New Wargaming Blog

My name is JP Chapleau. I was born & raised in Montreal, Quebec (that's in Canada). In 1993, I entered Sherbrooke University (http://www.usherbrooke.ca/) where I graduated in Computer Engineering in 1998.

After that I began work and I have lived and worked in Japan (2 months), Paris France (1 year), Dublin Ireland (2.5 years), Quebec City (2 years) and now I have been in Colorado Springs, Colorado since 2005.

I live with my lovely wife, Julie, two daughters Josiane & Marie-Katherine ("Kitty") and son Jean-Patrick.

I am most known for my involvement in Role-Playing and Miniature gaming. My miniature gaming love affair really started in the mid-nineties when the Donjon Maisonneuve opened in Montreal. That game store was the first one to include gaming table and to host games there. For the first time I saw and admired painted armies, terrain and different games. I was hooked (but broke). Around 1996-97, I took the plunge and finally bought Warhammer 40,000. It’s a love affair that’s been going on since. In the years since I took part in a number of tournaments and competitions from Paris, France to Dublin, Ireland to Ft Morgan Colorado. I generally do okay.
These days, though I still enjoy the occasional 40k game, I much prefer playing ancients (with Warhammer Ancient Battles being my favorite ruleset).

This blog will include entries and rants about things I like, things I dislike and what I'm doing these days, but also the occasional historical article and reference to support my war gaming addiction.

I admit that this blog was started to allow me to focus on war gaming only and have my other blog JP on Gaming focus on my other love, table-top RPGs. Thus separating the two will allow you, the readers to focus on those articles you want to read.

Enjoy

JP

Tacticon approaches and gaming life

For those who do not know, I volunteered to serve as the Pathfinder Coordinator (no, I don’t have any news or official Paizo title) for Tacticon, a games convention in Denver, CO. You can find a link to the con website here. This year marks the first time that Tacticon offers PFS. At last year’s Tacticon, I was running some LFR (for the last time) and playing Living Arcanis. Pathfinder was just an upcoming game day in mid-September I hoped I would not be the only one showing up for.

This year, I’m completely out of LFR (not running, not playing). Living Arcanis is gone (though it is replaced by the Chronicles of the Shattered Empires).

What’s my plan for this year? As coordinator, any gaming I get will heavily depend on attendance. With any luck, I might be able to slip into a game or two of CSE, and perhaps play the one Pathfinder adventure I haven’t played yet.

When I came up with the schedule for Pathfinder, I took a page out of my good friend Lenny playbook. Instead of coming up with random story elements, I chose 6 adventures. Four of which were parts 1 & 2 of a series (#7 Among the Living & #49 Among the Dead, #51 The Shadow Gambit & #52 The Twofold Demise). The other two being independent, one-shot adventures. Part 1s would run every morning with part 2 in the afternoons. Evening would have a Fiesta where tables would form based around what they wanted. At this time, I ran four slot-zeroes and have decent DM coverage for all the slots. We will have 4-6 DMs for the Fiesta slots. Morale is high in my camp and the DMs also seem in good spirit. A rare luxury I find…

I remember the old and blessed days of LG when we would run slot zeroes until the very last moment to make sure we had enough DMs for the con. The mad scrambles to finish the interactive. Making sure everything was printed and ready to go.
So at this time, some two weeks before the con, I’m confident and looking forward to the con.

As I write this, I am currently waiting on a number of things: the announcement of the Regional Coordinators for PFS, word on an adventure I submitted to Paizo, same but from Chaosium… So many things going on at once… Plus I have friends wanting to give another go at “The Masks of Nyarlathotep” so they can finish the campaign… Good times indeed.

JP

Thoughts about Cohorts

Recently, my (not-Living-Anymore) Arcanis character, Prima Gallia Tiberiana, leveled up to sixth level and I chose the Leadership feat. She is now accompanied by her handmaiden wherever she goes (being a noblewoman really helps). Oddly enough in my seven years of playing 3rd edition, this was the first time I took that feat. Though I thought about it in Living Greyhawk, I was too lazy (and generally too busy writing or editing) to take the time to maintain a cohort. Though I almost took one (I had access to an eladrin) for Corfell Treeshadow, my cleric of Corellon, the poor guys got removed from the campaign almost immediately after that.

However, I played with a few people (in and out of LG) who had cohorts some good, some bad, some memorable, some not-so-memorable.

