Chop! Dragon Breath (Part 2)

[continued from here...again, sorry about that]

These are not the dragons of Beowulf. The Big B fought a fire-breathing dragon, and kept fighting even after taking a mortal wound from the beast's flame. Or maybe they are the same: it depends on how you read the poem and interpret the final blow (was it the loyal retainer Wiglaf's blow that mortally wounded the monster? Or was Beowulf's dying strike really needed to finish it off?). But Wiglaf was no superhero in the way Beowulf was, destined to slay terrible monsters. A hero, yes...but that is all.

SO...saving throws. The problem here is that unless you want to reduce your game to fantasy folklore, you have to deal with all the various dragons present in the D&D game. White dragons and blue dragons and gold dragons and whatnot. In Five Ancient Kingdoms (a game based in large part on Chainmail) I limited myself simply to the fire-breathing dragons of folklore. And for my new fantasy heartbreaker I will probably due the same (though I may have fire breathing versus venomous-type worms, I probably won't be doing "acid breath," etc. like D&D. Probably...). That's my style choice...but for purposes of this post I'll assume we're talking about modifying a "normal" D&D game with all its chromatic crazy.

Let's start with a model. For fun, I'll use Vermithrax Pejorative from the classic fantasy film, Dragonslayer. Per the movie's design team, "Vermithrax is 40 feet long, with a wingspan of 90 feet. But she had to look light enough to fly. So most of her weight is at the head, neck, and shoulders. The rest of her is pretty streamlined."

This is what 9 Hit Dice looks like.

Forty feet is a little small for a red dragon, at least according to the Monster Manual. Length for the red is given as 48 feet; the blue dragon at 42 feet is the closest in size. Since an average blue has 9 HD (which is within the hit die range of the red dragon) will go ahead and give VP the same.

Vermithrax is a 400-year-old dragon. In the film, Ulrich states: "When a dragon gets this old, it knows nothing but pain, constant pain. It grows decrepit...crippled...pitiful. Spiteful!" Book 2 of OD&D cuts off at the century mark when HD were still only D6. Supplement I (Greyhawk) increased HPs by 2 "at the two oldest ages," but the age table was not extended. Holmes Basic did extend the age table, giving ancient status (8 HP per die) to dragons over the two century mark. In the Monster Manual, Gygax revised this: ancient dragons were those with more than 400 years. 3rd edition gave dragons 12 age categories, but kept the first eight the same as the MM, simply revising the names (Very Old becoming "Mature Adult;" Ancient becoming "Old"). Personally, I'm inclined to use the Holmes table just because I prefer a smaller scale chronology (thousand year old dragons? That's, like, Star Wars...aka galactic...scale). Plus, it fits with Ulrich's statement which implies the dragon is nearing the end of its life. So, we'll give ol' Verm ancient status and 8 HP per die.

9 HD x 8 HP = 72 hit points. Enough to kill an 18th level B/X magic-user with maximum hit points and an 18 constitution. A 20th level fighter with a +1 constitution bonus has, on average, 71.5 hit points...she dies, too. Assuming, they fail their saving throws.

And that's what we're talking about, right? Axing saving throws?

[other chromatic dragons are fairly close in scale. The white dragon equivalent of Vermithrax (small and ancient) will have 40 hit points...enough to freeze an average 8th level super hero (36 hit points) in his tracks. Again, assuming he (or she) receives no saving throw]

"Interrupt my nap, will you?"

That's a fairly hefty amount of damage ...at least prior to AD&D's hit point inflation with its D10 hit dice for fighters and CON bonus that goes up to +4, per HD. No, it's not a huge inflation...but things have only gone up from there. Which meant that monsters, especially dragons, have had to get bigger, too...but I'm digressing. If you keep the scale small...limiting the amount of HPs characters acquire, limiting the levels they can obtain, limiting bonuses for ability scores...then a monster like Vermithrax is a HUGE monster, a formidable encounter for any group of heroes. Which is good since we really don't want dragons to be "ordinary monsters."

If you keep dragons dangerous (by limiting PCs, allowing them to become legendary through their deeds, rather than their "stat lines"), then it doesn't matter how many HPs the thing has. If you get caught in a stream of acid, or a cloud of poison gas, or are struck by lightning, your character's not walking away. I mean think about that for a second...characters that fail saving throws but still have HPs left? What's THAT look like?

"Five hit points left...have at thee!"

No, it's obvious to me that if you get doused by dragon breath, whether fire or acid or whatever, you're done. Toast. So what's the mechanic for killing PCs (and allowing their possible survival...they are the protagonists of the game's story, after all)?

First off, I don't think there should be any attack roll for a dragon's breath weapon. Dragon breath is too big, too dangerous, too potent for armor to deflect or human reflexes to dodge. If you're in range when it breathes, you're getting hit.

On a related note, I would probably change the shape of all "fantasy" breath attacks to the same cone of effect. A blue breathing lighting or a black breathing acid can sweep an area with their breath attack. This isn't a spitting cobra we're talking about, and dragons aren't stupid animals. As far as "chorine gas" goes...I go with 3E on this one: corrosive, acid gas settling on stuff and destroying it. Chlorine gas (which was briefly used in WWI) just isn't as dangerous/deadly as the other destructive, elemental breath weapons.

Second off, dragon breath kills. This ain't damage...it's death.

Then how can PCs escape this death? Because they ARE heroes...at least in my new heartbreaker. At worst (in early editions of D&D) they are rogues with above average courage and ambition. Regardless, they're protagonists. This isn't Chainmail where only Super Heroes, Wizards, and other dragons are important enough to weather the fire...how do we get our brave little PCs to survive these un-savable, un-miss-able, auto-kill attacks?

Well, my initial thought on the matter is: it depends on the actions the PCs are taking. Player choice, not an arbitrary roll, is going to be the main determination of PC survivability.

