The Dragon

Sometimes you have strange thoughts in your backyard.

1. The Dragon is old. The Dragon was alive when our great-grandfathers are alive, and has only grown more terrible with each passing year.
2. The Dragon is immense. In terms of sheer scale, no twenty of our men could hope to match it.
3. The Dragon is powerful. In the past, our strongest fighters could hope to drive it back. But they are gone, and the Dragon is still here. Our best weapons cannot hurt it. It does not even notice.
4. The Dragon manipulates nature. Should it desire to, it may call down soothing rains. It is by the will of the dragon that water flows in this land.
5. The Dragon can be fled from. It is large, and it cannot follow into the depths of the forest. But the Dragon is clever. It knows where we sleep. It may seal us in if it wishes, and it may do as it pleases while we rest. When the time comes, it will come while we are at our most vulnerable.
6. The Dragon takes sacrifices. It takes the youngest and strongest of the men, and takes them as its victims. It spares the women and the girls, and it leaves the older men. But there are so few of them, and at the close of each generation, there are but a few who remain.
7. The Dragon shows favorites. Sometimes it admires the brave and foolish, and spares them. Sometimes it prefers those who come to it. But the Dragon is fickle, and we cannot judge the exact nature behind its whims.
8. The Dragon is not alone. There are others like it, though we see less of them. They are no less powerful. Perhaps there are even more.
9. The Dragon controls other beasts. They are not so intelligent or mighty, but their power is greater than the sum of ours nonetheless. If not for the Dragon, they would rampage across the land.
10. The Dragon is a protector. The lesser beasts, which refuse to acknowledge its power, might harass us. When they arrive, it beast them back. When needed, it calls upon magic and flame to annihilate them.
11. The Dragon brings forth food. Some among us say this is for the sake of fattening us up, others that it is a kindness, and others still a simple part of its nature.
12. The Dragon dwells in a strange place, where the natural order is defied. There are lights in the darkness, the air is shifted, and great treasures and strange foods can be found scattered about.
13. The Dragon, it is said - or others like it - is responsible for the very homes we dwell in, in a time long before our distant ancestors. Or perhaps this was a different Dragon, and a people from before even our ancestors.
14. The Dragon is not a god. It is still bound to the rules of the world. It must eat to survive, and it must rest as well. It is an existence above our own, but it is not an all-powerful one. One day it, too, shall die.

Update + Misc. Combat Notes

Work is pretty smooth in hammering out my system, which I've moved to the name Ascalon (a double tribute to St. George and the first Guild Wars, besides the power of "A" in alphabetical listings). The core for everything is pretty much there, but I still need to do a last revision of the bestiary (since this is the coolest and most original part!), and finish up the (supplementary) campaign world book.

The biggest stump is that I originally wanted to use a revised dungeon generator based on Appendix A, but modified to minimize diagonal hallways (both a pain to draw and to map) and to make use of a "throw all of the dice" mechanic (i.e. after you've done it a few times, you can just look at the pile and immediately draw the next part, save for a few niche cases). And while that did work, it's ugly and I don't like it, so I'm using Excel to put together a series of dungeon tiles to package with everything:

Diagonals are even more annoying here.

Of course you can always get dungeon tiles from somewhere online, or even pull out the old TSR ones or something, but I'd rather put everything together as a complete package.

Ultimately the core rules are coming in most part from two sources: either the LBB, or the other LBB (with the optional Traveller-inspired character generation), and with a few more modern things borrowed from ACKS (throw-based attacks and Fighter damage bonuses; the latter for the purpose of Supernatural Hit Dice, the former because it has been the easiest attack/armor mechanic to explain to new players).

I'll mark down here a few of the notes I've pinned down for combat:

Grabbing
I've found that a universal mechanic for grappling is a terrible idea, as evidence by the d20 system and the excessively high bonus numbers required just to give a semblance of realism. I like the Arduin grapple escape table as a way for players to get away from big monsters, and I also rule that in general, there is effectively no chance for even the strongest human Fighter to grapple an elephant or tentacle beast from hell. Which leads to the need for a grapple mechanic of people of two sides.

I tried a few things, and eventually found something that worked smoothly by drawing inspiration from a few atypical source - fighting games, and room-mates practicing BJJ. You'll see it when you read this description:

Conditions to grab: (1) Your character must get in 'close'. (2) You must give up 'first strike' if you have it - grabbing goes last in melee. (3) Your opponent must not hit you. (4) You must succeed on a normal attack throw.

You have options: grapple, pummel, throw, or take-down. Pick one. Fighters of Heroic status or better pick two. Pummeling is a normal fist/dagger attack. Throwing tosses your opponent ~5ft away. Take-down sends them to the ground. Grappling holds them.

In grappling: The PC rolls 1d6 each round. Stronger characters advance 1-3, remain 4-5, fall back on 6. If even, it's 1-2, 3-4, 5-6. If the PC is weaker, it's 1, 2-3, 4-6. Of course, as anyone who has dealt with grappling knows, strength and size mean less and experience means more on the ground - thus, a Fighter-type is considered "even on" against stronger opponents while grappling on the ground. The PC determines what "advancing" is - either trying to escape, or trying to hold.

