No Clerics!

I'm a jerk DM. I run a dangerous, freeform sandbox campaign with the potential for all sorts of injurious events, and I've explicitly disallowed Clerics as a PC option for reasons of genre emulation (despite the Bene Gesserit, Severian, etc.).

I created the Sage and Mind Wizard classes as a genre-appropriate replacement, but althoughs they have access to the cleric's suite of poison and disease cures and the like, they do not have access to cure light wounds and the other hit point refilling spells. Undead aren't that common in my game, so the loss of Turn Undead hasn't really affected things.

I'm not a total jerk, so I instituted the common First Aid houserule (apply first aid immediately after a battle/injury to restore 1d4 hp), as well as a generous hit point recovery rate of 1d3 points per day (I'm quite fond of random healing rates...it certainly emulates the uncertain nature of recovering from injuries in adventure fiction, "After several days Wilson hadn't regained consciousness so we had the bearers build a litter so that they could carry him as we continued our journey," "..despite his grievous injuries Rok-Mhor was his usual lusty self after a few days rest...")

The end result is that while on an expedition the party often has to shack up in a defensible campsite for several days so injured party members can get back on their feet, in both the literal and figurative meaning, often having of fend of random encounters in the process.

A band of treasure hunters, holed up in a swarming jungle, fending off hostile natives and voracious wildlife, hoping desperately that the injured members of their party recover before they run out of supplies or are overwhelmed so that they can escape this green hell...

The no clerics rule has been working out pretty well as far as I'm concerned!

ALSO: I've been having problems with both my computer and my mobile device, and consequently have been neglecting keeping up with my emails and the comments, please bear with me as I get caught up :)

Musing on Magic & Technological Items

Traditionally in D&D & derived rpgs magic items and technological items are interchangeable. In a fantasy game what may be called a wand of fireballs, whereas in a sci-fi game an item with the same effect could be called an incendiary micro-grenade launcher (aside from the class requirements for many magic items in standard D&D).

In Empire of the Petal Throne the line is further blurred, with magical and technological items being treated interchangeably.

While working on the treasure & item material for the Planet Algol material, what really struck me is that many classic D&D magic items such as healing potions, flying carpets, wands of lightning and the like not only can easily be presented a technological items, but when their functionality and "reliability" are concerned they come across as virtual technological items. A magic-users suite of magic items could easily be some sort of advanced technician's supply of advanced equipment.

When one considers how magic items are treated in much of the "source fiction," they are generally more mysterious than D&D magic items. Enigmatic, possibly dangerous artifacts of lost-lost eldritch forces. Generally not the "utility items" that most D&D magic items are, but instead "Artifacts" similar to those of the Artifacts of classic D&D.

The conclusion I've come to while considering such matters is that in the Planet Algol setting as I present it, technological items generally should be the "generic, utility" items such as contragravity harnesses and medical nano-injectors whereas magical items generally should be "Artifact-ish." Powerful, mysterious items of legend such a the orichalcum encrusted skull of an ancient sorcerer infused with his knowledge or the ritual implements of an extradimensional sage.

My goal is to present an array of standard technological items as well as both a selection of example "weird, classic sword & sorcery" magic items and the tables for generating such items.

Now I would like to include some allowances for minor charms and amulets created by contemporary sorcerers, but I would like to avoid magic items being something that are created by nowadays sources, instead being the remnants of lost civilizations or from distant spheres and dimensions.

One motif in many science fantasy settings, such as China Mievilles Bas-Lag milieu (which is a big influence on Planet Algol), is techno-magical items. Although I enjoy the way such items are presented in the Bas-Lag novels, in my interpretation of the Planet Algol setting I would like to avoid such magitechnology, as I would like to keep magic items weird and mysterious, and also with access to technological items such magitech is somewhat redundant.

Three Crucial Root Dungeon Design Texts & Saturday Night Specials

The Underworld & Wilderness Adventure, Dungeon & Dragons vol. 3

- "The Underworld," pgs. 3-8

Empire of the Petal Throne: The World of Tekumel

- "Developing An Underworld," pgs. 98-102

Europa fanzine, Issue 6-8/1975

- "How to Set Up Your D&D Campaign" by G. Gygax, pgs. 18-22

also recommended:

The Best of Dragon Magazine vol. 1

- Assorted articles

Of special note is the section in Empire of the Petal Throne relating to "Saturday Night Specials," pg. 100:

"Here too, the role of the "Saturday Night Special" cannot be overemphasized. Aside from the deliberately or randomly determined "normal" contents of Underworld areas, it is interesting to develop large complexes inhabited by special beings. These should have special histories, and players should hear legends of their existence on the surface. Their abilities and treasures should be individually devised, since these add interest and spice to the game..."

Not only is this rock-solid advice for classic megadungeon construction, but I particularly an enamored by the usage of technical dungeon design term of "Saturday Night Special."

