On Alignments Continued

And now the alignment that most matches the modern understanding of doing good.  It certainly would have been popular among the hippies of the 60s and 70s.  That is, the Chaotic Good.  As I mentioned in my last Alignment post, the Neutrals are always difficult, and it's tough to see where one ends and the opposite extreme begins. 

But Chaotic Good is how many today operate by virtue of living today.  Many heroes and defenders of the good operate within this ethos.  It is, in so many ways, consequentialism lived out.  But not entirely.  By virtue of good, it would balk at doing actual evil that good may come of it.  The answer to Caiaphas's famous question would be a resounding 'No!' 

Nonetheless, on the other hand, the idea that those rascally rules and procedures of this button down, conformist society have just got to go plays large.  Rules were made to be broken.  It's not 'if it feels good, it is good.'  Nor is it 'no rules, just right.'  But it lives with an almost ingrained disdain for law and order.  Sure laws must exist.  Rules must happen.  But only up until the common good is in any way infringed upon.  At that point, the rule or law is the first thing to go.

Again, it's not for evil.  Evil will not be done.  That's not to say harsh measures may not happen, and some may argue whether such grave decisions as the one that led to the vaporization of Hiroshima falls here or elsewhere.  Certainly it may ask the question of moral relativity.  In this regard, Chaotic Good is not the easiest alignment.  At what time does one kill the prisoners and still remain good?  Even if it's for the greater good and the prisoners are evil?  In fact, in many ways, hearkening back to those peace loving hippies, many of that ilk would resist such things as the death penalty and even all war, no matter what the cost.

So it's a little tougher than at first glance.  Still, on the whole, and for game purposes, it's the alignment for the free spirit, the person who lives within a rules-set only out of necessity, but will gladly break any law, lie, steal, or do anything short of evil for the greater good, particularly the good of the individual.  And at times, the CG will see the good of the individual as supreme to, if not entirely incompatible with, the good of the common law.

Some examples:

There can be no more famous, or better, example of CG in modern fiction than Harry Potter.  Was there ever a rule that kid didn't break?  He and his compatriots lie, steal, break rules, violate standards.  We won't even get into Dumbledore's turn around from wise sage to Machiavellian plotter.  The whole series is a testament to the modern notion that authority is almost always suspect, and when it comes to being good, there just aren't many rules when you're doing it for the individual good.

Batman of course, especially in the Nolan manifestation, is almost borderline Chaotic Neutral, but that his goals are for the greater good.  He operates outside of the laws he tries to protect.  And that's important.  Robin Hood is mentioned here again because while I speculated he would loyally follow a good leader (and Scott's Robin makes that seem more likely), most portryals show him while he fights the evils of Prince John.  To that end, he rebels against the rules on a daily basis.  But they are evil laws and rules, and there's the trick.  Yes, Robin might well be CG all the way, even when the leader is good and the laws are good.  We only see him when the laws are ministered by forces of darkness. 

Unlike Batman, he seems content to operate within the structure as long as the structure is good.  The structure is good in Gotham.  Murder and stealing and breaking and entering are wrong  And there are good cops enforcing that.  Nonetheless, Batman chooses to operate outside of those laws for the greater good.  Robin?  It's hard to say, and a case could be made either way.  But in any event, none of these folks are lawful in the least, and with the possible exception of Robin, who may simply put the good above all things, they are willing to go against laws, rules and standards as a first resort.  The classic Chaotic Good.

First edition oddities

One of the interesting discoveries I've made is the rather grassroots nature of the early Dungeons and Dragons editions.  I've never had long term access to the original rules.  My experience is in the 1st edition.  And what an experience it is!  I much prefer the style, the production, the overall 'feel' of those rules to the more clean and synthetic 3rd and later editions.  Nonetheless, I admit there are some quirks, some ideas that were never developed, other ideas that come and go.  In some ways, that adds to the whole organic nature of the game.  It was not the product of paid think tanks and bean counters.  It was, in many ways, a labor of love.  And like all things associated with that emotion, it both soars and, at times, crashes.

