Here are some of what I think are common myths about megadungeon play. Some are actually true, most aren't. Some of these were sparked from posts I've read recently and in the past about folk who'd tried megadungeon play and struggled or struggle with it.
It's Low Prep
No, it's not. Not at all. There is a lot of work you need to do:
At a glance, you need to:
- draw a map (preferably, with a side view, it'll help).
- stock the map with monsters and treasure.
That's at a minimum. You really need more than that.
You must map out all the areas the players could easily get to in a session or two. So if you go for Ye Olde Central Shafte Downe to Thee Utter Depthes, you need to have mapped and stocked out all the way to thee utter depthes.
You must have stats for all of the monsters the players can easily reach in a session or two, at least.
You must fill in treasure details.
You must have detailed traps, specials, tricks, oddities, and other dungeon details.
You must have decided, at least to a degree, on factions and alliances and so on.
That's simple but not low prep.
It's Fast Prep
Not really, not without a game system that's built around quick-stocking dungeons. Even then, budget some time.
Now, you can strangle off some of this like I did - by making the ruins of the castle above sitting on two dungeon levels that restricted easy access to the deeper levels, but that does impact your dungeon play a lot. You can let factions and so on sort themselves out. You can stock randomly and just let "A crazy demi-god did it" be the explanation. But there is still a lot to do. I ran a lot of sessions in my DF game before the megadungeon showed up, and I spent that time between doing megadungeon prep. We did 9 sessions over 6 months outside the megadungeon before I had enough to play on.
It's Low on Session Prep.
This is true. It's low session prep. That is, once you've mapped out a few levels, stocked them, and otherwise made it so anywhere the PCs can go today, tomorrow, or the day after are covered, you're set. You can simply sit back between sessions, generate some rumors, deal with player questions about gear, and keep the ball rolling.
But the game must be going full steam before this happens. Enough groundwork to cover multiple sessions is critical, and the game must be a going concern before prep drops off. If I could do my whole campaign over again, I'd still save the megadungeon for after the game was going for a bit.
It's For Everyone
No, they aren't. You have to really like dungeon crawling. Your players have to feel like they leave the dungeon each time wanting to come back and figure out what's behind that door from 20 sessions before, what those weird statues do, where the goddamn gnome is hiding out, how to whack the draugr without getting killed. They have to have a primary interest in the dungeon itself, and what's in it.
If that doesn't float their boat, or float the GM's boat, the game is going to suck. You won't enjoy it.
That's what I've learned from making and running a megadungeon for a while.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Sunday, August 10, 2014
DF Felltower: Psychic Guidance house rule
I house ruled Psychic Guidance in my Felltower game, changing the one in Dungeon Fantasy 11: Power-Ups.
I like the concept, but I don't like the execution. Basically, replacing the Innate Attack skill with the Missile spell itself does two things:
- it makes the points in Innate Attack largely wasted, especially since PC mages tend to specialize in one or two spells. This makes Psychic Guidance critical instead of a good value, and makes the point investment in Innate Attack useless.
- it makes the Missile spell skill extremely valuable, as it improves your accuracy and the power/discount on the spell, too.
I used to play in my 1st edition GURPS game that you rolled against the Missile spell skill to hit, so I know what I'm looking at here from years of play. It's ugly - you get high Missile spell skills to get cheap and/or free missiles, and that also increases accuracy to a high degree.
Instead, what I did is this:
- Psychic Guidance lets you add your Magery to your Innate Attack skill when throwing that spell.
For example, a basic DF Wizard with DX 12, IQ 15, and Magery 3 and Innate Attack (Projectile) @ DX+2, this means going from a 14 base skill to a 17 for a 1 point perk investment.
"Mystic Guidance" would be a good name for this, actually, if you're inclined to name it.
Alternately, you can just base the Innate Attack for that specific spell on IQ, no Magery bonus, and make it purely psychic and not mystic guidance. In that case, the effect on a basic DF wizard is the same - they jump from skill 14 to skill 17 for one point (IQ+2 instead of DX+2 when using that spell.)
