A house rule I am using now is the Prime Swap. Perhaps I can let Prodder and Scrunt explain this approach:
Prime Swap: After rolling (3d6 or 4d6-L) six times and recording the results In Order, the player can swap the character's Prime Ability with any other ability score. So FM can swap for STR, M-U can swap for INT, C can swap for WIS. Dwarves can choose STR or CON. Elves can choose STR or INT. Hobbits can choose STR or DEX. Option: Characters generated without the Prime Swap [start at 2nd level/start with maximum hits] insert your own bonus here.
This solution allows the player to generate the class he or she desires while maintaining most of the randomness realized with an In Order approach. I am not considering the optional point-buy system presented in OD&D because I adhere to the “for purposes of gaining experience only” caveat.
~Sham
Showing posts with label theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theory. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Seven Observations and Equations
Seven Observations and Equations presented for your dissection.
1. Game-play possibilities diminish when the term Dungeon Master is not synonymous with the term Referee.
2. The longer it takes a player to create a character the longer the player expects that character to survive.
3. Character survivability decreases as the amount of dice-rolling behind the screen increases.
4. The importance of character statistics corresponds to the amount of character generation variables.
5. The level of player meta-gaming increases or decreases at a rate equal to a game's level of complexity.
6. The more detailed the campaign world the less the characters will accomplish with each session.
7. The frequency of interruptions in play is proportionate to the significance of Alignment in a campaign.
~Sham
1. Game-play possibilities diminish when the term Dungeon Master is not synonymous with the term Referee.
2. The longer it takes a player to create a character the longer the player expects that character to survive.
3. Character survivability decreases as the amount of dice-rolling behind the screen increases.
4. The importance of character statistics corresponds to the amount of character generation variables.
5. The level of player meta-gaming increases or decreases at a rate equal to a game's level of complexity.
6. The more detailed the campaign world the less the characters will accomplish with each session.
7. The frequency of interruptions in play is proportionate to the significance of Alignment in a campaign.
~Sham
Friday, July 31, 2009
S&S Indeed
Swords & Sorcery ain't got nuthin' on Spears & Spells! OK, yeah that's a stretch. What about Spears & Shields?
Swords seem to have captured the genre with a muscular grip of thick Hyborian sinews, but Spears should be just as important, if not more so, than Swords. I fully understand that Swords are widely considered the pinnacle of hand-to-hand melee technology. It's just that by the time the Sword actually took the title of undisputed champion, by way of the long sword, firearms were but a few generations away.
Compare that to the oft disregarded Spear. The reign of the Spear was far, far longer in the greater history of warfare. In the truest example of fiction/fantasy influence, D&D coughed up the crown to Swords. In OD&D Swords account for 1 out of every 5 Magic Items discovered. Spears? A paltry 1 out of every 200 Magic Items. Something's amiss here.
Also, consider the Shield in not just OD&D, but all editions. Shields improve Armor Class by one. Really? OK, I can live with that in the greater scheme of things, but Shields are realistically much more valuable in hand-to-hand combat.
Perhaps the Sword is the more romantic of the two. Perhaps the image of knights in shining armor is likewise more evocative of the fantasy genre which D&D embraces. The fact is, take a Spear & Shield and you're good to go melee wise, armor be damned.
Would it be heresy to make the unjustifiably disregarded Spear the predominant weapon in a campaign? Would it be blasphemous to make the disrespected Shield the basis of one's true Armor Class in a similarly conceived unconventional campaign? I think not, and I believe that such notions are both historically and logically sound.
So there you have it. The Spear reigns over all melee weapons, and the Shield is the backbone of any defensively-minded Fighting Man in said campaign.
The Spear is useful with one hand or two, as an effective deterrent to charges, tactically due to reach and usefulness in cramped confines, and further as a crude missile weapon. Nothing really needs to be said about the Shield; it is clearly as important as armor, regardless of whether one is clad in scale, chain or plate mail. That D&D made the Shield as effective as leather armor is laughable.
The Spear & Shield campaign replaces magical and sometimes intelligent Swords with Spears. It also rearranges the AC rules as detailed below:
No armor: 9
Leather: 8
Chain: 7
Plate: 6, reduces Move by 3
Shield: -3 AC
Large Shield: -4 AC, reduces Move by 3
Just thinking out loud. Carry on, but give the Spear and Shield their due or I'll get all Spartan on your Barbarian scum hides.
~Sham
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Quotable Arneson
During my recent research into Blackmoor, I saved a number of tidbits which I found interesting along the way. Of particular note are quotes from a few different interviews with Blackmoor's creator, Dave Arneson, dating from 1981, 1999 and 2004.
Dave Arneson Quotes
On Blackmoor's origins:
We established in our historical campaigns the principal of having a Judge who everyone listened to and who set up the battle or campaign. That’s where we were coming from, traditional wargaming.
On Blackmoor's best feature:
To me, what made it unique and different was that a lot of what made up Blackmoor was input from the players and the way they were seeing the world, and what they were doing in it. I just kept notes. I built the framework, and would occasionally throw in a few storylines, but it was the players getting involved in filling in a lot of the gaps that made a difference.
On TSR:
I was doing a lot of work for them but they weren’t doing anything with it. I got tired of waiting a year and a half to get something published so we parted.
On Homebrew:
We ask people to use their imaginations and when you do that, they tend to have their own ideas of how things should be done. Any group that sets up a dungeon will eventually have their own rules.
On Role-Playing:
When I do my games, I give roleplaying points for people staying within their character. If they want to go out and kill things, that's easy to do, and a lot of referees that's all they do, but there's more to it. The richness is not in just rolling dice, the richness is in the characters and becoming part of this fantasy world.
On Player involvement:
...when a character gets killed, I let the player run the monsters that the party encounters. This way he or she stays involved, rather than becoming a spectator or leaving. When the party encounters intelligent monsters, I brief them on what that monster’s life goals are (usually "Guard this room, don’t let anyone in"). Then if the party wants to negotiate, they negotiate with him rather than me. That system also takes a little pressure off of me as a Judge.
On 25 years of RPGs:
Sitting down and reading boxed dialog, going through seven or eight volumes of rules, is a long way from the scribbled notes I started off with...It just got very, very complicated and, in the efforts to simplify things, they just lost whatever creativity was left...I think what you lost there was the spontaneity of the whole operation...Too many of them try to do everything, or they follow the official line of "You can't change anything or you'll destroy the rules."...That's not the way things started, that's not the way things should be. If something doesn't work, get rid of it. If something works in another set of rules and you want to put it in your game, go for it. The [rules'] job is to make the referee's life easier, so he can referee, not harder.
The above copyright Judges Guild, 1981 and 1999.
On Blackmoor Castle, the first Dungeon:
Well, dungeon crawls were, I think, the easiest things to set up because all you had to do was draw a grid map and didn't have to worry about the great outdoors and setting up trees and stuff. People also couldn't go wandering off where you didn't have a map because it was solid rock.
On Rules:
Most of the rules are only between my ears and they're constantly changing.
The above, including image, copyright IGN Entertainment, 2004.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Q&A with Greg Svenson
With Dave Arneson's recent passing, our hobby lost one of the most important links to its earliest, formative days. Arneson & Gygax will be forever remembered as the coauthors and founders of Dungeons & Dragons, but there is so much more to Mr. Arneson that we were never truly allowed to learn while growing up in the 70s, 80s and beyond while playing the game that his Blackmoor campaign spawned. I've read with wonder the stories that Greg “Svenny” Svenson shared with readers at his website before it was taken down*. As a player in the original Blackmoor campaign, Greg is one of only a handful of gamers who were present to witness the fledgling game sessions which eventually gave rise to the entire table top role-playing genre (and beyond).
I believe that remembering the magnitude of Dave Arneson's concept, and his Blackmoor campaign, is perhaps more timely now than ever before. As someone who is interested in the influences and inspirations that went into Mr. Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, I felt that being able to pose some questions to the Great Svenny himself might be an opportunity I couldn't pass up. I wasn't sure that my random email to his site's address would even be answered, let alone read considering that it was sent not long after Dave Arneson's passing. I had no idea that Greg had attended Dave's funeral, nor that he had delivered the eulogy. I was wary about pursuing this Q&A considering the nature of its less than appropriate timing, but Greg assured me that he would be happy to take a look at what I had drafted up and let me know what he thought of the idea.
During our various correspondences I learned that at the funeral Greg had seen another Blackmoor player from the early days, Stephen “Rocky” Rocheford**. Greg was able to later email Stephen and have him look over the answers below. Stephen was kind enough to confirm Greg's recollections of those events from the early 70s in the Twin Cities, before Dave Arneson had taken a position with TSR in Lake Geneva, WI in 1975.
My reasons for this Q&A were multiple, and I will let the answers speak for themselves. I think that Greg did an outstanding job in answering these questions considering that nearly four decades have transpired since that very first Blackmoor game in 1971.
---Start Q&A---
Greg: I haven't really been interviewed like this before, so I shared my answers with one of the other guys who was one of the players on that original dungeon adventure in Dave Arneson's basement back in 1971, Stephen Rocheford (later known as St. Stephen from the Temple of the Frog adventure). He was probably just as active as a player as I was though the early years of the Blackmoor campaign and D&D. I saw him for the first time in over 25 years at Dave Arneson's funeral. He agreed with my answers to all of your questions except for the date when Dave Wesely got home from the Army which I have corrected in my answer.
Sham: First of all I’d like to thank Greg for taking the time to read and consider these questions, and allow me to share his responses for the readers of my web log. Greg, when did Dave Arneson actually begin his Blackmoor games, to the best of your knowledge? When and how were you introduced to Blackmoor?
Greg: You are welcome; hopefully I will be able to answer your questions. Nobody is really sure when we started playing Blackmoor. My recollection was that we played the first adventure over the Christmas holidays during the winter of 1970-1971; but, I am not really sure. The first documented Blackmoor game was on May 21, 1971. Dave Arneson found that in an old “Corner of the Table” newsletter article a few months ago. The “Corner of the Table” was Dave’s newsletter for our Napoleonics campaign. Dave recently came across a complete set of them.
Sham: Were you around for Dave Wesely’s Braunsteins that helped introduce the concept of role-playing and a referee? Was Dave Wesely a player in any of the Blackmoor sessions you were a part of?
Greg: No, I was not part of that. Wesely was in the Army Reserves and was activated and sent to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and later to Alaska during the early years of the Blackmoor campaign. He came home in the October/November 1973 timeframe. We did play together at least a few times when he was on leave as well as after he came home.
Sham: I’ve theorized that the concept which Dave Arneson formulated was based on a combination of wargame combat simulation, the ongoing wargame style campaign, the role-play/referee idea that Wesely introduced, and fantasy/medieval inspiration. In other words, wargaming meets role-play meets fantasy. Do you have any thoughts to offer on this assessment?
Greg: Well, that’s basically true, but it really isn’t that simple. The fantasy/medieval elements of Blackmoor were totally new to me at the time (although, I had read Tolkien and some other fantasy literature). However, in the Napoleonic campaign that we had been playing before that first adventure was a combination of miniatures and diplomacy. Dave Arneson was the referee and each of the players represented the sovereign, a political faction, a general and/or an admiral in their respective countries. So, for the campaign we would try to correspond player to player and write battle reports “in character”. We were responsible for our nation’s diplomacy and even the national budget down to buying food, forage, powder and shot, as well as running the military campaigns and fighting the battles that came about as a result of our actions...We had also been playing “Fight in the Skies” where each player was a WWI fighter pilot tracking his missions and kills and getting better with experience. Before I joined Dave Arneson’s gaming group my home gaming group in Excelsior, Minnesota had been playing Korns*** for several years. Korns was a set of WWII rules where each player was a single soldier and we had a referee keeping track of both sides and resolving actions as the game progressed, at least that was the way we played it. I am sure that others in the group had similar gaming background experiences to mine.
Sham: Your character rose to great prominence in Dave’s Blackmoor campaign. Your character, The Great Svenny, is now a full fledged legendary NPC in published Blackmoor games. What would be the Great Svenny’s proudest moment during those many Blackmoor sessions? Aside from the Great Svenny’s accomplishments, what are some of your favorite memories from Dave’s Blackmoor games?
Greg: Yes, I have been startled to surf the internet and find web sites where they described how the Great Svenny was involved with that gaming groups adventures. That was a really weird experience for me...The two greatest moments that stick out in my memory are the two adventures I described on my website; surviving the first dungeon adventure and the raid on the lair of Fred Funk’s Orc tribe on the 10th level of Blackmoor dungeon. I participated in literally hundreds of adventures between early 1971 and 1975, but those are the two I have the clearest memories of. I hardly even remember the famous “Temple of the Frog” and “Valley of the Ancients” adventures. I know I was there, but they were not as memorable for me.
Sham: For how many years did you play as The Great Svenny in Blackmoor, and what exactly is the Great Svenny up to at this very moment?
Greg: I was actively playing Svenny from the beginning up until when Dave Arneson moved to Lake Geneva to work for TSR in 1975. I played with him again at GenCon in 1976 and at a reunion game in 1991. When I started gaming with Dave again in Orlando in 1999, I played Svenny’s son, Sol, although I called him Svenny Junior at first, until I put together Svenny's family history. I am currently playing Sol in an online play by post game (the Tomb of Rahotep in honor of Gary Gygax on the Wayfarer's Inn website). I have also been playing one of his grandchildren, Sven, in another play by post game (the Grim Winter campaign on the Zeitgeist Games MMRPG website)...Svenny is currently the Lord High Regent of the Regency Council of the Kingdom of Blackmoor in the D&D 3.5 Edition version of the Blackmoor campaign. I am currently working out what Svenny’s family would look like for the D&D 4th Edition Blackmoor campaign which is set some 270 years later.
Sham: In reading your stories of those early Blackmoor days, I learned that certain important monsters or villains were often controlled by other players. Was there ever a point in Dave’s Blackmoor games where the emphasis became the adventuring group, or was it usually adversarial between the players who mostly pursued their own individual goals?
Greg: We switched from the good guys versus the bad guys sessions to just one adventuring group fairly quickly. We realized that it was more fun if everyone was on one team working together. There were still people playing the bad guys, but that was usually in their own gaming sessions separate from the ones I was in; although, sometimes Dave would still ask for a volunteer to play the monster during a battle.
Sham: I’m aware that Blackmoor was much more than simply a dungeon crawl, but I enjoyed your telling of the First Dungeon Adventure and how your character survived it. After that adventure did the dungeon setting become a major focus of the campaign?
