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.

Stocking a Moldvay Dungeon with a Deck of Cards

I was fiddling around with a deck of cards today, and it occurred to me that it might be possible to emulate the math of Moldvay's table for stocking a dungeon on page B52 of the his Basic Rulebook with a deck of cards. He has us rolling 1d6 to determine the contents of a room:

1-2 Monster 

3 Trap

4 Special

5-6 Empty

A second roll determines whether or not there is Treasure: 

Monster: 1-3 Yes; 5-6 No

Trap: 1-2 Yes; 3-6 No

Empty: 1 Yes; 2-6 No

If you include a pair of Jokers, a deck has 54 cards, which is dividable by 6. That means we can assign each of the four outcomes of our Room Contents Table to 9 cards. This comes out to 18 cards for Monsters, 9 cards for Traps, 9 cards for Specials, and 18 cards for Empty Rooms. With these groups, 9 of the Monster, 3 of the Traps, and 1 of the Empty Rooms would indicate a Treasure.

A deck of cards could thus be divvied up as follows:

2D = Empty with Treasure

3D-5D = Trap with Treasure

6D-AD = Monster with Treasure

2C-5C = Empty

6C-AC = Monster

2H-5H = Empty

6H-AH = Special

2S-8S = Empty

9S-AS = Trap

Jokers = Could indicate an Empty Room or Placed Encounter

Of course, all of this assumes that your dungeon has multiples of 54 rooms... but being a fan of the megadungeon, this is no real issue for me. 

The Importance of Presuppositions

In my line of work, I have to be acutely aware of presuppositions (one of the demands of doing theology). Our culture does not do a very good job of exploring or even being aware that we make them all the time. So, a definition is in order: a presupposition is a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action.

Let’s explore an element of D&D that is near and dear to my heart, but is widely rejected by those who play: Race-as-Class. I think part of the reason that so many people balk at the idea of Race-as-Class is that they believe it fundamentaly prevents people from playing a particular race the way they want to. Personally, I have a metal figure in my collection that is a dwarven wizard. I love the personality that exudes from the sculpt. Race-as-Class seems to dictate that I can never use that character concept in my favorite versions of the game. 

What this perspective fails to see is the presupposition that must be made in gaming worlds that have no Race-as-Class: since the mechanics of dwarf and human characters are so similar, there isn’t much actual difference between humans and dwarves.

In contrast, Race-as-Class poses siginificant mechanical differences between the two races. The culture that arises from humans as clerics, fighters, magic-users, and thieves is necessarily very different from that of Dwarves. One is mechanically diverse, the other isn’t.

Thus, when I pull out that dwarven wizard figure the machanics of Race-as-Class put far more weight on my choice of class than the versions of D&D that don’t use it. In both cases, I will essentially be playing a human character; however, while the mechanics of a dwarven wizard don’t say a lot about my character, playing a dwarven magic-user that uses the mechanics of a human magic-user says a tremendous amount about the world, the history of my character, and dwarves themselves. In order to become a magic-user, my dwarf has had to reject his culture and his people to the point that mechanically he no longer functions as a dwarf. For all intents and purposed he is a human.

In both scenerios, I come to the same basic conclusion: mechanically a dwarven magic-user/wizard is essentially a re-skinned human; however, when one looks at the necessary presuppositions that Race-as-Class demands, I get a much more interesting re-skinned human — one that I don’t think I would have arrived at without Race-as-Class.

I say all this as a preamble, because I did something quite outside my comfort zone this week. Chris Gore of Film Threat is producing a new show on his YouTube channel which seeks to bring Star Wars fans together to discuss whether or not Disney has murdered the franchise. The format is that of a court with those who are on the side of the prosecution and those who are on the defense.

I was asked to be on the first show, because so few people in the sphere of YouTube Star Wars fandom were willing to argue the defense. It was all in good fun and I think the overwhelming consensus is that my side lost the argument (not surprising, since Chris Gore’s audience is largely unhappy with Disney Star Wars). I want to explain why I was willing to be on the Defense and that has to do with presuppositions.

While the language “Disney Murdered Star Wars” is hyberbolic, there is a necesssary presupposition behind that statement: Star Wars fans are beholden to Disney for all things Star Wars. I vehemently disagree. 

The presupposition that I make is one that I believe better reflects reality: Star Wars is part of our culture. It no longer belongs to Disney or George Lucas in any way other than the legal right to produce Star Wars products. We, as the fandom have far more power than Disney thinks we do (or we do, depressingly). The Audience is a vital part of any artistic endeavor, especially when it comes to beloved franchises like Star Wars.

Very few Tolkien fans, for example, would argue that Amazon’s Rings of Power has any real place in the lore of Middle-earth. Likewise, the fans have the ability to embrace or reject anything Star Wars. As an example, few Star Wars fans acknowledge that the Star Wars Christmas Special has any real standing in Star Wars lore. Yes, it is the first appearance of Boba Fett, but does anyone argue that the Mandolorian, or any other Disney product, isn’t following the lore established in the Christmas Special? No, because the fandom doesn’t care about the Christmas Special. It does about the EU and the many ways Disney has contradicted it. Despite the fact that Disney has de-canonized the EU, it still lives on because the fans have embraced it.

The only way that Disney can murder Star Wars, in other words, is if we aid and abett them by rejecting Star Wars as a whole. As long as the fandom exists, Star Wars lives. And, if the fandom wakes up and realizes its own power and importance, we may see a day when the owners of the legal right to produce Star Wars products will listen.

Trying to Make Sense of Skills, BX, and a Sci-fi Setting

Once I accepted the idea of skills for a sci-fi version of BX, my brain started to run in several directions at the same time. I apologize if this rambles a bit, but this post serves the function of trying to find some order within the chaos firing off in my brain...

Firstly, I am sore tempted to fiddle with ability scores. D&D has never really seemed to understand WIS. Indeed, CHA seems to be a better fit for what WIS should be. I also think there needs to be a better representation of knowledge and how society and individuals understand themselves in relation to knowledge.

The first place I went to begin this exploration is my favorite Sci-fi RPG — Traveller. CT also has six ability scores: Strength, Dexterity, Endurance, Intelligence, Education, and Social Status. I really like the distinction between Intelligence and Education as well as the implications on the game for the existence of Social Status. I am not done fiddling yet, though.

There are quite a few rules that are unique to the Holmes edition of Basic D&D. On paper, one that seems to be broken is DEX = Initiative. I held this opinion for many years, but I did so without ever putting it into practice. Once I had the humility to do so, however, it became my favorite way to handle initiative at the table. Once everybody gets used to the overall order within the party, it makes combat faster. Players understand when they always go, and so have a tactical and strategic role to fulfill, which they no longer have to think about, just do. I know what to expect, because the basic pattern remains similar if not the same. It is difficult to explain other than to say: It works.

I do, however, worry that using DEX = Initiative places too much mechanical weight on DEX. While in my own games I have tried to mitigate this weight by giving low DEX characters tactical choices higher DEX characters would likely not make, I think Initiative should be its own thing. Thus, I am tempted to roll up STR and DEX into one attribute: Physical. I'll address the mechanical implications of this below.

