GOLDEN LION RULE: (Named for Jad-Bal-Ja in the Tarzan series): For important pets and animal companions, each time the owner levels, the creature gains a new hit die of the same type. For example, if Girt the 0-lvl herdsman reaches 1st level, Giant his herd dog gains 1d6 hit points as well.
(I used the wolf stats to determine Giant's stats, same hit die, dropped the attack bonus by 1 and the damage die by 1 step.)
Note that the Judge has final say as to what is a significant animal, but it generally revolves around whether or not the creature is participatory in the game.
Saturday, 21 April 2012
Thursday, 19 April 2012
An Ode to Crappy Maps
When I was young, and first getting into
this hobby, maps were printed inside modules using blue ink. For the most part, at least. The building interior maps in Keep
on the Borderlands and Village of Hommlet were the sort of
maps I could aspire to draw by hand, and even the main maps were ones that I
could draw something along the lines of.
Well, except the Caves of Chaos, which I never was
able to satisfactorily copy…er,
emulate.
In some ways, the advent of rpg
cartographic software has lifted us up from the mire of crappy maps, but…was that really so much of a mire?
Take a look at the moathouse in Hommlet. That was a map that inspired, and inspired
many (myself included) to feel that even my junior efforts were not only good
enough, but were worthy of presenting as a place that adventures might be
had. Even if all I had to create those
maps was drugstore quality graph paper and a ballpoint pen.
The way in which rpgs stimulate us to
create our own adventures, settings, gods, spells, classes, races, monsters,
maps, etc. – the way rpgs empower their users – is fairly unique. And computer games that have emulated that to
some degree (for example, Spore) have been able to use that as
a real selling point.
So, yes, I (like many) enjoy the beautiful
map of Castle Ravenloft, and
the amazing efforts shown in many a Paizo or Wizards of the Coast
module (including those from Dungeon Magazine under the guidance
of both companies) , but I strongly prefer game materials that make me think “I
could do that!” over those that make me think “How the hell did they do that?!?”
So, here’s a couple of my maps. You could do just as well. Hell, you probably do better! But I like to work this way, and I hope you
will enjoy (and use!) what you see.
Sunday, 15 April 2012
The Game of Theseus – The Quest for Control of Objective Identity
As strange as it may sound to some of you,
I was recently on a forum arguing, yet again, that there is no such thing as
objective identity. That, essentially,
identity is subjective, and that, in some cases (such as to make language
work), we agree to standardize identity under special circumstances. This standardization is agreed upon by a wide
range of people, but certainly not by all (or the meanings of words in language
would not drift over time).
How does this relate to gaming?
Well, the discussion was on Dragonsfoot,
and it related to the question of whether or not some particular edition was “D&D”. Mind you, no one was arguing that any
particular edition was not sold under the trademark name of Dungeons &
Dragons, but rather whether or not purchase and ownership of the trademark somehow
changed the nature of identity from a subjective value into an objective one.
Now, I don't care what is, or is not, "D&D". Is 4e D&D? Sure. Is 5e? Why not. Is Labyrinth Lord? As far as I am concerned, it is. My concern isn't what is, or is not, "D&D", but rather ensuring that it is individual human beings -- not corporate entities -- that get to decide.
Now, I don't care what is, or is not, "D&D". Is 4e D&D? Sure. Is 5e? Why not. Is Labyrinth Lord? As far as I am concerned, it is. My concern isn't what is, or is not, "D&D", but rather ensuring that it is individual human beings -- not corporate entities -- that get to decide.
I am not a lawyer, and the following should
not be constituted as legal advice (and I despise the fact that we require such
disclaimers to discuss far too many topics these days, lest the lawyers
pounce). Here is a link that might
help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
It should be noted here that, while a
trademark grants protection in some cases against identifying another product
with that of the trademark holder, it grants no protection at all against
others refusing to accept the trademark identifier. I.e., if I purchase the rights to “D&D”
and decide to sell a soft drink as “The D&D game” where the rules consist
of “Drink as much of this stuff as you can”, my purchase and my actions in no
way – legally or otherwise – force anyone to accept that as “D&D”.