Grappling positions: Freed, Holding, Pinning, Submitting. Holding means the stronger character may move both up to 10ft (standing) or 5ft (prone). Pinning means neither can move, though the pinning character may deliver unarmed or knife attacks to the pinned. Submission means the submitted character is helpless, and can no longer attempt to escape (submission can happen only if HP falls low enough). Freed means either escape, or turn over - the "freed" characters choice.

For a dog-pile, so long as one potential grappler isn't successfully hit, that's good enough. Each would-be grappler makes an attack throw, and only one needs to hit. For every participant beyond the first, add +1 as an adjustment to d6 throws (thus, a Hero grappled by four Orcs would roll at -4 to the 1d6 check). Super-Heroic characters can be grappled only by characters who are at least Heroic, unless below a certain HP threshold, though lesser sorts may assist a superior sort in a dog-pile.

Whips are special: You can use a whip to grab an opponent from a distance. Unlike a normal grab, a whip grab has 'first strike'; but, if you miss, your opponent gets +4 'to-hit' against you. Whips are kind of stupid but they're pretty cool.


Cleaving/Clearing
I started at one point with allowing multiple damage dice as level advanced, but never found a way that satisfied me or the table as 'sensible' for resolving total damage against one opponent, and total damage overall. It also meant a lot of dice rolling. The ACKS/Arneson mechanic of chopping (cleaving) satisfied as letting Fighters cut through a lot of enemies, and possibly a whole cluster of 0-level sorts in one go, and so I adopted that. The specific variation, in my case, being: You can attack, step forward if you want to, and keep doing it until you fail to kill someone or your kill count equals your level.

This worked well, until the classic old-school problem of 40+ goblins. A lot of dice rolling followed, and each round took far longer than I would have liked. I'm okay with long combats for a purpose, but I prefer those to just be a lot of rounds - not each round taking forever. Eventually, I was directed to a Mornard post on Gygax's solution - just roll a dice, and cut down that many (0-level sorts), no attack roll. So I crunched some numbers, based on the cleaving rule, and found that it was close enough to go with. I'll admit that I don't have play-testing results at the upper bounds, but the numbers suggest these projections to be reasonable:

Fighters of Heroic status may "clear" 1d4 HD of opponents at 1HD or less. This value rises to 1d6 at the 6th Level and 1d8 at the 8th Level, and increases by +1 per each level over the 10th. Super-heroic types add a bonus equal to the "plus" of magical weapons they wield. Fighters can optionally step forward between opponents, to get them all.

Personally, I'd also make special situational bonuses - a Fighter subject to a berserker effect, I might automatically rule as clearing the maximum possible number. But I'd rather not codify that sort of situational thing.

Commentaries on Dave Arneson's True Genius

Like most 20-somethings who don't buy Apple products, I feel physical pain when I spend money on things. But sometimes I do, and the result is usually a foreign music album, training equipment, or a book. In this case, following Mike Mornard's review of the material, I decided to pick up a copy of Dave Arneson's True Genius.

This post is going to be a commentary on thoughts that I had on the material, more-so than it is a review. It'll be a bit easier to understand if you have a copy with you, since I don't want to put in an incessant amount of quotation, nor draw attention away from getting an official copy. You can do that here. I recommend the Media Mail - the leadtime's going to take longer than the delivery anyways, so you're getting diminishing returns on your investment. Of course, it's not like Adam Smith is going to judge you for wanting a book a day earlier, so go ahead if you want.

Review?

If you want a review of the book, follow that link up above to Mornard's. It'll tell you what you need to know before buying.

The only thing that really bothered me is something that he brings up: DATG is riddled with references to Kuntz's unpublished work. There was certainly room for more elaboration - the book is slim enough the mail lady asked if I was picking up photographs. The book has critical academic value, but it's ultimately three essays, and not a full-length text. On the other hand, it does a good job with making A New Ethos in Game Design out to be interesting. If I were in Kuntz's shoes, I would drop the bizarre stance against digital media and release these essays in PDF/epub format about a month leading up to its release. The worst thing that could happen is free advertising for the lengthier work.

Other than that gripe (which can be rendered less distracting if you save the footnotes until a repeat reading), the material is fairly solid overall, which is why I'm writing a post about it. I'll be re-referencing the material as I write this, so my thoughts are going to be a bit scattered about.

Commentary on Essay #1: From Vision to Vicissitude

This is the densest of the three essays by a large amount, and systems are to blame. Well, actually, Rob Kuntz is to be blamed - see, on pg.54, there's a wonderful model comparing a childhood open play model with a war-game closed model. What this essay needed, to alleviate the concerns about this book being dense/academic, would have been a friendly chart on pg.11 visually showing the the pertinent differences between open and closed systems, and perhaps the feedback provided by Arneson's emergent model. Unfortunately there is little of the sort here.

