Poison

This is not what I should be doing.

I am sitting at the car dealership, getting a 75K service and oil change (as one does). I am eating a fresh baked cookie some lady just brought around (chocolate chip), and I am putting off the adventure writing that I've been doing the last two days, in order to write this post. Because I feel bad I haven't posted anything in a couple days.

What I should be is writing that darn adventure...and I will be getting back to it today (maybe after a second cookie). But I fell down the rabbit-hole of checking Ye Old Reddit feed and Oh. My. F'ing. God.

It makes me want to cry. Just sob.

The title of this post is "Poison." Because I was just listening to the band (Poison) in the car on the way up here. I was not a fan of Poison back in the day...they were all that was wrong with the crass commercialization of rock music, they were all about the "big hair," they were a "chick band," whatever. Reasons, all right? But they have exactly TWO great songs: Talk Dirty To Me and Nothing But A Good Time.  Both of which, at first pass, feel like throwaway pop metal with a catchy guitar riff (which they are) but which have the ability to evoke far deeper emotion...a nostalgia that conjures memories of early sexual encounters as a hormonal teenager and the alternating hopelessness and hedonism of a young person in their twenties with a few bucks to spend but nowhere near enough to 'make a life.' I don't know about kids these days who just live at home till there 30 and crush out on video games and internet porn, but back when I was growing up (the 80s and 90s) these were fairly universal experiences for "us kids" to go through.

Point is: I appreciate them now.  I wonder if they'll ever speak to my own kids some day.

This Reddit roll, man...just look at these titles from the DnD channel with the topic heading of "DMing:"

Any Tips For A New DM?

Where Can I Find The Text In Each Book Describing How The DM Can Change Or Ignore The Rules?

Awkward Silences With The DM

How Do You Create A Campaign?

Any And All Tips For A Brand New DM?

How To Make Low-Level Encounters Fun And Challenging?

Story Telling Struggles

How To Make Players Engaged In RP?

I'm Very Confused On New DND Content??

Trying DMing For The First Time

How Do You Kick Off And End A Session?

DMing My First Table

Guys, It's My First Time DMing. I Am Starting A PbP Campaign. Am I Being A Bad DM?

Potential Ideas For My Campaign?

What's The Best Starting Campaign For A 1st Time DM?

DMs, What Are Some Skills/Things You Had To Learn Before A Session?

About To Be A New DM, Any Advice You Wish You Got?

Need A Campaign Idea

Need Some Advice On My Story

Need Help Looking For Boss Music [sigh]

All of these have been posted in the last 48 hours. Almost all of them start with some sentence or two describing how they are new to DMing or first time DMing or have no experience DMing or...whatever. The point is: most of them are newbies. AND THEY ARE COMING TO REDDIT TO FIND OUT HOW TO RUN A DUNGEONS & DRAGONS GAME.

Do people not see how RIDICULOUS that is? Is this not the kind of information one might assume would be in the INSTRUCTIONS MANUAL of the game they are playing? And be fairly clearly laid out? Like, maybe on PAGE ONE? Or (if not on page one), wouldn't you think that Page One would say "Hey, in Chapter 5 we describe how to run the game as a DM." You'd think this, right? I mean, I would think this.

But I am old. See my reference to "Poison" above.

On the first page of the Introduction to Moldvay's Basic set (in the first column) I find this:

"Part eight, DUNGEON MASTER INFORMATION, gives a step-by-step design of a sample dungeon level plus tips to help the referee."

I mean, it's D&D right? Not rocket science (which I presume is difficult). All these questions, all these subjects should be addressed right out of the box. Why are people going to the internet for answers to basic questions about DMing? WHY?

And, just by the way, not ALL of the questions are from "newbs." Here's a gem:

So im running a new game for some friends who are brand new to dnd. Ive been dming for 12 years now so i tend to run my own adventures instead of the books. However this is my first time running more than one campaign at a time and ive put so much time and effort into my main group that ive drawn a complete blank on what I should do with my new group. If you guys have any ideas for cool stories I could run them through that would really jump start my creativity and then I can take it from there. I just need something to get me going. So any suggestions?

Yeah, I've got a suggestion: run your new group in the same campaign world as your current, on-going group. Why are you trying to make more work for yourself (when you're already making more work by running multiple groups)? Again: not rocket science. You have 12 years of experience. You are adept at making and running your own adventures. Surely you have already created/run material that could be recycled for the new folks...why are you trying to reinvent the wheel from scratch?

Also: learn punctuation. It's a life skill.

I really, really, really want to take a break from the internet...at least, from all the "interactions." The blogs, the discords, the reddits, the forums, etc. It is all so non-helpful, so non-constructive. And it makes me sad. It saps my energy. I, again, (briefly) considered actually creating a profile on the reddit to address these querying questioners, to get involved in the verbal sparring and disinformation and misinformation that is being promulgated by "D&D experts." I considered it...as if this would be a good use of my time. As if trying to put out each small fire on an individual level would somehow keep the  forest from burning down around my ears.

No. Poison. This shit is poison. 

SO, I'm going to step away. Going to take a deep breath. Brew a pot of coffee, throw on a little Sade Love Deluxe (I thought about the Eagles, but that way leads to day drinking). Going to buckle down and see how much of this adventure I can knock out today. I'm hoping to, at least, finish the crypt portion...that part's easy.

Let Rome burn, while I fiddle away. Ain't looking for nothing but a good time right now.

Foot, Meet Ass

AKA "A Discussion of the Principia Apocrypha"

Reader Steam Tunnel, God bless him, has made it clear to me that a discussion of the "work" known as Principia Apocrypha needs to be reviewed and analyzed. I had not planned on doing this today (I hadn't planned on posting anything, actually...) but best to nip this kind of thing in the bud.

Taking a cue from Bryce Lynch, I'm going to read this so YOU don't have to.

David Perry's Principia (subtitled "Elementary Axioms & Aphorisms On Running & Playing Tabletop RPGs In The Old School Style From Ben Milton & Steven Lumpkin") is freely available from Perry's web site, although it can also be picked up (in German!) from DriveThruRPG. 

I first became aware of it (near as I can recall) in September of 2021, at which time I referred to it as "a huge steaming pile of nonsense." After Steam Tunnel's assertion that "everything" Alexis wrote about in his posts of 10/14 and 10/15 "was largely covered in the Principia Apocrypha," I decided I better re-read the thing and make sure I hadn't missed some brilliant changes that had been made to the body of the text.

Nope: it's still just a pile of crap.  But let's discuss why!

Principia is a Latin word meaning "beginnings" or "fundamental principles." Apocrypha is a Greek word meaning "hidden" or "secret." Setting aside the question of why we are mixing languages (other than the pretension of making it sound like some sort of scholarly treatise), I found it interesting that my Google AI also returned the following meaning for the latter term: "of doubtful authenticity." Now THAT makes sense.

The pamphlet (for lack of a more accurate term) is 31 pages long, and is a mostly rambling essay of some 4,500 words (including Chapter titles). How is that even possible, one might ask? Well, it uses a REALLY LARGE FONT and offers a TON of blank space (I assume 'for effect') and then adds some illustrations. But 4,500 words is nothing, especially in THIS case, where the author/editor insists on using pithy phrases, needless prattle, elementary examples, and mind-numbing padding. Here's an example:

As GM (or Judge or Referee, perhaps more appropriate for old school style games), you are not an antagonist to the players or characters.

Twenty-four words. Just to communicate the obvious (i.e. not "secret" or "hidden") idea that "DM's should not be jerks." Needless padding and neglects the use of the term Dungeon Master which is common parlance for ALL "old school" games.

In contrast, here are two blog posts I wrote in response to exactly this kind of tripe explaining the fallacies in treating Finch's "Old School Primer" as Gospel, and what the ACTUAL fundamental parts of AD&D are:

Dispel Myth(s)

Seven Elements

Total word count combined: 5,125 words, very little of which is "filler." I really, REALLY hate to toot my own horn, but I daresay these are worth reading if you're confused about what is and is not "old school" D&D play...especially if you're using docs like Principia Apocrypha as your holy writ. 

