Last night I finished the layout of the first and final page of my revised character sheet (as mentioned previously, I started at the back and worked forward). This is actually the second time it has been 'finished' - the previous time I printed it and immediately saw two things I felt I had to change. It's better now.
My aim for this project was that the final result would consist of four files: a revised four-page character sheet, a revised two-page spell sheet (for multiclass spellcasters), a four-page auto-calculating character form, and a two-page spell form (there isn't really anything to calculate on this). Two of these are now complete.
My next step is to start turning pages 3 and 4 of the character sheet into a form. This will do double duty: obviously it will give me half (albeit the easy half) of the character form, but via a simple Save As it will also give me the spell form. Then it's the form fields for pages 2 and then 1, and then the auto-calculations.
There's still a fairly long way to go, but that's another big step forward. And then I'll need another project...
Tuesday, 28 January 2020
Monday, 20 January 2020
So Far So Good - But a Controversial Choice Looms
Some onths ago I posted that I was planning to design a new character sheet for 5e, to finally get to a point where I'm happy with the sheet I'm using. (I've seen a lot of variant sheets in the interim, but none have really hit the spot. So I've concluded I have to do it myself.) Of course, time being in short supply, I then did nothing about it until very recently.
With the start of the new year, I finally made time to start work on the project, and that started by making a crucial decision - rather than design a new sheet from whole cloth I would take the existing official sheet, fix what I see as the weaknesses, and go from there. The reason for that was simple: although I felt the existing sheet was badly flawed, I did really like the graphical design of the sheet. So a modification rather than a redesign should give the best of both worlds.
That redesign started with the spell sheet, which was actually split into two: a sheet for 'minor' spellcasters (anyone of up to 10th level, but also Paladins, Rangers, Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters, and Warlocks of any level), and a sheet for 'major' spellcasters (high-level Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards). The first of these then had space for more spells at each level and, crucially, a box specifically for spellcasting traits. I completed those two sheets quite quickly, and am very happy with the results.
Next was the 'back' of the main character sheet. This contains character details such as backstory, portrait, faction sigils, and so on. Updating this sheet was mostly about moving things around. I've removed the individual spaces for things like hair and eye colour, in favour of a general "Appearance" box (so that if a player wants to carefully detail eye colour, for instance, but doesn't care about hair, they can use the space accordingly). I've also added a largish box for roleplaying notes, intended to include whatever details of Alignment, Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, Oaths, Pacts, or whatever else the player cares to note. Otherwise, it's just a case of shrinking some boxes, expanding others, and shifting things around. It didn't take long.
But the bulk of the effort was always going to be the 'front' of the main character sheet. And this is the stage that's currently in progress. I now have a 'final' design in mind, so mostly I just need to work to get it done...
I mentioned a "controversial choice". One of the things I have done with the sheet is to remove the individual spaces for Skills. The reason for this is that I intend to shuft my play away from asking for "a Perform check" and towards "a Charisma check, where your Perform proficiency applies". By rights, this is the way 5e is supposed to operate, but it's largely obfuscated by that box. So, if it works out, it will be great.
My fear, of course, is that it won't work out, and I'll end up defaulting to skill checks. In which case the revised sheet will be less good than it really should be. So I may end up having to do another redesign. But I can't know that until I try it.
All that said, I think the revised sheet remains at least a month away from real use - even when I have the final page designed, I still need to convert the source files back into PDF (actually two PDFs: one containing all four sheets, and a spellcaster sheet for use by multiclass characters), then turn those into fillable forms (and then auto-calculating fillable forms).
Still, it's good to have made so much progress, and to find myself in a place where I might actually be happy with the character sheet I'm using!
With the start of the new year, I finally made time to start work on the project, and that started by making a crucial decision - rather than design a new sheet from whole cloth I would take the existing official sheet, fix what I see as the weaknesses, and go from there. The reason for that was simple: although I felt the existing sheet was badly flawed, I did really like the graphical design of the sheet. So a modification rather than a redesign should give the best of both worlds.
That redesign started with the spell sheet, which was actually split into two: a sheet for 'minor' spellcasters (anyone of up to 10th level, but also Paladins, Rangers, Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters, and Warlocks of any level), and a sheet for 'major' spellcasters (high-level Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards). The first of these then had space for more spells at each level and, crucially, a box specifically for spellcasting traits. I completed those two sheets quite quickly, and am very happy with the results.
