Reading B2 The Keep on the Borderlands

Because B2 was my first, I will always consider it the best. After getting Into the Borderlands and reading Age of Dusk review recently Ahead of starting Wilderlands sandbox I decided to have a deeper look at the DM advice and Keep portions which I maybe read thirty whatever years ago but have skipped past in more recent times. The tldr; is that it's pretty honking great.

All quotes from "Dungeon Module B2 The Keep on the Borderlands" by Gary Gygax, copyright 1981 by TSR Hobbies, Inc.

"... for as DM you are to become the Shaper of the Cosmos. It is you who will give form and content to all the universe. You will breathe life into the stillness, giving meaning and purpose to all the actions which are to follow. The others in your group will assume the roles of individuals and play their parts, but each can only perform within the bounds you will set."

I'm a huge fan of B/X, at least how I run it, because it leans heavily towards "game" rather than towards "story time". It manifests as play over narration, as play over character "builds". Backgrounds, goals, character growth are emergent rather than preconceived and related. It has taken a fork away from narrative "story" games. [Some people like the narrative games. I do not.] B/X is just as cooperative, but players contribute through the actions of their characters, not as players spending fate points to alter the plot / world. There is a clear delineation between Referee and Players.

"It is now up to you to create a magical realm filled with danger, mystery, and excitement, complete with countless challenges. Though your role is the greatest, it is also the most difficult. You must now prepare to become all things to all people."

No pressure...

"Welcome to the land of imagination. You are about to begin a journey into worlds where magic and monsters are the order of the day, where law and chaos are forever at odds, where adventure and heroism are the meat and drink of all who would seek their fortunes in uncommon pursuits."

That is pretty hokey. I'm sure I loved it as a 13 yr old.

"... the DM must be a truly disinterested party, giving information as required by questioning and proper action, but neither helping nor hindering otherwise."

I fail at only giving information "as required". I want players to know too hard. I can't keep secrets. I always assume that is my fault when players don't "get it", whatever it is. So feel I owe them hints or 2nd chances. Also, if I'm honest, I want players to see my hard work, my "clever" secrets, etc. I don't have a problem with them turning left when the adventure is to the right (not a no good, dirty railroader). But once they're in the adventure and so close to discovering some "truth" or planted foreshadowing, I can't help but give it to them.

What's even worse; many players do not thrill at discovering the "world building", figuring out secrets, seeing how it is all connected, etc. as much as I do. So, not only are they fine with "not getting it", they probably don't enjoy me ramming it down their brain holes.

"In this game, the action is only limited by the abilities of the character, the imagination of the player, and the decisions of the DM. The play will often go in unexpected directions and the DM will sometimes be required to decide on situations not covered in the rules."

I know (cause they designed 3ed and too many other games) there are people that want everything defined, explained, codified. I just wish they'd learn that that doesn't work for RPGs.  All those pages and pages of crufty rules is better handled by the above two sentences.

"... Just as the referee of a sporting event, the DM must be fair. He or she cannot be "out to get the players". Nor should he or she be on their side all the time. ... The DM must be fair, but the players must play wisely."

That last bit! You may not agree with it. I may not be correct in believing it is true. It ties into wanting my RPG to be more of an active game and not just passively "play acting a story". In games, to do well, you must play well. You can't win or lose D&D, but you can fail at it. And it is your responsibility to not fail, not the DM's not the other player's.

Being not out to punish players is obvious. Not ensuring players always win doesn't seem to be as well understood. For play to be satisfying, there must be risk of failure. Players must have bested the challenges put before them by their own wits (or luck). If success is pre-ordained, then they're not playing a GAME. They are reading a (probably poorly written) book or watching a (definitely low-budget and poorly acted) movie.

"Throughout all this -- making decisions, playing roles, handling monsters -- the DM must remember that he or she is in control. The DM is the judge, and it is his or her game. The DM should listen to the players and weigh their arguments fairly when disagreements arise, but the final decision belongs to the DM. The Dungeon Master's word is law!"

Man, I really wish that last sentence wasn't there. It's redundant and just pushes things in antagonistic way. I can see esp younger, less mature DMs remembering that and not the excellent and balanced previous bits and using it to be a dick.

"After the party leaves the dungeon safely, all surviving player characters should divide the treasure and be awarded their experience points. Division of treasure is the players' responsibility."

I try to push treasure splitting on party. I do not interfere when the thief steals shit.

