"), and penalizing XP earned by PCs that died during an adventure.

What isn't discussed is...well, a lot. Like the fact that different character classes require different XP amounts to level so that "one-tenth" limitation isn't going to apply equally among classes. Nor is there a discussion of what constitutes a "story" or its "completion" or what to do when the party deviates from what the DM feels is the story proper.

[is Bilbo's story about killing a dragon or is it about stealing some gold from its hoard or is it about finding self-reliance, courage, and leadership? And is his story the same as the Thorin's?]

So, I spent the morning digging through the closet in my office (a monumental feat if you've never seen it) to find the three 2E adventures I own for a little guidance on this whole "story award" thing; they are: Return to the Keep on the Borderlands (John Rateliff), Return to White Plume Mountain (Bruce Cordell), and Night Below: an Underdark Campaign (Carl Sargent). Hoo-boy!

As I noted back in 2017, Rateliff in RtKotB strongly urges DMs to use the "optional" (old edition) mechanic of giving XP for treasure found. This in addition to "any appropriate story awards." Regarding the latter Rateliff writes:

Appropriate story awards are listed at various points in the text; generally speaking, rescuing hostages, defeating the plans of evil characters, and eliminating a threat to the Keep are all achievements worthy of experience point awards. For each cave in the Caves of Chaos that is completely cleaned out, give the group a story award. 

He then lists some actual numbers: 100 XP for Caves A through E, 200 XP for Caves F, G, H, and J, and 300 XP for Caves I and K. 

These story awards are in addition to any experience points gained in actually exploring said cave [note: Rateliff's emphasis, not mine]. When the adventure deviates from the established script [??], extrapolate the story awards listed in the text to come up with appropriate awards for your player characters.

Okay, then. What story awards are actually listed in the text? Nothing. There are none. Good work, Rateliff.

[please feel free to point out any I missed. I read/skimmed the book twice today and found nothing]

Okay, so: "completing the adventure" equals "genocide." Or something. I see why he "strongly urges" DMs to use the old x.p. for gold system. Moving right along...

Cordell's Return to White Plume Mountain is the adventure I have (years ago) tried running with 1st edition rules; it didn't go very far, but I am familiar with it. Cordell's a pro's pro and explicitly lists the (2E) XP Awards in a prominent section at the end of the adventure:

The characters may be eligible for additional experience points based on their actions. Each character actively involved in ending the threat of the False Kerapti should receive an XP story-award of 1,000 times his or her level. If the heroes save the child-Keraptis from the shade of the vengeance, each receives an additional 2,000 XP. If they refuse to give the child-Keraptis up to the Resistance (the easy way out), but instead find a good and proper foster home for him, award each PC an additional 3,000 XP. 

Well, that's all pretty cut-n-dry right? Defeat the bad guys, save the kid, and get him to a good home and you can earn 12,000 to 15,000 XP (the adventure is for characters 7th - 10th level). Which is a bit outside the one-tenth guideline limit for story awards, but it's close (unless you're playing a rogue).

What's NOT cool, though is this: you've got a fairly brutal, 80+ encounter dungeon with a "hook" that has NOTHING to do with defeating "false Kerapti" or "saving a [special special] child." The (multiple) hooks boil down to:

• Retrieving a stolen magic weapon (yours or someone else's)
• Rescuing an old friend
• Investigating "rumors of evil"
• Curiosity (anything in that-there mountain?)

Screw. You. Cordell.

SO, assuming you're running the adventure straight AND you're not using any optional rules AND your DM isn't telegraphing the plot like a madman (i.e. railroading, etc.) THEN the only x.p. you could potentially end up with is from the monsters you fight? What does that encourage PCs to do?

I *thought* (briefly) that perhaps "story XP" would be awarded for recovering the various magical weapons. I mean, that's one of the main hooks for the adventure (go find Wave). And look here! Each of the magic weapons lists an "XP Value" with its description. That must be what it's for, right?

No. ALL magic items in 2E have an XP Value. But I thought 2E didn't award XP for finding treasure. It doesn't:

Note: XP Value is the number of experience points a character gets for making an item.

[DMG2E, page 135]

Remember those "optional" individual XP awards? Right. Wizards (optionally) earn XP for enchanting items. If your 2E wizard makes Blackrazor (and the DM is using the optional individual awards), you character will get 8,000 XP. Yay...fun D&D, that.

SO...we go on this cool adventure...that has a hidden goal/objective. We spend multiple sessions exploring its multiple levels of danger. We maybe NEVER accomplish the "hidden" story award of the thing. But as long as we're fighting and killing everything we encounter, we'll earn experience towards leveling. 

Great. Plowing ahead...

Big Fat Adventure

Night Below! This book is massive. I ordered it POD off DriveThru sometime back, and it's a couple hundreds of pages (not counting dozens of maps). Originally a three-book boxed set, it is considered one of the finest offerings of the 2E era (here's a review); it is an ENTIRE CAMPAIGN designed to take PCs "from 1st level to 10th level and beyond." Check this part out (from page 9 of the introductory chapter):

Earned XP

This campaign assumes that characters gain XP for monetary treasure, at the rate of 1 XP for each gp value of the treasure. DMs not wishing to employ this optional rule should increase XP story awards to compensate, ensuring that the PCs advance at a sufficient rate to meet the challenges of the adventure. Playtesting shows that to maintain campaign balance, PCs should earn some 60% of XP from sources other than slaying monsters.

Oh, 2E.  When it comes to XP for treasure, 2E says "I just can't quit you."

Night Below offers an interesting sub-system called Social Collapse Points (SCPs) that PCs earn as they destabilize the evil subterranean societies, and succeeding at bringing about this collapse does earn the characters bonus XP in the thousands, but almost all of the things that earn SCPs are either slaying monsters or destroying/vandalizing property. But that's part of the "story awards" for Book 2 of the campaign (that section effectively ends once collapse had been achieved). The story awards I could thus find include:

• 1,000 XP for concluding Book 1 IF the PCs can wipe out the bad guys in a single foray.
• 5,000 XP for earning 50 SCPs in Book 2
• 5,000 XP for earning 100 SCP's in Book 2
• 100,000 XP for destroying the ultimate Big Bad in Book3

But there IS a lot of treasure in Night Below....though probably not enough, considering the lack of XP awarded for magic items in 2E.

