Just some random things for today.
- The Kickstarter for Bones V is 12 noon tomorrow. I'd post a link if I had one.
- Who had a great game session? this guy right over here. If the things he needed to rule on are any indication, it was a fun game.
- I mentioned the other day that I won my first game of War in the East. That's not technically true - I've gotten minor victories here and there on small scenarios, but not on a larger one. In any case, I swapped back to the Axis for a game and I've seen what a vast amount I learned from running the Soviets, watching the AI. I'm not perfect but I've done much better. I've gotten much, much better at logistics, shifting around units to different HQs, assigning support units, knowing where to repair rails first, and how to pocket units with isolation. I'm still learning but I feel more comfortable and I'm enjoying the true challenge of the game - deciding what to do, not learning how to manage the game. Not that that isn't challenging, but it's not the challenge I'm the most interested in.
- One of my friend's clients and I were speaking the other day. She asked if I knew what GenCon was. Heh. Yes, yes I do. She's not a gamer, but she's in a related field and GenCon is a big event for her.
Monday, September 30, 2019
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Felltower & Technology
On the subject of equipment, what TL is Felltower?
DF is technically "TL Olden Times." That's a cute way of saying it's a mix of TL0-4, lacking gunpowder, with everything mixed together. Stone clubs and edged rapiers exist side by side, as do bone armor and full plate. People arm themselves with a weird mix of gear - bronze swords carried by men in mail, fur-clad archers use composite bows with bodkin point arrows and tote the finest steel cavalry sabers, and so on.
Felltower owes most of its technology to this weird mix.
Some things are a bit more advanced, thanks to Gnomic technology and Dwarven metalwork. The game still lacks gunpowder, if only because of the consequences of allowing PCs to buy kegs of black powder* on the game as a whole.
A lot of the "technology" that is a bit ahead of its time are social inventions. The PCs are literate. Books are expensive but aren't crushingly so. Guilds exist but function a lot more like unions than orders full of secrets. Magic is handled in a relatively perfunctory yes/no availability fashion. The city is organized around a mayoral system and has both guard and watch. There is no banking system, exactly, but only because I chose to handwave in-game in-town risk to goods. If I had that risk, I'd have a robust and fairly modern banking system. Socially it's a very egalitarian place except for social stigmas against criminals, outlaws, barbarians, and monster types. Those aren't legal, just norms. There is no slavery. Healing, both magical and reliable, clean, infection-free non-magical, is available readily.
Most of this is a function of allowing the assumptions of the players to work without the game presenting difficulties. The goal here is dungeon delving, and all of the above allows for that to take place with minimal outside impact.
Hard tech and soft tech are both limited to those things that are non-disruptive to the main aim of play, and also both raised to the level that is most conducive to that.
* In short, it's not guns that are the problem, it's solving every problem with Ignite Fire and kegs of explosives.
DF is technically "TL Olden Times." That's a cute way of saying it's a mix of TL0-4, lacking gunpowder, with everything mixed together. Stone clubs and edged rapiers exist side by side, as do bone armor and full plate. People arm themselves with a weird mix of gear - bronze swords carried by men in mail, fur-clad archers use composite bows with bodkin point arrows and tote the finest steel cavalry sabers, and so on.
Felltower owes most of its technology to this weird mix.
Some things are a bit more advanced, thanks to Gnomic technology and Dwarven metalwork. The game still lacks gunpowder, if only because of the consequences of allowing PCs to buy kegs of black powder* on the game as a whole.
A lot of the "technology" that is a bit ahead of its time are social inventions. The PCs are literate. Books are expensive but aren't crushingly so. Guilds exist but function a lot more like unions than orders full of secrets. Magic is handled in a relatively perfunctory yes/no availability fashion. The city is organized around a mayoral system and has both guard and watch. There is no banking system, exactly, but only because I chose to handwave in-game in-town risk to goods. If I had that risk, I'd have a robust and fairly modern banking system. Socially it's a very egalitarian place except for social stigmas against criminals, outlaws, barbarians, and monster types. Those aren't legal, just norms. There is no slavery. Healing, both magical and reliable, clean, infection-free non-magical, is available readily.
