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.

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.

Towards a Holmesian Dungeon

What follows is not anything particularly new. Many of these ideas have been present within the hobby and explored throughout the years I have been maintaining this blog. My interest here is codifying what I consider to be the characteristics of a dungeon that can truly be called Holmesian — by which I mean a dungeon that puts into practice what the Holmes Basic Edition presents as Dungeon. It has been a quest of mine to find and/or create such a dungeon. This is intended to help both me and anyone else who shares this particular quixotic quest. 

My introduction to the hobby of RPGs was the Holmes Basic Edition. While it did excite my imagination and was the gateway for me to spend years of my life playing various RPGs, I never really played the game as Homes presented it until Gary Gygax’s death. In the wake of this great loss to the hobby, I returned to the pages of Holmes to revisit my youth. What I found inside that blue cover was eye opening. Not only was it as inspiring as I found it back in the late seventies, but it presented a kind of dungeon design philosophy that I have only seen put into practice in part over the many years I have played the game. 

In other words, what might be called a “Holmesian Dungeon” doesn’t introduce us to any really radical new ideas about what a dungeon is (it has been around since 1977, after all). Rather, it combines extant ideas about dungeon design in a distinct way. This uniqueness teases us with a dungeon adventure experience that, though filled familiar tropes, is, at its core, something that I really haven’t ever seen in all my years of playing. 

What I seek to do here is delineate what I believe are the explicit and implicit characteristics of what I call a Holmesian Dungeon with the aim of creating a template for such an adventure to be created.

Explicit

Large Rooms 

The Example Dungeon in the Homes Basic Edition provides for several large rooms with at least one dimension of 80 to 100 feet or more. 

At first brush, one might not place much import on such a design feature, but a close reading of Holmes reveals that it is a deliberate choice. Melee movement in Holmes is slower than any other edition: an unencumbered character in Leather Armor moves 20 feet per round. Thus, larger rooms allow for encounter distances that make moving into melee a tactical choice. This is especially important for magic and missile weapons:

A magic-user must concentrate on his spell, so he cannot cast a spell and walk or run at the same time, and he certainly cannot cast a spell while engaged in combat.

Once the party is engaged in melee, arrows cannot be fired into the fight because of the probability of hitting friendly characters.

In other words, designing a dungeon with large rooms specifically allows party members to take advantage of both the magic and missile phases of the game and to choose how long these phases are in effect by determining when the party engages in the melee phase of combat. It also allows the Referee to create encounters where it is the PCs who must figure out a way to close the gap in order to avoid the magic and missile phases. 

Doors are Stuck or Locked 

Holmes states that doors are usually closed and often stuck or locked. Opening doors is an important part of the game. It affords an opportunity to surprise monsters beyond the door, but also involves a risk of ruining that surprise. Brute strength can always open a door; however, failure means alerting any monsters that are behind the door. Thieves afford the party a means of opening doors where failure is silent. Magic-users can use a valuable spell slot for a Knock spell which guarantees a silent open door. Additionally:

Doors opened will usually shut automatically unless spiked or wedged open. Doors open automatically far monsters, however, unless held or spiked shut.

Every door in a Holmesian Dungeon is a consequential tactical choice. 

I should note, that in practice, I have found that failing to open a door with brute force shouldn’t result in the door remaining shut, it simply means that the door has been opened in such a way that surprise is impossible. Having players roll again and again just to open a door is tedious and ruins the flow of exploring the dungeon. 

Traps as Non-lethal Time Wasters 

Unlike Moldvay, whose trap examples include poison gas with a Save vs. Poison or die, a ceiling block that does 1d10 damage if a Save vs. Turn to Stone is failed, and a pendulum blade that does 1d8 damage, Holmes understands that traps normally do not serve the purpose of causing damage to members of an adventuring party:

Traps should not be of the "Zap! You're dead!" variety but those which a character might avoid or overcome with some quick thinking and a little luck. Falling into a relatively shallow pit would do damage only on a roll of 5 or 6 (1-6 hit points at most) but will delay the party while they get the trapped character out. Hidden rooms, movable walls, teleportation devices, illusion rooms, dead ends, etc., make interesting variations.

Traps play the role of time waters. While some might pose an actual physical threat to player characters, they can be worked around given enough time. Along with trying to open doors, players must make the choice as to whether or not the time wasted on a trap is worth it. This choice becomes meaningful when one considers the real danger of a Holmesian Dungeon. 

Wandering Monsters are the Real Danger 

Holmes states that a Wandering Monster check should be made every three turns. Thus, everything that takes time in a dungeon brings with it the threat that monsters will come and investigate what the characters are doing. Given that Holmes specifies that a Wandering Monster on the First Level of a Dungeon might come from the Second or Third Level indicates that these Wandering Monster Encounters are not meant to be balanced or even winnable situations for the players. Dropping treasure in order to have the movement rate fast enough to run away can become a necessity. Larger rooms also allow for tactical retreat to be a realistic possibility. Implicit in this Holmesian reality is that a Dungeon Level can never truly be cleared…but more on that below. 

Empty Rooms 

Of the twenty-two rooms keyed in the Sample Dungeon of the Holmes Basic Edition, eight are labelled as Empty. Like the locked doors and time-wasting traps, these serve the specific function of forcing characters to make tactical choices as to whether or not spending time in a room that may or may not have a secret door or hidden treasure is worth it. Of course, there is a danger that game-play with become monotonous and boring as players encounter empty room after empty room. This is where the Implicit characteristics of a Holmesian Dungeon become important. 

Implicit 

The Three Eras 

(Empty Rooms are Not Really Empty) 

One of the curiosities of the Holmes Basic Edition can be found in its presentation of Magical Scrolls. Besides those that have a Protection Spell, scrolls are only usable by Magic-users. Additionally, there are scrolls that have spells that mimic the special effects of Magical Rings, Potions, and Wands. Implicit in this presentation of Scrolls are at least two different eras: 

• The Present Era, in which Divine Magic is something new enough that scrolls cannot be found within the Dungeon. 
• The Ancient Era, which knew powerful spells which now only exist on scrolls buried within the Dungeon. 
• Since the difference between these two is so stark, there probably is also a Quondam Era between the two in which the ancient arcane magics are lost. 

Thus, an empty room need not simply be empty, but can tell a story about a bygone era through the materials used to construct it, the mundane items left behind, and the art and architecture of those who once lived there. This information adds to the weight of the players’ tactical choice of whether a room is worth exploring. 

Powerful Magics Lie Within 

Spells once existed where creatures like dragons and giants could be controlled. Thus, the magics available to those who came before are far beyond what player characters might ever be able to accomplish. Thus, a Holmesian Dungeon itself would reflect this reality — magic was once far more powerful than it is in the present. 

