DCC's viability for campaigns

I occasionally encounter people asking about DCC’s suitability for a long-term campaign. Here are some of my thoughts, retrieved from the archived Story-Games forum:

Thread 1: [D&D] Replacement character's level

Johann:

In my opinion, DCC-as-written is not suitable for sandbox play at all.

Magic is vastly overpowered -- there are tons of threads about this at the Goodman Games forums - but the real problem is spellburn, i.e. the option to temporarily sacrifice ability points to get a bonus to spellcasting.

DCC's spell tables feature extreme maximum results at the top, such as the sleep spell putting to sleep the entire dungeon! This is absolutely awesome and why I chose DCC for our OSR sandbox campaign, a first for us: It makes the campaign railroad-proof because magic is so unpredictably powerful.

The problem is that spellburn allows PCs to 'buy' these results at will. Burn ten points of Strength, Dexterity and Personality each, and you're basically there. Abysmal ability scores (except for Intelligence and Luck) are not much of a problem for a spellcaster (your melee prowess sucked to begin with, and a low AC/Reflex save etc. are ugly, but you are in the second rank anyway).

It takes thirty days to recover from this but if the players set the pace of the campaign (as they do in a sandbox campaign), this drawback is a non-issure. Nuke the dungeon (unroof it with enlarge, put everyone to sleep, summon animals like a bunch of grizzlies to clear out the monsters - this is how my group cleared the first two levels of Dyson's Delve in an evening - or whatever), go home with the treasure, wait for the magic-user to recover.

In my opinion, only heavy-handed DMing can make magic-users pay the price by forcing the PCs into adventures against their will, either after a big spellburn or by using the convention-style set-ups of many DCC modules ("you have until sunrise before the mysterious tower disappears again").

(I admit that I have not tried using DCC-as-written, but I have analysed and houseruled the heck out of it and am convinced it's not what I would want for a sandbox.)

Eero:

Thanks for the DCC report, Johann - that's top shelf content, highly interesting. In fact, we should set you up with a new thread so you could tell us more.

All of what you say makes sense, by the way. I can see those rules doing those sorts of things. It's nothing you can't fix at the table, of course, provided you believe in the group taking responsibility for their own mechanics. Setting some limits on spellburn, for instance, is easy.

Johann:

I don't want to bash DCC, by the way.

Back in the day, I wrote an actual play review (which is quoted among Goodman Games' favourite reviews of DCC, as I just discovered) and an article about my love for DCC.

It's chockful of great ideas and great art, but I think it has problems very similar to AD&D (needlessly clunky etc.) as well as balance issues (though that is a loaded term and a discussion for another day).

*-*-*

Thread 2: [DCC] Creating house rules for Dungeon Crawl Classics

I started a DCC campaign when the game came out and blogged about it here (basic philosophy, sessions 1-12 plus my endeavour to become a 'Killer DM'). My players keep a campaign log here in German (about a hundred sessions, though typically lagging behind 10+ sessions or so).

Before the campaign started, I successfully ran two character funnels, which caused me to write a very positive Actual Play Review. I heartily recommend running a funnel, particularly if you are squeamish about killing off characters as a DM!

I ran the funnels with DCC-as-written, but before we started the campaign proper (with Barrowmaze, which took about 50 sessions to complete), I made several changes to the rules (mostly simplifying the the class abilities).

Some observations on DCC:

#1: DCC is complex

DCC is complex (or “mechanically intensive” as Eero put it), and in fact too complex for my personal taste these days (though I ran Rolemaster 2e back in the day for many years so I'm a veteran of complex rules with tons of tables).

(Ebear, you’re definitely on to something when you suspect that people tend to go for simpler systems over time. In my case, I’d attribute this, among other things, to greater confidence in running a game and my friends and I having less time for the hobby due to families etc., so mastering complex rules becomes too time-consuming. I also dig your icecream analogy!)

One example of DCC’s complexity: As a fighter levels up, he or she has an increasing chance of scoring a critical hit, rolls a bigger and bigger critical hit die and on better and better tables (e.g. at level 2, a critical hit is scored on 19-20 and rolled with a d14 on table III).

I greatly simplified this and many other things right off the bat.

#2: DCC is clunky

I often got the impression that the designers were either not well-read regarding RPGs or playability was of little concern.

A minor example:

When a character uses an improvised weapon (e.g. a log of wood), he or she must roll a lesser attack die (typically a d16 instead of a d20), rather than suffering a fixed penalty like -2 to attacks (as for other conditions).

In practice, this requires reaching for another die and makes correcting the result after the roll (happens all the time at our table) less than elegant ("Hey, Bob, you forgot your fighter is using an improvised weapon!”).

These little rules and issues are no problem in isolation, but they sure do add up.

A more serious example:

Just like D&D 3e, DCC uses ability score damage which I find extremely clunky at the table. A temporary loss of 1d6 Dexterity points, for instance, (a) requires one to recalculate Armor Class, Reflex save, and ranged attack bonus and (b) this is as effective against a high-level character than a low-level one.

