By 1968, quite a few nations had joined what was sarcastically refereed to as the "fat man club". While fusion boosted weapons were still a monopoly of the big two (USA/USSR, despite what they say about their allies and fellow countries), it had proven fairly easy to obtain the informtion and infrastructure to jumpstart a basic Fat-man plutonium bomb, or, if refining was the issue, a uranium little-boy or a Debner tactical nuke. In many cases, they were purchased whole on the black arms market, or even successfully salvaged from battlefields or wrecks.
Some minor unaligned clashes had already involved battlefield atomics and in three cases, larger fat-man size weapons used on cities, generally against non-armed neighbors to terminate conflicts (Montevideo, Kampala and and Falan). It was clear that for the smaller or non-aligned countries, an A-bomb, any A-bomb, was vital to ensure national sovereignty, much as a dreadnaught was in 1910.
As a result, no-one was suprized when Brazil and India announced that they would be holding a series of collaborative underground nuclear tests in both countries. many regarded this as a propaganda ploy, showing the collaboration of the two major non-aligned nations. Additionally, adding UN observers was seen as little more than a publicity ploy, as was the insistence on the testing being underground; both countries and the UN had been pushing for a moratorium on above ground tests due to the already major biosphere damage from the nuclear conflicts of the past twenty years.
The suprise came when the test shots, six of them, occurred early, and almost simultaneously; more surprising was the realization that they were in fact, massive cannons using 150kt nuclear charges to loft over 15,000 tons of equipment and self deploying structures into orbit. Three major Orbital command stations were quickly manned and finished off by crews waiting in orbit under cover of the UN orbital clearance forces which had been clearing wreckage and debris in orbit since 1963. Within twenty four hours, the heavily armored and armed stations were weapons operational, and with the existing clearance craft had captured and deactivated or destroyed all non-UN orbital assets. While the crews were small and initially had to live in their spacesuits (crew quarters were a lower priority than weapons) , they were invulnerable.
As the blindsided superpower alliances attempted to respond, conventional/kinetic weapons impacted in the near vicinity of all the NATO/PACT nearside lunar bases, and within uninhabited areas of the superpower homelands. With minimal casualties, and near total surprise, the UN and Non-aligned nations had seized the high ground.
The UN peacekeeping directorate, aka PAX, took command and declared all cislunar space and lunar nearside to be a demilitarized disarmed area under its jurisdiction, backed by an estimated 200 orbital nuclear weapons, some claimed to be as large as the 1953 Moscow busters. Both superpowers blustered, and both learned that the threat was real when military groundside assets were hit by nuclear weapons; a brief attempt to destroy the stations failed partly due to lack of cooperation, and partly due to the fact that a 5000 ton armored and heavily defended station was a much tougher nut to crack than the earlier platforms proven so vulnerable in the previous wars. Finally, too, when station two was critically damaged by one of the few joint strikes, the Nuclear Cannons (aka Verne Guns) lofted a cloud of simple but deadly unmanned ageis hunter killers (aka killer crowbars); soon after, a fourth station was also was lofted and deployed. East and West were forced to the negotiating table, much as Burma and Urugay had been, and with equal humiliation and desire for revenge.
The terms PAX imposed by the treaty of the Azores were simple. Cislunar space was declared a demilitarized exclusion; military craft and platforms were forbidden, and all other assets in orbit were open to inspection at any time. Military craft were similarly forbidden, except for transit through the exclusion zone. Use of nuclear weapons Earthside were forbidden on pain of massive reprisal, initially nuclear, but later from the lunar mass cannons that PAX constructed. It was also noted that the Verne cannons did not have to deliver their payloads to orbit.
By 1970, kicking an screaming, the superpowers had been dragged into a cold, conventional standoff Earthside and in orbit, although arsenals for deterrence began growing at a prodigious rate. While far from safe, the immediate threat of nuclear holocaust was at least delayed, and local space made free for all. Unfortunately, the solar system would be the next area of conflict.
Next: Yes, at last we come to one of the two eras for an RPG campaign !
Wherein I blather on RPG design, play, and stuff I design, as well as rules-lite games and classic D&D and Traveller (and others), proving that while I don't have a life, I do have a keyboard.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Sunday, December 11, 2011
One very small, secretive step......
it will probably never be clearly know who the first successful lunar explorers were, nor for which side they served. In a more peaceful world, perhaps, the moon landing would have been a public display of national will, or technology- essentially a piece of dramatic propaganda to humiliate the opposition. In reality, the moon landings were military missions to gain and map the new high ground, and as such, as secret as possible.
It is known that across 1965 and 66 both east and west used nuclear propelled heavy lifters to orbit and then land materials on the moon to build the national bases, redoubts and missile silos. What is also clear is that crews were already present on the moon, and had been for some time.
While theoretically at peace, or at least ceasefire, both sides actively attempted to sabotage or impede the other sides construction once on the moon. While only partly successful (both sides successfully installed military bases by 1967), this set the tone for the constant low level skirmishing on the Lunar surface.
While only a few missiles were installed by either side, they were uniformly armed with the massive new fusion boosted warheads that had been developed by the end of the orbit wars, making them potent final strike weapons. Initially intended as deterrence weapons, their potential as first strike weapons had the actual effect of drastically destabilizing the shaky ceasefire between East and West.
By 1968, tensions were rising once again, and the lunar skirmishing was spreading once again to earth's orbitals. Given that both sides had deployed ICBMs earthside with fusion warheads it seemed fated that the next outbreak of war would be conclusive, if not survivable.
However, in October of 1968, everything changed.
It is known that across 1965 and 66 both east and west used nuclear propelled heavy lifters to orbit and then land materials on the moon to build the national bases, redoubts and missile silos. What is also clear is that crews were already present on the moon, and had been for some time.
While theoretically at peace, or at least ceasefire, both sides actively attempted to sabotage or impede the other sides construction once on the moon. While only partly successful (both sides successfully installed military bases by 1967), this set the tone for the constant low level skirmishing on the Lunar surface.
While only a few missiles were installed by either side, they were uniformly armed with the massive new fusion boosted warheads that had been developed by the end of the orbit wars, making them potent final strike weapons. Initially intended as deterrence weapons, their potential as first strike weapons had the actual effect of drastically destabilizing the shaky ceasefire between East and West.
By 1968, tensions were rising once again, and the lunar skirmishing was spreading once again to earth's orbitals. Given that both sides had deployed ICBMs earthside with fusion warheads it seemed fated that the next outbreak of war would be conclusive, if not survivable.
However, in October of 1968, everything changed.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
As above, so below.
The second orbital war was carried out both in space and on land. The large demilitarized zones of Germany and Northern China became battlegrounds once again; but unlike the first conflict, the forces were small, highly mobile, and nuclear capable. As with the Orbit war, the clashes earth showed that offense had greatly outstripped defense, and both sides rapidly depleted their available first line forces and came to use tactical nuclear bombardment to respond to enemy breakthroughs. Due to the highly dispersed and small uit organization, the actual military casualties were quite small, but they represented the elite of both sides forces.
While the battlegrounds, still unrecovered from 1953, were much less densely inhabited than beforehand, the civilian casualties were enormous, and the collateral environmental damage was extreme. Both the superpowers homelands were largely safe from direct attack, but the overall damage and radiological contamination began to effect even the safest of homeland havens. By 1963, both sides were forced to institute food rationing, and a second world-wide famine was already spreading. Most of the Third estate (as the nonaligned powers were known as to the media) were able to feed their populations, but only in the core countries, and even then at similarly rationed levels. Nonetheless, the growing reliance of the superpowers on food imports from the Non-aligned powers gave the UN and PAX forces the leverage needed to broker a ceasefire. The second orbital war ended with no political or territorial advantages gained by either side, and a bitter extended winter was to make 1964 one of the bleakest years in history.
Socially, nations that survived the post war years tended to become highly centralized, tightly controlled planned economies and societies. Despite the vulnerabilities of such, metropolitan areas expanded in population, if not in size, with military installations moving as far as possible from the refugee choked cities. With all sides populations becoming highly concentrated, and critical climate damage, a tacit understanding between the powers limited strike to military targets wherever possible. Protracted nuclear war had come to stay.
In space, both sides had little to show that could be considered successful. The willingness to use tactical nuclear weapons as a standard element proved that offense had again trumped defense. Orbital missle installations were spectacularly unsuccessful after the first hour of the war, and orbit denial strategies insured that no new stations could be deployed. Use of indiscriminate orbital mines and simple debris fields insured that NEO would likely never again have permanent military stations.
While the rational solution would have been detente, and possibly a final negotiated end to the war, neither side was able to make the political and social sacrifices needed to do so. As a result, as the war ended, both sides reached for the moon to gain the high ground and impose a final peace on their enemies.
The attempts to reach the moon were both hasty, and desperate. Of the four missions from both sides that attempted to establish a foothold, some were initially successful, but none survived to return. The 1962 moon orbit missions resulted in a twin Soyuz missing return insertion and being lost; the newly deployed Apollo succeeded in achieving a return trajectory but suffered a series of failures culminating in a non-survivable re-entry failure. The three Gemini landing mission racing the Soviet attempt resulted in one crashed lander, and a mutually destructive combat in lunar orbit between the orbital elements. The single surviving two man USAF lander and the two single man soviet landers, as planned, touched down within five miles of each other. The Lunar Gemini had the potential for earth return, whereas the Soviet LK landers did not. Once the orbital assets had been mutually destroyed, contact was lost with both teams, and never regained. Limited observation from earth (orbital observatories being eliminated) suggested that both engaged in a long range duel with light mortars before a cross-lunar attempt was made by the marooned Soviet team to destroy (or possibly capture) the Gemini lander. At some point, at least one small tactical nuclear weapon was detonated, destroying the site and killing any surviving crew.
If both sides managed to learn any lesson from the Lunar and Orbital debacles, it was this: Chemical rockets and small, fragile capsule-based craft were no longer viable weapons or long range systems; nor was orbit a viable environment for long term military assets. Relentlessly, the quest for the high ground now turned to the moon.
While the battlegrounds, still unrecovered from 1953, were much less densely inhabited than beforehand, the civilian casualties were enormous, and the collateral environmental damage was extreme. Both the superpowers homelands were largely safe from direct attack, but the overall damage and radiological contamination began to effect even the safest of homeland havens. By 1963, both sides were forced to institute food rationing, and a second world-wide famine was already spreading. Most of the Third estate (as the nonaligned powers were known as to the media) were able to feed their populations, but only in the core countries, and even then at similarly rationed levels. Nonetheless, the growing reliance of the superpowers on food imports from the Non-aligned powers gave the UN and PAX forces the leverage needed to broker a ceasefire. The second orbital war ended with no political or territorial advantages gained by either side, and a bitter extended winter was to make 1964 one of the bleakest years in history.
Socially, nations that survived the post war years tended to become highly centralized, tightly controlled planned economies and societies. Despite the vulnerabilities of such, metropolitan areas expanded in population, if not in size, with military installations moving as far as possible from the refugee choked cities. With all sides populations becoming highly concentrated, and critical climate damage, a tacit understanding between the powers limited strike to military targets wherever possible. Protracted nuclear war had come to stay.
