The Art Of Peril

 Continuing from the prior post...

As several astute commenters deduced, this discussion on art in D&D was "goosed" into action by Delta's blog post on "old school" art from Monday. Delta's main point was that:

"...one of the biggest sensibility differences between old-school D&D art and and newer-school art is the amount of violence depicted against ostensibly player-character-types..."

I have some quibbles with Delta's conclusion ("flipping through the earliest 1st Edition materials, you're going to get the idea that in D&D, player-character life is cheap") but not with his declarative that the images presented are going to create particular ideas in the minds of the reader. Again, returning to my prior post, our imagination constructs ideas and images from memories, and memories at their base are generated from external (sensory) stimuli.

Dungeons & Dragons is a fantasy game that absolutely requires imagination (in all participants) to play effectively. I would go so far as to say imagination is probably the defining characteristic of role-playing games, as opposed to computer (video) games, board games, or card games, ALL of which are playable without imaginative input from the participants involved. As such the importance of exercising one's imagination (both through use and through assimilation of pertinent memories for use) cannot be understated. The ability to play the game is limited by one's imagination (or lack thereof), and as we wish to pay attention to how that imagination is cultivated, we should take a hard look at the purpose and objective of the game.

Dungeons & Dragons is a game of facing peril and overcoming its challenges.

This is clearly evident from the rules of the game. No, D&D is not a game about "telling stories;" as I have written (often) before, there are MANY role-playing games that are designed to create/tell stories (in many genres!) and that serve that purpose better than D&D. Folks using D&D as a vehicle to tell stories are pretty lazy (or else suckers for the marketing). Systems are not included to be ignored; dice are not rolled because players "like rolling dice." The fantasy world of role-playing IS designed to amuse, entertain, fascinate, astound, and escape reality. Yes, absolutely. But the game is designed with the mechanics it's given in order to face peril and overcome challenge. This is the reason for combat rules. And armor class. And hit points. And saving throws. Etc.

SO...given the above raison d'etre of D&D, let's take a look at the artwork that is Oh So Necessary for implanting those building blocks of imagination (integral to the game) and the job they do at conveying the perilous nature of the game.

I spent roughly three hours this morning combing through the core books (PHB, DMG, and MM) of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions of D&D making notes on the artwork and just how much "peril" was communicated. Things I looked for were instances of evident fear (either on terrified faces or actual flight), instances of helplessness or restraint/capture, killing blows (i.e. an attack from which the individual was most definitely NOT going to walk away from without clerical assistance), "zaps" (from traps or magical monster attacks that may or or may not be lethal), and the presence of Already Dead Bodies. At first, I attempted to do a simple count for each book, giving more weight to some illustration over other (half a point for a scared face, two points for a killing blow that shows entrails/viscera, etc.), but the results were somewhat confused and, for my purposes, not nearly descriptive enough. So I went back through all the illos (again) and simply made tallies for each particular instance of each category for each book.

For an illo to be counted, the recipient of the "peril" had to be a PC type (the dragon on p.21 of the 1E DMG doesn't count, for example, as all the creatures being killed are kobolds). Overwhelming odds (the purple worm on p.166 of the 1E DMG) or potential surprise (p.91 of the MM, p.99 of the DMG3) were NOT counted for purposes of "peril" as such illustrations could simple be viewed as "precursors to heroism," or some such. Neither were the cover illustrations of ANY edition counted in any way (as covers are prone to change, even within editions)...only interior artwork was reviewed. Artwork taken from earlier products (2E illos include a LOT of previously published artwork from 1st edition) still count towards peril, as the illos were used in the core books and thus help teach the game to prospective players.

Here then are the results, as I calculated them:

1st Edition (AD&D)

Fear: 18

Held/Helpless: 12

Kill Shot: 8

Dead Body: 6

Zapped!: 7

Total: 51

AD&D 2E

Fear: 4

Held/Helpless: 1

Kill Shot: 2

Dead Body: 4*

Zapped!: 1

Total: 12

DND3 (3rd Edition)

Fear: 6

Held/Helpless: 10

Kill Shot: 1

Dead Body: 2*

Zapped!: 3

Total: 23

*Dead bodies! Okay...let's talk about these for a moment. Three of these four instances in 2E feature "bodies in repose" that may or may not simply be sleeping, they looked so peaceful (and no evidence of violence...see p.125 of the PHB2 and p.24 of the DMG2). The final one seems obvious; equally obvious, however, is the party's intention to raise their companion (p.116, DMG2). The "dead bodies" in 3E are even more "iffy" in nature: the caption on p.153 of the PHB3 tells me the individual is dead, but he looks more like someone having his leg regenerated. The other image (from the MM3) appears to be a mermaid helping a drowned man (p.135)...hardly "peril."

Oh, and speaking of iffy...the thing that's really absent from 3E, compared to the first two editions is any sensations of fear...hell, there's hardly any trepidation illustrated. The six instances of "fear" counted for DND3 all come from the MM3. Four counts come from the illustration of the tarrasque (where four small figures are seen running from one of the most tremendous threats of the D&D universe, p.174). Yes, I count each character as one "instance"...more fear, more death makes more impression from a single illo. The other two instances of fear in the MM3 are also instances of small figures running from gigantic foes: the remorhaz (p.155) and the red dragon (p.67). There are plenty of other illos where small figures stand toe-to-toe with impunity against huge and colossal monsters.