The other day, my buddy Kenton (in the same Arcanis campaign) came up with a basic concept for a cohort and asked me for advice on cohorts. Yes, our party would be composed of 3-5 PCs with 1 or 2 cohorts (as we share DM duties, we always hit the 5-6 player mark).

So I began to think… What makes a great cohort? Is there a formula to come up with a great cohort? Which were the ones that left a lasting impression on me? How were they built? What role did they play in the game? Many questions filled my mind. I wanted to be sure that I would allow him to choose and build the character he wanted, by trying to provide options.

The Cohort’s background

This article targets mostly organized play campaigns so I like to keep the background light. I’ve seen spouses, lovers, slaves, squires, and planar allies as cohorts. All of which are fine. The goal is to find a reason the character would stick around you. A secondary goal is to find a way for the cohort to mesh with the rest of the party. After all, the cohort will be privy to many PCs’ secrets, abilities and even share the loot. This does not mean the cohort has to be lovey-dovey with everyone in the party, or an LFR character (oops, I meant a bland, flavorless series of dice rolls).

For my cohort, Drusilla, she used to be a poor legionnaire I recruited to be my personal assistant and handmaiden. Things I wanted her to have were Profession (handmaiden) and rogue skills (trap finding and open locks mostly), because the party needed those.

The Cohort’s basic personality

Like every good character, a cohort must have its own personality. I think that something contrasting especially in the social department is important. If your main character is talkative, the cohort should tend to be quieter. If you are rather quiet, your cohort should be talkative. Avoid the dual talkative or dual quiet characters. Makes them redundant plus it’s often difficult for the rest of the players to know who you are playing at that time. If you can work with completely different accent, this difficulty is not there. But you have to juggle the accents and that gets a little complicated.

Give a cohort a little spark by giving a single trait, what GURPS calls quirks to the character. Maybe the cohort speaks with a lisp, giggles when nervous, has a slight accent or has a short catchphrase. Nothing major just enough to give a short taste of the character.

The Cohort’s abilities

There are many types of cohorts one can build: the crafter, the healer/buffer, the talker the blaster… What is important to keep in mind is that the cohort is a second fiddle to the main characters (the actual Player Characters). The cohort will generally be weaker than the players and should not try to compete with the player directly.

If you already have a blasting Wizard, don’t make a cohort who is a blaster. It takes away the fun for the main character and usually makes your cohort look extremely weak. If your party has a great healer, make the cohort a buffer. If you have great melee, go for an archer.

The Cohort’s advancement

When people design their characters, they often imagine the PC at a very high level. So that at level 10-12, they will become gods among men, lording over all they survey. While a cohort often has a similar advancement scheme, I personally prefer to keep cohorts as simple as can be. This makes playing the cohort quick.

Cohorts should be designed to be effective NOW. Not in four or five levels when they gain a level of Awesome. Because they are often weaker than the PCs, they have to live and survive until then. Having a PC that is not fully effective for a level or two is one thing. Having a cohort that is not effective for the same duration often means a dead cohort.

Finally

A cohort’s role should be secondary. She supports the party and brings with it some abilities the party needs and can use. But should not be the main character at the table.

In organized play, where the party make-up is always in flux, the role of a cohort cannot be tailored to a party, but should be designed in such a way that she supports a party. A healer/buffer or an archer is a good choice as their options are limited and their turn goes quickly. Remember that guy who plays a druid with his animal companion, then his 20 summoned monkeys and his super-complex wizard cohort whose turn takes an hour? Yeah… avoid that. It’s just annoying and while fun for you, everyone else hates it.

Don’t be that guy.

JP

Campaign Seeding

For a while now, I have been trying to make sense of a problem. How can I write a mystery that spans many game sessions and keep the interest and relevancy of each part? How can I break down a plot into pieces that when all the pieces are put together they form a coherent whole?

As an example, my story focuses on the murder of the king by his top adviser. The adviser has been encouraging rebellion in the kingdom for years and he plans to marry the queen and seizes the throne.

Start with thinking about each of the clues or leads individually, like Lego blocks. Sort them in order of relevance and importance to the whole. Group those that go together or that are closely linked together. I want the PCs to gradually discover the story and reveal the villain at the end.

My clues include a number of letters from the adviser under a false name or pseudonym, a foreign assassin, the rebel groups, the rebel leader and the queen herself. In order of direct incrimination the clues would be: the letters, the rebel groups, the assassin, the queen and the rebel leaders. The letters, the rebel groups and the rebel leader group together nicely. The assassin and the queen are more stand alone clues. The rebel leaders and the queen should be my top two clues. Thus they should be placed towards the end. This gives me a quick overview of my story arc.