Greg: Well, we stopped making dungeon maps when the group realized that I had much of the dungeon memorized. Of course, that led to problems when Svenny was incapacitated and unable to tell everyone how to get back out of the dungeon. It was the major emphasis for a while, but we quickly moved out into the wilderness. We also had a period of several months, after some of us read the “Tarnsman of Gor” books, where we were traveling around on tarns (think of Rocs in the “Lord of the Rings”). That was after Gary Gygax had started his campaign because one of our adventures was to travel to Grayhawk on tarnback to rescue Gary’s players who had gotten into trouble.
Sham: I understand that as you gained knowledge and experience playing in Dave’s game you also took some turns behind the referee’s screen, running Blackmoor adventures for other players. What was that like? And do you ever have the opportunity to play or run Blackmoor these days?
Greg: In the fall of 1972 Dave Arneson gave me some of his notes and let me referee a couple of times when he was busy with other things. Dave tells me that I was the third DM ever. Later I developed a town called Tonisborg, complete with two dungeons. I didn’t think that I was very good at it. I guess I was comparing myself to Dave. At any rate, I didn’t DM very often; although, I must have DMed more often than I remember from what Bob Meyer has told me about the days when we were roommates in 1973 & 1974. Unfortunately, I loaned my Tonisborg materials to a friend to use for a game day and he never returned them, which was around 1980 or so when I lived in Boston. I have not run any Blackmoor (or other D&D) games since the early 1980's when I ran games for my church's youth group.
Sham: Would you say that Blackmoor evolved, in both rules content and as a campaign world, as a result of the player/character courses of action?
Greg: Of course, it evolved and very quickly. Using Chainmail rules on the first adventure, when you got hit the first time you were dead. We didn’t like that much, so the next time we played we had hit points. Within a month Dave introduced armor classes. There were many changes over time. One time when we were off adventuring the bad guys attacked and captured the then defenseless town of Blackmoor, leveling Zvenzen’s Freehold among other things. We all got banished to the swamps of Loc Gloomin for that one…
Sham: While refereeing Blackmoor for other players, how did you handle actions by the characters which were not covered by the rules? Was referee ad-libbing a vital aspect of the Blackmoor games?
Greg: I quickly came up with what the possibilities might be and either had the players roll dice against a related character attribute for success or on a table I made up in my head on the fly. This was an area that I felt I was not very good at, however, because Dave would just tell us to roll the dice and he then told us what happened.
Sham: You were playing in Blackmoor before D&D was published, and again afterwards. What impact did the release of that version of the rules have upon Dave’s personal campaign?
Greg: As soon as a draft was available we started play testing with them, but I don’t think it really changed how the game went when Dave was the DM. That’s just my opinion. The big difference was that others (like me) were more easily able to DM. All of the sessions I DMed were part of the same Blackmoor campaign that Dave was running. Often I was helping players get to a higher level so they could survive with the other higher level players.
Sham: What was Dave’s early opinion of TSR’s 1974 D&D game? For that matter, what was the general opinion of you and the other players in Blackmoor when you finally saw the original D&D game?
Greg: Dave was excited about it, but I am not sure what he actually thought about it, I don’t remember him ever talking to me about it in that way. I thought it was one and the same thing with what we had already been doing for several years. So, I didn’t really see much of a difference.
Sham: I’ve developed great respect for Dave’s impact to the gaming world. In my opinion he is often unfairly discredited in certain quarters for his lack of actual input to D&D. If you can recall, what were the major differences between Dave’s Blackmoor, and D&D in 1974?
Greg: Like I just said, I thought they were one and the same. They had just been organized, to make it easier for other people to use to run games. The individual levels and things like that were new, but the way we played we didn’t really notice the difference. Attributes were different, we had used two d6’s to get a number from 1 to 10, where we changed to three d6’s and a range from 3 to 18, but most were just changes in mechanics...We were not keeping our own records or character sheets as they are called now. Dave had an index card on each of the players (and NPCs) with their attributes, HP, possessions and other useful notes. I only remember seeing Svenny’s character card a couple of times. Unfortunately, it never occurred to me to copy the information off of it for my own records. Dave told me a few months ago that he had been going though one of his boxes and discovered what he thought were all of our original character cards. I don’t know what happened to them after that, however.
Sham: From what I gather Dave’s major accomplishment was combining the essential elements of what was to become fantasy role-playing with Blackmoor, the same elements that were subsequently found in D&D. Would you agree that each of the essential elements was present in pre-D&D Blackmoor?
1. Characters
Greg: Yes, of course.
2. Ability Scores
Greg: Yes. I am not sure when Dave added them since he kept our character cards, but we were definitely using them during the spring of 1972, because I have definite memories involving ability scores that happened before I went away for the summer of 1972.
3. Hit Points
Greg: Yes, within the first month.
4. Experience/Levels
Greg: Yes, although handled differently. Fighters went from flunky to hero to superhero. We didn’t track our experience points as is done now. Dave simply told us when we had transitioned from one level to another. I do not know if wizards and clerics had different levels of ability or not.
5. Mechanics/Randomization
Greg: Yes, but again handled differently. Sometimes, we would roll against our related ability to resolve a task. Other times Dave would just say we were successful or not after we had described what we intended to do (he might have made a roll at the time, it may or may not have had any bearing in what happened).
6. Adventuring Groups
Greg: Yes, the first adventure involved two groups.
7. Exploration
Greg: Yes, we didn’t have maps of the area. Anytime we traveled we had to find our way, even just leaving the town of Blackmoor itself and going into the nearby countryside was a major adventure. Part of the adventure was getting lost. Sometimes that was the adventure.
8. Hazards/Challenges
Greg: Yes, problem solving was a big part of our gaming sessions, really the major part.
9. Treasure
Greg: Yes, we found money, stuff and magic items in the lairs of the monsters we killed.
10. Fantasy Setting
Greg: Yes
Sham: I’d also like to specifically ask about certain D&D features and whether or not they were present in the early Blackmoor games, to the best of your recollection.
1. Saving Throws
Greg: Yes, maybe with different mechanics. Dave just told us to roll and he would tell us what happened…
2. Clerics vs. Undead (Turning Undead)
Greg: Mike Carr**** played the Bishop of Blackmoor pretty much from the beginning. I think of him as being able to heal and on one or two occasions resurrect the dead. I do not recall when turning the undead came into it, but it was not a concept that was unfamiliar to me, either. I have to say that I am not sure.
3. Wandering Monsters
Greg: They were there from the first adventure on. We could see Dave rolling before he would announce an encounter.
4. Alignment
Greg: Absolutely, we had good and evil characters in the very first dungeon adventure; if fact, Dave’s perception of our alignment, as it is called now, affected whether we were able to hold the magic sword we found during that first adventure. Several of the players were injured when they picked it up. In fact, I was the only player who didn’t try to pick it up. I was afraid to try after seeing what happened to the other unsuccessful players. When I was the last one standing and the battle was over, I picked it up and wrapped it using a piece of leather, so that I would not come in contact with it and then carried it out of the dungeon and immediately sold it to the baron of Blackmoor for a whopping 150 GP.
5. Spell Levels
Greg: I was never a magic user in the original campaign, so I don’t really know the mechanics of how spells were handled. Pete Gaylord, Kurt Krey or Richard Snider would have a much better idea of how that worked.
6. Henchmen/Hirelings
Greg: Yes, after Svenny became a “super hero” I was able to hire soldiers and servants. That was how we were able to staff Zvenzen’s Freehold, for example. Slavery was also an option, at least initially. Svenny bought a slave once.
Sham: What was it about D&D that made it such a smashing success, in your opinion?
Greg: The limitless options for the players made it so much fun that it was hard not to enjoy yourself even when your character died in the adventure.
Sham: What other role-playing games have you had the chance to run or play in? Do you have a favorite role-playing game besides Blackmoor?
Greg: Blackmoor is the only D&D setting I have ever run a game in. I have especially enjoyed “Space: 1889” and “Traveller” (CT, MT and T4). I have played many others, including “Powers and Perils”, “Adventures in Fantasy”, “Shadowrun”, “Star Wars”, “GURPS” (fantasy, Traveller & WW2) and “Twilight: 2000”.
Sham: What do you feel Dave Arneson’s legacy to the hobby will be? Furthermore, what do you feel Dave Arneson’s legacy to the hobby should be?
Greg: To me, Dave Arneson is the father of modern role-playing games. They didn’t really exist before we played Blackmoor. They were a new concept at the time and he is the person who put it all together.
Sham: Have you ever worked in the role-playing field, or has it always been simply an entertaining diversion? What details can you tell the readers about yourself since those days playing in Blackmoor with Dave Arneson?
Greg: Not really, I made an attempt to edit John Snider’s “Star Empires” RPG rules back in 1983 for Adventure Games while I was working for 4D Interactive Systems (both companies were primarily owned by Dave Arneson) as a video game programmer, but it never got published. John had written it back in the mid-1970s and it had languished at TSR for years. By the time I looked at it, it was really out dated, although, in my opinion, if it had come out before or at the same time as “Traveller” it would have taken the Sci-Fi RPG market hands down...As for me, I am a computer geek. I have been in Information Systems/Technology for over thirty-two years. I spent a year and a half writing video games for 4D Interactive Systems back in ‘83 and ‘84. The rest of the time I have been with large companies, mostly in the aerospace industry. I am a Christian. The Lord has been very good to me. I am married to a wonderful woman, Paula. We have five children and two grandchildren.
Sham: Greg, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, including the many D&D related inquiries. My goal has been to not only learn more about the early Blackmoor games, and your role in helping shape that famous campaign, but to also further the legacy of Dave Arneson and remind readers of his impact on our hobby. Are there any details about Dave Arneson that you would like to share with the readers?
Greg: You are welcome. I am glad that I was able to answer most of your questions. With Dave’s passing, I have had lots of chances to think about him. His daughter asked me to do the eulogy at his funeral service, so I have thought a lot about his life. Dave was a humble man. I never saw him push his agenda at someone else’s expense or put himself ahead of others. He was always concerned about other peoples well being. He wanted everyone to be happy and have fun. He was generous and thoughtful, both with me and my family. My wife thought of him as a kind and gallant gentleman. He wanted to live at peace with everyone. I know that in the last few years he attempted to reconcile with those who had issues with him, including Gary Gygax and Tim Kask.
I hope you and your readers are edified by reading this.
---End Q&A---
I'd like to thank Greg, as well as Stephen, for taking the time to answer these questions about not only Blackmoor, but also about their good friend Dave Arneson who sadly left us far too early. It was very touching to read Greg's heartfelt answer to my last question, and I hope that readers can come away from this Q&A with a better appreciation of not only Dave Arneson's legacy, but also of the man himself.
* - Per an email from Greg, his early Blackmoor stories will once again be available as they are to be hosted at Havard's Blackmoor site in the near future. Stephen and Greg have just started collaborating on the First Dungeon Adventure story in order to bring back even more of the details. In the meantime you can read Greg Svenson's First Dungeon Adventure in Fight On! Issue 2.
** - Stephen Rocheford had the perhaps singular honor of actually reviewing Dave Arneson's original manuscript, detailing Blackmoor, before it was sent off to TSR and transformed into Dungeons & Dragons.
*** - Michael F. Korns Modern War in Miniature, 1966.
**** - Mike Carr, designer of Fight in the Skies, author of B1: In Search of the Unknown, Editor of AD&D Monster Manual, Player's Handbook, and Dungeon Master's Guide.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
I believe that remembering the magnitude of Dave Arneson's concept, and his Blackmoor campaign, is perhaps more timely now than ever before. As someone who is interested in the influences and inspirations that went into Mr. Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, I felt that being able to pose some questions to the Great Svenny himself might be an opportunity I couldn't pass up. I wasn't sure that my random email to his site's address would even be answered, let alone read considering that it was sent not long after Dave Arneson's passing. I had no idea that Greg had attended Dave's funeral, nor that he had delivered the eulogy. I was wary about pursuing this Q&A considering the nature of its less than appropriate timing, but Greg assured me that he would be happy to take a look at what I had drafted up and let me know what he thought of the idea.
During our various correspondences I learned that at the funeral Greg had seen another Blackmoor player from the early days, Stephen “Rocky” Rocheford**. Greg was able to later email Stephen and have him look over the answers below. Stephen was kind enough to confirm Greg's recollections of those events from the early 70s in the Twin Cities, before Dave Arneson had taken a position with TSR in Lake Geneva, WI in 1975.
My reasons for this Q&A were multiple, and I will let the answers speak for themselves. I think that Greg did an outstanding job in answering these questions considering that nearly four decades have transpired since that very first Blackmoor game in 1971.
---Start Q&A---
Greg: I haven't really been interviewed like this before, so I shared my answers with one of the other guys who was one of the players on that original dungeon adventure in Dave Arneson's basement back in 1971, Stephen Rocheford (later known as St. Stephen from the Temple of the Frog adventure). He was probably just as active as a player as I was though the early years of the Blackmoor campaign and D&D. I saw him for the first time in over 25 years at Dave Arneson's funeral. He agreed with my answers to all of your questions except for the date when Dave Wesely got home from the Army which I have corrected in my answer.
Sham: First of all I’d like to thank Greg for taking the time to read and consider these questions, and allow me to share his responses for the readers of my web log. Greg, when did Dave Arneson actually begin his Blackmoor games, to the best of your knowledge? When and how were you introduced to Blackmoor?
Greg: You are welcome; hopefully I will be able to answer your questions. Nobody is really sure when we started playing Blackmoor. My recollection was that we played the first adventure over the Christmas holidays during the winter of 1970-1971; but, I am not really sure. The first documented Blackmoor game was on May 21, 1971. Dave Arneson found that in an old “Corner of the Table” newsletter article a few months ago. The “Corner of the Table” was Dave’s newsletter for our Napoleonics campaign. Dave recently came across a complete set of them.
Sham: Were you around for Dave Wesely’s Braunsteins that helped introduce the concept of role-playing and a referee? Was Dave Wesely a player in any of the Blackmoor sessions you were a part of?
Greg: No, I was not part of that. Wesely was in the Army Reserves and was activated and sent to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and later to Alaska during the early years of the Blackmoor campaign. He came home in the October/November 1973 timeframe. We did play together at least a few times when he was on leave as well as after he came home.
Sham: I’ve theorized that the concept which Dave Arneson formulated was based on a combination of wargame combat simulation, the ongoing wargame style campaign, the role-play/referee idea that Wesely introduced, and fantasy/medieval inspiration. In other words, wargaming meets role-play meets fantasy. Do you have any thoughts to offer on this assessment?