In either case, you still benefit greatly from the perk, and benefit greatly from improved Magery or improved IQ, and your basic skill isn't made irrelevant. It's a no-brainer choice for a missile spell user, but it takes advantage of the underlying skill and the generous ability of floating to a new stat and/or getting Talent bonuses to skills that 4e allows.
(Editing Later - we officially renamed this "Mystic Guidance.")
I like the concept, but I don't like the execution. Basically, replacing the Innate Attack skill with the Missile spell itself does two things:
- it makes the points in Innate Attack largely wasted, especially since PC mages tend to specialize in one or two spells. This makes Psychic Guidance critical instead of a good value, and makes the point investment in Innate Attack useless.
- it makes the Missile spell skill extremely valuable, as it improves your accuracy and the power/discount on the spell, too.
I used to play in my 1st edition GURPS game that you rolled against the Missile spell skill to hit, so I know what I'm looking at here from years of play. It's ugly - you get high Missile spell skills to get cheap and/or free missiles, and that also increases accuracy to a high degree.
Instead, what I did is this:
- Psychic Guidance lets you add your Magery to your Innate Attack skill when throwing that spell.
For example, a basic DF Wizard with DX 12, IQ 15, and Magery 3 and Innate Attack (Projectile) @ DX+2, this means going from a 14 base skill to a 17 for a 1 point perk investment.
"Mystic Guidance" would be a good name for this, actually, if you're inclined to name it.
Alternately, you can just base the Innate Attack for that specific spell on IQ, no Magery bonus, and make it purely psychic and not mystic guidance. In that case, the effect on a basic DF wizard is the same - they jump from skill 14 to skill 17 for one point (IQ+2 instead of DX+2 when using that spell.)
In either case, you still benefit greatly from the perk, and benefit greatly from improved Magery or improved IQ, and your basic skill isn't made irrelevant. It's a no-brainer choice for a missile spell user, but it takes advantage of the underlying skill and the generous ability of floating to a new stat and/or getting Talent bonuses to skills that 4e allows.
(Editing Later - we officially renamed this "Mystic Guidance.")
Saturday, August 9, 2014
GURPS DF: Road Ork Head
Or so the sign I saw on the highway yesterday claimed.
Despite keeping my eyes peeled, I saw no Ork Head anywhere.
Fine, I say.
I'll make my own Road Ork Head.
Based on traffic, I could figure out some of its abilities.
Slurg, Road Ork Head
Slurg is the head of the road orks. He loves nothing more than stopping traffic - sometimes for loot, but often enough just out of spite. He's big, nasty, and prone to wear orange.
ST 17 (1+2/3-1) HP 19 Speed 6.50
DX 13 Will 13 Move 5
IQ 11 Per 10
HT 13 FP 13
Dodge 9 + 2 DB Block 12 + 2 DB Parry (Bastard Sword) 12 + 2 DB DR: 5(3)
Punch (16): 1d+3 cr; Reach C.
Regular Bow (15): 1d+3 imp or 1d+3(2) pi, Acc 2, Range 255/340.
Weapons (16): Axe (3d+1 cut, Reach 1) or Bastard Sword (3d cut, 1d+4 imp, Reach 1,2 and 2).
Traits: Acute Hearing 2; Appearance (Ugly); Bully (12); Combat Reflexes; High Pain Threshold; Infravision; Resistant to Metabolic Hazards (+3 to resist).
Skills: Axe/Mace-16; Brawling-16; Broadsword-16; Bow-15; Intimidation-12; Leadership-12; Shield-16; Stealth-14; Tactics-11; Wrestling-16.
Notes: Wears double-mail and carries a medium shield. Slurg usually has a "road crew" of 12-15 orcish Brutes (use the orc from DF3, and brute from DF15) to back him up.
Despite keeping my eyes peeled, I saw no Ork Head anywhere.
Fine, I say.
I'll make my own Road Ork Head.
Based on traffic, I could figure out some of its abilities.
Slurg, Road Ork Head
Slurg is the head of the road orks. He loves nothing more than stopping traffic - sometimes for loot, but often enough just out of spite. He's big, nasty, and prone to wear orange.
