YOU Are The Story

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

But it's (kind of) important. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And all the imitators of D&D followed suit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: )

I6: Ravenloft

A few days ago, Sir Rob asked me if I'd review I6: Ravenloft, not to critique it so much as to analyze whether or not I thought it truly was the Hickmans who started the "Adventure Path" trend (with I6 and/or Dragonlance), and ALSO how I might go about making the game more "player-centric" while still maintaining its "gothic vibe." In other words, how would I un-couple the thing from its railroad aspects while not killing the mood. Being the gracious (and egomaniacal) type of guy I am, I said 'sure, why not?'

THIS. IS. RAVENLOFT!

But first, allow me to say this: when they look back at their lives, I'm going to guess that the Hickmans (Tracy and Laura) are going to say that the greatest thing they ever did for their careers, was to take a job offer at TSR and move from Utah to Wisconsin. Had they not done that...had they instead taken other gigs locally, gotten help from their parents, continued to raise their kids in the same town they'd grown up...I just can't see them going on to having the success they managed to achieve. Without the backing of TSR (and the built-in fan base)...would they have ever been much more than independent publishers of the occasional D&D module? Would they have even continued to do that?

The fact is, Hickman wasn't a great writer...and I say that as someone who has read the first six Dragonlance novels (multiple times!) and enjoyed the hell out of them. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think Hickman becomes a famous, bestselling novelist without TSR. Steinbeck he was not.

[sorry, I've had Steinbeck on the brain a lot recently, considering the parallels between The Grapes of Wrath and our current pandemic-enhanced homeless crisis. But I digress]

What he was...what both the Hickmans were...were rather good adventure designers. I have no experience with Rahasia (one of two modules that got the Hickmans hired by TSR), but I've run I3: Pharaoh two or three times, I4: Oasis of the White Palm at least three times, and I5: Lost Tomb of Martek once or twice...both as "one-offs" and as part of on-going campaigns. While I have a notable soft-spot for anything Arabian Nights related, the adventures were quite interesting, filled with ingenious dungeon design, evocative situations, and (yes) whimsy (the floating tomb of Martek was written/published a year before the rather paltry knock-of appears in DL4: Dragons of Desolation). I especially like the combination of ancient Egyptian mythos with Golden Age Islam fairy tale stuff (this is best seen in I4: Oasis of the White Palm)...but skating over a sea of glass with light-powered sky-ships, avoiding sunspots and purple worms...I mean, come on, that shit is cool!

But it's been twenty years since I've read those modules and it's certainly possible I'd see them today in a less favorable light. The clever intertwining of adventure sites (with actual treasure!) is a bit of a "railroad" but the idea of needing to "solve an adventure to escape" (as in I5) has been around long since before the Hickmans came on board at TSR: Moldvay did this with X2: Castle Amber in 1981, and there's a bit of that in 1980's Q1: Queen of the Demonweb Pits as well. Likewise, there are other examples prior to the Hickmans' career of both "backstory" and forced compliance with the adventure (a common gripe with the I3-I5 series): you see the former in modules like N1: Against the Cult of the Reptile God and B3: Palace of the Silver Princess, and the latter in the introduction to the G-series...all adventures that (generally) receive high praise and/or are considered "classics."

So, now...Ravenloft. For me, I think Ravenloft is best understood (and judged) by looking at what the adventure was and why it was designed. Published by TSR in 1983, the Hickman's wrote the adventure circa 1977 (long before they joined the company) as an adventure to be played on Halloween. It is thus best viewed as a one-off theme-style adventure, NOT something to be viewed as part of an existing or on-going campaign. It is NOT a regular, ordinary adventure.

Viewed in this light, many of the design choices not only make sense, they are...quite frankly...brilliant. The well-themed card mechanic that randomly determines locations of important artifacts, the adventure's antagonist, and the overall motivation of said-antagonist? THAT is an elegant method of ensuring the annual "spooky adventure" is different from year-to-year. Yes, we already know that the living tower is going to attack us with halberds if we aren't careful, but Strahd (or some needed McGuffin) might be up there this year! 

It's almost like a tournament challenge: will we get Strahd this Halloween, or will he get us? Who knows?!

Many of the adventure's problems, I think, can all be laid at the feet of publishing the thing as an ordinary "I-type" adventure, and the changes made thereof. People attending an annual themed get-together are already going to be on-board with the spirit of the adventure...there's no need to add all the heavy-handed stuff that forces a party to act in a particular way (2 hit die villagers, 5 and 6 hit die gypsies, impassable mists, etc.). In a "true" adventure module, there's no need to randomly pull cards to determine locations of important items and adversaries...they should simply be placed in the most suitable, appropriate locations. You can still "read the tarot cards" (or whatever) but with all the "signs" fixed, i.e. set in place. Even though Ravenloft was never run at tournament, it would have fit well with the C series (there's a lot of 1980's C1: Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan in this adventure in Ravenloft), and probably would have benefitted well from a set of pre-generated characters, rather than mandating one PC "must be a fighter with a longsword" or other stipulations.

So then, what if you WANT to make Ravenloft an "actual adventure" for insertion into your campaign?

Well, the module has another rather large issue (besides being purposed for something other than it is) and that is a matter of scale: Ravenloft really wants to be a low-level adventure rather than a mid-level one. I think there are three main reasons it is written for levels 5-7, and they lead to a host of cascading problems:

1. Being placed in the "I" (intermediate) series suggests mid-range (though suggested levels fluctuate wildly across I modules).
2. Having a big, bad Vampire suggests a higher level of character (because vampires are one of the most powerful forms of undead...THE most powerful undead in OD&D and Basic play).
3. General survivability: more levels mean more hit points, which means a longer game experience (especially appropriate in a one-off, theme-night adventure).

The adventure would have been served better by writing it for levels 2-4. This mitigates a lot of issues: the treasure is more appropriate for this level of party (it's pretty slim for any adventure this size, but downright criminal for a 1E adventuring party of levels 5-7...again, remember this was not designed for an on-going campaign!!!). Villagers can be level 0 in stead of 2 hit dice (otherwise, we're going to cast charm person on that 9th level fighter with the intelligence of 3 and retain him FOREVER). The "evil gypsies" can be re-scaled as ordinary bandits rather than wandering minotaurs. Madame Eva doesn't need to be a 10th level cleric (I mean "she never gives aid and never needs any" so why does she need to have spells like raise dead or cure serious wounds available to her? Just make her high enough level to curse insolent players!). Get rid of the wandering specters, banshees, and ghosts (all too powerful as is), maybe substituting a wraith or two, knock the Strahd Zombies down to 2HD (and have them turned as zombies not mummies), and re-do trap damage where appropriate.

[actually the traps are all pretty good, even for low-level parties. The sleep trap at #38 doesn't need to carry a -4 penalty...low level characters fail saves just fine...and the crushing trap at #31 should probably just be an auto-kill anyway (how are they going to pull a party member out that survives the damage?!). Most of the killer traps (thousand foot falls and whatnot) simply need to be telegraphed better to give players a choice of risk/reward]

But what about All The Vampires, JB?! First off, vampires DO have vulnerabilities. Garlic, mirrors, and holy symbols will hold a vampire at bay, and don't require a cleric "turning" roll (would a 7th level cleric really have much chance anyway?). The module gives specific ways that Strahd will attack the party and stipulates he will only attack three times (once each of three methods)...and only ONE attack will be direct combat. 

