X is for Xylophone

Xylophone: a weird looking instrument that really doesn't fit into any other category; it usually gets lumped in with percussion although it is not a percussion instrument. I'm using it here as an example of something that is out of place and does not belong. "How does that apply to AD&D?" you ask.

The PHB (p. 118) states the following concerning bards: "He or she must always have a stringed instrument." Note that it specifies a "stringed instrument." I bring this up as an example of the differences between 0E and 1E. As I've read different blogs of the OSR over the past month, I've noticed the fact that the pre-AD&D rules were truly more of a set of guidelines; AD&D was more structure and more defined, maybe excessively so. Gary did intend for AD&D to be the "tournament ruleset" that clearly defined gameplay so people at conventions would have the same base from which to play and interact. "Dictums are given for the sake of the game only, for if ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is to survive and grow, it must have some degree of uniformity, a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign within the whole. ADVANCED D&D is more than a framework around which individual DMs construct their respective milieux, it is above all a set of boundaries for all of the "worlds" devised by referees everywhere. These boundaries are broad and spacious, and there are numerous areas where they are so vague and amorphous as to make them nearly nonexistent, but they are there nonetheless." (Gary Gygax, "Preface," DMG, p. 7)

"More like a set of guidelines, really."

"Basic" D&D, both B/X and the later BECMI were not really intended to be "gateway" games; they were the continuation of 0E as the ruleset for causal home games. AS the blurb on the back of the Moldvey Basic set says, "The rules have been reedited and organized so that people who have never played the game before will be able to begin playing with a minimum amount of preparation. The entire family will enjoy a Dungeons and Dragons adventure." If B/X was intended as a "gateway" game, it would have remained organized as Holmes D&D was: a limited amount of levels. B/X was to have been a complete game in its own right designed for new and casual gamers. It was never completed as such because the rebranding of  TSR created Mentzer's BECMI and it is definitely a complete game! It even goes into realms that AD&D never really did: PCs aspiring to deity status!

And thus, the humble xylophone. Playing strictly by the rules, as AD&D was intended to some extent, the player who wants a bard is really out of luck. The dictum is in place: stringed instrument. But, with D&D, have fun. An, yes, i know there are TSR assassin squads who would break down by door for fiddling with the AD&D rules, but I do firmly believe that there was this intended dichotomy in the early 1980s.

Until Monday, gentle readers!

V is for Villains

"Villains of Fantasy" Larry Elmore.

As I mentioned yesterday, there is something enticing about villains. It's not only their appearance and mannerisms; a clear villain focuses the plot whether it is a novel, a movie, or a game. A strong, despicable This is really evident in Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace. The lack of a villain with clear motivations and evil intent for the protagonist to sharpen himself against keeps the plot drifting and lackluster in feel. Contrast this with Star Wars IV: A New Hope and its opening scene. It is clear from the onset that the Galactic Empire is powerful with a long reach and Darth Vader specifically is not someone to annoy. I would suggest watching the Red Letter Media review of Phantom Menace for a more in depth treatment of this (as well as an entertaining look at what is wrong with the prequels). Be warned: the whole review is over an hour long, so set aside some time to enjoy it.

 

"If this is a consular ship, where is the ambassador?!!"

 

 

 

 

The long and short of it is that a good villain can railroad the players and direct them without the DM having to force the players to go the way he wants. Want to motivate the players? The best way is to have a villain that they cannot stand. And I'm not talking about the characters but the PLAYERS themselves. Get under their skin. Be careful, though; do not use GM knowledge. One does not want the players thinking the DM is the one screwing them and not the NPC.

 

A good personal example was when I ran the d6 Star Wars module Tattooine Manhunt when I was in the Army. I had a detailed timeline of when and where the rival bounty hunters would be and what they would do. In game time, the players where consistently 10-15 minutes behind the antagonists. At one point, I was worried that I was the one pissing off the players, but they assured me that that wanted to kill these guys not me. They caught them in time for the final confrontation.

