R is for Religion

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for this year's #AtoZchallenge? Revamping the Grand Duchy of Karameikos in a way that doesn't disregard its B/X roots]

R is for Religion, an organized form of worship, of which Allston's GAZ1 provides us with three (two?) for Karameikos.

I got a little sidetracked this weekend, what with birthday parties, treasure hunts, baseball games, and Easter festivities. It was pretty busy all around, though fortunately everyone had a great time (the kids especially). Now...back to the grind.

B/X doesn't have any specific setting attached to it. Yes, there are some sort of gods (or goddesses); this is made clear in the B/X description of the cleric (see the quote in this earlier post); but it's left up to individual DMs to decide what the cosmology of their campaign setting looks like. Nothing is defined, faith-wise, in the Expert set's brief description of Karameikos, and the countries of the "Known World" described in X1: The Isle of Dread offers nothing extra (folks might infer from Thyatis being "similar to culture of the medieval Byzantine empire" that there is something there, but remember that no connection had yet been drawn between it and Karameikos).

None of the "B/X era" modules offer anything like a consistent cosmology...just random deities appropriate to the adventure (X1, X2, X3, and B3) or generic "lawful" chapels and "chaotic" temples (B2). The early (pre-GAZ) BECMI modules aren't much different; it's only with the advent of the "Mystara" concept that there starts to be anything like a setting cosmology (based on Immortals as pseudo-deities).

Dave Cook's B6: The Veiled Society is interesting for the picture it paints of Specularum, capital city of Karameikos. Written in 1984 (post-BECMI, pre-GAZ1) it states:

"The city has several churches, most for Lawful clerics. There are a few Neutral churches, but not many people attend. There are even Chaotic churches; these are very secret and do not advertise their existence in any way. If the characters need healing or similar help, they may obtain it if their cleric goes to his church. Of course, the player characters are required to make some type of offering (anything from flowers to magic items) and may be required to do some service for the church."

Recall that Mentzer's Basic set states that clerics are simply humans "dedicated to a great and worthy cause" and that this cause is "usually the cleric's Alignment." Furthermore, it is explicit that D&D "does not deal with [ethical and theological] beliefs, and they do not affect the game;" instead they are simply assumed "just as eating, resting, and other activities are assumed." Clerics draw their spell power from "the strength of [their] beliefs;" there are no religions or gods, no tenets of their faith, no prayers or divine rituals that need to be performed.

Cook doesn't seem to have gotten the memo...though one might have gathered as much from his 1983 module X5: Temple of Death (the whole country of Hule is steeped in religion and religious fervor). I suppose a church is an easy substitute for Alignment as a "worthy cause" of devotion (duh), but I'd hardly say this is an example of theological beliefs not being a part of or having an impact on the game...rather it is a motivator of action, even in B6 (first level characters are probably going to want healing at some point, and PC clerics receive no spells prior to 2nd level). At some point PCs will have to interact with these institutions and, presumably, whatever ethical and theological beliefs they have. Probably Cook's long association with D&D (for years prior to TSR's cutting the cross off of clerics) has something to do with his methods.

[ha! As written, there is absolutely no reason for clerics in BECMI to make use of a holy symbol, unless facing a vampire...and then the use is the same as any other player character. The description of the item is simply "A sign or symbol of a cleric's beliefs. Used in Turning undead." However, no mechanical/rules effect is provided. In B/X all clerics MUST possess a holy symbol (page X10) as it is a symbol of the deity a cleric serves. BECMI clerics can save the 25 gold]

Allston's approach in GAZ1, for the most part, is much more in keeping with the party line. As stated, Karameikos has three native faiths: The Church of Karameikos, The Church of Traladara, and The Cult of Halav. The Cult of Halav is much more a cult than a full-blown religion...it's members are true believers in Arthur-type legend of Halav, but other than waiting for his "coming again" (and believing that Archduke Stefan may be his reincarnation) they have no real laws or tenets of faith. Interestingly, Allston writes:

Despite the fact that most people consider the Halavists to be insane, it's a fact that their clerics do work magic. This means they must be receiving aid and inspiration from some Immortal.

...from which I infer that even Allston assumes gods (or whatever passes for them in BECMI D&D) are granting spells. *sigh* Makes sense, as he's the one who wrote Wrath of the Immortals.

The other two religions have codified commandments and discussions of "sin" but no mention at all of deities or how these religious doctrines interact with clerics and their magical spells. Here is Allston staying true to the definition of the BECMI cleric, even if he's not ignoring theological and ethical beliefs per Mentzer's instruction. However, between the two there is very little difference in doctrine...aside from wording and the Traladaran church's encouragement to engage in superstition and stereotype Gypsy fortunetelling, the main difference I see is that the Church of Karameikos sees couples living together outside the "sanctity of matrimony" to be a sin on par with abuse and murder, while the Church of Traladara sees the relationship between man and woman to be "a personal matter, not involving the philosophies of the church." Both otherwise break down into "be a good person," similar to the basic (Lawful) teachings of most commonly practiced (real world) religions.