But let's not bury the lead, JB...what about the actual CONTENT in this pamphlet? Sure...we can go through the various "principles" (though my post might end up longer than the original document):

Rulings Over Rules 

The principle that rulings should override rules misunderstands AD&D’s core structure. While flexibility is necessary, the rules exist to create a common game language and ensure fairness. Disregarding them casually undermines the consistency that makes D&D a game rather than an improv exercise. True “rulings” occur within the framework of rules comprehension...not as a replacement for it...and, generally, only when necessary.

Divest Yourself of Their Fate

The suggestion that the DM must be impartial to the point of detachment ignores that the universe (the DM) does care. The Dungeon Master isn’t a mere “arbiter” of dice rolls, but a world-builder and caretaker who invests meaning in the results. Dice add risk and impartiality, but the DM’s human judgment ensures coherence and care for the campaign’s ongoing legacy. 

Leave Preparation Flexible

This principle conflates player freedom with DM aimlessness. True D&D requires strong preparation: dungeon architecture, treasure placement, encounter balance, and world logistics. The illusion of spontaneity rests on thorough planning. A flexible campaign still demands an exacting DM who prepares intelligently and consistently applies world logic (along with a firm knowledge and application of the rules).

Build Responsive Situations

The emphasis on “situations” rather than “adventures” or “scenarios” reflects a modern narrative bias. In D&D, the dungeon or wilderness is not a “situation”—it is an objective challenge space. While dynamism between factions is valuable, the focus should remain on concrete, actionable design—not on “responsive narrative ecosystems.” 

Embrace Chaos… But Uphold Logic

Randomness has value, but is not the be-all and end-all of design. Random tables and dice rolls are tools of constrained uncertainty, not invitations to surrealism. When logic and consistency is cast aside in favor of randomness, the game world loses credibility and denies both intelligent play and player engagement. Dice should surprise, not confuse. 

Let Them Off the Rails

Sound advice, but hardly a "secret principle." Early D&D’s non-linear structure (wilderness maps, keyed dungeons, hex crawls) already presumes no rails. The real issue isn’t railroading—it’s whether the DM has prepared enough substance for players to meaningfully explore when they go off the expected path. 

XP for Discovery and Adversity

This re-frames XP-for-treasure into a vague “XP for discovery,” which dilutes the economic core of D&D. The treasure-based XP system is elegant: it unifies risk, exploration, and player motivation under one measurable mechanic. Replacing it with “discovery and adversity” invites subjectivity and erodes the economy’s balancing function. 

Player Ingenuity Over Character Ability

This principle is sound but the Principia often presents it as if rediscovered wisdom rather than baked into D&D’s mechanical DNA. D&D already privileges player skill through exploration, problem-solving, and resource management. However, it also presumes mastery of rules and tactics; this isn’t “freeform creativity,” it’s applied ingenuity within constraints. 

Cleverness Rewarded, Not Thwarted

Again, this echoes D&D’s ethos but strips away the mechanical teeth that make cleverness meaningful. Rewarding cleverness only matters when failure is real and the stakes are economic and mortal. If the GM is merely “generous,” cleverness becomes theater. In D&D, cleverness is rewarded by treasure, survival, and advancement: quantifiable consequences. 

Ask Them How They Do It

This section advocates for descriptive play over die rolls, which is garbage; it promotes an aesthetic dance over practical game play. It is not necessary to ask "How are you checking for traps?" Players interact with the mechanics (I check for traps), DM arbitrates (make your roll), and the session continues. Just what are we doing here? D&D is not performative in the way of a story-teller; promoting procedural clarity over performative guesswork keeps the gaming moving.

Let Them Manipulate the World

More garbage. Brute force (i.e. violence) is one of the core tenets of the game (hence the reason so much of the instructional text is devoted to combat). While other methods of problem solving are available, there are material limits to player manipulation: encumbrance, time, spell limits, reaction rolls, morale, etc. “Tools” are not permission slips for freeform creativity; they are resources to be husbanded, just like hit points and gold. Manipulation without limitation ceases to be game play. 

Good Items Are Unique Tools 

Sure, magic can be wondrous and weird, but Principia leans toward “whimsical toys” instead of meaningful campaign resources. D&D’s magic items have weight: they alter logistics, balance, and risk, and their strategic use are an important aspect of meeting in-game challenges. Magical scarcity and consequence...not cuteness...are what define the "old edition" gameplay. 

Don’t Mind the Fourth Wall

This principle is careless. “Metagaming” is a natural part of gameplay, and leads to engagement and immersion in a way that "strict personification" of one's character does not.

Offer Tough Choices

Choices ARE offered in D&D, but the emphasis should be on MEANINGFUL choices, not "tough" choices. Meaningful choices are usually grounded in resource pressures (time, light, HPs, spells, etc.) rather than narrative morality or dilemma-for-drama. Real tension is practical, not thematic. 

Subvert Their Expectations

Subversion is not a design goal in D&D; it is a byproduct of coherent world-building. If monsters and magic follow clear logic, surprises will emerge organically. Deliberate “twisting of tropes” risks drawing attention to the author instead of the world, and discounts the effort players apply to game mastery. Novelty should arise from authentic unpredictability, not clever meta-jokes. 

Build Challenges with Multiple Answers

True in principle—but only when those answers arise from the rules and world physics, not from DM fiat. D&D’s openness comes from simulationist consistency, not improvisational flexibility. If every problem has multiple answers because “the DM says so,” then the world is arbitrary, not logical. Multiple real solutions, not infinite possible ones. 

And Challenges with No Answer

This advice is a design indulgence. Challenges with “no answer” contradict the purpose of play: D&D is a game to be solved through risk and ingenuity. “No-answer” problems exist only when the DM withholds tools or logic. True D&D thrives on fairness: every obstacle is deadly, but all are beatable through intelligence, magic, treasure, or sheer luck.

Deadly but Avoidable Combat

Entirely consistent with D&D—combat should be dangerous and not the default. However, Principia frames this in terms of “story stakes,” whereas D&D grounds it in mechanical reality: hit points, armor, morale, and logistics. Combat’s lethality emerges from rules and scarcity, not DM philosophy. “Avoidable” is good; “cinematic lethality” is a distortion. And always remember that D&D offers many ways to recover from death.

Keep Up the Pressure

Run correctly, the game applies its own pressure. DMs performing their job correctly need not resort to 1-in-6 "chance for trouble;" just nonsense.

Let the Dice Kill Them...

The dice may be the heralds of death, but it is the DM's choices that determine when those dice are rolled. Make no mistake: the DM is adversarial...not antagonistic in malice, but in purpose. This is the game, and the players know and expect this; it's the DM's job to challenge the players and place deadly perils in their path. You can say "it's just the dice!" all you want...the players will feel otherwise.

Reveal the Situation / Give Them Layers to Peel

Transparency is good, but the Principia’s tone implies the DM should curate the mystery for narrative effect, not model an environment. D&D’s exploration procedures already structure discovery. The DM doesn’t need to “peel layers”; the dungeon does that itself. The focus should remain on spatial and procedural revelation, not narrative pacing. 

Keep the World Alive 

The section is mostly fine other than the first sentence ("Old school RPGs shine with improvisation and extrapolation, not rigid plots."). We are not looking for scripted plots and stories, but situations and scenarios lend structure, whereas a game run on 100% "improvisation and extrapolation" can lead to chaos and boredom.

NPCs Aren’t Scripts

This part is fine except for the last section that extolls "liberal" use of Reaction and Morale rolls. If you "treat NPCs like real people" with motivations, the random rolls need apply only rarely.

Annnd...is that about it? I suppose I didn't go over the "Principles for Players," but they're mostly self-evident, misleading, or contrary to the game as designed. Let's see if I can hit these in lightning round fashion:

Learn When To Run: Right. You're not playing 5E anymore.

Combat As War, Not Sport: Sure. But fortune favors the bold.

Don't Be Limited By Your Character Sheet: You should ABSOLUTELY know and make use of what's on your character sheet; failing to do so is your failure! Make use of your abilities, skills, and equipment; ask questions! What's the DM going to say besides "no?" Learn from your mistakes.

Live Your Backstory: You don't have a backstory.

Power Is Earned, Heroism Proven: Huh? This some narrativist BS here. Play your character like it's you in the situation with the skills available to you. YOU decide whether you want to act heroically (at whatever power level your character is). Heroism is NOT about slaying the dragon single-handedly; heroism is making the hard choice for the right reason. 