The Seeds method

Note that I use “event” instead of “encounter” or “adventure”. At this point I do not know how long I want this story arc to go, I do not know how I will implement. Those are just the seeds of my story. Those seeds identified, you can either write adventures for it or incorporate them into others.

One to three events where the PCs face off against the rebels, but do not confront the leaders (either they are away or escape before the PCs get to them). Having more than one event makes the problem seem bigger and gives the players a bigger sense of achievement by completing small tasks.

One event focusing on the foreign assassin; it could be the PCs confront him, have to track him down or some other clue.

One event focusing on the queen; this seems like a great opportunity to run a change-of-pace, perhaps a ball or another courtly function where the PCs meet with the NPCs. I like that. The queen may or may not know of the plot. If you are very devious, she might even be a prime suspect.

One event focusing on the rebel leader; here the PCs capture him and get some crucial information that explains a lot. The table is set for the climax.

Pitfalls

1- Insignificant Parts the clues/seeds are so insignificant that players keep missing them. The PCs might miss the first clue or mark it as “unimportant”. If after two or three such events they have not yet figured out that something is afoot… Rethink about your method…

2- Overly significant clues this is the other side of the spectrum where every clue the PCs find is highlighted in red with a big neon arrow saying “IMPORTANT CLUE”. Don’t make it too easy on them.

3- Overly rigid structure the unfortunate downside of this method is that you can get very attached to a specific structure, the PCs must find clue 1 and realize its importance to continue or they fail everything. The reason I used the “seeds” instead of “adventures” or “encounters” is to remind myself that the story can go one without the PCs figuring out everything right off the bat. If the seed I wanted to put in does not work in the adventure I thought it would fit in, I simply relocate the seed later down the road, giving the players freedom to act and interact with the world.

4- Narrow focus everything in your campaign revolves around a single plotline. It often feels like nothing is going on around the PCs but what they are doing. To avoid them running straight to the king and spilling everything they know on day one, keep them busy with other problems. In our previous plotline, what if all that happened during a border war with another kingdom? Maybe the PCs have a treasure map and they discover that the old pirate who sold it to them made copies and sold those too. As the end draws to a close, the focus should naturally come on the storyline. But early on, keep the PCs busy.

5- Lose sight of the goal the corollary of the narrow focus… here by trying to keep things open, the story gets lost in a sea of other hooks.

In the end, experiment. Try things and see how they go. Writing a plot arc set in-between other adventures is a difficult balancing act, but one that players look back on and realize how obvious it was from the start… Like a good mystery, or one of my favorite movies, The Usual Suspects, after the first view, everything is so obvious, but that only makes the story that much better. Hummm Usual Suspects.

JP

Not another Moonshae mod by me

I surprised myself earlier today. I was asked whether I was interested in writing the final Moonshae adventure for LFR and said no. There were a number of reasons I was tempted to do it: closing the “story arc” I promoted over the last few years, bringing a final adventure and an end to a quest whose story I enjoyed designing and thinking about.

Then, I went back and thought to myself what I would have to do: think and expand on a story, design combats, design encounter location, come up with magic items no one care about and spend hours working with a game system I dislike. I could’ve lived with all that and written an interesting adventure (I still think the storyline of the Giants is a good one that deserves a strong finish). But without the monetary compensation to go with it, I felt like I had other, better things to do. Some of my other writing projects are ramping up and I would definitely prefer to give those my time.

I hope the Moonshae guys find a dedicated fan to complete the adventure and the series. I know they will. I cannot be me.

JP

I applied for PFS Position

It should come as no surprise to anyone that from the moment I chanced upon Joshua Frost’s post on the Paizo web site, (see the post here) there was no doubt in my mind that I would send my name as a volunteer.

From the start, I have believed that such a “widening” of the campaign structure was inevitable and have been urging people to play (and report their events) so the campaign could reach that point sooner rather than later. Once again, my words proved to be prophetic (and for once, it was not a prophecy of doom that I was speaking!) So I read over the requirements, weighed my “achievements” and wrote down a word document. It quickly became clear that the region does not hinge on any one person, but on the back of the many volunteers who make it come alive.

I really hope I get the position but I wish good luck to any who apply.

JP

I love Chaosium

It’s never been a secret that I love Chaosium and their flagship product, Call of Cthulhu.

