C is for Cascades

I missed the April A-Z Blog Challenge this year, so I'm doing my own...in June. This year, I will be posting one post per day discussing my AD&D campaign, for the curious. Since 2020, this is the ONLY campaign I run. Enjoy!

C is for Cascades; i.e. the Cascade mountain range. Other than huge swaths of forest which gives Washington its nickname "The Evergreen State," the Cascades are probably its dominant physical feature.

There ware two mountain ranges in Washington; the Olympics (on the Olympic peninsula) are smaller...I'll talk about them in a later section. The Cascades range from Canada down into Oregon, and pretty effectively divide Washington State into two halves...prior to the mid-1800s, there really wasn't any practical way for crossing the mountains, save by traveling down the Columbia River. Since I run AD&D and my campaign setting spurns dynamite and railroads, this immense partition remains largely impassable, save by undertaking treacherous travel over a handful of mountain passes (the same ones that would, in our own world, become Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass, and White Pass).

Effectively, my campaign is divided into Western and Eastern Washington and rarely do the twain meet.

But, of course, they have. My players have adventured from Chelan and Douglas and Grant counties out to Clallam (on the Peninsula) and are now (currently) in Western Idaho. How did they initially get to the west side of the State? Magic, duh (their ship got swept through a magical gate and crashed on the shoreline). How did they get back to the east side? By adventuring through the wilds of Oregon and crossing the range on the south side of the Columbia (what in our real world would be Interstate-84).

Not easy...but possible for intrepid adventurers of mid-to-high (8th) levels.

But, hey, I'm making it sound harder than it really is...it's not like my players are hex-crawling along the Oregon Trail. The existence of the Cascades gives me a convenient excuse for partitioning my "world" (i.e. the campaign setting) into different sections...sections that are VERY separate/different from each other. The players have yet to adventure in Washington's I-5 corridor (Pierce/King/Snohomish counties), for example...because I haven't detailed those places. Oh, I have some vague ideas regarding warring city-states, but...well, more on that bit later. Point is, I don't really know...and that's okay because there's plenty to do on the east side of the Cascades, regardless of what I know or don't know.

The mountains also provide interesting ideas for adventure scenarios. While mining isn't a huge industry in 21st century Washington, plenty of ore has been pulled out of the Cascades over the years. A quick google search tells me some 2.3 million ounces of gold was mined in Washington up through 1965 with millions more ounces of gold still lurking undiscovered. Minted, that would put a LOT of coins in circulation...treasure, in other words: treasure that could be found, spent, stolen, hoarded, and looted in an endless cycle of adventure. 

Of course, that's nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands of TONS of iron ore that has been mined in the cascades over the years. That makes for a lot of armor and weapons, even at a fractional amount. Copper mining in the Cascades has yielded less than half that amount but, still...tons. 

[I'll note that most silver mined in the Pac Northwest comes out of Idaho, not the Washington Cascades, but since the amount mined is more than a billion ounces, I'm sure there's plenty of silver pieces in circulation outside the "Death Lands"]

And then there are the dwarves.

So...if one actually reads the description of dwarves in the Monster Manual, you'll find there's not a whole lot of cultural information on the species:  "Rocky hills are the favorite abode of these sturdy creatures. Dwarves typically band together in clans which are not mutually exclusive or hostile but are competitive." Aaand...that's about it. They hate goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs. They speak the language of gnomes, goblins, kobolds, and orcs (in addition to their own language), and only 75% of dwarves have any knowledge of the human (Common) tongue. There's some stuff about "mountain dwarves" being slightly taller, but the level range given is the same as that found for "hill dwarves" in the PHB (to be fair, the MM came out before the PHB and compared to the dwarves of OD&D, this would have been slightly higher). 

Well, whatever...in MY campaign, you'll only find "mountain dwarves" in the Cascade Range; this is their "native territory." You will not find dwarf clans in the Olympics; they are not nearly as mineral rich (and, yes, my dwarves are miners) as the Cascades. My dwarf clans tend to specialize in whichever veins of ore lie in the vicinity of their houses and strongholds which are NOT typically built underground. Oh, they'll have some defensive bunkers (usually) dug out, but dwarves still have to farm, cultivating fields and husbanding livestock. The mountains are their home, but they don't live in the tunnels they dig; they're not troglodytes.

You won't find Moria on my map, in other words.

Dwarves are diurnal creatures (just like humans) and some have come down from the mountains to seek work and residence in human communities. This is the "stock" from which PC dwarves come: people who've chosen to live with (and who appreciate) humans for the odd menagerie they are. Dwarves have their own spiritual leaders ("cleric equivalents") but these are only found in the mountains and are strictly NPCs; their abilities are also quite limited (level-wise) compared to human clerics...dwarven clerics are never "adventurers." 

Of course, there are other creatures that inhabit the forested slopes of the Cascades besides dwarves: generally all the creatures you'd expect to find in temperate mountains, hills, and forests (sub-arctic up in the northernmost Cascades). But dwarves are the main people with whom characters will be interacting, should they decide to search for a way across. As I noted earlier, there are some passes over (and, perhaps, some tunnels through) the mountains, but they are nearly all guarded by dwarves...dwarves who charge a hefty toll for passage. You can be sure that the easier and swifter the route, the steeper the charge will be. Still, for those desiring a way from one side of the campaign setting to the other (and who don't want to take the time to travel down to the Columbia) such fees are a small price to pay to avoid falling prey to a dwarven ambush, deadfall, or rockslide.

Okay, I'm starting to digress. Final points: the Cascades separate our real Washington State into two distinct cultures: we who live here talk about "eastern Washington" and "western Washington" as two very different regions. The western half has an economy based on forestry and maritime trade; the eastern half is (mostly) rich farm land. Urban centers on the west support a larger population, making for a more diverse group of people which leads to a faster pace of life and more liberal viewpoints/politics. On the east side, there are vast open stretches of farmland, smaller towns, a slower pace (tied to the soil) and far more conservative view points. These dichotomies are things I consider with regard to my campaign, but they are not necessarily inherent in my campaign...there is no "east versus west" mentality. Both sides of the Cascades are further petitioned by individual kingdoms, duchies, and city states...the people on the east side fight each other as do the people on the west side. Because of the Cascades, however, the problems and conflicts of one side simply fail to impact (or even garner notice) from the folk on the other.  

For example: my Dragon Wrack adventure creates the scenario of a military threat (dragon army) out of Idaho...arrayed against that threat are a loose alliance of nations from the east side; however, there are NO armed forces from west of the Cascades taking part in the conflict. They simply have little (or no) idea of anything amiss on 'that side' of the mountains.

All right, that's enough for this entry.

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.

