Dungeon Digressions: Rooms Apart and Other Ways Out

(Warning: some SPOILERS follow for G1, Stonehell, and the House of Coldarius adventures)

I’ve been formulating an idea of a particular type of dungeon room with which I’ve recently become enamored. For lack of a better term I’ll call them dungeon digressions. These rooms are not only set apart from the general theme of everything else going on around them, but more importantly hint at a larger “otherness” beyond the understood edges of the adventure, or even campaign.

I’ll give you an example which crystalized this concept for me when I recently re-read G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. The room is 17A of the dungeon level, the Weird Abandoned Temple. The orcs on this level (presumably those rebelling against their giant masters) have blocked the door to this temple with rocks, and it is bolted shut. Whether it’s an attempt to keep people out or keep something else in is precisely what makes it so inviting for curious adventurers. Inside the temple the stonework glows purplish-green. The walls chill to the touch and the columns induce nausea. Carved signs and shapes seem to stare at intruders and shift position when not watched. A greasy, yellow-gray altar sits at the far end and beyond it a concave alcove. Staring into the alcove causes visions of sickly mauve and violet tendrils to writhe and stretch towards the viewer, causing insanity 50% of the time. If the viewer doesn’t go insane, they are gifted a scarab of insanity or a 5,000 g.p. gem.

This is a great eerie room heavy on the eldritch vibe, but it’s the room’s context within the rest of the adventure that makes it stand out. This room shows up in the middle of a 9^th-level recon/hack-and-slash stronghold invasion with enslaved orcs revolting against giants working for the Drow. There’s a lot going on in this module already, with breadcrumbs, subplots, and portals to the next chain of adventurers in the G-D-Q series. So why did Gary stick 17A (and 18, the blocked-off Vestry sloping downward) into this adventure? Was it a hint or a connection to a cult of evil chaos, or elemental evil? Or does the vision of the alcove with its Lovecraftian feel hint at a Tharizdun connection?

Whatever the intention, the impact is great. No matter how massive and intricate Lolth’s grand designs are in this campaign, this one little room gives a hint of a massive, incomprehensible reality which dwarfs the demonweb queen’s machinations making them seem petty and small by comparison. It’s a small portal, a tiny digression, which drops off a deep end into a larger, abyssal perspective. I love it.

Michael Curtis’ Cenotaph room in the canyon of Stonehell is a very brief version of this with the room’s bas relief intimating the knowledge of a vast sleeping entity lying in wait in a distant land. With that kind of realization, what does it matter if you are downed by a pack of filthy kobolds in some forgotten corner of an underground prison complex. The scale of the PCs’ mortal lives have no meaning by comparison. It does a lot without really doing very much of anything, preparing the PCs for the discovery of the nixthisis at the heart of the underground hell.

The main interest for me with these side-rooms isn’t that they bring a whiff of R’lyeh to the game. The eldritch quality of both is merely coincidental. What’s great about them is they offer a door to worlds older than the mountains in their current dimension. In short, they can be a hook or way out of the current adventure into something deeper and weirder. If they want it, that is. In the case of G1’s 17A, the PCs can decide that what lay beyond the bronze-banded door was interesting enough to abandon Geoff, clear out the rumble in the Vestry, and find their way down to the veins of the earth, so to speak.

One more example I recently came across is in the Basic Fantasy adventure, “House of Coldarius,” from BF3 Strongholds of Sorcery. The adventure largely concerns a vampire kidnapping a wizard pupil to create a dark, intelligent sword. It’s a fun, beat-the-clock rescue in a scary house with various Universal movie monster stand-ins (there’s a vampire, a flesh golem, a mummy, a lycanthrope, etc.). However, in the locked parlor of room 39 on level 7, there’s a black metal arch with silver runes that serves as a gateway to the world of the Moonmist Moor, a Bronze Age realm haunted by spectres who feed off the few humans at night and are kept at bay by huge monoliths called Spires. It’s only a thumbnail sketch of a world, but the strange open possibilities of it, the offer to the party to go “elsewhere” is everything that fantasy should be about.

These kinds of side-door encounters aren’t exclusive to D&D. They can be found all over the fantasy genre. “Riddles in the Dark,” from The Hobbit, is maybe the most famous example. Bilbo gets separated from his party, meets a weird creature, finds a magic ring, and the fate of all Middle Earth changes. Without that digression and resulting alternate way out (literally), you don’t get The Lord of the Rings.

