"Just A Game"

A long, long time ago...probably in the first year or two of this blog...I tried (at least on one or two occasions) to communicate my feelings for the RPG hobby and D&D specifically...the profundity of the thing, this activity, this game. Yes, yes, it's FUN...of course it's fun, duh...but I somehow have long felt that it is somehow important, too. And I tried to name why I felt that way (that this silly game of fantasy adventure was somehow "important"), and pretty much failed to find the words. Or even the reason.

Over the years (sheesh, 15+ I've been blogging!), I gradually came to the conclusion that the reason, if there was one, didn't really matter at all. The game was important to me, and that was enough. Perhaps whatever intuition I had that made me feel D&D somehow mattered on a larger scale than "personal" was confused narcissism: a justification of my own passion/obsession for the hobby. Lots of people have passions and obsessions; just throw me in the same category as collectors of stamps or baseball cards, rather than the research scientist looking for a cancer cure.

[by the way, I can make a case for the value of collecting; apologies if I offended with that last sentence]

However, as time has continued to pass and our world has continued to trend in a particular direction, I've come back to this inner feeling, this idea that gaming...specifically D&D gaming...is important and does have value beyond just being a "fun game." Surprisingly, I feel its importance more than ever in its value of creating human connection between people. Not just in the way that shared fandom of a sports franchise cuts across boundaries of race, gender, religion, economic background, etc. (one of the great things about sports), but in the way it promotes shared activity between people. If I'm wearing my Seahawk jersey (as I will be tonight in a Lord-I-hope-we-win game against the damnable Rams) I can make eye contact, nod, high five, or dap up any other person wearing the same jersey, no matter what our respective backgrounds happen to be. But playing D&D, I can sit down with someone and share an intimate imaginative space, holding discourse and trading ideas. D&D allows people to have a 'meeting of the minds' on a deeper level than most any activity outside our non-shared spaces (family, school, church, workplace, etc.). 

That shared activity is so much more profound than just shared recognition. 

So there's that. And I think that meaning and value and "importance" is going to become more meaningful and more valuable and more important as our world continues to move in the same direction it's been going the last decade or two. We'll see.

By the way, this holds true for any RPG, or any edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Those 5E people who are playing the game in a fashion unrecognizable to moi? They're still making human connections. That's a good thing...we NEED more human interaction between our fellow humans. So...yay!

HOWEVER, while that's the underlying importance of RPGs (as I see it), and something many (most?) of us might agree on, there are additional benefits to playing AD&D that I hadn't quite noticed until just recently...this morning, in fact...that, in my estimation, elevates my chosen edition in certain subtle ways above the hoi polloi of other RPGs, especially those with "modern sensibilities" like 5E and Shadowdark.

AD&D, in particular, is not about self-expression or collaborative storytelling. It is a structured game with fixed procedures, real consequences, non-subjective objectives of play, and an impartial referee. That structure creates trust which, in turn, enables risk. The risk makes choices matter, and out of that comes real camaraderie.

AD&D quietly teaches...and reinforces...things that modern life tends to erode:

• Respect for External Authority (the game has rules that exist outside personal preference)
• Negotiation Within Constraints (you can't just "try anything;" choices have costs)
• Delayed Gratification (progress is earned, not guaranteed or a matter of fiat)
• Risk Acceptance (failure is real and consequential)
• Social Trust (the DM is neither adversary nor servant, but the facilitator of the game/world)

While many modern games claim to support "social play," they generally shift authority inward (play "what feels right"), cushion failure, automate judgment, and prioritize individual expression over group coherence. Meanwhile, in AD&D authority (i.e. the rules) is external and known, the outcomes are constrained by procedure, failure is both possible and meaningful, and the group (based on the PREMISE OF THE GAME) is forced to work and adapt together.

This produces consistency, and it is through that consistency that trust is earned; it is not negotiated minute by minute.

What makes this especially powerful is that AD&D does all this while masquerading as nothing more than a game. It doesn't lecture, or moralize, or have some grand statement of "this is important." Instead, it presents the rules, a dungeon, and asks 'what do you do?' And week after week, the people playing:

• learn to listen
• learn to plan
• learn to balance risk
• learn to accept loss
• learn to trust someone else's judgment

All in the presence of others.

There is something deeply valuable about a game that requires presence, attention, cooperation, and acceptance of outcomes that cannot be endlessly revised or curated. Yes, AD&D is "just a game," but it's the kind of game that we could stand to have more of. The longer I live, the more I appreciate it.

Learning To DM

Sometimes I forget...or (perhaps more truthfully) fail to even consider...that I've been doing this DMing thing for a long time. A long, long ass time.

Some people say I'm a "good" DM. I am decidedly uncomfortable with this praise. But I AM competent. I can run a solid game of AD&D with very few "flubs" or mistakes. Certainly nothing that can't be easily and quickly corrected in play...which makes for a fairly smooth game. Which allows players to be fully engaged in play. 

Usually. Generally. I don't always poll my players or ask for feedback...maybe they just keep their complaints to themselves; after all, there are worse DMs than me out there.

And maybe that's it. I'm fine being "adequate." Being adequate is hard enough. I don't need to be anything more than that. 

And all my "holding forth" and advice giving I do on this blog and elsewhere? All of that is just me trying to instill adequacy in others. I don't want people to be "good DMs." I just don't want them to be "bad DMs." I want them to be competent. 

Competence can take a long time to achieve.

I talk a lot about how I was not mentored or taught D&D...I learned it from a book. And when it came to learning how to run AD&D I likewise learned it from the (AD&D) books, not from an adult, older sibling, teacher, cousin or anything like that. I read the books. I found where AD&D differed from B/X (the system I initially learned on), and then I discarded and/or replaced the old B/X systems with the AD&D mechanics. I was 11 at the time and in the 5th grade. Mrs. Martinson's class, St. Luke elementary.

