Rebuilding Chesterton's Fence

 There's been a lot of discussion lately in various (mainly political/economic) news & commentary that I consume lately. If you don't know, Chesterton's Fence is the idea that you don't tear down a fence unless you understand why that fence was put up in the first place. I'll let you draw your own conclusions to what self-styled super-genius's actions the media I was consuming was referencing to (there's more than one, to be honest). 

In terms of D&D and other RPGs, this is solid advice. We often, especially those of us in the OSR and the weird confluence of OSR and indie/narrative/story-first gaming circles, tell new GMs to "homebrew to make it your own game" or roll out adages like "rulings over rules." But if you don't know why those rules were there in the first place, you're likely to do more damage than improvement. 

I watched this video about improving 5E play earlier today. I'm still involved in two play-by-post 5E games (same GM), but I don't have much interest in the game itself these days. Still haven't bothered to look at the 5.5E rules yet. But at the same time, it's good to have some idea of that play culture. Especially in light of the (now cancelled, unfortunately) GM workshop I was preparing for.  

If you don't want to watch, he's talking about how the 5E "long rest" mechanic takes away tension and resource management, and ways to bring those back by limiting or putting conditions on the long rests. No arguments, no notes. He's right. If you want to play 5E, those are good things to do. 

While watching the video, I couldn't stop thinking of how WotC tore down Chesterton's Fence when they made 3E D&D and their subsequent versions either because they just didn't know what they were doing, or because there was pressure from players to take out the "suck" from the game. Actually, this may have started with TSR people in the late 80s/early 90s, around the time of 2E AD&D now that I think of it. I guess there's just been an accumulation of Chesterton's Fences being kicked down in the game over the decades.

And now, the younger generation is rebuilding some of those fences. It makes me happy to see that. Gygax and Arneson, for all their faults, ended up designing a great little game. And a lot of the decisions they made way back in the early 70s were integral to good game play. Resource management (including rests) may be boring and sometimes tedious, and it may not be something that emulates the heroic fantasy fiction that inspires our games. But without it, where's the game? 

Lessons Learned Running West Marches

Long-time WaHNtHaC... readers will remember that from 2018 to 2022, I ran a West Marches campaign. The other day, some folks in the TTRPG Finder: Korea Edition group chat (KakaoTalk...it's like What'sApp for Koreans) were talking about West Marches, asking if anyone was currently running one. I of course mentioned that I had run one, but I don't have the time to start it up again. 

It did get me thinking about the campaign I did run, though. I've been going over what I did right, what I did wrong, what I did different than Mr. Robbins' original WM campaign that worked, and how I might do it again if I were to do it again. I'm sure a lot of this is in the various posts I made about the campaign over the years. I should probably read over those posts myself. I'm sure they'll jog a few memories. 

Well, I'll get what I'm thinking down now, and maybe edit in some insights if I find time to re-read those old posts. These are in no particular order, just as they come to mind. 

Change: I'm not a bachelor in my 20s working a McJob. I've got a wife, kids, and a sometimes demanding job. The original WM campaign happened when a group of players got together, picked a time that worked for them and the DM, and made it happen. Not so for my game. It happened on my schedule.  That meant bi-weekly in-person games (usually every other Sunday), and occasionally (regularly during the pandemic) online games using Roll20. This meant that the player planning aspect of the original game was lost, and I tended to have a stable core of players that attended most sessions, but it still worked out OK in the end. 

Mistake: Starting the campaign with 5E. Not that there's anything wrong with 5E per se (yeah, some people will argue that point), but I wasn't an expert on all the spells, monsters, etc. I picked it because it was the current edition and I knew I could get players for that. But in the end, all the feats, spells, class abilities, monster abilities, and whatnot that I couldn't recall from memory slowed down the game and made it a pain in the ass to prep for. 

Correction: Switching to Treasures, Serpents, & Ruins (basically BECMI with my house rules) made it something I was much more familiar with, easier to prep, and easier to run at the table. Yeah, I lost a few players, but gained a few players as well. And I enjoyed it a whole lot more that way. 

Lesson: Next time, start with a system I know well. With random encounter tables being a big part of the game, and a rotating cast of players/characters, I need to know the system much better. Yesterday, I was even considering using BECMI/RC (minus the weapon mastery rules) to make it even simpler for players to drop in, roll up a PC, and game.

Change: Ben Robbins would provide the players with the AC and hit points of creatures they were fighting. I didn't do that. Even with 5E rules, which are a bit more tactical, I kept those secret. And the game worked just fine. 

