Posted on

Call That A Knife

Of all the 50 in 50 adventure hooks I wrote my two favourites were Mating Season and Call That A Knife.

This week’s offering is Call That A Knife.

Call That a Knife? sees a strange woman pulled out of the sea at a port. The woman is wearing tight-fitting armour and has unusual weapons, which she immediately attacks her rescuers with, killing several. The characters hear about this attack and may pursue the woman, who is travelling across the town’s roofs, as she tries to escape. The woman speaks no known language; it isn’t known who or what she is or why she is attacking everyone who approaches her.

Believe me when I say it is much better than it sounds. This is Ninjas meets Bourne Identity meets Kill Bill.

If you only buy one of my hooks then this is the one to buy. If you want to buy two of mine then get Mating Season as well!

This post currently has no responses

 

Posted on

The Cost of Charts

Love em or hate em, you cannot escape charts in Rolemaster. This feature, more than any other, distinguishes it from other surviving game systems. I cannot have a conversation about modifying or even understanding the game system without talking about charts and their impact.

Specifically, I am going to talk about complexity and efficiency, the cost of algorithms. Nothing about this conversation is about the goodness or badness of Rolemaster, only about its expense. Charts are the elephant in the hallowed halls of Rolemaster. This post is all about weighing the elephant.

If you are familiar with algorithms, you probably already know how this post will develop and I hope you do not mind my attempts to simplify a subject that can get, um, rather complex. Much of what follows might be obvious to you even if you are not, especially if you have been living with the complexity of RM for decades, but perhaps because I am about to explain this too awesomely. Perhaps. Or, you can just wiki computational complexity and algorithmic efficiency, and know everything! More likely, I will not have explained things well enough. Otherwise…

Complexity is basically how much stuff it takes to support an operation. The usual ‘stuff’ considered is time: If I run an algorithm on an input of size N, how long will it run? But we can also consider operations: How many operations does it take? This is pretty useful to measure the agility of a game system during play: How many things do I have to do to reach a conclusion? Finally, we can consider space: How many physical resources does it consume? We will be talking a lot about this last.

Suppose I have N talents that cost the same and work the same for everyone: No special cases. How much space do I need to represent them? Well, it’s the average length of a talent write-up, which we can consider reasonably constant, multiplied by N, or k*N. We ignore the constant and call this O(N), because as N gets really huge the constant doesn’t matter very much. If I have 1000 talents in RM, the space I need is 1000 entries. If I have 4 talents, I need 4 entries. If I add a brand new talent, whether I have 1000 talents or 4, I do not have to modify any other talent and I need exactly one more entry. We call this linear.

So far so good? Well ok: The same thing happens if I decide to add a new skill to RM, right? Nope. Let’s walk through this. First, I have a chapter all about skills. I add another skill, and that’s just another entry, as for talents. But I also have different skill costs for every class. So if I have S skills and C classes, I need S*C entries, or O(S*C). Hey, that starts to look like a table, or a chart: It’s no longer linear, but quadratic. It’s representation no longer looks like a list of stuff, but a quadrangle. If I have 300 skills and 50 classes, I have 15000 entries. To add a new skill requires C=50 new entries; a new class requires S=300 new entries. Ouch.

Of course, if I add a new class, I also have to calculate and then create entries for the cost of every Lifestyle and Vocational Package too. If I have P packages, that’s O(P*C), which is also quadratic. Having to do two (or any constant number of) quadratic things is still quadratic.

If you’re wondering why so many rules tinkerers go with a single Non-Profession class, or if you are one of these tinkerers and think you are doing it for some other reason, you are really doing it to reap the benefits of greater algothmic efficiency. These quadratic algorithms become linear because you have set C=1. When balancing skill costs, you have S costs to think about rather than S*C, so you are more likely to get the balance right. When representing skills, you have S entries. That’s linear. The same reasoning holds for packages, and maybe some other charts I don’t want to think about now.

Of course, we can use skill categories to tame this problem, which has already happened :). This reduces the size of S, which is nice. Instead of S=300 we have, say, S=20. But the algorithm still consumes quadratic space, because it hasn’t changed: 20*50=1000 entries. That’s better than 15000! And if we limit ourselves to only 20 classes, we have even fewer entries: 20*20=400. But if we had a linear algorithm, O(S), we’d have 20 entries, or we could ignore skill categories and have 300 entries.

