[Gaming] Dungeon Crawl Classics Play Session Report

I was one of the earlier gamers to preorder the Dungeon Crawl Classics roleplaying game.  The entire premise of a role playing game that captured the feel of Appendix N source material without being a retro clone of older rules sets appealed to me.  When my copies -- one regular and one limited -- arrived, I immediately set about the task of reading the rules.  They were clear and captured the feel of the game play I enjoyed as a younger gamer. 

While it is true that DCC captures the feel of games of past generations, it is also true that they are quite innovative.  The game's use of a dice chain to represent the affects of bonuses and penalties is fun in theory and in practice.  It's spell system for Wizards and Clerics, as well as its "Mighty Deeds" system for Fighters, are exciting.  For the first time in a d20 based RPG there is a solid spell duel system that manages to incorporate the normal magic rules while feeling like the magic of fiction.  The ability to invoke patrons, and the mercurial nature of spells add a nice spice to the overall system.  I think that this is a very strong game, and want to play it more and more...

I was very excited to play and began the campaign to convince my players to give the game a try.   This last weekend, I finally got that opportunity.  The only thing missing was a "thematic" ally in keeping the game's tone on target...ah Nick...how we needed you.

What follows in this blog post isn't a glowing example of joy, instead it's a demonstration of how a well written game can lead to a less than fun time.  This is even when the players knew pretty well what to expect. 

I told my regular players to be prepared for a possible TPK, and that they shouldn't get attached to their characters.  I also told them that they would have to make 4 characters each due to the high lethality of the adventure. Four of the players rolled their characters up in person, and one used the online character generator.  It was an interesting band of characters  made up of farmers, jewelers, glovemakers, and coopers.  Most of them were human, but there were a couple of Dwarves and a Halfling.  On the "attribute" side, and interesting thing happened.  Every player had one character who was significantly above average.  Not with multiple "18s," but with a couple of 16s an no bad attributes.  I could tell right away that the players had begun to build an attachment to their more competent characters.  One player went so far as to call his extraordinary cooper Lord "Spivak" and created a back story that the other 3 characters were accompanying this self-important barrel and chest maker on an adventure.

As an aside, Spivak wasn't his name.  I have forgotten the specific name at the time of this writing, but it should be noted that the player had already become attached to the character and that attachment was only set to grow.

At the beginning of the adventure, I warned the players that this would be a lethal adventure and that their characters would likely die.  They each looked at their characters and began to sort them out as fodder and potential hero in their mind.  Fodder would open doors and heroes would be cautious in the hopes of becoming 1st level characters -- who have a significantly higher chance to stay alive than these beginning characters.

The party heard of a mystic gate that opened between the stones of a neolithic structure when the stars were right...and the stars were right tonight.  They journeyed to the top of a hill that contained the structure in question, only to see the mysterious constellation above them and a mystic gate between worlds before them.

The players were quite impressive in their caution and use of reason and restraint.  They solved the riddle of the constellation, and lost no party members trying to enter the complex.  The next room went as they planned.  They had fodder risk the danger, and the heroes followed behind.  They also came up with and interesting solution to the third room's dangerous trap.  Through an ingenious application of levers, they were able to not only neutralize the trap but to almost turn it into a weapon against their foes.

This is where the fun begins, and where some of the characters began to shine.   You see, the party behaved in a highly efficient tactical manner and Lord Spivak's crowbar seemed to be the weapon that kept dealing the final blow.  He was a wonder to behold, as he split the skull of a giant demonic serpent.  Also a wonder to behold was the Halfling Glovemaker who used all of his small but "unhuman" strength to hold a door closed long enough to create a plan to deal with the dangers behind the door.

After three major combats, a couple of defeated traps, the now smaller party encountered what would be their last fight.  Their foes weren't particularly impressive.  In fact, even with the low hit points starting characters begin with it was likely that a blow from one of these foes would be non-lethal.  When one struck Lord Spivak, I wasn't too worried.  He had a good chance of survival.  Sadly, he was struck down.  I could see the disappointment in the player.  This was his noble character, far better than his surviving character Friar Sloth (actual name) a character with stats suited to becoming a Cleric.  It was almost as upsetting for me as it was for the player.  The heroism of the character, and his great story were darkened by one quick roll of the die.  It was a truly chaotic situation, and a disappointing one for the player.

This was something that I hadn't prepared the group for.  I had prepared them to have a group of characters who were all extremely incompetent.  I hadn't prepared them for the whimsical and almost meaningless loss of a valiant one.  I don't know that my group will want to return to the world of DCC, though I certainly do.  The death of Lord Spivak is one of the best gaming moments I can remember for some time -- as was the amazing bravery of the "unhumanly" strong Halfling Glovemaker.  We even started having quick in jokes, like how all Jewelers start with a 20gp gem we like to call Leather Armor.

While this was a problem with my group, it isn't something that the designers of the game didn't predict.  They have even provided advice for groups to help players get in the mindset.  I'd prepared the group for some character loss, but I couldn't prepare them for the loss of characters who had been so awesome in the past 3 encounters.  In addition to the potential for lethality, I should have warned them to Embrace the Chaos.

Embrace the Chaos
The DCC RPG is unpredictable. Really unpredictable. One moment, the PCs are losing a battle against a Rat God and thousands of his furry minions, and the next, the dwarf has won a strength check against the god, ripped free his bejeweled scepter of death and is hammering that Rat God back through time and space to whatever pit that spawned him.

And the opposite happens as well: When that glorious natural 1 rolls up, the entire table howls with agony, and you get the chance to add another notch in your judge-screen.

It isn’t pretty. It isn’t predictable. But it is a fundamental feature of the game. No battle is truly lost until the last PC gives up, and death is never more than a heartbeat away. With judicious use of Luck, spellburn and piety, the PCs can turn the odds in their favors. But stare too long into the abyss, and at some point the abyss will look back.

Image by Jody Lindke

[Gaming History] Ace of Aces Seeks a Triumphant Return

I have always had warm feelings for Rick Loomis' game company Flying Buffalo.  When I was a young gamer whose pool of friends included few other rpg/wargame players, I spent many an enjoyable hour playing the solo adventures for Tunnels and Trolls that Flying Buffalo published.  I watched as their product lines improved in quality with the addition of the Blade subdivision and its line of well designed and attractive supplements.  I have always believed that a part of this improvement should be credited to Dave Arneson who may have provided some underwriting for this project, as he did many others after his settlement with TSR.  At a minimum Arneson wrote one of the better supplements for their Mercenaries, Spies, and Private Eyes games.

To me Flying Buffalo is the Oakland A's of the Adventure Gaming hobby.  Loomis has been innovative in many of his ideas, and has used his vision to purchase the rights to some excellent games, but he has never had the budget to bring his vision to full light.  After all, Flying Buffalo were at the forefront of the Play By Mail hobby (essentially creating the genre post-Diplomacy), the rpg hobby itself (with the release of Tunnels and Trolls), the creation of the solo game book hobby, and their purchase of the rights to publish the innovative flip book games like Ace of Aces designed by Alfred Leonardi and published by Nova Games.

Nova Games itself has heavily influenced hobby gaming.  In addition to the excellent Ace of Aces game, and the Lost Worlds combat book spin offs, Nova was responsible for the first edition of the now classic Axis & Allies game.  The Nova edition of Axis and Allies received a less than sterling review in Fire and Movement issue 27, which stated that the game would be better as a beer & pretzels game by a publisher like Milton Bradley.  That review couldn't have been more prescient, as by 1984 Axis & Allies became one of the "big" three Milton Bradley "Gamemaster" series board games.  The "Gamemaster" series of games essentially created what we now refer to as the "Ameritrash" game.  These are highly thematic games that have a complexity that falls somewhere in the middle of Risk and the easier "chit and token" games of a publisher like Avalon Hill or SPI.  When the Mildotn Bradly version came out, the reviews were quite different than the early F&M review.  To quote Warren Spector in The Space Gamer 72, "WOW! Make that double WOW! ...If any adventure/wargame company had released Axis & Allies it would probably sell for three times what it costs from Milton Bradley.  As it is, it can be yours for a measly 15 bucks if you shop around. So what are you waiting for?"

