I hesitate to write about how wrong this is for reasons related to length of post, breadth of topic, and losing my ever-lovin' mind to rage-induced psychosis. Mainly because there is a lot more to RPGs than combat. But also because there is a lot more to combat than damage density AND mages are better at melee than you think.
Showing posts with label Real Life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Real Life. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Why the Heck is your 1st Level Wizard Just Standing Around?!
Not too long ago someone I was discussing gaming with was very dismissive of 1e, 2e, OSRIC, S&W, etc. because low-level mages had so few spells and could not do damage in combat more than once. They felt that all the caster did was 'stand around' while important stuff (i.e., fighting) went on.
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Hugos, Edition Wars, Critically-Acclaimed Junk, Journalism, and Why I Don't Bother - a Rant
WARNING: This began as a google+ post and has not been edited and probably never will be edited.
Well, the Hugos and I don't really have a lot in common. I love a good SF story, sure, and some past winners of the Hugo are great writers.
But winning the Hugo didn't make them great. And a lot of great writers never won a Hugo and more were never nominated.
More critically, a lot of the winners are, in my opinion, not very good. The classic example is "They'd Rather Be Right". Ever read it? It is DREADFUL. A terrible, terrible book that has been used as a 'what not to do' example in creative writing books for decades. It was, however, the winner of the second ever Hugo for Best Novel. That's right, the 2nd Hugo for best novel went to a written-to-order book so bad one reviewer commented [paraphrase] 'the fact that it won by vote throws the idea of universal franchise into doubt'.
So why *did* such an awful book win?
Langford (who has won 28 Hugos during his life. Yes, 28) thinks the book won because one of the co-authors was popular as a writer of short stories so many voters selected it based on his name. And let's face it - the annual stories about 'worst x to win a Hugo' are a tradition in SF fandom. This is because it is based on voting by a very small group.
For years and years the highest number of votes was about 1,000 and it was typically about 500-700 for a loooooong time. That is NOT "SF fandom as a whole picking the very best x from this year" that IS "a narrow group of people expressing their opinions in a particular way".
Which is fine.
Why would I care?
'This narrow group of people is working to keep out members/products they don't like'?
Meh.
'The award used to prestigious and now the actions of the people in the group have tarnished it'
Ummmm. "They'd Rather Be Right" was the SECOND EVER Best Novel winner. The Hugos were never that prestigious.
In a very real way I see the kerfuffle about the Hugos as very much like edition wars or 'story games vs.'. Let me show you what I mean.
I don't play 3e any more. I know that some people think PF/3e is the Best Game Ever and I am vaguely aware that some of those people think 1e/2e suck; and some of them think less of me for liking 1e/2e/OSR.
I don't care.
I am NOT going to argue that 1e/2e is 'better' than 3e not do I think less of them because they prefer 3e to other versions. Since this is true their own emotional investment has just as low an impact on me as their opinion.
Think of it this way; Some people like the Yankees, some people like the Mets. Just like I don't care if someone has an emotional response to me being a Braves fan I don't care if they have an emotional response to me playing AD&D 2e Skills & Powers.
So there is a group of people somewhere that I don't know and don't typically interact with that think I can't be a "real" fan of SF if I am x or am not y?
I don't care, any more than I care if someone somewhere thinks I am not a "real" TRPG player if I don't play system z in such-and-such a manner. Sorry, folks, I am too busy writing and running my games with family and friends to notice what someone I don't know thinks about people they don't know.
"But, Rick!," you say, "Don't you care about quality? Promoting and supporting good games, good supplements, good books, and good other stuff?!"
First, of course that isn't true. Second, they are unrelated.
Yes, I think 1e/2e is better than 3e. But this isn't a life or death situation, it is a game and I know that my preferences in this case are largely subjective. Do I think a lot of SF that is critically acclaimed isn't very good? Yes, and I think that is much more objective than game preferences, too. If you want to see a real rant that will upset people, ask me for my list of 'SF books I think are over-rated'.
See, when it comes to genre fiction I concur with Sturgeon's Revelation - 90% of all of it is junk. Sometimes junk is popular (Flowers in the Attic sold forty million copies. Forty. Million. Copies.) and sometimes junk is critically acclaimed (They'd Rather Be Right, The March, The Executioner's Song, etc.). Telling me 'a clique of insiders just gave an award to a junk book!' is like saying 'that group of journalists is promoting a narrative rather than objectively reporting the facts!'.
Yeah, I know
People have been breathlessly telling me,
"Did you know that [really obscure person whose only distinguishing traits are politics and membership in some obscure group] admitted on Twitter that they [voted/wrote/play/attacked someone] only because of politics and ideology?"
Here is a good representation of what that looks like to me;
Of course they are - that is part of what they do. Heck, those are often large contributors to why people join committees or become journalists - to promote their own ideologies, politics, narratives, preferences, etc.
What was that? 'What should be done about it?'
Well, that is up to you. The Hugos seem to be a pretty typical response. Group A dominates a rather small pond, outsiders want change, there is a struggle.
Gamer Gate is also pretty typical; Group X and Group Y learn they actually despise each other; name-calling commences and quickly escalates to attempts to shame and ostracize.
Hmmm? 'What is Rick going to do about it?'
Nothing.
Well, nothing different.
In 1990-91 I interacted with the top award-winning journalists in the world when I was in military intelligence in Desert Shield/Desert Storm. The best of the best; the cream of the crop.
I haven't read a newspaper since I returned. I treat TV and radio journalism as low-rent reality shows. When a news story breaks I wait at least 2 weeks for the story to settle so it might be possible to find out what actually happened. I had no idea 'video game journalism' was a thing until tons of people told me about it.
Fr the last I don't know how long I only buy fiction from writers I have enjoyed in the past or when I can get a free sample of their work (kindle/nook) or pick up a cheap copy at a remainder bin or something. I will put down a book and swear off a writer pretty quickly these days, too. I have very little leisure to read and refuse to waste it.
I have never bought or read a book because it had won the Hugo, Nebula, etc. and, based on sales, I bet you haven't, either.
Besides, there is something else at play here, too. I don't want to boost the signal of people who are trying to use me, especially if they don't like me.
Here is something that I have seen far too often in the last few years,
Someone on the internet: "Can you believe what person A said?"
Me: "Who in the name of Jedidiah Buxton is person A?"
Soti: "Oh! Well, they are involved in [really obscure/niche/whatever group] and they are really upsetting me by saying X"
M: "Never heard of them."
After a few days, though, lots of other people are talking about them, too, so I eventually look them up and...
They are nobodies trying to leverage internet infamy into cash. They are saying and doing outrageous things to both win the support of fringe groups and to get notice from others.
And it often works, letting people earn a living, even get rich, by doing nothing but saying loopy things on the internet.
A loooong time ago I had a (now long gone) anonymous blog on the internet. One of the rules back then was 'when your blog gets to a decent size (which back then wasn't much) pick a fight with a more prominent blogger and hope for a feud to drive traffic to your site. Once you plateau from that, make peace and keep going.'
There are a fair amount of people trying to do something similar today with the internet. Just like I didn't participate then I won't participate now.
So, at the end of this long rant I urge you - relax.
Well, the Hugos and I don't really have a lot in common. I love a good SF story, sure, and some past winners of the Hugo are great writers.
But winning the Hugo didn't make them great. And a lot of great writers never won a Hugo and more were never nominated.
More critically, a lot of the winners are, in my opinion, not very good. The classic example is "They'd Rather Be Right". Ever read it? It is DREADFUL. A terrible, terrible book that has been used as a 'what not to do' example in creative writing books for decades. It was, however, the winner of the second ever Hugo for Best Novel. That's right, the 2nd Hugo for best novel went to a written-to-order book so bad one reviewer commented [paraphrase] 'the fact that it won by vote throws the idea of universal franchise into doubt'.
So why *did* such an awful book win?
Langford (who has won 28 Hugos during his life. Yes, 28) thinks the book won because one of the co-authors was popular as a writer of short stories so many voters selected it based on his name. And let's face it - the annual stories about 'worst x to win a Hugo' are a tradition in SF fandom. This is because it is based on voting by a very small group.
For years and years the highest number of votes was about 1,000 and it was typically about 500-700 for a loooooong time. That is NOT "SF fandom as a whole picking the very best x from this year" that IS "a narrow group of people expressing their opinions in a particular way".
Which is fine.
Why would I care?
'This narrow group of people is working to keep out members/products they don't like'?
Meh.
'The award used to prestigious and now the actions of the people in the group have tarnished it'
Ummmm. "They'd Rather Be Right" was the SECOND EVER Best Novel winner. The Hugos were never that prestigious.
In a very real way I see the kerfuffle about the Hugos as very much like edition wars or 'story games vs.'. Let me show you what I mean.
I don't play 3e any more. I know that some people think PF/3e is the Best Game Ever and I am vaguely aware that some of those people think 1e/2e suck; and some of them think less of me for liking 1e/2e/OSR.
I don't care.
I am NOT going to argue that 1e/2e is 'better' than 3e not do I think less of them because they prefer 3e to other versions. Since this is true their own emotional investment has just as low an impact on me as their opinion.
Think of it this way; Some people like the Yankees, some people like the Mets. Just like I don't care if someone has an emotional response to me being a Braves fan I don't care if they have an emotional response to me playing AD&D 2e Skills & Powers.
So there is a group of people somewhere that I don't know and don't typically interact with that think I can't be a "real" fan of SF if I am x or am not y?
I don't care, any more than I care if someone somewhere thinks I am not a "real" TRPG player if I don't play system z in such-and-such a manner. Sorry, folks, I am too busy writing and running my games with family and friends to notice what someone I don't know thinks about people they don't know.
"But, Rick!," you say, "Don't you care about quality? Promoting and supporting good games, good supplements, good books, and good other stuff?!"
First, of course that isn't true. Second, they are unrelated.
Yes, I think 1e/2e is better than 3e. But this isn't a life or death situation, it is a game and I know that my preferences in this case are largely subjective. Do I think a lot of SF that is critically acclaimed isn't very good? Yes, and I think that is much more objective than game preferences, too. If you want to see a real rant that will upset people, ask me for my list of 'SF books I think are over-rated'.
See, when it comes to genre fiction I concur with Sturgeon's Revelation - 90% of all of it is junk. Sometimes junk is popular (Flowers in the Attic sold forty million copies. Forty. Million. Copies.) and sometimes junk is critically acclaimed (They'd Rather Be Right, The March, The Executioner's Song, etc.). Telling me 'a clique of insiders just gave an award to a junk book!' is like saying 'that group of journalists is promoting a narrative rather than objectively reporting the facts!'.
Yeah, I know
People have been breathlessly telling me,
"Did you know that [really obscure person whose only distinguishing traits are politics and membership in some obscure group] admitted on Twitter that they [voted/wrote/play/attacked someone] only because of politics and ideology?"
Here is a good representation of what that looks like to me;
Of course they are - that is part of what they do. Heck, those are often large contributors to why people join committees or become journalists - to promote their own ideologies, politics, narratives, preferences, etc.
What was that? 'What should be done about it?'
Well, that is up to you. The Hugos seem to be a pretty typical response. Group A dominates a rather small pond, outsiders want change, there is a struggle.
Gamer Gate is also pretty typical; Group X and Group Y learn they actually despise each other; name-calling commences and quickly escalates to attempts to shame and ostracize.
Hmmm? 'What is Rick going to do about it?'
Nothing.
Well, nothing different.
In 1990-91 I interacted with the top award-winning journalists in the world when I was in military intelligence in Desert Shield/Desert Storm. The best of the best; the cream of the crop.
I haven't read a newspaper since I returned. I treat TV and radio journalism as low-rent reality shows. When a news story breaks I wait at least 2 weeks for the story to settle so it might be possible to find out what actually happened. I had no idea 'video game journalism' was a thing until tons of people told me about it.
