tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post8459548305277659733..comments2024-03-19T05:48:34.142-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: On the Loss of D&D's EndgameJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-21579446006933310962011-12-04T23:19:10.868-05:002011-12-04T23:19:10.868-05:00Ageed.
Could never understand the character arc ...Ageed. <br /><br />Could never understand the character arc in companion, masters and immortal settings. <br /><br />Becoming a king, I understand.Joe Johnstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08847388615721715893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-88999849532522191022011-05-18T18:37:43.309-04:002011-05-18T18:37:43.309-04:00I'm so glad you posted this. The Expert set ha...I'm so glad you posted this. The Expert set has long held a special place for me, and I still draw inspiration from it!Thomas Denmarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135075012362548876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-2355810545951421202010-09-19T06:56:36.877-04:002010-09-19T06:56:36.877-04:00Matthew:
Thanks for the hint, but James refers to...Matthew:<br /><br />Thanks for the hint, but James refers to both versions: "You'll find lots of gamers who will sing the praises of the Basic Rules[...] but it's rare to find many who express the same affection for the Expert Rules, whether the Cook/Marsh or Mentzer version".<br /><br />And frankly, even in the early version of Expert, it's easy to see why: we got dungeon-delving, then wilderness-cleaning and finally building strongholds. That's it. And just about 80% of potential adventure possibilities (planar traveling, city adventures, intrigues at a court, to name just 3)are flat-out ignored. no wonder the Expert game isn't loved by us.Andreas Kraußhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03561423946501346693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-57122729398086899632010-09-18T20:53:00.763-04:002010-09-18T20:53:00.763-04:00Andreas - I'm prety sure that comment was made...Andreas - I'm prety sure that comment was made in re the 1981 Basic/Expert game (each of which was contained within a 64-page book), rather than the 1983 BECMI rules you are referring to.Matthew Slepinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04056247825064943944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-50211715567077687032010-09-18T07:19:45.484-04:002010-09-18T07:19:45.484-04:00"You'll find lots of gamers who will sing..."You'll find lots of gamers who will sing the praises of the Basic Rules [...] but it's rare to find many who express the same affection for the Expert Rules..."<br /><br />Yep. For a reason. I always thought the Expert Rules were kinda cheap, as compared to the Basic Rules that came before and the Companion, master and immortals Rules that came after them.<br /><br />For starters: Unlike any other D&D set, the Expert Rules had only *one* rulebook. That one book had its content divided by a "player's section" and a "DM section".(Sure, the Expert game also included that "Isle of dread" module-- but that doesn't cange anything about the fact that players and DMs are two different things and deserve and need separate manuals that symbolize and drive home that fact.)<br /><br />Besides, any of the other sets of "classic D&&D" had a separate book for players and DMseach-- yet Expert Set lacked that important distinction. Already a heavy faux pass. <br /><br />Also, with *one* exeption, every set of D&D Classic had its own unique theme and "feel": <br /><br />1) Basic rules was the "starter set" for D&D, introducing dungeon-crawls, characters, monsters and treasure.<br /><br />3) Companion rules was about high-level characters, as well as being about what basically *used* to be D&D's "endgame": building and managing strongholds and dominions.<br /><br />4) Master rules was about "epic" characters, planar travels and the quest to become gods.<br /><br />5) And finally, Immortals was about the gods that used to be mortal characters-- something implicit in D&D at least since Greyhawk Supplement, where Gygax introduced the magic-user spell "Wish".<br /><br />The one exception? Well: 2) Expert rules introduces... wilderness adventuring? In fact, it introduced a lot more, but didn't clarify those, because one book just didn't hold enough for them.<br /><br />For instance, it introduced the "name level". That level represents a sort of "threshold", where the character shows himself to be one of the most powerful characters in the world; for example, at the name level, a cleric can raise the dead.<br /><br />But this important stage of a character's life lies just in the middle of the first third of a character's potential levels!<br /><br />Strongholds/dominions were shortly talked about, but belong more truly to the Companion rules, which were all *about* character ruling.