Good Bones

In the past, I've watched a lot of "house flipping" and "remodeling" shows on television. My wife digs this kind of programming (she finds it relaxing) and I find it...well, interesting enough. I am rather the opposite of a "handyman" type. But I don't mind spending a lazy weekend afternoon, sitting on the couch and drinking coffee.

[we rarely have the time to "veg" that much these days, considering all the weekend kid events...but I did start this post with the phrase 'In the past...']

Anyhoo, I myself have done very little "remodeling" in my life...I've certainly never "flipped" a property. But as I said, I've watched these shows and there's this phrase that I sometimes here come up about a house...that it has "good bones." Which, I assume, means it has a good foundational structure on which to build or hang new drywall or, well, whatever. I don't know...I said I wasn't "handy" like that.

What I AM somewhat handy with is adventure writing/design (well, I think I am anyway...). The last couple-four days I've been working on my rewrite of I4: Oasis of the White Palm. Oh, man, it's really good. Not to toot my own horn, but I'm kind of in love with what I'm writing...this looks like it's going to be really fun to run. I'm digging it. 

But I want to give some credit to Philip Meyers and Tracy Hickman, the original writers. Because the thing has good bones...there IS a strong foundation here, mainly in the maps and some of the overall 'Big Concepts." Not the story, mind you...the story is terrible and I've discarded it completely. But many of the situations and factions are quite workable. Well, re-workable. Er...I mean, they're stuff that I can work with and pound something good and decent out of. If that makes sense. Which, maybe it doesn't. But I mean it as a compliment...if a back-handed one.

I'm currently working backwards through the thing because dungeons are more fun (and, in many ways, easier) to stock than other areas. Eh, what am I saying. It's all pretty easy to stock. But the dungeons are definitely more fun. Because they have more obvious threats (and bigger treasures...I like treasure). So I did the Crypt of Badr al-Mosak first (even though it's Part III of three) and then, today, I finished up the Temple of Set (Part II). Yes, these have all been renamed. No, there are no "EverFall Pits" with flying mummies, nor any kidnapped princess-brides...you want that, you can buy the original as a $5 PDF and run it. This is going to be clever, okay? Without the silly puns and with a modicum of sense and sensibility.

I mean...*sigh*  So, NOW, I was just about to sit down to start in on Part I (the Oasis itself), and...as is my wont...I started diving into my analysis of just what is here. What IS this town? I already know a lot of what MY town is going to be, but I want to look at the BONES of the place, the underlying structure. Because the structure is functional...I've run I4 before, back in the day, pretty much exactly as written and I don't remember any hiccups or problems. So let's see what we've got...first up, the Oasis random  encounters, lifeblood of a dynamic environment (or, at least, that which provides verisimilitude of a living-breathing town). What have we got?

Women carrying water. Women carrying clothing. A trader "with beads." Traders with palm dates. Traders with camels. Home Guard. A drunk. 1-4 Male Drow. A noble. A slave on an errand. A....

Wait, what? 1-4 male Drow?! In the desert? Who cares if it's at night...how the hell did they get there? What the heck are they doing? They're not even one of the "special" encounters...just a normal evening encounter around the village.

*sigh* This is why O Great & Glorious Hickmans...this is why I rewrite your adventures. Crap like this. There's a lot of whimsical stuff here that doesn't really fly in my view of an AD&D adventure, but I can stomach a certain amount of whimsy (even if...sorry...I'm writing the pegasus squadron OUT of the adventure). But there's "whimsy," and then there's nonsense. A thriving oasis town filled with fantasy-Islamic/Bedouins is not a place where Drow are just "walking around."

Many, many problems here.

Ah, well. The first two bits have turned out great; no reason to think the town part can't be spruced up. I've even added a couple new NPC personalities to the mix, which is also good fun. One nifty thing about my version: the writing's quite a bit tighter (which is to say, I don't pad it out as much as the original). Consequently, I've already trimmed about four pages from the text. That is GREAT; I really want to keep this thing to 32 pages (max), but I want to add more actionable, game-able content, not just:

D. Hills

Craggy, low hills of broken and baked stone jut upwards at weird andles and cast tortured shadows.

Play: Movement rate is half normal in such areas for all persons except dwarves. There is a 60% chance per hor spent searching of finding a cave shelter large enough for the party.

Or this:

E. Bleached Bones

The trail suddenly broadens amid the dunes. The clean, white bones of camels stand in a roughly 100-foot circle.

Play: There is a 30% chance that a party member will discover that the bones have only recently been picked clean. All worthwhile objects have been taken from the area. A set of three sled tracks leads east to location F.

Or this:

L1-L4. Ruins

Jutting jaggedly from the midst of the desert are ancient broken pieces of hand-hewn stone.

[no other info given, just the boxed text description]

This is what I like to call "tourist crap." It's not nonsensical, but it serves little or no purpose. Regardless of whether or not the players figure out that the bones "have only recently been picked clean," so what? It makes no difference to the adventure. Even if there ARE dwarves in the party, they still can't move any faster than the other, non-dwarf members. This is just extraneous detail for a "tour guide DM" to dole out, presumably to "break up the monotony." Hey, try to roll under 30% on percentile dice? Yeah, you made it? You can see these bones were only RECENTLY picked clean...dun-dun-DUN!

Far easier to simply:

• Calculate the distance between point A and B
• Calculate the time needed to travel there.
• Roll for random encounters based on the time traveled

...and just get to the play at the important bit (wherever that final destination is). 

It's not that we need to 'get to a place where we roll dice,' but it IS about getting to a decision point where the players can make a meaningful decision. Looking at the wilderness map of I4 (which I will be redrawing to match my southern Idaho desert), I can see there's no reason the players would ever have to go to area #D ("Hills")...no road leads there, no plot requirements mandate them passing through the area, nothing. It is just USELESS FILLER.

My adventure doesn't have useless filler.

Anyway, I'm enjoying myself and my little project. Ugly as the original house is, I think my "remodel" will look quite swell. Despite my complaints the thing does have "good bones;" that makes a difference.

Later, gators.

[also, just for fun: this came to mind when I wrote "tour guide DM;" it's kind of catchy!]

ASC Review: Arena AEmilia

Arena AEmilia (Zed)

B/X for PCs of 4th-6th level

Mm. I was wondering if I'd see one of these.

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.

Well, now. It seems I must explain what an "adventure" is. 

Strictly speaking, adventuring is the activity that players engage in when they play D&D; Moldvay's (B/X) glossary defines an adventure as "any session where a DM and players meet to play a D&D game." However, the textual description is a bit more specific:

Each game session is called an adventure. An adventure lasts for as long as the players and the DM agree to play. An adventure begins when the party enters a dungeon, and ends when the party has left the dungeon and divided up treasure. An adventure may run for only an hour, or it might fill an entire weekend! The amount of playing time depends on the desires of the players and the DM. Several related adventures (one adventure leading to another, often with the same player characters) is called a campaign.

In the (later) Expert set, the scope of where an adventure takes place is broadened to include the wilderness, defined as all the area outside of the dungeon. And yet, the dungeon is ever the focus of the Dungeons & Dragons game.

A "dungeon" is defined by Moldvay as "a place, underground and often among ruins, where characters adventure." Again the textual description is more broad than that:

It is the DM's job to prepare the setting for each adventure before the game begins. This setting is called a dungeon since most adventures take place in underground caverns or stone rooms beneath old ruins or castles.

Note that Moldvay states MOST adventures take place underground...not all. In the Dungeon Master Information section of the Basic D&D rules, Moldvay provides a "step-by-step guide to creating a dungeon." The second step, DECIDE ON A SETTING, makes clear that not all settings need be underground, as his list of "common settings" include castles, towers, ancient temples, strongholds, and towns. Not every "dungeon" need be a ruin, cavern, or tomb.