But that, it appears, will have to be in a Part 3. Sorry, yes, I know we still have one more saving throw to go...and we will. But dragons (and their abilities) require strong consideration in a game that bears their name in the title.

[to be continued]

Nothing Magical in D&D

Yep, I’m back…back to (nearly) full health, back to work, back to writing (I hope…this is my first stab at anything), back to ranting. Ready to throw out the next bone I’ve got to pick with Dungeons & Dragons.

I hate the lack of magic in the D&D game.

You see this photo? I took this picture with my cell phone back in October while wandering Greenwood. Halloween styling, you know? I thought it was a real piece of old school horror/mystical imagery: the skulls, the skeleton, the “Gypsy fortune teller,” the tarot cards and crystal ball. This display was in the front window of a local flower shop.

At the time, I snapped the picture with the intent of posting it to the blog and talking about the lack of magic in D&D…but October turned out to be a busy month for me and then there were the holidays, etc. But while delving back into the world of fantasy literature I remembered I still had the image stored on my phone and, well, it’s time for Rant #2 of the New Year.

For my taste, there is a profound lack of magic in the game.

What? Disagreement? The appearance of enchanted items and mythical monstrosities and pages and pages of “spells” is evidence to the contrary?

Hardly. There’s nothing all that magical about the treatment of such things in D&D - neither by the game, nor the players (and I include “DM” as a player in this context). When I say “magical,” I’m talking about effects that produce a sense of wonder and a healthy fear (or respect) for the profund mystery of the supernatural. That ain’t what you get in D&D.

See a magical monster: “How do we kill it? How is it vulnerable?”
Find a magic weapon: “What is its bonuses? Does it have charges?”
Cast a magic spell: “What is its effect? Does the target save? How many spells do I have left?”

There is no sense of wonder, nothing that evokes awe in the players. People who play D&D are considered “people of great imagination,” both by outsiders and by themselves. Ha! To me they’re just about the most blasé bunch of adventurers you’ll find in the fantasy game world.

Everything is sooo “ho-hum” to the D&D player when it comes to magic. You find a shiny sword…perhaps it glows in your grip or seems incredibly sharp despite its great age. What do you do?

Player #1: “Hey, who needs a magic sword?”

Player #2: “My cleric can’t use one.”

Player #3: “My dwarf can but I already have a magic axe. Do you think it’s a better weapon?”

Player #4: “Maybe the thief should keep it; she can use it and it’s one more magic weapon doing damage in encounters. Plus, extra backstab damage!”

There’s nothing magical about a magic weapon (or any magic item…they’re generally treated in similar fashion, perhaps with a bit of caution against possible booby-traps, i.e. “curses” or malignant enchantments) in a game of D&D; only a question of its practical value. It’s like finding a box of unused hand grenades while patrolling the jungle in some 3rd world bush war or something: a handy windfall, not anything supernatural or mystical.

Contrast that with the fantasy literature purported to be the basis for the game. Remember my previous rant? No one in a sword & sorcery tale takes such an item for granted. Enchanted items are viewed with suspicion and superstition; fear, awe, and wonder…and a healthy sense of whoa!

Likewise, no one’s blasé about enchantments encountered during adventures or the strange and twisted monsters they encounter. Hell, few fantasy heroes will ever seek to go toe-to-toe with a magical monstrosity unless they either A) have a distinct advantage, B) are faced with life or death choice based on circumstance (i.e. no choice), or C) have been invoked to high passion/emotion (usually revenge or love for an imperiled/harmed companion). Few epic heroes march like Beowulf into the jaws of the dragon…and even Big B might be constrained based on who he is (as Beowulf, he has an honor and duty to fight the monster…to not do so is to extinguish his identity as surely as his death).

But on a D&D adventure, an owl bear is simply a large beast with claws, beak, feathers, and fur. A dragon is simply another beast that may require more cunning tactics to defeat due to breath weapon and spell use. A group of gnolls or bugbears? The only question is: how many are they?

Monsters may be monstrous, they may have a weird appearance, they have dangerous attacks…but it is still just a “thing” to be overcome, through combat or stealth or trickery. Nothing about the D&D monster is respected, save for its potential to kill your character. It is simply a barrier to the accumulation of treasure, i.e. experience “points.”

Where is the awe, the fear at the un-naturalness? Where is the desire to bow down and worship the supernatural monstrosity…or the urge to kneel, weep, and pray to one’s own God for salvation? Nothing compels players to treat these twisted nightmares of imagination as anything more extraordinary than a rabid mastiff.

Spell use, of course, is the most jaded and cynical of all the “magic” found in D&D. What is the ability to cast spells but a simple class ability, no different from a fighter’s ability to wear armor and shoot arrows?

Certainly there is no respectful treatment for spells or those who use them. The only pertinent information players require is the number of spells available and the variety of spells in one’s repertoire. No one consults a priest or wizard on the meanings of dreams or omens, or ask for soothsaying on the future. No one worries that striking or attacking a sorcerer will bring all manner of curses and demons down on the head of the offender. No one wonders at what infernal powers or celestial beings were cajoled into granting the spell-worker his authority over the forces of nature.

Nope, a magic-user is just a dude in a gown, perhaps with a pointy hat and wand, certainly slinging a heavy spell book…and probably the guy forced to carry the light source and extra gear for the party.

And YOU, fair reader, may say “yes, of course it’s like that because that’s what’s in the GAME RULES. In D&D, magic-users (and clerics and druids, etc.) are none of those things found in that good old fantasy literature.”

And I say unto you:

That’s my point exactly.

That’s what sticks in my craw about the game. D&D does NOTHING mechanically, system-wise, to instill any sense of MAGIC or wonder or the supernatural in the players. Ho-hum, it’s O so very interesting to have D&D’s “magic” because it adds a different variety of challenge. But if a glyph of warding is no better or different from a trip-wire arrow trap (save that it requires a different method of disarmament), don’t tell me D&D is some sort of wonderful “fantasy” game based on “fantasy literature.”

