|
|
Post by rustic313 on Oct 22, 2019 22:49:18 GMT -6
Men and Magic outlines when characters establish strongholds, gaining the ability to tax the peasants and hitting what would later be called "name level."
Clerics do so at 100K XP. Fighters hit "Lord" status at 240K. MU hit "Wizard" at 300K.
For those who have played up to this level, does it cause issues for the cleric to be starting to enter the geopolitical stronghold game that much sooner than the other characters? The time scale of the stronghold based end game seems like it would naturally lend itself to long periods where not much is happening for those building and managing strongholds, which makes it hard to keep the party together. As another issue, the cleric is getting a substantial head start: they get a free body of troops plus discounted construction. It seems like these advantages give the cleric a pretty sizeable edge in the end-game over the other classes, especially if the formerly chummy party members were to become rivals (a la the wargaming roots of the game).
As a counterargument, I suppose I could see that if the cleric drops out to build a castle, then the wizards/fighters can keep actively adventuring and rack up another 140-200K XP moderately quickly (although even with the treasure hauls at higher levels, that isn't a trivial amount of XP). The discount clerics receive is also offset by the extra ~100K+ GP cash on hand the fighters and wizards will likely accrue while raking in that level-gaining-loot from continued adventures. This divergent timeline either requires the DM to do many side adventures with part of the group as they split onto different time/space tracks, or requires the cleric player starting a new character or running a henchman. That probably wasn't a huge deal in the 70s when groups were large, and the DMs that invented the game had plenty of time on their hands to basically game full time.
It does seem somewhat cleaner overall to transition all of the players to the new phase of play at around the same time. That way the entire group can stay on a similar time scale (moving to turns measured in months or seasons), which reduces workload for the judge and simplifying play overall. With today's smaller groups (and most of us having jobs other than gaming full time) that seems like a more elegant way to enter the end game. I also have something of an issue with the fighting man -- who seems like he should be the best fit for a general and warlord -- being outshined so strongly by the cleric.
One could do this by requiring clerics to hit "Patriarch +1" before building. AD&D essentially did this, by allowing clerics to dabble in the end game with a temple at level 8 but not getting benefits from building a stronghold until level 9 at 225K XP (vs. fighters at 250K XP). Another option would be to let fighters start stronghold construction at level 8 (in U&WA we see Ftr 8 SUperheroes running NPC castles, after all).
So, what does the group think about the staggered entry to "name level" play at the stronghold/realm management scale? How's it played out for those that have actually run OD&D parties up to that level?
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Oct 23, 2019 7:56:27 GMT -6
In my experience, level gain increases character power exponentially, not linearly.
So I allow end game as soon as characters hit super heroic, around level 8.
By the time characters are 10+, I feel like we are in another game all together: what some folks would call “planar”: fighting gods, flying around in floating cities.
Regular old strongholds are too easy to defend with a lvl10+ wizard. No army you roll up against it from the U&WA would even matter. Such wargaming almost becomes boring at those levels.
Don’t know if that helps, but it describes my experience and approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by gemini476 on Oct 24, 2019 5:43:22 GMT -6
Note that you can build a stronghold whenever you have the cash, and get an army whenever you've gotten a stronghold. The only thing limited by "name level" is taxation, magic item creation, and the clerical 50% rebate and zealots.
Generally speaking, however, strongholds will probably wait until roughly name level simply because the amount of gold needed pushes your experience up to those heights. If you're fine with just the model Great Keep then that's just 70,000 down, which is probably achievable by 100K XP, but once you go for ditches and barbicans and moats and so on it starts to add up.
Heck, if you really wanted to you could build a wooden palisade with some wooden buildings for just a couple thousand gold and camp out in the wilderness as a third-level character. It probably wouldn't be a smart idea since that's not very defensible against wilderness encounters, but you could do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Oct 24, 2019 6:09:05 GMT -6
In the main, my player’s characters rarely have to build. They just find some evil lord or wizard and take their stronghold from them. That cuts down on construction costs significantly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Oct 24, 2019 9:56:00 GMT -6
Shouldn’t it vary by campaign? It’s not like you’re giving them out as a reward for hitting level X; they have to go make it happen.
In our last campaign, my fighter and another fellow’s fighter began to scheme about taking over the castle we adventured in at level 1. It never ended up happening because other things came up, but the point is we didn’t wait til level X to start thinking about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2019 21:49:28 GMT -6
Kill the notion of "the party."