Like Axis & Allies, the Ace of Aces game seeks to provide game play that satisfies what was a new kind of gamer, and a demographic that makes up a large number of gamers today, the gamer who wants an easy to play game that is deep and has high replay value.  Where Axis provides game play at the most abstract of levels and covers all of WWII on one map, Ace of Aces provides game play at the most granular level.  It is a battle of one German biplane against one British biplane.  It is Rickenbacker versus Richtofen, Snoopy versus the Red Baron -- and it plays in about 15 minutes. When Nick Schuessler, Steve Jackson Games' resident war game guru in the 80s, reviewed the game he wrote, "All of the praise for this unique gaming system has been well deserved.  Simply put, AofA is the most innovative thing to happen to the hobby since Tactics II."  Given that Tactics II effectively created the war board game hobby, that is high praise indeed.


It is a magnificent game, that is sadly out of print and that would make a great iPad/iPhone app.

Do you hear that Rick?  This game is perfect for the iPad/iPhone without any alteration.  None.  Make it now.

As I mentioned, the game is out of print, but it doesn't have to be that way.  Rick Loomis is attempting to print a new edition of the game through a Kickstarter that is pretty close to meeting its funding goal.  The KS doesn't have a video attached to it, but the game's creator Alfred Leonardi has released a tutorial video.  As you can see by watching the video, it is more of a play through video than a tutorial.  But it does provide an excellent primer for how quickly the game plays.  In the video, two total neophytes play a full game in under 10 minutes.

Unlike other recent videos by more tech savvy companies, this tutorial is a bit crude.  But it does have it's charm.  The Ace of Aces game was also given a stellar review and recommendation in the most recent issue of Battles Magazine (number 8).  Would that the Flying Buffalo Kickstarter had the graphic design of that magazine, the game would certainly already be funded.  

Go! Now! Back this project!  Let's play an Ace of Aces tournament at Gen Con 2013. 

Role Playing Games and Candyland

I've had many conversations with friends where I have posited that the best introductory role playing games for younger players -- ages 5 to 9 -- are The Pokemon Jr. Adventure Game by Bill Slavicsek and Stan!, A Faery's Tale by Patrick Sweeney, Sandy Antunes, Christina Stiles, Colin Chapman, and Robin D. Laws, and RPG Kids by Enrique Bertran aka NewbieDM.  Each of these games comes at introducing RPGs to younger players and their parents from a different perspective, and each is a wonderful addition to any gamer's collection.  These games aren't merely good introductory games, they are also fun games for gamers of any age.

Over the past year, I have added another game to this list and the game might surprise some hobby gamers.  The game is the much maligned Candy Land by Hasbro.  Most hobby gamers look at Candy Land as a boring exercise in which the players have no influence over the flow of play, and as a game completely devoid of any kind of play strategy.  Anyone who has played the game knows that the only actions a player takes are to draw a card and to move his/her pawn to the space signified by the drawn card.  This simple randomized movement "track" game is so disliked that it has a rating of 3.21 on BoardGame Geek.  A quick look at what a 3.2 rating means on BGG, let's us know that the BGG community thinks the game is Bad and not worth replaying.  Even adjusting for BGG's anti-children's game bias by adding a point or so doesn't put this game into recommendable territory for most gamers.

Last December I defended Candy Land as a board game, and a quick look through the internet demonstates that the game is a rich source for statistical analysis.  Dave Rusin of Northern Illinois University and Lou Scheffer a researcher at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (which I first heard about in Tim Hartford's book Adapt) have both written good analyses of the game from a statistical perspective, but it is the rigorous analysis at DataGenetics by Nick Berry which truly demonstrates just how deeply one can dig into the statistics of the game. When I defended the game back in December, I highlighted the pedagogical aspects of play in Candy Land.  It is a wonderful game for teaching young people how to play games, and also aids in educating young players that not all victories come from "being better" than your opponent which helps to teach good sportsmanship.

What I only briefly mentioned in that post, was that Candy Land is a great role playing game as well.  Back in December I stated that one of the joys of playing the game with my daughter's History and Mystery was that it engaged their imagination's in storytelling.  I'm quite surprised that I didn't associate this with role playing and role playing games in that article, even though I described the way my daughters play the game as follows:

Rather than the goal of the game being to "go home" as is written in the rules, Mystery and History are on a journey to have tea at Hello Kitty's house.  To add to the immersion, they have placed Lego Duplo "cat legos" on the board at both the home and peanut brittle house squares.  The home square represents Hello Kitty's house and the peanut brittle house is the domicile of Hello Kitty's apocryphal twin sister "Boxie." 

Re-reading the post made me realize how much like a role playing game session that sounds, but my daughters go even further than might be alluded to in the above description.  History and Mystery also engage in dialogue with the Duplo cats and have conversations with Hello Kitty and Boxie when they reach their destinations.  In fact, it is more important to Mystery that her "Ginger Man" reach the Peanut Brittle square than winning the game.  What's more is that they use the first person singular "I" when they refer to their gingerbread man pawn.  The girls are completely immersed in the fictional world of Candy Land.  Not only that, but they have expanded the fantasy world to include their own imaginary components.

As a parent it is a real joy to watch my daughters engage in this kind of imaginative play.  They also role play when they dress up in their Iron Man and Captain America costumes, when they play with their Legos and cars as well as with various stuffed animals and dolls.  They even do some role playing when they borrow my D&D and Star Wars miniatures.  It's quite magnificent to watch, and it's truly amazing to see how well Candy Land creates a Salen/Zimmerman/Huizinga "magic circle" as well.  It demonstrates it so well that like Zimmerman in his defense of the magic circle, I find criticisms like that by Darryl Woodford a little pendantic, overly literal, and odd.  What is most interesting in this demonstration is that I get to see how the "magic circle" of play that my daughters have created during a game of Candy Land extend beyond the spaces on the board itself, but that the imaginary land in which they are playing includes implied spaces in the illustrations and their own imagined Candy Land environment.  This imagining only extends until they stop playing the game.  Once the game stops, they are no longer in Candy Land and they have already had their tea parties.  They are ready to begin engaging with the real world and their foray's into "Elfland" (to borrow a phrase from Lord Dunsany) are finished and without the trauma or life changes that accompany most fictional representations of fantastic journeys.  The magic circle allows them to explore Wonderland without the risk of the Red Queen chopping off their heads.  It's a wonder to see.

I wish that I was the first person to describe Candy Land as a role playing game, but James Ernest in Family Games: The 100 Best -- and I'm sure countless others -- have beat me to it. As he described his play with his daughter Nora:

When I got "stuck on a gooey gumdrop," Nora would move her pawn back to that space and help me get unstuck.  This completely surprised me, because as a grown-up I assumed that a race game is unfriendly.  She would move back to her own space after helping me, but she always helped.  And she expected this kind of socially responsible behavior out of her parents as well....

Anyone who thinks he has seen all of Candy Land ought to play it again with a child.

Candy Land may not be the pinnacle of role playing game systems, but it seems clear to me that my own "maturity as a gamer" is what got in the way of my enjoyment of this game for many years.  Playing it with my daughters is a joy, and I will rue the day when Candy Land no longer creates a magic circle where my daughters are imagining a realistic milieu.  I hope that when that day comes, games like Pokemon Jr., A Faery's Tale, RPG Kids, and even D&D will be able to create one to replace the one that was lost.  There is a part of me that thinks it is a tragedy when adults believe that spending some time wandering the fields of Elfland is a waste of time or silly.