Yeah...no.

And that's what really causes me to shake my head in looking at these late editions. Just what do the art directors think D&D is about? What are they conveying to the reader? Because, I'll tell you that any adventurer who thinks he's going to stare down a purple worm in ANY edition is probably asking to be eaten. 

The illustrations of post-1st AD&D simply fail in communicating the perils inherent in the game. Keep in mind that 1E has plenty of illustrations that do NOT contain peril: images showing heroic confrontation, or fantasy and wonder abound in the pages of the PHB and DMG (whose share of "peril images" I count as 9 and 12, respectively). Yet, 1E still manages to communicate the danger of the game world to the reader. Not (as Delta concluded) that "life is cheap," but that fear and death are a part of the game.  This is preparation for the imagination. 

Failing to prepare the mind with art showing only heroic confrontation, victorious parties, and happy tavern scenes (a lot of these in 2E for some reason...) is going to lead to false expectations and, I can only imagine, DM fudging and protectionism to stave off player disappointment. At least in 2nd edition, which is close enough to 1E that players should be gaffled just as readily for stupid shit as in the original Advanced game.  In 3E, I suppose disappointed expectations can be avoided with careful use of that edition's complex challenge system and obsessive attention to optimal "character builds."

Anyway... some folks asked me about B/X and how its art helps illustrate the perils of that particular edition. By my method of calculation there are only two instances of character peril illustrated in the contents (both in the Basic book; both of the "zapped!" variety). My own B/X Companion (which was illustrated to my specifications and in like vein to the original books) contains only two instances of peril, one each of the "kill shot" and "dead body" variety (actually, just a severed arm being gnawed by a Baba Yaga-like hag). That ain't much peril. However, Moldvay's basic book supplements this by providing detailed play examples (in both the Encounter/Combat section and the Dungeon Mastering section) featuring player character death. Gygax does likewise in the 1st edition DMG (p.71 and then p.97-100...the latter describes a particularly gruesome PC demise). While such textual examples are helpful in making explicit the perilous nature of the D&D game, I don't think there's any debating the old saw "a picture is worth a thousand words." More images of peril would go a loooong way.

Fortunately, we also have adventure modules to help us out:

"Uh-oh."

By the way, I also calc'd out the first edition Fiend Folio art because I consider it part of my personal "core" AD&D volumes, even if the numbers weren't added above. Here's how that most grim and perilous tome stats out in terms of communicating "peril" through its artwork:

Fiend Folio (1E)

Fear: 12

Held/Helpless: 22

Kill Shot: 8

Dead Body: 2

Zapped!: 2

Total: 46

I think the fact that the total instances of character peril in the FF alone is more than the combined core books of 2E and 3E says quite a bit about the game's art direction post-1988.

[I don't own copies of 4E or 5E so I can't comment on those particular volumes. However, as game play for those two editions are fairly distinct from earlier editions...even 3E...perhaps those editions' artwork conveys exactly what they're supposed to communicate]

Comments, as always, are welcome.

: )

Badass Holmes

This post goes out to all those sexy players of “Original Basic.”

Holmes D&D, or “Homes Basic,” or “Blue Book Basic,” whatever you want to call it…is the sole edition of Dungeons & Dragons I haven’t played. Well, except for “4E,” but as I’ve written before, I don’t really consider this an edition of D&D.

Holmes, despite its idiosyncrasies (five point alignment scheme) definitely qualifies as D&D in my book, and not just because it has “fantasy characters fighting fantasy monsters in a fantasy world” (which I don’t think is a proper definition of D&D anyway). And with all respect to those fighters out there, I think most Holmes edition adventurers will be doing what they can to AVOID combat if at all possible.

But we’ll get to that in a second. As I said, this is the one edition of “true” D&D I’ve never played. Heck, I’d never even seen a copy of it till I was able to buy TWO boxed sets from my local game shop last year (and cool beans I did, as I got first printing of B2: Keep on the Borderlands and a sepia cover copy of B1: In Search of the Unknown along with the books). I’ve read the rules a couple times, but as my gaming time is limited these days anyway, I prefer to stick to my beloved B/X when I game D&D. Still, I would LOVE to play (or run) a games of Holmes. Every time I skim the rules, it brings up a particular itch that I just keep wanting to scratch:

The need to be a badass.

That’s right…BAD ASS. Right on the cover of Homes it states, “the original ADULT fantasy RPG.” It might as well have the sub-caption, “Only Badasses Need Apply.” Because I am utterly convinced it takes Big, Brass Balls to play Holmes D&D.

Unless you’re some sort of masochist.

Let’s break it down with the basics:

Presumed Assumption #1: RPG designers know what they’re doing and designers do things for a reason.

Presumed Assumption #2: A game is a game, regardless of how it looks. There is no preconceived notion of how an RPG should appear.

Presumed Assumption#3: While there may be multiple editions of a game system, there are certain recognizable facets of a game that mark it as part of a family, even if it is its own edition.

[just go with me here for a couple minutes]

OKAY…so if you take these three presumptions to be facts, we can define Holmes as a pretty interesting animal.

