Who Gets the Magic Item You Found? - Addenda

This is related to Who Gets the Magic Item You Found?

Who is actually going to use it?

Another option for handing out magic items is simply, who will actually use it? This approach hands off items - especially charged or consumable items, although not always - to the person most likely to actually use it. Yes, the high-DX Thief might actually be the best person to give a grenade-type potion to, but if the Thief isn't ever going to be ready to throw it, it's not a great choice. The wizard might be the most likely to use a wand, even if giving it to another PC means you have multiple sources of magical attack. The cleric might benefit the most from an undead-turning item, but if the cleric will generally end up healing and not turning, giving it to someone else might be a better solution. Somethings this isn't template or character based, but player based - some players are more likely to hold on to items until they really need it, others to use it whever it seems like a good choice. Conversely, you might keep certain items away from certain PCs or players because they're unlikely to use it well - the guy who insists on using his new-fangled Wand of Fireballs every fight, or who tosses back rare potions just to get to use them up. This approach chooses actually basic utility over maximal utility, either chosen to avoid waste or avoid lack of use.

Finders, Keepers

Even in a cooperative game, sometimes the person who gets it is the person who finds it. Or the group that finds in. In a rotating cast of PCs game, a delve might leave out the dwarf fighter because that player is busy on game day, only to find dwarf-sized magic armor . . . and sell it, trade it, or give it to some dwarf NPC because the PC wasn't around to earn it. You may have to have some part in the finding to have any part of the keeping.



Any I missed, in this post or the previous one?

My Modified Mook Rule & Hard to Subdue

I use a modified mook rule, as discussed in these two posts:

My Modified DF Mook Rule
Reflections on my Modified Mook rule in play

I still use these in play, although they don't come up as often as you'd probably expect; unsure of what foe is a mook or not, PCs generally fight as if everyone is a potential boss monster and go for random hit locations hoping for a cripple or lucky vitals/neck/skull shot, or "aim for the hit points" and try to just force the foe down to -5xHP as fast as possible. In effect, going for the surety of eventual death but skipping the possible quick knockout by forcing lots of rolls, penalized or otherwise. But still, they are there.

I am considering modifying the effect of Hard to Subdue, however.

Instead of an off/on switch for the auto-fail of HT rolls, each level of Hard to Subdue pushes the auto-fail threshold down 1xHP.

So a mook auto-fails at 0 HP or below.

One with Hard to Subdue 1 auto-fails at -1xHP or below.

Hard to Subdue 2 fails at -2xHP or below.

Etc. Only 4 levels matter as -5xHP is automatic death without certain advantages - none of which you'd find on something that counts as a mook!


This can allow Hard to Subdue to have its normal effect, but not act as such a big swing between automatic failure and a tough fight - especially since HT 12 is pretty common on the kind of foes that have Hard to Subdue 1+, and HT 13 is likely to keep a foe up for a long, long time.


I'm not sure if I'll do this, but I'm leaning toward it pretty heavily.

A "Dungeons & Dragons" Adventure - Comic Book Back Cover Ad

On the back of one of my comics - ROM: Spaceknight issue #28, March 1982, I found this advertisement for Dungeons & Dragons drawn by Bill Willingham.

As always, these are pretty goofy. Mysterious powers, an easily-scared (and easily-comforted) elf, a dragon-scaring sword, not a lot accomplished. At least there is a dungeon and a dragon.

The great sword Naril indeed. Just bite him, dragon, he's got like AC 4. And nothing more comforting after a red dragon nearly roasts you than relaxing by a warm fire, eh?

Felltower & Hiring Henchmen - Making Skill beat IQ

This post, and rules change, is heavily inspired by comments by Douglas Cole. His comment was that knights - with Born War Leader - should be better at recruiting hirelings - than the cleric, whose IQ beats the knight's Born War Leader-improved Leadership skill. I was immediately swayed by this, but I didn't love the rough proposed suggestion of making BWL or Leadership work better. I think the issue is that IQ is too broadly effective.

Here is my proposed solution. This is a change to Where Did You Find This Guy?, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy 15: Henchmen, p. 29.

The base roll for finding a henchmen is IQ-3, instead of IQ. Skill rolls are unmodified.

As a secondary note, Loyalty rolls are made based on the hiring character. To quote DF15, p. 30:

"Make a reaction roll when a hireling first signs up. Apply the usual reaction modifiers of the hirer, who may be a PC or an NPC companion, and record the result. This number is effectively a new stat for hirelings: Loyalty."

So if the cleric (IQ 14) or wizard (IQ 15) goes out and hires a squire or killer, the roll for Loyalty is 3d6 plus or minus the net reaction modifier of the cleric or wizard. If the Knight (IQ 10) with Born War Leader 2 hires the same squire or killer, the roll gains a +2 for Born War Leader. Who they nominally are commanded by or working for doesn't matter, the actual hiring character matters.