Next was the 'back' of the main character sheet. This contains character details such as backstory, portrait, faction sigils, and so on. Updating this sheet was mostly about moving things around. I've removed the individual spaces for things like hair and eye colour, in favour of a general "Appearance" box (so that if a player wants to carefully detail eye colour, for instance, but doesn't care about hair, they can use the space accordingly). I've also added a largish box for roleplaying notes, intended to include whatever details of Alignment, Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, Oaths, Pacts, or whatever else the player cares to note. Otherwise, it's just a case of shrinking some boxes, expanding others, and shifting things around. It didn't take long.
But the bulk of the effort was always going to be the 'front' of the main character sheet. And this is the stage that's currently in progress. I now have a 'final' design in mind, so mostly I just need to work to get it done...
I mentioned a "controversial choice". One of the things I have done with the sheet is to remove the individual spaces for Skills. The reason for this is that I intend to shuft my play away from asking for "a Perform check" and towards "a Charisma check, where your Perform proficiency applies". By rights, this is the way 5e is supposed to operate, but it's largely obfuscated by that box. So, if it works out, it will be great.
My fear, of course, is that it won't work out, and I'll end up defaulting to skill checks. In which case the revised sheet will be less good than it really should be. So I may end up having to do another redesign. But I can't know that until I try it.
All that said, I think the revised sheet remains at least a month away from real use - even when I have the final page designed, I still need to convert the source files back into PDF (actually two PDFs: one containing all four sheets, and a spellcaster sheet for use by multiclass characters), then turn those into fillable forms (and then auto-calculating fillable forms).
Still, it's good to have made so much progress, and to find myself in a place where I might actually be happy with the character sheet I'm using!
Friday, 10 January 2020
House Rule: Ammunition
I've been pondering what to do with ammunition for weapons like bows, crossbows, slings, and blowguns. On the one hand, I really don't want to have to micro-manage the tracking of ammunition (since it's a pain), but on the other hand I feel there needs to be something there to keep them on a parity with thrown weapons (and also so as not to make a mockery of encumbrance).
So, here's my latest thinking:
The net effect of all of this is that a PC should expect to drop from a full ammunition pool to a single die after either 5 or 6 encounters. If it is assumed that a standard encounter uses 6ish arrows, this provides a similar rate to that provided by the standard rules, without the need to track 20 individual arrows (complete with 50% recovery rate).
So, here's my latest thinking:
- Ammunition supplies will be rated as a number of d6. For instance, a character will have a quiver of arrows (3d6), or similar. Note that this is a rough guide to the number of arrows present, not an exact total.
- A full ammunition pool is 4d6. Characters may not carry additional quivers of arrows to give an expanded pool. An ammunition pool may be purchased for 1gp, and counts as a single item towards the character's encumbrance.
- At the end of any combat where the character uses his weapon even once, that dice pool may be depleted. The number of dice listed should be rolled. If any dice show a '1', the ammunition pool is reduced by that number. For instance, if the character had a quiver of arrows (3d6), he should roll 3d6. If the result is '1', '4', '5', he now has a quiver of arrows (2d6).
- If the ammunition pool is reduced to 1d6 or even to 0, roll 1d6. This is now the exact number of arrows remaining to the character. So if our hero had a quiver of arrows (3d6) and rolled '1, '1', '5' (or '1', '1', '1'), he should now reroll 1d6 to give a final number of arrows. And so he finds he has 3 arrows remaining. These must be tracked individually, and cannot be recovered after use.
- The above assumes that the character is able to recover expended ammunition after a combat. If the character is not able to do so (whether because he fled combat, he doesn't have time to search, or other reasons), he should first reduce his ammunition pool by 1 and then roll the remaining pool. So if our hero had a quiver of arrows (3d6) and flees combat, he should roll 2d6. If this returns '3', '4', he now has a quiver of arrows (2d6). Note that blowgun ammunition (and also gunpowder weapons) are exempt from this, as they are not meaningfully recovered. Note also that ammunition pools already take this into account.
- Ammunition may be shared from one character to another, but always in batches of 1d6. If this results in a character having an ammunition pool of just 1d6, that character should immediately roll 1d6 to determine the exact number of arrows.
- If the DM feels that an attempt is being made to game the above system by splitting and consolidating quivers repeatedly, he can declare that all single-die ammunition pools have a single item of ammunition present, and cannot be further consolidated.