Exhibit A: Holmes is D&D. Just having the name slapped on the front of the book doesn’t mean it’s D&D, but having those “recognizable facets” does. See my earlier nerd post: Holmes meets the criteria in every regard, and under presumption #3 we can say, “this IS D&D.”

Exhibit B: Holmes is its “own” edition. Holmes has rules that are different from every other edition of D&D. 5-tier alignment, certain combat systems (like initiative), functioning of particular magic effects, etc. If we see a game that doesn’t synchronize with any other game, and we agree with presumption #1, than we must acknowledge Holmes as its own edition…it is neither a precursor to AD&D, nor to the Cook/Marsh Expert set, though it states it is the former and is semi-adopted in the introduction to the latter. Holmes exists outside of the general space-time continuum of D&D, even though it is readily recognizable as D&D (see Exhibit A).

Exhibit C: Holmes the Badass Edition. If we operate under presumption #2 (practice non-attachment to how the game is “supposed” to look); Holmes is a self-contained game. After all, it is designed how it’s designed. It doesn’t go “with” anything (see Exhibit B). It is what it is.

And what is it? A world where your characters go from 1st level to 3rd…and yet the monsters range from goblins and kobolds up to purple worms and vampires. This is a brutal, brutal world…one where poison means instant death for an adventurer and one in which there is no cure for that poison. Fighters never reach “hero” status (per other editions, that would be a 4th level fighter, and Holmes fighters never get there), and magic-users never gain more than a (small) handful of spells. The only wizards with any power are NPCs…and they are probably of the ancient, stooped and wizened variety to have gained so much power.

Now I’m not the first blogger to suggest Holmes be treated as its own game…one crazy, gritty, nose-to-the-ground game that only goes to 3rd level. I’ve read other Holmes enthusiasts who suggested discarding any pre-conceived notions that Holmes players MUST graduate to AD&D or an Expert set or one of those home-made-internet-downloads-that-continue-Holmes. This is an Old Subject in the realm of Old School blogging.

But instead of looking at THAT particular glass as half-empty (“imagine a D&D campaign where your characters are always eating dirt”), I prefer to remember that adventurers in a D&D game are already a cut-above the Normal Man. Holmes adventurers ARE heroes, even if they aren’t capital-H “Heroes” or even superheroes…but they are heroes. The best kind of heroes. The badass kind.

What is a hero? Well, if I skip the historical definition (of the mythological, half-divine individual), the American Heritage Dictionary defines a hero as “any man noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose.”

In general, adventurers in D&D are not marked for their “nobility of purpose” (they are adventuring for money after all; i.e. trying to make a buck). So what exactly is a feat of courage? Well, the AHD defines “courage” as:

“the state of mind or spirit that allows one to face danger with self-possession, confidence, and resolution.”

If I’m an adventurer…whether 1st level or 3rd level…and I’m going up against a 6+ Hit Dice troll, you better believe it takes courage to even step in the room. Sure there’s trepidation and a jack-hammer heart beat, but that’s the game. At least, it’s the Holmes game.

Adventurers in D&D are a cut above the non-adventuring “normal” folk. But Holmes adventurers are certifiable. They had better be smart, tough, and have a large dose of good luck on their side…especially considering “ability bonus inflation” is non-present and magic items found aren’t going to give you much bonus. You better be both resourceful AND on top of your game if you’re going to face down a gorgon or basilisk with your Homes character!

Adventurers in Holmes are a cut above normal folk, NOT just by their class, but by their HEROIC SPIRIT: the confidence and resolve to face immanent, mortal danger every time they step into the cave entrance. No matter how great they grow in power (um…3rd level?) a strong blow from a giant will crush the stoutest fighter like…well like a giant crushing a mortal man. And you’re going to seek out THAT guy’s treasure horde? You better be prepared in every way possible…you’re going to need a healthy helping of brains to go with your Big Balls. If you survive to 3rd level, you should be expecting some pretty epic songs to be sung by the local bards…and even in your old age, you’ll probably be called upon (like Beowulf) to fight some massive (and certain-death-dealing foe).

How creative do you think PLAYERS have to be to survive Holmes Basic? Talk about serious mental boot camp: if you’re tired of getting your characters gaffled by bugbears and ogres (not to mention black puddings and purple worms), don’t you think you’re going to have to learn how to use every possible advantage? Unlike other editions of D&D, Holmes does NOT have raise dead as a readily available spell. Oh, so sorry…you only live once. Just like, say, Stormbringer?

[at least in Holmes you don’t have to worry about getting critted and killed in your first fight. Instead, you just have to worry about getting hit twice and killed!]

This IS gritty fantasy. This is fantasy with balls. This is an RPG that, if the players are COMMITTED to it, will force you to step up your game. And it’s one where retirement should be viewed as a welcome reward from an extremely dangerous lifestyle. Holmes dungeon delvers are coal miners. They should be coming out of those caves covered in dust and blood and cobwebs…and definitely ready to fire up a smoke and pour a drink on the ground for dead companions. Now THAT’s D&D without artificial sweeteners. I love it.

Welcome to Holmes Basic. Only the Truly Badass need apply. For those about to die: we salute you!

; )

Poison (Final Thoughts)

Had a chance to review both the Little Brown Books and Holmes regarding their take on poison.

