ASC Review: The Pit of the Muirneag

The Pit of the Muirneag (Stooshie & Stramash)

LL AEC for four to six PCs of 5th-8th level

Another B/X retroclone...this time Labyrinth Lord (with the Advanced Edition Companion).  The author also makes note that they adapted several creatures from the Fiend Folio. Map is by Dyson Logos.

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.

Another "pit" adventure, yet the map is much clearer. This one is also rather large (23 encounter areas), but it's rather light on encounters and dangers (traps and such). In fact, for an adventure aimed at parties of this level, the monsters herein are pretty darn weak. Sure there's a white dragon, but it's only got 42 hit points and it's bedraggled, weak, and restrained in magical chains (there's another smaller one that cowers in fear from fire and only has 14 hit points). Mephits? Encountered singularly? Really?

Sure, somewhere floating around the adventure is an efreeti. But he only appears as a wandering monster or if the party does something to trigger him showing up (like freeing the white dragon...in which case you have an ally to fight him!). Even in White Plume Mountain (an adventure for levels 5th-10th) efreet appeared in pairs. A single creature with a single attack per round isn't particularly challenging to a hearty group of mid-level slayers. Ha...he even "threatens and extorts before fighting." What a wimp!

Treasure should be in the 120K-150K range. Fat chance.  Total treasure in the adventure is barely more than 50K, of which 35K is in the form of jewelry adorning the (chained) white dragon. If you help her you only get a bag of gems worth less than 11K. I mean...that's pretty paltry. Magic items are almost completely absent: a +1 scimitar and eyes of petrification (no save). Great.

This adventure is pretty lame. It's got a good map...but Dyson draws good maps. Two-thirds of one page is used to set up a whole backstory/history of the place and some conflict between Elemental Princes of Evil (from the Fiend Folio) that, while interesting, doesn't have any real impact on the scenario. It's frosting. Bland frosting.

There's just not much "adventure" here. And I can't, in good conscience, give it more than two stars (out of five). There's some puzzle-ly stuff, some creatures to interact with. But in the end, there's not much here...it's a precursor to a greater story. Which (since we don't have the greater story) is a waste of time. Maybe that seems unfair...but other folks have given more using the same contest parameters.

**

Converting 5E to B/X

[this one is for Lord Gwydion]

Back in December, I wrote a post about introducing B/X (or older edition play in general) to new players. The thoughts I expressed were with an eye towards starting a new B/X campaign. One thing I hadn't considered at the time is that folks might be looking to convert an existing, late-edition campaign, not just their players, to a better (easier) rule system.

That's exactly what Mr. Laffey (Lord Gwyd) had in mind: converting his existing 5E game to Labyrinth Lord (a well-known retroclone of B/X). Only now, he's having some "second thoughts" on the matter.

Man. Where to start?

I've run many editions of D&D...six in all (I think) not counting retroclones. But I'm not sure I've ever converted campaigns between systems. Characters, sure...I converted my original (B/X) characters to AD&D, and I converted some "historic" AD&D characters to both BECMI and 3rd Edition to act as NPCs. Hell, I once ran a Marvel Superheroes campaign that converted a couple AD&D characters (that was pretty wild...) and I did have another group of characters that had a brief stint in Boot Hill (courtesy of the conversion rules in my old DMG and a plane-jumping artifact).

But I've never taken a long-running campaign and said, "hey, let's keep this thing going...just using a different, wildly dissimilar system." At least, not that I remember (it's possible I've forgotten something in the last 35 years). Usually, when we decided to run a new system, we'd create a new campaign to go with it; that was always part of the enticement of a new system, after all: exploring the bells and whistles. Seeing what kind of new characters we could make with the new, interesting system. If we were converting favorite characters, seeing just how they'd look, or how they might be modeled.

In those situations, however (converting existing characters), it was always a matter of converting forward, i.e. converting characters to a later, revised edition. And often (if not always) that meant converting to a game with MORE complications, more rules...not less.

'What do you mean, JB? BECMI isn't "more complex" than AD&D!' AD&D is plenty fiddly, but early 1E doesn't have nearly as many character options as RC/BECMI...at least, not if you're using weapon mastery and "general skills" found in the Rules Cyclopedia and Gazeteers. Not if you're converting high level characters and fiddling with the "proto-prestige classes" found in Mentzer's Companion set. With regard to character customization, BECMI has a lot more to offer a player than straight, unmodified AD&D. Later AD&D books (the Dungeoneer and Wilderness Survival Guides, for example) offered their own no-weapon proficiencies, but AD&D weapon mastery never reached the level of granularity found in Mentzer. I saw 5th and 6th level BECMI characters sporting tremendous attack bonuses and special effects with their chosen weapons.

ANYway...converting backwards isn't something I've had much opportunity to do. None, really. And considering some of my characters (my 3rd edition duelist, my wild elf "fighter-barbarian" with his two-fisted hand axes of death), I can't see how I could get nearly the same "oomph" in a system that had less character customization. Not without adding whole swaths of house rules.

But if a player in an existing campaign is really married to the kewl powers that come with their customizable character, are they really going to be satisfied with stepping into a simpler game? I suppose it depends on the player but, man, I don't know.

Here are my thoughts: converting an existing campaign from 5E to B/X (or its equivalent) is a pretty easy step for a DM. Heck, most of the nuts-n-bolts of the system are a snap, yet you still have plenty of stuff that's recognizable from your 5E game, mainly because the bulk of 5E "content" (monsters, treasure, magic spells) has been converted directly from earlier editions. The only real problem is one of converting existing player characters (unless you have super-special-snowflake NPCs you want to convert), and that's all dependent on the attitude of the player. In my opinion, you've got four categories in this regard:

#1 Old School Enthusiast: this is the player who WANTS to play something like B/X or LL or OD&D, for whatever reason. This girl (or guy) is ready to saw off all the feats and skill checks and has no problem ditching their dragonborn warlock-battlemage-whatever for a "dwarf" or "thief." Yay...no issues, just give 'em the closest equivalent.

#2 I Hate Old School: this is the person who has experience with older editions and is playing 5E precisely because she (or he) wants the stuff 5E has that B/X (or whatever) can't provide. You can't please all the people all the time. If you, the DM, really wants to convert your campaign/system, you're going to have to resign yourself to the loss of these folks.

#3 No Great Loss: this is a player who's so new to the game, that "starting over" isn't all that big a deal. Their character is first or second level, and there's no deep attachment that's been formed. So long as they have no deep-seated resentment or preexisting dislike, conversion to a simpler system should be fairly painless.

#4 Can I Keep My Feats?: lastly, you've got the player who's not dead-set against the conversion, but who has played for a while in the "new school" and gotten used to a certain level of effectiveness in granularity in their character and doesn't want to lose that. They're willing to play a different system; heck, they might be wanting to play a different system. But they also want assurances that the conversion won't cost them much...and they've got more than a little to lose.

It's only players of the fourth type that require much work on the part of the DM (always assuming you're willing to compromise your conversion tastes to retain those players). Here's how it goes down:

First, explain that the system isn't just changing for the characters...it's changing for the world/NPCs as well. A character's AC, hit points, or attack bonus might be reduced from what the player's used to, but so are the combat stats of the monsters.

Second, explain it's a slightly different type of game. Magic is somewhat scarcer (wizards don't just throw "lasers at will," for example). The challenges players face will be somewhat different and there will be a period of adjustment. DMs will need to be on their game (i.e work doubly hard), especially for the first few sessions as they "break in" the players to the new way of gaming. Done right, you can convert the player from a #4 to a #1. Done wrong, the player will end up a #2 looking for someone else's table.

Finally, the house rules. Create and implement only as much as you need to give the player the equivalent of what they had in their 5E existence. Don't go overboard, but don't skimp, and never worry about all the things they didn't have (i.e. abilities that would have been gained at higher levels in the original system). For example:

A) One of Dennis's players has a 5th level elven fighter-battlemaster-archer. Mechanically (which is all I give a shit about) elves are nothing fancy; everything here is modeled fine with the elf class of B/X. The crazy-ass fighter class is a little trickier: first an "elf" in B/X (or straight Labyrinth Lord) is a fighter/magic-user...which this character isn't. Second, the "archer" designation gives the character a +2 bonus to attack rolls with any ranged weapon (hello, Ultimate Hawkeye). Third, the "battle master" designation (gained at 3rd level) makes her a kind of zen master of combat...mostly color, but she gets four "superiority dice" that can be expended to use any one of three special "maneuvers" she knows. Maneuvers are basically just fighter spells: she knows three and learns more at higher levels; she can cast four per day and learns more at higher levels.

