I've taken up painting my terrain, as well as using combat "Zones". I've posted many of my paint jobs on The Tabletop Crafter's Guild page on Facebook. Some folks put forward the idea of my starting a youtube channel for painting. The job market isn't panning out so why not?
Here's the first few videos!
I'm going to explain my methodology for creating campaigns, and to do that, I'm going to start with Encounters. They are the basic building block of every adventure or campaign.
An adventure is a plot with a series of problems (Encounters) that need to be addressed to solve the adventure. Common Encounters involve fighting, socializing, exploring, or chasing.
A Bad Encounter is one that gets resolved with one or two rolls. It's a blip, a minor inconvenience that did not require the players to engage with story.
A Good Encounter is one that causes the players to strategize. If they are talking about what to do next, they are playing the game. And their solution may not be what you have planned, but be flexible enough roll with it. It might be that their idea is way cooler than what you had planned.
A Great Encounter is one that allows the players to strategize, but there's a timer going.
Treasure rewards for encounters are very minor, like a handful of coins or a spare common item. There's going to be a lot of Encounters so don't overpower your heroes with rare rewards. Usually the main reward for an encounter is being able to progress the story.
Failing an Encounter is a minor penalty and often just means they don't get the reward. This shouldn't make the rest of the adventure impossible, just a little more difficult. Give players the room to fail, but still find success.
If they failed the Encounter because everyone died... well that's another Blog Post I will need to write.
Like Hollywood, many GMs are under the impression that the bigger the Threat to Existence, the more compelling the story will be. In my opinion, that's not going great for Hollywood right now and it may not be working great for your campaign either.
One problem with Epic storylines is that if you revisit a storyline based on saving All of Existence, your next story has to be even bigger (Dragonball Z)! Because it has nothing else really going for it except spectacle, does it? Sooner or later, you or your players will either get fed up with increasingly outrageous ways to threaten the universe (Star Trek: Discovery) or you'll just reboot or abandon it.
Not every story needs to be about saving All of Existence. Heroes can get just as much or maybe more enjoyment from just saving a village from the Barbarian Raiders. But if the heroes are working to save a village, I bet the village will know about it.
Your heroes fight the spectacular battle with the Forces of Naughtiness, and though it was tough, they prevail. But... I've noticed a trend in Epic Stories where the world isn't necessarily aware it is in any danger, only the heroes and the villains know what is truly going on. And while a heroic victory without seeking glory is very noble, this is a game of Fantasy. Your players might be looking for some positive reinforcement beyond treasure for what they've done. How about a parade, or at least a heartfelt "Good Job" and "Thank You". Your players likely aren't getting thanks in their real life.
However, all too often the heroes stand alone.
Take Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi. During the final battle over Endor, Skywalker has a serious battle of his own going on and the death of Palpatine and Vader may have helped turn the tide of the war. But I doubt anyone except Leia was told about what when down. There are parades for the Rebellion, but not for him. Very noble, the cause is more important than the person.
But! Your players might prefer a different ending, one where the people being saved know that the heroes are there doing what they can. It's all unfolding right in front of them. And when it is all over, the heroes get the recognition they've earned (see Army of Darkness).
All I am trying to say is that if the world is in constant danger of being obliterated every week, what does that say about the world? If the novelizations of Star Wars are to be believed, Republics are made out of tissue paper.
And the Mandalorian? He just wants The Child back. That's all his story needs.
I'm tired of counting coins and cracking silvers into coppers and NONE OF IT IS FUN!
It's an almost proven fact - As math increases, entertainment decreases.
So here's how we simplify things:
The Basic Unit - A Handful of Coin. What kind of coins? Who cares. How many coins? Who cares. A Weapon costs a Handful of Coin. A toolkit costs a Handful of Coin or two. A days food and lodgings costs a Handful of Coin. If the cost of an item is significant enough to note, it probably costs a Handful of Coin. When you search a goblin for loot, it might have a Handful of Coin.
The Sack of Coins. More expensive items cost 1 or more Sacks of Coin. Horses, Wagons, Sailboats, passage for a long voyage, their costs would be in Sacks of Coin. If the heroes are being hired for a "simple" job, they're going to be paid in Sacks of Coin. 1 Sack of Coin equals 10 Handfuls of Coin. The hero can carry 2 Sacks of Coin before becoming encumbered.
Chest of Coin. For the big payments. Magic items, castles, warships, blackmail, it costs Chests of Coins. A Chest of Coin equals 5 Sacks of Coin. Heroes are encumbered if they are carrying a Chest of Coins, so better get a wagon.
Thus we keep wealth descriptive, math is at a minimum, and you can easily gauge whether a hero should be encumbered by their loot or not. And it should be easy to guess-timate the price of anything.
