The Stupification of 5e Monsters

I had a short thread about this on Twitter a while back, but I feel like I should put out some content in light of #blogtober (aside from my daily trick or treat Tweets) so let's talk about an interesting fact:

A lot of monsters got dumber in translation to 5th edition!

Exhibit A: The Mimic

I think I was reading through an issue of Rat Queens when I was caught off-guard by the thought of a talking mimic. I don't typically think about the intelligence of non-humanoid opponents my players might face I suppose. I was even more surprised to see this monster take such a big hit in the intelligence department: In 3.5 ed. the mimic's intelligence was a 10 and in 5th ed. it was cut exactly in half- ironically the mimic may now be unable to comprehend that math.

Exhibit B: The Otyugh 

I was vaguely aware that otyughs were intelligent. I think there was an adventure hook pitched by WotC back in the day that involved an adventuring party bargaining with one for information and that always stuck with me for some reason- probably because most of the players I've known would not think to engage in conversation with a quadrupedal trash monster with tooth tentacles. 

In the current edition of the game (compared to 3.5) the otyugh actually has the same intelligence score, but loses the ability to speak common and instead gets a limited telepathy to communicate simple ideas.

Exhibit C: The Roper

Possible SPOILER ALERT for an adventure that is both 18 years old and new again: If I were going to run the Forge of Fury, I would have probably cut the encounter with the roper. It is explained in the module that the creature is most likely too powerful to be dealt with by a party of 3rd level and that they should look to bargain with for passage instead. 

I don't have a copy of Tales From the Yawning Portal, but I don't think it is possible to parley with the creature now that it's intelligence score has dropped 5 points and it can no longer speak two languages. 

So what gives with all of this? Was an effort made to make the creatures more monstrous by making them less intelligent? Does this new design encourage more combat and less diplomacy with the non-humanoid antagonists? 

I feel sort of bad for them... 

Art & Arcana

Hey everyone, remember when Gencon happened about a month ago?

I'm really bad about procrastination- so I'm just now going to talk about a panel I went to...

Art & Arcana: Standard and deluxe editions.

Dungeons and Dragons: Art & Arcana is a book about the art and assorted paraphernalia that has been crafted throughout the history of the world's greatest roleplaying game. It's available now for pre-order and I hope a copy of the premium edition will find its way into my hands this October.

The authors and panelists giving the presentation:

• John Peterson - tabletop RPG historian and author of Playing at the World 
• Michael Witwer - author of Empire of Imagination: Gary Gygax and the Birth of Dungeons & Dragons
• Sam Witwer - screen and voice actor for Smallville and a myriad of Star Wars projects 
• Kyle Newman - director of Fanboys

From the previews that the panel shared it seems that this book is going to be a very comprehensive account of the visual history of the game- including scans of the originals of many iconic art pieces, pictures of various toys and merchandise, and a discussion of how these items influenced and were influenced by the development of the game from its earliest days to present.

Kyle Newman and Michael Witwer made an interesting point in that the earliest art was informative about the world of D&D and instructive about how a RPG could be played. It showed that you can stab someone in the back and pick a pocket. It showed what a Beholder actually looks like. 

The original White Box.

The panel also explained that TSR had no art budget back in the day. The three pamphlets that were included in the original White Box had illustrations done by a Lake Geneva teen. The original Origins run of Tomb of Horrors was illustrated by 14 year-old Tracy Lesh. Lesh was just a classmate in Gyax's daughter's class at the time.

Actually, a facsimile of this original version of Tomb is included in the deluxe edition of Art & Arcana featuring a map in Gygax's own hand and the 24 panels of Lesh's art. The panel unveiled this and waved a copy around to oohs and ahhs from the assembled crowd. 

The panel also gave a brief overview of the history of shall we say appropriating artwork from other sources (typically directly, but occasionally perhaps indirectly) by showing how several pieces of original D&D art very closely resembled panels from contemporaneous Marvel comics.

Striking similarities between old D&D art and old Marvel comics.

The team of authors enjoyed access to a vast network of resources to attain scans of the original paintings that became the covers we all know well. It was striking to see these visuals without text, binding, or barcode. The PHB cover that we all know and love was faithfully preserved it seems by Ian Livingstone (the founder of Games Workshop)- and looking at what they've included in Art & Arcana shows more details than we might have seen before. 