Greg: Well, that’s basically true, but it really isn’t that simple. The fantasy/medieval elements of Blackmoor were totally new to me at the time (although, I had read Tolkien and some other fantasy literature). However, in the Napoleonic campaign that we had been playing before that first adventure was a combination of miniatures and diplomacy. Dave Arneson was the referee and each of the players represented the sovereign, a political faction, a general and/or an admiral in their respective countries. So, for the campaign we would try to correspond player to player and write battle reports “in character”. We were responsible for our nation’s diplomacy and even the national budget down to buying food, forage, powder and shot, as well as running the military campaigns and fighting the battles that came about as a result of our actions...We had also been playing “Fight in the Skies” where each player was a WWI fighter pilot tracking his missions and kills and getting better with experience. Before I joined Dave Arneson’s gaming group my home gaming group in Excelsior, Minnesota had been playing Korns*** for several years. Korns was a set of WWII rules where each player was a single soldier and we had a referee keeping track of both sides and resolving actions as the game progressed, at least that was the way we played it. I am sure that others in the group had similar gaming background experiences to mine.
Sham: Your character rose to great prominence in Dave’s Blackmoor campaign. Your character, The Great Svenny, is now a full fledged legendary NPC in published Blackmoor games. What would be the Great Svenny’s proudest moment during those many Blackmoor sessions? Aside from the Great Svenny’s accomplishments, what are some of your favorite memories from Dave’s Blackmoor games?
Greg: Yes, I have been startled to surf the internet and find web sites where they described how the Great Svenny was involved with that gaming groups adventures. That was a really weird experience for me...The two greatest moments that stick out in my memory are the two adventures I described on my website; surviving the first dungeon adventure and the raid on the lair of Fred Funk’s Orc tribe on the 10th level of Blackmoor dungeon. I participated in literally hundreds of adventures between early 1971 and 1975, but those are the two I have the clearest memories of. I hardly even remember the famous “Temple of the Frog” and “Valley of the Ancients” adventures. I know I was there, but they were not as memorable for me.
Sham: For how many years did you play as The Great Svenny in Blackmoor, and what exactly is the Great Svenny up to at this very moment?
Greg: I was actively playing Svenny from the beginning up until when Dave Arneson moved to Lake Geneva to work for TSR in 1975. I played with him again at GenCon in 1976 and at a reunion game in 1991. When I started gaming with Dave again in Orlando in 1999, I played Svenny’s son, Sol, although I called him Svenny Junior at first, until I put together Svenny's family history. I am currently playing Sol in an online play by post game (the Tomb of Rahotep in honor of Gary Gygax on the Wayfarer's Inn website). I have also been playing one of his grandchildren, Sven, in another play by post game (the Grim Winter campaign on the Zeitgeist Games MMRPG website)...Svenny is currently the Lord High Regent of the Regency Council of the Kingdom of Blackmoor in the D&D 3.5 Edition version of the Blackmoor campaign. I am currently working out what Svenny’s family would look like for the D&D 4th Edition Blackmoor campaign which is set some 270 years later.
Sham: In reading your stories of those early Blackmoor days, I learned that certain important monsters or villains were often controlled by other players. Was there ever a point in Dave’s Blackmoor games where the emphasis became the adventuring group, or was it usually adversarial between the players who mostly pursued their own individual goals?
Greg: We switched from the good guys versus the bad guys sessions to just one adventuring group fairly quickly. We realized that it was more fun if everyone was on one team working together. There were still people playing the bad guys, but that was usually in their own gaming sessions separate from the ones I was in; although, sometimes Dave would still ask for a volunteer to play the monster during a battle.
Sham: I’m aware that Blackmoor was much more than simply a dungeon crawl, but I enjoyed your telling of the First Dungeon Adventure and how your character survived it. After that adventure did the dungeon setting become a major focus of the campaign?
Greg: Well, we stopped making dungeon maps when the group realized that I had much of the dungeon memorized. Of course, that led to problems when Svenny was incapacitated and unable to tell everyone how to get back out of the dungeon. It was the major emphasis for a while, but we quickly moved out into the wilderness. We also had a period of several months, after some of us read the “Tarnsman of Gor” books, where we were traveling around on tarns (think of Rocs in the “Lord of the Rings”). That was after Gary Gygax had started his campaign because one of our adventures was to travel to Grayhawk on tarnback to rescue Gary’s players who had gotten into trouble.
Sham: I understand that as you gained knowledge and experience playing in Dave’s game you also took some turns behind the referee’s screen, running Blackmoor adventures for other players. What was that like? And do you ever have the opportunity to play or run Blackmoor these days?
Greg: In the fall of 1972 Dave Arneson gave me some of his notes and let me referee a couple of times when he was busy with other things. Dave tells me that I was the third DM ever. Later I developed a town called Tonisborg, complete with two dungeons. I didn’t think that I was very good at it. I guess I was comparing myself to Dave. At any rate, I didn’t DM very often; although, I must have DMed more often than I remember from what Bob Meyer has told me about the days when we were roommates in 1973 & 1974. Unfortunately, I loaned my Tonisborg materials to a friend to use for a game day and he never returned them, which was around 1980 or so when I lived in Boston. I have not run any Blackmoor (or other D&D) games since the early 1980's when I ran games for my church's youth group.
Sham: Would you say that Blackmoor evolved, in both rules content and as a campaign world, as a result of the player/character courses of action?
Greg: Of course, it evolved and very quickly. Using Chainmail rules on the first adventure, when you got hit the first time you were dead. We didn’t like that much, so the next time we played we had hit points. Within a month Dave introduced armor classes. There were many changes over time. One time when we were off adventuring the bad guys attacked and captured the then defenseless town of Blackmoor, leveling Zvenzen’s Freehold among other things. We all got banished to the swamps of Loc Gloomin for that one…
Sham: While refereeing Blackmoor for other players, how did you handle actions by the characters which were not covered by the rules? Was referee ad-libbing a vital aspect of the Blackmoor games?
Greg: I quickly came up with what the possibilities might be and either had the players roll dice against a related character attribute for success or on a table I made up in my head on the fly. This was an area that I felt I was not very good at, however, because Dave would just tell us to roll the dice and he then told us what happened.
Sham: You were playing in Blackmoor before D&D was published, and again afterwards. What impact did the release of that version of the rules have upon Dave’s personal campaign?
Greg: As soon as a draft was available we started play testing with them, but I don’t think it really changed how the game went when Dave was the DM. That’s just my opinion. The big difference was that others (like me) were more easily able to DM. All of the sessions I DMed were part of the same Blackmoor campaign that Dave was running. Often I was helping players get to a higher level so they could survive with the other higher level players.
Sham: What was Dave’s early opinion of TSR’s 1974 D&D game? For that matter, what was the general opinion of you and the other players in Blackmoor when you finally saw the original D&D game?
Greg: Dave was excited about it, but I am not sure what he actually thought about it, I don’t remember him ever talking to me about it in that way. I thought it was one and the same thing with what we had already been doing for several years. So, I didn’t really see much of a difference.
Sham: I’ve developed great respect for Dave’s impact to the gaming world. In my opinion he is often unfairly discredited in certain quarters for his lack of actual input to D&D. If you can recall, what were the major differences between Dave’s Blackmoor, and D&D in 1974?
Greg: Like I just said, I thought they were one and the same. They had just been organized, to make it easier for other people to use to run games. The individual levels and things like that were new, but the way we played we didn’t really notice the difference. Attributes were different, we had used two d6’s to get a number from 1 to 10, where we changed to three d6’s and a range from 3 to 18, but most were just changes in mechanics...We were not keeping our own records or character sheets as they are called now. Dave had an index card on each of the players (and NPCs) with their attributes, HP, possessions and other useful notes. I only remember seeing Svenny’s character card a couple of times. Unfortunately, it never occurred to me to copy the information off of it for my own records. Dave told me a few months ago that he had been going though one of his boxes and discovered what he thought were all of our original character cards. I don’t know what happened to them after that, however.
Sham: From what I gather Dave’s major accomplishment was combining the essential elements of what was to become fantasy role-playing with Blackmoor, the same elements that were subsequently found in D&D. Would you agree that each of the essential elements was present in pre-D&D Blackmoor?
1. Characters
Greg: Yes, of course.
2. Ability Scores
Greg: Yes. I am not sure when Dave added them since he kept our character cards, but we were definitely using them during the spring of 1972, because I have definite memories involving ability scores that happened before I went away for the summer of 1972.
3. Hit Points
Greg: Yes, within the first month.
4. Experience/Levels
Greg: Yes, although handled differently. Fighters went from flunky to hero to superhero. We didn’t track our experience points as is done now. Dave simply told us when we had transitioned from one level to another. I do not know if wizards and clerics had different levels of ability or not.
5. Mechanics/Randomization
Greg: Yes, but again handled differently. Sometimes, we would roll against our related ability to resolve a task. Other times Dave would just say we were successful or not after we had described what we intended to do (he might have made a roll at the time, it may or may not have had any bearing in what happened).
6. Adventuring Groups
Greg: Yes, the first adventure involved two groups.
7. Exploration
Greg: Yes, we didn’t have maps of the area. Anytime we traveled we had to find our way, even just leaving the town of Blackmoor itself and going into the nearby countryside was a major adventure. Part of the adventure was getting lost. Sometimes that was the adventure.
8. Hazards/Challenges
Greg: Yes, problem solving was a big part of our gaming sessions, really the major part.
9. Treasure
Greg: Yes, we found money, stuff and magic items in the lairs of the monsters we killed.
10. Fantasy Setting
Greg: Yes
Sham: I’d also like to specifically ask about certain D&D features and whether or not they were present in the early Blackmoor games, to the best of your recollection.
1. Saving Throws
Greg: Yes, maybe with different mechanics. Dave just told us to roll and he would tell us what happened…
2. Clerics vs. Undead (Turning Undead)
Greg: Mike Carr**** played the Bishop of Blackmoor pretty much from the beginning. I think of him as being able to heal and on one or two occasions resurrect the dead. I do not recall when turning the undead came into it, but it was not a concept that was unfamiliar to me, either. I have to say that I am not sure.
3. Wandering Monsters
Greg: They were there from the first adventure on. We could see Dave rolling before he would announce an encounter.
4. Alignment
Greg: Absolutely, we had good and evil characters in the very first dungeon adventure; if fact, Dave’s perception of our alignment, as it is called now, affected whether we were able to hold the magic sword we found during that first adventure. Several of the players were injured when they picked it up. In fact, I was the only player who didn’t try to pick it up. I was afraid to try after seeing what happened to the other unsuccessful players. When I was the last one standing and the battle was over, I picked it up and wrapped it using a piece of leather, so that I would not come in contact with it and then carried it out of the dungeon and immediately sold it to the baron of Blackmoor for a whopping 150 GP.
5. Spell Levels
Greg: I was never a magic user in the original campaign, so I don’t really know the mechanics of how spells were handled. Pete Gaylord, Kurt Krey or Richard Snider would have a much better idea of how that worked.
6. Henchmen/Hirelings
Greg: Yes, after Svenny became a “super hero” I was able to hire soldiers and servants. That was how we were able to staff Zvenzen’s Freehold, for example. Slavery was also an option, at least initially. Svenny bought a slave once.
Sham: What was it about D&D that made it such a smashing success, in your opinion?
Greg: The limitless options for the players made it so much fun that it was hard not to enjoy yourself even when your character died in the adventure.
Sham: What other role-playing games have you had the chance to run or play in? Do you have a favorite role-playing game besides Blackmoor?
Greg: Blackmoor is the only D&D setting I have ever run a game in. I have especially enjoyed “Space: 1889” and “Traveller” (CT, MT and T4). I have played many others, including “Powers and Perils”, “Adventures in Fantasy”, “Shadowrun”, “Star Wars”, “GURPS” (fantasy, Traveller & WW2) and “Twilight: 2000”.
Sham: What do you feel Dave Arneson’s legacy to the hobby will be? Furthermore, what do you feel Dave Arneson’s legacy to the hobby should be?
Greg: To me, Dave Arneson is the father of modern role-playing games. They didn’t really exist before we played Blackmoor. They were a new concept at the time and he is the person who put it all together.
Sham: Have you ever worked in the role-playing field, or has it always been simply an entertaining diversion? What details can you tell the readers about yourself since those days playing in Blackmoor with Dave Arneson?
Greg: Not really, I made an attempt to edit John Snider’s “Star Empires” RPG rules back in 1983 for Adventure Games while I was working for 4D Interactive Systems (both companies were primarily owned by Dave Arneson) as a video game programmer, but it never got published. John had written it back in the mid-1970s and it had languished at TSR for years. By the time I looked at it, it was really out dated, although, in my opinion, if it had come out before or at the same time as “Traveller” it would have taken the Sci-Fi RPG market hands down...As for me, I am a computer geek. I have been in Information Systems/Technology for over thirty-two years. I spent a year and a half writing video games for 4D Interactive Systems back in ‘83 and ‘84. The rest of the time I have been with large companies, mostly in the aerospace industry. I am a Christian. The Lord has been very good to me. I am married to a wonderful woman, Paula. We have five children and two grandchildren.
Sham: Greg, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, including the many D&D related inquiries. My goal has been to not only learn more about the early Blackmoor games, and your role in helping shape that famous campaign, but to also further the legacy of Dave Arneson and remind readers of his impact on our hobby. Are there any details about Dave Arneson that you would like to share with the readers?
Greg: You are welcome. I am glad that I was able to answer most of your questions. With Dave’s passing, I have had lots of chances to think about him. His daughter asked me to do the eulogy at his funeral service, so I have thought a lot about his life. Dave was a humble man. I never saw him push his agenda at someone else’s expense or put himself ahead of others. He was always concerned about other peoples well being. He wanted everyone to be happy and have fun. He was generous and thoughtful, both with me and my family. My wife thought of him as a kind and gallant gentleman. He wanted to live at peace with everyone. I know that in the last few years he attempted to reconcile with those who had issues with him, including Gary Gygax and Tim Kask.
I hope you and your readers are edified by reading this.
---End Q&A---
I'd like to thank Greg, as well as Stephen, for taking the time to answer these questions about not only Blackmoor, but also about their good friend Dave Arneson who sadly left us far too early. It was very touching to read Greg's heartfelt answer to my last question, and I hope that readers can come away from this Q&A with a better appreciation of not only Dave Arneson's legacy, but also of the man himself.
* - Per an email from Greg, his early Blackmoor stories will once again be available as they are to be hosted at Havard's Blackmoor site in the near future. Stephen and Greg have just started collaborating on the First Dungeon Adventure story in order to bring back even more of the details. In the meantime you can read Greg Svenson's First Dungeon Adventure in Fight On! Issue 2.
** - Stephen Rocheford had the perhaps singular honor of actually reviewing Dave Arneson's original manuscript, detailing Blackmoor, before it was sent off to TSR and transformed into Dungeons & Dragons.