In space, both sides had little to show that could be considered successful. The willingness to use tactical nuclear weapons as a standard element proved that offense had again trumped defense. Orbital missle installations were spectacularly unsuccessful after the first hour of the war, and orbit denial strategies insured that no new stations could be deployed. Use of indiscriminate orbital mines and simple debris fields insured that NEO would likely never again have permanent military stations.
While the rational solution would have been detente, and possibly a final negotiated end to the war, neither side was able to make the political and social sacrifices needed to do so. As a result, as the war ended, both sides reached for the moon to gain the high ground and impose a final peace on their enemies.
The attempts to reach the moon were both hasty, and desperate. Of the four missions from both sides that attempted to establish a foothold, some were initially successful, but none survived to return. The 1962 moon orbit missions resulted in a twin Soyuz missing return insertion and being lost; the newly deployed Apollo succeeded in achieving a return trajectory but suffered a series of failures culminating in a non-survivable re-entry failure. The three Gemini landing mission racing the Soviet attempt resulted in one crashed lander, and a mutually destructive combat in lunar orbit between the orbital elements. The single surviving two man USAF lander and the two single man soviet landers, as planned, touched down within five miles of each other. The Lunar Gemini had the potential for earth return, whereas the Soviet LK landers did not. Once the orbital assets had been mutually destroyed, contact was lost with both teams, and never regained. Limited observation from earth (orbital observatories being eliminated) suggested that both engaged in a long range duel with light mortars before a cross-lunar attempt was made by the marooned Soviet team to destroy (or possibly capture) the Gemini lander. At some point, at least one small tactical nuclear weapon was detonated, destroying the site and killing any surviving crew.
If both sides managed to learn any lesson from the Lunar and Orbital debacles, it was this: Chemical rockets and small, fragile capsule-based craft were no longer viable weapons or long range systems; nor was orbit a viable environment for long term military assets. Relentlessly, the quest for the high ground now turned to the moon.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Back to the cold war: Red Stars and Rockets
The second orbital war flared in 1961 and dragged on, continuing in fits and starts until ending in 1963, with the treaty of New Dehli.
While generally regarded as an accidental war, it was nonetheless inevitable in retrospect, given the continuing militarization of earth orbital (and, after 1959, the lunar surface). A second, and less well understood cause was the fact that in reality, both sides were operating beyond the bounds of their current technology and resources. In truth, many of the craft used thru this period would have(at best) qualified as testbed or prototypes; due to the press of the cold war they were tested in active missions, direct confrontation, or, post 1961, front line operations. Accidents are a natural result of experimentation, and under the pressure of the east-west confrontation, easily become disasters.
The 1961 catastrophic deorbiting of the newly deployed USAF Manned orbiting labratory#4 during a confrontation/provocation with Vostok 17 was the spark that started the second war. Both sides faced what seemed to be a sudden, unexpected attack, followed by a sudden cascading failure of communication and observation capacity, possibly by hostile action, and escalated accordingly.
It was little consolation that post war examination of blackbox data and operational telemetry concluded that the explosion of Aug 16, 1961 was due to an electrical failure in the reserve LOX tanks when the new station was brought up to full emergency power due to the approach of the Vostok Interceptor. That the explosion/collision destroyed the Soviet craft simply increased the uncertainty of what happened; the disruption of both sides’ overloaded communication and orbital C3 infrastructure by secondary debris guaranteed that a tragedy became a war.
Monday, October 31, 2011
I'm On The HIGH-WAY to....phlegm.
In case anybody wondered where the postings were, they are in my head, they just can't get through the congestion.
ack. hack. the winter cold is one of the best argumnents against intelligent design. Unless the universe is designed from the viruses perspective......hmmmm. I think the cough medicine just kicked in......
ack. hack. the winter cold is one of the best argumnents against intelligent design. Unless the universe is designed from the viruses perspective......hmmmm. I think the cough medicine just kicked in......
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Epees & Sorcellerie : dogheaded, loving fanboi review.
Nicolas Dessaux's (Frightful Hobgoblin) has released the English translation of Epees & Sorcellerie (Sword and Sorcery,) and it is great. Go here and download the free PDF, then, as I did, go back and order the very reasonably priced print version from Lulu. If one were to draw venn diagrams of the OSR, the OGL and the micro d20 schools of design, it would sit right in the sweet spot where all three intersect.
I have to admit that I was already predisposed to get the game due to his excellent one page RPG , Searchers of the Unknown, so keep that in mind. I'd love to play SOtU , but my gaming group wants a bit more crunch than a one pager -why, I'll never understand, since we all bitch about rules bloat. But anyway.
E&S is an Original D&D derived system that is largely setting free (well, Fantamedieval is a setting, so there's that..) with the six basic stats, three basic classes, hit points, levels, load and shoot magic, and some standard races (Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Orc). However, it is not a retro clone. Its a way to play the same kind of genre and adventures that OD&D aimed at; and, yes, it does use some mechanisms and tropes from it; but if you are looking for a pure clone, this aint it. Nor does it try to be, which is exceelnt, as there are quite a few of those around, many of which are excellent (Swords and Wizardry, anyone ?)
Its main departure from purist OSR is in adding some d20 derived ideas (ascending AC, roll +mods vs AC combat); and all resolution (and stat generation) is based on a 2d6 no funky dice mechanic, which adds nicely to the play value, as far as I'm concerned. One needs to be careful in adding modifiers to rolls as the 2d6 curve is more sensitive than 3d6 (or 1d20), but even then, unlike (say) traveller, as the characters can be epic beings, this is less of a problem than in everyman style games such as (say) traveller). I do note that the system is also easily played as that rarest of things, an everyman (ie non fantastic) semi -historic human centric fantasy role playing game.
It also differs quite a bit from OD&D by being very cleanly written and well organized. It has an excellent index, fer crimminys sake - that alone makes me love it.
It does lack Thieves (Boooooooo!) , so normally that would be a big minus for me, but the fighter class is much more of a S&S genre style dangerous dude/adventurer, so most of the things a thief do are in there -and the rest fall into the very micro d20 style minimal but inclusive skill system. So, I'm sure the authors will be delighted to hear that I'll forgive them for ditching thieves.
Combat is of mild complexity -somewhere between ODD & ADD, quick, allows decent player input and tactics and playable with reasonably non ruleslawyery non munchkiny players who realize that they can play the Advanced Squad Leader Fantasy RPG if they want serious crunch in combat. It makes the point that the rules are to manage combat situations, not recreate real life; a useful distinction, I think, as long as one doesn't veer into GNS theory.
It has monsters, magic and some good campaign advice; a three point alignment and some great period (free ) art from medieval and reniassance illustrations - a style that I just happen to love, so caveat emptor if you are looking for rich modern warhammer/D&D4e style graphics.
The rules set is long enough to be reasonably complete but short enough to read in a hurry. The systems reflect the consistent mechanism focus of the OGL/d20/3E family of games without bogging down in detail. It is 65 pages long, of which 20 are the real rules, with the rest being spell descriptions, monsters and campaign advice.
I'll probably use it for my long planned Landsknecht campaign (aka Flesh and Blood) or an outremere 13th century knights (aka Sir Pagan) and Saracens setting. Or maybe a non-epic 5th century briton campaign (aka everybody dies and the Saxons cheer).
As far as I'm concerned, this is exactly what the OSRs post clone focus is and should be -exploring where the original play and rules styles might have gone other than to AD&D. Well done ! This knocks it out of the park. STOP READING BLOGS AND GO GET IT NOW
I have to admit that I was already predisposed to get the game due to his excellent one page RPG , Searchers of the Unknown, so keep that in mind. I'd love to play SOtU , but my gaming group wants a bit more crunch than a one pager -why, I'll never understand, since we all bitch about rules bloat. But anyway.
E&S is an Original D&D derived system that is largely setting free (well, Fantamedieval is a setting, so there's that..) with the six basic stats, three basic classes, hit points, levels, load and shoot magic, and some standard races (Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Orc). However, it is not a retro clone. Its a way to play the same kind of genre and adventures that OD&D aimed at; and, yes, it does use some mechanisms and tropes from it; but if you are looking for a pure clone, this aint it. Nor does it try to be, which is exceelnt, as there are quite a few of those around, many of which are excellent (Swords and Wizardry, anyone ?)
Its main departure from purist OSR is in adding some d20 derived ideas (ascending AC, roll +mods vs AC combat); and all resolution (and stat generation) is based on a 2d6 no funky dice mechanic, which adds nicely to the play value, as far as I'm concerned. One needs to be careful in adding modifiers to rolls as the 2d6 curve is more sensitive than 3d6 (or 1d20), but even then, unlike (say) traveller, as the characters can be epic beings, this is less of a problem than in everyman style games such as (say) traveller). I do note that the system is also easily played as that rarest of things, an everyman (ie non fantastic) semi -historic human centric fantasy role playing game.
It also differs quite a bit from OD&D by being very cleanly written and well organized. It has an excellent index, fer crimminys sake - that alone makes me love it.
It does lack Thieves (Boooooooo!) , so normally that would be a big minus for me, but the fighter class is much more of a S&S genre style dangerous dude/adventurer, so most of the things a thief do are in there -and the rest fall into the very micro d20 style minimal but inclusive skill system. So, I'm sure the authors will be delighted to hear that I'll forgive them for ditching thieves.
Combat is of mild complexity -somewhere between ODD & ADD, quick, allows decent player input and tactics and playable with reasonably non ruleslawyery non munchkiny players who realize that they can play the Advanced Squad Leader Fantasy RPG if they want serious crunch in combat. It makes the point that the rules are to manage combat situations, not recreate real life; a useful distinction, I think, as long as one doesn't veer into GNS theory.
It has monsters, magic and some good campaign advice; a three point alignment and some great period (free ) art from medieval and reniassance illustrations - a style that I just happen to love, so caveat emptor if you are looking for rich modern warhammer/D&D4e style graphics.
The rules set is long enough to be reasonably complete but short enough to read in a hurry. The systems reflect the consistent mechanism focus of the OGL/d20/3E family of games without bogging down in detail. It is 65 pages long, of which 20 are the real rules, with the rest being spell descriptions, monsters and campaign advice.
I'll probably use it for my long planned Landsknecht campaign (aka Flesh and Blood) or an outremere 13th century knights (aka Sir Pagan) and Saracens setting. Or maybe a non-epic 5th century briton campaign (aka everybody dies and the Saxons cheer).
As far as I'm concerned, this is exactly what the OSRs post clone focus is and should be -exploring where the original play and rules styles might have gone other than to AD&D. Well done ! This knocks it out of the park. STOP READING BLOGS AND GO GET IT NOW
Sunday, October 16, 2011
My personal skill resolution system: just what the blogosphere needs, yet another one......
Thought I'd share how I resolve skill issues in my fossilized OD&D campaign.
I assess a task on three axes.
First, how important is a success for the gameplay:
Second, consider if it is it likely to be relevant to the character's class or, if they've taken the time, their personal .
Be generous -for example, bargaining for a good horse is probably a fighter related skill, although reading may not be. etc etc.
Third, do I have any idea how likely success is.
For the record, despote my deep and obsessive love of skill based games (Traveller Mon Amor) I think they can be a pain in class based games. Plus, I hate (hate, hate) having elaborate difficulty lookup charts -(besides wondering if "amazing" is really better or worse than "incredible" ).
In general, i use the well worn and reliable, roll under stat + stuff to succeed.
