But…

As I was saying:

I have another problem re D&D abilities…

The bog standard S, I, W, D, C and Ch seems entirely arbitrary and conceptually flawed. I have no idea what Gygax et al were thinking when they created those categories, but my guess is they were trying to determine a simple and abstract way to numerically model a real human, while trying to balance physical and mental aspects of a person. I also think they wanted to give each of the classes a prime ability, hence the inclusion of the utterly pointless Wis. All very well and what I’m considering is no less arbitrary or abstract, but I hope to make it slightly less flabby and to pay closer attention to the genre of epic fantasy rather than a realistic and balanced model of a human.

[Now I’m not the first to consider this. Here is just two examples of leaner approaches to ability categories that I've recently read: Into the Odd (a home-brew D&D variant) and this discussion on ability scores, which probably does a better and more succinct job of it than I’m going to do. But as I was going to gas on about this anyway, so I won’t let their finer efforts put me off…  And obviously there have been many other game systems over the eons that have also taken  a very different approach than D&D to abilities. But equally there have been many that have replicated the same/similar format too.]

Now my first area of contention is the stat-flab with D&D abilities!

1.       Strength plus Constitution = Prowess

I’m yet to understand why there is a distinction between Str and Con in D&D? If you are going for abstraction (and if you are a D&D fan, if you are going to celebrate that abstraction) then why not go a step further. Call it what you will, Might or Prowess or whatever, but unifying these two stats makes sense, as everything that Con can do that is separable from Str, such as resistance to disease, poison, etc… has little to do with the stat’s other properties, such as stamina and damage absorption. Sure, you can separate them if you want, as you can further divide Str into Muscle and Whatever, as 2.5 Options did, but I ask you, what’s the point? If it is better to keep skills and their numbers to a minimum, then why not abilities too? As a comment on TotG&D says, it is just possible to imagine a low Str/high Con character (a weak fattie, maybe…), but it is harder to imagine the opposite… Maybe an Arnie-type with asthma and a blood condition? Still, hardly someone who is going to go delving into humanoid infested jungles and the underdark is it?! Indeed, I’m struggling to think of any archetype or character in epic fantasy who could easily be described in having a Str and Con at opposite ends of the spectrum… Low Str & Con? Yes (Elric)… High Str & Con? Yes (Conan)… Medium Str & Con? Yes (many)… But contrary Str & Cons… It gets harder to rationalise. And I’d argue, in most circumstances it is unnecessary.

There could be game balance reasons, such as a unified Str/Con stat with bonuses to hit, to damage and to HP, might look a little gross, but by downplaying the emphasis on ability mods (using S&W White Box mods) this needn’t be a big factor. I suggest limiting a Str/Con combo stat to just damage and HP bonuses, as physical Str is unlikely to be a bigger factor to sword play than expertise. Indeed, even damage bonuses could be better justified by class and level should you want to…

2.       Dexterity

Dex is less flabby, indeed it is possibly too lean, as the combining of manual dexterity and agility into a single stat seems unlikely. So maybe there should be an Agility and Manual Dex  stat (or maybe a Skill stat as one of the comments suggested on Jack’s TofG&D said), one for defence/initiative, the other for skill checks and missile bonuses…

However it struck me yesterday, while watching Nadal and Djokovic battle it out in the final of the Australian Open, that the agility is really just a side effect of athleticism, thus really it should be combined with a Str/Con stat. But is that lumping too many potentially powerful bonuses into the one super-stat? Certainly a single high roll shouldn’t give a character a significant bonus on hit rolls, damage, HP and AC and initiative as well! Hmmm… Something else is needed…

3.       Dumb Smarts

My other problem stats are Int & Wis. There are many reasons to distrust them, so let’s play with some bullet-points:

• Can a stupid player play a smart PC? Maybe the opposite is possible, but that assumes your players like to play someone radically different to themselves, which might happen, but I’d argue that most players most of the time play themselves or a Randian version of themselves.
• Apart from making all your players take an IQ test then determining a Int score from that (something I’m sure your players are going to object to), I see no way around this, unless you bin mental stats altogether…
• But could such a thing be possible? Yes, I’d argue it could. In D&D the game function of Int & Wis is minimal. Apart from the mod these stats give to spell casters, all other modifiers (saves and additional languages) could easily be removed from the game with little-to-no impact upon the rules. I hardly think multi-linguistics is a function of intelligence. Really cultural background and education (a product of background) is the only function of this, so maybe a CoC type Edu stat might work or just a skill system, but Int is pretty irrelevant.  Also is Wis really a determining factor to resisting a charm spell? Surely, bloody-mindedness and Willpower make more sense, so a Will or maybe a Pow stat, make more sense. The spell casting modifiers could again easily be ignored or more closely tied to class/level.

So, yes, I’d argue that neither Int or Wis are vital to the game.

But what about Int & Wis test, I hear you ask?

Well, I’m not sure if I’ve ever known any DM call for either. If it did happen it must have been a rarity, so I see no reason why an arbitrary rule couldn’t be used in such rare circumstances, such as a similar mechanic used for secret door check on a d6 or whatever.

The other problem, as Jack’s ‘Wrong Ones’ post rightly calls it, is the vagueness of Wis? If it is perception or willpower then call it that. And shouldn’t the rules be an abstract model of the genre it’s modelling? I can’t think of a single ‘hero’ in fantasy literature who can in any way be described as “wise.” Indeed, I’d argue that charging into monster-riddled holes in the ground is a singularly unwise course of action. Even the populations of non-heroic fantasies like Gormenghast are hardly renowned for their great wisdom. Nope, Wis has no place in fantasy fiction, thus it should have no place in a RPG that tries to emulate it.

If Int & Wis have to be numerically represented then I’d suggest a singular IQ stat and be done with it, with maybe equally separate Perception and Willpower stats, if needed.

But in reality Wis is a function of the need to the game to give Clerics a prime attribute for XP bonuses and minimum criteria, etc… Pretty prosaic, really… How about ditching minimum prerequisites and XP bonuses, as both are poor rules or adding a Piety stat (something like Campaign Ratings, as discussed below).

4.       This Charming Man…

But, my real bugbear is Cha!

What a useless stat! For almost every practical purpose the effect of Cha should be a product of role-playing and not dice rolling – thus it is useless.

The other aspects of Cha are preposterous:

• Max number of henchmen should probably be effected by level, as a measure of a PC’s renown and influence, than anything else. But money should be the principle factor here.
• Loyalty: I’d suggest that role-playing, danger, pay/reward, should all take precedence over an arbitrary score.
• Reaction adjustment: This is the most ludicrous rule in D&D (actually, it is not, but that’s only because most of the rules aren’t played). Let me suggest that if a PC enters a tavern, with minimum weaponry and a good word for the proprietor, then a botched reaction roll should lead to a mass attack by the patrons… Equally if the PCs kick in the door of a goblin guardroom while armed to the teeth then the result of the reaction roll be damned! Maybe they’ll stick and fight or maybe they’ll run, but they’re surely not going to say “Ah, I like the look of you, young paladin – pull up a chair and we’ll talk it over…”

The only reason for Cha or social skills in a RPG is if there is a significant Winter Phase, a la Pendragon, where wooing and the maintenance of a castle, etc… are needed to be abstracted into a few dice rolls.

But, still I’d argue that wouldn’t it be better for Cha type stats to be determined by roleplaying rather than random rolls? I’d suggest ‘borrowing’ something like Campaign Ratings from Golden Heroes. Of the top of my head why not a Cha Rating determined by three sub-Cha ratings, each with a numerical value between 1-6. These rating will be adjusted up and down after each session by the DM based on role-playing during that session. I’d suggest a starting value of 3 in each sub-stat. These sub-stats of Cha Rating could be any three of the following (depending upon the campaign):

• Leadership: adjusted for leadership skills within the party and those of NPCs, especially henchmen: 1 = a player who shows very poor leadership qualities, 6 = excellent leadership.
• Loyalty: no one is going to be loyal to someone who shows no loyalty to others. Fair distribution of treasure, generosity to others and other fair actions should result in higher scores, while betrayals and selfishness could be penalised.
• Tyranny: fear of failure might make people loyal of dictatorship, etc… Power and its misuse can be beguiling, thus possibly in some campaigns this might be a factor.
• Bravery: in a heroic game bravery and cowardliness might result in loyalty or popularity or the opposite.
• Cunning: bravery and the like might not cut much sway in the thieves guild, equally an king or knight who uses his brains rather than brawn might appeal.
• Or how about: Charm, Wit, Success, Wealth, Social Status…

I’m sure there are many others. They could be arbitrarily chosen by the DM across the entire campaign or maybe Cha could be customisable for each character based on his alignment, class, race, concept and background… Or many or all of these sub-Cha rating could be used, while the exact three that makes up a Cha Rating for a given ability check is determined by the DM on a case for case cases, thus a Thief might add his Tyranny, Wit and Cunning to determine his loyalty or reaction checks in the thieves guild, but Bravery, Loyalty & Leadership would be added together to determine Cha rolls regarding those men-at-arms he has hired on an adventure…

The downside is, of course, more book-keeping for the poor DM and is such detail really essential to most campaigns?