Mmm. I've got Game of Thrones on the mind at the moment, and I can't help but see certain analogues between Martin's major religions of Westeros and those of Karameikos. Aside from its lack of gods, the Church of Karameikos could easily substitute for the Faith of the Seven (or vice versa), and the Old Gods of the First Men for the Church of Traladara...heck, even the militant Order of the Griffon (in GAZ1) has an analogue in the Faith Militant of the ASOIAF novels. And there's a part of me that just says, well, this side-by-side dichotomy of competing but not-so-different faiths work pretty good in Martin's fiction, why not just let it stand in Karameikos?

Fervor is no substitute for
healing magic.

But then I remember that Martin's churches don't have spell-casting clerics. Only the fire cultists of Essos (followers of the "Lord of Light")...and they're the ones viewed as crazy persons in Westeros. D&D is not about rival churches competing for souls; its cosmology is based on sword & sorcery pulp not medieval Europe. The religions of the region should reflect that, in my opinion.

Despite Allston's care and thoughtfulness, I find his work on these churches to be a "miss." I'd re-skin the Church of Traladara as an ancient (and suppressed) religion of the goddess Petra, and the Church of Karameikos as something of a mishmash between the Faith of the Seven and the old Roman cult of Mithras. The Cult of Halav would indeed be a bunch of crazy folk (no clerics, as Halav is no god...nor even a demigod)...but perhaps something with the potential to become a new militant order of knighthood, like the Order of the Griffon, but for the worshippers of Petra.

Still, that's not really enough for a "typical" B/X campaign (if there is such a thing), which is generally filthy with random deities, cults, and strange faiths both ancient and new. A better model than Game of Thrones might be 1st century Jerusalem with its combined political and religious tensions. The "Church of Karameikos" is replaced with the polytheistic Roman pantheon imported from the Thyatian Empire by "true believers" who need a land outside the scandalous, political cesspool of the home nation to cultivate a "purer" form of worship. Heck, maybe they've brought an enclave of Vestal Virgins (because Vestal Virgins are awesome).

[of course, with multiple gods and multiple priesthoods, religious infighting and jockeying for political power (and influence with the Archduke) provides all sorts of nice little adventure hooks as churches hire adventurers to raid each others' temples]

Rather than a traditional thieves guild, the Traladarans have religious Zealots and "dagger men" working to overthrow their Imperial masters in the name of their goddess. Meanwhile the "shadow man of the woods" (the chaotic deity of Traladaran forests) woos malcontents and sociopaths from both cultures to his cause: the overthrow of Law and civilization. Evil druid-types, seeking a return to the wilderness and a more primal state of humanity...yeah, that's kind of cool.

Also some sort of toad god. Of course.

Fat Frog Challenge

Look at this thing. Gaze raptly at it and all its bloated glory and awfulness.

This thing weirds Tim Shorts the hell out, and it's HIS decorative statue. I find it both fascinating and inspiring. Look at that smug and arrogant expression. This is not "Froggy who went a-courting" (that frog wore a sword and pistol, as I've sung so often to my infant son)...this is rather some grotesque deity, gazing out upon his domain. The rose and basket? Not a gift for you, but tribute from its followers.

Here's the challenge: design an adventure around the thing. It can be as short or elaborate as you want. If you don't have time to do a whole adventure scenario, write up an encounter suitable for a dungeon or wilderness adventure, in which the statue figures prominently...either as a symbol, statue, artifact, trap, or SOMEthing.

Write it up, save it as a .pdf and email it to me (care of the blog) with the subject line Fat Frog Challenge. I get to judge the entries ('cause I'm feeling all judgmental this week), and the Top Five will be posted here for posterity and downloading (make sure to include your name and blog/web site so I can reference you for credit).

Deadline? Friday at 11:59pm, PST (Pacific Standard Time).

Prizes? Doubtful...though maybe I can coordinate something with Tim (many of my readers have probably already purchased a copy of the B/X Companion...maybe I can send a draft copy of the new book to the over-all winner).

I plan on writing something up myself (told you, the thing is inspiring), though I will be excluding myself from the contest and anything I create will be distributed as a freebie. Judging won't begin until midnight Saturday (I won't even open the .pdfs till then), but feel free to send 'em along at any time between now and then.

Final Notes: No matter how excited you are about the idea, please don't get fired working on this at your place of employment! The job market is just too precarious these days and I do NOT want that on my head!

All right...have at it, folks!

: )

ANOTHER Poll? Maybe...

All right, the looooooong weekend for me officially ends tomorrow morning when I move the garbage cans to the curb and head out to work. Ah, man...after being off since Thursday, I can't help but feel I'm NOT looking forward to being back at a desk. There are babies to play with and beagles to walk and sunshine to enjoy right here at home! Not to mention, blogs to write...

And WHEN the work week begins, my time to write will once again be limited. I have several possible topics of bloggersation to write about, possibly even a series or two, but who knows what I'll get to. I'm tempted to let the readership make the decision for me.