*** - Michael F. Korns Modern War in Miniature, 1966.
**** - Mike Carr, designer of Fight in the Skies, author of B1: In Search of the Unknown, Editor of AD&D Monster Manual, Player's Handbook, and Dungeon Master's Guide.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Friday, May 15, 2009
One Page Dungeons
When I first put together the concept of the One Page Dungeon, I was pursuing a few different angles. First and foremost I wanted to pursue an economy of words in my adventure writing. I am prone to verbosity and triviality when I allow myself to sit behind the keyboard and plunk away without a care. Such an approach might produce a dungeon which is more interesting for the reader, full of colorful descriptions and answers to various what-ifs which might arise during play. That which is interesting to the Referee does not necessarily add to the adventure nor to the enjoyment of the players involved.
I’ve found after decades of writing that my adventures were becoming more and more bloated, to the point that reading a room description in the middle of a game session was interrupting the natural flow of play. If the passage was for a room I had recently devised, the details were still fresh in my memory, so I didn’t need to actually stop and quietly read what I had written. Given the sheer amount of rooms in many of my dungeons, I found that my memory was failing me when the players entered an area that I had written months or sometimes years before. It was during these moments that I didn’t need all of the extraneous information. I needed the important bits, and I needed them quickly. With this consideration in mind, I began to frown on flavorful entries and the ramifications of possible actions which the players might not even consider. I wanted to stop writing to myself, which is what I realized I often did when I was in my creative mode. Essentially I was looking for nothing more than the facts, distilled down to their most concise form. I needed to cut off the fat and get to the meat.
I assumed that if I forcibly limited the amount of text I would allow myself for a given area of a dungeon, I could devise an interesting exercise in economy of words. Somewhere along the way I read a thread over at the OD&D Discussion forums in which Dwayanu mentioned that he likes to draw maps in a 30x30 square area of the graph paper, thus leaving room for a key. This idea helped me formulate the One Page Dungeon concept. I realized that if I attempted to fill a 30x30 section in my normal mapping method, I’d end up with 20-25 numbered areas, and that restricting myself to that single page, I’d force myself to keep to nothing more than the essentials. Furthermore, the end result would be something which anyone could pick up and run with virtually no preparation time.
Now this opened up other notions. In an effort to create a drop dead simple dungeon format, I’d want to include a few tables on the page as well. Tables which would be at the Referee’s fingertips in order to keep play moving quickly, dispensing with the need to leaf through notes or books. Thus I added Wandering Monsters, Restocking, Random Treasure, and a Legend for the map itself.
The one-page layout I designed originally is found in this thread, and is the exact blueprint which Chgowiz was kind enough to duplicate and turn into a user friendly document for me to continue my project. Were it not for Chgowiz, I doubt I would’ve continued with the concept because my first Word experiments proved to be more trouble than they were worth.
I was surprised by the amount of feedback I got in regard to what I considered to be a simple concept. A concept that in fact, unbeknownst to me at the time, has been done before in slightly different forms by other gamers, including this one by Alex Schroeder. In retrospect, I think what made my concept work was the modular format, the inclusion of tables, and of course Chgowiz’s easy to use version of my template.
One of the best D&D web log authors to enter the fray in the past year, Amityville Mike, took to the concept almost immediately. Mike’s Stonehell, shared through his excellent blog The Society of the Torch, Pole and Rope, is the finest example of the concept to be found on the internet, the Dismal Depths included. Granted, Mike realized the limitations of the One Page right away when he began using the concept for his megadungeon. Stonehell is One Page in spirit, and Mike found that allowing for both sides of the page afforded him the space to describe his rooms and ideas with a bit more clarity, and to include even more tables. Nonetheless, Stonehell is still a One Page Dungeon, even though it uses front and back. The design theory is embraced and Mike has made the most of the template I envisioned.
There is good and bad with the concept. The One Page Dungeon approach challenges the author to convey the essentials while still creating an interesting, viable adventure. The very economy of words, the main driving force behind the concept, is also it’s most limiting factor. This is, as I mentioned in my Dismal Depths Guide, an intentional feature of the approach, not a flaw. The adventure is not going to take the Referee by the hand and guide him or her through the dungeon. There are no suggestions or explanations. There is no boxed text to be read aloud to the players. Trappings and mundane features are kept to a minimum. Theme, plot, back story, hooks, rumors and the why of it all are left to the Referee’s own imagination. The area descriptions themselves intentionally allow for creative input on behalf of the Referee. Nay, they demand it. This is what I refer to when I say the concept is not for the timid, nor the inexperienced. This is not Dungeons for Dummies. The challenge is not merely limited to drawing up a One Page Dungeon. The end result must translate into good gaming, and the Referee must be able to bring this out during play while working with limited resources.
Amongst all of my projects since identifying the Empty Room Principle I have found that this One Page Dungeon concept exemplifies it the best. It is one thing to preach, but another to practice what I preach. One of the greatest strengths of the design theory, one which might be lost upon some, is the minimalistic nature therein, this Empty Room Principal. Much like the original D&D rules I've grown to appreciate more and more, the One Page Dungeon engages the Referee's imagination and offers limitless opportunities for personal input. The descriptions are not restrictive, they do not force your hand, and they do not tell you there is only one way to do things. The text is restricted to a few lines for each area, which should be just enough to encourage and inspire.
Although circumstances have delayed much of the design effort I planned to undertake with the megadungeon which kicked this entire theme off, the Dismal Depths, I have been forming ideas and inventing novelties for that project. I hope to able to return to it seriously in the near future. I’m happy with what I’ve created for it thus far, including the Dismal Depths Bestiary and the Dismal Depths Trap Tables. I’d ask that those who have been looking for new Dismal Depths information keep the faith. There is more to come, have no fear. I don’t want to force anything as the dungeon needs to write itself, otherwise it might lose some luster.
Perhaps this article is something I should have written prior to the One Page Dungeon Contest hosted by Chatty DM and Chgowiz. The contest ended last night, and I have printed all 70 entries. If I had been in charge of submissions, I might have placed more limitations on the design theory. I may have had some notion of “This is my idea, and this is how you do it.” For this reason it is probably best that I had nothing to do with setting up and running the contest. I may have enforced certain criteria or insisted upon inclusion of features important to me. In looking over these entries, I can see that restricting anyone’s creativity is a bad thing, and would’ve been contradictory to the very spirit of the concept. The simplest notion is what made this a good contest. Write an actual, usable adventure on a single page, with a map, and be creative. That was all that was needed to design a good entry.
I’m proud that this innocent little concept has been embraced by those beyond the limited reach of my blog here, just as I am satisfied that the idea is not restricted by my personal design theories. It’s quite clear that many of the contestants had a lot of fun with the idea. Some of the One Page Dungeons don’t look anything like the rudimentary lay out I drew up, for that matter, some don’t look like anything I’ve ever seen before. I am left wondering if one of the entries is trying to get a Punk Rock vote from this judge, but I don’t want to leak any more information just yet.
Suffice to say that I am going to be up to my eyeballs in One Page Dungeons for the foreseeable future as I work toward judging these 70 entries. It’s particularly satisfying to see all of these versions of the concept from people who have probably never even heard of me nor read any of my ramblings here.
With that said, I’m signing off for a while for back to back out of town trips in which I’ll be reading and considering these dungeons during downtimes. I should be back to foist more drivel upon the unsuspecting after Memorial Day.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
EDIT: Due to unexpected circumstances, the contest has been extended! Word is that we are up to 90 entries now! Quote from an update by Chgowiz:
"To that effect, we are re-instating all entries that we've rejected in the last 30 hours and will accept new entries until May 21st at 8h00 AM."
So, if you thought you missed the deadline, you haven't! Get to work and make your own One Page Dungeon. Just remember to ignore most of what I wrote above and create your own vision of the ODP format!
I’ve found after decades of writing that my adventures were becoming more and more bloated, to the point that reading a room description in the middle of a game session was interrupting the natural flow of play. If the passage was for a room I had recently devised, the details were still fresh in my memory, so I didn’t need to actually stop and quietly read what I had written. Given the sheer amount of rooms in many of my dungeons, I found that my memory was failing me when the players entered an area that I had written months or sometimes years before. It was during these moments that I didn’t need all of the extraneous information. I needed the important bits, and I needed them quickly. With this consideration in mind, I began to frown on flavorful entries and the ramifications of possible actions which the players might not even consider. I wanted to stop writing to myself, which is what I realized I often did when I was in my creative mode. Essentially I was looking for nothing more than the facts, distilled down to their most concise form. I needed to cut off the fat and get to the meat.
I assumed that if I forcibly limited the amount of text I would allow myself for a given area of a dungeon, I could devise an interesting exercise in economy of words. Somewhere along the way I read a thread over at the OD&D Discussion forums in which Dwayanu mentioned that he likes to draw maps in a 30x30 square area of the graph paper, thus leaving room for a key. This idea helped me formulate the One Page Dungeon concept. I realized that if I attempted to fill a 30x30 section in my normal mapping method, I’d end up with 20-25 numbered areas, and that restricting myself to that single page, I’d force myself to keep to nothing more than the essentials. Furthermore, the end result would be something which anyone could pick up and run with virtually no preparation time.
Now this opened up other notions. In an effort to create a drop dead simple dungeon format, I’d want to include a few tables on the page as well. Tables which would be at the Referee’s fingertips in order to keep play moving quickly, dispensing with the need to leaf through notes or books. Thus I added Wandering Monsters, Restocking, Random Treasure, and a Legend for the map itself.
The one-page layout I designed originally is found in this thread, and is the exact blueprint which Chgowiz was kind enough to duplicate and turn into a user friendly document for me to continue my project. Were it not for Chgowiz, I doubt I would’ve continued with the concept because my first Word experiments proved to be more trouble than they were worth.
I was surprised by the amount of feedback I got in regard to what I considered to be a simple concept. A concept that in fact, unbeknownst to me at the time, has been done before in slightly different forms by other gamers, including this one by Alex Schroeder. In retrospect, I think what made my concept work was the modular format, the inclusion of tables, and of course Chgowiz’s easy to use version of my template.
One of the best D&D web log authors to enter the fray in the past year, Amityville Mike, took to the concept almost immediately. Mike’s Stonehell, shared through his excellent blog The Society of the Torch, Pole and Rope, is the finest example of the concept to be found on the internet, the Dismal Depths included. Granted, Mike realized the limitations of the One Page right away when he began using the concept for his megadungeon. Stonehell is One Page in spirit, and Mike found that allowing for both sides of the page afforded him the space to describe his rooms and ideas with a bit more clarity, and to include even more tables. Nonetheless, Stonehell is still a One Page Dungeon, even though it uses front and back. The design theory is embraced and Mike has made the most of the template I envisioned.
There is good and bad with the concept. The One Page Dungeon approach challenges the author to convey the essentials while still creating an interesting, viable adventure. The very economy of words, the main driving force behind the concept, is also it’s most limiting factor. This is, as I mentioned in my Dismal Depths Guide, an intentional feature of the approach, not a flaw. The adventure is not going to take the Referee by the hand and guide him or her through the dungeon. There are no suggestions or explanations. There is no boxed text to be read aloud to the players. Trappings and mundane features are kept to a minimum. Theme, plot, back story, hooks, rumors and the why of it all are left to the Referee’s own imagination. The area descriptions themselves intentionally allow for creative input on behalf of the Referee. Nay, they demand it. This is what I refer to when I say the concept is not for the timid, nor the inexperienced. This is not Dungeons for Dummies. The challenge is not merely limited to drawing up a One Page Dungeon. The end result must translate into good gaming, and the Referee must be able to bring this out during play while working with limited resources.
Amongst all of my projects since identifying the Empty Room Principle I have found that this One Page Dungeon concept exemplifies it the best. It is one thing to preach, but another to practice what I preach. One of the greatest strengths of the design theory, one which might be lost upon some, is the minimalistic nature therein, this Empty Room Principal. Much like the original D&D rules I've grown to appreciate more and more, the One Page Dungeon engages the Referee's imagination and offers limitless opportunities for personal input. The descriptions are not restrictive, they do not force your hand, and they do not tell you there is only one way to do things. The text is restricted to a few lines for each area, which should be just enough to encourage and inspire.
Although circumstances have delayed much of the design effort I planned to undertake with the megadungeon which kicked this entire theme off, the Dismal Depths, I have been forming ideas and inventing novelties for that project. I hope to able to return to it seriously in the near future. I’m happy with what I’ve created for it thus far, including the Dismal Depths Bestiary and the Dismal Depths Trap Tables. I’d ask that those who have been looking for new Dismal Depths information keep the faith. There is more to come, have no fear. I don’t want to force anything as the dungeon needs to write itself, otherwise it might lose some luster.
Perhaps this article is something I should have written prior to the One Page Dungeon Contest hosted by Chatty DM and Chgowiz. The contest ended last night, and I have printed all 70 entries. If I had been in charge of submissions, I might have placed more limitations on the design theory. I may have had some notion of “This is my idea, and this is how you do it.” For this reason it is probably best that I had nothing to do with setting up and running the contest. I may have enforced certain criteria or insisted upon inclusion of features important to me. In looking over these entries, I can see that restricting anyone’s creativity is a bad thing, and would’ve been contradictory to the very spirit of the concept. The simplest notion is what made this a good contest. Write an actual, usable adventure on a single page, with a map, and be creative. That was all that was needed to design a good entry.
I’m proud that this innocent little concept has been embraced by those beyond the limited reach of my blog here, just as I am satisfied that the idea is not restricted by my personal design theories. It’s quite clear that many of the contestants had a lot of fun with the idea. Some of the One Page Dungeons don’t look anything like the rudimentary lay out I drew up, for that matter, some don’t look like anything I’ve ever seen before. I am left wondering if one of the entries is trying to get a Punk Rock vote from this judge, but I don’t want to leak any more information just yet.
Suffice to say that I am going to be up to my eyeballs in One Page Dungeons for the foreseeable future as I work toward judging these 70 entries. It’s particularly satisfying to see all of these versions of the concept from people who have probably never even heard of me nor read any of my ramblings here.
With that said, I’m signing off for a while for back to back out of town trips in which I’ll be reading and considering these dungeons during downtimes. I should be back to foist more drivel upon the unsuspecting after Memorial Day.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
EDIT: Due to unexpected circumstances, the contest has been extended! Word is that we are up to 90 entries now! Quote from an update by Chgowiz:
"To that effect, we are re-instating all entries that we've rejected in the last 30 hours and will accept new entries until May 21st at 8h00 AM."
So, if you thought you missed the deadline, you haven't! Get to work and make your own One Page Dungeon. Just remember to ignore most of what I wrote above and create your own vision of the ODP format!
Monday, April 20, 2009
D&D Essentials and Concepts
As a follow up to yesterday’s post discussing Truths and Expectations, I wanted to discuss briefly that other list I threw together during my exploration of D&D concepts and categories.