Scrutinize The World, Interrogate The Fiction: This is mostly fine, but (just like the "other games" referenced), D&D also has rules for doing things. If you fail your secret door roll, you don't find the secret door...don't expect your "descriptive narration" to override the baked-in game mechanics.

The Only Dead End Is Death: Sometimes a dead end is just a dead end. I put them in my adventures all the time. And there are a TON of ways to overcome death in the game, just by the way.

Play To Win, Savor Loss: Loss happens. You can choose to learn from your mistakes...and become a better player with fewer losses...or you can learn to "love failure" (as the Principia Apocrypha suggests), in which case you'll never grow or develop as a player. Which means you'll never open the whole range of game play available to you, instead being relegated to the role of a perpetual punching bag.

Pathetic.

Man, that was rough, right? What gives me the authority to be so mean to yet another form-over-function, style-over-substance offering from some bright corner of the OSR community? Who the heck am I to pontificate on the subject? Just a blowhard blogger with some 2500+ posts over 16+ years? Just a guy who's been playing these games, running these games, and teaching these games for 40+ years, publishing a handful of books along the way? How do my credentials stack up against these fine people writing their manifesto on "old school gaming?" Well, let's see...

Principia Apocrypha was "assembled and amended" by David Perry, and appears on his web site. Perry has two blogs, one with a grand total of 17 entries between 2021 and 2023, the other with 26 entries between 2018 and 2025. Aside from this steaming pile, I found only one credit for him on DriveThruRPG, as one of 29 authors that contributed to a 46 page "collaboratively stocked dungeon" called The Halls Untoward (system agnostic). Oh...and he has some stuff on itch.io.

Ben Milton is a longtime game reviewer at Questing Beast and the author of the OSR game Knave, which I believe I've mentioned before.He's been around since at least 2014 (back when he was big on Pathfinder), and has several game credits to his name on DriveThruRPG, including the much beloved The Waking of Willowby Hall. You can purchase Knave, 2nd Edition (PDF only) for $19.99. Perry credits Milton's other game, Maze Rats, as being one of the primary sources for his Principia Apocrypha.

Steven Lumpkin is a video game designer who started a blog in 2014 (inactive since 2018 with only 27 entries) which, per Mr. Perry, is the source of the original principles text of the Principia Apocrypha and a primary source for the document as a whole. In addition to his defunct blog, Lumpkin is a GM for a net series (like Critical Role?) called Rollplay: The West Marches, which I've never heard of. His credits on DriveThruRPG include the German version of Principia Apocrypha...and that's it.

So...yeah. Real authorities, there, huh? Paragons of "Old School" cred?

Let's be serious for a moment: the so-called "OSR" isn't anything more than a branding moniker these days. No longer is it a "movement" of any sort; rather, it is "marketing," pure and simple. Principles like those put forward in Principia Apocrypha or like those worshipped in Matt Finch's Old School Primer are nothing more than empty platitudes that only partially describe old edition play and mainly serve as distraction and misinformation. Even bothering to write this post is a colossal waste of my time...this is the kind of thing that shouldn't NEED to be written as it should be utterly obvious to anyone picking it up that these "secret principles" are nothing but lukewarm blog ramblings that most AI algorithms could easily spit out, upon command. Easy.

Newbies to Old School gaming: don't be grifted and swayed by these petty "influencers" looking to define gameplay in a way that makes their own products more enticing or adds laurels to their names. Forget that crap...look to the people doing the work as examples and models to follow and then do what they do. Because if they've been doing it for years (or decades!) without fail, then maybe they know what the hell they're doing. Beware of false prophets and monetization for the sake of monetization.

*sigh* That's it for today.

(2,778 words)

Why "Light Games" Suck

Oh, look! An actual post from JB that isn't just dredging Reddit for click bait...

I'm sure I've tangentially referred to this subject in the past, and my apologies if there's already some long-winded post floating around my archives somewhere...I've been writing this blog for a bit now, and it's hard to keep track of all my various rants. However, James M's blog re-post post today hipped me to something that I've been reminded of before but never (so far as I can recall) in a moment of my free time when I had a laptop close at hand.

So you get this today.

These days the "OSR" is well-known for its plethora of "light" (as in "rules light" or even "rules lite") role-playing games. O So Many of them. From the retro-clones based on primordial (OD&D) or introductory (Basic D&D) game systems, to even cheaper, lighter knock-offs of those games. You know who I'm talking about: the Cairns, the Knaves, the ShadowDarks, etc. Everything to make the rules LIGHTER and EASIER so that it doesn't shackle the imagination, right? Just trying to increase accessibility, yeah?

And, of course, this sentiment...a sentiment of making games EASIER, LIGHTER, MORE ACCESSIBLE isn't limited to JUST the OSR. Despite the 700-800 pages of instruction found in 5E's "core" game books, there are precious little hard and fast rules. How difficult is it to understand a target number? How complicated is it to grasp "advantage/disadvantage?"  5E is, in many ways, fairly similar to other "light" versions of D&D...it just provides MORE OPTIONS. More character classes. More spells. More magic items and monsters. But ease of instructional game play? Check, check, checkity, check.

[not that 5E is "easy enough" for a lot of its players/DMs (as evidenced by Reddit posts). *ahem*]

Heck, I'd argue that this predominance of "ease" isn't even restricted to D&D and D&D-adjacent games. The days of GURPS and MektonZeta and Vampire: the Masquerade and Deadlands are a waaaays behind us. Every RPG I pick up and look at these days seems built around A) a really simple system, wrapped around with B) a bunch of options with regard to color and flavor. Which might be why I haven't purchased any new RPGs in a while. 

When was the last installment of Champions/HERO System? Are they out of business yet? Or have they issued a version of "HERO Lite?" Kids these days, you know? They can't even be bothered to READ, let alone do math.

[man O man, the state of this country]

But let's not dwell on those "other guys." I want to keep my focus squarely on the so-called "Old School" community. Because the "Old School" community is bigger than it ever was...and is YOUNGER than it ever was, filled with people born long after the original "hay day" of the D&D game. And there is a major disconnect with their understanding of what "Old School Gaming" is all about, specifically with regard to the "heaviness" (or "crunchy-ness") of rule systems.

I want to explain that.

And, in addition, I want to APOLOGIZE for that disconnect, because it was ME (and people like me...bloggers from the early 2000s) who did a poor job of explaining stuff to people, back when we were championing systems like "B/X" (basic) D&D. This post (despite the catchy, click-bait title) is meant to rectify something that should have been rectified a long, long time ago...

See, Back In The Day (that's the 1980s for me but, presumably, the late 70s also) Dungeons & Dragons was a game for NERDS. Not just any kind of nerd, but a particular brand of intelligent, imaginative nerds that were into things like fantasy and science fiction and mythology, MOST OF WHICH was found in BOOKS (which, being nerds, we tended to read a lot of). Most of us being somewhat challenged athletically, too (being bookworms), we still wanted to have FUN and so playing games substituted for the types of group activity that might otherwise be filled up with Rec basketball or Little League in the summer time. At least if we were playing D&D with our friends (especially if we were biking miles to our friends' houses to play) our parents were less likely to yell at us to stop reading trash novels and go outside and get fresh air and sunshine.

SO...Dungeons & Dragons was totally our jam. Here was a game that appealed to our interest in all the fantasy literature we enjoyed reading (quality fantasy film and television being extremely hard to come by, back in those days) AND required a high degree of intelligence to parse and make sense of (as the designers, while erudite, imaginative nerds themselves, had rather stumbled into their profession and had, perhaps, NOT the best technical writing chops for communicating what the D&D experience was all about). 

And O how it gripped our imaginations! How it occupied our all our waking moments! How we discussed it, in and out of school, weekdays and weekends, on Boy Scout retreats, and while sitting on the bench during our soccer games! It was fortunate that the game forced us to stretch our minds, do math, look up words in the dictionary (and terms in the encyclopedia) which made all our homework a snap...because otherwise, we probably would have fallen far behind for the amount of effort we put into school work. I know that would have been the case for me...as it was, I still managed straight As (big nerd over here) with about as little effort as I could manage.