ST 17 (1+2/3-1) HP 19 Speed 6.50
DX 13 Will 13 Move 5
IQ 11 Per 10
HT 13 FP 13
Dodge 9 + 2 DB Block 12 + 2 DB Parry (Bastard Sword) 12 + 2 DB DR: 5(3)
Punch (16): 1d+3 cr; Reach C.
Regular Bow (15): 1d+3 imp or 1d+3(2) pi, Acc 2, Range 255/340.
Weapons (16): Axe (3d+1 cut, Reach 1) or Bastard Sword (3d cut, 1d+4 imp, Reach 1,2 and 2).
Traits: Acute Hearing 2; Appearance (Ugly); Bully (12); Combat Reflexes; High Pain Threshold; Infravision; Resistant to Metabolic Hazards (+3 to resist).
Skills: Axe/Mace-16; Brawling-16; Broadsword-16; Bow-15; Intimidation-12; Leadership-12; Shield-16; Stealth-14; Tactics-11; Wrestling-16.
Notes: Wears double-mail and carries a medium shield. Slurg usually has a "road crew" of 12-15 orcish Brutes (use the orc from DF3, and brute from DF15) to back him up.
Trampier-OOTS crossover
If you haven't seen this, you should take a look:
Different scaled versions are here:
OOTS Wallpapers
Different scaled versions are here:
OOTS Wallpapers
Friday, August 8, 2014
Rumors are Bite-Sized Backstory
In a way, the title says it all.
Rumors are bite-sized backstory.
Every rumor you hand out in your campaign is a bit of common knowledge. It conveys some information about the world around the PCs. They'll build up over time, and feed into each other. The player's musings on the rumors will inspire actions and new rumors, which will in turn connect to things they already know from actual play.
If you combine this with letting the players make stuff up, your backstory will come to life organically and have immediate buy-in from the players.
Another tip? The best rumors are actionable.
One big problem is backstory is no one wants to hear it. But everyone likes to hear rumors, if they're actionable. You've broken up the backstory of the world into bite-sized pieces tied to potentially useful and rewarding information.
For example:
Okay rumor: Prices are up because of bandit raids.
Better rumor: Prices are up because of bandit raids, led by the bandit chief Sherven of Grey Woods.
Great rumor: Prices are up because bandits are raiding the northern road under the command of Sherven of Grey Woods - and the local merchants are pulling together a reward for his head!
The first tells you information. The second, more information. The third? It's a plot hook and information. The next bandit the PCs meet, or merchant they talk to, Sherven of Grey Woods is coming up in conversation. So is the size of the reward.
This is also why I don't determine truth or falsehood. I'm just building a shared story about the world. I'm not really sure for some rumors if they are true or not. Some I'm sure are totally false. Others, absolute fact in all particulars. Most, though, fall in between. They may turn out to be true, they may turn out to be false, and they may be misinterpreted - which affects their effective truth.
Doling out a big wad of backstory is not fun for the players, but doling out rumors works well. Just realize you're building the backstory of the world as you do.
Rumors are bite-sized backstory.
Every rumor you hand out in your campaign is a bit of common knowledge. It conveys some information about the world around the PCs. They'll build up over time, and feed into each other. The player's musings on the rumors will inspire actions and new rumors, which will in turn connect to things they already know from actual play.
If you combine this with letting the players make stuff up, your backstory will come to life organically and have immediate buy-in from the players.
Another tip? The best rumors are actionable.
One big problem is backstory is no one wants to hear it. But everyone likes to hear rumors, if they're actionable. You've broken up the backstory of the world into bite-sized pieces tied to potentially useful and rewarding information.
For example:
Okay rumor: Prices are up because of bandit raids.
Better rumor: Prices are up because of bandit raids, led by the bandit chief Sherven of Grey Woods.
Great rumor: Prices are up because bandits are raiding the northern road under the command of Sherven of Grey Woods - and the local merchants are pulling together a reward for his head!
The first tells you information. The second, more information. The third? It's a plot hook and information. The next bandit the PCs meet, or merchant they talk to, Sherven of Grey Woods is coming up in conversation. So is the size of the reward.
