-	-	Aids to Playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (DMG)	-	-
Dungeons & Dragons	AD&&D	-	Dragon magazine	The Dragon #36

In the June 1979 issue of The Dragon (#26), Rick Krebs described
a microcomputer-based system designed to assist the DM in the more
mundane details of running his campaign. He characterized himself as
“by no stretch of the IMAGINATION a computer scientist, merely a gamer
looking for new ways to USE technology in gaming.” Let me give you the
viewpoint of 1 computer scientist who has recently discovered
gaming.

The computer is merely a tool. Although it can execute millions of
instructions each second, it can only perform tasks which have been
explained to it in agonizing detail. It is therefore notably lacking in
creativity. Almost by definition, anything which we understand well
enough to program into a computer is not creative. (The predictions of a
super chess-playing program, for instance, have yet to be fulfilled. The
AI researchers discovered that we do not know how
human experts play championship chess. There are programs which are
excellent chess players, but the top players are still human.) Those tasks
which we understand fully-especially repetitious clerical tasks—can
often be performed more quickly and accurately by the computer than
by humans. The computer is the ideal drudge.

In the realm of AD&D, a computer can perform many dull housekeeping
chores so that the DM may concentrate on the creative aspects
of his task. AI research has taught us how to organize
goal-directed games. Computer simulation techniques used in engineering
and economics allow a changing world to be modeled within
the computer. (See “Zork A Computerized Fantasy Simulation Game”
in the April 1979 issue of Computer. Zork is like single-player D&D
without role-playing or campaign background.) Let us consider 8 of
the DM’s tasks and the ways in which standard computer science
techniques might simplify them:

1st, the DM describes the players’ immediate environment to
them. Keeping track of the dungeon map, the players’ positions on it,
and any changes to the dungeon (forced doors, etc.) is trivial for the
computer. In fact, a schematic display of the visible room and corridor
layout could be maintained by the computer.

2nd, the DM enforces (or fails to enforce because they are too
much bother) restrictions on Time and movement. The inventory of
items carried by each player and their effect on movement can be
maintained by the computer. Various time-related limitations such as
torch consumption, REST periods, healing, and spell duration are easily
monitored if the computer is keeping The Game’s master clock.

3rd, probabilistic outcomes (combat results, saving throws, wandering
monsters, etc.) decided by the DM depend upon dice throws and
tables. It is easy to program a random-number generator to simulate any
combination of dice; all the many tables (combat, armor, etc.) may be
stored in the computer. This would SPEED up melee immensely.

4th, the DM is responsible for unintelligent monsters and subservient
allies and hirelings. Those monsters and NPCs
who simply attack, retreat, or follow orders can be controlled by the
computer. (A gelatinous cube does not require much attention from the
DM during an encounter. )

5th, the DM operates the intelligent monsters and NPCs.
When negotiation, trickery, or flexible response are required,
the DM draws on decades of social experience which cannot be
programmed into any computer. Given the numerical information from
the Monster Manual, however, the computer can randomly generate
monsters or henchmen and keep track of their HP while the DM
directs their behavior. Like other tabular information, the monster
characteristics need only be entered once when the program is written.
Variations can be made at any time at the DM’s discretion, of course.

6th, the DM designs the layout of the dungeon and places treasures,
traps, and monsters within it. All of these can be generated
randomly under constraints imposed by the DM (total size, average
corridor length, average treasure value and monster strength for each
level, etc. ). For the solo player, automatic dungeon creation would be a
real boon. Unfortunately, a machine-created dungeon lacks the fiendish
ingenuity provided by a human DM. In practice, I would expect the DM
to design critical areas and let the computer flesh out the dungeon or to
edit a randomly generated dungeon to create a more interesting setting.
As users of office word-processing equipment know, just having information
stored in the computer makes it infinitely easier to change
things—especially if you have a video display screen.

7th, the DM must create the culture and terrain in which the
campaign takes place. Not having read Tolkien, Leiber, or Vance, a
computer can contribute little here besides randomly generated names.
(Computers can tell stories or converse like Freudian analysts, but they
usually do it by randomly selecting items from their limited store of
cliches. Just like humans, when they have no real knowledge of a
subject they resort to b.s. )

8th, the DM is the referee and final arbiter for the campaign. The
computer can keep track of monsters killed and treasure gained, but all
advancement decisions and player disputes requiring judgment are the
responsibility of the DM.