For instance.  In the DMG, in the magic items catalogue, a Necklace of Prayer Beads makes it 25% more likely that your petition for spells will be successful.  25% more likely than what?  Would someone please tell me where else in the first edition rules that there is a chart or matrix unpacking the percentage chance of higher level Cleric spells being heard?  I'll get to what I've done with that rule somewhere down the road.  But for now, it stands next to such things as Orcus's wand and its impact on Saints, and other such anomalies.  They appear, they're mentioned, and then they fade. 

I'm not counting articles in Dragon or Dungeon by the way.  A rule shouldn't refer to the possibility of a future article in a periodical to which most players will never subscribe.  It ought to be in a rulebook somewhere.  Perhaps I've just not found the references.  But I have a feeling these, like others, were ideas that came out at the moment during which the books were being written, only to be dropped as the game and its players moved into different directions.  Such appears to be the context out of which the original rules were published.

Undead in Dungeons and Dragons

It's not easy to invoke fear among players of a pencil and paper game.  Especially for a generation raised on the time honored 'save/reload' style of video game play.  Death is cheap.  At best, an inconvenience.  How does one make death something you truly fear?  Well, you make it more than just 'roll up a new character'.  You hit them where it hurts.  And it hurts in few other ways more than having to recalculate and reduce all of your abilities, only to start from scratch a level or two lower than you were a moment earlier.

Such is the wonder of the Level Draining abilities of certain undead.  One thing I remind my boys when we play: In the end, it's a game.  In the early days, many rules were implemented for the sake of game play.  Fans and devotees would ascribe meaning and insight to various game mechanics over the decades.  I personally have my own image of what Level Draining is and why it causes one to lose abilities and learned skills.  But in the end, it was there as a game mechanic to give the lords of the netherworld a bit more umph. 

And that it does.  This is keenly felt when setting the early versions in juxtaposition to the later 3 and 3.5 editions of D&D.  Like many things, those editions seemed to strip the game from its historical and literary roots, and replace everything with a +2 bonus to this or that die roll.  Even the much feared Level Drain was given a few safety nets.  One could still experience it, but you had chances.  There were opportunities to go toe to toe with a Wight or a Wraith and still come out more or less unscathed.

But not in 1st Edition.  Back then, one hit, one measly little slap, and you just lost an entire level, perhaps weeks or months of game play.  Against the more terrifying foes like Spectres or Vampires, you lose a whopping 2 Levels!  Ouch.  But that's good.

For the undead should terrify.  With some skill, a game session can be creepy, perhaps even scary.  We ran one a few autumns ago, right around Halloween, and it couldn't have been better suited to give a few chills.  I'll unpack that particular jaunt through haunted manors and graveyard mausoleums someday.  On the whole, however, instilling fear isn't easy.  Some healthy reluctance to send a 1st level party against a colossal Red Dragon may be there, but actual fear of something worse than hit point loss, or even character death, is needed for those special cases.

And undead is a special case. Let's face it, we'd all love to see a ghost.  A real live ghost.  And yet it would terrify us just the same.  Even the thought of it terrifies.  All of materialist atheism hangs on a gossamer thread of one verifiable encounter with a supernatural element.  That is the power of meeting the afterlife, the netherworld.  And so when the PCs meet such creatures of the hereafter, the encounter should come with a greater price than 'lose 5 hit points.'  There should be something more.

Ghosts and mummies have their own special attacks, and ghouls and ghasts as good as always.  But it's those level draining undead.  Two or three game minutes with a Vampire, and your 10th level fighter may be back to square one, or at least level four.  And that hurts.  Sure there are magical ways around this.  But as anyone who follows the unpacking of my blog will realize, magic doesn't fall about in my campaign world like apples from a tree.  To obtain such a prize as 'Restoration' will require an epic quest in its own right.  And therein lies the fun of the old versions. 

3.5 almost discouraged such trauma, and made playing safe. I know why they did it.  I understand the marketing and sales aspects.  Yet it stole from the impact.  It reduced the stark terror that encountering such a creature should invoke.  So here's to the Level Draining undead of the early D&D editions.  They scared the pants off the first party I ever played in all those years ago.  They still do quite a job of instilling fear today, as it should be.

The Best Halloween Adventure for D&D

On this blustery day, as we await Superstorm Samhain, I thought it would be nice to reflect on one of the most inspiring D&D products ever.  1983's Ravenloft.  I know there is much debate about this.  James Maliszewski gave it a hit and a miss review.  In parts, I agree.  The legendary Sutherland maps, while eye popping and evocative to the extreme, were easier to play in the thinking than in the doing.  Still, it was those maps, as well as the Caldwell artwork, that so caught the spirit the module was trying to convey.

