Random Links & Thoughts for 10/20/2023

Let's wrap up the week here.

- I'm still reviewing and doing the things needing doing for Felltower. The VTT is the chunk I want to do the least . . . so I'll put that off until last.

- I played big chunks of Fantasy General for a few weeks . . . I have no idea how much longer the game is. Am I on the last island? I don't know. I've maxed out almost all of the unit research, and the foes are pretty tough. It's just weird not knowing where am I in the whole process. Still fun . . . but I needed to take time off after one more big battle this past week.

- Interesting discussions and ideas popped up in the comments of my Retreat post. I'm intrigued by some of the suggestions, although my goal with that system is to simplify decision making. It's always tricky if a "fix" adds a decision fork to replace a decision fork; I'm not sure it helps speed it along.

- I might be unavailable all weekend. If so, see you all Monday.

GURPS option: Ditch Retreat, or Give the Bonus Always?

I don't think it's a secret that I hate Retreat. I didn't always; in fact I used to love it. I still think it makes a lot of sense. But the longer I've run game the longer I've spent watch it be the be-all and end-all of tactical considerations. Mapless combat becomes "invisible map" combat as everyone wants to take a position where they can't be flanked but also can Retreat without letting anyone break their defensive line.

Ugh, ugh, ugh.

Thinking about this for my DF game, could I get rid of it?

I see two options:

Option 1: No Retreat.

In this option, it's just gone. Delete it, with the possible exception of "Dodge and Drop" for explosions. Yes, you can still dive flat to get away from an explosion. Maybe Duck Behind Cover - something I allow now, which is Retreat if you can fully move behind cover to try to avoid a missile. You could still use Acrobatics for a +2 or -2, because that's not tied to Retreat.

Otherwise, it's gone. All defenses are "flat" - as written, no bonuses, no defensive movement from your hex triggered by a potentially successful hit.

Pros: Simple. Increases the number of effective blows in combat. Speeds up defense calculations.

Cons: Likely to provoke vetos by any and all players who "need" Retreat. Might slow the game down as people claim to need more time to decide where to step or move because they're unable to count on Retreat if they need it.

Option 2: No Retreat but the bonus applies.

In this option, you don't have Retreat - with the possible exception of Dodge and Drop, which only provides the ability to dive a hex away and end prone from an attack.

However, the bonus you would get is baked in to defenses, as such:

Dodge - based on 6 + (Speed * Encumbrance).
Parry - based on 4 + (Weapon skill/2).
Fencing Parry, Karate Parry, Judo Parry - based on 6 + (Skill/2).
Block - based on 4 + (Shield skill/2).

This applies to all monsters, too. All monsters get +3 to their base, figured Dodge (to account for 6+ instead of 3+ base). So a Foul Bat would have a 12 Dodge, but 14 while in the air due to the height advantage (9 + 3, + 2), and a Dire Wolf a 12 (9 + 3). An Eye of Death would have a 15 (12 + 3), potentially a 19 with height advantage and Aerobatics. Your average 10/10/10/10 human now has Dodge 11 - Speed 5, no encumbrance (6 + 5).

You could say that anything that gets rid of Retreat also gives a -3 or -1 to the appropriate defense (say, Move and Attack), to even it out a bit and keep that steep cost for such an attack still the case.

Pros: PCs get to keep their higher defenses, and as a matter of fact routinely have higher defenses more than under the standard rules.

Cons: High whiff factor, and increased need for Deceptive Attack and Feint to hit even fodder monsters. Most foes will Dodge more than 50% of the time against an unenhanced attack. Have to modify every GCA, GCS, and Forge VTT entry for everyone and everything.




Thoughts on these?

If/when I run a future game, Option 1 is going to be the standard. Everyone will have to know that going in. But to get people on board with it for an ongoing game, option 2 might need to be considered.

My response to Alex's comment

My response to Alex's comment seemed long enough, and detailed enough, to warrant a post.

You seem to have painted yourself into a corner. The majority of the headaches are self-created or player-created.