Complaining about what isn't there isn't going to be as productive as commenting on what is there, which is where the next few glorious pages come in, detailing the strides the Arneson made (and what I am supposing to be the backbone of Kunt'z model). This is where we get the first major takeaway: The origin of role-playing games is closer to make-believe than Monopoly. This has led me to make a few conclusions based on the implication:

• The original division of materials in the game, in which only the GM is aware of anything more than the most bare-bones of rules, was the correct one. That there be transparency in this seems reasonable, if only for the sake of impartial judgment; however, where the rules are laid out as strict guidelines, rather than provided as tools, the creates a barrier on the internal human function we call "creativity", and takes the game further from the origin.
• Once the barriers are stripped down and the origin exposed, the open aspect of the system provides itself. There are a lot of GMs who worry about "getting it right" when it comes to subject material, especially when playing with educated people. The incorrect solution is to close off the system and enter into a state of contingencies, where you have the answer readied for every scenario your own limited mind can think of. Rather, all players at the table are in full awareness to their options being open, the same intuition presented by children in make-believe will lead to an adult using.
• To maintain the opening of the mind, created by this link to the origin, the GM must be able to respond this awakening: Solutions proposed must be acted upon in a fair and impartial manner, and without ulterior method. This creates the most blatant rebuke against even the mildest and most well-intended forms of cheating and fudging: Should the GM act in a manner to "help out" his favorite baddie, or turn down an entirely valid solution simply because it would bypass an obstacle, he is closing off a stream of external input to satisfy his own interests. The game at this point ceases to truly be collaborative.
• This same principle offers a rebuke against the idea of railroading. Viewed under this lens, the railroad is a cast of the GM essentially sealing the game world off from all influences, save for those which are specifically desired. Again, this is not longer a true collaboration, and has strayed from the origin of what makes role-playing games fun.

To give a literary example of creativity in action, when I was still a kid, I was quite struck by the ingenuity of Cyrus Harding in Verne's The Mysterious Island. Remember that experiment in high school Physics where you take a meter-stick and some basic trig to figure out a person's height? Congrats, you can solve for the height of a cliff. Now, how many game-books include rules for finding cliff height? Or trigonometry? Probably not many. On the one hand, this proposes an untapped niche in education market just begging to be exploited. On the other hand, it's a pretty simple example of applying outside knowledge to solve a problem. Of course, in play, the GM might just fiat away the entire inspection and say "it's a 250ft cliff" without further details, but we're not going to get a contract from Pearson if we keep thinking like that.

With regards to principles like fudging and railroad, it's worth mention that there are those who defend these activities, so long as they are restrained. And there's a three-letter word that gets brought up quite a lot when talking about this.

Yep, that three letter word.

Here's a question: Why do some people enjoy being in a game that's railroaded, when the concept as a whole is known to be bad? Cop-out answer: Those people are dumb and can't play right. But what if we apply systems thinking to this? Let's have at it: Imagine a yellow submarine, full of little people that live in it. This yellow submarine is our game world, and the people PCs, NPCs, and monsters. Information flows in and out of the system through a series of access ports.

Yes, this model is a gross oversimplification, but it's enough to make the point. Let's consider a game near its "origin": In this case, the players state what they wish to do. The GM offers up results based on the rules of the game, as well as the "common sense" of the scenario. The railroad is different: The provision of input is the same, but here, the outcome is either predetermined, or else narrowed down. One can compare, in the most basic form, the concept of the quantum ogre.

The "origin" scenario is free flow of information overseen by the invisible neck hand of the GM. Child-like wonder like make-believe, but with responsive structures to accompany it, and give a sense of there being an actual "game" with some sort of stakes. The free flow is important, because it means when one play reads an article on animal husbandry, he might actually propose a use for it in the game world. Quite unlike a game of Catan, where all the farming knowledge in the world won't make you roll that damn 11 any more often.

The railroad by definition invalidates input by predetermining input. If possible inputs are "A" to "Z" but only "A" to "D" are accepted, then if the players suggest "E" to "Z", there will likely be disappointment. But it's a little more complex: Besides "E" to "Z", you also cut off all possibilities which stem from there. Further, when players realize output doesn't match input, their input will change as a result - whether it's "following the story" or "rejecting the railroad".

But what if the railroad the GM created was the optimal solution? What if the input was perfectly in sync? What if this well-prepared GM, having been so meticulous, was actually more responsive? We don't even need to make steps this extreme - even slight cases of "illusion of freedom" can come up here. And the lighter shades of this scenario are where we can drive the truth behind the railroad - as well as why, ultimately, it's still an inferior option.

We can therefore point out the real problem with the railroad:

• At its best, railroading fails to prepare a GM for refereeing unexpected input.
• At its worst, railroading invalidates the choices of all players at the table.
• In all scenarios, railroading is deceptive in its degree of how open the system is.

So yes: It is possible to have a "good" session or campaign was the heavily railroaded. But we can also show in plain terms why it is a sub-optimal option, even then.