Before we get there, I need to explain my own expectations of a classic D&D campaign vs. those of a generic Sci-Fi RPG campaign:

The first is centered around delving into various areas of a campaign map looking for treasure and fighting/avoiding a variety of monsters and traps along the way. As the party delves deeper, monsters and traps get harder and treasures become more valuable. Thus, as the campaign goes on characters need to gain abilities that can better adapt to the increasing difficulty of these monsters and traps.

The second is much more mission oriented with a healthy slice of exploration/information gathering. Thus, the rewards that characters get along the way are much less about the character's ability to deal increasingly difficult challenges, but rather on obtaining better equipment and reputations so that they can attract better paying/influential patrons to get increasingly more meaningful missions.

To illustrate this, let me compare Conan the Destroyer and the original Star Wars. At the beginning of the movie, Conan is fighting normal soldiers. As the movie goes on, the relative strength of his opponents increase in strength and danger until the climax where he is trying to kill some demon/demi-god thing. In contrast, the main combatants throughout Star Wars are Storm Troopers and Tie-Fighters. What really changes is the mission, who is sponsoring that mission, the equipment being used, and the importance of that mission.

As an aside, the guys that I played D&D with growing up almost all prefer low-level campaigns. The stories we tell each other about the old days almost always involve a PC that has absolutely no business adventuring, let alone succeeding. As a consequence, we have discussed at length about various mechanical means by which to keep the game low-level without sacrificing a lot of the other stuff we love about the game. One bugaboo we keep running into is the Hit Die — a central mechanic in the older rulesets we prefer to play.

Given the narrative structure of a sc-fi game, the import of the Hit Die is far less significant. Characters are just as likely to encounter their campaign's version of storm troopers early in the campaign as they are late in the campaign. Thus, the need for the HD/hp arms race of D&D isn't really necessary. If I wanted to be radical about it, Hit Points could even be static throughout the campaign.Thus, I am sore tempted to simply equate Endurance/Constitution with hit points.

This brings me back to Physical — combining STR and DEX into one ability. Given that STR and DEX both have a lot of mechanical consequences in combat, this seems like I am putting too much mechanical weight into one ability score. I would agree, if I kept all of the mechanical bonuses that STR and DEX have in D&D. I don't plan to.

Classic D&D has three Classes (Cleric, Fighting-man, and Magic-user), three Prime Requisits (STR, INT, and WIS), and (almost) three Abilities that directly affect combat (DEX, CON, and CHA). I want to use this structure.

Classes: Adept, Expert, and Warrior

Prime Requisits: INT, EDU, PHYS

Combat Abilities: INI, END, SOC

One might notice (and even complain) that this set-up gets rid of various mechanics such as "to-hit" bonuses, AC modifiers, etc. You aren't wrong; however, this is where the idea of a "trained" skill comes into play. Classes and Backgrounds will give players an opportunity at Character Creation to choose various skills that are "trained" and therefore give the character access to an additional mechanic based on an Ability Score. For example, if you wanted a melee character, you would choose a class or background that gave you access to PHYS skill training and then choose a skill that would give you access to melee "to hit" bonuses or damage bonuses.

I'd have to play-test this, but there is also the opportunity to have two levels of "trained" skills. As a general rule, all skills are 1-in-6. Class and Background allow characters access to training all skills under specific ability scores, allowing them to increase their success chance based on the Open Doors mechanic from B/X.

All I have to do now is come up with a balanced list of skills for each ability score and the mechanics associated with them...God help me.

Why Skills?

In response to my recent meditation on skills in RPGs (especially in modern and sci-fi settings), Anzon asked the very pertinent question: Why skills? To answer that question I need to quote another question from John 18:38. Prior to sending Him off to be crucified, Pontius Pilot asks Christ, "What is truth?"

In his Gospel, St. John uses a lot of contrasts (Light v. Dark, Life v. Death, the World v. the Kingdom, etc.). This question is no exception. Pilot, representing the non-Christian world view, cannot see the fact that Truth is right in front of him:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life." — John 14:6

In other words, Pilot asks the wrong question. Truth is not a "what." Truth is a "who." While this has a bunch of connotations, I want to concentrate on how this distinction affects the way we understand ourselves.

When truth is a who, we tend to define ourselves by what we do — what Orthodox Christianity sometimes calls praxis. For a practical example, take surnames. Widespread use of surnames did not exist in Europe prior to the mid-to-late medieval ages — a world very much Christian in its world-view. A quick glance at European surnames will reveal a plethora of names that describe what people do for a living: Baker, Cook, Smith, Wright to name just a few.

Beginning in the Late Renaissance, Pilate's version of the question began a comeback in the Western world. Indeed, in our own post-christian world asking the question, "Who is truth?" sounds strange. With this shift, people began to define themselves by what they know, not what they do. As technology got more complicated and essential for daily living, this view of ourselves became normative. College degrees became a basic qualification to get most jobs. Indeed, the types of jobs suggested by the surnames Baker, Cook, Smith, and Wright began to be known as "menial," because they didn't require the type of knowledge necessary to qualify for "better" jobs.

The term "Doctor" is an example of this shift. While colloquially it still refers to a medical doctor, the term isn't exclusive to the medical field. For instance, if I were to continue my education, I could a get Doctorate in Theology. In other words, doctor does not refer to what a person does, but rather what they know.

This distinction also manifests in the mechanics of RPGs. D&D, especially the earlier editions, mechanically reflect the medieval mind quite well. PCs are defined by their Class — what they do. As one moves into games that try to emulate modern and sci-fi genres, the mechanics shift away from Classes to Skills — what a character knows. Traveller, Call of Cthulhu, and the Hero System are examples of games that make this mechanical choice.

Thus, when meditating on how to use the B/X chassis to emulate a sci-fi setting, I am almost compelled to use a skill system of some kind. This is especially true of any setting that is 40k adjacent. The Grimdark is an extreme materialist dystopia where what passes for acceptable religion has its adherents worshiping material things such as the Emperor or the Machine. Factions who acknowledge beings in the Immaterium (aka the Warp) are classified as Chaos and are understood to be among the worst antagonists in a setting that has no real good guys.

If I am to emulate such a setting, I feel that a strictly class-based system doesn't do the setting or the mind-set of those who live in that setting enough justice. Some kind of skill system better represents the presuppositions of a culture that asks Pilate's question, "what is truth?"

Gamer ADD: A Meditation on Skill Systems

This time of year (Great Lent & Holy Week) are always very busy for me, so I haven't been able to keep up with the various Cruthanarc battle reports or even put miniatures on the table. Thus, my Gamer ADD brain has been contemplating what Cruthanarc might look like if it were a D&D campaign. Of course, my system of choice is B/X because of its flexibility and built-in sci-fi elements; however, sci-fi always seems to imply a need for a skill system in order to emulate all the technology that exists in these kinds settings.

Those familiar with this blog will understand that I am very wary of skill systems because they tend to tell players what they cannot do rather than what they can do. Thus, when meditating on modern and sci-fi settings I have been trying to reconcile the mechanical need with the mechanical drawback of skill systems. 

My recent musings have seized upon an already extant skill within B/X — Open Doors. It is tied to an ability score (STR) and is a simple d6 roll. There are two implications here that I really appreciate about this nascent skill system:

1. No matter how low an ability score a character has, there is always at least a 1 in 6 chance at success.
2. There is a benchmark for when a skill check is necessary. If something is not as difficult as opening a heavy locked door, no dice need to be rolled.