Hey, folks. I know the following thought is probably going to be met with some ire, but I'm going to post it anyway. In my last post, with regard to "story awards," Dan wrote:

I have no idea where you get the idea that this discourage self-starters. An adventure is an adventure, regardless of whether the DM lays it out on a platter or the PCs choose it themselves. Finding a goblin lair in the wilderness and looting it is a completed adventure just as much as slogging through a boring Dragonlance module is. I have never run a game with XP for treasure in my life, and player engagement has never been a problem.

How does one define adventure? In B/X, it is a single game session; does this hold true for 2E? If not, where is the adventure's beginning? Where is its end? Who says when it's over? The DM? In a B/X or 1E game, PCs can beg off at any time...because they don't like the scenario, the risk versus reward, whatever. But this idea that a "story" must be "completed" is a shitty, shitty concept.

What it SOUNDS like...and please disabuse me if this is wrong...is that 2E advancement is, at its simplest, just "combat experience multiplied by two." That is, you get experience points for defeating opponents, and then you get the same experience ("x.p. equal to defeated opponents") whenever the adventure is considered to be "done." Which...well, that's just 3E again, but with a different formula for calculating it, no?

Am I mistaken?

I want to continue this discussion (somewhat) in my next post, but it won't be about 2E specifically. In an effort to be constructive, I'm going to talk about the positive aspects of 1E's reward system.

Have a good weekend, folks.

: )

Justification

Yesterday, the Seattle Mariners won again and got within half a game of a playoff spot...a playoff spot that has eluded them for two decades. They are currently vying for one of two open "wild card" spots along with Toronto, Boston, and the Yankees. Those teams have respective run differentials of +167, +72, and +49, a number that means how many more runs have they scored over their opponents for the season. The Mariners? Their run differential is -50. Throw out Monday's 14-4 win over Oakland and they'd be -60. Generally speaking, they haven't won games by blowing out other teams...the M's don't have the Big Bat offense other teams have, and their starting pitchers have been UGly. They've just been a scrappy, never-say-die team that's managed to gut out a bunch of 1 and 2 run games with clutch hitting, lights out bullpen, good defense, and inexplicable lucky breaks.

It's ridiculous. I'm still wearing my Mariners ball cap, and with four games to go in the season. Still not quite buying in...but I am watching. The kids and stayed up way past bedtime last night.

The school soccer team I'm coaching is struggling. We've been blown out and blown out and blown out, and unlike the M's, we don't get a 162 game schedule. Although we are playing in the 5th grade boys league, almost half our team are 4th graders. Only five of our 15 players have played together. Only a couple kids played any type of soccer last year (when the schools were closed for the pandemic), and for several kids this is their first time EVER playing soccer. Every team we've played against has been bigger, stronger, and faster than us...many have had multiple kids known to play on "select" or "premier" teams. 

This weekend, our best player (my son) has a schedule conflict: his premier team is playing at the same time on the east side of the water. While my plan was to have him go to that while I coach the school team, he has asked if he can skip his premier game in order to play with our band of misfits. See, he's scrappy, too. And even as he gets frustrated with the school's team to execute even simple concepts (he refers to them as a "dumpster fire"), even though there's less than half a dozen kids on our team that he's even known, and only three that he'd really call "friends"...he feels a duty, a responsibility to helping them out. He knows what he means to their team and he doesn't want to give up on them, let them down, pick your pithy phrase to reflect "loyalty" and an unwillingness to quit.

The other day, Havard was reflecting on the "edition wars," the pointlessness of...and the wasted time spent...bashing other folk's preferred versions of the Dungeons & Dragons game. In his view, those who engaged in such grumpy bickering should look at their actions with embarrassment. Instead of "focusing on the negativity and the things that divide us," Havard urges us to...um...have fun experiences together? Remember that "we have a hobby that we love?" Something?

I guess he's not urging us to do anything except to NOT be negative. To be open-minded about other's preferred editions and welcoming to their preferred style of play. And (if I'm inferring correctly) to be glad and grateful that this is growing the hobby (i.e. getting more players into it).

So, okay...I have a different take on the "edition wars" from Havard.  For one thing, if it is (or ever was) a "war" it's one that my side LOST a long, long time ago. Circa 1986. The "war," if one would call it that, was over about the time Lorraine Williams took over TSR and changed its focus from creating games to publishing books. When 2nd edition AD&D was published in 1989, replacing Gygax's byline with Zeb Cook's, the war was officially, completely lost.

Folks like me have just been fighting guerrilla actions since then. 

My bitching-and-moaning about new style players and my criticisms of 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 5th edition D&D isn't a "war." Really. It is an attempt to keep alive an older style of the game that some folks might prefer to be relegated to the trash bin. Because it's one thing to say:

Hey, there are older editions of D&D and, here, you can buy copies of it on eBay, or PDFs from DriveThru and isn't that an interesting curiosity / piece of history? You can really see the war gaming roots and how funny, strange that style of play once was (not to mention how misogynistic, racist, and unenlightened the gaming community might have once been)....

And it's quite another thing to say:

Hey, there was this game that was new in the 1970s that blew people's minds and that was really fun to play, so much that it grew into a phenomenon that had profound effects on games and culture, and while it changed substantially some fifteen years after it's creation, maybe there's something to its original game play that's still fun and profound and exciting and worth playing, not just watching as a live-streamed "show."

See, I'm scrappy, too. And while I'm smart enough to know the "war" has been lost and times have changed, and more people would rather be shown or informed by others than take the time to educate themselves (by reading books, for example)...while I'm smart enough to see "times have changed" I'm stubborn enough and squeaky enough to keep shouting "hey, but don't forget..." 

And sometimes I say (or write) things in an incendiary way in order to get forgetful folks' attention.

Last week I wrote a post that declared there is only one, true edition of Dungeons & Dragons, and that the particular edition in question was Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, the first edition, penned/compiled by Mr. Gary Gygax. This...predictably...ruffled feathers, but as the point of my post wasn't about justifying the position, I didn't take the time to elaborate on my statement. 