"DM Note: Have each player identify his or her character's name and profession. Have them answer in their own words why they seek entrance to the place. If they answer sounds unnatural, assume the role of the corporal of the watch, and begin to cross-examine the speaker. Now is the time to make the players realize that whatever they say -- as speech or relating their actions -- will be noted by you, as Dungeon Master, and acted upon accordingly in whatever role is appropriate to the situation."

I distinctly remember in games I ran 20+ years ago vs those in last 10 or so everyone being in character most of the time. Players talked and acted in 1st person. Not in funny voice/acting.  Just saying "I open the door." vs " opens the door". I enjoy that more. It also kept play more focused and speedy. But, and this may be rose colored memory or due to other factors, it really seemed to positively alter game play. Players were more imaginative with questions and actions. They interacted with the world via "voice" rather than via dice (rolls).

I usually start campaigns, in media res, at or in the "dungeon", often with an ambush. I like action, and new players never know what to do and everyone putters round town forever! But, I'm definitely using something like this from now on. Since I still don't want to start "in town", I'll have a patrol question the characters. Then jump to the dungeon. Knowing the people I usually play with they will probably antagonize and fight the patrol, ending up dead or in jail instead.

[To the players] "Of course you are inexperienced, but you have your skills and a heart that cries out for adventure. You have it in you to become great, but you must gain experience and knowledge and greater skill. There is much to learn, and you are willing and eager to be about it! Each of you has come with everything that could possibly be given you to help. Now you must fend for yourselves; your fate is in your hands, for better or worse."

This is only applicable for specific old-school, non-heroic style of game; "you have everything... fate in your hands".  The history of your character begins now. You will be judged based on your actions henceforth. You start as nobodies, clean slates. No backstories, no angsty youth, no secret bastard of the king.

Act, don't tell!

Quick, Grab Some Wonderful Weirdness from the Heart of Texas

I of course reference the Slumbering Ursine Dunes Kickstarter. Straight outta Hill Cantons! San Antonio area home campaign.

I, upped my pledge to "The Brad" level (The Full Brads had already sold out) after they, The Hydra Collective LLC, a newly-formed worker-owned company that aims to serve as a publishing vehicle for the DIY/Old School(ish) side of the rpg hobby, were nice enough to acquiesce to my overbearing demands and post the point crawl map preview cause I was working on point crawl of my own.

 

The Kickstarter has already blown past funding and several stretch goals. Funding now, you are guaranteed plenty of bonus loot. But, don't dither, delay, or dally, project is now in last couple days.

Btw congratulations to the whole crew. Some of whom I know. Which you may think influences my support their Kickstarter. But, I know lots of people and I'm not blathering on about all their Kickstarters. Besides Hydra Collective are a bunch of drunken louts, .

There are previews of the complete text are posted in various updates like this one describing the 5th Stretch Goal. Check out this side view, an unrelated work by one of the projects artists. Wow! It's like Old School version of Richard Scarry.

Damn, I knew this project was gonna be cool and haven't been following it too closely (busy playing games). But looking over things to write this up. I'm getting really excited about this KS. And impatient to get my grubby paws on this. 

Killer DM

Without really trying I've become a killer DM.  Well I mean I do try to kill characters but only to make our games fun ;)  What I mean specifically by "killer DM" is that characters are dieing too often and for arbitrary reasons.  D&D is fun with threat of death, not so much when it's happening every other session.  But arbitrariness is the real killer.   Threats are fun challenges to avoid.  Arbitrary death robs everyone of fun, DM included.


Looking back at last couple of G&G sessions I recognized the arbitrary death and I've spent some time thinking and discussing it with players.  I'm firmly in the "provide a dangerous world with consummate rewards and let players suss out / make choices based on risk vs reward" camp of DMing.  Here are somethings we've come up with.


First, to make rational choices players need to understand the situation they are in.  Where risk is and were it isn't.  Whether their choices end up being rational is up to them.  But, if I haven't provided them the info (or at least ability to acquire it) I've failed as a DM.  To this end I'm providing them with accurate wilderness map as discussed in previous post.



Also, mystery/suspense needs to be limited to nature of threat.  The level of threat must be clear. "No one ever has returned from the Swamps of Almost Certain Peril".  Definitely a deadly threat is in the swamps but is it the old crone living there or the castle of nubile maidens?  This is very hard for me.  By nature I'm a misleader, a trickster, a manipulator.  I like to throw out 3-4 "hooks" and 2-3 red herrings.  Then try my hardest to confuse the players... This doesn't seem to work so well in sandboxes.  Players need to be able to "trust" the information they gather for choices to have meaning. 