Design Goals - Multiple Interpretations of Planet Algol

Gene Wolfe On One Shoulder, Encounter Critical On The Other

A Short List of Influences Upon Planet Algol
Clark Ashton Smith
Lin Carter, especially The World's End Series
Jack Vance, especially The Dying Earth and the Demon Princes series
Moebius
Richard Corben
HP Lovecraft, especially The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath and At The Mountains of Madness
Leigh Brackett's Eric John Stark stories
China Mieville's Bas-Lag series
Robert Heinlein
Fritz Lieber
Michael Moorcock
Sterling Lanier's Hiero novels
Star Man's Sun by Andre Norton
RE Howard
Abraham Merrit
HG Welles
The Book of the New Sun series by Gene Wolfe
Dune by Frank Herbert
Edgar Rice Burroughs especially Barsoom
William S Burroughs
Star Trek, the original series
The Warlord comics by Mike Grell
Encounter Critical
Metamorphosis Alpha
Gamma World
Theosophy and similar movements
The Lords of Light by Robert Zelazny
Carcosa!
Fomalhaut and Kard & Magica
Heavy Metal magazine
Flash Gordon, the movies
Mysterious Planet
Planetary romance
Lots of science fiction

Currently there's several Planet Algols in existence. There's the AD&D Planet Algol campaign that I DM every second sunday or so in Vancouver. There's the generic oldschool D&D Planet Algol booklet I'm working on that's based on and written for my AD&D campaign. There's also Sean Will's Planet Algol campaign in the UK that was originally Swords & Wizardry/Savage Swords of Athanor but is now a Barbarians of Lemuria game, and is also more gonzo than my own campaign. And than there's my own gonzo ideas which surface on this blog, such as Kurt Russel related magic items and Blue Oyster Cult based campaign elements.

One of the design goals with booklet is to facilitate usage with a wide range of game styles and interpretations of the setting. I want this to be a campaign setting that you could use for a "serious high science fantasy" game in the spirit of Urth or Tekumel. Or you could use it for a Mutant Future or Encounter Critical campaign. Likewise you could strip away the science fiction elements and use it as a swords & sorcery setting, such as a distant exotic land in your own "normal" campaign world. You could also use it as a strange planet for a Traveller campaign. Making an Encounter Critical stats & conversion document after publishing the initial Planet Algol booklet is one of my goals...

Hopefully the resources contained within, such as sword generators, NPC generators, encounter tables, technological items, monsters, locations, magic item generators, mini-dungeons, etc. will make the booklet useful resource for all sorts of non-Planet Algol games as well.

The Planet Algol booklet is being designed as an orthodox sandbox/random table campaign setting. However, while musing on the "idea campaign setting," I thought it would be pretty neat for a campaign setting to have a complete sandbox while also including the information needed to run an adventure path style campaign in it. As I'm intending for it to contain several detailed lairs, locations, ruins, mini dungeons, and the like it wouldn't be terrible offensive to include a few pages with a simple campaign outline utilizing said elements as the stops on a "soft railroad." That way, regardless of which playstyle your group prefers, you can have a campaign practically "straight out of the box."

All of this means that I'm taking my own dang time putting it out. I do want this booklet to be as awesome, versatile and useful as I can make it.

Requisite Rant Regarding Systems, Story, Tastes and the Like

Over the years of rpg discussion on the internet I've seen a lot of "[GameXXXX] inhibits/cripples story/roleplaying due to [skill systems/abstract systems/complicated systems/mortality]."

i.e. "OD&D inhibits roleplay due to a lack of a skill system," or "Call of Cthulhu inhibits story due to character mortality."

All of this hot talk is a load of pretentious chauvinistic Balloon Juice as far as I'm concerned.

Sure, you may personally not enjoy a particular game system, but to claim that any rpg makes story/roleplay difficult or impossible sounds like a heap of steaming dung to these ears.

I have roleplayed an "asshole realtor" while playing monopoly; a story of an epic battle has emerged while I was playing chess. I can construct an engaging narrative while playing Nethack or Quake by myself. I am all about Professor Plum trying to bone down with Miss Scarlet while playing Clue.

You know how children can construct an epic world and story out of a pile of mismatched toys and non-toys? That's "creative play." RPGs, regardless of system or theme also encourage "creative play" regardless whether you are gaming the politics of a bunch of aristocratic vampires or the looting of a goblin cave.

I can roleplay with a detailed skill system or without one. I can find an engaging narrative with the abstract battle system of Monopoly or the ultra detailed injuries of Bureau 13 or Ysgarth.

I can have a string of randomly generated PCs die while adventuring, and all of them will have distinct personalities and motivations regardless of their ridiculously short life expectancies.

I can participate in a railroad-y adventure path or an aimless wandering sandbox and a distinct, and a compelling story will emerge regardless of the campaign structure.

You can play a basket-weaver or rocket scientist character with or without a skill system.

My dislike for playing 3/4e Dungeons and Dragons has nothing to do with the systems inhibiting roleplay or story but just my own preferences regarding system complexity and genre.

I don't have a "one true way." I have a way that I personally enjoy and find useful. I mostly listen to "Kill Your Mother Music" like grindcore, black metal, crust and power violence hardcore, but I think it is the height of insanity to claim that such musical genres are "superior" to Lady Gaga or Yanni. It's just what I personally enjoy.

It's just what I enjoy.

It's just what I enjoy. I also enjoy dialogue with others with complimentary or corresponding tastes, I learn about how others play and in the process I learn about how I play. I am not interested in some dogmatic position or denigrating others' tastes (aside from "asshole humor" which as a cynical, jaded jerk I find hilarious...but I also try to keep between me and others that share that sense of humor).