AD&D Player's Handbook full art.

Fiend Folio full art.

The panel also brought many things to my attention that I had not realized. I did not know that there was a concerted effort to soften the image of the game in 1980-81 by introducing Morley the Wizard (I'll be looking him up now). Apparently, the artists of the day HATED Morley and what he represented and wanted to keep producing the fantasy monstrosities and violence they had before this robed Jar Jar Binks came along.

I was eager to pose a question to the panel, and so when I was called on I offered one in keeping with a major theme of the presentation: controversy. I asked about B-3 The Palace of the Silver Princess and wondered if they dug up copies from some landfill like the fabled Atari E.T. cartridges of yesteryear. (If you're not familiar with this module read about it here or just check out the image below). 

B-3 Palace of the Silver Princess.

Peterson took the lead in answering and made reference to the infamous art in question without specifics, but did say that there were allusions to this moment in the visual history and other works by Erol Otus-  they just don't address this directly in this book.  

Ironically, a few minutes later David Ewalt (author of Of Dice and Men) asked what "the most controversial art" in the history of D&D was in the panel's opinion... and they seemed to agree that dishonorific belonged to Palace.

All in all it was a great panel, a great con, and I'm sure it will make for a great read come October. 

Next Level DMing

I recently ran through the whole catalogue of The Lazy DM's (Mike Shea) "DM's Deep Dive" podcast and the topic of Episode 3 got me thinking a bit.  Shea was talking with that episode's guest Shawn Merwin- and the topic was "how to run the most effective 1 hour adventure."  Within their discussion they started talking about how to run a game with the time constraints of a convention (like through the Adventurer's League).  They iterated a few items that make for a less than good convention Dungeonmaster- and I realized that I had experienced some of these bad tactics in my first and only AL game.  

At Garycon X, my friend and I wandered about the sea of tables looking for the appropriately labelled one for the first part of City on the Edge.  In the farthest corner of the room someone was facedown on the tablecloth- not looking up or acknowledging that other humans had come into proximity.  Unfortunately, after searching around a bit more we determined that this table was flagged as the table for this particular session and slot.  I didn't want to sit down at this table and risk disturbing this seemingly exhausted fellow con-goer, but I didn't want to miss my chance to grab a seat for the game.  We sat down and started getting ready for a game and they soon lifted up and started doing the same.  

Over the next 10-15 minutes more people came over, grabbed seats, chatted, and shuffled around materials gaming- but at no point did one of this assembly say "I'm So-and-So and I'll be your DM today.  This table is for Such-and-Such adventure..."  I didn't realize that the aforementioned facedown con-goer was running the game until they started referencing the printed adventure in front of them.  They didn't have the bearing or trappings of a DM that almost every other table seemed to have- no screen, or battle mat, or minis (alright maybe only of those three things is emblematic of a DM, but it seemed like they were just ill-prepared).

"The first thing I will do is take control of the table.  I will be the first one to speak at the table and it will usually be... 'Oh, hey thanks for coming.  Thanks for playing' ... Start by taking control of the action at the table..." -Shawn Merwin

The adventure was off to a dash action, but I quickly found- after the introductory paragraph explaining what quest giver needed us to accomplish what objective- that I was not tracking the narrative very well.  If this was supposed to be theater of the mind, then I would have liked it to be much more descriptive- and I don't fault the written adventure because it seems like boxes of flavor text were just being skipped.  

We were told that we were approaching the entrance to a smuggler's hideout and asked to roll perception.  There was a cave entrance with a few bandits standing watch, but there wasn't any description of how far we were from the enemy or what the scenery really was.  I was fairly certain that we were in the jungles of Chult, but after a dull combat encounter full of things like: "You miss" / "Take 8 damage" / "They made their save" / and other non-descriptions- I said "We should hide the bodies in the undergrowth of something and maybe move elsewhere for a short rest."  It was then clarified by the DM that we weren't in a jungle, but instead that this was (apparently I guess) right by the docks of Nyanzaru...  I guess whatever passes for the harbor watch in Chult is pretty lasseiz-faire when it comes to murder in broad daylight.

