Arneson’s version of Challenge Rating

One of the more fascinating bits of information to be gleaned from Tonisborg is a section which reveals Arneson’s methodology of stocking dungeons. For those of us who have used Moldvay as our go-to guide for creating dungeons, we might expect an Arneson dungeon to have monsters in about one third of all rooms. If you are exploring dungeon levels 3-6, this is exactly what you would find; however, only 1-in-6 rooms on dungeon levels 1 and 2 have monsters and half of the rooms on dungeon levels of 7+ are occupied.

Each room that has monsters is assigned what are called “Protection Points” — a randomly determined amount of hit points that are used to “buy” monsters with. As described in Tonisborg, the number of Protection Points are based on an average party size of 4 to 5 PCs. Unfortunately, I found the table provided to be a bit confusing, but was able to take the concept and the described math to provide a very simple metric for determining the number Arneson’s Protection Points:

(1d6+1)(Dungeon Level) per PC*

*This assumes that that HD are based on a d6. This die would shift depending upon what the standard HD is according to the edition used.

Thus, if I were stocking the second level of my dungeon, I would be rolling 2d6+2 Protection Points for each PC in the party. So, if my party had 3 PCs the total number of Protection Points would be 6d6+6.

Additionally, Arneson had a “one sixth principle of monster variation.” On top of the dice rolled above, an extra d6 is rolled. Should that d6 result in a ‘6,’ there is a 50/50 chance that the number of points are halved or doubled.

Thus, in the example above, an average roll would result in 27hp; this would be halved to 14 hp or doubled to 54 hp with a ‘6’ on the variation die.

I have yet to try this method at the table, but in principle it does several things: 

1) It clearly sets up the expected danger of each dungeon level while allowing for some encounters to be surprisingly easy or hard. 

2) It despenses with the need to roll for the number of monsters encountered or for hit points. Both are simply assigned based on the number of Protectin Points avaible. In a way, it frees up the Referee to more exactly tailor their dungeon.

For example, our room on the second level has 27 Protection Points. This can be a typical encounter of 2HD monsters like 3 gnolls with 9 hp each. Or, it could be a bit more ridiculous with 27 goblins with 1 hp each. Or it could be a bit more chellenging with a single 5HD creature like a griffin with 27 hp. 

3) It allows for a kind of short hand when designing/stocking a dungeon. I can simple indicate the number of protection points each occupied room has and assign these points to monsters on the fly depending on whim, need, or random roll. It gives me the freedom to adjust some of the difficulty of a room by increasing or decreasing the number of potential attacks. For example, if I wanted to buy gnolls with my 27 Protection Points and my party needed a bit more of a challenge, I can increase the number of gnolls to 9 with 3 hp each; however, the overall deadliness of nine gnolls is somewhat mitigated by the fact that each will die from average hit from a PC.

This is an idea that seems far more practical than Challenge Levels and their equivalants in the modern game. It will also be something I will have to experiment with to see how it actually plays. Nonetheless, fascinating stuff!

  

What to Buy Instead of WotC's "The Making of Original D&D"

For several years I have avoided giving WotC my hard earned money. I have patiently waited for the rest of the world to wake up and do the same. Today, I wish to be much more specific and proactive.

WotC recently announced the publication of The Making of Original D&D in honor of the 50th Anniversary of the Game. It is currently available for pre-order on Amazon for about $100. Please do not order this product. In the years that followed my open letter to WotC about their warning label on legacy products, not only have they not removed their label, but have gone on to treat their customers, fans, and even their own employees with contempt and malice. We don't need WotC or Hasbro in order to play and grow our game.

If, like me, you are interested in a product that explores the origins of the game in fascinating and applicable ways, I encourage you to spend your money in a much more responsible way and be treated to a fascinating and highly useful book: The lost Dungeons of Tonisborg.

If you don't mind giving Amazon some of your money,
you can pick up a paperback edition for a mere $30. 

