Tenkar Rules! The One True Edition

Over at Tenkar's Tavern he brought up a drunken gem, or drunkenly brought up a gem, that we gamers always love, or in many cases hate, to endlessly debate ...

The One Ring!

Or rather ...

The One Game!

Any way you debate it, the comparison is quite apt, as the prophecy says ...

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,

Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,

Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,

One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne

In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,

One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

Could just as easily be transformed to read ...

Three Games for New Wave-Gamers under the hobby shop lights,

Seven for the Strategy-Gamers before tables of minis,

Nine for Old School Grognards doomed to roll the die,

One for the Melancholy Nostalgist on his lonely throne

In the Land of the Past where the Memories lie.

One Game to rule them all, One Game to find them,

One Game to bring them all and in the FLGS bind them

In the Land of the Past where the Memories lie.

I am not foolish enough to think that there is one game for all the gamers out there these days. The very reason so many games dot the market today is because there are so many types of gamers. Talented gamers with a vision to share. Some out of necessity, some out of artistic desire, some out of nostalgia, some out of various what if scenarios and they are all marvels to behold. But it can make it harder than ever for a group to decide on what they want to play. If there is any one game, it would be for the gamer herself. What game do you prefer to play above all others. What is your go-to game?

As I consider the matter for myself, I would offer a brief retrospective of my own gaming life:

April 1981 -- I start with AD&D 1e and feel like it is the only and definitive game; but I never play the game as written--a very streamlined version with minimal attention paid to rules.

December 1981 -- I get the Basic & Expert Set for completion sake, thinking I should have read them before beginning AD&D. Only, I realize that they are very different, seem limited and I never actually play by these rules. I do use Basic and Expert modules however, with my AD&D games.

1982 -- In the Jr. High gaming club I realize there are different ways of playing the game. Neat, I think, but somehow wrong.

1983 -- Mt first Dragon Magazine subscription shows me a lot of the "weird" alternatives out there are actually alternatively sanctioned rules! I hesitantly allow some of it in my games.

1983 to 1985 or so -- It is clear there are lots other games out there. I play some Gamma World, Some Call of Cthulhu, Star Frontiers but by and large stick with AD&D. I also realize there are lots of AD&D supplements--Arduin's Grimoire, Judges Guild and the like. I use some of their stuff, but always in the context of my version of AD&D.

1987 -- I enter the Army and realize there are vastly different ways to play the game. Wow, maybe I was near sighted in my gaming.

1990 -- 1994 or so I see the first second edition stuff. At first I rebel. Then (in secret) I realize that some of it is pretty cool, even if THAC0 sucks. I pick up up some 2e stuff, but never run a strict "2e" game as it were--still playing my own streamlined version of 1e. My only "other" game is Call of Cthulhu at this point, but I play it rarely.

Here I would like to point out that I find it humorous I was such a purist about AD&D, but really I was playing a very "light" and "rules free" version of the game. We resorted to the books only when we were stumped on how to resolve a technicality.

1995 -- I drop out of the gaming scene, miss the rise of 3e and then 3.5. I travel, serve a mission for my church, get married, start my teaching career etc.

2004 to 2006 -- I am begged and ultimately, convinced to start the gaming club at the school where I teach. The kids are all playing 3.5. I buy all the 3.5 books, well not all, but lots. We play 3.5 at the start of the game club, reluctantly so for me, but I am convinced by others that this is the "better" game. I am convinced of the d20 concept as an improvement, though reluctant to admit it. 

2006 to 2007 -- I find out they are releasing 4e. Argh! I just bought all the 3.5e books! But I am psyched up by the WoTC adverts and also convinced that it has "fixed" all the problems. Problems I really didn't even comprehend. I mean 3.5 was different from AD&D, so maybge 4e would "fix" that?

2007 to 2008 -- I convince everyone to make the switch to 4e. We play an enthusiastic game for about a year. I start the blog! And I also discover the OSR movement online, which influences the title of my blog "Classic" RPG Realms--even though we are playing 4e.

2008 to 2009 -- I become seduced by the OSR. But not necessarily unwillingly. It is still hard for me to parse out how much the OSR caused my dissatisfaction with 4e, and how much was legitimate on my part. We were having lots of fun playing the Keep on the Shadowfell and though I kind of disliked the heavy use of minis, I was cruising along.  Then over time, but 2010 for sure I am dissatisfied with 4e. The focus on my blog shows this as well. I rediscover KODT and am excited about maybe playing Hackmaster 4e. Only to discover they are reinventing the game in 2009. I also hear about DCC RPG and think it might be my savior. 

