News & Updates & Well...News

Hope everyone had a good Easter weekend (whether or not you celebrate Easter)…I know I did. Had a pretty good week in general: the family got back into town Tuesday, and I spent the last week enjoying a “full house.” Today, the wife is back again in the air (business is a bitch) and I will be back on “daddy duty” for the next few days…but now that I have the luxury of letting the house go to hell, I can find a little time to blog again.

Plus, I finally got my taxes done.

So, let’s see…news, news. Lots of exciting stuff going on over down Running Beagles way. So much so that I’m not quite sure where to start, nor what my readers want to hear about. You know, I don’t really know why people bother “tuning in” to this blog. I spend a lot of my work days (especially during the football season) listening to the sports-talk radio station in the background. Over the course of the day you end up hearing several different radio personalities, all talking about the same thing, all with their own personal spin, and it reminds me a lot of the OSR blog-o-sphere…at least, the way it was a couple years ago. People taking the same stories and running with ‘em. People voicing their own opinions with different degrees of intellectual integrity. But all covering the same thing that’s of interest to me: local sports teams (for the radio) or Old School role-playing (for the blogs).

But these days, we (the bloggers) all have slightly different agendas and/or projects they’re working on or writing about. And that’s not a bad/terrible thing. It’s just…well, never mind. This post isn’t a musing-rambling one about the evolving changes in the ‘net presence of the OSR. I’m just saying I know my own blog has changed a bit in tone, and I’m not sure what it is my readers want from me. Besides more posts about gaming, that is.

Not that it matters…I’m not getting paid to write this thing.

; )

SO…news. Here’s the stuff that’s going on (some of these might require elaboration and/or their own blog posts this week):

-        Work on D&D Mine progresses rapidly…which is to say, I’m about 5-8 pages away from a completely finished project (including formatting and illustrations and everything). This would be 5AK, which I’ve been play-testing for the last couple months. It will be a three volume set when complete (like OD&D, though organized differently) and the first two books are complete and third nearly there. I do still need to reorganize the third volume (still being written), and I may be stuffing some pertinent parts from Book 3 into Book 1 due to space considerations…but maybe not. I’m pretty sure I will be releasing it as both a PDF and as a hard copy, “bundled” pack and am considering including dice with the latter (I want to be able to offer the thing as a complete game system). It really is looking pretty good.

-        The work on Volume 3 has actually slowed a bit this week due to the necessity of researching maritime travel and naval warfare. Fascinating stuff and it really deserves its own blog post (maybe tomorrow)...it’s what I’ve been spending most of my “free time” on the last week. My hope is that the next play-test includes some “ship-on-ship” action.

-        And regarding play-testing: last Thursday I was down at the Baranof play-testing 5AK and had FIVE players show up, including two new/old faces in the form of Randy and Steve-O…both of whom died horribly (their character, that is). Man, it felt just like old times. There were some good bits with a goat, an angry abomination, the requisite ghouls and gore, and a fabulous treasure trove (which I drunkenly allowed the PCs to walk off with, forgetting the traps in the treasure chamber). Good times…and again, I heard from players that they appreciate a game that involves…duh…role-playing and not just rolling dice and gaming mechanics. Players surprised me by dealing with the abomination by releasing it from its chains (rather than…um…slaying it or something) unleashing a scourge upon their town. But that’s totally cool with me…especially as they’ll be on-board a boat (hope-hope) next session anyway. Grandma has even offered to babysit Thursday so I can make the session…but do I really want to make my mom drive home at midnight on a work night so I can slosh around at the bar? Maybe.

-        Cover art for CDF is progressing rapidly…like, REALLY rapidly…and my two proof-readers are both about halfway through their review. And I’ll be sending the manuscript out to at least one or two more readers (I am NOT going to have a repeat of the typos in TCBXA). I intend to have a general solicitation for artwork sometime this week…I just want to get this one off my computer and into general circulation. At this point it appears I’ll be issuing it as an 80 page, perfect bound book. Why not 64 pages and saddle-stitched? A couple-few reasons: A) I want to increase the font to a more average size type (it’s a tad small at the moment), B) I think the perfect bound looks nicer (TCBXA turned out nice and had a LOT fewer printing issues than the B/X Companion), C) I want room for more artwork. Still, for those wondering, those 80 pages will actually consist of:

One page cover leaf plus one page table of contents.

Three pages of charts.

Three pages of “appendices” including sample characters and spells.

8+ pages of interior artwork.

A one page character sheet.

And I might just include some sort of legalese/free use agreement so people can write their own CDF-compatible adventures and supplements. See? Still under 64 pages of actual "rules."

Yeah, that one’s getting close, too, which is pretty exciting. It’s possible (though not especially likely) that I’ll have TWO books coming out in the next three to six months. Tim down at Gary’s jokingly refers to me as a “publishing mogul” and if I DO have four books on the market, I’m sure going to feel like one…which is pretty darn nutty. I mean, am I going to have to create a web site with forums for discussion about rules and errata and whatnot?

*sigh* I don’t know why I’m so dumb and isolationist/stand-offish when it comes to this stuff. Well, I know the astrological reasons (this 7^th house Saturn and Capricorn Venus not to mention my uber-Scorpio stuff combined with a Mars-Uranus opposition)…but that doesn’t change the fact that I KNOW I could get more accomplished if I were more open to collaboration. I’m just silly about working with others and/or asking for help.

ANYway…it’s still exciting, and slowly but surely things are coming together. I’ll try to get something less “news-related” and more substantive posted this week.

Later, gators!

: )

Thursday Night Recap

Just a few quick notes, as I've got a long and busy Saturday (still!) ahead of me.