There are individuals. Sometimes they work together. Sometimes they do not.
Period.
|
|
|
|
Post by rustic313 on Oct 25, 2019 9:14:05 GMT -6
Kill the notion of "the party." There are individuals. Sometimes they work together. Sometimes they do not. Period. Even in the case where there is no "party," have you found that it causes issues for the clerics to be diving into raising armies, building strongholds, etc significantly earlier than the fighters? I'd suspect that players that are first to start stronghold-related activities effectively remove themselves from the ongoing campaign due to the different times required for castle construction (long) vs. dungeon delves (shorter), but I may be wrong. How did it actually play out for your groups? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2019 15:04:09 GMT -6
By the time you've hit name level you should have bigger fish to fry than dungeon crawls. You are now one of the Great and will be dealing with the fates of nations.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Oct 27, 2019 11:37:46 GMT -6
Imagine beginning the campaign with a super hero defending an existing stronghold against an invading force. The player, in this scenario, must raise capital to pay his men. The usual way would be taxation, but you could also get a jump on fundraising by looting a dragon's lair. It's risky.
Wouldn't the above have made more sense than what is in Men & Magic? What adventurer wants to stop playing the actual game (dungeon crawling) so they can manage a long term construction project? Or, in the case of wizards, sequester yourself in a tower making potions for months or years. I know it's too late now, but wouldn't it have made more sense to start your players as lords if what you wanted to do was hold land?
This is the fault of the game, that it describes strongholds as a goal to attain rather than a burden to defend. My opinion is that the fighter text in Men & Magic should not have included a a post hoc justification for the game that players wanted to play instead of wargaming, which was dungeon crawling.
Those guys playing in 1973 were barely "name level" when it was written. Your experience, if you choose to continue, is going to be better than Gygax' own!
Next time, start with the wargame. Then, when your players need a break, do a dungeon crawl. I'll bet they never want to return to defending a castle after that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2019 13:13:17 GMT -6
It DID start with a wargame, cretin. Dave and Gary were both members of the Castle and Crusade Society, and all their players were wargamers.
Sheesh.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Oct 27, 2019 16:52:02 GMT -6
It DID start with a wargame, cretin. Dave and Gary were both members of the Castle and Crusade Society, and all their players were wargamers. Sheesh. What started as a wargame? Dungeons & Dragons? no. It started precisely because Dave Arneson didn't want to referee a wargame. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2019 0:00:06 GMT -6
It DID start with a wargame, cretin. Dave and Gary were both members of the Castle and Crusade Society, and all their players were wargamers. Sheesh.
As much as our team would like to involve you in more positive ways, all we can ultimately do is to offer you an opportunity. It's up to you to take it.The thread is open again. Everyone, please feel free to continue discussing the original topic in a more civil manner. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Oct 29, 2019 7:37:38 GMT -6
captainjapan, I get what you are saying. And despite name-calling, I do think @gronanofsimmerya is closer on this one. If a bunch of high levels travel through the wilderness, they are going to come along parties similar to themselves. They need strongholds from which they can raise armies to match other armies. These strongholds are going to draw fire and intrigue -- because this is a war-game. I recommend Tony Bath's Setting up a Wargames Campaign. It transformed my understanding of D&D (original). What it means in my campaign is something like this: Superheroics send their heroic retainers with their armies to fight the on-land battles while they, the superheroes, go down into scary dungeons or fly up to floating cities and stuff like that to find the Mighty MacGuffin that will shut down the Evil Lord's magical Evil-in-a-Can. This combines traditional war-gaming with the dungeon crawl we expect and enjoy. It is working well so far, and I highly recommend it. Fight on!
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Oct 29, 2019 12:31:15 GMT -6
tetramorph,
I think that's a fine idea. So, you get to play both types of games in the same night? Or, alternating mass combat one night and adventure partying the next?
Historically, the Chainmail-styled Heroes and Superheroes started their dungeoneering careers equal to the task. They could command armies from the get-go, if they had wanted to. At the time Gygax wrote about fighters and clerics and their hirelings, castle building had not actually followed written rules. I don't have a copy of Bath's 'How to Set Up a Wargames Campaign', so if it looks to you like Gygax derived the Men & Magic hireling/stronghold rules from Bath then I'm happy to be wrong.
