Friday, December 22, 2017

An Exercise In Freedom

Agency
White Box is packed with freedom of choice. It has been said that "less is more" and the fact that the original game texts can be a tad sparse lends great power and freedom to the referee and ultimately to the players. The 3 LBBs are empowering to referees and empowering to players. The gaming concept introduced in White Box continues to encourage the exercise of that freedom.
Any game that presents the rules as written as guidelines or tools from which to choose and add to as desired is empowering. It may be overwhelming as White Box was to me upon first reading. There were too many new ideas, too many choices to make and too much left unsaid for me to immediately make the jump from traditional wargames to this new concept in adventure gaming. It took me and my friends months to figure out the enigma enough to start to play. I had to guess at parts and make some stuff up. It wasn't until years later that it occurred to me that is exactly what the authors intended - interpret, choose and create. Freedom!
As the hobby spread and I began talking to others who were also playing the new game, it became evident that there was more than one way to play White Box. The official word from TSR confirmed this and a discussion about "official play" styles circulated among the hobby. The by-product of making official rulings and interpretations is a reduction in the freedom players had to make things work the way they wanted it to.
Freedom means work and some players are more willing to put in a lot of work than others. Do we prefer to put in more work learning "official rules" or working it out for ourselves? Obviously I am a fan of the latter...although I also enjoy some "rules heavy" games such as Advanced Squad Leader. For the referee the work of White Box must include filling in and completing some sections so that play may proceed according to their preferences. One such choice involves combat - a central theme of the game as written, but one with obvious choices. It helps to work toward a goal. It helps for the referee to have it worked out in his/her mind the goals they would like to achieve with the game before hand. The desired milieu will shape many decisions. Experimentation can help discover what seems to work and what doesn't. Feedback from players can help the referee as well.
White Box gives power and agency to the referee through creative control. The referee must create an imaginary setting for the players to explore. In White Box this can be just about anything as long as the referee is willing to make adjustments in the suggested guidelines. The 3 LBBs include a number of suggestions for play, none of which are complete and ready to run out-of-the-box.
Player agency is evident in the almost infinite variety of characters it is possible to play with White Box. Where some may at first see the choices as limited, just three classes and four races, the lack of detail on the character sheet lets the imaginative player take the character concept in just about any direction. A Fighting Man need not be a knight in shining armor - although that is a definite trope one may play - rather any character who uses a weapon well can make a good Fighting Man. Archer, swashbuckler, adventuring minstrel, highwayman, anarchist, assassin/spy, or lots of other archetypes can be Fighting Men in the three class scheme. The rules only list six attributes with scores randomly determined, race and class, hit points and level/experience points. Anything else about the character is open to interpretation and therefore the player is free to imagine away.
My experience with the game has been that many characters start as some numbers and a name on an index card, but through play develop "character" and personality. It can be fun to discover who the character is as the player makes in-game decisions during play. I have watched players reveal aspects of the character that were surprising and significant. What motivates the character? What are their personal goals? What lengths will they go to to achieve them?  I have seen characters evolve during play as in-game events shape and mold their "personalities". Many players bring their character "to life" through creative play, while other characters seem to remain fairly unknown. The freedom of choice is there to play your character as you will.
As we move towards this new year I see great potential in our hobby. Getting the game "just right" - the desire to improve continues to drive innovation forward. Whether it is the OSR working to re-imagine White Box or "new" games that push the play experience envelope beyond anything done before, game designers seem hard at work as evidenced by the number of new publications. The quest for a better game is either limitless or supremely elusive.

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

7th Sea

So, You Want to Tell a Story!
The John Wick game 7th Sea is a departure from my usual fantasy RPG tastes. For one thing, there are guns. And it's a story-telling game. Essentially any game can "tell a story", even Monopoly. (One can easily recount the various acquisitions and improvements made on the Monopoly board during play and basically tell a story of the game.) In 7th Sea there are specific mechanics which are designed to facilitate the story-telling aspects and divide control of the story between referee and players.
Inspired by 17th Century Europe, the fantasy continent of Theah adds magic and some monsters to the mix, but otherwise is surprisingly recognizable as 17th Century England (Avalon), France, Germany, Poland, Russia, Italy and Spain with the names changed and perhaps a lot more swashbuckling added. As is suggested in the cover illustration women in Theah enjoy considerably more freedom and equality than their historic counterparts, but there is also more than a superficial resemblance to the historic setting and literature (Three Musketeers, Scarlet Pimpernel) which inspires the game.
Pirates certainly play a part in the setting, but the term "7th Sea" actually refers to the world beyond the horizons, both aboard ship and in terms of the understood physical and material world. Magic is real in Theah and each country seems to have its own particular brand of magic practice. This is a game that takes setting seriously. The description of Theah takes up the first 100 pages of the core rules and most countries have their own regional book as well.
Character creation is concept driven. There are no classes. Players are encouraged to imagine the character they wish to play and work with the referee to generate a PC reflecting that imaginary concept. A list of twenty questions is used to help nail down who the character is and what they are about. Traits include Brawn, Finesse, Resolve, Wits and Panache. Add skills, advantages and a hubris and a virtue and you have a character. There isn't a lot of room for min/maxing.
Character advancement is tied to achieving personal goals, like finding a lost friend or regaining the family honor and preventing the evil guys from growing stronger. Characters are expected to act "heroically" and that means doing right not wrong. Playing a dastardly pirate will take considerable "tweeking" on the part of the referee in 7th Sea. If "pirate" is your passion, think the Dread Pirate Roberts from The Princess Bride, not Blackbeard.
Game play consists of the referee setting the stage by describing a situation. The players develop the action through dice rolling and description. The dice mostly allow the players to take make decisions and take control of the action describing what happens. If the dice are unkind, the referee describes what happens instead.
A scene might go something like this:
Your nemesis, the cardinal, has gained possession of a certain incriminating letter, written in your hand. You suspect he has it hidden in his personal apartments and you are determined to get it back. You announce your intent to sneak into his apartments and retrieve the letter using your Finesse trait and Thieving skill. The referee states you must roll to succeed. A single success is required to open the lock on the door. A second success is required to bypass the guard and do so without being observed, and a third success will allow you to pick the lock quietly, so as to not alarm anyone inside the apartment, should it be occupied. One success is required to achieve each of the results and you may choose which ones if you roll fewer than three successes. You agree to this and roll the dice. You have four successes! Not only do you accomplish all of the above, but you may also add that upon opening the door you immediately spot the damning letter lying in plain sight where the cardinal has obviously been careless.  
Knowing how to make decisions at the table and being able to improvise when needed seem quite necessary for the referee of 7th Sea and are probably quite helpful to players as well. I can see how a creative group might really enjoy this game once the fairly simple rules are mastered. Story still happens at the table during the game, but 7th Sea takes it in a different direction from White Box...or does it?

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Adventure Path, Sandbox & Megadungeon

The Big Three
Pick one! Speaking thematically, I can think of three ways to categorize the fantasy RPG campaign, adventure path, a sandbox or the megadungeon (there are probably others I am not thinking of). They are each really a campaign in themselves. It has taken me some number of years to discover that blending them all in a single campaign is very difficult (at least for me) and rarely works well. One-off session play can switch back and forth making use of each style in turn, but the full-on campaign, if it is to be more than a series of loosely connected sessions, requires more direction and more consistency.
I have not gotten to game much lately (holiday season), so my pursuit of the hobby has mainly been reading blog posts and published game materials, and streaming a few videos of others gaming. One of the RPG books I have been reading is Chivalry & Sorcery, 1st Edition (C&S). I have been known to occasionally wrap myself in the cozy idea that playing with a hyper-realistic RPG setting would be rewarding. It seems an irrational conceit, however, as during my saner moments I can't imagine finding folks who would actually play the thing. Regardless, in my present holiday season absence of gaming opportunity, I can muse on about chivalry and player character knights in a gritty realistic medieval milieu, about squires, ladies-in-waiting, minstrels and a host of serfs awaiting my noble bidding. Pouring over my C&S, Harn, and historic reference material, I immerse myself in a make-believe world where I actually referee such a game while in the back of my mind I realize that even my oldest, staunchest gaming buddies, those who once upon a time played some Harnmaster with me, today show little interest in that style of immersive play.
Taking a medieval setting as the basis of an imaginary campaign for use as an example of the "pick one" advice, I feel I would be remiss if I, as referee, tried to offer players a sandbox to roam and explore, and an adventure path full of story, and a megadungeon and expected them to simultaneously juggle them all. Overwhelmed is what I would be and confused and directionless is my prediction for the state of the group. One nice adventure path for them to follow, maybe involving a run-away princess who joins a secret organization bent on saving the kingdom from a secret plot by those close to the throne who wish to overthrow the dynasty would be plenty. By saving the princess, they help her save the kingdom. Offering sandbox-style side-quests and tempting adventure hooks not related to the adventure path could be confusing as would the sudden discovery of a megadungeon just outside town where idle adventurers could instead of saving the kingdom make their fortune taking treasure from monsters. It has not been long ago that I offered my then players just such a smorgasbord of distracting and competing campaign choices. Pick one - that is what I should have done.
It has been a long time since I have played in or ran a megadungeon campaign. The simplicity of the theme appeals to me. The dungeon itself can be very complex and should be in order to sustain campaign play. It should be dynamic and react to being explored. It should evolve with internal denizen activities that play out even without player intervention. It should remain fresh with new levels and characteristics which unlock as players advance deeper into the campaign. Reading Joseph Bloch's excellent Castle of the Mad Archmage is inspiring me to want either to create my own (always the best option) similar megadungeon or to run my version of his Castle of the Mad Archmage. I enjoy planning future games, even ones that never get played.