So, what am I left with?

• Prowess: a mix of Str and Con and maybe the Agility portion of Dex
• Skills: the manual dexterity portion of Dex
• IQ: a combo of Int & Wiz
• No Cha, but maybe a Cha CR: that varies over time due to role-playing

Anything missing?

Well, T&T gets a few things right that D&D doesn’t and that’s a Luck stat. Luck plays a part in all genre lit and is an intrinsic part of all dice-based RPGs, so a simple LK rating would be good for those circumstances that are hard to categories with anything else. Also, LK could be used instead of a saving throw in many circumstances, which would remove many useless numbers from a character sheet (I’ve never understood why ability rolls weren’t used for saving throws).

A good case can be made for both Perception and Willpower as stats. I’d suggest ‘borrowing’ Golden Heroes Detective CR system for D&D for a Percep stat, as good investigative role-playing would be rewarded by a better roll in those circumstances when an arbitrary dice roll will do… In Golden Heroes some CR were partly determined by traditional statistics, so there’s no reason why Int or Wis or IQ or level couldn’t be used to determine one of its sub-stats.

While the functions of Will could be combined with Luck for a RQesque Power stat. It wouldn’t be an exact fit as many of the functions of RQ’s Pow are really a function of character level in D&D, but for circumstances such as magic resistance, if might work well. Also who says the ability to resist poisons and diseases should be the sole provision of a Con based stat? I’m not sure if the ability to run a marathon means you have a greater immune system or have a better survival chance against arsenic poisoning… Surely luck or some other genetic intangible plays a bigger part?

A Piety CR stat could also be used which might determined by such sub-stats as: Spreading of Faith, Obedience and Belief, etc… with modifiers for saving verse supernatural threats opposite to your faith, turn undead, spell casting for Clerics…

The only other thing that seems to be missing is Speed, which isn’t necessarily a function of an Agility-based Dex stat nor as simple as physical strength. Really size should also be a factor, a la RQ (again), but maybe just a racial mod for size could just be used for Spd instead…

So, at the moment my D&D character sheet looks something like this:

• Prowess (combining Str & Con)
• Speed (agility portion of Dex and Move Rate)
• Skill (manual Dex-based skills and missile)
• IQ (Int/Wiz/Edu)
• Power (luck, willpower and possibly other bonuses as DM sees fit)

Plus CR in the following:

• Cha
• Percep
• Piety

So, four to seven stats or four abilities plus three optional campaign ratings with a little more precision and less flab.

The Problem…

Reading OSR blogs and various rule sets has got me thinking about different elements to the D&D game that I’d be tempted to fiddle with… One being abilities and their scores…

For a start, I don’t think the Holmes Blue Book rules for the first time I’ve not seen any mention of ability checks. To be honest I’m not sure if much is mentioned about them in AD&D e1 rules either (unless Gary mentions it somewhere in the ‘stream of consciousness’ or ramblings that is the DMG?) But it seems to me that a 3 to 18 range is a little too big for a standard 1d20 roll, as a character with a very high stat might potentially have a 80-90% chance of success in any given task associated with that ability… Seems a bit much for a 1^st level character. Which begs the question; who invented the ability check? Is it somewhere in OD&D? Or was this something that just grew out of the collective consciousness of gamers, like suck constructs as the Anti-Paladin?

Okay, high stats should be rare, you say, therefore stats of 17-18 will be the exception… yet your leader Gary mentions that it is “essential” that a character should have at least two stats of 15+ (e1 PH p. 9). (Strange that this is essential, Gary, yet you don’t give us a means of achieving this essential minimum, but I digress) So, if played in the manner that its inventor imagines it, then high stats are a distinct possibility. I’d also argue that a high stat game is the way many if not the majority of gamers play D&D. Indeed, the rules via ability mods, encourage it!

Another problem is a 1d20 roll vs. a 3-18 stat is hard to adjust for difficulty when the target number range is so wide. Let’s say a DM says it has a difficulty of -5 (sounds reasonable)… That would literally give a lot of characters very little (if any) chance of success, while easy tasks could be made almost meaninglessly easy against a high stat… I prefer rules that give players a chance without encouraging fudging.

In fairness D&D isn’t alone in having this problem. It’s very hard to add a difficulty mod to RuneQuest’s skill system for instance, especially when very high and very low skills might exist side by side. One solution is Rob fisher’s 3d6 check, modified to 4d6 or 2d6 or whatever for difficulty. While I like this I don’t think it entirely removes the problem as most ability checks are still going to the complicated by the high/low stat phenomenon.

Actually, there’s an ability check variant to BRP/RQ systems that I like. Stats in RQ (like D&D and seemingly every first generation RPG) tend to be on the 3-18 range, but RQ favours a 1d100 mechanic, so a standard difficulty ability check can be rolled against on a d100 as; stat x5 = %, giving the same chance of success/failure as a d20 roll in D&D. However, instead of multiplying the stat by 5, different multipliers can be used to represent different difficulties. X3 for difficult, x 6 or more for easy. This system could easily be adopted for D&D, although I’d argue that D&D isn’t a % system and doesn’t fit with its aesthetic very well. Also, lots of multiplying is a bit too mathsie for me, but maybe it could be considered…

However, I think the problem lies in the 3-18 range, which is just too big to be manageable and needs normalizing. After all, what would a Str of 3 really mean? Is it in the normal adult range of Str? If not then how strong is a 12 year old? Str; 1? Str: 2? If an adult male has a realistic chance of having a Str of 3 then it hardly makes sense that a 12 year old has a realistic chance of being significantly stronger? Same applies for Int, Con or anything else.

I realise that many players will be wedded to the 3-18 range, but frankly, I’m not. I think I prefer a more medium range of ability scores, especially for stating characters. I also think this allows room for increasing ability scores with levels (a la Tunnels & Trolls) which I think most players would appreciate. It seems strange to me that ability scores should be set in stone forever, while other numerical facets of a PC evolve over time. I see no intrinsic justification for this other than arbitrary ones. However a starting 3-18 range makes ability bonuses hard to manage without introducing power-gaming.

My solution…

So, how about this as an alternative character generation system:

Roll 2d6+3 for each ability (either in order or allow the player to allocate or some other system of the DM’s invention)? That gives us a nice 5-15 range, with an average score of 10 (compared to 3-18 with 10.5 average). This allows us to keep the 1d20 ability check (or use Rob fisher’s alternative), it gives us room to grow, yet removes the lower end of “unplayable ”scores. I’d argue that scores as low as 3-4 should really belong to children, the elderly and the severely disabled and not to the adventuring classes.

I think if this 2d6+3 system is to be used it would really only work with either White Box or B/X ability mods, as typical AD&D e1/e2 modifiers would be harder to fit in this system. I think I’m leaning towards the White Box system, as I think I’d want to make ability checks a big part of my game, thus high scores would be ample reward in themselves without giving  further  stat bonuses…

I’d also allow a +1 ability increase per level after first. I’d still cap stats at 18 (or maybe a max increase of +3 per ability) and maybe limit ability bonuses to one +1 increase ever 3 to 5 levels after name level or stop it altogether at that point. I might restrict demi-humans to lower than name level if I wasn’t playing level limits as a means of game balance too.

I like this system as it gives a standard (unmodified) d20 ability check a very reasonable 25-75% chance of success on a d20 roll (I’m not sure what the probability curse would be on Fisher’s 2d6/3d6/4d6 system, but I’m sure it would fit just as well), which seems to me to be a much more likely and playable, instead of a 15-90% range of success, which just seems too big.

It could be argued that ability bonuses per level is a little gross and would undo this medium range; however I’d argue that with the lower ability mods of White Box that this would disincentivize grosser ability-pumping. Even the standard B/X ability mod system could be restrained by ruling that an one stat can only be increased every other level or by ruling that after a stat reaches 15 it takes two ‘pips’ to raise it by one, instead of one…  I’m sure there’s many other ways to stop the players breaking it.

Either way, I’m not opposed to PCs or NPCs having very high stats, indeed I think they should. I think incredibly strong, smart or agile characters are the stuff that epic fantasy is made of and this minor revision still allows starting characters a reasonable chance of a decent-excellent stats or two, while also allowing them to develop overtime into truly heroic figures. It further limits the impact of bad rolls during character generation, by allowing a player the chance to boost their stats over time.

Also it stops stats being anomalously static things. After all, almost every other number on your character sheet will improve over time, so why should ability scores be exempt. Ask yourself, if poison resistance can improve over time, why can’t a person’s strength also improve? If you don’t assume Gygax’s rules are written in stone then there’s really no logical reason, no meta/game balance reason and no good fuckin’ reason for it. However, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Am I seriously barking up the wrong tree here?

