Defend the Village!

A few weeks back, some of my friends and I watched a favorite movie of mine - The 13th Warrior.

It's a classic version of the "defend the village" scenario - one used over and over again in films and as I recall correctly, every single episode of The A-Team. It's a formula that works.

I've used that scenario a number of times in games. The old "defend the village" game works really well in RPGs. Naturally it has shown up in games, too - the Dungeon magazine adventure Grakhirt's Lair let low-level PCs come in the aftermath of a "Defend the Village!" situation. There is a village to defend against bandits in The Book of Lairs. The Battlesystem module H1 Bloodstone Pass featured this on a battlefield scale.*

This is because there is so much to do:

- organize the fighters

- build some defenses

- deal with some internal strife (there is always some internal strife)

- consult an old person for advice

- rescue the people outside the walls

- and then do at least one of these: whittle down the bad guys until there are none left, kill the leader, destroy the source of the enemy, or just hold for time (either your reinforcements, or the enemy is on a time table)

It's also a scenario that is crystal-clear to the players. They've seen at least one of The 13th Warrior, the Seven Samurai, the Magnificent Seven, Zulu (the Rorke's Drift battle, not Isandlwana), or variations of them. Maybe they've played those Sunday Drivers scenarios with the cycle gang coming to town. Whatever. It's shared background.

On top of that, it works well with different approaches:

- The Cadre. The PCs provide stiffening for an existing force. They can't win it without the locals, but the locals can't win without them.

- The Shock Troops. The PCs add some expendable forces to the locals, and can engage in activities the locals can't scrape up the manpower or just power to do - such as scouting, acting as a reserve, or taking the offensive. This works if you want to have a larger conflict - army versus army - or offload leadership because it doesn't suit the PCs or players.

- The Late Arrivals. The battle is over, the village is safe - but you need to go exterminate the source of evil, and the locals are too battered to provide much help . . . and can't survive a renewed assault.

- The Only Hope. There really aren't a lot of locals to organize. Maybe it's a convent full of nuns, a hospital full of sick people, or a tiny farmstead or shrine that can't be moved.

The defeat parameters for the enemy can be as simple, visceral, and just plain enjoyable to the players as the tally list (kill them all, you win) or something more complex. If the enemies are werewolves a vampire and his vampire-spawn, maybe you have to hold overnight. If they're a military unit exceeding their orders, maybe you have to hold until someone else shows up to order them off. If they're hellspawn that spew from a gate, maybe you have to seal the gate once you've headed off a few raids and forced them back . . . revealing their origin.

This is a scenario I've had a lot of fun with. I expect I'll use it again sometime in the future.


*It also featured playable characters who broke AD&D's rules over and over again. Sigh.

DF Felltower: Ritual and Gaming

In my GURPS Dungeon Fantasy game, Felltower, the PCs are repeatedly delving into and raiding a singularly large megadungeon.

At the start of each session, after we've dealt with in-town activities, spending points, general logistics and bookkeeping, the PCs head up to the dungeon.

At that point, I give the same spiel:

"You head out of the North Gate, across the Stone Bridge over the Silver River, over to Stericks Landing. You pass the statue of Baron Sterick the Red on horseback, his sword and axe upraised, and pass through the slums to the barren track up the side of the mountain."

That's pretty much, word-for-word, how I say it each time.

One of my players commented that the statue of Sterick the Red, which I mention every session, must be important because I mention it every session. That might be true - but I also specifically mention leaving the North Gate, crossing the Stone Bridge over the Silver River, the slums, the path, and so on, every session. Partly it's because the details might be important, but also because I find the forumalaic repetition a good sign that things have begun, and to get things off on the right foot. I had a martial arts instructor - who also trained one of my players, who finished every class with the same line. Ritual is useful, and I find it is useful in gaming, too - whether or not it's in-game important or not.

The use of a ritual signals something to the players. For my starting ritual, it signals the adventuring has begun. You've left town. It's too late to buy a potion. It's too late to spend some points on learning new skills. It's way too late to engage a sage and ask some questions. You're on the road. We've begun.

Similarly, it can signal an end to the game session. Or that we've transitioned from one part to another. One GM I used to play with would end any scene-setting description with, "It's your scene." Until you heard that, you knew to sit and listen (carefully, presumably) and then it was your time to act. No point in interrupting him, because what was being told to you was how things were, not a cue to act. It was a helpful ritual in his games.

So while the statue of Sterick the Red on horseback, with his sword and axe upraised, might be very important, it also might just be part of the ritual. It's not clear to the players, but what is clear is that the game is starting once that speech is going. I highly recommend a "starting ritual" to signal when it's time to end the bookkeeping and start the dice hitting the table.

Villains & Vigilantes 3.0 Kickstarter

Speaking of Kickstarters, one of my favorite artists has his own Kickstarter up:



FWIW, I have V&V 2.0 and played it a few times. It's a fun game. And Jeff Dee has followed through on every single one of his Kickstarters, and it's a pleasure to support his work. I highly recommend taking a look. $15 for the PDF isn't a bad deal at all.

