Two Articles of Note

On this Labor Day weekend, we take a break from our hard-hitting, high octane analysis of TIMEMASTER™ in order to bring attention to a couple of articles regarding the early days of the hobby.

First, earlier this week, Kotaku posted a feature article about the beginnings of Dungeons & Dragons.  (TRIGGER WARNING:  Gary is described as having human flaws.  😧)  The article goes into Braunstein and Blackmoor and Arneson's “Creature Feature weekend inspiration.”  Eventually, it suggests that Gary may not have been as creative as legend indicates.  Of course, it was Gary who manufactured the legend.  Unfortunately, in bolstering his own role, he undermined that of Arneson.  The propagation of the Cult of Gary led to Dave's minimalization.  One of Gary's talents was promotion and absent that talent, there would not have been a D&D phenomenon.  Yet without the creative effort of others – most notably Dave Arneson – there would not have been a D&D for which to cultivate a phenomenon.

Another of Gary's talents was writing rules.  We should also be thankful for this.  Yet the Kotaku article provides this quote from Gary:  “Dave and I disagree on how to handle any number of things, and both of our campaigns differ from the ‘rules’ found in DandD.”  What's the point in devising rules if you're not going to abide by them?  On a previous occasion, I supplied a different quote from Gary:  “The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.”  If this is true, why do I consider Gary's codification of the rules to be important?  In my opinion, a person doesn't need rules in order to play, but rules are useful in learning the concepts of the game.  Rules from a basis of understanding among the game master and the players.  Once there is such an understanding, the rules can be modified or even abandoned.  Without rules, the phenomenon of D&D would have been greatly impeded.

Speaking of rules, the second article was written by the editor of the blue book.  While most media focused upon the burgeoning satanic panic, the November 1980 issue of Psychology Today offered an educated perspective.  (I didn't state that both articles were recent.)  Apparently, we owe the presence of this article on the Internet to the Escapist.  In “Confessions of a Dungeon Master,” John Eric Holmes relates his experiences and observations regarding D&D.  Holmes admits, “my friends know that they can often persuade me to twist the rules...”  Holmes also states, “The Dungeon Master's world is sort of a giant Rorschach test.”  By this, he seems to mean that, within the context of the fictional setting, “the personalities of the characters turn out to be combinations of [the players'] idealized alter egos and their less-than-ideal impulses.”  Yet the “world” itself is a psychological reflection of the Dungeon Master.  Holmes recognizes that his style of play is distinct from that of other Dungeon Masters.  More to the point,  Dungeon Masters necessarily improvise, both in terms of reacting to the behavior of player characters as well as implementing on-the-spot rulings.  Holmes recalls an occasion where he decided that a “saving throw” was the appropriate game mechanic to determine if a player character had preserved her virginity.  Ultimately, Holmes professes that, “The Dungeon Master's job is to provide an interesting game.”  Such a thing cannot be achieved by wrote adherence to a set of rules.

Engaging in a role-playing game is a form of art, the rules are merely a tool to facilitate this endeavor.

An Oneiric Fantasy

Art by Florence Magnin

Last month, I mentioned Rêve de Dragon, a game that merits some attention.  Originally published in 1985, I feel it qualifies as “old school.”  Of course, lacking any affinity for the French language, I must rely upon the English translation, Rêve: the Dream Ouroboros, which is based on a later edition.  (This translation is available at Lulu.)  Still, the setting remains the same and the setting is the subject of today's post.

The “reality” of the player characters is a gestalt of the dreams of Dragons (thus capitalized).  The rules employ the analogy of “collective unconscious” in describing the concept.  Each entity within the dream is an avatar of a Dragon.  “When a creature dies,” the rules state, “its Dragon (the one who dreams that creature specifically) has just awoken.”  The rules continue:  “Nevertheless, as this creature also exists in the dreams of all Dragons, the awakening of one dreamer has no other effect.”  Most entities are unaware that they exist as part of a dream.  Incidentally, in Rêve, the official title of the game master is “Dream Keeper.”

