Erik Mona's Pictures

Posting will be light for me over the next week so I encourage other contributors here to keep articles flowing. And as there has been much discussion of late, and many words flying here or there, I am distributing some popcorn and invite folks to relax and enjoy a picture show, courtesy of Erik Mona. It's really neat what you find while perusing various subjects on the net.

Old School vs. New School

I find revitalizing movements exciting until they degrade into fundamentalism. The initial excitement revs everyone's engine like a Spring cleaning spree! This opens up space and makes it more useful, but quickly devolves into a set of repetitive instructions that eliminate making messes in the first place. These repeatable instructions, these rules, seek to preserve the openness, but make the openness that of a museum: "Don't touch!"

One can honestly read about "old school" and predict only one outcome: fundamentalism. The reason why is rather simple. Rules are more tangible than the fantasy adventure, so the rules lawyers have something they can easily discuss as if it were representative of the actual game. The rules are, after all, titled Dungeons and Dragons. Whereas, what actually happens in them, fantasy, is not so easily measured.

In all honesty, I can, and have, used any rules to produce the magic of my campaigns, and in a certain sense, I have never played Dungeons and Dragons in my entire life span. When I was introduced to the game the rules were up in the air. The rules books gave the initiate a sense of the mechanics, like a script outlines a movie, yet can say nothing about the effect of the final performance or directing. Back in the day, the script/rules were under constant change in order to better accommodate the actors and directors. The rules were a tool that could be rearranged rapidly and easily, to greater dramatic effect. Thus, everyone in Lake Geneva had a different version of Dungeons and Dragons. In fact, when someone else put out a new rules set, we were often quite eager to borrow whole cloth to see how it wears. At one point I was probably judging Rob using half D&D, 1/4 Chivalry & Sorcery, and 1/4 rules I'd made up or borrowed from the dozens of games in which I was participating.

Tell me if it isn't true that this exact same openness to rules isn't still taking place right now, throughout the role playing community? One can only imagine the answer is “more so!” I can hear you all shaking your heads in agreement here.

We are a community of strong minded individuals that pleases in a shared experience, which we might not otherwise have if it were not glued together by our amazement! It is the power of fantasy that permits us to open each other’s minds and dance inside of them, not the rules. The idea of our revival is to win over more members to the movement in order to extend and gain its greatest wealth. We need to generate a broad appeal. This is not accomplished by walking away from the future and only investing in the past.

Calling it old school is immediately limiting. At best, what we share is a certain sense and feeling of the game that we wish to return to, but that's not possibly achievable by settling upon a set of rules that wasn't even used for longer than a snapshot in time by its creators.

The successful and enduring mechanic of D&D can be found in almost all of the other games descending from it. Frankly put, once you've played one role playing game, you're far past the conceptual learning curve of any other. This is not true in the realm of board games, where one must compare Stratego to Candy Land to Monopoly to the thousands of counters and 32 square feet of map for Drang Nach Osten. The core goodness is much smaller than OD&D. It’s a more basic pattern.

The coin of the role playing realm should be the world. When comparing rules sets, we’ve not yet realized that what makes one rules set better over another are its organic elements. Do the rules abstract excessively, or are the mechanics closer to how things would really work? In other words, if I can cast a spell called magic missile without learning neurology, I'm better off. This means that the mechanics in a role playing game should correspond to what's found in the world. For example, there should be rules for pounding spikes, not rules for abstract success given the ratio of strength to skill additionally rated by experiences with hand held tools. We want to pound this flocking spike now, for heaven’s sake. We do so within the game world, not within the rules set. We must then ask, do the rules take us too far out of the world in which we are acting?

Of course, the more basic the rules set, the more likely we are in the world. But the truth is, the more organic the rules set is to the world, the more we are in the world and not the rules books. It is only happenstance that we find ourselves more attracted to OD&D, simply because we can see the more simple kernel of its truth. We certainly cannot be attracted to it because it makes the play any easier! It was terribly incomplete.

The idea of old school sounds to me like a well intended invitation to a retro dance, which seeks to honor the past. Right now I like the energy, the spirit, the intellectual endeavor, and the honest search for enjoyment that the movement seems to entail. However, I don't see anything new to adopt. I've been there. I'm hardly returning to it. I see no new ideas that would change my game. I have no reason to buy the rules. I knew them by heart in my childhood, but I’ve forgotten them on purpose, much preferring a D10 for fighter hit points over a D8. In fact, when I first encountered the phrase, “First Edition without its excesses,” I immediately thought, how about “OD&D without its excesses?”

If you want to go really old school, who's to say you shouldn't roll your character's hit points every morning when they wake up. So a fighter that rolled an 8 on that D8 yesterday may only start with a 1 today. Thus, the adventurers would need to consult with each other about how they're feeling before deciding to sally forth, or else wait until tomorrow. Does anyone really want to go back to that excess? It's how it was done for a period, and straight out of OD&D.

Frankly, OD&D introduces more uncertainties than most will realize. But folks don’t notice these differences because they apply what they already assume about the game to the rules set. OD&D isn't "D&D" anymore than 1st edition or 3rd edition.