And the problem is, I’m not sure how one would make it more magical except by getting “buy off” from all the players that they’ll metagame (i.e. “act out”) the fear and awe and superstition, even while trying to figure out if the magic sword is +1 or +2. But that’s hardly satisfying…I don’t want to have to tell players “okay, suspend your disbelief.” They’re already doing that by pretending to be dwarves and elves. Wouldn't it be cool if the game would do a little bit of the work for you? Meet you halfway?

I think it is the lack of real magical mystery in the D&D game that partly drives James Raggi to do the things he does: Death Frost Doom, for example has multiple instances of unexplainable “weirdness” that attempt to instill awe or dread in a party. But I’ve read play-test reviews where the DM’s players were completely unimpressed with ANY of it, saying, “oh, ok, so what? Where’s the treasure?” Now, I’m sure there are DMs that can exercise a Svengali-like influence over their players generating a suitable mood of discomfort and fear and superstition, BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT THE D&D GAME DOES. And just playing the game as written (with its silly premise) is not going to get anywhere close to it.

D&D lacks magic. All you get is an adventure game with a few types of technology, some different types of fauna from what you find at the local zoo, and a couple character classes with super powers of a decidedly UN-mysterious nature. Compared to the books that “inspired” the game, that’s pretty lame.

“Mundane adventure in a pedestrian world.” Make that your tag-line!

Badass Holmes

This post goes out to all those sexy players of “Original Basic.”

Holmes D&D, or “Homes Basic,” or “Blue Book Basic,” whatever you want to call it…is the sole edition of Dungeons & Dragons I haven’t played. Well, except for “4E,” but as I’ve written before, I don’t really consider this an edition of D&D.

Holmes, despite its idiosyncrasies (five point alignment scheme) definitely qualifies as D&D in my book, and not just because it has “fantasy characters fighting fantasy monsters in a fantasy world” (which I don’t think is a proper definition of D&D anyway). And with all respect to those fighters out there, I think most Holmes edition adventurers will be doing what they can to AVOID combat if at all possible.

But we’ll get to that in a second. As I said, this is the one edition of “true” D&D I’ve never played. Heck, I’d never even seen a copy of it till I was able to buy TWO boxed sets from my local game shop last year (and cool beans I did, as I got first printing of B2: Keep on the Borderlands and a sepia cover copy of B1: In Search of the Unknown along with the books). I’ve read the rules a couple times, but as my gaming time is limited these days anyway, I prefer to stick to my beloved B/X when I game D&D. Still, I would LOVE to play (or run) a games of Holmes. Every time I skim the rules, it brings up a particular itch that I just keep wanting to scratch:

The need to be a badass.

That’s right…BAD ASS. Right on the cover of Homes it states, “the original ADULT fantasy RPG.” It might as well have the sub-caption, “Only Badasses Need Apply.” Because I am utterly convinced it takes Big, Brass Balls to play Holmes D&D.

Unless you’re some sort of masochist.

Let’s break it down with the basics:

Presumed Assumption #1: RPG designers know what they’re doing and designers do things for a reason.

Presumed Assumption #2: A game is a game, regardless of how it looks. There is no preconceived notion of how an RPG should appear.

Presumed Assumption#3: While there may be multiple editions of a game system, there are certain recognizable facets of a game that mark it as part of a family, even if it is its own edition.

[just go with me here for a couple minutes]

OKAY…so if you take these three presumptions to be facts, we can define Holmes as a pretty interesting animal.

Exhibit A: Holmes is D&D. Just having the name slapped on the front of the book doesn’t mean it’s D&D, but having those “recognizable facets” does. See my earlier nerd post: Holmes meets the criteria in every regard, and under presumption #3 we can say, “this IS D&D.”

Exhibit B: Holmes is its “own” edition. Holmes has rules that are different from every other edition of D&D. 5-tier alignment, certain combat systems (like initiative), functioning of particular magic effects, etc. If we see a game that doesn’t synchronize with any other game, and we agree with presumption #1, than we must acknowledge Holmes as its own edition…it is neither a precursor to AD&D, nor to the Cook/Marsh Expert set, though it states it is the former and is semi-adopted in the introduction to the latter. Holmes exists outside of the general space-time continuum of D&D, even though it is readily recognizable as D&D (see Exhibit A).

Exhibit C: Holmes the Badass Edition. If we operate under presumption #2 (practice non-attachment to how the game is “supposed” to look); Holmes is a self-contained game. After all, it is designed how it’s designed. It doesn’t go “with” anything (see Exhibit B). It is what it is.

And what is it? A world where your characters go from 1st level to 3rd…and yet the monsters range from goblins and kobolds up to purple worms and vampires. This is a brutal, brutal world…one where poison means instant death for an adventurer and one in which there is no cure for that poison. Fighters never reach “hero” status (per other editions, that would be a 4th level fighter, and Holmes fighters never get there), and magic-users never gain more than a (small) handful of spells. The only wizards with any power are NPCs…and they are probably of the ancient, stooped and wizened variety to have gained so much power.

Now I’m not the first blogger to suggest Holmes be treated as its own game…one crazy, gritty, nose-to-the-ground game that only goes to 3rd level. I’ve read other Holmes enthusiasts who suggested discarding any pre-conceived notions that Holmes players MUST graduate to AD&D or an Expert set or one of those home-made-internet-downloads-that-continue-Holmes. This is an Old Subject in the realm of Old School blogging.

But instead of looking at THAT particular glass as half-empty (“imagine a D&D campaign where your characters are always eating dirt”), I prefer to remember that adventurers in a D&D game are already a cut-above the Normal Man. Holmes adventurers ARE heroes, even if they aren’t capital-H “Heroes” or even superheroes…but they are heroes. The best kind of heroes. The badass kind.

What is a hero? Well, if I skip the historical definition (of the mythological, half-divine individual), the American Heritage Dictionary defines a hero as “any man noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose.”