We've gone on a pretty long tangent about railroads, so let's go back to the essay. I can't add a lot more commentary to the rest, because it's mostly recollection. I wasn't there, I don't have the full information, I don't have to contribute. The contradictory Gygax quotes are a fairly long-standing joke online, so seeing those laid out nicely is funny in its own way (I think a few forum posts from Gygax in his later years might have served to reinforce the point a bit more, or even a few personal quotes). For the person interested in the history of and/or early drama within the hobby, this section is definitely a juicy one. I remember reading before that Kuntz had a near-perfect memory, and his recollection of things supports that.

Just before the closing of the essay, Kuntz talks a bit about the direction of the hobby. And here I might have a few disagreements. The relevant quotation:

"In due course the design tenets/philosophies of the original game, now ignored, faded against an immense and growing foreground of TSR doing the imagining and creating of pre-determined/pre-structured scenarios for the consumer. The sustained promulgation of this disposable and repeatable model caused all but scattered remains of the original RPG philosophy it was then forming to be lost. This 180 degree reversal abruptly issued in the Formula RPG experience that persists to this very day as a strictly close form expression; and this was (and still is) a direct, and glaring, contradiction to the genius of its original manifestations: First Fantasy Campaign and the commercially successful Classic Dungeons & Dragons." (Kuntz 30)

The reason I "might" have a disagreement, is because of a lack of clarification on what exactly "Formula RPGs" entails. The most narrow definition I conclude, and which I suspect is correct, is a criticism of modules, adventure paths, and other pre-made content. This is an entirely valid criticism, and remains the most consistent with the rest of the text.

But in the context given, I also get the sense that Kuntz is targeting the market for selling new rules-texts, especially with regards to TSR and now WotC. This is an interpretation that doesn't mesh with his praise of individual GMs constructing their own game worlds, and their own rules. Is it okay do so, as long as you don't publish it for money?

I see rules like a coding library: Yes, you could come up with that dirt-simple encumbrance system on your own, but that doesn't mean you should when someone already did. This also holds true at the company level - assuming a game design studio play-tests a bunch of alternate rules everyone thinks would be cool, why not put them out as a bundle? You run the risk of getting something like Unearthed Arcana published, sure, but as long as you're upfront about things being optional - and that the core rules themselves are optional - then it's tools, in the same fashion as new monsters, geomorphs, or other products meant to provide more material.

Of course, all of this is a "might", and I'm fairly sure my initial interpretation is closer to what he was getting at - I don't seen any criticisms levied against Supplement I ~ III, both of which expanded on the core rules; if this was a problem, I think it would have been specifically addressed.

Commentary on Essay #2: Dimensionality in Design

Looking at the back cover blurb, this feels like it should be the most important of the three essays. I can't say I disagree with what's written, and the points made are valid. But having read over it a couple of times, the strongest feeling I have here is: "Yes, and?"

Let me explain: There is a major emphasis on this section (and indeed, it pervades the book in general) on Arneson's ideas as having been quickly bounded by the system of D&D, marketed, and then effectively stunted up to this day. Kuntz argues that there is a Garden of Eden emergence which can be found if we can back-track to Arneson's core idea, and then from there, dig one further step down the line. This as-of-yet unseen Eden could be used to open an entirely new step in the field of game design. I am not convinced, based on the material he provides, that there is a further step down the line - or to be more precise, that it's a step is immediately relevant to game design.

Picture a group of primitive hunter-gatherers. The chief has a poor opinion of one of the hunters, because he has his enormous mole on the back of his neck that just gets really distracting, and so he keeps making that guy act as the bait when they go hunting. Now, the hunter is quite annoyed, and brings this up in a meeting - why is it almost always him that gets the worst job, when he's a perfectly fine hunter in his own right? The rest of the group supports him (he's brave enough to keep staring down wild animals, after all), the chief gets worried about his own position, and the group decides to put together a "fair" system - pulling sticks to see who gets the crappy spot.

Expand this further, and you have a basic human characteristic: Organizing things. Building structures. Trying to make it all sensible, or at least, somewhat sensible. Why are house-rules needed? Because dammit, people want things to make sense to them - either sense in terms of realism, or sense in terms of ease of play at the table. This is where I believe the core actually lies - the interplay between human imagination, and human structure. In other words, the fundamental action of creating something. What role-playing games create is fictional and fleeting, but it is an act of creation nonetheless - and in this aspect, they have something in common with nearly all human activities, be it writing a novel, building a bird-box, or creating civilization.

Did Arneson create something new? Yes. That's something worth praising. Is there something a bit deeper than that? Yes. Does it have something to do with game design? I don't believe that it does. Kuntz has had a lot longer to think on this, so perhaps he might have done it - found that hidden root, and whatever undiscovered genres of games are buried away. But I don't see a path to that in digging through Arneson - rather, it strikes me as more important to celebrate the fact that a man who had such a strong spark of creativity was able to share it.

Commentary on Essay #3: Debunking the Chainmail/Braunstein Myth

In contrast to the earlier sections, there's not to much to comment on here - the points made so far give way to the final conclusion, that the FFC was an original idea, and not just a derivative of something else. Essay #2 sets up the backbone for this, in its assessment of Arneson as the original creator of the idea; and though I have disagreed with the asserted implications, the core idea is one that seems quite solid. This was something novel, the work of a genius. Following this, we get an appendix of quotations, more previewing of the upcoming book, and a neat afterword. It's worth reading over, but again, there's not much to comment on - or, rather, I'll hold of any further comments until we get the complete work.

