[D&D] Hot elves, morality, and the missing initiative roll
Meramec:
So I gather three friends for an impromptu session of D&D. They’ve all played the first WOTC edition of the game extensively and one has significant experience with the second AD&D offering, but I’m the only one with knowledge of the 70’s/80’s era games. I grab a random module from the basement and we sit down to play. The only thing close to a rulebook that we have is a reference sheet out of the module which details equipment to buy, saving throws, and gives the attack matrix for the first level characters.
I have never read the module and we go from zero to playing in about 15 minutes.
“You are gathered here in this town to fight against the growing tide of chaos and find great treasures to benefit all of mankind…”
That’s all the stage-setting needed. It’s D&D, we know we are here to engage in group problem-solving within a dangerous and magical fictional environment. We don't need motivation to explore the dungeon anymore than we need motivation to build a road in Settlers.
I’m writing this account because it was the first time I’ve run a game in over a year and I came away with some thoughts about some of the events.
Thought the first: Bregens McDrinkerton and the hot elf. After a sound defeat at the hand of some 3 HP goblins (the players were getting used to the way this version of D&D works) the players went in search of hired help. The module included a list of 20 NPC’s which I commandeered for use as the pool of available mercenaries. But how to go from the players wanting to find a hireling to the actual decision of who goes along for how much? I had zero rules at hand for this and I am not expert enough of a DM to wing such a thing. I need a system in place that will say “given conditions x, character y will join the party for price z.” Given that, I can adapt it to fit the creativity of the moment (interpret conditions, flesh out the character, adapt the price to the situation.) Absent this system, however, I am lost. So, I had the players toss 2d6 and if they rolled high they could hire a guy for a cut of the loot and if they rolled low it would take more convincing. The players immediately caught on and bought into it and it worked. However, I wish the game would handle this more explicitly, perhaps a system whereby the player can generate an NPC to hire without DM input.
The place to find hirelings is, of course, the tavern. I describe the place pretty lamely “It’s a tavern, lots of off-duty soldiers here, and a barkeep, and some random adventurer-looking guys.” One of the players immediately says “I walk over to the hot elven adventuress and beguile her with my charming ways.” The player, by saying this, added an element to the game world that I as DM did not include already. He did not ask “is there a hot elf adventuress?”, he simply made it so. I absolutely loved that, as I then got to riff off of it and we were off to the races. The downside is that it still hinged on a 2d6 roll, which the player bonked, and the other players were unable to contribute while the other player was being shot down by the elf. (I mean, even The Game of LIFE has a mechanic where you can do stuff (bet on the wheel) while it's another player's turn. I would love such a thing for D&D so players were always involved even when they are not center stage.)
While I gave the others an equal chance to find their own henchmen, they didn’t get nearly as much into it, simply stating they wanted a “strong guy” or a “magic-user looking guy”. I feel that these players could have gotten into it more if they had a rules-system they could have used for inspiration.
The module gave two characteristics for each NPC, things like “talkative and cautious” or “courteous and nervous”, and I found these things surprisingly helpful . I was able to go from that seed content to build up the NPC’s a bit. It culminated when I told the player (same one who invented the elf) that there were two dwarves available, one was “brave” and the other “lazy.” I started writing down the brave dwarf’s stats, assuming that is who he'd pick, when he says “I want the LAZY dwarf. His name is Bregens McDrinkitude.” This dwarf went on to become a star, getting in the way when the party wanted to ride to the dungeon (He doesn't feel like getting on the horse) or outfit him with a missile weapon (He's not in the mood to bother reloading the crossbow.) Without the seed content in the module, this would not have happened and this NPC would never have had any life to him. In contrast, another player called his hirelings “Zachary the Fighter” and “Phillip the Cleric” and put zero effort into considering their characterizations. I think some rules to help him along would have increased the game experience for everyone. As it was, the game relied on the imagination of a single player to carry the weight for the personalities of the NPC’s.
Another player, less flamboyant but still a thinker, rolled low on his attempt to hire a fighter. I decided that the guy would go along if the party first outfitted him with some plate mail. Not able to come up with enough coin for that, the player, surprising me, said “Sorry, we don’t have that much money. But, is there anything we could do for YOU?” Instantly, Lizardius the Great was born and the party was off to help the world-famous lizard man hunter slay a den of the vile folk. (The module provided this encounter as a numbered area on the overland map, and I just tied this character to it.) Here, the 2d6 roll created some great moments from a failed roll due to the play of the player—he effectively narrated his way out of the dice-based resolution of the situation. I thought that was a lovely thing and wish that there was more of that implicit in the rules. (Contrast to where the failed roll ended the elf seduction because the player didn't follow up.)
Thought the second:. Yes, lizardfolk children can burn. The assault on the lizard man lair was a fun tactical bit of play that involved the setting of a large fire. The attack was going very well for the party and the few survivors of their initial strike were trying to flee by getting close to the fire, putting it out with mud, and then going through. The lizard men were at equal strength to the PC’s at this point, so the players didn’t really want to just charge. They were pretty much ready to let them flee and declare victory until I mentioned that one of the women was carrying the bag of the clan’s treasure.
This created a question of how to get the treasure without killing the noncombatant lizard man children (they were there in the module…) One player had his character leave the area and prepare to track the fleeing humanoids to steal the treasure later. One, however, decided the fact that the lizard men were standing next to the fire to be a sign. He tossed the rest of his flaming oil into the fire…and play just kind of stopped.
“Dude, you shouldn’t have done that.”