I got the idea from movies, tv shows, Vikings, etc. They never talk about amounts. When someone buys something, they toss a handful coins down and get what they want. The villain always pays a sack of coins to his nefarious henchmen for a dirty night's work. Kingdoms pay ransom to their attackers in chests of coins. The vikings never sat and counted each coin when they were paid off. They just threw open the lid, looked at the loot, and the deal was done.
Edit>> I thought about just using individual coins to represent the wealth, but then heroes would only find single coins. Getting a Handful of Coins sounds better.
They announced a new edition of D&D, as well as the promise of a new setting.
Here's my prediction:
...a 5E version of BECMI, with Mystara as the setting. I believe (hope) that they come up with an even more simplified D&D5e ala Basic Edition. It will come in a boxed set like the original (maybe multiple boxed sets). Then revive the Gazeteers of Mystara.
Why?
Because modern 5e is too super-powered. That's why many people still play Basic or search out OSR. And while I love the indy press, WotC has the means to crank out support books on a regular basis.
Also because, while 5e is easier than many predecessors, it requires a $50 buy in per core book and each book is a hefty tome for a new player to wade through. That's why they created the Essentials boxed sets. But making an rules-lite-r version of D&D may hook a broader audience. Some may stay with Basic, while others may move on to advanced, but support both game styles.
Of course, I'm probably way off base. I suspect my crystal ball is actually plexiglass.
Today's post will talk about two different types of playstyles and analysis using my thoroughly uneducated pop psychology. These are personal opinions based on my experiences and should not be taken as gospel. Also, individual players can fall anywhere on the spectrum between these two extremes.
First up, Mentats. Others call them Munchkins, but I don't like that term. It's meant to be derogatory and imply that these players are having BadWrongFun. I think Mentat is a better description, and not insulting.
A Mentat gamer is one that derives joy from navigating the mathematics of a game, find the loopholes, and seeing just how strong they can make a character. This is fun to them. These players tend toward complex and crunchy RPGs as they gave a solid framework for the calculations. These players want to know the odds of success before they roll so they can make the most potent choice available. If you understand that, then you as a gm should focus your energies on making interesting and challenging encounters for these players to test their engines of destruction. I have noticed that Mentats are also more likely to be a part of the miniature wargaming hobby as well.
Mentats prefer games like Hero System, Pathfinder, etc. They might play a rules-lite game as a one-shot, but it likely won't hold their interest for a long campaign.
A Dreamer gamer is one that derives no joy from the complex maths and find them a distraction to the narrative. These players are just as happy playing Theater of the Mind as they are using a battlemat and minis. They carry their character in their head more than on their character sheet. They wonder why they can't have a Spear with all the same properties as a Rapier instead if they are proficient with both. Can't it just look like a spear? Would that break the game?
These players want the freedom to be imaginative without being penalized by the rules. They tend more toward Rules Lite systems like Tiny D6, ICRPG, Fiasco, Fate, or Quest. If your player is a Dreamer, then you need compelling adventures, dire stakes, fantastic locations. Also, these are the players that want you to mine their backstory for adventures.
Where do I fall? I'm leaving mid-Mentat and leaping into Dreamer. I just find more creative freedom with these games, and I can take it with me to introduce new people to the hobby. I love helping players make the character they want instead of the one that gives them the best options. And lastly, I just need to know what your hero is supposed to be good at, okay at, and suck at. All the degrees in between just don't interest me anymore.
Disclaimer: I have not been paid or endorsed by any of the game companies linked in this post.
It's just an idea that popped into my head one cold and windy eve. The idea was "why not put a GMPC with the party?"
WAIT! Hear me out!
The Storyteller
This character travels with the heroes and fulfils the roll of telling players what they don't know. Typically this is left to the players - the one's who don't know yet. Result? The GM distributes the exposition and the player/ bard replies "Yeah, I say that".
Well, let's get rid of the middleman? The GMPC should be the bard of the group. He's a total non-combatant, and is just tagging-along to write the heroes' saga. So what can he do?
1) Speak in character while extolling pertinent information.
2) Be used as an adventure seed. A player might mention "I wish I had a magic shield that I could throw and have return." Then the musty old Tenku bard fixes a bleary eye on the character. "You mean like the mighty shield of Kappn M'rika? Perhaps I shall tell you the tale when we have less important work to do." Then, when you've figured out the side quest for the Shield of Kappn M'rika, the bard can tell the tale (of where it is and how well it is guarded).
Now this bard provides no other support. He's just there to give that juicy backstory you worked all night on that the players wouldn't encounter otherwise. He isn't there to talk the party's way passed the guards, gather information, cast magic of any kind. He's just an encyclopedia for your heroes.
You could also make Mr. Exposition an exceptionally well informed Henchling (the one who carries the luggage).
