What's striking to me is how much is the same between both. Even short, throwaway rule guidelines from the Moldvay book are carried faithfully forward by Mentzer into his revision. It's clear to me that Mentzer did not intend to change the rules much at all, merely re-edit and present them in a more expansive, instructional format. The few changes he did make are mostly to be more generous to players, for example encumbrance limits are raised. The big exception are the Thief skills, which were a casualty of marketing - they had to be stretched out to 36 levels, so their actual gain per level is slower, which makes the Thief more useless for longer. The actual mechanics, however, such as movement, speed, combat, item prices, etc. are exactly the same.
Neither Basic set contains a method for random dungeon generation. Instead they contain guidelines on building a dungeon and how to stock it, but the actual layout and method is left up to the DM. The Mentzer Basic book is actually the same as the earlier revision's, just expanded. This makes the AD&D random dungeon generation table (copied from an article from TSR magazine) unique.
The big pillars of the OSR community are the Moldvay, Cook and Marsh B/X sets, and Allston's Rule Cyclopedia. The BECMI sets sort of get lost between them, since they're assumed to be superseded by the Rules Cyclopedia. The value of B/X and Rule Cyclopedia is that they're both written as reference works, and thus much easier to look up during actual play, while the big flaw of the BECMI sets is that the rules are divided between Players' books and DM's books, and the rules, items, and magic lists are scattered between the 5 sets, making them tedious to look through during a campaign.
Fans of B/X prefer its "simplicity". Restricting itself to 14 levels (though it Cook's Expert hints at 36), the Basic and Expert sets cover dungeon crawling and overland adventures, which is the same focus as D&D's original Underworld and Wilderness Adventures, and to it's proponents that's all you need. It's hard to argue otherwise, since modern D&D doesn't do anything different.
The Rules Cyclopedia, on the other hand, combines everything from the development of the Basic/Classic line into one book. This means it pulls in optional material such as skills and demihuman classes from the Gazetteer books, the large scale combat and dominion rules from the Companion set, and the weapon mastery and immortal paths from the Master sets, and even some hints from AD&D 2e. It takes an "everything but the kitchen sink" approach to the rules and those who have it give it nothing but praise for combining everything about D&D you would ever need into one volume.
However, people who quibble about the rules differences between the editions are barking up the wrong tree. The Rules Cyclopedia replaces some of the edits put in by Mentzer by carrying forward the original rules written by Moldvay, but then in other places uses the same text as Mentzer's BECMI set. The Classic D&D line does not have the major differences between editions that AD&D 1e and 2e, or D&D 3, 4, and 5e have had.
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
Underworld and Wilderness Adventures
The actual method of how to play D&D is contained in this volume. Men and Magic and Monsters and Treasure describe the things in D&D and how to use them, but the actual explanation of what to do in the game is written in Underworld & Wilderness Adventures.
And there's not a lot in there. The first section describes dungeons and how to build one followed by a brief discussion on how to explore it, with a couple of short asides on how to actually use some of the items detailed in the equipment list.* This is followed by a discussion of combat procedures in the dungeon, which explicitly directs readers to Chainmail for an in depth explanation, or they can use the very sparse charts from the alternate combat system in volume I.
The next section is Wilderness and it basically directs the reader to Outdoor Survival for the actual exploration rules and a map on which to play. A short discussion on converting the Outdoor Survival map for D&D play follows, and the rest of the book is taken up by combat procedures on land, aerial and naval.
What's striking is what's missing. There is no discussion of roleplaying, no mention of town adventures, of chats with NPCs, no instructions for the creation of a campaign or set up for heroic quests. D&D is primarily and explicitly only about combat, on a 1:1 figure scale in a fantasy setting either in the underworld or overworld, with monsters and heroes. What people actually consider an RPG to be is completely absent.
Maybe all of that is contained in the supplements and Strategic Review magazine, but then that would mean that to canonically play D&D as an RPG requires a whole host of sources beyond the basic 3 booklet set. Everything I've mentioned that was missing is actually in AD&D and the later Basic sets.
*which I found way more helpful than most other D&D source books since this information is not restated anywhere else until the Mentzer red book.
