Wisdom From Doctor Who

I found this floating around Facebook.

I always liked Tom Baker's version of the Doctor.

Ray Harryhausen for Dungeon Crawl Classics

Last blogpost included images of some of the wonderful creations of the late Mr. Harryhausen.  But what if you wanted to include creatures like them in your DCC game?  If you wish, you can use the statistics below.

Remember that, in DCC, there are no “right” or “wrong” creature stats, so feel free to modify these (or change them utterly!) to meet your own conception of Mr. Harryhausen’s iconic creature work.

Calibos: Init +3; Atk Whip +6 melee (1d3) or trident prosthesis +4 melee (1d4) or bite +0 melee (1d3); AC 12; HD 5d10+5, HP 30; MV 25’; Act 2d20; SP mighty deed (can perform Mighty Deeds, primary to disarm or knock prone, with whip only), son of Hera (can cast invoke patron to call on Hera 1/day), magical knowledge (Calibos knows how to use the blood of medusa to create giant scorpions, can summon giant vultures, and may have other magical abilities given to him by Hera, as the judge deems fit); SV Fort +8, Ref +3, Will +0; AL C.

Harryhausen Medusa (2): Init +2; Atk Short bow +5 ranged (1d6 plus poison); AC 14; HD 2d8+4, HP 12; MV 40’; Act 2d20; SP petrification by gaze 1 target/round (Ref DC 12 to avoid) and any creature attempting to attack must make this save, poisoned arrows (Fort DC 10 or die), poisonous blood (1d6 damage by splash, Fort save DC 10 or die with greater contact); SV Fort +4, Ref +6, Will +8; AL C.

Harryhausen Cyclops: Init +0; Atk Claw +10 melee (2d6+8) or bite +6 melee (2d8+8) or by weapon +6 melee or ranged (by weapon +8); AC 15; HD 12d8+24, HP 72; MV 40’; Act 2d20; SP grab (with claw attack, opposed Str check vs. +8 bonus to escape); SV Fort +14, Ref –2, Will +2; AL C.

Giagantic crab: Init +2; Atk Claw +4 melee (2d8+4); AC 20; HD 6d8, HP 24; MV 40’; Act 1d20; SP grab (with claw attack, opposed Str check vs. +4 bonus to escape); SV Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +0; AL N.

Gwangi: Init +2; Atk Bite +6 melee (2d10); AC 15; HD 12d8+24, HP 80; MV 40’; Act 1d20; SV Fort +8, Ref +2, Will +4; AL N.

Giant walrus: Init –2; Atk Bite +6 melee (2d12+4) or flipper +4 melee (2d8+4); AC 17; HD 15d8+15, HP 75; MV 30’ or swim 50’; Act 2d20; SP crush 5d12 damage to all in 10’ x 10’ area (Ref DC 8 avoids), immune to cold; SV Fort +16, Ref –4, Will +6; AL N.

Allosaur: Init +3; Atk Bite +4 melee (2d6); AC 13; HD 8d8+16, HP 48; MV 40’; Act 1d20; SV Fort +6, Ref +4, Will +2; AL N.

Ray Harryhausen created many other wonderful and memorable creatures over his career.  Any of them would fit well into the Appendix N feel of the Dungeon Crawl Classics game.  

On the Passing of a Genius

Ray Harryhausen passed away recently at the age of 92.

There are a lot of things I could say about his work.  In many ways, the films of Ray Harryhausen are as influential in my personal conception of the game as any of the Appendix N authors.  Whether it was work in the Sinbad movies, the various films based off Greek mythology, Jules Verne's novels put to film, or a host of others, Ray Harryhausen's work had a sense of depth and character that all-too-often computer animation - although spectacular - fails to capture.

Like the early Hammer Horror films, Ray Harryhausen's work had a far-reaching impact on generations that is difficult to overestimate.  Certainly, it had influence on fantasy works like David Drake's Lord of the Isles series.  Even more certainly, it had a strong influence on the creation of Dungeons & Dragons and the early role-playing game scene.

I don't have the words or the skill to properly memorialise the man.  But I do know that, directly or indirectly, his pioneering vision will influence generations to come.

Rest in peace, Ray.

House Rule: Daggers to Finish Fallen Foes

Quick Houserule: "When used on a fallen foe, a dagger can automatically critical with each successful attack. On an unsuccessful attack, the dagger does 1d10 damage. This reflects the wieldiness of a dagger for precision work."

The Tao of WTF?

On May 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM Alexis Smolensk said...

The debate is being repeatedly muddled by mixing "compulsions" and "circumstances." It is being argued that if a DM creates a circumstance (oncoming war, where the party starts at the beginning of a campaign, an authority figure giving the party an order, etc.) that this is the same as the DM defining what things the party will compelled to do. 

A "circumstance" is a fact or condition connected to an event or action, but it is not the event itself. Yes, the party must start somewhere. Yes, authority figures give orders. Creatures and the setting itself provide limitations to character agency continually. 

Nevertheless, parties who happen to find themselves subject to the orders of superiors, or who are caught in wars, or any other circumstance, must not feel that there is no other possible option to their action except to follow what the DM has determined is the best, most suitable, and ultimately 'expected' action. 

To make the DM world, one must, yes, create many, many circumstances, which are out of the player's control. Designating that something is out of the player's control does not dictate that the world is a railroad - though I've now seen that argument made about 30 times this last week, to say that therefore, every campaign MUST be a railroad because it is impossible to create a world that doesn't have things out of the player's control. 

The issue is not that the player has total control, it is that the player has FREE WILL. Regardless of the circumstances, the player must be free to do whatever they will. 