My point is that Gygax had no precedent for making mass combat a reward for levelling in D&D. The Castles & Crusades Society was forced into inactive status when wargaming was eclipsed in popularity by exploring the dungeons under Greyhawk. Not surprising, since Gary Gygax virtually WAS the society.
Anyone who would like to fight a battle should feel free to do so at any experience level their DM deems appropriate, or just roll up 4th level Heroes to begin with.
I applaud your creativity, marrying two disparate styles of game in a single scenario. You do your players a great service, but don't feel bound to follow a rule that wasn't playtested in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 29, 2019 17:39:00 GMT -6
I'll again mention the FFC. Within are Svenson's Freehold.
"In his early days, Greg built a small keep for himself and some friends (all from Carr's FITS society group) and herein are the plans of that edifice. It was destroyed once (the 2nd time Blackmoor fell) but was rebuilt in total."
Keep in mind two things. One, Arneson's campaign was part of the Great Kingdom (aka C&C Society) and two, Gygax was utilizing Arneson's notes when putting together the LBB's.
And, yes, they were both wargamers.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Oct 29, 2019 19:00:05 GMT -6
Men and Magic outlines when characters establish strongholds, gaining the ability to tax the peasants and hitting what would later be called "name level." Does any text previous to Men & Magic outline when characters establish strongholds? Or, when they get the ability to tax peasants? Or, when they would hit "name level"? These are the interesting questions. derv, I agree with everything you said. I've been toying with the idea that the content of the eighteen pages of notes sent by Arneson to Gygax for the preparation of the 3LBBs are, in fact, wholly contained within the FFC. What do you think? Or, if aldarron is reading, what does he think? I want to be clear, I'm not trying to assail wargaming as something less than roleplaying. I'm only trying to point out that levelling-up should not be treated as a prerequisite to wargaming. That's what Men & Magic is implying, for what other use could there be for building a stronghold? A stronghold is a target for siege actions and a revenue stream for funding deployments of hundreds of man-type npc's against some enemy(another player or their proxy) of like disposition. Start with the wargame. Then, if the mood strikes them, take your commanders adventuring in the dungeons. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 29, 2019 19:37:54 GMT -6
derv, I agree with everything you said. I've been toying with the idea that the content of the eighteen pages of notes sent by Arneson to Gygax for the preparation of the 3LBBs are, in fact, wholly contained within the FFC. What do you think? Or, if aldarron is reading, what does he think? Hmm, not sure. There's much that is missing and some material is from Snider. Interesting to think about. One thing that seems obvious to me when looking at the FFC is that Arneson did some of the same methods differently then what is presented in the LBB's; That Gygax was interpreting Arneson's methods and fitting it into his own paradigm. I didn't take your comments as disparaging. But, what I think gronan was clumsily saying and what is hard to appreciate now, post emergence of the roleplaying concept, is that all these guys were wargamers. Wargaming shaped their ideas of what it meant to game. Having large battles between friends was a natural and fun consequence of play. |
|
graelth
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 111 
|
Post by graelth on Nov 2, 2019 10:57:16 GMT -6
I’m typing on my phone at the moment, so I will share more substantive thoughts on the topic a little later, but I wanted to ask tetramorph about something he said in his first post: namely, that 10th level characters are playing a whole different game. I get that in the sense of this thread that domain management and mustering a small army definitely represent a change from the dungeon-delving of earlier levels, but I suspect tetramorph meant this in another sense that I have commonly heard but never really understood. I.e., that high level characters are so much more powerful than low or mid level adventurers, so their adventures are subsequently different (not just quantitatively, as in bigger or more enemies, but qualitatively different, like planar travel and getting involved with divine politics and cosmic conflicts). Is that others’ experience of level 10+ gameplay? From where I’m sitting, a level 10 character is just barely getting his first few 5th level spells or is a fighter with 35 hit points and MAYBE a -1 AC if he is lucky. That doesn’t seem fundamentally different than lower levels, and is just different in scale more-so than scope. Am I wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Nov 2, 2019 12:08:29 GMT -6
I haven't played a high level(10+) character since high school. And, that was ad&d with strict casting times and material components. Going back to the 5th level spell lists, I think I would choose to ask god 3 questions/week(Commune) rather than teleport home once a day(Wizard). I would like to be a cleric. These are game breaking spells I would have revelled in if I were allowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Nov 2, 2019 13:23:04 GMT -6
A lot of it is about magic item acquisition.