Fr the last I don't know how long I only buy fiction from writers I have enjoyed in the past or when I can get a free sample of their work (kindle/nook) or pick up a cheap copy at a remainder bin or something. I will put down a book and swear off a writer pretty quickly these days, too. I have very little leisure to read and refuse to waste it.
I have never bought or read a book because it had won the Hugo, Nebula, etc. and, based on sales, I bet you haven't, either.
Besides, there is something else at play here, too. I don't want to boost the signal of people who are trying to use me, especially if they don't like me.
Here is something that I have seen far too often in the last few years,
Someone on the internet: "Can you believe what person A said?"
Me: "Who in the name of Jedidiah Buxton is person A?"
Soti: "Oh! Well, they are involved in [really obscure/niche/whatever group] and they are really upsetting me by saying X"
M: "Never heard of them."
After a few days, though, lots of other people are talking about them, too, so I eventually look them up and...
They are nobodies trying to leverage internet infamy into cash. They are saying and doing outrageous things to both win the support of fringe groups and to get notice from others.
And it often works, letting people earn a living, even get rich, by doing nothing but saying loopy things on the internet.
A loooong time ago I had a (now long gone) anonymous blog on the internet. One of the rules back then was 'when your blog gets to a decent size (which back then wasn't much) pick a fight with a more prominent blogger and hope for a feud to drive traffic to your site. Once you plateau from that, make peace and keep going.'
There are a fair amount of people trying to do something similar today with the internet. Just like I didn't participate then I won't participate now.
So, at the end of this long rant I urge you - relax.
Friday, August 7, 2015
Religion in My AD&D 1e Campaign
I have mentioned before that when I was a kid I read the legends of Charlemagne, the books of Vance, etc. from the age of about 7 on but only read Tolkien and the various stories of Arthur in my late teens, 6-8 years after starting my own AD&D 1e campaign. This means Bishop Turpin, Maugris, and Roland had a lot more impact on my campaign than Gandalf, Strider, or Merlin.
One of the things that has always been a part of my campaign in - the Church.
Out of habit, let's talk about me for a minute.
I was raised what is now called "unchurched". My parents took me to a church once or twice, and that was for weddings of cousins. While we had a lot of books about religion in the house, we had lots of books about everything else in the house, too. I grew up in what my mother called 'the buckle of the bible belt' and was surrounded by Protestant churches but only knew one Catholic and only knew she was Catholic because of the ashes on the forehead thing, as I called it then.
But if you are reading the Matter of France, Ivanhoe, etc., the Catholic Church is the very background of the plot. I didn't know very much about Catholicism in any way but everything from Ogier Danske to Holger Carlson (see what I did there?) told me the Church was critical.
So when I made my 1e campaign, which I call Seaward, it had - the Church.
As I got older I learned a great deal more about the real world Church and I developed the Church in my campaign more fully, although it was from the distance of non-religious books and fiction. When I 'rebooted' Seaward in the late '80's I introduced a pantheon of multiple good deities, the Bright Gods, and tried them out for a few months, but the players hated the idea. Later I used the Bright Gods again in 3e and, once more, my players (entirely different people) preferred the Church.
I also encountered a lot of other GMs, too. Bill had the Valar from LotRs, who are (of course) more akin to archangels than gods and explicitly report to a monotheistic deity. Lew Pulsipher, game theorist and atheist, had God. Singular. And the Church. Singular. Oddly similar to what I had done. As a matter of fact, a whole lot of the GMs I met between '78 and '88 just had "the Church", whatever it might be called,
And this makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons!
First off, the real details of religion are, well, not that important since we are playing games. Thieves' Guilds, Assassins' Guilds, whatever organization Rangers belong to, Druidic circles, Monk's groups - they are all rather vague and up to the GM and, well, why paint yourself into a corner? Leave it vague until you have to make a ruling, write that down, move on, right?
Second, old school 1e AD&D is very, very, obviously based on European history and folklore. And you cannot separate European history and folklore from Catholicism. Well, you could but it seems really odd and why would you?
Third, the book smostly tell us there is a church based on the Church.
Yeah, they do.
Paladins. I mean, the word essentially means 'Catholic knight'.
Cleric level titles.
Art like this:
One of the things that has always been a part of my campaign in - the Church.
Out of habit, let's talk about me for a minute.
I was raised what is now called "unchurched". My parents took me to a church once or twice, and that was for weddings of cousins. While we had a lot of books about religion in the house, we had lots of books about everything else in the house, too. I grew up in what my mother called 'the buckle of the bible belt' and was surrounded by Protestant churches but only knew one Catholic and only knew she was Catholic because of the ashes on the forehead thing, as I called it then.
But if you are reading the Matter of France, Ivanhoe, etc., the Catholic Church is the very background of the plot. I didn't know very much about Catholicism in any way but everything from Ogier Danske to Holger Carlson (see what I did there?) told me the Church was critical.
So when I made my 1e campaign, which I call Seaward, it had - the Church.
As I got older I learned a great deal more about the real world Church and I developed the Church in my campaign more fully, although it was from the distance of non-religious books and fiction. When I 'rebooted' Seaward in the late '80's I introduced a pantheon of multiple good deities, the Bright Gods, and tried them out for a few months, but the players hated the idea. Later I used the Bright Gods again in 3e and, once more, my players (entirely different people) preferred the Church.
I also encountered a lot of other GMs, too. Bill had the Valar from LotRs, who are (of course) more akin to archangels than gods and explicitly report to a monotheistic deity. Lew Pulsipher, game theorist and atheist, had God. Singular. And the Church. Singular. Oddly similar to what I had done. As a matter of fact, a whole lot of the GMs I met between '78 and '88 just had "the Church", whatever it might be called,
And this makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons!
First off, the real details of religion are, well, not that important since we are playing games. Thieves' Guilds, Assassins' Guilds, whatever organization Rangers belong to, Druidic circles, Monk's groups - they are all rather vague and up to the GM and, well, why paint yourself into a corner? Leave it vague until you have to make a ruling, write that down, move on, right?
Second, old school 1e AD&D is very, very, obviously based on European history and folklore. And you cannot separate European history and folklore from Catholicism. Well, you could but it seems really odd and why would you?
Third, the book smostly tell us there is a church based on the Church.
Yeah, they do.
Paladins. I mean, the word essentially means 'Catholic knight'.
Cleric level titles.
Art like this:
See the cleric? He's wearing the tabard of a Militant Holy Order, like the Knights of St. John or the Templars.
BTW, that image is the first thing I saw the first time I flipped open a PHB and I will never forget that moment.
Holy Water. And fonts.
Spell names.
I mean, I can obviously go on and on, but the fact remains that the rather religious, observant Protestant Mr. Gygax had the Catholic Church firmly in mind while he was typing.
Another aside: EGG was seemingly so Protestant that he did not celebrate Christmas as it was not in the bible. I have not confirmed this as true on my own, but if he had no problem with a faux Catholic Church trappings in his game why would you?
So there is this sort of vague Hollywood version of the Catholic Church floating around as part of the foundation of AD&D and I, like many others, sorta' dropped that into our own campaigns. Yes, things changed over time. After the various Gods of the Demi-Humans, Gods of the Suloise, Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms stuff, not to mention the Deities and Demigods release, there were all sorts of pantheons floating around. Many people tacked on things, or they were dragged in during character creation, and in general by the time 3e assumed pantheons, so did most players.
But I didn't.
A few things happened between 1985 and today that caused me to really cement the Church in my campaign.
Let's talk about me some more.
First, I joined the army and became an intelligence type focused on the Middle East, so I ended up studying Islam a great deal as an academic subject.
Then, after I got out, I majored in the Middle Eastern Studies and, because of my background, ended up studying Judaism academically to better understand the region.
Finally, I transferred to a Catholic university and took the mandatory theology class. Within a year I had: Converted to Catholicism, and; changed my major to Catholic Theology.
So as a Catholic theologian is might not surprise you that my campaign has the Church. But remember! It always did!
I can hear you now,
"OK, sheesh, thanks for the bio! Can we get on to religion in your campaign, please?"
Sure!
From the point of view of the rulesyou can use the Church to explain some otherwise - puzzling - things about D&D;
1) Demi-humans vs. Humanoids: Some non-human creatures that resembles people are called demi-humans. All the rest are called humanoids. In my campaign demi-humans are those races that are mostly part of or allied with the Church.
2) Shamans vs. Clerics: Why do demi-humans get to be (NPC) clerics but humanoids are the lower-powered shamans? In the Church or out of it.
3) The Nine Alignment System: As I have mentioned previously, having read Three Hearts and Three Lions as well as the tales of Charlemagne's Paladins the AD&D alignment system was never confusing to me. And, naturally, this is because both are about the Church, in very interesting ways.
4) How must Paladins act?: Related to the above, when you understand where paladins come from grasping their required outlooks and action are rather simple.
Another aside: Lew Pulsipher and his wife "get" paladins like almost no one else I have ever met.
From the point of view of world building at the 30,000 ft view the Church allows me to do a few more things, too;
1) Binding the Human/Demi-human races together culturally: Why the heck are races as wildly different as elves, dwarves, and humans chummy? Because they share a religion! Sure, this doesn't prevent political strife, misunderstandings, personal animosity, etc. but when a human peasant can receive Last Rites from a dwarven priest or an elven Religious Brother (an NPC class from my campaign) can Baptize a dwarven infant this binds these races together in a very real way that reflects the Real World.
2) Explaining a lot more about racial alignments in the Monster Manual, Part One: No, orcs are not 'inherently evil'. Then why does the MM list them as 'Lawful Evil" - they're devil worshipers! Culturally, orcs belong to a number of devil-worshiping cults (thus, the clan names/banners) which is why they tend to hate each other in the absence of an outside threat. Same with goblins, etc. Gnolls? Demon worshipers. This also explains the much more limited powers of shamans.
3) Explaining a lot more about racial alignments in the Monster Manual, Part Two: No, dwarves are not 'inherently good', they are listed as Lawful Good because the Church is widespread and they practice a traditional form of religion. Elves are Chaotic Good, you say? Schism! Think Catholic and Orthodox - the elves had a falling out with the top levels of Church hierarchy and, while still "valid" they do not follow the authority of the Church is all things. This is also a handy way of explaining why dwarves and elves get along, are Good, yet are leery of each other; doctrinal clashes. Oh, not to the level of warfare, but there is a bit of uncomfortable difference.
And world building at a 'closer level' lets me plug in a few more things,
1) An ecclesial language: The Church in my campaign uses an otherwise 'dead' language as it's own, internal, tongue. I also have an arcane tongue used by mages. The ecclesial language is used in church records, birth and death registries, on old tombs, etc. Learning it also allows pretty broad communication with clerics and scholars, too.
2) Lots of background color for the campaign: By now the players know that their characters will know that they can always seek help in a church at 3 am. Yes, really. Because of Lauds, the prayers said about 3 am every morning by clerics, paladins, and religious brothers who are not sick or otherwise constrained. The Divine Office (a series of prayers throughout the day), religious festivals, etc. in the background add a lot to the campaign feeling 'real'. See a guy in robes that has been tonsured? Well, he''s a low-level cleric or religious brother!
3) Cool items: Aspergillums, scapulars, zuchettos, birettas, biers, catafalques, umbraculum, thuribles, navicula, etc., etc., etc. All Real World things and all ready to be found in treasure hoards or rescued from thieves.
4) Cool Imagery: You can use stuff we recognize from the Real World to inject a solid impact onto the players.
I have no idea how many times i've seen this sued for bad guys;
So why not this for a different impact?
And we all know how useful Latin Chanting is!
At a very 'hits them in day to day play' level I have a few mechanics introduced into the campaign based upon religion.
1) Religious Brothers and Sisters: I covered the reasons I added NPC-only classes into my game in a long series of posts that talks about them in particular a bit here. Details are here. These are religious monks, parish priests, nuns, etc. They are not capable of competing with Clerics, but they do have unique spells. 9 times out of 10 the village priest is a Religious Brother.