I understand that for some, Ravenloft marks a turn toward a different style of play than the early days.  Since I was never into the game beforehand, that fact didn't impact me.  Yes, I know the story is ham-fisted and riddled with cliché.  Most of what they wrote had that tendency.  But there was an atmosphere to the whole package.  It delivered on the presentation.  The cover screamed Gothic Horror.  And in the end, it delivered.

First, the cover.  Not only did you know what the point of the module was going to be, you still had that wonderful ability to invoke a universal image.  It was 1983.  Frank Langella's Dracula had just come out a few years earlier, but even it still played off of the traditional images of the Count.  For most human beings, if you said Dracula, you thought Lugosi.  Perhaps Christopher Lee.  But that was it.  You still had a common canvas upon which to build an image.  Today you would need to ask 'do we me Twilight Vampires, Interview with a Vampire vampires, Underworld vampires, classic (Universal) vampires?'  Back then, there was a shared narrative that most of market could be counted on for knowing.  Caldwell's art took full advantage of that fact.

Second, the inside cover.  Call me crazy, but I loved the surrounding lands map.  The village and the castle.  Because it wasn't just some scattered bunch of dots representing the village, and it wasn't an X or a square representing the castle.  It was a scale representation of both.  When you looked at the tiny black castle, with its fine details, and then looked at the inside maps, you could imagine seeing what the castle stencil only hinted at.  That's important.  The one thing this game always held for me was the excitement of discovery.  You're in a room with two doors, which one do you take?  You see the small outline of a tower or a little battlement, what is really in those that only the maps show?

Third, the artwork.  I've learned that across the OSR blogs, Clyde Caldwell gets about as much praise as Benedict Arnold used to get in American schools.  And there is some truth to that.  Much of that period artwork is technically wonderful, yet in some ways stale.  Antiseptic.  Clean.  I can't explain it, but it often fails to tap into the same feelings that a Trampier or a Sutherland work could manage.  But in this case, it works.  The back page teaser, written in a much tighter prose than some of the interior text, matches perfectly the Gothic spirit that old Strahd captures in his pose upon Castle Ravenloft.  You really want to know where he is in the castle.  Perhaps it's indicative of that period's artwork that there is no place on the maps that matches the cover.  But that's for another post.

Finally, you have the complete package.  It doesn't miss a trope.  From gypsies to waterfalls to beautifully mysterious forests, filled with mists and wolves, it has it all.  The module touches on everything that a consumer in 1983 would associate with the genre.  For my part, I found playing the maps more difficult, as James points out, than it was worth.  And I completely ditched the sappy love story, edited Strahd's tome, and reworked many of the encounters.  But I left much of the framework.  The old church with sinking steeple, the boarded up village, the leaves blowing about the castle courtyard, the abandoned chapel, the simultaneously foggy and rainy night - why the list goes on!  It was a module that delivered what its packaging promised, and that alone makes it great among a list of greats, and a perfect romp for a drizzly All Hallow's Eve. 

Humor in early Dungeons and Dragons

While the early years of D&D had a certain amount of breadth and depth, there was also the light hearted tongue-in-cheek reality of what it really was.  Few things expressed this than some of the whimsical drawings found in those early hardbound rule books.  One of the most famous, and most beloved, was this:

I doubt there's a person who even came close to playing D&D in those days that wouldn't remember the +2 backscratcher.  Note the ability to mix humor with weighty material (those are dead bodies in the background).  In our day and age, nothing big.  In the late 70s, still a source for controversy and debate.  FWIW, my personal favorite was:

There was almost a sense of pride, the feeling that this wasn't just a joke, but a realization that something really new had just been invented in the world of fun and games.  And yet it's done with a wink and a nod.  A sense of respect for the inspirational materials, and yet a willingness to remember it's only a game.  Those are things I remember from my early encounters with this new pastime. 

On alignments continued

I won't do daily posts as a general rule.  I happened to have a little extra time, and there are many things I've been kicking around that will find their way onto the blog in the early days. 