I agree, 100%. I posted my Felltower Regrets just out of potential utility to myself or to other GMs in the future. I wasn't expecting anyone to show me a way out - and honestly, I'm not sure I want one. I wouldn't do it this way again does not equal I don't want it the way it is now. It's not everything I would want a future megadungeon to be but I do think it's where it should be based on the constraints imposed on it by choices I'm comfortable with.

At least for the self-imposed headaches.

You have a much stronger insistence on ecological consistency and logic than most dungeon crafters, and definitely megadungeon crafters. But because of this you face problems with every proposed change that ripple effects touch numerous clusters of rooms and their creatures.

Yes. It's a constraint based on the original design decision. Many of the reasons I shot down my player's suggestion (and that of commenters) about how to "fix" the problems I built into Felltower were the issue with contradicting the original design constraints. I'm a big believer in the value of constraints and letting those constraints cause emergent results. The dungeon has a strong ecology, and what happens in it - and to it - centers on that. As such, I think it's more responsive to player interaction than it would be had a gone the Prime Mover approach, where a wizard or cabal or god or whatever is in charge of the dungeon. It's a lot more dependent on what the players do, and less easy for a GM to stick a finger in to change things to achieve a specific effect.

That's all deliberate. I chose my constraints, built my dungeon, and I'm hewing closely to those constraints and seeing what happens. I think it's more important to stick to those than choose the easy route just to make something come out the way I'd do it given a chance to start over.

I can't tell you not to do that since it is a big part of how you operate, but I can point out that you're doing this to yourself and many megadungeons work fine with a bit of underlying logic and connection but not sweating every detail and the players are fine with that. It's part of the megadungeon conceit.

I'd argue it can be part of the conceit, but it doesn't have to be. I can sweat endless details and make that work. It limits my ability to keep changing the environment that has already been explored, yes, but it suggests lot of effects that add to the immersive and enduring nature of the game.

I can live with that. I'm not going to avoid talking about where those choices took the dungeon, but I am going to keep living with those choices. Again, that's why I posted my regrets and "why nots" but didn't ask for people to help me dig out of this corner I've painted myself into. I don't really want a reason to change anything beyond what can be sustained within the constraints the campaign is built around.

Now, the problem with players cutting off ways between levels I wouldn't mess with. Try to undo or bypass their efforts and they'll just try harder to break your dungeon. If they really want ways down then remind them more ways were there and PCs blocked them, PCs could go unblock them if that's what they want.

Now, here, I strongly disagree. **** the PCs and their efforts. If it clashes with what the ecology of the dungeon demands, too bad. If they knock a door down because they hate it and there is a dweller in the dungeon that would rather it be fixed, it'll get fixed. They can block stairs and others can open them up if that's useful for that individual or faction. The PCs can do what they want, but so can the NPCs. That's one of the upsides of my constraint-centered approach. It has to make sense . . . and letting the players determine what's blocked or not, without input from the logic that underpins the actions of the NPCs, would not do so.

Some things limit my options, some limit theirs. It's our game, after all, so we all have to live with the decisions we've made . . . and with the undoing of them by NPCs if that fits the baseline campaign decisions.

Felltower XP System Notes

In light of an effective Felltower restart, and the higher XP handouts from Vic's game, I think I need to slightly revise my XP awards rules. Not by a lot - I stand by the system in DF21 and here.

But I do think some additional opportunities for XP would be welcome and appropriate.

What's Old is New(ish)

I won't give XP for "new exploration" for old areas already mapped - sorry, that's the downside of getting a full map of the dungeon to work with. No, not even if you choose to set fire to the map and start over. There is stuff to do on the upper levels but let's not pretend "re-check and see what moved in" is "new exploration."

But I will give +1 XP to all PCs when they first reach a "new" depth. Pretty much, when they go down stairs/holes/etc to subterranean levels beyond the first.