[of course, the module appears to assume that the adventure will be completed in a single 24 hour time period. Remember! The thing was designed to be played one night (Halloween) per year!]

Whatever happened to half-strength undead? Why are all these "brides of Strahd" full hit dice vampires? Is that not a thing in AD&D? Oh, wait...it is (page 119 of the DMG). As I wrote when first exploring the Dragonlance stuff, the Hickmans come off as DMs used to only using OD&D + Greyhawk, and here's another example. Half-strength (4 hit die) vampires are fine opponents for low-level characters, assuming they don't attack in packs (they don't in Ravenloft)...I might even rule they only suck one level on a hit, rather than two, which puts them on the same footing as an encounter with a single wight, right? Except that they have all the extra (vampiric) vulnerabilities, too. Give them a lesser charming ability (no save penalty) if you like.

As for Strahd ("The First Vampyr"), parties have multiple resources for aiding in their fight, including the Icon of Raveloft and the Sunsword (just allow the entire sword to be found, instead of only the hilt) while using normal preventative measures (listed above) for holding him off till they can find the artifacts. OR they could just use that time-honored method of hunting vampires: wait till daytime and hunt for his coffin, stake in hand. Even low-leveled parties can handle that, and properly hit diced monsters can serve as great guardians. 

Strahd himself isn't all that great shakes as an antagonist. He's not the earliest "classed" vampire to appear in a TSR module (Drelzna the fighter vamp in Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth might be the first) nor even the first magic-user vampire (see Vlad Tolenkov in Q1 or Sakatha in I2). He's not the first antagonist to have a "motivation" that involves more than killing every murder-hobo that enters his lair. He's a Dracula knock-off (much as Vlad was) and there's nothing wrong with that...for an annual Halloween adventure. But there was nothing particularly original or outstanding about Strahd, even in 1983. Regrets over a dead sibling? Unrequited NPC romance plots? See X2 and B3 respectively.

All four of Strahd's possible goals are pretty lame, actually. If he wanted to switch identities, why do so now? What's so special about the PCs? Would a genius level intelligence really make the mistake about the black opal spell component (never mind the fact that a 10th level magic-user is incapable of manufacturing magical items!)? The missing sunsword is pretty dumb, unless you set this up in an earlier adventure with the thought of later running Ravenloft...and the "reincarnated love" living in the local village...I mean, this thing worked for Bram Stoker's Dracula when she was living in faraway London, but do you really need the machinations for the local damsel? And would such an adolescent ploy ever work better than simply offering her a castle and immortality? And didn't we say this guy has genius intelligence?

[just by the way, can I just say I HATE the whole polymorphing undead thing? A walking corpse...or incorporeal spirit...is NOT an animal to be polymorphed, so should fall under the purview of polymorph any object, if such transformation is possible at all. The idea of Strahd polymorphing a PC into a vampire is just...so...arrghh! That is NOT how one makes vampires!And even if it was, why not do that with one of your willing gypsy henchmen?!]

In the final analysis, I think the best way to uncouple Ravenloft from its story is to treat it as a straightforward monster hunt. IGNORE Strahd's "motivations." Who cares what turns his crank...what is it that motivates the PCs? The Hickmans' original impetus for writing Ravenloft came from playing in a dungeon that had some random vampire sitting in a room next to the oozes and goblins for no good reason. Yeah, that's dumb: but that's not what you have here. This vampire has a reason for being in this room: it's his castle! He's been the lord of the realm for a couple hundred years! The villagers are his prey! Etc. Etc.

[I actually really like the idea of Strahd being a greedy bastard. If you draw the card that says Strahd is in his treasury, you find him gleefully "counting his ill-gotten gains." That's motivation right there! The guy is milking the surrounding territory...and any would be passers-through (like the PCs)...to add to his ever-growing treasure hoard. He's the undead equivalent of a miserly dragon! Love it...probably killed his brother over some piece of treasure. Oh My Precious!]

To run Ravenloft for a NORMAL campaign adventure (as opposed to a one-off) I'd do the following:

• First, decide on a motivation for the party to confront Strahd. Maybe they are looking for an artifact that he's rumored to have in his hoard. Maybe they're looking for a friend, relative, or colleague ('what's up Jonathan Harker?') that's being held in the castle. Maybe they've been sent to collect outstanding back taxes due to a greater lord. Maybe their deity visited them in a dream and told them they had a sacred duty to stamp out the undead fiend (or face excommunication). Whatever. If nothing else, appeal to their greed (that guy's been sitting on a load of loot for generations, people!)...it IS AD&D, after all.
• Next, figure out why the villagers remain in this cursed locale. Look, Dracula had his peasants, too, and they weren't sticking around because of some magic, poisonous fog. There are many reasons why a community might decide that sticking it out is better than the alternative: persecution in other lands, friends and relatives, food supply, the devil you know versus the unknown. Vampires only attack at night, right? So as long as you're indoors after dark (and have your garlic/cross nailed over the door) you're safe to go about your daily farming business during the daylight hours and only need worry about the occasional gypsy abduction. Treat Strahd like any other nobleman/lord and his "gypsy servants" as his equivalent of patrols and men-at-arms (which they basically are anyway).  Decide who might be helpful/sympathetic to the PCs, and who is firmly in the pocket of Strahd (for example, the town mayor or anyone else who benefits from Strahd's magnificence...i.e. not being eaten...in exchange for cooperation and spying). Remember that Strahd has some human servants, who may actually be "hostages" of village families. Other village families might have made "deals" with Strahd (given over daughters to be his "brides" in exchange for concessions). We are talking a campaign game, not a Sunday night movie!
• Re-write the thing for a low-level party. I'd say 3rd or 4th would be best (because one vampire hit to a 2nd level character is going to end her adventuring career), but definitely nothing 5th or higher (no need to be flinging fireballs and lightning bolts around your gothic castle mood piece). Gypsies as bandits, villagers as villagers, village idiots as strong villagers (not 9th level fighters...dude should have his own castle!). Shadows and wraiths in place of banshees and ghosts and specters. Half-strength vampire wives instead of full strength ones (treat as wights in all regards). Strahd zombies exactly as written except they only have 2 hit dice and turn as ghasts (inside the castle...outside, they should turn as normal zombies). Probably get rid of the 12 HD trapper (make that the lair of the wandering rust monsters, if you like...clever PCs will find a way to use those on the iron golems). Much as I like the jack-in-the-box of three hell hounds in a crypt, they'll probably destroy most low level parties...knock 'em down to two at 4 HD, if you want to keep Strahd's "hunting dogs" (who wouldn't?). And I kind of love the nightmare (Strahd's "steed") and like the idea of him riding through the streets, bellowing challenges and calls for vengeance the night after the party's first foray into his home.
• Figure out where you want to put the Holy Symbol of Ravenkind, the Tome of Strahd, and the Sunsword; I would not stash any in his crypt, but you could still draw cards to figure out where they are, if you don't have a preference (I would not use the bonuses/penalties associated with card suit). Since Strahd (presumably) moves around a lot during the night, I'd just roll a D6 whenever the party enters one of his possible encounter areas, perhaps with a cumulative chance of finding him (1 in 6, 2 in 6, etc.). I would NOT have Strahd in his crypt except during daylight hours (when he'll always be present).
• Treasure: the total value of monetary treasure in Ravenloft is a bit more than 120,000 g.p. -- close to double what eight 4th level characters need to level. However, in an adventure with this much expected energy drain, I don't mind the extra experience points. Magic items range from good (helpful scrolls and potions) to weird (three maces +3 in the treasury?) to wow (a deck of many things!). Probably needs some modification with regard to the blander magic weapons. 
• Stocking: however, the distribution of treasure needs work. In a dungeon this size, I'd expect to find some type of treasure in around 30 encounter areas, not 10. Monsters should be in one-third of the areas, not one-fourth. Around 56% of the castle is EMPTY...just box text description...and while there's fairly good interactivity (especially for DMs that don't mind doing some improvisation when they see "carriage room," for example) I'd want to spread things around a bit more, and probably add a couple more encounters (gypsy henchmen and the like...especially during the daytime). The crypt area especially is a little bland...I can see PCs simply knocking down tombs, one after another, which is more-or-less the same as the (often lambasted) Kick-In-The-Door style of dungeon. Rather than an empty tomb with a bag of coins, I'd prefer to furnish the castle a bit more with golden candelabrum (never lit) and decorative china- and silverware (never used)...maybe a well-stocked wine cellar full of expensive vintages. Maybe figure out where the vampire wives go during the nighttime hours and what the witches are doing when they're not brewing in Ye Old Cauldron. Maybe give the witches a few potions, and give their 42,750 g.p. spellbook to Strahd (they only peruse it when they need to memorize a spell). Hell, put it in his study...simple enough.

