My Favorite Class (30 Days of D&D)

I'm continuing to do the D&D 30-day-challenge. Today's entry is about my favorite class.

My favorite class is the paladin. Specifically, the first edition paladin. Originally I liked the Paladin because I liked heroic stories with goody two-shoes characters. Now that I prefer a more gray setting, I like the idea of the paladin as a character given extra capacity in order to survive in a world that's not very friendly to his way of doing things.

I now see paladins as sort of doomed, a la (Book 1 of Game of Thrones spoilers here) Ned Stark. Following the rules is a thankless job in a gray world. That being said, death comes to most characters in AD&D, paladins just hope it can be a noble death in the name of something good.

Image attribution: Dos Equis

I think this is general best practice for paladin-hood. Do something cool before everyone gets sick of you.

Humanocentric: My Favorite Playable Race (30 Days of D&D)

My favorite playable race is humans. Boring, right?

A Typical Member of the Species

Attribution: MichaelGraham.com

The main reason is aesthetic. Humans as the core of the setting just feels right. If most of the characters in the setting are strange races, those races aren't strange anymore. Sometimes I question if there's a racist subtext to this attitude, but that way lies madness. All of D&D has an awful racist subtext if taken too seriously. This race is "usually chaotic evil." Are they born that way? If so, shouldn't we kill them all? On the other hand, does their society make them that way? If so, how can we reform that society? etc. That's pretty far off the rails. All I'm saying is I feel like most player characters should be human to ground the setting a bit in a single cultural perspective.

I know that last sentence will grate on some D&D players. "Variety is the spice of life!" Many people will play a race just because they've never played one of those people before (a bottomless cauldron of races exists in later editions of D&D). There seems to be a belief that more races means more story and role playing potential.

My answer to that? Almost all of the incredible stories of the literary canon include one race (human) and one class (fighter, with almost all of the others being 0-level or commoner types). Race and class alone do not make for good story.

Then Again, This Is a Character From Shakespeare...

Attribution: Opera.com

In fact, I think some of the variety of racial choice becomes a crutch for role playing. "I'm an elf, so I hate dwarves, and I'm aloof." "Well, I'm a half-orc, so I'm big and dumb." Not everyone who plays non-humans does this, obviously, but it does crop up too often for me. I think human characters require the player to step at least a little further away from cliches and put some thought into who their character is.

Favorite human characters:
Justinian, the 1e AD&D cavalier paladin who found a pool transmuting metal to platinum in a randomly generated dungeon. He and Vedron became fabulously wealthy and retired thereafter
Shelby, the 1e AD&D illusionist/magic-user (probably not kosher, but man did he have a lot of spells) who left the comfort of his plush family estate to fight frost giants in G2.
Jean-Pierre, the 1e AD&D PHB paladin who fought the hill giants in G1, fought the frost giants in G2 before being captured by ogre magi and sold into slavery. He was later rescued in D2, before being promptly gutted by a nameless kuo-toa

What's your favorite playable race? If you're doing the 30 Days of D&D Challenge, link your blog in the comments so I can follow you.

Raised from the Dead: How I Got Started (30 Days of D&D)

I think I'm going to get back into doing this blog as I recently started running AD&D again and would like a place to post my reflections.

There's a thing going around called 30 Days of D&D in which some of the bloggers I follow are doing a themed post each day. I figure this is a good way to force myself to seed my blog with some relevant content. Also, the first day is "How I Got Started" which seems an appropriate start up when resurrecting my blog.

Raised From the Dead

Attribution: New Line Cinema via TheOneRing

Growing up, I got into the Super Nintendo generation of role playing games, starting when my cousin, Laura, loaned me Final Fantasy: Mystic Quest. Weird that my girl cousin got me into RPGs, right? Anyway, that game wasn't that great, but I loved it. I became aware later that these video game RPGs were based on table top games where anything was possible, and this intrigued me. However, I had been taught by my fundamentalist upbringing that D&D was evil (we had the famous Chick tract Dark Dungeons in our home and the lesser known Adventures in Odyssey radio drama episode Castles & Cauldrons), so I never sought out the forbidden materials.

 

Final Fantasy: Mystic Quest

Attribution: Square via Wired

Toward the end of high school, my Spanish teacher, Sra. Miller, told me that her daughter and I had a lot in common, and her daughter (who attended a rival high school) started writing me notes on my homework (probably not ethical educational practice, but oh well). That eventually turned into AIM conversations (this betrays my relatively young age for an Old School Renaissance type). I got the sense that this girl knew a lot about geeky hobbies that I had never had the opportunity to pursue, so on a whim I asked her if she knew about Dungeons & Dragons. It turns out, her dad ran a big AD&D game once a month for his daughters and their friends. So, I got the invite! Weird that a girl got me into table top gaming, right?