If I can take a guess at difficulty, I use an xd6 roll -
If the player is coming up with an overly complicated plan, or missing the easy or obvious way, I use 4 d6.
If he has outsmarted me (bastard ! ), and/or will really complicate my life (like, solving the mystery in game one before the pizza arrives) , or is being astonishingly stupid, stubborn, obtuse or all three at once on purpose (or at least it seems to be) I punitively go with 5d6.*
I use xd6 becuase I like the bell distribution -not only is this a phoilosophical thing for me, it is a more reliable distribution - if you have the target a point or two above the average, you have a really good chance of success -in other words, the chance of failure diminishes faster once you get good at somthing.
If I don't have the slightest idea of weather its likely or not, use a D20, and I have autosuccess and auto failure. If I don't know (or care) about difficulty, I like a linear roll; since I don't know the liklihood of failure, it may as well be a constant factor.
If I'm remembering, I call a bell roll (xd6) a standard roll, and a d20 a wild (or whimsey) roll.
There we go. What else ? I generally assume that tools either allow it in the first place (lack of which makes it impossible), or make the task a gimmie. Lockpicks would be an example of the first, climbing gear, the second. I try not to add too much situational stuff -I assume that most of that is noise, and cancels out. Finally, I always try to reduce things to a single roll; permutations are a stone bitch, and eventually get you a player who invents a maxim gun in the stone age, or a master ranger who cuts his foot off setting a snare. And, while fun........well. Y'know. Table flips and all.
Roll on.
*Remember, I said this is how I work, and I'm a fossilized self aggrandized old grognard, so no irate responses about how my needs deprotagonize the colocated storytelling player's meta-experience, okay? I have the heavy lifting in the campaign, so I get a few selfish perks. Go empower the reprotagonized bloody albatross as much as your want on your own dime......
PPS. My job is keeping me very busy and interested. So, thus the lack of posts; fact is, I ain't cutting what little time I have for gaming so that I can write about gaming that I'm not doing; that way lies madness, and arguing on Traveller and D&D boards...;) .
I assess a task on three axes.
First, how important is a success for the gameplay:
- if it has to happen, the roll is usualy 3d6 + stuff vs stat, and simply gives degree of success.
- If it will ruin the campaign, don't allow it in the first place.
- If it is a grey area, in that it could happen, but won't kill the game if it fails, read on.
Second, consider if it is it likely to be relevant to the character's class or, if they've taken the time, their personal .
- If class appropriate, add their level to the stat.
- If just a backstory skill, add half.
Be generous -for example, bargaining for a good horse is probably a fighter related skill, although reading may not be. etc etc.
Third, do I have any idea how likely success is.
For the record, despote my deep and obsessive love of skill based games (Traveller Mon Amor) I think they can be a pain in class based games. Plus, I hate (hate, hate) having elaborate difficulty lookup charts -(besides wondering if "amazing" is really better or worse than "incredible" ).
In general, i use the well worn and reliable, roll under stat + stuff to succeed.
If I can take a guess at difficulty, I use an xd6 roll -
- For easy, I just let it happen.
- If it isn't much of a challenge and if I wouldn't mind it happening , 3d6 ;
- if it is hard, but okay 4d6.
- if it seems really hard, or I don't want it to happen, but can't justify it as a game killer, 5d6
If the player is coming up with an overly complicated plan, or missing the easy or obvious way, I use 4 d6.
If he has outsmarted me (bastard ! ), and/or will really complicate my life (like, solving the mystery in game one before the pizza arrives) , or is being astonishingly stupid, stubborn, obtuse or all three at once on purpose (or at least it seems to be) I punitively go with 5d6.*
I use xd6 becuase I like the bell distribution -not only is this a phoilosophical thing for me, it is a more reliable distribution - if you have the target a point or two above the average, you have a really good chance of success -in other words, the chance of failure diminishes faster once you get good at somthing.
If I don't have the slightest idea of weather its likely or not, use a D20, and I have autosuccess and auto failure. If I don't know (or care) about difficulty, I like a linear roll; since I don't know the liklihood of failure, it may as well be a constant factor.
If I'm remembering, I call a bell roll (xd6) a standard roll, and a d20 a wild (or whimsey) roll.
There we go. What else ? I generally assume that tools either allow it in the first place (lack of which makes it impossible), or make the task a gimmie. Lockpicks would be an example of the first, climbing gear, the second. I try not to add too much situational stuff -I assume that most of that is noise, and cancels out. Finally, I always try to reduce things to a single roll; permutations are a stone bitch, and eventually get you a player who invents a maxim gun in the stone age, or a master ranger who cuts his foot off setting a snare. And, while fun........well. Y'know. Table flips and all.
Roll on.
*Remember, I said this is how I work, and I'm a fossilized self aggrandized old grognard, so no irate responses about how my needs deprotagonize the colocated storytelling player's meta-experience, okay? I have the heavy lifting in the campaign, so I get a few selfish perks. Go empower the reprotagonized bloody albatross as much as your want on your own dime......
PPS. My job is keeping me very busy and interested. So, thus the lack of posts; fact is, I ain't cutting what little time I have for gaming so that I can write about gaming that I'm not doing; that way lies madness, and arguing on Traveller and D&D boards...;) .
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Comment to Raggi at LoTFP
No, not a rant about gaming morals, I just can't post comments due to a work firewall. Here is what I wanted to comment about his post on the rule of one in six.
Yes, I'm a Nerd.
Thank you for your attention,
The Mgt.
Do keep in mind that with a 1/6 per turn chance of a"screw around event", means that there's a 2/3 chance of at least one per hour. (.667 for purists ;) )
Yes, I'm a Nerd.
Thank you for your attention,
The Mgt.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Happy Birthday Mark Hamill - OHMYGODLUKESKYWALKERISSIXTY !
AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH! You utter, utter BASTARD ! How dare you make us all be so old ! HOW DARE YOU !
How can that naive ingenue from tatooine BE AS OLD ENOUGH FOR AARP FOR GODS SAKE !
THAT MUST MEAN THAT I AM......... AAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEE!
....I don't even want to know how old Alec Guiness was in The Movie. Not at all.
How can that naive ingenue from tatooine BE AS OLD ENOUGH FOR AARP FOR GODS SAKE !
THAT MUST MEAN THAT I AM......... AAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEE!
....I don't even want to know how old Alec Guiness was in The Movie. Not at all.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Happy Birthday, Bilbo, and your spacey little nephew, too !
Where ever you two are, enjoy yourselves; this shoefoot is going to celebrate by meditating on mushrooms and big pies. Maybe even, Big Mushroom Pies !
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Dead Simple One-Page RPG: a review that barely escapes being longer than the rules…..
In all honesty, I’m not a classic OSR guy –in fact, I never stopped playing Oe since about 1975 ; I’m a living fossil. What I am entirely enthusiastic about is the minimal rules component of RPG development that OSR has shined new light on. I think I found the OSR sites thru searching for microlited20 stuff. I love the idea of minimal rules. My son does, too, and getting kids interested is about the best thing a rules set can do.
So, what ones do I like ? my current favorite is the Dead-Simple one page FRP rules developed by the creators of FUBAR , itself a great set of one page miniatures rules. The author clearly cut his teeth designing an excellent one page future/ultra modern miniatures set, and did a marvelous job; unsurprisingly, the same general zeitgeist carried over to an honest to god FRPG. I say unsurprisingly, because, as we all remember, D&D is the mutated offspring of lead pushing miniatures rules ; in all honesty , dead simple does tread the line between a skirmish game and an RPG, but, especially in the latest iteration, it is clearly on the RPG side (character focus, persistent game environment, experience system etc) . It is a simple rules-lite classic RPG in the old school tradition– in one page.
It has spells, combat and experience progression, items and a skill system all on one page. Revisions have been aimed at making more room for progression/advancement, and making initial builds They have done a marvelous job of catching all the necessary tropes for a D&D experience, in a very elegant set of rules. And note: the rules are concise, not compressed. Compressed rules often assume a more than basic knowledge of the topic (RPG or miniatures); whereas concise requires clarity and ease of access. The fit clearly in the latter case;
It comes in at least three variant versions, covering different genres: space Opera ,Oriental adventures, steam punk and reformation)…four, sir. Well, five including Busiris, which is the version set in a homegrown setting. And six, a gonzoish goblin world version. Really very portable. Also available are a series of one page supplements that allow one to expand the framework beyond the bog standard elf/dwarf/hobbit/human/fighter/mage/cleric and barbarian/ranger, which are a pretty good set of guides on being a DM in general. The whole site is good stuff, and includes lots more than dead simple.. Check it out.
Again:
http://thegamesshed.wordpress.com/category/rpg-rules/fantasy-rpg-rules/
http://thegamesshed.wordpress.com/category/rpg-rules/fantasy-rpg-rules/
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Continuing my break from the cold war…a review of Engines and and Empires !
So, I thought I’d do some fanboy reviews of games that I’ve fallen in love with. First up, Engines and Empires.
How bout a quick summary before you start blathering ?
Okay.....Engines and Emrires is a BEMX/Holmes inspired set of rules via Labyrinth Lord, and allows play in a fantasy milleaux that is technologically similar to the pre or earlier victorian era. Mainly self contained setting and rules. It seems pretty much play-out-of- the- box ready, possibly with some need for LL in the spells. Whatever, nothing a competent DM or creative noob couldn’t handle. 200 + pages with no crucial part being overlong. Rules, spells, campaign equiptment, chargen mass combat, extras, options, you name it. All there. Vampires, Elves, lightning cannon, fireballs and rifled musketry, man. Vampires and lightning cannon, man ! Hobbits with muskets ! With muskets ! Yowsa !
Authors blurb:
ENGINES & EMPIRES is a campaign setting designed for use with the LABYRINTH LORD fantasy RPG. Sitting at the crossroads of heroic high fantasy and Victorian gaslight romance, E&E pits magic and science against an ancient darkness intent on once again enveloping the world of Gaia... along with all the Free Folk that now dwell thereupon.John Higgins , 257 pages.
Free PDF,and very reasonably priced print available from Lulu, here.
Now, the froth and fluff part.
Okay, here’s the deal, I am of the firm opinion that the further one gets past the pseudo medievalesque setting, the less sense class and level systems make; the same with different class membership and abilities by race (which really should be species). Plus, I’ve always cordially dispised " race as class" from its first presentation in Holmes (which, with BEMX I’ve always shunned). That said, E&E would seem to be a long shot for me to obsess about and fall in love with. But it is….fantastic.
Possibly its becuase it's vaguely post Napoleonic,early Victorian setting exactly defines the last period where class/level systems work (for me); possibly because it’s an actual non-dark/dystopic steampunk (gaslight, actually) setting or possibly because its a different take on human and non-human coexistence in a game world – but probably because it’s so well written, presented and a hell of a hoot. Heck. I even forgive it for Class as level because it makes it work (see below).
But Doc, why have you gone over to the dark side of emphasising setting over rules ?
Because E&E is that rarest of rare things, a rules set+setting that is well presented, flavorful, creative and not just another world of Greyhawk with or without some kind of edgy tweak. Unusually for me, the setting is a big part of the attraction, the rules are fine too, but there are lots of rules in the world. The rules work for the setting, and don't require a vast investment of time in learning the authors new d17-d4 action resolution skill and trait based semi-level system. And the setting rocks, and not just becuase it's edgy gritty or has cognitively dissonant elements merged together (Spelljammer anyone ? Mechs in Creeks and crawdads ?)
