Publishing Cold Iron Blackmarsh Adventures

 Over the past few years I have been promoting Cold Iron and gaining some interest. I had started running some play by post, including a samurai adaptation, and back at the end of 2022 I started to think I might actually be able to run a live game on Roll20, I chose to set the campaign in Robert S. Conley's Blackmarsh setting that he has been expanding thus the title Cold Iron Blackmarsh Adventures.

Recently I reached out to Mark Christiansen about publishing and he has given me a general go ahead to publish my efforts with attribution (of course!). I'm still working out some details, and it may take some time to bring this to fruition but I'm excited. I don't expect a huge response, but there is interest, and after nearly 20 years of talking about Cold Iron on various gaming forums, no one has ever said "Hey, did you know this game does that?" about any of the features I find the most compelling. Some things may be close. Other systems have ways of maintaining spells, and every system with magic/spell points specifies how they recover, but no other system does exponential growth or tapping the regeneration rate to maintain continuing spells. No other system uses the normal distribution, though plenty use 3d6 for a bell curve, though I did finally see someone suggest using d10s to roll digits of a random number between 0 and 1 but that was in the context of multiplying, dividing, or applying an exponent to a percentage chance (so you can exactly, for example, do 1/2 of 25% by reframing it as 0.25/2 = 0.125 and roll 3 ten sided dice to generate a 3 decimal place number between 0 and 1 to exactly map that 12.5% chance of success - that's half of Mark's innovation).

So if you're still watching this space, watch for more announcements...

Or better, reach out to me and maybe I'll invite you to my Discord server, or look for me on the RPG Pub ( https://www.rpgpub.com ).

Frank

Gaining New Level-0 Skills in Classic Traveller

As my campaigns go forward, folks are interested in learning skills at level-0. I play Books 1-3 Classic Traveller, so the Instruction skill is not in play, and the skill list is limited. I don't want it to be sort of trivial to gain level-0 in all the skills, not even all the skills that another PC has. I also allow self improvement to improve from level-0, so easy level-0 skill also means easy bootstrap to level-1 (make your dedication roll and you have skill-1 immediately that becomes permanent if you keep up the self improvement for 4 years).

I think operational skills like Vehicle and Vacc Suit should be sort of easy, though Vacc Suit being too easy means everyone on the ship will get level-0, which may of course be viewed as a good thing overall.

Some of the skills should require some kind of formal training, and maybe making it take a 4 weeks or even 8 weeks of formal training to get level-0 in some skills would deter folks. Others definitely need to be practiced on world.

What have others done in this area?

 

Comments

Eric Walker

Ported skill chips from cp2020 rpg into the game. Never really thought about it. I'm a bad gm lol!

 

Alistair Langsford

A recent comment for another game inspired me: train for a year. If its simple or you can focus/do intensely - it takes a season. Not perfect but dead simple and a great starting point I thought so I’ve noted it as a more general principle for gaming in general. Depends on game mechanics. But for traveller I think it works.

 

Chris Vermeers

Among other things, if they fail their dedication roll for training, I'd say that a skill can't drop back below level 0. So, no matter what, they at least get that level out of it.

 

Michael Barry

I treat Level-0 as basic familiarisation: a new soldier quickly knows enough not to blow a finger off, but takes another couple of months to shoot well (level 1).

From a GM perspective, level 0 keeps your players from ditching the game in disgust. They have to invest time and cash if they want better.

 

Frank Filz

+Michael Barry There is a point to that, but how easy should it be for people to have basic familiarization in everything? Level-0 is also the single most important skill rank. It takes one from "can never check this skill" or "DM -5 for unskilled" to can roll for 8+ (usually) on any task related to the skill.

It works well if the view is that PCs should be able to be jacks of all trades (but then diminishes the value of the Jack of all Trades skill).

Frank Filz

+Chris Vermeers But outside of the sabbatical, you need level-0 to even do self improvement. The way I play sabbatical is that instead of a dedication roll, you are making an admittance roll. If you fail, you can try for a different skill (or give up and wait a year).

 

Frank Filz 

+Alistair Langsford Yea, that might work. And maybe that should fill one of your two self improvement slots for most skills.

I still feel like some skills should require a sabbatical, but I'm not sure (I feel like Engineering is one of those).

I'm willing to make Vehicle skills easier (in some ways, I could even see "every PC has level-0 in all vehicles).

I've just given out Diving-0 after a 3 day course. I'm really torn about what to do with diving... With the number of water worlds in my campaign, in feels like something that needs to be a skill, yet none of the Book 1 or Supplement 4 careers give it. The rules in The Undersea Environment for acquiring Diving skill don't feel right to me. I've also given Diving-0 to a Scout who wrote it into their character background.

Vacc Suit is a really tricky one. It sort of sucks to not have level-0 for a ship based campaign based on the skill description, on the other hand, making it easy for everyone to get Vacc Suit-0 feels like it diminishes the value of those who get Vacc Suit-1 or better (though they can then wear combat armor or battle dress).

Thinking about things, my real struggle is how you actually keep away from "skills define what your character is capable of trying" and keeping with the philosophy where skills define the things a character is good at under stress situations.

Maybe the key there is to be careful about how you read skill descriptions. Someone without Vacc Suit isn't screwed if they need to wear one. But they'd better be careful if a fire fight breaks out. Or they're totally alone. Maybe the answer is that the character who DOES have Vacc Suit skill can talk a character through a tough spot or physically help them. Role play it out. Don't just rely on skill rolls to resolve the situation.

Now with that philosophy, maybe we can go back to it takes a year of practice (using one of your self improvement slots) to acquire a skill-0. No dedication roll necessary.

And I can still hand out some level-0 based on character background. And I can still hand out level-0 after some specific training (like the 3 day diving course). I get some control over how easy it is to pick up a level-0 skill.

 

Alistair Langsford

+Frank Filz And after a bit you find people have a lot of skills if you go to far... 8-)

I agree a sabbatical sounds right for certain skills. And for some, maybe only at higher levels when you’re going that next step in a field. Perhaps you might keep a notebook for skills based on these categories, just as a loose framework: 3 day course, season, year, sabbatical. Maybe allow ‘school of life’ vs ‘tech school’ or something to indicate the how of learning. Not all skills are easily learned from books or podcasts etc.

An idea borrowed from Over the Edge, and often expressed independently by others on other forums - use the Traveller character generation to spur a bit more of a background write up. Then, when something comes up, look at that to determine what type of “throw” is needed. Or if someone can have a go at something at all. If you say that a skill-n really identifies something you’re good at, then consider that to include skill-0 as meaning something. Perhaps an example to show what I mean.

Vacc Suit. To put one on properly in a normally stressful situation: 8+, say.

1. If you’re in a space going profession where this sort of thing could happen, you will have had training. So you don’t have to have even skill-0.
2. Maybe allow stat bonuses, depending on circumstances.
3. A zero level means you need it for more than passing the weekly or monthly drill, or the 3 monthly eva.

BUT: its a time critical emergency. There is a breach. You don’t have minutes. Its not prepping for a normal EVA in a hazardous environment where you’ve got a chance to review things. Its get it on NOW. Skill-0 buys you the 8+ along with all the other people who have skill-1+. You’ve done this a bit more than just routine training and safety drills and the occasional EVA. So if you don’t even have a zero level, then apply the -3 or whatever “non-proficiency” DM.

So having a skill is a measure of what you’re good at, regularly have to use, and where a certain amount of proficiency really has been attained: its a secondary or tertiary requisite of your job. And you use it regularly. But for simple things its not worth the allocation of skill 0. And its those ‘emergency’ type situations where that non-proficiency penalty is then worth applying, and not anywhere else - unless there is a time pressure.

Hope that has made some kind of sense.

Chris Vermeers

+Frank Filz That is a very good point. I think that I'd have to rework parts of the improvement system if I am not using the MT one in the future.

 

Bob Loftin

I just started using a modified version of the regular CT skill improvement rules. I halved the time to try for permanent acquisition to 2 years. They can study 2 skills at a time. After 6 months of study of a new skill they can get it at 0. After 2 years they can roll to keep it at level 1. For weapons they immediately get a +1 if they are working on that weapons skill - same rules to make it permanent. I decided to make level 5 the maximum skill level, and it is harder to improve the skills permanently as they get higher. Base roll is 8+, but they get -1 for level 2 through -4 for level 5. So to improve from level 4 to 5 they have to roll a 12.

