Clerics, Druids, and Bards -- a Historical Perspective

NOTE: Way back in early June, before I saw the post on Grognardia, I had worked this up.  Unfortunately it remained unfinished, my last crack at it being the 12th of June.  It remains a source of embarrassment that I was too busy at the time to finish it.  New job and all that brings.

The Cleric is a misunderstood term used in D&D and quite a few other games as well.  About the only thing 2nd Edition did right was to come up with a better name than "Cleric."  And then 3rd and 4th editions came along and brought that retarded term right back to life.  "Druid" and "Bard" are also terms I have issues with, but Cleric is chief among them.

Let me elucidate: 

The term "Cleric" is not a generic religious term.  On the contrary, it is a highly restrictive term.  A Cleric is a Roman Catholic term, from the Greek klerikos (an acquisition).  Being a Cleric meant you had to have your head shaved, leaving ring of hair around a bald scalp.  If you didn't do this, you would not be considered a member of the clergy.  So, if you don't consider your character to be a literate dude with a robe and a funny haircut, you're not really playing a "Cleric."

"Cleric" eventually became "Clerk," which is why bookkeepers and such are called that today.

"Priest" would be a better term, as that is a generic term that can be applied to any religious leader of ceremonies.  Though it, too, has its issues, it tends to have broader applications.

"Templar" and "Hospitaller" might even be accurate, considering that they were martial orders.  True, I know those are both specific Christian Orders, but bear with me.  Templar referred to the Temple of Solomon, but in the game it doesn't have to, it could be a temple of any religion you like.  The Knights Hospitaller were also referred to as the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order and as the Knights of Malta.  Either of those, especially shed of Saints and the Hospitaller reference could be used.  Instead of Knights of Malta you could be known as the "Holy Knights of Dawnmoor" or something more fantasy-related. 

Druids are next on my list.  There's nothing wrong with the term, per se, but you'd want a bit of historical perspective, change the class description to something more in line with the established historical records, such as accounts by Strabo and Diodorus Siculus.  According to Julius Caesar, they were involved in "divine worship, the due performance of sacrifices, private or public, and the interpretation of ritual questions."  Fairly well like any other priest.  However, druids were much more than that.  They kept the peace between nations, and served as judges, counselors and advisors to kings.  Their truck with deities seems to be different from what we would consider normal today.  It is almost as if they consulted the gods and considered them wiser peers, than the absolute division between god and man that exists in more traditional Western religions. In Greek and Roman writings there is evidence for druid sanctuaries, mistletoe and plant rituals, sacrifices and reverence of the four elements.  The main difference between Druid and Priest (Cleric) is that the Druid was intertwined in many different aspects of Celtic life, whereas the Priest was set apart from (and indeed above) the citizenry.

The Bard was, according to Caesar, related to the Druids, merely not mentioned by name.  In one text published in 1918 (which I cannot put my hands on and therefore have forgotten the title), they were detailed as being educated along with the ovates and druids all together, and that Druid was a career path as well as Bard.  Authors such as Festus, Lucan, and Ammianus Marcellinus indicate that "Bard" was a respected title, and they were the official poets among the Gaulish and Briton Celts.  Summoned by royal commission, it was their job to celebrate the victories of their people and to sing songs of praise to their gods. They were important to the people, and the sense of national pride together with religious belief gave Bards a powerful influence over the hearts and minds of those they sang to.  They were also steeped in the traditions of clan and country, the historians of their people, since no written records existed, only oral tradition.  They were also skilled satirists, some of their satires having the same effect as a curse.

Hopefully this information can be used by a GM or player to really lend some background to these somewhat misused terms.  I'd love to see a game come out that does justice to these classes and places them in their proper roles.     

A Million Rules, a Million Pages

I announced in my last post that I was disenchanted with most RPGs and was hard at work writing a new one.  

I think in some ways what I'm disenchanted with is the tendency to cram a million rules into 300 pages, and the set in stone mentality of many rules systems.  I think I know why the bulk of these rules are written, though.  Aside from a bottom line, the authors usually assume that at least some of their core audience have never picked up a game before.  Never played anything more challenging than Chutes & Ladders.  

Which, to be fair, may well be the case.  

Now, if you were the tyro, and you'd never seen a role-playing game before, which would you prefer?  Something that you can pick up and understand immediately, or something that you have to study in order to play the game efficiently?  

All things being equal, I'd rather someone hand me a 30-page intro and by the end I'd have a character and a basic idea of how to play.  Here's a look at how this has changed over the years:

OD&D (Gygax, Arneson): 18 pages
D&D (Holmes): 17 pages
Basic D&D (Moldvay): 13 pages of character creation
Basic D&D (Mentzer): 52 pages (to be fair, this was the best intro to the game I've ever seen)
AD&D Player's Handbook (1st Ed): 40 pages

In 3.0, this inflated to monstrous proportions.  By page 114, they had not even gotten to Movement yet.

