A Subdued Reaction

 

As I mentioned in the previous post, dragon subdual rules are an interesting little nugget buried amid the monster listings which rarely comes up in my games, but after talking about dragons in general, I felt it deserved a closer look.

Essentially, PCs can choose to beat a dragon up instead of killing it. Damaging spells and ranged weapons cannot be used to subdue -though I might allow thrown rocks, but not sling stones or bullets. Rather, blunt weapons like clubs or maces are used. A sword can be turned to hit with the “flat of the blade” for similar results. The battered creature, being intelligent enough to understand that the party could have killed it, but they chose not to. Therefore, to save its skin, the dragon surrenders.

The “subdued” beast doesn’t suddenly feel affection for the PCs. It is a prisoner. It will try to escape or kill its captors if it sees a reasonable chance. By the book, such a creature cannot be kept for any length of time and must be sold off as soon as reasonably possible. Players could see tens of thousands of gold for a live, subdued dragon sale (up to1k/hp). The AD&D (1st edition) rules in the Monster Manual for subduing dragons and how subdual damage works are far more complex (big surprise!) but follow the same general concepts.

So to start with, why have these rules at all? I can’t speak with authority on what the gang in Lake Geneva were thinking, but I’m guessing that some player wanted to try and capture a dragon for one reason or another and a set of rules was worked up to cover the situation. It would seem the DM that came up with this ruling wasn’t wild about a pet dragon sticking with the party, so he stipulated the selling of the creature was necessary. Given that you pretty much have to get up close and in melee with the beast to subdue it, and that your non-lethal damage does NOT reduce how many points of damage their breath weapon does, it seems a pretty fair level of difficulty for the players to pull it off.

So if you can’t keep Ol’ Scaly to ride around like you’re on Pern, and you would have gotten the hoard anyway if you’d just killed it, why go to the trouble? I can think of three possible reasons:

1) The dragon knows something or can do something for the PCs that they don’t know/can’t do themselves.

2) The dragon serves a role in the larger world and killing it might cause downstream effects the PCs wish to avoid, but they still want the loot or to discourage the dragon from doing something. Maybe it was raiding a nearby town’s livestock, but the dragon’s presence keeps other monsters from overrunning the region. In that case, selling it off might not work, but I imagine releasing the creature once the PCs’ goals are met could be a viable option.

3) Number-crunching PCs. Defeating your average, BTB dragon has about 40hp and is worth about 1700-1800xp. An average hoard has a value of 50K. Referees may or may not award full XP for defeating a foe without killing it (I do) or for the gold earned by selling such a beast (again, I would) but selling the subdued dragon turns approximately 50,000gp (and XP) into up to 90,000! Definitely worth considering.

It’s probably fair to say that not every campaign has an economy that supports many “FS: Subdued Dragon. 1000gp/hp OBO” ads, but it IS something that is assumed to exist in your classic BX world, at least potentially. PCs might not be able to turn dragon resale into a sustainable business, but the idea that there’s one rich person out there that has a use for such a thing is not unheard of. Maybe a chaotic wizard has built his tower and wants to stick the dragon down in the dungeon below it as a guardian monster. He’ll send prisoners down for snacks and let it hoard some loot from any intruders it kills. A recently beat up and robbed dragon might actually be cool with an arrangement like that (at least for a time).

For myself, I’m not 100% on-board with the “must be sold” part of the language. While I wouldn’t make a subdued dragon into a “loyal beast” for the party, like a horse or some such (at least not without some powerful magic), I could see a situation where the players might make a deal with the dragon in exchange for letting it go later. Or where the buyer might have the cash, but it turns out he wants the dragon for alchemical ingredients and plans on killing it and cutting it up for parts. Some PCs might balk at such treatment of an intelligent being and want to find another solution. The dragon might be well-motivated to make such a deal to avoid the chopping block, or see this is an excuse to try and break free. There are many interesting situations to be created from such a scenario beyond a payday for the characters.

The PCs might not even be the ones with the dragon! Imagine them running into an NPC party on the road that’s hauling a bunch of dragon treasure back to town with a blue dragon in a cage. What if the NPC party is cool with the dragon being vivisected by some crazy mage as long as they get paid. What if the dragon could speak and begs the PCs for help (Remember Blues are neutral, not chaotic, in BX)? Now THAT could be a really interesting encounter!

I’ve rambled on a fair bit here, so I’ll wrap up. Is the inclusion of subdual rules sort of… weird? Maybe. But to me, it’s a weirdness very consistent with the Swords & Sorcery aspect of BX and fits really well into the assumed nature of BX settings. It’s also a rule that simply is not likely to come up terribly often. Not unless dragons are way more common in your games than mine. Not only do the PCs need to encounter a dragon either as part of a dungeon, randomly, or seeking one out on purpose; then they’d need to decide to forgo most spells and ranged attacks, then they’d need to defeat it with nonlethal damage, and THEN they need to get it someplace with a buyer to sell it to. If the party doesn’t have a buyer lined up ahead of time, what do you do with the dragon while you are asking around town? Granted, the party could realize quite a windfall from this, both in wealth and XP, so be prepared for the fallout from that. Most parties that could pull this off are probably far enough from low levels that it won’t disrupt things TOO much for each of them to gain 15-20K xp and similar amounts of treasure. Frankly, the boost to their reputations might be a bigger deal depending on how the society in your game views such things.

It’s a complicated enough endeavor that I wouldn’t spend a lot of time or energy worrying about the rules being balanced or more detailed or not. Chances are if your players are about to try subduing a dragon, you’ll have some heads up to review the rules and make your choices. For myself, I think the rules as-is are a pretty good springboard for this kind of situation to get introduced into a campaign. If dragons are at all a big deal in your setting, subduing a dragon and the aftermath of it could easily give you fodder for the next several sessions. 