Since we don't play every week, I felt like this would allow some character improvement without totally blowing up the system. Mistake? We'll see. hahaha.

Discussion of Traveller Space Encounters

Another topic I'd love to talk more about is the space encounters.

The encounter tables for ships really don't make much sense. They don't take space lanes into account at all and they don't make any sort of logical sense for traffic.

I made some modified encounter tables to at least make some accommodation for how ships had to travel. Like it makes no sense to have more encounters in a system with a Class-A star port than the adjacent systems that the ships at the Class-A MUST have come through.

It also only generates a single encounter. At least on some worlds there should be several ships in port.

I know GURPS Traveller has some stuff in Far Trader, but that doesn't really generate encounter tables as more computes the volume of trade.

One thought is to actually stick with the Book 2 encounter tables and use those to represent the probability of some kind of interaction beyond normal courtesies in port. Then what I should do is develop a table for each encounter type that helps determine what kind of encounter it is. Or I could just make a reaction and go from there.

That still leaves me with coming up with a way to determine what ships might be in port or in orbit.

I want to keep artifacts like Pirate ships are most active in systems with a Class A or B star port (6 or 8 on 2D) and not active at all in systems with a Class D or worse star port, while Patrols are only common in Class A and again, not at all in Class D or worse.

My players are always wanting to know who's in port so they can talk to them...

Comments

Brett Slocum

I would think pirates would frequent places where the patrols aren't, thus D starports.

 

Alistair Langsford

+Brett Slocum good point. But also perhaps they aren’t acting as pirates there. Its a “friendly” port so they dont sh#t in their backyard.

Alistair Langsford

Likewise patrol ships there might be undercover.

 

Frank Filz

+Brett Slocum I think the pirates hit A and B star ports for the richer takings. Patrols obviously follow.

I’m taking the setting implications of 1977 as is.

 

Chris Vermeers

"it makes no sense to have more encounters in a system with a Class-A star port than the adjacent systems that the ships at the Class-A MUST have come through"

Maybe… but there's also the matter of in-system traffic.

I'm still thinking about the implications of the 77 vs 81 encounter tables. The universes obviously have some different assumptions. I think that the main adjustments that I'd be happy seeing in 77 would be adding the useful ships from 81/Supp7: type T, A2, and so on.

 

Brett Slocum

I'm thinking systems with A ports supply their own system patrols for the very reason that traffic is heavier and having stable routes is important.

 

Frank Filz

+Chris Vermeers Yea, somehow additional ships need to be added (since I use Supplement 4, the Lab Ship and Safari Ship are also in play, including my Type KS Safari Scout). 1981 adds the useful Type T patrol, and yea, we also have the Far Trader. I'd add some of the other smaller ships that were added over time also.

 

Frank Filz

+Brett Slocum Yea, Class A star ports having their own patrols makes sense.

 

Alistair Langsford

If I had the time, I’d start working up a subsector based just on this discussion to see what sort of things came of it. I like the idea of the 77 Rules philosophy with the extras from 81. I’ll have to save this idea for later.

 

Robert Fedick

I would think a class B or C port system, one jump from a class A port could have far less traffic than the A port system. A central A port distributes that traffic across its neighboring systems. It would naturally draw more trade as the tech is going to be better and more available. Also more available would be possible cargoes.

This assumes it’s not an Imperial Jump Route. If it’s on a standard jump route traffic would naturally be higher with more tenders, x-boats, navy and scout ships too.

Just my thinking.

 

Rob Garitta

Perhaps distance from a space lane is the determiner for number of ships in space, while spaceports are indicators of ships on the ground engaging in repairs, resupply, and trade?

 

Robert Fedick

Or docked at high port. Or parked at a slip in orbit for those unstreamlined ships.

 

Frank Filz

+Robert Fedick Sure, a Class B, C, D, or E star port would have less traffic than a Class A - IF the Class A traffic didn't have to go through there. In the portion of my Wine Dark Rift setting that belongs to my Imperium (NOT the 3I, and for one thing, my Imperium does not have X-Boats or communication routes) is at the end of the line, with an adjacent Class E star port the only neighboring system. ALL J1 traffic to Tegel (the Class A) MUST go through Fogbound (the Class E).

Now, yea, there may be some in system traffic, though how much of that is jump capable ships (another thing 1977 encounter charts don't have, and even the later encounter charts just have sub-100 dTon in system traffic if I remember).

Now of course J2 and J3 traffic skips Fogbound, and in fact there's a Class B at least every 2 parsecs along the space lanes, so I assume the Type M subsidized liner only visits the Class A and B star ports. Type A2 Far Traders might well only visit Class A and B star ports also, allowing them to have somewhat more traffic than the Class C, D, and E star ports along the space lanes.

One way to figure out the traffic might actually be to decide what all ships are in the region and then figure out their routes and then create a traffic map accordingly, and then from there, create encounter tables. Of course the encounter tables would allow for some non-regular ships also (and maybe even 50% of the shipping might be such). They still have to contribute logically to traffic across the region.

 

Frustrations with RQ1 chargen

This is me sort of spilling my guts... Not necessarily looking for a solution, just trying to work out my feelings.

So I've been starting up a play by post RQ1 game and I also have a Roll20 game I've been running for a few months.

Since I've been doing "going back to the original" for D&D (playing OD&D) and Traveller (using 1977 Books 1-3), and I've always been partial to RQ1 over even RQ2 let alone any of the newer ways to play in Glorantha, I thought I'd do much more by the book than the last few times I've run RQ.

For the Roll20 game, I did straight 3d6 rolls for attributes (well, 2d6+6 for INT as suggested in I think TrollPak). With that, an ability bonus is rare, especially more than +5%.

For the play by post game, I decided to do 4d6k3 (or 4d6k2+6 for INT, similar adjustments for non-humans). That has resulted in better ability bonuses, though the 4d6 INT of elves really shows through (since INT is SO important, affecting almost every ability bonus). The 3d6+3 DEX shows through pretty strong also (since attack, manipulation, parry, stealth, and defense all use DEX).

We've also been using the previous experience from the back of the book. This has caused tremendous delay in getting the play by post game started and lots of frustration on the part of the players.

This has seriously got me tempted to return to what I did for the game I ran in 2006. For that game, I had settled on doing a point buy for attributes, distributing 103 points (the first couple characters, I actually told the players to just pick attributes - I think they averaged 103 points with both of them pretty close). But I didn't compute the ability bonuses. Instead, they got to distribute +25, +20, +20, +15 +15, +10, +10, and +5 among the abilities (attack, manipulation, parry, defense, stealth, knowledge, perception, and communication [oratory]). I just asked the players to consider their attributes and not apply a bonus that was way out of whack (no +25 knowledge for a character with INT 5 - not that anyone took that low an INT).

One of the cool things about this was that if you take computation of the ability bonuses from the attributes, the value of the attributes becomes much more even so a point buy works.

On top of that, I used a previous experience system I had developed in the 90s inspired by RQ3. This set lower skills than characters often come out of the previous experience system from the back of the book, but also more uniform (we have some characters who didn't make mercenary or get into an apprenticeship).

But that feels so new school even though I think it would make the rest of the game (which is plenty old school) much more accessible.

What are your thoughts? What do other folks who still play RQ1 or RQ2 do?

BTW, a definite non-answer is RuneQuest Glorantha. It's more money than I'm willing to spend, and from tidbits I've seen I think it makes changes in areas I really like the originals. For example, post RQ2, it seems that the idea of cults having very different skill and spell offerings, from free, to half-price, to normal price, has changed to be more uniform. I haven't actually seen an RQG cult writeup, but I know for sure I really don't like the RQ3 cults.

Some Selected Comments

One thing I really want to do is put together a streamlined document for character generation, walking the player through each step (I have a good start on this here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UaDB0IJo96DzDRSQLL9j4-vQuBiSLs6U3SySHgUUuG8/edit?usp=sharing ). The previous experience really isn't THAT complicated, I think it's just that things are spread out.

I do allow players to try several apprenticeships if they fail their first choice, adding a few more options might make it so really you would end up with some kind of apprenticeship.

Actually, just tweaking the background roll to remove peasant would eliminate the possibility of not getting an apprenticeship and would not really detract from the game.

Hmm, I could also take the code for the Classic Traveller Character Generator and write a Classic RuneQuest Character Generator...

A cheat sheet on cults would help, perhaps just giving the Lay and Initiate details for some good selections, plus the names of other cults that are possibilities.