The DF Kickstarter so far

As I write this, the DF Kickstarter has just funded, and is at around 1060 backers. We're pretty close to the 1000-1250 or so I figured the KS would need to fund.



W23 and Stretch Goals

So, one nice thing SJG has done is that, now that the Kickstarter campaign has funded, is that all W23 sales of GURPS and Pyramid count towards stretch goals. So you can go out and get some books (like, cough cough, these) and help expand the Kickstarter.

Shipping

SJG has also sorted out European and Australian shipping!

Add-Ons and Bonuses

The $250 level is packed full of stuff. One game, one Pyramid subscription, one set of PDFs, one game master's screen, and a plethora of PDFs - a great deal for $250. For long-time GURPS players like me, though, this isn't a great level. I own literally all of the PDFs included. They can add more, but I have those already. I wrote or co-wrote some of them. I could buy them so I could print out two copies, but honestly, I don't need that.

So I'm in at the $70 level, plus some PDFs. I'm debating the extra $5 for the GM screen on PDF, but will I really do anything with that? I'm not sure.

I'd really like to see more free add-ons to that level. Part of what I loved about the Bones Kickstarters was that, as the pledges rolled in, my initial pledge continued to get better. I felt invested in every person getting on board, and looked forward to new add-ons and finding out what more I got above and beyond my initial buy-in. It happened with Ogre, too, which is probably why it's not happening here - they don't want the initial box to expand.

Getting some free PDFs, exclusive backer-only content, or other improvements to the base set would be nice. It doesn't have to expand the box, just expand the take for the base levels.

And that's from someone who's PDFs will be included. Who has a stake in this thing succeeding, not just because I love the game, but because I write for the game and my material will get plunked into people's W23 accounts when this is all funded and over. I just like seeing the "base level" set being a good buy-in, and watching it grow.

Add-On Suggestions

Not that anyone is listening to me, but, I'd love Cardboard Heroes Dungeon Floors and Cavern Floors in PDF. I'd pay for those, and they'd fit perfectly with the boxed set. Even as printed-out copies. I said as much on their latest update, since they use the Dungeon Floors set as the illustration! Those things are very useful, and I could use more.


But the good news is, the DF boxed set will come out. I'm very excited.

Recognition as a flat bonus

Yesterday I talked a little about Hidden Lore and monster recognition in DF.

Here is a different game-mechanical way to swap out information skills like that. In the examples below, swap in Occultism, Naturalist, etc. as appropriate. Note that Heraldry doesn't work so well for this rule.

Defensive Knowledge

You may roll against Hidden Lore, etc. to identify the target. If you succeed, and if you have the appropriate Hidden Lore or other skill at skill 15 or better, the creature's attack rolls and defense rolls against you are at -1. If you have the appropriate skill 20 or better, the creature's rolls at are -2.

(aka, the Animal Handling approach.)

Just as a note, it probably makes more sense to use Per-based skills to actually identify targets, and then IQ-based skill level to determine the penalty inflicted. Note that this stacks with Higher Purpose.

More thoughts Hidden Lore and Recognition rolls

"Can [the forvalaka] be killed?"
"They're almost invincible, Captain.
"Can they be killed?" The Captain put a hard edge on his voice.
[. . . ]
"Yes," One-Eye confessed. [. . .] "Nothing is invulnerable [. . . ] But this is strong, fast, and smart. Weapons are of little avail. Sorcery is better, even that isn't much use."
- Glen Cook, The Black Company, p. 32

See, even in fiction, knowing is half the battle . . . but not necessarily the half that actually helps you win the battle.

So, I have some issues dealing with monster recognition and knowledge skills in play. I've written about this before.

Rules

Let's start by looking at the actual written rules.

Recognition (Dungeon Fantasy 2: Dungeons, p. 9) spells out how it's done.

- The GM makes the roll in secret;

- you need the correct skill;

- success identifies the target and gives one "tidbit" - examples include favorite weapon, special powers, weakness, etc.,;

- every 2 points you succeed by gets you another. The GM decides, and if you fail, the GM lies.

And that's about it.

My Game

I do hate getting put on the spot for handing out information. This is especially true when players are flailing about for better tactics or "some way to beat this thing" and arguing among themselves about what's a good tactic. It's strongly tempting to hand the question over to the dice and the GM, and say, please tell us what to do here.

I think you can lose a lot of game interest when it's just a skill roll to figure out puzzles and how to deal with dangerous monsters. Then it's just meet, greet, fight, roll for the answer, apply the answer. On the other hand, I also tend to be a little too reticent when asked in play because I don't want to give out the answer, just hints. My players respond by not depending on Hidden Lore too heavily.

So there is clearly a GM personality and game-approach issue here, combined with the rules and the needs of the players.

As the GM, it's tough knowing what to hand out. It's tougher when the "obvious" stuff is also situationally wrong (mummies aren't good with fire, but this is an alchemist's fire-packed suicide bomb mummy or a mummy who uses Resist Fire). Or when the not-obvious stuff is really what the PCs want to know (we're going to try and suffocate it, does it breathe?).