Here, then, is the elaborate justification; we'll try to take this in order:

OD&D (the original Little Brown Books) was a proto-version of Dungeons & Dragons. It is not and was not "complete," crystalized, or a fully formed vision of game design. Its own creators (Gygax and Arneson) did not agree on how it was to be played, and had wildly divergent styles. Until it ceased being published, it was in a constant state of evolution, each new supplement adding or changing the original rules. Other gamers ended up creating their own versions and variant designs: Warlock, Arduin, Tunnels & Trolls, etc. It is amorphous. It is imaginative. It is wonderful...but it is not a single, concrete game. It cannot function without addition. AS A GAME (not "as a concept" or "in spirit") it is not "true;" in many ways, the LBBs themselves were supplementary material for the Chainmail rules that only (later) evolved into a distinct form of play.

Basic (Holmes edition) D&D was designed to be introductory, specifically introductory, to the game of Dungeons & Dragons, and is thus far from complete. It draws parts from OD&D, the first supplement, The Strategic Review, Chainmail, and the Warlock variant. Its rules diverge from the AD&D game it was written to introduce and is not compatible with that, nor with "official" OD&D rules.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (first edition): this is the TRUE version of D&D. It took what had come before then adjusted, edited, and codified it into a singular vision of game play with rules covering every anticipated potentiality of game play. Note: not "every potentiality," just what was judged as being part of the scope of game play. Folks interested in "coloring outside the lines" would certainly be allowed to do so (outside of official, sanctioned tournament play), but were adjudged to be be playing something other than "standard" (i.e. "true") Dungeons & Dragons.

B/X(Moldvay/Cook/Marsh) D&D: another introductory game; it is a streamlined version of OD&D + Supplement I that leaves out some of the stickier complexities (race/class separation, weapon adjustments, AD&D ability score modifiers, 9-point alignment) in favor of simplicity. The best introduction to "true" D&D and nearly fully compatible with AD&D...so much so that many folks in the 1980s were able to combine the two editions into a single mishmash with varied results. It sacrifices complexity and nuance for accessibility and ease of play.

BECMI (Mentzer) D&D: yet another revision of the introductory game; not only was it written for an even younger audience (complete with solo tutorial adventures), but it was written in such a way as to NOT include monsters, spells, and content specifically designed/developed for Advanced D&D. It became its own separate line of play, though again designed for simplicity, lacking the complexity, nuance, and interlocking of systems found in AD&D. While it is designed as a "complete" line (taking player characters from level 1 all the way to immortality through discreet rule systems) it deviates far from the singular vision found in "true" version of the game. Played straight, BECMI D&D does not call to mind the fantasy literature or pulp fiction that inspired the original game; instead, every player is on a quest for legendary power and (eventual) godhood. It is staid and mechanical, less organic, and in an effort to be more "family friendly" (or less controversial) has lost some of its original character...and thus some of its potential game play. The original game may have accounted good stronger than evil, but evil (as a player choice) was still a possibility. That possibility was all but excised in the presentation of BECMI.

In terms of the Seven Elements identified for "true" D&D game play, it begins to fail on both the "magic is limited" and "economy is present" scale. BECMI D&D lacks the various checks-and-balances for both magic and wealth found in AD&D; as a consequence, long-term game play turns into something very different from "true" D&D (see the Principalities of Glantri and Thyatis/Alphatia gazetteers for examples). 

[just like to note that I spent a couple hours yesterday combing through some 100+ pages of Frank Mentzer interview notes to find his own preferred version of play. As of the early 2000s he was still running his home game with what he referred to as AD&D 1.5 (AD&D + the Unearthed Arcana) in combination with his own Immortal set rules. His reasons for including the UA was fairly simple: he'd compiled and edited much of the work himself and was quite satisfied with its usability in terms of the D&D game. He also did not favor the totally "humanocentric" vision that Gygax did, and so liked the extra power given to demihumans in the UA]

Second Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: while mechanically very similar to 1E, it lacks the original vision of the "true" game's designer (evidenced by many stylistic changes) and begins to fall down in both the "economy is present" and (mainly) the "cooperation is necessary" categories; the latter because the default reward (advancement) system of 2E has the character classes pursuing disparate goals from one another. The shift in tone for supplementary material (especially "module" adventures) starts to break the elements of "PCs are heroic" and "the Universe does care" as more and more railroad-y or excessively moralizing texts are published, forcing PCs into certain avenues of play.

Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons: moves farther from the game as originally designed, overemphasizing "violence is inherent" (through its reward system), breaking "cooperation is necessary" (by de-emphasizing asymmetry), and paying only lip service to "economy is present" with rule stipulated treasure/monetary amounts at every level for both PCs and NPCs. On the adventure front, more of the same trends as from the mid-1980s (see 2E above).

Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons: extreme over emphasis of "violence is inherent" coupled with extreme DE-emphasis of "magic is limited" and "economy is present." Interestingly, there is a return/resurgence of "cooperation is necessary" but NOT via asymmetry so much as specific "adventure roles" needing to be filled for successful endeavors...still this is more of an aside, and adventures can certainly be written for specific groups lacking particular role characters. The same issue with published adventures continue.

Fifth Edition Dungeons & Dragons: extreme de-emphasis of ALL elements EXCEPT "PCs are heroic" and a warped/twisted version of "the Universe does care" which does its best to coddle the players rather than challenge them in any meaningful form. Even the idea of "D&D is a game" (element #1) is de-emphasized, as the idea that D&D is an amusing pastime, performance/show, becomes ascendant and character advancement is no longer tied to character's pursuit of specific objectives but is instead linked to how well the players perform the story being told. The singular vision that once guided the GAME of Dungeons & Dragons has been cast aside for a "do anything you like" attitude...objectives of play, mechanics and rules, all are meant to be changed and discarded as whim (and "fun") dictates. The term "D&D" doesn't refer to a specific game but, rather, a particular brand/IP that has been purchased...ostensibly to be "played," but what that play looks like will vary from table to table.

"Sixth" Edition Dungeons & Dragons: are you serious?

Harsh, harsh words, Old Man (actually, I'm trying NOT to be harsh in this post but, whatever...). JB, you're telling folks there's only one way to have D&D fun, and if it's not the same way as yours, then they totally suck. 