Friday, December 15, 2017

The Path to Gaming Enlightenment

Emphasis on Setting not System
What makes for a fun, immersive gaming experience? A referee who has charisma and can come up with a good story on-the-fly, one who makes good decisions, is fair and cares about the players having fun certainly goes a long way. System does matter and the referee should choose a system he/she is familiar with and one that lends itself to telling the kind of stories the group wishes to explore. Speaking generally, I would say the rules are just the beginning, however. A great campaign rests on its milieu.
The authors of White Box seemed to know this intuitively (or through experience) and expect referees to put a lot of work into designing their own personal milieu. White Box implies certain aspects of setting, if one uses all the tools in the Box. A referee designing a campaign is free to pick and choose among the "guidelines" found in the LBBs and to invent new material to supplement or replace aspects of the game as written. I believe this was expected. It is certainly what many gamers turned authors did with the new hobby as evidenced by some of their published work. Arduin, Warlock, and Chivalry & Sorcery are three obvious examples of early players taking the ideas presented in the Three Little Brown Books and inventing their own milieu for play complete with rule changes and additions. While adapting rules to support the game they wanted to run at their table, they altered the original in such ways that they created at minimum a major variation and in the claim of some, a completely new game.
The Original Game in all its various editions, has inspired referees the world over to create countless settings for their personal use. Some borrowed heavily from other sources, effectively running their own version of Middle Earth or The Young Kingdoms. Others, like myself, took a little here and a little there from many sources of inspiration and blended it all together. Some settings received lavish publications and are so well known that mention by name - Dragonlance, Ravenloft, or Dark Sun - brings to mind a host of mental images. These three official settings, all published by TSR during its 2nd Edition era, illustrate how the game can be radically different depending on the setting. In many respects, the setting becomes more important than the game system. A great setting has character and personality of its own. A great setting helps the referee know how to handle unforeseen situations that arise at the table because of that very quality. The referee basically role-plays the setting.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Memorizing Magic Spells

Why Not Add a Little Magic
I like magic that seems "magical". Anything that adds to the mystical feel of using magical in the game appeals to me, but it can be tricky to add to the rules for magic without making the system overly complex and ruining someone's fun. Under the Vancian system outlined in White Box each spell caster, Magic User or Cleric, memorizes a number of spells per day and can cast each once. Once cast the spell is gone from memory and must be memorized again in order to be ready for use. Casters have books in which the spells are stored and which must be consulted in order to memorize each spell. Each caster's ability to memorize spells is limited and increases as the character gains levels. New spells can be acquired through research, or copied from other spell books or scrolls.
The Advanced game adds some new spells and the concept of spell components - items which are required to be used in casting the magic and which are usually consumed in the process. Spells are still limited in number and must be memorized prior to casting. The act of casting releases the spell from memory just as in the White Box rules.
Incorporating "magical" power sites into the formula appeals to me. Toting one's tomes of magic into the dungeon or along dusty roads in order to be able to memorize spells again once they are cast has always seemed a bit problematic. Too many hazards await those precious depositories of magical knowledge when taken into the wilds. Of course, only a fool would fail to keep copies of such valuable books in a safe place back home, still the logistics of carrying them around, worrying about them getting wet, or worse, seems awkward. Limiting the spell caster's supply of spells to only those memorized prior to the start of an adventure also seems severe, however.
I do like the idea of preparing (committing to memory) spells while located in a "place of power" such as a laboratory, a temple, a sacred grove, etc. Clerics who prepare their spells in a place sacred or consecrated to their alignment greatly appeals to me. Magic Users who recharge their spell lists while studying and making ready at a location steeped in magic power also has a certain magical feel. It is the little details like this that seems to make the magic in the game seem more tangible, more mystical and more believable. Pointing one's finger and shooting a lightning bolt makes more sense when I imagine the Magic User having drawn electricity from supercharged air at a magical location, bound it with certain skill, and stored it for release at just that moment.
The Cleric who prays, meditates and/or sacrifices at a sacred shrine or temple is granted access to a magic spell, a sort of miracle perhaps. The Druid who performs certain rituals under the moon and stars while standing amid sacred stones or trees is charged with magic ability in the form of certain spells which can be cast later. Imagine the witch stirring her cauldron, adding a bit of this and a pinch of that in order to create a charm or potion which can be activated to produce an effect like casting a magic spell, or the Evil High Priest who communes with evil entities which manifest in unholy places is granted a portion of that entity's power in the form of dastardly spells to be later cast forth in their service. Whether it is drawing a circle or pentagram, lighting a few candles and burning some incense, or some other "colorful" ritual, I like to imagine the act of acquiring new spells as being something more than the sort of behavior exhibited by a student studying prior to an exam.
So much of the magic of the game comes from the way we imagine and describe things to be. If we don't settle for mundanely following the rules as written, but rather choose to add in some imaginative detail, the game can be much more than pen and paper and dice. White Box is written rather sparsely with regard to these "coloring" elements, but this only makes it that much easier to individualize the game with whatever imaginative details we choose. Drawing inspiration from literary and other sources, why not accept the invitation to openly imagine how you would like it to be and make your game just so.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Don't Cut the Corners

Dungeon adventuring is survival horror!
The genius of White Box and the hobby in general is that the game can be played in so many ways. I have always been a huge fan of the dungeon. Darkness, limited resources, risk management, greed - all these play a significant role in the dungeon delve done right. Nothing scares the imaginary dickens out of a bunch of pen-and-paper would-be heroes like being plunged into darkness where nobody but the baddies can see anything.
"What's in front of me? What's behind me?  What's that noise?" When players imagine a situation where their characters are without light, panic is often the first response. As a referee, we need to use that. Demi-humans who can see in the dark really spoil this "tool" as well as that of surprise. Walking around the underground carrying a light source pretty much means the party is seen before seeing. Rolling for surprise is a regular thing. The party can really only surprise baddies by opening a door, otherwise the lurkers-in-the-dark see the party of adventurers coming by their light source.
Encumbrance may be cumbersome, but unless the referee makes some allowance for the concept resources like torches, food, holy water, oil, pitons, rope, arrows all become unlimited. Being down to one's last two arrows is an experience that heightens tension and verisimilitude. The referee should use all the advantages in their toolbox in an effort to provide the most immersive game possible. Otherwise we risk a "grab the loot and level-up" game that quickly loses its shine.
Weight carried is especially important. When loot is discovered in a large quantity and must be carried to the surface in order to earn those coveted experience points (XP) how much a character may carry is important. Vol. 1: Men & Magic gives some advice regarding encumbrance, but like the author says, this can be taken as guidelines or suggestions and I have seen encumbrance systems I like better and which seem more usable at the table (Lamentations of the Flame Princess just counts items). The most important thing is to have a system - almost any system is better than a "hand-wave".
Competition can also be used to heighten the tension and verisimilitude of the dungeon experience. If it is not possible to have at least two play-groups exploring the same dungeon (different players, different sessions) then the referee may want to devise a group of adventurers who are also known to frequent the dungeon and who may get to that treasure horde first. In addition to offering some excellent opportunities for role-play, the occasional encounter with other delvers (NPC or PCs) can expand potential plot-lines, introduce help or hindrance, and add novelty to a dungeon.
Playing "It's a game about leveling-up your character" can end up being the "more, better fun" lie. Gary Gygax frequently wrote about the danger of giving away too much too quickly and thereby ruining the game. He wasn't talking about plot clues! The dungeon is made up of "levels", some of which (lower levels) are at first too difficult or "dangerous" for the beginning characters. The lower levels are meant to "open up" as characters advance making the game continuously challenging and novel. Unlike the non-dungeon "adventure path" style of play where risk management can become the responsibility of the referee, the dungeon presents the players with an ability to manage risk to their PCs by choosing how deep to delve. Deciding on whether to head down those newly discovered stairs into a lower level and higher danger can be an opportunity for role-play among the players and entertainment for the referee.
Pacing of character level advancement can be somewhat of an individual preference, but one level per 4-6 sessions, perhaps doubling to 8-12 sessions per level at higher levels, seems to fit with impressions I get from reading some of the comments made online by Gary Gygax, Tim Kask, Rob Kuntz and others regarding level progression in the original game when they talk about it taking a couple of years of weekly play for a character to reach "name level". The "reward" in such play is the fun that happens at the table and in becoming a better player of the game (game mastery). By contrast, if reward is defined as leveling up, then "rewarding" players for showing up by leveling their characters becomes their fun. Cutting the corners misses the point.