Here are some of the possible thoughts rattling around my skull:

• Iceland/Viking role-playing. We really, REALLY need more of this. Yes, it is very "white" of me to get all Nordic, but sometimes I just can't help it. After hitting up the Seattle Folklife Festival (twice!) this year I'm feeling like going a-viking.
• Celtic/pagan role-playing...for similar reasons as the Iceland thing. However, the emphasis would be on "putting your witches to work," because (as Tim Brannan will tell you) witches are cool.
• Hating on Rangers: long time readers will notice that I've never blogged about rangers, except perhaps for an off-hand remark or two. There's a reason for this: they are a dumb class. I can write all about it for those who didn't read my recent thoughtfulness at Dragonsfoot.
• Re-writing magic-users: and making them more "sorcerous." I have recently decided there are some things I find exceptionally challenging and B/X spell books are one of 'em. I'm not sure if I need to throw one more class into my already-getting-overlarge-supplement or if I should just write-up a freebie for the blog. Possibly the latter, you lucky ducks. Based on my recent re-readings of MZB sword-and-sorcery tales.
• Start my own adventure creation challenge: based on this damn statue in Tim's yard. I can't tell you when a piece of lawn art last inspired me this much. Um, maybe never. More innocuous animal statues should be this demented.
• Do some sort of Top Ten List on B/X monsters: either my personal favorites, the best up-front player killers, or the most insidious player-killers. Yes, there is sure to be some over-lap in all three of these categories. Yes, I will provide reasons for all my various choices.
• More B/X conversions of His Dark Materials: because once you stat up armored bears, where does one stop?

So there they are, all the ideas I've got so far...notice there are far too many for one short week, even blogging through all my lunch breaks. I suppose a poll isn't REALLY the best method for determining what one should write about (it's my blog, after all!)...but I AM open to reader requests and input. What do YOU folks want to read about this week?

; )

Some Notes...and Some Philosophy

RE Thursday Night's Session

Hmm...four sessions at the Baranof...plus a "pseudo-session" at my house. Three players. Seven characters. Seven character deaths.

De-briefing (decompressing, I like to call it) after Thursday night's session, I once again found it a bit odd that everyone had a good time and intended to come back for more, besides getting killed off. I mean, it's not like I'm running S1:Tomb of Horrors, right? Just B2...you know, an introductory adventure for characters level 1-3? The guys haven't even fought an owl bear or anything.

Life as an adventurer is hard...pure and simple. Sure it beats working on the farm, and pays better than apprenticing to the local candlestick maker, but it's damn dangerous. "Feast or famine," as they say...except the famine part is actually "grim and painful death." So far, everyone that's died in B2 has been put down by cannibalistic monsters, so you KNOW most of their bodies ended up in the stew-pot (the heroic man-at-arms, Mac, is the only one who managed to get a decent burial...you think Bud worried about hauling six bodies out of the Caves after the ogre fiasco? No way, Jose!).

Here's the thing, the players talked about it and KNEW they could have done better than they did. They could have run. They could have tried to bribe the ogre with food or treasure (that's what the goblins did after all). The elf could have cast charm person at the giant humanoid. Hell, I don't know...maybe it was afraid of fire (like the Frankenstein monster)...would some flaming oil or a torch waved under its nose caused it to panic?

Could running have been an option after the first character died? How about the second? Or the third?

I know Steve-O kept waiting for his gnoll buddy to come back, but the gnoll was chasing goblins deep into their warren...for all I know he was killed by the chief and his bodyguards (who the escaping guards had went to warn)...regardless, the "fight" (more like "the slaughter") was over in a handful of rounds, and it would have taken the gnoll more than a turn to come back. And seeing his "master" slain, he probably would have killed and eaten the last, lone man-at-arms anyway.

All that XP and treasure being left on the table...what a waste.

Luke actually suggested that I could have "fudged" the rolls with the ogre. Wha-wha-what?! Fudged?

You're kidding right?

Actually, I bit my tongue and didn't say anything of the sort. After all, here's a guy who's been acting as a dungeon master for the last several years, generally with the latest editions of D&D...games that scream to keep players alive if only so you don't have to go through the several hour process of creating a new character.

And besides that, I HAVE fudged dice rolls before...as a Dungeon Master. Even in the old days, when playing Old School D&D...you know, 1st edition AD&D? While I can't remember any specific instances I'm sure...like 99.9% sure...that I fudged dice rolls to allow players to survive...both encounters and traps.

But I don't want to do that anymore. There are a couple reasons why.

For one thing, fudging rolls is a bit of a slippery slope: where does it stop? I mean, you want character death to be "on the table" (at least, I do), after all...it makes the risk/reward dynamic more poignant. But who gets saved and who doesn't? And how many times before someone's number is finally up?

For the DM to make that decision means the grossest exercise of DM fiat. And, yes, one could do random tables to act as "get out of jail free" cards...like one of the various Death & Dismemberment tables put forward by various blogs. But I don't really want an additional table...especially one involving extra math determined by the extent of that final blow. Hit points are reduced to 0, character dies. It's tough, I know it's tough, but it's the way the game is written, right? I can think of a couple ways off the top of my head to soften it, but let's get to my second reason why I'm against fudging.