With regard to RUNNING the adventure, I'd want to make sure I was keeping excellent track of time, because sundown and sunset becomes VERY important when you're hunting vampires. Party encumbrance and movement rates are going to be essential for tracking time, and every ten minute turn spent searching for secret doors is going to bring the party closer to the witching hour. Probably need to prep some sort of graph beforehand, just to make it all go smoothly. The adventure lists "types of attacks" for Strahd, but they're kind of nonsensical for a character with genius intelligence and centuries of experience. A situational list of actual tactics (based on party location, party defenses, level of vampiric ire, etc.) probably needs to be mapped out and available to the DM so that your players aren't asking 'hmmm...where did these 15 Strahd zombies suddenly appear from when we locked ourselves in this tower room?'  Anyway...

It is doable. That is, it's an adventure one could run FAIRLY EASILY with MINIMAL MODIFICATION. Nothing nearly as extensive as what I'm doing with the Dragonlance modules, because Ravenloft IS a fairly straightforward adventure. It was not the advent of (or precursor to) the Adventure Path or "story driven" adventure design, with its railroads and plot-protected NPCs. Heck, you can't even blame box text on the Hickmans, as that was certainly showing up as early as 1980 (see C1: The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan as Exhibit A). Ravenloft is not some sort of linear rail path requiring specific action from the PCs (besides destroying Strahd, of course). Nothing compels the PCs to deal with (lovely NPC) Ireena Kolyana in any particular fashion...or even keep her alive! The fact that she only has six hit points (as a 4th level fighter?) and no CON score (um...) means she's probably not long for the world anyway.

There is no way in hell I would ever rank Ravenloft "the second greatest adventure module of all time." I wouldn't even call it the second greatest adventure module written by the Hickmans!  But it's not terrible...it's pretty great as a light-hearted one-off played for a spooky theme night. And considering it was written by the Hickmans in their early 20s (they weren't even 25! Just kids!), it is a remarkable testament to their abilities as game designers that they were able to craft something that touched so many people and launched an entire game line and setting.

Then again, it may be that people just love vampires. 

; )

What's It Look Like?

Let's talk about running a campaign.

[this post, by the way, is probably going to be a messy one. Right now, my thoughts on the subject are only half-formed, and writing them out like this is one way for me to organize and codify my ideas. Just want to make sure I'm setting the expectations bar "low" here]

A couple days back, I wrote about my realization (finally! it was a long time coming) about how darn rusty I've gotten with regard to the skills needed to run a campaign...and that is to say, any type of campaign, using the term as it is commonly understood in the genre of role-playing games.

But maybe I need to start a bit basic here...is the term "commonly understood?" Just what exactly is a "campaign?" What do I mean when I talk about running one (and my neglected, rusty skills)? Let's go ahead and see how Ye Old Rule Books define the word:

From Moldvay (B/X glossary, page B63):

campaign -- A series of adventures taking place on the same fantasy world.

From Gygax (AD&D DMG glossary, page 227)

Campaign -- General term referring to one DM's adventures as a whole rather than individually. An ongoing series of games based upon a created milieu.

[And just so that we're all crystal clear, I'll go ahead and offer the DMG definition of "milieu," found on page 229:

Milieu -- An unique game setting embodying numerous possible variables in its creation, i.e. the "world" in which adventures take place.

So just go ahead and shoehorn the additional explanation into the definition of "campaign"]

While the definition of the term here is taken specifically from the Dungeons & Dragons game, I should point out that it it is certainly broad enough that it can be used to refer other genres of RPGs. D&D was simply the first such RPG (so far as I'm aware) to coin the term for the RPG genre (and later RPGs would sometimes use other terms..."saga," for example...to define the same general concept).

Note the concept of a campaign: it is referring to a series of adventures set in a fantasy world, not the fantasy world itself. Neither is it some sort of general story arc or overall plot (though my understanding is that the most recent editions of D&D treats the word in, more or less, those terms...i.e. a series of adventures connected by a particular plot thread designed to tell some grand story). 

This is important to understand! "Managing a campaign" does not mean managing a world nor does it mean managing a story. And it's certainly not about managing players (in the sense of controlling, influencing, or regulating their actions)...though it involves interacting with the players to a large degree. Let me come back to that in a moment.

[by the way, when I make declaratives like "this is important!" the reader should probably mentally insert the phrase "to me! (JB!)" after the sentence. Again, I'm writing this as a means of organizing my thoughts...i.e. talking to myself...hopefully with the aim that it will be of help to ME and of interest to YOU. But I am not telling you what you should think is important, okay? Just in case anyone was wondering]

Unfortunately, my habit of the last couple decades has been to fail exactly in this regard, more often than not. I'm not writing that to beat myself up, just trying to look at it critically. We'll set aside one-off adventures (even ones that take place over multiple sessions) because, by default a single adventure is NOT a "campaign"...and yes, I realize that I am ignoring the Moldvay definition of the term "adventure" which simply means any single session of play. Moldvay's use of the term "campaign" includes both a series of scenarios AND the oldest (original) form of play where one is simply delving a singular "tent-pole" or "mega-" dungeon. I'm talking about the (Advanced) Gygaxian model of campaign running.

*ahem* ANYway...what I have been doing instead (when I've been doing anything that looks like "management" of the game) is simply managing the world, that is the milieu or (as I prefer to call it) the campaign setting. What's up with the world, with its history, geography, politics, cosmology? Why are certain places (dungeons, etc.) here or there? Why are these particular opportunities for adventure available? Are the elements of setting consistent and coherent?

None of that really matters. Or rather, it is of secondary importance (at best) to running the campaign. It's fun and challenging to do this kind of world building, it can help provide the DM with ideas for situations and scenarios, and players of a particular persuasion might find it interesting or worthy of appreciation...but for most players I've encountered (your table might differ) experiencing a well-crafted world isn't the point of sitting down to the table. The play is the thing...the play of the game, I mean. 

But sustained play requires management of the campaign. I went from one extreme to another: serial adventures, not much more than episodic one-offs, to detailed world building without regard for the players. In fact, one of the draft posts I've got up on the board that hasn't yet been posted is entitled something like "I Don't Care [About You]," describing my conclusion that the only way I can run a satisfying fictional world is to ignore external intrusions into my creation (including the wants and needs of the players)...even though doing such a thing is (I now realize) NOT an effective way of running/managing a campaign.