However, the setting (where the adventure takes place) is, as stated, the second ("B.") step of creating a dungeon, i.e. creating the place where adventuring will take place during the game. The FIRST ("A.") step is the choosing of a scenario:

A. CHOOSE A SCENARIO

A scenario is a background theme or idea which ties the dungeon together. A scenario will help keep a dungeon from becoming a boring repetition of "open the door, kill the monster, take the treasure." A good scenario always gives the players a reason for adventuring. The DM should also design a dungeon for the levels of characters who will be playing in it. A good scenario will also give the DM a reason for choosing specific monsters and treasures to put in the dungeon.

This, I would argue, is the HEART of adventure design. Without a scenario, there is little reason to adventure...D&D simply becomes a game of rolling dice until resources are expended or boredom overtakes us. The scenario provides context for adventuring; it helps focus the players and promotes active engagement with the setting (i.e. "the dungeon") where the adventuring is taking place. Readers might note that this paragraph on scenario choice provides at least part (if not most) of my judging criteria. 

SO...let's look at this Arena AEmilia. It provides a setting...a place. The place is stocked mostly with NPC characters, though there are a few beasties in animal pens. The NPCs are given some personality notes. The setting has a map. There is treasure listed...in exceptionally poor amounts for adventurers of levels 4th-6th.

But there is no scenario presented. 

There is no reason for PCs to go here. There is no adventure. There is an arena. There are people. There are shiny silver coins in their purses. I suppose you can kick open doors and stab people for their purses of silver coins, but I'd like to think we've long since evolved past that type of play. This is D&D, not Greg Costikyan's Violence RPG.

This is not an adventure. It receives the coveted zero stars (out of five) award.

Unearthed Arcana Revisited

From Dragon Magazine, issue #59:

What follows is strictly for the AD&D game....

With plenty of labor and even more luck, there will be an ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS expansion volume next year. It will be for both players and DMs, with several new character classes, new weapons, scores of new spells, new magic items, etc. What will follow here in the next few issues is a sampling of the material slated for inclusion in the expansion.

E. Gary Gygax, March 1982

There would be no expansion volume in 1983. Nor in 1984. The "next book of monsters" (also mentioned in the article) which was to be released afterwards, instead appeared in 1983 under the title Monster Manual II. Presumably, being mainly a compilation of new monsters appearing in prior publications...especially TSR adventure modules...it was a much easier matter of transcribing existing creature entries in alphabetical order. 

Unearthed Arcana, the 'Book That Was Promised,' was finally published in the summer of 1985.

Pause for a minute. Why am I writing this? Just what is this all about?

Let's talk some straight talk for a moment:  as long time readers know, I got back to playing AD&D again in November of 2020. Since that time, I've introduced a lot of young 'uns to the game, written a lot of adventures, and spent a bunch of time spreading "the Good News" of the game (as I see it). However, in all that time...now entering my 5th year of 1E campaigning...I've limited my game to the only books I consider good and essential, namely the PHB, the DMG, and the various monstrous manuals (MM, FF, and MM2). The adventures I've written (approximately 6 or 7) have all carried the notation that I strongly recommend against using the rules in the Unearthed Arcana.  I haven't even cracked the UA in front of my kids; I've mentioned the book to Diego, but given only a cursory (and negative) overview of the tome to him. Neither of my kids know much...if anything!...about it, which should come as a surprise considering just how much lore they know of the history of the D&D game, its publications, and the various changes its seen over the decades.

[f.w.i.w.  my kids get curious about stuff and I tend to be a wind-bag of a talker]

Just why have I excised the Unearthed Arcana from my 1E table? It's not like I never used it...as I mentioned the first month I started this blog (!), we absolutely adored the UA, back in the day, and implemented every rule it had: Comeliness, traveling spell books, social standing and birth order, bronze armor, etc., etc. If it was in the UA, it was in our game. Chain lightning was a staple spell. Heward's Handy Haversack was a staple magic item...as were magic quarterstaffs (had to have something for all those thief-acrobats in our game). My brother ran multiple barbarian characters. We used weapon specialization; maybe even double specialization. There were Hierophant Druids. We replaced the unarmed combat system in the DMG with the simplified version found in the UA. I mean, we used it all.

So why have I not used it at all since returning to the King of Games, four years ago?

There is a stigma to the UA these days. The Grogtalk folks refer it as "The Book That Shall Not Be Named." Published in 1985 it is deep into the decadent years of TSR (post-Mentzer Basic, post-cartoon, post-DragonLance)...the years that led to the spiraling issues that would (eventually) cost Gygax his company. There is a commonly held belief that the Unearthed Arcana was solely cobbled together from past Dragon magazine articles in an effort to bring one more Gygaxian cash-cow to the table to save the company from debt. This idea is echoed in the Wikipedia article on the book:

The original Unearthed Arcana was written by Gary Gygax with design and editing contributions by Jeff Grubb and Kim Mohan, respectively, and published by TSR in 1985. Gygax reportedly produced the book to raise money as TSR was deeply in debt at the time. He announced in the March 1985 issue of Dragon magazine that Unearthed Arcana would be released in the summer of that year. He proposed the book as "an interim volume to expand the Dungeon Masters Guide and Players Handbook", as the information was spread out in several places and difficult to keep track of. Unearthed Arcana was to include material previously published in Dragon, written by Gygax and updated and revised for the book.

While the latter part of that quote is indeed from Gygax's own pen (in March of '85), the inference is clearly inaccurate...as stated at the beginning of this post Gygax had already planned on an expansion volume in 1982, and the articles he penned over the next many issues (which would compose the bulk of the UA) were written expressly for the book that was coming. This was not some sort of cash grab...THAT statement in the wikipedia article is accredited to a 2006 article in The Believer magazine, in which the author (Paul La Farge) asserts:

By 1984, the company was $1.5 million in debt, and the bank was ready to perfect its liens on TSR’s trademarks: in effect, to repossess Dungeons & Dragons. Gygax got word that the Blumes were trying to sell TSR, and he returned to Lake Geneva, where he persuaded the board of directors to fire Kevin Blume and published a new D&D rulebook to raise cash.

But La Farge's research is suspect. He notes in his footnotes that the book was Unearthed Arcana, a tome that "introduced the gnome race;" a gross misstatement (the gnome had been around since the 1978 PHB), done mainly, I believe, for effect (the gnome race was rather reviled by 2006, due to changes of characterization over the years). But I draw this conclusion because much of the article seems snarky and sensational.

While TSR was definitely facing financial difficulty due largely to mismanagement, it is a fact that Gygax had every intention of publishing Unearthed Arcana long before 1984. His time spent in California (which would result in three seasons of the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon...from '83-'85) was the main reason for any delay in publishing the projects that envisioned...and I believe that, and the personal issues he had during this time (his 1983 divorce and his new "Hollywood social life") contributed as much as anything to the declining quality of the products with his name on it post-1983.

But much, if not MOST, of the UA was created before 1983. Not only that, much of it was play-tested...if one is willing to believe the statements/updates given in Dragon magazine in 1982.

And so...perhaps this material is worthy of the game?

That's the conclusion that I am...slowly (and somewhat reluctantly)...beginning to come to. Why were the acrobat, barbarian, and cavalier featured in the D&D cartoon (first airing in September of 1983)? Because, they provided a good advertising vehicle for a planned book that had already published and tested said classes (the last one, the cavalier, being found in the April '83 issue of Dragon). I have no compunction with the feelings that the UA, as published, was somewhat rushed, slap-dash, and error-riven. But much of the stuff in the book...both its ideas and its mechanics/rules...were far less so. 

Rather, they were thoughtful or interesting...and worth a gander.