Of course, occasionally, ignorantly exercising that will at the wrong time and in the wrong circumstances will get the player killed. Having free will does not automatically exempt the player from the circumstances. 

BUT ... that free will MUST not be restricted by the DM's wishes for what the campaign ought to be, or what the game should be about tonight, or what the DM has 'prepared' and is ready to run. That free will means that the player deserves to follow his or her own agenda, and not merely to act as expected by the DM because the DM happens to have done a shitload of preparation, or because the DM has bought a fancy new booklet from a store. The player should be free to pursue the course of action that interests the player. 

I've said it, and I still haven't heard the argument against it. Free will, player agency, the sandbox campaign begins when the player says, "I don't want to do that," and the DM says, "Okay, what do YOU want to do." 

And everyone is happy.

To which I replied,

Frankly, if your blog posts had said what your last comment said (7 May 1:04 pm), that clearly, then you would not have had any argument from me.

Excepting, of course, that the player shouldn't be in a position where he has to say, "I don't want to do that" in the first place.

To which Alexis replied,

So, after eight or nine really badly stated comments on this blog, two really badly written posts on your blog, a lot of cheap shots against me in your comments field, attitude, etc., you admit you're wrong ... but not before making this all about me and my inability to say it in the kindergarten terms you require. Huh. Not to mention, how do you know when a player is going to say "I don't want to do that" ... magic? You're as annoying as a raven. I'll give you that.

Okay.  Let’s go from here.

There are a lot of things that I read on the InterWebs that I could quibble about and do not.  For example, I am willing to say that your meeting with Bob the Patriarch who sends you on a quest is not an “event”, for the purposes of a discussion only, in order to follow a line of reasoning, although I know, and most players know, that what is really being attempted is to delineate between different kinds of events.

So, while I could have quibbled over terminology, I would not have, because, until Alexis’ response, it would have served no purpose. 

I still quibble over whether or not the players should ever have to say “I don’t want to do that” because, even in the context of Alexis’ comment above, quibbling serves a purpose.  It doesn’t take any magic to figure out when players don't want to do something.  I don’t need the players to tell me what they do not want to do, because the players tell me what they do want to do.  It is not, ever, in my opinion, the GM’s job to say, “You do this”, so they never, under any circumstances, have to say, "But I want to do that".  

It is the GM’s job to say, “Here are the circumstances.  What do you do?”  The player never has to tell you that he doesn’t want to do X simply because you are never trying to force him to do X.  Clear, simple, and effective.

“You admit you’re wrong?”  About what, my dear Alexis?  I told you, repeatedly, that you were not listening.  I told you, repeatedly, that you were answering something I wasn’t saying.   I am not saying that I was wrong.  I am saying, aforementioned quibble aside, you finally got it right.

I suspect that has something to do with one of your former players posting about how hypocritical your posts on this topic has been.  Now, me, I was wondering, “Sour grapes or accurate assessment?” until you posted the bit above, which clarified the issue.  Accurate assessment.

You have said that you find these posts hard to follow.  Others do not.  I have received emails from a number of folks (which I wish would have appeared in the blog comments), including some which give me a clear idea of why you sift through comments to your own blog before posting them.  For a self-proclaimed genius, it would seem to be a failing that you cannot understand what so many others clearly do.

And, yes, that is personal.  It is not polite.   Politeness has gotten me nowhere with you.  Your head is so firmly lodged up your ass that politeness cannot help.  Besides, I’ve read your blog.  I know that you think politeness is crap anyway.   So let’s look at reality, out in the clear air, and not listen to the little voices in our colons, shall we?

I can hardly admit that I am “wrong” for arguing against player agency, when I have never argued against player agency.

Let’s look instead at what I said:

In this case I will have to disagree with you. There is really no difference between using a module to help fill in a region, and using a map from Google Earth or a portion of a book on spelunking to do the same. If I accepted that "someone else's dungeon is a 2nd-hand interpretation of knowledge they have about something you're not connected to" as a strong enough reason to not "read other person's interpretations", that would apply to using Google Maps or a book on spelunking as well. We all could "go find the hard data from scratch", but finding the hard data is what life is, and it would take a lifetime to find all of the hard data used in this game. Some of it, of course, is fantastic, and can never be found "from scratch". You rely upon data gathered by others. Your series on how you map demonstrates as much. We all do.

 And

"The only thing you can learn from them [modules] is how better to take away player agency."

Not in my experience. As you say, "There is more to data that where it comes from; it matters WHICH data is relied upon." If I include elements from The Keep on the Borderlands in my game, for example, I need not include a talking raven that pushes the PCs back on "the path", just as I do not have to leave the Castellan nameless. It is not simply a matter of where the information comes from; it is very much a matter of what you do with it. Nothing in your response indicates that what you are doing is more doing "the damn thing right" on the basis of what materials you are using to craft the work. Nowhere have you demonstrated that using Google maps is superior to using modules in terms of player freedom.

And

All the application of written history, geography, science, design, economics, etc., is not of the same level as a module....but the module may be of the same level as any give piece of said written history, geography, science, design, economics, etc. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But, a module is as valid a part as most others, depending upon the module, and depending upon the other source. I don't think that using modules can quite be delineated down to attempting to trap the players in a Dark Dungeon. Nor do I believe that the dungeon is "the principle problem of the game". YMMV, though.

