Do I use Minis or Not?
The original White Box edition of the world's most popular role-playing game is an extension of miniature wargaming, even though the booklets say the use of miniatures are optional. Having a mix of medieval miniatures in my collection prior to discovering the then new game, we occasionally used them to show marching order or combat positioning (with dice filling in for monsters).
The reality is that the use of miniature figures in role-playing has some advantages and some limitations. Most RPG systems I play with do not rely on a tactical display or "grid" to adjudicate combat. There are exceptions, however. The Fantasy Trip - recently republished by Steve Jackson Games - uses a hex based display and both 4e and Pathfinder heavily favor the use of a combat display gridded off with 1 inch squares. Such grid-based rule systems make the positioning and tactical movement (flanking, etc.) of miniatures a significant part of gameplay.
A "theater of the mind" play style where there is no physical representation of the in-game character combat action, but rather where everything is done through verbal narrative itself has other advantages and disadvantages. When players are forced to use their imagination rather than look at a display, to imagine what the action looks like by drawing on memories and the referee's verbal description, there may be a slightly different "picture" in each player's mind, but the potential is there for a much more vivid mental image to form than any group of miniatures and model terrain can supply. It can be a bit difficult in a melee to picture just where each combatant is at in relation to others using theater of the mind, but I find that the use of imaginary terrain features and relative areas such as, "My character is standing by the big tree in the middle." can be helpful.
Theater of the mind is especially useful in creating a sense of horror at the table. It is an old adage in the film industry that the monster ceases to be scary as soon as it is seen clearly. What our mind imagines is often much more creepy than any picture held up before the players or any painted game figurine. In the dark (recesses of our mind) anything can exist.
The clever referee may alternate deliberately between the use of both techniques, miniatures and theater of the mind, depending upon the desired effect (or available resources). Even games that are built around the use of miniatures and a combat display can, with a little thought and cooperation from players, be run as theater of the mind. Obviously, placing a few miniatures on a map will not adversely effect a game that assumes no miniatures will be used. A friend, at whose table I am a frequent player, makes good use of his collection of detailed dungeon terrain and miniatures and I definitely see how their use can shape play in a way not possible without them. I have used various grids and miniatures in my own games, but tend to rely on verbal descriptors and mental images more in my personal refereeing. Part of that practice is my preference for an in-game mood I call "dungeon horror".
Friday, February 28, 2020
Thursday, February 27, 2020
Rumors
A Key Element of Sandbox Success
"There is a bounty on goblin heads."
The rumor of bounty can be the start of many adventures. Whether it's bandits, goblins or something more threatening, if the players are interested many sessions of play can result from the activities of their characters as they attempt to deal with the bounty situation. The beauty of sandbox play is that the players can shape the campaign through their choices. Perhaps the way they decide to respond to the bounty situation is to try and convince the authorities to not be offering a bounty for killing a sentient creature. Maybe they decide to act as representatives to broker peace between the goblins and said authorities.
"The old silver mine north of town is haunted."
Everyone loves a good mystery. Places of mystery offer atmosphere and wonder, both desirable features in a game. My preferred style of running a campaign fits with the "sandbox" descriptor in that I like to sprinkle a number of rumors about and watch how the players respond to the setting and the rumors. I have semi-fleshed out adventures associated with each rumor before they hear about it, but am also open to modification based on what the players say and how they choose to proceed. Adding new rumors as the characters travel about is a way to keep the campaign fresh and allows me to respond to ideas generated through interacting with my players. Many times the comments of players, their speculations and questions, will initiate some thought on my part which can be developed into a rewarding chapter of the campaign. By listening to my players and imagining what might be true, I have come up with some good ideas. Players like it when their guesses turn out to be true!
"A wolfman is stealing sheep north of town."
Misdirection is a necessary part of rumor use, otherwise they wouldn't be "rumors". I prefer half-truths rather than complete falsehoods. The rumored "wolfman" might turn out to be gnolls who somewhat resemble a wolf walking upright - at least in the dark and from a distance. Any tracks found could be mistaken as made by a wolf on two legs. The reveal when the characters discover the truth behind the rumor can be mildly humorous and still lead to some challenge and reward.