This is also why I don't determine truth or falsehood. I'm just building a shared story about the world. I'm not really sure for some rumors if they are true or not. Some I'm sure are totally false. Others, absolute fact in all particulars. Most, though, fall in between. They may turn out to be true, they may turn out to be false, and they may be misinterpreted - which affects their effective truth.
Doling out a big wad of backstory is not fun for the players, but doling out rumors works well. Just realize you're building the backstory of the world as you do.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
GURPS Master Class: Revising Evaluate
Evaluate is basically unused in my games.
The benefit is a bit small (+1 per turn, max +3, one turn per plus), ends early, and generally is superseded by other, more useful options. Low skill? Turn to Telegraphic Attack, Committed Attack, or even All-Out Attack. High skill? +1 to +3 just isn't worth it. Even skill with your foe? Probably better to bet on a critical or a Feint* than to Evaluate.
I've written about ways to upgrade Evaluate before, but since I never seen these used in play I didn't keep track of where I wrote them. So I gave it some thought this week once Doug assigned it out as homework.
I see a complex way and a simple way to upgun Evaluate.
Complex Way:
Evaluate is a Per-based Feint. It's useable against any foe you can see, subject to range penalties. The foe resists with either DX-based or IQ-based skill, to conceal (or fail to create) any openings. You can hold your Evaluate bonus as long as you continue to Evaluate your foe. In addition, you get the usual benefits of Evaluate (+1 to +3). You may choose to keep the results of your Per-based Feint or you can try again and take the new results. The bonuses for the Feint and the Evaluation do not stack; take the higher bonus.
Simple Way:
Evaluate works as written in Basic Set and Martial Arts, but the bonus is +3 for one turn. Additional turns of Evaluate do nothing exceed hold the results.
(Optionally, make it +2 per turn for up to 3 turns, for a possible +6! In that case, only apply half the bonus vs. Feints and Deceptive Attacks. Cancelling -3 is good enough for those.)
I'd go with the simple way. Just hand out a +3 and it's suddenly worth it for many fighters, especially since it can stack with All-Out Attack (Determined) for a +7 to hit without giving a defense bonus to the target ala Telegraphic Attack (Martial Arts, p. 1113). At the same time, it's not quite as good (but much less limited) than Telegraphic Attack. It's better for slightly more defensive minded folks - and cancelling 3 points of Deceptive Attack means you can hold your own, potentially, against a fighter 6 points more skillful than yourself!
In any case, it's important to apply all of the benefits of Evaluate fully - the cancelling of defensive penalties (per Martial Arts, p. 100), bonuses to non-combat skills, and so on. If you don't do that, even the changed versions won't help much.
* Yes, I know that mathematically Feinting a person of the same skill works out to a net zero. But Rock Paper Scissors works out to a net even win-loss over the long run, but it doesn't mean people don't win on some turns. Feint vs. a similar skill foe is betting an attack chance that you'll roll better than your opponent this turn and then mess him up on the next turn. That's, in my experience, a very good choice.
The benefit is a bit small (+1 per turn, max +3, one turn per plus), ends early, and generally is superseded by other, more useful options. Low skill? Turn to Telegraphic Attack, Committed Attack, or even All-Out Attack. High skill? +1 to +3 just isn't worth it. Even skill with your foe? Probably better to bet on a critical or a Feint* than to Evaluate.
I've written about ways to upgrade Evaluate before, but since I never seen these used in play I didn't keep track of where I wrote them. So I gave it some thought this week once Doug assigned it out as homework.
I see a complex way and a simple way to upgun Evaluate.
Complex Way:
Evaluate is a Per-based Feint. It's useable against any foe you can see, subject to range penalties. The foe resists with either DX-based or IQ-based skill, to conceal (or fail to create) any openings. You can hold your Evaluate bonus as long as you continue to Evaluate your foe. In addition, you get the usual benefits of Evaluate (+1 to +3). You may choose to keep the results of your Per-based Feint or you can try again and take the new results. The bonuses for the Feint and the Evaluation do not stack; take the higher bonus.