In The Past (i.e. in the days of my youth) I did run campaigns...campaigns that would last for months or, in some cases, years. What did this look like? And how was my approach to running games different from the poor attempts of my (late) adulthood? Welll...

• For one thing, the setting (the "world" of the campaign) only existed as a vessel in which to place adventures. Its importance as "place" was of very little importance. Time, distance, and logistics were of lesser importance...if possessing any importance at all. 
• For another, adventures were what I guess I'd call "player facing" or, at least, player motivated. Dungeons existed, not because the world had them, but because players needed them. Players created their own adventures based on the wants and needs of their characters. 
• At the same time, needs existed for the players' characters. Especially in non-D&D games, there were foils or rivals or straight up antagonists that compelled player action. My best and longest running Vampire campaign ("saga") was based around a group of newly embraced neonates whose sires simply did not care about them, forcing the players to band together for mutual survival as they explored and adapted to their un-lives in the strange and hostile World of Darkness. 
• This didn't mean there was any kind of "storyline" the players were required to follow...no Big Bad Villains that required defeating, no Evil Empires that needed toppling. My Marvel Superheroes campaign was far less about "heroes versus villains," and far more about the lives and dramas of powered individuals. Rivalries and romances and super teams that were more like high school cliques and most definitely NOT government sponsored anti-terrorist units ('course this was run back in a pre-9/11 world).
• In all cases (D&D or other games), the campaigns being run elicited excitement and engagement from ALL the players at the table, such that discussions and plans and schemes carried beyond the confines of the game room. The various group members chatted about or wrote about (as in actual letters to each other) or discussed what was happening in the game, the direction the campaign was going, reactions and reflections and ideas. And I, as the DM, was in charge of managing the campaign, taking into account the feedback of the players, keeping track of the various plot-lines and dramatis personae inhabiting the world, and shaping the scope and direction of "the series of adventures taking place" to fit the needs of the campaign.

And generally speaking, reflecting on these past campaigns, I think there was a general lack of ownership to the campaigns being run. If JB was running the campaign, it was "JB's Campaign," but I wasn't the sole owner and master of the campaign. The campaign belonged to everyone at the table: it was OURS, a collective of sorts, and we all had buy-in and investment in the thing because of it.

THAT may be the main piece missing from my games these days: when I've run games in recent years...whether one-offs or my rather poor attempts at starting campaigns...I have set myself up as the exclusive owner of the game. I don't share. I'm running the game, and my attitude is one of absolute despotism. That's not to say I'm a tyrant at the gaming table or that I don't solicit feedback from my players and attempt to incorporate their wants and desires...it certainly doesn't mean I'm inclined to say "No" to the players! But my disposition, the thought that remains at the back of my thoughts, is that this campaign is "mine," not "ours," and certainly not "theirs." If and when I end the game, it's over.

That's certainly different from campaigns of my youth (and when I say youth, I'm talking about up to my early 20s). And I'm not sure where exactly this attitude started. Somewhere along the line, certainly towards the end of college, people were asking me to run games for them without having any inkling of the rules...that was a problem. Being a sole arbiter of all things mechanical and thematic does not make for a great "shared experience." People were also asking me to run games that I didn't particularly like, or run games in ways that I didn't particularly like. And, of course, just graduating and growing up put any thoughts or time for gaming (let alone running campaigns) on hiatus...much easier to do when you're not enthused about the games (and gamers) that were available. Certainly didn't help that all my romantic relationships (up till and including my wife) have been with non-gamers. 

All of which (coupled with a lack on introspection on the subject) may have been what's led me to the place I am at the moment: deeply crusted in rust when it comes to running real (i.e. "satisfying") campaigns. Hell, "rust" doesn't cover it...I'm petrified wood. 

I have more to say on the subject, but it will have to wait till later; I've been writing this post for the last couple days and it's getting a little long (I warned you things would be messy!), and I've still got a couple more pumpkins in need of carving (we've got three done already). Happy Halloween to everyone! 

This one turned out pretty good.

N is for Nosferatu

[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]

N is for Nosferatu, and assorted monster "nonsense."

One nice thing about GAZ1 is that it contains a list of the various "monstrous, magical, and unusual creatures" that inhabit Karameikos, as drawn from the first four BECMI rule sets (Basic, Expert, Companion, and Master books). While the lack of some monsters (and the presence of others) can prompt some WTF moments, it's a pretty standard assortment, and appropriate considering the "flavor" of the Grand Duchy...very streamlined compared to a standard "kitchen sink" campaign setting.

[of course, folks who prefer something more gonzo for their game setting can...and will need to...do with Karameikos as they will. It's not really Operation Unfathomable material as written]

GAZ1 also includes two new monsters: nosferatu and chevalls. I'll deal with the chevall first, because (I think) what I have to say will be shorter.

The chevall is a beefy (7HD) magic creature that can "change at will" between two forms: that of a horse and that of a centaur. My initial thoughts on the creature are not complementary. It originated with B10: Night's Dark Terror, a module I own but have never run/played.  It cannot be harmed except by silver and magic weapons, it communicates freely with horses (regardless of form), and it exists to "strive for the good of all horses"...checking up on domesticated equine to make sure humans (and demihumans) aren't abusing them. Oh, and it can summon war horses that magically arrive in 1d4 rounds, once per day.  GAZ1 updates this description only slightly: it doubles the number of war horses that can be summoned (from d3 to d6) and states that chevalls were "created by the Immortal Zirchev to be the protector of Horses in Traladara lands."

My opinion: this monster is dumb and completely unnecessary. Yeah, yeah, I suck. Listen up: I am fine with some kind of magical "protector of horses" if you want a more fairy tale-esque type of Karameikos. But then simply make it a centaur...heck, re-skin all centaurs with this type of background if you don't want it to be a handful of concerned eco-guerrilla types. OR (if you prefer your centaurs to be of the Grecian "wine up and rape" variety) simply make the "chevall" a magical faerie horse, something like the Celtic pooka. Mixing your already-weird animal hybrid with a magical animal shapeshifter is just adding syrup on sweet, you know? Yuck.

And anyway, the original creature (from B10) seems to have been yet another moralistic bludgeon to force players to act heroically: "Oh be good or the seven hit dice, un-hitable centaur will sneak up on you (disguised as a horse) and free all your livestock." Hey, DM: F that noise. Seriously. This is just plain stupid.

OKAY...now that's out of the way, I can move onto the "main event."

Another good role for
Willem Dafoe.

In Karameikos, a nosferatu is "a powerful indeed creature that strongly resembles the vampire." The word, of course, comes from the term made popular by the Bram Stoker's novel Dracula and the German (unauthorized) film adaptation of Stoker's book, which took the word for its name. Stoker (and others before him) alleged that "nosferatu" was the Romanian word for "vampire" (it is not), and the etymology and origin the term is open to debate. Still, for a fantasy monster in a fantasy setting resembling a fantasy Romania...well, why not?

The creature resembles a vampire in most aspects, including powers and "most weaknesses" (one assumes clerical turning, too, though this is not explicit). However, unlike other B/X undead the nosferatu retains the class abilities it had in life (including spell use, etc.); they can be of any alignment (lawful cleric nosferatu? Interesting), and very old Nosferatu are unaffected by the light of the sun. Fortunately, a stake through the heart of a B/X vampire finishes the creature (without the need for decapitation and holy wafers), otherwise destroying an aged nosferatu would be tremendously difficult.