- If the party is able to loot arrows from a fallen enemy, these provide an ammunition pool of 1d6 per foe. These may be divided amongst any number of PCs, with the caveat that no PC can exceed a full ammunition pool.
- All ammunition pools may be refreshed in any settlement where ammunition may be purchased, free of charge. (Expended ammunition pools are not refreshed - the character must purchase a new quiver of arrows to gain a new ammunition pool.)
The net effect of all of this is that a PC should expect to drop from a full ammunition pool to a single die after either 5 or 6 encounters. If it is assumed that a standard encounter uses 6ish arrows, this provides a similar rate to that provided by the standard rules, without the need to track 20 individual arrows (complete with 50% recovery rate).
Thursday, 9 January 2020
D&D Essentials Kit
This was one of the things I got for Christmas, having seen it in a store in December and then finding a very nice discount on Amazon. (As an aside, I don't feel particularly good about that, but when Amazon are offering 40% off, and that's the difference between "too much" and "sure, why not", it's hard to argue with it. But I digress.) This is a revised starter set for D&D fifth edition, although it looks like the existing Starter Set is to remain in print, which makes for a rather confusing offering: they now have the Starter Set, the Essentials Kit, a "Stranger Things" starter set, and a "Rick & Morty" set - four products doing essentially the same thing all competing in the marketplace.
My initial thought is that this is a very impressive set, and that in all aspects but one it blows the "Starter Set" out of the water. But that one aspect that remains is a big one. I'm also inclined to think that this set is a worthy contender against the old Pathfinder "Beginnner Box", which thus far has been what I've considered the gold standard for these things. Though, again, there is one exception that leaps to mind...
Firstly, let's take a quick look at the "extras". This box is fairly packed with them, and they're quite impressive.
We have the obligatory set of dice. This includes the standard 6 dice, but also includes a second d20 (for dis/advantage), a second d10 marked with the 10's (for d%), and four d6. This is a really nice touch, instantly covering the major multi-dice rolls. My only nitpick is that the dice aren't colour-coded, but to be honest I didn't expect they would be.
The set also comes with six blank character sheets. These are okay as far as they go, except that the standard 5e character sheet pretty much sucks, and these days the go-to place for character sheets is really online. These are okay, but... meh. (Incidentally, this is where the one aspect that the Beginner Box does better comes in - that box includes double-page spreads breaking out and explaining the sections of the character sheet. Adding one of those would probably be a better use of resource than a handful of blank character sheets. That is, of course, a pretty small detail.)
Moving beyond the standards, the box includes a fairly basic (but, IMO, quite nice) DM's screen and a double-sided map (the Sword Coast on one side, and Phandulin on the other). Two nice-to-have items here.
Then there are the cards, and a flat-packed box in which to hold them. There are, I think, 81 cards, including Initiative cards (1 to 9), Sidekick cards, Condition cards (very nice), and Magic Item cards for the items included in the adventure. These are all pretty great, and much appreciated.
Finally, the set includes a flyer advertising other products, notably the core rulebooks and D&D Beyond. However, whereas the equivalent flyer in the "Starter Set" could be disregarded as mere advertising, this one includes access codes for some expanded material, and a 50% discount for both the "Essentials Kit" adventure and also the "Player's Handbook" in D&D Beyond. So if you're interested in such things, this is good stuff. (And, actually, it means that if you're about to buy into D&D Beyond, and are going to purchase the PHB on that platform, this flyer alone pretty much pays back the cost of the "Essentials Kit", especially if you do get a big discount somewhere.)
So, those are the extras, and a fine bunch they are. And now the meat of the set: the two books.
Like the "Starter Set", the "Essentials Kit" comes with a rulebook that gives the basic rules of the game. In this case, however, the rulebook is 64 pages long (rather than 48), includes rules for advancing as far as 6th level, and includes character creation. It also includes the basics for the four most popular races (human, dwarf, elf, halfling), the five most popular classes (fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue... and bard) each with two subclasses, and five backgrounds. So there are a decent number of customisation options here. The book then gives concise equipment, combat, and exploration rules, details a basic set of spells for each class, and gives details of a number of magic items. The book then ends with a brief appendix giving the Sidekick "rules" (though it's a bit of a stretch calling them rules - there's a handful of paragraphs and three stat blocks), which are both very nice, and ideal for one-on-one play; and then the back cover serves as a second appendix of conditions.
