Fr. Peter Heers and the Satanic Panic

A reader of my blog recently reached out to me. He shared a video of Fr. Peter Heers, an influential Orthodox Christian YouTuber, answering the question as to whether or not the Satanic Panic was actually correct. He ended up warning people: do not play Dungeons & Dragons.

This may come as a bit of a surprise, but I find myself agreeing with his basic premise. If I were to answer the same question I would have to point out that given the current state of the game, its ownership, the way that people are being taught how to play, and the space it occupies in popular culture, I must agree with Fr. Peter. Do not casually play D&D.

Those of you that have been reading my blog, however, will know that I have a very different opinion of the Satanic Panic. Not only did it damage the hobby and the game, is was and is utterly ignorant of how it drove the hobby and the game away from Christianity into the very state that Fr. Peter is so uncomfortable with.

Christianity is implied in 0e, Holmes, B/X, and 1e. The rules lend themselves beautifully to building out fantasy worlds where Christianity plays a major role. Pagan gods have stat blocks, with hit points. That means they are monsters that can be killed. Psalm 82 provides the framework from which to build out an entire D&D campaign based on the idea of hunting down fallen angels (pagan gods) and their progeny. An enthroned, pre-incarnate Christ declares:

You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.

In 0e and Holmes, there are no “Holy Symbols” in the equipment lists, only Wodden and Silver Crosses. Couple this with the description of the Vampire from the Holmes edition of Basic D&D and I have all I need to prove the early D&D was implicitely Christian:

All vampires, regardless of religious background, are affected by the cross which is sovereign against them. They will not flee these symbols, but it can keep them from their intended victim if interposed between the vampire and its prey.

The Satanic Panic pushed the game toward the demonic, not away from it. Starting with 2e, paganism is hard-wired into the game. It now requires a DM to do the hard work of converting all the various domains and the mechanics that surround them into a Christian context. This work was not necessary prior to the Panic. Today, you can play Warlocks who make pacts with devils, play bards who use their magic to be promiscuous with all kinds of creatures, and even play half devil tieflings (a status that would have God commanding your utter destruction by either flood or the sword of the Isrealite with no mercy). None of these were availlable in the early rules.

Do I think it is possible to bring Christ to the gaming table? This blog demonstrates that the answer is yes.

Do I think that the Satanic Panic has actually brought more people to atheism and worse than early D&D ever did? Absolutely.

Do I think that we can casually play any form of D&D without the hard work it takes to bring Christ to the table? No.

It is becoming increasingly clear that our culture has blinded itself to spiritual world and the daily battles that it brings. Properly done, D&D can allow us to enjoy each other’s company and this hobby while introducing us to that sturggle. Improperly done, we invite the demonic.

When God says to Cain, “sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, and you must rule over it” He is refering to a demon waiting to be let in. Don’t let them in.

R.I.P. Lenard Lakofka

I just read over at Grognardia that Lenard Lakofka has passed away. James makes the observation that Lenard may be

one of the most underappreciated contributors to the growth and development of Dungeons & Dragons.

I would have to agree, especially when it comes to understanding my own history with the game. Therefore, let me set the record straight. 

As much as I love Gygax, Arneson, Holmes, and Moldvay, none of them taught me as much about being a Dungeon Master as Lakofka did. He put to page blueprints for what I experienced as a young high school kid in a sandbox campaign run by a college student. That campaign opened my eyes as to what D&D could be and I wanted my campaigns to look and feel like that one did. The only TSR publications that ever came close to showing me how to duplicate that experience where Lakofka's The Secret of Bone Hill and The Assassin's Knot.

Though I never ran Bone Hill, I am always striving to make sure my campaigns have the feel that exudes from Bone Hill on paper. Though Assassin's Knot was one of my first true failures as a DM, I still make sure my worlds have factions and humans as the true villains and monsters. Yeah, of all the guys who ever wrote for TSR, Lenard is the one who really taught me to be the DM (or Referee as I prefer) I am today.

Thanks Lenard, and as we Orthodox say, may your memory be eternal.

Holmes and AD&D Weapon vs Armor Class

There is an interesting comment on this post over at Grognardia that points out that the 1e PH has a relatively simple set of rules for combat on pages 104-5. Since the Holmes Basic Set suggests Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as the "more complete rules," I found it very interesting that there are some significant differences between the way combat is presented in these two editions: initiative and the length of a combat round. 

Holmes bases initiative on Dexterity, the 1e PH has each side in a combat roll a d6. In Holmes, a combat round is 10 seconds, in the 1e PH the combat round is 1 minute.