Oh yes, remember you can always kill him if the heroes become too fond of him.
I'm trying to break my habit of prep, prep, prep, and never play. I'm looking for a more holistic approach. Imagine having a game world that can be everything you want it to be, where you aren't pigeon-holed by pre-generated content. Imagine a world that holds as many surprises for you as for your players!
I'm talking about a fluid setting: Basically a name, a high concept, and a sample starting location. Everything else is generated by the GMs imagination only when they need it.
It's still just a rough idea, but this is what I got so far...
Once you make a world map, the world becomes finite. There's nothing left to explore if it's all been decided ahead of time. As long as there is no map, the world is infinite. Anything, or anywhere can be in it.
Why do we roll for initiative they way we do? It's needlessly slow and dull, even requiring table gimmicks to keep track. But here's a few facts:
If a player rolls a d20 and the GM rolls a d20, then the player has a 50% chance of beating the GM and gaining initiative.
After Initiative order is set, who goes first is no longer important after the first round since everyone is taking turns.
How do you speed it up? First, use team initiative. The players will have more flexibility that way and beyond the first round, it's just alternating turns.
The GM is the only one who rolls an Initiative die (d6). If he roll 3 or lower, the enemy goes first. If he rolls 4 or higher, the players go first. Want to spice it up? If the GM rolls a 1, then not only are the monsters aware of the heroes, they've set up an ambush. Their are more monstrous reinforcements waiting to spring on the heroes. If the GM rolls a 6 then the heroes have taken the enemy completely by surprise. Hey, sometimes you don't have to be stealthy to scare the hell out of someone rounding a corner.
I'm not saying it can't be done. The premise of Shadowrun is sound, the world embraced technology because magic didn't exist. Magic awoke onto the scene so it makes sense that they would be in conflict.
But let's take your typical D&D Fantasy-Land. Magic is all around. Despite the claimed "rarity" of magic items, the heroes will come across a lot of it, usually in the hands of the villain. Magic has been tamed, identified, and spells can be repeated and taught. Magic is the technology. Given how powerful the idea of magic is (getting something for basically nothing), why would anyone pursue mundane technology? Technology would only advance in areas that magic can't. This is why it's important to know the limits of magic in your setting.
So would there be guns in Fantasy-Land? Traditional guns? Not likely, unless they were developed in a place of no magic and brought into Fantasy-Land. Why invent a gun when Flame Bolt and Eldritch Blast wands are options. A "Gun" developed in Fantasy-Land would likely be magic based, a wand shaped like a modern firearm. In which case, does it matter if you reskin wands as pistols?
Here's another instance of unlikely technology in Fantasy-Land, medical kits. Medical kits take time to use and they suck. However, the dearth of healing potions and low level healing spells are far more efficient and effective and would drive out the medical kit market. Heck, the presence of resurrection magic (if you are rich), throws a huge wrench into the circle of life (see Altered Carbon).
I'm not saying you shouldn't use magic and technology in the same setting, I'm suggesting that you think of them as one and the same. Whatever tech you want in a Fantasy setting, consider a magic-themed item that would do that. The gunfighter in a fantasy setting has been done before. Try adding some new spice to the old trope. If you absolutely want them in the same setting for contrast, make sure they each have limits that only the other can fill. Otherwise the inclusion of both may just feel like cheap fan-service.
Also, consider that if technology is there to make ordinary people as powerful as mages, magic will feel far less amazing in your setting.
GMs spend a lot of time working with finicky Difficulty Target Numbers. Searching the desk is this difficult, hitting the goblin is this difficult. But in that work is a Meta-thought, "this encounter is a bit easy, let's move those difficulties up a bit".
Yup, as a GM you have probably tweaked an encounter upward in difficulty so your players don't walk easily through it.
One Room DC doesn't bother itself with individual difficulties. Why should they matter? What you really want is to make the entire encounter difficult, or easy, or whatever. So why not just stick with one difficulty for the whole encounter? If someone is good at one of the tasks, they get to roll against the EASY difficulty, 3 less than the average difficulty. It's elegant.
Wait, but he shows the players what the difficulty number is. Now there's no mystery.
There never was, really. Hiding the difficulty number has never added suspense to a roll.
But if the players know the difficulty, they may try to avoid the encounter!
Good! Violence shouldn't be the catch-all solution. The heroes that spot the the trouble inside should have an idea whether or not this is a battle they can handle. The GM shouldn't make every encounter "balanced" to the party's ability. And maybe, maybe they will still try the challenge, but they are going in there with a plan. Making plans and seeing them come together is more fun than rolling to hit a monster whenever your turn comes around.
This particular post holds an idea that can be added to any RPG.
Character Background, sometimes there's pages and pages of it, and other times there is nothing at all. How do you get those pesky players to give you something to work with without burying you in homework? Easy. There is only one question the player and the GM should know about the hero:
Why did your hero become an Adventurer?