Dragons in a BX World

The game is called Dungeons and DRAGONS, after all.

Fantasy games and fiction have sort of placed the dragon as the quintessential boss monster. It’s the big fight with the big payoff. Examples abound with Smaug’s hoard, Fafnir in Norse Mythology, countless adventure modules, multiple video games, and so forth.

Dragons also have a reputation for puissance. They are strong, they are tough, they breath death upon their enemies, and they can fly. Some are even spell-casters. Scary stuff, yeah?

So why aren’t dragons tougher in BX?

The biggest, baddest, actual dragon* is the Gold. They have the most HD, best AC, do the most damage, and can always speak and cast spells. They are also the only Lawful dragon, and therefore less likely to be hostile (though it’s certainly still possible one might attack a party).

The truth is, dragons are not the scariest thing out there in a BX setting. If I were a PC, I’d rather face a dragon than several standard monsters that are scarier IMO. Monsters such as: Salamanders (frost and fire), Bronze Golems, some Hydras, Purple Worms, and most of the things that can petrify you or drain levels. So the question becomes why do these creatures have such a reputation? Sure they are formidable, but they are actually not as lethal as most people seem to think.

I think that it boils down to a few things. First is the popular perception developed literally over centuries of stories and legends. Dragons occupy a particular, almost Jungian, place in our cultural psyche. For people who are likely to read this blog, this is even more so, because we are more likely to have read or seen more fantasy fiction and games that reinforce the trope.

The second is a little more to do with the way the game itself is designed. By the book in BX, you can encounter a dragon randomly in most wilderness hexes, albeit not a high chance. Even though they are included in the Basic rules, that has more to do with them being a possible “dungeon encounter,” as that is Moldvay’s focus (as opposed to wilderness in Cook). This means it’s not that unusual for characters to encounter a dragon at relatively low levels (at least when rolling randomly), and for most inexperienced PCs, if it comes to a fight, it won’t likely go well for them. Thus dragons gain an in-world reputation for lethality. They certainly can burninate the peasants’ thatched roof cottages with little trouble.

 

Which brings me to the breath weapon. Doing your current HP in damage where a Save only halves it? That’s a brutal opening move. Even if the damage goes down as they get hurt, they have that option 3x day, so even a smaller dragon, say an average 6HD white, might dole out 50-60 points of damage to multiple foes over a few rounds. That will wipe out most name level PCs, unless they make their saves (plural) and/or have magical protection (Resist Cold).

Third is intelligence. Dragons are played as smart, cunning predators that can live for centuries. Like intelligent undead (i.e. vampires), they have the time to plan their defenses well. Dragons are rarely without a plan or some sort of defenses in their lair. They will use smart tactics, or even magic, against their foes. This can make them far scarier than a dumb beast with similar stats.

Loot is a big factor in their reputations as well. While it does not directly affect their lethality, dragons’ Treasure Type H is a sweet haul, as it should be. There are other, tougher, creatures out there that have worse loot, so I think the dragon hits the “sweet spot” of maximum reward for a lot, but not impossible amount, of effort. As such, characters are motivated to seek the creatures out and many of them fail.

So what does all this mean for the dragon’s role in a BX setting? Well, this can vary a lot depending on the kind of world you are running, but I see them as sort of like a dying race. They are ancient, but few in number. They are solitary, predatory, and territorial. They crave wealth but rarely spend it. Their thinking is not like a human beings. Their perspective is one of centuries, not years. They are savage in the sense that they are not part of a “civilization.” But they are intelligent and can plan. They can (often) speak and so will sometimes choose to converse instead of fight. While there are things out there bigger and badder than dragons, there is almost no person or creature out there that would face a dragon lightly.

Dragons are generally smart enough to steer clear of heavy populations. It knows it will eventually attract attention. Either because the easiest hunting in populated areas is the livestock, or rumors of its treasure will spread, Any people who do live near a dragon are probably fairly isolated as well. They may see it somewhere between a predator, like a lion or shark, and a local nature spirit, like a river god. It may have been there forever, but rarely involved itself with people. There have been enough encounters to have given it a dangerous reputation, though.

I believe, and this really is just my opinion, that the fact that dragons aren’t actually so much “on paper” speaks to the massive opportunities they present in a campaign. They occupy such an interesting, almost unique, niche in the world that DMs can find a lot of interesting fodder for their games there. Most of the fun happens outside the combat rounds anyway. Even if the PCs just fight and kill the creature, that hoard might lead to a scramble to claim the wealth. Maybe five armies won’t show up for a normal sized hoard, but local bandits, a corrupt Bürgermeister? Who knows? 

In other editions of the game, dragons can be far, FAR more dangerous, even godlike in their powers. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think it's sort of fun that the dragons here are more integrated into the world. They're rare, but known. I like to imagine that it's sort of like certain wildlife in the real world. To someone that lives near the Florida Everglades, seeing a large gator is hardly unheard of, but it's still noteworthy. And if someone from Ohio comes to visit, they'll probably be more amazed when that gator crawls across the grass than the locals, but it's not like they didn't know alligators existed!

 *I’ve written before about “dragon-kin” like sea dragons and dragon turtles. For this post’s purposes, I’m sticking to the ones on page B26: White, Black, Green, Blue, Red, and Gold.

 

PS: While this isn’t directly related to this rant, I should mention that dragons in BX (and some other editions) can be subdued. This is where the dragon is reduced to zero hit points “non-lethally” and surrenders. I think this deserves its own post, as it is a really wild rule, but the fact that you can theoretically capture a dragon is an interesting facet of their role in BX worlds.

How Weird are Monsters?