For fun, let's take a look at some licensed properties of TSR, both for AD&D 2E:
Adventures in Lankhmar: 35 pages (and very well-done)
Diablo II: This is a weird one, so it's hard to codify.  Each character received a sort of a character folio, with all the numbers filled in.  There were instructions on the sheets as well, everything from an XP chart to take 'em to 5th level, and explanations of how to make a Hit Roll or a Saving Throw.  The actual rulebook itself was 32 pages long. 

The licensed ones were not only fairly short, they were also the most fun to read.  Diablo II started it out as its own game system, with some additions not found in AD&D before (like their powers, which cost mana).  Diablo II later became entwined in 3.0, and spiralled out of control, but the basic boxed set is fun.   

By contrast, reading The 3E Player's Handbook was a great cure for insomnia.  Watching paint dry was not only more interesting, but seemed to be more useful.  I dunno, I guess the pretty pictures inside failed to suck me in.

This is what I don't understand.  If you assume your core audience has never gamed before, why cram your product full of rules that they must learn?  Why not provide a good framework, explain how to create a character well, and create systems that are intuitive so that there is less to explain?  I'm looking at you, WotC!

This post, however, is very much YMMV.  There are some people who love 3.x, and more power to them.  For my own buck, I'd rather find something else.  I just wish I could take a large number of followers with me...

Some Observations

I have been working on a new game, something influenced by a different animal than the standard retro-clone.  While I've played and DMed in all of the modern iterations of D&D, I felt that 3.0 was a mess, 3.5 was wargame-crazed, and that D&D 4.0 was not D&D.  YMMV, just my thoughts on the subject.  I decided to drop all that for more rules-lite games. 

The problem here is that most groups aren't all that hot to try a new game.  They think that they have to know all the rules and that "it's not D&D."  It seems some even have that aversion to D&D-compatible stuff like the Sword & Sorcery line from White Wolf or the "Dungeon Crawl Classics."  So, things like Risus or PDQ or Wushu get the boot because of some xenophobic reaction that seems ingrained in many people engaged in our hobby.

I always was (and still am) confused by this.  When I unwrapped Torg, Chivalry & Sorcery, or Villain & Vigilantes, I didn't turn up my nose at these.  On the contrary, I said "that's interesting, how does it work?"  It turns out C&S was a bit hard to suss out, but it seemed like tons of fun.  

Why, as a group, are gamers so insular?  You'd think creative types would be chomping at the bit for something new.  A change, a solution to problems like the grappling rules in 3.0?  Why not drop the familiar for awhile to try something new?  I wonder if there's a link there to T.V., too?  Most new, original, fresh shows I watch are doomed to fail: Jericho, Birds of Prey, Life, Daybreak, Flash Forward, etc.

Pulp Cthulhu and my hopes for it

One of the pieces of vaporware I have been waiting for is Pulp Cthulhu, from Chaosium. I have been waiting a long time, it seems, as there is a post about "still hoping for" it in 2007 ! I love Chaosium, and while I think their Cthulhu line has grown far too large, at least they don't have the annoying "let's add rules every supplement" disease that seems to be so rampant these days. I keep checking back periodically, and the product page tells me it's "delayed due to health issues." 

What I'm specifically excited about is Traits, a new innovation in Cthulhu products. Quoting from the Chaosium blog post: Traits

provide game mechanic advantages or disadvantages, but they also drive the role-play. Traits are at their best when 'played' beyond their game effects. A Haunted character will suffer from night terrors, and when she has Weird Knowledge added to the mix, her fearsome dreams are all the more horrific...The Traits are both a part of the rules offering bonuses and alterations, but mainly they are elements that expand the personalities of the investigators. That is why they have pulp-style names such as 'Weird Knowledge' and 'Just Won't Die.' These titles focus more on the roleplaying aspects than the 'numbers.'

What I'm hoping they'll do is provide something similar to this:

Haste
Spell Level: Magic-user, 3rd Level
Range: 240 ft
Duration: 30 minutes

In an area of radius of 60 ft around the point where the spell is targeted, as many as 24 creatures become able to move and attack at double normal speed.

Taken from the Swords & Wizardry core rules

And not this:

HASTE
Transmutation
Level: Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets: One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects.

When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding. The attack is made using the creature’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a weapon of speed, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can’t use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)

A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves. Any condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.