This love affair started around 1995 or 1996 when I walked into Le Valet d’Coeur in Montreal on an ordinary day. As usual, I headed for their used-product section. There it was. Call of Cthulhu 4th edition. Beat up ol’ 4e (and not like the crappy 4e we talk about these days). For four dollars, it was a steal and the book immediately flew of the shelf and into my hands, never to leave them again. I then began to voraciously read any Lovecraftian literature I could get my hands on. And thus the love affair began.

Over the years, I increased my collection of Chaosium products to the point where it is now the largest, most looked at, most prominently display and best-liked collection of books I own. I still own and use that ol’4e, but now have added to this a 5.5 and a 25^th anniversary edition (what would become 6e).

I want to say how responsive and open the people at Chaosium are with their fans. Every year, they put out adventure-writing contests for amateurs (like myself) to submit ideas in a contest. The winners of these contests are then placed into a monograph they then publish. Even the idea of the monograph, small-number publications available through them only is great. Thus anyone could write something of interest: adventures, collection of Mythos tomes, define one area, or even add new rules to the game. I personally possess a number of monographs: from the original version of Cthulhu Invictus to a Cthulhu-Viking campaign to the Mysteries of Hungary to the BRP 2008 Adventure Contest. While the quality varies greatly, I have really enjoyed them as they have provided me with many adventure ideas in the past, especially Cthulhu Invictus and Mysteries of Hungary.

Dustin Wright with whom I had a lot of exchanges is a top-notch guy. Every time I sent him an email, he has taken the time to reply to me in a timely fashion AND has answered my (many) questions in a way that did not make me feel like an idiot. A personalized response is something that I always try to give to people. Makes them feel special and fosters good will. Thumbs up, Dustin! Thumbs up!

As many of you know (due to my Facebook post), Chaosium have posted another contest, this time for Cthulhu Invictus. I have written an adventure which I call Lights on the Vesuvius for the contest. This adventure used to be the introductory part of my Invictus campaign. However, after play-testing the campaign, I came to the realization that though what I wanted was ambitious, there was no way I could write everything and get another Keeper (GM) to understand what was going on without writing a 200+ page book. The campaign was already 150 pages long and I still needed to write AT LEAST three chapters. Too long I thought. However, many of the adventures within were quite interesting. So I stripped out everything campaign-specific and there was my submission.

So why am I writing thing entry? Why now?

Tuesday (May 25^th), I submitted my proposal to Dustin, along with a few questions regarding timeline and process. His response on Wednesday included answers and a few extra jests only old friends can share. It made me feel special. And I like that.

That’s why, I can say that I love Chaosium.

JP

Last Minute Revisions

So it’s all done, you’ve fixed the immediate problems with your adventures, your tweaked a few things, added some extra details and completed that player handout you promised yourself you would be doing. Finally your adventure is done.

Really, it is.

You’ve done all you can for the adventure.

Seriously, you’re done.

Then why do you have a nagging feeling something is missing, that you missed a flagrant flaw, that the adventure is missing some added combat capability, that a new monster you just read/thought about would suit your adventure, or that you could fit that cool NPC you just made up watching TV?

That feeling is the revisionist in you trying to get out. It’s not a bad one to have, but one you must keep in check. The problem with over-revising is that you may invalidate your play-test! Yes. The last-minute addition you are thinking about may completely change your adventure, its flow, its own "thing". So you have to be careful.

So the question becomes… What do I revise?

Tricky.

The Encounter Flow

What you want to avoid is anything that could significantly alter the adventure or one of the existing encounters. Sometimes the alteration is in-game while other times it is a meta-gaming. As an author, you must seek to keep that flow.

Example One changing an encounter from a bear to a small dragon significantly alters the encounters and leads to a number of collateral damage. Dragons, even small ones, have hoards and thus players want to get their hands on them. Dragons often have servants. But the most important thing is… small dragons usually have a mother. So an encounter where the PCs walk through the forest, fight a bear and keep going turns into a risky and scary affair where they look over their shoulder all the time for Mama-dragon to show up or where they begin searching for a treasure hoard instead of being on their way through the forest... That does alter the flow and the adventure itself.

Example Two we replace the bear with an owlbear. Similar monster and its base purpose (a goon) is unchanged. No one thinks much of an owlbear in a forest. They don’t really have major treasure (except maybe in their stomachs). So we can change the bear to an owlbear without serious alteration.

Sometimes you may alter the flow so that the simplification completely alters the encounter. Reverse example 1. You have a small dragon, making the crossing of the forest fraught with peril and worry about the mother showing up. Instead, with the bear’s appearance the forest trek because rather mundane and not so worrisome. That can also alter the flow.