The computer can take over many burdensome and repetitious
housekeeping chores, thereby speeding up play and freeing the DM for
his more challenging and creative tasks. One interesting possibility is
that with enough help from the computer the DM might be far less
reluctant to let the party split up temporarily. At present it is not really
practical for the DM to run several scenarios at once. There are also very
good reasons discussed in the AD&D manuals why splinter groups may
be bad for the campaign. If, however, those leaving (or cut off from) the
main party are willing to accept less of the DM’s personal attention, the
computer may be able to keep their part of the dungeon operating until
they are reunited with their fellows.

So why don’t I have all these wonderful aids running in my living
room? The answer is money, of course. Rick Krebs somehow managed
to shoehorn his program and tables into a microcomputer with only
4,096 characters of memory. His program was written in BASIC, a
programming language too weak for an extensive project His microcomputer
cost a few thousand dollars at most In contrast, artificial
intelligence programs are usually run in a sophisticated language, such
as LISP, on a machine having hundreds of thousands of characters of
memory and costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. This means that
the sophisticated techniques which are the fruits of decades of research
are not applicable to a machine that the average gamer or group of
gamers can afford.

The situation is improving rapidly, however. The next generation of
microcomputers will sell for a few thousand dollars but have most of the
capabilities of the previous generation of large computers. Sophisticated
languages such as Pascal and LISP, formerly available only on large
machines, are now available even on microcomputers. There is a
growing realization that a microcomputer can do almost anything a large
machine can do—only more slowly. Since a significant percentage of
computer science students have grown up on fantasy and science
fiction, you can expect to see some very powerful AD&D aids in the next
few years.

As an example of what can be done now, consider the problem of
describing the adventurers’ surroundings to them. Ideally, one might
like to display the visible area of the dungeon, the adventurers, and the
monsters on a color television screen. Realistically, enough resolution to
draw the characters well and enough speed to allow even cartoon-like
movement are prohibitively expensive. Painted figures give much more
realism than could be afforded with a fully animated dungeon.

Nevertheless, available displays do have enough resolution to easily
depict the rooms and corridors, if not the characters and items within
them. The Apple II microcomputer, for example, has a simple color
graphics capability. An option allows display on any color television.
Large-screen projection televisions have been available for years now.
Why not place standard painted figures in their marching order on a
table and project the dungeon around them? As the adventurers move
through the dungeon, the projection could be made to advance and
turn around the stationary miniatures. Special mounting would be
needed to direct the projection onto the horizontal surface, but the
whole system could be bought for less than the price of a car. Its two
major components, the microcomputer and the television, would be
available for their normal functions. Having a clear visual display of the
adventurers’ surroundings would enhance the realism of the fantasy.
Retaining the use of miniatures would preserve that artistic aspect of
gaming, as well as keep the system cost within bounds.

Although we can expect some fantastic playing aids in the near
future, a note of caution is in order. Since the computer is intended to be
the DM’s assistant, the interface between DM and computer must be
very carefully designed. If the DM spends all of his Time typing data into
the machine and muttering at his private DISPLAY screen, the players will
become bored and leave. The computer must be FAST, unobtrusive, and
completely subservient to the DM.

OUT ON A LIMB

‘Computer freak’

To the editor:
I have just purchased TD #36 and I fell that it
is time I wrote and told you how much I enjoy the
magazine. I especially like the new series, The
Electric Eye. As a computer freak and a game
freak I can see how the 2 go together so well.

I think an article on the more unusual weapons
would be interesting. There are several
that I would like to see in our campaign such as a
bola, net, garotte, whip, boomerang, etc.

Is there an updated version of the Monster
Manual in the works? Or at least a collection of
the new monsters from Dragon’s Bestiary? The
latest, the Krolli, is a beauty.