And how is it not just another D&D elfy welfy eurocentric greyhawk only with mecha carved out of Ents and trains that run on spellpoints drained from gelflings ?
Well, primarily, the setting is self-contained and almost unique – early steampunk without as much punk, also known as a gaslight romance –except that romance now pretty much means relationship romance, and not fantastical. What sets it apart from lots of steam inspired RPG’s is that steampunk usually either pushes magic in an almost modern world (Falkenstein,most vampire/werewolf settings) or focuses on the crazy science (1889, most of the steam mecha). E&E does a good job of including both; magic is old, but science is new –it’s the exact overlap of gizmo invention and academic magic and spiritualism.
Also, whereas much steampunk has been edging closer to 1900, E&E drops back to clearly before the 1860’s, probably to 1820ish (Crimean war ?) with some anachronisms. Inventors work with steam and chemistry, electricity is a new and yet to be tamed force, cap and ball rifles and revolvers exist alongside swords and suchlike, people ride horses, sail in clippers or steam side-wheelers, and flight is reserved for balloons and creatures with wings. Oh yeah –plus the undead and magic, both of which have a much more Victorian penny dreadful flavor.
AND, it’s not just set in an earth alternate. It is similar physically to earth, but it is a world where lots of the non-human species (elves, dwarves fey,niads,centaurs,halflings) coexist as equals and humans are just another kind of race. Humans don’t dominate, nor are the other species declining. Even the frikkin hobbits have a kingdom or two, and IIRC, a napoleon analogue is a gnome. (Laugh at the committee for public safety, if you laugh at me, monsieur). It has a history, and a gazeteer of the kingdoms at a reasonable level of detail, with lots of places and plaothooks for the GM to use.
Finally, while it clearly is shoving a Gygaxian fantasy world into a later setting, its fairly well thought out, and isn’t just an attempt to represent a particular modern or SF trope only this time made using steam and cocoanut shells (any fantasy/steam age star trek or mecha game, I’m looking at you)
And lots of cool hand drawn maps ! Did I mention the maps ? I love maps.
Any actual discussion of mechanics besides fanboy love ?
Like, what else do you need ? Okay, okay.
The rules are Labyrinth Lord derived, with custom classes and all the basics of Old style D&D mechanics and feel are there. It has the defining race as class mechanisms of the Holmes/BEMX family of games, and is scaled for a 36 level character track, paralleling the basic/advanced/master/expert kinds of plateaus. Usually these would be problematic , but the class level works well enough, and has the benefit of similar non-humans have different classes –so, an elfy character has some options, just some are called Fey, and etc. Similarly, the 36 level scaling (who the heck has time for a 36 level campaign now that we are out of middle school….) seems much more doable with an custom advancement scheme that avoids XP altogether, and is based on game session. I think the assumption is that a character should level up every4-6 sessions. That’s still a long way to level 36, but doesn’t involve having to kill Gods to get enough XP to level up….. Chargen is bog standard. Combat is very abstract, but with options for old farts like me to use to complicate things. Of note is a skill system that is simple, and not very granular – much like the d20 lite systems use. If you like the skill granularity to be very fine, this may not work for you, but it is very consistent with the style of the game.
The basic D&D classes are there (Fighter, Mage, Cleric, and Thief) in some campaign appropriate disguises, with some different skills and abilities. New classes include the inventor, a requirement for any steampunk/gaslight setting. Clerics are scholars (kind of a cross between VanHelsing and Seminary trained types), mages use charisma, fighters are soldiers, monks are Boxers (Fisticuffs AND Marquis of Queensbury, wot!), Thieves are experts/professionals, and inventors have a fully developed set of rules for tinkering, gizmonics and infernal device creation.
How does it play ?
Overall, the style of play seems fast, but not truly cinematic, if you accept that john Wu films are the baseline for cinematic RPG style. Remember, it’s a world where the fastest communication is still birds, and the fastest land transport is a horse. Whereas a cinematic game simply cuts to the action and then to more action with a brief précis of between the scenes events, the action in E&E would seem to be fast, and frequent but with a fair amount of development of the intermediate play sequences. Yes, you get to fight cannibal apes, but you also get to role-play a court feast and negotiate a treaty with the king of the gnomish cannibals.
The rules are simple and familiar enough to be essentially transparent. One plays the game, not the rules.
Anything to look out for ?
I sorta wish it was available in an 8.5 x 11 size, and/or hardback. But , one can print the PDF that way.
It really doesn;t have any sandbox rules, although encounter tables and world detail is provided -but no Judges guild style hex contents genrator tables - but thats fine, as it comes with a dandy setting already installed.
If you are expecting high graphic hex bases map projections, the ones provided will not satisfy. The art is (I think) entirely period B&W clip art; you'll either love it or hate it. Combat isn't very granular, but if I want that, I have Frappe or Colonial age skirmish.
Liking a rules set with 36 levels, post medieval class and level and Holmsian race as class makes me experience cognitive dissonance.
Oh yeah. Gnomes are treated as if they were worth existing. Can't support that. next thing you know, it'll be sapient ducks........
Anything else ?
E&E is a different RPG using familiar tropes and rules. Its exactly what I think is the goal of the OSR -not just cloning, but developing from the neccessary clones. Its all to easy to become obsessed with the basics (ie rules cloning) and lose sight of the fact that it is not an end in itself. Or, more academically, "Don;t convert vital ideological praxis into rarified ideology. Get out on the barricades !"
Anything else that doesn't hint at absurdist mockery of GNS games theory ?
Yeah. Who the hell are you, anyway ?
Look. I love it. It’s honest to god adventure from the last age of explorers, Burton and Speke, guns and mystic mysteries vs. the glory of science, all in a world different enough that it need not be haunted by the dark side of steam (such as colonialism, satanic mills and factory cities, and…well, the killing floor of world war one). Full marks. . I have the free version, and two copies of the print version, and I’m a known cheap bastard.
GO GET IT NOW !
Other reviews are to be found here and here .
Thursday, September 8, 2011
I think the thief is hated because he got way better in 3E.
So, in essence, to the OSR antithief lobby, I guess they seem like collaborators ?
Really, although I dislike the way they did it (the skill system is a bolt on kludge, and very finicky to keep track of), 3E does make useful thieves that are about as usefully unrealistic/heroically exaggerated as the other classes from level one; which, as I've noted, is one hell of an improvement.
In fact, I like playing thieves in 3E (and 3.5); but then, I also think that in many ways, 3E is the logical goal of the style of gaming that D&D got its base from: hard core miniature and board gaming players; which includes me...and Gygax and arneson, FWIW. My main complaint is that unless one plays it all the time, the rules get foggy in ones head, and rules spotting and searching really starts to get in the way of play. Kind of like Star fleet battles, advanced squad leader, and vi. ( I pretty much had to give up playing SFB when I went into grad school, because there wasn't room for both.....not time, room. As in, my hard drive was over full. )
That said, the best parts of 3E for the thief are really twofold: feats, and not starting off as a bumbling fool. The implementation of skills is lacking, but on the whole, it makes thieves (excuse me: Rogues) quite effective out the gate -sure they have corresponding gaps, but that's what being a specialist is all about. And feats are one of the big things I like best about 3E. Really, I think that but for feat bloat, the feat system could absorb the skill system, and give a very nice system for customizing classes. Wonder what that could offer to a rules lite or )D&D sensibility style set of rules.
Okay, that's enough for tonight. BTW, hello to the new readers and commenters ! Nice to get an anonymous comment that isn't tying to sell me viagra.... ;)
Really, although I dislike the way they did it (the skill system is a bolt on kludge, and very finicky to keep track of), 3E does make useful thieves that are about as usefully unrealistic/heroically exaggerated as the other classes from level one; which, as I've noted, is one hell of an improvement.
In fact, I like playing thieves in 3E (and 3.5); but then, I also think that in many ways, 3E is the logical goal of the style of gaming that D&D got its base from: hard core miniature and board gaming players; which includes me...and Gygax and arneson, FWIW. My main complaint is that unless one plays it all the time, the rules get foggy in ones head, and rules spotting and searching really starts to get in the way of play. Kind of like Star fleet battles, advanced squad leader, and vi. ( I pretty much had to give up playing SFB when I went into grad school, because there wasn't room for both.....not time, room. As in, my hard drive was over full. )
That said, the best parts of 3E for the thief are really twofold: feats, and not starting off as a bumbling fool. The implementation of skills is lacking, but on the whole, it makes thieves (excuse me: Rogues) quite effective out the gate -sure they have corresponding gaps, but that's what being a specialist is all about. And feats are one of the big things I like best about 3E. Really, I think that but for feat bloat, the feat system could absorb the skill system, and give a very nice system for customizing classes. Wonder what that could offer to a rules lite or )D&D sensibility style set of rules.
Okay, that's enough for tonight. BTW, hello to the new readers and commenters ! Nice to get an anonymous comment that isn't tying to sell me viagra.... ;)
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
The thief is, however, incompetent
So, what is the problem with the thief ? Well, simply put, except for climbing, they suck at about everything thiefy. Which meant, under ODD&ADD1, to have any hope of not getting your hand cut off the first time you try to pick a pocket, and get caught, you end up needing to play a non-human thief with an 18 dex. They do excell at backstabbing, true, but just try and get into position by being bold....or moving. No, you pretty much have to mail yourself to your intended victim and hope that he is facing the other way when you burst out. You could climb a wall, and wait for someone to walk below you, I suppose (piercer costume optional), and hope that they aren't looking up, cause with a 10% success chance, you are not going to be hidden; and with 1d6 hit points, you ain't gonna get as second chance.
See, the problem isn't that the thief broke D&D, it's that the thief is broken. Its a great addition to D&D conceptually, and in keeping with a start small grow tall approach to character development, but it seems like it is the only class that got saddled with a truly untrained first level. Look....the fighter can hit a random peasant 50% of the time, right ? The Mage can put him to sleep.....the cleric ...well, strictly speaking the cleric can't cast a spell, but he still has a good chance of smashing his head in or, even better, if its an undead peasant, making him run away. The thief ? He can...ummmm....hide from him one time in ten; or alternately, sneak past or pick his pocket one time in five. He could, to be fair, hear him pretty well.
So, the solution we used back in the day was this: a first level thief started with a base chance equal to 30% +/- 5% per dex point above 14 or below 7. Then, simply add the greyhawk percentages at each level, incldung the first. A non-thief could try any of them, but only using one half the base number. A thief using the wrong armor simply lost all this level bonuses. Done.
It gave a nimble thief about a 50/50 chance of success for most thiefy things - not great, but way more in line with the other classes, who are moderately pathetic at level 1, as well.
Nowadays, for the basic thief skills* I use a modified quickNez stat check:
4d6 roll<=dex+level to succeed.
Works great, and the 4d6 bell curve is a nice change that allows higher level or more nimble thieves less variability than (say) a d20 roll. I still use 1d4 for HP - one should be able to clean the slimy little sneak's clock, after all - possibly what made him turn to theft in the first place....and so the great circle of life continues.
* picklock, disarm trap, pick pocket, sneak, hide. I exclude climb as a no fail with the right tools; and search as it makes for lazy players -which I note isn't something a thief does in OD&D anyhow.