And let’s admit it. Whenever we’ve been to someone’s game that intends to play exactly by the rules, we’ve quickly lost the enchantment of the evening, instead realizing we’re playing with someone that has very little understanding of what fantasy entails. The dim fact in these cases remains true: the DM can’t maintain consistency without recourse to the rules, therefore they also can’t adequately present the risk of chaos inherent in any conflict that fuels fantasy. Fantasy demands an imbalance if there is to be anything worthy of our rapt attention.

The game's essence is captured in the play. The proof for this is quite simple. We instantly recognize a suck-ass game when we're sitting there waiting to see who acts the fastest because we have to slowly figure out the dozen or so modifiers involved in the initiative system. Can anything be more ironic, waiting to see who’s not waiting?

It doesn't really matter what the rules say, too many rules and it's stupefying, not enough and you're assuming things. And what’s more, I haven't seen a single copy of D&D that fits my needs, because they are ALL merely guidelines. One could almost go as far as to say that a real and true fantasy campaign doesn’t have rules. It has only guidelines.

The chunkiest part of these guidelines would be the Action Resolution System (ARS), which would tend to seem mechanical, but which can be hidden using certain ideas as guides, such as class, rather than detailing out every single skill a character might have. Class is fairly organic, and while the idea of skill is also organic, a vast skill system such as one finds in roll faster (Role Master) is certainly not.

But even a most basic ARS is a guideline, since it can quickly be turned upside down on its head in a fantasy world. For example, a planar gate can transform strength into the force of one’s thoughts and intellect into the raw ability to hover in an amorphous, non-physical reality. How solid can any system be in such a place as magic rules? I’m more concerned with a DM’s consistency and ability to seamlessly lie than I am with rules in a fantasy setting. The lies of fantasy require convincing stories to hold them together, not a single, reliable mechanic. The idea of fantasy makes such a thing patently IMPOSSIBLE.

But what if a movement seeks to coalesce around guidelines? I can't imagine how that works. Where's the soul in that? Thus, there is an insecurity inherent in the idea of an old school movement. The strongest voices will tend to be the rules lawyers, those whose lack of imagination will succumb to fundamentalism.

Thus, while I am enjoying the feeling of the movement’s heart, I prefer to identify with the concept of the Old Guard, which implies honor, virtue, foundation, and generational preservation. I must refuse the term 'old school,' since I'm not part of a series of fads, not even if the succession of editions causes one to think in such terms.

Old school implies done and used, and anyone participating in fantasy is hardly that unless they embrace the limitations of the past, in which case they are defying the natural magic of the game's profusion and unpreventable advancement. And, magic is the one thing you cannot defy in fantasy without resulting in something boring and altogether unfantastic.

But are YOU really old school? Do you embrace the excessive limitations of OD&D? It doesn't even say how often you roll your hit points. Were you aware of that? Or, more likely, did you bring a core set of assumptions from your experiences with other gamers and editions to the table and simply didn’t notice how rudimentary and poor OD&D was due to these cultural aspects of the game that carry forward? A rules system is not a grail. It's a system that should be subsumed by the play of the game, not something we pride ourselves in using or are aware of on any level while immersed in a fantasy realm. I pride myself as a fantasist. How about you?

In all truth, I've noticed that much of the conversation about the old school is inaccurate. Folks are digging up the original game and making assumptions about it that were not present in that time, and therefore they are working a subtle revisionism. A canon is being created, not found. The story is identical to fundamentalism, where you return to an alternate past composed only of those parts of the past that conveniently fit the desired interpretation of the past. You end up interpreting reality to fit with a literal interpretation. You end up with unreal limitations that had no place in the movement’s heart at the outset, but which take it over due to the nature of talking versus doing.

If we all adventured together, the rules lawyers would have less weight. They tend to be less likely to come up with innovative ways to play. They tend to focus on the rules. They become the priests of any movement depending upon mechanics. But that’s not a revitalization, since the life of the game is in the play. How does it play? Not, what are the rules.

What do you do to make fantasy happen and how do you preserve it and propagate it? Are those specifically rules questions? No.

What will truly preserve the game would be the embrace of a “new school” that finds what is best and propagates play the easiest. But this isn't possible if you term the movement old school and tend toward fundamentalist rationalizing.

Any successful movement needs robin hoods more than altars. We need to steal back what is good without worshipping its wealth as if it were the end all.

High Adventure and Low Humor

But if serious purpose is integral to a successfully ongoing campaign, there must be moments of relief as well. Such counterplots can be lesser and different themes within the whole whether some side dungeon or quest, a minor altercation between petty nobles, or whatever. Occasional "pure fun: scenarios can be conducted also. That is, moments of silliness and humor help to contrast with the grinding seriousness of a titanic struggle and relieve participants at the same time. After all, ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game, a pastime for fun and enjoyment. At times the fun aspect must be stressed.

The above quote appears in Gary Gygax's magnum opus, the Dungeon Masters Guide, immediately before sections in which are offered rules conversions between AD&D, Boot Hill, and Gamma World. As a younger person, this section was one of my favorites, precisely because I could still find enjoyment in flinging the PCs, via a cursed scroll, to Tombstone, Arizona on October 26, 1881 or having them face off against a band of Knights of Genetic Purity, armed to the teeth with blasters and photon grenades. I'd not yet taken the game too seriously, which was a common malady afflicting some of my older contemporaries in the hobby and one to which I eventually succumbed in turn.