With regard to the Dragons, chapter 15 claims:

The Dragons are infinite...And if the Dragons dream the world – that is, the world from which the players' characters hail – they also dream an infinite number of others, like so many parallel worlds.

In game terminology, the word 'dream'...

...carries a double meaning.  On the one hand it means what is normally meant by the word dream, on the other it also means 'world', 'imaginary time or place', or 'adventure' or 'scenario'.  Thus by changing scenarios one changes dreams.

A 'world' might only consist of a region with anything beyond that region being part of a separate dream.  Thus, “the geographical continuity of...journeys [of player characters] are a mere minor concern.”

The history of the Rêve setting spans three ages.  In the First Age, the Dragons dreamed of themselves and also, “they dreamed a race of beings especially destined to serve them:  humanoids.”  These humanoids were usually either humans or gnomes, “but some more eccentric Dragons also created other avatars...”  Gnomes eventually discovered magical dream stones – the tears of Dragons.  As a result, humanoids began to employ magic.  The Dragons did not take kindly to this development:

In order to rid themselves of this new nightmare, they awakened en masse.  The world suffered terrible cataclysms, and nine-tenths of all creatures died.  And thus ended the First Age.

When the Dragons returned to sleep, the Second Age began.  Magic became widespread:  “one in ten humans was a magician.”  Abuse of powerful magic caused rifts in the dreams.  Eventually, this led “to a crescendo of upheavals and raging cataclysms.”  The Dragons awoke again, ending the Second Age.  We are told that...

in the Great Awakening not all the Dragons opened their eyes at the same moment, some just waking up as others were falling back asleep.  There is some continuity therefore from Age to Age in spite of upheavals and ruins.  This is why, in the collective memory of humanoids, the 'Other Age' is still remembered.

Activity in Rêve is intended to take place about one thousand years after the onset of the Third Age.  “Between a few pockets of more or less autonomous civilization lie vast wildernesses filled with ruins and mystery,” the Third Age is described.

Civil Rights in Trollworld

In the recently released Deluxe Tunnels & Trolls, Section 7 (“The Hostile Opposition”) offers the following statement:

          In fantasy role-playing games, as in all storytelling of heroic derring-do, the good guys battle the bad guys. The forces of order verses (sic) the forces of chaos. If you want to invoke the shade of Joseph Campbell, it’s because solar heroes must slay the evils lurking in darkness to restore light to the world. It is the quintessential Us versus Them...
          For better or worse, 21st Century relativism complicates this simple equation. Monster rights have become civil rights in the Empire of Khazan, and Trollworld harbors many sentient beings who don’t consider themselves monsters...They may, in fact, consider the armies of the “good kindred” to be the monstrous ones when they come rampaging through their territory and looting their dungeon homes.

(See Eric Goldberg's essay, “A Hole in the Ground,” for a similarly 'teratocentric' viewpoint.)  The “good kindred” (also known as the humanoid kindred) consist of T&T 's standard array of player character races:  humans, elves, dwarves, fairies, leprechauns, and hobbs.  However, T&T has never been adverse to 'monsters as player characters'; there are even published adventures intended exclusively for 'monster' characters.  For the 'non-good' kindred, T&T uses the term illkin.  (I would have gone with fellkin.)  The entirety of Section 7 is only three pages;  Section 13 (“Other Playable Kindreds”) provides 23 pages of details about the other sentient races of Trollworld.

The “illkin” are divided into three categories:  familiar, less common (or “scarier”), and extraordinary (or “terrifying”).  For familiar illkin, “Charisma ratings emphasize personality first...,” while for extraordinary illkin, “Charisma ratings reflect implied threat of force...”  Regarding the in-between category, 'less common' illkin, “Charisma ratings immediately favor neither personality nor force, but fear or disgust can be triggered very easily.”  Among the ranks of the familiar illkin, there are centaurs, gnomes, selkies, vampires, et al.  The less common illkin include (but are not limited to) harpies, 'flesh' trolls, minotaurs, and policani (like a centaur, but think 'dog' instead of 'horse').  In the extraordinary illkin category, we find gargoyles, demons, ghouls, 'true' trolls, et al.