The story flow

This one is harder to spot and remedy. Here, through the addition or modification of a non-combat encounter – usually a non-combat encounter – the story changes significantly. Many of those are linked to in or out of character knowledge about an NPC or NPC groups.

Example One in the original document, the PCs met with a generic merchant who told them about the king’s evil plot. But you decide that this information should come from the local crime lord whose minions the PCs have been fighting for the last while. His inclusion into the adventure may lead to all kinds of unique tie-ins. Why is he suddenly helping us? Is the information reliable? Should we trust him?

Example Two instead of some existing NPC, replacing the generic merchant with someone you thought of and plan on using later on. Many players will catch on that "NPC joe" has a name and is not portrayed like everyone else. While the players may notice the man, they may simply note him down and continue. This does not alter the flow too much.

What to do?

Well, if your revision caused something you believe might alter the adventure in a significant way, the best thing is to run another play-test. I cannot emphasize this enough.

But if you do not have the luxury of doing that – and let’s face it running two play-tests of an adventure is a luxury, then you must sit back and play the adventure through your head, using the "QA Method". Be VERY thorough and exhaustive when doing that. If you can find a potential flaw, the best thing is to remove your fix. If you think fixing something will make it worse, then it’s not worth doing.

Why drop it? Your text is written taking into account what you had originally, not what you changed and creeps and other mistakes may appear because of the change. Many adventures in LG were branded as poorly edited or written when they were the result of last-minute edits or revisions.

JP

Play-testing: What to evaluate?

During my latest trip to Montreal - in the grips of Hockey fever - I play-tested this setting I’ve been posting about for the last few months. I was very excited about finally bringing my creation to the game table. There was a lot to prepare: writing up the pre-gens, sending a short background to each character, giving some details about the gods to the players, finish the adventure, pack everything up and then set up the game itself. All the players were on time and ready to go.

In short, things went well or as good as could be. The PCs "got" what I was trying to do, and did the kinds of things I wanted them to do. Their evolution through the adventure was as expected.

I could simply pat myself on the back and say how awesome I really am. But that would not be who I am. No, I have to dig to find some dirt, something to improve. So by trying to find out what was wrong, let’s see what went right with the adventure.

The timing is good since I was aiming for an adventure that would run around four hours. Including a lunch break, giving a description the world and its particularities, and the chit chat of a bunch of gamers who hadn’t seen each other in months, the whole thing took about five hours. By focusing on the game, the timing is fine.

The plot hook works finding a plot hook that works, that is original and that is engaging for players with different motivations. That is one thing I reproach to the Pathfinder Society, its plot hooks are terrible! I’ll let you in on a secret: they’re all the same. You have to do that because I tell you to.

The players’ flow make sense this is always one of those points that I personally find to be the most important. The "flow" is the player’s thought process and discovery of the adventure. Do they go from conclusion to conclusion based on the clues / discoveries logically? Do they have to reach very far to come to a discover something that’s in the adventure.

For example, that the PCs deduce that their employer is evil when they see a letter with his name on it is a natural deduction. That they come to the same conclusion because a painting on the wall shows him being dressed in black and sporting a goatee is not.

The fights are interesting This one is particular. LFR (the wrong-standard) defines an interesting fight by having something cool and unique in the encounter, over story reason. While that is a part of it, coolness and uniqueness are not the only factor in creating fun fights. Why are the villains there? Why do they fight the PCs? Is there a good reason for them to be there? Would other monsters be more likely? Should they be toughened up? Wussified? Diversified? Those questions all go through my head as I try to review a combat encounter. Do the players have fun with the encounter?

JP

Playtest Jitters

Saturday the 24th, I ran a trial, “alpha” version, of the adventure and setting I have been blogging about for the last few months. The game was an opportunity to sit down and play with my buddies in Montreal: Steve, Alex, Yves, Dan, and ET. Such a “reveal”, I always found nerve wracking as so many things can (and usually do) go wrong. Such things like impossibilities in the system, aspects or perspectives that were missed or overlooked in previous phases of development.

Again, many things can go wrong.

For one reason, play-testing always bring image of my good friend David (Bibi)’s vampire game for Helios 2000 where the adventure came to a screeching before we (the players) followed a path that was sensible but that he did not expect. Btw, this says nothing about the adventure, it was very good, but we put ourselves into a corner.

As I said, nerve-wracking.

So I was thinking. What are the best ways to avoid such pitfalls? This article aims to work on “convention” or “tournament”-style play, those games where the DM is not necessarily the author. A regular DM often gets the option to “explain things later” (and I do that a lot myself).

