Why "Light Games" Suck

Oh, look! An actual post from JB that isn't just dredging Reddit for click bait...

I'm sure I've tangentially referred to this subject in the past, and my apologies if there's already some long-winded post floating around my archives somewhere...I've been writing this blog for a bit now, and it's hard to keep track of all my various rants. However, James M's blog re-post post today hipped me to something that I've been reminded of before but never (so far as I can recall) in a moment of my free time when I had a laptop close at hand.

So you get this today.

These days the "OSR" is well-known for its plethora of "light" (as in "rules light" or even "rules lite") role-playing games. O So Many of them. From the retro-clones based on primordial (OD&D) or introductory (Basic D&D) game systems, to even cheaper, lighter knock-offs of those games. You know who I'm talking about: the Cairns, the Knaves, the ShadowDarks, etc. Everything to make the rules LIGHTER and EASIER so that it doesn't shackle the imagination, right? Just trying to increase accessibility, yeah?

And, of course, this sentiment...a sentiment of making games EASIER, LIGHTER, MORE ACCESSIBLE isn't limited to JUST the OSR. Despite the 700-800 pages of instruction found in 5E's "core" game books, there are precious little hard and fast rules. How difficult is it to understand a target number? How complicated is it to grasp "advantage/disadvantage?"  5E is, in many ways, fairly similar to other "light" versions of D&D...it just provides MORE OPTIONS. More character classes. More spells. More magic items and monsters. But ease of instructional game play? Check, check, checkity, check.

[not that 5E is "easy enough" for a lot of its players/DMs (as evidenced by Reddit posts). *ahem*]

Heck, I'd argue that this predominance of "ease" isn't even restricted to D&D and D&D-adjacent games. The days of GURPS and MektonZeta and Vampire: the Masquerade and Deadlands are a waaaays behind us. Every RPG I pick up and look at these days seems built around A) a really simple system, wrapped around with B) a bunch of options with regard to color and flavor. Which might be why I haven't purchased any new RPGs in a while. 

When was the last installment of Champions/HERO System? Are they out of business yet? Or have they issued a version of "HERO Lite?" Kids these days, you know? They can't even be bothered to READ, let alone do math.

[man O man, the state of this country]

But let's not dwell on those "other guys." I want to keep my focus squarely on the so-called "Old School" community. Because the "Old School" community is bigger than it ever was...and is YOUNGER than it ever was, filled with people born long after the original "hay day" of the D&D game. And there is a major disconnect with their understanding of what "Old School Gaming" is all about, specifically with regard to the "heaviness" (or "crunchy-ness") of rule systems.

I want to explain that.

And, in addition, I want to APOLOGIZE for that disconnect, because it was ME (and people like me...bloggers from the early 2000s) who did a poor job of explaining stuff to people, back when we were championing systems like "B/X" (basic) D&D. This post (despite the catchy, click-bait title) is meant to rectify something that should have been rectified a long, long time ago...

See, Back In The Day (that's the 1980s for me but, presumably, the late 70s also) Dungeons & Dragons was a game for NERDS. Not just any kind of nerd, but a particular brand of intelligent, imaginative nerds that were into things like fantasy and science fiction and mythology, MOST OF WHICH was found in BOOKS (which, being nerds, we tended to read a lot of). Most of us being somewhat challenged athletically, too (being bookworms), we still wanted to have FUN and so playing games substituted for the types of group activity that might otherwise be filled up with Rec basketball or Little League in the summer time. At least if we were playing D&D with our friends (especially if we were biking miles to our friends' houses to play) our parents were less likely to yell at us to stop reading trash novels and go outside and get fresh air and sunshine.

SO...Dungeons & Dragons was totally our jam. Here was a game that appealed to our interest in all the fantasy literature we enjoyed reading (quality fantasy film and television being extremely hard to come by, back in those days) AND required a high degree of intelligence to parse and make sense of (as the designers, while erudite, imaginative nerds themselves, had rather stumbled into their profession and had, perhaps, NOT the best technical writing chops for communicating what the D&D experience was all about). 

And O how it gripped our imaginations! How it occupied our all our waking moments! How we discussed it, in and out of school, weekdays and weekends, on Boy Scout retreats, and while sitting on the bench during our soccer games! It was fortunate that the game forced us to stretch our minds, do math, look up words in the dictionary (and terms in the encyclopedia) which made all our homework a snap...because otherwise, we probably would have fallen far behind for the amount of effort we put into school work. I know that would have been the case for me...as it was, I still managed straight As (big nerd over here) with about as little effort as I could manage.

But here's the thing, Youngsters: "light rules" was ZERO part of the appeal of these games. We WANTED our rules "crunchy." The more crunch, the better! 

This is why Dragon Magazine sold so well to members of our community: Dragon offered NEW RULES and new ideas that we could incorporate into our games...making our games heavier, and filled with MORE rules. Articles like the (previously cited) Gamma World article that ADDED to character creation. Or (for D&D) new rules for training, or weapon proficiencies, or building libraries, or specific "thieves tools," or random pick pocketing tables, or urban adventure rules, or animal training rules, or...whatever! Never mind the new "NPC" classes (which tended to become "PC" classes) or the new monsters or the new magic items (which were also incorporated)...I'm talking about whole SYSTEMS. When the Unearthed Arcana was published in 1985 (with the Gygax name on the cover), we adopted the entire thing, sight unseen: social classes, spell books, Comeliness, read illusionist magic, demi-human deities, simplified unarmed combat rules...we took in every single bit of it, stupid or not. 

Rules. Instruction. These provide more than "limits" to game play, more than structure. Rules provide ANSWERS...answers to all those questions that arise during play, questions that lead to arguments and discussions and that (in the end) lead to game play stopping. We did NOT want game play to stop...we wanted it to continue and continue and continue. Having answers from (presumably) neutral third-party authorities (whether in a rule book or a magazine) provided an official "stamp" or reliability, respectability, and authority...something that allowed us to say: "See, there's the answer, in black-and-white. Now let's move on and get back to playing."

Because it's all well and good to say 'The Dungeon Master is the final arbiter of the game.' But what if the Dungeon Master is a 13 or 14 year old peer who doesn't have their shit together in other areas of their life? How do you trust THAT guy (or gal) to do the right thing, to be impartial and fair, to remember the correct rule/system at the right time, every time? How do you expect a hormonal 16 or 17 year old to exercise prudence and good judgment? Are you f'ing kidding me?

RULES. We wanted rules...the more rules the better. No one played BECMI in those days (though it was purchased and mined for ideas), because it was TOO simple, TOO basic. If you told someone you wanted to play a (B/X) dwarf, you'd have been laughed out of the room. "A dwarven what?" we would have asked. 

No, "rules lite" was definitely NOT on the agenda. When we took breaks from D&D (which we did) it was to play other games of similar crunch that we'd have to learn. Sure Marvel Superheroes was fun, but as soon as Advanced Marvel Superheroes was published, we junked all out MSH stuff for the new version (check out the falling rules! And the whole chapter on different inventions and kit-bashing!). We'd play Chaosium's Stormbringer whose chargen system could take half a session by itself (for a character who would be gutted by the end of the session on a critical impalement). We'd spend hours using the Top Secret rules (and the various Dragon Mag article supplements) crafting our own awesome handguns. Point-buy game systems...like James Bond, GURPS, Mekton...could provide hours of mind-numbing entertainment by themselves even before getting to actual game play.

We were young people with strong minds and no internet or smart phones to to distract and dull our brain power. We wanted stimulation and EXERCISE for our think-boxes.