Rabbit Pie

This post may be a bit "all over the place," but it's better than the alternative I was contemplating yesterday (something along the lines of a personal existential crisis which seems, mercifully, to be under control at the moment...). I'll do my best to come up with a title by the end.

SO...I was catching up on my "adventure review" reading over at Bryce's blog and stumbled across this little gem in the pile of dross he usually digs through (meaning no offense to Bryce by the way...I find his work of buying and reviewing adventures "so you don't have to" is an invaluable service to those of us interested in adventure design).

"Little gem" is probably too complimentary, for Game of Kobolds; "interesting nugget" probably should have been the term coined. What it is: a 42 page supplement of material that fleshes out the classic adventure module The Keep on the Borderlands with specifically motivated characters and factions interlinked through a complex web of relationships, providing the basis for the type of "blood opera" one might find in George Martin's Game of Thrones.

[this was the impetus for Corbett Kirkley's design; the origin of the product is described in its introduction, which I will let the interested reader dig into, rather than relate here]

[oh, BTW...it's not a "for purchase" product; you can download a copy here if you like. I'm not a scribd user, so Bryce's link doesn't work for me]

As an idea, the thing is more than just "interesting," but its execution is a little meh. My quibbles are about the same as Bryce: definitions aren't tight enough, not enough Keep characters, the timeline/fallout parts need to be elaborated upon. Furthermore, I prefer a more xenophobic brand of humanoid interaction in D&D to this mixture of "fantasy diversity" which smacks of all the kind of [insert derogatory-term-that-isn't-too-offensive-yet-communicates-disdain] found in the most recent versions of the game.

Still, it's not a terrible idea. For one thing, the scenario presented provides plenty of motivation for players' involvement, without forcing them down a particular path. For another, it presents a more unique situation than just hunting bugbear pelts or goblin skulls for reward. For a third thing, it provides a method of interacting with B2's Caves of Chaos that (hopefully) won't result in the immediate extinction of low-level player characters that so often follows from a frontal assault. For a fourth, it also provides a (slightly wonky) justification for why there's this giant horde of rando humanoid tribes living in harmony and practically on the doorstep of this fully stocked human garrison.

Even so, the idea of running it doesn't appeal (to me) very much, nor even the idea of doing a similar supplement for a different adventure like, say, the various factions found in module I1: Dwellers of the Forbidden City. The thing is, much as I enjoy Byzantine politics and Machiavellian machinations, I consider these a particular vice/component of humanity, and would confine them as such. Bugbears and bullywugs and kobolds and orcs? No. I do not look at them as allegorical or surrogate humans. Heck, I try hard not to even look at elves and dwarves as such.

This morning, the idea that dragged my sorry ass out of bed (or, rather, kept me from returning to sleep after my beagles woke me at the crack of dawn) was this idea I have for cataloguing all the OD&D/AD&D monsters so that I cull the list for the specific creatures that function in my campaign setting, especially with regard to "sentient" species. I've pretty much decided that all "goblinoids" (including kobolds up through bugbear) are going to be a single species (of various sizes), while orcs are going to be a race that was magically created, rather than natural. Some sentients (most notably elves) I plan on categorizing as "protohumans," older variations of humanity (like neanderthals) that have since disappeared or become inseparably bonded with "normal humans" through interbreeding, but in general I really want to limit the amount of creatures with above-animal intelligence.

Still not sure what I want to do with dragons: would like to make them (mostly) a vermin-like species. But then, what's the reason for the treasure hoards? Or is that just a myth ungrounded in fact?

Giving a species the ability to reason invites identification with that creature...and I don't want that. I already intend to have multiple human cultures in my setting, each with the potentials for good, evil, and indifference and of course the various human flaws (hamartia, to borrow from Game of Kobolds) that can lead to drama, intrigue, and tragedy.  The non-humans in my campaign are NOT allegorical stand-ins for other races, ethnicities, and cultures...my intention is to create them as alien cultures based on their own biological strangeness, drives, and environments. The default alignment of these non-human cultures (as I intend to use it) will be in relationship to how harmonious they are with needs and desires of human civilization...my campaign being human-centric.

Recently I started re-reading The Hobbit (for the upteenth time), because I had this idea (brought on by my encumbrance posts) of statting out the dwarvish "pony train" that initially sets out from the Shire. Unfortunately, there's little description of their actual goods to be found, save that it is "mostly food" (as one should probably expect). However, getting to the part where their ponies were eventually lost (in the Misty Mountains) I was struck by Tolkien's description of the goblins as a species, in his initial introduction of the creature. He writes in part:

"Now goblins are cruel, wicked, and hard-hearted. They make no beautiful things, but they do make clever many clever ones. They can tunnel and mine as well as any but the most skilled dwarves, when they take the trouble, though they are usually untidy and dirty. Hammers, axes, swords, daggers, pickaxes, tongs, and other instruments of torture, they make very well, or get other people to make to their design, prisoners and slaves that have to work till they die for want of air and light...they did not hate dwarves especially, no more than they hated everybody and everything, and particularly the orderly and prosperous; in some parts wicked dwarves had even made alliances with them. But they had a special grudge against Thorin's people, because of the war which you heard mentioned..."

There are two things of especial note (to me) in this description. The first is that these are fairytale creatures, more or less a shadowy version of dwarves, and not analogous to any particular human ethnicity (I left out the part about goblins taking delight in engines and explosions and ingenious machines for killing large numbers of people: inventions pioneered for the most part by Western European cultures).  The second is that despite their brutality, they are not above dealing with other races, including dwarves, with whom (in D&D literature and elsewhere) they are generally portrayed as having an entirely genocidal attitude. In fact, it is only Thorin's people in particular with whom they have an issue, due to a previous war/feud, not any fundamental inter-species hatred.

And this is born out later in the interaction between Thorin and the Great Goblin. The proud dwarf is far more humble and polite with goblin chief than in any of his interaction (later in the book) with the king of the wood elves, with whom he has no family quarrel. Of course, a conciliatory tone might be expected after being beaten and chained and at the mercy of one's captors...but the elves treat Thorin nearly as rough as he still has the gall to give the elf king snark. I personally find this fascinating.

The conversation started
politely enough.

But fascinating as it may be, it doesn't change my outlook: these are two alien species, not "fantasy human cultures." If dwarves have some type of kinship with goblins, it is due (in my world at least) due to their shared, subterranean physiology and culture, not any kind of human-like empathy and compassion for each other as fellow sentients. And with regard to the sea of humanity swimming around the foothills of these creatures mountain homes, they are BOTH a strange and eerie species...however, one rates as "lawful" for being interested in crafting useful items and doing honest trade with surface dwellers, while the other (perhaps because of their shorter lifespan and, thus, perspective) are judged "chaotic" for their raiding, slave-taking, and violent methods. And neither species has any interest in human politics except so much as it might further their (inhuman) interests.

