Busy, busy week for me, and not for gaming. Here are a few things I did like, though, and some notes.
- Here is yet another look at Appendix N from the AD&D DUNGEONMASTERS GUIDE, with more Gygax commentary on his influences.
Prependix N
- This was the Traveller set I wanted. The bookstore had Starter Traveller and Deluxe Traveller. The first was $12, the second $20. I had $12. I really wish I'd saved up another $8 before I bought the game. I spent a lot of time with supplements that assumed you had the little black books, and nothing I had pointed back to pages in Starter Traveller. I felt like I'd gotten a bit of a broken game, because I could never tell what was missing or different.
Deluxe Traveller
- Mini combat in the Pacific in WW2.
- Game is Sunday, in all likelihood. I hope the PCs can find another gear and win this fight they're in, and finish exploring the dungeon. I expect it's likely to be another split session, though.
Friday, January 31, 2025
Sunday, January 26, 2025
DF Felltower: Why can't you temporarily suppress magic?
Over the course of Felltower, the question of countering magic has come up.
Canonically in GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, there is no way for PCs to temporarily suspend an enchantment. If magic is permanent, the effect remains and is not subject to the relatively simple and easy counters of Dispel Magic and Counterspell. Curse-like effects are often removable with Remove Curse, and you can dispel/counter non-permanent magic.
But it's deliberate that the spell list doesn't include Suspend Enchantment. Because of this, these things are generally true:
Dispel Magic doesn't harm created undead, contructs, or permanent enchantments (wether on items or locations.) It does generally have the potential to end the magic behind spells like Animate Shadow or Animate Object or Create Warrior. Some spells have very specific counters, and thus aren't subject to Dispel Magic - examples include Flesh to Stone and Entombment.
Counterspell can only directly counter spells, not magic effects in general, and are subject to the revised rules we use.
Ward is only useful defensively, and again, only against spells, not enchantments and magical effects that just happen to be possible to create with a spell. Just because you may potentially be able to Ward against Burning Touch doesn't mean all touch-based fire attacks from magical creatures are subject to Ward.
Remove Curse is effective against a special set of spells and effects - they're called out specifically in the descriptions of the individual spells.
Why?
Because enchantments should be special. They should not be subject to a high-skill caster or a good roll to end. Magic-based obstacles should be solved with cleverness or sucking up the effects, not by just spamming out Dispel Magic.
In additional, magical creatures - undead, constructs, mana-dependent beings, etc. - shouldn't be singled out for a special generic damage / save-or-die spell (such as allowing Dispel Magic to damage or outright kill such creatures). And if even some are, that means step one should always be casting Dispel Magic to see if it'll damage or kill such creatures. The spell would go from a way to counter temporary magic to doing that plus potentially killing otherwise potentially problem-causing foes. Don't know what to do with a critter? Start with Dispel Magic.
Therefore I don't even allow it on a critical - the "I rolled a 3, so a miracle occurs!" that is the equivalent of post-1st edition D&D/AD&D's "I rolled a 20." Allowing such would encourage people to just keep trying to same spells over and over and over, hoping/praying for a 3. Once that's possible, generally, people will just try Dispel Magic on everything unti it works. I've seen this with our special rule on Missile Shield that allows a 3 or 4 to penetrate it (if you had an effective 1+ skill in the first place, of course) - people just keep plugging away, hoping for that low roll that will solve the problem without them needing to find a different solution. I like that rule enough to keep it, but allowing it does push people to a thoughtless repetition of a failed tactic until they've rolled a 3 to see if it "really" doesn't work.
With that in mind, players can be sure that only NMZs really mess with their enchanted items, magical creatures won't just take damage from one spell that automatically acts as a damage spell / off button, and that spells designed to counter spells aren't the answer to fantasy problems that aren't instantly amenable to "I hit it really hard in the hit points."
Related:
Revised Dispel Magic (and for people who groan that a 1-hex spell was 3 seconds, 2 with Skill 20, is now 5 seconds, 3 seconds with skill 20, thus making the spell "useless" for combat . . . feel free to not cast it!)