I'm interested in learning and evolving while still staying true to what I find enjoyable. To me, the OSR represents the preservation, promotion and development of a selection of systems and styles, not a "One True Way." Does anyone honestly believe that the folks behind Ducks Unlimited have some sort of vendetta against parrots?

Some folks think that potato on pizza is awesome. I think it's disgusting and redundant (starch on starch?!?). Do I think that people that eat potato pizza are suffering from some taste deficiency or need to be shown the light? Of course not, I'm just not interested in eating it.

You keep telling me you hang around while you play around
With the clowns that you've found
It ain't right
Now and then I get tired of the sounds
Of you putting me down while you're playing the town
Every night

I'm getting hung up
Yes I am, yes I am
And you don't give a damn

No you don't - have to treat me like a fool
No you don't - have to be so bloody cool
No you don't - have to make up all the rules
No you don't - no, no, you don't
No you don't

You keep on playing your reckless games
That will give you fame
But I'll take the blame for your name
Well you think you've got my life in your hands
But I'm a man, I'm a man
And I've got my own plans, I'm a man

I'm goin' down
Yes, I am, yes I am
And I don't give a damn

No you don't - have to treat me like a fool
No you don't - have to be so bloody cool
No you don't - have to make up all the rules
No you don't - no, no, you don't
No you don't

No you don't - have to treat me like a fool
No you don't - have to be so bloody cool
No you don't - have to make up all the rules
No you don't - no, no, you don't
No you don't

No you don't - no you don't
No you don't - no you don't
No you don't - no you don't...

Math, Editions and New Players

During a session of your favorite rpg how much time is spent idle while one of the participants performs simple addition? Hemming and hawing their way through "fourteen plus three is seventeen.." "DM: You hit!" "...oh wait there that plus two so I got 19" "DM: You still hit roll the damage!"

I've got decent math skills, and I feel kind of bad saying this, but a lot of people do not perform calculations quickly, I blame our educational systems. It is grating waiting for someone hem and haw and fumble their way through simple addition.

In 3rd edition I came to ABSOLUTELY HATE Power Attack. It became a house rule in my game that you absolutely must have a workspace with the math for any variation of Power Attack you use made out beforehand. I can do it in my head no problem. Most people...um, it'll take a couple of seconds.

Those "couple of seconds" really add up. How much of your game should be spent performing math? Hey, I think math is awesome. And maybe if folks with weaker math skills can benefit from math-intensive rpgs than that is a good thing.

I call this "Processing Cycles," as in "Different players take different amounts of Processing Cycles to calculate their attack rolls," "Power Attack requires a lot of Processing Cycles," and "Since I inked my dice it takes way less processing cycles to read them!"

That's one of the reasons I love playing oldschool D&D. 95% of that crap is GONE. In AD&D you're probably not going to have any ability score modifiers!

That is one of the reasons I still cling to the Attack Matrices and descending AC. Less dang addition!

Regardless, I can still get down with the more mathematically advanced rpgs, math is pretty awesome after all. But I really wonder, assuming that your average person is probably not going to have the sharpest math skillset, how the heck the 3rd and 4th editions of Dungeons and Dragons would ever be considered a "Mass Market Product." Making a character is like doing your taxes!

There is absolutely no way that 3rd of 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons could be considered a "game" as opposed to a "hobby" as opposed to Heroscape for example. I described learning how to play it as "halfways between becoming an accountant and a lawyer." It requires a significant intellectual investment to learn even the basics of play.

How reasonable is it to expect a "Joe six-pack off of the street," your mom or some young kid to be able to make a character and pick up the basics of the game in a short period of time using 3rd or 4th edition, nevermind doing all of that math on the fly.

With oldschool D&D it is, as long you communicate well, pretty dang easy to show a greenhorn how to make a character. And as long as they play a Fighting-Man and there's an experienced party to adventure with (and whom provide decent advice) they're going to pick up the basics and be rolling in no time at all!

Live by the Random Table...Die by the Random Table

Before the last Planet Algol session I had come up with majority of my Random NPC and Random Plot tables (much of which was written while waiting for some of the tardier players to show up...).

Being a lover of Random Tables, of course I had to utilize them in that session. So I roll on the random plot table to see what new adventure hook would be dangled in the party's face when they roll into the big sword & sorcery city of Kharhem.

The result?

"A terrible howling storm of acid and radiation lashes the land driving all into shelters where they must contend with cannibalistic madness."

Yikes! Well, I couldn't sleep at night if I fudged. So yeah, the party had to take shelter in an inn while the entire city was lashed by acid rain and radioactivity...and than the cannibalistic madness set in.

I used generous saving throws. Some PCs (and NPCs) resisted the madness, others had to struggle with it, and some PCs tried to kill other PCs....and one of them did kill another PC and passed out after feasting on his flesh on the last day of the 5-day storm.

Oh, and before the cannibalistic madness started, one of the PCs died due to a unfortunate interaction with one of the random NPCs that was present in the inn.

