Dragon

-

-

-

Dragon 82

The following passages were taken and
edited from letters received by DRAGON®
Magazine in the last year. As you read
through them, ask yourself if some of them
describe situations that have occurred in
your own AD&D campaign.
 

"My players have characters who have
created spells that propel them through time
and space at tremendous rates. They have
looted the future and brought back devices
that could destroy Greyhawk and many of
the <dimensions>. They own several Battlestars,
and they also have a large stock of AT-AT
Walkers from  The Empire Strikes Back.
How do I keep them from destroying Grey-
hawk and creating an incredibly boring
campaign?"

"One player I know in an AD&D game
has a human character who has changed his
race and class several times, and is now
multiclassed in 4 classes. He decided his
character would kill Orcus, and after that
his character became the new prince of the
undead, with an unlimited amount of any
undead to control, even an unlimited num-
ber of liches. The character also has some
star destroyers he uses to fly around in
space or to destroy planets. This character
has a permanent prismatic sphere around
him that even moves with him. He says he
made it by wishing a couple of thousand
times. How does one deal with this kind of
player in a campaign?"
 
 

"I have a 65th level <priest> character, and
want to know if he can get more spells or
magick items. Also, how many times can my
character use his spells at will (if high-level
characters can use several spells at once)?"
 
 

"I knew a character in an AD&D cam-
paign who was able to slay the god Thor by
using a push spell on him, knocking him off
a tall wall. The hammer Mjolnir did not fall
off the wall and the character got it."
 
 

"Our Dungeon Master has a campaign
in which a 4,000th level magic-user/cleric
runs a magic shop, in which characters can
buy artifacts and relics for the prices listed
in the DMG. If a character walks in with
the right amount of money, he can get
anything. Is it possible to have an NPC like
that, and is it advisable?"

My 1st reaction upon reading these
letters was frank disbelief. AT-AT Walkers
marching across Greyhawk? Prince of the
undead? Killing Thor with a  push  spell?
4,000th level characters?

After reading through a pile of letters like
these, however, I remembered AD&D
games that I refereed long ago, and charac-
ters that I once played. When I began as a
DM in 1977, I ran adventures in which the
characters met 20 dragons, of all colors, in a
single day (by "random roll," of course).
My group was started on a quest for the
Silmarils of Tolkien fame, and met prepos-
terously huge dragons and other gargantuan
beasties guarding the various treasures.
Other characters in an old campaign of
mine were able to find things like Captain
America's shield, Excalibur, and other
assorted artifacts after cutting their way
through the minions of a 30th-level lich to
do it.

As PCs, I've run a minotaur
demi-god/demon-prince who attacked other
deities on impulse (though not successfully),
and once I played a gold dragon who had
three female henchdragons named Farrah,
Kate, and Jacqueline. You get the idea. . . .
As much as I'd like to whitewash my past
abuses of AD&D and D&D® games, it
cannot be done (my friends would remind
me of them, for one thing). The memories
come in handy, however, when reading
letters like those above.

The AD&D game system is a very com-
plicated one. DMs have to
absorb many rules to run a Game well, and
the prospect of running a campaign can be
very intimidating. Most DMs want to run
adventures that keep the players challenged
and happy; killing off characters, even when
done fair and square, is intimidating, too.
Some players will pout for days if their
characters get killed or don't get what they
want, and this can be rough on everyone.
These problems can put lots of pressure on
the referee to start altering the scope and
balance of the campaign. If my best friend
Bob really wants his character to have
Odin's rune wand that badly, well, maybe <runic font>
there?s a way . . .

The hidden problem, of course, is that
giveaway games like this pale very quickly.
Soon no one feels challenged by anything
the DM throws at them, people get bored,
and The Game folds. Sometimes one or two
players are shown exceptional favoritism in
a campaign by the DM, and everyone else
gets shafted. No matter how you do it,
giveaway games like those described above
will produce nothing whatsoever but a
sorry, frustrating mess.

<cf. Don't favor one player over another.>

Players generally enjoy running charac-
ters who are powerful and garner respect
from other characters in the game. Few
people want weak or incompetent characters
in any role-playing system. The motivation
to have a strong character sometimes leads
to cheating (altering die rolls and ability
scores, writing down magick items the char-
acter never gained, or DMing one's own
characters). Players often put demands
upon the DM for less powerful monsters
and more treasures, and get caught up in a
race for the "bestest with the mostest."
Unfortunately, this only brings the end of
the game closer at hand. If the gods can be
slain without trouble, what is there left to
do? The Game was supposed to be Fun, but
soon it isn?t. Is there something wrong with
the game?

