playing D&D with Mike Mornard: it’s all about context

January 27th, 2012

This is Karl Marx, not Mike Mornard. Mike's beard is shorter.

I played another game of D&D with Gygax and Arneson player Mike Mornard, who, always quotable, said, “Understanding history is all about context. When Karl Marx was writing his first essays, Germany was a feudal state. In some ways, he was closer to the 11th century German peasants than he was to us in 2011.”

I love D&D, and it’s that love that makes me, a fourth edition player, so delighted to delve into the secrets of OD&D and Dave and Gary’s campaigns. As Mike said, understanding history is all about context. There are so many charming, inexplicable mysteries in D&D, from the baffling stone head in Greyhawk to the puzzle of what the heck hit points represent. I can bring my own context to them, but I think I need to have some understanding of those first games in order to know just what the heck my D&D is about.

It’s hard to get that context just from reading the original Dungeons and Dragons books. If nine groups learned D&D from the books, they’d end up playing nine different games.

Mornard told us about an early D&D tournament game – possibly in the first Gen Con in Parkside in 1978? Gary Gygax was DMing nine tournament teams successively through the same module, and whoever got the furthest in the dungeon would win. You’d expect this to take all day, and so Mike was surprised to see Gary, looking shaken, wandering through the hallways at about 2 PM. Mike bought Gary a beer and asked him what had happened – wasn’t he supposed to be DMing right now?

“It’s over!” replied a stunned Gary Gygax.

Gary described how the first group had fared. Walking down the first staircase into the dungeon, the first rank of fighters suddenly disappeared through a black wall. There was a quiet whoosh, and a quiet thud. The players conferred, and then they sent the second rank forward, who disappeared too. The rest of the players followed.

The same thing happened to the next tournament team, and the next. Players filed into the unknown, one after another. And they were all killed. The wall was an illusion, and behind it was a pit. Eight out of the nine groups had thrown themselves like lemmings over a cliff; only one group had thought to tap around with a ten foot pole. That group passed the first obstacle, so they won the tournament.

Gary and his players couldn’t believe that the tournament players had been so incautious. But, to be fair, none of those tournament groups had played in Gary Gygax’s game. They had learned the rules of D&D, but they had no experience of the milieu in which the book was written. Of those nine groups that had learned D&D from a book, only one played sufficiently like Gary’s group to survive thirty seconds in his dungeon.

In OD&D, there’s no guarantee that things are fair. One of Gary’s and Rob Kuntz’s favorite stories, says Mornard, was Clark Ashton Smith’s The Seven Geases, in which (spoilers ahead) the hero survives a horrible death at the hands of seven different monsters only to die meaninglessly slipping from a ledge. That was one of the seminal texts of D&D, said Mornard, and one of the stories it was designed to model. “The story that D&D tells,” said Mike, “is the story of the world. Heroes aren’t invincible.”

That’s a long way from the Fourth Edition ethos. In 4e, it takes a long time to make a character, and so you’re invested in him before he’s downed his first kobold. If your 4e character is killed, you can be sure he’ll get a chance to put up a good fight first.

Not in 0e. Characters died all the time. That’s why Gary Gygax’s characters got names like Xagyg the wizard and Yrag the fighter, and other players contributed Melf the Elf, or (if I remember Mike’s anecdote correctly) Bellus of Telefono. It was the sixties and seventies. Life was cheap, and heroes died.

That’s all scary stuff to hear from your DM right before he runs your thief through a dungeon.

Next blog post: My thief explores one of the classic D&D dungeons.

Feather boat, leveled

January 25th, 2012

Raven Feather Boat: if a dead person is put at the helm and the boat is sent adrift down a river, it will, after several hours, take all inhabitants to the shadowfell.

This feather boat’s power is discovered only when the PCs find the one black feather on the swan boat’s body.

My old houserules for leveling magic items mean that every piece of magical treasure has the potential to gain power in ways that the players can’t predict. Furthermore, WOTC recently invented the concept of the “rare magic item,” but we don’t yet have lots of examples.

While some items may get mechanically better (for instance, a +1 sword becomes a +2 sword), it’s more challenging to improve items that don’t have numeric bonuses. I thought I’d go through the Wondrous Items in the 4e Player’s Handbook and give examples of how each could gain powers that reflect their history.

