Ways to spend money in a T&T game

I have been thinking about money, experience and T&T a long time. Long time reader of my blog knows that I really like the xp for gold rule in old D&D. I idea behind it is good, and I have been wanting to try it for T&T a while now. Ken St. Andre used that rule for T&T in earlier editions, but decided to skip it when it became clear that it caused problems with Monty Haul campaigns. With the provision that you have to spend the gold to exchange it for Adventure Points I think that problem can be avoided. Worth testing, I think.

When I refereed a weekly campaign of 7th ed T&T it became clear quite quickly that after a few delves to the megadungeon everyone had the best armour and weapon they could wield. If you take a look at the price list in the T&T, you find that most of the gear is affordable. The only thing that costs a lot is buying new spells. My players pooled their resources and bought a few key spells like Whammy, Omnipotent Eye and Poor Baby. I will talk about Dura-Spell Battery some other day. But, having bought those they had what they needed and once again had an a lot of loose cash.

Some might say it's a very GM centred problem to have to much gold in a campaign. While it's true to some extent I think I was fairly restrictive and when the characters did hit upon a hoard it was fun and not Monty Haul. They fought for it.

What can you spend your hard earned gold on then? Well, I guess you can buy magic items, but I like to think they feel more interesting if they are found in a dark dungeon than made to order in a craftman's shop. I did let my players buy some items, and I probably should have but more magic treasure in the game instead. But, I like to think that some of the items they did find felt interesting and wondrous enough.

But today I read something about ablative armour, again. For those who don't know, protective gear used to be worn down in earlier editions. I kind of dislike the idea of book keeping reduced hits on armour, but Dan in the post linked above gave me a new reason to reconsider it. He mentions having to spend money on repairing your gear once now and then when they take punishment from action. That is a very interesting way to part the characters from some money! I had never thought of it from that standpoint before. Worth considering, I guess.

Some observations regarding DragonQuest and Tunnels & Trolls

I have not had any luck getting any gaming done this week. My T&T game got rescheduled for next week, and the campaigns in preparation are not ready to go live yet. So, I have read some old games instead, like DragonQuest.

Now when I have re-read selected parts of it again, I feel it have a few things in common with T&T. If you attempt an action, the normal thing to do is to roll against your stats (modified for difficulty by multiplication). Looks a lot like T&T. Also, the magic system have this idea of Active Resistance where your Willpower is reduced from the skill level rolled to loosen the spell. Once again I think of T&T and the Kremm Resistance rules of 7th ed.

Those of you who have read what I've written on that subject before know that I'm not that fond of Kremm Resistance. For me it seem way to binary. Actually, DQ made me think that maybe there is a good way to actually use it, kind of like the Active Resistance.

One way of doing it would be to let it be specific action. You can resist the spell, but then you wont do anything else. Then you have a few ways to handle it.

I think there are three basic ways to do it. You have to compare the WIZ scores between the Caster and the Target, and then you can use that for either affecting the INT to cast the spell, affect the level of the INT SR or lastly to affect the WIZ cost.

For fans of 5th ed, where there is no INT SR to cast a spell (which some have complained about as a nerfing of the Wizard without realizing that the extra AP gained evens it out), I think the last option is the way to go. That is, if you want Kremm Resistance in your game.

For us who use 7th ed, I prefer the option of affecting the INT score. Trying to get a number in a sensible range to affect the level seems harder. So, I present this suggestion.

Reduce the INT rolled for casting the spell the amount the WIZ score of the target surpasses the caster's score.

e.g. Caster with INT 16 and WIZ 16 cast a spell on Target with WIZ 20, so the Caster rolls his INT SR with an effective INT of 12 (20-16).

That way rolling doubles might still penetrate the defences, and since it will have to be actively resisted it might not be an option for every time and place.

I don't want to go the way of rolling saves or resistances all the time, it just wouldn't be T&T. This way the changes to the regular rules are minimal, and the binary nature of the rules as written is avoided. I never liked the way magic became so "scientific" and sure when you had the "you can't go there" sign of a high WIZ opponent.

You feel the WIZ drain effect is missing? Well, I think that will happen anyway. Just watch that Wizard working over time casting spells and throwing WIZ around. Survive a few rounds, or be smart and tempt him to waste some and then punch him. Otherwise I'm sure there's some way to re-engineer that one in as well.

