DM-ology

It's fun to read various forums where people discuss what kind of approach they take to being a DM.  There's more variety than you may realize.

The "Conflict" DM:  These folks really get into building conflict for the PC's.  There is often a lot of roleplay involved in their games as the NPC's roleplayed by the D are not going to give just a simple reply to PC questions.  NPC will be argumentative, disagreeable, confrontational and anything else that will elicit a reaction from the PC's.  Adventuring itself may sometimes take a back seat to roleplaying with DM's like this.

The "Divine" DM:  Many times, these DM's are called "railroaders.".  The DM in this case will have the game they want to play, regardless of the Players interest or willingness.  Go left, there's the hook.  Go right, there's the hook.  Go forward, yep, same hook. 

The "Confrontational" DM:  These folks are all about pitting their adventure building skills against the players.  The old "DM vs Players" type.  It's not just wanting to see how well Players do against the adventure they made, it's personal, almost like a vendetta.    A TPK is like giving this DM a gold cup or a blue ribbon.

The "It is what it is" DM:  This DM really has no interest in personally challenging the players like above.  For them, the game is everything.  They couldn't care less if players fail or succeed in an adventure, it's more about,  "How cool was that?" for this DM.  Originality is an important thing for these people.

There are other types or maybe sub types and undoubtedly combinations of these.   I there's something to be learned from all of them and each of them can provide a good experience for the right type of Players.

The Legend of Darkforth Abbey: A Tale From My World, Terra Ursa

In Tarkesville is the very first stone abbey to have been built even before the town was built. Built by monks to a strange an unknown deity, it has been uninhabited and abandoned for nearly 100 years.

The building is shunned by locals who will swear to seeing lights inside and hearing a variety of sounds, some quiet and others loud and raucous. Across from the front of the abbey is the burial ground in which several old crypts and graves lay, many unmarked. Some say that beneath the graveyard lies an underground labyrinth of tombs.

The last time anyone dared to enter the building, a small group of innocent travelers were being chased by a group of bandits. They ran to the front doors and the bandits followed them in. Within a matter of scarce minutes, horrible sounds of and screaming were heard coming from the building. The small band of travelers emerged an hour later but the bandits never came out. The story the travelers told has been shrouded in mystery and secrecy by the local authorities. Some say that the building itself seemed to come alive and quite nastily destroyed the bandits but never once harmed the travelers.

Legend has it that the monks of Darkforth Abbey, followers of a Good but grim deity, in their ferver to prove their devotion and power over evil, they captured and bound a Chaotic Evil demon to the abbey, making it protect all those of "Good" orientation and not merely barring, but utterly destroying those who are"Evil". It is said that many a heroic and good student of magic are buried within it's crypts.

Darkforth Abbey became a well known library of magic and occult, frequented by users of magic of all types as long as they were Good people. During their "heyday", the monks of Darkforth were feared and hated by evil of all shades, particularly Demons and Devils.

The monks seemingly disappeared nearly a hundred years ago to a man. Rumors still follow that a great and evil deity struck them down itself in retribution for their work against all evil.

The abbey still stands, seemingly never falling into disrepair or decay. The magic of the demon bound to the building goes on with it's task, unable to break it's bonds or imprisonment.   Who knows what really remains within it's dark and terrifying walls?

Hit Points Are More Than Physical Damage?

So yeah, the discussion about hit points in AD&D  is that hit points reflect more than just physical damage.  That's fairly obvious, Gary Gygax's own comments about Hit Points in the core books make the same points that once X number of HP have been accumulated, it gets a bit silly.

If HP is NOT all physical damage though, then where does physical damage begin and end? That is going to depend on how the DM handles Hit Points and Death.

For me,  I use negative ten (-10) as character death,  zero is "Out Cold".   I like to play averages.  if we assume playing characters to about 15th, heck, let's say 10th level, on a Fighter.