This is what a game designer I know calls “the n squared problem.” When designing a game, he never wants rules that require him to make a big table (he simplified the rectangle to a square, which is reasonable) because he then has to fill in every entry and be sure they are all correct before going to print, and then players who want to really understand what is happening have to look at N*N cases rather than N.

So, RM has “the n squared problem,” right? Nope. We should be so lucky. RM has Armor Type rather than mere Armor Class. Where lesser games are content to represent each weapon as some die roll for damage with maybe a damage type and maybe a special rule, every RM attack is unique. And where other games settle for a mathematical formula for deciding what a die roll means, RM has something like 50 entries for the range of 0 to 150+.

That’s A (number of ATs) * W (number of weapons or attacks) * D (dice roll bands on table). That’s O(A*W*D). My game designer guy would call this “the n cubed problem.” We in the biz call it cubic. It’s like a stack of tables. Let’s weigh the elephant:

If I have 20 ATs, because that sounds like a good number :), 40 different weapons and attacks and 50 dice bands, thats 20*40*50=40000 entries. (I won’t even bother with the crit charts here, but that’s also cubic.)

Add another weapon or attack type? That’s A*D new entries, or a page. Want to add a new AT, say, to support the plant people and plant armors I really want to add to my game? That’s W*D new entries, and I have to edit all the pages. You get the idea. (Here is where a purist might point out that I should represent D as a really big constant. But I’m simplifying, and I think you know why I’m not.)

I hope we are getting something for all this algorithmic inefficiency: Other rpgs usually represent weapons and armors in linear space. Remember: If I have one list of armor that doesn’t depend on weapons, and another list of weapons that don’t depend on armor, that’s two lists, both of which are linear. That’s O(N), and I have a number of entries precisely equal to A+W.

We can reduce entries too: RMU cuts the number of ATs in half, for a substantial savings. But I still cannot easily add new armors, as I can in other systems. The relative algorithmic inefficiency is forcing some hard choices! We’ll be talking about choice in another post. But could we instead change how things are done? Change the algorithm? Should we?

Maybe you don’t care about space complexity, but only about time complexity. After all, once you have a character, you can copy the few charts that character needs, and it doesn’t matter because everything is so easy for a guy who can GM this game in his sleep. We’ll talk about time complexity in a moment.

But first… it does matter. You pay for the space complexity when you buy a book and much of it is table entries like 22AK, 24AK… when it could have other kinds of content. You pay again when it takes forever to get a new book out because all of the entries have to be correct. You pay again when you find that things aren’t balanced right even after that forever: Human beings really don’t do a good job balancing 10000 table entries, and trying to reduce the problem with categories creates other problems, which have been discussed in other RM fora, though not from this perspective. You pay again when a new something or other is added, and all the charts have to be updated. You pay again when you are the one who wants to add or change something, because that’s expensive in RM. There are some other subtle prices to be paid, and RM veterans who start to look at the game through this kind of lens are more likely to find the most insidious these than I.

There’s a time penalty too, because looking things up on a matrix is often more difficult than rolling some dice and comparing to something simple. But this is not so terrible.

All rpgs have to deal with time complexity, and few do a great job of it. Time complexity here is all about the cost of each operation. Do I have to figure out how many dice to roll? If so, given the capabilities of human brainpower, what is that cost, compared to a mechanic that always has me roll the same dice? That’s the best, by the way: constant complexity, or O(1). RM can brag here. But calculating all the modifiers is a different kind of expense, and RM has that in abundance. Then there’s tracking actions, percent action, initiative… What are the real costs? Each kind of operation is just plain different. Having to open a book and reference a table has a different cost compared with finding the right dice to roll, especially if some other player borrowed one, compared to calculating a formula, even a simple addition or subtraction. And then there’s the cost of human error.

So, in the simplest sense, most rpgs seem to have linear time complexity: Add up each relevant modifier, find the necessary dice, roll them, figure out what it means. But if any of these operations requires greater than constant time, the overall time is worse than linear. I am very confident that looking anything up on a table is worse than constant for a human being. I suspect it is worse than O(logN) and would be shocked if it were better. Alas, that awaits a real study or a good Google search.

As an aside, the advantage/disadvantage mechanic of D&D5 oversimplifies, perhaps, but it has powerful, um, advantages: Although running through the possible sources of advantage and disadvantage is linear, you get to stop much earlier, because only one of each matters. Also, the math is dead simple, since there is no math, so we can be sure the operation really is constant. (I’m not sure that adding modifiers is really constant.) It is also far more reliable: If you accidentally use the same modifier twice, you still get the same result. Combined with no table lookup, this really is a safe O(N).