Holmes doesn’t include neutralize poison in his spell list…no surprise, really when you consider no one makes it past 3rd level. Meanwhile all monsters with poison attacks seem to be of the instant variety…snakes or spiders or medusa, if you blow a poison save in Holmes you’re dead. This certainly fits with the high mortality rate of this particular edition.

[I’m going to say a word or two about Holmes elsewhere…it deserves its own post]

The LBBs poison is all of the “instant variety” as well. However, the LBB DOES have neutralize poison in the clerical spell list. However, similar to AD&D neutralize poison will NOT save you if you’re already poisoned (i.e. DEAD)…as with AD&D there is no ten round “grace period” of writhing in one’s death throes during which time an antidote might be administered.

However, there’s no “Slow Poison” either…which means that poison is much more deadly in OD&D than even AD&D.

When viewed through this lens, I can't help but hypothesize that Slow Poison was a “fix” instituted for AD&D. This appears to be the case if we review the chronology:

#1 OD&D: Poison kills instantly. Neutralize poison can only detoxify objects, not “cure” poisoned individuals.

[interestingly, OD&D’s neutralize poison is the only version with a duration: 1 turn. This means that after ten minutes the item becomes toxic again? So even if you “de-poisoned” a corpse and raised it from the dead, it would need to make an additional save ten minutes later? Poison isn’t just deadly, it’s continuous and permanent with no means of curing AT ALL!]

#2 Holmes D&D: Poison kills instantly. No neutralize poison because clerics only go to 3rd level.

#3 AD&D: Poison kills instantly. Neutralize poison only detoxifies. Slow poison (a lesser spell) keeps individuals from dying until that poison can be neutralized.

#4 B/X: Poison kills ten rounds after taking effect; i.e. a person blows their save and poison “goes off” instantly (giant snakes, purple worms) or after a delayed period (medusa bite, giant spider). “Going off” means the 10 round timer starts running. Neutralize poison cast within that 10 round span saves the victim, otherwise they’re dead. There is no “slow poison.”

#5 BECMI: Continues B/X.

#6 AD&D 2E: ???

#7 DND3+: Poison is nerfed of its “instant kill” effects.


Now, since I started playing D&D with B/X where “neutralize poison” actually cured individuals, I just carried that “cure” assumption over to my AD&D playing (I was 11 years old…give me a break!). In fact, the ONLY time I can recall using Slow Poison at all was when running the 1980 tournament module C1: The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, in which Slow Poison figures prominently to the plot (interestingly, a plot that might seem to break with the use of NP…or not. I don’t remember…I know that more tournament points were awarded for casting Slow Poison).

Okay, I think I’ve written all I can on this particular subject. I know some people consider “instant death” effects to be a bit “un-fair.” The way I look at it? Getting chomped by a T-Rex or swatted by a fire giant and ending up with 0 hit points makes you just as dead. D&D is a game about people risking their lives (and often finding death) in pursuit of “fantastic treasure.” Dead is dead is dead…and D&D at least gives you some creative options for escaping death, INCLUDING spells like raise dead and neutralize poison. This is why I never sweated offing my players (we always found a way to “bring back” the ones we liked)…”killer DM” though I may have been, I was a always a softie when it came to cheap resurrection.

After all, I see death in the game as a penalty (for both bad luck and poor play) but it shouldn’t be a penalty that stops game-play completely, right? ‘Cause if play stops, well…so does the fun!

So anyway I always liked poison…and truth be told it rarely killed anyone in my games. Hell, people get saving throws after all, right?

[case in point: when I was playing the cleric in our B/X on-line game last year, I went toe-to-toe with a giant spider while the other party members…um, were they cowering? No…I think I was just off exploring a cistern by myself or something. Anyway, the creature only hit me once or twice before I was able to squash it…and I made all my saves. Sure I was sweating the prospect of death a little bit…but at 2nd level you’re nearly as likely to be “instantly killed” by a good damage roll from an orc or ogre. Poison? Eh – no big deal]

Still, of all the versions of poison across editions, I do prefer the B/X. It makes more sense, it’s simpler, it’s fun…and there’s no confusion between slowing and neutralizing poison.

‘Course, when you think of poor Black Dougal writhing on the floor, foam coming from his mouth as his nervous system shuts down…perhaps still able to watch Fredrik the dwarf clean out his pack as his eyes glaze over…you can’t help but think his buddies were even bigger shmucks than you ever imagined. Couldn’t Sister Rebecca at least cover the poor guy with a blanket to ease his last few moments of suffering? Sheesh!

; )

HackMaster Basic (Review Part 2)

Continued from here. Sorry, this took so long to get out...I was interrupted yesterday by exercise (back to the yoga studio) followed by dinner and a movie.

So, anyway...the BAD and the UGLY.

I call HackMaster Basic a "fantasy heartbreaker," which is not of itself a "bad thing." It's only bad if your game is a commercial venture...which I presume is the case for Kenzer & Co.

