Everyone Is Somebody's Moron

Society at large is quick to label persons with the worst possible spin they can put on their actions. Somebody making a very public mistake is called a moron. Someone running a stop sign in front of a police car is labelled an idiot. Someone who tells two different versions of a story on different occasions, sometimes years apart, is obviously a liar.

Can't it be those folks made foolish decision on the spur of the moment; made a careless mistake; or were mistaken in their recollection of an event? Why does it always have to be worst thing we can think of to call them? I'm not saying you automatically dismiss things that don't add up from people. By all means, keep it in mind. There is a great deal of difference, however, between mental reservations and public shaming.

This was inspired by a fellow who called into a well-known radio show dealing with ... err ... fringe belief systems. You know, folks who claim to have evidence of bigfoot, alien landings, visitations from billion year old spirits with detailed information about prehistory, etc.? Everything about this fellow spoke of his lack of education and refinement: his speech patterns, his inability to frame a cogent argument, his inappropriate word usage and grammar in general. And yet, he felt perfectly comfortable calling folks disagreeing with his viewpoint as morons. 

Well? Everyone is somebody's moron. We've all done something causing us to look around while thinking I hope nobody saw that.  Take a breath. Even better, take a minute or at least count to 10. Remind yourself we all make mistakes and don't be so quick to give the other person both barrels.

Burning Crosses

Religion and D&D is a touchy subject and I certainly don't mean to inflame anyone with this post. However, strong religious beliefs did play negatively into my gaming life and my social life in general in the 1970's. I would therefore be remiss if I didn't speak on the subject, however briefly.

A couple of caveats before I begin:

I'm a "live and let live" kind of fellow. I've no issue with your personal beliefs or lack thereof. If you want to play the game and are able to interact with other adults of the same interest in a wholesome way? You're welcome at any game I run.

Second, don't be a dick. If this post, in spite of the fact I'm not naming or slamming any particular faith, pushes your buttons? Stop reading and move on to something else. Don't "call me out" or take me to task. I'm merely reporting actual events and avoiding value judgment on some of the actors in this little play.

Still here? Read on ...

As I've stated, I grew up on a small Texas town. Never mind which one, that's personal and frankly it's information you really don't need. It's enough to know the folks of that town, indeed the entire region of this rather large state, were god-fearing folk.

The first omen was a simple one. I was at a friend's house and we were puttering around the backyard (garden to you UK folks). We were moving some debris caused by a recent storm from the fence-line to a compost heap when I saw something odd and passingly familiar sticking out. Curious, I poked at it to learn it was half a Ouija Board, the other half presumably buried somewhere within the midden heap. My friend saw my puzzled expression and related how his mom had learned the Ouija Board was a "tool of the devil" and had destroyed his before he could succumb to its power.

Okay. Well, as I've said I'm a big believer in folks doing what they wish so long as they don't break the law. I filed it under "curiosities" in my brain and mostly forgot about it.

So D&D comes along and when folks learned I played it I started getting stories about that, too. Like how the rules were based upon the Satanic Bible. Or, the magic spells in the game were real and I could lose my eternal soul to the demons those spells conjured up. One woman burst into tears as she told me about a boy who had "a real curse" put on him by another player ... and he died a few days later don't you know. My favorite, however, was the well-intentioned but rather scary woman who held her hands high and loudly rebuked the power of Satan within me for playing "that devil game" as onlookers gawked. My reply to these sorts of gambits was to either laugh out loud when folks brought them up, or reply along the lines "playing D&D makes you a real Wizard much like playing Monopoly makes you a real slum lord. It's a game!"

Now, don't get me wrong. I was never in fear of my physical safety over my participation in what I feel was a harmless hobby. However I was insulted, talked down to, dismissed, made fun of, and had folks go out of their way to frighten what they believed was an impressionable young man (I was anything but that) on the road to ruin. So I could say my mental health was threatened. And I did lose a few friends over it, though mostly relationships with certain ones cooled a lot rather than just stopped altogether. The whole episode taught me a lot about folks who may mean well but still leave harm in their wake.

Keep in mind, my parents and the people in funny hats of my particular sect of Christianity had no issue at all with me playing this or any other game. My folks saw me socially interacting in a positive manner with boys and girls of my age group and this was thought of as a good thing. The priest of our church reacted similarly to how I reacted when I approached him with the "devil game" stories I'd been getting from that other Christian denomination. He laughed then assured me I was in no danger of eternal damnation. 