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Tim Kask on White Box

One not to Miss
One of the things that continues to fascinate me about this hobby is how we all have a unique story to tell, yet there are so many similarities especially among those of us who came to the game as adults in the 1970's. Tim Kask (founding editor of The Dragon Magazine) wrote this (http://kaskoid.blogspot.com/2016/02/how-i-helped-to-pull-rope-that-tolled.html) a year or so ago, yet I just discovered it over the weekend. In his post, Mr. Kask expresses some ideas similar to those I have written about, but of course he does so with more knowledge, insight and a more talented pen. If any who read this post have not read Mr' Kask's "How I Helped Pull the Rope that Tolled the Bell for OD&D", I strongly recommend it.

Friday, December 1, 2017

Diceless D&D

Or Talking Your Way Through The Dungeon
Ultimately Role-playing is just that - talking in first person as the character, or describing what the character says and does in third person. From White Box forward the game is a talking game, a social activity. The balance between rolling dice to determine outcomes ("roll-playing") and talking back and forth between players and referee to determine outcome is something that varies from group to group and session to session. Some sessions are mostly talking and it is certainly possible to do away with rolling the dice, should all the players agree to do so. Randomness is gone and outcomes are decided purely on the merit of the argument presented by players to the referee. I daresay this isn't the norm, however.
White Box and the hobby has its roots in wargaming where a long tradition exists of using dice to introduce random outcomes and add excitement and uncertainty. Negotiating with NPCs and monsters, questioning prisoners and the occasional sage, even bargaining with the local magistrate or merchant are certainly meant to be part of the game, but the talking need not stop with those activities. Even among a group that prefers to make a lot of dice rolls, after-all it is fun to see what the dice give us and play off the random result, a well described plan of action can however add to the excitement and shared mental visualization upon which the game depends as well. Clever thinking can even substitute at times for combat rolls.
On a recent dungeon crawl my fantasy compatriots and I (well, my player character) managed to take out the bulk of the undead baddies with an improvised Molotov and the body of a big dead critter by dropping each in succession and from great height onto the unwary (but hungry) undead who waited below for us to descend into darkness (and become their feast). We settled on and described our plan verbally. No roll needed. Splash - zombies afire and burned away. Crunch - skeletons crushed beneath the massive weight of a great dead thingy. Rather than looking on a weighty character sheet for answers to life's "in game" problems, why not turn instead to player imagination?
Early in the games history, gamers looked at player skill as something like having skill at chess - an ability to masterfully play the game. Skill wasn't a number on the character sheet. We used player skill during the game to solve problems encountered by our characters and acquire treasures while minimizing risk, not before or after the game cleverly crafting the values and combos on the character sheet. That style of play comes later with more involved chargen and expanded rules allowing greater character customization.
Today we have many choices to make about how to "play the game". Pre-Dragon Lance, it was common for story to be what develops at the table, perhaps helped along by the referee revealing some (small amount of) world background detail which the players then incorporate into their memories of the session. Balancing encounters - not a thing. If, as referee, I wanted to toughen/weaken an encounter, adjusting the critter's remaining Hit Points on-the-fly usually did the trick...or add in some reinforcements, or fail a morale check. All the while encouraging table talk. "What do I see?" followed by "What do you want to do?" is a wide-open creative way to play the game that can still produce an enjoyable time for all involved.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Alone with a Big Rulebook

Thoughts on Hackmaster
I really love this book in so many ways. The Hackmaster 5 Player's Handbook is physically attractive, probably the best looking book I own including a few collector's editions of other titles. The leatherette cover is embossed with sword, shield and scrollwork reminiscent of nineteenth century craftsmanship. The colorful title plaque sets off the subject with a combination of old-style  and heroic action. The color pages are expensive glossy paper and the whole thing weighs a ton. (Well, that is obviously an exaggeration, but it's hefty.) It's got personality (and attitude) and is complex enough to demand I pay attention to it. It rewards thoughtful play and cooperation. (The "dating" insinuation is intentional.)
The Hackmaster game line started as perhaps the first old school clone, although with a heavy dose of humor. Owing its origins to Jolly Blackburn's comic Knights of the Dinner Table (KotDT), which so accurately captures the culture of tabletop fantasy RPG that it's uncanny, Hackmaster, being the game the Knights play, was written by Kenzer & Co. with permission from WotC as a spoof of early Advanced Original Game rules. The game was called Hackmaster 4 because the Official Game (owned by WotC) was then in its third edition. Hackmaster 4 is a complete game system based on the earlier Advanced game rules with a lot of good humor mixed in.
Hackmaster 5 is the game Kenzer & Co. created to replace 4. It is a more serious presentation, although the often arrogant tone of the author is I think at least partially tongue-in-cheek. He says it is the best game out and that once you play it all other games will appear inferior by comparison. This may turn a few readers off, but hey, I think there is some truth in the boast. This game is good...really good. Unfortunately, I don't see a lot of folks playing it and I have had a hard time selling it to my regular group. There are a lot of pages in this book (401, if we are counting) and the complete system includes two additional volumes, a Gamemaster's Guide and Hacklopedia of Beasts.
The current 5th edition (there was no 1-3 editions) draws from the best that's gone before - meaning the hobby in general. In the KotDT comic, the Hackmaster game is written by mythical game designer Gary Jackson, who is credited in the Hackmaster 5 rules. I believe this is a tribute to Gary Gygax and Steve Jackson (GURPS). Hackmaster seems to combine and improve on a number of rule systems pioneered by these two.
Hackmaster uses a class and level system (like White Box), and a melee countdown (similar to GURPS). This countdown incorporates weapon speed, a variable initiative roll (d6, d8, d12, etc.), and multiple attacks in a time progression count that works without using turns. Armor and shields function in a rational manner and the attack and parry sequence that can seem tedious and a time-waste in some systems is handled with simultaneous d20 rolls by attacker and defender in Hackmaster. Spells can be deadly, but take a while to cast and can be spoiled if the caster takes damage while in the process. Movement, casting and attacking are all happening simultaneously as the countdown continues and the result can seem more like real-time action than game-play. There is a bit of a learning curve, but it all makes so much sense.
So I love this game and hardly ever get to play it (so far only at conventions). Maybe it's just too much (of a good thing). I have talked to several friends about it and even got one to play through a short demo with me, but he thought the mechanics were too complicated. So for now it looks like Hackmaster shall remain just out-of-reach (like that really attractive person that barely knows you exist). I suppose we all have games that we only dream about playing.

