Learning D&D

What’s the best way to learn D&D?

In my opinion there are three stages of learning so there are three answers.

The first stage - just playing - is so elementary than nearly everyone comes equipped with the knowledge to do it. You consider the situation and your character and then you say what your character will do. Someone else handles the rules.

The second stage - learning the rules - probably happens better at the table too. You figure out what dice to roll and why. But some people learn better from the book. And of course you can learn from people and from the book.

Lately (um, the last 20 years) though there’s a third way that’s invaluable and that’s to learn from lots and lots of other players online. I had always preferred to play in the OSR way even when I was trying to lay that play style over 3.X and 4E. Thankfully I found Dragonsfoot and realized not only was I not alone but it was OK to play old editions as well. Thank goodness!

The third stage - deep system learning I think I will call it - requires more than what’s in the books. While stage two is akin to memorizing algorithms to solve problems, stage three is like devising proofs and building new algorithms. One thing to do is to pull a system apart and make up your own neoclone or fantasy heartbreaker. When I did this, it seemed like everyone was redoing the Thief class as a warm up to making a whole new version of d&d but the Thief thing has fallen in popularity. But there will be some system or subsystem which gets your juices flowing to reverse engineer the whole thing and rebuild it in your own image.

I’m less sure about the steps to becoming a deep player or deep referee but in my mind’s eye the process must be similar, although more qualitative than quantitative. Some aspect of the actual play piques your interest enough to explore it, you learn all you can about it by deconstructing it, and then rebuild your own understanding of how it works for you and the several players.

Fair Poisons

What is a “fair” poison?

Even in OSR games where death is close at hand, it’s a real jerk move for a referee to put “Bang! You’re dead!” style threats in the game. At least as far as traps and dangers go, there ought to be some warning or clues beforehand that you’re dealing with bad mojo.

Sometimes the clue is the dungeon level or in the case of players who have played with you before, the type of wilderland hex they’re in (e.g. traveling in the swamp in OD&D is just bad news.)

Sometimes it can be explicit, like when the referee says, “Ohhh... are you sure you want to pick up that chalice? You can feel dread emanating from the purple stone altar.”

Sometimes the ref can give clues based on body language of NPCs. “Your goblin looks at the ceiling, slides to the side of the passage, and slowly edges forward against the wall.”

But many times the prepared players will have a good chance to pick up and avoid dangers simply by following stands procedures: a sneaky forward scout, ten-foot pole, examining doors for traps, using lockpicks, whatever you think is appropriate to be sufficiently prepared.

Preparation can happen prior to the delve too. For instance if the players are entering the Snake Pits of Set, they should know enough to pack antivenom and a Cure Disease scroll.

Poison is potentially different though. Someone might poison a PCs food. A needle trap or mantrap may be enhanced with poison. Air might be toxic or noxious. A potion may be poison rather than beneficial. These are real threats that are hard to detect.

I don’t know the answer. I do know that an unfair poison is one that kills instantly with little possibility of detection or handy cure. Even a poison which makes some permanent, negative change to a character can be fair if your players are willing to accept it. What do you think?

.

D&D things I like

Things I like on the player side:

Dungeoneering

Following NPCs to see what they do and how they think

Picking my PC’s plans

Puzzles

Genuine open-ended overland exploration

Lack of a story

The results of battles and skirmishes - not so much the playing them out

The results of romance - not playing it out - loves? Loss? Children?

Diseases

Finding and losing henchmen

Weird magic, even silly magic

My own character nearly dying

My own character dying appropriately

Things I like on the DM side:

Players who pick up the ball and run with it re: any of the above

Playing cool monsters

Making up cool magic items to find

Making up open-ended situations and seeing what the players think.

World-building

What do you like?

Descending Armor Class is Better

As long as Armor Class is a thing, I prefer descending armor class to ascending. I’ll explain.

In terms of ease of use, ascending is better. The math is easier. It’s easier to add than subtract. You know this is true intuitively even if it’s not strictly true for you. You see it among your friends. Ascending AC says, “add your attack bonus to d20 and compare.” So that’s a real easy mechanic. It’s easier than subtracting an armor class from your THAC0 and comparing. So in that sense ascending is better - it’s easier.

But there are two things that make descending AC better than ascending. 

The first one has to do with bounded accuracy and the arms race that happens with skills and stats in more modern editions. 

In D&D games prior to 3E, there were only 20 (or 21) armor classes. Just 20. There was AC 9, which was the worst, up to AC -10, which was the best. You couldn't get any better than the equivalent of AC 29 in an ascending system. 

