The Quest For Memory at Year's End

Last night we had out final session of "The Quest for Memory" for the year. It was perhaps our best session to date, with a nice, tense fight against a dragon to end things off. After a hard-fought battle the PCs emerged victorious.

At the end of this session our heroes are now mid-way through 5th level, and so just about ready to enter the first crucible. Fortunately, and despite their best efforts, they have engaged with the plot sufficiently that they're probably just about to go in search of the key that will take them into that crucible. At least, that is my hope.

I'm very happy with this campaign, both in the way that it has started and the way that it's playing out. There are several lessons from "The Mists of Lamordia" that I have been able to take and apply here, which has improved the flow. My only real issue is that I just haven't had time to put together the campaign map, which is a fairly key weakness in this type of campaign. But that's just the way it is going to be.

(Actually, one more thing - it is increasingly apparent just how poor 5e's treasure 'system' is, with the PCs accumulating huge amounts of monetary with absolutely no use. Basically, the only treasures that are actually worth bothering with are magic items, but only giving magic items just feels wrong. But that's an issue with the game, rather than the campaign.)

Anyway, so far, so good.

Classes in the Setting

For the most part, I am of the view that most characters in the fictional world that is a D&D setting would be largely unaware of the mechanics of the game, and the terminology that goes with them. For that reason, the old "level titles" never really made much sense to me (because most knights and lords wouldn't have any class at all, never mind a specific class at a specific level), and asking someone their alignment should always have been met by blank looks. (That said, there was always a certain amount of convenience to this - in much the same way as nobody in the Star Wars galaxy would actually speak English, but the characters in the movies do. So the DM translate a few things from in-world speak to mechanical speak just for convenience.)

The upshot of this is that I tend to avoid tying character classes into the structure of my setting - a character described as a "wizard" in the setting may in fact be a Wizard (class), Sorcerer, Warlock... or even a Bard, a Rogue playing a part, or something else entirely. And that is a decision that has served me well over the years as the mechanics of the game have changed - whereas the 2nd Edition version of Terafa had no Sorcerer class, it might well have had sorcerers that may or may not have then become Sorcerers when 3e was released. And, likewise, although 5e has things like named Bardic colleges and Monastic traditions, the exact set available in 5e is unlikely to be the same in 6e, or indeed in 5e once all the rulebooks have been published. Consequently, although you'll find Bards of the College of Valour in the current version of Terafa, you won't actually find a "College of Valour" in the setting - the player chooses how they want to mechanically express their character in the game, we'll work together to determine how the character fits within the setting, and we'll then massage any rough edges to suit.

And that's true... mostly.

Despite this, there are a few places where the mechanics of the game do tie up pretty neatly with some aspects of the setting. For instance, there is an order of rangers within the setting, and the title Paladin does mean something to characters in the setting. And, of course, there are monks, and clerics, and wizards, and sorcerers, and so on. Where most, and in some cases perhaps all, members of the in-setting organisation are also members of the in-game class. Basically, it's all a little fuzzy.

The reason I mention this now is that in the next couple of weeks I'll have something to say about Monasteries and Nunneries in Terafa, and it's worth noting that in that case a character being a 'monk' in the setting doesn't mean that they're a Monk in the game, or vice versa... though there is significant overlap...

Gaming in 2020

2020 started with one game in the works: the Work game was in the midst of "The Mists of Lamordia". Fairly early in the year this game was shifted to an online approach, which worked surprisingly well. That campaign is still running. I had hoped we might be able to bring it to an end by the end of March next year, but that's looking unlikely. Still, it's reasonably enjoyable, so there's no great hardship that it looks to run later into the year.

Due to the success of online gaming, I was able to set up a second campaign, "The Quest For Memory". This is also going well, and is rapidly heading towards the first crucible event of the campaign. It will be interesting to see how that compares with the same event in the other campaign.

There has been no opportunity to play, nor to run anything other than D&D, in 2020. I suspect that will also be the case in 2021. And lest there be any doubt, there is no Christmas Game this year, nor any likelihood of one in future years.

In terms of purchases, this has been a light year. I've purchased three physical books: "Rime of the Frostmaiden", which I thoroughly enjoyed, "Tasha's Cauldron of Everything", which is technically a Christmas present - but, alas, the more I hear about it the less I'm looking forward to it - and "Tome of Beasts 2". That last is another Christmas present, and although I really don't need any more monsters, the previous offerings in that series have been excellent, so I doubt I'll regret the purchase.

There have been a significant number of electronic products. I bought into a Humble Bundle of "Star Trek" products, none of which I've actually looked at in detail, but it was a hell of an offering so I couldn't resist. (And I've been enjoying Trek recently, and enjoyed playing that game, so if opportunity allows...) I also bought a small number of products from the DM's Guild, with the two "Monster Manual Expanded" volumes being noteworthy for their quality and usefulness.

I did a little reading of old D&D novels - the two "I, Strahd" novels. The first of these was okay, the second poor, but neither was revelatory.

My expectation for 2021 is more of the same, hopefully with a reversion to some face-to-face gaming later in the year. I hope both campaigns will continue well, with at least one coming to a successful conclusion. I expect "Rime of the Frostmaiden" to be the successor to the Work Game.

The Mists of Lamordia at Year's End

On Thursday we ha our final session of "The Mists of Lamordia" for the year. We brought one of our subplots to its end, which puts us in a good position to stop for a while.

I had hoped to bring the campaign as a whole of a conclusion by the end of March, but I think that is massively over-ambitious - my gut feeling is that we're closer to halfway through the campaign than nearing the end. That's not terrible, but not ideal.

As a whole the campaign has been going reasonably well so far, but like many of my campaigns it hasn't quite been what I had hoped. That's largely my own fault - I just don't have the time to prepare as well as I might help. In particular, the campaign could do with more encounters, and particularly 'fixed' encounters. For a long time the PCs were just not gaining XP and so dragging themselves through the levels. That has improved somewhat, but could still do with some acceleration.

With a bit of luck, I hope to find some time over the next month to put some more material together, in order to bring the campaign to a better conclusion. I'm also going to address one logistical weakness - one of the players is available only sporadically, so I'm going to introduce a mechanism by which the character can likewise be written in or out as needed.

So far, so good.

Review: Icewind Dale - Rime of the Frostmaiden

After swearing off WotC's adventures for a few years, I found myself in the market for a new adventure, provided it grabbed my attention and, crucially, started at 1st level. "Rime of the Frostmaiden" fit the bill, and so I picked up a copy. I'm glad that I did.

This is a fairly standard WotC adventure - it starts with a sandboxy section with a number of small quests to give the PCs XP, then gradually switches to a more linear big-quest approach. I do like this format for adventures. The adventures themselves seem to be pretty well put together, and the general makeup of the book is pretty good.

There were two particular highlights for me: one is the artwork throughout the book, which is outstanding. The other is that this book reveals a secret that they've been building up to through the last several adventures - I really like that sort of seeding of details and world-building (even if I hadn't seen the other adventures that started the mystery). It really shows an attention to a larger world that is nice.

There's not too much that I don't like about the adventure - the big weakness (the overly linear nature of the latter chapters) was something that I had priced in from the outset, so was happy to accept. There are two things, but one is another thing I've come to accept, while the other is something I can work around.

Specifically, this adventure has another case of the 'cheat' BBEG - the PCs are expected to face off against the enemy at 11th level, but that enemy should be far out of their league. So the adventure posits a 'cheat' to allow the match-up to work (this time that the BBEG is massively weakened). I'm not keen on that, but it seems to just be the way they do things now.

The other is the handling of XP. I've really come to dislike milestone XP, and the version as presented in this adventure is worse even than the norm. My strong suspicion is that this is done because the adventure just doesn't include enough 'real' XP for all the levels intended, so again they 'cheat' to speed things up without the players feeling that they haven't earned those levels. (Of course, my view on how XP should be awarded is very different from standard too, but never mind.)

There's not too much more I can say without giving spoilers. Suffice to say that this one almost certainly will be my next campaign, once "The Mist of Lamordia" have parted... and indeed that I may well buy in to the next storyling that WotC choose to present. I'm very impressed with this one.

Something I Miss

I'm rather enjoying both of the games that I have underway - "Mists of Lamordia" is now running along at a good pace again, and "The Quest for Memory" is heading rapidly to the first crucible. However, I do find that there is something I miss: playing with gamers.

The thing is, enjoyable as they are, both of the ongoing campaigns are run with casual gamers, people who enjoy the game, to be sure, but whose experience with it is on the more limited end of the spectrum. The great benefit of that is that such players tend to be rather fresher and less jaded than those who have been playing for years.

The flip side of that is that players who have been playing for years tend towards a greater depth - their greater experience of the game lends to a slightly more immersive, and perhaps more challenging style of play.

That's not to say that either is better than the other, nor to imply any criticism either way. They're just different - and it is something that I find that I miss.

A Quick Note on Exploration

I love that the designers of D&D identified three pillars of play, and I really like the three pillars they have identified (combat, exploration, interaction).

But I really hate that they've basically made exploration the "anything else" pillar. And, in particular, they really shouldn't have stuck travelling through the game-world in that pillar. Walking down the road is no more a meaningful exercise in exploration than ordering from a fixed menu is really a meaningful exercise in interaction. Yes, if you absolutely have to tag those actions in one of the pillars, that's where they would go - but for the most part they should just be glossed over and moved past.