I don't think it's necessary.

Really...I don't think it's needed in order to ensure characters survive. I think that adventuring parties, appropriately equipped and on-their-toes sharp CAN survive...and thrive...even at 1st level.

Really, truly. The game is hard. And maybe Gygax was a psycho-bitch of a Dungeon Master to craft adventures where, "oh here are our 1st level characters fighting goblins and oh wait a huge ass ogre wades in and beats the living snot out of all of us."

Sure...if there had been a magic-user with the wonderful sleep spell, the ogre would have gone down like a sack of bricks...but who's to say the party wouldn't have used sleep to knock-out the half-dozen goblins? Who's to say a goblin spear (D6 damage) wouldn't have killed the 1st level mage (D4 hit points)?

Sometimes, the game IS a bit of a crapshoot...but one has got to do everything in his or her power to maximize the odds and take advantage of the situation.

I just keep thinking back to the on-line game hosted by DM Pat Armstrong in which I played a low-level cleric. We took out a damn cockatrice...and insta-kill monster and a 4 or 5 hit dice monster...with zero casualties. But half-a-dozen 2 hit dice troglodytes wiped out most of our (full strength) adventuring party, including my cleric...and I KNEW that was going to happen. I knew it was a bad idea to engage those scaly f***ers and I could have beat feet out of there if I wasn't inclined to be some sort of damn hero/"team player" at the time.

Up till that point, my character PERSONALLY was doing quite well...it was either our 2nd or 3rd session and I'd already acquired quite a stash of treasure and a magical artifact. I didn't have to die then and there! But I screwed up, and took a very un-wise risk and I paid the price.

And, no, I don't think it's necessary to play the game cowardly nor particularly mercenary in order to survive...you just need to be SMART. If Joachim had not charmed the gnoll first, do I think Hensvik would have allowed the elf to un-chain it? Hell, no! He wouldn't even free an orc, despite the fact the PCs could probably have easily handled a single orc that decided to turn on them. Would Thundarr and Cain have died if the two hadn't been divided and conquered? Maybe...but it would have been a lot LESS likely.

My players' characters have perished through mis-adventure...that doesn't mean they're not learning to be more cagey and inventive. It doesn't mean "trust no one;" how many blogs have I read where people talk about B2 and how, "boy, my players would NEVER team up with the evil cleric...they kill anyone that tries to be friendly, they're so paranoid!" Those players would probably have put the crazed gnoll to the sword rather than attempt to turn him into a useful tool/weapon...and the latter tactic was a pretty darn good one if you ask me. It was only other missteps that prevented the players from capitalizing on it.

Anyway, my point is: I don't think I need to fudge jack-shit. I know dice rolls are random, and sometimes those random results suck (and random results that "don't make sense" should of course be discarded...like when the elf rolled that he was the cousin of the dwarf on my Random Relationship table). Chargen is NOT so hard or tedious that it's a burden to make up new characters when necessary...and low-level players CAN survive with a little care and ingenuity...as well as the occasional ballsy or brazen maneuver.

By the way, while Luke had to go home to his family after Thursday's game, AB and Steve did insist on rolling up new characters then and there for the next session. Steve (who does not read my blog at all) created a Halfling, and was pretty excited by the prospect. Finally someone who's truly excellent at the whole knife-throwing shtick. His name is Roderick, he has a short, attachable hood, and pretty darn good ability scores (including a Strength of 16 and a Dexterity of 14), as well as plenty of gold to spend, unlike his last two characters.

My brother rolled up a thief with less than optimal ability scores, but a Dexterity of 16. He's bare-headed but has an (amazing) curly mane of hair, and the required thief mustache and stubble. His name is Blarth.

Unfortunately, EVERYONE is going to have to wait to try out their new characters. My wife and I are leaving for Spain in the next two days, and we won't be back for a couple weeks. Yep, the ol' B/X Blackrazor Blog will be going down 'round about Tuesday folks. Though I might toss up a couple posts while I'm in Europe.

; )

"Shades of Grey" - Redefining Alignment

Before I begin, please be aware that all this applies to B/X D&D, and perhaps pre-Supplement OD&D (on which B/X is heavily based).

I've written before that I think the "cosmic throwdown" form of alignment is the best way to represent alignment in D&D...that is, do you stand for civilization or the evil, unknowable, unspeakable elder gods like Cthulhu and his ilk. After more thought, especially regarding the place of religion in a D&D campaign, I'm beginning to re-think that.

The traditional "good-evil" ideas prevalent in most D&D game worlds are...well, too simplistic and "cartoonish" (for lack of better articulation). I mean, you CAN play that way (and you can play Pathfinder or 4E, too...whatever floats your boat), but I don't know if that's as practical or consistent (with regard to the game rules/setting) as it could be.