Sham’s Essentials of D&D
1. Characters (Race/Class)
2. Ability Scores
3. Hit Points
4. Experience/Levels
5. Mechanics/Randomization
6. Adventuring Groups
7. Exploration
8. Hazards/Challenges (Monsters/Traps/Tricks, etc)
9. Treasure (Monetary/Magic)
10. Fantasy Setting (Dungeons/Wilderness)
I began thinking about the concept of D&D in earnest when I learned of Dave Arneson’s passing. I hate to admit it, but I suppose it is human nature to react this way. I did the same with Gary’s passing, reflecting upon his body of work and appreciating it more once he was dead than before. Surely there is a term for this state of mind. The sudden realization that there will be no more. It’s rather pathetic, honestly.
As I mentioned before, the above Essentials were all present in Dave Arneson’s formative Blackmoor games (not to be confused with Supplement II, Blackmoor). From what I gather, much of what is considered D&D was defined by Gary Gygax into the form we recognize today. For that matter, Blackmoor was influenced by Gygax’s own Chainmail game. But as far as the nuts and bolts of D&D, I am under the impression that Gygax applied his vast war gaming know-how to Arneson’s Blackmoor features. Not to say that Arneson was not an accomplished war gamer. The fact of the matter is that Gygax was simply better at explaining things with the written word. And he owned a typewriter, as Dave put it.
Gygax’s Greyhawk campaign, which preceded OD&D, was born of Blackmoor. Gary heard about Dave’s Blackmoor game, and that it used some bits of Chainmail, and he witnessed the game for himself. Gygax returned home and began his own Blackmoor inspired game named Greyhawk. Thus Blackmoor and Greyhawk became OD&D when the two agreed to publish some rules. Perhaps it is best that the events transpired this way. Accomplished game writer meets visionary gamer, and the two agree to turn the idea into a reality.
Unfortunately, Arneson’s planned D&D add-on, Supplement II, Blackmoor ended up being something not quite expected. I cannot remember the exact details, but if I have it right Arneson submitted reams of handwritten notes for the Supplement. The story I hear is that it would’ve taken many man hours to make heads or tails out of the disorganized pages. Someone else extracted some bits and threw a book together, but in my opinion really screwed the pooch. Get your hands on Arneson’s First Fantasy Campaign to see what Supplement II probably should have looked like.
Dave later took a position with TSR in what would turn out to be a very short-lived period of employ. It ended rather abruptly, and then the lawsuits began over the future use of the D&D name in other TSR publications. Sadly, history threatens to forget that Dave Arneson created the Essentials of D&D, the concept itself.
The above list must be credited where credit is due. Thank you Dave Arneson for creating and sharing this concept with us. Your presence in the gaming world will be missed, but your impact will never be forgotten. I hope that the next time you log into World of Warcraft, dear reader, you will realize that the concept is all Dave Arneson’s. WoW is an MMO that in fact blends all ten Essentials of D&D together. There would be no such game were it not for that creative college kid from Minnesota who dreamt up the perfect, heady concoction for endless entertainment.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Sham’s Essentials of D&D
1. Characters (Race/Class)
2. Ability Scores
3. Hit Points
4. Experience/Levels
5. Mechanics/Randomization
6. Adventuring Groups
7. Exploration
8. Hazards/Challenges (Monsters/Traps/Tricks, etc)
9. Treasure (Monetary/Magic)
10. Fantasy Setting (Dungeons/Wilderness)
I began thinking about the concept of D&D in earnest when I learned of Dave Arneson’s passing. I hate to admit it, but I suppose it is human nature to react this way. I did the same with Gary’s passing, reflecting upon his body of work and appreciating it more once he was dead than before. Surely there is a term for this state of mind. The sudden realization that there will be no more. It’s rather pathetic, honestly.
As I mentioned before, the above Essentials were all present in Dave Arneson’s formative Blackmoor games (not to be confused with Supplement II, Blackmoor). From what I gather, much of what is considered D&D was defined by Gary Gygax into the form we recognize today. For that matter, Blackmoor was influenced by Gygax’s own Chainmail game. But as far as the nuts and bolts of D&D, I am under the impression that Gygax applied his vast war gaming know-how to Arneson’s Blackmoor features. Not to say that Arneson was not an accomplished war gamer. The fact of the matter is that Gygax was simply better at explaining things with the written word. And he owned a typewriter, as Dave put it.
Gygax’s Greyhawk campaign, which preceded OD&D, was born of Blackmoor. Gary heard about Dave’s Blackmoor game, and that it used some bits of Chainmail, and he witnessed the game for himself. Gygax returned home and began his own Blackmoor inspired game named Greyhawk. Thus Blackmoor and Greyhawk became OD&D when the two agreed to publish some rules. Perhaps it is best that the events transpired this way. Accomplished game writer meets visionary gamer, and the two agree to turn the idea into a reality.
Unfortunately, Arneson’s planned D&D add-on, Supplement II, Blackmoor ended up being something not quite expected. I cannot remember the exact details, but if I have it right Arneson submitted reams of handwritten notes for the Supplement. The story I hear is that it would’ve taken many man hours to make heads or tails out of the disorganized pages. Someone else extracted some bits and threw a book together, but in my opinion really screwed the pooch. Get your hands on Arneson’s First Fantasy Campaign to see what Supplement II probably should have looked like.
Dave later took a position with TSR in what would turn out to be a very short-lived period of employ. It ended rather abruptly, and then the lawsuits began over the future use of the D&D name in other TSR publications. Sadly, history threatens to forget that Dave Arneson created the Essentials of D&D, the concept itself.
The above list must be credited where credit is due. Thank you Dave Arneson for creating and sharing this concept with us. Your presence in the gaming world will be missed, but your impact will never be forgotten. I hope that the next time you log into World of Warcraft, dear reader, you will realize that the concept is all Dave Arneson’s. WoW is an MMO that in fact blends all ten Essentials of D&D together. There would be no such game were it not for that creative college kid from Minnesota who dreamt up the perfect, heady concoction for endless entertainment.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Sunday, April 19, 2009
D&D Truths and Expectations
Having considered D&D conceptually or by name only, and explained labels, titles and expectations with the past three posts, I thought it might be interesting to actually put more emphasis on the lists I threw together along the way. Tomorrow Sham’s Essentials of D&D, and today Sham’s OD&D Truths.
Readers will certainly disagree with my lists, that’s a given. The point of compiling the Truths is not to identify what is or what isn’t OD&D. It’s an effort to share what I think the average devotee expects when a game is labeled OD&D. The missing Truth is of course that the Concept trumps the guidelines, and that everything is open for tinkering. If we push that missing Truth too far, there is no point in labeling our games at all. They’re just D&D then. Therefore Concept is not an OD&D Truth. Concept is the motivating force behind the Essentials. For that matter, the lists could be renamed. Truths could be Expectations, and Essentials could be Concept.
If I merge the lists, in other words if I maintain the Truths and pursue the Essentials, I can end up with a heavily tinkered game of D&D which I can proudly declare to newcomers is in fact OD&D. If I begin by designing my game or campaign with the Essentials first but follow the Truths I’d probably refer to the game as D&D using OD&D as a foundation. If I ignore the Truths and combine the Essentials, it’s pure D&D.
Sham’s OD&D Truths
1. Class and Level based Characters
2. Six Cardinal 3d6 Ability Scores
3. Combat Model (including RTH, HD, HP, AC)
4. Saving Throws
5. Spells and Spell Levels
6. Fantasy Milieu (the world and features)
7. "Fill-in-the-Blanks" Design
One of the Truths, the one added in hindsight, creates an interesting dilemma. Around the gaming table, in your personal game, you will organically grow house rules and features unique to your game. This is a feature of OD&D, that the flexibility of the rules allows the players to define them further. You are fleshing out the skeleton as you play. If you compile all of your tinkering and homebrew, even if you maintain the other six Truths, and publish your campaign, it is no longer OD&D. Why? You’ve filled in the blanks over the years. Around the table, it is OD&D. To an outsider, it is no longer OD&D.
From a purist standpoint, and really there shouldn’t be any purism associated with D&D to begin with, anything you change or add makes OD&D something else when taken away from the game table. All bets are off. For example, I create a complex system to handle something not covered in OD&D, but I continue to maintain the Truths. Perhaps I made a six page tactical Combat Procedure. I still used the Combat Model, with RTH, HD, HP and AC, but I went into great depth and homebrewed many unique, complicated rules.
As far as I’m concerned, this is the height of the D&D concept. I relish seeing other referees’ own house rules and tinkering methods. They can call it OD&D around their own gaming table, but if the envelope is pushed too far, from a (cringe) purist standpoint, it is no longer OD&D. BUT, it IS D&D.
It’s amazing what that little O means to many people. And, admittedly, to me at times.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Readers will certainly disagree with my lists, that’s a given. The point of compiling the Truths is not to identify what is or what isn’t OD&D. It’s an effort to share what I think the average devotee expects when a game is labeled OD&D. The missing Truth is of course that the Concept trumps the guidelines, and that everything is open for tinkering. If we push that missing Truth too far, there is no point in labeling our games at all. They’re just D&D then. Therefore Concept is not an OD&D Truth. Concept is the motivating force behind the Essentials. For that matter, the lists could be renamed. Truths could be Expectations, and Essentials could be Concept.
If I merge the lists, in other words if I maintain the Truths and pursue the Essentials, I can end up with a heavily tinkered game of D&D which I can proudly declare to newcomers is in fact OD&D. If I begin by designing my game or campaign with the Essentials first but follow the Truths I’d probably refer to the game as D&D using OD&D as a foundation. If I ignore the Truths and combine the Essentials, it’s pure D&D.
Sham’s OD&D Truths
1. Class and Level based Characters
2. Six Cardinal 3d6 Ability Scores
3. Combat Model (including RTH, HD, HP, AC)
4. Saving Throws
5. Spells and Spell Levels
6. Fantasy Milieu (the world and features)
7. "Fill-in-the-Blanks" Design
One of the Truths, the one added in hindsight, creates an interesting dilemma. Around the gaming table, in your personal game, you will organically grow house rules and features unique to your game. This is a feature of OD&D, that the flexibility of the rules allows the players to define them further. You are fleshing out the skeleton as you play. If you compile all of your tinkering and homebrew, even if you maintain the other six Truths, and publish your campaign, it is no longer OD&D. Why? You’ve filled in the blanks over the years. Around the table, it is OD&D. To an outsider, it is no longer OD&D.
From a purist standpoint, and really there shouldn’t be any purism associated with D&D to begin with, anything you change or add makes OD&D something else when taken away from the game table. All bets are off. For example, I create a complex system to handle something not covered in OD&D, but I continue to maintain the Truths. Perhaps I made a six page tactical Combat Procedure. I still used the Combat Model, with RTH, HD, HP and AC, but I went into great depth and homebrewed many unique, complicated rules.
As far as I’m concerned, this is the height of the D&D concept. I relish seeing other referees’ own house rules and tinkering methods. They can call it OD&D around their own gaming table, but if the envelope is pushed too far, from a (cringe) purist standpoint, it is no longer OD&D. BUT, it IS D&D.
It’s amazing what that little O means to many people. And, admittedly, to me at times.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Saturday, April 18, 2009
More My D&D
My two most recent entries concerning D&D served to share some of my own evolving theories and opinions about the game. This post revisits a topic I wrote about last year; the question of at what point does tinkering with OD&D turn it into something else? This is one of the problems with using specific labels and titles for your D&D games. As soon as you declare an edition, players will have certain expectations for your game.
I’m aware that my own D&D essentials are not shared by other fans of the game. There are certain features, even in OD&D, that translate to “D&D” for the players. If I tackle the essential categories I shared in the last entry, and homebrew each by tinkering and reworking the rules, I’m certain that other OD&D devotees would say my game is no longer OD&D. As far as I’m concerned, it is still D&D, but this is only due to the fact that I approach the game more so now than ever from the conceptual side. The concept is what I have come to appreciate more than the framework of guidelines presented in 1974.
My point is that by utilizing an exact edition title, I am presumably enforcing more narrowly focused parameters. Even by using the OD&D tag. This theme has been visited by a few threads over at Finarvyn’s OD&D site in the past year. Here, here and here.
But how much tinkering can you get away with and still call your game OD&D? If you fool with it too much you’ll be better served just calling it D&D. Or making up some new name and pretending it’s NOT D&D, even though everyone knows it is. There are countless examples of NOT D&D out there, and everyone knows while they might not be D&D by Name, they are Conceptually D&D. That is, they combine the Essentials of D&D and claim to be some new game.
Apparently, Dave Arneson was the first to define and combine these essential elements in his original Blackmoor games. With Gary Gygax’s input, expertise and organizational skills, the two were able to create D&D. How much of it was Arneson and how much of it was Gygax I’m not sure, but I do find it interesting that the Ten Essentials I wrote in the last post were evident in Arneson's formative Blackmoor. Nonetheless, D&D introduced the concept and this blend of features which still has game geeks such as me writing about it 35 years later.
As usual, I digress. The question at hand is how much tinkering can you do and still call your game OD&D? Last year I summarized some OD&D Truths:
1. Class based Character progression
2. d20 Combat Model
3. Rules as a 'skeleton'
4. Six Cardinal Character Abilities
Yes on Class based Character progression. Yes on Six Cardinal Character Abilities. No on d20 Combat Model. I can use Chainmail 2d6 as well, but I think the point was using the whole Armor Class, Roll to Hit, Hit Dice system, or some reasonable facsimile. So Yes to that. Rules as a ‘skeleton’ is kind of the entire point to this post. Having Rules as a ‘skeleton’ as a truth serves to remind players that the referee will be fleshing out the guidelines and filling in the gaps prior to or during play.
But what about changing OD&D? Even the category OD&D can mean many things. My OD&D game might be limited to Volumes I-III and my homebrew additions, or it might include the Supplements and The Dragon articles. Supplement I, Greyhawk, blew up a lot of the conventions introduced in the first three volumes.
Rules as a ‘skeleton’ looks to be the most important truth now that I look back at that post. But aren’t there other nuances or features found in OD&D that come to be expected in a game described as such? What might those be? Saving Throws. Hit Dice and Hit Points. Spells and Spell Levels. Armor Class.
I can’t think of much else. To make it feel like D&D of course we set it in a fantasy milieu with Classes, Races, Monsters and Treasure that fit that particular theme. A theme which can be tailored or taken from the books.