"... starting the game reading the little box text slowly, calmly..." -Shawn Merwin (on pacing) 

"Don't skip over sections of flavor text wholesale unless you are going to summarize or alter the description.  If you're going to attempt to run a game theater of the mind- you need to describe combat and the field of battle with at least enough detail that your players can follow along." - Critthulhu (on this DM shortcoming)

After a brief dungeon crawl we came to what should have been the boss fight for the adventure: On the other side of a set of double doors there were some more bandits and a tabaxi standing at the top of a staircase headed down.  I asked "What is the tabaxi wearing? Leather armor like all the others?" which thankfully got the info for the table that in fact no this cat-man was wearing robes.  "A caster? Alright let's target him first."

A few short rounds of combat later the tabaxi was dead and (even though we had time left in the slot) the DM declared that we would win and that we should just call it there for the adventure.  These bandits were brutal during our first encounter.  They dropped 1 or 2 PCs to unconsciousness and ate up precious few low-level resources- I'm not sure that you should just handwave combat with them like they were some sort of Challenge 1/8 woodland critters.

"I absolutely effing hate it when DMs say 'We're going to call the combat right here...'  Nothing breaks my immersion faster than the DM stepping out of the camera- usually at the middle part of- where the peak of the battle is just breaking out..." - Mike Shea

DM: "You find an egg that you know will hatch into a baby raptor, X gold pieces, and a potion of healing.  If you can agree who gets what that's fine otherwise roll for it."  That's pretty much how the session ended.

Where did we find this loot?  What was down the stairs that lie beyond the cat-man we slew?  What did the quest giver say when we returned?  What more did we learn about the note that we found at the start of the dungeon delve?  Why would I want to play 1-2 City on the Edge?

I felt unsatisfied not having the answers to any of these questions.  Session over.  Write down your rewards and go about the con.  I won the roll off for the healing potion, but that was really the highlight of the experience.

This adventure is up on the DM's Guild for $4.  Maybe I should buy it and see what I missed out on?

C-3: Reaching the Far Side of the Board

Main Quest: Part of what I hope to do over the next year(s) of my life is to live the evolution of the tabletop roleplaying game through a series of games, readings, and experiences.  This 'pilgrimage' is inspired by memoirs like Of Dice and Men by David Ewalt and Fantasy Freaks and Gaming Geeks by Ethan Gilsdorf.  I'm wrapping up this part of the quest with a little more musing about the significance of Chess before moving on to wargames... You can check out Part II here or Part I here.

It's important to note (since I was almost completely unaware of this fact) that the kriegspiel developed by Johann Christian Ludwig Hellwig should probably be subtitled: "No not that kriegspiel" since there are a few game entities that traded under that name.  The wikihole is deep and branches into a tunnel system a short way in- and I'm not ready for dungeon delves at this point.

However, since my mind was not occupied with the task of recognizing strategies, discerning optimal moves, and all the other elements of playing a winning game of chess- I was able to think about the game itself. 

I see the value of the game as a pastime in the era before all of the flash of modern boardgaming, and I can see how it might be viewed as a tool for improving certain mental capacities (logic and foresight).  What I don't see is why skill in the game of chess has been portrayed as a indication of skill in actual warfare- or at least why that shorthand has been used in popular media.  For instance, you can play chess to increase your logic attribute in Sims and you need a high logic to get access to the top positions of the military career track.  

The standard chessboard does not emulate the terrain of a battlefield.  There are not mountains, swamps, forests, plains, or the blue mana one.  There is no cover to seek in trenches or behind walls.  There is not real differential even in the strength of the pieces in play.  The original concept from Chaturanga was that the pieces represent the divisions of the military, but why doesn't the knight (ostensibly the cavalry) have more power than the pawn (if its meant to be footsoldiers)?  These are some of the things that Hellwig sought to address with the design of his game, and I imagine these are many of the things that I will see accounted for in most of the wargames that I'll examine.

The game of chess may very well be foundational in understanding the later games in my Main Quest, since it lends a lot of conceptual pieces to them:  The idea of a miniature (possibly) representing a group of individuals, the idea of simulating conflict, and the idea of constructing a narrative based on the events of the game- but I hope that skill in Chess (or lack thereof) doesn't drastically impact my other ludological pursuits. 