Mistake: Working inside out. Obviously, I started preparing content for stuff close to the starting town (mine is called Silverwood), and prepping areas further out as we went along. I'd try to stay at least a session's worth of play ahead of the players. The problem is, not knowing exactly what was further out made it hard to include clues to things farther on in the Marches. I was often dropping rumors when the PCs went back to town, rather than letting them discover clues within the locations they were exploring. 

Lesson: Work outside in, at least on the big picture. THEN work inside out to flesh things out. If I do this again, I'll create a map and note the dungeons and special locations throughout it FIRST. All I really need to know is their location and a general idea of what they're about. Then I can plant seeds in areas closer to home that lead the PCs to explore further. 

My abandoned plan for a East Marches (using TS&R Jade) was started this way. I've got a map with dungeons and special locations scattered all through it, all named and with a bit of description. Of course, I used some of them in my current campaign, so if I did restart that project, my current players might be bored going over dungeons they've already pillaged. 

Change: Safe Havens. Rather than enforce a return to Silverwood at the end of every session, I had certain areas that could be found (or converted) into safe havens, where a session could end outside of town.  The next session, different PCs might be in the party, but we didn't worry about "continuity errors" like that. It allowed the players more confidence to explore, knowing they would only have to retreat a short distance to the closest safe haven at the end of a session, rather than save time to get all the way back to town. 

Lesson: I dropped a lot of TSR modules in my West Marches. Quasqueton (B1), the Caves of Chaos (B2), the Moathouse (T1), Castle Ravenloft (I6), White Plume Mountain (S2), the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief (G1), Xak Tsaroth (DL1), and plans to use more (like placing the Tomb of Horrors somewhere!). I wouldn't say it was a mistake using these module dungeons. We had some great sessions exploring them. But at the same time, having these generally large dungeons meant multiple sessions would be spent on them. And the PCs didn't always want to get to a safe haven to continue their explorations. So I broke the rule of always ending a session in Silverwood or a safe haven several times. 

If I were doing this again, I'd skip the modules. Sure, they allowed me to get a lot of content in one hex, and the players did have fun exploring them. But smaller dungeons specific to the campaign are better and easier to implement.  

Improvement: In addition to XP for creatures slain and XP for treasure (at least after switching to TS&R), I included XP for exploration. Every new hex explored, every hex crossed (explored or otherwise), and each dungeon or special location found were all worth XP. And the XP awards scaled up the farther out the PCs went. What I could have done better, and will strive to do better if I run this gain, is telegraph these awards more. Often, I'd just tally all the XP for a session at the end and award it, rather than let the players know how much was from each of the three sources. I think if they'd known how much pure exploration gained them, they might have pressed deeper into the "white space" on the map. 

Representing the OSR

Next month, Scott, Rowan and Shane are hosting Busan Con 2026, a two-day (maybe three with the Buddha's birthday being a holiday on that Monday) event. Aside from volunteering to help out with whatever needs doing, I'll be running a Star Wars d6 game for sure (This is the May), and probably a Missions & Mayhem game if I can get something together in time. The deadline to sign up to run games in the 19th. 

A guy named Dave, who I've only interacted with online, wants to run a workshop for new GMs. He asked for any experienced GMs to volunteer to be on his panel. It seems like most folks in and around Busan these days run very story-centric games, whether they're using 5E, PF2E, Daggerheart, or any of a myriad of indie games. And most people who'd sign up to share their GMing wisdom would be in that school of gaming. I signed up to be the OSR guy on the panel. 

Unlike some die hard OSR folks, I don't mind the more story-focused gaming crowd. It's not exactly my thing, as I've blogged about before. But at the same time, I see lots of people having fun with a game that prioritizes the PCs' character growth and playing out a storyline. Honestly, my Star Wars game has been fairly story-oriented, although not so much about a PC living out their "story." Missions & Mayhem is also very mission based, obviously, so each session I'm pretty much dropping the players into an ongoing story. I'm not demanding any particular sort of ending for the missions, though. That's up to the players to determine. 

For the workshop, Dave and I chatted a bit yesterday. He said he'd like each GM on the panel to give a 7-8 minute presentation on their DMing style, then he'll have us field some questions from him, then open it up to the audience. And if there's time, maybe one of the GMs can run a quick impromptu game with the folks to show off their style. 

Being an OSR representative, I'll probably be focused on the notion that sandbox play doesn't need tons of prep like many people think. Random tables and stocking procedures can save you a lot of time. And making an open world with situations, rather than story lines. I'll probably also get in a bit about backstory getting in the way of action, and how Gygax is reputed to have said something like "The first three levels of your PC ARE your backstory." 