Some closing thoughts: Reading through this, I am left wondering what thoughts Kuntz holds in relation to the other styles of role-playing which have emerged. Where does a game like Amber Diceless hold in perspective to this? the assorted one-page RPGs that you can find floating around all over the internet? foreign RPGs born with very different logic and influences?

Let's use Ryuutama as an example here. I'll take the pertinent points about the game, beyond just the basic mechanics, which are either in contrast to OD&D, or in contrast to most story-games. These are almost direct copy-pastes from the official web-site:

• UNLIKE OD&D: The game makes use of the principle of shared world creation. Every player at the table contributes before the campaign begins, and not just after.
• UNLIKE STORY-GAMES: The game makes it entirely possible to fail. The players possess little in the way of mechanics-only methods (fate points, etc.) to escape a bad situation. Your party can get wiped by anything from monsters to the weather. Progression is tangibly tracked based on each action.
• UNLIKE OD&D: There is an emphasis on telling stories. The initial investment into your character is expected to be a lot higher, though the time to create one is still quite short.
• UNLIKE STORY-GAMES: The game actually makes use of traditional functions like caller or mapper as major role.
• UNLIKE EITHER: The GM has a hidden character, with a character sheet, that remains off-screen and makes small adjustments to help out the players. The more games run, the more XP this character gains, and the more that can be done.
• LIKE BOTH: The game has its own rules, but emphasizes the importance of fiat, rather than standardization; each campaign is its own, stand-alone thing, and the GM is encouraged to make adjustments beyond the scope of the rules as needed.

Effectively, you have a game that straddles the boundary between a game of exploration and adventure, and a game for making stories. What sort of appraisal does a game like this deserve? It seems unfair to dismiss simply on account of being lengthier - especially when we consider a game not designed around the idea of supplements, monster books, or any future material other than what the buyer comes up with themselves. Similarly, the most immediately damning feature in reference to ye olden days - references to contemporary video game mechanics and tropes - seems misplaced when considering the original target audience is people who have likely never played a TTRPG (besides perhaps Call of Cthulhu), let alone even heart of a war-game. The kids back then had John Carter, the kids nowadays have Legend of Zelda.

Well, that all said: There's a sentiment from Kuntz that things in the hobby are not doing so well. If we're talking the broadest picture - which is Wizards of the Coast, and their 5th Edition of D&D - then yes, things do seem to have strayed in what is an overall bad direction. But the internet has been a wonderful tool in promoting other ideas, as well as new materials and new takes on older material and older ideas. And of course, there's still people - even younger people - who make use of what once was rather that what is now. So while criticism of the wrongs is appropriate, I see room to be optimistic about where things are going.

That's all the thoughts I've had. If anyone comes passing by that's taken a look, I'd be interested to know what other's thought about it.

Music

Here's a completely original statement - music is a great source for inspiration.

Okay so maybe not an original statement, but everyone has there own things that really set their mind turning. I was thinking, while I was doing some writing, just how important what it was that I was drawing inspiration from was. I wanted to toss some things out.

Starting with something a little higher class - nothing stands out more to me for science-fiction than classical music. This is obviously the most pronounced for the space opera and even hard sci-fi, but it spreads into other things as well. For whatever reason, electronic or synthetic music tends to come across as too on-the-nose once your setting is in the sea of stars. Mahler specifically was apparently a favorite for the LotGH music editors, so I've gotten to hear quite a bit of his work through that.

I would have to say that fantasy almost goes in the opposite direction twice in this regard. Perhaps its out of an appreciation for the more gonzo material, but I'm quite fond of anachronistic, electronic sounds when dwelling on fantasy materials, almost as much as I appreciate folk music. But what really makes me "feel it" is blending those elements together. Kaoling, the composer/song-writer whose album cross-fade is up there, stands out quite strong in that regard. Her Vocaloid tracks (like The Wind Extolling Freedom) might not stand out as well for those not as accustomed to the pitch, but the compositions are stellar.

More in the same vein as the above. The previous was a Japanese producer who likes to use a made-up language (seemingly based a little on Welsh) for harmonies in Celtic music. Here's Celtic music from a Chinese (or Chinese-Canadian) producer with Japanese lyrics over it. Whatever else globalization has brought us, it does wonders when you're talking about our species-wide mutual appreciation for music.

Jeremy Soule gets a lot of praise for his musical work, with TES as a series being one of the most notable in the video games (though I'd say the original Guild Wars was some of his best work). But when it comes to actually running things at the table, the older games in the series are the ones that really stand out in this regard. If I know that Skeletons are going to be coming out, I make a strong point of keeping their Daggerfall sound-files on standby.

The only music allowed on Halloween (designated night for one-shots where the maps are drawn side-view instead of overhead) is music from Castlevania.

