Top 5 Desert Island RPGs

This is in response to DravenSwiftbow’s recent video of his Top 5 Desert Island RPGs. Dave gave a good, solid list which emphasized diversity of genre and system over depth within any one game. He picked self-contained core rulebooks (and one box set) which makes sense. He ended the video asking for people to give their own lists of whatever number or classifications in the comments. Because I’m a wordy dum-dum, I decided to write a short blog about it rather than dump a huge block of text in Dave’s comments.

There are too many ways to do this I’m going to multiple lists. First, I’ll try Dave’s idea of multiple genres. I’m not a big sci-fi fan, but Warriors of the Red Planet would give me exactly what I want from that genre in one slim little volume. For horror, I’d pick the sixth edition of Call of Cthulhu because it’s in one volume (and it's the one I own) and benefits from the advancements made over several editions while still hewing closely to the original vibe. For something more exotic, Empire of the Petal Throne is perfect for its complete world that's intriguing and mysterious. (I just realized that Geoffrey McKinney’s Carcosa falls at an intersection of all three of these games.) For something to fill the D&D slot, I’ll pick the Holmes Basic box set – either the first printing with the geomorphs and the monster & treasure assortment, or the next one with B1. It may only go up to level 3, but you would be free to extrapolate the rest as you saw fit, and in terms of a ruleset that really totemically gets to the core of the D&D vibe, it’s hard to beat. I’m not really big into superhero games or cyberpunk, so I don’t really have a fifth pick. I guess I’ll choose MERP for nostalgic reasons.

Another way to look at this is to pick setting books, modules, and toolkits instead of an actual game system. Once you’ve played TTRPGs for long enough, it’s easy enough to pick a core mechanic and make up your own system. Many of us can play D&D without the rulebooks by now, so perhaps the best bet would be to bring something with lots of random tables to help generate an infinite amount of adventure. The danger with just picking modules is that it’s an endless trap. Picking five modules to run forever is pretty limited, no matter how sandbox-y they are. There are about five really good megadungeons out there which would keep you busy until the end of time, but it would get a little same-y after a while. Campaign settings can be really good and open (various 2e AD&D, Dolmenwood, and Midderlands), but their specificity doesn't always give you the latitudes you might like.

As far as toolkits go, books like Veins of the Earth can give you procedures to build your own campaign world, but you need to choose them wisely to give you a breadth of settings. You could choose something like the Fight On! compendium of Vol. 1-4, John’s Stater’s NOD or Hex Crawl Chronicles, or James V. West’s Black Pudding collection which are all filled with great ideas. The Judges Guild really perfected this kind of variable setting supplements with their Ready Ref Sheets, City State of the Invincible Overlord, Wilderlands of High Fantasy, Dave Arneson’s First Fantasy Campaign, and any of their early modules (Tegel Manor, Caverns of Thracia, Dark Tower, or Citadel of Fire). You could do a lot worse than just picking five things from the early JG stuff.

In terms of something self-contained, any of the OSR retroclones would really do the trick. Basic Fantasy, Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, Delving Deeper, OSRIC, DCC, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Blueholme, and many others give you everything you need in one book. In all honesty, one of these games is all I would need. Whatever you wanted to change you could house rule into your own system and in a lot of cases the clones are easier to run than the original games because of some of their modern innovations. However, these kinds of desert island questions aren’t just about practical usefulness. It’s about inspiration too, and that doesn’t always match what’s pragmatic. Sometimes it’s about what brings you joy, even if that comes from a place of nostalgia and sentimental attachment.

To speak to that, although it would be nice to have a breadth of systems or genres, in the end, I really just want to play some form of D&D. It’s my first love in this hobby and what I’d choose over anything else. If I was going to Frankenstein a nice feel-good collection of five D&D products, I suppose I would pick the Moldvay Basic set (with B2 Keep on the Borderlands), the Cook/Marsh Expert set (with X1 Isle of Dread), the 1e AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide by Gary Gygax, the 1e AD&D Monster Manual, and the original edition’s Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes (the original, unedited version, not the incomplete WotC resissue). Even though these five span three different editions of the game (0e, 1e, and B/X), this is D&D to me. I’m one of those people who feel all TTRPGs in some way are just house-ruled versions of the original (this drives people nuts, sorry).

