Champs...Again

A typical orky game. Dropped passes. Strong running. A lot of stomping of the opposing team's quarterback. If you roll with the greenskins in Blood Bowl, that's the game you're going to see.

But what a beatdown!

It's tough that Zach Charbonnet tore his ACL, as he's our third down / red zone back. For all Kenneth Walker's talent (and he IS talented...extremely), he doesn't have the same nose for the endzone. If Charbs is on the field yesterday, that 19-0 lead going into the 4th quarter is probably more like 27-0. 

But I'll take it. Heck, I would have taken a 6-0 victory. Just like I'd take a 1-0 victory in Blood Bowl. Because a win is a win is a win. And a trophy is a nice memento to commemorate a really good season. Which is what the Seattle Seahawks had this year...a really great season.

Way to go, boyz. Well deserved. This time I'll be at the parade.

Waaagh!

Talking Turkey

Happy Thanksgiving, y'all. Hope you're all having a good one...I sure am!

ALSO:  this is fascinating. Odd that I've had fewer links in 2025 than the prior two years, despite doubling my 2024 output and tripling my 2023 output. Guess it hasn't really been "linkable" material...something to work on in 2026.

; )

[credit to Grognardia for hipping me to this]

All right, that's all for today. I've got to go chop some veggies.

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.

C is for Cascades

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

C is for Cascades; i.e. the Cascade mountain range. Other than huge swaths of forest which gives Washington its nickname "The Evergreen State," the Cascades are probably its dominant physical feature.

There ware two mountain ranges in Washington; the Olympics (on the Olympic peninsula) are smaller...I'll talk about them in a later section. The Cascades range from Canada down into Oregon, and pretty effectively divide Washington State into two halves...prior to the mid-1800s, there really wasn't any practical way for crossing the mountains, save by traveling down the Columbia River. Since I run AD&D and my campaign setting spurns dynamite and railroads, this immense partition remains largely impassable, save by undertaking treacherous travel over a handful of mountain passes (the same ones that would, in our own world, become Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass, and White Pass).

Effectively, my campaign is divided into Western and Eastern Washington and rarely do the twain meet.

But, of course, they have. My players have adventured from Chelan and Douglas and Grant counties out to Clallam (on the Peninsula) and are now (currently) in Western Idaho. How did they initially get to the west side of the State? Magic, duh (their ship got swept through a magical gate and crashed on the shoreline). How did they get back to the east side? By adventuring through the wilds of Oregon and crossing the range on the south side of the Columbia (what in our real world would be Interstate-84).

Not easy...but possible for intrepid adventurers of mid-to-high (8th) levels.

But, hey, I'm making it sound harder than it really is...it's not like my players are hex-crawling along the Oregon Trail. The existence of the Cascades gives me a convenient excuse for partitioning my "world" (i.e. the campaign setting) into different sections...sections that are VERY separate/different from each other. The players have yet to adventure in Washington's I-5 corridor (Pierce/King/Snohomish counties), for example...because I haven't detailed those places. Oh, I have some vague ideas regarding warring city-states, but...well, more on that bit later. Point is, I don't really know...and that's okay because there's plenty to do on the east side of the Cascades, regardless of what I know or don't know.

The mountains also provide interesting ideas for adventure scenarios. While mining isn't a huge industry in 21st century Washington, plenty of ore has been pulled out of the Cascades over the years. A quick google search tells me some 2.3 million ounces of gold was mined in Washington up through 1965 with millions more ounces of gold still lurking undiscovered. Minted, that would put a LOT of coins in circulation...treasure, in other words: treasure that could be found, spent, stolen, hoarded, and looted in an endless cycle of adventure. 

Of course, that's nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands of TONS of iron ore that has been mined in the cascades over the years. That makes for a lot of armor and weapons, even at a fractional amount. Copper mining in the Cascades has yielded less than half that amount but, still...tons. 

[I'll note that most silver mined in the Pac Northwest comes out of Idaho, not the Washington Cascades, but since the amount mined is more than a billion ounces, I'm sure there's plenty of silver pieces in circulation outside the "Death Lands"]

And then there are the dwarves.

So...if one actually reads the description of dwarves in the Monster Manual, you'll find there's not a whole lot of cultural information on the species:  "Rocky hills are the favorite abode of these sturdy creatures. Dwarves typically band together in clans which are not mutually exclusive or hostile but are competitive." Aaand...that's about it. They hate goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs. They speak the language of gnomes, goblins, kobolds, and orcs (in addition to their own language), and only 75% of dwarves have any knowledge of the human (Common) tongue. There's some stuff about "mountain dwarves" being slightly taller, but the level range given is the same as that found for "hill dwarves" in the PHB (to be fair, the MM came out before the PHB and compared to the dwarves of OD&D, this would have been slightly higher). 

Well, whatever...in MY campaign, you'll only find "mountain dwarves" in the Cascade Range; this is their "native territory." You will not find dwarf clans in the Olympics; they are not nearly as mineral rich (and, yes, my dwarves are miners) as the Cascades. My dwarf clans tend to specialize in whichever veins of ore lie in the vicinity of their houses and strongholds which are NOT typically built underground. Oh, they'll have some defensive bunkers (usually) dug out, but dwarves still have to farm, cultivating fields and husbanding livestock. The mountains are their home, but they don't live in the tunnels they dig; they're not troglodytes.