[Gaming History] Star Frontiers -- A Look Back at a Classic SF RPG

When TSR released the Dungeons & Dragons role playing game in the early 1970s, they created a new mode of gaming the role playing game.  What is interesting is that they failed to rapidly follow up the success of their "fantasy" themed role playing game with a succession of game releases in other genres.  While many of the first role playing games were shallow imitations of D&D...some were even Vacuous to use Gygax's terminology, it was other companies who first entered the marketplace with non-fantasy RPGs.

It wasn't long after the publication of D&D that Ken St. Andre drafted a set of rules for a science fiction themed role playing game entitled Starfaring, and Marc Miller published Traveller in 1977.  Where Starfaring was whimsical, and is a quintessentially 70s artifact that feels a bit like John Carpenter's Dark Star the rpg, Marc Miller's Traveller set the standard for science fiction rpgs.  In fact, Traveller truly set the standard for any rpg product line that was going to compete in the rpg marketplace.  Marc Miller's creation had a large following among the Space Gamer readership, and the publication of support materials for the game led to the growth of FASA -- one of the classic old RPG companies.  Traveller's success extends to the present, and Marc Miller currently has a Kickstarter campaign that promises a new edition that harkens to the old version.

Even though Traveller established science fiction as a viable genre for role playing games, it took TSR five years after the release of Traveller before they released their SF entry into the RPG marketplace, the Star Frontiers game.  When Star Frontiers came out, there were those who tried to compare it to Traveller, but I have always felt that the comparisons were slightly off base as they represent different kinds of SF.  Traveller's rules and back story, as well as the overwhelming influence D&D had on the early RPG market, gave the game a specific feel.  Characters created in the game are typically former military who are now retired, or as James Maliszewski has pointed out a good many were former Mercenaries.  Traveller campaigns had narratives along the lines of the Firefly television show, though it would be more chronologically accurate to say that Firefly has a Traveller feel to it.  Traveller's own backstory was heavily influenced by Asimov's Foundation series with it's dying empire.  Traveller campaigns were often gritty SF adventures filled with mercenaries and retired Imperial Officers spanning the Spinward Marches in pursuit of wealth and notoriety.

The D&D influence could also be seen in many Traveller campaigns, where players essentially wandered around the galaxy as pirates raiding Imperial space ships for their loot.  This isn't to say that all Traveller campaigns were "spacey dungeon crawls," the official adventures certainly weren't, just that some people played it that way.

The science fiction background of Star Frontiers was quite different from that of Traveller.  Where Traveller took place in a galaxy dominated by an interstellar Empire in a fairly settled area of the galaxy, Star Frontiers took place on the Frontier of civilization where a major corporation "Pan Galactic Corporation" -- later multiple corporations -- was sponsoring the exploration and attempting to profit.  The Pan Galactic Corporation had come into existence to promote exploration and trade among four major alien races -- Human, Vrusk, Dralasite, and Yazirian.  These races have only just begun to interact with one another, and have banded together on the Frontier of explored space.  At that Frontier, they soon discover a new enemy...an enemy that threatens to destroy any civilization that chooses to explore the Frontier.  That enemy is the Sathar, a wormlike race with hypnotic powers on the edge of explored space.  The exploring races have only recently completed their First Sathar War, during which they formed the United Planetary Federation, and are now having to deal with terrorist attacks and sabotage by agents of the Sathar...agents from among their own people.  In response to the Sathar's new warfare strategies -- espionage and terrorism -- the UPF has formed the Star Law Rangers who track Sathar agents and attempt to foil their plots.

The universes of the Traveller rpg and the Star Frontiers rpg have parallels in history.  One is of an empire in decline, the other is of mercantilism on the rise.  The tones of the settings are very different, but so are the rules.  Where Traveller characters are retired from former professions and already have a number of skills at which they are proficient -- especially if the characters were generated using the Mercenaries or High Guard supplements -- Star Frontiers characters are relatively inexperienced.  Even in the Expanded Star Frontiers rules, the characters have training in only two major skills -- and that training is at the lowest level.  The characters start near penniless and are in need of employment.  Players can be thankful that the Star Law Rangers are always looking for recruits, that the corporations are always looking for someone willing to risk Sathar attack while exploring planets on the Frontier, and then there's always the possibility of playing a group of Sathar agents...

Star Frontiers is a game that has a background that is rich in ideas for development...but it is also a game where one has to dig in order to find these ideas.  Trying to find out the history of the Star Frontiers universe is not an easy task.  Prior to the publication of Zebulon's Guide to Frontier Space there was not a clear timeline of the development of civilization.  One had to induct heavily from the introduction in the Basic Game rule book, read and reread the racial descriptions, and scour every module for minutiae to get a sense of what was going on.  Zeb's Guide did some of the work for you, as it advanced the timeline to a point after the modules and to a point where the Sathar had developed mind controlling organisms that latch on to the victim's back to take over the nervous system (fans of Puppet Masters and Iron Empires take note).  Taking the Frontier beyond an outline and into a fleshed out campaign setting takes time, but it is worth it.

I've read the rules many time, but have never actually played the game.  It's an easy system, though I've recently come up with an even simpler version of their Basic Rule with my own Extremely Basic rules, but I might just use the setting and play the game with another game's rules set.  Maybe d20 Modern/Future, they did write a Star Frontiers setting section for the d20 Future book and had a web expansion with stats for the Sathar, maybe Alternity, or Savage Worlds.  Heck...I might just use the Traveller system for it, when I get my copy of the 5th edition.  It's a great game too.

[Gaming History] Starleader: Assault! and Publisher vs. Creator Squabbles

Gamers who have only experienced the "edition wars" of the modern era might believe that the story of how Paizo Publishing became successful as a role playing game company is a unique occurrence.  After all, it isn't every day that a major role playing game publisher decides to make some internal changes and those changes provide a perfect opportunity for a new game publisher to secure a market segment releasing a revised version of the older company's game.

In the case of Wizards of the Coast, their creation of the Open Gaming License, combined with their decision to abandon Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 in order to produce a 4th edition of the game, provided a perfect opportunity for Paizo Publishing to release the Pathfinder Role Playing Game.  Those who played 3.5 know that Pathfinder is an update of the earlier Wizards of the Coast game, that features various improvements based on playtesting, an update that was much demanded by fans who felt abandoned by Wizards of the Coast for a variety of reasons.  Not only was Paizo filled with talented game designers who understood the 3.5 edition of D&D, many of those same designers worked for Wizards at one time or another.  In fact, many of Wizards most talented former game designers worked on the Pathfinder game.  To state what happened in a very reductive manner (that isn't exactly true but is useful for illustrative purposes), Paizo effectively secured a market segment by releasing a product that a competitor had abandoned or improperly developed.

Paizo's rise as a major publisher in the industry is very interesting.  I'm a big fan of their products, I was a first wave "Superscriber" of their merchandise, and I am a fan of Wizards of the Coast's 4th edition game.  As a fan, I didn't pick sides in the fight.  Many did.  I am also a long time gamer who has been playing role playing games for over 20 years, and who has an obsessive desire to study the hobby and learn its history.

This is how I know that Paizo's story isn't as unique as one might think.  In fact, Paizo's rise to fame parallels nicely with the rise of a little game company called Steve Jackson Games.  Steve Jackson Games emerged out of the very successful gaming company Metagaming Concepts when game designer Steve Jackson left Metagaming to form his own company.  Steve Jackson had designed many of Metagaming's most popular games including Ogre, GEV, Melee, and Wizard.  The last two were part of a line of games that came to be called The Fantasy Trip.  Metagaming was a company that exploded to success through the publication of "microgames."  They built upon the success smartly using the microgame format to release modules of what was to become a full fledged role playing game -- The Fantasy Trip.  When Steve Jackson left the Metagaming in 1980, the company unraveled fairly quickly and closed their doors in April of 1982.  There is a lot to the story, and Shannon Appelcline does a good job of covering it in the book Designers and Dragons.  Needless to say, looking at Metagaming's history one can see that the brain drain of losing Jackson was a death knell for the company.  Lucky for Wizards, they seem to be able to recruit and rehire talented desingers.