And

I am even reasonably confident that, if you were as secure in your position as you are trying to appear, you would not have suggested that KotB "is NOT consistent with the vast majority of modules." The minute you have to say, in effect, "Well, of course we cannot use THAT module as an example" your argument begins to break down. Nor is it true that in KotB "each part is a combat formula for entering, hacking and hauling away the loot". I have, as I said, run this module many, many times, and with different results each time. Sometimes that meant negotiation. Once that meant a PC becoming the leader of an orc tribe. Creation does not occur in a vacuum. You are creative when you react to your players' desires. Your players are creative when they react to the milieu you present them with. As far as I know, only the Alpha and Omega claims to have been creative from nothing, and, frankly, I don't believe in that. You are a smart guy, and I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you have the blinders on here.

 And

You still aren't listening. You are still hearing something other than what is being said, and answering something other than the positions that are being presented.

You aren't stepping on toes for writing against the use of modules, or the use of dungeons. You are stepping on toes because you are parading a straw man to burn. And you are burning him without presenting even a smidgeon of reasoning that demonstrates why the straw man - let alone the actual positions of people actually using dungeons and/or modules - needs burning. When you do that, you take yourself (in any meaningful way) out of the conversation. You are coming across exactly like those people you speak about, who don't want to hear anything that takes effort to understand. It should be obvious at least that, if you believe that the DM is supposed to react to the players, you should also believe that he should react creatively. And, as an example, when you use the dice to discover that there is literally a potential gold mine on land the PCs are holding, they are reacting to information you are presenting. Hopefully, they are also reacting creatively to the information you are presenting. Because I am almost certain that over 99% of your readers know that presenting and destroying creativity are not the same thing. Likewise, the game is a volley of actions and reactions, from all sides, with both players and GM introducing ideas and reacting to the ideas of others - even if those ideas are no more than "wandering monsters....people needing brave souls to defend their villages" or strangers to make "either friends or piles of meat". All of which are, please note, presented by the GM by necessity for them to be introduced into play. Your readers all know this. I cannot understand why you do not.

What is interesting in this, to me, is that I repeatedly say, in various ways, "You do not seem to understand how people use modules" and you seem to think I am saying "Make your players dance for your amusement."

Lets look at some things Alexis did say:

But I cannot help but point out that the principles behind the 'contest' per se represent one of the saddest elements in the gaming community ... the idea that somehow, competing with one another in an activity which is primarily done solo - on your own table, by yourself, in so-called preparation for the game - is a part of the game.

Quibble the First:  I invite you to examine, if you would, The Tao of D&D, in which Alexis has detailed quite precisely what he is doing in terms of his own prepwork.  “Painstaking” is not an adequate term.  I quite admire the level of prep he does, but the smell of head-up-the-ass-hypocrisy is overwhelming.   Prepwork is not part of playing the game, but it is part of the game.  

Random dungeons are useless.  A specific dungeon designed for a specific instance, where both players and DM know why its there and how it fits in the campaign, are useful.

Quibble the Second:  Did you examine those previous Tao blog posts?  Did you notice how often Alexis referred to using random generators to take his ego out of the equation?  

Quibble the Third:  While the GM needs to know how a dungeon (or any other structure) fits into the campaign milieu, the players do not.  Oh, they might discover why it is there and how it fits in, but they certainly need not know this to begin with.  Nor do they ever “need” to find out.  Unless the players are interested enough to find out. 

Quibble the Fourth:  Why this focused rancour on dungeons?  The same principles of design, and the same potential pitfalls, occur with towns, wilderness, etc.

The certainty that someday will be the right day to use this dungeon is a pervasive, even addictive justification to DM solo-produced, solo-conceived dungeons until doomsday.  But such dungeons demand shoehorning the players into the DM's headspace, and do not recognize the need for the DM to apply their dungeon-making skills to the player's headspace.

Again, Quibble the Fourth applies.

Also, there may be a fundamental disconnect here.  In any game I run, or in which I am interested, the world is the world.  I do not have treasure packets of wish-list items follow the PCs around until they find them.  A ruined city which holds the Geegaw of Ages is not going to appear simply because Black Leaf is interested in ruined cities while Elfstar wants to find the Geegaw.

The concept that “the dungeon - or any adventure - as a work of art to be hung on the wall of the campaign” or “the DM's creation of the adventure is the 'point' ... the game is the applause” is so alien to me that I cannot even see it clearly.  No part of the game has any real meaning unless it is introduced into play.  No part of the campaign milieu is “to be hung on the wall”.  It may be art, but if it is, it is more like a child’s tower of blocks, which is built merely for the pleasure of seeing it smashed by others.

And, hell, because I know you will read this out of context, let me be clear that the same tower of blocks is there to be rebuilt into something else, ignored, or whatever else the players want to try to do with it.

Even then, I would have just shrugged and said, “Well, that’s Alexis being Alexis”.   I personally think that both GMs and players are important…good ones doubly so.  I certainly do not think that contests like the One Page Dungeon “celebrate DMs while subtly discarding the value and importance of the player.”

On the other hand, to be clear, I don’t think any GM has an obligation to run any game they do not wish to run, or any player to play in any game that they do not wish to play in.  As long as you can find someone else who wants to play the way you want to, that’s exactly what you should do – no matter how foreign it may be to what I want from a game.

I have the impression that this is another fundamental disconnect between Alexis and myself.  I have strong ideas about what makes a good game, and I will argue them until the sky turns bright green, but at the end of it all, if you disagree with me, I also strongly feel that you can and should disregard what I say.

Alexis doesn’t like dungeons.  Okay.  I knew that.  He’s opinionated.  Okay.  I knew that, too.

What actually made me respond was this:

someone else's dungeon is a 2nd-hand interpretation of knowledge they have about something you're not connected to; so if you REALLY want new ideas, don't read other person's interpretations, go find the hard data from scratch. You do better to read a solid book on caving (spelunking) than you do to read through someone's cave representation. That's the problem with the "I learn things" argument. You're not really going to learn all that much. There are far better sources than this.

