Rogues

Over on Part Four, I noted that George R.R. Martin's introduction to the anthology "Rogues" had changed some of my DMing philosophy.

In that introduction, GRRM noted that stories tended to be more satisfying if they starred a character who was in some sense an outsider: the Private Investigator rather than the cop, the "Dirty Harry" type rather than the straight arrow, Wolverine rather than Cyclops (and Batman rather than Superman), a woman in a man's job (or, in the case of Shaft, a black man rubbing up against a white establishment - it's essentially the same conflict). Likewise, one of the strengths of "Star Trek" is that although the Enterprise is one ship in a mighty fleet, they spend the majority of their time right on the frontier and thus unable to call for help quickly - and also empowered to solve issues as they see fit. Bernard Cornwell plays with this same thing again and again - Sharpe is a commoner raised to rank amongst nobles; Uhtred is a pagan amongst Christians; and it's Prince Arthur rather than king - in his telling, Mordred is the rightful heir.

I think there are two big factors to this. Firstly, the protagonists invariably have key skills that make them indispensible to the powers-that-be (or, at the very least, mean they can't be disregarded entirely), and secondly those powers-that-be don't really approve of the protagonists. And so, Dirty Harry keeps getting chewed out by his captain, keeps hitting up against intenal investigations, and so on... but at the same time, he's also the one guy who is able to make actual progress, so he's not simply sacked and replaced.

The application of this to role-playing is nice and simple - the PCs obviously have specialised skills that mean they will remain useful to the powers-that-be, which means it's just a matter of putting foils in their way.

Of course, the key thing here is not to be too agressive in applying those foils. If the PCs are constantly finding they can't make headway, or they're constantly being thwarted, the players are likely to become frustrated. And, in particular, although the foils may frustrate the PCs socially, it's probably very important that they be given free rein to solve problems in their own way - Dirty Harry may have issues with his superiors, but when it comes to "Do I feel lucky?" he's alone with the gun, and can pull the trigger or not.

(Indeed, I suspect this is why Paladins are so often such a problem - they're the guy who does stand there telling their friends "you can't do that!"... and they're in the guise of a PC and so cannot just be ditched by the rest.)

And so, when establishing a campaign, I think I'm going to ask, and address, two key questions:

1. What is it that the PCs can do for their patrons? Why can't those patrons deal with it themselves? Why are they going to be indispensible?
2. What is it that makes those PCs outsiders, rather than the establishment? Who are they at odds with? Who are the foils?

(Obviously, that's more than two questions! But the two groups each address one side of my concern above, so I'm calling it two.)

Artifice - Power Sources

Following on from my discussion of how (mechanically speaking) I might be inclined to handle item crafting, I thought I'd quickly discuss power sources. I always felt that these were one of the better ideas from 4e (along with class and, especially, monster roles), and I'm inclined to think they should be applied to items as well. And, as with class power sources, I'm inclined to think an items power source should be mostly irrelevant - what something does is more important than how it does it. However, sometimes it matters, especially when dealing with dead-magic zones and the like.

Anyway, I'm leaning towards the following power sources:

• Intrinsic: This would be the same power source that Fighters, Rogues and other non-magical characters use (that is, what 4e called "Martial"). In terms of items, it mostly represents items that are better by virtue of their construction - dwarven plate that is simply better-made, mithral shirts that are constructed of sterner stuff, and that sort of thing. Items with an intrinsic power source are not strictly magical, and as such are not affected by anti-magic or the like (but whether intrinsically-powered weapons can affect creatures that require magic items to hit is debatable!).
• Mechanical: These are items powered by clockwork, numerology, alchemy, and other pseudo-sciences in the setting. This would also include things like gunpowder weapons. (But these are not necessarily real-world devices, or indeed anything that could exist at all - hence pseudo-sciences.) As with intrinsically-powered items, mechanical ones are not strictly magical.
• Arcane: The widest-ranging category, these are the classic 'magic items' - anything that is powered by arcane magic, rather than that derived from the gods, the elements, or pseudo-science. This includes the classic scrying pool, the flying carpet, and the like.
• Divine: Anything powered by the gods comes here. The holy avenger is probably the classic item of this kind. Divine items are usually dedicated to a specific god, and heavily marked by divine sigils and marks.
• Primal: Items derived from nature, including planar and elemental magics.
• Psionic: Probably the rarest of items, psionic items generally serve to focus or direct the user's own power. Psionic items mostly have a crystal basis or are made of jade, as both these seem to have an affinity with the power source.
• Composite: It is fairly rare, though not unheard-of for items to combine two power sources (but no more than two). This allows for the combination of effects that wouldn't normally come together into a single item. However, there is a catch: items with a composite power source can only draw on one source at a time, meaning that if the arcane effects are in use, the intrinsic qualities are unavailable.

(Not coincidentally, the power-sources I envisage for character classes are much the same - Intrinsic, Arcane, Divine, Primal, Psionic, and Artifice.)

Of course, all that's largely irrelevant, since I doubt I would ever do anything with it. Still, it's fun to noodle around ideas sometimes.

Crafting Magic Items - a Thought

One irony of recent editions of D&D is that the models for magic item crafting in 3e/4e and 5e are so wildly different and yet I feel both got it wrong.

In the case of 3e and 4e (and Pathfinder), crafting a magic item is mostly a matter of having the money, some easily-gained feats, and some downtime. It's a very 'industrial' process, it's more suited to accounting on a spreadsheet rather than actual gaming, and it's both deadly dull and (almost certainly) unbalanced. (In fact, the ability of Wizards to easily craft themselves scrolls and wands is one of the aspects of 3e that most unbalances the game - it's trivially easy for a Wizard to craft lots of 'utility' scrolls and thus bypass the Vancian casting limits that are the sole balancing factor for the class.)

In the case of 5e, the pendulum has swung almost entirely the other way - magic items are basically something for the PCs to find while adventuring, and are basically not to be bought, sold, or crafted. Which is fine, so far as it goes, but does mean throwing out an aspect of the game that was, at least in concept, pretty cool.

I want PCs to be able to craft items. I just don't want them to trivially craft lots of items, or for those crafted (or bought) items to totally negate the point of adventuring to find those items.

I was musing on this while playing "Lego The Hobbit: The Video Game", where at least a part of the answer came to me. In that game, in addition to collecting the usual studs, you can collect various types of loot. These are later used to craft various items to help you in your quest.

"Hmmm..." I thought.

So, I'd be inclined to break the materials used for crafting items down into four... only one of which can be bought:

• Gold: Used for the purchase of mundane supplies and services, this is the basic building block for crafting items, and remains a half of the 'purchase' price, as before.
• Special Materials: These are rare and undefined magical ingredients of a permanent nature: mithral, adamantium, orichalcum, unobtanium, special crystals, runes, and so on and so forth. These are used in the creation of all permanent magic items, and can be found on adventures but can't be bought in any meaningful quantities.
• Reagents: These are rare and undefined magical ingredients of a transitory nature: special liquids, crystals charged with magical radiation (that will fade), and so on. These are largely collected from slain fantastic beasts. All magic items require at least some reagents, but they're primarily used in crafting potions - reagents last until the next period of downtime and then become useless, but are easily transformed into potions and other alchemic items. (And, likewise, potions and alchemic items can be broken down into reagents, but at a cost.) As with special materials, reagents can be found on adventures but can't be bought.
• Lore: This is, simply put, the knowledge required to craft the item. But, since every item is unique (and because there are no universal "laws of magic"), each item requires an expenditure of lore that needs to be repeated each time. Lore is, of course, found by tracking down books in adventure hoards, but can also be gleaned by studying with dragons, ancient masters, and the like. And, of course, those who are members of "crafting classes" (notably the Artificer, but probably also the Wizard and Cleric, and perhaps all dwarves) can count some or all of their level towards the lore requirements for every item they craft.