But it's deliberate that the spell list doesn't include Suspend Enchantment. Because of this, these things are generally true:
Dispel Magic doesn't harm created undead, contructs, or permanent enchantments (wether on items or locations.) It does generally have the potential to end the magic behind spells like Animate Shadow or Animate Object or Create Warrior. Some spells have very specific counters, and thus aren't subject to Dispel Magic - examples include Flesh to Stone and Entombment.
Counterspell can only directly counter spells, not magic effects in general, and are subject to the revised rules we use.
Ward is only useful defensively, and again, only against spells, not enchantments and magical effects that just happen to be possible to create with a spell. Just because you may potentially be able to Ward against Burning Touch doesn't mean all touch-based fire attacks from magical creatures are subject to Ward.
Remove Curse is effective against a special set of spells and effects - they're called out specifically in the descriptions of the individual spells.
Why?
Because enchantments should be special. They should not be subject to a high-skill caster or a good roll to end. Magic-based obstacles should be solved with cleverness or sucking up the effects, not by just spamming out Dispel Magic.
In additional, magical creatures - undead, constructs, mana-dependent beings, etc. - shouldn't be singled out for a special generic damage / save-or-die spell (such as allowing Dispel Magic to damage or outright kill such creatures). And if even some are, that means step one should always be casting Dispel Magic to see if it'll damage or kill such creatures. The spell would go from a way to counter temporary magic to doing that plus potentially killing otherwise potentially problem-causing foes. Don't know what to do with a critter? Start with Dispel Magic.
Therefore I don't even allow it on a critical - the "I rolled a 3, so a miracle occurs!" that is the equivalent of post-1st edition D&D/AD&D's "I rolled a 20." Allowing such would encourage people to just keep trying to same spells over and over and over, hoping/praying for a 3. Once that's possible, generally, people will just try Dispel Magic on everything unti it works. I've seen this with our special rule on Missile Shield that allows a 3 or 4 to penetrate it (if you had an effective 1+ skill in the first place, of course) - people just keep plugging away, hoping for that low roll that will solve the problem without them needing to find a different solution. I like that rule enough to keep it, but allowing it does push people to a thoughtless repetition of a failed tactic until they've rolled a 3 to see if it "really" doesn't work.
With that in mind, players can be sure that only NMZs really mess with their enchanted items, magical creatures won't just take damage from one spell that automatically acts as a damage spell / off button, and that spells designed to counter spells aren't the answer to fantasy problems that aren't instantly amenable to "I hit it really hard in the hit points."
Related:
Revised Dispel Magic (and for people who groan that a 1-hex spell was 3 seconds, 2 with Skill 20, is now 5 seconds, 3 seconds with skill 20, thus making the spell "useless" for combat . . . feel free to not cast it!)
No Felltower Today
Due to a cold weather-related house problem, half of our gamers can't game today. We've postponed the resolution of the Brotherhood Complex. Next game date is as yet undecided.
Saturday, January 25, 2025
Trying some new VTT settings
I put in some new settings for the VTT for tomorrow:
- auto-popout for the Combat Tracker
- larger font sizes to make it easier to read
- I think I managed to turn off the ability to take yourself out of combat
- turned off the auto-open on the modifier bucket - huge for me, since I use two screens and it's effective in the middle
- maybe made some other tweaks that will affect combat positively . . . but we'll see. Sometimes it's hard to parse out what it is I'm actually causing to happen.
- auto-popout for the Combat Tracker
- larger font sizes to make it easier to read
- I think I managed to turn off the ability to take yourself out of combat
- turned off the auto-open on the modifier bucket - huge for me, since I use two screens and it's effective in the middle
- maybe made some other tweaks that will affect combat positively . . . but we'll see. Sometimes it's hard to parse out what it is I'm actually causing to happen.
Friday, January 24, 2025
Friday Links 1/24/2025
Friday has come.
- I finally got around to getting & reading Lyorn (Amazon.com link), by Steven Brust. He dedicated it to John M. "Mike" Ford, with regrets that Mike wouldn't be able to see it.
It involves a musical, with based-on-real-world-music songs in the text.
I mostly bring this up because, yeah, John M. Ford would have loved it.
