|
Post by jmccann on Aug 14, 2014 22:21:15 GMT -6
Has anyone gotten a copy of the new, relaunched Ares magazine? The physical subscription copy has a game and there are articles which are available in the digital version. I don't have any idea if there is widespread distribution. www.aresmagazine.com/Looks kind of interesting but I'd like to read anyone's take on this if they have read the first issue.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 3, 2014 16:16:01 GMT -6
I can see how that would be frustrating, but at the same time it is pretty interesting. It is not like actual people have full control over their circumstances. Are you interested in role-playing? Or killing things and taking their stuff?
Maybe you can work something out with the DM. Point out that plenty of people kick addictions and are high-functioning, and try to reduce the scope and frequency of the checks.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 31, 2014 22:16:35 GMT -6
I'd be very interested. I have been thinking of something similar where people would run a faction, and then battles would be fought by whoever had the capability using some kind of queueing mechanism. I'm interested to hear what you have in mind. I have a bunch of dark ages 15mm and some later (~1200 AD) 25mm figures.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 27, 2014 21:21:00 GMT -6
I agree with Delta's thoughts on the advisability of using SP as a standard. The idea of silver piece, copper piece, and gold piece is gaming silliness. No real coinage system is like that. Fin gets at the problem with his post about his excel spreadsheet. One the one hand having market prices react to events in the real world (and I recall in AD&D 1e Gygax advises that this should be done, maybe later I'll look up the citation) adds a great deal to verisimilitude, on the other it adds a lot of complexity.
I think it is an area where each campaign has to find its own desired tradeoff of complexity vs. playability. Just using a medieval price list is not enough, you need to simulate a real market with inflation, seigniorage, devaluation and so on.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 22, 2014 0:20:53 GMT -6
- The defending player(s) could also be in control of a nearby relief force jockeying for a good opportunity to break the siege lines. It would give them the chance to play something proactive, and it would also force the besiegers to built up and maintain an outer line of defenses around their locations. Very much like the siege of Alesia. - A scenario based on The Defence of Duffer's Drift. A smaller-scale engagement where one player's forces arrive into a contested location and are given a limited amount of time and resources to build their own defenses as they see fit, using the local terrain (and other) features to their advantage. I have had some thoughts along the lines of the first suggestion. A high-powered evil critter of some sort arrives after some period of time which forces the good guys to hurry up and get over the wall. The second idea doesn't fit in the campaign though. Every year at Gary Con they run "Vikings Attack Saxon Hill Fort." I've run, and played in, many sieges in CHAINMAIL. It's always worked great for us, and it doesn't take any longer than any other type of battle. The siege rules compress time considerably, and escalades are actually quite effective. A Saxon hill fort is very close to what I am thinking of. I think what I will do is test out essentially a pair of linked scenarios. A lighter, mobile battle where probing elements of Law encounter some patrols of Chaos. The outcome of this first battle will affect the OOBs available for the second battle and the threat of reinforcements should speed things up, forcing an assault on the fort. If this were part of an ongoing campaign I would have hidden map movement and recon, but I am not sure how this would work at the con. Linked scenarios (aka railroading) should keep things moving.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 20, 2014 21:11:21 GMT -6
of play was concerned. If you happen to have a copy of Warriors of Mars, Gygax states in regards to seiges: "....it is suggested that if they must be conducted the major part is done with paper and pencil. That is, the plans of the city being invested be drawn in triplicate. The defender should indicate his disposition on one copy, the attacker his earth works and disposition on another, and a referee keep track of both on the third copy. Attempts to escalate, breech a wall, or whatever can then be worked out by the referee, and the opponents informed of the results." I know I have read that in the past but I could not remember where, thanks for that. My 2011 experience with an 18th century siege game is on my blog : sharpbrush.blogspot.com/search/label/siegeIn general, the main problem is that the defenders are in a very reactive mode, and it's not all that fun to play them. It should be, but the key skill, historically, is patiently waiting for the opportunity to disrupt the plans of the attackers. Patience is an uncommon virte among wargamers. Thanks for the reply. Patience is in especially short supply at a con I am afraid and I can't take a chance on one side being disengaged. Your terrain looks great, and that is part of the appeal for me - I'd like to have a good looking model to fight over. I had a look at some of your other posts and I like the cardstock models. That is what I was thinking of using for the gatehouse and buildings inside the fort. I guess I was hoping someone would convince me there is a way to run a siege and keep it snappy and engaging, but I think it is not in the cards.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 20, 2014 11:15:54 GMT -6
I have been working on a scenario for CM using the m2m rules. I have considered having a simple fortification - a wooden hill fort with an improved stone gatehouse - in the scenario but because it is for a convention and time will be limited I don't think I want to risk having the game bog down. So I'll probably have to save the attack on the fort for another time. There are various plot twists, magic items and so on that could be used but I don't want to introduce a lot of high-powered magic items, and I don't want something that seems like a gimmick.