The Dungeon is Malleable 

The primary way this reality manifests itself is through malleability.In its most basic form, this malleability is demonstrated by the ever-present threat of Wandering Monsters. There is, however, an implication that this malleability affects the physical nature of the Dungeon itself. Over time, the dungeon changes to adapt to the new realities of the adventurers that explore it. 

The Dungeon itself is an NPC 

In other words, the Dungeon itself acts as a semi-intelligent, malevolent creature that continually offers up the lure of powerful magic and treasure in order to entice adventurers of all stripes, hoping to lead the to their potential deaths. It is never too challenging, else why would just anyone venture into its depths? No, it offers just enough to make things interesting; however, those ever present Wandering Monsters are there to devour the unsuspecting.

Question: Is there a published Adventure Module out there that ticks all of these boxes? I do not know of one.

The Gygax 75 Challenge Part 6

When detailing the Town for the Gygax 75 Challenge, Otus suggests by starting with the equipment list. With it, various locals can be intuited: “a smith for arms and armor, a stable for mounts, etc.”

I haven’t really looked at Moldvay’s equipment list in a long time. I am normally playing a clone due to the fact that having one or more physical rulebooks at the table is both satisfying and useful and my physical copy of Basic D&D is rather fragile. So I was rather shocked that there is a glaring omission from his list: there isn’t anything there having to do with travel. There are no horses, no other types of animals, and no vehicles whether land or water. I guess this stems from the fact that I actually never played with Moldvay’s rules back in the day. When I did play Basic, it was with Holmes and his list has a mule, four types of horses and two each for land and water vehicles.

So, strictly speaking, if I am staying within Moldvay as much as I possibly can (and I have only violated this limitation twice in this whole process: once to grab the pterodactyl from Cook and once to grab a 3rd-level magic-user spell for a treasuries my dungeon), I really only have two shops in town: the place that sells armor and weapons, and the place that sells everything else.

At this point, Otus suggests using a name generator. I don’t disagree; however, I do have a piece of advice. In order to give a campaign a sense of place and culture, it is useful to assign real world naming conventions to different cultures in the game world. For example, one of the coolest non-gaming books I own that I use almost exclusively for gaming is The Celtic Book of Names by D. J. Conway.  It lists names from Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Each list of names could represent a different culture in my world. In order to give a fantasy flair to these lists, a random name table can be easily generated by choosing first and second syllables from each list of names. For example:

First Syllable (Irish)

1. Aed-
2. Bra-
3. Cal-
4. Con-
5. Dub-
6. Fin-
7. Mac-
8. Shan-
9. Tor-
10. Uil-

Second Syllable (Male/Irish)

1. -ach
2. -aed
3. -an
4. -art
5. -bre
6. -ger
7. -ghus
8. -lain
9. -lum
10. -thi

Second Syllable (Female/Irish)

1. -ait
2. -cla
3. -dre
4. -eal
5. -een
6. -ind
7. -is
8. -ith
9. -na
10. -ri

With a ‘3’ and a ‘5’ I get Calbre (male) or Caleen (female) and with a ‘9’ and a ‘2’ I get Toraed (male) or Torcla (female). A repeated letter here or there to make it look better is up to you. This exercise will result in names that sound slightly familiar, seem to be related, and yet are far enough outside the real world to fit in a fantasy setting. Of course, these lists can be expanded well beyond just ten entries. I limited myself for brevity’s sake.

My two stores can thus be called: Calleen’s General Store and Toraed’s Armory.

I know that I will eventually need to give my players access to Cook’s list of land and water vehicles, so I need to have a place for them. The randomly generated map I used for my town offers an intriguing solution to the problem. Outside the walls of Darkport are two small communities. In the north, there is Newsteps and opposite is South Ward. Given the harsh conditions of the immediate area (arctic), population growth isn’t a satisfying answer to explain why these two communities exist.

A far more satisfying answer is economic necessity. Vehicles and animals of burden are not allowed inside the walls of Darkport. Thus, all economic activity that relates to those items found on Cook’s equipment list would have to exist outside of Darkport. Thus, Newsteps and South Ward come about to cater to this economic need.

Saint Saturday: The Ancestors of God Joachim and Anna

Today is the Feast of the Ancestors of God, Joachim and Anna. The title “Ancestors of God” is a title derived from the fact that they are the parents of the Virgin Mary. During the Christological controversies that arose during the 4th to 8th centuries, she received the title “Theotokos” which literally means “The Mother of God.” This all has more to do with Christ than Mary or her parents because both titles (Ancestors of God and Theotokos) speak to the fact that Christ is both God and Man from conception and thus speaks about the nature of Christ rather than anything about His mother or grandparents.

For those who know their Scripture, Joachim and Anna are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Their story, and the story of the Nativity of the Theotokos (which was yesterday) appears in the Protoevangelium of James, a book known by most to be apocryphal. This, however, is a misnomer. There are many popular, early Christian writings that do not appear in the Bible because they either do not focus on the main point of the New Testament (Christ, HIs crucifixion and His resurrection) or are too far removed from the Apostles to be included. This can be seen in the fact that several of the Mariological feasts of the Orthodox Church refer to events in the Protoevangelium of James in the hymns surrounding these feasts.

Joachim and Anna were old when they had Mary. Anna was barren and beyond child-bearing years when she miraculously got pregnant. This is another reason that these stories have not been rejected by the Orthodox Church: it follows a pattern found all over Scripture. Women in both the OT and NT who are barren and beyond child bearing years find themselves pregnant through the workings of God.

This highlights something that is largely lost on the modern world: women’s real power derives from their ability to bear children. Take a look at this hymn:

Both Joachim and Anna from their sterility's stigma, and Adam and Eve from their mortality's ruin have been set free, O immaculate Maid, by your holy nativity. For this do your people hold celebration, redeemed from the guilt of transgression as they cry to you, "The barren one bears the Theotokos, the nourisher of our Life.”

While this hymn magnanimously lumps Joachim in with Anna’s failure to bear children, it was primarily her shame as revealed in the last line where she is called “the barren one.”

Also missed by the modern world is the power women derive from chastity — the ability to manipulate men who want to have children by them. This power is emphasized by the fact that Theotokos is called Virgin before, during and after childbirth. The birth of Christ does not bring with it corruption (the physical damage that happens to women who go through childbirth).

This offers some interesting fodder for world-building in a fantasy setting. There is a fantasy trope that ties spell-casting and prophecy with women and virginity. Those who have these powers lose them when they lose their virginity. This suggests a world where spontaneous arcane Vacian-like spell casting is only available to women who still have their virginity. Ritual magic can still be used by men and by all women and suggests the import of scrolls, wands, staves, potions and my interpretation of Magic Missile according to Holmes. Speaking of Holmes, his rules that 1st level magic-users can create scrolls becomes a model rather than an exception. This also explains why adventuring is incentivized: arcane spell casters need the various components necessary to create magic items.