2010 to 2012 -- We switch to OSRIC and play a two year OSRIC campaign. I become somewhat disillusioned with the differences between OSRIC and AD&D and fool myself that maybe I ever played AD&D by the book. We run into some angst over demi-human level limits. I am reading tons of other rules systems trying to decide what to play. There is no way for everyone to really play 1e without buying all the books used. I find out that 

2012 to 2013 -- I buy Castles & Crusades books for the club and we try that for a short time. I like the idea of the Siege mechanic, but it feels different in play. A group of Pathfinder players convinces us to play Pathfinder. It is successful for about a year or so, but I become disillusioned with the endless character options and optimization. I also am playing several one offs and short campaigns outside of the gaming club. I try various systems in these, but often default to C&C.

2014 plus -- By now I have read and bought most clones and retro variants on the market. They are all good in their way, but I see problems with all of them in one way or another. I had actually played:

• AD&D 1e
• AD&D 2e (mixed with 1e)
• 3.5
• 4e
• OSRIC
• Pathfinder
• Labyrinth Lord + AEC
• Castles & Crusades
• DCC RPG

2014 plus continued -- 5e comes out. I played it twice during the play test. I was not overwhelmed with awesomeness, but it plays relatively quick and light. Classes seem a bit overpowered. The actual release of the rules confirm that classes are more powerful at baseline than I am comfortable with, but the rules look okay.

Now, as I have mentioned recently, the fact is I never played AD&D with the "rules" so to speak. It was great, but I think I might be in love more with the memory of the time--with the nostalgia I feel about it--than the actual game. The game has become a symbol for me, a metaphor for something bigger than the rules contained in its pages.

The problem is that I am judging all other games by that standard. Only the standard I have before me is not the rules contained in AD&D, which have little to do with what I experienced back then. The other portion of that standard is the nostalgia I feel, that contains enough saudade within it that it will never actually be regained. Saudade, for those of you who don;t know, is a Portuguese word which means something like a deep inner longing for something that you know can never be regained. No game can ever give me that, because it can;t work as a time machine. However, a game can give me the light, fast, flexible old school sensibility to allow me to play like I prefer and to build new memories. 

That would be my One Ring. And I'm not sure it would even be one game, but maybe several that play like that. I have several ideas already that I'll write about next.

Let's Tell a Story Together ... Not Argue Over Rules

"Sometimes when you get the mechanics of the game out of the way -- rolling the dice, keeping track of what your carrying--it's almost like your there." He lifted his head and smiled. "And that's something. How often do you think I'm going to get the chance to, rescue a princess or slay a dragon?" -- Karl Cullinane in The Sleeping Dragon by Joel Rosenberg

As I've reconsidered what I recently wrote in regards to why I game and what I want from my gaming sessions, something has repeatedly come to mind: the story. The narrative that unfolds as DM and players interact within the game world is what keeps me coming back again and again to the table. Story is, I believe, the heart of what makes gaming so satisfying and positively absorbing. As Joel Rosenberg makes Karl say in the book above--the idea is to have the mechanics recede into the background and to actually be there in the game.

Games that prohibit my ability to achieve that are games with which I quickly grow disillusioned. Though I didn't know it until I had been made to stop and think about it, that was the real reason I became disillusioned with 4e and Pathfinder--the excessive intrusion of the rules and mechanics into the game. Which is not just about combat alone, but also the plethora of rules governing character ability, power and development.

Recently in a gaming discussion I was reminded of something I had felt long ago, and have even written about here on this blog. That the multiplication of rules comes from three main sources:

• Characters desiring to avoid death and danger
• Characters wanting to be able to "do more"
• DMs trying to address this apparent dichotomy

Occasionally realism is also posited as a source of rules extrapolation and this too has to be carefully managed. Gary Gygax himself mentioned this in the 1e DMs guide and his work Mastery of the Game. He warned that combat could devolve into an endless tedium if consideration was overly given to realism at the expense of maintaining the high action of fantasy adventure--the reason we game int he first place: adventure! Those who all desire such realism, should be all means seek it out. It has much in common with strategy games and the D&D's wargaming roots--but that is not why I game.