But by age 11, when I (and thus "we," my circle of friends who were my first group of players) decided to go "full Advanced," I was already a Dungeon Master. Had been a Dungeon Master for at least a couple years.

Doesn't mean I was a "good" one...nor even "adequate."

It wasn't enough to just read the books and make characters and run fights and hand out treasure and draw labyrinthine maps. It wasn't enough, even, to practice managing complex group social dynamics with my peers, developing patterns and strategies for organizing a table and keeping people focused. I certainly wasn't thinking in those terms back in those years. Heck, I couldn't even arrange my own outings and "play dates" (my friends and I all lived too far from each other for just bicycling to each others' houses). When we did manage to get together to play, I had to be ON IT...because you never knew when would be the next time we could all get together again.

But learning to be "on it?" That took a while. A good long while. I got my B/X boxes sometime around the age of 8 or 9. I was not even able to run a B/X game with anything approaching competence (or confidence, for that matter) until age 10...certainly over a year. 

That's right: it took me well over a year just to learn to run B/X. Even with modules like The Keep on the Borderlands and Isle of Dread providing additional information.

I often write as if learning to run D&D is as simple as "just read the book, stupid." That's not really the case, especially if you have NO reference point. Granted...I was a wee young lad at the time, and I'd imagine an adult with enough education could probably learn how to run the game from the B/X books alone. But AD&D? That's not as easy. Certainly not as easy as "just read the PHB and DMG."

Again, I was BLESSED by having already mastered the B/X books by the time I started AD&D. After that, it was a matter of filling in the differences. Okay, combat is more complex with these extra considerations. Okay, spells are more complex with their material components and casting times. Okay, monsters have a couple more bells and whistles, alignment comes in additional flavors, we have this whole new system of PSIONICS to learn. Okay. Okay. Okay.

It took TIME to integrate all these rules into our game. Because, in our youth, we were interested in getting the game RIGHT. My friends and I had been raised to play by the rules when you played a game. No one had ever told us, "just make shit up." And we approached AD&D the same way: we didn't just cut stuff or edit what we didn’t like...instead we studied it, corrected our mistakes, and worked hard to play the game better. 

Fortunately, AD&D is not rocket science, and even 12 year olds can figure it out.

But it took us time. It took us EFFORT. It did not happen over night or after one read through of the books. If the stuff I've written implied that it was just a 'walk in the park' to roll out an AD&D campaign, I apologize. Mea culpa. 

NOW...now, forty years later, I can run AD&D with very little effort. I have my house rules that I use, but I don't have to. I could make clerics memorize their spells at the beginning of the day. I could make everyone choose an alignment. I've run the game strictly By The Book in the past, and it's no problem falling back into that. In point of fact, it's pretty darn easy. Hell, I could easily incorporate all the stupidness found in the Unearthed Arcana (we used that from 1985-1990) with Drow cavaliers and Upper Lower Class barbarians and comeliness and hierophants, etc. Not A Problem.

Heck, if I dredged my memory a bit, I might even be able to remember how to use the non-weapon proficiencies found in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide. Man...what a waste THAT book was!

But the LEARNING to use and run the game with all that stuff came with time. These days, I’m more mature and sophisticated and (Lord knows!) patient as a DM, but for the most part I run the game exactly the same as I did when I was 15. I would say I was definitely “adequate” by 15…but that means it took (roughly) THREE to FOUR years to achieve competency in AD&D. And even then there was a LOT that I didn’t understand…things I really didn’t start comprehending till the last ten years or so.

I just knew how to run the game. Worrying about nuance and “game theory” is the purview of old geezers.

SO...about five years of training to become an AD&D Dungeon Master. Which, actually, is the typical length of time for most tradesmen to go from "apprentice" to "journeyman." Three to five years. That sounds about right. Probably not 8,000 hours...maybe 2,000 hours? Hours spent reading, writing, studying, and running games (the actual running being the smallest portion compared to the preparation). Hard to come to an exact figure...I never really kept track of all the hours I spent on D&D over the years.

Regardless...it's a long ass time.

For the most part, you can open the box of your average board game and figure out how to play it in an afternoon. But Dungeons & Dragons...especially Advanced Dungeons & Dragons...is not your "average board game."

I apologize if I've misled people into thinking otherwise.

Marketing

I am too exhausted (after yesterday) and too pressed for time (the soccer begins again...in about one hour), to write my own blog post today, so instead I'll direct my readers' attention to this great post over at The Tao of D&D. It's absolutely amazing...definitely worth a few moments of your time...and, well, amazing.

[haha...that last sentence is a joke for Alexis]

; )

It's a riff off my own recent post about teaching D&D to others (and how that's done), and Alexis ably points out some of the issues that crop up when you start skipping down that path. Check it out.

Happy Friday, folks!

Here's Why You World Build

Dennis's blog post today referenced my recent world building post and offered the following observation:

The question Adam raised was, why world-build when character backstories aren't encouraged? And JB, instead of answering directly, started off by musing on why bother playing D&D at all...

Dammit. 

SO...what is probably unclear, O My Gentle Readers, is that what I was addressing in my post (with my first two questions) was some of the underlying reasons why world building is necessary, and that my third question ("why world build?") was more of a "why spend copious amounts of time and energy crafting the imaginary setting for your D&D campaign?"

In other words: Why is it desirable to do more work than sketching out Town X, Dungeon Y, and the distance between the two points?

What I did NOT address (re-reading my post) is the absolute NEED to build a world. In D&D.

I have very little time this morning, but I'm going to try to address it. Succinctly, if possible.

D&D "out of the box" doesn't come with a world. It has some assumptions about the setting that can be inferred from the rules (magic works a certain way, certain species and monsters abound) but there's really little more than instructions on how to play the game. In the Original and Basic versions, the DM was directed to create a dungeon, and then advised that after a while, players would want to move OUT of the dungeon and explore the larger world and that the DM should prepare a "wilderness" (though one with towns and cities and castles) for this purpose.

