Changing the ending of the Lord of the Rings

I may have mentioned (just the odd time) that LotR is a big thing for me. I first read it more than 40 years ago and it has exerted quite a pull ever since. But actually, there are problems gaming it (see the 'Questing in Elfgames' label for some ruminations on that - I've mused about this pretty often).

One idea I've been kicking around recently is a 'what if?' pretty much directly inspired by two facebook memes and more generally by some ideas I've had for a while. I don't like the term 'synergies' but I think it is somewhat fitting in this instance. The coming-together of a bunch of fairly disparate stuff has almost tied itself into something coherent (coherent...ish).

The first meme was a pic of Cate Blanchett as Hela next to Carl Urban as Skurge, from Thor: Ragnarok, with some text along the lines of 'Did Galadriel take the Ring?'.

Didn't find the FB meme but this image illustrates the point - Karl Urban (Skurge, Eomer) and Cate Blanchett (Hela, Galadriel) - Marvel's evil versions of good LotR characters in Thor: Ragnarok?  - (c) Marvel 2017

The second meme was called 'When Elves Go Bad' and had a similar theme. There were pictures of Galadriel twinned with Hela, Thranduil paired with Ronan the Accuser from Guardians of the Galaxy, and Elrond paired with Red Skull from The Avengers.

Some random stuff from the net - originals (c) New Line Cinema 2001-2014 and (c) Marvel 2011-2019

These images (and the ideas they provoked) slotted into two bits of LotR 'alternative history' that I've been considering for a couple of years. For a little while, when Game of Thrones was becoming popular, people were using the LotR Boromir miniatures for Ned Stark, as they were famously both played by Sean Bean, cementing his reputation as the actor whose character died half-way through (sorry for the spoilers if you've not seen LotR or GoT), and prompting such famous memes as Boromir standing in the snows of Caradhras saying 'Winter is Coming', and another of Boromir at the Council of Elrond saying 'One does not simply walk into King's Landing'. I remember several GoT threads on Lead Adventures where Games Workshop's Gondor and Rohan soldiers were pressed into service in Westeros. In my own (rather small) LotR collection, there are several Gondor and Numenor soldiers who have had their distinctive winged helmets filed off and their 'White Tree' shields scraped so the design has been obliterated. These had come in an ebay job-lot I got a couple of years ago. I have a pretty strong hunch that they were originally intended for an abandoned GoT project. Not having great modelling skills myself, I put them aside, unsure as to what to do with them. Maybe I'm coming up with a plan... Anyway, the idea of 'what if Boromir survived and got married and had kids?' was something floating around in my brain for a while.

If Boromir survived... Ned and Catlyn Stark (Sean Bean and Michelle Fairly) in Game of Thrones Season 1 (c) HBO 2011

A couple of years ago, I watched a movie featuring Aaron Eckhardt (who I like) and Miranda Otto (who I really only know from the LotR films so it's difficult to have too much of an opinion on her, though I think she pulls off Eowyn perfectly well). It was called I, Frankenstein (Lionsgate, 2014) and though I don't want to give the game away too much (you never know, someone may stumble across this and decide they want to watch the movie... though I don't think it's very good, ask Rotten Tomatoes if you want a review), Miranda Otto plays Leonore, the Queen of the (Were-)Gargoyles in their war with (Were-)Demons. When I saw it originally, I thought 'hey, so this is what Eowyn gets up to when she goes to live in Emyn Arnen with Faramir'.

What Eowyn did next - Queen Leonore (Miranda Otto) in I, Frankenstein (c) Lionsgate 2014

So, already armed with mental pictures of what Eowyn did after LotR, and what Boromir might have done had he survived, and then the idea of Galadriel and Eomer as an evil double act, then corrupted versions of Elrond and Thranduil, I started to wonder how this could all be made to work.

The idea of Galadriel taking the Ring is key here. Her speech (the version in the film is slightly condensed but not, I think, significantly):

“And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!” (Fellowship of the Ring: The Mirror of Galadriel (c) Allen & Unwin 1954)

She then pledges to resist the Ring, to diminish, go into the West, and "remain Galadriel".

But what if she didn't?

If Galadriel took the Ring from Frodo in Lorien (freely offered, not forced) then perhaps the 'Queen' she sees herself becoming would become something like Hela. Ultimately of course - it wouldn't happen immediately. The Ring would have to corrupt her more than just giving in to a momentary weakness to take power when offered it, she'd have to start to actually do bad stuff... out of a desire to good, of course, as Gandalf says.

But what would this 'beautiful and terrible' Queen do?

It seems to me that the first thing she would try to do would be to neutralise potential rivals. Of these, the most important are probably Saruman and Elrond. Gandalf is 'dead' - no-one at this point knows he's coming back; Saruman and Elrond are the main loremasters who could in theory challenge Galadriel. Thranduil, Glorfindel, Cirdan, Radagast... are any of these likely to be able to mount a serious challenge to the new Dark Queen? I'd suspect not, and I'm sure Celeborn would not go against her either. Beyond their basic raw power, Saruman and Elrond also have more Ring-lore than any outside of the immediate ambit of Mordor - Saruman because he has studied it over centuries (to the point of obsession, madness and treachery) and Elrond because he is actually the wielder of one of the Three. So, a war with Saruman looks to me like Galadriel's best bet - especially if she can convince Elrond to stay on her side. Saruman has already shown himself to be a traitor to the White Council, and Galadriel, I think can make the argument that with Gandalf's death, swift action against Saruman is vital to stop Mordor and its allies triumphing absolutely.

As the Mistress of the Ring, who also has a close connection with the last bearer of one of the Three (Elrond is of course her son-in-law) I think it might be possible to persuade Elrond of this course of action. So a direct alliance of Lorien and Rivendell against Isengard seems a possibility. Should Elrond be reluctant, perhaps Galadriel could count on the power of the One Ring to sway him, but that's not certain. The power of the One over the Three is sketchy. Certainly there is no suggestion that Sauron was ever able to influence Galadriel, Cirdan, Gil-Galad, Elrond or Gandalf. But, he was their sworn enemy; Galadriel is Elrond's friend, kinswoman and ally. It might be possible to use the Ring's influence to persuade him... for the greater good, of course.

Sauron meanwhile would be in the dark. The Ring-wraiths have been banished for the time being and the trail of the Ring-bearer was lost at the Ford of Bruinen. Sauron must suspect the Ring was taken to Rivendell but probably not more than that. Saruman is perhaps no better-informed - his agents lost the Hobbits when they left Bree, and though he may have suspected they would go to Rivendell but what else might have happened he can't know. He may wonder if perhaps the Ring would be taken to Lorien, but he cannot be at all certain of this.

Anyway - a surprise Elvish attack on Isengard is my assumption as to 'what happens next'. Lorien would provide the main component of this force, but perhaps Rivendell would provide some support. Tolkien has Elrond send Elrohir and Elladan with the Rangers of Arnor to help Aragorn and perhaps some similar (maybe even larger) force could be a component of any putative Elven attack. Whatever Rivendell's contribution I expect Lorien to be the main gainer in this adventure. Jackson has Haldir lead a collection of Elves to Helm's Deep and something like this can be envisioned as forming a significant part of the Lorien army.