Also interesting is the following quote about Weapon Factors:

You have already seen information regarding the damage each type of weapon does, how heavy each is, how long and how much space each needs, and each weapon's relative speed factor. The same charts also give relative efficiency against armor types. Your referee will use these factors in the determination of melee combats by relating them to his Attack Matrices.

I love how the war gaming roots of D&D can be seen in those last two italicized words. More interstingly, however, is the fact that all of this information about weapons don't really belong in the abstract 1 minute rounds of the 1e PH. On the other hand, the 10 second round of Holmes invites the kind of realism these Weapon Factors seem to want to emulate. 

Long time readers of this blog will know that I have a deep fascination with both Holmes and Weapon vs. Armor Class tables. Given the fact that Holmes states:

The combat tables used by D&D gamers are often extremely complicated. Full tables are given in Advanced Gungeons & Dragons. The tables below are deliberately simplified...

I began to wonder if it were possible to reconcile the "extremely complicated" combat tables from the 1e PH and the Holmes Basic Edition by assuming the Holmes was more correct than the 1e PH. The result was the following table:

A couple of notes before I begin explaining some of the implications of this table:

1. I interpreted Space Required as how many people could fit in a 10 foot square, with a maximum of 3 standing shoulder to shoulder.
2. I used the variable damage dice from the 1e PH rather than a universal 1d6
3. I only used those weapons listed in the equipment list of Holmes and their cost
   
4. I averaged all of the various factors of all the pole arms not explicitly named in Holmes to come up with stats for the generic "pole arm" listed in Holmes
5. I did the same for the generic "sword" listed in Holmes
6. I stuck to Melee weapons for the present, because Missile Combat in Holmes is a completely different phase of combat
7. I chose to use armor class ranges to represent Plate Mail, Chain-type Mail, Leather Armor, and Unarmored so as to make things easier when looking at Monster Stats
8. I used AC 3, 5, 8, and 10 in the 1e PH to represent the armor classes from Holmes 
9. Note: all of this is possible because Dexterity in Holmes does not affect Armor Class
   

Lets deal with Speed and Initiative first. Holmes has Dexterity = Initiative. Speed would subtract from a character's Dexterity Score to end up with a final Initiative. Thus, a Fighter with a Dex 11 using a Sword would have a 6 Initiative. 

The 1e PH describes surprise in terms of 6 second phases and states that a surprise attack can happen in that short amount of time. Given that a combat round in Holmes is 10 seconds, it suggests that a character with an Initiative of over 10 could attack twice in a round. Thus, anyone with a Dex 13+ could attack twice a round with a dagger and thus explain that most controversial statement by Holmes that daggers can be used twice per round. It also suggests that ending up with a negative Initiative means that a weapon is too unwieldy for the character to use.

This creates a problem when it comes to Pikes, which have a speed of 13; however, I would argue that with their extreme reach, they can engage targets while Missile Combat is still in effect. The huge speed indicates that a Pike in normal melee is too cumbersome for most characters to actually use.

Another implication of this table is that Plate Mail is better than advertised. Most weapons have a penalty to hit it. The real exception to this is the Two-Handed Sword; however, it has a 10 speed and only one person can wield it in a 10ft. corridor. I also find that the Morning Star is possibly the best weapon overall, rather than the ubiquitous Sword.

While this might all be fascinating, it does run up against a serious problem when trying to apply all of this to monsters. There are several of solutions here that I think would be fair:

1. Make use of all those detailed weapon % tables that the MM1 has for most of the humanoid monster entries
2. The average weapon speed of all the weapons above is 7. This can be universally applied to all monsters who use weapons. The 1e PH lists Fist, Unarmed with a Speed of 1. This can be applied to all monsters that don't use weapons.
3. One could use an Initiative system based on size: Small Creatures get 3d6, Medium get 2d6, and Large get 1d6 with no additions or subtractions.

This, of course, would need to be play tested, but I think this is the closest I have ever come to making a Weapon vs. Armor Class Table that I would actually use at the table.

D&D Does (Did) Know What Monsters Are

Talysman, over at Nine and Thirty Kingdoms, has highlighted a post over at Throne of Salt which makes the claim that D&D doesn't know what monsters are.  Their conclusion is that monsters should be a symptom that somewhere, somehow the world has gone seriously wrong and that the way D&D does monsters fails in this regard. 