Hmm, looking back, my old rules from the 90s I didn't allow Elf PCs... Maybe allowing an Elf was a bit much. Or maybe not, we'll see how that actually plays out.

Saving Posts from Google+

I will be copying some of my Google+ Posts over here to preserve them.

I may paste selected comments at the bottom of the posts...

Thoughts about constructing a Traveller Universe

I've been thinking about what my Traveller universe might end up looking like.

I'm almost certain to use Paul Gazis's Eight Worlds rules for star ships (and perhaps more of his rules), though I might adjust some numbers depending on what assumptions I make for my universe.

One result of this is that ships aren't constrained to discrete jumps, nor are all jumps one week in duration. A jump 1 ship could take two weeks to travel as far as a jump 2 ship travels in one week (we don't yet know how the fuel costs change). So, rather than the universe being a hex map, each star will have coordinates to some precision (1 ly? .1 ly? .01 ly?). I'm still debating 2-d versus 3-d, and if I use real star locations or not, and if Sol/Earth is part of my universe (probably yes, but still up in the air, is it in the initial locale, or somewhere's distant).

As I have been thinking and processing the various systems for generating stars, and thinking about how to handle interstellar travel, I've come up with a few thoughts:

First, a science fiction universe with interstellar travel will have a bunch of "interesting" stars. These stars are where the main action takes place, or are home worlds, or whatever. These stars need not be occupied by earth-like worlds, but they probably have to have useful resources of some sort.

Now one could have a universe consisting just of those stars, and abstract space travel so those stars are the only ones that matter. Such a universe might even use an abstract map. But such a setup would diminish the importance of ships to the game (and one could even imagine a universe that virtually eliminates the importance of ships, to the point one might as well just have a teleporter network between the worlds of interest).

So then, to make ships and their operations interesting and important, we need to bring in other factors. A simple factor to bring in is to make logistics important. Now it matters how far apart the stars are. Additional stars might become important, not because they have an interesting world to have an adventure on, but because a ship needs to make a stopover for logistical reasons (for example, to re-fuel).

Of course, once such stars gain logistical relevance, they become a place for excitement to happen. During a war, a stopover might be blockaded. Or pirates might infest a stopover. Or some kind of natural event might take place, or there might be a systems failure in the ship.

Now it becomes interesting where you go, and what route you take.

Then the question arises of how many stopover locations are there? Too many, and they become meaningless. For example, say interesting stars are 10, 20, or even 30 light years apart, and ships can refuel by dipping into a star. Introduce hundreds or thousands of stopovers between any two interesting stars (or really even more than a few), and suddenly it becomes unlikely someone would be lying in wait for you. So probably stopovers have to be rare. So we probably can't refuel from a sun. Probably wilderness refueling has to be either slow, or unreliable. Now, we might have a refueling base at a star with nothing much more than a single icy planet where a plant can painstakingly extract hydrogen, perhaps, for a difficult route, just enough for a few small ships per week or two, and they probably charge a lot. But it might be worth it to shave off some time for a rich cargo, or important mission.

Of course, depending on how the logistics work out, tankers might be workable for refueling, but if that becomes too easy, we're back to hundreds of stopovers.

So lots to think about. And none of this particularly depends on what rules are used to generate the "interesting" systems, though they do depend on how one treats the "realistic" data.

Paul Gazis is starting to share his Eight Worlds system

Paul is starting to share his Traveller derived system, which he is calling Eight Worlds after his campaign:

Eight Worlds

Take a look and join the discussion on his forum.

My Traveller gaming history

I first played Traveller sometime around 1979-1980, my friend and I rolled up a few characters and played the merchant game and never went anywhere.

Sometime in 1981 or later (I can't find any solid reference as to when), I decided to run an SF game at MITSGS. I took the Rune Quest rules and wrote up a star ship creation and combat system, and added some SF weapons for personal combat. Unfortunately, I had not seen Nial Shapero's Other Suns at that point. We played one session, and then decided the system was over complex and the group collapsed. The star ship build system was sort of modular, with ideas borrowed from Task Force Game's Starfire boardgame. The star map was a bunch of dots penciled onto a blank sheet of 8.5"x11" paper, using a ruler to measure distances between stars.

A week or two later, I rebooted with Traveller, though I kept the star ship system and the campaign setting with several new players. Dave Tetreault was the most consistent player in the campaign, which lasted until 1988 or so. The campaign went through several rules mods, eventually being converted to Hero System. Another campaign in the same setting was run at RPI for several sessions. The groups only interaction was the MIT group visiting an airless planet the RPI group had explored, with the MIT group trying to make sense of the trails of ATV tracks going hither and thither.

This campaign was also my first venture into computer aided gaming at the table. I had use of a Compaq suit-case computer from work. I had a program to manage fuel consumption of the ships, and used Borland Sidekick to keep game notes at the same time. I also computerized my star map, which eventually expanded to some 40 or so sectors. The group even visited "Sol/Earth" (Alpha Centauri was the only other real star to make it onto the map).

That campaign was heavily inspired by Paul Gazis, and I used his experience rules and his "generic" "spare parts" for repairs (except I ended up categorizing spare parts into several categories).

Sometime in there I also tried out Mega-Traveller at RPI though the game didn't last long. I think I also had another start at RPI, not quite sure the rules, but I wrote a nifty star map program that worked on a square grid and used a custom printer font to make nice print maps.

Since then, I have essentially only played fantasy games.

Now I'm getting a solid SF itch...

Frank

Traveller Campaign Brainstorming

I am thinking of starting a Traveller campaign soon. I thought I'd use this space to do a bit of a brain dump.

Chargen Rules: probably Classic Traveller as a basis, probably using Mercenary etc. extended character generation.

Starships: I am looking at using Paul Gazis's rules for star ships (no anti-grav is the big feature) and at least his star ship combat system. This would be a small ship universe. The one thing that might make me change my mind is using this system means not using the various deck plans out there.

Sector maps: I'm leaning towards a freeform map, not hexes. Gazis Traveller did not use such and in the past I have played with a freeform map.

World Generation: probably based on Book 3, however, recently I rolled up a bunch of systems, and the random results were rather limiting. I might jigger my own charts (but still use the standard UPP mechanism). I might generate a few systems using Book 6 level of detail.

Tech Level: keeping tech level lower, perhaps to 12 or so. Though I may end up with rather different lists of equipment since I am diverging on anti-grav and starship technology.

The following is a dump of elements I'd like to include, some of these are just names perhaps with a bit of detail. Names may be inspired by other source material but may not reflect the actual source.

Reavers Deep, Reavers. I like the name. I like the Reavers from Firefly.

Earth. I'm debating if Earth will be in my universe, if so, do I use any accuracy for nearby stars? If I start using accurate data, do I end up with a 3-D universe?

Rifts. I like them.

Vargr & Aslan. I've always been partial to kitties and dogs. I might not use Traveller stats.

Zhodane. I like psionic aliens (or not so alien), thought police, and all that.

Lizards. I like an intelligent lizard race.

Parsinians. Gazis cyborg aliens. They just sound cool and obnoxious.

That's all that crosses my mind right now.

1st session of OD&D Megadungeon campaign - TPK

The following was originally posted to Finarvyn's Original D&D Discussion board and Dragonsfoot. I combined my responses to some questions, hopefully all makes sense without the questions...

Our band of intrepid explorers gathered at the inn in the village of Canyon Lake. They had all heard of a great dungeon near the village. An inquiry of the innkeeper gathered that they could either approach the dungeon by boat or by a narrow trail following the steep shoreline.

The party chose the trail and set off, two dwarves, two elves, three humans, and a mule. The trail led down to a small beach with a larger trail leading up the hillside to a ruined village. The dungeon entrance was rumored to be in the largest building.

In the village, the party first met a group of six dwarves. A short parley ensued and the dwarves went on their way hunting goblins.

The party gathered at the first of several smaller buildings that were still standing. The door was bashed in and three kobolds were quickly dispatched. On the way to the second building, the party avoided a giant beetle. Bursting through the door of the second building showed five kobolds and a goblin. A sleep spell dispatched all of them. A very nice looking dagger was found.

The third building approached was larger and near an overgrown graveyard. Bursting into the third building revealed three gnolls. The human cleric collapsed under the blow of a gnoll morningstar. Another sleep spell dispatched the gnolls. After the battle, it was determined the cleric was just unconscious.