Neutral Good

The Neutral (Good/Evil) are the toughest.  Years ago in graduate school, we had an old news bulletin board.  That was before the Internet took off.  I saw an article in which some obscure group of Scottish Fundamentalist Christians condemned the Reverend Jerry Falwell as a flaming liberal.  I realized then and there that labels are not always accurate, can be mighty subjective, and often tell more about the ones using the labels than the ones the labels are used against.

In the Alignment System, no alignments are more susceptible to this subjectivity than the Two Neutrals.  After all, what might seem 'neutral' good to one might be Chaotic Good or Lawful Good to another.  To some, break one rule, and you're Chaotic all the way.  To a real anti-establishment hippy rebel, on the other hand, having any regard for the law and customs puts you in the fuddy-duddy lawful camp right then and there.  So it's tough.

And realistically, just when does a person willing to put the common good above law and order cease being Neutral and become Chaotic Good?  I'll give you that once you're willing to lie or break a law for the greater good, you're no longer Lawful Good.  But that arbitrary line between Neutral and Chaotic is the mischief.

So here's how I see the Neutral Good person.  This is the person who is good, but realizes that there are times that rules just need to be broken, obviously if the rule is warped and evil, or if the tradition is in the way of good will toward men.  But no less so if the rule or law is good, but might cause bad ends. The Good is always the goal and always the means, but typically law and order are also part of the good.  It simply understands that there are times when the law and order aren't part of the good, and that's when the heart of the law kicks in.  The Neutral Good will break evil laws.  When it comes to good laws, a little creative circumnavigating will be in order, but that's about it.  The main reason, at the end of the day, is for accomplishing the good.  As long as the law and order points to the good, then good it is.  There can be extremes before going into either Lawful/Chaotic camp, but on the whole, there remains a tension in which the person simply puts the good above all things, without falling into complete fealty to the laws or just concluding that authority and custom is always wrong.

Examples (and this is certainly open to some debate);

 

 

Samwise is not so much a philosophical thinker on this, as much as his actions suggests he's willing to do what he needs to do for his master Frodo, as well as for the greater good.  He's no rebel.  He never really has a point in which he says 'screw the law, I'm doing this'.  But you get, just from his overall life portrait, that he recognizes when something is in the way of the good, he wouldn't think twice in defaulting to doing the good, even if it steps on some traditional toes.  And yet, overall, Sam is still a person who puts much stock in those traditional toes, and would never just willy-nilly jettison them, seeing them as an important part of the greater good in most cases.

The other two represent extremes.  Robin Hood (the Errol Flynn version), breaks laws, kills people, lies and doe everything a Chaotic Neutral person would do.  And yet, he also exists within a social framework that he never completely disregards.  He breaks such laws for the greater good and to protect the weak and the helpless, not just because he has an issue with law and order.  Flynn's Robin is one that, when the laws are aligned to the good and are administered by the right people for the best reasons, he will gladly be part of administering the laws and following the leaders.  He doesn't have some beef with authority or laws in general.  He simply does whatever when those laws are wicked, or are used by wicked individuals for wicked ends.

Atticus, on the other extreme, is darn near LG.  He doesn't lie.  He's honest.  He's loyal.  He's brave.  He's willing to do whatever for the right reasons using the right methods.  And yet, at the end of the story, he is willing to lie, or at least support a lie.  He may not come up with the lie that gets Boo Radley off the hook, but he finally realizes it's the lie that must be upheld. 

The last two particularly show the extremes that exist within this category.  The Lawful Good, in the end, won't lie, and won't break rules and laws.  He may oppose evil societies and their evil laws.  But those laws he cherishes won't be broken, because they are part of the common good.  The Chaotic Good individual is almost entirely skeptical of any order or rules.  Laws are made to be broken, because generally they impede the common good, the primacy of the individual circumstance.   But the neutral is in that broad area in between, and may be, for those individuals of good will (and more humble dispositions), the default alignment since most good folks will be somewhere between the Robin Hoods and the Atticus Finches, much less hover in the two extremes of the good.

On Alignments

I know that the alignment system has had its share of critics over the years.  I realize it has its roots in the wargaming pedigree from which the hobby emerged.  I know it seems overly mechanical and forced.  And no, I don't have separate alignment languages for each possible alignment.  With that said, I keep the alignments as a guide for gameplay.  After all, some things just need an alignment - I'm thinking Holy Avengers.  And it helps the players, though they are free to change, or may change and not realize it.  As for figuring out the somewhat abstract, sometimes evolved idea of what these alignments are and what they point to, I give you the illustrations I came up with to help my boys, esp. the younger ones, figure out what it means.  I'll unpack different alignments and the system more down the road.