Let me know what you think.

Loot and Plunder have arrived, from Lulu!

So now I'm finally the proud owner of some more excellent gaming materials, of the old school variety. Fight On! is just as good as always and the other stuff was also very nice indeed. Undoubtedly I will post more about this hoard later. Today I will note one of my impressions of the bundle.

After having browsed Stonehell, by Michael Curtis, I still think it would have been better if he had reworked it a bit from the original format. While the One Page Dungeon template might be a good focus for your creativity, I don't think it works as well as a quadrant of a bigger dungeon map. On the earlier maps I think it is clear that the connections between the quadrants are few, and it doesn't look like one big map. It looks like four maps with some connectors. The lower levels look more "organic" so I guess he felt more at home with the template as he kept chugging along.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think Stonehell is a marvellous piece of work and my first thought on cracking it open was "Now I want to find someone to play this with!" It's that inspiring. But, I think Mike could make something even more exciting without limiting himself to the template.

If I weren't so unfocused on my own writing I might try to learn something by this for my own. Having my dungeons shaped by the limits of my medium have been on my mind before.

Well. Go get Stonehell yourself and see what you think! I'm very happy I got it.

Castles made of sand, stories made from threads of many colours

A few days ago I read a very enlightening piece over on the blog Playing D&D With Pornstars. He writes about the way the "work ethic" of the rogue drives play, and gets the character into troubles and adventure.

As you might remember, I posted about how I had a bad experience of my players ignoring the hooks to adventure I dangled before them. This about a work ethic made me think.

I really think you can have a good and solid game which feels interactive, even if the GM have a story to tell. I also think that having a open sandbox sounds like it's liberating, but it comes with its own set of problems not advertised on the box.

One suggestion from in one of the comments to my post lamenting my experiences with adventure hooks has the key. Imagine a campaign where the outlines of the world are prepared, and there are forces at work in the setting. This will lay some groundwork for greater machinations going on behind the scenes. Now imagine how those machinations will manifest themselves on a concrete level, visible to the players. This is an adventure hook.

This makes me think of how Dogs in the Vineyard works. The players have a town in front of them, and if the go there they will be entangled in the webs of intrigue and the twisted relationships there. Also, whatever they do will have consequences.

If the GM wants to have epic stories play out in his world, this is how they evolve. Great changes are afoot, and if the characters interact with the results of those changes the players will help shape the future. The GM will decide how much he lets the players shape until they have stepped up their game to the global level.

Let's imagine for an instant that the players ignore that town, ripe with sin and glorious options for kicking ass. If there are more things going on in the world there will be more things happening soon which will hit the fan close to where the characters are standing. This is another adventure hook.

Our hard working GM might be a bit frustrated by now if the players don't take that hook. No worries. Keep moving your "story" along, and if you don't decide to kick out your players for not doing their job (go ahead and do it!) things will happen they can't ignore. Bring 10 000 orchs to their hometown.

What I'm imagining here is not a Sandbox as such, at least not the way it sounds like when its praises are sung on old school blogs. I don't think it's a railroaded Story campaign either. I suggest a new term is founded to express the idea of a campaign frame where there are a Story fuelling conflicts in the setting, an open world whereupon the players can leave their mark and finally a whole bundle of threads which tie into the bigger issues that they players can ignore as long as they take some of these threads and start weaving. I'd like to call it a Threaded Campaign, as a middle ground between the open Sandbox and the Story Campaign.

I realize I might misrepresent some of your holy cows here. Some is for emphasis, but I think my main thrust is interesting. Feel free to comment upon that, and other thoughts you have.

Defining Dogs as a sandbox, and how hooks and threads make the box tick

Once again my commentators are thinking along the same lines as me, and I'll tie in a bit with that. I will try to expand upon DitV as sandbox, and my thoughts on the social aspect of play and what makes a game tick. The latter is what I call narrowing the sandbox. Let's dive right in.

If we put it down to basics, riding from town to town settling issues might not look very much like an open game. It's correct that there are few allowances in the game to, say, settle down and grow crops instead. But, within the limits of the way the game is set up, it's very open. Let's take a look at that, and then the rules for settling down and grow crops.