Three thoughts about the rulebook: Firstly, this is a vast improvement over the one in the "Starter Set", which was really hampered by the absence of character creation. Secondly, there's almost nothing new here (the exception being the sidekick rules). But, thirdly, this book really puts the Core Rulebooks to shame, especially as it seems most games are in that 1-6 level range, and almost nobody plays higher than about 12th level. There's just so much unnecessary crap in the core rulebooks, and I'm inclined to think we'd be better off ditching most of it. Indeed, one could almost produce a boxed set the same size as this one containing only two 128-page softcover books, and include everything worthwhile from the three core rulebooks for levels 1-12... and that product alone would then be sufficient for almost every group out there.
Thus far, this is an outstanding product. As I said, it's a vast improvement over the "Starter Set", and it is most certainly the set I would recommend to new groups. The only remaining item is a 64-page adventure, "Dragon of Icespire Peak", designed to take characters from 1st level up to 6th.
Now, the first thing I have to say about this adventure is that it's not bad. This is an adventure you could buy, read, and run as-is and have a good time. So that's a pass-mark in my book.
But the problem is has is that the adventure in the "Starter Set", "Lost Mine of Phandelver" is a genuine classic, by far the best adventure WotC have produced for 5e, and quite possibly the best WotC have produced for D&D ever. "Dragon of Icespire Peak"... isn't. It's a collection of mini-quests all centred around the town of Phandulin - PCs are expected to pick a quest, go off and complete that quest, and return for tea and biscuits. Rinse, repeat, and then kill a dragon.
That's fine, so far as it goes. But it lacks the immediate hook of "Lost Mine" (which saw the PCs starting with a small dungeon incursion), and it also lacks the gradual build of complexity of "Lost Mine" (which started small and gradually opened up, while also gradually guiding the DM to more and greater things - eventually ending with an exhortation to create an adventure of his own). This one basically presents a bunch of stuff, and leaves the DM to get on with it.
(Though, funnily enough, one other newish DM I spoke to commented that he didn't find "Lost Mine" particularly well presented, in that the details could disappear in the text. I daresay he'd find this one easier to follow.)
It's also worth noting that this adventure doesn't really contain enough material to take PCs from 1st to 6th level. Instead it uses milestone advancement - PCs gain 1 level for completing each of their first two "starter quests", and then 1 level for completing two "follow-on quests". And they gain a level for slaying the dragon. This takes them to 6th level if they complete almost everything, but those individual quests are very small. Play it out using standard XP awards, and you won't get that far.
(Oh, one more thing: one of the features I really liked about "Lost Mine" was that there was one encounter that was really tough, and that would almost certainly lead to a TPK if the PCs just barged in. This set doesn't have that - while a TPK is possible, PCs can afford to be much more bullish as the set tries hard to avoid challenges that are just too tough. I don't consider that a positive development.)
So...
The best thing about "Dragon of Icespire Peak" is that is does serve as a really nice complement to "Lost Mine of Phandelver" - it's set in the same region but uses different areas in the sandbox. So one ideal possibility is to take the quests and encounters here and add them in to "Lost Mine", and run a combined adventure as a mini-campaign. You'd need to revert the "Dragon..." quests to 'normal' XP awards, but that's no bad thing.
In terms of a recommendation: my view of the "Starter Set" is that you should only buy it if you plan on running "Lost Mine of Phandelver", but that I'd recommend the set for that adventure alone. My view of the "Essentials Kit" is that it's a much better offering for new players, and so I would recommend it unreservedly for such groups. However I wouldn't recommend the "Essentials Kit" for more advanced groups, as the adventure doesn't sustain the recommendation by itself, and while the extras are nice-to-have, they're not that good.
However, for both beginners and more experienced groups, I would be inclined to suggest that if you have funds to hand then get both. Combining "Lost Mine of Phandelver" with "Dragon of Icespire Peak" should give a really nice mini-campaign of general utility, while new groups will benefit from the Rulebook and other items from the "Essentials Kit".
My initial thought is that this is a very impressive set, and that in all aspects but one it blows the "Starter Set" out of the water. But that one aspect that remains is a big one. I'm also inclined to think that this set is a worthy contender against the old Pathfinder "Beginnner Box", which thus far has been what I've considered the gold standard for these things. Though, again, there is one exception that leaps to mind...