In that spirit, maybe the best choice of all would be the original game and its four supplements: the white box (with the 3 LBBs), Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, and Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes. You can extrapolate everything from these five, and in fact, we as gamers have over the last 40-some years. What are yours?

10 Monster Setting – Fiend Folio

Shane Ward of 3 Toadstools Publishing posted a cool idea on MeWe and his blog about taking your favorite bestiary off the shelf, choosing 10 monsters, and designing a setting around it. I’m someone who generally feels most fantasy RPGs are overstuffed and under-curated. The idea that a fantastic realm would support the vast array of humanoids used in many campaigns (goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, orcs, gnolls, bugbears, lizard men, etc.) in addition to the nations of mankind has always stretched my credulity.

I started by selecting monsters according to various types: a semi-intelligent humanoid, an undead, an ancient fey race, a creature from classical myth, a giant/ogre/troll-type, something aerial, something to jump out of the water, something extraplanar, and some crawling thing underground. It seemed like a sensible way to begin as well as making sure you covered a broad scope of creatures.

What I found was that my self-imposed taxonomy was fairly constrictive when applied to my favorite monster books. Some bestiaries lean more towards some categories than others. This classification also doesn’t necessarily address settings of uniform environmental terrain or weather. Thematically, a selection of monsters for a desert setting or an arctic setting might make more sense than some Noah’s Ark collection.

Anyway, here’s my list. I chose the First Edition Field Folio as my book. It was the first AD&D book I ever got (from Sears!) and the vibe of its artwork and oddness has had its stamp on my gaming ever since. People either love or hate this book. It has a reputation for being filled with silly frivolities no one would use in a game (like Flail Snails and Flumphs). And yet, FF contains some of the most iconic creatures/races in D&D culture: Aarakocra, Tabaxi, and Kenku – all now PC races, I believe; various monsters from the classic G-D-Q modules (Drow, Kuo-Toa, Svirfneblin, Lolth); the Lovecraftian Grell; and the classic extraplanar races of the Githyanki and Githzerai.

I couldn’t quite get the list down to 10. I cheated a bit by picking two for one category (the underground critters are little), and a broad grouping of monsters for two others. I left a bunch of good ones behind, including some of the more iconic ones to help it feel more original. Still, it was hard not to include the Giant Troll and the Mountain Giant, both of which I think I like better than their more standard counterparts. I’ve put the categorical list below, but first, let’s look at the setting, a Dark Ages analogue of the lands around the Black and Caspian Seas in the West, stretching to Tibet and Myanmar in the East.

Welcome to Casperovia (meh), a land of isolated city-states and falling kingdoms, separated by mountain passes and deep forests. The common folk are superstitious and hesitant to travel at night. You can hear the Doombats shrieking from their mountain cave eeries at the witching hour, ridden by evil men called Doomriders. Necromancers send out their subhuman Grimlocks from their cavernous pits to raid small villages and bring back innocent victims to defile in terrible rites.

Those few who wander into the underworld may find death in lowly forms of life crawling beneath the ground, like the Volt and the Osquip. Deeper still are the Deep Gnomes, those small fey creatures who left the world of light long ago when mankind awoke, and now dig deep into the dark places singing to the rock of the secrets of old. Lower still lie ancient cities buried in a cataclysmic event, forgotten necropolises filled with Coffer Corpses haunting dead streets having died before their spirits could be put to rest. Now these guard the technological wonders of a bygone age.

The surface world has its own terrors like the lonely Ettercap with his spider hoards hunting the woods spinning web palaces of sticky, dark death. The seas of Casperovia are a dangerous place for the men who sail them, as siren Kelpies lure them into their botanical embrace in the guise of beautiful water nymphs. In the cities, women and children dare not walk the streets at night for fear a Penanggalan will swoop down on them and feast on their flesh. Pregnant women are a particular favorite of the creature, with tales of traitorous midwives revealing their nature filling new mothers with dread.

A new evil, the Slaadi, has entered the land through a doorway deep in the earth, hidden somewhere within the Fire Swamp. Like the Penanggalan, they can change their demonic toad shape and walk among humans as one of their own, with the threat to capture and enslave them. However, all is not lost. Some say the dragons from the East have returned after a long slumber. Perhaps these wyrms of old may put their past enmities with humans aside to banish the extraterrestrial frogs.