A lot of times the campaigns we create are built around a central, preconceived narrative idea that everything rests on. But these little “dungeon digressions” are important to have in the game as release valves or rifts to other worlds or adventures to keep things unexpected and fresh. What might start as a typical dungeon delve turns into doorway to Barsoom. The heist of a rare piece of art becomes a portal to the Blue Medusa’s maze. A mirror becomes a way into Voivodja. An escape from the city watch through a garden gate leads to a trek into Ynn. A passage through Ultan’s door takes you to the dream world of Zyan, with its masks and puppet masters. Basically, don’t be afraid to Terry-Gilliam your D&D game.

Greyhawk Dexterity Modifier to Armor Class: Just for the Fighting Man?

Okay, this is going to be a hardcore nerd post. I’m going to indulge into a bit of rules minutiae. I’ve been digging in my OD&D books lately because I plan at some point to do a post comparing the different retro clones and how closely they hew to the source. I’m not interested in finding out which is the most authentic, but rather, I’m curious to note how the small deviations actually affect play at the table. Whether intentional or not, these small mis-readings or diverse interpretations are just as interesting to me as any factual historical account of how particular rules came to be.

In looking at how ability score modifiers changed from the 3LBBs to Greyhawk, I noticed something I had never come across before. I did a little poking around in the old forums and didn’t find anything about it either. It could be that I missed an article or just that no one has ever posted about it because it’s so universally known. I came across a passage that seems to suggest that the Dexterity modifier as it is applied to Armor Class is a benefit exclusively enjoyed by the Fighting Man.

What prompted me to check the Dexterity modifier in Greyhawk in the first place was noting how different the Dexterity modifier table in Iron Falcon was from the parallel table in Swords & Wizardry Core (which is the 3LBBs plus Greyhawk). In S&W Core, the Dexterity modifier is universal to all classes as better by 1 for scores of 13-18, and worse by 1 for scores of 3-8. The Iron Falcon table showed the Dexterity modifier giving a Dex score of 0-14 gives no bonus or penalty, a score of 15 improves AC by 1, a score of 16 by 2, a score of 17 by 3, and a score of 18 by 4. This modifier is applied only to Fighters, with an alternate option to apply it to all classes at the GM’s discretion*.

This wide discrepancy again sent me to my copy of the first supplement. Again, I’m not particularly interested in what Strategic Review article or late-era Gary interview may have influenced Chris Gonnerman or Matt Finch to write their charts as they did. I’m more interested in comparing them to the original to see how the changes might affect the game one way or the other. What I found in Greyhawk was surprising.

It turns out that Iron Falcon’s Dex mod chart replicates what is laid out for Dexterity’s effect on AC. The relevant passage on the middle of page 8 of Greyhawk reads:

“Dexterity affects both the ability of characters to act/react and fire missiles. It is also the prime requisite for thieves. Fighters with a dexterity of greater than 14 can use their unusual manual dexterity to attempt to dodge or parry opponents’ attacks. For every point over 14 they are able to reduce their opponents’ chances of hitting them by 1 (5%).”

The Iron Falcon chart reflects this passage exactly, a bonus of 1-4 for scores of 15-18, and no mention of a penalty to AC for a low Dexterity. What struck me most was that it specifies that the fighter receives this bonus. Now it’s possible that Gary was using “fighter” as common parlance for Player Character combatant – meaning any character of any class. However, “fighter” is used as shorthand for the Fighting Man class all over Greyhawk. There is also a passage earlier on page 4 that seems to reinforce this idea the fighter-only Dexterity mod to AC:

“Fighting Men: Other character-types may engage in hand-to-hand combat, but only true fighting men are able to use their strength and dexterity to utmost advantage in melee.”

When viewed next to the wording of the passage on page 8, it would seem only fighters would be able to use their Dexterity in combat to avoid a blow. Thieves may be the most dexterous, but their class lacks the combat know-how to take advantage of it in close-combat. While I may not want to run my games that way, the intention of the rule seems pretty clear.

What is interesting to me is how Swords & Wizardry (and other simulacra) apply the AC modifier to all classes, as AD&D did in 1978 (PHB), B/X did in 1981, and every edition did thereafter. (Holmes in 1977 is a notable exception as it used the 3LBB rules more closely.) I’ve always played it with all classes getting the AC mod. Everyone I’ve ever known has played it that way. It’s as if everyone missed the exclusivity of this rule, or simply, like me, decided, ‘Nah, I’m not going to do it like that.’ In any case, how that conscious (or not) re-interpretation affects the intent of the rule is pretty huge.