No, The Game is fine. It takes time to
establish balance in an AD&D campaign,
and it is frankly impossible for anyone to
run a campaign for any length of time
without having the game get out of balance
at some point or another. In other words, it
is normal to have problems somewhat like
those described at the start of this article --
normal, but not desirable.

When a gaming group starts out, the
chances of The Game getting out of balance
rises considerably if everyone wants to fiddle
with the rules right away. The more altera-
tions, the further out of whack the game
goes. By the time everyone is aware of the
problem, it is far too late to change any-
thing without dumping the campaign and
starting completely over -- with 1st-level
characters, and using the rules as they are
before you start altering anything.

"What about my 65th level cleric?" Well,
either the cleric goes or The Game goes; the
game can exist without the cleric, but the
cleric can't continue to exist without the
game, so . . .

The value in starting over is that Now
everyone has at least some idea of how The Game
works (and how it isn't supposed to
work). The sour taste of a runaway cam-
paign makes players that much more reluc-
tant to repeat the mistake again. 2nd
campaigns are generally more balanced
than their predecessors, and most players
I've known (myself included) have found
them more Fun to play in.

Not everyone may get tired of a Monty
Haul campaign at the same time. A gaming
group may split up into ultra-level gamers
and those who begin, with a fresh campaign
and characters. It usually seems to happen
that the group starting over again will ac-
quire more game-players than the other
group, and the Monty Haul group will
dwindle in membership. The willingness to
START over again is a mark of maturity and
flexibility, and this will attract players who
admire and practice those qualities.

"But I  like  playing high-level charac-
ters!? So do I, but I find that building a
character up to high level is more entertain-
ing when starting from the lower levels and
working him up by the rules. Characters
run in this manner are more believable,
more colorful, and have more interesting
personalities than those slapped together in
a Monty Haul campaign; their flair and
liveliness make them more Fun to play. The
minotaur demi-god character I used long
ago was not as much fun to play as my 5th-
level fighter/7th-level thief gnome character,
Cyragnome de Bergerac. Cyragnome is
obnoxious, speaks with an outrageous
French accent, and gives everyone who
meets him severe heartburn. The minotaur
just hacked and killed. Dull, dull, dull.

When I suggest starting over again and
using the rules as they are, I am not saying
that everyone should play only "official"
AD&D games. All AD&D and D&D
gamers eventually develop peculiar systems
that they use in their campaigns with rea-
sonable effect, though such systems (like
critical hit tables, new monsters and magick
items, new character classes and races, and
so forth) are not official at all.

However, the more closely one works
with the rules and the more often they are
used, the better one understands how they
work together in The Game. In time, one can
judge whether a particular rule change will
throw a campaign out of balance or whether
it will (for the players concerned) improve
the enjoyment of the game. Understanding
the rules and knowing them is the key to
designing a game that keeps DM and player
alike happy.

<cf. Competence>

There is no crime in letting a campaign
get out of control. The only crime comes in
not learning from one's own mistakes. The
best DMs and players are those who don't
claim to be perfect, and who look for ways
to improve The Game for everyone's benefit.

A fresh campaign may be the answer
you're looking for. It makes a pleasant
change from killing gods with a push spell.

In response to Mr. Godwin's letter in issue #87 <link>
about "Monty Haul campaigns . . . being built
into the game," I wish to simply point out that
there is a paragraph in virtually every module
that TSR, Inc., puts on the market (usually
under the heading of DM's Notes)
that explains to the DM something to the effect of
"If this dungeon doesn't suit your present campaign,
feel free to alter it in any way for your
players.? Mr. Godwin?s disappointment at
Gauntlets of Ogre Power being in the G series
dungeons (something I'm sure any fighter who
read that issue and who had not been in any G
series module would have loved to hear about,
and if he didn?t catch it there he?ll get it here)
could have greatly been avoided by simple removal,
reduction in force, or replacement of that
magic item.

?Monty Haul? characters aren?t as nasty as so
many DMs point out in their various
letters to The Forum. It just requires special
skills, both tactical and imaginative, to DM such
super-powered beings.

Articles like the current series by Katharine
Kerr as well as just plain common sense about
campaign building and planning will, I think,
greatly aid any DM who takes on the responsibility
of playing with higher level characters.