So What Happened? What happened that led to blogs like "B/X Blackrazor" (and many, many others) promoting a style of play that was streamlined and easy and neither advanced, nor "crunchy?" Why O Why, for so long, did people like ME actively disparage more complex games, even as others were trying to either preserve the fire and evolve/develop the complexity?

Eh. I don't have a great answer to that question. It was 2008. I was busy: wife, job, life. I'd just gotten out of 3E...probably the "crunchiest" edition of D&D ever designed; so crunchy that I'd deem it soulless, a mechanical monstrosity, "twisted and evil" (yes, like Darth Vader). Going back to B/X, rediscovering and reexamining it through wiser, adult eyes was a way to reclaim the energy, exuberance, and passion of my youthful self for the D&D game. FOR ME: I needed to go back to the beginning to start over. And the simplicity of the system was about all I could fit into the routine of my adult life and adult responsibilities...and even that faded in significance with the birth of my children in 2011 and 2014. Dungeons & Dragons (of ANY edition) wasn't even on my list of priorities when I was dealing with children that young!

I promoted B/X and the Labyrinth Lord retroclone (which allowed one to play the...at the time...out-of-print B/X), because it was a lovely little game that could be easily customized for a smart person who wanted to do extra work, and would serve the purpose of providing a D&D game experience without the need to teach one's players a bunch of "advanced" rule mechanics. It was certainly more accessible than other editions and...for me, as a Dungeon Master...was far less of a headache than 3E ever had been. And it was still D&D (IMO) unlike, say, 4E. 

But, as I've detailed before (more than once) there is a LIMIT to how far a game designed as a basic, introductory system can take you. And since all the ways needed to transform B/X into a robust, long-lasting game system would (in essence) simply amount to "re-writing AD&D," I eventually decided to cut the middle man and just jump back into The King of Games. 

And what I found is that it's really not any harder to teach players 1E than it was to teach them B/X...as with B/X it's really only a matter of ME (the Dungeon Master) knowing and understanding the game, while having a firm grasp of table dynamics. The latter bit comes from being an experienced game master, and can't really be taught, but the former? Yeah, any nerd can do that, if they're willing to read the instructions manual.

But while I was on my own (personal) role-playing journey, the rest of the "Old School" movement took on a life entirely its own. Chalk that up to the commercialization of the OSR: once some people started making serious money (i.e. more than you need to buy a six-pack or two), there became a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. And the status quo was light, OD&D or Basic-based retro-clones (sorry OSRIC) and derivative Rules Light systems: Mork Borg, Into the Odd, Troika!, etc. Systems that worked fine (perhaps) for a pick-up game, but that ARE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE THE GAMES PLAYED OR DESIRED 30+ YEARS AGO. There is nothing "old school" about these games...NOTHING. Original D&D...the three Little Brown Books that started the whole "role-playing craze"...are the most streamlined, "light" version of the D&D game system ever published. And, at that time, might have been the most complex tabletop game ever to be sold on the open market, requiring not just itself to be played, but also CHAINMAIL and the OUTDOOR SURVIVAL board game to play (and fill in knowledge gaps). It was neither written, nor designed to be "simple and streamlined" and was almost immediately followed by Supplement I ("Greyhawk") increasing the game complexity radically (introducing multi-class characters, different hit dice and damage dice, weapon vs. AC adjustments, new advancement systems, etc.). And OD&D only continued to evolve (that is gain MORE complexity, MORE rules) from there...all per the desire of both the designers and the people purchasing/playing the game. 

"Old School" does not mean "dumbing down" or "making things simpler." Anyone who thinks this or who promote "rulings over rules" are operating under a misapprehension, a false premise. The true "old school" was all about the rules. More Rules...not less.

NOW, let me say there are plenty of Old Geezers like myself that played D&D back in the 70s and/or 80s who still play today using Rules Light systems...just as there are plenty of Old Geezers that play 5E or Pathfinder or WHATever. Yes, I know there are a NUMBER of experienced, AD&D veterans, who long ago moved on from AD&D and have never looked back, and they have their reasons (good reasons!) for this. And, yes, some of those reasons might include wanting to play a simpler, more streamlined game because the priorities of their life makes a "full 1E game" non-viable. Similar to MY state of mind when I was busy with my new parental duties. I don't fault Old Geezers who know the 1E system from making a different choice for themselves...those guys (and gals) are operating from a place of KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING.

But the rest of you?

There's a part of me...a big part of me...that wants to yell, YOU'RE WASTING TIME. Not just your own time, but the time of your players (yes, my admonition only applies to Dungeon Masters, as players get very little say in what game is run at the table). You are short-changing yourself of the game you COULD be running, of the experience you could be having, of the world you could be developing, the benefits you could be reaping, if you were bold enough, and patient enough, and diligent enough to put your nose to the proverbial grindstone and step into the shoes of an Advanced DM. 

Yeah, I want to yell that. But the truth is: we all come to the mountain at our own pace. When I was a kid...i.e. back before I turned 35...people gave me all sorts of advice that I failed to follow. Don't wait too long to have kids, for example (I almost did), or invest more money in the stock market, rather than booze and smokes (yeah, right). Heck, even the importance of a "spiritual practice;" it took me a lot of years before I fully appreciated the practical value of church-going in my life. Yes, a lot of us are slow to heed the wisdom of our elders...that "know-it-all teenager" attitude gets carried around for a lot longer than our teen years. Of course, it doesn't help when the elders giving the advice seem hopelessly clueless themselves (man, I had to set-up my parents' VCR for them back in the day...and I was 12 at the time! Jeez!...).

Anyway.

The title of this post promises a reason (or list of reasons) that I've yet to provide. Let's see if I can make this succinct:

1. They confuse minimalism with "elegance." The result is bland, undifferentiated, and tactically shallow. Without a structure to push against (and a system to master), there is no depth of play.
2. They prioritize "flow" over meaningful decision-making. By eliminating friction and meaningful constraints, they eliminate the tension that makes exploration and combat interesting. A meaningful game requires pressure; if everything is smooth, nothing is earned.
3. They forgo substance for style. I don't think I need to say more about ArtPunk.
4. They exist in a culture that fears complexity. The players coming to this game are actively afraid of mechanical systems, leading to design by subtraction...they don't want rules to get in the way of their improv theater. But it is complexity that gives a game its richness and provides a more robust experience. We shouldn't fear complexity; we should fear emptiness dressed up as accessibility.
5. They forget that D&D was always a game first. Instead, these "light games" end up being toolboxes for vibe-heavy improvisation. What D&D originally had...and what these "light" systems often lack...is a world that runs independently of the players.

And just to unpack that last point: AD&D (and the confused, constantly evolving jumble that was OD&D) had an internal logic to it, with rules for running consequential ecosystems. The DM's role is to simulate a dynamic, responsive world that the players are exploring...NOT a variety of scenes and narrative beats adapted to create "dramatic moments" or "emotional catharsis." This living simulation that is the AD&D campaign creates a powerful sense of immersion, consequence, and discovery for the players...not to mention a feeling or real achievement for the progress they make within the game world. That just isn't present in these "lighter" versions of the world's greatest game.

All right. I've said my piece for the day. Happy Tuesday, folks.

One Game, One Campaign

The wife (inadvertently) woke me up around 3am with her nightmare/thrashing. While I comforted her and she quickly returned to sleep, I was once again left lying awake in bed. Just too many thoughts in Ye Old Noggin.

*sigh*

One thought was this recent post over at Grognardia. Yes, I still read the old man, on occasion. I already expressed my specific thoughts on his post in the comments, but I figured I'd go into more depth over here.

