What does one do once the upper levels of AD&D are gained? Having survived the beginning levels of play and reached the pinnacle of adventuring power is quite an achievement in and of itself. Unfortunately, the danger of losing one's character increases dramatically at the higher levels. So when do you call it quits? When do you say enough is enough?
In essence, as with all dice games, AD&D is a game of chance; call it "gambling" with the lives of your characters in the balance. If you keep tempting fate, eventually you will lose and your character will succumb to death. Although not technically the end of the game, it can be considered an indication that your luck is running out. High level creature abilities and spells are typically of the "save or die" variety, leaving little chance for a character to survive indefinitely (that 5% chance of instantly failing a saving throw coming up with startling frequency regardless). No matter how high your Constitution, continued deaths and constantly decreasing Resurrection Survival percentages will eventually result in the death of the character once and for all. How you treat the outcome of the roll really is a measure of your personality.
As a DM of nearly 30 years experience it dismays me to think that players are being misled down the primrose path with promises of high level spells, potent magic items, and vast riches only to learn that they have to make a choice between retirement or final death. Recently, I explained this philosophy to my players and they seemed to absorb the information without much care. One of the players will surely stop playing if her 11th level magic-user succumbs to final death. The other player, who stated that he was "so happy to finally be playing a high-level druid" also stated upon his character's near death that "it's such a great big waste of several years" if his character dies. The final player in this trio has already seen the death of two characters prior to his current almost-high-level ranger, one of the hardest character classes to level quickly. Of all of them he seems to understand the way the game works the best.
But these attitudes are not unique to this group. I've had players throw tantrums upon the death of a beloved character. Others seemed not to care enough about their characters to even try to save them from almost certain death. The DM has to perform a delicate balancing act to keep the game running without playing favorites or giving in to bad behavior. As I've posted in the past, people need to stop fixating on levelling their characters and amassing vast amounts of wealth and simply enjoy the ride. The time playing is what counts as the enjoyment - time spent exploring, challenging monsters, discovering hidden treasures, etc. If you're playing AD&D to achieve some sort of "endgame" or "prize" then you're doing it all wrong.
So what are those high level characters supposed to do? Obviously, if you're proud of your accomplishments and want your character to live on, then retire the character from active play and settle down as a name-level landowner. There are plenty of rules on how this is accomplished. That character could be dusted off and brought back in as desired, or perhaps running side campaigns dealing with politics and warfare could be fun. If you like to tempt fate, then be aware that sooner or later your luck WILL run out. It may not be in the next adventure, and you might make several more levels adventuring, but since you need to face tougher and tougher opponents to get enough XP, you chance failing an important saving throw, falling victim to a death trap, or being defeated in mortal combat with a superior foe. The game is DESIGNED to do this. It is the only other way to conclude a campaign without a defined ending.
So what do the players do next? They can assume the roles of their henchmen, newly freed from service to their master and either continue to adventure as PCs or in service to the remaining original party. Alternately, in the case of a TPK (total party kill) or mass retirement, the players can start a new campaign, rolling new 1st level characters to enjoy the game from a different perspective. Both are viable options, but require a certain mindset from the players in how they approach the game.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
AD&D: End of the Line?
I've been testing the waters recently in my 1st edition campaign to see if the players are truly ready for high level play. We started the "Against the Giants" series last year and finished G1 after a number of very long and involved "power sessions." They seemed to have completely defeated the hill giants using tactics atypical of a standard D&D group. I added a few new elements to the old module (setting a series of ogre caves down slope of the steading, hinting at other underground locations nearby off-map, etc.) but the players more or less followed the clues provided, missed almost all the hidden treasures (as expected) and did manage to foil the alliance with the cloud giant who wisely left after the chieftain was slain in his sleep (taking his enchanted blade with him).
From there they were to go to the frost giants. However, they balked at using the magic chain to get there, citing that they had no idea where it was and they could not form an exit strategy or bring their mules. So they decided to head north through the mountains in the first month of winter (yeah, I know....) and made it through the pass without much incidental violence. When they arrived in Reedle I decided to up the ante. Using a converted 3rd edition module (specially designed for 11th level characters) I introduced them by means of attacks on the town. Then I hooked them by having a little girl ask them to rescue her daddy taken by the giants before the attacks began. The father was a member of a patrol lost north of town. Enter the border fort....
The party made some interesting tactical decisions, and the monsters I used were non-standard, although faithful to the module as written (roper, bulette, wereboar-hill giant, etc.). They managed to bypass most of the deadly creatures (and the hidden treasure) because they were looking for survivors from the patrol. Assuming that the patrolmen were still alive, they pressed on through combat after combat, taking heavy hits from the giants they encountered and wasting all their spell resources. Realizing that they had only a single shot at this, they pressed on through adversity, even losing one of their fighter henchmen, the dwarf Gustav, to a hill giant shaman's scarab of enraging enemies. They realized that they were most deadly against themselves!
The frustration of that battle was compounded when they located a drow skulking in the ruins of a former cell. I tipped my cards early with this one, but it was written into the module and I wanted to test them. The drow held his own fairly well, taking out the ranger and the thief with his poisoned dagger. It was what happened AFTER they dropped the dark elf that threw everything into a tizzy. Instead of keeping the elf alive for interrogation, the magic-user killed him with a quick dagger thrust. She then helped to loot his body and decided to smash his demon-head amulet made of terra cotta. I had written in an escape plan for the drow (one that he was loathe to use) in which it would summon a demon when the amulet was broken to teleport him back to his "mistress." Well, the dark elf was dead and the demon was summoned (type III) but since his contract for service was altered by the elf's death, he decided to have some fun before returning with some random soul. A terrible combat began, and the party was already down three members (1 slain, and 2 poisoned into unconsciousness). When it became clear that the party was in trouble, Chow-Lin sought to escape using a teleport, taking Hamlin with her for support while the others retreated. They were only supposed to teleport back to the bodies down the hall, but she blew the roll and teleported "too low". This would have meant instant death except for the fact that there was void space below this level. She ended up in mid-air falling to a stone floor in the dark, completely unsure of where she was. Thus two more party members were lost.