Moreover, while my purchase would allow me
to act against another company who put out a game and called it “D&D”, it
would in no way give me power over the user base of the product calling it “D&D”. Paizo doesn’t call Pathfinder “D&D” or
encourage people to do so. If the vase
majority of gamers decided that Pathfinder was “D&D”, and WotC’s latest was
not, trademark does not offer legal recourse.
Part of the problem is caused by conflation
of definitions of the words “identity” and “identify”.
Consider how the definitions here, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/identify, actually apply to trademark. What trademark is intended to do is ensure that people looking for Product X are not confused by a similar Product Y. Also (and related to this) to ensure that the money spend to advertise Product X is not effectively spent to sell Product Y. It is notable that it is Product Y, its trade dress, its packaging, its advertising, etc., that must give rise to the confusion for a lawsuit to succeed. If the public believes that Product Y (despite understanding that it is not Product X) is closer to what the trademark of Product X identifies itself as than Product X actually is, and the public uses the trademark term to identify Product Y rather than Product X, the end result is not that the public is wrong, but that the makers or Product X are likely to lose the trademark.
Consider how the definitions here, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/identify, actually apply to trademark. What trademark is intended to do is ensure that people looking for Product X are not confused by a similar Product Y. Also (and related to this) to ensure that the money spend to advertise Product X is not effectively spent to sell Product Y. It is notable that it is Product Y, its trade dress, its packaging, its advertising, etc., that must give rise to the confusion for a lawsuit to succeed. If the public believes that Product Y (despite understanding that it is not Product X) is closer to what the trademark of Product X identifies itself as than Product X actually is, and the public uses the trademark term to identify Product Y rather than Product X, the end result is not that the public is wrong, but that the makers or Product X are likely to lose the trademark.
Again, identity is not determined by
trademark. Not even in a legal
sense. Use of trademark is determined by
trademark, and if the public disagrees about identity, the trademark holder can
lose that trademark.
If WotC took a deck of playing cards, painted a bunch of
cartoon dragons on the backs, and said, "Okay, here's Dungeons and
Dragons, 6th edition," then, technically and legally, that stupid deck of
cards IS Dungeons and Dragons. It's not 1st edition D&D, it's not Gary
Gygax's D&D, or TSR's D&D, but it would still be D&D
(unfortunately). – Turko (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=55537&start=120)
One can see, then, why this sort of
statement is just plain wrong. Trademark
doesn’t grant some form of objective identity, but rather the exclusive right
to use a term, phrase, trade dress, etc., in order to differentiate a product
on the market from its competitors. This
is a form of identity – self-identity – but it isn’t objective.
(To make this easier to understand, I could
self-identify as “The Handsomest Bloke in Toronto”, and I could even
conceivably trademark myself as such, but it wouldn’t make it true.)
Technically and legally, WotC’s hypothetical
deck of playing cards would be a deck of cards sold under the Dungeons and
Dragons trademark. Nothing less, but also nothing more. When you conflate the
trademark identity (which the company owns, within certain legal limits) with
the actual identity by which the public (or individual members thereof) views
the product (which the company does not, and cannot, own), you make an error of
reason.
Rogers Cable can buy the Skydome and rebrand
it the Rogers Centre (in fact, that did occur), but they cannot make anyone
else identify it as such. Nor is anyone who refers to the building as the
Skydome dishonest or wrong. Despite the
religious fervour which some folks are displaying to the contrary.
I only wish I had written as well as jasonzavoda about halfway down the page
(http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=55537&start=120).
And in answer to Mock26, no number of people “approving” the rebranding makes it
objective. There is no “correct”
version of D&D. If you find yourself
needing to determine which version of
D&D is the "correct" one, you need only decide which is correct
for you. Attempting to then claim that
your decision is somehow objective, though, is an error of reason.
Writing D&D on a Candyland box does not
make Candyland D&D, even if you own the trademark. All it makes is a Candyland game that you are
calling D&D, using the D&D trademark, and that you hope others will
accept as D&D.
Just as some call Pathfinder “D&D”, and
extend the D&D identity to games like Mutant Future, so too some will not
agree that a new edition has the same identity as “D&D”. Trademark law prevents Paizo from calling
Pathfinder “D&D”; it doesn't prevent you or I, or the unwashed masses, from
doing so.