Semi-Intelligent Humanoid – Grimlocks

Undead – Coffer Corpse

Ancient race/Fey – Svirfneblin (Deep Gnomes)

Classic Myth (Southeast Asia) – Penanggalan

Giant/Ogre/Troll – Ettercap (giant-sized)

Crawly Underground Dweller – Volt and Osquip

Aerial – Doombat

Water-based – Kelpie

Extraplanar – Slaadi

Lizard/Wyrm – Dragons, Oriental

Ability Mods and Hot-Rods: The Dangers of Mixing Basic and Advanced D&D

I’ve been thinking a lot about the ability score modifiers throughout the various editions of D&D lately (actually the past year), and how these differences affect the game. Turning them over in my mind, I hit upon a revelation as it related to primary differences between the modifiers in 0e, Holmes*, 1e, and 2e and those in B/X and BECMI. The modifiers are not only the primary drivers for how these two different platforms of D&D work, but they are the reason why mixing the mechanics between the Basic and Advanced rules can create a broken game.

Before I dive into an analysis of the modifiers themselves and why I think the Basic-AD&D hybrid is such a volatile combination, let me first give a little contextual autobiography. This is something I think I’ve covered in a past post, but it’s worth repeating here since it’s relevant. I started playing Mentzer Basic (Red Box) in about ’84 or ’85. My friends and I played “Basic” for a year or two before bowing to the older kids’ wisdom that “Basic (was) for babies” and moved to AD&D. When I say we played AD&D, I mean we borrowed what we liked from the Advanced game and used it in our Basic campaign. AD&D tournament-legal, we were not. At the time I felt guilty and conflicted about it, like we were cheating, not playing by the actual rules because AD&D had more rules than I cared to keep track of. It was (and still is) hard to run AD&D by the book.

When I came back to the hobby after twenty-some years (I stopped as 2e began taking over), I found the OSR and was surprised to learn that a lot of people played the game the way I did back then, mixing Basic and AD&D. In fact, I heard a perfect description of it in one of Matt Finch’s interviews with Greg Gillespie (creator of Barrowmaze). Greg described his early gaming (at 5:30, here) as using the engine of Basic and Advanced as the chrome. That’s exactly it. We used a lot of the core rules from the Basic game (ability mods, combat mechanics, etc.) and the character options (more races, more classes, no race-as-class), spells, monsters, modules, and magic items taken from Advanced. We took the cool stuff and left everything that bogged the game down (weapon speed factors, spell segments, damage-by-size, etc.). To extend Greg’s metaphor we created a hot rod of a game. It ran fast and powerful, exciting and flashy. It also eventually overheated and blew up.

What I mean by that is our game became incredibly imbalanced, particularly when our PCs started reaching higher levels. D&D has always had a problem with balanced high-level play, but we felt the effects far earlier and I think with some perspective I understand why. Both the Basic and the Advanced games were built to be balanced within their own rule sets and were not intended to be mixed. That balance begins, and in some ways largely rests, on how each game’s ability score modifiers fit with the rest of the rules. In my case, I’m talking about using Basic’s ability score modifiers with AD&D’s more powerful character options.

For those who haven’t played any early D&D, the ability modifiers break down thusly. OD&D, Holmes, and AD&D have ability modifiers that are really flat by today’s standards. The modifiers are not standard across the abilities and in some cases, even the extreme ends of the 3-18 range only give a -1 or +1. Some abilities don’t necessarily give a modifier at all. There is a real appeal to these more tempered modifiers for me. A “5” in Dexterity only affects your AC by 1, not 2. A “7” in Strength doesn’t hurt your melee to-hit roll at all. Even a Constitution of “3” only takes 1 off your hit die roll. On the other hand, the bonuses are likewise more mellow and oftentimes the difference between a “15” and an “18” doesn’t seem to have as much mechanical separation as I would normally expect.

By contrast, the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X rules from 1981 and the following Mentzer BECMI rules have a much different approach to the ability modifiers. The modifiers are almost nearly universally applied the same way across all the abilities with the following scores: 3 (-3), 4-5 (-2), 6-8 (-1), 9-12 (+0), 13-15 (+1), 16-17 (+2), and 18 (+3). These aren’t as dramatic as the d20-era or current 5e modifiers, but this array creates a nice, dynamic bell curve where the widest range is an average non-mod, and each deviation from that average range gets progressively smaller. There’s an elegant, standardized symmetry to it. It’s also very swingy. There’s a real difference between a “15” and an “18” here that feels powerful, and at the same time, a “5” Dex or “3” Con are really damaging.