Lawful Good
It's not shocking that in our post-modern age, many products treat LG as a sort of disease, the uptight religious fanatic, intolerant and judgmental.  Yet in the day, in the world of the 1st Edition, it's pretty clear that LG is the good of good.  The best.  Not one prone to consequentialist reasoning, but the one who doesn't lie or do evil that good may come of it.  The one who will suffer pain and death before breaking a vow, a promise, or an ethic.  This is the person who believes the law is a source of good and should be upheld, but never at the expense of the common good. 

A couple examples:

These guys do the right things for the right reasons using the right means.  True, in Jackon's Lord of the Rings, Aragorn (and many characters) loses that and slips into the modern tendency toward a consequentialist, if not downright Machiavellian, approach to problem solving.  The Director's Cut scene at the Black Gate, in which Aragorn hacks off the head of the Mouth of Sauron, was particularly unfortunate, displaying an 'I'm the good guy, so rules don't apply' attitude that would be foreign to the character as described by Tolkien.  With this, I mean the original Superman and Aragorn in the books. 

For instance, when Aragorn is dispensing justice following Sauron's fall, he is confronted with Beregond, who abandoned his post and even killed in order to save Faramir.  Aragorn must uphold the law, correct?  Well he does.  The punishment is that Beregond be stripped of his position and banished from ever being part of the elite guard.  He is rewarded, however, by being promoted to Faramir's captain of the guard.  Aragorn was Lawful Good.  He upheld the law while making sure that in so doing, the law did not create an evil or a bad result.  That is Lawful Good in a nutshell.  It's Betsie ten Boom refusing to lie, even to the Nazis, while making sure that in telling the truth, she never betrayed the Jewish refugees her family risked (and lost) life and limb to hide.  Hence, especially in the early incarnation of D&D, LG is the ultimate good, the best, described in the Players Hand book as none other than Saintly.

The Monster Manual

It is, IMHO, the greatest RPG book ever published.  I know.  I'm no expert and I don't have a comprehensive knowledge of every RPG book ever published.  But based on those I have seen, and assuming that there aren't others I've missed that would change this boast, I maintain my claim.  Not just because it's the best RPG ever for the sake of RPGs.  But because of the impact it had, and what it brought to the table in the year it was released.

We all know that it was the first hardbound rule book for role playing games.  Not exactly an overwhelming accomplishment  then or now.  Its impact and its quality are beyond just that distinction.  And while I'm sure on a rules level others would argue the point, in terms of overall impact and its contribution to the cultural scenery of the day, I can think of no rival.

To understand what I mean, we must hop in the Wayback Machine and go to 1977, when Lucas had just unleashed Star Wars on the movie going public.  Fantasy/Sci-Fi was about to get a boost the likes of which the genre had never known.  We were heading into the Fantasy Renaissance that would stretch well into the mid 1980s.  And plopped down on bookstore shelves was this little gem. 

Understand, it was the dawning of the national mega-chain.  It was when consumerism was ready to kick into high gear, and our houses, as the late George Carlin stated, were going to become a place for our stuff.  In 1977, believe it or not, most houses I visited were rather sparse.  There wasn't much to own.  A few trinkets here and there. Some decorations.  A record collection.  A few bookshelves.  Tools maybe, and the odd hobby here or there, usually tucked into the basement or garage. That was it.

You just didn't have stacks and stacks and stacks of things.  There were no CD/DVD collections.  Books weren't as plentiful as today.  And there were no chain stores to offer the busy consumer the opportunity to indulge in make believe international art for their homes.  In short, you didn't have as much stuff.  That includes books, magazines and the like.  Kids might.  But you tended to grow out of it.  Unless you were a diehard fan, you certainly didn't have stacks and shelves of fantasy, mythology or other books.  If you were interested in monsters or folklore, a few books here and there.  Some issues of Movie Monsters.  A trip to the library.  That was all.