<br /><br />And finally, because Expert drew its inspiration directly from OD&D, as seen trough the lenses of Holmes etc, it felt more like something that should've been tacked on to the Basic rules, which likewise drew its inspiration from the same source. <br /><br />To make it short: Expert Rules was a wart on the face of the whole BECMI game. It was underdeveloped: written as "expansion" to the OD&D-derived basic rules, even as the game itself was being redeveloped, reevaluated and improved by Mentzner. <br /><br />That's why OD&D's original "endgame" starts out in the middle of the first quarter of the whole game. And that's likewise why it is so damnably compatible with the Red Box: for, in truth, the red box depicts a sanitized look at the first half of OD&D, while the blue box depicts a sanitized treatment of the second half.<br /><br />However, while Expert Rules fails as a separate step towards the "endgame" (i.e. the Immortals rules), it serves just adequately as a stepping stone between Basic and Companions.Andreas Kraußhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03561423946501346693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-12080313095372006172010-07-19T04:12:28.380-04:002010-07-19T04:12:28.380-04:00I think the problem with the idea of endless play ...I think the problem with the idea of endless play is that everyone seems to equate this to playing forever with a single character. Not only would this be boring and annoying if you wanted to try something different but the gain in power no matter how slow would quickly make it all but impossible to find good challenges. Whatever you have for an end game should be more of a place to store your high level guys for when you want to break out the killer dungeons and take a whirl at them. As many people have said or at least hinted at levels 3 to 8 are the funnest to play. A game world has infinite possibility's if done right so lets all roll up a new character and get our feet dirty in that low level stuff once more.Akhier the Dragon Heartedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01982936563965623813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-37836938200129046232010-03-28T05:50:26.337-04:002010-03-28T05:50:26.337-04:00Wow, this is a very long comment thread. Three th...Wow, this is a very long comment thread. Three things I thought of while reading the post and thread:<br /><br />1) The best stronghold-building game I've played is Ars Magica, bar none. The game basically tells you that the covenant (stronghold) is the main character, and it's the history of the covenant that's being told by the game sessions. I keep looking for ways to bring that same sense of shared persistence to other games.<br /><br />2) For me, the most exciting thing in the BECMI system was always the mass combat rules. I never got to use them in a real game, but I spent a lot of time planning out armies and strategies and strongholds to be assaulted.<br /><br />3) I ran a long 3e game with a stronghold, and it was pretty simple. The nation has been devastated by a war and a plague, and so vast areas are basically abandoned. To repopulate the place, the king announces that anyone willing to put together a village charter, enough willing would-be villagers, and reclaim a lost village will be granted the lands around it by royal writ. So a group posted notices around the capital city looking for adventurers to clear and defend the village of Frosthold.<br /><br />My PCs went along, flushed out the village, keep, and dungeon under the keep, and then were basically kept on under retainer by the new village mayor. All their adventures revolved around rebuilding, defending, and administering the village and its lands.<br /><br />Ultimately, I wrote my own mass combat system, and the climax of the game involved a rebellion that coincided with an invasion of undead armies under the command of the various High Priests of Orcus, who had been biding their time for the last decade (since the first great war). At this point, the PCs were around level 10(ish), and had been engaged in active stronghold building and maintenance for years of game time. Commanding armies to defend the whole kingdom was a natural next step.<br /><br />I've generally found that when I adopt some of the Ars Magica concepts into games (really, almost any game) -- here is where you live; this is your home and you must defend it; go out adventuring to improve your home -- you get a couple of neat results. Players who might be hesitant to play in sandbox style will start constructing their own adventures ('our town needs a trading post! let's go meet with various guild representatives and try to recruit one!'). Players who might be willing to risk themselves in stupid behavior will moderate themselves far more if that behavior means the inn they just built will get burned down. And players who aren't highly involved in the game normally will often show up to games with detailed maps, supply lists, NPC names, family trees, and so forth.