Feather Boat of the Northern Mists: While the feather boat is in motion, the boat’s steersman may use a minor action to render the boat and all its passengers invisible. If the boat stops, or any of the boat’s occupants make an attack, it becomes visible for the next five minutes.

The northern barbarians know the secret test which must be performed to unlock this special power.

Swanmay boat: Besides a feather token and a boat, the token can also take on its true form once a day for up to an hour: a swanmay, a fey woman with swan wings. The swanmay can fly, has defenses of 26, and, if hit, returns to token form. In swanmay form, the token is under no obligation to follow orders, but may help the PCs if she trusts them. In swanmay or boat form, this token can speak elven and common.

The boat’s swanmay form is discovered only when the swanmay first chooses to show herself.

is there such thing as too much D&D?

January 24th, 2012

I’m in the middle of a stretch of 4 nights of D&D, in 5 days and 3 different editions, including another OD&D game with Mike Mornard.

So it only seems right to link to our GM’s account of a game of Tech Noir that I played last week.

hybrid roll and pointbuy

January 23rd, 2012

4e expects you to have around an 18 in your best attribute, and a decent secondary attribute. This is very predictably achieved with point buy. 4e is big on not having a single bad roll torpedo your character.

On the other hand, point buy usually leads to your non-class stats being predictably bad. Every single barbarian has a low Intelligence. That means D&D cannot properly render Conan the Barbarian. In a game like Dungeons and Dragons, that’s just about as big a failure as I can imagine.

4e point buy generally gives you a 20, a 16, and a bunch of 10s. You know what’s boring? A bunch of 10s. For the most part, non-class stats aren’t very important for power and balance, but they are important for roleplaying variety.

I really like the 4e Gamma World approach, where your main 2 stats are 18 and 16, and you roll 3d6 down the line for your other stats. Sure, they’ll probably all be pretty close to 10 or 11: but the door is open for the occasional pleasant surprise or hilarious disability.

So here’s my proposal: it introduces a little power creep, but hey, we’re late in the edition here.

Interestingly, the following two stat arrays have the same point cost:
a) 18, 14, 10, 10, 10, 8
b) 17, 16, 10, 10, 10, 8

So, to let’s do this for starting characters: take either
a) 18 in your primary class attribute and 14 in your secondary attribute: roll 3d6 straight down the other attributes; or
b) 17 in your primary class attribute and 16 in your secondary attribute: roll 3d6 for the rest

Now you might just end up with a strong, tough, dextrous, canny barbarian like Conan; or you might get a Raistlin wizard with a hilariously weak Constitution. You probably won’t. You’ll probably roll a bunch of 10s and 11s. But here’s hoping.

5e Playtest Report Generator

January 20th, 2012

enworld posted one-sentence playtest reports from designers Monte Cook and Bruce Cordell:

  • “Playtesting in the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. My dwarf just slew a lurker with a well-timed crit to save the swallowed paladin.” – Monte Cook.

  • “Playtested in the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. My cleric burned several downed trolls before they could finish off the unconscious paladin.” – Bruce Cordell.

  • One of the posters at enworld, 1Mac, noticed that these sound suspiciously like a Mad-Libs-style 5e playtest tweet generator.

    Inasmuch as I have a wheelhouse, random generators are my wheelhouse, so behold the

    Playtest Report Generator

    Repeat until the new edition is completely pieced together!

    changes for clerics in 5e

    January 19th, 2012

    Now that we’re sure about 5e, the dark mutterings from Mearls and Cook’s Design and Development columns seem more fraught with meaning.

    Here are some interesting passages from Mike Mearls’s The Problem of Clerics:

    The party needs healing, only the cleric can provide it, therefore someone must play a character they might otherwise prefer to avoid. The simplest, though perhaps most difficult, solution is to make healing no longer mandatory.

    … Such a change would require a substantial examination of almost every facet of the game. Something like 4E’s second wind starts to point in a direction you could go, but you’d also have to look at monster damage, character attacks and spells, and the structure of a typical adventure. …The key to this change lies in making healing optional, so that players can embrace whatever role or class they like best.