Michael E. Stamps
(The Dragon #39)
 

According to our recently compiled index of
all TD articles (to be published in TD-40), there
has not been a “table of bonuses jot each monster”
printed in the magazine. Michael’s friend
may be referring to the alphabetical list of creatures
from the Monster Manual which is printed
as an appendix in the Dungeon Masters Guide. <this data has been moved to the MM>
As for Michael’s request for an article on unusual
weapons, all we can do is pass on that sentiment
(by publishing this letter) and hope that some
energetic reader will take advantage of the opportunity
to send us an article on that subject.

YES, there is another monster book in the
works. The Fiend Folio is being produced by
TSR Hobbies, Inc., and will be available later <TSR UK>
this year. The project is out of The Dragon’s
domain, so we can’t say exactly what it will contain.
At the present time, we have no plans to
reprint Bestiay creations in a single volume—
but who knows what the future will hold?

—Kim
(The Dragon #39)
 

EDITORIAL
R.I.P.: RPGs?
This issue marks the 13th anniversary
of the founding of DRAGON®
Magazine and my 6th year on its
staff. Rather than looking back at
the early days of the magazine (see
"The Hatchling Magazine" in this
issue), looking ahead is more in
order in this editorial.

DRAGON Magazine's core topic is
that of role-playing games, particularly
the AD&D® game. The magazine
's fate thus revolves around the
fortunes of these games themselves.
RPGs have grown and evolved since
the appearance of the fantasy combat
rules in the CHAINMAIL miniatures
game. But other changes have
come about with more far-reaching
effects.

Many RPG companies have developed
specific campaign worlds for
their games, and these worlds are
extremely complex. Thick sourcebooks
are available for RPGs of all
types--but how many gamers actually
use all of this material? Many
gamers buy sourcebooks only to
read, like buying paperback novels.
Besides, how often can you get a
group together to play through a 10-
part quest?

Additionally, those gamers who
started playing RPGs in the 1970s
and early 1980s are growing older.
Game designer and novelist Tracy
Hickman has pointed out that as
gamers (like everyone else) get older,
they acquire families, homes, normal
jobs, and so on. How often can
you get away from work and family
ties to go out and slay dragons with
the gang? Not very often.

As Tracy has noted, you may not
be able to get gamers together, but
your computer is available on
demand. You might miss having
your friends around (unless you
have a multiplayer game and can get
family or friends to play, too). But
whenever you want to play, you can
play.

Better computers and programs
are also available. Hack-n-slash computer
games are being replaced by
detailed adventures on worlds as
complex as any on paper. The NPCs
in these games have their own personalities
and missions in life; they
remember wrongs and favors done
to them by your character. Some of
them can "talk" to you, too, bringing
with them what Tracy calls the
"illusion of interaction." And you
have a DM who never forgets your
saving-throw bonuses or loses his
place in the rule books. What more
could you ask for?

The growth of computer RPGs is
worth any gamer's time to watch.
Certainly, carrying around a few
floppy disks beats hauling a dozen
hardbound books any time. And
even if you like having your friends
around when you play, computers
can make your job as a DM many
times easier.

Will computer RPGs eventually
replace "paper RPGs?" The future
will tell. And DRAGON Magazine
will be around to find out.

(Dragon #146)
 

FORUM
The June editorial (issue #146) very much
disturbs me. While I am hoping Roger intended
it as a thought-provoking entry instead of as a
prediction, it certainly begs a good deal of
discussion. Let me start out by refuting the
basic premise of the editorial: A computer RPG
is not an RPG. It is instead just what it is--a
series of magnetic particles which, when interpreted
by a disk drive, performs a given function.
Think about the name RPG: It stands for
role-playing game. Most certainly, there is no
'role' involved in a binary program. Roleplaying
involves a deep interaction with an
alternate persona, most often referred to as a
character. This persona must interact with both
its player and the master of the game, and the
player and master must interact. In the case of
traditional RPGs, that master is the game
master--DM with regard to the AD&D game.
When a so-called computer RPG is played, the
computer becomes the master. I fail to see how
the computer's actions could ever be referred to
as interaction. Everything the computer does is
by a program, which is given and known. Even
random events are predictable; one knows they
will be random. In the person-to-person RPG,
the essence of spontaneity is still there. The
player never knows what the GM might do next;
the DM might use a table or use a die roll, or
even make something up on the spot! Computers
cannot and never will do so. Thus, the
essential ingredient for the very existence for
RPGs is missing: interaction.