I interacted with him on the Pyramid message boards back in the day, as I mentioned here. Knowing his taste, as soon as I saw the first music, I thought, oh, yeah, he would have loved this book. I'm not a musical guy, but I can read along and grin and bear it because of the dedication.
- I think our next game is Sunday. I hope so, because I'm planning on it.
- Yexil from Gamma World mini. I had no idea they made that. We met one of them, once.
- I finally got around to getting & reading Lyorn (Amazon.com link), by Steven Brust. He dedicated it to John M. "Mike" Ford, with regrets that Mike wouldn't be able to see it.
It involves a musical, with based-on-real-world-music songs in the text.
I mostly bring this up because, yeah, John M. Ford would have loved it.
I interacted with him on the Pyramid message boards back in the day, as I mentioned here. Knowing his taste, as soon as I saw the first music, I thought, oh, yeah, he would have loved this book. I'm not a musical guy, but I can read along and grin and bear it because of the dedication.
- I think our next game is Sunday. I hope so, because I'm planning on it.
- Yexil from Gamma World mini. I had no idea they made that. We met one of them, once.
Thursday, January 23, 2025
GURPS VTT Module Wish List
Here is a quick list of what I'd like to see in my VTT, especially for the GURPS module. I'll keep the updated as I go or as things change.
drag and drop damage onto the combat tracker. There are times I'd like to be able to drag and drop damage to the combat tracker. Or to an open character sheet, for that matter.
Ability to automatically assign a random 3-digit number after all NPCs. If I drop 10 orcs down on the board, giving them adjectives before their names just causes goofiness from my players. "Sleepy Orc" or "Angry Orc" is going to start a whole derailing series of time-wasting comments and annoy me. "Orc (175)" and "Orc (609)" are easy to tell apart and minimize the commentary.
Undo Damage. Look, sometimes people mess up their roll, or their target, or it gets on the wrong guy. One-click Undo would be awesome.
Assignable Mods. I'd like to be able to, on the fly, add changes to a figure. Give it Homogenous or additional DR or whatever and keep the change on the character.
GM-only visibility on statuses. I'd like to be able to put a status on an NPC that I know about, but that the PCs don't. They shouldn't know if someone is mentally stunned, or can fly (if they haven't flown yet), or have Armor 3 cast on them, or whatever. I'd like to mark it privately but visibly to me.
drag and drop damage onto the combat tracker. There are times I'd like to be able to drag and drop damage to the combat tracker. Or to an open character sheet, for that matter.
Ability to automatically assign a random 3-digit number after all NPCs. If I drop 10 orcs down on the board, giving them adjectives before their names just causes goofiness from my players. "Sleepy Orc" or "Angry Orc" is going to start a whole derailing series of time-wasting comments and annoy me. "Orc (175)" and "Orc (609)" are easy to tell apart and minimize the commentary.
Undo Damage. Look, sometimes people mess up their roll, or their target, or it gets on the wrong guy. One-click Undo would be awesome.
Assignable Mods. I'd like to be able to, on the fly, add changes to a figure. Give it Homogenous or additional DR or whatever and keep the change on the character.
GM-only visibility on statuses. I'd like to be able to put a status on an NPC that I know about, but that the PCs don't. They shouldn't know if someone is mentally stunned, or can fly (if they haven't flown yet), or have Armor 3 cast on them, or whatever. I'd like to mark it privately but visibly to me.
Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Are we still using . . . (Felltower Rules)
Let's look at some rules we've used in the past but may or may not be using now.
Are we still using Trademark Move?
In a word, no.
It's 1 point for a +1 to a very specific combo. Only a couple of PCs use such a combo, and even then, they vary it up based on circumstances. So it's just easier to say no, we're not using that anymore. I'm not willing to have people pick a "best case" scenario that factors in the +1, pay 1 point for it, and then use it only when it's the best option . . . and then modify it anytime their skill increases, and ignore it whenever they quaff an Agility potion to increase their DX as it's not optimized for the temporary, new DX. I'm not sure it's a great use of 1 point, but it's also a poor use of the rule, and it sure doesn't fit the bargain of speeding up play in return for a bonus.
