Up or Down the Drain?

The lead quote in my previous ramble about turning to stone also mentions Energy Drain (I use this term and 'Level Drain' more or less interchangeably here, btw), which is another marvelously contested "old-school" mechanic. I won't even go into how much the topic has been debated, house-ruled, championed, and railed against. Let me just say I like it, but also recognize its imperfections.

Beedo, over at Dreams in the Lich House, had a nice little poll and post about E.D. last fall that's worth a read. It covers most of what I consider the salient points in the Pros & Cons of any E.D. discussion, including:

• It's scary, and scary = cool.
• We old farts don't have as much time to game anymore. Losing a level or two can take a WHILE to bounce back from, which some find frustrating.
• Everybody and their blink dog has taken a stab at house-ruling it. 

There is a saying that comes up at my table from time to time, usually when some mechanic of classic D&D or a retro-clone is brought under scrutiny. "You can't 'fix' D&D." This doesn't mean D&D is a "broken" or hopeless game. It's the idea that for all its rough patches and quirks, it's still the patriarch, the fount from which our hobby springs. While house-rules and so forth are perfectly acceptable expressions of our interest and involvement in the game, to try and "fix" the game's foibles is an often futile attempt to make it into something other than the inspiring mess that it sometimes seems to be. 

Now you can take that idea or leave it, but the upshot of it is that I tend to play the game more or less as written. That's not to say I don't have my own pet house rules and heartbreaker concepts; I most definitely do! That said, I feel that it's often better to step back and say "It's a GAME! And the rules say ___ works like that." If it really rankles, then it may be time for a house rule that keeps it fun for your group. Of course, one can always look at it for what it is, and choose to play a different game too. There are so many good ones out there to try.

[Stepping off the soapbox and back on topic.] 

Let me assume the role of the Old School Energy Drain Apologist (OSEDA) here: So losing a level sucks? Yer damned right it does! You say it took you 6 months of game play to reach 4th level and now you're 1st again? Wow, maybe next time run away! You say it's 'not fair' that your 8th level magic-user effectively lost 70K experience, but the 8th level thief 'only' lost 40K and that the 3rd level fighter henchman only lost 2K? News flash:

1. Life ain't fair.
2. A seventh level magic-user is still WAY more powerful than the 7th level thief and 3rd level fighter COMBINED.
3. If you're that torqued about it, find a powerful cleric and shell out some loot for Restoration Spells.* 
4. You COULD have been drained to 0 and be that Spectre's towel boy by now.

*Which, I know, isn't in BX. But it is in the Rules Cyclopedia and LL's AEC.

I could go on, but you get the gist of it. Now, I'd like to present a few caveats and addendums, if I might.

1. Like petrify, monsters with this ability should be rare outside of certain environments (i.e. a vampire's castle, a necropolis teeming with undead, etc.). I'm guilty of periodically tossing a level drainer at the party in a random encounter, but that doesn't mean it was my finest DMing moment.
2. Most creatures that have this ability are turnable by clerics. 
3. A DM should make it possible for the PCs to be forewarned about the threat. i.e. rumors in town, hints in the dungeon, etc.
4. A DM ideally should know his group well enough to judge how to balance the "Fun vs. Fear" factor of such an encounter. 
5. Players need to remember that older D&D is more about exploration and treasure, and less about a series of toe-to-toe fights with monsters. (There's a reason most XP comes from loot.) If you encounter some wights and the cleric's turn attempt fails, consider whether this is a fight you really need to have. If not, spike the door shut and run away! 
6. Higher level PCs with more XP to lose should conversely be better prepared to face such foes, and more able to "heal" the effects if they get unlucky.
7. There's nothing inherently wrong with house rules about things like temporary vs. permanent drain, saving throws, etc. Use 'em if they work for you. 

D&D already has so many things in it that reduce consequences: magical healing and raise dead; spell-casting that nearly always works in a predictable  and consistent manner; escalating hit points, a plethora of magic items, saving throws, etc. Most DMs (over 12) aren't on an ego trip, trying to squash the miserable PCs, they want to play the game with their friends, but also maybe have a cool story emerge. A cool story needs challenges and sometimes those challenges need to be daunting, or even scary. It seems to me that having a few things in the game that are unequivocally bad news –beyond just a bigger damage die– isn't such a bad thing.