Recently I've had a chance to play a cleric in an on-line Skype game. I chose to be Neutral and dedicated to a "toad" deity. The reason I chose my neutral alignment is I didn't want to be placed in the role of a "hero" and wanted the option to act in a way that could save my own ass. I thus made a slightly cowardly, slovenly character.

I ended up acting heroically and getting killed.

How the hell did this happen? Well, I'm starting to thing the cleric class, by dint of its design, seems prone to take on a leadership and generally "protagonist" role. Whether blazing a trail through undead, casting light, fighting in melee (they're not a "stand back and shoot" type), the cleric is going to be put in a take-charge position...and that's what happened with my character.

In watching my nephews play D&D, they've each had the opportunity to play clerics, and they too end up treating them as paladins. My buddy Matt often played clerics and when he did he was often proactive, NOT acting as a "support character" but leading his own (fanatic) troops.

I should note these players I talk about all played Lawful characters. My cleric was supposed to be Neutral but ended up acting Lawful in the end (to his detriment).

Anyhoo, talking about clerics is not the point of this post. I'm writing about alignment. Consider this idea:

How about divorcing alignment from gods, deities, and clerics altogether?

What if alignment were to simply describe the personality of a character/NPC/monster ("players may choose the alignments they feel will best fit their characters") rather than as strict doctrine to follow ("alignments give guidelines for characters to live by. The characters will try to follow these guidelines...")?

What if clerics gained their abilities (spells, undead turning) from following the dictates of their religion, not the dictates of their alignment? Aside from making the class more interesting from a role-playing perspective (did you keep the commandments? make the appropriate sacrifices?) is allows alignment to simply be used as expressions of human (or elf or dwarf or whatever nature). Here's what I was thinking:

Lawful = "Heroic"

Neutral = "Selfish"

Chaotic = "Psychotic"

Why call a Lawful character Heroic? Because by definition, that's what a follower of Law is: one willing to put the good of the group before the good of the individual. By the definition of Lawful in the Basic set (which I won't bother to quote here), even those "lone wolf" types of comic book characters (Batman, Wolverine) would be considered Lawful. Respect for life? Check. Keeps their word? Check. Self-sacrifice when necessary? Check. The Lawful character is Heroic.

Why call a Neutral character Selfish? Because the description of the Neutral character is a portrait of self-interest. Someone "most interested in personal survival" is not someone who puts the good of the group ahead of his (or her) individual self, by definition. Someone who only joins the group because it's in their best interest? Selfish. Someone who is not "helpful unless there is some sort of profit in it? Selfish.

But not necessarily evil, per se. Most civilized individuals (human, dwarf, elf, halfling) are going to fall into one of these two alignments. Only the true aberrants are Chaotic.

Why call a Chaotic character Psychotic? Here I will quote a bit. "...the group is not at all important. Chaotics often act on sudden desires and whims. They cannot be trusted and their behaviors are hard to predict."

Any Firefly fans remember the Reavers? This is the Chaotic individual (and a good model for Chaotic humanoids like goblins and orcs). Serial killers; individuals that have no interest in the laws of man or God, only their own gratification and depravity. Some might say a follower of Chaos is all about "personal freedom;" but freedom to do what you want at the expense of others is EVIL. And it is detached from reality (as a part of a society, culture, or world you are a cog in that group and to think your actions are somehow above the law or that you will face no consequences for acting against the ways of the group will generally set you up for a fall).

Possibly more on this later....

I Claim Thee in the Name of the Toad!

I was reading Ryan’s SVP post today and just remembered I wanted to recount something.

About five weekends ago I journeyed into an abandoned (by civilized folk) dwarf mine in the guise of the B/X cleric Diomedes. The session log can be found here.

However, for whatever reason the dungeon itself really resonated with my character, a priest of a “Toad God.” After completing the exploration of the upper level, I decided that the place would make an ideal location for a temple-stronghold.

Sure, it would take a little work to get it up and running (a rickety bridge would need to be replaced, new furnishings added, kicked-in doors re-built). But for the most part, the place was of good dwarvish construction, had its own water supply, was located only a day from civilization (a little out-of-the way from curious travelers, but not inconvenient for obtaining supplies). Plus the waterfall and underground pond/river, and the small pool outside all said, “great-place-to-worship-amphibious-deity” to me.

I staked my claim and told the other players I fully intended on re-furbishing the place as a new Toad Temple. Once the place was completely cleansed of “infidels,” that is.

Unfortunately, Diomedes died during our last session, and my new wandering wastrel thief has no intention of settling down anywhere, at present.

But the incident raised the question: why SHOULDN’T PCs claim empty dungeons as strongholds?

After all, strongholds are expensive to build…both in time and treasure. Plus (from a player point of view), the damn thing has to be designed, and I’m not much of an architect. If an existing dungeon is in serviceable or semi-serviceable condition, why not clean it up and hang your flag out the front door?