Identity is not an objective property of an
object. Identity is not a “fact”.
In particular, two questions arise which are
relevant to this discussion:
What does it mean for an
object to be the same, if it changes over time? (Is applet the same
as applet+1?)
If an object's parts are
entirely replaced over time, as in the Ship of Theseus example, in what way is
it the same?
The Ship of Theseus example is, actually,
extremely relevant to this discussion, and a link to that can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus.
Summary form, in the event that you don't feel
like reading all of that: (1) There is no clear rational basis known upon which
all of the questions of identity can be answered, especially as relates to
things that change over time and/or have their parts replaced; (2) Identity
occurs in the space between your ears, not in the objective universe, and
ultimately (3) Identity is not real in the way that an object is real.
The 4e PHB is real. That the 4e PHB is objectively identifiable as
“D&D” is not real. The same is true
of the 1e PHB, and the little brown books.
No matter how you slice it, identity is subjective. It comes up peanuts.
So there is no number of people who accept the
rebranding that makes it objective.
However, there is a number of people who do not accept the rebranding,
and instead apply the trademark to other products, which can cause the
trademark holder to lose that trademark.
How many people? The courts
decide that. And it should be noted that
the courts are not deciding that X isn’t “D&D” if the trademark is
lost, or that Y is “D&D” if it gets to use that trademark – all the courts
are deciding is whether or not the trademark (which is different than identity)
has been lost.
Trademark dilution protection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution)
in fact exists to protect trademark holders from this to some extent…it is
certainly arguable that “D&D” is in danger of becoming, a genericized trademark
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark),
and, like aspirin, may lose substantial protection in the decades to come.
I am ready and willing to argue that a
corporation cannot change cultural identities merely because it has the cash to
purchase trademarks related to them.
Indeed, I am ready and willing to argue that allowing a corporation to
do so is inimical to the health of any culture so affected.
And I am ready and willing to argue that an
individual has a right to not give way to corporate rebranding as actually
changing the identity of a product. Indeed, I am willing to argue that this is
a fundamental right. A corporation may
attempt to expand the meaning of “The Beatles” to include music by Rush, but I
have a fundamental right to say that Rush is not the Beatles, even if Rush is
rebranded as such by a trademark owner of both bands.
Corporate “citizens” have power enough in this
world without also granting them that level of power over language and
identity, which, pushed far enough, is ultimately power over how we think.
No.
When the question arises whether Kleenex is
also kleenex, Foster Grants can mean any sunglasses, it is the public that has
the power. The courts follow common usage,
not what the trademark holder prefers.
The trademark holder is required to defend against changes in public
usage, but (in North America at least), fundamental principles of law allow you
to refer to coke instead of Coke.
Pretending otherwise is either intellectual
dishonesty or ignorance. Or both.
Thursday, 12 April 2012
The Quattro Dungeon
There is something about stationary and art
supply stores that I just love. I mean,
really. I’m happier in a Staples
Business Depot than I am at Future Shop.
Something to do with all of the untapped potential lying in wait in all
that paper, I suppose. Also, I really
like a good pen, with a nice flow and even lines that don’t smudge.
Anyway, yesterday I picked up a Quattro 8 x
8 grid notebook, pictured below.
This notebook has a 2 x 3 inch grid, 1/8
divided, with 80 acid-free sheets. I’ve
included a scan of the interior, with a pencil beside it for size
comparison. The overall book is 3.4
inches x 5.5 inches. The grid is 32
squares by 24 squares. Assuming a scale
of 1 square = 10 feet, that allows each page to hold an area no more than 320
feet by 240 feet.
My plan for the Quattro dungeon is this –
each page holds a separate area, which links to at least one other page in the
notebook (and probably 2-4; sometimes more).
The entire dungeon uses all 80 pages, and no area is larger than can be
fit on a single page. Connections might
be long halls, stairs, chutes, chimneys, etc., but the areas must be clearly
divided. What I am imagining here is a
hive of relatively small interconnected spaces to explore, extending outward and
downward.