You won't find Moria on my map, in other words.

Dwarves are diurnal creatures (just like humans) and some have come down from the mountains to seek work and residence in human communities. This is the "stock" from which PC dwarves come: people who've chosen to live with (and who appreciate) humans for the odd menagerie they are. Dwarves have their own spiritual leaders ("cleric equivalents") but these are only found in the mountains and are strictly NPCs; their abilities are also quite limited (level-wise) compared to human clerics...dwarven clerics are never "adventurers." 

Of course, there are other creatures that inhabit the forested slopes of the Cascades besides dwarves: generally all the creatures you'd expect to find in temperate mountains, hills, and forests (sub-arctic up in the northernmost Cascades). But dwarves are the main people with whom characters will be interacting, should they decide to search for a way across. As I noted earlier, there are some passes over (and, perhaps, some tunnels through) the mountains, but they are nearly all guarded by dwarves...dwarves who charge a hefty toll for passage. You can be sure that the easier and swifter the route, the steeper the charge will be. Still, for those desiring a way from one side of the campaign setting to the other (and who don't want to take the time to travel down to the Columbia) such fees are a small price to pay to avoid falling prey to a dwarven ambush, deadfall, or rockslide.

Okay, I'm starting to digress. Final points: the Cascades separate our real Washington State into two distinct cultures: we who live here talk about "eastern Washington" and "western Washington" as two very different regions. The western half has an economy based on forestry and maritime trade; the eastern half is (mostly) rich farm land. Urban centers on the west support a larger population, making for a more diverse group of people which leads to a faster pace of life and more liberal viewpoints/politics. On the east side, there are vast open stretches of farmland, smaller towns, a slower pace (tied to the soil) and far more conservative view points. These dichotomies are things I consider with regard to my campaign, but they are not necessarily inherent in my campaign...there is no "east versus west" mentality. Both sides of the Cascades are further petitioned by individual kingdoms, duchies, and city states...the people on the east side fight each other as do the people on the west side. Because of the Cascades, however, the problems and conflicts of one side simply fail to impact (or even garner notice) from the folk on the other.  

For example: my Dragon Wrack adventure creates the scenario of a military threat (dragon army) out of Idaho...arrayed against that threat are a loose alliance of nations from the east side; however, there are NO armed forces from west of the Cascades taking part in the conflict. They simply have little (or no) idea of anything amiss on 'that side' of the mountains.

All right, that's enough for this entry.

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...

Basic Adventure Gaming

Some years back, I decided that I would stop referring to what I do as 'role-playing' and instead refer to these things (what I once called "RPGs") as "fantasy adventure games" (or "FAGs," for short). I know I was doing this as early as 2013, because I was very deliberate in my omission of any phrases of "role-playing" in my self-published Five Ancient Kingdoms game. You see, I wanted to end any confusion over how I (as a designer) intended my games to be played.

Of course, the term "fantasy adventure game" is not original to my noggin...I'm fairly sure I stole the term directly from my copy of Moldvay. "Fantasy Adventure Game Basic Booklet" it says, right there on the cover (the Cook/Marsh expert set says "Fantasy Adventure Game Expert Booklet"). The first paragraph of Moldvay's introduction begins:

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Fantasy Adventure Game ("The D&D Game" for short) is a role-playing adventure game for persons 10 years and older...

It's a good term for what the game is about..."fantasy adventure," duh...and, I believe, helps put one in the mindset of what we're supposed to be doing when we sit down at the gaming table. Let there be no confusion! We are here to play a game of fantasy adventure; we are not here to play-act, explore alternate personalities, or craft delightful narratives...all things the "role-playing" term has come to represent.

For the most part, I've approached my entire role-playing hobby in this way...and why not, when my introduction to the hobby was the D&D game?...even with game systems that are clearly not conducive to this style of play. Or rather, I did...up until the early 2000s when I started reading RPG theory over at the Forge and recognizing how different systems facilitate different types of play.

So, yeah...I've been a fantasy adventure gamer (a "FAG") for a long time. 40+ years. And yet I understand that my view of how to use these games is different from the majority opinion these days. Which is why I decided to start distinguishing myself (and, yes, distancing myself) from the "role-playing" terminology. Not because I don't see what I do as "playing a role-playing games" (a genre of entertainment distinct from board games or computer games), but because my approach to how one plays an RPG is so foreign to the majority of the community...even that part of the community purporting to play Dungeons & Dragons, the FIRST fantasy adventure game.

I'm not the only one. I've previously mentioned the growing CAG community ("CAG" is an acronym for classic adventure gaming...I suppose the term "FAG" was found to be problematic...), a splinter group of the "old school" scene that exist mainly to 'keep the flame' of adventure gaming alive, in the same way that the early OSR tried to keep alive "old edition" gaming: by discussion, encouragement, and sharing of 'best practice' wisdom from old timers, not to mention just playing. In terms of the overall hobby, CAG style play can be seen as a niche of a niche: "old variety D&D" is enjoying the same proliferation and popularity one sees in the current (5th+) edition of D&D, but even among the folks who play old edition D&D (or its clones, like OSE) there is a lot of misunderstanding, misinformation, and inaccurate assumptions of what game-play is supposed to look like. The CAG folks aren't (especially) trying to rectify that, but they are trying to be a repository for knowledge, and a resource for folks looking for a way of playing these games in this particular style.