Unlike Paizo's ability to modify D&D, Jackson wasn't able to take The Fantasy Trip with him when he created his own company.  He was able to take Ogre, GEV, and One-Page Bulge (three classic microgames) with him.  Instead, Steve Jackson eventually designed his own role playing game called GURPS.  Though one can clearly see that GURPS is a descendant of the old The Fantasy Trip rules.

Though Metagaming went out of business, they did release a number of excellent products for The Fantasy Trip.  It remains to this day a highly playable and entertaining role playing game.  If one owns the Melee, Wizard, Advanced Melee, Advanced Wizard, and In The Labyrinth rules, one has enough material to run fantasy role playing game campaigns forever.  All of these game products list Steve Jackson as their designer, and though Metagaming claimed ownership of the game it is interesting to note that the text is "copyright Steve Jackson" for Advanced Melee, Advanced Wizard, and In the Labyrinth.  It is also interesting to note that my 1981edition of Melee published after Steve Jackson's departure lists Guy W. McLimore Jr. and Howard Thompson as the designers with Metagaming holding the copyright.  One can see the acrimony between Steve Jackson and Metagaming publisher Howard Thompson in those copyright listings alone, but letters like this one to Andy Windes help reinforce the opinion.

In the post Jackson era, Metagaming released a new series of The Fantasy Trip related games including Lords of the Underearth, Dragons of the Underearth, and a science fiction adaptation of the rules called Starleader: Assault!  There was even a super hero version of the TFT rules slated for publication.

When Starleader: Assault! was published, it was clearly designed to be the first in a series of science fiction themed microgames that would evolve into a full role playing system based on a TFT foundation.  Like Melee before it, Starleader: Assault! provides players with an introductory combat system.  The statistics used in the game are clearly rooted in the earlier game's mechanics, but there are some distinct differences.  Differences that are strong enough that the William Barton's review of the game in The Space Gamer #61 states, "It is a combat module...what Melee was to TFT.  And that is where the resemblance almost ends."

Character creation in Starleader: Assault! is similar to TFT.  Players are given a certain number of points to divide between three statistics (IQ, Prowess, and Emotion) and each statistic must have a minimum score of 8.  Interestingly enough, two of the three statistics play little role in the game play of this "combat module."  Where IQ determines the number of skill points a player receives in TFT, it merely determines the tech level of weapons that can be used by a character in Starleader: Assault!  Emotion is of even less use in the game and is only used for an optional rule regarding panic checks.  One imagines that Emotion might be used as the basis for a psionics system, but no such system was ever designed.

Where TFT was built starting with the assumption of hand to hand combat being the most common form of engagement, Starleader: Assault! combat begins with targeting assisted missile weapons as the basis for combat.  In fact, Prowess -- which one might think determines a person's skill in combat -- isn't used to determine whether someone is hit with a missile weapon at all in the game.  Even though Prowess is described as "the physical capacity of a character, including agility, strength, dexterity and endurance," to hit roles with missile weapons are determined by rolling 4d6 and seeing if that roll is under a target number equal to or less than the weapon's "Density" + Target Size - Size of Obstacles between shooter and opponent.  Interestingly, this makes shooting anyone at all a very difficult task.

For example:  a TL 6 "Ghazi" has a Density of 8 and your average person has a size of 2.  This means that firing at an average sized opponent who is standing in the open requires a roll of 10 or less on 4d6 -- a less than 50% chance.  While it is true that this might be a fairly accurate portrayal of real life odds of shooting someone in a hectic situation, it makes for some frustrating combat rounds.  Weapon fire can be fairly lethal in Starleader: Assault!  The average hit -- assuming same TL for attacker and defender -- does 7 points of damage.  That pretty much means that even the stoutest fellow is down after a second shot.  Once again a decently realistic result, but not necessarily a good narrative one.

Melee combat in Starleader: Assault!?  Um... right...you'll need to own Melee and it uses a slightly different system.  It is definitely a game that says, "once you've got blasters, you don't need any stinkin' swords."

Funny thing is...I played a couple of battles portraying various assaults on the ship Trek Heaven.  Yes, you read that right, the Trek Heaven.  Get it.  Ugh.  Anyway, I played through a couple of battles and as a microgame of a shootout on a space ship, the game is pretty fun.  I don't know how it would do as the foundation for a full blown role playing game.  Even if one were to incorporate rules from TFT -- for which there are "conversion" rules -- it doesn't quite seem to work that way.  I don't know though, I might just try it out.  The skill system from TFT seems like it would overlap easily.  It's only the combat system that would require a little work.

[DnDNext] Warding Off System Snobbery

I'm as guilty of it as the next gamer.  If you mention that you play F.A.T.A.L. or one of a small list of games, I will roll my eyes derisively and mock you behind your back.  I might even make a snide comment about your gaming preferences.  Equally, I will be deeply offended if you roll your eyes at me when I mention that I love playing Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition Essential Edition or The Rocky and Bullwinkle Role Playing Party Game.  It's System Snobbery and one thing that the "edition wars" and the recent "dndnext" conversations have aptly demonstrated, it is alive and well.

The thing is that System Snobbery isn't new, and it isn't beneficial to the hobby as a whole.  I was recently reminded of how insidious System Snobbery can be when I picked up and read Laryy DiTillio's commentary on the topic in issue 7 of Different Worlds Magazine.  I've been spending a lot of time recently reading old gaming magazines, magazines from when I was just getting into the hobby.  At the time, as a tween, I had neither the resources nor the knowledge that gaming magazines other than "The Dragon" existed at all.  Heck, even though I lived in the same town as the talented and prolific Allen Varney -- we probably shopped at the same game store -- I hadn't even heard of The Space Gamer at the time.

Back to the point though.  In his commentary on System Snobbery, Larry DiTillio has a couple of key observations that I think are worth sharing as we enter discussions regarding what we would like to see from a new edition of Dungeons and Dragons.

Larry's commentary follows a visit in 1979 to a reasonably sized convention in Oakland, CA called GrimCon.  He mentions that the games organizers all are employees/founders of various small gaming companies like the Multiversal Trading Company and Grimoire Games.  As such, the Con offered a lot of non-traditional role playing games as their "tournament fare." 

Larry's firsts observation of gaming snobbery was that while the hosts of the convention were offering a wide variety of games for sampling, that the attendees pretty much ignored them to spend time in the open gaming area to play D&D.  His thoughts, and I agree, were that conventions are the perfect time to try something new.

His second observation is of how he was treated at a DunDraCon event.  At the event, Larry was scheduled to run a session of Tunnels and Trolls.  He had been invited to DunDraCon IV by Steve Perrin to run the game. After sitting and waiting for players to show up, eventually a convention representative asked Larry why he had cancelled is T&T session.  He notified them he hadn't, but discovered that someone had -- likely as a prank -- written "cancelled" on his sign up sheet.  He eventually got gamers to a T&T table, but not before being passive aggressively bullied by some System-hater. 

Larry makes a number of other observations, and is a talented storyteller in how he shares them, so I recommend picking up the issue.  The crux of is article is the following:

"[A Good GM] will provide you with and enjoyable, rewarding RPG [experience].  NO MATTER WHAT SYSTEM THEY PREFER." So long as the GM is talented and committed to providing the players with a good time.  He also acknowledges that we should be thankful to Steve Perrin (for "Runequest), to Dave Hargrave ("Arduin"), Ken St. Andre (T&T), Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson (D&D).  I would add that in the years since, we have many more names to add to the list.  These names range from Greg Gorden (007 and DC Heroes) to Mike Mearls (4e) and from Erik Mona (Pathfinder) to Chris Pramas (AGE/Green Ronin) to name only a few.  We should also thank those, like Shelly Mazzanoble, who may not be among the "creators" of our games, but who stand at the front lines of those who promote our hobby and try to bring new people in.  Not to mention the great stuff coming out of the Indie games marketplace.