I redesigned all spells causing ability damage and also do this for any monsters in the DCC modules.

#3: DCC is not balanced

An example much discussed at the game’s forums:

For a mid-level caster, the 1st-level spell magic missile is, almost pound for pound (i.e. when assuming the same die roll), better than the 3rd-level spell lightning bolt.

For a 5th-level magic-user, for instance, a net result of 20 causes…
1d4+2 missiles, each causing [1d6+caster level] points of damage (for a total of 4.5*8.5=38.25)
or
4d6 points of damage against a single target (for a total of 14 points of damage, which can be halved by a Reflex save).

At the Goodman Games forums, Doug Kovacs, one of DCC’s chief artists (whose maps are one of the Three Things I love about DCC), has this to say about the issue:

“As a player I don't particularly want to spend my time comparing my character to what it could be or what other people’s characters are or have, unless it is part of the story. I could role play a wizard that is overly concerned whether his fireball is as good at as his magic missile…. but I couldn't really care much about that myself. I want to play the game. "What do I see? " "Cool, this is what I do". As a DM, most of the time when I observe, 'this is better than that' or 'this is different than that' I also just think 'that is interesting' and move along. Imbalance is everywhere and what makes a game fun.”

I accept this point of view (and can see the attraction of this laid-back attitude), but it’s not the way I play the game.

I made some big, simple changes to the magic rules initially (mostly nerfing spellburn) and again after 60 sessions (when even the player of a magic-user agreed the other PCs were mostly relegated to the status of lesser bodyguards at this point).

Also, I have rewritten 80% of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-level spells at this point and this has been an undertaking I did not expect. Changing a single rule (e.g. imposing a limit or drawback on spellburn) is easy, but rewriting dozens of complex tables is a different story altogether. So I think that DCC is not easy to adapt to a group’s own needs, though it is certainly possible -- I am very pleased with my homebrew version.

I also made and keep making smaller adjustments throughout the campaign, the most recent being a reduction of the duration of the shield spell some sessions after the party adopted the standard procedure of going to the dungeon’s entrance, casting and recasting that spell until they scored a high result, and going home if that did not work out (i.e. when the spell was lost for the day)…

My players know and accept that my homebrew version of DCC is an ongoing, imperfect project dear to my heart and after some round-table discussions and e-mails, we usually find changes everyone at the table can live with.

#4: DCC requires heavy-handed DMing

I laid out the negative effects of spellburn on sandbox play in the parent thread. There are several issues like this scattered throughout the magic rules. A lot of the advice on Goodman Games' forum, by fans of DCC, boils down to custom-fitting the adventure to the PCs, e.g. by…

(a) creating monsters with 'blindsight' to send against a party with access to an insanely overpowered colour spray (which blinds targets), or

(b) sending demons after spell-casters using spellburn to great effect because "using that sort of power will attract notice" (quoted from memory).

Make of that what you will.

Addendum:

Many DCC modules – most of which I find delightful! - begin with the following introductory text:

“Remember the good old days, when adventures were underground, NPCs were there to be killed, and the finale of every dungeon was the dragon on the 20th level? Those days are back.”

I think DCC delivers on that promise in spades.

I attribute DCC’s success to recreating many people’s first contact with (A)D&D and similar RPGs (i.e., not OD&D!) by providing a nostalgic experience with just enough freshness: the modules always use unique monsters (rather than orcs), the many tables provide jaw-dropping surprises, the retro-art is top-notch, the strange dice are a geek’s delight, and the byzantine rules are a pleasure to explore and exploit.

However, I’ll also lament that the authors ignore 40 years of game design and recreate the very same mistakes AD&D made: overly complex and inelegant rules and a GM-is-god attitude to fix any problems.

Three Items Only -- but they are ALL magical!

Three Items Only -- but they are ALL magical!!

 

I'm considering a D&D mini-campaign with a very different approach to encumbrance and resource management: 

drastically reducing the number of items in the first place while making them much more useful.

 

The mythic underworld (or wilderness) is clearly delineated from the normal world (in keeping with Philotomy's Musings, which remind us that doors open for monsters only, monsters lose darkvision when serving a character etc.).

 

Here's the first draft of my rules:

 

(1) A character can only bring three items. If he brings more, he risks various severe complications from a random table (e.g. a curse).

 

(2) Provided a character follows this rule, all items brought temporarily become subtly magical.

 

(3) A subtly magical item "performs ideally" unless under too much scrutiny or put to the test. Some examples:

1. A waterskin can be passed around to quench people's thirst and never runs out of water. However, trying to fill a bathtub with it will make it run dry normally and lose its magic.
2. A flask of whiskey may reliably disinfect a wound, help a patient during an operation (i.e. cure hp), provide liquid courage (i.e. allow another morale roll) etc. This type of application uses up the whiskey.
3. A sword is treated as magical for the purposes of hitting ghosts etc.