I wish, however, to offer up my own advice.
First of all, when you play with super-high level
characters, such things as charts and tables, dice
rolling, and other picky little numerals must be
de-emphasized, and the character (what he/she
likes, loves, hates, wants, is repulsed by, is inspired
by) must be emphasized with much greater
detail.

When characters of 10th-25th level open up
themselves and look back on what they have done
throughout their past careers as dungeoneers, I
find that most players are distraught at what they
find ? there is no human being in the humans,
no heart in any of them, and they have advanced
this far and this well and they have yet to have
any personality beyond simple character quirks
and oversimplified, unoriginal stereotypes.

With the advent of the character as a character,
with a real personality and set goals (other than
killing everything in sight, hoarding magic and
treasure, and surviving, of course), the DM has
his or her work cut out. After setting down preliminarily
what their world will be like (hmmm,
let?s see, sea port here, major fortress there, these
people live off of trade coming down the river . .
.) and after determining some of the major NPCs
to be found there, then it is the time and the place
for the World to blossom, change, mature, and to
become infinitely better than the outlines originally
set down for it.

The characters, being realistically ?human?
and having personalities, will, with their travels,
do more for creating your campaign world than
any DM could ever hope to do ? and oh, will it
be worth it!

Sam Chupp
Conyers, Ga.
(Dragon #87)
 

I have been greatly disturbed with the overabundance
of letters describing high level campaigns
as being Monty Haul campaigns. I myself
have participated in high-level adventures with
19th to 25th level characters and I find them to be
greatly enjoyable if played correctly.

For instance, I have recently participated in a
campaign where all of the characters were at least
20th level. We entered <Hell> to fight the
various devils. We managed to kill a lot of lesser
devils and a few greater devils. Among that we
killed a couple of the arch-devils.

Now, most people would think this was outrageous.
Who'd even think of killing a demon or a
devil so powerful? Well, this brings me to a
simple question: If you have worked to a point
where your characters are 20th level, who are
they supposed to fight?

The obvious answer in my mind is the various
demons and devils listed in all three of the monster
books. Still outrageous? If not for fighting
high-level devils then what the devil (no pun
intended) are these powerful creatures for?

If you said to fight high-level characters you
are correct. If you think killing demons and devils
of the unique sort is outrageous, then you?re the
one being outrageous. Sure, all your middle-level
characters have killed manes demons and maybe
even some styx devils in their career but wouldn?t
that invoke the wrath of their masters?

Some say that killing Orcus or Baalzebul
throws the balance out of a campaign but I think
that if the balance of a campaign rests on a bunch
of overly powerful, ugly monsters then your
campaign is out of balance to begin with.

Think about the classic myths. Wasn't the
hydra supposedly super-powerful? Hercules
defeated it, didn't he? Well, there's your answer.
The purpose of creating those powerful monsters
is to challenge a powerful creature.

Think about 20th level characters travelling
through modules like The Sinister Secret of
Saltmarsh, <A2>, |or|
even <G1-3>. Then think about
<Q1>. Isn?t there a
demon in that? Don't you think if she's causing
so much trouble you should kill her? I know I did
when I took on that adventure and I?ll tell you it
was fun! I admit, 400th level characters or AT-AT
walkers tromping across Greyhawk destroying
things like they destroy Rebel bases in The
Empire Strikes Back is getting a little out of
hand, but high levels doesn' t necessarily make up
a Monty Haul campaign.

I think that before someone complains about
high-level campaigns they should think about
this: If people don't want high-level characters
then why do they want so many new high-level
spells and monsters? Why does EGG continue
creating new demon and devil princes?

I guess the point of all this ranting and raving
is just to say that if you don't think that high-level
monsters are fun (especially demons and devils)
then try taking your hard-earned 20th level
fighter through a lair of orcs and see how much
challenge and fun you get out of it. You might
even change your mind!

Adam Zar
DeKalb, Ill.
(Dragon #88)

*****

David Godwin's letter in issue #87 points out
several problems with upper level campaigns ?
outrageously high levels, attacking deities, and
automatic hits. There are, indeed, alternatives to
trashing characters or switching to other game
systems. These include:

Levels: In addition to avoiding Monty Haul
type adventures, a good DM can slow down
unduly rapid advancement by not allowing full
XP for overly easy activities. My 12th level monk
(a level gained after 6 years of playing) rarely gets
XP for kobolds, goblins, centipedes, etc. Since
it?s too easy, the DM just tosses such things in
when random rolls insist on it. By allowing fewer
XP for easily obtained gold, the characters can
also have slowed advancement. Using reduced
XP for easy conquests and rare XP-producing
encounters, players can play for years between
levels. And a creative DM can make the game
interesting without raising PC levels each game.