This understanding of arcane magic gives us leeway to make a starker difference between it and divine magic. Whereas the arcane is about ritual, magic devices and the need to be a female virgin to spontaneously cast, divine magic can forgo all of these things and offer spontaneous casting to anyone who takes on the mantel of “cleric.” This works especially well in context of a Christian/pseudo-Christian Church.

Christ offers a radical equality to the world: His Body and Blood. With this brings a forgiveness of sin (that which separates us from God). Thus, corruption in context of wielding magic is healed and the mechanism for magic is the Holy Spirit rather than the innate power of the human body.

Thus, the contrast, conflict and choice of arcane vs. divine magic largely pivots upon magic items vs. spontaneous casting if you don’t want to play a female virgin.

Under Portown: Factions

It is an odd experience talking with these city dwellers. Whether they speak the truth or not, they always have another hidden goal when they speak to anyone. — The Journal of Sho Zo-ton from Afar

From the get go I need to provide some links, because when I do thought experiments like Under Portown I like to heavily lean on random tables. The tables that I used here were provided by one of my all-time favorite tomes produced in this Golden Age of RPGs, The Tome of Adventure Design published by Frog God Games as well as the excellent Holmes Ref 2.0 produced by Zenopus Archives.

Since the start of this whole thought experiment, I wanted my own version of the Homes Sample Dungeon to have factions vying for control of the Dungeon and the powerful magics that can be found therein. Rather than choose these factions, I decided to roll them up on the monster table in Holmes Ref 2.0 and came up with these:

• Troglodytes
• Ghouls
• Wererats

In order to make sense of this, I decided to root these three factions in the implied ancient civilization/classical civilization/current civilization pre-history of Holmes Basic. In other words, one of these groups represents the degenerate remnants of the ancient civilization, one represents either an actual remnant or degenerate remnant of the classical civilization and the last is simply a threat that exists to the current civilization.

Given that there is a place on Cook’s map of the Known World called “Wereskalot” and it is in relative close proximity to where I place Portown in the Known World, it makes sense that the current threat could easily be represented by the Wererats.

I was actually thrilled that troglodytes came up, because I think they are one of those under-utilized monsters that can have a lot of interesting background noise around them. Normally, I’d be inclined to use them as a stand-in for ancients given their underground habitat, but in this case I am more inclined to use them as degenerates from the classical civilization due to the fact that Holmes seems to indicate that this civilization was one that rose up to free dragons, giants etc. from the ancients. As remnants of the classical civilization, they are exploring Under Portown to find ancient magics to help bring Portown to its knees.

To boot, Ghouls seem to be a great way to keep the ancient civilization ticking over time given that undeath can be seen as a way of cheating death. This could be especially creepy if ghouls are understood to be intelligent rather than the best D&D representation of the modern zombie as depicted in a George Romero film (may he rest in peace). Given that ghasts do not appear in either Holmes or Cook, I will give myself the creative freedom to bestow that ghastly intelligence upon these ghouls.

Having assigned these roles to the inhabitants of Under Portown, I now need to define some factions within the City itself. The major ones are represented by the following personalities:

• Lord Fenclaro the Quiet: the current resident of the Lord’s Mense and de facto leader of Portown. He is not seen much in public. Most of his dealings are behind closed doors and there is a rumor that much of his time is used researching some strange magical artifact left to him by his grandfather.
• Drenaboten the Peculiar: this foppish merchant is actually an agent of the Black Eagle Barony. His primary role is to launder money through legitimate business ventures gained by the Barony’s illegitimate support of the slave trade, the Thieves’ Guild and various bandits and pirates.
• Drebb the Daring: this merchant is better known for his gambling habits and his penchant for insuring some of the more reckless ventures of ship captains going north (which somehow succeed more often than not). He is actually an agent of the Grand Duchy. While he uses his gambling habits as a cover to root out information on the Barony’s unsavory activities, he has no qualms about starting rumors himself to further tarnish the reputation of the Baron.
• Haque the Foul: this shadowy persona is more of a title than a person. It is given to the current leader of the Thieves’ Guild. Recently, that position has been taken over by a wererat with the goal of furthering the reputation of Wereskalot as a major power player in the region. He is also coordinating with the wererats currently exploring/controlling Under Portown.
• Endbruteth the Collector: as the head of the University of Portown, he is considered too young to be the curmudgeon he appears to be. The moniker “the Collector” is an inside joke with more than one meaning. He does collect oddities that are oft considered junk by others and he has enough charisma to recruit some of the best mages and scholars from around the world. The real reason for moniker, however, is that he has led the Wizard’s Guild on a secret purge that hunts down and kills anyone or any group that gets too interested in discovering the secrets of Under Portown.
• Tengahn the Mutable: this gaunt but otherwise nondescript merchant is prone to support whichever faction will pay him the most. In truth, he is a ghoul who seeks simply to wreck as much havoc and chaos upon the living that he can, all the while hunting for the weak and vulnerable to have for dinner (literally) with his fellow ghouls.

Finally, there is a heavy reliance in Portown upon mercenaries for personal protection, the protection of goods coming in and out of the city as well as for the defense of the city itself. Some of the more prominent of these companies are:

• The Imperial Lions (employed by Lord Fenclaro)
• The Nameless (thought to be employed by the Wizard’s Guild)
• The Crimson Legion (known to work with Drebb the Daring)
• The Sovnya Riders
• The Ulfberht Blades
• The Pernach Breakers

Under Portown: Placing Urban Main Features

After seeing the sheer variety of creature and costume that crawl through this stinking labyrinth of a city, I am beginning to put credence to the rumors that those I seek can be found here.
— The Journal of Sho Zo-ton from Afar

After mapping out the general layout of Portown, it is now time to start placing the Main Features of each hex. What I really like about this approach is that it can accommodate both concrete and abstract ideas. For example, take a look at the Main Features of hexes 1 and 2:

The Port

1. Port Master (3 in 6)
2. Northbound Ship (3 in 6)*
3. Southbound Ship (2 in 6)*
4. Guard Towers (2 in 6)‡
5. Smuggler’s Alley (1 in 6)
6. Lost

* 2 in 6 chance that the ship has a non-human crew; roll a d6: 1-3 = elf, 4-5 = dwarf, 6 = humanoid
‡ Roll a d6; 1-3 = West Tower, 4-6 = East Tower

Olde Town

1. The Insurance House (3 in 6) — a meeting place where merchants can buy insurance on their shipments north in case of loss due to pirates, monsters or natural disaster.
2. The Inklings Club & Collectibles (3 in 6) — a high-end gentlemen’s club where culture from around the world is discussed and experienced. Membership requires a donation of a rare and valuable object that then becomes part of the club’s collection.
3. The Bathhouse (2 in 6) — a remnant from when the Classical Civilization dominated the area. It is a spa with both salt and fresh water baths and servants that are paid not only for their massages, but for their silence. Many a political, business and criminal agreement is rumored to have been brokered within its walls.
4. The Ancient Corner Stone (2 in 6) — this strange stone is covered in runes from a long lost language, believed to have been used by the ancients. Scholars agree that it simply states the founding of a small colony. Rumors speak of something far more sinister.
5. Nor’Ar the Alchemist (1 in 6) — Nor’Ar is a famed alchemist capable of creating rare and wondrous potions; however, he is very exclusive and expensive.
6. Lost

As is plain, exploring the Port is a far more abstract and dynamic experience than exploring Olde Town. This, of course, is accomplished by placing abstract Main Features in The Port hex and very concrete Main Features in the Olde Town hex. Thus, not only does each area have its own unique feel, but the character of the entire city begins to take shape.