To summarize, that’s 2d6+3:

• Bonuses as S&W or S&WWB (undecided – depending on campaign/players)
• +1 bonus to a stat of players choice per level to a max of 18 (options: up to +3 in any one stat or stop/limit ability bonuses after name level)

So, 5-15 range is better for standard d20 ability rolls and I like stat improvement with levels

Note: apologies if someone else has come up with this system and I’m repeating it. If so then it’s an unintentional rip-off.

But…

I actually think this looks like quite a stylish item… Just don’t wear it on a date!

First thing I need to define is what are Levels/XP and why do some people have them while others (the majority) don’t.  There’s not much to go on in the rules as to specifics.

a word of warning: I don’t have every set of rules, so my answer won’t be encyclopedic (please add any errata as a comment), but here’s what the rules have to say:

• Holmes: experience = XP…. He doesn’t say too much as to what this means other than to explain the game mechanics of gaining a level… fine. However he does suggest that a character who sneaks off with all the treasure while the rest of the party is being “eaten” then he should only gain some of the exp, not all his share… Which is interesting as it suggests a moral dimension to being experienced…
• Moldvay: I don’t own a copy… I shall fix this ASAP via EBay! If some one wants to fill in the gaps in the meantime… Comment away!
• Mentzer: says very little, but basically XP = a measure of ‘power’ > get enough XP > “level up” > you get more powerful… hardly inspiring… He might say more in the DM’s book, but I no longer own a copy, so I don’t know…
• Allston: doesn’t try to define any of it really, which isn’t surprising as the Cyclopedia is more a reference book for the BECMI set than a guide book for newbies
• Gygax: Now, here’s a man who should know a thing or two… but does he? Well I only have the AD&D e1 at hand… I do have a pdf of OD&D, but it’s such a mess and I don’t really know my way around it, so maybe someone else who knows it can let me know if it has any words of wisdom… But back to AD&D…
• The PHB is shite… he basically just says that levels are a measure of “power” again…
• The DMG is more a stream of consciousness than a guide book, which makes it a great read but a nightmare to find anything (a fact exaggerated with possibly the world’s worst index), so if I miss something then you know who to blame… But nestled between rules on insanity and campaign rules (?!) is some words on XP at least… It would seem Gygax justifies XP for kills and loot because more “realistic” methods of gaining in game experience because the would make boring game play. So meta-game reasons then. Some other facets of XP accumulation to bear in mind are: a) XP for monsters is adjusted by their relative threat to the party, XP for GP is only gained for taking and securing the treasure, so XPs (whatever they are) aren’t gained by the heroic act of taking the treasure, but by taking that bootie into the outer world (possibly suggesting a socio-economic element to XP and therefore levels, c) on gaining levels Gygax has lots to say (none of which I have ever seen applied to an actual game of AD&D in practice, but the rules are there): role-playing (alignment, class), XP is awarded normally, but the time and therefore the costs of training are more expensive to gain XP. Again I have to say that I have NEVER known a DM insist upon training costs in an actual game, but the rules are there. Training to gain a level takes time and dedication (no adventuring is allowed during training) and requires tuition from high level characters (up to name level), which suggests that there’s more to levels/XP than just some killing and looting: that the final polish to actually convert all that experience into knowledge/whatever isn’t a process that is entirely innate. It requires guidance until higher levels are reached – which is probably just as well… Just a note: the big EGG suggests that XP for avoiding or tricking monsters (and disarming traps, etc…) is subjective… or in other words he cops aut and doesn’t even give any guidelines. Sorry, Gygax is great and I hold him dearly but he is not a genius nor should he be put on a pedestal…
• Cook: is the only Old School D&D author to really attempt to define levels and XP. Firstly, we get the old, measure of “power” crap again in the AD&D 2e PHB. However the DMG gives us a little bit more to go on: maybe I should have started this by discussing RealD&D Classes, as Cook (rightly) infers that levels are a function of class, not the other way around (but in the spirit of Gygax I shall discuss topics as they occur to me rather than by practicality). He says characters have classes and levels because they are special, that characters are special by definition: they are controlled by players therefore they are “special.” All very meta-game! He goes onto say that “perhaps these special characters are more driven or have some unknown inner spark or just the right combination of talents and desires. That’s up to the players.” He goes onto say than NPCs with classes and levels are special because the DM says so. “N=there is no secret reason for this – it just is.” In other words like Gygax’s “boredom” explanation, it’s a bit of a cop out! Obviously one of the main changes to the rules of typical D&D accumulation of XP is given for kills and passing certain class goals. XP for treasure and role-playing is optional. To keep things consistent with the OSR I’m going to assume XP is given for GPs. Other, more ambiguous XP awards for role-playing and the like I’m going to leave out of this discussion. Not because I disagree with them per se, but because I don’t see them as being a significant factor in accruing levels.

[On a side note: I’ve not read my old AD&D books in an age. While I very much love Gygax’s eclectic and eccentric approach, I do see AD&D 2e as an improvement, as a tidying of the rules. Zeb’s writing lacks the charm, obviously, but as a playable set of rules AD&D 2e makes sense. AD&D, like OD&D, seems to assume that you have played the game before, either through someone who already plays or via the Basic game. Don’t get me wrong, I like all old school editions, but I don’t understand the hostility that the OSR has to 2e. Sure the supplementary material was shite, but the core rules, while lacking in armature charm, weren’t a disaster at all.]

So… basically PCs are exceptional. Everyone else, except a few exceptional NPCs are 0-Level humans and demi-humans, therefore they are defined by their HD and they have no capacity to improve in game rules. Some might be better than others, but these are defined by their status, i.e. they are leaders of men but they are still 0-level. In real terms they just have more hp than your average 0-level type. They don’t improve like players do, although one can infer that some improvement has happened. The world of the PCs is dynamic, the world for everyone else is static.

First I want to save space and give myself some abbreviations to save space and fingertips:

• C&L: characters with a class and levels. Could be either a PC or NPC
• PCs are always C&Ls – obviously!
• NPC0: zero-level human or demi-human
• NPC+: NPCs baring C&L

So, let’s boil this down to the basics:

How do you gain Levels and what do Levels do?

• Levels make you stronger more “powerful”
• You gain Levels by accumulating XP
• You gain XP by killing/defeating things and by accumulating treasure
• There is very little other room in the game for gaining exp in classic versions of D&D
• Training is required in AD&D 1e, isn’t mentioned in Basic editions and is optional in 2e. But assuming that it might be used as a rule, how does it fit in to all this?

Why do the PCs accrue Levels for doing this shite, yet others who kill and loot (soldiers) do not?

First, I want to discount the “bordedom” or “special by definition” cop outs of Gygax and Cook. This is meta-game crap and is not the bases of my Real D&D world. My world assumes the game rules to be explained (to some extent) and to shape the game setting and game play.

• Is the ability to gain Levels a learned skill or secret knowledge?
• Is it innate ability like a mutation or natural ability?
• Is it divine or supernatural?
• Is it heroic destiny? Do you choose Levels or do Levels choose you?
• How does training fit into all this?

Also, how do NPC0s perceive these potentially superhuman men and women? Do they understand it correctly or wrongly? Do they consider them friends or foes?

I think the DM also has to decide if Levels and Classes are possessed by any NPCs at all or are the PCs the C&L characters in the game. I think it’s fair to say that making the PCs totally unique is a decision only rarely (if ever) taken by a DM in the hobby’s history, yet it could prove to be an interesting development. It would certainly promote even medium level PCs to the status of gods or superheroes/villains. However, I don’t think this is a direction I want to go with this right now… However I might keep it on the backburner…

The rules don’t really give many hints as to the percentage of the population who have C&Ls, but I’d suggest that the rules say enough to indicate that they are very rare indeed. Less than 1% of the population? Maybe less than 1 in 1,000 wouldn’t be too extreme?

Then the question has to be asked: do NPC+ improve with XP as the PCs do? The way most NPCs+ are presented in the adventures and campaign setting that I have seen suggests not… Yet the Gygax suggests they do when adventuring with the PCs. But as they function in most campaigns they seem to be as static as NPC0s and are really used by the game designers as supped-up 0-level types. I suggest that this is wrong. I see no reason why a NPC+ would be content with being the ruler of a small town or just to sit in a tower researching spells, with no chance of improvement… What would be the point when killing and looting gives you more power?

Maybe they did improve but have given up adventuring/questing for a quieter life? Then one has to ask, why would anyone choose to do this? After 3^rd level or so, your life expectancy in adventures increases exponentially. Why start (struggling past those first two levels) if you were going to stop as soon as you get a little bit of real power? PCs seem to have no limit to their level-gluttony, so why are NPCs+ different? PCs are as greedy for XP as bankers are for $ and I see no reason to explain why so many NPCs+ would retire at 4^th level or 12^th level or whatever, as they do in so many modules, etc…. Power is good… and addictive. Nope, unless I make the PCs unique, like kind of superheroes or demi-gods, then NPCs+ should also ago adventuring too… They’re not stupid!