The party decided to hole up in the building to recover. Early the next morning, the ground started to crack. Seven skeletons burst forth, The skeletons were eventually defeated but with great loss. An elf was the only conscious survivor. The cleric did wake up in the morning. The human warrior and the other elf survived unconscious. The two unconscious survivors were loaded on the mule along with the treasure and the most valuable equipment and the party started to head for home.

As the party made their way through the ruins, four giant ants engaged them. The mule went down and the ants swarmed the mule. The human warrior was revived with a potion but also went down again. Two characters survived with one unconscious body. They took the most valuable treasure and headed for home.

Most of the way back to town, the trail partially collapsed sending the survivors tumbling down the rocky embankment. Sadly, there were no survivors.

Several things the players might have done to do better:

• Spend some time finding rumors.
  
• Take the boat instead of the trail.
  
• Not holed up for a night above the dungeon, especially near a graveyard.
  
• Checked out the potion earlier.
  
• Teamed up with the dwarves (at least for resting)
  

Background

For consideration, here are the background bits (in three separate places in my guide). I did read the section on alignment to them before the start of play. Admittedly there is no discussion of the dangers of camping out in the dungeon or the ruins above, but read the description of the chaos alignment... The rest of the players guide is basically the rules from Men & Magic (plus additions from Greyhawk etc. and house rules), except for the spells (they are in separate documents, one for clerics, one for magic users, and an intro document with first through third level spells from both classes.

The Mega-Dungeon (on page 2 right after table of contents)

This campaign will operate primarily in a single large dungeon, often referred to as a mega-dungeon. Like the dungeons of the early days, the deeper underground, the higher the challenge. In general, first level characters will find the most appropriate challenge on the first level underground, while second level characters will find more appropriate challenges one level deeper and so on. The dungeon itself is rumored to be a force of chaos, filled with foul beasts, tricks, and traps. Some tricks and traps may deposit an expedition on a deeper level of the dungeon unexpectedly. Previous expeditions may have left clues in the dungeon, and maps found on the bodies of those who didn’t make it could be quite valuable (though they could also have fatal errors).

The Dungeon--by which this author means the generic category and not any specific instance, though the principles apply in both cases--is a weird, unfathomable, and deadly place, and as such it should sound an irresistible call to those with the doughty hearts of adventurers. Importantly, it is also vast--do not fall into the trap of trying to "defeat" a level. Set goals, work to achieve them, and don't be afraid to move on when the opportunity presents itself. You can gauge what sorts of risks you want to take, and what sorts of rewards you wish to win, by considering the party level versus the dungeon level, as a rough equivalent exists in terms of PC abilities, appropriate challenges, and rightful prizes. Cautious parties may stay on safer levels, but the treasure will be less; daring parties may make forays deeper into the place for richer reward, but the danger will also increase. Choose the path that suits your party best.

Within you will find ferocious monsters, lethal traps, cunning tricks and buried secrets, tortuous layouts and forgotten ways, baffling riddles, and best of all, fabulous treasure beyond imagining. You the player will be challenged as much, if not more, than your PC, and it will take the combined skills of both to succeed. This place is not merely a workaday, subterranean lair, with logically arranged sleeping and eating areas for a species simply somewhat different from (or even antagonistic toward) humans and demi-humans. The door you open is a portal, the stairs you descend a path, into the mythic underworld, luring you farther from the rational and sane daylight lands above, where a man may plot his way with confidence in the laws of nature, and into a nightmarish world of magic, evil, and elements that can devour your PC's very soul. You must be constantly on guard for peril from any quarter; you must manage your resources carefully, retreating when it is wise yet advancing when the time is right; you must demonstrate bravery, intelligence, and prowess as well, if your efforts are to be repaid with wealth and power. Not everything within the crumbling walls, forsaken chambers, and winding ways is hostile, and you may find allies in strange places or negotiate safe passage from others--but be wary of treachery and ill will. Those who think and fight their way back out may bear the riches that will spread their names throughout the realms of Man; those who do not will die a lonely death far from the places they know and cherish.

Evereaux

Alignment (on top of page 4)

Alignment in my campaign represents alignment with a specific cosmic force. The alignments are:

Law

This cosmic force represents the human drive towards orderliness, with kingdoms and empires gaining strength over small communities.

Neutrality or Nature

This cosmic force is the old cosmic force of living with nature in small communities. Demi-humans as entities are overwhelmingly neutral in alignment though individuals may align themselves with law, or even chaos.

Chaos

This is the cosmic force seeking to tear the world asunder. The forces of chaos breed in dungeons, swamps, and other dank and foul places. It is said that in these foul places, even the very earth itself is a force of chaos. This might explain the inexplicable tricks and traps that abound in dungeons. It could explain the fact that dungeon doors will swing open to allow inhabitants to pass but be jammed solid against lawful expeditions seeking to penetrate the dungeon and slay the forces of chaos. The corrupting nature of chaos sometimes allows individual creatures aligned with law or neutrality to be bent to the needs of chaos, and some individuals will even seek chaos for their own reasons.

Unsolicited Advice (page 13)

The problem with mapping is that so few people (players and DMs alike) seem to understand why it should be done and just accept that it's "part of the game" because it's mentioned in the rulebooks and is somehow "assumed" that at the end of each adventure the players must have a map of the dungeon that looks just like the DM's. But that's backwards -- drawing a map shouldn't be a burden for the players, it should be an aid to them, and they should only do it to the extent it aids them.

In most circumstances, the only reason to make a map is so you can find your way back to the entrance and highlight areas you passed over but may want to return to later. If you think you can find your way back without a map (either because you've got a good memory or because the dungeon is simply designed, without a lot of turns, doors, dead-ends and such) then there's no reason to make a map at all, and even if you do decide to make a map there's no reason to do so on graph paper and try to create a perfect replica of the DM's map. Make each room a square (or oval, or whatever shape the DM says the room is) with the dimensions and number/location of all exits marked; make each corridor a line with the length and any side passages, doors, etc. marked. Don't worry about trying to make it to scale -- if a 20' long straight corridor connects back to a room you've been to previously but your map requires you to draw a long, curved line to represent that corridor, don't worry about it. Mapping in this way should be sufficient in the vast majority of circumstances and IME doesn't slow the game down noticeably at all (because the DM should be giving the same sorts of descriptions of rooms and corridors whether the players are mapping or not -- it's their decision whether or not to draw a map, not his).

The only time to bother trying to draw an accurate map that matches the DM's exactly is when you're either in a very mazy environment where there's a significant chance of becoming seriously lost or when you have some reason to believe that 'empty spaces' on the map might conceal secret passages that you wouldn't be likely to locate otherwise. In such cases mapping/navigation becomes part of the challenge of the game, as much as combat tactics and resource management, and drawing an accurate map is an accomplishment in and of itself -- some players will become proud of their mapping skills and how they were able to 'beat' the dungeon through mapping (by finding a secret area, or quickly spotting a teleport trap, or whatever). If you enjoy such a challenge, go for it, it'll add a whole new element to the contest of the game. But if this sort of 'detail-work' bores or frustrates you, you should probably avoid it and stick to sketch/trailing maps (or even no map at all). Yes OD&D vol. 3 and some old modules (B1 probably most famously) emphasize this 'mapping challenge' part of the game with tricks designed especially to confuse people trying to draw accurate maps, because the people they were playing with (Ernie Gygax in particular, from what I understand) enjoyed that aspect, but if you don't there's no reason to try and force it. Make trailing maps or trust your memory if that's what you prefer -- you may miss an occasional hidden treasure, or get lost in an occasional maze, but that's the price you're willing to pay.

Trent Foster

In Depth Commentary

The players were a bit frustrated, but will return. They are used to newer systems that are more "fair." Perhaps I should have given them a bit more slack on preparations for holing up. They did spike the doors shut - which did play into possible encounters, a humanoid encounter WOULD have had to bust through the door - it just turned out to be an undead encounter.

One thing I realized I had neglected, or couldn't find, was an outdoor encounter table for the ruins above the dungeon. I used my 1st level encounter table with some on the fly adjustment (discarded one encounter that didn't make sense), especially for the night (adjusting probabilities on the fly for their proximity to the graveyard).

I talked with one of the players who rode we me (he lives three houses down from me) on the ride home about things they could have done better.

At the beginning of the next session, I will spend a bit of time talking to them about expectations and perhaps giving them a few suggestions. None of the players had read the background info in the players guide I gave them (the neighbor to his defense did not get one of these guides until we were at the session).

I think in old school tradition, the players do need to discover some of this stuff the hard way, or at least by thinking about it themselves. This is not 3.x where the GM gives the players "fair" encounters and recommends "gather information" rolls...