Also, the collective HD of the party makes a high level party nearly invincible, at least against the standard listed monsters and magic items they could use against you.
To challenge characters of this level, you have not only to use the book, but to imagine beyond it as well.
|
|
graelth
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 111
|
Post by graelth on Nov 2, 2019 17:00:41 GMT -6
I haven't played a high level(10+) character since high school. And, that was ad&d with strict casting times and material components. Going back to the 5th level spell lists, I think I would choose to ask god 3 questions/week(Commune) rather than teleport home once a day(Wizard). I would like to be a cleric. These are game breaking spells I would have revelled in if I were allowed. A lot of it is about magic item acquisition. Also, the collective HD of the party makes a high level party nearly invincible, at least against the standard listed monsters and magic items they could use against you. To challenge characters of this level, you have not only to use the book, but to imagine beyond it as well. Thanks, I think those are both good answers. At the end of the day, I suppose it also just comes down to DMing style and campaign format. Some of the spells are indeed pretty powerful, but my DMing style would be to balance them with the pace I would like for the campaign. A Patriarch is certainly allowed to commune with the beyond, for example, but "veracity/knowledge 100%" does not mean the answer the Cleric receives is not a riddle or ultimately ambiguous as oracles tend to be (or, as the spell describes, the referee may decide that it is usable less often than once per week). Similarly, a 10th level Patriarch can only cast three cure light wounds (1d6+1) and three cure serious wounds (2d6+2) per adventure... I would certainly make him use them all! A 11+ HD creature would also have an easy time hitting +3 or +4 magical armor (roughly around 50% chance) and a poison weapon still causes a level 10 character to lose half his health on a successful saving throw, and dragon's breath also does half damage on a successful save. Those are all good ways to have mundane enemies keep the pressure on and I would probably use them all! But I am less interested in the "cosmic" high level campaign. |
|
graelth
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 111
|
Post by graelth on Nov 3, 2019 10:17:17 GMT -6
Men and Magic outlines when characters establish strongholds, gaining the ability to tax the peasants and hitting what would later be called "name level." Clerics do so at 100K XP. Fighters hit "Lord" status at 240K. MU hit "Wizard" at 300K. For those who have played up to this level, does it cause issues for the cleric to be starting to enter the geopolitical stronghold game that much sooner than the other characters? Now more to the topic of the conversation, indeed this is an interesting issue which I had not thought of previously. If you take this to be the case, this seems to have the following implications: • If the Cleric builds his stronghold first, then presumably the Fighting-Man and Magic-User would probably use it as a base of operations until they hit name level. This implies in some way that the Clerics may have some default authority within the structure of the party. • Being "first" may say something about the cosmological conflicts of the implied setting. The Patriarch is a beacon of Law or Chaos, and thus being the first to stake his territory in the wilderness may indicate that the essential conflict of the wilderness is one of Law vs Chaos. There are a few things that challenge this interpretation, however: • Wizards actually do not have any explicit discussion about building a "stronghold." In fact, off the top of my head, the only class that has explicit discussion of building a base of operations is the Paladin and the Assassin. You could assume that the Wizard requires a laboratory in order to manufacture magical items, of course, which seems to imply at least having consistent access to (if not owning or even constructing) a suitable building. • But it is important to note that Book III, page 20, says, "At any time a player/character wishes he may select a portion of land (or a city lot) upon which to build his castle, tower, or whatever." The implication is that any class can build any type of building at any time! Given this, it should probably be assumed that the references to building a stronghold in the Fighting-Man, Cleric, Paladin and Assassin classes is noting something special about building a structure. Let's take another look at the relevant texts: Top-level fighters (Lords and above) who build castles are considered "Barons," and as such may invest in their holdings in order to increase their income (see the INVESTMENTS section of Vol. III). Base income for a Baron is a tax rate of 10 Gold Pieces/inhabitant of the barony/game year. In the case of the Fighting-man, there is no real indication that you couldn't start building your castle stronghold from as early as 1st level. You are not considered a "Baron" until you are a Lord, however, which has to do with landholdings and taxation. Now the section on Baronies in Book III (page 24) does not actually mention anything about being class specific! If anybody can become a Baron, then presumably the Fighting-man entry is simply implying that it is automatic for Lords to become Barons, whereas other player/characters must earn that title through their interactions with powerful NPC lords. When Clerics reach the top level (Patriarch) they may opt to build their own stronghold, and when doing so, receive help from "above." Thus if they spend 100,000 Gold Pieces in castle construction, they may build a fortress of double that