Bite-ur-face

Players also need clear concept of how deadly an area is.  [btw pretty much all wilderness is deadly to 1st/2nd level].  I'll have more obvious signs, slaughtered knights,  skulls / bones of tough creatures that have been chewed on, big footprints piles of poop.  More warnings from NPCs, [This tends to back fire cause when they hear about Snow,the giant albino wolverine, from the battle scared, shell shocked, sole survivor NPC.  Player's rarely think "Holy Crap stay away from that", they think "hey, XP+loot+DM mentioned it so lets hunt Snow!"].  Also need to make it even more obvious where low-level dungeon is.  So, players don't wander around dieing on "worthless" random encounters. 

I'll start using a NPC "guide".  Someone to demonstrate basic survival skills. Such as investigating through roleplay before charging after everything DM mentions,  listen at the door first, shouldn't we look for traps, there's at least 20 of them and we are surrounded don't you think we should parlay instead of fighting to our deaths, hey this time instead of just charging in and everyone doing their own thing why don't try having a plan and working as a team,  and the most important lesson of all, running the hell away (ideally before people start dieing/knocked out slowing down whoever remains conscious). 

NPC will also help with another problem.  3-5 low-level characters is no where near enough, esp in wilderness where danger isn't channeled along corridors.  Smaller groups are vulnerable to having no backup specialists (healer, caster, etc).  When party flees there aren't enough bodies to provide rear-guard, carry the injured.  So, either injured are abandoned (and die) or the whole party is slowed and TPK'd by merciless bad guys.  There is saftey in numbers.  8+ characters is my new semi-enforced requirment for low level parties.  Doesn't matter how they get there; running multiple PCs, hirelings, henchmen, pets, more DM controlled NPCs. 


Finally, I've tweaked my version of the  Death and Dismemberment Table.  Now with "Less Deadly"(tm). Likely death only on results 5 or less.  More "out of fight results" knocked out and stunned.

When character reaches 0 hit points and every time they take damage 
when at 0 they must roll 2d6 +/- Con Modifier.  Dwarves may reroll once,
taking better result, except any natural 2 is always applied.

2d6   Death and Dismemberment Table
========================================
nat 2  "Instant Death" = Decapitation, red mist, or similar. You are dead.

<=3   "Fatal Wound" = Death in d6max minutes.
       Knocked Out until death unless Save vs Death is made. 
       Magical healing allows Save vs Death with bonus equal to lvl of 
       spell cast. Success means Incapacitated 3d6max days. (magic used 
       for this doesn't restore hp)

4-5    "Cleave" = Limb loss and bleed out (die) in d6max rounds.
       Knocked Out until death unless Save vs Death is made.
       Magical healing, a tourniquet, or cauterization allows Save vs 
       Death with bonus equal to lvl of spell cast, if any. Success means 
       Incapacitated 2d6max days. (magic used for this doesn't restore hp)

6-7    "Broken bone" = Incapacitated d6max days.
       Knocked Out d6max rounds unless Save vs Death is made.

8-9    "Brain bashed" = Knocked Out d6max rounds.

10-11  "Glancing head strike" = Stunned d4max rounds.

>=12   "Lucky bastard" = No effect.

nat 12 "Now I'm mad" = Surge of adrenaline returns d4 hit points per hit die.
       If you roll this more than once in a single combat consider yourself
       a Fanatic (treat as potion of super-heroism).

Result
3-11    Lack of helm worsens result one level.
3-7     Optionally use die to determine hit location.
3-7     All result in loss of ability point.

Any hit to head/helm will knock off/damage helm such that it does not 
protect from further hits.

[d4max, d6max, etc means roll max value on that die type, roll at start of each time unit, round/day/week. My method of "tracking" durations without having to track rounds/whatever.]

My Favorite RPG Quote

Character background is what happens between levels one and six. 

                                                                                   -- Gary Gygax

Got no reference, maybe he never said it, doesn't matter to me.  I'm not like omg Gary said it so it must be awesome!!!  Rather it succinctly nails how I think about sandbox campaign characters. [although I'd say one through four since 9th lvl is my high end] Who you are, where you're from, what you've done are not as important (or as interesting) as what are you gonna do next?  We play the game to discover the answer to that question.  The most interesting character's history is built in game.

Hmmmm, I like that "what are you gonna do?"  Good definition/delineation/explanation of a sandbox/rulings/seat of pant DM to new players.  DM's the guy/gal who asks you "What are you gonna do?" With the follow on implication that once you tell them, they then figure out what it means / how it works out.