Which leaves the idea that we should avoid danger or death, and or "be more powerful" either for self aggrandizement, the desire to avoid death, or the desire to play a superhuman. If you do desire to play a superhuman, play a Supers game. Supers games have very different purposes than fantasy campaigns, but I suppose it is possible to blend the two. And I must say that a group desiring to play a supers fantasy campaign can do so without any argument from me--it's just that I don't play for that purpose. The desire to "do more" to play a more powerful character, a super-like character, then is a certain valid approach that may lead to rules proliferation. Nothing inherently wrong with this mind you; and it isn't even required as there exist all number of high power, rules light games out there. But this is a "valid" reason--just not one I am interested in. So I set this one aside.

The other reason, desiring to avoid death, is not valid. Allow me to explain. Rules exponentiation that comes from desiring to avoid death can come from two sources: death-dealing DMs and stupidity of players. Both of which should be avoided. The first of the two was more common in my day. The innate power of the DM in a roleplaying game is a temptation to the egotistical to simply lord over and control the other players. This should obviously be avoided as well. Leave such games post haste, as such people are dangerous for more than just your character.

Most players learn that certain actions are bad and should be avoided--most, but not all. If you player is dying repeatedly in a game, ask yourself: Am I doing something stupid? Am I forgetting to check for traps, rushing in where even fools dare to tread? Trying to carry too much of the party weight? Not working as a team with my party? Trying to take on powerful monsters too soon, or adventuring where they live? Not playing my character's class like it is supposed to be played (i.e. a thief trying to lead in combat, a magic user going toe to toe with monsters, etc)? If you are not sure, watch other players whose characters are not dying all the time. Take their advice and look for input when your character takes actions. Things should improve over time.

However, if everyone in your party is dying all the time; if the causes of your deaths seem unfair or imbalanced a lot of the time; if you find yourself continually in no win situations; if every effort your character makes is thwarted by exactly the right kind of challenge--these may key you in on the fact that your DM is being unfair. If this appears to be the case, it should be a topic for after game discussion with your fellow players and possibly with your DM. Don't assume your DM is a killer DM. She may not even know that she is being unfair or biased--it happens. Sometimes all it takes is bringing it up. She might be able to adjust play some to make the play more fair and balanced. It also gives her the chance to defend some of her decisions and reasoning. Or, perhaps someone else needs a go at DMing. If however, your DM gets very defensive, offended or is reluctant or refuses to give up the reigns for awhile, that too could be another sign that they may be too comfortable with the over-use of the power they wield over the players. Find a new game in such situations. The game should be fun--otherwise your not doing it right.

Now, this second scenario can happen in any game--regardless of the rules. However, some rules have arisen to attempt to spell out each situation that might arise as a conflict or challenge a character might face in an attempt to take the adjudicating power away from the DM. The rules assume the DM can't handle this power and will misuse it, and that the other players need that safety net to keep from them from DM unfairness. In a sense some rules are designed to preempt in unfairness in the game. But this takes away an innate quality of the game that comes with DM flexibility--creativity. Hem a DM in too much and they can lose the element of creativity and improvisation that contribute to the story in amazingly powerful ways. The DM was required to be fair as a pat of her role--the very reason they were also originally referred to as judges. 

Now, I'm not saying rules proliferation itself is bad--although I truly wonder sometimes. What I am saying is that an unnecessary multiplication of the rules that can slow down play and interfere with the story being experienced by all players--the DM included. 

To conclude today I consider a quote by Gary Gygax himself:

"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

Gary was big on secrets. It is one of the things that probably made him such a great DM. But why should DMs never know this? Well, apart from being melodramatic, I think it's an allusion to the commercial needs of TSR, Several times in the early versions of the game it was repeated again and again that they--the game designers--shouldn't do too much of the imagining for you. The game was designed to open the doors to your imagination--not constrain it with rules or content. We are, however, a lazy species, and gamers were no exception. We'd much rather wait for Gary or Dave or other writers to entertain us with their imaginings instead of create our own. But if they let that be their business model they couldn't make more money! They needed to produce modules, more expansions, more classes, more campaigns, more rules, rules and more rules! Not it wasn't that simple--and they obviously knew the real power of the game because they mentioned the need for participant creativity as an essential element of the game. By doing it for you they were taking something away from the game. But practicalities precluded the continued embracing of such a model and it became the inner "secret" we could never let out of the bag. But by that time, they also knew that regardless of this being the "secret" most of us, would remain little chicks hungrily squawking in the gaming nest for the next creative morsel the designers would regurgitate into out awaiting beaks. So many of us never broke out of the brainwashed masses to do our own thing. Well, I know I didn't, and I know a lot of others in the early 80's who didn't. Some few of the original players of Original and Classic D&D stayed true, because that was the only way they knew to play: that the original rules were a rough toolbox of what could be--not what had been decided from upon gaming high. The original rules were a rough outline of a way to tell a story together and experience it in a way seldom before experienced. By the 90's that vision had been by and large traded in the rules they let us have. When, all along the secret was we didn't need any rules at all--at least very minimal ones. 