Note how easy this all is: I merely need a small Random Table with five entries with the sixth option of “Lost” to get to a roll of d6.

Under Portown: A Map of Portown

When looking at the description of Portown as presented in Holmes, there are only a couple of features that are explicitly known:

• The ruins of the Tower of Zenopus are west of town sitting on top of a hill overlooking some sea cliffs and next to a graveyard.
• Other Magic-users have moved to town.
• Portown is a small city, but busy being a hub where caravans deliver goods to ships that venture into hostile, pirate-infested waters to the north.
• Portown is cosmopolitan with both human and non-human inhabitants from all over the world.
• The Green Dragon Inn is popular enough that adventurers gather there to organize expeditions.

In trying to take this information and turn it into a usable map, I have found that the urban hex-crawl style of map has several really nice features.

• Placing specific details, like the tower ruins and the Green Dragon Inn are a breeze because those are abstracted into an existing hex with the proper theme. I need only make sure that the “Necropolis” hex (where the Sample Dungeon will be found) is on the west end of town and nest to the sea.
• Less specific details, such as magic-users moving to the area are also a breeze to incorporate. I just need a hex that is appropriately scholarly, such as a “University District” hex.
• Larger concepts, such as the trade route, are also easy to portray with hexes that have to do with such trade such as “Port” and “Bazaar.”
• Lastly, if one wants to either enlarge or further detail a city later on, it is as easy as adding a few more hexes. For example, here is what could be termed a “Small but busy City:”

I know the numbering is off, it will make sense below

Hexes include: Port, Olde Town, Bazaar,Burgher’s District, Palace District,University District, Necropolis, The Ancient City, Inn Way, Tent City and Tavern Row.

I, however, want even more city to explore and I also want more potential for political intrigue. Therefore, I decided to add the following:

Hexes include: Monastery District, Barracks Row, Guildhalls and Business District

I then remembered I didn’t have slums or place where a Thieves’ Guild might find home so I added some more:

Hexes include: Lower Guildhalls, Upper Slums, Thieves’ Quarter and Lower Slums.

Here is the final key for the map:

1. Port
2. Olde Town
3. Bazaar
4. Burgher’s District
5. Palace District
6. University District
7. Necropolis
8. The Ancient City
9. Inn Way
10. Monastery District
11. Barracks Row
12. Upper Guildhalls (so called because of its relative elevation)
13. Business District
14. Tent City (so called because this is where caravans make camp while transferring their goods)
15. Tavern Row
16. Lower Guildhalls (so called because of its relative elevation and the fact that its takes are not as high class as the Upper Guildhalls)
17. Upper Slums (so called because of its relative elevation and due to the influence of the monasteries)
18. Thieves’ Quarter
19. Lower Slums (so called because of its relative elevation and due to the influence of the Thieves' Guild).

Overall, this method of city mapping/city building is really user friendly.

Please note: as I proceed with this particular project, I will be assuming that the larger picture within which Portown is placed will correspond with my earlier work of trying to piece together Holmes' Sample Dungeon and Cook's map of the Known World.

A Holmes Inspired Megadungeon: Under Portown

Ever since I started down the path of trying to combine Holmes and Cook, I have been trying to create a megadungeon that would tick off all the boxes I see suggested in a Holmes-style game. To a certain extent, I have accomplished much of what I wanted with my version of the Chateau des Faussesflammes, but the result has been, well, really complex.

As my Gamer ADD has recently returned to Holmes, I have been working on taking some of the ideas I put into practice with the Chateau, but in a much simpler format in order to flesh out the Sample Dungeon found in Holmes. 

Here is the basic concept: The dungeon beneath Portown is part of the Mythic Underground. Therefore, it is an NPC unto itself. One of the great dangers of the Mythic Underground is that as an environment, it is hostile to adventurers (as is evidenced by the fact that doors easily open for monsters, but PCs must use Thief Skills, spells or Strength). One way that hostility can express itself is by actually changing.

Under Portown, there are six elements of the dungeon that do not change. One is the entrance and there are five special areas which all play a major part in the backstory of the dungeon itself. I've drawn these up here:

The idea here is that the spaces around these six elements can change on a whim. For my part, I am imagining various factions vying for control of the dungeon. Each faction controls a different version of the dungeon. As each faction's power waxes and wanes, the Mythic Underground exposes different versions of itself to the surface world.

Thus, I can take a piece of tracing paper and draw out different "levels" and place them over my six static elements. Here is a version where I took pieces and parts of the Sample Dungeon of Holmes:

Alternately, I can do this electronically. I purposely used geomorphs to create the five main elements of the dungeon so that it would be possible to create something in Dave's Mapper to drop my main elements into with little effort on my part:

The result is an ever-changing megadungeon with an unlimited number of rooms; however, PCs will always have anchor points of familiarity if they can find those unchanging elements of each version of the dungeon. If they can figure out part of the mechanism of when the dungeon changes, they can also begin to have some control over which version of the dungeon they explore.

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.

Holmes!

I love me some random tables and I love me some Holmes Basic D&D. In honor of Free RPG Day, Zenopus Archives released Holmes Ref 2.0. I highly recommend checking it out, even if you have no real interest in Holmes because it is chuck full of goodness, especially of the random nature.

Ostensibly, it is a reference sheet for taking Holmes beyond its original scope of character levels 1-3 using OD&D as its default point of departure for higher levels (brilliant idea, especially since that is exactly what Holmes himself did). Thus, I find myself desperately wanting to play a Holmes campaign using this stuff.

There are, however, some very cool variations in here that are portable to any Old-School game and, with a little work, to any version of the game.

Firstly, there is a random name table that apes some of the names from Holmes and B1 and reminds me of the name charts found in the alien expansions for Original Traveller (which is always a good thing). The first time I rolled up a name, it produced something truly inspiring: Sho Zo-ton from Afar (more on this below)

Secondly, it provides a Backgrounds table for human characters that players may roll on in lieu of rolling up beginning cash. Each background provides a cool ability, a set of equipment appropriate for that background and a reduced number of dice x10 for starting cash.