What took me down this particular rabbit hole? Well, a couple weeks ago I had this "great" idea of statting up the "D&D kids" for the 1E system. But while most every one of them is easy enough, Diana the acrobat was throwing me for a loop. And since I certainly didn't want to use the UA (because of the reputation the thing is currently carrying), I figured I'd 'go back to the source' and check out the original Dragon article that had been "ransacked" for Gygax's "company needed cash infusion." And what I found (in issue #69) was an article, pretty much word-for-word the same as in the UA, and written by Gygax himself (whereas, I had assumed most if not all the UA material had been culled from the work of other authors). There was also this introduction:

"This time, rather than reveal a new sub-class such as the Barbarian, I though the Enlightened Readership of this splendid vehicle might enjoy another concept. What you are about to read is the information so far developed pertaining to a split class. This a first. To my knowledge, such a possibility has not been expressed before in any similar game system. There is nothing similar to it in the AD&D game system although choosing to change from one profession to another is not too unlike the idea. Let us then get to the business at hand. I bring you, without further ado, the official new split-class for thieves."

"This time?" "The information so far developed?" "Official new split-class?"  This was not some highlight piece deemed to have enough traction for inclusion in a cash grab book...this is a sneak peak at mechanics already in development! By Gygax himself! In January of 1983!

I quickly found a copy of Gygax's "barbarian" from July of 1982 (issue #63); more information helped crystalie the picture:

"As usual, I am working on too many projects at once, and each gets a bit of attention but seems to never get done. At some point quite a few should suddenly be completed, and my productivity will seem great indeed. Meanwhile, I have dusted off the barbarian character class which the testers have enjoyed the most of the new classes I have proposed for the expansion of the AD&D rules. While the other classes seem to need more work, barbarians were instantly used and enjoyed by those eager for a change. Now you, Gentle Readers, have a chance to test the class for yourselves and see if you agree."

Okay, so...wow. This was a project in active development since at least 1982. It was being worked on in conjunction with other projects (in issue #59...March 1982...he details these as including the Monster Manual II, the never-would-be-released T2, The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun (WG4), and yet another adventure called "Wasp Nest -- The City State of Stoink" which I don't think I've ever heard of). It is being tested in play. It is to be part of an actual, planned expansion to the AD&D rules.

And what, exactly, was my problem with this rule set again? Re-reading the barbarian entry, I don't see anything terrible with it. Nothing over-powered, considering the x.p. cost...and while the magic item restrictions can be 'bought off' at higher levels (the levels where those restrictions can really matter), doing so negates many of the barbarian's special abilities. And above 8th level, a normal fighter will be going up TWO levels for every ONE of the barbarian. 

No looking back, my main issue with the barbarian appears to have been all the "world building" required to use the class effectively...and that's exactly what I like about it now, in my (more mature) elder years. This bit (from the UA):

Cavemen, dervishes, nomads, and tribesmen (see Monster Manual, "Men") are now considered barbarians.

...is, frankly, amazing. And says a LOT about how Gygax expected DMs to approach the AD&D campaign in their individual settings.  The standard classes are all a part of a civilization; and everything outside of that civilization are considered superstitious, magic-fearing savages. Political correctness be damned; in a post-apocalyptic fantasy setting, I kind of like this...a lot!  And it makes the humanoid tribes even MORE savage. Something to think about.

But...okay. The barbarian is cool. The thief-acrobat is cool. What about the other stuff: things like comeliness, weapon specialization, and the (*shudder*) cavalier class? 

Here's the thing: going through these Dragon magazines, issue-by-issue, it's clear that not al of the items that ended up included in the Unearthed Arcana were created equal. The new attribute Comeliness, which I detest immensely, was simply a rambling thought exercise by Gygax as part of an update/letter to the "Loyal Readers" regarding the state of the project (see issue #67). Weapon specialization, another poorly thought out concept, is simply mentioned in passing (after a larger section featuring new illusionist spells) as a conversation Gygax had with Len Lakofka with some hastily sketched out (and un-tested) rules, based on Len's unofficial "archer" class. There is no "double specialization" mentioned. 

[sorry, folks, I'm not a big Lakofka fan]

And the cavalier? It was not an off-the-cuff musing like some of these other articles. But it IS different from how it finally appears in the Unearthed Arcana. For one thing, the cavalier is a sub-class of fighter...as it should be!...a horseman specialist based on the chivalric knights of myth and legend.  It is, however, generally a mess, trying to shoehorn the half-baked weapon specialization rules with the theme-specific weapon restrictions, and focus on mounted (i.e. lance combat). Except that elven cavaliers (another concept I abhor) get archery specialization because...elves?  It's pretty dumb/bad, though perhaps not as terrible as the UA version which changed the nature of the paladin class, all for the bad.

However, Gygax admits the cavalier is only half baked; again this is April 1983 and life was pretty complicated (he'd just finalized an acrimonious divorce with his wife of 25 years in March); in his intro to the class he writes:

"As usual, your comments are invited. Input is most desirable, for what appears here is the basis -- not the final form -- of the sub-class. As is also usual, it is unlikely that comments sent to us will receive a direct reply -- there just isn't anyone on staff at this time to handle such work. While I am working to put together AD&D material, and Frank Mentzer is engaged in the revision and expansion of the D&D game system, the Industrious Staff of TSR are seekingpersonnel to fulfill the needs of you, the Understanding Readers. Thus, we should soon have the wherewithal to respond properly to all correspondence. Meanwhile, suffer along and accept my general thanks to all of you."

Sure, Gary. On to California.

So, the Unearthed Arcana is a mixed bag. New weapons, spells (perhaps), barbarian and acrobat classes? Good. Cavalier, comeliness, and weapon specialization? Frigging awful. Yes, the thing was rushed to production without adequate play-testing (or, even, proof-reading) probably because the company was strapped for cash to pay the bills. But this was a planned project, and much of it has Gygax's imagination and good design work imprinted in it. 

And, for me, that's enough to give the UA a second try. Not the whole book, mind you, but much of it. I will, of course, want to go through the old Dragon magazine articles and see which ones need pruning, which ones are unworkable, which ones were 'good enough' before other fingers stepped in to "help" get the book together. It isn't a big deal...something to amuse myself (culling these idea). And, hopefully, something to amuse my players.

[it is, perhaps unfortunate that I have altered the 1E magic system for my home game, as the plethora of new spells and the spell book rules (not to mention cantrips and apprentice MU mechanics) would be far more useful with "standard" 1E. But my system works too good to change it just to add a handful of beloved spells (like dismissal, chain lightning, and teleport without error). Well...we'll see. We'll see]

All right, that's enough for now. My expanded mind has been emptied, and I'll try to get some sleep. Signing off from Mexico!

; )

Just look at this geezer...

Why D&D Works

I had an epiphany Saturday night, something I'd been struggling with and considering for years: why does D&D work, i.e why does it have staying power as a role-playing game, when so many other RPGs do not?  What is it that sets D&D apart from all other systems, genres, and competitors?

Saturday, while walking to the store to pick up some beer, it came to me: raise dead. 

Now, to be clear, there are a lot of reasons why D&D works...and works really well...for long-term (campaign) play. The driving force of the advancement mechanics (the x.p./leveling "carrot"). The plethora of challenges that scale from low levels to high. The micro-/macro- scale of the setting (i.e. the premise of exploring closed "dungeon" sites, and the endless possibility of exploring a whole world or different dimensions/planes). 

But all these things can be (and are) replicated/implemented in other genres of games: lots of games have "levels" and/or points-driven systems. Lots of of genres feature "adventure sites" for drilled-down exploration. Most RPGs present a scale of challenges from the beginning stages until the later.  Many, many games have emulated these particular aspects found in D&D. 

However, while those things, when implemented, can add staying power (i.e. sustained interest/engagement with game play) in practice, I've never any of those games to last for longer than a few months...and generally not even that long. 