"Exploration" would much better be summarised as "finding things out". So exploring a hidden and unknown land is exploration, of course, as is traversing a dungeon... but so too is solving a mystery, defeating a puzzle, or anything of that ilk.

Careful Inconsistencies

There are (at present) two massive secrets at the heart of my work on Terafa, the nature of which I'm not going to state here, what with them being secret and all. The truth is that I'm not sure if they will ever be revealed - indeed, they may well work better as some sort of "something isn't right here..." feeling.

However, I do most definitely want to lay out hints about the fact that some things are badly out of kilter. And the way to do that is to very carefully build in some inconsistencies into the setting material - bits of history that don't line up quite right, dates and durations that can't be made to work together, and other such things.

The only problem with that is that the setting material will also include some number of outright mistakes and changes as I go, which will tend to obscure my intent. But that's just one more fun element of discovering the setting, I guess.

The Spheres in their Courses Above

There are few astronomers on Terafa, but those who do exist have charted the other planets that orbit the suns of that world. In addition to Terafa and the Suns, they have identified five planetary bodies, most of which are associated with greater gods of the Unbalanced Pantheon:

The Twins: At the centre of the system lie the two suns around which everything orbits. These are two spheres of fire, one larger and more constant, the other brighter but fickle.

Thought: The smallest and newest of the spheres, Thought is a relatively tiny, burnt cinder of a world. Its proximity to The Twins must surely mean that nothing could survive on this world. As such, it is closely aligned with the element of earth, in its least hospitable incarnation.

Terafa: Unaligned with any particular element, Terafa is a lush, green sphere that is the home to multitudes of beings. Terafa has two moons (now!) - Melira and Kalis.

The Shield: A thin ring of rocks of all sorts, the Shield is a belt of asteroids that is believed to protect Terafa from the greater dangers the lie beyond.

Naris: In many ways a near copy of Terafa, Naris is another sphere unaligned with any particular element. It is a lush, green shere, that is also home to much life. Transit between Naris and Terafa is exceedingly rare, but not entirely unknown. As a rule, inhabitants of Terafa consider those from Naris to be harsh, impolite, and arrogant; while those from Naris consider inhabitants of Terafa to be absurdly innocent and optimistic. Perhaps curiously, the people of Naris worship entirely different gods to those observed on Terafa, and yet respect the same planetary names. Naris has a single moon.

Klos: A giant green sphere, Klos is aligned with the element of air. It is a stately figure in the heavens, progressing through the night sky in a calm, untroubled progression. Klos has a multitude of moons, some of which may support life similar to that on Terafa and Naris.

Choriam: The largest of the planets, Choriam is also the brightest thing in the night sky other than the two moons. A huge red sphere, Choriam is aligned closely with the element of air. Choriam has many moons, but these are devoid of life - the gases that make up the great sphere are poisonous, and taint all its satelites.

Li: Another great sphere aligned with the element of air, Li is a fickle wandered in the skies - at times, she even crosses the orbit of Choriam, becoming closer to Klos for a time. She is a great purple sphere marked with many bands of green, pink, and other bright colours. Li has many moons, but the number is constant - something within the sphere periodically spawns entirely new moons, while others are ejected from her orbit like unwanted children.

Regarding Spelljammer

Terafa (and Naris also) was once the home of a Spelljammer campaign. Consequently, each of the planets has at least some alignment with one of the four classical elements. I'm disinclined to formally place Terafa within a Crystal Sphere in its "Ultimates Version" - not least because my inclination is that it's better only to do that when actually playing a Spelljammer campaign. However, if and when I do run a Spelljammer campaign again (and that's a big 'if'!), it's likely that Narispace will be one of the spheres likely to be visited - I might as well get the benefit of all this work!

Uranium

The concept of an imprisoned evil (or mad, or both) god is pretty common in fantasy. D&D has Tharizdun, Pathfinder has Rovagug, the "Wheel of Time" series has The Dark One, and Middle Earth has Morgoth.

Of course, Greek mythology had Uranos. From whom we get the word 'uranium'.

As noted in "The Long Tomorrow", uranium is of course a source of immense power. And it is also a dangerous source - it can be harnessed, but absolutely must be handled with care.

For RPG purposes there's a fairly thick seam of material to mine there. Maybe that's the thing that dwarves are really spending all their time digging for, when they "delve too greedily and too deep". Maybe drow equipment is infused with radiation that renders it magical but extremely dangerous. And, of course, there is also the possibility in a fantasy realm that what is being mined is not merely an element named for an imprisoned deity, but actually the very stuff of that deity itself. In which case, what manner of powers, and what manner of dangers might be unleashed?

(I don't particularly have a conclusion at this point. Just musing on the topic...)

Two Problems with Appendix N

I'm currently reading "The Long Tomorrow", which is one of the books on the legendary Appendix N - the inspirational reading list from the 1st Edition DMG. (Now superseded by Appendix E in the 5e PHB.)

I've found that the Appendix N books make for fascinating reading, partly from a historical perspective, partly from a "you're doing it wrong", and partly just out of interest in the works that inspired the young Gygax.

(One thing that is particularly of note is the sheer range of material there. To a certain extent it is a shame that first "Lord of the Rings" and then D&D itself cast quite such a large shadow, because of how those influences have affected everything since. I might even argue that while modern fantasy is by and large much better written than the older works, it's also rather less imaginative in many ways.)

I have, however, found two small issues.

The first of these is that many of these books are very old, and were never much more than fairly obscure, and as a consequence they are hard to find and/or very expensive. And while I'm interested to see what Leigh Brackett did in "The Sword of Rhiannon" (for example), I'm rather disinclined to spend £50 for the privilege. Oh well.

The other issue is rather more contemporary. D&D is, quite rightly, going through a period of excising itself of some of its more troublesome and problematic baggage. Which is fine, except that it probably means removing certain items from Appendix E or its successor in later editions.

The big problem there is that chief amongst these is H.P. Lovecraft, who it's fair to say was a big old racist. More to the point, though, his brand of horror is inextricably linked to his own fear of miscegenation. That is, without the racism underpinning his works they don't really work.

So they kind of have to go.

But H.P. Lovecraft is one of, if not the, biggest influence on early D&D - his fingerprints are on huge elements of the game, its lore, and so forth. Any list of inspirational reading would, quite frankly, be incomplete and lacking without those works on it.

I'm not really sure how WotC can square that circle. I certainly don't envy them the task.

(Ultimately, I suppose we'll end up with some sort of disclaimer about "product of the times", "modern sensibilities", or something like that. Which, frankly, would be rather a cop out. But given that there are problems either way, that may be the least-worst option.)

The General and the Specific

I've been doing quite a lot of thinking about the various peoples of Terafa recently, but also considering one of those big questions that doesn't really come up anywhere except in RPGs: what if the player doesn't agree. That is, what if I say in my campaign guide that "an elf is this", but the person playing an elf character wants something different from their character? And what if, despite our negotiations, we just find that the two notions don't work - that the player wants something from the character that is just impossible in the context of the lore of the setting?

I've gone back and forward on this issue several times over the years. Eventually, what I have settled on is this: the character belongs to the player, and what they say goes... for that character. Obviously, their character is a one-in-a-million exception, for whom the normal lore just doesn't work. And, for the duration of that character's existence the normal lore will be suspended.

It is, of course, entirely possible that at some point I may come back and write the "official history" of the setting. And in the event that that character plays a notable part in that OH, at that point the character's story will be moulded to fit the ongoing lore of the setting. But that would only happen after that character was no longer in use - once the character is indeed a matter of history.

So, for example... I hae established that elven Lord and Ladies are infertile amongst themselves - only the elven Queen can have elven children. Suppose, however, that the player wants his character to be married and have children, and wants those children to be elven (as opposed to half-elven).

Well, fair enough. As indicated, that will indeed be the case for that character for the duration of his career as a PC. But later, in the official history, if the character features at all, it will be massaged - perhaps he and his consort found themselves the adoptive parents of some young elven children, or perhaps he married a human and had half-elven children, or something else.

Ultimately, the point is this: the lore of the setting will not be used to constrain player characters any more than is absolutely necessary; but once they are no longer player characters, those characters will most likely be made consistent with the setting lore.

Aasimar and Tieflings of Terafa

Two sides of the same coin, the Aasimar and Tieflings of Terafa are the consequences when the divine (or the infernal) touches upon the mortal realm. The oldest legends of these folk say that the first Aasimar were born of the consorts of Choriam himself, as the Morningstar guided Man to Terafa for the first time. These heroes were as giants in the earth, and founded the oldest human cities. Sadly, even the names of these heroes, and the empires they ruled, have been lost in time.

Of course, to counter the children of Choriam, the Usurper took consorts of his own, and the Tieflings were born, twisted and monstrous creatures best left unnamed. The battles between these heroes and monsters were mighty, and left the world indelibly changed.

Over the millennia since, the bloodlines of these first beings have become diluted as they further took mates and sired children. Additionally, new bloodlines of Aasimar and Tielfings are spawned as shards of the Fastness of the Divine occasionally fall to Terafa - in the upheavals that follow new heroes and monsters are created in seemingly equal measure.

In the modern world of Terafa, both Aasimar and Tielfings are sufficiently rare that most people have never encountered one of these divine children. Consequently, both are treated with a measure of suspicion as they travel the world. Ultimately, though, they find themselves judged on their actions, as there is sufficient strangeness in the world that most people look beyond their first impressions.