"This particular style." Yeah, I know how I sound. I'm trying to avoid writing "teaching people how to play D&D the correct way," because I know that ruffles feathers. Ruffling feathers isn't my objective today. Definitely not my objective.

*ahem* For more information on CAG, I'd suggest checking out the semi-regular CAG podcast, especially the first couple/three episodes. For shorter summaries, you can read Zherbus or EOTB's blog postings which are fair summations of CAG gaming philosophy. Both of these folks are strong proponents of 1E AD&D (and OSRIC, 1E's retroclone), for the simple reason that it is the system that best facilitates this type of play (a perspective I happen to agree with). 

But the question has come up: Can Basic systems (like B/X, BECMI, Holmes, Labyrinth Lord, Old School Essentials, etc.) be used for CAG play? And, if so, how?

The answer to the first question is decidedly "yes." The answer to the second is...longer.

The basic games (Holmes, Moldvay, and Mentzer) were all initially intended to act as introductions to the D&D game. It is only with the additional Mentzer volumes (the Companion, Master, and Immortal rule sets) that the "D&D" game (distinct from Advanced D&D, i.e. AD&D, the main product line of TSR for the majority of its existence) became something that could be considered a "complete" game system...a system of its own, standing in its own right.

This latter edition (called BECMI, later consolidated in Aaron Alston's Rules Cyclopedia, sometimes referred to as the "RC") is something I didn't play when it was first published (i.e 'in the days of my youth'). My friends and I played AD&D, although we did pick up some of the BECMI offerings (for 'reasons'). But there was a LOT of stuff for this line that hit the shelves...I've always assumed it was a popular game line at the time, which is why they created so much content for it (setting material in the form of Gazetteers, game accessories, adventure modules for all levels of play). Decades later (in the early 2000s) I acquired a lot of it and messed around with it a bit, thinking there might be something there. 

Meh.

Only recently, I've been hipped to the fact that it might not have been a very popular game line at all...at least in the USA. However, this Mentzer-penned version of "basic" was the version first translated (officially) into other languages and sold overseas. The 1E PHB and DMG were translated into both French and German, but Mentzer's Basic set (and the BECMI line) was translated to French, German, Danish, Finnish, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Portuguese, Korean, Spanish, and Swedish. For many countries outside the United States, Basic D&D was the seminal, defining version of the game.

I'm digressing. As said, the original Basic sets were meant to be a "gateway" to the AD&D game (as it was for me)...but that wasn't necessarily the case in other parts of the world.  Then TSR crashed and we didn't see, hear, or care about these "basic" games until the rise of the OSR circa 2007-9.

Mm.

This next part is tricky. The OSR didn't treat these Basic editions as "introductory" systems; quite the contrary, they looked at them as editions of D&D worth being played in and for themselves. There were a lot of reasons for this. Ease/accessibility was a major reason: they are short systems to read with less nuance. Their rules were so uncomplicated and simple that creating additional, compatible material (a thrilling pastime for creatives) was a cinch. And...probably...there was a lot of familiarity and nostalgia with these systems, especially in light of A) the OSR being an international community, plus B) Mentzer's Basic being the "standard" D&D most widely translated across countries/cultures.

They were also some of the earliest retroclones on the market. Labyrinth Lord wasn't written as an 'introduction' to anything, and its Advanced Edition Companion gave people additional (1st Edition) content, adapted to the Basic chassis. Lamentations of the Flame Princess used basic D&D as a vehicle for exploring all sorts of grimness. OSE simply re-organized the B/X books in a way to make them even more user friendly than they already were.  None of them were designed, nor seemed interested, in being a gateway or bridge to a more Advanced game. These clones were created by different, independent publishers (with different, independent motivations), NOT by a single, gigantic corporation hoping to funnel newbs to its flagship product. 

So...back to that second question.

When one understands the objectives of "adventure gaming," one can begin to see the limitations inherent in a game designed first and foremost as an introduction to the "real game" (the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game written and published concurrently with the first 'Basic' set). Most of the stated attributes of adventure gaming (again, looking at the two cited blog posts above) are easily satisfied even with a basic system of procedures. However, the overall objective/goal of fantasy adventure gaming is long term campaign play...sustained play in an enduring fantasy environment, created by the DM and impacted by the players. Despite the ease and accessibility of the various basic rule sets, their systems have several insufficiencies that hinder long term play. These are:

1. Severe lack of distinction between character type. The basic character falls into one of seven categoric class, is defined by one of three alignments, and has an extremely limited selection of equipment and magic spells with which to choose. Variation between ability scores is compressed (seven possible options for each ability) contributing to a marked "sameness" between PCs. For an introduction to the game, this limited selection is more than adequate; it cuts down on the amount of "analysis paralysis" inherent in a new player approaching a complex game. For long-term engagement, however, more distinction and variety is desirable. AD&D offers 36 class variations (interlocking with race), another score of multi-class options, several times the number of armor and weapon selections, and four distinct spell lists, each of which contains more 1st level spells than any spell list in the basic systems. The variety in the advanced game is sufficient without being overwhelming, providing much "replay" value (in terms of exploring different character types for interacting with the D&D environment).