Most of this is a function of allowing the assumptions of the players to work without the game presenting difficulties. The goal here is dungeon delving, and all of the above allows for that to take place with minimal outside impact.
Hard tech and soft tech are both limited to those things that are non-disruptive to the main aim of play, and also both raised to the level that is most conducive to that.
* In short, it's not guns that are the problem, it's solving every problem with Ignite Fire and kegs of explosives.
Saturday, September 28, 2019
Equipment in GURPS (and in D&D)
Paul over at Paul's Gameblog put up a post about tools in D&D:
Tools in D&D
He poses a good question for D&D games - what technology level is your game?
With GURPS, this is much easier. Variable tech levels as a concept is baked into the basic form of the game.
Even so, what tool are available wasn't always an easy thing to answer, especially in the early days when digital search wasn't that great and resources just weren't up online.
These days, I just say, GURPS Low-Tech is the place to look.
Before the first GURPS Low-Tech came along, my go-to for equipment in my campaigns was . . . And a 10-Foot Pole by I.C.E., for Rolemaster. I found it a great resource for relative costs, weights, and availability by technology level. If you can find it, it's a useful resource. It's much better if you're playing Rolemaster of the same era, but either way, it's a very useful book.
After the first edition of GURPS Low-Tech came along, I used that. The next edition, the one I helped write, was much easier to use.
These days, that's where I go. For my DF game, for example, things are in the low-TL4 level of technology, augmented by superscience tech and magic. In my previous game, it was a solid TL4 minus gunpowder. I think it would be useful for a D&D GM, too, but I'll admit I'm biased in favor of the utility of GURPS books.
Tools in D&D
He poses a good question for D&D games - what technology level is your game?
With GURPS, this is much easier. Variable tech levels as a concept is baked into the basic form of the game.
Even so, what tool are available wasn't always an easy thing to answer, especially in the early days when digital search wasn't that great and resources just weren't up online.
These days, I just say, GURPS Low-Tech is the place to look.
Before the first GURPS Low-Tech came along, my go-to for equipment in my campaigns was . . . And a 10-Foot Pole by I.C.E., for Rolemaster. I found it a great resource for relative costs, weights, and availability by technology level. If you can find it, it's a useful resource. It's much better if you're playing Rolemaster of the same era, but either way, it's a very useful book.
After the first edition of GURPS Low-Tech came along, I used that. The next edition, the one I helped write, was much easier to use.
These days, that's where I go. For my DF game, for example, things are in the low-TL4 level of technology, augmented by superscience tech and magic. In my previous game, it was a solid TL4 minus gunpowder. I think it would be useful for a D&D GM, too, but I'll admit I'm biased in favor of the utility of GURPS books.
Friday, September 27, 2019
Finally won a game of War in the East
Over the past week, when I've had time, I've been playing War in the East more. This time, as the Soviets, so I can get an idea of what defending is like before I get back to trying to attack as the Axis*.
I managed to eke out a Soviet Minor Victory in the 1941 "Road to Lenningrad" scenario.
It wasn't terribly hard, stategically. The computer AI is good. But even so, it can get a bit bogged down in places that I didn't deem worth the effort. All I needed to do was delay, delay, delay and save units. That's what I did. I pulled back early and often. I set up a defense line around Lenningrad. I conserved all of my airpower for supply drops and computer-run interdiction and battlefield support (especially after "Bomb Unit" never hurt a single Axis soldier.) I defended behind rivers, in swamps, and in cities. I used rail movement to ferry units to the front and only sacrificed units when they got cut off or if I felt I could buy a turn or two by letting them die.
I went from routinely 10:1 casualties against me to 3:1 by the end, which is a war the Soviets can win.
Some things I'm not sure of, like, how the computer managed to get so many rail construction units. I'm sure I'm missing something. I'm not sure how the Soviet AI gets so many partisans, and I only ever got one unit formed (and immediately annihilated by German rear-area security forces.
Others, like how exactly to best ensure I had support units tied to the units that needed them. Or which ones were the ones to choose - I need to really dig into the manual more for that.
I took a few lessons from it:
- liberally using Reassign to change HQs is worth it.
- so is using administrative points to replace crappy leaders.