All That Glitters

 

Continuing the earlier thoughts about gold in classic D&D…

Over the years, one overall trend in my perspective on playing or running TTRPGS is an increasing deference to the Rules As Written (RAW). That’s not to say I never house rule any more, I do quite often, but it has become more selective and less of a go-to move. There was a time, and this blog contains ample evidence of it, that I would seize upon some game mechanic or suchlike and figure that my decades of experience meant I ‘knew better’ and could fix D&D. Shockingly, it wasn’t quite so simple.

As a result, I have seen more and more concepts and house rules and home-brew charts slip out of my metaphorical gaming Trapper Keeper and out of use when I plan or play a game. A “side effect” of this is watching other folks online work through similar thought processes about the same issues I was trying to “fix.” Often, I watch them arrive at a similar place to mine in real-time, as conversations evolve on chat servers and message-boards with other members of the online groups.

One common bugaboo that seems to come up over & over is coinage. Specifically in two main areas: gold vs silver as the standard denomination, and why coins weigh as much as they do (encumbrance). I’ve toyed with things like the “Silver Standard” (changing over to SP being the default coin) in the past. I’ve since come around to just using gold as in the books. I’ve had a similar progression of ideas regarding coin weight and size. I wanted to talk a bit about my rationales here and I’d like to address the second issue first (as it seems simplest): the matter of encumbrance.

In Basic/Expert D&D, 10 coins weighs a pound (16 oz., or around half a kilo). Now, most of imagining this might say “Whoa there! Those must be some HEFTY discs!” and you wouldn’t be wrong. I believe -and if I ever get the chance to hang out with Zeb Cook again, I hope I remember to ask him- that the numbers were chosen for ease of calculation over any concerns about realism.

That said, I get how it rankles some folks. 100 coins weighing ten pounds seems like it would make shopping around town quite exhausting. For those folks who decide to make the rate things like 20cn/lb or even more, as long as other weights for equipment, etc. are appropriately adjusted, go right ahead.

For myself, I tend more towards things like OSE’s basic encumbrance rules where the weight of most gear is ignored and a character’s movement is determined by how much (if any) armor they are wearing and whether they are carrying treasure. It makes things like equipment choices important, and takes into account the difficulties of hauling loot out of the dungeon without bogging down into every item’s individual weight. Obviously this requires ad hoc rulings on occasion. A recent example in a discussion group centered around carrying a ladder into the dungeon and what it would weigh. My suggestion was to treat it like having treasure in hand (an extra load) without having to get into debates on ‘how heavy is a 10’ wooden ladder’?

The caveat I would make is that D&D coins should be markedly heavier than modern coins, now whether that’s because a modern coins are less dense (the US Quarter hasn’t had silver in it since before I was born), or because the fantasy coins are just bigger, the fact remains if the money is supposed to contain the valuable ores in question, it’s going to be made of dense metals instead of modern alloys. Make them heavy enough that hauling a bunch out of the dungeon is at least a bit of a chore.

The other issue that is frequently brought up “the silver standard” or some variation of it. I should make it clear that I am talking about folks changing D&D’s gold piece default via a house rule, not about separate games with a silver standard baked-in from square one. In a nutshell, this is house ruling that silver is the default currency instead of gold, so prices in the equipment lists are in SP instead of GP. Most, but not all, versions of this house rule also make 1SP=1XP.

Again, I understand the reasoning. I’ve had similar ideas myself. Different people have posited different defenses of the silver standard house rule over the years, but as far as I can see, it boils down to complaints about “realism.” The argument tends to go along the lines of “10 gold coins weighs a pound, that means there are literally HUNDREDS OF POUNDS of gold in that chest. That’s nuts! There isn’t enough gold in the world for there to be so much treasure like that lying around! If there was, then gold would be worthless!” Or words to that effect. Fair enough, I suppose. But let me offer a few points in defense of why I use the gold standard as is in the rules.

Firstly, it’s easier to not change a rule than to change it. It’s how the game was designed, it’s how all the adventures and supplements use it, so it’s less headache for me to just leave it alone.