These segments above are pretty much all the "background" information.

What they were exploring was the surface which just has a few standing buildings. Perhaps having every one of them occupied was too much. I do need to track turns better, I think I did roll too often for wandering encounters (4 giant ants was also probably too many). While holed up though, they did only get a single roll per hour (and many/most encounters would not have been able to get in easily - just the undead (and only because of proximity to the graveyard) and burrowing creatures).

Along the trail, they only got one roll per hour (3 hours travel normally, 4 hours for the return carrying a body). I had tried to at least hint that the trail was dangerous (I certainly described it as a narrow trail clinging to a steep hillside above the lake). The landslide was the result of rolling a 20 on my encounter chart which was "special". They did get a dex roll to avoid falling. I can see that it was perhaps excessive.

One issue is that I couldn't find the surface encounter chart I thought I had made. I also didn't actually have an encounter chart for the trail. For next time, I need to write up a good encounter chart, and probably should have a range of specials (so it's not always a landslide on the trail).

I think it's fair to chalk this up as a learning experience for both me as GM and for the players. Part of the problem is that they are used to being spoonfed information.

While it might not be to everyone's taste, I think it's kind of cool that even though players may have had old school experience years ago, that there is still a learning process. I think that is part of what makes the game exciting.

In my play in Makofan's campaign on the OD&D board, I'm realizing that it's actually not so bad losing a character. I mostly stopped playing and just GMing partly from this fear, but I think when D&D is approached differently, it's not so bad. Sure, sometimes you lose, but there is no winning without losing. EVERYONE WINS is not really all that fun.

I hope that the players come to see this. I think that is what actually drives D&D players to seek more and more challenge, either going deeper into the dungeon, or pushing the limits of their resources. Without that pushing, there is no loss, and thus no real winning. I think this is what Ron Edwards gets at with his definition of "Step on Up" Gamism.

One thing I would like to add, this play took less than two hours. Our session was supposed to run from 6 pm - 10 pm, but traffic and nearby burning buildings caused the last player to not show up until 7 pm. The store clerk also told us we would have to leave at 9:30. Well, we actually finished up before 9 pm.

I love how much faster encounters run than in later editions of the game. We did use miniatures (for PCs, counters for the monsters). The extent of laying out the battle was to set two dice on the table to show the doorway.

Frank

I'm a married man

The wedding went off just fine on Saturday August 18. Oh, there were a few minor glitches, and it was a lot of work to get there, but yea!

The ceremony was wonderfull. Saranna and I worked together to create it using pieces from a packet our church (First Unitarian Church of Portland Oregon) provided us. The ceremony was relatively traditional, though we didn't use traditional music. Most of us marched down the aisle to Ode to Joy, while Saranna came down (escorted by her dad) to Tis a Gift to be Simple. Saranna's mom and dad even managed to collaborate and decided they would say "we do" together when the minister said: "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"

Our simple three paragraph "introduction" seemed to take an eternity. So did Saranna's sister's music. We also hadn't rehearsed holding hands so there was an awkward moment for Saranna. Oh, and we were sweating (at least it was easy to put the rings on).

I was surpised I actually was able to pay attention to the crowd a bit and saw some tears. There was also one baby cry, but the dad (one of Saranna's cousins) stood up with the baby and stood by the side door and the baby quited down immediately.

The reception was wonderful and we actually had a chance to eat a plate of food each, and even went back for seconds (just on one shared plate to make wandering around and chatting with folks easier). We even got to eat cake! They also packed us a bunch of food and cake which we enjoyed in the hotel room that night (after a bit of pannic when we realized it was still on the front seat of the maid of honor's car and she was on her way to Corvallis (she turned around and brought it back to us).

Sunday and Monday we had a chance to spend some (but not too much) time with family. We even had a chance to go out to dinner last night with my best man Ken and his sister. Now everyone is home or on their way home. We leave tomorrow morning for our honeymoon, 2 nights in Seattle and then up to Victoria BC for 8 nights.

I'm Engaged!!!

On Tuesday, December 5, 2006, I proposed to my beloved Saranna and she accepted!

For those who like gushy details:

We had been discussing marriage for some time, and had finally decided to get engaged. The original plan was to have a nice evening Wednesday, however, Tuesday morning, the stars aligned just right. I proposed in our bedroom, with Saranna sitting on the bed and me kneeling on the floor (oh how cute! they say...).

Wednesday, we went out to Jakes Famous Crawfish in Portland Oregon for a celebratory dinner.

Wedding plans are yet to be made, however, the thought is August 2007 in Portland, with the cermony in the Salmon St. Sanctuary of the First Unitarian Church.

I first met Saranna in August of 1999 when I travelled to the Pacific Northwest to attend a Continental Unitarian Universalist Young Adult conference. When I moved to the Portland area in 2002, Saranna was one of the familiar faces when I started attending the First Unitarian Church. We started dating shortly after a mutual friend's birthday party at a park where we took a nice walk together.

For those wondering, Saranna is into neither gaming nor LEGO, though she is totally supportive of both my hobbies (though she has made a reasonable request that the LEGO be contained so as to leave room for her and probable future little ones).

Frank

My Roleplaying Summary

Copying Vincent's idea...

Broken down into major periods of life, that don't exactly conform to shifts in my gaming philosophy...

My formal role playing history started in fall of 1977 at my friend's birthday party (I was a freshmen in high school):

• We got introduced to the game with Holmes Basic D&D (the very first version of said game - which is different from later Basic D&Ds)
  
• My friend got Chivalry and Sorcery for Christmas, I made efforts over the years to run this (and wore out my friends book in the process)
  
• Somewhere in there we got the Original D&D boxed set plus supplements, some time later I got my own set
  
• I got the AD&D Players Handbook for Christmas in 1978 and we started playing AD&D (well sort of, because of course we didn't have the DMG yet...)
  
• Somewhere in there, I started fiddling with Traveler
  
• Somewhere in there, I bought RuneQuest (1st edition) and fiddled with it
  
• Tried Boot Hill and dismissed it
  
• Ran some Top Secret
  
• Ran some Bunnies and Burrows
  

Attended a MIT Strategic Games Society Summer Con (probably 1978, or maybe it was Winter Con 1979 - but I vaguely remember warm weather), ran AD&D for 16! players

• Shortly thereafter, I started gaming with the MITSGS, and started what is probably my longest campaign (it would last until I went off to college in fall of 1981), probably really started in late 1979 though with the way people ran games at MIT with PCs being exchanged between different GMs campaigns, it's hard to nail down when it really started)
  
• Ran games with various other game systems that I can't really remember
  
• Played in a few different D&D games
  
• Ran some RuneQuest
  

Then I went to college (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)

• Continued running AD&D my freshman and sophomore years
  
• Somewhere in here, in the summer, ran RuneQuest in space at MIT, switched to Traveler after a few sessions, said Traveler campaign after a total shift in players would run once or twice a year through 1986 or 1987 or so, or maybe as late as 1989)
  
• Tried to run RuneQuest, it flopped badly
  
• Played in a few Cold Iron campaigns
  
• Started running my first Cold Iron campaign (in Harn) in fall of 1983, this campaign would mostly peter out by fall of 1985, though I ran a couple bits with one player in fall of 1986)
  
• Ran Chivalry and Sorcery again (for a session or two)
  
• Probably ran a few other random games
  
• Ran Champions for a while
  
• Ran Justice Inc. and Espionage for a session or two each
  

Then I continued with graduate school at RPI

• Started running Fantasy Hero in fall of 1985, this campaign would end up migrating to Cold iron, and finally AD&D by the end of the school year (with a one or two session interlude with an obscure home-brew system I can't recall the name of - have to check at home tonight), campaign ended late spring of 1987
  
• Started work on my own game system, originally called Now for Something Completely Different, originally derived from the Gazis experience system for Traveler, later bolstered by ideas from GURPS (and later called Yet Another Generic Game System in honor of GURPS), played a session or two
  
• Played a few sessions of D&D
  
• Started a new Cold Iron campaign spring 1988 (in Blackmoor), this campaign would last until I mostly finished grad school at the end of the summer of 1989
  
