The Philosophy of Character Building

How can you use the Socratic Method to create a good character? let me explain how I use a series of questions to help myself and my players create dynamic personalities for their characters.

But wait, Everybody Knows how to make a character for an RPG right? Pick your race, assign your points, pick your special abilities and then come up with a backstory that will explain him/her being in the party. throughout my time as a DM I have heard people explain their characters like this:

“My character is a Brutal Warrior whose only desire is glory on the battlefield. He hates orcs and is chaotic neutral”

“My character is an outcast dwarf who seeks redemption and honor in helping others”

Both of these are excellent starts and are seeds that could grow into dynamic characters. However, these backstories are very broad and while they speak volumes about where the character has been and their large scale goals, they don’t really reveal much of a personality. I think often in games people are told to create a history for their character but not a persona. Where a character has been and what they have done informs their personality of course but it does not define it.

Due to the emphasis on a character’s history instead of personality many characters suffer from an inconsistency of behavior or what I call “situational personality disorder” (SPD). You have all seen this, a character has up until that point not engaged in X behavior or expressed any leanings towards X but since the campaign now requires it in order to overcome a challenge the character shifts his or her behavior to fit the situation. I believe that in many cases this occurs because the player never established what the character would do in morally ambiguous situations. The answers to the questions that follow form a frame of reference which can help the player react to situations in a manner consistent with a dynamic (realistic) personality.

These questions take the character from a collection of characteristics and abilities on a sheet to a unique individual that the players will feel more inclined to play with consistency of behavior, almost like they are doing the character wrong by not following what their personality would desire. These questions also create a framework in which they can think like their characters instead of thinking only in terms of game practicality.

Question Examples:

how does the character feel about killing? is it ever justified? does he feel that monsters can be killed with impunity but not humans? what about Dwarves, Elves, Aliens, etc?

What is the role of the law in the character’s mind? is it for the good of all? does it stifle freedom? is it the tyranny of government? does the character obey the law? what kind of situation does it take for the character to commit serious crimes?

does the character believe in higher powers? what does character believe he owes the gods?

how does the character think of those higher in society? Lower? what does the character think of his/her place?

what about the opposite sex? Strait, Gay/lesbian? are the opposite sex to be protected or to be manipulated?

how loyal is the character to his/her word?

how does the character feel about other adventurers? does he/she seek camaraderie or just the accomplishment of personal goals?

Does the character care about the opinions of others?

does the character want to find love?

does the character have a family? wife/husband/Lover? where are they? what are they doing?

why did the character join his profession? is his profession in line with his class or was he a farmer until he became a fighter to defend his home from bandits?

these questions are just a small sampling of the questions I ask my players to answer when making a character. I tailor them depending on the vague backstory they give me and the setting I plan to run.

I have met with a lot of success using this system. The players have often created memorable characters they love to play. Using this system I have actually seen long time dungeon crawlers try to skip through combat to get to character interactions.

Play a character you can role-play

What I find is that many players choose characters based on back story and combat but never think about whether or not they will be able to effectively roleplay or enjoy that character’s personality. That is not to say you should never role play a challenging character or try anything new but you should consider whether or not you want a challenge or something that comes naturally. In my own games I discourage shy players from playing the party leader until they get more comfortable roleplaying.

Another example of what I am talking about is a friend, she never plays characters that are overly flirtatious or manipulative in demeanor because she can’t keep a straight face and starts laughing. She doesn’t really enjoy tripping over her words and not being able to roleplay it well so she doesn’t play characters with that type of personality.

If you feel that you can't role play the character, you should not even make the character.

My recommendation is to take care when choosing characters for yourself and your players. Make sure to be supportive of players who want to try new things and grow in their roleplaying but also steer players towards personalities you know they will enjoy playing. This way even if the character is difficult for them to roleplay they will be more enthusiastic and likely to try their best.

The Lone Wolf

So you’ve made your character and your so excited for your new rebel without a cause, he’s inspired by Jayne from Firefly or your favorite badass from fiction and he doesn’t take sh*t from anybody. He wanders the world keeping an eye out for number one, he’s probably chaotic neutral and will never do anything without substantial personal gain involved. To put it simply hes a lone wolf, the down to earth self interested hero that we love so much in American pop culture. Well guess what, you just created one of the most notorious problem characters in roleplay, second only to the chaotic evil sociopath.

