One of the difficult things I am
finding about digging into the 1
st ed. DMG for Talmudic
readings on domain-level play is that I keep finding funky sections
that spin me off into long thought-train tangents. Today I raise the
white flag and give into temptation and look at two of the ones I
just can't get unstuck from my cranium.
Monsters and Organization. Nestled
into page 104 is one of my favorite bits of Gygaxian pedagogy. The
take-home messages here provide solid advice: think deeply about the
intelligence, alignment, and social organization of the adversaries
that players face and create contingency plans and strategies for
dealing with interlopers. The numerous examples are also pure gold, showing a range of monsters and how they cope with not just one
sortie by the PCs but several.
Now here's the part that struck me as
both strange and poignant:
“It is necessary that you make a rule
to decide what course of action the monsters will follow BEFORE the
party states what they are going to do. This can be noted on the area
key or jotted down on paper. Having such notes will save you from
later arguments, as it is a simple matter to show disgruntled players
these 'orders' when they express dissatisfaction with the results of
such an encounter [my
emphasis].”
Strange
because..well...you know, can you imagine this actually happening at
your table in the here and now? It struck me how far the
competition-adversity paradigm in rpgs has shifted—even among “old
school” circles. I've certainly faced the cocked eyebrow of
skepticism from players, the little subtle body language that sounds
off, but I can't imagine ever taking out my notebook opening it up to
the chicken scratchings of my fevered mind and pointing to prove that
they face an “objective reality”. And I certainly could never
imagine players feeling entitled to see it.
That
said I'm not sure it's all sunny upward progress to have ditched it.
The trust that comes with maturity certainly is but I still like the
idea of both the semi-adversity of the GM (I've written about this
before
here and
here)--and having the “fairness” of a tough-knocks situations that can be "won".
Now I
am way too much of a seat of the pants bullshitter to have complex,
written SOPs for each and every monster situation, but I do quite
often set up some naturalistic sketchy orders that I try like hell
not to breach the faith of in-game. Usually they are expressed as a
range of broad probabilities around courses of action. Something
like: “Roll d10, 2d6 space elves 1-3 are laying an ambush back at
a good spot in the dunes, 4-6 hunting the players when they get back
to town, 7-8 holing up in their current position, 9-10 sending back
to the Bizarro Hill Cantons for 2d6 reinforcements, roll again.”
Somewhere
down in the recesses of my DM reptilian brain I must have bought back
into this. I freely admit it's a weird principle to get hung up on,
so I'm curious as to how readers feel about it. Is this in your
ballpark of actual practice or some strange vestigial thing you've
long since evolved past?
Other NPCs. Turn over to the
page before the last one to the last subsection on running NPCs. Most
of this is is quite dull and unremarkable until...
“The host of merchants, shopkeepers,
guardsmen, soldiers, clerics, magic-users, fighters, thieves,
assassins, etc. are likewise all yours to play...These NPCs will have
some alignment, but even that won’t be likely to prevent a bit of
greed or avariciousness. Dealing with all such NPCs should be
expensive and irritating.”
A throwaway sentence but one that packs
a lot of Vance in there. Lovers of Jack Vance's work know that one of
the enduring themes of his work is that great chunks of humanity are
either “marks” or “hustlers” (broadly speaking since many of
his protagonists are shrewd but moral actors). Whether it's one of
his space operas, planetary romances, or fantasy novels time and time
again you see the picaresque travel punctuated by complicated
swindles and counter-swindles “in town”.
The two-paragraph example given after
this not only reinforces that but—ignoring all the Welsh-sounding
name dress--is a golden little window into what looks like actual
play in Lake Geneva. Here you have a witless PC, Celowin
Silvershield, waltzing into a “strange town” trying to get one of
his buddies unpetrified.
He has an annoying time at the tavern
getting unhelpful advice (which he has to pay for with drinks) and
then has a run-in with an even-more annoying beggar (and pays him
off). Then he has to deal (pay off) with a swarm of beggars before
even making it to the mage's tower. There he has to deal with a
jack-ass gate keeping warlock just to meet with the wizard—just in
time to royally piss him off by spoiling his arcane experiment. And
if he can't pay the exorbitant sum he gets geased into another
adventure.
Love it.
Town should be
expensive and irritating. It should be a place for pulply fleecing
and being fleeced. It should be a place that makes you want to get
what you need, gear up and hightail it back to the next murderhole or
wilderness death march.