I only knew about Fritz Lieber's Lankhmar stories through the "Inspirational Reading" sections of the 1ed Dungeon Master's Guide and the Nehwon mythos of the original Dieties and Demigods. It was always interesting, but it wasn't until I read the Mongoose RuneQuest Lankhmar supplement that I had really caught the bug and wanted to give the books a whirl. Last week, I downloaded Swords and Deviltry off of the iTunes bookstore (alas, they don't have The Dying Earth series) and was formally introduced to some of the greatest thieves in fantasy history.
I loved the book.
For my eighth birthday, I received The Hobbit and started down the fantasy path. My aunt got me the Chronicles of Narnia and The Once and Future King, but I really liked the Tolkien side more. TSR started putting out the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms novels and I really stopped reading fantasy when I outgrew that crap. I picked up some Warhammer Fantasy novels over the last few years, which I considered fun, throwaway reading. Nothing great, but fun.
Fritz Lieber's Lankhmar books are really great reads for D&D players and referees. Maybe some of the new-school players might want something more "epic" or "heroic," but for the most part, the concept of adventurers (not heroes) who basically do the right thing for sometimes the wrong reason appeals to the kind of people I play with a lot of the time. Yeah, some guys really like to try to play the boy scout paladin, but most players are pretty much into self-improvement, loot, and glory.
Having finished Swords and Deviltry, I can see the influence the series had on the game. And I also see how it can maybe steer you as a player and DM to a different place. I recommend the books wholeheartedly. Check them out if you haven't already.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Traveller Sandbox: Using Mongoose's Merchant Prince as a basis for the Troupe
I've been back from Afghanistan for about a week now. The requisite post-deployment bender is over and it's time to get back to work, both here and in real life. I put enough PBR into my system over the last four days to make Lindsay Lohan nervous, but I emerged no worse for wear.
While traveling back, I started looking over some of the mini-games and additional rules in the Mongoose Traveller books, to include the fame guidelines in Dilettante and the business rules in Merchant Prince. The business rules were the ones that caught my eye. I had created 16 interrelated characters who would form the crux of the troupe. Using those characters and Merchant Prince, it's easy to create a business framework to give the campaign a plausible background and different mulligans for adventures.
The first step to the creation of a commercial entity is a name and a mission statement. In order to give the players maximum room for adventuring, I'm thinking it'll be a "troubleshooting" company, which will allow players to be hired out to examine problems and enact solutions that other people/companies cannot handle internally. Since I'm looking to hold it in QLI's Gateway Domain, I'll set it in the Imperial Trade Cluster and call the company Far End Cluster Executive Consulting, GmbH. The Far End Cluster name gives the company a throwback to the past and "executive consulting" is a nice, vague way of allowing leeway in company activities. Our mission statement will be "FECEC will solve whatever problems you require with maximum efficiency and discretion." It's nice, simple, and to the point.
This is, I'm thinking, a Simple mission statement, giving a Control 7 (+0), Dependability 9 (+1), Guile 5 (-1), Management 10 (+1).
The next step is to determine the leadership of FECEC. There were five characters with noble titles. I'm thinking they will be the Board of Directors. They are:
Sir Alaaru Sarudiin, C.E.G. (7 terms Nobility)
Dame Mirai Reus, C.E.G. (2 terms Mercenary, 1 term Drifter, 5 terms Agent)
Baronet Nashu Dinsha, K.C.E.G. (4 terms Nobility, 5 terms Merchant)
Dame Susanna Lien, K.S.C, K.C.E.G. (4 terms Entertainer)
Sir Wulis Vanay, K.S.C (5 terms Entertainer)
One thing I'll disagree with in Merchant Prince is the categorization of Royal Traders as Nobles, not Merchants. It seems silly that someone like Nashu who spent 20 years brokering deals for nobles will not have access to the Brokerage skill (even though he is a Broker-4). So, he gets five terms in the Merchants as opposed to 9 in the Nobles. Spending the points, I decided to give them all at least one point in every skill, since you need to be able to do a little bit of everything as a troubleshooting company. What we ended up with were the following skills:
Advocacy-5, Agency-2, Brokerage-4, Fabrication-1, Investment-6, Mischief-3, Nobility-6, Propaganda-6, Research-2, Shipping-1
The derived traits for the company end up being Loyalty 10 (employees being fanatically devoted), Reputation 10 (one of the area's most respected companies), Wealth 64 (and this is without any board or outside investment), The starting employee pool is 144. This gives us an initial ranking of 0. FECEC is not even close to being a major player in the economics of the region, but they are a highly respected niche agency.