Fortunately the party acquired on of those total-munchkin-cheese Empire of the Petal throne Eyes ("The Eye of Restoring Life") while fighting Tekumel monsters in the underworld, so the two deceased characters were brought back (after making their resurrection survival rolls of course!) when the madness ceased, but they lost two charges of the potent artifact as well as five days of harrowing terror and cannibalistic madness.

Meanwhile the city there were in, the city that I have probably spend hundreds of hours writing, mapping, revising and editing, has been seriously nuked by hard radiation, acidic precipitation and widespread cannibalistic madness. "I'm a bastard! I blew it all up!"

And you know what? No regrets. No remorse. Let the dice fall where they may.

And despite the character deaths, despite having to deal with their characters going mad with cannibalistic lust, despite being cooped up in an inn for five days. The players enjoyed it...those magnificent masochistic bastards, I love these guys!

The moral? I made a stupid-awesome gonzo random table. Rolled on it and followed through on the results, thereby putting the players and their characters through the fucking wringer. Even taking away (temporarily) their control over some of their characters.

And it all worked out in the end. Be true to your DM bad-assery. Follow through on your madness. Don't fudge the dice. Put the players through hell. If they're true, if they're tough, if they're the leather and iron that adventurers are made of, they'll eat it up and than say "That's all you got?"

EDIT: In the same spirit, when I rolled for treasure and the uber-useful character lifespan-extending Eye of Restoring Life came up ("Tekumel monsters have Tekumel treasure" logic), I didn't fudge the dice and let the players have it. It'll run out of charges...and than the reaper will feast, muhahahaha!

EDITx2: It was also very gratifying that when characters were contending with cannibalistic madness I used the old cartoon cliche of saying that the other party members looked like a roast chicken to them...

"...And Quite A Few Complete Losers."

"... I wanted the kind of freaks you'd see in an actual campaign, so I generated a bunch of stats randomly by using the random number generator in the spreadsheet. This resulted in a couple kickass PCs, some decent ones, several mediocre characters and quite a few complete losers. This is completely acceptable to me, as every campaign that uses random chargen will show a similar distribution."

- Jeff Rient/Jeff's Gameblog

I use straight 3d6 in my Planet Algol campaign. Initially it was an experiment in "Gygaxian Archaeology," a luddite/radical traditionalist thought experiment. If it turned out to suck, we could go back to 4d6/your choice I thought.

It wasn't very long before many of the players and myself came to appreciate the results. Firstly, less math. With AD&D ability score modifiers and the bell curve of 3d6 generation, ability score modifiers are rare. With all the fumbling over math by the less numerically inclined in the previous 3.5 campaign, this was a breath of fresh air.

It also made characters with good ability score stand out. Being a tough guy in 3/4E is nothing special, neither is being a ninja-esque olympic acrobat. In my game, a character who has high strength and constitution, is a real tough guy straight out of the gate. The rest of the party and the players know this guy is "Extra Tough." He acquires a reputation in the party for his toughness.

You know how in classic ensemble action/caper flicks how the characters had their roles? "The Face," "The Brawler," "The Jewel Thief," "The Genius," etc. Although 3/4E explicitly had allowances to build your character to fit such a vision, ironically enough I find that using 3d6/straight down and a ruleset makes for more "Organic" and "Archetypical" examples of such cliche characters.

In a game where any character can be a strongman or a genius, it doesn't end up meaning that much. But when strongmen and geniuses are rare, than they become truly special.

As well, many in my group and I have come to absolutely love "Loser Characters." In Sean/Dudebird's AD&D Wilderlands game that the Planet Algol players and I game in, he allows 4d6/place them where you like method. When making a new character I decided to "walk my talk" and rolled my ability scores in the orthodox 3d6 method. He came out pretty average, aside from a low charisma and a dismal wisdom.

Enter "Jeryk the Unwise. " With an unpleasant, small lipless scowling mouth; eyes like a guilty ashtray; and the character traits of two of the most annoying people I've known. Within minutes of joining the group Jeryk began flapping his jaw about how he was an expert about this or that, usually due to an uncle. When the party came to a set of doors in some ancient ruins Jeryk proclaimed:

"I'm actually kind of a door expert. My uncle made doors, the fancy kind that rich men and nobles had. I spent a lot of time with him at his shop and helped him out. I actually would have become a master door crafter but I decided to be an adventurer instead." And than he started making a big show of using lamp oil to lubricate the rusty hinges and handle. The electricity trap on the door handle nearly killed him.

Loser characters are hilarious, usually the awesome players in my campaign play their ability-score deficient character to the freaking hilt! Jeryk's jackass antics had a couple of us helpless with laughter. With the lowered emphasis on ability score in AD&D, it really doesn't make it a huge handicap in most instances, and it seems like the characters with ability scores that are a genuine liability play smarter as a result and those characters tend to be survivors as well as having a lot of heart.

"If You Really Consider Your Character Very Valuable..."

"...if you really consider your character very valuable and worthy of the emotional investment you placed upon him, then it is your duty to play excellently, whereby ensuring that a single die roll does not result in the death of the character; that the fate of your character does not purely rely upon the scales of fortune or the outcome of a single die roll...."

- Spielmaster/Under A Blood Red Sky

Player Characters - I find Survivors More Engaging Than Badasses

Superman is boring. He's too powerful, he may be a great symbol and I think it's a great concept but I just don't find superman engaging. Aside from convoluted corner cases he can accomplish almost anything sans risk.