<br /><br />It's always felt, to me, like something you can simply build into the game from the start, right at level 1. For instance, take your typical megadungeon, which often has unspecified 'upper works'. Give the 'upper works' and thus the dungeon itself to the players as a stronghold. Now they have to deal with the dungeon because it's under their keep -- and the first time they haul a 5000gp ruby out of it, they have to defend their keep from other adventurers who want in.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13185778323826500331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-36170873668931012122009-10-15T19:04:24.977-04:002009-10-15T19:04:24.977-04:00I think the outdoors is definately a whole new ...I think the outdoors is definately a whole new 'level' after the dungeon, but the thing with keeps and baronies is not for everyone's taste. However, the wilderness and its exploration is as vast as the campaign world is allowed to be. <br /> And the whole deity thing is a bit over the top for my taste. In fact, an important part of my D&Dish game system is KEEPING THE CHARACTERS MORTAL- and not losing the sense of danger and fatality that lurks around each corner (and threats to sanity- as I mix with Lovecrafting stuff...). I can't stand super-PCs who do 9 attacks per round, and inflict more damage than the Tarrasque. (even more foul than bearded dwarven women...)Ed Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04069918557904273756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-24033892191575686742009-07-27T13:01:09.479-04:002009-07-27T13:01:09.479-04:00CLARIFICATION: It did have some of that stuff to a...CLARIFICATION: It did have some of that stuff to a degree, but it could have used something that would actually fit into a coherent set of mass combat rules.Big McStrongmusclehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07067031012393190130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-80673629521774321322009-07-27T12:43:39.579-04:002009-07-27T12:43:39.579-04:00Mechanics, no. But I think having costs for hiring...Mechanics, no. But I think having costs for hiring retainers, building and maintaining structures and facilities, and maybe a "Random Kingdom Events" table for inspiration would've really helped AD&D.Big McStrongmusclehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07067031012393190130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-41585819576014572442009-07-27T11:02:39.148-04:002009-07-27T11:02:39.148-04:00I think assumption of a prestigious position in th...I think assumption of a prestigious position in the world has always been an option in the end game and that it needs no mechanics.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16733274876782876659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-1179795000993359372009-07-27T10:52:27.142-04:002009-07-27T10:52:27.142-04:00Eh, I've personally always found the idea of p...Eh, I've personally always found the idea of prestige classes a little gimmicky, but you've got an interesting idea. My only objection is that most of that stuff (with the exception maybe of the Questing Knight) would be a little weird to model with experience points. That kind of thing might be better handled by little subsystems, especially the paths that aren't very good sources of XP.<br /><br />Mostly, I can't think of any reason killing things and taking their stuff would make a baron politically stronger or *any* character immortal. Of the three characters who ever achieved that in any of my games (which have lasted for 13 years or so), one did it with an artifact that slowly transformed him into the guardian spirit of a forest, another did a trio of gods a *huge* favor at risk of much worse than death (and then pledged himself to eternal service), and a third made a deal for unending youth with a major devil and managed to trick it out of collecting her soul. Mere XP seems almost *boring* in comparison.<br /><br />I actually prefer to divorce these sorts of thing from XP entirely - even ignoring the "name-level" proviso in OD&D and Basic. I find the prohibitive cost in gold of maintaining an army, building a castle, and conducting serious magical research pretty much limits it to name-level characters anyhow, but if they are just gonna build a castle in the middle of nowhere, I don't see why a less experienced character with a sizable windfall shouldn't be allowed to share the love.<br /><br />It *would* be nice to see some sample guidelines for a late-game rise to power in the rules, though. When I was a teenager with AD&D, I had no idea how to handle any of that stuff.Big McStrongmusclehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07067031012393190130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-20349806435849794142009-07-26T20:22:08.015-04:002009-07-26T20:22:08.015-04:00I realize I'm replying to a very old post but ...I realize I'm replying to a very old post but I was thinking about this today, specifically the Mentzer and the RMC's options to become something other than a barony builder and 3rd edition prestige classes.