Beyond that, there is not a great deal to tell. To be Aasimar or Tiefling is essentially to be marked for a life of adventure right from the very first, but where that takes the individual is largely up to them. There is perhaps just one last thing to consider: although they cannot articulate why or how, every Aasimar and every Tiefling knows, deep in the very marrow of their bones and the very depth of their souls, that the legends of the origin of their kind are wrong.

A Farewell to Pathfinder?

I find myself contemplating another cull of my RPG books. Though unlike last time it wouldn't be a major cut - a trim more than anything. The reason for that is simple: I got rid of almost all of the dross last time out, meaning that what remains is almost all good stuff. That said, there are quite a handful of games that have never seen use, and that are unlikely ever to see use. (That said, in truth almost none of the games I own will see use going forward - my gaming these days is pretty much limited to D&D 5e, and if that ever does change it is more likely to be to an entirely new game than one I currently own.)

The upshot is that I'm thinking of cutting things like "Mutants & Masterminds" (which I liked in theory but could never get a game together), "GURPS Discworld" and "Red Dwarf" (both of which were better as concepts than reality), and "DCC RPG" (which is nice, but just not for me). I'm also toying with getting rid of the various magazines I have accumulated over time, with the key exception of Dragon and Dungeon magazines.

But the big one is Pathfinder, which takes up an almost indecent amount of space for a game I've never run (and will never run), not to mention one I've barely played. And if the books can get into the hands of someone who does run it and can make use of them, all the better.

But it really feels quite odd contemplating that step - there was a time I thought Pathfinder might represent the future of gaming for me, and especially a more likely future than D&D given the misstep that was the 4th edition of that game. All that said, it does feel like a right step - once I did finally get to play Pathfinder, it was very quickly obvious that it's just not the game for me.

Waypoints and the Long Rest

One of the issues I have faced with wilderness encounters generally, basically forever, is that the party will generally have one or two encounters in the day (at most) and then will take a full rest overnight. This has typically meant that they recover all their expended spells and other resources (and in 4e and 5e, hit points too), and thus face their encounters fresh. The 'fix' for that, to make those one or two encounters that much harder to compensate, really hasn't ever felt very satisfactory.

Instead of this, I'm inclined to suggest a different approach, specifically: you can't take a long rest while on the road. Instead, to benefit from a long rest you must be in a designated waypoint - a place of safety and relative comfort where you can let your guard down at least enough to benefit. (Characters would still need to sleep, of course, to avoid exhaustion, but they would only gain the benefits of a short rest for doing so.)

This would require one big knock-on change: Clerics, Wizards, and other spellcasters would have to be allowed to change their prepared spells after a short rest, rather than a long rest. However, they would not regain expended spell slots - that is, after all, the whole point of this change!

For the most part, waypoints would be pretty obvious - the next two, the roadside inn, or whatever. However, there would also need to be ways for the PCs to hole up and create their own waypoints. The most obvious example would be spells like Leomund's Tiny Hut, that create a safe space for eight hours (and are designed for exactly this purpose). But the PCs could also create their waypoint within the dungeon by barricading a room, or something like that. (This might also encourage them to take some hirelings along to stay outside the dungeon - those hirelings would then be tasked with keeping the camp secure for our heroes' return.)

And that's more or less it. This isn't actually a huge change, at least in terms of rules impact. I suspect it may have rather greater impact on how the game actually plays out... but then, that's maybe not the worst thing.

The Constellations of Terafa

As mentioned previously, Terafa has two suns, a moon (or two moons, depending on whether I decide to stick with my current campaigns 'mistake' or not), and a ring system. The skies are already quite busy! There are, however, two remaining things to add to that skyline - the stars and any other planets in the sky (which, in fact, will appear as large wandering stars).

To that end, I need to define a number of constellations for Terafa, with the ideal number being 12 - to match the 12 months of the year on Terafa, and also because that matches the constellations defined in our own skies - and so is the comfortable number. Fortunately, D&D now includes a very nice division into 12; there are 12 classes in the PHB in 5e. And so, here are the constellations, in the order in which they appear in the night sky.

• The Preacher: Seen as a benevolent figure leading the world out of the depths of winter, the preacher is associated with wisdom, resilience, and healing.
• The Ascetic: Seen as a counterpart to the preacher, the ascetic represents the crueller aspects of winter as supplies run low and times become harder. She is associated with denial, sacrifice, and want.
• The Scoundrel: A marker of better times to come, the scoundrel represents joy and laughter. Particularly honoured by halflings, the scoundrel is seen as a mischevious but not malicious figure. Nonetheless, those who uphold laws throughout Terafa become increasingly wary as this sign becomes dominant.
• The Hermit: The story has it that the scoundrel runs into the wilderness where he lives as a hermit for a time. This story is contradicted, however, by the traditional representation of the hermit as female. The hermit is associated with the waking of nature after a long winter, the sowing of seeds, and general husbandry of nature.
• The Minstrel: Also known as the bringer of joy, the minstrel is an appropriate icon for the long lazy days of summer just starting. And yet the minstrel is also a martial figure, as armies march to war in these days.
• The Wise Man: Despite the name, this figure is commonly depicted as female. Depicted as being pregnant with knowledge, and also with sorrow, she is associated with books, lore, and also false prophecy and also the knowledge that the year has reached its brightest days.
• The Woodsman: Associated most of all with the ripening of crops, the time when the woodsman comes to the fore is marked by many lords riding the boundaries of their domains, ensuring that all borders are secure prior to the days of winter beginning.
• The Tumult: The most unusual constellation, the tumult is actually a shapshifter - each year the stars of this sign reconfigure themselves. Nobody knows why this is, although there are many theories. Those who observe such things try to draw omens for the winter ahead from the current configuration as this sign becomes dominant.
• The Paragon: The favoured sign of all who excel, and all those who see themselves amongst that group, the paragon is associated with victories, new beginnings, and the like. More marriages are conducted while the paragon is dominant than at any other time in the year, and children born under this sign are considered especially blessed - and also bound to labour under unreasonable expectations all their lives.
• The Champion: The most martial of all the signs, the champion is the season of battles, and perhaps the last season when armies can expect to march in the year. The champion is depicted as a female figure, and as such is quite often associated with those who would protect women and children especially.
• The Berserker: As the year comes to an end we have the season of chaos, when nature turns against man and things become harder. The berserker is associated with wild celebrations, strong drink, madness, and tyranny. He is the most masculine of all the signs, and also the one that the common folk fear most of all.
• The Witch: Finally, as the year ends comes the season of the witch. An openly malevolent sign, the witch rules the dark days of winter, when the world is cold and life is hard. Yet she is also the source of healing when all other sources fail... albeit at a terrible cost. All that said, there are those who declare that the witch is the most misunderstood of all the signs, for this is also a necessary season of rest, without which the cycle could not begin anew.
• Myriad: Although most astrologers consider there to be twelve signs, some few identify a thirteenth sigil between the witch and the preacher. Certainly, there is an oddity in the calendar, as the signs become dominant in turn a little too quickly for the turn of the seasons and yet, somehow, the months align year after year. Those who mark this thirteenth sign place hir between the witch and the preacher. Xhe is depicted as neither male nor female, or indeed as combining aspects of both. The ambiguities of this sign are manifold - to the extent that many people simply cannot see the sign in the sky at all; for many, there is simply a void in the appropriate region of the heavens.

A Wasted Gimmick

For "The Mists of Lamordia" I took a leaf or two out of the pages of "Curse of Strahd" and have used a tarokka reading a couple of times, making use of the prop cards I have had for quite some time.

The upshot is that this is a gimmick that is nice in theory, but just doesn't work add much, if anything, to this game.

The thing is, in addition to physical props not really being great for a remote environment, the readings have a fundamental problem that they add a meaningless random element to play - sure, some treasures, the ally, and the location of the enemy are randomly generated, but from the outside looking in they might as well not be. The paths not taken won't be visible anyway, so what's the point?

Where that random element would work much better is for an adventure that is going to be rerun several times, and indeed one that may be played multiple times by some or all of the same players. So it works better in "Curse of Strahd", where it's possible that players may end up playing through it several times with different groups. And it would work much better for something like "Lost Mine of Phandelver", that may well end up being run many times by the same DM.

But they work even better for short one-shot games, where the party gathers for one night, runs the partially-randomised scenario, and then moves on. I've found that having the reading hanging over the campaign for many sessions tends to cast something of a pall on proceedings - better to introduce it and resolve it very soon.

All of which is a shame, because I was so looking forward to finally getting some use out of those cards!

The State of Play

Given that it has been a while, I thought I would resume with a short update on the status of my two ongoing campaigns:

The Mists of Lamordia

This campaign has just ended the first "crucible", with the PCs reaching level 6 at the conclusion. This means that the campaign is moving into its third phase, and heading toward the endgame. I had hoped to conclude this campaign before April next year, as I'll be missing a month due to paternity leave, but alas that doesn't seem to be possible.

Overall, I'm reasonably pleased with the way that this campaign has played out, but there have been many lessons-learned from it as well. The big one: I really need to find time to prepare better!

The Quest for Memory

As a consequence of longer game sessions, this campaign is progressing at a somewhat faster rate than the other. The PCs are currently mid-way through 4th level and probably two sessions away from 5th level. That means that they're nearly ready to head into their own first "crucible".

This campaign doesn't have a fixed end-date, though my feeling is that it should aim to run for about a year - much more than that and campaigns seem to lose steam.

At this point there aren't any great lessons-learned from this campaign, it possibly being a little early for it. Except for one thing - my players hate my policy of not giving XP for random encounters. I still think that's the right approach, though, especially with them knowing that that is going to be the case!

