Towards my upcoming Curse of Strahd campaign

I intend to start DMing Curse of Strahd (an official D&D 5E campaign) for my group in a month or two. Thus, I have ample time to prep.

The first thing I wanted to figure out was how to get them together and bring them to the Death House.

They will start in a normal D&D world. Possibly the Forgotten Realms. They all happen to be passengers on a riverboat traveling an infrequently traveled river. The boat has other passengers as well - possibly even a higher level Wizard and his bodyguard.

On the second day of their voyage, the weather turns uncharacteristically bad - cold, wet, and foggy. The next morning, they find themselves floating in thick fog. The navigator says that her compass went crazy, but they should still be moving down the river and the weather should get better soon.

That night, ghouls attack the boat out of the shallow river water - led by two ghasts. The PCs sleep in the common area, which is the aft of the boat which is covered by a canvas canopy against rain. They will have to fight a gang of ghouls and one ghast who attack their area. Other passengers in their area (civilian NPCs) will get slaughtered before the PCs could respond.

When they start getting the upper hand in the battle, they will hear and see an explosion from the forward part of the boat - the cabin where the crew and the better-paying passengers stay. Apparently, the wizard panicked and tried to get rid of ghouls who cornered him - and miscalculated the effects of his fireball. The boat catches fire and the players have to finish off a few charred ghouls who escaped the blaze.

Soon after the PCs win the fight, heavy rain begins to pour, soon developing into a storm. This puts out the fire, but not before it causes the canvas, as well as the cabin's roof, to collapse. The ship is leaking badly from battle damage and will soon sink to the river bottom. It offers little shelter from the rainstorm.

If the PCs search the boat, they can gather some supplies, possibly a few minor magic items and potions once possessed by the now-dead wizard. They might also pick up a few NPC survivors - all non-combatant civilians.

Now they have to find a shelter from the rain - which means going ashore and into the surrounding woods. However, the trees offer little refuge from the storm.

Eventually, they wander and reach a lone house in the fog - the Death House. In my version of the adventure, the PCs will not encounter the "children" outside but rather enter the House in search of shelter and get trapped; then they will meet the "children" and the adventure will commence...

In praise of lethality in old-school RPGs

A common complaint about older-school role-playing games (RPGs) is that they are highly lethal and, as the complaint goes "unduly and arbitrarily punish characters and players". And indeed, many newer-school players view such lethality in disdain and prefer their games to include more moderate dangers, less "arbitrary" threats and much stronger player characters. Dungeons and Dragons(TM) 5th Edition is a prime example of this. Around levels 3-5, player characters are already very powerful and are rarely killed by ordinary monsters; I found my 5th level party mowing through undead supposed to be scary, and only moderately challenged by a mummy, energy-draining wraiths and shadow-demons capable of moving through walls. Risks were mitigated; healing was made much easier; and many frightening abilities from earlier editions, such as level drain, poison and disease, were made far more forgiving. Don't get me wrong - we are enjoying the hell out of our D&D 5E campaign set in the Barbarian, Conqueror, King setting with some ACKS rule additions. But the ruleset feels to me more and more forgiving - and sometimes "flat". Risks and threats seem a bit minor compared to what the horrors of a haunted dungeon, a cemetery in midnight or a giant-toad-infested swamp should be.

Older-school games were certainly lethal. Highly lethal. A venomous snake could kill you. Green slime could kill you. Triggering a trap could kill you outright. A fight with several zombies at low level could certainly kill you. Medusae could turn you into stone with a single failed saving throw. At low levels, one or two sword swings had a potential to kill you. In Classic Traveller, you could die during character generation as well, using unrefined fuel could kill you, a single well-placed and lucky laser shot could blow your ship out of the sky, travelling in low passage could kill you, the "first blood" rule could get you severely injured from a single shotgun blast.

Why the lethality? There are plenty of reasons why this actually enhances your game. First and foremost, you typically play adventurers. Why be typical "Normal Man" level 0 villagers eke out a living at 1gp a month from the sweat of their brows, toiling on the harsh soil under the constant threat of starvation - when there are dungeons laden with marvellous amounts of gold and wonderful magical items a day's travel from the typical hamlet? Becuase dungeons are dangerous, and most who venture there do not come back. Adventurers are those brave - or some might say insane - souls who dare delve into these deadly places reeking with the stench of death. The YouTube video linked above - a promotional video for the excellent old-school dungeon called "Barrowmaze" - strikes the nail right on its head. Horrors await those who dare stray away from civilization into the wilds and the ruins of the eldritch past. Villagers huddle in the relative safety of their hovels and even soldiers - typically "Normal Men" as well except for the most grizzled veterans - find safety in their numbers and rarely dare fight anything but other Men, or at most Beast-Men hordes. Only a few foolhardy adventurers dare descend into dungeons in hope of finding gold and glory. Most find their untimely death. But a few survive and carry back sacks full of gold back to civilization, eventually becoming lords and magisters.