First, applying the Dexterity modifier to AC for all classes makes Dexterity much more important. Many modern players feel that Dexterity is the true God Stat – it’s useful to everyone no matter what your class. Finch, in his WhiteBox rules’ alternate Universal Attribute Bonus rules, gives the -1/+1 modifier option for Dexterity to AC. There is a caution that it maybe should be limited to more swashbuckling campaigns without a lot of armor. There is an implied recognition that having Dex affecting AC makes the stat have a very powerful impact on the game.

Next, by giving this benefit to all classes, it takes something special away from the fighter. If only the fighter gains this benefit it makes this class much more powerful. When paired with the rule that only fighters use Strength bonuses for melee attacks and damage, it truly differentiates this class from the others and makes the cleric not nearly as good at combat (one of these days I’m going to write a post about how the 3LBB cleric is OP). If you use the strict interpretation of the rule (as S&W does with Strength to-hit & damage), that fighters, and only fighters (no paladins or rangers), get this benefit, it makes playing a bog-standard character much more appealing.

It should be noted (as was pointed out to me*) that S&W’s application of Chainmail’s man-to-man parrying rules does give some of that power back to Fighters. However, a parry is an active action taking the place of an attack, which is not as great a boon as a passive AC boost. Still, some of that Fighter “specialness” is preserved. In Delving Deeper, for instance, parrying is a non-exclusive action for any class.

As for how I feel about using this in my own games, I’m pretty sure I won’t. Possibly because my players would revolt. Partly because I grew up playing the game with AC being affected by Dex for all classes and it’s what I’m used to. More than that though, is the affect it would have on my game. Magic-users would be even more fragile than they are. Thieves would be less-likely to engage in combat, more likely to be played strictly as scouts, lock-picks, and trap-removers. People would want to play clerics even less. Then there’s thinking about how it would make a party of bandits (or other fighter humanoids) more powerful adversaries.

It has been said that Gary never understood why anyone would ever want to play anything other than a fighter, a Conan-like superhero. Given this rules interpretation, I can see how that makes sense.

CORRECTION: I updated this post because I made some incorrect statements about how Iron Falcon and Swords & Wizardry Core handle these rules. Just like Greyhawk, I glossed over the finer details. Both Gonnerman and Finch note that their work differs in parts (intentionally so) from the original game so shame on me for not careful reading. On the other hand, what’s an RPG post without a little errata?

Bards: Nope.

I expect this post to be poorly received (if it's received by anyone at all). Regardless of what I say in this post, I think everyone should play the game that they have fun with and not feel bad about it. That said, I hate Bards.

At least I hate them as a PC class. As a non-magical, jack-of-all-trades NPC? Fine. But for me and my game, the spellcasting, multiple-attacking, healer and rogue known as the Bard has no appeal. It is as ridiculous to me as it would be if there were a player class for sports team mascots in a fantasy milieu. I find them obnoxious and silly. They tend to appeal to players who were high school drama club kids, open-mic comedians, hack local musicians, and power gamers.

The Bard class has a troubled history in the game. In 1e AD&D, Bards were relegated to the back of the PHB as an optional class at the DM's discretion. There was even a caveat that most DMs didn't allow them. I think that, in itself, says it all. It's like Gary knew that he was introducing something silly and shameful so he hid it at the back. He also made it very difficult to become a Bard. The Bard needed scores of at least 15 in Strength, Wisdom, Dexterity, and Charisma, and minimum scores of 12 in Intelligence and 10 in Constitution. Almost no character is so blessed. They also started as a Fighter from 1st to 5th level, then continued as a Thief starting sometime prior to 8th level, before pursuing Druidic studies sometime before 9th. Only then would they become a 1st-level Bard. With all those hoops to jump through it's as if Gary was saying, just don't do it.

Oh, how times have changed. Bards are currently regarded as one of the more powerful (and therefore "best") classes in modern D&D. Discussions about how to min/max your bard to be the ultimate badass, cool guy abound in forums. The class is also seen as the consummate party member by using lots of buff and de-buff abilities to enhance the play of their fellow PCs. As I alluded to at the top of this post, I realize I'm in the minority here. Most people like the flexibility and customizable application of skills, feats, and abilities on offer. I just can't relate. Not just to this class, but to the tone and setting of any game that uses this class. The image of some doink in a leather jerkin and a feather in their cap bringing a lute down into the dark places of the earth to jam out some riffs to aid the party in felling a red dragon completely turns the game into a joke for me.