[these are kind of stupid, in my opinion. If a fighter knows how to "disarm and opponent" or "feint" or "lunge," why is she limited in the number of times per day she can perform the action. This is the kind of bullshit this is left over from 4th edition and its "at will/encounter/daily" video game garbage. Even 3E wasn't so stingy with feats]

A 5th level elf gets five spells per day. The easy fix here is ask the character to make a straight elf and give her spells the equivalent of her maneuvers. B/X elves can, of course, engage in spell research at any time, so it's not an issue of her "learning weird spells." Regarding the bow thing: allow her to keep the +2 attack bonus (as a zen archer or whatever) but require the use of her bow as a focus for her magic (i.e. she can't cast her "spells" without it). The player gets to keep her mechanical bonuses AND her special archery color/style, and the re-skin isn't too far astray. I would NOT give the character any type of magic item that mimics the ability of the 5E character, as such a thing can be passed on, picked up by another character, etc. and the whole magic archer deal is this character's thing. It only works for her (or a similar archer).

B) Another character in Dennis's campaign is a 5th level human "war priest," a concept that I love (I've played a "war priest" in B/X before...it's called a cleric with a high strength). This cleric uses a flaming sword (a bonus of his war "domain").

Clerics in 5E are all screwed up, having carried over all sorts of bullshit from back in the Defenders of the Faith splatbook days. They are also packing serious spell power: a 5th level cleric in B/X has four spells compared to 13 in 5th edition (including access to such spells as animate dead, create food and water, and revivify...a lightweight raise dead). But they only get to turn undead once per day (?!) unless they want to "channel their divinity" into a +10 attack (war priests only).

Here's a situation where the DM and the player have to have a sit-down talk about personal expectations in comparison to the cosmology of the campaign world. What is it the player wants? What's the priority here and where is the compromise? I hear "war priest" and I think "player who wants to kick ass and throw a couple spells around (in support of kicking ass)."

Give the player this: you can use edged weapons (like your flaming sword), but you can't turn undead. That's the price you pay for following the god of war. Be honest: you weren't going to use your one "channel divinity" per day to turn undead anyway...you were going to thump someone with it. Well, there's no spell equivalent of guided strike in B/X, but there is the 3rd level spell striking, which gives you an extra D6 damage (double damage for a cleric) for ten minutes (rather than a single attack)...and if you use Labyrinth Lord (instead of B/X), you can get that spell as a 5th level (as well as another 5-9 spells depending on your Wisdom score). And in LL, the number of striking spells you have access to will be much higher than the number of guided strikes in 5E. Just saying.

C) The final problem character is a tiefling sorcerer. Technically, he's a type #2 who preferred Pathfinder to 5E. For him, it's not about an accurate re-skin...he prefers a more complex system. But let's pretend (for the sake of this exercise) that he doesn't and it's really just about his character.

For me, rather than tweaking a spell list (as with example A) or a class (as with example B) I'd go ahead and create a whole new class...assuming I could stand to have such a species in my campaign. I'll make no bones about it: I'm not a fan of the tiefling. As a matter of fact, I'm not a fan of the sorcerer class either. So I'd create a single, unique class ("the tiefling sorcerer") that would be available for this single player. Oh, it wouldn't be that hard: sorcerers only use arcane (magic-user) spells after all. Fire resistance and some dumbshit magic...okay. Maybe a reaction penalty when dealing with lawful-types (because of the character's "infernal" origins). Give the character a couple more spells per day than a magic-user of the same level, but limit the total number known (duh). Apply 5E metamagic already learned in class specific fashion (with no new metamagic on the horizon). I would probably allow the character to use any weapon he'd already used (crossbows and such), but no more. I'd also probably drop hit dice to D4s and put 'em equivalent to magic-users. Probably.

This would be the only character of this type allowed into my campaign...one "grandfathered in" to preserve continuity. If (when?) the character die "the final death" I wouldn't necessarily allow another one to be created: maybe the gateway to the infernal realm has been closed, maybe Satan (or his fantasy equivalent) has come calling for the (souls? life-force?) of all mortal infernals and they're only present as NPCs...whatever. It was a one-time, one-shot deal...unless, of course, I found the character to be sufficiently wonderful that I wanted to keep seeing them show up in my game world.

[I've done this in the past, just by the way: gave into a player's request for some nutty addition to the game. Had a player who wanted a (male) Drow magic-user/assassin with non-standard psionics, specifically pyrokinesis powers. Actually, come to think of it, he might have simply been a Drow assassin that masqueraded as a magic-user using his pyrokinetic abilities as a cover (i.e. pretending to cast spells). It wasn't a bad ride: we figured out a way to "level up" his abilities over time, and it wasn't a gross travesty considering the campaign at the time and the fact that the character was usually used in side (solo) adventures. But it was a one-shot deal that was never repeated. I don't even have any written rules or records of the character in my old files (as far as I know)]

Of course, there are inherent dangers here, though "accidentally allowing a game-breaking class" isn't really one of them (DMs have many ways to remove problematic characters...and players!). But D&D as a game is written in a particular way...it's designed to function with a particular array of class options. And the main danger is: once you allow one unique character into your campaign world, you run the risk of MORE being requested, both by the player who originally craved such a character and other players at the table.

In my own games, this never became an issue. Usually only one of these "unique" characters would show up at a time, and no player ever ran more than one. The guy with the pyrokinetic? His other characters were a bog-standard magic-user and an elven thief (not even multiclassed), with a couple dips into other standards (an illusionist, for example). I played a 1E bard, so my character was already weird enough...I never felt the need to have a lizard man shaman or centaur mountebank or whatever. But I digress...the point is, you (the DM) can lay down rules and limits for this kind of thing, while still allowing PCs to have their "weirdness for a day." It just depends on how much work you're willing to do.

Fortunately, with a game like B/X (or Labyrinth Lord), most of the work is pretty easy.
; )

Going Ape

Oh, how the winds of change blow...

Sometimes (in this little hobby of ours) a game or product gets announced by a designer or company that, sight unseen, simply fires the imagination; consider White Star, which got considerable hype even before it was available. I've been on the receiving end of such attention myself, back when I was first working on my B/X Companion, and while it can make one a little anxious (hoping to live up to expectations), I generally think such anticipation is a good thing. Not only does it get one much needed publicity, but it confirms that you're not the only person interested in the project (sometimes designers have self-doubts that can lead to slowdowns and roadblocks) and the "communal excitement" can light a fire under one's ass to get things done.

Two words: Sheer Awesomeness

So it is, that I want to mention the (announced) upcoming release from Dan Proctor and Goblinoid Games, APES VICTORIOUS. Proctor was, of course, the guy responsible for Labyrinth Lord, one of the favorite retroclones of the OSR, and Goblinoid has brought us a number of B/X-compatible games, including Mutant Future and Startships & Spacemen. Personally, I'm not a believer in the "one-size-fits-all" theory of Unified Gaming (GURPS cured me of that abused notion years ago), but it does allow folks who want to model cross-genre mash-ups a way to do so with ease...and some systems (like B/X) do lend themselves rather well to multiple genres.

So...Apes Victorious. Proctor's latest greatest (currently in the play-testing stage with an intended release date of summer...well, summer if you live in the northern hemisphere) is a fairly obvious homage to the Planet of the Apes film franchise. We're not talking the most recent reboots (Rise of, Dawn of, etc.) chronicling the chronological evolution of Earth into "Ape World;" no this belongs squarely in the realm of "astronaut-travels-through-time-and-finds-a-hideous-future-ruled-by-monkeys," typified in the original French book (I read a translation years ago), the first two movies, and two abbreviated television series in the 1970s (one of which was animated).

This isn't the first time a Planet of the Apes-inspired product has hit the market. Terra Primate from C.J. Carella is a "setting-less" RPG that provides a toolbox for creating a number of different campaigns involving intelligent monkeys using the Carella's Unisystem. While I've owned Terra Primate for more than a decade (I purchased it when it first came out), I've never had the chance to use it...haven't even read the thing in years. I don't find the Unisystem particularly inspiring.

Not like those Albedo games.

However, the reason I picked it up...and the reason I'm so excited about Apes Victorious...is that I am a huge Planet of the Apes fan. Being born in '73, I'm too young to have seen the original film...or any of its sequels...in the theater, but my first exposure to Apes was the Heston classic on television, sometime circa 1979 or '80. Which, for those keeping score, means prior to my introduction to Dungeons & Dragons. Planet of the Apes left a profound and indelible impression on my young mind...one that, growing up in the years of Reagan's "new" Cold War, engendered a love of post-apocalyptic fiction, even if also struck the Fear of the Bomb in my heart. Later, with the advent of cheap VHS machines and video rental stores, I was able to watch the entire series of features and later (one glorious summer, probably in '84 or '85) the made-for-television live-action series over a special week-long re-broadcast. I should also probably mention that my uncles (teenagers during the 60s and 70s) had left behind various PotA merchandising paraphernalia at my grandmother's house (drinking cups with Urko's image and whatnot), that I took great interest in during our twice annual trips to Montana.