In general, adventurers in D&D are not marked for their “nobility of purpose” (they are adventuring for money after all; i.e. trying to make a buck). So what exactly is a feat of courage? Well, the AHD defines “courage” as:

“the state of mind or spirit that allows one to face danger with self-possession, confidence, and resolution.”

If I’m an adventurer…whether 1st level or 3rd level…and I’m going up against a 6+ Hit Dice troll, you better believe it takes courage to even step in the room. Sure there’s trepidation and a jack-hammer heart beat, but that’s the game. At least, it’s the Holmes game.

Adventurers in D&D are a cut above the non-adventuring “normal” folk. But Holmes adventurers are certifiable. They had better be smart, tough, and have a large dose of good luck on their side…especially considering “ability bonus inflation” is non-present and magic items found aren’t going to give you much bonus. You better be both resourceful AND on top of your game if you’re going to face down a gorgon or basilisk with your Homes character!

Adventurers in Holmes are a cut above normal folk, NOT just by their class, but by their HEROIC SPIRIT: the confidence and resolve to face immanent, mortal danger every time they step into the cave entrance. No matter how great they grow in power (um…3rd level?) a strong blow from a giant will crush the stoutest fighter like…well like a giant crushing a mortal man. And you’re going to seek out THAT guy’s treasure horde? You better be prepared in every way possible…you’re going to need a healthy helping of brains to go with your Big Balls. If you survive to 3rd level, you should be expecting some pretty epic songs to be sung by the local bards…and even in your old age, you’ll probably be called upon (like Beowulf) to fight some massive (and certain-death-dealing foe).

How creative do you think PLAYERS have to be to survive Holmes Basic? Talk about serious mental boot camp: if you’re tired of getting your characters gaffled by bugbears and ogres (not to mention black puddings and purple worms), don’t you think you’re going to have to learn how to use every possible advantage? Unlike other editions of D&D, Holmes does NOT have raise dead as a readily available spell. Oh, so sorry…you only live once. Just like, say, Stormbringer?

[at least in Holmes you don’t have to worry about getting critted and killed in your first fight. Instead, you just have to worry about getting hit twice and killed!]

This IS gritty fantasy. This is fantasy with balls. This is an RPG that, if the players are COMMITTED to it, will force you to step up your game. And it’s one where retirement should be viewed as a welcome reward from an extremely dangerous lifestyle. Holmes dungeon delvers are coal miners. They should be coming out of those caves covered in dust and blood and cobwebs…and definitely ready to fire up a smoke and pour a drink on the ground for dead companions. Now THAT’s D&D without artificial sweeteners. I love it.

Welcome to Holmes Basic. Only the Truly Badass need apply. For those about to die: we salute you!

; )

Why Do I Keep Poking At This Thing?

One often heard complaint about the Palladium system is its propensity towards “munchkinism.” For those readers who are un-familiar with the term (I’m guessing less than 1% of you, but well, I like to have things DEFINED, don’t ya’ know?) I’ll try to spell it out in a non-pejorative fashion.

Muchkins, also known as “Twinks” (short for “Twinkies”), also known as “Power Gamers,” also known as “Min-Maxers” are folks with a gamist creative agenda intent on creating the most powerful character possible using knowledge of the rules, possible “broken” classes, powerful combinations, etc. GENERALLY with (what is considered blatant) disregard for the idea of “character” (role-playing) and/or maintaining “game balance” (whatever that is!) in relation to the campaign world and/or other player characters at the table.

When I write “the most powerful character possible” I speak in terms of combat advantage, as this is the general arena of conflict resolution in an RPG (though in a game driven by social mechanics I can see certain combinations still being considered “twinking” or “munchkinism”). The potential for creating munchkiny player characters is more prevalent in systems that allow a wide range of player choice in the creation of their characters; it is much more difficult to “twink” or “min-max” a character in a system where character creation is based on random systems…however, the potential for munchkinism may be present in some systems for certain character builds and not for others (as some character classes provide MORE choice and LESS static/random advantage).

For example: in AD&D it is fairly difficult to accuse someone of munckinism, unless players are allowed to create characters at a “high level.” Starting characters cannot be “twinked” because their ability scores are random, their equipment likewise based on a random (and limited) amount of coin, and 1^st level abilities (and rate of experience) are generally balanced against one another. Certain race-class selections (a Halfling thief, a female Drow cleric) may provide some additional bonuses straight out o the box, but such opportunities are limited. Treasure (especially magic items) are the main source of power gain over time, and this is moderated by the DM so little “twinking” can occur unless the DM permits such (a Monty Haul style campaign).

As a contrasting example: in Werewolf the Apocalypse, a player creates his or character through a series of selections and the assignment of certain points. It is completely possible to choose all the “combat optimal” options with regard to species, clan, moon-type, “gifts,” and in addition assign the majority of points to physical attributes and combat skills, thus creating a virtual juggernaut in combat. This can be problematic for a gaming group if the rest of the group is not “on the same page:” the Storyteller (GM) can still “hose” the player’s character by placing the troupe in situations where combat is a non-issue (and where the PC is woefully inadequate) which can lead to frustration on the part of the player (the player wants to use the character’s abilities after all) and the possibility of “acting out” (forcing even non-combat scenarios into physical conflict through in-game action), while IN combat the character out-shines the other player characters, possibly harming the “fun” of those with different creative agendas.

ANYWAY, that’s how I define munchkins in gaming: folks willing to break social contract (generally with regard to disbelief suspension, “role-playing,” or sharing spotlight time) through rules manipulation and inattention to theme or premise.

Now, having said all that I ALSO want to say that I believe gamism is a valid creative agenda and power gaming is JUST FINE…assuming everyone at the table is on-board and along for the ride. There’s nothing wrong with indulging one’s twink fantasy after all, and some people like to play that way. NOT ME…but I don’t speak for everyone. My ideal gaming environment is a bit different from Munchkin Paradise, but that doesn’t mean others have to play the way I do. Hell, I don’t even throw down $500 on Free Parking when I play Monopoly, though I know A LOT of people that do (and truth be told, I did in my youth as well…I’m such an old fuddy-duddy these days!).