    That’s pretty much the same as what Rodney Thompson said later:

    I don’t think ‘requiring someone to be a healer’ is a sacred cow, but having healers in the game is. I wouldn’t want to see D&D do away with healing, but I don’t think there’s anything keeping us from exploring a version of D&D where players can simply play anything they want, ignoring concepts like role and function when putting together their party. To do so, we would need to take a serious look at the way player resources are allocated in D&D, and make some adjustments to the assumptions behind the design of everything from adventures to encounters to monsters.

    From this, it seems to me that the D&D guys already have an idea for making healing optional, and “something like 4E’s second wind starts to point in a direction you could go.”

    Possible solutions that fit this bill:
    a) everyone gets all the second winds they want: if you want to spend your turn healing, you lose a turn (thus, healing has an opportunity cost). Clerics heal other characters, so they don’t provide extra hit points: they manage the opportunity costs.
    b) D&D finally separates wound points and barely-avoiding-calamity points into two separate pools. Maybe clerics are required to heal wound points, but everyone can recharge their own luck points.

    It’s interesting that both Mike’s and Rodney’s quotes talk about reexamining (and changing) fundamental assumptions about D&D. It sounds like the designers have their hands on a New Idea. That doesn’t sound like the Old Editions Simulator that some of the other 5e PR is promising.

    The other possibility is that the designers are just wrong about having a fix for healing, the way the 4e designers were wrong about solving the five-minute workday.

    the dwarf class in 5e

    January 15th, 2012

    My guess: D&D Next will reintroduce “dwarf”, “elf” and “halfling” as classes, along with wizard, rogue, fighter, and cleric, so we’ll have the same stable of 7 classes that we had in Basic D&D.

    Legends and Lore seems to be where Mearls floats 5e ideas. Check out this passage from the Legends and Lore article Head of the Class:

    You could even collapse race down into the core options: The dwarf could be expressed as a core class, a fighter progression that focuses on durability, defense, and expertise with an axe or hammer. The core elf uses the multiclass rules to combine fighter and wizard, and the core halfling uses a preset rogue advancement chart. Choosing race could be part of the advanced rules…

    It could be that this was just Mike hypothesizing about the advantages of a “core” and “advanced” section of the rules. However, it could also suggest that, at least at some time in 5e development, the 5e “core” contained class races.

    My other rather wild speculation about “core” is that it will be released under an OGL-type license, while the “advanced” rules might not be. This would let third parties make 5e-compatible products while making Wizards IP lawyers happy.

    Cool dungeons in books

    January 13th, 2012

    The Frost Dungeon

    They descended for a long while. The stair spiraled down with no terminus in sight. The light seemed to lead them. The walls grew damp, cold, colder, coming to be covered with a fine patina of frost figures.
    Roger Zelazny – Dilvish, the Damned

    I like the idea of sensory details, like temperature, informing a dungeon, and there are a lot of dungeon tricks that can be done with ice, especially if one of the PC is a fireball-toting wizard. Furthermore, if the PCs are defeated in an ice dungeon, they’re sure to wake up hanging upside down from the ceiling just as a Wampa beast shows up for dinner.

    The Star Labyrinth

    “As for myself, in my early years I beamed through the star-labyrinth many times. Why, once I accompanied Priestess Poogli all the way to–”
    Emil Petaja – The Nets of Space

    Just as the ocean is a dungeon, space can be a dungeon. Let’s say that each star leads only to 2-3 other stars (because of stargates, distance, spice, or some other such nonsense). The PC’s space ship, spelljammer, or astral kayak is essentially plying a space dungeon, with planetary systems as rooms and navigation routes as corridors.

    “The Star Labyrinth” is also a cool name. As cool as Princess Poogli? Hard to say.

    The Drowned City

    Riding along the fringes of this wild place, Orisian could see, faint in its misty heart, the ruined towers of old Kan Avor. The broken turrets and spires of the drowned city rose above the waters like a ghostly ship on the sea’s horizon.
    -Brian Ruckley – Godless World: Winterbirth

    A half-submerged city is not a completely unique adventure locale: many platformer video games have a water dungeon where you have to pull levers to change the water level. It’s still a cool spot, and if the PCs have to do some dangerous diving to get to the entrance of a half-submerged tower, you can give them some interesting challenges on the way up the tower: a time limit based on holding your breath, for instance. Another fun aspect of amphibious adventuring is that swimming PCs can easily escape water-only enemies, like sharks, and air-only enemies, like birds. You can use this to introduce some difficult puzzle enemies: if the fight is impossible, the PCs can easily submerge, or emerge, to safety.

