I spent a better part of this weekend going over Dungeon Module B2: The Keep on the Borderlands in an effort to see how it could be brought forward and used as an introductory module for D&D 3.5. I was amazed how much of the advice given in the DM section is still relevant to modern gaming. Gygax's "writing voice" came through clearly in every paragraph.
The style of the module is similar to Gygax's own campaign - lots of different monsters in a small area existing in some sort of chaotic ecosystem without rhyme or reason, but close enough to civilization to be considered a threat. I've always assumed that evil congregates as the result of a summons, sort of a calling from some master planner or ultimate villain. Evil creatures would rather attack each other than cooperate, but if some "master" villain calls them together for a purpose, then they may fight but remain obedient to their master out of fear. Such was my assumption with the Caves of Chaos, but the details were never actually placed in the module itself.
I've read on other gaming blogs how people think that B2 is hokey and makes no logical sense. Well, you really do have to take a few things into consideration. First off is game mechanics. You simply can't have a game that relies on experience points and treasure for advancement and NOT have some dungeon-like adventure; gamist adventures work in the system, novelist approaches fail. If you go into the adventure with the idea that the dungeon accommodates the game mechanics, then its much more enjoyable. Secondly, over-thinking and rationalizing why things are the way they are detracts from the adventure and causes it to fail or blow up in one's face. I've seen people slam the module for the concepts - that's odd, because it was an instructional module on how to play the game, not some opus written to win awards or change the face of gaming. The fact that it DID revolutionize gaming is amazing! In essence, though, it was a one shot adventure, a throwaway used to show people how to play and DM the game, then make their own campaigns. In that way it was one of the best teaching tools ever made, and is still relevant today.
So now I'm looking at this adventure and I'd like to update it to D&D 3.5 stats. Doing so unmakes the very reasons why it was such a strong adventure in the first place. Simple, elegant, and quick to adjust on the fly, updating this module would require an added complexity that doesn't work well in instructional writing. The entire ruleset of D&D Basic was easily fit within a few pages of the rulebook. In most instances, you could add rules in as you went, so long as the basics were covered. In order to run an 3.5 game, one has to explain how the modifiers all work together, stat blocks become longer than a line of text, and detailed explanations of why things work in a certain way need to be explained. One cannot have a generic stat block when all the creatures are using different weapons (which affects what feats they have), or they use special gear which has a situational modifier, or when special attacks depend on size and HD categories. It was rather depressing to see that simply detailing the Keep itself was going to be a major hassle - and an unnecessary one according to D&D 3.5 rules. Other than a short paragraph and stat block for the Keep, all the details on buildings and treasure troves within the keep could be eliminated. The focus of the adventure, the Caves of Chaos, becomes the meat of the module. In essence, this is how it should have been, but then again it was an INSTRUCTIONAL module. It's easy to pick and choose details once you have the basics understood. A base town, in my opinion, should be not only a source of rumors and training, but also of adventures within the town walls and interactions in the ways that most novelist gamers would desire.
D&D 3.5 with its myriad of choices and preferences complicates the simplicity of B2 with unnecessary clutter. Perhaps running the adventure as simple B2: The Caves of Chaos would make it a more palatable experience. Also breaking up the adventure by eliminating some of the caves or spreading them out along the northern hills also makes more sense for an instructional adventure. I found from DMing novices that their attention span wavers after a few rooms. They also need closure. By separating the lower level caves and placing them near to each other but not on top of each other makes for an easier and neater game experience. Placing some evil idol in the Caves of the Unknown as a unifying force to gather nearby evil makes it seem like the whole is more cohesive. Perhaps some psionic entity is trapped within the idol (some interdimensional prison) and is summoning a force of evil to free it from its bounds. The clerics of chaos could be working to save their master (hence the tunnel leading out from their cave, probably towards the Caves of the Unknown). The evil emanations have twisted those in the region to evil, hence the reason why the lizardfolk in the fens are Neutral Evil in alignment. The old hermit (perhaps once a druid) is now driven mad as the unnatural entity corrupts his mind - or he could simply be a Neutral Evil druid wanting to be left alone. The fact that he has a mountain lion companion fortifies this assumption.
Some of the caves could include clues that link the whole together - missives from the cleric to the more intelligent tribes in the region, shamans and witchdoctors bearing fetishes with the idol's image, treasures from the ancient Caves of the Unknown paid to the humanoids by the cleric for their continued allegiances, etc. The entity would likely need to be Neutral Evil in alignment to account for all the various alignments congregating under one Evil being. Surely, the Lawful and Chaotic bands of evil humanoids would fight each other for top position (especially goblinoids vs. orcs), but outright tribal warfare would be kept to a minimum. The Keep obviously is strong enough to resist assault from the various humanoids, but a force of evil sweeping through may cause widespread destruction and the Borderlands are vast and unprotected except near the road. Keep forces sent to quell rebellion in one area would mean leaving the roads defenseless to other tribes. Perhaps a necessary artifact is in the hands of the Castellan of the Keep, some artifact necessary for the idol to be released or defeated (or both). Convincing the Castellan of the necessity of this action would require proof and thus the characters have a region to explore, follow clues, and investigate all the caves in the region! Failure may mean that evil forces will continue to arrive in the region until the clerics have enough force to overwhelm even the Keep's defenses.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Revisiting D&D 3.5
I was bored this weekend. I've pretty much had enough of playing computer games and I'm looking to get back to tabletop gaming. My AD&D group was a bust this weekend since they canceled at the last minute so I started seeing what their characters would look like in D&D 3.5. I had their stats from 3rd level on and it was simple to backtrack them to 1st level again. The hardest part of the whole process was determining what skills and feats they would have selected for their characters.
It turns out that the NPC fighter in the group was ultra kickass at 1st level. The druid was less than spectacular. A complete role reversal from 1st edition AD&D. The assassin and wizard were about spot on if not more powerful than their 1st edition versions. I've been using an assassin class developed from expanding the prestige class from the DMG out to 20 levels. The druid would have been much more powerful if he was developed by the player from 1st level since the choices he made were within the framework of the AD&D rules. Druids used to advance lightning fast, gaining 2nd level spells at 2nd level! He was the first of the characters to break into the upper levels since his XP chart was so fast. In our AD&D game the assassin died from hypothermia early on (4th level) and the others died or lost levels at least once. The druid had lost 2 levels to wraiths and still was on top of the level charts. It would be interesting to see how these characters developed in both worlds and to see how much different advancement would have been after 12 years of running the same ones like we have in AD&D.