[cue all the folks who've been running 20+ year Traveller campaigns to pipe up]

Here's the thing: I think (I think) that unless you have some slavish devotion to a particular genre/setting IP (for example, the person who ONLY plays Star Wars, because they love-love-love Star Wars and would not play RPGs at all without system to allows them to live in the SW universe), for sustained engagement over time, the participants require two things:

1. a real, true challenge that tests them (no matter how poor the player, they become competent with enough hours logged), and
2. a "tangible" (I use this term VERY loosely) form of accomplishment/reward demonstrating their impact (i.e. there has to be something to show for the time spent).

And the area where D&D differs from pretty much EVERY GAME on the market (certainly every game I can think of...which is more than a few), is the presence of of game mechanics that allow dead/destroyed characters to return to the game without breaking the verisimilitude of an escapist (fantasy) game. This is not "plot armor" for characters; instead magic like raise dead, reincarnate, resurrection, and wish are all baked into the system...these spells are a hard-wired part of the game's setting.

So what does this mean? Why is it important?

Well, for one thing, it means a DM can push the players as hard as he/she feels is appropriate for their capabilities without fear that beloved characters might be killed derailing years of work and investment. See, I readily acknowledge that players develop attachments to characters over long periods of consistent play...and not just attachments to their own characters...and DMs are not immune to this effect either. You work a character from 1st level up to 5th or 8th or 10th+ level, and the character takes on the same status in the minds of the participants as a major character in a favorite television serial.

It happens. It's not about creating a nifty "backstory" for the character, or developing a PC's "personality." It's about actual play, over time. Such characters matter to players.

And D&D provides means of bringing them back to life. The D&D world is a magical world...by definition and by design...that presumes souls (and spirits, yes, I see you DDG) do not immediately depart to their eternal reward upon expiration of the physical body. Players know this going in to the game. No, it's not necessarily easy (nor cheap) to do so, but there is always room for an Orpheus like quest. I've seen it happen...more than once in more than one campaign.

And so, because of this possibility, DMs can push the players hard. The kid gloves can come off. The DM is free to create dangerous scenarios, and run those scenarios by the rules, letting the dice fall as they may, and allowing the players to suffer and strive and triumph and fail on the basis of their own abilities and their own luck. Without the need for plot armor immunity, "death saves," or comic book style "ret-cons." Real Play; Real Stakes. Death on the line. 

Which, by the by, makes the experience of playing D&D all the more visceral...all the more adrenaline-pumping...for the people sitting around the table. Cheers and groans and fear and real tension. And, upon success, real feelings of achievement. The kind of roulette spins that breed gambling addicts...which is why people who enjoy D&D play, will continue to love and enjoy it. 

It's not an interest in improv that keeps them riveted.

So, yeah, this is the difference between D&D and (pretty much) every other RPG on the market. Superheroes, space opera, horror, espionage...none of them offer both the hard challenge of D&D, and the setting ingrained "get out of jail free" cards that take the sting out of loss. Of course, the D&D game has more wonderful things than just the magic of raise dead (including asymmetrical game play, a reward system that encourages action and cooperation, etc.), but this is the thing that, I believe, is UNIQUE to Dungeons & Dragons, and it facilitates long-term buy-in and investment which opens the potential to see how a campaign can unfold...in all its glory.

Happy Monday, folks. 

: )

[and, if you're an American, please don't forget to exercise your right as a citizen and VOTE]

"Memorable Encounters"

Oh, boy. Feather ruffling time.

I don't care about writing memorable encounters. Writing adventures is NOT about writing "memorable encounters." Trying to design "memorable" encounters is the DM-equivalent of the player twinking out over how to use their kewl powers in some super-awesome combo.

No. Just no.

People need to trash the "video game thinking." Video games are not the origin of this concept, but they have far and away been the proliferator of it. Stop thinking like you're designing a video game. OR, if you really must: go design video games. Video games love (and desperately need) "memorable encounters."

D&D does not.

I'm looking back, over my many decades as a DM and a player, and trying to recall "memorable encounters" and I'm pretty much drawing a blank. Really: I'm coming up with zero. Certainly nothing that was set up to be "memorable." There are, of course, things that are memorable, and they fall into three general categories: situations, successes, and failures.

Successes are times when the PCs had a "big win." I've noted some of these on Ye Old Blog over the years: things like slaying the naga in N1 or offing the gender-bent Strahd in my re-skinning of I6. 

Failures are usually amusing (to me anyway) TPKs and pyrrhic victories; I've sometimes blogged about these as well, including parties (well, what was left of them) fleeing White Plume Mountain with their tails tucked between their legs. My own journey through Q1 (as a player) resulted in a rather memorable failure, just by the by.

Situations are something else completely...I think I'd best define it as "player manufactured drama." Players bumbling into some sort of predicament, based on ignorance, lack of leadership, or ridiculous in-fighting of some sort. In my youth (before I 'wised up') this sometimes (often?) led to some sort of PVP...but not always. Sometimes, "situations" just involved PCs trying to Rube Goldberg their way out of some sort of silliness. Yes, it makes for a "memorable" event.

These are the things that are remembered: successes, failures, and silly situations. Not encounters. Encounters are a dime a dozen. It's not about what the encounter IS...not about the types of creatures or NPCs or their combination of attacks. It's about what happens DURING the encounter and the RESULT of the encounter...maybe. A fight with kobolds that ends in a TPK is memorable because we got gaffled by a bunch of tiny dog people with spears...not because of the monsters' special abilities or any sort of tactical BS. 

You do NOT need super special snowflake set-piece encounters to have a memorable game of D&D. Forget that noise, because making it a priority is a distraction from what makes ACTUAL memorable D&D play. Memorable D&D play comes from playing the game HARD, with CONSISTENCY. It is about applying PRESSURE via the rules at hand. It is about creating scenarios that drive PLAYER ACTION, and then following that thread ruthlessly...for good or ill. Sometimes the players win and they take away a big pile of treasure with lots of cheering and hollering. Sometimes the players lose and everyone has to roll up new characters (at least now they can try playing a ranger...or whatever).

For my players, there are only a couple things I care about them remembering at the end of the day:

#1 I want them to remember their character and their character's journey. NOT because the character has a cool backstory or story arc or blah, blah, blah. I want them to remember (with fondness) their dwarf or paladin or WHATEVER and feel a sense of pride (if the character was successful and had a long career) or wistful sadness (if its career was cut short by some untimely demise). Because, in the end, the character's journey is the player's journey.

#2 I want them to remember me, as a Dungeon Master: that I challenged them and pushed them and played HARD with them and allowed them to EARN Every. Thing. They. Got. 

Because THAT, my lovely readers, is what D&D is really, really all about. That, my friends, is what makes the game great. Playable content and a well-run game is all that's required to make a game memorable. DMs that are "firm but fair." Worlds that are consistent and have verisimilitude. Play experiences that players get lost within.

Yes, encounters are a large part of the D&D play experience. But it's not the uniqueness of an encounter that makes it worth remembering (if it is worth remembering). Rather, it is the interaction with that encounter, and what the consequences of that interaction might be...and those things can't be scripted, only played. 

You want a memorable script? Write a screenplay.

Something New

I wrote three-quarters of a rather long post yesterday (the 19th...my son's birthday) that I didn't have a chance to finish/publish...what else is new?...

[at least it wasn't particularly maudlin...THAT long post happened a couple days before (when I was more than usually drunk) and will probably stay, lingering, on the draft board as a reminder of my "inner darkness." I was just in a rather depressed mood that evening]

...*ahem* a rather looong post attempting to explain why D&D as designed is eminently suitable to its role as an adventure game, as opposed to...mm...well, pretty much any other game that gets categorized these days as an "RPG."

[we are, of course, NOT discussing "computer RPGs;" for purposes of my writing here, I have zero interest in CRPGs]

Anyhoo, I didn't finish it because A) time constraints, and B) I was having a hard time nailing my point or (perhaps) bringing the argument/thesis around to a satisfying conclusion (satisfying to me at any rate). Why do other games...games not beholden to elves and swords and wizards and dragons...just, flat out suck for long-term, experiential adventure gaming?