I've loved RPGs for a long, long time, and over the years I've collected an absolutely huge number...of which I've played more than a few. Dozens, probably...Boot Hill, Top Secret, Gamma World, Star Frontiers, Marvel (and Advanced Marvel) Superheroes, Stormbringer, ElfQuest, James Bond 007, BattleTech (MechWarrior is the RPG), ShadowRun, Teenagers From Outer Space, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas & Superspies, Beyond the Supernatural, Rifts, Vampire the Masquerade, Werewolf the Apocalypse, Mage (the Awakening?), The Hunters Hunted, Ars Magica, Over The Edge, Fantasy Wargaming, DragonQuest, DragonRaid, Traveller, Guardians, Star Wars, CyberPunk 2020, Risus, InSpectres, Spirit of the Century, The Dresden Files, Cadillacs & Dinosaurs, Maelstrom (and Story Engine), Fiasco, Warhammer Fantasy Role-Playing...probably (definitely) a few more that I'm forgetting at the moment. 

A lot of games...many in multiple editions (learning a new edition is often akin to learning a new game). And, of course, a few of my own games (Cry Dark Future, Five Ancient Kingdoms, War of the Mecha, DMI and its variations, etc.). Yeah. I've played a LOT of games.

But the vast bulk of these games...with the exception of my own stuff...were played before the age of 30. Which is to say: more than 20 years ago. Since entering my 30s, I'm either playing some one-off (usually a demo or con game), or I'm playing something of my own ("play testing"), or I'm playing D&D. And mostly, it's just D&D. 

And since 2020 it's solely AD&D 1E. 

It's not that I'm not (still, continuously) enchanted by RPGs and amazed at the creativity, artistry, and design I see on display every time I walk into a local game shop. I LOVE games...I do!...and I'll buy the occasional RPG these days just to marvel at its beauty and throw some financial support at the industry. But most everything I've purchased in recent years...unless it's D&D related...simply goes on the shelf. If I bother to buy a print copy at all. I have a lot of digital RPGs stored on the ol' laptop, and those never get played (I only play games out of a printed book)...those are, generally, purchases for 'research purposes' only. 

But I don't have any need or use for most of the hundreds of game books I own. I can't, for example, see myself EVER playing 3E again, and yet I must have a literal dozen volumes of that game sitting on my shelf. I keep it for reference, for occasional inspiration, and as a constant warning against nostalgia and the danger of impulse buying (i.e. if I got rid of it, there's always the chance I'd run out and re-purchase the damn thing on a whim...that's happened to me multiple times over the years). 

No. The only books I need...and the only books I use with any regularity...are the PHB, DMG, and the three Monster Manuals. Pretty much the same books I used to carry around in my backpack when I was 12 years old (minus the UA and the DDG). 

I now play ONE game and, since 2020, I've run only ONE campaign. That's all I need: just a single world. Truth be told, due to my other priorities, I only have time for a single world (and barely time for that!). But even if I were to re-order and re-organize my life to prioritize gaming, I still wouldn't need more than that...I'd just spend MORE time in my world. 

Whereas in years past, I'd break my head, starting up new games from scratch with new systems and/or new genres (hell, even in the early days of this blog, when I was only running B/X, I was constantly "starting over" and tweaking my game...)...NOW, I simply work on building the world I have. I can add layer upon layer. I can pile depth upon depth. I can detail it down to the Nth degree, if it suits my fancy. Any and all work I decide to do...whether a little or a lot...is an investment into my campaign, making it richer and richer over time.

It is the great, not-so-secret Secret that all the great world builders have discovered: spreading your imagination thin, defusing your energies over multiple works and worlds, does not lead to satisfying fantasy. In fact, satisfaction is a false carrot to chase at all...we receive satisfaction ONLY when we pause and look back over what we have wrought...what our investment of time and effort has yielded. Like a master gardener checking out the fruits of their labor. And after that pause, we simply go back to work...again...adding more depth, adding more investment to our project.

And when we pause again, we look back at what we've wrought and we feel MORE "satisfied."

And the process repeats. Those of us who scatter our energies (as I did myself...for years) seldom look back at our "works" for they are naught but a wasteland...wasted time, wasted effort. Looking at all that waste...campaigns started and abolished, games played and discarded...can be disheartening. Few of us want to take the time to sit and reflect given just how sad  the could have beens can be; few of us have the courage for self-assessment of a wasted life.

Which sounds harsh, but only if one chooses to dwell on the superficial "first pass" of squandered potential. The FACT is that every moment you've spent in your life...gaming or otherwise...has led you to the exact present moment in which you currently stand. And even if you can't find it within your heart to feel a profound sense of gratitude for your gift of life (I assume none of my readers are undead) and the blessings you have in that life (whether few or many)...well, at least you've acquired wisdom. And with wisdom, you can change what you're doing so that the next time you pause and reflect at what you've wrought (whether with your life or your gaming or both) you can feel some degree of satisfaction.

If you're reading my blog, chances are that gaming is an important and valued aspect of your life. Assuming that is the case, then how you approach your gaming should hold some importance to you. If you, like me, are a habitual Dungeon Master, the world you build should be the single most vital part of your gaming life. 

Why wouldn't you want to focus your attention and energy on a single world? Why wouldn't you want to make the world in which your fantasy adventures take place as wonderfully detailed as possible?

And lest you think I'm being rhetorical, I think there are only two possible answers to that last question:

1. You are fearful of committing to the art and process of being a Dungeon Master, OR
2. You dislike the world/setting that you would otherwise be creating.

And IF the answer is the second one (as opposed to the first, which is perhaps more common among those not having accepted their vocation...as was me for many years), then the next question is: why are you bothering to game in that world at all? If you are not whole-heartedly on-board with the genre or IP of the setting (whether it is your own homebrew or the pre-published 'grand design' of someone else), then why are you wasting your time with it? Take the parts you like, build them into a world you can commit to for the long haul, and rock that as the foundation for your game.

I cannot expound enough on how liberating it is to operate in this way. By settling on ONE system...one that requires no expansion rules like B/X, no curating like OD&D or 5E, and one that had been vigorously play-tested long before I got into the hobby...I cut out so much worry and stress from my gaming and can just run the thing. By settling on ONE campaign setting, fit for the system, I can spend any free time and energy I have in drilling down different bits and crafting adventures based on that setting. Scenarios, not plots, not "capers." Simply opportunities that players can choose to explore...or not.

And if they don't, those opportunities continue to exist in my world (until they don't) adding to its depth (until they vanish, to be replaced with different opportunities). 

I was considering addressing another "Dear JB" letter before writing this post, one about liar DMs and cheating dice rolls (i.e. "fudging"). However two things stayed my keyboard. One was that most of the responses were adamantly anti-fudge/cheating (from 5E aficionados!) which is, frankly, a welcome change from older Reddit posts. The other, though, was one particular response, which said (in part):

I think the problem here is in the "players losing = death" forced narrative.

In the older editions of TTRPG, like the original D&Ds, the game was a wargame with a unique premise. The expectation was that your characters would die and you'd have to reroll and that was part of the game. You could pick between a martial character like a fighter and level faster, getting up to speed more quickly, or you could pick a wizard and be intentionally weaker and level slower, but with huge pay off if you reached higher levels. Retrieving equipment to pass it down was expected, and dungeons sometimes had mechanics to specifically prevent this. The focus wasn't really on a wider campaign narrative or character story arc.

As TTRPGs matured, however, the role-playing elements started to see the spotlight, and gradually the expectation shifted towards one of collaborative story telling with a wargame aspect that meant random chance still played a role in narration.

