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. 

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.

Cross-posting

"Echoes" has been a bit quiet lately. Part of that is due to my not actively gaming for the last couple of months, and partly because I've been mucking about on another blog of mine that I started a while back for a more specific gaming purpose.

The Zarth Tourism Bureau is a pulp/swords & sorcery related blog mostly (but not entirely) about the new "Crypts & Things" game and things of that ilk.

This blog is still the home of more general FRPG nerdery.

Kelvernia: Taking my bearings

OK, so before I delve any further into this mess, I want to take stock and figure out my goals.

What I want:

• To emphasize fun and creativity for myself and my players.
• To provide a setting with enough detail and hooks to give the campaign a real "home."
• To sprinkle some twists, both fluff and crunch, to add to the fun.
• To provide consequences, but not restrictions.
• A game with "grit" but with "gonzo" too.
• I tend to run "realistic D&D" (whatever that means). I think I want a game that takes me a little bit outside my comfort zone.

What I don't want:

• To design a system for sale or publication. This is for my edification and enjoyment.
• To heavily house rule or change the game beyond recognition. 
• To make a world so detailed that the players (and myself) feel overwhelmed by minutiae. 

With all that said, let's take a look at the map again:

I like this map. The coastlines, etc. were based upon satellite imagery of Saturn's moon, Titan (which amuses me terribly for some reason). I was in a Robert E. Howard kind of mood when I made this and I think it shows to a degree in things like the place names. I wanted a Swords & Sorcery feel to the world, hence lots of seas to sail, wilderness to explore, and several nations to potentially be at one another's throats. I deliberately left off a scale or a hex grid, since I didn't want to get into a lot of fine detail about rates of travel and so forth. The place names and so forth are fine, since they impart very little specifics by themselves.

I originally pictured a low-magic world. Now I am thinking of more standard magic/fantasy levels, and maybe adding a little twist of super-science, like Blackmoor or even Mutant Future. (I'll also have to look at Anomalous Subsurface Environment and Savage Afterworld's World of Thundarr again). 

I had written more here, but it quickly degenerated into quite the ramble. To be continued when I yet again reacquire my bearings...