Friday, November 17, 2017

Hit Point Calisthenics

Playing with Hit Points
The Hit Point mechanics help define White Box and all its direct descendants. A resource pool of character health, skill, karma or luck which can be lost through falling, burning, fatigue, or damage (physical or emotional) and recovered either slowly through healing or by magic is a defining factor in the game. Although the concept is often copied, even in video and computer RPGs, Hit Points are also one of the areas most discussed and house-ruled by those seeking a better, more realistic solution to "taking damage".
There is a beauty of design in the simple Hit Point system of White Box as I see it. At low level the game is especially dangerous as our game playing piece, the character, has but a single d6 worth of Hit Points which can evaporate given a single d6 roll for damage. Character Death - defined as Hit Points reaching zero, is ever a threat. We players start the game knowing it is "dangerous" and our playing piece, our entry ticket into the shared fun, can be eliminated very quickly. We therefore start the game with tension, which I see as a good thing.
Perhaps our biggest reward for surviving and accumulating experience/treasure and gaining a Level is more Hit Points. Additional Hit Points is like insurance. We start to worry less and think our character can take a couple blows before dying. We have some additional room to manage our ability to survive and succeed in the game by running away or healing-up after taking damage because it is less likely our character will lose all their improved Hit Points in a single roll of the damage die.
Just what does that additional Hit Point die roll represent? Can my Fighting Man now reliably survive one chop with a sword, but maybe not two? Does this represent the ability to take two "killing wounds"? Maybe it means my character can use his luck to duck under the first "killing blow", but not a second. The designers of White Box are purposefully silent on what the game Hit Points amount to other than "being the number of points of damage the character could sustain before death."
Hit Points would be a concept wargamers would be familiar with in 1974 because they would have seen them used as a way to reflect accumulated damage to a warship or other "playing piece". Consistent with a general do-it-yourself philosophy, the designers leave it up the the referee to further develop the Hit Point concept, but imply that loss of Hit Points has no affect on the PC other than death when they are at zero. Vol. 1: Men & Magic of the LBBs states, "Whether sustaining accumulative hits will otherwise affect a character is left to the discretion of the referee."
So are we left to conceive of our character as something like a giant space robot who takes hit after hit, pieces flying away as they are slowly diminished and eventually destroyed to the point they die? I rather think that misses the point and shows some lack of potential imagination. Many systems which followed White Box use a damage system that relies on hit location and/or detailed wound descriptions which may seem more "realistic", but the ol' White Box system can be just as detailed in description by applying a little extra imagination, and can do so while maintaining the speed of using an abstract combat mechanic.
Abstraction in rules can account for a number of discrete variables while remaining a simple and fast system. The designers of White Box understood this (White Box wasn't their first game design). The speedy pace of White Box combat (which is admittedly abstract in many ways) allows for several encounters to be played through during a session, emphasizes the fast and furious nature of melee and is one of the things I really like about the game. Abstraction can be a limiting factor in enjoyment, however, especially if what is behind the rules is not thought about and discussed.
So when we roll for damage and report so many "hits" are to be recorded against the Hit Points of an opponent it is a simple and quick adjustment to add some verbal "details" taken from our imagination such as "he takes a slash across the stomach for 6 points". The "bloody" creature can then continue to "suffer" from the injury, if the players like, by carrying the "detail" forward. Perhaps the referee states, "holding the wound in his stomach, the bugbear now swings his axe at the warrior princess, but being distracted by his wound, misses." Such table talk can be oh-so more interesting than "take six hits".
Hit Points are one of the most frequently "house-ruled" mechanics in White Box and subsequent editions of the Original Adventure Game. I have a long and troubled history with Hit Points myself. I currently tell myself they are abstract for a good reason. I DO like the idea of rolling for Hit Points at the beginning of each session. The resulting variability across many sessions helps to emphasize the transient nature of karma, luck and the intangibles that go into Hit Points.
The key for me to remain satisfied with Hit Points as a game practice is to not fall into the trap of "ticking off the HP boxes". Rather I try to imagine the action and what's happening on our shared mental stage. Fatigue, divine favor, armor and situational props (a wet floor, etc.) may all come into play while thinking about and describing the action resulting in Hit Point loss. When I recall that each round/turn of melee involves not a single thrust or hack, but a series of actions, parries, maneuvering and looking for openings, it gets easier.
I am currently more inclined to mess with healing than with damage as a subject for house-rule. The balance between Hit Points, weapon damage and creature Hit Dice seems about right to me in White Box. Also, I don't like to slow the pace and rhythm of the combat game as written. Healing happens after the furious action of melee is over, so applying bandages, herbs and poultices, using healing magic or adding "down time" detail like variable rates of natural healing based on 1-point per hit dice or 5-points per day after the first week of bed-rest doesn't detract from the enjoyment of being "in the moment". Verisimilitude...I think this is how it happens, at least at my table.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Do Orcs Hang Out at the Local Tavern

Old School Perspective
My first association with the word "orc" is from The Lord of The Rings where they are the bad guy minions of Sauron and Saruman. The Hobbit seems to refer to the same evil creatures as "goblins" and despite some research into the origins and species of orcs and goblins, I remain unsure if J.R.R. Tolkien meant them to be two names for the same creatures or not. The fact that they are evil and live separate from men and elves seems obvious, however.
White Box reintroduced me to orcs as a part of gaming. Listed among the monsters in Volume 2: Monsters & Treasure, orcs are one hit-die creatures with armor class 6 (equivalent to leather and shield) who live in various tribes either above ground in villages or below ground in caves, are aligned with chaos and occasionally work alongside men (who are presumably also aligned with chaos). Orcs are light sensitive (-1 to hit) and quarrelsome - frequently fighting other orc tribes. We are told orcs have access to catapults and to wagons, so I infer they are builders and makers of some (crude) skill. They are often led by high level fighting men, magic users or more powerful creatures, which seems to indicate subservience to power. This all seems to fit in with what I gleaned about orcs from reading Prof. Tolkien and my mental image of "orc" was (and maybe is) a combination of what I gathered from the Tolkien sources, movie adaptations included, and White Box.
In 1974, when White Box was published, the "to date" published works of Prof. Tolkien were fairly popular, especially among readers who would be interested in White Box. This was before the unfinished works were released by Christopher Tolkien therefore much that is now known about Middle Earth remained a mystery then. White Box may have been inspired by elements of Middle Earth, but certainly it does not adhere to a strict canon regarding any source. Therefore creatures such as the orc or troll may be "borrowed" from a literary source, but the authors freely adapt such material to suit their own fancy.
Moving ahead in time to the Advanced Game, orcs receive a fairly long entry in the Monster hardback. We now know that orcs are a common creature, of average (low) intelligence. They are characterized as slavers and "bullies" and their tendency to squabble and fight among themselves and with goblins is emphasized. They are described as cruel and haters of living things in general and especially elves. They prefer to live underground, see well in the dark and are accomplished tunnelers and miners.
It is from the Advanced Monster hardback that we have the image of orcs with pig snouts and the first mention of their skin coloration - brown or brownish green with a bluish sheen and pink snouts and ears. This seems in contrast to the Tolkien orcs who I recall being described as "black" and created from the tortured spirits of elves. The so-called pig faced orcs have never set particularly well with me and I tend to avoid using this description while refereeing. Your orcs may vary.
The half-orc makes its in-game appearance in the Advanced Monster and Players hardbacks as a mongrel race mostly resembling their orc parent (Prof. Tolkien mentions half-orcs as bred by Saruman). We are told some 10% of the human-orc cross-breeds sufficiently resemble humans so as to pass among human society. The strong racial language used in these volumes teeters on the unacceptable today (imo), but the meaning is quite clear. Half-orc player characters look mostly human, perhaps having some unusual features such as off-color skin tone, unusual hair or nose and ear shapes. They receive a Charisma penalty of -2 and are not well liked by other races. It is obvious, however, that this 10% of half-orcs can move among human society with some degree of freedom. I get the impression that people generally react negatively to the half-orc, but tolerate them as "ugly" and perhaps "ill mannered" or bullies.
What about the rest of orc-dom? The tribal orcs and those half-orcs who mostly resemble other orcs are presumably treated as monsters and are therefore unwelcome among polite society? This would be keeping with a Middle Earth interpretation. I just can't imagine an orc being served anything but violence at the Prancing Pony Inn.
The game has changed much over the decades since White Box ushered in the new hobby and today much game art and many published settings assume orcs and humans mingle freely in a diverse culture of blending much like our own real culture aspires to. This is certainly different from the way I experienced the game in my early days and may reflect some degree of old school verses new school styles of play. White Box emphasizes a do-it-yourself approach especially to world building and there is no reason to suppose worlds didn't exist back-in-the-day where orcs and elves shared high tea - in fact Tunnels & Trolls' default setting (Trollworld) has always been like that. It just isn't the way my group played the game until fairly recently. (In fact, when I referee, orcs are still "monsters".)
How one approaches the orc, half-orc may say something about their roots in the hobby. My first half-orc character was handed to me by my referee as he informed me this was to be my character in his 3.5 campaign. I balked...I had never wanted to play a half-orc, or a vampire or any other "monster". I got through it and grew to enjoy playing my half-orc cleric/thief, but it was an adjustment. I still tend to see orcs, drow, tieflings and other monster races as the bad guys. I also still enjoy westerns where the good guys wear the white hats (remembering it is all "make-believe"). One of the joys of this hobby is the freedom to "decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way".