Why indeed.

SO, while out driving today, or musing a bit, or...SOMEthing....a new idea popped into my head. A new, interesting (maybe) project. Kind of a culmination, or (better) a possible synthesis of a NUMBER of ideas I've had over the years. For a particular game design. 

As usual, this particular idea is a bit...daunting. 

So that's all I want to say at the moment. If anything comes of it, I'll write more. I just want to spend a couple days/nights tinkering with the idea. That's all; just...tinkering. 

My son is a teenager, by the way. 13. I started this blog two years before he was born. It's been a long road. A long, long road.

Peace and love, folks.

YOU Are The Story

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

But it's (kind of) important. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And all the imitators of D&D followed suit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: )

Boring Old D&D

Dennis commented thusly on my last blog post:

"This week, my older boy and I started playing a campaign dungeon crawl board game. My friend, the game host Adam, the other adult player Emily, and I were discussing RPGs at our lunch break. Adam was telling us how he's usually uncomfortable with RPGs because he's not really into "doing voices" or trying to think like a fantasy person. He's much more into the puzzle-solving, tactical decisions, and finding ways to gain advantage from the rules side of game play. Hence his preference to play these sorts of games that sort of mimic D&D play, but with just the interaction with the rules and the current state of play to worry about. 

"I think he would 100% agree with this blog post, and honestly, I agree too. Knowing the rules, including the in-game lore that comes baked into the rules, is not destructive metagaming at all. It's good game play. 

"He was curious about how someone could play the same game for decades and not get tired of the rules, though!"

[emphasis added by Yours Truly]

Ah, yes. Boring old D&D, right? Let's get down to it. 

I'll start with this: my kids have been playing more video games lately than I like, which is probably about a quarter of what their friends play. They have Nintendo Switches with a couple-three games, the main one of which they play being Minecraft, a game that shares a lot of its play elements with old style (if Basic) D&D. Prior to this Christmas, they'd shared a single Switch, but my daughter received her own as a gift, and now they're able to do much more...cooperative play, for example, or networking with friends who own their own consoles. 

Yesterday, Diego asked if he could download Fortnite, a game that has been all the rage with his classmates the last year or two. Sofia asked if she could download Roblox, a game that is popular with kids in her class (and which I remember, was very big with Diego's classmates when they were Sofia's age). I told them both that I would "think about it," balancing the pros (21st century social networking and friendship building) with the cons (stunted development of mind/imagination as your entertainment is piped directly into your brain). I'm still thinking about it.

Video games are a vice. They can be addictive, they can lead to obsession. Are they as destructive as, say, alcohol or drugs or pornography or caffeine? Probably not...but they are damaging. And the damage they can do, minor though it is, can hit you in multiple ways from multiple angles. Relationships. Health. Mind. Maturation. I don't let my kids drink booze or coffee or surf porn or smoke...as a parent, why should I not police their gaming?  

D&D is not a board game (duh, says the choir I'm preaching to...just hold on). Yes, "duh," you say, no shit Sherlock, D&D isn't a board game.And yet there are plenty of folks, including longtime RPGers who've left D&D play, or who only play later edition D&D who look at the game I play and say, "sure, it's not a board game, but it's not much more than that, is it?" Guys (and Gals) who see the thing in the most simplistic of terms:

• Kill monsters (roll-roll-roll)
• Get treasure (count points)
• "Level up"
• Rinse
• Repeat

How boring is THAT? Where are the bells? Where are the whistles? You play a fighter? So, you're a walking stack of hit points with a backpack to put treasure? And a sword and heavy armor? And all you do is charge and roll a D20 and play a game of dicing for attrition so that you can get an abstract "score" of points based on g.p. value in order to gain MORE hit points? How is that even FUN?  Didn't the whole novelty of the thing wear off after the first couple sessions? 

Hell, didn't the novelty wear off after the first couple of encounters?

And for some folks, the answer to that question must be a resounding YES, as evidenced by their own actions...their leaving of the hobby, or their moving on to other games, or their need to make D&D about something other than the game (It's about the "role-playing!" It's about the story making! It's about the strategy of character builds! It's about the camaraderie of friends playing together! It's about annoying the other players at the table and doing PVP! Etc.). The game...as written, as designed...is simply TOO SIMPLISTIC, even if you play the "advanced" version with its extra options and tacked-on complication and fiddly-ness.

For those people...well, I can only imagine what they must think of me. I mean, what do you think about a guy who's been playing the same game for 40+ years? Haven't you explored (or drawn) enough dungeon corridors? Haven't you found (or given out) enough treasure chests? Haven't you killed (or run encounters with) enough imaginary monsters? Isn't it BORING? 

Why not just play Sniper 3D (a stupid video game that I currently have loaded on my phone)? All the mindless bloodshed and violence, all the imaginary gold coins and points (and leveling), all the new gear upgrades and none of the WORK it takes to play (or DM) a game of Dungeons & Dragons. Right? If what you want is BORING OLD D&D why not just get an app that lets you murder-hobo in the free minutes that you can sneak during the course of your humdrum day? Take out some aggression on imagined foes! Feel good (*ding!*) about another "achievement" earned!

*sigh*

For all the imagination I see on display these days -- the huge numbers of tabletop games and RPG products on the market (both digitally and in print), the huge numbers of video games on the market, the huge numbers of TV shows and films on the various channels, networks, and streaming services -- for all the imagination I see on display these days, there is a surprising lack of imagination on display. 

Old D&D isn't boring. YOU are boring. Or, to borrow and repurpose a pithy phrase from a shopping bag picked up at a bookshop some years back: "If you think playing old D&D is boring, you're doing it wrong."  If you're tired of the game, you're not really playing the game to its potential.

Most games of the "board" variety, like most consumable entertainment "product" (movies, TV shows, video games, etc.) are FINITE. They have limits; they have boundaries. They END. You can take a game like, say, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and play through it 3-4 times before it gets tiresome. Other games, like Red Dead Revolver might only be worth a single playthrough. Films and TV series are similar (some are worth a re-watch)...same with books and (probably) story arc campaigns of the type published by WotC.

But unlike these forms of entertainment, D&D is ENDLESS and INFINITE. For all practical purposes, anyway...there is (maybe) a limit to the human imagination, but in some 5,000 years of recorded history we haven't yet reached it. People who focus on the "killing" and "looting" aspects of the game are, in fact, missing the point of play: these are mechanical elements of game play (as is the Vancian magic system) that enable D&D to run. They are not the objective of game play anymore than the engine of a car is the "objective" (or point) of owning a vehicle.

Does it really not make sense? I'll try to clarify even more:

• D&D is a fantasy adventure game...it provides (imaginary) peril and danger and as a game requires rules (systems, mechanics) for modeling its inherent violence. There are LOTS of good reasons why the system works as well as it does (that's for another post), but you NEED the system in order to run a game of fantasy adventure with perils, dangers, and inherent violence.
• So why play a game of "fantasy adventure?" Well, I've addressed that before in a different long-winded post. Rereading it...well, I don't think I could restate things much better but (for purposes of this post) I'd just emphasize that experiencing fantasy adventure is kind of the opposite of experiencing boredom.

My daughter and I spoke at length yesterday about the kinds of games she enjoys playing (because she complained she doesn't like the same games Diego and I do, and neither he or I want to play her type of games). I found that the games SHE enjoys playing on the playground at school are (mostly) variations of video games her friends play, imaginary games based firmly in the gameplay of games like Doors, or Choo-Choo Charles, or Minecraft. Often, one or more participants will take the role of narrator, describing what occurs while the other kids react within the context of the game...it is imaginary play based on video games without the video game console.  