I don't find Jedi engaging either. I'm not into superheros. My Conan is the vulnerable, human, literary one. I prefer the Ash of the first Evil Dead movie. I think Aliens kinda sucks compared to the Lovecraftian terror of Alien. I don't like it when a video or computer game is too easy, I prefer desperately conserving my ammunition while crawling behind cover a half mile away from the vastly superior enemy.

The Road Warrior. Indiana Jones. Snake Pliskin. James T. Kirk. Fors the "Star Mans Son." Hiero. Dirty Harry. Ripley. "Blondie" and "Tuco the Rat." These are the heroes I find engaging. They may have been high level characters, some even bad-asses, but they were human characters that often failed, often got hurt, and pretty much got to high level by using good tactics and consistently making the important saving throws. They were no Batman, Wolverine, Lobo, Lone Wolf or Rambo. They weren't perfect.

Perfection is boring in large doses.

I grew up on a steady diet of science fiction with plenty of adventure fiction. Most of this stuff was from the public and school libraries and generally it was old. They had a distinct smell. In many cases the artwork was almost alien in it's difference from the modern art I was used to. In most cases the protagonists of said fiction were "ordinary" people. Sure they may have been genius scientists or tough soldiers, but they were human, and they were frail in the way real people are. They could twist an ankle or break an arm. They plans could fail, catastrophically even. They often got lost deep in hostile wilderness without full kit. They got sick. They didn't want to get into a gunfight or even a two-on-one. They got beat up or overpowered and if they got shot they usually woke up in a hospital or tied to a chair in a basement.

That's what adventure meant to me as I grew up. That what I want when I play D&D.

A Nice Little Quote That Says Tons About "Attitudes of Player Entitlement"

From this page of a discussion about AD&D on ENworld...

"...18/00- The wonderful gateway drug to bonus bloat. A beginning perhaps, to the insane notion that because it existed, every fighter had to have it or they might as well reroll. What is rubbish isn't the score itself, but the mentality that it helped inspire...."
- ExploderWizard

This is part of the reason I use the "roll 3d6 straight down" method for generating ability scores, your characters takes whatever fate or genetics gives them and they deal with it.

Funnily enough, some of the favorite pcs in our game are/were the ones with a deficient ability score or three...

More on "Grand Unified Theories" in Fantasy and Associated Musings

See the original post Here.

Further discussion on Grognardia Here.

So it turns out my musing on Grand Unified Theories and the Unknown in Fantasy has inspired some vigorous discussion, especially on Grognardia. A lot of interesting points were brought up, several of which touch upon other aspects of fantasy role playing, so I figured it would be worthwhile to continue the discussion.

Firsts of all, as a generalization, it seems to me that the Unknown/Grand Unified Theory divide represents a sea change in the fantasy genre. With exceptions, such a Middle Earth and Tekumel, most old time fantasy properties dealt with an unknown, nebulous world. When the Tolkein pastiches started becoming the Fantasy Status Quo (presumably in the early 80s) many of these setting had a "Grand Unified Theory" that explained the world and it's history, magic and metaphysics.

Now this isn't always a Bad Thing. Sometimes such efforts transcend the printed word and become sublime works that engender a sense of wonder and may even touch upon the big questions of reason, reality and philosophy. The Silmarillion is a great example of such works, and as one of the originators of this phenomenon it shouldn't be surprising that it stands head-and-shoulders above many of the imitators that followed.

However, I don't imagine Middle Earth to be a compelling venue for adventure. Sure, I could get down with some battling the forcers of Sauron and Morgoth while trying to protect the good people of Middle Earth. But it's all for naught and a pointless struggle, as the "physics" (metaphysics) of Middle Earth dictate that God/good will eventually triumph. Now, this is theologically sound of the Catholic professor Tolkein, but it doesn't motivate me to adventure in this world knowing that good will eventually triumph and that the world will become less magic and more mundane over time, until it is our world.

Another good example of a well-defined fantasy world is M.A.R. Barkers Tekumel. While Tekumel is a very detailed, with histories, languages, scripts, and cultures that have been developed for over half-a-century, as some have pointed out there are still "mysteries" in Tekumel. Although the history and world of Tekumel are detailed, we still don't know Tekumel's "Grand Unified Theory." How did the world get ripped into an extradimensional space? What are the gods and their relation to man? How does magic work? As far as I know, these questions have never been answered, and there are further mysteries, such as the Pylons and Silver Suits, that I find compelling. Plus it seems to me that there is a lot of elbow room in Tekumel's giant hexes for a referee to create his own version of the world.

In discussion about the topic many have brought up, rightfully so, that detail and history are not necessarily the enemy of Adventure! You can have a compelling campaign world with histories and known geography. But I think a distinction should be made about "over-defining" the world, especially when it comes to issues of destiny, fate and metaphysics.