Instead of being snobbish about the games we don't like, we should be thankful that we have so many great ones to choose from.  Does that mean that we cannot criticize mechanics?  No.  We can and should, in a constructive manner that moves the hobby forward.  We just shouldn't disparage people for preferring a system.

Gaming Snobbery...and public snobbery against gamers...are a couple of the reasons Wes, Joel, and I created the Dice Chuckers project.  Join us in that project as either a sponsor, a participant, or in conversation.  We'd love to hear from you.

DNDNext: The Kids Are Alright -- He-Man, Cartoons, and D&D

When I was around 11 or 12 years old, my best friend Sean McPhail and I used to play a fair amount of D&D.  Our first foray into the hobby wasn't the best experience, we had a killer DM who had "memorized" his own personal dungeon.  I have discussed that particular debacle in an earlier post.  I am glad that my initial terrible introduction to D&D didn't sour me on the hobby as a whole, or the game in particular.  I have a number of wonderful hobby related memories, and keep making new ones each week when I run games today.

Of those wonderful memories, there are a couple that stand out brilliantly in my mind.  There is the use of the D&D Basic set as a substitute for the combat system in Broadsides & Boarding Parties.  There is the 20 PC siege of The Keep on the Borderlands...  Hey...the book provided stats for the residents of the Keep, that meant we were supposed to attack it right?  Stats = dungeon right?  No?  Well, we thought so at the time and Darg and his crew had a good time sacking the Keep.  There was also a great run through Castle Ravenloft.  These were all experiences with Sean, and they were a great deal of fun.

But these weren't my most cherished D&D moment with Sean.  No indeed.  My most cherished D&D moment with him was when he ran his He-Man and the Masters of the Universe inspired dungeon.  It was a dungeon that he had drawn out himself.  The map was a complex maze of rooms that was a wonder to behold and a challenge to map out.  In one of the rooms of that dungeon was a deadly Death Knight with it's delay blast fireball gems.  In another room...and I'm getting overwhelmed with nostalgia just thinking about it was ... Beast Man.  Beast Man was the challenge of challenges, and Sean presented him with awe inspiring description.  He was the most intimidating foe my characters had faced to date.  I don't know what Sean's full write up for the character was, but I do know that the blue gem in Beast Man's chest had a "sleep" spell within it that overwhelmed one of my characters.  It was good stuff.

The toys, and cartoon, had inspired Sean and he in turn created an adventure that left me with one of my all time favorite D&D memories.  What I didn't know at the time was that the writers of He-Man, Larry DiTillio for one, were players of D&D and that He-Man was in some ways a D&D cartoon.  Fans of a certain age all know and love the old D&D cartoon with Hank the Ranger and Eric the Cavalier, but many of us also have a deep and abiding love for He-Man as well.  For those of you who wonder just how much D&D influenced the He-Man show, let me share with you the words of Larry DiTillio (who also wrote Tunnels and Trolls adventures)  who was a writer on the TV series. 

 In issue 34 of Different Worlds, Larry writes:

Incidentally, knowing Ye Ol' Sword is a game buff, it should come as no surprise that I often use game concepts in writing He-Man scripts. This includes spells, characters, traps, and plot twists.  In fact, I even inserted a much-beloved dragon from one of my game supplements into a show and much to my delight the character proved popular enough to warrant a sequel.  See how games and films fit together?  He-Man fans should also keep an ear open for famous names from gaming, an inside joke I sometimes like to throw in my animated stories.

D&D was not just a part of popular culture, it was a part of the popular culture of the youth of the age.  We grew up with the Moldvay/Cook Basic set with its Jeff Dee, Bill Willingham, and Erol Otus artwork.  Artwork that was cartoony and that translated fantasy perfectly for the minds of 9 to 13 year olds of the era.  It was the perfect "tween" introduction to the hobby.  The Mentzer basic set that followed continued the tradition and provided a perfect jumping on place for younger players.  Let the older players start with the AD&D books without the need of a basic set -- such as those in the Space Gamer crowd who asserted that the Basic set was a moot and unnecessary product.

It wasn't an unnecessary product, it was vital.  It was a product that brought an entire generation into the hobby.  Even with a horrible first experience with the game, Tom Moldvay's playful tone made sure that I retained my interest in the hobby.  The Basic Set was marketed at younger gamers, but it wasn't "dumbed down" for younger gamers.  It included all the rules of original D&D, but in a more coherent format.  It lacked some of the complexities of AD&D, but it perfectly prepared players for those complexities.

D&D Next needs to make sure that it has a product -- from day one -- that is aimed at younger gamers and the beginning gamer.  It needs a true basic set along the lines of those old ones.  The more recent "Red Box" edition that Wizards released to promote the Essentials line doesn't cut it.  I love that box and think that it was a good product, but the Essentials books themselves better fit the bill of what I am referring to.  If the Red Box included Heroes of the Fallen Lands, that would be what I am talking about.  Maybe with some artwork by the artists who are working diligently and with artistry on the current D&D comic books.  Andrea Di Vito has done some great work on that book.  My recommendation is that a new basic box have a cover that looks something like the following, and with rules aimed at the younger generation. 

We were all new gamers once.  Let's try and introduce new gamers with the same open arms and seriousness with which we were greeted.  Let's create a new line of toys, a new animated series, and more boardgames like the recent "D&D Adventure Series."

Gaming History: The Space Gamer and Black Gate Magazine, TSR Buys SPI

On February 28th, the publisher of Black Gate Magazine, wrote a blog post celebrating an old SPI game called Swords and Sorcery.  He praised the game in his semi-regular "new treasures" column.  The game itself was published in 1978, but O'Neill had just acquired an edition from eBay.  If the edition he purchased is the edition photographed in the blog post, he and I own the same edition of the game.  The game may have been old, but it was new to him. 

The post is quite positive, and I largely agree with O'Neill's review.  As is common in discussion of old SPI games, a discussion of TSR's acquisition of SPI -- and their subsequent "killing" of SPI game lines -- was brought up in the comments section.  Among the grognards of the gaming hobby, of which I am certainly one, there is often a good deal of ire aimed at TSR for their behavior.  This ire is often directed at Lorraine Williams, but not always.  One of those cases where it isn't directed at Lorraine Williams is in the TSR purchase of SPI in 1982.  At that time, the company was very much in the control of Gygax and the Blumes -- though they were having plenty of internal strife at the time.

In this particular post, Black Gate's managing editor (and talented author Howard Andrew Jones) was the individual who brought up TSR's "killing" of SPI product lines.  In my typical "provocateur" fashion, I mentioned that I thought that the TSR acquisition and killing of SPI was more complicated than most grognards think and even included some slight praise for Lorraine Williams -- as a fan I am actually amazed at the products that came out during her tenure, even if she hated gamers.  Here is what I wrote:

While it is easy to blame TSR for what they did to SPI — and they deserve a lot of blame — one should keep two things in mind

First, when they purchased SPI it was in dire financial straights and would likely not have survived.

Second, they had hoped to keep SPI’s staff, but those staff members refused to work for TSR — for varied reasons — and left to form the Victory Games studio over at Avalon Hill.

Third, and this is where I get near heretical, it was the Blumes who devalued SPI’s contributions. A massive resurgence of publishing of SPI games happened under Lorraine Williams. We would never have seen the SPI monster TSR World War II game, or Wellington’s Victory, SNIPER (including BugHunters), let alone the 3rd edition of DragonQuest.

I believe she did the publishing of SPI stuff out of desperation, not any love for the product or the fans, as TSR was starting to have financial troubles which could only be met by an ever expanding publication schedule and continual revenue flow.

It was the Blumes who refused to acknowledge lifetime subscriptions to SPI magazines.
There is an excellent issue of Fire and Movement, printed by Steve Jackson Games, that goes over the purchase of SPI.

