Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Here's a nice stack of interesting content (a few of which are nested and contain link lists of their own):

 
Does a nearly universal conceit of RPGs actually break early D&D? Zzarchov Kowolski argues Yes.
Maybe it's because I used to play Ars Magica, but when I returned to D&D B/X, I just assumed that the stable of characters was part of the game that grew out of having hirelings. They naturally make convenient alternate/replacement characters.
 
Does a nearly universal conceit of RPGs actually break early D&D? Zzarchov Kowolski argues Yes.
He makes some interesting points, but I think B/X muddies the waters. Those rules were generally well-written and intended for non-grognards. And yet, they don't mention anything about character stables at all even while they shared plenty of these design issues (fighter/mage scaling, level limits, etc.). So did Holmes/Moldovey/Metzger also fail to explain the troupe concept, or did they fail to apprehend it? Or is Zzarchov just wrong?
 
He makes some interesting points, but I think B/X muddies the waters. Those rules were generally well-written and intended for non-grognards. And yet, they don't mention anything about character stables at all even while they shared plenty of these design issues (fighter/mage scaling, level limits, etc.). So did Holmes/Moldovey/Metzger also fail to explain the troupe concept, or did they fail to apprehend it? Or is Zzarchov just wrong?
It's not explained in B/X at all. I simply saw it as an obvious solution to the issues of the game when I read it again after 20 years.
 
I apologize but Zzarchov article is poorly reasoned and badly organized. It basically a condemnation of classic D&D is played climaxing in a advert for the Neoclassical Geek Revival RPG.

It tries to get the reader riled up by listing in detail nearly all of the traditional complaints about classic D&D. Then finally gets around to making a point that D&D is broken by players only focusing on a single character. That all these problems that classic D&D goes away if you assume the default it everybody playing multiple characters similar to what described in Ars Magica in the late 80s.

However magically the Neoclassical Geek Revival RPG makes playing a single character in D&D viable again because

Neoclassical Geek Revival is ideally suited to playing a single character who lives large and fails hard in a shenanigan generator. Its rules reflect that.
]

OK that all well and good so how about explaining how NGR solves this issue since Zzarchov took care to layout the litany of the weakness of classic D&D.

Wrapping it up
I have observed the following.

Both Blackmoor and Greyhawk have anecdotes of sessions focusing on single character and their exploits as well as session where the players was controlling more than one character. Along with sessions where a PC died and the players started playing one of the subordinates. The anecdotes are all over the place in this regard which suggests that it purely a result of personal interest and or the circumstances of the session.

I have a Dungeon Master's Adventure Log with 16 separate sessions/campaigns recorded in it. Half of them show players playing multiple characters other half they don't. Two I remember distinctly the multiple characters are there because they were one off sessions and the second character was there so if one gets killed the players doesn't have to fiddle around rolling up another character. Several others I remember that the multiple characters existed because that what the players wanted to roleplay. They had a main characters but a bunch of secondary character that for various reason hung out with the with main PCs.

I been thinking about scanning this for quite some time. I will see if i can do it this week and post it everybody to look at.

Having hireling and henchmen was always a thing throughout classic D&D. However it was also at the same time not a thing because either the PC didn't have enough gold or charisma to keep a group loyal enough for it to be worthwhile. It there because this was a real thing that happened in medieval history especially when it came to warfare. it makes sense that this part of life to make it into the early campaigns and thus into the rules themselves.

The trade off wasn't some form of game balance. Just like in life having more people on your side was a good thing. However the consequence was that you need to support and pay these people fighting you. Which is an expense. Some people thought it was worth, other didn't.

Because hirelings and henchment were in the game, because nearly every referee I knew had the players run them in combat, for some the idea of a stable of character was obvious. Again with a related trade off, do I take the risk of running a single character and get more treasure and xp. Or do I have the benefit of two or more character and split everything between them. Again different people thought about the trade off differently.

For me the trend over the early 80s was towards each players running a single character. The reason that it was just easier to keep track of everything going on as a player if you only needed to focus on a single character. Especially if your referee's campaign had a focus on the players making their mark on the setting as mine did.

Also more detailed RPGs like Runequest, GURPS, Hero System, etc I noticed also tended towards players playing single character. While less mechanically complex system were a mixed bag of players with multiple and single character.