There is one more implication here that I can derive from how I handle Opening Doors in my own campaigns. I got sick and tired of seeing players roll d6 after d6 trying to open a door they saw as necessary to their progress in an adventure. Thus, the way I rule the Open Door roll is not to see whether or not the PC can physically open the door, but rather whether they can open the door and still surprise any monsters that are behind that door. Thus, the roll isn't success vs. failure, but rather success without complication vs. success with complication.

Should I ever write out a skill system, I would be sore temped to use the Open Door mechanic as the basis for that system. It does not encourage players to think their character cannot do something, rather it encourages players to think in terms of risk/reward for doing things. "Am I willing to accept complications for trying this?"

Regardless, here is some advice I have for Referees/GMs/DMs/etc. on how to use skill systems:

Before asking a player to roll the dice, go through the following steps:

1. If you are unwilling to accept the consequences of a bad roll, don't have the player roll any dice. Rather, simply arbitrate an outcome that you see as fair.
2. If the task at hand is easier than opening a heavy locked door, simply rule that the PC automatically succeeds.
3. If the task at hand is necessary for the PCs progress in their chosen adventure, the roll should not be success vs. failure. Rather, it should be success without complications vs. success with complications.

Are there any ways that you arbitrate skill systems that encourage players to experiment and try things rather than seeing skills as a barrier that tells them what they cannot do?

 

Half-Ogre/Ogre Race-as-Class for B/X

In a wonderfully weird way to end 2020, this post exists because the cleric in my solo campaign just got polymorphed into an ogre when setting off a magical trap...

Half-ogre PC by  Timothy Truman

Requirements: STR 9, CON 9

Prime Requisite: STR

Hit Dice: 1d10

Maximum Level: 10

Armor: Any appropriate for size, plus shields

Weapons: Any

Languages: Alignment, Common, Goblin, Orc

Combat Progression: as a Fighter

Saves: as a Fighter

XP Progression: as a Fighter

Ogre Strength: +2 to Attack and Damage in Melee Combat

Stronghold: An Ogre may start building a stronghold at 2nd level

Weaknesses: -2 on all Reaction Rolls; -2 to hit Small Creatures (like Halflings and Dwarves)

After Reaching 9th Level: An Ogre will be recognized by humanoid populations as a Warlord and the Ogre will attract humanoid followers from far and wide. Ogres may only hire humanoid mercenaries. Specialists and retainers may be of any race.

Here's to better polymorphs and transformations in 2021.

Have a happy and blessed New Year.

TLoS: The Fighter

One of my goals in this little experiment is to demonstrate that at its core, 5e is just a bunch of mechanics. The reason this is important to me is that once seen as simply mechanics, there is a tremendous amount of freedom that we have as players of the game to describe those mechanics any way we want to.

At a fundamental level, this is why I prefer older versions of the game and the retro-clones that emulate them — they deal mainly with mechanics rather than the special effects those mechanics represent. It frees those of us who play the game to interpret those mechanics to look the way we want them to without all the effort that I am putting into this little project.

For someone like me, the level of detail that 5e goes to when it describes what their mechanics look like is an unending irritation. For example, one of the 1st level spells available to the TLoS fighter is Hail of Thorns. We are told that:

 the spell creates a rain of thorns that sprout from your ranged weapon or ammunition

What if I want it to be a troop of fey that appear and fire their weapons with my character? Or what if I want the plants of the area to throw parts of their leaves and bark at the creature my character is firing at? Why can't the arrow hit the ground in front of the target and then explode into hundreds of little thorns into the face of the creature? There are all kinds of ways the mechanics of this spell can be described and rather than allowing imagination to run wild with the rules as written, I am forced to ignore hundreds of pages of fluff.

Enough whinging...here are a pair of .PNG files that redefine the 5e mechanics for the Ranger and turns them into an evocative version of the fighter, in the spirit of BX:

 

 

5e & 4+3 Campaign Notes: The Land of Songs

 My eldest requested that I do a write-up of one of the worlds suggested by my last post. I'll cover some of the foundational stuff in this post, and then follow up with the seven classes re-skinned so as to make sense in the world that emerges from this little thought experiment. Thus, I bring you The Land of Songs:

Known by the humans as Leóthland and the dragon kin as Eordracân, The Land of Songs is what most of the world calls the largest island in the world, at the center of the map above. The people of that island, however, know the entire world as The Land of Songs. This is due to their songs of how the world came to be.

The humans and dragon kin of The Land of Songs worship the Song of the Land, who is known in three particularities: Wóthbora the Singer, Leód the Song, and C'hor the Dancing. The Land was once one, sung into existence by Wóthbora through His Song while C'hor was dancing over the abyss. 

Wóthbora gave language to the dragons so as to help teach humanity, to whom he gave the ability to sing — to be co-creators with Him. Rather than use their gifts to sing in harmony with Leód, humanity and dragon kind built an earthly empire that sought the heavens by their own power. So, Wóthbora stripped humanity of the Song, and the dragon kin of either their wings or their intelligence and ability to speak. He then broke the Land into islands separated by the sea. 

Humanity and the dragon kin fell into silence and darkness; however, Wóthbora preserved one peoples and gave the Song back to them. These are the people of the Land of the Song, who strive to heal the wounds of the Land by teaching the world to Dance with the Song.

This is no easy task. It takes brave adventurers to cross the sea into unknown territories filled with ancient ruins from the fallen empire of humans and dragons. Shadows and monsters lurk within. The people of the Land, however, know that each island has its own melody that can add to the Song. Should the island be cleansed and  that melody be found, the island will return to its place as part of The Land of Songs.

5e & 4 + 3

Last month, James over at Grognardia reflected on how the "4+3" structure of how B/X presents classes is simple, sturdy, flexible, and helps build a world that feels real. 

While 5e is not my preferred rule-set (I would play 0e, Holmes, or B/X before I play any other edition), I think it is by far the best of the "new school" editions and (depending on the day) I might even admit that I would rather play it than 1e ADnD. 

One of the reasons I am not enthusiastic about 5e is precisely the reason that it so radically departs from the 4+3 presentation of classes. If one looks merely at the core rules, there are 9 races each with at least two variants and 12 classes with at least two variants each. All told, there are thousands of different mechanical ways to represent a character. Add in the various splat books and this number goes up exponentially. In other words, the only descriptor that can still be applied to both BX and 5e is "flexible," though I probably prefer the word "chaotic" in the case of 5e.

As one might infer from reading my blog the over years, I take great delight in building worlds based on what can be inferred from the rules and mechanics of the game. BX is a fantastic vehicle for this approach. 5e makes such a project virtually nigh impossible due to information overload; however, one of the things I do like about 5e is that it does present all this information as optional. It empowers the DM to put limits on which rules get used and which do not. 

Thus, it invites me to apply the "4+3" paradigm to the races and classes of 5e. What follows is, I hope, inspiring because what I consider to be the "core classes" is, in some cases, not what one might expect. 

Note:  I do have access to a pair of the splat books and am taking advantage of them due to some thematic elements found therein.

