Random Thoughts & Links for 8/9/2024

Busy week, just a few bits.

- I'm reading Jon Peterson's new book. It's good, and it does have some details on the early days of gaming that the first volume didn't, but it's not so dense as the first one. Much more readable for someone who just wants to learn the history, but I did enjoy the deep detail of the 1st edition of Playing at the World.

- I really need to link up all of the recent sessions on the DF campaign page. I've just been doing too much other stuff to take a moment to do that.

- I forgot to mention that hidden GM rolls seemed to work just fine last game session. It really makes a big difference for us when they are on versus when they are off.

- So busy these past few days that I didn't have time to play any more Persian Gulf. I need to complete it by early next week, so I expect a marathon of turns on Sunday and Monday.

Felltower: Upcoming Game Dates

Thanks to the Summer scheduling messes, the next Felltower game day is 8/25. I'll have posts in between, but no summaries until then.

DF Felltower: Sage Research Results for the Pool of Fire

Here are the results of the research request on the flaming pool.

- It's almost certainly a mostly one-way gate from the Realm of Fire, one of the elemental worlds.

- It matches the description of other one-way gates from such places in all of the important particulars - ever-burning oil, supernaturally hot flames.

- such gates are two-way only for beings of fire, but might be the outflow from a normal gate in the Realm of Fire - in other words, it might be an exit even if you can't use it as an entrance.

- the "hemisphere" that Hannari briefly fondled - the sage insisted on the word choice "fondled" - is likely part or all of some kind of salamander or flame beast akin to flame lords. It almost certainly pulled back when it encountered something it couldn't burn.

- Whatever Hannari fondled, it will be aware of your existence now. Be careful around the gate as fire creatures could come through.

- It's possible other pools in the room are the same. Although it's also possible that they are not. But one-way exit gates are more likely than two-way gates.

And that's all.

TWW: Persian Gulf update

I decided after all to keep playing TWW: Persian Gulf as is.

I probably needn't have worried too much about the Soviets. They've steamrolled their way south, demolishing the few rebel units in their path and seizing a few important locations along the way. They managed to get as far as seizing Abadan and Shiraz. They had phenomenal luck with air defenses, and bad luck with ground attacks. The US tried to stop their steamroll with a B52 strike - which a lucky "6" aborted, and with an F-16 attack (halved by AA). Ground fire also aborted an A-10 deployment against one attack. Only some USMC AV-8Bs (Harriers) managed to get useful ground support in. But low rolls on the attacks meant they dealt damage but suffered disruptions across the board. Same with a Syrian attack on Iraqi units, which did nothing but bruise everyone.

However, the US RDF has landed and struck back. The first direct US vs. USSR fighting on the ground was a counterattack on Abadan. The Soviets held it with two MRDs (Motorized Rifle Divisions, which are mechanized infantry). The US counterattacked with the 82nd Airborne (airborne infantry), a helicopter brigade, the 9th Light Mechanized Division (light motorized, a division that never came to be as the game envisioned it), and some Iraqi units - some Revolutionary Guard tanks plus regular infantry and armored. The MRDs were forced to retreat and disrupted heavily passing through ZOCs on their way out. A Jordanian expeditionary force took Bakhtaran with some light Kurdish help. And the Iraqis counterattacked the Syrians and achieved as much as the Syrians had - mutual bruising, with the Iraqi suffering a lot of units damaged to two Syrian units banged up. Still, they're fixed in play with the Turks nearby . . . not that they can coordinate attacks as they're rival nations.

And the Iranian army, fighting on both sides, has suffered about 50% of so casualties in effective units. Ouch. The IRG took losses, too, but they can recruit replacements.

FWIW, if you're familiar with the game, I am using the Chemical Warfare rules, which inflicts extra damage on non-NBC equipped troops and reduces damage if one side doesn't have CW and the other does. It's a fun rule that makes the minor powers really minor, and what might be a soft target a bit harder when they'll use nerve gas against your unsuited troops.

The aborted A-10 mission was a godsend to the Soviets because they provide a 4-column shift in odds. Your 6-1 attack becomes 2-1, for example, and 3-1 becomes 1-2 (1.5-1 is a column). It stayed 6-1. And aborting that B52 strike was potentially short-term game-shifting. Most air units have a rating for air-to-air, ground attack, and strike ranging from 0-5. The Tu-96 Blackjacks have a 6. Otherwise, the heaviest strike wings have a 5. The B52? 10. That's enough to reliably inflict 2-3 disruptions on every unit struck, and potentially 10. The elite of the elite are eliminated with 9 disruptions, and most US units have 7, 8 for the elite, and Soviets 5, 6 or 7 for the elite. Oh, and it slows movement. No worries, AA got the mission nullified. It could have wrecked two soviet divisions right next to US forces that could counterattack . . . instead, nothing at all.

Now it's War Turn 1. I'll pick up there next time.

Overall, my strategy for the Soviets has been damn the torpedoes full speed ahead. I'll spend units like bullets if I have to in order to take cities for the victory points, and I'll need a big whack of them and some luck in the air war to crush the RDF. But the US doesn't get a lot of reinforcements, so do I slow it down and let the reinforcing armies roll up and make a big final push with everyone? I'm not sure. We'll see what it looks like after the Turks enter the war and if the Syrians can survive.