The other difference (most would probably say the main difference) is that nosferatu do not drain energy levels for sustenance; instead, they drink blood. They have a bite attack that does 1d4 damage, but will otherwise use standard weapons/spells in combat...they don't even gain the 1d10 melee attack from their "powerful blows" that has been present since Supplement I (Greyhawk).

Gosh Bradstreet had
great art in VtM.

As a vampire mod for DMs that want a little more Stoker/cinema and a lot less energy drain (and players complaining about energy drain), the nosferatu is fine, perhaps retaining the vampire's regular (strong) melee attacks, perhaps adding some of the traditional eastern European folklore (like the creature being the illegitimate offspring of two illegitimate persons). It's tempting to make the monster as hideous as the World of Darkness clan of the same name...but I prefer not to heap curse upon curse (as vampirism is its own curse without the extra mutation).

Only one question remains that continues to irritate me: why retain the normal vampire as well as the nosferatu? Why have both a Lord Zemiros Sulescu (nosferatu) AND a Baron Koriszegy (vampire)? Why retain both monsters in the same culture?

Eh. It's late and I'm nit-picking. It's a very easy thing to pick one form of immortal bloodsucker over another. Just as the creators of the Chevall should have chosen one form of magical horse protector.

RPGaDAY 2017 #23

From the #RPGaDAY2017 challenge (info here):

Which RPG has the most jaw-dropping layout?

Layout, huh? I can only interpret this question as meaning "jaw-droppingly bad," as there are only two kinds of layout: functional and dysfunctional. There's no such thing as mind-blowingly great layout. It's either adequate for conveying the game, or it's poor at doing so.

There are actually a few I can think of that had some poor layout. I didn't think much of HOL (Human Occupied Landfill), though I "get" that the RPG was supposed to be some kind of "joke." The Malkavian Clanbook for Vampire: The Masquerade was designed with a similar "joke" in mind (and was similarly un-funny)...but as it is only a splatbook, I don't think I can count it as bonafide RPG.

I don't own World of Synnibar anymore, but while I seem to recall it being a trainwreck in the layout department, I can't verify that's actually the case without looking at it (Synnibar had a LOT of design flaws already, so I don't want to "pile on" based on a memory from two decades back). Palladium games (Rifts, Heroes Unlimited, TMNT, Beyond the Supernatural, etc.) aren't any great shakes in the layout department; however, they are consistent in the way their books are laid out, so once you've figured out one, you've pretty much got them all. First edition Chivalry & Sorcery has fairly adequate layout, but the font for the text is sooooo small (they really wanted to save on page count, I guess), it's really challenging to read.

No, I think the game who's layout was the worst in my mind (that stand out, anyway) is the original Villains & Vigilantes RPG. I didn't actually acquire the game until a few years ago (long after V&V had gone out of print and then revived), so I was probably biased by 21st century sensibilities; still, I can remember opening the cover and being disappoint and slightly distressed at the haphazard layout of the game, the lack of (to my mind) adequate information, and the overall poor presentation of the rules (despite fine artwork).

Sorry to single you out, Jeff Dee.

RPGaDAY 2017 #13

From the #RPGaDAY2017 challenge (info here):

[as I'm starting this thing a little late, I shall be doubling up on my daily posts until I catch up. Early posts will be post-dated to the date they were originally supposed to appear]

Describe a game experience that changed how you play.

Hmm...that's yet another tough question. I suppose they're designed that way, to promote thoughtful responses.
; )

Welp, it's hard to single out an instance of a game experience "changing" how I play. All the experiences I've had over the years, both at and away from the table, have gone into creating my "gaming acumen." Other than growing older and more mature (and perhaps a bit smarter, if not wiser), the way I play these days isn't much different from how I played 30-some years ago. I'm probably less self-conscious than I was in the past, more willing to "step up to the plate" when playing (as opposed to hanging back with a wait-and-see attitude). I'm more "proactive" when gaming, both in stance and action...but that comes with confidence from growing up and knowing yourself and not worrying terribly about what kind of an ass you make of yourself.

Now, as far as running games, there HAVE been ways I've distinctly changed my gaming style over the years. However, most of the ways in which I've changed have come about from things that occurred outside of play. However, looking back I can see at least one instance where an in-game occurrence prompted me to reconsider my approach to running games.

This was circa 1990 or '91 and I was running Vampire: the Masquerade for several high school buddies. It was my last year of high school proper, and these guys: Michael, Mike, and Ben had been my main gaming partners for the last couple years. Usually, I was a player in our games (they ran a lot of Palladium: mostly Heroes Unlimited or Robotech) though I had run a couple one-off games (Stormbringer and Rifts). Mostly, though, I'd been burned out on GMing after years of being a Dungeon Master (I'd likewise burned out on D&D, quitting play around the same time 2nd Edition came out), and was content to simply "ride along" as a passenger in someone else's world. That is, until I found Vampire and was inspired to take up the mantle of "Storyteller." There was a lot in VtM that appealed to an angsty 90's teenager like myself. Plus, I'd been a vampire fan since I was a very, very small child.

[fortunately I went to college before the whole "goth" thing started happening, so I never got swept up in that]

[*sigh* I should probably write a series of posts on Vampire and vampires one of these days]

ANYway...I was running Vampire for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the idea of the types of stories the game wanted to tell. World o Darkness games are all about storytelling, don'tcha' know...they just expect the players to do the work of creating the stories (rather than providing tools/systems to facilitate this *ahem*). So, here I was trying to tell stories of grim tragedy and dark romance and lost humanity in an intimate style that I was used to from my experiences back in the day with my prior AD&D group...and I was doing it with dudes who were, well, not all that into it.

As Ben told me during one session, "Look, man, I'm really not comfortable with this."

Ah, blood bonds. Yeah, they REALLY
weren't into this kind of thing!

My friend Michael was into it...but Michael, like myself, was interested in stage and theater and role-playing and character exploration. Ben and Mike? Ben would have rather been playing Steve Jackson's Toon. And Mike once told me, after I'd taken him to see some Oscar-nominated British drama, "Well, Jon, it didn't have any action, and it really wasn't funny, so I don't get why you think it's so great." Yeah, they collected comic books and they enjoyed a space opera anime liked Robotech (loved it, in fact...owned the whole series on VHS and had watched it multiple times), but they couldn't give a shit about anything other than super-powered punch-ups and giant robots exploding...melodramatic love triangles and mutant angst be damned!

So, I learned that sometimes you can have friends, even gamer friends, who aren't on the same page with you. Like, at all. And when you're running a game for them, you have to take this into account and accept it...or else move on. My Vampire games with those guys mostly involved shoot-outs with cops or discipline-powered duels and diablerie, and that's fine...I was a big fan of Near Dark long before VtM was a game. And eventually I moved on, and found other folks at university who had more of my mind-set when it came to role-playing.

You can't please everyone all the time. Not even yourself.

[folks interested in my "Day 4" post for the #RPGaDAY, can check out this link]

RPGaDAY 2017 #12

From the #RPGaDAY2017 challenge (info here):

[as I'm starting this thing a little late, I shall be doubling up on my daily posts until I catch up. Early posts will be post-dated to the date they were originally supposed to appear]

Which RPG has the most inspiring interior art?

Oh, boy. There are plenty of RPGs with good, excellent, or downright amazing artwork. But inspiring?