Attacks: As to Mr. Godwin's comments about
automatic hits, I'd like to point out that a roll of 1
is always a miss/failure (DMG p. 79). <yes, for saving throws>

Deities: I keep hearing about groups attacking
deities, and am constantly amazed by DMs who
allow this activity to happen. The DEITIES &
DEMIGODS book lists several ways in which
any mortal party (and even 17th level characters
are mortal) can be stopped. Awe and Horror (p. 7)
would stop the party long enough for the deity
to use command (with no saving throw), quest
(also without a saving throw), or geas to send
them away; or gate to bring in reinforcements; or
teleport to leave. Of course, true seeing would
allow the deity to see any attackers. All of these
abilities are standard for all deities (p. 8) and
seem to be enough to handle any attacks without
calling for use of a deity?s specific abilities.

As I stated earlier, I play a 12th level monk in a
campaign in which the PCs are all 10th through
12th level. An interesting thing has happened.
Once a character reaches 10th level, he/she
becomes less fun to play. The fun is getting a
character through danger safely. Once the character
can take on a dragon single-handed, it's best
retired. My monk teaches new monks at his own
monastery and comes out only when an exceptionally
strong foe presents himself. Otherwise I
now play mostly lower level characters (henchmen
of Rykor?s) and love every minute.

If you want an invulnerable character, fine.
But I don?t feel 17th level deity-killers to be
where the AD&D game is at.

Bob Kindel
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio
(Dragon #89)

*    *    *    *

In issue #87, I was stunned (as per the MU <link>
spell) by David Godwin?s letter saying that
Monty Haul campaigns are built into the AD&D
game, and not merely the result of careless DMs
or overbearing players. Admittedly, the examples
he gave (possibly characters in his campaign from
the sound of it) are formidable, but a good DM
could probably deal with them with a variety of
solutions.

However, such "solutions" would only be
temporary. There does come a point (I believe
Mr. Godwin has reached it already) when it
simply is time for the players to give up their
characters and start anew. Of course, the campaign
does not need to be scrapped, and whatever
the DM has concocted can and should be kept.
Also, there are ways of letting a character down
gently (mentioned in the rules, I might add). The
most simple answer is for them to settle down and
establish a stronghold, guild, or whatever and
simply sit back and let the money roll in. Another
solution, generally reserved for the ?creme de la
creme,? is godhood. This not only adds originality
to the campaign, but also is less of a blow to
the players. Who wouldn?t like to have his character
worshiped?

Another misconception I would like to clear up
is that of the gods. Deities are not meant to be
just more beasties for bored players. When
players are ?going through pantheons,? and
?beefing up the deities? is considered a solution
to mega-powerful characters, I?d say that the DM
does not understand the purpose of the gods.
Deities are merely meant to be worshiped and
called on for help in extreme situations (also,
deities often help flesh out a character, particularly
clerics). It should be kept in mind that even
the loss of one deity could seriously unbalance the
game.
 

Edgar W. Francis IV
North Truro, Mass.

*    *    *    *    *
 

In response to the letter from David Godwih in <link>
issue #87, I believe he is correct in stating that a
natural imbalancing factor exists in the game as
written. Unless a DM takes pains to regulate a
campaign, advancement and acquisition will
render it moot after a time. In my own experience
I have run across three ways of dealing with
this situation. I've used these methods in various
combinations to good effect, the final criterion
being the players' enjoyment.

1. Regarding the prepackaged modules available
from TSR and others, I've found it best to
alter them substantially before working them into
a campaign. Players will often be acquainted with
the better modules, and changes help balance this
knowledge. Changes also personalize the adventure
for the campaign and the DM rather than
rubber-stamping.

2. In response to the ever-increasing abilities
that come through level advancement and may
prove a difficulty, I have had some success with
what I call a maturity requirement. A player
character must be mature enough to handle the
increase in ability. This maturity is reflected in
the PC's age. When the character reaches the
upper teens or lower twenties in level, he or she is
near the end of natural life and will die unless
artificially aided. If so aided, I use the table on
page 13 of the DMG for the maximum age
attainable without (very rare indeed) DIVINE INTERVENTION.

On the surface, this may seem little better than
an arbitrary level cutoff, but it is very much
more. Use of this method allows a solution to the
imbalance, other than starting over, and accrues
an additional advantage. Characters can establish
a lineage and, if campaign circumstances permit
a dynasty! Players will be able to follow their
PC's extended family for generations. This adds
realism and rich detail to any campaign.