For example, show up game one, get to the "apartment" level by going down to the apetrium and then the GFS to the bottom? +2 XP each, one per level. Find the level(s) in between? +1 each. I'll let people know when they've found a new area . . . after the game. Can you just poke your nose down on that level and come back? Yes. Can you send a Wizard Eye? Sure. Can just the scout go? Sure. But that will "use up" the bonus and I'll only apply it to PCs that actually went down there in person. Commit to exploration.

Special Places

I'll tag a few more special places that have been overlooked in the past as new areas worth not only new exploration, but also +1 xp. Again, this is a post-game bonus. But hopefully this will drive a little more exploration.

Gates will still be a +1 per PC to those first passing through a given gate; like the level changes, above, these will be for all gates as a one-time thing. Some gates have been closed, and others opened, so we'll see. I still need a heads-up (or an in-game setup delay) for new gates, but yes, next trip through the Icy Gate or the Air Gate or whatever is worth a +1. Go explore and get points.



Finally, with a bard with Wealthy, I think loot thresholds will be easier to meet. Exploration bonuses won't be, not for a while, but a motivated crew willing to push hard for loot and willing to go new places should get 4-6 xp per session for a while without heavy risk. But it won't be forever - the lower levels will need to be dealt with, or the gates entered, or both, if people want to keep on at that pace. Fortune favors the bold . . . and death comes for everyone, cautious or confident.

How did we handle the GM's guy? Vic's PC

Vic took the reigns and ran games for us for a little while. I was able to play, and the other players were able to take their future Felltower PCs out and get them some much-needed loot and XP before coming to the megadungeon.

But what about Vic?

I wasn't planning on handing over Handsome to Vic, and anyway, I don't think a difficult, criminal, all-offense no-defense half-orc scout was really for him, either.

It's not exactly fair to start him with a plain 250 point guy, though. I wasn't really keen on giving him XP, either - we've had a very firm 250 point starting point for everyone, for all PCs, and making an exception for a co-GM seemed like a bad precedent.

The average take in cash and non-magic gear for the PCs was about $10-12,000. So I simply gave Vic a one-time, one-PC dispensation to spend an additional $12,000. That's equal to half of their cash/gear take, and half of their points but all traded for money. I let him buy normally-purchasable magic (which one or two additions).

He ended up going with a dwarf scout with a nice bow and some solid armor.

I like the approach better - I'd feel odd with giving out XP for nothing when I've held a very hard line on that for 12 years. But I don't have much of an issue saying, hey, you get some extra money. It's about the same as if the PCs had found about $2K more each and decided to pool it buy the new scout some gear. Had that happened, I would have had no issues whatsoever.

That's how we did it - 250 points and $12K to spend. As a one-time dispensation I can live with that!

Felltower Restart Stockup Notes

Yesterday I posted about some VTT issues for Felltower.

Let's look at the in-game restart issues

I posted in September about some regrets about how I launched Felltower. First, one of my players suggested that now is the time to take care of these regrets. He's right about the first one, but the second is quite a bit harder. Why is that?

Making the upper levels a little more starting delver friendly is fine. It wasn't something I did back then because we wanted to start play now and I didn't have a megadungeon ready for the first few game days. But now? Sure, kind of.

By "kind of," the upper levels still need to mesh with the lower. They need to thematically fit. I can't just do some half-assed "bandits moved in!" thing that makes no sense. Or do a reboot and put old monsters back. Either would work but would feel forced in a way that the dungeon hasn't felt from the outside.

The other issue is that the players will, in my experience, always bottom feed. As long as there are weaker monsters on the upper levels with sufficient loot to take home maximum XP - or probably any XP - bottom feed on them. The delvers will want to fully "clear" the upper levels and maximize the loot taken from them. They'll take a low-risk chance at 1-2 xp over a moderate-to-high risk chance at 4-5 xp. How do I know? 12 years of people doing that, even when the actual players changed. Doing the minimum to get the maximum loot is actually even celebrated across the blogs as a real, proper, old-school thing to do. And I blame video games, as usual, which usually expect that you'll have done everything possible. Heck, in Vic's Game, we found a clear way to get to the final boss area . . . and immediately people argued to go do the side areas first. You know, because that's how it's done - clear everything up, then get the boss. So while I can and will restock appropriately, it won't stay available as a starting area. It will get cleared unless my players read this and make a concerted, universal attempt to get deep, fast instead of clear shallowly, slowly.