I might decide that some area needs a
larger scale map, and that some pages will break this down to smaller
scale. Conveniently, the Quattro
notebook breaks down 4 squares x 4 squares, and 8 squares x 8 squares, allowing
one to create 40-foot or 80-foot scale maps and then break them down with ease
(assuming no area uses more than 4 x 3 80-foot squares or 8 x 6 40-foot
squares). I have, in the past, found
this sort of scheme useful for creating cavern complexes connected by long
passages.
The result will be a potential 491,520,000
square feet of area to be mapped, and while each map will undoubtedly use less
than its full potential, this should allow for an area large enough to be
considered a megadungeon, mapped on a notepad small enough to conveniently fit
into a jacket pocket.
And the notebook cost me about $2.50
Canadian at the Curry’s Art Store near Yonge & College (north, on the west
side, across from Wendys). Nice pen and
coloured pencils are extra, of course!
Now, I’ll grant a priori that this may make me an über-nerd, but I find the very idea inspiring. Simple to carry maps, large area mapped, and
a cool format as well.
What’s not to like?
Thoughts? Opinions? Want to see some finished images when I map them?
Tuesday, 10 April 2012
Barrowmaze with DCC RPG rules
http://www.unseenservant.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=523
I am looking to start a pbp game, exploring the Barrowmaze using the Dungeon Crawl Classics rules by Goodman Games. I have the full rules release pdf, but all players need to get going are the Beta Quickstart rules, located here: http://www.goodman-games.com/downloads/DCCRPGQuickStartGuide060811.pdf
Full Beta rules can be found here: http://www.goodman-games.com/DCCRPGbeta.html
Each player begins play with 4 0-level PCs. A random party of four can be generated here: http://jmarrdesign.com/dcc/
You can email me the resultant pdf at dbishop at danieljbishop dot ca, and be entered into the PC Roster, or you can use the Unseen Servant die roller to post your results here.
Each character must be made using the random process as listed, including 3d6 in order and random hit points. Dead characters are replaced at 1 level below the lowest other surviving character, to a minimum of 0. If you are required to make 0-lvl characters as a result, you make 4. Hopefully one will survive to 1st level. This is a potentially brutal game!
Between forays, new players may join. They start with 4 0-lvl characters, just as the original players did.
Best of luck, and look forward to the mayhem!
RC
Monday, 9 April 2012
Dungeon Crawl Classics - I Have It, and I'm Impressed
So, last Friday morning, I was able to
acquire my pdf of the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG by Goodman
Games, courtesy of pre-ordering.
Then I immediately drove away for the greater part of the weekend,
leaving the pdf at home on my laptop so as not to upset family by spending
Easter with my nose therein. Afterwards,
while I have perused, and read, and read other passages, and re-read some
interesting bits, I have yet to sit down and do a cover-to-cover reading, so be
warned that my current perspective is not grounded in having all the
facts.
First impressions?
This is easily the most beautiful RPG book
that I have ever had the good luck to peruse.
This is so obviously a labour of love that it is impossible to “flip”
through the electronic pages and not imaging Joseph Goodman is by your side,
nudging you with his elbow, and saying, “See that? Like that illustration? How about that rule? Huh?”
And I mean that in the best possible
way. The love and enthusiasm with which
this product has been produced is prodigious (say that three times fast).
This book is really a lot of fun to browse
through. The artwork is not all perfect,
but it is all evocative of the mood being set by the game. I don’t believe that it is possible to browse
through this book without being inspired; in this way it will deserve a spot on
my gaming shelf right next to Gary Gygax’s DMG and Goodman Games’ The
Dungeon Alphabet. Can I give
higher praise? I think not.
Second impressions?
A lot of randomness, which I had expected
from the Beta Playtest, but a lot of randomness that is probably very fun to
experience at the table. I had
considered the difficulty in creating NPCs, especially spellslingers, in this
system because of the level of randomness, but neither NPCs nor monsters need
to follow the rules explicitly, which is a major plus. Otherwise, the “homework factor” of the game
would be like that of 3.5, which is not (IMHO) remotely desirable.
I note with great satisfaction that DCC RPG
is truly behind its 3pp supporters, advertising not only the Goodman Games
forthcoming material, but also material from Brave Halfling Publishing,
Purple
Sorcerer Games, Chapter 13 Press, Thick
Skull Adventures, Lands of Legend Adventure Modules, Land
of Phantoms, Crawl! Fanzine, and Fight
On! There are pointers to OSR
blogs and forums, as well as other resources.
