Death of the Campaign

 Over the last several months of running Traveller, I've started to notice a pattern in my gaming habits that conflicts with a long-held assumption I've had about styles of gaming and my own preferences. It's forced me to take a serious look at what I want and get out of this hobby.

As a fan of old-school games and things like classic D&D, I've often been a staunch defender of the whole long-term process of characters leveling up over time and getting really enmeshed in an extended campaign. The time it takes to get from 1st to "Name" level being essential to really making the PCs part of the world and for the players to get invested in the setting and what's happening there. There's no substitute for "putting in the work" as they say. It's not that I disagree with this now, but I believe I am at a point in my gaming style, as well as of an age, where my priorities are shifting somewhat.

Lately, I find that I am far more likely to experience burn-out on campaigns that last for months (or longer). This is especially when I GM, but has happened as a player, too. I realize that by some grognardian standards, a 6-12 month campaign is hardly "extended," but when you factor in all the games over the years that have crashed and burned after only 1-2 sessions, I think sustaining one for the better part of a year or more is certainly at the longer end of the curve.

When I went on my game-purchasing spree last year, I originally had the idea of getting at least one published campaign for each system. While Runequest lacks a full campaign (presently), it does have several compilations of scenarios. The thinking was to reduce the workload for me to run the different games and have enough for players to do for a good long while in each game.

The reality has been a little different. While I count myself lucky that my group has really been enjoying Traveller and have gotten engaged with the setting and the campaign, I'm struggling as GM to maintain the energy to prep and run it, even with published materials. My enthusiasm for the campaign has waned over the months and I fear I'm going to need a real break from it soon, which, as experienced gamers know, often means that it will never get picked back up again. Because of this, I've been trying to push through,hoping to regain some momentum. Sadly, that seems to not be happening.

So where does this leave me? Well, for one thing, I've learned something about myself as a GM and a gamer, so that's good. (I guess?) Secondly, I know I will need to make the call about the current campaign at some point, and third, I should focus on shorter, more episodic games where there are frequent "stopping points" to let one wrap up and have some closure before moving on. We had a moment like that in the Traveller campaign right before we shifted gears into the Drinax campaign. Perhaps I should have taken it. Perhaps the open-ended, long term campaign is not for me any more.

Live and Learn.

I'm a Travelling Man

 It's 2022! How did THAT happen?!

Greetings to anyone who still checks this site. I am still kicking and gaming. I hope everyone has kept safe and sane during all the craziness. I haven't posted much as late because my group and I haven't been playing much D&D. I've been running the group in a new (to me) system for the last 8-9 months.

 

Science fiction gaming is a genre we haven't done much with over the years, so it's an interesting departure. We tried playing classic Traveller back in the day with the little booklets, but beyond the character generation rules (which are a lot of fun), we never really seemed to get a proper game off the ground. Currently, I am running the group through one of Mongoose's published campaigns, The Pirates of Drinax. We've been using online tools like Roll20 to meet and play.

Last year, finding myself with little face to face gaming and a lot of time on my hands (for some reason), I set about picking up some new games and trying to learn them. Of course, true to my grognard roots, I ended up with the latest editions of three games that had been around for decades: Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, and Traveller. 

 

Thus far, I haven't sprung CoC or RQ on the group, though I have run a demo adventure over Discord for some folks on a one-shot server, and I've played a few games of 7th edition CoC. It's been great fun. 

I will also actually be making the trek again to Lake Geneva next month for Garycon. Hopefully, there won't be any "public health issues" to screw that up. I am not a good traveler (See? One 'L', so you can tell I'm not referring to the game. ;-P ). I mislike flying and I am not a fan of being away from my home and family for any length of time, but I generally have a good time at GC. Perhaps I will see some of you there. If anyone is still reading this, that is.

Moldvay Musings XIII: Reactions

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

-Newton's Third Law                           

Sorry, Isaac. Not necessarily in D&D.

Like morale, reactions rolls have also faded from the later editions of the glorious mess that is Dungeons & Dragons. Sure, there are skills and such that allow for things like diplomacy and bluffing, but I am not a fan of too many defined skills in D&D. It's fine in games that were designed from the start for them -Runequest/BRP springs to mind- but they as much a hindrance as a benefit in old-school play (whatever that means). 

Back on topic, the encounter reaction rules in versions like BX are incredibly simple. Other than the Charisma adjustments table, they are one paragraph of text and one 2d6 table of five possible results (B24). The rules simply state that while some monsters will nearly always behave in the same way (e.g. mindless undead attacking), it is possible for some creatures' actions to vary.  