I have since hunted down the issue of Fire & Movement I mentioned, and it is issue 27 (May/June 1982).  In that issue Nick Schuessler writes a remarkably detailed article about TSR's acquisition of SPI and provides some context for the purchase.  Some highlights of the article are:

• On March 31, 1981 TSR announced they were initiating a chain of events to purchase SPI.
• On April 7th, eight key SPI staffers tendered their resignations and announced they were forming a new company called Victory Games that would work under the auspices of Avalon Hill.
• TSR acquirexd the trademarks and copyrights of the entire SPI inventory.
• Mark Herman, the leader of the eight defectors, had been negotiating with Avalon Hill to purchase SPI.
• The TSR conglomerate owned a science fiction magazine (Amazing), and a needlepoint company, in addition to D&D and in 1981 they had $17 million in sales revenue.
• SPI was a $2 million a year company.

Schuessler's article is heavy on facts, and only has one bit of speculation.  That bit of speculation is whether the brain drain, the loss of Mark Herman and crew, will have a long term negative effect on the acquisition.  I would argue, from a historical perspective, that this was the single most devastating part of the acquisition.  SPI's strength was in its designers.  Mark Herman, Jerry Klug, John and Trish Butterfield, and Greg Gorden were some of the most talented designers of their era.

But the May/June issue of Fire and Movement only gives us a part of the story.  It doesn't truly show how desperate TSR was to diversify their brand, and how much internal strife existed at the company.  Those elements can be seen in old issues of The Space Gamer.   In issue 60 of TSG, John Rankin writes an article about a visit by TSR employees to Dallas where TSR Vice-President Duke Seifried were to meet with Heritage-USA and where there were possibly discussions for TSR to purchase Heritage or to enter into a joint venture with them.  John Rankin's article states:

• Heritage USA still owed Duke Seifried money from his time with the company, and that Duke was a stockholder in the company.
• TSR was very much in need of a miniatures company if they wanted to diversify. 
•  No meeting between TSR and Heritage actually occurred, though Duke did likely get information from them as a stockholder.
• TSR "left no broken hearts in Dallas.  But they didn't make any new friends either."
• There is a sense of some instability at TSR, and they are seen as not wanting to lead the industry rather just to "control it."  

This all seems like a relatively mundane deal gone bad...until one looks at other issues discussing TSR.  By issue 65 of The Space Gamer, the internal strife at TSR comes to the fore.  In that issue, the following facts are reported.

• TSR released 40 of its employees in June of 1983.  Among these employees was Duke Seifried.
• TSR was reorganized into 4 companies.
• TSR Public Relations director Dietur Sturm described TSR finances as, "More or less, what you're looking at is money coming into the company from sales and not focused properly...Sales are there as far as the distributors and retailers and stores (are concerned); they have nothing to worry about."

This news demonstrates a number of problems within TSR.  There is obviously internal strife.  The firing of Seifried and the "banishing" of Gygax to Los Angeles hint at that.  The company also clearly had no idea how to maintain and expand their product lines.  They purchased a needlepoint company for goodness' sake!  Why?  What synergy could that provide?

They purchased SPI, a company that had a rich catalog of war games but that also had a Fantasy Roleplaying Game called Dragon Quest.  Supporting the SPI rpg would have possibly meant cannibalizing their own product lines.  They had no plans to retain the talents acquired in the SPI purchase, and in fact eventually fired everyone they hired from SPI and refused to support life time subscriptions to SPI's magazine Strategy & Tactics.  TSR did everything they could to alienate the customer base of the company they had just acquired, and they were "reorganizing" to end an outpouring of money.  They were in constant need of revenue to stay afloat. They were selling a ton of product, but they also weren't developing products with any logical consistency.  These are trends that wouldn't end any time soon.  You can read Ryan Dancey's financial audit of TSR when Wizards of the Coast purchased them to see just how much this remained a problem in 1997.

I think that Rankin's comment regarding not wanting to lead, rather to control is a perfect description of the company.  They boycotted GAMA and demanded D&D not be played at Origins.  They had no plans for talent retention.  They didn't publish the products they acquired.  They don't seem to have been logical in the determination of the size of print runs.  They cannibalized product lines -- even in the Blume/Gygax era though this became disastrous in the Williams era.  As much as I love TSR's many settings having the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Mystara, Hollow World, Birthright, and Dark Sun all as simultaneous fantasy setting product lines is a case study definition of cannibalizing product lines.  Having "Basic," "Expert," "Companion," and "Master" D&D as well as Advanced D&D -- let alone a 2nd edition -- is also a case study definition.

The company produced great games, but they were not managed well at all.  Bad management is endemic throughout the rpg industry.  It is an industry primarily run by hobbyists and not business people.  This is a creative boon, but a business curse.

On an interesting note, as I was looking through old The Space Gamer issues I found a letter by a John O'Neill of Ottawa, Canada in issue 66.  I'm going to take a huge leap here and say that the John O'Neill in that 1983 letter is the publisher of Black Gate Magazine.  Why would I make such an assumption?  Just look at the first two paragraphs of that letter:

In an age of man now only distantly remembered, there existed a magazine which the good people in the land of Fandom did enjoy.  But lo, there came a day unlike any other day, when the Powers That Be sent a lightning bolt to rend asunder that magazine.

From the fragments of the one there emerged two magazines, and the Powers That Be told the people of Fandom to partake of them.

Who, but the future editor of a Sword and Sorcery magazine, could write such a letter? 

Image Copyright 2012 Jody Lindke

 

D&D Next: "Zones of Control" from Chainmail to 4e

In my gaming career, I have played in a number of D&D campaigns.  In fact, I can honestly say that I have played in games using every D&D rules set. I've also played in Champions, Justice Inc., DC Heroes, and Savage Worlds campaigns -- to name just a few -- but this post isn't about those games.  This post is about D&D and how the D&D rules have implemented "Zones of Control" (ZoC) in various ways throughout the evolution of the game.  Every edition has featured some kind of implementation of ZoC, but the amount those were used by players in some edition varied on how house ruled a particular campaign happened to be.  More on that later.

One of the most frequent comments by critics I read on discussion boards, or in Twitter/Facebook discussions, about the 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons is how it "requires the use of miniatures" or "feels more like a board/tactical video game" than it does a role playing game.  These comments always strike me as odd.  Not because the way people have played D&D has required miniatures and battlemaps.  There have always been campaigns that have elected to neglect the granular miniatures rules of D&D and highlight the abstract nature of what the White Box called the "alternative combat system."  What strikes me as odd is that these comments seem to have as an underlying assumption that the Rules as Written of D&D didn't assume the use of miniatures in every edition -- including the 4th.  There are some peculiarities of the 4th edition that make it more difficult to abstract away from -- many of which also exist in 3.x/Pathfinder -- but the game has always been rooted in miniatures as its default method of play.

I imagine I could try to defend my D&D's "miniatures as default" position by taking quotes from various editions which discuss how the game is a game of miniatures combat, like the fact that the original rules call themselves "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures."  But I think a line of argument like that one would become boring and could easily turn into a "just because it says miniatures doesn't mean they actually used miniatures" argument.  And because of the varied ways that people have actually played the game throughout the years, no one would be right and it would just be a bizarre pedantic discussion.  I'm not talking about a "right way" or a "proper way" to play D&D, I'm just talking about what the default setting of each edition was and how it was reflected in the rules -- in this case one particular rule.  For the sake of full disclosure, I will readily admit that half the campaigns I played in ignored many of the miniatures as default rules.  All of the games I have played in have ignored that bizarre "weapons vs. armor" chart in the AD&D Player's Handbook.

