Meat Shields

Regarding the introducing of the B/X game to new players, ViP asked (in the comments) how I felt about “giving each player two or more PCs, or a bodyguard, or an animal companion” in order to counter the initial deadliness of the game design. ViP cites the DCC “funnel system” (the practice of starting an adventure/campaign with multiple characters, presuming a high death toll) as a workable model.

The TL;DR answer: not a huge fan of the idea.

For those interested in my extended thoughts:

I’ve played DCC more than a couple times. I’ve also played in B/X campaigns where I was allowed multiple 1st level characters to start, with pretty much the exact goal as DCC: allow players a little leeway, without cutting down on the overall deadliness. I’ve also had the opportunity to run multiple characters in games when we were lacking a sufficient number of players at the table; that experience isn’t limited to B/X, either (I was asked to run multiple characters in one of my last ever 3rd edition games).

Here’s the thing: AS A PLAYER, running multiple characters in a game does not give me the same experience as running a single character. For me, I’ve found the practice gives me a lesser experience; that is, the experience of role-playing, the main reason I’m playing a tabletop game is diminished in having to split my attention between multiple characters. I don’t get the same “buzz” from driving two (or more) characters; what occurs instead is that I lose my subjective immersion in the game experience and become much more of an objective “game player.”

To use some Forge-y terms (which I know some of my readers detest), running multiple characters throws me immediately into “author stance” with respect to my characters…the same perspective I have when I am a DM running multiple NPCs. Perhaps this is a side effect of having run so many games (and so many NPCs) as a DM/GM over the years. Regardless of the reason, caring for more than one character causes me to lose my feeling of immersion in the game world…and the game, for me, becomes much more about practical game play, and much less about escapism.

I am trying hard (at this moment) to think of a time as a DM when I allowed players to run multiple characters in one of my games. I honestly can’t remember any (former players of mine reading this: feel free to correct my aging memory). I would much rather adjust/change the adventure, or increase the PCs’ experience levels (for a one-off adventure), or assign multiple NPCs to a party (that I, the DM, will run) then require or allow players to run multiple characters in a game session. When I run a D&D game, I want to give the players an immersive experience; I want players to feel like they are in the game. These days I am of the opinion that most of the enjoyment of D&D play is derived from being experiential and while (in the past) I did not fully grasp this concept, I was fortunate enough to run games in a style that (often) allowed this experience to unfold. Now…I wouldn’t want to run a game in any other way and, to that end, I would forgo any type of “funnel system” that deprived players of the single character experience.

Regarding ViP's other suggestions:

I’ve blogged before (and at length) about retainers in B/X. I’ve also offered my own ideas for adding “built-in” animal companions and bodyguards (see my B/X exceptional traits…some of the entries on the list provide just this type of bennie). My thoughts on the matter, and on hired “meat shields” in general, has shifted somewhat over time.

First, let me say that with regard to “retainers,” the B/X system’s brevity on the subject causes it to fall down. B/X is just a streamlined, cleaned-up version of OD&D and does an exceptional job in most of the slights changes to the original system. However, in subsuming the “Loyalty” system into “Morale” and providing a specific system of when to apply it to retainers, Moldvay goes a long way to undermining the concept of retainers as longstanding henchpersons and companions.

Per the rules printed on page B27 (and, yes, I realize these are listed as optional, but the Morale system in B/X is a rather key component of the game; cutting it results in multiple problems) retainers much check Morale after each adventure with failure indicating the retainer "will not adventure with their employer again."  That is damn fickle considering a PC of average charisma will only command NPCs with a morale score of 7 (possibly 8 if providing lavish rewards and shares of loot). That’s a 42% chance of desertion after each game session (as “adventure” is defined in B/X)! Even improving that morale to 8 only reduces the chance to 28%, meaning you’re fairly likely to lose your retainers after four game sessions; that’s a month of (weekly) play! The Cook/Marsh expert set talks blithely of “permanent NPC retainers” (on page X59) but then provide the exact same morale rules as Moldvay (on X26).

Clearly house rules on the subject are necessary unless you want your campaign world to resemble Vance’s Cugel to Clever, or similar (and perhaps you do). For me, I think the recruitment and grooming of loyal retainers is part of the overall system of character development that occurs in a long-term D&D campaign, helping to make the world more real for the players…and, thus, more immersive.