But here's the thing, Youngsters: "light rules" was ZERO part of the appeal of these games. We WANTED our rules "crunchy." The more crunch, the better! 

This is why Dragon Magazine sold so well to members of our community: Dragon offered NEW RULES and new ideas that we could incorporate into our games...making our games heavier, and filled with MORE rules. Articles like the (previously cited) Gamma World article that ADDED to character creation. Or (for D&D) new rules for training, or weapon proficiencies, or building libraries, or specific "thieves tools," or random pick pocketing tables, or urban adventure rules, or animal training rules, or...whatever! Never mind the new "NPC" classes (which tended to become "PC" classes) or the new monsters or the new magic items (which were also incorporated)...I'm talking about whole SYSTEMS. When the Unearthed Arcana was published in 1985 (with the Gygax name on the cover), we adopted the entire thing, sight unseen: social classes, spell books, Comeliness, read illusionist magic, demi-human deities, simplified unarmed combat rules...we took in every single bit of it, stupid or not. 

Rules. Instruction. These provide more than "limits" to game play, more than structure. Rules provide ANSWERS...answers to all those questions that arise during play, questions that lead to arguments and discussions and that (in the end) lead to game play stopping. We did NOT want game play to stop...we wanted it to continue and continue and continue. Having answers from (presumably) neutral third-party authorities (whether in a rule book or a magazine) provided an official "stamp" or reliability, respectability, and authority...something that allowed us to say: "See, there's the answer, in black-and-white. Now let's move on and get back to playing."

Because it's all well and good to say 'The Dungeon Master is the final arbiter of the game.' But what if the Dungeon Master is a 13 or 14 year old peer who doesn't have their shit together in other areas of their life? How do you trust THAT guy (or gal) to do the right thing, to be impartial and fair, to remember the correct rule/system at the right time, every time? How do you expect a hormonal 16 or 17 year old to exercise prudence and good judgment? Are you f'ing kidding me?

RULES. We wanted rules...the more rules the better. No one played BECMI in those days (though it was purchased and mined for ideas), because it was TOO simple, TOO basic. If you told someone you wanted to play a (B/X) dwarf, you'd have been laughed out of the room. "A dwarven what?" we would have asked. 

No, "rules lite" was definitely NOT on the agenda. When we took breaks from D&D (which we did) it was to play other games of similar crunch that we'd have to learn. Sure Marvel Superheroes was fun, but as soon as Advanced Marvel Superheroes was published, we junked all out MSH stuff for the new version (check out the falling rules! And the whole chapter on different inventions and kit-bashing!). We'd play Chaosium's Stormbringer whose chargen system could take half a session by itself (for a character who would be gutted by the end of the session on a critical impalement). We'd spend hours using the Top Secret rules (and the various Dragon Mag article supplements) crafting our own awesome handguns. Point-buy game systems...like James Bond, GURPS, Mekton...could provide hours of mind-numbing entertainment by themselves even before getting to actual game play.

We were young people with strong minds and no internet or smart phones to to distract and dull our brain power. We wanted stimulation and EXERCISE for our think-boxes.

So What Happened? What happened that led to blogs like "B/X Blackrazor" (and many, many others) promoting a style of play that was streamlined and easy and neither advanced, nor "crunchy?" Why O Why, for so long, did people like ME actively disparage more complex games, even as others were trying to either preserve the fire and evolve/develop the complexity?

Eh. I don't have a great answer to that question. It was 2008. I was busy: wife, job, life. I'd just gotten out of 3E...probably the "crunchiest" edition of D&D ever designed; so crunchy that I'd deem it soulless, a mechanical monstrosity, "twisted and evil" (yes, like Darth Vader). Going back to B/X, rediscovering and reexamining it through wiser, adult eyes was a way to reclaim the energy, exuberance, and passion of my youthful self for the D&D game. FOR ME: I needed to go back to the beginning to start over. And the simplicity of the system was about all I could fit into the routine of my adult life and adult responsibilities...and even that faded in significance with the birth of my children in 2011 and 2014. Dungeons & Dragons (of ANY edition) wasn't even on my list of priorities when I was dealing with children that young!

I promoted B/X and the Labyrinth Lord retroclone (which allowed one to play the...at the time...out-of-print B/X), because it was a lovely little game that could be easily customized for a smart person who wanted to do extra work, and would serve the purpose of providing a D&D game experience without the need to teach one's players a bunch of "advanced" rule mechanics. It was certainly more accessible than other editions and...for me, as a Dungeon Master...was far less of a headache than 3E ever had been. And it was still D&D (IMO) unlike, say, 4E. 

But, as I've detailed before (more than once) there is a LIMIT to how far a game designed as a basic, introductory system can take you. And since all the ways needed to transform B/X into a robust, long-lasting game system would (in essence) simply amount to "re-writing AD&D," I eventually decided to cut the middle man and just jump back into The King of Games. 

And what I found is that it's really not any harder to teach players 1E than it was to teach them B/X...as with B/X it's really only a matter of ME (the Dungeon Master) knowing and understanding the game, while having a firm grasp of table dynamics. The latter bit comes from being an experienced game master, and can't really be taught, but the former? Yeah, any nerd can do that, if they're willing to read the instructions manual.

But while I was on my own (personal) role-playing journey, the rest of the "Old School" movement took on a life entirely its own. Chalk that up to the commercialization of the OSR: once some people started making serious money (i.e. more than you need to buy a six-pack or two), there became a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. And the status quo was light, OD&D or Basic-based retro-clones (sorry OSRIC) and derivative Rules Light systems: Mork Borg, Into the Odd, Troika!, etc. Systems that worked fine (perhaps) for a pick-up game, but that ARE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE THE GAMES PLAYED OR DESIRED 30+ YEARS AGO. There is nothing "old school" about these games...NOTHING. Original D&D...the three Little Brown Books that started the whole "role-playing craze"...are the most streamlined, "light" version of the D&D game system ever published. And, at that time, might have been the most complex tabletop game ever to be sold on the open market, requiring not just itself to be played, but also CHAINMAIL and the OUTDOOR SURVIVAL board game to play (and fill in knowledge gaps). It was neither written, nor designed to be "simple and streamlined" and was almost immediately followed by Supplement I ("Greyhawk") increasing the game complexity radically (introducing multi-class characters, different hit dice and damage dice, weapon vs. AC adjustments, new advancement systems, etc.). And OD&D only continued to evolve (that is gain MORE complexity, MORE rules) from there...all per the desire of both the designers and the people purchasing/playing the game. 

"Old School" does not mean "dumbing down" or "making things simpler." Anyone who thinks this or who promote "rulings over rules" are operating under a misapprehension, a false premise. The true "old school" was all about the rules. More Rules...not less.

NOW, let me say there are plenty of Old Geezers like myself that played D&D back in the 70s and/or 80s who still play today using Rules Light systems...just as there are plenty of Old Geezers that play 5E or Pathfinder or WHATever. Yes, I know there are a NUMBER of experienced, AD&D veterans, who long ago moved on from AD&D and have never looked back, and they have their reasons (good reasons!) for this. And, yes, some of those reasons might include wanting to play a simpler, more streamlined game because the priorities of their life makes a "full 1E game" non-viable. Similar to MY state of mind when I was busy with my new parental duties. I don't fault Old Geezers who know the 1E system from making a different choice for themselves...those guys (and gals) are operating from a place of KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING.

But the rest of you?

There's a part of me...a big part of me...that wants to yell, YOU'RE WASTING TIME. Not just your own time, but the time of your players (yes, my admonition only applies to Dungeon Masters, as players get very little say in what game is run at the table). You are short-changing yourself of the game you COULD be running, of the experience you could be having, of the world you could be developing, the benefits you could be reaping, if you were bold enough, and patient enough, and diligent enough to put your nose to the proverbial grindstone and step into the shoes of an Advanced DM. 

Yeah, I want to yell that. But the truth is: we all come to the mountain at our own pace. When I was a kid...i.e. back before I turned 35...people gave me all sorts of advice that I failed to follow. Don't wait too long to have kids, for example (I almost did), or invest more money in the stock market, rather than booze and smokes (yeah, right). Heck, even the importance of a "spiritual practice;" it took me a lot of years before I fully appreciated the practical value of church-going in my life. Yes, a lot of us are slow to heed the wisdom of our elders...that "know-it-all teenager" attitude gets carried around for a lot longer than our teen years. Of course, it doesn't help when the elders giving the advice seem hopelessly clueless themselves (man, I had to set-up my parents' VCR for them back in the day...and I was 12 at the time! Jeez!...).

