Let Slip The Dogs Of War (Part I)

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

FRIDAY BLOCK I: Silver Temple of Transcendent Flame

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Besides, the adventure was plenty deadly as is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then watched as the zombies were vaporized with fire.

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

*****

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

I will talk about this in a separate post.

*****

SATURDAY BLOCK II: Caul’s Dark Citadel

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

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

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

*sigh*  Let me explain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adult Varla

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[to be continued...]

A moment of unbridled joy...

Unearthed Arcana Revisited

From Dragon Magazine, issue #59:

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

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

E. Gary Gygax, March 1982

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, Gary. On to California.

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

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

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

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

; )

Just look at this geezer...

Uni's Lost Horn

Quick note before we get into it: just want everyone to know that after a bit more reading/perusal, I returned the new 5.5E Dungeon Master's Guide to my local B&N and got my money back ($55 and change). Just a no-brainer when you consider A) I play 1st edition, and B) the book is a steaming pile of garbage. 

One of the last straws that broke the camel's back? Hey, they had Warduke's helmet as a possible magic item!  Here's the description (the accompanying illustration made it clear who it belongs to):

Dread Helm

Wondrous Item, Common

While you're wearing this fearsome steel helm, your eyes glow red and the rest of your face is hidden in shadow.

Check that out...that's all it is. A magic item that has a cosmetic, non-game related effect. It just makes your eyes glow red.

But don't feel like this is something to pawn off on your henchman...this is a common magic item. Which means it can be purchased in any old town.

Common magic items can often be bought in a city or town. 

Cost for a common magic item in 5th edition? 100 g.p. As compared to mundane, non-magical plate armor which costs 1,500 g.p. WTF? Is that verisimilitude? NO. But, hey don't worry, because the book tells you plain and simple:

The Game is Not an Economy. The rules of the game aren't intended to model a realistic economy, and players who look for loopholes that let them generate infinite wealth using combinations of spells are exploiting the rules. 

Of course, what if your players are those "optimizers" who enjoy finding loopholes, just like these? Aren't we supposed to be "making it fun for everyone?" Well...

Rules Rely on Good Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group's fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light.

I think you're making a BIG assumption there...an assumption that anyone is going to READ these rules. Rules that are subject to arbitrary change by the DM, so they really don't matter. Hell, it doesn't even matter if the DM knows the rules. Look what's here on the same page (this is Chapter 1, by the way):

Knowing The Rules

You don't have to be an expert on the rules to be a good DM. Of course, itt's helpful to be familiar with the rules especially the ones in the Player's Handbook. But facilitating fun is more important that implementing the rules perfectly. If you're not sure how to apply the rules in a situation, you can always ask the opinion of the players as a group. It might take a few minutes, but it's usually possible to reach an answer that feels fair to everyone, and that's more important than a "correct" answer.

Just about every sentence in that paragraph is incredibly, seriously wrong. And why do they put the word "correct" in quotation marks? Because what is "correct" is just a matter of opinion? Truth is up for interpretation? Yeah, it feels like I've heard that a lot lately.

ANYway...if I'd read that "knowing the rules" sidebar sooner, I would have dumped the book even faster. But then I couldn't have given you folks my rant-y review. Ah, the things I do for my readers!

Moving on.

As I noted earlier, one of the things that intrigued me about the DMG5.5 (before disgust overwhelmed anything else) was the inclusion of the "D&D kids" from Saturday Morning cartoons. I was a big fan of those cartoons growing up...in fact, if hard-pressed, they might edge out Thundarr the Barbarian as the all-time favorite of my childhood. Certainly, the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon was the ONLY cartoon that made me set an alarm Friday night so that I wouldn't miss it in the morning!

I am of the opinion that THAT particular IP is an un-mined resource for nostalgia (and revenue)...so when I saw that they were throwing those dudes into the artwork and "lore" of 5.5 I was kind of thrilled. And, THEN, I became curious...extremely curious...about one particular image:

See that odd duck over on the left? That's "Niko."

Who the heck is this Niko person?

This illustration led me down a rabbit hole of internet Googlings, till I found the answer: no, Niko was not a character from some un-watched (or un-developed) TV episode. She is a cleric character created for use with an adventure module featuring the D&D kids that WotC produced as part of their 50th anniversary celebration. She even has a "magic weapon" of her own, imaginatively called "Niko's Mace" (though that item is not in the DMG5.5, unless I somehow missed it). 