4. A sandwich is not only very nourishing, but also very desirable to many monsters.
5. A blanket provides not only warmth but also comfort.

 

Note that these effects are not set in stone.

 

(4) Once on the other side of the reality divide, characters can pick up or make more stuff (e.g. wield a slain goblin's weapon or sew a sack from a wolf's skin).

 

There is a similar limit on bringing too many people, effectively limiting party size to seven.

 

I was inspired by Lord Dunsany's fantastic little story "The Hoard of the Gibbelins" where the protagonist only brings a sword and a pickaxe...

How to Choose a Temporary Commander in D&D (first draft)

PART I: What is this and why should I care?

This is a method for the game’s participants to temporarily entrust a single player with full authority to plan and conduct a specific undertaking (e.g. getting past the troll on the bridge). (It’s inspired by the office of dictator in the Roman Republic.) Participants and the dice will choose differently for different undertakings (see PART II below).

Having a single player be in charge of an undertaking has two major advantages:

a)    1. It limits discussion, leading to more time playing out actual operations.

b)     2.It ensures a coherent plan. (Not necessarily a good one, mind you, but often too many cooks spoil the broth.)

 

PART II: What is special about the proposed method?

The game’s participants choose a temporary commander via a combination of voting and rolling dice. Interested players pitch their plans to the group and everyone casts a secret vote. Each volunteer then rolls a d20 and adds his or her character’s Charisma modifier and a +2 bonus per vote. The highest result determines the temporary commander (and plan). Crucially, this result is treated as a consensus reached by the characters.

This method has two major advantages:

a)    1. Partially randomizing the process ensures that everyone can have a chance to be in the driver’s seat. (Frankly, we owe this to each other among friends and in the context of a game. You may not agree with Bob’s proposal but you should respect his desire and right to contribute.)

b)     2. Pretending all characters believe in the plan provides both emotional distance and roleplaying opportunities. (It’ll be easier to go along with Bob’s plan if you treat the situation as your character having been convinced by Bob’s.)

 

PART III: Step-by-step instructions

Step 1: Invoking the process

Any player may invoke the process if he or she feels a discussion is beginning to drag.

Step 2: Free-for-all discussion

For a limited time, the participants voice opinions, ask for clarifications from the DM etc.

Step 3: Stepping up

Interested players declare that they have a plan.

Step 4: Sales pitch

Volunteers pitch their plans to the group in a random order and briefly answer questions. (Think of politicians addressing the press.)

Step 5: Voting

All participants (i.e. the players and the DM) cast a secret vote each. The votes are tallied.

Step 6: Rolling the dice

Each volunteer rolls a d20, adds his or her character’s Charisma modifier and a +2 bonus for every vote. The character with the highest result is treating as having won over the party.

Votes can be cast for any number of reasons, e.g.

-          tactical reasons (Bob’s plan sounds most likely to succeed.)

-          social reasons (Bob’s had a rough day at work.)

-          artistic reasons (Bob’s plan promises lots of combat, is off the beaten path etc.)

Step 6: Roleplay

The players provide some description of the process at the character level. (“My magic-user is awed by the barbarian’s naïve courage and agrees to the crazy plan, surprising himself most of all.”)

Step 7: Execution

The player of the commanding character now plans and conducts the operation.

*-*-*

The proposal assumes a neutrally refereed D&D group with about six players and Charisma modifiers ranging from -3 to +3.

Also, this has not been tested yet, so I might be talking out of my ass. What do you think about this?

Muster: a friendly primer to old school D&D

I'm momentarily reviving this blog to promote a project near and dear to my heart:

Eero Tuovinen is setting set out to write Muster: a friendly primer to old school D&D at IndieGoGo. This is a project very much in the vein of Matthew Finch's seminal Quick Primer for Old School Gaming and Jason Cone’s unforgettable Philotomy’s Musings.

Eero’s been blogging and writing about the philosophical underpinnings of wargamey D&D and how to run and play in a sandbox campaign for many years. He’s been a major influence on my gaming, along with Ben Robbins’ West Marches campaign. But enough with all the OSR links – go check out Eero’s crowdfunding pitch for yourself!

Best wishes,

Johann

(I’m not affiliated with Eero in any way, but an obviously enthusiastic backer. Eight years and 80+ PC casualties and counting…)

Eero Tuovinen Is My Hero (Part III)

Eero Tuovinen has this to say on "optimizing at the expense of a robust and compelling fiction", e.g. by "swinging some sort of a pole-marmoset-flint knife combo platter in a customized effort to keep my character safe":

[T]o me the ideal of beautiful and powerful play in an organically developing Gamist game with heavy focus on positioning, such as this style of D&D, is to grasp with determination at a subject matter and challenge proposition that you find compelling; the question is not whether you could win at a GM's obstacle course by stacking rules and positioning to your favour, the question is whether you can triumph against a challenge chosen and internalized by yourself within the fictional constraints, partially unspoken, that determine whether your play is petty or compelling. Not whether you can build a knight that can slay a dragon, but whether a knight as per your understanding of knighthood can slay a dragon.