The attitude of Rohan, and I think perhaps perhaps particularly Eomer, can explain the Eomer-Skurge connection. Without Gandalf, Theoden is still in Saruman's power, but if the attack from Lorien were rapid enough, Theodred might not be dead yet, and Theoden may not be utterly in despair (which was of course one of the reasons Grima and through him Saruman were able to gain power over Theoden). But whatever Theoden's attitude, Eomer is already implacably opposed to Saruman. He may think allying with the Sorceress of the Golden Wood against the White Wizard is a good bargain (all for 'the greater good' of Rohan of course), even if it means rebellion against his King... and may even make his 'becoming' Skurge more likely, as he is potentially now even more cut off from his kin - his King is of course also his uncle. Perhaps this even opens the door to a rift with his sister. All in all, it looks like the alliance between at least a faction of the Rohirrim led by Eomer and Galadriel's anti-Saruman Elf forces is a distinct possibility.

Assuming some relative success of Galadriel's assault on Isengard, she is likely to have come away with a greatly-increased armoury both in terms of materiel and knowledge, as well as magical items such as the Palantir. With a Palantir and her own Mirror (that she insists isn't 'magic' but that's a semantic quibble I think) she would be in a much more powerful position to challenge Sauron directly than any of the main actors in LotR. This of course would be her ultimate goal, though I'm sure she would rather Sauron exhaust himself on other enemies (like Gondor) rather than attacking Lorien directly.

But, Galadriel would need further allies. And then, what to do with Nenya? My supposition is that she would make a gift of it to Thranduil, one of the few of the leaders of the Elves who could make immediate trouble for her. With Elrond a potential ally, and also positioned to protect Lorien from any attack from the West (by Cirdan, Gildor or other unknown lords of Lindon who may not share her new ambitions - though, of course, she may persuade them too), Galadriel I think would want to make her north-eastern approaches secure, so a gift of one of the Great Rings to Thranduil makes perfect sense, especially if the idea of potential influence through the power of the One is accepted.

Over time, the corruption of Galadriel's purpose would be mirrored I think in those who would by now have become not just allies but accomplices - Elrond and Thranduil, completing their transformations into Red Skull and Ronan the Accuser. A lot hinges on her being able to persuade them, but hey-ho, I need some process that corrupts three Elf-lords!

Of the other characters in and around the Fellowship - well, if the party didn't sail to its breaking at Amon Hen, then Boromir doesn't need to die there and there's no reason he can't survive, marry and start a family, living something of the Ned Stark trajectory.

Eowyn can certainly survive; she could even become Queen of the Rohirrim. It's not necessary in this timeline for her to meet Faramir, but she may, in which case, perhaps depending on what happens to Aragorn, she might have some role in Gondor too.

Legolas's alternative life is a bit tricky. His transformation into a pirate I'm not so sure about. However, in LotR his journey in Gondor unlocked a 'sea-longing' in him so something similar may have happened in this alternative timeline. Orlando Bloom has been in many other things, but the recent (you know, last 10 years or so) version of The Three Musketeers he was in is even less LotR than Pirates of the Caribbean is.

Mystery female companion and Legolas Greenleaf on the shore of Elvenhome? - Elizabeth Swan and Will Turner (Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom) in a scene from Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - (c) Disney 2007

Not been able yet to track a post-LotR career for Gimli, but this pic may show him in a pre-LotR flashback, when it looks like he was involved in a digging project in Harad:

Gimli's early career? - John Rhys-Davies as Sallah in Raiders of the Lost Ark (c) Lucasfilm 1981

Haldir also might have a dark career in this new timeline, as Craig Parker played the villainous character Darken Rahl in Legend of the Seeker. I don't know much about this but it would perhaps be possible to fit something along the lines of Haldir becoming Galadriel's governor of some possibly southern province conquered by Lorien.

Haldir gone bad? - Darken Rahl and Kahlan Amnell (Craig Parker and Brigit Regan) from Legend of the Seeker - (c) ABC-Disney 2008

Then, there's Gandalf. Of course Sir Ian McKellern is probably as famous for playing Magneto in the X-Men films as he is for his portrayal of Gandalf. Again, he's a Ring-bearer, and if the idea of Galadriel being able to corrupt the bearers of the Three is accepted, it may be that she could do the same to Gandalf, weakened as he is after his near-death experience at the hands of the Balrog. 

Evil Gandalf? - Sir Ian McKellern as Magneto (c) Marvel 2000

I'm now trying to find other fantasy, sci-fi and superhero flicks and TV series that LotR actors were involved in to fill in some of the other possibilities. It'll be difficult for the Hobbits particularly I suppose. Even if I find some they're unlikely to be 3 feet tall. I'm not sure what Aragorn is bringing to this party as I don't know enough about Viggo Mortenson's career to find a suitable image to shoe-horn into the new timeline; equally, the further exploits of Arwen (Liv Tyler), Theoden (Bernard Hill) and Celeborn (Marton Csokas) remain to be discovered. Perhaps if I can discover suitable films I can put in some further speculations on the alternative timeline.

One other character perhaps does have at least a sketch of a further career. Talking to a work colleague recently about some of this stuff, he pointed out that Faramir also appears in Van Helsing - if you've not seen it, Wolverine and Selene from Underworld team up to fight vampires and werewolves in Transylvania, accompanied by Faramir who is a kind of Vatican monk-cum-quatermaster of bizarre equipment (a bit like Q in the Bond films). It is, I think, an enjoyable romp, but doesn't owe much to Bram Stoker's Van Helsing. It can perhaps be regarded as a prequel - Van Helsing in the film is  younger than in Dracula (the film is supposedly set around 1888, a few years earlier than the novel), so maybe it's his earlier experiences with vampires that lead to his appearance in Dracula as a seasoned vampire-hunter. Anyway, the monk character, Brother Carl, in that movie is played by David Wenham, that's the point.

David Wenham (Farimir) as Brother Carl, from Van Helsing, (c) Unviersal 2004 

Perhaps then, if Boromir doesn't die, and the Ring never comes south, and Aragorn doesn't go to Rohan, then Eowyn and Faramir never meet, and Faramir becomes something like Brother Carl, a member of a secret order of monster-hunters - presumably in Gondor - while Eowyn becomes something like Leonore? Events in Gondor presumably take a very different turn if the result of Galadriel taking the One Ring is that Boromir settles down to raise a family and Faramir becomes a monk, but maybe I need to think a lot more about how that happens!

Questing in Elfgames X - Are the PCs special?

Another post I've neglected then re-discovered as I've been thinking about some of this stuff again. This one is on the question of what the PCs represent in the world they inhabit.

Are the PCs supposed to represent normal people in extraordinary circumstances, or are they in and of themselves extraordinary? I think there's a general feeling among what could vaguely be referred to as 'old-school' gamers (though some people I know are beginning to reject that label... I just don't have a better one) that PCs are not special. The assumption is PCs will die fairly often and as a result there's a certain disposability about them. This is the flip-side of the criticism that we (ie 'old-school' gamers) have about millennial snowflakes and their over-precious 3E+ characters who aren't allowed to die. "If character death isn't a possibility, how do the PC's actions have meaning?" we howl. "If you can just re-spawn in 5 minutes, how does PC death have meaning anyway?" the millennial snowflakes reply somewhat baffled, and they really do have a point. If we just pick up another character sheet and say 'and there's another adventurer coming at you round the corner' then... so what? How is that any better? I used to do that when I was playing 'Japs and Commandos' (this is what we used to call it, I believe it's now called 'LARPing') as a 7-year old. We'd 'get shot', fall over going "aiee!" and then we'd get up and say "and now I'm another one". That's basically how we treat a potentially endless succession of replaceable PCs. In one of my recent campaigns, when one of the PCs (a Dwarf called Harald) died, his player wrote 'son of Harald' under his name and he turned up the next day saying 'has anyone seen my dad?'. I thought this was perfectly reasonable.