Thursday night was a good one. Both Josh and Randy were able to come down to the Baranof and I was managed to play-test the most recent iteration of D&D Mine. We also played Dungeon! (1980 edition) which was pretty cool, and the closest contest I can remember having with that particular game.

Huh, might as well provide a little synopsis on it, since I bothered to mention it.

We each selected a different character: Randy took a wizard (with nearly a full spell roll: 11!); Josh selected a superhero, and I went with the True Blue hero. We could tell out of the gate that Josh was going to have a rough time of it when his superhero was roughed up by a giant rat in the first room. Meanwhile, Randy (in his first time playing Dungeon!) went balls-to-the wall, working his wizard like a champ and not being afraid to mix it up, mano-a-mano.

My hero picked up a magic sword in the 2nd level, and made his way downward with a good chunk of change in his pack. Unfortunately, he met his match in the form of an ogre who wounded him (“drop all treasure, place piece at start, lose next turn”), just as he’d crept over the 7500gp mark. This provided Josh with the incentive to give up his struggles in the 4th level and make a beeline for my abandoned hoard, hoping to put his total over the top.

Randy, on the other hand, had cleaned house, finding half his 30,000gp goal in the forms of a huge diamond (10k) and huge sapphire (6k). Counting his loot and realizing the wizard had enough to win, he set off for the entrance, only to get there the hard way by being wounded by a black pudding.

Realizing I had only a very brief reprieve, my hero hurried back towards the 3rd level, despairing a bit when I saw Josh’s superhero was going to get there first. Unfortunately, Josh’s anticipated triumph was short-lived as a chance encounter with a second ogre in the 3rd level storeroom (“just looking for a snack”) led to HIM being wounded as well, dropping his entire trove! Knowing I would have to fight an ogre (sans magic sword) either way, I changed my route to snatch the superhero’s bulging backpack, and finally was able to roll the 9 I needed to slay the beast.

It came down to a footrace: Randy fireballed the pudding and headed straight for the entrance. His route was more direct than mine, but he had to fight his way past a giant he’d left alive on his way down to the loot. Because of that extra stop, my hero was able to squeak out a victory (by one-turn!). Josh, did kill the ogre that had done for my hero (and thus earned himself a magic sword), but unlike Randy and I, his total treasure was far less than that which he needed for victory. As is usual in such cases, this allowed us to heap ridicule upon his head.

Yay!

After Dungeon! we drank and shot the breeze for awhile (talking mostly about fatherhood and our own childhood relationships with our parents) before figuring out it was after 10:30 and we still had some serious play-testing to get to! Loading up on another pitcher of beer, we managed to get through character generation and the first couple encounters of an adventure I’d whipped up earlier in the afternoon. And amazingly enough, I was able to get some good info/feedback despite the limited time spent on the game.

Chargen was surprisingly fast...like, I blinked with surprise when it was over. Having them add their bonuses for use with die rolls didn't take long (nor did encumbrance and armor calculations or equipment selections). Both players, I think, had fun with it, even alignment and motivation. Note to self: have to make alignment more mechanically relevant, as I've done with motive.

I was pleased one player (Randy) chose a magician subclass, as I was able to see how the retooled (i.e. "non-Vancian") magic system worked. Early verdict? Good (another happy surprise). Also, the spell choices made had a nice range of utility to them (mainly because they're all utility spells). How often do you see a 1st level wizard with read languages (or its equivalent)? Awesome. My nerfed sleep spell worked as intended: useful without being the uber-spell/monster nuke found in other editions...now it's an appropriate 1st level spell.

Rule Zero (MY "rule zero," not the rz found in other games) was in full effect tonight and worked great, though it did necessitate a couple "roll overs" during chargen. No one tried using the "push" mechanic, and I'm not sure if this is due to the fact that our only encounter was an easy one (see below) or that it wasn't well understood. The D6 mechanic worked fine, and the "high roll always = good roll" was much more intuitive than standard Old School D&D. I've got to tip my hat to WotC for that one folks, sorry.

We ran a single combat encounter: two PCs on three "quasi-goblins." The PCs achieved surprise and murdered the hell out of 'em. I wish we'd had a little more time to play as I would have liked to gotten to a larger or tougher (i.e. more complex) encounter. But the new "ironed-out" order of combat worked much better than the crocodile fight of the week before. I'm really liking it.

I also REALLY dig my new HP rules, though I actually screwed up when doing the players' HPs (fighters get bonuses and magicians get penalties and I awarded neither); ah, well...next time.

RE: monster cosmology...um, actually that's a little too much for right now. We'll blog about that later this week. Gotta' run now!

: )

The Paladin Calling

So as I posted early this morning (well after midnight), I decided to change my character in the weekly Labyrinth Lord game from a gnome assassin-illusionist to a human paladin (for those who are confused, we are using the Advanced Edition Companion, or AEC, rules which adapts the AD&D PHB, MM, and DMG to the B/X rule set which Labyrinth Lord clones so admirably).

I rolled up the gnome in the first place because Randy (the DM) had jokingly said I HAD to be a gnome in order “to keep me out of trouble.” I went ahead and took the gnome anyway and decided to see just how much trouble I could get into (I can be a bit of a contrarian). Besides, I really wanted to try playing an assassin, and the wide-open multi-classing of the LL/AEC rules meant I could supplement my skills with some phantasm, something I thought was a pretty hot idea.