Overtime, however, we start to run head-long into the central problem with this set up: your character becomes tied to the story and character death removes you, rather jarringly, from the plot. There's no longer an expectation that players will be at disparate levels, and trying to introduce a level 1 character into a campaign already 5 levels deep will result in you being useless. So your new character is shot up in levels without ever earning them, has a backstory forcibly integrated without ever really experiencing it, and is shoehorned into a plot that never expected to handle them. It creates a terrible dissonance that's difficult to work around and will never be as satisfactory as your first character that was there every step of the way.

This isn't always the case, of course. Sometimes there are really great moments where a character death feels right and adds a lot to the gravity of the story. Sometimes there are new characters that can naturally integrate themselves into the plot to replace the old.

However, those tend to be exceptions, not the rule, when death is left to random chance.

So, it should come as no surprise to regular readers that I have some serious quibbles with this person's analysis; however, I want to focus on specific elements with regard to what they mean to my post this morning.

First off, I'll go ahead and AGREE that there has been a shift in D&D gaming to "campaign narratives" and "character story arcs" and "collaborative story telling." I'll also go ahead and AGREE this makes the issue of character death a "problem" from the perspective of derailing the "narrative" being told (and, yes, that's a significant part of what leads to cheating/fudging at the modern day table). 

Here's the thing, though: ALL THAT IS A FUCKED UP WAY TO PLAY D&D.

Leave aside, for the nonce, that this idiot seems to have forgotten that dead PCs can be brought back to life...fairly easily!...in the D&D game. We had plenty of "main (player) characters" that were raised from the dead MULTIPLE TIMES back in our long-running campaigns; my own PC must have been raised or wished back to life at least a half dozen times. 

But (as said) leave that aside. Tell me: why O why do you play Dungeons & Dragons at all? Is it because you want to tell stories of the 'fantasy' genre in collaboration with other people? Because, you can do THAT a lot easier without restricting yourself to big books of rules and the random whims of dice rolls.

Personally, I think most PLAYERS (i.e. non-DMs) play D&D to experience the spills and thrills of being another person participating in adventures in a fantastical land of might and magic. Full stop. And the BEST WAY for you, as the Dungeon Master, to provide that experience is to craft a deep, rich world chock-full of opportunities (scenarios) that the players have leeway and agency to explore. Sometimes dying, sure (danger is part of adventure) but always with the option to make a new character or raise the dead one (i.e. always with the option to "get back in the game"). 

Your best path, then, is to pick ONE system you can live with and master (possibly tweaking to taste), and then spend ALL your world building efforts on ONE setting that you love and are committed to. Thusly, you will be able to provide the best experience to your players, such that they will want to keep returning to your campaign...regardless of whether or not it has a "narrative story arc" in it. Players want to LIVE their D&D; they can't live it if there's no world in which to live. Focusing just makes it so much better.

I might write a series of posts about my own campaign world, something that...to date...I've hesitated to do (though don't mind mentioning it in passing). For one thing, much of my world is amorphous, the subject of wild rumor and speculation (at least, in areas the players haven't visited) and therefore subject to change. For another thing, I think a DM describing their campaign world is about as boring as a player talking about how kewl their character is, i.e. pretty darn boring.

But maybe it would be helpful to some people. And "helpful" is something I'm really interested in being these days (far more than being "interesting," which was my M.O. for most of my life). Maybe this can be the subject of the personal A-Z challenge I was thinking of doing in June? I'll have to see if I can come up with 26 subjects for discussion...shouldn't be too hard.

ANYway.

I'm running out of steam. I think I'll go lie down for a bit; I've said pretty much all I want to say at the moment.

[published after dragging my sorry ass out of bed and getting the kids up and off to school]

Tuesday Morning Musings (On A Wednesday)

So...a real "throwback" post: I'm sitting at a restaurant, eating breakfast and blogging. Haven't done that for a while. 

But here I am, waiting on an eggs bennie while savoring my coffee and being glad to be out of the cold for a minute (it's about 10 degrees below freezing at the moment, despite the sunshine). 

[food just arrived]

[okay...food is finished]

I am out of practice, obviously. I cleaned my plate before reopening my laptop. Might have to order a piece of coffee cake, so that I can sit here a while.

Oh, who am I kidding. I was going to order the coffee cake regardless.

I think that judging the Adventure Site Contest took a bit out of me. Maybe. It's hard to say for certain. But I just haven't been all that interested in "adventure writing/design" since that last post posted. Now, of course, I have other things going on. The boy is getting ready to graduate (and has been applying to high schools). Volleyball season has started (both kids are playing; I'm, again, coaching). Snow. Travel (heading to California this weekend to see my father). Other stuff. Taxes are around the corner...although I already had to start some of that for the financial aid applications.

Gaming has been of the "war" variety. I've been revisiting BattleTech recently. The boy got the new BT set for Christmas, and we've yet to play...reading through it, I didn't see much difference (if any) from my own version of BT. And then, while cleaning out my mom's house, I found a brown paper-wrapped box set of classic BT (the 2E version, which was the version to carry the moniker BattleTech, rather than Battle Droids). The box included all the original box stuff (maps, counters, sheets, etc.) plus CityTech (and all its paraphernalia) AND a copy of first edition MechWarrior. I have no idea where any of this came from...I still possess all MY old BT stuff (including CT, AeroTech, and MW), and no one in my family (besides me) ever played...so where did this all come from? A real mystery.

[the paper wrapper, had "Battle Tech" handwritten on it in what appeared to be my brother's handwriting...however, he professed complete ignorance of it. Given the addled state of his brain these days, this may mean nothing...he's killed a lot of brain cells...but I'd think I would have known/remembered if he ever played. And so far as I recall, he never has]

Then there's Axis & Allies. The boy and I are once again engaged in battle for global supremacy the last couple-three days, though I expect it to end in the next turn or two. We aren't the hardcore type that play with "bids" and specific "opening moves" and both of us are too stubborn to simply concede after losing one capital or another. As the Allies, I made blunders allowing Italy to control the Mediterranean and most of Africa and the Middle East...meanwhile, Japan/Tokyo was just captured by ANZAC after successive waves of UK and US forces wiped out the Imperial Navy. Right now, it's a race for Moscow from every side, and while I'm pretty sure the "good guys" will prevail, fortune can be a fickle bitch. We'll see. 

Anyway, we've already decided to play another round (reversing our roles) and I'm anxious to show him "how it's done." He remains convinced that the Allies are "O.P." due to the financial might of the Americanos, and of course, there's some truth to that...if you play a cautious game and allow the Allies time to muster their resources. By the time Japan decided to go to war, I was dug in at Fortress Philippines and the Pacific was mine for the taking. 

[I will note that my son tends to beat me...or, at least, break even...when we play on only one side of the Global A&A (i.e. either Pacific OR Europe). However, when we play the entire world, I find it much easier to distract and harass him into making errors, using forces from one board to support the other...it was especially evident in this game where he was worried about putting down the "annoying" UK or Russian or Chinese forces instead of focusing on taking the Victory Cities he needed to win the game. I suppose that's an example of "playing the opponent;" I know I have MY weaknesses in play that he exploits, too]

Why are war games so fascinating? I suppose they're not...at least not to everybody...but, to me, they're such a different form of entertainment. In a way, they are like a puzzle one is trying to solve...while your opponent constantly changes the shape of that puzzle (and simultaneously competing against you). But to what end? So you can cheer and brag? We're just going to reset the puzzle and fight the (same) war again...as we've already done numerous times. 

War games are NOT like D&D. As a DM, I am "setting the board" for the players, but I am not trying to solve a puzzle in competition with them...only the players are working at puzzle solving. And I am not allowed to change that puzzle (in play)...as the DM, I am only allowed to run the puzzle, "playing" the puzzle (I suppose) to the best of the puzzles' ability. Actually, scratch that...I'm not playing anything. The puzzle plays itself; I just roll the dice and arbitrate results.