My judgement of these characters may seem harsh but I know from experience both playing and storytelling that there are fundamental flaws in the lone wolf / self interested character. First foremost the lone wolf does not get along well with others. The lone wolf archetype does not like taking orders and he doesn’t liking people depending on him making him a difficult character that usually throws a wrench in game flow. In many situations you will either have to sacrifice your roleplay to get along with the party OR you will extort the party for extra shares of treasure OR always suggest that whatever you are dealing with isn’t your problem. Many a game I have played where the party couldn’t roleplay to the fullest because they didn’t want to deal with the lone wolf telling them that he had no interest in saving the town from undead without coin.

Which brings me to my next point: even in games where the players aren’t intrinsically ”good” the party will usually get wrapped up in a quest or arc that involves sacrifice, selflessness, and periods without direct rewards for their actions. The lone wolf character is hesitant to trust in his allies and undertake dangerous quests that seem hopeless or overly risky compared to the rewards. Now most of my anger about this archetype is because players model these characters after their favorite anti heroes without watching the end of the movie. In westerns for example the lone wolf who never cared about anybody but himself has an epiphany. After which he decides to make a stand for the weak and the helpless even at great personal risk. It is this transformation from a very flawed and selfish character to a hero that makes the anti hero so attractive to the American psyche, the anti hero is accessible and human.

So my advice to you is that if you like to play lone wolves remember that there are other people at the table besides you. Remember that you chose to stay with the party so you should roleplay your character accordingly, don’t act like the party has to convince you to stay. Finally remember that the characters of any roleplay game are heroes and while they may be good, evil or neutral they are always doing great deeds. A character who walks through the campaign uttering the phrase “it’s not my problem” will rarely do great deeds.

6 Ways D&D is not Like Medival Times

One of the things I always enjoy thinking about are the subtle ways in which D&D worlds must be more like our modern one than like the medieval Europe they are frequently patterned after. Here are 6 ways D&D worlds are like our own.

1. Time
Historically knowing the hour of the day was being very accurate. In D&D there are many common magics with times measured in minutes or seconds. Adventures would have a sense of time that was absolutely unheard of historically.

2. Literacy
How often do you meet an illiterate person in a D&D world? Usually infrequently enough that it really stands out. Of course, in the real world outside of nobility and clergy being literate was uncommon.

3. Accuracy
One of the things that goes hand in hand with literacy is the demand for accuracy. In oral cultures it is expected that stories will change with each teller; the point of stories is not to give an exact retelling, but rather to evoke similar emotions. But in most D&D worlds there is a very modern notion of accuracy.

4. Freedom
Slavery in D&D worlds is usually a plot point that spells E-V-I-L, and serfdom is unheard of. Both were very common and not frowned upon historically.

5. Money
I know there are some DMs who do an awesome job at bring real barter into the game; most, including me, just let the coinage do all the work. Moreover, I frequently just tell player to pay the book price for items rather than try to role play each shop keeper. Obviously having store that deal only in money at standardized prices is not historical.

6. Racism
Though I won’t deny there are certain types of racism in D&D, in another way it is really limited. Basically, all the good races are incredibly chummy. Sure the dwarves and elves get on each others nerves, but you don’t see the elves wearing white sheets or the dwarves running death camps. Considering that historically people have started killing each other over the tiniest of differences, this niceness is unreal.

Player Responsibilities

I’ve known a fair number of gamers who believe that the DM is the person almost entirely responsible for a gaming group’s good time. If a group is faltering or not as fun as expected, fingers point toward the DM before anyone else. But what about the players and our responsibilities to the group?

Players outnumber the DM, and while the DM may set up the paths through the world, players decide where to go, what the tone of the game will be, and create the story being told through our actions. So in that vein, I’d like to present a list of my most important player responsibilities.