Others I've recently added to my collection of quotes.

Booty may have different meanings in different places, but it's all the same to Conan.

-- Matt http://matt-landofnod.blogspot.com/2010/04/few-random-thoughts.html

Me early on:  Whats the goal of the adventure? Why are we here?
Them: Gold, treasure, and to kill the minotaur king/Beastlord.
Me: Why are we killing him?
Them:  Because he's the guy on the cover of the module! 

-- http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/2010/05/played-my-first-od-game-this-past.html

 

In 4E you call out the name of your attack. In OD&D you call out the name of the henchmen who are throwing javelins. [is the proper quote according to muleabides]

In 4e its called Whirling Strike.  In OD&D it's called my 5 henchmen attack. [what I posted originally]

-- http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/2010/05/played-my-first-od-game-this-past.html

Can Newbs Start With a Sandbox

Z's comment on Grognardia's Dungeonworld post asked about Sandbox D&D post by Gabe over at Penny Arcade.

Like I replied in Grognardia's comments I believe Gabe has discovered the key to sandboxes --

I sit down at the table with no idea what they will do or where they will go that night. The adventure ends up being just as much a surprise to me as it is to them.

I wanted to discuss and see what my readers had to say about this quote --

I honestly think that I could not have started out running this type of game. I think having a year of running more structured adventures under my belt gave me the skills I needed to open the world up like this. I think the same could be said for my players as well.

I'm guessing that is true of most people. Whether it's inherent in our psychology or we've been accustomed by books, movies, other playstyles to storypaths is moot. I certainly see it with new players.  Ignoring play style just being comfortable with the rules and your role (DM, player) can take time.  I see inklings of in myself, when running new systems/settings I don't wing it or run the game nearly as well as when I'm intimately familiar (that might be just cause I'm a suckass DM).

It's an interesting point for those of us actively trying to grow and popularize sandbox style gaming. Maybe we need to do a little more hand holding in the beginning, or even run hybrid style.  The Western Marches, in retrospect, seems if not a hybrid at least a sandbox with some structure and direction.  Instead of 100% open.  Western Marches have big ol' signs "the stuff, it's over there". And there are aides to direct and motivate players; table map, competition with other groups, the increasing danger "bands".

Maybe we should suggest that new DM's get a year of one-shots, running modules, etc. under their belts before they dive into the sandbox? I'm more or less doing that with Labyrinth Lord.

What say you all?

A Post Apocalyptic Thought

I spend about 10hrs a week reading RPG blogs. (until I get burnt out and don't read anything for a month) But, it's totally worth it. In addition to being handed great ideas and resources. Reading all that spurs my creativity and inspires me to do stuff.

Mutant Apocalypse type games typically are wide open wilderness affairs after a modestly advanced civilization nukes itself. The image on Noisms' Post Apocalyptic Play-list made me consider using a "city world" such as Star Wars' Corcusant or imperial capital of Asimov's Foundation as the setting instead. Endless miles of steel and concrete ruins. A hundred levels of metal "dungeon" before you reach the bottom. A hundred more reaching up into the sky in the few towers left intact. I imagine a bit of a claustiphobic Space Hulk vibe.

Maybe too monotonus? Always overgrown "parks", agri-domes, and hydroponic farm levels for that getting back to nature feeling.

When I get around to Mutant Future I strongly consider using this kind of setting.

What a Mess

The ongoing and evolving conversation on Edition and Play Style Wars, High Fantasy vs Swords & Sorcery, and Player Feedback has solidified several of my thoughts and feelings but also given me lots to ponder.

I firmly believe there are several orthogonal axis to play style, that the people who scream loudest about old-school is this way have a very narrow and often revisionist concept of how D&D was and could be played, that the old-school <-> new-school or sandbox <-> storypath or OD&D <-> "miniatures combat masquerading as an RPG" are false, incomplete, and ultimately worthless comparisons (because they fail to account for the various axis). And this failure is ultimately why the arguments and flames are endless.


I'm still ruminating and perhaps will never be able to articulate coherently what I'm feeling. But here are some thoughts, snippets that are driving my self-analysis.


I'm not a follower of fantasy writing / history. My impressions could be way off. It seems that majority of the literature in old-school times was S&S or at least grittier and freakier, while the majority of literature 2nd/3ed folks grew up with was Epic Hero type stuff. Even the art has a hint of this, compare and contrast Otis & Elmore. I also noticed a resurgence in Lovecraft and more recently Robert E. Howard occurring just before the surge in sandbox/S&S/old-school RPGs we are currently experiencing. Which (if either) is cause and which is effect I'm not sure.