No, I'm not.

At least up until 1985 or so (i.e. about when the "war" was lost), the D&D game still had a uniting, singular vision that people could fall back on REGARDLESS of the rule set that was being used at the table. That vision, clumsily stated in the original Advanced D&D game allowed all players, regardless of system, to get on the same page when it came to the question of "what is (D&D) game play all about?" Some folks didn't like the answer to that question, and handled their dislike in different ways (drifting the system, changing games, quitting the hobby, whatever). Some folks just took a break for ten or twenty or thirty years, either because they either A) didn't see the potential promise of game play or B) didn't feel the effort needed to reach that potential was justified, and they could get their "kicks" somewhere else. 

[you can count me as one of the latter folks who first kicked AD&D to the curb in exchange for other games (a LOT of other games) and then spent a decade plumbing B/X and finding its depth (as designed! and well designed!) to be less than satisfying]

But that singular vision, incorporating those seven elements (to a lesser or greater degree) was a unifying force and you can SEE that in, for example, Prince's recent "No ArtPunk" adventure design contest: adventures were written for AD&D, B/X, BECMI, OD&D, retro-clones, ACKS, etc. but all finding a way to create interesting "dungeon" adventures suitable for their particular systems. Dungeon crawling by itself is NOT indicative of "true" D&D play, but it IS an important portion of the game aspect of D&D...and recent adventure offerings (both 5E and "OSR") seem to have very...mmm..."strange" ideas of what such design entails.

The point being: *sigh* yes, you're still playing "D&D" even if you're not playing AD&D. But if you want to play the game in its "highest expression," you have to start with AD&D. Other versions...especially pre-1985...have similar guiding spirit/principals and (more usually) recognizable tropes. But you can't play post-1985 editions of D&D as they are designed and written in the same way that the game was originally set down and codified.  Sure, you can take a late edition version and twist it or tweak it or drift it or whatever...you could also just run GURPS or write your own damn game.

OR...you could play the TRUEST version ever written and just spend your free time designing a fine campaign that is supported by the rules.

That, I guess, is my "scrappy" message. If you've never tried it and you find "old" D&D objectionable for some reason (it was written by white American men for white American men, or it exhibits too many colonialist sensibilities, or whatever)...I get it, I sympathize, I understand. Try giving it a chance. Try giving the crazy-ass rules a chance. If you're an "OSR" aficionado who prefers something lighter, rules-wise and are turned off by the opaque, clunky writings of Gygax...I get it, I sympathize, I understand. Try giving it a chance. Try reading it and parsing it and running it.

If you've run or played AD&D before, and just can't understand why anyone would still want to play the game based on that particular antiquated/clunky version of the rules anymore (or for WHATEVER reason)...I get it, I sympathize, I understand. I do! Really! But did you really give it your best shot? How long ago was it that you tried running it? How have you grown/changed since then? I know technology has changed a lot since the 1970s...the ability to create easy-to-use spreadsheets and play aids is incredibly simple. And it makes it O-so-easy to run the crunchy bits with just a little time and energy.

Maybe...try it one more time?

All right, that's all I have time for today. Have to go pick up the kids from their (club) soccer practice. Which they are doing in the pouring rain. Like troopers.

Go Mariners. Keep proving me wrong.

: )

Addendum To "The Art Of Peril"

Something I completely failed to mention in yesterday's post on the subject of D&D artwork:

Despite what one might assume from the generally "down" tone of my last post, I quite like A LOT of the artwork in both 2E and 3E (or, as I call it, DND3). This may well come as a surprise to some. However, much of the art quality from both 2nd and 3rd edition D&D towers over the stuff in the 1st edition AD&D books. While many of the original 1E pieces are (rightly) considered iconic, the skill and artistry with which later illustrators execute their craft is, more often than not, simply better.

Everyone got that? I like many of the pieces in these later editions. Some are extraordinarily good. The color plates in the 2E PHB and DMG are some of my favorites in any fantasy RPG I own (check p.7, p.72, and p.110 of the 2E PHB and p.8 and p.116 of the 2E DMG). And many of the less manga-y, MtG-type art in 3rd edition is stuff I find incredibly evocative...and inspirational (as in: it fires up my juices and makes me want to play the game). 

I don't get that from classic pix like "A Paladin in Hell" or the single-panel cartoon jokes in the original DMG. Sorry, no.

But as far as communicating what the game is about...as far as providing building blocks for the imagination (not just vignettes for one's daydreams), the first edition of AD&D does the best job of any of these three editions of the game. Yes, there are excellent, evocative pieces of art in the 1E books (I said later works were better "more often than not," not always) but MORE than just "good art" or "bad art" or "mediocre art" there is EFFECTIVE art. Art that is effective at communicating what game play is about. Game play is NOT about a lone monk taking out an umberhulk with a spear single-handedly (much as I like John Foster's illo on p.168 of the 3E DMG). Sorry...it just isn't.

[apologies...couldn't find an image]

And ALSO, just by the way: before 3rd edition I don't think much of this art had any real intentionality of "communicating game play" (or its perils) aside from 'let's put a party fighting orcs in this space, and let's have an illo of a cleric turning undead over here.' 3E's art seems to be placed in appropriate locations (in relation to text) and...outside the MM3...is generally captioned to show its pertinence to the instruction at hand.  1E and 2E just throws "cool fantasy stuff" willy-nilly all over the place. I think the main difference, though, is that many of the artists in 1E doing pictures of peril in the core books were long-time D&D players themselves and...consciously or not...brought a lot of insight for the game to their works. I believe this is a large part of why there are so many humorous illos in the first edition books.

I have one more post to write in this series, but I just wanted to add this quick note. 

The Art Of Peril

 Continuing from the prior post...

As several astute commenters deduced, this discussion on art in D&D was "goosed" into action by Delta's blog post on "old school" art from Monday. Delta's main point was that:

"...one of the biggest sensibility differences between old-school D&D art and and newer-school art is the amount of violence depicted against ostensibly player-character-types..."

I have some quibbles with Delta's conclusion ("flipping through the earliest 1st Edition materials, you're going to get the idea that in D&D, player-character life is cheap") but not with his declarative that the images presented are going to create particular ideas in the minds of the reader. Again, returning to my prior post, our imagination constructs ideas and images from memories, and memories at their base are generated from external (sensory) stimuli.