Last night's game (I'm playing, not running) had an encounter that got me thinking. Forgive a brief campaign story for context.

The game is a Savage Worlds conversion of the Rules Cyclopedia. We are playing high-expert level (name level+) PCs. I'm a crotchety mystic (monk). An NPC ally is clearing a wilderness hex for his keep and we're helping out. The MU plans to build her tower nearby and the Elf is eyeing an ancient wood as his realm. At a nearby lake, the cleric has discovered some magic-infused clay under the water that can make clay golems. The trouble? A mysterious swirl (small whirlpool) in the water appears at different spots at different times. We observed a shepherd from a local population suddenly break off from his friends and flounder out into the water only to disappear beneath the surface. The party has decided that whatever it is must be destroyed. I'm personally convinced it's Nixies and the elf might not want to go murdering fellow fae, especially if he wants to be their local lord. Also, if I'm right, the shepherd is not dead. Currently, I'm outvoted.

OK, end of story.

I've talked a lot here not only about various D&D monsters, but also about the kind of world they might live in. This got me wondering about the general perception of monsters and magical beasts in a D&D setting. Not by the players, but in-game for the characters.

Obviously there can be a wide spectrum on this. There can be worlds where it's perfectly normal to have ogres drinking in a tavern. Other settings might not even have demihuman PCs. All of this is perfectly valid.

 (art by dangercook on DeviantArt)

The question is; how weird is it to run into true "monsters" in your world? At what point does that creature stop being just some critter or fella going about his business and become, well, monstrous? To be sure, there are all sorts of dangerous things in your typical fantasy setting, including people. Combat is almost certainly going to happen at some point, but not necessarily.

The party in my earlier story might well be justified in going straight to combat-mode in some settings, whereas in another world such actions could even be criminal. It's up to the DM and the players to work out which kind of a world they're playing in, so everyone is on the same page.

Moldvay Musings XV: I Do Declare!

In an earlier post, I touched on situations that require "pre-declaring" actions in BX. That is to say, before initiative is rolled. This is an interesting artifact of older D&D, as I do not think it is used much in "modern" RPGs. Honestly, we've hardly used it ourselves in my group and I don't even recall using it back in the day. Maybe as my beard grays my gray matter is getting a bit tired.

There are a couple of reasons I think this idea has fallen out of favor. For one, it feels a bit more like a legacy mechanic from D&D's wargame roots than something that was consciously added to the early game; kind of like the whole idea of phases to one's actions (Melee, Ranged, etc.). Newer editions by contrast simply tell the player how much of which kinds of actions they can complete on their turn.

The second reason is that pre-declaring can feel like it is making it harder for players to react tactically in an encounter. If I already declared I was casting Bless, then does that mean I can't switch to Cure Light Wounds when I see our fighter get wounded?

These are valid concerns and they do affect the nature of game play, but before dismissing them out of hand, let's look at some of the benefits of this rule.

1. What's good for the goose. Enemy/NPC/Monster spell casters should need to declare as well. Perhaps as a DM you don't want to tell the party exactly which spell is being flung at them, but the PCs should at least be able to see that the pesky goblin shaman is starting to chant and wave his arms around. This lets the characters A) know who the enemy spell casters are, and B) plan accordingly.
2. Spell interruption as a tactic. It's true that would royally suck as a low level magic user if your only spell of the day got fizzled because some kobold scored one lousy point of damage from a sling stone. Of course, as mentioned in the first point, that means the PCs can do the same thing to the bad guys (assuming the initiative die is behaving). This can give weaker PCs the opportunity to have a greater effect on the combat, especially if they have a good DEX or other initiative bonuses (like halflings). Also, it gives the aforementioned MU that's tapped out on spells something to do: Just chuck a dagger at any enemy casters and Presto! Old School Counterspell! This also gives players a chance to do something about that incoming Fireball before they're stuck saving for half damage. 
3. Making magic more than artillery. If your spell casters are vulnerable in this way, it makes the successful use of any spell more useful. When you look at the spell lists in BX, not that many spells are really designed for use in the middle of the fight. Even with a very generous interpretation of what constitutes a "combat" spell (eg healing magic, protection spells, etc.), it only works out to approximately 50%. If a magic-user or cleric's spells aren't as "useful" in a fight, then it gives the players (and the DM) the opportunity to explore some of the other cool magical stuff these characters can do. (For ideas, might I recommend perusing the series of Random Spell Assessments on this very blog!). This also plays into what I've described as a more BX feel to magic, with a more distinctive "flavor" to magic and spell casting.

Personally, I could see going either way with this rule (ignoring or implementing). On the one hand, I know that players generally are loathe to be limited by arbitrary mechanics, but on the other, I do think that this could bring an interesting wrinkle to the game. Some house rules I might consider if I were to try it could include things like: 

• An ability check (WIS for clerics, INT for MU/Elves) to retain the failed spell. ie it fails, but you don't forget the spell for the day.
• Letting PCs or monsters shield their side's spell caster to grant them an AC/cover bonus until the spell goes off.

RMA: Lycanthropes (part 4, Weretigers)

I've talked about tigers before on this blog. It's pretty obvious that they are intimidating creatures all on their own. Weretigers add a layer of fun with the lycanthropic powers.

Weretiger (from Moldvay):

AC: 3 (9 as human)
HD: 5*
Move: 150' (50')
Att: 3 (2 claws/bite)
Dmg: 1d6/1d6/2d6
No. App: 1d4 (1d4)
Save: F5
Morale: 9
AL: N

So we can see that the weres are getting progressively tougher in terms of raw combat power; better AC more hit points, 3 attacks now, doing up to 24 points of damage per round. All very impressive. The thing that the weretiger brings to the table is stealth. They surprise on a 1-4 (like normal tigers) and are described as "quiet trackers." This fits with normal tigers behavior in the real world. They are ambushers, moving with alarming speed and savagery when they want to.