My campaign setting isn't about creating understanding between different sentient species. It's about survival. And I already know which species will (eventually) come out on top, because my setting is 10,000 years ago in Earth's past. The individual actions of player characters can be judged for themselves, but I'm not interested in "decolonizing" my D&D game by humanizing the non-humans. If anything, I want to make sure they are MORE "othered" than recent editions would have them be, standing in for diversity against a homogeneity of Euro-type humanity.

That's not to say that I intend my setting to be all Incan and Charrua and Mayan with cloth armor and atlatl and whatnot. There's a reason I'm using a setting of 9,000 BCE and not 1550. But even within a single region, you can have a number of nations of diverse peoples with various cultures, languages, and ways of life, even with a shared "group identity." I've been watching Padma Lakshmi's Taste the Nation the last week or so and found it to be a fascinating look at my own country and the plethora of cultures sharing an "American" identity. I intend the humanity of my setting to be something like that: a society composed of many different peoples, cooperating as best they can (though sometimes failing due to past wrongs and grievances) for survival of their species.

There will be very, very few monsters (i.e. non-humans) that carry a Lawful alignment.

SO...I've come to the end of my rambling post, and I have no idea what to title it. I guess I'll go with "non-existential crisis" since that's the subject these meandering thoughts ended up supplanting. Or I could call it "rabbit pie" (which would make as much sense), as that's what I plan on baking for lunch. Ooo, I feel like Farmer MacGregor this morning.

Hope everyone's having a good week. Today's pretty sunny here in Seattle.

Demihuman Clerics in B/X

Originally, I was intending to write something about weapon proficiencies; however, this came up on Ye Old G+ the other day, and I actually liked my stream o consciousness response, so I figured I'd turn it into a blog post. I'm an opportunist that way.

[or scatterbrained]

I've written before (in various locations) my reasons for enjoying the "race as class" rules of early edition Dungeons & Dragons. Here's the main one, from back in 2010, but I've left plenty of additional thoughts scattered throughout the blog since then (I especially liked this one on xenophobia). For the most part, I stand by what I've posted...I prefer not having non-human species function as human occupations. A dwarf is a dwarf, an elf is an elf, etc.

But what if you postulate a world of multiple deities, like the usual D&D default (or the Moorcock books D&D emulates). Let's say you agree with me that the various demihumans ARE alien, inhuman, sentient beings...but ones that were created by, and have their own worshipful devotion for, extra-dimensional divine beings? Shouldn't they have a clerical class? And shouldn't such characters be playable as player characters (as they have been since 1985 with the release of Unearthed Arcana?)?

[to be clear, there were demihuman clerics prior to the UA being published, but they were specifically closed to players, only being available as non-player characters. Half-elves and half-orcas, being "semi-humans," were an exception to this stricture]

In such a campaign setting I can certainly see the sense in having a "priestly caste" for such creatures,  but even allowing for their existence does NOT mean A) they need emulate in any way, shape, or form the cleric adventuring class, nor B) that they must be made available as player characters.

However, assuming you do want to make such a character available as PCs (adding a little spice to the boring 'same old same old'), I certainly wouldn't go the route of making them the same type of divine agents as human clerics. For one thing, doing so goes back to the problem of using species ("race") as a stand-in for ethnic/racial stereotype (because they're just humans with rubber masks...er...pointy ears). For another, it misses an opportunity to play up the alienness of the demihumans that comes with creating one's own strange, species-specific cult and practice of worship. Rather than considering such characters as a race + class, I'd take the tack of calling them by the same classification (dwarf, elf, or halfling), but one with an overlay of "priest" (similar to my previous beastmaster and barbarian overlays).

Here are some examples of how it might work:

Priest of the Forge God (dwarf overlay): character is expected to be first in battle, especially against goblins, their hated enemy. Add +1 to attack rolls versus goblins; may not use missile weapons (in addition to normal weapon restrictions for dwarves). Priests who reach 9th level (Master Smith) may not build strongholds; however, they gain the ability to create magical items as a wizard. At 11th level, the priest may establish a Forge Shrine and will attract D6 dwarf acolytes of levels 1-3 to aid in her work. All other abilities and restrictions (including maximum level and experience needed) are as per the dwarf class.

Making a mighty weapon.

Priest of the Song Eternal (elf overlay): wisdom replaces intelligence as the character's second prime requisite, and the character is restricted to Lawful or Neutral alignment. Spells learned are chosen from the clerical spell list instead of those of the magic-user, and the character uses (and creates) magic-items as a cleric, rather than as a magic-user. All other abilities and restrictions (including maximum level, attack and save tables, number of spells learned, etc.) are as per the standard elf class.

Capital-E Evil.

Priest of the Demon Queen (elf overlay): wisdom replaces intelligence as the character's second prime requisite, and the character is restricted to Chaotic alignment. Spells learned are chosen from the clerical spell list instead of those of the magic-user, and the character uses (and creates) magic-items as a cleric, rather than as a magic-user. Priests who reach 9th level (High Priest/Priestess) may build a dark fortress in an out-of-the-way location; usually some dark forest, swampy bog, or subterranean cave complex. Because of the priest's foul depredations, normal animals within 5 miles of the fortress will leave the area; upon completion of the fortress, they will be replaced by monsters and evil humanoids seeking to serve and worship the fey's evil patron. These creatures will offer aid and tribute in exchange for protection and leadership, and some may even become monstrous retainers of the high priest. All other abilities and restrictions (including maximum level, attack and save tables, number of spells learned, etc.) are as per the standard elf class.

[please note, spells for priests of the demon queen will generally be of the reversed variety as per the rules for chaotic clerics (page X11). Whimsical folks might consider altering some of the spells to a more "demonic" variety, like stones to spiders in place of the standard sticks to snakes]

Hello, Vicar!

Priest of the Helpful Shepherd (halfling overlay): wisdom replaces strength as the character's second prime requisite, and the character is restricted to Lawful or Neutral alignment. The character has the exact same turning and spell abilities of a lawful cleric of equal level; however, the character is expected to abide by the weapon restrictions of both clerics and halflings. All other abilities and restrictions (including maximum level and experience needed to advance) are as per the halfling class.

FINAL NOTES: for all these overlays, level titles should be as per the cleric table given on page X5, save that the species type is added (for example: dwarf acolyte, halfling vicar, elf bishop). While priests of the Song Eternal have the same "name level" (Patriarch/Matriarch) as a 9th level cleric, this is not the case for the other sects (Dwarf Master Smith and Elf High Priest/Priestess). The level title for an 8th level halfling priest is Kahuna, not Sheriff.