See, the problem isn't that the thief broke D&D, it's that the thief is broken. Its a great addition to D&D conceptually, and in keeping with a start small grow tall approach to character development, but it seems like it is the only class that got saddled with a truly untrained first level. Look....the fighter can hit a random peasant 50% of the time, right ? The Mage can put him to sleep.....the cleric ...well, strictly speaking the cleric can't cast a spell, but he still has a good chance of smashing his head in or, even better, if its an undead peasant, making him run away. The thief ? He can...ummmm....hide from him one time in ten; or alternately, sneak past or pick his pocket one time in five. He could, to be fair, hear him pretty well.
So, the solution we used back in the day was this: a first level thief started with a base chance equal to 30% +/- 5% per dex point above 14 or below 7. Then, simply add the greyhawk percentages at each level, incldung the first. A non-thief could try any of them, but only using one half the base number. A thief using the wrong armor simply lost all this level bonuses. Done.
It gave a nimble thief about a 50/50 chance of success for most thiefy things - not great, but way more in line with the other classes, who are moderately pathetic at level 1, as well.
Nowadays, for the basic thief skills* I use a modified quickNez stat check:
4d6 roll<=dex+level to succeed.
Works great, and the 4d6 bell curve is a nice change that allows higher level or more nimble thieves less variability than (say) a d20 roll. I still use 1d4 for HP - one should be able to clean the slimy little sneak's clock, after all - possibly what made him turn to theft in the first place....and so the great circle of life continues.
* picklock, disarm trap, pick pocket, sneak, hide. I exclude climb as a no fail with the right tools; and search as it makes for lazy players -which I note isn't something a thief does in OD&D anyhow.
Friday, September 2, 2011
The Thief is not guilty, part 3
So, I wanted to post some reviews, and I noticed that a common theme was: "great, except for the idiosyncratic refusal to include the Thief class". So, heres my final(ish) thoughts on that.
This belief in the neccessoity for exclusion of the thief is puzzling, and it seems to be part of the OSR zeitgeist; the reasons range from the thief not being in the original three books, through them being a self referential class that creates the challeneges it is supposed to deal with, through being responsible for the glut of skills and feats of later editions. Support or rejection of this idea seems foundational to the whole bubbling stew of the OSR. So, since the thief excluders are wrong, guess which side I'm on?
I've discussed (ranted about) these arguments before, expressing my opinion that they are, indeed, quantifiable as the merest hooie*. To sum up:
1. the number of people who started D&D with only the original 3 book set and not greyhawk either at the same time or immediately thereafter is vanishingly small and as such, it doesn;t represent a change of direction with regard to D&D as an RPG.
2. Gary wrote Greyhawk (well, yes with others) and obviously included the thief intentionally in his campaign, and thus the gygaxian vision of D&D; QED for the purists, I think .
3. Fighters and the attempt to de-vanilla-ize them via weapon proficiencies and skill based subclasses is, in my obviously self inflated opinion, the real cause of the skillsystems and sorcery style of play, not thieves. Note that GG resisted weapon proficiencies for quite a while as a bad idea that would lead to skill systems.
3. Its soooooooo swords and sorcery. Plus, Bilbo.
So, anything new ? Well, yes, and here is my core argument.
The thief is what made D&D more than just a skirmish miniatures game.
We all know that it began as one -and that now it isn't just one. A main difference between a skirmish wargame and the ur-RPG is this: Skirmish games often are at the scale of the one figure = one man, but the player is still a disembodied commander moving pieces around, and all pieces are judged by their resource value in winning the game; an RPG changes the scale to one figure = you, and you alone. Playing a single fighter was still something that one could do in a skirmish game. Fighters killed other units, Mages were artillery, and clerics were either recovery units or specialized anti -undead killers.
The thief was a big deal because as a class it had no useful place on the battlefield of a skirmish wargame, whatsover.
Really ? Well, almost none of the thief skillset is useful in a skirmish -playing one is a waste of time. Scouting is irrelevant on a real sand table, especially given the rules of that time period, and swiping was even less useful. Climbing and sneaking are options, but since one cannot do anything useful, so what ? Reading scrolls ? Play an apprentice wizard. Possibly they could eliminate commanders and such, but that was really the role of assassins, a type specifically included in the original skirmish model of D&D.
Why then, amidst all the other detail of Greyhawk, most of which could simply be additions to a skirmish game is a useless unit specifically included ?
Because the thief had every utility in the dungeon game, and the dungeon game created the role playing experience; and also, the thief in many ways defined the nature of the adventurer. Remember, 1973. Fantasy models are not what they are today. Heroes were sneaks as much as brawlers, often antiheroesm and in many ways, that is what made them a literary character, rather than the subject of a soldierly autobiography. They solved puzzles, got into tight scrapes and conflicts by themselves; this I see as the real genesis of roleplaying.
So, given that, we see that the thief is the character of the dungeon crawl, and from there the Urban adventure or the indoor raid. And those are the types of settings that set D&D apart from the skirmish game. And thus...the father of the RPG, the causus bellum, the missing link -the neccessary part of the final result.
No thieves =no role playing games.
So, suck it up*, Grognardia and all you reactionary revisionists* ! Apologise to the thief right now ! Take him to lunch and make it your treat; you may as well, you'll be paying for it either way .
* I say this in the most loving caring and compassionate manner possible..;)
This belief in the neccessoity for exclusion of the thief is puzzling, and it seems to be part of the OSR zeitgeist; the reasons range from the thief not being in the original three books, through them being a self referential class that creates the challeneges it is supposed to deal with, through being responsible for the glut of skills and feats of later editions. Support or rejection of this idea seems foundational to the whole bubbling stew of the OSR. So, since the thief excluders are wrong, guess which side I'm on?
I've discussed (ranted about) these arguments before, expressing my opinion that they are, indeed, quantifiable as the merest hooie*. To sum up:
1. the number of people who started D&D with only the original 3 book set and not greyhawk either at the same time or immediately thereafter is vanishingly small and as such, it doesn;t represent a change of direction with regard to D&D as an RPG.
2. Gary wrote Greyhawk (well, yes with others) and obviously included the thief intentionally in his campaign, and thus the gygaxian vision of D&D; QED for the purists, I think .
3. Fighters and the attempt to de-vanilla-ize them via weapon proficiencies and skill based subclasses is, in my obviously self inflated opinion, the real cause of the skillsystems and sorcery style of play, not thieves. Note that GG resisted weapon proficiencies for quite a while as a bad idea that would lead to skill systems.
3. Its soooooooo swords and sorcery. Plus, Bilbo.
So, anything new ? Well, yes, and here is my core argument.
The thief is what made D&D more than just a skirmish miniatures game.
We all know that it began as one -and that now it isn't just one. A main difference between a skirmish wargame and the ur-RPG is this: Skirmish games often are at the scale of the one figure = one man, but the player is still a disembodied commander moving pieces around, and all pieces are judged by their resource value in winning the game; an RPG changes the scale to one figure = you, and you alone. Playing a single fighter was still something that one could do in a skirmish game. Fighters killed other units, Mages were artillery, and clerics were either recovery units or specialized anti -undead killers.
The thief was a big deal because as a class it had no useful place on the battlefield of a skirmish wargame, whatsover.
Really ? Well, almost none of the thief skillset is useful in a skirmish -playing one is a waste of time. Scouting is irrelevant on a real sand table, especially given the rules of that time period, and swiping was even less useful. Climbing and sneaking are options, but since one cannot do anything useful, so what ? Reading scrolls ? Play an apprentice wizard. Possibly they could eliminate commanders and such, but that was really the role of assassins, a type specifically included in the original skirmish model of D&D.
Why then, amidst all the other detail of Greyhawk, most of which could simply be additions to a skirmish game is a useless unit specifically included ?
Because the thief had every utility in the dungeon game, and the dungeon game created the role playing experience; and also, the thief in many ways defined the nature of the adventurer. Remember, 1973. Fantasy models are not what they are today. Heroes were sneaks as much as brawlers, often antiheroesm and in many ways, that is what made them a literary character, rather than the subject of a soldierly autobiography. They solved puzzles, got into tight scrapes and conflicts by themselves; this I see as the real genesis of roleplaying.
So, given that, we see that the thief is the character of the dungeon crawl, and from there the Urban adventure or the indoor raid. And those are the types of settings that set D&D apart from the skirmish game. And thus...the father of the RPG, the causus bellum, the missing link -the neccessary part of the final result.
No thieves =no role playing games.
So, suck it up*, Grognardia and all you reactionary revisionists* ! Apologise to the thief right now ! Take him to lunch and make it your treat; you may as well, you'll be paying for it either way .
* I say this in the most loving caring and compassionate manner possible..;)
Labels:
0ed,
Blather,
D and D,
gygax,
OD and D; Oe,
Rant,
Rant and rave,
RAnt.,
Thieves
Thursday, September 1, 2011
A break from the cold war......
So, I've run up against the current limits of what I enjoy doing on this blog - and am into areas of the story that I haven't thought thru all that well. So, I need to take a break fro the ponderous faux history writing, and see what happens.
The game development itself seems to have hit a plateau; one day a couple of weeks ago I realized somthing: unless this is just an Alt.history blog exercise, I need to figure out where the players can fit in.
The biggest problem with the setting so far is that there really only is room (thus far) for adventurers who are still part of the space forces -in the military, in other words, since the world I'm designing certainly doesn't have room or resources for private enterprise (or corporate enterprise) in space. Regan/Bush capitalism isn't going to flourish in the world of retrospace -both sides have tightly planned, militarized economies. And while a WWII or cold war game on earth has lots of room for espionage, clandestine ops, semi-private adventurers and maverick warbands, the space war requires serious resources and official cooperation from the governments or you can't get there; plus, up to the time of the first orbit war, things are pretty obvious, and the goals are pretty circumscribed. Blast off in single-seat rockets, shoot down satellite or enemy interceptor. Infiltrate the three-man saluyt station ? Ummmm. No ? Especially as the entire orbital battlefield has, on both sides, maybe twelve soldiers in it at any one time ?
So, where the players ? The problem is, a "you are in the army here are your orders" campaign, while easy to run, isn't (in my experience) the most popular amongst the players, who do matter, somewhat.
It looks like there will need to be a couple of breakpoints for the backstory that can generate different campaigns.
Lets see what I come up with. In the meantime, I think I'll do some shilling for my current faddish RPG infatuations (six level D&D, Engines and Empires, Busiris, Epees and Sorcery), or post some stupid game rants. (thieves, idiot fans, get off of my lawn).
The game development itself seems to have hit a plateau; one day a couple of weeks ago I realized somthing: unless this is just an Alt.history blog exercise, I need to figure out where the players can fit in.
The biggest problem with the setting so far is that there really only is room (thus far) for adventurers who are still part of the space forces -in the military, in other words, since the world I'm designing certainly doesn't have room or resources for private enterprise (or corporate enterprise) in space. Regan/Bush capitalism isn't going to flourish in the world of retrospace -both sides have tightly planned, militarized economies. And while a WWII or cold war game on earth has lots of room for espionage, clandestine ops, semi-private adventurers and maverick warbands, the space war requires serious resources and official cooperation from the governments or you can't get there; plus, up to the time of the first orbit war, things are pretty obvious, and the goals are pretty circumscribed. Blast off in single-seat rockets, shoot down satellite or enemy interceptor. Infiltrate the three-man saluyt station ? Ummmm. No ? Especially as the entire orbital battlefield has, on both sides, maybe twelve soldiers in it at any one time ?