So there you have it. I've no doubt others had no issues at all and I'm just as certain still others had far worse experiences than mine. I've always done as I pleased and hang anyone who didn't like it. That didn't make me popular with the "conform at all costs" types of persons out there, but that really wasn't an issue to me. I'll take a handful of friends who genuinely care about me over a crowd of folks whose interest is a fleeting, fickle thing.

Too Picayune?

A stack of poker chips, pennies, an index card with tally marks, a simple hand-written note ... all ways to track expendable resources. Resource management is an integral part of the challenge of playing OD&D. My favorite method for tracking arrows was to hand the player a stack of poker chips, one for each arrow in his quiver. Each round he fired an arrow he had to hand a chip back to me. When the chips were gone, so were his arrows. A bow without arrows is called a stick. Parties who just watched their last torch sputter and go out are in a bad way if they haven't planned ahead.

In like manner, tracking and using encumbrance is a big part of adventuring. OD&D had a wonderfully simple way to track player-character encumbrance: assume players are carrying 80 coins or 8 pounds of gear (basically, a backpack full of stuff) in addition to weapons carried and the encumbrance of their armor if any is worn. Alternately, I'd allow players to itemize gear carried if they enjoyed that aspect of the game. Any treasure or items recovered during the course of the adventure counted against their encumbrance.

I'm always curious why both players and referees balk over a shield granting only +1 to armor class (for example) but have no issue at all with assuming players have unlimited numbers of arrows or iron rations. Along with this wonderful boon, they are able to easily transport treasures weighing a thousand pounds with no problem at all.

Encumbrance and resource management adds another challenging aspect to play. If your players find 100,000 gold pieces but can only carry a few hundred of them back to civilization, what happens to the rest of them while the party is away? Do they divide up, some of them taking what they can carry to safety while the others guard the remainder? Do they hide what they can't carry away? Leave it behind, sacrificing both XP and financial gain? Similarly, if the party opts to flee from an encounter they are faced with hard choices. Drop non-essential items to increase movement rate? Or, do faster moving members leave the over-burdened compatriots behind? Drop part of the treasure hoping it will deter pursuit?

I'll accept you telling me you simply don't like that aspect of the game. By all means change it if you don't like it, that's how you're supposed to approach OD&D. I'm a bit less inclined to accept all this is "too complicated" because I've been running games with resource management for 40 years.

Order in the Court!

There are probably as many ways to go about character generation (chargen) as there are referees. I've always been a fan of "3d6 in order" chargen for several reasons. Chiefest among those reasons is the fact it's simple and fast, my main criteria for rulings in my campaign. I like to keep the action moving.

Almost as importantly, however, is my belief 3d6 in order removes the emphasis from generating the perfect character and gets the player to rolling dice. Ability scores in original edition Dungeons & Dragons are simply not as important as in later versions of the game, it is the player's skill that makes the difference. 

Still, there is often a need for a certain type of character in the game. If the party consists of four magic-users, a new player rolling up a fifth one might not be the best addition to the party. The dice are tools, not dictators and though it is fun to let random chance have a hand in all aspects of the campaign sometimes a bit a self-determination is in order. My solution? I offer two ways to alter rolled ability scores in my game.

The first method is "point sell" system (as I call it) in the rulebooks. Each class can "sell" points in 2 different ability scores to add to their prime requisite. I keep the same restriction as in the books, that is, no ability score can be reduced below 9. This is a good method if the dice have rolled a character similar to what the player already wants, but wants to "beef up" the prime requisite a bit.

The second method is much simpler but more useful for when the dice roll a complete miss for a certain needed (or desired) class. In this case I allow the player to swap any single ability score with the prime requisite of the desired class. For example, if the player rolled a perfect Cleric character with a 17 Wisdom and 5 Strength but he really wanted to player a Fighter? Under Method II he could swap the WIS and STR scores and wind up with a pretty strong Fighter who may be a bit lacking in common sense.

Naturally, a player may choose one or the other method as desired ...but not both!

D&D: The Movie(s)

[incidentally, if you want to see D&D: The Book of Vile Darkness for yourself ? It airs on Saturday May 9th on SyFy channel at 0100 hours.]

I posted on G+ last night regarding a big studio effort at bringing D&D to the silver screen. As you likely already know there has already been a film in 2000. The company behind it? New Line Cinema, the folks who brought you Jackson's LotR and Hobbit trilogies.