Hmm...looking these over, I kind of like these. Might have to try them out the next time I run B/X...at least as NPCs.  
; )

One Million

Let's talk level limits. A common enough gripe of old school play style, generally with regard to demihumans...which is going to be the subject of this post.

[and, frankly, if you're going to gripe about assassins only going to level 15 or druids to level 14, I can't help you. Though, I suppose Gygax increased druids to 23 with the UA...because we need druids turning into fire elementals and stuff? Some stuff I just don't get...]

Holmes (my new "foundation" for all games D&D) has no level limits, of course. This is because the text of Holmes Basic only provides rules for characters up to 3rd level...and even the stingiest edition of Dungeons & Dragons (the Little Brown Books) allows the lowly hobbit to achieve 4th level. However, as I plan my Ten Year Campaign, I know that (as with multi-classing and which classes deminhumans can become) I'm going to need to make some hard decisions as to maximum levels. 

I might be in the minority with regard to level limits, but I like them. And it has nothing to do with game balance, or throwing human characters a bone, or modeling human ambition as their "advantage" over demihumans. No...to me, level limits make sense based on the limitations inherent in the demihumans.

Take the halfling (hobbit) as an example. Originally, their maximum potential of fighter was 4th level. That's "hero level," four times greater than a 1st level fighter, but pretty small potatoes compared to the ranks of high level humans. But look at their limitations: limitations of upbringing, of temperament, of training (in hobbit communities). Limitations with regard to armor that can be worn and weapons that can be wielded. If I have a small frame, poor reach, bad leverage (in hand-to-hand) and an inability to wield (and thus practice) most of the large weapons available, how am I ever going to reach the potential in training for battle as a human?

Look at elves. If we consider them these stereotypical, daisy-eating vegetarians with a deep respect for life...and thus lacking a killer instinct...coupled with a love of frivolous star-gazing, woodland frolicking, and wine-drinking (the Tolkien model), PLUS a slight frame, shorter reach, less leverage, and the capacity to bruise like a peach...well, you can understand how they might be limited as well.

And the same holds true for dwarves, okay? Don't tell me these are the roughest, toughest warriors in the realm, whose "favored class" is fighter. Fighting in tunnels, hatred of goblins, doesn't provide you with comprehensive fighting skills. You can't even ride a damn horse (not that you have stables underground anyway). Your fighting education is lacking, my beardy little friends. You can still be PROUD warriors, but that doesn't make you SKILLED warriors.

Here's my take: adventuring classes are human scale. Yes, I've decided that (at least for a couple demihumans) race will not equal class, and whether due to their interaction with humans, or adventurous nature, multiple classes will be open to non-humans. However, being "human scale," only humans are able to express the full potential of the class. Even if we're talking about a world setting analogous to Tolkien's Middle Earth (where you have a history of elves like Fingolfin and Glorfindel taking down balrogs single-handedly), this isn't about elves being "diminished in the current age." It's about humans expressing the full potential of the adventuring class (though the class may have been pioneered by this "elder race"). Those heroes of an ancient age may have been hot stuff, but humans in the current setting can be even better.

Yet even for humans, there's a limit to what can be learned...a finite amount of skill that can be acquired. For my Holmes setting, the hard limit is about 14 for the four main classes (fighter, magic-user, cleric, thief), with lesser levels for subclasses. For all classes (and subclasses), hit dice stop accumulating at level 9, and only bonus HPs are gained thereafter; skills and spell acquisition cease at 14, and while saves continue to improve, combat skills stop at level 13 for fighters. This is the limits of the class, mind you...you've learned all you can learn by the time you hit a certain level, and the only thing there is to gain is a little bump to HPs and (possibly) to saves. There's just a limit to what is possible for the adventurer.

But while characters can measure their power by their level, they measure their success...and what they've learned/earned...by experience points. And here, I've decided to simply install a hard cap on how much XP can be accumulated: one million points. Once you've hit that number, you can retire or continue on, but you aren't earning anything, no matter how many monsters you kill and no matter how much treasure you accumulate. One million is, for my purposes, the limit of what adventuring can gain you. 

Well, actually 1,100,000 for individuals with a 10% bonus for their prime requisite. But a million for everyone else...including demihumans, to whom I don't really want to give a prime requisite bonus (let that be the "human advantage").

Elves, as I wrote earlier, simply add the XP required for fighters and magic-users together to determine how much XP they need to accumulate to advance. With a million XP cap, that gives them a maximum potential of 10th level (at 810,000xp). Even earning a million doesn't get them to the next level.

Dwarves and halflings only have the options of the fighter and thief classes (and remember, there's no "multi-classing" round these parts). For dwarves, their normal maximum training is one-half the human potential (call it 7th level), but even after reaching it, they can continue to earn XP (up to a million)...however, each level requires double the normal XP to acquire (giving them an absolute maximum of 11th). For halfling fighters, their base potential is only one-third that of humans (4th level), and continued progression requires triple the normal XP (absolute max of 9th level). For thieves, this would be reversed (dwarves at one-third/triple and halflings at one-half/double). 

This method allows the demihumans to keep earning XP along with their human counterparts, just at a much slower rate of return and (one might presume) with a higher rate of "burnout" or urge to retire...there are some awful long stretches of "no gain" as the non-humans work and work and work to try to match their taller comrades. But...well, it's a bit like the real world: I would have never been an NFL linebacker, no matter how hard I tried, because I'm just not big enough. Nor would I have ever been a genius physicist...I wasn't gifted with that type of intellect. Demihumans have inherent limitations based on their individual species and culture. At least in my game world.

But there's still bragging rights for getting a million points.

; )

Trying For Dwarves-Sake

I like dwarves. I hate dwarves. I want dwarves in my game. I want all fantasy dwarves I've seen in the last 25 years to burn in their campaign setting's lowest ring of hell.

What exactly is going on here?

When it comes to fantasy mythology there are dwarves and then there are dwarves. I'm inclined to draw a historical delineation across whatever year it was that J.R.R. Tolkien published his Lord of the Rings trilogy. After The Hobbit. Maybe even after The Fellowship of the Ring. Gimli the dwarf, while most assuredly the main culprit responsible for the dwarves downfall from fanciful fairy tale creature to hardened badass warrior wasn't all that bad prior to the Battle of the Hornburg ("Helm's Deep") where his portrayal goes from dwarf companion to "orc-slaying-axe-machine." Where he shows that a dwarf is some kind of melee titan of destruction.

Ugh. Ugh. Ugh,

Okay, just please stop for a second. Lots of folks hate on Tolkien's "vanilla-flavored fantasy" and its influence on D&D. People have been trying to re-skin D&D dwarves in all sorts of ways for years. Gygax's dwarves (see his Gord fiction) have been reviled in some circles, but at least they're deemed to be somewhat different. As an archetype, the D&D dwarf usually ends up looking something like the dwarves in DragonLance...well, they did prior to 3rd edition and the advent of their ascendance as fighters par excellence.