Simple Way:
Evaluate works as written in Basic Set and Martial Arts, but the bonus is +3 for one turn. Additional turns of Evaluate do nothing exceed hold the results.
(Optionally, make it +2 per turn for up to 3 turns, for a possible +6! In that case, only apply half the bonus vs. Feints and Deceptive Attacks. Cancelling -3 is good enough for those.)
I'd go with the simple way. Just hand out a +3 and it's suddenly worth it for many fighters, especially since it can stack with All-Out Attack (Determined) for a +7 to hit without giving a defense bonus to the target ala Telegraphic Attack (Martial Arts, p. 1113). At the same time, it's not quite as good (but much less limited) than Telegraphic Attack. It's better for slightly more defensive minded folks - and cancelling 3 points of Deceptive Attack means you can hold your own, potentially, against a fighter 6 points more skillful than yourself!
In any case, it's important to apply all of the benefits of Evaluate fully - the cancelling of defensive penalties (per Martial Arts, p. 100), bonuses to non-combat skills, and so on. If you don't do that, even the changed versions won't help much.
* Yes, I know that mathematically Feinting a person of the same skill works out to a net zero. But Rock Paper Scissors works out to a net even win-loss over the long run, but it doesn't mean people don't win on some turns. Feint vs. a similar skill foe is betting an attack chance that you'll roll better than your opponent this turn and then mess him up on the next turn. That's, in my experience, a very good choice.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
G1-3 Against the Giants: War Stories
Warning - this is full of spoilers!
War Stories
These are among the first adventures I owned, purchased as G1-3.
I first ran these in elementary school. The last time I ran them, I ran G1 and G2 for my high school gaming group. They consisted of an Unearthed Arcana-era party - a Paladin, a half-elf Ranger/Druid, a Magic User, and a Fighter. They had some henchmen and followers (mostly, the Paladin did) but I don't recall many details.
They quickly trashed G1, which is very front-loaded with encounters. Destroying the hill giant chief and the best and most effective of his followers is something you can do pretty quickly if you don't mess around or outsmart yourself. After that, as deep as the module is, nothing left there is a true challenge to a well-armed circa-9th level party. I don't recall any of the groups finding the hidden spooky stuff in the basement, but I do recall lots of poking around and fighting everything. By the time you get to the rebel orcs, I found my players couldn't care who side they were on, and fought them equally.
G2 took a little longer, and featured a short appearance by a second Paladin (the player didn't stick around). My most vivid memories are of this part of the series. Every group that went through had a big fight with a remorhaz, too, but none recovered the best treasures thanks to liberal use of fire spells. Everyone fought the various special visitors, had lots of fun fighting two dragons at once (although I recall they died quickly, and the scribbled out HP tallies in my copy make it seem that way too.) I clearly dramatically changed the loot in some places, too, putting in a quest item as part of the dragon hoard instead of some other loot, a Doss Lute (I think we had a bard at one point), and some others. I also remember that this is where my friend TR's fighter Tomas deCon picked up his Shield +1, +4 vs. Missiles.
G3 I think I ran once. In high school we finished G2 and I had something really exciting ahead, and no interest in running D1-3 and Q1 (especially since two of our players were in the original elementary school group that cleared D1-2 and Q1.) So we just skipped G3 and moved on as I recall, moving on to the campaign climax war and castle storming (where, unrelated to G1-3, they fought and killed an arch-devil.) In my earlier running, I recall no one trusting Obmi or the prisoners they freed, either, and that it took a few delves. I remember an epic fight near the bottom of the entrance to level 3 and notes that suggest a lot of survivors made it there. But I also remember that, like G1, the main leadership was found and killed right away. No one bothered with the evil temple, either. I don't even remember people going in it. The big melee in the entrance room backed by everything, countered by the party unleashing everything they had, and that was that except for smacking down some more drow and moving on.
The drow I don't recall being especially badass once the giants went down and they ran low on spells. They have some cool magic items, but lots of them are "hit as 3 HD monsters" and if the PCs are all negative AC, that means they mostly miss while the PCs kill them. Which is what I recall happening, actually. Still, evil elves were fun back in the day, before they became the entire basis of the gaming ecosystem.