If I could get my players to agree to fixed feints and fixed Deceptive Attack, I would go for this . . . but they're always proved fairly resistant to the concepts.
Are we still using the Modified Mook Rule?
Yes.
You don't see it quite as often. The PCs generally encounter larger numbers of Worthy foes and less mobs of Fodder. I don't use the Modified Mook Rule for Worthies, so . . . it's in play but doesn't show up as often. And the Modified Mook Rule doesn't apply Mook vs. Mook, so when you have a big brawl of 62-point hirelings vs. 62-point cultists neither side just drops automatically. Those two factors mean it's not as front-and-center as it could be.
Are we still doing No Rule Lookups?
No. Sadly, no.
We look stuff up. Not enough of my players follow this post, so we fairly often get specialty moves used without actual certainty about how those rules work. Through in some "helpful" comments like, "I think a miss by 1 hits torso" or "I don't think we do that" or "Did you remember the -1 for Curse?" or "Can't you use (name totally different move)?" on top and . . . the game stops until we check. I get it when someone literally does a totally new thing we haven't had come up . . . but it comes up for always-used things like Evasion and grappling and weapons Getting Stuck, too.
So, in theory I'd like to get back to this but 9/10 times my players recollection of how the rule works isn't complete, generally people dont seem inclined to just let me rule and go, and so then what? Better to look it up.
Mapless Combat
No.
With a VTT, I've found that I need to keep tokens down on the screen to run a fight. Any tokens on a screen will result in people trying to move tactically. Any mapless aspect of the combat disappears into map-like combat without actual assigned hexes and facing . . . so it's the worst of mapped (slow!) and mapless (imprecise!) instead of either fully implemented. It's just easier to make everything mapped.
Are we still using Trademark Move?
In a word, no.
It's 1 point for a +1 to a very specific combo. Only a couple of PCs use such a combo, and even then, they vary it up based on circumstances. So it's just easier to say no, we're not using that anymore. I'm not willing to have people pick a "best case" scenario that factors in the +1, pay 1 point for it, and then use it only when it's the best option . . . and then modify it anytime their skill increases, and ignore it whenever they quaff an Agility potion to increase their DX as it's not optimized for the temporary, new DX. I'm not sure it's a great use of 1 point, but it's also a poor use of the rule, and it sure doesn't fit the bargain of speeding up play in return for a bonus.
If I could get my players to agree to fixed feints and fixed Deceptive Attack, I would go for this . . . but they're always proved fairly resistant to the concepts.
Are we still using the Modified Mook Rule?
Yes.
You don't see it quite as often. The PCs generally encounter larger numbers of Worthy foes and less mobs of Fodder. I don't use the Modified Mook Rule for Worthies, so . . . it's in play but doesn't show up as often. And the Modified Mook Rule doesn't apply Mook vs. Mook, so when you have a big brawl of 62-point hirelings vs. 62-point cultists neither side just drops automatically. Those two factors mean it's not as front-and-center as it could be.
Are we still doing No Rule Lookups?
No. Sadly, no.
We look stuff up. Not enough of my players follow this post, so we fairly often get specialty moves used without actual certainty about how those rules work. Through in some "helpful" comments like, "I think a miss by 1 hits torso" or "I don't think we do that" or "Did you remember the -1 for Curse?" or "Can't you use (name totally different move)?" on top and . . . the game stops until we check. I get it when someone literally does a totally new thing we haven't had come up . . . but it comes up for always-used things like Evasion and grappling and weapons Getting Stuck, too.
So, in theory I'd like to get back to this but 9/10 times my players recollection of how the rule works isn't complete, generally people dont seem inclined to just let me rule and go, and so then what? Better to look it up.
Mapless Combat
No.
With a VTT, I've found that I need to keep tokens down on the screen to run a fight. Any tokens on a screen will result in people trying to move tactically. Any mapless aspect of the combat disappears into map-like combat without actual assigned hexes and facing . . . so it's the worst of mapped (slow!) and mapless (imprecise!) instead of either fully implemented. It's just easier to make everything mapped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