This is classy as hell, and points out the amount of support that the
DCC RPG is already receiving.
And you will need that support, I am
thinking, because the rules concerning spells, patrons, and gods all require
that, sooner or later, you will want to create new ones. It seems unlikely that there will be many generic
campaigns using this system – the system demands a certain level of unique
creativity on the part of the Game Master.
The section on Judge’s Rules could, quite
honestly, be longer. I wouldn’t mind
more insight into Goodman’s thinking on how DCC RPG adventures should be
structured. The two adventures from last
year’s Free RPG Day module are included, but it would have been nice
to have included something new.
The game notes that the characters have no
access to the Internet, and that information is rare and untrustworthy. That is very good – in fact, it recalls
something I wrote in my own system:
It should be recalled that knowledge in pre-modern societies
(as occur in most RCFG game milieus) is not an exact thing.
Although devotees of some branch of knowledge may refer to their branch as a “science”,
this does not mean the same thing in most RCFG milieus that it
does in our world. In most milieus, the scientific method has not been
invented, and there are no true sciences. An RCFG character with
Knowledge (Chemistry) should not be considered equivalent to a modern chemist!
On top of this, there is no equivalent to the Internet
or the Encyclopaedia Britannica in most RCFG game milieus.
Knowledge is always uncertain, and
there are many things that no one knows — unless someone is daring enough to
find out, either through exploration or magic.
The Game Master may decide that any Knowledge check is
impossible, if she believes that there is no route for the knowledge to get to
the character making the check. For example, no Knowledge check can grant a
character foreknowledge of an unexplored continent, or of the contents of a
particular person’s pockets.
The idea of braving the unknown, of
exploring the unexplored, requires as a prerequisite that things can be unknown
and unexplored in the first place. One
of the major problems with certain modern systems is the inherent concept that
the players should be able to discover just about anything, just by rolling the
dice.
(And I am very glad that I linked to this
document in a previous blog, because otherwise it would seem very much like I
was simply parroting Joe’s wise words herein!)
But there are areas where I find myself at
odds with the philosophy of Mr. Goodman.
One of these is the range of area over which a typical campaign should occur. Making your world “very small” (original emphasis) may be well and good for starting
play, but it doesn’t reflect the adventures of Appendix N characters like Conan
or Elric.
This leads directly to another
question: Would the “campaign dungeon” model
work well with these rules? The campaign
dungeon is a device that allows a campaign world to effectively stay small;
there is always more within that area to explore. But the DCC RPG reads as though it would be
best run as a series of quests – and not all of those quests (even those quests
described in the rules) seem to fit well within a “very small world” or campaign
dungeon model.
Also, some of the quests described in the
rules are going to require the GM to do a bit of homework. When the PCs start looking for the Eldest
Sphinx, you can bet that he doesn’t exist within the 100-square mile campaign
area suggested! One of my sandboxing
rules, if you will recall, is that you should get at least 2 hours play out
of every hour’s prep, and that means that sites should be reusable. I am not at all sure how many reusable sites
the DCC RPG model would have, if taken at face value.
As an aside to this, if you find yourself directed
to seek a dryad in the forest to the east, after having been directed to the
Portal Under the Stars, and are then perhaps directed to somewhere else by your
cleric’s god, after which your wizard’s patron directs you to another place….that
seems an awful lot of directions. I find
myself somewhat concerned that the magic system in this game will result in the
player characters dancing like puppets on strings.
(Those calling on higher powers should find
themselves in uncomfortable positions, IMHO, but they should not always find
themselves so. I prefer that, given
options, the players are largely self-directed.
I am wondering what a DCC RPG sandbox would look like, and how it would
play, with the materials in the book taken at face value.)
I also find myself ambivalent about the “No
more orcs” mantra. Yes, it is very good
to have new and unknown monsters. But
those monsters are new and unknown within the context of a world where there
are things that can be known. In my own
game system, I find myself straddling a line where there are common forms of
monsters, and monsters can be easily modified, so that it is never certain that
Orc A is like Orc B, but most orcs are just orcs.