2) Restrictions on Divine Magic: Unless you 'opt out' at character creation any non-Druid is assumed to have been born a member of the Church (i.e., had the proper Ceremony spell cast on them by a Religious Brother). If someone has NOT been joined to the Church the following Cleric spells will not work on them;
Bless
Protection from Evil
Chant
Prayer
Protection from Evil, 10' radius
Atonement
Raise Dead*
Restoration*
Resurrection*
*a cleric can cast Commune and seek permission for these spells to work
Similar spells from Shamans, Druids, etc. will not work on people that are not part of that particular religion/cult, either.
3) Ecclesial Penalties: The party is on an adventure and meets a patrol; the patrol, thinking they are a groups of bandits that have been raiding outlying farms, orders them to throw down their weapons and come with them so the local baron can determine if they are guilty. The party, on a timetable to recover a vast treasure, refuses. The patrol attacks and the party fights back. The fighting is desperate enough that magic-user casts Monster Summoning IV and brings forth...
Shadows.
The undead shadows kill 3 of the guardsmen, transforming them into shadows, too. The surviving members of the patrol flee and the party goes on to the dungeon, grabs a vast fortune, and heads back to the city.
Just another random encounter?
No. The surviving guardsmen tell the local baron what happened. The baron sends out strong patrols (the party dodges them) and asks questions about the strangers. After a week or so he knows the names of the party members.
The local parishes request help as people begin to vanish from the local villages. A cleric, paladin, and their henchmen find and destroy the shadows that were left behind by the summoned monsters, as well as the new shadows they have created. They report this to the baron, who tells the local bishop.
"So?" say the players, "We're 12th-14th level. What is a 9th level cleric going to do to us? Besides, we're in a completely different kingdom, now!"
This is what that bishop is going to do
Or, within the game mechanics, the bishop used divinations to confirm the identities of the party as well as their guilt, then cast the ceremony Excommunication; now the party cannot benefit from the spells listed above, nor receive the benefits of any Cure spells from the Church. Clerics, etc., that are excommunicated can memorize no spell except Atonement, if they are high enough level for it. And until the party members receive the Atonement spell the effects are permanent.
This sort of thing tends to catch the attention of players.
4) Cosmology: The Church speaks openly that it came from missionaries from 'another world' who spread the faith thousands of years ago and that the Pope of the game world is just 'the local leader' and that he reports back to Pope of the central Church.
When Spelljammer came out I was delighted for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the image of Dominicans on a little ship in the Phlogiston saying the Liturgy of the Hours as they approached a crystal sphere.
5) Saints and Relics: The local Church has local Saints, too. Like St. Thorn, missionary to the elves, or St. Aeldreda, the maiden saint of the dwarves. This is a short trip from saintly relics, holy wells, etc.
Overall the response from players, religious or otherwise, has been very positive. An atheist I played with for years was maybe the biggest fan. We had some talks about it [before I was religious, mind you] and we realized that in movies when there is some great evil or cosmic horror, or Satan coming, or whatever the heroes go to the Catholic Church. He argued it is because the imagery and hierarchy of the Catholic Church is so big, so well-known, so old, and so stable that everyone knows enough about it to be able to not need exposition about who they are and what they are doing.
I can't argue with that.
Heck, that's why I used it 35+ years ago and, arguably, why Gary did, too.
So, there it is. The tip of the iceberg of religion in my AD&D 1e campaign.
Monday, May 4, 2015
An update and, well, a Bleg
OK,so about a month ago I was suddenly laid off, no warning, along with the entire division I was in. This came hot on the heels of two major car repairs and medical bills so we were already virtually broke.
Yay!
The company used various methods to avoid their separation policies resulting in me NOT getting a severance package as promised in my contract.
Hooray!
I have a new job, thank heavens, but it is straight commission - long term? I think it will be great.
Short term?
I don't get paid for weeks.
I am settled in enough that I will start putting out new content soon both here (hopefully later today) and on RPGNow, etc. So I am hoping that people will look at my highly-reviewed OSRIC-compatible products and buy some! My publisher's page is here;
RPGNow
and here;
DriveThruRPG
I hope to have fresh, new product up this week, too!
I am also considering selling my very extensive library of D&D 3.5 books if there is interest. If you want/need a 3.5 book ask - I probably have it.
Sorry for the quiet, but it is about to end!
PS: Yes, I have a donate now button on my sidebar.
Yay!
The company used various methods to avoid their separation policies resulting in me NOT getting a severance package as promised in my contract.
Hooray!
I have a new job, thank heavens, but it is straight commission - long term? I think it will be great.
Short term?
I don't get paid for weeks.
I am settled in enough that I will start putting out new content soon both here (hopefully later today) and on RPGNow, etc. So I am hoping that people will look at my highly-reviewed OSRIC-compatible products and buy some! My publisher's page is here;
RPGNow
and here;
DriveThruRPG
I hope to have fresh, new product up this week, too!
I am also considering selling my very extensive library of D&D 3.5 books if there is interest. If you want/need a 3.5 book ask - I probably have it.
Sorry for the quiet, but it is about to end!
PS: Yes, I have a donate now button on my sidebar.
Friday, November 21, 2014
It's the Little Things
Gamemasters like to work on campaigns; we polish them, we add details, we add histories, we do research. From thousands of years of history outlines to detailed NPCs we all like to make our campaigns not just unique but memorable.
I've seen guys make:
-Incredibly detailed pantheons of gods with unique spells, dress, rituals, etc. for each one
-Unearthly worlds like one where it was set on hundreds of tiny moons in a vast cloud of air and people used flying boats to travel
-Unique systems of magic that required effort and roleplaying to work
Great stuff! Very creative, very memorable. I have a lot of things like unique days for the names of the week that are still recognizable [Sunday, Moonday, Twoday, Threeday, Fourday, Fiveday, Starday], unique constellations, etc. And the players do like them, especially when they are dropped into play aids
But I do find that, to my chagrin, even the effort behind my unique systems of weights and measures, the unique languages, the detailed calendars, the festivals, the monsters, the NPCs the most return for the least effort appears to be - mundane plants and animals.
Here's an example from my Seaward (AD&D 1e) campaign.
Along the southwest border of the Kingdom of Seaward lies an area called the Briars. The Briars cover the foothills of the southern mountains in addition the the very rough, rocky terrain large areas are choked with briars and brambles. The region is home to some plant and animal life either rare or absent anywhere else including the briar wolf, the briar deer, the brush cat, the hill tortoise, and the hyrax (or the 1/2 normal hit dice deer, the jackal, the lynx, the tortoise, and the groundhog). Plants include scrub pine, juniper, the evergreen oak, the lemonade bush, and the strawberry tree.
Now, when I wrote up the area and its encounter charts I thought the weasels, giant rats, mountain lions, and kobolds would be the memorable parts.
Nope.
The players all remember (and talk about) the lemonade bushes, the strawberry trees, the brush cats, and the evergreen oaks.
I chalk it up to the effect Heinlein so famously described many years ago about how little things set tone. You can describe mile-long starships all you want but 'the door irised open' really drives home how different things really are..
So - work on the little things, the odd little bits like green house cats and such. It seems to be memorable.
I've seen guys make:
-Incredibly detailed pantheons of gods with unique spells, dress, rituals, etc. for each one
-Unearthly worlds like one where it was set on hundreds of tiny moons in a vast cloud of air and people used flying boats to travel
-Unique systems of magic that required effort and roleplaying to work
Great stuff! Very creative, very memorable. I have a lot of things like unique days for the names of the week that are still recognizable [Sunday, Moonday, Twoday, Threeday, Fourday, Fiveday, Starday], unique constellations, etc. And the players do like them, especially when they are dropped into play aids
"This journal entry is from the 2nd Starday in Midsummer of last year"and such.
But I do find that, to my chagrin, even the effort behind my unique systems of weights and measures, the unique languages, the detailed calendars, the festivals, the monsters, the NPCs the most return for the least effort appears to be - mundane plants and animals.
Here's an example from my Seaward (AD&D 1e) campaign.
Along the southwest border of the Kingdom of Seaward lies an area called the Briars. The Briars cover the foothills of the southern mountains in addition the the very rough, rocky terrain large areas are choked with briars and brambles. The region is home to some plant and animal life either rare or absent anywhere else including the briar wolf, the briar deer, the brush cat, the hill tortoise, and the hyrax (or the 1/2 normal hit dice deer, the jackal, the lynx, the tortoise, and the groundhog). Plants include scrub pine, juniper, the evergreen oak, the lemonade bush, and the strawberry tree.
Now, when I wrote up the area and its encounter charts I thought the weasels, giant rats, mountain lions, and kobolds would be the memorable parts.
Nope.
The players all remember (and talk about) the lemonade bushes, the strawberry trees, the brush cats, and the evergreen oaks.
I chalk it up to the effect Heinlein so famously described many years ago about how little things set tone. You can describe mile-long starships all you want but 'the door irised open' really drives home how different things really are..
So - work on the little things, the odd little bits like green house cats and such. It seems to be memorable.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
A Hot Meal and a Cup of Tea
When I DM and when I play I am often surprised by the simple little things: player treat horses like bicycles; they never ask about the weather, and they treat fire as nothing but a light source.
I already talked about the weather a bit and I plan to write about horses, so let's talk about fire.
We'll start by talking about encumbrance.
No matter where you fall on the matter of encumbrance (and I am a hard-ass stickler that will slow you down, give you penalties, and expects you to track every 1/10th of a pound) on a long journey it will be very hard to bring enough food and essentially impossible to bring enough water since the minimum a person needs is 10 lbs of water a day. So we must assume that adventurers are getting water from somewhere (streams, springs, and wells above ground. And you have water sources in your dungeons, right?) and that these sources aren't always (maybe never) pure water.
Have I mentioned my disease and parasite rules?
In Real Life over 3 million people die each year from water-borne diseases. Even crystal-clear water from an alpine creek can cause lethal diarrhea. Now, there are a few ways of avoiding this ranging from adding 1 part red wine to 3 parts water (which does an amazing job purifying drinking water, thus why the ancients did it) to drinking only beer to Purify Food and Drink to being a paladin.
But one of the most direct and best is - boiling the water, which also kills parasites.
There are other impacts, too. A series of studies in America and the UK show that office workers are more mentally alert and observant if they have a hot beverage (tea or coffee) in the morning. World military forces have been aware of the positive impacts on morale of plentiful hot beverages, as well, and I have very rarely seen a canteen, chow hall, etc. that didn't have hot tea or coffee available 24 hours a day.
Another thing to think about is, well, the temperature. In the modern world where we go from heated home to heated car to heated office it is easy to forget that it gets cold. Imagine being dressed in chain mail on horseback in a biting wind and cold drizzle for 8 hours on a late Autumn day. Or sleeping in the open on the ground in early Spring. The Wilderness Survival Guide had some great ideas about dealing with cold weather (or hot weather, for that matter) but I often just do something simple - at a certain point travelling in the cold without adequate shelter and heat is force marching. Eventually just being out in the elements is force marching, too, even if you aren't moving.
Dungeons are pretty chilly, I suspect. Remember, it tends to be cool underground and is often damp. According to my friends who are into caving and online caving guides one of the biggest dangers of caving, if not the biggest, is hypothermia. I assume that this is probably a problem in any deep underground place, even a worked dungeon. So PCs are going to need to warm up and/or dry off routinely.
Last is food. I have certainly lost track of the parties that blithely announce that they will supplement their rations by 'hunting along the way' when in the wilderness. If they are very far from civilization they will also state they are having a 'cold camp' without a fire. I then ask them how they are preparing the food they hunted....
I did mention my disease and parasite rules, right?
Rick's disease and parasite rules are included in his supplement Far Realms, available in print and as a PDF. Far Realms also includes new hirelings, such as the healer, new PC classes, like the barbarian, and more than 30 pages of new spells. Suitable for any old-school campaign, please consider buying Far Realms today!