It's a very common story in my experience. Nearly everyone I've ever met in this hobby started off with an expansive understanding of "fantasy," one that could accommodate literally anything their mind could conceive, no matter how outlandish or "silly" it might seem. Then, bit by bit, that understanding contracts, becoming more rigid and codified, with clear boundaries distinguishing what is acceptable and what is not. Gone is the genuine open-mindedness of childhood, replaced by the feigned seriousness of adolescence. Banished along with that open-mindedness are the infinite possibilities that first drew us into the hobby in the first place.

If we're lucky, we eventually grow out of this serious phase and recognize the wisdom in the paragraph quoted above. No, not everything in one's play must be silly or nonsenical, but then neither must everything be deadly serious. As with so many things in life, balance is key. Knowing when to introduce a little levity is one of those skills all good referees acquire, just as all good players learn to enjoy it and introduce some of their own.

My friends and I long ago realized that the most satisfying fantasy campaigns were those that freely mixed high adventure with low humor. Many of the situations that arise in a long-standing fantasy campaign are genuinely absurd, if looked at with a dispassionate eye, and there's absolutely nothing wrong in occasionally allowing that absurdity to step into the foreground. Indeed, we would argue that it's essential that this happen every now and again, to ensure both the freshness of the campaign and to maintain interest in it. Nothing is surer to kill an ongoing campaign than unrelenting seriousness, which is why, even now, I try very hard to remember how I originally approached the game and to use that knowledge to keep the game fun for everyone, most especially myself.

E.G. Palmer's Crocaparrot

Just in case you don't read Old Guard Gaming Accoutrements, E.G. Palmer's recent creation, the crocaparrot, deserves your attention. Not only does he get points for creativity, but each time he uses humor he pairs it to a perfectly delightful rationale. Add to this the crocaparrot's characteristic attack and method of feeding, which are sure to produce post encounter horror and fun, and the piece simply lights up the imagination.

Grok the crocaparrot!

EGG's Love Affair With Fairy

If it wasn't evident enough in all of his works, here's some more "origin" stories about 4 magic items that appear in D&D, all from the tale, Jack the Giant Killer.

I had read this as a child, of course, but EGG was always fond of retelling it, and did love to repeat the "Fee, Fie, Fo, Fum" on occasion and when you were suitably trapped in the game by a giant. He loved giants. He totally befuddled his son with a giant encounter wherein Tenser bargained for what was in the giant's bag (nothing but old clothes and such); and he certainly did them justice with the G-Series of modules, some of his best adventure crafting, in fact.

Note the extract from the downloadable PDF file, below, for the magic, of which I am sure EGG has commented upon in part or whole, elsewhere; but it is here presented in full. Note that I include the "cap" under what was to become the Helm of Understanding Magic and Languages (i.e., knowledge).

And do note that my humble creation, the Bean Bag (as included in Greyhawk: Supplement #1 to D&D, and then in later editions), was inspired by a related tale, Jack in the Beanstalk. You might say EGG and I "sprouted" from the same garden...

The Uncanny

A friend working in animation recently steered me to the concept of the uncanny valley, where humans revulse upon encountering nearly successful robotic humanoids, but receive them more kindly when they appear more crudely human. Some find the theory rubbish, but regardless of its truth, it's certainly an interesting descriptive tool for thinking across and delving into a wide variety of issues directly related to fantasy, such as xenophobia and transhumanity. I suggest taking a look at the Wikipedia article linked above.

But more interestingly, my friend's reference surprised me because I had just read Sigmund Freud's essay on The Uncanny a few days earlier - one of those uncanny coincidences Rob delights in... But enough about serendipity-doo, I highly recommend reading Freud's essay treating with the aesthetic of the familiar and unfamiliar, heimlich und unheimlich. It's an interesting read for any studious fantasy DM, or their double....

Movie Time at Gary's House

As a young chap I was part of the Gygax family, virtually adopted at one point, and always in attendance at their house on a daily basis. I ate, drank. and sometimes slept there, gamed (of course) helped with the garden, adopted their religion, and most definitely watched movies there!

That I was influenced by EGG's tastes is to say the least. He would later comment upon several that held deep fascination for him and inspired him in writing many of D&D's spells, particularly, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao; and of course, The Raven, a Roger Corman film.

What we have derived from these films are:

7 Faces of Dr. Lao: Stone to flesh spell (cast by Merlin): "After Medusa turns the disbelieving shrew to stone, Lao calls an end to the proceedings and Merlin restores the now-reformed woman."

The Raven: "Craven and Scarabus then seat facing each other and engage in a magic duel. After a lengthy performance of narrow escapes..."

These scenes are of particular importance, for therein are revealed many future spells, such as shield, magic missile, fireball, meteor swarm and several others, like levitate, polymorph any object and perhaps even animate object which could have had ties to Disney's The Sorcerer's Apprentice from Fantasia, as well. I do not include polymorph (of Lorrie's character into the raven), as that proceeds the matter in many myths, particularly as noted in the Grecian myths that EGG was of course familiar with. One can stretch here or there, of course, but when Vincent Price's character, Dr. Craven, does a quick hand movement and creates a transparent, circular shield that stops Dr. Scarabus' (Karloff's) missiles, well, you just have to appreciate it all in afterthought.