Anyone who has played D&D for a long enough time will probably tell you this isn't sufficient. Playing the game like this is little more than a board game without a (player facing) board.

For a deeper engagement, one needs a world. 

These days, of course, there are plenty of "worlds" available for purchase: Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Krynn, etc. Much easier to BUY a built world than to construct your own. I'll talk about that in a later post. However, there is a reason why there is a market for such products: a world is necessary for serious (i.e. non-superficial) game play. People buying the these products are LOOKING for a world (or ideas for their own creation) because they have played long enough to understand the need for a world.

The newbie player doesn't get this. They're just trying to figure out how the mechanics of the game work. Players need to figure out not just how to roll D20s to attack, what "AC" means and how to pick the right spells, but how to judge risk-reward when it comes to perilous danger of the D&D world. So that their character doesn't die and...instead...succeeds in the game.

The newbie DM has even MORE they have to learn when first picking up the game: not only the lingo and mechanics and extra rules for monsters, but how to craft scenarios that aren't too deadly, too easy, too rewarding, etc AND how to manage a table of unruly ruffian players. That ain't easy. The DM has "absolute power" in the D&D game...but abuse that player and the players walk and there is no game. Give away that power to the players (let the players push the DM around) and they'll still walk once they get tired of manipulating their punching-bag DM (and assuming the DM doesn't quit in frustration and self-disgust first).

It takes time and effort to learn how to be players and DMs (and the latter requiring substantially MORE time and effort than the former). But once you've got it down, once you have all that tuned, you'll find there's still a piece missing from the game: the world. Only the most superficially engaged players are satisfied with just step-and-fetch quests or killing trolls for gold, once they're done learning the ropes. If that's ALL they want, they might as well be playing a MMORPG like World of Warcraft. You still get camaraderie, you still get laughs, you still get to team up for challenges, you still kill shit for money and incremental achievement. And all it costs you is the initial outlay of funds and a couple bucks a month for the subscription. That's a need that the market's filled...there are lots of MMORPGs one can choose from (and probably more on the way as VR tech advances).

To get beyond that requires a deeper engagement with the game which can ONLY happen if there is a world to explore. And the better built the world, the more there is to explore...not just in terms of geography but in managing history, politics, culture, metaphysics, etc...the deeper the engagement that can be achieved.

I'll draw a quick parallel with real life: most of us are pretty attached to living. Regardless of the state of your being, and your beliefs about the afterlife, few people are truly ready to "shuffle off this mortal coil" at the drop of a hat. Why? Are you a bazillionaire with a harem of love slaves and the respect and adoration of millions? Do you live in some tropical paradise where the weather's always perfect, surrounded by loving friends and family with not a care in the world?

Regardless of how shitty our lives may get, we're pretty attached to them. We're invested in them. We want to keep living them...for as long as we can. I mean, there's always the potential for things to get better, right? Always the hope of fun, happiness, love, whatever...yeah?

Ideally, one's game world should be built well enough that the players become invested in a similar way.

[and don't worry about the DM. The DM gets invested just by dint of the time and effort being put into world construction]

A lot of RPGs don't require any substantial amount of world building...the world is already built for them. The World of Darkness games (Vampire, etc.), most Palladium games (Rifts, etc.), Shadowrun, BattleTech, Star Wars, MERP, Cadillacs & Dinosaurs, Over The Edge, etc. All have a world (or worlds) built in. All have histories (and conflicts based on those histories) baked in. Very, very few RPGs require the same kind of world building in order to offer engagement...for the GM, all that's needed is to create some NPCs and write some scenarios based on the existing world of the game.

For PLAYERS of these games, the main thing needed (besides learning the mechanics) is some sort of "buy-in" to the world being presented. Character backstories can facilitate insertion into the game's setting, but I think it's debatable the benefit that is achieved in/by doing so.

For D&D, where no backstory is required (or, in my opinion, desired) the blank slate of the character allows the game to focus squarely on the players in the present moment: the action is NOW and what the character is doing, not on what the character was or has done in the past.

Because here's the thing: we build emotional investment through our experiences. I get cut from the soccer team in high school...that affects me. I have sex for the first time...that affects me. I travel to a foreign country (where I don't speak the language)...that affects me.  And all of it impacts my life and how I act and react going forward.

But a fictional background or backstory created by a player (or DM) has NOT been experienced. The only thing experienced in the game is the actual experiences that occur IN PLAY, AT THE TABLE. My half-elf's mother was killed by orcs and my father hates me for being half-human and exiled me from the Woodland Realm? None of that matters to ME (the player) because I didn't actually experience them. My father abandoned my family, out-of-the-blue, when I was 17...sneaking away like a thief in the night...and that DOES affect me...because I experienced it myself!

The only thing that you can experience in an RPG...the only thing that will change and transform your character and your personality and your approach/action/reaction to the ongoing game IS THE STUFF THAT HAPPENS IN THE GAME. Conflicts with the game world. Conflicts with your fellow players. Events that occur that are humorous, exciting, tragic, whatever. These things can and will affect players and deepen that investment in the game.

The world building is necessary to facilitate this. Otherwise, players simply see D&D as a challenging game of kill or be killed. There can still be emotional investment (we enjoy becoming great killers) but it won't have the deep attachments it might otherwise have.

Okay...that's all I have time for right now. Happy Friday folks!

: )

[edited to correct the link to Dennis's blog]

Seven Elements

As promised in my last post:

I realized my whole theme of "true D&D play" likely touched a nerve or two, and for that I apologize. I suppose I could have called it "advanced play" instead of "true" play...but what is "advanced" game play but the highest form of a particular game? You can play a simpler variety of MANY games...a fast version of Monopoly, for example, or a scaled back version of Axis & Allies. For a quick night's entertainment  - or as a tutorial for new players - that works fine and dandy. Dungeons & Dragons, as (perhaps) the greatest tabletop ever invented, can perform adequately for years even in a "basic" form (like B/X). But the game is given its highest expression in the form known as AD&D.