This book has history, facsimiles of a dungeon designed and played prior to the publication of D&D, an updated version of that same dungeon, a guide on how to play the game as it was prior to 1974, and (best of all) a set of rules based upon the way Arneson and Gygax ran the game. This is amazing stuff and a treat for anyone interested in the history of the game.

For those of you who have it, what is the rule that blew your mind the most? For me, it was the idea of rolling up a character's base saving throws randomly!

Again, let WotC rot and spend money on people who actually care about this game and its history. 

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. 

Dragon Events

Inspired by my last post, I decided to create some random tables to emulate the kinds of events the appearance of a dragon might be the harbinger of. What follows are seven tables. The first six are different kinds of events. I provide each with a number in case you want to randomly determine which table to roll on. Alternatively, each table could be assigned to a specific type of hybrid monster. The seventh table is a kind of narrative tool, where something is revealed. Whether this revelation is a cause, effect, or just happenstance is up to you. Enjoy.

1. Death

1. King 

2. Queen 

3. Heir 

4. Bishop 

5. Guild Leader 

6. General

2. Event

1. Refugees 

2. Shortage (equipment) 

3. Shortage (food) 

4. New taxes 

5. Rise of a new religion 

6. King goes insane

3. War

1. Peasant Revolt 

2. Massacre 

3. Civil War 

4. Invasion 

5. PCs Kingdom defends another kindgom 

6. PCs kingdom attacks another kingdom

4. Magic

1. Arcane Magic effects halved dawn to dusk & Divine Magic effects halved dusk to dawn

2. Magic effects double during New & Full Moon

3. Magic effects are randomly normal, half-effective, or twice as effective

4. Arcane spells with random effects are at advantage dusk to dawn & Divine spells with random effects are at advantgae dawn to dusk

5. Magic does not work at dusk and dawn

6. Recovering Spells takes twice as long

5. Natual Disaster

1. Blizzard/Heatwave

2. Avalanche/Mudflow/Wildfire

3. Hurricane/Tornado

4. Flood/Tsumani

5. Earthquake

6. Volcano

6. Stange Events

1. Unending Fog

2. Days shorten to 12 hours

4. Days lengten to 48 hours

5. Seasons last a month

6. Seasons last 6 months

Revelation

1. New Ally

2. New Creature

3. New Race

4. New Enemy

5. New Civilization

6. New Disease

That is a Dragon

I recently watched Jonathan Pageau and Richard Rohlin discuss dragons on their Universal History video series. It is a fascinating look at dragons from symbolic, pre-modern, and Orthodox Christian points of view (which in some ways can be understood to all be the same). I wanted to share here because Dungeons and Dragons is specifically referenced. This whole discussion is contrasted with what we old gognards might call Gygaxian Naturalism — if we narrow our view to that of the modern, as expressed by the naturalistic categorization of monsters found in the various Monster Manuals of DnD, we might not completely grok what Johnathan and Richard are talking about. This is an interesting parallel to the move I was made to make when exploring how Scripture might inform the megadungeon.    

 

For those who don't want to sit and listen to these two geek out for over an hour, here is a short summary of the general characteristics of dragons:

1. They are serpents.
2. They are hybrids — the serpent aspect is mixed with pieces and parts of other animals.
3. As hybrids, they occupy a symbolic space of flux and can be understood as harbingers of change.
4. They function as guardians (mostly of water). This guardianship can be understood as hoarding and water needs to be understood as an essential material for civilization to function.
5. They have an enemy, often a thunder god symbolized by a trident (which is originally a symbol for lightening, not for a sea god/creature).

The aspect of this I find most useful and interesting is the fact that not all dragons exhibit all five characteristics. Thus, from this perspective, an owlbear is a type of dragon (as are many of the hybrid creatures found in the Monster Manual). From the perspective of a DnD campaign, the appearance of such a creature could signify a major event for the campaign world as a harbinger of change.