So when this volume was presented to me Christmas morning, 1982, it was a comprehensive intro to all the monsters and legends I had grown up reading about and watching on the movie shows.  I knew it was a game, since I had seen friends at school playing the game and bringing the book to study hall.  But to have it and peruse the pages was like getting a crash course in tales and stories I'd never heard about.

 

I did not know what an Efreet was.  I had never heard of Dopplegangers.  Even though I loved folklore, in those days you had to be a serious scholar to put forth the effort to find such things.  Werewolves, vampires, dragons sure.  But there were so many more.  The MM became, in some ways, a pamphlet for the Fantasy Renaissance of the age, and was the first thing to pique my curiosity about this game. 

 

The artwork?  In those days it was acceptable.  In these days, I appreciate it even more.  I'll get to that down the road.  But in an age before the Internet, tweeting, mega-stores and Amazon.com, you couldn't do much better for a single book to inspire people.  Oh, it had its detractors then.  Especially by the kids who thought the whole thing of RPGs was banal.  But even friends I had who wouldn't touch a fantasy RPB with a 10 foot polearm would secretly, while visiting my home, grab the book and glance through it.

There are other aesthetic and practical reasons as well.  Some of those reasons hit at the core of just what D&D was then vs. what it is today.  One of the base 'philosophies' I've developed (and I use that word half tongue in cheek), is that the original D&D (including 1st Ed., esp. the first three volumes) was a game based on everything but a game.  Later editions were simply versions based upon the D&D game.  That means something.  It explains a few things.  It also shows how a book that seems so flat and even stale compared to the CGI flash and spectacle today, can nonetheless possess a depth and legacy I doubt few others will ever come close to achieving. 

A few worthy blogs

I've spent the last couple years learning what I can about the hobby of RPG, especially Dungeons and Dragons.  Still, life and all.  I don't pretend to be an expert, a scholar, or a dispenser of sage wisdom.  That's not what this blog is for.  It's just to get my thoughts down, and if others come by with ideas or insights, all the better.

Some blogs have caught my attention, however, and have helped in understanding the hobby, its history, how things fit and what the culture of this hobby looks like from within.  The following is an incomplete list of the main blogs I still look to for ideas and general goody information.

1.  Grognardia.
I know that something happened to James Maliszewski.  No clue what.  I also concede that the quality of the blog's content appeared to diminish in the months leading up to Mr. Maliszewski's departure.  But the first couple years were a gold mine.  It was Grognardia that gave me the idea to ditch D&D 3.5 (and 3 for that matter) and go Old School.  At least go 1st Edition AD&D.  Mr. Maliszewski wrote with an historian's eye.  He was also an excellent writer.  I discovered him when looking for information on J.R.R. Tolkien.  I grew to appreciate his opinions and reflections, especially on the contributions of the early D&D.

2. Greyhawk Grognard
Since my primary campaign world is Greyhawk, it's obvious I would find much wealth on this blog.  Though there is one thing that Mr. Bloch does I don't care for, he still has many resources and ideas I find useful. 

3. Roles, Rules and Rolls
A blog I found interesting early on, recently it's gone different directions, focusing on some homebrew ideas that don't mesh with my home game.  Nonetheless, sometimes there are some tidbits worth kicking around. 

4. Jeff's Gameblog
Another blog that seemed chockablock full of ideas when I first ran into it.  Recently the scarcity of posts have caused it to be less of a frequent stop.  Perhaps there comes a point in this hobby when you've said what you want, and done what you want, and it's time to move on.  It is a hobby, from what I can tell, that does appear to have an end.  More on that down the road.

5. Greyhawkery
Another blog dedicated to Greyhawk, as the name suggests.  This is less informative, and more resources heavy.  It tends to delve into the catalogues of serious fandom, probably more than I'll care to read or glean.  Good resources for the serious player and even for us casual shoppers.

6. Blood of Prokopius
Like James above, Fr. Dave is a practicing Christian, Orthodox style.  Showing that religious faith and RPGs are not incompatible, Fr. Dave was good for learning about the Eastern Orthodox Faith (for those so inclined) and for taking ideas from his faith and incorporating them into his gaming.  An interesting idea.  Like a few others, the number of posts have dwindled in recent months.  I guess when life happens, it happens.  I swing by now and then to catch any little treasures that might pop up.