This left the druid (11th level), the cleric (8th level) and the 6th level fighter henchmen to face off against the demon. Needless to say they ran. But they didn't go far. They got just enough distance between them and the demon for the druid to start summoning a fire elemental. He finished the spell as the demon found them hiding in an empty room at the top of the stairs. We ended on a cliffhanger, deep in the battle with the demon. The demon was injured by the elemental and the holy water the party managed to throw, but he was hitting them more than he was being hit (having a -4 AC). It's fun to use a creature that I have never used before, but also demoralizing since having to play in character as the demon and taunting the characters leads to the party thinking I'm gonna end the campaign on a sour note. I honestly don't know how this is going to play out but I will be surprised if they don't all die.
On a side note, I finally found, in a single paragraph in the original module D1, the duration of drow sleep poison! It's listed as 3-12 turns, much too long to be of use in this round-by-round combat, although if they roll well enough, Falim and Katerina might be up and mobile just in time to save the party or bury the remains. The demon will be taking one of the party members back with him. I will NOT allow the party to simply slay the demon since the demon is not currently bound by its oath of service. Being EVIL and CHAOTIC, I've been rolling randomly for all choices such as attack targets and use of abilities, but at the same time being as cruel as possible with how they are being directed and used. For instance, I thought using pyrotechnics on the fire elemental would snuff him out and fill the whole dungeon with choking smoke. However, the spell seems too low to have such an effect on an elemental and I gave it a saving throw to see if only some smoke were generated (the elemental saved). I failed to summon additional demons when the elemental came into existence, so they at least lucked out in that regard. I'm surprised that the magic-user fled they way she did. Then again, I'm also amazed she killed the dark elf and broke the amulet. The thing is they have no one to blame for their current situation but themselves. The look of utter shock on their faces when the demon teleported behind the elemental to attack the party was priceless.... OK, so I am an evil DM at heart.
Once the party is defeated, what happens next? The player of the druid has already determined that he is not interested in "wasting time" playing "throw-away" characters. He sees the level-gaining as part of some ultimate prize to be won at the "end" of the game. The magic-user also does not want to see all the struggling and pushing to get a feeble magic-user to wizard level power go to waste. The ranger player is willing to re-roll and start anew, he has already died twice before. I don't know if I can go another 14 years to get a group to name level again. We're all a lot older now and time is the enemy. I shall defer judgment until I see the outcome. This very well could be the end of the campaign.
But seriously, how else are D&D campaigns supposed to end? There is always that next monster to battle, the next treasure to recover, the next trap to overcome. Ending a campaign happens either as a bang or a whimper. Either the players cut their losses and retire or everyone dies in one glorious battle. There really is no middle ground. The fun is the adventure itself, not the end of the adventure. Just like life - it's not when and how you died but how you lived that counts.
From there they were to go to the frost giants. However, they balked at using the magic chain to get there, citing that they had no idea where it was and they could not form an exit strategy or bring their mules. So they decided to head north through the mountains in the first month of winter (yeah, I know....) and made it through the pass without much incidental violence. When they arrived in Reedle I decided to up the ante. Using a converted 3rd edition module (specially designed for 11th level characters) I introduced them by means of attacks on the town. Then I hooked them by having a little girl ask them to rescue her daddy taken by the giants before the attacks began. The father was a member of a patrol lost north of town. Enter the border fort....
The party made some interesting tactical decisions, and the monsters I used were non-standard, although faithful to the module as written (roper, bulette, wereboar-hill giant, etc.). They managed to bypass most of the deadly creatures (and the hidden treasure) because they were looking for survivors from the patrol. Assuming that the patrolmen were still alive, they pressed on through combat after combat, taking heavy hits from the giants they encountered and wasting all their spell resources. Realizing that they had only a single shot at this, they pressed on through adversity, even losing one of their fighter henchmen, the dwarf Gustav, to a hill giant shaman's scarab of enraging enemies. They realized that they were most deadly against themselves!
The frustration of that battle was compounded when they located a drow skulking in the ruins of a former cell. I tipped my cards early with this one, but it was written into the module and I wanted to test them. The drow held his own fairly well, taking out the ranger and the thief with his poisoned dagger. It was what happened AFTER they dropped the dark elf that threw everything into a tizzy. Instead of keeping the elf alive for interrogation, the magic-user killed him with a quick dagger thrust. She then helped to loot his body and decided to smash his demon-head amulet made of terra cotta. I had written in an escape plan for the drow (one that he was loathe to use) in which it would summon a demon when the amulet was broken to teleport him back to his "mistress." Well, the dark elf was dead and the demon was summoned (type III) but since his contract for service was altered by the elf's death, he decided to have some fun before returning with some random soul. A terrible combat began, and the party was already down three members (1 slain, and 2 poisoned into unconsciousness). When it became clear that the party was in trouble, Chow-Lin sought to escape using a teleport, taking Hamlin with her for support while the others retreated. They were only supposed to teleport back to the bodies down the hall, but she blew the roll and teleported "too low". This would have meant instant death except for the fact that there was void space below this level. She ended up in mid-air falling to a stone floor in the dark, completely unsure of where she was. Thus two more party members were lost.