3. The third solution is the one I like the best.
Deviating from the idea that PCs are exceptional
individuals in their worlds, I propose that they
are instead not all that exceptional in a total
population breakdown. I postulate that there will
be others of equal or greater mettle and that they
will be encountered by the PCs, birds of a feather.
I set my percentages as follows: 40% 1st through
7th level, 40% 8th through 16th level, and 20%
17th-plus levels.

Mr. Gygax may demur at this breakdown, but
I?ve found it eminently useful. Characters can
advance normally. They will come to the attention
of increasingly powerful individuals as they
themselves become more powerful, and will have
to deal with these individuals. The outer planes
can remain somewhat mysterious because the
PCs will have their hands full with the machinations
of NPCs guarding their superior positions
or looking to become superior by knocking off the
PCs and confiscating their holdings.

Jim Parks
Fairdealing, Mo.
(Dragon #90)

*    *    *    *

Although this letter isn't about an actual part
of gaming, I think some people will be familiar
with this story. I first began playing the D&D
game about three and a half years ago. I?m not
really sure if you could call it playing, since I was
in the sixth grade at the time; in my area, that
was the time when everyone played the D&D
game and no one played it right. Everyone
played in a Monty Haul campaign, but no one
had even heard the term.

All through seventh grade, players slowly
thinned out and the remaining players I gamed
with decided to reform. We had long ?meetings?
for our D&D club in which we ended up either
watching TV or fooling around outside. Our DM
said he?d never done enough of his world for us
to play in it, although he can?t really be blamed
for it since no one else had the initiative to be a
DM. As expected, this finally ended in the late
summer after seventh grade, with the group
splitting in half.

At this point, I finally gained enough initiative
to become the DM. I was inspired by an excellent
DM who was a counselor at a camp I had gone to
that summer, and I was the DM all through
eighth grade. By this time, I realized that many
people who used to play the D&D game no longer
did. I?m quite sure (let's face it, folks) that the
reason is that D&D gaming is not considered cool
to a majority of kids starting into the eighth
grade. While I?ve been lucky enough for it not to
have happened to me, many kids that play the
D&D game are considered nerds.

So, what finally happened was this. I was
playing D&D with two other kids, I was using
characters while I was DMing, and we had 17
characters between the three of us. Characters
were reaching 4th level after one adventure.
Now, I know the Gary Gygaxes and the Lenard
Lakofkas are screaming "Blasphemy!" at this
moment, but instead, I think more people are
shocked to realize that other people are in the
same situation that they are in. You have to
realize how hard it is for a DM to be a good DM
with only two other players. Finally, my two
players began to lose interest, probably for three
reasons. First, they were a little worried about
their ?image.? Second, they were never as serious
about playing as I was. Third, my campaign was
not all that good, and if there had been better
quantity and quality of playing, they would
probably still be gaming.

This brings me to stage four, the ?book
player.? I read all my issues of DRAGON Magazine
over again, read my incoming ones from my
subscription, and looked over my books. I hadn?t
played in several months. Finally, I decided to do
something about it and called up most of the
people I knew who played the D&D game. Virtually
all of them were in the same situation I was
in. After some organization and many long
phone calls, we decided to form an AD&D group.

Although we won?t be playing an ?official?
campaign, meaning we?ll be using some of the
changes suggested in DRAGON Magazine and
some of our own, but there will be no critical-hits
tables or spell-point systems or other such variants.
The mere thought of DMing without having
3rd-level fighters using + 5 plate mail gives me
ecstasy.

To wrap it up, I would like to know just how
many people out there have gone through any of
these stages. I may be wrong, but I bet some of
the people reading this letter haven?t role-played
in six months.

Brian McCaskill
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.
Dragon #100.

*    *    *    *

Reading the letter from Brian McCaskill in
issue #100 brought back many memories of my
own not-so-humble beginning in the world of
AD&D gaming. In response to his concluding
question: If the letter had been printed a month
earlier, I would be able to identify myself as one
who had not role-played in almost a year.

Being a fellow "victim" of Monty-Haulism
(which I think, unfortunately, is the cause for
most role-playing dropouts), Brian?s letter
prompted me to write this letter to make a point
that I think should be made, and made very
firmly. I strongly believe, since it has held true for
myself and apparently Brian, that it would be in
the best interest of the fighter, elf, or whatever in
you former Monty Haulers to start playing again.

All of you people who haven't role-played in
several months: Go out and find people to play
with today!