Firstly, let's take a quick look at the "extras". This box is fairly packed with them, and they're quite impressive.
We have the obligatory set of dice. This includes the standard 6 dice, but also includes a second d20 (for dis/advantage), a second d10 marked with the 10's (for d%), and four d6. This is a really nice touch, instantly covering the major multi-dice rolls. My only nitpick is that the dice aren't colour-coded, but to be honest I didn't expect they would be.
The set also comes with six blank character sheets. These are okay as far as they go, except that the standard 5e character sheet pretty much sucks, and these days the go-to place for character sheets is really online. These are okay, but... meh. (Incidentally, this is where the one aspect that the Beginner Box does better comes in - that box includes double-page spreads breaking out and explaining the sections of the character sheet. Adding one of those would probably be a better use of resource than a handful of blank character sheets. That is, of course, a pretty small detail.)
Moving beyond the standards, the box includes a fairly basic (but, IMO, quite nice) DM's screen and a double-sided map (the Sword Coast on one side, and Phandulin on the other). Two nice-to-have items here.
Then there are the cards, and a flat-packed box in which to hold them. There are, I think, 81 cards, including Initiative cards (1 to 9), Sidekick cards, Condition cards (very nice), and Magic Item cards for the items included in the adventure. These are all pretty great, and much appreciated.
Finally, the set includes a flyer advertising other products, notably the core rulebooks and D&D Beyond. However, whereas the equivalent flyer in the "Starter Set" could be disregarded as mere advertising, this one includes access codes for some expanded material, and a 50% discount for both the "Essentials Kit" adventure and also the "Player's Handbook" in D&D Beyond. So if you're interested in such things, this is good stuff. (And, actually, it means that if you're about to buy into D&D Beyond, and are going to purchase the PHB on that platform, this flyer alone pretty much pays back the cost of the "Essentials Kit", especially if you do get a big discount somewhere.)
So, those are the extras, and a fine bunch they are. And now the meat of the set: the two books.
Like the "Starter Set", the "Essentials Kit" comes with a rulebook that gives the basic rules of the game. In this case, however, the rulebook is 64 pages long (rather than 48), includes rules for advancing as far as 6th level, and includes character creation. It also includes the basics for the four most popular races (human, dwarf, elf, halfling), the five most popular classes (fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue... and bard) each with two subclasses, and five backgrounds. So there are a decent number of customisation options here. The book then gives concise equipment, combat, and exploration rules, details a basic set of spells for each class, and gives details of a number of magic items. The book then ends with a brief appendix giving the Sidekick "rules" (though it's a bit of a stretch calling them rules - there's a handful of paragraphs and three stat blocks), which are both very nice, and ideal for one-on-one play; and then the back cover serves as a second appendix of conditions.
Three thoughts about the rulebook: Firstly, this is a vast improvement over the one in the "Starter Set", which was really hampered by the absence of character creation. Secondly, there's almost nothing new here (the exception being the sidekick rules). But, thirdly, this book really puts the Core Rulebooks to shame, especially as it seems most games are in that 1-6 level range, and almost nobody plays higher than about 12th level. There's just so much unnecessary crap in the core rulebooks, and I'm inclined to think we'd be better off ditching most of it. Indeed, one could almost produce a boxed set the same size as this one containing only two 128-page softcover books, and include everything worthwhile from the three core rulebooks for levels 1-12... and that product alone would then be sufficient for almost every group out there.
Thus far, this is an outstanding product. As I said, it's a vast improvement over the "Starter Set", and it is most certainly the set I would recommend to new groups. The only remaining item is a 64-page adventure, "Dragon of Icespire Peak", designed to take characters from 1st level up to 6th.
Now, the first thing I have to say about this adventure is that it's not bad. This is an adventure you could buy, read, and run as-is and have a good time. So that's a pass-mark in my book.
But the problem is has is that the adventure in the "Starter Set", "Lost Mine of Phandelver" is a genuine classic, by far the best adventure WotC have produced for 5e, and quite possibly the best WotC have produced for D&D ever. "Dragon of Icespire Peak"... isn't. It's a collection of mini-quests all centred around the town of Phandulin - PCs are expected to pick a quest, go off and complete that quest, and return for tea and biscuits. Rinse, repeat, and then kill a dragon.