C-2: Chess to Chainmail

Main Quest: Part of what I hope to do over the next year(s) of my life is to live the evolution of the tabletop roleplaying game through a series of games, readings, and experiences.  This 'pilgrimage' is inspired by memoirs like Of Dice and Men by David Ewalt and Fantasy Freaks and Gaming Geeks by Ethan Gilsdorf.  I'm continuing this ongoing series with a few more thoughts about my experiences trying to up my chess game... You can find part one of this series here.

It's worth explaining why I've decided to start this exploration of the history of tabletop RPGs with this series on chess.  

Dungeons & Dragons is the original tabletop RPG, but the seed of the game was planted in the soil of the historical miniature wargames of the time.  The addition of fantasy elements such as magic and monsters to the otherwise dryly accurate games of conflict across the ages wasn't universally accepted at first, but the wargame Chainmail is the predecessor to D&D.  

However, wargames have their origins in ancient games of strategy- particularly chess- making it an important part of the ancestry of D&D and other tabletop RPGs. 

Chess is believed to have originated in eastern India in the 6th or 7th century as the game chaturanga (a word meaning "four divisions").  The titular four divisions are the divisions of the military that the pieces of the time were meant to represent: the infantry, cavalry, chariotry, and elephants.  Over the course of the next six or seven hundred years the game spread throughout Europe, and by 1475 there were enough changes to the game that it resembled what we know today.  Unlike the various editions of RPGs that have been printed and reprinted in the past several decades- the rules of Chess have remained largely the same since the 19th century. 

Chess (you can call it "Queen's chess" or somewhat paradoxically "The King's game") is played on a  checkered gameboard of 64 squares in an 8x8 grid.  Both players have 16 pieces of the 8 orders that range from pawn to king.  Each piece moves according to rules of its own and can capture opposing pieces by coming to occupy the opponents square with that movement.  The objective of the game is to checkmate your opponent by placing his/her king under an inescapable threat of capture.  

This all sounds simple enough right?  

That's why I thought I knew how to play the game.  

There are only 18 possible moves that a player can make at the start of the game, but with each subsequent turn the number of possible moves increases drastically and exponentially.  The complexity of the game lends itself to rigorous study of strategies and counters to them, but even with memorization success involves keen analysis of the long game to determine how you will establish dominance of the board and hem in your opponent's king.  

Fortunately for me, just like most any game with an appreciable amount of complexity- this game seemed to lend itself to the hacking and remixing that is common in the game design arena of today.  In the late 18th and 19th century there were chess variants that evolved into more modern wargames.  In 1780, the Johann Christian Ludwig Hellwig (a German) took inspiration from the game of chess to create a battle emulation game.  This would be "kriegsspiel" or "war game," a chess-like game that better reflected the military of his day.

C-1: The Opening Move of My Main Quest

Main Quest: Part of what I hope to do over the next year(s) of my life is to live the evolution of the tabletop roleplaying game through a series of games, readings, and experiences.  This 'pilgrimage' is inspired by memoirs like Of Dice and Men by David Ewalt and Fantasy Freaks and Gaming Geeks by Ethan Gilsdorf.  I'm going to begin this adventure with an examination of the game of chess... 

I took another swig of the relatively high percentage ABV craft beer that I had brought along for the occasion and assessed the board- knowing full well that I was certain to make another blunder in this game.

I have known how to play chess since elementary school (strictly in the sense that I knew how all the pieces move), but I never studied any strategy or learned any of the finer points of the game.  Simply knowing "how to play" by my definition was achievement enough as far as I was concerned.  It was a much more intellectually challenging game to play than checkers on rainy, indoor recess days (or at least I thought it seemed more impressive to others).

My first game in about two decades...

"Check...mate?"  I offered hesitantly as I took my hand away from my freshly promoted queen and reassessed all the possible moves for my opponent's king.  Then just as quickly as I had gained this queen, I lost her when my opponent brought his across from my side of the board (a seeming blindspot for me) and captured her.  My moment of "I think I get this game!" was brief as I tipped my king over in resignation.