Thursday, November 9, 2017

Old School Assumptions

...and Other Thoughts of Chaotic Delusion
The authors of White Box make certain assumptions regarding the people likely to play their new game. Chief among those assumptions is that those playing the game will be familiar with wargaming as it is practiced as a hobby (circa 1974). This means awareness of and often experience gaming with miniature figures representing various soldier-types from history and with maps. Traditionally wargaming is centered on subjects taken from history and a certain level of historical research is expected of those participating (fantasy battle gaming developed alongside RPGs). "Realism" becomes a thing sought after among such knowledgeable hobbyists and characterized the design of many early RPGs. Familiarity with tabletop measurement in inches or centimeters, the concept of scale and use of dice to represent the uncertainties of war accompanies participation in gaming with miniatures. That the designers possess these assumptions is quite obvious when reading the original LBBs.
White Box authors are also making an assumption that their intended audience has some experience with, and interest in, the fantastic as found in mythology and fantasy literature. The sources of influence listed in Appendix N of the 1979 Dungeon Master's Guide contains a list of those literary antecedents to the hobby.
Perhaps another way to separate an old school approach from a new school one is by looking at the assumptions made by their respective authors. Today designers of "old school" games assume their intended audience has some experience with the fantasy adventure games of the 1970's and '80's if not the same wargames and literature interests which brought many into the hobby during that era, while so-called "new school" games generally make no such assumption. WotC may be an exception with 5e having been designed using knowledge of the old school movement in the hobby. Nostalgia often plays a part in the old school marketing strategy if marketing comes into play. Many products labeled OSR (Old School Renaissance) seem to be labors of love and are perhaps written as an expression of the author's desire to share their "improvements" on the original game. I say this because many are available as free downloads.
New school (and some OSR) games often start with an assumption that the game is an introduction to the hobby and fantasy in general and therefore include a lengthy "What is fantasy roleplaying" section. If the current game author assumes anything in terms of an interest in the fantastic it is different from the assumptions of the 1970's. Today, fantasy has become somewhat mainstream evident in many video games and it is hard to find anyone who has not some familiarity with the magic of Harry Potter or the movies of Peter Jackson involving hobbits. Electronic games are a part of popular culture and many draw from the role-playing games of yesteryear for inspiration. Playing the part of a pixel hero in a video game setting is more common than familiarity with the map and miniature wargames of old. Designers of new school games assume familiarity with such sources and frequently build upon this assumption.
In 1977 when I discovered White Box and the hobby of adventure gaming I met very few fellow White Box devotees who had not read the stories of Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert E. Howard or J.R.R. Tolkien. Those authors together with Fritz Leiber, L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt are less well known today. Many of my fellow role-players, younger than myself, now come to the hobby reading R.A. Salvatore, J.K. Rowling, Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weis. Many play computer (and console) RPGs before tabletop. Many are experienced collectible card game players. How one thinks about the hobby and what one looks for in the hobby game is undoubtedly influenced by our prior experiences and the wider popular culture we are a part of.
The games I read and play today differ in many ways from those contemporary with White Box and the first Advanced Game. The single "unified mechanic" has largely replaced the modular approach to design. Character class, when used, is generally seen as something one can "dip" into in order to smartly build up character skills and abilities (through multi-classing) rather than class as a full-time career requiring years of training and full-time devotion. Races are accepted as variant humans with a few stat adjustments rather than totally alien beings. The idea of game balance has changed from one of experience point tables and level limits to that of managing threat, challenge and reward (wealth by level) and all characters being roughly equal in ability at all levels. I have already addressed death and dying in my last post.
The old school approach places much more power in the hands of the referee through a rulings not rules approach and a general do-it-yourself attitude towards campaign design and sand-box style adventuring. One of the goals of many new games is to limit the negative impacts of an inexperienced or poor referee. While not a bad aspiration in and of itself, I personally find this approach often leads to a less inspired and less creatively run session/campaign. It is no secret I generally favor the old school values over new school, so my opinion is undoubtedly biased. As regular readers of this blog may note, I am very excited about many new RPG titles and run them as referee more often than I do my beloved White Box. As an example of games actually played I have refereed more Dragon Age than White Box this year and enjoyed Pathfinder, Dungeon Crawl Classics, RuneQuest, Castles & Crusades, Star Wars, Shadowrun, The One Ring, 5e, Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea, Pendragon, and Fantasy Age in that order of frequency as a player.

Thursday, October 26, 2017

Death & Dying

Old School PC Mortality
Perhaps nothing illustrates the separation of old school play from new school better than their respective attitudes about player character death. Life seemed cheap in the old days and a typical session (not campaign) might see the death of one or more characters, not to mention the more expendable henchmen and hirelings. Old school rules can handle dozens of combatants and adventuring parties were often dungeon expeditions of perhaps a dozen or more individuals. Players often controlled more than one character and characters often had a henchman or hireling also controlled by the player. In contrast, new school games involve lengthy character generation procedures and character sheets with a lot of data, so it is uncommon for a player to control more than one PC during a session. Often a player will have only a single character in a campaign. Investment in that single character makes character death something to not take lightly.
My special snowflake: Playing in a Pathfinder campaign that generally meets twice a month, my PC is an Elven Fighter/Wizard. I built this character (point buy, not random rolls) along old school lines aiming for the White Box elf class limits of 8th level Magic User, 4th level Fighting Man. At level 6/3 he has accumulated a number of magic items, feats and skills which make the character a one-elf wrecking machine. As a player I have a number of decisions to make for this single character each combat round. I have been playing this one character for a couple years now and as my sole "playing piece" in the campaign have some investment in keeping him alive. The other players in the campaign are in a similar situation having a single character which is fairly well advanced in experience and accumulated magic.
The stable: in my early days of White Box and The Fantasy Trip play I recall we all kept a "stable" of several PCs, often at various levels of experience. (Character sheets were often 3"x 5" index cards.) When getting together to play a game, we assembled a party of adventurers from our stable of characters, then attempted to hire any additional muscle we thought might be needed. We often ran more than one PC each. The White Box character sheet is a simple affair and with initiative by side even an involved combat with several PCs, henchmen and hirelings is quite within the capabilities of an experienced player. We had our favorite characters and tried to mitigate risks to those PCs, but we went into the session knowing "someone's PC was likely to die".
There are a lot of factors that have contributed to the changes which have occurred in our hobby over the four decades I have been playing adventure games and it is not my goal here to describe them all, nor even to postulate what has brought about a popular change in attitude regarding character death. The point here is that PC death can add an element of fun to the game by increasing the risk. Loss of a favored PC doesn't have to take one out of the game (or campaign) and the threat of loss adds to the suspense and verisimilitude. When it happens, make it an event during the game. Other PCs may want to recover the body, say a few words (in character) about the lost companion and perhaps revenge his/her death. Tragic death is a part of many good stories, there is no reason to avoid it like the plague in our gaming if the game is designed to handle it well.

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Magic in Middle Earth

Tolkien Seen Through a White Box Lens
The act of including elves, dwarves and hobbits as player character races in White Box pretty well guarantees gamers will use the rules to play in settings inspired by Middle Earth. However, as Gary Gygax and others at TSR repeatedly point out, their game is not designed to play Middle Earth. White Box draws from a number of sources for inspiration and is really its own thing. The astute observer will notice a monster here and there drawn from a specific source, or a character class inspired by certain literary characters, but the system aims at supporting play using many different styles rather than imitating just one source such as Prof. Tolkien's Middle Earth. Most obviously the magic using classes of Cleric and Magic User seem out of place in any version of Middle Earth.
The game system is malleable and this isn't to say that with the appropriate "fixes" and modifications an inspired referee cannot use the basic system to run a game or campaign set in some version of Middle Earth. I have done just so myself several times with varying degrees of success. It does take some work. Any version of Middle Earth that a referee may run using any rules is subject to that referee's interpretation of the source material (your Middle Earth will vary). Some may wish to follow canon more closely than others and some will emphasize one aspect over another. Frequently gamers tone down the use of magic by players or abandon it altogether thereby portraying Middle Earth as a very Low-Magic setting. This is not my personal preference, however, as I see Middle earth as a very magical place.
In some ways the popularity of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings has done Middle Earth a disservice. Familiarity removes some of the wonder, the magic if you will. The made-for-TV cartoons, while delightful in many ways, rather "pulls the fangs" of Prof. Tolkien's creation by focusing on the cuteness of hobbits. There are many horrors present in Middle Earth (things that will eat you body and soul) and I tend to see it as a "grim and perilous" place, but perhaps that is my personal preference. Whether one focuses on the shire, pipe weed, birthday parties and the like or on darker aspects such as undead wraiths, cannibalistic orcs and corruption is to some degree a matter of perspective. Both are present along with much more.
The magic of Middle Earth takes on many forms. The immortal lands themselves and the beings that inhabit those realms, the dark and powerful forces, those who weave subtle magics for good or ill and the casters of spells themselves are all evidence of the prevalence of magic. The Istari, or wizards like Gandalf, are Maiar, immortal spirits sent to watch over and protect the mortal races. Other spirits are aligned with the Shadow such as Shelob the spider and Balrog. The ring witches are practitioners of dark magic who follow the Shadow. The first-born elves sing their magical song and those who have seen the light of the west are filled with it and can shine forth as magic. The dwarves can weave magic and along with elves produced many of the magical items that exist in Middle Earth. Even men have some magic power, especially Numenoreans - though it is often used for evil. The Steward, Denethor, seems to have some ability to see the future and Aragorn may have some skill in magical healing. Wormtongue may have learned some enchantment at the feet of his master, Saruman. In most cases the use of magic in Middle Earth is subtle by White Box standards which bases its magic system more on the dramatic effects of the Dying Earth (Jack Vance) sources.
White Box uses a modular mix of various mechanics for its individual parts and I personally favor a major redesign of the White Box magic system for use with Middle Earth, but a fairly simple modification can be a quick work-around. By treating divine magic as the "white magic" of elves and wizards, perhaps with a few custom spells added into the mix, and Magic User spells as "black magic" learned at the feet of the Dark One, a reasonable version of Middle Earth can be played. I feel a corruption mechanic is in order when playing Middle Earth to account for the weight of the Shadow which falls upon those who either defy the darkness or embrace it. The key is to not try and reproduce the stories told in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Develop your own Middle Earth tales.