This left the druid (11th level), the cleric (8th level) and the 6th level fighter henchmen to face off against the demon. Needless to say they ran. But they didn't go far. They got just enough distance between them and the demon for the druid to start summoning a fire elemental. He finished the spell as the demon found them hiding in an empty room at the top of the stairs. We ended on a cliffhanger, deep in the battle with the demon. The demon was injured by the elemental and the holy water the party managed to throw, but he was hitting them more than he was being hit (having a -4 AC). It's fun to use a creature that I have never used before, but also demoralizing since having to play in character as the demon and taunting the characters leads to the party thinking I'm gonna end the campaign on a sour note. I honestly don't know how this is going to play out but I will be surprised if they don't all die.
On a side note, I finally found, in a single paragraph in the original module D1, the duration of drow sleep poison! It's listed as 3-12 turns, much too long to be of use in this round-by-round combat, although if they roll well enough, Falim and Katerina might be up and mobile just in time to save the party or bury the remains. The demon will be taking one of the party members back with him. I will NOT allow the party to simply slay the demon since the demon is not currently bound by its oath of service. Being EVIL and CHAOTIC, I've been rolling randomly for all choices such as attack targets and use of abilities, but at the same time being as cruel as possible with how they are being directed and used. For instance, I thought using pyrotechnics on the fire elemental would snuff him out and fill the whole dungeon with choking smoke. However, the spell seems too low to have such an effect on an elemental and I gave it a saving throw to see if only some smoke were generated (the elemental saved). I failed to summon additional demons when the elemental came into existence, so they at least lucked out in that regard. I'm surprised that the magic-user fled they way she did. Then again, I'm also amazed she killed the dark elf and broke the amulet. The thing is they have no one to blame for their current situation but themselves. The look of utter shock on their faces when the demon teleported behind the elemental to attack the party was priceless.... OK, so I am an evil DM at heart.
Once the party is defeated, what happens next? The player of the druid has already determined that he is not interested in "wasting time" playing "throw-away" characters. He sees the level-gaining as part of some ultimate prize to be won at the "end" of the game. The magic-user also does not want to see all the struggling and pushing to get a feeble magic-user to wizard level power go to waste. The ranger player is willing to re-roll and start anew, he has already died twice before. I don't know if I can go another 14 years to get a group to name level again. We're all a lot older now and time is the enemy. I shall defer judgment until I see the outcome. This very well could be the end of the campaign.
But seriously, how else are D&D campaigns supposed to end? There is always that next monster to battle, the next treasure to recover, the next trap to overcome. Ending a campaign happens either as a bang or a whimper. Either the players cut their losses and retire or everyone dies in one glorious battle. There really is no middle ground. The fun is the adventure itself, not the end of the adventure. Just like life - it's not when and how you died but how you lived that counts.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
AD&D Recharging Magic Items
One of the high-level characters in my game, a magic-user, has expressed an interest in recharging one of her wands. According to the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, this wand CAN be recharged, but nowhere in the rules does it say HOW this is accomplished! The only reference to recharging magic items was found in the Rules Cyclopedia, a D&D product, the rules of which were adapted from GAZ 3: The Principalities of Glantri. The systems are sufficiently different enough to warrant concern that the two cannot be intermingled. So what am I to do?
It is fairly obvious that in 1st edition AD&D, use of the Enchant an Item spell is required to make most magic items. Thus, any item (except potions or scrolls) requires a 12th level magic-user to manufacture. Recharging the wand cannot possibly be as difficult as putting full charges in at the beginning. However, after reading the spell, it seems that enchant an item prepares an object to receive an enchantment; in this case, to receive additional charges.
The method from D&D is to locate the spells that match the item's abilities and use those as the basis. Well, I already know that the wand (a wand of fire) has 4 spell abilities in it: burning hands, pyrotechnics, fireball, and wall of fire. These range in level from 1st to 4th respectively. Adding these all up gives us 10 spell levels. Multiplying this by 1,000 gp gives us 10,000 gp for the "initial enchantment cost." According to the rules, add in 10% of the initial enchantment per charge; thus 1 charge = 1,000 gp and 50 charges = 50,000 gp. Wands can hold a maximum of 81-100 charges; that's some expense! Then again, a fully charged wand of fire is potentially unbalancing, especially in the hands of an 11th level magic-user.
My problem comes with the GP sale value of a wand of fire in the DMG; only listed at 25,000 gp at full charges. So the above model does not work with AD&D prices. Note that D&D does not generally list prices (or XP values) for magic items since owning and using one IS the reward. Also of interest, a magic-user only has to be name level (9th) to make magic items in D&D and there is no spell to memorize in order to accomplish this - it is an inherent class ability!
Looking at the initial enchantment cost of 10,000 gp and subtracting that from the total value of 25,000 gp yields 100 charges = 15,000 gp, or 150 gp/charge. This seems a bit low to me, but if we require the use of enchant an item, and the spell caster must be level 12, then I suppose it's okay. The problem I have now is how many charges can she install in the wand? The casting time for enchant an item is 3-10 days, then the caster has a certain amount of time to infuse the spells into the item. In this case, only charges are being added. The magic-user only knows burning hands and fireball, so I think she can only install charges of 1 or 2 per spell memorized. Problem is, how many spells (and thus charges) can she infuse? Assuming that she can only cast 6 1st and 3 3rd level spells per day, I estimate that she can infuse 12 charges with a single casting. However, if she has a rest period in between, we're talking 12 charges per day of memorization. I'll have to do more research before finalizing, but I believe this method may be appropriate or at least adaptable to a House Rule.
