- When Matt Riggsby posted about a combat wheelchair, I didn't realize this was a thing on the internet. By "thing," I mean "controversial idea that is Hurting Wrong Fun." But also, GURPS probably has stats for a combat wheelchair - after all, the Silver Horde of Cohen the Barbarian is in GURPS Discworld. I'm far away from my 3e copy, and I don't have a 4e copy, but perhaps it has stats for Mad Hamish's scythe-bladed wheelchair?
- So you want to play D&D as a skirmish game? And create amazing terrain out of foamcore to do it? And complain about odd results with unusual amount of results-clumping from using online die rollers?
D&D Tactics: Goblin Arrows Part 1 - Ambush
- Joe the Lawyer interview Robert Conley and Tim "Quantum 1s" Shorts.
Great guys.
The Epic Tim Shorts and Rob Conley.
- There is a lot of game inspiration here, in this article in Smithsonian about ancient Nubia:
In the Land of Kush
The clash-of-empires bit as Egypt dominates Nubia, then weakens, and then is conquered in turn by Nubia is gaming-rich material. So is the eventual fact that the Nubian dynasty was eventually replaced by still more conquerors. Like China, Egypt was conquered repeatedly but often its conquerors adapted its ways. That's a useful thing to remember when structuring a fantasy empire, too. Oh sure, the hobgoblins conquered the elf kingdom, but then they started to be less and less goblin-y and more and more elf-y, appointed elf counselors, spoke elvish as a sign of their place as rightful rulers, start to dress like elves . . .
Anyway that's afield of what the article covers - but it's one of those articles that makes me think, "I want to play RPGs right now" as I read it.
- Map geormorphs. I'm not sure what I can do with this post, but I was really interested by it. Mapping on a computer would probably beat graph paper in the long run.
- But What is a Dickhead? - This post has good examples of bad behavior by players. I think they all boil down to "don't put your fun above the group's fun" or "don't clash with the group culture." There is probably a better way to say it, but like "don't be evil" or "don't be an a**hole" I think "don't be a dickhead" and mine re-phrases all have one big issue - telling people what not to do isn't always a good approach. In coaching, saying, "Don't do X" isn't as effective as "Do Y." "Push your knees out" is better than "Don't let your knees collapse in." So maybe we need a better expression? I could rephrase one of mine as "Put the group's fun ahead of your fun." Something like that, perhaps?
- James M. has a post about the change in orc entries from OD&D to AD&D. I see some of the change he's talking about - orcs going from often being lackeys to someone else (25% per 100 of a fighter, 10% chance per 100 of a high-level magic-users, 10% chances of a dragon or trolls per his post) to a kind of people, with young and females and whatnot. I still disagree with his conclusion - that OD&D orcs are "monsters" and AD&D ones are "humanoids" and thus more people-like. The OD&D ones lived in villages when above ground. Villages = civilization to me. Especially since they also have walls, towers, escort wagon trains, defend their lairs quite fiercely (no morale checks until outnumbered 3:1!) - so they clearly have a sense of home. You can be a culture and a civilization without villages, but I don't think you can have villages and be "monsters." That might be my own limited imagination, but I think it's less of a stretch to say their village dwellings in white-box D&D suddenly gaining a specific number of females in AD&D (and losing their class-and-level champions, who presumably were not orcs . . . although D&D doesn't specify that) suddenly changes anything. It feels like they're just as much "humanoids" in their first iteration as they are later. Halflings and Cavemen, for other examples, also don't mention women and children, but presumably they have them. Suddenly adding them doesn't make "cavemen" no longer monsters.
It just feels like a stretch.
- I was googling my latest book recently, just to see if I could find any other reviews besides Mailanka's. Instead, what I came up with was this:
Roleplay Rescue Episode 105: Delving the Megadungeon
I couldn't figure out why, so what the heck, I gave it a listen. Turns out I'm brought up by name in the podcast. Considering the only reasons to write RPG books are a) fame, b) fortune, and c) because no one wrote the book you need - and there is no b), I was pleased. Also, surprised that I had no idea that this happened 20 months ago and no one mentioned it to me. Hah.
I will say I think he mis-characterizes my suggestion that megadungeons aren't low-prep with meaning they aren't fun to prep. They can be both. It's work. Just because you like the work, doesn't mean it's not work. Doing a megadungeon with GURPS takes a bit more work than it would with another system, but that's a side issue. So I disagree there. I love my other job - I'm a trainer, kickboxing instructor, Pilates instructor, and nutrition coach - but it still takes time and effort. Just like Felltower does.
Anyway, the main point is, I blame everybody except me for me not knowing I got a podcast mention.
A quick check of my copy of Discworld (for 3rd edition) turns up no stats for Mad Hamish or his wheelchair. Unsurprising, seeing as he's a supporting character appearing in only two books.