Here’s where it’s helpful to look at how each of these sets of modifiers fit within their respective rule sets, which makes it clear how combining some of the AD&D mechanics with the Basic modifiers can imbalance the game.

AD&D’s standard classes are little better than their Basic counterparts (Clerics get d8 hp and spells at first level, Fighters get d10 hp with faster attack progression, Thieves get better skill percentages and d6 hp, Magic-Users get more, and higher-level spells), not to mention the specialty classes (Paladin, Ranger, Druid, etc.), each of which have special powers. These extra goodies complement the lower impact ability modifiers. The smaller modifiers keep things relatively sane when the first magic items start showing up in the campaign. Magic items, it should be said, were expected to be rewarded somewhat early in both Basic and AD&D games, in part to help with characters’ survival. A +1 long sword in the hands of an AD&D Fighter with an “18/49” Strength means a composite +2 to-hit and +4 to damage. The same +1 sword in the hands of Basic Fighter with an “18” Strength means a +4 to-hit and a +4 to damage. This extra +2 to-hit is a big difference, and it’s due to Basic’s souped-up ability mods.

The Basic game didn’t have as many bells and whistles as the Advanced game, but those ability mods picked up the slack by being really dynamic, and potentially very powerful. When stacked with the extra AD&D class benefits and hit die, it could make for some supercharged PCs. Another dangerous crossover between rules was using the Method I of rolling for ability scores from AD&D with the Basic ability mods. Method I is the popular “roll 4d6, drop the lowest” method which is designed to make sure every PC has at least two scores of “15” or higher (which remember, in AD&D, have smaller modifiers). The AD&D PHB even says that it’s essential to the character’s chances of survival. Using this method in a Basic game increases the likelihood of not only 15s, but 16-18s, giving you a huge boost. It also makes the Basic rules’ more-punitive negative modifiers less likely. Along with higher mods, the higher levels of spells in the Advanced game (7th level for Clerics, 9th for Magic-Users) means real firepower enters the campaign.

AD&D mechanics may seem wonky by modern sensibilities. There isn’t a standardized core mechanic. In fact, there are a number of different systems for determining success or failure (d20 attacks, % Thief skills, d6 open doors/listen checks, etc.). But when all the rules are used in conjunction together, it fits together perfectly and ticks like Swiss clockwork. It just takes time, dedication, and practice to become fluent in the 1e rules (at least that’s what die-hard 1e grognards claim). Tom Moldvay’s game is likewise very well-balanced, but it’s more streamlined and elegant. It isn’t built to simulate reality in the same way Gary’s rules seemed to try to do. Tom’s modifiers (I actually don’t know if he came up with them, but his rules mark their first appearance I’m aware of) are a big part of how that game runs. They drive a lot of the way things work.

You may ask what the point of all this is. Am I just trying to validate my guilt for hot rodding the games I played as a kid? I guess the reason I’ve been thinking about this so much is two-fold.

First, it makes me realize part of my reticence to try 5e lies in the fact that it appears to be an even more exaggerated example of my Basic-AD&D hybrid. The crunch of the d20 rules may have been reduced, but the even more dramatic ability score modifiers combined with even more class and race options, abilities, feats, skills, and proficiency points all indicates a game that falls into all the same hot rod traps I found as a kid.

Second, my musings are in response to a lot of people, both young and old, getting into the OSR versions of the older games and talking about bringing in Advanced options into the Basic game. We often talk in the OSR about cross-compatibility between any of the early versions, and while that may be true to a large extent for running adventures (usually it’s just adjusting armor class a bit), it gets a bit trickier when it comes to combining rules mechanics around characters.

Goblinoid Games just put out their combined Advanced Labyrinth Lord set of rules which is being marketed as “advanced first edition as you remember it,” the distinction being not as first edition was, but as we all played it, stripped of the fussy rules no one likes. Now, I don’t own the new book, but I do have the physical copy of the regular rules as well as the previous no-art PDF of the Advanced Edition Companion supplement. Daniel Proctor wrote a good game and is careful to mention caveats, like giving higher hit die might affect the game if used. It’s presented as rules you could use ala carte or as a whole. I just wonder how the hybrid actually operates in play, especially at higher levels. I’m not implying that a Basic-Advanced hybrid can’t be done, but I think it would need to be carefully done.