Mm.

Actually, I don't need to draw this out...one RPG springs immediately to mind, and is the hands-down, no brainer answer to the question. But I suppose I should describe what I think of as "inspiring RPG artwork." To me, I consider artwork in an RPG to be inspiring when it tightly fits the theme of the game, reinforcing it, and inspiring me to take part in the actual play of the game...in a way that coincides with the art being depicted.

Games can include good, even great or amazing artwork, but it's not always "inspiring" in this way. Spirit of 77 has some good art but, while it conjures to mind ideas about the concept of the game, it doesn't "move" me (and some of its "good" art actually detracts from the 70s movie vibe, feeling too much like a 90s comic book). Cadillacs and Dinosaurs had great interior art because it used Mark Schultz's wonderful drawings, but it only made me want to read more Schultz, not play its boring, boring game.

But there are many games with inspiring art: if the artwork in Moldvay's basic book hadn't been so inspiring, would I have fell into role-playing as passionately as I did? And I find Larry Elmore's work in the Mentzer Expert set is exceptionally inspiring for the scale and scope of that book. Hollow Earth Expedition has some great interior art, Stormbringer (1st) has some plates that convey the rather hopelessness of the setting (everyone dies, all the time), and FFG's recent line of WH40K based books (Deathwatch, Only War, etc.) have absolutely incredible interiors unified around their themes.

But for me, the most inspiring interior artwork I've come across has been the interior artwork of Vampire the Masquerade, 1st edition. Tim Bradstreet's black-and-white drawings perfectly capture the spirit and theme of "Gothic Punk," making that an actual thing, where no such term previously existed (to my knowledge, anyway). Along with his gorgeous chapter plates, the opening comic strip detailing a vampire's birth and journey over long centuries perfectly conveyed the scope and scale of the game. The second edition of the game was hardcover with shiny, magazine-like pages that failed to convey the same feeling of the 1st edition printing. The original was like opening some old tome found in an upstairs attic and discovering a mysterious world you never knew existed.  It made me a fan and player of the game for many years.

Yeah, Vampire. Hands down the best when it comes to inspiring interior artwork.

[folks interested in my "Day 2" post for the #RPGaDAY, can check out this link. "Day 3" is posted here. Sorry, I'll be caught up soon]

RPGaDAY 2017 #9

From the #RPGaDAY2017 challenge (info here):

[as I'm starting this thing a little late, I shall be doubling up on my daily posts until I catch up. Early posts will be post-dated to the date they were originally supposed to appear]

What is a good RPG to play for about 10 sessions?

Ten sessions? That's a tough one. And it depends on a lot of factors: how long are these sessions we're talking about? Short, two hour sessions? Or those eight hour marathons sessions we used to play on the weekends in our youth?

Do the ten sessions include prep between sessions? Are we allowed pre- and post-game maintenance phases a la Ars Magica or Pendragon? Are players familiar with the system that's being played? Is this one of those games where you have to kill an entire session just to create characters for the game?

There are a lot of games that can be adapted to this kind of "mini-series" format, but they won't always provide satisfying gameplay. Some RPGs, like Dungeons & Dragons, only show their true strengths over long-term play. Some RPGs, like Ron Edward's Sorcerer, can't be drawn out past three or four sessions without feeling contrived and over-long. Even Call of Cthulhu begs for a shorter time period...if half the group isn't insane after five or six sessions, your GM isn't doing it right.

However, tough as it is, JB does have an answer that satisfies...at least if it was ME that had to run a ten (and only ten) game session. And that answer is The Hunters Hunted from White Wolf.

No, I don't mean that big orange monstrosity they put out in 1999; that was Hunter: the Reckoning, and it helped make a game line (World of Darkness) that was already a little too super heroic even more so (to my chagrin as a fan). In fact, even though I stopped insanely collecting every WW book and supplement about the time of the original Wraith ("the Oblivion") it was the publication of Hunter: the Reckoning which caused me to turn my back on the whole WoD game line (I had still been picking up the occasional Black Dog imprint for Vampire). Ugly.

Nope, I'm talking about the original VtM supplement written by Bill Bridges and published in 1992. At under 90 pages it provided pretty much everything you needed to create and run a Hunter campaign, in the classic vampire horror story style (think Fright Night, Salem's Lot, Bram Stoker, etc.). It's quite good, for what it is, and it's absolutely perfect for a short-term series, whether you want to play over-the-top (Buffy, Blade) or something darker and more grim. Ten sessions is plenty of time for a group of would-be hunters to chase down the handful of vamps (or coterie of mages or clan of werewolves...whatever) inhabiting a medium-sized city.

THIS one! Yes, it's scary...scary fun!

And ten sessions is great for the type of development that occurs in the standard Vampire game (characters start out relatively proficient, and won't grow to super heroic proportions in ten sessions...especially mortals who lack vampiric disciplines). Unlike other systems (Palladium, D20 Modern) there's no pressure to "level up," as there are no levels. Yeah, the short time frame of the saga won't be a hindrance to character advancement in HH.

I've only had the opportunity to run a Hunters Hunted saga once...and (if I remember correctly) it was the last time I ran any World of Darkness game (I ran WW games through the end of high school and all through college...a good five or six years, at least). My main player wanted to try a WoD game, but "didn't want to play a monster;" a Hunters game seemed like the obvious choice. While we had a great time, he decided he wanted to switch to a standard vampire after the first couple of sessions...the overall vibe of playing a mortal had been a little too freaky/scary for him. Too bad, really (especially as we never got back to VtM, switching instead to 3rd Edition D&D), because I had really been grooving on the whole thing. Unleashed my inner Crypt Keeper or something.
; )

I've often thought of dusting off Ye Old Hunters Hunted and rewriting it with a B/X chassis (perhaps using elements of Beyond the Supernatural), but I just haven't had the heart to do so. Bridges wrote a fine little supplement for Vampire. It's one White Wolf game I wouldn't mind running again.

"Last Words..."

"As two relative neophytes to the gaming industry, we aren't exactly sure what reception our baby...will get out there. Putting our time, energy, and scanty resources into this project has been an adventure for us, and it's now coming to an end, or rather to a climax. For now is the time of truth, the moment when we discover if others out their share our tastes, and if our thoughts were actually headed in the right direction all along. We must admit that we are tense with anxiety as we finally let this game slip from our sticky fingers and let it be at last completed. It is difficult indeed to stop working on a well-loved project that has taken more than two years of our lives to complete (in all four hemispheres of the earth!), and may take many more to be successful. If even at all.

"While we were designing, we had one main concept lodged tightly in our minds -- that was to make a role-playing game that helped us role-play, that let players immerse themselves in other people's lives, and for a time at least, vicariously live out those lives completely. Realism, playability, excitement, and personality were only included insofar as they move this game toward that goal.

"Now it only remains to be seen how many role-players there are out there, and how well this game suits their needs."


Jonathan Tweet and Mark Rein-Hagen
Ars Magica, first edition
1987

The wizard writes...

I think it's important for folks to remember that everyone starts somewhere; that we all have hopes and fears and doubts. And that we shouldn't let that stop us from putting out our labors of love even in the face of gigantic opposition or competition. 

Hopefully that inspires some folks. I know it inspires me.

; )

Hunting Witches

This is Tim Brannan's fault.