<br /><br />What if you took the Mentzer idea and melded with prestige classes. Instead of prestige classes being their 3rd edition power path they instead represented a path to greater responsibility in line with a character's class. Instead of becoming a Baron a fighter might become a Questing Knight who emulated Galahad, the Paladin becomes not another fighter class but the alternative advancement option for the cleric, instead of becoming a tower wizard the wise magician becomes the hand of fate a la Merlin or, for something a bit more prosaic Belgarath from Eddings.<br /><br />In this case I think the basic idea behind the Old School D&D endgame is retained and a prestige class actually becomes the assumption of a prestigious position in the world.Pulp Herbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02486803457210325703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-56909812988051965742009-07-09T05:13:56.980-04:002009-07-09T05:13:56.980-04:00I am quite late to this discussion, so the comment...I am quite late to this discussion, so the comment is probably pointless. :)<br />Anyway. In all of my campaigns (from Mentzer D&D to AD&D) we always used the idea of the "end game". My players have always looked forward to becoming rulers of some sort. My "golden standard" when it comes to evaluating a fantasy RPG is whether it has idea/rules to handle this type of high level game.<br /><br />I would also say that "Immortal level" play is not something which goes against the old-school ideas. The Chronicles of Amber are an example of how Immortal level play can be engaging. Actually, Gary mentions Zelazny in the Appendix N of the DMG.Antoniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17258180992723371727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-28008523151468747162009-03-31T13:02:00.000-04:002009-03-31T13:02:00.000-04:00By today's standards though, I'm a rebel&l...By today's standards though, I'm a rebel<<BR/><BR/>Amen, brutha.Kevin Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14122665488285424578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-13946927386536968412009-03-31T10:40:00.000-04:002009-03-31T10:40:00.000-04:00Then in true Grognard fashion James, you grab up y...<I>Then in true Grognard fashion James, you grab up your old copy of Chivalry and Sorcery. Mounds of that stuff.</I><BR/><BR/>I could, but I'd rather just go back to my 3 LBBs and use the info there. :)James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-58973176076159132572009-03-31T10:29:00.000-04:002009-03-31T10:29:00.000-04:00The issue is that these assumptions aren't built i...<I>The issue is that these assumptions aren't built into 4e, which is based on a model of "1st level... but better" all the way. I think it's that which is what people miss. It's less about specific rules and more about an overall design, I think.</I><BR/><BR/>That's exactly right. The appeal of old school games for me is that they were written with these things in mind rather than their being something tacked on to them as an afterthought.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-40094501043946868332009-03-31T08:54:00.000-04:002009-03-31T08:54:00.000-04:00Yeah, I've actually ran some games in my FLGS ...Yeah, I've actually ran some games in my FLGS with what I consider the "modern player".<BR/><BR/>They tried telling me I couldn't prevent them from making magic items, and were keeping track of their treasure, to remind me that they were behind the wealth per level rules. <BR/><BR/>When I started laughing at them they were very confused. <BR/><BR/>It actually turned into a good game, though they would occasionally grumble that I had poisoned the mind of their regular DM, in that I taught him that the rules were really more like guidelines. <BR/><BR/>It was a strange position for me to be in. In the Old Days (TM) I was actually one of the more "by the book" DMs that I knew.<BR/><BR/>I didn't want to run D&D in name only. I knew plenty of DMs who did.<BR/><BR/>By today's standards though, I'm a rebel.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05334071256551332865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-22575716931679183102009-03-31T00:50:00.000-04:002009-03-31T00:50:00.000-04:00“I think I disagree with the grognards in which I ...“<I>I think I disagree with the grognards in which I think that strongholds and domains are better handled as treasure rather than an automatic class/level ability. If you have an adventure path in which the story doesn't allow for time to stop and build a castle, the rules rather get in the way.</I>”<BR/><BR/>“<I>It is hard to justify building a stronghold when you can buy magical items, when the magic items will be the things which you use in the dungeon to help you along or keep you alive.