That adventure (which I'd never heard of before yesterday) is called Uni and the Hunt for the Lost Horn. And after much, much scouring of the inter-webs, I was able to find a PDF copy. Here's my capsule review (in the style of Mr. Bryce Lynch):

This 48 page adventure uses three pages to describe a tiny "demi-plane" dungeon consisting of five encounter areas. It is for 5th edition, which means it's trash anyway, but at least it does not provide any personality, background, or role-playing notes for the seven pre-generated characters included with the module, so your table should be mercifully spared faux-acting and cobbled drama. My childhood has been mined for profits and my life is a living hell.

*ahem*

The adventure seems loosely based on the Episode 4 of the cartoon series, "Valley of the Unicorns" (yes, yes, I am a tremendous nerd). Which I remember as being quite good. It has a demon idol, a great villain, a sinister plan, a Daern's Instant Fortress, miserable de-protagonization of cutesy fairy tale creatures, an appearance of the Imprisonment spell (one of the more awesome moments of the series, IMO), and a pack of worgs. I mean, it's very "D&Dish," even if the characters aren't looting the hell out of everything.

ANYway, the Lost Horn adventure isn't nearly as cool. A couple of lame fights, maybe some double-crossing with a bullywug chieftain (?), and a deus ex machina at the end where Venger comes in and finishes the fight. I mean, it's really pretty dumb.

But what it DOES have is, again, nice artwork illustrating the artist's idea of what the grown up D&D kids look like. And that's pretty nifty (though, honestly, I don't think they needed to turn Bobby into a gym bro; I see a lot of crushed Coors light cans in his dorm room...). That's neat...un-tapped potential finally being tapped (as they probably should have done for the D&D movie).

"Battle Medic," natch

I don't even mind Niko terribly. I can already tell that the inclusion of a new cast member will raise the hackles of some fans (doesn't it always?) especially as her obvious "diversity" will be interpreted as, well, obvious diversity (which some people dislike). But let's be honest here: if the kids were an actual D&D party, they would want a cleric, no? None of them have much in the way of first aid training and any scrape from a bullywug spear is likely to get infected (and so many of these kids insist on roaming the wilderness in shorts and bare arms...) and lead to an untimely death. Well, maybe...I suppose the cartoon's not called Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Perhaps tetanus isn't a thing in "the Realm."

[whether it is or isn't, I have to admit she's pretty superfluous. This IS 5E, after all, so it's not like people die easily. Also, no undead in the adventure]

So...grown up kids? Cool. Everything else? Not so much. 

And reading through this reminded me this isn't the first time WotC has tried to stat out the D&D kids for the game; sometime circa 2007, they sold a special DVD box set of all the cartoon episodes...which I own. In addition to the disks and a bunch of ink drawings and collectable cards, the box contained an actual honest-to-goodness adventure (written for DND3) with write-ups of all the characters, plus Venger (an 18th level, half-infernal for the curious)!

Unlike, Uni's Lost Horn, the PCs in this adventure are STILL KIDS.  And they're 7th level adventurers (in Lost Horn, they're only 4th level). The adventure (credited to Matthew Sernett) is called Beneath the Blade of Sword Mountain, which kind of kicks the ass of "Uni's Lost Horn." Oh, you want the capsule review again? Here it is:

This twenty-six page adventure uses nine pages to describe four encounter areas, including each area's individual battle map. Most of the remaining pages are taken up with full page artwork of the D&D characters. The writing is extremely tiny, the page size is the same as a DVD case, and I am so old I needed a magnifying glass to read Mr. Sernett's name in the designer credits.

No cleric in this one (and no undead either or the D&D kids would be So Screwed!). Interesting that in addition to a full 3E stat block (skills! feats!), each character gets a paragraph of text describing their personality and relationship with the other PCs...role-playing notes, in other words. Which are completely absent from the Uni's Lost Horn adventure.

Why am I bothering to write about all of this? Well for one thing, it's Friday and that seems to be the day I have more free time for blogging (though I made time for yesterday's bile. Man, did it get my dander up!). But also, because it's put an idea into my head: maybe I want to do my own version of the D&D kids...for AD&D, of course...along with some sort of adventure.  In fact, there's no "maybe" about it; I definitely want to do this!

Yes, indeedy. The only question is, which tack do I take? Old kids or young kids? And do I write my own adventure or rewrite one of these two?  And if I do decide to make my own, should I use one of the old cartoon episodes as inspiration? There are a few good ones to draw from. More than a few. I kind of want to (re-)do Valley of the Unicorns, because Kelek is so dastardly as an evil wizard. I dig it. You tell me.