All of the hasted creature’s modes of movement (including land movement, burrow, climb, fly, and swim) increase by 30 feet, to a maximum of twice the subject’s normal speed using that form of movement. This increase counts as an enhancement bonus, and it affects the creature’s jumping distance as normal for increased speed.

Multiple haste effects don’t stack. Haste dispels and counters slow.

Material Component: A shaving of licorice root.

Taken from the d20 SRD

I'm also pumped about this line: "Tune the level of pulp to suit play, or simply add pulp to an existing [Call of Cthulhu] campaign." That's perfect, because not everyone thinks of the same thing when you say "Pulp." Some like it noir, and gritty. Others might prefer a four-color comic book campaign, or something in between, like Doc Savage.  It will be interesting to see what kind of options they come up with.

And to the author: I hope you get better soon! I feel for you, having dealt firsthand with chronic illness, but I would dearly love to see that sourcebook in my hot little fists sooner than later!

RIP Frank Frazetta (1928-2010) - Pieces of My Childhood

A master artist, Frank Frazetta, has passed away.  As another piece of my childhood wanders into the twilight, I have to reflect back on the joy and excitement his work has given me.  From the film "Fire and Ice" to those amazing paintings on the covers of Conan novels and others, the world owes Frank Frazetta some kind of honor.  From the well-muscled heroes to the impossibly curvy women who graced his paintings, this was truly a master of the genre.  

He will be missed.

Pieces of My Childhood -- John Eric Holmes (1930-2010)

I received a sad bit of news this weekend.  Dr. John Eric Holmes, author of the popular "blue book" basic set of Dungeons & Dragons (pre-Moldvay, pre-Mentzner), died from a stroke March 20 of this year.  While my induction into the game was the monster AD&D 1e hardbacks that Gary Gygax put together, my group and I adopted the Holmes and Moldvay versions after we discovered them shortly thereafter.  

Pieces of my childhood are fading away -- Gygax, Arneson, Moldvay, Heinlein, Asimov, Findley, Parkinson...too many brave souls have left their mark on me before they left this world.


RIP, all of you.  


A further, more comprehensive obit may be found here: 
http://www.erbzine.com/gw/1004.html

Confessions of a Genre Fiend

ME: "Hi, I'm Eric."

ALL: "Hi, Eric!"

ME: "And I am a genre fiend"

The term "genre fiend" to my knowledge first appeared in an old-school Champions supplement called Strike Force, published in 1988 (yes, I consider some of that stuff old-school...it's 22 years old now). It was a complete campaign sourcebook, and nothing like it has been published since. It was written by Aaron Allston, who already had a storied history in the gaming community, having served as editor of the Space Gamer and Fantasy Gamer magazines, a few Car Wars supplements to his credit, as well as a couple things for Hero Games.  He later would go on to author the Rules Cyclopedia for TSR.  In Strike Force he details what different players may want from their games, and how to appease them. One of these player types was a "genre fiend."
 

A genre fiend, from what I remember, is a player who is a rabid fan of a certain type of fiction, and would like to see the tropes of the appropriate genre brought into the game. That is, if you're a genre fiend in a Champions game, you would want to see some Marvel/DC influence, and maybe some Ultraverse/Dark Horse too. If you are a genre fiend playing D&D, you might want to see more heroic fiction or swords & sorcery influence. In short, you'd want to see in your games what you loved to read about. 

**WARNING: This is an extremely pared-down version of my gaming history, as it pertains to genre-fiend mania. I have played probably every game under the sun, from those Storyteller games to lesser-known systems like Justifiers and Fading Suns, Feng Shui to Rolemaster and MERP, even Riddle of Steel, Talislanta, and Earthdawn. I don't include those for the sake of brevity.

Well, as time wore on, I began to perhaps sink more and more into the genre fiend mold, and fewer systems were to my liking. I'd like to see a build of Champions that didn't take forever to make a character or have hours-long combats. That's against the freakin' genre! My issues with D&D begin with the ridiculous manifold uses of the term "level" and end with the impossibility of emulating the fantasy genre. D&D does one thing really well, and that's D&D. Anything else is window dressing. I had finally realized that system does matter.
 

On the advice of others, I began looking at other systems that sounded like fun. I looked at Savage Worlds. No offense meant to Shane Hensley, but it seems to use the dice step mechanic from Sovereign Stone which had been out for a full 4 years before Savage Worlds debuted, and seems to resemble GURPS as to how it handles other things, like skills. There are parts of the system that look intriguing, but I'd played GURPS before and it wasn't to my liking, so I'm not sure if I'd want to play Savage Worlds. Maybe if I hit a demo game at con, I might get sucked in.