So, here we are. I haven’t gone through everything, some of which will come up later, like spell lists, but RM has some rather inefficient features.

I do not mean to say they are the wrong features! If the features provide you with something you don’t otherwise get and still really want, well, you paid the price for what you want. That’s the big question, isn’t it: If you’re willing to collapse classes to reap the rewards of efficiency at no loss of playability and perhaps even a gain, what else might you do?

This post currently has 16 responses

 

Posted on

Upcoming Game Design Posts

I posted my first entry to this website a few weeks ago and implied that I was going to write more, at least about spell lists. That has not happened.

Instead, amidst the slowly expanding but disorganized mess that I did write, I found a few other things I wanted to talk about which I believe provide necessary context. This post serves as an outline to help me organize my thoughts… and to warn you about what I have planned. Ok, and also as a way of committing myself to following through and finishing. I might change this outline based on comments, on a need to break this up even further (I’m looking at you, CLT&SL) and on ordering (thoughts about rpgs can come at any time, and is the most fluffy.)

The Cost of Charts

Maybe charts are good, maybe charts are bad, but charts are definitely expensive. Since charts are the elephant in the room when it comes to Rolemaster, I think it is important to talk about the size of that elephant. This post will put math to explain why I claim charts are expensive. I will also suggest that rule tinkerers (You know who you are!) who have been adopting a single “Non-profession” class in RM, or who have been having problems with skill categories in general and how they don’t quite work the way you want in RMU, or who have been surprised about how long it RMU has been gestating have run into the iron wall of this math. It’s light math, so don’t worry!

The Illusion of Choice

Many of the choices we think we have in real life are not choices at all, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes the game is rigged with options that are not worth taking, sometimes we are heavily guided, almost coerced, by social engineering, and sometimes we are deluded that something deterministic involved any choice at all. This discussion will focus on various kind of false choice in rpgs. Although the conversation generally applies to all rpgs, it especially matters for RM, because choices in RM cost a lot more than they do in most other rpgs because of math.

The Splendor of Classes, Levels, Talents and Spell Lists

Although sometimes maligned, there is much to admire about all of the features featured in the title. I want to talk about that. Although I don’t think they come together quite right in RM, I think that they can, or at least come closer. I want to talk about that too. None of these features originated in Rolemaster. Of these features, only Spell Lists have been significantly developed and leveraged within Rolemaster. All can be retained without creating more adverse math, even if false choices within these features are also retained.

The Right Setting for Rolemaster

The right setting should be cool, of course, but I’m not cool enough to come up with that! So I will settle for a conversation about the characteristics I think that game world should have. It might be a short conversation: I think magic in the right setting for RM should be ubiquitous but usually of low to moderate power. Pretty much every PC should have spells and/or interesting talents. This seems contrary to the mindset I infer from having spent time around RM players and forums, so perhaps the conversation might not be so short after all.

Some RPGs I Think You Should Know About

There has been a lot of RPG system development and evolution since RM was published, nearly all of which has occurred outside of RM. If you are tinkering with RM, I think some of these other games deserve your attention, to plunder for ideas and perhaps to think about while reading this series of posts. At the very least, I wish to talk about a few: Anima pretty much stole the core RM system but then did something very different with it, different from anything that ICE has done with it, and not just because of the slick production values. Ironclaw (Squaring the Circle) might disturb you because it is written by, for and about furries, but it is a solid system of special interest to RM fans because of how it handles magic and combat lethality. Burning Wheel is a low magic, consequence-ridden system whose rules govern players as much as characters, attempting to achieve an old-school feel through modern means. I do not necessarily recommend any of these for you to play, especially since I suspect you already have a favorite system!

 

Anyway,

Ken

This post currently has 5 responses

 

Posted on

Chargen Part 2 Questions

I used to have a GM that would start the first game session with dishing out about 5 pages of questions about your  character. The format was sort of question followed by about 10 lines of space then next question and so on. I cannot remember the actual questions except the very last one which was “What would your character sell his soul for?”

I used to detest these questions. For a start I rarely know my characters personality when I sit down to play. I tend to have an idea of what I want to play but I am heavily influenced by the other players characters and the first adventure.