Let's set aside the game for a moment. As a a child, I loved fairy tales. As an adult, I still do...though I'm hard-pressed to find the same sort of magical worlds I did when I was younger (I don't know if this is because of my adult outlook, the lack of decent fairy tale literature at my disposal, or some combination of the two). Fairy tale dwarves...whether they're little miners found in Snow White, sinister wish-granting types like Rumpelstiltskin, or Unseelie faerie-folk...are cool. Even if I set aside my normal shtick of dwarves as inhuman aliens, giving them human-ish traits and personalities (for the purpose of taking up the role of "adventurer"), I like the idea of these little guys with beards that possess their own brand of "earthy" magic. Certainly, all fairy tale dwarves seem to have a "thing" for gold (a relationship with it and ability to produce it, if not the outright avarice depicted in many tales). And "treasure-seeking" has always been the heartbeat the propelled adventurers into the wonder and mysteries of the fantasy RPG.

Well, originally, anyway.

Thorin Oakenshield of Tolkien's The Hobbit is one such adventurer. Yes, he's got human traits...a little arrogance (a sense of self-importance), desires for wealth and revenge, a loyalty to his people and kin, etc. But he's still just a little dwarf. Not a great hero nor a great warrior, though an experienced one. He manages to bash a troll in the face with a log, but he doesn't go armed until after finding an elven sword (and later, after putting on the still-remaing armor of his people lying in Erebor). He has to be told by Gandalf to turn, draw sword, and do battle with the goblins during the dwarves' flight below the Misty Mountains, and it is only the treasure-inspired avarice (and madness) of the dragon hoard that compels him to gird for war against the humans and elves that lay siege to his mountain.

And this is an experienced dwarf...one that fought against the goblins of Moria. The rest of the dwarves in his company are far less fight-worthy, simply fleeing from one opponent after another (as they can), until cornered and compelled to make a stand. These are not warriors. They are not useless, mind you, and they show great courage in facing the perils and travails of their venture (not to mention skill and cunning at times and an ability to loyally stick together even through hardship that might drive them apart). But warriors-born? No.

And this is reflected in the original version of D&D. Men & Magic (volume 1 of the little brown books) allows characters to play dwarves who advance as fighting men with a maximum level of six. 6th level ain't much of a step up from hobbits (er...halflings) or elves, both of whom are limited to 4th level fighting ability. A 4th level fighter uses the exact same save tables as a 6th level fighter; if using the variant combat system presented in OD&D (as opposed to the Chainmail combat system), they have the exact same attack chance (which, incidentally, is the same as a 4th-6th level fighter in B/X). The only advantage a dwarf receives from their two extra levels is an extra 2D6 worth of HPs (plus bonuses if the dwarf has a high CON score). This is nothing compared to the human warriors who can reach the breakpoint of 7th level with its +3 bonus to attacks, +2 to all saves (except dragon breath, which is +3), and an extra D6+1 hit points. And, of course, human fighters have no restriction on levels and can reach those even loftier breakpoints at 10th, 13th, and 16th levels.

Greyhawk (Supplement I) extended dwarves abilities considerably by allowing them to advance to 7th and 8th levels (with a STR score of 17 or 18), as well as allowing dwarves to roll D8s for hit dice. However, the latter isn't that fantastic a bonus...ALL fighting men (including Hobbits and Elves) receive D8s for hit dice in Greyhawk; there was no cursory restriction placed on them for their species as occurred in the later Basic volumes. In many ways, I see Greyhawk as a response to the (perhaps unforeseen) popularity of the game...people were playing a lot of D&D and working their characters characters into the stratosphere, level-wise. These level extensions (along with the unlimited leveling of the Greyhawk-introduced thief class) allowed demihuman PCs to "keep up with the Joneses." A concept (the dwarf) that had been conceptualized in a particular way was slowly morphing into something else.

Consider the dwarf soldier of Chainmail's fantasy armies. The dwarf figure is very much of Thorin's ilk: a 2 point figure, it attacks as Heavy Foot, but only defends as Light Foot. Against giant-sized humanoids (specifically trolls/ogres and giants) they only count half the number of kills (they are twice as hard for the big guys to catch). The only other advantage they have is an ability to function equally well in night and day, and they are drawn to immediately charge/attack goblins, regardless of orders. They are also slower than normal heavy foot (who also cost 2 points to field). Oh...and their morale is no greater than normal heavy footmen.

Yes, they hit hard with their two-handed mauls and axes, but these are not thick-skinned, iron-boned juggernauts; they break easier than men (except when their size gives them an advantage; i.e. versus the "big guys"). They are not "heroic," possessing none of the elves' ability to affect fantasy monsters when armed with magic swords. They're just little fantasy soldiers...though well-modeled by Tolkien standards (if you're just looking at The Battle of Five Armies).

Holmes Basic doesn't address dwarves past level three, but it does "nerf" elves and halflings by reducing their HD to D6s for no given reason. My assumption is that this is a simplification based on the ubiquity of multi-classed fighter-thieves (halflings) and fighter-mages (elves) making "D6" an average of the D8+D4 that these class combos carry. But that's just speculation. Thing is, it ends up having the effect of making dwarves look hardy in comparison to their fellow demihumans...equal to the superior human fighting-man...which wasn't the case before.

[hmm...okay, just perused my Holmes and I do see reasons given for the HP reduction: elves because of their class-mix, but halflings due to their "small size;" though this is in spite of the halfling having the same CON requirements of a dwarf and the same saving throw bonuses. To me, that says "equal stamina" and simply allow the extra levels allow the dwarf fighter to outpace the halfer...but that's just me]

"Our build might be the same, but I get an extra two hit points thanks to my nose and beard, you fool!"

AD&D comes next and here we just see the logical progression of power increase six years into play: dwarves now have a "natural" level restriction of 7 (not six) and can reach as high as 9 (not 8) with an 18 strength. Considering fighter breakpoints for attacks/saves went from every three levels to every two levels in AD&D, this is a considerable improvement in fighting ability for our little fairy tale miners. Unearthed Arcana (1985) took this farther with the inclusion of "mountain dwarves:" a superior brand of dwarf with superior fighting ability based on...well, who cares.