Dungeons & Dragons is a fantasy game that absolutely requires imagination (in all participants) to play effectively. I would go so far as to say imagination is probably the defining characteristic of role-playing games, as opposed to computer (video) games, board games, or card games, ALL of which are playable without imaginative input from the participants involved. As such the importance of exercising one's imagination (both through use and through assimilation of pertinent memories for use) cannot be understated. The ability to play the game is limited by one's imagination (or lack thereof), and as we wish to pay attention to how that imagination is cultivated, we should take a hard look at the purpose and objective of the game.

Dungeons & Dragons is a game of facing peril and overcoming its challenges.

This is clearly evident from the rules of the game. No, D&D is not a game about "telling stories;" as I have written (often) before, there are MANY role-playing games that are designed to create/tell stories (in many genres!) and that serve that purpose better than D&D. Folks using D&D as a vehicle to tell stories are pretty lazy (or else suckers for the marketing). Systems are not included to be ignored; dice are not rolled because players "like rolling dice." The fantasy world of role-playing IS designed to amuse, entertain, fascinate, astound, and escape reality. Yes, absolutely. But the game is designed with the mechanics it's given in order to face peril and overcome challenge. This is the reason for combat rules. And armor class. And hit points. And saving throws. Etc.

SO...given the above raison d'etre of D&D, let's take a look at the artwork that is Oh So Necessary for implanting those building blocks of imagination (integral to the game) and the job they do at conveying the perilous nature of the game.

I spent roughly three hours this morning combing through the core books (PHB, DMG, and MM) of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions of D&D making notes on the artwork and just how much "peril" was communicated. Things I looked for were instances of evident fear (either on terrified faces or actual flight), instances of helplessness or restraint/capture, killing blows (i.e. an attack from which the individual was most definitely NOT going to walk away from without clerical assistance), "zaps" (from traps or magical monster attacks that may or or may not be lethal), and the presence of Already Dead Bodies. At first, I attempted to do a simple count for each book, giving more weight to some illustration over other (half a point for a scared face, two points for a killing blow that shows entrails/viscera, etc.), but the results were somewhat confused and, for my purposes, not nearly descriptive enough. So I went back through all the illos (again) and simply made tallies for each particular instance of each category for each book.

For an illo to be counted, the recipient of the "peril" had to be a PC type (the dragon on p.21 of the 1E DMG doesn't count, for example, as all the creatures being killed are kobolds). Overwhelming odds (the purple worm on p.166 of the 1E DMG) or potential surprise (p.91 of the MM, p.99 of the DMG3) were NOT counted for purposes of "peril" as such illustrations could simple be viewed as "precursors to heroism," or some such. Neither were the cover illustrations of ANY edition counted in any way (as covers are prone to change, even within editions)...only interior artwork was reviewed. Artwork taken from earlier products (2E illos include a LOT of previously published artwork from 1st edition) still count towards peril, as the illos were used in the core books and thus help teach the game to prospective players.

Here then are the results, as I calculated them:

1st Edition (AD&D)

Fear: 18

Held/Helpless: 12

Kill Shot: 8

Dead Body: 6

Zapped!: 7

Total: 51

AD&D 2E

Fear: 4

Held/Helpless: 1

Kill Shot: 2

Dead Body: 4*

Zapped!: 1

Total: 12

DND3 (3rd Edition)

Fear: 6

Held/Helpless: 10

Kill Shot: 1

Dead Body: 2*

Zapped!: 3

Total: 23

*Dead bodies! Okay...let's talk about these for a moment. Three of these four instances in 2E feature "bodies in repose" that may or may not simply be sleeping, they looked so peaceful (and no evidence of violence...see p.125 of the PHB2 and p.24 of the DMG2). The final one seems obvious; equally obvious, however, is the party's intention to raise their companion (p.116, DMG2). The "dead bodies" in 3E are even more "iffy" in nature: the caption on p.153 of the PHB3 tells me the individual is dead, but he looks more like someone having his leg regenerated. The other image (from the MM3) appears to be a mermaid helping a drowned man (p.135)...hardly "peril."

Oh, and speaking of iffy...the thing that's really absent from 3E, compared to the first two editions is any sensations of fear...hell, there's hardly any trepidation illustrated. The six instances of "fear" counted for DND3 all come from the MM3. Four counts come from the illustration of the tarrasque (where four small figures are seen running from one of the most tremendous threats of the D&D universe, p.174). Yes, I count each character as one "instance"...more fear, more death makes more impression from a single illo. The other two instances of fear in the MM3 are also instances of small figures running from gigantic foes: the remorhaz (p.155) and the red dragon (p.67). There are plenty of other illos where small figures stand toe-to-toe with impunity against huge and colossal monsters.

Yeah...no.

And that's what really causes me to shake my head in looking at these late editions. Just what do the art directors think D&D is about? What are they conveying to the reader? Because, I'll tell you that any adventurer who thinks he's going to stare down a purple worm in ANY edition is probably asking to be eaten. 

The illustrations of post-1st AD&D simply fail in communicating the perils inherent in the game. Keep in mind that 1E has plenty of illustrations that do NOT contain peril: images showing heroic confrontation, or fantasy and wonder abound in the pages of the PHB and DMG (whose share of "peril images" I count as 9 and 12, respectively). Yet, 1E still manages to communicate the danger of the game world to the reader. Not (as Delta concluded) that "life is cheap," but that fear and death are a part of the game.  This is preparation for the imagination. 

Failing to prepare the mind with art showing only heroic confrontation, victorious parties, and happy tavern scenes (a lot of these in 2E for some reason...) is going to lead to false expectations and, I can only imagine, DM fudging and protectionism to stave off player disappointment. At least in 2nd edition, which is close enough to 1E that players should be gaffled just as readily for stupid shit as in the original Advanced game.  In 3E, I suppose disappointed expectations can be avoided with careful use of that edition's complex challenge system and obsessive attention to optimal "character builds."

