Goodman Games

goodmangames wrote:Jedi, you and I apparently have play styles that were separated at birth, or something! But I think that most gamers do not play the way you're describing your campaign.

Joseph, I'm sad that more don't game "our" way.

Have you been reading my gang's runs through various DCCs? I drive 'em nuts since I will keep the mysterious mysterious. A case in point, from DCC13, part two:

"They had their characters approach the edge of the water to get a better look at the statue and see if they could read the placard attached to the statue. As they peered at the statue, a frightening being burst forth from the water, it was at some point human, but it was some form of hideous undead. It grasped at the elven maiden who was standing ankle deep in the water. I asked JediWife to make a saving through at the thing clawed her thigh. She failed and the elf went over, paralyzed. Both JediWife and Ragnar1965 exchanged concerned looks and Ragnar1965 pointed out to me that elves are immune to ghoul paralysis. I agreed with his comment and asked him to roll initiative.

The fight was desperate. JediWife's elf was down and out, and both were concerned to move Nightwing's ranger into harm's way since they did not know what they were fighting. I pointed out that, while Nightwing was absent, he would, in my opinion, have Greyson pull both Whisker and Fenis and charge headlong into the water and impale this undead thing. I also pointed out this thing was pulling Alura into the water with both hands. Ragnar1965 had Madriel attempt to turn the thing, but his role wasn't good enough. As I recall, he missed by one point, so I told him the cleric/magic-user could determine the thing was not a common undead. It was at that point they sent in Greyson. He waded into the water and attacked. On the next round a second undead thing broke the surface of the water and attacked Greyson from the rear. Ragnar1965 had his PC attempt to turn the second thing, and he was successful, it swam away and submerged. The ranger and the undead creature traded blows for two rounds and JediWife made each saving throw which insured Greyson stayed in the fight. The two magic blades made quick work of the monster and it sunk back into the pool no longer animated."

They still do not know if the undead was something made-up or pulled from the Monster Manual. And if I have anything to say about it, they never will.

goodmangames wrote:"...When almost every piece of information is transported verbally, the "telephone game" applies to EVERYTHING. To the typical medieval adventurer, almost everything he knows beyond simple farming and basic professional knowledge is third, fourth, or fifth-hand. Imagine that - almost everything your character knows past his first-hand experience is learned from verbal sources, with no reliable way of confirming if the information is accurate or not. There is no written reference -- no encyclopedia or internet -- almost no definite knowledge -- and no source of reliable information! "

I'm going to be the Devil's Advocate...or fly-in-the-ointment here. Forgive me.

First off, oral tradition was exactly that, a tradition. In other words, it was so prevalent that it was an accepted and relied upon mode of communication. Nearly all information was relayed verbally, and there were those who were very good at it. In fact, in settings where there were very strong oral traditions that were handed down from generation to generation, it has been proven that there was VERY little information lost from telling to telling. These people were like Dictaphones, information went in and that exact information came out. It was their role in life, their job and people depended upon them to get this stuff right.

We've lost this ability for the most part because of the technology that we rely upon to do it for us on a daily basis. Many can read and write, why train the mind to remember something as arduously long as Beowulf? There's little use for this talent in this day and age, so it's easy for us to discount it as being "inaccurate". In point of fact, it wasn't nearly as fraught with error as we might think.

Secondly, imagine being raised in a world where such crazy things as giants, dragons, chimeras, undead, lycanthropes, etc. were FACT and not fiction. So not only do natural dangers constantly barrage the common man (wolves, lions, insect swarms, plague, blight, etc.) but you toss things we can only truly dream of into the mix and holy Hannah, NOTHING is safe. Personally, I'd be a mess. Worried about every little noise you hear at night. Or thinking every vole mound might actually hide something much more hideous, like an Ankheg! We thought our ancestors were superstitious? Ha!

Saying all that though, I would surmise that most of the "confusion" and misconception might come from a difference in culture and language. What you call a "giant" is to me a "troll". The world of fantasy would be MUCH more insular than our world was in the past. There would truly be safety in numbers and because of such, the random traveler / adventurer / merchant would be one heck of a brave / crazy person and VERY rare. So while the oral tradition might be very accurate, the news just wouldn't be all that available. Local news (10 - 20 mile radius maybe?) would be about all the common person might ever get.

Which would make zebra stories all the more incredulous.

Hope I didn't thread jack here. I also run my game by description only. NEVER do I call out a monster by its name. After all, what you call goblin might actually be a ghoul to me!

</end of rant>

mntnjeff wrote: it has been proven that there was VERY little information lost from telling to telling.

But often there were additions and twists. No-one is objective at all times - bias and background play their part, also the person passing on information may amplify the threat or play it down for personal or factional gain.

"We need your men to fight in North Africa, Marcus"
"Oh -I dunno about that, see, we've got these Picts to fight, they're demons!"
"Nah, they cannot be"
"It's true, ever ask yerself why we can conquer the world but when it comes to a little country north of nowhere we decide to build a wall instead -demons I tell you, it's a deadly job on the Wall. We're best left alone to it"

It's the same with monsters - knowledge is power. Few head out into the wilderness, many of them don't return. Those that live to tell the tale -well they tell it to their advantage.

Campaign styles like the West Marches approach reinforce the split between the Mundane and the Other, civilisation vs the deadly unknown - so you need not have monsters everywhere.

geordie racer wrote:But often there were additions and twists. No-one is objective at all times - bias and background play their part, also the person passing on information may amplify the threat or play it down for personal or factional gain.

