Thursday, April 3, 2008

See Peas?



Us D&D folks bandy around the term Player Character (PC) on a regular basis, a term meaning those individual characters within a campaign that are controlled by a player. The rest of the characters in a campaign are Non-Player Characters (NPC’s), meaning they are, for the most part, left to fend for themselves in a world of deadly traps and ferocious monsters. Aside from having a very unwieldy title (I mean come on, couldn’t Gygax have done better than NPC?), NPC’s must compete with one another for attention from the default ‘player’ or controller of this multitude of thousands, the Dungeon Master. Most DM’s, at least the ones I am most able to identify with, are busy making the world turn on it’s axis, and consider NPC’s to be just another game facet, a demanding lot who need d20’s rolled for them, Morale checks made, and have funny, unique voices which need to be mimicked.

It’s no wonder, then, that PC’s get to hog the limelight in most campaigns. A PC boasts his very own individual player, a player who is able to carefully craft that character’s personality. These Character Players (CP’s), normally referred to as simply ‘players’, as opposed to the overtaxed god of the campaign, the DM himself, are able to spend countless amounts of creative effort on such tasks as sketching their PC, doodling fanciful weapons and filigree along the margins of their over-sized character record sheets, and rolling dice for the character in a thoughtful, meaningful manner. These PC’s clomp around in the vast, dark pits of the deep down, claiming the hoards of gold and gems hidden carefully there by the DM, and boast about their hard-earned artifacts, stolen from the clutches of the very guardians whom the DM awarded these priceless items to in the first place.

It’s time we take these blue bloods down a peg.

Perhaps the worst nightmare for any CP is the dreaded NPC Party, NPCP for short. These blokes are the anti-thesis of the PC. NPCP’s are not burdened by inter party bickering, they boast character record sheets, which aside from sketches and margin filigree, are as detailed as any PC sheet, and they have a knack for turning up at just the right time during a dungeon crawl. It’s as if they are DM-blessed. These NPCP’s possess an almost mystical single-mindedness, working flawlessly as a team, like a well-oiled machine they spring into action, unleashing their most potent abilities as if their resources were unlimited. Luckily for the CP’s, these NPC’s don’t normally seem too concerned with the trappings and treasure within the very halls of mystery in which they are encountered, their sole purpose, apparently, is to take the PC’s down a peg. In this regard, they are unparalleled. Exactly how they perform their goal is never known by the PC’s upon first encountering such a devilish collection of walking, breathing anti-PC’s.

Perhaps the NPCP will appear to be helpful, their presence alone in the campaign will unsettle the CP’s, who for so long have thought themselves to be the Heroes of the campaign. Perhaps the NPCP will be in friendly competition with the PC’s, this alone has been known to drive CP’s to irrational decision making, daring them to push the borders of safety and threatening to force them to hand their carefully crafted, doodle covered character record sheets to the DM after an untimely death. Perhaps the NPCP is truly helpful, in which case such a scenario will nearly always end up in fisticuffs as the CP’s know that, ultimately, all NPCP’s are evil incarnate. Worst of all, perhaps these NPCP’s are actually pursuing the PC’s, or preparing a devious ambush in some illogical spot in the deep down, surrounded by traps and monsters from within and without. Such tactics truly confound the CP’s, as they try to piece together exactly how such a band of DM controlled NPC’s wound up there in the first place. But aha! Only such DM-blessed characters are able to understand the unnatural laws of the campaign world.

Not that I would ever stoop to such measures in any of my campaigns. This is, after all, a post made with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Despite all of their uniqueness, sprung from the fact that are born with CP’s to guide them, all PC’s have a fatal flaw. They do inherit much of the traits of their own CP. No amount of role playing will ever mask the fact that they are only as capable as their CP. Thus, we, the DM’s , get to play on these traits and exploit them. We challenge them endlessly, with static obstacles in the form of tricks and traps to befuddle them, with carefully planned encounters set forth to test their mettle, with random wandering monster encounters to keep them on their toes, and with the very lay-out of the dungeons they are so eager to record on maps. Somehow, in the end, they persevere. It might not be on their first attempt, but CP’s are a staunch lot, and unerringly return, often with new PC’s, to conquer such challenges. Through all of this, the PC is still bound by the laws of CP capability. As the CP’s work together and progress through the campaign, we, the DM’s, see these traits. They are unmistakable.

Over the years I have been able to witness and identify some of these CP traits. As such, I want to share some CP personalities that I have been lucky enough to witness in their natural habitat, hunkered down in dim basements, slurping Mountain Dew or more potent libations, with rat like paws caked in Dorito dust. Bright lights often make them freeze in their tracks, and they can become panic-stricken when deprived of their need for constant grazing.