That's fine, so far as it goes. But it lacks the immediate hook of "Lost Mine" (which saw the PCs starting with a small dungeon incursion), and it also lacks the gradual build of complexity of "Lost Mine" (which started small and gradually opened up, while also gradually guiding the DM to more and greater things - eventually ending with an exhortation to create an adventure of his own). This one basically presents a bunch of stuff, and leaves the DM to get on with it.
(Though, funnily enough, one other newish DM I spoke to commented that he didn't find "Lost Mine" particularly well presented, in that the details could disappear in the text. I daresay he'd find this one easier to follow.)
It's also worth noting that this adventure doesn't really contain enough material to take PCs from 1st to 6th level. Instead it uses milestone advancement - PCs gain 1 level for completing each of their first two "starter quests", and then 1 level for completing two "follow-on quests". And they gain a level for slaying the dragon. This takes them to 6th level if they complete almost everything, but those individual quests are very small. Play it out using standard XP awards, and you won't get that far.
(Oh, one more thing: one of the features I really liked about "Lost Mine" was that there was one encounter that was really tough, and that would almost certainly lead to a TPK if the PCs just barged in. This set doesn't have that - while a TPK is possible, PCs can afford to be much more bullish as the set tries hard to avoid challenges that are just too tough. I don't consider that a positive development.)
So...
The best thing about "Dragon of Icespire Peak" is that is does serve as a really nice complement to "Lost Mine of Phandelver" - it's set in the same region but uses different areas in the sandbox. So one ideal possibility is to take the quests and encounters here and add them in to "Lost Mine", and run a combined adventure as a mini-campaign. You'd need to revert the "Dragon..." quests to 'normal' XP awards, but that's no bad thing.
In terms of a recommendation: my view of the "Starter Set" is that you should only buy it if you plan on running "Lost Mine of Phandelver", but that I'd recommend the set for that adventure alone. My view of the "Essentials Kit" is that it's a much better offering for new players, and so I would recommend it unreservedly for such groups. However I wouldn't recommend the "Essentials Kit" for more advanced groups, as the adventure doesn't sustain the recommendation by itself, and while the extras are nice-to-have, they're not that good.
However, for both beginners and more experienced groups, I would be inclined to suggest that if you have funds to hand then get both. Combining "Lost Mine of Phandelver" with "Dragon of Icespire Peak" should give a really nice mini-campaign of general utility, while new groups will benefit from the Rulebook and other items from the "Essentials Kit".
Wednesday, 8 January 2020
Star Wars Gaming post-Rise of Skywalker
When it comes to gaming, I have very mixed feelings about "The Rise of Skywalker". On the one hand, it did leave me really keen to run some games in that universe, especially in the years after that final movie, and especially not featuring Jedi (or many Jedi). On the other hand, the films seemed to show us surprisingly little of the universe beyond the immediate environments of the films themselves - somehow, the original trilogy showed us glimpses of a much bigger universe beyond the films themselves (aided, I think, by every single minor character having a toy, a name, and a backstory). The prequel trilogy, for all their faults, showed us a great deal about the wider universe, that was then expanded on at length in "The Clone Wars" and "Rebels".
But when I think about events beyond the sequel trilogy, I've got nothing - the few environments we do see are either retreads from the older films or seem to wind up destroyed by the end of the trilogy. The First Order is in tatters, but the Resistance has no structure to put in its place, so there's just a vacuum.
One advantage that that does have, I suppose, is that it gives the GM an entirely blank canvas on which to draw - you can use as much or as little of the existing lore as you want, change any of it as you see fit, and ignore the rest. Which is good. It comes at the cost of having to do quite a lot of work yourself (and inevitably seeing it get rewritten as and when Disney produce more material), but that's probably okay.
The upshot is that I think I'd be inclined to set a new campaign a good long time after "The Rise of Skywalker" (about fifty years), and posit a galaxy exhausted by war. Have no central power, but instead lots of factions fighting for dominance. This actually leaves things very much like they are in the old "New Republic" era from the previous canon, but even moreso - where the "New Republic" material assumed that the Rebellion would very quickly consolidate their power and become the dominant force, I'd be inclined to go the other way - everyone just exhausts themselves in war without end, leaving huge gaps for others to exploit.