Adventuring is a dangerous business. There are more comfortable ways to live, so what drove your character to this? I wracked my brain and came up with four basic motivations for heroes: They are ESCAPING something, They are DUTY BOUND to do something, they CRAVE something, or they are SEEKING VENGEANCE for something. From there, I created a list for what those Somethings are. A player can pick one or draw a random card if they like. (I like using cards for tables, it makes them feel like a tarot reading).
The list should help to jog the player's creativity to at least give the GM a plot thread he can work with. It can also be a spring-board for the writer's in your group. But you've got an elevator pitch for their character, and that's all that you need.
Wait, why is that all the GM needs? My character's have a lot of childhood trauma. They're well rounded characters!
Yes, but this is the Movie-verse! We won't be spending an entire lifetime with your hero. We only have time to explore the facets of one trauma, if that. Since the Movie-verse is focusing on your life as an Adventurer, your motivation is of paramount importance to the audience. We see why Conan sought revenge against Thulsa Doom, how and why Luke Skywalker became the hero of the Rebellion. We connect with these characters because they remain focused on what is important to the story (Conan's Revenge, Luke's ending the Empire).
Here's a link to my Character Background Generator (FREE!)
Edit: Sorry for being Late. Here's the link. It's also in "Free Stuff".
This blog is in response to Zee Bashew and Matt Coleville's youtube channels, regarding running a heist.
You want to run a heist, or your players are about to storm a heavily defended outpost. Preplanning is key, but how do your players know what to plan. I doubt any of them has real-life experience in these areas, but the characters probably do. So how do you cover for your player's lack of foresight?
The following method is a combination of the Leverage RPG system for heists and some suggestions made for Savage Worlds, but they will work for any system. You may have to add the meta-currency (bennies, tokens, fate points, hero points, most games already have one).
Start with some skill rolls. Every player needs to decide what their contribution will be to the plan: The hacker my crack the security systems, the Mastermind might get the layout, the hitter may keep tabs on the security guards, etc. Then everyone gets a skill roll. If the roll succeeds, add a Meta-Token into a pot. If it's a critical success, add two or three.
During the actual heist, any player may take a Meta-Token from the pot and spend it to reroll a failed roll or to conveniently have a tool for a job that wasn't listed on their character sheet. The Meta-Token might also follow the rules of whatever game system you are using. The player should explain how their fore-planning allowed them the advantage on the roll. Keep in mind also, the pot doesn't refill. Once it is empty, the heroes have reached the limit of what their pre-planning can do to help.
That's it. It should be easy to bolt into your game system.
So you feel ready to build your world but you don't know where to start. Suddenly the enormity of your task dawns on you and you panic! Do I have to script out every town and city, their populace, points of interest, and ruling bodies? Do I need to know how the toilets flush? And so you searched online for assistance. So did I.
Sadly I gleaned very little about a process for actually building a world. It all felt like that old cartoon joke:
I've played a variety of RPGs over my lifetime. Many of them have substituted Wound levels for Hit Points, such as Savage Worlds and WEG's Stars Wars. As a system, I don't mind them and they seem more realistic than Hit Points. There is already a huge RPG philosophical debate over what Hit Points actually are. Are they a measure of health and blood loss? Are they a measure of luck and combat prowess?
My friends... they are TIMERS. That is all they have ever truly been. If a 4 heroes do X damage per round, my creature needs Y Hit points to survive long enough to do its cool abilities. If you want an encounter to last longer, give the villain more Hit Points. If the players change the timer speed by doing more damage in a round, BRAVO!
Well that's definitely an argument against Hit Points, right? If we know it's a meta-measurement, we should stick with the realistic Wound systems?
Not exactly. One of the things I've found with Wound systems is a lack of suspense. Often times a hero or villain can be taken down in one hit (realistic), but that eases tension imho. The player accepts the possibilities of their character being in one of three states: Fine, Wounded, or KO'd. If fine, keep attacking. If wounded, keep attacking. If KO'd, kick back and wait until you revive.
But with Hit Points, the results are more nuanced and random. You might be hit for a point of damage or you might be slammed leaving only one hit point. As a result, there is greater range of dread. Hit Points build suspense because it is a timer that can move a little or a lot, but still leave you alive long enough to worry how you'll be next round. You hope you might only take 1 Hit Point of Damage while you scurry for safety.
You know, the older I get, the more I realize that a game will always be abstract, never realistic. And that my players want "Movie-verse" reality, and that we are so well versed in that reality they we don't necessarily need complicated rules to emulate that. We can just use the Rule of Cool (That's cool so yeah, you can try it), and all be accepting of the ruling, and we remember that in an RPG, everyone is supposed to win.