It is certainly possible to create fantasy RPGs that are NOT derived from Dungeons & Dragons, and find a niche with those people that enjoy fantasy and dislike the original "granddaddy game of them all." Pendragon and Stormbringer are both exceptionally different from D&D, and very different from each other despite having Chaosium's BRP system as a base (I'm talking about the 1st edition versions). Ars Magica is a vastly different animal, despite having swords and spells and many of the same mythic/historic fantasy animals that populate D&D. And The Riddle of Steel, is even MORE different, and on many levels. John Wick's Orkworld has all the standard D&D races, but so twisted as to feel completely different from D&D...and its system, including tribal/group play is at the opposite end of the gaming spectrum from the individual achievement/character advancement of D&D.

By contrast, HackMaster Basic is clearly derived from Dungeons & Dragons. Got class, race, and level? Check...all the usual, expected ones. Characters advance through gaining "experience points?" Check. Long, derived weapon lists with damage and combat abilities determined by weapon type. Check. Spells divided into limited access levels? Check. Monsters as obstacles/adversaries? Check. "Saving throws?" Check. Premise of dungeon delving/adventuring? Check.

Now here's the thing: D&D has a large following of people. It's style of game play (pick options from class/race/equipment/spells now "Go!") appeals to folks. But if they're going to play a D&D-style game, why would they invest in something other than D&D? If they already know the rules and such.

The short answer: they won't. Which is why fantasy heartbreakers tend to be poor commercial ventures.

Now HackMaster (the original "4th edition") was not really a "heartbreaker." It was AD&D with a couple of add-ons. I have no idea how successful it was or how much money it made for Kenzer, I can only tell you why I bought it...'cause I did buy it and would have purchased many of their modules as well (I only got two) if they hadn't stopped printing them. I got it because I wanted AD&D...and AD&D was no longer on the shelves. I wasn't looking for a heartbreaker, I was looking for the original, and HM4 was pretty much the original game, albeit with some additional add-ons (pixie-fairies and anti-paladins and such). Humorous or not, once WotC started publishing DND3, HM4 became the only game in town for AD&D play. And humorous or not, it still beat the pants off 2nd edition AD&D as well.

HMB is NOT AD&D (and I draw the conclusion that HM5 will not be, either). It is its own game, though a derivative one:

- the standard coin appears to be the silver penny instead of the gold piece (hello, Dragon Quest!)

- combat counts up seconds instead of using rounds/segments (shades of DQ again, and 1st edition Shadow Run)

- ability scores, races, classes, levels, etc. are clearly D&D (though races especially are starting to look D20ish)

- skills...ugh, skills. Good thing they included Pottery and Lip Reading. Oh, and Torture! Because if I use a branding iron on someone and fail my "torture roll" the guy is just going to sneer at me, right? Skills also included: Interrogation AND Intimidation. Also, Glean Information and Current Affairs. A 30 page "skills" chapter.

- mage spells use spell points to cast (like BRP, cast until your "out-o-juice"), though mages only know a limited number of spells based on level

- monsters, despite a slightly different stat block set-up, are clearly modeled off the standard Monster Manual (though with the HM bonus hit points to offset penetration damage and critical hits)

So...the first big Bad is the commercial value of a fantasy heartbreaker (i.e. "not much"). The second big Bad (in my opinion) is also a commercial consideration: just who the hell is this game aimed at? Who's the target audience?

Despite being a 200 page "Basic" book, there're no instructions or introductions about what is an RPG or how the game is to be played. HMB falls prey to the great conceit that "anyone that buys this game must already be familiar with role-playing and will know how to play." Which, in addition to NOT growing the hobby (i.e. being accessible to new folks), isn't always accurate with respect to gamers anyway...if I have no prior background in Dungeons & Dragons or HM how the hell am I supposed to know what the game is supposed to look like? How am I supposed to know how the game is to be played?

Let alone how is the game to be run...there are no instructions to the Game Master as to how to run the game. Oh, there's a GameMaster Only section that includes 3 chapters: a Monsters chapter, a Magic and Treasures chapter (one of the "uglies;" I could not make heads or tails of this chapter), and one chapter called The GameMaster. This last chapter has NOTHING about how to run the game (or design an adventure scenario), being instead comprised of the HackMaster-specific "GM Code of Conduct" Oath (Articles I and II). Those familiar with HM4 know about this...a humorous attempt to codify GM behavior (shades of Synnibarr).

Strangely, the introduction to HMB says that this edition of the game is trying to excise the parody and silliness from the game; that the original HM4 required the parody as part of their licensing agreement and the new edition will be losing that while "keeping the fun."

And then they include an 11 page chapter on dice. How to choose them, how to roll them, how to make them luckier, procedures for isolating poor rolling dice so they don't "infect" your other dice, dice etiquette, etc. Eleven pages...and not a single page on how to run a game or craft an adventure.

Okay, so now we're starting to get into the Ugly parts of the game, and there IS some decided ugliness here, including the aforementioned skills chapter. Character creation is too long, in my opinion...at least for a quick-moving adventure game where death lurks around the corner. The inclusion of BUILD POINTS is the real ball buster here; while attributes are rolled, Build Points (or BPs) are used for all sorts of customizations of your character: buying re-rolls, buying skills, buying special talents (call 'em "baby feats"), buying weapon proficiencies, etc. Including BPs takes one of the simple beauties of the original D&D game (roll stats, choose race/class/gear/spells, now Go!) and turned character death into an excessive punishment with a protracted procedure for character generation.