Personally, I would be tempted to leave all hybrids out of my placed encounter areas and only have them appear as Wandering Monsters. Once one appears, this could mean a roll on a major campaign event table with various types of catastrophes both natural (such an earthquake that reveals a subterranean civilization) and man-made (such as war).

This view also reinforces the mechanics of treasure from early DnD: the gold hoarded by dragons (monsters, especially hybrids) is the main means by which the PCs (both the enemies of the dragons and the defenders of Civilization) level up to become more capable of defending Civilization.

I highly recommend taking the time watching this episode. It is a fascinating (and I would say useful) discussion even for those of you who are not of the Christian persuasion. Enjoy.

Christ is Born!

 

On this day the Virgin Maid goes to the grotto to give birth to the pre-eternal Word in an ineffable manner. Dance for joy, all the inhabited earth, on hearing. Glorify along with Angels and with the shepherds Him who willed that He appear as a newborn Child, the pre-eternal God. — Kontakion of Christmas

Merry Christmas!

Some Really Good Swords & Wizardry News

For those who did not back Matt Finch's most recent edition of Swords & Wizardry on Kickstarter, he just announced, what is for me, really exciting news. It looks as if Mythmere Games will pass on using the ORC license and will instead produce its own based on the OGL but with some tweaks to shore up some of the weaknesses of the OGL.

Ever since the WotC OGL debacle earlier this year, Matt has been considering making his own license, but wanted to wait on the work being done on ORC. When I heard that, I was really excited, because while S&W may not be my go to ruleset to use at the table, it is my go to ruleset to write for. Personally, based on what I have seen of the ORC license, it is not something I would choose to use. So, if Matt does produce said license, a good number of the stuff I have written in the past and the stuff I will write in the future will have a home.

Given that Matt was one of the pioneers in the world of retro-clones (he also had a hand in OSRIC), I would suggest going over to Mythmere Games and giving him some support.

On the Importance of Fandom

[I ask] that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. — John 17:20-21

One of the important principles in Orthodoxy Christianity is the idea that multiplicity is capable of becoming one. Through Christ, the various nations of the earth become one church despite all of the various things that we humans do to try and separate ourselves from each other.

This idea of one and many exists in every order of creation from the most high (God is both One and Three) all the way down to subatomic where electons, protons, and neutrons are gathered together as the building blocks of matter.

I don’t normally lead with such theological musings, but I want make clear the persupposition for why I find such beauty and joy in the idea of fandoms. When a fandom manifests itself properly, the love that each individual has for said franchise, game, hobby, sport, etc. can overcome all kinds of differences we impose upon ourselves and each other. 

For example, the majorty of the folks who read this blog are not Orthodox Christan, and I would venture a good chunk do not even consider themselves Christian. Despite this, we can all gather in this corner of the internet and revel in the love we have for RPGs. That love overcomes the fact that we do not all agree about religion. It can also overcome all kinds of barriers such as language, race, politics, ethnicity, gender, etc.

To put it theologically, the unity that Christ gives us through the Cross, the Resurrection, and His Church manifests itself in a small way through fandoms. Conversly, the unity we find in fandoms demonstrate that the unity promised by Christ is very real.

As a consequence, I firmly believe that the reason our beloved IPs from Star Wars to Indiana Jones, to Star Trek, to Dungeons & Dragons are in such bad shape is the fact that the companies that are in control of these IPs have roundly rejected the fundamental premise of unity from multiplicity and the role fandoms play in overcoming differences.

Companies such as WotC, Disney, Warner, etc. have almost universally adopted ideas found in Critical Race Theory, Intersectional Feminism, and Diversity Equity and Inclusion. At first glance, all of these concepts are laudable. There is no question that various groups of people have suffered at the hands of others throughout history and that trying to fix the various problems that come from this suffering is something I would hope everyone is on board with.