Anyway... some folks asked me about B/X and how its art helps illustrate the perils of that particular edition. By my method of calculation there are only two instances of character peril illustrated in the contents (both in the Basic book; both of the "zapped!" variety). My own B/X Companion (which was illustrated to my specifications and in like vein to the original books) contains only two instances of peril, one each of the "kill shot" and "dead body" variety (actually, just a severed arm being gnawed by a Baba Yaga-like hag). That ain't much peril. However, Moldvay's basic book supplements this by providing detailed play examples (in both the Encounter/Combat section and the Dungeon Mastering section) featuring player character death. Gygax does likewise in the 1st edition DMG (p.71 and then p.97-100...the latter describes a particularly gruesome PC demise). While such textual examples are helpful in making explicit the perilous nature of the D&D game, I don't think there's any debating the old saw "a picture is worth a thousand words." More images of peril would go a loooong way.

Fortunately, we also have adventure modules to help us out:

"Uh-oh."

By the way, I also calc'd out the first edition Fiend Folio art because I consider it part of my personal "core" AD&D volumes, even if the numbers weren't added above. Here's how that most grim and perilous tome stats out in terms of communicating "peril" through its artwork:

Fiend Folio (1E)

Fear: 12

Held/Helpless: 22

Kill Shot: 8

Dead Body: 2

Zapped!: 2

Total: 46

I think the fact that the total instances of character peril in the FF alone is more than the combined core books of 2E and 3E says quite a bit about the game's art direction post-1988.

[I don't own copies of 4E or 5E so I can't comment on those particular volumes. However, as game play for those two editions are fairly distinct from earlier editions...even 3E...perhaps those editions' artwork conveys exactly what they're supposed to communicate]

Comments, as always, are welcome.

: )

Color Spray

"Illusionist Week" continues. Hell, it might turn into "Illusionist Month." Sorry about that...I'll try to get the latest Zenopus update posted sometime this weekend...the kids aren't dead yet!

[mmm...maybe should have wrote *SPOILER*]

Just starting up from yesterday's cricket-worthy post, I decided that if I was going to rewrite the illusionist spell list I need to have some ideas of how I want to organize and structure it. There are, after all, some basic patterns that are readily apparent (spells based on color and light, spells that conjure "shadow stuff" from some demi-plane, spells that screw with a target's mind, etc.) and categorizing spells by type is something that will help with the re-organization of the list in a sensible manner. Sensible to me anyway.

SO...making a "deep dive" means doing some research and (in this case) started with reading the AD&D illusionist spell list. First up, audible glamer...not bad, though the whole "cast in conjunction with phantasmal force" is problematic (spell-casters don't cast spells "in conjunction"...unless Gygax meant "in conjunction with another illusionist" which, wow, TWO illusionists in the same party? That's got to be more rare than a pair of rangers...). I like the rough volume guidelines, though I'd probably cap it at "dragon level" (i.e. 24 men)...by my reckoning that would be 6th level, and any such illusionist would have access to the spell fear (what's more scary than a roaring dragon?). I don't want a spell to get into the range where eardrums start bleeding or cellular tissue begins to liquify.

Let's see...after that we have change self, a simple visual illusion and fine as written. Then we have the iconic color spray, okay, and...and...

WTF.

Sweet Christmas, what the hell is this mess?

I'm not even going to bother quoting it here, because it's nonsensical. And, no, I'm definitely not the first person to notice it. The fact that I'm only noticing it NOW gives you an idea of how often I've run players with illusionist characters (some number less than two). I myself have run illusionists on multiple occasions but, given the choice, I've always taken phantasmal force as my first spell (dude...illusionist!) probably followed by hypnotism or wall of fog, maybe even change self. Some players might prefer a straightforward attack spell, but...well, that's not how I roll when I'm wearing the illusionist hat.

Which is all a long way of poorly justifying how I'm reading a book I've owned since 5th grade and never noticed that color spray spends a bunch of time defining what it does to creatures of higher level/HD than the caster while simultaneously limiting the effect to the level of the caster. Jeez Louise.

Checking other editions, I see that 2E "fixed" the spell by deleting the level cap. Which results in a power word equivalent spell that effects multiple creatures regardless of hit point value for a 1st level spell slot (creatures do get a save if they are over 6th level). I can see why it became popular. Oh, 2E...there are reasons I don't play you.

Once again, I see I need to go back to the source material: Peter Aronson. Aronson added this spell to the back end of the 1st level illusionist list for the 1976 Dragon #1 article that I mentioned in the earlier post. It's messily written...perhaps the reason why Gygax got "confused" in his editing...but let me take a shot at parsing it out (this is not a direct quote...it's my paraphrase):

Color spray effects 1D6 levels (HD) of opponents at a range of 24". The caster receives a bonus to the die roll of +1 for every five levels after 2nd (so +1 at 7th, +2 at 12th, etc.); however, the final result may not exceed six. If multiple targets are within range, randomly determine the order in which they are affected, assigning levels of effect (from the total effect rolled) until all levels have been expended. Partial assignment of spell effect is possible, and will impact whether or not the target receives a saving throw, as follows:

Level of effect equals creature's HD: no save
Level of effect exceeds HD/level by one: normal save
Level of effect exceeds HD/level by two: save at +2
Level of effect exceeds HD/level by three: save at +4
Level of effect exceeds HD/level by four: save at +6
Level of effect exceeds HD/level by five: save at +8

Color spray does not affect targets whose hit dice or level exceed six. Affected characters are rendered "unconscious through confusion." There is no other effect of the spell. 

Example: a 10th level illusionist casts the spell at a group of 7 orcs and 1 troll. She rolls 1D6 to see the effect and adds +1 because of her high level. She rolls a "6" which is the maximum result she can achieve (despite her level, the result does not increase to seven). As there are eight possible targets that may be affected the DM rolls to see the particular targets and order in which they are affected: the result indicates orc #1, orc #3, orc #5, and then the troll (since three levels of spell effect were expended on the first three orcs, the last three levels are sucked up by the 6 hit die troll). The first three orcs are knocked unconscious (no save); the troll receives a save versus spells with a +4 bonus to resist being rendered senseless. If five orcs had been struck prior to the troll, the troll's save would have been at +8 (the maximum possible bonus). If the troll had been struck first, it would have received no saving throw; however, none of the orcs would have been affected. If the orcs had been traveling with a balrog instead of a troll, only orcs would have been affected by the spell as the balrog's HD exceeds six.