"They are hiring mercenaries down south."
All a sandbox really needs is the beginnings of a map (which can be mostly in the referee's head), a few NPCs, one or two places of mystery (ruins, dungeon, tower, temple, etc.), a half-dozen or more rumors (some connected to the places of mystery, some involving a promised reward), a conflict between factions, and an opening setting such as a village, roadside tavern or a battlefield. Starting the campaign just after a significant battle (or a shipwreck) can be a great alternative to the "you are sitting in a tavern" opening. Are the characters part of the winning side? Are they on the run because their side lost? What lies on the road ahead? So many possibilities hold the promise of adventure!
"There is a bounty on goblin heads."
The rumor of bounty can be the start of many adventures. Whether it's bandits, goblins or something more threatening, if the players are interested many sessions of play can result from the activities of their characters as they attempt to deal with the bounty situation. The beauty of sandbox play is that the players can shape the campaign through their choices. Perhaps the way they decide to respond to the bounty situation is to try and convince the authorities to not be offering a bounty for killing a sentient creature. Maybe they decide to act as representatives to broker peace between the goblins and said authorities.
"The old silver mine north of town is haunted."
Everyone loves a good mystery. Places of mystery offer atmosphere and wonder, both desirable features in a game. My preferred style of running a campaign fits with the "sandbox" descriptor in that I like to sprinkle a number of rumors about and watch how the players respond to the setting and the rumors. I have semi-fleshed out adventures associated with each rumor before they hear about it, but am also open to modification based on what the players say and how they choose to proceed. Adding new rumors as the characters travel about is a way to keep the campaign fresh and allows me to respond to ideas generated through interacting with my players. Many times the comments of players, their speculations and questions, will initiate some thought on my part which can be developed into a rewarding chapter of the campaign. By listening to my players and imagining what might be true, I have come up with some good ideas. Players like it when their guesses turn out to be true!
"A wolfman is stealing sheep north of town."
Misdirection is a necessary part of rumor use, otherwise they wouldn't be "rumors". I prefer half-truths rather than complete falsehoods. The rumored "wolfman" might turn out to be gnolls who somewhat resemble a wolf walking upright - at least in the dark and from a distance. Any tracks found could be mistaken as made by a wolf on two legs. The reveal when the characters discover the truth behind the rumor can be mildly humorous and still lead to some challenge and reward.
"They are hiring mercenaries down south."
All a sandbox really needs is the beginnings of a map (which can be mostly in the referee's head), a few NPCs, one or two places of mystery (ruins, dungeon, tower, temple, etc.), a half-dozen or more rumors (some connected to the places of mystery, some involving a promised reward), a conflict between factions, and an opening setting such as a village, roadside tavern or a battlefield. Starting the campaign just after a significant battle (or a shipwreck) can be a great alternative to the "you are sitting in a tavern" opening. Are the characters part of the winning side? Are they on the run because their side lost? What lies on the road ahead? So many possibilities hold the promise of adventure!
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Chivalry & Sorcery 5e
I just received a new edition of an old favorite game I have never actually played. Yes, I know this sounds very unusual, but it is all true. (Unfortunately, there are several games I really like and which I have never played.) Chivalry & Sorcery is a game I have enjoyed reading and studying (and day dreaming about) through all its editions dating back to the "redbook" 1st edition published in the late 1970s. The first edition I actually purchased was the boxed 2nd edition and I instantly fell in love with the idea of this game which took its fantasy medieval setting seriously.
As a history enthusiast and wargamer I came to the role-playing hobby with an interest in "medieval authentic" (to borrow a term from Lion & Dragon) gaming. My first foray into the then fledgling role-play aspect of wargaming came in the form of the three Little Brown Books published by TSR which paid very little attention to medieval society as a whole, and in all fairness, medieval simulation is not the emphasis espoused by authors Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson who seemed to be looking to make a fun game (which they very much did!). Rather Original D&D strives to leverage the fantastic literature of authors such as R.E. Howard, L. Sprague DeCamp and Fritz Leiber, and is not overly concerned with "history" per se.