But, I think this idea that PCs are not special is a mistake. Firstly, because even blacksmiths, among 'Normal Men' in the Moldvay rulebook, only get 4hp and NM saves (and you have to assume that blacksmiths are about as hard as 'Normal Men' get). 'Normal Men' are approximately as tough as a single Kobold and it's a weak PC that can't take a Kobold in a stand-up fight. They are pretty much the weakest thing that PCs will go up against (OK, normal bats, normal rats and insect swarms are pretty weak too... as befits actual things from the real world). So, the PCs can do things 'Normal Men' cannot and if this is true of Humans, I think it's safe to assume that PC Dwarves, Elves and Halflings stand in the same general relationship to their respective races as PC Humans do (though perhaps not quite as starkly, 'monster' Demihumans are a bit tougher than undifferentiated 'monster' Humans). Anyway, mechanically, PCs go beyond the 'ordinary', so by definition, they are extra-ordinary.

Secondly, and this is kinda more to the point in terms of the design-philosophy or ethos of D&D, it is arguable that it is in some way supposed to mimic the episodic adventures of Conan, Bran Mak Morn, Kull and other picaresque pulp-heroes. I read (years ago, and I went looking for it but can't find it now) an exposition of the idea that D&D is rubbish at epic fantasy (à la LotR) because it is set up for dirty episodic picaresque fantasy (à la Conan). This may not be true - there's certainly a decent argument (that I don't actually agree with but I do think the argument should be taken seriously) that D&D is a wargame and nothing to do with fantasy literature at all. Whatever - some people believe that D&D is set up to simulate picaresque fantasy, and that's good enough for me, for the purposes of this argument. The point being that Conan and other pulp heroes were 'special', in so far as they had, at least, extra-ordinary skills, drive etc. And PCs, to my mind, are already special too (due to point 1 above).

If this adventuring lark is supposed to simulate fantasy literature then PCs need to be special. This is an important aspect of my wondering why we aren't telling the stories that we are reading (if that's what we're trying to do, which it may not be). Also, ten years ago now, Beyond The Black Gate had a post outlining a seven-step approach to building an epic-quest-style escalation into (something like) a sandbox - The High Fantasy Campaign. I think it's neat. It left me with the distinct impression that it is possible to use 'old school tools' to make something a bit more epic than what I have previously described as 'shopping at the local cave-mall'.

Hence looking at how to do 'quests' and how to create 'Mentors' a while back. Both mentors and quests are part of epic fantasy literature in particular (not so much the picaresque Conan-style adventures) and somewhat missing from D&D. But there's something else missing from the equation I think, and that's the notion that the PCs are somehow important in the world.

Frodo is important because he has inherited the Ring from Bilbo. Without the Ring, there's no reason for Hobbits to be involved in the grand events that bring the Third Age to a close at all. It could be possible that Aragorn still went to challenge Sauron and re-unite the kingdoms (maybe, because in a dungeon-bashing expedition from Rivendell with Elladan and Elrohir, he stumbled on Gollum and the Ring himself). Aragorn is important of course, but he might have died in the struggle with Sauron. Then another 'Heir of Isildur' would have to be found... But the point is, Frodo was important because he was the Ringbearer. Aragorn was important because he was the Heir of Isildur. It's not just the things they did that were important, not just the actions they took and the choices they made (though of course these were important, and in game terms, this is what the PCs are doing), it was something about who they were (and this means 'how they fitted into the history and relationships of Middle Earth').

If (I said if) D&D is supposed to simulate the literature, the PC then is by definition important in the scheme of things. However, the protagonists of D&D games frequently die (unlike the protagonists of fantasy novels, who only die occasionally), so declaring one of them 'the Last Scion of the Kings of Old' or 'the Last Heir of the Mystic Masters' or whatever makes little sense. The world must continue even if the PCs die. Circle of life, and all that. More PCs must come along and continue to believe there's a point to what they do, so like open-ended quests, binary pass/fail conditions are not appropriate. Determining that the PC is a Scion of the Kings of Old or an Heir of the Mystic Masters is good enough. If the PC reaches 9th Level and has been on some grand adventures, the potential existence of other Heirs and Scions is not relevant. If the PC dies in a cavern surrounded by Goblins while still 1st Level, other Scions and Heirs can continue the good fight and the world has not fallen into unending evil as a result of their death. Perhaps there is a prophecy - but as many of us assumed JK Rowling would make more of the prophecy that could relate to Harry or Neville, prophecies should be ambivalent enough to allow for the death of the one that the prophecy relates to. They may not be the only baby born under the Wandering Star, or with a grail-shaped birthmark, or the only child of the Last Hope Gone Bad - they may have a sister. That heirloom may not be the only mark of kingship or magical power, the favour of the gods or the bloodline of the master-thieves of old, or whatever it is a sign of.

This is something I've apparently been puzzling about for a long time now without really getting anywhere, if this post from March 2018 and a follow-up from October 2018 are anything to go by.

What I haven't managed to work out is a procedure for doing this. There are a few possibilities I think.

The first is just making a massive list of possible heroic secrets. This is fine, but is hard work and a bit 'flat' somehow. Also, there's the problem of 'using up' entries... should the same option be open to more than one character? If I have (say) 100 entries I think they're probably going to be quite specific (1, orphaned heir of House Nyleth brought up in secret; 2, flame-haired child prophesied to bring about end of reign of Ice-lords, etc).

The second is just to get the players to do it, as I tried to do some time ago in the Rift City campaign (see the post I linked to from October 2018, above). This can be complicated, or maybe I was just unclear. Either way, it was much messier than I thought it would be, but there is still some mileage in the way I have done it in the Rift City campaign - the PCs who have given me something to go on have had some hooks to do with their family secrets. Perhaps more will come out.

The third option is to try to come up with a table using something like the idea expressed in the post from March 2018 that I linked to above, about using story elements and recombining them. This seems to me to be the way that will produce the most flexibility, but it's also probably the most complex in the end. Whether it's possible to do this in relation to the numbers that make up the stats and gold that a character rolls on creation is I suppose the Holy Grail here. It would link right back to the conversations I was having with Jens years ago, along the lines of 'roll a 1 and you're an orphan brought up by Dwarves...' which ties you to the world by giving you a backstory and you a potential mentor in the lord of the Dwarf-hold you come from... but it will be a complicated business coming up with a 7x6x6 grid of possible combinations.

Portal Fantasy

This post has been dragged out of the oblivion of 'Drafts', for reasons that will probably become clearer in the not-so-distant future. It's is a continuation of my thinking about how to make D&D more like the literature that inspired it and also the literature that people who might be interested in playing could be reading. 

However, I may be a bit off base here as I don't really belong to the age-bracket or cultural context that didn't read LotR and Howard and Morcock as a youngster... because I did. So I'm not the best judge of what exactly would be high on the reading/watching list of the people who aren't playing but might be... I'm not so familiar with that literature, so in some ways I'm going into this a bit blind.

Anyway, one of the things that is part of a lot of the fantasy literature I do know about is portals, which I mentioned in the linked post. The idea that people from our world venture (often by accident) into another is a mainstay of fantasy literature, TV and film from Alice in Wonderland and The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant to The D&D Cartoon and Stranger Things.

So I'm kicking around some aspects of this question of using portals. I'm looking at the notion of bringing people from our world to the fantasy world to start with.

How does someone from the modern world survive? Classing modern people in D&D terms is tricky.