But adventuring carries risks. Horrid risks. This is part of the challenge of the game. This is a major source of excitement for the players. A mistake can kill you. Monsters can rip you limb by limb. A venomous snake, like a real venomous snake, is dangerous and frightening - a bite is very likely to kill you. Rush into combat like a fool - and you will typically get butchered. Tread carelessly, and you risk death. Player skill is important. This is a similar challenge to the "Roguelike" genre of digital games which is now enjoying another golden age after existing from the very dawn of digital gaming, from the sci-fi FTL: Faster Than Light, through the post-apocalyptic N.E.O. Scavenger to the fantasy Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup. In these games, unlike more typical digital games of our day and age, you die easily. And death is permanent - you can't just reload a saved game when you die. When you die - you die. Yet players - myself included - come back and play these games again and again. Why? Because the challenge is exciting, because facing the challenge is enjoyable. Survival is its own reward, is a thing of pride. Player skill is important. Learning how to survive in the N.E.O. Scavenger world, for example, is something you - the player - have to learn; no character skill will save you from contaminated water, hypothermia and infection setting into your wounds; you have to learn how to cope with them. This is challenging. This requires thought and learning. This is also enjoyable for many gamers. An old-school RPG is the tabletop equivalent of "Roguelike" digital games; player skill is important and survival is a challenge - and its own reward.

Finally, having survived the horrors of the low levels, when death hangs over your head each and every moment in the dungeon or in the wilds - is the best background your character can have. Not even ten pages of backstory can mean as much for your character as actual experience you and your fellow player went through with your characters. You start, more or less, as a nobody, and you build your character, your personality and history - by actual adventuring. Classic Traveller adds to this a "lifepath" character generation system where you actually - though briefly - go through risky careers and face a threat of actual death for your character, making your choices and risk management crucial for your character's survival even during that early phase of the game. But even in Classic Traveller, the background your past career - rolled on a few tables in 5-10 minutes or so - is only a paragraph of text in most cases, and then you strike out to the stars to make a real name for yourself. But facing risks and threats builds your character. When a significant portion of the encounters in the game might end in a Total Party Kill (TPK), reaching Name Level - typically the 9th level in D&D-type games - is an achievement to be proud of and not just a given stage in the game.

In short, lethality in an RPG - when done right and framed correctly - can be a source of challenge, excitement and enjoyment. This is what makes older-school so appealing to many people, and this is something every tabletop gamer should try; some might not like it, but others will be thrilled.

Strategy and Tactics the key difference between old-school and new-school D&D

Much has been said about the difference between the old and new schools of Dungeons and Dragons and similar games. A good place to start looking into this subject would be Matthew Finch's Quick Primer for Old School Gaming which is available for free on LULU.COM. However, the more I play games of both schools, the more I think that the difference between them boils down to strategy vs. tactics. That is, seeing the whole dungeon, or, indeed, the whole campaign as a battlefield, as opposed to focusing on the specific combat encounter in one or another room.

New School D&D, exemplified by the 3rd, 3rd and a half and 4th editions, is tactical. It focuses much on what happens in the particular encounter, and gives the characters many options for making interesting tactical choices in it. The 4th edition goes so far as to focus nearly exclusively on encounter tactics, while providing relatively free-form options for the wider campaign. Furthermore, in the 4th edition, and to a lesser degree the 5th edition as well, many (if not all) of the characters' resources regenerate between encounters, removing a large chunk of the resource management portion of the game in order to facilitate the transition from one tactically-interesting encounter to the next.

The Old School such as that presented in the Original and B/X (or BECMI) editions of D&D, AD&D 1E and 2E and the many retro-clones such as ACKS, Swords & Wizardry and BFRPG, on the other hand, is all about strategy. Sure, combat can be very exciting and varied, and even tactical, but the core of the game does not focus on the particular combat encounter, but rather on the dungeon, or even the entire campaign world, as a whole battlefield. One key here is resource-management; your characters have limited hit-points, light sources, food and water, and even time itself is a valuable resource as light sources run out, food and water get consumes and there is the ever-present risk of wandering monster encounters if the characters spend too much time in a dangerous area (such as a dungeon). Strategy is important - a combat encounter can rob you of critical resources, and because monsters can cause permanent damage or even instant death, it is highly important to know when to enter a battle and how to enter the battle on your own conditions.

The same goes to "high-level" campaign play, which is relatively emphasized by old-school games and much less present in newer rulesets. The epitome of this are of course sandbox-oriented games such as ACKS and Stars Without Number where you actually have rules to build your own kingdom, empire or criminal syndicate. The idea is, again, that characters "play the world" and see it as their playground, rather than focusing on encounter-level tactics and abilities. So in an old-school game, the individual combat encounter is not the central focus of the game, but rather one of many strategic goals - one of many battles in a prolonged war, and in many cases the characters will choose to avoid that battle or to engage it in their own terms...