Combat is excessively fiddly, what with counting seconds, penetration, defensive rolls (hey, it's Palladium!), and armor reducing damage. Oh and shields...don't even get me started on the shields...there's over a page-and-a-half of rules for shields including an additional separate sidebar. Trying to "realistically model combat" in an RPG is a crazy, Quixotic exercise, one that HMB decides to stick a big, fat foot into.

Hit points are done interesting in HMB, being practically a throwback to OD&D as every other level a character re-rolls the last level's hit points rather than adding new ones. While interesting it turns ugly at the prospect of having to track prior levels hit point rolls...but this is a just minor ugly.

One thing I miss from HM4 is the "yield factor" of individual monsters...there's no yield in the descriptions here. There's also no "treasure type" or treasure found in lair. Instead, treasure is awarded based on EPV (Experience Point Value) of monsters. So a yeti (EPV 417) cross-referenced on the Encounter Levels table of the Treasure chapter, provides a "Silver piece equivalence of treasure" of 146. Intuitive, right? Then the GM chooses treasure for the Yeti equivalent to 146 silver pieces...so maybe a great sword (30sp), a large shield (60sp) and a piece of jewelry worth 56sp. I guess.

[by the way, said Yeti with an EPV of 417 is an 8th level encounter, being suitable to challenge a 5-person party of 8th level characters. A yeti is roughly a 4HD creature that has two claw attacks ("staggered every 5 seconds") each doing damage as a dagger being wielded by someone with 18/51 strength. Their math about encounter levels seems a little iffy to me]

[did you catch the part about a great sword costing 30sp and a large shield costing 60sp? For 65sp I can pick up ringmail...and a shield can be splintered and destroyed by a heavy blow in combat]

There's no set chance for the appearance of magic items, but one special item should be included "for half or two-thirds of encounters." And "roughly half" of these should be of the non-permanent variety (potions and such). That's it as far as treasure selection guidelines, though there are some random tables dependent on level of encounter. However, in HMB these only go up to level 5 (so you'll have to make up your own chart for an 8th level encounter like the yeti).

Ugly.

And did I mention no dragons (nor purple worms) in the monster list? Well, I guess it's not called Dungeons & Dragons even if it is derived from the game.

Anyway, that's all the stuff I wanted to specifically note about the game. In case you can't tell, I am a bit disappointed. NOT because I was totally enthused about the publication of HackMaster Basic in the first place...in all honesty, I had not expected to purchase it at all, having become completely enamored of B/X D&D for all my dungeon delving needs. However, I thought it would be more than this, better than this.

HMB is too smug, too arrogant. I'm not talking about the snarky humor and authorial voice throughout the game...THAT I enjoy. But the conceit that the people who are going to buy it already know how to play it (without instructions from the authors) is a gross assumption, especially for a "basic" game that is to be a precursor for a more "advanced" edition. It's laziness...unless you mean your game to be a humorous curiosity meant to be included in a gamer's collection rather than actually played. But if that's the case, it takes itself far too seriously and is far too heavy on rules.

And the page count...oh, hell. When I saw the Otus cover, I half-expected HMB to be a humorous/parody treatment of Moldvay's Basic set...a HackMaster version of B/X. THAT would have been cooler than what they gave us. I can scarcely imagine what the extended version (HackMaster 5th edition) is going to be like. Despite certain cool innovations, I have little interest in playing some 400+ page monstrosity, when B/X (or even HM4) is just fine and dandy.

Cheers, folks. Thanks to Kenzer for the nice .pdf...sorry if my assessment seems harsh.

Wormwood

Let me just state something loud and clear and up front: I DO have an absolute favorite source book for Rifts and it has no bionics whatsoever in it.

Rifts Dimension Book 1: Wormwood is my all-time favorite supplement for Rifts. Out of the entire Palladium game line, it is probably my single favorite book. Hands down, no question.

How much do I like it? Let me put it to you this way: when I made my decision seven or so years ago to sell all my Palladium material I had several reasons, the biggest one being that I wanted to trim my game collection down to ONLY the games I might someday play again in the future, and Palladium, by dint of its sheer crap-tasticness was on the chopping block.

Wormwood almost stopped me from selling.

Not only that, but when it came time to actually part ways with my books (not an easy task for me as I am one big, nostalgic packrat when it comes to things that have sentimental value…even beloved RPG books!) I nearly retained Wormwood just to keep on the shelf. The only thing that prevented me from doing so was that it was un-playable without the core book.

When I went and picked up Rifts the other day, I purchased the Borg Sourcebook to go with it…the whole reason I re-purchased Rifts in the first place was to “take a stroll down ‘borg lane.” But if Wormwood had been on the shelf, I would have picked it up in a heartbeat…once those floodgates open, man, look out!

For those who’ve never owned it, Wormwood is a supplement for Rifts that details the pocket dimension/planet of Wormwood. It can be used as a stand-alone setting (like all the World books) or as a possible destination for adventuresome characters exploring an interdimensional rift. The sheer awesomeness is somewhat over-shadowed by the SINGLE MOST UGLIEST RULES OVERSIGHT IN ALL OF PALLADIUM. In order to get onto the awesomeness, let me just get the negative part out of the way:

In the Wormwood dimension, the indigenous humans/fauna are all mega-damage creatures. This is explained to be by dint of the environment they grow up in, the food they eat, etc. However, they do NOT possess supernatural strength.

