NATO - the slippery slope to game replacement begins

Ah, dammit. Now I'm reading this. Next I'll be sorting my countermix . . . and if too many are missing, I might need to replace the set. I hope that doesn't happen with 2nd Fleet, that's way too expensive to replace!

Early highlight? Where the TWW series had strategic nuclear exchange as a potential aspect of the game . . . NATO is a bit harsh:

"Immediately upon declaring Tactical Nuclear Warfare, the declaring player rolls the die. On a die roll of 1, 2, or 3, the game ends instantly and the declaring player loses decisively; [. . . ]"

So sure, take a 50/50 shot of just losing outright, but if you do, you get all sorts of "benefits." Loss of some reinforcements, loss of many movement modes, loss of air power . . . but you do gain very destructive nuclear strikes that you can use against the enemy's nuclear attack points and units. I've played with these rules, and they're brutal. It can be interesting but it changes the game. Much like in TWW, once you start to use nukes, the game revolves around deploying your nukes. It's no longer about anything else. It's still fun but it's a different thing entirely.

And, hey, 50% of the time you've lost. Time to play Greg Costikiyan's "Nuclear Winter."

Games I Want: New version of NATO

I can't justify buying this at all:



But I really liked the original game. One of my big regrets is not taking care of that set, and losing enough counters to make it impossible to put back together and play. I can't spend a bunch of $$$ on a game so I can play it one last time, when I don't even have the time and space to set up the ones I do have to play - such as Third World War, War to the Death, and Panzer Blitz.

The new version seems interesting - two different NATO setups (1983, and 1988), changed units and such based on more available information, and a modern set of game rules.

Tempting.

If I could fine the space and time to play, I'd get a used copy of the old game, and play that - it's cheap enough, and it's fun enough, if you have space to set it up to play. It's a pretty brutal game. Airpower is abstracted into strike points, which degrade as the turns go on - air power is use it or lose it, as the game assumes you're using it maximally and suffering damage as you do. Units grind out of existance pretty quickly. And unlike in, say, TWW, US units aren't so tough that it's foolhardy to directly attack them with Soviet units.

The game had a really nice feel to it. Three scenarios - strategic surprise (the Soviets attack from a cold, unmobilized start), tactical surprise (the Soviets attack from a partially mobilized start), and extended buildup (the Soviets attack from a fully mobilized start.) In the first, NATO is caught flat-footed. In the second, NATO sees it coming but isn't fully ready to fight when the Soviets jump off into the offensive. In the last, both sides see it coming and are as ready as they're going to get.

My experience was that the odds of the Soviets winning were in that order, too - you'd get torn to shreds in the first scenario, but NATO just wasn't in position to stop you. In the second, it was more of a tossup - the Soviets had more going but NATO reinforcements came in fast and quick. The third I never won as the Soviets. It was too much of a meatgrinder even with all of those troops.

When I first played the game I didn't like it as much as TWW. The more I played it, though, the more I really enjoyed the challenge of the different scenarios and the very different gameplay. You didn't set up for attacks like in TWW, and airpower was much more useful to the Soviets. Smaller NATO units were in real trouble. But Soviet units would disappear in a blur of poor CRT results if you weren't careful. Overall, it was a game I liked a lot.

Hmm . . . maybe $20 and hoping for a place to set it up in the future isn't a bad idea, eh?

How do I justify my pre-order of Fire in the Lake? Hey, leave me alone, I can't be fully consistent.

Sakatha Showdown？

This coming Sunday we'll play DF again. The PCs have acquired, finally, a vial of unholy water. It should be effective in passing through the secret/supernatural doors in Sakatha's tomb.

This was the first unholy water they found since the evil temple in the Lost City, which Sir Bunny destroyed in combat because they were floundering for a way to destroy the unkillable priestess and jumped to the conclusion that it was the unholy water. And, amusingly, made a hard fight harder by being adventurers and trying to destroy the evil idol in the temple mid-combat because, you know, that was clearly the trick to the evil monster, too. Ah, the fun I have as a GM. Generally I don't like to punish adventurers for having adventures, or taking risks . . . but I do like to take advantage of the tendency of PCs to want to be like rabid wolverines or spiteful malcontents - destroy everything, touch everything, and spoil everything for anyone who follows. At the same time, I try to reward people who approach a task with some logic and thought, which is why, yes, there was a hidden cache of goodies (baddies?) in the altar in the brother's lair.

I digress, though.

It does look uncommonly like an attempted showdown with Sakatha, the first since Session 66.

I say attempted because my group is still my group, and I can see a bad combat result - a lopped off limb, a dead PC - cause a "well, we tried, we'll have to get more unholy water and come back when we're stronger" result. I hope not, but I've been wrong most of the time I see a showdown coming. Prove me wrong, kids! Prove me wrong.