Use the QA approach

I am a computer engineer by trade. And thus, I often approach problems (and solutions) in gaming in software development terms. As a developer (author), I try to come up with code that work the way I want and I strive to make things work according to my vision. The QA guy’s role is to find ways to break my code. So he throws all kinds of weird things at it. As an author, the QA guy’s role is to try and solve problems by sending unique or strange case at it. “What if the PCs have a protection from evil spell up?” or “What if the party has a character with a ridiculous score in [Perception/Sense Motive/Diplomacy]?” See how the adventure reacts to it. Be realistic in your evaluation here.

Of course you cannot catch every single possibility, but try to catch most of it. The goal is to figure out how to break the story. Again, I say story because the artifices you can use are many to reach your goal.

Here is one example. The PCs are invited to a feast as guests of honor where a noble NPC will be poisoned by the villain. Sounds familiar? Yes. It’s a simple premise.

What if, one of the PCs, ignoring the laws of etiquette stands up and casts a detect poison spell? What happens to the adventure then? Here, using a simple spell, your premise may be broken. When thinking in D&D terms, I try to think of low-level spells and powers as those the PCs are most likely to throw around without any reason. Perhaps the villain uses a poison that is in two parts. Say something that reacts to wine?

At some point, however, the game must be allowed to go on. The rules for etiquette must apply and a certain measure of common sense and consequences must be applied. PCs that constantly break the rules of etiquette should be thrown out of the hall. They may also become suspect, “how did they know the food was poisoned?”

No substitute for experience

I said it a million times, nothing beat playing the game. Someone I strongly dislike comes to mind (Greg-I) immediately comes to mind as a good example (don’t worry the dislike is shared). The guy knows what every DM & author should and should not do. I played one game under him and it was as tedious as most of the lectures I had to endure while in college. He would read two lines, then whine about bad adventure design, then explain what is wrong and why he wouldn’t have done thing one way. Reading the adventure after playing it under him, I found that it really wasn’t half as bad as he said and in fact, enjoyed running it.

He knows everything. But he doesn’t DM for a million bogus reasons (truth is: he may find out he’s not as right as he thinks he is).

Be flexible in the design

Many adventures are made so inflexible that it’s like watching a movie. The players have no real say or impact on what is happening. You keep thinking “you know, I would do something different.” Slasher movies… WHY oh WHY does the hot girl run up the stairs instead of running for the back door? Dramatic effect, yes, but in an RPG, many will go to the door OR through a window if need be.

Now, certain types of adventure (such as dungeon crawls) are by nature linear, but putting some thought into the design and rooms is a big one. I generally prefer to write “point A” and “point B” and assume the DM/party will make their way through.

Come up with options/alternatives

Your ideas and writing are not sacrosanct and a holy gift from God (you) to the world! No. They are not. Really. Most of what I write end up in a “see you later” bin. Play-tests are an opportunity to expand and flesh out what is happening, with the benefit of having 4-6 heads and ideas flowing through into your adventure. Use the input they give you to make your writing better (and without necessarily telling them…).

Again the goal is to have a product that is very fun, interesting and that almost any DM can take and use in their game world. The more alternatives you have, the better the result.

Finally

I’ll detail how the play-test went next time.

JP

Farewell Brian

Today I learned of the passing away of my good friend Brian Glose.

I remember the first time I met Brian. It was during Weekend in Dyvers ’05 in Council Bluffs, Iowa. I had a car full of stuff and was moving to Colorado. Brian’s smile and friendly attitude really made me feel welcome in this new place. Ever before settle in to my appt, I knew I had a friend in the area.

Over the years he and I worked closely together, particularly during the days of Living Greyhawk when Brian would organize the “Big Two”: Weekend in the County in April-May and Brookfest in December. His tireless work allowed me to focus on other things and make the campaign what it was.

With the coming of LFR, we drifted somewhat apart (the fact that I live in Colorado Springs and he in Denver helped) but kept in contact on an irregular basis, thanks to modern technology. We’d talk through Yahoo messenger, through Facebook and even griped about a few things when we’d cross paths at one of the larger cons.

Today, I can truly say that the world is a sadder place than yesterday.

Thank you for being my friend. See you on the other side.

Farewell Brian.

ONE DOWN!