Section 13 includes at least one paragraph of information on each of the illkin.  Among various interesting tidbits, we learn that gnomes have a “rather bipolar mix of clever wackiness and entrenched bitterness.”  Also, their collaborations with dwarves “inflate gnomish perseptions (sic) of themselves as one of the unsung greats...”  Rapscallions – “disreputable hobbs...notable but for their scraggly hair and squinty dark eyes,” were known in prior editions as “Black Hobbits.”  Kobolds are “natural shapeshifters, but their choice of forms is limited to small animals like cats, dogs, foxes, and small children.”  Also, kobolds “can briefly project their consciousness into small fires...and both speak and listen.”

Finally, in Section 14, we are given a discourse on Trollworld languages.  We are told:

Many character types are mentioned here that do not appear in the playable list of non-human kindreds.  These sections were originally generated at completely different times.  Because both lists are optional elaborations, we did not try to reconcile the two lists for this book.

Well, the authors can't claim they were pressed for time.

Included in this section is a language chart designed for a d100.  Given that one of the game's  design goals was not to require 'non-standard' dice, this represents a complete betrayal of everything Tunnels & Trolls stands for.  In the fifth edition, Ken St. Andre wrote, “I've tried to keep only 6-sided dice in use in T&T, but multi-sided dice are becoming more available, and I feel their use in this table is somewhat justified.”  In the deluxe edition, no 'justification' is offered.  Just how hard would it have been to create an equivalent table for six-siders?  Not hard at all.  In fact, below is a 'd6-ified' version of the dT&T table.

The dT&T language table has some differences from earlier versions.  Instead of “Orcish,” we have the more politically correct “Uurrk” (also called Uurrkish).  Whereas balrogs (now known as “balrukhs”) and dragons once had distinct languages, they now both speak “flame-tongue.”  Similarly, goblins and gremlins had separate languages; now there is merely “Gobble.”  Leprechauns used to speak the same language as gremlins; apparently, they now speak an Elven dialect.

'The Low Tongues' previously had separate listings on the language chart; now they are grouped as 'animal languages'.  Cats and dogs had different languages; now they share “blood speech.”  Once they had separate languages, but now pigs and pachyderms share “herdspeak.”  “These are not really language names,” dT&T assures us, “but simply descriptions covering a wide variety of noises and body movements made by such animals when they are communicating.”

Although it does warrant a paragraph on page 204, “Wizard Speech” is not listed on the dT&T language table.  Fifth edition T&T – where Wizard Speech is listed on the language table – provides the following definition:

Wizard Speech, despite its name, is not known to all wizards.  As a natural linguistic ability it is so rare that less than 1% of the population of the world knows it.  There is a 13th level spell, however, which can unlock the ability to use Wizard Speech in any sentient being.

(In dT&T, the spell is 10th level.)

Wizards' World

Art by Tracy Cameron Mansfield

Wizards' World is one of those games that boil down to D&D with some house rules thrown in.  Nowadays, you can't swing a displacer beast without hitting one of those; however, Wizards' World was released in 1983, when the notion was not altogether tired.  In a previous post, I explained that Lawrence Schick confused this game with Wizards' Realm.  There's only one syllable of difference between the titles; perhaps I expect too much from Schick.

Anyway, Wizards' World is no longer an obscure, out-of-print game from thirty years ago; it is now an obscure, print-on-demand game from thirty years ago.  It has been acquired by Daniel Proctor and is available wherever Goblinoid Games are sold.  The current printing has been reformatted somewhat and incorporates errata.  Yet, the book is not entirely without error; the attacker critical blow table on page 13 displays a spreadsheet goof of “Jan-50” instead of “1-50.”  “Populous” instead of “populace” (p. 59) remains uncorrected from the original version.  Also, it would have been nice to have a spell index and an alphabetized monster listing.