Friday, October 20, 2017

Cross Plains Barbarian

R.E. Howard and White Box
I have been giving some thought to my own Appendix N, in other words, influences on my personal preferred style of gaming and on my own homebrew world. The work of Robert E. Howard must stand at the beginning of my list. Mr. Howard's barbarian tales excite my imagination like few others and have done so since boyhood. As I look back over my gaming career, I am reminded that I have continuously steered my games toward a more Howardian style - fast paced action, a feeling of antiquity, magic with a supernatural flavor, a human centered milieu and fantastic monsters. My love for these elements I trace to the barbarian stories written by Robert E. Howard.
R.E. Howard's stories are fast paced, full of violence (and a hint of sex), often with a touch of the supernatural or weird. They are foremost adventure stories usually set in exotic locations and involving exploration and discovery of some ancient ruins or forgotten horrors. Rather than being apologetic for the racism and sexism in his work, I will simply state it is there and that I obviously don't want to bring those aspects into my gaming. Though Mr. Howard barely left his Cross Plains, Texas home, his fertile imagination produced wide ranging, fantastic vistas that continue to inspire readers to want to grab the reins of a swift stead, leap aboard and race headlong into a rough and tumble world of high adventure full of fights and surprises.
From all accounts, Gary Gygax also enjoyed the heroic tales of Robert E. Howard from an early age (Michael Witwer, Empire of Imagination). It appears to me that despite the fact that there are Hobbits and memorized spells forgotten once cast (Vancian magic), the major literary influences on White Box come from the works of Robert E. Howard (Conan),  Fritz Leiber (Lankhmar) and L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt (Harold Shea) and Gary Gygax lists these authors among the "most immediate influences" (along with Jack Vance, HPL and A. Merritt). There is no doubt that the implied milieu of White Box is a blending of many sources, but the emphasis on fast pacing, fighting, encountering the unknown, and seeking one's fortune seems to model very well the themes explored in Mr. Howard's barbarian stories.

Friday, October 13, 2017

The Monk

Blackmoor Kung Fu
The Monk character class is introduced in Supplement II: Blackmoor. It makes sense in that supplement which also includes The Temple of the Frog in which numerous monks appear. The Monk PC class also makes sense in terms of  1975 (the year Supplement II is released). Bruce Lee died in 1973 after popularizing the "Kung Fu Fighting" style on TV (as Kato in The Green Hornet) and several exciting martial arts movies including Enter the Dragon and Fists of Fury. The "Kung Fu" TV show (starring David Carradine) aired from 1972 to 1975 and chronicled the adventures of a Shaolin monk wandering the old west armed only with his martial art. Meanwhile, White Box, and the new hobby it initiates, invites players to incorporate into their milieu things that excite them.
White Box includes no specific setting and seems to combine a number of influences in the implied setting with emphasis on sword & sorcery fantasy literature. The use of class titles, as well as arms and armor that have their roots in western medieval history suggests some strong ties to that source. Monks with their martial art skills are not a part of that western medieval tradition nor are they common in sword & sorcery sources. I believe the Monk class in Supplement II is an extension of the popularity of eastern martial arts in the popular culture of the 1970's.
The Monk class as described in Supplement II requires a Wisdom score of not less than 15, a Strength score not less than 12 and a Dexterity score of at least 15. Rolling three six sided dice in order for ability scores will produce very few characters who qualify for Monk. I assume that is the point. Monks are a subclass of Cleric and like Clerics must be human, no hobbits, dwarves or elves as PCs among the religious order. Monks may be of any alignment, but most (75%) are Lawful. Monks follow the same rules as Paladins regarding treasure - in other words they are limited to a maximum of four magical items other than weapons, four weapons and only enough wealth to maintain themselves, their men (if any) and a modest castle. As with Paladins, all excess wealth is to be given to a charitable institution or directly to the poor.
The Monk can use any weapon and has the benefit of doing additional damage points with them equal to one-half their level. They can wear no armor (although their unarmored AC improves as they level) and gain special abilities when fighting without weapons. They receive additional attacks and do additional damage while fighting without weapons and may stun an opponent. Monks gain a number of the special abilities of the Thief class including opening locks, removing traps, listening, climbing, moving silently and hiding in shadows. As the Monk gains level, they acquire the ability to speak with animals, then with plants and to heal themselves.
The abilities of the Monk seem consistent with the Bruce Lee character from the movies and I can imagine the Blackmoor Monk character having adventures somewhat like those of Mr. Lee. Being a fantasy character in a fantastic milieu the Asian trappings could be abandoned and an entirely new rationale given for the existence of such a character class should the referee choose. The aesthetic/mystic nature of the Monk's abilities suggest an exceptional human being, which is consistent with the ability score requirements for becoming a Monk. The class name overlaps with western European church monastics and is somewhat confusing in the context of the fantasy genre, but if we divorce ourselves from this anomaly and focus on the unique quality of the created setting, leaving aside historic reference, we can fit the martial arts monk into the milieu (or don't and leave it out).
Because of this mixing of influences east and west, the Monk is perhaps the most controversial of the original edition character classes. As a fan of the Bruce Lee films, I personally like the Monk as a concept, although I have some issues with the complex nature of its execution in Blackmoor. The 'mystic" side of the monk character is used in some systems to give the Monk some "magical" abilities and I think this makes sense. While playing computer RPGs such as Neverwinter Nights, the Monk is my favorite class for a solo adventurer as they seem to me the best single class to "cover all the bases". Inclusion of the Monk class alters the milieu and I can see why a referee might wish to exclude them. At the same time, the monk can be a lot of fun to play. I do think of the monk as more of a "loner" type, but maybe that is the influence of my associating the class with the characters played by Bruce Lee and David Carradine.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Rules Lite or Rules Heavy

What's in the Toolbox?
One way to look at any role-playing game rule book is as a toolbox of game components. I mostly play fantasy RPGs and the games all have a combat system, a character generation system, and a magic system. Some have a bestiary, some a skill system, some have a setting described, some don't. Some rule books are long, some short, but because of my own philosophy I approach them all as guidelines rather than strict "rules of play" to be followed slavishly. So as far as I am concerned, they are all toolboxes for me to pick and choose from so I can (try to) create the kind of game I want to referee. I frequently borrow an idea from one game to use in another, mix and match, one might say. I assume this is because my first RPG was White Box - a system that rather requires this do-it-yourself approach, but it is also a preference.
As a result, I generally run (as referee) a game that openly states "this is your game, change whatever you wish..." Frankly, I do that whether I am given permission or not and players are told this up front. As referee I try to be fair and mostly consistent and I often discuss how we will handle something in-game and use player input. In honesty, there are some rulings I have made just on my knowledge and preferences - how I see the situation in-game effects the odds of success or failure. I like the freedom to experiment, to mix it up and keep it fresh - to use my imagination. I like outcomes that make sense to me and that I can narrate once the dice are rolled. I like to reward clever role-play and innovative problem solving with a flat-out "yes, that works! No dice roll necessary."
I am of course aware that unpredictability can be bad for players. It can make it difficult for them to judge risk. Rulings can be disagreed with and seem arbitrary. I have played with a few referees that didn't seem fair and managed their game table in a way that didn't seem fun to me. The referee can make a big difference in the game experience whether the rules are short and loose or long and tight.
Some rules authors seem to try and make their game proof against poor referee skill. The rules take away as many opportunities for the referee to use their poor judgement as possible, but that term "as possible" is important. The referee still chooses the setting, role-plays the NPCs, controls pacing, acts as the eyes, ears, noses, etc. of the PCs by describing what they see, hear and smell and therefore can still "muck-up the job". It is not possible to write rules that will prevent a referee from doing a poor job.
What happens when rules become too tight, when they take too many choices away from the referee is to stifle creativity. To borrow a metaphor from art, oil paints are pretty open ended. The "artist" can create on canvas, mixing pigments and varying brush strokes, almost any image imaginable. Some "paintings" are artistic, some are even "masterpieces" and a lot are frankly bad and uninspiring. In contrast working with Colorforms (a child's set of vinyl shapes that adhere to a printed board) anyone can compose a picture that is recognizable (cartoon characters, TV show actors, etc), but the medium limits the creativity. "The Last Supper" done in Colorforms (or paint-by-number) is severely lacking compared to the original done with oils. In a similar vein, rules that are flexible and loose (even vague in places) allow greater freedom to interpret and create than rules that try to be "complete" and define too much.
Which type of game is best (most fun) depends on personal preferences. Is there room in our hobby for both approaches - absolutely. There are times I personally like to delve into a thick rule book with lots of detail and try to master it all. That can be its own brand of fun. Mostly I prefer games (with fewer rules) that promote a maximum amount of freedom for the referee (and players) because I enjoy seeing what people come up with. Part of my entertainment is being surprised by another's creativity. There are lots of ways to enjoy the hobby and I am not one to label anyone's game "bad-wrong fun". (I have some fond memories of imaginative play with Colorforms!)