Brilliant strategy by the way: luring geeky boys to your home for D&D using your high school age daughters. I thought about posting a picture of a succubus here as a joke, but these girls (now women) are way too cool to be reduced to a sexist cliche.

 

So how about this instead?

Attribution: swerc on deviantArt

I attended that game only a few times because it wasn't particularly convenient for a guy without a car. So, I bought the first edition AD&D books and started running my own game when I got to college and was free to pursue whatever wickedness I liked. I met some lifelong friends that way, including Vedron of Vedron's Potion Shop.

How did you get started with D&D? If you're doing the 30 Day Challenge, please link your blog in the comments so I can follow you!

Pre-Session Self-Assessment

As an educator, I've recently been intrigued by the value of self-assessment. I am constantly analyzing my own approach to task completion, and have noticed a large part of my academic success comes from careful pre-assessment before turning in an assignment. This usually involves rereading the assignment, creating a checklist, and asking myself if I have completed each essential element. I might even add a few general elements not included in the syllabus.

When speaking with DM Jon, whose game I'm still loving, we talked about his frustration that his game isn't turning out as he envisioned it. Jon is trying to create a narrative game involving character development and engagement with the setting. However, the game has been a fairly brutal dungeon crawl so far. Personally, I don't mind such games, as long as it's a known quantity going on.

As Jon talked about his frustrations, my recent reflections on the value of self-assessment came to mind. I talked to Jon about it. I don't know if he's particularly excited about it, but I am. I think that I can really improve the quality of my adventure design and avoid pitfalls that have really damaged previous efforts by carefully pre-assessing my dungeons. Below is my initial effort at a self-assessment rubric for 4th Edition D&D Adventure Design (but it probably would work for most games). Note that encounters include combat encounters, skill challenges, and role-playing scenes.



Adventure Rubric

Each question is graded on a 4 point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree). Ideally, all answers should be in the affirmative.

1. Each encounter advances the narrative
I have been reading new Dungeon Magazine lately and have been impressed with how tight the Chaos Scar adventures have been. There's a premise, 3-4 encounters, and each encounter advances the story. There's a little introduction with the plot hook, and encounter 1 introduces the enemy, encounters 2-3 introduce complications and twists, encounter 4 wraps up the one session story and hints at the next chapter.


2. Each encounter includes interesting terrain/context
Interesting terrain is the difference between a good encounter and a great one. Don't save interesting terrain for the BBEG, include a little something to play with in each room. Terrain powers in DMG2 are great for codifying what happens when players poke things. If you're playing in person and you're a bit crafty, emulate Gabe of Penny Arcade--I would love to do something like this for my next in person campaign. As Gabe advises elsewhere, make the action economy work with your terrain. Either tell the PCs how it works, or require only a free/minor action for relatively easy knowledge rolls. You might even consider requiring only a minor or move action for one-time only terrain actions to encourage people to use them. No point in putting there if people won't use it.

3. Each encounter includes a consequence for failure
I think too often the consequences are too extreme. In combat, it's usually TPK. In a role-playing encounter, it's usually wasted time. Ideally, it's most interesting if it's somewhere in between. In fact, TPKs probably happen too often anyway. I find they most often happen, as one of my players once said, to nameless thugs in basements (or in Jon's game last night, to nameless BUGS in basements). Often if you consider opponents' motives, they don't have a reason for total slaughter. PCs are heroes, and as such, are founts of information or make for valuable ransom. Against mindless opponents, usually the motivation of the enemy is food. I was eating rotisserie chicken the other day, and watching Animal Planet, and some things occurred to me. First, a pack of wolves doesn't TPK the gazelles, they kill just one. Running away from hungry animals should be easy once the first PC is down. Second, most animals don't WANT more than one body to eat. I'm a size medium human, and a size tiny chicken is nearly all my food for a day. If I killed five chickens, they'd probably go bad before I could eat them, if I was a mindless bug living in the dirt.

4. I have carefully considered other alternatives before including any “grindy” elements (Soldiers, weaken, insubstantial, stun, high level monsters)
It's all been said before.

5. This adventure is likely to lead to a satisfying session with a beginning, middle, and end (3-4 encounters)
See commentary on question 1.


6. I have performed reality checks on each element, insuring that skill checks are not too difficult, and no monster can deal enough damage to outright kill a player under normal circumstances.
It doesn't happen so much anymore in 4e, but it was always awkward to come to the table after rush preparation and realize that a monster was un-hittable, or it could one-shot the party monk. Sir Keegan is, btb, an appropriate encounter for a level 1 party, but is totally capable of taking someone a frail character from full health to truly dead (negative bloodied) in one round.

Well, that's a start. Anyone have other ideas for pre-session self assessment questions, or critique of what I've got?