So back to Palladium and specifically Rifts: in addition to the complaints about the poor lay-out and mish-mashed rules, as well as the patronizing tone and protectionist stance…the MAIN complaint I hear from folks AFTER all that is “the game is only for munchkins.”

Just yesterday I was surfing around the Rifts web ring on-line, looking for some house rules (and the stats for a borg railgun, now that Sourcebook #1 is no longer in print) and I ran into a whole site dedicated to stopping munchkinism in Palladium games…basically setting a list of DON’Ts for the GM (don’t allow classes X, Y, and Z, don’t allow certain skills and power options, etc.). There was even a page for stopping munchkinism in Heroes Unlimited with the main commandment being Thou Shalt Not Allow Invulnerability In Thy Game. Say, what? Invulnerability is one of the only ways to represent certain (comic book staple) characters/powers in the game!

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

First off: the short and sweet. With regard to Heroes Unlimited and Rifts both, neither of these games model GAME BALANCE. That is, character classes are not created equally. And that is just fine by me…to a point. HU especially could use some additional rules (not just streamlining) similar to Marvel’s karma rules so as to allow the comic book improbable to occur (like Squirrel Girl beating Doctor Doom or Mr. Fantastic and Co. not getting automatically destroyed by Galactus). But HU especially is designed to model the characters one finds in comics…a Kraven the Hunter is NOT on the same base power level as, say, the Hulk or Captain America, and it’s not just because one guy is a “higher level” than the other. Sneakiness, clever plans, traps, and hired thugs can make the difference AND, with regard to an all SDC (no MDC) campaign, there is still danger for most every character at every level. HU allows players to play the kind of character they WANT and it models characters fairly well in relationship to one another (and sometimes that means looking at two characters that ain’t on the same power level).

Second thought, and piggy backing off the first: I hate, Hate, HATE people saying that it’s up to the GM to balance the campaign to meet the players’ needs. I do NOT hold this as a universal truth and thank God because that is too much damn work for me to do. When one player is playing Thor and the other guy is Rorschach, I’m supposed to make sure every encounter is balanced? No friggin’ way!

It is the GM’s job to create the campaign/game world. A competent game group will have a discussion about this ahead of time so everyone is on the same page before the campaign starts. A competent GM is going to listen to input from the players so that their “fun needs” are met, but there’s no call to completely roll-over. A GM is allowed to set parameters for the game (for example: “we will only be using the Rifts core, Bionics Sourcebook, and Warlords of Russia for this campaign”). And there should be expectations of players being on the ball.

I’m not saying players should be cut-off from playing a Super Sleuth or Vagabond in a World Shaking campaign. But if the player wants to go that route, he or she will be expected to be twice as clever to not only ensure survival, but ensure in-game effectiveness.

And by the way, I LOVE the Vagabond OCC in Rifts…of all the “adventurer” classes, I think it holds the greatest appeal, because it’s so wide open. The first ever “practice game” I ran with Rifts I had my brother play a Vagabond so that he could gage the world and the various powers-that-be. Now he did eventually lose a leg to a stray MDC shot, but he got a bionic replacement, no sweat. Like the drifter career in Traveller, the Vagabond has plenty of opportunity to shine and role-play in the world of Rifts.

Which brings me to thought #3: Rifts does NOT have to be about combat. Neither does HU for that matter, but being based on “comic book land” the regular slugfest is, I’m afraid, inevitable to the genre.

Rifts IS about CONFLICT. There is inherent conflict in every part of the game world, from the core book to each of the supplements. In the core book we have the Coalition versus everyone, though especially Tolkeen. In the NGR it’s about Triax versus the gargoyles. In Warlords of Russia, it’s the Warlords versus each other and the Sovietsky. In Juicer Uprising it’s the juicers versus their own biological clocks. In all of the setting it’s about the hostile, crazy wilderness against the folks trying to survive and re-build a society.

Conflict does NOT equal Combat. Conflict is good for drama; it’s good for adventure, it’s good for problem solving. As with all Old School role-playing games, one can set-up the game to “challenge the players,” NOT the stat block. This ain’t 4E or a video game!

Now a lot of this confusion is Palladium’s fault…they don’t talk about the possibilities of game play in their core books, and the bulk of the written rules system pertains to combat. But just look at that stupid experience table…there’s no points awarded for the amount of damage one does, only for “defeating a menace;” and who knows how one might defeat it? Clever plans, heroic action, and skill use are also well rewarded…none of this is dependent on how big an MDC gun you have.

Again, I blame Palladium for not making this clear (or coherent) in their writing/system. But problem solving, with or without ammunition, gives more “points” as a reward. It’s unfortunate that the benefits of the Palladium reward system are so miniscule (remember how reward systems influence behavior in game? Well a shallow reward system has a lot less influence).

Even so, look at the major menaces of Rifts. Starting with the first two World Books we have, right off the bat, Vampiric Intelligences and Splugorth…creatures with thousands or tens of thousands of MDC/Hit Points. Even a Glitter Boy (the game’s biggest gun) is going to have little to no impact in direct conflict with such creatures. Going into combat with them (or the Apocalyptic Horsemen of Africa) is going to take scores of fighters, many of whom will die…which is of course as it should be. Sure Beowulf killed a dragon single-handedly but he was at the top of his game, the dragon wasn’t huge or ancient, and he still DIED…oh, and there’s a legend and epic poem to Big B’s heroic greatness. It’s going to take brains an outside-the-box thinking to defeat the Supernatural Evils of Rifts (and generally combat is going to only be a factor against their minions).