There look to be two Industry Lines that our Wealth and concept can support: Workforce Management and Quality Control. As a company which can supply labor and process analysis, FECEC's main functions are investigating and auditing companies, as well as getting them in touch with employees who can fulfill certain needs. This will translate into game terms as investigations and testing (Quality Control) in a Red Team vein, breaking into secure locations to test security and the such, as well as the players being hired out (Work Force Management) on different missions.
At this point, we have a company ready for the mini-games, a framework for the Troupe and several leads on future adventures.
While traveling back, I started looking over some of the mini-games and additional rules in the Mongoose Traveller books, to include the fame guidelines in Dilettante and the business rules in Merchant Prince. The business rules were the ones that caught my eye. I had created 16 interrelated characters who would form the crux of the troupe. Using those characters and Merchant Prince, it's easy to create a business framework to give the campaign a plausible background and different mulligans for adventures.
The first step to the creation of a commercial entity is a name and a mission statement. In order to give the players maximum room for adventuring, I'm thinking it'll be a "troubleshooting" company, which will allow players to be hired out to examine problems and enact solutions that other people/companies cannot handle internally. Since I'm looking to hold it in QLI's Gateway Domain, I'll set it in the Imperial Trade Cluster and call the company Far End Cluster Executive Consulting, GmbH. The Far End Cluster name gives the company a throwback to the past and "executive consulting" is a nice, vague way of allowing leeway in company activities. Our mission statement will be "FECEC will solve whatever problems you require with maximum efficiency and discretion." It's nice, simple, and to the point.
This is, I'm thinking, a Simple mission statement, giving a Control 7 (+0), Dependability 9 (+1), Guile 5 (-1), Management 10 (+1).
The next step is to determine the leadership of FECEC. There were five characters with noble titles. I'm thinking they will be the Board of Directors. They are:
Sir Alaaru Sarudiin, C.E.G. (7 terms Nobility)
Dame Mirai Reus, C.E.G. (2 terms Mercenary, 1 term Drifter, 5 terms Agent)
Baronet Nashu Dinsha, K.C.E.G. (4 terms Nobility, 5 terms Merchant)
Dame Susanna Lien, K.S.C, K.C.E.G. (4 terms Entertainer)
Sir Wulis Vanay, K.S.C (5 terms Entertainer)
One thing I'll disagree with in Merchant Prince is the categorization of Royal Traders as Nobles, not Merchants. It seems silly that someone like Nashu who spent 20 years brokering deals for nobles will not have access to the Brokerage skill (even though he is a Broker-4). So, he gets five terms in the Merchants as opposed to 9 in the Nobles. Spending the points, I decided to give them all at least one point in every skill, since you need to be able to do a little bit of everything as a troubleshooting company. What we ended up with were the following skills:
Advocacy-5, Agency-2, Brokerage-4, Fabrication-1, Investment-6, Mischief-3, Nobility-6, Propaganda-6, Research-2, Shipping-1
The derived traits for the company end up being Loyalty 10 (employees being fanatically devoted), Reputation 10 (one of the area's most respected companies), Wealth 64 (and this is without any board or outside investment), The starting employee pool is 144. This gives us an initial ranking of 0. FECEC is not even close to being a major player in the economics of the region, but they are a highly respected niche agency.
There look to be two Industry Lines that our Wealth and concept can support: Workforce Management and Quality Control. As a company which can supply labor and process analysis, FECEC's main functions are investigating and auditing companies, as well as getting them in touch with employees who can fulfill certain needs. This will translate into game terms as investigations and testing (Quality Control) in a Red Team vein, breaking into secure locations to test security and the such, as well as the players being hired out (Work Force Management) on different missions.
At this point, we have a company ready for the mini-games, a framework for the Troupe and several leads on future adventures.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Back Home
I returned to Colorado Springs safe and sound. No more trips to the box for this guy.
The blog will begin Monday and Thursday updates starting Monday, September 27, 2010. In the meantime, I will be reacquainting myself with good food and beer.
The blog will begin Monday and Thursday updates starting Monday, September 27, 2010. In the meantime, I will be reacquainting myself with good food and beer.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
GM's Delimma: One Rule to... Ring... them... **facepalm**
While I am sure that many of you are reading James Maliszewski's outstanding column, Grognardia, for those who aren't, I steer you towards the "Old School" does not equal "Rules Light" post. For someone who has played more systems than Afghanistan has AKs, it's interesting to see people look under the hood of RPGs and start to examine why we like the games we like.
Alexander Macris from The Escapist Magazine, puts forth a very interesting way of look at things:
Perhaps my law school background has colored my thinking on this matter, but I don't view games as "rules light" or "rules heavy". I view them as "common law" or "statutory".