The problem I ran into over 4 weeks was two-fold:

• The adventure was not very conducive to the optimal play style of a 1st level assassin; i.e. it has many of the elements of a straight dungeon crawl and a lot of undead and is often linear in progression…all of which hinders the abilities of an assassin. For example, what good is it to disguise yourself when everything just attacks you anyway? What good is your ability to stab kidneys and slit throats when you’re fighting skeletons with neither kidneys nor throats (not to mention an ability regenerate and reform almost instantly)?
• The circumstances of the adventure (large group, specific quest, limited path choice) led to me using my default method of play, for which the assassin-illusionist is NOT a particularly well-suited class selection.

My “default method of play” is kind of a take charge (or at least ‘charge ahead’) balls-to-the-wall style: walking point, interacting with NPCs, getting ‘stuck in’ with melee, taking things fast rather than slow. Anyone ever play the video game Mass Effect? Think “Vanguard” character class…that’s MY personality. Ever play Warhammer 40,000? I’m the guy with the all Khorne Berserker and rampaging dreadnought army. I’m not very patient and I’ve only limited amounts of caution…usually just enough to work out an angle or (simple) advantage. I hate dithering. I’m kind of an ass.

Anyway, with the gnome I was basically acting as a leather clad fighter with minimal hit points: 5 in fact (maximum of the average of assassin + illusionist). I’d use an illusion to provide me with cover and charge the opponent, and then do a bunch of damage…and then get killed. Fortunately, in Randy’s game there’s a lot of resurrection and healing within the dungeon.

Well, maybe NOT fortunately…the fact that we couldn’t get “perma-killed” just made the game feel even more like playing a vid; and led me to continue using the same tactics, which really ISN’T playing an “assassin-illusionist.” I would’ve been better served playing a fighter-illusionist (at least I could have worn the gnome-sized plate armor we found). And the whole point of choosing those classes had been to experience and experiment with a style of play (assassin) I hadn’t gotten much opportunity to try. But I wasn’t doing that, see? There’s been no call for disguise or setting traps or using poison or assassinating anyone. This was the wrong game for trying this particular class.

[the only time I got to really commit “murder” was on my fellow player characters a couple-three times…but even that was unsatisfying. I mean, they just come back anyway…]

So ANYway…I told Randy I wanted to make a new character, even though it meant chucking all the XP, gold, and equipment I’d picked up over the last month of play. Seeing as how our characters begin the game with NOTHING (not even normal equipment!) that’s a fairly ballsy move on my part. On the other hand, it should go to illustrate just how dissatisfied I was with the experience IN PLAY. And since I’m not quite ready to start running my own game again (still writing up D&D Mine), I wanted to continue playing with Randy & Co.

So enter Sir Harold the Tall, 1st level paladin.

What a difference a change can make!

Playing Sir Harold was a MUCH more satisfying experience. My actual style of play changed very slightly, but it fit so well with the character that I felt much more “in tune” with the game. My character could lead from the front…because he’s a fearless paladin, and he wants to lead by example. My character can attempt to hail and talk to opponents…because he’s a lawful paladin and he’s not all about bloodthirsty combat. My character can freely pick up and redistribute loot…because he’s a trustworthy paladin and isn’t looking for his own financial gain (my character took none of the gold we found). My character was welcome to a helm and shield and suit of scale armor we found…because my character’s a battle-worthy paladin and has the “oomph” to get stuck-in and hold-the-line for the others.

Even though Sir Harold is a less effective fighter than the assassin (the Paladin only had a 15 strength while the gnome’s was 16, giving the little guy an extra bonus to attack and damage), Sir Harold was a complete badass in combat. It helped that my dice were rolling hot most of the night (a lot of 18, 19, and 20s, a lot of max damage rolls…and I didn’t roll less than a 6 out of 8 for damage all night!). Of the ten or so “evil” soldiers we encountered, I managed to deliver the death blow on at least half of ‘em myself…and all the while I was offering them mercy and giving them the chance to throw down their arms and trying to be a “good guy” (unfortunately…for them…they were only programmed for fighting not surrender or negotiation).

But I think I just “felt better” playing the character. It was like my basic inclinations all “made sense” in light of the paladin archetype. When one party member was so horribly cursed that he could do mostly nothing the during the session (including hold a weapon or even walk), it made sense that Sir Harold would strap the character to his own back and work his ass off to get him healed. It didn’t feel like I was “metagaming” to organize the PCs to pool their gold so we could buy enough “magic rocks” to remove the curses afflicting three of our party members…that’s just the kind of thing a paladin should do!...whereas the same action from my gnome would have felt “forced” and “artificial.” I mean, as a PLAYER I’d want the other PCs to get healed and back in the game, but why would the sleazy cold-blooded assassin give a shit about the other party members? I mean, they’re just a means to an end, right? And once they’ve lost their usefulness (due to debilitating curses), well that’s the time to loot their incapacitated forms and leave ‘em to rot!

And just by the way, playing cutthroat games like that can be fun, too…with the right GM and fellow players on the same page. But for this game, there’s a much more cooperative-camaraderie thing going on…I mean, we’re ALL cursed in this game (the Halfling strapped to the paladin’s back was just “double-cursed”) and we’re ALL just trying to find the magic objective that will break the curse and let us get back to whatever we were doing before ending up in this godsforsaken realm of skeletons and apparitions and exploding corpse-heads and fast zombies and evil (if slightly catatonic) soldiers.

And goateed necromancers. Can’t forget those dumb-dumbs (we’ve killed three so far).

So, in light of the group AND the adventure AND my personality the paladin is a pretty darn good fit. I enjoyed playing the character, and the session was (for me) the most satisfying one we’ve played in five weeks. It felt like a lot got accomplished. It felt like the group worked well together. It felt like I got to role-play a bit (which is one of the reasons I play these damn games, after all). And I got some good experience playing a class that previously I hadn’t.