</I>”<BR/><BR/>Many of these grognards, however, prefer sandboxes to adventure paths. In their campaigns, magic items cannot be easily bought. If you’re already playing a completely different style of game, it should be no surprise that you feel differently about strongholds and domains.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16733274876782876659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-26833560227627709962009-03-30T13:24:00.000-04:002009-03-30T13:24:00.000-04:00Building and experiencing new varieties of campaig...Building and experiencing new varieties of campaign/world settings is consistent with the game in its norm; and indeed experiencing many types and varieties of experiences within these enriches the playing and DMing experience overall and at different, and often, more exalted levels of comprehension and expanded creativity for both. This is consistent with the "Front-Game," which I believe is being exhorted by a few here, which in sum is a large part of this "end game, that of immersing oneself in as many of the game's open-ended attributes as possible. This expands creative dimensions exponentially and moves experiences to different levels of creative immersion for both players and DMs. I personally have found this more refreshing than not attempting same, at least, and prefer it for said reasons, though YMMV.--RJKRob Kuntzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17648200357715492214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-83668558096296414772009-03-30T13:18:00.000-04:002009-03-30T13:18:00.000-04:00>But if you do a stronghold as treasure, the DM...>But if you do a stronghold as treasure, the DM can give the players a stronghold or a title if it fits the campaign. The domain can produce income for the players and be a source of plot hooks<<BR/><BR/>That's a good point, Gerber T. I think I did a lot of that without even giving it much thought. Castle won in a card game, keep manor house left by an uncle. They have even just come across abandoned keeps/monestary/grange houses and just said "shit, it's only a week from the big city. let's HQ here."Kevin Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14122665488285424578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-56463932931753710482009-03-30T13:14:00.000-04:002009-03-30T13:14:00.000-04:00>The DMG has rules for stronghold construction,...>The DMG has rules for stronghold construction, yes, but nothing much in the way of discussing how to build or maintain a barony< <BR/><BR/>Then in true Grognard fashion James, you grab up your old copy of Chivalry and Sorcery. Mounds of that stuff.Kevin Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14122665488285424578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-17745759948800259592009-03-30T13:09:00.000-04:002009-03-30T13:09:00.000-04:00> - founding kingdoms, becoming gods, ruling na...> - founding kingdoms, becoming gods, ruling nations, determing the political course of the world, etc< <BR/><BR/><BR/>I joke about retirement villages for PC's, but as far as becoming Gods or founding kingdoms, I don't think I have ever heard one of my players say that is what they want. <BR/><BR/>Even players who are long gone in my games have left huge impact without all the stupd "get a kingdom like Conan" or "I want to be the God of whatever it is I did in mortal life"<BR/><BR/>A few games ago I improvised a play the characters attended that had to do with the impact player characters had on the kingdom 50 years before. I was going by sheer memory of things that happened in my games in the 80's.<BR/><BR/>Start all the "fresh" game worlds you want, you'll probably never get something as deep as that experience. My newer players were blown away. Completly immersed in my world. I still do this shit just for feelings like that. My world has weight, even if a PC never clears a hex and builds a castle. Their impact historically is huge.Kevin Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14122665488285424578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-31086793995245820752009-03-30T12:24:00.000-04:002009-03-30T12:24:00.000-04:00Yep, second edition ad&d. I am liking the adva...Yep, second edition ad&d. I am liking the advancement rate that classic d&d brings with it, it's making the game feel more fluid.Pete Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03438651595079082035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-58902027774658181502009-03-30T11:44:00.000-04:002009-03-30T11:44:00.000-04:00I would say advancement is definitely quicker in o...<I>I would say advancement is definitely quicker in od&d then ad&d. I can even say why. 1gp = 1xp. That makes a big difference!</I><BR/><BR/>If by "AD&D," you mean 2e, perhaps, but 1e used the same rules for XP as post-Supplement I OD&D, including the 1 gp = 1 XP rule.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.com