Secondly, the game is designed around exploring dungeons to find treasure. Getting past the traps and monsters to that chest of loot is literally and figuratively the players’ reward. The game mechanics of the treasure are irrelevant to the emotional satisfaction (aka “Fun”) the players get from their success. One of the ways I can make that better for them is in describing the scene well, and gold is just more evocative of wealth than silver. It’s just cooler looking. Look how ubiquitous it is in popular culture. Pirates’ chests are full of gold! The dragon doesn’t sit on a pile of silver!

Thirdly, Dungeons and Dragons was not created to emulate anything remotely like a real-world economy. Some editions, settings, and supplements have taken whacks at it, but originally no. It’s a fantasy game. Also for what it’s worth, it’s unlikely a fantasy/medieval gold coin is very pure. It could easily be 10K or less. Besides, all money is fake. It’s an agreed upon delusion that lets economies happen, so as long as folks agree that one “gold” coin can buy X amount, then it’s all good.

Lastly, the dragon sitting on the hoard is realistic, but what the coins are made of is too far??

Finally, let me just remind folks I’m talking about the games that I run. Other GMs’ mileage may vary, but for me, chasing after some standard of simulationism just leads to diminishing returns on the enjoyment of the game.

A Small Fish

"Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish. Do not overdo it."

-Lao Tzu

After playing several different systems in the space of a few days at Garycon, and buying several new shinies to read, I am –of course– pondering new kinds of things to run at my table. 

(We'll now take a brief pause to let readers get over the shock.)

One of the great things about con gaming is not only getting to play games you don't normally play, but also seeing the way people run their games and getting new ideas. Whether it's a different system whose mechanics vary from your standard game, or house rules, the wheels start a-turning.

I spent most of the flight home thinking about different modules I might run and different house rules I might use at the table. I would start to get pretty elaborate, but kept coming back to the idea that You Can't Fix D&D (YCFDD).

Now, at first that seems to say don't house rule anything, don't tweak, add-on, or fiddle with the rules as written. I believe, though, there is a little more (and less) to that idea, though.

My current thought is: Don't try to "fix" the game, but there's nothing wrong with more FUN.

So here's the rule of thumb I'm applying to my current noodling. Go ahead and add to or take away from what's in the book(s), but do it because it makes things fun, not to try and make something "more realistic", or "balanced." That doesn't mean I may not customize some stuff like equipment lists or house rule some stuff, but I will make an effort to tread lightly in those areas. "Fun" does not = "Easy" in this case, but it should be something that make playing the game more interesting. If players are getting confused because they have to keep flipping between your HRs and how its done in the book after the first or second time the rule comes up, you've probably gotten it wrong.

Too often, house rules primarily weaken the PCs. Things like limited spell lists, classes, etc. Anything that makes it harder for a character to survive or succeed is probably bad. At the very least, the rules should apply equally to monsters. Some examples I've fiddled with and seen posted over the years include:

• Forbidden core classes ("No clerics" etc.)
• Limited spell casting/spell failures
• Added skill lists/proficiencies

These sorts of things may add a certain amount of flavor, but they also can make it hard on the players to keep their PCs alive and/or succeed at their goals. Ask yourself, is it really more fun for the 1st level MU's player when his ONE spell for the day fizzles because he rolled a 1? Or when the 3hp PC's player comes up with a clever plan to avoid getting killed, but can't try it because "he doesn't have that skill"? 

I've been looking at a setting I made up a couple years ago (map and all) that was riddled with these kinds of house rules, and now I'm cringing. I suspect that if I want to run it, I should tear everything out but the map. I'm thinking it may be for the best. Even the setting fluff may need to be be subjected to Jeff Rient's Twenty Questions. 

Kelvernia

I may even make this into a series of blog posts as I sift through it and try to come up with something I think is worth playing/running. It is iffy whether the result even get used, but I'm interested in seeing what I can do with it.

(You can just HEAR the "Unfollow" buttons being clicked!)

RSA: Locate Object

Locate Object is one of those utility spells that -at first glance- sounds really handy, but seems fairly limited. Some creative spellcasting can make a big difference, though.