Jory Cassel, retainer

Retainers, in my opinion, should be MORE than simple “meat shields;” death or diminishment of a retainer is an appropriate alternative “loss” or penalty for players (in place of death or diminishment of their own characters). Players should not be cavalier about hiring retainers and allowing them to die in their stead…at least, not if they plan on hiring more in the future (word gets around…). But this only matters if you have retainers that stand fast with the PCs. Which doesn’t happen often given the B/X rules.

Mercenaries are a different matter. Here, the fickleness of the combined Morale/loyalty system is actually appropriate…and as mercenaries are pretty much expected to die “in service,” it’s less likely for PCs to take hits to their reputation for such losses, at least when it comes to hiring more mercenaries (they WILL however, take a hit to their pocketbook!).

Bronn, mercenary
(no last name)

I’ve always allowed the hiring of such NPCs to round out adventure parties…probably because it was suggested in the opening pages of B2: The Keep on the Borderlands (my first adventure module, included with the Moldvay basic set). The smart adventurers will save some of their starting money in order to acquire these types of hirelings, and I encourage this in new players. To me, a hired sword is just another choice of possible starting equipment for the beginning adventurer. I usually price mercs as 5gp to 10gp depending on equipment and assumed hazards (with expectations of bonuses or loot shares). Mercs in my games tend to follow my presumed prejudices regarding the type. I suppose they’d gain experience as a retainer, but such NPCs only rarely make more than one or two forays into a dungeon before dying or quitting (from a failed Morale test).

As for “animal companions?” Well, setting aside for the moment that I am a bit dissatisfied with how I did the exceptional traits (and would probably re-write them before using them)…I think such special characters fall into a category very similar to “loyal retainers.” They should probably only be provided as a reward for advancement (not something to start with at 1st level), as part of a character’s ongoing development. They should count against a character’s limit of retainers (based on Charisma), and they should not be considered simple “meat shields.” For me, an animal companion is something akin to a discovered magic item, and its loss should be a real blow to a character.

Expensive mounts and warhorses, I put in the same category as mercenaries…though their “loyalty” is assured so long as you remember to tie them up.
; )

B/X Charisma & Henchmen (Part 3)

[continued from here]

Wow, this has taken a long time coming...talk about procrastination!

A couple weeks ago I was out of town and my gaming group, unwilling to give up their Thursday Night Out, met up and played a little DCC (the Beta rules) that everyone's been yammering about. Great fun was had by all, and my understanding is that the "funnel system" (they started with 15 characters between 'em) worked well and gave them a different (and not unwelcome) play experience, since they weren't worried about being overly-cautious.

Still...is this the game to supplant B/X?

In the email chain that discussed the session, and its plusses, severals comments stood out to me, especially this one from the GM:

It seemed like the extra characters were a lot handier than D&D henchmen which you have to order around by DM proxy and which have annoying morale checks/self preservation goals.

Here, see, this is the kind of misunderstanding I was trying to address in my prior posts, started O So Long Ago.

In B/X, the morale of one's retainers (remember we don't have "henchmen" in B/X) is determined by the employer's Charisma score. A character with an average Charisma score (9-12) conveys a morale score of 7 to his or her retainers...a step up from normal ("civilized") human morale (6), though not quite that of a disciplined man-at-arms (8). According to the Expert set, 7 is the moral of your average "barbarian horde" (page X22).

Higher and lower than average Charisma provides the same bonus/penalty system found for the other ability scores: 13-15 +1, 16-17 +2, 18 +3, etc. giving the possible morale scores for retainers a range of 4 (really pathetic) to 10 (pretty darn stalwart).

Now, we all know what morale is in B/X, right? The Great Equalizer for PC adventurers, that's what. While a small group of 1st level characters might encounter as many as 8 spear-wielding goblins or 16 (!!) kobolds in a wandering 1st level encounter, it doesn't take much to break the morale of such rabble: kill one and have the DM roll over their morale score (7 for goblins, 6 for kobolds)...quite possibly adjusted in the PCs' favor if the party is heavily armed and armored with shiny steel.