Now, I cannot speak about later editions of the game (though I can believe this of 5e, which seems to have forgotten how to teach players how to play the game), but I can speak for 1e. The MM1 was one of my very first purchases when I got into the hobby, and I spent many hours as a kid being inspired by what was depicted therein. I can, without hesitation, say that the MM1 explicitly and implicitly depicts monsters as symptoms of something gone horribly wrong.

Take the entry on the Bulette:

 The bulette (or landshark) was thought to be extinct until recently when this horror reappeared. It was a result of a mad wizard's experimental cross breeding of a snapping turtle and armadillo with infusions of demons' ichor.

Some idiot magic-user went and pulled a Frankenstein, but we took care of it. What? The monster is still out there? Who has been mucking with magics that shouldn't be messed around with?

Or, how about the Ghoul:

Ghouls are “undead” once human creatures which feed on human and other corpses. Although their change from human to ghoul has deranged and destroyed their minds, ghouls have a terrible cunning which enables them to hunt their prey most effectively.

Couple this with the entry on Ghasts, which boast an Intelligence of 11-12, you have the makings of a cult that seeks to cheat death through cannibalism. While functionally undead, these creatures are actually human.

Of course, there is the Owlbear:

The horrible owlbear is probably the result of genetic experimentation by some insane wizard.

Those pesky wizards, trying to play God in their towers, churning all kinds of vile things into the world. 

My favorite examples, though, are statements like this one, under Hobgoblin:

If elves are nearby, hobgoblins will attack them in preference to any other troops because of the great hatred they bear.

Similar statements can be found under kobolds, blinkdogs and displacer beasts. These statements invite us to imagine why such hatred exists in the first place — something is terribly wrong and these monsters are personifications of it.

So, for those of us who want to have archetypal evil in our FRPG worlds with monsters who personify sin, D&D has done us right since at least 1979.

The Gray Mouser and Ba5ic

If I were to pick a fantasy author whose work I love and have read avidly but had the least impact on the way I play D&D, that author would be Fritz Leiber. When I first discovered Appendix N in the 1e DMG, the first books I went out and got were Leiber’s stories about Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. After reading them, I stopped looking to Appendix N for inspiration because Leiber demonstrated to me the serious limitations of D&D and I didn’t want to be further disappointed by anything else on that list.

I don’t know anybody that doesn’t have that literary hero that they want to emulate in D&D. For a lot of guys I grew up playing D&D with, that character was Drzzt Do’Urden. (Not so coincidentally, he is also the reason I don’t like using drow in any campaign I run). For me, that character has long been Leiber’s Gray Mouser. Unlike all the Drzzt fans, however, there was no easy way for me to play the Gray Mouser in D&D.

Sure, I could play an elven Magic-user Thief, or dual-class with a human or multi-class in some of the newer versions of the game…but none of those options would be the Gray Mouser from 1st level. Given the fact that most long-running campaigns I have ever taken part in end around 5-7th level, the effort to go dual- or multi-class never really appealed.

Thus, I had avoided all things Leiber in my D&Ding because it reminds me of what I can’t do. That is, until now.

In my opinion, the most important mechanical innovation that 5e has brought to the table is the Background. Not only does it offer up some interesting backstory to a character, but it expresses this story with some mechanics — a couple of proficiencies and a kind of perk that come with the territory. When I first read through the SRD to see how I would use it, my first impulse was to declare the that Rogue class is no longer mechanically necessary. All of the things a thief/rogue brings to the table can be handled through the Background mechanic.

In other words, I can finally play the Gray Mouser from 1st level on. Human Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock with a Criminal Background. Done. Finally.

The Background Mechanic doesn’t stop there, though. As I was editing down the 5e SRD to make Ba5ic, I came to realize that 5e doesn’t really understand what it has in the Background mechanic. I can completely understand why — the game is tied to classes that have existed since the 70s and it can’t really jettison those traditions. In redacting the SRD, however, I kept finding myself asking the question: What if we did?

This is why Ba5ic only has three classes: the Adept, Expert and Warrior. These are simply generic mechanical chassis upon which to place Backgrounds that result in truly literary characters: Sorcerers that can’t cast magic, for example.

In other words, the Background mechanic is a means of making D&D into a set of mechanics that can be used to create a plethora of concepts. The reason I could never play Gray Mouser was that D&D has always been about concepts that have mechanics to justify them. While that works and has done so for decades and (hopefully) decades more, I have always chaffed at the limitations that such frameworks operate under. While the concept might be really cool, I have usually found myself wanting a different concept that the mechanics can’t always handle.