Tracy Hickman is the next contributor to the
RPG discussion. According to Mr. Moore, Tracy
claims that it is harder and harder to get a
group together, but the computer is always
there. As much as I admire Mr. Hickman's work
and ability, I must disagree with him on this
point. Gamers who truly enjoy the game will
find time to play. I know that's a bit over-generalized,
but it is true. I would hope that spouses
knew of their fiancees' hobby before ever
getting married; thus, they should know that it
takes a little time every so often (and will be
understanding about it). Jobs do not take up all
of one's time. Besides, how better to relax than
to play a game one enjoys in the company of
one's friends?

Next on the agenda of the editorial is mention
of multiplayer computer games. These can be
found in two varieties. The first is just a standard
computer game repeated so that more than
one player can take part at the same time. This
still does not fit the interaction mandate, as the
computer still uses a set code for determining
that action A causes result B, but merely does it
twice (or three times, etc.). The second variety
of multiplayer game is that of a network of
players hooked through modem. I grudgingly
admit that this could be considered an RPG,
because it involves the computer only as a
medium for communication. Basically, though,
this variety is the same as having an AD&D
game held over the phone but with print instead
of voice communication. Not real exciting:
no facial expressions, no secret notes, and--
somewhat more importantly--no snacks "borrowed
" from other players.

The concept of using the computer to aid
DMing is brought up as a final word on the
subject. Sure, having all the information on disk
would be nice, but I did some quick calculating
and just the 1st Edition Dungeon Masters Guide,
Players Handbook, and Monster Manual I would
take up 5250K of memory (about 37 floppy
disks). That’s only the basic information, too,
and doesn’t even take into account all the scenarios,
characters, backgrounds, other books,
etc. It also doesn’t take into account the computer!
So space will still be at a premium. Also,
when a question by a player was asked, the GM
would turn around, type a few lines into the
computer, and spit out an answer, which would
remove all the humanity. There would be no
need for the GM, and again the RPG concept
would die. Game masters are needed to bring
the campaign to life using whatever methods
best fit the moment. Computers cannot do this
and will most likely never do so, due to the
improbability of artificial intelligence reaching
human levels. GMs are a special breed — they
can’t be reduced to the 0s and 1s of binary.

I admit I enjoy computer games as much as
everyone else, but the idea that they will replace
“live” playing is abhorrent to me. They can
be enjoyed but on a completely different scale
than that of real RPGs. To the editorial’s final
question, “Will computer RPGs eventually replace
‘paper’ RPGs?” the answer must be NO. If
that happens, RPGs as a whole will vanish, just
as the editorial’s title mentions, to be replaced
by a square of plastic, some wire, and lots of
silicon. A sad day it will be.

Despite all my ranting, though, I do agree
with one of Mr. Moore’s comments. We can all
hope that DRAGON Magazine will be around to
witness whatever may befall the gaming industry.
Happy 13th!

Alan Grimes
Warrensburg MO
(Dragon #151)
 

I own Pool of Radiance and it is truly amazing.
It captures all of the critical elements of the
AD&D game and puts them all in a neatly
wrapped package (with many extras). This was
a blessing for me as well as many other gamers,
I’m sure, because players and DMs are in short
supply up here in Canada.

As for whether or not computer RPGs will
ever replace textbook versions, I say no, or at
least not completely! I don’t think that a computerized
version will ever replace taking out a few
AD&D game books while in the car for a 6-hour
trip.

Jason Dunn
Calgary, Alberta
(Dragon #151)
 

In issue #146, the editorial talked about computer
RPGs. I personally agree with just about
all of the points hit by Roger Moore. However,
in issue #151, on page 66, Alan Grimes wrote a
letter that I did not agree with at all.

Mr. Grimes states that there is no role involved
in a binary program. Of course there
isn't! The role involved is through characters
created by the binary program. Let me give an
example.