Anyway, while cooking your food does greatly reduce your chances of dying horribly from disease or parasite hot meals are important to alertness and morale, too. British and American forces in combat reveal that eliminating a hot breakfast has twice the negative impact on soldier morale than doubling the amount of time they are in active combat zones. That's right, soldiers are twice as upset over no bacon and toast than they are about getting shot at more often! Just giving soldiers the ability to heat field rations has a notable positive effect on morale and performance.
So all this long rambling is to support my actual point.
Characters in fantasy RPGs should worry about being able to start and maintain a fire.
So why aren't coal and charcoal seen more often on equipment lists and in character inventories?
Yes, I am starting another 'stop thinking like a modern person and think like a medieval person' rant, why do you ask?
People have been making charcoal for thousands of years, so far back we aren't sure when it started. But since charcoal is critical to metalwork, I have always assumed it is readily available in virtually any fantasy campaign.
Now, actual charcoal looks very little like those briquettes for your grill. Lump charcoal looks like what it is - chunks of charred wood. from finger to fist size. Lump charcoal can range from low quality stuff that has a strong smell and a fair amount of smoke when it burns to expensive types that have virtually no odor and very little smoke when burning.
In any case, lighting charcoal is relatively simple - flint & steel with a good tinderbox should do it as log as the charcoal is dry. Lump charcoal gets to temperature quickly and burns hotter than briquettes and the more expensive types leave less ash behind. A handful of lump charcoal will burn long enough to bring a gallon of water to a boil and maintain a boil for a full minute; a double handful is enough for 2 gallons and a meal for four-5 people.
Coal can be more expensive or hard to find than charcoal and its quality varies from lignite to anthracite. Bituminous, which is the type usually used by smiths, is fairly easy to light (easier than charcoal), doesn't burn as hot as charcoal, and makes more smoke and ash than good charcoal. But it will light and burn when wet (although it smokes more) and the same volume of coal burns longer than charcoal. Anthracite burns with much less smoke and ash than bituminous and burns a long time but can be difficult to light. A lrge lump of bituminous coal can boil 2 gallons of water and a double handful can boil 4 plus cook a meal for 4-5 people.
I should also mention peat - a sort of 'pre-coal' from bogs and mires, when properly dried peat can burn for a long time and produce a nice amount of heat. It has a distinctive smell and a fair amount of smoke, though.
In each of these cases, charcoal, coal, and even peat, you get more heat for the same space/weight than wood. Also, since most wood needs to cure and dry for a while to make a good fire (and it might be wet, besides) these are great ideas outdoors as well as underground.
Field cooking equipment is very old. Romans had all sorts of things to make army cooking in the field better and by Medieval times field cooking gear was fairly well developed with small portable iron fireboxes (about the size of a helmet), fire stands, griddles, field cauldrons (again, about like a helmet), and such. Wooden and earthenware mugs we also pretty common back then.
The small iron fireboxes typically had a lid and such so that the airflow (and thus temperature) of the fire could be controlled. This lets them double as a heater for tents and small areas and for a small amount of fuel to last a long time. In my opinion, each party should have at least one iron fire box, a field cauldron, a small griddle, a fire stand, and some charcoal or coal.
Which brings us to another point; air. No matter how little smoke is made, fires consume oxygen. Even in AD&D you should make sure there is enough fresh air to safely make a fire.
No, this post is not a description of camping gear and a safety statement.
Well, not just those things, at least.
I concern myself with these details for a number of reasons.
First, I want verisimilitude in my campaign - I track water usage, encumbrance, weather, etc. because it makes the world I built more internally consistent, which makes the rest of my job easier.
Second, in my experience it allows the players a better chance to immerse themselves into their characters and the world and gives many opportunities for roleplaying - little bits like who is good at building a fire and who can't cook are fun and add a ton of depth, all on the cheap.
Third, it is another way to weigh down characters while vacuuming money out of their belt pouches.
Fourth, it has implications that can be plot hooks.
For example, where does the coal come from? In Real Life the easily accessible coal was gathered very early. Are there coal mines? Where? You need coal and charcoal to make things like, oh, iron, so - do the dwarves mine it/make it? If they don't they have to get it from somewhere!
Charcoal can have a huge impact on a region. Interesting fact - no forest in Finland is more than 300 years old. Why?
They cut down all the trees for charcoal over the course of about 250 years!
Mainly to get wood tar, but it was the charcoal process and it really, really changed Finland for a century+. In my Seaward campaign colliers slip into the forests between civilized lands and the orcish city-states to make charcoal to sell. Very, very risky, but very profitable. The gnomes of Gladdenstone make a lot of money mining anthracite and selling it to the dwarves. The barbarians of Eiru have to collect peat from the edges of the haunted Moorlands to heat their homes in the harsh winters of their island nation.
So think about it. Maybe have a henchman demand more pay or have a hireling quit suddenly because there is never a pot of tea at dawn, or have the party suffer a -1 to hit from fatigue after 3 days of near-hypothermia in a dungeon's depths. Gnomes increasing prices for coal might push the dwarves to the brink of war and orcish raids in Autumn could lead to suffering as the poor run out of charcoal to heat their homes in deep Winter.
Or just imagine going 3 days with no tea, coffee, or hot food yourself and build an adventure from that. Mine would have lots of murder and naps.
We'll start by talking about encumbrance.
No matter where you fall on the matter of encumbrance (and I am a hard-ass stickler that will slow you down, give you penalties, and expects you to track every 1/10th of a pound) on a long journey it will be very hard to bring enough food and essentially impossible to bring enough water since the minimum a person needs is 10 lbs of water a day. So we must assume that adventurers are getting water from somewhere (streams, springs, and wells above ground. And you have water sources in your dungeons, right?) and that these sources aren't always (maybe never) pure water.
Have I mentioned my disease and parasite rules?
In Real Life over 3 million people die each year from water-borne diseases. Even crystal-clear water from an alpine creek can cause lethal diarrhea. Now, there are a few ways of avoiding this ranging from adding 1 part red wine to 3 parts water (which does an amazing job purifying drinking water, thus why the ancients did it) to drinking only beer to Purify Food and Drink to being a paladin.
But one of the most direct and best is - boiling the water, which also kills parasites.
There are other impacts, too. A series of studies in America and the UK show that office workers are more mentally alert and observant if they have a hot beverage (tea or coffee) in the morning. World military forces have been aware of the positive impacts on morale of plentiful hot beverages, as well, and I have very rarely seen a canteen, chow hall, etc. that didn't have hot tea or coffee available 24 hours a day.
Another thing to think about is, well, the temperature. In the modern world where we go from heated home to heated car to heated office it is easy to forget that it gets cold. Imagine being dressed in chain mail on horseback in a biting wind and cold drizzle for 8 hours on a late Autumn day. Or sleeping in the open on the ground in early Spring. The Wilderness Survival Guide had some great ideas about dealing with cold weather (or hot weather, for that matter) but I often just do something simple - at a certain point travelling in the cold without adequate shelter and heat is force marching. Eventually just being out in the elements is force marching, too, even if you aren't moving.
Dungeons are pretty chilly, I suspect. Remember, it tends to be cool underground and is often damp. According to my friends who are into caving and online caving guides one of the biggest dangers of caving, if not the biggest, is hypothermia. I assume that this is probably a problem in any deep underground place, even a worked dungeon. So PCs are going to need to warm up and/or dry off routinely.
Last is food. I have certainly lost track of the parties that blithely announce that they will supplement their rations by 'hunting along the way' when in the wilderness. If they are very far from civilization they will also state they are having a 'cold camp' without a fire. I then ask them how they are preparing the food they hunted....
I did mention my disease and parasite rules, right?
Rick's disease and parasite rules are included in his supplement Far Realms, available in print and as a PDF. Far Realms also includes new hirelings, such as the healer, new PC classes, like the barbarian, and more than 30 pages of new spells. Suitable for any old-school campaign, please consider buying Far Realms today!
Anyway, while cooking your food does greatly reduce your chances of dying horribly from disease or parasite hot meals are important to alertness and morale, too. British and American forces in combat reveal that eliminating a hot breakfast has twice the negative impact on soldier morale than doubling the amount of time they are in active combat zones. That's right, soldiers are twice as upset over no bacon and toast than they are about getting shot at more often! Just giving soldiers the ability to heat field rations has a notable positive effect on morale and performance.
So all this long rambling is to support my actual point.
Characters in fantasy RPGs should worry about being able to start and maintain a fire.
So why aren't coal and charcoal seen more often on equipment lists and in character inventories?
Yes, I am starting another 'stop thinking like a modern person and think like a medieval person' rant, why do you ask?
People have been making charcoal for thousands of years, so far back we aren't sure when it started. But since charcoal is critical to metalwork, I have always assumed it is readily available in virtually any fantasy campaign.
Now, actual charcoal looks very little like those briquettes for your grill. Lump charcoal looks like what it is - chunks of charred wood. from finger to fist size. Lump charcoal can range from low quality stuff that has a strong smell and a fair amount of smoke when it burns to expensive types that have virtually no odor and very little smoke when burning.
In any case, lighting charcoal is relatively simple - flint & steel with a good tinderbox should do it as log as the charcoal is dry. Lump charcoal gets to temperature quickly and burns hotter than briquettes and the more expensive types leave less ash behind. A handful of lump charcoal will burn long enough to bring a gallon of water to a boil and maintain a boil for a full minute; a double handful is enough for 2 gallons and a meal for four-5 people.
Coal can be more expensive or hard to find than charcoal and its quality varies from lignite to anthracite. Bituminous, which is the type usually used by smiths, is fairly easy to light (easier than charcoal), doesn't burn as hot as charcoal, and makes more smoke and ash than good charcoal. But it will light and burn when wet (although it smokes more) and the same volume of coal burns longer than charcoal. Anthracite burns with much less smoke and ash than bituminous and burns a long time but can be difficult to light. A lrge lump of bituminous coal can boil 2 gallons of water and a double handful can boil 4 plus cook a meal for 4-5 people.
I should also mention peat - a sort of 'pre-coal' from bogs and mires, when properly dried peat can burn for a long time and produce a nice amount of heat. It has a distinctive smell and a fair amount of smoke, though.
In each of these cases, charcoal, coal, and even peat, you get more heat for the same space/weight than wood. Also, since most wood needs to cure and dry for a while to make a good fire (and it might be wet, besides) these are great ideas outdoors as well as underground.
Field cooking equipment is very old. Romans had all sorts of things to make army cooking in the field better and by Medieval times field cooking gear was fairly well developed with small portable iron fireboxes (about the size of a helmet), fire stands, griddles, field cauldrons (again, about like a helmet), and such. Wooden and earthenware mugs we also pretty common back then.
The small iron fireboxes typically had a lid and such so that the airflow (and thus temperature) of the fire could be controlled. This lets them double as a heater for tents and small areas and for a small amount of fuel to last a long time. In my opinion, each party should have at least one iron fire box, a field cauldron, a small griddle, a fire stand, and some charcoal or coal.
Which brings us to another point; air. No matter how little smoke is made, fires consume oxygen. Even in AD&D you should make sure there is enough fresh air to safely make a fire.
No, this post is not a description of camping gear and a safety statement.
Well, not just those things, at least.
I concern myself with these details for a number of reasons.
First, I want verisimilitude in my campaign - I track water usage, encumbrance, weather, etc. because it makes the world I built more internally consistent, which makes the rest of my job easier.
Second, in my experience it allows the players a better chance to immerse themselves into their characters and the world and gives many opportunities for roleplaying - little bits like who is good at building a fire and who can't cook are fun and add a ton of depth, all on the cheap.
Third, it is another way to weigh down characters while vacuuming money out of their belt pouches.
Fourth, it has implications that can be plot hooks.
For example, where does the coal come from? In Real Life the easily accessible coal was gathered very early. Are there coal mines? Where? You need coal and charcoal to make things like, oh, iron, so - do the dwarves mine it/make it? If they don't they have to get it from somewhere!