I've always found myself inspired and interested by the Planet of the Apes franchise. I can remember reading the novelization of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (long before I ever watched the film) and being astounded at the color-coded clothing worn by the ape servants, and how that had (down the centuries) translated into the traditional species-specific garb worn by the Heston film simians; a little bit of silly sic-fi pseudo-anthropology that made me felt like some crypto-archaeologist making "discoveries." I remember the Ape Nation comic in the 90s (a mash up of two 20th Century Fox franchises: PotA and the James Caan film Alien Nation), and how (despite its ridiculous absurdity) it suggested all sorts of possibilities: Planet of the Apes meets Predator or Planet of the Apes meets Terminator (Dark Horse started publishing its various film crossover titles shortly after the release of Ape Nation).

[I should note I always though Ape Nation as a title was both clever AND hilarious]

But even though I've watched...and enjoyed...the recent reboots of the franchise (even the Tim Burton film to a lesser degree), I don't find them nearly as inspiring as the original stuff. Even if the "apes" don't look much like real apes, I don't find the original films to feel terribly dated. And for whatever reason (nostalgia? scarring of the childhood psyche?) I find many of the images from the original series to be incredibly powerful, emotionally. Maybe it's just the tragedy with which every one of the films ends? Perhaps.

Cool...but I prefer my apes with pants.

So now we have Apes Victorious, which I will probably buy. I find myself excited for a Goblinoid Games release in a way I haven't been since...well, ever, really. And not because I find myself interested in running a mixed party of gorillas through a dungeon or something. For me, there's the possibility of doing something like Gamma World (or rather, Mutant Future) but in a way that is much more focused. Yes, talking apes and psychic mutants are pretty "gonzo" but by limiting...by directing it...one can play (and run) a post-apocalyptic campaign in a way that offers more engagement, than your average laser-breathing toad RPG.

In my opinion, of course.

Plus, look at that cover! That may be the coolest RPG cover art I've seen since Vampire the Masquerade. I'd pick this up in hardcover just to have it sitting on my shelf. I'm hoping that option is available when the thing is finally released.

You see, it's projects and products like this that make it very hard for me to stay "monogamous" to a single RPG system or setting. I love the idea of stranded astronauts in a primitive PA world being hunted by gun-toting gorillas and trying to use their wits to survive, thrive, and possibly rebuild some semblance of a "human society." I know there are folks who share my enthusiasm for the subject matter. Just figured it was worth giving a shout out on Ye Old Blog.
: )

Subclasses, Variants, and Filters (P. 2)

[continued from here]

So, okay, we should probably think of something different from "subclasses" to call these aberrant classes...just so the discussion can keep going. Because I DO mean this post to be about these things, misnamed or not, and we've got to get back to the point. "Variant classes?" Because they vary from the original classes of OD&D (which constitute three of the four human classes found in B/X: cleric, fighter, magic-user, and thief)? Sure...that's good enough. When I say "variant class" I mean a class found in AD&D (or later iterations) other than cleric, fighter, magic-user, or thief. Okay? Okay.

Back to the discussion.

Variant classes since AD&D have been presented in two different styles: one pre-3rd edition, and one post 3rd-edition. I have issues with both, but let's go ahead and describe what that presentation entails:

Pre-3E Variants

- ability score minimums for entry

- generally higher XP requirements than their "parent" class

- unique spell lists, for spell-caster classes

- widely differing adherence to parent class abilities

- some non-standard role-playing requirements (alignment restrictions, treasure acquisition restrictions, guild requirements, behavioral restrictions, etc.)

Post-3E Variants

- no ability minimums

- no XP penalties

- no unique spell lists

- treated as their own "standard class" though save bonuses, BA bonuses, etc. may mimic the non-variant classes

- generally unique "skill lists"

- some variant classes of earlier editions now "prestige classes"

Now, as stated, B/X doesn't include variant classes except in its incarnation as Labyrinth Lord (with the AEC as described above...this uses the pre-3E style, deliberately aping AD&D). But if you wanted to add variant classes to B/X, or if you wanted to re-examine a different (house ruled) way to handle variant classes in your own game, or if you wanted to create you own version of D&D (i.e. a "D&D Mine" project)...if you wanted to do any of these things, you might want to consider the best approach to the concept of variant classes. Because...as that unnamed blogger pointed out...it seems a little hard to swallow parts of either approach.

For example, there aren't any real restrictions to variant classes in 3E or 3.5...which means a paladin or ranger or bard or barbarian is at least as common as the basic four classes. Which not everyone wants to be the case in their setting. One thing the heightened "point of entry" (ability score restrictions) did for AD&D was to ensure that it was a lot harder to roll up a paladin (with that 17 Charisma restriction) than to roll up a plain old fighter. Less than 2% of characters (4 in 216) have a CHA of 17 or 18...at least when rolling your ability scores with the standard 3D6. Add in the other ability score minimums and you're increasing the rarity of the class exponentially.

But are ability scores really a barrier to entry? After all, nothing prevents a player from rolling-rolling-rolling till the right numbers come up...and the DMG and UA provide plenty of "variant methods" of rolling ability scores to give players a better chance of achieving the stat line desired. 

However, I'd ask that you forget randomness for a second...I mean, what is it that you are really trying to limit? Given random dice rolls, it's possible, however improbable, that a player might NEVER roll the scores desired, just given bad luck. And then what have you really succeed in doing except preventing a player from creating and playing the character concept they desire? What are you doing except blunting a player's creativity and imagination with your arbitrary barrier?

Here's what I think:

1) I can see the value of including exceptional variant classes in one's game, not just subclasses that fulfill a concept. Often, these might be setting specific, and certainly they should have a degree of scarcity because of their exceptional nature (if "paladins" are the "default fighter" in your game world, then they're not a variant class, they replace the usual basic one).

2) By including such class in a campaign, you are setting up an expectation (and desire) for your players to play them...for sheer novelty if nothing else. When my old DM said she was going to include half-ogres in her new D&D campaign, my first response was "sign me up for THAT!"

3) Players allowed to play the concept they want are generally happy players. That's just a personal,  unproven theory, I realize...

4) Random, arbitrary barriers (high ability scores) are a non-starter. They don't actually cut-down on entry (due to the ability for all players to re-roll...or "commit PC suicide" and re-roll). And  personally I find it puts too much emphasis on ability scores in a game where such is already too often the case.

5) Likewise, arbitrary level restrictions (for example, 3rd edition prestige classes), is a no-go as it prevents players from running the concept of their choice for (often) a long-ass time. I came up with a dwarven duelist concept for a PC in my buddy's 3.0 game a few years back and it was the height of frustration, plowing along as a fighter and rogue for the six or seven levels necessary to get the correct pre-reqs just to switch classes...and then he ended the campaign around the time I reached eighth level. That's bullshit, folks...again, if the concept is possible in the setting, players should have the option of exercising that possibility from the get-go.

5) What we're looking for is a FILTER, not a barrier...something to weed down the number of people that would take the character class. Ability scores and level restrictions aren't a filter...they simply delay player gratification. Slow advancement (XP penalties) is appropriate to an exceptional variant (it's harder for the Elf to learn both fighting and magic, you know?) but is neither a filter nor a barrier.

[to be continued, where we'll pick up talking about filters]

Winning the Battle, Losing the War (Part 1)

This is a post I’ve been considering for probably a week or two; time to start putting some words down.

First though, give me a chance to puff up my chest a bit: the last few days I’ve spent some time reading back over my own blogging the last couple years. Normally I do NOT go back and read much of my “old stuff” except to look for links to prior posts. That is, in fact, how I started my semi-self-love-fest: I was looking for links and some of my older posts caught my eye, and I just spent some free time reading some of these old musings, including the comments from readers (and my response to the same). And I have to say I was fairly impressed with my own brain…a lot of my stuff is pretty good, often thoughtful or well conceived, if not outright entertaining.

A lot of what I’ve written seems (in hindsight) a bit bone-headed, too…but not nearly as much as I suspected. Hell, even some of those blog posts from “Bear Week” were pretty neat (which I was NOT expecting). I guess I just want to say I’m PLEASED with the content here at Ye Old B/X Blackrazor. I would read my stuff…which is not surprising, seeing as how I blog for myself at least as much (if not more so) as for others. Such is the vanity of the hack-writer.

Now I realize I’ve fallen off on my one-time frenetic pace of posting and the reasons for this are several. First off, I have less free time (both at home and at work) than I once did. For another thing, one of the main reasons I started this thing was to have a place to vent (and discuss) my thoughts on various aspects of gaming…and since I’ve started doing this, I’ve opened myself up to new people (new friends) with whom I can discuss/vent my ideas…in person…and so some of my musings never make it into the blog-o-phere, because they’re already “talked out” with real people precluding the necessity of electronic expression. This includes musings about game design (and specifically musings about games I'M designing).

So those are the main reasons for my drop-off. Another thing that’s “dried up” for me is my need to talk about B/X and my discoveries when playing it…mainly because I’m not playing B/X, instead spending my gaming nights on play-testing my own game concepts. And there’s not a whole bunch to say about play-testing that doesn’t sound incredibly cryptic without having the rules readily available to the readers. Likewise, little “freebie” type posts (new B/X class adaptations) have stopped cropping up on the blog because, well, I’m not using ‘em and the ones that have been developed are now in the book.