So, to reiterate, I argue that there is really no difference between using a module to help fill in a region, and using a map from Google Earth or a portion of a book on spelunking to do the same.  Moreover, interest in how someone else used other materials to create a module is no different than interest in how someone might use Google Earth to fill in a portion of a campaign region map.

Alexis asks “Is the a structure I am using the data for imposing order on the players?” and the answer is tautological.  Creating structure imposes order.  You can pretend otherwise, and wallow in that hypocrisy, but that doesn’t make it so.

Alexis then asks, “Is the map a playing surface designed to allow movement in the least number of directions, or the most? Does the map limit freedom of action as do hallways and traps, or does the map offer that freedom?”

But these questions side-step the argument.  Alexis made a claim that using modules was a relatively bad decision because they presented material second-hand.  Well, so does Google Earth, and so does that book on spelunking, and so does reading Alexis’ blog on how he used Google Earth.  My point was not that Alexis’ blog was useless, or Google Earth, but simply that this is a crappy argument about why you shouldn’t use modules.

And then we get to this:

Over and over, and I'll beat this drum forever, the DUNGEON and its 2-dimensional structural element, presented to the players as a maze and a puzzle, is the principle problem of the game. The best dungeon in the world is no better a representation of good PLAY than is the worse dungeon, as neither are about play at all! Dungeons are about imposition and rule by the DM; they are well named, for they imprison players in the DM's trap. The only thing you can learn from them is how better to take away player agency.

And this

The module is a limiting mechanism for game play. The module is premade, and therefore produces a predestined game play. The module includes the creativity of ONLY the DM, and therefore discounts added creativity from all the players. The module is a maze, with a beginning and an end. The core idea of D&D, that the module (bought or personally made) is CENTRAL to the game is the innate flaw in the game. We both believe the DM should create an experience for the player; but I believe that the player brings substance to the game, by making a decision about what the player wants to do, that cannot be addressed by the module mentality. You clearly disagree. Most of the gaming community, no doubt, would disagree, because the gaming community has bought into the "DM PRESENTS GAME" fundamental structure. I don't believe that's right. It is perfectly fair to create a setting. But one should not pre-create "Events" in that setting ... which is the form, purpose, methodology and habit of the dungeon principle. It has had its run. Let's move on from that principle.

And here, too, we clearly disagree, and I think the smell of shit is strong.  

A good module does not produce predestined game play. I have used Keep on the Borderlands, for example, with many gaming groups, and game play was markedly different depending upon how the group approached the material.

Again, game play was markedly different not because of the GM, but because of how the group approached the material. A module, like any prep, is limited in how it introduces creativity during prep, but that does not mean that it uses ONLY the GM's creativity during play.

And the play's the thing.

A module is not necessarily a maze, with a beginning and an end.  Again, Keep on the Borderlands can be used as a consistent part of a campaign setting during its entire run. So can any module, really. Like all parts of the campaign world, the elements of any prep - your own or that of a module - progress and change as time goes on.

Alexis may feel that "The Keep on the Borderlands is NOT consistent with the vast majority of modules" but this is an inconsistent response if he continues to also claim that "The best dungeon in the world is no better a representation of good PLAY than is the worse dungeon" - suddenly we are equivocating because the best and the worst are, apparently, not equal as examples.

When Alexis finally said something I could agree with in his comments, it was a strong step away from the things where I thought he had his head up his ass. He was no longer saying that "the dungeon....is the principle problem of the game".  He was no longer making a claim that modules, because they were secondary sources, or because you would be forced to use them in specific ways, were the problem.  Or that because there were things to react to in the game, the players could not be creative.  

Players deserve the ability to say No is not controversial.

In fact, when Alexis says “Twice now, you've said, reaction is creativity. That is such unmitigated bullshit.” he is mistaken.  I said that reaction does not prevent creativity.  In fact, having something to react to is often a spur to creativity.

Alexis says

And still, once again, you're all missing the point.

"Presentation" is the limitation. The DM should be reacting to the players, not the players reacting to the DM. To present is to make the player's passive.

Worse, the wise player to which you present your presentation can see it all coming, like a telegraphed boxing punch. But none of you see how the game has become a series of expected roles the players must play to keep the DM happy.

All I hear is how the DM is happy with the dungeon, and what the dungeon does for the DM. But the post is titled, "the player's piece." You're all so cocksure - but I'm hearing nothing about the player who is sick to death of having to run in your maze, because you present nothing but mazes. And I STILL haven't heard any other idea advanced.

I'm sitting at your table. What do you have for me that ISN'T a dungeon?

To which I responded

You still aren't listening. You are still hearing something other than what is being said, and answering something other than the positions that are being presented.

You aren't stepping on toes for writing against the use of modules, or the use of dungeons. You are stepping on toes because you are parading a straw man to burn. And you are burning him without presenting even a smidgeon of reasoning that demonstrates why the straw man - let alone the actual positions of people actually using dungeons and/or modules - needs burning.

When you do that, you take yourself (in any meaningful way) out of the conversation. You are coming across exactly like those people you speak about, who don't want to hear anything that takes effort to understand.

It should be obvious at least that, if you believe that the DM is supposed to react to the players, you should also believe that he should react creatively. And, as an example, when you use the dice to discover that there is literally a potential gold mine on land the PCs are holding, they are reacting to information you are presenting.

Hopefully, they are also reacting creatively to the information you are presenting.

Because I am almost certain that over 99% of your readers know that presenting and destroying creativity are not the same thing.