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Referee Alignment

A Continuum
White Box gives us the concept of Alignment; Law, Chaos and Neutral. In the LBBs, Alignment is used to classify creatures into competing camps and to influence certain magical effects. Magic swords are aligned to serve Law, Chaos or Neutrality and will resist use by those PCs of opposite alignment causing damage to them in terms of Hit Point loss. Intelligent creatures will speak an Alignment language so that they may communicate across species as well as readily identify friend and foe. "Good" and "Evil" are separate concepts from Alignment in the text of the three LBBs. Anti-Clerics are described as "Evil" and certain spells such as Detect Evil and Protection from Evil make use of the term and concept although there is no list of "Evil" beings outside the Anti-Clerics. Creatures of Chaos are often equated with "Evil" by those playing the game, but the rules do not specifically state this.
An online query for the definition of Law and Chaos gives the following results: Law - a system of rules or a statement of fact;  Chaos - complete disorder and confusion; Neutrality - impartial, the absence of decided views. These definitions seem to fit with the game mechanics as a sort of overall classification theme under which creature behavior could fall.
I occurs to me, as an exercise in logic, to apply the terms Law, Chaos and Neutral to refereeing style or preference. A Lawful referee then would be one who prefers to play by the book - the rules as written. Organization would seem to characterize the Lawful referee as would planning. The ideal referee of Law will carefully assemble campaign materials, be organized and thorough in preparation and record keeping and know the rules to the game. Appearing rigid at times, the referee of Law will have definite ideas regarding running the campaign.
By contrast the Chaotic referee will prefer rulings over rules and be unpredictable while running the game. Surprises and flexibility may be strengths of this approach. Rules will often be by fiat - at the referee's whim and highly situational in interpretation. Improvisation will take preference over preparation and the campaign may seem in flux, changeable or even arbitrary.
The referee who strives for Neutrality may seek to be impartial or to be seeking the middle path between opposite extremes - a willingness to do some planning, but ready to improvise, mostly by the rules, but with some house ruling as deemed necessary. The Neutral referee may at times appear "wishy-washy" or undecided. This may be a legitimate criticism or a by-product of trying to not dictate too strongly how the game/campaign is to proceed.
Referee alignment seems useful in terms of describing characteristics often found in various referee's style. I am not sure that there is anything definitive to learn in applying this distinction however, except maybe to assist a player with a strong preference for a particular referee style in identifying such. So should we advertise our games as run by a referee of Law, or Chaos, or Neutrality? Should we warn our players we are feeling a bit more Chaotic today?

Friday, October 6, 2017

Blackmoor Assassin

A Look at The Evil One
Supplement II: Blackmoor is influenced by Dave Arneson's original campaign of Blackmoor according to the words Gary Gygax writes in his forward to the White Box supplement published in 1975. As such, the supplement has a slightly different "feel" to it (as evidenced by the illustration above) than previous material which was more focused on Mr. Gygax's Greyhawk campaign in the case of Supplement I, or the more "generic" fantasy swords& sorcery as may be the case with the original three LBBs. Tim Kask is listed as editor of Supplement II and according to gamer legend, it was Mr. Kask who took a stack of campaign material submitted by Mr. Arneson and edited it into the Supplement we see published.
Blackmoor seems a bit "darker" to me and that has influenced my own "homebrew" campaign I fondly refer to as Dreadmoor. Supplement I: Greyhawk presents the Thief class and Paladin subclass as options for player characters. Both influence the milieu of a campaign in which they are used by becoming part of the "cast of players" in the story that develops through gaming. Supplement II introduces two new subclasses, the Monk and the Assassin and doing so makes a dramatic impact on the cast. Taken together with Temple of the Frog - the first TSR published adventure location - we have our major insights into the Blackmoor milieu.
This discourse is focused on the Assassin because I believe its inclusion among the player character classes marks a seminal event in the game. White Box and its supplements have three alignments, Law, Chaos and Neutrality. Assassins must be of Neutral alignment (in the Advanced game they must be of Evil alignment). Like many rules in the original game, this is left open to interpretation. Neutral alignment seems to me to place the assassin firmly in between the two major warring camps, serving either for pay - there is an assassin fee in Volume 3 of the LBBs and additional fee information in Supplement II. Player character assassins receive experience for paid assassinations, so presumably this is an expected part of the campaign in which Assassins appear as PCs.
Supplement II indicates that Assassins have thief skills and "may also serve as thieves". The Assassin must be a member of the assassin's guild which is headed by a guildmaster which is the highest level attainable by the assassin character. The assassin's guild seem ripe with possibilities for adventure and its mere existence in a campaign is telling. The original game leaves the moral dichotomy of "Good" and "Evil" out of alignment, but certainly supports the idea that such exists through Detect Evil and Protection from Evil spells. What is good or evil is however left up to the players to explore and discover as part of campaign play. The neutral alignment of the Blackmoor Assassin leaves this moral question unanswered. It is certainly possible to create a James Bond style organization of "agents" with license to kill in one's fantasy adventure game milieu.
If Dave Arneson ever talked about how he envisioned the Assassin class being played in his Blackmoor I am not aware of it. For me the Assassin brings a dark element to the campaign. I think of nefarious characters hiding in dark alleys, of persons in disguise slipping poison into the king's cup, of Hamlet, not 007. How the assassin is used in the game is of course up to the players - providing they can ever qualify for one. The three LBBs do not list any minimum ability scores to qualify for playing one of the three original character classes. High scores in the prime requisite grants a bonus to earned experience (low scores, a penalty), but no minimum requirement. The Greyhawk Paladin introduces the concept and requires a Charisma score of at least 17 and Lawful alignment. The Blackmoor Assassin has three prime requisites, Dexterity, Strength and Intelligence - all must be at a minimum score of 12. Rolling three d6 in order suggests the Assassin will be a rare occurrence as a PC.
Giving some thought to the Assassin and how to incorporate the class into my own campaign, my first thought is as a more deadly version of the Lankhmar Thieves guild. Then I recall that Dave Arneson is rumored to have been a fan of the Hammer Horror films which may have inspired the Cleric Turn Dead ability. The White Box Cleric I interpret as a combination of this film inspiration and the warrior monks of the crusading era that probably inspired Gary Gygax (the cover of Chainmail features what looks like a Knight Templar). The same crusader-era history includes a religious group called "al-Hashashin" who under the leadership of The Old Man of the Mountain had agents throughout the area who served as spys and killers operating from their hidden mountain fortress and who inspire the modern term assassin.
I understand Blackmoor's classification of the Assassin as a subclass of Thief. I also like the idea of the Assassin having a fantasy religious connection (possibly demonic?). The figure in the illustration taken from the Blackmoor supplement is most likely a monk, but what about recasting him as an assassin? Housed in a temple as a member of a secret order of religious fanatics who have agents across the campaign, perhaps the assassin has access to divine magic in the form of items or even spells? I hope this isn't stretching the original concept too far.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Is 5th Edition Old School?