Long-time readers of this blog will know that my go-to Supers RPG is Champions. Regardless of how many excellent Super RPGs have come out over the years (and there are many — V&V will always have a place in my heart), Champions just does it better. The reason is simple: it is a game of mechanics that invites you to dream up concepts to place upon those mechanics. Thus, instead of a Firebolt (which uses the same basic mechanic as a bunch of other offensive spells in D&D), Champions has Energy Blast, which is explicitly those mechanics, without the flavor text of “You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range.” I am free to think of those mechanics as anything from a Fireboat to a flying rocket-propelled fist.

Used in the right way, Backgrounds could very well be a means by which to strip D&D of its concepts and leave only mechanics and an invitation to go wild with our imagination.

While I think Ba5ic falls short in this lofty vision, I think it is a step in that direction. I feel justified in saying this because my oldest decided to start her first D&D campaign as a DM with her friends. Knowing that she probably couldn’t get away with not doing 5e, she asked if she could borrow both my Essentials Rulebook and my (now rough draft) copy of Ba5ic. She pitched both to her friends and they chose Ba5ic because they felt they could have (and I quote) “weirder” characters.

Ba5ic should be generally available in printed format soon.

Advanced Edition SWCL

One of my favorite (if not the favorite) retro-clones is Labyrinth Lord. As I have said on many occasions, the reason I like it so much is its modularity. Goblinoid Games has produced a whole line of compatible titles from different genres so that you can port into your game whatever ideas, races, classes, magic, items, etc. you want. In terms of playing AD&D, Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition Companion is my favorite version because it gets rid of all the fiddly stuff I don’t like about 1e and smooths out the corners with all the stuff I love about B/X.

I have been busy of late making alternate versions of SWCL and I thought it would be fun to do an Advanced Edition treatment to the rules. The questions becomes, what exactly is missing from SWCL that would justify an “Advanced Edition?” Here are a few ideas:

• Gnomes
• Half-Elves
• Half-Orcs
• Illusionists
• “Gygaxian” Monsters
• Artifact/Relic-like Magic Items
• Ability Inflation

In terms of the missing races, I want to take advantage of Moldvay’s description of Gnomes:

Gnomes are a human-like race related to dwarves

Sounds a bit like a half-dwarf. Thus, all the missing races can be understood to be half-bloods. As such, they can be any class just like their human parent; however, they don’t get the full-blown the racial abilities of their non-human parent. Rather, they get to advance in one of the Optional Classes without having to put in an extra adventure every level to advance. The Optional Classes would be as follows:

• Half-Elf: Ranger
• Half-Orc: Assassin
• Gnome (Half-Dwarf): Illusionist

Speaking of the Illusionist Optional Class, we need to make one:

Illusionists function exactly as Thieves, except they can cast a limited number of Magic-user spells as if they were a magic-user of one level lower. The spells Illusionists can cast are as follows:
1st Level: Charm Person, Detect Magic, Light
2nd Level: Illusion, Invisibility
3rd Level: Dispel Magic, Summon (Illusory) Monster

By “Gygaxian” Monsters, I mean those monsters that suggest a monster ecology. For example, Hobgoblins can speak the language of carnivorous apes and these creatures can be found in Hobgoblin lairs. Therefore, the plan is to find 10 or so monsters that can interact with the monsters provided in SWCL to create more "Gygaxian" monster ecologies.

The Magic Items in SWCL are wonderfully simple and generic. The Magic Items of AD&D are often quite specific. For example: Sword +1 Flame Tongue +2 vs. regenerating creatures, +3 vs. cold-using or avian creatures, +4 vs. undead. What I am suggesting is that rather than introduce Hand of Vecna-level magical artifacts to the game, add some of those wonderfully specific magic items found in the 1e DMG as one-of-a-kind magic items worthy of going on a quest for.

Finally, for me, one of the most iconic aspects of AD&D (and one of its most ridiculous features) was exceptional Strength: all those fighters running around with 18/xx Strength. I have no real desire to go there; however, something must be done to encourage and reward players for being human, otherwise there are no human rangers, assassins, illusionists, etc. Thus, the Optional Rule that humans get to switch out their lowest stat with a 15 will become standard.

On Gnomes and Titans

Recently, an old high school buddy of mine got inspired to go back and re-read some of the older rulesets of D&D, in part because of my gushing review of the Swords & Wizardry Legion stuff I was able to get my grubby mitts on.