As kids, whenever we completed a dungeon (not all that often), we would generally collapse it, blow it up, or burn it down. The place would be in shambles…fireballs and lightning bolts destroying support structures, blood and guts strewn everywhere. But one would think that with the money saved in construction costs, you could hire a cleaning crew, right?

Now of course not every dungeon makes a good fortress-stronghold. Cave warrens are terrible, dank places, fit only for folks of orcish blood. Many ruined cities are far off in the middle of no-man’s land, too far away from civilization to be of use (X1 and I1 I’m looking at you). Other dungeons may already fall within the domain of a ruler (usually the same ruler that hired you to clean out the complex in the first place).

But others are downright perfect. The hidden fortress “Q” in B1: In Search of the Unknown is an excellent example; heck, it was designed BY adventurers FOR adventurers (just hope said adventurers don’t return after you set up shop). The dwarf mine was excellent. The moat house from T1 and the haunted keep from Moldvay’s Basic set might work as well, once their exterior damage was repaired.

The secret lair of the Veiled Society in Specularum (module B6) would make an excellent hide-out for a gang of thieves; after all, this is what it was for the Veiled Society! The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief might seem a bit on the big size, but one could probably install interior walls and smaller doors…the other giant lairs are probably a bit too far from civilized lands.

Anyway, this idea JUST dawned on me a few weeks ago (as I said, in the past we never worried about cleaning up the blood and bodies), but you better believe that from now on I’ll be scouting the real estate value of every dungeon I delve. A fellow PC of our on-line campaign “claimed” the second dungeon we explored in Session 2 (a tower and stable about a day’s journey from the dwarf mine) and I can see this as a trend of things to come. For those character types that build strongholds, why not build on the remains of ancient ruins?

Isn’t that the idea behind mega-dungeons anyway? Multiple owners/inhabitants building layer after layer of dungeon? The PCs have now joined the Campaign Ecology!

: )

Goddamn Heroics

So as I mentioned yesterday, I died last night.

That is to say, my cleric died in session #3 of Pat's B/X campaign. 

It's been a long time since I've had a character die in a D&D campaign.  I have to admit, it does irritate me a bit.

But we'll get to that in a moment. To be honest there are several reasons why it's "been a long time." For one thing, I haven't played in a whole lot of D&D games (maybe half a dozen in the last 20 years, though I might be forgetting a few "one-off" games). For another, throughout my entire "gaming career," I've more often been a DM than a player.  This is a control thing as much as anything else...I really have to fight my urges to cite rules or otherwise be a "rules lawyer" when playing a game. One of the things I had such difficulty with when playing in D20 games (as a player) was that I knew the game better than the DMs...D20 is not a game that requires much in the way of "house rules" so it's irritating (to me) when people make shit up that is already taken into account by the game's designers.

But, hey...D20 is an overly complex game with a steep learning curve anyway. And besides, we're not talking about that.

ANYway, I just haven't been on the "player side" of the DM screen all that many times in the last 25 years; not compared to the amount of time I've acted as DM.  And even when I WAS a player, I was often a higher level character...if my character died (not often, but it happened) there were generally ways to raise him back from the dead. Though losing a point of Constitution was always a bitch...wishes were used whenever possible.

OK...now THAT'S out of the way...

I said I was a bit irritated with my character's death, though not perhaps for the reason one might assume. I really have no problem with my character's utter destruction. He was interesting, but his background and "personality" were all put together off the cuff and in pretty short order. Hell, it didn't even taken long to choose his equipment (I didn't start with much gold).  What this boils down to is, I was not attached to the idea of my character surviving.  This (and the next bit) is something that really puts me in the "old school" rather than "new school" category of player.

The "next bit" is: my own actions contributed directly to my character's death. And THAT is what irritates me, I can point to several specific mistakes I made that ultimately resulted in the demise of Diomedes, Adept of the Toad Lord. Basically, I'm  miffed because I screwed up...I didn't play as well as I could have.

I'm not even speaking TACTICALLY, though I did make at least two tactical errors (as well as a couple strategic ones). If I had simply role-played my character better, I wouldn't have ended up in the mess I did!

It pains me to admit this. In an earlier post, I wrote how my role-playing skills were a bit rusty. My original intention was for this character to be the typical "scurrilous rogue" of old school D&D. Not a heroic paladin, or valiant priest of light. No, I purposefully wrote up Diomedes to be a self-serving, base individual. If he used his healing spells on others it was for an ulterior motive (for example, having someone bigger to save his own skin).  He worshipped a "toad" deity, and I didn't expect many converts (charisma 8 after all). I wanted him to have plenty of motivation to horde treasure, flee mortal combat, party like a rock star...basically, live the life of an old school "adventurer;" just one who's skills/abilities had to do with his "direct access" to the Toad God.

So how did he die exactly? Covering the retreat of his fellow companions! Allowing others to live by sacrificing himself!

That's totally f'd up!

Honestly, I don't know what the hell came over me. He wasn't Lawful or "good" in any sense of the term, but in the end I acted just like the captain that's supposed to go down with the ship. Some may call it stupid (tactically), some may call it unlucky, some might say I "wasn't using my cleric right." No all that is bullshit. I wasn't playing my CHARACTER right. Ugh...how the hell did I fall into the role of a wannabe hero?