And then into that I'd start dropping some new antagonists (possibly a powerful AI left over from the Clone War), and assemble a rag-tag group of misfits charged with trying to oppose it. And since the zeitgeist at the moment is pretty apocalyptic, that's the direction I think I'd be inclined to take the game.
But when I think about events beyond the sequel trilogy, I've got nothing - the few environments we do see are either retreads from the older films or seem to wind up destroyed by the end of the trilogy. The First Order is in tatters, but the Resistance has no structure to put in its place, so there's just a vacuum.
One advantage that that does have, I suppose, is that it gives the GM an entirely blank canvas on which to draw - you can use as much or as little of the existing lore as you want, change any of it as you see fit, and ignore the rest. Which is good. It comes at the cost of having to do quite a lot of work yourself (and inevitably seeing it get rewritten as and when Disney produce more material), but that's probably okay.
The upshot is that I think I'd be inclined to set a new campaign a good long time after "The Rise of Skywalker" (about fifty years), and posit a galaxy exhausted by war. Have no central power, but instead lots of factions fighting for dominance. This actually leaves things very much like they are in the old "New Republic" era from the previous canon, but even moreso - where the "New Republic" material assumed that the Rebellion would very quickly consolidate their power and become the dominant force, I'd be inclined to go the other way - everyone just exhausts themselves in war without end, leaving huge gaps for others to exploit.
And then into that I'd start dropping some new antagonists (possibly a powerful AI left over from the Clone War), and assemble a rag-tag group of misfits charged with trying to oppose it. And since the zeitgeist at the moment is pretty apocalyptic, that's the direction I think I'd be inclined to take the game.
Tuesday, 7 January 2020
Campaign Structure
I'm not a fan of the 5e published adventures, with the major exception of "Lost Mine of Phandelver". That said, I am a big fan of one key aspect of those adventures, which is the campaign structure that underlies most of them (and especially LMoP). Indeed, so enamoured am I of that structure that I've essentially adopted it as the way I structure campaigns for my own use. I have, of course, tweaked it somewhat, particularly in light of some of the writings of the Angry GM of whom I am also a fan, and a few things of my own.
That being the case, I'm now inclined to break campaigns down into distinct phases, each 3 levels long (except for the first and the last). Each phase will have a broad beginning-middle-end structure, and each then has a gateway to the next phase. And with each gate, the party moves to a bigger and more dangerous environment.
To get more specific:
This structure is not hugely dissimilar to that from the published adventures - it's lifted mostly from LMoP, but "Storm King's Thunder", "Curse of Strahd" and "Tomb of Annihilation" all feature largish sandbox-y areas broken up with smaller quests. Where this structure differs from those other adventures is that it's a bit more rigid about defining the phases while simultaneously pitching each phase squarely at the middle adventure within the range. The reason for this is that it first throws the PCs at some really tough challenges, then faces them with somewhat easier challenges when they gain a level and then it gets 'easy' once they're at the top level of their range... before another step change to tougher material.
That last may come as a bit of a shock, especially to groups used to the finer balancing of published adventures... but then 5e's balance really isn't all that finely-tuned to begin with, so I doubt that will be too much of an issue.
That being the case, I'm now inclined to break campaigns down into distinct phases, each 3 levels long (except for the first and the last). Each phase will have a broad beginning-middle-end structure, and each then has a gateway to the next phase. And with each gate, the party moves to a bigger and more dangerous environment.
To get more specific:
- Introductory Phase (levels 1-2): This is the start of the campaign, and should begin by very quickly throwing the PCs into some sort of action. The initial phase has two major objectives: introduce the characters to each other (and gel them as a party), and then introduce a home base for the party. The phase should end with a gating adventure that takes them from 2nd to 3rd level.
- Phase 1 (levels 3-5): The party are presented with a local area to explore and a number of minor quests to pursue or not as they see fit. This phase consists of a number of mini-adventures, roughly scoped for 4th level characters, with the party gaining XP as they go. The phase then ends with a gating adventure that takes them from 5th to 6th level.
- Phase 2 (levels 6-8): The party now has a wider area to explore and larger, more wide-ranging quests to pursue or not. This phase consists of a number of mini-quests, roughly scoped for 7th level characters, with the party gaining XP as they go. The phase then ends with a gating adventure that takes them from 8th to 9th level.