There is one very large however here, though. All of these ideas are based on a dialectic — the Opressed versus the Opressor. As a consequence, every single one of these ideas requires division. Not a single one of these ideas can ever unify humanity because the smallest possible number in a dialectic is always two.

Thus, when the fandom becomes hostile to the direction a company is taking a particular IP, these ideas don’t allow for love to overcome differences of opinion. They don’t allow for fandoms to become part of the solution. Rather, the fandom is moved from the in-group (the Oppressed) into the out-group (the Oppressor). This is why fans have been accused of being bigoted in all kinds of ways over the last several years.

Those of us who participate in RPGs are very fortunate because the OGL was born out of fandom. It was designed in such a way that the love we have of D&D could empower us to produce a plethora of products for this hobby. We have seen the fruits of that love and don’t every want to go back. This is why WotC’s attempts to ditch the OGL has been received with such a pushback from across the entire fandom. At some level, we have come to understand that the unity we find in participating in this hobby at all levels is much more profound and valuable than anything WotC could offer alone as the gatekeeper of everything D&D. 

While RPGs are a different medium than television or film, nonetheless, what has happened in the world of TTRPGs is a blueprint for fandoms to move forward and beyond the dialectic being imposed upon us by the likes of WotC, Disney, etc. We can participate in our fandoms (and make money doing so) in all kinds of ways that don’t involve us giving these corporations a dime.

We have a capacity to be one. They have limited themselves to merely being two.

They need us far more than we need them. 

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.

May the Φος Be With You

The only Star Wars product
I have enjoyed in the last decade

Star Wars taught me a tough but valuable lesson: just because something has a particular label on it, doesn’t mean that it is good. This lesson took a long time for me to understand, however. Star Wars was a huge part of my childhood and a formative experience in my life. One of my favorite RPG campaigns of all time was played with d6 Star Wars. One of my favorite computer franchises of all time is the X-Wing/Tie-Fighter series. I was all in.

I couldn’t bring myself to understand that the emotion I was feeling after watching Episode I at a midnight showing on opening day was disappointment. I spent hours and a lot of money watching Phantom Menace trying to convince myself that it was good. Then I saw Episode II in theaters at a matinee a couple of weeks after it opened and came to terms with the idea that Star Wars was no longer a brand I could trust. 

I had hope that Disney could turn things around. So, when my kids wanted to see Episode VII in the theaters, I went. I walked out of the movie with a feeling I was familiar with and now was accustomed to: disappointment. This time, however, I refused to spend another dime.

I suppose that is why I was so adamant to ditch WotC when they put their “warning” labels on legacy products. The disappointment I had when realizing WotC saw me as a racist simply for buying and playing one of the most important games in my lifetime was similar to what I was feeling walking out of Phantom Menace. So, I didn’t spend another dime, despite several legacy products being released in POD that I would have otherwise snatched up in a second.

The last several months have proven my instincts correct. WotC has rendered the label “Dungeons & Dragons” worthless. It seems that the shenanigans Hasbro has pulled have finally woken some people up to the fact that WotC and Hasbro are run by people who care nothing about gamers or the games we play.

I realize I am a small voice in the wilderness, but I not only encourage everyone to stop buying something simply because it has the label “Dungeons & Dragons” on it, but to create your own systems, adventures, and worlds. I can almost guarantee that whatever you produce is going to be a whole lot better than whatever WotC has put the label "Dungeons & Dragons" on.

BTW for those interested, the title of this post comes from the fond memories of an alum of my seminary who went to my school in the 70s. In response to the popularity of Star Wars and the Force, which from an Orthodox Christian POV is a dualistic heresy, one of the bishops printed up a bunch of T-Shirts that said, “May the Φος Be With You.” In Greek, φος (phos as in phosphorescence) means “light” as in John 8:12, “Again Jesus spoke to them, saying,  ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.’”

Ever since May 4th became a thing where Star Wars fans say, “May the Force Be With You” I have gently corrected their spelling…  

Christ is Risen!