It is not the actual questioning I objected to but the timing of it. During that first session there is so much to take in, you could be getting to grasp with an entirely new setting, your new character, new party members, a new mission and possibly new rules or variations on the rules you thought you knew.

What brings this all to mind are twofold.

  1. Spectre771 mentioned in a comment to my last post about the differentiation between experienced players and newer less experienced players.
  2. My reading of the 7th Sea rules.

One of the things that my Rolemaster house rules always share is that character generation is always diceless. In RMC I use fixed #hits and point buy stats. In RMU hits are skill based, not rolled, and there is a core rule for point buying stats. Spell acquisition is skill based in both games although using different methods but the net effect is the same. If you know my house rules then you can create your character well in advance. For me it means that I can then devote my time and effort to any new players who cannot be left to create a character without some support.

7th Sea is also a diceless character generation system, you just pick options at each stage to create your hero. It is exceptionally quick and easy but lacks much of the detail and granularity of RM.

The stand out difference is that 7th Sea starts with 20 questions. These start with objective things like What Nation is your Hero from? and progress through things like What are your Hero’s highest ambitions? and What is your Hero’s opinion of his country? to eventually end up with What does your Hero think of Sorcery?

The fundamental difference between these questions and my old GM’s questions is that of timing. I can give out the 7th Sea questions along with a primer on my setting, nations and game world long before the game starts. That way you get to think about the sort of character you want to play in your own time. You can answer the questions then go back and change your mind. The answers you come up with then turn into a blue print to use in creating your character.

Adopting the same technique for Rolemaster, particularly with new players, has massive advantages. For really new players coming to RPGs for the first time the difference between Roll play and Role play are not always clear in their minds, particularly if they are coming from a wargaming background where the use of dice for combat resolution is an idea they are comfortable with.

I don’t see this just as a structure for new players either. It doesn’t hurt to give it to experienced players. My group have a tendency to slip into the same old personalities again and again. I get my players to create a post-it sized personality description which is stuck on the front of their character sheets. At the start of every session I ask them to read it to themselves as a reminder. If they tell me they do something that I think would be seriously out of character then I will ask them to read their post-it and then reconsider. Sometimes they read it and then insist that they are happy with their original choice, others they retract the action and do things differently because the character simply would not rip the innocent bartenders fingernails out just to get the address of an informant.

The 20 7th Sea questions do not take up any game time as they happen before the first game session but they make creating that personality prompt post-it much easier. It also makes creating a character with a new player easier too. As a guiding GM with a new player if you know what the player wants to play it is easier to help them achieve that. This is doubly true with a fully expanded RM2 I would say.

If you want I will list the 20 questions but I would also suggest that you create your own and make them setting specific. For modern espionage settings (I’m looking at you Intothatdarkness) you could style it like a psych evaluation. For shadow world if you have already decided on your characters starting location then you can add in cultural influences or drop in questions to hint at the Unlife or if everyone is going to be Gryphon College trained then twist things to reflect their world view.

Any thoughts? Do you want to see the questions?

This post currently has 10 responses

 

Posted on

The Red Stone Circle & May Fanzine

This week we have a two goodies for you. The May edition of the fanzine, issue 13 or Year 2 issue 1 depending on how you want to think of it. We also have our latest 50in50, The Red Stone Circle.

The Red Stone Circle

The Red Stone Circle is an unusual location, a stone circle formed of concentric rings of monoliths with a dolmen at the very centre. The circle acts as a magical dampener, suppressing the magic of anything that goes into the rings; the further in, the greater the effect.

 

This month brings 25 new Channeling Spell lists from Dark Woundings to Herb Mastery, here is the first part of the BASiL Channeling book by Brian Hanson. You can get the PDF from RPGnow or the print and kindle versions on Amazon.

I love the covers by Craig John, this time Sel Kai!

This post currently has no responses

 

Posted on

Revisiting Spell Law: Spell Casting Mechanics Pt. 4 Notational Magic

Welcome to the fourth part of my Spell Law Series.  In Pt. 1 I discussed Spell Law and BASiL in overview. In Pt. 2 I delved into the mechanics of the Essence realms, Pt. 3 into Channeling and now is Pt. 4 I wanted to discuss “Notational” Magic, or written/inscribed magic. Rather than offer my own solutions, I want to open the conversation up from a deconstructive standpoint.