I highly recommend both of these movies, the latter which features a very young Jack Nicholson to boot.

UP ON A TREE STUMP #2: Humor in the Original Campaign

Up on a Tree Stump™
(or) All I Know about D&D™ I Learned From Life

©2009 Robert J. Kuntz

#2: Humor in the Original Campaign

Alastair Clarke explains: "The theory is an evolutionary and cognitive explanation of how and why any individual finds anything funny. Effectively, it explains that humour occurs when the brain recognizes a pattern that surprises it, and that recognition of this sort is rewarded with the experience of the humorous response, an element of which is broadcast as laughter." The theory further identifies the importance of pattern recognition in human evolution: "An ability to recognize patterns instantly and unconsciously has proved a fundamental weapon in the cognitive arsenal of human beings. The humorous reward has encouraged the development of such faculties, leading to the unique perceptual and intellectual abilities of our species."

Humor in the Original Campaign was rife; and quite honestly if it hadn't been, the experiences would not have been as rich as they were, and thus not as memorable as they now truly are. Gary did not pretend that he was not humorous, quite the contrary. Very early on in our friendship he pushed book after book into my hands, urging me to "read them." One such gem was Jack Vance's The Eyes of the Overworld. I will forgo describing it and let those who have not graced themselves with Vance's penetrating wit, and indeed, biting sense of irony and drama that interweaves throughout it all, partake of it, and I do highly recommend doing so.

What is revealed here might seem a dichotomy. Humor, however, never equated as some may assume, to actual ridiculousness. Gary's approach was simply wherever he found humor, he expressed it. This is only indicative of his quick mind, as a quick wit does not otherwise rise above that potential but only equals it. There were too many instances of humor in the Original Campaign to really conclude that all was non-serious, for the stories and other data available point to the contrary even if we side with a "fun and games" view as EGG might have himself expressed. He has been quoted many times as expressing such an ideal, but ultimately this becomes his distilled afterthought and his poignant sense of it all, for the adventuring milieu he spawned so early on was a mix of terror, high adventure, horror; and within that he sprinkled, just as the very best dramas have done, slices of humor.

But, one may then ask, what was the purpose of all this humor? We can go many directions with this and even adopt the point that Mr. Clarke exposes above, that "An ability to recognize patterns instantly and unconsciously has proved a fundamental weapon in the cognitive arsenal of human beings."

Facet One, Disarming the Opponent: One must remember that EGG's grounding was in table-top and miniature wargames. Imagine a gathering of us nere-do-wells in his basement, squared off against each other on separate sides of a 6 x 10 sand table. Now imagine the interchanges as we, the generals of one side of the table, quipped with the other side's commanders. Provocation? Most definitely! It may well have been the same thing that the Scots and Edwardian Englishmen could have traded squared off as they were, awaiting the outcome of an upcoming battle. A summoning of courage? Most certainly! The superior force responds on all levels of emotional output, and this was no different in our games, whether staged or instinctual, or where-ever such "harmless" chiding bore from. As the battle wore on, as the field changed hands, and as the final victory was in view, the other side crushed and in rout, well, you can imagine that we didn't just sit there wringing our hands and noting it in a perfunctory manner. And although some were calmer in their expressions, EGG was most expressive in victory (especially if it had been a very hard-fought battle hinging on last minute shifts and on the fly changes), so it is not to say that he didn't sound like a Confederate soldier on occasion, perhaps imagining himself pursuing the blue-bellies amidst howls and hoots after the Union's rout at the First Battle of Bull Run!

Now transfer this particular part of his mindset into the D&D game with him as DM. His opponents were the players, we all knew that, and he did too. There wasn't an ordering of political correctness and a false cloud of pretentiousness which I've seen portrayed in modern RPGs. This was a game of strategy and tactics, and that meant, on both sides, that outwitting the opponents involved was now at hand...

Facet Two, Never Reveal Your Hand: EGG was constantly bluffing and had a poker face. I reminded Eric Shook the other day of a tactic EGG and I both used when DMing, in this instance when parties hit a down slant, elevator room or transporter, which secretly moved their PCs (without their in/out-of-game knowledge) to another dungeon level. Well, inevitably at those times EGG and I would create an out-of-game distraction, and I indeed learned this from him while Co-DMing with him on so many occasions, such as: getting up to go to the restroom. Well, this took the focus off of us as DMs, and the party usually took this opportunity to discuss matters of planning and approach and other details in game context. I'd return to such a scene and they'd still be at it, so as I sat down, that is when I'd turn the page to the level they'd been recently transported to, and without them noticing. This tactic merges with DM-craftiness and keeps the upper hand of information in proper control of course; and this was also accomplished through us telling a humorous aside (a joke)--to which the players responded by laughing--and during the uproarious interlude is when we effected our "changes", the level-shifts, etc. DMs have to be magicians, you know.

The poker face comes in handy especially when applying these types of nuanced forms, and certainly helps retain a balanced (neutral) side to the affair, which is indeed the DM's goal to begin with and thus, in our cases, were just part and parcel of the suggested outcome. Styles may differ in attaining these most singular points, of course.