The most important thing to realize (as Brian,
myself, and undoubtedly many others have) is:

There is life after Monty Haul!
Play it to the fullest!

Carl Seglem
El Paso, Tex.
Dragon #102.
 
 

*    *    *    *
 
 

The situation described in Brian McCaskill's
letter is almost too close to mine to be believed. I
started in this game in the 5th grade (I?m in the
10th now) but it didn?t catch on as the ?cool?
thing to do with the people in my school until the
7th grade. My school has electives (as fun classes)
and one of the teachers offered the game to
students as a choice. I chose another elective
because I got my gaming in with a group of
friends, and there was another activity I wanted
to be involved in. I am glad I didn?t take the
elective, because the game turned out to be an
emporium for +7 swords and more powerful
armor (this world would have run out of dragons
within the week, honest).

I must admit I was caught up in this somewhat.
The thought of being able to smash 30 or
40 orcs gets very appealing when your 1st level
fighter keeps getting diced by the local homicidal
47+ level god destroyer. Eventually I tired of
this, and so did everyone else. I went back to the
way of play defined in the books, but everyone
else decided to stop playing altogether. Two or
three loyals and myself decided to keep going but,
we didn?t have the momentum to go for very
long.

Finally it was down to me and one other. (In
case you haven't tried, it is very hard to role-play
with one character and a DM.) I have since then
moved to other games, but as Brian mentioned
people are too concerned with their reputation to
play them or at least to do so in the open. I wish
people weren't too concerned to have fun.

Chris Sheldon
Oklahoma City, Okla.
(Dragon #102)

*    *    *    *

OUT ON A LIMB
'Character inflation'

Dear Editor,

I have been enjoying D&D for over three years
now, and in that time I have watched the game
change. Yet the players have changed more. I am
speaking of Character Inflation.

To begin with, it is refreshing to hear that others
see the same problem I do. Three cheers for Andy
Laska, whose letter appeared in TD #32. I can
sympathize with his frustrations; my highest-level
character is a Ranger of level 6. In my opinion it is a
matter of integrity, and I find it lacking in too many
players.

Both the problem and the solution lie with the
DMs. It requires only one “overly generous” DM to
start character inflation in a group. All Dungeon
Masters take heed. If you allow unreasonable characters
into your dungeon, don’t expect help from
rules when one claims his wand kills dragons. Don’t
be upset when they crash through your best trap
with no chance of its taking effect. Don’t be surprised
if they bring their “new” character to play
next time, the one with the AC-0 leather, the vorpal
blade with 13 wishes, their want of infinite fireballs,
and their magic backpack from which any exploring
item may be drawn.

I have found that many of these high level
characters received many of their levels from
wishes. Dungeon Masters Unite! Go ahead, raise
them 8 levels. . . in your dungeon. Too bad if that
would put them 100 feet in the air. I think I’ve made
my point.

Let me finish by saying that a DM’s purpose in
the game is to interpret the rules and apply them
justly. A DM who interferes with the natural play
and is inconsistent can cause more trouble then
almost any player. As a DM, keep your emotions
out of the game. Remember, it’s their fantasy.

Howard Cohen-Stockton, CA
(The Dragon #35)
 

I agree.
—Jake
(The Dragon #35)
 
 

Inflation I

Dear Editor,
You might say that I am a newcomer to
D&D, for I have been playing for only a year. In
this time I have experienced many DM’s, players,
and systems of play. I have noticed
example of “Character Inflation.

The DM that I usually play with is very fair
about magic and experience. Magic is seldom
found and a tough opponent must be fought to
obtain it. He gives out a fair amount of experience
points. My highest character is a fourthlevel
saint (The Arduin Grimoire). <Saints, BD4> The highest
player character in this world is a <Champion (F7)>.

He is a fine Dungeon Master, very experienced,
and has many good ideas. The thing that
bothers me is that some of the other players
create ridiculously powerful characters. For example,
my saint is mediocre (STR:4, INT:9,
WIS:16, DEX:13, CON:13, CHA:10). Some of
the other players, one in particular, make most
of their characters have at least two eighteens.
One <Curate> has a STR:13, DEX:18,
WIS:16, CON:16, INT:10, CHA:18; this is probably
that player’s worst character. Another
friend has a Cleric-Fighter with STR, DEX, and
WIS of eighteen. I think this is ridiculous! When I
roll a character I take what I get no matter how
low his abilities. The way I look at it, the lower
the character’s abilities the more challenging it
will be to play him. Some people feel so unsure
of their ability to play that they make up exceptional
characters that are seldom hit, know many
spells, and can slaughter their enemies even
with low rolls and poor playing. Characters with
super-human characteristics take the FUN and
the challenge out of the game.