So what is Notational Magic? It’s any magic that requires pictograms, symbols, drawing or writing as part of it’s mechanic; in short, “written or inscribed magic”. In Rolemaster that could include Runes, Glyphs, Sigils, Heiroglyphs, Circles, Magical Tattoos, Blade Runes, Marks, Signatures, Signs and Wards. Over time with various optional rules, settings and companions, many of these words have been used interchangeably and muddied the rule mechanics. For instance, typical “Runes” are written on special paper, can be used to learn a spell or can be cast which then depletes the Rune. Battle or Weapon Runes (RMCI) are temporary spell charges that are cast on weapons and armor. Obviously these are two different mechanics with differing functions, but both are called “Runes”. However, these Runes and the other types listed above share a single trait: all imply a functionality  based on a written/drawn parameter. This similarity is be enough to group these types of magic under a cohesive mechanic, rather than shoehorn it into Essence, Channeling or even Mentalism.

Rolemaster Companion II officially tackled part of the issue with rules around Summoning Circles. While the spells themselves followed standard casting mechanics (SCR, Class I-III etc), there was an acknowledgement that drawing a 10′ diameter circle of arcane symbols might take longer than the 30 seconds it might take to cast a Class III spell. But don’t Runes, Glyphs, Symbols or Sigils need to be “drawn” as well? Or do you feel that the spellcasting itself creates the resulting shapes or symbols?

But stepping back a bit further, we should ask what is actually being drawn or written? A written language? Forms that hold/create power? Power symbols? Is it a written magical short-hand? Something else? Is the shape or form of “scroll runes” different than Glyphs or Symbols? How can a channeling spell be imbedded into an object or rune paper if the spell requires the basic consent of a God? Doesn’t that amount to a work around? If each is it’s own language do casters need to learn different written forms similar to magical languages?

For me, the number and type of the above questions indicates that there is already a massive gap in the rule constructs for written magic. Essence we can subscribe to chanting and waving hands, Channeling to prayer and Mentalism to mental focus and concentration but the similarities AND the established differences in these varying types of magic require quite a bit more organization work.

Finally, if a rune or symbol spell requires writing or drawing, shouldn’t the spellcasting roll be based on the casters skill in writing or drawing? As previously argued regarding magical languages, you can’t use magicial languages to cast high level spells if you have a 1st grade ability in a magical language. Shouldn’t the same be true for written magic? If you can’t draw, write cursive, do calligraphy or draft how can you effectively draw a working summoning circle?

What are other possible issues around notational magic?

  1. Surfaces. What can notational magic be used on? Runes require a special paper. Glyphs can be written on a flux: fluid or air? Symbols require a large heavy stone, blade runes require a weapon but depends on size. Basically it’s all over the place.
  2. Mediums. Is there a medium needed to inscribe the spell? Ink? Paint? Oil? Blood? What about acid etching, chiseling, carving or tattoos? How does the strength or permanency of different mediums interact with the spell, spell casting for general duration? Should it matter?
  3. Analysis. If notational magic has structure should a skill like Runes or Rune Language allow someone to interpret the rune or similar symbol? Should they be able to decipher the rune, it’s power, effect or level?
  4. Visibility. Which types of notational magic or visible to the naked eye? Do they glow, do they fade until triggered?
  5. Casting Time. How long should it take to write and cast notational magic? It should probably depend on the type of writing, the surface and the medium, right? That means a varied system of casting times that break out of the standard Spell Law mechanic. In some respects this is closer to the rules around ritual magic.

Compared to other realms, notational magic has some real disadvantages: needed materials, complexity, casting time etc. This should be offset by some advantages: duration, power or flexibility. That will need some thought.

Finally, last thought. This is really setting dependent but there are opportunities to create some really unique magic styles that could differentiate your campaign. So what are your thoughts? If you could start from scratch (deconstruction) would Runes and similar types of magic work differently than the 3 realms? What other types of notational magic can you think of?

 

 

 

 

This post currently has one response

 

Posted on

Character Stories

This is not about what you think it is going to be about.

The experience rules in RMU and in HARP offer experience for minor and major personal goals (HARP) or Minor, Moderate and Major personal events (RMU).

So as a GM how do you know when your players’ characters has achieved a personal goal or event? Where is the break point between Moderate and Major events (other than on page 107 of the beta rules). Will you remember to account for these or in the case of minor events can you even count all of these?