So, for Sho Zo-ton from Afar I rolled up a Nomad background which provides an ability to surprise 1-4 on a d6 when outside while wearing leather armor or less and the ability to use archery while riding. In addition to 1d6x10 starting gold (I rolled a ‘4’), the character starts with a Light Horse, Lance, Horse Bow and Leather Armor.

This is where the fun begins. The title “from Afar” suggests that this character comes from a distant land. A fantasy version of Korea immediately suggested itself, because traditionally Koreans have 3 syllable names: the first being the family name and the last two being the given name. Therefore ‘Sho’ is the character’s clan and ‘Zo-ton’ is the given name. Additionally, traditional Korean weapons fall into three broad categories: bows (which are considered to be THE Korean weapon), spears (of which a lance is a variation) and sword.

For flavor, I noted the Korean names of each weapon Sho Zo-ton carries:

• Gakgung (a bow made from buffalo horn)
• Gichang (a spear with a flag at the spear end used both by horsemen and footmen)
• Hwando (a single edged curved short sword, which I used part of the 40gp to purchase)

Traditionally, men of the Joseon period (14th c.-19th c. which is approximate to the suggested fantasy Western culture in most D&D settings) wore their hair in a sangtu top-knot. This signified manhood which came from being married (and they married young). This suggests a reason why Sho Zo-ton came from Afar to adventure in the “West:” his family, specifically his wife, was killed by strange beasts (orcs? gnolls? lizard men?) that he learned originated from the area that the campaign takes place. He is here for honor and vengeance.

All this from a couple of random table rolls!

Finally, Holmes Ref 2.0 organizes all 80 monsters in Holmes into a giant Monster Reference Table which accomplishes two things:

Firstly, it provides a customizable Wandering Monster Table in that the monsters are grouped together by Hit Dice and the reference numbers are organized into groups of twelve allowing the GM to roll up to a d8 in addition to a d12 to get a random monster. The smaller the first die, the lower the likely HD of the monster.

Secondly, it provides a cool way to create new monsters. The Table is organized into AC, DMGxAT, AC, MV, AL, TT, Special Characteristic and Habits. Roll on the table using the aforementioned d8 and d12 to randomly determine each category. With a little imagination, the result is a brand new monster (and one I am guessing that pushes our creativity beyond what we would normally do).

The first time I rolled up a creature, I came up with this:

Living Door

HD: 1d4
Dam: 1d6
AC: 4
MV: 0
AL: Neutral
TT: Nil
Special: Shriek with 1d3 rounds of light within 30’ or movement within 10’; 50% of wandering monster
Habits: Unintelligent

These strange plants were magically grown by the ancients to warn of intruders and discourage interlopers. They appear to be doors made of wood without any handle. Carved in the middle of the door is an abstract face with a open mouth as if screaming. Within 1d3 rounds of there either being light within 30’ or movement within 10’ the living door begins to shriek and shoot thorn-like darts out of its mouth. Any attack against the living door that doesn’t target the face does no damage.

The dart attacks and the shrieking will cease (or never begin if done quickly enough) if the proper type of food (e.g. Carrion Crawler flesh), determined by the ancient who grew the creature, is placed inside the mouth of the Living Door. The mouth will close and the door will open and remain open for 1d6 turns while the food is digested.

Once killed, a Living Door functions as a normal locked door; however, it is rumored that if food is placed inside the mouth of a dead Living Door it can be revived to then accept whatever food is placed in the mouth to revive it.

A very Holmsian monster, if I do say so myself!

BTW if you are interested in seeing some good and inspiring movies that feature Korean archery, I suggest The Fatal Encounter and War of the Arrows.

Reconsidering a Holmesian Dungeon

As someone who regularly suffers from Gamer ADD, I am occasionally reminded about how many projects I have left fallow over the years. One such reminder came  yesterday when Rob Conley of Bat in the Attic Games posted a set of S&W compatible rules  as a prelude for a project he is working on. In contemplating all the various things I have not managed to finish, the one I am most disappointed with is my version of Averoigne and its megadungeon, the Chateau des Faussesflammes. One of the reasons for this was that I ran into a problem of how to stock and handle what I envisioned as a dynamic and constantly changing dungeon.

As I have mentioned many times before, historically, I am actually more of a war gamer than a role-player. Recently, I have spent more time at the gaming table playing board games than RPGs. As a consequence, I was inspired to look at my version of the Chateau as if it were a board game rather than an RPG dungeon. What I came up with is a rather intriguing idea and I wanted to see if it was scalable.

Here is my thinking: the mega-dungeon in Holmes strongly suggests the Mythic Underground that many bloggers over the years have described when re-reading older versions of D&D; however, as I mentioned in this post on Holmes on Traps, the biggest danger in this Holmesian Mythic Underground is wandering monsters. My conundrum for years has been how to marry the best ideas of classic dungeons that have factions with the Mythic Underground with the dynamism of a dungeon whose main threat is wandering monsters. My answer was to make all the monsters a kind of wandering monster by turning the dungeon into a kind of board game for the Referee.

Let's begin with a really big dungeon. This is from Dyson Logos and he calls it The Deep Halls:

I haven't counted carefully, but I estimate that this beauty has about 150 rooms. According to older iterations of the game, approximately one third of these rooms will have monster encounters or 50.

In order to make this work like a board game I need to have it look like a board game, so I added a hex-grid:

This grid provides almost 200 spaces. The idea here is to place tokens on this board that represent monster encounters. They exist on a grid so that they can move during the adventure from one hex to the next, with each hex being about 30 feet per side and thus easily moved through by just about every monster that might inhabit a dungeon. In order to give myself enough room to maneuver these tokens, I arbitrarily decided to place one token in about every four hexes:

This provides 45 monster encounters. This is close enough to the traditional 50 to leave it at that, or one could have five set-piece encounters that exist in specific rooms that never move. Now, here is where things get interesting. Forty-five divides nicely by 3 giving us the ability to divide the monster encounters into three different factions:

When stocking a dungeon this way, one really doesn't have to stock the dungeon at all. Sure, you have to make notes about room characteristics and various kinds of traps, but there really is no need to place any monsters at all (again, unless you are married to the idea of set-piece encounters and then you only have to do up to five). What you do need is three lists of 15 monster encounters representing the three factions and a wandering monster list.

So here is how it works:

Every time a wandering monster check is triggered (either by a loud noise like combat or simply time spent in the dungeon), roll your favorite type of die to check if a wander monster shows up. For the purposes of this example, let us use a d6:

• On a '1' move one blue token one hex.
• On a '2' move one red toke one hex.
• On a '3' move one green token one hex.
• On a '6' a wandering monster rolled up on the WMT appears in the hex the players are currently in.

Alternatively, a 1-3 indicates how many tokens to move one hex. Regardless, which token to move and where is entirely up to the whim of the Referee. For example, in the middle of the second row there are a blue and green token in the same room. I would most likely move those closer to each other at the first opportunity.