Charcoal can have a huge impact on a region. Interesting fact - no forest in Finland is more than 300 years old. Why?
They cut down all the trees for charcoal over the course of about 250 years!
Mainly to get wood tar, but it was the charcoal process and it really, really changed Finland for a century+. In my Seaward campaign colliers slip into the forests between civilized lands and the orcish city-states to make charcoal to sell. Very, very risky, but very profitable. The gnomes of Gladdenstone make a lot of money mining anthracite and selling it to the dwarves. The barbarians of Eiru have to collect peat from the edges of the haunted Moorlands to heat their homes in the harsh winters of their island nation.
So think about it. Maybe have a henchman demand more pay or have a hireling quit suddenly because there is never a pot of tea at dawn, or have the party suffer a -1 to hit from fatigue after 3 days of near-hypothermia in a dungeon's depths. Gnomes increasing prices for coal might push the dwarves to the brink of war and orcish raids in Autumn could lead to suffering as the poor run out of charcoal to heat their homes in deep Winter.
Or just imagine going 3 days with no tea, coffee, or hot food yourself and build an adventure from that. Mine would have lots of murder and naps.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Lies, Mistakes, False Confidence and Your Campaign
I hope you will forgive me if I get a bit wonky.
Thanks in advance.
Many years ago I spent an entire Summer studying demographics (some details here as to why a 10 year old would do that) and concluded that I would reject what was being written about by lepidopterists, science fiction writers, and others about overpopulation and, rather, agree with actual demographers, all of whom insisted overpopulation wasn't a problem then and wouldn't be for a long, long time. The doomsayers of overpopulation stated 1970 was far too late to prevent hundreds of millions of people from starving to death in the 1970's and that nothing could prevent famine from wiping out England by 1980.
Turns out the demographers were correct and the popular voices were wrong.
Now several major nations are grappling with rapid underpopulation and the contraction of world population should begin within my own lifetime.
During Desert Shield I encountered a group of journalists, the leader of whom was very excited. Why? He had a big scoop - he said he had caught the army lying. You see, the army had said the PATRIOT missile system was operating at more than 90% success but he had proof - proof! - that less than 1 in 4 launched missiles was even reaching the target; the rest were blown up in mid air remotely!
I said,
"Of course, that is how the system works, but it doesn't change the success rate."
You see, when a potential target is spotted 1/2 of all available launchers fire an intercept missile. Why? Safety! There isn't enough time to launch one at a time, so you launch multiples in case the first or even more miss, and then remotely destroy any that aren't needed.
I spent the next two hours fruitlessly trying to explain the critical difference between 'individual element accuracy' and 'system success rate'. He ignored me, broke his "scandal", and made headlines.
To this day I know people who know the army lied about the success of the Patriots because of that journalist.
This phenomena where someone who is incompetent at something but believes they are competent at it, even has a name - the Dunning-Kruger Effect. This state, in very simplified terms, that people who are unskilled in a certain task tend to honestly believe they are very skillful, even masters, of the task while people who are very skillful at the same task tend to rate themselves as mediocre.
"Wait a minute, Rick," you say, "I've heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, sure. But I know/googled/looked up/etc. overpopulation and the Patriot missile system and, well, they are terrible examples because overpopulation is a huge issue/the Patriots don't work!"
Actually, we're just getting to the point of this post, so thanks for chiming in.
Because this post is about misinformation in your campaign.
In my campaigns there are things everyone knows to be true that aren't and things everyone know to be false that aren't. And you might need to consult a sage to find this out.
Here is an example from Seaward:
Maury looked grim, "My divinations and research have explained the strange things that Sessy saw and heard; the new master of thieves is a rakshasa."
"A rakshasa!", exclaimed Sessy, "this is foul news indeed."
"What is a rock-shasta and if it bleeds, why do I care?" asked Eirik.
"Rakshasa," corrected Maury, "a magical creature from a far land. Virtually immune to magic and proof against all but the mightiest enchanted weapons it cloaks itself in a nigh-perfect illusion of being a person or creature you trust and then destroys you when you are unwary. They are cunning and powerful."
"But not invincible," added Brother Reynaud, "I recall hearing from another cleric that the merest scratch from a crossbow bolt that has been Blessed can slay them."
"I had heard this rumor, as well, " agreed Maury, "and my research in the Imperial Library confirms it. We shall confront the evil with Eirik and his henchmen armed alike with a score of Blessed bolts!"
[2 weeks later]
The series of ambushes and traps from the thieves had been bad enough, but the two doppleganger servants of the rakshasa had been even worse. The adventurers were all bleeding from various injuries and Sessy was on her way back to the surface with half the surviving henchmen guiding her; the poison-induced blindness should wear off in a few days.
With surprising ease they made it to the Master's Room. The interior was well lit and empty except for a figure lounging on the gem-encrusted throne in in the far wall. The figure looked like a tall, powerfully-built man with the head of a tiger. The rakshasa put down his hookah pipe and smoothed his silk robe as he stood, revealing that his thumbs were on the 'wrong' sides and that his fingers curled backward, not inward.
Brother Reynaud called out, "Prepare for your death, foul one! Your doom is here!"
It took a moment for the adventurers to realize the rumbling growl was a chuckle.
"Fools," growled the creature, "my minions and traps have done naught but prove you cannot harm me."
The rakshasa strode toward them, it whiskers twitching.
"Fire, men, fire!" called Eirik as his 3 surviving henchman joined him in launching crossbow bolts. Two struck true with Eirik's own quivering in the beast's throat. Soundlessly the rakshasa slipped to the ground.
Eirik leapt forward with a shout of triumph. But as he prepared to collect the thing's head it leapt up, snarling. After a swift exchange of blows Eirik drew back, bleeding from half a dozen new wounds. The rakshasa paused to pluck the bolts from its hide, the wounds sealing up instantly. He briefly sniffed one of the bolts before tossing it aside.
"Run," hissed Eirik, "run for the surface. If I live I will rejoin you."
As players in my Seaward game now know, very well, rakshasa are not harmed by crossbow bolts that have been Blessed. Crossbow bolts that have been Consecrated, however, are instant death to the horrible creatures.
Yes, my players were horrified. Yes, at least one was indignant ('but the Monster Manual says!'). But why not? After all, plenty if people think that 15th century Europeans thought the world was flat. They didn't. Indeed, the main opposition to Columbus was because the majority of scholars agreed on the circumference of the earth and expected him to run out of supplies before he reached land. Columbus was wrong about the Earth's circumference (the scholars were really close, actually), there was just a landmass or two that were not as well known in the way. But not only is this belief ['15th Century Europeans thought the world was flat'] common it can be found in school textbooks and even books in college reference libraries.
So add some facts to your campaign and make some of them fun, interesting, and true ['adding a drop of red dragon blood to the components of a Fireball makes it hotter' and give a +1 per die if they do this; 'the ichor of a slithering tracker makes you immune to a gelatinous cube's paralysis for an hour', etc.] make some of them them fun and false ['adding a drop of blue dragon blood to the components of a Lightning Bolt makes it more powerful' when it doesn't; 'if you tie the death shroud of a murderer across your face as a mask ghast stink doesn't affect you' but this doesn't work, etc.]. Also have things that 'everyone knows' be false [like the rakshasa] and that everyone disbelieves be true [for example, only superstitious peasants nail brass keys to the lintel of their door frames with a single iron nail - educated and sophisticated people sneer at this superstition.
But what if it does prevent intelligent undead from entering the home? Maybe it only works for actual family homes with a relatively small total square footage, or an average value or less, or some other limitation that means it doesn't work on castles, or wizard's towers, or churches, or the town homes of rich merchants but it does work. That isn't going to break anything, skew the campaign, or help players with their lordly manors, but it might be an interesting plot point and, is handled right, can really mess with the players.
You can do this with NPCs, too. Everyone, but everyone, knows that Kregar the Shining is the best swordsman in the West. He has been challenged on a number of occasions by renowned swordsmen but has always prevailed. People come from distant lands to train under him but he selects just one man every two or three years. These men go on to state with great pride they were trained by Kregar and laud his mastery far and wide.
He is beloved in the city, too. He tips well, is generous to friends, gives freely to the poor, and has been known to help out young, down on their luck adventurers from time to time with cash and introductions. He is charming, friendly, and soft-spoken.
In reality he is a 5th level fighter with a 16 Dexterity who is specialized in the broad sword and has a magical sword that means he always strikes first (although he has no idea it is magical). So he is pretty good, but not that good. However, he is truly convinced in his heart that he is the best swordsman in the world.
In addition to the personality traits listed above he is also prone to 'humble-bragging' such as;
'I hope you do not mind having dinner with me. If I am busy when the general comes perhaps he will stop pestering me to train the king's guard'
'I grow so weary of famous swordsmen coming just to challenge me to a duel. It disrupts my training so much.'
'Perhaps you will accept this as a gift? it was sent by a master swordsmith from a far land, but the humble blade I found years ago has been more than enough for me to win every duel.'
etc.
This can go the other way, too. Just think of Aragorn in LotR - heir to the kingship of all Men of the West and dedicated to protecting the frontier from evil the locals called him 'Strider' and though he was a disreputable sort, going so far as to warn travelers not to associate with him.
And remember, none of this has to be purposeful or malicious. These could all be no more than honest mistakes!
But why do we do this? A few reasons.
First, it cuts down on meta-gaming. Players that have memorized the books will have less of an 'advantage' in these situations.
Second, it reflects Real Life at least a little. We all are subject to this sort of mistaken confidence and false knowledge, so why not your characters, too?
Third, it makes your world unique. This is a simple way to differentiate your campaign world from anything else.
Fourth, it makes in-character research and divinations more valuable. Access to good libraries, the casting of expensive divinations, and travel to distant sages suddenly are all worth it.
And last, it adds to the sense of wonder that makes the game more fun.
Thanks in advance.
Many years ago I spent an entire Summer studying demographics (some details here as to why a 10 year old would do that) and concluded that I would reject what was being written about by lepidopterists, science fiction writers, and others about overpopulation and, rather, agree with actual demographers, all of whom insisted overpopulation wasn't a problem then and wouldn't be for a long, long time. The doomsayers of overpopulation stated 1970 was far too late to prevent hundreds of millions of people from starving to death in the 1970's and that nothing could prevent famine from wiping out England by 1980.
Turns out the demographers were correct and the popular voices were wrong.
Now several major nations are grappling with rapid underpopulation and the contraction of world population should begin within my own lifetime.
During Desert Shield I encountered a group of journalists, the leader of whom was very excited. Why? He had a big scoop - he said he had caught the army lying. You see, the army had said the PATRIOT missile system was operating at more than 90% success but he had proof - proof! - that less than 1 in 4 launched missiles was even reaching the target; the rest were blown up in mid air remotely!
I said,
"Of course, that is how the system works, but it doesn't change the success rate."
You see, when a potential target is spotted 1/2 of all available launchers fire an intercept missile. Why? Safety! There isn't enough time to launch one at a time, so you launch multiples in case the first or even more miss, and then remotely destroy any that aren't needed.
I spent the next two hours fruitlessly trying to explain the critical difference between 'individual element accuracy' and 'system success rate'. He ignored me, broke his "scandal", and made headlines.
To this day I know people who know the army lied about the success of the Patriots because of that journalist.
This phenomena where someone who is incompetent at something but believes they are competent at it, even has a name - the Dunning-Kruger Effect. This state, in very simplified terms, that people who are unskilled in a certain task tend to honestly believe they are very skillful, even masters, of the task while people who are very skillful at the same task tend to rate themselves as mediocre.
"Wait a minute, Rick," you say, "I've heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, sure. But I know/googled/looked up/etc. overpopulation and the Patriot missile system and, well, they are terrible examples because overpopulation is a huge issue/the Patriots don't work!"
Actually, we're just getting to the point of this post, so thanks for chiming in.