I've played several games recently with a few different opponents, and each of them has ended in my defeat.  I have been made to feel about as cognitively developed as I did back in elementary school, but I have realized that most of my mistakes are of one of three categories:

1. I would allow myself to be placed in a position where I was guaranteed to have one piece capture no matter what I did.  I could potentially threaten a retaliatory capture, but it was often a scenario where I would lose a good piece to a lesser piece of my opponent (i.e. I would lose either my rook or my knight to an opponent's pawn). 
2. I would make a move that would threaten to capture an opponent's piece assuming it would prompt them to retreat towards their starting rows- without realizing that they could advance towards my starting rows instead.  I don't mean that my opponents were being recklessly aggressive- I just mean that I was apparently unable to anticipate this aggressiveness.
3. I would become fixated on an area of the board where there were many pieces or where many moves had been made in rapid succession to the exclusion of the rest of the board.  I would assume that my opponent was fixated on the same "hot spot" and I would be surprised when they suddenly moved a piece elsewhere that was not involved in this particular conflict.

I think all of these problems hint at an issue that affects how I play a lot of games (and maybe a little of how I live my life):  I'm not so good with foresight or seeing the larger picture.  This is particularly detrimental when I play games that revolve around tactical movement...  Which will make my future exploration of wargames a particular challenge.

Playing in the queue at C2E2.

But before I get into wargames or any more of my adventure with "the King's Game" I'll explain a bit about the game and its history (in Part II) and where this leads me next (in Part III).  Until then, maybe I'll try and squeeze in a few more games and almost certainly wrack up a few more losses...

The Tweet Seen Round the 'Verse

This is the titular tweet from Mike Mearls that seemed to shake the D&D community up a little over two months ago.  I debated for a while about whether I had anything to add to the conversation about this- and all the back and forth that has ensued since, but I've elected to throw in my two copper pieces.

There seems to be a lot of debate about what was meant by the text of this tweet.  While there is nothing more quintessentially D&D than a bunch of nerds debating about how to interpret a simple block of text- it seems that a lot of people decided to (willfully) misinterpret this.  Let's review it one piece at a time.

Let's look at this bit first: Mearls is addressing this message to a specific subset of people among his Twitter followers and on the internet at large.  He is addressing people "who insist on gatekeeping."  These people are gatekeepers.  They are people who are interested in keeping new players out of their games and newcomers out of the community at large out of a dislike for things like diversity and inclusivity and/or disinterest in teaching the game to a noob or someone who just wants to try the game out.  If you are not a gatekeeper, then this message is NOT directed at you.  You are also not really a "fan" of D&D and what it has grown to be.

These are the specific gatekeepers that Mearls is addressing.  There are gatekeepers out there that use a multitude of measures to drive people away from the game and the community.  Some of them will tell a newcomer that they are unable to understand the rules (because they are so complex) or that they won't get the rich tapestry of history and legend that has been woven (if they are full of themselves about their homebrew or someone who is deep into the Forgotten Realms/Eberron/etc.)  If you are a gatekeeper that is using the excuse of "rules complexity" or "lore density" to drive away someone that would come to your table and ask "What is this?" or "How do you play?" or "Can I try?" then this message is directed at you.  If you're gatekeeping by any other means, then maybe you'll be address later- but again I feel like I should reiterate: " IF YOU ARE NOT A GATEKEEPER, THEN THIS MESSAGE IS NOT DIRECTED AT YOU."

Now remember folks- this message is about gatekeepers who use the excuse of "rules complexity" and "lore density" to drive people away from the game and community.  Now Mearls ventures to say that those gatekeepers ALSO "have a problem with women in tabletop gaming."  This means that the type of grognard or neckbeard that would try and shoo a woman away from their gaming table- is the type of person that would use the excuse of "rules complexity" or "lore density" to try and convince a woman that she could not play the game.  This DOES NOT mean that women cannot understand or appreciate these things- it ONLY means that these members of the old guard will resort to these things as the excuse for keeping people out.

This whole tweet was aimed at a group of people (gatekeepers) and an even more specific group within that one (that use flimsy excuses about the complexity of the game) to keep the game table from getting diversified (in this case it's women, but I have heard that many others face this kind of crap as well).  If you are offended by this tweet, then you are either a member of the group that Mearls is trying to address- or you are misinterpreting this tweet as fuel for the culture war that seems to spread across the geek communities as it has spread across every facet of our modern lives. In either case:

 

P&P D&D

If you look around the modern table of most tabletop roleplaying games- it looks much different than it did decades ago.  There have not been a lot of advancement in the realm of flat surfaces, but there have been some changes about how we all accessorize and approach managing a character and a campaign.  I for one don't much like tablets and laptops at the table- because I prefer to keep things pencil and paper as much as possible.