This leads us to one of the more interesting facets of this idea: when two tokens of different factions end up in the same hex, they get to fight. This leads to a noise encounter that the PCs get to investigate or ignore at their leisure. In the meantime, one your tokens comes off the board and you make a note about bodies being strewn about the floor.

Here is the part I personally like best: when the PCs enter a hex with a token or tokens, they get to have a monster encounter. At this point one of the 15 monster encounters can be randomly assigned to that token. In other words, every monster encounter is as much a surprise for you as it is for your players. If the players prevail, that encounter is marked off the list and the token is removed.

Once the players have wrecked havoc,  you have a very tangible and tactile way to restock the dungeon: place new tokens according to the way the dungeon currently looks. New factions can suddenly make their move to gain territory or one faction can bolster their territory as they have been left unscathed by the activity of your PCs. Or whatever.

While this may seem to be a bit of a headache at the table, I don't believe it to be overly complicated and it incentivizes wandering monster checks, something I know I am guilty of not doing enough (partly because nothing happens most of the time). Using this idea, something happens most of the time, even if the PCs are unawares.

What really attracts me to this idea, however, is the level of danger that gets placed on every wandering monster check. Not only could a monster get spawned from the WMT, but one of the regular monster encounters of the dungeon could come investigating the noise being made by the fighter trying to open that locked door.

Wizards of Averoigne: A Rainbow of Spell-Casters

Since yesterday, my brain has been chewing on some of the ideas that I came up with on the subject of anti-clerics, arcane cleric spells and cleric spell books. Since my ideas found fertile soul in a Holmsian-inspired vision of D&D, I figured the best place to implement them was in my standard Holmsian-esque campaign world: Averoigne. I also figured that since Holmes was influenced by Tolkien, so should I.

Although I have never read the Lord of the Rings more than once in my life, I do remember that there is a suggestion of an order of wizards whose status is determined by color. As I recall, three colors are explicitly mentioned: white, grey and brown. Thus, in a world where there is a strong guild-structure, it makes sense that Averoigne would pay homage to Tolkien by differentiating different types of arcane spell casters by color:

White Magic-Users: So-called because they practice white magic — arcane cleric spells. They must be Lawful* and they cannot cast any spells above 3rd level.

Black Magic-Users: So-called because they practice black magic — arcane magic-user spells. They are usually Chaotic and exist outside of the guild-structure and society itself. As a result, they are considered dangerous criminals to be hunted down and (usually) killed.

Grey Magic-Users: So-called because they practice black magic in context of the Church — a mixture of black and white. They can be Lawful or Neutral and must belong to the Wizard’s Guild.

Brown Magic-Users: So-called because they are seen as close to the earth — operating mostly in villages, towns or as hermits. They use arcane cleric spells and have no formal guild. Since they practice white magic, they are generally left alone (which opens the possibility that individual brown magic-users may have a spell or two from the druid spell list). They tend to be neutral and can gain a maximum of 6th level in experience.

Red Magic-Users: So-called because the casting of reverse cleric spells normally involves some kind of blood sacrifice. These are anti-clerics. They are Chaotic and exist outside of the guild-structure and society itself. As a result, they are considered dangerous criminals to be hunted down and (usually) killed.

*Assuming one is using the three-tier alignment system.

The Prime Requisite in all cases is Intelligence which also determines the chance of knowing a particular spell as well as the minimum and maximum number of spells known per spell level (as per Holmes). Practitioners of white magic use the cleric spell progression and XP table and may use armor, shields and blunt weapons but cannot Turn Undead. If they are Lawful and have a Wisdom of at least 9 they can choose to become full-fledged clerics at any time after 3rd level (they gain access to all spells through faith instead of study and can Turn undead).

There is also a third type of arcane magic — sword magic. It interferes with both white and black magic. The latter is the most susceptible and therefore practitioners cannot wear any armor and can only use simple weapons. White magic is less susceptible, but practitioners cannot use bladed or piercing weapons.

Technically, this means that clerics could use any type of weapon they choose (since they cast divine magic, not arcane magic); however, by tradition they limit themselves to blunt weapons to prevent any use of sword magic lest they misplace their faith in God with a faith in sword magic. Thus, any cleric that uses a magic sword cannot cast any spells, because they lack the faith to do so (or believe that they are called to use sword magic instead of divine magic). This opens up the possibility of a paladin-like cleric who can Turn undead, use magic swords (like a holy avenger) but can’t cast spells.

I don’t know how attractive any of these options are to players, but they open up a tremendous amount of opportunities for cool NPCs, cool villains and cool patrons for yours truly.

Saintly Saturday: St. Polycarp the Hieromartyr

Today is the feast of St. Polycarp the Hieromartyr, and I am actually struggling to write a summary of his life and martyrdom, because there is so much we know about him and, being one of my favorite saints, I find it difficult to focus on any one aspect of his life.

He was the bishop of Smyrna (in modern day Turkey) in the 2nd century. He was arrested under Marcus Arelius and they tried to burn him to death, but resorted to stabbing him when the flames did not harm him. His martyrdom was recorded in one of the first hagiographies ever written, The Martyrdom of Polycarp. Within is recorded the saint's response to his captors’ request that he burn incense to the image of the emperor:

Eighty-six years I have served Christ, and He never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?

St. Ireneaus of Lyons writes about St. Polycarp in letters to Florinus and Victor as well as in his third book of Against the Heresies. He knew Polycarp as a boy and writes about some of his mannerisms, including a phrase he would say in response to something untoward:

O good God, for what times have You reserved me, that I should endure these things?

We know from both Sts. Ireneaus and Jerome that Polycarp knew St. John the Evangelist and Jerome claims that it was John who made Polycarp bishop of Smyrna.

We also have extant Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians, which is an interesting read. There are two verses, in particular, which I find both fascinating and challenging, especially from the perspective of FRPGs:

For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist: and whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the Cross, is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the firstborn of Satan. — Polycarp 7:1

I was exceedingly grieved for Valens, who aforetime was a presbyter among you, because he is so ignorant of the office which was given unto him. I warn you therefore that ye refrain from covetousness, and that ye be pure and truthful. Refrain from all evil. — Polycarp 11:1

As a Christian, one of the things that I struggle with is the idea of the anti-cleric, which is explicitly part of the LBBs and the heritage of D&D. On its face, the class seems to suggest a dualistic cosmology where the power of the devil is on par with God, which Christ’s death and resurrection reveal to be a total fallacy. For me, the easiest answer is to dress up magic-users as anti-clerics. This clearly delineates the fact that cleric magic comes from God and anti-cleric magic is arcane and not divine.

The Holmes Basic Edition (which I find to be the edition of D&D that most strongly suggests a Christian world view), indicates that cleric spells were once arcane spells by the fact that magic users can use scrolls with divine spells on them (and one could interpret the rules to mean that only magic-users could use these scrolls). Add to that the fact that anti-clerics make awesome adversaries (see the Acolyte in Moldvay’s Basic Edition and Lareth the Beautiful from T1: The Village of Hommlet) and I have a conundrum on my hands.