Foreseeing this, Isaiah proclaimed: "Hades," he said, "was angered when he met You below." It was angered because it was abolished. It was angered because it was mocked. It was angered because it was slain. It was angered because it was shackled. It received a body and encountered God. It took earth and came face to face with heaven. It took what it saw and fell by what it could not see. Death, where is your sting? — The Catechetical Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom

On Gods and RPGs

A reader of this blog recently asked me to comment on their favorite TTRPG, Fading Suns, which they partly describe as follows:

…it's base premise is that the major religion is a mix of real world ones, predominantly Christianity, but with lots of Islam, Buddism and so forth. There are lots of theological disputes within the system, there's "magic" that "works", when you're praying to a game version of God (Pancreator, a semi-gnostic syncretic deity). Lots of saints and rituals resembling the Church's rituals and so forth.

The question here is whether or not it is okay, from a strictly Christian POV, to allow for magic to be awarded to followers of, for lack of a better word, “pagan” gods?

First, we must clear up something. Neither Orthodox Christianity or Scripture posit strict monotheism, as understood by most moderns, Jews, and Muslims. Take for example this prayer from the Presanctified Liturgy and the Vespers service:

Compassionate and merciful, longsuffering and very merciful Lord, hear our prayer and attend to the voice of our supplication. Give us a favorable sign. Guide us in Your path that we may walk in Your truth. Gladden our hearts that we may fear Your holy name, for You are great and work wonders. Only You are God, O Lord, and there is none like You among the gods. You are great in mercy and gracious in strength and in aiding, exhorting, and saving all those who place their hope in Your holy name. [My emphasis]

When I first encountered this prayer, I was a bit scandalized because it explicitly acknowledges the existence of other gods(!); however, this prayer merely reflects a viewpoint expressed by Scripture. Take Psalm 82:

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I say, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince.” Arise, O God, judge the earth; for to thee belong all the nations! [My emphasis] 

In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used by the ancient Church), the “divine council” from the first verse is συναγωγή θεών. That first word is a root word of Synagogue and the second is a declension of ο θέος — God. There is no escaping the idea of other gods or their existence.

The polemic presented here in Psalm 82 is that Yahweh — the Most High God — is the creator of all things, including these other gods. This is made clear by the line, “you shall die like men.” Within the context of the Fall, everything that has a beginning also has an end. These gods were originally created to watch over and protect the various nations, but turned against their cretor and accepted worship from those very same nations.

It is important to remember that within the context of a Fantasy or Science Fantasy world, whatever magic system exists is part of creation and something God made. Like all things given by God, this magic system can be used as God intended or used in a manner that does not. In Scripture, we see this happen with technology.

The Book of Genesis presents us with two Civilization builders: Cain and Noah. As the first city-builder, Cain uses technology to build a society of personal pleasure, power, and sin. This civilization is so evil that God deems it unsalvagable and calls forth the Flood in order to start over. Noah is the means by which this happens. He uses technology in obedience to God. Through this use of technology, humanity and through humanity all of creation, gets to participate in a salvation event.

Thus, if I were to play a TTRPG where various gods grant magic to their followers I would portray it as the gods of Scripture giving out technology to Cain’s civilization. While it might temporarily give a character influence and power, it ultimately will lead to destruction. In contrast, that same magic used in context of the Most High God and in obedience to Him and His Church can be salvific.

One of the reasons I like 0e and B/X is that the mechanic of arcane vs divine magic make this distinction very easy to emulate and communicate in game play. I myself have never read anything about the Fading Suns game world or mechanics, so I don’t have any explicit advice about how to implement these ideas mechanically or mythically within that setting or rules; however, Scripture can help here, too:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. — Matthew 16:18

No matter what situation a TTRPG places humanity or what alternate history it proposes, it is very easy to insert the Most High God as creator of all things. In a scifi or future fantasy setting, the Church survives somewhere, however big or small. As long as I present this knowledge and this reality in some way shape or form, the story that emerges from play is an exploration of the consequences of our relationship (or lack thereof) with the Most High God.