Anyway.

The title of this post promises a reason (or list of reasons) that I've yet to provide. Let's see if I can make this succinct:

1. They confuse minimalism with "elegance." The result is bland, undifferentiated, and tactically shallow. Without a structure to push against (and a system to master), there is no depth of play.
2. They prioritize "flow" over meaningful decision-making. By eliminating friction and meaningful constraints, they eliminate the tension that makes exploration and combat interesting. A meaningful game requires pressure; if everything is smooth, nothing is earned.
3. They forgo substance for style. I don't think I need to say more about ArtPunk.
4. They exist in a culture that fears complexity. The players coming to this game are actively afraid of mechanical systems, leading to design by subtraction...they don't want rules to get in the way of their improv theater. But it is complexity that gives a game its richness and provides a more robust experience. We shouldn't fear complexity; we should fear emptiness dressed up as accessibility.
5. They forget that D&D was always a game first. Instead, these "light games" end up being toolboxes for vibe-heavy improvisation. What D&D originally had...and what these "light" systems often lack...is a world that runs independently of the players.

And just to unpack that last point: AD&D (and the confused, constantly evolving jumble that was OD&D) had an internal logic to it, with rules for running consequential ecosystems. The DM's role is to simulate a dynamic, responsive world that the players are exploring...NOT a variety of scenes and narrative beats adapted to create "dramatic moments" or "emotional catharsis." This living simulation that is the AD&D campaign creates a powerful sense of immersion, consequence, and discovery for the players...not to mention a feeling or real achievement for the progress they make within the game world. That just isn't present in these "lighter" versions of the world's greatest game.

All right. I've said my piece for the day. Happy Tuesday, folks.

"Dear JB" Mailbag #40

Hi JB!  So I am a bit perplexed over the situation and would appreciate any advice. Also my blood is boiling, but I'll try to keep this fair and factual. 

Currently I am a part of an online DnD campaign - and it is the best campaign of my life. I am enjoying it immensely, especially since my previous full-blown campaign's ending traumatized me a bit. My new DM - highly recommended - delivered fantastic sessions: great storytelling, balanced spotlight, the works.

Then one day it all changed, when one of the players asked if his wife could join. She’d supposedly been bullied out of another game. We are decent people, so we agreed. Later, we learned she’d been "bullied out" several campaigns with different groups. Red flag number one.

Her first action was demanding her paladin character be a literal anime space princess and would not accept any pleadings, with us being a rag-tag team of homeless scavengers. She would not budge, and the DM compromised, making her an emperor’s illegitimate daughter (not yet confirmed 100%, but enough to keep her satisfied). Red flag number two.

After some travelling she started subtly trying to change other PCs to fit in her narrative, masking it with back-handed compliments. Such as "Wow, your autognome was so much less annoying this time, keep it up!". And my poor autognome monk was not the only receiver of this treatment, this also included comments towards our cute elf warlock and several NPCs; she even started actively referring to other two players (including her husband) as "my simps". Then one day during combat, she threw a fit when the DM hit her 21 AC anime princess paladin several times. "This is not fair! Roll publicly! I don’t trust your rolls!". We were quite taken aback and again tried to reason with her, after which she claimed she was being bullied again before finally calming down.

By this time me and my friend (warlock) already approached the DM to discuss how she was making us uncomfortable. He said that he would talk to her, and for the next session it all died down, so we thought that it bore fruit. Then a week ago came a breaking point.

Princess multiclassed into warlock. The DM suggested a patron and was crystal clear (both directly and indirectly via NPCs): this patron was evil, would corrupt her, and may exploit her royal bloodline for its own ends. She agreed, as her potential patron promised her an ascension to the throne. We all thought: "How cool is that, her anime paladin will finally be going through an interesting ark!" Yet when the DM roleplayed her character’s growing bloodlust (exactly as warned), Princess was shocked. Princess was outraged. Princess said that her character would never-ever feel such dark urges.

After the session during our scheduled feedback time, she proclaimed she had a "joint complaint" against the DM. What exactly is a "joint complaint" if no one of the party participated, you ask? Turns out, she’d complained to out-of-game friends - who knew nothing about our campaign - and they accused the DM of "stripping her agency as a player" as there was "lack of wisdom saves to resist these urges". Guys, she screenshotted their nasty messages and sent them directly to the DM’s DMs. The messages where they mocked my DM and questioned his competence. I am fuming even now.

Seeing our DM - a kind, talented person - shaken was heartbreaking. So I lost my cool. I told Princess in no uncertain terms that this was unfair, highly unethical, and a violation of trust. If she didn’t trust the DM, she should find a DM that she DOES trust instead of trying to walk all over my favorite DM. She abruptly left the session, and I personally spent 20 minutes consoling our sweet DM.

Here’s the problem: the DM let it slip that he still wants to continue playing with her as there are couple of sessions left anyway and he wants to finish her ark. I also suspect that he is afraid that her husband may leave with her, and hubby is a valuable player and has a great and important character. I love this campaign and the storytelling, but Princess’s behavior is ruining my experience, my friends' experience and our DM's experience. How do I support my DM without enabling her? How do we protect his mental health if she stays? I do not want to pressure him to get rid of her, and my other teammates, although uncomfortable, would like to continue as is... 

EDIT: I deem this necessary to state: I am female, my warlock friend is female, we are not bros gatekeeping the sacred masculine DnD by booting a woman

Space Anime Princess Ruining My Game

Dear SAP:

I am angry right now...so, so angry. And it has nothing to do with you, or the world or the government or anything big and over-arching that affects anyone besides myself. It is a very personal issue/problem, relating to my idiot brother and our idiotic legal dispute and the idiotic legal system and the fact that it is forcing me to do all sorts of bullshit that I don't want to do and DEFINITELY don't have the time for, what with everything else on my plate. It is just one FUCKING DELAY AFTER ANOTHER and after waiting WEEKS for my hearing date to move a trial up so we wouldn't keep hemorrhaging money from my dead mother's estate, the judge dismissed the motion as it appeared the "defendant hadn't been served."  Despite me getting up at the crack of dawn and driving through fucking Seattle traffic to get to the Kent Regional Justice Center to file the fucking proof of service five minutes after the court opened (this after having already emailed it to them on August 21st per the idiotic bailiff's instructions). So NOW I have to redo the whole fucking process again in order to lose another month's worth of cash from this thing just because my brother is an asshole that I can't have removed without a court order.

Fucking hoboes. AmIright?

So, I'm angry. Like really, really pissed off, SAP. And since yelling and screaming obscenities won't do anything to help and I REALLY need to vent right now, I'm going to take it out on YOU. And I want you to know it's not your fault that I'm about to unload, it's me, it's all me, but you know what? You're a fucking idiot, too.

First Off: this is your Dungeon Master's cross to bear, not yours. Your DM has to "man up" and boot her himself...IF (and only if!) he has a problem with the person and her actions.

FOR EXAMPLE: Let's, for the sake of discussion, say I was your Dungeon Master. Yes, yes, and we'll assume I'm running 5E, and I'm all about the lovely "role-playing" and "story arcs" of your characters (have I mentioned I ran World of Darkness games for YEARS?). Let me put myself in your DM's shoes, and some new player comes to me with her "joint complaint." And I ask, um, who's complaining besides you? And she tells me "her friends" and puts screen-shotted comments in my face. Here's how I'd handle it:

#1 I'd tell her "Your friends can go fuck themselves."

#2 I'd say, "Remember how I said no phones at the table? Please get that out of my face."

#3 If she emailed me the screen shots I would hit 'delete' without comment.

And I would make it perfectly crystal clear that NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO PLAY AT THIS TABLE. If you don't like how I run my games, feel free to TAKE A HIKE.

This is easy, easy stuff.

Oh, you're worried the lady's husband will leave? As a Dungeon Master I cannot live in fear that my players will walk out of a game.  CAN. NOT. Do you know why? Because players CAN and DO leave games AT ANY TIME. That is the players' prerogative. Players get jobs. They change schools. They move. The die. They have kids. Etc. You cannot have an attachment to your players such that it dictates control of your game. Period, end of story.