- it's hard to figure out what a good defensive line will look like. Mine survived mostly because the Axis had 17 turns and I stalled hard. But they were getting dismantled and Lenningrad slowly taken. But I learned that I need to really absorb the rules on building up larger units (such as Corps) and what unit types do best, where.
- Don't get cute. Cute gets units killed. Except possibly for cavalry to raid openings. Generally, though, they end up mauled.
- counterattacking German units is a terrible, terrible idea in 1941. A big pile of Soviet divisions with air support and artillery and planes will get mauled by a pair of German divisions at the end of their tether. It's not 1944 yet.
I really enjoyed it, but there is a lot of administration to do. I'm looking forward to my next go as the Germans and see if I can apply what I learned.
Fun stuff, if very involved.
* I'd say Germans, but you're also running the Finns, Romanians, Italians, etc. that contributed troops to Barbarossa.
I managed to eke out a Soviet Minor Victory in the 1941 "Road to Lenningrad" scenario.
It wasn't terribly hard, stategically. The computer AI is good. But even so, it can get a bit bogged down in places that I didn't deem worth the effort. All I needed to do was delay, delay, delay and save units. That's what I did. I pulled back early and often. I set up a defense line around Lenningrad. I conserved all of my airpower for supply drops and computer-run interdiction and battlefield support (especially after "Bomb Unit" never hurt a single Axis soldier.) I defended behind rivers, in swamps, and in cities. I used rail movement to ferry units to the front and only sacrificed units when they got cut off or if I felt I could buy a turn or two by letting them die.
I went from routinely 10:1 casualties against me to 3:1 by the end, which is a war the Soviets can win.
Some things I'm not sure of, like, how the computer managed to get so many rail construction units. I'm sure I'm missing something. I'm not sure how the Soviet AI gets so many partisans, and I only ever got one unit formed (and immediately annihilated by German rear-area security forces.
Others, like how exactly to best ensure I had support units tied to the units that needed them. Or which ones were the ones to choose - I need to really dig into the manual more for that.
I took a few lessons from it:
- liberally using Reassign to change HQs is worth it.
- so is using administrative points to replace crappy leaders.
- it's hard to figure out what a good defensive line will look like. Mine survived mostly because the Axis had 17 turns and I stalled hard. But they were getting dismantled and Lenningrad slowly taken. But I learned that I need to really absorb the rules on building up larger units (such as Corps) and what unit types do best, where.
- Don't get cute. Cute gets units killed. Except possibly for cavalry to raid openings. Generally, though, they end up mauled.
- counterattacking German units is a terrible, terrible idea in 1941. A big pile of Soviet divisions with air support and artillery and planes will get mauled by a pair of German divisions at the end of their tether. It's not 1944 yet.
I really enjoyed it, but there is a lot of administration to do. I'm looking forward to my next go as the Germans and see if I can apply what I learned.
Fun stuff, if very involved.
* I'd say Germans, but you're also running the Finns, Romanians, Italians, etc. that contributed troops to Barbarossa.
Thursday, September 26, 2019
GURPS Sale
Warehouse 23 is having a 33% off sale on GURPS books from 2018 and earlier:
So most of my books are part of this sale.
GURPS is 33 years old!! All #GURPS PDFs through 2018 are 33% off - Sept. 23-Oct. 4, 2019! Thanks to its flexibility, quality writing, and ease of use, GURPS has been the premiere universal #RPG for over 3 decades! #PlaySJGames https://t.co/HawWeEZeEJ
— Steve Jackson Games (@SJGames) September 25, 2019
So most of my books are part of this sale.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
The Same Rules for All
Generally in game systems, I like all sides to be playing by the same rules.
It bothers me on some level when they don't.
A lot of my gripe comes from playing video games, to be honest. Too many strategic games where re-supply is critical, but the computer doesn't play by the same re-supply rules, so you waste time trying to wage economic warfare or cut off units. Games were ammo is crucial but the computer doesn't run out of ammo. Games were the computer gets a weird bonus to its units, so you can't rightly predict combat power. Games where the NPC version of an identical unit is more powerful - and it loses said power if you somehow convert it to your side. Games where the enemy gets unlimited spells, or arrows, or tanks, or access to (when controlled by a human) command-and-control limited units . . . I feel like I'm getting things slanted against me in a way that prevents me from using my cleverness (and luck, to be fair) to win.