You can see why the idea of retainers doesn't appeal to your average player, then (especially those with low Charisma scores), when the odds are good that your hired help could be fleeing the coop in the midst of battle...especially if you paid them up front! Sounds like it's not worth the time it takes to post a Help Wanted notice at the local tavern.

But such is only the case if you're using retainers incorrectly.

Retainers are ADVENTURERS remember? Not rabble. The only time they run in combat is when the rest of the party runs, i.e. when the battle seems lost and discretion becomes the better part of valor.

Really. But don't take my word for it; here's Moldvay:

Retainers do not need to check morale in combat unless the danger is greater than might reasonably be expected.

(page B27; emphasis Moldvay)

Remember that "retainers are more than just men-at-arms...hired to fight and protect their employer but only expected to take reasonable risks." No, retainers are "expected to take the same risks the characters expect to face" (Moldvay, B21).

In other words, if the party is duking it out with some big, ugly demon the retainers should be front-and-center, doing what they can to the best of their ability. If the PCs decide Old Walking Malevolence is too tough and want to split, the retainers are going to go right along with 'em. They're going to follow the PCs lead, but they are cut from the same adventurous cloth as the PCs.

So, what then is the point of retainers even having a morale score? And for that matter, what's the point of having a high Charisma score to influence the retainers' morale?

Here it is:

RETAINER MORALE: The morale score of a retainer is based on the Charisma score (see page B7) of the player hiring him (or her). Retainers must check morale after each adventure; if the morale check is failed, they will not adventure with their employer again...

(Moldvay, page B27)

Just let that soak in for a second...pretty damn harsh!

First off, it's great that the only time morale becomes an important item is between adventure sessions; one never needs to worry about retainers flipping out and bugging out or backstabbing the PCs mid-adventure (unless abused and mistreated, I presume)...which is, of course, what some (like myself) have suggested in the past.

On the other hand, one puts an investment of time and money into a retainer and expects the dude to stick around. Remember these guys are adventurers, so they gain experience points (albeit slowly) and level up, eventually becoming powerful allies and lieutenants of their employer.

Then WHAM: "So sorry, just got a better offer." And they're out the door. Perhaps to retire (they've earned enough swag), perhaps to settle down (marry their sweetheart), perhaps to join a rival adventuring group or start their own band of cutthroat treasure-hunters. Point is, they're gone, and that's tough to mitigate.

Oh, you can give them extra shares of treasure to stick around: Moldvay suggests a full share over several adventures will permanently raise retainer morale by 1, and I'm sure an occasional magic item would help "sweeten the deal" as well.

Why else would a magic-user need the ability to craft magic weapons and armor?

; )

Oh, yeah, there is another thing you can do to increase retainer loyalty: have a HIGH CHARISMA SCORE. It ain't a dump stat if you want to keep your retainers around!

Is it worth it to keep a few hard-cases on retainer?

What do you think? A retainer can be of any adventuring class (though the book points out that dwarves should be rare and elves rarer still), and can be used to shore up deficiencies (those of the employer or those of the party). The retainer advances in level, gradually becoming a powerful adventurer in his (or her) own right...and the retainer is loyal and helpful and uses skills in aid of the party to the best of his or her ability. Not a bad trade for a half-share of treasure.

Plus wouldn't it be damn cool to ride into town with a band of knights or dwarves or whatever at your back? To have dibs on your hench-cleric's cure disease or neutralize poison spell? To ask your pet wizard to slay the impertinent tavern wench that spilled your beer in some spectacular and callous fashion?

Of course it would.

So is there any reason NOT to hire retainers?

No, but there are some words of caution: unless your party is a small one, it's probably best NOT to go hog wild with the hiring of retainers. Even if your character has a high Charisma score and doesn't mind being free with his treasure. Experience points awarded for an adventure are divided evenly between all party members including NPC retainers. From Moldvay (page B22):

DIVIDING XP: Treasure is divided by the party, but the DM handles all the XP awards. At the end of the adventure, the DM totals the XP from all treasure recovered plus all monsters defeated and then divides the total by the number of surviving characters (both player characters and NPCs) in the party.