One thing I do remember is fights took a while. PCs got missed fairly often by the giants, but suffered lots of damage when they were hit. Giants, on the other hand, got hit often by high-level PCs but when we played pre-Unearthed Arcana/pre-weapon specialization, cutting down a 50 HP giant could take 3+ rounds even for a high level fighter hitting for high damage. With weapon specialization, the giants died faster but still took a lot of killing.
I also remember that this was the only module we ran where people got Wishes as treasures - there are a few, scattered around.
Speaking of war stories, you can also some of Delta's war stories, although he ran them with customized OD&D, not AD&D, so it's a bit different. The guys at Roll For Initiative talk G1, too, down to room numbers and descriptions - no war stories, though.
War Stories
These are among the first adventures I owned, purchased as G1-3.
I first ran these in elementary school. The last time I ran them, I ran G1 and G2 for my high school gaming group. They consisted of an Unearthed Arcana-era party - a Paladin, a half-elf Ranger/Druid, a Magic User, and a Fighter. They had some henchmen and followers (mostly, the Paladin did) but I don't recall many details.
They quickly trashed G1, which is very front-loaded with encounters. Destroying the hill giant chief and the best and most effective of his followers is something you can do pretty quickly if you don't mess around or outsmart yourself. After that, as deep as the module is, nothing left there is a true challenge to a well-armed circa-9th level party. I don't recall any of the groups finding the hidden spooky stuff in the basement, but I do recall lots of poking around and fighting everything. By the time you get to the rebel orcs, I found my players couldn't care who side they were on, and fought them equally.
G2 took a little longer, and featured a short appearance by a second Paladin (the player didn't stick around). My most vivid memories are of this part of the series. Every group that went through had a big fight with a remorhaz, too, but none recovered the best treasures thanks to liberal use of fire spells. Everyone fought the various special visitors, had lots of fun fighting two dragons at once (although I recall they died quickly, and the scribbled out HP tallies in my copy make it seem that way too.) I clearly dramatically changed the loot in some places, too, putting in a quest item as part of the dragon hoard instead of some other loot, a Doss Lute (I think we had a bard at one point), and some others. I also remember that this is where my friend TR's fighter Tomas deCon picked up his Shield +1, +4 vs. Missiles.
G3 I think I ran once. In high school we finished G2 and I had something really exciting ahead, and no interest in running D1-3 and Q1 (especially since two of our players were in the original elementary school group that cleared D1-2 and Q1.) So we just skipped G3 and moved on as I recall, moving on to the campaign climax war and castle storming (where, unrelated to G1-3, they fought and killed an arch-devil.) In my earlier running, I recall no one trusting Obmi or the prisoners they freed, either, and that it took a few delves. I remember an epic fight near the bottom of the entrance to level 3 and notes that suggest a lot of survivors made it there. But I also remember that, like G1, the main leadership was found and killed right away. No one bothered with the evil temple, either. I don't even remember people going in it. The big melee in the entrance room backed by everything, countered by the party unleashing everything they had, and that was that except for smacking down some more drow and moving on.
The drow I don't recall being especially badass once the giants went down and they ran low on spells. They have some cool magic items, but lots of them are "hit as 3 HD monsters" and if the PCs are all negative AC, that means they mostly miss while the PCs kill them. Which is what I recall happening, actually. Still, evil elves were fun back in the day, before they became the entire basis of the gaming ecosystem.
One thing I do remember is fights took a while. PCs got missed fairly often by the giants, but suffered lots of damage when they were hit. Giants, on the other hand, got hit often by high-level PCs but when we played pre-Unearthed Arcana/pre-weapon specialization, cutting down a 50 HP giant could take 3+ rounds even for a high level fighter hitting for high damage. With weapon specialization, the giants died faster but still took a lot of killing.
I also remember that this was the only module we ran where people got Wishes as treasures - there are a few, scattered around.
Speaking of war stories, you can also some of Delta's war stories, although he ran them with customized OD&D, not AD&D, so it's a bit different. The guys at Roll For Initiative talk G1, too, down to room numbers and descriptions - no war stories, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