Okay, that's enough for a Friday afternoon. And here's your "moment of zen:"

A LOT of crushed beer cans...

The Death Of Adventure

So...last night (Wednesday), I purchased the new "5.5E" Dungeon Master's Guide.

No joke.

The kids and I were at Barnes & Noble, using up old gift cards (we had some $160 worth that were sitting in the glove box of the car). While many actual ("non-game") books were bought, I threw the DMG on the pile for a lark. I mean, if I fancy myself a "game designer," shouldn't I be keeping up with new developments in the hobby? Plus, it had a cool cover and I am NOT immune to the same visual snares as any other gamer geek. C/mon...Warduke? He's my fave!

My son just rolled his eyes at me. 

But seriously, the subject of 5E has been coming up lately with regard to some of the things I've been writing (and some of the feedback I've been getting), and I thought maybe I needed to take a good look at just what WotC (or "the WotC" as some call it) is selling customers these days. I mean, I have the receipt...I can still take the book back.

; )

ANYway...after the kids were in bed, I skimmed the book for an hour or so, making note of the different sections, seeing what new things had been included, noting some of the cuteness. I confess, I do love the inclusion of the "D&D kids" from the early 80s cartoon; especially nice to see their "magic weapons" all getting write-ups in the the Magic Items section. Nice to see Greyhawk get some love as an example campaign setting (I didn't bother reading the write-up). The "lore glossary" was kind of fun (no Gord the Rogue, though). Also, interesting the chapter on "bastions"...5E adding some domain rules to their game? How 'old school' of them!

I woke up this morning a little before 6am and, as usual, being unable to get back to sleep, decided to go downstairs, brew some coffee, and give the thing a thorough read-through. 

And...hm.

Well, at first it wasn't all that bad. In fact, my original title for this blog post was going to be "Eye of the Beholder" because, if you read the text from a particular perspective...say, one of having decades of D&D gaming under your belt...and then tilted your head a little bit...well, you could say 'Okay, I guess this is still D&D.'  I mean, the "how to run a session" is fairly similar to any other edition's session running. Discussions of DM's unique play style, respecting our fellow participants (players and DMs alike), rules adjudication, yes, yes, this all seems normal. Advice for dealing with overly cautious players, uh-huh. How to deal with rules discussions, okay. A lot of things on proper communication...what I'd call "no brainer" stuff, but we live in a world where bad behavior gets tolerated (especially on-line), and everyone is touchy, so maybe having some of this up front is fine. VTT discussion...okay, small, but worth mentioning, no problem...

Then we get to Chapter 2: Running the Game.

KNOW YOUR PLAYERS

...your role as Dungeon Master is to keep the players immersed in the world you've created and to give the characters the opportunity to do awesome things.

Knowing what your players enjoy most about the D&D game helps you create and run adventures that they will enjoy and remember. Once you know which of the following activities each player in your group enjoys, you can tailor adventures to your players' preferences.

So what are these activities? They book divides them into several descriptive categories, each category including several ideas for engaging these specific types of players. They include the following (in alphabetical order): Acting, Exploring, Fighting, Instigating, Optimizing, Problem-Solving, Socializing, Storytelling. These ideas for all these are bad, dumb, or worse. For the "socializing" player, there aren't any ideas; instead, the book simply says:

Many groups include players who come to the game primarily because they enjoy the social event and want to spend time with their friends, not because they're especially invested in any part of the actual game. These players want to participate, but they tend not to care whether they're deeply immersed in the adventure, and they don't tend to be assertive or very involved in the details of the game, rules, or story. As a rule, don't try to force these players to be more involved then they want to be. 

Are. You. Fucking. Kidding. Me?

I started to read ahead, faster and faster...skimming over extremely extraneous rules (example: "audibility distance" has a random table: 2d6x5' if you're trying to be quiet, 2d6x10' with normal movement, 2d6x50' if "very loud," undefined. Oh, here's another: roll D20 for weather: 1-14 "normal for season," 13-17 colder, 18-20 hotter. Thanks, tips). Ignored the paltry miniatures rules and got to combat, where we get this good advice under the section KEEPING COMBAT MOVING: 

Don't Repeat Game States

When a characters do something to change the tactical situation, don't respond by putting things back to the way they were before. For example, if a character takes the Disengage action to move away from a group of monsters, don't respond by having those same monsters chase the character. Move the monsters somewhere else.

