The characters in this campaign:
Human barbarian/sorcerer 1/6
Human cleric 7
Elf fighter (archer) 7 [absent this session]
Human cleric 4 [NPC]

The adventurers in my Eternal Heroes campaign just delved beneath the streets of a large town. Exploring a secret section of the old sewer system, they encountered an otyugh, a gibbering mouther, another gibbering mouther, a mimic, another otyugh, four ogre zombies, a phantasmal killer spell trap, and a vacuous grimoire.

The barbarian/sorcerer died to the phantasmal killer trap, and the cleric lost 2 points of wisdom from the vacuous grimoire. The barbarian/sorcerer self-raised the next morning, and the cleric is getting the wisdom drain fixed with restoration. When they came out of the sewer complex, they were stinky and nasty. Both PCs ended up in the brown “water” of the tunnels at least once, were slapped and bitten by the otyughs, and were vomited on by the mouthers.

They both role played the situation very well, and it was all good fun (at least for me, the DM). Adventures like this, where the PCs come out of the dungeon with somethings nasty to show for their efforts is really fun, compared to the kinds of adventures where they come out showing no sign of any kind of struggle or trouble.

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com

Thursday night are game night with my friends. We were intending to play Dungeons & Dragons, but we did more talking and joking than any real playing. Some non-game talking and joking is pretty normal for our game nights, but last evening, we probably got in only an hour of actual play time.

My current group consists of four guys between 31 and 51 years old. We’ve had as many as seven people in our group, two of them women. But when it’s just us guys together, we seem to revert to being 13 years old. Our jokes are juvenile, or topics of conversation aren’t polite, and we generally act like pubescent boys.

We talked and laughed till midnight. We usually get plenty of gaming in among our joking and talking, but last night we spent more time ragging on one guy’s home state than we did any gaming.

I prefer to play the game, whatever game, on our game nights—I look forward to these evenings each week—but occasionally, guys just need to be silly. A man who outgrows, or has no outlet for some silliness, becomes boring. Our game group allows for plenty of silliness. We might be boorish at times, but we sure as hell ain’t boring.

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com

The party is 3 PCs and 4 NPCs (1 NPC party member and her 2 personal bodyguards, and 1 guide). The group is traveling in the wilderness with a wagon, 2 horses, and a mule.

They needed to reconnointer an army location, so 2 of the stealth-capable PCs (read: lightly armored and unarmored, but not rogues) left the rest of the group. The 3rd PC and the NPCs concealed their camp to avoid detection while the group was split up.

The 2 scouters looked the army situation over and was returning to camp when they were spotted by a patrol, and a fight ensued. The patrol was not an overwhelming encounter, but the fight could have gone badly for the 2 PCs. As it turned out, the 2 PCs won and returned safely to camp. Now, after the game session, I’m awarding xp.

Normally I award xp according to who was in a particular encounter. For instance, I’d just award the patrol xp to the 2 PCs in the situation, and call it fair. They risked the danger, they could have died, so they get the reward.

But this is rewarding the 2 PCs for splitting up the party, and is in effect penalizing the 1 PC for being willing to sit out the scenario for the good of the party’s success. The 1 PC stayed out of the scouting because:
1- She is not at all stealthy (plate armor, no big Dex bonus).
2- The NPCs would be outclassed alone against any of the patrols they had so far seen and encountered.
3- The horses and wagon have gear and loot they’d be dumb to leave completely unattended.

The Player willingly sat quietly, yet attentively, for 10 minutes while the other 2 PCs scouted. All the PCs took effort to find a concealed camp location.

When I randomly rolled the patrol encounter, rolled spot checks to see if the PCs were seen, and then began the encounter, I considered “duplicating” the encounter for the 1 PC’s location. But that would mean ignoring the party’s effort at specifically concealing the camp so that such an encounter would not happen. Kind of unfair to overrule that, and would teach the Players to not bother with such effort in the future — “The DM will make an encounter for us whether we try to conceal our camp or not.” Plus, just as the encounter was dangerous for the 2 scouting PCs, it would have been dangerous for the camped PC and NPCs — “Whoops, I just killed the PC who specifically played smart and stayed behind and concealed.”

So I’m wondering if I should just include the 1 PC in on the xp for the encounter with the 2 PCs:
1- To show that they are all “in this together” even when one PC willingly allows him/herself to be sidelined for the good of the situation.
2- To not reward anyone for splitting up the party and/or going off on their own to get more xp.

But, I also like rewarding xp to the PCs who actually earned it:
1- To reward those who actually take the risks/dangers.
2- Because one or both of the PCs could have died, but the other PC could not have. (Essentially reward for no risk.)

If things had gone better in the stealth for the 2 PCs, they would have had no encounter. But, as it turned out, they’d have been better off if the 1 PC had gone with them — they still failed the stealth attempt, and they would have had more help on their side. But, of course, they didn’t know this before starting out — they *tried* to be stealthy, and the 1 PC *tried* to help by staying at camp.

The xp award for the one encounter was significant — the 2 PCs would get around 50% more xp than the 1 PC would get. Having typed all this out, I’m thinking, now, that I’m going to award equal xp. This supports the “all in it together” factor, and the 1 PC (cleric) did help heal the wounded PCs when they returned.

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com

As probably anyone who would read this section of my site knows, the 4th edition of D&D has been announced for a May 2008 release. Third edition came out in 2000, and lasted 8 years, with one revision in that time. Second edition came out in 1989, and lasted 11 years, with several “alterations” in that time. First edition came out in 1977-79 (Player’s Handbook in ’77, Dungeon Master’s Guide in ’79), and lasted 10-12 years, with one “addition” in that time. [The original D&D game came out in 1974. See the side bar.]

It’s a sad thing that there’s some intra-edition hate on some D&D message boards. Unfortunately, this announcement means there’s going to be more in the future, as D&D3 players join some AD&D and BD&D players to bitch and moan about a new edition. But you know, the world grows and evolves, and if D&D is going to continue growing with the world, it must evolve, too. It always has, and that’s the only reason it is still the top table-top RPG.

A 14 year old in the 70s [original D&D] is very different from a 14 year old in the 80s [first edition] is very different from a 14 year old in the 90s [second edition] is very different from a 14 year old of the 00s [third edition], is very different than a 14 year old of the 10s will be [fourth edition].

Plus:
A 14 year old of the 80s is very different than a 34 year old of the 00s, and a 34 year old of the 70s is very different than a 14 year old of the 90s.

D&D of the 70s and 80s could not thrive in the environment of the 00s. There’s much more competition, not just from other table-top RPGs, but also from the many other gaming options — computer games especially. D&D of the 70s and 80s did not have to compete with 100 channels of TV, multi-player online computer games, and movies on demand. The world is evolving, so D&D (any hobby) has to evolve with the world or it will get left behind by the new generations; left to be played only by the old guard.

Plus, game mechanics evolve as well. Designers learn that players want to play a race and class instead of just a race as class. Classes can have different hit dice, weapons can do different damage, etc. They learn that no one really uses certain rules, and they make up new rules; the bad rules can be officially dropped, the new rules officially added to match how people want to and actually play.

D&D must evolve to keep up with who the players are, how they play the game, and how the game mechanics can be written to allow them to play as they want to play the game.

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com