The conversion has whetted my appetite for more D&D 3.5. I started looking at my old Greyhawk Campaign from the beginning and wondered how different it would have been if I had done all the adventures by hand instead of adapting previously made modules from 1st edition. The game as I remember it was very power-hungry and it seemed to be even worse of an arms-race than 2nd edition. My preference for low-fantasy campaigns aside, I think it was a monty-hauler's dream come true. My only sticking point was that spells were so categorized and regimented that they lost all the charm of the magic system. Wizards also got the shaft since the progression of spell defenses quickly out-paced the power of the spells. Most of the classic "no save" spells of the early days now received saving throws which were so easy to make that the spells became pretty much useless. If you could cast 6th level spells, then it was pointless to use any spell below 6th level in combat since the opponents were likely to save against them. This is such a switch from 1st edition where the higher the spell level, the more dangerous the spell was to cast, while the lower level spells were much more utilitarian even in combat.
My only pet peeve about the later editions was how long it took to develop the monsters for each encounter. Unfortunately that is a big turn-off for me, especially since I like to adlib my way through an adventure sometimes. My stint as a fairly permanent DM for 5 years straight only proved that D&D 3.5 was a railroading engine made to glorify the PCs, not challenge them. Still, some of the more interesting bits of the game made everything make more sense as a whole. I like the fact that ability scores mean so much more now. I also like the idea of customization through skills and feats, although I think they went overboard with all the options. I truly wish that they had converted the older modules and reprinted these classics instead of releasing reams of unnecessary splatbooks. It would have been helpful for them to make a monster-designer book where they take you through the process of crafting unique individual encounters by showing you the match behind the conversion. Analyzing various stat blocks from DUNGEON magazine made it painfully obvious that some of the module writers were just using some creatures/classes to get a bonus in a min/max encounter design specifically made to screw the characters who were unprepared or knew too much. In fact, it seemed that EVERY adventure showcased at least one completely bizarre chimeric creature tricked out to the Nth degree for no reason other than "they could."
I've since returned to the simpler 1st edition AD&D because I prefer the speed of play and the reduction of options. But I would love to play in a campaign for D&D 3.5 where the players are well-versed in the way the system works and have no expectations of how play should proceed. A clean slate campaign, if you will, is a dream that I can no longer hope for. I would have to mine my archive of previous Greyhawk scenarios for a workable campaign and most of the players I've had have already experienced the adventures I've made. I would have to go whole-cloth on a revised campaign and no one has the time for that to happen!
It turns out that the NPC fighter in the group was ultra kickass at 1st level. The druid was less than spectacular. A complete role reversal from 1st edition AD&D. The assassin and wizard were about spot on if not more powerful than their 1st edition versions. I've been using an assassin class developed from expanding the prestige class from the DMG out to 20 levels. The druid would have been much more powerful if he was developed by the player from 1st level since the choices he made were within the framework of the AD&D rules. Druids used to advance lightning fast, gaining 2nd level spells at 2nd level! He was the first of the characters to break into the upper levels since his XP chart was so fast. In our AD&D game the assassin died from hypothermia early on (4th level) and the others died or lost levels at least once. The druid had lost 2 levels to wraiths and still was on top of the level charts. It would be interesting to see how these characters developed in both worlds and to see how much different advancement would have been after 12 years of running the same ones like we have in AD&D.
The conversion has whetted my appetite for more D&D 3.5. I started looking at my old Greyhawk Campaign from the beginning and wondered how different it would have been if I had done all the adventures by hand instead of adapting previously made modules from 1st edition. The game as I remember it was very power-hungry and it seemed to be even worse of an arms-race than 2nd edition. My preference for low-fantasy campaigns aside, I think it was a monty-hauler's dream come true. My only sticking point was that spells were so categorized and regimented that they lost all the charm of the magic system. Wizards also got the shaft since the progression of spell defenses quickly out-paced the power of the spells. Most of the classic "no save" spells of the early days now received saving throws which were so easy to make that the spells became pretty much useless. If you could cast 6th level spells, then it was pointless to use any spell below 6th level in combat since the opponents were likely to save against them. This is such a switch from 1st edition where the higher the spell level, the more dangerous the spell was to cast, while the lower level spells were much more utilitarian even in combat.
My only pet peeve about the later editions was how long it took to develop the monsters for each encounter. Unfortunately that is a big turn-off for me, especially since I like to adlib my way through an adventure sometimes. My stint as a fairly permanent DM for 5 years straight only proved that D&D 3.5 was a railroading engine made to glorify the PCs, not challenge them. Still, some of the more interesting bits of the game made everything make more sense as a whole. I like the fact that ability scores mean so much more now. I also like the idea of customization through skills and feats, although I think they went overboard with all the options. I truly wish that they had converted the older modules and reprinted these classics instead of releasing reams of unnecessary splatbooks. It would have been helpful for them to make a monster-designer book where they take you through the process of crafting unique individual encounters by showing you the match behind the conversion. Analyzing various stat blocks from DUNGEON magazine made it painfully obvious that some of the module writers were just using some creatures/classes to get a bonus in a min/max encounter design specifically made to screw the characters who were unprepared or knew too much. In fact, it seemed that EVERY adventure showcased at least one completely bizarre chimeric creature tricked out to the Nth degree for no reason other than "they could."
I've since returned to the simpler 1st edition AD&D because I prefer the speed of play and the reduction of options. But I would love to play in a campaign for D&D 3.5 where the players are well-versed in the way the system works and have no expectations of how play should proceed. A clean slate campaign, if you will, is a dream that I can no longer hope for. I would have to mine my archive of previous Greyhawk scenarios for a workable campaign and most of the players I've had have already experienced the adventures I've made. I would have to go whole-cloth on a revised campaign and no one has the time for that to happen!
Friday, January 27, 2012
More Nostalgia: STAR FRONTIERS!
