Clothe them in scraps (Quickie How To)

I got an email over the weekend commenting on the Otherworld Skeletons I had worked on in February. Specifically, the dude on the left there:

Here's what I wrote about him in March:

I was working on the skeletons (UD1a) and decided to take the advice I read on the Otherworld forums and pin the arms. Unfortunately, my pinning was an utter failure. Either the pin was at a "bad" angle or I didn't have enough in the ball of the arm joint to make a good fit, but I just struggled with all of them. 

One in particular (the spear guard) gave me fits. I was going to put the skeleton standing at attention with a spear/shield, and after 8 times (5 with superglue, 3 with JB Weld) of putting arms on, them not bonding/holding enough and working loose, me scraping clean, regluing, I just had ruined shoulder bones and crudded up arms/sockets. I thought I would have to put that figure away as a ruined one. I was given a great idea to get the shoulders in place anyway I could, then cover the shoulders with a "rotted" cloth. Great idea!After a search around the house for non-embossed tissues or cloth, I found that my box of industrial paper towels work great. So now the model has tons of JBWeld on the shoulders but it will be tabletop acceptable.

The emailed question was, how did I actually make the rotted cloth?

BTW, I apologize for the suckage of the photo. I probably should reshoot my minis since I now know how to use my camera properly for minis photos, later maybe.

Anyway, the recipe is as follows:

1. Grab some tissue paper, paper towel, or something that can stand up to a few dunkings in white glue.

2. Cut/rip the cloth to fit. I had to do this several times to get it to look right. It's easier to do this now than later when it's stiff and painted. If you're making rotted cloth, I ripped it so that the uneven ripped edges would look rotted.

3. Soak/paint it with Mod-Podge or Elmer's White Glue. When it starts to get dry, "shape" the cloth as much as you can so that it dries somewhat in the position you want. I also crinkled mine, then flatted it out so it didn't look perfectly smooth.

4. Repeat #3 if it doesn't feel sturdy enough. The white glue is to hold the shape and stiffen it so that when you paint it, the paper doesn't fall apart.

5. Basecoat/Shade/Highlight. For my rotted cloth, which I wanted to look leather-like, I used DecoArt Mississippi Mud as base, Devlan Mud as the shade and Khahki as a highlight.

6. Glue to your figure. I used superglue and there was enough white glue/paint in the cloth so that it held together nicely. Since it was already somewhat preshaped, it was pretty easy to get it to line up and look like it was hanging on the shoulders.

Easy Peasy and probably not worth so many words, but there ya go.

DM Dilemma - It's OK to say "No" - No, really. Say No!

What is it about Fridays and this subject - last week's DM Dilemma and now again this week.

I just read the latest post on Roleplaying Tips titled "A Con, A Cave, a Troll" by Simon Woodside. I have to admit, I had to walk away from the computer, come back, walk away again, come back.. well, you get the idea. If you wanted proof and a great example of the myth/perception that the DM should be the (unpaid) entertainer/walking-talking monkey, this post is it.

This is not to pick on Simon - I don't know Simon, I've never seen another post by him, as far as I know - it looks like he's a guest poster. What I am picking on are concepts like these:

As the GM you are expected to be a storyteller for your players ...

... make your gaming material fit what the players want to do ...

In this specific example, the GM might scrap their previous plan to dive into a gritty underdark campaign and instead develop into an above-ground, interaction-with-the-locals theme. I’m just making that proposal based on what the PCs in the example seem to want. They seem to have expressed a preference, maybe, for building-oriented adventures over dungeon adventures. Don’t assume it, ask them. Use their feedback for your future designs.

The players ultimately get a campaign more closely tailored to what they want.

Now, in Simon's defense, he also writes:

But fundamentally he was right. He had prepared a troll cave. Why should he suddenly have to wing it just because his players didn’t want to play what he prepared?

 I'm still trying to figure out how this perception, this myth that the DM needs to be the performing chimp came about. Is it just a sign of the times, this sense of entitlement and the sense that the DMs should have to do that, just because they're DMs?

I don't get it.

I know there's a balance and if I was running a game that totally sucked, nobody liked, then I would expect players to not play. But if the players got up and left because I ran a goddamn troll cave, well, great, you go back to town and we'll shut down for the evening. See you next game session. If I had players demanding things, with the expectations that they should get it just because they grace my table after I've put time/effort/thought/money into putting together a campaign world... I'd be hard pressed to ever want to put the energy into running a game.

I would like to beat a dead horse a bit and say that is why I like sandboxes - the players aren't constrained to a plot that they don't suddenly like. And perhaps that's why I don't run into these problems of the players requesting a "new plot" because they don't like the old one... in a sandbox, they can up and go do something else on their whim, which is expected and encouraged.

Go back to the wargaming roots of our hobby. When someone puts together a battle of Romans v. Gauls, the participants don't suddenly say in the middle of the game "Hey you know what, I really want to play Aztec warriors, so let's just cross the ocean..." the stated campaign was what it was and people played it and then decided what to do next. Now, if the DM doesn't supply players with what's on the WotC approved magic item list, they're a horrible DM. If they don't provide checklists and questionnaires and adjust their campaign to fit 4 to 8 different 10 page backgrounds, they're a shitty DM.

Well, guess I'm a shitty DM. Go figure. I just have no interest in being that type of performing chimp.

This isn't to say I don't participate in a mutually enjoyable game. We try stuff that works or we get rid of it. I run a game that I've found to be enjoyable. I've found a good rhythm with the game I like to run and the game people like to play. At the same time, I don't feel this slavish responsibility to do exactly what my players want, when they want, how they want. I evaluate requests on what's good for the campaign as a whole, not on whether I should always say "Yes". There's a difference between saying "yes" when it makes sense and saying "yes" because I'm expected to be the performing chimp.

If I were writing that article that Simon wrote, it would be less about what I'm supposed to do because the players demand it and more about how to be up front with what the campaign/adventure/story/mission is about and being flexible within a sandbox context to allow the players to shift their goals. I don't need to put the same troll cave in the players' path because I'm locked into the troll cave.

This post feels funky, only because I don't think I'm doing a good job of expressing my puzzlement at this supposed DM responsibility and what goes on at my table. I have players coming back, so apparently I'm not the sadistic, fuck-em-all, screw-the-players DM, yet I don't resonate with anything that Simon wrote.

DM Dilemma - It's OK to say "No"

I've gotten some very nice email inquiries and comments about the sandbox posts and I'm very appreciative of that, thank you. One of the common themes of the inquiries seems to be regarding my boundary of "no in-town adventures" so I thought I'd talk about that for a minute, because boundaries/edges and player expectations are a dilemma that I read about DM's having.

That "no in-town adventures" boundary came about as a result of adopting Ben Robbin's "West Marches" campaign style. I bought it whole-cloth, including the "You must begin/end in civilization" and "No in-town adventures - civilization is boring - wilderness is exciting!" themes. I'm extremely up front about that in my player handouts and game introductions. 

No capes! And no in-town adventures, dah'ling! Too ordinary!

Someone asked me "why" the restriction and it's a fair/good question. The best answer I can come up with is that I find them incredibly boring.

"But Michael!" you may gasp (and I've been asked in same emails). "What if the players want it!? What if they DEMAND it?!"

Simple. I would say "No."

Well, why I would do something that I have absolutely no interest in? Why would I waste their time and mine? Why is there the expectation that the DM is someone who simply supplies entertainment on demand (I really wanted to put "is supposed to be a whore?" here, but figured that would distract some. Wait, I did it. Oops...) to the players who are within their rights to expect whatever they want.

Crazy, right? I see this all over the place though - DMs who think that they have to do XYZ, or that the player's fun should come at the expense of the DM's fun. Bullshit.

Now I am clear and up front about what I will and won't do. I don't bait and switch and even if a long-running player got pissed and threatened to leave unless I provide an in-town adventure.. well... sorry man, thought it would work out, hope you find a game you can enjoy. That's not to say that I don't appreciate player input, that we don't discuss rules, that I ignore player requests or feelings. At the same time, I've got my own ya-yas. I've got what works for me and I know what doesn't work and trust me, an intrigue-filled, plot-rich mystery of Lord So-in-so who may be a vampire in the Enonian Keep zzzzzzZZZZzzzzz... huh? Wha'? Let me know what's beyond the woods over to the east in the wilderness. I may spend 10 days hex wandering, but by god I'm filling in my map and making plans for my keep to go there, my village to go there and I'll move those goblins right the fuck out! See? I'm cursing and getting all excited about the prospect. (Now you know why I needed 29,000odd hexes...)

