Just finished a new scenario

..well, not technically completely new as it’s been played several times at various conventions and has also been handed out to those who’ve asked for it. But Sandstorm & Devils has finally been added as another free download to our website.

It’s a scenario that has had numerous different approaches, some “failures”, depending on how you describe “failure” in RPG terms, and some successes. The failures were merely the player characters getting out alive; the successes the PC group managing to escape with a high-tech artefact without getting hurt and by damaging their opponents, sometimes severely. It benefits from having a more “framework” approach rather than fixed encounters and this has let every game proceed in a completely different fashion.

I love running it.

Hyperlite released!

Finally, Hyperlite is released.

The full version is now available in PDF at Drive Thru RPG and the print copies are being uploaded to Drive Thru over the weekend.

That means that anyone can order print copies and PDF from anywhere and have them delivered. Good stuff!

We’re currently talking to a distributor in the UK and Europe for Hyperlite, as well, so they should be in game stores over here, and we’re also talking to logiistics guys in the US, as well. All positive.

So what’s next?

New things take a while…

I was really pleased this week. I got to play in my own campaign! Of course, it was a complete new scenario, but a new GM (I mean, only recently re-started after a 20-year gap) wanted a go and I, frankly, really needed to chill. I’d fallen over in the snow/ice, and it looks I’ve put back my recovery a few weeks. Another player volunteering was just great.

Perhaps, though, we should have been a bit gentler, though.

OK: Player rule number one. Check with the DM & players the character needed. We were light on Leaders – Warlord sprang to mind. So I had great fun checking over the Warlord options and settled for a healing-biased dwarf warlord, not too keen on the dwarves oath’s of obedience, but nonetheless shocked at the horrors that the Wraith Hunters had found. Fundamentally a do-gooder; he’ll do his best. Kitted him out; he looked good. I was chuffed.

A new year, a new arm, a new foe…

As a blog goes, the update pace on this has been desultory. I make no apologies – the nerve problem in my arm was far too severe as 2009 went on. Anyway, I had the first of two operations just before Christmas and I’m now cautiously optimistic that some degree of normality can be achieved by February. How normal “normal” will be, I do not know, as lifting is likely to be constrained and full control over my right hand has not yet been achieved. But it’s a fantastic start, and the reduction of pain, at least, is bliss.

So, to business.

I’ve tried to keep playing and running whilst I’ve been sick as it gives a focus and something to look forward to. I haven’t always been able to make it – and the guys at the local group/club have been really helpful and understanding in that regard – but it’s been a useful motivator. Seeing and receiving that appreciation, help and understanding has gone a long way to bolster the support and love from my family.

2010 will be better than 2009. It is already. Thank you, guys.

---

But, to business.

It struck me when I was running a game of Dungeons & Dragons the other day just how much we, as GMs, can rely on our regular players picking up on our foibles and tendencies. We were running 4th Edition, a home-brew campaign called “Crag Mountain”, and the style of play I chose for the campaign was very much old school D&D. ‘Old School’, that is, not from the use of huge, sprawling dungeons (which I don’t enjoy as a player or DM), but from the copious use of player-oriented puzzles and their linked traps in an over-arching meta-plot.

Hyperlite Development

This is coming on apace. Rather than put yet another system onto the market (no matter how good it is) the rules are now based on Mongoose’s Traveller OGL, but are modified to cope with the setting: The Sirius Treaty. All that’s happening now is the finalising of words & proofing, last-minute equipment add-ons, and the background notes. We might even have a special, limited edition of the post-playtest rules available for Indiecon (14th November).

The key question, of course, is what is the setting?

Well, it’s SF and fairly hard, as one would expect from a Traveller-based system, but with jacked-up human PCs equipped with ancient weapons. The chargen system, as in MGT, is absorbing but has some twists to support the Treaty personnel as PCs START gaming whilst serving as members of the Special Forces of the United Nations of Earth (UNE). Interstellar travel is extraordinarily hazardous, requiring medical care or implants to ensure survival. Melee combat is more likely than ranged lightfights as the Sirius Treaty dominates interaction with more primitive species, ensuring contact teams have a limited range of options when dealing with them.

The major difference is that these “first contact” rules in the treaty are enforced by a band of treaty monitors: the Invigilators. They may once have been the rejects from the many interstellar societies, but after neural reprogramming and extensive cybernetic upgrades, they are totally loyal to the laws of the Treaty. And they’re not gentle about enforcement, either… imagine a Stone Age primitive facing a Battle Armoured Invigilator about to call down an ortillery strike…

So why bother? Well, it’s not only space that’s big, but time. And there are numerous ruins left over from former starfaring empires. Most of these are useless, of course, some are informative, and a very few contain startling artefacts and technology that could give any of the starfaring species the edge they need. The trouble is that there is no way of knowing in which set of ruins the artefacts can be found… exploring promising new worlds is key to survival or maintaining an interstellar presence.