Likewise, the game is a volley of actions and reactions, from all sides, with both players and GM introducing ideas and reacting to the ideas of others - even if those ideas are no more than "wandering monsters....people needing brave souls to defend their villages" or strangers to make "either friends or piles of meat". All of which are, please note, presented by the GM by necessity for them to be introduced into play.

Your readers all know this. I cannot understand why you do not.

Alexis would later say

It isn't a sandbox dungeon if the player's can't look at it and say, "Let's not."

And no one, I think, disagrees with that.  You'd be stunned at the number who don't get that no one is disagreeing with that.  Hint:  it is a whole number less than 2 but greater than 0.  That the players have, deserve, and need the right to say No is not controversial in any way, shape, or form.

So, finally, we get back to 

A "circumstance" is a fact or condition connected to an event or action, but it is not the event itself. Yes, the party must start somewhere. Yes, authority figures give orders. Creatures and the setting itself provide limitations to character agency continually. Nevertheless, parties who happen to find themselves subject to the orders of superiors, or who are caught in wars, or any other circumstance, must not feel that there is no other possible option to their action except to follow what the DM has determined is the best, most suitable, and ultimately 'expected' action. To make the DM world, one must, yes, create many, many circumstances, which are out of the player's control. Designating that something is out of the player's control does not dictate that the world is a railroad - though I've now seen that argument made about 30 times this last week, to say that therefore, every campaign MUST be a railroad because it is impossible to create a world that doesn't have things out of the player's control.

Wherein the GM can suddenly present "circumstances" for the players to react to without limiting their creativity, and without creating a railroad.  That these "circumstances" are remarkably similar to the very things that modules provide that Alexis rails against has, apparently, eluded him.  That he has seen that argument "about 30 times this week" is not because people are arguing that it is true, but because it is an obvious consequence of the GM being unable to present things which the players can react to.

Another way of saying that, and far simpler, is this:  Alexis' entire argument against modules is hyprocritcal bullshit.  And it is bullshit predicated upon his own admission that, if he used modules, he wouldn't feel he was able to avoid using them to railroad.  

That makes sense if Alexis' game is as "highly scripted" as I am told.  People trying to give up smoking are often the most critical of smokers.  Criminals see anti-social behaviour where others see community service.  A pessimist can see success as failure....and in that light, be warned that I am an optimist and perhaps sometimes see failure as success.

I do think that his comments on “buy in” also deserve some serious examination, because I think that there are some serious flaws there as well.  But I also think that he has walked far enough out on the edge that I don’t feel any compelling need to do so now.  

But no, Alexis, you moronic self-proclaimed genius, I am not saying that I am wrong.  I am trying, one last time, to make you listen to the actual argument.  And then, if you address it, and address it well, you might convince me that dungeons, modules, or GM prep are problems.  But you won't do it by addressing only the areas where we agree - or by pretending that those are the areas where we disagree.

I know you've said that you are having a hard time following this.  Hope that clears things up.

The Tao of Sandbox; the Te of Railroad

If the DM has conceived of a series of events - any series of events - which have not been directly brought into play by virtue of the players initiating action, then that game is NOT a sandbox, it is a railroad.  If the DM has been anything except the "manager of the sandbox" ... if the DM has determined that a given set of events ought to occur because that DM wishes to be creative, or wishes to act as a "player" of the game, because that DM wants to insert his or her own ideas, then that game is NOT a sandbox.

When I run a game, my attempt is to bring the context of a full world to the players, to the best of my ability.  That includes NPCs who want to use the PCs to their own ends.  That includes having wizards who might have created unique un-dead.  It includes ordering the interests of gods and city-states, and, occasionally, things happen like earthquakes and floods.  The world moves whether or not the PCs move with it.  

Opportunities can be squandered.  The PCs can be sitting in a tavern somewhere, drinking fine ale, when events catch up to them....and those events can be natural or unnatural.  The world doesn't sit still, no matter how much you might wish it to.

And, I am sorry, but this is a sandbox, and no one - no matter how smart or how well-meaning - gets to change the meaning of that to fit their own mantra.  That is what it meant when I first heard the term in the 1980s; this is what it still means now.  

The DM's role is to interpret the player's decisions, to place the logical obstacles between the player and the player's goals, and to describe the world and the inhabitants of that world to the player.  Any other action is a deliberate misuse of the DM's power, to selfishly direct other persons, friends and families, to enact out the DM's fantasies in a situation where the DM has all the power and the players have none.

See, in my world the GM is not a slave to the players, and the players are not slaves to the GM.  It may be radical, but I am not playing these games to escape life, or to escape a sense of powerlessness.  I like my job, love my family, and have, overall, a pretty damn good life.  The real world doesn't make me feel powerless, so I don't need the game to help me escape that feeling.  From either side of the screen.

I play these games to explore.  I am interested in making the world tick, and I am interested in what the players do.  I am interested in both their actions and their reactions.  I am interested in their creativity.

This works because, not surprisingly, this is also what I am interested in as a player - I have no desire to play in a world that does not similarly breathe.  And this, to me, is part of managing a sandbox.  An important part.

Frankly, if I tell the players that I am willing to run whatever sort of game they want, but I don't do this work, then I am full of shit.  

If they want to explore the world of crime, but there are no other, bigger fish in the pond when they enter it, I have failed them.  If the fish, big and small, do not have plans of their own, then I have failed them.  If the wizards who knew where stuff was, and who were willing to pay to get it, which got mentioned in the opening module, are not still out there - and they do not hire someone else to get those same items (some of which the PCs might now have), I have failed them.  If the various gods and powers can be taken for granted because they do not pursue their own interests, then I have failed them.