Dungeons & Dragons: The Movie (D&D:TM) was ... well it's difficult to put into words. On the one hand D&D:TM had a promising cast including Jeremy Irons, Justin Whalin, Tom Baker, and Thora Birch. On the balancing side you had an inexperienced director in Courtney Solomon and a low budget. These 2 factors alone are often the kiss of death for this type of film.

The best way I can think up to describe the film is schizophrenic. It couldn't decide if it was a slapstick comedy with wise-cracking Marlon "Snails" Wayans playing off straight man Justin "Ridley" Whalin. Or was it campy, with Jeremy "Profion" Irons chewing the scenery and milking the giant cow? Or was it menacing, with tough guy Bruce "Damodar" Payne in his black armor and armed with a wicked looking sword? Payne, by the way, was incongruously wearing blue lipstick which was never explained but was distracting and looked rather silly.

Overall, the film was mildly entertaining. I saw it in the theater and I must admit there was a rather awkward silence among the film's patrons, few of them though there were, when the credits rolled.

I didn't care for the excursions into comedy or the hammy portrayal of Profion. Wayan's Snails was almost a caricature comic relief character and not very funny anyway. The single dungeon delve was abbreviated and involved only one character while the rest of the party waited outside. The dragons were just plain awful. I realize both these last issues were related, in part, to the budget and freshman director, but a film must be judged on its presentation.

What did I like? The basic story was a good idea. I liked the main characters of Ridley and Marina. I thought Damodar was scary and liked the relentless way he tracked our heroes throughout the course of the film.

Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God (D&D II) came out 5 years later, much to my surprise. I say "surprise" because (a) I didn't think it there would be another after the poor performance at the box office of the first one, and (b) it was actually pretty good (at least, when compared with the first). D&D II was a made-for-tv film that was a sort of sequel to the first film, taking place in the same milieu and involving the same antagonist but a new story-line and new cast.

D&D II had a third of the budget of its big-screen brother but was a better all around film. Gone was the half-hearted attempt at comedy while the acting, from the main characters at least, was better with much less ham and cheese evident. Even the dragons looked better, though this can be partially chalked up to improved CGI in the intervening 5 years. Best of all, the film depicted a believable adventuring party with each using their abilities to allow the party to progress. I found Tim Stern's Nim the Thief to be particularly well-played: surly, secretive, borderline uncooperative, but when push came to shove he was acting in the best interests of the party.

This one is my favorite of the 3 and it seems many folks who have seen both feel the same way.

Finally, we come to Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness (D&D III) in 2012. Another made-for-tv movie but after the relative success of D&D II I was certainly willing to give it a chance. Unfortunately, between the acting and obviously lower budget this film fell short of already lowered expectations.

I really liked the story. I interpreted it as a fallen paladin questing to regain his paladin-hood. He basically had to look into the abyss and, for a brief while, the abyss looked into him (with apologies to Nietzsche).

Unfortunately? Between the pedestrian acting and low budget, this movie just didn't work. It can't even be bought here in the US of A last I checked. I had to log into the German version of Amazon, fortunately I speak and read German, and order it from there.

BOTTOM LINE The second film comes the closest to capturing the "feel" I expect of a film with D&D in the title.

Variant Character Classes

My feelings about popular variants changes with my moods and the needs of the campaign but, overall, I simply don't care for them. Many seem invented to fill campaign specific slots while still others are a bit overpowered, taking emphasis in game-play away from cooperation and the party pooling its resources and talents.

Still, I do use them and here are my general guidelines:

Archetypes are the best at what they do. IMC fighters are the best class at dealing and absorbing damage, magic-users are the best class at casting spells and using magic, and so on. So, for example, if you invent a warrior class that exceeds the fighter class in some respect I will add in some disadvantages to off-set this skill.

You can't do it all. Table-top FRPGs are designed around groups of player-characters, each with their own set of skills, working together to solve problems. So your character will be very good at his profession but still have to rely on the others for certain things.

No evil characters. This is not a popular stance these days but I make no apologies. I don't find running a campaign with evil characters such as assassins*, anti-paladins, death masters, demons or half-demons, etc. to be fun. You don't have to be a caricature of the All American Hero or anything like that, but you won't be committing murder, rape, or the like in my game. I put a lot of work into running the campaign and I have to find it fun, too, or it isn't worth my time.