A "common law" game is one in which only the basic principles are given, and then it is up to the GM to elaborate those principles into the law of his campaign over time. However, a good GM does not run such a game by whim; he acts like a judge, following his own past precedents. Over time, the game ceases being rules light, because it has accumulated a campaign's worth of rulings, house rules, and interpretations.
In contrast, a "statutory game" is one in which all facets of gameplay are spelled out by the game designers. Questions that arise during gameplay are solved by re-reading the text and determining what they say, and ambiguities are resolved by trying to understand the intent of the writers.
The benefits of common law games are that they end up being customized to the experiences of their particular set of players. But they rely on having a good Judge (in the literal sense of the world) to issue good rulings, and keep track of his "case law". A bad Judge can screw things up with bad rulings, unbalanced decisions, and so on.
The benefit of statutory games is that you are not reliant on the rulings of a Judge. The drawback is that the games are more complex to understand up front, and may have just as many problems as a common law game, but be harder to fix.
This is, in writing, what a lot of people who have been gaming for years have experienced in the different games we've played. How many 20+ year vets can look back to how we played our D&D and say that we did it the same? I'm sure that if you plopped five old-timers down at a table and talked about the house rules and on-the-fly calls we or our DMs have made, we'd be there for hours. Hopefully beer is involved.
I don't see many "common law" games coming out these days, none of them from the major publishers. It's better business sense for a company to follow a "statutory law" mindset. Let's take the grand poobah of games these days, D&D4e, as an example. With the extraordinary number of powers and classes and feats and paragon paths and epic destinies and magic items, you've already got a million choices, but they are choices that are already made for you. "Oh? You want to play a double-scimitar wielding dark elf who isn't evil? Cool, choose this, this, and THIS."*
The more statutory you become as a system, the less you can rely on GM/Player caveat to break the mold. In Warhammer Fantasy's first two editions**, you are reliant on either shoehorning unique character concepts into the existing careers or creating your own. In D&D 4e, you need to support these options through, at best, creation of a new epic destiny or paragon path. At worst, you are creating 30 levels worth of powers, that may or may not unbalance the game.
I guess what it comes down to is some systems are better for some players. When you want your players to have the widest berth, able to do all things with greatness, a common law game is probably your best bet. When you want something a bit more realistic, where your characters are good at what they're good at and okay at other things, a statutory game is more the speed.
I like them all. I just like gaming.
* For the record, I LOVED The Crystal Shard when it came out, but I have really developed a loathing for Drizzt in the years hence. In particular, it was the spawning of "I'm the noble <insert heretofore evil race>, why am I persecuted so?" archetypes in games.
** I bought the three-ton box that is WHFRP 3e, and I tried to wrap my head around it, but I haven't. Maybe in November.
Alexander Macris from The Escapist Magazine, puts forth a very interesting way of look at things:
Perhaps my law school background has colored my thinking on this matter, but I don't view games as "rules light" or "rules heavy". I view them as "common law" or "statutory".
A "common law" game is one in which only the basic principles are given, and then it is up to the GM to elaborate those principles into the law of his campaign over time. However, a good GM does not run such a game by whim; he acts like a judge, following his own past precedents. Over time, the game ceases being rules light, because it has accumulated a campaign's worth of rulings, house rules, and interpretations.
In contrast, a "statutory game" is one in which all facets of gameplay are spelled out by the game designers. Questions that arise during gameplay are solved by re-reading the text and determining what they say, and ambiguities are resolved by trying to understand the intent of the writers.
The benefits of common law games are that they end up being customized to the experiences of their particular set of players. But they rely on having a good Judge (in the literal sense of the world) to issue good rulings, and keep track of his "case law". A bad Judge can screw things up with bad rulings, unbalanced decisions, and so on.
The benefit of statutory games is that you are not reliant on the rulings of a Judge. The drawback is that the games are more complex to understand up front, and may have just as many problems as a common law game, but be harder to fix.
This is, in writing, what a lot of people who have been gaming for years have experienced in the different games we've played. How many 20+ year vets can look back to how we played our D&D and say that we did it the same? I'm sure that if you plopped five old-timers down at a table and talked about the house rules and on-the-fly calls we or our DMs have made, we'd be there for hours. Hopefully beer is involved.