Joseph Goodman also seems to accept the
3e-era mantra that the encounter is the metric of play, as the XP system is
based on the GM gauging how difficult each encounter was for the players. I don’t subscribe to this idea; IMHO the encounter
area is the metric of play, and encounters are not necessarily
discrete. If the orcs from Room 2 hear
fighting in Room 1, and come to help their brethren, is that one encounter or
two? If they flee into a third encounter
area, and run into the denizens thereof, is that one, two, or three encounters?
Design is done
encounter area by encounter area, but play may not occur according to that
design. And I despise design created to
force play to occur in discrete encounter areas.
Likewise, as in my own design, I think that
there is a place for PC-controlled magic with predictable results (ala the
SRD-based spell systems whose progenitors arise from Gary, Dave, and Jack
Vance) and less predictable systems where PCs can gamble for greater effects
and greater costs.
Although by no means unique to Appendix N
sources, it is nonetheless true that Appendix N contains many “modern man
thrust into unusual circumstances” stories within it. This includes, but is certainly not limited
to, Edgar Rice Burroughs’ “Pellucidar”, “Mars”, and “Venus” series; de Camp
& Pratt’s “Harold Shea” series; much of August Derleth and H.P. Lovecraft,
and books such as A. Merritt’s Dwellers
in the Mirage. It is a missed
opportunity not to provide direct support for these sorts of tales, but with
the amount of third party support, I will be surprised if this hole remains
unplugged for long.
Conclusions
If you can read this book, or even leaf
through it, and not want to be a player in a DCC RPG game, then you are no
scion of Appendix N fantasy! This is
also a game that begs to be run, although I don’t imagine that it will replace RCFG
as my go-to game. As I said earlier, as
an inspirational game I will be reading, and re-reading, this game for years to
come.
I will also say this: RCFG is designed to meet my own
personal needs/desires as a gamer. DCC
RPG comes the closest to making me forego the effort. As I have the chance to examine more support
materials, either I will be using this game to support my own design, or my
designs to support it. Right now, I lean
to the former. That may change.
I am very happy with this product. I am very glad that I preordered it. It is not my go-to game now, but it has the
potential to grow into my go-to game in the future. At the very least, it certainly is something
that I will be using to support and inspire my gaming.
I now need to organize a DCC
RPG Barrowmaze game (details will be posted here), and see if the system
allows me to run said campaign dungeon in a satisfying way….links and details to
be posted here.
Tuesday, 3 April 2012
Psychic Powers in Doctor Who
In Doctor Who, psionics is the
study of psychic powers. Psychic powers
themselves come about through an innate ability to manipulate three special
forces which have not been tapped (and, indeed, are largely unknown) to Tech
Level 5 science: artron energy, the
lifeforce and fictional energy.
Artron energy is generated within (or by)
the space-time vortex, and is difficult to fully understand even for a Tech Level 9 civilization. Creatures that pass through the vortex gather
artron energy around them, and artron energy can escape through thin points in
space-time where the vortex is closer, as well as actual rifts in the fabric of
the universe. The rift in Cardiff, and
the Untempered Schism on Gallifrey, leak artron energy. Individuals who grow up close to those rifts
— or who are strongly exposed to them as children — sometimes develop psychic
powers.
The lifeforce is energy generated by all
living things, infused with the living down to the molecular level. The degree to which the lifeforce interacts
with a potentially living thing is the difference between being alive or being
dead. Yet, even dead creatures that were
once alive maintain reserves of this energy for a long time, or their bodies
would collapse into a fine powder.
Fictional energy is a 6th dimensional
energy source, which is directly related to probability and creativity. Fictional energy is not fully understood even
at Tech Level 10, except perhaps by creatures such as the Guardians of Time and
the Trickster. All storytelling and
imagination utilize fictional energy, but massive uses of fictional energy to
create psychic effects usually require very powerful psychics (and can create
ionic discharges).
These energy types interact with each
other.
The lifeforce and artron energy are entangled
(similarly to the way in which quantum particles can be entangled, but with a
more widespread and far-reaching implications) but, unlike quantum particles,
have properties that can be decoded or programmed by their connections to
fictional energy.