2. Lack of survivability. This has been discussed before: basic characters are fairly fragile at low levels, easily slain by misadventure. Lack of staying power is a barrier to long-term play, requiring more work on the part of both DM and players to ensure surviving to higher levels of play (a desirable outcome as it opens more content for players and DMs to experience). AD&D increases survivability by providing higher hit dice for most character classes, a negative hit point "buffer," and plentiful healing magic from clerical types even beginning at 1st level.

3. Less opportunity for advancement. Basic systems award x.p. for both combat and treasure found (just as in AD&D) but does so at a lesser rater: fewer x.p. are awarded for monsters and treasure x.p. is only awarded for monetary treasure (magical items being deemed as 'their own reward'). True, x.p. totals for advancement are slightly lower than in the Advanced game, but in practice, far more x.p. is awarded in the Advanced game, especially with the potential to sell magic items for exorbitant amounts of gold and x.p. This procedure in first edition AD&D allows characters to continue to rise at a regular pace, even as the x.p. totals needed for advancement rise to six- and seven-digit figures. Treasure pools for monsters also have a tendency to award more treasure than what is given for the hoards of basic monsters; type H treasure (the best available in B/X) awards an average haul valued at 50,000 g.p. Considering that H treasure only occurs in dragon lairs...and that 50K split seven or eight ways is quite a small amount for name level characters requiring 100K-150K each for advancement...that is a lot of risk for comparatively small reward. As basic game PCs rise in level, advancement has the potential to stifle which, coupled with low survivability, is a bad recipe for "long term" play.

4. Lack of options for mid- to high-level play. Even when a basic campaign awards sufficient treasure for regular advancement, there is precious little to spend all that money on. Basic games require no training costs, no upkeep costs, have a shorter list of "buy" options available, and prices of items are quite depreciated (consider that plate armor costs a measly 60 g.p. in basic play and is available to all but the poorest of 1st level characters). Basic rules provide no rules for item depreciation/destruction, and thus there is never a need to replace or repair equipment for hirelings and retainers. While the Expert sets of both B/X and BECMI provide some guidelines for the building of castes and strongholds, only Mentzer's Companion and Master books make any real attempt at providing "domain" (rulership) rules...and these are poorly done, providing heaps of unearned x.p. on the heads of domain rulers for doing little more than raising taxes on their populations. True, there is some impetus for conquest provided in the Companion book (if only to gain higher titles of nobility), but the "War Machine" system is extremely limited in scope (meanwhile, neither Holmes nor B/X offer any such systems, referring DMs to the out-of-print Sword & Spells for handling mass combat). 

I admit that Mentzer's BECMI system strives mightily to provide options for high level characters: proto-prestige classes, combat maneuvers, higher level spells, demihuman "crafts," powerful monster antagonists, and codified quests for immortality. But, for all practical purposes, these options remain far out of reach due to the lack of advancement opportunity (#3 above) which makes the achievement of Companion (15th-25th) level characters next to impossible to achieve. Such characters require well in excess of 1 million g.p. worth of treasure...the equivalent of 20 average sized dragon hoards...each, in order to reach such lofty heights. Personally, I've found 12th level to be just about the maximum effective in (standard) B/X play, and even that requires impractically large treasure hoards (a four ox wagon can only pull 25,000 coins weight; a bag of holding in basic can only hold 10,000 coins). Any character with half a million in gold coins has the cash to purchase multiple castle complexes given the procedures in the basic rules.

And I imagine that was deemed just fine by the original designers. Buy your castle, retire your character...and then graduate to the Advanced D&D game for your next go around. Buying a castle and settling down in your gold stuffed halls should be considered a "win."

But fantasy adventure gaming is not played with a particular endpoint in mind. Some characters will, of course, "retire"...especially demi-humans who've reached the level limits and are unable to progress further. For the majority of human characters, however, AD&D has no hard cap, no limitation to advancement; like the campaign itself, adventurers' careers have the potential to be perpetual, ongoing without end. In theory, basic characters (both B/X and BECMI) have a 36 level cap which should probably be all but unreachable, even after years of play...but the game does not scale nearly as well as it does in the AD&D game. Demons in BECMI are equivalent to (lesser) gods, not beasts to be fought in the deepest dungeon levels or (more usually) on the outer planes. And while Mentzer included his own version of artifacts in the Master set, they do not function nor serve the same purpose of reward as the artifacts and relics found in the 1E DMG (hint: there's a reason Gygax gives these items a sale value in gold).

So for those folks wishing to play a simpler, streamlined "basic" system with long-term CAG objectives, what can be done to remove these inherent impediments?

1. Increase character variability. The interlocking combination of race and class has generally been found to be sufficient for providing diversity in character choice. Labyrinth Lord's Advanced Edition Companion (and, presumably, OSE Advanced) takes pains to adapt 1E's system to the basic style and can be adopted wholesale...these games also tend to recreate the extended spell lists and equipment charts of 1E, but in a "basic" style. Solid world building with attention paid to markets and economy, and one's own setting-specific character options can also provide variety for players. The Complete B/X Adventurer provides a plethora of character options and new character classes, although the latter are meant to be used sparingly in better tailoring one's setting, not dropped in their entirety into a campaign.