The Next Campaign

Initially, I had planned for "The Mists of Lamordia" to run for about a year, which means we're about six weeks from the nominal end date I had planned. As it has worked out, this has been stretched by two factors - we've dropped from 90 to 60 minutes a week, and we've switched to remote gaming which is inherently a little slower. So there are probably another four months beyond that (but hopefully not more than that - I find campaigns inevitably run out of steam, and this one didn't have as much steam as I'd hoped even from the start, so I'm hoping to be done and dusted by Easter).

Naturally, as we start to come towards the endgame, my thoughts tend toward the future, which means I'm looking to the next campaign. And although I said previously I was going to prepare three and thus be ready with the next one, I'm rethinking that plan. Partly because I'm now running "The Quest for Memory" with a different group in parallel, and partly because I just have way less time to prepare games than I would like. (Or, to be blunt: almost none.)

So the next campaign will be back to a pre-gen adventure from Wizards of the Coast. And, conveniently, they've just released one that has caught my eye: "Rime of the Frostmaiden" arrived yesterday. So, barring disaster, that's the next one.

That assumes, of course, that it's any good. I'm trying really hard not to get my hopes up, given WotC's past efforts, but it's difficult...

Wandering Monsters: Two Thoughts

As I've mentioned in some previous posts, I don't give out XP for wandering monsters. The intent here is to emphasise that such encounters are a bad thing. Which works really well, but there are two caveats I should add:

1. As a rule, it should be possible, albeit perhaps costly, to avoid a wandering monster encounter. The last two such encounters in my "Quest for Memory" campaign have taken the form of ambush attackers, which is far from ideal. I really must bear that in mind!
2. It's important that players are aware of how wandering monster encounters are triggered, so that they can act accordingly. I've been using the Angry DM's "Tension Pool" for this purpose, which works great... but it works much better with a physical pool that people can see on the table than it does in the virtual realm. I'll need to ponder that to see if I can come up with a better solution.

A Tale of Two Sessions

Due to the complexity of scheduling, I now find myself with both my games being scheduled for Thursdays, meaning that most days I have no gaming at all and then two sessions in a day. Which isn't ideal, but it's better than most of the alternatives.

Last Thursday was an odd day, then, in that the two sessions were radically different in outcome and character.

The work game was deeply underwhelming. The major reason for this was that I was woefully under-prepared for the session, largely due to just not having the time required. The other problem was that the PCs decided to conduct their infiltration under cover of daylight, meaning that pretty much all of the material that I had prepared was rendered useless. As a consequence, the session started late, ended early, and contained almost nothing of any value. And given that this is one of the centre-piece adventures of the campaign as a whole, that's pretty disastrous. A real shame.

By contrast, the game in the evening went much better, despite also being under-prepared. At least in this case the material that I had in place did apply, and the game was generally fun for all concerned. Which is a win.

It's also worth noting that the evening campaign has established (I think) that it works best as a very 'classic' campaign style - what is needed is a succession of well-designed short quests and dungeons, rather than anything more nebulous. So keeping the runway going there shouldn't be too tough.

But "The Lists of Lamordia" is a challenge. I clearly need to put in some more work on that centre-piece adventure, which really needs to pull together from the mess that is currently in place.

Return to the Egg

For some time I have had a small issue with one aspect of Terafa's lore - way back in the day I decided it would be cool to allow bugbears as a playable race, an option that one player in particular took advantage of for two notable PCs. Unfortunately, I have since rethought the role that I want bugbears to play in the setting, which meant that they didn't really fit in the desired role.

In the interim, WotC provided me with another small headache, but fortunately each of these problems can provide the answer to the other. Specifically, I have decided to recast those two PCs I mentioned above as dragonborn, and allow them to fill the slot now vacated by bugbears. Which is nice.

Anyway, moving on...

In addition to the legend of "The Curse of the Dragon's Gold" (which is told more about dragonborn than by them), the dragonborn have another significant legend that they tell: The Return to the Egg.

The dragonborn call themselves "The Last People", and maintain that they have existed on Terafa for some twelve thousand years. This places the origin of that people long before the Arrival of Man, before the genesis of the Elves... and indeed before the supposed creation of the world, which is reckoned to have occurred nearly six thousand years ago. (More specifically, 5780 years ago.)

In that time before time, the dragonborn established a great empire, Talkalasa, the Empire of the Seven Sins. Founded in the honour of the seven great progenitor dragons, Talkalasa was a proud, powerful, and utterly degenerate empire. All of Terafa fell under its sway.

But, as with all things that have a beginning, Talkalasa had an end. As Cavcari's Last Invocation began to unfold upon the empire, the greatest seers and sages of the dragonborn developed a plan, a way for their people to evade their end. And so, the boldest and best of the dragonborn were selected. The paragons of the dragonborn people would return to the egg, entering a strange kind of stasis, to rest for an age and half an age, and to emerge once the threat had passed. Their destiny was to reestablish the lost empire of Talkalasa.

Alas for the dragonborn, things did not work out as their sages had foreseen. Whether because the calculations were incorrect or because the eggs were disturbed, the dragonborn paragons slept too long, and emerged into a world utterly changed. No sign of the ancient borders of Talkalasa remain, and precious few other signs.

Worst of all, the dragonborn paragons were themselves diminished by their long sleep, their skills regressed to the most basic level. And they find themselves scattered across time, with some few emerging in the distant past, some a millennium ago, but more and more of them over the past century. Now, almost all dragonborn have emerged from their sleep, but they find themselves lost in a world changed. The dragonborn of this age, descendants of the earliest paragons to emerge, are a poor shadow of the old people, bereft of the great racial memory that made Talkalasa what it was.

And thus is born the great tragedy of the dragonborn, the last people of Terafa.

To Humbly Go...

 While I'm recommending things, I really should point out that Humble Bundle currently have a bundle for the Star Trek Adventures RPG. For £12 you can get PDFs of about two-thirds of the game line, plus a voucher for 50% off the print version of the Core Rulebook.

It's definitely worth checking out if you're at all interested in the game: find it here.

My New D&D Soundtrack

Like many people, I enjoy listening to music while I work. My personal favourite, at least for that purpose, is anything that doesn't have lyrics, which means that soundtracks are always good. Naturally, the Star Wars soundtracks are a favourite. The only problem being that the Star Wars soundtracks are so well known that it's a bit easy just to tune them out, and for that reason I always find myself on the lookout for new Star Wars music and/or twists on the same.

This week I found a new soundtrack that is pretty much ideal for listening to when thinking about D&D, and when working on my campaign: Star Wars in a Medieval style.

Here's the playlist.

Five Things You Know... one of which is wrong...

For the new campaign "The Quest for Memory", I have taken to composing and sending out a "5 things you know about..." message for each session. I've found this to be a very useful way to reveal small chunks of setting lore, and also to provide clues, hints, and other details to the players. All of which is to the good.

Unfortunately, in the most recent update I provided some key information about Terafa, including such things as there being two suns, a ring system called The Fastness of the Divine... and two moons.

The only problem with that is that that fact was from an old version of the setting. In the "Ultimates" version (and, indeed, for several versions prior to that), Terafa had one moon called Melira. (What's more, that moon has since been associated with the named archmage Melira within the setting. There is no such name for the second moon.)

Still, never mind. I've now established that there are two moons, so for the duration of this campaign, two moons there are. I shall call the second one Kalas, and associate it with the dragonborn.

Philosophies Dreamt Of

I've been musing more on the topic of Clerics and gods in D&D, and especially in my Terafa setting, and I've decided to move away from requiring (or even encouraging) Clerics, and Paladins, Druids, and anyone else, from selecting a patron deity. They of course retain the right to do so if they choose, but they will not be required.

Instead, Clerics will be members of mystery cults dedicated to one of five Philosophies (that I'm yet to define). Their powers will remain unchanged, with any Cleric being able to select any Domain. However, since they're steeped in philosophy, rather than being servants of a deity (or anyone else), there will be no implied behavioural restrictions - it is up to the player to determine their actions... and likewise it won't be immediately apparent how an NPC Cleric is likely to behave.

This has some knock-on effects to the place of organised religion within the setting, but that's probably a good thing - a lot of the trappings that D&D has adopted are borrowed from a monotheistic tradition and then adapted, generally poorly, to a polytheistic set of assumptions.

The key reason for this is that I'm now leaning towards casting the gods as being closer to the Norse Aesir than the Christian God - that it, they are extremely powerful but they're not all-knowing, all-powerful, or indeed ineffable.

There is one other knock-on effect of this change: the religion proficiency will be replaced with a philosophy proficiency. Mechanically, these will be functionally identical - it's just a matter of a name change.

The "Maybe" Die

I was musing more on equipment, and especially my most recent thoughts on the topic (found here). In particular, I was thinking about how I would handle things that the party might have available.

Having considered it some more, I'm inclined to be both a bit more generous when determining if the party have an item, but correspondingly less generous for multiple items. The basic principle is the "maybe" die.

As before, characters can carry ten "things", not including their rations and one set of clothing. Multiple identical items count as a single "thing", but they do have to be identical - a potion of healing and a potion of greater healing count as two "things".

In addition, characters start with a "maybe" die rated at d12.

When the time comes to determine if someone in the party has a given item, one player can choose to roll their "maybe" die. On a roll of anything other than a '1', the party have one of the item, but the character's "maybe" die is reduced by one size (d12->d10->d8->d6->d4). Once they reduce the "maybe" die below a d4, they have no further items.