I don't see many "common law" games coming out these days, none of them from the major publishers. It's better business sense for a company to follow a "statutory law" mindset. Let's take the grand poobah of games these days, D&D4e, as an example. With the extraordinary number of powers and classes and feats and paragon paths and epic destinies and magic items, you've already got a million choices, but they are choices that are already made for you. "Oh? You want to play a double-scimitar wielding dark elf who isn't evil? Cool, choose this, this, and THIS."*
The more statutory you become as a system, the less you can rely on GM/Player caveat to break the mold. In Warhammer Fantasy's first two editions**, you are reliant on either shoehorning unique character concepts into the existing careers or creating your own. In D&D 4e, you need to support these options through, at best, creation of a new epic destiny or paragon path. At worst, you are creating 30 levels worth of powers, that may or may not unbalance the game.
I guess what it comes down to is some systems are better for some players. When you want your players to have the widest berth, able to do all things with greatness, a common law game is probably your best bet. When you want something a bit more realistic, where your characters are good at what they're good at and okay at other things, a statutory game is more the speed.
I like them all. I just like gaming.
* For the record, I LOVED The Crystal Shard when it came out, but I have really developed a loathing for Drizzt in the years hence. In particular, it was the spawning of "I'm the noble <insert heretofore evil race>, why am I persecuted so?" archetypes in games.
** I bought the three-ton box that is WHFRP 3e, and I tried to wrap my head around it, but I haven't. Maybe in November.
Monday, September 13, 2010
The next few months
I'm redeploying from Afghanistan and then moving right into clearing the Army and moving to Pennsylvania from Colorado.
I think I am going to shoot for Monday and Thursday posts here.
The rest of this week may be a wash, however. Depends on internet access.
I think I am going to shoot for Monday and Thursday posts here.
The rest of this week may be a wash, however. Depends on internet access.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
The Day That Changed My Life
Nine years ago, I was sleeping on my buddy Dan's couch. I wasn't what you would call a contributor to the common good. I was technically homeless (although I was pretty much allowed on the couch at will), collecting unemployment, and taking one class at the local college. It had been a pretty hard night of drinking the previous evening, so I was not terribly pleased when Dan's roommate Robin woke me up.
"Dennis, your mom is on the phone. She sounds pretty upset," Robin said. I took the phone.
"Turn on the TV. We're under attack."
As I turned on the TV, the second tower collapsed.
The next few days were a bit of a blur. I remember the bars being packed. And silent. Everyone wanted to be around each other, but we were all glued to the news. I tried to give blood, but getting there three hours early wasn't enough to beat the lines. I gave some cash here and there. None of it was terribly satisfying.
I realized that the world was no longer about me and I wanted to contribute.
About a week later, I watched a W. speech and it hit me like a ton of bricks. "I need to join the Army and get in this fight." That night, I went to my parents' house and told them this much. The next day, I went into the Army recruiting station. The day after that, I signed some papers. The following day, I took my ASVAB. The next day a physical and a meeting with the career counselor. I raised my right hand that afternoon. It was September 24th, 2001.
Nine years on, I am coming to the end of this stage of my military career. I'm in Afghanistan for the second time, involved in the war I enlisted to fight. I can add to that five tours to Iraq, the war I am not sure we had any business fighting. Only time will tell how that plays out. I have a greater understanding of so many things. I can call myself a paratrooper and a veteran now, whereas before the words more commonly used to describe me were dropout and drunk.
I realize that this post is all about me, when today should not be. Today is about the dead we mourn and the families they left behind. Today is about the images that are forever seared in our minds. Today is about remembering that there is something larger than each of us individually.
There was a run today on Bagram. 9.11km. The t-shirts provided to the participants reminded us to "Never Forget." For some of us who grew up close to or in New York City and Washington D.C., that's never going to be an issue. Colin Stewart, a Long Island native who I went to basic training with, attended 37 funerals between September 11 and when he shipped to basic.
You can wrap up things in tidy slogans--Never Forget, Let's Roll, Freedom Endures--but we must remember that there is a greater truth that cannot be summed up in a catch phrase. Today has a different meaning to each of us. I guess what is important is that it does have a meaning.
"Dennis, your mom is on the phone. She sounds pretty upset," Robin said. I took the phone.
"Turn on the TV. We're under attack."
As I turned on the TV, the second tower collapsed.
The next few days were a bit of a blur. I remember the bars being packed. And silent. Everyone wanted to be around each other, but we were all glued to the news. I tried to give blood, but getting there three hours early wasn't enough to beat the lines. I gave some cash here and there. None of it was terribly satisfying.
I realized that the world was no longer about me and I wanted to contribute.
About a week later, I watched a W. speech and it hit me like a ton of bricks. "I need to join the Army and get in this fight." That night, I went to my parents' house and told them this much. The next day, I went into the Army recruiting station. The day after that, I signed some papers. The following day, I took my ASVAB. The next day a physical and a meeting with the career counselor. I raised my right hand that afternoon. It was September 24th, 2001.