I guess I'm a puzzle creator?

Playing a war game...like A&A or WH40K or BattleTech or Blood Bowl or Car Wars or whatever...is very different from running an RPG. The players facing each other over the gaming table are adversarial (which is how I see my role as a DM, by the way...that's another post), BUT they are on equal footing. The forces may not be symmetrical, the level of skill/knowledge/experience may be different, but generally speaking, they are playing by the same rules. The opponents are competing to solve the same puzzle.

When I run D&D, I'm not trying to "solve" anything.

You do not have to be a puzzle creator (or have any ability to build puzzles) to run D&D as a Dungeon Master. And you need a lot more skills in your toolbox than just "puzzle building" to be a competent Dungeon Master. But refereeing an RPG is a very different animal from a playing a "war game." A very different animal indeed.

My thoughts of the morning.

[UPDATE (posted Wednesday): the war is all but lost for the Axis. The German forces have broken on the mass of infantry and Allied aircraft that defend Moscow, the Japanese forces reduced to three land units and a fighter, marauding in the USSR, Gibraltar has been taken, the German and Italian navies sunk, and the Americans just took Rome, while the UK marches through north Africa towards Cairo]

[Diego conceded this morning]

Why D&D Works

I had an epiphany Saturday night, something I'd been struggling with and considering for years: why does D&D work, i.e why does it have staying power as a role-playing game, when so many other RPGs do not?  What is it that sets D&D apart from all other systems, genres, and competitors?

Saturday, while walking to the store to pick up some beer, it came to me: raise dead. 

Now, to be clear, there are a lot of reasons why D&D works...and works really well...for long-term (campaign) play. The driving force of the advancement mechanics (the x.p./leveling "carrot"). The plethora of challenges that scale from low levels to high. The micro-/macro- scale of the setting (i.e. the premise of exploring closed "dungeon" sites, and the endless possibility of exploring a whole world or different dimensions/planes). 

But all these things can be (and are) replicated/implemented in other genres of games: lots of games have "levels" and/or points-driven systems. Lots of of genres feature "adventure sites" for drilled-down exploration. Most RPGs present a scale of challenges from the beginning stages until the later.  Many, many games have emulated these particular aspects found in D&D. 

However, while those things, when implemented, can add staying power (i.e. sustained interest/engagement with game play) in practice, I've never any of those games to last for longer than a few months...and generally not even that long. 

[cue all the folks who've been running 20+ year Traveller campaigns to pipe up]

Here's the thing: I think (I think) that unless you have some slavish devotion to a particular genre/setting IP (for example, the person who ONLY plays Star Wars, because they love-love-love Star Wars and would not play RPGs at all without system to allows them to live in the SW universe), for sustained engagement over time, the participants require two things:

1. a real, true challenge that tests them (no matter how poor the player, they become competent with enough hours logged), and
2. a "tangible" (I use this term VERY loosely) form of accomplishment/reward demonstrating their impact (i.e. there has to be something to show for the time spent).

And the area where D&D differs from pretty much EVERY GAME on the market (certainly every game I can think of...which is more than a few), is the presence of of game mechanics that allow dead/destroyed characters to return to the game without breaking the verisimilitude of an escapist (fantasy) game. This is not "plot armor" for characters; instead magic like raise dead, reincarnate, resurrection, and wish are all baked into the system...these spells are a hard-wired part of the game's setting.

So what does this mean? Why is it important?

Well, for one thing, it means a DM can push the players as hard as he/she feels is appropriate for their capabilities without fear that beloved characters might be killed derailing years of work and investment. See, I readily acknowledge that players develop attachments to characters over long periods of consistent play...and not just attachments to their own characters...and DMs are not immune to this effect either. You work a character from 1st level up to 5th or 8th or 10th+ level, and the character takes on the same status in the minds of the participants as a major character in a favorite television serial.

It happens. It's not about creating a nifty "backstory" for the character, or developing a PC's "personality." It's about actual play, over time. Such characters matter to players.

And D&D provides means of bringing them back to life. The D&D world is a magical world...by definition and by design...that presumes souls (and spirits, yes, I see you DDG) do not immediately depart to their eternal reward upon expiration of the physical body. Players know this going in to the game. No, it's not necessarily easy (nor cheap) to do so, but there is always room for an Orpheus like quest. I've seen it happen...more than once in more than one campaign.

And so, because of this possibility, DMs can push the players hard. The kid gloves can come off. The DM is free to create dangerous scenarios, and run those scenarios by the rules, letting the dice fall as they may, and allowing the players to suffer and strive and triumph and fail on the basis of their own abilities and their own luck. Without the need for plot armor immunity, "death saves," or comic book style "ret-cons." Real Play; Real Stakes. Death on the line. 

Which, by the by, makes the experience of playing D&D all the more visceral...all the more adrenaline-pumping...for the people sitting around the table. Cheers and groans and fear and real tension. And, upon success, real feelings of achievement. The kind of roulette spins that breed gambling addicts...which is why people who enjoy D&D play, will continue to love and enjoy it. 

It's not an interest in improv that keeps them riveted.

So, yeah, this is the difference between D&D and (pretty much) every other RPG on the market. Superheroes, space opera, horror, espionage...none of them offer both the hard challenge of D&D, and the setting ingrained "get out of jail free" cards that take the sting out of loss. Of course, the D&D game has more wonderful things than just the magic of raise dead (including asymmetrical game play, a reward system that encourages action and cooperation, etc.), but this is the thing that, I believe, is UNIQUE to Dungeons & Dragons, and it facilitates long-term buy-in and investment which opens the potential to see how a campaign can unfold...in all its glory.

Happy Monday, folks. 

: )

[and, if you're an American, please don't forget to exercise your right as a citizen and VOTE]

Hard Stuff

Happy (belated) Easter! Got through Triduum with flying colors, though Easter Vigil went long this year and not much sleep. Whatever. Sunday was a glorious, sunny day...quite enjoyable.

Also nice to drink beer again.

; )

The wife and daughter are out of town this week...flew down to Mexico to visit the fam, so Diego and I are "batchin it." Played Space Hulk for the first time Sunday afternoon. Lost horribly. Game is a lot harder than it looks. Hopefully we'll be playing some Axis & Allies and things will go better. Hopefully...we'll see. 

[D&D is probably on the agenda, but Sofia being out of town puts a bit of a crimp in things...she doesn't want us playing without her. Maybe some side adventures]

Watched Secrets of Blackmoor tonight...finally. Fascinating documentary.  Recommended. Wish there was video of Arneson GMing. For that matter, wish there were videos of Gygax. Just for context. You hear great things from their players. Would like to see them in action.

Afterwards, watched an episode and a half of a "celebrity lifestream D&D" series. It was terrible. And depressing. Even more depressing because it featured Deborah Woll (who I've praised before) and Marc Bernadin (who I haven't, but who I respect immensely). Just...terrible. But professional actors need to work and earn...I get it. Just sad they they're playing shit D&D. Sad.

So sad.

Since it's Easter, and I'm joyful, I won't say anymore about it...or 5E. Maybe later. When I'm feeling ornery. Like I was the other day.

Speaking of which: asked my son what HE would like to see in a "How to DM book," i.e. what would he find helpful in such a book. He told me the following (in this order):

1. Explanation of how morale works in AD&D.
2. Explanations of encumbrance (specifically, how encumbrance, armor and movement...particularly wilderness movement...interact and work within the game).
3. How to write an adventure, ESPECIALLY a "low level" adventure. 

All good topics, none of which were discussed in that book I referenced the other day.

[to be clear, I did not provide him with any context other than "I'm thinking about writing a book explaining how to DM; what would you hope/expect to read in its pages?"]