In some cases, primitive creatures devise
rituals in order to harness fictional energy to encode, decode, and manipulate
these energies. The science of psionics
seeks not only to interpret the purposes of these rituals, but also to
understand, harness, and manipulate these energies without the constraints or
uneven results of ritual.
As with every type of energy, creatures
have evolved to consume artron energy, fictional energy, and even to consume
the lifeforce directly, although these creatures are thankfully rare, and
usually come from (or have access to) other dimensions or universes.
True artificial intelligence requires a
connection to the lifeforce, and allows the intelligence to potentially access
psychic powers (as with BOSS and WOTAN).
At Tech Level 7, it is possible to create
materials that can hold or react to the lifeforce and artron energy (even if
artron energy is not fully understood), thus enabling the creation of products
such as psychic paper and the telepathic pendants of the Arcateen.
Fantasy Heartbreakers & What I'm Working On
Dausuul's
Fantasy Game (aptly
entitled "Heartbreaker") was announced, and is available for
free download here: http://www.mediafire.com/?2cm04w2ehh9m6ie
If
you are interested in Raven Crowking's Fantasy Game, the compiled
system-as-it-stands can be downloaded here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?om36l1vc23p7f6d –
be aware that the OGL may need to be updated, as there is material that I have
added since work on that section.
I
have been working on RCFG for what seems like a very long time now, as some of
you may be aware. I have also recently been working on the first
persistent campaign setting for RCFG, working on the megadungeon known as the
Dungeon of Thule. I am going to post two encounter areas below, but if
you have any intention of playing in this game (online or offline), I would
advise you to skip the following.
I
am also still eagerly awaiting Goodman
Games’ Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG, which, if all goes well, I should have
the pre-release pdf of this week or next.
No word on the exact date is yet forthcoming…..I’ll be reviewing the
game here.
2. Hall of the Skull
Cairn: The passage leads into a room, some 30 feet north-to-south and perhaps
50 feet east-to-west, with an archway indicating a passage in the centre of
each wall. The room is dusty, with scraps of bone, rags, and similar
debris scattered along the walls and corners. About 10 feet in front
of the western archway is a cairn of heaped skulls – humanoid and animal – that
reaches to a height of about 3 feet. The room is barrel-vaulted to a
height of about 15 feet.
The cairn was a territorial marker
for the Skull Heap goblins, which inhabited this section of the dungeon long
ago. The skulls are mostly those of goblins, dire rats, and the
like, although a few are very small humanoid skulls (from mites), and there are
one or two human skulls as well. The skulls are ancient – most have
been here for decades or centuries. If the cairn is disturbed in any
way, it will be reformed 1d6 days later, when no one is about, by the goblin
spirits who still inhabit this area.
If, however, the skulls are
destroyed or taken away, the goblin spirits become angry, and 1d6 days later
creatures passing anywhere in Areas 2 to 40 will
begin to hear the almost inaudible muttering of goblin voices, which will grow
louder over the next 1d6 weeks. Eventually, the first goblin spirit
incorporates and places the first fresh skull (a fully intact head, use the
Wandering Monster chart to see what type) to build a new cairn. Thereafter,
groups of 2d6 goblin spirits will be encountered as Wandering Monsters (1 in 6
chance; if not, use the normal chart), working at severing heads until the
cairn is rebuilt. This will continue until all cairns (Areas 2, 41,
and 85) are restored, the undead goblin witch doctor in Area
29 is destroyed, or the goblin spirits are exorcised or slain. There
is a potential pool of 123 goblin spirits.
During this period, the whole area
becomes attuned to the Necromantic spell source, at first faintly, and then
strongly. When the muttering is heard, spells cast from the
Necromantic spell source are cast at +1 Caster Level. When the
goblin spirits are able to manifest, these spells are cast at +2 Caster Levels,
and can be cast using the ambient necromantic energy (not using the sorcerer’s
spell slots). These effects end when the cairns are rebuilt, or when
the undead are otherwise removed.