Facet Three, Dispelling Tension: Humor was also used in dispelling tension and thus in informing players in a round-about manner, and thus intuitively, that we may have been in a good mood that day as the DMs. More often this tactic was used with newcomers who we were not going to handle too roughly... at first. This tactic merged with "Disarming the Opponent." When used up front on veteran players they often, if not always, took it as a warning sign instead, and with good reason, as it more often meant to them that we were about to test a new situation or thing upon them, the guinea pigs; and so the more intuitive of the bunch would react with a more guided approach and careful manner, especially if there were veterans mixed with newcomers, the latter having no idea of the "fun and games" ahead. The best players in this regard were Ernie Gygax and my brother, Terry. Ernie especially would pick up on this charade of ours, having for many years understood his father's humor and mind and thus, by transference, my own. Keenly perceptive and eyes rooted to ours, he was always searching for clues in our manner, but more often than not only got in return shrugs and a poker face, accentuated at times by wry smiles...

So, when you hear that humor has no place in a "serious" game, think back. Are the tales of Nehwon at a loss for it? Do L. Sprague DeCamp's or Fletcher Pratt's stories fall to the side and not embrace such? Does Jack Vance not include it in many of his tales? Then too, does the dark side of this in C. A. Smith's tales not rise time and time again to relish it? Where else can we find this form, this dramatic mixing which works so well in a game merged with the fantastic? If certainly within some tale as recounted by Shakespeare, then I have no qualms at all for being included in such company! Humor can thus be offset, and rightly so, from joking around. This is a serious business outwitting an opponent in a game; and this is made even more notable if you can do it with a smile...

Hardcover Theater: A Princess of Mars and Grimm's Tales adapted for the Stage

Boy we certainly know that pulp fiction is making a resurgence when I note that since 2002 it has been going on behind our backs and on stage. Where have I been?

This morning, stirred by Jame's fine post on Mr. Saunder's Imaro character, who I've seen mentioned elsewhere, I sat back and thought about the pulps. I've also been spending some down time with a cold, so I did that in and out of writing the blog article by watching some old Flash Gordon reels at You-Tube, which of course made me order the DVD, love that stuff, especially the Clay People of Mars in all those nifty sets that gave another tunnel-like feel to me as a kid watching these. But I digress.

I thought of those Flash Gordon scene-cuts where the actors just enter from off-set, having been staged there, and that it was so reminiscent of the theater (I am sure this is no revelation, just that I don't follow theater nor it's history or comparative studies that much). Well, the similarity struck me as comparable so I immediately did a search on 'pulp fiction and theater'... and so we have today's topic.

It's really beautiful how correspondences work throughout our life and between similar mindsets and what comes of it, thus, by growth!

There's more pictures on their site. Gotta love the role-playing going on here with the symbolic heads and all. And look at those costumes! They also have a movie clip there of their performance of Princess of Mars. What's next? Hey, if you're in the Twin Cities, go support this troupe, I know I will.

Fragments from the Beauty of Imagination vs. the "Lawyers" of Fantasy: Rematch Round #1

An oft-told joke: A millionaire called into his drawing room three of his employees--a maid, an accountant and a lawyer.

He asked of the maid: "What's 2+2?"
She responded promptly: "Four, sir."
Turning to the accountant he asked the same question.
The accountant took out his adding machine and after some diligent pressing of keys looked up and responded in turn: "Three, sir."
Turning to the lawyer he posed the same question.

The lawyer instantly moved to the window and drew the curtains shut, casting the room into a faint darkness. Turning to his employer he smiled and said: "What do you want it to be?"

If anyone has any question what I am here referring to, please read on.

"Like calls like. At best scholarship, by placing in our hands knowledge which we should otherwise not possess, can fit us to read the works of the poets, to decipher what they have written. Yeats, a poet of this century, can no more be understood by those who do not possess the knowledge of the 'learned school' in which he himself studied, than can poets of other periods; and to such knowledge _there is no critical short-cut_ [emphasis mine]; we have to acquire it or remain in ignorance"--Kathleen Raine. "Defending Ancient Springs."

And so on to a dichotomy in our time... "Everybody's talking into their pockets; everybody wants a box of chocolates and a long-stem rose ..." ..."Everybody knows it's coming apart, take one last look at this Sacred Heart, before it blows."--Don Henley, "Everybody Knows".

But I leave you not with an uppercut to the mind, but with several exhortations for the soul...

"Indeed, you might think of genre boundaries not as obstacles, but rather as dikes and levees that hold out the river or the sea. Where-ever they are raised up, they allow you to cultivate new land... If enough of us like your story we'll accept your new boundary as the true one, and plant a few stories in your newfound land... We're all harvesting crops in lands opened up by the pioneers in our field-- Wells,Verne, Merritt, Haggard, Lovecraft, Shelley, Tolkien, and many others. But we're none of us confined to the territory they discovered. It's just a starting point. ...How can we create the literature of the strange if we stay in well-mapped lands?"--Orson Scott Card, "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy."

And an insight about Algernon Blackwood, who H. P. Lovecraft regarded as one of the best contemporary horror/supernatural writers of his time: "My fundamental interest, I suppose, is signs and proofs of other powers that lie hidden in us all; the extension, in other words, of human faculty. So many of my stories, therefore, deal with extension of consciousness; speculative and imaginative treatment of possibilities outside our normal range of consciousness." ...--From correspondence with Peter Penzoldt.