If supplementary Rifts books have created OCCs that powerful in an especially silly way (personally, I think the mega-juicer is fairly unnecessary to the setting…let’s keep magic supernatural and scientific human augmentation on a “normal” scale), I’m guessing it has to do with Palladium attempting to satisfy consumer demand. But that doesn’t mean one has to use ALL the published material. The classes in the core Rifts book (I don’t know about the new Ultimate Edition) are as balanced against each other as I care to have. As I wrote earlier, I’m inclined to only use the core book and whichever setting specific World Book I need for the type of game I’m playing (thus, if I WAS playing the Juicer Uprising story line, having a wide variety of juicer PCs would probably be both cool and SUITABLE for the setting!). It’s not necessarily about the GM working over-time to balance encounters nor is it about putting down draconian edicts about what power/OCC is not allowed. It IS about creating a setting that makes sense for the type of game you want to play (hopefully with full collaboration between GM and players) and then having folks play to the appropriate level.

Prost!

Tilting at Windmills

Here’s the thing…I realize some folks are going to think my efforts are patently ridiculous, and even many who do not think that will still wonder, “why even bother working on a B/X Companion? Moldvay and Cook did a great job, but so did Frank Mentzer (who incidentally is also listed in the credits for the original B/X books, so it’s not like was some shmuck hired off the street to do BECMI)." Why the hell bother?

After all, Gygax, Arneson, and Moldvay are all dead now anyway…and some might argue that D&D itself is dead, at least it’s original spirit. Who the hell am I trying to impress anyway?

Ron Edwards once wrote that most every RPG designer probably has one “fantasy heartbreaker” in him…an idea of how to re-do Dungeons and Dragons, but fix those quirks or flaws that we don’t like. The term fantasy heartbreaker references the fact that though you may get so far as to actually PUBLISH your game, few if any people are ever going to actually play it; not only are you competing with the name recognition of the original, you’re simply stacking yourself against a half dozen already existing editions of the Big Name Recognized RPG. That’s the heartbreak part…all that love and attention and effort (not to mention time and money) for a game system that MAYBE you’ll play with your own regular game group.

Meanwhile, everyone else will be marching to the beat of 4E or Paizo or AD&D or AD&D2 or BECMI or B/X or OD&D or any of their respective retro-clones.

(Heh…I just realized that Pathfinder is pretty much a retro-clone…ha!)

So is the B/X Companion my fantasy heartbreaker? I hope not…while I buy Ron’s idea, I was never interested in creating a fantasy RPG; there are already plenty out there that do exactly the things I want. Plus I think the early editions of D&D (pre-AD&D2) are plenty serviceable for most any “gritty, gamist, fantasy” I wanted to do (Ars Magica, Dying Earth, and Sorcerer and Sword meeting my other needs of highbrow fantasy). I mean, WFRP and TROS are plenty “down and dirty” but, now that I’ve got a better handle on just what D&D’s combat system models, I’m much more enamored of the original.

So no, while my B/X Companion might “break my heart,” it’s not going to be a complete game system, simply a set of supplemental rules.

Is it MY retro-clone version of the Mentzer Companion-Master rules? Mmmm…not really. It may borrow some things from them, but it is not re-treading the same water. Most of the monsters are getting thrown out and many of the spells; most of the magic items (at least the way they’re presented) and the BECMI restructuring of the classes will all be going away. Likewise, at this point I’m not planning on any weapon mastery or siege weapons, the dominion rules need an over-haul, and I fully intend to leave almost all of the planar travel stuff out.

Yeah…a real re-tooling in other words.

Look, here’s the point. Retro-clones are great and all for games that are out-of-print, but the supplement I’m building has never existed…let alone been out-of-print.

Of course, there HAVE been issuing of games and supplements that address high level play in D&D…the CMI part of BECMI, the Epic Handbook for 3.0…heck even Labyrinth Lord does B/X “up to 20+.” Well?!

But I don’t like ‘em.

I mean that must be the reason I’m doing it, right? ‘Cause if I was satisfied I’d leave well enough alone? So I guess this IS a fantasy heartbreaker of sorts, but instead of re-writing the game system, I’m only re-writing the supplement, huh?

Yeah…so it would appear.

I wasn’t around (at least, not as an adult) in 1981. I didn’t work for TSR and I was never privy to their R&D department conversation. For all I know, Mentzer’s version may be the one originally intended; he did work on B/X after all. Or it might have been worse…a simple bump up in levels and a “just go play AD&D” set of transition rules. Personally, I give a lot of respect to Gygax, but I’m not wearing blinders…he certainly may have upped the complexity of existing rules systems (as he did to AD&D) rather than building on the ones already laid out.

See, that’s kind of my goal, though I’m not sure the “old masters” would approve. I’ve played in “high level” games before and I know what they’re like. I don’t know how many folks playing the game can say that, so often I hear “oh D&D is only cool at low and mid levels.” Really? ‘Cause for me, HIGH level play is where it’s at.

Oh, I’ll play low level games and enjoy them if they’re well done…but how many different ways can you flay and fry a goblin? I mean, really…bugbears? Let’s see a purple worm or a death knight or how about a friggin’ dragon? Did any of you low-level, old school folks ever fight a red dragon? I mean, they’re kind of the signature monster of the game.

But of course, there’s more to the game than fighting monsters (sorry 4E) and there’s more to high level play than fighting BIG monsters. Or fighting BIG monsters on OTHER PLANES (sorry Frank). Yes, there is treasure at every level…but how many +3 swords do you need?

And in B/X D&D, you’re NOT going to be fighting that big of a monster anyway. Unless I want to start adding +5 whatitz to the magic-item list (and I’m not sure I’m going to), the best armor class a PC can have is about -8. That’s plate and shield +3, 18 dex and a ring of protection. You know, around the same maximum AC you see on Old School monsters.

The maximum hit points a PC can have in B/X is 153 (36th level fighter with max hit point rolls and an 18 Constitution); average hit points for a fighter the same level with a 13 Con would be 103; these are equal to a HD 34 or HD 23 monster, respectively. That’s chump change…an Expert set Dragon Turtle has 30 HD. Their steam breath would wipe out pretty much any “average 36th level character” that failed its saving throw.