Anyway...it's late and I need to sleep. More later.

YOU Are The Story

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

But it's (kind of) important. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And all the imitators of D&D followed suit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: )

Boring Old D&D

Dennis commented thusly on my last blog post:

"This week, my older boy and I started playing a campaign dungeon crawl board game. My friend, the game host Adam, the other adult player Emily, and I were discussing RPGs at our lunch break. Adam was telling us how he's usually uncomfortable with RPGs because he's not really into "doing voices" or trying to think like a fantasy person. He's much more into the puzzle-solving, tactical decisions, and finding ways to gain advantage from the rules side of game play. Hence his preference to play these sorts of games that sort of mimic D&D play, but with just the interaction with the rules and the current state of play to worry about. 

"I think he would 100% agree with this blog post, and honestly, I agree too. Knowing the rules, including the in-game lore that comes baked into the rules, is not destructive metagaming at all. It's good game play. 

"He was curious about how someone could play the same game for decades and not get tired of the rules, though!"

[emphasis added by Yours Truly]

Ah, yes. Boring old D&D, right? Let's get down to it. 

I'll start with this: my kids have been playing more video games lately than I like, which is probably about a quarter of what their friends play. They have Nintendo Switches with a couple-three games, the main one of which they play being Minecraft, a game that shares a lot of its play elements with old style (if Basic) D&D. Prior to this Christmas, they'd shared a single Switch, but my daughter received her own as a gift, and now they're able to do much more...cooperative play, for example, or networking with friends who own their own consoles. 

Yesterday, Diego asked if he could download Fortnite, a game that has been all the rage with his classmates the last year or two. Sofia asked if she could download Roblox, a game that is popular with kids in her class (and which I remember, was very big with Diego's classmates when they were Sofia's age). I told them both that I would "think about it," balancing the pros (21st century social networking and friendship building) with the cons (stunted development of mind/imagination as your entertainment is piped directly into your brain). I'm still thinking about it.

Video games are a vice. They can be addictive, they can lead to obsession. Are they as destructive as, say, alcohol or drugs or pornography or caffeine? Probably not...but they are damaging. And the damage they can do, minor though it is, can hit you in multiple ways from multiple angles. Relationships. Health. Mind. Maturation. I don't let my kids drink booze or coffee or surf porn or smoke...as a parent, why should I not police their gaming?  

D&D is not a board game (duh, says the choir I'm preaching to...just hold on). Yes, "duh," you say, no shit Sherlock, D&D isn't a board game.And yet there are plenty of folks, including longtime RPGers who've left D&D play, or who only play later edition D&D who look at the game I play and say, "sure, it's not a board game, but it's not much more than that, is it?" Guys (and Gals) who see the thing in the most simplistic of terms:

• Kill monsters (roll-roll-roll)
• Get treasure (count points)
• "Level up"
• Rinse
• Repeat

How boring is THAT? Where are the bells? Where are the whistles? You play a fighter? So, you're a walking stack of hit points with a backpack to put treasure? And a sword and heavy armor? And all you do is charge and roll a D20 and play a game of dicing for attrition so that you can get an abstract "score" of points based on g.p. value in order to gain MORE hit points? How is that even FUN?  Didn't the whole novelty of the thing wear off after the first couple sessions? 

Hell, didn't the novelty wear off after the first couple of encounters?

And for some folks, the answer to that question must be a resounding YES, as evidenced by their own actions...their leaving of the hobby, or their moving on to other games, or their need to make D&D about something other than the game (It's about the "role-playing!" It's about the story making! It's about the strategy of character builds! It's about the camaraderie of friends playing together! It's about annoying the other players at the table and doing PVP! Etc.). The game...as written, as designed...is simply TOO SIMPLISTIC, even if you play the "advanced" version with its extra options and tacked-on complication and fiddly-ness.

For those people...well, I can only imagine what they must think of me. I mean, what do you think about a guy who's been playing the same game for 40+ years? Haven't you explored (or drawn) enough dungeon corridors? Haven't you found (or given out) enough treasure chests? Haven't you killed (or run encounters with) enough imaginary monsters? Isn't it BORING? 

Why not just play Sniper 3D (a stupid video game that I currently have loaded on my phone)? All the mindless bloodshed and violence, all the imaginary gold coins and points (and leveling), all the new gear upgrades and none of the WORK it takes to play (or DM) a game of Dungeons & Dragons. Right? If what you want is BORING OLD D&D why not just get an app that lets you murder-hobo in the free minutes that you can sneak during the course of your humdrum day? Take out some aggression on imagined foes! Feel good (*ding!*) about another "achievement" earned!

*sigh*

For all the imagination I see on display these days -- the huge numbers of tabletop games and RPG products on the market (both digitally and in print), the huge numbers of video games on the market, the huge numbers of TV shows and films on the various channels, networks, and streaming services -- for all the imagination I see on display these days, there is a surprising lack of imagination on display. 

Old D&D isn't boring. YOU are boring. Or, to borrow and repurpose a pithy phrase from a shopping bag picked up at a bookshop some years back: "If you think playing old D&D is boring, you're doing it wrong."  If you're tired of the game, you're not really playing the game to its potential.

Most games of the "board" variety, like most consumable entertainment "product" (movies, TV shows, video games, etc.) are FINITE. They have limits; they have boundaries. They END. You can take a game like, say, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and play through it 3-4 times before it gets tiresome. Other games, like Red Dead Revolver might only be worth a single playthrough. Films and TV series are similar (some are worth a re-watch)...same with books and (probably) story arc campaigns of the type published by WotC.

But unlike these forms of entertainment, D&D is ENDLESS and INFINITE. For all practical purposes, anyway...there is (maybe) a limit to the human imagination, but in some 5,000 years of recorded history we haven't yet reached it. People who focus on the "killing" and "looting" aspects of the game are, in fact, missing the point of play: these are mechanical elements of game play (as is the Vancian magic system) that enable D&D to run. They are not the objective of game play anymore than the engine of a car is the "objective" (or point) of owning a vehicle.

Does it really not make sense? I'll try to clarify even more:

• D&D is a fantasy adventure game...it provides (imaginary) peril and danger and as a game requires rules (systems, mechanics) for modeling its inherent violence. There are LOTS of good reasons why the system works as well as it does (that's for another post), but you NEED the system in order to run a game of fantasy adventure with perils, dangers, and inherent violence.
• So why play a game of "fantasy adventure?" Well, I've addressed that before in a different long-winded post. Rereading it...well, I don't think I could restate things much better but (for purposes of this post) I'd just emphasize that experiencing fantasy adventure is kind of the opposite of experiencing boredom.

My daughter and I spoke at length yesterday about the kinds of games she enjoys playing (because she complained she doesn't like the same games Diego and I do, and neither he or I want to play her type of games). I found that the games SHE enjoys playing on the playground at school are (mostly) variations of video games her friends play, imaginary games based firmly in the gameplay of games like Doors, or Choo-Choo Charles, or Minecraft. Often, one or more participants will take the role of narrator, describing what occurs while the other kids react within the context of the game...it is imaginary play based on video games without the video game console.  

[not much different from how my friends and I played at her age...except that we were running D&D without books and dice]

The human imagination is an amazing thing, and (in conjunction with other likeminded individuals) can provide hours of entertainment without the need to resort to dice or rulebooks or gaming consoles. Boundless as it is, however, it requires grist to mill and fuel to go (I've written about this before, though it was with regard to artwork)...and here, HERE, is the main, major difference between "boring old D&D" and any number of other finite, consumable forms of entertainment: it encourages (some would say requires) you to go out and expand and explore and research and fill your mind and imagination. 