When creating (not recharging) a magic item, one has to roll for success. I assume that the roll is not necessary if recharging the wand, and it's obvious that the wand cannot hold more charges than its maximum number (determined randomly by the DM). Should the magic-user now know the exact number of charges on the wand? Granted, this is still theory craft since the wizard in question has only JUST made 11th level and is currently training. She'll have to earn a bucket-load of XP before even seeing 12th level and it's not likely she will select "enchant an item" as her one and only 6th level spell....
It is fairly obvious that in 1st edition AD&D, use of the Enchant an Item spell is required to make most magic items. Thus, any item (except potions or scrolls) requires a 12th level magic-user to manufacture. Recharging the wand cannot possibly be as difficult as putting full charges in at the beginning. However, after reading the spell, it seems that enchant an item prepares an object to receive an enchantment; in this case, to receive additional charges.
The method from D&D is to locate the spells that match the item's abilities and use those as the basis. Well, I already know that the wand (a wand of fire) has 4 spell abilities in it: burning hands, pyrotechnics, fireball, and wall of fire. These range in level from 1st to 4th respectively. Adding these all up gives us 10 spell levels. Multiplying this by 1,000 gp gives us 10,000 gp for the "initial enchantment cost." According to the rules, add in 10% of the initial enchantment per charge; thus 1 charge = 1,000 gp and 50 charges = 50,000 gp. Wands can hold a maximum of 81-100 charges; that's some expense! Then again, a fully charged wand of fire is potentially unbalancing, especially in the hands of an 11th level magic-user.
My problem comes with the GP sale value of a wand of fire in the DMG; only listed at 25,000 gp at full charges. So the above model does not work with AD&D prices. Note that D&D does not generally list prices (or XP values) for magic items since owning and using one IS the reward. Also of interest, a magic-user only has to be name level (9th) to make magic items in D&D and there is no spell to memorize in order to accomplish this - it is an inherent class ability!
Looking at the initial enchantment cost of 10,000 gp and subtracting that from the total value of 25,000 gp yields 100 charges = 15,000 gp, or 150 gp/charge. This seems a bit low to me, but if we require the use of enchant an item, and the spell caster must be level 12, then I suppose it's okay. The problem I have now is how many charges can she install in the wand? The casting time for enchant an item is 3-10 days, then the caster has a certain amount of time to infuse the spells into the item. In this case, only charges are being added. The magic-user only knows burning hands and fireball, so I think she can only install charges of 1 or 2 per spell memorized. Problem is, how many spells (and thus charges) can she infuse? Assuming that she can only cast 6 1st and 3 3rd level spells per day, I estimate that she can infuse 12 charges with a single casting. However, if she has a rest period in between, we're talking 12 charges per day of memorization. I'll have to do more research before finalizing, but I believe this method may be appropriate or at least adaptable to a House Rule.
When creating (not recharging) a magic item, one has to roll for success. I assume that the roll is not necessary if recharging the wand, and it's obvious that the wand cannot hold more charges than its maximum number (determined randomly by the DM). Should the magic-user now know the exact number of charges on the wand? Granted, this is still theory craft since the wizard in question has only JUST made 11th level and is currently training. She'll have to earn a bucket-load of XP before even seeing 12th level and it's not likely she will select "enchant an item" as her one and only 6th level spell....
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Contrasting Editions of D&D
I cut my teeth on Basic/Expert D&D back in 1982/83 in the
Moldvay/Cook sets. This introduction had me immediately looking for more
rules in the Advanced D&D hardcovers of 1st edition. This ruleset
was used for several years until 2nd edition hit the stands in 1989 and
we were hooked completely. 2EAD&D served me very well for many years
to come.... until 2000. With the release of D&D 3E I felt that the
game had changed a little too dramatically - some rules were better than
anything I had seen before, and others.....well, let's just say that
progress is not always beneficial. I jumped off the wagon when D&D
4.0 came along - it just wasn't D&D anymore.
My emphasis on 1E and 3E came about in 2000. This is when I started my long running AD&D 1E Mystara based campaign and my D&D 3.0/3.5 Greyhawk campaign. Of the two, the latter imploded and the former is still going strong after 13 years despite several health issues in the group. We tried to make these games work, but the input required by the DM for 3E became overwhelming for me and I had to quit one of the campaigns to save the other. So the 1E game continues.
I actually LIKE D&D 3.5. I find it to be a well-balanced ruleset with answers to most of the frequently asked questions. It's downfall is the same as it's strengths - it answers too many questions and tries to make everything integrated. Magic does not work well in a shoe-horned system of checks and balances. Some characters become insanely powerful too quickly and providing a challenge for them while maintaining a meaningful campaign becomes a nightmare. However, low-level adventuring is very enjoyable and I could see myself running adventures for a new campaign again.
AD&D, by contrast, is a dense work with rules scattered throughout the books, some contradictory and others inferred. I've spent about 25 years analyzing the rules in the DMG only to discover that they really don't make a whole lot of sense as written. The perils of a single author writing a volume of this size over a long period of time I suppose.