• Ran some Top Secret SI and Traveler as breaks to that Cold Iron campaign
  

Then I was done and started job hunting

• Started game design on YAGGS in earnest in fall and spring of 1989
  
• Played in a GURPS Supers campaign
  

Moved to North Carolina in April of 1990

• Ran YAGGS, RuneQuest, and GURPS Supers with NC State game club
  
• Ran Everway
  
• Tried YAGGS again with caver friends
  
• Played in a demo of 7th Sea
  
• Ran a session each of 7th Sea and Deadlands with a caver friend
  
• Ran a disastrous RPGA Deadlands module at Trinocon
  
• Ran GURPS using YAGGS magic system (2 sessions)
  
• Ran Evil Stevie's Pirate Game for the first time at BrickFest 2000, would continue running this at conventions (LEGO and game) through 2004
  

Moved to Oregon March 2002

• Ran GURPS in Talislanta using YAGGS magic system (collapsed after 1 or 2 sessions)
  
• Ran Cold Iron in Talislanta
  
• Started Arcana Unearthed campaign in fall of 2003
  
• Ran demos of Cold Iron, Fudge, and RuneQuest summer of 2004 after AU campaign died
  
• Played one Fudge session (disastrous)
  

Took a break fall of 2004 while I bought a house, moved, and settled in

• Started Cold Iron Tekumel in spring of 2005 which died after a few sessions
  
• Started Arcana Evolved campaign in Wilderlands of High Fantasy setting in spring of 2005
  
• Ended AE campaign and started Cold Iron Blackmoor campaign fall 2005
  
• Ended Cold Iron campaign spring 2006
  
• Spent five painful sessions of chargen and almost play of Burning Wheel
  
• Started RuneQuest campaign late spring 2006
  
• Ran a Dogs in the Vinyard demo
  
• Ended RQ in late summer
  
• Ran two sessions (didn't even finish town) of DitV
  
• Started Arcana Evolved campaign in Ptolus fall 2006
• Started dating Saranna
  
• Ended the Arcana Evolved campaign in spring of 2007, ran a couple sessions of house ruled AD&D
• Dropped out of gaming other than forum/blog involvement as wedding plans with Saranna progressed. I am slowly working on starting an OD&D campaign.
  

Largely in part due to haze of time, the high school period (and first couple years of college) is very hazy (though I could dig through my collection of articles saved from the Wild Hunt APA and probably pin a few dates down). The high school era was definitely characterized by a lot of experiments in different games, though eventually a solid campaign settled down at MIT (though still with breaks for other games). I'm sure I've left out short-lived games here and there throughout the time (at least until 2002). Some game experimentation involved nothing more than spending a few hours with a couple other players creating PCs for a game, then never actually playing. I often got complaints for trying "the game of the week" though I have mostly settled down now.

Frank

A new campaign launch

I'm out of my gaming funk. One player from my previous campaigns joined me this evening and we talked about what we want out of a game. Here's the recruitment posting I've sent out (if you happen to be in the Portland Oregon area and this sounds interesting, let me know, I also welcome any general thoughts on this):

I will be starting a new Arcana Evolved (alternate D&D/D20) campaign using Monte Cook's Ptolus city setting as a base of operations. I am looking for three additional players for a total of four.

My campaign style is old school (70s and 80s), episodic, mostly modules, lots of combat, no long involved story lines. With the city setting, I expect there will be some wheeling and dealing within the city, but the focus will be on what D&D does best - dungeon adventuring and combat. Since I like some variety, some adventures will occur outside the city.

Plan is to start with 3rd or 4th level characters with a standard 25 point build. I expect most characters to be Arcana Evolved races and classes, however, there is room for a few things (especially dwarves and rogues, as well as Monte's alternate bard from Complete Eldritch Wizardry). I am hoping to keep the number of supplements to a minimum and will ask players to provide a short summary of any additional books (even AE supplements) they wish to use and how the book will benefit the campaign beyond just your PC.
I will consider the appropriateness of prestige classes to the setting. In general, I don't like level adjusted races, by LA +1 or +2 may be acceptable (optionally, if you can present a nice set of racial and evolved levels that allow the race to be LA +0 that would be awesomely cool).

In order to keep my sanity, here are some additional expectations of the
campaign:

- I would prefer not to have Magisters due to the tendency they have of overwhelming combats.

- The campaign will probably end around 10th level or so (unless it ends for other reasons sooner). This is due to a combination of the effects of high level casters, and the increased prep time.

- I will be working on slowing the XP rate somewhat, I would like to see PCs gain a level every four sessions, three as the fastest. I will be doing some things to tone down treasure appropriately.

Games will run every Tuesday evening (6:00ish to 10:30ish) at my smoke free home in Beaverton. There is some flexibility for Monday or Wednesday, but Tuesday is ideal, there is also some flexibility with start and end time, but I prefer to get in four solid hours of gaming. Please be honest with your schedule, we will break for the Christmas holidays (for two or three weeks), otherwise I hope to run every week with players making most of the sessions. My target for the first session is October 2nd. We will talk about group expectations and create PCs the first session.

The player I already have and I are available September 26 for a meet and greet. In general, I prefer to meet with players before they join the campaign. At a minimum, I would like to exchange a few e-mails or chat on the phone.

I will be happy to share additional thoughts about the campaign.

Frank

Burned out on gaming

I never quite thought I'd get here... I'm realizing I'm just plain burned out on gaming. Over the past few years there have been some glimmers of worthwhile gaming, and lots of teeth gnashing. This past weekend, other than sort of lame forum and blog following, I've been divorced from gaming. I've been really looking forward to the time I spend in the LEGO room.

One problem is finding enough variety. After a stint of relatively successefull gamist Arcana Evolved (Monte Cook's alternate D&D), we stumbled around. Cold Iron didn't quite cut it (the players never got into what I see as one of the strengths of the game - the strategic choices of magic items, and maximizing their effect in play). Burning Wheel crashed and burned. RuneQuest seemed a possibility, but ultimately died because the majority of the players were looking for gamism not simulationism. Dogs in the Vinyard seemed like the first real possibility of really reaching the young wife, but gamism seems to be rearing its head again (not to mention my first attempt at town creation seems to have been a disaster).

So I'm looking at a game session tomorrow, where we will theoretically finish the Dogs town and talk about what next, with absolutely no enthusiasm.

Frank

A bit of fun

Dude! You're 81% from Massachusetts!

Okay, either you come from the western half of the state or from the Boston area. Still, it's not bad, so I'll give you the thumbs up. Cool!

How Massachusetts are you?

The one's that kept me from 100% were a pronounciation one (quin-sea vs. quin-zee), and "wicked pissa" (never heard that one), and not being annoyed by "Pahk the cah in Hahvahd Yahd" (I actually don't hear that one very often). I do wonder if younger folks from Massachusetts would know the difference between a milkshake and a frappe, and with the advent of nationwide chains, you're a lot less likely to get a surprise if you order a shake in Massachusetts these days (for the uniniatied, in Massachusetts, a milkshake is literally milk shaken up, there's no icecream in it, a frappe is the thing with icecream).

The pronounciation ones point out how local accents are in Massachusetts. "Pahk the cah in Hahvahd Yahd" is a Boston accent. Out in the suburbs where I grew up, there is a totally different accent (in fact, I once was told I had a Concord accent - I think one of the characteristics of a Concord accent is the pronounciation of the town name as kon-KERD, very similar to how you would pronounce conquered, and definitely NOT kon-KORD).

Frank

Ruminations on games designed to be played with LEGO bricks.

Thinking out loud:

In the spring of 1999, I was introduced to the potential of LEGO as an adult toy. We had a big meeting of everyone in our division at IBM, and the inspirational talk was given by Fred Martin of the MIT Media Lab. His presentation was about personal computing, ranging from the use of PCs they way we know them today, computers in appliances, and most interestingly, personal robotics. He talked about how LEGO's recently introduced Mindstorms LEGO Robotics Invention Kit was a huge success, in part because something like half the sets were purchased by adults for their own use. Having always been intrigued by robots, but never enough to shell out for any of the robot kits released over the previous 20 years or so, I wandered down to Toys R Us and came home with a Mindstorms set. Of course, being internet savvy, it didn't take me long to start searching the internet for what people were doing with their LEGO robots. Along the way, I saw a 6' long model of the Titanic, impressive castles, and amazingly, a miniatures wargame with role playing aspects using the pirate ships, designed by Steve Jackson (of Steve Jackson Games).