WHAT THE F***?! So if two dudes get into a fist-fight, they do what exactly to each other? D4 the PS bonus SDC damage? Which doesn’t scratch MDC (it’s like punching a tank). Which would usually result in breaking your own hand. Except that your hand is an MDC structure too. Which means you can’t hurt yourself with your own wimpy normal strength. Which means everyone kind of bounces off each other I guess. Same if they fall down. Or throw an (MDC strength) resin goblet at another’s head. UGH!

STUPID STUPID STUPID. Now I can guess some “reasons” behind the idiocy. 1^st off, this is a supplement to RIFTS. Which means that Rifts characters clad in MDC armor and carrying MDC weapons are going to be popping up and the designers don’t want them quickly wrecking the joint. Likewise, the monsters of Wormwood are all MDC creatures (to challenge those same Rifts characters I’m sure) and if the primitive folks of Wormwood were flimsy SDC folks they’d probably have already been exterminated.

As to why they aren’t simply supernatural creatures themselves? I don’t know...I guess they didn’t want them throwing each other miles and miles into the air. Or maybe they didn’t want to encroach on the special abilities of THIS GUY:

Okay, so let’s get to the good stuff about Wormwood (oh, by the way, I never have figured out an adequate fix for this ugliness…in the past I’ve simply ignored the average strength individual entirely, but this wouldn’t work in a true long term, Wormwood-specific campaign):

First off, much of the art is quite, quite good. The Wormwood world itself appears to be the brainchild of comic book authors Timothy Truman and Flint Henry and their adventuresome little comic at the beginning sets the tone for the book. Much of the art within Wormwood’s pages are taken from this comic and there are some nice pieces.

Second, the Wormwood setting is just damn interesting. A truly alien world, Wormwood is a truly living world (as is our own, of course, but Wormwood is a little more proactive with its symbiotic stance). The planet itself creates everything its human inhabitants need…food (worms!), water, resin (for fashioning gear, furniture, weapons), shelter (caves), helpful parasitic/symbiotic organisms (more worms!). I love it…it’s like a weird horror/sci-fi/fantasy novel from the 60s or 70s…like something Marion Zimmer Bradley would write (though less sex and more worms!).

Thirdly, the Wormwood setting is rife with opportunity for CONFLICT, not just combat. Monsters are knocking at the door. People are getting snatched to power the Unholy horde’s war machines (a la the Mutant Chronicles) and being turned to evil (fighting your family!). The Cathedral military/religious institution has been corrupted from within. There are rivalries of class (as in “class system”) in addition to rivalries of deed between the knightly orders (the Templars and the Hospitallers). Then, of course, there are those interdimensional travelers (from Rifts Earth and elsewhere/when) who can bring their own agendas to Wormwood (again, the comic shows this as well with Lazarus Vesper and the Goblin Queen, two non-Wormwood inhabitants embroiled in the politics of the dimension).

Fourthly the OCCs are pretty groovy. The Worm Speakers are awesome (anything that utilizes worms in Wormwood is awesome), the priests have elastic morality, and I dig the knights of both orders (I like Wormwood’s knights even better than Rifts England, and I thought THEY were pretty cool). The Holy Roller is the kind of kid’s toy that every Saturday morning cartoon needs (you know, a Chewbacca kind of sidekick)…and by the way Wormwood feels A LOT like an old school Saturday Morning Cartoon. I mean that it a good way! And, of course, there’s the Apok.

The Apok OCC is my absolute favorite character class in all of Rifts…and quite possibly all of Palladium. I’ve said before that I love the Vagabond OCC (the fact that he has “baseball cap” as part of his standard equipment is very endearing). I dig ‘Borgs and have a newfound respect for the Headhunter (a different post). And I love the Juicers decadent crash course projection (their theme song should be AC/DC’s “Highway to Hell”).

But the Apok out-cools all of ‘em. I have said before that I love tales of “falls and redemption” (one of the reasons I am so big on Dark Side rules in Star Wars). The Apok character is a human that went over to the side of Darkness but got his shit together and turned his life around…and now wages a one-man/woman battle against the same forces to whom he previously sold his soul. The symbol of his repentance is the mask he wears and, fashioned from the resin of Wormwood, it gifts him with plenty of Evil-fighting powers…including the ability to turn any normal SDC weapon into an MDC weapon for fighting the bad guys!

[now you see why the “regular folks” don’t do MDC damage? They’d be upstaging the Apok!]

The Apok’s power and prowess causes fear and dissension in the Unholy ranks…he’s a one-man killing machine (like Jack Bauer with an AXE). You may call ME a twink for my love affair with the Apok, but even without the kewl powers, I’d still want to play one. Seriously! For me, nothing says “badass” like a dude with a hood, a mask, and a meat cleaver. Come get some, mother-f***r!!!

Hell, back in college (where I studied the dramatic arts) I even created a puppet for my puppetry class based on the Apok on the cover…I’ll post an image here one of these days.

For all these reasons…the weirdness, the worms, the drama, the conflict, the Apok….Wormwood is my favorite Rifts book of all time. If I ever get around to my own “streamlined” version of the Palladium game system, you can bet your bottom dollar that I’ll be doing things with Wormwood in mind.