[then of course there was my distraction with the NFL season, only recently concluded]

Having said all that, it’s fairly apparent that a LOT of OSR bloggers have dropped off their prior pace of posting. A lot of different things are responsible for this: burn-out has led some to leave the whole “blog thang” behind, others have gotten new jobs, or new (graduate) schools, or moved cross-country and have gotten into a permanent state of “transition” that has kept them out of the habit of firing up the ol’ blog. But maybe bloggers really do have a “shelf life” and a bunch of us are reaching the end of ours.

Alexis had a good post on this the other day. Actually, Alexis has had a lot of good posts on a lot of subjects the last few weeks. Not that he doesn’t usually…he’s a thoughtful and passionate writer. But there was certainly a time when I didn’t follow his work all that closely…I mean, I’m just not all that into how many copper mines are in Bulgaria and what their annual output is or whether or not there’s a tin trade route that is going to lend itself to a dwarven bronze-smelting center in Asia Minor.

This is just me being facetious, of course. Should I talk some smack about Alexis? I know he rubs some folks the wrong way, and some might find him a bit of a blow-hard. Personally, my approach to role-playing is a little less…um…”detail oriented,” which he would probably just call “lazy” (though he might call me out for putting words in his mouth).

Since both he and I have, I believe, put a lot of thought into our widely divergent approaches to role-playing it’s doubtful either of us would EVER change the mind of each other, but even with a vast difference of opinion and gaming paradigm, I have immense respect for the intensity he brings to The Game, and the fact that he invests so much importance in it despite being “just a game.” I happen to share this perspective: that something so innocuous as a sheaf of bound papers, some written concepts, and a handful of plastic dice can transcend the status of “a game” and actually be something of value to our society. Ridiculous idea of course…writing down “fight level 2” never put food into the mouth of a hungry child, and no D20 roll ever prevented a real life crime or tragedy or mass exploitation of a Third World nation. But even so, I DO believe in the power of community and the strength of shared ritual and urgency of exercising both peoples’ intelligent thought process and imagination…and the ability to put yourself (mentally) in the shoes of an elf or wizard can’t help but allow you to (eventually, through practice) see different perspectives of the world, perhaps leading you to a better understanding of (and empathy for) your fellow human beings.

Plus, we do need escape. But that's a whole post in and of itself.

So Alexis and I are on the same page in that regard (that this Game of ours has value and should be approached as such), even if we disagree on a lot of other things (including perhaps the reason for that value). If I’m intellectually lazy a lot of the time it’s because I’ve often found the burden of intense logical construction to be tedious when one can make a mental leap based on feeling/intuition.  That’s not an EXCUSE for intellectual laziness, just an admission. Having played in Alexis’s on-line game, I can honestly say that his detail-specific approach is just as conducive to an excellent gaming experience, if you’re willing to "let it in." Plus, I think he’s a (darkly) humorous guy.

BUT this post wasn’t really meant to be about Alexis. What this post IS about, is the re-release of the Moldvay and Cook/Marsh-edited edition of Dungeons & Dragons…what is commonly referred to as “B/X”…and what that means to the OSR.

#1 with a bullet!

The OSR has attempted to defy categorization ever since the term was coined (whether or not it’s been successful can be debated). Is it an actual movement? A state of mind? A method of play? A particular edition (or several editions) or cut-off year that determines the OSR gamer? Is it a Renaissance? Is it a Revolution? Does it matter? Does it have purpose?

I’ve been called a member of the OSR and my blog is usually identified with the OSR. As someone who has (self-published) some B/X compatible products and written a number of posts on the B/X game, I suppose I self-identify with the OSR…at least inasmuch as B/X is identified with “Old School” gaming (not everyone would give OS “cred” to anything published post-1980). While I don’t have a strong opinion on labels one way or another, I do have an interest in the OSR as a movement…and its survival.

At least, I’m interested in its survival if it’s positive thing.

So here’s the deal: now that WotC/Hasbro has made available to the general consumer public the two most popular editions of the Dungeons & Dragons lines (namely, B/X and 1^st Edition AD&D), what does that do to an OSR movement that went from ranting about the state of affairs, to joining with like-minded individuals, to publishing their own books and adventures based on the discontinued lines?

I know, I know…some people hold OD&D, or Holmes D&D, or Mentzer’s BECMI/RC up as their “standard favorite” edition of choice. But I believe if you did an actual poll (Hell…I did do a poll…I need to get that data collated one o these days!), you’d find that 1^st edition AD&D (which codified the original LBBs and supplements) and B/X (with its retro-clone resurgence) are the editions being played the most.

Labyrinth Lord especially has enjoyed a phenomenal following due to A) the ease and simplicity of the B/X rules, and B) the lack of published or PDF versions OF those rules. I know I had some resistance to folks playing B/X at my table, instead wanting something that was still IN PRINT and available especially in an electronic version. To this end, we made more than a few “Labyrinth Lord” concessions…and I know I’ve purchased multiple copies of the LL print edition for distribution (as a gift to younger players). And because of the wide dissemination of LL (and its OSR-version of the OGL) there have been plenty of supplements and adventures written for the game. Even Mr. Maliszewski eventually ended up using LL (over Swords & Wizardry, the OD&D-clone) for his long-running Dwimmermount Campaign because of its ease of use, simplification of D&D, and yet attention to the D&D-isms most of us have used and presumed over the years. The Advanced Edition Companion for LL simply allowed B/X players to adapt AD&D-isms (like the mix-and-match of class-race) to those simple B/X rules.

Now, B/X in its original form is available as a downloadable PDF for $4.99 (per book). The Tom Moldvay edited Basic set was released first and stayed in the #1 spot until the recent release of the Expert set, which has supplanted it. Thee Basic set remains in the #2 position.

[to be continued]

Ruins of the Undercity

The new micro-game is coming along swimmingly...usually, I can knock one out in a day, but I didn't have as much time to work on it Friday as I wanted, and my entire weekend was taken up with Good Ol' Family Time (Happy Birthday, D!)...and the problem with doing a one-page Supers game is figuring out how (or if) to list a good enough slate of powers.

Anyhoo, right now I'm taking a break from that because, well, because I've got other projects on my mind. Several have been bouncing around the cranial sphere of late (i.e. the last year) with progress occurring on 1st one, then another, then a third...often with results that end up causing me to go back and modify (or even re-write) an earlier project. Not necessarily because I'm "wishy-washy" (though I admit that may be part of it) but because my thought on game design continues to evolve.

Recently, I've been rethinking about delving back into D&D Mine...something that's been on-hold since I started bouncing around the three-way triangle of dinosaur pulp-space opera-superhero fantasy games I've been working. I just haven't been in much of a "D&D mood" of late for a number of reasons, two of which are:

- my growing dissatisfaction with even B/X D&D (leading me to write D&D Mine), and
- the lack of a rule set that can do what I want it to do

The latter of which is one of those terrible circular traps: I'm out of the mood of writing D&D because I'm frustrated with the lack of a good rule set for D&D because I haven't completed the writing of my own rule set for D&D because I'm out of the mood of writing D&D. See what I mean?

In fact, I just spent an hour or so blowing off steam on the subject with an employee at the local game shop...which sucks for my readers, of course, because (having already vented my thoughts out loud) I have little left to write on the subject.

But PRIOR to that, I did take the time to read a game supplement someone has recently published and sent me requesting a review. That someone is Kabuki Kaiser and that supplement is Ruins of the Undercity. While I am generally slow at getting to (and often less-than-complimentary) this kind of thing, I've decided to make an exception and say a few words on the book...possibly to avoid making a decision on what other writing I should be pursuing at the moment.

Ruins of the Undercity is compatible with Labyrinth Lord (the B/X-retroclone) and provides a Random DM-less  Dungeon Generator for One Player or More. It does this mainly by adapting the old random dungeon generation rules from Gygax's 1st edition DMG, putting them in a specific game world/setting and updating them to be both LL friendly and compatible. Those of you who, like me, owned the old DMG and used the random dungeon generator for solo play on days when you didn't have your regular game group available and couldn't get enough D&D will remember those old random tables generating quirky maps with twisting corridors and ill-fitting and strangely shaped rooms. I'm not really interested in talking about THAT part of the book...it may be done fine or not, but it's not terribly original (save that Kaiser adds additional random town tables for both before and after a delve). Instead, I want to talk a bit about the setting specific stuff.