1) Be a team player. Gestalt has already written about the futility of lone wolves, and I couldn’t agree with him more. Those characters may seem really cool, but they just don’t work in a group setting. If your character’s opinions are constantly at odds with the rest of the party, every minor action becomes a struggle. You can have an independent spirit, but a true lone wolf wouldn’t ever join an adventuring party, so you will need to cooperate and work as a team. Digging in your figurative heels at every party decision, though, ends up being childish and can ruin a good campaign.

2) Don’t create a character that is more powerful than the others in the group. I realize that there is vast potential in the character creation systems (especially with loopholes) for becoming a mighty steamroller of enemy-smiting, and that some cannot resist that siren song. If all the others players in your campaign roll this way too, then more power to you. However, if your group’s other players prefer to roll characters with flaws, or simply don’t like to min-max, your steamroller character will now give your DM migraines. You create an impossible situation in which the DM can either make enemies challenging for you and risk killing the other players, or make the enemy difficulty balanced for the rest of the team and let you shred them like tissue. Either way, for the balancing difficulty, it’s a situation where you have ruined the fun for the other players, who now either die or don’t get to feel useful the party anymore.

3) Know yourself, and know the type of game you’re getting into. For instance, Pensive has extreme dislike for any and all White Wolf systems. Clearly, knowing this about himself, it would be a terrible idea to join a group playing any of those systems. Think about the tone of the game and the personalities of people involved. If you like a game that has more social and puzzle aspects than combat, talk to the members of your group to find out if their campaign fits with what you like about gaming. You don’t want to find out 10 sessions in that they prefer a straight dungeon-crawl and will never get around to your favorite bits. This doesn’t mean that anyone’s play style is superior or inferior, but if you aren’t a good fit for the game being run, it’s best for you and for everyone to know that ahead of time. And the most important part of knowing yourself is knowing when you’ve stopped enjoying an aspect of the game you’re in, and figuring out how to make it fun again. Often for me this is realizing that the new character class that looked intriguing is not my style. Talking to the DM is always the best course here. You can always just have the DM kill off you character with style as Pensive once mentioned, and start fresh with something more fun.

I could add more to this list, but these are my most important three. So how about the rest of you? Are there things that you would think are player responsibilities to make a campaign great for everyone?

Happy gaming,

Alignment

If Mystra's Chosen are a "problem" 1

I have grown rather irritated by the tedious, repetitive, and illogical claims that Mystra's Chosen, or equally narrowly focused but powerful NPC groups, are somehow an impediment for every DM to deal with, and with the equally tedious, repetitive, and illogical idea-threads for removing, slaying, or neutralizing them simply to address the non-issue of their potential disruption of the campaign. Therefore, rather than dealing with them individually, I will simply put an end to the fallacy here.

According to the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, the population of Faerûn consists 68,000,000 inhabitants. Therefore, in an average Forgotten Realms campaign consisting of four players, there are a minimum number of 67,999,996 corresponding NPCs. According to the Dungeon Master's Guide, 50% of all randomly generated NPCs will be of a chaotic evil, neutral evil, or lawful evil alignment. That in turn means that on average there are 33,999,998 potential NPC villains for a good or neutral oriented party to slay, thwart, or capture; or alternatively for the PCs to be slain, be thwarted, or be captured by.

By contrast, there are 9 named Chosen of Mystra in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, and arguably less than 12 (alive, dead, in-between, or otherwise out of the picture) Chosen of Mystra in total who have been named and/or given statistics in subsequent 3E/3.5 official Forgotten Realms accessories and web enhancements.

Therefore, not only do we have the statistically illogical possibility of the Player Characters ever randomly encountering, being aided, or being confronted by such a character, we likewise have the supremely illogical possibility of such NPCs acting as an automatic impediment, plot-foil, or spotlight stealer for the adventure, or as the only line of defense against the forces of evil.

Even if each of the 9 named and listed Chosen of Mystra in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting suddenly and illogically chose to drop everything at hand and devote ALL their efforts to tracking down, ambushing, and neutralizing 1 random evil aligned NPC villain per day---be it a 2nd level Aristocrat who has imprisoned the 1st level party, or a 30th level archwizard who could one day threaten Faerûn itself---it would take them 10,350 years to kill every evil being in Faerûn who had been in existence at the time they began such an endeavor. Incidentally, in a fraction of that time frame the entire population of evil beings in Faerûn would have been replaced as more beings are born (whose alignments will be just as random as those who had birthed them), and in turn gain experience and power over the years, and fill the vacant roles of conqueror king, corrupt baroness, thief extraordinaire, vile cultist, foul necromancer, or any of a dozen fantasy campaign villain clichés.