The example that follows clearly shows the NPCs taking an equal share of the XP earned; although NPC retainers only earn one-half the XP a player character does (1 XP for every 2 XP earned).

NPCs are thus a drain on XP, slowing down the advancement rate of an entire party. If every PC brings an entourage of 4-5 (or more!) retainers to the dungeon, advancement can become glacially slow...not to mention the logistics of managing a party of 25+ adventurers.

On the other hand, if the inclusion of NPC retainers allows a party to explore more dangerous dungeons and purloin more incredible treasure (not to mention survive more extreme danger), then you're going to want to hire at least a couple stalwarts.

As with other aspects of B/X, it's a balancing act, and yet another area of tactical importance. How many retainers are enough? How many are too many? Which classes should we bring and which should we leave at home? How much "bonus" money should I pay to ensure a retainer stays on? Is the retainer really worth the extra share of treasure? At what point does a retainer become more bother than he or she is worth?

All things to consider...and well worth considering. I believe the rules regarding retainers, loyalty, morale, and Charisma occupy a significant portion of the Moldvay book for a good reason: retainers are an important part of the D&D experience. This part of the game...like the rulership endgame...seems to have faded from importance in later editions as PCs have become more and more "superheroic" and thus self-sufficient. I would imagine that retainers (and henchmen) were much more prominent in the early years of the game, and I intend to make it a bigger part of MY on-going campaign.

Maybe some of you ancient grognards that occasionally drop-by would care to comment on the use, value, and prominence of retainers "back in the old days?" I've read Robilar had at least a couple of trusted hirelings (Quij the orc and Otto the mage)...I'm sure there were others attached to the original player characters.

: )

B/X Charisma & Henchmen (Part 2)

[from here]

First off, we should probably define the term henchman, as given in B/X.

Found it? Ha! There's no such thing in B/X, which means I've already screwed up the title of these posts by my improper understanding of the concept!

Well, that's not entirely true. "Henchman" is the term used in the older AD&D books. However, by 1981 (I am guessing) many kids picking up the Basic rules may very well have associated "henchmen" with the helpers/cronies of super-villains and such. The concept of the "evil henchman;" or as wikipedia so succinctly puts it (under the topic of "henchmen in popular culture"):

Henchmen (occasionally henchlings) are common in mystery, fantasy, adventure comic books, and adventure novels and movies. They are the expendable adherents of the main villain, always ready to do the master's bidding, to kill or be killed, kidnap, or threaten, as needed. Often, they are killed by the hero before the master villain is reached, by the hero's sidekick in a dramatic battle, or even by the master villain as punishment for failure to comply with orders.

What heroic adventurer wants toadies and minions? Who wants their PC associated with someone who (in fiction) is inevitably going to get their ass kicked by the "real" hero?

Which is sad, really, because "henchman" used to be a term of respect for a loyal aid or attendant (look it up).

Anyway, Moldvay never uses the term henchman to describe hirelings; throughout the Basic rules, the term Retainer is used exclusively. The Cook/Marsh Expert set continues this practice in the two or three places it is mentioned at all. When we speak of a retainer, we often consider the idea of a counselor or consultant (like a retained attorney) or the "loyal servant" that has been with a family for years.

The origin of the term retainer comes from the English feudalism (such as it was) during the late middle ages, at a point when the traditional "vassal-swears-to-provide-military-service-to-lord-when-called" had been replaced with "vassal-gives-money-to-lord-in-lieu-of-military-service." The lord would take this money to "retain" hired mercenaries year-round (a private army of sorts). Later, any crony in the pay and/or favor of a noble might be called a "retainer."

[this is, of course, a gross simplification but I'm not a medieval history scholar and this isn't a blog about old European governance systems. You can research the English War of Roses more info on this period]

For the purpose of B/X, Moldvay defines retainers as follows:

A retainer (or hireling) is a person hired by a player character (PC) to aid that character on an adventure. ...Retainers are more than just men-at-arms, soldiers hired to fight and protect their employer but only expected to take reasonable risks. Retainers are lieutenants and assistants to a PC and are expected to lend their skills and knowledge to the benefit of the party and to take the same risks the characters expect to face.