 

World One 

Core Classes 

Cleric

Paladin (Oath of Vengeance), Variant Human with Heavy Armor Master Feat 

Fighter

Barbarian (Path of the Zealot), Variant Human with Durable Feat 

Magic-user

Rogue (Arcane Trickster Archetype), Variant Human with Ritual Caster Feat 

Thief

Monk (Way of the Shadow), Normal Human 

Race-as-Class 

Dwarf 

Barbarian (Path of the Berserker), Mountain Dwarf 

Elf 

Fighter (Eldritch Knight Archetype), High Elf 

Halfling

Rogue (Assassin Archetype), Stout Halfling

 

World Two

Core Classes 

Cleric

Sorcerer (Divine Soul Origin), Variant Human with Fey Touched or Shadow Touched Feat 

Fighter

Fighter (Rune Knight Archetype), Variant Human with Fey Touched or Shadow Touched Feat

Magic-user

Warlock (Archfey Patron), Variant Human with Fey Touched Feat 

Thief

Rogue (Phantom Archetype), Variant Human with Shadow Touched Feat

Race-as-Class 

Dwarf 

Ranger (Fey Wanderer), Half-elf

Elf 

Wizard (Blade Singing), High Elf

Halfling

Wizard (School of Illusion), Forest Gnome

 

World Three

Core Classes 

Cleric

Cleric (Tempest Domain), Normal Human

Fighter

Barbarian (Path of the Storm), Normal Human

Magic-user

Sorcerer (Storm Sorcery), Normal Human

Thief

Rogue (Swashbuckler Archetype), Normal Human

Race-as-Class 

Dwarf 

Warlock (Genie Patron), Dragonborn

Elf 

Wizard (Blade Singing), High Elf

Halfling

Warlock (The Fathomless Patron), Half-elf

 

World Four

Core Classes 

Cleric

Monk (Way of Mercy), Variant Human with Healer Feat

Fighter

Monk (Path of the Kensei), Variant Human with Weapon Master Feat

Magic-user

Bard (College of Swords), Variant Human with Ritual Caster Feat

Thief

Rogue (Swashbuckler Archetype), Variant Human with Dual Wielder Feat

Race-as-Class 

Dwarf 

Rogue (Assassin Archetype), Half-orc

Elf 

Bard (College of Whispers), High Elf

Halfling

Rogue (Mastermind Archetype), Half-elf

 

What I love about this approach is that each world has a distinct feel, grounded in the mechanics of the classes themselves. One can start imagining reasons why each class has the mechanics they do. Speaking of the mechanics, since that is all they are, we are free to re-skin everything within a class to better explain them in context of the world in which they appear.

So, which world would you like to run or adventure in?

The Gygax 75 Challenge

Given my recent focus on practical examples on how to home-brew things for D&D, I would remiss if I didn't mention The Gygax 75 Challenge by Ray Otus. It is a short work (36 pages including the article by Gary Gygax that inspired this work) but does claim to help the reader to "Create an RPG setting in five weeks!"

Since I've been in the mood to record practical examples and since I've been inspired by my own exploration of Human Monster Stats in B/X, I thought I would document my own experience doing the Gygax 75 Challenge here.

Week 1 of this Challenge includes the following Tasks:

1. Get/Create a Notebook
2. Develop Your Pitch
3. Gather Your Sources of Inspiration
4. (Extra Credit) Assemble a Mood Board

For the first Task, my "Notebook" will be this blog. I will record all of this process here.

The Pitch is supposed to be 3 to 7 bullet points to "sell" the campaign to potential players. Working in the background of all of this is an assumption that you are using a specific ruleset, since that will affect every step of this process.

As implied by my post yesterday, this campaign will be built upon the chassis of Moldvay’s Basic D&D. Here are my bullet points:

• Science Fantasy: Lasers! Plasma Swords! Magic! Explore ancient alien civilizations! Chart and claim new territories on the Colony Planet Vurush in the name of the burgeoning Terran Empire!
• Demi-humans are Race-as-Class, but are also all functionally multi-class: Dwarves are Fighter/Thieves, Elves are Fighter/Magic-users, Gnomes are Magic-user/Thieves, and Halflings are Cleric/Thieves.
• The universal struggle is between Light & Heat (Life) vs. Dark & Cold (Death). The Terran Empire is the current champion of Light & Heat.
• Divine Magic represents Life Magic. Arcane Magic represents Death Magic.
• Low Magic: Human Civilization is only capable of casting up to 2nd level spells.
• Dinosaurs: The edge of Civilization has a Lost World atmosphere.

For the third Task, the bibliography should also include a sentence or two about what each item brings to the campaign setting. Here is mine:

• Martian Chronicles by Edgar Rice Burroughs. I want this campaign to feel like the Mars Burroughs portrays: old civilizations, multiple native species, and I love white apes.
• The Black Amazon of Mars by Leigh Brackett. This is the source for the universal conflict as being between Heat and Cold. It also depicts the way I want Turning to look and feel like. Lycanthropes, barbarians, and berserkers are all represented here.
• Star Wars novelization by Alan Dean Foster. I want magic to work similarly to the Force: it is an energy that can be used for Light or Dark. Light Sabres are the prototype for the Plasma Sword and I want them to be able to block laser shots. Plus, I love the open possibilities of Star Wars before the Extended Universe and all the other movies.
• The Lost World by Arthur Conan Doyle. Give me dinosaurs, neanderthals, and saber tooth tigers!
• Fire and Ice (1983 Film). Subhumans, dragonhawk riders, more barbarians and (again) the conflict between Heat & Cold.
• Thundarr the Barbarian (1980-81 TV Series). The sunsword is another way to portray the Plasma Sword. Although the ancient civilization is our earth, there is this notion that there was a catastrophe that destroyed it. Plus, powerful wizards are most often depicted as the villains.

Finally, there is the suggestion that you put together a Mood Board — a collage of images that give you and your players a feel for what your campaign looks like. Normally, I wouldn't do this. I am a fan of letting players create their own version of what I am trying to describe to them; however, I also know showing pictures to players is a long standing practice in the hobby and I use it myself when words fail me. So,  here is what I came up with:

Click to Embiggen

Human Monster Stats in B/X

I was recently asked by an old buddy of mine to look at how D&D stats up humans as monsters to see what that said about the game and by implication the game world. Given my proclivities I thought it might be an interesting exercise. The first place I went was Moldvay, not only because his is my favorite version of D&D, but because I know that humanity is well represented in the Monster Section.

I decided to make a chart for easy comparison. I threw in Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings because all of them are PC classes in Basic and I included Gnomes because I like them and I thought it would be interesting.

Click to Embiggen

Hit Dice

One of the first things that jumps out to me are the Hit Dice. In Basic D&D all monster HD are d8. Therefore, most human and demi-human monsters have a higher HD than their PC counterparts. I think this is a hold-over from 0e, where all PCs had a d6 for a hit die. Interestingly, Berserkers and Elves are the only “fighting men” that retained the ‘+1’ given to the HD of that class in the original rules.

Damage

The second is the amount of Damage each type of “monster” does. Outside the Acolyte’s preference for using a mace, this suggests a universal damage die based on class where Fighters do d8, Clerics and Thieves do d6, and Magic-users do d4.