Within months, I purchased almost every pirate set I could lay my hands on in the Raleigh/Durham North Carolina area. In the spring of 2000, talk started about having a convention for LEGO fans up in DC. I immediately expressed interest, and suggested the Pirate Game would be a cool thing to play. So in June, and the first BrickFest, I rented an SUV (I didn't have a reliable vehicle for the trip) and drove up to DC with the back stuffed with pirate ships, stuff to build islands, and several pirate themed forts. Finally I would get my chance to check out this cool game. It was a lot of fun to run (and lots of fun for several of the players - though many had no RPG exposure, and chafed at the way the game was run). Over the next several years, I ran the game at BrickFest, and in 2002, I ventured to GenCon to run it as part of the newly formed GameLUG (Gaming LEGO Users Group) offerings.

By the end of 2003, I was becoming disillusioned with the game. A big issue was how subjective the interesting parts of the game were. The special islands which provided the most role playing opportunity are very subjective, which may be ok, but clashed with the essential wargame nature of the game. They also didn’t play well with the reward mechanics. And the reward mechanics were really screwed up, they rewarded players for not engaging. If you wandered around to small islands, digging for treasure and picking up stranded pirates, avoiding the special islands, and especially avoiding fighting the other players, the reward in treasure was huge. Especially when, with your huge, relatively un-blooded crew, you swept in after two other players had a fight, and captured one or both of their ships.

There are a number of other games out there, but not have appealed to me very much. BrickWars, while it still has some role playing potential, is very minimal, plus, it features destruction of the props which makes for intensive prep. BrickQuest is an interesting dungeon style game, but it has more in common with the board games with miniatures like Dragon Strike (and presumably some of those new nifty looking games that are coming out). Brick Battles is a simple war game, though I really haven’t looked into it much. Pirate Wars is another pirate game, but I’m not sure it would really have anything over Evil Stevie’s Pirate Game. Mechaton and BrickMech are pure wargames, and feature a genre of little interest to me.

One thing I’ve thought about recently is how Steve Jackson ran the game at BricksWest 2002. He split the players into two sides. This eliminates the problem of two players duking it out, weakening themselves, and falling prey to a third player. That is one of the fundamental problems with the Pirate Game, the reward for fighting another player does not offset the losses. In Risk, when you fight another player, you capture territory, which earns you cards to cash in for more troops (plus the territory is valuable in its own right).

This got me to thinking about how the mechanics of an RPG help support a creative agenda. In traditional D&D play, which supports a gamist agenda, there is an interesting instability of the game. The rules suggest combat is the primary way to deal with NPCs, but the game offers possibilities of bypassing opposition by climbing walls or finding secret doors. Another option is to try and talk an NPC out of fighting you. These options are highly subjective, and I think that subjectivity is what leaves room for the creativity that makes the RPG something more than a wargame. On the flip side, games like Dogs in the Vinyard normalize everything into one conflict resolution system. This dramatically reduces the impact of creativity on the mechanics of winning a conflict, however, that leaves room to assign meaning to the decisions made. The GM can probe the players decisions by creating different situations and seeing how the player reacts. The end is that the players address premise and create theme, for strong narativist play. Games like RuneQuest use realism, and mechanics that help define the social structure of the campaign world, to provide support for a simulationist agenda.

Now here’s another problem with the games that use LEGO bricks: These games make very little use of the construction toy aspect of LEGO toys. BrickWars makes some use in the destruction of props (since the destroyed props may be rebuilt easily, or recycled into parts for new props). Most of the games do allow exchanging of equipment and such, which traditional miniatures games don’t facilitate (though if you used action figures, you would have that same flexibility). And of course, the fact that you can click pieces together means you can hang your pirate crew from the ratlines and stand them on the spars and such. But overall, the games do not provide for creative building with the bricks outside of prep for the game.

I’ve thought long and hard about how to make creative building part of a construction toy game. Lately, I have been considered putting the word out that I’m interested in creating a construction toy RPG that features more creative building. My thought would be to get a bunch of interested folks to come over to my house. My thought would be that rather than starting off by focusing on game rules, we would start by focusing on the creative building. Participants would be encouraged to bring any LEGO creations they might have (whether they be their own design, or just a LEGO kit assembled per the instructions). I would make my huge collection available, and a big table to set up on. We might decide to build a town, or a countryside, or a pirate ocean, or a moonbase, or something entirely wacky. We might even decide to abandon the table for the larger area of the floor. Participants would be encouraged to go beyond just the models though, and start creating shared stories. As play progressed, we could watch for places we need formal mechanics. Perhaps after a few sessions, I would have some ideas to work with to create a game, or perhaps we’d jointly construct a playable game from that play.

References: My LEGO gaming page provides links to many of the games mentioned above.

Fun, but somehow not entirely satisfying RuneQuest play

I've been running my RuneQuest game for several weeks now, and while it's fun, it's also somehow not entirely satisfying.

One aspect that's an interesting plus and minus is two new players I recruited. They are both Gloranthaphiles, and are contributing a lot to the game (and I think helping drive a simulationist agenda - which is what I'm hoping for). On the other hand, they, especially one of the players, are not quite so into the wargamey combat aspect. On top of this, I'm finding myself more and more frustrated by some aspects of the RQ system. The active defense really just makes for an unfun game (I hit, no you don't, he parried). The system of course, like all old school systems, provides terrible support for social conflict.

I'm having the usual troubles with the young learning disabled couple. The wife is mostly not engaged, though in this case, since she's playing an elf, she might actually be roleplaying really well... The husband is playing a newtling Orlanthi, and I'm more and more realizing it just really doesn't fit well.

In one sense, I think I've been spoiled by Dogs in the Vinyard. Now that I've seen a system which handles social conflict and fighting in a unified way, but also makes for real consequences of chosing to fight or keep talking, it's harder to play a system with disjoint social and combat conflict (I noticed even with Burning Wheel's improved social conflict system, the disconnect was still jarring). But I still can't see a way to unify social and combat conflict and have wargamey combat.

We've also got the most variable attendance I've had in a while, especially compared to my Arcana Evolved campaign which had very solid attendance from all the players.

There was also a problematical bit during the previous adventure, the Rainbow Mounds scenario from Apple Lane. The PCs had started to interract with the newtlings, and I wanted to at least offer the prophesy and quest, but that sort of stalled, though they eventually did trigger the prophesy, but then the prophesised savior got himself killed in spirit combat, and none of the other PCs were invested in the quest. This would have been an area where some meta-game negotiation tools might have made for a really cool game opportunity (or a quick dismisall of the quest as not interesting). For example, if there was a currency the GM could use to bribe the players to accept the quest (the prophesy, for those not familiar with the module, basically requires a PC to fall into an underground lake to be rescued by the newtlings, the PC then accepts the quest with his companions and they go to rid the caverns of an ancient rival to the newtlings, and then they get some blessings, some treasure, and a few other bennies).

Frank

Insight on RuneQuest - Conflict Webs

A little insight I just had on RuneQuest:

The cults in RQ provide an instant campaign level conflict web. Now, unlike Chris's suggestion on how to create a conflict web to drive play in the linked blog entry, the RQ cult conflict web is something that constantly sits in the background. But by introducing NPCs that follow a cult, the GM is instantly placing that NPC into a conflict web that has a well defined (and interesting for driving play) structure. Of course NPCs can be introduced that don't fit in exactly, but that's just temporarily bending the conflict web, which as long as it isn't bent too far, will still be interesting.

One interesting ingsight here, in Chris's writeup of conflict webs, he doesn't talk about placing PCs into the web, and in fact, it makes sense not to. So what does this mean relative to a PC following one of the cults? Has the PC been placed into the web? No. But there are implicit NPCs (temple authorities, even the actual god) who fill the position in the web. And the players dynamically create new strands that tie their character into the web in play.

And the players dynamically creating strands to tie their character into the web, and in doing so, disturbing the existing strands, is how the conflict web drives play.

One random thought: Is the existence of this campaign level, relatively static, conflict web (that locally and temporarily gets changed in play) something that indicates simulationist play as opposed to narativist play? Certainly it seems that the players discovering, and re-inforcing, and demonstrating, this campaign level conflict web is one way to celebrate the dream.

Looking back on my most successfull RuneQuest campaign, there is no doubt that this conflict web drove play. One of the central PCs was a Lhankor Mhy sage, who was always looking for stuff in tombs. There was almost always a Humakti PC in the group (and I think the other central player played a Humakti for much of the campaign). This of course created lots of tension because the Humakti don't exactly like disturbing graves though they care less about non-Humakti graves. On the other hand, often the tombs were occupied by ghosts or undead, creatures that Humakti consider abominations.