Has anyone tried scenarios where one side is in a fortress of some kind?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 12, 2014 16:21:39 GMT -6
I thought this got dumped in the "Great Game Purge" of the 1990s (which I still bitterly regret). I also regret my "Great Game Purge" of the 90s. I have replaced (and more!) almost everything though, sometimes at great expense. I kept just one box of games and I know where it is so there is little chance of finding anything unexpected from that era for me.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 7, 2014 19:50:28 GMT -6
I have a place to host it as long as the bandwidth requirement is not too high.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 5, 2014 12:13:55 GMT -6
I have downloaded the PDF and read parts of it. It won't replace what I already do, but I will probably get this largely so I can play with my kids and they will be able to be part of the larger hobby that will use the latest edition. Unlike 4e it seems like this is not utterly incompatible with my 0e/ 1e approach.
For those of you who have run this extensively, would it be possible to run both styles within a campaign? What would be involved in a combat between two groups, one originating in the new rule set, and another coming from the old rules? House rules will be necessary of course, I guess the question is how extensive will those house rules have to be?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 2, 2014 22:46:25 GMT -6
Here is the tweet:
"Our plan is to get the Basic Rules up on July 3rd during our business hours. That's as close as I can get to pinpointing a time."
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 29, 2014 13:27:01 GMT -6
I have just read the book for the first time, partly in response to this thread. The book has been sitting on my shelf unread for years and I am glad to finally have read it.
It is a tremendously interesting instance of world building even if you leave aside the constructed languages. I plan to reread the book in a few months, and then I will probably read TH and LOTR again. I also have Unfinished Tales but I probably won't tackle that until later.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 25, 2014 22:03:24 GMT -6
I don't understand a lot of forums' resistance to writing to old threads. It makes more sense to update an old thread on a topic than to create a new one. I think it has something to do with the short attention spans of kids these days.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 24, 2014 20:32:54 GMT -6
Thanks for your work in maintaining this forum.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 13, 2014 23:13:59 GMT -6
Hm, not what I was expecting. I thought this would be a recruitment poster. "It's a _____ life in the modern Tsolyani army."
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 13, 2014 23:09:58 GMT -6
Not quite sure, I am guessing twice on my own and once to the kids. I have read the LOTR more often.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 10, 2014 23:00:05 GMT -6
All, I'm gearing up to start a domain establishment campaign and am going to use the map from Outdoor Survival. On a game-related note, can you tell us more about the campaign? Will it be along the lines described in the Underworld and Wilderness Adventures? I'd like to hear more about the campaign.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 10, 2014 22:51:20 GMT -6
How did any one determine that the river actually split in two? Tributaries can feed a river from any direction. It may simply be a large lake in the North of the map with the other streams feeding the main body of the river that actually runs to the South East eventually dumping into a Bay. Take a look at a map of the Susquehanna River Basin where Harrisburg, PA is located and you'll get my point. But, hey, I'm okay with saying the river runs North too. I'm just saying it's not as obvious as some would suggest and I don't feel there is one correct answer. I think if you assume earth like rivers you really have to contort things to get the OS river to flow south. Of course being fantasy, it is no problem to come up with divine intervention, rivers that flow uphill, whatever. I think implicit in the question though, is the idea that the river is a naturalistic, earth-like river. Even if not, it seems to me it is better to start with a rough understanding of earth-like rivers and then make deliberate variations, understanding the implications. I'll tell you what I see looking at a map of the Susquehanna. I know the river is flowing to the south into the Chesapeake, but just from the area right around Harrisburg I can't really tell if the river is flowing north or south. There are a couple of creeks, much smaller than the river, which flow into the river at roughly right angles. So there is no clue there which way the river flows. There is one creek that meanders a lot. Meandering areas are a location where rivers do tend to have bifurcations under the right circumstances - note that the OS map has no such pronounced meandering rivers. The difference in the sizes of the creek and the river means that I can't tell by the sizes of the rivers, but if two rivers of roughly equal size have a confluence you can tell the direction of flow by looking at the relative sizes. Rivers tend to get bigger going downstream. Following the river north though, there is a larger creek which flows into the Susquehanna. Knowing the shape that a confluence of rivers characteristically makes I have a clue the river is flowing south. Now let's look at the OS map. An important clue to the direction of flow of the river here is the relative size of the river as it flows north. Rivers increase in size as they flow since the lower parts drain a greater area than the upper parts (there are exceptions, but this is typical). The part of the OS river to the north is the widest. If you assume the rivers