From this perspective we find that the actual tactical and strategic choices the players make and feel most strongly come about as a combination of two elements that reinforce each other: is what you're doing compelling as a fictional proposition, and is it smart (or effective, equivalently) as a move? In this context the oft-cited D&D attitude of maximizing your effectiveness for the sake of party success is irrelevant, and it is much more relevant to make room for an individual player's character image, the personal constraints they choose for their challenge: this guy [...] wants to triumph without resorting to underhanded tricks, this one wants to play a naive greenhorn, this one's playing a fatalist who is seeking his own death... All of these can be played in effective ways that are also compelling rather than flimsy in terms of fictive credibility.

I find the knighthood example particularly apt because my group has had discussions about the viability of playing an honor-bound, never-back-down-in-the-face-of-evil paladin in our old school campaign.

Becoming a Killer DM: Owning Up

Yesterday, I fucked up and ruined the integrity of our campaign. Now I'm trying to restore it.

*-*-*

The party confronted a major monster. The monster's description said it would probably talk to the characters even though that meant giving away all but certain surprise.

Stepping on a slippery slope that would prove my downfall, I gave the monster an insanely high initiative so it could maintain its advantage while still talking to the characters.

When hostilities erupted, one player actually beat the monster's initiative anyway, then rolled well on a spell casting roll, and then rolled spectacularly well on damage.

Behind the screen, I silently added +20 hp to the monster's hit points to prevent it from dying on the spot. OUCH!

*-*-*

I have some excuses, all of them bad, and some thoughts on how to foster the kind of mental hygiene espoused by Eero Tuovinen. Dunno if I'll get around to posting them next week.

In any case, my first fix is to own up to cheating.

For next week – the party is still in the middle of the fight --, I'd like to proceed as follows:

The monster's new and improved stats and abilities remain unchanged.

The permanent damage the monster has done up to this point is revoked (i.e. one player character regains two points of Luck and a valued henchman is not teleported away after all).

I hope to get things back on track.

[Addendum: I did get things back on track -- we played for another 150+ sessions, most of which are documented here. I just noticed - more than ten years later - that the play reports were moved to the other blog then, giving the impression that the campaign broke down after my fuck-up.]

Campaign Diary: DCC in the Wilderlands (Session 12)

Session 12: Early Retreat

The characters carefully examine a room with mysterious holes in the floor. They are disturbed by giant beetles and unknown cultists and return to the village early. The characters sell some loot and some of them later examine the enchanted forest nearby, moving into it for a few yards.

Observations

• The session was quite slow and few things happened: The characters spent a lot of time searching for traps, fighting minor random encounters, selling loot and debating whether to explore the enchanted forest or not.
• A potential problem rears its head: The players are responsible for pacing and risk management and cannot rely on the DM to provide either.
• That said, I should have asked them to either examine the forest together - or not at all. There are too many random factors for me to foresee how long various endeavours might take, so solo quests are not really an option. 
• Grognardia has a nice article on the The Rhythm of the Old School that has a more positive view on some of these issues.

In a nutshell

A session that was too slow for my tastes.

Campaign Diary: DCC in the Wilderlands (Session 11)

Session 11: The Power of Magic

The characters begin to plunder the area where they were ambushed the other week and retreat with some gold. Back in the village, the dwarf attempts to teach other tomb raiders but is foulmouthed by unlucky adventurers. He sets things straight with a duel to the death. Later, the party's witch casts detect magic with critical success. She sees and identifies everything magic in the entire village. Among other things, she finds out that all the children are under a spell. When the witch casts detect magic again some time later, she fumbles and transforms a tavern wench into some kind of earth elemental. Fortutnately, the dwarf is able to repair some damage done to her before the effect wears off after a few days.

Observations

• After 10 sessions with almost no magical incidents, the unpredictable DCC rules struck twice! The fallout occupied most of the session.
• Switching gears wasn't easy -- I started rolling for various NPCs' magic items, for instance, but detailing an entire village's worth of adventurers on the fly was too much.
• DCC's curveball means there's a lot of work to be done (such as detailing the magic merchant's treasures) but I think it's a great opportunity.
• The players used the unusual opportunities to portray their characters in various ways (CD's fatherly dwarf, HM's opportunistic rogue etc.).
• CD risked a valuable character in a deadly duel. His character was brand new, true, but also sported above average rolls. The Luck stat provided some measure of safety I assume, but it can't protect against critical hits so it took real courage to enter the duel.

In a nutshell

An unsual but fascinating session.

Campaign Diary: DCC in the Wilderlands (Session 10)

Session 10: Ambushed!