History, geography, and so forth can always be fragmentary or contradictory, thereby engendering a sense of mystery. However, with metaphysics and fate, you may want avoid making the players feel like their characters are running in hamster wheels in the game of the gods. Being chained to fate and prophecy may be a good way of stretching out a series of fantasy novels over several volumes or exploring issues of free will and determinism, but I'm a free man and I resent being a playing piece in a chessgame being played by metaphysical forces. I'm sure many players enjoy having an epic part to play in the weave of history, and it's a motif that verges upon being the standard in modern fantasy, but it doesn't work for me. The adventures of Paul Mau'adib are a great read, but I wouldn't want to play him! And philosophically speaking, I do believe that humans gain and learn more by forging their own path through life than doing what is expected of or planned out for them.

Another issue brought up in discussions of "Grand Unified Theory" Fantasy is that it can be a Bad Thing as it can hinder "Collaborative Worldbuilding." In the interest of full disclosure, although I find collaborative worldbuilding creative and interesting and would be interested in participating in such a venture, when it comes to Planet Algol I'm an autocratic demiurge. Most of the campaign elements spring into my imagination as almost fully-realized "Platonic Forms," like Athena from the forehead of Zeus. Now they are generally not original ideas, being systhesis and distillation of the inspirations behind Planet Algol, but when I think about elements of the world, I find myself having a very firm idea of what they are.

Now this is partially an issue of "Ego Attachment" ("I have the Best ideas for this campaign world you ignorant peons!") , but there are other issues at stake. As one of the themes of Planet Algol is exploration of an irrational, largely unknown world and contending with it's hostile environments and situations, I'm generally not interested in using collaborative worldbuilding methods for the campaign. The characters are attempting to learn about and survive in this bizarre, weird world, and for the players to have any large degree of influence upon the nature of this world seems counterproductive. If the campaign had a different theme/tone, I do believe that collaborative worldbuilding could be appropriate and exciting, but it seems unsuitable for an old-school hexcrawl game and I have concerns about the impact that giving the players any great degree of "narrative control" about the nature of the world would have on the mystery/unknown nature of the world.

A Character Survival Guide

I'm going to do something unusual and post from the other side of the DM's screen today. The topic today is survival. How to manipulate the odds so that your character has a decent chance of survival. Now if your DM is consistently pitching softballs at you while you trundle along the railroad, this advice may still be of use and may even allow you to take some measure of control over the situation. This is all stuff I've picked up playing D&D games and all of the disastrous encounters I've had to contend with.

#1 - No Backup Weapon, No Ranged Weapon, No Light Source, No Means Of Igniting Said Light Source, No Future!

Unless you've got one of those aforementioned softball pitching DMs, there is a simple method of ascertaining which members of a beginning 1st-level party are likely to die first.If someone doesn't have a second melee weapon; a ranged weapon with an adequate supply of missiles; no light source and/or no means of igniting said light source, they are going to be among the first to die. They may not necessarily die because they don't have those items (although that is a possibility), instead it's a symptom. Such types tend to be the characters that automatically charge superior forces or practice kleptomania while in the town that is the party's staging area. Although it is always pretty damn funny when someone dies because they went on an expedition into a giant underground labyrinth without thinking to bring a tinderbox and torch. The necessity of food and water is situational, but you'd be surprised how many folks go out into the wilderness without enough food.

#2 - Always Have An Escape Route And Always Be Willing to Cut Bait And Run (Before Things Go South)

This should be common sense, but in practice it's often painfully not practiced. Never start an engagement with a foe without a viable escape route. If possible work out an escape plan before the battle. Save spells and magic items for escaping an engagement. Once things looks like they may go bad, immediately begin an orderly withdrawal of the party. If some hothead ignores the withdrawal leave him to his fate. If one of your buddies if being cut to pieces and rescue looks unlikely, leave him to his fate. There's always the chance you can ransom or rescue him or recover his body. Always make sure someone in the party is slower than you. In AD&D I love banded mail, although it has an armor class of 4 compared to 3 for plate, you have a movement rate of 9" in it instead of 6" in plate. My banded mail armored fighter will be running away while Johnny Platemail is getting eaten by a Tyrannosaur.

#3 - Surviving A Battle Is Easier Without Democracy

You know how military forces or swat teams always have a clearly defined leader who gives order that the team follows? They do that because it works. Whomever has the best tactical sense in the party should be made into the "Battle Leader." If the party has a leader or a face that isn't tactically acute, well they still can be the leader, but the Battle Leader should be deferred to in combat situations. The party has a far better chance of survival with someone in charge. If someone doesn't want to get with the program and puts themselves in peril as a result see #2 above.

#4 - Upgrade Your Tactical Skillset

This especially applies to "Battle Leaders." Tactics work, learn them. Sun Tzu's The Ancient Art of War, computer wargames, Counterstrike, Chess, Paintball, Hockey, Guerrilla Warfare, what have you. There are many ways of learning tactics, which tend to be generally applicable in conflict situations, if you pay attention you can learn a lot. There's a ton of useful practical knowledge about controlling the battlefield and mitigating asymmetrical situations embedded in such subjects. Choose the battlefield, let the enemy come to you, attack the invulnerable foe where it is weakest, commit reverse mental torture upon your foes.

The above advice may be too much or inapplicable for some player's/groups, you may just want to have fun and bash some orc skulls in. You may be only fighting "balanced encounters." Obviously if you're not interested in subjects such as tactics it can be kind of pointless to study them in order to play a hobby game better. But if you want to be a better D&D player or if you're finding your party being overwhelmed by your foes, this stuff will help you.