[not much different from how my friends and I played at her age...except that we were running D&D without books and dice]

The human imagination is an amazing thing, and (in conjunction with other likeminded individuals) can provide hours of entertainment without the need to resort to dice or rulebooks or gaming consoles. Boundless as it is, however, it requires grist to mill and fuel to go (I've written about this before, though it was with regard to artwork)...and here, HERE, is the main, major difference between "boring old D&D" and any number of other finite, consumable forms of entertainment: it encourages (some would say requires) you to go out and expand and explore and research and fill your mind and imagination. 

Instead of stunting growth and development, D&D (done right) increases growth and development.

Finite, closed system games (like all video games) do not do this. To build a world (as a Dungeon Master must) requires you to study geography, history, politics, philosophy, religion, economics, military warfare, agriculture...whatever!...all to varying degrees depending on what points you are emphasizing at the moment. Depending on what part of your imagination you need to expand for the requirements of your campaign.

And the exploration of the world (which is the part of the players) will expand their own imagination and understanding, even assuming they DON'T participate in outside research, because of the necessity of reacting to and meeting the challenges the Dungeon Master offers them.

I can't praise it enough. 

Closed system games don't offer this "mind expansion." Instead, they offer the opportunity for system mastery...board games, played enough, will evolve competent strategies, opening moves, specific tactical plays and functions that randomizers can only somewhat mitigate...in the end, one hopes for adequate opponents to offer challenge.  Understanding this, I see why a game like Magic: The Gathering maintains its popularity...it is endlessly evolving, endlessly offering NEW tweaks and forms of system to master. For the aficionado of competitive MTG play, any ennui is dispelled with each new series issue.

Old D&D, of the kind I play, does NOT evolve...au contraire, the more I tweak the rules, the more I end up going back to the tried and true default systems (more often than not). Instead, it is the PARTICIPANTS of the game (the DM, the players) who end up evolving. I am a different Dungeon Master today than I was a year ago, let alone three-four decades ago. Likewise, I'm a vastly different player (very much improved) than I once was. Very much improved...and loving it.

Tired of the rules? Tired of boring old D&D gaming? 

No, not at all. My interest and excitement only deepens the more I engage with it. Many long-lasting games have simple rules that are easy to master. It's important not to conflate "complexity" with "depth." The rules are simple so that they don't get in the way of the game. The game play is what makes D&D the King of Games. 

: )

Desolation

The last couple days I've been going through the old TSR modules I3: Pharaoh, I4: Oasis of the White Palm, and I5: Lost Tomb of Martek. Pharaoh was Laura and Tracy Hickman's first (self-published) adventure module prior to their being hired on at TSR...along with Rahasia, it was on the strength of this module that the couple were acquired. I've owned the TSR version of Pharaoh...and the its sequel titles...for decades. I first ran I4 for several cousins at a Christmas gathering in Port Angeles, circa 1986 or '87. I ran the entire trilogy for my brother and his friends circa '88 or '89.

I don't think I've looked at them since. And it shows as, in more than a decade of writing this blog, I've mentioned them only a couple times...and then only briefly. 

[oh, what's all this about then? Aren't I supposed to be continuing my prior post about "adventures?" Yeah, I am. Is this a sign that I'm procrastinating? Probably. Still figuring out how I want to start and whether or not it needs to be a two-parter. Patience, folks! I'll get to it!]

So why am I looking for them now? Well, in considering fitting the entirety of the War of the Lance campaign (a campaign played out on a rather small continent) into my little corner of fantasy reality, I started thinking about the Hickman's other noteworthy creation (not Ravenloft): the Desert of Desolation trilogy. After all, the desert was a magical, cursed creation...how big is it that it couldn't be laid over a corner of my world?  

Welp, it turns out...not very big at all. The area it encompasses is about 90 miles across its longest axis and 50 miles the other way. It's too much area to wedge in south of the Palouse (where I would have liked to have it), but it would be pretty easy to throw in that southeast corner of Oregon.  Just means I have to actually develop Oregon, a world building exercise I'm NOT extremely enthused about.

But WHY Desolation? Well, it's in that low/mid-range level of adventures. My players are in that range. And they were pre-Dragonlance/story garbage, so they should be...um, okay? And they're well-written/laid out (i.e. nice and clear for reading) so prep is minimal. And I do have fond memories of them...how would my memories hold up upon analysis with my old, veteran (geezer) eyes.

How indeed.

I3: Pharaoh is "designed for a party of six to eight players of the 5th to 7th levels of experience." I4: Oasis of the White Palm is written for characters of level 6th to 8th. I5: Lost Tomb of Martek is written for levels 7th to 9th. Reading this we can infer that a party of the proper number should expect to gain a level of experience upon completion of each portion of the trilogy (or, at least, after finishing the first two portions).

SO...a party of the maximum size (eight) should EXPECT to receive enough x.p. to level them from 5th to 6th level after I3 and from 6th to 7th after I4. Everyone groks this, right? A 5th level fighter needs 17,000 experience points to rise to 6th level, but I think it's okay peg this at 15.5, considering almost all fighters should receive a 10% bonus, given the ability score guidelines in the PHB. So, 15.5 x 8 = 124K. Now, for me, I'd probably want that entire amount (124,000) available in potential treasure found, especially in a trap/trick-heavy dungeon like Pharaoh, but I'd be satisfied with 60%-70% considering monster encounters and the possibility of selling unwanted magic items (yes, there is such a thing in AD&D). So, let's call it 74K - 86K worth of treasure at minimum.

A quest-giving ghost isn't
bad...but what if the cleric turns it?

How much does Pharaoh offer? 72,335 worth (if one counts the Star of Mo-Pelar as a gem of seeing). And that's pretty close to right! Especially when one understands the Hickman's presume goody-good adventurers who will most likely sell that libram of ineffable damnation for 40,000 rather than retaining (and using) it for 8,000. 104,000 x.p.? Not bad. And while the distribution isn't great (just under 33% of numbered encounters have treasure)...it's OKAY (B/X distribution is one-to-three, but I prefer my AD&D adventures to have more of a 40-50% ratio). Yes, the Hickmans had some design chops, back in the day.

Oasis of the White Palm, unfortunately, is not quite as good. A group of eight 6th level PCs of the fighter variety would need 255K (including 10% bonus) to achieve 7th level...the minimum suggested for the final part of the trilogy. I4 (credited to Tracy Hickman and Philip Meyers) provides only a bit more than 62,000 (62,519, to be exact), of which barely more than 35K is monetary treasure. 

A couple quick caveats: there is MORE treasure than that in the adventure, but acquiring it would require the PCs to rob/kill the many good-aligned NPCs that they are supposed to be aiding (I don't think that's the authors' intention!). The players are working for a Sheik Kassim Arslan, who does offer "the wealth of my tent" in exchange for the PCs' help which means, taken literally, that he could dig up another 17,250 worth of treasure experience (16,250 x.p. worth is actual monetary treasure). BUT...would the leader of his tribe REALLY give up a decanter of endless water (considering they're a band of desert nomads!)? Would he bankrupt his clan out of gratitude? Um...

Even so, that's under 80K in treasure experience. Even if we gave 'em that 60% leeway you're only about halfway to where you need to be (you'd want over 152,000). This is TERRIBLE...especially considering the overall quality of the module (in comparison to other modules of the time) and the attention displayed in I3. Quite possibly Oasis was rolled out with less play-testing (I3 had been developed over several years prior to its TSR publication in 1982; I4 was published in 1983).

Anyway, it IS possible to get the treasure count higher: by selling all the crap magic items that are present throughout the adventure. Four maces +1. Chainmail +2, plate +1. A scimitar +1, shield +2, sword +2. 6 arrows +1 and a potion of gaseous form. And...hoo boy!...more cursed magic items than I've EVER seen in a single adventure; here's the full list:

Potion of poison, incense of obsession (x2!), phylactery of monstrous attention, periapt of foul rotting, necklace of strangulation, helmet of opposite alignment, and the skull of cargath (an evil artifact that injures non-evil clerics if used). Of course, there's also a libram of gainful conjuration that only functions for neutral magic-users and drive NON-magic-users insane. 

