Der PigDog's PigBlog

Traditionally we score achievement in the form of treasure looted and enemies defeated. In this post I will argue that we should broaden our scoring to include player-determined quests, and present a procedure for acquiring and scoring quests. Why quests? Literary progenitors Money and victory in combat are great, tried-and-true objectives, worthy of scoring. Low-tier pulp fantasy heroes constantly pursue these ends -- Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Conan as a young man, Cugel when he isn't under duress, Satampra Zeiros. A pile of gold bullion, a noble goal! Money and victory in combat should always be scored. They're always useful. When you get money or win a fight, you're always winning at life in these stories. But any fan of pulp fiction will notice that money and victory in combat are far from the only objectives in pulp fantasy. Protagonists in the mid-tier and up have larger goals. Some examples: Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser at the end of their career, defending Rime Isl...

Zombie emoticon, sourced from https://moremoji.allezsoyez.com/   Thinking about how I run zombies, skeletons, and other mindless dead, and nailing down the details. First, HD/level. OD&D gives skeletons 1/2 HD and zombies 1 HD. Holmes bumps zombies up to 2 HD, and AD&D bumps skeletons up to 1 HD. These numbers are small enough that they're not really worth disputing; your garden-variety walking corpse, the type we see in a Romero movie, does not have much protagonism or individual combat ability. They get their power from their numbers. I really like that the numbers have changed, so that depending on what table you're at, you might face undead of a variety of strengths. Thus I will actually keep a range of levels for my walking dead -- 1/2 to 2. Unless they've been animated by the T-Virus, radiation, or a passive aura of death magic, the dead walk because someone raised them. If you can't think of an obvious necromancer commanding them to do a specific task, ro...

The Muspelli are are Hyberborian magicians who worship the giants and aim to bring about Ragnarok. They have specific giants as patrons. They learn to take on the form of a giant, at least the size of a bear. Creating your Muspelli Muspelli advance and roll HP as other magician classes. They do not memorize or research spells. Instead they commune with a giant to master their transformation into giant-form and improve their ritual ability. Roll for a patron: Aegir Sea-King. You know Storm's Eye, Twisting the Sight, Threads of Fate, and Dowsing. +1 bonus die on all casting rolls if you are crippled (legs smashed on rocks while swimming) Gullveig the Wicked. You know Entrancement, Hex, Summon Animals, and Magic Sensitivity. +1 bonus die on all casting rolls if you are blind (plucked out own eyes) Gymir Frost-Father. You know Storm's Eye, Winter's Breath, Wildfire, and Wilderness Sense. +1 bonus die on all casting rolls if you have three heads. Leikin Hel-Queen. You know Hex, ...

Been reading Clausewitz, and his modern interpreters the US Marine Corps . Extremely interesting and useful. Here's a question prompted by reading MCDP 1: Warfighting, by the marines: when we go dungeon delving, are we using a strategy of annihilation or erosion? Let's back up a bit, because not all of my readers will be familiar with Clausewitz or Delbrück. A portrait of Carl von Clausewitz Clausewitz says that war is the continuation of policy by other means. (It's not the end of his thought, it's a stage in a dialectic. But it's right on the money.) We go to war to achieve something, and if we are wise, that thing can be achieved by going to war. Military action should serve policy. Our overall aims in war are achieved via the execution of military strategy. The marines outline two very general strategic approaches in war: There are two ways to use military force to impose our will on an enemy. The first is to make the enemy helpless to resist us by physically de...

Most of the games I have played involve 1) a division of authority between a "standard GM" and "players"; 2) character advocacy on the parts of the players; and 3) naturalistic modeling on the part of the GM. When I step outside that bubble, I have a lot of trouble! (One exception, Monsterhearts, simply because I know the genre so well I might as well be doing naturalistic modelling.) I'm thinking here about four different games, all of which went poorly, for different but related reasons. My S/Lay w/Me game with Lori; my Shock: game with Jay and Eric; my game of PLAY with Misha, Ken, and Divya; and every game of Tales of the Round Table I have played. S/Lay w/Me   I thought I was going to crush this game because I had had such a good time playing it with Claudio . Though now I would add a caveat to that game. I'm not sure I had a real "story now" moment when playing, because I never had to make any difficult choices. I always knew what Agathon wan...