ReplyDeleteThat makes me think, though, that I need to update the "dungeoneering wheelchair" post to include spikes and scythes. I know there are GURPS rules for adding scythes to chariots, but I don't remember where. Something Phil wrote? Did *I* write them?
It came up during the playtest for Transports of Fantasy. I remember asking how much it cost to enchant such scythes.
DeleteNormal scythe blades should be in one of the Low-Tech books, but those I can't look in at the moment.
I did eventually find those rules and updated accordingly.
DeleteThanks for the shout out about Tim and I's podcast. It was a lot of fun to do.
ReplyDelete"I could rephrase one of mine as "Put the group's fun ahead of your fun." Something like that, perhaps?"
ReplyDeleteI prefer "If your fun comes at the expense of the group, change groups". Because I'm not going to play where I'm not allowed to have fun (I know that's not the intent of your statement, but I've seen it taken to those illogical extremes).
"The OD&D ones lived in villages when above ground. Villages = civilization to me."
Also, they don't use mechanical weapons* in BECM...so 'village' might not mean the same things to Mentzer and Moldavy as it does to you.
.* Specifically mentioned is 'catapults', but one could extrapolate this out to be all siege weapons, crossbows, and the like. I'm now mildly enamored with the idea of running orcs as just primitive (TL 1) brutish humans in a future Fantasy campaign...
"I don't think you can have villages and be "monsters.""
That's certainly subject to opinion. Depends heavily on your definition of 'monster', and what work that word is doing in your campaign. Are your Orcs 'monsters'? They clearly have the technological trappings that come with "villages" despite not being encountered in a "village".
And I'm sure you aren't meaning that nomad tribes are more prone to monstrousness than village dwelling tribes... ;)
"Anyway, the main point is, I blame everybody except me for me not knowing I got a podcast mention."
Sorry boss, I don't listen to podcasts. And I promise to do worse in the future.
See my reply below on the first part.
DeleteOD&D specifically lists catapults as something they do use, so that's a change.
Are my orcs "monsters"? I don't know. They're not really any worse than the PCs. Are the PCs monsters? In some senses, maybe. The orcs are just a group that defaults to combat as a solution and is at cross-purposes with the PCs. I do have some critters that are clearly monstrous, and often have some kind of symbolic monstrousness attached to them - dragons as greed, for example, or bugbears as childhood fears of monsters grabbing them in the night, whatever.
Pretty much anything that can talk and act socially I treat as a "person." I have zero issue with people killing other persons in my campaign. Those that aren't, I still try to have them do things that would make sense to whatever their view of the world would be. I try to give everything I put down in the game a fair shake, and have it act according to whatever nature I gave it. I feel it's all murder, in the end, but that's the nature of the game. It's paper man vs. paper man.
And no, it's not a "nomadic" thing, either - nomads aren't any less a valid culture. I'm just saying, if your orcs or oozes or dragons or eyes of death build villages and put up other "civilized" elements to them - walls, towers, defenses, organization, etc. - it's probably more of a stretch to say they're "just monsters." At some point, to someone, they're going to be neighbors, not a strange fearsome beast skulking off the dark places and doing dark things.
Although, there is that 10% chance per 100 that they hand out with wizards, and your friends speak volumes about you . . . Heh.
"Pretty much anything that can talk and act socially I treat as a "person.""
DeleteThat's how I run my games as well. I've never really understood the whole People/Monsters split. Are the Orcs a threat to your village and need to be dealt with? Yes? Yhen deal with them as you can. Same with the gibbering mouther. Deal with it.
That one can be negotiated with and the other can't, doesn't mean a whole lot, just that one has a more clear cut delineation of "Do we try talking first?"
But that whole "Alignment" thing in D&D, which means an 'Evil' race are 'monsters'... yeah... there are multiple reasons I don't run or play D&D, and Alignment is in the top 3 of both lists. (the lists just slightly reorder, but the same reasons are on both)
I'd rephrase the "don't be a dick" yet again as "Put the group's fun on same priority as your fun." No need to self-sacrifice and put yourself lower. In fact, I think that self-sacrifice would be destructive as well. At some point it could suck all the fun out of playing.
ReplyDeleteThat's true, which demonstrates the difficulty of trying to make memorable, pithy saying to encompass a larger concept. What I'm really going for is for everyone to have fun, and to get enjoyment out of the group's fun as well as your own - and not to let yours trump the group's.
DeleteYou know it's a good group when half the party is down - knocked out, paralyzed, off on some other scene - and the whole group is locked in on the action of a single player or a smaller subset of the group. That's the ideal. That's not even that hard to accomplish . . . if everyone is concerned about playing the game in a way that makes it fun for everyone.
That might be the way to state it - "Play the game in a way that makes it fun for everyone." As close to equally fun for everyone is ideal, but putting in "equally fun" opens the phrase to a lot of unnecessary criticism.