Warning. There is some blood in this video.

Couple this with the weretiger summoning 1-2 more great cats to its aid (not necessarily tigers), and a party can be in for a rough time. Weretigers are also the first lycanthrope with enough hit dice to be immune to a Sleep spell, so the easy 1st level spell drop is no longer an option.

Weretigers, like wereboars, are Neutral. They are described as "very curious but becoming dangerous when threatened." This implies they aren't necessarily out to cause trouble. Which is an interesting difference from the classic "killer werewolf" trope in fiction. It may just be me, but this gives an impression of lycanthropes sometimes just going about their lives and being a regular part of a BX world as opposed to the tormented, evil, or cursed individuals wreaking havoc.

and sexier!

Weretigers also move things out of the western/european model into the "exotic east." Despite the fact that weretigers do not appear on the jungle encounter tables, one would expect to see them (or their mundane counterparts) in a tropical or eastern style locale as opposed to a "medieval fantasy" type village.

RMA: Giant Toad

Ribbit!

While not exactly rare, giant toads aren't particularly common either (at least in my games). It only shows up randomly on the wilderness tables and there only at rivers. I think this is because it is a relatively low level monster that doesn't make its appearance until the Expert rules. The river table appearance is somewhat limiting when one considers that real-life toads are often found well away from large bodies of water. Nevertheless, Mr. Toad is here and we shall investigate him before he drives off.

Toad, Giant (from Cook)

AC: 7

HD: 2+2

MV: 90' (30')

ATT: 1

DMG: 1d4+1

# APP: 1d4 (1d4)

SAVE: F1

MORALE: 6

TT: Nil

AL: N

GTs are described as 150-250 pounds ("the size of a very large dog") and capable of changing the skin color. This chameleon effect increases their surprise chance slightly (1-3). Their hit dice and AC are no great shakes and they are hardly the bravest creatures when it comes to morale. Not to mention no real loot to speak of.

The two things that make the giant toad interesting are its ranged tongue attack (15') and the chance of swallowing a target whole. Only "small" (the text implies dwarf-sized or smaller) targets can be swallowed, and only then on a natural 20 attack roll. A swallowed target takes 1d6 damage per round while in the amphibian's gullet.

I think the reason this didn't get included in Moldvay was A) space limitations and/or B) the creature's wilderness aspect. It is after all just a big animal. The Expert rules opened up the wider (and wilder) world beyond the dungeon to the players & DM, so it seems -aheh- natural that some less powerful yet monstrous wildlife was introduced. 

As far as running an adventure with these creatures, I would happily place a few near a river or swamp and have them squat silently like a stone as the party travel through. Then THWIP! A sudden lashing out of a tongue at the halfling or dwarf PC to drag them in for a bite and if lucky, GULP! The emphasis (for me) would be to underscore the fantastic elements of a BX world rather than as a major encounter or challenge.

The BX setting (part 3)

OK, I am wrapping this up. Seriously!

To finish up my musings about settings for a setting representative of the Basic/Expert game, I wanted to touch on just a few more topics: Resources, Risks, and Rewards.

Resources

For me, and many grumpy old-schoolers, managing your resources is no small part of classic D&D play. Heck, I even created products specifically to make it easier to incorporate into tabletop play. Rules like encumbrance, searching times, movement rates, and light source duration all lead to some real cost/benefit decisions being made: Do we take the time to search every room? How many torches did you bring? Do we hire someone to carry our extra stuff?

Now all these sound more game mechanics-related than setting, but bear with me. A BX world is a place where not only do decisions like those above matter, they matter because it's a world where dungeon crawls are a relatively common thing. Ancient labyrinthine ruins, extensive subterranean caves, mysterious catacombs, they practically flourish in a BX world. Of course this is true for many other versions of D&D, too. The point is the characters live in a world where someone, at some point, decided that it was a good idea to carve out an underground lair that looked like this.

There are weird, even zany places in a BX world. Maybe they are ancient ruins or a mad wizard's tower, but those that decide to brave those places prepare for mapping long corridors, regular booby traps, hidden passages, and foul monsters lurking around corners. Which brings us to...

Risks

Whether it's claw, sword, or spell, PCs face most of their risks in combat. The BX world is one where monsters are real and your character is going to have to fight for his life at some point, if not many times. A BX world allows for the possibility of a dragon flying over your head as you travel the King's Road or for a hill giant to be walking down a city street! This is a fantasy world. 

That being said, most of these creatures are monsters, not NPC or PC "playable" races (BtB at least). But "monster' does not always equal "enemy." A decent reaction roll and the appropriate language slot can result in parley or even friendly communication. 

Combat can be de-emphasized and other aspects of play can be focussed upon, but by default at least the threat of violence is deeply ingrained into a D&D setting. What can give this a more "BX feel?" Well, BX is a fairly lethal flavor of D&D. PCs tend to be fragile with their lower hit dice and -by the book- 0 hit points being dead. Even mid to high level PCs can be killed fairly easily, and morale rolls can lead to the better part of valor being exercised by monster and hireling alike. Compare that to some of the later versions of the game and you can easily picture a world where life can be a bit cheap and those that live by the sword are likely to pick their battles carefully as well as try to squeeze every advantage out of a situation. And once the battle is over, they will be sure to get as much of the spoils as possible to offset the risks.

Rewards

XP for GP. That brief statement tells me this is a world where its inhabitants gain influence and become more competent by getting as much as they can for as little risk as possible. It's not the slaying of the monster, it's the treasure it was guarding. A BX world is a place where foul humanoids have piles of loot stolen from victims or looted from old castles they now infest. Half-rotted coin pouches lie among the bones in the lairs of terrifying trolls and gigantic spiders. And that axe of antique design wielded by the bugbear chieftain? It has a +2 enchantment on it. 