One of the key mechanics that demonstrates the miniatures as default setting is the fact that every edition of D&D has had some form of ZoC mechanic.  That's right, every edition.  To understand this statement, it would be helpful if I shared what exactly a ZoC mechanic is.  I have always found Jon Freeman's definition in The Complete Book of Wargames (1980) to be very useful in this regard, as ZoC rules are somewhat arcane and difficult to understand for all but the most hard core hex and chit wargamer.   Jon defines a Zone of Control in the following way:

Zone of Control (ZOC) -- A unit's "sphere of influence," usually the hex it is in and the six adjacent hexes that affect opposing units.  Effects vary greatly but usually involve combat, movement, and/or supply.

To rephrase, a Zone of Control is an area around a unit (character or combatant) in which that unit can affect the combat ability, movement, and/or supply of other units.

In OD&D, the ZoC rules varied depending on whether you were using the Chaimail rules system or the "alternative combat system" provided in the Men & Magic booklet.

If you were using Chaimail, the ZoC rules were two-fold.  First, if units were engaged in melee they remained in direct contact with one another until one unit was destroyed, broke, retreated, or was forced back in "good order" based on a resolution of unit morale.  At no point could any unit withdraw from melee combat excluding a morale result.  Once combatants were in contact, they were stuck in the other unit's Zone of Control.  The second ZoC rule in Chainmail deals with "Pass through Fire" during the movement phase.  In effect, missile troops have a ZoC that affects the movement of all units passing through their line of sight who are within their firing range.  Chainmail has two ZoC rules which require the use of miniatures to properly implement.  There are some additional nuances to these rules, but this post isn't a detailed discussion of Chainmail.  I'm just pointing out its ZoC mechanics with broad strokes.

The "alternative combat system" presented in the Men & Magic booklet is the system that eventually evolved into the modern D&D combat system.  It is the core d20 mechanic of the game.  Chainmail evolved into Warhammer -- I wouldn't even be able to understand Chainmail if I weren't a Warhammer gamer.  In the Men & Magic book, the alternative combat system is presented solely in the form of two charts which provide the number needed in order to hit an opponent based on the armor they are wearing.  These charts are on pages 19 and 20 of the booklet.  There is no discussion in that booklet of how to apply the system or how movement works.  Movement rates are provided in inches corresponding to the movement system used in Chainmail, that of inches on a table surface.  The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures booklet does have some clarifications and extensions to the alternative combat system, clarifications which imply that the Chainmail "locked in combat until killed/routed" still apply.  On page 25 of Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, it states "the basic system is that of Chainmail... Melee can be conducted with the combat table given in Volume I or by the CHAINMAIL system, with scores equalling a drive back or kill equal
only to a hit."  This is expanded upon on page 28 where the size of an individual figure's ZoC for melee purposes is revealed, "When opponents are within the range indicated for melee (3") then combat takes
place. Of course if one opponent is in a position where the other cannot strike, then only one will be able to attack, just as in combat on land."  In other words, figures enter into melee with figures within 3" of them -- at least for Air to Ground attacks.  Ground to Ground attacks might still require figures to be adjacent.

Regardless, there is no articulation of a means to disengage from melee in the White Box rules.  The Greyhawk Supplement adds an "attacking from flank/rear" chart that is clearly intended for miniatures use.  Eldritch Wizardry breaks the inches of movement down to how much a character may move within a specific "segment" of a round, once more implying miniature use.  The Swords & Spells, which was written as a replacement for Chainmail, finally provides some firm rules for disengaging from melee, rules which also strengthen the link to miniature use and which reinforce earlier assumptions, "special figures may be withdrawn from melee at any time desired, but opponent figures are allowed an additional round of attack wherein the withdrawing figure does not strike back."   In this we see the origins of the 3.x system "attack of opportunity" and a strengthening of the ZoC of meleeing units.  Melees may -- post Swords & Spells -- not be disengaged from except by special units who must be willing to endure a free strike.

It is this free strike rule which prevails in the first "Basic Rules" for D&D.  The rules for willingly disengaging from melee provide by Dr. Holmes are particularly dangerous for the person leaving combat.  "A character may withdraw from combat if there is space beside or behind him to withdraw into.  His opponent gets a free swing at him as he does so with an attacker bonus of +2 on the die roll, and shields do not count as protection when withdrawing."  The Holmes Basic Set has the same ZoC as Original D&D (as modified by Swords & Spells) with a bonus added to the attacker, which makes the ZoC even more deadly.  Once locked into melee, the player really has to weigh his/her options.

The Moldvay Basic Set gives those wanting to withdraw a couple of options with its "defensive movement" options.  One of those options is identical to the Holmes/S&S option.  The other option allows for a "fighting withdrawal" where the combatant can only move 1/2 their movement rate, but don't provoke an attack in doing so.  Given Moldvay's stressing of the utility of miniatures, "If miniatures are not being used, the DM should draw on a piece of paper or use something (dice work nicely) to represent the characters in place of miniature figures," it isn't surprising that he adds another tactical layer to how ZoCs work in D&D.  By his edition, they restrict movement somewhat but leaving them doesn't always provoke an attack.

It should be noted that the rules of combat up to the Moldvay Basic set are so arcane in their presentation, that most people had to make up how to play the game.  It is also true that it is pretty easy to ignore the ZoC, or to just assume melee contact for melee combatants and ignore "position" bonuses/penalties, and rely  strictly on the d20 rolls as the entire system.  In fact, this is how my first group played.  We were too young to be able to afford minis, so we just used common sense regarding who was in melee -- rarely the magic user -- and alternated d20 rules.  There was very little tactical maneuvering in our games, but a great deal of fun.  It is memories like ours that I think lead people to remember D&D as an abstract game rather than a minis game.  The memories are correct, but the rules had a default minis use setting that had "opportunity attacks" akin to 3.x.

This "free attack" ZoC continues through the AD&D Player's Handbook which includes rules for parrying, falling back, and fleeing on page 104.  Falling back is preferable, but doesn't truly prevent an opponent from attacking you unless you have a higher movement.  The opponent may still attack you, but if you are parrying they suffer a penalty.  Fleeing combat is similar to earlier withdrawals.  It should be noted that page 70 of the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide does have the older method of opportunity attacks.  It also states the following, "if characters or similar intelligent creatures are able to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break out of combat."  There are numerous references to figures, movement rates in inches, illustrations to determine flank/rear attacks.  The assumption here is on the use of figures -- even though the rules are easily abstracted.

It isn't really until edition 3.5 that the rules begin to minimize the ability to be easily abstracted in the way earlier editions were.  While all the editions assumed miniatures use as a default setting, they were also easy to abstract.  Third edition attempted to keep this trend even though thinks like "threatening" and "flanking" -- both of which had real combat effects -- threw a little monkey wrench in the gears.  They tried to present these themes "abstractly" in the 3.0 PHB.

They quickly gave up on attempts to have "threatened area" and "flanking" be abstract when they created the 3.5 rulebook.  Once they produced that rule book, not only was the default assumption use of minis but the mechanics basically required them.  To not use minis was to abandon the benefits of a number of feats and tactical choices, or to limit those choices by subjecting them to "common sense, consensus, or fiat."  A system I attempted to use early in my 3.x experiences, but which quickly proved inadequate to my Champions and Battletech spoiled comrades.  They wanted clear display of their tactical choices, and who could blame them.  The 3.5 rule books certainly didn't.  

Fourth edition merely continued the trend of all earlier editions, with the use of the "threatening" ZoC.  What it added were layers of how to create additional opportunities for the ZoC to have effects.  It also added ZoCs to certain spells with the full articulation of ZoC spells for "controllers."  These are all things that were in the rules from the beginning of the game.

Early in the game, the rules were presented in Wargame terminology.  By 3rd Edition AD&D, they had become somewhat abstracted in presentation but were still deeply rooted in "threatened" effects.  So much so that the company felt the need to create a 3.5 edition of the game which specifically used miniatures to demonstrate how the combat rules work.  The difference was the use of language.  D&D by 3.5 had ceased using purely wargame language to describe combat effects, it had some of  its own concepts.  With the release of 4th edition, they returned to a use of wargame terminology and wargame style effects became implemented in more areas of the system.  By 4th edition, a game that had worked hard to feel less "game-ish" and more narrative had become, for some players, too game terminology oriented.  Players who used Wizards -- Controllers -- could feel the "game-ishness" of the system and it felt less narrative to them.