The Rules Lawyer: These guys think memorizing and quoting rules will always save their bacon. Using the rules as such a crutch always ends badly for this player.

The Paranoid Player: Everything and everyone in the campaign is a threat, often including the other PC’s. As likely to save the party from deception as he is to cause a total party kill.

The Anti-DM: “The DM is the opponent, I will defeat him and his cronies. The game and dungeon is a competition, I will overcome every obstacle and claim victory for myself.”

The Jerk: Always knows of other, much better DMs and campaigns. He himself would have handled rulings in a more logical manner. All of your ideas are hackneyed.

The Cut-Up: Nearly everything he focuses his energies on is designed to be funny. Creates many memorable moments, but his pranks often rile the other players.

The Punster: Makes incessant, often hilarious puns. Also known as the Horse-Flogger. Has an almost magical power to make everyone at the table *sigh*, seemingly at will.

Spock: Logical, cautious, thoughtful. More apt to panic when things get really bad. Able to think out tricks and traps, and often likes to slow the game down to his own, methodical pace.

Lazy Larry: Won’t map, won’t be the caller, won’t remember important things. Normally has one go to tactic that he uses to no end.

The Freeloader: Never brings snacks or drinks, is always first in line when magic items are distributed. Whines the loudest when he thinks he is being treated unfairly.

The Lemming: The ‘happy to be here’ guy, always follows and can bring a dungeon crawl to a halt if forced to make a decision. Stops for constant ‘team meetings’ if he ever winds up as the party Caller.

The Devious Note Passer: The progenitor of inter party disputes. I wish I had had the foresight to save such notes from campaigns past. Things like “No Anchovies for me.”

The Yawner: Always has something better to do. Unless the attention is upon his PC, he quickly loses interest. Able to derail party cohesiveness with his idle chat about Battlestar Galactica.

Pig Pen: Messy, disorganized character sheets, messy disheveled dude. Always leaves a mess post session for the DM to clean up. Has never invested in men’s toiletries.

The Dice Hurler: Very enthusiastic about rolling dice. Known to break light bulbs and scamper after dice that miss the table. Progenitor of the house rule that if the die didn’t land on the table, it doesn’t count. Most of his rolls that end up out on the patio are natural 20’s.

The Hermit: D&D is the only reason he leaves his cave. Bright light downright frightens this player, nearly as much as soap or the notion of exercise.

I’m probably forgetting some of the rarer forms of CP’s. I hope to be able to identify further types in the future.

I must say that I know many of the above CP’s have a similar list of DM types. Monty Hall, Doctor Death-Ray, Mr. Monotone, The Lecturer, etc.

And the worst one of all, the smart ass poking fun at players DM with far too much time on his hands…Sham.

~Sham

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Rools!? We don't need no stinkin' Rools!


My earlier post today was designed to be a shameless lead-in to this topic, but I liked the other topic so much that I felt it needed it's own entry. While considering the OD&D foundations as proposed by Finarvyn, I realized that all of these were covered in Vol. I, Men & Magic. Then it hit me that Vol. I IS the rules for OD&D. The game mechanics are covered in this volume, the table is set, so to speak, and much of the detailed information such as Experience Tables, Saving Throws, and Spell Descriptions is in Vol. I.

I then laid out a question in a new thread over at OD&D Discussion, asking how would one go about making a workable OD&D campaign using nothing other than Vol. I.

I know it's an idea and approach that will require a great deal of consideration if one were actually willing to undertake such a project. It's an idea that I find would allow a huge amount of home brewing. After all, now that I am thinking even farther along these lines, I feel that Vol.s II and III are basically supplemental information adding to the rules set forth in Vol. I.

Call me a heretic, but I am truly coming around to this opinion. In the spirit of this approach, I think a starting point would be to see exactly what IS defined in Vol. I, and consider if a full game could evolve from the rules presented therein. Better yet, maybe the best approach would be to see what IS NOT in Vol. I by glancing through Vol. II and III (even though this is not in the spirit of that original topic I presented at Fin's forum).

Here then are the topics covered in II and III that would need to be 'dreamt up' or home brewed.

Vol. II:

1. Monsters, their stats and descriptions.
2. Treasure, random tables and descriptions.
3. Magic Item Saving Throws.
4. Coin Exchange Rate, random Gem and Jewel tables.

Vol. III:

1. Sample Dungeon and suggestions, random guide for stocking the rooms.
2. Movement and Turn rules while underground.
3. Guides for Secret and Stuck Doors, Traps and Surprise.
4. Wandering Monsters.
5. Some Wilderness, Stronghold and Retainer information.
6. Character Support and Upkeep.
7. Land and Sea Miniatures guides.
8. Healing Wounds and Time.