    gaming with one of the original D&D players, part 3

    January 11th, 2012

    Last week, I played D&D with Mike Mornard, a member of the original Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns. This is the last piece of my writeup of Mike’s wisdom.

    monsters

    Mike cried fie on the modern-era concept of PC-leveled encounters. (I don’t remember if he actually said “fie,” but he is the sort of person who would have said “fie” if he thought of it, so I’ll let it stand.) In Greyhawk, you might encounter trolls on level 1 of the dungeon. There would be warnings: skulls and gnawed bones, and the party dwarf might notice a trollish stench. I asked, “Would there also be skulls and gnawed bones in front of the kobold lair?” meaning to ask if the danger warning signs were applied to every monster, weak and strong alike. It turned out to be a bad question: despite their lousy hit points, the badassification of kobolds started on day 1 in D&D. Gygax’s kobolds were deadly. Mike said that they collected the magic items of the characters they killed, which meant that besides their fearsome tactics, they also had a scary magical arsenal.

    When Mike started DMing, lo and behold, the first monsters we fought were… kobolds! The first signs we saw of them were stones whizzing from the darkness to hit our PCs. We chased the stone-throwers into passages, around corners, and past intersections, never sure if we were on the right track. We managed to corner two kobolds, killing one and Charming the other. We tried to interrogate the kobolds, but none of us spoke kobold (we should have thought of that before we wasted our wizard’s only spell, I guess.) We gave the Charmed kobold my map and tried to pantomime for him to complete it, which I thought was pretty clever, but he filled the paper with pornographic kobold scrawls. Couldn’t have been much less helpful than my map.

    We spent the entire session chasing down four more kobolds. They dropped two of us to 0 HP, and it was touch and go whether the rest of us would make it out of the dungeon. Here, again, light was an important factor: since we had torches, we were great targets for stone-throwing creatures in the darkness. Eventually, we started setting ambushes in the dark; surrounding our position with torches so that the kobolds would have to show themselves to attack; and, most importantly, planning fast. Every time we spent too much time in deliberation, another sling stone would come flying out of the darkness.

    Mike later mentioned that he’d given kobolds an affinity for stones because, in Chainmail, kobolds were sort of the monster equivalent of halflings, and halflings also had bonuses with stones. Also, kobolds are traditionally mining spirits: the element cobalt is derived from the name kobold.

    After the game, Mike told us that he’d run this adventure before, and we’d done better than a lot of groups, because we were fairly focused and we played with a minimum of “cross-chat”. We did a little out-of-character and in-character joking around, but less than most groups I’ve been in: both because delays tended to get us attacked, and because we were in a noisy art gallery where we had to strain to hear the DM.

    That’s not to say that there was no joking among the players, and the DM wasn’t entirely serious either. In choosing the kobold mine, we passed up several adventure hooks, including one involving getting back a sacred bra or something – I wasn’t interested in that because it didn’t seem serious enough. I guess I’ve come to expect relative seriousness from the DM and silliness from the players, while Mornard-style OD&D seems to involve seriousness from the players and silliness from the DM. Mornard has said elsewhere that D&D is a “piss-take” – a send-up of the fantasy and wargames of the 60s and 70s. If that’s the case, it’s especially funny that D&D has outlived the things it was parodying. It’s as if the audiophiles of the future had to piece together the music of the 80’s and 90’s entirely from Weird Al albums.

    Speaking of humor: Mike recommended the Book of Weird, a “humorous dictionary of fantasy” that he said was great reading for a DM.

    treasure

    When we finally found a part of the mine that was studded with gems, we grabbed the gems and ran – we didn’t care what else was in the dungeon. We ended up with 27 gems: Mike gave our fighter bonus XP for being cautious enough to pry the first one out with a ten-foot pole.

    When we got back from town, Mike rolled up the values of all the gems, announcing the value of each to the party record-keeper (me, again my default). If I were the DM, I probably would have announced an average value of the gems or something: I wouldn’t have thought the players wanted to sit through a list of 27 numbers. But it’s funny: people’s attention spans get longer when it comes to profits.