It is not my goal to fail my players.

While I agree that it is wasted effort to plan the world too far ahead (and by this I mean, what occurs in the world without the PCs involving themselves in it in some way), this is not because I will force the players to some specific action to make my work worthwhile, but because I know I will not, and thus make the work wasted.

I'll tell you how I got introduced to the word "railroad", as it applies to role-playing games:  DragonLance.  No big surprise there, I imagine.  But the term did not apply to how a scenario started, it applied to how the scenario played thereafter.  and that's important because no one - no matter how smart or how well-meaning - gets to change the meaning of that to fit their own mantra either.  This is what it meant when I first heard the term in the 1980s; this is what it means now.  There's no coincidence in that; I first heard the term "sandbox" in opposition to the word "railroad" in the context of discussing these modules.

An interesting thing about modules:  The first module I ever used was Gary Gygax's The Keep on the Borderlands.  I have used it many times since, and it is still the best module TSR ever produced in my opinion.  There are, of course, things I didn't like about it at the time....particularly the idea that the DM should steer the PCs back if they go too close to the edge of the map.   Time has mellowed me on this somewhat - there's nothing wrong with the GM providing this kind of context, provided that they do not follow it up by forcing the PCs back to their story, or merely cause the world to end at the map's edge.

Growing up, I wasn't wealthy.  Far from it.  Buying gaming material was rare.  Originally, I ran games from copies of the books owned by my friend Keith, and laboriously hand-copied by myself.  When I ran modules - including White Plume Mountain, the A-Series modules, and Ravenloft - it was because the players involved bought them and asked me to run them.  Nobody in their right mind would consider this railroading.  What railroading meant, in that context, was to disallow solutions that were not foreseen by the module's writers, or to force events in the module to occur as the writer had envisioned.  For us, modules were frameworks only.  They were meant to be bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.

White Plume Mountain came out in 1979.  Players have been asking to explore it for over 30 years.  Can it be used to railroad?  Sure.  I had a DM do that to me, once - my first experience with the module, actually, and before I read/ran it myself - but only because he was inexperienced and didn't understand yet how to run the game.  I have encountered remarkably few "Bad DMs" in over 30 years of gaming.  Lots who were inexperienced, sure, but that isn't the same thing. 

It is easy to say "Don't use modules; use these tools instead, no matter how long it takes", but the tools offered - books on history and speleology - aren't really doing it right either.  No.  If you want to run the game, you'll need to explore caves, head out to jungles, and walk in the Arctic   until you've wrestled a polar bear and fought for your life, you are not really doing it right.  Because either indirect experience has value, or it does not.

My own adventure, The Thing in the Chimney, starts with the PCs awakening in the Great Hall of the Cinderclaws' lair.  Is this railroading?  By some lights no doubt it is, but it was written to follow-up an in-game situation where the PCs consigned themselves to Fate and leapt between worlds.  Player choices led to the adventure, but they did not need to lead to that specific adventure or that specific location.

To my mind, it doesn't always matter where you start, but it does always matter what agency you have to affect things once you have started.  You have to start somewhere.  

The funny thing is, if you read the linked-to "opening module", you will note that the PCs are explicitly started somewhere, and even if we are not told where the players are presumed to know, because they are told that they can go elsewhere if they do not like it. But, if you read this post, and agree with its basic premise, that would make the opening module a railroad.  Because it is a black and white, on and off switch, as defined by Alexis.  And that opening irrevocably flipped the switch to "railroad".

But you are running your game wrong.  Papa knows best.

Back when I was writing RCFG, I wrote this as part of the introduction:

While the GM has absolute authority to determine what the game milieu is, one of the common player goals of RCFG is to influence what the game milieu will be.  In other words, while the GM determines the past and present of the game world, the future is created through the collaborative effort of the players (via their characters’ actions) and the GM (by determining what the effects of those actions are on the game milieu, as well as what effect various non-player characters, monsters, and natural – or supernatural – occurrences will have). 

This distinction cannot be overstressed – It is the GM’s job to provide context and consequences for player character decisions; it is not the GM’s job to force the player characters down a narrow “plot”!  The GM who grasps (and follows) the philosophy behind this game avoids falling in love with the milieu as it is.  Instead, he or she is eager to see just how the players will attempt to change it!  It is the success, or failure, of these attempts that RCFG is about.

While role-playing games are cooperative efforts with no real “winners” or “losers” (so long as everyone is enjoying the game, anyway), leaving a lasting mark on the campaign world is often the closest to “winning” that one can get!

A gaming group may devise another social contract if desired.  Usually, though, a GM who consistently attempts to railroad player characters, who is unwilling to accept player decisions related to their characters, or who consistently undermines (rather than challenges) the goals of players and characters alike is more hindrance than asset to a gaming group.  If talking about the problem doesn’t help, the group is encouraged to seek a replacement for such a problem GM.

The funny thing is, I still hold this to be true.  

Nobody is beholden to me when I sit down to play, and I am beholden to nobody else.  It doesn't matter which side of the screen I am on.  I have lots of hobbies.  I have lots of things to do.  I make time for this hobby because I am passionate about it, but my sitting at your table while you GM does not mean in any way that I have ceded all power to you.  

We are sharing power, working together to make this game work.  True, you hold one type of power, and I another, but that is because we hold the power required to meet our roles in the game.  And, if you do not meet yours, or you attempt to usurp mine, our game will be short-lived indeed.