Things I like about 1st Edition AD&D:
- limited choices make the players think
- so many rules for so many circumstances that it's a challenge to use them all
- unlimited play styles accommodated in one set of rules
- can mix and match or house rule with impunity
- success depends upon the experience of the player or the character
Things I like about 3rd Edition D&D:
- same rules apply to all creatures in the game, PC, NPC, or Monster
- standardized rules for certain "skills" modified by abilities and race
- standardized ability scores and application to more circumstances (ability scores matter)
- easier multi-classing rules
2E AD&D suffered from "rule bloat" where more books were published than were needed to run a campaign and fewer adventures were published as a result. Players need to have options open to them and DMs need a break, so publishing quality adventures should be the FOCUS of any edition. DMs have enough to do - they don't need to assemble a campaign from scratch or prepare adventures on the fly to suit the whims of the players. 1st edition was fine for adlibbing adventures; 3E D&D was not. No edition produced so far has yet worked successfully with a "random dungeon" design. 3E D&D in the end suffered not only from "rule bloat" but also from reprint madness. In evolving the game to 3.5 D&D many of the books were reprinted with the amended rules causing people to re-buy all the material they already purchased. That's a sure sign that the end is near, and it happened with 4.0 D&D.
I am most comfortable running AD&D 1E. The feel is dark and dangerous, as opposed to the clinical and predictable combat of D&D 3.5. Combats in both editions can take a long time - in AD&D 1E the combat length depends on the number of participants (and party size is much larger) while in D&D 3.5 the combat options and rules require longer to get through with multiple steps. Large combats in both editions can be a tracking nightmare. Magic items and treasure in general are much more important in 1E while balancing encounters to the characters is more important in 3E. Training drains much of the wealth away in 1E while magic item creation drains only a minor amount from 3E characters. There seems to be an endgame in place in 1E where the characters eventually retire to become leaders of the land. The endgame in 3E is established by the DM with a soft cap of level 20 before moving on to Epic level adventures (which are ridiculously powerful in my opinion). High-level characters are very powerful in both editions for different reasons. In 1E the characters benefit from a multitude of magic items and spells against creatures written for an earlier version of the game (Monster Manual was written with 0E D&D in mind). In 3E the power creep syndrome keeps monsters and characters on an even keel for a while but eventually the players outnumber or outclass the creatures in some respect and mow them down. Spellcasters are much more powerful in 1E than in 3E despite the increase in number of spells, simply because most spells in 3E have a saving throw and there are limits placed on the power of the spells in 3E that are not there in 1E (e.g. magic missile, fireball, lightning bolt, haste, slow, turning undead, etc.). Survivability is much better in 3E, but the fear of death makes for a more exciting game in 1E. Characters creation in 1E takes a while but the choices presented in 3E make character creation a week-long endeavor!
Ideally, merging the two editions seems to be the way to go. By giving the creatures in AD&D 1E an update as they did in 3E would only enhance that edition. Providing limited choices for 3E characters and providing an established path to follow seems to be the route to enhance the 3E experience. I am still a proponent of making D&D fast and simple, but "Advanced" D&D implies complication. I actually prefer to be limited and make the character work despite the limitations. It makes for a more satisfying adventure - overcoming hardship in the face of impossible odds!
My emphasis on 1E and 3E came about in 2000. This is when I started my long running AD&D 1E Mystara based campaign and my D&D 3.0/3.5 Greyhawk campaign. Of the two, the latter imploded and the former is still going strong after 13 years despite several health issues in the group. We tried to make these games work, but the input required by the DM for 3E became overwhelming for me and I had to quit one of the campaigns to save the other. So the 1E game continues.
I actually LIKE D&D 3.5. I find it to be a well-balanced ruleset with answers to most of the frequently asked questions. It's downfall is the same as it's strengths - it answers too many questions and tries to make everything integrated. Magic does not work well in a shoe-horned system of checks and balances. Some characters become insanely powerful too quickly and providing a challenge for them while maintaining a meaningful campaign becomes a nightmare. However, low-level adventuring is very enjoyable and I could see myself running adventures for a new campaign again.
AD&D, by contrast, is a dense work with rules scattered throughout the books, some contradictory and others inferred. I've spent about 25 years analyzing the rules in the DMG only to discover that they really don't make a whole lot of sense as written. The perils of a single author writing a volume of this size over a long period of time I suppose.
Things I like about 1st Edition AD&D:
- limited choices make the players think
- so many rules for so many circumstances that it's a challenge to use them all
- unlimited play styles accommodated in one set of rules
- can mix and match or house rule with impunity
- success depends upon the experience of the player or the character
Things I like about 3rd Edition D&D:
- same rules apply to all creatures in the game, PC, NPC, or Monster
- standardized rules for certain "skills" modified by abilities and race
- standardized ability scores and application to more circumstances (ability scores matter)
- easier multi-classing rules
2E AD&D suffered from "rule bloat" where more books were published than were needed to run a campaign and fewer adventures were published as a result. Players need to have options open to them and DMs need a break, so publishing quality adventures should be the FOCUS of any edition. DMs have enough to do - they don't need to assemble a campaign from scratch or prepare adventures on the fly to suit the whims of the players. 1st edition was fine for adlibbing adventures; 3E D&D was not. No edition produced so far has yet worked successfully with a "random dungeon" design. 3E D&D in the end suffered not only from "rule bloat" but also from reprint madness. In evolving the game to 3.5 D&D many of the books were reprinted with the amended rules causing people to re-buy all the material they already purchased. That's a sure sign that the end is near, and it happened with 4.0 D&D.