If you are interested, this is a subject I have written many times about. You can find several here.

The OGL is Still Dead...but Might Become an Undead Weapon

I have made no secret about stepping away from Hasbro and WotC for years now. I was never going to give them any money for any new sparkly version of DnD regardless of this whole OGL mess. While I will not be using any OGL from Hasbro going forward, I do want to raise a klaxon, warning anyone who thinks that any concessions Hasbro gives publishers are worth a morality clause, or that a morality clause is something that should be a part of any other Open License.

In order to demonstrate how strongly I feel about this, I give you James Raggi — someone whose published works I largely dislike and will no longer purchase for reasons of personal morality:

Morality clauses are weapons and you can never predict how and when they will be used, who will use them, and who will be the target. Weapons always have unintended consequences.

I try to stay away from politics, but there is a really illustrative political example that hopefully makes my point. Under Obama, the Democratically controlled Senate got rid of an old gentleman's agreement that certain weighty measures required a two-thirds majority rather than a simple majority. They had things to accomplish and needed the weapon of a simple majority to beat down their Republican opponents. Little did they expect Trump to win in 2016 and have that very same weapon of a simple majority get used against them again and again and again. Trump's legacy is going to have a much longer and larger effect on the United States because Democrats created a weapon they never imagined would get used against them.

Any morality clause in the upcoming Hasbro License or in the ORC License will weaponize our hobby. If this is tied to the legal language of irrevocable, it will be a weapon that anyone can use against anybody now and forever with consequences we can't even imagine.

Please allow me the freedom to choose for myself what is morally acceptable and what I feel comfortable supporting with my money, my time, and my play. I pray you do the same, lest we all someday become a target for weapon that never needed to built in the first place.

The Future of Prokopius Press

This is likely the most popular thing
Prokopius Press has ever produced.

WotC has officially responded to players of every stripe cancelling their D&D Beyond subscription and hitting Hasbro the only place that hurts: their pocket book. As far as I am concerned, this move by players is about three years late, but I'll take it. The response by Hasbro was not impressive.

As I stated in my last post, Hasbro has shown itself to be wholly unreliable when it comes to keep up their end of the deal when it comes to the OGL. For all intents and purposes, this means that the OGL is dead. This puts me in a bit of a pickle because I have produced a number of games and modules over the years using the OGL. 

Since most of these have been free or PWYW, I have no real fear of WotC ever bothering to come after me, but I really don't want to be associated with Hasbro at all. You may have noticed, all the various links to my free stuff son't work. While some of that is negligence on my part (Google being Google), I am not going to fix those links until I figure out a way to strip the OGL content from all of my works and/or find another license to operate under.

Matt Finch will be releasing his most recent version of Swords & Wizardry with a new license, Autarch will be producing their own license for the next version of ACKS, and the big boys in the 3rd party world of RPGs (Paizo, Kobold, Green Ronin, Chaosium, etc.) are working on a generic Open Game license that will be known as ORC. I will be looking into each as they become public. Since I am a hobbyist first and publisher second, I have no real need to operate under any of these, especially if I do my due diligence and make all of my stuff truly my own.

I will also endeavor to move away from Google. I will not shut this blog down. Indeed, I probably will continue to post general thoughts, news, and other such posts from time to time. As I work to make make all of my stuff non-OGL, I'd like a space that I feel more comfortable using going forward.

When I land in that new space to share the work I do, I will announce it here and have a permanent link to direct you to the next chapter of Prokopius Press. 

 

The OGL is Dead! Long Live the Open RPG License!

The last few days have been fascinating to watch. I think Hasbro vastly underestimated their customer base and the Dungeons and Dragons brand has been severely damaged. It will be interesting to see how they try to repair it.