And it’s a GOOD class, and yes, plays very different from a normal fighter so long as you keep the whole “goody-two-shoes / Boy Scout” firmly in the forefront of your thought process. Always act polite and try to negotiate with sentient beings. Always offer quarter and be willing to grant mercy. Spurn material goods and wealth save that which is absolutely necessary to your mission. Apply no attachment to the items acquired for they are only transitory (the cursed Halfling loaned me the magical holy shotel (a curvy sword) that he was unable to use…as soon as he was cured it was back in his possession along with my appreciation for the loan).

Detect evil as a class ability is VERY useful for this type of play…it helps you to decide how gently one deals with a potential opponent. On the other hand, it’s kind of an “easy out;” paladin PCs that DON’T have a detect evil ability (like the OD&D version I was adapting for D&D Mine) are FORCED to actually “talk first, kill second” to make sure they’re not unjustly murdering someone with whom they might otherwise come to an accord.

I like that a lot. The standard fighter is a much more practical, pragmatic archetype, regardless of whether they’re honorable or completely mercenary in temperament. A fighter starts out as a 1st level VETERAN…the implication is the character has “been around.” He’s an “old campaigner” (in the going to war sense). The regular fighter knows that if you catch an orc with its back turned, you don’t bother to ask what he’s doing in the area, you just run him through! Same with other potential opponents you come upon…if they fall between you and your objective, it’s better to err on the side of “taking them out.” The only place negotiation has is when you’re out-gunned or need more intelligence on the opposition (finding out how strong they are). War is hell…and the fighter is a warrior that has few illusions or romantic notions about combat and the martial arts.

The paladin, on the other hand, is COMPELLED to be idealistic. At least, he should be (I’m sure there are campaigns where paladins are given a little more “free rein”)…in my own campaigns I have close-to-zero leniency for players who take the paladins restrictions lightly. If you want the bennies, you better be playing by the book! And as long as I’m playing a paladin, I’m going to try to hold myself to the same standard.

But regarding my own game and my inclusion of the paladin subclass: well, I was starting to think that I would best be served by doing away with the “paladin,” per se and just making the character a templar or temple knight. In other words, remove the alignment restriction and make the character a more martial version of the cleric, restricting the character’s “holy powers” in exchange for improved fighting ability. In that way, the subclass might be better served in motivation for “going into the dungeon,” as the templars would still be serving the interest of their church or faith or whatever.

That’s what I WAS thinking, but now I’m not so sure I want to do that. After having the chance to play a paladin (admittedly, in a non-standard adventure and thus one more conducive to the class), I find I have a newfound respect for the archetype…which I see modeled in the figures Joan of Arc, Galahad/Percival, and Charlemagne’s Roland.

[NOT Holger Carlsen/Ogier the Dane by the way…I’ve read Three Hearts & Three Lions and see nothing of the paladin archetype in the protagonist (other than his mysterious “smart horse” perhaps)…that guy is Lawful fighter, sure, and one with a high charisma, but still a more pragmatic warrior and certainly bereft of any supernatural powers]

ALSO, Peter commenting on my prior post makes an excellent point about paladin’s motivation to go into dungeons: paladins have been gifted with certain abilities that make them supremely talented for fighting evil that other (good-aligned) folks can’t. They have a responsibility to use those abilities in their proper service…not just defending towns and working at the local soup kitchen. I agree with Peter and I retract any earlier statements to the contrary.

However, that doesn’t mean a paladin will just delve ANY dungeon. There should still be some hint that a place contains a threat or ancient menace of some sort, before a paladin is ready to join an expedition. I guess I still stand by the sentiment that while most adventurers need no more reason to go to a site than “because it is there,” paladins need some form of unselfish motivation. There are captive hostages. The place is the abode of demons or an evil cult. A warlord is extorting the local townships. An artifact of purity and righteousness was lost somewhere in the depths and needs to be recovered.

Money and power and glory and “adventure” should NOT be the motivation of a paladin. But there are plenty of other reasons a DM can offer a paladin PC for going on an adventure. Assuming it’s not “invading the Keep of Glenda the Wise to slay the gold dragon Pureheart” you can probably find some sort of bone to throw the guy.

; )

Dammit Paladins! (Change-Up)

…you don’t work either!

D&D is a mess. Glorious, perhaps. Hot and steaming, certainly. But a mess.

I will say this about Wizards of the Coast…by putting an emphasis on combat they at least attempted to straightjacket the thing into some semblance of coherence and order. A valiant effort and a practical tact, it’s just unfortunate that too much gets left out (and too much, crunch-wise, gets added in) to make those later editions anything I want to play.

But, hey, this post isn’t about WotC, it’s about paladins. I’ve waffled on this ridiculous class almost as badly as the barbarian over the last couple years. With regard to B/X, I’ve stated on more than one occasion that the cleric is about as paladin as you need (just let ‘em use a damn sword…jeez, all weapons do D6 damage anyway!). I’ve also derided the paladin as being redundant in AD&D (being simply a “souped-up fighter”), and talked about how the class NEVER graced the character sheets of my old campaigns, seeing as how we took our alignment restrictions seriously and the goody-two-shoes didn’t fit our roguish-reaving style.

On the other hand, I discovered a new interest in the class when I saw the original version in Supplement I (Greyhawk) and had planned to include this diminished version in my particular version of D&D Mine. And tonight at the Mox I shall be running a paladin character of my own for the Very First Time (having decided that I’m just not “feeling” the gnome assassin enough to carry on with the little guy).