He and I have a weird appreciation for gnomes as a PC race. When 4th Edition came out, there was a Youtube video explaining why tieflings were now PCs instead of gnomes. Ironically, it just cemented everything we like about gnomes. We both are infected with the old-school mind-set that if you can survive a dungeon with a pathetic excuse for a PC it says a lot about your skill as a player. Therefore, we understood this video as a challenge:



So, my friend decides he is going to make a 1e AD&D gnome character and consequently forwards me this quote:

"When being attacked by gnolls, bugbears, ogres, trolls, ogre magi, giants AND/OR TITANS (emphasis mine), gnome characters subtract 4 from their opponents' "to hit" dice rolls because of the gnomes' small size AND THEIR COMBAT SKILL AGAINST THESE MUCH BIGGER CREATURES (mine, again).

He also challenged me to figure out why a gnome would have combat skills against titans.

This rule is actually a remnant from Chainmail:

DWARVES (and Gnomes)…Although they are no threat to the larger creatures, Trolls, Ogres, and Giants find them hard to catch because of their small size, so count only one-half normal kills when Dwarves and Gnomes fight with them…

So, although gnomes are ineffectual at doing any damage to these types of creatures, from a tactical point of view, they do serve as a great way of slowing them down long enough to get stronger units in place to take the larger creatures out.

This rule is not found in OD&D, probably because it was assumed because the combat system used by OD&D was Chainmail. The d20 system everyone is familiar with today was the alternate combat system. As a consequence, this is not found in either Holmes or Moldvay but does find itself back in 1e AD&D with “Titan” added to the list of examples of creatures that have a hard time hitting dwarves and gnomes; however, 1e AD&D also adds that very curious phrase about combat skill…

If one takes a look at the Titan in the 1e AD&D Monster Manual, three intriguing aspects jump out:

1. Titans primarily live on other planes, but do occasionally visit the Prime Material Plane especially to mingle with Storm Giants.
2. Titans can use Invisibility at will and have access to a number of spells from both the magic-user and cleric spell lists.
3. Titans who use Protection from Evil get double the bonus against Lawful Evil creatures.

This paints a picture of a creature type that existed before there was a distinction between Arcane and Divine magic, who does not see other planes as their natural home, spent time specifically fighting Lawful Evil creatures but lost due to the fact the the Prime Material Plane is no longer their normal habitat.

There are two groups of creatures that immediately suggest themselves when one thinks of Lawful Evil: Humanoids and Devils. Only one of those groups lives on the Prime Material Plane.

I am now going to go down a path that necessitates an understanding of my reading of the relationship between various humanoids and Dwarves. You can find that post here.

The ancient being(s) that twisted elves and dwarves into various humanoids did so in an ongoing battle with Titans on the Prime Material Plane. In response, the Titans developed more powerful protection spells against the humanoids which made up the bulk of the armies they were fighting against. In response, the ancient(s) enslaved the dwarves to use as fodder against the titans and further twisted the dwarves into gnomes. Dwarves and gnomes are resistant to magic and gnomes are bread specifically to deal with illusionist magics (to fight invisible titans). Due to the fact that the protective magics of the titans were designed to fight Lawful Evil humanoids, when they came upon dwarves and gnomes, they were caught by surprise and underestimated the danger of their foes. As a consequence, the titans were driven off the prime material plane.

Thus, dwarves and gnomes have combat skills against titans because they were specifically bred to fight against them by the ancient(s) who twisted elves and dwarves in the first place.

Meditating on ACKS and Averoigne

One who has read this blog over the years may have noticed that I haven’t posted a Lost Colonies Session report in a long time. This is not because the campaign has ended, but rather that the sessions are few and far between and nothing has really happened that I was inspired enough to write about. This is due to the fact that I am not inspired enough by the campaign in its current state to do much more and none of the guys I play with have championed more sessions than the few that we have done.

In the meantime, my group has been primarily playing AD&D with a few forays into Pathfinder. At the moment, the guys I play with are enamored by AD&D’s fiddliness — to them it represent more “choice” than other older editions of the game. I could argue that I could accomplish much of the same feel and choices with a much cleaner and simpler ruleset such as S&W or LL + AEC, but I would be missing the point.

One has to understand that the group I play with were virtually all introduced to the game with 3rd edition. As such, character builds are very important to them — it is a part of the gaming experience that they really enjoy. I have meditated on this before. I have, in contrast, scratched that itch with various war games which these guys never had as part of their gaming experience.