I love the concept of the witch hunter, of witch hunting, in general. Not in the "red scare" sense of the phrase, nor even the historical Inquisition-mananged mass murder of people-who-don't-think-and-worship-like-us. No, I'm talking about fantasy witch-hunting: the idea that there are dark and sinister supernatural forces out there and some heroic folks have been chosen for the gig of hunting said forces.

Nostalgia of the Nineties

As a premise for an RPG, this isn't a terribly original idea...more than a couple of Pelgrane Press's GUMSHOE games fall into this category, as does Beyond the Supernatural, InSpectres, and (to a lesser degree) Call of Cthulhu. The Mutant Chronicles certainly had a large dose of SciFi flavored witch hunting to it. Heck, there was even a game called Witch Hunters that was published a few years back, though I'd break out the old White Wolf Hunters Hunted supplement (for 1E VtM) long before I'd ever put down money for such a book/system.

[The Hunters Hunted is a truly under appreciated gem of a supplement/mini-game that I should blog about some time.  I realize it led to its own game line eventually ("Hunters Reckoning," I think?) but I got a lot of mileage off that original, slim volume. Very cool and one of the best Vampire products]

And, for more medieval-style games, there are plenty of witch hunters to be found in the Warhammer universe...I'm not sure if the latest version of WHFRP has them, but the first couple editions (through Hogshead) had witch hunters as an advanced career path, and you could play an entire warband of witch hunters in the Mordheim game.

But for old school D&D...the pre-2E editions...the idea of the witch hunter is a bit of a tough sell. After all, old school D&D isn't about hunting anything. Anything besides treasure, that is.

After reading Tim's post this morning, I (momentarily) considered an idea for a new B/X supplement...a campaign setting featuring a world where most of the "fantasy" elements were all (to some degree) aspects or side effects of supernatural evil. Evil of an inhuman, alien nature, filtered in  from other dimensions, through rifts made wide by human sorcerers who were willing to bargain away their souls...hell, their very world...for a taste of power. In such a setting, player characters would have a chance to be real heroes, not just "scurrilous rogues," as they fight against the dark forces threatening their planet. "Orcs" would simply be bestial, mutated humans. "Goblins" would be hellish imps, the lowest demons serving dark masters. All monsters in the B/X game could be re-skinned as devils and demons and twisted pawns of alien intelligences.

But it's a world closer to WHFRP's Enemy Within campaign than Palladium's Wormwood. This campaign setting hasn't yet been overrun, nor even is it on the verge of Armageddon...but without the aid of witch-hunting PCs, it could move to that DEFCON stage. This is a world that calls for hunters to root out the bad juju.

In such a setting, witch-hunters would take the place of the cleric class, as what type of divinely intervening deity would allow the world of Its worshippers to be so mistreated? Undead would certainly play a lesser role in such a campaign, and alternative forms of healing would be needed (perhaps fighters would be able to apply "field dressings" to wounded companions after combat, healing a certain number of HPs based on level). Such a game could be fun, though in a bleak way featuring corruption and cultists and whatnot; maybe something for use with Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Maybe.

Then I took a long nap.

And when I woke up and got my brain to running again, I realized "hey, wait a sec...this has nut-all to do with finding treasure." And that's when the wheels came off the concept. Because the LAZY way of handling such a thing would be to say, hey, it's just B/X with some different house rules...you're still looking to loot the chaotic monsters and evil cultists lairs (in order to earn XP, in order to level up). Because witch hunters need phat loot, too.

Um, no. We are not going to be playing characters interested in making a buck while Rome burns down around their ears.

And since on second (post-nap) pass, I see the concept would need a lot of substantial retooling of the B/X system in order to work to my standards, this is a project that'll have to be shelved for the time being. I'm already in the midst of a retooling/writing project, and I want to get that one knocked out. Too bad, though...I've already got a couple ideas for titles to such a project. And I've got some notes stashed away (somewhere) about retooling Realms of Chaos concepts for B/X that could probably be put to good use on such a project. Yeah, it would be an interesting setting to play/run in...

Shoot, I could probably adapt part of my (reworked) Cry Dark Future advancement system to the thing...

No, no, no...one thing at a time! Maybe if someone wants to collaborate with me on such a project so I don't have to do all the writing myself (ugh, I see why Kevin Siembieda is such a fan o the "cut-and-paste"), I could find some time for it.

Maybe.

Full-On Awesome

Back in rainy Seattle, sans family, and while I have a couple thoughtful, gaming posts planned, I just turned on the TV in time to see a preview for Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.

As a lover of both American History and satire (not to mention a bit of a vampire aficionado), is it terrible of me to hope this film is done well, and makes huge heaping gobs of ca$h at the box office?

Actually. come to think of it, I hope it doesn't do too well. As a one-off novelty, I'd hate to see it spoiled by becoming a multi-sequel franchise.

Oh, well...thoughtful posts later.

5 Questions (Analysis & Design)

Wow…it looks like I’m finally, finally going to be getting the last few pieces of artwork for my new B/X supplement by this weekend…which means (hopefully) I’ll be able to get a print run going in the next couple-six weeks. Which is GREAT NEWS since I’ve got to knock one book out before I can get to the next…and it seems like I’m always working on the next.

The last couple weeks I’ve been rolling some ideas around in my head (I mean, other than the whole combat/initiative thing) and wondering how to approach it. The concept is still a little nebulous at the moment: in my head it’s kind of a combo of Rifts-Twilight 2000-Appleseed with perhaps a bit of the Mutant Chronicles thrown in. A real “war game” set in a blasted, devastated future Earth…think of the old John Byrne OMAC mini-series. This is NOT a Thundarr the Barbarian kind of game (that’s already been done anyway), but more the horror of war mixed with the resignation of “wow, even if this ends, there’s not much left to celebrate.”

Kind of a depressing concept, I suppose, but it’s a way to work with certain tropes and stylings that interest me at the moment.

But nothing’s been committed to paper at this point. I’m still trying to crystallize the idea and ruminating on whether or not it would make a good RPG. Since I do RPGs, not (miniature) war games.

I know I’ve talked about game design more than a little on this blog. Lots have been written and posted to the web about different approaches to game design, many of which consist of answering a series of design/concept specific questions. For the most part these are all good things to think about (I don’t think there’s ANY “bad questions” for generating thought…), but I don’t usually follow any particular paradigm of design brainstorm. For example, I don’t usually do a Power 19 list, though I know that was popular for awhile.

However, there are some very specific things I look at when I analyze the PLAYABILITY of an existing RPG, and they may be good things to review in any potential game design…as the answers to these questions speak to the actual playability of a game, coming up with poor answers in the design process may be a sign that a particular concept needs to be junked. For my own amusement (and for the interest of my readers) I’ll list ‘em here:

1) What objective brings the player characters together?

2) Aside from personality, what is it that distinguishes one player character from another with regard to GAME PLAY?

3) What common game systems are accessible by all characters?

4) What rewards are given/earned in play?

5) How are rewards earned?

Question #1 is a matter of practicality: if a game can’t answer this in a satisfactory fashion, it may well be too broad a concept for real playability…at least for my purposes. Some people might like the “open-endedness” of GURPS, for example, but I see it as a pain the ass with a lot of potential pitfalls: there’s a lot of potential for players and GMs to be totally disconnected from the play expectations of each other. This is why I hate tool kits, and why many IP-specific-driven concepts are difficult to work.

Question #2 is a bone for players’ self-esteem, pure and simple. Not everyone is comfortable playing a game without defined “roles” unless the concept is exceptionally simple. Few players indeed are satisfied with just being defined by their in-game choices and behavior and like an actual set of rules describing what makes their character "special."