Review: Atarin's Delve

Product's Name: Atarin's Delve

Ruleset: Labyrinth Lord

Author: Peter C. Spahn

Size: 15 pages

Publisher: Small Niche Games

Price: $1.49

Rating: 4/5

Here I'll start a new feature of my blog - RPG and wargame product reviews. And I'll start with several products kindly set to me by Peter C. Spahn of Small Niche Games a year or so ago, that I am ashamed to say that I've only gotten around to properly read and review them now due to various forms of real-life work commitment.

Anyhow, on to the review.

Atarin's Delve is a short, one-level dungeon adventure for Labyrinth Lord (and, indeed, any old-school fantasy RPG, and pretty easy to convert to D&D 5E as well). It is intended for 4-6 characters of levels 1-3 - a beginner's adventure. The players are sent by an adventurer's guild to protect an archaeological excavation which has just begun in some strange lakeside caves, where very interesting jewelry has been found. Soon enough, the players will find themselves entangled with a dark cult, as well as the sacred caves' initial residents, who have hibernated there for centuries in rock form.

The story goes like this: a race of fish-like humanoids, the Cathla, once held these caves sacred and lived in and around them; when humans first entered the area, they clashed with the Cathla, who drove them off with water magic after some fierce fighting. However, the humans returned with a mage, who transmuted the water in the Cathla sleeping chamber into stone during their hibernation cycle, placing them in a dormant, petrified state. Many years later, a human noble built his castle above these caves, and breached the caves in excavations for his cellar; soon, he became obsessed with the Cathla civilization and their water-goddess, and founded a cult worshiping her (in human form, of course). Long after his death, the cult lingered on, but a new initiate stole Cathla jewelry from the caves and brought it back to civilization, attracting an archaeologist to come and investigate the caves. The archaeologist entered the cave, and, while excavating, re-awakened the dormant Cathla, who then proceeded to slaughter his apprentices and trap him in the cave. The cultists themselves are on the move to the cave, and the Cathla have killed some of them as well... So the arriving PCs will find themselves dealing with this disaster zone when they arrive at the caves.

The adventure itself takes place in a single-level dungeon with 15 keyed locations. There are two entry points, and the dungeon combined original or natural Cathla caverns with later human construction by the cult, so themes and visuals will vary. All areas have interesting descriptions, though many lack monsters or treasure (a good thing to a degree - not everything in a dungeon should be a 'proper' Encounter - but large parts of the dungeon are "color" or "atmosphere" rooms). The dungeon is not very linear and there several routes through it, allowing for interesting exploration. Not all encounters are combat encounters - in fact, the cultists will not attack the characters, and will try to hire them to lead them to safety, and may provide information if properly prodded for it. The monsters themselves are all very appropriate thematically - of the fish/crayfish/lizard/Cathla variety and some undead in a tomb. The Cathla themselves have a very cool special ability and have full Labyrinth Lord stats at the back of the booklet.

There are very few treasure items in the dungeon, so the typical party will end up being paid by the cultists and/or the archaeologists to be led back to safety, and the payment is very nice for 1st-level characters - 500gp. BUT there is a hidden treasure - a big silver statute worth 1,500gp! It is hidden behind a secret door, so careless characters might miss it, though it appears that the secret door is of the ordinary type (i.e. no special mechanism given in the rules).

All in all, this is a very good little dungeon delve - very "tight" thematically speaking with no "funhouse" elements, non-linear and with various special tricks, as well as with role-playing encounters next to the combat ones. The main downside is that there are very few treasures to find (so careful exploration is not necessarily rewarded, except in one place, where it is rewarded big-time), and that some rooms lack things to interact with. But generally speaking, this is a beautiful little dungeon adventure with a slight Lovecraftian bent to it. Highly recommended!

The Big Success of D&D 5E

So where did D&D 5E succeed? From my experience in DMing it to my local group, its great success lies not necessarily in its particular rules, but rather in the fact that it managed to distill the very essence of "Dungeons and Dragons" into one edition. It is neither a homage to the "new school" world of system mastery and tactical combat, not a carbon-copy of old-school with all its many subsystems; but it gives me the feel of running "D&D", the feeling I first felt when I first made my very faltering steps to DMing AD&D 2E to a friend and his brother back in 1997. It seems as if the designers, instead of trying to innovate in terms of game mechanics like they did in 3.xE and in 4E, tried to figure out what "D&D" is, in its most basic core, and build a game around that.