It's important to note that the magic-user/elf version of this spell is slightly different than the clerical one. It's a third level cleric spell and 2nd level for MU/Elves. Clerics have a fixed range (120'), which is better than the arcane types' at first, but their version gets boosted by caster level, eventually outpacing the cleric at 7th. The cleric gets a much longer duration, though. The general effects of the spell is identical for both. Most of the time I've seen the spell it's been clerical. After all, the cleric can just pray for the spell for the day rather than permanently tying up a slot in their spellbook with it. So when used, it's often the 120'/6 turns version.

There's nothing in the BX description about being blocked by materials like lead, as some versions of the game have used. So dungeon walls, etc. aren't going to impede it. The spell will tell only direction, not distance, and only if the object is in range. Outdoors, even converted to yards, that's not terribly far unless you already know you're close.

To locate something specific, you need to know exactly what it looks like. You can't just say "The Crown of Oogabooga!" unless you've seen it or at least a good likeness/detailed description. Common, nonspecific objects (the text uses "stairs" as an example) are searchable based on what the closest example is (again, if in range at all).

I think the "common item" facet is where the spell is most likely to be useful. Once a party has been through a stretch of dungeon and mapped it out, movement back through the area can be made faster than "exploration" speed. If, for example, a cleric casts the spell and moves steadily through the cleared area sweeping for "secret doors," he stands a good chance of finding any the party might have missed. If he "pings" one farther away in the dungeon, they know that there may areas they haven't seen yet.

The spell can't locate creatures, but -as the illustration above shows- it can get a fix on loot. "Gold." or "Coins" or "Gems" could save valuable searching time.

One caveat: The spell only locates one thing (or type) per casting. Meaning you can't start the spell with the crown example, then switch to secret doors, and then to gold coins. The duration's function is not to take inventory of the dungeon. It's to triangulate!

Let's say the caster was looking for secret doors. If they are right in front of one, small movements to either side will cause drastic swings in the "angle" of the ping. If the nearest secret door is nearer to maximum range, the shift in angle is subtler. While I wouldn't allow precision to seconds of arc, I wouldn't punish clever spell use coupled with careful map-making to help the party find something. If multiple castings were used over time, it might be possible to find hidden treasure vaults or the like.

As far as specific objects are concerned, I can imagine scenarios where the spell could be useful, but unless the DM deliberately sets things up for it (e.g. a portrait with a detailed image of the item) or the players plan well ahead on this tactic, I see that use being somewhat uncommon. Still, it could be fun if it happened!

A new angle

I'm thinking about taking the whole "Mutants & Mazes" thing with Kelvernia in a different direction. The difficulty I keep running into is the few, but significant differences between the Labyrinth Lord (B/X) and Mutant Future systems. I would say they are 75-80% compatible, but the parts that aren't keep giving me fits.

First off the characters progression system is different enough to make is kludgy to blend characters from each game. Things like saves, to hits, etc. are more random in MF, so it "feels" unbalancing next to the more uniform D&D style progression in LL. 

Next are the hit points. While this is one of the most obvious changes, it is actually the easiest to fix. You just give the MF character types LL-style HP (likewise the monsters that vary between systems). 

The other problem, related to hit points, is weapon damage. Specifically, the "artifact" weapons (e.g. lasers, etc.). These weapons do a crazy amount of damage compared to things like LL PCs and monsters. Consider a vibro sword. It does 1d8 (longsword damage) +16(!!!) per hit. It can maintain this ability for up to 240 rounds before its battery dies. This thing could kill an average dragon in two (non critical)hits. That's too powerful for the game I want to play, but I don't want to make such items unheard of, either.

So what to do?

Well, in my case, I'm taking inspiration from a slightly different source, but one with a pedigree that most can appreciate.

Kind of a no-brainer, once I thought about it.

Instead of blending the systems, I'm going to port over and convert and scale the tech I want into D&D/LL terms/stats. This means I might not include certain items and monsters, but even using the MF book, it's doubtful any campaign would cover them all. Also, the Mutant Future book will be there as an awesome reference for any future needs.

This will also require updating/converting some of the mutations' descriptions, but I'm hoping that will be relatively minor.