My Perspective
Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro have done an excellent job listening to "old school" gamers and 5e is much closer to older editions of the game than 4th Edition was. From a marketing stand-point, 5e maybe hits the sweet spot between appealing to as many hobbyists, old and new school, as possible. Prompted by Mike Mearls' Greyhawk Variant and recent release of Unearthed Arcana: Greyhawk Initiative, I am once again comparing 5e to my concepts of an "old school" game. I now have enough experience with 5e that I feel comfortable commenting on that from my personal old school perspective.
Over the decades since the beginning of the hobby initiated by White Box, gamers have come to expect new and different things from their rule system. PC individualization and ability to survive have increased over time when comparisons are made between older and newer editions of the game. The White Box PC level progression can be stated as "zero-to-hero-to-superhero". In contrast, WizBro era editions tend to start PCs at higher levels of relative power and then progress more quickly to super power status and beyond. A combination of the ascending Armor Class mechanic introduced in 3e, Ability score bonuses and Feats can drastically increase the damage output of PCs. The result is that today's "super hero" PC has dramatically changed the "feel" of the game for many older referees (myself included).
The relative power level of a 1st level character is dramatically higher in 5e than White Box as evidenced by the chances to hit an enemy in melee. Using the Alternative Combat System found in Volume 1: Men & Magic, the 1st level PC (of any class) has to roll a 12 or higher on a d20 to hit Armor Class 7 (Leather Armor), a common AC for many "monsters". Rolling a 12 or higher on the twenty-sided dice gives a 45% chance of success (high Strength does not increase chance to hit in White Box). So a little less than one-half the time the PC hits the monster.
In 5e To-Hit numbers are determined quite different from using the matrix of White Box (and early AD&D). The 1st level PC has a base AC target number to hit rolling a d20. Leather Armor gives an AC of 11. To make an attack, the player rolls a twenty-sided die and adds any Ability Bonus (usually Strength bonus for melee) and Proficiency Bonus (+2) for a 1st level character. Creating an "average" PC by-the-book in 5e likely results in a Strength Ability bonus of  +3 (for a Fighter), so the total adds to the d20 roll is +5. In order to hit an AC of 11, the fighter needs a score of 6 or better (11 minus 5 equals 6). This is a 75% chance of success - much higher than that of the White Box Fighting Man.
Player Character power level is only one aspect of play affecting how one feels about the game. "rulings not rules" is another commonly held believe regarding "old school" play and in this 5e is a return to a more rules lite, loose system allowing referee fiat to a greater degree than other WizBro era editions. The 5e books are written with a number of options in place which can be accessed or ignored by the referee allowing customization of the game while staying technically within the rules as written. Whether this goes far enough to satisfy the individual referee is a question each must answer for themselves.
The 5e system currently comes in two flavors: the full system found in the three core hardbacks and a "Basic" system found online as free downloads. The Basic 5e is a simplified and cut-down version of the full game and it includes no art. In effect the material it does contain seems more consistent with an "old school" approach to the game than the full version. The Basic game limits character class selection to the basic four - cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard; it limits races to the traditional human, elf, dwarf and halfling. There are no warlocks or sorcerers, no dragonborn or tiefling, and no feats. Rogue Comet has taken the Basic 5e material and re-imagined it as Dungeonesque which is marketed as 5e optimized for "old school" play.
I have not used the Greyhawk Initiative variant rules, but reading them I am reminded of how the Perrin Conventions (1976) were used together with White Box to give more structure and tactical focus to combat using the LBBs. The Greyhawk Initiative system uses a count-down mechanic that likely results in ranged attacks going off first followed by movement, melee and spell casting. Each player must declare at the beginning of each round what they intend to do. According to Mr. Mearls, it may also make healing a bit more difficult to use in combat (and thereby give a more deadly game?).
Ease of character generation and the ability to handle frequent character death go hand-in-hand in my opinion and I find 5e restrictive in this regard. Healing is frequent and readily available in 5e reflecting more recent popular trends in game design. PCs, and NPCs using similar rules, are difficult to kill using all the "get out of death" options available. PC death, when it happens, is often the result of a "perfect storm" of everything going wrong rather than a calculated gamble on the part of a player. The incremental reduction of White Box PC hit points allows the player to calculate how long their PC is "likely" to last in a fight. The player can quickly "do the odds" in their head and make decisions based on known probabilities. The "save or die" mechanics of some traps and poisons is an obvious exception to this "predictability" in White Box and while perhaps feeling "unfair" to some, maintains an element of "fear" in the game. A dead PC can result in a period "out of game" for the player forced to generate a new character that is directly proportional to how much time needs to be spent in chargen. Thus I think quicker is better in a game likely to have high PC mortality rates.
All these aspects combine in a game system to create a "feel" at the game table. If the referee desires an "old school" feel and has players who also buy into this style of gaming, can 5e deliver? I am still debating this, but also finding myself leaning ever further away from saying, "yes, it can". I like that older modules can be played with 5e (more easily than with 4e or 3e) and that WizBro is publishing new material inspired by the old modules. I like Backgrounds and the fact that Feats are optional. I like Advantages and Disadvantages as a mechanic and the general looseness and brevity of the rules (and the fact that there are ONLY three books). I am less happy with healing, PC mortality and "power level".
The 5e rules give a nice game, an enjoyable tabletop adventure game experience and the published play-aids are entertaining and well written for the most part. WizBro is doing a very good job with the 5e product in my opinion and I am quite pleased over-all. Perhaps it is inconsequential whether 5e is "old school" or not.  Maybe all that matters is that it has appeal to a self-styled "old school" referee.

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

d100 Clones

Adventure Gaming with Percentile Dice
My recent exploration of Zweihander has me thinking about the trend in our hobby to re-imagine older game systems, add new material and create something both old and new. In the better examples an idea that has been around for a while is improved on, either through better organization and layout, better game mechanics in one or more areas, additional material which builds on and takes the original concept to bigger and better things, or in some other way brings something new and worthwhile to the hobby. The flexibility and popularity of White Box and mechanics based on the use of a twenty-sided die has produced the majority of these clones, simulacrum, pseudo-clones, what-ifs and love letters to... But there are also a few of the re-imaginings which focus on games using other mechanical systems involving either six-sided dice or percentiles. Zweihander is one such product which takes its inspiration from a percentile or d100 roll-under system. There are others.
OpenQuest has a new "refreshed" edition out. It takes its inspiration from the d100 games originally produced by Chaosium in the 1970's and re-tooled by Mongoose around 2006. OpenQuest makes use of the Mongoose Open Game License (OGL) System Reference Document (SRD) and is therefore an open game license product itself. It is this OGL concept spearheaded by Ryan Dancey at Wizards of the Coast and widely adopted that has made the re-imaginings (and a host of creative products) possible. No small thanks is due Mr. Dancey and WotC for this "gift" to our hobby. OpenQuest is generic in the sense that it is not directly connected to a specific world, but like many of the d100 clones it clings closely to the original bronze age myth-based heroic age feel that RuneQuest has. Battle magic, spirit magic, divine magic, cults, and sorcery will feel familiar to anyone conversant with the old Glorantha based products, but each section of the OpenQuest rules also bears the unique stamp of Mr. Newport's vision of his preferred game style.
Percentile dice have been rolling around the game table for a long time. Basing game mechanics on a roll-under percentile is about the simplest and easiest to understand mechanic yet invented for introducing chance into data driven game play. I recall rolling the two polyhedrons used for generating percentiles as part of wargaming long before I heard of White Box, role-playing or fantasy gaming. Several early fantasy role-play games made use of percentile dice in one way or another, probably because they were being used in historical wargaming from which the hobby emerged.
The first game I recall playing that used a straight-up, intuitive, roll-under, percentile based skill system as the central mechanic was RuneQuest from which Basic RolePlaying (BRP) is developed. The BRP engine powers most of Chaosium's many RPGs including personal favorites Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer and Magic World. Basic RolePlaying has been included in many of Chaosium's RPGs as a slim, generic, "introductory" or basic rules book and as such may have been the hobby's first "generic" rules. Currently Basic RolePlaying takes the form of the big "Gold Book" which assembles most (if not all) the various rules from the many systems Chaosium has published in a generic toolbox format aimed at the referee who wishes to design their own custom version using the d100 engine.
Mongoose Publishing acquired the rights to the name RuneQuest and its brand of d100 after WotC had opened the Pandora's Box of the OGL and therefore their versions of d100 were also released as Open License products. OpenQuest is Newt Newport's interpretation of the Mongoose OGL rules. Mr. Newport has built OpenQuest as his vision of d100 and refined it for his preferred style of play. I find it a tightly written and slightly more accessible combination of some of my favorite elements of older editions of RuneQuest and Stormbringer.
Before it lost use of the Glorantha and RuneQuest intellectual properties, Mongoose released a major redesign of the d100 system under the title RuneQuest II. Written by Pete Nash and Lawrence Whitaker, RuneQuest II (as Legend) is one of my favorite iterations of d100. It is still in print, with references to the Glorantha setting removed, as Legend by Mongoose. Mr. Nash and Mr. Whitaker subsequently formed their own company, The Design Mechanism, and continue to refine their vision for d100 with RuneQuest 6 (while they had rights to the RQ name) and Mythras. I have the highest praise for the work of Mr. Nash and Mr. Whitaker both as authors of rules and setting books.
While d100 arguably holds second place behind d20 in popularity as a system mechanic it definitely fits my definition of "old school" with roots in the pre 1990s RPGs. Many of the games that use the d100 mechanic are among my all-time favorites. Many I still enjoy playing.