Look, this isn't a post about why in-town scenarios suck. It's a post that says you as the DM have every right to run, to enjoy, to demand a game that you like as much as you try to provide a game that other people like. I know that in Chicago, I am extremely lucky to have a big population and lots of opportunties. I have a pool of players that enjoy the kind of game I run, that enjoy the way I do things. Not everyone has that... but in consideration, if I were in a player-poor environment, I still would not run in-town scenarios. Why would I play basketball if I suck at it and don't like it? Answer, I wouldn't. I'm not a masochist, emotional or otherwise. I'm not doing this to be of service to everyone else. I'm doing this to share what I do enjoy, to be with like-minded people and to have awesome games doing it.

So it's OK to say "no". It's OK to tell the players "you can't" and it's OK to set limits, boundaries and edges. Just be up front, be clear and be consistent. Be prepared to wow them with what you CAN do, with what you WANT to do and let the love of THAT shine through and you won't get asked for the things you don't want to do. 

The sandbox problems and the DM skill level

Yesterday's cross-blog discussion with JB of B/X Blackrazor over his post on sandbox gripes went surprisingly civil [1], so I thought I'd continue the discussion with some points that he brought up in his comment. They're good ones but most importantly, they reflect that issues with sandboxes end up being DM and DM skill specific, not necessarily a reflection on sandboxes in general. I tried to be very careful in disupting the myth about sandboxes, not to bash on JB's DM skills.

See for me, I AGREE that sandboxes should be "living/breathing/moving" things...that's exactly WHY I say they're a crap-ton of work! Or as I said in my whole quote:
"It requires a crap-ton of energy on the DM’s part to keep the campaign world LIVING/BREATHING/EVOLVING/RESOLVING..."
See? The work (and I'm just as lazy as the rest of y'all if not moreso) comes from trying to make a "living world;" that and the "keeping a couple steps ahead" of my players...which I don't do.

JB, I think you're overestimating how much work is involved - it's not as much as you might think, or made it be in your previous games.

The living/breathing world is a combination of how I see the world and how the players see the world. In so many ways, the players themselves shape the coming adventures. And while this may involve writing a sentence or two in a notebook as compared to the work of:

Players were expected to play their character/role in whatever scenario (I hesitate to even call them “adventures”) that the DM devised. The DM was expected to come up with adventures.

 I'd be willing to bet it's about the same amount of time. In truth, the time I spend ends up being more reactive than proactive.

Here's an example - I had a dungeon full of ko-balds in an area held by ko-balds. The players wiped them out. A few weeks later, the players wanted to go back. I grabbed an encounter table and rolled up an owlbear and goblins. Since goblins are in the next forest over, and once the owlbear was killed by the freaked out players, the players wondered out loud if the goblins were going to move in. BOOM! There's my future story line "GOBLINS MOVE INTO FORMER KOBOLD BASE - WAR IMMENENT?" That added flavor and set up stuff for the future.

My point is that staying ahead of the players, for me, has been a combination of some prep (probably about the same time it takes to prep a module or grab the latest ScoobyDo adventure and rewrite it in fantasy format) and more of figuring out how the world reacts to the players. I listen to how the players see the world and it helps me to guide my hand. It's not always the truth - my players have come up with some crazy shit that just doesn't fit the bill, but that's OK. Heroes often get derailed on red herrings and I'll let them, they'll figure it out.

There's another quote I want to pull and this one is from Matt Finch's first adventure design book. I'm bastardizing it a bit, but it's the same jist: "Meaningful player decisions should have meaningful results." (Actually, his full quote is: "A good adventure should maximize meaningful player decisions." but you can see how I derived my interpretation.)

The players guide the sandbox a lot more than I let on because that's my job. I'm a con artist. I'm a scammer. I have this great sandbox with all the pieces, but in truth, the players do as much of the building as I do, through the things they do, or the things they don't do. I'm not some improv wizard, if I was, I'd be making money in comedy than being a boring IT manager. When my players make meaningful decisions, I want it have consequences, even if not right away, but it will in the future.

So what constitutes a meaningful decision? Well, that's one of those things that each DM and each player is going to differ on. For me, meaningful decisions involve - where are the players going? How do they interact with the elements of the destination (monsters, important objects)? What do their actions result in? What would be the reaction of all those involved who are not PCs?

Each adventure is not a meaningful decision kind of adventure in a world sense. Sometimes a "kick the door, grab the loot, kill 'em all" is exactly that. That doesn't mean that the weird sword someone grabbed from a kill/loot game now doesn't have meaningful results later on. It could. I planted a magic sword a long time ago and then in a place of Chaos, it shattered. Nobody has asked why, or what to do, or how to pursue it, so it remains open, but there's that potential. I'm not going to beat the players about the head with it, but at the same time, that thread is there. It's a line in my notebook.

This is a long winded way of saying that the two steps ahead thing and the Just In Time creation doesn't have to be about DM skill in crafting worlds - it can be just as simple as letting the players do what they do best and then letting the world react to that. And if you really need inspiration, grab that d12. 1-2, the world reacts badly, 3-5 the world is unhappy, but waiting, 5-7, the world is neutal, doesn't care, 8-10 the world is OK, but wants to see more, 11-12 it's the best outcome for the players' interest. Done. Next!

Whew. OK, JB continues...

And while I WANT my players to be independent and "go off doing their own things," I have a shit-hard time reconciling MULTIPLE players wanting to do DIFFERENT things at once...ESPECIALLY in a campaign world where the "maps" are static, even if the "world" is not.

Uhh, don't. Let them do it. It's not your job. You set the stage. They play in it. If  they want to go in different directions, LET THEM! They'll figure it out, or they won't. Either way, you've done your job and you'll do your job as impartial referee.

Here's yet another example.

I have two main themes in my world - Chaos (the Dark Ones) is on the rise and the Bestials (orcs, goblyns, ko-balds) are wanting to kick human ass. My third theme is "you need gold. Lots of gold. There's riches out there. Go get it." but it's not the main oppositional them.

The first two YEARS of my campaign have seen the players wander from goal to goal. First, they wanted to clear out the monastery. No, they wanted to raid the ancient dwarf mine/kobold outpost. Wait, no, they want to explore the woods and rescue New Hope. No, wait, let's dig through the Inn and find the rumored magic sword. No, wait, wait... there's a second level the dwarf mines. Let's loot it! No, I found a map to a gold mine out in the Plains of Irecia. Let's go there! No, no, we should find my god's holy site! No, the chaos is stronger in the monastery, we have to clear it!

You get the point. :) They've finally focused lately and it shows. They've decided the orcs are too powerful right now and they want to eliminate the nearer threat of the chaos under the monastery.

And that's OK. They wandered, they had a good time, they learned and their skills as players have improved. My skill as a DM has hopefully improved.

Please forgive the length of this post, but there's another aspect I want to explore from JB's reply:

I was writing how they don't work for ME (at least the last three or four I've tried), and how there may be another "primitive" way of playing that still has some merits.
I think it's cool that you guys all do the sandbox thing...I think you have a lot of good tips for a newbie sandboxer like myself. So long as my players get to develop their own characters over time...strange as it might sound (coming from me) that's what I prefer to see more than the development of a campaign "world."

When I read your post yesterday, my goal in the rebuttal was to address the underlying myths that get perpetuated,  you just happened to hit a crap ton of them. There's no way in hell I can judge you for being a good or bad DM unless I play in your game, so I tried to be real careful about not coming at you, but at the underlying themes.

I think all good or skilled DMs have that same approach - allowing the players to develop their characters. I know I do. I'm perfectly happy to let the players farm mustard, go genocidal on the countryside or even let Enonia burn while they set up their own new town. I've been happy to let them figure their world out for the last 28 months because it's been fun, we've all been learning and we all are getting invested in what we do. That's independent of how we construct the world we all play in.