Guess no pursuit/evasion rules needed here. 

Hasten A Monster's Demise

If a combat has gone on long enough [undefined] and the characters' victory is almost certain, you can simply have the monster drop dead. The players don't ever need to know that still had 15 Hit Points left...

How is that different from "fundging" dice rolls again?

Change The Monster

You can transform one monster into another to keep a fight interesting. Maybe a worg splits open and a gibbering mouther spills out to take its place. Or a cultist is consumed in a pillar of infernal flame and a devil erupts from the ashes. 

Or maybe I should suddenly yell and throw my beer at the players because they seem to be dozing off, right? That'll liven things up...keep 'em on their toes, right?

OMG (as the kids say)...this was starting to get really, really bad. I quickly flipped back to chapter one where the helpful sidebar told me that "Every chapter (but especially chapters 1, 2, 4, and 5) has new advice for Dungeon Masters of all experience levels."  Well, the advice in Chapter 2 had proven fucking horrible, what on Earth would I find in Chapters 4 and 5?

Chapter 4: CREATING ADVENTURES

Oh, Lord, no...

Chapter 5: CREATING CAMPAIGNS

*sob*

Everything outlined about the story of an adventure in chapter 4 is true of a campaign's story as well; a campaign is like a series of comics or TV shows, where each adventure (like an issue of a comic or a TV episode) tells a self-contained story that contributes to the larger story. Just like with an adventure, a campaign's story isn't predetermined, because the actions of the players' characters will influence how the story plays out. 

No, of course it's not. It's dependent on Character Arcs:

Like most protagonists in film and literature, D&D adventurers face challenges and change through the experience of overcoming them. By incorporating each character's motivation into your adventures...you'll help characters grow in exciting ways. You can use the DM's Character Tracker sheet to keep track of key information about each character [sections on PC's Goal, Ambition, Quirks and Whims, then]...Players often reveal their characters' motivations through play. If you're uncertain of a character's motivations seem to have changed, it's OK to ask players for clarification.

Because, yeah, if I'm designing adventures that highlight "characters' motivations" it would be pretty challenging to do so given a whimsical fucking player who keeps changing their character's "goals" and "ambitions." Especially if it's just some jackass that only shows up to "socialize."

This f'ing thing. 

There are a lot of people who say that "D&D 5.5" is pretty much the same thing as 5E, and mechanically-speaking (i.e. with regard to the actual nuts-n-bolts rules), this appears to be the case. But this is most definitely NOT the same game as previous editions. To paraphrase a famous movie line, "This ain't even the same Goddamn sport."

It is clear to me that WotC has leaned HARD into that cash cow that is Critical Role...a program that amassed a half billion views between 2018 and 2022.  There was no "Critical Role" in 2014 when 5E was first published, and while I don't own the 5E DMG, I can read it on-line (pirated PDFs abound) and there's nothing in it that comes close to calling D&D a "collaborative story" that focuses on characters. Here, though, it is pervasive and (IMO) plain terrible. Even 5E, as written could still be played (nominally) like Dungeons & Dragons, i.e. with players experiencing the thrill of danger in adventures created by a DM running his or her own world.

Now it's about having a "premise" for your campaign. Now it's about including "foreshadowing" and "callbacks." Now it's about "sharing spotlight" and creating Very Special Episodes for each particular PC in the group. 

Character-Focused Adventures.  Adventures should occasionally highlight character motivations or elements of their backstory. Here are a few examples....

...Avoid focusing adventures on any one character too often, and look for opportunities to have character-focused adventures for each character from time to time.

No. This is not D&D. This is not special snowflake Improv Hour at the Underground. 

All of this is so aggravating and awful I want to nut-punch someone. No wonder the state of the hobby is so incomprehensible. The publishers took the incoherence of 2nd Edition AD&D and multiplied it by a hundred. Why? Because some actors pretending to play D&D made the game uber-popular.

F. That. Nonsense.

I apologize for all the cursing (my kids don't read my blog), but I am incensed. And I am sad. Because it IS sad...yes, SAD!...to see the needless and untimely death of something I love. The death of fantasy adventure gaming. You can sell all the books of rules you want, with stupid tracking sheets, and ridiculous random tables, and long and complex "experience point tables."  But experience points don't matter much when levels are handed out arbitrarily.