"Arthurian legends", "folk music", and "Heather Dale" all tie pretty close together for me. There's other artists in the folk genre, but her specific niche aligns perfectly with my personal interests. The occasional SCA song helps brings back childhood memories, too (I'll probably never forget that damn rooster song the camp bard used to play while all the adults were smirking at us).

I have to imagine that power/symphonic metal is one of the most known of genres in the fantasy gaming community. I have no citations for that but it strikes me as likely. Bringing it up doesn't really highlight anything new, but I would have to say that anyone who enjoys the genre should check out the Unknown Power Metal channel. It's a good way to sample a lot of smaller bands, with tracks ranging from Middle Earth FRP to LotFP in terms of intensity.

It's hard to talk about strongly evocative music without bringing up the progressive rock genre. Though a track like Grendel has an obvious fantastical connotation - and I really love this song - there's a lot of things that can be found. Lamb might not have made it to the silver screen, but I have to imagine that a worthy adventure layout could be made out of it. Though I'd be hard pressed to convey a good Slipperman voice without permanently damaging my throat in the process, so maybe it's not the wisest idea.

Dragon's Dogma (which is also an excellent game) has a great soundtrack full of bits and pieces that make good table-use. There's only a few tracks I would mix in for just the listening (Coils of Light for easier listening, as an example - and that's not even an instrumental!), but the individual bits and pieces? Almost all great for playing in the background. I'd worry a bit if some of the fight tracks weren't a bit too 'exciting' to pull out at every turn, but the above track is almost synonymous with Griffon in my mind.

And then there's dungeon synth. Great for the table, great for reading, great for the workplace. While this isn't a comprehensive list of things that I bring up for inspiration, it's a pretty good sample, and this track makes a great conclusion. If there were any big takeaways I could give from here, as in "most obscure thing relative to the hypothetical reader of this post" it would probably be Kaoling, whose works have been one of the biggest contributors for the last month or so to the music I keep playing near constantly. The workout playlist is another matter.

Backgrounds, and also a Name Change

I didn't like the former name for the blog, so I went with a change, since it's still so early in the process. This should do a better job of reflecting the FRP theme. So I think that's pretty cool.

Game Related

In terms of game projects, my normal gaming session is current subject to a hiatus. Which means that as far as game materials are concerned, all there's been to do has been to write. One of the major sub-projects that came up recently was trying to make a better background generation method. Here are a few points guiding me:

• Even a 1st Level Fighter is a Veteran. Even a 1st Level character has already seen some shit, and spent a good part of their life training to that point.
• Following the above, rolling for a background should not look like rolling on a list of professions. The class of a character already informs their professional skills. Further skills should reflect those learned during that path of career progression.
• No skill sub-systems. Therefore, whatever "skills" are noted should be things that can be described in under a sentence and have minor impacts on the game, if they do anything at all.
• The material needs to be randomized and supplementary to basic character generation. It should be an optional element of a game system.

The closest thing to emulating a number of these features is the Traveller character generation method (specifically CT in this case, what with the whole old-school theme) - something that can be tacked on with the same ease as making three or four extra rolls (little more than determining starting cash) while also being easily expanded upon. Since there isn't a statistic for social class built into the D&D style of character generation, I've determined to instead patch in a modification of the Arduin background generation. The whole project still needs to be smoothed over a lot more, but a copy of the work so far is pasted here.

Besides this, I've been cleaning up the main game rules document and refining the classes. The linked CryptPad file lists what appears to be a lot of classes, but thats's a bit of a misnomer. What I've been doing instead is working with the framework used to create kits in 2E to generate sub-classes that trade offer up certain advantages or restrictions from the standard classes. I wouldn't say that they're inherently balanced, but I think that's okay (if you rolled that Charisma 17 and can put up with being committed to the Church and Crown, you deserve a freebie, Paladin). It has the additional perk of allowing "race as sub-class" which removes the need for a section on race selection and firmly frames the game as "majority human" while requiring less tables and being more flexible than "race as class". Hurrah for simple solutions!

Non-Game Related

I'll have to add Ergo Proxy to my list of top shows (both television and animated) - and probably no less than top five when it comes to that. I worry a bit going into shows like it because of the risk of entering into the "2deep4u" problem. It's not an accusation that worries me a great deal, simply considering that quite often, shows get that label without really deserving it, especially when you start looking into the psychological genre. That's not the case here - so long as you pay attention, even the most ridiculous episodes or scenes can be puzzled out within a few minutes. It manages to have a few exciting action sequences, but this never where the highlight is, and only come across as the occasional bonus. One other thing of note is that rather than being the typical child character tossed in by some lazy writer as way to make the plot happen by screwing things up, Pino ended up as my new benchmark for 'well written child character' in media.

Ironic that the AutoRiev ends up more of a real girl than some child actors.

The only problem is that it's hard to talk about the show without giving away something. There's a reason the OP for the show doesn't kick in until a few episodes into the series, and even by that point, it still gives information away (in theory - this will be viewer dependent). It's a strong work in the psychological and science-fiction genres, and if you know a bit of philosophy or religion, you'll get a few extra bonuses along the way. As for where this intersects with gaming - the middle episodes provide a lot of great examples for encounters that go outside the normal 'monster with a statblock', and it's hard not to feel the gears in your head turning when you see a lot of the show's setpieces and technology.