Every couple of months, someone at the table suggests that we play Pathfinder for a while (it being the 3ed emulation of choice). We play awhile until everyone remembers why we don’t like playing 3ed/Pathfinder. I don’t mind terribly much because I have learned to enjoy the game at lower levels and I know we will sooner rather than later go back to an older ruleset or its emulation.

What this all means, in the long run, is that I am not ever going to be able to run an Averoigne campaign with the guys I play with the way I want to — with a Holmes/Cook mash-up using either LL or S&W as a jumping off point. While it is incredibly interesting to me and something I would really like to play-test one day, it isn’t something that is going to interest my group. Thus, I am having to re-think about my approach so that I can start play-testing Averoigne and the Chateau des Faussesflammes as concepts.

Enter, of all things, Dwimmermount. My faith in that project and my patience have born fruit. One of the things that has come out of all the complications of the project is the generosity of the guys at Autarch. Via a promise made to backers, I have gotten my hands on .pdfs of ACKS and the ACKS Player Companion and done some serious reading and fiddling.

I have to say that both are excellent products, if lacking in a few tables & examples here and there which would have made my understanding and use of the products easier. I really like the fact that at its root, ACKS is B/X. I also really appreciate their interpretation of its mechanics extrapolated into the concept of proficiencies/feats, world building and the end-game.

In the end, however, I find it too fiddly. I prefer a far more organic/random interaction with world creation than these rules imply and I have never much cared for proficiencies, especially when they really emulate skills and feats that imply more roll playing than role playing. There are aspects that I think will prove very useful in the long run, but won’t really know until I actually use them at the table.

This is where I insert the however of this blog post. Even though I don’t care for the fiddliness of ACKS, I do think the guys who I play with will. It scratches the character build itch in a way that AD&D can’t but without all the stuff we don’t like about Pathfinder (I hope). For my own taste, I prefer the fiddliness of ACKS over the fiddliness of AD&D because it represents true player choice and is mechanically cleaner (and did I mention that it is basically B/X — my favorite edition of the game — with a bunch of stuff added on?).

Thus, the best chance I have of playing in my version of Averoigne with the guys I play with may very well be ACKS. As such, in the coming days I will be converting some of the work I have done on Averoigne to the ACKS system to see if what emerges is something I am still interested in playing.

Meditating on the 1ed DMG

One of the peripheral consequences of working on my re-imagined Slave Pits of the Undercity (which itself is a result of WotC re-releasing the three 1ed core books) is my own casual re-assessment of ADnD. I have found myself more frequently perusing my ADnD collection than I have in years. There is one exception to this, however. Though I am very familiar with some sections within it, the ADnD DMG still remains largely impenetrable for me.

I am one of those life-long DnD players who was initiated into the game by those who already knew how to play, rather than someone who is self-taught. When it came time for me to try my hand at DMing (as I called it then), Holmes, Moldvay and Cook held larger sway on me than did Gygax because, despite my group playing “ADnD” these great editors were far more approachable in their advice. So, though I used ADnD rules and tables, my mentors were from the world of B/X and Holmes.

This may come as a bit of a surprise, given that there are so many out there in the world of the OSR that cite the DMG as this great and seminal work of the hobby that is a seemingly ever-changing treasure trove of gaming history and advice. This love affair is to the point that there are some who would choose the DMG as the only RPG book that they could have if stranded on a deserted island.

In a way, this reminds me of the Philokalia — a collection of Orthodox Christian spiritual writing compiled and published in the 18th century. In it one can find meditations from the 4th century through the 15th century by a total of thirty-six different authors. It has been described as a seminal collection of such import that it is second only to the Scriptures themselves in the spiritual life of the Orthodox Christian.

The compilers organized the book chronologically. If one attempts to read it thusly (cover to cover), however, the book is rendered impenetrable. Rather, it requires an initiation on how to read it and what order to read the various authors. There are several historical methods, but all of them parallel each other. They all form a key with which to unlock this precious gift.

As one who still finds the DMG to be something of a Philokalic mystery, and since so many of my generation had some kind of initiation process into the hobby, I am wondering if there isn’t some kind of pattern out there for tackling the DMG? Is there a particular order for taking advantage of all the goodness that lies therein?

I do not ask this only for myself, but for those who will be buying their first 1ed DMG sometime this summer. Unlike later editions of the game, ADnD is a bit of an editorial mess. In order that those who encounter it for the first time have the best experience possible, it might behoove those of us who love the old ways to make the world of ADnD a tad more accessible.