As you come to a town in Dogs, usually the problem with the town will be apparent for all to see. This person have sinned, or stepped out of line socially and the society has to be healed somehow. If you accept that your role is to heal that town, you now have total freedom! ? You could burn the town to the ground, shoot all the sinners, forgive everyone or any kind of harsh or mild action. You are invested with the power to say it is alright, and you choose how to exercise it.

So what if I wanted to grow barley instead? Well, nothing is stopping you. If you take a look at what the game system, you'll see that is not a task system. In fact, conflicts in DitV is even not really about who "win" the conflict. The system is a betting game where all you're doing is to see how far you are ready to go to win. There's even suggestions for other settings in the rulebook. If you want to settle down and grow crops you can do it, and when conflicts arise from agriculture the game system will help you decide how for you are ready to go to get what you want. Let's take a look at the social aspect of play.

Since my dear readers have pointed out that this idea that you are a "wandering religious lawman" could be considered very limiting, let's ask ourselves how that is. I'd suggest that the meta layer of the game, the social rules is most important here. Just like in my game (posted about earlier) where the players ignored the fact that they had sat down to be adventurers and thus go on adventures, there are always social rules that are the basis for a functional game.

I'd say that accepting the fact that in DitV you are supposed to be a lawman is just as basic as accepting that in D&D you wont play a starship captain. It's a social meta rule. I think these rules are probably what makes a game tick. If the players accept a limited arena of action it will feel cool, and the spaces wide within that arena.

Now, why would anyone even accept a more narrow arena than a wide open world? Well, I think it ties into the idea of adventure hooks. Even the most open game will go nowhere unless there's a hook somewhere. It might be in the character backstory, or something the GM put together. Actually, I think the game where it will feel like a real world, and with endless possibilities is one where the GM have a whole bunch of hooks, or story threads. Let's say he have a dozen he hand dangle in front of the players and they can pick and choose which one to go for. I think then you will get a good game from that prep and the socially accepted arena. It will be open, but not wide open. The edges of the box will have come into focus, but everything you do will make sense and have an effect. Isn't that what we all want as players?

What shape is that sandbox anyway?

In the comments to my last post the question arose, what happens if you ignore the town and go out in the mountains to dig for gold? Well, in DitV you are God's Watchdogs, who travel from town to town so doing that would be an error in the part of the player. Basically, you wouldn't play the game, so why did you show up?

This is where I think the shape of the sandbox becomes an issue. Imagine a game where you are playing a roguish character, but stop behaving like one. Imagine a game where you are a preacher and mailman, but stop behaving like one. In a narrow sandbox you would be able to do whatever you want, as long as you stay within that box. The thing is, there's always a shape of that box, be it narrow and long or something else.

I think that while strictly limited games where you can only do what's expected of you is considered bad, the solution to that problem is not the Sandbox silver bullet. I think the wish to be able to go anywhere and do anything is the ultimate dream of Simulationism. I'm afraid I have to use some Forge-speak, since it actually expresses what I mean here. But, for a casual gamer who just want to be heroic this wont cut the mustard.

I suggest that the reason we have adventures is that for those of us who don't want Simulationism, there has to be a Story, of some kind. The effect will be that the sandbox has to shrink, and maybe a little more narrow. It doesn't have to be narrow as a railroad track, but it suddenly gets a bit of focus when the edges are no longer lost in a mist, but can at least be imagined. I have some ideas about how to bring that focus, which I will detail tomorrow.

The Wild West sandbox

I was about to play Dogs in the Vineyard the day before yesterday. Since everyone in Sweden is ill, all the time, it didn't happen. But, when I was sitting on the bus going to where I though we were having a game, I realized one thing about Dogs. In DitV you as the GM generate a town, according to specific rules. Some NPCs will inhabit that town, and they are all involved in "the thing" that's happening in that town. They all have an agenda and want something specific from the characters, and you have to specify what will happen if the characters never had entered that town. Then you let the players loose and don't ever try to play god! It struck me that this is the ultimate toolbox for sandbox play.

So, that means that the most well known new school Forge-style indie game is based on sandbox play, not Story. Interesting.

Gobling Waters delve!

This last Sunday we played T&T, and great fun was had. Three brave adventurers managed to be in the hobb hamlet of Kobb, and answered the pleas for help from the vertically challenged.