One interesting difference of the current version from the original is the lack of any mention of co-author Douglas S. Krull.  Originally, Krull's name appeared with that of David Silvera on the cover, the title page, and beneath the preface.  The preface itself is unchanged with phrases like “We especially wish” and “We also wish.”  It makes it seem that Silvera is employing the editorial 'we'.  Krull's  status as an unperson is confirmed when Proctor, in his foreword, uses the phrase “of the author” (singular).  Perhaps Krull wanted to divorce himself from any association with the game.

All of the artwork (including the cover shown above) is the product of Tracy Mansfield, who evidently did not pursue a career in art or adorn any other game books.  His efforts are rendered in a style I can only describe as a step up from high school notebook realism.  I'm not complaining; it offers something of an 'old school' authenticity.

The first step in creating a character is to select a race.  Playable races include the familiar assortment of humans, halflings, dwarves, elves, half-elves, and gnomes. Additionally, there are 'evil' versions dwarves, elves, and halflings.  I guess humans are already evil; they are “the most warlike race” and are considered “inferior and barbaric.”  Gnomes enjoy practical jokes most of all and “the gnomish sense of humor has been known run roughshod over meek, and sometimes not so meek, beings of all types.”  So, I guess gnomes are already evil too.

The 'bad' dwarves are called metamorphic dwarves and they are servants of the Earth King.  “They have golden skin and sparkling eyes” and they “can also cause their skin to appear to move and change hue.”  The 'bad' halflings are called demon halflings; they received powers from Lucifer and Mephistopheles.  Demon halfling powers include some percentage of magic resistance, the ability to transform “to humanoid form,” and they take half damage from fire.  Dark elves in Wizards' World are standard issue except they automatically have some spellcasting ability (as do 'normal' elves).

Although there are 'bad' character races, Wizards' World has no rules for alignment.  However, characters of the white knight profession get an experience bonus “for being kind, generous and generally heroic” and an experience penalty for behaving evilly; vice versa for black knights.

There are seven primary attributes:  strength, willpower, intelligence, endurance, appearance, dexterity, and agility.  Dexterity influences “manipulative capability (i.e. picking locks)” and “ability to hit with a weapon.”  Agility measures “reflexes and dodging ability.”  Each primary attribute has a value from three to thirty; the average “for normal, non-adventuring individuals is 10.”  Primary attributes are determined based on a character's race; humans have 3d6+2 for each.

There are four secondary attributes, each of which is the average of a set of three primary attributes:  Life Points (END, STR, and WIL), Alertness (WIL, INT, and AGL), Stealth (INT, AGL, and DEX), and Movement Value (WIL, AGL, and END).

Wizards' World offers an interesting assortment of character professions beyond the expected warrior, wizard, and thief; however, there are no cleric analogs.  Among the other 'professions' there are:  attackers, defenders, scouts, spies, assassins, white knights, black knights, jesters (yes, there are jesters), destroyers (the Wizards' World equivalent of the AD&D monk), and vampires.  Incidentally, “Vampires...are the only monster that can be played as a character.” (I guess demon halflings, metamorphic dwarves, and jesters are not considered to be monsters.)

Entry into a profession is based on attribute minimums and race.  In Wizards' World, race is not as restrictive as AD&D with regard to profession/class choice.  Among the restrictions, dwarves and halflings cannot be wizards; however, their 'bad boy' race equivalents can.  Also, the 'bad' races can't be white knights, neither can gnomes.  (I told you they're evil.)

Curiously, neither flavor of halfling can be a scout.  At first glance, this might be explained by the fact that the minimum strength needed for a scout is 13 and halflings only roll 3d4 to determine strength.  However, demon halflings roll 2d4+1d6 for strength and thus can have 13 strength.  Also, halflings are permitted to join the attacker profession even though the minimum strength requirement of 14.

Non-Human Characters and Monsters in High Fantasy

The optional rules (for “advanced players only”) regarding non-human player characters barely encompasses half of page 110 in Jeffrey Dillow's High Fantasy role playing game.  These rules provide a handful of game mechanic details only; the 'color' which otherwise abounds in the book is absent.  Options are presented for Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits*, and Giants.