You know what? You don’t need to keep upping the power level to “challenge” high level PCs. All you’ve got to do is cap ‘em and then the monster design doesn’t become an arms race of bigger, badder monsters. A little bigger, a little badder…and that’s about it. It’s not like they don’t still die when they fail a save versus poison.

A supplement for high level play is NOT JUST “dungeons in space” or something. It is exploration on the epic scale. Taking a couple pack mules and a few stout souls into “the Depths of the Earth” (module D1), following a half-assed map, looking for a thriving city of evil, underground folk? Challenging a deity (module Q1)?! Now THAT’s epic!

But again, that’s just the dungeon delve part. At low-levels, adventure finds you. At high levels YOU GO LOOKING FOR TROUBLE. That’s right…YOU are friggin’ Beowulf, and you start doing stuff like stripping off your armor to see if you can give the beatdown to Grendel bare-handed. Would this work in a 4E game? Not on your life…but in B/X, Grendle probably hits AC 2 the same as AC 9 so who cares?

What about court intrigue? Excalibur’s King Arthur is worried about maintaining his kindom’s morale, he’s worried about his missing Merlin, he’s worried about his buddy riding off with his wife, he’s worried about Mordred leading the Saxons to his door. What’s he going to do about it? Who knows! But that’s high level play.

How many of YOUR characters were worried about barbarians on his kindom’s doorstep? How many were caught in love triangles with other PCs? How many had their illegitimate child coming after him with an arrow of slaying? My old campaign had all that and more for our high level characters.

These were not "railroaded" plots put in place by DMs. These were not “spiritual objectives” or “kickers” taken by players. These were naturally evolving things that occurred in high level play.

Once you’re done with the dungeon, once you’ve explored the wilderness, what’s left for you? Nothing? You just start over again because “D&D plays best at low levels?” Might as well play another game; how many different ways can you flay a goblin, after all?

Maybe folks just don’t have the rules to PLAY high level games.

Anyway, that’s kind of the reason I’m doing it…and kind of as a tribute to the “old masters” that created the game in the first place…and kind of because I just love B/X and want to do something cool for IT…and kind of because (I’m hoping) I can.

Just in case you folks were wondering.

"I Am BEOWULF..." And A Chump

Just watched the Bob Zemeckis version of Beowulf starring a bunch of folks dressed up like cartoons. I have to say I was fairly impressed...right up until the story deviates into left field with Beowulf becoming a chump.


Not that I didn't like the whole Neil Gaiman twist with the dragon being Beowulf's bastard offspring (I've always loved the whole Arthur-Modred dynamic...sometime I'll have to write about how I worked it into MY old AD&D campaign). That was great, and it's no great shakes to me that 'Wulfie dies from spewing blood loss rather than envenomed wounds. Cinematic license, you know?


But he totally rolls over for Grendel's mother? And she survives all the "heroes?" And...du-Du-DU...it looks like she's gearing up to nest her plans again with ol' Wiglaf? Totally lame.


After watching all the "special feature" commentary (yes, I'm one of THOSE people), I wasn't quite as miffed as I was at the end of the movie. I have a lot o respect for what they did and how they used the "performance capture" technology, as well as how they adapted the story. Still and all, though, I would have preferred to see Angelina get decapitated at SOME point in the film...hell, I was looking forward to it, through the whole movie (perhaps THAT was the main disappointment).


What a chump.


Anyway, I think Zemeckis is right on when he says this type of film making can be used for those stories that shouldn't be told live action and shouldn't be told animated. Certainly shouldn't be used for children's stories (for example, the ultra-creepy Polar Express)...but I can definitely see it as an excellent platform for, say, Elric of Melnibone. Its a short step from the gilded halls of Heorot to the spires of the Dreaming City. And if 3D rendering could do justice to the likes of Beowulf and Elric, how about a REAL D&D film...say, one about White Plume Mountain and Blackrazor? Enough with these SciFi channel actors with the fake ears, already...let's make D&D the surreal drama it's supposed to be!


And this time, we'll make sure SOME monster gets decapitated.

B/X Beowulf - A Single (Double) Encounter Adventure

I love Beowulf…I don’t know why, other than that I’m weird. I’ve read several different translations of the story and seen most films about him and arch-nemesis Grendel including that crazy-ass version with Christopher Lambert.

Actually, about the only film version I have NOT seen is the latest animated one with Angelina Jolie…I’m sure I’ll get around to it eventually (though my loyalty is to the Beowulf mythos, not any particular desire to see AJ).

While the epic poem Beowulf is of English origin, the protagonist is a Swede (a Geat) adventuring in Denmark. This means he falls into to my Viking fetish and is thus excellent fodder for my B/X Norse campaign.

Except, of course, I’m not going to bother writing up Beowulf. I mean, what is he after all…a fighter with an 18 strength. Easy enough…probably has a high Constitution (he can hold his breath a looong while) and Wisdom as well. Not that great a Charisma (his henchmen all run away when he’s facing down that last dragon…not much of morale bonus, 'Wulfie).

Anyway, Big B is relatively simple to “stat up;” so much so that he’s easily replaced in any Norse campaign by any other PC fighter with muscle, compassion, and balls the size of grapefruit. No, what’s more interesting (to me) is bringing in the Beowulf legend as an example Single Encounter Adventure scenario.

Previously, I noted that the Norse troll is more akin to the B/X bugbear…specifically, they are large, hairy, and sneaky, though not giant…they don’t regenerate but some are intelligent enough to communicate (in the Common tongue) or learn skills. They also turn to stone when exposed to sunlight.

Depending on which translation/version of Beowulf you’re reading/watching, Grendel appears to be a simple (if especially tough) Norse troll. Which would be a big Bugbear basically. Which is perfectly fine. In other versions, the guy is more like a dragon-kin…scaly armored, clawed, and ravenous. Which is certainly nastier. Grendel’s mother is just a bigger, meaner version of Grendel…or something even more horrific and supernatural.