The consequence of this is that it adds three new treasure types to the game, which is of at least some value by itself, and also usefully ties into some of the themes of the game. But it also means that the players gain some flexibility as to which magic items they gain (freeing the DM from "wish lists" or players trying to track down specific items - if they really want something, they can go ahead and make it). But, also, since the casters can't simply churn out huge numbers of scrolls easily (due to their limited supply of materials), this should be less destructive to the game than is currently the case.

That said, it has one big weakness - the game would then require breakdowns of the costs in materials, reagents and lore for every item, would need these three items added to the treasure lists, and would also require guidelines for harvesting reagents from slain fantastic beasts!

The Laws of Magic

There's a tendency in RPGs to codify magic very tightly - there are eight schools of magic and everything must neatly fit into those categories; or all magic comes from The Weave, with absolutely no exceptions no way no how; or whatever.

A large part of this is that an RPG needs rules, and a natural consequence of those rules is that they codify what can and can't be done - and indeed allow for extrapolations from what can be done now to what might be done.

However, I think it's a mistake to become too prescriptive about this.

There are three reasons for this:

Firstly, by declaring "this is the way things are", you cut down sharply on the possibility for exceptions. Want a character who knows only a few spells, but can cast any of them at will? Well, in 2nd Ed AD&D you can't, because that's just not how magic works. Want a character who blends 'arcane' and 'divine' magic (and maybe psionics, while we're at it)? Again, no go - the universe doesn't allow it.

It also cuts down the wonder of the thing. If you can look at the magical effect, break it down into specific building blocks, and analyse it to the nth degree, it's suddenly less impressive than if you just have to accept it as-is. Don't look at the man behind the curtain!

Finally, if magic is codified and locked down, then it has another name: technology. It may be highly advanced technology, but it's technology just the same. Far better, IMO, if magic is just a somewhat-understood thing... and technology is something else. The art of the possible versus the art of the impossible, if you will.

It's worth noting that I'm not saying there shouldn't be some rules, and especially where PCs are concerned (since balance remains a consideration). But those rules shouldn't necessarily be all the rules, and they probably shouldn't be the physics of the game world.

(Incidentally, one consequence of that is that I'll no longer be placing a "magical university" in my homebrew settings. There will be universities, where appropriate, but they'll teach science (and pseudo-science), not magic.)

Languages

If and when I write up another homebrew setting (or, indeed, if I do that "Ultimates" version of Terafa), I'll be handling the question of language a little differently from previously.

Modern Languages

The 'modern' languages in use will actually be very few. Indeed, assuming the somewhat-standard pseudo-European setting, I'll use three only: Common, Elven, and Orcish.

The reason Elven will remain a distinct language is partly a flavour issue, and partly because I want to retain Old Elven as well, and don't want to give all elven PCs access to that language by default. However, if I didn't have the modern form of the language, that would leave elven PCs not able to speak 'their' language, leading to inevitable arguments. Better just to retain the language!

The reason Orcish remains a distinct language, while things like Giant and Dwarven do not, is due to the role orcs play in the setting, which is that they represent the specific rejection of civilisation. And so, all the 'civilised' races speak a common language; orcs do not as part of that rejection.

The overwhelming majority of NPCs in the setting will speak Common, and indeed will only speak Common. Elves will be an exception, in that most will speak both Common and Elven, while most orcs will speak only Orcish.

However, PCs are exceptional by their very nature. As such, all PCs speak Common, but the player can freely choose whether their character also speaks Elven and/or Orcish. (In theory, players should really only choose additional languages if they make sense for their character, but I'm not going to bother codifying that. If you want your PC to speak all the languages, have at it!)