I'm not exactly sure. But I see now why so often the party paladin gets called on to be the "leader" of the group. Paladins are expected to deliver this kind of self-sacrifice, covering the retreat of a party. Even though I've written that I consider clerics the "paladins of B/X," that is NOT how I intended my character's destiny to unfold. Shit.

Here's what happened:

After a couple hours of gaming and scouring one dungeon, we went back to an earlier, not yet fully explored dungeon (from session 1).  I had said at the beginning of Saturday night's session that I didn't think it wise to go back without the support of Ellos (our magic-user, who had to ditch that evening). But coming up fairly empty-handed (other than getting some XP from downing a cockatrice), rather than calling it a night I led the group back to the earlier dungeon.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Not only that, I had not yet completed the sale transaction of a magic item that may have been enough to get my character to level 3 (I was only a few hundred XP shy). 

But we went, and we explored and we encountered half a dozen troglodytes. Now, I've commented elsewhere (not on this blog) that I'm a fair hand at math and statistics...it's a (small) bit of my job, so I'm used to calc'ing some odds. And there was no way 6 trogs ended up as good odds against our party. First, we were outnumbered 6 to 5. Second, two of our characters wore only leather armor (the rest had plate). Third, two hit dice monsters still strike AC 2...what 25% of the time? And each gets three attack rolls per round?

Anyone ever see that movie The Descent?

So when two of our fighters (one in leather) charged the trogs, I knew things were bad. I started doing a fighting withdrawal (instead of outright running), but everyone else seemed to want to stick it out (the henchman with the plate and pole arm moved in to back-up, the thief was unloading with her crossbow). I don't know what the F got into me...I should have beat feet out, but stayed long enough to get the leather guys out of the death pit that'd been dug. I still wanted to get out but instead moved to back-up the henchman (this was a tactical error...I should have switched places with him as my plate and shield had a better AC and would have allowed him to still stab past myself and the fighter with his big unit). The henchman fell, despite my healing efforts, and I STILL hung around. AC 2 and 9 hit points alongside the AC 2 fighter that had stirred this hornet's nest with his 10 hit points and I'm telling the others to just GET THE FUCK OUT...

And I die.

Which was actually not too bad as I had to get up early the next morning and had meant to log off at 10, but ended up being on till after 11.  But it's silly 'cause I could have run from the get-go and saved my character. 

Not that I had much attachment to him. The whole "toad" thing went over better with the halfling and the magic-user (not present) than with my companions of the evening (a lot of licking and wart jokes got tossed around...no respect for the Mighty Toad!).  But he'd had some potential and I had some ideas for him...heck, I got used to his "average score" attributes by the end of character generation.  I was even getting use to the idea of fielding a "real" cleric (my first ever!).

Anyway, Pat sent me a new batch of attributes (what do ya' know...another 13 Wisdom. Hmmm...). And I've got quite a good idea for the next guy. I promise I will try my best to be self-serving this time (the better to survive longer!) and not resort to any goddamn heroic last stands.

Crap on that!

Welp, I Died...

Diomedes, my 2nd level cleric of the Toad died.  Ugh!

I do have to get some sleep now (I've gotta' be up 'ere break o day for a hot air balloon ride), but I fully intend to do a complete run down of events both here and over at campaign blog site.

[and just FYI, I can think of at least three mis-steps that directly led to my demise, so I ain't blaming anyone but myself, though I would have liked to have lived a bit longer...]

Ok, ok, ok, ok...my "happy fingers" want to blog all night long but I absolutely HAVE TO get some sleep.  Later, gators!

Ode to the Toad (B/X Weekend Part 3)

So Saturday morning I got to bed around 3:30, woke up around 7:30ish to let the dogs out (they are early risers), went back to sleep, woke up my wife at 8:30 to ask who wanted to take the car in, went back to sleep when she agreed to do so and slept till after noon.  I then got up and ran errands (dropping off blankets, picking up the Watchmen from Best Buy, etc.), before picking up an iced Americano and sitting down to a Skype connected game of B/X D&D with Patrick, Meepo, and MikeD at 7:01pm PST.

It was a rockin' good time.

You can read a narrative account of the session here, or Pat's DM observations here. MikeD posted copies of our map as well as some positive comments at Sword+1. Timeshadows was supposed to join us, but an itinerant lightning strike put her out of commission for the evening, unfortunately.  Hopefully next time (we had such a good time, we're trying to turn it into a regular game).

This was my first time playing (as opposed to running or "DM'ing") an Old School D&D game in more than 21 years. I was 14 the last time I was a player, in other words.  And I don't know how long since I've been in a dungeon setting.

Wow...that's a hard thing to actually write and read. Wow.

Truth be told, I've never played B/X as a player; when I used to play OS D&D, it was always AD&D. I was extremely pleased with how well and easy the game system worked. Of course, I am familiar with the game (comes from DMing it every chance I get) but it's still nice to actually apply knowledge to practical experience.