You can do away with XP entirely and advance characters based on how many sessions they play or when the characters accomplish significant story goals. This method of level advancement can be particularly helpful if your campaign doesn't include much combat or includes so much combat that tracking XP becomes tiresome.

Oh, I'm sorry. Has tracking XP become tiresome? Let's just sit around talking "in character." That should surely be the way to make my fighter become a more powerful combatant. Lot of danger in hashing out my backstory with sparkling reveals and a clever accent, right?

But is there really any danger? After all, players are allowed to set "Hard Limits" for what they find acceptable, and this can include ANY rules, including those related to CHARACTER DEATH.

Given the degree to which players get attached to their characters, character death can be an emotionally charged situation. It might even be a hard limit for some players (see "Ensuring Fun For All" in chapter 1), so it's worth holding a conversation about how to handle character death at the start of a game.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the mistaken impression we were playing DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. I didn't realize that would be TOO HARD for you. Please, let us play this circle-jerk abomination instead!

It is ridiculous. It is terrible. It is dysfunctional. It is schizophrenic: why bother putting in all this "advice" to make interesting tactical distinctions in combat (all in the name of making fights more interesting) when it all just boils down to advantage or disadvantage?  Why bother fighting at all when the DM simply rules the monster drops dead because the fight's been going on "too long?" Or when DMs are advised to have unrelated monsters pop out of an opponent just to spice things up?

The dumbing down of D&D and the squandering of the game's potential has reached apotheosis. I will not say 'things cannot get worse,' because things can ALWAYS get worse. But even making the game worse than this could not kill classic D&D adventure game any deader. What the game's publisher is selling as instructional text to potential Dungeon Masters is worse than a sham...it's a shame. A damn, crying shame.

Hey, but nice cover art! Love Warduke!

Not D&D

So I've now managed to watch the new D&D film twice; it's available for free on one of the many streaming services my cable company gives me.

[oh horrors! People cry...JB you have so little time for ANYthing, why would you waste it watching the same movie TWICE, let alone THAT one? Well, folks, the fact is my family watches too much television as it is...usually starting around "dinner time" and then only ending at "bedtime;" because of our daily schedule of activities it amounts to about 2+ hours every week night. So for me to throw on the film in the background while cooking is no big deal (TV's going to be on anyway) so long as no one complains about what I'm watching (and they didn't...in this case)]

I am going to pen my thoughts on the thing. There will (probably) be SPOILERS.

You may think, from the title of my post, that I didn't like Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves. That would be incorrect. It isn't stellar, mind-blowing cinema, but it's likable enough: breezy, lightly entertaining fantasy fare. A good, on-the-couch-with-popcorn movie (which is how I viewed it the first evening). My family, including my wife, enjoyed it quite a bit.

Despite liking it, however, I'm rather astounded at the reviews the thing has received. 93% popcorn rating? 90% Rotten Tomatoes?! Wha-wha-what? Really? I mean, it's about on par with one of those Ant-Man films and none of those have cracked the high 80s. Heck, it wasn't much of a cut above the latest Shazam! film, and that thing was under 50%.

Thing is, despite better (and more likable) actors, tighter directing, updated special effects, and delightful music score, I found a lot of the film quite similar to the original (rightly panned) D&D movie. A lot of parallels. That's not an attempted 'put down;' I just find it...interesting.

Okay, let me list a few of the things I quite liked about the film:

• The actors, their approach to the film, and the chemistry was all quite good.
• Some fun little "D&Disms" were nice to see: all the traditional PC races (minus...elves?) make an appearance. Seeing black dragons, intellect devourers, and owlbears in a live-action  film is fun. Some iconic spell use (Bigby's hand spells, Evard's black tentacles, timestop, etc.) is neat and showcases some of the unique aspects of D&D versus the usual fantasy drama.
• Immensely enjoyed some of the traditional class portrayals. The paladin was great (love the idea that he "smells" evil). The half-elf sorcerer was quite a good example of a low-level magic-user. Dug the bard flashbacks when he was wearing some sort of plate armor (perhaps in his days as a fighter?). And the fighter lady (Holga? I really can't remember any of their names) was highly reminiscent of my friend's long-running character, except she used a talking sword and preferred her potatoes mashed. Oh, and she didn't have a thing for halflings.
• I quite liked the tiefling character! At least, I didn't hate it. But I'm sure many 5E aficionados will say "that's not a tiefling!" and perhaps that's why it appealed to me. The small horns, prehensile tail, and shapeshifting druid thing all gave the character a very fairy tale fey vibe that I quite liked (as opposed to the edgy half-demon warlock with fire abilities and sexy high charisma). No, she was cute and bumpkin-y ("guileless") and a good stand-in for the 'Tolkien elf' which I'm, frankly, quite sick of.
• Even though I'm not a fan of the Forgotten Realms, I quite liked that the film was set in an actual D&D campaign setting with recognizable names, places, and lore. It may be a stupid setting (sorry to the folks who love FR), but at least it's a nod to the extensive IP of the game.