[yikes! We’ll see how that goes!]

[***EDIT: This post was written earlier in the day...it is now after midnight and, yes, I did indeed play a paladin for the first time in my life. More on that later***]

But so anyway, here I am considering carefully how the paladin works into a D&D campaign, especially hot-on-the-heels of my recent assassin reflections (and realizing that I may need to junk that particular subclass as unworkable) and realizing that the paladin is almost equally bad for a “standard” D&D game.

Now for tonight, Randy is not running a “standard” LL game. There’s a heavy-handed premise and plot driving the thing, such that ANY type of character would work in the adventure. It’s a bit like Marvel Secret Wars (or the recent movie PredatorS) in that a bunch of random characters have all been thrown together in this prison-like environment, branded with a curse, and are working (cooperatively) to free themselves from the curse and the dungeon. As I said: heavy handed. And unfortunately there’s not much freedom of choice of action (there are no towns to rest/shop at, monsters are either hostile and attack immediately or social and designed to provide certain info-bites or services), which isn’t all that surprising in light of it being based heavily on a computer game. It does make role-playing worthless for the most part (except as self-amusement), but I’m not sure that matters to anyone else at the table besides me.

In a “standard” D&D game, the idea is that a group of 1st level adventurers outfit get together, outfit and provision themselves, and then head to an adventure site (generally underground) looking to win fortune (and thereby glory) from the depths without getting killed. It’s more than a bit like an Indiana Jones movie (including bad guys and traps and occasional party conflict), pulpy and entertaining. And fun…who doesn’t like Indiana Jones movies? Well, the first two or three anyway!
; )

Characters might be basically “good at heart” (like Indy or his buddy Sallah), or they might be more mercenary and selfish (like Satipo or Marion or Indy in the Temple of Doom film), or they might be out-for-Number-One, ready to use and abuse at a moment’s notice (like Belloq or the Austrian chick in the 3rd film). All sorts of folk might band together for the adventure, and if everything goes well, they’ll all make a healthy profit out of it.

So now we look at the paladin class: here’s a type of adventurer that has a very strict moral agenda. In exchange for following this ethical code, the paladin receives a few extra abilities one might find in such a saintly soul.

Um…so why would this joker EVER go into a dungeon?

Why would he ever raid someone’s tomb or desecrate a temple? Aside from ethical considerations (personally, I don’t feel paladins are the type to say “the end justifies the means;” they KNOW when they’re doing bad and they need to hold themselves to a higher standard), what exactly is their motivation?

I mean, shouldn’t they be out riding that warhorse, protecting the town and championing the weak? They don’t seek after money or treasure…hell, they give away everything they find to poor and charitable institution, save for the bare minimum they need to support themselves. And they don’t associate with (i.e. “hold themselves aloof from”) the standard mercenary adventurer. Why would they ever choose to join such a group of rogues?

As with assassins, it just doesn’t work to put them in the treasure-hunting, reaction-type adventure. Paladins are PROACTIVE: seeking to right wrongs and mete out justice and protect the poor. They’re not going to invade some ancient ruin “just ‘cause it’s there.” Is it threatening anyone? Doing harm to anyone? Because there’s sure to be better uses of the paladin’s time (i.e. in action that HELPS people) than kicking in doors looking for a Holy Avenger Sword.

Yes, paladins are like assassins: they need specific missions to really make sense in the D&D game. Paladins, of course, have no need to plot or plan like an assassin…a crusader with a sword has a fairly straight-forward game plan when it comes to “fighting evil.” But they still need OBJECTIVES, and objectives beyond the normal D&D party motivations:

• Curiosity
• Greed
• Power/Glory

Paladins are supposed to be purer than that, more virtuous than that. If you want to play a knight with a Code of Honor that still succumbs to these listed motivations, you should be playing a fighter. For a paladin, succumbing to these base temptations is a quick way to losing one’s paladin status!

You can see how I can justify playing a 1st level paladin in Randy’s LL game: here’s a guy who would be out seeking to fight demons and work the local soup kitchen if he hadn’t been spirited away and given this Dark Soul curse. NOW he has an in-game objective that has nothing to do with the standard adventurer motivations: he’s got to find a way to lift the curse (on himself and his companions) so that he can get back to fighting demons and working soup kitchens. He has fellow party-members in the same dire straits that require shepherding through this valley of darkness.

My gnome assassin just wasn’t working for me…it wasn’t a character designed for mutual cooperation but for individual action (which kept getting me into trouble). The paladin does have a motivation: to aid the folks in his party as best he can, to be a CONTRIBUTOR to the group’s (shared) success. That is to say, success in lifting the curse and getting out of the dungeon.

See, that wouldn’t work in a normal adventure. Yes, the paladin’s all about being a “team player,” but why would he ever want to contribute to a team of looters and brigands? Answer: he wouldn’t.

Look, even a Lawful (or Lawful Good) cleric can find some motivation for going down into a hole looking for loot. Institutionalized religion has a loooong history of going out into the world and taking questionable action all in aid of glorifying the church or a particular divinity. And greed and corruption and less-than-kind doctrines have been a part of ALL world religions, with the possible exception of Buddhism (which interestingly doesn’t possess clergy in the usual sense). But Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (eye-for-an-eye justice) have all had their moments of intolerance that can justify “non-good” actions for the sake of their doctrine…and the various “pagan” religions have histories just as bad, if not worse!