[actually, "mountain dwarves" as a concept of superior dwarfness was introduced in the 1977 Monster Manual. Released prior to the AD&D PHB, it presumably works off the earlier (OD&D) books, as it states that mountain dwarves are superior and can work up to 9th level with an 18 STR. In other words, it appears the dwarves of the PHB are "mountain dwarves" while the dwarves of the LBBs are the inferior "hill dwarves." Unfortunately, this appears to be contradicted in the AD&D text, first by the PHB (who states PC dwarves may equally be either of the hills or the mountains) and then by the already mentioned new rules in the Unearthed Arcana]

Next we come to B/X which gives dwarves the ability to advance to level 12, flying in the face of all that's gone before. I can only assume this is an early attempt at "game balance," as a 12th level dwarf is remarkably similar to a 14th level human fighter (the maximum printed level in the B/X books). Maximum hit points are only one point off from the human fighter at level 14, and a slightly lesser attack ability is balanced by superior saves and additional special abilities. Where the idea of a 12th level fighting dwarf came from is totally beyond my ken...this is double Gygax's original 6th level limit. Crazy.

Tordek. I hate this asshole.

But not as crazy as the 21st century dwarf. Since the advent of D20, dwarves have become the archetypal fighter of latter edition D&D (including Pathfinder). A CON bonus that adds to staying power (particularly since HP bonuses from CON don't "cap" as they do in earlier editions), at the cost of dump-stat CHA? Sure they lose the bonus feat of the human fighter, but their darkvision ability, racial saving throw bonuses (equivalent to feat save bonuses), stackable dodge bonuses, heavy armor movement, exotic weapons, and racial attack bonuses makes them first choice for a badass fighter. Whereas Thorin and Company lamented the fact that they hadn't brought along a "hero" to slay the dragon, any such dragon slayer hired in D20 would have a high percentage of being from the line of Durin.

[since when did humans get upstaged in the arena of bloody warfare? I mean, isn't that humankind's claim to fame...killing folks? We used to be bigger, stronger, and better than it than any other species in the D&D game world...now we've been relegated to the role of "utilitarian dude." Oh, yeah...you get a bonus a skill point every level and can treat any class as "favored," but you run in 3rd place behind dwarves and half-orces when it comes to fighting prowess]

20th level dwarf fighters. Bite me.

And yet, this is now the expectation. "I want to play a dwarf" is the phrase heard by the player who wants a tough as nails, badass fighter. Even in B/X play, where a dwarf's level is capped (at 12!) it's not an unusual request, because it's so rare for campaign play these days to progress beyond the point where the demihumans lose viability. It's not impossible, mind you...just unlikely. Folks these days have a lot more to distract them from the table-top gaming experience than they did in the old days.

So what's the point of this post? Is it that I hate this expectation? That I want to somehow derail it (or kick its teeth in) so people don't have it? That ain't very likely to happen. Do I want to go back to a time when dwarves were stilted at 6th level and were barely mechanically different from hobbits? If I wanted that, I could just play OD&D (or Swords & Wizardry...I own copies of both).

No. I guess I just want to say that dwarves...fairy tale, fantasy dwarves, an archetype that I love...have been completely ruined for me. They simply don't fit into any RPG that I want to play, no matter how interestingly they might be re-skinned. They just don't fit for me, not in any version of the game (D&D) that I'm interested in running/playing. The Lord of the Rings isn't a sandbox world of adventure. The Hobbit isn't much of one either. Both are good reads (the latter more so, for my money), but they aren't suitable to the type of gaming I have in mind. Maybe if dwarves took over the niche currently reserved for the B/X halfling (i.e. re-skin the "halfling" class as a bearded little dwarf)? Maybe. Then again, didn't I already re-skin halflings to get a wood elf class? Maybe I need to have one "catch-all" demihuman class with options to build the weird little fey of your choice...elf, hobbit, dwarf, whatever. But my most recent fantasy projects haven't had settings of the fairy tale variety...so why bother?

*sigh* I need to go to bed. I've got a loooong three days ahead of me.

"What? You expected a resolution to this mess?"

Word from Hobbiton

If you had asked me in the 90s who my favorite filmmaker was, I probably would have said Quentin Tarentino. Not only did I find his movies immensely enjoyable, I found they really spoke to my sensibilities (if that makes any sense)…maybe one Gen X’er communicating with another through their visual craft. And perhaps he still might be my favorite: I haven’t seen Django but I hear it’s pretty good.

However, having NOT seen Django, I was willing to pass the title of “favorite filmmaker” to Peter Jackson after seeing his latest film, The Hobbit. Simply put, Jackson creates beautiful films.

And I don’t just mean visually beautiful (which they are…stunningly so). His films are filled with beautiful SENTIMENT. And it IS beautiful…it is "heartfelt." Even District 9…you feel for the protagonist despite him being a rank bastard. But especially with movies like King Kong and The Hobbit, Jackson just finds ways to put beautiful little nuances of sentiment on the screen. And (to me) it’s wonderful to see. 

I liked The Hobbit, and I liked it a lot. Even though he took liberties with Tolkien’s words, for the most part (we’ll get to that in moment) he used those liberties to communicate the sentiment and themes Tolkien was trying to communicate. Sure it was perhaps a trifle heavy handed (Gandalf’s council with the elves), but it’s pretty tough to communicate the themes of a novel into a film, when you have to use exposition to explain what is communicated through the inner monologues of an author’s characters. Especially when you’re breaking up a single novel into multiple movies (and yet want to echo the same theme across each installment…): you can’t just have Thorin on his death bed saying “yeah, maybe we should value good cheer and simple pleasures over hoarded gold,” with nothing of the sentiment in the first film.

[sorry if that’s a spoiler: I just figure most of my blog readers have read the book in the past]

What I also greatly enjoyed was the elaboration Jackson brought to the film. I saw The Hobbit with my buddy Steve-O who said “that was cool how they connected the quest against the dragon with the threat of Smaug allying with Sauron.” But this wasn’t a Jackson invention: Gandalf’s motivations with regard to the dwarves’ quest is discussed at length in the appendix of Tolkien’s later book Return of the King. Including this information in the film not only shows P-Jack (or his screenwriters) have done their homework, it also helps tie the film to his earlier (LotR) films.

Meanwhile, Jackson’s portrayal of Thorin’s anti-elf sentiment (which IS present in the book) gives new meaning to the feud while shedding light on it. Of course the proud dwarf bears some resentment to the pointy-eared folk for their lack of aid to his people…it’s not a radical interpretation, it’s a LOGICAL interpretation. Reading Shakespeare’s plays, one finds a surprising lack of stage directions considering all the on-stage action that takes place…the actions and character motivations must be interpreted from the dialogue…and Jackson does the same thing with Tolkien’s words.  Same with other characters (like Radaghast the Brown).