Actually, let me back up a bit...I want to talk about D&D Mine first. Those of you who recall me blogging about that project (5 or 6 months back) will recall I was having some frustration with reconciling the fantasy setting with the basic tenets of D&D, namely how to to reconcile the background setting (an ancient Arabia/Persia setting) with the basic conceit of the game (going into holes looking for treasure). Or perhaps you DON'T remember, because perhaps I never got around to discussing it. Well, suffice is to say it WAS frustrating for me...D&D in its most basic (i.e. primordial) form...doesn't do well with the idea of wandering free-booting adventures because it's original incarnation (after Chainmail) was with the static delve site of Arneson's Blackmoor. And Gygax's Greyhawk. And whatever-it-is Rob Kuntz called his basic mega-dungeon. The rules and regulations, the mechanic limitations of the game, were created for a particular type of exploration...and don't work as well once you pull the PCs out of the dungeon and start expanding their "fantasy world." Since the time players got bored with the initial premise and started looking "outside the box" designers (both the Founding Fathers and their descendant designers) have been tweaking and adjusting and modifying trying to find away to "make it work;" the subsequent evolution of the game has done some good things and many, many bad things ever since.

[that is REALLY abstract and over-simplified, but it's not the point of the post and I just want to get on with it, not rehash earlier blog thoughts]

In the end, I figured the only way to do my D&D Mine in a way that even VAGUELY resembled D&D (and still make sense) was to factor a similar "ancient mega-dungeon" into the game's setting...an Arabian Nights inspired fiction containing both the post-Islam Bagdad and the mythology of ancient Mesopotamia. And the way to do that would be to set everything in  one huge and fabulous city of ancient origin (like Sinbad's Bagdad) built upon the site of an earlier ancient and awful (and necromantic) ruin and city. GMs would still have full leeway to design the dungeon (entrances would be dotted all about the town), but would have justification for the adventuring action of professional treasure seekers. It wasn't what I had initially wanted, but it would be a possible "out" for me.

Still it was frustrating, and I never got around to writing it up, instead adapting old AD&D modules (like Dwellers of the Forbidden City) to the new game rules for play-testing. Figured I'd finish making sure things worked before bothering to write up the setting.

So now we return to Ruins of the Undercity, which basically beats me to the punch.

The premise of RotUC is remarkably similar to my own Big Fat Idea...an ancient and huge city, built upon the ruined heap of an older, more ancient ruin, providing all the "home base" stuff up top (not to mention places to work one's standard D&D endgame scenarios) with a huge "adventure complex" (to be randomly generated) underneath. RotUC also has a similar "flavor" to it, skipping the more Western Europe flavored monsters in exchange for something more Middle Eastern or east Indian (love-love-love the magic turbans). Even leaving out the random dungeon generation stuff (and rules for "solo play") it's a tasty game setting, and one I wouldn't mind stealing from...absolutely adored the "lich thieves" (though their metal masks was a little to Frank Miller 300 for my taste).

A lot of his monsters (Kaiser provides a fairly fat bestiary) are recognizably cribbed from the Fiend Folio, though it would appear he only took his favorite ones that might do well in the setting (two thumbs up from moi). He adds a few of his own, setting-specific ones, however, and is happy to change the modify the original FF critters to suit his purpose...he also provides combat tactic lists for the non-straightforward monsters (the better to use them in solo play; very serviceable), which is a nice little default to have on-hand.

However, there's nothing absolutely special about the first 64 pages of the book...most anyone with a Fiend Folio and DMG could come up with something similar (including the random town events) with a little mental effort and the time and energy to put it all together (most anyone could do it, but I haven't seen it in such a nice little compilation before; it makes for a good supplement/setting book). What IS impressive (to me) was what came AFTER those first 64 pages, specifically the Appendix A with regard to campaign play, specifically with regard to a codified system of personal objectives for player characters. Long term game goals is something I like to see (and encourage) in my players, but it's something I rarely encounter: most players are too busy learning the game rules, are trying to stay alive or finding gold coins to bother thinking about such things. Kaiser puts together a specific list of high level goals (many of which can be accomplished prior to achieving Name level) for adventurers, as well as the specific mechanics required for accomplishing these objectives. Some examples include: becoming a high priest of the city's patron deity (available even to non-clerics), becoming a member of the city council or even the city's ruler, founding or taking control of a guild house, becoming a city folk hero, achieving immortality through undeath, or wedding a king/queen in a distant country. All of these are cool and will appeal to different personalities (and might evolve out of random events); some PCs might accomplish multiple long-term objectives (I don't think any are mutually exclusive) and they all provide role-playing rewards outside the normal D&D "box" without breaking the D&D game system. That's cool and new and I wish I'd thought to do it first.

[well, I HAVE thought of similar goals/objectives, but I haven't codified them like Kaiser has; and certainly not in such a way that they work directly with the campaign setting for which he's created them]

So that was cool. Coupled with the nice game setting, the sensible monster lists, and some out-o-the-box magic items (fairly pulp fantasy stuff with good and bad benefits of the kind usual to folklore and NOT found in modern D&D editions) this is a nice little book to pick up and run a campaign. The random dungeon creation and solo play rules are fine, but nothing I'd proclaim as a reason for getting the game (my days of solo gaming are long behind me...I don't have time for that anymore!). I did like the random town events (easy to use and more sensible than a lot of the tables I've seen on the internet the last couple years), and Ruins of the Undercity is probably something I would use...if I hadn't already decided to re-write the rules of D&D to my own personal purposes.

But I'll certainly be checking out parts of RotUC if and when I ever get back to finishing up my version of D&D Mine...especially the rules in aforementioned Appendix A.

[Ruins of the Undercity available for purchase here]

B/X Compatible?

Looking over The Complete B/X Adventurer (as I put the new book together), I am of course struck by the awesomeness that sometimes spews forth from my brain (duh) and the creativity that spews from the pens of my artists (double-duh). It’s a nice little bit (or bunch) of “extra stuff” to throw into anyone’s B/X or Labyrinth Lord campaign…heck, it would probably work with BECMI or the RC or even the LBBs with minimal fuss and muss...and it’s neat enough to make me want to break out the ‘ol B/X books again and stop messing around with all these play-testing shenanigans.

But, but, but (isn’t there always a “but?”)…BUT then I went and opened up my old D&D Mine documents to look through my own “5E Variation” rules I’d been working on a couple months back. And the reason I was doing that was because I had a fantastic brainstorm of how to make the combat system into a simple, yet cinematic, D6 base system that still utilized levels and Hit Dice while cutting out all the extra dice rolling that goes into combat. And I wanted to see what I’d done with the combat system before so that I had something with which to compare the new idea…and, well, I couldn’t well remember what I’d thrown in the ol’ D&D Mine book previously.

[yes, yes, I’ll explain how this relates to the new book soon]

Let me take one more step off into a blue tangent before pulling this back and tying it all together.

I’m kind of tired of D&D combat. I know I’ve written about this before (to varying degrees) and certainly planned several blog posts (that I haven’t had a chance to write) on the subject, but I’ve been finding the base mechanics of D&D’s combat system unsatisfying of late. And I’m talking about the base system, found in pretty much all editions:

- Roll Initiative
- Roll D20 to attack
- Roll damage
- Subtract damage from hit points
- Rinse and repeat ad nauseum

Without active narrative, the system is pretty gutless. Against larger (or large numbers of) opponents, it can become tedious in the extreme…just a long series of dice rolling to see who wins the war of attrition. In the old days, fights could be sped up with judicious use of morale rules; later editions rely instead on critical strikes to help finish fights quicker. But those are just patches on a system issue.

Why should it take me 10 or 20 minutes to fight an orc? As we strive to get initiative from each other and then roll-roll-roll until we finally hit and then subtract a couple points and then roll-roll-roll, over and over hoping our luck (with rolling) will overcome our opponent’s armor class…just for the sake of a few coins in the creature’s belt pouch.

Recently, I’ve been participating in a play-by-post game using (slightly modified) Labyrinth Lord. As people who’ve tried PBP know, it can be sloooow going, even with the DM making the dice rolls. Our characters are 1st level, we’re in the middle of a dungeon delve…the usual fare, in other words. And I have found the only thing that makes the combats short enough to be bearable is A) the hefty attack/damage bonuses we receive (using the standard B/X ability adjustments) coupled with B) the very low (3-5) hit points (and AC) of our opposition. My character has a 16 strength and gains a +2 to attack and damage bonuses, meaning he hits AC 6 (average goblin) 50% of the time, often killing the suckers. But if I miss, then Ope! Got to wait till next round. And my character has one of the higher strength scores. Via PBP, a combat with half-a-dozen sprogs takes a couple-three days to play out.

And that’s just too long. I mean, heroes in stories (or movies) mow through runtlings like they’re reaping wheat, even when they’re not using “magic swords.” Even at mid-levels this kind of scene isn’t really possible in D&D, unless your character is ‘roided out (huge strength bonus) and/or armed with magic gear. Even then, if your opposition is “scaled up” (say, a handful of ogres) you get bogged down in the same tedium of attrition, unless your party contains spell-casters sporting beefy area-effect spells.

[which aren't very Sword & Sorcery might I add? Just as an aside...]

Look, I’m sounding harsher than I probably mean to sound…but when my imaginary character FINALLY hits someone in the game, I want the opponent to go down with a crushed skull, not hang around taunting me to hit it again. Assuming we're not talking about some sort of giant troll or dragon or something.