Wow. The parenthetical note ("or hireling") is problematic as it implies an equal relationship between the term "hireling" and "retainers." Which is not the case: all retainers may be hirelings (i.e. hired individuals) but not all hirelings are retainers. Expert hirelings (called specialists in the Expert set) are explicitly stated to NOT be retainers.

Nor would it appear (from Moldvay's description) are men-at-arms...what many of us in the RPG biz commonly refer to as "meat shields." Retainers are "more than just men-at-arms," the latter being defined as:

"...soldiers hired to fight and protect their employer but only expected to take reasonable risks."

No, no, not meat shields at all. Retainers are "expected" to "take the same risks the characters expect to face" (and if the PCs are unwilling to risk, well...). AND they are likewise expected to contribute their "skills and knowledge" to the success of the dungeon endeavor, not just step forward and eat the first orc arrow or goblin spear.

Retainers are fellow adventurers in other words. Albeit NPC adventurers and thus controlled by the DM.

There is a clear distinction drawn between mercenaries and retainers. For example, in the Expert set it is explicit that elves and dwarves may only hire mercenaries of their own species, "but specialists and retainers of any race may be employed." A human adventurer can be the trusty retainer of an elven lord because the retainer is outside the norm of society...he is an ADVENTURER. Normal humans are well defined in the Basic set (page B40):

"A normal human is a human who does not seek dangerous adventure. A normal human does not have a class."

Player characters are not "normal humans." They each belong to an adventuring class, or they are a demihuman class. They DO seek "dangerous adventures" and profit because of it. Retainers are cut from the same cloth, gaining experience (though at a slower rate) and contributing their abilities while taking the same risks as the PCs.

Now, retainers may indeed start as "normal humans;" Moldvay writes:

A retainer may be of any level (0, 1, 2, 3, or higher) and of any class (normal man or character class). Retainers can never be higher in level than the PC who hires them.

Does this contradict the definition of a "normal human?" Not at all. In his description of normal humans, he writes:

"...some professions (such as merchant, soldier, lord, scout, and so forth) help in some adventures. As soon as a human gets experience points through an adventure, that person must choose a character class."

A retainer may start their career as a normal human, but the sheer fact that they are willing to sign on to an adventuring party means they have the grit and fire to advance in "level" and outpace the rest of human society with their prowess.

These aren't "meat shields." These are fellow adventurers.

But they are NPCs. Adventurers controlled by the DM, even if hired by the player characters. And it is for this reason, Moldvay makes the following pronouncement that I believe I have misinterpreted up until now:

Retainers are often used to strengthen a party which is attempting an extremely dangerous adventure. It is recommended that the DM not allow allow beginning players to hire retainers. New players tend to use retainers as a crutch, letting them take all the risks.

Now for whatever reason, when I've read that paragraph in the past, I interpreted "players" as "player characters." However, re-reading of the Basic set shows Moldvay is fairy specific to distinguish "players" from "characters" in his text.

I always considered "new player" and "beginning player" to mean low-level player characters (possibly 2nd level, but certainly 1st level). For example, in my most recent B/X campaign (which has run for a dozen sessions or so) I wasn't letting any PCs hire CLASSED NPCs until recently when they started hitting 3rd and 4th level. My reasoning? They were finally getting to the "status" where low-level adventurers would come seeking them out.

In retrospect, this is completely retarded of me. Not that my players questioned this...I assume they assume I'm some sort of "master of the B/X game" (possibly because I have a blog and act pretty arrogant most of the time). However, I am only now seeing the error of my ways:

• "Beginning/new players" are NOT the same as new (1st level) characters. When Moldvay talks about new players using retainers as a "crutch," I now believe he is referring to the fact that they are NPCs, and thus controlled by the DM. A NPC that is expected to contribute to the adventure by lending both skills and KNOWLEDGE? "Ah, yes, Mr. DM-controlled-character...what do you think would be the best course of action at this juncture?" Now that IS using the character as a crutch. For experienced players (as all mine are at this point after eight months of B/X gaming), this should be a non-issue.

• Well, what does a 1st level adventurer hire since he cannot hire since retainers "can never be higher in level than the PCs who hired them?" Answer: Normal humans and 1st level characters. It doesn't say the retainers can't be equal in level...and since retainers advance twice as slowly (earning 1 XP for every 2 XP a player character earns), they should never be able to outpace their employer. Well, except possibly for elves, but there are ways to address that.