My game = my rules. But YOU don't have to play.

Still, that's NOT your problem, because YOU are not the DM. Likewise, your DM's "mental health" ain't your problem either. Your DM has to take care of his own shit: that's part of being a grown-ass human being. 

You want to support your DM? Show up at his game. That's all the support any true DM needs or wants (though a thank you at the end of a session is always appreciated).

Sincerely,

JB

O is for "Oh, Man..."

Folks, I apologize, but I need to take a break.

O is actually supposed to be for "Olympic Peninsula." Tomorrow's letter was going to be P for "Palouse." But I have a bunch of stuff going on right now, not least of which is pending legal action against my own brother. As you might imagine, it's a real drag.

But I've got a LOT of stuff on my plate at the moment...some of which IS, in fact, D&D related. And the truth is, unfortunately, I just don't have the time or bandwidth to blog about it right now. I need to shut things down for a bit...probably until July. That's when I hope to be on vacation (in Mexico) and should have the free time to relax and unwind and write about various interesting bits of my fantasy campaign.

Right now's just not the time. Sorry about that.

So, for now: adios muchachos. Catch you on the flip.

[for people who need an A-to-Z fix in June, please check out the parallel series of posts Sterling is doing over on his blog, this month]

ASC Review: The Mound of Akbarj

The Mound of Akbarj (Kurt from an idea "conceived by YeOldeJeffe and giantgoose)

AD&D for characters of 4th-6th level

Another submission from Kurt; would this one be as great as his Caverns of Despair? Short answer: no.

For my review criteria, you may check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (three page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews short.

This thing is crap. Reading it makes me feel like the author(s) are simply trying to screw with me...waste my time. This must be how Bryce feels six days out of seven. I don't have time for this; if it's a joke, it's in poor taste.

First off the thing is an ancient burial mound "guarded fanatically" by a group of totally unnecessary (and ridiculous) just-made-up-for-this-adventure humanoids: inbred horse-geese men. Asinine. Oh, they're lawful evil and favor the bow, do they? They also inbreed with geese and horses and have somehow managed to reproduce healthy mutant spawn for generations and I'm only just now hearing about them? This is stupid crap.

Then we have the scale being given in inches: the mound is "very large - a circle 200" in diameter, roughly 600" in circumference and 20" high." Do you mean actual inches? Or tabletop gaming inches (as in 1" = 10 yards outdoors). Because neither makes sense: no one measures the circumference of ANYTHING using gaming inches. Wargaming inches are used for measuring distance of movement, ranged combat, etc. STRAIGHT LINES WITH A RULER, DUDE. Also: your map doesn't make sense: "A circular 10" wide hole marks the only entrance." Well, the map (no scale noted) shows a single square of the grid as the opening for the dungeon. So I square is 10"? Does that mean TEN INCHES? Or is the square 100'? Or what?

For an average party of 5th level (no numbers given), the monsters here are pretty small fry. 1d4 ghouls or giant ants. A single zombie kamadan with no breath weapon? Floating, suspended rust monsters? Really? 

The treasure is all boring and random piles. An urn of 1600 platinum. A coffin with 2237 platinum and 19 ep. 12 scrolls on goose-horse-man culture that are somehow worth 750 gp each (like I want to know anything more about these guys then I already do...). 10,000 s.p. and 4,000 g.p. floating in the air with the rust monsters. I mean, who cares?  Total treasure amount is something like twice what it should be for an adventure this size...so, Monty Haul? Especially given the low challenge level (uh-oh, a trap that does 1d8 damage! To 5th level characters! Oh, here's a 1d6 arrow trap that only triggers 50% of the time...scary!). This isn't what I call "solid" D&D.  And a +2 greataxe isn't a thing in AD&D, just by the way.

Sorry; this one ain't good. One star (out of five).

*

*sigh* Cavaliers

This post is going to address several "bad ideas" found in the UA;  I mean, might as well get them all out of the way at once, right?

Weapon specialization is a VERY bad idea...it falls under the category of "how much have you been drinking, Gary?" Len Lakofka first introduced the idea of an archery specialist (character class) along with a lot of really crunch missile fire rules in Dragon #45; it's not terrible (we had an archer PC back in the campaign of my youth), but most of the crunch only serves to slow down the game (worrying about whether actions occur at the beginning, middle, or end of a segment? Come on, dude...we don't need to micromanage more than we already do). And it introduced the idea of "point blank range" (*sigh*), to Gygax and got him thinking about OTHER possible types of specialists. Hence, weapon specialization.

One can see the appeal in an existing (long run) campaign: high level fighters are watching all the other character classes get fancy spells and abilities for achieving those 'teen' levels and, yet, they're doing the same-old-same-old since they picked up that frost brand sword back at 6th level; 'where's the love?' they cry. Unfortunately, implementing weapon specialization wrecks the combat economy from the very beginning. A normal party generally has a potential damage output of 4.5 damage per PC (roughly) with the high strength fighter types making up for low damage wizard types. But this goes off the rails with weapon specialization and (especially) double specialization (both available at 1st level). A fighter with an 18+ STR (up to 18/50...achievable for most fighter types) and double specialization in longsword strikes with a +4 to hit and +6 to damage, as well as getting two attacks every other round...a potential average damage output of 21 points in round one (25 against a large sized creature). Average hit points for an ogre are 19...for a bugbear 15. First level fighters should not be able to chop down gnolls and hobgoblins with impunity, and if the DM ups the challenge of monsters thrown at 1st level groups, the other party members (who have the same combat abilities as ever) are far more likely to suffer. Plus PBR rules means that same fighter, even without double specialization had a potential average damage output 34 damage per round, due to double damage and adding STR bonuses (all part of the PBR rules) for shots fired within 30'. Back when we used the UA rules in my youth, we saw a LOT of bow specialists. 

Bad Len. Bad, bad, bad. 

Next terrible idea to discuss is the Method V version of generating ability scores. Ostensibly restricted for human characters, this method of ability generation all but assures you of achieving the scores you need to take whatever particular class you desire to play. Having also used this a bit when the UA first came out, I can tell you the PCs end up having a LOT of high scores, not just in the ones they need...far more so than any of the other methods found in the DMG. Rolling 9, 8, 7, 6, and 5 dice (and taking the best three) for the five most important abilities of a particular class are going to give you much better scores than the DMG's Method I which has you roll 4d6 across the board...and who cares if MV makes you roll 3d6 for one (ONE!) ability score when that ability is, more often-than-not, Comeliness?

Method V appears to have originated in Dragon #63 with the introduction of the barbarian class. Originally, the barbarian had NO minimum ability qualifiers (probably a good thing, considering it's supposed to replace normal man types like the nomad, caveman, tribesman, etc. in the MM), but instead determined its abilities through a new method: 9d6 for STR, 8d6 for CON, 7d6 for DEX, 3d6 for INT and CHA, and 4d4 for WIS. The sea change here, however, is the choosing of the class before rolling the dice (i.e. before seeing if the player has achieved the dice rolls needing to qualify for the class). Gygax discusses this decision in Dragon #67:

A few wondered why a decision to be a barbarian character had to be made prior to rolling dice for attribute scores. The answer is simple: The game is based on role-playing principles, and it is easier to do so with a course determined in the first place. Method I of Generation of Ability Scores encourages the player to choose a character profession from a predisposition rather than dice determined statistics. It is but a step removed from there to deciding on play as a barbarian subclass fighter and rolling dice accordingly. Frank Mentzer suggests that the 4d6 system could be employed with minimum score requirements of 16 strength and constitution, 15 dexterity, and a maximum wisdom of 15. That will work, but it seems to beg the question. Playing as a barbarian is a determined choice, not as one of several possibilities -- or a mere afterthought. This is a part of the whole concept...

...In all truth, the sub-class is not too powerful. It is, in fact, under-powered unless some very good rolls are gained in the areas of strength, dexterity, and constitution. To have real prospects for long-range play, the character must have 18, 16, and 17 respectively. That, Gentle Readers, is why they are given 9d6, 7d7, and 8d6 for those categories. A low-level barbarian has a better than average chance of survival without such high rolls, but at higher level, he or she is not going to do well unless strength, dexterity, and constitution combine to give high hit points, low armor class, and superior punishment potential.