Making Milestones More Meaningful

Been gone for a long time. Back into the hobby because of my new campaign (the campaign building blog is at http://axrebirth.blogspot.com

Anyway, I'm currently playing in a 4e campaign run by my friend Jon. We have been having a lot of fun, and he's done a great job so far emphasizing situations with meaningful tactical decisions. However, one of Jon's pet peeves has always been the short adventuring day. In all editions, you run out of hit points and spells within 4 encounters, and go to sleep. 4th Edition addresses this issue somewhat by reducing the amount of daily resources and the rewards/ability for nova-ing. Also, 4th Edition introduced the idea of receiving an action point at every milestone in order to encourage adventurers to go "one more door." Essentially, at any point, you've either just received an action point and are eager to use it, or you can get one by doing another encounter.

However, action points don't seem especially motivating. Once you are low on surges or dailies, you are, and more action points doesn't seem to ever motivate anyone to go further (rightfully so). Personally, I'm not particularly bothered by this. I think that 4th edition parties tend to be great at handling ~4 encounters, and that's really an appropriate number for a short term goal. Any more encounters, and you're talking about the goal taking more than one session to achieve. This is bad for continuity, narrative, and your player's interest. Everyone knows what it's like to hit week three of clearing goblins from the dilapidated moat house.

Jon hasn't spelled out his approach, but has offered additional healing surges at each milestone, and it seems restored dailies (or other options) at every other milestone. This has successfully extended the adventuring day, but it's not much different than saying every other milestone, you take an extended rest as a short rest. It hasn't hurt the game. It simply throws out the largely meaningless "do we have enough surges/dailies to open another door" choice (the answer's usually obvious) and instead has us resting when we need to go back to town anyway.

But, what if we wanted to maintain that "another door" choice and have it be meaningful, either as a permanent house-rule or as part of a special circumstance, how would we do so? Right now, your surges and your dailies drain away throughout the day, but you gain action points. Once someone is out of surges and dailies, action points are not enough to make you consider going on. But, if the milestone rewards were great enough, certain situations might become more ambiguous. What if the controller is out of surges, but others still have enough for one more. What sort of reward is enough to keep the party going?

First, an action point seems to be enough for the first milestone as PCs routinely pass it. After that, here are some options for additional rewards that might keep PCs going. They could either be mixed up or used alone. Note I have not included surges or dailies as a reward, as these are essentially just restoring the resource already lost, and not creating interesting choices.

1. Buff Action Points. +1/2 level damage on attacks made using this action point.
2. Additional Action Point. Gain two Action Points this milestone.
3. New resource, Recovery Point. As a free action, spend a Recovery Point to roll a saving throw against one effect.
4. Bonus Experience. All encounters after this milestone give 10% additional experience (cumulative).
5. Bonus Healing. Regain an additional 5 hp/tier anytime you spend a healing surge.

Just some thoughts. Anyone else have an idea?

Relationships

Philosophy:

The New World of Darkness uses a system for regaining willpower whereby each character has a virtue and a vice. Willpower is a spendable resource pool whose capacity is based on your Resolve and Composure score--spending a point of willpower gives a character a three die bonus on a single roll. Once per chapter (session), a character may act based on their virtue (one of the traditional seven) to regain all spent willpower. Once per scene, a character may act based on their vice to regain a single point of willpower.

I was never really happy with this system. While, theoretically, it should reward a character for acting against their best interest in order to fulfill their character concept, I found that players were more likely to act against their character concept--or behave in an inappropriate and disruptive way. Further, certain virtues and vices were problematic--sloth, for example, generally led to characters skipping out on scenes. I ran a game where the majority of characters chose sloth as their vice. It was problematic.

So, if the virtue/vice system is inadequate, what can replace it? Well, I happened upon an article on Amagi Games (http://www.amagi-games.org/?p=22) that offers a plug-in to create a soap opera feel for a game. Soap opera's not quite what I'm looking for, but changing a few small things makes this very workable as a plug-in for a serious nWoD game. Luckily, Amagi Games puts their material into the public domain, so I shall butcher it and display the remains publicly.

One of the things that is ideal about this system is it rewards characters for developing meaningful relationships. Oftentimes in a game, players can feel reluctant to become attached to NPCs, because they fear the Storyteller will just use this to punish them.

Relationships:
This is an optional sub-system to replace virtue/vice in the New World of Darkness. At the beginning of a chronicle, each character is assigned a certain number of "relationship" slots. The development of a small number of in-character relationships will be rewarded. The number of slots should be assigned based on the expected length of the chronicle. A short three-session game will probably do with just one relationship slot. I have yet to play-test this, but I suspect there should be roughly one relationship slot for every three sessions played, guaranteeing that players will not be able to regain full willpower every session without making difficult choices. It is certainly possible that a storyteller could add relationship slots at key moments in the plot--perhaps starting with four and adding one at the beginning of each new "Act," if using a five-act play format. Or, the storyteller could add new slots when appropriate for the story--if the PCs move to a new a city, adding two or three relationship slots will indicate to them that they should be exploring their new locale and meeting new people.