 

Until tomorrow, gentle readers, when I shall blog about Weapons!

O is for Oriental Adventures (S&W Appreciation Day!)

 

My initial plan for this post was to talk about Oriental Adventures. However, I'm taking a slight detour to participate in S&W Appreciation Day. So, instead of justifying NWPs or the existance of monks and martial arts, I'm reviewing Ruins and Ronin by Mike Davison. It is available from Lulu at a nominal cost of $1 as a pdf and $11.25 as a softcover. Lulu pdf listing

 

 

 

Ruins and Ronin (hereafter R&R) is designed as a S&W Whitebox product. Therefore, it has a very old school feel as to mechanics: very smooth and easy-to-run without  much detail. There are no super samurai. The fighting-man, man of magic, and cleric are all recognizable with name changes; nothing overly different here. Armor Class, however, is treated in a fashion similar to the 1E Oriental Adventures book. The o-yoroi, that is, the complete suit of "samurai" armor, is the ultimate form of armor and is a work of art itself. However, the individual pieces can be bought separately and increase the overall AC value by a factor of 1-2 points. The o-yoroi's AC is better by 1 than the sum of the individual pieces.

 

 

 

The monster section has a few specifically oriental monsters for flavor. But as, far as setting goes, there is nothing. There is also no two page spread of weapons and armor as in the 1E Oriental Adventures. Now, this is in keeping with old school design aesthetics, and it is not 1974, so I won't belabor this point. There are plenty of oriental-themed games to steal ideas and settings from these days: Bushido, Oriental Adventures, Legend of the Five Rings, etc.

 

Overall, I give this product 4 of 5 polar bears with the caveat that it is not a beginner's game due to the lack of background and setting information. More artwork, notwithstanding old school aesthetics, would have pushed it to 5. The price point is excellent as well. And allow me to add the fact that I purchased the print version.

 

There are a couple of free resources for R&R at the S&W page. First off, Davison himself put out a pdf titled 100 Bujin. It is a list of 100 bujin and their stats and equipment for use in random encounters or the like. Sean Wills has a 1 page pdf  for randomly generating a scenario start using all of the polyhedral dice (d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20).

H is for Heroes

A cavalier in action! A true hero!

Heroes. I find the concept is alien to many gamers these days. I say that because, one of the worst things to come out of the 1990s and even the late 1980s is the skill/power concept. No, it did not begin with D20/3.0 (although that was the penultimate expression of the concept). What I mean is two ideas. First, there is the attitude of "If I don't have the skill I cannot attempt to perform a certain action," and its close corollary, "If I fail the skill roll, I miss it all." The gaming community is ripe with stories of failed notice rolls and the inability of the character to see the door in front of him. It's even become a running joke in some webcomics:

 

Elan fumbles a Spot check.

 

 

Second, there is the attitude that the abilities completely define the character. Followed too far, and this leads to 4.0-type skills that are just the "pushing of a keyboard button." At the other extreme, it leads to the ossification of the archetypal system that is a strength of old-school gaming and (1e) AD&D in particular. Allow me to elaborate on this last point.

 

Old-school gamers are quite pleased with the four "archetypal" classes: the armored fighter wielding  a sword and shield, the wise cleric healing and turning back the forces of Undeath, the skulking thief armed with quick-wit and ready blade, and the mysterious magic-user summoning arcane power to slay. In B/X and BECMI we also have the concept of "race as class": the sturdy dwarf fighter, the bright-eyed elf who combines steel with sorcery, and the resolute hobb-, er halfling fighter. These are clearly defined images. Anyone who has lived in western culture can equate these to literary and mythical figures: Lancelot, St. Francis of Assisi, the Grey Mouser, Merlin, Gimli, Lord Elrond of Rivendell, and Samwise. They work.