I've covered a bit about hirelings in an earlier post, so I'm mostly sticking to the encounter mechanics here. Suffice to say, the retainer reaction rolls (B21) help add a layer of detail to an integral part of the BX-style game. Adventuring parties were assumed to include meatshields and the like. Uncharismatic PCs, miserly offers of pay, or poor treatment could make life difficult for a party that needs to pad its ranks or flesh out weak spots in its lineup.

As stated in the preceding section on party actions, if they choose to talk, they might influence the monsters' (or NPCs') attitude toward the encounter and, by extension, the PCs. In my games, I interpret "talk" loosely. A common language isn't always required. An offer of food to a predator can be as effective an overture as speaking confidently and calmly to a goblin patrol in their tongue. (Side Note: This can be a case for using alignment languages and making those INT bonus language slots worth something in one's game!)

We didn't deserve you, Steve!

A couple of caveats to consider. One, the DM always has the right to veto making a reaction roll and simply decide how monsters, etc. will act. An elven patrol is unlikely to let the party go after they just burned down the Sacred Oak, no matter how charismatic the PC spokesperson is! 

Two, even if a roll is made, there could be negative modifiers. The goblins mentioned earlier might be fine with avoiding a fight under normal circumstances. However, if the PCs are there to stop their shaman from performing a blood sacrifice that will give them victory over the villagers, the patrol just might be less inclined to believe the party is "just passing through." Even unintelligent creatures can have circumstantial biases. In real life, encountering a bear in the woods will usually not result in an attack (if you aren't stupid about it, that is), but a grizzly sow with cubs can be another matter! Tossing her some iron rations is probably not going to cut it, even for evasion purposes.

I guess what bothers me about this mechanic falling by the wayside is it removed a big incentive for actual roleplay in a dungeon environment, as opposed to just chatting up the tavern wench for -ahem- "rumors." To me, the BX reaction mechanic was an elegant solution that allowed for player agency and a bit of luck.

I confess I don't know much about 5th ed. What little I've played of it didn't seem to lend itself to this, but I could be wrong. 

A funny little thought

I was perusing some old blog posts and stumbled across this old RSA about the Read Languages spell. It got me thinking about the "Common Tongue" conceit in D&D. Other games have their versions as well; Runequest's "Tradetalk" springs to mind. In the post I mention that the spell doesn't seem to see a lot of use in-game and being a stickler GM about languages can be potentially annoying/un-fun for the players.

So here's an idea: the Common Tongue is just that; a tongue. i.e. a spoken language. That means there IS no written form. It's a pidgin of various words and grammars into an almost slang. Sure you can chat up the shopkeeper in Common, but odds are the sign on his door is in his native language.

This can open up more reasons that learning a language can matter as well as knowing the Read Languages spell. It's not TOO punitive, because it doesn't preclude all communication. It just makes knowledge a tad more useful. Which can be really handy in old-school games where that 16 INT magic-user knows five languages, but is tapped out on spells for the day.

Breaking Stuff

I've not given up. I've been working on several ideas for running a game. It will (probably) be FAGE, but possibly Crypts & Things. I've even painted a few minis!

Anyway, here is a random idea I had while looking at some old Runequest stuff (gawdz how I loved that game!)


Weapons Materials and Damage

The idea is that there's three types of weapons (melee): Bronze, Iron, and Steel. Now "bronze" is not exactly like real world bronze. It's softer and heavier than iron for these purposes (there are plenty of sources online explaining bronze vs iron in reality). For fantasy purposes, bronze is an element, not an alloy.

Bronze is cheaper and more readily available in remote areas and places like remote villages. It is also (like cold iron in folklore) the metal that fae creatures fear.

Iron is cast iron. It is the default metal for much of the world. It's harder and slightly lighter than bronze. It is also a bit harder to find, though by no means rare.

Steel is almost like Valryian steel in GoT. It's lighter, harder, and tougher than the other metals. It's also expensive and rare. In D&D terms, many +1 swords would simply be steel.

A harder metal can damage a softer one. Any metal weapons can harm a wooden one (including pole weapons like spears). Weapons carry a "toughness" of half their maximum listed damage (without PC bonuses). So, in Fantasy AGE, a battle axe (2d6 damage), has a toughness of 6. missile (not thrown) weapons all have a toughness of 3. A shield's toughness = its Defense Bonus and armor's = its AR.

In FAGE, an attacker can use the Sunder stunt (see below) to try and damage the target's gear.

Sunder (4sp): Instead of hurting the target, you damage his equipment, Damaged armor loses 1 AR, shields lose 1 point of Defense, melee weapons are at -1 damage, and missile weapons are at -1 to hit.

The damage is permanent until repaired by someone with the appropriate skill(s). If an object's toughness is reduced to 0, it is permanently broken and cannot be repaired.