So I've been on this kick lately looking back at older role-playing games. There seems to be this magic point somewhere in the development of a game where too much makes the game unwieldy and too little makes it seem like there's something missing. Obviously D&D's switch point came with Advanced D&D. Star Frontiers, TSR's sci-fi RPG, had it's switch point with Zebulon's Guide to the Galaxy.
It seemed that the game started to "jump the shark" with the conversion of the rules to the Marvel Super-Heroes game mechanic, using a Universal Table with color results and "column shifts" for modifiers. It seemed to completely de-rail the simple percentage based mechanic of the earlier game. The addition of all the new armor types, weapons, and picky rules made the whole thing less satisfying than the original. I have the same problems with the upgrade to Knight Hawks. Sure this is an add-on to the game, but an important one that now allowed the players to pilot spaceships and engage in zero-G combat far above the planet surface - one of the draws of the Star Wars movies!
I've started going through the original rules for Star Frontiers, starting with the Basic Game and found those rules to be too simplistic. They gave little in the way of variation and seemed like more of a boardgame with freeform movement. The Expanded rules function as I remember, although back in the day we played like complete idiots trying to figure out sci-fi scenarios. Coming more from a Star Trek/Star Wars background, I had no true sci-fi knowledge which would have helped me greatly in coming up with scenarios. In the end I made my new campaign more like a Star Wars space opera than a true action scenario. It's hard to motivate people when they can buy weapons like laser pistols and steal what they need from others. In fact, most of our games ended up with the players being worse than the villains!
I'm still reviewing the rules and even looked into the newer d20 Modern/Future rulebooks. Just looking at the volume of rules one needs to know to run a car chase made me want to put these books away forever! If I can make the Star Frontiers rules work the way they should for what I need then that's good enough for me.
It seemed that the game started to "jump the shark" with the conversion of the rules to the Marvel Super-Heroes game mechanic, using a Universal Table with color results and "column shifts" for modifiers. It seemed to completely de-rail the simple percentage based mechanic of the earlier game. The addition of all the new armor types, weapons, and picky rules made the whole thing less satisfying than the original. I have the same problems with the upgrade to Knight Hawks. Sure this is an add-on to the game, but an important one that now allowed the players to pilot spaceships and engage in zero-G combat far above the planet surface - one of the draws of the Star Wars movies!
I've started going through the original rules for Star Frontiers, starting with the Basic Game and found those rules to be too simplistic. They gave little in the way of variation and seemed like more of a boardgame with freeform movement. The Expanded rules function as I remember, although back in the day we played like complete idiots trying to figure out sci-fi scenarios. Coming more from a Star Trek/Star Wars background, I had no true sci-fi knowledge which would have helped me greatly in coming up with scenarios. In the end I made my new campaign more like a Star Wars space opera than a true action scenario. It's hard to motivate people when they can buy weapons like laser pistols and steal what they need from others. In fact, most of our games ended up with the players being worse than the villains!
I'm still reviewing the rules and even looked into the newer d20 Modern/Future rulebooks. Just looking at the volume of rules one needs to know to run a car chase made me want to put these books away forever! If I can make the Star Frontiers rules work the way they should for what I need then that's good enough for me.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Moldvay Companion Rules: What Could Have Been
I've toyed with the idea of making a Moldvay/Cook version of the Companion Rules which were promised in the Expert Rulebook but never published. What would they contain? What other information could they possibly provide that was not in any other later edition?
My recent delving into the Original D&D box set has led me to believe that Moldvay/Cook D&D is simply the organized and cleaned up version of the original D&D rules. In fact, except for the Chainmail Rules references and alternate rules, the rulebooks read nearly identically! There is some difference with the demi-humans, but essentially it all works the same. I had no idea that class and race was so tied together in the older rules.
The other thing I noted was the pure simplicity and elegance that I've always admired in the Moldvay version actually began in the original D&D rules. There were no extra attacks, convoluted combat mechanics, or other nonsense that led to a huge tome of rules in later versions. I understand the need for clarification and structure, but the game loses something when every action has to be specified in rules, adjusted by a plethora of modifiers, and resolved using multiples rolls.
The Basic/Expert Rules had defined chapters which were kept the same for each - Chapter 3 in each book was for Spells, Chapter 6 for Monsters, etc. In keeping with this structure, a Companion Book should have the same format. But what should be added?
I've reviewed the OD&D lists of monsters and treasure and found that ALL of the items in the original rules were transferred into Basic/Expert. Only a few of the additional monsters and items from the Greyhawk Supplement made it into the rules, but the Thief class was most notable among these. It is interesting to note that although the Hobbit/Halfling class did not operate as a thief per se, they still got a stealth boost in the rules, as well as a level boost for all demi-human classes. A few of the level titles were altered or switched around in order to make all classes hit Name Level at 9th level. The general concept that one gains from this is that Humanoid HD max out at 9 HD for Medium humanoids, -1 HD for smaller humanoids (like halflings), and maybe +1 for Large humanoids (like ogres or gnolls). If one expands to 36 levels as suggested for the Companion Set, then you have to come up with challenges for characters for the next 22 levels. That's a lot of experience points with very little change in how the characters progress except maybe for spells available. Thief abilities are pretty nearly maxed out at 14th level! Fighters show no advancement, but might actually gain extra attacks at higher levels. What kind of creatures are expected to be encountered? Well, some of those questions were answered in the original D&D rules...
Monsters that were excluded from the Expert rules were those deemed too powerful for even Name level characters of some experience. These included the Lich, Ghost, Juggernaut, and Titans. Such creatures must be fearsome indeed if one should not face them at 14th level! Just how powerful they could be is unknown, but 20th level of magic-use is assumed for the lich, and the lich Asberdies in D1 should be considered the first appearance of such a creature in a D&D module (although the premise for his being there is sketchy at best). Most of the monsters in the Greyhawk Supplement and almost ALL the monsters in the Blackmoor supplement are NOT included in the Expert rules. Very few non-aquatic monsters were added in the Blackmoor rules, but Greyhawk added many of the iconic creatures we've all come to expect, like Beholders, Golems, and metallic dragons. All of these monsters are suitable for inclusion in the Companion Rules. The psionic creatures which seem to dominate the later rules should also be included: mind flayers, duergar, intellect devourers, etc.