In the wake of TSR's White Box came a number of home improvements to the concept in the form of people who wanted to take the game in a new direction. The authors of the early editions of Chivalry & Sorcery, Ed Simbalist and Wilf Backhaus, aimed to create a role-playing experience that was closely tied to a fictional version of the western European Middle Ages in terms of knighthood, feudal manors and the medieval Catholic church. Magick (always spelled with a "k" in C&S) is based on a medieval superstitious mindset and their game draws heavily upon historical sources for their magick inspiration.
Characters in C&S have always had their place in society based on birth rank, social status and reputation gained. In C&S there are few "murder hobos" - a name sometimes given to wandering adventurers out to kill monsters and take their stuff. Rather the emphasis is on immersion in the imaginary life of your character as they interact with the game setting which is built with knowledge of medieval history. For some the intrigue, romance and pageantry of the medieval era holds great appeal and for these gamers C&S can be lots of fun.
My recent game readings have centered on the medieval authentic theme. In addition to Chivalry & Sorcery 5th Edition, I have spent time with Harnmaster, Lion & Dragon and Dark Albion, the latter two both written by the RPGPundit. Harnmaster is the rules written by N. Robin Crossby to accompany his fine Harn world setting and can deliver a very satisfying and engaging "gritty" game. Currently there are two versions, Harnmaster 3rd Edition published by Columbia Games and Harnmaster Gold available through Kelestia Productions.
The historic middle ages in Europe was very different from our own society today. Social mobility was almost non-existent and most folks followed in their parents lifestyle. The church and the nobility were the sources of power, wealth and justice, and all other folks appealed to them for favors. (You didn't talk back to your "betters" or it was the stocks for you!) Superstition made "magic", witches and demons seem real and folks often blamed fairies or imps for disease, mishaps and unexplained happenings.
One of the appealing aspects of the role-playing hobby is the ability to temporarily suspend our daily existence and for a time to engage ourselves within a fantastic setting where life is perhaps more exciting, more dangerous and even more rewarding and through the avatar of our game character, to have great adventures. If medieval romance, chivalry and perhaps a little sorcery excites your imagination, then a medieval authentic game may be right for you.
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
Roll for Initiative?
It's just an extra die roll!
Initiative was not a part of my initial White Box (original D&D) play in 1977-78 and I am still reluctant to use it when I referee. The Little Brown Books do not spell out how to do initiative and although they reference Chainmail for additional rules, I didn't have that item until years later. The result is that I have gotten through many games without using "initiative rolls". When acting as a referee I frequently allow players to roll their attack dice first, before any monsters, but with the understanding that the monsters will take their attack back, even if the player characters kill them that turn. Of course sometimes the monsters "forget" to attack as they die thereby giving me a bit more control over character survival.
Having come from a "wargames" background, I am familiar with "simultaneous" turns. The practice of using "written orders" for each unit and simultaneous movement and attacking was popular in tabletop miniatures wargaming during the 1970's and although we were not writing orders in D&D, the simultaneity of action still seems to make some sense. When a friend came to the table with a copy of Holmes Basic around 1978, I was introduced to the use of Dexterity scores to determine who acted first, and so forth, during a combat round. Generally, my monsters didn't have "dexterity" scores and rolling them up during an exciting combat sequence seemed awkward (and slows down the game). "Get on with the fighting!", I say. (After-all, doesn't the term "melee" imply a swirling hack-n-slash close quarters fight where each combatant takes advantage of whatever opening they are given to score a hit on an opponent?)
The structured nature of later "initiative systems" has always seemed needless (and often dull) to me. But, "Roll for initiative" has become synonymous with "it's time for combat". Many systems have each player roll for individual initiative each turn, thereby slowing the game down and adding to the bookkeeping of each combat.
I prefer combat to be fast and a little chaotic, which actually seems more real to me. As referee, I also prefer to have the freedom to structure each encounter and combat round according to what seems to make the most sense, and to add to the sense of game drama. Allow those with longer weapons such as pole arms to set against the charging enemy and therefore strike first that turn! It adds to the excitement and believably because it makes sense and also rewards tactical play!