All the significant non-humans in Glorantha are tied into the conflict web, usually through their deity. Trolls aren't exactly buddy buddy with humans, on the other hand, Argan Argar trolls do recognize that trade with humans is valuable. A Zorak Zorani troll can find common cause with a Storm Bull, or anyone else who is willing to dispatch creatures of chaos.

Frank

Categorizing RPG Prep

Over in the comments to Prep-Light RPGs? on Martin Ralya's Treasure Tables blog I mentioned that prep could be broken down into three distinct categories. I'd like to add a fourth here:

1. creative - generating ideas, situation, etc.


2. mechanical - writing up NPC stats, determining obstacle DCs, etc.


3. organizational - organizing and neatening up notes, e-mailing notes to all the players, updating a game Wiki, etc.


4. research - reading National Geographic for ideas, searching in the library for information on power source efficiency or animals resource needs in the desert, reading novels in your setting or genre, or even browsing your module collection to find a suitable module, etc.

When you sit down to do prep work, it's likely one session will have tasks from several categories, but in general, most tasks will pretty clearly be one category or another.

It might be usefull to compare the prep for some different games, so I will share thoughts on Dogs in the Vinyard, Cold Iron, and Arcana Evolved (D20/alternative D&D). This blog entry of mine is an example of Cold Iron prep.

Research
For my first Dogs in the Vinyard game, I read the sample towns in the book, plus several towns on the web. I probably spent several hours doing this. For the exmple Cold Iron prep, I probably spent two hours browsing the web for a suitable map. For a given Arcana Evolved adventure, I might spend a few hours browsing my extensive module collection (that would also be typical for Cold Iron). But this is just one kind of research.

Above, I hinted at a couple extended research sessions at my university library. Once, we were about to do a desert expedition, and I wanted to know how much water the party would need to cary. So I read about camels and donkeys. I did a lot of research for SF gaming, including one extended session of studying power sources and their efficiency (a cool resource for that was some NASA publications, and I think I managed to find a paper or two my father had published in another government publication [he was a civil servant working for the Air Force Geophysics Lab]). I still have the notes from some of these research sessions. These types of research sessions can be a lot of fun, but the way I understand gaming these days, are probably mostly irrelevant. Sure, it's fun to base stuff on reality, but what the players actually care about is that they need so many donkeys or camels, and if you tell them 2 per expedition member as a SWAG, or 2.3 as a carefully calculation based on reality, the players really don't care.

Creative
For some folks, this is the most exciting prep. For others, it's the most torturous. Dogs in the Vinyard is the only game I've seen to date with a complete guide for this part of the creation. This prep can either be very explicit when you sit down to just try and generate ideas, or it can be more casual when you think about the game on the drive home from work (and this second type of prep suggests there is no such thing as a zero prep game - every game is going to utilize and benefit from this kind of casual thought). Note that every other category of prep does involve some creativity, but my goal of calling this out separately is that there is always some time spent purely imagining and creating, without putting pen to paper or reading texts.

I didn't do much of this kind of prep for the Dogs game since I used prepared towns. Of course I did read the towns and think about how I might use them, and started to form ideas of the NPCs. The example Cold Iron prep had perhaps 10-15 minutes of direct creative prep once I had a map. When I do module searches, there is often creative prep intermixed. I'll look at a module, read parts of it, browse the map, etc. and think about what I might do with the module. When I'm doing a module conversion (I do a lot of this since 90% of my modules are for D&D, and I haven't run D&D for almost 20 years), I'll spend a lot of creative energy coming up with appropriate NPCs (monsters or otherwise).

Coming up with a scenario from scratch generally requires a lot of creative prep time, and is one reason I don't do that much at all for D&D-like games.

Mechanical
This prep is the statting up of NPCs, traps, etc. Drawing a map on an appropriate grid might be this kind of prep (though it will mostly be creative). Generating mechanics to utilize library research would also be mechanical. This type of prep directly engages your system's mechanics. It should be noted that some folks really dislike this kind of prep. It's too hard. It takes too much time. It isn't fun. Of course other folks love to churn out NPCs in loving detail. Some game systems ease this prep by statting up NPCs differently than PCs.

For Dogs in the Vinyard, mechanical prep is very simple. You generate a page (or two) of proto-NPCs. Perhaps noting which stage of the sin progression each element of the town's problem is in is mechanical.

One of the reasons I love Cold Iron is that for a crunchy system, this mechanical prep time is pretty modest. I can stat up a creature in as little as 5 minutes (and when I do so, I generate 4-8 levels for the creature). A complex NPC might take as much as 30 minutes if I really spend time picking spells and magic items (but more likely can be done in 15 moinutes, and in any case, I use relatively few NPCs of such complexity, most are 5-10 minute grunts). Cold Iron NPCs can be just as fully statted as a PC, but I have some short cuts that simplify the process.

For a side comparison, games like Rune Quest and GURPS can have quick mechanical prep time, while allowing NPCs the same complexity as PCs. This is done by ignoring the point system or advancement system. Games without strict character level progressions but instead with skills that advance individually is well suited for this kind of shortcut generation.

This prep for Arcana Evolved was painful. I could often re-use some of the monsters if I was using a D%D 3e module, but spell casters and other monsters with PC classes would need to be re-written. Using pre-3e modules (probably more than half my collection) left one without even monster stats. When I had more than 4 players, I would also have to upscale encounters.

Organizational

This prep is often part of mechanical prep, but can be separate.

For Dogs in the Vinyard, this was where I spent the most prep time after chosing a couple towns. I cut and pasted one town from the PDF into MS Word for printing, and re-formatted a town pulled off the web. Copying proto-NPC stats from Chris Week's web generator onto proto-NPC sheets also counts.

For Cold Iron, I tend not to spend too much time here, though I may copy NPC stats onto handy sheets for use during the game (but just as often, I will copy the 5-10 stats I need the most onto scratch paper during the game when the encounter happens).

For Arcana Evolved, this was again a significant time, though mostly it was done in combination with the mechanical prep. I developed my own stat block format in MS Word and would cut and paste monsters from the SRD, or stat up NPCs into the stat block. The pages I printed left space to keep track of each creatures hit points and spell slots used.

Photocopying maps or player handouts would also fall into the organizational prep. Preparing the game room also qualifies as organizational prep. Sending e-mails to find out who is coming etc. also qualifies. Basically this stuff doesn't require much thought (I would place chosing fonts and such to make a genre approproiate handout into creative or research prep).

Conclusions

So what use is all of this? Well, one way would be to classify systems for the amount of prep in each category they require. Each of us has different interest levels in the various categories, so just knowing a system is light-prep isn't enough, if all the prep is of a category I hate, it might be a heavier-prep system for me than one that takes twice as many hours overall. Another way is in design. Dogs in the Vinyard is really cool for including such a good guide for creating towns. D&D at various times in the past has included some tools for creating dungeons, but doesn't have the same degree of guidelines (but the system is also less focused so providing such guidelines might be very hard). Cold Iron as I received it came with almost no help for prep (just a handfull of monsters and a few pages talking about monster creation, plus a few guidelines on creating magic items, from which I developed pricing formulas).

It's also valuable to look at how important each type of prep is. For example, I now realize that my in depth library research is of little value for most gaming. For Cold Iron, I learned what was necessary for stats for NPCs and streamlined my mechanical prep. During game design, consider ways to streamline this mechanical prep. Look for ways to simplify NPCs without constraining them. Systems can also help the creative prep. Again, Dogs in the Vinyard's town creation rules help the creative prep by providing a framework that must be filled in for each town. This guides the GM to spending creative energy on what is needed for the game, and not on what is not needed. Who cares how many miles between towns, it doesn't come into play in any mechanical sense, if you really need a number, let it come up in play. On another note, it would be poisonous to prep dialogue for an NPC in Dogs (even the intro the Steward gives when the PCs arrive in town should not be scripted, let it flow out of the mood at the table).

In fact, that bit about scripting dialogue in Dogs in the Vinyard turns out to be a major factor in my enjoying the game. The system drives the necessary dialogue rather than the GM having to decide ahead of time what the steward's speech will be.

I'm also planning on using Dogs in the Vinyard's town creation guidelines for prepping for my Burning Wheel campaign. I've followed Chris Chinn's The Conflict Web which is part of the prep, but I realize now that coming up with what each NPC wants from the PCs, as suggested in Dogs, will help me tremendously. So will "What happens if the PCs don't intervene." Even the sin hierarchy idea can be used, so I have all these NPCs, what have they done already? What is already broken that needs fixing by the PCs?

Frank