And there's not a lot in there. The first section describes dungeons and how to build one followed by a brief discussion on how to explore it, with a couple of short asides on how to actually use some of the items detailed in the equipment list.* This is followed by a discussion of combat procedures in the dungeon, which explicitly directs readers to Chainmail for an in depth explanation, or they can use the very sparse charts from the alternate combat system in volume I.
The next section is Wilderness and it basically directs the reader to Outdoor Survival for the actual exploration rules and a map on which to play. A short discussion on converting the Outdoor Survival map for D&D play follows, and the rest of the book is taken up by combat procedures on land, aerial and naval.
What's striking is what's missing. There is no discussion of roleplaying, no mention of town adventures, of chats with NPCs, no instructions for the creation of a campaign or set up for heroic quests. D&D is primarily and explicitly only about combat, on a 1:1 figure scale in a fantasy setting either in the underworld or overworld, with monsters and heroes. What people actually consider an RPG to be is completely absent.
Maybe all of that is contained in the supplements and Strategic Review magazine, but then that would mean that to canonically play D&D as an RPG requires a whole host of sources beyond the basic 3 booklet set. Everything I've mentioned that was missing is actually in AD&D and the later Basic sets.
*which I found way more helpful than most other D&D source books since this information is not restated anywhere else until the Mentzer red book.
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
Monday, June 10, 2019
Difficulty Checks
UPDATE: I no longer like Difficulty Checks at all, and I never use them.
Frankly, I find the d20 + ability modifier + proficiency bonus (optional) mechanic to be simple, elegant, and nearly universal for resolving undefined actions. It's a much better system than 2e's Non-weapon proficiency and 3e's skills. The 2e and 3e systems were actually very restrictive on characters who didn't choose the skill, as it meant that the player could not even attempt an action that they didn't have the skill for. The 5e system is very different, choosing a skill only applies an optional ability bonus, and anything else can be attempted simply by rolling a d20 and applying an appropriate attribute modifier. This actually frees player characters to attempt anything, and their chance of success is modified by their personal attributes.
I like this system so much I'm back porting it into my 1e game. This solves a lot of issues I have when resolving the outcome of player actions. Otherwise, I either have to give players a 100% chance of success solely dependent on their ability to convince me that their plan would work, or invent some contrived system involving percentile dice, or a chance out of 6, or something else complicated and obtuse. That sort of refereeing led to all the exceptional cases and disassociated mechanics that plague the 1e DMG.
The 5e difficulty check is the best iteration of the mechanic. The result of the modified roll is compared against a difficulty class table that is universal for player characters of all levels, and the referee only has to choose whether the difficulty of success is easy, moderate, hard, or nearly impossible. This is quick, simple, and usually able to reach the consensus of the players without argument.
But importantly, this is invaluable in solo play when there is no mechanic for solving a problem. The OSR technique for overcoming an unknown obstacle is to convince the dungeon master of your action's attempt, but this cannot be done solo. You either give yourself a 100% chance of success, or avoid the attempt entirely. A difficulty check now allows you to play solo and attempt anything, with the vague notion that your success or failure is fairly adjudicated by the dice and the makeup of your player character. That might be too modern of an attitude for OSR D&D, but it works too well to be dismissed out of hand.
And this whole thing was inspired by me asking the question "how do you open a lock without a thief in the party?"
and here's some answers I like: https://followmeanddie.com/2015/02/21/locks/
http://initiativeone.blogspot.com/2013/07/has-osr-mostly-embraced-thieves.html
https://blog.d4caltrops.com/2008/06/rules-cyclopedia-hacks-and-house-rules.html
Monday, June 3, 2019
The Cleric Problem
The Cleric class started life as a pastiche of Peter Cushing's portrayal of Abraham Van Helsing in Hammer Horror's Dracula movie. I love that movie. Dave Arneson was very liberal in using '70s pop culture in his early roleplaying sessions, and in one game he had been playing with two teams against each other where one of the players created an evil vampire named Sir Fang who had become too powerful to stop, so the proto-cleric class was created as a counter. When Gary Gygax included the class in the original Men & Magic booklet, he retrofitted them to reflect the Crusaders of Militant Religious Orders and tasked them with the power of turning undead and casting miracles. Mechanically, they were the midway point between the Fighting-Man and Magic-User classes with a unique spell list which included 3 healing spells and the ability to resurrect allies from the dead, which lead to the unintended consequence of their role being reduced to healing bots.