This is a world of coin-filled coffers and magic swords. Of scrolls containing mystic spells or treasure maps. Of idols with a single ruby eye the size of a golf ball. Of dragon hoards, staves of power and magical rings. The DM may not wish to flood his world with  magic items but in a BX world, such things exist and even leaving it to the random treasure charts the PCs will encounter at least some of them. 

Assuming the characters live long enough, it's also a world where lowly murder-hobos and would-be heroes might accrue enough wealth, fame, and connections to become lords (and ladies) of the land themselves. It's not a place where everything is 100% fixed sociopolitically. Maybe there are wars, or dynastic struggles, or rebellions and invasions. Maybe there are young nations that are still growing. The point is even if your PC started as a turnip farmer, he could one day be a knight in a keep with a fiefdom of his own to rule.

Wrapping Up

What does all this mean? Have I answered the question? Well, no. probably not. But I don't think that it's a question that can be answered definitively. What I do think I've accomplished is to work through some concepts of what I think a setting should or shouldn't have to be a good fit for Moldvay/Cook. 

And maybe it's done a bit that for you, too.

The BX setting (part 2)

Races

Soldiering on, one of the ways that a BX setting is not like a typical swords & sorcery world is the presence of "non-monstrous" demihumans.

These guys

S&S tends to be fairly human-centric. With nonhumans relegated to the monstrous or degenerate. While it's not fair to say that classic D&D's default is somehow less fantasy-laden than more modern versions, I think that's its style of fantasy ends to be more of the 'grounded reality with a fantastical layer,' as opposed to 'full-on mix of fantastical elements where the "real" world is almost gone from view.' There is a spectrum here to be sure, and any system has representative settings from various points along the line. But to me BX leans to a pseudo-medieval with magical elements world, and that includes things like elves and such. That being said, the idea of level limits and race-as-class could indicate a world where demihumans that follow the path of the PCs are outliers among their kind and outsiders among the humans. But that's just one interpretation.

Magic

Typical BX settings also stray from many swords & sorcery tropes with magic being far more common and 'stable.' Predictable effects and organization of set spells is a mainstay of nearly all flavors of D&D, as opposed to things like spells using blood-soaked rituals and spells only being found in long-lost tomes. Also wizards in those worlds are typically quite rare and often in league with multiple foul demons or similar.

BX is hardly unique in D&D with settings that include things like player character spellcasters, magic schools, court wizards, as well as town clerics that can cast healing magics up to -and including- raising the dead. This aspect puts it more in line with 'high fantasy' settings. Where BX varies from most other editions is while BX magic isn't terribly rare as a rule, it is relatively limited. 

BX magic-users get 72 standard spells, 6 levels at 12 spells each. They don't even see a 6th level spell slot until after name level (11th). Elves don't even get a 6th level spell by the book, being capped at 10th. Compare that to 1st edition AD&D, with 194 spells spread out (unevenly) over NINE spell levels. Clerics fare similarly, with BX clerics getting 34 spells over 5 levels  vs. AD&D's 76 over 7. That doesn't even take into account the druid and illusionist lists. Not to mention starting clerics aren't even spellcasters yet!

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying AD&D (or similar) is 'broken' by too many spells, but I do think it changes the tone of the game somewhat. It's still definitely Dungeons & Dragons, but I do feel that BX's more streamlined list does contribute to part of the game's feel, and -by extension- to the feel of a BX world.

(to be continued in Part 3)

The BX setting (part 1)

[Edit: this started to ramble a bit, so I decided to cut myself off and save the rest for a later post.]

While there is certainly no shortage of settings for fantasy RPGs, it seems that some are better suited to certain games than others. I’m not interested in dissecting every published setting out there. Rather, I’ve found myself mulling over those aspects of some fantasy worlds (whether it’s a game setting or a piece of fiction) that seems -merely in my own personal opinion and experience- to embody some facet or facets which fit a Basic/Expert D&D game.


 To begin with, I find BX and OD&D lend themselves a little more towards "swords & sorcery" and little less to "high fantasy." I'm not sure I have hard and fast definitions for either of those terms, but let's see if we can't parse that a little bit.


 Wikipedia defines the swords & sorcery genre as:

"... a subgenre of fantasy generally characterized by sword-wielding heroes engaged in exciting and violent conflicts. An element of romance is often present, as is an element of magic and the supernatural. Unlike works of high fantasy, the tales, though dramatic, focus mainly on personal battles rather than world-endangering matters. Sword and sorcery commonly overlaps with heroic fantasy."

And high fantasy as:

"High fantasy is defined as fantasy set in an alternative, fictional ("secondary") world, rather than 'the real', or 'primary' world. The secondary world is usually internally consistent, but its rules differ from those of the primary world."

The theme of good vs. evil features heavily in such stories as well. Whereas S&S tends to have more personal battles. But I don't think of Moldvay/Cook or Labyrinth Lord quite as "Swords & Sorcery" games. They are after all, still Dungeons & Dragons; and while the roots of D&D may be more John Carter than Aragorn, it's not quite pure Conan to me either. The truth of it (if there is one) seems to lie somewhere in between. Which brings me to alignment.

3 v. 9

Classic D&D uses the three-point alignment spectrum as opposed to the nine of AD&D. There is no 'Good' or 'Evil'. Just law, chaos and neutrality. I have heard the opinion that this is a simplification for a "basic" game, but I don't find that to be the case. Rather the opposite really. I've rambled about this in the past, so I won't rehash it here. But I do feel that keeping the three point system and what it entails firmly in mind influences the nature of the setting. One need look no further than the introductory text of the seminal B2: Keep on the Borderlands for an indication of how Gary envisioned Chaos in the world:

"The Realm of mankind is narrow and constricted. Always the forces of Chaos press upon its borders, seeking to enslave its populace, rape its riches, and steal its treasures. If it were not for a stout few, many in the Realm would indeed fall prey to the evil which surrounds them."