There! I’ve done it! After procrastinating for quite a bit, doing other things, painting models, playing D&D Online, watching whole seasons of the Real Housewhores of […], I finally have written the first adventure in this world I’ve been blogging about! It feels real good. With an adventure behind my belt, the project begins to feel more concrete to me. I mean just talking and talking is fine… but getting something you can look and read is real.

Real is good.

Now that the first round of writing is over, begins the second phase, the editing and tweaking. Sure writing an adventure is fun and joy, but the second phase, which is often more tedious and annoying begins. Although it’s not as enjoyable, the editing phase is when an adventure really becomes alive. I’m not talking about self-edits or style changes. I mean when ideas are merged, reformed and tweaked. That is when good adventures are made GREAT.

Those who worked as authors for me know my near-tyrannical tendencies during that phase. I am merciless (and I expect my editors to be as merciless with me as I am with them). The proof of this is, I believe, in the pudding. Great adventures were born of the synergy of both the mind of the author and the direction of the editor.

So that’s the news right now. And with one adventure… this means the next one is just around the corner! So now I must start on a sequel. Something to make into a memorable campaign…

What is the adventure about you ask? Well that’s pretty simple… It’s a dungeon crawl with some RP elements to introduce the particularities. What!? You expected a deep and intertwined storyline from the get-go? That would be foolish of me. Don’t worry I must set a few strands before starting to work on a full-on web! Baby steps. Remember. Baby steps…

Late Ptolemaic List for WAB

WAB is Warhammer Ancient Battles, a set of wargaming rules that is close to my own heart. It uses the same mechanics as the popular Warhammer Fantasy Battles, but strips out all of the magic and monsters, leaving only human soldiers and cavalry. I have found that it represents battles of the period well enough and that it is fast-paced.

A little History

The Ptolemaic Dynasty was the last dynasty of Egyptian pharaohs. After Alexander the Great liberated Egypt from Persian control, Egypt became part of the Macedonian Empire. With Alexander’s death, one of his top generals (Ptolemy) took control of Egypt and became embroiled in the many wars of successions that followed the breaking up of the Macedonian Empire. Ptolemy and his successor (also named Ptolemy) were foreign rulers in a conquered land. During its three century existence (323-30BC), the dynasty’s fortunes waxed and waned.

When Cleopatra was crowned in 51BC, Egypt extended south to Nubia (mod Northern Sudan), west into the Libyan desert (the exact location of the frontier is about where it is today), into the Sinai Peninsula and a few sea-side colonies. The Ptolemaic empire had diminished significantly since its heydays, but it was still a powerful state. It was a state where the leaders were Greek and the population was Egyptian, Libyan, Nubian and Jewish. The Greeks distrusted the local populace and kept separate from them.

The armies of Egypt were drawn from this group of Greek descendants and mercenary units the state was able to pay. Thus we have reports that the Egyptian army included: Gallatians, Gauls, Germans, Syrians, Nubians, Libyans and Cilicians.

Writing the list

I first came up with the idea of building an army centered the conflicts of Cleopatra VI's reign. She ruled over a period of history I really like and for which I own numerous armies for (Romans, Gauls, Illyrian/Thracians, Parthians). I had a few packs of Macedonian / Successor infantry and some Nubian archers. I began thinking about a way to use those minis. Then the idea dawned on me. So I decided to see what an army of Ptolemaic would look like.

I went to look for WAB resources: no army published. I looked through some on-line site, WRG's (Wargames Research Group) and DBM (De Bellis Multitudinis) books to see what those games had as far as resources. There were some useful tidbits. From those sources I was able to gather that the Egyptian Army was centered on a core of phalanxes and “imitation legionnaires”. Phalanxes were pike-armed units that fought in dense formation using 18-20 feet long pikes. Imitation legionnaires were a different best. Most sources agreed that they were most likely equipped as Roman legionnaires: pilum or throwing spear, sword and an oblong shield with a Roman-style helm, they were a number of divergences on their quality, training and distribution of chainmail or padded amongst the troops.

I contacted Jeff Jonas, the author of Alexander the Great for WAB and web master for AncientBattles.com. He pointed me to an army list he published for his yet-unreleased Successor supplement (which has been on my must-buy list since AtG came out). As luck would have it, he was willing to share! I sat down and devoured the list. Immediately I saw a few tweaks to make to it. But I had a basic framework to work up from. So I did research aimed at learning about those mercenary troops in Egyptian service. How should they be classified in the game? Here, a little intuition and game experience can go a long way.

The list

So finally, I completed the army list and posted it to my website WAB page I completed the exercise by building a few sample armies to try out the rules. I like the mixture of pike and other units. If you have comments or thoughts, do not hesitate to contact me!