I mean, it's really notable just how shitty the treasure is in this adventure. 20,000 g.p. worth of the monetary treasure comes from a pair of gemstone eyes in a statue that will PROBABLY BE DESTROYED by the PCs as the statue summons a relentless hoard of monsters so long as the eyes are functioning, and they may be destroyed far more swiftly than pried out (resulting in the total treasure "take" to be reduced substantially). Likewise, two of the major opponents in the adventure are DROW (in the desert! In the freaking desert!!) armed with all the usual Drow goodies (magic weapons, armor, cloaks, boots, etc.) ALL of which dissolve in sunlight (and such is stated in the module text). Did I mention this adventure takes place in a DESERT?

*sigh* Now I feel bad for pumping the tires on this module.  I'm going to blame the absence of Laura from the design process, but...poorly done, Oasis. Poorly done.

Lastly, we come to I5: Lost Tomb of Martek (credited solely to Tracy Raye Hickman). Assuming, somehow, we get the character to the minimum suggested level (7th) to tackle this, will they find the adventure "rewarding?" How does 127,000 experience points worth of potential treasure sound? To me, it sounds like "not much" for a party of eight 7th level characters. Considering a fighter is looking for 55,000 x.p. to advance (and an 8th level character would be looking for 125K!!!) that's a pretty small dent in the overall pie needed to level up.

"But JB! They don't NEED to level up at the end of this epic adventure do they?" No, I suppose not. But 80+ numbered encounters (in I5 alone)? How many sessions to navigate this thing? How many months spent playing out the entirety of this trilogy? Still: here's the part that REALLY chaps my hide:

There are only eight encounter areas in the entire adventure module that contain treasure. That's less than 1-in-10.  That SUCKS.

And really only SIX encounter areas...because at the end of the adventure, after you've gone through all the time, space, distance distortion levels and fought upteen monsters (many the same-same types of monsters) and halve faced untold frustrations with the crazy tricks/traps...after all THAT you get to Martek's dimensionally displaced tomb and see his treasure halls (three different chambers) with wealth so vast that the thieves that beat you there have LITERALLY DIED OF HEART ATTACKS FROM GLIMPSING THE TREASURE and you (DM) get the following instructions from the module:

Everything in the citadel. including all treasure, cannot be taken out of the citadel without Martek's permission. All of Martek's treasure has been magically enchanted so that it cannot be removed from this citadel. Only Martek can remove that enchantment, so unless he says it can go, it stays.

So, guess what: the PCs don't get to cart off all the treasure. IF they raise Martek from the dead (the goal of the adventure) he thanks the PCs and allows each to select THREE items from the hoard of items available. That 127K figure I came to? That's from assuming you have an average (surviving) party size of six and are selecting the 18 most profitable (in terms of x.p.) items from the hoard.

Still, it would be unfair not to point that many of these items are rare, "big ticket" types, easily worth three to five times their value on the open market: a lot of magical books (including a book of infinite spells), a dancing sword, a nine lives stealer, a shield +5. Selling those items (instead of retaining them) would make for a fairly profitable haul...AND keep the party's inventory of enchanted items manageable.

[for what it's worth, Lost Tomb of Martek is also mercifully devoid of cursed magic items]

When it comes to AD&D, selling magic items is both valid and necessary with regard to the game economy. It doesn't mean that there are "magic shops" in your game world (*barf*)...generally, the DM simply hand waves the sale and the item vanishes from play, replaced with a pile of gold (and x.p.). You can make it a bigger deal, forcing players to find buyers. etc. (I've done this at times), but then you risk players trying to steal items back or knock-over the dude who has the money for such a purchase...which short-circuits the game economy (not the game world economy, but the way the mechanics of the game interacts with each other). 

Still, finding buyers of 20K or 40K items in the middle of the desert (much less willing to buy cursed items) is a bit of a stretch for the verisimilitude of one's campaign.

[as an aside, I'll note that Anthony Huso, in his adventure design, uses the cash value of magic items when doing his spreadsheets for treasure as opposed to x.p. value (which I generally do). This is probably the better procedure for DMs whose players are likely to dig every piece out of all the nooks and crannies, or who play regular, looong sessions. For an intermittent campaign, or one where players routinely miss half of what's available, using the x.p. value for treasure counts seems to work slightly better]

Of course, Hickman is not overly concerned with verisimilitude. He clearly stated his design priorities long before joining TSR with his wife, endeavoring to meet four objectives:

1. a player objective more worthwhile than simply pillaging and killing
2. an intriguing story that is intricately woven into the play itself
3. dungeons with some sort of architectural sense, AND
4. an attainable and honorable end within one or two sessions playing time

That's really the whole "Hickman Revolution" in a nutshell, isn't it? Less attention paid to the mechanics of D&D (like treasure acquisition), instead looking to meeting "story goals." Elaborate plots and story arcs to be played out (with hard rails coded in to prohibit deviation). Expansive, isometric dungeon maps. And assumptions of "heroic goodness" from the players in a battle against evil.

[ha! Just realized Oasis of the White Palm, much like DL2: Dragons of Flame, has one of those "dying bystander" info-dump encounters where the NPC dies, no matter how much healing PCs might apply. See GusL's post for an echo of my opinions on this tactic]

Okay...that's long enough for now; have to run some errands before the kids get out of school (Wednesday's their short day). I have a couple more things to say about the Desert of Desolation series...especially with regard to dromedaries and the logistics of desert travel...but that's going to have to wait for a later post. Maybe tomorrow. When I try to tie this whole thing into the "better adventure design" conversation.

; )

Later, Gators.

Going On Adventures

As mentioned before, I recently participated in Prince of Nothing’s “No ArtPunk” adventure writing contest…this was the second year for NAP (NAP2!) and I think there’s a lot of positive aspects to it, even besides the charitable aspect (sales of the final book of top entries go to autism research...somewhat amusing given our niche market). 

Design/writing is design/writing and such things are good practice. That’s why I do it. There is also the shared “think tank” of reviews, feedback, and analysis hashed out in a “public forum” (Prince’s blog) that helps disseminate knowledge and promote certain values with regard to how one “does D&D” (hint: it’s not in the “ArtPunk” fashion, hence the contest’s name). I enjoy participating in this discourse, and lending my Old Geezer perspective to these young bucks. 

Okay. Very nice. Full stop. 

Here’s The Thing: using pre-written, pre-packaged adventure “modules” are a hack approach to playing Dungeons & Dragons, especially if one is playing the Advanced game. 

*sigh*  I’m sure I’ll take flack for this stance. 

"After all, JB, don’t YOU use adventure modules all the time in your game? Haven’t you written upteen numbers of blog posts about how you’ve re-vamped such-and-such adventure to make it work in your world? Don’t you craft dungeons for your own players?

 "Jesus, JB, isn’t this the very example you’ve been modeling for your readers?"

Yes, to all that (perhaps with a caveat or two). And let me be the first to say: I am NOT above reproach and reprimand. 

Dungeons are EASY. Crafting them, running them…they are the low-hanging fruit of D&D gameplay. Building GOOD or BETTER adventures is not as easy, but still: easy. It is D&D at its most simplistic form. And I’ll also add: crafting and running dungeons (i.e. site-based adventures) are skills that all DMs should develop, and skills they can (and will) continue to use, throughout the whole of their gaming lives. 

BUT: these modular, site-based adventures…these dungeons…they are just the first step of gameplay. 

AND: if you ONLY run dungeons (or “adventure modules,” whether written by yourself or someone else), then the campaign you’re running hasn’t yet gotten out of second gear. 

I apologize if I have, perhaps, led readers on about how to make “good” or “great” adventures, talking about treasure counts and encounter frequency and whatnot. As I’ve written before (more than once) my thoughts on many D&D subjects have evolved over the years. Heck, both my understanding and perception of the game has changed quite a bit. 