It should be doable, for a number of reasons:

- the original dungeon was scaled for a group of 250-point guys getting rolling, and I'd assumed the'd be around 275 points or so when they reached the apex of the mission. The current group is all in the 300+ range (the lowest is ~325) and has two PCs above 400.

- the original group was smaller, as well.

- the original group was dramatically less well-equipped. The current group has a lot more magic items, more DR, better weaponry, larger power items, and a huge pool of healing items compared to the original group.

- the current group is better informed. Thanks to surviving Gerry and the ability to go back and read the summaries, the group has a better idea of what's coming.

It might not be, for other reasons:

- this group is extremely reluctant to engage in do-or-die missions. The closer to victory they get, the more cautious about pushing their advantage they get.

- past failure adds caution. Any prior failure has meant that the PCs are more careful and more concerned about repeating the loss.

- past failure adds difficulty. The enemy didn't grow weaker by massacring a party without any casualties of note . . . especially since there are a lot of undead there.

- the usual mix of "stay on target!" versus "Ooh! Shiney!" can derail the mission in either direction - passing on important things because of the former, or getting distracted by being thorough because of the latter.

- GIGO. Not all of the summary information is really accurate. It's just what I remembered to write down, based on how I remembered it, and not actually necessarily true. It's most true or close to it, but information is missing, details are off, and the closer to the end of the summary it is the more likely I was rushing through it to finish writing. More than once the PCs have based something on a specific summary detail, only to find out the detail wasn't exactly that they thought it was . . . or they made assumptions based on a summary item without realizing it wasn't ever quite stated to be the case.

I'm interested to see how this will come out. Again, I'm hoping for a decisive strike despite the tendency of the group to shy away from efforts that aren't attrition battle attempts, but we'll see. The PCs could have won with better choices with the original group, I'm certain, so they should be able to do so with this group . . . but we'll see!





That's a reminder, actually. I need to write my "attrition is the lack of a strategy" post. It's not a new idea, or my idea, but it might not occur to everyone. At one point it was a revelation to me.

Delvers to Grow & Felltower

Felltower is a hybrid DF/DFRPG game.

That basically means we use the DFRPG rulebooks as far as they go for rules, costs, etc. But we supplement them out with the other GURPS books that include things we've already had in DF. We also pull in new material from new DF books (say, DF22: Twists) as needed. It's a mishmash.

So what to do with Delvers to Grow?

Can a player make a "Fast Hero," or "Smart Hero," or "Strong Hero," and run that character in DF Felltower?

No.

No more than they could make a Squire and tack on a 125-point upgrade from DF15 and run that character. They are all off-list.

In my experience, allowing such as an add-on means a handful of players who have the time and inclination to iteratively make characters and think about some pre-planned route to Ultimate Power will make guys this way. They'll figure out some sneaky way to combine a few Power-Ups and benefits of a template with another and make some kind of hybrid character that gets the best of both worlds for their specific aim. The guys with less time, or who focus on the gameplay instead of the chargen, will be left out. I will inevitably have to dedicate more of my time to the systems and question-response of guys kitbashing new templates. That, to me, defeats the purpose of allowing them.

We will use some of the bits of DtG in DF Felltower, though. But which bits?

Many of the Power-Ups are just renamed existing powers. I suppose I could allow you to take "Fifth Level Fighter" instead of Extra Attack 1, but why deal with two names for one ability? It is really just the New Advantages (pp. 33-35) that are of true interest since we're not using the core of the supplement.

Here are the ones I have specific thoughts on. The others are largely just DF approaches ported over to DFRPG.

Herbaceous Master - this might go a good way toward making druids a little more AD&D-ish, and have healing and not just nature and animal powers. Under strong consideration.

Heroic Spellslinger - No. This doesn't fit the vibe of Felltower at all.

Master at Arms - I like this, a lot. It's been revised since the first draft I've seen. It's under strong consideration, but I need to play with the math. It's trivial to have 25 points spread over 4 skills (Brawling, Wrestling, one melee weapon, one missile weapon or Shield) and then it's always better to buy this up than to buy up those skills. I've proposed a couple of variant, limited Felltower-only versions of these, but despite supposedly great interest I've had exact zero comments on them. Still under strong consideration. Probably would be limited to the templates that could get it in DtG - the "strong" delvers.

Rapid Switch - no. We have Quick-Sheathe and Fast-Draw that, in combination, do this already. Bad enough it works 98.1% of the time, I don't need to make it cheaper and 100%.

Scroll Scriblling - no. I think it makes making a quick "Universal Scroll" to transfer casting costs and critically maintainence costs and penalties to a non-caster much too cheap.

Soul Warding - interesting. I think this is a good one for Clerics and Holy Warriors.

Vanishing Act - yeah, I've had some rules in effect for this for thieves for a long time. Galoob the thief did this in a fight years and years ago.