 

Some might say that the multiclassing in AD&D muddies the waters a bit, but not really. An elf fighter/magic-user is no different from a B/X elf. Even "new" multiclasses are acceptable: isn't Frodo more of a fighter/thief? And opening up new classes to demi-humans is good as well for the same reasons; Bilbo is probably just a straight up thief, for example. New specialty classes open up archetypes; as long as one doesn't go too far, it doesn't dilute things much. Rangers, monks, and druids, o mai! Even brand new classes from dragon are adapted from other games/editions are fine as well. Necromancer? Yes, definitely an archetype.

 

"We don't have a cleric...somebody is going to die, dude!"

 

If everyone is an archetype with their own little niche, what does one do when that niche is empty. So, how does a fighter climb a wall? How does cleric get rid of the trap his spell discovered if the thief is already down? The answer: very carefully! The character is not defined by the character sheet and its stats; the character is defined by the PLAYER!!! Both of the situations above can be solved without a thief. the thing is, the thieving abilities work (by my estimation) in a combat round (lock picking) or without extraneous equipment (wall climbing). Take note of the scene in "Conan the Barbarian." When climbing the Tower of the Serpent the two fighters (Conan and Valeria) are using a rope; the thief (Subodai) is climbing the wall freehand.

 

If the party had to disarm a trap without a thief, it would take them at least 15 minutes. They would describe their plan, and I would assign a chance, usually less than a thief....DEX as a %, add a racial modifier if applicable (a dwarf removing a trap, for instance), possibly doubling it if the plan was solid, halving it without a plan. Easily done.

 

What about other skills? Well, previous profession would be a guide (Secondary Skills Table, DMG pg. 12) and roll a % based on an applicable stat doubled or even tripled. Also class would. A fighter might not ride as well as a cavalier, but he should have some proficiency. As an aside, the reason I do not use the non-weapon proficiency system from DSG/WSG is that it leads down that straitjacket road too easily. Try anything; I'll give the player a chance.

 

I have wandered far from my intended post, but that's ok. Let me wrap up by saying two things. First, the PCs in AD&D are a cut about the average. Of the four archetypal classes, three have more starting hit points than normal men. If one looks at some of the expanded classes, it is possible to have way more than the norm; a ranger or barbarian with the right stats and rolls can start the game with a max of 20 HP at first level! Second, Kevin Siembieda writes in several of his games that it always amazes him that people forget they're playing HEROES! They complain that the character is not normal or realistic. Well, duh! You are a HERO!

 

Until tomorrow, gentle readers, keep the sword blade sharp and the components near to hand!

 

 

Movie Challenge Day 5 - A Film That Reminds You of Someone: Some Kind of Wonderful

OK a little behind on blog posts; the weekend was a little hectic. The one's I missed were Day 3- A Film You Watch to Feel Good (Rocky III) and Day 3- A Film You Watch to Feel Down (Old Yeller). Rocky III rather than I or II becuase it was the first I ever saw in the cinema; Rocky IV with the Soviets run close for that one. Old Yeller, is of course, the classic "sad" movie. But on with today.

Some Kind of Wonderful. Full movie in the above link.

This is a John Hughes high school movie, one that frequently gets overlooked because it came out in 1987 after a whole series of these movies. It follows the same basic plot of all of Hughes's movie. Basically, a lovestruck outsider who wants a popular person in school; typical romantic high school movie. However, the twist is a that this time, the outsider is a guy going after a girl. Essentially, it's Pretty in Pink with the sexes switched. 

Actually, it's a pretty good movie. If anyone wants to remember the 1980's, this is essentially the film to go for. The music, the clothing, the cliques, etc. It reminds me of high school (I graduated in 1988). And this brings me to the reason for my choice. 

This film doesn't remind me of any one person, but it does remind me of my friends in high school and the way everything was: the "romantic" crises, hanging out at Monaco's, detention, the clothes. It's just very nostalgic for me. Feel free to check this one out; it's really quite good and fun.