Indeed. So the lesson, Gary, is "don't play a barbarian if you can't roll the high stats," NOT 'give the players the ability to play whatever they want.' Sorry. After 40+ years of game play (more than Gygax had at the time he was writing), I've seen what coddling does to one's game. That ain't the way to go.

So, now we turn our attention to the cavalier...a class that may have had an interesting kernel of an idea, but then worked hard to make it work with these other concepts (like weapon specialization) to its overall detriment.

I mean, that's sugar-coating things. The class is a travesty.

Here's what you get with the cavalier in its FINAL presentation (i.e. as it appears in the UA):

• It is not a subclass of fighter, but its own class...and it puts the paladin subclass beneath its banner (more on this later).
• STR, DEX, CON of 15+, INT and WIS of 10+ to enter; however, Method V in the UA makes these quite easy requirements (with 8d6, 7d6, and 9d6 dice rolls).
• Open to humans, high elves, gray elves, dark elves, and half-elves with NO LEVEL LIMITS. That's right...you don't like being limited to 6th or 8th level fighter? Be a cavalier (who still fights and saves as a fighter), and achieve whatever level you like.
• Hit points start at 1d10+3 at 1st level with D10s up through 10th (note: fighters only go through 9th) with +3 hit points thereafter (same as a fighter).
• Progressive "to hit bonuses" in lance plus two other weapons of choice (one a sword, the other a horseman weapon like a flail or military pick). This bonus starts at +1 and increases by +1 every six levels with no end. This bonus can be used defensively as part of a parry (and can also "parry" with a shield at the same time). Cavaliers may make multiple attacks as a fighter 5 levels higher than their actual level with these weapons of choice. High elves would be advised to select longsword.
• A bunch of horse/riding related skills that no one cares about in a dungeon.
• Each of STR, DEX, and CON are assigned a % number (similar to exceptional strength) and every level the cavalier rolls 2d10 and adds the number to the current percentage; when the number exceeds 00, they move up to the next number, eventually topping out at 18/00 in all three abilities (the percentage doesn't mean anything for DEX and CON, but an 18 is still an 18). How this interacts with the CON reduction from a raise dead/resurrection spell isn't stated, nor if these numbers can exceed racial maximums.
• Immunity to fear, +2 bonus to save versus illusions, a bunch of 90% chances to resist mind-effecting magic, etc.
• Ability to continue functioning at negative hit points (though cannot continue to fight).

All pretty swell, right? Like a fighter except more powerful (and potentially a LOT more powerful). You'd probably be thinking, man, that cavalier cat must need a ton of experience points to level up (as the barbarian does). HA! That's the kicker, son...the cavalier needs LESS x.p. to level up than the 'lowly' fighter...at least into the teens:

9th level --    fighter: 250,001       cavalier: 220,001

10th level --  fighter: 500,001       cavalier: 300,001

11th level --  fighter: 750,001       cavalier: 600,001

12th level --  fighter: 1,000,001    cavalier: 900,001

13th level --  fighter: 1,250,001    cavalier: 1,200,001

14th level --  fighter: 1,500,001    cavalier: 1,500,001

So, sure...after reaching 14th level, the cavalier will need more x.p. per level than the fighter to level up (an extra 50K per). But his 300K per level is still a damn sight faster than the ranger (325K), paladin (350K), or barbarian (500K). And to out-pace the fighter? With all those additional benefits? I mean, just what the hell was Gygax thinking? 

Elf? Probably.

This cavalier class makes the fighter all but meaningless in an AD&D campaign. It wrenches humans from their proper place at the center of the universe and allows elves to be ascendant (what is the incentive to play a human cavalier over a high elf?). Of course, it also radically changes the paladin class (now open to half-elves) giving the pally ALL the abilities of the cavalier PLUS all the abilities of the paladin (listed in the PHB), plus the ability to raise the character's CHA every level in the exact same manner as their STR, DEX, and CON.

This is not a complaint about "power creep;" this is simply stabbing the character economy in the heart with a red-hot (lance) point.

SO, NO. There will be no cavalier in my games, sir...not in the way they are detailed in the UA. Neither will there be any weapon specialization or "point blank range" for missile fire. Nor, will I be using Method V for the generation of ability scores (I remember axing that waaay back in high school...and having fierce arguments with my brother over the subject). No sir!  Method I will (continue to) do us just fine.

However, I might very well include the barbarian class...I'll just remove all minimum ability requirements for entry. You want to be a sickly member of your tribe/village, that's okay by me.

; )

Demi-Human Expansion

 AKA Cocaine Is A Hell Of A Drug

From Dragon Magazine, issue #96:

With expansion of the deities in the WORLD OF GREYHAWK Fantasy Setting, and by Roger Moore's articles herein so as to provide for the races of demi-humankind, there is no logical reason to exclude their clerics from play...

Elves, half-elves, and halflings -- being more nature-oriented than the other demi-human races -- deserve admission to the druid sub-class. Elves are now unlimited in their ability to rise in levels within the druidical ranks, just as half-elves have always been...

Elves are no longer prohibited from entering the ranger sub-class with the same reasoning that now opens the druid sub-class to that race....

E. Gary Gygax, April 1985

In the previous Dragon (issue #95), Gygax had outlined new level maximums for the various demi- and semi-human races for characters that have exceptional ability scores, i.e. prime requisites that exceed the normal maximum for their species. As such an event only occurs through the use of powerful magic (for example dozens or scores of wish spells), I see no problem with extending levels for those rare circumstances. 

Likewise, I have even less problem with the new rule that allows single-classed non-humans to boost their maximum level by +2 in a class that they could normally multi-class with (for example, an elven magic-user or dwarven fighter). This is sensible and a nice bennie for non-humans that seek to "focus" in a particular profession. An excellent addition to the game, while still allowing humans to maintain their place in the PC hierarchy by dint of their "unlimited potential."

SO...see those last two paragraphs? One thing: non-obtrusive. Second thing: good and welcome.

Now, let's talk about everything else. Because Gary seems to have been all coked up when he tweaked out the rest of this mess.

Players and DMs alike should take note of an impotant new rule change which is alluded to herein: player characters can be members of certain demi-human sub-races that are not permitted to PCs by the rules in the Players Handbook -- namely, the valley elf, grugach, drow, duergar, and svirfneblin. More will be said about this new development in subsequent articles. For now, however, players who choose to have drow, duergar, or svirfneblin characters should heed this general stricture: The alignment of such a player character may be of any sort, but daylight adventuring must be severely curtailed due to the nature of these creatures. Without special eye protection and clothing, these three demi-human types will suffer slight problems and sickness due to exposure to sunlight. 

No, Gary. No. No. No.

No, you cannot give players to play powerful demi-humans...creatures originally designed to provide additional challenge to high level PCs with their extra special abilities. Creatures with built-in magic resistance or natural spell powers or the capability of summoning elemental monsters regardless of class. No, Gary. You are high, man. You are NOT thinking straight.

Unfortunately, however, the drugs would continue to flow all the way through the publication of the Unearthed Arcana, when the final blow would be struck to the balance of non-human class relations:

The cavalier class is not listed on the tables for elves and half-elves, and the bard class is not listed on the table for half-elves, because level advancement in either of those classes is unlimited to any character with the requisite ability scores to qualify for the class.

Fucking cocaine, man. 

Anyone unfamiliar with the cavalier class as it appears in the UA will have to wait for the next post in this series to understand just how crap-tastic it is to give elves unlimited class advancement in a class that's...basically...a better fighter. That such a character could also be, say, a drow with a bunch of bonus bennies is a friggin' travesty. Oh Noes! So sad I have a -2 penalty to hit in daylight...we're exploring dungeons, jackass! If I'm getting into fights in town, there's already something wrong!

*sigh*

But let's talk about some of the more subtle problems here. Letting non-humans into the ranger and druid class is a thumbing of the nose at the (unstated) wold-building inherent in the original work. Rangers are not "woodsy heroes of good" (and even if they were, why the hell would a DROW get to be one?)...rather they are AVENGING KILLER HUMANS that hunt and murder the humanoids that threaten humankind. That rangers operate in the wilderness is because THAT'S WHERE THEY FIND THEIR PREY.  It's not the "civilized" ork or goblin that they're protecting (human) people from...it's the roaming bands of cannibalistic hostiles that would otherwise overwhelm fragile humanity. Regardless of your take on alignment, forcing rangers to be "good" places them in direct opposition to the listed (evil) alignment of their quarry.