Armor Class

Also fascinating is the Armor Class. Basic D&D doesn’t assume or assign Ability Scores to monsters. Indeed, Moldvay suggests that DMs “may” want to roll ability scores for NPC parties. As a consequence, it can safely be expected that all of the human and demi-human “monsters” have ability scores that fall within the ±0 range of 9-12. Thus, the armor class of each entry tells us something about what armor a particular “monster” is using. The results are fascinating from both a cultural point of view and as a comparison to the rules for PC classes that these monsters emulate:

• Acolytes (AC 2) wear plate mail and shield. This reveals that the average 1st level cleric is much more likely to be a Knights Templar than a village priest. In other words, it appears that the primary role of the cleric is fighting, not necessarily praying.
• Bandits (AC 6) wear leather and shield. This suggests that Thieves actually do know how to wield a shield counter to what the rules for PCs say.
• Berserkers (AC 7) wear only leather. Due to their battle rage, Berserkers are the most monster-like entry on this list; however, from the perspective of the Tinkerer in me, this entry also suggests another option for a fighter class — one that lives by the axiom that offense is the best defense. By forgoing the ability to wear armor heavier than leather, this new fighter-type attacks as a fighter 3 levels higher and gains one extra hp per HD. Alternatively, maybe all Fighters get that 0e +1 to their HD and receive a bonus "to hit" based on their Movement Rate: 120 (40) = +2; 90 (30) = +1; 60 (30) = 0.
• Dwarves (AC 4) wear chain and shield. Notice their movement rate. Based on the movement rates of others on this list wearing plate mail, one would expect an AC of 2. This suggests that Dwarves have a base move of 90 (30) instead of 120 (40). Thus, chain is the heaviest armor they bother to train with because plate mail not only slows them to 30 (10), but prevents them from carrying any gold. Another option is suggested by the Gnome below. Maybe Dwarves fill the roll of Fighter/Thief and they have access to the same type of quiet chain that Gnomes do.
• Elves (AC 5) wear chain. Firstly, this suggests that it requires two hands to cast magic, therefore Elves don’t use shields. Secondly, look at the movement — 120 (40). Either chain mail has the same effect on movement as leather, which is contradicted by the entry on Dwarves, or all Elves have access to a special type of Elven Chain that weighs as much as leather.
• Gnomes (AC 5) wear chain. Note that gnomes have the same movement as dwarves but do not use shields like elves. This suggests that gnomes have a reason to keep both hands free like elves. Given the lower damage die (d6) suggests that gnomes fill the roll of Magic-user/Thief in the same way Elves are Fighter/Magic-users. The fact that they can wear up to chain and are not limited to leather like Bandits suggests that they, like Elves, have a special type of chain. While not light like Elven Chain, Gnomish Chain is quieter than normal chain.
• Halflings (AC 7) wear leather. The Halfling is an outlier. The AC, HD, Move, and Damage all compare unfavorably with the other entries. Given my own bias, I would be tempted to dump the Halfling as a character type; however, given that the lack of a shield has been used to justify spell casting, the Halfling may very well play the roll of Cleric/Thief despite the fact that both of those classes are allowed to use a shield (a nod to the better saving throws?)
• Mediums (AC 9) wear no armor. No surprise here; however, it does go to show that these “monster” versions of the class are considered to have ability scores of 9-12 (no implied AC bonus).
• Noble (AC 2) wear plate and shield. Again no real surprise, but it does suggest that nobles are not only expected to fight but that there is a need to.
• Normals (AC 9) wear no armor. The only real surprise here is just how incompetent at fighting normal humans are with the d4 HD, low saving throw and lowest morale of all the entries. This is especially shocking when compared to the other races. This suggests that humans are prosperous and numerous enough to have the luxury of professional armies to protect them. Given that every other entry on this list is at least as competent as a goblin or orc (and often better), there seems to be a real need for armed conflict.
• Traders (AC 6) wear leather and shield. What I find fascinating about this entry is that they are specifically described as Fighters, despite the fact that statistically they more resemble Bandits than Veterans. Does this suggest another fighter-type that forgoes both offense and defense for a variety on non-combat abilities? Or, does this simply suggest that a Thief is a fighter who gave up on fighting in order to pursue other mundane skills? Interestingly, the Saving Throw seems to suggest the former.
• Veterans (AC 2) plate and shield. No real surprise here also, other than the fact that plate mail is so common among those that society expects to fight.

Morale

Morale also tells an interesting story. Most humans have a Morale of 7, whereas most demi-humans (Halflings being the outlier again) have an 8 that increases to 10 if their leader is still alive and kicking. Rather than speaking to a level of professionalism, as is suggested by the Veteran’s Morale of 9 versus the Noble’s Morale of 8, it suggests a level of desperation. Whereas humans have a place to retreat to, most of the demi-humans do not.

Treasure Type

The story suggested by Morale is reinforced by the Treasure Types. All of the human entries (as well as the Halflings) list individual Treasure Types. If a normal Treasure Type is listed, it only exists “if encountered in the wilderness.” In contrast, there are no Individual Treasure Types for Dwarves, Elves, and Gnomes. The implication is that when one of these demi-humans is encountered they are not very far from home and hearth.

Movement Rate

I find it interesting that the Movement Rates of all these monster entires contradict the normal encumbrance rules. Moldvay has leather armor at 90 (30), and metal armor at 60 (20). These entries support the idea that both unarmored and leather should be 120 (40), chain should be 90 (30) and plate should be 60(20).

Alignment

I find it fascinating that Normal humans (most often) have a Lawful Alignment. The suggests that the Alignment System centers not on morality but where one stands with Human Civilization. The fact that most human monster entries indicate that they can be any alignment says more about the fickle nature of humanity than anything else. This concept of Alignment is confirmed by the Neutrality of Dwarves, Elves, and Gnomes. While willing to work with humans, they don’t necessarily support their Civilization. Note, that Dwarves and Gnomes seem to be split on the question, though. Once again, the outlier here is the Halfling. Like Normal humans, they are Lawful. This makes me wonder if there is more of a connection between the two than the monster entries are letting on.

Monster Descriptions

There are a couple of interesting tid-bits in the descriptions of all these entries. Almost all of them refer to leader types of up to 8th level. The exceptions are not surprising: Berserkers, Normals, and Traders. What is surprising is the levels of the various leader types. Nobles are "always 3rd level," Veterans max out at 3rd level, Bandits have leaders from other classes, and (most shockingly) Mediums have a 50% chance of being encountered with their Master — a 3rd level Magic-user! 

In contrast, Gnomes have leaders up to 4th level, Clerics up to 5th, Elves and Halflings up to 7th, and Dwarves up to 8th. 

I think this speaks to the relative youth of Human Civilization and the fact that magic is largely unknown. Both Acolyte and Medium leader types can't cast more than a 2nd level spell! And remember, 1st level Clerics in B/X can't cast at all. In other words, if a PC Magic-user wants to get ahold of a 3rd level spell, they have to go outside of Human Civilization. Gnomes (if they are Magic-user/Thieves) seem to be in the same boat. The fact that Elves can routinely fire off 4th level spells speaks to their mystery and power. This might also explain their ambivalence toward Human Civilization.

So, does this make you want to tinker, house-rule a few new classes, and play? I am certainly tempted.

Halfling as Half-Dwarf Race-as-Class

Halflings (Half-Dwarves)

Requirements: DEX 9, CON 9
Prime Requisite: STR and DEX
Hit Dice: d6
Maximum Level: 12

Hill Dwarves (sometimes known as Gnomes) have a reputation for being reclusive, but are in many ways more gregarious than their Mountain-dwelling cousins. This, in combination with their relative proximity with Humans, has resulted in not a few unions between Hill Dwarves and Humans of smaller stature. The result of these pairings is a Half-Dwarf, more commonly known as a Halfling.