Sham’s OD&D Truths
1. Class and Level based Characters
2. Six Cardinal 3d6 Ability Scores
3. Combat Model (including RTH, HD, HP, AC)
4. Saving Throws
5. Spells and Spell Levels
6. Fantasy Milieu (the world and features)
7. "Fill-in-the-Blanks" Design
Unlike Sham’s Ten Essentials of D&D, the above Truths are to be used as presented in the original volumes for the game to be called OD&D. These aren't simply categories or features which need to be present, but Truths that should be followed as presented in OD&D. I added number 7 in hindsight, but it's a vital Truth which is spelled out in a few places in OD&D.
Damn it, now there I go trying to label someone else’s game of OD&D.
Remember, no one can tell you how to play D&D. Let the above serve to remind you what outsiders might expect when you tell them you are running a game of OD&D. For what it’s worth, just make mine D&D. As long as I can explore dark labyrinths, trackless wastes, gloomy hollows or lost cities while not becoming some nameless horror's lunch all in the name of gold and glory, I’m in! That’s D&D.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
I’m aware that my own D&D essentials are not shared by other fans of the game. There are certain features, even in OD&D, that translate to “D&D” for the players. If I tackle the essential categories I shared in the last entry, and homebrew each by tinkering and reworking the rules, I’m certain that other OD&D devotees would say my game is no longer OD&D. As far as I’m concerned, it is still D&D, but this is only due to the fact that I approach the game more so now than ever from the conceptual side. The concept is what I have come to appreciate more than the framework of guidelines presented in 1974.
My point is that by utilizing an exact edition title, I am presumably enforcing more narrowly focused parameters. Even by using the OD&D tag. This theme has been visited by a few threads over at Finarvyn’s OD&D site in the past year. Here, here and here.
But how much tinkering can you get away with and still call your game OD&D? If you fool with it too much you’ll be better served just calling it D&D. Or making up some new name and pretending it’s NOT D&D, even though everyone knows it is. There are countless examples of NOT D&D out there, and everyone knows while they might not be D&D by Name, they are Conceptually D&D. That is, they combine the Essentials of D&D and claim to be some new game.
Apparently, Dave Arneson was the first to define and combine these essential elements in his original Blackmoor games. With Gary Gygax’s input, expertise and organizational skills, the two were able to create D&D. How much of it was Arneson and how much of it was Gygax I’m not sure, but I do find it interesting that the Ten Essentials I wrote in the last post were evident in Arneson's formative Blackmoor. Nonetheless, D&D introduced the concept and this blend of features which still has game geeks such as me writing about it 35 years later.
As usual, I digress. The question at hand is how much tinkering can you do and still call your game OD&D? Last year I summarized some OD&D Truths:
1. Class based Character progression
2. d20 Combat Model
3. Rules as a 'skeleton'
4. Six Cardinal Character Abilities
Yes on Class based Character progression. Yes on Six Cardinal Character Abilities. No on d20 Combat Model. I can use Chainmail 2d6 as well, but I think the point was using the whole Armor Class, Roll to Hit, Hit Dice system, or some reasonable facsimile. So Yes to that. Rules as a ‘skeleton’ is kind of the entire point to this post. Having Rules as a ‘skeleton’ as a truth serves to remind players that the referee will be fleshing out the guidelines and filling in the gaps prior to or during play.
But what about changing OD&D? Even the category OD&D can mean many things. My OD&D game might be limited to Volumes I-III and my homebrew additions, or it might include the Supplements and The Dragon articles. Supplement I, Greyhawk, blew up a lot of the conventions introduced in the first three volumes.
Rules as a ‘skeleton’ looks to be the most important truth now that I look back at that post. But aren’t there other nuances or features found in OD&D that come to be expected in a game described as such? What might those be? Saving Throws. Hit Dice and Hit Points. Spells and Spell Levels. Armor Class.
I can’t think of much else. To make it feel like D&D of course we set it in a fantasy milieu with Classes, Races, Monsters and Treasure that fit that particular theme. A theme which can be tailored or taken from the books.
Sham’s OD&D Truths
1. Class and Level based Characters
2. Six Cardinal 3d6 Ability Scores
3. Combat Model (including RTH, HD, HP, AC)
4. Saving Throws
5. Spells and Spell Levels
6. Fantasy Milieu (the world and features)
7. "Fill-in-the-Blanks" Design
Unlike Sham’s Ten Essentials of D&D, the above Truths are to be used as presented in the original volumes for the game to be called OD&D. These aren't simply categories or features which need to be present, but Truths that should be followed as presented in OD&D. I added number 7 in hindsight, but it's a vital Truth which is spelled out in a few places in OD&D.
Damn it, now there I go trying to label someone else’s game of OD&D.
Remember, no one can tell you how to play D&D. Let the above serve to remind you what outsiders might expect when you tell them you are running a game of OD&D. For what it’s worth, just make mine D&D. As long as I can explore dark labyrinths, trackless wastes, gloomy hollows or lost cities while not becoming some nameless horror's lunch all in the name of gold and glory, I’m in! That’s D&D.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Friday, April 17, 2009
My D&D
As everyone knows I am not a slave to the rules. My favorite aspect of D&D is making things up. Now that I have learned the concept, the one introduced by D&D to the gaming world in 1974, I don’t need to ever spend another penny on anything to continue playing the game for the rest of my life. Everything I create and run using this concept is D&D to me.
Let’s pretend that I learned how to play D&D in 1974. I paid particular attention to the Introduction in Volume I, Men & Magic, and the words: “[These rules] provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity - your time and imagination are about the only limiting factors…”. Notice that the quote says game and not world or campaign. So I grasped the concept and never, ever picked up another game book from TSR or any other RPG company.
The game I end up playing, let’s say three decades later, is D&D to me and my players. Others might see strange house rules and unconventional interpretations, and to them it might not appear to be D&D at all. Such an observation from an outsider would be an opinion based on subsequent events, those that occurred after 1974. Observations based on 35 years of game evolution which have brought about expectations and the need for labels and categories. If my make believe game no longer uses dice, hit points, alignment or character classes, it is still D&D in so far as the original concept was presented over three decade ago.
This is an extreme, unrealistic example of the concept, but one which serves to support the adage that every RPG is really just a house ruled game of D&D.
I like to call my D&D exactly that, D&D; and I like to call my other games by their titles: Gamma World, Traveller, Call of Cthulhu, and so forth. So what exactly then is D&D to me? Is it little more than simply the role-playing game concept that it created? As I’ve mentioned before, D&D could’ve been published with no more than a dozen pages from Men & Magic. The amount of pre-game work required by the referee would have been problematic for beginners, to be sure, so the other 100 or so remaining pages in OD&D filled out some of the details for referees. As far as I’m concerned, those “other 100” pages are no more than examples of what a referee can do with D&D.
If I had to distill my D&D down to the essentials, the list would look something like this:
Sham’s Essentials of D&D
1. Characters (Race/Class)
2. Ability Scores
3. Hit Points
4. Experience/Levels
5. Mechanics/Randomization
6. Adventuring Groups
7. Exploration
8. Hazards/Challenges (Monsters/Traps/Tricks, etc)
9. Treasure (Monetary/Magic)
10. Fantasy Setting (Dungeons/Wilderness)
If hard pressed, it comes down to Characters, Mechanics, and Environment. I added the other features which I feel are hard coded into the game. If I left the list simply at Characters, Mechanics, and Environment, I just described every RPG ever made. But hey, that IS the concept. It’s Distilled D&D.
As long as a game embraces these elements I would consider it D&D. And I suppose even a game with no Dungeons at all could still be D&D, even though it pains me to admit that.
Keep in mind that when I say distill my D&D down to the essentials and list categories such as Class or Monsters, it does not mean that one needs to use the published entries. On the contrary, what I am trying to clarify is that the only aspect required is the category itself. I can take these categories and completely homebrew each. If I mix them all together the end result is still D&D as far as I’m concerned.
Being D&D “as far as I’m concerned” doesn’t amount to a hill of beans to others, though. The question then becomes is it D&D in Name Only? If I’ve been running that imaginary D&D game, letting it evolve and change over the past 35 years, I might have something which would be considered D&D only conceptually. I’ve bought into the concept, but I’ve changed or overhauled every guideline found in Men & Magic. The modern term for the above example might be Homebrew D&D, but that’s a rather loose, catchall category.
To me, it is still D&D. Anything which combines the Essentials of D&D is, by all rights, D&D.
What does D&D mean to you?
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Let’s pretend that I learned how to play D&D in 1974. I paid particular attention to the Introduction in Volume I, Men & Magic, and the words: “[These rules] provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity - your time and imagination are about the only limiting factors…”. Notice that the quote says game and not world or campaign. So I grasped the concept and never, ever picked up another game book from TSR or any other RPG company.
The game I end up playing, let’s say three decades later, is D&D to me and my players. Others might see strange house rules and unconventional interpretations, and to them it might not appear to be D&D at all. Such an observation from an outsider would be an opinion based on subsequent events, those that occurred after 1974. Observations based on 35 years of game evolution which have brought about expectations and the need for labels and categories. If my make believe game no longer uses dice, hit points, alignment or character classes, it is still D&D in so far as the original concept was presented over three decade ago.
This is an extreme, unrealistic example of the concept, but one which serves to support the adage that every RPG is really just a house ruled game of D&D.
I like to call my D&D exactly that, D&D; and I like to call my other games by their titles: Gamma World, Traveller, Call of Cthulhu, and so forth. So what exactly then is D&D to me? Is it little more than simply the role-playing game concept that it created? As I’ve mentioned before, D&D could’ve been published with no more than a dozen pages from Men & Magic. The amount of pre-game work required by the referee would have been problematic for beginners, to be sure, so the other 100 or so remaining pages in OD&D filled out some of the details for referees. As far as I’m concerned, those “other 100” pages are no more than examples of what a referee can do with D&D.
If I had to distill my D&D down to the essentials, the list would look something like this:
Sham’s Essentials of D&D
1. Characters (Race/Class)
2. Ability Scores
3. Hit Points
4. Experience/Levels
5. Mechanics/Randomization
6. Adventuring Groups
7. Exploration
8. Hazards/Challenges (Monsters/Traps/Tricks, etc)
9. Treasure (Monetary/Magic)
10. Fantasy Setting (Dungeons/Wilderness)
If hard pressed, it comes down to Characters, Mechanics, and Environment. I added the other features which I feel are hard coded into the game. If I left the list simply at Characters, Mechanics, and Environment, I just described every RPG ever made. But hey, that IS the concept. It’s Distilled D&D.
As long as a game embraces these elements I would consider it D&D. And I suppose even a game with no Dungeons at all could still be D&D, even though it pains me to admit that.
Keep in mind that when I say distill my D&D down to the essentials and list categories such as Class or Monsters, it does not mean that one needs to use the published entries. On the contrary, what I am trying to clarify is that the only aspect required is the category itself. I can take these categories and completely homebrew each. If I mix them all together the end result is still D&D as far as I’m concerned.
Being D&D “as far as I’m concerned” doesn’t amount to a hill of beans to others, though. The question then becomes is it D&D in Name Only? If I’ve been running that imaginary D&D game, letting it evolve and change over the past 35 years, I might have something which would be considered D&D only conceptually. I’ve bought into the concept, but I’ve changed or overhauled every guideline found in Men & Magic. The modern term for the above example might be Homebrew D&D, but that’s a rather loose, catchall category.
To me, it is still D&D. Anything which combines the Essentials of D&D is, by all rights, D&D.
What does D&D mean to you?
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Thursday, April 16, 2009
It's all D&D to me
Longtime readers will recall my posts from last year wherein I spoke about how we played D&D back in the early days. D&D was a catchall term describing whatever edition was being used at the time. At one point back then, the following editions were being actively used by various players: OD&D, AD&D 1E, Holmes Basic D&D, Moldvay/Cook D&D. One could easily move between editions with no issue whatsoever. Most players eventually graduated to AD&D 1E as it was nice owning the large hardcover books. The thing is, due to the methods by which most of us learned to play, few if any really played AD&D 1E by the book. It was just D&D.
The most obvious rules differences in each game of D&D had little to do with edition at all. All of the above mentioned versions had a shared concept which was clearly understood by all involved. Players didn’t seek out particular editions simply because there wasn’t that much of a difference between the way they were used back then. The variations came from the individual Dungeon Masters. It was commonly accepted that each game would have house rules and unique interpretations. I cannot recall many players at that point who cared to point a finger and say “Hey, this isn’t AD&D here!”. It was just D&D. It wasn’t until years later that I encountered rules lawyers who probably knew nothing besides AD&D 1E. Sure I used those hardcover books more than any other in all of my campaigns because they were very useful, but really we could’ve run our campaigns without them just as successfully.
As a culture we feel compelled to categorize and label everything. It’s a requirement when there becomes a proliferation of any item. From art to music, and even D&D now, there is a need to fit things under a title simply to keep them organized. D&D appears to have these categories covered since the editions all have their own names, so it’s not quite the same as pigeonholing music into the Bluegrass category, or Art under the Cubist movement. It’s just that now, with the multitude of editions, there is a need to clarify what is meant when one says D&D.
It’s not enough to simply say D&D anymore. We have managed to classify the versions by edition. For better or worse, we pigeonhole the grand old game of D&D into nice, neat categories. I always played a hodge-podge game, with influences from various early editions, as well as additions from whatever seemed useful or inspirational at the time. Such influences included not only Arduin but later even things from Dark Sun and The Forgotten Realms. I knew no other way to play D&D. Nothing was forbidden, nothing was sacred, and nothing was off-limits or out of bounds. If I wanted to bring some Fascist Ninja Wombats with powers derived from the Champions game, I did so. It was still D&D.
No one should be able to tell you how to play D&D. Each game should feel unique. The experience should be different from one GM to another, and from one play group to another. That is one of the endearing aspects of the game, in my opinion. It’s probably exactly why we were never specific about our games. It was D&D. We didn’t come out and declare we were playing OD&D, or Holmes Basic. We were simply rolling dice and exploring our imaginations.
When pressed about my favorite edition, I answer OD&D. The reasons are simple and quite clear to me now. OD&D exemplifies the pure concept better than any other version. I can get away with a lot more and still declare that I am running OD&D. The original volumes are littered with reminders that the rules are simply guidelines; that each referee should be running the game his or her way. Imagination, creativity and flexibility are the cornerstones of OD&D.
Surely at some point, if you declare you are running OD&D, though, even with these notions ingrained in those little brown books, you are opening yourself up to scrutiny. It’s best to just call it D&D.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
The most obvious rules differences in each game of D&D had little to do with edition at all. All of the above mentioned versions had a shared concept which was clearly understood by all involved. Players didn’t seek out particular editions simply because there wasn’t that much of a difference between the way they were used back then. The variations came from the individual Dungeon Masters. It was commonly accepted that each game would have house rules and unique interpretations. I cannot recall many players at that point who cared to point a finger and say “Hey, this isn’t AD&D here!”. It was just D&D. It wasn’t until years later that I encountered rules lawyers who probably knew nothing besides AD&D 1E. Sure I used those hardcover books more than any other in all of my campaigns because they were very useful, but really we could’ve run our campaigns without them just as successfully.