I'd also like to say that there is no primitive way, no better way, no ONETWUEWAY of making a world tick. Sandbox is a tool, just like story telling is another tool. I've happily and liberally stolen as much shit as I can from all the blogs I read and all the games that I've watched or played in. Every DM has their thing that works and their thing that doesn't. I know that each game I walk away from, I feel like there's a dozen things I could do better. I could describe rooms/exits/layouts better. I could set better atmosphere. Hell, my fucking combat rounds sometimes are like keystone kops because I get so excited about fighting that Philotomy's sequence falls out my ass and I can't remember who is doing what. But I try to learn and improve my skills.

We keep coming back to that skill thing - and each style of play takes a skill but I think all these skills can be learned. It may not be easy, but it's worth the attempt, if you're interested. I have about zero interest in running a plot-driven campaign, but I will stick my toe in it now and then to see what I can learn from the experience. If you don't like sandboxes, think they're shit, cool... but I hope you learn something from learning about them. To me, that's no different than trying new video games to learn tricks, or trying a new sport to exercise a different part of the body. I'm a firm believer that if we don't push at the envelope, we don't grow, we don't find new areas to explore - and that at the end of the day is what drives me to do the things I do... to grow, to learn, to learn new things and express the crap in my head in new ways.

Well, if you read all the way through, you're a trooper and thanks for hanging in there.

[1] Not that JB isn't civil, but my experiences in the past haven't been so good on these in other areas, so this was nice that I could say "bullshit" and someone got what I was saying. :)

The sandbox myths - they continue and I stomp 'em

The A to Z thing has really taken a lot more of my creative time/energy than I thought, so I was wondering WTF I was going to write about today, and JB over at B/X Blackrazor has given me the perfect subject.

JB writes some good shit, but I have to disagree with him perpetuating the myths of sandbox play.

• Players often end up with a “huh, don’t know what to do” attitude (looking for clues or suggestions or direction from the DM)
• Some players DO have a strong idea of what they want to do, but it’s “off the grid” (i.e. something the DM hasn’t prepped), leading to them being forced to go for the direction offered by the DM
• PCs spend a lot of time combing through “tavern want ads” which is no more or less ridiculous than DQ’s “Adventurer’s Guild” (aped by many computer fatasy RPGs since).
• The players (and sometimes the DM!) get BORED with the world/setting long before they’ve exhausted all the adventure avenues the DM bothered to prep, thus leading to (what I see as) a waste of the DM’s time and energy.
• It requires a crap-ton of energy on the DM’s part to keep the campaign world living/breathing/evolving/resolving as the PCs podunk around the imaginary country-side.

I wrote about this two years ago (JESUS! Two years ago!?! Who the hell was I two years ago??) and even run local workshops on 2 hour sandbox campaign preps, but like birth certificate disputes, gas prices and bad pennies, this one comes up again and again. So let's once again dispel the myths and have some discussion about it.

Players often end up with a “huh, don’t know what to do” attitude (looking for clues or suggestions or direction from the DM)


I think it's a fallacy that sandboxes don't provide hooks or opportunities to adventurers. What sandboxes don't do is beat the players about the head with the chosen adventure of the month. If the players decide that the opposition is too tough, they know there are other opportunities, or they go looking for them. I think a sandbox doesn't hide, but it also doesn't force - they are just there. If players are too afraid to enter the bar, local Merchants Guild, talk to the local priest or lord ... well...

I can honestly say that in the 2 1/2 years in my sandbox, or in the solo game, I haven't seen the players have a "what do we do now" attitude because I present a living world. If you don't believe me, go look at the list of quests from both campaigns. It doesn't take a lot to do that either... just have a sheet of paper and when the players talk to NPCs or you drop a clue or announce what has happened between games, keep a note of it. Trust me, properly motivated (ie., poor) players will remember that 6 months ago, you mentioned that there was rumors of a gold mine beyond the ko-bald/goblyn infested forests.

This isn't rocket science, but it's also not requiring you build a rocket. Just leave hints and clues and let events transpire to guide you to how those clues/events build and develop.

Some players DO have a strong idea of what they want to do, but it’s “off the grid” (i.e. something the DM hasn’t prepped), leading to them being forced to go for the direction offered by the DM

That is exactly what I want! It's a fallacy that the DM has to "prep" for every player decision, in fact that's why sandboxes work! You put the pieces in place. You set the stage, but you also have broad concepts and brush strokes for those moments when the players do want to go "go off grid" and you have clear boundaries.

One aspect of my campaign that I do not hide is that I will not run in-town, in-kingdom adventures. I just don't do it. If the players wanted to pursue some sort of internal vendetta against the King, I would not run such an adventure. That's not my game, that's not my campaign and I'm really damn comfortable with that decision. If I'm a baseball player, why am I going to insist that the tennis players get up on a mound and throw tennis balls like baseballs to me? I'm not an in-town intrigue kinda DM. So my players know what to expect and they know the boundaries of my sandbox.

Within that, there's a whole world for them to explore and there's nothing "off-grid". If they want to ride 10 days to the Sithasten mountains, do I have 10 dungeons prepped? Nope, but I also give them and myself enough leeway that I *can* come up with something. My deal with the players to run a game is they tell me about 3 to 4 days prior what the mission is they want to do and who's coming. And I prep. If game day comes and we suddenly shift gears, I have no problem asking them for 15 minutes to figure out what is going to go on ... and I make some serious notes, grab some great tools and away we go - within the broad brushstrokes of my world and based on where the world has dynamically flowed since the first time I wrote those ideas down.

PCs spend a lot of time combing through “tavern want ads” which is no more or less ridiculous than DQ’s “Adventurer’s Guild” (aped by many computer fatasy RPGs since).


I also have to respectfully say "So the fuck what?" No more ridiculous than 99% of what we do anyway - wandering monsters, encounter tables, d30 tables, etc. If the players want to go to the Merchants Guild Job board, what do I care? 99% of those jobs are boring and the players are going to end up not caring. And if they do, then that's the world they want to play in. I'll run mustard farmers. It's not all that hard to drop hints and hooks to take the PCs away from "want ads." (see #1 above) and sometimes you go with a trope because it works. I can honestly say that the only time the PCs went to the Merchant's Guild Job board in Skalfier in my online game is because that's the mechanism I use to introduce players into how my world is structured AND that's my mechanism for dropping hooks or giving players a bit of income till they get the lay of the land. I don't force them to do so, but that's also not their primary mechanism for finding things to done once they get their feet wet.

The players (and sometimes the DM!) get BORED with the world/setting long before they’ve exhausted all the adventure avenues the DM bothered to prep, thus leading to (what I see as) a waste of the DM’s time and energy.


That's an interesting observation because I don't think that reflects sandboxes as much as it reflects the type of games/players/DMs involved in the campaign. I don't have bored players and if I do, they end up causing their own messes that get them quickly involved soon enough. It's also a fallacy that DMs have to prep every adventure that the players are going to participate in. I'm constantly a "just in time" preparer. I'm maybe 2 game sessions out, unless I'm using a module or third party adventurer. If the players run into something that I'm not ready for, I invoke the 15 minute rule or I'm not afraid to put up the "Under construction" sign.

If players are bored - ask why? Sandboxes are not static worlds - they shouldn't be. I set the pieces in place, but I also wind up the key and start the little toy soldiers staggering about. If the players get involved, the world reacts. If the players don't get involved, the world moves on. Broad brustrokes, remember? I don't have to "waste [my] time and energy" until the players are ready. When they are, I'll meet them there.

It requires a crap-ton of energy on the DM’s part to keep the campaign world living/breathing/evolving/resolving as the PCs podunk around the imaginary country-side.


Bullshit. Pure and simple. This is the single-most biggest fallacy I have seen to date and I don't know how it persists. OK, if you look at World of Greyhawk, First Fantasy Campaign, Conley's Majestic Wilderlands and so on, yes it looks like a crap ton of energy - THAT HAS BEEN BUILT UP OVER ONE/MANY DECADES!

I started Dark Ages with three dungeons of 1st level only. One was James M's monastery. Took me 10 minutes to adapt it. I added another module (which I can't reveal - yet) as the 2nd and beyond levels. As the players go through it, I spend maybe 10 to 15 minutes adjusting stuff prior to a game. Another dungeon was generated through Gozzy's online tool and I spent about an hour stocking it and tweaking it. As the players cleared it out, and I dynamically refilled it, that took maybe 15 minutes. And so on.