In RPGs I'm a bit more forgiving. I can shrug off intentional one-sides rules - the dark vision of monsters, and the ways doors open for them, in the original D&D books. That's just the environment playing against you. I don't love them, but there we are.
I'm totally fine with the NPCs (or the PCs) getting access to rules and abilities that the other side doesn't. That seems essentially fair to me. After all, games where some races, choices, equipment, etc. is limited is the bedrock of gaming for me. I'm fine with GURPS PCs being built with points and monsters not being built with them (since the budget is unlimited, anyway, why does the total matter?) They're using identical rules - Unkillable might be off-limits for PCs in this game but the monsters use it the same way as the PCs would if they had it. If they both have Night Vision 5 or Weapon Master (Rapier) they both use it the same way. Access doesn't need to be level or fair, just effects and rules, for me to feel like "the same rules for all" applies.
But I don't love it when games, say, have PCs in levels and classes and NPCs in HD. I don't love it when the NPC version of something doesn't match the PC version. It feels more complicated that necessary, like more things to learn and know, and I just feel it's a sub-optimal decision. And it just bothers me.
I'm curious how others feel when they encounter this.
It bothers me on some level when they don't.
A lot of my gripe comes from playing video games, to be honest. Too many strategic games where re-supply is critical, but the computer doesn't play by the same re-supply rules, so you waste time trying to wage economic warfare or cut off units. Games were ammo is crucial but the computer doesn't run out of ammo. Games were the computer gets a weird bonus to its units, so you can't rightly predict combat power. Games where the NPC version of an identical unit is more powerful - and it loses said power if you somehow convert it to your side. Games where the enemy gets unlimited spells, or arrows, or tanks, or access to (when controlled by a human) command-and-control limited units . . . I feel like I'm getting things slanted against me in a way that prevents me from using my cleverness (and luck, to be fair) to win.
In RPGs I'm a bit more forgiving. I can shrug off intentional one-sides rules - the dark vision of monsters, and the ways doors open for them, in the original D&D books. That's just the environment playing against you. I don't love them, but there we are.
I'm totally fine with the NPCs (or the PCs) getting access to rules and abilities that the other side doesn't. That seems essentially fair to me. After all, games where some races, choices, equipment, etc. is limited is the bedrock of gaming for me. I'm fine with GURPS PCs being built with points and monsters not being built with them (since the budget is unlimited, anyway, why does the total matter?) They're using identical rules - Unkillable might be off-limits for PCs in this game but the monsters use it the same way as the PCs would if they had it. If they both have Night Vision 5 or Weapon Master (Rapier) they both use it the same way. Access doesn't need to be level or fair, just effects and rules, for me to feel like "the same rules for all" applies.
But I don't love it when games, say, have PCs in levels and classes and NPCs in HD. I don't love it when the NPC version of something doesn't match the PC version. It feels more complicated that necessary, like more things to learn and know, and I just feel it's a sub-optimal decision. And it just bothers me.
I'm curious how others feel when they encounter this.
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Bones V
News to me, but clearly not to everyone - Bones V is coming 10/1:
I'm sure I'll jump in on it ASAP, although that might be tricky as I'll be at work. But after I get in on it, I'll back off and evaluate . . . how much do I need in the way of unpainted plastic? I've got a lot . . . I suppose it depends on what Reaper offers!
Anyone else feel buried until unpainted Bones minis?
Reaper Bones 5 is Coming Soon!
September 5th, 2019
Bones 5 is coming to Kickstarter on October 1!
Be looking for previews and more info right here on ReaperMini.com, as well as on our Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter pages. And don't forget to watch Reaper Live every Thursday for more up to date gossip and info!
Reapermini.com
I'm sure I'll jump in on it ASAP, although that might be tricky as I'll be at work. But after I get in on it, I'll back off and evaluate . . . how much do I need in the way of unpainted plastic? I've got a lot . . . I suppose it depends on what Reaper offers!
Anyone else feel buried until unpainted Bones minis?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