Which is why I started thinking up a whole new method of combat.

But then (as I wrote earlier) I started reading through my beautifully scripted Book 1 of my "new edition" of D&D and the very nicely written combat rules and I realized, gosh, not only would I have to over-haul everything to include this new “D6 system” in the book, but:

1) The already written, close-to-B/X-rules are pretty well done as is, and
2) If this really IS supposed to be “D&D,” shouldn’t it resemble D&D?

In other words, shouldn’t it include an Initiative roll, a D20 attack roll, and a damage roll (with said damage being subtracted from a hit point pool)? Isn’t that what D&D combat is all about?

And THEN I was thinking: wow, even though I do NOT plan on publishing my D&D Mine for any type of monetary gain, wouldn’t it be appropriate to make it at least moderately B/X compatible? Not just so other people will use it, but so that it can be used in conjunction with my other B/X books like the B/X Companion and The Complete B/X Adventurer?

[see, I told you this all tied together]

And now I come to the point of this post, in the form of a question: How compatible do you want your D&D “stuff” (i.e. books, supplements, retro-knock-offs) to be with your preferred version of the Original Fantasy Role-Playing Game?

I mean, you don’t need to use “kits” when playing 2nd Edition AD&D…you don’t need to add non-weapon proficiencies to early editions. Monsters in earlier editions are nearly all covered in 3rd and 3.5 edition books (with the possible exception of that three-headed monstrosity from module B3)…it’s not hard to convert back-and-forth between most editions. Plate mail and shield comes up AC 3 in all editions with descending armor class and a +3 dwarven thrower is always a +3 dwarven thrower.

Do you need your D20 roll to hit? For that matter do you need dice of unusual sidedness? Certainly it’s fun (and novel) to play a game requiring dice of different sides, but is it NECESSARY for the game to “feel” like D&D and not, say, GURPS Fantasy?

Those are not rhetorical questions: I'm looking for feedback.
; )

Hmmm…for a moment there, I thought I was going to end this post with my queries, but I decided I wanted to bring up one more bit of thought to consider:

When D&D was first published (in the format we now call OD&D, consisting of three Little Brown Books or LBBs), the rules presumed its participants would be using the Chainmail rules to resolve combat, though it presented an “alternate system” of combat. Over the years, the alternate has become the standard, all the way down to the 21st century (with a lot of add-ons and doo-dads). It wasn’t always the form of “roll D20 to hit, roll for damage” and who’s to say that is (or ever was) the best method of resolving small-scale skirmishes? At the time, it allowed players to use those neat new dice (Chainmail only rolled D6s) and the level of simplicity in OD&D allowed it to move pretty swiftly (roll, check table, subtract D6 damage from characters/monsters whose hit points had not yet been terribly inflated). But since then, those two (small!) pages of combat rules have suffered the most amazing amount of “rules bloat” I can find in any RPG published in multiple editions. How many pages are needed in 4E to provide a primer on combat in comparison to the game's original form? That’s kind of disgusting.

Okay, end last aside...now, back to the compatibility question (and thanks for your indulgence).

The Paladin Calling

So as I posted early this morning (well after midnight), I decided to change my character in the weekly Labyrinth Lord game from a gnome assassin-illusionist to a human paladin (for those who are confused, we are using the Advanced Edition Companion, or AEC, rules which adapts the AD&D PHB, MM, and DMG to the B/X rule set which Labyrinth Lord clones so admirably).

I rolled up the gnome in the first place because Randy (the DM) had jokingly said I HAD to be a gnome in order “to keep me out of trouble.” I went ahead and took the gnome anyway and decided to see just how much trouble I could get into (I can be a bit of a contrarian). Besides, I really wanted to try playing an assassin, and the wide-open multi-classing of the LL/AEC rules meant I could supplement my skills with some phantasm, something I thought was a pretty hot idea.

The problem I ran into over 4 weeks was two-fold:

• The adventure was not very conducive to the optimal play style of a 1st level assassin; i.e. it has many of the elements of a straight dungeon crawl and a lot of undead and is often linear in progression…all of which hinders the abilities of an assassin. For example, what good is it to disguise yourself when everything just attacks you anyway? What good is your ability to stab kidneys and slit throats when you’re fighting skeletons with neither kidneys nor throats (not to mention an ability regenerate and reform almost instantly)?
• The circumstances of the adventure (large group, specific quest, limited path choice) led to me using my default method of play, for which the assassin-illusionist is NOT a particularly well-suited class selection.

My “default method of play” is kind of a take charge (or at least ‘charge ahead’) balls-to-the-wall style: walking point, interacting with NPCs, getting ‘stuck in’ with melee, taking things fast rather than slow. Anyone ever play the video game Mass Effect? Think “Vanguard” character class…that’s MY personality. Ever play Warhammer 40,000? I’m the guy with the all Khorne Berserker and rampaging dreadnought army. I’m not very patient and I’ve only limited amounts of caution…usually just enough to work out an angle or (simple) advantage. I hate dithering. I’m kind of an ass.

Anyway, with the gnome I was basically acting as a leather clad fighter with minimal hit points: 5 in fact (maximum of the average of assassin + illusionist). I’d use an illusion to provide me with cover and charge the opponent, and then do a bunch of damage…and then get killed. Fortunately, in Randy’s game there’s a lot of resurrection and healing within the dungeon.

Well, maybe NOT fortunately…the fact that we couldn’t get “perma-killed” just made the game feel even more like playing a vid; and led me to continue using the same tactics, which really ISN’T playing an “assassin-illusionist.” I would’ve been better served playing a fighter-illusionist (at least I could have worn the gnome-sized plate armor we found). And the whole point of choosing those classes had been to experience and experiment with a style of play (assassin) I hadn’t gotten much opportunity to try. But I wasn’t doing that, see? There’s been no call for disguise or setting traps or using poison or assassinating anyone. This was the wrong game for trying this particular class.

[the only time I got to really commit “murder” was on my fellow player characters a couple-three times…but even that was unsatisfying. I mean, they just come back anyway…]

So ANYway…I told Randy I wanted to make a new character, even though it meant chucking all the XP, gold, and equipment I’d picked up over the last month of play. Seeing as how our characters begin the game with NOTHING (not even normal equipment!) that’s a fairly ballsy move on my part. On the other hand, it should go to illustrate just how dissatisfied I was with the experience IN PLAY. And since I’m not quite ready to start running my own game again (still writing up D&D Mine), I wanted to continue playing with Randy & Co.

So enter Sir Harold the Tall, 1st level paladin.

What a difference a change can make!

Playing Sir Harold was a MUCH more satisfying experience. My actual style of play changed very slightly, but it fit so well with the character that I felt much more “in tune” with the game. My character could lead from the front…because he’s a fearless paladin, and he wants to lead by example. My character can attempt to hail and talk to opponents…because he’s a lawful paladin and he’s not all about bloodthirsty combat. My character can freely pick up and redistribute loot…because he’s a trustworthy paladin and isn’t looking for his own financial gain (my character took none of the gold we found). My character was welcome to a helm and shield and suit of scale armor we found…because my character’s a battle-worthy paladin and has the “oomph” to get stuck-in and hold-the-line for the others.

Even though Sir Harold is a less effective fighter than the assassin (the Paladin only had a 15 strength while the gnome’s was 16, giving the little guy an extra bonus to attack and damage), Sir Harold was a complete badass in combat. It helped that my dice were rolling hot most of the night (a lot of 18, 19, and 20s, a lot of max damage rolls…and I didn’t roll less than a 6 out of 8 for damage all night!). Of the ten or so “evil” soldiers we encountered, I managed to deliver the death blow on at least half of ‘em myself…and all the while I was offering them mercy and giving them the chance to throw down their arms and trying to be a “good guy” (unfortunately…for them…they were only programmed for fighting not surrender or negotiation).

But I think I just “felt better” playing the character. It was like my basic inclinations all “made sense” in light of the paladin archetype. When one party member was so horribly cursed that he could do mostly nothing the during the session (including hold a weapon or even walk), it made sense that Sir Harold would strap the character to his own back and work his ass off to get him healed. It didn’t feel like I was “metagaming” to organize the PCs to pool their gold so we could buy enough “magic rocks” to remove the curses afflicting three of our party members…that’s just the kind of thing a paladin should do!...whereas the same action from my gnome would have felt “forced” and “artificial.” I mean, as a PLAYER I’d want the other PCs to get healed and back in the game, but why would the sleazy cold-blooded assassin give a shit about the other party members? I mean, they’re just a means to an end, right? And once they’ve lost their usefulness (due to debilitating curses), well that’s the time to loot their incapacitated forms and leave ‘em to rot!