People from our world will generally be human - unless they have also been transformed while being transported, in which case anything is up for grabs. I can't think of a work where someone's body changed by going through the portal, perhaps there are. More likely that the journey releases unknown abilities (you can't do magic in our world but maybe you can by travelling to 'Fabulosa'? Can't think of any works where that specifically happens but it seems like there would be some. Certainly in the Fionavar Tapestry there is a certain amount of 'magic acquisition' but I'd have to re-read them to work out the particular causes). That might have  a bearing on what class you could be in the new world.

I can't think of a single portal fantasy where the transportee(s) did not speak the language. Red Moon Black Mountain, the Fionavar Tapestry, Chronicles of Narnia, Labyrinth, Magic Kingdom for Sale - SOLD! and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (which to my chagrin I've never even read... though in my understanding the film doesn't depart massively from the book) wouldn't work if Mr Tumnus, Oliver, Loren, Dorothy and so on couldn't communicate. So for starters, the transportees speak 'Common'. Any other languages one might speak in the real world are superfluous. So what if you know English, French, German and a bit of Spanish? Only one of those equates to Common, the others don't exist. Dwarves don't speak Icelandic, Elves don't speak Gaelic. Probably. Though as they're both pretty conservative languages perhaps if the portal takes you back to 10th-century Norway or 5th-century Ireland, maybe the Dvergar and Tuatha de Danaan do speak a recognisable language. But, if you're in 10th-century Norway or 5th-century Ireland, you probably still speak 'Common' - which therefore would probably be Old Norse or Old Irish anyway.

What about skills? Most things modern humans know would be utterly useless. However, we have a much better understanding of stuff like communicable diseases and infection than people living in our own past and that might be a useful survival skill if transported somewhere Earth-like. Most of us I guess know a few things that might be considered somewhat arcane in a different world, like how to make steel by adding carbon to iron, or how to distil vodka. In general terms we might know more about meteorology, astronomy and such like (especially as regards Earth - portals to completely different world would render such knowledge more problematic) but in practical terms we would know less. 

Generally, non-physical skills are a bit more problematic than physical skills. Things like Mixed Martial Arts, archery, and various types of sword-fighting might equate fairly well (though if you're trained with an epee and then get a broadsword maybe not), and some things like being able to chop down a tree with an axe or hunting in the forest would be good for many 'fantasy' settings but otherwise, the sorts of skills that it would actually be beneficial to have are often going to be non-gaming ones. Woodworking and such like, though very practical in a real-world setting, are not exactly skills that feature high in character classes for D&D.

Thief skills are not really a problem. Picking pockets is picking pockets (and sleight-of-hand and misdirection play a part here too I think). The Thief skills seem to be among those that it might be reasonable to directly import.

Unless (see above) the transportation process sets of latent magical talents, Magic Users and Clerics will not be applicable here. Could a devout religious person from our world, whether through faith as an internal mechanism, or from an external source (some god), derive power that enabled them to be a Cleric? Maybe. But I can't see how a Magic User could exist.

Many of us are going to be less fit than people in the past, but conversely - perhaps - more healthy. We often do not lead such active lifestyles as people even 30 years ago, let alone 300 or 3,000. But we don't have anything like the prevalence of rickets, scurvy, polio, leprosy, smallpox or numerous other diseases or other complaints. A year into a global pandemic it seems odd to claim that we're healthier than previous populations but if you went back to Europe in 1349 and talked about a plague that killed 1/1000 of the population, the 60% of the population that survived the Black Death would think you were very, very lucky.

But perhaps some of this is not so relevant. Sarah only stays in the Labyrinth for 13 hours (actually less as Jareth keeps advancing the clock so maybe it's more like 9 hours). Yes, language is pretty fundamental to interact with the inhabitants, but perhaps disease resistance is not so important. The Fionavar Tapestry is perhaps the most 'realistic' attempt at the portal fantasy I can think of, but even then the 'party' (for want of a better term) don't all come down with cholera from drinking polluted water.

So there are problems to say the least with using D&D as a baseline for how you could do this kind of thing in a game, in terms of character generation and classing. Probably not a problem to establish basic stats: STR, INT etc are fairly generic categories, but if you've ever tried to convert D&D to be a space-game engine, for example, it's maybe a bit limited. However, 'how to do magic' is a problem that needs addressing for those classes.

There are a lot of other considerations around portals. I'm sure I haven't even considered a bunch of important factors.

A fundamental question - Who or what has brought the PCs to this world?

a Good Deity
an Evil Deity
a powerful Good Wizard
a powerful Evil Wizard
an accident
an ancient spell
a book or scroll
an ancient magical device
a secret portal (mirror, pool, wardrobe etc)

Not sure if this list is particularly exhaustive. Sometimes there can be more than one answer. An accident, for example, may involve an ancient magical device or spell gone awry. The PCs might be the unintended passengers of a spell meant for someone else, either from a good or evil entity. An Evil Wizard may use a spell or device to trap a questor, etc. Alternatively, an ancient magical device may have been created by an Evil Wizard. So the point of this list is more a 'first cause' than a set of exclusive possibilities. It's probably worth delving into deeper levels of answer that depend on the initial one.

I've just acquired a copy of the game Blue Rose which has a section on using portals in games - I'm going to be reading that section with some interest (along with the rest, of course - I didn't want it just for that section!). I hope, as it's actually part of the fabric of the game, that it might be easier to sort some of this stuff out

So, yeah... portals... they're a thing. Not a huge part of what I'm thinking about right now but I guess connected. It's sometimes difficult to know exactly where to put all the speculation.

Questing in Elfgames IX - It Ain't What You Do, It's the Way that You Do It...

I mentioned previously that 'how' the PC can fulfil a quest will depend both on what the relationship is between party and patron(s), and on how open-ended the nature of the task is. I'll be looking at the second of these criteria in this post.

I'm pretty certain that a quest that is too tightly-controlled is not going to be as satisfying as an open-ended one. If the 'plot' is that the PCs must collect the relics of McGuffin from various locations, and the Sage Andonion tell the PCs to "bring the Spoon of Density from the Dank Citadel to the Unpr'Onounc'Eable Temple in 7 days for the Night of the Moon of Blood or all will be lost", this is a pass/fail situation. The party takes four days to get to the Dank Citadel, and another day to battle their way in to get the Spoon. Unless there's a dragon or magic carpet or teleport spell to get them back to the Temple double quick, they've already failed if they can't get it to the Temple in time.

There is nothing wrong with that setup that can't be solved easily, though. The 'dragon or magic carpet or teleport spell' could be real enough. Andonion could give the party a scroll and tell them, 'when you have the Spoon, read this scroll and you will be brought back to this place'. If they ask why they can't just do a 'reverse-scroll' to get them into the Dank Citadel, then the scroll is a homing-spell and will return to to the place it was made (the Temple, not at the Citadel)... Lord Doombad's return-point would be at the Citadel, but they don't have Lord Doombad's scroll. I like this idea, I may even institute it in a game.

Or, there could be a dragon (perhaps an enchanted or otherwise compelled one) who might be persuaded to fly our heroes home. Or the tapestry on the wall might turn out to be a magic carpet that the PCs could fly back on. There should be multiple ways of reaching goals. But putting in time-constraints just for effect is probably not the way to go.