I am most comfortable running AD&D 1E. The feel is dark and dangerous, as opposed to the clinical and predictable combat of D&D 3.5. Combats in both editions can take a long time - in AD&D 1E the combat length depends on the number of participants (and party size is much larger) while in D&D 3.5 the combat options and rules require longer to get through with multiple steps. Large combats in both editions can be a tracking nightmare. Magic items and treasure in general are much more important in 1E while balancing encounters to the characters is more important in 3E. Training drains much of the wealth away in 1E while magic item creation drains only a minor amount from 3E characters. There seems to be an endgame in place in 1E where the characters eventually retire to become leaders of the land. The endgame in 3E is established by the DM with a soft cap of level 20 before moving on to Epic level adventures (which are ridiculously powerful in my opinion). High-level characters are very powerful in both editions for different reasons. In 1E the characters benefit from a multitude of magic items and spells against creatures written for an earlier version of the game (Monster Manual was written with 0E D&D in mind). In 3E the power creep syndrome keeps monsters and characters on an even keel for a while but eventually the players outnumber or outclass the creatures in some respect and mow them down. Spellcasters are much more powerful in 1E than in 3E despite the increase in number of spells, simply because most spells in 3E have a saving throw and there are limits placed on the power of the spells in 3E that are not there in 1E (e.g. magic missile, fireball, lightning bolt, haste, slow, turning undead, etc.). Survivability is much better in 3E, but the fear of death makes for a more exciting game in 1E. Characters creation in 1E takes a while but the choices presented in 3E make character creation a week-long endeavor!
Ideally, merging the two editions seems to be the way to go. By giving the creatures in AD&D 1E an update as they did in 3E would only enhance that edition. Providing limited choices for 3E characters and providing an established path to follow seems to be the route to enhance the 3E experience. I am still a proponent of making D&D fast and simple, but "Advanced" D&D implies complication. I actually prefer to be limited and make the character work despite the limitations. It makes for a more satisfying adventure - overcoming hardship in the face of impossible odds!
Friday, September 13, 2013
Greyhawk Timekeeping and Published Modules
I stumbled upon an interesting finding while trying to establish a timeline for the Hommlet/Temple of Elemental Evil backstory. Apparently, the timeline for Greyhawk back in the Folio days was set at 576 CY - this being the starting point for any campaigns set in the Flanaess. However, I take this point to reference the year 1976 A.D. when Gary Gygax ran his D&D campaigns in the world of Greyhawk. Further references in the module T1 seem to indicate that the year was now 579 CY, which coincides with the module's publication date of 1979 A.D. Future product releases in the Greyhawk campaign in 2nd edition and 3rd edition apparently kept this timeline advancement, so that the year in the "real world" advanced with the year in the fantasy world.
By this estimation, the timeline in Greyhawk should be 613 CY and Hommlet should have advanced by 34 years. A lot can happen in 30 years. In our lifetime we've gone from the invention of the personal computer to the ubiquitous social media devices. We've advanced travel and technology to undreamt levels. Look how far we advanced between the 1940s and the 1970s. In a world of magic, however, this may not be the case. Surely, the castle fortifications begun by Burne and Rufus in the module are completed by this time and the population of Hommlet has likely increased. The fate of this community is tied to the existence of the Temple of Elemental Evil and its growth is likely dependent upon when and if the place was finally shut down by adventurers.
Assuming that the Temple and its forces were wiped out the second time then the community is no doubt returning to a time of happiness and prosperity, growing stronger each day. If the adventure was never played through or the adventurers sent to deal with the demoness were unsuccessful, then a resurgence of evil in the region would likely cause delays and troubles and the village may have suffered worse attacks or been destroyed by the rise of evil. Assuming that the players moved on and did not return, then Hommlet might be an empty ghost town or worse, a suburb of evil Nulb - a hideout of villainy on the edge of a noble holding between several powers of Good in Greyhawk. Allowing such a blasphemy to continue unchecked may occur since the forces of Veluna and Furyondy have to deal with threats on multiple fronts, and a distraction such as the Temple may have to go unanswered for years. At some point, though, the cancerous evil needs to be addressed.
This got me thinking about other adventures in Greyhawk. Obviously the G and D modules occurred BEFORE Hommlet, in 578 (according to publishing dates), and they are referred to in the T1 Background section as the "sharp check dealt to Lolth." It has been established in conversations with Mr. Gygax that the ToEE was supposed to be organized around Lolth being the demon summoned in the Battle of Emridy Meadows, not Tzuggtmoy, who was later used since Q1 was already in production by another author as a sequel to the G and D Series (a project approved by Gary).
In my opinion, Q1 needs to be rewritten to better emulate the chaos and evil of the Abyss and demonkind. T2 needs to be reworked as well to better fit the paradigm of Elemental Evil. In my conversions, I've been reworking some of the creatures and encounters added to the Temple to showcase the new Monster Manual II, and removing some of the influence of other authors to the glory of Gygaxian Greyhawk. Not that these adventures are bad, but the writing style is very different.
I might be interested in starting another Greyhawk 3rd edition adventure set in a much different, 40 years older Flanaess, taking into account all the backstory that has affected the campaign world since the beginning. Its important to keep these modules as historical references, but the adventures of the modern age need to be more akin to the rules of the modern age. Progress is inevitable and nothing remains the same.
By this estimation, the timeline in Greyhawk should be 613 CY and Hommlet should have advanced by 34 years. A lot can happen in 30 years. In our lifetime we've gone from the invention of the personal computer to the ubiquitous social media devices. We've advanced travel and technology to undreamt levels. Look how far we advanced between the 1940s and the 1970s. In a world of magic, however, this may not be the case. Surely, the castle fortifications begun by Burne and Rufus in the module are completed by this time and the population of Hommlet has likely increased. The fate of this community is tied to the existence of the Temple of Elemental Evil and its growth is likely dependent upon when and if the place was finally shut down by adventurers.