In reviewing the original version of the color spray spell, it appears to me that Aronson was offering up an "illusionist flavor" version of the classic magic-user spell sleep. It shares several characteristics with the spell including level (1st), range (24"), effect (knocking creatures unconscious), and the ability to impact multiple creatures without giving a saving throw. Also like sleep, color spray's effectiveness is limited by the targets' hit dice/level: sleep only affects multiple creatures at HD 3 or fewer (and only a single HD 4 target), while color spray affects creatures up to HD 6 at the cost of impacting far fewer "lesser" beings.

That is how I interpret the intention of the spell. Would you trade the ability to knock out more than six goblins or orcs for the chance to knock out a single minotaur or troll (or the possibility of TWO ogres?)? To me, that's a fair choice to offer to a player...though an Aronson illusionist of at least 9th level could have her cake and eat it, too (thanks to the option of choosing a 1st level magic-user spell...in this case, sleep...with a 4th level spell selection).

Still, as I wrote previously, I don't mind a little overlap in spell effect between two different types of caster, so long as it differs a bit in style and ties in with the class's overall "theme." A "sheet of bright conflicting colors" that renders a target unconscious "through confusion" is neat enough, though this gets nerfed with the 2E admonition that "blind or unseeing creatures are not affected by this spell."

[I lay the blame for this particular wonkiness (which is sure to lead to endless dispute about whether or not a creature with no eyeballs...like a skeleton...can "see") at Gygax's interpretation of the spray as some sort of laser light show that has a blinding affect, rather than a confusion attack with a visual component]

*ahem* As I was saying...a little overlap, with modification/variation, is fine and dandy, but the designer never intended the spell to be something that could be used to take down a mindflayer or greater demon. Should it be able to blind or stun a large creature (like a roc or a tyrannosaurus)? Maybe? But when you can accomplish the same feat with the spell light at a greater duration and with additional utility, do you really need it?

If you want to go strictly By The Book...well, you can't, because the spell as written is nonsensical. Or, rather, you can read it literally, in which case the blinding and stunning abilities never take effect (because it never affects creatures of greater HD than the caster's level). And yet, with a literal BTB reading color spray provides a method for high level illusionists in AD&D to knock out exceptionally powerful creatures with a single first level spell. It almost becomes a "must have" spell for the attack oriented illusionist. Sure, creatures get a save versus spells...but that's still a 45% chance to take down a frost giant. And consider the crafting of a wand of color spray! As a first level spell, that's probably a very cheap outlay for an 11th level illusionist to manufacture in exchange for a huge amount of firepower.

[**EDIT** Ha! Just realized that under the 2nd edition rules, that same 11th level illusionist...er, "specialist wizard"...would be able to knock down 1D6 frost giants with each casting of color spray, with a 50% chance of success (due to the -1 save penalty assigned for specialization), AND she could memorize the spell five times a day! Just walk around the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl...perhaps with an improved invisibility spell...knocking out 10+ hit die creatures left and right, recharging in her rope trick retreat when necessary. Talk about game breaking...]

Sorry folks but...much as it hurts...I think I'm going to have to modify this spell back to some semblance of what the original designer (Aronson) presented in Dragon magazine. My B/X mind would probably want to simplify it to something like:

Target 1D6 HD of creatures within range. Illusionist chooses creatures affected. No saving throw allowed unless a creature's level/HD exceeds the remaining number of HD affected by the spell (maximum of one creature may be assigned a "partial" number of HD). Affected creatures are knocked unconscious for 2D4 rounds. Range 6"+1" per level.

Something like that. But tarted up with language about clashing colors and whatnot.

All right, that's enough to chew on for a Thursday morning. Ha! Bet you didn't think I was going to pull a 1500 word post on color spray out of my hat, did you?
; )

Picture cropped or you'd see the mind flayer she's
targeting. Must be an 8th level illusionist.

U is for Uprising

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for this year's #AtoZchallenge? Revamping the Grand Duchy of Karameikos in a way that doesn't disregard its B/X roots. I got behind by a couple days because of the Easter weekend, but I'm trying to catch up as quickly as possible]

U is for Uprising, specifically the Marilenev Uprising, a suggested adventure for a campaign set in the Grand Duchy, and one of many included in GAZ1. The description reads like this:

The Lady Magda finally snaps. She and her subordinates begin fomenting revolution in the streets. The adventure is the riot that ensues in the Grand Market when Lady Magda is making the greatest speech of career; all her own soldiers are in the crowd, pretending to be passerby and whipping the crowd into a cheering frenzy. Then the city guard shows up and the riot ensues -- between the city guard and the Marilenev guardsmen, with more arriving to help both sides every minute. The characters can be on one side or another, or trying to keep innocent people from being hurt. (After this adventure is over the Estate of Marilenev will probably have another master and another name...)

Bleah. Just...bleah.

The background for this adventure takes place thirty years ago with an earlier uprising led by the Marlilenev clan. Well, actually, I suppose its origin starts 100 years prior with the Thyatia conquest. Marilenev, named (presumably) for its ruling family, was a flourishing trade city and the chief port of the Traladara region. After its conquest, the Thyatians renamed it Specularum, built walls, and stationed a contingent of Thyatian soldiers to ensure (nominal) taxes were paid and everyone knew who the new boss was. As the wealthy families retained their properties (if not self-rulership) business and life went on, more-or-less, as usual.

Some folks, however, appear to have been less than satisfied with the new situation. When Stefan took over (70 years after the conquest), "the powerful Traladaran families in Specularum saw the political change as an opportunity to reestablish Traladaran independence" and plotted to kill the Duke while still in the early stages of his settling in. The thought was that if they could take the town and erect a strong enough defense, they might make it economically unfeasible for Thyatis to launch a second conquest attempt. Unfortunately:

"...the Marilenev clan prematurely led an armed revolt against the Duke and was decisively beaten by the Duke and the garrison. Most of the Marilenev men died in the attack. Naturally, from that point on the Duke had his eyes on the other powerful families, especially the Radu and Torenescu clans."