There’s more introductory information in the Indiecon Conbook, as well as an extra Chargen career that’s not in the core rules. And we’ll be running demo games all through Indiecon.

Look forward to seeing you there!

Not publishing can be fun…?

I know, I haven’t posted for a while. That’s because I have to limit my output at the moment or, at least, my arm limits it for me. The Games Day was a great success, though owing to some work disasters we were short a DM, and we ran several demo/participation D&D sessions, as well as Andy’s guys from Board Game Extras and Leo from Lecardo all running and demoing various games. Great stuff.

We’ll have to give September a miss, much as I prefer not to, but I’ve got a bit much on, atm, (slowly) setting something up for Indiecon. Oh well, maybe another Games Day would be worth it after Primal Power comes out.

I’m looking forward to it. I was really pleased to see the inclusion of primal power in the PHB2 and the capabilities of Druids, Shamans and Wardens (I’m not much one for barbarians or strikers in general, but that’s just a personal preference). And given what the previous “xxx Power” books have done for the other classes, I think it might well be a must.

Yeah… I’m beginning to sound like a Wizards sycophant. But the stuff that’s come out in the PHB2 and Divine, Martial and (to a lesser extent) Arcane Power has been excellent. Shortly after the PHB first cam out I started work on two classes: the Dragonmage and the Hermit. The former was a striker-wizard with polymorph powers and the latter was a healing-focussed, pacifist leader with control and weakening powers but few attack powers.

To my amazement – and you have to give credit to the guys at WotC for all-round thinking – both classes became obsolete. The Dragonmage went first with the advent of the PHB2 and dragon-power sorcerers and the additional mix of abilities in Arcane Power. So I held back on developing the hermit – and thank goodness I did. With Divine Power came the advent of the major “pacifist healer” feat and the fantastic array of control-only powers in Divine Power.

Both have a heavy overlap with what I was intending, perhaps less so with the Dragonmage, but because of the overlap they make it pointless publishing the class supplements. What’s nice is it made it easy to can both with the knoweldge that the sort of things I was looking for in my games was produced by Wizards already.

And that’s the point: at the commitment scale of Sceaptune Games (and its big to start with), we have to produce stuff we love, have played with and would game with. And its nice to know that Wizards are producing some of that core stuff already, that D&D 4th Edition is heading in a direction that’s compatible with, to be selfish, MY playstyle and preferences. We’re on the same page, in some respects. That means its more likely to be fun for me for a long period of time.

And that’s quite comforting.

Open Games Day Tomorrow

…at the Shipton Bellinger Sports & Social Club. Just in case it wasn’t picked up on our website.

It’s a chance to try out new Board Games and RPGs, in particular D&D, and we’ll have Board Game Extras there, too, with several board game whizzes. it starts at 10 and is really relaxed and friendly – no high-impact sales, just learning or watching the games.

Directions are here.

If you read this – it would be lovely to see you.

Table Etiquette: an unwritten contract?

In an earlier post about some character deaths I mentioned that there was more to come, the fundamental reasons why those characters died in a 4e game. What’s even more interesting (well, to me, at least) is that some knock-on effects have happened as a result of that, illustrating a break-down in some assumptions about something that supports all RPGs: the local table etiquette, sometimes referred to as the implied social contract. It’s an extension of any social situation in that there is an assumed social contract governing the interaction: in this case the playing of the game.

(OK, I’m not really much of a RPG-ademic, but sometimes you need to aware of what’s going on at a table to be an effective GM. I’ll be using the word “contract” generally as the mechanisms that support or result in the table etiquette.)

So, in the previous game, why were the characters able to disperse their focus, and ultimately allow two of their number of die? If 4e is a team game, a co-operative game, why was it that the players were able to ignore the – apparently – agreed interim focus and target other opponents?

The answer seems simple, but there is much more to it than might appear. The player characters were able to be haphazard because of a strict rule of local etiquette: that the players themselves have ultimate control over what their character does. During combat, for example, there’s no moving of a PCs figure unless the player says so, and the figure is only moved according to the player’s say-so. In the game in question, minor comments were made about focus but, ultimately, it was the player’s choice where his character went and what his character did. Sometimes lengthy discussion goes on about best moves, but the player – rightly – decides what goes on with his or her character.

Even if it is disastrous for the character or group.

An absorbing session of Star Wars RPG

Before the last entry is continued, it’s worth mentioning some Star Wars I ran this week. It was good fun, especially when it came to the worry about Dark Side Points (DSPs)* and potentially turning light-dark force users back to the light side. The latter provides a really good impetus for the Jedi in the party to take it easy on opponents and even defend or heal the party’s assailants – much to the tank and sniper’s frustrations. Great discussions, inter-character interaction and game play which dominated the minor conflict that set it up in the first place.

Dark Side Points, though, are a different matter. They’re a game mechanic rather than an RPing action. But on the way back afterwards I had to agree with one of the players about just how useful a game mechanic they are. I sometimes worry about DSPs as in some respects they are an attempt to put a very arbitrary measure on the unmeasurable: How dark was the Emperor to wipe out the whole Jedi order? How many Dark Side Points did Anakin earn in the temple? How many points did Tarkin earn in wiping out Alderaan? And how many did the gunners earn when carrying out his order?