So, just to reiterate NPC+ will rarely be sedentary superheroes who sit about doling out magic potions and missions. They will go questing, looting and pillaging like the PCs.

How do C&Ls behave?

This still doesn’t explain what C&L types are, but it does explain what their behaviour should be: to gain XP should be their abiding goal. They have to do that in the same way as the PCs, i.e. via killing and looting. There’s no other way of acquiring XP that I can see. This makes them interesting.

What is the relationship between the C&Ls?

My guess is NPC+ too would form parties with as much or as little group loyalty as you might find in your typical PC party. My guess is also that there might be some rivalry between C&L parties. After all, outside of the dungeon there really is little else to threaten them. How would higher level NPCs+ react to these upstart PCs? My guess is you’d be a fool to allow them to get stronger… You’d hunt them and kill them! Why? Well, a) to remove a potential future threat, and b) to accrue the XP and treasure (including magic items) that is there to be reaped from such easy prey. My guess is that this should be the tactic of the PCs too, unless they want the NPCs+ to get them sometime in the future. I perceive a secret or open war between parties of C&Ls. Trust no one! Should make interesting role-playing too…

But how does training fit into this “survival of the fittest?”

Sure enough, if training rules are to be used, then it is hard to see why anyone would train a lower level C&L, as just not training them consigns them to the status of zero level humans with a few extra minor skills and powers. Simply put: all C&Ls should be low level, as to train someone up to name level would just allow them to potentially accrue levels willy-nilly at a later stage and therefore be a potential future threat. Only an idiot would do that. I don’t want to get too ahead of myself, but I think Character Classes might, just might offer us a solution to this. I shall discuss the real function of class in my Real D&D next post, but until them I shall progress as if training doesn’t exist. What I’m suggesting here is the state of play as if there were no training or Class loyalties holding this back. What I say now, however, holds true for a game without training. I think the existence of training would change these dynamics drastically. At this moment I’m undecided about the status of training. Part of me likes it as I think it might be a means of establishing some kind of order in my RealD&D world, yet part of my likes the look of the open hostility that I’m going to go onto discuss in this post.

So what about the wider 0-level society? How do they react to these super powered mofos?

Well, I guess that would depend on how C&Ls (both PCs & NPCs+) behave. In my experience PCs behave surprisingly well, but most games that I have played in have been at lower levels of play (1^st to 6^th) where the power level of the PCs might only be gross compared to the town militia, but still they’re not quite the demi-gods of myth… But by 10^th level or higher the PCs should be beyond the realms of control of almost any 0-level agencies… If they want to stomp around like General Zod in Superman 2 then there’s not a lot many people should be able to do about it.

Surprisingly I’ve never seen this grossness in game play by any players. Why not? Possibly due to the discipline imposed over low levels has installed good manners? Possibly the players just lack the imagination to comprehend the potential power of their PCs, thus they are happy to pay for their drinks and whores.

But, I ask you: would you or the NPCs+ behave with the same constraint? Probably not… After being honed in the brutal environment of the dungeon and the pathology of XP addiction, I see nothing to suggest that they would all exercise control or hold back from looking down, if not committing to the outright destruction upon their NPC0 host society, like the Nietzschean Nazi supermen they are. Sure, some might distinguish the difference between the dungeon and the town, but even if only a minority treat the town folk like the bags of XP fodder they are, then I see C&L types as being seen with profound fear and loathing by NPC0 society.

How would NPCos react? My guess is they would track down and kill all the low level C&Ls they can before they get too tough to handle!

In a nutshell, I see the relationship between  C&L and NPC0s as being like this:

• Low levels C&Ls might be tolerated (at best) by NPC0, but mistrusted and possibly hunted like mutants in the X-Men or witches or Jews in the 1930s.
• Some or all high level C&Ls would often see NPC0s as a source of XP to harvest or playthings. Why risk your arse in a mega-dungeon if you can reap the rewards from massacring a town or city > possibly this might drag all societies into being dungeon dwellers just to avoid the wrath/hunger of C&Ls

Relationships between C&Ls might be like this:

• High level kills low level for the XP and to stop the potential threat
• Low level hides from high levels to stay alive, accrue XP then take out the higher level threat if possible
• Relatively equal levelled C&Ls would probably hold an uneasy truce… Taking on C&Ls of a similar level would be incredibly risky for both parties, unless an advantage of numbers or circumstance could be guaranteed first…  Possibly leading to uneasy alliances and sneak attacks… A secret war of super men, with outbreaks of peace as higher level C&Ls become aware of their presence… Possibly large groups of mid-level C&Ls might take out high level C&Ls in a form of mass XP hunting…
• Presumably the party bond would break down at higher levels as self-interest takes over…

How will all this effect game play?

Paranoia and death awaits within…

In this game world the PCs will, rightly or wrongly, be perceived as monsters, maybe useful monsters while they wipe out the orcs to save the town, but certainly seen as a potential danger… NPCs+ would be their greatest enemies… I see a game of very high level C&Ls ruling the world in terror, squabbling like Greek Gods, then wiping out all bellow them in a fit of wrath…  A hierarchy built on genocide and terror… Survival of the fittest and the selfish gene: Social-Darwinism with fireballs and vorpal blades… The PCs will have to weave their way through this minefield… trying to keep a low profile until they feel they can cope with the power plays of the high level C&Ls.

BUT all this doesn’t answer the question: what are C&Ls?

But I’m not too worried. In reality C&Ls consist of all the PCs, plus a very small number of very powerful NPCs+. And no one else.  I just don’t have to answer this question with finality. I guess a divine or destined or supernatural explanation could work… But training doesn’t really fit in with that…

Why do they get so powerful by killing people and amassing GPs?

This is hard, but However, I shall try to add some explanation, if only to out do Gygax et al…

I think the frequent expression of “power” in almost all the editions of the official D&D rules offers me a clue. “Power” might do for most, but I want to put some more meat on them bones. I think I’m going to give a Nietzschean explanation with a squeeze of Rand: these C&L are the Übermensch of the RealD&D world: supermen whose neo-ethics gives them insight, a spark that generates a physical manifestation of their “will to power” beyond the mundane…

They gain XP via killing because their nihilistic ethics are beyond the simple morality of the slave-like NPC0 masses, they gain XP from GPs as money is a symbol of power, thus GPs are a means to an end (a symbol of their power), but beyond power money holds no interest for them…  XP is gained from killing and GPs as both can only be accrued via heroic action…  Levels are a game mechanic that clearly illustrates your PCs will to power… the extent that you have risen above the mundane concerns of the 0-level fucks…

I think this rather simplistic interpretation of Nietzsche as a justification for C&Ls fits quite nicely… It could be further complicated by alignment later, but I’ll cross this bridge when I come to it… If I have to I’d sooner drop alignment for C&Ls than drop C&Ls for alignment… I also think that by adding a cod-philosophical explanation for C&Ls, this allows me to extend a few other philosophical touches to the game and the setting, which might make for more interesting/ambitious role-playing. Planescape tried to do it, but I was never convinced that the rule of three (or was it four) would really cut it in a philosophy degree…

Some game areas I definitely need to rationalize in my Real D&D setting…

• Levels & exp
• Classes
• Hit Points, AC, etc…
• Magic
• Monsters & Race
• Random encounters & randomness in general
• Magic items
• Treasure: real D&D economics
• And maybe more briefly: Psionics, Saves, etc…

I might not cover them in that order, but it’s something to go on in the meantime…

Ideas and suggestions welcome!

Next up: Levels

Recently I’ve been reading a lot of OSR type blogs and very much enjoying them. Certainly I agree that old school play has a lot to recommend it and certainly, while I can think of many aesthetically more pleasing games than D&D in terms of game design, I have to admit that yes, I still love D&D, warts and all; indeed I concede that in many cases those warts are beauty spots! However, I draw the line in claiming that all the rules found in those Red and Blue boxes were works of pure genius. D&D has always been too guilty of letting the numbers influence the play rather than the other way around.

For example, I don’t think this is a controversial statement: it is strange that the area that takes up the most space in the rules and takes up the lion share of many D&D games, thus you could argue is the most significant part of game play isn’t “role-playing,” but combat. Okay, that doesn’t have to be the case nor am I suggesting that it is universal, but let’s be honest, it sure takes up as much time as anything else.

Why? Because the rules emphasise fighting over any other part of the game. There is obviously plenty of justifications for this, mainly the fact that many other aspects of the game can be “role-played” while arbitrary actions can’t easily be “role played,” hence the war game roots of D&D have a chance to shine. Now, don’t get me wrong, I believe a game system stands and falls mainly on its combat rules and I think my reviews reflect that. However, think of the emphasis that a typical D&D character sheets gives to combat stats over all other numbers: AC, HP, THACO, weapons, weapon damage… Even attributes, when you really look at them, tend to lean towards the combat side of the game. Str, Con and DEX all have a predominant emphasis on combat mods rather than other feats of strength, stamina and agility… And it doesn’t end there: when you come down to it most of the most widely useful spells have a combat bias.