Letting the PCs fail because they ran out of time is perhaps not the PCs fault, it's maybe bad DMing I think. If they've taken too long to get to the Citadel and now can't get back in time because they faffed around in the Forest of Illimitable Mulch for too long on the way there, then their way probably wasn't clear enough for them to do what you expected - unless the idea is that they fail. Which, I'd suggest, it isn't. It should be possible for the PCs to fail for sure, but I think it's peculiar to require them to fail. It's also pretty railroady, as much as requiring them to succeed would be.

'Bring the Spoon of Density to the Unpr'Onounc'Eable Temple because we can use its magical energy to bind Lord Doombad' is better, because there's no real pass/fail condition. The PCs don't know about the Moon of Blood, it's OK if they take four days to get there and a day to find it and four more days to get back, that's fine. But I'd still have the teleport scroll and the dragon and the magic carpet just to be safe (or a flight of hippogriffs or or magic mirror that acts as a portal or some pretty heavy and speedy magical effect like dust that you sprinkle on your feet and you move ten times faster or whatever). If the point is getting the Spoon to the Temple then there should be ways to do that. If the point is the journey, then, maybe there aren't ways to short-cut it, but then, that shouldn't have a time-limit. What you can't have is a time-limited quest with no short-cuts, because that's a railroad.

'Bring the Spoon of Density to the Unpr'Onounc'Eable Temple because we can use its magical energy to bind Lord Doombad - but I urge you to hurry, his strength grows every day' is probably even better still, it puts a weak time condition on things that maybe will still be a motivator not to dawdle (as the 'Moon of Blood' condition) but doesn't have a binary pass/fail setup. Ultimately the PCs will still 'lose' if they take too much time but 'too much' is less clearly-defined.

The way wandering monsters work in a dungeon is in part dependant on how much time the PCs take to do things. 'Get in, don't search for traps and secret doors, kill monsters, take treasure, get out' will result in fewer wandering monsters than 'Get in, search carefully for traps and secret doors, kill monsters, take treasure, get out'. It will probably result in more deaths from traps, and less treasure from secret hiding places, than the second procedure. It's a balance the party must come to between being meticulous and being fast. And as a corollary, searching for secret doors should entail the party getting rewards some (most?) of the time. Else, why bother?

The same procedures can be applied to fulfilling quest-goals. Encounters in the wilderness or at the Dank Citadel should depend on how much time the PCs have 'wasted'. This why '... but I urge you to hurry, his strength grows every day' is probably a better time-condition than 'do this by then or all is lost'. All should not be lost. It may be harder ('...  his strength grows every day' might equate in game mechanics to 'add another Gnoll patrol for each day spent in the Forest of Illimitable Mulch, and increase the level and number of the Undead servants at the Citadel by d6' for example, because Lord Doombad is resurrecting the dead of a thousand years of war in the environs of the Dank Citadel), but there shouldn't be a point where the PCs calculate that a conclusion is inevitable. If the actions of the PCs don't make a difference, then there's no point playing (others may disagree, but to me at least if player action is meaningless, in the end it's just the DM reading a story with the players providing some dialogue. Some people might want that. That's fine but it's not what I do). The loss of time leading to a build-up of enemy forces should be balanced by some possibility of reward (if it's a deliberate loss of time at least), and without it necessarily entailing the PCs breaking the quest.

So, the PCs get diverted in the Forest and go to the Vale of Silky Death in the centre of the woods. There they fight the Giant Spiders, who have nothing directly to do with the quest. The PCs acquire the Wonderweb Cloak (a powerful magic item in its own right that may help them in the quest) and also make allies of the Grubmen (who were the Spiders' slaves), but as a result Lord Doombad has recruited more Gnoll soldiers in the Forest, and when the PCs get to the Citadel there are more, and more powerful, Undead around.

The PCs could have saved time and bypassed the Giant Spiders, in which case, they'd have met fewer Gnoll patrols and faced less serious enemies in the Citadel, but wouldn't have the Cloak or the knowledge of the secret way into the Citadel that the Grubmen gave them. That is a reasonable trade-off, and even though the PCs shouldn't necessarily be able to calculate that in advance (they don't know the Wonderweb Cloak is there, they don't know the Grubmen could give them useful information), they should at least have the expectation that 'having adventures' will not be detrimental to the game. If the DM is penalising the players for exploration and adventuring, then I'd say something has probably gone wrong somewhere.

Going through the Vale of Silky Death, fighting the Spiders, rescuing the Grubmen and gaining the Cloak, means that instead of facing one Gnoll patrol and finding 10 Skeleton guards at the Dank Citadel, they fight two Gnoll patrols and find 14 Zombie guards. If they also go to the Mountain of Mumbling Medusae and fight the residents there, they might get their hands on the Mirror of Madness and befriend the Rockmen; but then they'll find three Gnoll patrols in the Forest and 19 Ghoul guards at the Citadel. If they also go to the Lake of Lachrymose Lycanthropes, the PCs can find the Flying Dagger of Flamfloon and get information from the Purple Pixies, but they'll run into four Gnoll patrols and 23 Wight guards, and so on.

So yes, if the PCs want to go off on side-quests it should be a question of balancing risk and reward (roughly, because they shouldn't necessarily know the specifics). They have been warned that Lord Doombad will grow stronger if they delay, but they should also have an inkling that there is more than one way to reach the destination. Otherwise it's just a railroad.

More, possibly much more, on this to come. With lots of diversions for interesting byways I suspect.

Questing in Elfgames VIII - Mentors and Motivations

There is a very interesting post at Campaign Chronicle, entitled 'Character motivation in OD&D'. It is a d20 table of reasons why PCs are going adventuring. The posts says the table is '...to use as-is or to inspire more original ideas...'. I can see it being useful for a particular campaign, either getting PCs to choose one of the options or randomly assigning them (it makes more sense to have a 'card' system rather than a table I think, so each backstory is only given out once, rather than having a situation where three of the seven PCs have randomly or unknowingly chosen the same motivation).

I want to break the system down however and build a way of generating this kind of stuff from random tables.

The first thing I want to do is give each PC a patron or mentor. A simple system I think for that, I'll limit mentors to PC classes, rather than having the ability for a Werewolf or a Treant or a Centaur to be a mentor (of course I now want a 'Centaur Mentor' because in British English, if not American English, it rhymes. But no, keep it simple, stupid, at least for the moment: PC classes only).

Roll d12 - the PC's mentor is a:

1 - Cleric
2 - Dwarf
3 - Elf
4 - Fighter
5 - Halfling
6 - Magic-User
7 - Thief
8-12 as PC's class

This should produce a distribution where 50% of the time the Mentor is the same class as the PC. A d8 would produce a result where the PC and the Mentor were the same class 25% of the time, a d20 the same result 70% of the time. All of these are possible of course...

I created a party of PCs to test the numbers on. As there are 7 classes I rolled a d8 several times to generate some numbers for class-distribution, with 1-7 standing for the classes above. As luck would have it the first number was an 8 so I decided that was the number of PCs I'd create.

My numbers were 812445667 (I tidied the order of the numbers to make it easier for me). That should mean '8PCs - Cleric, Dwarf, Fighter, Fighter, Halfling, Magic-User, Magic-User, Thief' which looks like a pretty cool party to me. I rolled on the table above to determine the classes of the PCs' Mentors. Tabulating that produces something like this:

PC Class:                          Mentor Class:

Cleric                           9 (as PC – Cleric)

Dwarf                          5 (Halfling)

Fighter                         1 (Cleric)

Fighter                         4 (Fighter

Halfling                       5 (Halfling)

Magic-User                 7 (Thief)

Magic-User                 8 (as PC – Magic User)
Thief                            4 (Fighter)

I decided I'd rather have fewer Mentors than more. There's no particular reason that each PC should have a different Mentor, it may be that some PCs have the same Mentor. So, I decided to double up; any time I had a repetition of a class in my Mentor column, it would be the same Mentor. Thus the two Clerics are one Cleric, the two Fighters are one Fighter and the two Halflings are the same Halfling.