I mention all of this because the two verses above from Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians seem to suggest the path toward becoming an anti-cleric as it is suggested by the LBBs where clerics must become Lawful or Chaotic by 7th level. He clearly declares that anyone who does not accept the Incarnation is an antichrist. Couple this with his mention of the presbyter (aka priest) Valens and his falling away from the church indicates (in an LBB-inspired fantasy setting) that he declared for Chaos and became an anti-cleric.

So, how do I make this work mechanically while avoiding the theological net of dualism? One of the more interesting (and controversial) choices made by the good folks who put together Delving Deeper is that clerics use spell books. I believe this choice is actually inspired by Holmes and the aforementioned cleric scrolls. It seems to suggest that their are actually two paths for arcane spell-casters — a secular/pagan/apprentice-level cleric and the traditional magic-user. Both have their own spell books and practices but are close enough that, though unable to cast them from memory, a magic-user can cast cleric spells from scrolls.

In the LBBs this would be the Neutral cleric. By the time one gets around to 7th level, however, it is impossible to understand these spells as anything other than an attempt by humanity to be like God sans God. Interestingly, 7th level is when LBB clerics have access to 5th level spells, including Raise Dead. Thus, one either must acknowledge the true source of these spells (God) and abandon the spell book to cast spells by faith alone or to embrace the path of the anti-cleric. Valens, then, could be understood as a Neutral cleric when he was first ordained. He did not understand what it meant to be a Lawful cleric (casting spells by faith instead of by spell book) and when push came to shove he chose Chaos and the path of an anti-cleric.

This interpretation of the rules, then, allows for all of the above to co-exist: Christianity, anti-clerics, neutral clerics, secular clerics, the arcane cleric spells of Holmes, the choice made by 7th level LBB clerics and even St. Polycarp’s story of Valens. To boot, all of this has a marvelously Sword & Sorcery feel to it while still giving that (for me) all-important nod to Christianity.

Saintly Saturday: St. Macarius the Great of Egypt

Today is the feast of St. Macarius the Great of Egypt. He lived during the 4th century when monasticism flowered and was a disciple St. Anthony the Great — who many Christians hold up to be the father of monasticism. There are extant fifty homilies attributed to him.

As with many of the desert fathers, St. Macarius focuses on the internal struggles that are central in a Christian lifestyle. As such, he lays bare one of the primary challenges that Christianity poses to RPGs, especially the kill the monster and take the loot kind of games such as D&D. Historically, the ideal Christian hero is the contemplative who spends most of their life in prayer, dealing with the internal struggles that St. Macarius writes about. This does not lend itself well to the kind of adventures that one expects when playing an RPG.

Thus, from a strictly simulationtionist point of view, doing a Christian RPG or playing an RPG to simulate a Christian campaign world is nigh impossible; however, Scripture and the writings of the Fathers are full of allegory, simile and metaphor, which gives us RPGers a bit of wiggle room. For example, take a look at this meditation on the relationship between the soul and sin by St. Macarius:

The precious vessel of the soul is of great depth, as it says in a certain place, He seeks out the deep, and the heart (Sirach 42:18). When man swerved from the commandment, and came under sentence of wrath, sin took him for her subject; and being herself like a great deep of bitterness in subtlety and depth, she entered within and possession of the rages of the soul even to the deepest inner chambers of it. In such fashion, as this let us liken the soul and sin when mixed with it, as if there should be a great big tree with many branches and it has roots in the deepest parts of the earth. So the sin which had come in, taking possession of the ranges of the deepest chambers of the soul, came to be customary and to have the first say, growing up with each man from infancy, and going up and down with him, and instructing him evil things. — Homily 41

If we take St. Macarius’ description of the internal struggle of the Christian and make it external using the very words that he uses we end up with the megadungeon.

The Greek word for “deep” in Sirach 42:18 is actually “abyss” and has the connotation of being bottomless (signifying that there are always going to be new levels of the megadungeon to explore). Sin has infected the deepest chambers of the earth — where monsters are sin personified. The megadungeon, as suggested by the image of a tree whose branches reach down into the soul, is itself a living thing that grows, changes and actively works against those who are trying to cleanse the dungeon of sin (monsters). The deeper one goes, the harder the megadungeon tries to repel invaders (the monsters get bigger HD the deeper the dungeon level).

This is very suggestive of what I mused about when exploring a Homlesian vision of the Dungeon and of Philotomy’s Mythic Underground (which sadly appears to be offline). It also strongly supports the idea that the megadungeon is always going to be an underground wilderness that is always filled with monsters — in a fallen world, sin will always be pervasive (this, BTW runs counter to the way I have run my games where PCs are capable of recovering sections of dungeons).

Treasure, therefore, becomes the mechanism by which a character’s progression toward their potential is measured. The gold, jewels and magic found within the megadungeon is akin to finding the inborn beauty that is the human soul. In other words, the recovery that I normally allow to play out as PCs cleansing a section of dungeon and making it safe, occurs not in the dungeon but the characters themselves. This treasure, in turn, is used to buy better equipment (to better the chances against greater and greater sin) and ultimately to build a stronghold where others come to improve themselves under the tutelage of one who has fulfilled their potential. Again, the recovery of the world from sin is measured in persons rather than geography.

As someone who grew up assuming the naturalism of Gygax and Arneson (and who, frankly, still uses it on a regular basis), I find this vision of the dungeon fascinating. The campaigns that would naturally arise from these non-naturalistic assumptions would be far more abstract or specifically game-oriented. Cities exist, not due to political reasons, but because of their proximity to dungeon entrances. In a world where G+ is emerging as a primary way for a lot of people to play, one could imagine a city of portals that lead to a variety of “dungeon worlds” where the rules of the universe change slightly (as reflected by the whims and quirks of different DMs/GMs/Labyrinth Lords/Referees). Expeditions are organized by inhabitants of the City of Portals (aka FLAILSNAILS?) into one or more of these dungeon worlds as game sessions arise and are played, all the while trying to fulfill their own potential by seeking out the externalized depths of the soul and rooting out the externalized sin that infects it.

Saintly Saturday: St. Anastasia the Great Martyr

Today is the feast of St. Anastasia the Great Martyr. She was born in Rome to a pagan father and a mother who was secretly Christian. As a result, her mother arranged for her teacher to be a Christian and she was brought up in the faith. After the death of her mother, her father arranged a marriage to a pagan.

Using one of her husband’s servants and his wealth, she dressed as a beggar and snuck into prisons in order to minister to the martyrs and confessors during the persecution of Diocletian and ransoming them when she could. The servant eventually told her husband who beat her and locked her up at home. Shortly thereafter, her husband died at sea.