I know there are loads of alternative experience systems from count every PP used and hit taken to you level up when I tell you. I was recently very kindly given a copy of the 7th Sea Second Edition rules. 7th Sea is a game I really like but is worlds away from Rolemaster. There is almost no cross over between the two systems for example 7th Sea heroes can take out many thugs in a single turn but no attack is ever fatal. In RM if you faced six thugs at once on your own, whatever level you are you have to seriously consider the consequences of that one freak open ended attack and possible critical.

I said there is ‘almost’ no cross over. 7th Sea doesn’t have levels or experience points. Characters progress by being awarded skill increases or other bump ups in individual traits. What is interesting here though is the concept of Character Stories. So when you create your character you also create the start of a character story. Most of us already do this as part of our character back story. The difference here is that although there is a clear end goal, such as avenge your father’s death or clear your name, you only create the very first step or task to achieve that goal. So your story may be “Clear your name from a crime you didn’t commit” but step one is “find the name of your accuser”. So imagine this a just a title and a single bullet point below. During the role play you may well find the name of your accuser so then the next step is of course to find that man and question him. So now you have a second bullet point. The GM always has a clear idea of where each character is in their background stories, things that he or she can weave into the game session and from a RM point of view when Minor, Moderate and Major personal events have happened.

I think this is a really simple mechanism that brings together a method of making characters’ back stories really relevant the characters future, it helps the GM keep those stories straight and it dovetails nicely with the new experience rules.

I am never one to pass up a good idea when I see one! If you are interested in 7th Sea then there is a single volume core rulebook (just the sort of thing that RMU needs 🙂 ) on RPGnow for about $25.

This post currently has 15 responses

 

Posted on

Knight Fall

Sorry for the delayed Sunday post, I was away competing all weekend and just too tired to write anything last night.

So this week’s 50 in 50 is Knight Fall, an encounter with a knight fallen on hard times.

Knight Fall sees the party encountering a knight whose family has fallen on hard times after backing the wrong side, losing lands and titles in the process. The knight, although still possessed of some honour, directed at those who work for him, is no longer a true knight as he has been pushed to breaking point and beyond. The characters will most likely encounter him as they search for highwaymen who have been operating in the area.

For more take a look at http://bit.ly/KnightFall

As a teaser the page layout of May’s Fanzine issue should be finished this week and will be released by the weekend.

 

This post currently has no responses

 

Posted on

Bone Weapons in Rolemaster & Shadow World

Figure 1.

Last October I posted up some of my work with “Special Armor“: cultural armor that utilizes special materials that is specific to various Shadow World cultures or groups. Since then, I’ve been building on this idea with weapons, and specifically weapons made of bone.

While bone may seem too fragile or may splinter too easily to make good weapons, there are historical precedents. The picture at the top are human bone daggers utilized by tribes in New Guinea. Not only is the idea of human bones cool/grim, the “Runes” carved into the daggers lends itself to a fantasy RPG setting. The tribes also made daggers from bones of the Cassowary, a large flightless bird similar to an Ostrich. For inspiration, check out this article on real weapons made from animal components. Some of these are quite intimidating!

Figure 4.

While scientists have concluded that the human thigh bone has excellent properties for use as a piercing weapon, a fantasy game setting opens up the opportunities for bone weapons made from magical creatures: Dragons, Shards etc.  So let’s take it one further: combining magical bone with Weapon Runes. These become totemic cultural weapons that can help define a unique culture. Special bone weapons are common in other game systems and fantasy computer games, but not really represented in Shadow World. I added  a tribe for my Shadow World campaign:

Igata – Triangle Glyph. Outer islands. The Igata are a reclusive tribe living on the long island south of the Demon Gap. They will trade with passing ships but their isolation from the mainland makes them cautious of strangers. The Igata consider themselves caretakers of the waters of the Ssoei’dawass and the Sea Serpents that travel to the sheltered bay to spawn, and eventually, die. The Igata collect shell fragments and bones from the bay and carve them with powerful runes and fashion them into potent weapons. Their main hall is framed with the rib bones of an enormous serpent.

The Igata skills combining Sea Serpent bones with ritual and inscribed magic (Runes and such) to make charms, weapons, staves, rods and other powerful items that are sought after. The magically infused and unnaturally strong Sea Serpent bone lends itself to enchantment. (see my post and chart on enchantment and material strength; I use a single number for both material strength and enchantment capacity). While bone items may be better for Crushing or Piercing weapons,  I also allow the magical properties of special bone to be used for Slashing as well–or alternatively by utilizing an  “Edging” Weapon Rune.