One could read this as a classic "good vs. evil" set up, and -to be fair- that's perfectly valid. But reading the wording closely, I notice two things: Firstly, it's the "Realm of mankind." A human nation. This realm is "Narrow and constricted," seeming to imply that civilization has a limited reach. Much of the world is wild and quite possibly chaotic.

Second, while the text does talk about "evil" preying upon the populace, the fact that this evil seems to be interested in personal gain (slaves, riches, etc.) and not necessarily covering the world in darkness makes this less about EVIL and more about Us vs. Them. Sure, the "them" in this case are primarily humanoid monsters, as opposed to just some other country of people, but this IS a fantasy game after all.

It makes sense to me that the majority of people you'd meet would fall under Neutrality in this model. Most people have a natural desire to just get along and live their life. They recognize the utility of law & order, but they also don't want to jettison their desire for a level of personal freedom. Benign self-interest is the rule of the day. I'm reminded of a quote from The Hobbit about the dwarves when Bilbo goes through the hidden door.

“Dwarves are not heroes, but a calculating folk with a great idea of the value of money; some are tricky and treacherous and pretty bad lots; some are not but are decent enough people like Thorin and Company, if you don't expect too much.”

That last part pretty much sums up my idea of neutrality. So in a world where that's where most people fit, it's pretty reasonable to expect their motivations to be more personal and self-interested. As opposed to altruistic world-saving. It also follows that players are more likely to accept the hooks that benefit their characters directly, as well as trusting NPCs who seem motivated by self-interest as well. Adventurers tend to be a greedy bunch, as a rule. Especially in a game where advancement is largely achieved through the finding and gaining of wealth. At least, I've also found that a better fit in my BX games.

The Races of Bryll

HUMANS - Are far and away the most numerous of peoples. With the exception of the dwarfs, humans rule all of the "civilized" nations of Bryll. Their appearances vary with region, but during the height of the Empire's rule, there was a great deal of intermixing between groups as the armies and merchants moved throughout the land. In general southerners are darker in coloration; olive-brown skin and darker hair and eyes being most common. To the North, humans tend to be fairer.

ORCS - The empire has long kept orcs as a soldier slave race (shock troops). The orcs in the former provinces are now free, but often treated as 2nd class citizens. There are also savage tribal orcs in the Wyldelands.

HALFLINGS - Are few in number. Nearly all of them live in a small communities within Hin Swamp: the bayou-like region of the southwestern coastline.

DWARFS - (The Kingdom of Koldarth) Make their homes in ancient halls carved inside the Wyrmspine mountains. Mining and smithing are the hallmarks of dwarven prosperity. The dwarf king is elected by the heads of the major clans when the old monarch dies. The chosen candidate becomes not only the secular ruler of the dwarfs, but their high priest as well.

GNOMES - are a subjugated race within the dwarf kingdom. Gnomes are considered tied to their keeper clan, similar to a land-bound serf. Some do manage to get away and leave the dwarf lands for freedom in the wider world. Such gnomes are nearly always looked down upon by any dwarfs that encounter them. Rare indeed is a free gnome that would risk returning to dwarf lands.

ELVES - There are two known populations of elves. The first are a woodland people that live in the taigas of the northeast, they live an arboreal, reclusive life there. The second are a seafaring, piratical breed. They crew wicked corsair ships and attack merchant vessels, fishermen, and coastal settlements. No one knows where they make port, but they are most frequently spotted in southern waters.

The Lands of Bryll

Check out Herr Altbauer's site if you want to commission an AMAZING map like this!

When working up the ideas for the physical setting, I let my imagination run a little loose. Instead of trying for "realistic" pseudo-historical names and places, I tried to take the more evocative route and give names that had an almost fairy-tale feel to them. I haven't written more than a few lines about each of the major locations. The idea is to fill those in as the campaign rolls forward. Here are a few examples:

The Lin Magocracy: Less of a nation, and more of a scattering of wizards' towers across a gloomy land. They say the region is crisscrossed with powerful ley lines, making it idea for arcane study. It is also said to be infested with enchanted beasts and monsters.

The Splintered Princes: After the Havron Empire began to break apart, petty lords began to fight for territory. The region is still volatile to this day; with little wars breaking out all the time. The only thing that unites the lordlings is their resistance to the return of imperial rule.

Dragonsreef: Shoals, treacherous currents, and jagged reefs make this stretch of coastline perilous to ships and even smaller craft. Few sail this way, excepting bold explorers or outlaws.

There is a lot of blank space here, literally and figuratively. I don't want a setting where every village and stream is named and detailed. We'll get to that as we go.

Changing Gears

The DCC game sort of fizzled, which is too bad because there are many things I like about the system. Spotty attendance coupled with my less than expert grasp of the new rule set were the main culprits.

Lately we've been playing Lady Blackbird. It's a story-based game a friend is running (I'm a shapeshifting goblin). It's a neat change of pace, but I think we are nearing the wind-down point with the system. This naturally turns my thoughts to what I might to run if I take a seat in the GM's chair again.

So –big surprise– I'm thinking about BX/LL. More specifically, I'm thinking about a "name level" campaign, where the PCs start at or near the 9th level range, where all the "endgame" stuff starts to happen.

This is a realm of the game that I rarely get to play with, mostly because I've always pushed for the extended campaign where PCs earn those levels all the way from 1st. Sadly, nowadays that's a level of time commitment that most players (and GMs) our age simply find difficult to manage.