• "Extremely dangerous adventures" include any adventure a 1st level adventure undertakes that doesn't involve mustard farming. Hiring a couple retainers for each PC might well have cut down on number of dead characters littering the Caves of Chaos. There IS a way to play this game from 1st level without the game looking like Russian Roulette, and including adventurous hirelings may well be one of the main ways.

Remember I said that all ability scores should carry the same weight and purpose? This is the whole point of Charisma. A player rolls 3D6 six times to get a set of ability scores. Some are high, some are low, most are (probably) average. For the player with the high Charisma and low Strength score, his (or her) advantage is the ability to hire more retainers...adventurers that will contribute to the party's fortunes and share in their dangerous risks.

We'll get to the actual usefulness of that in the next post. Right now, I'd like to apologize for all the extremely surly and risk-averse NPCs I've been providing for my players to hire. No wonder they don't give a shit what their Charisma score is!

B/X Charisma & Henchmen (Part 1)

This may get long and will probably jump around a lot, but please bear with me.

It is quite possible, upon reflection, that I have been a bad B/X Dungeon Master.

Not meaning "jerk" or "mean" and not even meaning "incompetent." I think I can still rate passable in the DM category (I still have players showing up). But inaccurate in my portrayal (or rather, "running") of the B/X system.

Having got that off my chest, let's take a couple steps back.

I play and run B/X for the same reason most of us (except for my players, who are kind enough to indulge my weirdness) play whatever edition/clone of the D&D game we do. Namely, I play B/X because it works for me and does what I need/want it to do.

There are folks who enjoy tinkering and house-ruling and such, but everyone starts with a foundation and builds from there. The choice of a particular edition is the choice of that foundation. Do you want a game where everything is sculpted out from the beginning of your career to the end? You may be playing BECMI/RC. Do you like the semi-occultic writing of Gygax and its absolutely huge amount of pre-made monsters, spells, and magic items (not to mention the option of playing halfling thieves and half-orc assassins)? Then AD&D is probably your game. Etc.

I play B/X instead of OD&D or BECMI or AD&D because it works the way I think D&D should work. That's just me, okay? For me, I don't need anything else because B/X sets a foundation of play...even my B/X Companion is nothing but a supplement built from that foundation based on the material in the B/X books. I'm big enough to admit that.

I'm likewise big enough to admit I've been leaving out a large chunk of the B/X game...specifically, Henchmen and (by association) Charisma.

I'll speak to that in a moment; let's talk ability scores for a moment. I know much ado has been made about the Sacred Six ability scores over the years...specifically their importance (for better or worse) to the mechanics of the game. In the Little Brown Books of OD&D they did precious little...but since that first publication of D&D, they've grown and grown in importance until you have the 3rd edition/Pathfinder era (and presumably 4th edition as well), where they drive everything outside of a random D20 roll. And with their growth in importance, ability scores have grown in range, with the ability to continuously add more and more points to your stats until you wonder what exactly they model at all.

[people don't just continuously get bigger and stronger over time...only the Hulk does that]

Because of their mechanical importance to later editions of the game, there have been many methods used to up players' chances of getting desirable, high scores. Beyond 3D6, new methods of rolling scores using multiple dice and even "point-buy" systems have been introduced to the D&D game. Back when I was a kid playing AD&D, you'd roll until you got a set of stats you liked and then you worked like hell to keep your PC alive (or else bring him back if he died), so you didn't have to go through that again.

For the sake of expedience in my current B/X campaign, I recently introduced a (limited) point-buy system to speed chargen of viable PCs (our group is at a high enough level that newly created characters are coming in at a level greater than 1st, more often than not). After a couple of character deaths we had our 1st introduction of point-buy PCs into the game.

Two of the three PCs had a score of "3" in Charisma.

The players assured me they weren't attempting to game the system, but had needed the points for other abilities and fully intended to role-play their characters. I don't believe I said boo to them, but later felt more than a little steamed. More at myself and my chargen "house rule" than at the players. I provided them a means to "dump" in one stat, and they took it...that they both chose Charisma for that dumping shows that I had made the ability score so weak as to not necessitate putting points into it.