Question #3 is the bone for the GM…it defines what characters can actually DO and can tell me if the scope of the rules are too broad (or too narrow). If my skills as a GM are going to be taken up searching out obscure systems in the rule book or if I’m going to be able to focus on running the game…and if the systems provided are specific enough (and on board) with the concept of the game.

Question #4 explains what, besides the joy of play, is the “bennie” of play. What are players working towards? I prefer long-term, serial play (for the development and identification of characters and subsequent stronger role-playing). In order to sustain this type of play, one must provide incentives.

Question #5 examines whether or not the behavior associated with the incentive actually directs game play in the proper direction. Well-designed games match concept-driven behavior with specific incentives to channel game-play in a particular direction; poorly designed games do not.

I can apply all five of these questions to games I like to play on a more than “one-off” basis. Many Story Now games don’t bother with answering these questions because they just want to create short stories through role-playing: addressing premise within a specific scenario or event to have a nice little bit of emotional or intellectual catharsis. Which is cool and all…I enjoy this type of play on occasion myself. But I prefer long-term play, pretending to be “a character” in a fantasy environment. I prefer the development of a (character/world) concept over time…because I want to live the fantasy for awhile. I enjoy long films and novels, too. I’m weird that way.

Let me give a couple examples of using these Five Questions:

Old School D&D (regardless of the silliness of the premise) is a pretty well-designed game from the perspective of my questions:

1) Common Objective: Characters are a party of adventurers; they share the goal of plumbing a dungeon for treasure.
2) PC Distinction: Characters are distinguished by class (in some editions by the sub-class “race”).
3) Common Abilities: Characters share the in-game systems of combat, saving throws, and searching (for traps and secret doors). Other actions PCs wish to take may require DM rulings. Class specific systems (multiple attacks, thief skills, cleric turning, spell-casting and magic item creation) are limited in scope and thus easy to manage.
4) Rewards: Characters gain levels increasing class effectiveness and survivability.
5) Rewarded Behavior: Characters gain XP for acquiring treasure and defeating opponents.

Compare this with the equally tight old school game Top Secret:

1) Common Objective: Characters are secret agents of a particular agency: they share a common mission.
2) PC Distinction: Characters are distinguished by Bureau (classification) and Areas of Knowledge known.
3) Common Abilities: Characters share all systems: combat, interacting with contacts, defeating security, chases. Other types of action may require rulings by the GM (what other actions do you need?).
4) Rewards: Characters increase effectiveness by spending earned XP on ability scores; characters earn fame points with levels.
5) Rewarded Behavior: Characters earn XP and money for completing mission objectives, earning bonuses for accomplishing objectives within their own Bureau’s sphere (for example, killing someone for a member of the Assassination Bureau).

Now let’s look at Vampire the Masquerade, an RPG I deem problematic in a number of ways, despite appreciating the aesthetics and general premise of the game:

1) Common Objective: None. It is suggested characters are a “coterie” of individuals and provides some possible reasons for banding together (they’re all anarchists for example). However, if one player wants to be a member of the establishment and another an anarchist, well…
2) PC Distinction: Characters are distinguished by Clan which provides specific disciplines (vampire powers), weaknesses, and political leanings. However, as being members of the same clan is an easy method to bring players together, well...
3) Common Abilities: There is an EXTENSIVE list of systems to which all characters have access; most come down to an ability+skill roll versus a specific target number that varies depending on the system. There are nine abilities and a ton of skills.
4) Rewards: Characters increase effectiveness by spending earned XP to boost abilities, skills, and disciplines but it requires a LOT of XP to do so, especially in the 2nd (and later) editions, making progress exceptionally slow.
5) Rewarded Behavior: Characters receive XP for showing up to play, “good role-playing” (undefined), “danger,” and “learning something.” Each of these things is worth 1 XP. None of them reinforce the concept or provide influence on in-game behavior.

You’ll note these questions do not address specific systems only the concepts that underly those systems. The Vampire system, for example, works fairly well and quickly, compared to, say, Top Secret’s horribly clunky hand-to-hand combat lists…but the latter is more coherent from a design standpoint because it reinforces what the game is all about. An assassin gets bonus rewards for killing (class distinction) and all characters get bonuses for “clean killings” (knifing someone in a dark alley rather than blazing away with automatic weapons in broad daylight, for example)…and smart players in TS are going to avoid combat anyway if it’s not pertinent to the (shared) mission objective. Vampire has a neat combat system…that has nothing to do with anything. Why bother?

[for those unfamiliar with VTM, allow me to elaborate for a moment. Your characters are vampires in the modern day. You’re supposed to be concerned with vampire politics, the loss of humanity associated with becoming a monster, the mysteries of the vampiric origin and possible methods of overcoming one’s curse…I mean, those are the “themes” and major plots of the game. But then you have a large section on combat and the use of firearms and “soaking damage” and the effects of spending “blood points” and all these other fancy, slick systems. I mean, combat isn’t even necessary to drink blood (mortals simply succumb to the vampiric “kiss” automatically without rolls) but it’s important to know the difference between a large automatic handgun and a small automatic handgun? Is it any wonder that many (most) Vampire games turn into gun battles with cops?]

Let’s look at another game designed for serial play that is problematic for me, despite slick mechanics: Traveller. I currently own the nicely done Mongoose version and it frustrates me to no end:

1) Common Objective: None. It appears to assume that all PCs are a member of the same ship’s crew, off in search of adventure. Of course, it’s possible that none of the PCs will have acquired a ship during character creation. And then there’s the difference in expectations (what if some players wants a Star Trek “exploratory mission” while another player wants to be a band of roving mercenaries or pirates?...total disconnect!).
2) PC Distinction: None. I mean, characters will PROBABLY have different skills (or different degrees of skills) based on careers chosen in their pre-adventuring life…but many skills are shared between careers and besides money and gear, past career really provides zero in-game distinction.
3) Common Abilities: All characters use the same slick skill system. The only uncommon abilities would be if a character has psi powers unavailable to others.
4) Rewards: None except money earned for missions, allowing the financing of additional missions, I guess.
5) Rewarded Behavior: Trading or accepting missions that pay money will get you money.

There is no common objective in Traveller and no real incentive for play other than “wanting to play Traveller.” As opposed to (I suppose) a different “space game.”

Now, of course, lots of folks play Traveller and manage this through the time honored tradition of putting the whole goddam burden of the game on the GM’s shoulders. Great, fantastic. Some folks want that burden…you’re welcome to it. I don’t want it. I don’t want to be responsible for “finding a way to make it work” (let alone, “make it fun”). Throw THAT in my face and I’ll probably shrug it off in favor of a different RPG (at least Star Frontiers has the Pan Galactic Corporation versus the Sathar).

Anyhoo, these are more-or-less the first five questions I ask when reading a new RPG. To be sure, there are other sub-categories to the questions that I haven’t bothered to list here as many pertain to my own personal prejudices (example: under Question 3 would fall the sub-question – “Does the designer lazily rely on a damn ‘skill system’ for resolving in-game action?”). But I think they’re helpful “conceptual” things to think about when designing one’s own game…whether it’s your own version of D&D or some new twist on the Zombie Apocalypse idea.

At least, they’re helpful to ME. If I can’t answer these questions to my own satisfaction with regard to my own game design, I can junk the whole project without needing to worry about the specific systems of the game. Why? ‘Cause it’s probably not going to be a game I want to play!
; )