A lot of spells were left out of the selections for Clerics and Magic-Users in the Basic/Expert version of the rules. Notably, clerics never get Dispel Magic, Magic-Users miss out on several spells that add some flavor and utility to the class, and no spell of 7th level or above is detailed for either class. Where does one get the inspiration for these spells? Go back to the source of course! I took all the spells listed in Men & Magic plus all the Greyhawk Supplement spells and compiled them into a master list. This expanded the 1st-6th level lists as well, but brought all the OD&D spells to Basic/Expert. Why these spells were omitted is unknown, but I read somewhere that Moldvay and Cook wanted to simply rewrite the original rules without the supplements.
As I've been re-reading the World of Greyhawk Boxed Set I noticed that the encounter charts included humanoids from the Fiend Folio published around the same time. Such creatures as norkers, ogrillons, and flinds were liberally added to the hosts of humanoids in the northern regions. Also added were oddball creatures such as quaggoths and qullans, the former being tied to the drow elves also detailed in that rulebook. So, looking back at the published modules from the early days one would need to also add in drow, kuo-toa, jermlaine, mind flayers (illithids), and svirfnebli to make all the Greyhawk creatures available.
Of the treasures, most of the lists are simply copied from one ruleset to the other. However, I noticed that the Greyhawk Supplement introduced the concept of "cursed items," those magic items that are detrimental or deadly to those assuming to be picking up a standard magic item. In fact, most of the omitted items were cursed! Many of the new items in the Greyhawk supplement deal with the new classes (Thieves and Paladins) which may or may not be involved in Companion rules. A Holy Sword +5 means nothing without a Paladin to wield it, and subclasses were not really involved in the early rulesets, only the expansions. However, since the Companion Rules are supposed to be supplemental materials to expand the campaign world, adding in a subclass to each of the main classes might not be a bad idea. But which ones?
Of the sub-classes, the Paladin was the first. introduced in the Greyhawk Supplement it was available for Fighters of 17 Charisma and of Lawful alignment. Later versions of this class added other stipulations or reworked it to only be available at Name Level and above. I don't know how I would work this class in. Rangers were an afterthought in a Dragon magazine article and don't really seem to be necessary in the Companion rules. Druids were added in Eldritch Wizardry but were seen as more of a cleric/magic-user hybrid. This class was originally listed as a new monster in the Greyhawk Supplement!. Assassins and monks were added in the Blackmoor Supplement, although they seemed to be made as more of a cultural nod to the Karate flicks and mafia movies of the time. Still these classes feature prominently in Greyhawk. The challenge is presenting these options to characters without changing the dynamics of play, game balance, or altering the simplicity of the rules. Also, when do you decide to stop adding things to the game? At what point is enough enough? What's the saturation mark? If adding all the stuff to resemble AD&D, why not just play AD&D?
I think it's better to focus on WHY D&D rules are superior. My analysis concludes that percentile Strength is unnecessary. No other ability score uses the mechanic. Making the range of 3-18 stand without exception is important, as is the standard ability adjustments. Keeping race as class is somewhat problematic, but when you explain that the best choice for each race is the class they assume anyway, then it makes more sense. The only exception to this is the Halfling - stuck at level 8 with fighting ability and no thieving skills. This is the only casualty in the argument and, as far as I'm concerned, has little impact on the game. The number of spells can use some expansion - as already stated I added in the spells from OD&D and Greyhawk Supplement. Adding in the extra magic items is fine, but limiting cursed items to a separate list that is rarely used seems much more fair to the players. Such items should not be routinely found - but they should exist for the DM to use in specific instances. Monster stats should remain easy and quick to use. Adding in the missing monsters from the supplements is fine, but no more than the number of monsters added in between the first two books.
The largest area of expansion should be planar adventures. Adding in creatures such as demons (Chaos), Faeries (Neutral), and angels (Law) might be the path to go. Since there is little difference in alignments in this version, having devils may be confusing since they are a lawful form of evil. Of course, mixing demons and devils into one category greatly increases the forces of Chaos. I've been toying with the idea of making the Ethereal Plane a land of spirits (i.e. Spirit Realm) since it is typically a haunt of the recently dead and some creatures can see into the "spirit plane" of the ethereal. Astral then becomes the only transitive plane and making it look like Outer Space seems more appropriate than a silvery wasteland. Deciding what other extraplanar creatures to include then becomes a matter of picking and choosing from various supplements.
This project can come to a meaningful conclusion and maybe even self-publication. I just need to weed out those concepts that make the game too complicated and add in just enough variety to keep the game challenging and exciting for 22 levels after the Expert set. Perhaps coming up with Legendary Classes (to symbolize the new classes) and other perks for higher-level characters is the way to go. After all, giving a +5 Holy Avenger to a low level paladin may unbalance any game, but allowing a new paladin to evolve at higher levels seems appropriate for using such a powerful weapon. Perhaps making these the "prestige" classes of Companion and setting the minimum requirement for 15th level and above seems the way to go.
My recent delving into the Original D&D box set has led me to believe that Moldvay/Cook D&D is simply the organized and cleaned up version of the original D&D rules. In fact, except for the Chainmail Rules references and alternate rules, the rulebooks read nearly identically! There is some difference with the demi-humans, but essentially it all works the same. I had no idea that class and race was so tied together in the older rules.
The other thing I noted was the pure simplicity and elegance that I've always admired in the Moldvay version actually began in the original D&D rules. There were no extra attacks, convoluted combat mechanics, or other nonsense that led to a huge tome of rules in later versions. I understand the need for clarification and structure, but the game loses something when every action has to be specified in rules, adjusted by a plethora of modifiers, and resolved using multiples rolls.
The Basic/Expert Rules had defined chapters which were kept the same for each - Chapter 3 in each book was for Spells, Chapter 6 for Monsters, etc. In keeping with this structure, a Companion Book should have the same format. But what should be added?