As a culture we feel compelled to categorize and label everything. It’s a requirement when there becomes a proliferation of any item. From art to music, and even D&D now, there is a need to fit things under a title simply to keep them organized. D&D appears to have these categories covered since the editions all have their own names, so it’s not quite the same as pigeonholing music into the Bluegrass category, or Art under the Cubist movement. It’s just that now, with the multitude of editions, there is a need to clarify what is meant when one says D&D.
It’s not enough to simply say D&D anymore. We have managed to classify the versions by edition. For better or worse, we pigeonhole the grand old game of D&D into nice, neat categories. I always played a hodge-podge game, with influences from various early editions, as well as additions from whatever seemed useful or inspirational at the time. Such influences included not only Arduin but later even things from Dark Sun and The Forgotten Realms. I knew no other way to play D&D. Nothing was forbidden, nothing was sacred, and nothing was off-limits or out of bounds. If I wanted to bring some Fascist Ninja Wombats with powers derived from the Champions game, I did so. It was still D&D.
No one should be able to tell you how to play D&D. Each game should feel unique. The experience should be different from one GM to another, and from one play group to another. That is one of the endearing aspects of the game, in my opinion. It’s probably exactly why we were never specific about our games. It was D&D. We didn’t come out and declare we were playing OD&D, or Holmes Basic. We were simply rolling dice and exploring our imaginations.
When pressed about my favorite edition, I answer OD&D. The reasons are simple and quite clear to me now. OD&D exemplifies the pure concept better than any other version. I can get away with a lot more and still declare that I am running OD&D. The original volumes are littered with reminders that the rules are simply guidelines; that each referee should be running the game his or her way. Imagination, creativity and flexibility are the cornerstones of OD&D.
Surely at some point, if you declare you are running OD&D, though, even with these notions ingrained in those little brown books, you are opening yourself up to scrutiny. It’s best to just call it D&D.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Monday, March 9, 2009
Dice Withdrawal
I didn't play any games or D&D at all this past weekend. Not Friday, Saturday nor Sunday. It was such nice weather I ended up spending the weekend outside doing family stuff. I'm definitely ready for Springtime. My 14 year old's team moves back outdoors soon, and I agreed with his coach at practice on Sunday that the boys are getting cabin fever and itching for some fresh air themselves.It struck me sometime this past weekend that I could introduce the use of my old 1E dice that have become useless with my adoption of pre-Greyhawk Dungeons & Dragons. Specifically the d8, d10 and d12, and use them in some fashion rather than simply for referee tables like custom Wandering Monsters.
Consider that all weapons in OD&D deal 1d6 damage. Magic Swords do not deal any extra damage except to specific targets as detailed in their item descriptions. This is a trade-off, as OD&D Magic Swords are still potentially the most potent melee weapons due to mental powers and communicative abilities. Other miscellaneous magic weapons normally add their magical plus to damage as well as rolls to hit.
Recently I have house ruled that all magic weapons function like swords, with the additonal rule that any magic weapon allows the user to roll two dice for damage, using the higher result. In practice this has proven to be a fun method, as throwing more dice normally is. But what of the d8, d10 and d12?
The average roll from a d6 is 3.5, as everyone knows. Considering that average and the unused polyhedrons in my collection, I realized that increasing the 3.5 average by one in three steps of 4.5, 5.5 and 6.5 essentially replicates +1, +2 and +3 to damage that magic non-sword weapons of those types would normally deal in the original rules.
I can go two ways with this. All magic weapons roll two dice, using the higher result. A minor bonus for +1 weapons. I could tinker with this and allow three and four dice for +2 and +3 weapons, respectively, if I wanted to increase the average damage of those more powerful weapons. The maximum damage is still 6, but results of 6 would be much more frequent.
The other method which introduces those neglected dice works out as follows:
Normal weapons average 3.5, use 1d6.
+1 weapons average 4.5, use 1d8.
+2 weapons average 5.5, use 1d10.
+3 weapons average 6.5, use 1d12.
The average damage does not change with the new dice, they simply increase the numeric range. So simple I wonder why I never thought of this until now. Players might hate rolling a result of "1" with a +3 weapon that deals 1d12, but would cheer each time a "12" popped up.
I'll have to play test this somehow, but unfortunately the only magic weapons in my current game are +1. I still love a d6 dominated game, with d20 relegated to attacks and saving throws, but the idea of reintroducing those other three is tempting, if only on this somewhat limited basis.
The burning question is, of course, what to do with that damned d4. Perhaps reserve it for Cursed -1 Weapons? It does average -1 damage, or 2.5. I'm probably the only one who never realized before how this average for the dice moves along a straight line in single increments. This would be a bit of homebrew, of course, as the only cursed weapon in OD&D is the Sword, Cursed -2. As we know for Swords in OD&D that modifier only applies to the attack roll.
Don't ask about +4 weapons. As of right now there simply aren't any. Which is a good thing as I don't own any d14s. The end result is I don't see myself moving away from a heavy d6 game. I do enjoy playing with numbers, though. I think the more dice method for magic weapons is how I'll continue and move forward, and give a thought about adding an extra die for +2 and +3 weapons. Those other four dice types will probably continue to beg me to play some 1E while they languish on the sidelines.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Coattails 3
Although this might be a perpetual series of Grognardia links; I feel that these are topics worth rambling about.
James M recently posted a review of S3: Expedition to the Barrier Peaks; a personal favorite of mine due to its unconventional contents.
Here’s the thing. From a wargamer’s approach, S3 is within the bounds of balance. The controversy that surrounds a sci-fi adventure in D&D is due more to the original direction (and in my own personal opinion, mistake) taken in the writing of D&D. The fact is that TSR missed the boat in making D&D D&D.
The approach should have been the game concept that was defined by D&D, and not the fantasy milieu.
Whether you are taking 1d6 damage from a Goblin’s spear, from a Mutants Eye-Beam, from a Vege-Pygmy’s Laser Gun, or from a KGB Agent’s PPK should be irrelevant. The point should be that your character is in danger…that and nothing more.
Inspirations, influences and milieus be damned.
The point is that there are obstacles and threats to your character; overcoming those threats is your objective.
To quote Mr. Gygax:
“…the scope need not be restricted to the medieval…”
It is, after all, a game of dice, tables and decisions.
In other words, 6d6 damage from a Plasma Cannon is the same as 6d6 damage from a Dragon‘s Fiery Breath. That’s a wargamer’s outlook at least.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
James M recently posted a review of S3: Expedition to the Barrier Peaks; a personal favorite of mine due to its unconventional contents.
Here’s the thing. From a wargamer’s approach, S3 is within the bounds of balance. The controversy that surrounds a sci-fi adventure in D&D is due more to the original direction (and in my own personal opinion, mistake) taken in the writing of D&D. The fact is that TSR missed the boat in making D&D D&D.
The approach should have been the game concept that was defined by D&D, and not the fantasy milieu.
Whether you are taking 1d6 damage from a Goblin’s spear, from a Mutants Eye-Beam, from a Vege-Pygmy’s Laser Gun, or from a KGB Agent’s PPK should be irrelevant. The point should be that your character is in danger…that and nothing more.
Inspirations, influences and milieus be damned.
The point is that there are obstacles and threats to your character; overcoming those threats is your objective.
To quote Mr. Gygax:
“…the scope need not be restricted to the medieval…”
It is, after all, a game of dice, tables and decisions.
In other words, 6d6 damage from a Plasma Cannon is the same as 6d6 damage from a Dragon‘s Fiery Breath. That’s a wargamer’s outlook at least.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Friday, November 28, 2008
Coattails 2
I’m doing it again; riding on the coattails of the effusive author of Grognardia. Inspired by more ruminations on the Dungeons and Hobbits post, I want to speak to fantasy influences and D&D.
I took up D&D at age 12. At that time, I had read relatively little in the way of fantasy books. I remember that my fantasy achievements at that time included C.S. Lewis, de Camp and Pratt, and Lewis Carroll. I had not yet tackled Tolkien nor Howard nor Lovecraft.
I had, though, played more than my fair share of Avalon Hill and SPI games thanks to my older brother. I had no idea what the term ‘pulp’ meant; nor that there was even such a term. I was actually introduced to Tolkien via other D&D players!
All I know was that I had stumbled upon a game that offered creative potential and no boundaries. I think that discovering the game in this order of events made me perpetually 'old-school'.
To me, it's OK that a game of D&D has 'quirks' that may not seem realistic or make sense, but are born of a certain wargamer mentality. For example, the fact that all doors are stuck or locked for PC's, but open without effort for all Monsters. That is a wargamer ideal, and it makes sense to me, a former wargamer who doesn't fret over verisimilitude.
D&D, as originally conceived, was not bogged down by concerns of realism. It was a ‘game’ in the true sense of the word. The concept of D&D was totally foreign and original. It was a game in which a referee created and directed a world designed to challenge the other gamers. Over the course of multiple sessions, those players took their characters to greater heights and accomplishments; rewards that reflected a players competency and resourcefulness.
Perhaps this is why I have come full circle to OD&D. It is first and foremost a game. It doesn’t get bogged down in realism. Game balance and challenges are more of a concern than creating realism.
The notion of realism came later. BUT, the concept was born with D&D.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
I took up D&D at age 12. At that time, I had read relatively little in the way of fantasy books. I remember that my fantasy achievements at that time included C.S. Lewis, de Camp and Pratt, and Lewis Carroll. I had not yet tackled Tolkien nor Howard nor Lovecraft.
I had, though, played more than my fair share of Avalon Hill and SPI games thanks to my older brother. I had no idea what the term ‘pulp’ meant; nor that there was even such a term. I was actually introduced to Tolkien via other D&D players!
All I know was that I had stumbled upon a game that offered creative potential and no boundaries. I think that discovering the game in this order of events made me perpetually 'old-school'.
To me, it's OK that a game of D&D has 'quirks' that may not seem realistic or make sense, but are born of a certain wargamer mentality. For example, the fact that all doors are stuck or locked for PC's, but open without effort for all Monsters. That is a wargamer ideal, and it makes sense to me, a former wargamer who doesn't fret over verisimilitude.
D&D, as originally conceived, was not bogged down by concerns of realism. It was a ‘game’ in the true sense of the word. The concept of D&D was totally foreign and original. It was a game in which a referee created and directed a world designed to challenge the other gamers. Over the course of multiple sessions, those players took their characters to greater heights and accomplishments; rewards that reflected a players competency and resourcefulness.
Perhaps this is why I have come full circle to OD&D. It is first and foremost a game. It doesn’t get bogged down in realism. Game balance and challenges are more of a concern than creating realism.
The notion of realism came later. BUT, the concept was born with D&D.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Coattails
A few recent posts over at Grognardia have inspired me to coattail on the maestro that is the author of that well read blog.
First up is JRR Tolkien and the notion of influence or inspiration garnered by the authors of D&D from the titles The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings.
I just want to take the time to echo my own theory on the D&D concept and how it might have been better served as a generic game concept by explicitly disassociating itself from any particular genre.
What should be the thrust of D&D is the notion of individuals overcoming obstacles and gaining experience in a world conceived by a referee; the same referee who creates and administers the milieu in which the characters find themselves. This is the concept of D&D, and is the gaming convention that we should all appreciate and celebrate.
It doesn’t matter whether that milieu is fantasy, sci-fi, horror or super-hero (or a combination thereof). The fact is, D&D was and will always be the notion of taking the make-believe into the realm of gaming and campaigns.
Screw JRR Tolkien and Robert E freekin’ Howard. Welcome to Role-Playing, brought to you by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. Now roll some dice and have some fun.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
First up is JRR Tolkien and the notion of influence or inspiration garnered by the authors of D&D from the titles The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings.
I just want to take the time to echo my own theory on the D&D concept and how it might have been better served as a generic game concept by explicitly disassociating itself from any particular genre.
What should be the thrust of D&D is the notion of individuals overcoming obstacles and gaining experience in a world conceived by a referee; the same referee who creates and administers the milieu in which the characters find themselves. This is the concept of D&D, and is the gaming convention that we should all appreciate and celebrate.
It doesn’t matter whether that milieu is fantasy, sci-fi, horror or super-hero (or a combination thereof). The fact is, D&D was and will always be the notion of taking the make-believe into the realm of gaming and campaigns.
Screw JRR Tolkien and Robert E freekin’ Howard. Welcome to Role-Playing, brought to you by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. Now roll some dice and have some fun.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Sunday, October 12, 2008
MMO Blueprint
1974 to the present. 34 years and counting. In 1974 Gygax and Arneson published the first version of this FRP concept, and are widely credited with creating it (although earlier, less refined forms certainly existed prior to 1974). Dungeons & Dragons took the gaming world by storm, and the starting point for the form had now been clearly marked.Fast forward to 2008. Computers have of course become the gaming medium of choice. It’s a no-brainer, really. And thanks to the internet, the entire concept of gathering fellow gamers together for face to face gaming seems almost arduous. The modern form of FRP, nee D&D, is the Massive Multiplayer Online fantasy game. In fact, I would bet that World of Warcraft today currently has more players than D&D had at any one time in it’s glorious history. Playing a computer game is, well, somehow more accepted than gathering your buddies together in the basement, rolling dice, speaking in funny voices, and grazing on cheese curls and cola for an entire afternoon or evening.
This is neither a pro nor a con post. I do enjoy computer games, and I know that MMO's aren’t truly role playing as the term was originally set forth. Now, ‘role playing’, to the younger generations, simply means a game in which you control a single avatar, and progress through various challenges while accumulating wealth and power. It was a rude awakening when someone told me their favorite role playing game was Final Fantasy…“But, that’s a console game…isn’t it?” I retorted, naively.
It’s just that, well, computer gaming is easier.
Other than the medium, FRP hasn’t truly changed THAT much since 1974. The way the rules are applied, the sheer amount of rules, the published material available; yes, all of these things have evolved. But nothing has truly changed that much, in reality. The basic concept is still, and always will be, the same. Play a character, gain treasure and experience, feel good about overcoming obstacles (whether alone, in groups, face to face, across the internet, or in the basement). I’ve come to accept this over the years, despite my earliest protestations.
I look back with pride knowing that I was in on it in the early days. In fact, if given the choice in 1979, pen and paper or computer, I think the choice would’ve been easy. There was no such choice then, thankfully. I might have missed what was in fact a revolution in gaming. I was in on the computer thing, as well, and I am happy that Dungeons & Dragons preceded computer gaming. Why? I don’t think the game would’ve been able to grow and prosper as it has. Dungeons & Dragons, when played the way it was meant to be played, can never really fit into a boxed computer DVD game.