That's it. Could one make a campaign without the above information?

Vol. III seems to have some actual rules that one might find indispensible. Movement and Turns, Doors, Surprise. The rest seems supplemental or situational at best. I would think that even these could be defined as a DM ran his own campaign. Is it really necessary to have rules set forth for all doors and traps, or every encounter in regard to surprise? A competent DM could make a judgement or ruling for each situation based on a logical approach. After all, most OD&D Grognards prefer a situational approach, rather than one involving simply dicing for results.

That said, in Solstice I have indeed included more 'dicing for results' rules than those mentioned above. One thing I never do as a DM, though, is allow dice to replace actual roleplaying, thought or logic in my games. I've always considered such dicing situations to be guidelines and suggestions. I don't, for example, allow a character to find a generic trap and remove it by dice alone.

It appears to me that if one set out using nothing more than Vol. I, the things that would need to be defined would be many of the things which all of us OD&D players are already home brewing. Monsters, Treasure and handling Dungeon Exploration (I call it Delving). This leaves out Coin Exchange rates and miscellaneous 'Between Adventures' type rules which, as defined in OD&D, are vague at best.

I realize that I am brushing this topic with rather large strokes. But the more I consider this idea, the more I keep coming back to looking at Vol. I as the OD&D rules. The rest is essentially supplemental.

After all, as a hard core home brewer, I think it's an interesting notion that one would have to invent everything else, including all Monsters and Treasure, and to then consider from where one might find inspiration. Inspiration and home brewing are the reasons I have found myself now worshipping at the altar of OD&D...or rather, at the altar of Men & Magic.

~Sham

What is OD&D?



I find myself spending way too much time of late over at Finarvyn's awesome OD&D Discussion site. Fin himself recently started a thread addressing the question of at what point does OD&D become custmoized so much that it morphs into something else. The thread itself has evolved into a discussion of home brewing rather than stay with what I think is the original intent. We all agree that OD&D, as published in 1974, is designed for customization, house ruling, home brewing, etc. The original topic, though, was explaining, in one man's opinion, a handful of cornerstones, foundations that are unmistakably 'OD&D' and should be considered immutable, otherwise one might be crossing into the realm of 'Not OD&D'.

I think these identified foundations, or 'OD&D Truths' end up being somewhat different for many of us. I find that I am in agreement for the most part with Fin's observations on the subject, though. In a nut shell, as best as I could identify them myself, here are Fin's OD&D Truths:

1. Class based Character progression
2. d20 Combat Model
3. Rules as a 'skeleton'
4. Six Cardinal Character Abilities

I find that I am in agreement with these truths. Rather than delve into each item, I would direct the reader to the thread itself.

In my response, I added:

"I might be tempted to add a few further definitions, but I'd have to think long and hard about what exactly those would be. Simple aspects that are not only OD&D conventions, but D&D in general, could be included and defined."

In other words, there are other, basic D&D conventions that further define the scope of D&D, regardless of edition. Things like Dungeon Masters, Saving Throws, Monsters, etc. These conventions, though, are all a part of item 3. Rules as a 'skeleton'. This is truly what makes OD&D specifically NOT AD&D or any of the later editions. The later editions go the opposite direction and flesh out the skeleton, filling in all of the gaps for the players and DM.

Now, I house rule and home brew quite a bit, and do flesh out the skeleton, maybe much more than most for my OD&D version. I am starting with OD&D, and using the rules as intended in so much that they are a tool-kit for such endeavors. To this end, I feel it necessary to have a clear reference for my players to see exactly how I have defined these additions. Hence the Solstice tiddlywiki.

Is this OD&D to others? I'm not sure now. It's not Arduin. It's not Greyhawk. It's...well, it's Solstice.

I can run thorugh Finarvyn's checklist to see if it is OD&D:

1. Class based Character progression - Yes.
2. d20 Combat Model - Yes.
3. Rules as a 'skeleton' - Not really, I've filled in gaps.
4. Six Cardinal Character Abilities - Yes.

As you can see, for the most part it IS OD&D. I think the question at hand now, then, is at what point does house ruling or filling in the gaps define the OD&D rules to the point that it is no longer OD&D?

In the end, I further interpret item 3 to mean that an individual DM is using the LBB, Vol.s I - III as the starting point for their camgaign setting. As long as one is simply filling in the gaps, and not actually changing or ignoring too much, it is still OD&D. I'm still not entirely satisfied with this answer or conclusion, though.

For now, I will pat myself on the back and continue to call Solstice an OD&D setting.

~Sham