Early RPGs

One important thing to understand about the first role-playing games is that the people who created them were already role-playing when playing other games. So their role-playing games weren’t designed as rules for role-playing. They didn’t need rules for role-playing in other games, so why would they need them in a role-playing game? Rather, the rules were designed to not get in the way of role-playing.

This is why the combat system† in original D&D is anemic compared to the wargames with Gygax’s or Arneson’s name on them. This is why the combat in the main three classic Traveller books is anemic compared to the wargames Marc Miller had previously designed.

†While original D&D said to use Chainmail, neither of the creators did so in practice. Arneson said he abandoned Chainmail early on in favor of developing the “alternate” combat system. Gygax said he never used Chainmail for D&D combat.

Plate mail

There seems to be a misconception about the term “plate mail” from TSR-era D&D among armor enthusiasts dealing with spread of D&D jargon as well as among some gamers.

D&D plate mail armor is not plate armor. In D&D, “plate mail” refers to mail armor augmented by some pieces of plate armor.

In D&D, actual plate armor—distinct from plate mail armor—is called “suit armor”. (D&D Master Players’ Book p. 15) In AD&D, plate armor is called “field plate armor” or “full plate armor”. (AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide p. 27; Unearthed Arcana pp. 75–76)

Yes, “plate mail” is an unfortunate term. (I’ve been using “mail and plates” until I find a better term.) It should be considered game jargon rather than a general term or historical term. And it should not be considered a synonym for “plate armor”.

(You may notice that plate armor, likewise, is typically augmented by some bits of mail.)

Note that—unlike “plate mail”—the use of “banded mail”, “ring mail”, “scale mail”, or “splint mail” in D&D is not similarly justified. It would be better to drop the word “mail” from these terms.

For what it’s worth, banded and ring armors might never have existed.

While “chain mail” has come into common use, in medieval usage it was called simply “mail”.

The “plate mail” drawing comes from the AD&D Dungeon Masters Adventure Log. The plate armor is Telecanter’s clean up of an image from Charles John Ffoulkes’ Armour & Weapons

D&D Next Classes

From EN World: What We Know About “D&D Next”:

The goal at the moment is to include all the classes that were in the first PH style book for each edition.

Surely someone else has already compiled this list, but since I didn’t find it, I compiled it myself.

Note that many classes appeared first in a supplement for a previous edition. I’m not listing the first appearance of each class. I’m listing its first appearance in Men & Magic or a Players Handbook (first PHB for editions with multiple PHBs).

In the non-advanced line, you had race-classes and the Mystic. Race-classes aren’t included because it seems that D&D next isn’t going that direction. The Mystic, rightly or wrongly, I’m counting as Monk.

AD&D2e had the “specialist wizard” & “specialist priest” which I am also omitting from this list.

• Assassin (1e PHB)
• Barbarian (3e PHB)
• Bard (2e PHB; optional 1e PHB)
• Cleric (0e Men & Magic)
• Druid (1e PHB)
• Fighting-man/Fighter (0e Men & Magic)
• Illusionist (1e PHB)
• Magic-user/Mage/Wizard (0e Men & Magic)
• Monk (1e PHB)
• Paladin (1e PHB)
• Ranger (1e PHB)
• Sorcerer (3e PHB)
• Thief/Rogue (1e PHB; the Holmes Basic Set)
• Warlock (4e PHB)
• Warlord (4e PHB)

For a grand total of 15 classes. Though I think there is the possibility of some of them being combined.

Note that a Psion class was also mentioned in the D&D Experience seminars.

Here they are in roughly chronological order...

• Cleric (0e Men & Magic)
• Fighting-man/Fighter (0e Men & Magic)
• Magic-user/Mage/Wizard (0e Men & Magic)
• Thief/Rogue (1e PHB; the Holmes Basic Set)
• Assassin (1e PHB)
• Druid (1e PHB)
• Illusionist (1e PHB)
• Monk (1e PHB)
• Paladin (1e PHB)
• Ranger (1e PHB)
• Bard (2e PHB; optional 1e PHB)
• Barbarian (3e PHB)
• Sorcerer (3e PHB)
• Warlock (4e PHB)
• Warlord (4e PHB)

Free RPGs

After hearing Chris Pramas talk about Green Ronin’s Dragon Age (tabletop) RPG on The Game’s the Thing, I was sold...