Finally Ars Magica is the first RPG I read that rationalized playing multiple PCs as part of the system. It wasn't notable for having players play multiple PCs. It was notable for letting each player shine as the main focus at different times with it tiered hierarchy of mage, companion, and grog. For me that was the part that made me go "That neat!"
 
I simply saw it as an obvious solution to the issues of the game when I read it again after 20 years.
Do you mean having lots of hirelings or having lots of PCs? Because I can concur on the first, but the latter didn’t occur to me.
For me the trend over the early 80s was towards each players running a single character.
That is very much my impression as well.
 
Finally Ars Magica is the first RPG I read that rationalized playing multiple PCs as part of the system. It wasn't notable for having players play multiple PCs. It was notable for letting each player shine as the main focus at different times with it tiered hierarchy of mage, companion, and grog. For me that was the part that made me go "That neat!"
Tunnels and Trolls was the first one I ran into that made that explicit. The bit about multiple characters per player, that is.
 
Last edited:
He makes some interesting points, but I think B/X muddies the waters. Those rules were generally well-written and intended for non-grognards. And yet, they don't mention anything about character stables at all even while they shared plenty of these design issues (fighter/mage scaling, level limits, etc.). So did Holmes/Moldovey/Metzger also fail to explain the troupe concept, or did they fail to apprehend it? Or is Zzarchov just wrong?
Pretty much wrong.
 
Do you mean having lots of hirelings or having lots of PCs? Because I can concur on the first, but the latter didn’t occur to me.
Both. Keep in mind, when I went back and ran B/X in 2008, not only had I previously played Ars Magica, I was currently running Savage Worlds. SW encourages players to have have followers, and also recommends letting players control them for the most part. That meant when we tried B/X, the hireling rules were fully used by the players.

As retainers are fully-fledged characters that earn experience, it was a logical next step to use them as a replacement PC pool. From there, it was natural to have someone run a retainer as a PC if their own PC was elsewhere or out of commission.
 
Both. Keep in mind, when I went back and ran B/X in 2008, not only had I previously played Ars Magica, I was currently running Savage Worlds. SW encourages players to have have followers, and also recommends letting players control them for the most part.
Ah, well, that's cheating! :wink:
 
Gabor Lux has posted a mini-setting called Gloomywood.

Which he came up with in one afternoon. I hate that magnificent talented bastard.
 
Interesting idea for a near-future conspiracy game with more than a whiff of absurdism here:


Character sheet is obviously B/X derived, although tweaked more than a little. The real issue would be what the PCs do in such a setting (beyond "they're the people who are trying to destroy this system so that something better can take its place"), how such adventures are structured, and how much agency the players have in choosing their missions and how they adventure.
 
A review of a free Arnold K. starter dungeon, Lair of the Lamb. Just grabbed the dungeon myself here:


 
Last edited:
One Shot Adventures is pretty much what it says on the tin: one-off scenarios in a variety of genres and setting that can be ran in about four hours or less. Most of them are written for GURPS and/or Call Of Cthulhu, with some for D&D, but the ideas should be easily convertible to your favorite system. Something useful to have in your back pocket if you need to run something on short notice with minimal prep time.
 
Huh. I haven't done anything on my gaming blog like post actual full scale adventures or city/village sections. Perhaps I should.
 
Huh. I haven't done anything on my gaming blog like post actual full scale adventures or city/village sections. Perhaps I should.
By the sound of it you've got a load of material that might lend itself to adaptation in that format.
 
By the sound of it you've got a load of material that might lend itself to adaptation in that format.

I sure do. I save EVERYTHING, have for decades. Putting something in a presentable format (I rather like how the Harniacs do it on lythia.com) wouldn't be hard.
 
Another hilarious post from Skerples in the world of Magical Industrial Revolution:


Choice quotes:

  • We need you to get in a hot air balloon and fly over the secret druidic hills during the summer solstice.
  • We need you to rescue a research team. Their hot air balloon crashed in the hills.

  • We think we've invented power word forget. You can imagine why that might be an issue.

  • For two fat hogs and a barrel of red wine, there’s a man down Treacle Alley who will put you in a flask and tattoo you onto a person’s skin. You can run around in that warm flat world until someone draws you out with a lodestone. No refunds.
 
The crumudgeony but talented Gus L. has reposted his OSR adventures to his new blog, formerly unavailable when he shut down his previous blog.

 
The ever-crochety but talented Gus L. has reposted his OSR adventures to his new blog, formerly unavailable when he shut down his previous blog.

That's great news!
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top