Now you can give your paladin players the option of “lip-service morality” of the type found in the cleric class…probably many DMs do just because it’s an expedient way of overcoming the issue I’m talking about (i.e. that paladins don’t work for the D&D game’s basic premise). They may allow the end to justify the means, or allow paladins to go on normal dungeon adventures “just because” or without too much thought one way or another…so long as the character is behaving “nice-nice” while on campaign.

For ME, I want to hold paladins to a Higher Standard. Otherwise, what’s the penalty for playing a paladin over a fighter? What…that they can’t use more than 10 magic items at a time? How many magic weapons and suits of armor do your fighters carry? Experience points needed? After a certain amount, all fighter-types become equal anyway (with regard to saves and attacks, that is); and hit points are always a crap-shoot.

No, I make paladins “walk-the-walk,” not just bandy about a lip service morality. The character class is required to have a 17 Charisma. Why? Because they’re not supposed to solve conflict simply by fighting, duh! They should be trying to work things out peacefully whenever possible (i.e. through negotiation and diplomacy) before resorting to violent force of arms. At least as originally designed, all paladin abilities were given for healing and defense. It’s only in 3rd Edition that guy starts being a “smiter of evil” (perhaps in an attempt to justify a high Charisma for the class?)…but then, as stated, WotC put the game’s emphasis firmly in the realm of combat.

So, yeah, here’s the bottom line(s):

1. I intend my version of D&D Mine to be very “traditional D&D” right down to a possible mega-dungeon as part of the campaign setting (mega being a relative term in this case; the PCs are expected to come out of the dungeon at SOME point, round about 4th or 5th level).
2. I would like to offer some variations on the four basic classes: cleric, fighter, thief, and mage. Ideally, the variations would be minor and flavorful and based on the campaign setting. My original intention was to include a single subclass for each: monk, paladin, assassin, and illusionist.
3. I do NOT want these subclasses to be “prestige classes” (i.e. only available at high levels); while I can see them being specialties of the main classes (“only the thief that specializes in killing,” or “the fighter that proves his worth,” etc.) I really want them to be available from the very beginning (i.e. 1st level). I want the variation to already be on display…I don’t want subclasses to be a “prize” for making it through 20-odd game sessions.

You know what? Maybe I’m going about this the wrong way…maybe I’m adhering too closely to early edition D&D tropes, specifically OD&D. Perhaps I’m thinking too much “inside the box.” Arneson’s Blackmoor lists monks as a subclass of cleric, but other than the name and the Wisdom prime requisite, they bear no resemblance to clergy at all; they’re much more of a martial order. And paladins as holy champions would seem to fit better under the cleric class than the fighter.

Maybe I should change up the whole damn thing…something like this:

CLERIC
- Subclass Paladin
FIGHTER
- Subclass Assassin or Monk
MAGIC-USER
- Subclass Monk or Assassin
THIEF
- Subclass Illusionist

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea. I’ll have to decide which class between monks and assassins needs to be more “mystical” to fit under the magic-user heading (there’s historical precedent for either, depending on the stance I decide to take). I’m going to mull this one over for awhile and see what I come up with.

Cheers, folks!

The Dungeon Master Art

Not as easy as it looks.

Randy was our DM tonight (or rather, our "Labyrinth Lord" as we were playing LL tonight). We used the Advanced Edition Companion, so the game had a lot of similarities to the ol' hodge-podge mash-up of B/X and AD&D of my youth.

Wellll...kind of, not really. In my youth, the LAST book we acquired was the Players Handbook, the tome which features rather prominently in the AEC. My friends and I played pretty much straight B/X with the addition of the Monster Manual and DMG for a year or two prior to adding "race-not-as-class" and new-fangled classes and fancy armor and spells above 5th and 6th level.

And, yeah, having done it that way really does give me a slightly different perspective. I know a lot of folks who got into D&D about the same time as myself did the "mash-up" thing and I've read several reviews praising the AEC for the way it reminds them of their past, albeit in a more coherent form. For me, it just feels like "AD&D Lite." That's not a terrible thing, by the way...it's just not "how I used to play as a kid."

Anyway, we played tonight and Randy ran the game; his first time running a game. Wow. It has been a loooong time since I've seen a completely virgin DM run a game. God...you forget how damn tricky it can be (especially with eight players sitting around the table!).

I mean, I've been doing it for 30 years (shit, that's a long time) and even when I have "rust" from a couple year plus hiatus, it's not that hard to get back into it. I mean it really breaks down to:

a) knowing the rules,

b) managing the game/adventure, and

c) managing the players

Now, I'm a pretty hard grader, but my gut reaction is Randy still deserves a B+ for the outing. He gets a ton of props for managing a game with a group that size in that kind of environment. My knowledge of the rules was probably about the same (or less) than his my first time out, and I only had two players. And, no, just because we're adults and mature and friendly doesn't make it a walk in the park. Not at all.

A couple years back I introduced D&D to a couple teenage friends (my "nephews") and they positively loved it. Quit their World of Warcraft accounts even. Their family moved to Virginia (Arlington) and I gave 'em a copy of Labyrinth Lord for the road. A few months or a year later, my wife and I were back east visiting their family and I asked if they were still playing and they said, no. Appears S. (the younger) just could not grasp the rules and Z. (the older) just "didn't do it right" (according to his younger brother)...and Z. admitted it was a lot harder than I made it look.

I guess. But Z was twice as old as I was when I started playing.

Randy called the game a "clusterf***" and, sure, it was if one wanted to play "by the book." He haphazardly made up rules ("roll a D6 for that") or bluffed or just made spot rulings. But that didn't matter because there were really only two players at the table (myself and Luke) who had any DM experience or a clear grasp of the rules. And for the most part we just kept our mouths shut.