Cath Palug

I got to use Shock Bones (of Arduin fame) about eight months ago. That was a fun experiment - Monsters that violate "the rules" of what is expected are always fun. Therefore I wanted to go ahead and create something that continued that theme in my own system, while still also remaining true to it in a rather twisted way. This was how the Cath Palug came about.

Close enough?

I love the really old Arthurian stories, where random monsters just roam the countryside, because of course they do. The whole thing is about as old-school as you can get - not just the whole knights and jousting thing that gets pointed out, but the general wildness of things, the tangibility of Law and Chaos, and the fact that sometimes people give birth to killer cats, because of course they do. In some versions it's even a king-killing cat, but let's ignore the French.

There's not a lot defined about the thing, and compared to other monsters, the Cath Palug is fairly maligned in terms of its modern adaptations. Except for the Japanese. So that, plus a few things, was what fed into the design of this monster:

CATH PALUG
Movement (hasted-Unarmored + Swim)
SHD 6 (threshold: 7+)
AC (Plate&Shield + 2)
damage: 1d8
IN 7+
DX 17
Morale 9
Chaotic

Massive, black-furred cats. Build is leonine, with an extensive man stretching down its back and terminating in a large, surprisingly fluffy horse-like tail. The rear feet are cloven hooves, while curling horns are marked upon its head. Approximately 650lb in weight.

These monsters are attracted to magical energy, and are capable of detecting it (120ft range). Preferred lairs will rest on ley-lines, and some may serve as familiars to Chaotic Wizards. Fully aquatic and terrestrial. Being man-eaters, they will prefer to lurk near waterways and rise from the depths for their attacks.

Cath Palug subtract the 'plus' from the damage-die of magical weapons used against them (exception: Monster-killing weapons will inflict normal damage). They will absorb and dispel magic on contact: +1 SHD per die of magical damage taken (or +1 SHD per Spell Level, if this value is higher). SHD may exceed the base value of 6. On the other hand, these creatures are vulnerable to Holy Swords: The presence of one within 30ft strips excess SHD at a rate of 1/round, and prevents further absorption. When SHD are presently in excess of the base, the Cath Palug will begin to glow. The degree is based on present SHD:

• 7-8: Trailing red lines of magical power. Damage: d8+1
• 9-10: Glowing red mist of magical power, with blue trails. Damage: d8+2. Absorbs spells cast within 10ft before 'release'.
• 11-12: Red silhouette of a large creature overhead; blue mist, with white trails. Damage: d10+3, gain "Fly" speed at hasted-Unarmored speed. Spell absorb extends to 30ft.
• 13+: Brilliant red and blue lights as a dominating silhouette over the creature, with long white trails of magical energy. Size increases with increasing SHD. Damage: d10+4, gain "Fly" speed (as above), gain breath weapon (as red dragon breath; damage as 'magic missile'; 4 damage per SHD; reduces SHD by 1 per use). Spell absorb extends to 60ft.

These monsters are clever enough to understand their own abilities: They will feign injury when struck with magical attacks, pretending to attempt flight, but coming back to harass when possible to bait out assault. They will rely upon their natural resistance to normal weapons to feign invulnerability, all the better to draw in attacks.

Cath Palug reduced to below 6 SHD will 'save themselves' by reducing in size and attack ability. This requires about 1 month - the smallest variant, of the 1 HD variety, is the size of a small dog. It takes 2-5 rounds to grow in size, once sufficient magical power has been gathered. It is otherwise possible to encounter a Cath Palug which has already amassed magical power.

(Note: SHD follow the rules outlined a few posts earlier.)

The Cath Palug is a magic-eater. Parties that are not attentive to details, which hammer on magical attacks, will meet a poor end. The ideal solution is actually quite simple: Fighters with regular, unenchanted steel, and a lot of perseverance. Stripped of its unique defense and stuck at 6 SHD, the Cath Palug is still decently resilient, but a lot weaker (especially in the intelligence and spell-use departments) than a comparable Demon. On the other hand, this thing will shred careless wizards, in no small part thanks to the 'spell absorb' function at higher SHD.

If I have a problem with this, it's that, much like the 'True Troll', it's the sort of monster that doesn't really do well in negotiations - encounters are going to be about fight or flight. Combine that with the water-dwelling aspect, and the latter can be quite difficult. In this regard, I'd pin it to a territory, and scatter all sorts of warnings around the periphery to telegraph. Having it as the sole hostile wandering monster in an area is another way to go about that.

Trolls

Three Hearts and Three Lions is a damn good book and I'm ashamed of myself for not reading it until this past January. Most people doing old-school gaming who haven't read it have no doubt at least heart of it, if for no reason other than its influence on the original Paladin class, and perhaps more importantly, the loathsome and rubbery Troll of D&D.