Other “liberties” are just the necessity of film adaptation: why is Thorin the hero at the gates of Moria instead of Dain? Because Dain isn’t a central character to the main story being told (his role is combined in Thorin’s character, just as Glorfindel was combined into Arwen in the Fellowship film). Why does Jackson stage this elaborate chase/warg fight (following the troll scene) that is never found in the book? Because it enables the filmmaker to drive Thorin & Co. into Rivendell (when it’s been established that Thorin will have nothing to do with the elves). Why do the trolls end up eating the horses (instead of the goblins in the mountains)? Because of the complexity of filming ponies on a mountain pass. Why is Bilbo the troll trickster (as opposed to Gandalf as in the book?)? Because the film-maker has to show a bit of Bilbo’s ingenuity, courage, and cunning which (prior to later chapters of the book) are otherwise only present in the character’s inner thoughts at this point in the story…if Jackson doesn’t SHOW something of this, visually (film being a visual medium), you end up with a very passive and non-factor protagonist.

In a book, there’s nothing passive about Bilbo’s role…told from his point of view the story features his inner struggles throughout the book (with whether he wants to be a hero or not, or take the tough road or not). There is an inner conflict of the Everyman character which (while dramatic in a novel form) needs to be reinterpreted for a different art form. And Jackson does a good job of it, in my opinion.

NOW, having said all that and heaping praise on the film, I have to voice my main gripe:

What’s with all the goddamn fighting?

Much as I enjoyed the film, much as I liked Jackson’s interpretations and liberties and creativity, the martial take and action sequences nearly killed the whole deal for me. Not because I’m a bleeding-heart liberal commie-socialist…I ENJOY action and violence in films immensely (just picked up a Blue-Ray copy of John Woo’s Hard Boiled the other day). Films and fiction (and role-playing) are for me, the only deserving place FOR violence and fighting, not the real world.

No, my issue is how out-of-place the martial attitude was. Not only was this NOT “true to the books” (in this way the film went WAY off the rails from Tolkien’s sentiment), it also did little (if anything) to contribute to the story being told. For me, it DETRACTED from the story.

There was SO much focus on combat and fighting that comparing the Hobbit film to the Hobbit novel (or even the earlier animated film) is like comparing 4^th edition D&D to the old TSR editions. It’s like it misses the f’ing point for the sake of catering to the lowest common denominator. Or (to put my rant a little differently) it’s like Peter Jackson suddenly decided his target audience was too stupid to enjoy the film without throwing in a bunch of LotR-style fight scenes (LotR is, after all, a war story, but it’s not the fight scenes that made it a great film).

No, I’m not upset that visually the dwarves look like characters from a Capital One commercial (“What’s in YOUR wallet?”); being based in part on Nordic myth has always made Tolkien characters seem a little Viking-esque. And Thorin IS a warrior-noble type (the main fighter of the group) and his nephews (Filli and Killi) are cut from the same cloth (at least, judging by their particular end…sorry again for the spoiler) as well as old Balin (his lieutenant) and by reasonable assumption Dwalin (Balin’s brother).

BUT (for example…and here there be FILM spoilers, FYI)…BUT when the hobbit gets caught by the trolls and the dwarves launch a frontal assault leading to an elaborate set-piece combat, it just about made me want to retch with disgust. Those who have read The Hobbit five or six times (like myself) will remember that the dwarves come looking for Bilbo and get popped into the troll sacks except for Thorin…who comes later, is sneakier, and manages to bash a troll upside the head with a log from the fire before being caught. This establishes a couple things:

-          Tone setting (danger and jeopardy)

-          Character development (dwarf loyalty, good-heartedness)
-          Character development (Thorin’s cunning and fight-worthiness)

Instead, the film gives us a ridiculous fight scene that establishes nothing except that dwarves seem to be spoiling for a fight at every opportunity (even the stupid slingshot guy…I mean, how stupid is that dwarf? What happened to “discretion being the better part of valor?”). The dwarves are still captured and look dumb in the process. Thorin is not shown to be “a cut above the rest.” And we learn nothing new about the dangers of Middle Earth…I mean wouldn’t you already get Big Scary Danger + Drama & Tension if the scene were filmed as written? Don’t you want to contrast these particular dwarves in comparison to the heroic companions of the Fellowship of the Ring (whom, one might recall, have a fight with a troll in the Mines of Moria. Thorin & Co. look  like they’re on par with Aragorn, etc. and that the only reason for their defeat was that they faced THREE trolls instead of one).

The same happens again with the wargs in the plains…and then again with the goblins in the Misty Mountains. They’re captured fighting and then they fight their way non-stop over miles of subterranean scaffolding (what’s with all the wood in the goblin caves? The orcs sure don’t look much like carpenters to me…a major, glaring plot point to my eyes).

It’s as if Jackson decided, ‘well the film’s not really exciting enough’ or ‘it’s not visually stunning enough.’ It IS exciting enough, it IS a visual delight for the eyes, it DOES carry nuanced character development besides “we like to fight” (and I mean, JACKSON’s film has character nuance, in many ways more so than Tolkien’s book). Frankly, I found it boring and tedious…I found myself waiting for each elaborate fight sequence to end so that we could get to the next cool thing about Middle Earth…Rivendell, or Gollum’s cave, or the flight of the Eagles, or the house of Beorn or whatever.

Instead, I got long, empty minutes of elaborate sword fights. Yes, I get the point Mr. Jackson: your dwarves are really tough and quick to draw down on someone. Enough already.

HOWEVER…having gotten that gripe out of the way, I want to reiterate that I otherwise greatly enjoyed everything else in the film. Everything else was a delight and very much in the spirit of Tolkien’s most whimsical novel of Middle Earth: Radaghast and his rabbits, the White Orc and his albino warg, Elrond and his brethren in their mail (though why O why are there statues of warriors guarding the bridge to Rivendell? I don’t remember the elves celebrating their martial pride at the Last Homely House!), the Necromancer’s stronghold, the prelude/montage showing the sack and burning of Dale and Erebor. The music was good (though I sorely missed the goblins’ wicked songs!), tasteful and well-done, and as said, the whole film was quite beautiful. I am excited to see the next installment, and hope that we’ll continue visual feast as we see Mirkwood and the halls of the wood elves and Lake Town and all the rest.

But I also hope that there’ll be a lot less fighting. At least when it comes to fighting that is superfluous to an already excellent and entertaining story.

This is how I picture dwarves...

...in our DCC game.

Maybe "Lobo" isn't exactly right, or maybe I didn't quite grok what Luke was describing regarding the appearance of demihumans in the Land of a Thousand Towers, but sue me...sometimes my imagination puts together a pastiche of various pop culture references. In fact, now that Yorin is 1st level, I'm imagining him to appear a bit more like Mr. Sinister.

But that's just me.

; )

Pretty Good Game Last Thursday

No, I’m not talking about the Seahawks game which, despite the win, saw offensive tackle Russle Okung injured yet again, Tavaris Jackson get sacked half a dozen times, and Kelly Jennings being run over, run through, and generally being beaten like a red-headed step child every play.