The area around Enonia, my PC's homebase - I took an hour or two. The map you're gonna see this afternoon as my "L" entry - all 29,000 odd hexes? I have about 10 filled with some sort of crap. And this is a 28 month ongoing campaign.  My wife's solo campaign has nothing but one page maps for each 30 mile hex.  As I need them. And it takes me maybe 15 minutes per map to generate it, figure out the general "feel" for the area and have it ready. I probably spend way more time painting the minis for her game than the actual writing.

I don't think my campaign takes me any more energy than the work I see going on with the story-based games, with the "gonzo-include-em-all" games. Over the years, yea, it's gonna build some layers and you're gonna see a lot of work, but it's no different than a Pendragon campaign, a Battletech/Mechwarrior campaign, a *gasp* White Wolf campaign and so on. The fact that sandboxes are some mythical high energy requirement type of deal is perpetuated only because someone went down that path because they bought the fallacy.

You can do this. No, really. You just have to get away from the one central myth that I hope to crush as mercilessly as I can... that you have to spend a ton of time and energy to provide a living/breathing space for your players to play in without having some sort of railroad or just abandoning the idea altogether.

If all else fails, I think you can build an awesome starting point by taking a gander at  Jeff Rients "RPG Stud God"'s latest awesome work - the twenty questions for a campaign. I don't think, after answering those questions and sticking to my Myth Buster suggestions, any DM that can run a game would have a boring sandbox, unless they really want to believe those myths. And if that's the case, well, I can't help ya then.

Tids and bits

- As of the 3/13 AD&D Dark Ages game this past Sunday, we've reached the 50 game milestone. That's pretty damn cool! If I were a more prepared DM, I'd have some compiled statistics and trivia, but all I got is me trying to prep for the Garycon game. If I do have a dwarf visit from another realm, it's going to be epic... the last dwarf was seen about 257 years ago by elves. Visiting characters from other campaigns though... very cool!

- The online game keeps rolling and I may have a new player. Welcome Slatz! Good luck and don't pick up any dolls. :) You might also just start cursing Kellri right now, all my other players are. It seems to rain A LOT in Skalfier. For some reason, the players blame his CDD#4...

- I started painting my Sumerian DBA I/1a army last night and realized what all shiny-new army painting n00bs realize... this shit is hard! And I was just working on the flesh areas. This is not as easy as slopping together 18 or 25 orcs...

- Been ruminating about how I'll be incorporating a megadungeon into my campaign and realized this is going to be tricky with an already skittish bunch of folks who saw a high level (for my campaign) PC die and another fall the next game. The players are convincing themselves that they're not ready for what lies to the East, although I think this is more the first time they've really struggled. The world has presented them an opportunity and while I'm not going to push them there, they've opened Pandora's Box. I'm now walking a fine line between coming off as some sort of "you must follow my plot!" DM and presenting the consequences of their actions.

"Do you hear that sound, Mr. Anderson? That's the sound of inevitability..." - Agent Smith, The Matrix


Yea. Tricky. I know how I'll navigate it (without giving anything away to the players that read this blog. *waves* Hi there!) but it's gonna be tricky. You ever run into that?

Have a great weekend!

AD&D/OSRIC campaign - Sometimes the vise squeezes the other way

Sunday's AD&D game saw the players discover the reaction to their previous adventure in freeing the human prisoners and killing an orc shaman. The orcs have become more deadly, more organized and, most importantly, have learned to turn the tables on the players. This time, the orcs were using ambushes by suicide troopers, traps by multiple mounted patrols and using the players' habits against them - which resulted in a loss of another brave warrior. It also didn't help that the players lost a third of their group to a temporary paralysis from a disastrous encounter with giant wasps.

In coming back, the players found that the homefront has a new sheriff, and one that might not be as appreciative of the players as before. Time will tell ... alliances fall, only to see new opportunities and new challenges. The players ratcheted up the action and the orcs have responded, will the players?

I'm finding that I'm enjoying thinking about the reactions and the ways that the monsters will react now that the players are making their mark in the world. Make no mistake, disrupting the slave trade in enemy territory and killing a shaman was a definite mark and the orcs will not soon forget it. Now I'm looking forward to seeing how the players will react. It's a fine line thought. Squeeze the vise too much and the game becomes grim and hopeless. Don't raise the bar in response to the players and it becomes boring. The world will move without the players, but it will also move when the players have enough leverage. Things are starting to get very interesting.

Unfortunately, along with the death of another PC [1], I also learned that one of my longtime players, Lu, will be leaving us in April to go back overseas. In the time Lu's been with the campaign, he's taken his human thief, Irem, to fifth level - the highest of any of the players. He's a smart player, thoughtful and has adapted well to my campaign while also challenging me to come up with things in response to his play. Unfortunately, there are two avenues that had opened up during his time in the campaign that I won't be able to explore with him directly.

One was a bad roll on the Rient's Carousing Table. Lu found himself with a "black mark" on his forehead that faded... or did it? I actually was going to start exploring that again, but with his departure, we'll have to send that hook/path on to the realm of possibilities. The other avenue was a previous contact with a man with glowing eyes. Lu never returned to that contact, but who knows what the other players may find if they start turning over some rocks?

Well, in any rate, I plan on doing something special for Lu at our final game, which looks to be April 3rd.

I've made suggestions to Lu that he join my online/Google Wave game, but time will tell. He's going to be busy with his move and whatever happens, I wish him the best and a very heartfelt "THANK YOU" for playing at my table. Lu, you're welcome back anytime.

[1] - what is it about PC deaths coming in clusters. I've gone almost a year without any and now I've had two in two games. I knew that the players were ratcheting up the game, with exploring new areas/levels and riling up the orcs, but this seems to be very coinky-dinkal. It wasn't that the monsters were more powerful.. yellow mold and orcs.

Sidenote: I really enjoyed Monday's DM Dilemma discussion. Here are some of the topics I'm going to explore in future posts:

• Mounted combat - between two mounted combatants
• Poison and how it works
• Other spell interpretations

DM Dilemma: Charm Person

I thought that it might be useful to group some posts together under the heading of "DM Dilemma." We all run into things that cause us to scratch our heads, make rapid rulings on the fly, then we go back later and dig through the manuals and forum posts for some sort of inspiration on either solidifying a houserule or realizing we had it wrong in the first place. Dilemma might be a strong word, but it's a catchy title, so I'll go with it. I often find myself busy Monday morning looking up things that have puzzled me from the game from the weekend. I hope these posts are useful to some of you.

It's been my experience that players are pretty forgiving of a DM when the DM says "I'm ruling this way now, but I'm going to solidify my understanding to make it right for my campaign in the future." It's part and parcel to improving our skills as DMs, thus challenging our players to improve on their skills as players.

So... that said, I'll post my first "dilemma" which is more of a challenge...

So imagine this. You're a blood-thirsty orc leader. You are on a religious crusade to rid the earth of humans. You just sent your warriors to encircle a party of humans and you've watched this damn human spell-caster deal serious damage to them. In a bloodlust, you and your bodyguards charge the spell-caster, to remove the immediate threat. To your rear, a druid casts charm person on you. He then attempts to persuade you to stop your charge. (Imagine a bearded druid running after a charging orc yelling "Wait! Stop! That spellcaster means you no harm!")

As a DM, how do you rule how the charm has affected the orc?

Charm Person (druid) - AD&D Players Handbook

"The creature then will regard the druid who cast the spell as a trusted friend and ally to be heeded and protected. The spell does not enable the druid to control the charmed creature as if it were an automaton, but any word or action of the druid will be viewed in its most favorable way." 

(NOTE: the magic-user spell description refers to the druid version for effects)

I'll tell you what I did. The orc leader assessed that his new friend, although human, was no immediate threat to him or his orc troops.  He did not order his bodyguards to attack the druid. He assessed his new friend's entreaty to not attack the magic-user. While trusting that his new friend had the best intentions, the orc concluded the mage's continuing aggressive actions were the biggest threat to the orc's survival, as were the other humans attacking him and his friends. To not protect himself and his brothers would be suicide. So the orc leader attacked the mage and damn near killed him.

