Can't We All Just Get Along?

Okay so its been a while. I’m back.

There’s been a kerfuffle in the gaming community over a recent article by Mike Mearls, the Group Manager for the D&D Research and Development Team over at Wizards of the Coast. In the article, Mearls essentially issues a plea for all of us who have played the various iterations of D&D to just get along; in essence, it’s an appeal for an end to the infamous “edition wars.”

I must say, the change in tone on the part of WOTC smacks of desperation. It’s no secret that sales of 4^th edition materials are floundering, often being equaled or even surpassed by other industry leaders, such as Paizo. Now that WOTC finds themselves in such an unenviable position, folks like Mearls are encouraging us not to bash other/earlier editions of the game.

I can’t help but wonder, did Mearls see how 4e was originally marketed? It was heralded by WOTC themselves as being the best version of D&D. Their initial marketing strategy even employed videos showing how primitive, clunky, and unplayable previous editions were. Yet now we’re supposed to play nice and not say the very things WOTC themselves said back when 4e was being released? Is anybody buying this?

To the Sources!

One of my passions in life is Christian theology. Lately, I’ve been reading on the history and theology of 17^th century Christian Orthodoxy (riveting, I know). One of the things that struck me as interesting is seeing what happened to inspiration during that era. The passion, drive, and enthusiasm of the 16^th century (with its ad fontes return to the sources of biblical Greek and Hebrew, a return to the writings of the church fathers, and an unprecedented Reformation and counter-Reformation) were replaced with a somewhat dry and lifeless systematization of doctrine. The 17^th century thinkers didn’t necessarily deviate from what had come before them, theologically, but their somewhat doctrinaire approach to the theology of their predecessors was a marked change from what occurred just a century before. Renaissance had been replaced with cold rationalism. Thus began the “scholastic” period of that era.

In the same way, it seems like the roleplaying industry has entered into a “scholastic” era of its own. Gone are the wild and wooly days of blazing new trails. Gone are the days when you enthusiastically figured things out as you go. Gone are ingenuity, motivation, and zeal. They’ve all seemingly been replaced by “systems.” Complicated systems which, though they may work just fine, nevertheless appear to those of us from the previous era as somewhat hollow and lifeless.

In thinking through both, I can’t help but conclude that the fault lies with becoming overly self-referential. The theologians of the 17^th century weren’t so much using the sources those in the 16^th century used, they were using the theologians from the 16^th century themselves as sources. So, instead of going back to Scripture and the earliest church fathers, the theologians in the 17^th century just ended up citing the conclusions of those just one century earlier.

In the roleplaying game industry, we became exceedingly self-referential in the 80s. By the late 80s, gamers  weren’t so much using the sources Gygax and others used, they were using Gygax & Arneson themselves as sources. So, instead of going back to Howard, Lovecraft, Moorcock, etc., the gamers in the 80s just ended up citing the conclusions & methodology of the desingers of D&D.

The result, inevitably, became a bland and somewhat lifeless experience for many. Worse, we forgot what they said and did in those early days and started going along with additional systemization which really just took us further away from the roots of the hobby.

That’s one of the things I love about the OSR (especially since “Renaissance” brings to mind a return to long forgotten sources). When I see retro-clones, I see us going back to the original sources. When I see new and exciting products like Lamentations of the Flame Princess I see those deeply steeped in the sources which inspired D&D blazing creative new trails. That’s what we need in the RPG industry today. Ad Fontes!

Pen and Paper Gaming in the 21st Century - GamesU 2009 - Keynote

Interesting take on the RPG industry by Erik Mona, Publisher at Paizo and general fan of old school games/gaming. He addresses the history, challenges, and opportunities that lie before those of us who are still playing and enjoying pen & paper RPGs. It’s a time investment, but well worth it in my opinion to get an insider’s view of things, one of the few insiders who has worked for the largest two companies in the industry.

The Whys and Wherefores of House Rulings

House rules have long been a part of our beloved hobby. They likely started because OD&D, especially just the LBBs, were incredibly rules light. Those first dungeon crawlers didn’t have rules on things they needed, so they invented rulings on the fly. That worked quite well and encouraged folks (rightly) to rely upon the ingenuity of their DM and the creativity of their players where house rules were needed.