Instead of stunting growth and development, D&D (done right) increases growth and development.

Finite, closed system games (like all video games) do not do this. To build a world (as a Dungeon Master must) requires you to study geography, history, politics, philosophy, religion, economics, military warfare, agriculture...whatever!...all to varying degrees depending on what points you are emphasizing at the moment. Depending on what part of your imagination you need to expand for the requirements of your campaign.

And the exploration of the world (which is the part of the players) will expand their own imagination and understanding, even assuming they DON'T participate in outside research, because of the necessity of reacting to and meeting the challenges the Dungeon Master offers them.

I can't praise it enough. 

Closed system games don't offer this "mind expansion." Instead, they offer the opportunity for system mastery...board games, played enough, will evolve competent strategies, opening moves, specific tactical plays and functions that randomizers can only somewhat mitigate...in the end, one hopes for adequate opponents to offer challenge.  Understanding this, I see why a game like Magic: The Gathering maintains its popularity...it is endlessly evolving, endlessly offering NEW tweaks and forms of system to master. For the aficionado of competitive MTG play, any ennui is dispelled with each new series issue.

Old D&D, of the kind I play, does NOT evolve...au contraire, the more I tweak the rules, the more I end up going back to the tried and true default systems (more often than not). Instead, it is the PARTICIPANTS of the game (the DM, the players) who end up evolving. I am a different Dungeon Master today than I was a year ago, let alone three-four decades ago. Likewise, I'm a vastly different player (very much improved) than I once was. Very much improved...and loving it.

Tired of the rules? Tired of boring old D&D gaming? 

No, not at all. My interest and excitement only deepens the more I engage with it. Many long-lasting games have simple rules that are easy to master. It's important not to conflate "complexity" with "depth." The rules are simple so that they don't get in the way of the game. The game play is what makes D&D the King of Games. 

: )

Random Notes

Just warming up the mental muscles this morning...maybe the typing fingers, too.

• The Seattle Seahawks boarded a plane to Germany today for a game versus the Bucs in what will be the first ever NFL game in that country. They're off to Munich which is, perhaps, my favorite German city ('course I've only ever been to three or four cities in Germany...).  I've heard ticket prices are something in the neighborhood of $500 with some 3 million folks trying to get in the game; one would assume the sport would appeal to a large segment of the culture. For my part, I wish I could go just to get back to Bavaria, which is MY version of Disney Land (i.e. "the happiest place on Earth"): mountains and castles, beer and schnitzel, cathedrals and museums, the Autobahn...sheesh. An abundance of riches. Hope the 'Hawks have fun.

• In sad news, a child was murdered at a local high school, another victim of gun violence. Not a crazed psychopath with mass shooting agenda, just a hormonal 14 year old with far-too-easy access to a handgun. Now, multiple lives have been ruined: victim and shooter, family and friends, students and teachers. I know the school well; it is the public school that serves the same neighborhood/community as my kids' elementary school. Many siblings (at least six) of my kids' classmates attend the school. A sad, frightening day yesterday. 

• In happier news, Washington State continued to be a bastion of sanity and democracy judging by the election results of 2022...and it appears such was the case for a lot of the country, stymying the predicted Red Wave. That makes me somewhat...hopeful? I won't say more than that, because delving into the politics of this country makes me equal parts sad and angry, and I know it tends to rile up my readers. Thank you to everyone who voted (one way or the other): our democracy only has a chance of being a representative reflection of our society if we make our voices heard. Voting is the way we do that.

• In my publishing "business:" sold a bunch of books lately. Must be the holiday season. Thank you to everyone who's given me money: as I've written before, it's much appreciated and encourages me to do more.

• In general gaming: picked up a copy of Jeffrey C. Dillow's RPG Adventures in Fantasy Gaming. First published in 1980, I'd never heard of this game before finding it on the shelf. Compact, hardcover (the good kind), lovely illustrations, it is somewhat reminiscent of Fantasy Wargaming being based off a wargaming model (by which I mean: something like a combo of ODD+Chainmail with a heavy emphasis on the Chainmail). Unlike FW, though, it seems far less inclined towards the medieval/historical and far more fantastical and...dare-I-say...American-ish (Fantasy Wargaming is distinctly Euro-centric, in my opinion). Looking forward to the chance of digesting it. Appears to have at least a couple of adventure scenarios in it that I might purloin (including rather nice maps).

[oh, wait...here's a review]

• In television: started watching Reservation Dogs with the wife. Fantastic show. Equal measures funny and heartbreaking. I've had some extremely limited experience with tribal nations in Washington (both in general and as part of my former job) and my aunt in Montana worked as a federal liaison to the tribes for the last couple decades. Oklahoma isn't the same as Washington and Montana but there are shared similarities of reservation life.  Just a really well made, well cast, well written production...must see TV.

• In Dragonlance/D&D: nothing to report. However, it is my birthday Sunday and perhaps I can wrangle some D&D play out of the family. We'll see. After getting up at 6am to watch the Seahawks play in Germany, and then heading out to watch my son's morning soccer match, I might just decide to take a nap. But we'll see. 

Okay. That wasn't a terribly bad "warm up." Now let's see if I can get something a bit more substantial.

Non-Rants

My internet has been a bit spotty this morning, perhaps because of the high winds going on at the moment. But it's working now, so...yeah, no complaints.

This week has been a week of "no complaints" on Ye Old Blog. I've started 2-3 posts that just devolved into fiery rants...posts on guns and politics and the Mariners and current crop of gamers that (even when they're NOT completely clueless) fail to grok the point of AD&D...or any D&D really. None of these have been posted; they just sit on my draft board, staring at me, reminding me that I should probably post something to the blog. I am a blogger, after all.

But I don't want to rant. Ranting...real "ranting," like that of a lunatic...is a means of expressing frustration. It's a sign of helplessness in the face of something that you dislike, but are powerless to change. I just don't feel like putting myself in that mindset right now. Too weak.

That's the thing about gun owners right now...too many of them in the USA, at the moment (clearly). They have lots of reasons for owning guns...I was on a web site the other day that provided 101 reasons for why a private (non-military) citizen to own a battle rifle like the one that claimed the lives of 19 children under the age of 11 (plus their teachers). Lots of reasons...but none of them were good reasons. Most of them...well, all of them really...were based in fear. Or selfishness (self-centeredness). Or ignorance. But mainly fear. A feeling of weakness, of helplessness, of powerlessness and a driving need to do something to feel powerful. 

All of a sudden, it occurs to me why the pandemic has (in this country, where guns are laughingly easy to acquire) fueled an incredible surge in gun purchases. It's not just white supremacists buying guns because of panic over a BLM movement (which some have claimed). Gun ownership is up across ALL demographics. People feel powerless in the face of invisible killer viruses and government lockdowns and it's understandable how they'd try to do something to reclaim a feeling of power for themselves. 

Also explains (partly) my zero desire to own a gun: I already feel powerful most days. I'm a Dungeon Master, after all.

Yesterday, I cleaned the hell out of my house in anticipation of a couple kids coming over for a playdate. The nice thing about that means, a lot fewer chores to do today. Which is a good thing because the kids are getting off at noon to start a blessed three day weekend with very few scheduled obligations on the docket. The wife, of course, wants to "do" stuff...the kids and I are hoping to just stay home, chill out, and play some games. But for today (at least), I'm going to guess we'll have some leisure time.

I think I want to introduce the kids to a new RPG or two. Specifically, I'm considering Top Secret (my children have been reading a lot of "spy" novels lately) and/or Gamma World. Something light, something fun...a little adventurous and not much chargen/startup time. I brought up the idea this morning, as I drove them to school, and they were both excited at the prospect. 