[the odds that any given player rolling a 3 for CHA using the standard 3D6 in order method is 1 in 1296. The odds of seeing two in the same party is 1 in 1,679,616, adjusted downwards depending on how many party members are present and rolling randomly. What a gyp]

All ability scores should be equal; there should be NO "dump stats." If there's a useless ability score in a game, than the game is probably better off without it...or it needs to be changed. I've been playing a lot of chess this week down in Mexico, a game where pieces have been changed and re-developed over centuries. In Spanish, the bishop is called the "alfiel," which is an Arabic translation of a Persian translation of Indian sanskrit from when the piece was an elephant that only moved two spaces diagonally. It was judged too weak and was changed to the bishop in the 1500s or so...but this was after the Moorish people had conquered Spain and brought their own version of chess to the Iberian peninsula.

Whatever. The point is, the elephant sucked and needed to be changed and the bishop rocks.

Now back to what I said towards the beginning of this post: I play B/X because it does what I want it to do. It gives me what I need in a fantasy RPG. Moldvay did a pretty genius job of his Basic set (as even Holmes points out), so maybe I needed to go back to Moldvay and see just what the hell Charisma was good for.

Aside from parleying with monsters...a tactic that's only useful when PCs and monsters speak a common language...the MAIN operative mechanic is in the interaction of PCs and henchmen, aka Retainers. Counting the section on retainer morale in the Encounter chapter, and the portion of character generation pertaining to Charisma and its effects on henchmen, Moldvay devotes nearly an entire page to henchmen/retainers.

In a 64 page rule book, that is huge.

When you are creating an entire set of rules on a 64 page budget, you do not waste space on unnecessary subjects. Trust me, I learned this when writing the B/X Companion. You can always fill white-space with an illustration, but generally even space for illos are at a premium...at least in a book designed to be a "complete" game, that includes beneficial examples of play, glossary, random tables, etc.

Let me give you some perspective on this: one page devoted to henchmen is more than the Cook/Marsh rules devote to castle construction OR spell research and magic item creation...fairly large subjects, right?

Do you know how much space Moldvay devotes to traps? Not counting the thief section (where there disarming receives minimal mention), we get about three paragraphs, split between the Adventure section and the DM Info chapter. Three paragraphs...compared to a full page.

How prominent are traps in your D&D game? How often do they come into play?

Compared to traps, how much attention do you give to henchmen and retainers. If you're like me, the answer is "not very much." Which is why O why, Charisma becomes a dump stat. If you run a B/X game and forget one 64th of the rules. That's like knocking out three or four pages of rules (NOT color text) form your D20 Players Handbook. Where do you want to take those from? Spells? Equipment? Removing 3 pages could mean removing 2-4 entire classes from the rules.

I've been doing B/X a disservice by NOT paying more attention to these rules.

All right, that's the teaser...I hope to flesh this subject out more in my next post.

Q is for Questionable Companions

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic this month? Things necessary to take your D&D campaign from “eh, fantasy” to “kick ass.” And who doesn’t want that?]

Q is for Questionable Companions…especially those thugs-for-hire called henchmen and retainers.

First a little Q & A: What is D&D without hired companions? Answer: a game where Charisma has very little impact.

NPC hirelings are one of THE things that make D&D the game that it is. Besides being dead useful at low levels (even for larger parties) and giving DMs a way to role-play besides going “Raar!” (or other monster noises), NPCs give players a chance to interact with the game world in a NON-ANTAGONISTIC FASHION on a regular basis. And what good is that?

Engaging the players, enriching the role-playing experience.

If NPCs are only ever used as opponents (i.e. set up to be knocked down) or quest givers (Mr. Moneybags at the local tavern) than you might as well be playing the World of Warcraft. Seriously. Go do it…live your virtual fantasy life stepping-and-fetching for imaginary characters and skin as many velociraptors as you want; you won’t even have to wash your hands afterwards.

If you want to play a ROLE-PLAYING GAME instead…well, welcome to the world of character interaction.