    The random rolling paid off for us when, among the other gems, we found a 10,000 GP-value gem. That pushed us all up to level 2. Mike commented that that’s why he likes random charts: they help tell a story that neither the DM nor the players can anticipate.

    character classes

    As we were making our characters, and the cleric was exclaiming over the lack of level spells, Mike told us a little bit about the evolution of the classes. A low-level OD&D cleric, he reminded us, was a capable front-line fighter – kind of an undead specialist warrior – especially in the early days of D&D, when every weapon did 1d6 damage.

    One of the effects of variable weapon damage, he said, was to make weapon choice more plausible and meaningful. Before variable weapon damage, everyone was using the cheapest weapon possible – iron spikes! After variable weapon damage, fighters started using swords, which did 1d8 damage, or 1d12 against large monsters. Fighters with swords was a better mirror of history and heroic fantasy than fighters with daggers or iron spikes.

    combat rules

    Mike played with pretty straight OD&D rules with the Greyhawk supplement. He says that Gary’s group played with variable weapon damage, including different damage for medium and large opponents, but not the AD&D weapon speed rules.

    In our game, when Mike called for initiative, each player rolled a d6 at the beginning of each round. Mike would call out: “Any sixes? Fives?” etc, so a high roll was good. I don’t know if that’s what they did in Gary’s game, but it worked for us in 2012.

    Mike told us that, while he was in Dave Arneson’s game, they mostly played straight OD&D. They didn’t use the hit-location rules from the Blackmoor supplement: Mike doubts that anyone ever played with those. But who knows: “people were bringing in new rules all the time,” he reminded me, “and not everything stuck.” Mike also didn’t remember anyone using the assassin. Too bad: I’m pretty curious about how that class actually worked in play.

    One last comment about Gary Gygax: When Mike joinde Gary’s game, Mike was 17 years old. “Gary was the first person who ever treated me like an adult,” he said. Not a bad legacy, even apart from the cool game.

    5 Things I Want From 5th Edition D&D

    January 10th, 2012

    If 5th edition has cool dragons like that, sign me up!

    So in case you’ve been asleep the last 24 hours or so, Wizards of the Coast announced that they are working on a new edition of D&D. Now, unlike about 90% of the blog posts I’ve read concerning this, I actually really liked 4th edition D&D. I would say it’s not only my favorite edition of D&D, but really my favorite overall RPG (if I were forced to choose!), and that’s saying a fair bit since I own and have played dozens of them.

    However, that doesn’t mean I don’t think 4th edition is without its flaws. I just think they are a bit less structural or extreme than many of the other bloggers out there. So with that in mind, here are 5 things I’d like to see from the 5th edition of D&D:

    1. Less Reliance on Magic Items: Others have said it, and I will too. I don’t want receiving magic items to feel like fulfilling a boring power curve. I don’t want to hit level 6 and have to start wondering where my +2 sword is already. I think the key to making magic items cool and magical and not intimately connected to the overall balance of the game is to remove the enhancement bonuses entirely (or restrict them to only a +1) and give them other cool qualities. So maybe I can get a cool flaming sword that lets me do fire damage or a piece of armor that let’s me negate damage once per encounter. These types of qualities could be quite powerful, and I am fine with the game assuming that you should tend to have, say, 3 magic items of X power by level 10, but I don’t want to feel like I HAVE to have them to keep up with the math as I level, and I do want to feel like they’re special, which probably also means fewer magic items overall. In short, it would be awesome if there were no “slot” that I absolutely felt required to fill.
    2. Faster Combats: I love the nitty gritty of choosing powers and optimizing my turns in combat. 4th edition combat is a blast in that regard. But it’s too damn long. 4+ hour combats are not uncommon, in my experience, which means an entire session can go by in one combat. I’ve made house rule changes in my games to lower monster HP and increase damage, which has helped speed up combat A LOT, and I would love to see something similar reflect in the rules of the next edition. At the same time, I don’t want to see the kill-fests of 3.5. I remember combats in 3.5 that took an hour or two to resolve and yet somehow were still over in the course of a couple of rounds. I think the ideal combat would be 5-10 rounds, present plenty of interesting tactical decisions, and be over in an hour or so. I would be open to something more radical, like a system for handling different types of combats: super fast combats that take 15 minutes or less to resolve (and yet still have a sense of danger) and longer “boss style” combat that take an hour or two and are reserved for climactic battles. Read the rest of this entry »