First edition only.

Here, then, are the seven elements of advanced ("true") D&D play, as I see them:

1. D&D is a game.
2. Cooperation is necessary.
3. Violence is inherent.
4. Magic is limited.
5. Economy is present.
6. PCs are heroic.
7. The Universe does care.

I've not listed the elements in alphabetical order, nor order of importance/priority, but only in the order I intend to discuss them. Regarding "importance," there could certainly be some debate, but ALL of these elements are essential to game play. And it is (partially? completely?) the presence of these elements that sets D&D play apart from other games, and that sets AD&D apart from other editions of the game.

Each element requires elaboration. Let's get down to it:

#1 Dungeons & Dragons is a game 

I can already hear the collective multitude shouting "duh" in chorus. But consider the many implications of this element. First off, games have RULES, and D&D is no different. Rules constrain the actions of both the players and referee (Dungeon Master, DM). Games have means of winning and losing, and of judging both. Death in D&D is one of several possible "failure states" of the game, though certainly not an insurmountable one (as raise dead, wishes, and divine intervention can all attest).

Constraints influence game play. There are limitations places on classes and races available and their use in combination; there are limitations placed on levels attainable (based on class/race combos) and on the capabilities of characters at various levels. These limitations are in place for reasons...reasons of shaping the scope and scale and direction of game play. Same with limitations of available spells, weapon selection, armor use, etc. 

Game rules are meant to be followed in the prescribed manner. When a situation presents itself for which a rule is not present, a rule must be formulated by the table. When a rule presents an inconsistency, the referee (DM) must make a ruling on the issue in order for game play to proceed. Players and referees have differing roles and responsibilities determined by the game rules. And as final arbiter of the rules presented, DMs must have a thorough knowledge of the game rules...DMing D&D in its advanced form is NOT for the faint of heart. 

People play games for many reasons, all linked to enjoyment (even if one simply means to challenge themselves, it is the challenge that is being enjoyed). When we play a game, we agree to abide by the rules...both those of the textual rulebook and those of etiquette, both of which may vary from game to game and from table to table. 

D&D is a game...all of the above applies to its play. It should also be noted that, because true D&D is a game, we can also signal what it is not. It is not a performing art. It is not improv theater. It is not a mechanism for constructing a story in the conventional sense (as one would find in a novel, film, or play, for example). Exploring the human psyche or condition is not an objective of play, and its design is not supportive of such. It is not sport. It is not a platform for addressing social inequities in a meaningful fashion. It is not a simulation of reality...though (as discussed below) some verisimilitude is to be desired.

#2 Cooperation is necessary

This element does not address the "social contract" of its participants (that's part of element #1) but rather the method of game play itself: D&D as a game of fantasy adventure is cooperative. It is meant to be played by groups of players, not single individuals, and even pairs (one DM, one player) will find the game decidedly rough without additional participants.

Players (that is, non-DM participants) play characters of asymmetrical capabilities. None of the various character types are created "equal," though all have niches in which they excel or (at least) perform admirably. However, even without a VARIETY of character types, sheer numbers of cooperative players can win the day where individuals or non-cooperating parties will fail miserably. 

Consider that a group of player characters (PCs) working in concert, act as a large pool of hit points..."sharing the pain" in a way that allows ALL (or most) to survive, while generating more actions and/or attacks. Fallen characters can be aided by their comrades (by being dragged to safety, healed, raised, etc.) and can do the same for others when the shoe is on the other foot (as it will, eventually, be). Of course, the old adage "two heads are better than one" is more than apt when it comes to the various riddles, challenges, and complications that face the average adventuring party...and some obstacles will be presented that simply cannot be circumvented without multiple PCs working together.

AD&D is designed in such a way that no single character type holds ALL the benefits and capabilities of effectiveness. The greatest paladin in the world can be brought down in a crush of goblins using the grappling rules. The most powerful archmage of the setting will need to sleep eventually. No character is an island in D&D, and the players that cooperate in the most efficient manner will, in the long-term, have the most sustained success.

#3 Violence is inherent

D&D is descended from war games and its design reflects the fact and the play assumptions of the genre. Each character encountered (player or non-) has a set of hit points that provides an exact amount of punishment that can be sustained before being removed...at least temporarily...from play. Huge swaths of the rules text are given over to weapons and armor, combat and battle, deadly conflicts of physical, psychic, magical, and (in the case of clerics) spiritual type. 

D&D is not a game of court intrigue and political machinations. It is not a game of back parlor deals, treaty negotiation, and real estate development. It is not a game of buying and selling commodities, arranging marriages, diplomatic complications, or the challenges faced by individuals fighting depression, ennui, or issues of self-esteem and self-worth. Any and all of these things MIGHT (or might not) appear in play...but they are neither the point of play, nor a priority of design.

The design of D&D reflects the intrinsic dangers of the world. Characters can die...or can be turned to stone, charmed, captured, level drained, etc. Generally speaking characters WILL die...often humorously or ignominiously. It is an expected part of game play, and should not prevent players from taking bold action. Played cooperatively (see #2) even death may be overcome in the D&D game...and it will be meted out in spades to the opponents and monsters that come into conflict with the PCs. The source material for the AD&D game (pulp fiction featuring face-punching protagonists) reflect the base assumptions of an adventure game, a game of violent action. While caution and intelligent choices are laudable, timidity and indecisiveness are not (and recklessness is a failure to play cooperatively).

The violence of D&D should be embraced by all at the table; managing the risk of threat to one's (imaginary) life and limb is one of the main components of the game.