Andy Hartman
—Southfield, MI
(The Dragon #38)
 

Inflation II

Dear Editor,
I am co-ref of a “character-inflated” (special
thanks to Howard Cohen in TD #35. . .) campaign
in which I am the “liberal” ref (I profess
the evil) and my counterpart is the “conservative”
(He professes the good). Obviously, I take
the brunt of the blame for our deadly 10th-level
campaign, but I have always claimed innocence.

With me as DM, Gary Gygax’s “Hall of the
Fire Giant King” was literally cleaned out by a
marauding group of average 9th-level characters,
and one of the characters was an Anti-
Paladin slinging a Hammer of Thunderbolts, <d99>
which is truly a vicious weapon. Even playing
the dungeon to the utmost in viciousness, those
relentless attacks with a weapon of such killing
capacity proved uncontrollable. As our campaign
grows (in power, not quality) even the
gods themselves are not immune to our powerhungry
players.

My counterpart and I, while discussing how
to stop our characters, have considered banning
the Wish spell. Although I avoid being called
“liberal,” I still believe the wish is not all too
powerful-particularly because the prerequisites
to use the Wish are so high: <Archmage>, intelligence
18. It is even more infuriating than ever when we
try to use aging tables on wish-happy (somewhat
like trigger-happy, but worse) MU’s that
have Potions of Longevity. We have decided to <link>
leave the wish, and I plan to attack the characters
with legions of angels, neglecting losses as
refs and killing indiscriminately. Finally, I can
honestly say (from experience) that a characterinflated
campaign is not a game—it is an ordeal.

Drew Betz
—Maumee, OH
(The Dragon #38)
 

Inflation III

Dear Editor,
The first time I adventured into D&D was at a
MDG MichiCon about 4 years ago. I have experienced
the Original D&D, Basic D&D, D&D/
AD&D, and AD&D metamorphosis. I have also
observed the phenomenon called “character inflation”
that Mr. Howard Cohen has described. I
think that the best answer to super characters
that come as thieves in the night is CLOSED!!
CAMPAIGNS!!!! If you keep your campaign
closed, not letting any player-character play in it
unless he starts and stays in your campaign,
there is no way for players to obtain anything
you don’t know or approve of. This is really true
if you keep accurate records of the magic you
hand out and all the attributes of the player
characters involved. It eliminates situations like:
“ah, you say you got that rod of combined
Dragon, Giant, Undead God, Demon, Devil and
fruit-fly control from your sister’s boyfriend’s
cousin that was up from Mississippi the weekend
before last?”

Our association must have nearly a dozen
closed campaigns going on right now, and it
leads to a lot of variety (some people even run
more than one closed campaign). The nice thing
about it is that the "Monty Haul," as well as the
"Killer" campaigns, tend to fizzle out and are
overshadowed by the more moderate ones.

In reference to "Sorcerer's Scroll" and
"What's ahead for TSR?", most newcomers to
D&D I know have started with Basic D&D and if
they find that they are at all serious, move up to
Advanced D&D. Would it be possible to rewrite
Basic D&D as an intro to AD&D? To make
AD&D more open ended and less complicated,
rules deletions and modifications could be suggested
to those that want that type of system.
Some DM's I know have already done this on
their own.

From what I can observe in our group most
people have purchased the basic kit, but the 3
Advanced books are mostly DM's fare. Would
the owners of the Advanced books also buy the
Expert/Master's system? I'm just concerned that
these rules might further fragment D&Ders while
not really drawing many new people into this
marvelous hobby of ours. I'm sure you have
already considered these possibilities. Please accept
my comments in the positive vein they were
intended, because I plan to support and promote
D&D regardless of what you choose to do
on this issue.

Lee Love
--Mt. Pleasent, MI
(The Dragon #38)

Inflation IV

Dear Editor,
There have been several letters in recent
issues of TD complaining about High-Level and
High-Power characters, claiming that they have
no place in D&D.

I must disagree with this. They may be out of
place in Low-Level campaigns, but they are a very
valid part of D&D. It is possible to play D&D at high
level and with High Power, what is not possible is to
have characters in a campaign where they are disproportionately
powerful.

The purpose of FRPing is to have FUN. If a
group of people like to play at 20th level, and
another group like to play at 6th, neither is
wrong, so long as they enjoy playing the game.
One of the finest things about D&D is that it is
flexible enough to allow play at both low and higher
levels.