So, where the players ? The problem is, a "you are in the army here are your orders" campaign, while easy to run, isn't (in my experience) the most popular amongst the players, who do matter, somewhat.
It looks like there will need to be a couple of breakpoints for the backstory that can generate different campaigns.
Lets see what I come up with. In the meantime, I think I'll do some shilling for my current faddish RPG infatuations (six level D&D, Engines and Empires, Busiris, Epees and Sorcery), or post some stupid game rants. (thieves, idiot fans, get off of my lawn).
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
The 1959 LEO treaty, and the evolution of the UN
If the first major consequence of the First orbital war was speeding up long term and long range space operations by the superpowers, the second was clearly the initial LEO treaty that was negotiated as a result of the war.
Before the war, the civilian benefits of satellite/orbital technology had been obvious, and exploitation of this potential was a major goal of both private industries and the non-aligned developing nations (Argentina, Brazil, India, South Africa). While only a few private or Non-aligned powers had lofted satellites, the Orbit war destroyed them all by direct attack, or as a consequence of other attacks.
Both the run up to the war and the result of the war was an almost complete degredation of orbital infrastructure: in short, no sooner was a satellite lofted than it was destroyed.
As most space exploitation was military, anything in orbit was potentially a weapon. Indeed, the main casus bellum for the war was the “neutralization” of a large scientific satellite that proved to be an nuclear platform (from debris analysis); that it was also manned was the stated issue, but both sides knew that the lesson of project Prometheus was that gaining nuclear high ground was decisive. Once nuclear weapons were potentially in orbit, no satellite could be trusted. Unfortunately, as previously discussed the operations required to control LEO had exhausted both sides resources and personel and was unsustainable, and simultaneously unavoidable.
The desire for both of the superpowers to disengage from active orbital fighting coupled with the non-aligned powers desire to have an orbital infrastructure to create the the 1959 LEO treaty. In its simplest form, the LEO treaty declared that non-military satellites and operations were off limits to attack, but were also completely open to inspection and verification. Military operations were unaffected, but made responsible for collateral damage. Secondarily, the UN was tasked to undertake enforcement, inspection and orbital cleanup, a duty vested in the UNPAX forces patrolling the Eurasian DMZ areas.
Many historians mark the beginning of the estrangement of both the USA and the USSR from the UN, although the 1957 relocation of the UN headquarters into the BENELUX Mandate is also significant. Regardless of the cause, the LEO treaty clearly showed that by unified pressure (economic and political) the non-aligned powers could dictate some terms to the superpowers; increasingly, the UN became the vehicle for such action. A bipolar world was beginning to evolve into a tripartite world.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Orbit War One: Mercury, Vostok, and the triumph of cumulative risk.
The First Orbital war (1958), while politically indecisive, was mainly a proof of concept for orbital conflict. Both sides relied on single seat earth launch interceptors (Hermes/Mercury and Vostok series orbital craft); The initial USAF Hermes Orbit Interceptor relied on rail boost whereas the Vostok used direct rocket launch systems. The USAF Mercury Interceptor, deployed mid war, was an uparmed Hermes designed for rocket boost, which had proven a more rapid, (if less reliable) deployment system for intercept missions responding to Soviet launches.
Both the Vostok and the Hermes/Mercury had minimal weapon capacity , limited maneuverability, endurance and apogee. As a result mission duration was limited, as was actual engagement time and maneuverability. Craft in this period had much more capacity for evasion than controlled interception, but for both sides, actual maneuvering fuel and endurance was sharply limited, resulting in indecisive missions against manned targets. The usual goal of an offensive mission was to knock out a particular unmanned and non-maneuvering satellites; typically, if such an attack was detected at launch, an interceptor was launched to engage the attacker. The usual result of an engagement was for both craft being forced to maneuver to avoid attack, expending all discresionary maneuver fuel, and having to abort, leaving the target unharmed. In several cases, either or both of the craft lost sufficient maneuver ability to successfully reenter, and if a rescue mission was impossible, were lost attempting to return, or became derelict.
While the popular press played up the image of raging space dogfights, only three actual combat kills occurred; most intercepts were resolved by one of the combatants aborting, or surrendering when unable to further maneuver without losing return capability. This was known as a “gentleman’s kill”, and allowed the loser to return to earth after acknowledging defeat; while this procedure was officially discouraged, and then banned by the command of both sides, it was almost universally accepted by both sides.
Despite the actions in orbit, most of the losses in both forces were the result of launch or reentry failures. In particular the rate of launch failures increased dramatically in intercept missions due to the unwillingness to reschedule or abort a launch.
Wartime mission failures invariably resulted in a dead pilot , and ran about 6% per launch/recovery cycle for both sides; while this seems small, the cumulative result was an ~50% death rate across 10 missions; the existing astro/cosmonaut corps could not sustain these losses, especially as the rate of mission launches increased in the final months to an average three day turnaround per pilot. As a result, unlike typical air combat, where loss rates are typically asymmetric, both sides faced an almost total loss of skilled pilots, and after approximately 11 months, decided on a cease fire.
The lesson learned for both sides was that ground based interceptor forces could not be relied on for long term conflict. Accordingly, when the second orbit war broke out in 1961, both sides had larger and truly maneuverable craft (Gemini/Voskhod) operating from either long orbit missions (stretch Gemini,dual Voskhod fighter/tender) , space stations (the Soviet Almaz, USAF MOS), and the first larger fighter conveyors (The USAF Agena I and II FiCons,and the Soviet TKS tender).
The lesson learned for both sides was that ground based interceptor forces could not be relied on for long term conflict. Accordingly, when the second orbit war broke out in 1961, both sides had larger and truly maneuverable craft (Gemini/Voskhod) operating from either long orbit missions (stretch Gemini,dual Voskhod fighter/tender) , space stations (the Soviet Almaz, USAF MOS), and the first larger fighter conveyors (The USAF Agena I and II FiCons,and the Soviet TKS tender).
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
1953-58 : Post Bellum, Ad Astra
After the armistice, it was clear to both sides that the key to the next war was orbital superiority. For the Western Alliance, this was underlined by the destruction of the strategic air forces in the final raids; even after enduring a nuclear strike and command decapitation, Soviet air defense was able to stop conventional bombing attacks. The Soviet Union had a devastated capital to counter the arguments of the Air Marshals. Both sides had made it plain that extensive use of tactical nuclear weapons had changed the face of land and sea warfare forever. Across the board, it was accepted that expensive and extensive military assets were easily countered by much cheaper nuclear weapons, and the lions’ share of what military spending was left went to development of space assets.
The Western alliance had advanced rail based launch systems, whereas the Soviet bloc had developed advanced rocket capacity. Both immediately rushed to grab superiority with their homegrown systems, and to simultaneously catch up in the opponents systems.
For the next five years the soviet rocket forces and the newly reorganized United States Aerospace force were able to loft communication and spy satellites and frantically competed to develop survivable manned vehicles; By early 1956, both sides had developed maneuverable orbital fighters and, more critically, preliminary launch platforms for nuclear weapons. Still grudgingly at peace Earthside, both were involved in discreet campaigns to destroy the unmanned orbital assets of their opponents. By 1958, however, it was clear to both sides that unmanned assets in orbit were ineffective due to the ease of their destruction; unsurprisingly, both sides finally deployed manned platforms which were attacked and destroyed by their opponents.
Next : The first Orbital War.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
and then.....1953: Project Prometheus and Operation Fleaflicker
The war has been stalemated since the soviet thrust across the Rhine was cut off and destroyed in 1950. Vast air attacks on the UK have consistently kept it unusable as a base for long range strikes on the Soviet homeland. Mass B-29/50 raids from south France or Iceland have been consistently unable to penetrate past Poland or the east Baltic sea without destruction. Leningrad was damaged by Atomic weaponry at the cost of 70% of the strike aircraft in the most successful such raid. The Mig-15 has proven to be a terrifying air defense fighter against unescorted bombers, even the new B-36 - of which half were lost in the Leningrad raid. By 1952 the Soviet R-1 (the "super v-2") is deployed in a nuclear air defense variant effectively sealing off Pact airspace from large formation attacks.
On the ground, Germany and Poland have absorbed dozens, perhaps a hundred nuclear strikes from small dirty tactical strikes up thru the 50kt Nagasaki busters. East and west line up on opposite sides of the Rhine, keeping dispersed and dug in against tactical strikes. R-1 and the new R-2 rockets occasionally bombard eastern France and Southwest UK with Diebner bombs and radiological weapons. Both sides are locked into fortress economies, currently safe from attack, surrounded by devastated allies.
Seven orbital Bombers designed by Eugene Sanger from his original Silbervogel Antipodal bomber scream into the air at the end of 10,000 foot long rail tracks. Launched in three waves, the bombers carry seven Atomic bombs, three of the now all-too-common fat man design, four carrying Super Oralloy Weapons estimated at a half megaton each - an order of magnitude more the the fat man bombs.
One of the rail boosters of the second wave explodes at separation, destroying Prometheus 5 and it's launch track; the remaining two rails launch the final bombers successfully. Two of the remaining six break up and are destroyed as they begin skipping off of the atmosphere. All will be destroyed during final re-entry, but four will deliver their bombs first: two superbombs on Moscow and two fat man bombs on command and control sites in the heartland of Russia. The capital and command bunkers are pulverized. Amidst the hundreds of thousands of casualties, two key ones are included: Stalin and Beria; as well as Molotov, Malenkov, Bulganin, most of Presidium and Stavka command including Marshal Zhukov. The Soviet military and government is effectively decapitated; even more, news of Stalin and Beria's death creates an instant power struggle among the few survivors, paralyzing the response.
Operation Fleaflicker
As the strikes in Russia are confirmed, the remaining long-range bomber and Ficon squadrons launch from the newly built Frobishers bay AFB, passing over the ruins of Thule on their way to Russia. However, Soviet air defense is hampered but not crippled; few bombers make it to targets past suicidal fighter attacks and massed air detonations of nuclear weapons.It is the effective destruction of both the NATO's strategic air forces, and the soviet fighter command. The survivors will land, ditch or bail out across northern Canada, Greenland and Scandinavia.
That night, as the bombers and their fighters are attacking soviet airspace, NATO commits all remaining ground force reserves in what is to be the last, desperate offensive of WWIII. Widely dispersed NATO forces cross the Rhine; winter slows down the attacking forces and burdens supply, but gives tactical surprise and removes the specter of nuclear air attacks from the equation.
Within three weeks, NATO forces are at the Wesser, Main, and Danube and the uneasy alliance that currently rules the USSR (Nikita Kruschev, and the only surviving Marshals Ivan Konev and Vasily Sokolosky) requests a cease-fire. With logistical support failing across the blasted German battlefield, NATO, quite literally on its last legs desperately grabs the olive branch and accepts an indefinite armistice. Germany between the Wesser and the Elbe becomes the northern region of a DMZ that will stretch to the Adriatic. The troops remain on the lines, and will for the next thirty years; at least the wounded will be home by Christmas.
Next....so how does this get us into space ?