The problem came when Gygax's players asked the natural question "Where do the Clerics' powers come from?" Gary Gygax's flippant answer was originally "the gods" but as his players pressed the issue, he created two fictional dieties, St. Cuthburt and Pholtus, and then eventually antagonistic dieties, and then it spiraled out of control into a whole pantheon and cosmology based around alignment charts and planar existence and spheres of power, and other assorted overly complicated junk.
Every OSR blogger trying to make a retro clone or attempting to streamline their own game has tackled this problem one way or another. Some throw out the Cleric class altogether, others change their nature into being some kind of atheist heal bot, and yet others go down the 5e path of giving each Cleric a unique spell list dependent on the individual god they serve. To me, these are all bad solutions as they solve a problem by creating even more problems, are based on an erroneous understanding of mythology, and tend to dilute the essence of the class. And it all comes back to Gygax's misstep in mentioning that a Cleric's powers came from "the gods".
Now, Gary Gygax has stated that he felt that including real world references to God and Satan were inappropriate for a role playing game. I read an anecdote of a group where the DM stipulated that Cleric players had to pray to the actual God for their abilities, and it caused an uneasy awkwardness at the table. So I totally agree with that sentiment and even revised my own homebrew setting to throw out references to real world churches and religious organizations, but a really elegant solution was hiding under our collective noses the whole time.
According to some Christian traditions, Saints who are thought to be in Heaven can intercede on the behalf of parishioners and are prayed to themselves. Though there was a real, historical St. Cuthbert, the one invented by Gygax bears no relation to him and can easily be a purely fictitious patron for Clerics and other religiously motivated characters. And for antagonists, the Monster Manual is full of lists of Devil Princes and demons for evil clerics to beg for favor.
Personally I cannot conceive of a world set in the Middle Ages that doesn't have a strong Christian influence in everything from deed, to dress, to song, to architecture. Every fantasy world tries to handwave that away, and I feel that it cheapens the setting a bit. Settings that rely on a pantheon of gods would better reflect the Roman world of Classical Antiquity than the Medieval Era.
This method of using St. Cuthburt as a stand-in for a religion that mimics, but isn't explicitly Christian, creates an elegant context for the Cleric's spell list and abilities, and a justification for the existence of the class. Having religious characters as a player class adds an element of immersion to the game, beyond just having holy men and priests as background NPCs.
So, in my setting, there exists only one deity, however nobody prays to that deity directly. Instead the Patron Saint of the land is St. Cuthburt, and all faithful direct their worship to him as an intercessor on their behalf, and the devoted seek to gain his blessings and favor. Those blasphemous that seek unholy power would be fallen Clerics that have studied the teachings of St. Cuthburt, but seek to corrupt and reverse them for selfish means. The knowledge such used could be used to summon demons and devils from the lower planes. Druids and Rangers, who take neither side in the battle between good and evil, instead call upon the animistic spirits of Nature.
This resolves neatly with the alignment chart, as St. Cuthburt would dominate the Good alignment and Nature worshippers would have to remain Neutral, and followers of other beings would fall into the Evil categories. It also fixes Alignment Language into something understandable - the language of Law and Good would be the language used by the Church in formal discourse, as a stand in for Latin, the language of Neutrality would be the words spoken to commune with Nature, and the language of Evil would be reversed and corrupted forms of the language of Good. This would also explain why evil clerics are subject to the same weapon restrictions as their good counterparts, because to do so otherwise would rob them of their power.
tl;dr to fix Clerics, use a monotheistic campaign setting. All worship is based on the Good/Evil alignment axis. The patron for Good is St. Cuthbert, for evil Asmodeus or any other devil prince, for Neutrality is Nature animism. The class breakdown follows:
Clerics and Paladins: St. Cuthburt, and Paladins can only be Lawful Good.