Assuming that the Temple and its forces were wiped out the second time then the community is no doubt returning to a time of happiness and prosperity, growing stronger each day. If the adventure was never played through or the adventurers sent to deal with the demoness were unsuccessful, then a resurgence of evil in the region would likely cause delays and troubles and the village may have suffered worse attacks or been destroyed by the rise of evil. Assuming that the players moved on and did not return, then Hommlet might be an empty ghost town or worse, a suburb of evil Nulb - a hideout of villainy on the edge of a noble holding between several powers of Good in Greyhawk. Allowing such a blasphemy to continue unchecked may occur since the forces of Veluna and Furyondy have to deal with threats on multiple fronts, and a distraction such as the Temple may have to go unanswered for years. At some point, though, the cancerous evil needs to be addressed.
This got me thinking about other adventures in Greyhawk. Obviously the G and D modules occurred BEFORE Hommlet, in 578 (according to publishing dates), and they are referred to in the T1 Background section as the "sharp check dealt to Lolth." It has been established in conversations with Mr. Gygax that the ToEE was supposed to be organized around Lolth being the demon summoned in the Battle of Emridy Meadows, not Tzuggtmoy, who was later used since Q1 was already in production by another author as a sequel to the G and D Series (a project approved by Gary).
In my opinion, Q1 needs to be rewritten to better emulate the chaos and evil of the Abyss and demonkind. T2 needs to be reworked as well to better fit the paradigm of Elemental Evil. In my conversions, I've been reworking some of the creatures and encounters added to the Temple to showcase the new Monster Manual II, and removing some of the influence of other authors to the glory of Gygaxian Greyhawk. Not that these adventures are bad, but the writing style is very different.
I might be interested in starting another Greyhawk 3rd edition adventure set in a much different, 40 years older Flanaess, taking into account all the backstory that has affected the campaign world since the beginning. Its important to keep these modules as historical references, but the adventures of the modern age need to be more akin to the rules of the modern age. Progress is inevitable and nothing remains the same.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Autumn Nostalgia Returns
The beginning of the school year always gets me nostalgic for my old D&D days - playing for hours and having the time of my life. I've been looking back at past campaigns and binders full of gaming materials just sitting there on shelves, hopeful but neglected. I don't know why I keep all this stuff; it's fairly obvious that I'm probably not going to run any of it again. My current campaign in AD&D has been running for about 13 years now and has generated two full binders of material with a third in development.
Should I scrap the lot of it or try to preserve it for some possible future return?
Most of the binders hold reworked versions of rules or modules converted from one edition to another. My Harn campaign from back in the 1990s hasn't been touched in decades - literally! All the materials I bought for that game sit in binders on my shelves. All the 3rd edition D&D books (which take up an entire small bookcase) sit idle and stare at me while I play World of Warcraft or work on my AD&D material. I'm not really sure what will happen when AD&D ends - will I simply give up on human interaction altogether? Computer games are grabbing my attention more and more now and keeping me from all the things I have to get done. But these are a poor substitute for a game that allows you to do anything you want. Scripted adventures are OK the first go around, but there is very little fun in repeating the same quests over and over. And I suck at pvp games.
So I keep looking back at all the stuff I have and wondering what the hell to do with it and the rest of my existence. I still have no permanent home to call my own, no family to raise, nothing to look forward to each morning, and a soul-sucking job. I need to get the hell off Long Island and soon!
Should I scrap the lot of it or try to preserve it for some possible future return?
Most of the binders hold reworked versions of rules or modules converted from one edition to another. My Harn campaign from back in the 1990s hasn't been touched in decades - literally! All the materials I bought for that game sit in binders on my shelves. All the 3rd edition D&D books (which take up an entire small bookcase) sit idle and stare at me while I play World of Warcraft or work on my AD&D material. I'm not really sure what will happen when AD&D ends - will I simply give up on human interaction altogether? Computer games are grabbing my attention more and more now and keeping me from all the things I have to get done. But these are a poor substitute for a game that allows you to do anything you want. Scripted adventures are OK the first go around, but there is very little fun in repeating the same quests over and over. And I suck at pvp games.
So I keep looking back at all the stuff I have and wondering what the hell to do with it and the rest of my existence. I still have no permanent home to call my own, no family to raise, nothing to look forward to each morning, and a soul-sucking job. I need to get the hell off Long Island and soon!
Friday, August 9, 2013
Creature Catalog and Cosmology in B/X D&D
In a nostalgic mood last night, I decided to pick through the new monster listings in the few B/X modules published before TSR moved to Mentzer BECMI. I found a quite a few gems, although I was disappointed in the lack of modules from this version of the game. In essence, my only sources were B3: Palace of the Silver Princess, B4: the Lost City, X1: the Isle of Dread, and X2: Castle Amber. All the other modules were published in 1983 with the new Mentzer rules (and horribly produced I might add).
This got me reignited for another go at what Companion D&D would have included. Obviously, the Creature Catalog produced for D&D in the 1980s was exactly the same as what I worked on but also included creatures from ALL the BECMI material published at the time. Keeping with the mindset that later products were too whimsical for my tastes, I wanted to see how I could interpret the rest of the modules in terms of Moldvay/Cook rules. Modules B5 through B12 are much too involved with the Easley-illustrated Mentzer sets. Some of these modules are quite boring or seem to be too far reaching. The worst of the bunch is B8 which seems to be totally disconnected from anything in the D&D multiverse and introduces almost completely different game mechanics, including so many monsters that do not appear in the original rules. A few new monsters are ok, but replacing ALL the monsters is like making it a new game.
The Expert series (X3 through X13) are somewhat tied to the Known World setting, although many of these explore areas beyond those mapped on the original, as if the design team for the GAZ series chased all plotlines outside of their boundaries. Amusingly enough, it's very hard to place an adventure in a setting where EVERYTHING is developed and explained. Therefore, by filling in all the empty hexes, these products practically eliminated any possibility of setting adventures in their borders (except maybe for internecine warfare)! The modules X4 and X5 are the exceptions as they build up a new enemy from beyond the deserts in the west (The Master) in a way that works well, if a little too loosely defined.
