Downtime

I wonder how odd it is to be writing about role playing games (on an admittedly low level of regularity), when I haven't played a game in over six months, and haven't played regularly in years.  I also wonder how much interest I really have in playing anymore, when the hobby has changed as much as it has.  On a deeper level, how much of my own attitudes toward the current trends come from nostalgia for something lost rather than as a critique of what is?

Despite the growing Traditional Gaming Movement, I don't see the hobby having much growth.  Most of the new products that spring up in support of refurbished old game products still carry the weight of postmodern computer gaming identity.  That is, the modules are designed with the writer's AWESOME STORY in mind rather than playability, and the smell of over-the-top 'dungeon-punk' (I wish I had coined that phrase) still lingers on those virtual pdf pages.  Small-press D20 books are on the wane, small-press old-school books are on the rise (at least in the print-on-demand internet markets), but nothing seems to be reaching out to new players.  It's all about sustaining what current players want to play.  And with simulations of Original D&D and First Edition AD&D, Second Edition is grossly underrepresented.

I know at least one person rejecting 'retro-clone,' the term that has been circulating among the adherents, as he wonders why we are referring to traditional gaming as such, or as 'old-school' style, when very little actual role playing occurs in this new style.  The shift, it seems, from playing the part of a type in favor of playing the part of an individual, is at the core of this difference of philosophy in games.  Based on what I have seen and experienced with contemporary art and literature, not to mention popular media, I agree with the objections to contemporary gaming.  It is more of a challenge to play the part of The Fighter than to play the part of Giaccomo Fenderharp, Battlesinger and Bladespinner.  I don't even know what the hell I just said, but I'm sure someone will think they can make that idea awesome with a bit of personalization.

This is a lot of the reason I don't play much anymore.  I can't find anyone that shares this philosophy of gaming.  Individuals are incredibly unreliable, while archetypes are as dependable as Old Faithful.  Deep in the pits of the Underdark, surrounded by beasts that have not seen the light of day for centuries, I cannot rely on Giaccomo Fenderharp for combat support.  I honestly have no idea what he can do, and I can't trust how necessary I am to him, since anything I can do, he can do better.  I would rather trust the longsword of Robert the Fighter, whose survival depends on me as much as mine depends on him.

Character Project: Basic D&D

I was intrigued by someone's idea to create a character for each rpg that they owned, and I thought I would try it myself.  I don't remember exactly where I got the idea, but I'll post some links at the bottom of this post to other people who have done this.

For each of the characters I create, I'll give product information from the rpg (including publishing date and printing number).  Then I'll post the character stats in whatever standard that game uses for its products (maybe modified to include character creation information that doesn't show up in those stat blocks).  I'll note if I made any changes to the character creation rules provided by the books, but for the most part I'll follow the rules as they're written.  Finally, I'll give an overview of the process and a general impression I have of the game as a whole. 

For the first entry, I thought I would go with Original (aka 'Basic') Dungeons and Dragons. I'll be "rolling straight," 3d6 for each ability score in sequence, and leaving the numbers where they fall.

Product: Dungeons and Dragons Fantasy Adventure Game, Basic Rulebook
Date: January 1981
Printing: First

Pickett, Level 1 Thief; Alignment: Neutral; Abilities: Str 11, Int 9, Wis 5, Dex 13, Con 11, Cha 8; AC 6 (leather armor, -1 Dex); Hit Points: 1; Attacks: short sword (1d6); short bow (+1 to hit, 1d6 damage); Move: 120'; Languages: Common, Neutral; Special Abilities: +4 "to hit" from behind, Open Locks 15%, Find/Remove Traps 10%, Pick Pockets 20%, Move Silently 20%, Climb Sheer Surfaces 87%, Hide in Shadows 10%, Hear Noise 1-2; Equipment: backpack, dagger, iron rations (1 week), large sack (2), leather armor, quiver with 20 arrows, rope (50'), short bow, short sword, small sack (1), thieves' tools, tinder box, torches (6); Money: 15 gp.

Extrapolating what I know about Dungeons and Dragons, I can see the functionality in this statistics block.  Sometimes that original D&D gets a bad rep for being nothing more than dungeon crawling hack-fests.  Granted.  But remembering that this is an advancement of a strategy miniatures game, we can see where the notion came from, and in retrospect, we can see where it is going.

There won't be much difference between two fighters, or two thieves.  The only thing that sets them apart, aside from level, is equipment and name.  Even the statistics get eerily similar.  There are high odds that statistics are going to fall within a limited range, and there isn't much of an effect that exceptionally high or low scores have on the character overall.  Simplistic? Perhaps.  But imagine original D&D as a series of puzzles and mazes, designed to challenge the players more than the characters.  The idea of roleplaying only came from the imaginative folks who project identity upon a sheet of paper filled with numbers.

D&D purists argue that the lack of individuality in the characters encourages roleplay for the individual, because statistics only go so far to distinguish one character from another.  What makes a fighter something special isn't his ability to hit a target, but the choices the character makes in his lifetime.  It's the history of a character that counts, and the experiences he has are what defines him.  The later products for D&D, particularly the Mystara setting, came out of that imagination that sets apart otherwise similar individuals.

I wish I could play this thief for a while.  He has only one hit point, so I'd have to be particularly cautious at early levels.  Every challenge would be a matter of life or death, and there are no guarantees that he'll come back from his first dungeon delve.  What would drive someone who is somewhat frail to risk almost certain death for a few coins?  I'd save that answer for later in Pickett's career.  I wouldn't want to waste time with background for a character that might die in the first encounter.  And if he does or not is entirely dependent on how I run him.

Related Links:
Philotomy's OD&D Musings
Indie-RPGs Forum: Challenge the Player, not the Stat Block