I have owned an IBM clone computer for
almost 3 years. The 1st program bought by
my family for me was The Bard's Tale. In The
Bard's Tale, I created a character, a paladin,
named Baxian. Baxian and his gang of other
characters have been my alternate personas, as
Mr. Grimes puts it. Baxian has been my number-one
character even through The Bard's Tale II.
He and I have been through countless battles,
just like some fighters in an AD&D campaign.
The interaction that Mr. Grimes fails to see is
there. The computer is just the channel that the
player uses to play the game, just as a DM is also
a channel for an AD&D game.

Mr. Grimes states that the essence of spontaneity
is not included in a computer RPG, that
everything the computer does is by a program
that is given and known. The program is given,
but not known (at least in the IBM version). The
programs are normally written in some assembly
language that only someone who can read
that assembly language understands How can
you know how to solve the game or know what
the game will be like if you can't read the program
language?

Next, Mr. Grimes mentions the fact that
gamers who really enjoy the game will find time
to play. Where I have lived, few people will take
the time to play a good D&D® game I have been
interested in D&D and AD&D games for about
6 years In all that time, I have played just a
few complete adventures. All I have to do is
turn to my computer, and I have something that
already has an adventure for me to play, or I
can continue an adventure that I stopped to eat
dinner, or whatever. You can't tell your gaming
friends to pack out to the porch and wait while
you and your family eat dinner can you?

Mr. Grimes says that he did some quick calculating
to figure out how many Ks of memory
would be needed to have just 3 books worth
of AD&D manuals on disk. This calculating may
be correct, but Mr. Grimes left out the element
of data compression. By compressing the data,
those 37 disks could be compressed into just
5 or 6 disks An example: SSI's Pool of Radiance
program needs at least 384K of RAM
memory to operate; the program would have
come on about 15 disks, but because of the
compression, it came on 3. The then-compressed
5 or 6 disks of manuals would
be easily used by any computer user.

Regarding the removal of the GM: In the
groups I've played in, most of the players didn't
want to be the GM, and a game wouldn?t get
going. A computer will be the GM for you, and a
game can start right away without having to
wait for an adventure to be created.

In closing, computers are going to be part of
this world, whether you like it or not. Plenty of
imagination can be used while playing a good
computer RPG. Computers don't need imagination,
but the programs they interpret give it to
you in the face.

Dan Howarth
Holbrook AZ
(Dragon #159)
 

"Forum" in DRAGON issue #159 began with a
letter from Dan Howarth questioning my comments
in issue #151. I appreciate his comments,
but I must defend my earlier points. On the
matter of interaction and roles, Mr. Howarth
claims that he has enjoyed his character Baxian
during the game The Bard's Tale in the same
sense as one would enjoy a PC in a "live" game.
While I do not doubt that the game was enjoyable
(as I have played it myself), it offers several
restrictions. To remain within the context of
that game, the only chances for interaction with
either the player or the game are as follows:
movement in 4 directions, attack, defend,
use, parry, and party attack (if I remember
correctly). On occasion, the game will require
the entry of a riddle answer or password, but
beyond that, all is controlled by the computer. I
fail to see how a proper "role" can be established
by using those commands.  A role,
includes many more nuances not available in
any gaming system.  No game on the market
today (or in the forseeable future) allows one a
choice to swagger, limp, barge, or meander into
a tavern. In the vast majority of cases, characters
cannot phrase their own replies to the
game's questions, as the program allows for only
a short list of highly restricted options. SSI's
Pool of Radiance, et. al., go a short distance to
relieve this problem by allowing speech in
several modes (HAUGHTY, SLY, NICE, etc.), but only
in set encounters. The possibilities during a live
game are unlimited; those on a computer RPG
are finite and few.

The next point of Mr. Howarth's letter concerns
spontaneity. I stated in my letter that
since the programming of a computer is in a set
and given format, it lacked the randomness of a
human GM. Unfortunately, Mr. Howarth misinterpreted
this and said that since he could not
read assembly language (in which most computer
games are written), the game could retain
its spontaneity. Such was not my meaning at all.
My intent was to bring out the point that computers
follow their set programs during all
phases of the game. To continue with Pool of
Radiance, an example would be that after one
or two encounters with kobolds, the player
learns that they will always attack the party if
the party speaks nicely. Similarly, the games are
written into a firm background, and your
friend's copy of Pool will behave the same as
yours. Note that I do not hold this against computer
RPGs, because I realize that technology
does not allow for artificial intelligence to run
home computer games in the manner that
humans would. Two GMs will never act the
same in the same circumstance, nor will a single
GM necessarily follow the same course of
action, while a computer will blindly follow the
same course each time.