I've reviewed the OD&D lists of monsters and treasure and found that ALL of the items in the original rules were transferred into Basic/Expert. Only a few of the additional monsters and items from the Greyhawk Supplement made it into the rules, but the Thief class was most notable among these. It is interesting to note that although the Hobbit/Halfling class did not operate as a thief per se, they still got a stealth boost in the rules, as well as a level boost for all demi-human classes. A few of the level titles were altered or switched around in order to make all classes hit Name Level at 9th level. The general concept that one gains from this is that Humanoid HD max out at 9 HD for Medium humanoids, -1 HD for smaller humanoids (like halflings), and maybe +1 for Large humanoids (like ogres or gnolls). If one expands to 36 levels as suggested for the Companion Set, then you have to come up with challenges for characters for the next 22 levels. That's a lot of experience points with very little change in how the characters progress except maybe for spells available. Thief abilities are pretty nearly maxed out at 14th level! Fighters show no advancement, but might actually gain extra attacks at higher levels. What kind of creatures are expected to be encountered? Well, some of those questions were answered in the original D&D rules...
Monsters that were excluded from the Expert rules were those deemed too powerful for even Name level characters of some experience. These included the Lich, Ghost, Juggernaut, and Titans. Such creatures must be fearsome indeed if one should not face them at 14th level! Just how powerful they could be is unknown, but 20th level of magic-use is assumed for the lich, and the lich Asberdies in D1 should be considered the first appearance of such a creature in a D&D module (although the premise for his being there is sketchy at best). Most of the monsters in the Greyhawk Supplement and almost ALL the monsters in the Blackmoor supplement are NOT included in the Expert rules. Very few non-aquatic monsters were added in the Blackmoor rules, but Greyhawk added many of the iconic creatures we've all come to expect, like Beholders, Golems, and metallic dragons. All of these monsters are suitable for inclusion in the Companion Rules. The psionic creatures which seem to dominate the later rules should also be included: mind flayers, duergar, intellect devourers, etc.
A lot of spells were left out of the selections for Clerics and Magic-Users in the Basic/Expert version of the rules. Notably, clerics never get Dispel Magic, Magic-Users miss out on several spells that add some flavor and utility to the class, and no spell of 7th level or above is detailed for either class. Where does one get the inspiration for these spells? Go back to the source of course! I took all the spells listed in Men & Magic plus all the Greyhawk Supplement spells and compiled them into a master list. This expanded the 1st-6th level lists as well, but brought all the OD&D spells to Basic/Expert. Why these spells were omitted is unknown, but I read somewhere that Moldvay and Cook wanted to simply rewrite the original rules without the supplements.
As I've been re-reading the World of Greyhawk Boxed Set I noticed that the encounter charts included humanoids from the Fiend Folio published around the same time. Such creatures as norkers, ogrillons, and flinds were liberally added to the hosts of humanoids in the northern regions. Also added were oddball creatures such as quaggoths and qullans, the former being tied to the drow elves also detailed in that rulebook. So, looking back at the published modules from the early days one would need to also add in drow, kuo-toa, jermlaine, mind flayers (illithids), and svirfnebli to make all the Greyhawk creatures available.
Of the treasures, most of the lists are simply copied from one ruleset to the other. However, I noticed that the Greyhawk Supplement introduced the concept of "cursed items," those magic items that are detrimental or deadly to those assuming to be picking up a standard magic item. In fact, most of the omitted items were cursed! Many of the new items in the Greyhawk supplement deal with the new classes (Thieves and Paladins) which may or may not be involved in Companion rules. A Holy Sword +5 means nothing without a Paladin to wield it, and subclasses were not really involved in the early rulesets, only the expansions. However, since the Companion Rules are supposed to be supplemental materials to expand the campaign world, adding in a subclass to each of the main classes might not be a bad idea. But which ones?
Of the sub-classes, the Paladin was the first. introduced in the Greyhawk Supplement it was available for Fighters of 17 Charisma and of Lawful alignment. Later versions of this class added other stipulations or reworked it to only be available at Name Level and above. I don't know how I would work this class in. Rangers were an afterthought in a Dragon magazine article and don't really seem to be necessary in the Companion rules. Druids were added in Eldritch Wizardry but were seen as more of a cleric/magic-user hybrid. This class was originally listed as a new monster in the Greyhawk Supplement!. Assassins and monks were added in the Blackmoor Supplement, although they seemed to be made as more of a cultural nod to the Karate flicks and mafia movies of the time. Still these classes feature prominently in Greyhawk. The challenge is presenting these options to characters without changing the dynamics of play, game balance, or altering the simplicity of the rules. Also, when do you decide to stop adding things to the game? At what point is enough enough? What's the saturation mark? If adding all the stuff to resemble AD&D, why not just play AD&D?
I think it's better to focus on WHY D&D rules are superior. My analysis concludes that percentile Strength is unnecessary. No other ability score uses the mechanic. Making the range of 3-18 stand without exception is important, as is the standard ability adjustments. Keeping race as class is somewhat problematic, but when you explain that the best choice for each race is the class they assume anyway, then it makes more sense. The only exception to this is the Halfling - stuck at level 8 with fighting ability and no thieving skills. This is the only casualty in the argument and, as far as I'm concerned, has little impact on the game. The number of spells can use some expansion - as already stated I added in the spells from OD&D and Greyhawk Supplement. Adding in the extra magic items is fine, but limiting cursed items to a separate list that is rarely used seems much more fair to the players. Such items should not be routinely found - but they should exist for the DM to use in specific instances. Monster stats should remain easy and quick to use. Adding in the missing monsters from the supplements is fine, but no more than the number of monsters added in between the first two books.
The largest area of expansion should be planar adventures. Adding in creatures such as demons (Chaos), Faeries (Neutral), and angels (Law) might be the path to go. Since there is little difference in alignments in this version, having devils may be confusing since they are a lawful form of evil. Of course, mixing demons and devils into one category greatly increases the forces of Chaos. I've been toying with the idea of making the Ethereal Plane a land of spirits (i.e. Spirit Realm) since it is typically a haunt of the recently dead and some creatures can see into the "spirit plane" of the ethereal. Astral then becomes the only transitive plane and making it look like Outer Space seems more appropriate than a silvery wasteland. Deciding what other extraplanar creatures to include then becomes a matter of picking and choosing from various supplements.