As D&D got more complex, house rules seemingly took on a new life. Whereas before, house rules were used to fill in lacuna in the written rules, now they were increasingly becoming used to reject written rules that just didn’t work well for individual DMs and players, depending upon the preferences of the particular gaming group. The more complex the incarnation of D&D, the more common house rules replacing written rules became. Again, this worked beautifully as long as everyone was aware of the preferences of the group in which they played.

Something that’s been bothering me lately is running into people (online and in my FLGS) hiding behind house rules who simply don’t know the written rules at all. As stated above, I have absolutely no problem with house rules. I use them and my group loves them. However, we at least try to learn the written rules and have our own rationale for why we do what we do. But I keep encountering folks who claim to have played since the 70s who reject the written rules in favor of their own rulings, without knowing why or what they’re rejecting.

I hate to keep picking on “DM Vince” from the Roll For Initiative podcast (a podcast I generally recommend and really enjoy) but he’s a perfect example. The other two hosts, Jayson and Nick, have a great grasp of the AD&D rules. When they differ from them, they know the written rules and they know why they opt for their own rulings instead. Vince, on the other hand, never seems to know any single rule, as written, but you can always be certain he’ll just do things his way under the mantle of “old school” gaming. That’s fine as far as it goes. Nobody has to be an expert to play and enjoy (A)D&D. However, he has not one, but TWO podcasts wherein he discusses (A)D&D.

Again, I don’t mean to pick on any one person. I’m just finding that lots of folks do what DM Vince does: decide against using written rules without knowing what they are or why they’re doing it. By all means, reject the rules as written in favor of your own rulings, but at least know what you’re rejecting and why.

Okay, rant over.

To Kill or Not to Kill?

In reading through many gaming blogs recently, I’ve noticed two attitudes concerning PC death that I consider to be somewhat extreme: one largely represented by old school players and one largely represented by new school players.

Some old school players almost seem to take pride in killing off the PCs. When you read their session reports it’s as if they feel their job as a DM hasn’t been accomplished if they don’t somehow manage to achieve a near TPK. For them, the presence of monsters guaranteed to kill players or insta-death traps are a badge of honor which proves to their players and readers alike that they are card carrying Gygaxians. I was listening to an episode of the Roll For Initiative podcast recently in which they were discussing deadly traps. One of the hosts, Jayson (a more or less by the book kind of DM), asked another, Vince (a self described “evil DM”), about how he handles situations where his players cleverly figure out how to avoid a death trap he’d placed in a dungeon. Vince’s response? He just changes it on the fly to ensure it does what he’d originally intended. In addition to that being all too “railroady” for me I find the PC death philosophy behind it somewhat objectionable. Players aren’t there just to be killed off.

However, there’s another extreme in the new school which I find equally frustrating. This philosophy makes PC death almost impossible. Not only do new school rules typically allow a player to take much more damage before dying (with stat inflation, allowing them to go into negative hit points before real death, etc.) but DMs in the new school have become so accustomed to fudging rolls in favor of their players that death in the game is only something that applies to monsters or NPCs put into the party for just that purpose.

As far as I see it, there’s a happy medium here. I’m not there to kill the PCs but I will if they do something foolish or if the dice fall that way. That most commonly happens with low level PCs but it’s always a danger. Still, if I set out to get a TPK, I can. Every time. Even if it means fudging in favor of the monsters/dungeon. But let’s face it, that’s not fun for the players or the DMs (at least, not for me). Play the game, let the dice fall where they may, and let your goal be having a good time not being an “evil DM” out for your players’ blood.

By the same token, taking the threat of death out of encounters simply neuters the game. Adventuring is supposed to be dangerous. To a degree, casualties are going to happen without a DMs “help.” To consistently fudge the rolls in favor of the PCs is just as bad as consistently fudging them for the monsters. Let the polys fall where they may and let the players learn, through trial and error, through life and death, what they can and can’t do. I find that this style of play is much more enjoyable for everyone.

Still, it’s your game, play it as you will!