Because this post is about misinformation in your campaign.
In my campaigns there are things everyone knows to be true that aren't and things everyone know to be false that aren't. And you might need to consult a sage to find this out.
Here is an example from Seaward:
Maury looked grim, "My divinations and research have explained the strange things that Sessy saw and heard; the new master of thieves is a rakshasa."
"A rakshasa!", exclaimed Sessy, "this is foul news indeed."
"What is a rock-shasta and if it bleeds, why do I care?" asked Eirik.
"Rakshasa," corrected Maury, "a magical creature from a far land. Virtually immune to magic and proof against all but the mightiest enchanted weapons it cloaks itself in a nigh-perfect illusion of being a person or creature you trust and then destroys you when you are unwary. They are cunning and powerful."
"But not invincible," added Brother Reynaud, "I recall hearing from another cleric that the merest scratch from a crossbow bolt that has been Blessed can slay them."
"I had heard this rumor, as well, " agreed Maury, "and my research in the Imperial Library confirms it. We shall confront the evil with Eirik and his henchmen armed alike with a score of Blessed bolts!"
[2 weeks later]
The series of ambushes and traps from the thieves had been bad enough, but the two doppleganger servants of the rakshasa had been even worse. The adventurers were all bleeding from various injuries and Sessy was on her way back to the surface with half the surviving henchmen guiding her; the poison-induced blindness should wear off in a few days.
With surprising ease they made it to the Master's Room. The interior was well lit and empty except for a figure lounging on the gem-encrusted throne in in the far wall. The figure looked like a tall, powerfully-built man with the head of a tiger. The rakshasa put down his hookah pipe and smoothed his silk robe as he stood, revealing that his thumbs were on the 'wrong' sides and that his fingers curled backward, not inward.
Brother Reynaud called out, "Prepare for your death, foul one! Your doom is here!"
It took a moment for the adventurers to realize the rumbling growl was a chuckle.
"Fools," growled the creature, "my minions and traps have done naught but prove you cannot harm me."
The rakshasa strode toward them, it whiskers twitching.
"Fire, men, fire!" called Eirik as his 3 surviving henchman joined him in launching crossbow bolts. Two struck true with Eirik's own quivering in the beast's throat. Soundlessly the rakshasa slipped to the ground.
Eirik leapt forward with a shout of triumph. But as he prepared to collect the thing's head it leapt up, snarling. After a swift exchange of blows Eirik drew back, bleeding from half a dozen new wounds. The rakshasa paused to pluck the bolts from its hide, the wounds sealing up instantly. He briefly sniffed one of the bolts before tossing it aside.
"Run," hissed Eirik, "run for the surface. If I live I will rejoin you."
As players in my Seaward game now know, very well, rakshasa are not harmed by crossbow bolts that have been Blessed. Crossbow bolts that have been Consecrated, however, are instant death to the horrible creatures.
Yes, my players were horrified. Yes, at least one was indignant ('but the Monster Manual says!'). But why not? After all, plenty if people think that 15th century Europeans thought the world was flat. They didn't. Indeed, the main opposition to Columbus was because the majority of scholars agreed on the circumference of the earth and expected him to run out of supplies before he reached land. Columbus was wrong about the Earth's circumference (the scholars were really close, actually), there was just a landmass or two that were not as well known in the way. But not only is this belief ['15th Century Europeans thought the world was flat'] common it can be found in school textbooks and even books in college reference libraries.
So add some facts to your campaign and make some of them fun, interesting, and true ['adding a drop of red dragon blood to the components of a Fireball makes it hotter' and give a +1 per die if they do this; 'the ichor of a slithering tracker makes you immune to a gelatinous cube's paralysis for an hour', etc.] make some of them them fun and false ['adding a drop of blue dragon blood to the components of a Lightning Bolt makes it more powerful' when it doesn't; 'if you tie the death shroud of a murderer across your face as a mask ghast stink doesn't affect you' but this doesn't work, etc.]. Also have things that 'everyone knows' be false [like the rakshasa] and that everyone disbelieves be true [for example, only superstitious peasants nail brass keys to the lintel of their door frames with a single iron nail - educated and sophisticated people sneer at this superstition.
But what if it does prevent intelligent undead from entering the home? Maybe it only works for actual family homes with a relatively small total square footage, or an average value or less, or some other limitation that means it doesn't work on castles, or wizard's towers, or churches, or the town homes of rich merchants but it does work. That isn't going to break anything, skew the campaign, or help players with their lordly manors, but it might be an interesting plot point and, is handled right, can really mess with the players.
You can do this with NPCs, too. Everyone, but everyone, knows that Kregar the Shining is the best swordsman in the West. He has been challenged on a number of occasions by renowned swordsmen but has always prevailed. People come from distant lands to train under him but he selects just one man every two or three years. These men go on to state with great pride they were trained by Kregar and laud his mastery far and wide.
He is beloved in the city, too. He tips well, is generous to friends, gives freely to the poor, and has been known to help out young, down on their luck adventurers from time to time with cash and introductions. He is charming, friendly, and soft-spoken.
In reality he is a 5th level fighter with a 16 Dexterity who is specialized in the broad sword and has a magical sword that means he always strikes first (although he has no idea it is magical). So he is pretty good, but not that good. However, he is truly convinced in his heart that he is the best swordsman in the world.
In addition to the personality traits listed above he is also prone to 'humble-bragging' such as;
'I hope you do not mind having dinner with me. If I am busy when the general comes perhaps he will stop pestering me to train the king's guard'
'I grow so weary of famous swordsmen coming just to challenge me to a duel. It disrupts my training so much.'
'Perhaps you will accept this as a gift? it was sent by a master swordsmith from a far land, but the humble blade I found years ago has been more than enough for me to win every duel.'
etc.
This can go the other way, too. Just think of Aragorn in LotR - heir to the kingship of all Men of the West and dedicated to protecting the frontier from evil the locals called him 'Strider' and though he was a disreputable sort, going so far as to warn travelers not to associate with him.
And remember, none of this has to be purposeful or malicious. These could all be no more than honest mistakes!
But why do we do this? A few reasons.
First, it cuts down on meta-gaming. Players that have memorized the books will have less of an 'advantage' in these situations.
Second, it reflects Real Life at least a little. We all are subject to this sort of mistaken confidence and false knowledge, so why not your characters, too?
Third, it makes your world unique. This is a simple way to differentiate your campaign world from anything else.
Fourth, it makes in-character research and divinations more valuable. Access to good libraries, the casting of expensive divinations, and travel to distant sages suddenly are all worth it.
And last, it adds to the sense of wonder that makes the game more fun.
Monday, October 6, 2014
Sideline: Appendix N and Me
Jeffro has been writing a great deal about Appendix N over at Castalia House. One of the things he says over and over again is,
"Why didn't anyone recommend these books to me before now?"
I think this is a good time to share something personal; a bit about my father.
My father was born in the early 1920's,the oldest of 5 children. He grew up in Chicago and was a leader from a young age. He has clear memories of standing in line to see The Jazz Singer and reading the papers on Black Tuesday and the day after. He enlisted in the army on December 8th, 1941 with all of his friends and was released from the army in 1946. He married his sweetheart in 1947 while in college and went on to become a doctor on the G.I. Bill. He held his dream job, being a rural country doctor, for his entire medical career. He eventually was father to 9 children. I was raised in small-town America as part of a large, extended family.
Now, my father was an flawed and imperfect as any man, but he had great gifts that he passed on to his children; care for others, a dedication to honor and duty, love of children. Also smooth talking, a fondness for cigars, and solid poker skills (for his sons).
But also a love of reading. I literally have no memories of my father without a book of some sort on his person or within reach. A paperback in his medical bag, a novel on his end table, always something.
He loved the classics and the great books - I was reading translations of Cicero and the Aeneid as a teen alongside Paradise Lost, the Prince, and more.
But he also loved the pulps of his own youth, and comics, too. He bought me a copy of A Princess of Mars for my 8th birthday and I finished the entire series (the first read-through) by the time I was 9. Then I read all 24 of the 'main' Tarzan books and the Eternal Lover and the Mad King all before I was 10!
Note: If you love Burroughs or Ruritanian romances and haven't read The Mad King, you are missing out!
The great thing was I read The Outlaw of Torn just 2-3 weeks before my first encounter with D&D; a wonderful warmup!
My father had also introduced me to books like Sea-Kings of Mars, all of Lovecraft, Derleth, Clark Ashton Smith, Dunsany, and Andre Norton. He still has a first printing of Starman's Son, signed by Norton in the 60's before I was born.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was in my late teens before I read anything by Tolkien or anything Arthurian. My earliest reads associated with D&D were the tales of Charlemagne's Paladins, and Three Hearts and Three Lions, and the High Crusade, and the Outlaw of Torn, and similar works.
And I loved the Dying Earth stuff - I read the Night Land when I was 10 and followed it up with the Time Machine, Vance, and re-reading the Zothique stories, all of which had a huge impact on my creation of Seaward, my AD&D 1e campaign, just a year later. Looking back, Norton's Witchworld books, especially the first few in the High Hallack series, were a pretty strong influence, too.
Jeffro's posts are a lot of fun for me. I am gaining fresh insights to old favorites as he writes and realizing how these books impact my own work to this day in ways invisible to me before.
And I also get how it must feel to discover this trove of writing that was both right in front of you (in the DMG) but not really talked about enough.
Writing this I called my father, who is in his 90's, now. He's re-reading Off on a Comet.
So all of us book nuts have a duty - tell others about these books we love!
"Why didn't anyone recommend these books to me before now?"
I think this is a good time to share something personal; a bit about my father.
My father was born in the early 1920's,the oldest of 5 children. He grew up in Chicago and was a leader from a young age. He has clear memories of standing in line to see The Jazz Singer and reading the papers on Black Tuesday and the day after. He enlisted in the army on December 8th, 1941 with all of his friends and was released from the army in 1946. He married his sweetheart in 1947 while in college and went on to become a doctor on the G.I. Bill. He held his dream job, being a rural country doctor, for his entire medical career. He eventually was father to 9 children. I was raised in small-town America as part of a large, extended family.
Now, my father was an flawed and imperfect as any man, but he had great gifts that he passed on to his children; care for others, a dedication to honor and duty, love of children. Also smooth talking, a fondness for cigars, and solid poker skills (for his sons).
But also a love of reading. I literally have no memories of my father without a book of some sort on his person or within reach. A paperback in his medical bag, a novel on his end table, always something.
He loved the classics and the great books - I was reading translations of Cicero and the Aeneid as a teen alongside Paradise Lost, the Prince, and more.
But he also loved the pulps of his own youth, and comics, too. He bought me a copy of A Princess of Mars for my 8th birthday and I finished the entire series (the first read-through) by the time I was 9. Then I read all 24 of the 'main' Tarzan books and the Eternal Lover and the Mad King all before I was 10!
Note: If you love Burroughs or Ruritanian romances and haven't read The Mad King, you are missing out!
The great thing was I read The Outlaw of Torn just 2-3 weeks before my first encounter with D&D; a wonderful warmup!
My father had also introduced me to books like Sea-Kings of Mars, all of Lovecraft, Derleth, Clark Ashton Smith, Dunsany, and Andre Norton. He still has a first printing of Starman's Son, signed by Norton in the 60's before I was born.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was in my late teens before I read anything by Tolkien or anything Arthurian. My earliest reads associated with D&D were the tales of Charlemagne's Paladins, and Three Hearts and Three Lions, and the High Crusade, and the Outlaw of Torn, and similar works.
And I loved the Dying Earth stuff - I read the Night Land when I was 10 and followed it up with the Time Machine, Vance, and re-reading the Zothique stories, all of which had a huge impact on my creation of Seaward, my AD&D 1e campaign, just a year later. Looking back, Norton's Witchworld books, especially the first few in the High Hallack series, were a pretty strong influence, too.