(If they do roll a '1' then they don't have the item, but the "maybe" die remains the same.)

There are a few more caveats: items covered by the "maybe" die must be about the size of the character's fist or smaller. Weapons (including ammunition), armour, and shields cannot be generated using the "maybe" die, nor can any sort of magical item. Items greater in value than about 5gp cannot be generated. Rerolls, either by the same character or another, are not allowed. And the DM can veto any specific item at any time - you can't use the "maybe" die to randomly summon the key that just happens to fit that lock you've found.

When the character reaches any settlement, all temporary items generated by the "maybe" die disappear. (Characters are, of course, free to declare some or all of them as one of their ten "things", of course. But they cannot keep the item only long enough to sell it!) However, each character's "maybe" die resets to d12.

About the bag of holding: Simply put, the bag of holding allows the character to carry any number of "things", but accessing a "thing" from the bag is an action. The character also has a second "maybe" die, also rated at d12 - when rolling they can roll both dice, and only one of them (always the smaller) is reduced by a successful roll.

The Quest for Memory is Back On

I forgot to mention: that proposed second campaign is suddenly back on - it turns out that the delay in responses was just that, and so things have come together. We start on Thursday.

Well, I say "campaign" and "start". Initially, we're setting up one session, which will probably be part of an adventure. Which will be fine. If it goes well, there will obviously be scope to carry on with the conclusion of that one adventure, which would be good. And if that goes well, we can expand from there.

The upshot is that I'll be doing some work on it in the next little while, and especially this weekend, but I won't be racing to do ridiculous amounts of stuff. Except perhaps for some maps.

Player vs Player

We're now in a position in our campaign (though hopefully not for very long) where one of the PCs very definitely has a different agenda from another. This may or may not lead to direct conflict. I have a few thoughts on the topic.

Firstly, it is extremely important that everyone at the table be able to trust each other to play in good faith and to approach things in a muture manner. This is certainly not something that I would tackle with every group, nor with the first campaign with any new group (no matter how mature). Let everyone get into a good place before going down this route.

I'm also very much of the opinion (these days) that any such discussions are better had out in the open. There's a strange combined status in RPGs that is, I think, unique to the form: the players are both participants in the action and the audience. So by all means include individual storylines and crossed motivations in play, but allow everyone to enjoy watching the story unfold.

The doesn't mean that everything has to be out in the open, of course. My campaign also includes PC secrets as a factor, and some discussions really are best held in a one-on-one manner. However my default, and very definitely my default for potential PvP opposition, is that it should be done openly. If nothing else, that serves as something of a brake on the more egregious excesses.

I also strongly recommend that this is something that is done very sparingly. Dip a toe in the water, by all means, but don't throw your players bodily into a vat of acid! So while it's probably no bad thing that the PCs have differing agendas, it's probably best if those are focussed on possession of some third-party McGuffin rather than being a matter of besting one another in combat, and it's definitely better that any combat that results stops short of lethal damage.

And when in doubt, stop. It's better to call a halt to things, even if it leaves the story unfinished, than to damage real-life friendships!

I'll let you know how it goes.

Just When I Thought It Was Out (Alignment)

Alignment has had a storied history in D&D. It actually started back in Chainmail (the precursor to D&D) as a simple faction system - Good armies could ally with either Lawful or Chaotic ones (but not both at the same time), but not Evil armies. For that purpose it worked reasonably well, although if designing Chainmail now I would instead opt for five much more 'generic' faction names - White, Green, Black, Blue, and Red (or something), each of which had two potential allies and two sworn foes - the standard Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock configuration. (Actually, I'd probably include a secret sixth faction that was opposed to all the others...)

Anyway, ever since its origin as an almost pure team-shirt view of things, D&D alignment has accumulated a whole load of stuff... most of it awful.

Eventually, D&D 4e dropped all the residual mechanical implications of alignment, but failed to take the final step of disposing of it entirely. And 5e then repeated that mistake. (I find myself in the odd position that I was actually fine with alignment as it was, mechanical teeth and all; or I'm fine with it being removed entirely. But leave it as a withered appendix, and it infuriates me.)

I've now reached the stage where not only did I drop alignment from my character sheet redesign entirely, but before that I actively advised players to leave the box blank - that is, I advised against stating any alignment even for their own use. The big issue there being that those two words seem to exert an obscure power - put them on the character sheet and they seem to affect the way the player runs the character, even where they really should not. Better just to get rid.

And yet...

One of the quite nice features of 5e is that players are encouraged to give a bit more thought to role-playing than previously, with the character sheet including little boxes for Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws. In some of the later books they've introduced a few new flavours of these things. I find I like those, even if I have divorced them from the Inspiration mechanic. (And that, of course, means they become a matter of "you can pay as much, or as little, attention to these as you want".)

And yet, and yet... I have found in my recent campaign that some players painstakingly fill in every box on the character sheet, some completely ignored Traits et al, and some filled in some of them. This left valuable character sheet real-estate unused and wasted. And, of course, if you're using some of the alternatives, there was then no box at all.

The way I've dealt with that in my redesign is to place a "role-playing notes" box on the second sheet, freeing up much-needed space on the front for more class features. That largish box then allows the player to define as much, or as little, about the character as they wish.

And now, to the point. For various reasons, I've found myself working with a whole load of pre-gen characters recently, and one of the things that I've suddenly found quite useful is to add an alignment to the box - crucially including a few words on what that alignment means to that character. That means that two Lawful Good characters could have significantly different statements of their alignment, but that's a feature rather than a bug. (And, actually, there's nothing to stop a player declaring an alignment and then immediately subverting it, giving a character who thinks of himself as Good but who is anything but.)

Which I actually find I like a lot more than I thought I did.

The other thing I use that box on the character sheet for is some sort of a tie to the campaign's "side dish". For instance, in "The Mists of Lamordia" the box contains a note about the character's personal secret. For the pre-gens for "Lost Mine of Phandelver", each of the pre-gens has a Personal Goal. And for "The Quest for Memory", each of the characters would have been assigned a Quest. Technically, this also falls into the category of "use this or ignore it as much as you want." In practice, though, since the "side dish" ties into the way I award XP these days, it is unlikely to go completely ignored.

Yeah, That is Better

It looks like D&D (and, actually, RPGs in general) are moving away from using the term 'race' to describe non-human characters. Which is fair enough - it's enough of a pain point that an alternative is preferable. Unfortunately, the two alternatives that had previously been mooted don't really work terribly well - 'species' has rather too much of the veneer of science to it to fit well, though it is ideal for sci-fi, while 'ancestry' just sucks.

Fortunately, it looks like D&D is moving towards using 'people' as the chosen term, which fits really well. 'Folk' would also have been a good choice - as in "Durin's folk".

So, yeah, I applaud that change. I also, mostly, applaud the steps they're taking towards showing a more nuanced culture for some of the intelligent humanoids. I don't think that's a requirement for all, or even for all 'humanoid' creatures - I think it is valid to suggest that at least some humanoids are indeed monsters. To quote "Babylon 5", "while we may sometimes look like you, we are not you." Just because a gnoll walks on two legs doesn't mean that its thought processes should in any way resemble those of a human; conversely, just because its thought processes don't in any way resemble those of a human doesn't mean it shouldn't be 'humanoid'.

But, all in all, this is a very positive step.

One more thing: there is an argument that the uses of different races, peoples, or whatever is itself problematic. The argument hinges on the fact that that means they are being 'othered'. And there is a lot of validity to that, as an awful lot of hate a pain has been spawned by the categorisation of various groups as being less than human.

I can't really fault that argument, though I don't entirely agree with it. But if it is accepted, then the consequence of that, I'm afraid, is that the non-human peoples would really need to be removed from the settings entirely. Which would be a shame... but may yet prove necessary. (And, of course, those non-human peoples may be desirable, but they're not necessary. At least, not in fantasy games - sci-fi may be a different issue.)

Another Thing Removed From Headspace

I had a notion about starting a second online campaign, following my positive experience with remote gaming in the lockdown, and following on from some hints of interest received elsewhere. However, it turns out that that interest was notional rather than actual, which means that it's actually not happening. Which is fine - I'm probably better off without the extra commitment anyway.

The upshot of that is that "The Quest for Memory" campaign is now being back-burnered for the foreseeable future. I may keep working on it in my spare time (of which I of course have huge amounts), but it will definitely be a side-project strictly for my own edification, rather than being something intended for actual use. So there's very little chance of much progress any time soon.

(That said, I'm increasingly minded to think the thing I need to get practiced with is map making. And since the practice might as well be for something, I guess it might as well be for "The Quest for Memory" - and I see little reason not to post at least some of them here.)

A Matter of Style

Over on my main blog I've recently posted about a revelation concerned with "Style" in writing. This revelation has made me think about stylistic issues with RPG writing, and especially adventure writing.

The truth is, RPGs have actually lost something of style over the years. When D&D was first published, and especially in AD&D 1st Edition, one of the hallmarks was Gary Gygax's very idiosyncratic writing style. He had both an extremely extensive vocabulary and a penchant for obscurity over elucidation. He liked a big word.

Similarly, the early RPG "Warhammer Fantasy Battles" took many of the same tropes, respun them with a distinctly British madness, and produced an extremely stylish game. And then "Vampire: the Masquerade" took things in yet another direction, being infused with a style all their own.