Notes:

Why didn't I just do this when I wrote it? Well, I actually didn't write that section, that I recall. I believe it was purely Sean Punch, and it draws on GURPS Basic Set.

With this change and clarification, it should be clear that the best person for the job will almost always be the template closest to the specialty.

You can always keep the base IQ roll, give a bonus to Loyalty for higher skill - each level above IQ is worth +1. So a knight with Born War Leader 2, IQ 10, and Leadership-13 has a net +3 (+1 for Leadership at IQ+1, +2 for BWL 2, not double-counting BWL) on Loyalty. Compare that with a cleric with IQ 14 gaining a Loyalty bonus of +0. Or do both.

For Felltower, I chose to go with the IQ penalty, but I'm open to persuasion - and yes, I do roll Loyalty whenever danger arises or there is a need for some roll for bravery or loyalty. I just like the idea that specialists - and yes, Merchant works across the board - do better finding people than someone who is just intelligent.

Random Links for 10/4/2024

It's Friday, time for stuff that doesn't warrant a whole post.

- Next game is 10/20. Ugh. We're monthly. I'll have to see if there is a way to play more often.

- Sorting through my comic collection, I realized I like sci fi/supers crossovers a lot - lots of Dreadstar, Silver Surfer, Guardians of the Galaxy, some later Thor when he's dealing with the Sentinels, etc. in my collection. Well, that and liking certain writers a lot (Starlin and Hama especially).

- Also sorting through it, I'm reminded how much I think the FASERIP system of Marvel Super Heroes did an excellent job of representing four color superheroes. We never got a campaign going because Joe M. would only play Silver Surfer and Jack, Jason, Fred, Rob, and everyone else wouldn't play anyone except Wolverine. Well, maybe Jack would have settled for Spider-Man, but that's about it. Hard for young me to come up with a game to challenge a superteam of Silver Surfer and Wolverine and Spider-Man. Too bad chargen was garbage.

- I've been re-reading some GURPS rules and noted a few I think my players largely honor in the breach - like the penalties to HT rolls to avoid knockout* - and ones I ignore without intending to, like the delayed effects of poisons on SM-positive targets. I have an idea for the latter I kind of like, though, that will see a post next week.



* Which I think I originated in my article for GURPS 3e in Pyramid called ". . . And Stay Down!"

Return of my long-lost Car Wars countermix

Literally decades ago - probably almost 30 years ago now - I introduced a few of my gamers to Car Wars, Deluxe Edition. We played a game. Afterward, I left my whole countermix out on a table on top of the folded-up board from the Dungeon boardgame in the basement. Sometime later - the next day, maybe? - I went down to sort out my counters instead of having them all in one big pile.

They were gone. Nowhere to be found. I searched high and low, and found the Dungeon board on the table, but no counters. All gone.

I searched for quite a while, but assumed they'd been accidentally thrown out during some other cleanup in the basement.

So I literally replaced my entire collection to get a countermix. I found a Car Wars lot on Noble Knight and bought it. Deluxe Car Wars, Dueltrack, etc. I replaced a few map-and-counter supplements, too.

Flash forward to yesterday. I was cleaning out my comics collection, and one by one pulling bags from the comic long boxes and seeing what collection was in each. In one bag, along with a mix of comics, was a weird lumpy mass at the bottom of the oversized bag.

In it was my old countermix.

How it got there, I have no idea. Did someone in my family pour it into the bag and I didn't notice as I put comics in it?

We had cats. Was it possible one sat on the board, dumped the contents into the comics box and therefore the open bag? I used to keep my bagged comics right near my gaming table.

Did I put them away in that bag and complete forgot about it right away?

I have no idea.

But now, decades after my last game of DCW, I have two full countermixes. It's definitely my old countermix - I'd glued wrecks to the back of their unwrecked cars, colored a few favorite black and white counters with colored pencils, and otherwise customized things. And here it is.

Weird.

My replacement mix, sorted, and my old, unsorted mix:

Er, anyone for DCW-era Car Wars?

Felltower is All About Consensus

"Felltower is all about Safety" - Ulf, who died in Felltower

Riffing off of that, I'll say that Felltower is all about consensus.

One benefit of a pick-up, large-player-pool bounded sandbox game can be individually set goals. You see this in the West Marches:

Players send emails to the list saying when they want to play and what they want to do. A normal scheduling email would be something like “I’d like to play Tuesday. I want to go back and look for that ruined monastery we heard out about past the Golden Hills. I know Mike wants to play, but we could use one or two more. Who’s interested?” Interested players chime in and negotiation ensues. Players may suggest alternate dates, different places to explore (“I’ve been to the monastery and it’s too dangerous. Let’s track down the witch in Pike Hollow instead!”), whatever — it’s a chaotic process, and the details sort themselves out accordingly. In theory this mirrors what’s going on in the tavern in the game world: adventurers are talking about their plans, finding comrades to join them, sharing info, etc.