In a future post, I'll give some stats for the "fantasized" versions of the MF weapons and gear. 

Moldvay Musings XXII: Experience for Gold

Hello again! Assuming anyone is still out there. With the recent end of our latest Traveller campaign, I’ve stepped away from the gaming table for a spell. Some family matters have made the last several of months distracting, but I’ve recently begun a personal project that’s got me trying to get back into the old-school D&D mindset. Thus, I have thoughts to blog.

There was a recent discussion online regarding OSE (Old School Essentials), the excellent BX re-skinning by Necrotic Gnome. A DM new to the system (I think he had previously run 5e) was asking about alternative experience/leveling methods other than XP for GP.

Several options and house-rules were bandied about. But as I read through them, it reinforced my preference for the as-written method of experience being mostly from treasure found through adventuring. My impulse was to reply to the thread directly, but as I organized my ideas, I realized there was a bit more connected to the subject than I first thought. So I decided to fling them all onto the page here and get them out of my skull.

NB: This got… wordy, so here’s the TL;DR – A character’s XP level or progression is not the ONLY way they can become more powerful within a game-world. Using treasure earned through adventuring as the way to measure their progress as adventurers makes perfect sense in a game like classic D&D.

First of all, when I say I like the XP/GP model, I mean specifically for D&D, especially if there is a focus on dungeon crawling. Other games and systems use completely different methods of advancing characters, and they work great. I wouldn’t try to change Call of Cthulhu over to a level based XP system relying on treasure-hunting.

But why do I like XP/GP for D&D? Firstly, and this is the least of it, it’s the way the game was originally written. My overall game-mastering perspective is typically to change as little as possible in the rules as written unless I find a compelling reason. Also, as I have said before “You can’t ‘Fix’ D&D.” There is a point in the rules-tweaking cycle where one has to ask if it’s still the same game?

The next reason I like XP/GP is simply that it makes sense. If you are playing old-school D&D as I believe it was intended, then your game is a series of risk/reward exercises. When you break into an ancient tomb, most PCs would have profit at least partially on their minds. So if the gold is the reward, what’s the risk? The monsters, the traps, NPC rival parties and bandits. In risk management, the goal is to maximize reward and minimize risk. Making combat attractive by adding making it a bigger source of XP results in risk-seeking, not risk management.

Now XP/GP isn’t perfect. The question often arises of what does a mid-to-high level character DO with all their coin? Not all PCs are interested in building a stronghold, and if you don’t let them buy expensive magic items or similar, they can amass an alarming amount of cash. I’ve written in the past about PC wealth and ways to help them spend it. The truth is this all comes back to the attitude of the players (and the DM). Wealth can be a role-playing challenge. What would you do if you were your PC and came into that money? I know some folks would say “Not go out adventuring again, that’s for sure!” And if it fits your character’s story to retire at that point, who is to stop you?

I would counter that maybe that’s not being the best player that you could be in the sense that you are a member in a group of (hopefully) friends. Leaving the party high and dry as your experienced PC bails on adventuring to open a tavern might annoy the rest of the group.  I usually enjoin players to think of character concepts that include wanting to continue adventuring. Or needing to in order to reach a goal. What you might “settle” for in real life may be VERY different from what your PC would deem enough. We’re playing a game of imagination, we can figure something out that makes sense if we agree on things like basic genres and tropes. If, as a kid, you and your friends went out to play Cops & Robbers, the compact there was there were two main types of people in the game: police and criminals. If one kid then claims he’s Spider-Man and can just web-up all the robbers, that’s a very different game.

I should take a moment to stress that in my games, experience is earned by treasure earned through adventuring. If you invest in a shipping line or marry the old widow and you end up with a million gold pieces, you don’t suddenly shoot up in level. You don’t become a better adventurer by not adventuring. Which is another reason I mislike things like “Story XP.” If the story involves adventure and monsters and such, then building some treasure into that is simple enough. Even if it’s a reward the adventurers are paid by an NPC and not found inside a chest in some dungeon. If the “plot arc” resolves itself without your typical adventuring activities, then it shouldn’t result in your PC leveling up in their adventuring class. But if that’s the case, why wouldn’t everyone just turn full murder-hobo? Because, dear reader, another reason I like XP/GP just fine is that XP doesn’t have to be the only kind of in-game reward.