Leaving the questions up to the PC, in Mark Langsdorf's words, might lead to 20 questions. Well, it really won't, because you'd need to make your roll by 38 points for that, and that's pretty unlikely. But I get the point - players might end up in the "Divination death spiral." That's when you have one divination, one wish, one yes-no question, etc. and spend a good chunk of real-world time debating how to use it. Then you eventually wordsmith the question down to something so specific the GM can't avoid answering specifically, but there is a near-certainty you've wordsmithed out any flexibility for the GM to give you the actual hints you need. You know, "In this world, are vampires or these vampire-like things vulnerable - that is, able to be harmed significantly or killed - by stabbing in a specific vital organ which may or may not be called the heart, with a wooden or wooden-shafted weapon whether or not it's a magical weapon?" "Yes." "Okay, we still don't know what to do." Or the too-vague, "How do we kill vampires?" when there are a dozen ways to do it. It's worse when you've got a bunch, because then you just tick off each question off the list hoping to eventually hit the right one by methodical application.

And one special thing worth noting - it's always much sweeter to the GM, and probably to the players, when the players hit on the weakness of a monster. Not because they rolled it, or put points in a skill, but because the players figured out something. The mummy in my last DF session was like that. Quenton Gale ("That's Mr. Gale to you!") didn't roll Hidden Lore (Undead) and find out the funereal amulet was the key to the mummy's unlife, Quenton Gale's player figured that out, and risked a lot to try for it. The PCs later used Hidden Lore to verify that it was worth trying, but his attempt was all the better as a game event - and a story to tell in the future - because the player did that.

How to deal with that dilemma? Make the skills useful, make the character matter, and have a way to pass in-game information to the PCs who should have it . . . but leave the main decisions and the drama resulting from the ones made up to the player?

Possible Approaches

Keeping with my preference to give out hints, clues, and details, this approach may work, if my players equally buy in:

- Success on the appropriate skill tells you what the monster is, and one piece of information.

- You can either get a grab bag of information picked by the GM (that is, as listed on DF2, p. 9) or you can ask after a specific type of information (weaknesses, vulnerabilities, efficacy of a specific attack form, etc.), or answer a specific question, but only one of the three. The first is one hint for every two points of success; the latter two, just one. You need to Evaluate, Move, or Do Nothing to get this roll or just be out of combat. If multiple PCs have the skill, you can use complementary skill rolls to get one better roll. You can't have everyone roll and hope for a critical.

- Information is going to be just game information, not tactical suggestions, answers to very vague questions ("How do we kill these things?" Yeah, that's the question I'm already answering by giving you anything), etc. Hyper-specific questions are just a mistake, don't ask those.

Knowing a monster's psychological flaws or approaches (Does it go berserk? Do they take prisoners? Are they bribeable?) is Psychology, and knowing where any vital area is takes Physiology. No, Holy Warriors aren't just wasting points on those two skills, you need them. Gamers in general tend to assume it's "obvious" where weak points are, if you can name them. "I shoot it in the heart!" - Really, where is that exactly? What's a good angle to get to it? Does it even have one?

When the PCs ask is also important. If you wait until bad stuff happens and the fight is going wrong, you're basically asking the GM to bail you out. That's not necessarily going to end well. Also, you're expending resources and time and effort before you attempt to recognize something - doesn't that mean you probably didn't recognize it? It's probably better for me, the GM, to have people say, "I have Hidden Lore (Undead)-14 and (Elementals)-13, do recognize it?" right away, then to wait until they've exhausted their player knowledge and then tried to roll away the difficulty.

Anyway, that's pretty much where I am with these right now. It's a tough skill to compromise in my "worst of both schools" approach. But I think it potentially deals with three issues:

- the players can get random, possibly not-specifically-helpful information with a Hidden Lore roll.

- the players can preempt the random information with specific informational goals, encouraging the players to think ahead and guess based on observation.

- the fun of players making decisions and acting on them is preserved.

We'll see how my players receive these, and if this works when we try it out at the table. I have another idea for a more mechanical approach, which I'll try to post tomorrow.

Optional Detail: If you like rolls, have PCs make a Per-based Hidden Lore skill for recognition, and an IQ-based one for knowledge about how to deal with it. You could even allow Complementary Skill rolls against related skills, such as Tactics ("Those are definitely wraiths. Professor Aragorn just would not stop talking about wraiths during Tactics class!")

DF Felltower: Rumor Rules Option 3

One of my players commented on my revised rumor rules, and suggested this variation:

PCs can get unlimited rumors, but, duplicates are duplicates. Every PC is guaranteed a single unique rumor.

That means each person gets at least one, but folks with Carousing or Current Affairs might pick up three, five, even seven or eight more rumors . . . but many might be the same things over and over.

It's an interesting variation - it puts in randomness of results twice. You get a number of rumors based on your random roll, but then your rumor table rolls may cut down the useful number by a lot. Essentially you're getting a maximum number of rumors heard, not a fixed number of unique rumors.

I'm not sure I'll do that - we tried the new method and it was fine - but I like the thought behind it.