This is not how Felltower works.

For Felltower, it works this way:

1) GM and players decide on the next game date. This used to mean the next time at least a few people and I could play, but now means the next time almost everyone can make the game.

2) Sometimes by email, but usually on the game day itself, the players discuss what to do.

3) Verify with the GM that this is ready to go.

4) If 3 is satisfied, play. If not, go back to step 2.

We almost never have individual-led expeditions as described in the West Marches game. We don't get a lot of, "I want to sack the Black Library on 8/4. Who's coming?" and lot more "We're playing 8/4 and everyone except (these two PCs) can play. Where should we go?"

That was not how it was designed, though.

Originally, it went like this:

1) GM decides on the next day game can be run, with input from the players (since one of them hosted game.)

2) Anyone who can come, does come.

3) Players decide what to do.

4) Play.

It's a difference that has led to a much more traditionally style of game. We play when everyone's around, game frequency has dropped off as real-life concerns are compounded by the perceived need / desire to have almost everyone there, play is purely cooperative (no one is trying to raid location X without cutting everyone else in), and the game has grown more tolerant of multi-session delves.

Some of that is Felltower itself at this point - there are less hanging tag ends to pull on. Or at least, less that the players see and perceive as a potential way to get loot without dying. But it's been a consistent theme since early on. It's decision by consensus, not individually led sessions. PCs don't start as somewhat trepidatious weaker delvers and, as they grow stronger, branch out into individual goals and individual delves. Instead, they start out as somewhat trepidatious weaker delvers and grow into stronger, more and more group-oriented delvers. Regardless of how powerful they become, they continue to work together as a group and make decisions about delving as a group.

There are pros and cons, of course.

The pros are largely convivial play amongst the players. We don't have a lot of in-party conflict because we have players who either started as friends, or became so because of the game. It's almost always fun, no matter the result of the game, because everyone gets along. This pro doesn't take long to write out, but make no mistake - this is huge. Anyone who has played with That Guy knows that not having That Guy makes for a better experience. It's why I recruit friends, not gamers, into the game. At least gaming group has spun off from my group, with players who met playing Felltower (or the previous game I ran.)

But it does have downsides.

The main downside to consensus is that everyone in my group generally has to agree on a task. Or at least, not be opposed to it. So preferred play style / play tolerance dictates actions. We have at least one player who vociferously objects to purely exploratory or preperatory sessions. No filling in the map or just checking out some side areas or making sure of some half-checked areas. Bold delve or no delve. So when that player is around, those things can't happen . . . so they generally don't. We have some risk-averse players, who'd rather a sure thing than a long shot, and so that cuts out some high-risk high-reward options. There are others, too - some players are just either not interesed in mid-week email-based planning (or Discord based, assuming they're still using their Discord channel), or don't have time for it. So delves that require some planning don't get planned, and the "no pure planning sessions" guy won't spend Sunday on that, and the "no risk" guys won't go without planning because it's too risky, and no one seems to plan by email because they need full consensus to go.

One reason the last session's delve into the Brotherhood Complex had all of two hirelings - I don't think they even tried to hire Darkspire - was because I didn't have any more set up in the VTT. I didn't make any because no one affirmatively declared they'd go and hire them, and I don't do prep work for PC-centric actions like that on a maybe. Why didn't anyone declare affirmatively they'd hire them, even with a caveat of "when we go, which isn't decided yet*"? I do not know, but I think it's connected to this idea of consensus. Everyone didn't agree this was a thing to be done, so no one did it.

It even has some direct "off limits" results for Felltower. Black library? Not with a cleric, because they'll burn the books, but not without a cleric, because you need healing and curse mitigation. No dragons, because not everyone is on board for risking a grounded fight against a flying monster. I'm partly sure we lost one player because the whole "yes you have to roll for every door" style of play of Felltower annoyed him, and no one wanted to spend the time - least of all him - to knock down doors or fix broken entrances and such to make that a non-issue.

The game has changed as a result. It's still supportable, but it has had consequences. Less gaming sessions overall - a month with two game sessions is a good month. It used to be standard. It's not uncommon to miss a whole month. Players used to complain about how long it took to special order items and get enchantments done, but now they complain about lack of funds more - time between sessions is longer so the first is less of an issue but it takes big hauls each of the delves to net the same cash over time. More concern about TPKs and dead PCs, because losses are a more significant given less actual time to play and way a fallen PC falls out of a niche. Groups come together more as "What do we need?" and less as "I have a character idea." It resembles a lot more Session 0 in a traditional game than a pure pickup game would.

So concensus isn't all a bad thing - it does mean more player enjoyment and better cohesion as a group. But it does affect how Felltower is played.


* I'm still not doing the prep just in case, so it better be damn firm before I spend my non-session time loading up a bunch of NPCs and tokens and so on on a maybe. It's annoying work at best and wasted time consumption at worst. I'll do it when I have to.