Nine years on, I am coming to the end of this stage of my military career. I'm in Afghanistan for the second time, involved in the war I enlisted to fight. I can add to that five tours to Iraq, the war I am not sure we had any business fighting. Only time will tell how that plays out. I have a greater understanding of so many things. I can call myself a paratrooper and a veteran now, whereas before the words more commonly used to describe me were dropout and drunk.
I realize that this post is all about me, when today should not be. Today is about the dead we mourn and the families they left behind. Today is about the images that are forever seared in our minds. Today is about remembering that there is something larger than each of us individually.
There was a run today on Bagram. 9.11km. The t-shirts provided to the participants reminded us to "Never Forget." For some of us who grew up close to or in New York City and Washington D.C., that's never going to be an issue. Colin Stewart, a Long Island native who I went to basic training with, attended 37 funerals between September 11 and when he shipped to basic.
You can wrap up things in tidy slogans--Never Forget, Let's Roll, Freedom Endures--but we must remember that there is a greater truth that cannot be summed up in a catch phrase. Today has a different meaning to each of us. I guess what is important is that it does have a meaning.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Traveller Sandbox: A Troupe
While watching an Afghanistan morning unfold from the Bagram East Green Bean, I was thinking about Traveller. I don't recall the exact thought chain but the result was an idea for troupe play.
Each player generates a five or six term character. If they bust out or choose to retire after five, they stop at five. If they bust out at six, they're done at six, if they don't--they're still done at six. These will be the Primary Characters.
Then each player will generate a pair of two or three term character. Similar rules apply as above. These will be the Secondary Characters.
Then each player will generate two one term characters. These will go into the Crew Pool.
I'll fill in the gaping holes in the crew with one term characters which will also be part of the Crew Pool.
If this sounds a lot like Ars Magica's troupe play, you're correct. I never claimed to be original.
The Primaries will be the main determinants of where the ship goes and what large-scale business it undertakes. They will drive, early on, the main plots of the campaign. Each adventure will feature one Primary and the rest Secondaries and Crew. I'll give players the option to play a Crew in addition to either their Primary or one of their Secondaries. The Crew characters are, for all intents and purposes, old-school D&D Hirelings. Sure, some can advance to become Secondaries, as Secondaries can eventually become primaries. Look at Miles O'Brien on the different Star Trek series he has been on. What began as what may as well be a named extra, he got more roles on ST:TNG and eventually branched off onto ST:DS9.
A few other thoughts...
Who has played troupe games before? Any advice or criticism?
Each player generates a five or six term character. If they bust out or choose to retire after five, they stop at five. If they bust out at six, they're done at six, if they don't--they're still done at six. These will be the Primary Characters.
Then each player will generate a pair of two or three term character. Similar rules apply as above. These will be the Secondary Characters.
Then each player will generate two one term characters. These will go into the Crew Pool.
I'll fill in the gaping holes in the crew with one term characters which will also be part of the Crew Pool.
If this sounds a lot like Ars Magica's troupe play, you're correct. I never claimed to be original.
The Primaries will be the main determinants of where the ship goes and what large-scale business it undertakes. They will drive, early on, the main plots of the campaign. Each adventure will feature one Primary and the rest Secondaries and Crew. I'll give players the option to play a Crew in addition to either their Primary or one of their Secondaries. The Crew characters are, for all intents and purposes, old-school D&D Hirelings. Sure, some can advance to become Secondaries, as Secondaries can eventually become primaries. Look at Miles O'Brien on the different Star Trek series he has been on. What began as what may as well be a named extra, he got more roles on ST:TNG and eventually branched off onto ST:DS9.
A few other thoughts...
- Primaries need to have a Connection with another Primary and a Secondary, run by a different player.
- Crew do not get Ship Shares as mustering out benefits.
- I'm thinking of giving Primaries 3 free Ship Shares and Secondaries 1 free ship share each. If I have a group of four players, that WOULD give the PCs a 20% discount on the ship on top of what Ship Shares they generate through Character Creation. This is worth MILLIONS. I get that. I think that given the vagaries of this particular style of play, it might be worth giving the players a break, since they aren't exactly set up for success.
- Trade would occupy a few of the characters who aren't on an adventure. The rest would get to do something like the Character Catch-Up from Cities, but specifically geared for this milieu. Since the group as a whole will cover the job aspect with trade/adventure, this would be more of a reflection of what kind of trouble they get into on liberty.
- I've got several people who I know would love to play, but can't do so all of the time. This would work very well for them, as they can be assumed to be in the background when they aren't around and email sessions of the CCU would keep them current.
Who has played troupe games before? Any advice or criticism?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)