I should look up to see what Gygax's actual quote was, or if that's even something he said and not just internet apocrypha.  

It should be fun! 

You Don't Need to Use Them All

Two years ago, one of my players, Denis, was thinking about running a game. There was some light pressure from the group for him to give it a shot. He eventually settled on trying to run a Gamma World game, details here and here. 

That game never got off the ground. For Denis, he felt that there was too much pressure to compare to others in the group who have years or even decades of experience running games. 

At the English camp we were teaching at through most of August, several guys were asking Denis and I about our games (some are former players, some just curious about RPGs). Denis mentioned that one of the main reasons why he never got his GW game going because the random encounter tables seemed overwhelming. 

I instantly understood what he meant. Random tables like those in the books require the referee to be familiar with most of the creatures in the book. And with all the mutations in GW, that may make it overwhelming. If you only need to worry about a few monsters you've placed in a dungeon, plus whatever powers your players have for their characters, it's not as overwhelming. If everything in the book is on the table, it's a lot to deal with. 

I told Denis that he should try to run the game, but just drop random encounters. The look of relief on his face was noticeable. I think he had been in the mindset that the game has rules for this, so he needed to use them. But that's not true. 

You don't need to use all the rules to run a fun game. Especially when you're just starting out. I ignored lots of rules when I was just starting out as DM nearly 40 years ago. And the games were fun, and challenging. Once you are comfortable with the basics of the game, and with planning and presenting adventures, the more complex stuff can be added back in.

Gaming in the Abstract

I was thinking about a more general, abstract way to describe play in RPGs the other day, and I'm still sort of working through these ideas, but wanted to get down here what I've been considering so far. Partly so that I don't forget, and partly to get feedback from the community. 

I'm thinking of how a DM/GM/Referee and players interact during a game, at the encounter level. Obviously, the "logistics" phase of the session, where players get set up, check character sheets, add/subtract equipment or various scores, update things, wrap things up, level up, and all that would have separate moves than these. This is a start at describing the "moves" of an RPG. Other than Initial Description, there is no set order for these, and they are of course recursive until the encounter is completed. Also, these should be able to apply from any sort of situation from entering a simple dungeon room to traveling through other planes of existence.

The Encounter

Initial Description: GM move. GM gives an initial description of the encounter.

Question: Player move. Players request more details about initial description or information gained from other moves.

Examine: Player move. Characters look for more specific detail about one element of the encounter.

Interact: Player move. Characters manipulate one element of the encounter (including talking to NPCs/monsters).

Search: Player move. Characters attempt to find possible hidden elements of encounter.

Travel: Player move. Characters move from current location to another.

Engage: Player move. Characters initiate some sort of conflict, or react to NPCs/monsters engagement.

Avoid: Player move. Characters refuse to interact with encounter.

Explain: GM move. GM provides more information in reply to player moves above.

Stipulate: GM move. GM explains pertinent rules or obvious consequences of proposed player moves so that players understand the stakes.

Adjudicate: GM move. GM engages in game mechanics (or calls on players to engage in game mechanics) to find the results of a player or NPC/monster move.

Resolve: GM move. GM explains results of moves taken by players and/or NPCs/monsters, or of game mechanics adjudicated.

Updated Description: GM move. GM provides pertinent details of changes to the encounter after relevant moves have been completed.

End of the Year

So it's New Years Eve. We're watching the annual Japanese NYE performance show Kouhaku on NHK, as we usually do. We had sushi for lunch today with my mother-in-law. Did a bit of shopping (new shirts for me and Flynn, books & stationary for Hanna and Steven). Not a bad way to end the year. 

As for the new year, I will NOT be taking part in the Dungeon23 challenge. Not that I've got anything against it. I've just about completed a 300 encounter area 3 level dungeon for my TS&R Jade game. I have about 20 rooms left to key. I don't need another dungeon of similar size in that campaign. 

I will be striving to finalize the GM advice/running the game book for TS&R in the new year. It's the book I really don't need as a reference when running the game, and it's the closest to a rehash of BX/BECMI, or your favorite retroclone anyway, so it's been a struggle to keep interest in it. Also my waffling between making it a bare bones "here are the procedures for dungeons, wilderness, urban, and dominion adventures" and full on "hey, you're new to running RPGs, so here's how to do it" levels of detail. 

A couple of months back I read through what I'd written as GM advice in both Flying Swordsmen and Chanbara. I think there's some solid advice in there. And it seems like there has been some need for something to explain not just basic procedural play, but a bit of game design philosophy for people either new to RPGs or coming to the OSR after having started with newer editions or other games. So I'd like to write the more detailed, full on book, but that's obviously more of a challenge. 