I don't know if my love of notebooks, writing utensils, and things to write on/in is a symptom of or the cause of this low-tech preference, but in spite of spreadsheets and apps I'll do as much as I can without looking at a screen.  There are a number of notebooks that I admire- some specifically branded for use in a tabletop gaming scenario and others (more like the ones that I compulsively purchase) are more general purpose.  So if you can't quite bring yourself to splurge on something like the Table Titan's Adventure Journal or the the Code & Quill Origin notebook "for creatives" to cart around with your other books- might I suggest trying out something compact, affordable, and awesome in the Field Notes brand?

Field Notes come in a variety of sizes and price points, but the most basic models that I like for keeping campaign notes and jotting down ideas for the next session look like so:

They are conveniently pocket-sized and come in lined, blank, or graph pages- I suggest the three pack with one of each.  I keep thinking I might write out the room descriptions of a mega-dungeon in a lined book and make the map in a graph one (though I could just as easily do it all in a graph one I suppose).  It's easy to fit several of these notebooks in whatever bag you might be toting your other books and gaming paraphernalia in.  You could even fit one into a book to save a page...

I reached out to the fine folks at Field Notes at their Chicago HQ to make a suggestion about a product they might market specifically to us pencil and paper geeks.  Here's what I said: 

"... I've made use of several lined, graph, and unruled books for taking notes and drawing up ideas for games of Dungeons & Dragons. 

I wanted to know if you would consider marketing directly to tabletop roleplaying gamers (or specifically D&D players since the game is experiencing a bit of a renaissance as of late) by creating a notebook that had a few features that this demographic would really appreciate.

1) Alternating pages of graph and lined paper.

2) A leatherette cover with a gold leaf cover printing (either of an ampersand or an icosahedron) that was reminiscent of the AD&D Complete line of supplements ('89-'95) or the 3rd Edition Quintessential line of supplements (2002-2004).  The latter were made to imitate the former specifically because of the retro appeal.

3) A slightly different interior of the front and back covers more referential to the tabletop gaming culture.

There is a lot of interest among this particular group of folk in pen and paper- since the games they play are pen and paper games.  I think players could use this resource to take notes during a game and  that DMs and GMs could use these to plot out dungeons or campaigns on the go."

I got a response from Brian at Field Notes that illustrated to me how Dungeons & Dragons geeks have infiltrated every level of society and every field of interest:

"Hi Crit!

We've got a few D&D players here, Matt, Shea, and I all play once every other week with some friends at Threadless, the t-shirt company! I've been playing on and off since original AD&D (mid-80s)

We've talked a bit about doing something D&D-ey, obviously we can't come anywhere near WotC's trademarks and intellectual property. If we were going to do something, we'd want to put our own spin on it anyway, probably go back to a generic fantasy/gaming theme and probably be pretty subtle, we've found books with a very specific use are hard to sell (and people see them and ask "can you make it MORE specific?" ha) and we have a huge user base (and subscribers) so most of our editions need to appeal to literally everyone. So we'll see. something along those lines could happen.

In any case, rest assured lots of Field Notes are being used as-is for D&D, even here in our office. I like the dot-graph larger Pitch Black book, i've drawn some runes on mine in silver paint pen, and glued a copy of my character sheet inside the back cover."

I was so happy to see that there were geeks in this pencil and paper based industry- well specifically tabletop gaming geeks.  I'm also excited that it's something they've at least considered- and it's something I would definitely buy in the future.  At this time a 3 pack of their iconic notebooks is just about $10 so pick a trio up and maybe share with your fellow players or DM.

Now, if you'll excuse me- I'll be cutting up the cover of an old Complete splatbook and making my own slipcover for one of these... 

Review: Acquisitions Incorporated - Season One (Ten Years Later)

"Alright, I wanna be the wizard."

The first 'season' of Acquisitions In. was recorded in May 2008- about a month ahead of the release of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition for which this was a marketing ploy.  The Dungeon Master was Wizards of the Coast's Chris Perkins, and the players were webcomic creators: Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik of Penny Arcade and Scott Kurtz of PvP.