I began to take note of systems like Risus or PDQ, and noting how elegant their "freeform with guidelines" systems were. I began to dream how easy it was simply to declare a genre, give some guidelines on creating characters in that genre, and be up and running with a minimum of muss or fuss. My dreams were realized when a nephew of mine (nothing but videogame experience) and my wife and a couple friends were able to make characters for my Risus fantasy game and we ran quite successfully for a few sessions. And it was my world, with my take on things. It wasn't played for laughs. 

One of the problems I have with a lot of games is they take their cues from D&D. All of 'em, whether it's Traveller or GURPS or Warhammer or any of that, there are certain tropes in these systems that are universal. The main one that I have an issue with is that damage is based on the weapon itself, not on the person using it. Some people just accept that and move on, but it flies in the face of not just fiction, but reality. 

A trained sniper is going to do a lot more damage and be a lot more precise in his shot than someone who doesn't know jack. Yet, in a lot of these systems, if the dice fall just right, the newbie sniper hits and does max damage. Which is fairly stupid. Likewise, a guy trained with knives is going to cut you up, and probably kill you in one shot if he cares to. Yet in D&D (depending on edition) he gets a miserable d4 or d6 max, depending on the edition.

Three films, for your review: 

House of Flying Knives - You think those guys were doing miserably low amounts of damage with their throwing knives? I wouldn't want to go against any one of them, even with a gun. 

King Arthur - Eschewing the preposterous premise, the action scenes were solid. And Bors, big, bald, brawny guy that he is, wades into a battle with light armor and kills Picts with twin daggers. Again, not possible in a game, unless rules were made to offset this. And mook rules don't quite give that visceral satisfaction of mopping up the floor with dozens of well-trained guys. 

Lord of the Rings - despite the ridiculous rewrite of the original story, the action shots were pretty good. There is a scene, Two Towers, I believe, where Legolas, in light armor, slides down a bannister and starts killings orcs with...wait for it...twin daggers. In a game where armor type is king and your stuff matters, he'd be dead, with little appreciable damage done to the enemy.

In case you're not a film buff, here's an example from the book I'm reading now, The Legend of Deathwalker:

The man's sword snaked from its leather scabbard and he ran forward. Talisman's right hand came up and back, the knife-blade slashing through the air to hammer home into the man's right eye, sinking in to the ivory hilt. The warrior ran on for two more paces, then pitched to his left, striking the ground face first. As the second warrior leapt forward, Zhusai's knife thudded into the side of his neck. Blood bubbled into his windpipe. Choking, he let go of his sword and tore the knife clear, staring down at the slender blade in shock and disbelief. Sinking to his knees he tried to speak, but blood burst from his mouth in a crimson spray. Talisman's foot flipped the sabre into the air and he caught it expertly.

Again, not possible with meager weapon damage. And more exciting than I've seen in most games, but I digress.

I'm not advocating we raise weapon damages, or merely give some justice to the lowly dagger. I support something I found in Daniel Boggs' excellent Dragons at Dawn, a game based on Arneson's game pre-D&D. In Dragons, Arneson introduces a stat called Hit Dice, and, instead of being Hit Points as Gygax re-termed them, they are instead the number of dice you roll for damage when you hit.

 

Obviously, Fighters are going to roll more of those dice than Magic-Users and Thieves. Which makes sense. It keeps things balanced, and can even out the damage disparity starting at 5th level, where you can do 1d8 + whatever with your sword and your magic-user buddy can do 5d6 -- at range!

To avoid confusion, we'd probably have to call it something else.  How about the Battle Factor?  You could even work up a table for the Fighter, like this:

Level    Exp    Battle Factor
1            0       1+2
2         2,000      2
3         4,000      3
4         8,000      4
5       16,000      5
6       32,000      6
7       64,000      7       Bonus attacks
8      120,000     8
9      240,000     9       Lord (Lady)
10    360,000    9+2*
11    480,000    9+4
12    600,000    9+6
13    720,000    9+8
14    840,000    9+10

That way, at 7th level, while a 7th level Magic-User is doing 7d6 damage with a Fireball, the Fighter of similar level is doing 7d6 damage with his twin daggers. :)  Of course, in the meantime, if the Magic-User is forced to use his sword*, he does, say, 4d6-1 damage with it.  In this way, balance is maintained, and not artificially.  Plus it mirrors both heroic fiction and real life.  The best of all possible worlds, eh?

* = Of course, the weapons appear reversed here, but that's just aesthetics.  If a warrior chooses to use daggers, that's his choice.  With the damage now being based on the character class, anyone can choose any weapon they want.  Gandalf used a War Sword in Lord of the Rings and it didn't break the Trilogy...