So there is that for 1.

What about making the bottom levels more accessible? Or adding more access between upper levels? Yes, as my player suggested, I could do non-euclidean stairs, magical modifications, and other changes to re-map the upper levels.

But damn, that's a lot of work. I've looked into it before. It's actually easier to start new levels from scratch than it is to modify existing ones. Just mechanically, I'd need to duplicate the upper level maps, then erase sections and re-draw them, and then essentially re-key them. A lot of descriptions and encounters are based on relative location to other encounters. If I move the stairs, or make the lower levels more accessible, then the encounters and traps and monsters around them need to change. They wouldn't all just be the same. Even a "magic earthquake creates a new way down!" would cause a lot of movement of dwellers, who would then displace others, which would displace others, and so on. It's quite possible, but it's not simple. And if you define "lower levels" as the area where the Masters live, then I'd need to change multiple levels above. So, sadly, no, changing Felltower from a restricted set of upper levels to a smoother path down would actually, at this point, be pretty much the same work as starting a new megadungeon. Maybe a bit less, but it would require so much cross-checking that it would be a lot more tiresome than just making a new one. At least with a new one, I could just let my idea run free without cross-checking to ensure I didn't do too much violence to existing material.*

All of that said, restocking is underway.

Monsters have moved in, moved elsewhere, or moved out. Treasures have been brought in, redistributed, or taken away. Traps set up, disarmed, or done away with. And tricks galore still abound. Much of the very special things on the upper levels have been dealt with permanently by earlier delvers, but then again some problems the earlier delvers had to cope with are long since taken care of. There have been some big changes - and a group that either expects the place to act as if no time had passed, or that so much has passed that the dungeon is "new" again, will have some trouble.

Felltower, renewed, should prove interesting. No less dangerous, but ready for a new crop of delvers to die in explore.






* Editing later: I checked the entrances. Felltower had 5 ways into the top level from the surface; the PCs sealed three of the five themselves. It had four ways to level 2 from 1; the PCs sealed off one of them and harassed the orcs until the orcs sealed two of the others off or guarded them heavily or both. It had multiple ways from level 2 to 3; the PCs sealed a couple of them off, too. So adding connections sounds nice but the PCs like to control traffic and close things . . . I can only undo so much of their own insistent damage to the complex.

Felltower VTT Notes

I've a bit of free time tonight, so I'm working on Felltower.

One thing that will slow play down in Felltower - it will have to be TOTM for the most part. The maps are too big, and in some cases a bit too worn, to get scanned, matched to hexes, and then put up in Foundry. How big? At least one level map is 11 x 17, 10' to the sqaure, 10 squares to the inch . . . and goes edge to edge. So we're talking 1100 x 1700 feet, 366 hexes x 566 hexes. And oh, I'd need to put in walls, doors, etc. for all of those. "Just split it up!" sounds good but requires multiple screens per level, ensuring I get the right one, and then transferring the PCs from one to another with cut-and-paste as we go. Freaking nightmare. It would easier if I could just scan them and have them work, but even then . . . the size of the maps will likely choke the system. I had enough trouble with the relatively small dungeons I did put in wholesale into the VTT.

So it won't be as simple as we've had with the players able to move their own characters around.

That does also mean I'll need to be able to draw maps on the fly for combat. That'll slow us down a bit, too.

Frankly, Felltower was designed with a tabletop, a big Chessex hex map, and LEGO walls to drop down around the map before we fought it out with minis. We played differently with the last dungeon I refereed, but that's the anomaly.

I also need to get the PCs into the system from Vic's game, and add Vic's new guy.

Filling the actual dungeon, well, let's talk more about that tomorrow.