The witch uses charm on a captured cultist and the party learns something about the Necromancers of Set and the Acolytes of Orcus. The captive also provides a partial map before being dispatched by the party afraid of the spell wearing off. The party then moves into a sector held by the followers of Set and are ambushed on the way out. The enemy's main ploy (skeletons attacking under cover of darkness) fails but it's a brutal fight nonetheless. A veteran fighter (level 3) goes down to a series of lucky attacks and the party's dwarf dies, too.

Observations

• Prep was a lot more work than usual because I had to decide what the captives knew exactly. I copied a part of the map and edited out traps and room numbers -- always aware of the fact that none of that information might be needed (if, for instance, the party failed to take anyone alive). 
• The characters act as a true team: HM burned Luck several times to save a comrade and CD and CW continued to willingly hold the frontline.
• KT jumped through a secret door sliding close to pursue an enemy. He immediately became afraid of his own courage and regretted his act, at least until things had turned out well. I love it how such acts are at once really dangerous and really heroic!
• KT was contrite about the death of CW's fighter because he had planned much of the party's tactics in the ambush.
• I wonder if this would have been a total party kill if not for the party's unusual extra light source (a glowing rune). I had forgotten about that item and was unsure if it actually cancelled darkness. I gave the item a 1-in-6 chance of doing just that and rolled it without any consideration for the possible ramifications. Just like I want to handle things!
• The party has reached a deeper, more dangerous part of the Barrowmaze. I described a change in architecture but I'm not sure the players realized the significance.

In a nutshell

An informative session with a terrific fight and brutal losses.

Campaign Diary: DCC in the Wilderlands (Session 9)

Session 9: The Thing in the Pit & Masked Strangers

The party uses the newly discovered entrance and scouts the area. The characters find a deep pit trap and are attacked by a huge insectoid creature living in it. One of the party's rogues kills it with a poisonous arrow. Next, a party of masked strangers accompanied by two zombies appears. The mysterious strangers talk about their plans to attack the Acolytes of Orcus - and who the hell is that?? - deeper in the Barrowmaze. The two parties decide to join forces. Even though the characters are betrayed and attacked almost immediately they manage to dispatch the strangers easily.

Observations

• I had rolled up the thing in the pit several evenings ago and had been expecting a massacre ever since. However, the party never ventured down that particular corridor until this session. KT's gut instinct (and good memory perhaps - NPCs had described a man being dragged off into that corridor) and HM's poisonous arrow saved everyone's ass. KT has since pointed out that he was merely roleplaying: He wanted to portray his character's superstitiousness and chose a random corridor to fuss over (rather than holding up the game by doing this all the time). =) =) =)
• I like how the deadliness cuts both ways: Monsters have to save or die, too (or can be ripped apart by a lucky crit).
• I gave the players some glimpses about things going on behind-the-screen: I noted that the insectoid creature had been a dangerous monster but that I had rolled no treasure for it whatsoever. Sorry guys!
• I resisted the impulse to comment on the strangers' tactics despite my players' curiosity. The players judged the strangers' tactics ineffective and were wondering what was up with that. 
• The party has begun to employ scouting tactics. To my surprise, HM seemed not at all concerned when his rogue sneaked up on two giant scorpions by himself. He was bent on how to kill them rather than afraid for his life.

In a nutshell

A tense session, especially from my perspective.

Campaign Diary: DCC in the Wilderlands (Session 8)

Session 8: A New Entrance

The party moves into the mountains to cure the cursed dwarf. His trials - being made feverish and then jumping into a cool mountain lake - yield additionally, albeit quickly degrading saving throws. He lives. On their way to the Barrowmaze the party encounters and secretly follows others  tomb raiders who are doing excavation work on another mound. Back underground, the party discovers a staircase leading to the surface -- another entrance to the Barrowmaze! A fight with skeletons turns ugly when one the party's fighter fumbles on the first round, killing the dwarf. Critical hits by the skeletons take another life. Armed with two new magic weapons the party leaves via the newly discovered entrance, narrowly evading another group that apparently uses it on a regular basis. They cut a deal with the village witch to help with identifying one of the new weapons.

Observations

• CD and KT cook up a new maneuver between sessions - enter the flaming tennis ball (lint and tinder, really) to light up long passages and prevent monsters from advancing to just beyond the party's torchlight.
• There have been very few fumbles and critical hits until this evening. DCC's tables can be very dangerous indeed. 
• There is an interesting debate on whether to sell magic items for XP (to level up) or to keep them in the party. (XP is only awarded for wasting hard-won gold on boozing and wenching etc.)

An intense session with tons of interesting encounters and discoveries!