And so Randy did what good DMs do: he played with a shit-ton of panache. He kept the players in line. He made rulings on what they could and couldn't do. He didn't dismiss things out of hand, but he didn't let "bossy" players (like *ahem* me) push him around or dictate how the game was to be played. He included everyone. He listened. He narrated and described. He ran combat pretty f'ing fast-and-loose (a guy after my own heart there). And his adventure was nice and succinct being wrapped up in a single evening.

It was also pretty damn creative/interesting from a background perspective. Oh, he ripped off (at least partially) the plot of some fantasy book I've never heard of...and he included zombies of a more cinematic (as in movie) type (Randy digs on the walking dead), so it wasn't crazy original spun from his own brain. But it was pretty different from most anything I'VE ever played in a D&D game...at least for 1st level characters. It takes a lot of balls to tell players that they've been locked in an asylum because they've been infected with a mystic disease that will eventually turn them into psychotic zombies...and, oh yeah, you have no equipment or gear. At least my character had his spells tattooed on his arm, since he had no spell book. F'ing brilliant stuff that!

A couple of us died, but were brought back to life during the course of the adventure...another nice touch (instead of making the 1st level scenario super easy and survivable he just included ways to "get back in the game"). Oh, yeah, and we fought a giant demon and killed it...with "lightning powder" we spread on the small cache of weapons we managed to acquire scrounging through the ruins of the asylum.

I've said I would love to run or play the old TSR module A4: Dungeon of the Slave Lords. Randy's scenario was better (or at least on par).

But, man, it is hard. Having all those eyes on you, wanting you to entertain them and wanting to do a good job...or at least not look terrible doing it. As a fellow Scorpio, I'm well aware how fragile the ego can be in these kind of situations (not that we'd ever show it...or any kind of breakdown!...in public). But he did a great job and everyone had fun and now that we're out of the asylum, we all want to come back and see what he's got for us next week!

Of course, Matt and Josh may well be back, so then the group will be back up to ten. Eleven if Dan's wife shows up.

All right, that's enough of a "puff piece" for ol' Randy. I'll be harder on him next week if he doesn't get the surprise system right. But I still want to play...I like my character quite well: a gnome assassin-illusionist.

; )

G'night folks.

Nuance

A subtle or slight variation, as in meaning, color, or quality; a graduation

- The American Heritage Dictionary

[I’m not writing dictionary meanings to seem intellectual…I’m doing it ‘cause I had to look up the word this morning to make sure I was using the term correctly. I wasn’t an English major and I screw up terms and definitions all the time; putting the meaning at the top of the post keeps me focused]

NUANCE. Slight or subtle variation. This, to me, is a good way to label the difference between most editions of Dungeons & Dragons…even those that don’t carry the name “Dungeons & Dragons.”

I was reading through my copies of Labyrinth Lord this morning in preparation for Randy’s new game Thursday (Randy, who I’ve mentioned before on this blog, is new to the DM hot-seat, but he is an exceptionally creative, smart, and funny individual and many of us have been looking forward to him running a game). Fortunately, I am still being allowed at the table (though with the stipulation I play a gnome due to the persona non grata status I’ve recently acquired) and so I wanted to brush up on the LL rules because there are nuances the distinguish it from the B/X game.

I LIKE Labyrinth Lord. There’s a lot about it I like: the presentation, the artwork, the motivation behind it and its adherence to the original B/X rules. But there are also things about it that really irritate the hell out of me. Because they are so few, I’m going to just enumerate ‘em:

- Clerics receiving a spell at 1st level. I understand why some folks like this; I know the reasons why this is preferable for some players. My reason for not liking it is two-fold: #1 I think the class is stylistically stronger to have to work for that 1st level spell (though I know many players don’t give a rat’s ass about “style”), #2 I think it immediately puts a clerical player in a position of “oh, you’re the medic (as opposed to an armored, righteous butt-kicker with a secret weapon against the undead).” Personally, when I’ve played a cleric I don’t like being placed in that role…but I probably have a poor temperament for the class in general (I know a lot of cleric players ENJOY the support role, and the extra spell is quite welcome).

- Unlimited class levels. Big whoop, right? Few campaigns were going to get up to the B/X-stipulated level 36 anyway, so who cares if classes go to 100 or 1000 or infinity? But it just makes the demihuman classes look even more undesirable…I would have preferred changing the human classes to a maximum of level 14 (the end of B/X) or even stopping at level 20 (where the LL class tables end) rather than going on “forever.” Again, this is simply a matter of taste.

- The combat matrix for player characters.

- The increased costs for armor. Why should plate mail be unaffordable for a 1st level character? Because it’s more “realistic?” There aren’t any 1st level youngsters that have inherited a suit of plate from their knightly parent? If you want to limit the amount of plate (and other heavy armor) allowed into the game simply say PCs can’t spend more than half their starting gold on any single piece of equipment; hell, set the 50% limit and stipulate they need to retain 10-20% of their starting wealth as coinage…this will limit plate mail to characters who roll a 13+ for starting gold (upper class types) and 10+ for chain mail (middle class warriors).

But that’s it…and THAT’s just nit-picking (you’ll note I didn’t list my complaints for the combat matrix; my reasoning is just a little too esoteric for this particular post). Four complaints over-all ain’t bad; the rest of the book, including all other differences from B/X (of which there are few) are things I can totally live with. And I don’t have ANY issues at all with the Advanced Edition Companion as a complement to LL (I was reading that last night, too, but I think I’ll be picking up a print copy today).If one wants to use AD&D in a B/X fashion, AEC is the way to go (sorry, Barrataria).