All too complicated.

In other situations, though, like on the tabletop, they actually work. They are a simple but effective tool for players and GMs to track the slide of a character down into the Dark Side. Sure, a character can do a few dodgy things, but when does it become addictive? When does the mysterious ‘dark side’ – of our character, not just the Force – begin to take over? When does a Jensaarai or Dathomiri become uncontrollable rather than shady? DSPs give a means of tracking this progression, of the character finally losing control and giving his character over to the GM as lost, as Fallen.

It’s also a really useful way of tracking the decline and actions of hack-and-slay or attack-with-no-quarter characters. Such approaches are a strong temptation to rules-tempted roleplayers who have powerful characters in any game, but especially to Force Users in Star Wars. The fear of earning a DSP and so nerfing certain abilities becomes a really strong motivator. But the penalty is simple to avoid: give quarter, don’t just hack and slay, act to save lives (and the galaxy) from ‘evil’.

Given I tend towards, and encourage, games that themselves encourage the concepts of ‘good’, honour and altruism (rather than ‘evil’, dishonour and selfishness), such a simple, yet effective, roleplaying mechanic is welcome indeed. It encourages roleplaying rather than rollplaying and skirmish-gaming.

I like that. And I do like Star Wars because of it.

---

* A game mechanic, explained in the body of this post above.

Some difficult encounters…

I ran an tricky adventure this week. Two player characters were killed, though luckily in two separate encounters. I hate it when PCs are killed off and especially when my games kill them off. That is, when ‘I’ kill them off. After all, this is a co-operative game, one we play to have fun, and character advancement, growth and identification is key.

Well, it is to us, anyway.

Whenever something like this happens, I look back on the ‘failing’ encounters to see what went wrong, or right. In general, this review process is vital to improve DMing skills and ensure that mistakes – whether in play or design – aren’t repeated. Of course, you have to make sure you don’t dive into the old analysis-paralysis soup that leads nowhere.

So what was the results of this?

Well, both encounters were different as regards terrain. One was swamp, with some dry land (several sections of Ed Bourelle’s (Skeleton Key) swamp and deciduous forest), the other a forest with a number of paths (a Paizo map-pack). Both were meant to be fairly tough: one at +2 levels above party level; the other, the climax of this adventure, at +3 above. In both the party was outnumbered with, minions thrown in to harass the party in conjunction with the heavyweights.

In the swamp the party started together and set up in a slightly weak position, and were kept in bad terrain by assailants shooting from cover and who juggled from island to island; the heavyweights stayed on dry land and pinned the party. In the other, the party started off in the clear, able to set up and move as they wanted, and the assailants were stuck in undergrowth, forced to come out to face the party – or be attacked singly within the forest.

Two very different encounters.

So what about the most dangerous assailants? Well, the first had a trio of crossbow-armed minions shooting from across the swamp. They were in range of ranged weapons and magic. In combination with a skirmisher, they took down the party’s vulnerable wizard (controller) in the first round and kept him occupied when the party’s leader (a shaman) healed him. The second had some orc minions giving flank support to some greataxe-armed raiders. Sure, there was a barbarian and an Eye, but it was the orc raiders who proved most troublesome.

The terrain, as ever, was challenging. Sure, the players might have used better tactics in both, perhaps moving to firmer ground in the first, perhaps taking on individuals in the forest in the second. And the luck of the dice might have been a bit better for the party in both. Movement was good: the defender was pinning down the body of attackers very well, the controller was keeping back and trying to control, and the shaman/leader was positioning his spirit well and using his group powers superbly.
But common to both was a problem I’ve seen and been party to in the past: lack of focus.

Whilst the combats were being run, I was conscious that I was having to keep track of damage to all the assailants. Damage was being spread out amongst them all. The party made vague statements to the effect that they were focusing, but (imho, remember), for example, the rogue and wizard took too many opportunity attacks away from the object of focus, and the shaman kept picking on the assailant the defender was marking.

As a result, minions remained standing for long after they should and no one attacker was taken out of the fight early on. This means that every assailant was able to act and attack for many rounds.

Spreading out damage works ok for the lighter encounters, or the ones where there is little risk. And if the group is up against a sole, damage is focused automatically. But in the more difficult, multi-assailant encounters this is disastrous. It’s a basic rule of 4e combat: don’t spread your effectiveness, but focus; don’t target multiple opponents, target one at a time; don’t shift focus unless it’s absolutely obvious you’ve picked the wrong opponent – and only do so then if it’s absolutely necessary.

It’s a useful reminder. And one that’s a general rule of conflict throughout games and life.

But… Are we completely finished? No. There’s more – about the fundamental reasons why this happened in the first place. But this one’s long enough!

Look out for our next instalment, soon!
pective,