cost. Finally, "faithful" men will come to such a castle, being fanatically loyal, and they will serve at no cost. There will be from 10-60 heavy cavalry, 10-60 horsed crossbowmen ("Turcopole"-type), and 30-180 heavy foot. In the case of the Cleric, the stronghold is connected to specific class features that kick in at name level—in this case, a discount for construction and free followers (presumably you DO have to feed them, however!). Paladins ...will give away all treasure that they win, save that which is necessary to maintain themselves, their men, and a modest castle. ...A paladin's stronghold cannot be above 200,000 gold pieces in total cost, and no more than 200 men can be retained to guard it. In the case of the Paladin, the stronghold is directly connected to class features (such as the limits on how much treasure the Paladin can keep and how big his stronghold may be). Guildmaster: Any 12th level assassin (Prime Assassin) may challenge the Guildmaster of the Assassin's Guild to a duel to the death, and if they former is victorious he becomes Guildmaster. The Guildmaster may build a stronghold or control a "Barony". The Assassin's stronghold is tied to his status as guildmaster, and recall that the assassin class entry states that "all assassins are part of the Assassins Guild" and "as Guildmaster they may have up to 50 "followers" (members of the Guild), but such followers must be hired at 1st level and worked up." So in the case of the Assassin, the stronghold is perhaps also linked to class-specific rules on followers. The argument then would be that an Assassin can build a structure at any time, but it is not a real "guild" until he is a Guildmaster (at which point it becomes the hangout of his Assassins-in-training followers). The broad view, I would argue, is that anyone can build anything at any time. There are certain benefits, penalties and requirements associated with specific classes, however. Fighting-men automatically become Barons (and may thus rule over a population, collect taxes and improve their holdings), Clerics get discounts to build strongholds at level 8 (and automatically get some fanatic followers when they do so to boot), Paladins are restricted in how much they can build and Assassins can automatically become Barons in the same way as fighters or (and/or?) build strongholds for their new assassin followers. If you take this interpretation, then anybody could build a stronghold and hire armies at any time, if they have enough wealth. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 4, 2019 8:29:24 GMT -6
To my view, CJ, you've created a false dichotomy in separating war-gaming from adventure-gaming. I get that there is a different feel, but I have never yet played in a D&D game where some group of personalities didn't raise arms and shed the blood of some other group of personalities. Where are we supposed to draw the line? If 5 creatures are fighting it's an adventure but if it is 50 or 500 or 5000 it is now a wargame? I don't understand where the distinction lies. Does The Hobbit switch from being an adventure story to a war story when The Battle of Five Armies takes place? What I'm saying is that I agree with Gronan - they were wargaming, but they were wargaming and roleplaying at the same time. I think it is fair to say that both in the Twin Cities and Lake Geneva there was always an expectation that the scale of the fight could and would slide from the small to the large and back again at any given time. . I've been toying with the idea that the content of the eighteen pages of notes sent by Arneson to Gygax for the preparation of the 3LBBs are, in fact, wholly contained within the FFC. What do you think? Or, if aldarron is reading, what does he think? Not all of the material, no. This is a very different topic from the OP so I will just point you to a pretty extensive 'blog post on the parts we know of HERE I could add and tweak that post a bit now but it's mostly held up. I want to be clear, I'm not trying to assail wargaming as something less than roleplaying. I'm only trying to point out that levelling-up should not be treated as a prerequisite to wargaming. That's what Men & Magic is implying, for what other use could there be for building a stronghold? A stronghold is a target for siege actions and a revenue stream for funding deployments of hundreds of man-type npc's against some enemy(another player or their proxy) of like disposition. Start with the wargame. Then, if the mood strikes them, take your commanders adventuring in the dungeons. Men and Magic outlines when characters establish strongholds, gaining the ability to tax the peasants and hitting what would later be called "name level." Does any text previous to Men & Magic outline when characters establish strongholds? Or, when they get the ability to tax peasants? Or, when they would hit "name level"? These are the interesting questions. So, yeah, pretty much on the same page with you here in that the restrictions, if that is the right word, on when the domain game can start or when you "should" be doing some of these activities aren't a great idea. In the BTPBD draft, we see some fluctuation in it too as in one paragraph, 7th level is given for when a fighter should start building a stronghold instead of 9th, and obviously in Arneson's campaign, folks were building strongholds at what we would call 4th-8th level. One could even point to the Fredigar Cripps story where old Freddy builds the Comeback Inn after only a single extremely lucky dungeon dive. So I would agree with the notion that war and stronghold building really ought to be up to the players, depending on what they can afford and what they want to do. However... The broad view, I would argue, is that anyone can build anything at any time. There