Like their Human progenitors, Halflings have a wide range of appearances, though they are rarely able to grow a beard of any significant length. They usually average from about 3 to 4 feet and weigh in at 60 to 100 pounds. Due to this short height, Halflings cannot use two-handed weapons or longbows. However, they can use any other weapon or armor. They must have at least 13 in one or the other prime requisite in order to get the +5% to experience. They must also have a STR and DEX of 13 to get the +10% bonus.

Due to their unusual background, they are used to existing on the fringes of both human and dwarven society. At character creation, a player chooses three Thief abilities that the Halfling character can use. Additionally, Halflings have an uncanny ability to disappear into their surroundings. Using any kind of cover, they hide on a 1-4 on a d6. They also have keen coordination which gives them a +1 to hit with missile weapons.

Halflings use the same saving throws as Dwarves, sharing the hardiness of that side of their ancestry. They also fight as a Dwarf. Further, a Halfling character will speak the common tongue, dwarvish, halfling, gnomish, goblin, and kobold.

Reaching 9th Level: When a Halfling reaches level 9, he has the option of creating a stronghold, which can be either above or below ground. The stronghold will attract Dwarves and Halflings from far and wide. A Halfling ruler is able to hire Dwarven and Halfling soldiers or mercenaries, but may only hire members of other races for other tasks, such as human alchemists or elves for spell casting.

Level Progression
1…0
2…1900
3…3800
4…7600
5…15,200
6…30,400
7…60,000
8…120,000
9…250,000
10…380,000
11…510,000
12…640,000

Gamer ADD: Black Pudding Cleric Hack

My life has been extremely busy of late and on top of that, my overtaxed brain has been busy screaming, "squirrel!" Thus, I have several ideas half-formed in the last several weeks that I am trying my best to at least roughly shape out so that I or others can use them.

To that end, if you haven't checked out Black Pudding #4 by J.V. West under the Random Order Creations moniker, do yourself a favor and do so. Every issue of this fanzine irreverently enhances the goodness that is B/X with a loving 1970s-esque kitschy wonder that has me both giggling and itching to play. Black Pudding #4 has a hack of B/X using elements of 5e, LL, S&W with just the right amount of cool. It is a hack I would play in a heartbeat; however, there is one glaring hole, at least for my particular proclivities. Clerics don't get the Black Pudding treatment.

Therefore, I endeavored to make my own so that when the day comes and I find myself at a table willing to embrace that wacky coolness that is the Black Pudding OSR Playbook, I'll be ready to add my own bit of the ridiculous (in a very good way).

For those interested, I created a single page that can be printed off and added to the Black Pudding OSR Playbook:

The file can be found here. Enjoy!

Saintly Saturday: The Transfer of the Relics of St. John Chrysostom

Today is the Feast of the Translation of the Relics of St. John Chrysostom. Thirty years after St. John's death in exile, St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople, persuaded the Emperor Theodosius II (A.D. 408-450) to allow the relics of St. John to return to Constantinople. The emperor’s mother, Empress Eudoxia, had sent St. John into exile because he, as the Patriarch of Constantinople, openly criticized her vices. Theodosius issued an edict for the return of St. John’s relics; however, those sent to retrieve could not lift his reliquary. It was not until the emperor wrote a letter of apology and humbly asked the saint to return that the reliquary was able to be moved.

The moniker “Chrysostom” means Golden-mouthed because St. John was a gifted homilist. Fortunately for us, St. John is one of the most well-documented saints in the history of the early Church. We have more of his writing than just about any other saint, including his analysis of the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. John as well as the Letters of St. Paul.

There is a story of St. John from the time when he was writing on St. Paul that a man who had come to see the saint was turned away because St. John was seen to be meeting with someone at his writing desk who was leaning over and whispering into the saint’s ear. This went on for three days. When St. John openly wondered at what had happened to the man, who he had arranged to meet, those around him became aware of the icon of St. Paul hanging over St. John’s desk and realized that the person they saw whispering in St. John’s ear was St. Paul himself. To this day, that ear remains incorrupt (and I can attest to that because I have seen it myself).

St. John looms very large in the life of the Orthodox Church, because the liturgy we do most of the year is attributed to St. John. Indeed, because of the large number of surviving writings by St. John, modern textual analysis confirms that the Anaphora of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysystom was indeed written by St. John himself. It is a rather humbling and awesome thing to pray his words knowing that 1600 years of Christians before me have prayed the very same thing.

It is a reminder that in our present age, we delusionally believe we have progressed beyond our forbears. While we may have some pretty amazing technology at our fingertips, human beings knew just as much (if not more) about being human hundreds and even thousands of years ago. St. John’s writing is as relevant today as it was in the 4th century. My daughter recently had to read Thucydides for school. I challenge anyone to read that with “United States” in the place of Athens and “Soviet Union” or “China” or “North Korea” in the place of Sparta and be able to tell me that (beyond the technology involved) that the conflict was any different.

We doom ourselves by ignoring the wisdom of those who came before.

In a way, this is why the OSR has been so important for this hobby. We refuse to ignore the past. Indeed, some of us insist that past versions of D&D are better than what came after. I count myself among them. I recently got back together again with some high school buddies of mine to play. Despite a lot of talk about how good 3.5 is and how we all should give 5e a go, we ended up going back to B/X because the wisdom there just cannot be ignored.

I pray we all apply this axiom beyond the gaming table. Pick up a classic and realize that humanity has always been human (both wise and foolish) and that we have a lot to learn from those who came before.

Saintly Saturday: St. Joannicius the Great

Today is the Feast of Joannicius the Great. He was born in A.D. 752 in Bithynia (in modern-day Turkey) to faithful but very poor parents. Their only wealth was some cattle, which Joanicius would tend, often using it as a means of prayer and using the Sign of the Cross to ward away both beast and thief.

When emperor Leo IV came to power in A.D. 775, he instituted a draft and Joannicius was chosen from his village to serve. He did so with bravery and earned the respect of his fellow soldiers. He was rewarded more than once by both his commanders and the emperor himself for striking fear into the hearts of his enemy. He served in the military for six years, but he knew that the life of a soldier was not his calling.

When he was able to leave the imperial army he wanted to become a hermit, but at the direction of a spiritual elder, he spent a couple of years in a monastery to learn the monastic life. He then went into the wilderness to finally become a hermit. He spent time with other monastics saints, became known as a miracle worker and finally retired to Antidiev monastery were he died at the age of 94 in A.D. 846.

From the perspective of RPGs, I find the life of St. Joannicius fascinating because it demonstrates how grounded in reality the character creation system of Classic Traveller is, one of my favorite subsystems of any RPG in existence. Though he is famous for being a hermit, along the way he was, for lack of a better term, a cattle rancher, a soldier and a monk. If he were an RPG character, his character creation process would have gone through a couple of careers, garnered a wide variety of skills prior to becoming an adventurer (a hermit wandering the Wilderness).

The closest to this idea that I have ever seen in FRPGs is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying Game; however, the career changes happen as part of character advancement, not as a precursor to becoming an adventurer. A close second is the 0-level character concept that I first encountered in Goodman Games modules like DCC35A: Halls of the Minotaur. Neither of these, though, scratch the itch for a Classic Traveller-esque mini-game of character creation.