Others Saying It Better Than I Could "Playing Chicken With The Players"

"I want to present you all today with an important GMing Law: You can play a game of "chicken" with your players if that's what they want, but you can't lose it..."

As a Player I have to say that I find the experience of having to fight smart and hard, and to struggle to have a shred of a chance of survival on occasion, far more rewarding than knowing that the party could take anything they came across.

Besides, if you put Godzilla in your sandbox, and the party of 1st level characters decide to go hunt down and kill Godzilla, then those poor, dead, dumb bastards got exactly what they had coming to them.

I Don't Like Grand Unified Theories in Fantasy

I'm sure we're all aware of the phenomenon in fantasy franchises of "Grand Unified Theories." Usually prologues, appendices, wise characters, and so forth provide the exposition, usually along the lines of:

"88,000 thousand years ago the universe split into two halves, Kerishala the bright aspect and Valkalka the dark aspect. They worked together to make the world but quarreled thereby engendering a whole bunch of history. History.. history.. history... Magic is the lifesblood of Kerishala and Valkalka flowing through the matter of the world. Yadda Yadda Yaddaa... Prophecy this, Prophecy That."

Of course the protagonist(s) are tied up with all this business, as well as the plot of the next three or thirteen books. And there's detailed large-scale and small-scale maps, sometimes of the entirety of known civilization!

Although this can be done well, I consider The Silmarillion to be a sublime example of such efforts; usually I hate that shit. Many contemporary fantasy rpg settings lay out the history of the world, who/what the gods are, how magic works, and so forth-- often in excruciating detail. I do consider Gary Gygax's Aerth setting to be an exception, as it is a good fantasy setting that deals with a "known world," but it is also more of a late renaissance/age-of-sail setting, so it works in that context. Plus the Epic of Aerth book could have been significantly shorter.

Fantasy at its most primal deals in the Unknown. The world is a collision between the logical and the illogical. Incomprehensible forces are at play. In old school pulp fantasy, the default setting was a world in which only fragments of history were known, where magic and the gods were mysteries; where the world was largely unmapped and unknown.

It's hard to reconcile that weird, unknown fantasy vibe when the universe has a known history and a heavy internal logic.

With Planet Algol I don't know what the gods are. I don't know how magic works. I don't know the history of the planet aside from broad strokes. I don't have a map of the planet. I don't even know what year it is on Earth. Although one could learn details about specific elements and their history, the whole and history of Planet Algol is unknowable, as well as illogical and irrational.

Now for some Nifelheim:

The Class Name "Fighting-Man" and Dune...

Dungeons and Dragons originally used the term "Fighting-man" for the adventuring warrior character class. In later editions it was changed to "Fighter," presumably in order to resolve the matter of female characters who were "Fighting-Men."

I've seen a lot of scorn heaped upon the term Fighting-Man, which is usually roundly mocked and snickered at. I'm presuming those who denigrate the term are unfamiliar with the source literature...

I'm sure many of us internet-OSR types have made the same pilgrimage, but a few years ago I made a point of reading as many books from the AD&D DMG "Appendix N" as I could get my hands on. This was greatly facilitated by an excellent local bookstore, Pulp Fiction Books, which I highly recommend.

In this literature the term "fighting-man" is used almost universally to designate soldiers, warriors, mercenaries, etc. "He had the cold eyes and savage scars that marked him as an experienced fighting-man," "We have fifty fighting-men available Lord Tyrant, with ten-score arrived on the morrow!"

Frank Herbert's Dune uses the term "Fighting-Man"...

Some say the appellation Fighting-Man is clunky, and crude. I say it's a rough word for a rough job. And honestly, I've always found the name "Fighter" to be kind of stupid, and far more dumb-sounding than Fighting-Man whenever I thought about it. I preferred "Warrior."

I presume the clunky issue was the reasoning for changing "Magic-User" to "Mage" and than "Wizard." I used to be down with Mage, nowadays I'm all about calling them "Sorcerers." A much more cool name that is far more evocative of the source literature that influences my campaign.

Some, rightfully so, point out the issue of female characters. It seems obvious to me, in my old age, that using the name "Fighting-Woman," or even "Amazon," "Valkyrie," "Shield Maiden," "Sword Bride," "Knightrix" or whatever else seems appropriate and acceptable to the player and DM. This strikes me as the sort of thing that, if he was questioned about, it would get the late Mr. Gygax to tut-tut about how the rules were never meant to be followed to the letter and so forth.

So when I started my old-school AD&D campaign, Fighters became Fighting-Men and Magic-Users were relabeled Sorcerers. And I love it. However, if someone prefers to use the term Fighter instead due to concerns about gender bias and so forth, I can understand and sympathize with their position.

Should Players Know Their Character's Saving Throws?

One subject that has popped up while discussing the Planet Algol Character Sheet (that new campaign participant Lester is designing) is the subject of saving throws.

In the past, when a player has been using an actual D&D character sheet instead of a piece of paper, the question of "What are my saving throws?" has come up when they get to the appropriate section.

My response, "You don't know your saving throws." My reasoning being: they are listed in the Dungeon Master's Guide for a reason. Not knowing them helps keep "the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain"; and it keeps the players from playing the probability game with their actions.