But VtM and the other "World of Darkness" games are the last 'stylish' games that spring to my mind. And as time went on, both D&D and WFRP (and others) gradually lost a lot of the initial style that made them stand out. This was largely a conscious decision - the focus was shifted to creating RPGs that were approachable and easily understandable.

This was almost certainly the right decision. High Gygaxian is certainly interesting, but the price of favouring obscurity over elucidation is that, well, you lose out on elucidation. There are sections in the AD&D DMG that you can read carefully and repeatedly, and still end up none the wiser. Far better for rulebooks to be well structured, well organised, and to explain the rules in clear, unambiguous language. They're effectively technical manuals, and should be presented as such.

That latter does not apply to settings or adventures, however. Here, maintaining a strong and distinctive style has a very distinct benefit. "Planescape" certainly wasn't for everyone, but the distinct flavour of the setting is what made it what it was. Likewise "Dark Sun", "Spelljammer", and "Ravenloft". That's also why having "Forgotten Realms" and "Birthright" and "Dragonlance" is redundant - they're just too similar.

I rather suspect there's little hope of seeing nicely stylistic adventures in published works in future - Wizards of the Coast and Paizo both have a style that mitigates against it, and the various authors on the DM's Guild will inevitably follow WotC's lead to a very large extent.

What this does give rise to, though, is yet another consideration for the Ultimates version of Terafa, and also "The Quest for Memory" campaign. Rather than just following the lead and aping what's there, and therefore suffering the inevitable redundancy that follows, I now find myself questioning whether I need to focus on building up a different style.

Though that remains tricky - the overwhelming bulk of the writing I do is aimed at a technical audience, which means needing to be able to context switch between two mindsets. Still, it's a fairly fascinating line of thought...

Passing on the Lore

The 5e adventure "Storm King's Thunder" has a genuinely great concept. Firstly in the simplicity of the statement "Shakespearean Giants", and also in the detail (spoiler: King Hekaton's court is largely lifted from "King Lear"). Unfortunately, it falls down badly in the execution, because for the vast bulk of the campaign the PCs spend their time wandering around the Savage Frontier having adventures, gaining XP... and although they do deal with a lot of giants who are kicking off in various ways, it's seldom clear exactly why.

It is only later that the PCs run into a giant who explains all this - and who is essentially the Font of Exposition for the campaign.

The fundamental problem there is that there's a whole lot of lore behind the scenes, but it needs to get into the hands of the PCs. And the reason for this post is that "Storm King's Thunder" is far from being the only adventure or campaign to have this problem. Indeed, getting the lore to the players is a fairly inevitable challenge - there's bound to be something that it would be better that they knew, so how to tell them?

Some thoughts:

• One option is simply to inform the PCs, either in the role as DM or through an NPC simply providing exposition. That works, and has the advantage that there's no ambiguity there. The downside is that it's a blunt instrument - "show, don't tell" is considered good advice for a reason!
• One thing I've used to good effect in the past is the "Five things you know about..." post. I really should re-institute the use of this device. That's not much better than just telling the PCs (indeed, in many ways it's exactly like that), but it can at least be use for incidental lore, rather than tying directly into the matter at hand.
• I'm very much of the opinion that PCs should be rewarded for choosing relevant proficiencies. Therefore if a PC has relevant skills (be it a 'knowledge' proficiency, their background, or whatever), they should be fed an abundance of information... that may or may not be relevant.
• The best way of all is to provide lots of clues, and let the players build up the picture. This needs a lot of care, and will take loads of time. (Remember the Three Clue Rule!) And it's best to avoid false information. But it does have the big advantage that it gives the players the opportunity to go off exploring the various details that get dropped in, rather than just being guided by all the answers.

The Sweet Spot Paradox

Most editions of the game have a very distinct "sweet-spot". This is the point where the PCs aren't too fragile, but they're also not loaded down with huge amounts of complexity. This is also the level range at which most of the best monsters are to be found, enabling the greatest range of adventures. For 1st and 2nd level, that tends to run from about 3rd level up to the low teens, while for 3e it tends to run from a little lower to the same sort of upper limit. For 5e it seems to start around 3rd level, but doesn't really get going until 5th. I'm yet to find the upper limit, as I've not yet run a campaign that has made it to double figures. (4e, as is so often the case, is something of an exception - it seems to run equally badly at all levels I've seen.)

However, it is also the case that characters are always at their most satisfying when run from 1st level. While starting at higher level does work, it never works as well as going through the apprenticeship.

This creates an unfortunate consequence: in order to enjoy the game at its best, you have to put in some early work first. Which is a shame.

(To its credit, 5e does make those first two levels really quick, which is good. It's just a shame that it slows down at 3rd and 4th level, when it is at 5th level that it really starts to shine. But there's an easy enough fix for that, I guess...)

Gnomes and Goblins

A while back (probably several years), I saw a random blog post notning very great similarities between the Gnome and Goblin entries in the first edition "Monster Manual", with the conclusion of the post being that these two 'races' were in fact two sides of the same coin; that is, that goblins were gnomes. Ever since then, I've been looking for a way to build that into my setting. But I've kept coming up against the problem that D&D goblins are part of a wider family - alongside hobgoblins and bugbears they are the goblinoid races, and I wasn't too keen to break that connection. How, then, could they also be gnomes?

The answer is actually obvious, and comes about by turning it on its head - it's not that goblins are gnomes, but rather than gnomes are goblins. That is, gnomes are a goblinoid race same as the others, with all that that entails.

And there's a lot there that fits really well - gnomes have always been the trickster race, which fits very well with the manic deviousness (and madness) that is associated with goblins in the latest iteration of my thinking (largely thanks to Pathfinder).

So, that's that.

Of course, one of the other things I've been positing is that goblins are an extremely mutable race, hence the existence of spider-eye goblins, poison dusk goblins, and all the other variants. In which case, mights gnomes also be very mutable? Or is their mere existence a mutation of the basic goblin stock?

(One more thing: having watched "The Dark Crystal" recently, I'm reasonably inclined to suggest that the gelflings in that series are closer to my conception of gnomes than they are to halflings. There's an argument for both, of course, but since my halflings are reasonably strictly nomadic creatures, while the gelfling are both more prone to putting down roots and also more inclined to magic, that would seem to make gnomes the better fit.)

And that's one more thing needing written up 'properly' for the Terafa "Ultimates Edition"...

Mental Blocks

I'm not a particular fan of the way published adventures are structured. That is also true, though to a much lesser extent, of published settings. I've written about my frustration with them before - basically, my feeling is that there must be a better way.

And yet when I recently sat down to start structuring my notes for "The Quest for Memory" campaign, and again for when I finally start the actual writing for that "Terafa Ultimates Version" I've been noodling about for ages, my first step was to immediately go back to those same sources and copy liberally.

Basically, it's a matter of a mental block: that's the way that these things are done by the professionals, they're basically the way they're always done, and so they're the way they should be done. And I say that while also knowing full well that I never intend to publish any of this stuff, so it's entirely for my own use (well, and that of my playing group(s)), and so the needs are certainly rather different from those in published products.

Huh.

I don't really have some great point or conclusion that I'm working up to here. I just thought it was an interesting observation, given where I've come from and where I'm trying to get to.

Review: Eberron: Rising from the Last War

I've recently finished reading through the 'real' setting book for Eberron in 5e, "Rising from the Last War". I'm now finding it extremely hard to review!

Physically, the book is really good value: 320 pages, full-colour and hardback, and crammed with good stuff (written in a nice, small font - there's loads here). Given that it's priced at the same $50 as the rest of the 5e books, that marks it as especially good value in that product line.

But what matters with a book of this sort is the content, and on that front this book is... fine, I guess.

The book has six chapters: character creation, a gazeteer of the world, a description of Sharn, a guide to creating adventures in Eberron, some material on treasure, and the inevitable bestiary.

The character creation section is probably the most important in the book, updating the various game elements to 5e. These are all fine, but an awful lot of it is repeated material. The new stuff includes things like orc and goblinoid races, another take on the warforged, and a few other bits and bobs. Unfortunately, I remain underwhelmed by 5e's warforged - they've now done three distinct versions, and none have managed to appeal to me. This one is probably the best of the bunch, but that's not really saying much. (Similarly, I'm really not a fan of 'monster' races, so while the orcs and goblinoids are mechanically fine, I think I'd have been happier had the book omitted them.)

The chapters on the world and on Sharn are likewise fine, but there's just too much repeated material here - basically, this is now the fourth time they've gone over this ground, and nothing much has changed. The descriptions here are fine, but they're not spectacular.

And, likewise, the bestiary is fine, but not much new, as is the section on treasures.

Where there is perhaps some significant value is in the chapter on Eberron adventures. This is good stuff, I think. Unfortunately, by the time I got here I was generally just wanting to be done with the book, and everything I read seemed to make me less enthusiastic to play a game in Eberron, not moreso. That's a real shame, and probably not fair on either the book or the setting.

And yet...

If you're a 5e DM who wants to run a game in Eberron, you probably need some sort of support for it. And given the choice between this book and the "Wayfarer's Guide", this is the one to go for. My problem, I think, is not with this book at all, which is all fine, but purely to do with the amount of repeated material - as I said, I'm now on my fourth repeat of most of this stuff, and that's not ideal. But if you've skipped the "Wayfarer's Guide", and especially if you've skipped the 4e books, I expect this one would be much more favourably received.

(Of course, the other option is to get this book but to not bother actually reading it. Instead, use it for reference as appropriate - use it only for the updates on the mechanical elements. That should work fine.)