The Soundtrack to Your Campaigns

Like many people who played D&D in the 1980s, I was a died-in-the wool metalhead. In fact, most of my gaming friends were. As a result, when we played, we often had music going in the background. Usually, we listened to speed/thrash metal like Metallica or Megadeth. However, we were also big fans of some of the more iconic metal bands of the 80s (Dio, Ozzy, etc.). Recently, I heard the song Flash of the Blade by Iron Maiden. Wow, did that song bring back memories. Surprisingly, not of junior high or high school, but of gaming. I can recall, in vivid detail, certain things that happened in our campaigns well over 20 years ago…memories sparked by little more than a guitar riff.

As the years rolled on, I occasionally tried to incorporate more “atmosphere appropriate” music into my campaigns. I recall a failed attempt to use a cassette of renaissance music I’d purchased in a used tape bin. I tried some of the music from TSRs own LPs First Quest (anyone remember those?). I tried some stuff from bands like Tangerine Dream which produced evocative synth music. Ultimately, none of it really worked. The only thing that ever felt really appropriate were film soundtracks but those had the added drawback of reminding us of the movies from which they were taken (still, I’ll always relish charging into battle to Anvil of Crom or Carmina Burana).

In thinking about this stuff lately, I can’t help but wonder what folks are using these days, especially with the advances in technology and the ready availability not only of music via MP3s but also sound effects. What sorts of music/audio do you use in your games to enhance the ambiance?

Class Multiplication

I’ve often seen old schoolers talk about stat inflation when it comes to successive versions of D&D. Those with experience with later editions will no doubt find that things really do develop rather quickly. As soon as one jumps from D&D to AD&D the average number for ability scores goes up by 2 (according to the Rules Cyclopedia). Hit points likewise tend to increase. Then, in 2^nd edition, a whole host of alternate rolling methods were introduced, bringing with it more stat inflation. Now, it’s not uncommon for players not to roll stats at all, but rather to assign them using point buys or stat arrays, bringing with it yet more stat inflation.

While these things are bothersome to me, something that’s been getting under my skin lately is class multiplication. It seems that with each successive version of D&D we see more and more classes. While I personally think the addition of thieves was a good idea in order to capture a popular trope which was missing in the game (although, it wasn’t difficult to get by without them), I can’t say I much like what many newer RPGs are doing (and forget about keeping track with the addition of “prestige classes”!).

For example, just before I quit playing Pathfinder (I apologize for always using Pathfinder as an example, but it’s the only modern fantasy RPG I’ve played in the last year or two), Paizo announced the addition of several new classes with the advent of their Advanced Player’s Guide: Alchemists, Cavaliers, Inquisitors, Oracles, Summoners, and Witches. The next book Paizo will be releasing is Ultimate Magic, which will see yet another new class in the form of the Magus (a wizard/warrior hybrid). This officially brings the number of classes you can play up to 18! I can’t help but wonder when (if) the number of classes will top out.

One of the things I appreciated about 2^nd edition was that it sought to put an end to class multiplication. Yes, I know that people enjoy classes like the barbarian or the cavalier from 1^st edition, but 2^nd edition ditched them. Why? Because, properly speaking, barbarians and cavaliers are really little more than specialized warriors. So why not play a warrior from the frozen plains as a barbarian? Why not play a warrior who excels in mounted combat as a cavalier? Why the need for new classes? That is, of course, how 2^nd edition handled these classes. True, the addition of specialized kits from TSRs line of “The Complete * Handbook” of splat books probably isn’t very popular today (among old schoolers and new schoolers alike) but I at least appreciated the fact that TSR saw a potential problem and tried to handle it (even if their “solution” was just as complicated as the problem they sought to avoid).

One of the things I’m enjoying about getting back to our roots is ditching so many of the extraneous classes. Not because I don’t like tropes such as witches or oracles but because I think those tropes can be attained using the core classes, with a little imagination and roleplaying. I’m quite certain that there are inventive DMs and creative players who enjoy the new classes. However, the more I dig into our history, the more convinced I’ve become that the multiplication of rules/classes was little more than an accommodation to inept DMs and unimaginative players.