Goblin Spirit (Small Undead): Mv 20 ft.; AC 14;
Init +2; HD 1d6; Att 1 short sword (1d6); SA None; SD Semi-corporeal
(can turn incorporeal to flee or manifest to start encounter), silver or magic
weapons to hit; SQ darkvision 60 ft., powerless in daylight; SV (Fort –2,
Perc +0, Prow –2, Reas –1, Refl +2, Will +0); ML 10;
XP 18 + 1/hp. Skills: Intimidate +4, Stealth +10,
Theft +4.
123 goblin spirits: Hp: 2, 6, 1, 5, 1,
2, 3, 1, 2, 2; 3, 6, 3, 2, 1, 2, 6, 4, 5, 4; 5, 6, 1,
2, 4, 1, 6, 6, 4, 4; 6, 5, 3, 2, 5, 4, 3, 4, 4, 1; 4,
5, 2, 6, 6, 6, 3, 6, 4, 5; 6, 5, 3, 2, 5, 4, 3, 4, 4, 1; 5,
2, 5, 1, 3, 2, 5, 4, 5, 2; 2, 5, 2, 6, 6, 3, 3, 1, 3, 5; 3,
2, 3, 1, 6, 1, 6, 5, 1, 5; 5, 4, 1, 1, 6, 6, 2, 6, 2, 4; 5,
1, 5, 3, 3, 6, 1, 1, 4, 3; 2, 1, 1, 5, 6, 1, 2, 5, 6, 3; 6,
4, 5.
51.
Temple of Osiris: Inner Fane: Mildly attuned to Celestial
(+1 CL) and Eldritch Horror (+2 CL) Spell Sources.
This area is 15 feet high, the ceiling upheld by thick pillars that
march in three rows, along the walls and along the centre of the area. These
pillars were carved as though they were living trees, but they seem twisted and
fungal somehow. Thick webs are strewn between the pillars, along the
walls, in the corners, and along the ceiling. The walls appear to be
tiled with green, blue, and yellow tiles, but some sheen of iridescent colours
seems to be growing across it, like a thin layer of slime.
The walls
are cool and slimy to the touch. Any creature touching the slime
begins to glow softly at night with a strange, iridescent hue, after 1d6
days. At this time, the character must attempt a Fort or Will save
(DC 20). If the save succeeds, the glow fades over the course of
another 1d6 days. Otherwise, the glow is permanent, and the
character suffers a random mutation that manifests during the next 2d12 days,
with a +20 on the roll. Repeated exposure causes repeated effects,
and each repeat causes the roll to be made at an additional +5. If
the slime is actually tasted, the roll has an additional +10, and
there is no save. If taken from here, the slime dwindles and disappears
over the course of 1d8 hours.
Because of
the webs (which do not burn), movement here is at half speed, and creatures
cannot run or charge.
Within this
area lurk eight spiders of Leng, man-sized spiders that can pretend
to be human by wearing yellow robes that conceal their features, with four legs
acting like “legs” and four acting as “arms”, each “arm” or “leg” being in fact
two legs. They can speak with thin reedy voices, and know all
languages. Indeed, these spiders are fed information from the
Akashic record, and have Knowledge +20 in all things. They also,
therefore, know specific things about characters, their families, their fears,
their hopes, and their weaknesses. They claim to be temple priests
of Yog Sutehkis, and will answer many questions and promise many things to
avoid allow characters near Area 52. When not pretending
to be human, they can climb in this area at full speed.
Spider of
Leng (Medium Aberration [Eldritch Horror]): Mv 30 ft, Climb 20 ft;
AC 15; Init +4; HD 4d8+4; hp 20, 18, 20, 12, 29, 20, 15, 24; Att 1 bite (1d6);
SA poison (Fort DC 20, 2d6 damage for 2d6 rounds), webs (entangle DC 25); SQ
darkvision 60 ft.; SV (Fort +4, Perc +12, Prow +4, Reas +12, Refl +8, Will
+12); ML 9; XP 235 +1/hp (255, 253, 255, 247, 264, 255, 250, 259). Skills: Climb
+10, Knowledge (All) +20, Stealth +10.
Monday, 2 April 2012
Dragonsfoot Down?
The forums at Dragonsfoot seems to have gone down overnight, so I am obviously extending a grace period for my Barrowmaze play-by-post.
Speedy recovery, gents!
Speedy recovery, gents!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)








.jpg)