So we have five Mentors - a Cleric (Mentor to a Cleric and a Fighter); a Halfling (Mentor to a Dwarf and a Halfling); a Fighter (Mentor to a Fighter and a Thief); a Thief (Mentor to a Magic-User); and a Magic-User (Mentor to a Magic-User).

The relationship of the PC to the mentor is very tricky. Alignment should be an issue I think but can't work out how (or indeed why) it could (should). It seems like it is adding a layer of unnecessary complexity (what happens if the PC's alignment is different to the Mentor's alignment? Does that make the relationship between them more difficult? Do I want that? If not, what purpose would alignment serve? If it doesn't serve a purpose, why bother about it? So, I decided to leave it alone). There should definitely be some sort of discernible connection between the PC and the Mentor  though. I decided to roll a d6 again and see what connections I could come up with.

I got 6 after some thought:

1 - Parental (or foster-parental, as 3, where this is not biologically possible)
2 - Avuncular, materteral or other family (or inherited, as 4, if this is not biologically feasible)
3 - Foster-familial
4 - Inherited (Mentor is a companion of a relative of the previous generation)
5 - Geographical
6 - Professional

Basically there's some chance the Mentor is actual family, a parent or someone or less-directly related - if the PC and Mentor are not the same race, then there's an automatic bump to foster-parent/friend of the family instead. Then there's a chance that the Mentor was either a foster-parent or a friend of the PC's parents. Finally, there's a chance that the relationship between them is something more societal - I'm not actually sure how I'm defining the difference between 'Geographical' and 'Professional' here. My idea for 'Geographical' was that the Mentor is some kind of local 'power' (the Lord of the Manor; the Priest of the local temple or some such idea); but then, this bleeds over into a 'Professional' relationship (where the Mentor has taken an interest in the PC for some professional reason). I suppose really this latter doesn't rely on much power on the Mentor's part. If a 'Geographical' result could mean "you came to the Lord of the Manor's attention as a likely lad about the village, and he took an interest in your training", 'Professional' could mean "you came to the Guard Captain's attention as a likely lad about the village, and he took an interest in your training". I think 'Geographical' implies 'you sought out the Mentor because...' whereas 'Professional' implies more "the Mentor sought you out because..." but it's a subtle distinction.

Running these numbers with the previous results produced this:

Cleric                    9 (as PC – Cleric)              1 (parental)
Dwarf                    5 (Halfling)                        5 (geographical)
Fighter                  1 (Cleric)                            4 (inherited)
Fighter                  4 (Fighter)                           3 (foster-familial)
Halfling                 5 (Halfling)                        3 (foster-familial)
Magic-User           7 (Thief)                             5 (geographical)
Magic-User           8 (as PC – Magic-User)      3 (foster-familial)
Thief                     4 (Fighter)                           1 (parent)

Assuming that I'm sticking to the idea of combining the Mentors where I get multiple classes, so having 5 mentors, I now know that ...

the Mentor Cleric is the parent of the PC Cleric and the companion of an older relative of one of the PC Fighters;
the Halfling Mentor is the foster-parent of the Halfling PC and has a geographical connection with the Dwarf PC;
the Mentor Fighter is the foster-parent of the other PC Fighter and the parent of the Thief;
the Mentor Thief has a geographical connection to one of the PC Magic-Users;
the Mentor Magic-User is the foster-parent of the other PC Magic-User.

This all seemed reasonable enough but I want to know if this group of Mentors has any relationship to each other. I rolled a d6 for the following results:

1 Old companions
2-5 Thrown together by circumstance
6 Old adversaries

I actually rolled a 1 which is nice but I don't like this table. Maybe if the divisions were 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6 it would be better. Anyway, I tried to generate connections another way, by stealing JensD's idea from Lost Songs of the Nibelungs about using repeated dice-numbers to stand for connections (a lot of this is directly or indirectly inspired by Jens... much of it can be traced back to something I told him some years ago, "every Hero should have been fostered by Dwarves" which was something of an exaggeration but still, I think, has a core of truth to it). As soon as he comes by to tell me where it is, I'll link to it (honestly Jens, I went back through about 5 years of posts looking, I really did).

Anyway, I rolled a die for each of the five Mentors, intending that each Mentor who shared a number with another had a connection with them. I used a d4 so I would guarantee some repetition, and came up with 12413 (the least connected possible result of course). That means the Cleric and the Thief Mentors know each other. I rolled for their connection (only looking for 'old friends' and 'old adversaries' results... I already know they know each other, so results in the middle don't count) and came up with 'old adversaries'. Somehow having two Mentors as old adversaries and the other three unknown to each other doesn't seem as satisfying as having all of them as old companion, though I am pleased it was 'Cleric' and 'Thief' - there may be mileage in dramatic situations to be created there. But I'm sure I shall play about with this aspect somewhat (what I'm currently thinking is that I'm going to use all of it - the five are old companions, and this is the most important relationship, but the Thief and the Cleric have an antagonistic personal relationship).

I decided to set the Mentor's Level at d4+3. Especially when the PC is at low levels the Mentor should be an important personage, at least on a regional scale. However, I think a Mentor should not be a deus ex machina. Nor the other way around, for that matter. The Mentor should not necessarily take any direct role in adventuring, and it should be on the whole difficult to access their help. The point is that the Mentor has set the PC on the quest so that they can learn their true powers, not come running to Uncle Alrund Elf-Lord if the going gets tough. The occasional help with decoding Moon-Runes or identifying a sword should be OK, even helping to find the best Elven weaponsmith to repair that broken heirloom, but not so much kicking down the doors in of Bigbad Central and killing Lord Nasty in the face with the +5 Shining Sword of Ultimate Cool. The PCs should not be outclassed by their own aunts/teachers/random old friends of their dad.

As the PCs gain in Levels perhaps the Mentor can too, but at a slower speed I think, and taking into account level limits. In any case, mentors should probably be capped at around 10th-12th Level, by which time the PCs should be well on their way to overtaking them, if they haven't already. It may even be that the Mentor doesn't increase in level at all and the PCs start to overtake them from about 5th Level. But, it's around 8th-10th Level that PCs start to establish strongholds and I think this seems a natural point to stop Mentor advancement. You establish the Last Homely House East of the Sea, get together some old comrades in arms, build a library, and get on with the business of protecting the Heirs of Isildur through the long dark of the Third Age. You know the score.

The Level results I came up with were 22211. This equates to Levels 5 (Cleric), 5 (Fighter), 5 (Halfling), 4 (Magic-User) and 4 (Thief). I imagine that this is some adventuring party of a previous generation. If you're really together and have access to 30-year-old character sheets this might even be an adventuring party of a previous generation, and you can skip most of the exposition actually. I don't know if I need levels at the moment but maybe I will. I may as well generate them.

That all seems like a usable set of results. I shall mess about with them more in a future post, however, as it's late and this is getting a bit large I'm ending this one here.




Have I mentioned lately how much I hate the formatting on Blogger?

Questing in Elfgames VII - Quest and Anti-quest

Let us assume that the PCs agree to play a game in which there is a quest. They must, I think, therefore be in favour of the general aims of the quest. Does it necessarily follow, however, that all of them must be in agreement over the methods used to fulfil the quest?