That of course is ignoring the rather obvious fact that non-player characters of the power and position of Mystra’s Chosen have an infinite number of other things that aught to be occupying their time, apart of single-handedly "ruining" an adventure before it begins; such as ruling a country, and/or heading an organization, and/or instructing apprentices, and/or creating new spells and magic items, and/or tending to the Weave, and/or pursuing the goals of their patron Goddess, and/or dealing with their own agendas, foes, and goals (as opposed to the agendas, foes, and goals of the PCs), or even in the case of a few of the Chosen--the rather simplified daily agenda that comes with being outright dead.

Apparently it is too much to ask for the endless throngs of Mystra-haters to actually read the "Concerns of the Mighty" or the "Make the PCs the Stars" sections of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. Instead we on these boards and other avenues of realms discussion endure an endless stream of player/DM-contrived scenarios where they are explained out of the adventure, explained out of the story, or simply killed off altogether, when not one of the above is ever a necessary or rational approach to dealing with the phantom "problem" of their existence.

If you are a DM and the Chosen of Mystra are a “problem” in your campaign, either as potential insurmountable adversaries for your evil player characters, or as potential plot-foil and/or spotlight thief for your good player characters, then you only have yourself to blame, because the rules, guidelines, and demographics of the Forgotten Realms ensure that they reliably won't be.

If you are a player, and the Chosen of Mystra are a “problem” in your campaign, either as potential insurmountable adversaries for your evil characters, or as potential plot-foil and/or spotlight thief for your good characters, then you need to find a DM who has read the books necessary for running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms, namely the Dungeon Master's Guide and the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, and/or a DM who doesn't have a fixation for using Iconic NPCs as "DMPCs", and/or a DM who understands that events found in novels focused on a given character, or massive realms-shaking events that might occur in others, are in no way representative of consistent daily life in Faerûn (for adventurers or otherwise).

Lastly, if you are a novel reader, and the Chosen of Mystra are seen as a “problem” in your ability to enjoy reading them, then a simple suggestion would be to exercise the minimal amount of common sense to not purchase novels with the names or likenesses of the Chosen of Mystra on the cover, in the title, or mentioned somewhere on the back cover blurb. It should hardly be an unbearable shock to anyone that a book bearing the name “Elminster” in the title would actually have the (gasp) audacity to show Elminster of Shadowdale as a protagonist and (double-gasp) one who, as one of the most powerful beings in Faerûn, actually succeeds in his endeavors.

Mystra and her Chosen, or arguably any other powerful NPC organization, are not a problem or impediment for enjoying the Forgotten Realms. By contrast, it would be players, DMs, and readers who cannot understand simple D&D demographics, and/or who do not read or adhere to the rules and campaign guidelines, who then in turn contrive the false idea that any ability to enjoy a campaign in Faerûn must invariably mean the ad-hoc mass-elimination or mass-omission of a mere handful of NPCs, amidst the massive pool of 68,000,000 others.

3.5 Resurgent – The Icon

The 3.5 Resurgent Icon!

Which edition should I play?

Believe it or not, "Which edition of D&D should I play?" is probably the most common question I'm asked. In some cases it is because the person asking the question wants to argue with my choice, but most of the time the questioner seems to sincerely want my opinion. Unfortunately, I can't really answer the question -- because there is no "one true answer." The best edition of D&D is the edition that best fits your needs. The answer for me may not be the answer for you as what you and your group want out of your game may be much different from what I want out of my game.That said, I will list the various editions of D&D in the order I personally rank them based on how well they meet the needs of the types of games I like to play in and run. Your list may be much different than mine -- and that's as it should be. There really is no one best edition for everyone. Those who tell you there is are probably trying to sell you something.