And just by the way, playing cutthroat games like that can be fun, too…with the right GM and fellow players on the same page. But for this game, there’s a much more cooperative-camaraderie thing going on…I mean, we’re ALL cursed in this game (the Halfling strapped to the paladin’s back was just “double-cursed”) and we’re ALL just trying to find the magic objective that will break the curse and let us get back to whatever we were doing before ending up in this godsforsaken realm of skeletons and apparitions and exploding corpse-heads and fast zombies and evil (if slightly catatonic) soldiers.

And goateed necromancers. Can’t forget those dumb-dumbs (we’ve killed three so far).

So, in light of the group AND the adventure AND my personality the paladin is a pretty darn good fit. I enjoyed playing the character, and the session was (for me) the most satisfying one we’ve played in five weeks. It felt like a lot got accomplished. It felt like the group worked well together. It felt like I got to role-play a bit (which is one of the reasons I play these damn games, after all). And I got some good experience playing a class that previously I hadn’t.

And it’s a GOOD class, and yes, plays very different from a normal fighter so long as you keep the whole “goody-two-shoes / Boy Scout” firmly in the forefront of your thought process. Always act polite and try to negotiate with sentient beings. Always offer quarter and be willing to grant mercy. Spurn material goods and wealth save that which is absolutely necessary to your mission. Apply no attachment to the items acquired for they are only transitory (the cursed Halfling loaned me the magical holy shotel (a curvy sword) that he was unable to use…as soon as he was cured it was back in his possession along with my appreciation for the loan).

Detect evil as a class ability is VERY useful for this type of play…it helps you to decide how gently one deals with a potential opponent. On the other hand, it’s kind of an “easy out;” paladin PCs that DON’T have a detect evil ability (like the OD&D version I was adapting for D&D Mine) are FORCED to actually “talk first, kill second” to make sure they’re not unjustly murdering someone with whom they might otherwise come to an accord.

I like that a lot. The standard fighter is a much more practical, pragmatic archetype, regardless of whether they’re honorable or completely mercenary in temperament. A fighter starts out as a 1st level VETERAN…the implication is the character has “been around.” He’s an “old campaigner” (in the going to war sense). The regular fighter knows that if you catch an orc with its back turned, you don’t bother to ask what he’s doing in the area, you just run him through! Same with other potential opponents you come upon…if they fall between you and your objective, it’s better to err on the side of “taking them out.” The only place negotiation has is when you’re out-gunned or need more intelligence on the opposition (finding out how strong they are). War is hell…and the fighter is a warrior that has few illusions or romantic notions about combat and the martial arts.

The paladin, on the other hand, is COMPELLED to be idealistic. At least, he should be (I’m sure there are campaigns where paladins are given a little more “free rein”)…in my own campaigns I have close-to-zero leniency for players who take the paladins restrictions lightly. If you want the bennies, you better be playing by the book! And as long as I’m playing a paladin, I’m going to try to hold myself to the same standard.

But regarding my own game and my inclusion of the paladin subclass: well, I was starting to think that I would best be served by doing away with the “paladin,” per se and just making the character a templar or temple knight. In other words, remove the alignment restriction and make the character a more martial version of the cleric, restricting the character’s “holy powers” in exchange for improved fighting ability. In that way, the subclass might be better served in motivation for “going into the dungeon,” as the templars would still be serving the interest of their church or faith or whatever.

That’s what I WAS thinking, but now I’m not so sure I want to do that. After having the chance to play a paladin (admittedly, in a non-standard adventure and thus one more conducive to the class), I find I have a newfound respect for the archetype…which I see modeled in the figures Joan of Arc, Galahad/Percival, and Charlemagne’s Roland.

[NOT Holger Carlsen/Ogier the Dane by the way…I’ve read Three Hearts & Three Lions and see nothing of the paladin archetype in the protagonist (other than his mysterious “smart horse” perhaps)…that guy is Lawful fighter, sure, and one with a high charisma, but still a more pragmatic warrior and certainly bereft of any supernatural powers]

ALSO, Peter commenting on my prior post makes an excellent point about paladin’s motivation to go into dungeons: paladins have been gifted with certain abilities that make them supremely talented for fighting evil that other (good-aligned) folks can’t. They have a responsibility to use those abilities in their proper service…not just defending towns and working at the local soup kitchen. I agree with Peter and I retract any earlier statements to the contrary.

However, that doesn’t mean a paladin will just delve ANY dungeon. There should still be some hint that a place contains a threat or ancient menace of some sort, before a paladin is ready to join an expedition. I guess I still stand by the sentiment that while most adventurers need no more reason to go to a site than “because it is there,” paladins need some form of unselfish motivation. There are captive hostages. The place is the abode of demons or an evil cult. A warlord is extorting the local townships. An artifact of purity and righteousness was lost somewhere in the depths and needs to be recovered.

Money and power and glory and “adventure” should NOT be the motivation of a paladin. But there are plenty of other reasons a DM can offer a paladin PC for going on an adventure. Assuming it’s not “invading the Keep of Glenda the Wise to slay the gold dragon Pureheart” you can probably find some sort of bone to throw the guy.

; )

The Dungeon Master Art

Not as easy as it looks.

Randy was our DM tonight (or rather, our "Labyrinth Lord" as we were playing LL tonight). We used the Advanced Edition Companion, so the game had a lot of similarities to the ol' hodge-podge mash-up of B/X and AD&D of my youth.

Wellll...kind of, not really. In my youth, the LAST book we acquired was the Players Handbook, the tome which features rather prominently in the AEC. My friends and I played pretty much straight B/X with the addition of the Monster Manual and DMG for a year or two prior to adding "race-not-as-class" and new-fangled classes and fancy armor and spells above 5th and 6th level.

And, yeah, having done it that way really does give me a slightly different perspective. I know a lot of folks who got into D&D about the same time as myself did the "mash-up" thing and I've read several reviews praising the AEC for the way it reminds them of their past, albeit in a more coherent form. For me, it just feels like "AD&D Lite." That's not a terrible thing, by the way...it's just not "how I used to play as a kid."

Anyway, we played tonight and Randy ran the game; his first time running a game. Wow. It has been a loooong time since I've seen a completely virgin DM run a game. God...you forget how damn tricky it can be (especially with eight players sitting around the table!).

I mean, I've been doing it for 30 years (shit, that's a long time) and even when I have "rust" from a couple year plus hiatus, it's not that hard to get back into it. I mean it really breaks down to:

a) knowing the rules,

b) managing the game/adventure, and

c) managing the players

Now, I'm a pretty hard grader, but my gut reaction is Randy still deserves a B+ for the outing. He gets a ton of props for managing a game with a group that size in that kind of environment. My knowledge of the rules was probably about the same (or less) than his my first time out, and I only had two players. And, no, just because we're adults and mature and friendly doesn't make it a walk in the park. Not at all.

A couple years back I introduced D&D to a couple teenage friends (my "nephews") and they positively loved it. Quit their World of Warcraft accounts even. Their family moved to Virginia (Arlington) and I gave 'em a copy of Labyrinth Lord for the road. A few months or a year later, my wife and I were back east visiting their family and I asked if they were still playing and they said, no. Appears S. (the younger) just could not grasp the rules and Z. (the older) just "didn't do it right" (according to his younger brother)...and Z. admitted it was a lot harder than I made it look.

I guess. But Z was twice as old as I was when I started playing.

Randy called the game a "clusterf***" and, sure, it was if one wanted to play "by the book." He haphazardly made up rules ("roll a D6 for that") or bluffed or just made spot rulings. But that didn't matter because there were really only two players at the table (myself and Luke) who had any DM experience or a clear grasp of the rules. And for the most part we just kept our mouths shut.

And so Randy did what good DMs do: he played with a shit-ton of panache. He kept the players in line. He made rulings on what they could and couldn't do. He didn't dismiss things out of hand, but he didn't let "bossy" players (like *ahem* me) push him around or dictate how the game was to be played. He included everyone. He listened. He narrated and described. He ran combat pretty f'ing fast-and-loose (a guy after my own heart there). And his adventure was nice and succinct being wrapped up in a single evening.

It was also pretty damn creative/interesting from a background perspective. Oh, he ripped off (at least partially) the plot of some fantasy book I've never heard of...and he included zombies of a more cinematic (as in movie) type (Randy digs on the walking dead), so it wasn't crazy original spun from his own brain. But it was pretty different from most anything I'VE ever played in a D&D game...at least for 1st level characters. It takes a lot of balls to tell players that they've been locked in an asylum because they've been infected with a mystic disease that will eventually turn them into psychotic zombies...and, oh yeah, you have no equipment or gear. At least my character had his spells tattooed on his arm, since he had no spell book. F'ing brilliant stuff that!

A couple of us died, but were brought back to life during the course of the adventure...another nice touch (instead of making the 1st level scenario super easy and survivable he just included ways to "get back in the game"). Oh, yeah, and we fought a giant demon and killed it...with "lightning powder" we spread on the small cache of weapons we managed to acquire scrounging through the ruins of the asylum.

I've said I would love to run or play the old TSR module A4: Dungeon of the Slave Lords. Randy's scenario was better (or at least on par).