No one could argue that the D&D character sheet puts any significant emphasis on any other aspect of the game other than fighting and keep a straight face. AD&D with its weapon profs, AC mods, etc… is even worse! I’m not saying that D&D (in all its variants) is the only offender, but certainly I’m struggling to think of another game system that devotes quite so much space just to combat.

(I’m not saying that combat shouldn’t be part of a fantasy RPG, as it plays a part in the literature that spawned it, yet I’d argue that there’s more to a Conan tale than just hacking and slay. His stories revolve around all sorts of peril and adventure, it is his character and the narratives told so well by REH, rather than his fights, that are his appeal.)

So, it shouldn’t be a surprise that most D&D adventure (published or otherwise) put fighting ahead of character interaction with NPCs or plot or whatever else… Hence the dungeon, little more than a labyrinth of monsters and mayhem, only occasionally interrupted by the odd pit trap or poison dart trap. Combat is engrained in the game because the rules encourage it. And why not, it’s fun. And even the most cynical critic (which I am not one) would have to concede that there are other aspects of the game too… But I think combat and a dull interpretation of combat, derivable from its war game roots, which mare the game.

But it is interesting that the rules of the game don’t just persuade us, the players and DM, that combat is the heart of D&D… They also persuade the PCs too! Don’t believe me? Well, players are relatively unique in your game world, right? They and they alone (plus a few exceptional NPCs, which I’ll get to later) have Levels and not HD, thus only they improve. Almost vampirically they get more powerful as they kill, gaining Levels as their fallen opponents lose blood…

Some old school players say this trend actually started with AD&D.2e as before that PCs gained exp from treasure too and thus the game encouraged using your head and taking the bootie by non-violent means… However, if my experience is typical, this is massively disingenuous. What percentage of encounters did your PCs really use stealth and cunning to steal the goblin gold over more strong-arm tactics? Less than 5-10% of the time, I’d wager. Certainly, you’d rarely leave a lair of humanoids alive… And why should you? Okay, during those early Levels stealth probably makes more sense, but as your character gets more ludicrously tough then soon stealth looks like a waste of time… Why not take the treasure and kill the goblins, neatly gaining exp for both!

And this makes perfect sense from the PC’s POV… Sure the risks are initially high, but the rewards are vast. Soon you’ll be two, three, four or more times as powerful – just in innate abilities… When you add magic items in the mix, you can see the attraction. Power is addictive.

Now, I find this logic interesting and rather counter to how most 2^nd generation systems approached the rules. Take Cyberpunk for instance: it developed rules that modelled the genre and the setting (such as Humanity and deadly combat). The rules reflect an aspect of the genre, influencing play for a reason, but the genre influences the design of the rules first. While D&D seems to operate in the opposite way: the rules influence the setting. It’s all very arbitrary. By accident rather than design the game rules made a world that was modelled on war games and boardgames only. It’s like an egg laying a chicken…

For example: the infamous ‘Ecology of a Piercer,’ where Dragon magazine for an April Fools tried to make sense of this most illogical and absurd monster, as the stats defined it, i.e. it drops from the ceiling to impale its prey, but has no movement, thus how can it reattach itself to the ceiling? It’s one of the many absurdities and paradoxes of D&D. A fun and harmless one, but how often have the arbitrary and ill considered rules influenced the design of the D&D setting rather than, what I think most would agree would make more sense, the other way around…

Really the paradox doesn’t matter, the world of D&D doesn’t have to make naturalistic sense, because neither does much fantasy or myth, yet it still seems a counter intuitive way of creating a setting, let alone playing the game. Of course today there’s too much ecology in modern settings and not enough magic. The Piercer is magic… let it be… let it be…

Now, this all this guff is only an observation, as, in reality, I quite likes it (I definitely love the Piercer). My only problem is that the D&D game doesn’t see this upside-down logic through to its logical conclusion. So, this got me wondering, what would the culture of a real D&D campaign setting be like if the rules were allowed the really influence the world. As things stand Greyhawk et al operate purely as a veil draped over the rules. The rules say one thing, yet the world says something else. Most D&D settings are influenced by Middle-earth and psuedo-Medieval culture (all very prosaic really), but with the rules operating in a way that would suggest a very different society might have evolved.

Which got me wondering if the game play and the politics of a setting could be further mutated by Gygax’s crazy rules? The alternative Real D&D world that I’m imagining is a world where the rules of physics follow the rules of Gygax rather than Newton and Einstein… I ask myself, would a world covered with monsters in every hex-shaped mile develop the same infrastructures as 10th Century Western Europe? I’m willing to bet that a Real D&D world might look very different to the halfway house that is Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms… Very few if any D&D settings seem influenced in anyway by the very real and destructive and powerful magic that exists so commonly there. What might it be like?

This is the starting point to my campaign setting and scenario design… The culture, laws, ethos, mores and stories will follow the rules of the game rather than some pseudo-Medieval game world or Tolkien rip-off with the rules bolted on without influence on anything but combat. This is going to require some rationalisation of the rules and some extrapolation as to what those rules and rationalization will mean for the PCs, NPCs and monsters of that world. My decisions, no doubt, will be fairly arbitrary, but I shall try to make some sense out of it. Obviously my rationale will be my own, so others might draw different conclusions.

My premise is that everything included in the Basic and Expert/Rules Cyclopaedia is true and to be found in my D&D4REAL world. The exact tone and distribution is up to me. It’s going to be an illogical mash-up of myths and fantasy settings (like all D&D worlds are), but further twisted by the presence of monsters, magic and PCs as the game rules present them… Any thoughts and comments will, as always be gratefully received!

It might require some house ruling to fit, but basically it’s going to be a relatively unmodified Basic D&D game with all its insanities on full view. The details and geography of my world aren’t important (as I’m unlikely to run it); what’s important is how the rules are going to affect game world, thus I will be placing the game world (in an underhanded way) back in its rightful place as an influence on game play… Kinda…

Oooo… in my haste I forgot a vital part of the in-game… But this is okay, as it’s such an important part of the in-game that it deserves a section to itself…

Rolling stats: stats are ludicrously important. In D&D stat bonuses start a tad lower than in the adult variant AD&D, so your cheating can be a touch subtler… In AD&D if your Fighter doesn’t have 18/00 Str then he might as well not exist… It is imperative not to roll up your character one-to-one in front of the DM… Far far far too important to leave to random chance! Thus I suggest two possible tactics…

• Show your enthusiasm for the game and say to the DM, “I was so excited about starting a new campaign again that I couldn’t sleep a wink last night, so I thought I’d roll up a character… I hope that’s alright? [quick, don’t give him a chance to reply] I even wrote a background for him and everything!” Now bring out a wad of paper covered in enthusiastic scribble! I suggest that your DM would have to be a heartless bastard to make all your efforts go to waste… Quickly, pass him the character sheet and your background notes [just copy some crap off the internet, he’s never going to read it anyway]. If he starts scrutinising your stats too severely, quickly pull out that character sketch you made and draw his attention to the family crest on his armour and make up some mysterious plot-hook ridden shite as you pass him a Snickers that just fell out your bag… the fat bastard will just be pleased that someone other than himself is happy to be there….
• It’s all gone wrong, the cunt says that he wants characters rolled up there and then or maybe you can’t be bothered with all those notes and just like to fly by the seat of your pants… Well, you cannot roll up a character one to one with the DM! That would mean letting the dice win! But what you can do is start passing around all the manuals and dice and character sheets and start a big old character generation session with everyone at once… careful not to sit too near the DM tho… Coz you don’t want him to see those dice too clearly… The best way to achieve this is if you have organised things so a newbie or two has joined the group (possibly the friend who asked about “winners and losers”), now you can take charge, ignoring the protesting DM and split the group into two groups and assist one of the newbies with rolling up his character… Making sure to encourage him to play a thief if possible… While he nervously pencils in his stats, class, etc… you should randomly roll 3d6 in the other hand and when a desirable result occurs hastily write it down or, if no one is observing you too closely, then roll the dice and write whatever you like in… The more players and the more newbies the better for this approach to work. If possible arrange for some non-playing friends to turn up or a girl friend or whore to flirt with the DM. Distraction is the key! Have your phone ringing, music playing, maybe dump a load of munchies food on the table for fatso to munch on… Ask him questions about the game… Get the inside track… if it’s going to be a maritime setting, then for fuck’s sake don’t play a Ranger!

Okay, so let’s assume that you’ve got one of these two methods going nicely… What stats should you “roll?” Well, leave randomness to the losers and identify the most important stats. These, if you don’t know, are Str, Con and Dex. there are no others!