The Beginning of the End of the Beginning

I'm now rethinking some parts of my ongoing campaign. Basically, I think the story has gotten bogged down in too many subplots without enough forward momentum. And while, to a certain extent, a lot of what has been laid out should now start to come together into some sort of sense, I'm thinking I'll start pressing towards that first 'crucible' rather more quickly than I had perhaps originally intended. I think it's time to move on from the initial "introductions" phase to the second "rising action" phase.

To that end, I'm going to look to bring many of the subplots to an end reasonably sharply, look to advancing the PCs in XP quite quickly, and get to work introducing the required exposition. And then into the crucible, and on to the next phase.

I'm also inclined to keep the next phase reasonably short - there are three plots that the PCs need to resolve, and I'm inclined not to complicate that with too many additional subplots. There are two PC secrets to address still, and one descent into darkness and madness, but otherwise I'm hoping to keep that section reasonably well focused.

And then there is a false climax (which is actually a second crucible), and then straight on to the final showdown.

My initial goal for the campaign was for it to last a year, but that was back when we had 90 minutes of play per week. With us dropping to just one hour a week, that suggests completion a year from now. I think I'd like to get it done sooner than that, but we'll need to see how reasonable that is.

Halflings of Terafa

The name 'halfling', unlike 'elf' or 'dwarf', is not one that the people so called chose for themselves. Instead, halflings were named as such by humans, as a reflection of the small stature of these folk.

This curious naming reflects two things about halflings, in that it reflects both their origin and their relationship with another race.

There are several halfling peoples of Terafa. Although they are culturally distinct, they are one people, and the various tribes maintain mostly cordial relations on the relatively rare occasions when they meet in numbers.

In particular, all the halfling peoples share a common creation myth: they all speak of a forbidden love between goddess and mortal. So great was the prowess of this rogue that he dared sneak even into Choriam's heavenly palace and steal the heart of the heavenly princess Shallanah. Shallanah eloped with her paramour and bore him several children. But as the decades passed she discovered her folly, for her love remained mortal and their children likewise, and it tore her heart to watch them age, sicken, and die.

In time, Shallanah returned home, chagrined. But before she did she took steps to protect her children from the wrath of Choriam, fearful that her sire might punish her offspring for the sins of their father. To that end she reduced their stature, and charged them to wander the world always, and never to draw too much notice to themselves.

Today, the halflings of Terafa remain wanderers through the land. There are four families of halflings, though all four remain cordial, if somewhat distant, relations. A halfling from any of the four families can generally expect a hospitable welcome from any of their kin.

The most numerous of the families are the Holbytlan. These halflings wander the roads of Terafa in great caravans. They bring news of far-off places, exotic and interesting crops and trade goods, and a measure of good cheer and song when they travel. The holbytlan are also the most martial of the families, as their caravans tend not to be very agile, and so are at risk of attack from bandits and other menaces.

Next most numerous are the passive (some would say indolent) Arfarvegur, the river folk. Dwelling on large barges, these halflings make their way around the rivers and other waterways of Terafa. They typically follow a circuit through the years, retracing a fixed path with the passing of the seasons. As such, the Arfarvegur are much more insular than the other families, less prone to interactions with humans, and both less welcoming and less welcome.

Dwelling in the towns and cities of men are the Arbergur, the urban halflings. The most settled and least mobile of the families, the Arbergur tend therefore to be few in numbers and low in profile in any given settlement. They focus on hiding, rather than mobility, for their safety.

Finally, travelling the seas in the ships of men are the Oameni. The most scattered of the four families, these halflings are much-demanded crewmen for merchant vessels, as their small stature and agility makes them ideal for many tasks onboard ship. The Oameni pride themselves on travelling further than any other halflings, and when members of the four families gather, they tend to take the honours for the best stories told.

About Subraces: In the days of 1st and 2nd Edition halflings were divided into three subraces (Hairfeets, Tallfellows, and Stouts). In 5e, they are divided into two (Lightfoot and Stout). Neither of these has any great correlation to the four families. A player should simply choose whichever subrace best fits the character they wish to play, which can be associated with any of the four families. (Or, indeed, could be an orphan from the families, or some offshoot branch of the family tree...)

One Last Note: The Vistani

For my ongoing Ravenloft campaign, I have decided to recast the Vistani as halflings, and reuse some of the lore I have associated with the Holbytlan family. The Vistani will be a halfling family offshoot that is in some way touched by darkness, and is therefore able to pass through the Mists at will, and have some ability to read the Tarokka due to their connection to the Dark Powers.

The reason I am recasting them in this manner is that the Vistani are one of the more problematic elements of Ravenloft lore, tying as they do into a caricature of Romani people. (Unfortunately, D&D settings were particularly bad for this, especially in 2nd Edition days. This particularly harms the Forgotten Realms, which has large number of sub-settings that present a mangled history, with clear parallels to several real-world cultures that are presented in a caricatured or racist manner. I don't envy WotC the task of trying to reconcile that with modern sensibilities in this regard.)

It is, of course, worth noting that simply making the Vistani non-human is not enough to negate this issue. However, it is a first step towards recasting them entirely, divorcing them from a problematic origin and moving towards something I'm happier to actually use. And since they're one of the key setting elements of Ravenloft, being able to comfortably use the Vistani is something of a must.

Oops

I've just fallen afoul of my big weakness when running 5e - I have a nasty tendency to misjudge the difficulty of encounters. Fortunately, this time the opposition were intent on capturing the PCs rather than killing them, so it hasn't completely derailed the campaign, but it's still not an ideal outcome.

Of course, the way that this always seems to fall out is that the encounter is pitched to be "about right", and then the PCs contrive some way to go in at less than full effectiveness, and then proceed to botch a few key rolls, and then the dominoes topple.

But on the other hand... yeah, it was just that bit too tough for them to deal with.

No matter. As noted, this hasn't derailed the campaign, though it will take it in a somewhat different direction. The next session is likely to be taken up with fixing the mess and getting back on track, and then things will proceed normally. So it's not too bad.

It is, however, something I definitely need to work on.

Some Thoughts on Remote Gaming

We've now had a few sessions of the campaign run remotely. It has actually worked quite well. A few thoughts...

1. We're not using any sort of a virtual tabletop. This means that we're not exposed to any of the things that they can do for you... but it also means we're not tempted to be dazzled by the technology either. My feeling is that for a 'real' campaign run online, I would probably want to at least look into some of those options.
   
2. Because we don't have shared online dice rollers (because of the absence of a VTT), it's important that I'm able to trust my players. But these days my policy is that I won't game with people I don't trust, so that's probably a non-issue.
   
3. The big difficulty comes when multiple people talk at once. Conversely, there's a risk that the conversation be dominated by one or two big personalities. (In a physical game, I would try to deliberately engage anyone who looked left out. Virtually, that works much less well.) So it's important to be extra-mindful of such things.
   
4. The meeting invitation allows for various things to be attached. This has been generally useful, and made up for some of the lack from not having a VTT.

Other than that, though, it has pretty much just felt like a game, just being run remotely. I'm rather surprised how little difference that it seems to have made. Which, under the circumstances, is very nice.

That said, my feeling is that once this is all over and done with, we'll revert back to face-to-face gaming, and I don't envisage doing lots of additional online gaming as a consequence of this. But this all does raise at least one interesting possibility that might be worth looking in to...

Star Trek: Picard

I rather enjoyed "Picard", though it was rather variable in pacing and quality (and I felt the finale was a bit of a let down - probably caused by them unexpectedly getting a second season). However, more than anything I felt that "Picard" was a massive gift to gamers running campaigns in the "Star Trek" universe. There are several reasons for this:

• Previously, "Star Trek" has been all about large ships with crews numbering in the hundreds. This is fine, but the approach in "Picard" with a much smaller crew (and, crucially, a ship that requires only a very small crew) is much more fitting for RPG model of a small party.
  
• "Picard" also showed us a much more fractured universe than the typical "Star Trek" utopia. To an extent I find that a little unfortunate, as I think there is a place for that sort of ultra-optimistic science fiction. (And I don't agree that it is somehow 'dated'. Grimdark is not the same as mature.) However, it does benefit gaming, where there is suddenly a lot of scope for assembling a rag-tag band of misfits from around the quadrant and sticking their noses into all sorts of dark corners.
  
• The end of the monolithic Romulan Empire and the decline of the Federation (coupled with, one presumes, a somewhat resurgent Klingon Empire, whatever threats are lurking in the Gamma Quadrant now that the Dominion have been neutralised, and the lingering threat of the Borg remnant) makes for some very interesting places to go and things to do.
  
• Perhaps more than anything, "Picard" showed us a seedy underbelly of the galaxy, what with those Fenris Rangers flying around, all manner of criminal enterprises and bounty hunters wandering around, and so forth. Again, that's all good stuff from an RPG point of view.
  
• Of course, if the PCs aren't part of the Federation (or aren't officially part of the Federation), that means they aren't bound by the Prime Directive, and Federation ethics more generally. That gives scope for a lot more roguish behaviour than is perhaps obvious in the regular campaign model.
  
• Simply by presenting the galaxy at the end of the 24th century, that being right at the end of the timeline as fleshed out by ST:TNG, DS9, Voyager, and the movies, they've provided a very clean starting point for gaming - you're not about to but into existing lore, and you've got a reasonably detailed setting to work with. (Previously the end point was Voyager, which was set largely in the Delta Quadrant and so well out of the way; and Nemesis, which was not hugely detailed.)