On the ground, Germany and Poland have absorbed dozens, perhaps a hundred nuclear strikes from small dirty tactical strikes up thru the 50kt Nagasaki busters. East and west line up on opposite sides of the Rhine, keeping dispersed and dug in against tactical strikes. R-1 and the new R-2 rockets occasionally bombard eastern France and Southwest UK with Diebner bombs and radiological weapons. Both sides are locked into fortress economies, currently safe from attack, surrounded by devastated allies.
Nov 7, 1953, Cold Lake USAFB, Alberta, Canada: Project Prometheus.
Seven orbital Bombers designed by Eugene Sanger from his original Silbervogel Antipodal bomber scream into the air at the end of 10,000 foot long rail tracks. Launched in three waves, the bombers carry seven Atomic bombs, three of the now all-too-common fat man design, four carrying Super Oralloy Weapons estimated at a half megaton each - an order of magnitude more the the fat man bombs.
One of the rail boosters of the second wave explodes at separation, destroying Prometheus 5 and it's launch track; the remaining two rails launch the final bombers successfully. Two of the remaining six break up and are destroyed as they begin skipping off of the atmosphere. All will be destroyed during final re-entry, but four will deliver their bombs first: two superbombs on Moscow and two fat man bombs on command and control sites in the heartland of Russia. The capital and command bunkers are pulverized. Amidst the hundreds of thousands of casualties, two key ones are included: Stalin and Beria; as well as Molotov, Malenkov, Bulganin, most of Presidium and Stavka command including Marshal Zhukov. The Soviet military and government is effectively decapitated; even more, news of Stalin and Beria's death creates an instant power struggle among the few survivors, paralyzing the response.
Operation Fleaflicker
As the strikes in Russia are confirmed, the remaining long-range bomber and Ficon squadrons launch from the newly built Frobishers bay AFB, passing over the ruins of Thule on their way to Russia. However, Soviet air defense is hampered but not crippled; few bombers make it to targets past suicidal fighter attacks and massed air detonations of nuclear weapons.It is the effective destruction of both the NATO's strategic air forces, and the soviet fighter command. The survivors will land, ditch or bail out across northern Canada, Greenland and Scandinavia.
That night, as the bombers and their fighters are attacking soviet airspace, NATO commits all remaining ground force reserves in what is to be the last, desperate offensive of WWIII. Widely dispersed NATO forces cross the Rhine; winter slows down the attacking forces and burdens supply, but gives tactical surprise and removes the specter of nuclear air attacks from the equation.
Within three weeks, NATO forces are at the Wesser, Main, and Danube and the uneasy alliance that currently rules the USSR (Nikita Kruschev, and the only surviving Marshals Ivan Konev and Vasily Sokolosky) requests a cease-fire. With logistical support failing across the blasted German battlefield, NATO, quite literally on its last legs desperately grabs the olive branch and accepts an indefinite armistice. Germany between the Wesser and the Elbe becomes the northern region of a DMZ that will stretch to the Adriatic. The troops remain on the lines, and will for the next thirty years; at least the wounded will be home by Christmas.
Next....so how does this get us into space ?
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Some thoughts on Stalin and his goals, by Lavrenti Beria's son.
Some of the stuff I've been digging up for basic background stuff for the setting I'm working on - Cold war in Spaaaaace ! (intro here).
Lavrenti Beria was , by 1953, the number two man in the USSR, and had been in charge of the Soviet Atomic Bomb project. Here is part of an interview with his son on the subject of the beginning of the cold war and Stalin's goals (do visit the site, the whole interview is quite interesting). As ever, it is just one mans report regarding two dead people, long after the fact, but.....jeeeeze. That's some serious evil overlord stuff and it's real...
Lavrenti Beria was , by 1953, the number two man in the USSR, and had been in charge of the Soviet Atomic Bomb project. Here is part of an interview with his son on the subject of the beginning of the cold war and Stalin's goals (do visit the site, the whole interview is quite interesting). As ever, it is just one mans report regarding two dead people, long after the fact, but.....jeeeeze. That's some serious evil overlord stuff and it's real...
Q: Let us speak about the appearance of the atomic bomb in the Soviet Union, in connection with the Korean War.A: The war in Korea broke out on Stalin's initiative. When the Soviet troops came back to this country, Stalin began the new policy. He was of the opinion that on the basis of the communist development, we must organise small local wars in different places of the world. It was begun in Greece, then in China, then in Vietnam, and finally in Korea. That is one of the examples of these local wars. In two weeks, the Soviet troops managed to fight; they were very good. And at that time, Stalin wanted the Soviet troops to fight with rockets; that was the rockets against the ships. They had two types of heads: atomic head and trotyl head. Stalin wanted the Soviet fleet to destroy three or four American military ships; and they told Stalin that after that, the American side would fight with the atomic bomb. Stalin wasn't afraid of this atomic bomb; he said, "Then we'll give our atomic bomb, too." At that time we had very good military aeroplanes; that's why Stalin was ready to begin a very big war. But our military specialists told him that we had no equipment which could catch the American aeroplanes, and Stalin gave the order to build such equipment. And later on, this task was fulfilled. During all the sittings of the Government, he said that the third world war would take place, and that this war had to take place during his life. That's why the military industry in the Soviet Union was very much developed at that time. We got a lot of tanks and rockets and ships, and I think that if Stalin had lived five years longer, we would have had this third world war. (emphasis mine)
Q: Was it planned to use the nuclear bomb in Korea from the Soviet side too?A: Yes, Stalin had such plans, and my father was very much afraid of these plans. Such a fact(?) took place, and maybe it's not very good that I speak about this now. My father was even against the preparation of this bomb, and he understood that if the Soviet Union got this bomb, nothing would be able to stop Stalin in his wish to conquer the whole world.(emphasis mine)
Q: The last question: if nobody knew that Stalin was so dangerous, and if people had some plans to stop Stalin.A: Yes, of course, a lot of people understood that Stalin had such dangerous plans and that they must do their best in order to stop him and his plans. But Stalin was very clever, and he understood everything. He felt all these spirits of people who surrounded him. When he felt that somebody was dangerous for him, he immediately killed them. He protected himself from the enemies, and it was very simple for him to do this. (emphasis mine) And if he hadn't died in 1953, it seems to me that he would have killed all the members of the Politburo. Bulganin, Malenkov, Khrushchev and my father would have been killed - I am sure of this fact. There are even some documents in which it's written that...(No more recorded. End.)
So.....1949.
So, I'm thinking on the whole retro-rockets red glare setting (cold war in space) . The main difference (or POD as the alternate history hipsters call it) is this: Stalin had access to something that he felt was a useful counter to the Allied A-bomb much sooner than the actual 1949 date that the Soviet A-Bomb arrived on the scene. My assumption is that given an earlier counter, his actions 1946-1949 would largely be similar, or at least similarly motivated as his actual actions before his death in 1953.
So, this opens the question, what was his action plan for the USSR post WW-II ?
But first, a digression.
Well, in all truth, we have nothing but speculation about alternates. Particularly so in this case, as Stalin played his cards very close to his chest, tended to have multiple plans that would be modified by real world changes, and never told anyone what he was doing. And he lied. And used threat and intimidation. And lied. Plus, if you looked cross-eyed at him, you died.
That said, I'm not a historian, so I can take the luxury of making decisions about questionable issues with input from the game setting I want to describe rather than relying entirely upon documented facts. So, while all the following is at least, as I see it, possible, it is not necessarily likely. In fact, the most likely possibility, insofar as we have no idea at all what the actual quantifiable probabilities involved were has to be exactly what happened in the real world. Which, due to a lamentable lack of nuclear torch fighters duking it out among Jupiter's moons doesn't work for the setting I want. So, I'll go with some other outcomes.
However, the "and then Nikoli Tesla/Albert Einstein/unnamed Genius/alien benefactors invented/introduced grav. drive in 1929/1939/1949" has been done before (did you notice ?) and tends to create a future Alt universe with what we think of as the future as envisioned by us, now. Make sense ? I suppose I'm interested in "what did the future look like in the 50/60's to those in the 50/60's", and how do we get there in a game ?
So, what defines that period for me ?
1. Cold war and global polarization
2. Inevitable apocalyptic conflict
3. Crap computers and the last generation of narrow access to information and communications.
4. Crew cuts, lantern chins: jocks and nerds, as opposed to slackers and geeks.
5. Less pesky information about the solar system.
6. BIG projects, engineering uber-alles. Skunk works.
More to come.
So, this opens the question, what was his action plan for the USSR post WW-II ?
But first, a digression.
Well, in all truth, we have nothing but speculation about alternates. Particularly so in this case, as Stalin played his cards very close to his chest, tended to have multiple plans that would be modified by real world changes, and never told anyone what he was doing. And he lied. And used threat and intimidation. And lied. Plus, if you looked cross-eyed at him, you died.
That said, I'm not a historian, so I can take the luxury of making decisions about questionable issues with input from the game setting I want to describe rather than relying entirely upon documented facts. So, while all the following is at least, as I see it, possible, it is not necessarily likely. In fact, the most likely possibility, insofar as we have no idea at all what the actual quantifiable probabilities involved were has to be exactly what happened in the real world. Which, due to a lamentable lack of nuclear torch fighters duking it out among Jupiter's moons doesn't work for the setting I want. So, I'll go with some other outcomes.
However, the "and then Nikoli Tesla/Albert Einstein/unnamed Genius/alien benefactors invented/introduced grav. drive in 1929/1939/1949" has been done before (did you notice ?) and tends to create a future Alt universe with what we think of as the future as envisioned by us, now. Make sense ? I suppose I'm interested in "what did the future look like in the 50/60's to those in the 50/60's", and how do we get there in a game ?
So, what defines that period for me ?
1. Cold war and global polarization
2. Inevitable apocalyptic conflict
3. Crap computers and the last generation of narrow access to information and communications.
4. Crew cuts, lantern chins: jocks and nerds, as opposed to slackers and geeks.
5. Less pesky information about the solar system.
6. BIG projects, engineering uber-alles. Skunk works.
More to come.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Quick plug for a rules lite RPG I love
So, given all the loving that the OSR community has for rules lite -or as I like to imagine them, concise rules, I'm surprised that I haven't seen mention of this nifty rules set: Dead Simple
http://thegamesshed.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/dead-simple-rpg-rules/
It does an excellent job of presenting what you need for a core RPG in one page, and has several additional one page settings ( from SciFi thru steampunk, historical, asian (yeah, NINJAS !), and lost of setting additions for bog-standards fantasy (you know, "orcs, elves and halflings, oh my !"), a town an adventure, city rules, all nicely presented in single page format.
Seriously, check it out. NOW.
http://thegamesshed.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/dead-simple-rpg-rules/
It does an excellent job of presenting what you need for a core RPG in one page, and has several additional one page settings ( from SciFi thru steampunk, historical, asian (yeah, NINJAS !), and lost of setting additions for bog-standards fantasy (you know, "orcs, elves and halflings, oh my !"), a town an adventure, city rules, all nicely presented in single page format.
Seriously, check it out. NOW.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Phew. That was a lot of work for a hobby project. What next ?
So, Adventurer is mainly done. My plan for the future is to just drop the skyship rules and have the sorcery book as a standalone for campaigns that want to add magic to the characters in book one. I'll probably add the skyship rules to a quick airship combat system and some chargen and careers specific to make a supplement for campaigns with flying ships: working title "Skyships and Swordsmen " or something like that. But, I'm taking a break from Adventurer for a bit.