1) Original Dungeons & Dragons with the Supplements: Fairly simple rules with a lot of room to make the campaign and the game your own with house rules. OD&D with the supplements is a lot like playing AD&D but without all the complex stuff AD&D added. Combat is fast and abstract -- just the way I like it.

2) BECMI Boxed Sets/Rules Cyclopedia: The Rules Cyclopedia (The BECM boxed sets in one hardback book) is probably the best version of D&D ever printed in hardback. It is a complete in one book, well-explained game that one can play for years without much modification, yet it is simple enough to easily house rule to fit your own group and campaign. Like OD&D, combat is fast and abstract.

3) Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert Boxed Sets: Later expanded into BECMI, this earlier edition only takes characters through 14th level. That is its only major disadvantage compared to the BECMI rules, but it is a great set for those who prefer low level play.

4) Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (First Edition without Unearthed Arcana): If you want more complete rules to reduce the amount of GM rules decisions, First Edition AD&D is the way to go. Compared to later editions, it is still rules lite, but it is much more rules dense than previous versions and has a number of rules designed to better balance character classes -- although not is the same way people seem to see "balance" today. Combat is more detailed but still abstract and fast.

5) Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Second Edition -- Core Rules Only): This is a cleaned up and slightly simplified version of AD&D, it really isn't all that different from first edition, but it lacks the character of Gygax's writing (which is a bad thing in my eyes, but is a good thing to some).

6) Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (First Edition with Unearthed Arcana): All the advantages of first edition with some extra classes and spells. Unfortunately, some of these extra classes turned out to somewhat overpowered.

7) Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Second Edition -- Plus the Kit Books): The kit books basically add a large number of subclasses to each standard class. This provides a lot of mechanical variety in characters at the cost of extra complexity and having to buy a large number of rule books.

8) Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Second Edition -- Plus the Kit Books and the Skills and Powers Books): The skills and powers books add a great deal of complexity to AD&D. They also start the trend of needing minis and battle mats to play out the complex and slow combats. As I like fast and abstract combat and am bored to tears at combats that take more than 10-20 minutes max to resolve, this is where D&D and I began to part company.

9) Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 This is the last edition of D&D that really feels like the D&D game I started playing in 1975 to me. While there were a lot of changes and additions, all the basics of D&D were still there and had not changed so much that they were something different with the same name. Combat is slow and tactical, it's hard to run without minis and battle mats. The designers tried hard to make a rule for everything and to reward players who mastered the manipulation of those rules. Not my cup of tea. GM prep time is unreal if the GM cannot or will not simply wing it. Houseruling can be hard as the game systems are tightly interrelated, changing something can have expected side effects in other areas of the game.

10) Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Lots of changes to spells and other areas: the names are often the same but the effects can be completely different. Minis and battle mats become almost required and combats are even slower. GM prep takes even more time, but there is a rule for almost everything any character to ever want to do scattered about the many, many volumes of rules.

11) Dungeons & Dragons 4e IMHO, this is a tactical minis skirmish game with roleplaying interludes between the battles given the D&D label. It has very little in common with any previous edition of D&D besides names. 4e character classes and monsters are extremely well-balanced for combat -- and if that is what is important to you, D&D 4e is probably the only edition you will want to play. However, it's not for me at all.