I won't offset a mechanical advantage with a role-playing disadvantage. To go back to my example of a variant fighter? If you are better at sword-fighting than your typical member of the fighter class I'll likely limit your armor wearing ability or perhaps decrease your hit points. What I won't do is limit your ability to have magic-users or clerics in the party because members of your profession "distrust" magic users. Role-playing disadvantages often turn into what my character would do types of arguments. No! Mechanical advantages will be balanced out with mechanical disadvantages.

THE BOTTOM LINE Would any reasonable player wish to play the variant class over the archetype? Does your Blade Master variant class dominate player-character classes, all but replacing stock fighters? Then, in all likelihood, the class is over-powered for the purposes of my campaign. Of course, it should go without saying if the class is meant to replace an archetype (something I've never done) then this is not a consideration.

-----
* Yes, I have assassins in my campaign but they are NPCs, very Lawful, and have a lot of laws and societal expectations built into the specifics of how they are used. 

The Archetypal Character Classes

I use archetype in the sense of a perfect example of something. The term is often used to describe the basic four classes of D&D (or the basic 3 + 1 classes if you've been playing since the beginning).

I don't have a lot of standard variant classes in my campaign. What I mean by standard variant is classes besides the four archetypes (fighter, magic-user, cleric, thief) included in the milieu. Variants, though present, tend to be one-offs based around a character concept by a player.

WHAT DO I INCLUDE? My wood elves are based upon the druid class from Eldritch Wizardry. They are one of 2 main classes of elves that survived the cataclysm that formed the campaign world into it's current state. The wood elves adapted and, to a degree, have continued to participate in the world of man.

I've also rearranged the Gnome class to be a bit different from the Dwarves. In my campaign Gnomes favor gems and jewels over gold and precious metals. They also have a special affinity with burrowing animals. Gnomes also breed superior war ponies in The Shattered Lands, prized both by themselves and the Hobbits. Dwarves also seek these fine steeds but IMC Dwarves and Gnomes are in a state of cold war threatening to go hot at any time. Last of all, Gnomes are the weavers of a mysterious silk cloth (garnrillon) prized by makers of magical clothing (e. g. robe of protection).

I included druid-type elves because I felt these would fit in well with my campaign milieu. Gnomes are included for no more reason than they were included in the TLBBs and I wanted them to be more than merely Dwarves Lite.

IS THAT IT? Assassins, martial artists, witches, and similar niche classes can be found as NPCs. While I'm not averse to having a player be a member of those professions, they are not commonly found adventuring and endure a number of prejudices from society.

Assassins in my campaign take the depiction of assassins in fictional accounts of the Far East such as the Amida Tong and ninja. They are Lawful, almost painfully so, and ill-suited to the adventuring life. These men and women are basically living weapons to be used once then discarded with extreme prejudice.

Martial artists, also called brawlers, are adept at weaponless combat in the finest tradition of Welsh and Greek wrestling. No flashy moves or flying kicks here, these guys are deadly close up but mostly useless in a sword fight. Brawlers are the bouncers in most places that need same in the campaign. Many a burly and over-served Fighter has been humbled by these fellows in the bars of my campaign. There is also a sect of monks, The Children of Ashing, who are mainly dedicated to brewing very good beer but have an enforcement arm of staff-wielding brawlers in the vein of Friar Tuck (et al.).

Witches are the healers and folk magicians of the common folk. They have staunch defenders among the people they serve, but they rarely need protection. First, they are dedicated to promoting weal and doing no harm to any living thing. Second, they have a number of magical abilities that make them dangerous opponents.

SO HOW DO YOU ADD CLASSES? I mostly make the player do the work. One wishing to play a variant class IMC must bring me a work up of the class with level progressions, abilities, saving throws, combat ability, and so on clearly laid out. This can be a photocopy of a published class or their own work. I review it, make any changes I feel make the class a better fit for my milieu and hand it back to the player. If he likes the changes, we're good to go. Otherwise, we repeat the process until we're both happy.

I also like players who taking the option of playing into a certain class. Want to be a knight? Play your Fighter in a knightly way. Want to be an alchemist? Have your magic-user delve into the mysteries of alchemy, seeking out masters of that arcane art. I like rewarding campaign level play and gamers choosing this route are rewarded in proportion to their role-playing ability.

THE BOTTOM LINE I will not guarantee a player the chance to use his or her character and the unusual skills of same. If you want to be a Thief-Acrobat? It's up to you to figure out how to make pole vaulting relevant to your group. Why would an Assassin, normally an NPC class, be adventuring with the player-characters? That's up to you the player to decide and then justify, not the referee.