It feels like D&D. It plays like D&D. It runs like D&D. The game would be familiar to anyone who played any edition, especially B/X, 2E and 3.xE. Some mechanics, such as a unified task-resolution system, come from 3.xE, some, like the healing mechanics, are closer to 4E, but the very core feels older, even timeless. All the tropes are back, multiclassing and character optimization are pushed back, but not erased totally. I'd say that almost any person who liked any edition of D&D would love 5E, with the possible exception of those who enjoy focusing on the 4E tactical-combat system, which was greatly dialed back in 5E.

In short, highly recommended.

First Impressions from D&D 5E

Last month, me and my group began exploring D&D 5E, as a break between our D&D 3.5E and our ACKS game planned for a month or two into the future. I ordered the D&D 5E starter box, as well as the Player's Hand-Book (PHB), from Amazon.com, and we had a goodf chance to try them, two sessions by now. In the first session, the PHB hadn't arrived yet, so we used the Starter Box in conjunction with the free D&D 5E Basic Rules, and generated characters. The group is composed in the following manner:

Me (Omer) - the DM

Alon - plays Francis, Halfling Rogue (Criminal)

Avi - plays Argent, Human Cleric of Helm (Noble)

Shaked - plays Shane, Human Fighter (Soldier)

As you can see, no Arcane spellcaster in this group.

We played so far two sessions (the third will be played next Wednesday), each approximately 3 hours in length. In these 6 hours, we managed to create characters (about 2.5 hours, mostly getting used to the new rules), have some role-playing and travel, and three battles. We reached the Cragmaw Hideout (smaller goblin den) and have cleared part of it, more next time.

The main impression is this - we had LOTS of fun! All of us! Everybody was VERY satisfied with D&D 5E. Most of these people are used to 3.5E, while I'm used to both 3.5E and OSR games. And we all enjoyed 5E very much! So much that we're considering to convert "season 2" of our D&D 3.5E campaign to 5E!

The highlights of our experience are:

1) Combat is much faster than in 3.5E, and a bit slower than in the typical OSR ruleset (such as BFRPG). It is less tactical than in 3.5E, but more interesting in terms of stuff PCs can do than many OSR games. All in all, a good compromise. Players felt that their characters had something cool to do in each and every round, IN ADDITION to attacking and moving. In three and a half hours of post-chargen play, we had three significant battles, plus role-playing and exploration, a food break for us players and DM and some banter. This is faster than my experience with D&D 3.5E, where fights tend to last longer and be more complicated.

2) The party no longer needs a dedicated healer, except for emergencies. In three fights where characters were wounded, our Cleric did not cast a single (!) Cure Wounds spell, but rather concentrated on being an awesome combatant and, once, cast Bless (a buff requiring concentration). Why? Because there are many ways for characters to renew their hit-points, from 1-hour Short Rests (where you roll your Hit Dice for HP healed, e.g. a 1st-level Fighter can, on one Short Rest a day, roll 1d10 +CON bonus and heal that in HP), to the Fighter's Second Wind ability (renewed after each Short Rest). This did not feel too unnatural, too, as the fighter now feels very tough, and able to shake off mass damage, while the 15-minute adventuring day is gone.

3) Combat is always interesting, despite being simpler than in 3.5E and 4E. The main reason for this, I think, is Bonus Actions - various abilities you can use IN ADDITION to your main action (e.g. attack). So you don't have to choose between attacking and being cool, you can do both, all while not being overpowering (these Bonus Actions usually are not game-breaking in their implications but rather add coolness and options to combat). The simple task system also encourages characters to try out new things, and not stick to the rules.

4) D&D 5E is VERY easy for the DM to adjudicate. Very much so. In a nutshell, you have a small number of skills, and you are either proficient in a skill or not; if proficient, you roll 1d20 + ability modifier + proficiency bonus (proficiency bonus ranges from +2 at level 1 to +6 at level 20). There are much less modifiers than in 3.5E; instead, a task could be either normal, at a disadvantage (roll 2d20 and pick the lowest) or at an advantage (roll 2d20 and pick the highest). You can either have an advantage and a disadvantage and these are not cumulative. So adjudicating a new thing a player wants to do is simply a matter of figuring out which skill is most appropriate, deciding whether there is an advantage or disadvantage involved, and selecting a difficulty class (I used 10 for easy tasks, 15 for moderate and 20 for hard). Always everything can be adjudicated this way.

5) The system seems to encourage role-playing and getting players into their characters by a system of background character hooks, such as personality traits and faults. playing by these hooks gives you Inspiration - a one-time chance to gain an Advantage on any one roll (or cancel a Disadvantage). Inspiration is not cumulative and cannot be accumulated so hoarding is discouraged. In actual play this system led to more role-playing than I used to see in 3.5E.

All in all? A great experience. It isn't going to replace ACKS as the go-to campaign system, but it might as well replace 3.5E for us for "new-school" play and maybe even for certain "old-school" things.