I currently run Basic Fantasy which is a slightly modernized version of the old Basic game. It’s well-balanced and runs exactly how I expect it to. The Moldvay modifiers are present, but a few rule changes have been made to give the Basic system a little Advanced boost. Race-as-class is gone, as are demi-human level-limits. Thief skills are closer to the better 1e percentages and to-hit advancement is a little more aggressive. And yet, hit dice are kept relatively low, Clerics don’t get spells at first level, and the magic is kept within reason.

However, I constantly see people on BFRPG forums and Facebook groups who are looking for creator Chris Gonnerman to formally publish some of the supplemental classes and rules from the game’s download page which have a more Advanced flavor (paladins, rangers, druids, weapon proficiency rules, skills, higher level spells from his Iron Falcon, etc.). A lot of these supplements are pretty good (I have a paladin in my current campaign), but Chris’ refusal to add them to the core game makes me happy. He’s willing to let people explore and share options for his game through the OGL, but not willing to canonize these options as core rules themselves. Anyone’s free to hot rod their own games, but at their own peril.

I don’t mean this to be a bad-wrong-fun rant or suggest that the way some people like to play isn’t correct. It’s more of an observation about my own adult preferences and making peace with the mistakes of my youth. It’s also me trying to determine how I approach my games in the future. I still haven’t fully satisfied my curiosity with ability score modifiers.

I like the Moldvay modifiers, in part because I grew up using them, but also because of their clean, standardized, logical symmetry. Their larger range makes a character’s abilities more dramatic and mechanically meaningful. Although I have found that low scores in Strength, Constitution, and particularly Dexterity can cripple a PC. The Thief in my current game has a “5” Constitution (-2) which means he has to roll a “4” in order to add more than one hit point when he levels up.

I like the idea of shallower OD&D modifiers in something like Iron Falcon or Swords & Wizardry, but without the AD&D extra hit points and abilities they almost seem to necessitate a campaign which includes at least a moderate amount of magic items (something I’m stingy with, as a low-fantasy GM). I did see one 0e option recently that appeals to me. Jimm Johnson from The Contemptible Cube of Quazar blog has his own house rules posted for his Planet Eris campaign. HIs universal modifier array is: 3 (-2), 4-6 (-1), 7-14 (0), 15-17 (+1), and 18 (+2). I like these a lot. The bonuses/penalties are flatter than Moldvay’s, but there’s still symmetry with a dynamic flare at the extremes. It strikes me as a nice compromise. I’d like to try some flatter modifiers out soon. It would be interesting to not rely on ability mods as much as I’m used to.

No matter what I decide to go with in the future, I’ll probably still have a hard time leaving well enough alone. Old hot rodders die hard.

* Yes, I know the Holmes set of rules is actually the first Basic rules set, but as far as the ability mods go, I believe they’re the same as the 3LBBs.

The Corniness Threshold of High vs. Low Fantasy

ARCANE BARCALOUNGER

I've come to the conclusion that my problems with or distaste for newer versions of D&D may be less about mechanics or rules and more about the fluff. I still have issues with the mechanics, but they're just different ways of arbitrating success or failure. What really turns me off anything 3e and up is I find the inherent high fantasy setting of modern D&D really corny.

There's way too much magic, too many superpowers, and an endless smorgasbord of player character options of classes and races of increasing silliness. The artwork matches this themepark/kitchen-sink setting where the weird and unusual - the truly magical - becomes mundane. It all crosses a threshold of credulity for me. Sure, I realize I'm complaining about my fantasy RPG having too much fantasy in it, but we all have a line where too much is too much.

All of these player options and powers in current 5e D&D are very popular - many feel the more, the better. At the same time, I doubt those players psyched to play a Tortle Monk in the style of Kung Fu Panda's Master Oogway would think playing something like a walking Lollipop Accountant to be just dumb. Everyone has their threshold.

I sometimes find myself watching 5e YouTuber character-build videos for a laugh, watching people talk seriously about playing something like a Dragonborn Paladin Warlock. To me, this is not any less corny than playing the aforementioned Lollipop Accountant, or an Arcane Barcalounger (see above). I don't really want to turn this into a rant of Bad-Wrong-Fun. If playing a Half-Dragonfruit Druid of the Lost Circle K is where it's at for you, go for it.