In the ACKS Players Companion there might just be a foundation upon which to build one for B/X. Therein is a section called Custom Classes which reverse engineered all the B/X classes to come up with a system to build campaign-specific classes with all variety of possibilities. A character gets a total of 4 points to spend on Hit Point Value, Fighting Value, Thieving Value, Divine Value and Arcane Value. Certain aspects of these can be traded in for special abilities which can further be expanded if they are delayed across levels.

Using these concepts, it might just be possible to create a series of tables to, like Classic Traveller, create a fantasy character, their life prior to becoming adventurer and the skills/abilities that they picked up along the way.

This is where I must disappoint. I don’t have the time or energy to put something like this together at the moment; however, I am going to bookmark this idea and come back to it at some point. Or, maybe someone else can have a go…

Saintly Saturday: St. Cosmas the Composer and Melodist

Today is the feast of St. Cosmas the Composer and Melodist who was not only a contemporary of St. John of Damascus (a famous 7th-8th century saint who wrote against iconoclasm) but was an adopted member of the family. He was elected bishop in the 8th century to a coastal city in Palestine. He was also an excellent hymnographer. Among his many compositions are two Canons that are still sung in the Orthodox Church today: the Canon of the Cross and the Canon for the Nativity of Christ.

Earlier this week, when I looked ahead to see who the saint was for today, I was left with a very tough question: What to do with a hymnographer? It is a reminder that D&D (and most RPGs, for that matter) don’t really have a place for someone like St. Cosmas. Yes, the argument can be made that he represents a Christian version of a Bard, but, not only do I not really like virtually any iteration of that class, I don’t think any version can easily be re-skinned to fit a St. Cosmas.

This leads me to a bit of Gamer ADD I have been suffering from lately. I’ve been distracted by Warhammer Fantasy RPG, the Mithgarthr “retro-clone” of 5e and Swords & Wizardry Continual Light. While absorbing so much awesome, my brain came up with an interesting challenge that I think answers the “problem” of St. Cosmas better than simply calling him a Bard:

Knowing what I know today in October 2017, what if I suddenly found myself back in the late 80s at the beginning of the end for TSR when my friends and I started drifting away from D&D? What would I do to modify D&D to make it enticing enough for my friends and I to continue to play realizing that I would have no access to the huge library of .pdfs and books that I have now? What resources could I use?

The first thing that came to mind is the idea of a 0-level character. Not only do I love this idea, but my friends probably would have as well because we reveled in the challenge of low-level play. I owned the 1st edition of Warhammer Fantasy RPG and it has an awesome list of careers that a potential 0-level character could come from.

Secondly, my friends did like the idea of the proficiency system that was being developed in books like Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures. Why not take some of the skills from the Thief class, some of the skills from WFRP and use them in the broad sense suggested by both WFRP and 5e where each characteristic gets several skills associated with it?

Finally, this all has to exist on a random table that also allows for some customization. Therefore, each career would have the ability to move around some ability scores and a choice of skills to specialize in.

Here is a rough draft of what that might look like (Roll a d12):

1. Alchemists’ Apprentice Skills: Craft, Medicine, Open Locks; Characteristic: INT
2. Entertainer Skills: Blather, Perform, Sleight of Hand; Characteristic: CHA
3. Herbalist Skills: Lore, Medicine, Sleight of Hand; Characteristic: WIS
4. Initiate Skills: Blather, Etiquette, Read Languages; Characteristic: CHA
5. Laborer Skills: Craft, Consume Alcohol, Open Locks; Characteristic: DEX
6. Outlaw Skills: Climb Walls, Intimidate, Stealth; Characteristic: STR
7. Rat-Catcher Skills: Animal Handling, Hunt, Swim; Characteristic: CON
8. Sailor Skills: Climb Walls, Navigate, Swim; Characteristic: STR
9. Scribe Skills: Lore, Read Languages, Stealth; Characteristic: INT
10. Soldier Skills: Consume Alcohol, Intimidate, Hear Noise; Characteristic: DEX
11. Squire Skills: Animal Handling, Etiquette, Perform; Characteristic: CON
12. Woodsman Skills: Hear Noise, Hunt, Navigate; Characteristic: WIS

Skills: Players can try to justify doing anything under the pretense of a skill. PCs can automatically succeed at the DM’s discretion. Any character can use any skill at a base success rate of 1 in 6. Each career offers three skills that can be specialized in. The player prioritizes these specializations at character creation. At 0-level these three skills have a base success rate of 9+, 12+ and 15+ on a d20. As a character gains levels, these chances improve by 1 per level (8+, 11+, 14+ at 1st level). A roll of ‘1’ always fails

Each specialization is associated with a characteristic. The bonus or penalty of that characteristic can be applied to a roll with a specialization (but not to the generic 1 in 6 chance):

STR: Climb Walls, Intimidate, Swim
INT: Craft, Lore, Read Languages
WIS: Hear Noise, Medicine, Navigate
CON: Animal Handling, Consume Alcohol, Hunt
DEX: Open Locks, Sleight of Hand, Stealth
CHA: Blather, Etiquette, Permform

Characteristic: Each career can rearrange their starting characteristics (rolled in order) by taking the highestt roll and switching with the Characteristic associated with the career. For example: an Initiate with STR 10, INT 7, WIS 15, DEX 17, CON 10, CHA 8 can switch out their DEX and CHA scores so that the characteristics look like this: STR 10, INT 7, WIS 15, DEX 8, CON 10, CHA 17
Once a character reaches 1st level and chooses a class, these characteristics may be further adjusted according to the rules in Basic D&D.

Each PC would fight as a 0-level human with d4 hit points. 1st-level would be attained after one adventure.

Meditating on Firearms in D&D

So, following up on my recent thoughts about firearms, here are some simple concepts that could accompany the idea that the main defense against firearms is not armor but saving throws.

All firearms have three ranges:

• Short: full damage, save for half-damage
• Medium: full damage, save for no damage
• Long: half-damage, save for no damage

Cover (and the Referee gets to decide what is Cover and what is not) makes all ranges into Long Range.

Therefore, there are two main ways to modify how aspects of a gun function: adjust the Range or adjust Cover. This allows a huge variety of mechanical ways to express various “tech-levels,” barrel lengths, calibers, accessaries, etc. For example:

• Shortening or lengthening ranges is an easy way to express the relative effectiveness of a gun. A muzzle-loader would have a much smaller range increments than a 21st century sniper rifle.
• Different saving throws (if one uses the saving throws from B/X, LL etc. instead of the “one-size fits all” approach of S&W) can be assigned to different calibers. For example: "Poison or Death" could be used for the smaller end (.32 or 9mm) and "Breath Attacks" could be used for the higher end (.50 cal) and/or shot guns.
• Armor Piercing rounds could reduce Cover to Medium Range
• Scopes could reduce ranges to Short and Medium (Medium = Short, Long = Medium)
• Sci-fi weapons like plasma guns could only have a Short Range (however long the Referee wanted the range of a plasma gun to be).
• etc.

Let the world building commence!