Oh absolutely agreed on that point. Any time the human element has been added to the equation, there's margin for error. Most of it is intentional or comes from ignorance...and I think that's what we're both saying here. I guess what I was trying to point out is that our modern society has a myopic view of oral tradition, and it's not the information lost necessarily that would affect what you know about a certain thing, but rather the complete void in the transfer of information that's caused by physical / geographical circumstance. (that and intentional mangling of the content)

geordie racer wrote:Campaign styles like the West Marches approach reinforce the split between the Mundane and the Other, civilisation vs the deadly unknown - so you need not have monsters everywhere.

You bring up a really neat point geordi, and this has been a topic of contention for me in regards to many modern games. Not only should the "monster" be a source of wonder in a FRPG, but even more so, so too should the LOCATION. Exploration has been relegated to the back seat in many of today's modern games, and frankly, it's a sad sad thing. Parting the fronds in a deep, emerald-lit jungle location, to find a cyclopean ziggurat staring you in the face has gotta be one of the coolest things EVAR! (Channeling my 12 y/o daughter there....)

But seriously, there are many avenues to "wonderment" in a game, and two of the primary channels are "monsters" and "locations". IMHO of course.

mntnjeff wrote: Exploration has been relegated to the back seat in many of today's modern games, and frankly, it's a sad sad thing. Parting the fronds in a deep, emerald-lit jungle location, to find a cyclopean ziggurat staring you in the face has gotta be one of the coolest things EVAR! (Channeling my 12 y/o daughter there....)

But seriously, there are many avenues to "wonderment" in a game, and two of the primary channels are "monsters" and "locations". IMHO of course.

Totally in agreement with this. On which note, Jeff Rients' 'XP for exploration' is a great idea to mechanically encourage journeying to discover the weird and wonderful.

Will the uber-monsters/BBEG in modules have their own Critical Charts (if they're not covered in the core book)? That would be sweet, for the DM anyway and would give the modules value even after they've been played.

muherd wrote:Will the uber-monsters/BBEG in modules have their own Critical Charts (if they're not covered in the core book)? That would be sweet, for the DM anyway and would give the modules value even after they've been played.

Yes indeed. Special monster types (such as undead, giants, dragons, etc.) have type-driven crit tables, and one of the aready-completed modules has a "final encounter bad guy" with an extended threat range and his own custom crit table. Crits make a game more fun. For the DM anyway, as you noted.

goodmangames wrote:

muherd wrote:Will the uber-monsters/BBEG in modules have their own Critical Charts (if they're not covered in the core book)? That would be sweet, for the DM anyway and would give the modules value even after they've been played.

Yes indeed. Special monster types (such as undead, giants, dragons, etc.) have type-driven crit tables, and one of the aready-completed modules has a "final encounter bad guy" with an extended threat range and his own custom crit table. Crits make a game more fun. For the DM anyway, as you noted.

Can't wait to see these crit tables in a game.

DCCfan wrote:Can't wait to see these crit tables in a game.

Presumably from the DM side of the screen?

Just had a game yesterday with more fumbles than crits...that happens sometimes. But the crits that did happen were fun. At least no PCs died from the fumbles (which has happened more than once).

JediOre wrote:And if I have anything to say about it, they never will.

I am interested in your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Ogrepuppy wrote:

JediOre wrote:And if I have anything to say about it, they never will.

I am interested in your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Howdy Ogrepuppy! Did you grab the wrong quote when you asked about a newsletter? I'm confused about your statement.

However, anyone who expresses interest in my ideas is welcome for it gets me closer to world domination!

The two paragraph quote I posted is from the following thread:

http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... =62&t=7114

I've been posting the adventures of my friends using DCC modules for several years now. If you follow the opening post's links, one can trace the PCs back to their first adventure: DCC #0.

Err, no--my "subscribe to your newsletter" statement is a quote from Homer Simpson, and it's used pretty frequently around the internet to express interest or "approval" for a topic.

Basically, I'm trying to say that I agree with you: changing the descriptions, special attacks/weaknesses and ecologies of "common D&D creatures" is a great idea.

Players should NEVER know what just hit 'em (and left them twitching in a puddle of their own blood).

goodmangames wrote:Just had a game yesterday with more fumbles than crits...that happens sometimes. But the crits that did happen were fun. At least no PCs died from the fumbles (which has happened more than once).

My group is like that. Particularly my sister, who I swear has more than one 1 on her d20. Not sure which numbers are missing, but she rolls more 1's than anyone I've ever seen.

The good thing is that she has the right attitiude, and that rolling a 1 is just part of the game. When bad things happen she just shrugs it off and keeps playing. This game could be an interesting test of her mental fortitude...

finarvyn wrote:[My group is like that. Particularly my sister, who I swear has more than one 1 on her d20. Not sure which numbers are missing, but she rolls more 1's than anyone I've ever seen.

If you're ever in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, definitely visit Game Universe (see http://www.game-universe.com/ ). They carry a ridiculous selection of dice, the most I've ever seen in a game store. I specifically remember that they had a "cheater's d20" which has two 20's and no 1. I don't recall a "fumbler's d20" with two 1's and no 20, but it might be worth inquiring on behalf of your sister.

finarvyn wrote:The good thing is that she has the right attitiude, and that rolling a 1 is just part of the game. When bad things happen she just shrugs it off and keeps playing. This game could be an interesting test of her mental fortitude...

That's one of the good things about playing an old school game that doesn't have a universal system- sometimes you want to roll low.