With so many cool magical metals and alloys in Shadow World, it probably doesn’t seem necessary to add enchanted bone weapons, but I think it adds a lot of cultural flavor to the game. Have you used Bone Weapons? What SW or RM creature would have “good bones” for use in these weapons?

 

 

This post currently has 6 responses

 

Posted on

As requested, a solo primer!

I have so much to write about that I don’t know what to tackle first. There is lots of fun stuff I want to cover including some ideas I have stolen on character creation or should that be personality creation. I also now have the Dark Space book, this harks back to a discussion from last year on Rolemaster/Cthulhu.

In my Long Awaited Game post, Gabe Dybing asked about how I solo play. I did promise to elaborate on this and so here it is.

There will be a lot of asking you to imagine stuff as I go through this. You have to sort of see it as a thought experiment more than anything else. Solo play, I found, is harder than it looks when you first try it but with practice becomes much more fluid and easier to get into.

What solo play is NOT is test driving combats with you playing both sides. It also it does not really require you to randomly roll for rooms and corridors. There were rules for that in the back of the 1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide. That is more Random Play as opposed to Solo Play.

I am not saying there won’t be combats but they will happen when the story leads up to that sort of encounter. You are both GM and Player and if you want to fight your way though hordes of barbarians then that will almost certainly happen.

So we are going to make two kinds of rolls during this. Some will be skill rolls using the skills on your character sheet and the rules in the book. When I Solo Play I tend towards much lighter rule sets than a full on, every companion, every skill and 37 house rules version of RM. I know this is the Rolemaster Blog but I guess most GMs have at least one shelf of games they have played once or never played. Solo Play lets you get those games out and dust them off, even if your players are die hard Tolkien worshippers you can still strap on some Kavlar and lock and load* your M16 and go kill something.

The other kind of roll are Solo Engine rolls. Solo Engine rolls act like the Magic 8 Ball in that it gives answers that you need to interpret. The most common question is the Yes/No question. Other open-ended questions tend to give more ‘cryptic’ answers that you then need to think of a logical interpretation for.

Before we start open this link in a new window or tab. You can completely ignore the Fudge Dice Roller in the top right corner, we don’t need that.

The other thing you will need is somewhere to keep notes. If I am at a computer I tend to use a bullet list. This serves a couple of purposes. Firstly, if you have made a choice and then double back to the same location it helps you keep your facts straight. Secondly, when picking up a game for a second or subsequent session it serves as a quick synopsis to bring you back up to speed.

So pick a favourite character of yours and imagine that they were locked in a cell in the dungeon of a keep. (Who, what, where and when are completely up to you.) Someone has arranged for your escape and you know that on the roof of the north tower a Griffin is waiting to carry you to freedom. You just need to get from dungeon to roof. So that is our opening scene if you will.

You need to imagine the character, the setting, the lighting, sounds and so on. What, if any, questions would you ask your GM if this was a traditional game? Are there any other prisoners? Are there any obvious steps up and out of the dungeon? Are there any guards?

So lets test those questions. How likely are is it that there are prisoners in a dungeon? If you have absolutely no intention of setting them free then you can just hand wave this and decide for yourself. If you actually want to know then you can ask the solo engine. I think it is likely so I click the ‘likely’ link under the Oracle (Yes/No Question) section.

I got a ‘No’ answer, but you probably got a different answer. If you got a ‘No but…’ there is no prisoner but there is something else relating to that. My first gut instinct said that there was a cell that was obviously in use but the door open and the prisoner was not there. Maybe they were being questioned? Your imagination could come up with some other explanation. If you got a ‘no’ like me then there simply were no prisoners. A ‘yes’ says there are prisoners, A ‘Yes and…” means that yes there are prisoners and also something else equally important, like someone you know? If you got that ‘Yes and…’ result your adventure could already have forked in a new and interesting path. Maybe you now have an NPC. An alternative Yes and… result could be that there are other prisoners and one of them stupidly tries to raise the alarm because they see you escaping. Again, that takes the story in a different direction.