JP

World Building: Building Methods

Last I touched this topic I was over religions and nations, all from a high-level perspective and not being too attached to anything. With me actually working on something more concrete, now is time to begin tying knots and setting some bases in stone. While I am far from being done, first I must decide a few things.

You must decide ahead of time how you want to define your world. No matter which method you choose to use, review is a major factor in the creation. Write it out first, then edit. Don’t do the other way around.

Home group

After setting the basics of the world and the locations of the first few adventures, run the game. Seriously. Just run it. Take notes about what happens in the adventure and build or expand as needed. The home group approach evolves the world with the PCs as they grow in power. The biggest advantage of this is that you do not need to create too much ahead of time.

All that you really need are some of those high-level questions that directly relate to players making their characters. What are the common languages in this country? Who is the ruler? What is it like overall? Are there elves/gnomes/dwarves? For that, the Ten Questions are a great starting framework (see my other post about this).

The "Home Group" approach is a great way get into the setting and to try it out as soon as possible. Instead of thinking of some great over-arching world-spanning plot, you can let it evolve from play.

The problem of this method is that it is that as you work for your group, you might forget some important aspects precisely because of the play focus.

Thought-out

This one differs from the Home Group approach because you write as much as you can about the world, giving it flavor through writing, instead of play. There is more design work to do before playing. The world here is designed around itself instead of a group’s preference and style. Not to say that players will not bring valuable input later, but what you will present to them is a product that will be more elaborate.

Okay, okay I can hear some of you (and you know who you are) scream at me. "When I put together a campaign, I do not do it haphazardly!" You are right. The difference is that here, you try to cover more before taking it to the table.

The main problem with this approach is that it can make a setting become stale and hard to change. Say that you really liked an NPC you created but your players keep hammering home that he makes no sense (is stupid or someone cracks a joke at him that sticks). It’s hard to go back and change some of the core things you have already thought of but you have to.

The Mixed Method

If you follow this blog, you know that I can never be too attached to one method or another. I always mix it up. The two methods above are good, but it is unrealistic to only build from what your PCs give you or to write everything then play. The (obvious) solution is to mix and match.

Where you plan on starting your PCs and the focus of the game should be a lot more elastic than region where you do not think they will be going (at least in the short term). So if the PCs start in one region/province/country. Define it, by giving it basic shape and information, but be ready to tweak a lot more and evolve from the "Home Group" approach. The province next door, unless it plays an important role in your main region, can easily evolve from the Thought-out method.

Do not kid yourself, unless you have absolutely no life, family or job and your friends/players are the same, you will NOT be able to play-test everything. You won’t. Unless your world is VERY small. Very, very small.

JP

Back in the Saddle

Well, last time I said I was not doing much... well the slump is over! Huzzah! As of this past weekend, I am very happy to say that I am writing again! My world building is growing by the day. I have written down a series of things and I now have a decent foundation to begin writing to. I started on a short intro adventure to present some of the intricacies of my new creation. An intro, I hope to begin play-testing within the next few months with select groups.

Last week, as I was busy trying to prepare for Microcon (it’s a one-day 2 hour slots games), ideas kept coming in my head for other things. Which proves my theory: when you need to get something done, get really busy. It seems that whenever I have time to relax and really sit and write, I get nothing done. But when I have a super-tight work deadline, plus a million things to do at home, and adventures to write... I get so much of my writing done (and the rest).

When I took over Tusmit and the County of Urnst in LG, both those regions had vibrant history and a baggage of stories and unique NPCs. When starting from scratch, there is no such history and everything has to be built from scratch. The storyline cannot be formed out of things that were already detailed and fleshed out. Now I’m the one doing all the fleshing out! However, in keeping with my personal philosophy, only that which may come up during a game is detailed. The rest is done using broad strokes.

Any storyline has to start from the bottom and work its way up, from the low level to the high level. One of the principles that I kept from my LG days is that the high level of society do not appear to low-level mooks (like starting PCs). They show up when the PCs have gathered some influence among the powerful of a nation. In spite of its many flaws, the Heroic/Paragon/Epic system that 4e has created actually fits my vision of this (except where in 4e its 1-10/11-20/21-30, in PFS/3.5 it is roughly 1-6/7-12/13-20). As long as the PCs do not reach this "paragon" level, they should not be involved in the highest spheres of power. They work for underlings and other minions. Gradually, they get contacted by bigger and more important NPCs.

I will post an update later!

JP