Maps, Re-Revisited

So for the last few months, I've been doing more revisions to my fantasy setting. One of the things I'm trying to do going forward is make myself less reliant on computers, because RPGs have always been a way for me to step away from the computer, television, smartphone, refrigerator, etc.

One of the things I'm doing is remaking the maps of my setting, plotting them out on standard square graph paper. (I've actually been doing this for over a year now, since I haven't had much else to do aside from work.) Despite my admiration for hexes aesthetically and mathematically, the square is much simpler; plus, it would be extremely easy to transfer to video-game form if that flight of fancy ever takes off.

To that end, the other night I decided to brute-force it by making dozens of squares on Google Drawings, and arranging them in a grid. This is a lot more tedious than, say, Hexographer, but it allows me to work on the maps whether I'm at home or at the library, due to the cloud access. I've finished a topographical map already, but it took me less than five minutes to copy and change it to a political one. Each square is 24 miles to a side; I'll post some pics of my digital and penciled topo maps once I have more time.

Pink: Principality of Le'var. Green: Kingdom of Duemerus.
Yellow: Principality of Tadea. (Blue is water, orange is lava.)

In other news, I've been reconsidering a lot of my gaming interests, which coincides with one of my partners gaining interest in running a game. The V5 version of the World of Darkness is pretty well put together, though sadly I missed the opportunity to back the new Mind's Eye Theatre book. And the more I read of Tunnels & Trolls (5th Edition, for those keeping track), the more I like its approach.

Psychosis: Ship of Fools

So, a lot has happened. We've moved to a new city, and one of the first things we did was make a trip to a Friendly Local Game Store in this city. Aside from the usual D&D 5e and Pathfinder stuff, alongside less common fare like Deluxe Tunnels & Trolls (plus organized Dungeon Crawl Classics events - I can't wait until this pandemic is through), they also have an interesting selection of vintage games and supplements that changes over time. Though several splatbooks for Vampire: The Masquerade 2nd Edition tempted me, the only book I walked away with this time was an obscure game from the early 1990s, called Psychosis: Ship of Fools.

Having read through the whole thing, I can say that it's out of my league as a referee (or Guide, as the game calls it), but I hope I can shake off the rust and sharpen my skills to run it in the future. Using Tarot cards as the sole task resolution mechanic is a neat idea. My sole gripe is in some of the scenarios presented; suffice to say, fascism isn't the forgotten relic of the distant past that a lot of people once assumed it was.

Overall, though, I like this game a lot, and I'll definitely keep an eye out for any other installments in the series (assuming any actually got made).

G is for Greyhawk

Supplement I  for original D&D, not the campaign setting (I find it hard to use pre-published settings). A lot of things I love come from there, as well as a lot of things I don't like one bit.

I have a love-hate relationship with variable weapon damage. Yes, it provides a reason to use different shapes of dice. Yes, it gives fighters a clear advantage in that only they can use the most damaging weapons (in B/X, those are the pole arm and the two-handed sword). But using different dice for different weapons - or even for the same weapon, used against different opponents - slows down the game, and is confusing for brand-new players. Particularly the variety whose idea of an RPG is Final Fantasy XIII. Except for the encounter tables, OD&D can really be played with just several d6's and two (old-school, 0-9 twice) d20's. This is just another instance where the commercial circumstances, i.e., not wanting to sort out the extra polyhedrals from the boxed sets, led to something that sticks with us to this day.

Exceptional Strength is one of those things that I love in principle, but in practice is a little weird. Whereas the curve for Strength modifiers for "to hit" and damage rolls in B/X (and, by extension, BECMI) is a straight -3 to +3, the versions of the game that use percentile Strength rolls (OD&D and both iterations of AD&D) have two different curves, neither of which amount to +3 without the character being a spectacularly ripped fighter, ranger, or paladin. Plus, TSR's official AD&D2 character sheet uses tiny boxes for the ability scores, so one would have to use the old calendar technique of diagonally splitting the Strength box to write a percentile score.

The thief class is necessary in OD&D for anyone who isn't an obsessive fan of Myst or Portal. It's also necessary for anyone who, like Delta, decides that the cleric class may not be a good fit depending on its implementation. At least three basic types of characters are needed so that a player doesn't feel hemmed in; even Tunnels & Trolls used three basic classes. (Granted, one of them was really a hybrid of the other two, but it's still nice to have a little bit of choice.) In the amorality of D&D's early years, I imagine that most referees would have allowed the thief to steal from their own party members... if they could get away with it, and live.

Paladins are, well, a mixed bag. I think they're necessary to provide a warrior class that is neither directly going to conflict with other players (the barbarian from Unearthed Arcana comes to mind...) nor extremely limited in their actual special abilities (like the original ranger). Their role in the setting needs to be determined, though; considering the unlikelihood of rolling a 17 Charisma on 3d6 in order, the referee should have plenty of time to think about that.