The seven basic types of relationships, as defined by Amagi-Games, are as follows:
• Anathema: Someone you want to destroy.
• Exemplar: Someone you want to follow.
• Keeper: Someone you want to escape.
• Paramour: Someone you want to obtain.
• Rival: Someone you want to defeat.
• Protégé: Someone you want to mold.
• Ward: Someone you want to protect.
In general, a character should not have more than one of each type.

There are four levels of intensity to a relationship:
• Implied: Your character feels a particular way about the other party in the relationship.
• Overt: Your character acts based on feeling a particular way about the other party in the relationship. This is the level at which a healthy relationship will remain.
• Abusive: Your character behaves in abusive ways based on the relationship. The target of abuse may not be the other party in the relationship. For example, you may get in a fist fight when some guy starts talking to your paramour at the bar.
• Murderous: Your character is willing to kill to get what he or she wants out of the relationship. As with the abusive level, this may not be directed at the partner in the relationship. For example, you may be willing to kill in order to protect your ward.


Starting a relationship:
Once per session, you may fill an empty relationship slot with a character that is not in any other relationship slot. This counts as intensifying a relationship for purposes of only being able to do so once per session (see below). This character can be any NPC, and this relationship does not need to be reciprocated. You regain full willpower and the relationship is set to the Implied intensity level.

You may choose a player character to fill your relationship slot, but the player (not necessarily the character) must consent to this.

Acting on a relationship:
If your relationship is overt or more intense, once per scene you may act out your relationship at that level in order to gain a point of willpower. You may take your overt paramour out for dinner at a fancy restaurant or you may threaten your anathema.

Intensifying your relationship:
Once per chapter (session), you may intensify a relationship by acting out a scene at the next higher level of intensity. For example, you may have a retainer who serves as your assistant in magical experiments and your protégé in your relationship slot. You may be working long into the night to prepare a powerful spell to break your rival's ward. The events are stressful, and you find yourself using your assistant as a scapegoat. You begin to chastise and belittle him for his shortcomings, blaming your falling behind schedule on his repeated errors. You have intensified your relationship to abusive, refilling your empty willpower pool and ensuring success, but at what cost?

Mechanically, intensifying a relationship beyond overt is rewarding in a pinch because you will totally refill your willpower pool. However, in the long run, it means that you will need to engage in more extreme behavior to gain willpower from that relationship from scene to scene.

Ignoring it:
If you ignore an established relationship, the Storyteller or another player may call you on it. If you fail to act on the relationship at the next appropriate opportunity, you lose a point of willpower.

Ending a relationship:
If your character ends a relationship or a relationship ends because of circumstances beyond your control (the other character's death, for example, though it might be interesting to play out a relationship in the absence of the character), the relationship slot becomes empty. If you want to end a relationship, but the storyteller thinks that doing so is inappropriate, he may ask you to spend a willpower dot (which can be bought back for 8 xp). The now empty relationship slot behaves differently than before, however. If your character intensifies a relationship in that slot (including when a character is first chosen to fill that slot at the implied level), you do not regain full willpower, but, instead, regain only one point of willpower. This remains so until the relationship reaches the intensity of the previous relationship.

A storyteller may, at his discretion, allow you to empty a relationship slot but still receive full willpower for intensifying the relationship from the beginning. This option may be used in especially long chronicles, or in chronicles where the storyteller is okay with a rotating cast of characters. This may be necessary in a game concerned with very long-lived characters, for example, if your playing a Vampire chronicle that takes place over several centuries.

Neanderthals!

When I was in high school, I was very active in the drama club. Every once in a while I remember one particular incident that still brings about a strong response. I was playing Louisiana Capote in Southern Fried Murder (he's an effeminate southern writer that's a combination of Tennessee Williams and Truman Capote). In one line, I was to call another character, a stupid southern sheriff, a neanderthal. Now, obviously, Louisiana was an educated person, like me, and knew that Neanderthal is a word with French origins and is properly pronounced (in both languages) with a hard t, not an English th. The director laughed at me and insisted I was saying it wrong. Even once I proved that I was right, I was told to say it incorrectly. This pushed my buttons in about 37 different ways--I hate being corrected when I'm right, I hate pandering to the ignorant, I hate taking direction from someone who's not committed to doing things correctly, etc. Ultimately, I said it correctly anyway.

The important thing about this incident is it still gets me fired up when I think about it. We all have all sorts of experiences in high school that are varying degrees of humiliating, and those of us who are well adapted move on. Despite all of the indignities suffered in my childhood, I've grown into a pretty healthy person. I hold almost no grudges. But this, for whatever reason, cannot be forgotten. Funny the things that stick with us.