A part of this is because we don't have years upon years of stripping away the gamish stuff and substituting an array of cultural D&D rules mores to substitute for them.  Original D&D was as game-ish as 4e, every edition is actually as game-ish, but we had created short cuts and systems to eliminate those elements and go to the abstract.  In doing so, I think we actually neglected some of the real richness of the game.  We should celebrate the gamist pieces.  Use them.  Get used to them.  Once they become second nature, they become less "game-ish" and you can focus on the story.  The more you focus on ZoCs being annoying, when they've always been there but maybe you ignored them, the less you are enjoying a great game.

Every edition of D&D is great.  Let's hope they don't forget that with DNDNext.

Gaming and the Screenwriting/Cartooning Widower #1 -- Meeting the Cartoonist

A few years ago, my wife Jody and I decided to attempt to jump the Snake River Canyon while riding a rocket aided motorcycle.  Okay, that's not exactly true.  We decided to attempt something even more impossible.  We decided that Jody was going to become a successful screenwriter and cartoonist.  Jody applied to USC's prestigious School of Cinema and Television, and we counted the days until the rejection letter would arrive and shatter all our dreams.

That day didn't come.  Instead, we received a very large envelope inviting Jody to attend the school.  We were elated, but also quite amazed by the situation.  I think Jody best described our emotional state when we first arrived on the USC campus in order to get her a student ID card.  She said, "But Christian...no one actually gets to go to school here.  This place is for remarkable people."

There was no irony in her tone when she made the statement.  She believed it.  You see, Jody has a serious case of underestimating her own talents and worth.  In Champions/HERO System terms, Jody has around a 30 point psychological disadvantage in this regard.  On the plus side, she spent all 30 of these points on her various skills and talents. 

Last week, Jody started up a blog called "Are You Famous Yet?" where she has been sharing her thoughts and experiences as she navigates the mysterious pathways that make up the Entertainment industry, or as it is typically called in Los Angeles...The Industry.  I thought that I would spend some of my blogging time sharing some of my own experiences as a "Screenwriting/Cartooning Widower."  Jody's struggles and long hours would make for lonely days and evenings were it not for the fact that I am an avid gamer and a working graduate student.

Speaking of gaming, the idea for the title of this post and subsequent posts on the subject, come from an article in issue 54 of Steve Jackson Games' old gaming magazine The Space Gamer. 

When I was an undergraduate student at the University of Nevada, Reno it was a golden age for that schools Cartoons page.  There were two well done cartoon strips (one about college life and one about a bear), and one cartoon strip that was something quite special.  That special cartoon strip had a truly bizarre name.  It was called Nicnup, and it told the story of a group of young people as they encountered life's oddities.  To say it "told a story" is a bit of a misstatement.  It contained jokes which featured young people encountering life's oddities. 

I had no idea who drew the strip, but I read it religiously in every issue of The Sagebrush.  It was the primary reason I read the school's paper.  It was a great strip that seemed to be getting better every issue as the artist better learned the craft.  I had no idea who the artist was, only that this person was named Jody Lindke.  (For those of you wondering, I took my wife's last name.)

One day I was sitting watching NFL in the television room of one of the dorms, I was waiting to see my friend Rich, when I see this friendly looking young woman carrying her bicycle up to her room.  I quickly ask if she would like to watch the game with me and she said yes.  After taking her bike back up to the room, we watched the game and chatted.  Mostly, we chatted.  I was quite smitten by this young woman named Jody and made arrangements to chat with her again in the near future.  Several more discussions later, I was inviting her to play in a Champions superhero campaign that I was running for some other friends.  She asked what day we played and I told her Monday.  She said she would be delighted to come but that she had to make sure she met her deadline first.

"Deadline?...hmm...?"  The words sounded important, but I made no connection at the time.  It wasn't until after a couple of weeks playing that I finally figured it out.  Jody was running late for the game, so I walked up to her dorm room to see if she could make it and that was when I found out she was the illustrator of Nicnup.  I was surprised.  Here I have been the friend of the best cartoonist in the school paper for over a month, and I had no idea that Jody and Jody Lindke were the same person...even after hearing references to this mysterious "deadline" thing.  I guess I'm pretty dense.

Anyway, for the next few months Jody would either show up on time or be late as the muse hit her or she struggled through coming up with a new idea/joke and therein lies the root of screenwriting/cartooning widower-dom.  The creative muse.  Coming up with ideas is difficult, more so when you are trying to come up with an idea that has the potential to entertain millions of people -- quite a few more than the thousands she entertained with her cartoon strips.

In the years since graduating, Jody no longer plays in my gaming groups.  She likes the people I game with, she likes the hobby, but the time she needs for her creative efforts has multiplied a hundred fold.  When we were in college, I could count the number of times she had to stay up all night to finish a cartoon on my fingers and toes. 

In the time since, I have lost count of the number of all-nighters Jody has experienced in the advancement of her career.  But there is one that comes to mind more vividly than any other.  It was the first "mix-week" she experienced at USC.  Twice each semester, student films have their sound mixes completed in a mad dash cram called "mix week."  During this time, the sound designers, sound department, and TAs work for a full week without ever coming home.  Near as I can tell, they work the entire week without any kind of sleep whatsoever. 

The frantic nature of these weeks, as well as film school in general, made for a pretty lonely marriage experience.  Pre-film school, we were a couple who essentially dated every night and had massive movie marathons every weekend.  During film school, I was lucky to see Jody for more than 5 minutes on some days.  I imagine that this kind of grueling schedule could put a strain on a relationship, but it didn't strain ours.  I made sure to visit Jody on her campus as much as possible, and I had my gaming hobby to fill in the lonely hours while she put her nose to the grindstone.  I was working full-time and in a Grad program, but I was the one with "oodles" of idle time in comparison to Jody.  I never felt resentment that Jody "didn't want to spend time with me."  It was pretty clear every time that I saw her that she would much rather spend time with me, but the demands on her time were severe. 

I was also lucky that Jody didn't resent my gaming time.  Yes, there was some minor resentment for the tabletop gaming I got to do.  That was spending time with other people after all, but there was absolutely no resentment for the hours I spent playing Final Fantasy.  Or as Jody calls it, "the walk around on the very big map and do nothing game."

The key thing I had to focus on was to make sure that my gaming time lined up with her busy time, and that I was free as often as possible during her free time.  Let me stress that this free time was not a lot of time, and that whatever time there was had to be spent doing more than watching a 30 minute sit-com.  There was often a week's (or two) worth of discussion about the world.  There was the need for hugs and quality time.  I made every moment count, and I think I managed to let her know how deeply loved she is in my efforts to cram a weeks worth of marriage into 45 minutes.

Film school was good practice for Jody's time in the "Industry Agency" trenches.  Those were days when she not only worked long, but in an environment that isn't exactly conducive to self-esteem.

I learned a lot about marriage during film school, about what is really important.  Communication and letting your spouse know your care are vital.  When your spouse is working ridiculously hard, it is important to recognize the fact and to sympathize.  Don't think they are doing it because they want to be away from you.  That way lies madness.

Instead, pick up a book, a hobby, or a "long map game" to pass the time, and use that time to think about how you are going to maximize the little together time that you are going to have together.  May I recommend quick jaunts to Culver City or Monrovia for dinner, or a nice hike at Griffith Park, or a brisk walk on the beach. 

When your spouse is trying to get a paying gig in a creative field, it's important to remember to be the net/parachute.  Don't resent any work you have to do to support them, financially or emotionally.  Because your loved one is taking the rocket jump across Snake River Canyon and they are scared enough without having to worry about how things are going at home.