We are still in the midst of N1, too, which is going...well, better than I expected. Sofia's character got drugged and kidnapped, but Diego managed to find her in the middle of the night (before she could be moved to the lair of the cultist's god), and actually managed to out-duel the 4th level assassin guarding her...all the more surprising when you consider his own character is only a 1st level assassin. Ah, AD&D...how you continually surprise me. Despite the level difference, they were fairly evenly matched when it came to a face-to-face fight: same ACs, same chance to hit (D. actually had a +1 with his shortsword due to "elf-ness"), and the bad guy's extra hit points meant little once Lady Luck stepped in. They escaped through the trapdoor in the ceiling, and murdered the villainous innkeeper before he could fully rouse himself from his sleep (a good surprise role there).

Unfortunately, they have yet to pick up a scrap of treasure. C'est la vie.

Anyway...I'm sure I'm boring folks. And I have some dishes to wash up and some RPGs to prep. Hope everyone has as happy a Friday as they can, depending on their personal circumstances. Love your loved ones, love yourselves, love your neighbors and your enemies (as best you can). And try not to be too afraid. We are ALL more powerful than we realize.

Here's Why You World Build

Dennis's blog post today referenced my recent world building post and offered the following observation:

The question Adam raised was, why world-build when character backstories aren't encouraged? And JB, instead of answering directly, started off by musing on why bother playing D&D at all...

Dammit. 

SO...what is probably unclear, O My Gentle Readers, is that what I was addressing in my post (with my first two questions) was some of the underlying reasons why world building is necessary, and that my third question ("why world build?") was more of a "why spend copious amounts of time and energy crafting the imaginary setting for your D&D campaign?"

In other words: Why is it desirable to do more work than sketching out Town X, Dungeon Y, and the distance between the two points?

What I did NOT address (re-reading my post) is the absolute NEED to build a world. In D&D.

I have very little time this morning, but I'm going to try to address it. Succinctly, if possible.

D&D "out of the box" doesn't come with a world. It has some assumptions about the setting that can be inferred from the rules (magic works a certain way, certain species and monsters abound) but there's really little more than instructions on how to play the game. In the Original and Basic versions, the DM was directed to create a dungeon, and then advised that after a while, players would want to move OUT of the dungeon and explore the larger world and that the DM should prepare a "wilderness" (though one with towns and cities and castles) for this purpose.

Anyone who has played D&D for a long enough time will probably tell you this isn't sufficient. Playing the game like this is little more than a board game without a (player facing) board.

For a deeper engagement, one needs a world. 

These days, of course, there are plenty of "worlds" available for purchase: Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Krynn, etc. Much easier to BUY a built world than to construct your own. I'll talk about that in a later post. However, there is a reason why there is a market for such products: a world is necessary for serious (i.e. non-superficial) game play. People buying the these products are LOOKING for a world (or ideas for their own creation) because they have played long enough to understand the need for a world.

The newbie player doesn't get this. They're just trying to figure out how the mechanics of the game work. Players need to figure out not just how to roll D20s to attack, what "AC" means and how to pick the right spells, but how to judge risk-reward when it comes to perilous danger of the D&D world. So that their character doesn't die and...instead...succeeds in the game.

The newbie DM has even MORE they have to learn when first picking up the game: not only the lingo and mechanics and extra rules for monsters, but how to craft scenarios that aren't too deadly, too easy, too rewarding, etc AND how to manage a table of unruly ruffian players. That ain't easy. The DM has "absolute power" in the D&D game...but abuse that player and the players walk and there is no game. Give away that power to the players (let the players push the DM around) and they'll still walk once they get tired of manipulating their punching-bag DM (and assuming the DM doesn't quit in frustration and self-disgust first).

It takes time and effort to learn how to be players and DMs (and the latter requiring substantially MORE time and effort than the former). But once you've got it down, once you have all that tuned, you'll find there's still a piece missing from the game: the world. Only the most superficially engaged players are satisfied with just step-and-fetch quests or killing trolls for gold, once they're done learning the ropes. If that's ALL they want, they might as well be playing a MMORPG like World of Warcraft. You still get camaraderie, you still get laughs, you still get to team up for challenges, you still kill shit for money and incremental achievement. And all it costs you is the initial outlay of funds and a couple bucks a month for the subscription. That's a need that the market's filled...there are lots of MMORPGs one can choose from (and probably more on the way as VR tech advances).

To get beyond that requires a deeper engagement with the game which can ONLY happen if there is a world to explore. And the better built the world, the more there is to explore...not just in terms of geography but in managing history, politics, culture, metaphysics, etc...the deeper the engagement that can be achieved.

I'll draw a quick parallel with real life: most of us are pretty attached to living. Regardless of the state of your being, and your beliefs about the afterlife, few people are truly ready to "shuffle off this mortal coil" at the drop of a hat. Why? Are you a bazillionaire with a harem of love slaves and the respect and adoration of millions? Do you live in some tropical paradise where the weather's always perfect, surrounded by loving friends and family with not a care in the world?

Regardless of how shitty our lives may get, we're pretty attached to them. We're invested in them. We want to keep living them...for as long as we can. I mean, there's always the potential for things to get better, right? Always the hope of fun, happiness, love, whatever...yeah?

Ideally, one's game world should be built well enough that the players become invested in a similar way.

[and don't worry about the DM. The DM gets invested just by dint of the time and effort being put into world construction]

A lot of RPGs don't require any substantial amount of world building...the world is already built for them. The World of Darkness games (Vampire, etc.), most Palladium games (Rifts, etc.), Shadowrun, BattleTech, Star Wars, MERP, Cadillacs & Dinosaurs, Over The Edge, etc. All have a world (or worlds) built in. All have histories (and conflicts based on those histories) baked in. Very, very few RPGs require the same kind of world building in order to offer engagement...for the GM, all that's needed is to create some NPCs and write some scenarios based on the existing world of the game.

For PLAYERS of these games, the main thing needed (besides learning the mechanics) is some sort of "buy-in" to the world being presented. Character backstories can facilitate insertion into the game's setting, but I think it's debatable the benefit that is achieved in/by doing so.

For D&D, where no backstory is required (or, in my opinion, desired) the blank slate of the character allows the game to focus squarely on the players in the present moment: the action is NOW and what the character is doing, not on what the character was or has done in the past.

Because here's the thing: we build emotional investment through our experiences. I get cut from the soccer team in high school...that affects me. I have sex for the first time...that affects me. I travel to a foreign country (where I don't speak the language)...that affects me.  And all of it impacts my life and how I act and react going forward.

But a fictional background or backstory created by a player (or DM) has NOT been experienced. The only thing experienced in the game is the actual experiences that occur IN PLAY, AT THE TABLE. My half-elf's mother was killed by orcs and my father hates me for being half-human and exiled me from the Woodland Realm? None of that matters to ME (the player) because I didn't actually experience them. My father abandoned my family, out-of-the-blue, when I was 17...sneaking away like a thief in the night...and that DOES affect me...because I experienced it myself!

The only thing that you can experience in an RPG...the only thing that will change and transform your character and your personality and your approach/action/reaction to the ongoing game IS THE STUFF THAT HAPPENS IN THE GAME. Conflicts with the game world. Conflicts with your fellow players. Events that occur that are humorous, exciting, tragic, whatever. These things can and will affect players and deepen that investment in the game.

The world building is necessary to facilitate this. Otherwise, players simply see D&D as a challenging game of kill or be killed. There can still be emotional investment (we enjoy becoming great killers) but it won't have the deep attachments it might otherwise have.

Okay...that's all I have time for right now. Happy Friday folks!

: )

[edited to correct the link to Dennis's blog]