Styles of Old School Play

If you read some “old school” blogs, forums, and web sites, you might get the impression that there is only one “old school’” style of play: a style with expendable player characters who spend all their time in dungeons designed in the style of the old “Tomb of Horrors” module where an adventuring party is only one slipup away from death. This style of play is often shown in early modules.What most people forget is that these early modules were designed for tournament play where the party that lasted longest and make it deepest into the dungeon was the winner. While a few gaming groups did run their regular campaigns like this and enjoy it, most people did not enjoy such games and the GMs who ran them were often referred to as “Killer GMs” (who often found themselves without players). Instead most home campaigns were a mixture of the following four styles – some campaigns stressing one or two styles over the others. Power-Gaming: Many players start out playing in this style. Many soon get bored with it and add more and more of other styles. A power-gaming campaign is all about character power. Characters are known by their class, level, special items, and amazing powers and deeds. (“I killed the Demon King with my 15th Level Fighter/Magic-User/Druid. It only took two hits from Thor’s Hammer to knock him out. Then I cut off his head with my vorpal blade.”) There is often a lot of player competition for the most powerful character in campaigns that stress power-gaming. A lot of people look down on this style, but it can be a lot of fun to play a pure power-game in a group of players who all like the style.Wargaming: This is probably the style old school rules were originally written for. The wargaming style of play is a competition between the player group and the GM. The GM sets up tactical battles, puzzles, and the like and the players solve them for treasure and experience. Fudging die rolls and ignoring rules (either for or against the players) is frowned upon as it detracts from the challenge and fun of the adventure. Characters in pure wargaming campaigns often were expendable and had little personality or goals (beyond staying live and getting rich) as a character with such might be tempted to do things dysfunctional to survival. Published tournament dungeons like Tomb of Horrors could be considered examples of extreme forms of this style. Once the RPG hobby became known outside of the minis and board wargaming community, pure forms of the wargaming style quickly became uncommon.Role-Playing: A pure role-playing campaign is almost the opposite of a pure wargaming campaign. Player skill, tactics, and rules aren’t really important. What is important is the player’s character and that character’s life in the game. In a pure role-playing campaign, players create the personality of their characters in great detail and players generally have a large emotional investments made in them and do not consider their characters expendable. Players tend to have their characters act within their personalities and within the beliefs they're supposed to hold – even when doing so is not the best thing to do at the time within the game. The object is to live your character’s life in the campaign world. You “win” be having your character achieve his goals, goals which may or may not have anything to do with the game’s goals of exploring and accumulating treasure and experience points. The modern computer game The Sims is an example of this style of play.Story-Telling: While all campaigns tell a story after-the-fact (that is, you can tell a story based on the characters actions in the game), in a story-telling campaign, the GM has worked out a story in advance and the player characters are the protagonists. The campaign world usually has a detailed background and back story behind it. Knowing this background may be more important than knowing the rules. Some pure story telling campaigns are little more that single-line railroads where the characters play their almost pre-scripted parts in the story. In other cases, things are more free-form with story flow and events created by interactions between the GM's basic outline of story events and the actions of individual characters during the campaign. Some people consider the more pure forms of story-telling campaigns boring straight-jackets while others love the idea of being a major part of a real story.These four major styles of play appeared early in the history of role-playing games. They were first mentioned in a general circulation publication in Glenn Blacow's article “Aspects of Adventure Gaming” in Different Worlds #10 (the October 1980 issue). The important thing to take from this section isn’t the four styles or their labels (as there are other systems for describing this with their own labels), but the idea that there were many different styles of “old school” play back in the “old school” days – not just the single style stressed in some “old school” blogs, forums, and web sites. Don’t let those sites make you believe that you aren’t playing old school right if your campaign isn’t strongly in the wargaming camp. Most successful campaigns back in “old school” days were a mixture of all four major styles – and a heaping helping of minor styles.

Reasons Magic-Users Did Not Dominate Play in Early Editions of D&D

I often hear complaints about how spell-casters dominated play in D&D 3.x -- especially at higher levels -- and that preventing this domination was one of the reasons that spell casters are limited far more than they ever were before in 4e. Most say spell-casters did not dominate the game in earlier editions of D&D (before the Skills & Powers "upgrade" to 2e). Before D&D 3.x, magic-users were very powerful at high levels, but they seldom got to those levels (as they were very weak at low levels) and other character classes -- especially the fighter -- were far more effective at high levels than they were in later editions.

There are several reasons for this:

* High level characters and monsters had very good saving rolls -- especially at high levels -- so spells were less likely to be fully effective and save-or-die spells cast against high level/hit dice opponents resulted in "save" more often than not. Fighters had very good saves versus spells in general.

* If a spell-caster took damage in combat, his spell did not go off AND he lost it from memory just as if he cast it. Spell casting, especially of high level spells, was not fast which meant non-magical opponents of a a magic-user casting a high level spell often got their chance to attack before the spell was finished. If they hit, the spell was disrupted. There were no special abilities like "Concentration" in early editions to prevent this. Prevention was other characters preventing the monsters from attacking the magic-user.