The other players admonished him for the act and for the rest of the session all three of them, even the player who did it, referred to the exploding of the noncombatants as a bad move (although they still took the loot, of course.) I saw this as a great moment—they faced a real dilemma, lose treasure or kill the innocent, and they made their choice. I think the fallout from that event should have a rules-based interpretation. I know that is anathema to the 70’s era D&Ders, but there comes a time when saying “if you were a good DM you could make this awesome” gets a bit old for me. I’m just like, come on, I want to be a better DM, so please give me some rules to help out!
These are players whose only RPG exposure is D&D of a pretty traditional sort. Yet here they are, adding semi-narrative elements on their own. If it were only a “game”, then they would have just said “OK, it’s not against my alignment to do this, and this action nets me XP, so I’ll do it” and moved on. But no, they stood there like gods and judged the characters (and the player, a bit.) And this happened without support from the rules and without detailed characters (one player didn’t even give his guy a name.) Imagine what this play could have become had the rules helped out!
Now, I don’t think we want a ruleset that drives play inexorably towards these sorts of dilemmas, but when play naturally gets close to them I would love rules that help get something out of it.
Thought the third: What’s flanking do, again? What’s a D&D play report without a mention of the combat rules? My goal was to keep things tense and visceral and as far removed from the WOTC D&D tactical miniatures experience as possible. To this end, I never had them roll for initiative, used miniatures only to set the marching order (they eventually had 7 characters in the party), made all my die rolls in the open, and had them roll all their attacks simultaneously. The best way to speed up combat that I have found is to stop asking each player, in turn, what they want to do like we’re playing Monopoly. This is battle, man! It’s a fight, what do you think you’re going to do? Roll a d20, that’s what! I would say “OK,you are all in melee with the goblin horde. Their AC is 7. Your turn. Roll your attacks, tell me your hits, and let me know if you want to do anything specific.” One guy decided to fight defensively, another helped a fallen companion, but mostly they just attacked. The roll to attack, roll damage, repeat, cycle did not get boring because the fights were over in a manner of minutes. A really fun D&D combat experience for me. (It was the slow pace of WOTC D&D that drove me from the game.) The other players liked it, too, because they got to make important decisions and solve problems (the whole point of the game) about when to advance, when to flee, what weapon to use, etc. Also, they were not limited by needing to look up the rules for something, If they wanted to push a guy down some stairs or throw a table or whatever we just rolled with it and I resolved it favorably for them to keep going with the creativity. I think here is a good place where rules get in the way—the play is meant to be fast-paced and off the cuff to best engage the mind in the way I am looking for in an RPG (which is different from what I look for when engaging my mind in something like MTG or Whist). Referencing specific rules for aiding another or drinking a potion during a fight slow that down. So, while I have been whining that this game system doesn’t have enough rules, perhaps in combat it has just enough. (But could I explain how I ran this to someone else and have them do the exact same thing....I don't know.)
This 5-hour game session gave me things to think about and consider. I hope this post is appropriate for this forum. I tried to convey my reflections on what happened. (But perhaps I'm not focused enough, as I touch on several different points here.)
Regards, and game on!
John
Callan S.:
Hi John, that's a good account you gave!
With the burning lizard children, it doesn't sound like the other players were judging the characters choice, it sounded like they were trying to indicate to the player he had played the game wrong and should not play that way again? That's how the account strikes me. It doesn't sound like they judged the player a bit, it sounded like they judged him alot and that's all they judged. Personally I think it was a challenging moral moment and interesting and I'm wondering if you have some players who want nothing like that? Which causes a...schism, really.
Also, which player set them alight? The one who had invented the holt elf and lazy dwarf?
It's pretty tidy that you did all that in five hours!
Ar Kayon:
I would have immolated the lizard folk too.
Ron Edwards:
Hi there,
First, holy shit, what a great game, and what a great play account. Welcome to the Forge, too!
My brief responses, which I hope you're interested in discussing ...
1. Regarding the hot elf, it seems to me as if it wasn't only the player who let the ball drop with the low roll. Nothing stopped you from including the character just because you liked her and looked forward to playing her. The roll meant she didn't easily become a hireling, and the player's cessation of play toward her means she didn't become a hireling at all, but that doesn't mean she wouldn't become an active NPC in the ensuing events. (The possibility that occurs to me is that she becomes the player-character's romantic stalker, but the range of options is practically endless.)
This leads to a bigger and more abstract issue regarding what a failed roll of this type means at all, but perhaps that can wait.
2. Did you utilize any alignment talk or rules whatsoever? It would be very interesting to me to know whether and how you've encountered that concept and set of rules in previous D&D play as well.
3. You know what you did with the combat rules? To a certain extent, you re-invented the Tunnels & Trolls combat system. If you'd pooled everyone's fight rolls into a total for each side (and still permitted individual actions as an alternative), then you'd have made it all the way.
Cool! I am so psyched to see this thread. Plus an old-school GURPS thread going on too? My cup is runny!
Best, Ron
Tim C Koppang:
You just made me nostalgic. The first thing you did when you grabbed old school D&D was mod it! What's more, because you were light on "official" rulebooks, you added rules in the places where you wanted them, and started scaling back the rules where you wanted to streamline them (combat). From the sounds of it, this all happened partly out of necessity, but all very naturally. This mirrors my first experiences with D&D so closely that I thought I was having a flashback.
I'm also curious to hear how you used alignment rules, if at all. When the one player burned the lizardmen, you made it sound like alignment was irrelevant and that everyone was suddenly aware that the guilty player had crossed some unspoken line. These moments of out-of-character judgment cropped up a number of times in my own D&D games. I always found them odd. We'd be happily chugging along making crude comments and killing fictional kobolds. But then, as if out of nowhere, the group would call out one player and say, "Too far!" It was a weird bit of group regulation.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page