She used her husband’s estate to give to the poor and continue her ministrations to captured Christians. She received the title Great Martyr because she was arrested and tortured several times. The first time, her torturer went blind and died. Out of fear, she was let go. The second time, she was left to starve, but received no harm. She was then sentenced to drown. Along with several other prisoners, she was placed in a boat with holes drilled into the hull. Through her intercessions, she and the other prisoners managed to get the boat to shore. Finally, she was captured, stretched between four pillars and burned alive.

Note the fact that St. Anastasia is depicted holding a bottle. Though her life is quite inspiring (especially when one reads a fuller account which includes some of the names of the martyrs she ministers to), the aspect of her story that fascinates me the most is a secondary title she has received as a result of the miracles worked through her relics — ἡ Φαρμακολύτρια, which literally means the one who ransoms or delivers from potions or poisons and is most often translated as The Deliverer from Potions.

In context of a typical D&D campaign, such a title seems odd since the vast majority of potions are beneficial. Indeed, until the release of Unearthed Arcana (which adds the Elixir of Madness, Oil of Fumbling and the Philter of Stammering and Stuttering) there were only two detrimental potions available: Delusion and Poison. Even then, if one used the random tables found in 0e, there is only a 2% chance of a potion being Delusion and a 4% chance of being Poison. This percentage doesn’t change much when one looks at both B/X (7% and 2% respectively) and AD&D (3% each).

The exception to this pattern is found in (where else?) Holmes. Twenty percent of all potions are either Delusion or Poison (at 10% each). Along with St. Anastasia’s moniker, this suggests an interesting alternative on how to handle potions in a D&D campaign.

One of the frustrations that I have as a Referee running LL is that there is no easy way to handle potions. One either has to keep detailed notes about each and every potion — noting how each is colored and smells, for example (something that I am not at all good at) — or allow players to take a sip and determine what the potion might be. Even if an Identify spell is available (as it is when my group plays AD&D), it seems like such a great waste to use it on a potion. As a result, my use of potions is not nearly as satisfying as I want it to be — especially since I have a bunch of players who regularly use potions when they are available.

What if Magic-Users could automatically identify arcane potions and Clerics could automatically identify divine potions due to their training? Or, if one wanted to cleave closer to Holmes, only Magic-Users could identify all potions. The way to make their use dangerous is to get rid of potions that are specifically Delusion and Poison (and Madness, Fumbling and Stammering) and to give every use of a potion a 20% chance of having a negative side-effect. A table could include the following:

1. Delusion — the potion does not work, but the imbiber believes that it does.
2. Delusion — the potion works, but as a randomly determined different potion. The imbiber believes that the effects are as the potion is supposed to work.
3. Poison — Potion works, but save vs. poison or die in 1d6 days.
4. Poison — Potion does not work. Save vs. poison or take 1d4 points of damage for 2d6 rounds.
5. Madness — Potion works, but gain an insanity.
6. Madness — Potion does not work. Save vs. poison or or gain an insanity.
7. Curse — Potion works, but imbiber is Cursed.*
8. Curse — Potion does not work, save vs. spells or be Cursed.*

*Suggested curses can include: Whenever someone fumbles (friend or foe) the cursed character fumbles instead; Henchmen automatically fail their morale check and the character becomes the prime target for all monsters.

This would then create a niche for magical items that protect characters from the negative side-effects of potions. For example:

Amulet of the Pharmakolytria

This silver amulet has an icon of a saint holding a potion. When worn, it reduces the chance of a potion having a negative side effect to 10%.

All of this makes potions a lot more exciting and (more importantly for me) easier for both the Referee and the players to keep track of.

Holmes on Abstract Melee vs. Concrete Missile Combat

It is an old school trope that combat is abstract and that each “to hit” roll is actually a “to damage” roll representing several attempted strikes over the course of a one minute combat round. This understanding of combat, however, breaks down with the introduction of missile fire, where the use of ammunition necessitates the understanding that each die roll represents a single shot. Thus, the game has moved toward applying the same understanding to melee. One of the first to do this was Dr. Holmes:

In a melee the attacker strikes a blow or "takes a swing."
...
Melee is the most exciting part of the game, but it must be imagined as if it were occuring in slow motion so that the effect of each blow can be worked out.

Recently there have been a couple of attempts (Brenden at Untimately and Talysman at 9 and 30 Kingdoms) at reversing this trend by abstracting missile combat. As much as I like both of these (especially Brenden’s), they both break down once thrown weapons enter the picture (as Brenden himself acknowledges).

This suggests that missile combat was never meant to be abstracted, but rather a separate subsystem of combat. I say this because of the aforementioned Dr. Holmes. Despite his contribution to the modern conception of D&D combat, if one understands his work to be an edit of OD&D, he can shed light on a way for old-schoolers to have their cake and eat it too:

Once the party is engaged in melee, arrows can not be fired into the fight because of the probability of hitting friendly characters.

If one follows Holmes on this score, than melee combat is clearly differentiated from missile combat — they happen in different phases of the game and can therefore be handled differently. Melee can be abstract while missile combat represents individual shots.

The key to this is a proper understanding of movement, because there is a danger of completely eliminating missile combat from most encounters if opposing sides can close into melee before any shots are made. Here is movement according to OD&D:

Movement … is in segments of approximately ten minutes. Thus it takes ten minutes to move about two moves — 120 feet for a fully armored character. Two moves constitute a turn, except in flight/pursuit situations where the moves/turn will be doubled.
...
Melee is fast and furious. There are ten rounds of combat per turn.

Encounter distance in a dungeon is from 20-80 feet. Therefore, it would be possible for the side who wins initiative to close into melee and prevent missile fire altogether; however, take a look at how Holmes handles movement:

There are ten "rounds" of combat per turn. Each round is ten seconds, so a combat turn is shorter than a regular turn, but results in at least as much muscular fatigue. Movement (if any) is usually at a sprint; an unarmored man can move 20 feet per melee round, a fully armored man only 10 feet.

Note that if one ignores the fact that Holmes has shortened the combat round from one minute to 10 seconds, his combat movement is approximately 1/10 that of normal movement (for a more detailed examination of movement in Holmes, see my post here). In other words, rather than having a full move every round, a character or monster still has a full move over the course of a turn.

The upside of this understanding of movement is that in a typical encounter, the process of closing into melee (and thus ending the missile portion of combat) will usually take a number of rounds. Thus, the process of getting into melee is full of interesting tactical choices.

For those of you who have grown up with the notion that their character can fire into a melee, the subsystems are actually not as incompatible as one might expect. As Holmes suggests, firing into melee is fraught with danger — there is a very real possibility of friendly fire (my take on how to do this with Holmes is here and here). Thus, rather than letting loose as many arrows as possible into the fight, an archer would most likely be waiting until there is a safe opening through which to fire. Thus, in the abstraction of melee combat, someone who is firing into that melee is going to only have one clear shot every minute or so — which translates into one missile per round.