are certain benefits, penalties and requirements associated with specific classes, however. Fighting-men automatically become Barons (and may thus rule over a population, collect taxes and improve their holdings), Clerics get discounts to build strongholds at level 8 (and automatically get some fanatic followers when they do so to boot), Paladins are restricted in how much they can build and Assassins can automatically become Barons in the same way as fighters or (and/or?) build strongholds for their new assassin followers. If you take this interpretation, then anybody could build a stronghold and hire armies at any time, if they have enough wealth. graelth's summary touches on something behind the intent of the rules and that is this: The effects of Level as Reputation and Social Status. OD&D handles it pretty clumsily IMHO and while it is spelled out a bit better Adventures in Fantasy, the rules there are clumsy too. There's also a few sentences here and there in BTPbD that are supposed to clue us in along these lines. Nevertheless, the idea behind all this stuff isn't to force players into a new kind of "endgame" per se, it is rather an attempt to model the immersive world the players are supposed to be in, in some sort of "realistic" fashion. Characters who are "heroes" can't simply blend back into the peasantry time after time until their next dungeon dive. Sooner or later, they will be attracting the attention of the rich and powerful and they will be approached with offers, threats, you name it. That's what the rules in both D&D and AiF are meant to express - an unavoidable rise in power and fame. How that might be better handled is probably a topic that is ripe for exploration. |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Nov 4, 2019 11:59:21 GMT -6
I don't want to pick on gronan when he's not here to defend his statements, so I'll just say that we were BOTH posting responses to questions that rustic313 wasn't actually asking. The gist of the op's questions was, "Won't this break up the band?" The answer to that question, to my mind, is "yes". Now, on to the question of whether Dungeons & Dragons is a wargame. I think we could agree that this makes for an unwinnable argument All the blood spilt on all the on-line groups since the dawn of d&d discussion will attest to this. Dungeons & Dragons was inspired by a wargamer. The rules were written by a wargamer. It was play-tested by wargamers. It says it's a wargame right there on the box. But, isn't a wargame a game where the objective follows directly from martial combat?. If D&D is the spiritual successor of Blackmoor which is the successor of the Braunstein, then it cannot be a wargame. No matter that Dave Arneson or any of his players or Gary Gygax showed up to THEIR first games with the expectation of play-fighting each other; their referees had set for them objectives that had naught to do with it. So that you know where I'm coming from with this, I also don't call Diplomacy a wargame. Although, player vs. player combat(to whatever degree it is abstracted away) is integral to the experience, Diplomacy does not require you to conquer your opponent to win the game. Likewise, even though the combat tables are central to almost everyone's experience of playing d&d(mine included), their usage is not necessary to "win" the game. I could call d&d an exploration game, maybe? I really don't have a good term for it. Some referees would point out that "This is my world. I am the unquestioned demiurge of this imaginary world", and further, that "...there will be far far more rulings, than rules in my game." and that "...appeal to the rules will get you no where." (ok, I pick on him a little bit  ) Does this sound like an opponent you would care to face in a wargame? I would hope not. However, if you treat d&d as a negotiation between the referee and the party with the objective being to just survive and create more story, then the above quotes make perfect sense. The referee is not your opponent EVEN when he's running hundreds of orc's against your characters' party. His objective can't be to kill his own players; they're the drivers of the "story". Rules might only get in the way. There is also the problem of roles in role-playing, generally. And, in d&d specifically. In a wargame, I expect to see a hierarchy of ranks of men expressed in hit dice. In d&d you still get that, but the emphasis is now also on party roles(classes). It is not enough to say that you play a 5th level man or a 7th level unit. For reasons of exploration and problem solving, you have now become a cooperative "party". The fighter is only one third or whatever ratio of character classes you decide on in your game. The point is that there are other roles now(the cleric, for instance) which don't factor into any other wargames of the time. What use would a wargames player have for a cleric? Battlefields are not places of healing. Men exist there to kill and be killed. To the point that there is a social expectation of high level character's roles in the campaign; I am coming around to this. I have recently purchased Empire of the Petal Throne. It has immediate social consequences for pc's. This was also marketed to wargamers, although I have no trouble whatsoever imagining an EPT game where combat is hand-waved away, completely. And I will stop there. This subject is definitely for another thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Nov 4, 2019 14:12:41 GMT -6
You can do both adventuring and wargames with the same characters too. Sometimes politics will dictate little skirmishes against each other whether over insult, material gain, or just practice. Other times it will make sense for the several PCs to band together for some reason including treasure hunting.