* Spells selection was much more limited, especially in core 2e and earlier editions. There were simply fewer spells available to use which meant that intelligent opponents would have a very good idea of what spells were likely to be used against them and could plan accordingly. Also, magic-users did not get to select whatever spells they wanted to learn every time they went up a level, spells had to be found by the character in the game.

* There was no 15-minute work day. When magic-users ran out of spells, they had to make do with their daggers and staves. The rest of the party was unlikely to head home just so they could recharge their spells (as the absence of magic spells was not as telling as it became in later editions) and even at high levels the MU did not have spells that would reliably get him home on his own. Spells also took a long time to re-memorize -- a high level wizard who used all her spells would need days to re-memorize them all.

* Clerical magic in early editions was pretty much non-combat. Clerics were almost as good as fighters in combat, however. And their undead turning ability was one of the most useful powers in the game -- turned undead could not drain levels.

* There were very few "buff" spells and most of those that did exist were not overpowering. The few very powerful buffs usually had an "Achilles heel" that would negate them fairly easily.

* Monsters had far fewer hit points which meant weapon hits still did a sizable amount of damage so wizards were seldom as absolutely necessary to take them out as they became in later editions.* Fighter classes were the only characters who got multiple attacks in early editions of D&D. A high level fighter could mow through low level opposition each and every round while a spell-caster -- no matter what level -- could cast only one spell per round.

Bad DM's

Just five things I've seen in recent Games, done by Bad Dm's:

1.Unpreparedness. It may be hard to blame the DM for this one (for all I know he was handed the adventure 3 minutes before we started), but it’s hard to get into a game when the first 20 minutes are spent waiting for the DM to read the module. Granted this was better than if he just made stuff up because we wanted to experience this specific adventure. But, it’s too bad that we missed out on a few cool features because he probably missed it in the cursory glance. Also I felt like there should have been “Loading…” screens between encounters while we waited for him to buffer the adventure into his brain.

2.Unfamiliarity with the rules. I have been playing D&D for over 20 years and I can’t come close to understanding the rules. At least once a a while I get a rule wrong . Because of the of constant debating of rules I am quite confident about about certain ones that come up often with our group and we have successfully resolved. Things like line of sight, grappling, charging, dazed, and stunned. I have a lot of sympathy to the GM who has to adjudicate rules, and I don’t mind even if they rule wrong as long as I get a fair hearing. What I don’t like is a GM who gets the rule wrong and won’t even consider it. It’s one thing to hear arguments and rule quickly so the game can continue, but another to just say “No” without listening or glancing at the PHB open to the appropriate section.When this happened I let it go rather than fight. If the DM still refused to listen, I’d politely demand their reasoning, and if unsatisfactory (“because I said so”, “I don’t want to go back on a ruling”, etc) and I’d look for a new game. I understand not everyone has the luxury to find a new game, so I’m curious how people might deal with an unlistening DM and keep gaming with him or her?

3.Lack of Enthusiasm. Everyone’s got his own degree of comfort acting around the table, especially with strangers (but who are D&D’ers to judge each other?), but no matter how mechanical and dice-rolly the group might be, if one player wants to role play, the DM should encourage it. Not only was this DM not encouraging but he himself wasn’t that into it. Image in your most monotone voice: “The crowd goes wild, roaring with excitement. Gazal shouts ‘Release the creature, and die for the glory of King Kalak!’” Yeah it was like that.If I were giving advice to DMs, I’d tell them to fake the enthusiasm for the benefit of the group. In this session I didn’t want to call out the DM for not playing it up, so I faked my own enthusiasm. I have to admit that I was pretty tired and without the encouragement of the DM I wasn’t able to sustain it, but at least I tried. I also tired to encourage the other players with their role playing, by responding their actions in character and supporting their characters’ decisions. Not everyone can bring it every week, and so when you have the energy, players should step up and take on the mantle of their characters.