7.  I See Lead People
If for no other reason than the hilarious name, I swing by occasionally.  Far more into the hobby than I'll ever be.  Also not particularly focused on Dungeons and Dragons.  Still, creativity deserves a visit at least once in a while.  

8. Monsters and Manuals
I stumbled across this a few months ago.  I know, I'm really late to this whole world.  I found a series he did in which he unpacked just how much there is in a 'Hex' in the real world.  That helped me visualize just how much we could do in one 30 Mile Hex in Greyhawk.  He has some other wonderful insights as well.  In terms of reflecting on the hobby from a bird's-eye point of view, you could do worse.

There are others, sometimes I visit once or twice then decide to move on.  Every now and then I'll go back.  But these are the ones I still visit at least on a semi-regular basis.  I've found some pretty interesting ideas in those pages.  I'm sure you will too - if you don't already have them on your favorites. 

Greyhawk as I once saw it

By 1983, I'd seen several fellow kiddoes playing this new thing called Dungeons and Dragons.  By then I had forked out money for my first purchase: the Moldvoy Basic and Expert sets.  I also had a copy of the Monster Manual, a Christmas present from my parents who didn't realize it was a game, but thought I might enjoy it given my interest in mythology and monster movies. 

One day we were shopping at the Northland Mall, a major shopping center in northern Columbus, OH.  It's gone now, but in the day, the police gave warnings to people going there at Christmastime because of the crowds.  In college it was the place to hang out.  Many memories from those old stores.  On the coveted corner on the main intersection by the main entrance was a Waldenbooks.  Its eastern wall contained a display window that opened up on the main aisles going north and south.  That day I looked and saw a large Dungeons and Dragons display with none other than the World of Greyhawk showcased, the two Darlene maps posted prominently behind the various books and accessories. 

In those days, pre-computer/pre-mega-mart, seeing a display like that was breathtaking.  I didn't buy it that day, owing to a lack of funds.  But I did buy the old Dungeon Geomorphs, which lasted me about a month. 

By the end of the year, I lost interest in the game altogether.  Boyhood crushes will do that.  I was entering my junior year, driving, making new friends.  Time moved on.  But I never forgot how stunning that display was, and several years later (when you're young they seem like decades), when I had the money, I saw the Greyhawk Box set in a local gaming store and picked it up.  It's the one I use today.  It's the reason why Greyhawk, and nothing else, is the mainstay of my campaign world.   

Greyhawk as base world

The legendary Darlene maps, unmatched by any other attempts at RPG mapping

As will become clear, the World of Greyhawk is my primary campaign world.  It's the canvas upon which I splatter any modular paints, campaign ideas or inspirations.  There is a fair amount of Forgotten Realms tossed in, and I dissected and repositioned various domains from the Ravenloft boxed set.  I'll frequently unpack the world I've improvised.  It's not canonical, and only has passing similarities to most of what was published about Greyhawk after the 1983 boxed set. But, it's what we have, and it will be one of the ongoing themes of the blog.

Discovering D&D

I never said I didn't play D&D or know anything about it.  I'm just not a major fantasy/sci-fi fan.  With that said, I've read more and studied more in recent years than ever before.  Plus, I always enjoyed mythology and folklore.  Where fantasy and history mixed, I often found myself enjoying the stories or tales.  And of course like any red blooded American boy, I liked monster movies and space movies as a general rule. 

But playing RPGs was just never my thing.  Nevertheless, it wasn't for a lack of trying, and here is a brief list of the times I tried.  Over time I'll unpack them.  But like most of this blog, it's for my own records that I post it.

First, in the early weeks of 1982 school year.  I was a sophomore in high school, and was invited earlier that school year to a gaming group.  My interest was wargaming.  While there, I noticed some kids playing D&D.  I knew of it by then, but had never seen it played.  After a few visits, I actually jumped on board and tried.  I was given a thief.  That lasted for a few months, then I lost interest.

In the Summer of 1987, I was playing cards with a couple friends.  One of their friends invited them to meet with a group that played, among other things, D&D.  They said no thanks, but I raised my hand even if I didn't know the fellow or those he knew at college.  Once there, I stayed with the group until late 1989.  We played other games, but stayed with D&D for the most part.  I actually DMed my first adventure.  But as all things, marriage, graduation and life happened, and we broke apart and that was that.