In 3.5 and especially 4E I had had it with the probability calculations, especially in 4E where you basically have to track numbers in order to have a chance of succeeding. (Note that as a 3.5/4E player I was a terrible abuser of meta-game calculating probabilities.)

Same goes with the "To Hit/THACO" sections of the character sheet "You don't need to know, just tell me what you roll.."

Part of this approach on my end is to make the world more chaotic and mysterious and to hide the mathematical workings of the game from the players. Knowledge of the numbers can contaminate your choice of actions, one example being that as a DM I don't like knowing a player character's current Hit Point total. I find myself pulling my punches knowing that a beloved character is almost dead. Although that is a weakness on my end, with my current "let the dice fall where they may and may the lucky and smart survive" philosophy, I don't want to know your current hit point total. It's a nice reversal of roles when the DM is the one surprised when a character dies!

So any of you that are old-school DMs, players, or just have an opinion on the subject: should players know their character's saving throws, THAC0, etc.?

The Continuing Adventures of Others Saying It Better Than I Ever Could...

Somewhat relevant to my previous musings about Turning Up the Suck, It's Not Just About Fun...

Making Things Suck More

The party is in the deep wilderness, low on food, low on water, low on hit points, retreating from an failed expedition to lick their wounds in the comfort of civilization. Maybe an important member of the party (and his powerful gear) was lost in the debacle. They have to worry about wandering monsters, they may have to worry about getting lost, hunger, dehydration, or even dangerous environmental conditions.

It's times like these that I turn up the suck.

Disgusting worms get into their food. Although the food, and the worms themselves, are still edible, it's nauseating and tastes horrible.

If it's a desert they get sunburnt while constant stifling hot winds blow fine sand and grit in their eyes and noses. Sand gets everywhere, in their clothes, in their possessions. I describe them clumsily stumbling through the treacherous sand.

In a swamp they get soaked and covered in mud as they wallow through waist deep water at points. Bloodsucking vermin constantly assail them, leaving ghastly bite marks. Their gear gets moldy and rusty.

When they stagger out of the wilderness into a settlement of ethereal slender people they are fed a bowl of seeds and hard, dried sour berries with water to drink. Their pallets are austere wooden planks. At night the wind chimes hanging everywhere keep waking them up.

When the party has a bad streak, partially for the sake of comedy (we all are big fans of PCs getting into comedic situations) and partially for the sake of a twisted form of verisimilitude, I like to heap it on.

That doesn't mean I will arbitrarily fuck them over with extra encounters of destroying their possessions. The misery inflicted on them is primarily set-dressing.

However, sometimes the party has lucky streaks. They may stride into a settlement heavy with loot and trophies from a wildly successful adventure. They guards at the gate are especially friendly and helpful. Bystanders provide directions. At the inn the proprietor recognizes them as famous adventurers and gives the party a deal on their lodging and offers them the best food and drink. Meanwhile attractive ladies (and/or men) of easy virtue begin accumulating about the party.

They next day, while enjoying a delicious brunch, someone respectable offers them a simple yet lucrative commission. While shopping they find some desired equipment for reasonable prices. Although the next session of the game may be a triumph or a tragedy, right now things are looking good for the PCs! When things are going well for the party, the sun shines on them.

The Sandbox as Megadungeon

While fretting about the lack of a Planet Algol campaign megadungeon and reflecting on the carnage of the previous session, I was struck by the realization that in the case of my campaign the sandbox is the megadungeon. I have certainly read theory regarding that subject in the past, but now it was real...

My intention wasn't to make a hexmap, outdoor megadungeon, but instead to ape previous efforts such as the original Wilderlands, Carcosa, and so forth in order to create a sandbox to run an old school D&D game in. However, once the mechanics of wilderness adventuring (especially the rules for getting lost) started coming into play and the players got in the swing of the sandbox, it started feeling, for me, very dungeony.

It's interesting to note that the map for a text-based adventure game or MUDD would look the same regardless of whether it was of a dungeon or an outdoor area. That's what's happening with me. Dungeon, Wilderness, they're just labels. They both contain monsters, treasures, traps, tricks, potential allies, M.A.R. Barker-esque "Saturday Night Specials," parties of adventurers can get lost and die in both of them, etc.

"But...the Megadungeon is the Mythic Underworld!" You exclaim, "that's what differentiates it from wilderness and lairs!"

My campaign was designed from the very start to function as an outdoor analogue of the Mythic Underworld. The planet, the solar system, history, the races, are designed to be weird, irrational, unpredictable, dangerous. To quote from Philotomy's OD&D Musings:

"Some common characteristics and philosophies for a mythic underworld dungeon (keep these in mind when creating your dungeon):

• It's big, and has many levels; in fact, it may be endless
• It follows its own ecological and physical rules
• It is not static; the inhabitants and even the layout may grow or change over time
• It is not linear; there are many possible paths and interconnections
• There are many ways to move up and down through the levels
• Its purpose is mysterious or shrouded in legend
• It's inimical to those exploring it
• Deeper or farther levels are more dangerous
• It's a (the?) central feature of the campaign"
  

I believe that the above points would also apply to a good fantasy campaign world as well...