Each DM will need to decide which version of Grendel and his Dam to use depending on the level of the characters. Here’s how I'd run it:


START: Hrothgar was once a great Lord of Daneland, but of late his dominion has fallen upon hard times. The once merry hall of his stronghold Heorot (Hay-oh-roht) is now a dark and dismal place; its gilded arches are now dingy and a pall hangs over the people he rules. Rumor has it that a great evil stalks his land, and Hrothgar has made it known that he will shower gold on any heroes that can take the scourge from his land.

WHAT IS HAPPENING: Hrothgar is being stalked and taunted by an abominable creature called Grendel. Grendel nightly stalks Heorot with impunity, killing Hrothgar’s guardsmen from stealth and causing great lamentation amongst the surviving wives, mothers, and children. Hrothgar’s people are dying by inches, and the old lord and his favored henchman Unferth have been unable to stop Grendel.

Hrothgar (AC 5, F10, HPS 30, MV 90, #AT 1 weapon (-2 to hit), D 1D8, Save F10 (-1) , ML 9, AL N). Once hale and hearty, Hrothgar has not aged well (Str & Con both 8) and the additional stress and strain of Grendel’s attacks causes him to suffer a -1 penalty on all to hit, damage, and save rolls, as well as his AC. He wields a +3 sword named Naegling (“Nailer”) which is as much a symbol of his lordship as his pride. If the adventurers defeat both Grendel and his mother, Hrothgar will bestow Naegling on the party as well as two chests of gold. However, until such time as the creatures are defeated he retains the sword to defend his people..it appears to be one of the few things Grendel fears.

Unferth (AC 4, F5, HPS 22, MV 90, #AT 1 weapon (+1 to hit), D 1D8+1, Save F5, ML 7, AL N). Unferth is Hrothgar’s guard captain, but he has been completely un-manned by Grendel and his inability to stop the creature’s rampage. He wields a sword +1 named Hrunting (“Thrusting”). He doesn’t trust the adventurers competence to defeat Grendel and will deride them privately, possibly publicly depending on his morale and Reaction to them. If the party defeats Grendel, he will present them with Hrunting and retire his post in shame.

Grendel, version 1 (AC 4, HD 4+2**, HPS 26, MV 120, #AT 1, D 1D8+2, Save F4 (special), ML 10, AL C). Grendel is both large and stealthy and attacks with surprise 1-3 on a D6. In general, he will attempt to kill one or two lone guardsmen every night (Hrothgar only has a dozen or so fighting men left, each equal to a 1st or 2nd level fighter). Grendel’s special hide makes him immune to weapons of less than +2 enchantment, reduces spell damage by half, and makes him immune to sleep, charm, and hold spells. Grendel takes normal damage from both unarmed attacks and fire (normal or magical).

Grendel’s Mother, version 1 (AC 3, HD 5+2**, HPS 32, MV 120, #AT 2, D1D8+2, Save F5 (special), ML 11, AL C). Grendel’s mother is simply a larger, fiercer version of Grendel, with the same surprise chance and immunities. She will only be encountered if Grendel is tracked back to his lair in the fens, or if Grendel is slain (in which case she will stalk Hrothgar’s halls for vengeance on those that destroyed her child). In her lair (an underwater grotto) lies the ruins of several adventurers that went searching for Grendel and an ancient two-handed sword +2 that is capable of piercing her hide or that of Grendel.

This version of Grendel and his mother are based on the bugbear (i.e. Norse troll) statistics for a sub-chief and chief; it is suitable for an adventuring party of levels 1-3. It is suggested that Grendel and his mother represent the last of a matriarchal troll clan, hunted to near-extinction by Hrothgar and his men; this is the reason Grendel seeks revenge against the warriors of Heorot Hall. How the creatures gained their special immunities is left up to the DM to decide (perhaps the ability is inherent in the ruling line of the clan, perhaps Grendel made a pact with a Northen witch). The DM can also remove the special ability if deemed too tough for the party.

Grendel, version 2 (AC 3, HD 11****, HPS 66, MV 120, #AT 2 Claws, 1 Bite, D 1D10+2/1D10+2/2D6, Save D10, ML 10, AL C). Grendel bears an enchantment that makes him invulnerable to all weapons made by man (including magical weapons) as well as sleep, charm, and hold spells. He takes half damage from other spells or normal fire, but takes normal damage from unarmed attacks. He always gains surprise on a 1-5 on a D6…he is practically invisible until he strikes. He is large, scaly, and has savage claws and teeth…if he kills a warrior is 80% likely to simply abscond with the body to devour at his leisure.

Gendel’s Mother, version 2 (AC 0, HD 14*****, HPS 84, MV 120, # AT 2 Claws or special, D 1D10+3/1D10+3, Save D12, ML 11, AL C). Grendel’s mother is a material demon that is immune to mortal-manufactured weapons (including magical weapons), as well as fire (normal or magical), sleep, charm, and hold spells. She takes only half damage from other spells, and has the ability to polymorph self, turn invisible, charm person, or dispel magic each 1/day. In her underwater lair there is a huge two-handed sword (twice normal encumbrance), forged for the titans by some long-forgotten god; it requires a Strength of 18, gauntlets of ogre power, or girdle of giant strength to wield but is the equivalent of a +3 weapon and has the ability to harm both Grendel and his mother.

In this version of Grendel is the illegitimate child of Hrothgar himself, who was seduced by the demoness. The monster inflicts suffering on Hrothgar for failure to acknowledge him as his child and heir (something that would cause the Lord's people to rise up and cast him down). Grendel stalks Heorot Hall at the behest of his mother, a wicked creature that delights in causing mischief and misery and whom plots to cause the insanity of Hrothgar and the fall of his dominion for pure spite. PCs should be at least Name level and bring their “A game” to face-off against this version of the scourge.