Did you ever wonder why there was no experience award for magic items in BX and other older editions? Likewise, they have no listed market prices. I believe it’s because magic items are intended as their own rewards. That magic armor doesn’t give you experience points. It gives you a freaking suit of magic armor! Actually, it technically does give you XP by increasing the chances of your survival. There aren’t set prices because magic items are, well, magical. I am not saying that I make it impossible for my players’ PCs to sell or buy magic, but it’s very case by case. Magic items do reward the characters, just not with XP.

Likewise for story goals that don’t include “normal” adventures to accomplish. There should be some reward, but it might not be XP. As I said before, if you thwart the Ice King and save Princess Bubblegum and then she gives you and your party 100K gold pieces, that’s earned by adventuring and 100% grants XP. But what if she names you all Heroes of the Realm and knights you? There’s no cash, and no XP, but that is definitely a reward. Everyone in the kingdom respects you and people seek you out for more quests and hero-work. You probably attract the notice of the court and access to all sorts of rumors and favors. You aren’t suddenly name-level, but your fortunes have definitely improved.

"Personal Goals" XP is no different. You’re finally getting the chance to avenge your brother’s death? Awesome! Let’s have a great scene where you get to confront the guy and have it out with nine-fingered man. When you win, maybe there’s loot, maybe not. Maybe achieving the goal contains an in-game reward like with the princess. Perhaps your vengeance clears the family name, and now you can restore your title? To me, personal character goals are meant primarily as RP opportunities and fodder for the DM to tailor the adventures to the player's interests, Not an XP source.

If achieving that kind of goal doesn’t mean anything to the player because “it’s just RP” then maybe he needs better goals, or maybe these types of RP goals aren’t for him. Next time maybe he can say “My lifelong goal is to kill a dragon and take its hoard!” This is why I often have powerful NPC lords and ladies who aren’t necessarily name-level adventurers. They’re influence isn’t acquired by how many hit points they have. In less civilized places, “tougher” nobles (with levels) may be more common, though.

Remember, these rules aren’t intended to cover everything, so you need to decide how you want to handle the things that aren’t spelled out. Characters can do an awful lot in the game without worrying about what level they are, especially in a game as flexible and rules-light as BX. So before worrying too much about changing things like XP for GP, look a little deeper and ask how it can work for your games instead of how it can’t.

RMA: Cobra, Spitting

I'm usually hesitant to throw a lot of monsters with "Save or Die" attacks at a party until they are higher level. Most such creatures are fairly big and/or tough, so are generally better for mid-level or more. This little fella, though –despite its modest stats– is doubly nasty.

Spitting Cobra 
(stats are from LL, but are the same as Moldvay)

No. Enc.: 1d6 (1d6)
Alignment: Neutral
Movement: 90' (30')
Armor Class: 7
Hit Dice: 1
Attacks: 1 (bite or spit)
Damage: 1d3, poison
Save: F1
Morale: 7


Let's break it down, shall we? This sucker isn't magical. It isn't gigantic. It's a snake. What's more, this thing really exists, pretty much as depicted in the stats. If you are using Moldvay Basic, it's a level one wandering monster. It also pops up in Cook's jungle wilderness encounters. Not a LOT, mind you, but it's there. One good smack is probably going to kill it, and its AC is no great shakes either. It also has a low morale, so it's as likely to flee as to fight. So what's the big deal?

Well, there are two tidbits to keep in mind. One, this crazy reptile can bite you with "Save or Die" neurotoxin that kills in 1d10 turns. That's less than an hour on average, and less than two hours max. Secondly, it can also spray this venom with remarkable accuracy into your face up to 6' away. A hit means it's struck the eyes and you must make a save or be permanently blinded! Of course Cure Blindness will fix things, but that's a 3rd level spell, so you'll be needing a 5th level cleric for that. So the low-level party that stumbled upon a nest with 1d6 of these poison ropes may well have a long slog back to civilization with one (or more) party members effectively incapacitated (if not dead).