#4 Magic is limited

D&D is a game and as such has rules which constrain the game. Magic is a major component of D&D and yet is very much a limited resource in the game. Spell-casting is grueling work for characters, requiring hours of (game) preparation just to have access to a handful of spells. Spells are limited by the need for verbal, somatic, and material components. Spells used are forgotten (until recovered through sleep, study, and prayer). There are no "at will" cantrips, laser eye beams (at least, not from PC casters), or spells that provide huge benefit at no cost. Even the mighty wish spell will age the caster several years (possibly killing the character through system shock).

The acquisition of spells in no mean feat. Magic-users may only add spells to their repertoire as they find them, and even those found may not be comprehended, depending on the character's intelligence. Clerics are limited in spells by the whims of their deity (and the deity's opinion of the cleric's piety) and, as with magic-users, the highest level spells are limited to character's of great wisdom. Of course, all spell-casters are limited by their level: power must be earned through bold endeavor.

Likewise, magical items must be earned by player characters; there are no "magic shops" and characters must brave dangers and dungeons to earn every single +1 weapon. Most enchanted items are limited in the true D&D game: many items have charges or are single-use in nature. Cursed items abound in every category, ensuring there is always risk involved in the use of any enchanted item. Many items require command words to access their abilities, and often magical items are saddled with alignment restrictions that can damage, destroy, or level drain would-be wielders of the wrong faction. Rare indeed are the entirely beneficial items, making them highly prized by all...such items tend to make their owners the targets of thieves, assassins, unscrupulous nobles, etc. 

PCs may construct their own magical items and research their own magical spells, but only at tremendous cost (in terms of time and money)...the process of doing so is never easy and success is never guaranteed and often entails its own adventure as enchanters must search out special materials, usually the organs and body parts of extremely deadly (and rare) monsters.

Flagrant use of magic in the D&D setting...towns lit with continual light, flying carpet travel services, etc.... is likely to bring unwanted and hostile attention on offenders. Magic is rare and wonderful in the true D&D game and is respected because of it. It should never be an answer to all problems, nor a replacement for the conveniences of modern day life; doing so renders D&D something other than an adventure game.

#5 Economy is present

That is to say: money matters. From the very beginning of character creation, players in a true D&D game are concerned with the matters of wealth and resources. A first level character only has a limited amount of starting capital with which to outfit themselves, and must choose wisely.

Acquisition of treasure thus becomes the primary concern for PCs. Ready cash is needed for a variety of expenses: food and adventuring equipment, armor and weapons, hirelings and their monetary needs. As characters advance, more money will be needed for training purposes, possibly for spell acquisition, tithing and guild fees, and (of course) magical aid in the form of raise dead (and other recovery) spells. Specialists will need to be contracted: sages for information, armorers for troops, engineers for the building of strongholds. And as characters reach the levels of domain ruler, even more wealth will be needed for expenditures on henchfolk and permanent investments (buildings, mills, bridges, fortresses, etc.). 

While this "bean counting" may seem cumbersome, it is absolutely essential to the game play of D&D as originally codified. Without an economy, without a need to spend, the desire to acquire treasure dissipates...and it is that need for treasure (for "money") that drives D&D game play. It is one of the objectives of game play that unites the disparate player characters, the thing that compels cooperation as much as survival instinct, because it is needed by every character type. Tying it to the reward structure of the game (where each gold piece of treasure = one experience point towards leveling) engenders the risk-reward assessment that is at the heart of true D&D game play. 

Resource management...supply, demand, the use of wealth, the logistics of encumbrance...these things are the core of D&D game play. What matter the Lich-Lord's army if you cannot feed your own? How can you hope to arrive at Smaug's lair or Mount Doom if you cannot afford enough food for both your mount and the pack animal that must carry it? Many are the D&D players that have complained that D&D isn't enough like The Lord of the Rings...have they read Tolkien's books? Challenges regarding food, water, and travel are rife throughout the series!

And the game's economy is tightly bound to resource management. Equipment and gear...even the magical stuff...is not "indestructible" in AD&D. The item saving throw matrix on page 80 of the DMG is proof enough that rough usage will quickly deplete the party's inventory. Making use of oil flasks as "fire bombs" is all well and good until you find yourself out of fuel for your lantern. And the limits of magic (see #4 above) means that the care and maintenance of mundane equipment is of utmost importance. Even that sword of "metal, hard" will break eventually, if struck with enough "normal blows;" hopefully, the character's adventures earn enough wealth to carry a backup weapon or two.

Without an economy, and an emphasis on wealth and resources, one cannot play D&D as designed. And the verisimilitude such games rules offer aids in both the immersion and engagement of game play.

#6 Player characters are heroes

"What?!" I hear the cries through the darkness of the internet. "Heroes?! That goes against every principal of 'old school' role-playing!" Mmm, mm, mm. Slow down folks and give me a chance to explain.

The player characters are the most important characters in the D&D game. They are charged with braving fantastical challenges and facing deadly perils. They are adventurers; they ARE heroes. Without player characters, there is no game. 

And they are heroic...favored by the gods. This is made clearly evident with the design choices of HIT POINTS and SAVING THROWS; such is explained at various points in the DMG. These avatars of the PCs are special...we (the game's participants, whether player or DM) are concerned with the actions they take. It matters to us whether they succeed or fail. With regard to that part of the game, they are most definitely the "stars" of the show.

This does not mean they won't fail or die or have their limbs cut off by a sword of sharpness. It doesn't mean they won't be captured and brutalized and they may well wind up starving to death in some lightless subterranean labyrinth, or bleeding out at the bottom of a pit trap. A character's DESTINY in D&D is not written in stone. Always remember, D&D is a game (see #1), not some sort of narrative structured story-telling device. PCs are heroes because of the ACTIONS they take, not because of the FATE they've been handed by an author. 