One of the reasons I like the idea of the long slog up the XP ladder (besides being a grumpy SOB of a GM) is the way that all those sessions create a bond between the PC and the larger campaign world. It's hardly a new idea, I know, but it's still true. One of the appeals of higher level play is the idea that the PCs become movers and shakers in the greater world, not just better orc-killers.

To balance these challenges, I may try borrowing from more story-based games and have the players devise "hooks" for their character that are already in play, instead of developing in-game. Again, not a new concept.

The next issue I need to address, for my own preference, is that of higher power PCs. I loves me some low level grinds. I know, I know, evil GM and all that; but the tighter resources present their own challenges in the game. Over the years, I've been guilty of letting lower level/power campaigns make my job easier because the PCs simply couldn't muster the magic or puissance to face harder challenges easily. Nothing's worse than a carefully crafted encounter or puzzle being sidestepped by an unanticipated spell or item in the party's arsenal.

I'm trying to push outside my comfort zone a little by giving the players higher level options and resources. In return, I want them to see beyond the crawl and use those resources on a larger scale. At the same time, I think I may introduce a few house-ruled bits of DCC-inspired weirdness to keep things like spells and magic items from being too easy to depend upon. [evil laugh] But that's a different post.

The Mythos: Canon or suggestion?

One of the risks of working with a licensed RPG or setting is the idea that the source material is the final measure of things. In other words, your stories, etc. need to match with what was put down before. You can't put the Shire next to Mordor or give dwarves bazookas and still call it Middle Earth.

Lovecraft is interesting in this regard because despite all the stories, entities, and monsters the whole idea is that people don't know these things' true natures. It gives you a fun springboard to start from.

While I am working with several ideas based on actual "official" creatures for the campaign, I do think I will be homebrewing a few things as well. Another issue with licensed/derivative games is that the players may be quite knowledgeable about "the lore." While good players will avoid metagaming, an obvious tell as to what their dealing with might wreck the suspense.

[I'm deliberately avoiding spoilers here, as a potential player or two might stumble along these posts.]

What to run?

(Forgive the lengthy rambling. I'm working a few things out in my head as I type.)

So my group is talking about wanting a more extended campaign instead of a series of short adventures and round-robin GM-ing. After Night's Dark Terror (which ran almost a year), we kind of took a break from longer campaigns. I totally understand wanting to play the same character for a longer stretch though. The question: What to play?

I had suggested running an LL/AEC megadungeon campaign for them, using either Barrowmaze, Anomalous Subsurface Environment, or Stonehell. All outstanding products, BTW. (I wish I'd written one or all of them!) The thinking was that it gave the campaign a definite structure, or at least a sort of axis to revolve around. Also, if the PCs had a base of operations (nearby town, etc.), it would make it easier to change the party makeup when one player couldn't make it or one that missed the previous session came to the next (PCs coming or going from town).

I didn't get a lot of buy-in on the idea, so it left me wondering what to try next. I considered Kelvernia, but the cross-genre aspects were a turn off to some. I realized that you can't please everyone, so I should focus on running something I wanted to run. The trouble was none of these choices really "grabbed" me.

I pondered various settings, modules, systems, etc. for a while, but none seemed a good fit for various reasons. Some of them had to do with me, but I couldn't ignore that player buy-in was crucial to not only the campaign's health, but my enthusiasm as a GM as well. It's hard to sit down behind the screen week after week when the people at the table aren't having fun. Then it occurred to me that I could try approaching this in a different way. I decided to start with what I knew about the players at my table and what motivated them (much like Robin Laws' player types and hooks), then I could look at those things and see where it led my imagination. I've always been more creative with a springboard instead of cut loose in a void.

By the way, if you haven't read Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering, do so. NOW.

In the end, a series of distinct, but not wholly incompatible, trends emerged. Without naming names or pointing fingers, this is what I found defined my group as an aggregate. Some are more typical than others, but needed to be accounted for, IMO:

• A desire to see characters progress and "power up" through experience, influence, skill, loot, etc.
• Escapism into a fantasy world where the character can do cool things competently, including a reasonable amount of good old hack & slash.
• A chance to influence the story and the world around them.
• Opportunities to role play and character development through role play, including intra-party relationships and conflict.
• A fondness for military and martial themes (wars, invasions, special ops, etc.)
• A fondness for dark/horror themes.
• Different character types should have their chance to shine.
• A chance to think and act tactically, trying unorthodox or unexpected things. Also having the potential to be rewarded (in-game or meta) for doing so.

Not everyone displays all these traits, but almost none of them are utterly exclusive to one player. 

So what was my takeaway? 

1) A sandbox environment with no predetermined story arc. There should be good chances at combat, treasure, and magic.

2) The rules should allow for on-the-fly rulings that let players be creative and clever when dealing with the challenges in front of them, as well as a variety of challenges besides just dungeon crawls and combats.

3) Next, some sort of conflict like a war or rebellion would be a good hook generator, with a chance for the PCs to become involved, willingly or not. 

4) Ideally, there would be enough diversity and detail in the setting to make it immersive without being overwhelming, and provide RP opps for those who wished to interact with things like NPCs and forge ties to people and places. 

5) Lastly, there should be some element of darkness or weirdness to the place. It's shouldn't just be orcs and dragons. There should be real horrors out there that aren't going away because you can swing a sword.

What do I do with all this? Well, it gave me the germ of an idea. Let's just say that it involves LL+AEC and a published setting, but not a D&D one. Further bulletins as events warrant.