Elves can see further in the dark than humans and, by virtue of their keen hearing, they can “detect invisible persons.”  Elves also have magic resistance which is cumulative with magic resistance gained as a wizard.  As a balancing factor:  “Due to their highly magical nature no elf may touch or remain in contact with any type of metal.  This means elves may not wear any type of metal armor.”

Dwarf player characters are limited to Jeweler or Armorer for subclass options, but they gain +10% on those abilities.  Dwarves also “gain + 5 percent when using hammers and axes.”

Hobbits cannot use two-handed weapons and suffer a penalty of ten to their offense in melee.  However, they receive “a plus 10 when using missiles.”

Player character giants are not allowed to have a subclass, but they “may use two-handed weapons in one hand” and “may add 10% to their encumbrance.”  Giants range in size from seven to ten feet.

The Creature Descriptions, according to Dillow, “includes many of the common creatures from mythology and fantasy novels.”  Dillow presents a 'Creature Table' consisting of approximately two-and-a-half pages which provides essential statistics for a variety of creatures both real and fantastic.  Dillow also supplies “brief descriptions” for just over thirteen pages.  The reader is left with the impression that Dillow intends his 'Creature Table' to be used in conjunction with the AD&D Monster Manual.

High Fantasy has the familiar Gygaxian variety of dragons differentiated by color/metal (including Chromatic and Platinum).  The nature of their breath weapons is not disclosed (hence the need for the Monster Manual).  Dillow provides the following advice in the description for dragons:  “Use dragons sparingly and take the time to build up folklore and habitats for them...”

There are also five types of demon – numbered one through five.  (With 'Balro' listed separately, 'Type VI' would have been redundant.)  Without details about the different types, one is obliged to consult the Monster Manual.  There are also all of the different Monster Manual giant beetle types (except 'water' – perhaps the most under-utilized of the giant beetles).

It seems that Dillow first presented the 'Carrion Creeper' as the 'Carrion Crawler,' given that the word “Creeper” appears slightly off-set after “Carrion” in the Creature Table.

Dillow defines 'Gnoll' as “a cross between a Gnome and a Troll. It does not regenerate.”  Trolls come in hill, stone, woods, river, and tunnel varieties which “can possess other abilities but it is up to the judge to assign them.”  Gnomes “fight with stone spears and axes” and give dwarves a bad name because the gnomes “are the ones who truly lust for gold and gems...”

I have no idea how Dillow decided to assign statistics to various creatures.  A giant rat, while still smaller than a lion, has Offense and Defense scores that are slightly higher than a lion's and puts a dire wolf to shame.  (However, a dire wolf has 5% magic resistance.)  A giant slug is tougher than a tyrannosaurus rex and has a 25% magic resistance besides; a saber tooth tiger is tougher than them both (but lacks magic resistance).  Also, in High Fantasy, if a kobold and an orc get into a fight, smart money is on the kobold.

*  Why spell out hobbit but leave the 'g' off of Balrog? Perhaps by the time Dillow wrote High Fantasy, 'hobbit' had encroached sufficiently into the language to become “genericized.” In my Second College Edition of Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (© 1978), 'hobbit' is defined as “[a]n imaginary being having a very small human form with some rabbitlike qualities and characterized by sociability, domesticity, and a peace-loving nature.”

Is The Realms of Atlantasia a Fantasy Heartbreaker?

Ron Edwards introduced the term 'fantasy heartbreaker' here and further elaborated upon it here. (tl;dr? A brief definition can be found here.) Does The Realms of Atlantasia qualify? John Holland's masterpiece may well be the epitome of fantasy heartbreakers. However, the reason such games are 'heartbreakers' is because they tend to...

...have one great idea buried in them somewhere.... That's why they break my heart, because the nuggets are so buried and bemired within all the painful material...

Is there a great idea buried in TRoA? Your humble yet intrepid host will attempt to uncover this hypothetical kernel of creativity and report his progress to his cherished audience.