I think my players were a little surprised at the way I ruled on charm person and I've chewed on it all week and come to the conclusion that my initial ruling was the right one for my campaign/table. Charm Person is an amazingly powerful spell, but it's usefulness in the middle of combat, in the middle of a charge, is dubious. A charmed being doesn't go instantly stupid, nor does he somehow completely change his way of thinking in an obedient automaton. Rather, he has a changed data point to deal with - a powerful one, but only one.

In combat, with life and death on the line, charm person will have mixed results. In the middle of a charge, probably not nearly as much as at a moment of indecision, or if the target of the spell comes into a one-on-one with the charming spell caster. If this were a non-combat situation, the charm might have led to an extremely favorable result, depending on how the magic-user or druid steered the discussion.

Now, had the party ceased their attacks, this might have turned out different with regards to the charm. Weighing the threat versus the words of the druid would have led the orc leader to different conclusions and he would have found the datum of "the most favorable way to view the druid's words" to be more powerful than immediate survival.

It's an interesting spell and ruling to chew on.

Next week will be mounted combat, as I ran into this issue yesterday (3/13/2011) and it's going to take me a few days to chew on.

If there are any DM Dilemmas that you'd like to cover, please feel free to suggest or post your own and I'll link to it.

Re-imagining AD&D orcs and monsters

What a great topic to talk about (hattip to Grognardia)... except what a bad topic for me!

You see, I've done a lot to my orcs, and many other beasties in my AD&D world. My tabletop players have ran into more differences, changes and odd things that vary off of the standard AD&D definitions... but there's a lot more they haven't run into or figured out! I can't spill all the beans here So, I will try to give you some broad brush strokes of things they already know and see how we do.

In my Dark Ages campaign:

Orcs - are pig-faced and a bit larger/bulkier than humans. Their genesis is rumored, but the exact facts are lost to history. They are religious zealots, smart, cunning, have no problem with sunlight, are very militaristic, resemble Planet of the Apes gorillas in coloring, dress and armor. They will commit suicide rather than be captured. They remove the heads of their victims after battle, and burn the bodies. They do not leave bodies of their fellows behind. They are extremely racist and view humans and elves as no more than cattle or a sub-species. They may also be breeding hybrids of some sort for some reason.

There are some specific influences to my orcs and some clues here that may give you further insights. Orcs are right now the Big Bad Guys in my campaign and have the players full attention.

Kobolds - the players ran into a strange new type of kobold a couple of games ago - these are winged kobolds that spit poisonous saliva into players' faces. In my campaign, kobolds can climb walls and ceilings like spiders.

Troll Mages - take one orge mage, reskin it as a troll, merge the best of both monsters' abilities together and you have the feared troll that lives under the bridge right outside of Enonia in the Dale Woods. This guy is responsible for one near-TPK and a lot of angst. The players still plan on taking this guy out.

Trollkins - are the "children" of the troll mage. Mysterious and fey. So far, they seem curious and childlike, but extremely wise beyond what seems normal.

Dwarfs - are a lost race. They were once slaves to the Dark Ones (ancient evil beings of Chaos that ruled the lands) but once freed, they've not been seen since.

Elves - are a seafaring race, grouped by families/clans.

Dragons - are generated using EG Palmer's amazing Dragon Generator. First published in 2009, I have a copy of that in my "Best of Old School Blogs" folder. Now that is probably news to my players that dragons will not be dragons, but they'll learn soon enough. My tabletop players are already familiar with one, even though they don't realize it... or maybe they do!

One thing that is common for all my monsters. Unless otherwise specified in the Monster Manual, they're intelligent, ruthless and committed to their own best interests. They don't particularly fear the players. They have their own agendas and I prosecute those agendas to the best of my ability.

This has caused some issues, and led to one player being asked to not come back when he couldn't deal with the changes. In his mind, kobolds should be groveling at the feet of a first level character. In my mind, these are starving kobolds who are desperate enough to try and bluff their way into robbing the players, as far as they can, because they have NOTHING ELSE TO LOSE! I'm very proud of the players that I do have that were able to deal and adjust to the world as I've presented it. I think that's something to be aware of when you alter from the "norm".

I'm looking forward to reading the other entries in this meme. I hope you've enjoyed mine and if you have any questions about them, just ask! Stats are available - feel free to email me. Bryan, close your email, I won't send them to you. :P

The strange places minis will take you

I'm just about finished doing up my special sauce for the X1 - Isle of Dread D&D Marathon this weekend, but tomorrow to Monday will be jam-packed, so this is gonna have to do it for the week. Hopefully I'll get my February minis photos completed and we'll have a nice post for Monday or Tuesday.

Speaking of miniatures, I've found that my hobby and my particular obsessions with getting the info on the particular figures I have takes me into some strange places. My minis have influenced the direction of my game at several points - most notable are the Otherworlds troll, the figure I'm using to represent Calypso (villian in @thePrincessWife's solo game), the figure that became the Mountain Ogre and the Otherworlds orc shamen holding a heart in his hand.

How so? Well, when I was constructing my Dark Ages world, I had just started putting together the OWM troll.  Putting him under a bridge on the main path to a tempting exploration destination came to me while assembling the big guy - making him a troll mage was probably the result of me slicing my finger open or something. If I feel pain... everyone feels it! The Mountain Ogre was a creation of imagination from having just played Elder Scrolls: Oblivion and looking at this figure and wondering how I could convert it away from the "Hellborne" look. The story wrote itself. The orc shamen influenced the game I just concluded on Sunday... what would be special that would cause so many orcs to show up? Hmm... shamen is doing some sort of sacrificial ritual... and that story wrote itself. The Calpyso figure was holding an orb and looking young and suave - and thus I've come up with more info on that villain and how he acts/thinks.

I also find myself discovering unusual things. For instance, did you know that FASA had released a game called Crucible that sounds an awful lot like they were wanting to take on WarHammer? (here, here and here). I found this out because I got a figure in a trade that I could not find or identify. It wasn't until I started a search based on the tiny words from the "slotta tab" on the bottom of this winged, demonic looking creature. "Olley" and "C 99 Ral Partha" led me to the photo on the left. Viola! Mystery figure found and a game that I had never heard of... and probably will never play. Sounds like it was an interesting game though.  (Picture is from collecting-miniatures.com - the Olley Armies wiki)

And yes, I am going to find some reason to stick this guy in one of my games somewhere!

Some people find their inspiration from the books and magazines they collect, I find a chunk of mine in my minis. How about you?

Kids D&D

I don't know how widely this has been talked about, but I just found Jimm Johnson's version of an attribute-less, extremely simple D&D game for kids. It's very much in the tradition of the microlite games. I'm talking the kind of game a four year old could play and enjoy, while remaining a bit faithful to the game we all love.

The PDFs (and picture of his sweet Dungeon Forge setup) can be found on his blog - The Contemptible Cube of Quazar - here at this link. Very nice and thank you, Jimm! I can't wait to give this a whirl.

Taxation, again

My online AD&D group has just had almost the same exact reaction as my tabletop players had about 2 years ago when they came hauling a load of loot to the city gates... and then were stopped for inspection and taxation. The screamings... the wailings... the plotting of how to get around it... there were machinations that rivaled anything else in the game to avoid paying gold to the King.

I'm amused for two reasons. One, I don't charge for training to increase levels. I take care of that via taxation on goods brought in and in "cost of living" which I have a published formula and cost for. I confess that if I weren't so against training costs, from a personal "I don't like it" POV, this wouldn't be an issue. Second, from the perspective of their characters - taxation in this form would be normal. Yes, it can be avoided, but the lengths both the tabletop and online group wanted to go through would seem crazy to normal people in the imaginary world.

... and the players in my online game were coming up with some funny ways of getting around it... from casting charm person on the guard (there are multiple guards and people around... that would be an attack. A Bad Thing, especially for a 1st level guy that's probably not going to last long against guards.) to levitating over the wall with the loot... to trying to somehow transport the NPCs outside the city to to the loot...

I had this to say to them:

Me: BTW, just as a note... this is not unusual for this world as this would be the practice in almost all human cities and places where a goverment existed. Only in small villages, hamlets and places where mostly locals operated would this activity not appear. It's a common custom of taxing incoming goods/items that had been "found" or brought in or even items being shipped. 