And as such, player characters should be respected. They should not have their roles as heroes usurped by NPCs of the DM's creation; they should not be upstaged by various narrative "cut-scenes." The action of the game should be focused squarely on the player characters and their intentions and desires...that is the design of the D&D game. NPCs (monstrous or otherwise) are a dime a dozen; they exist as obstacles and allies and sword fodder FOR THE PLAYER CHARACTERS. Only the PCs count as heroes in the D&D game. Their lives (and deaths) are, ultimately, the only ones that will matter to the game's participants. Ever.

#7 The Universe is a caring one

Building on #6, it is important to understand that the Dungeon Master (DM)...that ultimate creator of the D&D campaign...is human and cares about the players and their characters. I will state it is impossible to be wholly impartial as a referee...which is why we make use of rules and randomized fortune generators (i.e. dice) to ensure that we do not err too far to one side or another.

However, we care for our players (and their characters)...if we did not care, if they did not matter, we would not bother creating challenges for them to confront. We want them to be challenged...because we love the game and want to continue playing it, and the game will not hold the players' interest if we make the game too easy or too difficult. We (the DMs) want the players to be engaged with the game play....because that will hold their interest and allow us to continue playing; as I wrote in #6, there is no game without players. And remember #1: D&D is first and foremost a game.

DMs MUST care about the campaign (both the setting and its players), because if the DM does not then no one else will. For the game to reach its maximum potential, the Dungeon Master must be heavily invested. They must know the rules, they must create the world, they must build "dungeons" and scenarios and situations that will intrigue and delight their players. That means a lot of time, effort, and thoughtfulness being expended by the person who elects to play "Dungeon Master" to the table.

How can such a person NOT care what happens?

The game universe (i.e. the DM) of a "true" D&D game cares about the players because they must. Because it matters how much treasure is made available. It matters how much magic and resources the players are able to access. It matters how the challenges of the party intersect with imaginary world being created. It matters whether or not success or failure happens and what impact (if any) that will have on the development of the ongoing campaign and its "legacy."

In its advanced form, the D&D game is neither frivolous nor capricious; it is not thrown together thoughtlessly, nor is it run carelessly. There is too much to the game for the DM not to care. And for any particular game table, the DM is the embodiment of the game's universe.

Thus, the D&D Universe cares. That doesn't make it kindly, nor wrathful, nor malicious, nor generous....although, as a human being, DMs will exhibit all these emotions and more. However, the competent DM will not allow such feelings to unduly influence the play at the table, because (the rules being what they are) doing so has the potential of breaking the game. And the DM cares too much. 

How could they not?

Aaaaaaand...that's all I've got for today. Cheers!

: )

Young Grognards

Maybe that should say, Young Groglings?

Yesterday, my son ran his first AD&D game for his friends (also aged 10) via a Zoom meeting. He had exactly two players (Evan and Caroline) who played a human ranger and a half-elf assassin, respectively.

[I later asked him about the potential alignment conflicts from such a pair to which he replied that he wasn't using alignment in his game...]

Per my suggestion, he is running the Tower of Zenopus from the back of the Holmes Basic book. For a first time adventure, Zenopus makes an excellent introduction to the game, offers multiple types of interaction with the game mechanics, and is easily converted to the AD&D system. 

[it is also an adventure my son has experienced first-hand (as a player) and is fairly short to read and prep]

Besides the suggestion (and providing the books), I did nothing but set-up the Zoom meeting for the kids...that is to say, I did not interfere with the experience. Diego has already been running his Star Wars game at school for the last few weeks (he's up to 7 or 8 players), so there's no reason for me to butt in and undermine his authority. It's his game, not mine. 

And they all had fun (of course), and want to meet on Thursday (tomorrow) rather than waiting till next Tuesday (of course)...because it's D&D and it's awesome (duh).

[some notes about their game: they encountered the ghouls and were able to survive. Only the ranger was hit, but he managed to make his save versus paralysis. Treasure was discovered, tunnels explored, and I believe they just finished (or are in the middle of combatting) a skeleton. They spent the first part of the session rolling characters; all the children have their own dice (provided by my son). He's using all the AD&D rules he can remember...yes, including weapon length and speed factor, etc...and is keeping careful track of time and light sources and wandering monsters and all that jazz. The main difference...besides dropping alignment...is that he is using Alexis Smolensk's experience system, which has been standard in our house since May 2019. It necessitates tracking damage inflicted and received, but that's still a lot easier than it sounds (as even a ten year old Dungeon Master can manage it)]

My kid's rulebook.

Prior to the appointed game time I did take the time to reach out to the kids' parents (via email) to explain a bit about what was going on and assuage any concerns they might have...there is still, to this day, left over impressions of negativity surrounding Dungeons & Dragons among folks who grew up in the 1980s. never played, and yet heard rumors the game was "Satanic." And, of course, our kids go to a Catholic school (though, of course, so did I and all my friends and our teachers/parents never had an issue). There were, it turned out, no worries at all, though both child's parents thanked me for taking the time to reach out to them.

Evan's mom wrote this to me as well (after the kids' game):

Thanks for giving Evan dice and letting him borrow your books too! He actually received a D&D starter kit for Xmas but Chris was overwhelmed and I didn't even try to learn, so it's great that Diego is teaching him how to play.

This...this is so much of what is wrong with the hobby as it is being marketed by its current Keepers of the Flame. Hey, does anyone remember that old red book, penned by Tom Moldvay that said "Ages 10 and Up" right on the cover? I was able to teach myself AND my ten year old friends how to play D&D just using that book. Hell, the thing even came in a box with dice and an adventure to boot!

But now, even the "Starter" set is too much for adults (let alone kids) to be bothered to learn. And the damned thing doesn't even come with dice.

And I've written about this before...multiple times...at least since 2015. These are not stupid people; they are actually very smart, educated professionals. Creative professionals even. Ones with fairly open minds...

*sigh* I will stop beating this dead horse.

ANYway...my son ran a game of AD&D for his friends, without supervision. They enjoyed it, they want to do it again. The culmination of a decade of waiting for my child to take his first step into his father's world.