And ALL those complaints I’d put firmly in the category of nuance. And I can live with nuance.

Same with BECMI, an edition I have derided many times, here and elsewhere. The difference between B/X and the first two volumes of Mentzer’s opus for the most part is simply one of color…Mentzer’s book is aimed for a younger audience. Why that’s so irritating to me (now) is a matter of my own silly foibles…I’ve played BECMI before and enjoyed it, especially at low levels (we found it a bit tougher to adapt to some of the “CMI” deviations at higher levels).

Sometimes these nuances are important differences; they can have major impact on the face of the game. When the paladin class was first introduced (in the first OD&D supplement, Greyhawk) it was simply a sub-class, open to any fighter with a Lawful alignment and a 17 Charisma that was willing to live by the paladin’s rather strict requirements (never act evil, give all your wealth to the poor, limit yourself to a handful of magic items). Meet those prerequisites and you reaped the benefits of the sub-class.

Since the fighter class (or “fighting man” as it is called in OD&D) is one that's open to all PC races, one can infer that paladin status could be conferred on ANY character that met the requirements: dwarf, elf, and halfling included. Maybe I missed something in the text, but I re-read Supplement I a couple times looking for anything indicating paladins were limited to the human race and couldn’t find anything. It’s only in the AD&D Players Handbook that the paladin is prohibited to any race but human.

I actually like the OD&D paladin quite well (and THAT’s a feeling I’ve never had for the paladin class in any other edition). Compared to later versions with its spell acquisition and clerical abilities, I feel this character is well-balanced, and restricted enough (for the minor bonuses) that there’s no need to “beef up” the fighter class with weapon specializations and what-not. Plus, why shouldn’t the class be open to all who are willing to devote themselves to righteous service and duty? Why limit it to humans?

I wonder what players of dwarf paladins thought when they picked up a copy of the PHB for the first time. Probably the same way I feel every time Games Workshop comes out with a new edition of WH40K that renders my army officially unplayable.

[and, hey, if anyone sees where I missed the page in Greyhawk proscribing paladins from any race but human, please point it out to me]

But even with THAT change from one edition (OD&D+) to another (AD&D), it’s still just a nuance: a slight variation (if not a particularly subtle one). There are still paladins in both versions. The paladins have the same, basic requirements. The paladins have (mostly) the same special abilities. And what HASN’T changed is the role the class takes in the game. When you meet “Fred the Paladin,” regardless of the edition, you’ll probably be able to pin a few expectations on how he’s going to act in various circumstances, due to the behavioral requirements of the class. The slight changes in rules are just that: slight changes.

Luke, one of the guys I play with down at the Mox, has pointed out that part of the fun in playing these games (and playing different games) is achieving mastery of a game’s particular nuances. Learning the rules so as to have a higher level of play (whatever that means to you). I tend to agree with him…at least for the “gamist-types” out there (and I definitely fall into that category).

But for others who don’t care overly much about specific rules…for instance, people who just want to play a halfling thief, but don’t spend a lot of time mastering the 5’ maneuvers, flat-footed catching, attacks of opportunity, etc. that makes the rogue class strong in 3rd Edition…for the people who don’t CARE about rule "mastery," the STRENGTH of the Dungeons & Dragons line IS that the differences are simply ones of nuance. I can sit down at a table that’s using LL or B/X or AD&D or some hybrid (like Heron’s game which uses Labyrinth Lord’s AEC Illusionists but no Halflings, for example), and with very minor input I can start playing. I don’t have to learn elaborate dice pools or bidding systems or rules for “scene resolution” (not that any of these are “bad things,” mind you…just saying I don’t have to LEARN any of them) to play a game of “Dungeons & Dragons.”

Even D20 with its additional complexities is very much the same game. Classes, hit points, saving throws, attack rolls, initiative, XP, level, spell books, monsters. It’s hard to say the difference is simply one of nuance, especially when the game play is so slow and “clunky” compared to earlier, easier editions. But for the most part, the essentials (that which makes the game “D&D”) hasn’t changed. Barring a magic spell or potion, your character is still dead if you take more damage than you have hit points, and you’re going to be rolling another set of six ability scores.

For me, the nuances are important to which edition or version or variation of the game I prefer. But, as I said, I can live with nuance (well, with most nuance). And the more I play (and play different editions/variations), the more I begin to really appreciate the game of D&D and its nuances.

Not from a design standpoint…as a designer, this kind of variation and constant change and craziness makes me want to cringe at least or go play something better designed at worst. But from the perspective of a game player, there is a real power in this variation and inelegance. It allows players to play across boundaries with pretty minimal fuss, AND it shows players that the rules are NOT sacrosanct and freely customizable and here, take half a dozen different editions and cobble together something that works for YOU.

There is a lot to be said for consistency and elegance in design. And then there’s this heaping, steaming pile of Dungeons & Dragons. Much as I prefer the former, I seem to keep coming back to the latter. Maybe by being as messy as it is, it’s more true to life.

Just my thoughts of the day.

Fat Frog Challenge Extended

I've had too many comments/emails saying they needed an extension on the Fat Frog Challenge, so I'm pushing back the deadline till 11:59PM next Friday (that's 6/10/2011, folks). Remember I live in Seattle, so that's Pacific Standard Time.

I sure hope you come up with some good stuff over the weekend.

; )

RE: Tonight's game...we were at a different venue from the Baranof tonight, and a whole new post needs to come on down the pike. Still gaming in a bar, but it's a gamer bar (weird, I know...even for Seattle). Muerte died (sorry Randy!)...and just when he was starting to get interesting. More on all that later.