I recently came across a Web DM video on Bards (see below). I like these guys and I think they have a lot to offer current gamers, but when I listen to them say that 5e finally got Bards right, reeling off dipping options, level paths, and maxing out combinations of abilities I can't help but laugh. Not just because of how ridiculous it all sounds, but because I realize this is how most people play the game. In modern D&D every class is a jack-of-all-trades, master of all. Everyone can fight, cast spells, heal, pick pockets, etc. It's a game where every day is your birthday with a constant stream of presents and every kind of cake and honestly it bores me to tears. But hey, do what makes you happy. I'm not here to tell you (and nearly 90% of all other role-players) that your fun is wrong. Just get off my lawn. 😀

So, could I ever envision allowing a Bard PC in my Basic Fantasy game? Maybe, but I don't think I would even use the Bard as given in the BF Quasi-Classes supplement. It's still a little too silly. I think I'd be okay allowing a base-class Fighter or a Thief to become a character with Decipher, Listen, Lore, Tumble, Influence, and extra languages. Starting at second level I'd give them one orison every other level until 10th. I'd also keep all of BF's prerequisites, which although tough, aren't as high of a bar as Gary set. They could carry an instrument if they wished, but it would mostly be for flavor, or to use as a known secondary skill if an adventure required it (i.e. Death Frost Doom). That seems like reasonable Bard class to me although I'm willing to bet no one would want to play it.

One last thought here, and it doesn't strictly pertain to my thoughts about Bards. From time to time in this blog I might rant about newfangled RPGs and why I like something else more. People get very sensitive when they feel you are telling them that they're doing it wrong - no matter what "it" is, but particular when "it" is role-playing. Well, I just want to say, stop sweating it. There's plenty of real things to feel anxiety about. Your hobby shouldn't be one of them. If people say they don't like the game you play or how you play it, that's fine. Let it go. If someone reads this and calls me a crusty old Grognard who plays an inferior, overly simplistic version of the game, so be it. I don't care. And I don't care if the version of the game that I like dies out because no one else wants to play it. If that's the way it is, that's how it goes. Tough cookies for me. Likewise, if I say something you like is silly, learn to brush it off. For those of you who like to play Bards, the more power to you.

#RPGaDay: Day 20

20. What is the best source for out-of-print RPG books?

Answer: I'm not sure what the intent of this question is. I don't mean to be snotty about it. I just don't think there is some hidden resource that someone will turn everyone onto. It's not like there is some megastore built from a mythical RPG hoarder's secret stash. Even if there were, if I knew about it, do you think I'd let anyone else in on the action? Sorry, little joke.

Fifteen years ago I could walk into a local game store and find a treasure trove of out-of-print, used games and accessories. With the emergence of online marketplaces that's all but a thing of the past. I have a little bit of sadness for the modern, brick & mortar game store, having to stick your neck out on product you're not sure will sell. Gaming shops used to be such cool places where you'd hear about new games or books. Now I get a lot of blank stares from the staff when I ask about an OSR they've never heard of. I suppose I'm a little spoiled living in Dave Arneson's hometown. There was a lot of used games floating around from all the people that played up here. There still is compared to a lot of places I guess. Hell, Fantasy Flight Games is based here. Maybe I should shut up.

Half Price Books sometimes will yield results as from time to time people die and their relatives don't have the energy or will to sell their role-playing son/brother/daughter/sister/husband/wife's nerd books on eBay. It feels a little morbid to profit from someone passing away like that, but at least I'll give the stuff a good home.

You might ask yourself, why bother trying to track down all those moldy (Moldvay?) old modules when you can find most of them in PDF form on various sites? My answer would be because PDFs don't cut it for me and they never will. I hate reading PDFs. No matter what platform I'm looking at it on, it hurts my eyes and is a pain reading a two-column layout digitally, even on a tablet. Then there's maps. Those definitely are pretty useless as a digital file. You could argue that I could have the PDFs professionally printed out and bound, and while that's true, it's also more work than I want to do.

So does that mean I won't stoop to buying or downloading a PDF from RPGNow or DriveThruRPG? Of course not. The internet is a great place if you know what you're looking for, and even sometimes if you don't. I just got a PDF of the original Chainmail rules the other day. I'd be hard-pressed to find an original copy of that lying around, even in Minnesota. I've been thinking about doing a post comparing all the OD&D clones I have and how they compare to the original White Box rules (plus Chainmail). Maybe that will give me a reason to go have my PDF printed and spiral-bound.