It is well known that Blackwood also loved children: "Blackwood was of the opinion that children, like animals, had not lost their instinctive closeness to Nature or their innocence, both of which became dulled by civilization and overbearing adults. Children adored Blackwood because he behaved and saw the world like them -- the world of wonder in a daisy, a cloud or a butterfly."--extracted from a summary of his book, "A Prisoner in Fairyland."

And in closing, a lesson from one of the masters: " To recapitulate then: — I would define, in brief, the Poetry of words as The Rhythmical Creation of Beauty. Its sole arbiter is Taste. With the Intellect or with the Conscience it has only collateral relations. Unless incidentally, it has no concern whatever either with Duty or with Truth.

A few words, however, in explanation. That pleasure which is at once the most pure, the most elevating, and the most intense, is derived, I maintain, from the contemplation of the Beautiful. In the contemplation of Beauty we alone find it possible to attain that pleasurable elevation, or excitement of the soul, which we recognise as the Poetic Sentiment, and which is so easily distinguished from Truth, which is the satisfaction of the Reason, or from Passion, which is the excitement of the heart. I make Beauty, therefore — using the word as inclusive of the sublime — I make Beauty the province of the poem, simply because it is an obvious rule of Art that effects should be made to spring as directly as possible from their causes: — no one as yet having been weak enough to deny that the peculiar elevation in question is at least most readily attainable in the poem. It by no means follows, however, that the incitements of Passion' or the precepts of Duty, or even the lessons of Truth, may not be introduced into a poem, and with advantage; for they may subserve incidentally, in various ways, the general purposes of the work: but the true artist will always contrive to tone them down in proper subjection to that Beauty which is the atmosphere and the real essence of the poem.--Extracted from Poe's essay and lecture on "The Poetic Principle."

Inside the Box or Outside??--EDITORIAL

While perusing the internet for D&D gaming experiences I came upon several "interesting" angles on spells in play. Actually they were more perceptions grounded in assumptions. Assumptions about how certain spells, or even whole swaths of spells, are useless or minimize the game experience. Such as...

"It's a very situational spell."

Hmm. Aren't ALL spells situational? Why yes they are! This was somebody's answer to someone else not seeing the use for a certain spell. This line of thought reveals a disturbing aspect of the D&D game today: set in stone, non-mutable, ever understandable and thus no-where creative or fluid in campaign terms, only in perceptions of what is useful NOW and under "understood circumstances" in a game atmosphere I presume to be riddled with combat challenges. Then again, players rise or fall with their DM, so this is not as concrete an example as the next...

Another post... "101 Spells not to Memorize..."

Huh? Now what line of thought could possibly group 101 spells into the not worth memorizing category? Hmm. One beset with no possibilities of change within a campaign structure or gaming environment, perhaps?

I know that Hackn'Slash is here to stay, especially with computerized FRP games which are at best flashy examples of same, but really, where has the imagination fled to?

In the Original Campaign, we treasured every spell for its possible worth in any given situation that could arise; we even implemented these in ways that were considered non-standard or had not been thought about along those lines by EGG and others who created these. We weighed heavily on combat and escape and detect spells, but so too, if we thought that a certain scenario might present itself otherwise and that we might have to pick from spells already known to excel in the challenge ahead as we perceived it, then these were gold. In other words, no spell could be defined as useless, as gaming situations and dimensions were highly mutable.

Smart DMs will use all manner of dungeon crafting in their scenarios and encounters to force the players out of standard situational responses. This design points to the holistic possibilities of adventuring and indeed attaches to how a dungeon, by example, is designed with these all-round play components in mind. This was done in Greyhawk, as most of the spells EGG perceived as being useful in one context or another had actually been formed around the idea of how these could or would be creatively used in his dungeon encounters. This meant to seasoned players that a lot of what could be achieved once the understanding of what "that" was presented itself was an option always preparing itself through the exercise of a player's imagination (i.e., they had not brought the necessary component to succeed with the perceived objective before them, such as a needed spell or magic item, etc. and now were faced with the expanding circumstances). That lead to their minds exploring the possibilities and took them outside of the box. The Original Campaign as DMed by myself and my counterpart promoted the mutable and expansive notes whenever possible rather than the refrain of sameness. I would put the players from that time and place up against anyone today.

In summary, possibilities are only as limited as the DM's mindset, and clever players will pick up on this after time goes by. Some of the coolest adventures can be generated through the use of non-standard spells as opposed to those emphasizing "beat-um-up-and-get-the-goodies." So too for magic items.

Unfortunate as it may seem, it's increasingly apparent to me that those who sit in a box and make suggestions as to the usefulness of said confines should only receive their echoes back from its four sides. Now if someone would only close the lid...

RJK

Tidbits: "Little Roots" in the First Fantasy RPG

"Consequently, Little Wars influenced my development of the Chainmail miniature rules and the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy roleplaying game. For example, it established the concept of a burst radius for cannon rounds, an idea that was translated both into the Chainmail catapult missile diameters and the areas of effect for Fireballs in D&D. ..."

"...Well's treatment of subterranean humans in the Time Machine certainly reinforced my concepts of underground adventure areas other than dungeons (as did Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth...)"