I've spent a lot of time recently trying to determine where this threshold lies for me. This is something I've always struggled with. Back when I played AD&D in the 80s, I was never particularly fond of Gnomes, and Half-Orc PCs were just right out. I've always been okay with the four standard Tolkien races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling), though lately I've even questioned these. Humanocentric games/campaigns have begun to appeal to me more, but I don't know that I'm absolutely done with demi-humans yet. I've been buying a lot of sword & sorcery-style games like Low Fantasy Gaming, Barbarians & Basilisks, and Crypts & Things. While these are all very cool, there is a definite jockish vibe about them and a real slavish worship of Howard's Conan. I'm sure from simulationist wargamer perspective, my preferred milieu is just as cartoony as I think 4e was, because perhaps it doesn't have enough historical, fact-based realism behind it.

Finding other players who have similar tastes and attitudes about how much fantasy is the right amount can be just as important as finding people who like the same systems or mechanics. We're all a little goofy in our preferences and we all take ourselves and our elf games a little too seriously from time to time.

Bards: Nope.

I expect this post to be poorly received (if it's received by anyone at all). Regardless of what I say in this post, I think everyone should play the game that they have fun with and not feel bad about it. That said, I hate Bards.

At least I hate them as a PC class. As a non-magical, jack-of-all-trades NPC? Fine. But for me and my game, the spellcasting, multiple-attacking, healer and rogue known as the Bard has no appeal. It is as ridiculous to me as it would be if there were a player class for sports team mascots in a fantasy milieu. I find them obnoxious and silly. They tend to appeal to players who were high school drama club kids, open-mic comedians, hack local musicians, and power gamers.

The Bard class has a troubled history in the game. In 1e AD&D, Bards were relegated to the back of the PHB as an optional class at the DM's discretion. There was even a caveat that most DMs didn't allow them. I think that, in itself, says it all. It's like Gary knew that he was introducing something silly and shameful so he hid it at the back. He also made it very difficult to become a Bard. The Bard needed scores of at least 15 in Strength, Wisdom, Dexterity, and Charisma, and minimum scores of 12 in Intelligence and 10 in Constitution. Almost no character is so blessed. They also started as a Fighter from 1st to 5th level, then continued as a Thief starting sometime prior to 8th level, before pursuing Druidic studies sometime before 9th. Only then would they become a 1st-level Bard. With all those hoops to jump through it's as if Gary was saying, just don't do it.

Oh, how times have changed. Bards are currently regarded as one of the more powerful (and therefore "best") classes in modern D&D. Discussions about how to min/max your bard to be the ultimate badass, cool guy abound in forums. The class is also seen as the consummate party member by using lots of buff and de-buff abilities to enhance the play of their fellow PCs. As I alluded to at the top of this post, I realize I'm in the minority here. Most people like the flexibility and customizable application of skills, feats, and abilities on offer. I just can't relate. Not just to this class, but to the tone and setting of any game that uses this class. The image of some doink in a leather jerkin and a feather in their cap bringing a lute down into the dark places of the earth to jam out some riffs to aid the party in felling a red dragon completely turns the game into a joke for me.

I recently came across a Web DM video on Bards (see below). I like these guys and I think they have a lot to offer current gamers, but when I listen to them say that 5e finally got Bards right, reeling off dipping options, level paths, and maxing out combinations of abilities I can't help but laugh. Not just because of how ridiculous it all sounds, but because I realize this is how most people play the game. In modern D&D every class is a jack-of-all-trades, master of all. Everyone can fight, cast spells, heal, pick pockets, etc. It's a game where every day is your birthday with a constant stream of presents and every kind of cake and honestly it bores me to tears. But hey, do what makes you happy. I'm not here to tell you (and nearly 90% of all other role-players) that your fun is wrong. Just get off my lawn. 😀

So, could I ever envision allowing a Bard PC in my Basic Fantasy game? Maybe, but I don't think I would even use the Bard as given in the BF Quasi-Classes supplement. It's still a little too silly. I think I'd be okay allowing a base-class Fighter or a Thief to become a character with Decipher, Listen, Lore, Tumble, Influence, and extra languages. Starting at second level I'd give them one orison every other level until 10th. I'd also keep all of BF's prerequisites, which although tough, aren't as high of a bar as Gary set. They could carry an instrument if they wished, but it would mostly be for flavor, or to use as a known secondary skill if an adventure required it (i.e. Death Frost Doom). That seems like reasonable Bard class to me although I'm willing to bet no one would want to play it.