Let's see if I can craft a distillation of my paradigm:

An ADVENTURE is: any situation presented to the players that provides some chance of reward while involving commensurate risk, but which may be refused.

That's pretty broad...and it should be. Players and characters come in all shapes and sizes of ability and effectiveness. Breaking into the Iron Fortress of some Arch-Devil to steal McGuffins of Ancient Evil is probably not a good scenario for a new batch of players or low-level characters.

When I was a kid, I started my D&D game the way anyone following the instructions in Moldvay: I drew dungeons, filled them with monsters and traps and treasure, and then ran players through them. When I got my Expert set, I incorporated the tougher monsters and better treasures into my dungeons to accommodate the higher level game play that was occurring. I also made a few (brief) forays into Wilderness (i.e. out-of-the-dungeon) adventures, mainly using the module X1: Isle of Dread as a guide.

The hex-crawling never held much appeal for me: what is hex-crawling but tracking movement (often random movement due to high chances of getting lost) while rolling for random encounters until the party stumbles blindly into some set piece encounter? That's not "adventure" in the way I define the term.

THAT being said, just traveling from one place to another IS an adventure. Forget the whole idea of "hex-crawling" for a moment (and its associated game mechanics). Unless you (DM) are dead set on basing your entire campaign within an enormous, never ending "megadungeon," at some point your players will be traveling from one place in the imaginary world to another.

This travel...this space between dungeons...this IS "adventure," and the next tier in one's DMing ability.

"Wait, wait! What? You just said hex crawls aren't adventures!" Yeah, I did. I also said forget hex crawls for a moment. Let me explain:

Players (PCs, adventurers) don't just wander without purpose. Or, rather, they shouldn't wander without purpose. They have reasons to go places. They are (imaginary) people...not migratory birds. Put yourselves in their iron-shod boots for a moment: our party has just finished scouring the entirety of the local dungeon/bandit hideout/goblin den. Is it reasonable to buy a week's worth of food and then just "set off" into the wilderness, expecting challenge and reward to find us?

As is the answer to most rhetorical questions (as my old humanities professor would say): "NO!" with a small chuckle.

People don't do that. Well, maybe suicidal imbeciles. But most rational folks (adventurous or not) wouldn't. Even in our real world...depressingly devoid of unicorns and dragons...grabbing your napsack and marching off-road into the wilderness is a bad idea. No, I don't care if you were trained as scout-sniper for the USMC. I've known such individuals (and played D&D with them) and, no, they're not that stupid.

Destination. Purpose. These are things rational individuals have. "Adventure" is what happens on the way.

When I started playing AD&D "for realz" (circa age 12-13), it was with the near total abandonment of the dungeon or "static adventure site." Instead, we explored the world in which our characters resided. It was a fantasy world, created from whole cloth by the DM, but the map (not a hex map) had quite a bit of "blank space" to it. As we travelled from destination to destination, having adventures, our characters grew in both knowledge and experience...just as we players grew in knowledge and experience. And the map ended up having fewer blank spaces.

Dungeons were still run. I ran Tsojcanth, Forbidden City, an assassins guild of my own creation, and (towards the end) the Demonwebs. My co-DM ran Ravenloft (I wasn't present for that), one or two homemades, maybe a couple from Dragon, maybe some stuff ripped out of Castle Greyhawk. But those were few and far between. Our adventures were mainly composed the things that happened on the road, interactions we had and relationships we built with various NPCs, scrapes and shenanigans we might get into in larger towns. 

Granted, our world was the work of amateurs. It had all the trappings of vanilla fantasy of the pseudo-medieval European variety (i.e. "D&D-esque"). But it had no history (that we ever wrote) or imbedded politics. The "factions" and "powers" that came into being all developed in play: Machiavellian nobles, benevolent kings, shady assassins, friendly archdruids. Ours was a developed world and rather densely populated (mostly with humans)...you had to travel long distances (often via flying mount) to get to anything like "true wilderness." Such travel was exceptionally dangerous...far away from civilized lands, communities where you might find food/shelter were sparse (if present at all), and you were more likely to wander into a pack of trolls than anything resembling "friendly NPCs." You didn't just wander into that shit without purpose...and even if you did, you better make damn sure you have a means of provisioning yourselves and (hopefully) a ranger or barbarian type to keep you from getting hopelessly lost.

Roads. Roads were important. Stepping off the road was as perilous as in Tolkien's Mirkwood.

Back in civilization, things were far easier. Business folks (shopkeepers, innkeepers) weren't apt to stab one in the back or slip you sleeping potions because they were doing business. PCs had to look for work because the money found would (eventually) run out. But there were always local issues that needed dealing with...the average NPC was busy with their daily lives. I don't recollect a single time that PCs were hired by a wizard at a tavern, or offered a treasure map by some shady, cloaked figure; those things just didn't happen! What was MORE usual was getting into a bar fight...perhaps over a lady...someone getting beaten and/or killed and then getting in trouble with Johnny Law. More than a couple jail breaks. 

Often time, destinations were suggested by rumors heard in one community. "Such-and-such king is holding a contest/tournament," or "Baron So-and-So has a Problem." Smelling opportunity, the PCs would pack their bags and set off to the next place, picking up other PCs along the way. As they grew in level, they also grew in reputation, and many of the characters became their own "factions" with their own agendas. A patriarch built his castle and started attracting zealots. A wizard built his tower and pursued his own magical research. A bard wooed the most beautiful woman in the land...and incited the vengeful jealousy of multiple powerful figures.

And because of those agendas, new destinations were chosen, and new adventures were had.

See, here's the thing...the real deal, the dirty secret...about D&D: the game doesn't really start until you've come out of the dungeon. People talk about "endgames" and "dominion play," but they are speaking of superficialities with only a partial understanding of the game's potential. 

When properly engaged with the game, the participants are taking part in an act of creation...of world creation. They are crafting their own Silmarillion, penning their own stories, writing their own histories, building and enriching the fantasy environment. That is what "campaign play" is, at its highest form. And it is a near equal partnership between the players and the DM(s). The DMs may be setting the starting geography, but it is the players' interaction with that geography that gives the world "life."

[of course, little prevents D&D players from doing their own landscape work: founding towns, building castles, digging dungeons (and populating them with summoned monsters, traps, and treasure), felling forests...even raising mountains is possible with the right magic spells! Literal world building exists as a distinct possibility for the enterprising player, even when NOT acting as DM]

SO...site-based adventure design, i.e. dungeon writing, is a piece of the DM's work, a tool every DM should have in his/her toolbox. But that's just the elementary level of game play. The next, higher, level is world building, a much taller order. But it's only with a properly built world (or the beginnings of a properly built world) that one can start to build true adventures based on meaningful context. That is to say:

situations that provide some chance of reward involving commensurate risk

...any of which can be refused by the players.

[the refusal part is important. Might need to write a separate post about that]

These days, I'm building my own campaign world in a less amateurish fashion, though it's tough without the creative partnership I had in the past (my old co-DM doesn't game anymore, so far as I know. Her business these days is coaching struggling writers to finish their novels). On the other hand, I have a lovely crutch in the form of a real world map (the Pacific Northwest) with real world climate, resources, population centers, etc. and an existing history that I can twist and turn to my own ends. Makes the running of the world rather easy which, in turn, frees up an enormous amount of time that I can use to develop profitable, dangerous scenarios. Me shoe-horning in various adventure modules (Ravenloft, The Sentinel, Hommlet, etc.) is admittedly lazy on my part...but players like dungeons and they remain an integral part of the game.

They're just not the entirety of the game. 

All right. That's probably enough for now. Not sure how this one is going to land with folks, but at least I got something down for a Thursday morning post. I have a couple follow-ups planned that piggyback on the subject, but comments, questions, and feedback would be appreciated...especially disputes or calls for clarification. Thanks!