When I do use initiative, I prefer something other than "roll a die and add your dexterity bonus". Shadow of the Demon Lord, an excellent d20 game by Robert Schwalb, uses a creative mechanic for determining who goes first during combat. In the Shadow... system, players decide on either a "fast action" or a "slow action". Fast actions go before slow actions and include characters who just strike at their opponent without moving and some spells. Slow actions involve combining movement with attacking and also the casting of certain slower magics. The players must commit each character to either fast or slow action prior to any actions being taken that turn.
My approach to adventure gaming has always been to question everything and whenever possible to improve on the system as written. I realize this is a preference not everyone shares. It is one of the reasons the original rules and the OSR appeals to me. Of course, as the saying goes, your mileage may vary.
Initiative was not a part of my initial White Box (original D&D) play in 1977-78 and I am still reluctant to use it when I referee. The Little Brown Books do not spell out how to do initiative and although they reference Chainmail for additional rules, I didn't have that item until years later. The result is that I have gotten through many games without using "initiative rolls". When acting as a referee I frequently allow players to roll their attack dice first, before any monsters, but with the understanding that the monsters will take their attack back, even if the player characters kill them that turn. Of course sometimes the monsters "forget" to attack as they die thereby giving me a bit more control over character survival.
Having come from a "wargames" background, I am familiar with "simultaneous" turns. The practice of using "written orders" for each unit and simultaneous movement and attacking was popular in tabletop miniatures wargaming during the 1970's and although we were not writing orders in D&D, the simultaneity of action still seems to make some sense. When a friend came to the table with a copy of Holmes Basic around 1978, I was introduced to the use of Dexterity scores to determine who acted first, and so forth, during a combat round. Generally, my monsters didn't have "dexterity" scores and rolling them up during an exciting combat sequence seemed awkward (and slows down the game). "Get on with the fighting!", I say. (After-all, doesn't the term "melee" imply a swirling hack-n-slash close quarters fight where each combatant takes advantage of whatever opening they are given to score a hit on an opponent?)
The structured nature of later "initiative systems" has always seemed needless (and often dull) to me. But, "Roll for initiative" has become synonymous with "it's time for combat". Many systems have each player roll for individual initiative each turn, thereby slowing the game down and adding to the bookkeeping of each combat.
I prefer combat to be fast and a little chaotic, which actually seems more real to me. As referee, I also prefer to have the freedom to structure each encounter and combat round according to what seems to make the most sense, and to add to the sense of game drama. Allow those with longer weapons such as pole arms to set against the charging enemy and therefore strike first that turn! It adds to the excitement and believably because it makes sense and also rewards tactical play!
My approach to adventure gaming has always been to question everything and whenever possible to improve on the system as written. I realize this is a preference not everyone shares. It is one of the reasons the original rules and the OSR appeals to me. Of course, as the saying goes, your mileage may vary.
Friday, February 7, 2020
I Hate Your Character
Our hobby is about shared fun. It is about friendships, goodwill and camaraderie. One player, the referee, judge, or game master, designs the setting, draws any maps that will be used during play, plays the part of all non-player characters and monsters and adjudicates the rules. The other players control the actions of each of their player characters, who are the protagonists in any action that takes place once the game play begins.
The role-playing hobby is about having a good time as a group and play is designed around cooperation between all the players, including the person running the game. The referee or judge's role is impartial, but frequently leans toward rooting for the players' characters since it is their success which helps everyone enjoy the game and that drives the action forward.
Characters who are unlikable, player characters which annoy the referee or who frustrate the judge, who seem to break all the mutually agreed upon norms either in their behavior during the game, or by their over-powered build, these characters can be toxic to everyone's fun. Put simply, if the referee loses interest in the game, and they cease to be motivated to do their job of preparing for the next session, the game/campaign is likely to come to an early end.
Any player who loses their enthusiasm for the game is a loss in terms of everyone's fun. The game can perhaps survive if a player leaves the group as long as that player isn't the GM. The game master is essential for continued play. The role-playing game requires an active GM, or referee, to plan each session and to play the part of all the rest of the "world" in which the player's characters adventure. It is therefore advisable to help your GM/referee stay interested in your game. Don't be the character your GM hates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)