So here is a Fighter at level 10 with 93 Hit Points at the maximum.  That's if he rolled 10's every time plus the 3 after 9th level.  Say he only rolled a 5 every time instead that's still 48 Hit Points at 10th level.

At what point does he start incurring physical damage?  Maybe at 20 Hit Points?  Anything above 20 we assume it's his armor and shield and whatever absorbing the brunt of the punishment maybe.

Maybe he's just a tough, thick-skinned son-of-a-gun and just is able to take a whoopin' longer than the average Joe before it starts wearing on him?

Maybe it's a combination of both.

That's how I handle it though.  Anything above 20 Hit Points, isn't physical damage to the body in terms of cuts, bruises, abrasions, lacerations, etc...

Once a PC gets to 20 Hit Points though, they're going to likely need a medic after the fight, unless of course, they are taken to 0 HP, at which time, they are going to need hospitalization.

That leads us to the topic of the next post, how much damage can your armor take before it is FUBAR?

Giving Back a Little Bit

I just started doing a bit of work on the OSRIC Wiki in the past couple of days.  I like wiki's.  I have a few of my own plus the ones I have done for friends and clients.  (BTW,  I install and set up Wiki's for people and businesses if you know anyone needing a wiki done.)

This is kinda fun because I really like OSRIC and it fits in so well with my 1E gaming.  They make the PDF's available for free and don't make anything really off of most book sales from what I hear. 

I figure, for someone who has gotten so much from OSRIC, and I do love me a wiki, the least I can do is help get the OSRIC wiki get closer to being completed.

Thanks to Stu for setting me up to be able to work on it as I am able to and giving me the opportunity to help out a bit.

Editions and Supplements

I have never read any of the supplemental books for AD&D 1E.    I have never read any other edition after 1E.

I don't feel the need to honestly.  With all it's quirks and gygaxisms, 1E has yet to be in any way limiting to my creativity and personal expansion. 

I see 1E as "the" Homebrewers edition.  It is left to be flexible so that one table at a time, each DM is able to interpret, create and adjudicate in a way that best fits them and their players.

Now, having said that and never having read the other editions, that doesn't mean a whole lot.I've read of the others and had discussions about them with folks online,  etc...  none of which is the same as having read/played them myself.

Now, I know that some of the methods I use in my game are supposed to have come from Unearthed Arcana.  I have never read UA so I don't know that personally.  I do know that some folks have told me that what I describe doing is something in UA.

I know that I have borrowed some things from posts in online forums that I later was told have come from supplemental books like UA or MM2 or even d&DG, etc... 

Because I haven't read any of these supplemental books or other editions, I will not put them down.  I don't know enough about them to say anything about them in that manner.

OSRIC has come along and added a new dimension to the game for me.  At least in terms of creativity and sharing my creations with others.  It doesn't really change anything about 1E as a game.  What it does is allow me to post my new creations for the game online and others can use it if they like with no legal worries or hassles.

So for me, OSRIC isn't a supplement or Simulacrum as much as a new Appendix or something.  It's like a re-statement of 1E with a way to publish new creative writing for the game.

Will I ever look at newer editions of AD&D?  Probably not.  Will I ever read or intentionally use material from the supplemental books of AD&D 1E?  Perhaps eventually.

The way I see it, why fix what isn't broken.

The (Lone) Ranger

I was talking about the Ranger sub-class of Fighters in the other posting.  I want to go a little deeper though in this post.

It's not that I have anything to change about the brief bit I discussed of the Ranger. no.  I just think that there is more to this class than meets the eye.

I really do have to say that I completely disagree with the folks who think the Ranger class is completely based on Aragorn of "Lord of the Rings" fame.  To be sure, there is something of Aragorn that was included in the class, but he is not the sole sponsor.  Far from it in fact.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I see the Ranger as more of a Guerrilla fighter than anything else.  The Ranger specializes in outdoor combat and tactics.  Not to say their skills are unusable indoors, just that they are most effective outside.