"Without really noticing it, many people don't want to play sword & sorcery gaming. What they want, is to play a story about good winning the epic battle against evil." -- Santiago

"I am more of a roleplayer..." many times really means "I want to be a hero in an epic story."

If players end up not having fun with your style of play, let them go. (Don't fault them for giving it a try even though you told them what style it was up front. Norm's 7th Law: If you discourage people from trying new things, you suck, big time.) It's good to analyze what went didn't go right but don't let it devolve into how your former players were wrong and really should have liked your game, if only they...


So Many Ways to Play

All games have story. A big difference is "Does the DM know the story ahead of time."

“story-before”, which is when the GM has the plot pre-planned, “story-after”, in which looking back on the game, the players can tell the events as a story; and “story-now”, in which the creation of the story is the game. -- oberonthefool


Another axis separate from that is “story as major element.” That is characters are the focus, the world and events revolve around them, they are big H Heroes. Slow/”boring” bits are fluffed around or sped over, players have story based goals and the DM facilitates them. Those goals/destinations are what drive the game.

The other end is were characters are more or less regular folks that have decided they want glory and gold or have no motivations at all being simple 1dimensional "imaginative constructs" the player uses to play this game. Focus is on the players not the characters. Characters come and go(die) often, if they get to name level, they build a castle, and are retired. The challenge and fun is to survive, explore, and play. There’s a story here but it’s not the focus. This style is more of a "game", the play is the focus. It’s about the journey not the destination.


Another axis, atmosphere of a game, the setting, the fluff which often and rightly bleeds into the mechanics. But it's not a clean axis at all, more like a scatter plot. This is low-magic vs high-magic, the gritty vs anime, realism vs mythic dungeon, S&S vs high-fantasy, Ray Gun Wielding Monkeys vs get your sci-fi out of my focking fantasy, etc vs etc.


Another axis, rules-lite vs rules-heavy.


What a mess, huh? I'd rather it all go away and people quit arguing over it. I also wish people would give up greed and start taking care of each other. I know, two pipe dreams. I got sucked in because Tommi mentioned how to have a story-focused game without railroading something I have never been able to pull off.


Sandboxy/rules-lite DMs I Implore You

Please! Help and train players unfamiliar to exploration style. They will not know how to do it considering 90% of other games and 99% of other books, comics, movies, are all heroic storypaths. What chgowiz does with his wife is excellent example. Don't just give away clues (that is anti-training). Use those NPCs and retainers to show by example. Help players to start thinking tactically by having a short 5-10min analysis at end of session "Whew that sure was a tight spot, huh? Any ideas on what you could have done to make that easier".

When they get it. Make a big deal over it, congratulate them on a game well played.

Realize that many, many people are attracted to RPGs because they want to be that guy/gal from the book/movie/comic/computer game, they want to be a hero in a story. If you can't provide hero in a story feeling (it's not incompatible with sandbox exploration game) and/or teach them to enjoy a "tactical war/puzzle game played out mostly in the imagination" then understand you will have very few potential players and will probably become a lonely grumpy old grognard.

Sandbox / Old School - High Level Games?

I enjoy reading the session reports various people post to their blogs. Usually they're short, sweet and interspersed with interesting posts. I've only been sucked into reading their big brother, Campaign Journals, a few times:

The Storm Crows - High level storypath 1st ed romp through G1-3, D1-2, and a couple detours. These guys are numbskulls but hilarious to read about.

Tales of Wrye - High level storypath 3.5 Excellent example of character growth. War and planes as high level content. It's also a great story.

Melan's Fomalhaut - Low level sandbox OD&D? Sword, Sorcery and Rayguns! (no monkeys yet, sadly)


What I've not encountered is higher level (9-10 plus) sandbox or old-school/retro games. Also, I've read here and there at old-school haunts that low level play is preferred by many of that ilk. Several abhor the latter letters of BECMI. Then I found out that my current campaign inspiration The Western Marches only went to lvl 6-7.

I'm curious, does sand box not lend it self to high level? Do OD&D, clones, simulacra and the style of play pushed by the old school mainstream break down at high levels? Do campaigns / players just start over after a certain point? Can anyone point out some good campaign journals that demonstrate the opposite (high level sandbox or high level AD&D?

And apropos to nothing I find my self in total agreement with the Pundit.