In 1992, I moved to Florida.  I stumbled into a gaming group at a local hobby store.  They were mostly adults, young adults that is.  All of us had jobs and were just starting out in life.  I only lasted there for a month or so, the tempers and temper tantrums getting the better of me.

In the late 90s I was in graduate school and met a few folks who played RPGs as well as other games.  I suggested D&D, and went so far as buying some more books and materials (including the updated 2nd edition rules).  But we never got around to playing D&D.  At least one had issues with the genre on belief grounds, and time was, again, the culprit.  Still it allowed me a chance to enter the new world of the Internet and find several sites worth of materials to add to the books I owned.

That's it.  The next round was with my sons several years ago, at the height of the Harry Potter/ Lord of the Rings hype.  We've been playing off and on since.  Though my oldest is now 18 and getting ready to move on in life, we still manage time to play this (and other games).

I know, not very poetic or moving, just getting thoughts down.  The first posts will be this.  Eventually when I've put a few basics down, I'll begin moving on toward the meat and potatoes of why I started this in the first place.

A brief explanation of the blog title

Again, I've played D&D only a few times, and began this round a few years ago at the prompting of my sons.  Since they were relatively young, I took on the job of DM.  My wife also jumped on board, though she had far less experience or interest in the field than I ever did.   But there we were.  It was their first adventure, in none other than the old Haunted Keep from the Basic Instructions.  Complete with wererat and everything.

One of my pet philosophies is the idea that the whole world is, essentially, a giant dungeon.  The players can go anywhere they wish.  Likewise, where they go may not be where they should.   Within a dungeon's environment, that is also the case.  The presence of a room or monster or mystery does not always mean they should investigate now.  They can come back later when they are more prepared.

Still, it was early in our gaming days, and we were all learning.  I left hints that there was something really, really and I mean really dangerous for their first level party.  They didn't heed the warnings, and came face to face with a wererat they were neither prepared nor equipped to fight.  Because they had no experience, and didn't know the monsters, barely the rules, or anything, they had no clue what they were up against. 

I had shown them a recently killed goblin (which I generically call 'orcs') as one of several warnings.  As they swung and hit and swung and hit, doing no damage and getting frustrated, they began calling out for ideas or thoughts on what to do.  One suggested fire, another suggested running.  Someone suggested throwing a torch.  Still another suggested hand to hand combat.  Finally, my second oldest son blurted out, in reference to the dead goblin, 'throw the orc!' 

We laughed for so long it's been forever etched in my mind.  I was trying to think of some title for the blog, something catchy, something unique, something original.  Instead, I went with what made the game a keeper for us several years ago when we started playing.  They did survive, with some gracious help on my part.  They vow to return someday.  But for now, that's the origins of the blog's title.  For what it's worth. 

Welcome me!

Yes, it's another RPG blog.  What's so big about this blog?  Well, nothing really.  I'm not a fan of fantasy, role playing games, sci-fi, or most things that go with this genre or hobby.  So why the blog?  Why a play small piccolo in a global orchestra of RPG blogs?  Because I have four sons, and the older three are very interested in such things. 

Laboring under the age old adage that the family that plays together stays together, I've become immersed in the game Dungeons and Dragons.  Now before you scoff, I know the game and actually played it a few times in my younger days.  Likewise, when I say I'm not a fantasy or sci-fi fan, it's not as if I don't enjoy a good romp through Star Wars, or enjoy a relaxing evening in Middle Earth. 

It's just not my main thing.  I'm a historian and history teacher by way of education and training, with undergrad and graduate degrees in history, Medieval studies, theology and political science.  Currently, times being what they are, I work in the financial world in a Fortune 15 mega-corporation.  If I have a hobby at all, it's war gaming, though family and current events haven't allowed as much time devoted to that as I once had.

Despite it all, I must admit, I've come to enjoy this hobby, the genre, and the memories it brings.  I'm not an RPG scholar.  I own little, and know less.  My purpose is to work things out, toss out ideas, and if someone wants to give me input, or just wants to see what this all looks like to an outsider, all the better.  I'm hitting the ground running.  I'll work on the blog design and unpack things in the days and weeks to come.  Owing to my schedule, I'll shoot for a post or two a week.  We'll see. Until then, welcome aboard.  And thanks for the future memories that we'll be sharing.