In regards to spell usage however, there is a lot of confusion I hear about how it makes Rangers relate to other magic using classes.  They are able to use both Druid and MU spells at higher levels.  Though these never get to be more than 3rd level Druid spells and 2nd level MU spells.

Something that I do with my Rangers, because I see them as so compatible with Druids, is that while they are "Capable" of using Druid and MU spells at certain levels reached, that doesn't mean they will easily have access to those spells.

Because they are able to use more Druidic spells also indicates to me the similarity to Druids, it makes more sense to me that Rangers will want to freely associate with Druids more than any other magic using class.  That will make access to the Druid spells easier.  I make access to MU spells very difficult for Rangers.  Don't forget, Rangers cannot make use of scrolls, etc..., making access to MU spells even more difficult.

The Knightly Knews

Let's talk about character classes some more, specifically, Knights and Fighters, Paladins and Rangers.

First off, there is no such class or sub-class called "Knight" in AD&D 1e.  It doesn't exist.

Having said that, there are two types of classes specifically referred to as Knights in their descriptions, Clerics and Paladins.  We talked about those earlier.

However, In the Class of Fighter, three types are presented, the basic Fighter, the Paladin and the Ranger.

Here's my take on those fighters, but first, a word about Knights.

A Knight is a social class identification.  It does not indicate one's profession as a warrior or soldier, etc...  The main ways one is Knighted is to come from a highborn family of Knights, to join an order that establishes Knighthood on it's members or to be a conquering hero that is Knighted by his/her liege lord for spectacular service and duty.

All of those are changes in social status.

Historically, for just a moment, many noble-born families lost their riches but kept their status.  They could hardly afford proper weapons and armor, and often did not much more than enter tournaments.  Yet these were accorded every perk of Knighthood none-the-less.

A truly skilled fighter and warrior could have struck it rich in found treasure and bought the best weapons and armor, yet still would not be recognized as a Knight if they didn't meet any of the above listed ways of gaining Knighthood.

The Fighter class is exactly that warrior or trained soldier who has spent years in training and battling, honing the one thing they do best, battle.   A  Fighter may someday, somehow be Knighted but the odds are against them and they likely prefer to be free spirits anyway, un-beholden to a liege lord.

Often times in AD&D 1e, Players hold a view that Fighters are like Conan the Barbarian.  They most certainly can be like that, but that is not necessarily what they are limited to.  Fighters have the broadest range of background and employment of their skills of all the fighting classes.  They certainly could be a Knight.   I see them as the most likely to have to earn Knighthood if that is what they seek by their valor and deeds on the battlefield.

The Paladin, as discussed earlier, is a Knighted character and is a subject to his king or liege lord.    As DM, I let Players know that Paladins as PC's must have a background story that indicates their status and how they attained their Knighthood.  Who their lord is and who their deity is.  Typically,  I see Paladins as coming from noble families that have served their King and country as nobility for many years.

Rangers are something interesting as a sub-class of Fighter.  Rangers are kind of like a Paladin for Druids.  Not quite exactly though.  Like Paladins, they do not attract men-at-arms, but at some point do get to have henchmen and hirelings.

Also, Rangers do get to employ Magic Users spells as well as the Druid spells eventually.  Rangers MUST be of a good alignment though.   I personally like to place Rangers in the company of Druids as Henchmen because they work so well together.  Rangers, like Fighters, are not required by me to provide a social class and listing like Paladin are in their background.

I see Rangers as very much in the Guerrilla warfare type.   While they can be effective indoors, it's the outdoor world in which they can do their best work.  it's where they are most at home.  I don't really see Rangers seeking Knighthood myself.  They would likely enjoy their liberty and freedom to be their own Master.

In regard to Knights, that leads me to say that Clerics are the primary ones to achieve their status through joining an order of a religious nature, like the Templar Knights.  Not to say it is limited to them in this way, but that I think they are the ones most likely to accomplish it in this manner.