Walking Armoury - NO. Totally does not fit the vibe of Felltower, and players already "forget" about weapons when they're inconvenient. They'll crawl down tunnels, backflip through small gaps, drop prone and roll to avoid blows, and then stand up and one-second ready a 7' harpoon on a line conveniently already lanyarded to a belt and throw it. Do I want to expand that nonsense to weight?

Weapon Master (Missile Spells) - No. I don't think this is a good idea unless you're playing Gauntlet. The only Gauntlet-like thing in Felltower is "Wizard is about to die."

Wrestling Master - doesn't make sense given our version of the TG rules. I may have to tweak it so it does.

So that's the look so far. Some of these may show up, depending on how it all falls out.

Dungeon Fantasy Denizens: Thieves

On Friday, Dr. Kromm revealed this tidbit:

• We made tentative plans for the GURPS Dungeon Fantasy Denizens: Thieves playtest . . . look for a call for playtesters in early September.

This book is overdue, and no, I didn't write it. I know who did, but it doesn't seem like Dr. Kromm revealed that information, so I sure won't.

I will absolutely get myself into the playtest, and force some free time to contribute to it. I think Thieves are a good template but need some support. I've written a bit myself.


For those who look at my campaign and say, you sure don't need a Thief, I would say that you only see part of the story. A thief-less group sometimes fails to solve things that a group with a thief could, and sometimes totally fails to notice this fact. From my side of the screen, the lack of a thief - and the lack of a mindset of people who will use the skills on such a template - has cost the group. Lockmaster isn't everything, and a Swashbuckler with Luck and good lockpicks can only get so far.

So I'm really looking forward to this book.

Random Links for 8/20/21

I've been too busy - but good busy - to do a lot of reading, but I did see this stuff that I wanted to share:

- A Metamorphosis Alpha Humble Bundle.

- War in Victoria II is really interesting. I had Victoria I, but I found the conflict resolution system a little lacking. So I didn't stick it out too long. I remember getting into a war with China over a province of Korea I wanted for my European power - the Netherlands, I think - and beaten the living tar out of them, but being unable to get them to hand over the Korea province despite me controlling a big chunk of China and mauling army after army . . . because for some reason it wouldn't get listed as a demand I could make. Aargh. Anyway, clearly I didn't get over that frustration.

- Speaking of video games, I'm trying to remember the name of one. It took place in the Renaissance, in Italy. You got to expand trade routes and build up your (or maybe your family's) power though overland and sea trade, could get one of three government positions, become Pope, and price and sell indulgences (which could eventually trigger the Reformation.) You could hire mercs and pirates and whatnot to fight, well, mercs and pirates, or to attack your rivals. I can't remember the name and I can't find the box or documentation in my collection. It was probably a 90s or early 2000s game, likely the former. It wasn't one of the Patrician games, because I had and played II and III and it's not them.

Nevermind, I remembered overnight that it was probably called Merchant Prince, and here it is: Merchant Prince gameplay

- Here is a handy guide to being (or fighting) giant-sized folks in GURPS.

- a look at Pool of Radiance and Ruins of Adventure, the module of the same thing.

Tidbits about the Cold Fens giants

Here are some more tidbits on the giants from the Cold Fens. They're clearly not standard GURPS DF/DFRPG giants. Or at least, they aren't just that.

- the PCs can't quite figure out which giant is the wizard, but the consensus seems to be the one wearing "white" armor - actually a light, dirty grey - and not the one wearing "black" armor - actually a very dark grey/brown/black color.

- they lost their gloves when the PCs took them and disposed of them in town (I can't recall how) after their first fight. They now wear mail gloves. The PCs had planned to attack their hands, but didn't follow through on that during their second meeting.

- they have only seen a handful of giant footprints - and then only when one stood on clearly soft ground and used great strength, such as toppling a menhir or lifting some heavy weight. Otherwise, they move without making any footfall noises of any kind. This had lead to conjecture that they are physical manifestations of . . . something. Wyatt suggested maybe it's connected to the altar. Wyatt also suggested it was clearly an "18th level goblin wizard" who created a Perfect Illusion of them, which just goes to show that a) Wyatt is the new Dryst, who made random stuff up all of the time, and b) Wyatt doesn't know that wizards don't have levels.

- they're Lucky. Both of them have displayed uses of Luck.

- they're tough. Both of them wear dragonhide armor, and have dead dragon bits in their lair. Nothing the PCs could just grab and sell for a mint, rather just the worthless stuff, but they've either purchased two suits of dragonhide armor and killed a small, third dragon, or killed at least three dragons.

- the one in "white" has a magic sword.

- they have some ability to spot invisible foes.

- they're solid trapmakers, but err on the "brute force" side of traps. No snares for them, it's deadfalls, pits, and bent-back trees for the win.

- they have access to healing, including repair and/or replacement of lost eyes.

Whatever they are, they aren't plain dumb big guys like Crogle was.