2. Increase character survivability. Basic characters start to hit their stride around 3rd level, and one can simply start PCs at that level; likewise, DMs might add negative HP buffers, higher hit dice, and bonus spells (based on WIS or INT scores for clerics and magic-users, respectively). However, the main consideration for basic groups is to ensure they have enough bodies in their adventuring parties: 7+ is generally the fewest you want to see, and hired mercenaries (like the kind found in adventure module B2) should be readily available to low-level parties needing to 'fill out the ranks.' Special attention should be paid to both the Reaction and Morale procedures in the basic system, and both the DM and players should understand how these work, as 'breaking' foes (especially humanoids) is generally going to pay higher dividends than fighting them to the death. Fierce as a single ogre is, it is less likely to kill half a party than five to seven bandits/humanoids (all those attack rolls!)...especially ones armed with missile weapons. DMs need to take a look at what makes a "survivable" encounter for low level characters: the Tower of Zenopus example dungeon in Holmes basic, and adventure module B1 are both good resources in this regard. Also, it is incredibly important that DMs stock enough treasure that players are leveling up to more sturdy levels of experience as quickly as possible.

3. Provide sufficient treasure. Unless one adopts the AD&D system of awarding x.p. for magic items, and higher award totals for defeating monsters, DMs will need to find ways to stock immense amounts of coin and valuables for the players to advance. It should not be unusual for PCs to be 3rd level after 4-6 sessions of play (depending on character type and diligence in sniffing out loot), given a bit of luck and survival. Unfortunately it is difficult to sustain such progress even into the mid-levels, as I first noted waaay back in 2010...it is simply a flaw of design. However, one idea I had back then was to slash all x.p. requirements (i.e. the amount of x.p. needed to advance in level) by a factor of five or ten, while retaining the normal treasure hoard amounts and monster x.p. values. So, for example, a fighter's progression might look like this:

1st level: 0 x.p.

2nd level: 400 x.p.

3rd level: 800 x.p.

4th level: 1,600 x.p.

5th level: 3,200 x.p.

6th level: 6,400 x.p.

7th level: 12,800 x.p.

8th level: 24,000 x.p.

9th level: 48,000 x.p.

10th level: 72,000 x.p.

With an advancement table like this, a 50K dragon hoard split amongst eight survivors is a nice chunk of change: enough to raise a 6th level fighter to 7th or make a good size dent in a higher level character's x.p. needs.

4. Provide options for PCs of higher levels. Reducing the x.p. needed to advance alleviates some of the pressure to provide overflowing piles of gold and gemstones, but players must still have monetary needs to drain their coffers and perpetuate the cycle of treasure seeking. Here, solid world building will help, providing all manner of costs and expenses as well as delightful ostentations for purchase. DMs can, of course, adopt upkeep costs, item saving throws, and training fees from the 1E DMG...but then, why not just play AD&D?

More than that, game play needs to be scaled so that it remains interesting  even as play progresses...players should not be taking the same approach to monster fighting at 8th or 13th level as at 1st and 2nd. Here, a DM might well want to look at the later BECMI books (Companion and Master) for rules and procedures that are adaptable even down to 9th level (I would NOT however adopt the weapon specialization rules for low-level characters as it can disrupt game balance in the same way the UA's weapon specialization rules do). Likewise, DMs might wish to take a look at my own B/X Companion which provides a great deal of material specifically geared for high (15th+) level B/X play. Both "companion" books provide a number of new procedures (including unarmed and mass combat rules) in addition to a ton of new "content" (spells, monsters, magic items). For that matter, DMs looking for content might want to look at my last book Comes Chaos for a host of demonic entities and corrupted magic items, great for tarting up one's mid- to high level B/X campaign.  

The main thing, however, is to understand that there's going to be a lot of work involved in adapting a Basic rule system to the needs of long-term campaign play. While AD&D has requires a bit more work up front (learning to use its system) in comparison to the basic games, once learned it provides depth of game play from 1st up through the highest levels, needing only world building and adventure writing on the part of the DM to maintain solid, satisfying play. The basic system is incredibly easy to learn and run, but to make it an enduring form of play (i.e. the kind of play worth spending time out of our busy schedules) requires far more effort, not just in tweaking and experimenting with modifications to rules, but in designing adventures and developing content. Sure, there are sources for this content to be found: bestiaries, tomes of magic items, or various retroclones (and their supplements) with setting specific particulars...but searching out that content and curating it requires work. By contrast, I've yet to use every monster presented in original 1E Monster Manual, let alone the Fiend Folio and MM2, and there are spells and magic items from the original PHB and DMG that haven't yet been seen at my table...after decades of play.

Just saying.

That work, that effort that goes into making a basic game system a sustainable form of play can be fun at first...look at my blog as evidence of that! All the tinkering I did with B/X over the first 10-12 years of its life...but over time can lead to frustration and (in my case) ennui. The mature, adventure focused Dungeon Master wants to spend his or her time on world building and scenario creation, not hand holding and system modification, but the shallowness of basic game play requires BOTH those things in order to make it last and function ("hand holding" being a shorthand for customizing the game in a way that it doesn't kill the PCs nor bore the players out of engagement). YES, it CAN be done...but do you want to? Is that a price you're willing to pay just because you don't want to spend some time parsing the AD&D rule books?