In the meantime, 3rd party publishers like Kobold Press, Frog God Games, and Autarch have all officially declared that they will not be signing the OGL 1.1. Basic Fantasy (one the the pioneers in the world of Retro-Clones) is currently getting rid of all the OGL language in their products. There have been several statements that even if the original OGL can be upheld in court, Hasbro has shown itself to be a bad actor and can no longer be trusted. I don't see how any publisher going forward can use the OGL, even if Hasbro walks back on OGL 1.1. For all intents and purposes, the OGL is dead.

Enter folks like Kobold Press and Autarch who are moving forward with non-OGL game systems and Paizo hosting a website dedicated to creating a new Open RPG license that can used by anybody, and Frog God Games calling for publishers to band together to create these systems and this new license.

I will echo the words of Bill Webb of Frog God Games: if you care about this hobby, buy some books from publishers you like so they can keep their lights on long enough to get these things done. I have.

Godspeed to everyone who is trying to put food on the table. May the apparent darkness of today lead to a very bright tomorrow.

OGL 1.1: D&D is Dead! Long Live D&D!

My last post here was back in June (!) of 2022. If I am honest, it has a lot to do with the fact that I am not really all that invested in RPGs at the moment. I am happily and busily printing and painting away in my latest deep dive into the world of miniature war gaming. I also have to admit, 2022 was a very painful year…literally. Spent some time in the hospital and am currently still trying to figure out the source of the pain I have currently been in for the last several months. So, I hope you excuse my complete lack of activity here on the old blog.

The world of D&D, however, is currently going through a major crisis in the form of the OGL 1.1. To which I say: D&D is dead! Long live D&D! Hasbro has every right to change the OGL for whatever edition they want to produce going forward; however, that OGL will only be legally binding for that edition, and possibly 5e (thought I don’t believe so). The original architects of the OGL created it specifically to protect the game and those who play it from a major corperation trying to do what Hasbro is currently trying to do: kill the game (whether they realize it or not).

Game mechanics are not copywritable in the U.S., and the legal scope of the OGL simply makes certain descriptions of mechanics and monsters their legal property. Everything else is Open Content usable by anyone. The intent was that if the owner of the D&D brand ever went out of business or decided that D&D would no longer be published, the game itself could survive under other names, with different descriptions, published by other companies. Paizo’s Pathfinder is not only the direct result of the OGL, but was the intention of the OGL — because WoTC was abandoning 3.5e in order to produce 4e. Those folks who wanted 3.5e to continue had the ability to. Not only do we still do, we still have the ability to produce games that emulate older editions as well. Long live D&D (just not under that name).

If you recall, back in july of 2020, I wrote this post in response to a disclaimer WoTC placed on all their legacy content of DTRPG and DM’s Guild. They haven’t changed the language and I have spent a dime on their products since. I would highly recommend everyone adopt the same same attitude. Hasbro has clearly demonstrated that they do not care about the game, about the community, or about you. In turn, you have absolutely no obligation to support them in any way, especially financially.

Instead of relying on major corporations to curate and control the IPs we love, we ought to either support the independent creators that are producing great alternatives, or start producing our own.

It also might be worthwhile to start working on rewording the entirety of whichever SRD you like the best and then releasing that document as Open Content under a different license to give all of us yet another legal haven to ensure the game we love can live on for generations to come.

Cruthanarc: The Infected Colonies Part 8

Battle Report 03

I know this is a long time coming, but I have to be honest: I have put this battle off for as long as I have because I just don't like OPR's Eternal Dynasty line of figures. I get emotional about miniatures and the one emotion I have about the space samurai of the ED is frustration. There are so many small things that bother me about these figures that I couldn't bring myself to print, paint, and play them. In the meantime, I got ahold of another, similar army by The Hive that does what I want a printed army to do: give me options. These guys got printed and painted. I finally got armies on the table.

The wounded Infected Leader defends 
an Objective from both a Stealth Suit and a Grunt.