In order to grasp the mechanics of TRoA, I shall try to generate a character. Please, do not try this at home. Thoul's Paradise represents a controlled environment and your humble host is fully cognizant of the risks involved.

Evidently, the first step in creating a TRoA character is to select a race. There are four player character races in Atlantasia: humans, gnomes, dwarves, and various flavors of elves.* Apparently, the Atlantasian gnome is intended to be “cute.” From page 8:

Gnomes do not actually take things from people they pass, things magically transfer into a gnome's pouch...and for this reason, other races perceive gnomes as outright thieves. If someone catches a gnome with something that is theirs, they will immediately give it back with a "Don't know how that gots there but must be yers cause ya can describe it."

I have an intense dislike for Atlantasian gnomes. Humans are the only player character race that does not tolerate gnomes; therefore, my character shall be human. Let's call him Johann Nederland.

Of course, I want to gain an understanding of Atlantasian magic, so Johann will be a spellcaster; specifically, a Mage. The only class with which Mages may “double-class” is Spy. A Spy Mage sounds pretty cool; I'm going to go for it.

Next, we determine the attribute values. Page 11 states, “Your attributes are listed as 2 attributes per main (shown as an outer and an inner)...” I think this means there are six pairs of attributes; each pair consisting of “an outer and an inner” seemingly related to one another. The attributes are as follows (inner attributes are in parentheses):

Strength (constitution)

Intelligence (mental quickness)

Wisdom (mental retention)

Dexterity (agility)

Charisma (magnetism)

Psychic Strength (psychic defense)

For each outer attribute, 3d10 are rolled and the highest result becomes the value for that attribute. For each inner attribute, 2d10 are rolled and the higher result becomes the value for that attribute. Wait a minute. If the attributes in a pair are not related, why pair them together? If they are related, why doesn't the outer affect the inner or vice versa? As it is, the attributes in a pair can have values at opposite extremes. (What I would have done is, for inner attributes, take half of the paired outer attribute, round down, and add 1d6. Whatever.) There are no racial adjustments for humans, but each career provides adjustments. Since Johann is 'double-classed,' he gets the adjustments for both careers. So, including adjustments, here is how Johann looks:

Strength 5 (constitution 2)

Intelligence 10 (mental quickness 5)

Wisdom 8 (mental retention 11)

Dexterity 9 (agility 5)

Charisma 4 (magnetism 4)

Psychic Strength 12 (psychic defense 10)

Based on these results, Johann has +2 languages, +10% to diplomatic rolls, +2 to spell rolls, +25% to reaction rolls, x4 spell damage, and +25% to spell save rolls. Yeah, that's right, quadruple spell damage.

The Social Status Chart on page 16 requires a d% roll. For Johann, we roll a 19. This means he is “low class.”

Next, a character's day of birth is determined. In Atlantasia, days are called cycles; Holland confirmed this back when the Atlantasia site displayed comments. Anyway, there are 360 cycles in a rebirth (i.e., year). A rebirth has five seasons; one season for each of the classic elements (air, fire, water, and earth), having 80 cycles each, and a season of chaos, having 40 cycles. How or if these seasons compare to Earth seasons is unknown. Magic seems to ebb and flow with the seasons. Magic is weak at the beginning of a season, then it becomes powerful and intense with an apex mid-season and thereafter subsides, becoming weak by the end of the season. The season of chaos is a special case; magical mishaps are prone to happen. There is almost no chance of mishap at either end of the season but a certainty of mishap mid-season. (The season of chaos exists because that's when the Chaos Dragons engage in their mating ritual...) Anyway, Johann was born on the 22nd day of the fire season.

So far, this hasn't been too bad, but when we continue, I'm afraid it's going to get ugly.

*  Perhaps the most well known fact about TRoA is that there are no half-elves. However, the possibilities of half-dwarves and half-gnomes are not addressed. The foul shadow of Tolkienian racism extends quite far; very few games consider the potential of non-elf 'demi-human' crossbreeds. To my knowledge, only High Adventure Role Playing from Iron Crown Enterprises provides for such pairings.