Every story has its “bit parts;” every movie has its “character actors.” NPC hirelings, for the most part, fill this role. Even if they’re not actually “hired.” The classic example of the latter: PCs find an adventurer-type person trapped in the depths of the dungeon and (freeing the person) gains their services. Such an NPC is still a “hireling;” their hiring price was the freedom bought for him/her by the party.

These latter hirelings are found frequently within those old TSR modules: B2, N1, A1, G1-3 (a storm giant!), D1-3 (Svirfneblin, insane Kuo-Toa, bastard half-Drow!). To me, they serve several purposes:

- They bolster a party weakened by attrition.
- They give new players a chance to come in in media res.
- They provide a chance for PC/NPC interaction of a non-antagonistic nature.

And that last part IS important. As discussed in negotiation, actual character interaction helps us engage with our own characters and the game world…not to mention it makes things a lot more interesting than simply looting and killing every character. And no, it doesn’t mean players (or DMs!) need to “talk in funny voices.” Just being engaged in an “in game” conversation is enough to shift one’s mindset to the “imaginary world.”

Now for the “questionable” part.

Remember that the player characters themselves are scurrilous rogues for the most part: treasure hunters and fortune seekers delving in dark and dank dungeons, not above slaying the odd (or odd-looking) sentient and looting said creature’s fallen corpse. Not only are such scallywags not above a little murder, they appear to have a fairly low value of their own lives, blissfully walking into dragons’ dens and death traps.

What kind of individual would work for such people?

Now aside from the “grateful captives” rescued from “durance vile” I’m thinking only mercenaries of the lowest and meanest types. In other words, individuals of even more rotten character than the PCs!

I often picture the opening sequence from the Disney film Aladdin…where the evil sorcerer has just received the magic amulet from his little henchman, Gazeem “the humble thief.” Gazeem may be my favorite Disney character of all time (even considering those anthropomorphic animals from Robin Hood and Malificent from Sleeping Beauty) despite his extremely short screen time. This character practically screams HENCHMAN at me…I have often modeled Gazeem with grogs and NPCs in a variety of games (including Traveler!).

I used to wonder at why mercenary prices in the B/X Expert set were so damn low…5 gp per month? What kind of stuff are you shoveling? Then I realized that these types of mercs aren’t hired for dungeon expeditions…they’re hired for military operations. And in addition to their standard rate of pay they expect to be able to rampage and rape and pillage whatever city or barony or domain they’re hired to conquer. These are those same guys you see in the Paul Verhoeven film Flesh and Blood. Ugly, violent, sordid types who live (and eat and whatever else) by the sword.

NPC retainers and hirelings should NEVER be meek little meat shields. It takes true grit to accompany a band of adventurers into a dungeon. Even though they are not as skilled and proficient as the PCs (remember, PCs are “heroic” compared to “Normal Men”) they should still be grizzled, hardened to hardship, and always looking for an angle.

“An angle?” Hell, yes! Unless they’re getting paid excessively by the PCs they should be shirking duties whenever they can and grumbling mightily whenever inconvenienced. Remember Harry Dean Stanton and Yaphet Kotto in the film Alien? “I think we need to discuss the bonus situation before we go any further.” Yeah…THAT kind of attitude.

Just because the NPCs are hired by the guy with a high Charisma (and thus have a high morale score) doesn't mean such rascals don’t bear watching. They may not have the pickpocket skills of a thief, but that doesn’t mean they won’t attempt to purloin a gem or jewel if left unattended with said valuable…and they’re probably the first ones to get drunk on any wine or victuals found in the dungeon. The high morale score simply means they won’t abandon their employer…because of the high Charisma they feel safer with him (or her) than taking off and trying to find the way out of the dungeon alone! A character with a low Charisma inspires no such confidence. “Forget this dude,” is the first thing they say when the going gets tough and the leader looks panicked.

The old DMG had a ton of random tables for creating hirelings with varied personalities. I remember as a kid thinking, “huh, there sure are a lot of negative personality types.” Now, though, I think ol’ Gary didn’t go far enough to the negative. Sure, sure…Big G was probably accounting for those holier-than-thou Paladin-types (I play B/X so I don’t have to worry about THAT particular nonsense). These tables give a nice beginning, but I’d prefer to make my own lists of questionable character. Allow roguishness to be your guide.

: )