There's a reason I'm not playing B/X these days...and it's not because I don't still think it's a great simple system that can be readily taught and is easily customizable in a multitude of ways. B/X IS a "fantasy adventure game;" it's just not a great one when it comes to sustained, long-term play. And at this point in my life, that's pretty much the only type of game play I'm interested in. 

Editions & Expectations

The point of this series is to provide an easy-to-follow blueprint for the prospective Dungeon Master to run a game of Dungeons & Dragons that will satisfy them in the long-term. Because D&D is a game that, honestly, requires very little financial investment (meaning you can play it on very meager means) AND can be played even after age and disability limits you from most other activities, long-term is the best way to think about and approach the game. 

But we'll get to that. First we need to temper expectations.

If you are interested in being a DM because you are hoping to be the next Tolkien or something, man you are barking up the wrong tree. If you want to direct film (or plays) or write for television...go do that. If you want to write a gigantic fantasy novel series like Sam Donaldson or George Martin or (God help you) Robert Jordan...then go do that.  Write your books. Write your screenplays. Film them...whatever it takes to scratch your artistic itch...DO IT. Draw your magnum opus comic book with Frazetta-like characters or Aspirin-like situations or WHATEVER. Go do that! Hopefully, you'll make some money on it, but REGARDLESS, you will find satisfaction pursuing your creative endeavor of choice.

D&D doesn't look like that. Oh, I know...there are folks on the internet that play D&D that seem to be creating some sort of entertaining "story." That's fine...that's another form of scripted entertainment, created to entertain the subscribers. That is NOT what D&D play is, nor what it looks like in practice, nor (I daresay) what makes it an incredibly enjoyable pastime.

D&D, in its best form, is a fantasy adventure game, allowing players to experience fantasy adventure. But what does that really mean? 

It means that it is a game. A game that creates high emotion in its players...fear, joy, excitement, exhilaration, despair, anger, sadness, triumph, etc...emotions that are EXPERIENCED in play, much like a competitive sport or game of high stakes poker. That's what it's like to PLAY the game...that is the "fun" of the game...for the players.

For the Dungeon Master, the satisfaction comes from creating a world and running a game that creates these emotions in players. 

But if you expect players to "perform" in the manner of a trained actor or "behave" in a manner that "befits the story;" no, in most cases that's NOT what you're going to get at the table, even with trained actors for participants. That's just not what the game is built to do...not in ANY edition of the game. You might have a group of very creative individuals sitting at the game table with you...screenwriters and novelists with a modicum (or more) of acting talent, and your game will still fall far, far short of the satisfaction of writing your own novel (in which you can control the content and dialogue) or directing your own show (same).

Trying to administrate these things is missing the point of play. And, over time, you will end up very, VERY disappointed if this is your expectation of play.

In running the game of D&D, the DM presents a world, with various things for players to do. And by "do" I mean Choices that players can make about Actions their characters take in hopes of having an Impact on the imaginary (DM created) World. THAT, my dear friends is the game of Dungeons & Dragons. That is the essence of what the Dungeon Master does...at least, as far as the players are concerned. What happens behind the scenes (and mostly away from the table) is the world building done by the DM to create the dynamic campaign with which the players interact. 

Done right, this creates a campaign the players want to return to and engage with on a regular basis...it is the well-run campaign that creates the drive in players to play.  Which, in turn, provides feedback to the DM that is used for additional dynamic world construction, giving the DM (as Bath wrote) "full reign to his creative genius."

It is this interplay between players and DM, facilitated and moderated by the rules, that govern and express the play of the Dungeons & Dragons game.

So what rule set to use?

Despite all the internet "ink" spilled on the subject, the edition/version of D&D used is of secondary importance (at best) to the play of the game as just described. Every DM will, with time, make adjustments to the ruleset to better suit their needs in play, and EVERY edition requires additional work by the DM to ensure that long-term, satisfying campaign play is achieved.

The various Basic editions (Moldvay, Mentzer, Holmes) provide an adequate introduction to the rules, and are the most accessible way to learn the game system. Coupled with addition of an "Expert" set (Cook/Marsh, Mentzer) they provide instructions for the basic procedures of the D&D game: character creation, combat, advancement, exploration, etc. They are all well written for their purpose and excellent in obtaining their objective: even players as young as nine and ten can grasp the basic systems and processes of the game after a reading of (one of) these Basic books.

The Advanced game (Gygax) in its first iteration provides a more robust system for play that anticipates and addresses many of the issues that might hamper long-term campaign play. This includes a more robust selection of player choices (no less than 35 combinations of race and class, more spells and equipment, and some inherent/integrated world building considerations), expanded rosters of monsters and treasure, and a variety of options and decent advice sections for the Dungeon Master. Gygax's AD&D (sometimes called 1E or "first edition") codifies many of the "best practices" developed over years of actual play and experimentation. The core volumes of play include the Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, and various Monster Manuals. Later volumes in the 1E series provide additional rules and ideas, but most are fairly superfluous to running the game.