For what it's worth, if I were to run a "Star Trek" campaign just now, my inclination is still to go for that "Enterprise-B" campaign I've discussed before. I'm a sucker for the classics. But I do think that "Picard" has done GMs eyeing up Trek for RPG use a world of good.

The Value of a Good Foil

After many years of putting it off, I've been reading through the Sharpe novels by Bernard Cornwell. One of the things I've found very interesting is a comment in his foreword to "Sharpe's Eagle" (the first novel written): "One of the first things I learned was that Sharpe's enemies, by and large, had to be British. I had thought, before I began writing, that the French would provide him with enemies enough, but the circumstances of war meant that Sharpe spent much more time with the British than with the enemy French, and if he was to be unendingly challenged, irritated, obstructed and angered them the provocations had to come from people with whom he was constantly associated."

The application of this to RPGs is obvious, I think: although the PCs will spend a significant amount of their time doing battle with all sorts of monsters, and although they will end up pitting themselves against some terrible BBEG in their campaign efforts, the truth is that most such monsters appear for all of five rounds of combat and then they're gone. And the scope for recurring villains is surprisingly low in RPGs - it's surprisingly uncommon to meet the same opponent for a second time not to mention a third or more.

All of which means that the "villain you love to hate" is actually unlikely to be a monster or the BBEG in the campaign.

But if he is instead a foil - someone on the PCs' own side with whom they cross paths many times but, for whatever reason, cannot simply kill and have done with it? That's someone they can really learn to hate. And when they finally get their hard-earned victory over this opponent, that will be one to savour.

Prepping a Campaign: The Quest for Memory

One of the things I want to try to do during lockdown is put together at least the beginnings of another campaign. Depending on how long this lasts, there may be an inkling of running a second weekly session in some format, in which case it is good to be prepared.

Of the three campaign outlines I discussed a few months ago, the one that I have chosen is "The Quest for Memory", mostly because it is the most 'classic' of the three - it features lots of dungeon crawling, lots of quests, fighting monsters and searching for treasure, and all that good stuff.

Due to the limitations of the likely format, my feeling is that this campaign is best presented with several pregenerated characters. Specifically, I am looking at eight such characters - two in each of the four 'roles' (those still exist, although they're much looser in 5e than 4e), numbering one elf, one dwarf, and one halfling amongst their number (the rest being human). My intention, I think, is to create those characters first, and then flesh out the rest of the campaign.

Well, mostly. I also intend the campaign to centre around one big dungeon with two unopenable doors. Thus is will run from 1st to 9th level (approx), with the structure being that levels 1-2 will introduce the PCs to this dungeon, then levels 3-5 will feature several quests, this will open the first door and give a crucible at levels 5-6. Levels 6-8 will then feature more, wider-ranging, quests, before opening the second door and bringing us to the second crucible at levels 8-9. That then sets up the climax of the campaign, targeted for 9th level.

The side dish for the campaign is the search for treasure - in addition to gaining XP for completing encounters and quests, the PCs will gain a minor award for locating any of the unattended treasures found throughout the campaign area. The intention here is that PCs should be encouraged to explore the area, rather than just focusing on their current quest with laser-like precision.

At least, that's the plan. How well it will work... that's another question.

Crucibles

I mentioned in my last post that the PCs would eventually be undergoing a 'crucible', but I didn't define what that was.

As I discussed some time ago, I have adopted a new campaign structure which is split into phases of three levels each, each with a beginning, middle, and end. Indeed, it's a bit more nebulous than that - each phase would start at a common point before spinning off into lots of little threads, before finally coming together for the end.

The way I ensure that the campaign has these common starting and end points is by putting them behind a crucible. These serve as both a gate to the next phase of the campaign and also as the big tentpole adventures of the campaign. And, to ensure that the PCs are ready (-ish) for the crucible, they must 'earn' the right to enter - by collecting literal keys, by completing missions for a patron who can open the door, or whatever. Or, of course, they can sneak in - it they're good enough to do that, they're good enough to take their chances.

The upcoming crucible for "The Mists of Lamordia" should take the PCs from 5th level up to 6th, and will effectively open the door to the wider world beyond Ludendorf - it's not that the PCs can't go beyond; it's just that right now they'd be wandering aimlessly. But we're a little away from that point just now...

Toppling Dominos

The campaign has suddenly, and quite definitely, moved into a second phase. The first phase saw a whole lot of stuff being introduced and the start of mysteries laid out. Now, in the second phase, a lot of that material starts to come good. Secrets are revealed, treasures are collected, and plots advance. It's all good stuff - I just wish we'd got here sooner.

The latest goings-on:

• One of the PCs has accepted the Enticement, beginning his orbit around the Dark Powers. Which is nice.
  
• The PCs have collected a journal belonging to one of the Big Bads, which has given them a huge insight into the nature of the realm they're stuck in, the nature of the challenges they'll face, and one of the core mysteries.
  
• The PCs have also gathered a magic item that will be of significant aid to them later.
  
• Meanwhile, there are a lot of plot threads bouncing around the campaign, some very important and some less so. These should give plenty of material for them to advance in levels - my hope is that they'll get from 3rd up to 5th level in the current phase, before undergoing a 'crucible' before moving to the next phase, and 6th level.

All in all, I'm really happy with how it has been going recently. Naturally, that means we'll be facing a TPK in the next couple of weeks!

Going Remote

It looks like we're going to switch to remote working, and as a consequence it looks like my campaign will be switching to a virtual gathering. Unfortunately, the campaign doesn't suit itself terribly well to a remote tabletop (no fancy maps for us), and there are IT issues there anyway.

But it will make for an interesting challenge. Either we'll adopt to a new gaming arrangement, or we may end up putting the game onto a long, and perhaps permanent, hiatus. I guess we'll see.

Filing the Serial Numbers

One of the weaknesses of my current campaign, and indeed Ravenloft as a whole, is that the setting is very much a set of gothic novels and other source materials with the serial numbers filed off - and not all that well. So there is a near-Dracula, a near-Frankenstein, a near-Wolfman, and so on and so forth. This week I came to a point where the PCs are due to get a major data dump, in the form of a journal by that near-Frankenstein.

I have done, I think, a reasonable job of clearing out some of the more obvious, er, homages in the source material, have re-jigged a few things, changed a few others, and arrived at something that is a bit less obviously just Frankenstein repackaged... but it's still pretty obviously Frankenstein repackaged.

Oh well. I try to remind myself that originality is over-rated - it's delivery that counts. And thus far the campaign has been going well, so really who cares if they end up going against Frankenstein and/or his monster at the end of the campaign. There's still plenty of other material between now and then.

All that said, part of me does wonder if Ravenloft wouldn't have been better had they just outright used Dracula, Frankenstein et al, without bothering to file the serial numbers at all?

The Dark Powers Check

The work game on Thursday was both quite exciting but also had a rather unexpected outcome - the PCs took an action I really didn't expect, and then didn't feel overly good about it. There's going to be some considerable fallout from that, which is nice.

One of the consequences of this was that I decided to go looking for the "Dark Powers Check" that was a fixture of the 2nd Edition iteration of Ravenloft. The result was, unfortunately, unspectacular: the base chance of an action coming to the notice of the Dark Powers is 1%, modified by the DM based on... not much, really.

The upshot of this is that it's actually unlikely that the PCs will ever fail one of these checks, never mind multiple checks over the course of a campaign.

So, I won't be doing that.

What I think is rather more interesting, and what I'll therefore be doing, is instead having the PCs come to the notice of the Dark Powers whenever I think they might - and at that point they are given a choice. Of course, they might not know that it's a choice...

So, in the particular instance in question, one of my PCs will be receiving a gift from "his guardian angel". That PC may then try out this gift or not, and in so doing will either accept or reject the enticement.

The initial stage of corruption will then see the PC gain some small power in return for a minor, cosmetic change to the character. But as with all good temptations, only the first taste is free.

Per the "Ravenloft" setting book, there are six stages in the fall to corruption:

1. The Enticement: The character is presented with an offer that is too good to be true, offered either as an outright gift or as a reward for some good service. The offer may, of course, be accepted or rejected. If accepted, the character gains a free skill proficiency (or upgrades a proficiency to expertise), in return for some minor cosmetic change to the character (with no mechanical effect). But then they move on to...
   
2. The Invitation: The PC is approached by a friendly NPC who starts to draw them into the darker mysteries of the realm. Initially, this just involves coming into the orbit of a cult dedicated to the Dark Powers, with no expectation from the PC. After a few meetings, though, the PC is invited to formally join the organisation. If they do so, the PC gains another minor power, equivalent to the feat, but suffers a more noticeable, although still minor, disfigurement.
   
3. The Embrace: This is the point where things get serious. At the behest of the cult, the PC is asked to perform some clearly evil act. In return, they will be initiated into some deeper mysteries of the cult. In doing so, they suffer another, more serious, disfigurement, but the reward is another free feat or a fairly powerful magic item.
   
4. The Touch of Darkness: This is as far as I expect it to go. The PC is offered control of the cult, deeper magic, or some other major boon, but must commit to the service of the Dark Powers...
   
5. Creature of Ravenloft: I don't expect the campaign to ever get this far, so I'll leave this blank for now. If need be, the 2nd Edition materials will provide guidance.
   
6. Lord of a Domain: As above.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the PC in question may reject the Enticement out of hand, and that no further opportunities for this to come into play will appear. But we'll see - this campaign is starting to get really quite interesting...