All characters gain from high Str, Con and Dex because despite the term “role-playing” everyone knows that the game is actually a glorified war game and not a homegrown improv acting experience. Everything about the game, the rules, its evolution and heritage, the genre, even the concept actively encourage combat, so don’t be shy, give yourself the best chance to survive and give yourself a bonus on your “to hit” rolls, HP, AC and missile… Which is best all depends, but I’d suggest that Dex is handy for all character classes, with Str then Con next for fighters or con then Str for all others, maybe… Bare in mind that if your DM is dumb enough to allow exp bonuses for high stats in prime attributes, then you should definitely aim to get an extra 10% exp, as Levels are more important than anything else! If you think that Str & Con aren’t important for Magic-Users then, my friend, you are looking at a dead Magic User… With a poxy 1d4 HD, you cannot afford not to have a HP bonus from Con. Str is less essential, but despite your best efforts you simply will eventually have to mix it toe to toe with a goblin or two after you cast your one and only Magic Missile spell, so remember that even +1 bonus to Str effectively increases your chance to hit by 5% and it will add 25% extra damage to a dagger attack or ~16% extra damage from a staff… You’d be an idiot not to take it if you can.

AD&D puts the potential Winner who wants to play a Fighter in a tricky position as it doesn’t end with 18 Str, you then have to bluff the DM that you also happened to roll 18/00 Str… a statistical improbability… You might get away with it, but I suggest you aim for something with a ring of truth to it and play the loooong game… Let’s say 18/71…. An annoying roll in reality because if you rolled a few % higher you’d have got an extra +1 to damage… Or 19/53… phew, you just scored enough to get other the 50% mark and get an extra +1 to hit… All of which is statistically almost as unlikely as rolling 18/00, but your DM will accept it… Because, he’s an idiot.

So, what about Int, Wiz and Cha or the useless stats. Well, unless you’re a Magic-User or a Cleric then ignore them. Make your Fighter or Cleric stupid and ugly… Make your Magic User unwise and ugly… It doesn’t matter… Stats make no more difference to how you role-play than alignment does. If you’re lawful-good then you can still massacre those orcs coz they’re evil… Simples! If your character has an Int of 6 does that make him stupid? Of course not… he doesn’t exist, you are playing him, so he’s no more stupider than you are! (this might not be saying much…) Of all of them only Wiz has any worth as a stats in its own right due to the save bonus, thus it might potentially assist your survival chances a little… But extra languages and reaction rolls are worthless. I’ve never known a DM to take any notice to either of them! But as I said, keep an eye on exp bonuses… this is essential!

So, we’ve established that overall Int & Cha are almost worthless in playing any roll in your character’s survival survival, so pop in a really low “roll” in one of them. I’d suggest Int over Cha, to arrest suspicion, as Cha’s place in the position of useless stats is well known by most experienced D&D players and DMs, while there is a misplaced belief that Int is important in-game (and out) amongst the RPG fraternity…  But by all means consider sacrificing Wiz too… The saving throw bonus is unlikely to be essential as you think it is… DMs are loathed to kill characters on the roll of one dice as it is likely to result in the players boycotting their stupid game… They crave popularity and praise for their shitty fantasy world creation.

So, let’s put this to the test with some realistically random looking stats that aren’t so gross that they’re going to alert even the stupidest DM to your special method… How about these for some stats for a Fighter in AD&D.1… would you believe them?

• Str: 18/57, Int: 7, Wiz: 10, Con: 15, Dex: 16, Cha: 9

Not grotesque at all, but every stat squeezes the most out of the numbers while sacrificing the most expendable. Statistically those are very unlikely numbers that fall well above the bell-curve in all the important areas, but at a glance… Well, I’ve seen less likely.

If your DM is weak then you might blag 18 in Str, Dex and Con! I have! But Basic D&D is better as it has a fairer stat bonus distribution, meaning that more reasonable numbers can be generated, while still getting a good return in bonuses, especially for Str! Thus Fighters are much better off in the baby system! Indeed, they’re much better off in Basic as they don’t have guff like weapon profs to worry about…

Remember race modifiers make extraordinary “rolls” seem much more likely. If the above character was an elf or a dwarf, then very few questions would be asked (except I might reverse the Con and Dex for a Dwarf, just for aesthetic reasons)…

Note: I’d give myself a fluky high Int of 18 and sacrifice a bit of Str and Con if I wanted to later duel-class to being a Magic User.

Okay, how about this for a Magic-User?

• Str: 9, Int: 18, Wiz: 7, Dex: 16, Con: 15, Cha: 5

As you see I kept Dex and Con the same as they’re by far the most useful stats. As you can see, I’m sacrificing high Str, as due to the stupid stat bonus system used in AD&D I’d have to blag some very unlikely “rolls” for very little reward, which might draw far too much attention at this early and vital stage… However, if this was a Basic D&D MU then I’d make sure I got a +1 to hit/damage out of my Str…

Int is essential if I want to cast the highest Level of Spells in AD&D and there’s no way I’m going to play a Magic User unless I’m very sure it’s going to be a long campaign and I’m going to get to play with all those power spells. Also, I want my exp bonus to help speed up those early weak as a kitten levels! Wiz & Cha have again been sacrificed at almost no loss to my survival chances. fuck them both!

Want a Cleric? Then use the Fighter stats above, except crank up the Wiz to 17 or 18 for the exp bonus (not vital as you need less exp to gain levels than most other classes do anyway) and trim the Str to 11 or something. Or if you prefer to keep some sort of damage bonus then dump the high Con or Dex and have a Str of 16 or 17 instead… Personally I’d keep the Dex at all costs tho… But there’s room for experimentation…  Try pushing the boundaries of probability in unlikely areas… Why not Dex 18 with Con & Str of ~10-12… Okay, no damage or HP bonuses but reducing your chance of being hit by 20% looks tasty and such a high Dex seems so odd on a Cleric (no reason why if should be rarer on a Cleric than a Thief tho) that no one will suspect artistic license, especially with all you other rolls being so crap… Okay, with only a sling as a viable missile weapon the missile bonus doesn’t look as sweet as a juicy HP or damage bonus at first glance, but don’t sneeze at the combination of a cleric in plate mail and shield with a -4AC bonus! And who needs HP bonuses when you’ve got those Cure Light Wound spells… Even an idiot could keep this mofo alive… Sweet!

Most DMs won’t insist in rolling HP at 1^st level, but if they do then it’s essential you cheat. As you progress you should ensure that you never roll less than 50% your possible HP. It goes without saying that you should never allow the DM or other players to see any of these rolls! Or at worse make sure you’ve seen another player “fudge” these rolls and give him a knowing wink first, then you can always build an alliance between each other… Obviously you’re going to have to make sure that he dies before you, so he knows his place…

Another top tip: use pencil and write lightly. Unless your DM is keeping copies of your character sheets (if so then it is essential that you remove these from his pile of notes and manuals and destroy them), then you should get away with some in-game alterations… Why not raise a stat or two by a point here and there after a level or two has passed… After all, it might not be in the “rules” but isn’t it realistic to assume that your mighty warrior might get stronger with all those GP he’s lugging about?

HPs too should be marked with feather light pencil strokes… By mid-Level your DM is unlikely to have a clue as to how many HP you should be on… especially during a mega-dungeon…  There is really little excuse for having your HP reduced to zero after 3^rd Level if you are careful… If you get caught, bluff this out by pretending to be shite at math!

For the expert: a deliberate miscalculation of AC, in your favour, when applying a Dex bonus might not be a bad thing either. It’s unlikely that a DM will bother to double check this shit, so be creative – but not too greedy. No one knows what saving throws should be, so take some liberties and read off the wrong line… You can probably add GP by the 1,000 after a few adventures and get away with it too… In reality GPs have little purpose other than gaining levels, but you never know when you might need to buy an extra suit of plate mail or so…

I hope these tips have been helpful. Okay, that’s enough advice as to how to be a better role-player… Next up will be the meta-game… by the end of the campaign not only will you be the only PC alive, but you’ll also be the only player with an sanity left…

“So, how do you win?” asks your non-gaming friend.

You look at them with a sage-like knowing look and say those immortal words, “There are no winners or losers in Dungeons & Dragons. It’s a co-operative experience between players and the Dungeon Master to tell stories together, as cave men used to do while sitting around the camp fire or as imaginative children do as they play. You might assign ”you character” [note: opportunity to do quotation marks here with your fingers and patronise the newbie-fool, so don't miss it] an objective such as to get better (or advance a “Level”) or build a castle or complete a quest, but there is no overall winners and losers like in Monopoly or Chess, blaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh….”

In other words, you lie… and if you believe those words yourself then you’re lying to yourself or are embarrassingly unaware of the meta-game that underpins all RPGs. Either way, you are so fucking wrong! But well done for keeping that newbie-chump in the dark!

But firstly, I ask you this: what are you doing letting your non-D&D friends know that you play D&D?! Are you fucking crazy? Why not just have a screen saver slideshow of dog-porn running on your office PC while you’re at it. You probably wonder why that promotion keeps passing you by and why those girls keep laughing at you… Now you know!

Now, let me explain, in case you really don’t know, there are two way to win in D&D.