|
|
graelth
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 111
|
Post by graelth on Nov 4, 2019 15:12:18 GMT -6
graelth's summary touches on something behind the intent of the rules and that is this: The effects of Level as Reputation and Social Status. OD&D handles it pretty clumsily IMHO and while it is spelled out a bit better Adventures in Fantasy, the rules there are clumsy too. There's also a few sentences here and there in BTPbD that are supposed to clue us in along these lines. Nevertheless, the idea behind all this stuff isn't to force players into a new kind of "endgame" per se, it is rather an attempt to model the immersive world the players are supposed to be in, in some sort of "realistic" fashion. Characters who are "heroes" can't simply blend back into the peasantry time after time until their next dungeon dive. Sooner or later, they will be attracting the attention of the rich and powerful and they will be approached with offers, threats, you name it. That's what the rules in both D&D and AiF are meant to express - an unavoidable rise in power and fame. How that might be better handled is probably a topic that is ripe for exploration. That's an interesting point, thank you for making the discussion of it much more explicit. It really raises a lot of good questions about the level titles. Lord? Lord of what? And whose Champion are you? It gets even more interesting in the case of the Cleric, whose level titles seem to shift between different religions and religious institutions, and the magic-user, who seems to be studying different kinds of magic at different stages. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 2:46:11 GMT -6
What I'm saying is that I agree with Gronan - they were wargaming, but they were wargaming and roleplaying at the same time. I don't want to pick on gronan when he's not here to defend his statements... To be clear, I actually agree with Gronan's factual statement: The FFC, or, rather, "Phase One" of the Blackmoor campaign can be called a wargame with roleplaying elements, or a roleplaying game with wargaming elements. Everyone acquainted with the details of the game knows this to be a fact. - No offense, CJ, it's not easy to get into this stuff, as most reliable sources are either all over the place, or super-difficult to get. I've been involved with historical research on Blackmoor since around 2005, and I'm still learning new stuff on a regular base. But agreement or disagreement are not the problem here: Gronan repeatedly and needlessly insulting other members, as well as trying to derail or to outright end discussions he seems to consider "boring" is. We have communicated him our displeasure with his conduct on numerous occasions, and over the course of many years, already. But since he seems absolutely unwilling to change his behavior, despite our best efforts to move him - well, in the words of David Lee Roth, he'll be "sailing the sea of consequences", from now on. I assure you that I, in particular, do not enjoy this, in the least. I'm a Blackmoor guy, in the end, and I even had an NPC called "Mornard" in one of my earliest games. Still so, though: If trying to defend your right to treat others like an a-hole is really, seriously, unironically the hill you choose to die on - then you better enjoy the sound of the funeral bell. |
|
graelth
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 111
|
Post by graelth on Nov 5, 2019 6:44:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by delta on Nov 5, 2019 8:25:55 GMT -6
I just discovered this thread and think the discussion and the original question (even if we've veered off from it) are great. So thanks to rustic313 for starting it. Possibly interesting quote from Gygax on ENWorld, 26th January, 2004: |
|
|
|
Post by rustic313 on Nov 6, 2019 2:03:05 GMT -6
Based on Gary's quote presented by Delta, it makes me think that the details of these rules ad presented in the 3 LBB may not have been super thoroughly playtested by Gary's group at the time.
The book recommendation is also interesting, it looks like the first volume is from the 80s. Definitely not contemperenous with the 3 LBB.
|
|
) Does this sound like an opponent you would care to face in a wargame? I would hope not. However, if you treat d&d as a negotiation between the referee and the party with the objective being to just survive and create more story, then the above quotes make perfect sense. The referee is not your opponent EVEN when he's running hundreds of orc's against your characters' party. His objective can't be to kill his own players; they're the drivers of the "story". Rules might only get in the way.