I expect that you will not interject your ideas into my actions, but I also damn well expect that you will interject your ideas into the world you present, its NPCs, its gods, and its monsters.  Do your best to make the world alive, vibrant, and as deep as you can.  Do your best to tempt me from my goals, because the world is like that.  Allow NPCs, gods, and monsters to attempt to subjugate me.  Then allow NPCs, gods, and monsters to seek entry to my service, because that's what happens in a living world.

The game is not just the player's actions, or just the GM's adjudications, it is the back-and-forth between the two.  If the GM is unwilling to do his part, for whatever reason, the game is less than it could be.  If the GM is unwilling to do prep work until you tell him what to do, and then you either have to play while he flies by the seat of his pants or until he does the work, the game is less than it could be.  If there are not enough things going on in the world to tempt you away from your goals (successfully or not...you need not give in to temptation) then the game is less than it could be.

Also in that intro, I had included a quote from H.G. Wells, from The History of Mr. Polly:

If the world does not please you you can change it.  Determine to alter it at any price, and you can change it altogether.  You may change it to something sinister and angry, to something appalling, but it may be you will change it to something brighter, something more agreeable, and at the worst something much more interesting.

When I read Alexis' post on definitions, I cannot help but be struck by his reference to redefining rape.  In that bit, he notes that people try to redefine rape both to claim that it does not exist (and this has direct bearing to the series of blog posts in response to -C, and some recent back and forth on Really Bad Eggs with "Socrates is Mortal")  and that rape means whatever they don't like.  Alexis' redefinition of sandbox and railroad seem much akin to this sort of redefinition of consent and rape.  In all of these cases, there is an attempt to shut down the conversation on the basis of you're using words wrong and if you don't accept my definition, it's because you just don't get it; you're part of the problem.


Here's something else that all of these positions have in common:  Everyone is wrong but me.

Are you buying this shit?  Because I am not.  

Present me with a world.  If I want to change it, I will.

The Tao of Prep Work

A long time ago, I had intended to include a blog post about converting modules for use in sandbox-style gaming.  Recently, I have had some back-and-forth with the meme that, should White Plume Mountain appear somewhere in the campaign milieu, players lose all agency.  Or all creativity.  Or are only able to react to the GM’s presented story.  This was all wrapped up with a claim that creating dungeons is a form of wankery, and that dungeons are what’s wrong with this hobby.

That I disagree with these ideas is putting it rather mildly.

In my conception of the game, play is a volleying of ideas between players and GM, with each both reacting and acting upon each other.  The GM’s responsibility is to give sufficient context for the players to make meaningful choices, and then to present the consequences of those choices as new context for the next volley of player choices. 

The fictional campaign milieu, however it is devised, and including its inhabitants, is the primary context that players have.  The ruleset is the secondary context, with the players presumably understanding that the rules are a model of the world, and can be altered as circumstances demand to model the world better.

Now, it has been said that “necessity is the mother of invention”, which is another way of saying that creativity often occurs as a reaction to some problem.  Far from restricting creativity, having something to react to often increases it.  Consider all of the novels, poems, songs, paintings, films, etc., that are specifically inspired by, or reacting to, something else.  Now, consider all of the same that develop in a vacuum, reacting to nothing.  I cannot think of a single example of the second set.

Reaction need not be creative.  You can react – or act, for that matter – by rote.  But reaction is not intrinsically less creative because it is in response to something else.  In fact, the reason why simply watching a movie is not generally viewed as a creative process is because it is passive.  You do not react.

If, on the other hand, you watch a movie, and your reaction is to feel that you could do better, that is creative – so long as you actually go out and do it!  Edgar Rice Burroughs claimed that he started writing as a reaction to the novels that were then available.  No one was writing what he wanted to read, and he thought he could do better.

So, imagine that you wanted to slap White Plume Mountain into a sandbox campaign milieu.  What to do?  Well, first you need to remove the intro parts that refer to how the PCs get involved.  Then you need to go through the module and change anything you think should be changed, so as to fit the campaign milieu.  Then you need to place it somewhere.  Then you need to decide what “footprint” it has on the local area.  You may also have to update it from time to time to keep up with campaign events.

Me, I would place the theft of the three great weapons into the far past, and make mention of White Plume Mountain early on.  The players can either decide that they want those weapons, and decide how to go about it (at any level), or ignore it, or do whatever else they like.  The presence of White Plume Mountain removes no agency from the players whatsoever.

Some players may choose to tackle White Plume Mountain “because it is there”.  Well, that’s a meaningful choice, too.  It is as meaningful as choosing to raise an army, create a great collection, or waylay travelers in a forest.

Please take a moment to read this “module” “that shatters the illusion that the DM ought to control the events of the game”.  Were you under the effects of that particular illusion?  Reading this blog, do you imagine that I am?

Nothing in the "module" is in any way invalidated by the inclusion of White Plume Mountain in the GM’s prep work.  Conversely, though, the GM’s prep work may be made considerably easier by the module’s inclusion, and the module itself might carry resonance with both GM and players who have heard of it.  Some GMs create campaign milieus modeled off of real world history to create exactly this type of resonance.

Prep work is not part of playing the game.  But it is part of the game.  Creating dungeons is no more self-indulgent wankery than is creating maps of a fantasy version of Europe for your campaign, devising trade tables, or devising means to randomly determine resources.  Nor is the purpose different – in each of these cases, the GM is attempting to create a context in which meaningful choices can take place.  And this has nothing to do with keeping players on a chain, or a paternal “father-knows-best” attitude.

Prep work is not play.  You can include anything that strikes your fancy in your prep work, and it still will not be play.  Prep work cannot make decisions for players.  Prep work cannot railroad.  Until you sit down at the table, with actual players, it is not play.  Prep work commits no sins.