--Excerpted from E. Gary Gygax's foreword to H. G. Well's "Little Wars," 2004, Skirmisher Publishing.

Wells also influenced David L. Arneson with his City of the Gods and without a doubt myself and Gary on yet another level with Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.

Verne was a favorite of mine, and I was always enthralled by the movie adaptation of Journey to the Center of the Earth starring James Mason and Pat Boone. One can almost feel being underground and project themself into those twisting caves and passages. The favorite maps that I've drawn over the years involve large, complex cavernous areas, and I am sure I was influenced by that movie to a great degree.

The D-series by EGG: This has roots in Burrough's (and later Holme's treatments) of Pellucidar (and Mars), and certainly we can draw parallels to pieces written by HPL (At the Mountains of Madness, et al) and of course A. Merritt (Face in the Abyss, et al), and most certainly more of Verne's "A Journey..."

I have admitted to REH's influence upon my creating the terrible iron golem and more recently to Poes's influence from Fall of the House of Usher and the movie Forbidden Planet, both of which contributed different aspects to the Maure Castle family and adventure information as conceptualized for Dunegon Magazine (#112, #124 and #139), such as the ID Core.

My upcoming project, Dream Land is part OZ, part Matrix, part Alice in Wonderland, with a sprinkling of Lovecraft's The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath.

I have admitted elsewhere over the years that Tharizdun (EGG's take on the 1 1/2 pages I wrote for the dark god Tharzduun©) was influenced by C. A. Smith's Lord of the Seven Hells, Thasaidon.

"Lord of the sultry, red parterres
And orchards sunned by hell's unsetting flame!
Amid thy garden blooms the Tree which bears
Unnumbered heads of demons for its fruit;
And, like a slithering serpeat, runs the root
That is called Baaras;
And there the forky, pale mandragoras,
Self-torn from out the soil, go to and fro,
Calling upon thy name:
Till man new-damned will deem that devils pass,
Crying in wrathful frenzy and strange woe."
-Ludar's Litany to Thasaidon

My work Dark Chateau has some solid and related roots pointing back to one or more of the authors as noted above, and if anyone here can correctly guess these, I will send them a special certificate of "Roots Detectivity," signed by C. Auguste Dupin himself! E-mail me at rjk@pied-piper-publishing.com with your deductions.

There are certainly more roots that others have "unearthed" in their quest to discover these, and I will add this encouragement to those quests, as I love a mystery myself: Be looking for more to come from this author's pen!

Possibilities Marching On

I learned quite a lot in a very short time period as a young lad of 13 years and while associating with the adult males of the LGTSA (Lake Geneva Tactical Studies Association) and IFW (International Federation of Wargamers); then too the Midwest Military Simulation Association members whom I grew to know as they associated with the LGTSA, and by helping maintain the Castle & Crusade Society, where more friendships made only expanded my travels upon the roads of comradeship and perception.

New vistas were opened for me by association and friendship shared with intellects whose wide-ranging imaginative stance on life were impressed upon my own; and this exposed to me its many possibilities, not only in the games we played and designed, but thus in thought in general. I had become a student of life in "high gear" and I soaked up things, as Jeff Perren once said of me, "as a sponge does water." Tactical Studies Rules (TSR) and GENCON grew out of this, for sure; and this is where people today seem to tread in studying this part of history that is for the most part clouded by the very fact that it was hobbyist in nature.

The rise of anything great does not stand upon just a single set of shoulders, or even multiple sets thereof, but upon many so grouped to maintain the weight and thus the direction of such greatness. Within that shared experience is where I found the continued march of possibilities amongst its members' mindsets; and this too was forwarded on with me through my youthful days at TSR and thus in the continued and expanding growth of the hobby.

Thus the continuance of our many-faceted hobby of games today is not forwarded by any one single person (nor by a single concept), who in sudden realization exclaims, "By Jove, I have it!" Indeed, this wellspring has fed us all, and originates chapter by chapter, verse by verse, person by person, and stretches all the way back in times as far removed from us now as it was in thought then. It is through the distillation of philosophical treatment given over to the historical wherein truth is discovered for the wagon of the mind to continue its progress along the road of possibilities and so as not to become wrested from its ancient course by one of its spinning wheels.

It is a great pleasure for me to announce that I have invited several people well known to me from those days and times to participate in our expanding discussions here: game designers, historians, educators, and others who all have in common a single point of view as I do: to share in the wellspring of thought and to continue exposing in different ways the roads of possibilities inherent to our singular and grouped experiences as gamers. I hope you find their thoughts as enlightening as I found them in my youth.

Magic and Artifacts in the Original Campaign

This became today's article due to Endymion's fine questions and examinations posted at our forums.

(Endymion): D&A is the first I've gone through (ERKAT and Stalk soon to follow) and I had some questions and comments. They all display Rob's usual fertile imagination and really bring home the uniqueness of the original campaign(s). I was startled, though, at the power of many of them -- most of these seem more like artifacts than magic items. How common were these types of things in your campaign? Did you ever encounter game balance problems? Also, many of the items seem to have random, unexpected or layered abilities. How common was it for players to actually explore and discover all aspects of these items? Reading these over almost rewrites my sense of magic in the AD&D campaign -- you look at the DMG, see all those lists of "standard" items, and you almost can't help but feel magic is assembly line stuff. Reading over these items, you almost feel as though each magic item is like a loaded gun that could blow up in our hand: you never know what these things are going to do and when they're going to do more harm than good. I like that, but it's a real alteration in my perception of AD&D magic.