A thought experiment, once more based on Lord of the Rings (not the first time I have done this I admit). The quest in Lord of the Rings is to destroy the Ring by taking it to Orodruin. However, Boromir, in 'Minority Report' style, departs from the consensus and wants to use the Ring as a weapon against Mordor. Both viewpoints are about fighting Sauron, one by destroying a powerful artefact that could be used by the baddies, the other by using the artefact against the baddies. In this thought-experiment version, Boromir takes the Ring from Frodo at Amon Hen. What happens next?

Boromir has fallen under the baleful influence of the Ring, but hasn't changed sides; he is still opposed to Sauron, and wants to use it as a weapon against Sauron for the good of Gondor (as he sees it). He's not going to ally himself with the Orcs in the woods, they and he are still still enemies. The rest of the party... err, Fellowship... wants to 'rescue', not fight, him, even if they fundamentally disagree with his perspective. So, Boromir is still fighting the Orcs, but not allowing the Fellowship to stop him taking the Ring to Minas Tirith. He battles his way to Gondor, and from there the plot takes a different turn as the now Ring-wielding Gondorian forces both resist Sauron and are corrupted from the inside.

There are some successes for Gondor due to wielding the Ring but also increasing jealousy between Boromir and Denethor, as well as paranoia in the Gondor command about 'internal enemies' (not helped by Faramir throwing in his lot with Aragorn's 'loyal opposition'). This leads to a nightmare 3-way war between the forces of Sauron, the Ring-wielding Gondorian faction around Boromir (after a power-struggle, Boromir kills Denethor and takes absolute control) and the Aragorn/Faramir faction, waging guerrilla war from Ithilien, fighting off the Gondorian loyalists as well as Mordor, but also trying to unite all the anti-Mordor forces. Ultimately, Aragorn's guerrillas break into Minas Tirith and steal the Ring before racing to destroy it in Mt Doom. Boromir, perhaps, is unsavable, and resists the Aragornian 'rebellion' to the end, but ultimately the Ring is destroyed and Gondor saved.

Is something like this a reasonable version of 'the Quest'? It's not Tolkien's story but is it a reasonable, workable, even playable departure from it? I think it is. It's maybe a bit more 'Game of Thrones' (or even 'Star Wars') than 'Lord of the Rings', but I can see how it might work. There's no reason why this couldn't be the unfolding story of a game based on the starting-point of 'The Lord of the Rings'.

In the Quest for the Relics of McGuffin, the Sages of the Unpr'Onounc'Eable Temple want the Relics brought back to the Temple so they can use them to defeat Lord Doombad. Let's say the NPC Sage Andonion has roped in Scrofula the Thief, who is a PC, to bring back one of McGuffin's relics, the Spoon of Density, from the Dank Citadel. However, Scrofula, having gone to to the Dank Citadel with his mates (the rest of the party) and liberated the the Spoon of Density, decides he wants to go off-piste and uses it to attack Lord Doombad instead of taking it back to the Sages. Is this reasonable?

It might not be in a novel (I don't know, actually maybe it would) but it should be in a game. A quest does not necessarily imply unanimity about methods, just aims. In 'Lord of the Rings' everyone wants Sauron defeated, but they disagree about how that is best done. That should be OK in a game too, and it should be possible to change course to fulfil the quest. The Sage Andonion has engaged the PCs - somehow! (and that 'how?'still requires some thinking about) - in a quest (getting the Spoon from the Dank Citadel will somehow help defeat Lord Doombad... either because the Spoon is a powerful artefact and it will help to add its power to the good side, or to deny its power to the evil side) but the PCs have autonomy to carry out the quest in the way they see fit. How they see that will depend on the setup, how the information is actually given to them, and how much they trust the veracity or sagacity of their quest patron.

But probably I need to keep picking away at those things, so I'll leave this here for the moment.

Happy Christmas, and whatever else you may be celebrating.

Questing in Elfgames VI - PC motivation

"The Sages of the Temple of Unpr'onounc'eable tell us that in the past, McGuffin the Great ruled wisely and well, with the aid of powerful magic, over a mighty Empire.

However, things now aren't as good as they were then. The Empire fell, the Dwarves are angry and the Elves are sad, while evil Lord Doombad raises an army to conquer everything.

You, a group of heroes aspiring or established, must journey to the many parts of McGuffin the Great's empire, collecting the Relics of McGuffin, and bring them together to the Temple of Unpr'onounc'eable, where they can be used to stop Lord Doombad."


... the plot of pretty much everything ever. Honourable mention to Tolkien whose plot was 'get rid of the Relic of Lord Doombad', but that sort of trick can't be repeated too often.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a bad plot. It certainly gives the protagonists the opportunity to travel around, learn a bit about themselves and the world, meet interesting new people, have some adventures... and that I'm fairly certain is pretty much what people are seeking to do with their characters when they play D&D. It should be possible to play D&D in a way that relates in some way to this kind of 'storyline'. Hopefully, without too much of a problem with regards to railroading, which isn't something I'm a fan of.

I think the trick is in getting the players to agree to the overarching conceit but allow them freedom within that. I've talked a bit about this before - particularly in this post about Questing in Elfgames. Basically the players need to agree that the PCs will take the existence of the quest - whatever it is, it doesn't have to be the 'Quest for the Relics of McGuffin' described above. It doesn't matter if they go and do a side-quest I suppose, but they need to keep coming back to the main plot. What they can't really do is ignore the quest. For this sort of idea to work, there needs to be some reason for the PCs - any PCs - to be doing it in the first place.

This is the most difficult part of the whole process and it is the point where character backgrounds, quests, mentors and all these questions about linking the PCs to the world background fit together. In fantasy literature it is often some secret that the protagonist(s) learn that convinces them to embark on some quest - Frodo finds out the nature of Bilbo's Ring, Garion learns of his heritage, Eragon learns something of the world and its mysteries from Brom, and so on. Other times it's more to do with personal relationships, loyalty, or just straight-up cultural conditioning. Pug goes on his adventure mainly because of loyalty to Duke Borric, and in 'portal novels' such as the Fionavar Tapestry or the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the protagonists generally fall in with whoever they meet first - which of course is how Edmund ends up on the 'wrong' side in Narnia. The stories continue because there some drive on the part of the characters that keeps them fixed on the plot.

There's nothing to force PCs to stick to the quest formula, except the players' desire. This kind of game must depend on the players' willingness to engage with the conceit - but then so does hexcrawling or megadungeon-bashing or any other kind of 'formula' for how play is meant to progress. In a dungeon-bash, the PCs pretty much agree that the procedure is "go and bash the dungeon the DM has created"; in a hex-crawl, the PCs agree to wander about sampling the environment that the DM throws at them; likewise in a 'quest' the PCs have to agree to the conceit of the game, that the quest is important. However, it's maybe not so strictly 'procedural' as some other forms of the game, it definitely has an element of 'story' involved and the PCs would need to agree to be guided by the DM to some extent here. That's perhaps where it gets tricky - there's no way in the rules of B/X to generate big plots, quests, mentors or character backgrounds, and it's not easy to see where such things would come from - unless from Jens's Narrative Generator and similar devices. The best that the B/X rules can offer is the notes at the back of Basic for dungeon-creation. On p.B51, in Chapter 8: Dungeon Master Information (the chapter on designing scenarios), Section A is called 'Choose a Scenario', and gives a list of suggestions.