This project can come to a meaningful conclusion and maybe even self-publication. I just need to weed out those concepts that make the game too complicated and add in just enough variety to keep the game challenging and exciting for 22 levels after the Expert set. Perhaps coming up with Legendary Classes (to symbolize the new classes) and other perks for higher-level characters is the way to go. After all, giving a +5 Holy Avenger to a low level paladin may unbalance any game, but allowing a new paladin to evolve at higher levels seems appropriate for using such a powerful weapon. Perhaps making these the "prestige" classes of Companion and setting the minimum requirement for 15th level and above seems the way to go.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Rediscovering Original D&D
It's been a while since I've put any thoughts on this blog. Guess I've just been tired as hell and bored with what I've been doing for the past few years. This past weekend I happened to pick up my Original White Box D&D copies and remembered that I was in the process of making Word docs out of them. So I fired up the computer and began scanning and editing, reading all the rules again in the process.
It's amazing how simple and elegant the original game truly was. Three classes (Fighting Man, Magic-User, and Cleric), four races (Man, Dwarf, Elf, and Hobbit), and a slew of very familiar monsters. The obvious outgrowth from miniature gaming is evident in the lack of combat mechanics (it was assumed that everyone already owned the Chainmail miniatures rules). The spells were also very sketchy in their descriptions, assuming that everyone knew certain aspects of the game already from using the Chainmail rulebook. What I find very interesting is the lack of power inherent in the game. AD&D dragons may seem like pushovers to us now, but to an Original D&D gamer they were death machines. No one got more than one attack per round, hit points were limited, AC adjustments were few, and combat was very quick and deadly despite using one die for all damage (with some modifiers of course).
What really got me were all the rules that never really translated into AD&D, like most of the information in the back of the Underworld & Wilderness Rules booklet (Part 3). Several pages devoted to aerial combat, naval battles, and some campaign development were very enlightening. It was obvious that D&D was meant purely as gloss on a miniatures combat scenario. This explains the reason why all the original adventures were dungeons - simply a combat scenario in another form. Instead of placing armies on an open field and randomly determining the outcome, the party took the place of the armies storming the dungeons as the battlefield with the hordes of monsters as opponents. This explains the "Number Appearing" entries for humanoids (typically in the hundreds) and the enormous party sizes back in the day (filled out with henchmen, hirelings, etc.). It wasn't until much later that such large parties were pared down to a more conventional 4-to-6-player size. The scale inch rules also make more sense when seen from a wargamers point of view since terrain was often depicted at large scale and minis represented whole units of the army (at a 20:1 ratio or thereabouts). Moving large parties through a dungeon would have been like moving working class people along a subway tunnel during rush hour - the difference being the armor and gear carried. When visualized in that way it is more conceivable that parties could never hope to surprise monsters unless they had advance scouts and/or magical scrying to determine what lay ahead. In this way, the Thief was added to the mix of characters to allow for a more discreet method of entering a dungeon, using tactics instead of bullrushing through the place and hoping you survived, and to prevent deaths due to traps and poison needles set to take out the unwary.
I also learned that Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was created as a tournament version of the game. Basic/Expert D&D is much more in line with what D&D began, using the basic four classes (Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, and Thief) and four races (Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling). However, Basic diverged by combining demi-human races with their usual classes (Dwarf = Dwarf Fighter, Elf = Elven Fighter/Magic-User, and Halfling = Halfling Fighter). So Thief and Cleric were never an option in Basic for anyone but a Human! It would be interesting to break race from class in Basic and make it more like the way Original D&D had it. If only I had kept the Basic game I got for Christmas back in 1980! But without a lot of players my own age (like maybe 2 others were interested and one was my 4 year old brother) it made more sense to buy the DUNGEON! Boardgame. Oh well, I would probably have stuck with Basic D&D longer had I learned to play at an earlier age with people who understood what the game was really about. I really prefer the Moldvay Basic D&D set.
So it seems that AD&D, what I prefer to play now, actually began as more of a Basic D&D game with tons of little rules thrown in to keep everyone playing the same version of the game for tournament rulings. I can understand that. But at the same time it opened other cans of worms and made the game overly complicated. I was able to condense the OD&D rules down to 3 booklets of 15-20 pages each, together comprising a Player's Handbook (Men & Magic), a Monster Manual (Monsters & Treasure) and a Dungeon Master's Guide (Underworld & Wilderness) in under 60 pages of rules! Comparing AD&D and OD&D, one can see that there were 1/3 the number of classes, 1/2 the number of races, much more simplified spells and numbers thereof, and easier and faster combat resolution. It is also interesting to see how everything was based on the number "6". There were six levels of spells for each class, supposed to be six or so dungeon levels for a typical adventure, there were six levels of monsters, and every weapon/attack did a d6 damage (with d6 hit points for each class, with modifiers). Now I know why the DUNGEON!(TM) game was set up the way it was with six levels, character types of Elf, Wizard, Hero, and Superhero (actual level terms for some characters), and the monster selections (including Witches, Evil Superheroes, and various humanoids). What I find very interesting is the lack of level reference in the rules. You were a Wizard or a Necromancer, not a 9th or 8th level Magic-User. Same for the Fighting Man - you would refer yourself as a Swashbuckler, Hero, Myrmidon, Champion, or Lord. There also seemed to be a greater emphasis on the end-game levels when you were able to construct a castle since this is the time where you would be entering the wilderness to conquer the surrounding territory and make it your own (before Name Level one would be gaining fortune in the multi-level dungeon).
I did come across something interesting last night in Underworld & Wilderness. Curiously, I found a reference to a "Thoul" on one of the encounter charts and I have no idea where it was detailed. My original thought was that they meant Troll, but had Ghoul there and only partially edited the entry. It then made print and was made into a monster years later in the Moldvay Basic set. Either that or it was a typo (the "T" is above the "G" on most keyboards) and since the book was written apparently by typewriter that would explain things better than making a new creature that was part Troll, part Ghoul, and looked like a Hobgoblin..... Some people just can never admit they made a mistake (sigh).
It would be interesting to give this ruleset a run given the premises of little character background information, a multi-level dungeon very close to a nearby town, and the reward of title and land once the character has achieved the appropriate level, then moving into the campaign world using all the knowledge gained from clues and history in the dungeons (perhaps old books provide information on the campaign world, and sages can fill in the gaps). I think this is more in line with the way Greyhawk came to be, more of a mishmash of information provided over time that was reworked and rewritten into a campaign world. Also keep in mind that the campaign maps used during Gygax's campaign were NOT the ones produced for the Greyhawk Folio or Boxed Set; this was done because Greyhawk was a campaign in progress and Gary Gygax would not provide information so openly to his players! So all the years I spent trying to reconcile the descriptions in modules, books, and first hand accounts with the published books was for naught. None of the information provided on Greyhawk in any of those sources is the original, now lost forever with the death of E. Gary Gygax. So sad, but what a legacy!