One last thought here, and it doesn't strictly pertain to my thoughts about Bards. From time to time in this blog I might rant about newfangled RPGs and why I like something else more. People get very sensitive when they feel you are telling them that they're doing it wrong - no matter what "it" is, but particular when "it" is role-playing. Well, I just want to say, stop sweating it. There's plenty of real things to feel anxiety about. Your hobby shouldn't be one of them. If people say they don't like the game you play or how you play it, that's fine. Let it go. If someone reads this and calls me a crusty old Grognard who plays an inferior, overly simplistic version of the game, so be it. I don't care. And I don't care if the version of the game that I like dies out because no one else wants to play it. If that's the way it is, that's how it goes. Tough cookies for me. Likewise, if I say something you like is silly, learn to brush it off. For those of you who like to play Bards, the more power to you.

#RPGaDay: Day 21

21. Which RPG does the most with the least words?

Answer: This is a great question and I think it's one that lends itself to the OSR, or at least rules-light systems. Most of the OSR D&D retro-clones do a lot within a relatively slim volume. Of the ones that I've picked up, White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game probably does the most with the fewest words. I don't think it's my favorite version of that rule set, but in terms of how easy it is to just plug-and-play and teach to newbies, it's hard to beat. The page count is similar to Delving Deeper, but White Box FMAG has a lot more illustrations meaning fewer words overall. It might be the best beer-and-pretzel version of D&D you can buy, however, if you weren't an experienced role-player it might be difficult to extrapolate the kinds of layered and flavored campaigns of 1e AD&D. So the question then becomes: okay the rules get you playing, but for how long? Without more context, do these rules encourage and inspire play beyond dungeon crawls?

Whitehack is also a good candidate for a game with a low page count, but in its case, I almost want more description of how to apply the system. I really like some of its ideas, but there are a lot of places where it feels very vague, even if it was supposed to be intentionally open-ended. I need to get a better handle on this game because I think there's a lot of potential there. It's just pretty foreign to me right now, and I think it's the kind of game that requires a certain amount of investment of time and imagination. It's also worth noting that it's brevity (like the original D&D rules) leaves a lot up to the interpretation of each GM. This means it's likely that no two Whitehawk campaigns would ever be alike.

Finally, I want to mention a game that I don't own, but should, since it's pay-what-you-want. Questing Beast's Maze Rats looks like it might be the slimmest set of fantasy RPG rules you can buy that would get you up and running a game. It seems to be an efficient 2d6 game with some smart mechanics built for ease and convenience. Again, like White Box FMAG, I don't know how deep you could go with this game, but I don't know of an RPG that gets you playing with fewer words. If you haven't checked it out, here he is giving a tour.

#RPGaDay: Day 12

12. Which RPG has the most inspiring interior art?

Answer: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. I realize this probably sounds like a stock or lazy answer, but if I'm being honest with myself, the interior art for this version of the game was the most inspirational to me. Everything from the core rulebooks, to the supplemental hardbacks, and all of the modules, from 1977 to 1985-ish, set the tone for my imagination in regards to RPGs. The stable of regular artists in these books engraved images in my brain that will be there until the day I die. Trampier, Sutherland, Dee, Rosloff, Williamham, Holloway, Truman, and Otus among others formed the greatest all-star art team of all time, to my mind. Plenty of people have gone on and on about the work done in the PHB, the DMG, and the MM that I don't think I need to go into much detail there. I've also already highlighted Erol Otus's B/X cover during RPGaDay, and although to me Otus was the true genius of the group, I wanted to highlight a different artist that not as many people talk about.

Specifically, I want to highlight Russ Nicholson and his work in Fiend Folio. Russ's style tapped into a malevolence and an evil brutality that I don't remember being equaled until Lamentations of the Flame Princess. While the creatures he drew were nightmarish enough, the look of horror and terror in the eyes of the adventurers he drew told just as much of the story. It wasn't just the gory and sinister content that makes his work so compelling. His style, at least in the Fiend Folio, features a speckled almost grimy look to it. Russ's work inspired me because it drove home for me just how scary it would be to climb into a hole in the earth and then watch your comrade fall in battle to some minions from hell before being disemboweled on a cold, stone dungeon floor.

Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about.