(In response): I will go out on a limb here (and let Eric do so later for his items in ERKAT) and say that EGG was very impressed with my ability to create items of unique abilities and multi-layered powers and dimensions, etc. Recall that players played a lot in the campaign, some almost daily, and due to that their levels increased proportionately; and that was the way, whether right or wrong, or needed or not, that it had to progress anyway, as the rules were being play-tested at the time and this perforce meant that all of the areas in them had to be fully examined, included higher ranges of campaign play. That is not to say that we forced the issue and let folks run over the rules as then existing and as they expanded, it just happened that they did a lot of playing, and that was that.

This led to me crafting a plethora of higher-level items to challenge them in the later stages. The idea of "artifacts," is rather artificial for a division sought between mundane and named items in OD&D Supplement #3, and should be considered in light of existing fact: all magic is ultimately unique, all magic has an originator (an artificer) and can thus be named. This is the generic side of things which D&D embraced on so many levels colliding with the reality of merging with the real facts, just as spells did with those named and those generic. For who indeed created the first "light" spell, and so forth?--the extenuation of this creative thrust, so apparent to EGG, found little expression in D&D's front end design as all was coming to fruition then, and thereafter found room for expression through named items as such matter was revisited with time permitting (Aladdin's Lamp, Vance's many named spells, and sundry items named and apparent throughout folklore, legend and fantasy ultimately influencing this addition).

As for artifacts being dangerous, that is an in the box statement and again, IMO, worthy of examination: The ring of contrariness, and other cursed items, were dangerous, too. The wand of wonder could certainly be dangerous through self use, as could the deck of many things, etc. There are so many it is hard to list, but then the incorrect casting of a fireball was more lethal than any artifact I ever saw employed in the game. This gains the point, really. These things were only as dangerous as players made them. There was ample warning, ample proofs, but in the end, I will guarantee that the players "touched it," just like in that closing scene of Time Bandits ("Don't touch it. It's Evil!").

EGG's assigning of curses to these powerful items (which in reflection rarely had more depth than rapid fire guns, as these for the most part were lists of spell powers that were usable and already known to players) were meant to "balance" the power of it all--real fast work-around, and in some cases rather in keeping with his ideas, I guess, that magic was volatile in the wrong hands (other than immortals who had crafted these, or had had mortals craft these for them, etc). I found these ultimately boring, really, and rarely sought the things as a player or used that design concept as a DM or designer; and was always straining to add more dimension to regular items and thereby name as many as possible, making them truly unique, and not by virtue of their relation to the DMG's concept of "artifacts". In Tolkien, for example, we have unique swords (Glamdring, for example), but in D&D these things become generic, which was useful in many ways (i.e., campaign tweaking by DMs). I sided with the strange and unique, adding history and thus extending the adventuring factor outwards. Not that artifacts in the DMG didn't do that on some level, I just took larger strides towards making magic other than as cookie cutter repeats disguised in different trappings.

So in reality, there are 2 different design sets that manifested in the original campaign game about the same idea, EGG's and my own, and we both appreciated our conceptual ranges on different levels. In fact, EGG loved my magic and was bent on finding it en total at times (i.e., Rings of Wizardry, as noted in his UoaSoapbox article of same); and I was indeed spellbound with his ring of spell turning. But as far as artifacts go, I guess I see it much differently, and as ENS would say these days, "more organically."

"Grayland Fables"

Just for fun many years ago, I started writing short pensees, or fables, "derived" from the original campaign, which is to mean, I imagined them spawning from anonymous personages therein and becoming part and parcel of that backdrop consisting of folktales, legends and other trivia repeated about camp fires and at wayside attractions. Below are two of the many I've penned.

Fables of the “Graylands” Copyright 2009. Robert J. Kuntz. All Rights Reserved.

Excerpts and famous quotes from anonymous to well-known historical figures.

On Subordination

An unruly knight being asked by a local baron on how he felt about being a subordinate, replied: "Have you a regular damsel that you see, Lord?"

"Well, no." replied the Baron, somewhat confused by the questioning response.

"Then have you a wife?" pressed the Knight.

"Why, yes." replied the Baron.

"How do you feel about it, Lord?"

The Baron made the Knight his closest personal adviser from that point forward.

--Anonymous


The King's Adviser

The King decided one day to test his adviser's knowledge, having not done this recently.

"Why do women pretend to be pure when this is unattainable?" he asked.

The sage replied: "For they seek godliness but are confused by its limits."

Encouraged, the King continued: "Then why is man content with being impure?"

"For," replied the sage, "they have seen these limits and know them as unattainable and thus are reconciled with their dispositions."

Thinking to catch him unaware, the King blurted, "How is it that you answer all of my questions unflinchingly?"

Non-plussed, the sage replied, "For you are the King and I but your sage; thus it is your whim to ask and my duty to respond."

Slamming his fist upon the table between them, the King shouted, "How do you know these things!?"

Smiling, the sage said, "If I knew that, I would now be the one with the sore hand."

--Anonymous