• The meta-game way
• The in-game way

The in-game way is easy and vital. If you don’t play it then you’re simply not going to be taken seriously by your D&D friends. Playing the in-game is basically the same as playing D&D, although without kidding yourself. Everyone plays it, but if you are aware of the areas you can win in, then you can play the Winning Game and not just be a shit-muncher…

1. Be the toughest PC in the party: D&D is basically imaginary Social-Darwinism with dice and numbers, the bigger the number, the more likely you will survive and then dominate the rest of the party. The most important number is Level. So, make sure you do whatever you have to to increase this. Basically accumulate experience points like bankers accumulate bonuses. In D&D terms this means you scrap for every party kill, gold piece or any other arbitrary award you can think of.
2. But all things are relative, so make sure your opponents (other PCs) levels are lower than yours. This can be achieved by subtly persuading the DM that you participated more in the killing, looting and raping of the orc tribe to a greater degree or conversely they didn’t pull their weight. You have to be careful here (especially at low levels when you’ll not be tough enough to dominate them directly). Use soft power. Suggest that you were injured during one of the early fights so you don’t think you really earned those experience points (make sure it’s against a weak opponent, thus your loss will only be a light one). Then claim the same whenever the poxy magic-user skulks away at the back of the party after he cast his solitary Magic Missile about three encounters ago… If you are a fighter then insist upon individual exp for killing monsters. If not, then insist that it should be shared evenly as it is a group game… Here you can see the meta-game bleeding over to the in-game… Best to play both…
3. Take advantage of party deaths: The best way to be relatively higher leveled than your opponents is for them to die. Demand that they start again at 1st level. If you play a canny game early on then you will have that early Level advantage and will forever be able to dominate them.
4. Min/max: it’s a well known fact that every RPG invented is broken, meaning some of its stats, classes, races, weapons, armour, etc… will statistically be better than others. Yep, Gygax’s incompetence is your opportunity to win! So, get this right from the start and choose the right class/race combo. Find out if the DM is playing racial level limits, if not then play a demi-human. You’ll get a bonus to your stats and you’ll get some useless abilities (such as detecting a slope?!). If, for some reason you decide not to play a demi-human then you must strong arm the DM into enforcing level limits on all the non-human players by making comments about “game balance” and “human centric-ness.”
5. Classes are a tricky one. But here’s a top tip: never, no matter how tempted you are, play a thief! It’s a weak class at all levels. Also, it’s like signposting that you intend to betray the party and steal more than your fair share of GPs… which of course you plan to, but let’s not give the game away too early, eh…
6. Fighters are good. Just make sure you don’t fall into the trap of doing more than your fair share of fighting. It’s a statistical fact that 85% of PCs perish during melees. Traps and other shit can be avoided by sending the thief first down every tunnel, but melees are in the lap of the dice and even an expert winner at D&D can fall foul of some ugly dice rolls.
7. Although the Cleric is the dullest class in the game he does have the advantage of packing quite a punch; good at fighting, a mix of attacking and defensive spells, turn undead, can wear all types of armour, needs relatively low exp to gain levels and of course… You’ll be in charge of healing! Obviously save those Cure Light Wound spells for yourself or cast them on others for donations to the church roof fund (really, your future castle) or other favours (attractive young and gullible female players might be exploitable for meta-game favours here if they are particularly found of their elven-thief).
8. Magic-Users should only be picked if your DM is stupid enough to run a longer campaign. To start with you are going to be so weak that you almost certainly won’t be participating in any parts of the game, so sit back and watch the others roll dice for at least 4-5 levels before you do anything. This should be easy, because you’re so weak no one will accuse you of cowardliness, so use this to your advantage. Align yourself to the party thief. seems counter-intuitive I know but here me out… The Thief is almost as weak as you, so he needs a friend, and thus you can benefit indirectly from his stealing from the party without any of the suspicion. Also, it doesn’t matter if he gets to be a higher level than you early on, so save his life and he’ll save yours… Later on, once his usefulness is over, you can fry him with a Fireball… If you can survive after 5th level you’ll start to be almost self-sufficient and after 10th you’ll be the toughest in the party. But, getting there is the problem. If you are tempted to play a Magic-User then you need to downplay the more aggressive parts of the Winning Game until you can at least cast a Fireball spell.
9. (A top tip for playing Magic Users and Winning: First, find out if you DM allows  duel classes? If so, play a human Fighter. Play the Winning game up to 5th level or so, then make sure all Magic-Using PCs are dead (this shouldn’t be hard), then duel-class your way as a Magic-User status, you’re fighter’s HP will keep you alive, you can even kick some arse… basically you should walk it through those early Magic-User levels now and in no time at all be a kick arse mage! Sweet!)
10. Kill everything you see: a dead orc is worth more exp than a live one. If in doubt, slay it! They might be called quests, adventures, modules, scenarios, but in reality they’re basically an exercise in ethnic-cleansing. Anything different to you is a threat to your gene-pool and dice-pool, so hack the fuck out of it. This comes at a risk, but remember: if it doesn’t kill you, it will make you stronger.
11. Treasure: basically you act like Gordon Gekko or whatever his name is in that shitty film Wall Street. Greed is good and so are GPs! They make you stronger and they buy you things. In fairness you don’t really need to buy stuff with them because you just take whatever you want. Gygax in his wisdom set almost all NPCs at 0-Level meaning that you can just steal what you want with little chance of retribution (at high levels think how general Zod and his crew acted in Superman 2; this should be your model of behaviour in every town you paass through… they literally can’t touch you), but if worse comes to the worse, you can always buy the occasional 10′ pole or whatever… Stealing from other players is allowed and encouraged, but you must not let them know and you must frown upon others who do so.
12. Do not fall for that fallacy of player knowledge vs. character knowledge. In reality the character knows everything the player knows (and no more) and  vice versa… After a while you’ll be so much more powerful than them that they will be little more than henchmen, so you can allow them their small victories, but early on every GP is an exp, so accumulate or lose!
13. Magic items: experienced players or winners will know this already, but class/level advantage can only go so far. Real power comes from magic items, which basically make you incredibly strong in combat and give you free superpowers! Eventually, those class abilities will just be faint pencil marks on your character sheet, as you scribble in another vorpal blade and Wand of Lightning bolts over them. Make sure the DM knows how happy they make you and give him treats whenever you get a magic item. DMs are a weak willed bunch of idiots who are desperate to be wanted and most have a weight problem, so the reward centre of his brain will recognise the sugar rush every time he dishes out a +3 long sword and receives a chocolate bar in return long before he  is consciously aware…  I have to be careful here, I’m straying into meta-game territory, which I’m going to save for part 2.
14. Yep,basically the more stuff on your character sheet and the bigger the numbers > the more you win! And no, thief skills don’t count.

Yes, it’s no surprise that the arrival of D&D heralded the arrival of Reaganomics and Thatcherism. It wasn’t a case of art (or game) reflecting reality, but by design or by incompetence Gygax created a testing ground for venture capitalism… Within less than a decade a generation of yuppies were spawned… They stopped playing D&D and played the stock-market instead… The attraction of bigger numbers, you see…

So, what’s the winning line? Basically whenever the campaign ends. If it’s a one off adventure, make sure you are the only survivor… In campaign play then its whenever the DM wraps up the campaign, then whoever has risen to the highest level is the winner. After playing the Winning Game a few times you can set yourself little extra challenges. Why, once I remember having the satisfaction of saying to all the other players (or losers), “Just think, my PC is the only one to have survived since the very first adventure till the very last…” I left it at that… nothing further needed to be said. I won, they lost… I also had the satisfaction of being the highest leveled character (by three levels) and, as a Magic User, by far the most powerful. They were flightless birds to my mammal… their eggs was my sustenance…

Comming in part 2; the meta-game…

Q: How many editions does it take to skin a cat?

A: at least five, apparently…

Let’s be honest Wizards know what they’re doing in a way that TSR never did! Okay, at first glance TSR were pretty smart to publish two games, D&D and AD&D, which were effectively identical, simultaneously - but in practice I imagine over the long term that this was just a way of dividing their own market… But their real mistake was how long it took them to work out that new editions was a neat way of milking your whores for all the money they’ve got… I mean, they were really pretty slow about it. All the very early brown box editions don’t count as the game way little more than a glorified fanzine to a wargame system back then anyway… But really Basic D&D was just an intro, a gateway drug to the hard stuff, which was AD&D. No one but kids played D&D for fuck’s sake! Conversely, no one but middle aged men play it today

But AD&D 1st edition was the game of choice and stayed in print (admittedly with more and more rule books being release for it every month) for at least the lifetime of three generations of sequoia trees. In the time it took TSR to produce a 2nd edition version of AD&D (which was effectively identical, but with all the optional stuff from the later books removed, until they put them all back in again with more supplements) RuneQuest, Stormbringer and Call of Cthulhu all had at least three editions (in fact RQ had been and gone by then, before it came back again)…

I’m not sure how long 2nd e was around for but it must have been for at least a decade… Good for them! Vampire had gone through at least two editions in that time.