Player: Do you mean that our backpacks are checked everytime we go into the walled part of the city, but since we're not usually carrying anything unusual we don't RP it? 

Me: No, you've just never presented the profile of a merchant or someone who has goods to be checked.

Look at it from the perspective of a guard. He probably is looking at 5 to 10 people a minute coming in, on a busy stretch. He'll look at what they're doing, if they've already entered and are leaving, what they're carrying, if they appear to be a merchant or not, if they have some sort of reason to be searched, etc. The times you've entered the cities, you've presented the profile of mere travelers. With urns, boxes and sacks, you're going to look a bit different.  

(Just as an aside, I'm astounded - again and I don't know why I should be - at how the brakes screech and the heads snap around and the "WTF"ing starts when I mention taxing ... imaginary... gold :D) 

So yes, you'll definitely look like merchants, you'll probably be stopped and checked. This would, from your character's perspectives, be business as usual and unless you really were interested in saving every last gp, most "ordinary" people would not go out of their way to avoid it.

I swear, I'm starting to channel Alexis more and more each day... ;)

BTW, this is not a bitch at my players, we've had a good discussion and they're actually more worried about the guards opening the urns that they wish to keep intact till they deliver them to the NPC. That's a valid concern and I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with.

It's just funny, to me, that they're doing the same thing my tabletop guys did 2 years ago.

Do your players do the same thing when you extract gold from them?

No game tonight - but here's a free AD&D/OSRIC tool

... thanks to this miserable cold. I've had two this year already and I'm really ^@#$@#$%#@!!! done with the cold season, thankyouverymuch. I hate cancelling games, but as I told my players, if I can't give 100%, I won't waste my time or their's. Nor do I want to get anyone sick with this crap...

There is quite a bit of planning going on the campaign email list, much of it centering around coming up with a strike force to attack a slaver town. A couple of games ago, my players were exploring the plains between Enonia (their home base) and Irecia (the abandoned city that everyone wants to get back to) and they stumbled onto a hamlet that seemed to be occupied by orcs and goblins! They were about to mount an attack when a mysterious figure rose out of the ground in a gilly suit - it was the former mercenary Anya! She seems quite off her rocker now, but she's waging a one-crazy-woman campaign against the orcs, leaving heads on spikes all over the place. She let the players know how overmatched they were, as the force was at least 30 orcs/goblins but that they met at the location approximately every 30 days or so.

Now the effort is to raise a force to strike at the orcs and the players are discovering that things are expensive. It's not like hiring a two or three zero-level meatshields for a jaunt to the old dungeon, no, this requires planning, it requires expert hirelings and it requires gold. Lots of it.

One of my Dark Ages campaign players, Tyson, made a spreadsheet for figuring out how much a force would cost. I made a copy of it and updated it against the OSRIC/tables. It's AD&D compatible. It's a Google Spreadsheet (AD&D/OSRIC Army Calculator) and the only thing it lacks is a lookup dropdown list - if you want to use it, you're more than welcome. I'm not sure if you have to copy/paste to your own document or if you can save your own copy, but by all means, go for it! You will have to unhide the data to update for your own campaign prices, but it should be fairly straightforward. The prices are all in silver (as OSRIC listed silver for the wage) and the wages are on a monthly basis.

Here are the valid names to put in the cyan column header in order to populate the calculator. If you need to expand the number of calculated columns, don't insert a column, move stuff over. The columns under the grid are the data for calculating all those numbers.

Archer, Longbow; Archer, Mounted; Archer, Shortbow; Crossbowman; Footman, Heavy; Footman, Light; Footman, Hvy Mount; Footman, Light Mount; Horseman, Heavy; Horseman, Light; Horseman, Medium; Pikeman; Slinger

Sgt, Longbow; Sgt, Archer Mount; Sgt, Shortbow; Sgt, Crossbowman; Sgt, Hvy Foot; Sgt, Light Foot; Sgt, Hvy Foot Mount; Sgt, Light Foot Mount; Sgt, Hvy Horse; Sgt, Light Horse; Sgt, Med Horse; Sgt, Pikeman; Sgt, Slinger

(To create lieutenants or captains, simply replace Sgt w/ Lt or Capt)

Some assumptions - Sgts are first level, Lts are 2nd level, Captains are 5th level. Although it's not automatic, my metric is a Sgt for 5 to 10 men, a Lt for every 10 men, a Capt for every 20 men.

Enjoy!

AD&D - XP for magic items

I've had a mental back and forth for a few days on the subject of XP for magic items. By the book AD&D Dungeon Master Guide says:

(Those magic items not sold gain only a relatively small amount of experience points, for their value is in their usage.)

Well, this is all well and good, but let's look at an example - a wand of magic missiles. Now while acquiring this wand spanned multiple games, got people really excited and has resulted in some hilarious "off line" emails in how they tested it to figure out how it works, but the DMG says this sucker is worth 35,000 gold pieces and 4,000 experience points.

Uh, woah.

Now I know, BTB is BTB and for my campaign, not always applicable, but I'd like chew on this a bit here. Based on those values, I can say that the XP value for this item is roughly an eighth and a half of it's value. That's not a formula that follows in the XP/gold value ratios for other items. It seems there's a relative value based on the difficulty of making the item, but that is still a huge jump.

Now, for wands, there is an interesting note that says "Assumes full charges are in the item", which I'm not quite sure how that would affect XP, unless they are ranking the value's "worth" and XP on how many times this lil stick is gonna pop a monster for 1d4+1 (twice a round too!) OK, so the max charges are 100, so lessee... that's about 40 XP per charge and 350 gold per charge. While I can understand the cost, given it takes a 6th level spell enchant an item which can be cast only by a 12th level wizard or higher, and requires a crap-load of components to make, for a 90 charge wand (on average) that's 3,600 XP. So some first level wizard who was on a quest and participated in finding this magic item and somehow gets to keep it is going to now be 2nd level just for holding Fizbin's thingie. Same with 2nd level - it's an automatic upgrade.

Is this how AD&D balances things - mages usually get the magic items, so because they need more XP, they get more powerful by dint of finding the magic cookies? Am I just being stingy with the concept in my head?

I'm leaning towards thinking that I'm going to go BTB for several reasons. Mages are already on fragile grounds, unless they're doing double-duty as a multi-classed demihuman. The human mage is still 2nd level, but close to third, if I remember correctly. I also go back to the eXPloration justification - if a fresh/newly minted first level character picked up a wand of magic missiles, should they get 3,600 XP for a wand of magic missiles? Should that bump them to 2nd level?

Given that magic is so rare in my game, yes. I think I don't have a problem with that. The players are slowly beginning to find stuff, but not anything near what most people might expect in a D&D game. I want magic to be mysterious and cool and valued when found. To me, XP isn't just about a person's own ability, it's also about their standing in the world, their ability to do things and their overall "power" that comes with the stuff they carry about. Heroes in Chainmail were powerful in many ways, not just because they'd crossed swords with hundreds of orcs.

Side note - It's a testament to one of my player's tenacity that as an elf fighter/mage, he's hit 3rd level in each. If he'd been in one or the other as a human, he'd probably be the most powerful character. Of course, he's coming to almost every game.

Internetpeeps Power Activate!

(I have heard that phrase somewhere else...)

Anyway... I am looking for a generic CCG card creator - preferably online. I've tried Trading Card Maker.NET and it was too clunky for my purposes. The rest are geared specifically towards Yugio and other genres. I've tried using a MtG card creator for the desktop and it kinda works, but I'm not 100% happy with it.

Why?

With all the discussion on cards and people liking "having" things, it occurs to me that having someone's magic items (or items they suspect are magic) as "cards" might be an interesting possibility. I can put the legendary name on it, if they know it, or just a generic reminder. This also does something for me, I can have a master sheet of what's been handed out so that I'm not doing a character sheet inventory every so often. It could make it more engaging to them and gives them something tangible.

I just thought it'd be kinda neat and I didn't want to do something that looked too generic.

(Edited to update)
Paladin in comments pointed me here: http://carjackedseraphim.blogspot.com/2011/02/old-school-gamer-bling.html which points me to GoDeckYourself.com. I think this is simple enough even for this old guy. Thanks!

Followup on "Revisiting Alignment"

Inspiration comes from  unexpected places.