And druids? Do we not remember what these are and where they came from?

DRUIDS:  These men are priests of a neutral-type religion, and as such they differ in armor class and hit dice, as well as in movement capability, and are a combination of clerics/magic-users...they will generally (70%) be accompanied by a number of barbaric followers....

From Supplement I, Greyhawk

...They are more closely attuned to Nature, serving as its priests rather than serving some other deity... Druids have an obligation to protect woodland animals and plants, especially trees. Unlike the obligation of lawful and good types towards others of this sort, the tendencu of druids will be to punish those who destroy their charges, rather than risk their own lives to actually save the threatened animal or plant. Druids will not slay an animal if it can be avoided, and they can never willingly or deliberately destroy a copse, woods or forest -- no matter how enchanted or evil it may be -- although they may attempt to modify such a place with their own magicks.

From Supplement III, Eldritch Wizardry

As explained in the PHB: "Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest."  These are very HUMAN  characters, aligned with neutrality/nature, not the frolicking Chaotic Good elves feasting on freshly hunted deer. If anything, druids and elves would probably live in a state of polite distance (if not Cold War style hostility), each in their own section of the forest...if not different forests altogether. That half-elves can beliong to the druid class (and the druidic-based bard class) speaks more to their human nature than any elvish part of their blood.  The same reason, really, that they can become rangers (although lacking the unlimited leveling potential of a fully human ranger). 

It's part of the neat thing about half-elves: they get more OPTIONS than an elf. Now you're giving me no reason to play a half-elf at all...except as a bard (and interestingly enough, all the half-elves in the campaign of my youth were bards, including my own PC). 

And thus a new trope was born...of elven archer-y rangers and leafy-pantsed druids. Man, it always bugged me the way 3.0 portrayed rangers and druids as elves, and now I know why (though I guess that's not as bad as dragonborn paladins...). Still, if you're going to allow elves to become rangers "by the same reasoning" that gives them unlimited druid access, why not go all the way and let halflings play giant-killer, too? What? They can't shoot a bow?

Idiocy.

Of course NOW ("officially") halflings can become CLERICS...something that wasn't allowed in the PHB (even for NPCs). And, why? Because Roger Moore came up with some demi-human deities for a specific campaign setting, that Gary wanted to throw his editor a bone (and some royalties) by using them as filler in the new UA book. AND he (Gary) extended the maximum clerical level obtainable by non-humans (PC and NPC alike) to the point that a dwarf or elf with 18 wisdom (not even a number requiring wish magic!) can obtain double-digit (!!) levels of experience...while the poor half-elf can't get higher than 8!

That's right: a dwarf cleric can reach a higher level of cleric than they can fighter. Cocaine.

Okay, again, understand the original world-building of the game. Originally, ONLY HUMANS COULD BE CLERICS...of the adventuring sort. Yes, you could find dwarf and elf clerics (see their monster description in Supplement I: Greyhawk), because it makes sense that a demihuman population worships their own gods and have their own priests. But those clerics were of limited ability: 

On the other hand half-elves, since their inception, have always been allowed to earn levels as an adventuring cleric: presumably because of their human nature. That they could not advance very high showed how their elven half limited their ability to advance within the (human/adventuring) church...even though they could make up for it through multi-classing (half-elves with OPTIONS had the largest number of multi-class possibilities of any race in the PHB). It is this same elven nature (presumably) that prevented the character from being a paladin (originally) even though they wee human enough to take up the mantle of ranger. 

[yet another reason why the UA's allowance of half-elf paladins is such a slap in the face]

Similarly, half-orcs were also given the ability to become clerics and cleric multi-classes...the only other non-human (besides the half-elf) with the capability. Again, the assumption is this is possible because of the character's semi-human nature...they have the blood of humanity in their veins and so can learn the ways of the human (adventuring) church. That these teachings could be perverted to evil and combined with the skills of an assassin speaks to their orcish side, I imagine.

But with the UA rules, no half-orc with max wisdom (14) nor half-elf (18) will ever equal a dwarf with even a 16 wisdom (not an elf with 17) because...reasons? Their racial deities are cooler, I guess?

*sigh* (again)

Hey! How 'bout this? Have you ever noticed that...with the advent of the new super-official Unearthed Arcana...even while demi-human class and level potentials were "expanded," a LOT of the original (i.e. PHB race-class combos) were actually reduced? Huh? What? That's right...here's the comparison:

   Dwarf fighter, STR 16 (or less) in PHB: maximum 7th level

   "Hill Dwarf" fighter, STR 16 (or less) in UA: maximum 6th level

   (High) elf fighter, STR 17 in PHB: maximum 6th level (7th with STR 18)

   High/Grey elf fighter, STR 17 in UA: maximum 5th level (6th with STR 18)

   Gnome fighter, STR 18 in PHB: maximum 6th level

   Gnome fighter, STR 18 in UA: maximum 5th level

   Half-elf fighter, STR 18 in PHB: maximum 8th level

   Half-elf fighter, STR 18 in UA: maximum 7th level

   (High) elf magic-user, INT 18 in PHB: maximum 11th level

   High elf magic-user, INT 18 in UA: maximum 10th level

So, yeah: adopt the new UA rules and all your "standard" races are going to suck a bit more. Hey, but at least they raised the maximum thief level a half-orc can achieve (still not "U" however, so why would a half-orc be anything bother being anything but an assassin?).

It's crap...it's all just a big pile of crap. I'm sure there are folks that LOVE the Unearthed Arcana rules and the newly expanded demi-human roles. Sorry...I'm not one of them. Here, I'll share another fun, personal anecdote with everyone: when I decided I wanted to start playing AD&D again (four-ish years ago), I decided to look at each D&D race, and their allowable classes, and figure exactly how high of level I wanted their potential to be based on A) how I viewed the species, and B) how it fit with my world/setting. This included looking at what I wanted their best fighting ability to be, the highest level of skill I wanted them to get to, the best spells they would have access to, and all the various "class abilities" (like the gaining of henchmen or "baron status" or whatever) they might achieve. I decided that I was not going to be a "slave to the rules," but would "make my own choices" as to what level/class restrictions would be allowed in my game. 

And what I found was that I liked ALL the classes and level restrictions AS WRITTEN. The PHB limits are perfectly appropriate, based on how I see my campaign world. Well, except I'd like a dedicated, "focused" non-human to be able to achieve a slightly higher level (and the UA '+2 to max' rule gets that job done). 

But I definitely don't want elven cavaliers and (adventuring) dwarven clerics and half-elf paladins in my game. Nor do I have any interest in making duergar and drow and svirfneblin available as PC race types...my players have yet to discover and explore the Underdark! Why should that content be available to players from the get-go? 

(Spoiler: it shouldn't)

There have, of course, been worse travesties in D&D since the UA was published. Allowing PC githzerai (hello, 2E Players Options!). And WotC's devolving the druid class into its current shape-shifting/no semblance of origin/bullshit is a clear sign that the designers live in Seattle and smoke way too much weed ("Dude, like, why don't we, like, lean heavy into the shape-changing thing? Like isn't that better than making them use a scimitar all the time?" "Yeah, dude. Like what if it were a dragon-born druid, and it could become, like, a REAL dragon." "Dude, cool.").  Yeah, far worse travesties. But adopting the UA rules wholesale into your 1E game is...pretty bad. You're going to end up with a lot of elven cavaliers.

(I mean, why wouldn't you? No level cap, right?)

No. The PHB works JUST FINE. Add the +2 bonus to max level for single-class demi- and semi-humans. Leave out the non-standard "sub-races" (terrible term, BTW, Gary). Leave out the cavaliers. If PCs end up taking their prime requisites into the 20s some point down the road then, sure...take a gander at the UA tables to get an idea at how many bonus levels to grant (here's an idea: +1 to max level for each point over 18). But, otherwise, just stick with the classics; stick with what works.

And remember folks: drugs are bad for your brain.

Must. Stop. Doing. Cocaine.