In the meantime.......I'm tossing around some ideas for some campaign settings specific to the Mongoose Traveller rules. Previously, I've been writing up "Retro Rockets Red Glare" (new working title) the setting exploring the undeclared hot war beyond lunar orbit in an alternate 1980's cold war. Some of the setting ideas are here and here. Space travel with Orion spacecraft carrying Gemini or Soyuz interceptors. Early 1980's tech in weapons and computers, missiles and kinetic weapons, that kind o' stuff. read "Blind mans Bluff" and substitute "spaceship" for "submarine".
Another idea is a more classic retro space patrol type setting, in the much cooler future science of the 1940's/50's. Tentatively called "Space rangers of Saturn"; set, unsurprisingly, in the raw frontier colonies of the outer gas giants, operating from the 53rd state, Titan. Yeah, space western. Sue me. No...actually, don't.
The first is an unusual take on retro, but is likely to be more specialized in its appeal; the latter, more fun, but less original. Not sure which way to go.
Let me know what you think. Likely I'll do whatever my whim suggests, but hey, suggestions are always helpful.
In the meantime.......I'm tossing around some ideas for some campaign settings specific to the Mongoose Traveller rules. Previously, I've been writing up "Retro Rockets Red Glare" (new working title) the setting exploring the undeclared hot war beyond lunar orbit in an alternate 1980's cold war. Some of the setting ideas are here and here. Space travel with Orion spacecraft carrying Gemini or Soyuz interceptors. Early 1980's tech in weapons and computers, missiles and kinetic weapons, that kind o' stuff. read "Blind mans Bluff" and substitute "spaceship" for "submarine".
Another idea is a more classic retro space patrol type setting, in the much cooler future science of the 1940's/50's. Tentatively called "Space rangers of Saturn"; set, unsurprisingly, in the raw frontier colonies of the outer gas giants, operating from the 53rd state, Titan. Yeah, space western. Sue me. No...actually, don't.
The first is an unusual take on retro, but is likely to be more specialized in its appeal; the latter, more fun, but less original. Not sure which way to go.
Let me know what you think. Likely I'll do whatever my whim suggests, but hey, suggestions are always helpful.
Monday, July 11, 2011
ADVENTURER is complete ! Book Three: Races, Realms and Riches is up and posted !
Well, here it is. Book three of three. It's done.
This one covers the equiv of the wilderness and underworld adventures for original D&D. Player and non-player races, animal and fantastic creature generation rules; map, city and dungeon generation rules, plus traveller style profile strings ! analogues for all the major traveller races ! Major geek fest !
This one covers the equiv of the wilderness and underworld adventures for original D&D. Player and non-player races, animal and fantastic creature generation rules; map, city and dungeon generation rules, plus traveller style profile strings ! analogues for all the major traveller races ! Major geek fest !
All it seems to lack at this point are some easy combat rules for flyers, and a few careers for the same -or at least skills for them. I'm not sure if I should add them to book two, or remove the flyer construction rules from it, and have a first supplement covering skyships. The latter is easier, but would leave book 2 a bit skinny, and entirely devoted to magic. Any thoughts ?
So, except for the above, this is probably the final version of Adventurer unless I decide to go semipro and actually publish it via POD or PDF. Or if major problems show up, obviously.....
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Update to Treasure and Dungeons for adventurer - PERIL !
After generating, tweaking and fudging the basic UDP, generate the Peril level. Roll 1d6 and add the following modifiers.
Peril
| Challenge | Denizens | Size | Type* | Reputation | Protection | Strategy |
0 | | | +1 | -2 | +1 | -2 | -3 |
1 | | | | -1 | +1 | | -2 |
2 | | | | | | | -1 |
3 | | | | +1 | | | |
4 | | | | | | | |
5 | | | | +1 | | | |
6 | | | | +1 | | | |
7 | | | | | | | +1 |
8 | | +1 | | +1 | +1 | | +1 |
9 | | +1 | | +1 | +1 | +1 | +2 |
A | +4 | +1 | +1 | +2 | +3* | +1 | +2 |
B | +2 | | | | | | |
C | +1 | | | | | | |
D | | | | | | | |
E | | | | | | | |
X | -2 | | | | | | |
Peril is a very subjective rating of the average danger of a typical member of the protection team. Assuming that it isn’t a fish story, peril rages from -6 (the minimum value) to 18.
At a very rough quantification, the peril level corresponds to a normal person with the given number of terms in an appropriate career –such as , say, barbarian, soldier or mage. As a rule of thumb, use the peril as the total number of skills and stat advances added to a normal human (777777). Negative values subtract from stats, but regardless of the peril rating, all denizens have enough level-0 skills to be able to act appropriately. In general, no more than half the adds should be applied to skill levels. Note too, that the actual d6 roll is the maximum possible skill level for one skill –which may or may not actually be achievable. All other skills must be less than the maximum, no matter how many.
As an example, consider an average dungeon (C-556555). A series of catacombs sheltering the remnants of an unspeakable snake cult, which has broken up into several mutually opposed sects, each defending their own turf against all comers.
Given a roll of 4, it would be peril 5, and would have a typical denizen (let us say evil human cultists minions) with stats of 987777 (three advances) and one key skill at 2, or two at level 1. All would have “worship huge-ass snake god” at level -0. Some acolytes would have access to one or two spell levels (say, dwemomer-1 and mesmerism-1, or perhaps skinshifting -2; both options would also would have dagger-0).
A truly epic campaign ending dungeon site might be AAA99A: An underground lost kingdom ruled by the terrible sorcery using dragon that destroyed it. A roll of 6 gives a final peril of 18; good luck ! A dragon the size of 18 men, with appropriate stats lurks deep in the ruins of the elven kingdom it destroyed; it has 9 levels of magic: mesmerism-5 nad several others at one or two. Its stats would be determined by its size rather than by upping a human, and the creature building tables should be consulted, using appropriate modifiers. Possibly, (as per challenge level A) it also has the disturbing spirits of grief stricken dead elves, physically harmless, but importantly, loud; with a few being insane and violent. Some few enslaved goblins may be on hand to run errands and get groceries (such as adventurers). As I said, good luck.
Obviously, not all denizens will be human, or directly comparable, so considerable input from the DM will be required for this to work in a sane manner –although pure gonzo is also a possibility.
The Hoard
Finally, the reason we are here ! The sites’s horde rating is the final measure of its value, both in the main cache of the biggest boss,, and spread around and hidden throughout. Basic procedure is: roll (1d3-1d3) and add the peril. The below table suggests some modifiers based on some of the authors favorite S&S tropes; feel free to ignore or modify them. Indeed, the horde should always be modified if the reward is inappropriate to the danger level and/or the type of campaign. ALWAYS.
Horde
| Challenge | Denizens | Size | Type* | Reputation | Protection | Strategy |
0 | | | | | | -2 -1 | -1 |
1 | | | | | | -1 | |
2 | | | | | | | |
3 | | | | | | | |
4 | | | | | | | |
5 | | | | | | | |
6 | | | | +1 | | | |
7 | | | | | | +1 | |
8 | | | | | | +1 | |
9 | | | | -1 | | +2 | |
A | +2 | | | +1 | +2 | | |
B | | | | | | | |
C | | | | | | | |
D | | | | | | | |
E | +1 | | | | | | |
X | -2 | | | | | | |
*Remember, it’s a fish story…….
1d6 + mods | Metal | Gems : d6 x (rating+1) | Jewelry: d6 + rating | Minor magic: d3 | Magic item: H -L | Artifact: 1 |
0 | Copper 2d6 *10 | 10+ | 12 + | 10+ | 12 + | 12 + |
1 | Copper 2d6 *100 | 10+ | 12 + | 10+ | 12 + | 12 + |
2 | Bronze 2d6 *100 | 9+ | 11+ | 10+ | 12 + | 12 + |
3 | Silver 2d6 *100 | 9+ | 11+ | 10+ | 12 + | 12 + |
4 | Bronze 2d6 *1000 | 8+ | 10+ | 9+ | 11+ | 12 + |
5 | Silver 2d6 *1000 | 8+ | 10+ | 9+ | 11+ | 12 + |
6 | Gold 2d6*100 | 7+ | 9+ | 9+ | 11+ | 12 + |
7 | Silver Talents 2d6 | 7+ | 9+ | 9+ | 11+ | 12 + |
8 | Silver 2d6 *10000 | 6+ | 8+ | 8+ | 10+ | 12 + |
9 | Gold 2d6 *1000 | 6+ | 8+ | 8+ | 10+ | 12 + |
A | Silver Talents 2d6 *10 | 5+ | 7+ | 8+ | 10+ | 12 + |
B | Gold Talents 2d6 | 5+ | 7+ | 8+ | 10+ | 12 + |
C | Gold 2d6 *10000 | 4+ | 6+ | 7+ | 9+ | 12 + |
D | Silver Talents 2d6 *100 | 4+ | 6+ | 7+ | 9+ | 12 + |
E | Gold Talents 2d6*10 | 3+ | 5+ | 7+ | 9+ | 12 + |
F | Silver Talents 2d6 *1000 | 3+ | 5+ | 7+ | 9+ | 12 + |
G | Gold Talents 2d6 *100 | 3+ | 4+ | 6+ | 8+ | 12 + |
H | Silver Talents 2d6 *10000 | 3+ | 4+ | 6+ | 8+ | 12 + |
J | Gold Talents 2d6 *1000 | 3+ | 3+ | 6+ | 8+ | 12 + |
The main horde consists of final number on the Hoard table; this result is in one place, or at least in a concentrated sub area of the site This is the big one, the one the whole thing may be protecting – or the main dumping ground for undead who dislike silver (say).
Final reward
All lower coin values are also found, but spread out through the rest of the dungeon and its denizens. Thus, a hoard type 5 also contains loot equal to hordes 4, 3, 2,1 and 0-. Whereas the main treasure trove will tend to be concentrated, the remainder will tend to be spread out throughout the site, some guarded by lesser foes, some simply hidden or lost.
Similarly, roll once more on the gems, jewels and magic items at Hoard -1, and distribute any that result as with coins. Now that’s a place worth getting you neck snapped for, right ? Hmmmmm. Your characters neck. Sound better ?
Gems typically have negligible weight and value d6xd6 xd6 coins:1bronze coins, 2-4 silver coins , 5 gold coins, 6 Special, reroll: 1-5 gold, 6 determine the value as if jewelry (below); this result represents the ruby the size of a mans fist, the mountain of light diamond, or the pearl the size of a plovers egg.
Jewelry have a value per piece of d3 talents: 1-3 Bronze talents, 4-5 Silver Talents 6 Gold Talents. Remember, 1 Talent = 6000 coins of that type.
Minor magic: this covers a variety of helpful but not decisively powerful items. As a rule, they should never approximate or contain spells of greater than second circle or equivalent mystery spells; nor should they have more than 1d3 specific powers, with 1 such power being the most common. Only the weakest should have constant effect or unlimited use. A rough guideline is that number of spells + circle of highest spell must be no greater than 3. And yes, that is very limited. Spells with expendable charges or single use can have more spells and power, such scrolls of d3 spells of 1-2nd circle; potions; small weapons; item bound spells of 1st circle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)