Is AD&D Combat Any Easier?

After trying to wrap my brain around the Hackmaster combat system, I can;t help but wonder if the AD&D combat system is any better. Of course the way I remember it, it was way better. But the way I remember it was not the way AD&D combat was actually played by me, my friends or those I knew.

Back in the day we held combat something like this:

• Your party ...
• Opens the dungeon door ...
• Turn a bend in the trail ...
• Is startled awake to see ...
• Comes upon ..,
• A group of "baddies"
• Surprise was intuitive. If somebody got the drop on you they got to act first before you rolled initiative.
• Everybody roll initiative!
• We used individual d6s for a long time, until 2e when we started using d10s because we misunderstood the AD&D time keeping system. We thought there were 10 seconds in a combat round and your number on the die was the segment / second you acted in. Not as recommended in the book, but it seemed "more fair" to us.
• We also used Dex modifiers to initiative until we found out that wasn't quite right
• Highest went first, ties went simultaneously.
• Roll to hit VS AC and apply damage as necessary
• When everyone was finished with one initiative round we rolled for initiative again and ...
•  ... rinsed and repeated until one side or the other was dead, ran away or surrendered. 

That is not AD&D combat. 

I could outline it here, but if you are interested, and it is quite interesting check out the following excellent documents:

• DM Prata's ADDICT (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Initiative & Combat Table) Essay
• AD&D By The Book Combat Flowchart

Now, some would say that this is a moot point. The way I played AD&D back in the day, was a perfectly acceptable way to play AD&D. Why muck it up with all these "rules". Well ... because I'm an adult. The last time I played AD&D, well actually OSRIC, was when I advised the Junior High Role Playing Game Club. We played for about a year, until I realized we were "missing" a lot of the rules. This realization came about as I found discrepancies between the OSRIC document and my First Edition books. This led me into deeper rules exploration, actually taking the time to read the books and understand where we were not doing things right. We eventually abandoned OSRIC, admittedly due in no small part to my confusion and frustration, and went to Pathfinder. It wasn't any better than 3.5--very rule heavy.

So, yeah. I am an adult. I actually read rulebooks now. Much to my own detriment and that of my players. I'm sort of like that. Something also make me sort of "itch" when I know we are playing a game without really following the "rules" of that game. But I also know that the more rules heavy a game gets, the more frustrated I become--cite 3.5, 4e and Pathfinder as cases in point.

So this all made me conflicted. Here I was, loving the tone and feel of the Hackmaster dialogue and rhetoric, absolutely love it mind you. And recalling the glory days of yore spent playing AD&D sort of "made up as we went along" and realizing I can't play either one with a very clear conscience in the way I like to play--without so many freaking rules! I even spent 6 hours last night creating two, count 'em TWO Hackmaster characters! Alright, I was half watching back to back movies with my kids, but still! That too, I find somewhat frustrating. I mean we used to take hours creating characters back in the day, but lots of those hours were spent drawing character portraits, writing backstory, creating his coat of arms, drawing his armor, creating genealogies, etc. etc. We didn't need that much time to roll up a character! All it took was:

• roll 4d6 drop the lowest in order
• Choose a race--apply modifiers, record racial abilities
• Choose a class--write down any special class abilities
• Choose alignment
• Roll HP
• May need to pick spells
• Roll for Gold
• Equip character
• Name her and add details if you desire

Adventure!

Sure, I'm certain as I get used to character creation it will go faster, but will it really go any faster than Pathfinder or 4e did? Blargh. I could create a PC in less than 5 minutes back in the day, and it usually took 15. 

What all this is doing is making me realize why I chose Castles & Crusades several years ago to play with my own kids, and why I so often default to it when I play. Rosetta stone of gaming or not, it is fast, light, flexible and story-oriented. And I am assuming it is the same reason I find 5e (D&D Next) so intriguing.