Campaign Diary: DCC in the Wilderlands (Session 7)

Session 7: A Tragic Death

The party moves its supply depot deeper into the dungeon. The witch charms the deluded ghost encountered in the last session who then reveals the creatures and treasures in the immediate surroundings. A fight with a mysterious skeleton puts the fear into the players' hearts but their characters prevail. Ladden with magic items they return to the surface. With the exit less than 100 feet away, the party is attacked by robed skeletons. Bhain the Dwarf, carrying enough gold to level up, dies and Thorin the Dwarf is cursed and - pending another save next week - may very well die, too. The party vanquishes the skeletons and chops off Bhain's arms to retrieve his magical chainshirt (as Dwarves turn to stone upon death).

Observations

• CD suggests a contract among the adventurers to deal with various money issues (e.g. buying healing potions together, handling the property of dead characters etc.). I never saw much point in founding 'adventuring companies' before but now - given the high death rates - this makes perfect sense! Another revelation regarding old school social dynamics.
• The party gathers information about certain monsters rumored to prowl the dungeon and buys silver weapons and ammunition. Knowledge = Power.
• In DCC, it's possible to charm un-dead (with a penalty). I like that because they have unusual points of view and information.
• When a mysterious skeleton reduces GB's character from 10 to 1 hp with one hit, he almost panics and wants his character to flee the scene. Massive pressure from the other players - "Our guys are as just as dead as yours if that skeleton hits any of them" - and even death threats convince him to stay and fight from the second rank. He's in a bad mood after that.
• CD saves the witch's life by preventing her from entering a tomb with a green slime. After the fight with the skeleton everyone but CD seemed to have forgotten about the party's suspicions regarding that tomb. It's one of several close calls, not all of which the players involved are aware of.
• The death of CD's dwarf continues his streak of bad luck. He is a cautious yet proactive player but the dice have been against him for many sessions now. Here's hoping his luck will change!

In a nutshell
A succesful delve that ended on a grim note.

Eero Tuovinen Is My Hero (Part II)

Here's another great quote from Eero Tuovinen (lifted from the discussion Old School Renaissance: Actual Play - Greysands Campaign). It's good advice if you are making mistakes like this.

Regarding the hygiene in determining whether things are dangers or tourist sights, my general advice is to train yourself out of the habit of teleological deduction and categories associated with it: don't frame decisions for yourself in terms of what will supposedly happen. As long as you're thinking of a sea serpent in terms of whether it's a combat encounter or not, you're not being hygienic. The only things you need to know are the in-fiction circumstances and such; those you either intuit, have in your notes, or roll randomly. Once you know that the sea serpent hates surface shipping, or is hungry, or is angry, you have something to work with in determining whether it might attack a ship. If you first decide that it's a color encounter, and then retroactively justify that by deciding that it's sated, then you're doing it wrong.

"Colour event", "tourist sighting", "combat encounter", "deadly" and so on are all terms of unhygienic teleological thinking: they're all about what you imagine might happen either immediately or later. You do not need to know the future, you merely need to know the past and the present.

Eero is even sterner regarding another event in that game (a storm that was never meant to be a real threat).

Edit: The DM running the sea voyage has since commented that the storm had been dangerous, but not able to single-handedly sink the ship (unless the party had done nothing to fix the situation).

This is less relevant for my example of poor DMing (which was about laziness, not mercy) but relevant to the overall topic:

The big, fat hygienic issue with not wanting PC death, though, is that a GM unwilling to face the nihilistic void is a slave to his aesthetic hopes and dreams. In the worst case this causes him to build invisible boundaries around the other players, protecting them from an honest judgement of their choices. Thus the content of play actually transforms from an even-handed struggle into puppetry. For example: when you demand players for initiative in a storm that threatens their ship, and they act upon the matter, but your threat was actually a false ritualistic declaration - what is that if not puppeteering, demanding that the players dance to your amusement? Worse yet, such a GM might end up determining the shape of their ship on nothing more than their own sense of entitlement: dance not well enough my puppets, show not enough fear, and I shall sink your ship out of spite. As you choose to not entertain the possibility of the ship sinking fairly, you have at that moment removed any storm-combating moves out of the realm of actual play, and into the realm of color narration. The least courtesy a GM can make is to make this clear to the players, so they can join in narrating, rather than dancing desperately in their false understanding of the interaction in play. 

Actual Play: Improvisation Done Wrong

A recent session of DCC in the Wilderlands has prompted a number of thoughts on the role of the DM (at least as I see it in the context of old school play):

Actual Play Analysis

A random encounter roll provided the result "chalk marks". I liberally interpreted this and decided to make a tableau of chalk representations of the party appear practically under their noses (i.e. in a corridor they had just passed through and were presently returning to).

The party's ranger decided to search for tracks (which takes a turn and thus increases the risk of random encounters). I decided that the chalk marks had been made by a ghost and that he could not find any tracks.

This was a bad decision because my motivation was to get on with the game, i.e. I was not interested in the chalk marks except as a minor distraction to create a spooky atmosphere.

However, it's the players' job to decide which things to investigate, not mine. Moreover, I should not create illusions but run the world -- I should have impartially determined what caused the marks in the first place (using my intution regarding the world and/or the dice).