Magical Languages

However, in addition to the three modern languages, I'm also going to have a number of almost-dead languages used for recording magical spells. Where a character can access a written spell if (and only if) they read the language in question - thus removing any notion of a read magic spell or similar. So, there's no unique magical code, or individual notations, or any such thing, just a set of magical languages.

The languages in question will be Draconic (the most common), Old Elven, Druidic, and Dark Speech. In theory, any spell can be recorded in any of the languages, but in practice some will of course be more common than others.

Those spellcasters who record their spells in a written form will start with access to one of the these languages (usually Draconic for Wizards and Druidic for Druids). They may learn other languages as they progress, either by spending a feat (3e) or training in a proficiency (5e) to do so.

And that's where things stand right now...

"Ultimates" Edition?

One of the things that I've sometimes thought that WotC should do, given the mess that they made of the setting in 4e, would be to reboot FR as an "Ultimates" version - redesign the setting from the ground up, but incorporate all the best ideas from the long history of the setting while discarding the dross (and, conveniently, any 'questionable' material like the cultural appropriation of The Horde or Maxtica).

They won't do that, but over the Christmas break I was pondering whether it might be worth digging out my old settings of yore, and rebuilding my ancient homebrew, Terafa, using that same "Ultimates" principle. Because there's a lot of good stuff there, but there's also a lot of dross, and much of it has many of the same problems as FR (and for much the same reason). And, indeed, one of the issues is that much of the best stuff is spread out across the long timeline of the setting, meaning that it can't ever really be used in a game - it's just a bunch of stories that PCs might perhaps hear on their travels, but who really cares about someone else's adventures?

That also does give the opportunity to break away from some of the decisions that seemed a good idea at the time, but which now don't seem so good - and it also allows an opportunity to redraw the various maps... (which a simple revision wouldn't really allow)

On the other hand, it would be a fairly significant writing project for a game setting I'm unlikely ever to use again. And it would begin with a process of revisiting lots of cringe-inducing handwritten notes I wrote in my teens.... (on the other other hand, that would give me incentive to dig out those notes, scan the ones I actually want to keep, and discard the rest. That alone almost makes the project worth doing.)

How that ties in with other world-building notions I've had in the past few years, some of which are incompatible with some of the best aspects of the old setting(s), I'm not entirely sure. I guess we'll see...

My Monopoly House Rule

It's fair to say that I'm not a fan of Monopoly, and it's fair to say also that I'm really not a fan of house-ruling it: most of the house rules that people use serve to render a long and boring game even more long and boring.

That said, I have a house rule to propose that I think will improve things somewhat, especially with regard to the end-game that so often just drags on.

The game starts as normal, and plays as normal up until all the properties are sold. (I strongly recommend that the 'auction' rule be used, as this significantly speeds this part of the game.)

As soon as the last property is sold, though, there comes a reckoning: anyone who does not own a complete set is immediately eliminated from the game. All their properties are returned to the bank, as is any money that they have. (The complete set can be any set on the board and can include one or more mortgaged properties. The key question is whether they own one or not.)

(If only one player holds a complete set at this point, that player immediately wins the game. If nobody does, the game is a draw.)

From that point onwards, play continues normally, except that of course there are far fewer players, and there are probably some more properties available for purchase.

The reason for this house rule is simple: once all the properties are sold, anyone who holds a complete set has an almost overwhelming advantage over anyone who does not. It's almost certain that this will lead to the weaker players gradually bleeding money until they are eliminated from the game. Better just to drop them out now and save everyone the time and ill-feeling that results. (And if nobody has a complete set, the end game will be an interminable slog that will probably end only when everyone quits the game in disgust. Again, better just to stop.)

The other scenario, which is where two or more players hold complete sets, can be quite interesting - this is likely to be a fairly explosive set of transactions with the balance moving back and forward quite quickly, until someone runs out of cash. And that's likely to be pretty fast. Which is no bad thing.

So, anyway, that's my Monopoly house rule.