There's a few things to take away from the Troll fight as it happens in the book. To begin with, the regeneration of the Troll is not simply knitting up wounds: If anything, it's closer to a scene from The Thing. Each part of the troll is independently dangerous; each cell is actively doing everything it can to kill you. Cut off the head of most monsters, and you take away an attack; cut off the arm of the troll, and it keeps coming after you. Most things are dead when the belly gets cut open; for the troll, the entrails will keep flailing at you. The book doesn't go quite so far, but you wouldn't be surprised if even the blood started trying to kill you.

It's an worthwhile note that "Troll" means a lot  of things, to the point of being essentially a non-descriptor for fantastical or mythological humanoid of European origin. "Giant-type" enemies? Troll would be more accurate, were it not for the "True Trolls". This in mind, the enemy type classified as a "Troll" in my home games is a varied bunch, with each one being a bit different in terms of look, and personality. To give a system neutral stat sheet:

Troll, Move (Leather), AC (Chain), HD 7+7, dmg:1d10+1, M7; sunlight hardens (Move as Plate, AC Plate+6); regenerate 3hp/round beginning 3 rounds after damage (1hp/round in sunlight); trolls slain in sunlight turn to statues forever, but otherwise regenerate from death in 2-5 hours unless set aflame; scared of lightning and goats

This is fundamentally normal, with the exception of the folklore-inspired sunlight rule. The main key is in terms of looks: Of the two met by the party, both were large but dull humanoids; one was a mostly friendly bridge guard, while the other was a savage flesh-eater they had to put down (closer to a troll from Tolkien, in this case). In the same dungeon as they second was a third, hairy sort, but it was never encountered.

Here's the thing: In most cases, regeneration as I tend to run it has its limits. You go down to 0 HP, and that's the end of the line. The common troll can heal quickly, yes, but if you club its head down enough, you can render it helpless while you light it ablaze. Limbs can be reattached, or they can regrow over time, but they don't fight on their own. In some strange fashion, there is a "core" to most sorts - be it the heart, the liver, the brain, or a magic ring.

Out of this sort of common logic I introduced - in this case, to a group who for the most part have little experience outside of his campaign - the "True Troll" for the first time just this past weekend. Some mechanical notes here:

• Being run under the OD&D type of logic, most creatures in my games have only one attack per round (exceptions: Hydra, Chimera, certain Demons, etc.). The True Troll, true to its literary origin, gets the full three attacks of an AD&D sort - damage as d6, d6, and d8.
• This rule for multiple attacks operates so long as the thing has sufficient ability to operate - including attacking from severed limbs.
• Being reduced to 0 HP doesn't mean jack - Until the thing is brought down and on fire, its going to keep attacking. Cursed wounds (non-healing) bringing it to max HP value will shut down the brain (replaces its d8 with another d6), and to negative max HP will put all parts down, until the curse eventually wears off.
• No possibility of a positive reaction roll. No chance of morale failure. This is an actual monster in all senses of the word, not a thing to negotiate with (a rare thing in my games).

So the game began. The fight began quite simple - in terms of treatment, it was essentially a random encounter against a hostile thing. Roll attacks, get damage. The party had learned from prior dealings with things that regenerate, and the Chaotic Priest put curses on the Fighter's weapons to make them more efficient in the fight. Some high damage rolls. Things looked pretty good. Then things started to go in a different direction. Some highlights (chosen, as each of these was a point where the player of the Human Fighter gave an indication of alarm, confusion or disgust):

• The Human Fighter severed the Troll's arm. In appropriate fashion, the arm immediately began to attack him
• Caving in the head stopped the body for about 1 round: Once the whole went down, the stomach burst open, and the things intestines began to hold the thing up while swatting at anyone that came close.
• The other arm attempted to tear itself free from the body once the whole got set on fire, but it wasn't quite fast enough.
• The Chaotic Priest attempted to have a zombie minion pin the arm down. It gave a bit of a delay, enough to get the arm tossed in the fire - when they flipped it over, though, they found the zombie ripped apart; the skin on the arm had unraveled, and its muscles spread out like a flower around the bone, where they hardened and shredded the zombie apart from below.
• The spilled blood formed up into a pile, and continued the fight once the rest of the monster was finally put down - hardening into sharped "knife-whips" to strike anyone coming close.

The battle ended with the party exhausted and badly damaged, the zombie put down, and a general sentiment of both "that was cool" and "never want to fight one of those again". Of course, the treasure was pretty nice too (they ran into the Troll while ransacking its lair, and had a vested interest in killing it to keep the goods instead of just running away), so overall things ended in a striking success. After all, in a game where exploration and talking are more rewarding than a fight, you have to find some way to make every round engaging - but sometimes, more than just exciting.

What really sold this fight was the dice rolls. For the first few rounds, the party rolled amazingly well, and I rolled relatively poorly; The result was what seemed to be an utterly one-sided gang up. The rest of the fight was the complete reverse, which combined with the casual body horror almost matched 1:1 to the "beat" of the original literature. I don't fudge the dice, and encounters like this are where I get to see the ultimate payoff of that decision.

The moral of the story is this: Source material is a great way to get inspired for your game sessions; John Carpenter movies, doubly so. Combine the two and you've got a lot to go off of.