The original D&D game (Gygax & Arneson) provides the basis for both the 1E and Basic editions of the game and for the historic-minded or unapologetic game tinkers, it provides the foundational bones on which the game was built. "OD&D" (as it is sometimes called) along with its supplementary volumes can provide a better understanding of the game's evolution and rules development, but to make the game function requires many choices and additions from the DM/referee. While this holds a great appeal for DMs who enjoy performing their own customization, it is a distraction from the actual creative imperative of the DM (world building and campaign creation). Also, many DMs find that the additions and modification they end up using are already anticipated by the AD&D (1E) version of the game.

The 2nd Edition (Cook) version of AD&D is similar to 1E in most ways, simply streamlining and restructuring many of the disjointed and scattered rules of the system. However, 2E's restructuring of the advancement system (the method in which players earn "experience points" or x.p.) is problematic in that it A) removes an easily understood, objective measure of success, and B) removes an incentive for cooperative and creative play. This has consequences in both the short-term AND long-term campaign play, but can be rectified by reinstating the "gold for x.p." standard (and several published adventure modules for 2E strongly advocate taking this specific action).

Both the 3rd Edition of D&D (sometimes called D20 and currently published as the Pathfinder game system) and the 4th Edition of D&D have multiple issues that make them rather unsuitable for long-term campaign play of the type I aim to describe in this blueprint; they represent their own, very different...and divergent...types of game play. They fall outside the purview of this series. 

The 5th edition is the current and most widely played version of D&D at this moment in time. Its publishing longevity surpasses any edition except 1E and 2E. It has had no less than three introductory box sets published for it, helping to make the rule system accessible for the new player, and is well-supported on-line by both the publishing company (WotC/Hasbro) and a large community. It is largely streamlined and simplified compared to prior "Advanced" editions (1E through 4E) yet enjoys robust player options far surpassing "Basic" editions of the game. And because of its variant rulebooks options, 5E provides a wide-spectrum of ways for the game to be played: it is customizable (like OD&D) and provides the DM with vast means of rewarding players (via fiat or "story awards"). It models a very different game play experience from earlier editions of the game...an experience based on expectations set by standards of video game design...which may have a broader appeal to a younger demographic of participant. Unfortunately, as such it also falls outside the purview of this series; while it's certainly possible the 5E mechanics could be adjusted to make it conducive to satisfying, long-term campaign play, the effort and analysis in doing so is more than I care to perform, given that there are already alternative systems available that provide a more-than-adequate head start on the task at hand.

Aficionados of Dungeons & Dragons generally have a favorite edition, based on the point at which they entered the hobby and/or the point at which they "mastered" game play. Preferences of style and design vary from player to player and (as stated above) almost all Dungeon Masters, with time, will modify the rules somewhat to meet their own preferences of play. As such, I think it's important not to become too distracted from the subject at hand by quibbling over which edition of the game is "better." Each edition can be made to work, and even amongst the older (pre-2000) versions, each will give a slightly different experience or "flavor" of play. 

In the end, we are unconcerned about flavor. We are concerned about long-term play. Choose a rule system and stick with it. As this blueprint continues, adjustments to system will be inevitable. 

Learning From The Oldest School

Tony Bath was a British wargamer who founded the Society of Ancients and (in certain circles) is celebrated for his long-running "Hyboria" campaign, based mainly on the setting Robert Howard created for his Conan stories. While Bath died in 2000 (at the age of 74), his writings have been collected and are still published by The History of Wargaming Project (edited by John Curry) under the title Tony Bath's Ancient Wargaming.

Good read.

Bath's writing, especially his 1973 work, Setting Up A Wargames Campaign, is remarkable because despite it being written about wargaming for wargamers, much of it (especially the thought process and philosophy) is directly applicable to Dungeons & Dragons and the burgeoning Dungeon Master seeking to build their own RPG campaign. Conclusions that I've only reached after decades of playing and pondering and reading the blogs/writings of folks much smarter than me, were carefully outlined by Tony Bath years before I ever laid eyes on the Moldvay Basic box.

Of course, it is no secret that D&D was created by wargaming enthusiasts. But when I write that Bath's book is directly applicable to the D&D game, I'm not talking about his rules for conducting tabletop battles, historical or otherwise. While such battles can be a part of one's D&D campaign (see the Gygax novels I mentioned in my last post as examples), the rules of D&D are far more concerned with the small scale actions of individual heroes (i.e. the player characters) then the movements and actions of troops. Instead, it is Bath's procedures and philosophy of creating and running campaigns and world building where one finds golden instruction.

It is only the vocabulary used that needs to be [slightly] altered.

"Almost all new [D&D players] start their careers by fighting a succession of single, unconnected [adventures]; this is inevitable since it takes time to get the feel of the hobby, to learn the rules, etc. But if a new recruit is really going to take up [D&D play], then before very long he begins to feel that something is lacking; that these individual [adventures], though well enough in their way, need some connecting link to make them more satisfying and to give an objective other than just trying to [kill monsters, delve for treasure]. In other words, the desire to [play] campaigns rather than ["adventures"].

"What makes campaigning so rewarding? Why, if you have fairly limited time available for the hobby, should you use time that could be spent in fighting on the table-top in [dealing with the minutia of encumbrance, rations, resource management, etc.]? The answer is that no real-life general could limit himself to the purely tactical problems of the battlefield, and a campaign is the way in which the [D&D player] general widens his horizon. 