Aaaand,,,that's about it. But I assure you that's a LOT of what made the thing enjoyable (or interesting) for me to watch. Oh and, sure, it also had some funny bits.

Here's what I disliked:

Despite the use of D&D tropes and recognizable game elements, the movie was very much NOT D&D. So much not D&D. It actually fought against itself in this regard (are these treasure seeking rogues or altruistic heroes?) which, for me, made the whole thing a bit of a muddle writing/story-wise. 

But the world doesn't even FUNCTION like a D&D world:

• Where the hell are the clerics? They are mentioned once in the beginning (wrt their inability to heal the bard's dead wife) and then never make an appearance. There's no healing magic at all (not that it's needed; see below), but boy you'd think some undead turning ability would be pretty handy fighting all the undead foes. No clerical ANYthing, even from the "divine" character types that DO appear (druid, paladin).
• This is not how magic works. Or maybe it does in 5E. No spell books? No memorization? No interruption of spell-casting? Because that battle with the red wizard at the end should have been pretty one-sided with all the shucking and jiving she was required to do. And the bard has...no magic? Even in 5E, that's not a thing.
• This is not what combat looks like in D&D. Now, I LIKED that the fighter girl could smack five or six dudes for every one attack of the bard (which is clearly something different than the 1E version, despite what I wrote above). But the way the group tended to stand back and let one character have their spotlight melee moment is NOT D&D (the paladin versus the assassin clan was probably the most egregious example). Points for avoiding and running away from some fights (like with the dragon), but generally there wasn't enough slaying and slaughter for a typical D&D game. Oh, except for castle soldiers: boy, for a group who prided themselves on not harming (killing) anyone in their heists, they sure beat the living shit out of a bunch of Neverwinter guardsmen who were just kind of doing their job. Oh, and the slingshot? I hate the slingshot.
• What's with the inter-species romance? I guess that's just played for laughs, but there's a lot of iffy-ness in the human-halfling thing. Like, I can buy that Holga and her ex- fell in love and that it was a unique situation...but now he's with another human? And in a later scene Holga is eyeing up another halfling? While I understand that people have their kinks, that's an awkward fetish thang to throw into the film. The tiefling/half-elf is far more believable (especially with the tiefling standing in for a wood elf), considering that there's at least a nod to the different cultural backgrounds (urban versus fey). Ah, well. 
• I hate 5E. There's a lot of 5Eisms..."attuning" magic items, for example...that just sets my teeth on edge. And is that how druid shapeshifting works in 5E? Just change at will, as often as you like, into any creature including fantastical ones (like owlbears)? Why not shift into a dragon and burn the place down? Sorcerers and "wild magic?" Oh sweet Baby Jesus. Do bards not carry weapons? Do "Harpers" not learn how to play a harp. *sigh*

All right, enough with the negativity. I said (a long time ago, maybe on someone else's blog) that the way to make a "successful D&D film" would be to create a GOOD FILM that had aspects relatable to D&D in it. I also opined that it would be pretty damn impossible to make a film that truly replicates gameplay because what makes the game great is NOT (generally speaking) anything that translates to a cinematic, story-telling art form. Judging by its success (there is talk of a spin-off series), this may be the best movie makers can do with such a tricky subject. I confess that I'm honestly surprised at how favorable and effective the formula worked...but I suppose it's the same formula that worked for Marvel.

Finally: it was a lot of fun to see the OG D&D gang (from the cartoon) make an appearance in the otherwise stupid labyrinth scene...so much so that I found myself wishing the movie was about them, rather than the story at hand. And as the rest of the film unwound its reel, this was a persistent thought that wouldn't quite dislodge itself from my brain: what a missed opportunity! What a fantastic idea!