OH…one last “bonus” cool thing about Wormwood. Unlike, other Palladium games/supplements, I don’t recall SKILLS being a prevalent at all in Wormwood. People don’t learn Radio:Basic or Electronics (as far as I remember) in this pretty-much-medieval setting; hell, I seem to remember the Confessor (the badass NPC Apok of the game setting) only having Hand-to-Hand Expert…and no boxing or acrobatics! Fewer skills (or lesser emphasis on ‘em) is a GOOD thing in any RPG, but ESPECIALLY in Palladium!

: )

In Praise of the Purple Worm

To me, the purple worm is an iconic piece of Dungeons and Dragons. Hell, I don't even associate dragons as closely with D&D as I do the awe-inspiring purple worm.

I have no idea of the fever dream imagination from whence this violet monstrosity sprang. I'd love to know if it's based on some particular fiction. But as far as I know, it has appeared in every edition of Dungeons and Dragons (heck, it was even in the cartoon!), and for the most part it's been unchanged throughout.

[I say, "as far as I know" because I haven't bothered to purchase/read the 4th edition monster manual]

Let's see:

From Dungeons & Dragons, Volume 2 (Monsters & Treasures), 1974:

No. Appearing 1-4(!), AC 6, HD 15

From AD&D Monster Manual, 1977:

No. Appearing 1-2, AC 6, HD 15

From Cook/Marsh Dungeons & Dragons Expert Set, 1981:

No. Appearing 1-2/1-4, AC 6, HD 15

From Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual (Core Rulebook III), 2000:

HD 16, Skills: Climb +24

[really, who gives a rat's ass what a purple worm's climb skill is? Only D20!]

Mentzer's purple worm is exactly the same as the Cook/Marsh version, and I'm pretty sure the 2nd edition Monster Manual is a duplicate of the 1st edition version. The SRD 3.5 uses the same statistics for the purple worm as the 3.0 edition...except that it changes Climb skill for Listen +18 and Swim +20 (have I mentioned how retarded D20 is?); oh, it also adds a bunch of feats.

No matter which edition of D&D you are playing the worm always has two attacks: a monstrous bite with the ability to swallow a target whole, and a poisonous stinging tail.  Pre-2000 these all functioned the exact same: a roll 4 better than the to hit roll needed (or on a natural 20 regardless) always swallowed a target whole (even in OD&D!), and the tail has always been save or die. 

[D20, of course, does away with the save or die, instead sapping Strength, and adds a complicated grappling sub-system for handling the worm's swallow attack]

This is a vicious, vicious monster...which of course makes it one of my all-time favorites. A 15HD monster in B/X hits AC 0 on a 9+. Even if your bad-ass fighter is wearing +3 plate and shield, you're going down the gullet 20% of the time.  And trying to maneuver for a flank attack simply puts you in danger of that save or die stinger...the true bane of the back-stabbing thief is the creature with a rear attack.

Basically the thing is a cross between a Dune sandworm and a giant scorpion...can you imagine harnessing these things (1D4!!!) for your own use! Think about the climax to David Lynch's film version of the Herbert book.  Then make the monsters purple.  

Tremble all you mortal men for behold thy Doom is nigh...

As a kid, I always tried to incorporate a purple worm into any dungeon adventure I created.  They represent the original tactical nightmare monster, as far as I'm concerned.  I'm hard-pressed to remember any parties being victorious against them, but I certainly remember PCs dying. More than once a piercing sting attack would lance through the body of some lightly clad wizard or thief. More than one stout dwarf or stalwart fighter would disappear through the beast's gaping maws to face a rather less than heroic fate in the bowels of the worm.

Hey...at least I never put more than one in the adventure. 1D4?!

Of course, I can't think of a single TSR module from the old days that included purple worms (either singly or in groups). I'm sure I must just be forgetful. Surely they're not so deadly they wouldn't be a featured monster in one of the classic adventures of yesteryear?

X1: The Isle of Dread has a green dragon and several huge dinos, but no purple worm (not even as a random encounter). There isn't one in any of the S modules, I don't remember any in the A modules (which I no longer, possess...long story), and they're too tough for beginner or intermediate modules.

Oh, wait: I5: the Lost Tomb of Martek. How could I forget that one (it's around #12 or 13 on my list of all time favorite modules). Not only does it have purple worms on its random encounter tables, it has a terrific illustration of one on the cover. Purple worms in the desert?  Didn't I mention Dune before?

[as a side note, does anyone know who's the artist for this illo? Part of the problem with these old modules is they don't list enough people in the credits. I don't think Tracy Hickman did all the illustrations and maps himself, but the Q... signature is not one with which I'm familiar]

Anyway...

I love the purple worm. If I was starting this blog today, I'd seriously consider calling it Lair of the Purple Worm or similar...just as I find Blackrazor symbolic of the soul sucking (i.e. time consuming) power of the RPG, the insatiable appetite and dark esophagus of the purple worm can mimic the analogy. If I ever do a Top Ten list of "Favorite D&D Monsters" you can be sure that the purple worm will be included.  If somehow I forget...well, may I hope to have my next PC swallowed alive while writhing from the virulent poison of the violet beasty!

Till later...Prost!