Setting Buy-In

I don't know if anyone pays attention to the little widgets on the side of the blog, but if you've been watching the "What I'm Reading" one lately, you'll have seen several Warhammer 40K novels (specifically by Dan Abnett *) tick by. I never played the miniatures games, but I have played a fair bit of Warhammer Fantasy Role Play (WFRP). I'm a big fan of the setting and the gritty, grim tone. It's not what I always want to play, but it's fun sometimes.

As I've previously blathered about in my vlog, I'm somewhat on the fence about published and licensed settings. One the one hand, it gives people an additional way to get into the setting and get a handle on what it's like. On the other hand, it can be limiting ("That's not canon!") and can be off-putting to those who haven't played in the setting before or aren't as familiar with the source materials.

Now, as it happens, I own several of the WH40K RPG books (Dark Heresy, etc.) and part of me would really like to run a game, but I worry that most of my players are not up to speed on the 40K universe. Mechanically, it's similar enough to WFRP that I think they'd catch on to the rules quickly enough (several of them played in a long Marienburg-based campaign), but it's the fluff that has me worried. Warhammer and 40K are so much about the feel of the setting that I'd really want to get it right. I don't feel it's fair to hand out reading lists, etc. but some understanding of the setting seems pretty important, IMO.

Have other people run into this sort of thing before? How have you handled it?

*I highly recommend Abnett's books. The man can write!

No, you can't play an elf!

Kelvernian ray guns (and the like)

A first take at a few tech artifacts.

A much more simplified list than GW/MF, but I figure these will be like magic items, and relatively rare ones at that. The power cell will be a standard "battery." But larger, belt-pack power sources may be their own special item.

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. 

Kelvernia: Bullet Points for Nations

Here's the quickie blurb for each country as I would describe them to a player:

• Cramond: "Baseline" euro-fantasy kingdom in setting. Possible uncertainty about succession. Changed and metalmen tolerated but not well-accepted.
• Jerimet: Up & coming recent dynasty. Territorial ambitions. Ships changed and metalmen to a quasi penal colony.
• Tyros: Plutocratic sea traders, run by an extremely wealthy oligarchy. Think Venice mixed with the Islands of the Purple Towns.
• Lossara: Horse tribes. Cross between arabs and mongols. 
• Tolkati: Northern barbarians. Eskimo Conan.
• Arganta: Viking pirates from a desert land. 
• Glaw: Mysterious forests.
• Subat: Fallen empire. Kind of like Melnibone and Stygia mixed with Mayan overtones.
• Elves found in remote, wooded areas of Jerimet and Cramond. 
• Dwarfs primarily from Spear Mts.
• Halflings live among men in farming communities.

Kelvernia: Sulat

Okay, I've been boring everyone with these setting nation blurbs long enough. This is the last one. I saved Sulat until the end because I felt it was the most interesting (or at least crucial) to the setting's history, as well as being a potentially rich source of adventure hooks.

Sulat was once the seat of the Sulati Empire, which ruled nearly all of Kelvernia. From what is now Lossara to the edges of Glaw, all peoples were under the thumb of the serpent empire. The sulati ruled the seas in their bronze war galleys and conquered wherever they went. The subject nations tithed food, wealth, and slaves to their masters, and sorcerer-priests sacrificed prisoners to their dark god Baal. The demihuman races were hunted to near extinction, and fled from human lands.

Such was the way of the world for over twenty generations, until nearly all the conquering forces were suddenly withdrawn from the vassal states, ordered to return immediately to Sulat. The native peoples seized their chance and rose up against the reduced garrisons, defeating their oppressors. When the newly freed men of Kelvernia mustered enough forces, they sailed on Yarlat, the imperial capital.

What they found was desolation. Nearly half the city was leveled and corpses choked the streets. Signs pointed to some massive battle, but only Sulati dead were found. Later, the invaders discovered that some of the Sulati had fled into the jungles, but attempting to track them all down was a useless endeavor. The power of the empire had been broken.

Today, Sulat is a shell of its former self. Its people are dark and thin. In place of their former arrogance is now a low cunning. Some trade still occurs at Yarlat, as the jungles yield rare plants and woods, but the city is still mostly ruins, with ramshackle structures littered around the harbor.

The changed are common here, moreso than in most parts of Kelvernia. Some folk believe this is related to the empire's demise, but the demon star appeared hundreds of years after Sulat fell. Metalmen are conspicuously absent, however.

The dread worship of Baal, once the state religion of Sulat, is now outlawed everywhere. The "new" sulati claim to follow the Five, but rumors persist of hidden jungle temples that still practice human sacrifice.

The language of Old Sulat was never the lingua franca of Kelvernia. Rather, it was the tongue of kings and priests. Much magical lore and ancient history is written in its script. Today's Common Tongue –or "New Imperial"– is a descendant of the "Low Sulat"tongue and a pidgin of various indigenous languages.


OK! That sums up the basics of the geography. The (initial) info I would give the players would be much shorter. Probably just a line or two. Next up I think I need to make a few more rules decisions and then move on to working up some actual campaign/adventure hooks. 

Kelvernia: The Wildlands of Glaw

Far to the northwest, lies Glaw. To most people in Kelvernia, it is a land shrouded in myth.  Few have ever seen it. Even in Jerimet, Glaw's closest neighbor, the nearest towns and villages are separated from the border by miles of trackless plains.

The Straits of Glaw are a sea of wicked currents and shoals. Since there is little to no trade that far away, even sailors have rarely caught a glimpse of the Glaw coast. A few bold explorers have landed on the coasts, but there is no tale of a successful expedition into the interior.

Glaw is said to be a primeval wilderness. It's described as a land of giant trees, heavy mists, and no trace of civilization. Rumor says that there is vast wealth to be found there, that veins of gold run through the hills and raw gems litter the stream beds. Rumor also tells that strange beasts and stunted aborigines make quick work of any who venture there.