Jeffro's posts are a lot of fun for me. I am gaining fresh insights to old favorites as he writes and realizing how these books impact my own work to this day in ways invisible to me before.
And I also get how it must feel to discover this trove of writing that was both right in front of you (in the DMG) but not really talked about enough.
Writing this I called my father, who is in his 90's, now. He's re-reading Off on a Comet.
So all of us book nuts have a duty - tell others about these books we love!
Friday, September 12, 2014
Planetary Assault Operations: A White Paper
A blast from the past, this was originally written for Freelance Traveller in 2002! It is largely unchanged since then.
Overview
There are a number of references to planetary sieges and the taking/retaking of planets by opposing navies in the Traveller Canon, especially during the Frontier Wars. And while the Imperium mainly controls the space between the stars, there are times when the enemy isn't only in space. And while a hostile planet can be interdicted, bombed, and talked to from orbit, only troops on the ground can truly control it. This paper is my attempt to explain how I think a planetary assault would work and how one could be set up in a campaign as background, plot device, or adventure. I have also included a brief glossary at the end of the paper.
Assumptions and Givens
- This is my opinion and IYTU YMMV. Much of this is based upon my knowledge of airborne operation as a former member of a U.S. Army Airborne unit.
- I am using the Third Imperium from about the time of the Fifth Frontier War as a baseline for the assaulting force; this implies an average TL-13 with a top TL-15. Switching this to other races should be relatively simple and I will include some notes.
- I am primarily a CT GM, but I will include references to other milieux. I hope to keep this as generic as possible.
- I am assuming that the Imperial Army will undertake large-scale planetary actions. IMO, Imperial Marines are 'johnny-on-the-spot'; they are the visible might of the Imperium and deal with brush fires. In large-scale actions they will concentrate on 'traditional' marine roles - boarding actions and quick assaults. With 'organic' support (artillery, medical units, etc.) and heavy units the Imperial Army and its colonial units are going to be the major players in ground actions.
- The relative superiority of near-space by the navy of the attacking force is a given. Without close orbit superiority planetary assaults are effectively doomed. This does not mean that the attacker must absolutely control close orbit, just that they must be capable of projecting great force into near orbit at specific times.
- Specific tactics will vary based upon the tech level of the planetary forces. Against foes of TL-0 through TL-5 or so the Marines just set down in grav vehicles and move out. While a large TL-5 army with heavy support could actually mount a credible defense against TL-15 marines in battle dress, they will not prevail. At higher tech levels, however, you can face serious opposition as those large armies gain nuclear weapons and more sophisticated armor and aircraft. I have divided assault procedures into TL-6 through TL-10 and TL-10+.
- I am taking it as a given is that military forces will generally be smaller as tech level increases. This will, of course, vary based upon law level, political stability, war footing, etc. But just as many modern armies are smaller than they were in previous generations, I am assuming that the increased efficiency of higher tech levels will reduce the number of sophonts under arms.
- This all assumes that the attacking force actually wants to capture the planet mostly intact. If there is no interest in preserving the structures, resources, or population, I assume that a heavy orbital bombardment until the defenders were unable to resist would be sufficient.
Planetary Assaults
- Objectives
- A clear military objective is the key to clear military success. The ultimate goal of a planetary assault is to control the planet. In order to do this, the military objectives should be (not necessarily in order):
- Render defending military forces unable to effectively resist ('combat ineffective').
- Control or neutralize the defender's governmental or administrative functions.
- Control or contain major population centers.
- Secure means of resupply/reinforcement of attacking/occupying force.
- Methods
- Initially naval forces will conduct ortillery attacks against strategic targets. Defensive emplacements, command and control centers, sensor clusters, military bases, and downports will be primary targets. It is also highly likely that general infrastructure will be targeted to reduce the enemy's will to resist. Civil engineering (dams, mass transit, etc.) will be targeted. Depending on the level of resistance and the volume of ortillery fire available it is possible to reduce a planetary population to using flashlights and shipping water in trucks in a week.
- The initial phase of ground assault is usually the use of drop troops (also called jump troops). Inserted from orbit, drop troops rely upon surprise, speed, and violence to secure a landing zone ('LZ'). Once secured, the landing zone is used to land heavy weapons, grav vehicles, landing ships, etc., etc. A secured LZ is called an 'orbit head'. The orbit head(s) are the start points for ground attacks against defenders and can quickly transform into the equivalent of a class C starport.
- The main ground assault is performed by a mix of light and heavy infantry, mechanized infantry (infantry and g-carriers), armor, artillery, and support units. Because of the mix of units the force as a whole is called a 'combined arms army' or just 'combarm'.
- Assuming the ground assault is successful, there are follow-on units that help secure the planet. Ranging from psychological warfare units to military journalists, these units strive to replace the destroyed or removed infrastructure and government of the planet with the tools of the Imperium.
- Tactics
- Although it may be unusual to think of an operation as large as attacking a planet as tactical, but to a military force capable of such an action it is. The most critical decision is; where to insert drop troops? While this should remain fluid to allow changes based upon the differences from one operation to the next, it is often very advantageous to insert an orbit head near a population center of the defenders. In addition to allowing the operation to immediately threaten defenders, it will reduce the ability of the defending military to respond with full force without endangering their own populace. The simultaneous insertion of multiple orbit heads is also preferred. This will force the defenders to split their forces and the attention of their command staff. The use of deadfall ordnance at the same time can add confusion since gravity bombs can easily be configured to 'look' like drop pods to sensors.
- Drop Troop Insertion
- The most critical period of planetary assault is the insertion of drop troops. Although supported by orbital fire the drop troops are very exposed to defenders and can suffer significant losses before reaching the ground.
- To increase their chances of securing an orbit head they are accompanied by a number of tools configured to resemble troop pods to sensors.
- The first such tools are 'Landing Zone Preparation Devices', also known as daisy cutters or Sylean scythes. These explosive devices are the first pods fired and are designed to mimic troop pods. About one third of these devices detonate about the LZ and use gravity lensed explosives to direct a concussive cone toward the surface. The massive overpressure is designed to detonate any mines in the LZ and knock down most plant life and structures. The remaining devices detonate on impact and are grav-focused to concentrate their force in a 3-meter high plane parallel to the surface, flattening any remaining foliage and obstacles.
- The most common devices that drop amongst the troops are jammers. In addition to radio and radar jammers, there are also meaconers (devices that distort navigation signals, i.e., give false GPS results), repeaters (devices that record defenders' radio communications and repeat them over on over on a number of frequencies), and mimics (devices that send electronic and radar 'chatter' that resembles the defender's communications but give false data).
- Also accompanying the drop pods on the outer fringes are defense pods. These grav-stabilized devices have radar/lidar sensors and a laser cannon, all powered by a fusion generator. These air defense systems are designed to shoot down enemy aerospace fighters, missiles, etc. Once they are on the planetary surface they will continue in this role until out of power or shut down by the drop troops.
- Last but not least, each squad will have an equipment pod. The equipment will vary based upon each squad's particular mission, but will include heavy weapons, air defense systems, telecomm gear, and combat engineering tools.
Tech Levels 6 through 10
- Overview
- While never easy, planetary assaults against worlds at tech levels 6 through 10 are less difficult.
- Defending forces do not have access to meson weapons or powered battle dress. Also, the heavier man-portable weapons are not found at these tech levels.
- As mentioned above, however, a large force with the support of nuclear weapons can mount a stiff resistance. The attackers must be sure that orbiting ships can provide nuclear damper support until the drop troop can set up their own. The drop troops themselves will be optimized to repel a large number of attackers with little special attention to heavy weapons. The average trooper in battle dress with an FGMP can deal with a great many main battle tanks of a TL-8 army, after all.
- The defenders will also have less sophisticated sensors, making deception more effective. Combined, these make it likely that there will be more deadfall ordnance attacks and fewer actual orbit heads (no more than one per continent, likely only one or two).
Tech Levels 11 and higher
- Overview
- When the defenders approach or equal the technical ability of the attacker the risks become greater.
- The inherent advantage possessed by the defenders forces the attackers to take greater risks. The high mobility and concentrated firepower of high-tech forces almost compels the attacker to try and overwhelm defenses with the number of attacks.
- The best option for the attacker is to release a near-flurry of troop drops and deadfall attacks combined with heavy ortillery barrages. Preparatory ortillery must especially focus on meson sites and aerospace fighter bases. The drop troops must be prepared to face a number of threats, including grav armor and meson gun artillery.
Special Note
The use of nuclear weapons to generate an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effect is very common during planetary assaults. Against TL-6 through 10 defenders this can be a devastating attack. And the effect against high tech opponents can be more severe than may be assumed. Although most TL-11+ electronics (especially military electronics) are shielded against EMP effects it will still temporarily overload most sensors, increasing the survivability of drop troops as they enter the atmosphere. Also, while civilian communications systems may be shielded, often their antennae are not. While the means of communication will remain intact after an EMP attack, large areas of communications blackout will exist until antennae are replaced. This will add to the fear and confusion of the defenders.
Support Operations
- Intelligence
- Intelligence preparation can be a critical force multiplier in planetary assaults, especially against high tech level defenses. In addition to the routine strategic intelligence gathered by Imperial Intelligence, a planetary assault requires an in depth analysis of tactical response measures, apparent willingness of defenders to endanger their own populace, and overall readiness of the defenders ground forces. Effective counter-intelligence operations can also increase the levels of tactical and strategic surprise of the attacking force.
- Commando
- Commando operations in support of a planetary assault are extremely dangerous and prone to failure. However, when they are successful they can have a considerable impact upon the defender's will and ability to fight. For these reasons, they are often popular with players. If strategic surprise can be obtained commandos can be infiltrated and supplied in a large number of ways.
- Their initial targets will generally be command and control, telecommunications, and strategic defense systems. The following scenario is a demonstration of the potential impact of successful commando operations in support of planetary assault:
- Three commando squads are infiltrated onto a TL-13 world in advance of a planetary assault. Arriving as workers, tourists, and ship crew, they are supplied with a full combat load, including battle dress, smuggled in by intelligence operatives. In a coordinated series of attacks, two major telecomm hubs are sabotaged by pre-set explosives, a similar attack damages the refueling facilities of the major aerospace defense center, and teams of commandos in battledress armed with FGMPs assault the members of the planetary government, planetary defense commanders, and a deep meson site that defends a section of the planet. During the resulting confusion reports are received that an enemy fleet has jumped in-system and is on vector for planetary orbit. In addition to potentially neutralizing the defender's civil and military commanders and seriously disrupting planetary defenses these actions could very well panic the defenders, degrading their ability to fight.
- Logistics
- While the first step is getting troops on the ground, the key to winning is supplying and reinforcing those troops. As soon as the orbit head is secured the follow on forces must begin to arrive. Initially these forces will be as 'heavy' as possible, i.e., g-carriers, grav tanks, and artillery pieces, preferably in large landing ships. This will be followed by a mix of combat and support units.
- Naval
- The job of the Navy is not over once the troop pods are fired. Without continued naval support the ground offensive will almost certainly fail. In addition to continued ortillery, naval aerospace fighters can provide direct close support to ground troops and engage tactical targets in the enemy's rear areas. Marines can conduct assaults against orbital facilities and can even be deployed by drop ships in support of threatened ground forces. If done properly, combined Army/Navy operations can achieve true vertical envelopment.
N-Hour Sequence
The N-hour sequence is a planning tool for military commanders, logistics planners, and political leaders. It is a rough outline of what will happen and when during a particular type of attack. The initial letter may change to determine what type of attack the sequence is for (for example, a ground attack plan can be called a G-hour sequence while a boarding action against an orbital spaceport could be an M-hour sequence). And certain times can be very broad or based entirely upon the success or failure of a different operation. They key to using an N-hour sequence is to remember that it is a tool, not the plan.