- Conclusions (levels 9 - 11): The various plotlines that have been in place to this point are now gradually wrapped up. This phase consists of roughy three adventures, each scoped for 10th level characters. Whichever adventure the PCs deal with last acts as the gating adventure that takes them from 11th to 12th level, and to the endgame.
- Endgame (level 12): The final showdown with the ultimate big-bad. This concludes the campaign with one big adventure scoped for 13th level characters.
This structure is not hugely dissimilar to that from the published adventures - it's lifted mostly from LMoP, but "Storm King's Thunder", "Curse of Strahd" and "Tomb of Annihilation" all feature largish sandbox-y areas broken up with smaller quests. Where this structure differs from those other adventures is that it's a bit more rigid about defining the phases while simultaneously pitching each phase squarely at the middle adventure within the range. The reason for this is that it first throws the PCs at some really tough challenges, then faces them with somewhat easier challenges when they gain a level and then it gets 'easy' once they're at the top level of their range... before another step change to tougher material.
That last may come as a bit of a shock, especially to groups used to the finer balancing of published adventures... but then 5e's balance really isn't all that finely-tuned to begin with, so I doubt that will be too much of an issue.
Monday, 6 January 2020
What I Want From a Published Adventure
I've been gradually reading "Dragon of Icespire Peak", the adventure that came with the D&D "Essentials Kit", and musing on "Lost Mine of Phandelver", the adventure that came with the D&D "Starter Set". The contrast between the two led me to thinking about what I want from a published adventure.
Basically, for me the mark of a good published adventure is this: I can buy it, read it, run it as-written, and have a good experience.
If the adventure is badly presented (or just really complex), such that I have to make a whole lot of notes before I can successfully run it, that's a big negative mark. If the adventure has some good ideas but is badly flawed as-written, such that I have to put in significant effort to 'fix' it, that's a really big negative mark. If the adventure relies on obscure bits of lore that aren't spelled out in the adventure text, and that require me therefore to hunt down some other supplement, then that's another big negative mark. (And if I ever have to Google something, that's a deal-breaker.)
I should note that I don't particularly consider adventure re-use to be a particular positive (since I have enough adventures that I'll never run out, even if I never do anything other than run games for the rest of my life); nor do I particularly consider modularity, the ability to lift chunks of the adventure out to use elsewhere, to be a particular boon. Likewise, if I'm going to run an adventure I'm happy to run it in the game, edition, and setting intended, so the ability to move it elsewhere is no more than a minor nice-to-have.
(I will note that I do consider it acceptable to reference the contents of the core rulebooks for the game and, if applicable, the main book for the chosen setting. Especially if you provide page references so that I know where to find things. But if you need to go into a supplement, you really should be reprinting the salient details.)
Of course, once you've achieved the basics, there are varying levels of 'good' to aspire to. An adventure with a compelling storyline, or interesting mysteries, or a great villain is of course better than one without. But those things come after basic competence has been achieved - they cannot make up for fundamental failings.
Basically, for me the mark of a good published adventure is this: I can buy it, read it, run it as-written, and have a good experience.
If the adventure is badly presented (or just really complex), such that I have to make a whole lot of notes before I can successfully run it, that's a big negative mark. If the adventure has some good ideas but is badly flawed as-written, such that I have to put in significant effort to 'fix' it, that's a really big negative mark. If the adventure relies on obscure bits of lore that aren't spelled out in the adventure text, and that require me therefore to hunt down some other supplement, then that's another big negative mark. (And if I ever have to Google something, that's a deal-breaker.)
I should note that I don't particularly consider adventure re-use to be a particular positive (since I have enough adventures that I'll never run out, even if I never do anything other than run games for the rest of my life); nor do I particularly consider modularity, the ability to lift chunks of the adventure out to use elsewhere, to be a particular boon. Likewise, if I'm going to run an adventure I'm happy to run it in the game, edition, and setting intended, so the ability to move it elsewhere is no more than a minor nice-to-have.
(I will note that I do consider it acceptable to reference the contents of the core rulebooks for the game and, if applicable, the main book for the chosen setting. Especially if you provide page references so that I know where to find things. But if you need to go into a supplement, you really should be reprinting the salient details.)
Of course, once you've achieved the basics, there are varying levels of 'good' to aspire to. An adventure with a compelling storyline, or interesting mysteries, or a great villain is of course better than one without. But those things come after basic competence has been achieved - they cannot make up for fundamental failings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)