I'm tempted to add in all the material from the original D&D rulebooks and supplements to increase the monster and magic item lists. However, I want the simplistic feel and uncomplicated nature of the game to shine through - so all the elegant D&D elements without any of the Advanced nonsense present in AD&D. I prefer a three-phase afterlife featuring Lawful Heavens, Neutral Spirit Realms, and Chaotic Hells. I dislike the Spheres concept of BECMI, although some of their definitions are kinda cool for the ethereal and astral realms. I see the Ethereal Plane as a transition plane for the Inner Planes enclosed by the Material Plane. Beyond the Material Plane is a the Astral Plane, a vast void of stars (essentially outer space) where travel is performed using the mind and the other planes are actually planets orbiting distant stars, with layers being planets in the same star system. Various gates bring the players to and from these planes (planets). Some planes may be little more than collections of matter, liquids, or gases. In fact, this works very well for defining the inner planes. A large gaseous cloud would represent Air, a vast sphere of ocean defines Water, a rocky desolate planetoid with numerous cracks, crevices, tunnels and caves represents Earth, and the interior of a sun or molten core of a planet could represent Fire. A pulsar could represent Positive Energy and a black hole represents Negative Energy.
Alternately, the Spirit Realms of Eastern Mythology and religions featuring mutable creatures that exist by will alone could represent the mutable elements of the Inner Planes. The Ethereal Plane becomes a misty barrier between the land of the Material and the land of the Immaterial, between realms of Souls and realms of Spirits. The Heavens become those planets in the Astral plane that are considered enlightened and paradises, while the Hells become those planets barely able to support life or are dangerous places to exist. Souls would be ejected from the Material Plane and sent to a corresponding Afterlife in the Astral Plane where they are reincarnated in a new form based on how they lived their lives. The oldest and most powerful inhabitants of the outer planes are the Immortals who use soul energy to power their activities. They foster others on the Material Plane to gather more worship and thus more soul energy.
This version of the game can work but I need to define lots of terms, determine what happens at the upper levels of the class structures, and how this all links together.
This got me reignited for another go at what Companion D&D would have included. Obviously, the Creature Catalog produced for D&D in the 1980s was exactly the same as what I worked on but also included creatures from ALL the BECMI material published at the time. Keeping with the mindset that later products were too whimsical for my tastes, I wanted to see how I could interpret the rest of the modules in terms of Moldvay/Cook rules. Modules B5 through B12 are much too involved with the Easley-illustrated Mentzer sets. Some of these modules are quite boring or seem to be too far reaching. The worst of the bunch is B8 which seems to be totally disconnected from anything in the D&D multiverse and introduces almost completely different game mechanics, including so many monsters that do not appear in the original rules. A few new monsters are ok, but replacing ALL the monsters is like making it a new game.
The Expert series (X3 through X13) are somewhat tied to the Known World setting, although many of these explore areas beyond those mapped on the original, as if the design team for the GAZ series chased all plotlines outside of their boundaries. Amusingly enough, it's very hard to place an adventure in a setting where EVERYTHING is developed and explained. Therefore, by filling in all the empty hexes, these products practically eliminated any possibility of setting adventures in their borders (except maybe for internecine warfare)! The modules X4 and X5 are the exceptions as they build up a new enemy from beyond the deserts in the west (The Master) in a way that works well, if a little too loosely defined.
I'm tempted to add in all the material from the original D&D rulebooks and supplements to increase the monster and magic item lists. However, I want the simplistic feel and uncomplicated nature of the game to shine through - so all the elegant D&D elements without any of the Advanced nonsense present in AD&D. I prefer a three-phase afterlife featuring Lawful Heavens, Neutral Spirit Realms, and Chaotic Hells. I dislike the Spheres concept of BECMI, although some of their definitions are kinda cool for the ethereal and astral realms. I see the Ethereal Plane as a transition plane for the Inner Planes enclosed by the Material Plane. Beyond the Material Plane is a the Astral Plane, a vast void of stars (essentially outer space) where travel is performed using the mind and the other planes are actually planets orbiting distant stars, with layers being planets in the same star system. Various gates bring the players to and from these planes (planets). Some planes may be little more than collections of matter, liquids, or gases. In fact, this works very well for defining the inner planes. A large gaseous cloud would represent Air, a vast sphere of ocean defines Water, a rocky desolate planetoid with numerous cracks, crevices, tunnels and caves represents Earth, and the interior of a sun or molten core of a planet could represent Fire. A pulsar could represent Positive Energy and a black hole represents Negative Energy.
Alternately, the Spirit Realms of Eastern Mythology and religions featuring mutable creatures that exist by will alone could represent the mutable elements of the Inner Planes. The Ethereal Plane becomes a misty barrier between the land of the Material and the land of the Immaterial, between realms of Souls and realms of Spirits. The Heavens become those planets in the Astral plane that are considered enlightened and paradises, while the Hells become those planets barely able to support life or are dangerous places to exist. Souls would be ejected from the Material Plane and sent to a corresponding Afterlife in the Astral Plane where they are reincarnated in a new form based on how they lived their lives. The oldest and most powerful inhabitants of the outer planes are the Immortals who use soul energy to power their activities. They foster others on the Material Plane to gather more worship and thus more soul energy.
This version of the game can work but I need to define lots of terms, determine what happens at the upper levels of the class structures, and how this all links together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)