...but...

I’ve got some really great RPGs that are free.

(“Free” can mean a lot of things. In this instance, I mainly mean that anyone with Internet access can download the game legally at no monetary cost beyond what they’re paying for Internet service.)

1. Labyrinth Lord
2. GORE
3. The (3.5) d20 SRD

Just to name three. There are many, many more.

Is Dragon Age really worth choosing over all of them? It’s “stunt system” looks worthy of consideration and possibly emulation. Other than that, though... It does look like the kind of introductory system we haven’t had since Frank Mentzer’s Basic/Expert/Companion/Master sets. Worth gifting perhaps.

I even come up against the same question with games I already own. I really like Dragon Warriors, but it’s really not so different than Labyrinth Lord.

With Labyrinth Lord...

1. I have a print version
2. I can print more hardcopies myself or go to a print shop and have hardcopies printed and bound
3. I can put it on my iPad and iPhone and whatever device I have a decade hence
4. I can search it
5. I can copy & paste the rules to make up my own customized version
6. My players would have free access to the rules and could do all those things as well
7. If I wanted to publish something for the game (either for free or at a price), I could legally do so without having to pay for the right
8. I can do all of this forever

With Dragon Warriors or Dragon Age...

1. I have a print version (DW) or could buy a print version (DA)
2. I could buy a PDF version for an additional cost

What’s more, Labyrinth Lord is based on my favorite edition of D&D. It has an expansion that makes it easy to import as much or as little AD&D flavor as I wish. It has a similar expansion for the flavor of original D&D. There’s a compatible post-apocalyptic game, Mutant Future. There will soon be a compatible version of Starships & Spacemen.

As you can tell, I’m a big fan of what Goblinoid Games is doing, but there are a lot of other really good free RPGs out there too.

Is any non-free system better enough than the free systems to bother with?

Even if they were, I don’t think I want a system that is that different.

Robilar’s method

For the role-playing gamers...

I don’t remember exactly where I read this, but I thought it was very interesting how Rob Kuntz’s character, Robilar, explored the dungeons under Castle Greyhawk. (Apologies if I’m misremembering any of this.)

He would often travel alone. Although human, he would explore in the dark—just following the walls and keeping his ears open. He might use some light at an intersection, but only briefly when he felt it was safe to do so. He would not open doors. At least, not until he’d explored what he could without opening doors.

There are some interesting things to note here:

This (as Rob was playing it) isn’t a game of combat. This is a game of exploration.

If this had been a computer game, Robilar’s method would only be possible if the designers had specifically enabled it. Well, that may not be entirely true, but how many CRPGs are there in which Robilar’s method is possible? While D&D may have rules to cover some of this, that is only because Rob did it so Gary added some of the stuff he made up to handle it to the rules.

Robilar was a fighter. If I understand correctly, his companions when not alone were other fighters and mages. Neither clerics nor thieves were considered vital.

Robilar survived despite traps, “save or die” situations, the level-draining ability of undead, and so forth. As much as I’ve sometimes seen such things as arbitrary, unfair, or unfun; Robilar managed them. I suspect due to a combination of Rob being cautious and Gary being fair.

This also reinforces for me something Gary himself said: If you played with Gary at a convention, he was assuming you wanted a no-holds-barred experience. Gary was a different DM at conventions than when not at conventions.

What was D&D?

What separated D&D from other games, thereby spawning a new category—role-playing games?

Now, this can be a bit tricky because whatever elements you come up with, you can likely find pre-D&D examples of. But here it goes anyway.

1. Non-zero-sum. One player “winning” doesn’t mean another player “loses”. Players can—and typically do—coöperate.
2. A referee who—instead of moderating between the players—provides flexibility that no set of written rules can. The scope of the game becomes limited only by imagination.
3. Open ended. There are no victory conditions.
4. One player plays one “figure” that represents one character.