This N-hour sequence is, by necessity, abbreviated. It does not include frontier refueling, naval actions on approach to the planet, or orbital combat and boarding actions. It also omits a great many logistical steps that would be included in a 'real' sequence, as well as the preparatory steps that occur before the assault fleet enters jumpspace. Again, this is a rough estimation to give an idea of the flow of battle:
- N minus 2 weeks: Assault squadron enters jumpspace.
- N minus 1 week: Assault squadron enters normal space in target system.
- N minus 2 days: Ortillery bombardment begins.
- N minus 16 hours: Decoy deadfall ordnance attacks begin.
- N minus 8 hours: Naval aerospace fighters increase tempo of attacks against tactical surface targets.
- N minus 6 hours: Decision phase - commanders determine if planetary defenses are suppressed enough to allow close orbit insertion of drop ships. If so, drop ships move into close orbit. Bombardment ships direct their fire to both overwhelm defenders and clear a number of possible landing zones.
- N minus 2 hours: Drop troops finish insertion preparation.
- N minus 30 minutes: Decision phase - commanders determine if landing zones are prepared and the drop troops are likely to secure an orbit head. If so, drop troops are secured for insertion and troop carriers prepare for drop.
- N minus 15 minutes: Naval forces trigger EMP effects.
- N minus 5 minutes: Secondary EMP effects are triggered to disable automated responses. Naval forces begin blanket jamming from close orbit.
- N-Hour: Simultaneous insertion of drop troops begins, accompanied by numerous decoy insertions with deadfall ordnance accompanied by jammer pods. Naval aerospace fighters deploy for close air support.
- N+1 minute: Naval bombardment shifted to cover approaches to landing zones.
- N+4 minutes: Landing zone prepped by daisy cutters.
- N+5 minutes: Drop troops begin reaching surface. Drop ships begin move to high orbit.
- N+7 minutes: Drop troops begin deploying to secure orbit head.
- N+10 minutes: Drop troops finish landing on surface. Drop troops begin deployment of heavy weapons and support equipment. Aerospace fighters initiate close air support.
- N+15 minutes: Decision phase - commanders determine if orbit head is secure. If so, landing ships with armor and mechanized forces begin planetary insertion.
- N+20 minutes: Drop troops complete deployment of heavy weapons and support equipment.
- N+25 minutes: Drop troops complete initial defensive positions.
- N+35 minutes: Landing ships begin to reach the planetary surface. Mechanized and armor forces begin to deploy.
- N+45 minutes: Decision phase - commanders determine if orbit head is ready for deployment of support elements. If so, landing ships begin cycling support units and equipment to the orbit head.
- N+1 hour: Combarm begins offensive operations.
It should be obvious that the N-Hour sequence needs to be flexible. Planets with dense atmospheres will require more time for drop troops to reach the surface than planets that have no atmosphere, for example. Deployment of follow on forces may be delayed if there is a threat of significant air defense by the defenders. The number of changes that may need to be made are almost infinite. Recognizing this uncertainty, called 'the fog of war', and being able to anticipate and react to change without panic is what separates good commanders from great generals.
Non-Imperial Forces
- Zhodani
- The Zhodani are very likely to use warbots exclusively in their initial insertion. They have very good warbot technology and prefer to risk machines over their own soldiers. With the capabilities of their elite psionic troops, they are also highly likely to mount a number of commando raids in support of their use of drop troops.
- Hivers
- While the Hivers are unlikely to ever engage in planetary assault, if it necessary they will almost certainly use a variety of warbots in every phase of the operation.
- Solomani
- After the Rim War the Solomani have a fair amount of experience with planetary assault operations. They will probably use tactics very similar to Imperial forces, but with a greater emphasis on commando operations to offset any advantages in manpower and technology.
- Aslan
- Aslan forces are very professional and capable. They will tend to have more landing zones in an attempt to overwhelm defenders with the number of threats rather than with a small number of highly massed forces.
- Vargr
- The nature of Vargr command and control means that their planetary assault operations will be less organized. They may actually have waves of insertions coming at different times rather than a mass drop and may have trouble coordinating naval support for ground troops. On the other hand, their desire for personal glory and achievement means that they are more likely to initiate 'breakout' actions where they focus on specific target rather than engaging defenders directly. This can force the defenders to commit a significant portion of their forces to protecting targets rather than repelling invaders.
- Mercenary Units
- While it is extremely unlikely that mercenaries would undertake a full-scale planetary assault, they may occasionally be hired to perform small-scale operations that are very similar in execution, if not scope or breadth of support. And mercenary units in the wrong sub-sector at the wrong time may end up 'assisting' colonial or imperial units during a planetary assault.
Glossary of Terms
- Aerospace fighters
- Space fighters capable of atmospheric operations.
- Air Defense
- All defensive measures designed to destroy attacking enemy aircraft or missiles within a planet's envelope of atmosphere, or to nullify or reduce the effectiveness of such attack.
- Armor units
- Refers to tank forces.
- Artillery unit
- A military unit composed of artillery pieces and their support crews.
- Assault ships
- Heavily armed and armored small craft capable of atmospheric operations, usually with the capability of transporting ground forces. Often used to escort landing ships when there is a high threat of air defense. Sometimes used to land ground troops in enemy-controlled terrain.
- Close aerospace support
- The use of aerospace fighters and assault ships to attack enemy ground forces that are close to or in combat with friendly ground forces.
- Combarm
- Abbreviation for Combined arms army.
- Combat ineffective
- A unit or group of units that is not longer capable of combat operations for any reason.
- Combined arms army
- A large ground forces unit composed of infantry, armor, mechanized infantry, artillery, and support units capable of extended combat operations without external support.
- Command and control
- The issuance of orders by military commanders. Can also refer to the military commanders themselves.
- Deadfall ordnance
- Explosives devices that have no internal propulsion system. They can be launched on specific trajectories, but are usually released within a gravity well and allowed to fall.
- Decision phase
- A pre-planned time or place where a choice must be made between two or more military options by commanders.
- Heavy infantry
- Infantry with a greater than standard percentage of heavy weapons per unit. Usually refers to battle dress armored infantry.
- Heavy units
- In general refers to units with heavier weapons or with the ability to concentrate a great amount of fire in a small area in a short amount of time. Generally used to refer to battle dress infantry and tank units.
- Intelligence
- Information about an opposing force gathered through observation and analysis. Also refers to the process of gathering intelligence.
- Jamming
- The deliberate radiation of electromagnetic energy for the purpose of preventing or reducing an enemy's effective use of the electromagnetic spectrum, and with the intent of degrading or neutralizing the enemy's combat capability.
- Landing ships
- Small craft or spaceships capable of atmospheric operations and surface landings that are configured to carry ground troops and equipment.
- Landing zone
- An area designated for drop troop or landing craft insertion.
- Light infantry
- Infantry units with a smaller than standard ratio of heavy weapons per unit. Such units also usually have a lighter than standard equipment load.
- Logistics
- In its most comprehensive sense, those aspects of military operations which deal with:
- design and development, acquisition, storage, movement, distribution, maintenance, evacuation, and disposition of materiel;
- movement, evacuation, and hospitalization of personnel;
- acquisition or construction, maintenance, operation, and disposition of facilities; and
- acquisition or furnishing of services.
- Meaconing
- The process of broadcasting false navigation signals to give inaccurate measurements of locations, speed, distance, etc.
- Mechanized infantry
- Infantry units that enter combat zones riding in and fighting from lightly armored vehicles. Such units often have organic armor units.
- Mimicking
- The broadcast of radiation designed to appear as the broadcast of an opponent, but conveying false or misleading information. Also called Electromagnetic Intrusion.
- Orbit head
- A designated area in a hostile or threatened territory which, when seized and held, ensures the continuous landing of troops and materiel from orbit and provides the maneuver space necessary for projected operations. Normally it is the area seized in the assault phase of a planetary assault operation.
- Organic support
- Elements assigned to and forming an essential part of a military unit.
- Ortillery
- Heavy weapons fire from orbit; an abbreviation of orbital artillery.
- Repeaters
- The rebroadcast or reflection of electromagnetic energy for the purpose of preventing or reducing an enemy's effective use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
- Superiority
- The degree of dominance in the aerospace battle of one navy over another which permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force.
- Supremacy
- The degree of aerospace superiority wherein the opposing force is incapable of effective interference.
Friday, July 25, 2014
An Article Worth Reading.... and my own comments
The RPGer known on Google+ as Jeffro (Jeff Johnson) has written a review of the book High Crusade that is (typical for Jeff) very good and delves into a lot more than just a great book by a great author. Other great writers have already chimed in on the piece and I am going to exploi-, uh, also comment.
Jeff touches on some if the issues with thieves and clerics held by some gamers. I have previously touched on both of these classes, so my opinions should be clear. What I want to focus on in Jeff's insight into how writers and gamers tend to get history wrong.
This is a topic I have touched on before when I discussed how modern people fail to think of distances in an appropriate way. In brief, modern people tend to think of people from other periods as either 'just like me' or 'too stupid to be just like me'. Or, more shortly, we don't portray historical people historically especially when our own misconceptions and prejudices crop up. This is perhaps most egregious in steampunk.
I like steampunk, I read a lot of it, I have friends who make a living writing it, and I play and GM it. And most people get the Victorian period very, very wrong. As Jeff points out in his article many modern writers give people of the Victorian Era a hard time because they were so very, very repressed and stuffy.
Too bad that isn't true. In reality most of the ideas we have of 'stuffy, prudish Victorian Britain with their narrow-mindedness and judgmental attitudes' originated from British satires of American outlooks and attitudes of the era! In fact British Victorians were, yes, focused on moral behavior but were also rather open-minded, charitable, and more inclusive than most would believe. They also weren't all doing opium and seeing prostitutes! Steampunk seems to like one, the other, or both but not to embrace the reality.
Likewise with portrayals of Medieval people. On the one hand they were not a single conversation away from enthusiastically sharing the outlooks and attitudes of a middle-class college sophomore attending a large liberal arts university. On the other they were not bloodthirsty, ignorant savages who thought the world was flat and would burn old ladies at the stake for having a cat.
Yes, Yes, I know - it's a game. Your Vikingland barbarians can have horns on their helmets, your Irishland natives can all have red hair, I get it. But the reality was very complex, very interesting, and (in my opinion) more fun.
Thanks, Jeff, for a great review.
Jeff touches on some if the issues with thieves and clerics held by some gamers. I have previously touched on both of these classes, so my opinions should be clear. What I want to focus on in Jeff's insight into how writers and gamers tend to get history wrong.
This is a topic I have touched on before when I discussed how modern people fail to think of distances in an appropriate way. In brief, modern people tend to think of people from other periods as either 'just like me' or 'too stupid to be just like me'. Or, more shortly, we don't portray historical people historically especially when our own misconceptions and prejudices crop up. This is perhaps most egregious in steampunk.
I like steampunk, I read a lot of it, I have friends who make a living writing it, and I play and GM it. And most people get the Victorian period very, very wrong. As Jeff points out in his article many modern writers give people of the Victorian Era a hard time because they were so very, very repressed and stuffy.
Too bad that isn't true. In reality most of the ideas we have of 'stuffy, prudish Victorian Britain with their narrow-mindedness and judgmental attitudes' originated from British satires of American outlooks and attitudes of the era! In fact British Victorians were, yes, focused on moral behavior but were also rather open-minded, charitable, and more inclusive than most would believe. They also weren't all doing opium and seeing prostitutes! Steampunk seems to like one, the other, or both but not to embrace the reality.
Likewise with portrayals of Medieval people. On the one hand they were not a single conversation away from enthusiastically sharing the outlooks and attitudes of a middle-class college sophomore attending a large liberal arts university. On the other they were not bloodthirsty, ignorant savages who thought the world was flat and would burn old ladies at the stake for having a cat.
Yes, Yes, I know - it's a game. Your Vikingland barbarians can have horns on their helmets, your Irishland natives can all have red hair, I get it. But the reality was very complex, very interesting, and (in my opinion) more fun.
Thanks, Jeff, for a great review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)