I have a slight confession to make. I'm very much the tinkerer, but I also have this odd habit of avoiding sources of inspiration from other people's games. I've taken some great rules (d30, Shields Shall Be Splintered!, Philotomy's Combat) but for the most part, I tend to be Mr. Homebrew/Homegrown. So I'll download and read a lot of great stuff, but I don't lift it as-is.

So while I posted my thoughts Monday on alignment, I still wasn't entirely happy. I didn't like the thought that to the players, this all would still be arbitrary and I still was missing "something". Then Rob Conley laid a comment on me:

For clerics and paladins (myrmidons and the other crazy stuff I use in MW) I spell out what the creed and exceptions are in my one page handout. Players taking those classes catch on pretty quick to how things work.
...
However it is import to have some type of culture/society. Even if it the default merrie olde england fantasy kingdom. This give context to the player in which to make moral decisions.

That sound of "click click BOOM" was the gears in my head sliding into place. Pretty much every religion has it's expectations and limitations - so write them down and codify them. Make the players figure out how to follow the Light, but with something to anchor on, they can figure it out and explore it themselves. It gives me the yardstick to measure their actions.

BTW, reading Majestic Wilderness was a treat to jogging the brain cells. Get it. No really, it's worth it, just for some seeds. I know all 137(x2) of you already know that but hey...

So this is what I came up with for "the Light" and sent to my players as a starting point for discussion:

The Tenents of the Light

• Protect your fellow human against the forces of darkness, but do not let the acts of Chaos and Darkness become your weapon of protection.
• Show mercy for the weak and unprotected, but show no mercy to the forces of Darkness and Chaos that threaten our great civilization.
• Truth shall be the beacon of Light that clears the darkness from our souls and brings us back to our rightful place. Be truthful and honest in all that you do.
• Stand forth and show no fear, lead your fellow humans to work together to overcome all that is lost.
• The Holy Priests, Champions and the King are the flames of the Light that shine in the darkness. Follow them and their orders. Without their orders, Chaos will darken the world.

Simple and direct, but gives my clerics something to hang their hat on. I've also started talking to clerics of the "old gods" (Jorann who worships Tangorin, and Kjeld who worships Vanir).

Edited 2/10 to add:
Here's a link to the campaign wiki's description on Tangadorin - one of the Judges Guild "Unknown Gods" entries that a player of mine uses as his cleric character's deity. The creed/rules for Tangadorin are there. The player helped me to come up with some of these.

Revisiting alignment

Quick recap on my opinion on alignment. I'm ambivalent towards alignment. I use a form of Jeff Rient's "Ragnorak" explanation of Law vs. Chaos with the opinion that most of us probably lean towards Neutral. For the first two years of my AD&D campaign, I've kept alignment out of focus because there was no need. For my game, alignment's not important.

Except when it is.

Clerics are a good class to be in. You advance quick, you have decent HD (d6) and you get the best of both worlds - spell-casting and fighting. You can use all armors, there's no real disadvantage to blade vs. blunt and you can be assured of at least one chance at saving your own ass - Cure Light Wounds. You have access to ALL your level spells (assuming you're not a DM like me that makes the clerics go ask the gods for 3rd level and above spells...) unlike the poor mage that has to collect/amass libraries.

So where' the catch? Ah, you're subordinate to a deity(ies)/religion that might have its own agenda. Membership has its privileges and responsibilities.

I have two clerics of "the Light" that are 4th level. In OD&D terms, they're "heroes" and they are starting to gain a reputation of their own. (It also helps to have an annoying hireling who runs around proclaiming the grand stories of the "Mighty Mazlor" and "Amazing Alana"! The other players are cracking up now everytime "Isty" is hired to come along.) So they are cranking along... except now I'm starting to show them a new side to being a cleric... being responsible TO your ideals.

The Light is "lawful" in that it has rules, structure and believes in a code of conduct and morality. The good of mankind, the benefit of all, we're all in this together, kumbayah. No, really. It has a hierarchy but it also has people at the grassroots who really do believe and are trying to do the best they can. The people want to have some hope and after the Doom, "the Light" became the official religion of the Kingdom.

So now Mazlor and Alana are more than just joe-priests running around exploring dungeons and getting rich. The actions they do have consequences. The choices they make will affect more than just the party. The hirelings look to them (as they do the other 4th and above level players) as heroes, as bigger than life and they watch what they do. So do the deities. They're not high priests, but the choices they make can and will affect them.

So if the characters do something that I as the deity in question would not like, the clerics will face consequences. At this point, it was the "light" not giving Mazlor a 2nd level spell back for a couple of days. He'd not stood up to what was (in "the Light"'s opinion) a chaotic/evil act and so there was a small consequence.

Alignment won't be a huge DM hammer. It'll be reactive, but there will be reminders. This gave the players on Sunday a stage to really have a discussion on what was right (from their character's POV) and they thought hard about it and RP'ed it pretty good. I only asked "clerics, how do you feel about this" and now Mazlor/Alana are giving thought to actions - as they should be! They are heroes of the Light, they should be promoting what the Light is about. Benefits have costs.

It's still a fine wire and I want to avoid what Mazlor's player spelled out:

"But trying to restrict/penalize player actions very easily and frequently slips over the line into rigid stereotypes and/or a DM trying to dictate values.
So far, I haven’t had problems with feeling handcuffed or being pigeonholed, but I’m a little bit apprehensive and I hope whatever you’re planning involving alignment isn’t going to change that.
For example, I liked how Phalleum and Averin have both served as heads of the local Temple of Light, but were totally different people with very different attitudes and philosophies towards the Marshall, other religions, etc.

Trust me, buddy, neither do I. I won't stop players from doing things, nor do I have a "code of conduct/values" that everyone has to follow. If Mazlor wants to tie up helpless prisoners and brain them, I'm not going to stop him. If "the Light" disagrees with his actions/choices, he'll find out. If he goes over to the Dark Side, well, that's awesome as well and I'll have no problem with helping him adjust to his new world - but it will be his choices and his decisions, not mine. I won't use alignment as a limit, but I will use it as a consequence or reaction.

That seems to fit well with me and it's something I'm going to continue to explore gently.

In the minority...

Hello all! I survived the Great Chicago Blizzard of 2011, although I made myself very sick by too much exertion at the snow removal. I was already with a cold and I pushed myself too hard. Go figure, me do that? Heh.

Anyway, back for a moment and I wanted to mention something that's an unexpected item that I have to take care of due to the nature of my campaign being "drop in/drop out" ... player/character maintenance.

Judging from a recent thread I participated in on K&KA, I'm apparently in the minority when it comes to gaming. Most of the people I chatted with seem to game with mainly an already established group of social friends, and that doesn't lead to much new blood? Me? I have had close to 30 people participate in the campaign since it started two years ago. About half of those stay in touch or continue to game, most have been onsie-twosies. That's OK! That was something I brought into the West Marches game and while it has given me grief a couple of times (in the form of players who didn't match the social/campaign style/flow that we have going) on the whole it's been a positive, rewarding thing.

Still, I'm in the unusual position today of "doing maintenance" in the form of contacting long silent players to see if they ever plan on returning or if I should retire their characters. I've already heard back from a couple, which is a nice surprise - it's always nice to hear from the original players who've had to break away for life reasons. It's probably something that is particular to my style of campaign - the people with established gamer/social circles probably don't have to do this.

Another thing that I seem to be in the minority of, when it comes to "old/original gaming" is using email to conduct business or "in between games" activities. I do have a limit on what I can do/accomplish between games, usually subject to my ever-shrinking amount of free-time. I usually also limit this to transactional type of things or the results of stuff done off-table, like making scrolls, carousing, etc. To me, if I can limit the amount of "paperwork" like activities on game day, it's a benefit. And sometimes we have some great discussions/RP via email. Maybe it's because I'm comfortable with the medium, or maybe it's an aspect that my campaign group isn't a social friends group, although there are some overlaps between the two?

A couple of quick minis notes...

- Painting with a Winsor/Newton Series 7 brush is like moving from a demolition derby car to a NASCAR Sprint Cup series Late Model. Holy crap! I may have made the vast majority of my other brushes obsolete!

- JB Weld is going to become my friend. I love Otherworlds Miniatures, but some of the figures are decidedly difficult to pin/glue and one particular arm on one particular skeleton is giving me fits. I'm up to attempt #5.