(In my defence, I was prepared to stand by my decision and, for example, reveal the ghost to a detect magic spell (recently acquired by the party's witch).)

Next, the party decided to modify their representations: A recently killed dog puppy was part of the tableau and depicted as crossed out. The party carefully removed the cross. I rolled a d6, deciding to have the puppy's corpse rise on a 6 as per animate dead (a power I would then have to attribute to the ghost). Nothing happened.

This was an even worse decision because I acted on the players' speculations (i.e. on a 6, they would have come true). This procedure is remniscient of the RPG Donjon by Clinton R. Nixon. In Donjon, a successful check to detect secret doors means that you do indeed find a secret door (i.e. it is invented on the spot and incorporated into the fiction if it was not there before). Donjon is cool, but a very different kind of game than the old school D&D I'm striving for.

The players should feel free to openly speculate about the world or discuss their plans -- without fear of the DM making their fears (or hopes) come true or preempting (or facilitating) their plans.

(At least I rolled a d6 so things did not rely on DM whim alone.)

*-*-*

A note on the nature of random content

Random content is neither arbitrary nor unimportant:

Random encounter tables, for instance, are carefully constructed to reflect the environment. The Barrowmaze features different tables for different sections or different times of the day and my wilderness encounter tables likewise cover different geographical areas.

A random encounter with other tomb raiders should be treated as just as real and important as other stuff. A random roll creates a part of the world that both players and DM can refer back to. Further rolls and/or impartial DM improvisation should flesh out the details as needed.

*-*-*

I failed to take my own roll seriously in the situation described above, deciding it was merely "color" (i.e. window dressing). Eero Tuovinen has more to say about this -- please check out my next post.

Campaign Diary: DCC in the Wilderlands (Session 6)

Session 6: Traps & Treasure

During downtime, one PC tames a wolf and another arranges a marriage for the village crone. Also, the party is invited by Hirot's ruler for a chat. Back in the Barrowmaze, the party discovers a heavily trapped cul-de-sac with a mysterious key in a silver casket. Careful maneuvering neutralizes all threats. Later, they find the richly decorated remains of a beastman recently sacrificed on a dark altar...

Observations

• CD notes that wandering monsters rarely carry any treasure.
• KT styles his rogue as a ranger (with skills like Survial, Stealth and Beast Mastery and a tame wolf).
• A random encounter indicates a graffiti and leads to a lot of soul searching for the DM. More about this when I find the time to sort my thoughts.

A nice session. The players expertly navigated the cul-de-sac situation.

Eero Tuovinen Is My Hero (Part I)

Eero Tuovinen writes very eloquently and with great insight about playing D&D. He is currently discussing his approach and an ongoing IRC game at the Story Games forums here: Writing up Eero's Primordial D&D and here: Old School Renaissance: Actual Play - Greysands Campaign.

Here are some nice quotes (emphasis mine):

I am admittedly beyond hardcore on [the matter of low-level lethality]. I entertain myself thinking up ways to make the D&D support even more meaningless lethality. I find that the constant, nihilistic existential pressure focuses minds wonderfully, and makes the occasional streak of success taste all the more sweet. I simply don't have any interest for facilitating the survival of this particular character any further than his choices, talents and luck take him.

I basically just don't take a D&D GM seriously before they've killed a few PCs. We can talk about it all we like, but until I see them do it, it's all insubstantial theory - maybe their characters have just been skilled and lucky, but also maybe the GM is misusing their wide influence to undermine the supposed dangers. (The D&D GM has such a multitude of influences that it's almost impossible to get a legit game if the GM doesn't want one.) Not that I want my character to die when playing, it's just that I want a legit resolution even more. The only difference between a gauntlet by fire and a puppet theater is in whether there actually is a legitimate possibility of failure.

I should say that while it is possible to make things "too difficult", my experience is that GMs generally vastly underestimate the level to which players are willing to rise. The thing is, if you've already decided that the PCs shall, by and large, live and prosper, then you've already made it impossible for the group to find out how high you can go on the difficulty before the players give up. They'll never have the chance to encounter the setting in all of its true brutality if you as GM shirk away from it. You have to be brave first, or the players never get the chance to be.

Campaign Diary: DCC in the Wilderlands (Session 5)

Session 5: Victory!

The party encounters another group of tomb raiders in the Barrowmaze. They manage to steal their clueless rivals' gold but then help them against a skeleton attack. The party's two new dwarf characters sniff out some gems and the party returns to the surface, fighting a series of small battles (with giant rats, mysterious skeletons and a lone skeleton, respectively). For the first time, they return from their adventures without casualties. Three PCs reach level 2.