And, if I was a player presented with the afore-linked introductory “module”, my first question to “If this part of the world isn't your cup of tea, strike out for warmer seas, or jungles, or deserts, or polar climes” would be, “Cool.  Where are we now?”

Because it has to be.

The GM is my character’s eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch, and taste buds.  The GM supplies my character’s knowledge of the world and of history.  Until the GM has presented something, how can I make any meaningful decisions?

You know where the monsters are - you do not need me to tell you.  The monsters are in the wilderness, they are in the mountains and hills, they are at the bottoms of lakes and lagoons, they are in caves and at the bottoms of ravines, they are in the sewers of the largest cities ... and well you know, where there are monsters, there will be treasure.

No, actually, I did need you to tell me that this world includes monsters, mountains, hills, lakes, sewers, and cities.  And, if the kind of campaign I want you to run includes hacking and slashing them, I need you to tell me what I can see so that I can find those things.  I need you to tell me what I know of the world so I can do the same.  If you set your campaign in a fantasy version of Europe, perhaps you did so just to avoid having to overtly present that information, but you are dreaming if you imagine that you are offering nothing other than a blank slate.

And if you are offering nothing other than a blank slate, it might be preparatory to a role-playing game, such as a session or sessions in which the parameters of the game are devised by the group, but until there is context, there is no role-playing game.  Before context, there is only prep for the game.  Group prep, solo prep, whatever - it's still only prep.

If you prefer to play something more 'civilized,' let me remind you there is an entire world of crime open to you.  Become murderers, become arsonists, become racketeers or smugglers, examine for yourselves all the dark arts of flouting the law and living fast on your feet for fun and profit!  Or if that seems immoral and undesirable, consider the possibilities to be found in catching criminals.  Bounty hunters are always in short supply and the act takes courage and inventiveness.

Then again, perhaps collecting other things strikes your imaginations better - rare objects, books, art, magic items, what have you.  Create a library, create a zoo, travel the world wide gathering together all you need to make it the greatest ever.  If you seem in short supply of ideas, there are always mages aching to make your acquaintance, to pay you hard coin for things they know they need and know where to find.

All of this is context.  All of this is the GM presenting information about the world, so that the players can make creative and meaningful choices.  Pretending otherwise is pure hypocrisy….especially if it is pretending otherwise so you can weep over the people who don’t get that this is a game in which you can do anything.  D&D (or DCC, etc.) is not about solving mazes or puzzles, but solving mazes and puzzles can be a part of it, if that is what the players desire.  Remember “I'm prepared to run any sort of game you wish”?  The world is made neither larger nor smaller by one mountain being called the Omu Peak or by another being called White Plume Mountain. 

Free RPG Day

http://www.goodman-games.com/FRPGD13preview.html



Free RPG Day is Saturday, June 15! This year’s Free RPG Day module includes two adventures for two great games!

For DCC RPG, the Free RPG Day module features The Imperishable Sorceress, a level 1 adventure by Daniel Bishop! As the adventurers pass through a mundane door, they are startled to find themselves unexpectedly in a frozen landscape. A distant woman’s voice whispers a welcome, and the characters are thrust into a tale of spirits and ancient secrets.

For Xcrawl, the Free RPG Day module features The 2013 Studio City Crawl, a level 6-8 adventure by Brendan LaSalle! This is the first published adventure for Maximum Xcrawl, the upcoming Pathfinder adaptation of Xcrawl. Maximum Xcrawl: Studio City Crawl is just a tiny taste of all the amazing adventures to come. Strap on your sword, call your agent, and get ready for victory and a lifetime of red carpet interviews and Scrooge McDuck money, or defeat and death, or worse: a one-way ticket back your old job at the mall!

Available FREE at participating stores on Free RPG Day!

"Challenging Games"

For me, a challenging game requires that there is a chance for failure as well as a chance for success, and that the degree of failure or success is not an on/off switch. There has to be a palette of outcomes that depends upon the choices made by the players to determine just how much you win, or just how badly you lose.

It must be possible to obtain enough context to make rational decisions, and the consequences of those decisions must follow from the context and the choices made. NPCs should be mostly trustworthy, but follow the 10/80/10 rule, where 10% would never betray a trust, 80% could be motivated to do so if the right levers are found, and 10% are scum.

There should be lots of small-risk, small-reward jobs, quite a few high-risk high-reward jobs, and a few low-risk high-reward jobs.

There should be enough cleverly hidden rewards that all of "the treasure" will not always be found. Certainly, treasure does not teleport around behind you until you find it in convenient parcels that match your wish list.

Poor planning and/or bad luck sometimes means your cost in resources is greater than the benefits of an expedition. Conversely, good planning is rewarded, and good luck can bring you startling success.

There GM should be on the side of the players, but not sway his decisions or his die rolls on that basis.

Played by the book, any Gygax-era D&D will produce a challenging game. There is no need to "toughen up" anything; that was the expected play experience. Likewise, examine treasure placement in any of the original modules. A lot of treasure was not "intended" to be found - it was there to reward the odd bit of clever thinking or good fortune that might occur in play. Read in particular the advice in B1 about placing treasure, where it is made explicit that a good dungeon will have treasures that are not found.

(In fact, it is a critical failing of certain analyses of older modules that all treasure is assumed to be found, despite explicit statements to the contrary.)

To me, a challenging game is one where you take charge of, and ownership for, your victories or failures. Of course, a challenging game requires a fair GM who is as interested in meeting the challenges imposed by adjudicating the players' clever ideas as it does players who are interested in meeting the challenges of the GM's campaign milieu.

YMMV.