4.Adversarial role. I don’t know if it’s age or experience, but I definitely felt the DM had a little adversarial relationship with us. It wasn’t anything explicit like overpowered monsters, just more a glee when someone took damage or frustration when we were doing well. The latest hotness in DMing is the “Philosophy of Yes” where the DM encourages the players to be creative. For example during the skill challenges when suggesting using a skill he said “explain to me how you use it” and instead of working with it or accepting it and using a high DC, he said “no, you can’t do that.” Also despite what it said in the module, he did not let us some skills multiple times (see next item).There wasn’t much I was able to do to counter this without getting confrontational, so I just kept guessing until I found an avenue that worked for the DM. As for the combats, he wasn’t out get us so much as “make us earn it” and so were able to slog through to eventual victory. I don’t have any good advice for players here other than talking to the DM outside of the game and discussing how to make the games smoother, and chipping in to buy him a copy of the DMG 2. I’m interested to hear your advice on this matter.

5.Letting the story drag. It felt like were playing 20 questions, and he was content to sit there for 10-20 minutes while we racked our brains and character sheets instead of suggesting what options were available. A great DM will use even bad suggestions by latching on to them as clues to your thought processes and turning them around to guide you.What we can do as players is try our best to work within the GM’s framework to drive the story on. When that doesn’t work, using increasingly direct questions to illicit the next steps. Start with general investigation “What else can you tell me about the NPC? Is there anything useful in reach? Do you think Nature might be applicable here?” then move on to, “we’re all out of the obvious options, what else might our characters consider?” all the way up to “it seems we’re stuck, what have we as players missed that our characters might know about this situation to help us move forward?” And if that doesn’t work, call a break and have a heart-to-heart.

D&D Word History: Dweomer

The Spell that Wasn't: *Dweomer

One of the most curious words in the entire corpus of Dungeons and Dragons booksis *dweomer, which is defined in the 1st edition Advanced D&D Dungeon Master'sGuide (1979, p. 228) as follows: "From dweomercraeft, the art (craeft) of magic(dweomer)" . Fair enough, but then whence dweomercraeft? Turns out it is a real,if obscure, word used in Middle English (and presumably in Old English). (As aside note, I find words that start with dw- to be very compelling. The onlycommon ones in English are dwarf, dwell, dwindle, and their derived forms, buthow do you like dwale?)Dweomercraeft first shows up in Layamon's Brut, an epic history of England inverse, a sort of ancestral text to the Arthurian legends, written about 1215(over a century before Chaucer), which uses almost no Anglo-Norman (i.e. derivedfrom Norman French words). Layamon writes, "And Peluz hit wiste anan thurh hisdweomer-craeften". This doesn't help us much, but we also know of an Old Englishword gedwimer meaning 'sorcery' and gedwimere meaning 'sorcerer, juggler'. There is also a Middle English word dweomerlayk 'magic, practice of occult art,jugglery', also used by Layamon, and used by some later Middle English authorsas 'demerlayk'. And so the OED, based on this evidence, defines dweomercraeft as'jugglery, magic art'.Nevertheless, *dweomer is an entirely novel term, coined by decomposing and folketymologizing the compound dweomercraeft in a way that no earlier author haddone. Gygax has re-etymologized 'dweomer', as in D&D it always describes a spellor an act of magic rather than sorcery in general. It's a very innovativeneologism, one with nearly 8,000 Google results, and has been used elsewhere inprint by fantasy authors such as Katherine Kerr, a gamer whose novels have beenstrongly influenced by D&D. Despite its great antiquity, 'dweomer' is truly newto English.A possible origin: 'dweomerlayk' shows up as 'Dwimmerlaik' in Tolkien's Lord ofthe Rings, as an epithet applied to the Witch-King of Angmar by Eowyn at theBattle of the Pelennor Fields - you know, that whole 'I am no man' spiel.Tolkien also refers to Dwimorberg, the Haunted Mountain, and Dwimordene, thename given by the people of Rohan to Lorien. All of these 'dwimmers' and'dwimors' mean 'haunted' in the Rohirric language, which is of course just OldEnglish (cf. Foster's The Complete Guide to Middle-Earth, p. 101). There's nospecific evidence that this is the source of Gygax's *dweomer (Tolkien certainlynever uses it in that spelling, or as a noun, or as a non-compounded word of anysort), but it certainly could be, given the influence of Tolkien's oeuvre on theconcepts and settings of Dungeons and Dragons.