Because if you do just want to make a light-weight fantasy movie, with magic and wonder and the tropes of D&D, you could do a lot worse than drawing inspiration from that cartoon. Heck, what's a D&D movie without a Dungeon Master? What could more firmly stamp a film with a D&D moniker than to have the appearance of a DM? Besides which Venger is a deeper, more interesting and nuanced antagonist than ANY of the "bad guys" in the existing D&D films. Yes, that includes Hugh Grant's character...fight me on that if you will. Plus, you still get hand-wringing sentimentality, self-doubt, impassioned speeches, humorous pratfalls...basically all the same stuff that (I guess) makes Honor Among Thieves a hit movie.

And it would be far more similar to D&D.

D&D - The Cartoon (Part 3: Old School Combat)

I'm going to give myself about 45 minutes to blog. We'll see how much I get through.

Close to four years back (!!) I started a series of blog posts (or, rather, intended to start a series) about the old Dungeons & Dragons cartoon. For various reasons and distractions, not the least of which being my life in Paraguay, this trailed off rather abruptly (you can see my prior posts here and here). Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the series again, mainly due to my daughter's love and fascination with the show (my son...eh, not so much). Enough so that I thought I'd get back to it.

Why not?

My first thought, interestingly enough, is how well I think the show actually models the game. All right, all right (I hear your snorts of derision)...NOT with regard to theme (the "quest for home" isn't anything like the standard quest for treasure and prestige), but in modeling game play. Much more so than what I used to think; however, you have to read between some of the lines with regard to censorship of a children's Saturday Morning Cartoon.

For example, no one was ever going to show characters (even adult ones) butchering orcs and spilling the blood of bullywugs on screen. That kind of animated violence (even in decades past) was reserved for the cinema, if at all. The original Johnny Quest (created in the 1960s) featured a lot of shooting, explosions, and killing of "bad guys" but no blood was ever shown (certainly no results of bloody hand-to-hand fighting) and, besides, JQ was created for an older audience and originally broadcast in a Prime Time time slot. So no "D&D show" made for kids was ever going to feature a dude disemboweling some opponent with a battle-axe.

Even so, remember the abstract nature of D&D combat. PC makes an attack roll. If successful, make a damage roll. Deduct damage from "hit points." If HPs reach 0, opponent is defeated.

All of these things are open for interpretation. What a successful attack looks like...and what a defeated opponents looks like...doesn't have to be gore-splashed bloodletting affairs. We might like them to be (I know I do), but recognize that the narrative color applied to the role-playing is almost entirely an arbitrary choice, and generally of the DM. I can be lazy and say, "You swing and hit the guy; he looks badly hurt." I can instead say, "Your feint leaves him wide open allowing you to bash his blade towards the ground and drive the point of your sword into his thigh; blood gushes from the wound as it appears you've nicked an artery."

But I could also say, "Your magic club strikes the ground in front of your opponent, throwing up rocks and dirt as he's knocked to the ground. He looks at you with fear...looks like he's had it."

Recognize that...in the television show...defeated creatures (driven away, sealed in caves by rockfalls, or whatever) almost never return to trouble the protagonists. No, there are no corpses left strewn about the scenery, but they're as good as dead for all the trouble they cause later.

"But the cavalier doesn't even use a weapon!" Look, here's the thing I've come to think (as I re-watch these old shows): the Dungeons & Dragon cartoon is based on the oldest editions of D&D (even if it is pulling a lot of creatures from the then-newly-released Fiend Folio), if not B/X. Regardless of the character's "titles" (which, as far as I can tell is nothing but the name a player might scribble at the top of their character sheet), here's how I'd break down their classes:

Hank (plays "Ranger"): Fighter
Bobby (plays "Barbarian"): Fighter
Eric (plays "Cavalier"): Fighter
Sheila (plays "Thief"): Thief
Diana (plays "Acrobat"): Fighter
Presto (plays "Magician"): Magic-User (we'll get to him in a separate post)

In both OD&D and B/X, the default damage for any type of attack is D6...doesn't matter if you're using a two-handed sword or a dagger. Or a magic quarterstaff or "lightning bow" or bashing with a shield. Now, I do tend to look at the game through an OD&D (0E) lens because of the fighters multiple attacks against creatures of 1 hit die or fewer (Hank, Bobby, and Diana tend to do this a lot), but I can easily see this as a house rule 'ported into a B/X game, along with the various AD&D monsters. The B/X morale and reaction rules would seem a large part of the show.

All right, that's all my time at the moment. Perhaps more later.

We all do D6 damage.