It's amazing how simple and elegant the original game truly was. Three classes (Fighting Man, Magic-User, and Cleric), four races (Man, Dwarf, Elf, and Hobbit), and a slew of very familiar monsters. The obvious outgrowth from miniature gaming is evident in the lack of combat mechanics (it was assumed that everyone already owned the Chainmail miniatures rules). The spells were also very sketchy in their descriptions, assuming that everyone knew certain aspects of the game already from using the Chainmail rulebook. What I find very interesting is the lack of power inherent in the game. AD&D dragons may seem like pushovers to us now, but to an Original D&D gamer they were death machines. No one got more than one attack per round, hit points were limited, AC adjustments were few, and combat was very quick and deadly despite using one die for all damage (with some modifiers of course).
What really got me were all the rules that never really translated into AD&D, like most of the information in the back of the Underworld & Wilderness Rules booklet (Part 3). Several pages devoted to aerial combat, naval battles, and some campaign development were very enlightening. It was obvious that D&D was meant purely as gloss on a miniatures combat scenario. This explains the reason why all the original adventures were dungeons - simply a combat scenario in another form. Instead of placing armies on an open field and randomly determining the outcome, the party took the place of the armies storming the dungeons as the battlefield with the hordes of monsters as opponents. This explains the "Number Appearing" entries for humanoids (typically in the hundreds) and the enormous party sizes back in the day (filled out with henchmen, hirelings, etc.). It wasn't until much later that such large parties were pared down to a more conventional 4-to-6-player size. The scale inch rules also make more sense when seen from a wargamers point of view since terrain was often depicted at large scale and minis represented whole units of the army (at a 20:1 ratio or thereabouts). Moving large parties through a dungeon would have been like moving working class people along a subway tunnel during rush hour - the difference being the armor and gear carried. When visualized in that way it is more conceivable that parties could never hope to surprise monsters unless they had advance scouts and/or magical scrying to determine what lay ahead. In this way, the Thief was added to the mix of characters to allow for a more discreet method of entering a dungeon, using tactics instead of bullrushing through the place and hoping you survived, and to prevent deaths due to traps and poison needles set to take out the unwary.
I also learned that Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was created as a tournament version of the game. Basic/Expert D&D is much more in line with what D&D began, using the basic four classes (Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, and Thief) and four races (Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling). However, Basic diverged by combining demi-human races with their usual classes (Dwarf = Dwarf Fighter, Elf = Elven Fighter/Magic-User, and Halfling = Halfling Fighter). So Thief and Cleric were never an option in Basic for anyone but a Human! It would be interesting to break race from class in Basic and make it more like the way Original D&D had it. If only I had kept the Basic game I got for Christmas back in 1980! But without a lot of players my own age (like maybe 2 others were interested and one was my 4 year old brother) it made more sense to buy the DUNGEON! Boardgame. Oh well, I would probably have stuck with Basic D&D longer had I learned to play at an earlier age with people who understood what the game was really about. I really prefer the Moldvay Basic D&D set.
So it seems that AD&D, what I prefer to play now, actually began as more of a Basic D&D game with tons of little rules thrown in to keep everyone playing the same version of the game for tournament rulings. I can understand that. But at the same time it opened other cans of worms and made the game overly complicated. I was able to condense the OD&D rules down to 3 booklets of 15-20 pages each, together comprising a Player's Handbook (Men & Magic), a Monster Manual (Monsters & Treasure) and a Dungeon Master's Guide (Underworld & Wilderness) in under 60 pages of rules! Comparing AD&D and OD&D, one can see that there were 1/3 the number of classes, 1/2 the number of races, much more simplified spells and numbers thereof, and easier and faster combat resolution. It is also interesting to see how everything was based on the number "6". There were six levels of spells for each class, supposed to be six or so dungeon levels for a typical adventure, there were six levels of monsters, and every weapon/attack did a d6 damage (with d6 hit points for each class, with modifiers). Now I know why the DUNGEON!(TM) game was set up the way it was with six levels, character types of Elf, Wizard, Hero, and Superhero (actual level terms for some characters), and the monster selections (including Witches, Evil Superheroes, and various humanoids). What I find very interesting is the lack of level reference in the rules. You were a Wizard or a Necromancer, not a 9th or 8th level Magic-User. Same for the Fighting Man - you would refer yourself as a Swashbuckler, Hero, Myrmidon, Champion, or Lord. There also seemed to be a greater emphasis on the end-game levels when you were able to construct a castle since this is the time where you would be entering the wilderness to conquer the surrounding territory and make it your own (before Name Level one would be gaining fortune in the multi-level dungeon).
I did come across something interesting last night in Underworld & Wilderness. Curiously, I found a reference to a "Thoul" on one of the encounter charts and I have no idea where it was detailed. My original thought was that they meant Troll, but had Ghoul there and only partially edited the entry. It then made print and was made into a monster years later in the Moldvay Basic set. Either that or it was a typo (the "T" is above the "G" on most keyboards) and since the book was written apparently by typewriter that would explain things better than making a new creature that was part Troll, part Ghoul, and looked like a Hobgoblin..... Some people just can never admit they made a mistake (sigh).
It would be interesting to give this ruleset a run given the premises of little character background information, a multi-level dungeon very close to a nearby town, and the reward of title and land once the character has achieved the appropriate level, then moving into the campaign world using all the knowledge gained from clues and history in the dungeons (perhaps old books provide information on the campaign world, and sages can fill in the gaps). I think this is more in line with the way Greyhawk came to be, more of a mishmash of information provided over time that was reworked and rewritten into a campaign world. Also keep in mind that the campaign maps used during Gygax's campaign were NOT the ones produced for the Greyhawk Folio or Boxed Set; this was done because Greyhawk was a campaign in progress and Gary Gygax would not provide information so openly to his players! So all the years I spent trying to reconcile the descriptions in modules, books, and first hand accounts with the published books was for naught. None of the information provided on Greyhawk in any of those sources is the original, now lost forever with the death of E. Gary Gygax. So sad, but what a legacy!