Thus, the third skirmish of the Cruthanarc Campaign sees the Eternal Dynasty/Hive substitutes Count Blocken and the Cybermen, going up against CDF Squad Four of the Infected Colonies. Here are the point break-downs:

Count Blocken and the Cybermen

Stealth Suit [1] | Qua 4+ Def 4+ | 65pts

Weapons: Close Combat Weapon, Burst Carbine

Abilities: Ambush, Stealth, Tough (3)

Spotter [1] | Qua 5+ Def 5+ | 25pts

Weapons: Close Combat Weapon, Pulse Carbine

Abilities: Good Shot, Scout

Grunt [1] | Qua 5+ Def 4+ | 20pts

Weapons: Close Combat Weapon, Pulse Shotgun

Abilities: Good Shot

Grunt [1] | Qua 5+ Def 4+ | 20pts

Weapons: Close Combat Weapon, Pulse Shotgun

Abilities: Good Shot

Grunt [1] | Qua 5+ Def 4+ | 20pts

Weapons: Close Combat Weapon, Pulse Shotgun

Abilities: Good Shot

CDF Squad Four

Infected Leader [1] | Qua 5+ Def 5+ | 25pts

Weapons: Close Combat Weapon, Carbine

Abilities: Hero, Tough (3), Undead

Hunter [1] | Qua 3+ Def 4+ | 45pts

Weapons: Hardened Claws

Abilities: Ambush, Strider, Undead

Infected [3] | Qua 5+ Def 5+ | 35pts

Weapons: Close Combat Weapon, Carbine

Abilities: Undead

Infected Gunner [1] | Qua 5+ Def 5+ | 25pts

Weapons: Close Combat Weapon, Fusion Rifle

Abilities: Relentless, Undead

Infected Gunner [1] | Qua 5+ Def 5+ | 20pts

Weapons: Close Combat Weapon, Grenade Launcher

Abilities: Relentless, Undead

Note: The ability Undead is identical to Robot mechanically. Both alter the way morale works for these units. It indicates how dedicated these troops are, not how they are the walking dead.

This battle did not go as I imagined it would. The strength of the IC is melee and the strength of the Cybermen is their ranged weapons. I figured the battle would come down to how many Cybermen the IC Hunter could get close to. While he did take down one Cyberman, by the time the hunter withered under a hail of enemy fire, the battle was already decided. The surprising MVP of the battle was the lowly Infected Gunner with the grenade launcher. Despite needing a '6' virtually every time he took a shot, he hit three times in the three turns he had someone in range. As a consequence, the Cybermen presence in the middle of the board collapsed. By turn four, all the Cybermen could do was try to secure the secondary objective of knocking out the most expensive IC unit (the Hunter) and causing as many late-game casualties as possible (the Infected Gunner with a fusion rifle).

Mechanically, our MVP actually gets no XP for his roll in the battle. All of his hits stunned their targets and were subsequently knocked out by the Infected. This seems to me to be a bit of an injustice. Therefore I will rectify the situation by giving our Gunner a name. He will now be referred to as Amvish (the Accurate). Let us see if the campaign allows him to live up to the moniker...

Amvish casually waiting for another
opportunity to blow something up.

The post-battle Casualty Checks resulted in no deaths, but the Spotter for the Cybermen did gain a +1 XP.

Results:

Count Blocken and the Cybermen 0 VP and 40pts; +2 XP for the Stealth Suit, one Grunt, and the Spotter, +1 XP for the other Grunts

CDF Squad Four 1 VP and 10pts; +3 XP for the Infected, +2 XP for the Hunter, and +1 XP for everyone else.

As a final note, I really love how random events in the middle of a game reveal a story. The only reason I included the Infected Gunner on the IC list was to add a little needed range, not thinking it would ever amount to much. Little did I know...

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?"

Christ is Risen!

 

Your resurrection, O Christ our Savior, has illumined the entire earth, and has recalled your creation. O almighty Lord, glory to you. — Aposticha from the Agape Service