No, THAT game showed me the ‘Hawks have a lot o work to get through over the next three weeks.

[as a side note, how about them Tennessee Titans? Matt Hasselbeck looking pretty sharp, huh? And how ‘bout that Jake Locker kid?]

No, I’m talking about our Thursday night game in which we played the Dungeon Crawl Classics beta.

Not bad.

Very, VERY minor complaints so far, and some of these might simply be a matter of “style preference.” DCC is a strange juxtaposition of several things:

- A B/X foundation (including styling and recycled artwork from the Moldvay book)
- House rules ‘ported straight from D20 (and later) editions
- Random tables a la what might be found in the OSR blog-o-sphere and on-line publications
- Indie-style narrative tools coupled with alternative random number generation

The end result feels a bit schizophrenic to me…at least when reading it.

But we didn’t use most of the rules…Thursday we were still in the “funnel” stage. Eight players sat down to the table with a total of 22 PCs between the bunch of us…the DM also provided us with a couple of NPCs to round out the party to an even two dozen. Of the bunch, I believe all but four of us were 0-level (two of the players had played in the prior DCC try-out when I was out of Mexico) but as it was, there were too many PCs for me to get an accurate gauge of who or what everyone was (fortunately, I didn't have to GM).

Not that there’s any real difference between the characters at 0 level. Personally, I found it great to play “normal humans.” I’ve always felt that the simpler the system, the more the game becomes about your character actions and interactions. And playing the equivalent of B/X “Normal Men” still offered great opportunity for characterization…though it didn’t go quite the way I’d initially expected.

Luke, our GM, came back from GenCon with a copy of Patrick Wetmore’s Anomalous Subsurface Environment, and he’s adapted DCC to the Land of One Thousand Towers. Which put MY initial assumptions about my characters a little “off.”

For example, when I originally rolled up my two dwarf pig herders (“Old Orin” and “Young Yorin”) I figured they were a fairly peaceful pair of father-son farmers, not hardened adventurers. I mean an occupation like “dwarf herder” sounds like something they’ve done for awhile, right? If they were hardened ex-mercs they’d be a little tougher.

But that was before I learned about the goth-zombie demihumans, coupled with DCC’s own description of what the dwarf background is all about. When I first created the characters, I never bothered reviewing the classes so stopped at 0-level character creation + “Neutral alignment” (which made them feel like nature-worshipping, druidish types). Now I’m like Oh, they’re short Drow with beards, exiled to the surface world and forced to raise pigs for humans.

These guys are SPITEFUL.

My third character, Bow-Legged Bill, was originally conceived as a Lawful caravan guard…an outrider, born to the saddle (literally, based on his luck). A protector of travelers in a strange land.

Then we got introduced to our NPCs…fellow caravan guards, buddies of Bill’s, who told the story of a caravan being recently wiped out and a good load of gold being available to loot because of it. Opportunists looking for a score at the expense of the very folk they were hired to protect.

These are my character’s buddies?

They were also, inexplicably, armed and armored much better than myself with splint mail, shields and flails (as a zero level flunky, I had a short sword and a couple dozen copper pieces). As we set out on our excursion to liberate the cash of the fallen from the raiders that took it (the unfortunately named “Mock-Tards,” some kind of gnoll-like monster), I realized my initial assumptions about my characters had been way off. Bow-legged Bill was like a dirty cop…and a rookie one at that, only starting to learn how to get in on the take.

It wasn’t too long before we had our first combat encounter…a pack of hungry wild dogs. The DM tried to make us feel bad about killing DOGS but I wasn’t having any of that (I’ve been menaced by wild dogs before…in the woods in Mexico…and they’re not cool). Especially considering my characters were unarmored and only had 1 hit point apiece.

Afterwards, we found that our caravan buddies had been hiding out in their splint mail while the rest of us were fighting for our lives and decided that they weren’t deserving of their high priced gear, and it would be of more use to other party members.

So I mugged ‘em.

Well, maybe I should be a little more specific: my emo dwarves and bad seed security guard lured one of the dudes behind a copse of trees and then brutally murdered him. After that we intimidated his buddy into giving over his armor and weapon and making him walk point for the party.

This, unfortunately, did not sit well with some of my other 20 party members and payback would come later in the evening.

Let’s see, how did that go down again? Oh, yeah…we found the mock-tards’ lair and proceeded to explore it in a huge pile of people. There was some early suggestion of using my pig-sows for setting off traps, but we already had the naked caravan guard up front so I was able to put ‘em off (my pig farmers were rather attached to their pets). There was a trap door that went off at a crossroads and then a couple mock-tards and a wolf came out of the shadows and attacked. A bunch of chaos ensued due to the incredible amount of people and the D20-style initiative rules. All my characters had agility scores under 9 (short-legged dwarves and bow-legged human), so I was generally among the last to act. People died. One guy was trying to keep the trap door open rather than just writing off the guys inside and getting into the fight…I think I tried to kill him, but I was at the “back of the pack” and the GM ruled I couldn’t get up there.

The melee eventually thinned out. Old Orin charged one of the mock-tards and bull-rushed it into the pit, landing his full weight on it and driving it onto the spear of one of the peons climbing out. Unfortunately, Old Orin only had 1 hit point (Stamina/CON of 3) and broke his neck in the attempt.

Bow-legged Bill used a flail on another mock-tard and brained the shit out of it, killing it. The splint mail seemed to fit just fine.

Randy’s characters decided to kill Bow-Legged Bill because he seemed a murderous loose cannon. His first character's assassination attempt resulted in fumbling and stabbing himself in the brain with his own knife. His second assassination attempt…um…I think he missed. However, his third guy, Stiles, was able to hit, and Bill was felled by foul play (he only had one hit point, too).

By this time, all the mock-tards were dead and the party was probably down to half its original size. We found a big ol’ box of treasure and some radioactive rock (identified by Young Yorin the dwarf) which we stashed in a lead box we found. For some reason, Yorin was spared from the bloody purge that claimed Bill, perhaps due to his youth and the thought that he’d been “led astray.” Sure.

Having completed our first outing, the survivors were advanced to 1st level and everyone got to pick a class. Well, everyone but the demihumans (my character’s class is Dwarf…go figure). We found enough treasure to purchase anything “up to scale mail.” Damage in DCC is variable by weapon, so it only makes gamist sense to pick up a long sword and shield. My character has gone from “assistant pig-keeper” to ShadowFell-ish Badass, in a single session…yeah, that’s kind of a weird transition, but that’s the game.

I’ll be interested to see how things go this week, and I am looking forward to another session (this time with more than 1 hit point). We'll see whether I can put paid to the trecherous Stiles or not.

“Spiteful.” That’s the word of the week.

: )