But, man, it is hard. Having all those eyes on you, wanting you to entertain them and wanting to do a good job...or at least not look terrible doing it. As a fellow Scorpio, I'm well aware how fragile the ego can be in these kind of situations (not that we'd ever show it...or any kind of breakdown!...in public). But he did a great job and everyone had fun and now that we're out of the asylum, we all want to come back and see what he's got for us next week!

Of course, Matt and Josh may well be back, so then the group will be back up to ten. Eleven if Dan's wife shows up.

All right, that's enough of a "puff piece" for ol' Randy. I'll be harder on him next week if he doesn't get the surprise system right. But I still want to play...I like my character quite well: a gnome assassin-illusionist.

; )

G'night folks.

Nuance

A subtle or slight variation, as in meaning, color, or quality; a graduation

- The American Heritage Dictionary

[I’m not writing dictionary meanings to seem intellectual…I’m doing it ‘cause I had to look up the word this morning to make sure I was using the term correctly. I wasn’t an English major and I screw up terms and definitions all the time; putting the meaning at the top of the post keeps me focused]

NUANCE. Slight or subtle variation. This, to me, is a good way to label the difference between most editions of Dungeons & Dragons…even those that don’t carry the name “Dungeons & Dragons.”

I was reading through my copies of Labyrinth Lord this morning in preparation for Randy’s new game Thursday (Randy, who I’ve mentioned before on this blog, is new to the DM hot-seat, but he is an exceptionally creative, smart, and funny individual and many of us have been looking forward to him running a game). Fortunately, I am still being allowed at the table (though with the stipulation I play a gnome due to the persona non grata status I’ve recently acquired) and so I wanted to brush up on the LL rules because there are nuances the distinguish it from the B/X game.

I LIKE Labyrinth Lord. There’s a lot about it I like: the presentation, the artwork, the motivation behind it and its adherence to the original B/X rules. But there are also things about it that really irritate the hell out of me. Because they are so few, I’m going to just enumerate ‘em:

- Clerics receiving a spell at 1st level. I understand why some folks like this; I know the reasons why this is preferable for some players. My reason for not liking it is two-fold: #1 I think the class is stylistically stronger to have to work for that 1st level spell (though I know many players don’t give a rat’s ass about “style”), #2 I think it immediately puts a clerical player in a position of “oh, you’re the medic (as opposed to an armored, righteous butt-kicker with a secret weapon against the undead).” Personally, when I’ve played a cleric I don’t like being placed in that role…but I probably have a poor temperament for the class in general (I know a lot of cleric players ENJOY the support role, and the extra spell is quite welcome).

- Unlimited class levels. Big whoop, right? Few campaigns were going to get up to the B/X-stipulated level 36 anyway, so who cares if classes go to 100 or 1000 or infinity? But it just makes the demihuman classes look even more undesirable…I would have preferred changing the human classes to a maximum of level 14 (the end of B/X) or even stopping at level 20 (where the LL class tables end) rather than going on “forever.” Again, this is simply a matter of taste.

- The combat matrix for player characters.

- The increased costs for armor. Why should plate mail be unaffordable for a 1st level character? Because it’s more “realistic?” There aren’t any 1st level youngsters that have inherited a suit of plate from their knightly parent? If you want to limit the amount of plate (and other heavy armor) allowed into the game simply say PCs can’t spend more than half their starting gold on any single piece of equipment; hell, set the 50% limit and stipulate they need to retain 10-20% of their starting wealth as coinage…this will limit plate mail to characters who roll a 13+ for starting gold (upper class types) and 10+ for chain mail (middle class warriors).

But that’s it…and THAT’s just nit-picking (you’ll note I didn’t list my complaints for the combat matrix; my reasoning is just a little too esoteric for this particular post). Four complaints over-all ain’t bad; the rest of the book, including all other differences from B/X (of which there are few) are things I can totally live with. And I don’t have ANY issues at all with the Advanced Edition Companion as a complement to LL (I was reading that last night, too, but I think I’ll be picking up a print copy today).If one wants to use AD&D in a B/X fashion, AEC is the way to go (sorry, Barrataria).

And ALL those complaints I’d put firmly in the category of nuance. And I can live with nuance.

Same with BECMI, an edition I have derided many times, here and elsewhere. The difference between B/X and the first two volumes of Mentzer’s opus for the most part is simply one of color…Mentzer’s book is aimed for a younger audience. Why that’s so irritating to me (now) is a matter of my own silly foibles…I’ve played BECMI before and enjoyed it, especially at low levels (we found it a bit tougher to adapt to some of the “CMI” deviations at higher levels).

Sometimes these nuances are important differences; they can have major impact on the face of the game. When the paladin class was first introduced (in the first OD&D supplement, Greyhawk) it was simply a sub-class, open to any fighter with a Lawful alignment and a 17 Charisma that was willing to live by the paladin’s rather strict requirements (never act evil, give all your wealth to the poor, limit yourself to a handful of magic items). Meet those prerequisites and you reaped the benefits of the sub-class.

Since the fighter class (or “fighting man” as it is called in OD&D) is one that's open to all PC races, one can infer that paladin status could be conferred on ANY character that met the requirements: dwarf, elf, and halfling included. Maybe I missed something in the text, but I re-read Supplement I a couple times looking for anything indicating paladins were limited to the human race and couldn’t find anything. It’s only in the AD&D Players Handbook that the paladin is prohibited to any race but human.

I actually like the OD&D paladin quite well (and THAT’s a feeling I’ve never had for the paladin class in any other edition). Compared to later versions with its spell acquisition and clerical abilities, I feel this character is well-balanced, and restricted enough (for the minor bonuses) that there’s no need to “beef up” the fighter class with weapon specializations and what-not. Plus, why shouldn’t the class be open to all who are willing to devote themselves to righteous service and duty? Why limit it to humans?

I wonder what players of dwarf paladins thought when they picked up a copy of the PHB for the first time. Probably the same way I feel every time Games Workshop comes out with a new edition of WH40K that renders my army officially unplayable.

[and, hey, if anyone sees where I missed the page in Greyhawk proscribing paladins from any race but human, please point it out to me]

But even with THAT change from one edition (OD&D+) to another (AD&D), it’s still just a nuance: a slight variation (if not a particularly subtle one). There are still paladins in both versions. The paladins have the same, basic requirements. The paladins have (mostly) the same special abilities. And what HASN’T changed is the role the class takes in the game. When you meet “Fred the Paladin,” regardless of the edition, you’ll probably be able to pin a few expectations on how he’s going to act in various circumstances, due to the behavioral requirements of the class. The slight changes in rules are just that: slight changes.

Luke, one of the guys I play with down at the Mox, has pointed out that part of the fun in playing these games (and playing different games) is achieving mastery of a game’s particular nuances. Learning the rules so as to have a higher level of play (whatever that means to you). I tend to agree with him…at least for the “gamist-types” out there (and I definitely fall into that category).

But for others who don’t care overly much about specific rules…for instance, people who just want to play a halfling thief, but don’t spend a lot of time mastering the 5’ maneuvers, flat-footed catching, attacks of opportunity, etc. that makes the rogue class strong in 3rd Edition…for the people who don’t CARE about rule "mastery," the STRENGTH of the Dungeons & Dragons line IS that the differences are simply ones of nuance. I can sit down at a table that’s using LL or B/X or AD&D or some hybrid (like Heron’s game which uses Labyrinth Lord’s AEC Illusionists but no Halflings, for example), and with very minor input I can start playing. I don’t have to learn elaborate dice pools or bidding systems or rules for “scene resolution” (not that any of these are “bad things,” mind you…just saying I don’t have to LEARN any of them) to play a game of “Dungeons & Dragons.”

Even D20 with its additional complexities is very much the same game. Classes, hit points, saving throws, attack rolls, initiative, XP, level, spell books, monsters. It’s hard to say the difference is simply one of nuance, especially when the game play is so slow and “clunky” compared to earlier, easier editions. But for the most part, the essentials (that which makes the game “D&D”) hasn’t changed. Barring a magic spell or potion, your character is still dead if you take more damage than you have hit points, and you’re going to be rolling another set of six ability scores.

For me, the nuances are important to which edition or version or variation of the game I prefer. But, as I said, I can live with nuance (well, with most nuance). And the more I play (and play different editions/variations), the more I begin to really appreciate the game of D&D and its nuances.

Not from a design standpoint…as a designer, this kind of variation and constant change and craziness makes me want to cringe at least or go play something better designed at worst. But from the perspective of a game player, there is a real power in this variation and inelegance. It allows players to play across boundaries with pretty minimal fuss, AND it shows players that the rules are NOT sacrosanct and freely customizable and here, take half a dozen different editions and cobble together something that works for YOU.

There is a lot to be said for consistency and elegance in design. And then there’s this heaping, steaming pile of Dungeons & Dragons. Much as I prefer the former, I seem to keep coming back to the latter. Maybe by being as messy as it is, it’s more true to life.

Just my thoughts of the day.