"The player who merely participates as a [player character] finds the opportunity to practice strategy as well as tactics. He may find himself having to solve problems of supply and finance, and, if the campaign is a complicated one, matters of diplomacy, etc. as well. He must learn one of the hardest lessons for [of D&D play]: when to cut his losses and abandon [an adventure], instead of fighting to the bitter end.

"The [player] who [acts as a DM] to run a campaign gains even more, for he can give full reign to his creative genius, both as regards the rules he uses and the countries and characters he creates. A radio interviewer once asked me whether the desire to run a mythical continent of my own was a sign of power mania; I replied that this was possibly true to some extent, since most of us like playing God to some degree, but more important was the freedom it gave to a bent for organizing things.

"As your campaign develops, you will find yourself adding fresh angles to it which, while quite unnecessary from a purely practical viewpoint, can add much fun and interest to the proceedings.

"It is however true of campaigning, as of so many other things, that the amount of enjoyment to be obtained from it is pro rata to the amount of effort that is put into it. This will vary from person to person and group to group according to ow much time and interest people have to spare, but the main ingredient necessary is enthusiasm for the project and a sense of responsibility toward the other players. 

"...if you are running a large or complicated campaign it is necessary to pick your players wisely."

[excerpted, with adjustment, from the introduction]

None of which is very new info to longtime readers of geezer blogs like this one...as I said, the remarkable bit is just how much of it is applicable to D&D and how old this material is. 

Following the introduction, Bath gets down to the nitty-gritty of building one's campaign from the ground up...assuming you are creating a fictional setting like Bath's own Hyborea campaign. And, of course you are: you are a Dungeon Master for a D&D game that is going to have magic and monsters and whatnot even if it is set in (a fantasy version of) our real world.  Bath discusses the drawing of maps, the outlining of political borders, the importance of rivers and roads and natural features, the seeding of population centers, and the impact and use of weather. He discusses setting up factions and characters (and their personalities), determining resources and economics of nation-states, and how all these things drive the campaign, creating dynamic environments and providing ideas for situations and scenarios. 

It is all good advice and most of it is readily adaptable to one's D&D game.

What I am lauding here is practical application of Bath's procedures to world-building. This is not about crafting histories and backstories and "plots" or "story arcs." These things are unnecessary to creating and running a campaign that is vibrant and engaging for the players.

What IS necessary is a world with things to do. A world with a degree of verisimilitude, where there are consequences (good, bad, and indifferent) to the actions of the players. A world that gives the players the chance to make an impact based on their own actions. 

Of his own campaign world, Hyboria, Bath writes the following:

"Like all good things, Hyboria had small beginnings. In the early days I had no experience of campaigns and only the vaguest ideas on rules of map movement; things like finances, supply, etc. had not yet reared their ugly heads with all their attendant complications. So we...usually just decided to have a war between two countries and set up one or possibly two battles which decided the result of the war. That was back in the dim and distant past -- in fact the first two or three battles were actually fought on the floor with 54mm solid figures -- a process I definitely don't recommend.

" The long history of Hyboria (which is all recorded in very considerable detail) began with the first Brythunian war when the ambitious King Mamedides of Hyperborea invaded its southern neighbor. This resulted in the Battle of Warrior's Pass, fought under the most extraordinary rules, and the repulse of the invasion. I commanded the Brythunians on this occasion; I then changed and led a second Hyperborean invasion, which was more successful..."

Please take note: the history of Bath's campaign world (which he chronicled in SoA's bi-monthly newletter Slingshot) BEGAN with these first battles. His world was created by adapting various real world cultures (ancient Greek and Roman and Persian, medieval European and Viking, American Indian, etc.) to a fictional map drawn from Howard's tales, and then assigning it characteristics: here is a wealthy country. Here is an ambitious ruler. Here is a mountain pass. How do these things intersect with each other to create an interesting, playable scenario?  

Do we care what has gone before (play began)?  No! What matters is the play of the game. The world-building sets the stage for the play. We may, after play begins, chronicle the history of how play unfolded...how legends arose from our gaming table...if it so amuses us (as, generally, it does). But as players of a game (whether Dungeons & Dragons or a wargame), it matters not a whit to us WHY, for example, a PC became a magic-user instead of a druid or monk. We do not care about backstory or motivation; we are not actors researching a role for a play, nor authors plotting a trilogy of novels. What we care about is the situation at hand and how the game will play out.

Dungeons & Dragons was created by wargamers, and its no wonder: in Bath's writing he constantly name-drops fantasy authors like Tolkien, Leiber, Srague de Camp, etc. (authors found in Gygax's "Appendix N") as being widely read by members of his Society of Ancients and being inspirational reading for wargaming campaigns...even though SoA itself decided very early on NOT to include anything "fantastical" in their rules and games. The idea of "fantasy adventure" fires the passions and imaginations of LOTS of people, not just wargamers. But wargamers, by trade, seek to create rules and model adventure in a fashion that allows its experience in a safe, comfortable environment. Around the gaming table, in other words. 

D&D, and other fantasy adventure games, simply "drill down" to a more specific, smaller level than large scale warfare.  And by doing that, they make the experience of play even more intense and personal to the people involved. Which might account for why the FAG hobby has more devotees than wargaming in the present, even if there is a lot of confusion on the best way to run/play the game.

More blueprint posts to follow.