Now, is  it my imaginaton of have WoC managed to produce three editions (including 3.5) in less time than the lifespan of either of the first two editions? (I might be wrong here, but I’m not very wrong!) Now, that’s clever… And D&D-sluts are still hungry (or at least curios) for the next! Now, that’s really clever!

Of course you can buy e5 when it comes out, but if you’re happy with the old edition you’re playing, why bother? I mean really it should be possible to play with just the one set of rules, right?! And if you’re going to buy a second set of rules, why not buy something that is different to the one you already own? Just an idea!

Frightened that you might be left behind? Why bother… It’s the oldest marketing trick in the world… so maybe  you should just buy it… After all Wizards of the Cock have got to make a living…

But either way, don’t get excited or het-up, there’s only so many ways to skin a cat and still be left with a skinned cat at the end of the process…

Roleplayers, especially D&D-players, fall into the following distinct types:

• The cock-sucking whore: you’re the type that will buy the new edition plus all the new game worlds and supplemental and associated crap… you might occasionally bitch about it, like a whore might complain about her pimp or john getting a little rough, but hey, you like the taste of crack and cock, so you just can’t help yourself…
• The virgin-spinster: like a bromided Victorian dowager you shelter yourself away in your boudoir and ancient tatty knick-knacks and trinkets from a past lovers that you keep alive in your opium fantasies… It’ll be a cold day in hell before you give up your 1st edition/1st impression papyrus scroll edition… And you morn the day they introduced the Fighter as a character class… And you’ve lost count how many times you’ve run Keep on the Boarderland (Officially the greatest module ever written and if you think differently then you’re an arse hole). you’ll be fucked if you’re going to fall for this newfangled rubbish, but you might just treat yourself to the reproduction edition of
• The flirt: you flit from one game system to another, like a promiscuous butterfly, but really you’re no slag… you’re just seeking “the one,” just looking for love… But you’ve been hurt before by the type who runs out on you and you never seen again, or the type who changes from the strong dependable type you fell in love with, with his simple and honest way of looking at the world… but over time everything with him became unnecessarily complicated… But maybe the next “one” will stay true… a gal’s, gotta dream…
• The player: the rest are refs, you’re a player… you turn up and play the game the dumb-arsed ref has bought, you don’t care… that sap has done all the work and bought all the rules and other crap, you just turn up, roll the dice and eat his pizza… I wonder if the dozy sap has noticed you’ve had your hand up his girlfriend’s skirt all night… Probably not, he’s more interested in his papyrus edition… Maybe you’ll fuck her later…

Have I left any out?

Well, after all that is T&T worth buying… Well, it would be essential for an old school gamer if it was the only game in town, but it isn’t… it has D&D to overcome… Something that’s obviously never going to happen because if it was it would have happened 30 years ago…

But T&T is still in print and old editions, like this one, are cheaply available. So is it worth considering as an alternative to D&D?

Well, here’s the pros:

• You only need one dice type to play
• Simple class/level system that reflects the literature it is based upon
• No pointless cleric class
• Level improvement raises stats in a dramatic way making level progression meaningful
• Saving Roll system is an adaptable, if slightly clunky,  mechanic for improvised task resolution and certainly in keeping with the old school ethos, yet having something of a unified game mechanic factor too. I works as both an ability check and a saving throw in D&D terms, but is less specific and thus encourages players and GM’s to wing it far more
• The combat system is abstract, quick, easy and original – especially in melee
• Magic is simple and old school – if nothing special
• Everything you need to play is included, so you won’t have to buy a monster manual afterwards, although the game is distinctly lite in terms of spells and monsters…
• Monsters are reduced to a very simple single statistic and, probably inadvertently, get steadily weaker as they accrue damage in way that requires no additional book keeping and should make tactical decisions by the players very important
• The rule book is informal and humorous
• A good intro for a beginning group of players, although I feel a more experienced GM is still going to be needed
• While generic fantasy, it does more to conjure up the spirit of Moorcock, Vance, Lieber and Howard than D&D manages to do

The cons:

• It has an even uncooler name than D&D, if such a thing was possible
• It is, fundamentally, a D&D rip off, albeit one that has sufficiently departed from it in several key areas, thus many of the similarities (classes, levels, the names for stats) are relatively superficial. Anyway, if old schoolers were so bothered about originality then they wouldn’t be shelling out for carbon copies of games they already own…
• Characters and their stats improve quickly and dramatically, making it hard to ascertain if certain areas of the game are broken or not. Only repeated game play would reveal if this is so
• The races are dull and totally unbalanced… I’m not a fan of demi-human races for PCs anyway
• A bit more in game maths is required than D&D
• Buckets of dice in combat could get tiresome, although cancelling down the dice and multiplying the results would counter this and make the results more dramatic, i.e. less mean averages rolled
• While I’m a fan of T&T’s combat system, I don’t like the emphasis on weapons as a predominate factor in a players fighting prowess. This is too hardware orientated for me, although this is a problem shared with D&D to some extent
• Armour rules could be broken
• There’s not a lot of choice in terms of classes, spells and monsters
• There’s a lot less published support material for T&T than D&D and much of what has been published is solo-adventures… But it should be said that with such a simple and abstract system that converting over game supplements to T&T should be about as easy as it could get. Indeed, I bet it would be easier to convert a Basic D&D adventure to T&T than it would be to convert to D&D 3^rd Edition
• Some of the rules are all over the place in the edition I’m reviewing (5^th) and have some flaws – later editions might fix these tho, like STR being used as magic points
• Like D&D, it’s very generic fantasy
• Possibly it is missing a dedicated Thief type/class… Possibly not…

Okay, there’s possibly a few other gripes here and there, but basically that’s about it. I’d say it scores quite highly against D&D and all things being equal it should/could be considered… However all things aren’t equal. D&D got there first, has always been the most popular RPG and always will be… Why that is? I have no idea… Half D&D’s charms are located in its flaws. It’s needlessly complicated, with too many rules and tables for its own good and has got increasingly more complicated over the years. It might attract geeks, but it certainly doesn’t attract many others. But with that comes the urge to fiddle and to fix and to house rule for eternity, which is something role-players love to do…  There’s much less opportunity to do so here. It also has nostalgia factor and more support than a well-funded retirement home for millionaires.  You could literally play D&D every day for the next 150 years without having to write your own adventure, house rule or setting once…

But T&T is adaptable, as it is so abstract. It’s broken rules probably don’t matter because old school players like non-logical mechanics anyway. But the most compelling (and possibly only) reason to consider T&T over D&D is its simple and intuitive melee system, especially if you find running combats boring.

Of course if you already play D&D then you’re probably not going to change to another old school system in a hurry, but (considering its price) there’s enough here to justify picking up a copy of T&T, just to see if there’s anything you might want to steal or even just to see how the first example of someone taking D&D and trying to fix it.

However it’s hard to see how a group vs group melee roll like T&T could easily be adapted to D&D or RQ or many other more convoluted combat systems. Certainly other dice pool systems like d6/Star Wars and maybe Vampire could adapt its ideas easily though…and also Cyberpunk type systems when stat and skill mods are added to a dice roll could also be adapted to a collective melee approach… Or at the very least, maybe the combining of an attack roll with an initiative roll in hand to hand could remove at least one unnecessary stage and dice roll with little effort… (I imagine in D&D it might work something like this: both would roll to hit and the highest roll wins initiative thus only that ‘to hit’ roll would be considered… it still might miss of course, but that’s life)

I really like T&T, although I’m not sure (if I ever play a RPG again) it would be the first system I’d pick up, unless I wanted to show some newbies the ropes without intimidating them to much with too much number crunching. I think I’d house rule the number of combat dice being more linked to class/level than weapon and I think I’d include a thief/barbarian type… possibly to reducing the armour bonus of Warriors, but adding a bonus to saving rolls.

Anyway, I would certainly look at borrowing bits and bobs from it and if I was to make my own game system from scratch or heavily adapt another, then I’d certainly recommend tracking down a copy, as it’s surprisingly clever in many respects.

 

Now, some numbers for T&T:

Game mechanics: (5/5 for combat and 3/5 for everything else, so let’s call that) 4/5

Playability: 4/5 (dropping a point because some work is needed by GM and maybe some of the rules are going to need fixing…)

Setting (there is none, so I’m going to grade its Value for Money instead): 5/5

Completeness: 4/5 (no setting and some work is required by GM)

Physical aesthetics: 2/5 (I like the paperback book and the internal art is okay, but really – it lacks any charm or design)

Editorial standards: 3/5 (it’s a bit of a mess, but readable and there’s not a lot to read so I’m not going to be too harsh)

Overall: 22/30

Making it, surprisingly, joint third place in my overall review rankings along with RQ2 and the Finest hour (for Golden Heroes). In many ways T&T and RQ are the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to old school gaming as T&T is highly abstract and RQ is really the first fantasy simulation-style system, but, in their own respects, they are equally as good as each other…