Mr. Howarth continues by noting the difficulty
in gathering a group of players and a GM in a
session. He made the comparison between
putting a computer on pause and sending
gamers packing when dinner was ready. I
would claim that this can be easily solved by a
bit of simple planning. Yes, it is considered rude
to ask gamers to leave when dinner is served,
but why not have everyone chip in and order
pizza? I have done this on many occasions, and
it has been nearly as much fun during the meal
as during the game. Another solution would be
to plan so that the game did not extend into the
mealtime, or plan it to start after the meal is
completed. As for the difficulty of convincing
one of the participants to be a GM, I regret that
you have that complication. It is a problem for
which there is no ready solution, but for me,
giving up and turning to a computer is hardly
the answer (no offense intended and I trust
none taken).

Next, I hold that my calculation of the space
required by the data would indeed be a significant
matter. I claimed that the 1st edition DMG,
PHB, and MM1 alone would take 37 floppy
disks. Mr. Howarth claimed that it could be
compressed into 5 or 6 disks and used the
example that Pool required 384K of RAM and
"would have come on about 15 disks, but because
of the compression, it came on 3." My
calculations were based on the Apple format,
which can include 140K of data per side on a
5.25" disk, and I cannot fathom where Mr.
Howarth would acquire disks that would hold
only 25.6K (384/15). Indeed, his note confirms
my point, as 384K/140K per disk would be 3
disks, while the 5250K required for the books
would still take 37 (which would fill the disks,
regardless of compression).

I take final contention with one of the latter
comments in the letter, that stated that "computers
are going to be part of this world,
whether you like it or not." I am sorry if my
letter were interpreted as an attack on computers,
for indeed they are invaluable in our
daily life. My letter was merely pointing out that
computer RPGs could not and will not replace
live RPGs in any sense, as they lack the vital
components necessary to merit that designation,
a claim that I believe still stands. I welcome any
further communication about the matter, from
any reader, through "Forum!"

Alan Grimes
Kansas City MO
(Dragon #166)
 

I'm writing in response to Alan Grimes' comments
in DRAGON issue #166. I've sort of kept
out of the dispute with Mr. Howarth, but I've
finally put my two cents in.

I'm afraid I have to side with Mr. Howarth on
several of his points, but I do have points of my
own, the first being that there are other video
games that give you more of a chance to roleplay.
I am specifically talking about Ultima VI,
by Origin. Here, though you won't win the
game, you can choose a life of crime instead of
following the paths of virtue. The game also
allows you to talk with every person in every
town; depending on how you talk to those
people, you can get information out of them or
nothing at all. The point is that computer games
can be interactive.

My 2nd point is that a computer can describe
with a picture what would take a DM
several words to describe. In Ultima V when
you see a shadowlord you are stricken with
fear; in all likelihood, you will leave that city
immediately. It would take a good DM a couple
of minutes to describe the right mood.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we put a computer
at the head of a table and have everyone
sit around it with their mouses, expecting the
computer to be a DM, but I am suggesting that
when a DM is not readily available, I find computers
to be helpful in this. I live in a town of
100 people, and only 5, including me, play the
AD&D® game. When 1 of us does not want to
play, we don't play. Therefore, I turn on my
computer, since it does not have a choice as to
whether it wants to play or not.

Alan made a point that computer programs
are set, and how no two GMs' ways of handling
things would be the same. This is an appropriate
point, assuming that two people playing the
computer game make the exact same moves.
This is possible in theory, but in a computer
game like Ultima VI or The Bards Tale, it is very
unlikely.

Though I did not read issue #151 and don't
know how the topic came up, Alan was talking
about how many disks it would take to put
several AD&D books on disks. I have a 40
megabyte hard drive, and it could handle 5,000
K without a problem. Anyway, why can't you
use the rule books in paper form?

I welcome any letters that anybody would like
to write to me in regards to my letter.

Jager McConnell
P.O. Box 15 a
Deerfield MA 01342
(Dragon #171)