The Estate of Marilenev remains, just outside of Specularum: a small farming village of 900 souls watched over by Castle Marilenev, "a Gothic monstrosity of depressing walls and crumbling towers." Lady Magda Marilenev is its ruler. "Magda was the young wife of Lord Marilenev 30 years ago, when the Marilenev Rebellion was put down." Now a bitter, resentful widow in her 50s, she is described as "a barrel of resentment:" resentful of the Duke, resentful of the other clans whose help she required after the Rebellion, resentful of her state of affairs in comparison to that of the city...she is primed with hatred and ready to "snap," as she does in the suggested adventure. Allston (thankfully) stats her as a Normal Human, rather than a classed character; a surprisingly average woman with an Intelligence of 10, Wisdom of 10, and Charisma of 13. Hardly, a scheming revolutionary or inspiring rabble-rouser, she's just a bitter old woman and (as I infer from the final line of the Marilenev Uprising adventure) an obstacle to the "heroic" player characters being given a castle and township just outside the capital city.

This is Lady Magda and her background as presented by Allston in GAZ1 (the first appearance of the Marilenev clan and its history). There's a little more embellishment in the later Karameikos: Kingdom of Adventure. I haven't written much about K:KoA, an AD&D 2E campaign setting credited to Allston and Jeff Grubb, published in 1994 (seven years after the Gazetteer). While it takes into account the events of 1992's Wrath of the Immortals, advancing the GAZ1 timeline ten years and changing Archduke Stefan to King Stefan I, nearly all of the text is a reprint of the material in GAZ1...word-for-word content, with stats slightly altered for the AD&D rule system (BECMI was very close to 2nd edition AD&D at this point, so not much was needed).  If I had to guess, I'd suspect Allston receives co-credit because so much of the text is taken from GAZ1...Grubb's name is listed first in the byline and I imagine he's responsible for what little new material is found in K:KoA.

But as I said, there's not much (for Magda, especially)...but what there is, is very interesting. She's still the average ability, 0-level character, though aged a decade (she's now in her 60s); she's still the bitter, "barrel of resentment" waiting to "snap" (no Uprising has yet taken place in the advanced timeline). However, now we learn that Magda's own children, Britan and Caspar,

"...were captured by Stefan's forces, who were in turn ambushed by orcs, killing all."

Yowza! This is a much darker portrait of the Marilenev Rebellion (quick historical note: if it fails, it's a a "rebellion;" if it succeeds, it's a "revolution"). K:KoA provides genealogical ancestry for noble houses (each going back three to four generations), and Magda was the only known survivor of the Rebellion, with Magda's husband and his three brothers perishing, and her sister-in-law (Melanie Marilenev) disappearing and never again being seen (in 40 years!). Now "widowed, childless, and stripped of much of her power" no wonder Magda's ready to snap. I'd think she'd be closer to the edge of madness...after all, how old could her sons have been at the time of the Rebellion? Magda herself was only in her early to mid-20s at the time.

Lady Magda now...but
not at the time of the Rebellion.

Of course, now I have to wonder: why. Why has this woman been left to fester for four decades? A young widow, a landed, titled noble, still of childbearing age (and proven as such having had two healthy children), and yet possessing no heirs to her estates...WHY wouldn't she have married into some other wealthy or noble family (Traladaran or Thyatian)? This was no Lady Olenna Tyrell (yes, another Game of Thrones reference), long past her childbearing years who, upon seeing the death of her son, grandchildren, and heirs by the hand of Cersei Lannister, had nothing left to live for but "fire and blood." Lady Magda had EVERYTHING left to live for...including sweet, sweet revenge on Duke Stefan. She should have gotten herself married to someone ("Hey! I've got a castle! And lands!"), and got about the business of breeding new kids too carry on a legacy of hatred and vengeance against the Thyatian invaders. 30 years wasted (40 by K:KoA)?! Aleena was a 12th level cleric by the age of 22! Come on!

But, hey, let's talk about these dead children for a moment. Clearly, the authors want to steer away from the idea of any cruel impropriety by our "good" Duke Stefan. "Oh, yeah, sorry...orc ambush. Been known to happen." Yeah, sure, pal. How about having one of your MANY clerical cronies cast raise dead on my kids?! Both Sherlane Halaran and Oliver Jowett accompanied Stefan to Karameikos, and both were prominent Thyatian patriarchs (and, thus, high enough level to raise dead) prior to embarking on their Karameikan adventure. I can understand not raising the adult members of the Rebellion as a suitable punishment to their treason, but the kids? What was their particular crime, Mr. Lawful Good Archduke, sir? Just worm food (or orc food), huh?

A better Lady Magda

Sorry, I'm not buying any of this. If we make the Duke a more recent entrant on the scene (as I suggested a couple posts back), the Marilenev Rebellion can be a more recent affair as well, with the fallout still being sorted. Instead of a bitter, spiteful old woman, Lady Magda can be a vengeful, fiery young woman, ready to put the wheels of revenge in motion. This isn't Lady Tyrell; this is Cersei Lannister, trying to rebuild an empire on the smoldering remains of her family. She has absolutely no faith in the Duke's "orc ambush" story (and, of course, this is a barefaced lie...Stefan wants no young Traladaran nobles growing up with resentment over the deaths of their fathers), and she's willing to make whatever deals with the devil necessary to enact justice on the murderous usurpers. A good model would be the (fictionalized) Kwenthrith of Mercia from the Vikings television series. She's a complex character: manipulative, vengeful, and ambitious as hell, but still possessing some love and compassion that she supresses with ruthless practicality. The only thing she's truly "resentful" of is being born a woman in a society that makes her sex less worthy to rule than...well, than any number of flawed, terrible, male human beings. And, yet, she doesn't resent being a woman, she resents the patriarchy that would denigrate and devalue her for the fact of her birth.

Give Magda/Kwenthrith a real uprising, not some paltry riot quickly supressed by the Duke's Elvenguard. Give her a real chance at revenge, maybe some child-for-a-child payback (make sure you feed the bodies to orcs so they can't be raised...that's a Kwenthrith kind of thing to do). And make sure there are opportunities for the player characters to get involved, and not just "keeping innocent people from getting hurt." I just don't see that many innocent people in Karameikos.
: )