Observations

• KT had studied the combat rules and led the way setting up flanking positions, using Luck and reminding other players of their characters' special powers. 
• When KT began to describe his new character at the beginning of the session, cries of "One line of background only!" erupted. KT, known for writing pages and pages of backstory, continued unperturbed -- he is used to friendly ribbing in this matter.
• Players got more cocky with 1st level characters, particularly ones with poor stats.
• The way back to the exit was again a tense affair but also took up quite a bit of time. I wonder if we should double the movement rate in known and mapped territory...
• The players were very pleased with their success (and rightly so, I might add).
• I keep 'revealing' rules from D&D 3.5e that are second nature to me but which I never bothered explaining. This is a bit irritating to the players but I'm not sure if a huge infodump at the beginning would have been better. Ask me about charging enemies, for instance, and you shall be rewarded!

In a nutshell
A very satisfying session - the characters' success nicely counterbalances the bloodbaths behind (and most likely ahead of) them!

Planet Algol's DM Credo

I'm slowly working my way through the backlog of the excellent Planet Algol blog. Given my recent self-doubts concerning my bloodthirsty DMing style I find the following quote from this post very reassuring.

Believe me, when I'm DMing I'm a combination of Nethack, Captain Bligh, Larry David and Kali. I revel in mayhem, confusion, and horrendous death. But I don't do it to be a jerk or fuck over players; I do it because I love my players and I love my game, and have too much respect for both of them to play kindergarten softball. This isn't World of Warcraft, this isn't T-ball, this isn't Chutes and Ladders; this is Dungeons and fucking Dragons, so you damn well better hustle and sweat and think and pay attention in order to keep your character's head above water blood.

(Blair on Planet Algol)

Amen to that.


(I had to look up half the references - Larry Who? - but I got the vibe straight away.)

Campaign Diary: DCC in the Wilderlands (Session 4)

Session 4: Level-up!

Summary

The party scares off a rival band of tomb robbers and later vanquishes its most dangerous foe so far: a giant rattlesnake. Two PCs fall to its poisonous bite and one more perishes as the party is surprised by stirges while looting the snake's rich hoard of gems. Ladden with treasure and snakeskin, the party makes its way back to Hirot. The longest-serving PC attains level 2 and three others are within 100 XP of level 2 as well. Also, the first dwarf character joins the party.

Observations

• KT can't get over D&D's (Labyrinth Lord's, really) often ridiculous prices. I guess we'll switch to Adventurer, Conquerer, King System. I hope ACKS will appease him (and lay the groundwork for the domain game).
• Several players tried to handwave logistics ("My new guy, who you meet in the dungeon, brought a ladder.", "We're establishing a depot in this room. Can we just say we've moved all the stuff on my shopping list down here?"). I grant them some leeway (i.e. the ladder) but I'm mostly insisting on proper procedure. High Encumbrance = Low Speed = Many Encounters = High Risk!
• Speaking of which: Logistics and encumbrance are more work than I anticipated: We're using the brilliant encumbrance system of Lamentations of the Flame Princess but there are so many characters and especially recently deceased characters that inventories need to be redistributed frequently.
• GB measures the dungeon doors to commission custom contraptions to block them. Adapt or die.
• New PCs are introduced during the big fight. As a result, we didn't even bother with physical descriptions - the newcomers (four level 0 guys and a dwarf) are faceless cannon fodder at this point. We might want to slow down here a bit.
• The rattlesnake's poison is lethal, but not immediately so. HM suggests brutally treating a victim right away, amputating if necessary. I improvise a harsh procedure, but the victim dies anyway. I'm not 100% happy with the specifics of my procedure but I do not want to stifle player creativity or slow down the game too much. HM's approach sounds reasonable so there should be a chance it works.
• HM's rogue harvests the rattlesnake's poison. I use a different procedure than last time.  Gotta have more continuity.
• It's exciting - and a little daunting - how fast the rulings pile up (harvesting poison, emergency amputations etc.). Once the players are more familiar with the rules - they are mostly new to D&D and its retroclones -, I plan to get their input on the specifics.
• DMing is more strenuous than I'm used to. I'm looking up all sorts of tables and using proper procedure to be impartial. This takes time more time than just handwaving things or making gut decisions all the time. 
• On the flip side, prep time is way down. I need about 15 min to prep a session (mostly restocking the dungeon).
• I'm afraid I do have a sadistic streak (What a surprise, given the blog's name, eh?). During the big fight, I revelled in describing all the gore and even cracked some rather cruel jokes at the beleaguered players' expense (<points at battlemat> "So that's where you're moving to die?" etc.). I feel a bit ashamed of myself (Sorry, GB! I'm glad your fighter made level 2!). I hope my bloodthirst is balanced out by utter impartiality.
• KT points out that CD has lost eight (six?) characters so far. Wow. CD is taking it well and has remained one of the most proactive players throughout.
• HM remarks that he found the session "very satisfying" - and adds "... but that's probably because my guy survived."
• Rolling for random encounters on the way back was very tense.

In a nutshell (and from this DM's point of view, I might add)
An immensly satsifying session with lots of suspense, near-death, death and hard-earned victory. I love this shit!