Above are the first words recorded on the original cut of that first episode, spoken by Mike Krahulik in reference to which pre-generated character he wanted to play.  This quote is so quintessentially D&D, so it seems like a waste now that Wizard's Dungeon Delve podcast now starts this series off with a much less impressive line from Scott Kurtz: "Are we recording now?"

The whole enterprise gets off to a running start as within the first five minutes Jerry Holkins quips "We just started the corporation" in response to Chris Perkins' explanation of their rookie adventuring party status.  Within a minute of that seed of an idea being planted Krahulik utters the name he has dreamt up for his wizard "Jim Darkmagic."  The tone of the series had been set at that point as the group scoffed, laughed, and built on this goofy premise for a D&D story.

Although the group floated other names for their iconic characters ("Maynard Shortypants" for the dwarf fighter and "Chet Awesomelazer" for the human wizard) and at least one other name for their group ("Kill & Gold Incorporated") they settled on Jim Darkmagic, Binwin Bronzebottom, and Omin Dran- collectively known henceforth as Acquisitions Incorporated or Acq Inc.  The fact that they came up with all of this in about 15 minutes and it has stood the test of time these last nearly 10 years is a testament to the comedic talents of these guys.

The first season does work a good way to onboard people to D&D even though it now represents a discontinued line of the game (Perkins warns new listeners at the start of the Dungeon Delve podcast that the rules are from a previous edition, but it's still D&D- although veterans of the Edition Wars might disagree).  Newbies have a proxy at the table in the form of Mike Krahulik because this is his first ever tabletop roleplaying game experience, his first time rolling a d20 (he gets a 19), and his first hit of the addictive phenomena that is D&D.  I really enjoy hearing him quickly come to understand and excel at the game- the particularly inspiring bit being when he casts ghost sound to create the illusory sound of a party's footsteps into the chamber before him.

The party gets into a couple of long 4th edition combat encounters with goblins and zombies (the first goblin encounter is truly worthy of Yakety Sax as Kurtz himself says), puzzles over the function of some arcane glyphs, and (because Perkins exercises a lot of creative license with the Keep on the Shadowfell module he's running) defeats Irontooth, the 'boss monster' they were looking for.  Players around the world that gave this edition a chance might notice that Acq Inc's encounter with Irontooth is decidedly less deadly than it was as printed.  If memory serves, many home campaigns ended when the party accidentally face pulled Irontooth after stumbling into his hideout behind a waterfall.

Throughout the whole endeavor, the group only manages to acquire twenty gold pieces before their adventure and recording session ends abruptly at the mention of a riddle.  I only consider the first two episodes (the ones DM'ed by Perkins himself) to be canon in the Acquisitons Incorporated universe. The last half of this season was DM'ed by James Wyatt, and all it included was a couple of combats that the group had no chance at winning, a TPK that he weakly worked around, and the unheroic and disregarded death of Binwin Bronzebottom.  Holkins makes mention of this portion of the tale briefly at the start of season two by saying of the Winterhaven incident: "There's a single page in the files that just says 'It was pretty bad' and that's it."

This season (especially the first two eps) is a must listen as it rapidly establishes the characters and lighthearted theme of the whole Acquisitions Incorporated series.  It has a few good laughs and a few exciting moments (when the rolls aren't single digits) and it is the start of a great series that is still running at PAXs today- although with a much different vibe and cast of characters.  Also, even though it is the 4th edition there are still some lessons to be gleaned from Perkins' DM style and the table's approach to helping Krahulik 'learn the ropes.'

Critthulhu gives (the canonical part of) Acq Inc Season One four out of five tentacles! 

Check out the start of the series on WotC's Dungeon Delve podcast or on acq-inc.com! 

Ackbar Said It Best...

I have seen a lot of questions recently on this 5e D&D Facebook group about how to handle trapfinding- so I wanted to give my two coppers on the situation.  I'm basing this off of only the information in the PHB and DMG since I haven't read the whole section in XGtE yet.

WARNING: I laid out a lot of basic information about the rules as written just to make sure that we are all on the same page- if you want to read some potential house rules and homebrew options, then jump down a ways...