I am proud.

Not as proud, perhaps, of the kids' athletic accomplishments - scoring goals, hitting fastballs, recording strikeouts - as these are things I was never able to do in my youth (still not sure where he gets it from). And, also, it is pride tempered with knowledge that the journey is long and he has only just begun. But still...I feel proud. 

And content in a way also. Even should he turn away from D&D or transition to a different form of the game (6th edition? 7th?) or even a different game altogether...at least, at least he has the knowledge now. The acquired experience of knowing "Hey, I can do this. It's fun, people enjoy it, and I can even teach it if necessary." I have passed on what I know...he, in turn, can develop it further (delving deep into the game even as I have), or even pass it on to his friends or his own children some day. I have assured that my love of gaming will not die with me.

Legacy. I think I've written about that before, too. 

Happy Wednesday, y'all. I have some dishes to clean up from last night and then I'm going to start combing through these Dragonlance modules to make my notes. Busy-busy!

: )

Grappling with Stuff

How many pages? That's the question that's been in my head the last couple days.

[yes, there will be some ACTUAL grappling discussion...at the end of this post...just give me a minute while I wrestle with THIS for a moment]

How many pages does it take to teach someone how to play an RPG? Specifically Dungeons & Dragons, though I suppose one could apply the question to any role-playing game. Most RPGs I've read (and I've owned and read A LOT) provide precious little info on what an RPG is, let alone how to run it. Instead, they throw a wall of text at the reader mixing an odd amount of instruction with "fluff" (setting/genre specific flavor)...as if these two things, blended in the proper proportion, will (through some strange alchemical process) yield the game you want to play.

That's not enough, in my learned opinion. And yet it's often too much as well.

OD&D is a fairly simple game, rules-wise. Very simple as far as procedures go. Roll a D20 when making an attack (or save) and consult a chart to determine success. Characters (player and non-) have certain amounts of resources that are depleted through use (spells, hit points, arrows, torches, rations, etc.). Certain actions acquire points (XP); charts tell you the reward for obtaining certain numbers of points (extra resources in the form of hit points and spells; extra effectiveness for attacks and saves). There are some additional exploration procedures (finding/opening doors and traps, wandering monsters, surprise) mostly handled with a six-sided die, but it mostly comes down to resource management via risk/reward.

All the trappings of the game...monsters, spells, treasure and magic items, purchasable equipment and fortifications...are subject to customization by the referee. As such, they're pretty unnecessary for inclusion in the game (save as examples). And this has been proven upteen times simply by the way DMs have modified all these things SINCE THE BEGINNING of the game. Even before the game was first published and made available to the general public.

I think the rules could be written up in a very small document, including an appendix with the necessary charts, and you would have all the necessary instructions for the game. A book of monsters, a book of spells, a book of treasures (including normal equipment and goods) could be written up separately...or not...and you'd be just fine. For long time, experienced DMs, this would really be all you need...probably MORE than what you need.

For new DMs, it wouldn't be enough. You need another text that explains how to run the game. One that puts aside assumptions that 'oh you'll just figure it out.' Something that explains the concepts, why systems interact with each other the way they do, how they're justified. Something that shows what the game should look like, how to maintain it, how to maintain the players' interest. A teaching manual (though I hesitate to put those two words together) I guess. The players need very little instruction aside from the nuts and bolts of the rules (and an admonition to explore the world based on the description provided by the referee). The referee needs something more.

Because being a DM isn't just about being a referee. It's not just an umpire or group facilitator. "Referee" is a misnomer for what it is that a Dungeon Master does.

How many pages do you really need?  I'm thinking about this at the moment.

With Regarding To Actual Grappling: I went back and looked at the simple grappling rules I wrote up for my B/X Companion. They're fine for what they are (a tack on to the B/X system). For my OD&D game, I use the following procedure, based off an example provided by Gygax in The Strategic Review #2.

• An opponent that wishes to grapple a non-grappler loses initiative (that is, the non-grappler may make a normal melee attack before the grappler attempts her move).
• The grappler makes a normal attack roll against the defender's normal AC.
• On a successful attack roll, the grappler throws dice to determine the success of her hold: roll a number of D6 equal to the grappler's hit dice and compare the total to the defender's similar roll. High roll wins (which determines whether or not the hold/pin is successful).
• Magic-Users and Clerics divide their total in half.
• If both sides wish to grapple, no attack rolls are made: simply throw dice.

For example, six goblins attempt to grapple two 2nd level characters: a fighter and a magic-user; four attack the former, while two go after the wizard. The fighter manages to kill one and wound a second (two attacks per round against 1HD opponents), while the magic-user fails to even land a hit. All three remaining goblins manage to hit the fighter; only one goblin manages to hit the magic-user. Grapple dice are thrown as follows:

Fighter: rolls 2d6, gets a 7. Three goblins roll 3d6, and get 10. Fighter is pinned.
Magic-user: rolls 2d6, gets an 8. Goblin rolls 1d6, gets a 5. Because the magic-user's total is divided in half (resulting in a 4), she is also pinned.

You got this, man!

Grappling should be a commonly considered tactic. Small, weak monsters that have a superiority of numbers should consider attempting to overwhelm stronger opponents (though they lose initiative and are subject to broken morale). But grappling can also model large monsters (giants, golems, rocs, dragons) grabbing a character and carrying her off.

A pinned character can attempt to escape from the hold in the following round, by throwing dice against the foes holding her. No attack rolls are made (both sides are engaged in "grappling") winner determines whether or not pin is broken. If a total is exceed by a large enough number (probably double), a DM could allow a character to reverse the hold (the formerly pinned character has now pinned her opponent).

A character may not grapple a creature especially larger than herself; generally, that means more than 1 hit die difference. Thus, a human could grapple something up to gnoll in size, but not a bugbear or ogre; a halfling or gnome might grapple something up to a hobgoblin in size. A DM might allow multiple grapplers to succeed where one would automatically fail (for example, four humans might bring down an ogre...maybe) or might not (no number of humans should be deemed sufficient to "pin" a dragon or cloud giant...).