One was definitely something (according to Heroic Worlds) Wesely was going for with the Braunsteins.

Two seemed to be a tool he discovered—from Strategos—to help make it happen. (It has been said that Strategos got it from Free Kreigspiel.)

Three seems to have developed in Arneson’s Blackmoor campaign.

And again, these things are kind of tricky. I’m sure things weren’t nearly that clear-cut.

Four seems to have occurred in the Braunsteins as well. Although it seems essential to list it, I’m tempted not to. I’m not sure why.

4e races

The player-character races in (original) D&D suggested a Tolkienesque world.

AD&D added gnomes (more generic fantasy—perhaps), half-elves (more Tolkien), and half-orcs (more Tolkien).

D&D “third edition”: Same as AD&D. By this time, however, the influence of D&D has made that set somewhat generic fantasy itself.

D&D “fourth edition”: Dragonborn, Eladrin†, and Tieflings are added. (Gnomes and half-orcs are saved for later supplements.) This game suggests a world of its own.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Is it better to have the core books stick with tradition and save the other races for supplments? Is it better to put races in the core books that best exemplify the mechanics of the new game? Is it better to present a default setting and choose the races for the core books accordingly?

I don’t know.

†Squint and they look like elves, so you could say they aren’t new.

Misconceptions about early D&D

There are a couple of misconceptions I see expressed about early Dungeons & Dragons.

1. It was little more than Dungeon!
2. It needed additional rules to make it go much beyond Dungeon!

Based on the things I’ve read about Arneson’s Blackmoor campaign and Gygax’s Greyhawk campaign, the first one would seem quite false. This is probably why I felt the quote from Tim Kask worth posting.

When you look at the actual rules, it can seem to be little more than Dungeon!—though hints of more are there. As Mike Mornard said...

There were no rules about it because nobody thought they were needed; the rules were just for the “nuts and bolts” mechanicals.

The night Ernie (Gygax) talked the chimera out of attacking us, it depended on how well Ernie talked, not any rules. The night my 3rd level Balrog pretended to be a photographer for Balrog Times magazine, our success depended on how well we amused the referee.

The rules were written with an “Everything not forbidden is permitted” attitude.

That’s not to say adding rules to support such things would be wrong. (That’s a whole ’nother discussion. (^_^)) In that same thread, Mike agrees with Fute when he says...

I further posit that the decision of what to codify with resolution mechanics and what to leave fuzzy is not based on some logical analysis of mediating factors, but on what the designers think is fun to roll dice for, and what they think is fun to improvise.

The point is that the lack of a rule does not indicate the lack of something at the table. (Because the referee’s role had been expanded from interpreter of the rules to living rulebook.)

More from the Kask

Our best early adventures and campaigns were about problem solving, riddle unravelling and a group effort to out-think the DM, not about hack & slash mayhem and gore. That was a part of it, but certainly not the only focus. We would often go two or more adventures without figuring Exp.

—Dragonsfoot post by Tim Kask

Blame AD&D!

In this Dragonsfoot post, Tim Kask admits that AD&D was a mistake. (O.O)

Woo hoo! I can blame TSR for making me a recovering rules-lawyer! (^_^)

Not regularly haunting DF these days (and even when last I did, I didn’t make it to “General Discussion” much anymore), this came to my attention via Jim Raggi’s blog.

RPG form factor

There’s something very appealing to me about saddle-stitched role-playing games. (And other kinds of games too, I suppose.)

“Saddle-stitched” is a fancy way to say “bound by staples”.

Stapling through the center fold, also called saddle-stitching, joins a set of nested folios into a single magazine issue; most American comic books are well-known examples of this type.

I really enjoy my c. 1981 D&D Basic and Expert booklets. My Starter Traveller booklets. Even more, I enjoy digest-sized, saddle-stitched booklets. Like the classic Traveller booklets or the original D&D booklets.

When I flip through a new RPG in a big hardback book or a big “perfect bound”, it seems so unwieldy.

Maybe it has something to do with the simplicity. I bought a saddle stapler, so I can make my own.