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Ryan Dunn R.I.P.
I don't know why I even care, but when I heard that Ryan Dunn, one of the stars of MTV's "Jackass" was killed yesterday morning in a fiery car crash I was upset. At first I thought it was a prank (a very bad taste prank, but then this is Jackass) but as the day wore on I realized it wasn't. I've followed these guys through all three movies and the whole series of Jackass. The reality flavor of the show tempered the stupidity. Dunn was one of the more level-headed guys - he knew what they were doing was dangerous and stupid and yet he still participated.
Just because he acted like a Jackass in front of the camera doesn't mean he was in real life - if one can even have a real life spent in front of a camera.... His death saddened me, but not for me. No, I was imagining the impact on his lifelong friend Brandon "BAM" Margera and his parents. They must all be devastated, especially given the manner of death (likely to be a closed casket funeral if they are planning one). Ryan is the first of the Jackass crew to meet an untimely end, and not likely to be the last. It's all fun and games until someone loses a playmate...
I really wonder who his passenger was - no one has even mentioned the person's name yet. I hope this wasn't a tragic DWI accident, but the reality of this all was that Dunn had tweeted a pic of himself and some others drinking mere hours before the accident.
My only hope is that the others wise up. This event is likely to change things for them. The reality of death always stifles that giddiness of stupidity they seemed to always portray. Of all the cast members I identified with Ryan Dunn the most and felt for him as he suffered through the indignities. May he rest in peace. To Bam I say only this: Reconsider the important things in your life, go home and hug your wife and parents and tell them you love them dearly then reflect on the time you had with a good friend. Console those he left behind and then pick yourself up and become a better person for the experience.
Just because he acted like a Jackass in front of the camera doesn't mean he was in real life - if one can even have a real life spent in front of a camera.... His death saddened me, but not for me. No, I was imagining the impact on his lifelong friend Brandon "BAM" Margera and his parents. They must all be devastated, especially given the manner of death (likely to be a closed casket funeral if they are planning one). Ryan is the first of the Jackass crew to meet an untimely end, and not likely to be the last. It's all fun and games until someone loses a playmate...
I really wonder who his passenger was - no one has even mentioned the person's name yet. I hope this wasn't a tragic DWI accident, but the reality of this all was that Dunn had tweeted a pic of himself and some others drinking mere hours before the accident.
My only hope is that the others wise up. This event is likely to change things for them. The reality of death always stifles that giddiness of stupidity they seemed to always portray. Of all the cast members I identified with Ryan Dunn the most and felt for him as he suffered through the indignities. May he rest in peace. To Bam I say only this: Reconsider the important things in your life, go home and hug your wife and parents and tell them you love them dearly then reflect on the time you had with a good friend. Console those he left behind and then pick yourself up and become a better person for the experience.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
When Old School Is Not Enough
I've been having problems lately with the 1st edition AD&D spell selections. In theory the spells work fine, but in practice they are hard to justify as written and tend to slow the game down with details that really should not be a concern. I've been having such a hard time with the wording on some of the spells that I'm seriously considering using the spell descriptions from a later version of the game to replace the Player's Handbook versions! But the question that remains is "which version has the proper spell descriptions?"
Each version of the game seemed to either limit the power of a spell or make it so easy to use that the players started using the spell for uses it was never meant to accomplish. Different versions of the game focus on different aspects of the spells as well. However I find that 2nd edition AD&D was very close in spell notation to 1st edition and could be used wholecloth as a replacement. Many of the spells that were poorly worded in 1st edition were better explained in 2nd edition. However, the level of the spells are somewhat altered as are the descriptions. Some are altered to fit the 2nd edition combat paradigm.
Third edition D&D is a completely different animal. Some of the spell descriptions make no sense when applied to a 1st edition game. 3rd edition adds in level 0 spells (cantrips/orisons) which do not exist in 1st edition and some 1st level spells were demoted to 0-level in this edition. Other spells provide power to the players that I wish to be withheld (i.e. the spell Detect Secret Doors....lazy bastards need to find them for themselves).
I know there were even more drastic changes in 4th edition - changing cast times to reflect that style of combat. Some spells were also made into daily powers, a drastic step away from original D&D. This version of the magic system is not even D&D anymore so I don't think it applies.
This leaves me back at the 2nd edition version of the spells. As written they are the closest in feeling and context to the 1st edition style of gaming. I will have to run this by the players and put it to a vote, but I think they would rather have a more cohesive assemblage of spells to use than what we have in the Player's Handbook and Unearthed Arcana. I'm sure I could incorporate any of the spells that are missing from the 2nd edition lists that the players really want to retain. However I'm certain that using the newer versions of chant, produce fire, color spray, and identify will bring happiness to the party as a whole.
Each version of the game seemed to either limit the power of a spell or make it so easy to use that the players started using the spell for uses it was never meant to accomplish. Different versions of the game focus on different aspects of the spells as well. However I find that 2nd edition AD&D was very close in spell notation to 1st edition and could be used wholecloth as a replacement. Many of the spells that were poorly worded in 1st edition were better explained in 2nd edition. However, the level of the spells are somewhat altered as are the descriptions. Some are altered to fit the 2nd edition combat paradigm.
Third edition D&D is a completely different animal. Some of the spell descriptions make no sense when applied to a 1st edition game. 3rd edition adds in level 0 spells (cantrips/orisons) which do not exist in 1st edition and some 1st level spells were demoted to 0-level in this edition. Other spells provide power to the players that I wish to be withheld (i.e. the spell Detect Secret Doors....lazy bastards need to find them for themselves).
I know there were even more drastic changes in 4th edition - changing cast times to reflect that style of combat. Some spells were also made into daily powers, a drastic step away from original D&D. This version of the magic system is not even D&D anymore so I don't think it applies.
This leaves me back at the 2nd edition version of the spells. As written they are the closest in feeling and context to the 1st edition style of gaming. I will have to run this by the players and put it to a vote, but I think they would rather have a more cohesive assemblage of spells to use than what we have in the Player's Handbook and Unearthed Arcana. I'm sure I could incorporate any of the spells that are missing from the 2nd edition lists that the players really want to retain. However I'm certain that using the newer versions of chant, produce fire, color spray, and identify will bring happiness to the party as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)