I was surprised to see that there is not an entry for passive perception in the index of the PHB, but instead there's a more general passive check listing (which refers to the listings for ability checks- nobody said D&D was easy).  Regardless, PHB 175 says that a passive check does not involve a die roll and can represent the average result for any task done repeatedly "such as searching for secret doors over and over again."  It also explains how these scores are calculated.

There's been some confusion over when you make a perception check or an investigation check that has been perpetuated by inconsistencies in published modules.  PHB 178 says that perception lets you spot, hear or "otherwise detect the presence of something" while investigation is about making deductions based on things you see and allowing you to "deduce the location of a hidden object."  Jeremy Crawford has reiterated the separate status of these two skills, but admits that there is some overlap...

Let's assume that perception is the key ability for finding most traps- and this is mostly true as we can see on DMG pages 122-123.  Passive perception has been calculated for all the members of a party, the DM is aware of each party member's score, and they are all walking down a 10' wide corridor towards a collapsing roof trap.  The DC to spot the trip wire is 10.  How should the DM determine if the trap is spotted before it is triggered?

Option One: Compare the passive perception of each party member to the DC of 10 and then let those PCs become aware of the danger.  

• Practically anyone trained in perception (with a non-negative wisdom modifier) will succeed automatically beginning at 1st level- and even clerics, monks, and rangers who are not trained will have a good chance at spotting it as well.  This trivializes the trip wire based traps and the basic pit traps in the DMG.  This does reward player characters that make this consideration in their builds though.

Option Two: Call for perception checks from the PCs to see if they meet or exceed the DC since (conceivably) they are looking for danger as they proceed down the corridor.

• This gives all the PCs a chance to spot the danger and is more exciting in the short term- because rolling dice is much more fun than not rolling dice.  It also increases the likelihood of metagaming when everyone tanks the roll and then stops and says "What did we miss?"  Most tripwire and pressure plate based traps will be spotted with lucky rolls regardless of skill modifiers- and it can result in rogues not seeing what barbarians do (which is potentially funny)

Option Three: Say nothing unless a PC announces that they are going to make a perception check. 

• This is the way it has been traditionally done in editions prior to the inception of "passive" checks.  Since it is the old school method it has become the old habit of most DMs that have played through previous editions.  It may be the most fun for the DM (it is probably the easiest way to catch players unaware of traps), but it can be taxing on those on both sides of the screen as it can bog the game down with the players constantly checking for traps every 5' of an empty corridor.

I was thinking about how easy it is to spot traps when I started to consider how I'm going to make it more interesting (within reason).  These are some of the rules that I would consider instituting at my table and I'd be interested to see if they would be helpful to any other DMs out there.

• You have to move slower to best search for traps than you would if you were just strolling down the corridors of a dungeon carelessly.  I think unless you are moving at a slow pace (no more than 20 feet/round) you should take disadvantage on your passive perception and any perception checks.  A -5 to the passive check should make it less likely for the simplest traps to be spotted by everyone in the party unless they are moving slow enough to be looking around.  This was almost some sort of rule in 5th edition- proven in the fact that its referenced in the description for the feat Dungeon Delver (now omitted as errata): 

• You have to be in the front most rank of a marching order to best search for traps.  This highlights the difficulties of getting a good look down a corridor or at the ground of the person in front of you.  This also encourages rogues to take the role of scout- out a good 11' feet or so (at least) in front of the party and looking for danger.  If there are party members between the rogue and the activator for a trap, then they would have disadvantage on their passive perception and any perception checks they make to see it.
• I know that part of the idea behind the whole advantage and disadvantage system in 5th edition was to simplify the game and remove the need for so many conditional and circumstantial modifiers to a roll of the die- but you could also draw upon the guidelines from previous systems to adjust the difficulty as well.  In circumstances where the means of activation for a trap could be obscured by rubble, a low mist, darkness, or any other environmental factor you could add +2, +5, or +10 to the difficulty.

From my cursory look over the section in Xanathar's Guide it looks like a lot of care was taken to spice up and flesh out the rules for traps, but I haven't really given it the due diligence as of yet.  If you have any other suggestions or anything to add to this examination of the "core" trap rules, then reach out to me at critthulhu@gmail.com or on Twitter @Critthulhu.