One factor may be that a saddle-stitched book can’t be more than about 60–90 pages. (Well, 64–88, since you need a page count evenly divisible by four.)

They tend to be easy to use at the gaming table. They tend to lay flat well, and you never have too far to search when looking for something.

While typing this, I typed “appealling”. The choices my computer offered for correcting it were “appealing” and “appalling”. It seems there’s a short distance between the two. (^_^)

maliszew: Skills and Feats

maliszew: Skills and Feats

Naturally, some will see this as a potential source of problems; I simply can’t. Roleplaying games are entertainments that demand rules, certainly, but they also demand compromise and flexibility. If I’ve learned anything from OD&D, it’s that this hobby was born out of and grew because of an openness to make judgment calls and run with good ideas even when there were no rules to cover the situation—or when the rules in fact said otherwise. I’ve rather reluctantly come round to believe that AD&D, great though it was, marked the beginning of the end for the style of roleplaying I enjoy and that we don’t see as much of nowadays. I won’t pretend that I can just turn back the clock to that freewheeling earlier era but neither will am I willing to simply grimace and groan every time yet another RPG is released that assumes that platitudinous invocations of Rule 0 are sufficient to convince me that they’re not in fact a wholly different kind of game than the one I fell in love with in late 1979.

Vulnerable mages

maliszew: I’ve got your 15-minute adventuring day right here ...

Wizards conduct their adventures with caution and forethought. When prepared, they can use their spells to devastating effect. When caught be surprise, they are vulnerable.

OK. Now the spell memorization/preparation thing from D&D makes more sense to me. It is the magic-user’s Achilles heel. An exploitable weakness.

I mean, I understood it as a game mechanic. A spell-point system with some extra rules that meant giving the character the ability to cast one very powerful spell didn’t give them the option of casting a lot of low-level spells in exchange. But now it makes more sense with this tidbit.

My group subbed the word “preparation” for “memorization” in the 1980s.

Mearls plays original D&D

Mike Mearls—lead developer of Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons—posted about his experience playing the original D&D recently.

OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs.

— Original D&D Discussion - Kardallin's Palace, Session 1, 2/15/08

See! Those of us who think they are different games are not insane, overly nostalgic, crotchety grognards, or such.

Well...OK...we may be all of those things, but that’s not why we think the ancient and modern editions are different enough to be considered different games. We think that because it’s true!

A lot of the fun parts of the session (the talking skull; the undead and their bargain) were possible under any edition of D&D. However, I think that OD&D’s open nature makes the players more likely to accept things in the game as elements of fiction, rather than as game elements. The players reacted more by thinking “What's the logical thing for an adventurer to do?” rather than “What’s the logical thing to do according to the rules?”

Exactly! This is the thing I’ve been trying to get at myself. As much as I enjoy mastering a complex set of rules, that’s not what I want in a role-playing game. Besides, when it’s about playing the rules, most people at the table end up not having as much fun—in my experience—as a few people at the table. When it’s about playing the role rather than playing the rules, the game becomes more enjoyable for everyone at the table.

Ask the sage

Ricky asked the Dungeons & Dragons sage:

If a character has polymorphed into a hydra and loses a head, what happens when he returns to his normal form?

Here’s my answer:

Ricky, when you come to a question like this—that the rules do not explicitly cover—there are three methods the Dungeon Master may use to answer this question:

1. What would be the most fun?
2. What makes for the best story?
3. Let the dice decide.

Most importantly, however, is to recognize that this is the key ingredient of games like Dungeons & Dragons: They have a human referee (Dungeon Master, Game Master, &c.) who serves as a living rulebook. As was written in the third of the original booklets...

In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!

...why have us do any more of your imagining for you?

This is why Gary Gygax could write...

What I think isn’t important. It is what your DM decides that is.

I will, however, note that a wise DM seeks & considers the advice of his players.

EN mods vs. EGG

At GenCon this year, the ENWorld moderators got Gary Gygax to run them through his famous Castle Greyhawk using the original Dungeons & Dragons rules. (Though even EGG himself doesn't run strictly by the rules as written.) Rel posted a recap.