Grötz - a very stout dwarf
Farhandian - a very charming fairy
Jack - roguish human

Later on, Farhandian was lovingly carried back to town in an envelope to be buried and the very sturty hobb Sam took his place. Nothing stops adventure!

So, what happened? We were playing Garen Ewing's small GM adventure Goblin Waters, since it was of fitting size and I had it printed out. I really wish Garen had published the map in some other format than jpg, though. With a lossy compression format like that it was very hard to read the keys from the printout. Use png, people!

Our brave adventurers, broke as usual, came to a small hamlet where everyone was sad because their mayor and their dragon mascot had been stolen. Our brave delvers accepted their hospitality and enjoyed themselves among good food and fair hobb maidens. Then they grabbed their weapons and followed a young hobb named Sam to where he had seen the vile goblins disappear into the mountainside.

All the while they was in the caves and tunnels, goblin patrols managed to run into them. For some reason it always meant a fight instead of evasion. I guess they took that kind of serious about "punish those vile goblins". I tried to be good with hints when they encountered bigger and more well trained goblins. All those hints fell on deaf ears, but when the dwarf decided to behave like a bowling ball, and the fairy focusing on diversion it went very smooth indeed. Then the delver with gossamer wings and 4 in CON decided to go up against a goblin. Fairy past against his shield and the cavern wall. At least his comrades in arms decided to buy him a nice card to be sent home in. Suddenly Sam realized he had qualities hereto unknown, and joined the group as a spell caster. They brought poor Farhandian back to the village and Grötz had to scream very loud and recruit and train a local militia to get them to think positively again after that. Then they got back.

My favourite scene was when they had dared to enter one of the tunnels off the under ground lake and found the goblin accountant! He was totally non plussed by the appearance of intruders and even got them to help him work! Don't let anyone say that there are no NPC interactions and no character role play and immersion in a dungeon crawl! Questioning him was great fun.

What can be said about that session? Well, everyone seemed to think T&T was very fun, and that the freedom allowed by the Saving Rolls system was making the system come alive for them all. I tried to be quite generous with AP for good ideas and making us laugh. A sense of accomplishment is not to be underestimated, and the constant trickle of AP from SRs helped that. I ignored Kremm Resistance, since I haven't decided what to make of it. We also used my House rule with 4d and pick 3, for humans to measure up to other kin. Paragons I only allow after a triples, since the 4d makes all 12+ more likely.

My players will have to chime in with details I have forgotten.

A summary of the Outlaw Press scandal

This is so sad.

Today I read this very good summary of the amoral behaviour of James Shipman. Please don't buy anything from him, or contribute anything. If he sells something that is yours, initiate legal action, it seems nothing else will stop him.

This is just so sad.

Skills in Lords of Creation and DragonQuest

Last night I had intended to work on my modules, but fretted and paced to no avail and wrote nothing. Today I was dead tired from not having slept enough (not easy while fretting and pacing), and decided to take a look at Encounter Critical for Jeff Rients' competition. Guess what, I got sidetracked and got down Lords of Creation from the shelf instead. Yeah, that focused.

Did you know that there are actually skills in this Tom Moldvay design? I took a gander at the skills and their descriptions, and there was an illustration which caught my eye. On page 11 there's a lady, clothed in a ankle-length cloak. But, she is holding it open exposing a body which is either painted too look like stars and planets, or is actually a gate unto the void. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be seductive or scary. It is weird. Imagine what impression that would have left on me if I'd gotten this game at a more impressionable age. Gaming illustrations are weird sometimes. Hmm. Focus.

Back to the skills. Let's see how they work. Just like DragonQuest, these are nothing like any skills I recognize (BRP experience talking). In DQ a skill is something like a whole profession, or a class. Putting more experience into the skill unlocks new abilities, not to dissimmilar to class abilities. I thumbed through the character generation chapter in LoC, and there are skills in there! I saw a odd looking chart and decided to read up on how it worked. So, in this game you put points into a Skill, which have levels and are actually called a profession. Just like DQ you also multiply the level with some funky number (yay! arithmetics!)  to get a percentage of success. Hmm. I wonder if Mr. Moldvay knew of DQ? LoC is published in 1984, so I guess it's possible, since 2nd ed DQ was published in 1981.

I will probably not write a module tonight either.