- I also attempted serious sculpting with green stuff by making an orc shield! We'll see how it goes, I had to make the hand as well. It's going on one of the Otherworlds pig-nosed orcs, so I'm feeling "meh" about doing such a radical modification. If it works, I'm going to be thrilled!

OD&D Psionics - my take

I don't like psionics. Wait, let me take that back. I don't like the psionics from Supplement 3, or from AD&D or from the web and it boils down to the same thing for me... tl;dr - too many dice/too much paperwork.

Now that's an oversimplification and this is a personal opinion - I like my games lean, mean and many options, few rules. Many of the psionic systems that I've taken the time to really read and grok end up following a similar pattern:
1. Figure out how powerful the psionics are (and in some systems, figure out how much psionics you can do for this level/day/combat.)
2. Figure out the attack/defense
3. Figure out if an attack/effect was successful (usually matching results from #1 and #2, comparing, and making dice rolls for saves and damage.)
4. Track points/power levels.

There are a lot of people who like that type of mini-game, I'm not one of them. Call it thick-skull, maybe I inhaled too many fumes from that "dope" when I was building model airplanes as a kid, but I like my in-game systems quick and easy.

That all being said, I do have a psionics system I do like, and it was written by Gary Gygax in 1975 in the magazine Strategic Review #1. In it, he described the Mind Flayer for the first time and it's Mind Blast power:

Intelligence  Saving Throw at Range   Effect of
of Opponent        1-2" 3-4" 5-6"     Mind Blast

3-4                19   19   17       Death
5-7                17   16   15       Coma, 3 days
8-10               15   14   13       Sleep, 1 hour
11-12              13   12   11       Stun, 3 turns
13-14              11   10   9        Confuse, 5 turns
15-16              9    8    7        Enrage, 7 turns
17                 7    6    5        Feeblemind
18                 5    4    3        Insanity, permanent

Magic users add +1 to their saving throws, and clerics add +2. 
A Helm of Telepathy adds a +4 to saving throws, and when such 
saves are made the attacking Mind Flayer is stunned for 3 
turns.

Now admittedly, to my own taste, there's a lot wrong with this chart, such as why someone with 18 INT would suffer insanity if they fail their save versus the 13/14 would just be confused, BUT it's the simplicity of the effect and approach. Attack. Save. Ouch or Haha! So let's expand this just a smidge.

1. Figure out if you have psionics - prereq is a 13+ INT. 1 in d30 gets you the freaky mind! 


I do like Carcosa's system of using INT/WIS/CHA to determine likelihood, so I'll add that a WIS of 16+ and/or CHA of 16+ adds +1, cumulative. A person could have a 3 in 30 if they have high enough stats. 10% chance.

And yes, you can simulate a d30 with a d20+d10 but really... the d30 is so cool, this system will make you run out and buy one. Right? Guys?


2. You have 4 powers - Mind Blast (like the mind flaya' [although I may redo this to do some damage dice and save the effects for a failed save]), ESP (like the spell) and Charm Person (like the spell). You also have Telekinesis (like the spell). You can use the number of powers per day as your level/3 (rounding rules apply). So choose wisely at first level. 


It was my thought that 10th level should be able to use all powers at least once, so I may allow 10th level 4 times since that's the cap on most classes. Maybe not, maybe those freaky high level mages should allow themselves some extra oomph, since we are talking about OD&D here...)


3. To attack, you declare like a spell and let your mind do the talking. The target makes their save based on the chart above. Your powers are limited to 60'. If they save, you are stunned for 3 rounds (in combat use) or 3 turns (non-combat use). If the target fails, the power works (per spell description or Mind Blast - which we would redo the chart)

Now, in accordance to the Alexis TestYourBullshit! rule, I have not tested these because I'm still noodling them. It's my (perhaps incorrect) suspicion that psionics are one of those campaign tilters, just like tossing a +3 Vorpal Sword into a pile 'o treasure, so I tend to tread lightly. Do these seem doable? To me they seem fun.

Using my DM skills for "good"?

This is an odd post to write because it's not as much about gaming as it is about the exercise of my skills in creating alternate realities and fantasies that are consistent that other people can "exist" in. In our hobby, it's called DM/GM/World building skills. From someone else's perspective, it could be called the art of bullshitting or con-artist.

Which is where this post gets to.

We all get spam. We all get those funny letters that start off with "HELLO DEAREST" and proceed to tell us how about some bigwig somewhere died and left a trunk full of cash and all we have to do is agree to help this person and we'll get a big fat check. About 2 emails into the deal, we're asked to send $500, or $1000 or something to help with "demurrage" or "document fees" or "security certifications" or some other shit.

Or we'll get emails telling us this woman is a refugee in Sudan, or that gent is a lonely US soldier in Iraq that just stumbled onto Saddam's lost palace... or the worst, where an older relative is taken in by a supposed relative who is stuck in Greece and needs bail money and surely you remember me, the fourth cousin of your brother's father-in-law's niece's nephew?

Yea. Those fuckers. These con-artists who send these kinds of scam letters can teach us GMs a thing or two because they spin their shit daily just over the Internet or phone or IM and they rake in millions! Don't believe me? Go read it for yourself. Yea, they're getting paid to spin fantasies, but it's loot from preying on victims.

This Halloween, I'd had enough.

I have been reading about the reverse-419 tricks played by people who call themselves "baiters." They "bait" the scammer (aka "lads") into believing they are for real, that they can be duped and they have money. Baiters use a wide variety of tricks, techniques and traps. They take advantage of cultural differences. They use the power of the Internet against these scammers much as the scammers use it against their victims. The results can be hilarious - ranging from silly photos and videos ("trophies") to more interesting results - lads getting tattoos, or going on trips to try and find the baiters ("safaris") to even scaring the lads into fleeing their country.

Vigilantism, to be sure, but when the US Govt won't do anything under a fraud of $50,000 and the Nigerian police are often in cahoots with the lads, it's one of those deals where you decide which side of the line you want to stand on. I should also note that there are lads/ladettes in all countries in the world - but predominantly in Africa/Russia/India/Indonesia.

So I've been baiting a lad since October and I can honestly say that my DM/GM techniques worked to lure him into my story. Have a plot/idea of your end goal and how to get there. Get the scammer to buy into your "world" and even contribute to it. Give the scammer some rewards but always be one step ahead. Make your world consistent. Use tools around you to present the situation as if it were real.

The lad presented himself as a young woman who is studying in Nigeria and is being held hostage by an evil hotel manager who has seized her passport/airline ticket so she could pay her bill. Yea. Likely story. The story I concocted is hilarious: I'm the president of a porta-potty company. I am the possible recipient of a vast fortune of money. However, to fulfill my parents' wishes (who are both dead) my brother and I must compete for the money by seeing who can have the most heirs in 25 years. He has 8 sons. I must have 9. I had to spin a consistent story between 3 NPCs (the main character, his brother and a lawyer) and keep track of where each was.

At the end of the day, I had my lad give me a trophy of him holding a picture saying "I love BoN'ers". Yea, y'uck, y'uck... "I love boners"... but I also wasted his time, hopefully his money to pay for Internet cafe charges and maybe kept him busy enough to not scam someone else. (The BoN'ers is a nod to the social networking site where he first contacted me - BikersOrNot.com. My mc buddies are having a good laugh at this.)

Here's my lad - aka Adebisi Kehinde:

Yea, he's real and that's his name - I know this because he used it so that I could send him money via Western Union. I have a couple of other pictures that are consistent to where I'm 99% sure this is the guy. That's the face of a criminal and someone who wants to steal your money and your relative's money. For him, I have no pity or feelings other than anger and scorn.

And one other thing. Please, please, please... tell this story to others. Sure, have a good laugh at the Nigerian crook who got double-crossed into holding up a humiliating sign - but the real story is that these guys are organized, ruthless, without pity and they will do whatever they can to con people into sending them money. AND IT WORKS! Go to scamwarners.com if you don't believe me - it's heartbreaking to read of people duped. And it'll piss you off.

Education is the key to keeping him and other criminals like him away from your friends and loved ones. I hope this little story helps in that regards.

So you never know where your DM/GM skills are useful. Am I using them for good? I dunno, but I'm satisfied in the end.