flow toward the south, you will see the rivers have to get narrower and narrower, which is the opposite of what we expect of rivers in a temperate climate (obviously, you can cook up explanations about why this would not be so). So to support that the river flows to the south, you have to not only explain all of the bifurcations, but also explain why the rivers get smaller downstream. Look at the north-flowing confluences/ south-flowing bifurcations - these either support the interpretation of naturalistic north-flowing confluences or else a whole series of unlikely bifurcations in a region which seems unlikely to support such bifurcations. Please note, I am not telling anyone how they should play, or what the rivers in their world should do. But if you are interested in interpreting the OS rivers naturalistically, as similar to earth rivers, I think you really will have a difficult time supporting south flowing rivers. If anyone can come up with a counter-example featuring multiple bifurcations from a large river, resulting in ever smaller streams radiating out over a similarly sized area with similar terrain I'd love to see it.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 9, 2014 22:26:11 GMT -6
All, I'm gearing up to start a domain establishment campaign and am going to use the map from Outdoor Survival. One thing that I've always wondered on that map is - what way does the river flow? It seemed to me it's from the larger river to the North East of the map, which then splits in two and meanders SE and SW. The outdoor survival rules don't mention (plus, you're gonna die, so why bother?) But it could also be read as flowing in the opposite directions I normally wouldn't care much, but it has implications for the wider context into which I place the map. Have you always read it the way I have? Rivers don't really "split in two". The only thing that makes sense is for the smaller rivers to flow from the SW corner and the SE edge to form the larger river in the north. -edited for clarity
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 8, 2014 17:01:15 GMT -6
The older ones from SPI are great, just use your google skills and you'll find many on the internet as pdfs. Up till about issue 100 they are often interesting. That is about when TSR acquired SPI and wrecked the magazine.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 6, 2014 22:07:12 GMT -6
I will definitely check it out. My kids are the age where they might become interested over the next few years and it will be easier for them using the latest edition, as opposed to their dad's weird old 70s and 80s stuff.
Free PDF I'll definitely check out, and I'll probably buy the basic set unless it gets horrible reviews. The others I'll wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 5, 2014 21:11:25 GMT -6
Well, that's a shame to hear that it wasn't just an off issue. I kind of liked the sound bite of historical information that's presented with gaming in mind. I've never purchased any of DG's games, but I had been looking at their folio & mini series. I'll probably just hold off on that now. Poor editing and rushed design doesn't sit well with me. I see very little excuse for mispellings in a professional magazine in our modern age of "spell check". I think the only reason to get S&T is because of an interest in a game, and then don't expect it to be fully developed or well edited. Joseph Miranda covers some interesting topics other than the usual WWII stuff.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 4, 2014 19:56:57 GMT -6
Shoddy editing is par for the course. I get an occasional issue with the game if it is an interesting game, but the games often suffer from poor development. I would not recommend a subscription, instead get the issue if the game is of interest or if there are several interesting articles.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 26, 2014 20:33:29 GMT -6
I could see a mechanism like this from an artifact, but I would not use this in normal play.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 10, 2014 9:24:42 GMT -6
I agree. In the Chainmail scenario I ran at last year's Dragonflight the HH was overwhelming. This year I am going to mix it up more with some new LH figs and more MH, and just a handful of HH on each side.
I should replay the original scenario under MtM rules too and see how it comes out. The problem with MtM is I really want to do larger battles, not just skirmishes.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Apr 27, 2014 22:43:08 GMT -6
Try Tony Bath's "Setting Up a Wargames Campaign." Not only is it great about the topic, but you'll see how porous the wall between wargame campaigns and D&D was in the beginning. Seconded. This is fascinating stuff. Tony Bath describes many proto-RPG elements in his campaigns. Similarly a lot of the Diplomacy zines from the late 60s till the time of D&D describe games with a lot of proto-RPG elements.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Apr 26, 2014 8:28:05 GMT -6
www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/supplements.html has some info. There is not much about Blackmoor printings other than a table showing the date of each printing, and one photo with the lizard logo. The first printing is 9/75, which is the month that this page says the lizard logo began to be used.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Apr 16, 2014 23:18:14 GMT -6
You can also try googling for images of medieval marginalia, there is a lot of AHEM interesting imagery including a number of monstrous creatures. Some of these are familiar, but many of them might be interesting as monsters. I have written up a couple for use in my campaign.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Apr 5, 2014 18:11:23 GMT -6
What figures are these?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Apr 5, 2014 13:46:07 GMT -6
Nice report, thanks for writing it up.
|
|