But in the ascending systems of 3E and subsequent versions, your AC can go sky-high. You can have an AC of 40, 50, 100. What does that mean? It means that if someone wants to have a reasonable chance hit you, they need an attack bonus of some astronomical number as well. And the same is true for the DM's creations: Super high AC and super high BAB (base attack bonuses). 

Not so in descending. There's little reason for super inflation of attack bonuses because even an ancient red is only going to get up to a little less than AC 29.

The second thing that makes descending AC is related to the first, but it's more of a player-side aid. That is, with only 20 steps to the AC scale, you can chart it very easily and put it where everyone can see it. It can be reduced to a chart rather than a math problem.  Here is the entire range of AC versus attack roll results in Mythical Journeys. This chart is based heavily on 0D&D:

Players

Monsters

That's it. No math and very simple charts. Click to enlarge as usual. Obviously the part that goes from -1 to -10 is missing here but it would be trivial to show it as well.

So you can actually make these math problems into charts for the math-challenged. After using them for one session, they will be really easy to use. 

Of these two reasons, I would say the bounded accuracy of descending AC is more important than the ease of its use because it kills off the arms race. It also means a guy at level 4 is not all that much better than a guy at 1, and not that much worse than a guy at 8. The difference is in resources (hit points, money) rather than in personal skill. And that keeps the characters feeling more realistic and less like superheroes.

"*a held missile impacts 2 steps after being fired"

Rick Stump, one of the more successful dungeon masters in the whole world, inadvertently published a few of his DM secrets on MeWe the other day. Your intrepid thief took down some notes and I'm presenting them to you today. Take a look at this gem from the inside of Rick's DM screen:

Click to enlarge

Sorry about the picture quality. It's extreme detail from a much larger image.

Anyway, look at the order of his combat Rounds. I'm surprised to see that spell casting goes the entire Round. Are you? And I'm thrilled to note the asterisk at the bottom: "a held missile impacts 2 steps after being fired."

This indicates that the archer can hold fire and loose it at a later point in the round, and that it takes time to adjudicate a a bow strike.

This makes a lot of sense. 

I've played it that a thrown weapon goes during the melee portion of the round. This has never been completely satisfactory, and the reason is now clear to me: thrown versus fired is a special effect thing, not a real mechanical distinction.

I really like how Rick orders his combat. Here's my current combat order: 

click to enlarge

In Port, I'm going to keep this chart in mind in case things go haywire, but I'm going to go with Rick's method and see what happens. It will look like this: 

click to enlarge

In addition to Rick's list, I've moved Morale to the bottom to better allow players to see surrenders and retreats coming and plan accordingly.

Incidentally, I fixed the numbering issue on the second Combat Round chart.

XP for Gold

You can tell what a RPG is about by finding out what activities award XP. 

That's it. The object of the game is encoded in this statement.

Now let me refute that.

Jim Murphy of Los Angeles, a Dungeon Master mentor of mine, told a story on his YouTube channel. I have no doubt it's true. He said that almost from the time he started playing in 1975, the West Coast people did not like the idea of XP for gold. He was talking about this in the context of explaining how he awards XP to his players.

Jim said that in the early days, his folks out West settled fairly quickly on what he calls  XP for role-playing. That brings to my mind the idea of milestone ad hoc XP awards and/or story-based awards. 

He went on to clarify however. In his opinion, "role-playing" in this context is not being dramatic and using funny voices and props. Rather it means choosing to negotiate, retreat, sneak around, romance, etc. That is, to play your man like a person rather than like a pawn on a game board.

This makes me happy. I call this mode of gaming player-driven or player-directed. That is, players decide what their characters will do within a larger world rather than grind monsters and gold pieces straight up for XP. 

So to conclude, he awards XP for these actions. He explicitly rewards game actions with, let's say, the meta-reward of XP.

Additionally, Jim has the world respond appropriately and justly to the players' decisions. Heroes are treated heroically and licentiousness is treated with scorn by NPCs in game.

I agree that these actions ought to be rewarded. However, I only award XP for treasure (and in small measures, for monsters.) There are no XP awards for RP. Why? Is that stingy? 

Maybe.

Role-playing is its own reward. First it is a table reward. That is, it's fun to do with your friends at the table. Second it is a game reward - the just reaction of the world around the character is the reward for role-playing. If a character does a service to the king, perhaps the kind bestows an marvelous magic item. If he horns in on the thieves' guild's action, maybe he finds himself tarred and feathered outside the city wall!

In other words, treasure is where you find it, and sometimes finding it requires a different tool than a ten foot pole or a Wand of Metal Detection.

So the reward for RP is bigger than the game; bigger than any one game. But it is hidden a bit. 

Hidden perhaps behind a secret door and just waiting for the several players to uncover it.