Nevertheless, I still enjoy seeing and experiencing the divergent path that the computer game versions of FRP have taken. In my own humble opinion, it’s to the point now that WotC is looking to MMO's for cues on how to increase profits. Which is fine, if that’s your thing go for it and I’m sure your gaming group will be able to make as many lasting memories of face to face, pen and paper gaming as my friends and I did back in the years BC (Before Computer).
The fact is, as computer games progress, the actual freedom afforded players under the truest form becomes more and more narrow. The pinnacle of MMO's (aside from Player vs. Player) is Raiding. Raiding is the antithesis of player freedom. Success in Raiding is dependant upon very exacting standards, and trial and error before a routine is established. Computer games are also all about repetition. And don’t get me started on player death in D&D vs. player death in computer games. But I digress.
The FRP evolution to which I speak now is the Archetypes. The D&D three-pronged crown of Fighting Man-Magic User-Cleric is essential to all of these MMO's. In fact, I sit in amazement now looking at how this innocent little trilogy published in 1974 basically set in stone the blueprint for all MMO's, even 34 years later. Wow, indeed. Add in a few fluff classes for flavor and variety to sustain player interest, and you have the basic MMO model. Tank-Caster-Healer. With Support and Hybrid classes on the periphery to supplement, fill-in or fight for spots in a group or Raid.
The bottom line is that you need these three archetypes to succeed in the most demanding parts of MMO's. Someone to take the brunt of the damage (Tank), someone to dish out lots of damage or control the encounter (Caster), and someone to keep everything moving along, or raise the fallen (Healer). What a simple, elegant system. 34 years and counting is the proof.
Support and Hybrid classes were added later in D&D in the form of Thief, Paladin, Druid, Monk, Bard, etc. Yes, even the Support/Hybrid concept was lifted straight from the works found in original Dungeons & Dragons. Not happy being a humdrum Fighting Man? Try a Paladin. Looking to outwit and elude the opposition? Try a Thief. Care to do a bit of everything? Try a Bard. It’s the same Class/Subclass system, all rotating around the three-pronged crown established in Men & Magic.
It’s funny when you look back at the genesis of the Cleric. I wonder how modern MMO's would look if there had never been a Sir Fang? One cannot simply assume that the Healer archetype would've arisen without being set in place in 1974. I'll echo my earlier post of the same name and once again say Thank You, Sir Fang.
For the record, I am looking forward somewhat to Wrath of the Lich King (even though I am never going to be a Raiding player again), but perhaps more so to Diablo III, which should suit my instant gratification computer gaming needs much better, while still allowing me to replicate D&D as best I can…in my basement, perhaps making funny voices between handfuls of cheese curls and sips of cola.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The Importance of Playing
One of the interesting pursuits of this fine hobby of ours is the creative aspect which most of us enjoy undertaking and indulging ourselves in. For the most part, the individuals I rub elbows with here and there across the internet are fellow Refs, DM’s and Judges. We spend much of our free time dreaming up rules variants, tinkering with game mechanics, building worlds, and designing adventures. As I’ve found recently, I can spend hours upon hours doing this very thing, even when I know that my creative ‘behind the scenes’ time has grown exponentially over the years, while my actual time spent behind the screen, running my campaign, has shrunk to a miniscule amount. Recently, I have stepped back from my endless labor of building Solstice into a vital OD&D campaign. I realized that I have a veritable mountain of work invested into Solstice, relative to the actual game play time that will be spent in that setting over the next couple years. In other words, I could stop working on it now, and probably not have to add anything at all for a few years. There’s that much dungeon completed and waiting to be explored. This is not to say that I am at a loss for creative inspiration, just that I have reached a point that I feel it might be better to allow the actual play of the characters determine where the campaign goes before proceeding too far on one project.
As usual, I do have numerous pokers in the fire; projects that are in various stages of development. I enjoy having more than one creative outlet. These are all D&D related, of course. Sometimes these various projects need a ‘bump’, something that pushes them over the hill and into completion. It is with this notion that I have realized that all of us eternal referees and GM’s need to experience actually playing a character in someone else’s campaign. It brings about a new level of creative inspiration.
I’ve recently taken the plunge into the realm of PBP with Vardo Winx, and while this is not your standard table-top game, I know for a fact that even the tentative steps our group has taken are going to infuse me with ideas along the way.
During my D&D heyday, I had a particularly long running campaign, which was played weekly for years. The sheer amount of hours spent in that world was staggering. Every Saturday would see us playing for a minimum of 8 hours at a time, and then 10-12 hours once we relocated the gaming site to a friend’s basement from the old Rec Center. At one point in the campaign, I had the idea to give each player his own continent within my campaign world, to do with as they pleased. Once one of the players felt he had a suitable adventure drawn up, I would assume the role of a character, and we would essentially play musical chairs, as they took turns behind the screen.
Those days were so enlightening, so inspirational, and filled me with an almost competitive spirit. My creative process kicked into overdrive, and I returned to the labor of designing my own adventures with a newfound zeal. My eyes were opened to new possibilities and ideas, ones which I know for a fact would not have had the same impact were I simply reading them in a module, or on the internet. Actually experiencing D&D, as a player, shed these aspects of gaming potential in an entirely new light.
The point of my rambling here? Get out and play in a campaign as soon as you can, be it Tunnels & Trolls, Encounter Critical, Mazes & Minotaurs, or whatever. Start rolling some dice, and get ready for a major infusion of inspiration for your own works.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Monday, June 23, 2008
3d6: IMARS
Looking at the prevalent ability score ranges from those 16 possible results of 3-18, and knowing the odds of the bell curve, we can take the standard OD&D Prime Requisite modifier bonus and see if there is a better method to determine those levels, regardless of the actual scores.
In Prime Requisite terms, there are five levels of modifiers, which I have dubbed superior, above average, average, below average and inferior. If one is considering using such ability range descriptions, I’d reword the cumbersome Above Average to Respectable, and Below Average to Mediocre. Here are the scores grouped by the odds of actually rolling them:
IMARSWhy in the world would I even consider dispensing with my beloved 3d6 bell curve? Simply to show how the numbers are, for the most part, relative to one another and not as important as the modifier that is attached to them. Per the OD&D rules, this five level range of modifiers applies to all but one of the six abilities, CHA. Charisma deserves it’s own post; it’s the most complex, in depth ability, and provides modifiers for Reaction, Henchmen and Loyalty, with seven levels of modifiers (and the only ability were 18 actually means something in game terms). Now, not all five abilities differentiate between Superior and Respectable, or Inferior and Mediocre, but the important break points are there. Specifically, for the three Prime Requisites of STR-INT-WIS, these five levels determine whether the character receives a modifier of any kind to his or her experience gain.
Superior (15-18): 9.3 %
Respectable(13-14): 16.6 %
Average (9-12): 48.2 %
Mediocre (7-8): 16.6%
Inferior (3-6): 9.3 %
So, in looking only at the percent chance of ending up with the various modifier ranges, we can tackle a method to provide nothing more than the descriptive value for each ability, instead of a numerical value.
If we are willing to round these percent chances somewhat generously, we could convert this system to a simple linear d20 or perhaps a more exacting percentile roll. I’m big on easy to remember numbers, so I’d lean toward a d20 roll myself, something like this:
The IMARS d20 Roll:If one were to use the IMARS ability method, one would truly be using a more abstract treatment of the D&D ability scores. Simplifying them in such a manner would likewise force a facile system for other non Prime Requisite modifiers and ability checks.
1-2 (10%) Inferior
3-5 (15%) Mediocre
6-15 (50%) Average
16-18 (15%) Respectable
19-20 (10%) Superior
I’m of the opinion that the STR-INT-WIS abilities are perfectly fine doing nothing more than influencing experience. Perhaps some bonus for Superior STR, such as +1 to Open Doors (which I use in my own campaign) would be in order. Per the OD&D rules, we can readily convert IMARS to what those ranges mean, like so:
STR-INT-WIS(No modifier at all unless the below category is the character’s Prime Requisite).Of course IMARS can still be rolled using the simple elegance of the 3d6 bell curve, and I would probably do so if I ever instituted IMARS into my D&D games. I like the system because it deemphasizes the actual numbers that we so often get caught up in while creating characters; on the other hand, it takes away from the abstract descriptive nuances of actually using the numerical values. As I’ve mentioned before, I love those little numbers as they often actually breathe life into the simple collection of six ability scores.
I - Minus 20% from earned experience.
M - Minus 10% from earned experience.
A - No modifier.
R - Add 5% to earned experience.
S - Add 10% to earned experience.
CON (In OD&D, each CON point has a 10% ‘survival’ chance tied to it, but doesn’t explain what surviving adversity truly entails. For IMARS I’ll convert the chances to relative percentages.)
I - Minus 1 from each Hit Die, 25% Survival Rate.
M - 50% Survival Rate.
A - 75% Survival Rate.
R - 100% Survival Rate.
S - Add +1 to each Hit Die, 100% Survival Rate.
DEX (In my campaign, I’d add that S receives a +1 bonus to Sneak attempts and Armor Class).
I, M - Fire any missile at -1 to hit.
A - No modifier.
R,S - Fire any missile at +1 to hit.
CHA (I’ll have to dumb down the OD&D system to make it fit IMARS, I basically threw out the CHA 18 numbers).
I - Max Hirelings: 2, Loyalty Base: -2, Reaction: -1.
M - Max Hirelings: 3, Loyalty Base: -1, Reaction: 0.
A - Max Hirelings: 4, Loyalty Base: 0, Reaction: 0.
R - Max Hirelings: 5, Loyalty Base: +1, Reaction: +1.
S - Max Hirelings: 6, Loyalty Base: +2, Reaction: +1.
Nevertheless, even if you retain the numeric values, the five ability ranges could still be used in order to simplify the ability score modifiers for your games. In the end, I’d use the 3d6 method, retain the numeric values, but understand and apply the level modifiers as shown above. An IMARS/traditional hybrid, if you will.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Sunday, June 22, 2008
3d6: The Rules
There’s something engrossing about creating stat lines for D&D, using the standard straight 3d6, in order, method. The results and combinations that this method produces can give D&D characters a truly unique personality. But what exactly do these ability scores mean? We always bandy about the term “abstract combat” in our Grognard circles, but what about abstract abilities?
Consider the odds of rolling an 18 using 3d6. It’s 1 in 216. Like me, you probably say “Wow!” when a natch 18 is rolled with 3d6 (and an equally emphatic “Ugh!” when a natch 3 is rolled). It’s almost as if the mindset in D&D is that an 18 in any ability is somehow superhuman in nature, but when we look at the chance of rolling an 18, we realize that this is hardly the case. Think of it this way; take a large body of people you have observed in real life…High School or College, or even an arena filled with fans for a concert or sporting event. Now, think of the way you might envision a D&D character with an 18 Strength, and realize that in High School, the chances are that 10 classmates had an 18 STR, in College 140 had 18 STR, and at an arena 350 fans had an 18 STR. Not so superhuman now.
We know that somewhere, there is indeed a human being who could lay claim to the title of the Strongest Person in the World! His STR is 18, too. Does this mean that 1 in every 216 people out there is as strong as the Strongest Person in the World? Of course not.
My use of the Strength ability to prove this point should be expounded upon in these terms. Strength, at least in my campaign, is not strictly a measure of physical might. It could more aptly be called Prowess, but since the might aspect of the score does come into play at times (when opening doors, for example), Strength it is. In my games, it’s more a measure of one’s ability to employ combat expertise.
The same odds exist for every person in regard to the other five abilities, as well. Therefore, Einstein was as smart as every 216th person out there in the D&D world. Either the D&D world is truly filled with exceptional beings, or we must accept the fact that even with the seemingly odd 18’s and 3’s out there, these numbers are abstract in nature; that is, they are a measure of those six abilities as they apply to the gaming rules of D&D, and nothing more. They are and should be descriptive to a certain extent; one of the joys of rolling characters is allowing the six ability scores to help define that persona. What the numbers show us is that these scores are all relative, and that even the extreme numbers aren’t truly rare in the grand scheme of the world in which our adventures take place.
OD&D has a nice simple treatment of exceptional ability scores; there’s really no difference, except in the case of Charisma, betwixt those higher ability scores. All such scores, in game terms, are exceptional and receive a small bonus. I’m not looking for a more detailed, power creep treatment of these abstract ability scores ala Greyhawk and AD&D. It works well as is, and deemphasizes the actual numbers themselves. I don’t want to worry about my Fighting-Man being one of the 1 in 21,600 people that has an 18/00 STR. OD&D’s abstract ability system keeps it simple and logical. After all, should such a person really receive a bonus (+4 to hit and +6 damage, per Greyhawk) that is better than every magic item in the game? Think about it.
All of this is my attempt to point out that the range of ability scores, from 3 to 18, is relative. It doesn’t mean that someone with a CON 3 is an invalid, or that someone with a DEX 18 is Jackie Chan. It boils down to superior, above average, average, below average and inferior; it doesn’t mean superhuman or abysmal at either extreme. As a matter of fact, having a STR of 3 in OD&D will not lower your melee effectiveness at all. It will only reduce your experience gain if you play a Fighting-Man. Clearly, a STR of 3 was never meant to convey the fact that your character couldn’t fight effectively.
We are to assume that any score, whether it’s a INT 3 or a DEX 4, is sufficient for that individual to perform perfectly well on an adventure. How often these ability scores comes into play is entirely up to the referee, but as presented in OD&D, DEX does nothing more than give +1, +0 or -1 on missile attacks. Nowhere in those rules is there a system provided for ability checks. I do allow DEX 15 to receive a +1 on Sneak attempts. I also plan to incorporate Xd6 checks rolled against one’s ability score; in this regard I am making ability scores a wee bit less abstract. That said, such rolls will only be made when the player can convince me that one is deserved.
The method I plan to employ is not my own idea, I actually have seen such a system across the internet at various forums; it allows the referee to set a difficulty level by adding d6 to the roll. The player must then roll equal to or lower than his own ability score with the prescribed number of d6.
I plan on something fluent like this when I even need to resort to rolling dice for such things:
Simple: 2d6
Standard: 3d6
Demanding: 4d6
Challenging: 5d6
Daunting: 6d6
Again, one of the things I enjoy about OD&D is the fact that the referee can ignore or adjust the Crunchy Meter to his own taste.
I doubt I’ll use this roll against abilities method often, but if a player has earned it, I might allow such a thing from time to time.
In this way, I’ve taken the OD&D abstract abilities and added some crunch; some low level impact for those who were particularly lucky when making their character, but nothing that will make them a walking +4/+6 magic sword.
~Sham, Quixotic Referee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