What about thieves? I still have yet to implement thieves in my OD&D game. If I did, I'd allow a dextrous thief (13+ dexterity) to roll dice as a fighter; thieves with average or low dexterity would be limited as magic-users and clerics (divide die total by half). Not every thief is some slippery rogue type!

Cheers.

Learning to DM

Most Dungeon Masters are "self-taught" (that is, they are themselves solely responsible for their own training), for the simple reason that there isn't all that many (any?) teachers taking on students for this particular curriculum.

[and, yes, I am excluding Alexis, whose on-line classes are aimed at individuals who are already "DMs;" he is, in effect, providing a higher level of training to individuals already possessing a degree of knowledge and ability in the art of Dungeon Mastering]

And yet, in the great scheme of things that can be taught, learning to DM isn't one of those things that fall in the "easy" or "straightforward" category. My eight year old is currently learning how to write in cursive...a simple enough task for someone who already has a grasp of the alphabet, consisting mostly of memorization and practicing the proper hand motions. My five year old is in the process of learning to read: much more complex (despite having a working knowledge of the 26 alphabet characters) because of the various rules and exceptions found in the English language.

Personally I have a bit of a phobia (well, more like trepidation) when it comes to working technology, yet even I can learn to configure a printer (or to change its toner cartridge) by following a simple instruction sheet...and rather quickly. Cooking simple dishes for my family (frying eggs and bacon for my children's breakfast, as I did this morning), took very little time to master...though it's a bit trickier than pouring cereal in a bowl and adding milk. And as far as learning new games (of the board and card variety)...well, it really doesn't take me long to digest the small pamphlets of instructions that come in the box, whether you're talking Happy Salmon or Axis & Allies (both games I've learned in the last couple years).

But learning to DM? No, that's a whole different level of learning.

Still, I have learned how to DM...as have ALL the DMs and GMs I've ever sat with at table (as a player). And regardless of their particular level of competence, or base adequacy (proficiency, of course, varies between individuals) we've all shared the common thread of having been forced to learn for ourselves how to do this thing that we're doing. I've yet to meet a single person who was trained in the art of running and refereeing an RPG.

Now, for the rest of this post, I'll only be discussing Dungeons & Dragons specifically.

So, how does one learn to be a DM? For myself, I've run (as a DM) at least five different versions of D&D, not counting "half" editions (3.5, etc.). My longest and most memorable campaigns were run using the 1st edition AD&D rules...but I didn't learn how to DM from those books. I learned from Tom Moldvay's Basic set (the "B" in B/X). And I think, if you polled most DMs running pre-WotC versions of Dungeons & Dragons, you'd find MOST of them got their initial "chops" from some form of Basic D&D: either Holmes or B/X or Frank Mentzer's rewrite of Basic (the one with Bargle and Aleena). Prior to 1977 (Holmes) the haphazardness of dis-integrated rules that made up "D&D" was such that unless you were one of the primogenitors of the game (Gygax and Lake Geneva folks) your D&D quite possibly looked wildly different from what would eventually become mainstream Dungeons & Dragons.

[see Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign notes, Hargrave's Arduin, St. Andre's Tunnels & Trolls origin story, Barker's Tekumel, etc. The operable phrase here is "wildly different;" certainly most (if not all) campaigns, mainstream or not, exhibit differences in table/house rules]

But I believe that it is only with the advent of "basic" that D&D has any chance of proliferating at all. DMing is just too complex a task without an entry level set of instructions.

Looking at the cover of my Jeff Easley-illustrated AD&D books, the game is explicitly written for players "ages 10 and up," an age range exactly duplicated on the covers of the later 2nd edition books. But while I don't deny (or doubt) that there are some brilliant 10 year olds abounding in the world, I find it difficult to believe that there are all that many who could pick up the AD&D books alone and start running a campaign. Can a 10 year old play AD&D? Yes, of course...my younger brother was probably 9 years old when the campaign of our youth went "full Advanced." But learn to run a game? Mmm...it's hard to believe. I could...but only because I had a basic set as an entry point.

Self-teaching...the only route open to most (if not all) would-be DMs...involves learning the rules (i.e. reading the instruction manual), integrating them, and then practicing them. Competency and skill are acquired from the practice of being a DM: designing/prepping adventures and running the game for live players. But you cannot design, prep, or run if you cannot first learn the rules...and for most individuals that means putting them in an accessible, readily digestible format. 600 pages of instructions (the combined count for the 5E PHB and DMG) isn't what I call "readily digestible." But then neither is first edition's 300+ pages. Is it any wonder that we see so many folks running games of Basic or Basic retro-clones or cutdown "semi-clones" (like Microlite20 and Black Hack)?

Dungeons & Dragons is still a game that people want to play, but play requires someone to run the game as a DM. Running a game of D&D isn't rocket science, but it is complex, requiring the internalization of a number of different systems and mechanics as well as an ability to manage a number of unique personalities (i.e. the players) while providing engaging situations/scenarios through a combination of pacing and tension based (mostly) in narration. That's a lot to juggle. And while many players have come to the game through a form of "mentorship" (being shown the ropes by more experienced players), there ain't a whole lot of mentoring available for those willing to pick up the mantle of "Dungeon Master." Videos showing actual play or providing advice on how to create a campaign are just another tool for a person engaged in "self teaching," but it's not the same thing as being addressed and coached by an actual teacher. And hell, a lot of these videos have information that is bad or downright incorrect.

Forget certification...can we get some sort of apprenticeship program for prospective DMs?

Learning to play D&D is simple. Learning to run D&D isn't. And learning to run D&D well? That's a whole 'nother level.

I suppose this might work in lieu of
a Basic rulebook. Is it 64 pages?