Meditating on Grappling (5e + B/X)

Over at B/X Blackrazor, JB ran an adventure for his kids and shared a little house rule he uses with multiple attacks:

My (simple) house rule gives creatures with multiple attacks one attack roll per round versus a maximum number of opponents equal to its multiple attacks...so the [carrion] crawler (for example) would be able to attack up to eight opponents, but regardless it would make only one attack per character per round. This is something I've been doing for a while now, and I find it works well in practice

This got me thinking about how I might express this idea in context of the Advantage/Disadvantage system from 5e (because I really want to see how many applications this mechanic can have). My starting point is an old-standby in the OSR and was even codified in S&W Complete:

Just as shields improve armor class by 1, fighting two-handed grants a +1 to damage rolls . . . and fighting with a weapon in each hand gives a +1 to hit. (Note that fighting with two weapons does not actually give two separate attacks; it just increases the likelihood of landing a successful blow.)

So, multiple attacks don’t result in extra die-rolls, but rather in a bonus to-hit. Why not give advantage instead? Thus, the carrion crawler in JB’s example would get one attack, but would roll two dice and use the higher of the two.

Since we are already going down this rabbit hole, shield-fighting should do the opposite. Rather than affecting AC, having a shield puts attackers at a disadvantage, meaning that they would roll two dice and take the lower of the two results. This advantage would be cancelled out by either multiple attacks or flanking.

Two-handed weapons, therefore, should have advantage on damage rolls.

This all leads to grappling, the bane of every D&D combat ruleset. The reason for this is rather simple: combat in D&D is very abstract, which is why multiple attacks can equal a bonus to-hit (two-weapon wielding in S&W) or an advantage as in my musings above. Grappling, by its very nature is . . . not. Thus, once anyone tries to go down the road of specificity and handle grappling it gets messy.

The above concepts for using advantage/disadvantage suggest a nice and simple abstraction for grappling:

Anyone can grapple. A successful attack roll indicates that grappling is taking place and both the attacker and target are now at a disadvantage. Thus, anyone attacking those currently grappling gets to roll two dice and chose the higher of the two and those grappling must now roll two dice and take the lower of the two if they wish to make an attack. This can only work on creatures that are larger than the attacker at the Referee’s discretion.

This rule could also work for shield bashing, possibly even cancelling out the disadvantage the attacker gets for grappling because of the shield (though they would lose the defensive capabilities of the shield).

I am currently play testing these ideas with a summer-time  campaign with my kids. The first time it came into play was an encounter with a ghoul. Having shields made the encounter survivable and hammered the point that attacking with advantage and a paralyzing touch is just as nasty as three attacks per round with a paralyzing touch.

Playing with Cosmology (5e and BX)

This past week I have been trying to watch the show The Magicians which is based on the Lev Grossman novel by the same name. If I had to describe it in a sentence, I would say that it is Harry Potter for adults. Unfortunately that isn’t high praise.

While the “ostracized student discovers he/she gets to attend a secret magic school” is a proven concept, The Magicians suffers from many of the giant plot holes Harry Potter does: if there is a giant bad guy who only one or more children/unexperienced magicians are “destined” to take out why the hell do you leave them on their own and keep them in the dark about their role and responsibility in the world!? In both cases, this lack of supervision and information leads the “protagonists” to actually making the situation much, much worse.

I have to admit, however, that as much as I despise the Harry Potter series, at least I don’t feel like I need to take several showers after seeing/reading it like I now feel like I do after trudging through several episodes of The Magicians. The reason is simple: whereas Harry Potter wraps its postmodernism in a fun children’s adventure, The Magicians wears it on its sleeve for everyone to see. This is its great weakness.

I have concurrently been reading The Great Good Thing by one of my favorite authors Andrew Klavan. He doesn’t much show up as an influence in my RPG hobby because his is the genre of crime thriller, but this book is a self-meditation on his journey from being a secular Jew to being baptized. It was an emotional roller coaster for me, because he and I had similar journeys. In it, he expressed an opinion that I found refreshing (if only because I finally found somebody who put into words something that I have been struggling to make cogent for years). Of the Marquis de Sade he says:

Here, at last … was an atheist whose outlook made complete logical sense to me from beginning to end. If there is no God, there is no morality. If there is no morality, the search for pleasure and the avoidance of pain are all in all and we should pillage, rape, and murder as we please. None of this milquetoast atheism that says, “Let’s all do what’s good for society.” Why should I do what’s good for society? What is society to me? None of the elaborate game-theory nonsense where we all benefit by mutual sacrifice and restraint. That only works until no one’s looking; then I’ll get away with what I can. If there is no God, there is no good, and sadistic pornography is scripture.

Several of the protagonists in The Magicians are hedonists and the story makes it very clear that the Christian God doesn’t exist, or if He does He is one of many and He does so for the express purpose of making magic available to the hedonists so they can go on pleasuring themselves and that to be left out of this great gift is to not live life at all.

It is revealed that the big bad guy (known as “The Beast”) is actually a pedophile trying to make his own magical murder/rape/torture world to allow him to explore his particular predilections to their fullest. In a world where God and morality exist, The Beast makes for a really creepy bad guy; however, in a world where God does not, what makes The Beast any better or worse than the hedonistic heroes? By what standard are the heroes right and The Beast wrong?

This got me thinking about a cosmology where magic is real and which institutions would support it and which ones would actively suppress it. I came to the surprising conclusion that the Church would have been to one safe haven for the magicians.

Hear me out: if magic is real, then it is part of creation. If it is part of creation then God, creator of all things, put it here for a purpose. If there is a purpose to magic given by God, then it must be a tool by which we can experience God and fulfill our role in salvation history by edging closer to the Image and Likeness of God that He endowed to us upon our creation. Thus, the church would be THE institution within which magic would be studied, taught and explored.

On the other hand, governments would see magic as a threat to power in the same way they see guns as a threat to power. Government would, of course, use magic to gain and maintain power in the same way they use guns; however, just as they do around the world with guns, magic would be largely illegal in the hands of the average citizen. This pits the Church against the State in a very compelling way (and not unlike the first three centuries of Christianity).

To put this all in context of D&D (especially 2e and beyond) it is the first time I have been able to envision a cosmology where Domains really work in a Christian context. If one were to envision a Christian University founded by monks in order to teach and study magic, there would be various “schools” within the university that would specialize in various types of magic: the Domains.

In such a cosmology, clerics become mages. My favorite curiosity of the retro-clone Delving Deeper starts to make sense:

At 2nd level a cleric acquires a spell book containing his 1st level spells and can thereafter cast a number of spells each day appropriate to his experience level.

This also opens up the possibility of having the Turn Undead ability of clerics being limited to one school and therefore making it possible for other special abilities to take its place. This mechanic is already in place in 5e, where the Channel Divinity ability can be used for different purposes depending on which domain the cleric belongs to.

In context of BX, this can be expressed by any number of special abilities. According to the ACKS Player's Companion, which reverse engineers the BX classes in order to be able to then build your own world-specific BX classes, a cleric can give up Turn Undead in order to get two custom powers at 1st level or more if they are delayed until higher levels. These might include the ability to use magic items only magic-users could use, using spell slots for extra melee damage or gaining access to appropriate spells from the magic-user spell lists.

Such a cosmology is radically different than the Christian Civilization vs. Demonic Wilderness that is the assumed structure of all of my campaigns and doesn’t seem to suggest a campaign where players exist on the fringes of Civilization making the Wilderness safe for everybody else. Rather, it suggests a campaign that takes place right at the center of civilization, in an urban environment where the conflict is not between Civilization and the Wilderness, but between two radically different visions of what Civilization ought to be.