Observations About the Game (some personal, some general B/X):

1. Despite all our confessed "rustiness," the game went smooth as silk for the most part. Sure there was a bit of ham-handedness (no one brought rope?! what the hell?), and some computer glitches (I accidentally programmed my D6 macro to only roll 6s...I did not discover this until probably an hour+ into the game!). But I'm pretty sure the four of us all have more DM than player experience, and that allowed us to play without a ton of explanation/answers being needed.

This led to a very smooth game...we could focus on the challenge at hand (surviving the exploration of a dangerous mine with only three 2nd level characters and no hirelings), and had the presence and knowledge to not get bogged down. Even Pat would ask the occasional question of us players and knew we'd give him a straight answer. Plus, we were all committed to having a good time, and not being the irritants I'm sure most of us have experienced in other games.  : )

2. Role-playing is harder than it looks. I created this rather detailed sleezy, Toad-worshiper, and yet my preferred style of play led me to take a lot of "hard-to-justify-in-character" actions. I was giving commands (suggestions), kicking in doors, plunging bravely ahead, and generally making a horse's ass of myself. Now, perhaps if I'd gone with my original Joan of Arc idea, this would have been more in-character. But I was trying to make a traditional, sluggish, back-skulker priest-type, not the heroic paladin-type I've blogged about.

Now, in my defense, my character was probably the closest thing to a point guard we had. The wizard (poor Mike! I guess he normally plays fighters himself!) wasn't about to jump out there. The halfling (Meeps AKA Sancho) was doing his best tactically by using his bow (Dex + halfling bonuses) from mid-rank.  Someone had to act as the meat shield.  

But you know, it's exactly this kind of play that led my last DM to say, "You treat all your characters like fighters, so I'm not going to let you play a bard." I wonder how I would have acted if I'd rolled up a magic-user....

3. D&D combat is only as exciting as the DM and player makes it. I forgot this, or never realized it. When I'm a DM I use the abstract combat system to as justification for flowery and descriptive combat narratives. And Patrick does the same. It was just weird to hear someone else adjudicating the results of a poor or good roll.  Jarring even. I guess I'm a bit of a control-freak (ya' think?), and while I have no qualms with how he narrated (good work, sir!), I was surprised all the same.

Maybe this is yet another thing D20 has tried to do with its detailed combat system...not simply provide options other than swing-hit, swing-miss BUT give the player more narrative control over his combat actions.  If I can say, "I take a 5' step, make a whirlwind-power attack, and then switch to my elaborate parry Expertise,"...well, you're pretty much defining the action. The DM simply says, "okay you do it" or "no you don't," based on your attack roll. In this case, I have to give some props to D20 (*shudder*) for putting some power back in the hands of players...even though it DOES limit the over-all options available in combat.  This may be something to blog about or add into my B/X Companion..."negotiation of combat narrative between player and DM."

4. While this format worked well for a dungeon delve, I have no idea how well it will "scale." Higher level play is much more open-ended than low-level dungeon crawls...people splitting up using teleportation, enchanted airships, or pet pegasi; characters pursuing their own agendas of dominions, questing, or spell research and reputation-making. For being self-contained the game table was great, but after Name level, D&D (in my experience) becomes a lot less table-top-tactical and much more narrative-driven. 

Not that we have to worry about that just yet.  All our players are (or appear to be) in their 30s with jobs, families, lives. It is doubtful that we'll be able to sustain a long-term campaign, so it may never become an issue.  Still...for a great group of folks, who are already familiar with the rules, it's not too big a stretch to think they may be willing to try a high level campaign (starting with Name Level characters) some time in the future. Of course, I'll need to convince 'em that D&D's optimum levels are higher than 4-8. 

; )

5. 2nd level characters + house rules = serious ass-kicking. Other than a run-in with a giant spider that forced a save or die poison save, our three characters were never in any great danger during the adventure. Part of this was the implementation of several life-saving house rules including binding wounds after battle and splintering shields. Personally, I'm a little too proud to allow my shield to be splintered, but between wound binding, cure light wounds, and the occasional timely sleep spell we were able to rock throughout the low-level romp. Plate and shield is definitely the way to go, when one can get it!

The spider was a bit of bad news. After taking 9+ tries to bash down a door, our party was surprised and the cleric jumped by the spider that rolled a natural 20 to hit. Fortunately, my cleric made his poison save and Pat ruled I had avoided those venomous fangs, just being knocked down. Still and all, if the magic-user had memorized sleep twice, the dungeon would have been even easier to scour.  As it was, in under three hours of "real time" play, we managed to get through pretty much every encounter. I'm not saying it was too easy...I'm saying it was about perfect for our available time and resources (three PCs).  

And that's about it for my observations.  Bottom line is I had a great time, and I don't think I got on peoples' nerves too much with my grandstanding. I would like to play again, and hope we do. It was a very satisfying gaming experience. All thanks to the Internet for allowing us to come together!