When I began playing D&D in 1975, it was only
a matter of time before our play advanced to the
point when we were playing with characters of 10th
to 14th level. We had no problem with this, and the
rules handled it well, because the characters were
all relatively equal in power.

What the writers of these letters have missed
is that there is a difference between "High-
Level" characters and "Obscene" characters. I
have encountered characters of 3rd level who
were so weighted down with magic items that
they could destroy characters of 20th or higher
level with no difficulty. The problem in many
campaigns run by novice or indiscriminate DMs is
that of giving out magic items without discretion,
and of giving out illogical magic items. Level is not
the mark of Obscenity, power is.

Yet even obscene, Monty Haul characters
are fun to play, in their place, in high-power
worlds. I ran a campaign in which a 2nd level
character with over 300 magic items existed,
and was not all-powerful, because he was balanced
by the other characters in the campaign.
Any kind of character or playing style is right in
its own place.

The solution to the problem of cross-over
characters and characters whose attributes are
questionable is DM discretion. DMs must realize
that they rule their worlds, not their players
Things are as they say. Thus they may say, "No,
you can't bring that character, he is too powerful
for this party." If the player doesn't like this, he
needn't play in that campaign. The campaign
should be what the DM wants it to be and he
should keep it in control.

There are campaigns where a number of
different DMs work together, running adventures
in their own styles, which may not agree.
Discretion may still be practiced, and it will lead
to a compromise position in which an overall
balance is achieved.

It is players who must learn to adapt, they
should have a range of different characters for
use in different campaigns. In this way, they will
be prepared to present an acceptable character
to any DM, or roll up a new one. This not only
solves the problem of the existence of high and
low power worlds, but lets the player experience
more varied types of role-playing situations.

The D&D rules, and now AD&D were designed
for play balance, not, I think, for certain
power levels. There is no right or wrong way to play
D&D. More players should be tolerant of different
gaming styles. The purpose is fun, and there is
more than one form of amusement. The world of
D&D is big enough for widely different campaigns
to exist, as long as DMs are willing to take responsibility.

Dave Nalle
--Washington, D.C.
(The Dragon #38)
 

‘Poor DMing’

To the editor:
Why all the controversy over high-level
characters? It seems to me that a player will get
just as tired of a campaign where he is fed a little
and then cut off to start all over again. To me this
smells of poor DMing, a situation where the DM
does not know how to give high levels a challenge
and thus just using only the easy-tohandle
first-level characters. What are 9th-level
spells for? Just to read about?

Jeffery A. Wilson
APO, New York, N.Y.
(Dragon #40)
 

THE FORUM
After reading the letters that appear in this
department month after month, I have discovered
that a lot of people have "suffered" from Monty
Haul campaigns. I agree with them to some
extent; Monty Haul campaigns are a blatant
perversion of the basic concept of the game. But
not always is the end result a worthless campaign.
I started playing the D&D game about two years
ago. That?s not a long time, I know, but I have
experienced so much in that time. During my
first campaign I lost over ten characters, as did
my fellow players (due to poor playing, I confess,
but I didn?t know it then).

After a while, this gets discouraging. So then
my friend and I started a couple of one-on-one
campaigns ourselves. Since our previous D&D.
experiences ended in dead characters, our new
ones seemed to always barely escape with their
lives (with a little help, of course). Soon, the
thought of Rothgar the Mighty dying was unthinkable
and unlikely. Power and awesome
magic soon became commonplace and easily
obtainable, since dragons now cause no problems
(I went up eight or nine levels just by killing
dragons!).

All this was not a waste, though, it gave us a
taste of having high-level characters (which we all
want). Now that we?ve had our taste, we don?t
have power-greedy characters any longer. We
enjoy lower-level characters as much or more
than the powerful 22nd-level juggernauts that just
rolled over Wyrmsteeth Range; they?re more

believable, more down-to-earth. Now that I have
started over in a new campaign with a bigger
party, I?m just as happy as a kender who has just
had a lengthy conversation with Bahamut when
my second-level half-ogre chops up a bunch of
greasy hobgoblins with his mighty two-handed
sword.

The importance of what I?m saying is that
Monty Haul campaigns are not all bad; though
we would all like to avoid them, sometimes a
taste of the pie is all that is necessary to cure the
?sweet-tooth? that we?ve all had from time to
time.
    Dan Preece
    Pilgrim, Ky.
    (Dragon #108)