Favoring humans in DF Felltower: Setting Bias

I mentioned in the comments on my proposed DF rules option for humans that DF Felltower biases a bit towards humans.

So, how does DF Felltower bias towards humans?

None of it is a big bias; nothing here makes it harder to be non-human. But it is all stuff that makes it easier on you as a human.

Most equipment found is SM 0. That's fine for a good number of non-human races, but is fine for 100% of humans, even the SM+1 ones.

Most armor found is SM 0 and human-shaped. So elves might have a bit of an issue; dwarves definitely do.

Most NPCs are human, and on the whole are more likely to show up as friends or enemies. Advantages that are race-affected or don't cross racial barriers are more limited for non-humans. And there are races that have special antipathy for elves, for dwarves, for half-elves, for halflings, etc. - but not any with a special hatred for humans that doesn't also hit the human-adjacent races.

In short, the world assumes a human majority, places the campaign in a human-majority location, and provides most gear for humans first and to non-humans as an afterthought. Humans might not get the nice little power jump that most non-humans get, but they get a bias across the board in the setting towards them.

Random Thoughts & Links for 8/2/24

It's the end of the week, which means random stuff too small for its own post.

- Got 12 minutes? Then you can hear about how DF1 Monster's Leaping Leeches aren't fiction, but fact.

Leaping Leeches!

- I've played 9 turns of Third World War: Persian Gulf. So far . . . I'm a little underwhelmed. I chose to randomize the diplomacy cards for the pre-war phase using an optional rule. The results were . . . interesting, for sure. The usual suspects went Pact - Syria, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian Communist Party. The US got pretty much everyone else - the Saudis, Iraq, the Kurds, Jordan, Israel, the majority of the Iranian Army during a revolt. All fine. But because the diplomacy cards to alert the military forces (Alert the RDF for US/NATO, Mobilize the Southern Military Districts for the USSR) are held to the end, nothing much has happened. Some jockeying and movement, but no actual fighting, no air war, nothing. Everyone is just primed to go. And now that the end phase of diplomacy is coming, the US has the advantage. The RDF is small but powerful and arrives quickly. The Soviet reinforcements arrive slowly (6 weeks later!) and aren't as powerful. When I used to play face to face, generally as soon as someone could, they'd start the call up. Once things got along a bit soemone would intervene in Iran and the other side would invade, or vice-versa. You'd have fighting breaking out in Iran, followed by US/USSR conflict for a few weeks, and then you'd pull the trigger on general mobilization and war. Now . . . there is going to be 1-2 weeks of pre-war fighting before mobilization, and the Soviets will receive their main reservists before the ones called up by the special mobilization, which is both odd and kneecaps their ability to steamroll Iran (or in this case, the rebel army units in Iran.) They only have 8 weeks of war turns before the game automatically ends, so then what? It's really not that dynamic of an environment.

So I'm deciding between playing it out, and restarting, but allowing a free swap-in of the Alert/Mobilize cards as soon as they apply, and then go back to prewar diplomacy, allowing only for an Invade/Intervene swap-in as appropriate.

We'll see . . .

- Lots of grail history in the preface to this game discussion here - the Quest for the Holy Grail.

- This is me, explaining to my players why the tough monster placed to stop them isn't loaded with loot.

OOTS 1306 Out of Pocket

Favoring humans in GURPS DF

I think there are a few reasons people play non-humans in GURPS DF.

One is just the interest factor - why play fantasy and not play an elf, dwarf, cat-folk, half-demon air-infused dark one, etc.?

The second is pure munchkin. I've had people ask for races outside the DF Felltower list basically because it fit a particular build. Not as in, "It would be cooler if my guy was a half-giant/cat-folk/sea elf/whatever," but as in, "the point costs work out to make a more optimized guy if it was a half-giant/cat-folk/sea elf/whatever."

I'm guilty of both - Handsome the half-orc scout is such because it makes him cooler and because it was a good point buy.

It might be worth balancing the scales a bit. Sure, in theory, a point buy system means it doesn't matter if you're a dwarf, you paid for all of that stuff as the same rate as a human would. But in practice, you have a hard disadvantage limit and a race that comes with -20 in disadvantages and -5 in secondary stat reductions and comes with 45 points of cool stuff costs 20. You get +45 in cool stuff and pay 20 to get it.

Looking at DFRPG Adventurers, disadvantages run from -5 (half-elf) up to -22 (Cat-Folk) without counting attribute reductions, for most NPCs.

One option: Allow humans an expanded pool of disads. Instead of -50 (plus -5 in quirks), allow them -65 (plus -5 in quirks.)
To avoid sameness, the additional -15 points can come from either secondary characteristic reductions, off-template disadvantages, or on-template disadvantages.
Net/net, nonhumans are still a good deal. But humans now have 15 points to play with.

You could even go 20 points, but I think that makes some racial choises - like half-elf and gnome - a net loss unless they exactly match what you need from them. -15 seems like a good go.

I haven't tried this, but I have players who make characters for a hobby so I expect they'd be willing to give this a try. It might go a ways towards making humans a good basic choice in a way that they aren't when point-efficient and useful packages like dwarf (the single most popular) are out there.