You now know if there are prisoners or not. That is the reality but does your character need to make a perception roll to know if they are there? Is it dark in this dungeon? In my version I see it as flag stone floors, regular wall mounted lanterns, solid wooden doors with barred windows in each door into a cell. So I do not need a perception roll, there are no prisoners and going by sight. If your dungeon is different then you may make a perception roll. This can lead to there being prisoners there but you cannot see or hear them.

I would now make a note:

  • Are there prisoners? No.

So I am alone in this dungeon. The next most important questions are are there any guards and can I see or hear them. I think that the chances are likely and I will make a perception roll.

  • Are there guards? Yes.
  • Perception: 50 + 23 skill = fail

OK, so right now I think I am alone down here. I think my character knows the way out as he was awake when he was brought down here. I have no stalk & hide skill so just moving as quietly as I can I head towards the centre of the cell block. I know there was a guard post there.

  • Stalking skill 56 -18 skill = fail
  • Guard perception: 89 + 18 skill = 107 success.
  • A guard calls out “Halt! Who goes there?”

I really don’t want to get into a fight. Looking around I have two immediate questions, is there an empty cell I can duck into and is it unlocked?

  • Is there a cell I can hide in? No.

Damn, this must be a longer corridor.

  • Are the guards coming? “No, but…” I hear the alarm gong being struck (no need for a perception roll for that one).

OK so things are not going so well, the guards seem to know something is wrong and soon this place is going to be crawling with guards. I am guessing there are going to search cell to cell so hiding is not going to be  a long term solution. Scrabbling around I look for any small stones or loose bits of mortar and pick them up. Backing off I try cell doors until I find an unlocked one. If needs be I will retreat all the way back to my own cell.

  • Are there unlocked cells? Yes.

So I am lucky and I find a cell. I am going to try and fashion a makeshift sling as a weapon from the basic bedding in the cell.

  • Crafting Roll 93 + 38 skill = 131 success. This is a pretty rudimentary sling -10OB due to poor quality.

OK, so I am at least armed to some extent. I listen out for the approach of any guards.

  • Perception roll 47 + 23 +10 difficulty = 80.

I actually give myself a +10 here as I know I am completely alone here so any other noise is either a rat or guards and I don’t think the guards are going to be particularly stealthy. Total 80/Partial Success. I can hear the guards moving about but cannot guess the direction or distance.

* * *

So if you had followed that same introduction there are all sorts of places where your story could have diverged from mine. You may have an NPC with you, you could have made your perception rolls, the guards could have failed theirs. There may not have been any guards. That is an interesting point. If there are no guards, why? Maybe the person who engineered your escape also cleared the guards away. So who is this person? That sounds like a start of a plot right there. I took the idea of the Griffin from the Harpers from the Forgotten Realms, a semi secret organisation that are known to use Griffons as mounts. So that is another avenue of adventure.

Quite often Solo play produces a lot of loose ends that could easily lead to new adventures. “Does the tavern owner look pleased to see us? No. Does he look scared? Yes” Those two questions could spawn an entire adventure.

Many solo engines use a great many tables and die rolls. I like the automated ones like the page I linked to above. They make questions really fast to work through.

I only used the Oracle here. The complex question results are somewhat stranger. Imagine you reached the point where you can over hear what the guards are talking about. So we click the “Tell me now” link and it comes up with some thing like “seeking + social” So guard one is asking if his colleagues sister is still stepping out with that apprentice from the bakers? Maybe the result was “opposing + magical”. The guard is moaning about how he hates magicians, as far as he is concerned they should all be burned at the stake. As soon as you have that simple hint you can start to hang the start of a personality on the guards in the dungeon.

My log of my adventure so far looks like this.

  • Are there prisoners? No.
  • Are there guards? Yes.
  • Can I hear the guards? Perception: 50 + 23 skill = fail
  • Stalking skill 56 -18 skill = fail
  • Guard perception: 89 + 18 skill = 107 success.
  • A guard calls out “Halt! Who goes there?”
  • Is there a cell I can hide in? No.
  • Are the guards coming? “No, but…” I hear the alarm gong being struck (no need for a perception roll for that one).
  • Are there unlocked cells? Yes.
  • Can I make a sling? Crafting Roll 93 + 38 skill = 131 success. This is a pretty rudimentary sling -10OB due to poor quality.
  • Can I hear the guards coming? Perception roll 47 + 23 +10 difficulty = 80.

So that is the way I solo play. If you want to ask any more questions then post them below in the comments.

*I actually have no idea what lock and load actually means.

This post currently has 8 responses