And who am I? That's a big mental stumbling block for me. 

But when I did a test of a bare bones book, it seemed so incomplete. 

Obviously, it will end up somewhere in the middle. 

I just need more free time. Actually, I have the time. I just need more "spoons" to get this done. Seems like work and family duties sap most of my mental resources these days. Not sure if this is some sort of long covid funk, or just that I'm getting older and under a bit more pressure than before. Anyway, for the handful of people waiting for me to release TS&R, the system is working well in play. I just need to get that GM book together and I'll have a complete game. Well, sort of two, since I've got "Western" and "Eastern" books for player characters and for monsters. The GM book, however I write it, will be usable with both sets of player/monster books.

Threat Assessment is an Important Part of the Game

Ever since 3E came out, the currently published editions of D&D have included rules for "leveling up" monsters to keep their power level in line with those of the PCs. So instead of graduating from battling kobolds and giant rats to battling bugbears and carrion crawlers, then moving on to trolls and chimeras, and then on to frost giants and purple worms, we instead get just an ever expanding roster of creatures to fight. But it's perfectly possible for a DM to have a war against ever increasingly powerful orcs from level 1 to level 20 of the game, if that's what's desired. 

And this is a problem for more than one reason. For one thing, aside from the ability to now face some creatures that were off limits before, as a player you still feel like you haven't really gained in power. Your character has gotten more bells and whistles. Managing all the special abilities, feats, spells, and magic items takes more time and focus during games. Things slow down because of it. But you still need to wipe out ONE MORE nest of goblins. 

Part of this problem is also that the DM is either too engrossed with their idea of the great goblin war or whatever, or else too limited in imagination to use other types of creatures effectively. They know how kobolds work. Just keep pumping up their hit dice as the players go up in level, and it will all work out fine! Or so they think.

But another problem that people might not consider at first is that this means, to experienced players, that they will never know just how tough an encounter with orcs is going to be. 

I don't hear much bemoaning of "metagaming" these days, say compared to 10 to 15 years ago. Maybe I'm just missing a lot of the community chatter since I'm not really in a lot of RPG discussion social media groups and don't frequent any forums regularly. I do remember people championing this exact phenomenon because it helped to "prevent metagaming." But what it really does is render an important part of player skill irrelevant. 

If players know, from having faced certain types of monsters before, whether earlier in the campaign or from previous campaigns, that helps them with risk-reward assessment. They can gauge the power level of their part, the type and numbers of a group of monsters, and be able to judge easily whether to engage or try to avoid the encounter. Just like the artificialness of "dungeon levels" helps a party decide on their level of risk vs potential reward, knowing the monsters is information that experienced players (and by extension their characters) can use to make decisions. And decisions are the heart of game play. 

Now, if a DM is going to go the 3E and forward path, and try to run level appropriate adventures where the PCs are assumed to a) take on every encounter they come across and b) have a near guaranteed chance to win these encounters until the big bad at the end...which they still have a pretty good chance unless they make some dumb decisions or the dice are just not there for them, well for that DM it probably doesn't matter if the orcs have 1 hit die or 6. The PCs won't encounter the 6HD orcs until they're 8th or 9th level. 

But in an open world game, or a megadungeon, or any other more old school player driven game, knowing the monsters is part of the player skill set that should not be ignored. 

Now, this doesn't mean that there can't be an especially big and tough version of a normal monster, or that DMs should never introduce new monsters to the mix. It's important to shake things up now and then. But really, this works best if the players KNOW most of the regularly encountered creatures. The creatures they don't know will make them act cautiously until they know what they're up against. And really, a good DM should be giving clues when they put in those tougher than normal creatures. 

So, my advice for DMs? Don't scale up weak goober monsters for mid to high level PCs unless there's a solid reason to do so. Telegraph that when you do it. There are plenty of creatures of all challenge levels that can be pulled from 50 years worth of the game. And no matter what system you're running, it's probably not that difficult to convert between rule sets. I've converted plenty of 3E creatures to BECMI stats. And back when I played 3E I converted old school monsters to 3E. It's not that hard. 

[Yes, this post was inspired by an event in one of the the 5E games I play in (via PbP). We ran into an encounter with orcs wearing black chitinous armor. They're a lot tougher than normal orcs, and we're (6th to 7th level) getting our asses handed to us. But the GM DID give us clues that these guys were tougher than normal. I'm not faulting him! He did it right. But the encounter got me thinking about this phenomenon.]