Druids and Rangers: Nature worship
Evil Clerics: Corrupted teachings of St. Cuthburt.
links:
http://blackmoormystara.blogspot.com/2011/01/bishop-carr-first-d-cleric.html
The problem came when Gygax's players asked the natural question "Where do the Clerics' powers come from?" Gary Gygax's flippant answer was originally "the gods" but as his players pressed the issue, he created two fictional dieties, St. Cuthburt and Pholtus, and then eventually antagonistic dieties, and then it spiraled out of control into a whole pantheon and cosmology based around alignment charts and planar existence and spheres of power, and other assorted overly complicated junk.
Every OSR blogger trying to make a retro clone or attempting to streamline their own game has tackled this problem one way or another. Some throw out the Cleric class altogether, others change their nature into being some kind of atheist heal bot, and yet others go down the 5e path of giving each Cleric a unique spell list dependent on the individual god they serve. To me, these are all bad solutions as they solve a problem by creating even more problems, are based on an erroneous understanding of mythology, and tend to dilute the essence of the class. And it all comes back to Gygax's misstep in mentioning that a Cleric's powers came from "the gods".
Now, Gary Gygax has stated that he felt that including real world references to God and Satan were inappropriate for a role playing game. I read an anecdote of a group where the DM stipulated that Cleric players had to pray to the actual God for their abilities, and it caused an uneasy awkwardness at the table. So I totally agree with that sentiment and even revised my own homebrew setting to throw out references to real world churches and religious organizations, but a really elegant solution was hiding under our collective noses the whole time.
According to some Christian traditions, Saints who are thought to be in Heaven can intercede on the behalf of parishioners and are prayed to themselves. Though there was a real, historical St. Cuthbert, the one invented by Gygax bears no relation to him and can easily be a purely fictitious patron for Clerics and other religiously motivated characters. And for antagonists, the Monster Manual is full of lists of Devil Princes and demons for evil clerics to beg for favor.
Personally I cannot conceive of a world set in the Middle Ages that doesn't have a strong Christian influence in everything from deed, to dress, to song, to architecture. Every fantasy world tries to handwave that away, and I feel that it cheapens the setting a bit. Settings that rely on a pantheon of gods would better reflect the Roman world of Classical Antiquity than the Medieval Era.
This method of using St. Cuthburt as a stand-in for a religion that mimics, but isn't explicitly Christian, creates an elegant context for the Cleric's spell list and abilities, and a justification for the existence of the class. Having religious characters as a player class adds an element of immersion to the game, beyond just having holy men and priests as background NPCs.
So, in my setting, there exists only one deity, however nobody prays to that deity directly. Instead the Patron Saint of the land is St. Cuthburt, and all faithful direct their worship to him as an intercessor on their behalf, and the devoted seek to gain his blessings and favor. Those blasphemous that seek unholy power would be fallen Clerics that have studied the teachings of St. Cuthburt, but seek to corrupt and reverse them for selfish means. The knowledge such used could be used to summon demons and devils from the lower planes. Druids and Rangers, who take neither side in the battle between good and evil, instead call upon the animistic spirits of Nature.
This resolves neatly with the alignment chart, as St. Cuthburt would dominate the Good alignment and Nature worshippers would have to remain Neutral, and followers of other beings would fall into the Evil categories. It also fixes Alignment Language into something understandable - the language of Law and Good would be the language used by the Church in formal discourse, as a stand in for Latin, the language of Neutrality would be the words spoken to commune with Nature, and the language of Evil would be reversed and corrupted forms of the language of Good. This would also explain why evil clerics are subject to the same weapon restrictions as their good counterparts, because to do so otherwise would rob them of their power.
tl;dr to fix Clerics, use a monotheistic campaign setting. All worship is based on the Good/Evil alignment axis. The patron for Good is St. Cuthbert, for evil Asmodeus or any other devil prince, for Neutrality is Nature animism. The class breakdown follows:
Clerics and Paladins: St. Cuthburt, and Paladins can only be Lawful Good.
Druids and Rangers: Nature worship
Evil Clerics: Corrupted teachings of St. Cuthburt.
links:
http://blackmoormystara.blogspot.com/2011/01/bishop-carr-first-d-cleric.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)