Scenarios:
1. Exploring the Unknown
2. Investigating a Chaotic Outpost
3. Recovering Ruins
4. Destroying an Ancient Evil
5. Visiting a Lost Shrine
6. Fulfilling a Quest
7. Escaping from Enemies
8. Rescuing Prisoners
9. Using a Magic Portal
10. Finding a Lost Race

This is something like a quest-generator... sort of. It at least provides the plot background, but goes no way to linking it to any notion of character background. So, while it goes a little way to providing something that I'm after, it certainly doesn't provide any kind of motivation. Some of the descriptions hint at possible motivations (for instance, the PCs might visit a lost shrine to remove a curse) but there's not enough to hang a system on.

It seems to me that computer 'RPGs' (I can't bring myself to really regard most of them as RPGs but I'm prepared to say games like Skyrim seem to be pretty much the real thing) have an edge here. Players buy in to the plot in order to play the game, whether that's Assassin's Creed, Zelda or whatever. There is an expectation that there will be a lot of player freedom but also some more directed elements to move the story along. That's pretty much a given of the format. Maybe that's a useful line of enquiry for how to make this more 'procedural'.

There is more to come on this, I'm sure...

Questing in Elfgames V - back to backgrounds

I posted this in my campaign's Facebook group some time ago:

OK peeps, I've had an idea that I want to try out. It's about character backgrounds.

I want you tell me (by PM) something about your character's background. It could be utterly prosaic ('my character comes from the north', 'my character doesn't like rats' or whatever) or it could be a family secret that has been handed down to your character (in which case it could be anything to do with famous ancestors or your character's parentage or magic heirlooms or ancient feuds or debts of honour or hidden powers or anything).

The thing is, if it's a family secret, your character doesn't know if the substance of the secret is true - so it can't be something they would know, like 'my character is secretly a bear'. It can be something like 'I was told my Uncle Colin saved the life of the King of the Bears'.

Your PC and therefore you will know the family story. I'll work how much of the story is true and what the consequences might be. The 'something prosaic' option is there for any players who don't want to get too involved in this - just tell me something completely unremarkable about your PC.

Unfortunately, it's caused some confusion. I obviously didn't explain it as clearly as I thought. What I thought was the players would give me a sentence about their character - either something simple that meant they didn't want to get involved (I gave the examples of being from the north and not liking rats because they're fairly trivial, but may have minor consequences in gaming terms) or something that was a family story with potentially significant consequences, but the PC didn't have first-hand knowledge of the events (like the 'my Uncle Colin saved the King of the Bears' example).

The idea was to use some of this stuff to try to link in the epic plots I keep talking about. I have a way to generate some epic content due to the Narrative Generator that Jens pointed me at some time ago. But this was going to be a way that the stories actually span out of what the players themselves said. I'm trying (in a fairly unstructured way to be sure) to anchor the PCs in the world and to give them motivations and connections that relate in some way to the world they're inhabiting. Due to the structure of the campaign (open table, shifting party composition, relatively high PC death-toll) some of the things I've previously discussed for creating background don't really apply (such as methods to use each individual die to determine moments of the character's life).

Some of the players  have given me some great things to work with. Some haven't given me anything to work with at all, or suggested things that fall way outside of what I'm trying to get (hence me saying I obviously haven't explained it very well). A few gave me feedback along the lines of 'my player is secretly a bear'.

Since then I also read (and now I can't remember whose blog it was I read it on) about using the Reaction Tables with rumours. The idea is pretty simple - in the same way that the Reaction Table gives a graded series of negative/neutral/positive results, rumours can have negative, neutral or positive developments. In this way, rumours are not static but can change over time. I've decided that I can apply this to the information that the players have given me about their PCs.

We'll see what happens I suppose. I have some things to work with, and maybe, just maybe, some of the stuff that comes up in the dungeon will refer to the snippets and titbits the PCs have given me (sotto voce, I'm working it in, I really am, just don't tell the players...).

Questing in Elfgames IV - Adventuring in the Ship of Theseus (very long post)

This is a step away from determining backgrounds. Still about procedures for epic questing and more closely gaming the tales we read, though.

I've mentioned the Ship of Theseus before. I first heard of it as 'the Grandfather's Axe Problem' and in the UK now is often known as 'Trigger's Broom'.

The idea is simple. You replace all the timbers and rigging of a ship. When is it not the same ship? When you replace the handle and head of an axe, does it stop being the same axe? When Trigger has replaced the handle and bristles of his broom several times, is it the same broom?

A similar thing can happen to bands. Napalm Death, Christian Death and Dr Feelgood, for example, somewhat famously continued even though there were no original members left. A party is like that sometimes. Members come and go, either because of player drop-outs or PC death (even without going into TPKs). After a while a party may have little or no resemblance to the original membership.

So, in this instance, is it the same party? And, yes or no, is it possible for an ever-changing constellation of characters to have a 'quest'?

As a thought-experiment going back to the Lord of the Rings...

Session 1 - The Shire (Hobbiton to Crickhollow):

Three players - Alan (Frodo), Barbara (Sam) and Charles (Pippin) decide they want to run 'Ring-Quest': the DM tells Frodo's player that his uncle gave him a magic ring before disappearing into the Wild, and Frodo is going to find out what happened to him. If the Hobbits had (for example) lost Pippin to a Tiger Beetle attack in Woody End (I once rolled up encounters for the Fellowship as per the Mentzer wilderness rules and this happened on the first night, as described in the reply to this post in 3d6, Traps & Thieves), they could then have been joined by Gildor (Charles thought he'd play an Elf next session).

(This part has been edited to make it more true as well as functional.)

Session 2 - The Old Forest (Crickhollow to Tom's House):

Frodo, Sam and Gildor are joined by Deirdre playing Merry, but Merry is killed in the Old Forest. The rest of the party makes it safely to Tom's House, and Deirdre rolls up a Magic User, Goldberry, who will join the next leg of the journey.

Session 3 - The Barrow Downs (Tom's House to Bree):

The party departs from Tom's House. They get involved in a dungeon-delve, but Barbara's character Sam is killed by the Barrow-wights. Barbara rolls up a Ranger for her next character (maybe in Basic D&D terms this is a Cleric, but Barbara says she really thinks he should have a sword. The DM agrees, as long as it's broken and can't be fixed until Rivendell) as the party continues on to Bree.

Session 4 - Midgewater (Bree to Weathertop):

By the time they are leaving Bree the party is Frodo (still Alan's first PC and still the Ringbearer), Strider (Barbara's second PC), Gildor (Charles's second PC) and Goldberry (Deirdre's second PC). The quest continues on to Weathertop, where there is a big fight with the Nazgul and Frodo is injured (Strider the Cleric can only use a torch as a weapon).

Session 5 - the Trollshaws (Weathertop to Rivendell):

Another player, Erik, joins them for this session, with Glorfindel as his PC (an Elf scouting from Rivendell), and the quest continues to head in that direction. Again there is a confrontation with the Nazgul but the party makes it to Rivendell. At Rivendell after 5 sessions, Frodo's player Alan decides to jack it in. Frodo, it is decided, will stay in Rivendell healing from his wound. The DM tells Alan that Frodo's uncle is there, and the two Hobbits, in game terms at least, retire to study Elvish poetry. By now there are no Hobbits in the party. The PCs have completely changed from the group that left Hobbiton and entered the Old Forest. Strider (replaced Sam as Barbara's PC), Gildor (replaced Pippin as Charles's PC) and Goldberry (replaced Merry as Deirdre's PC), with Glorfindel (Erik's PC) however, still constitute a party. Alan agrees Frodo will hand over the Ring to Goldberry.

Session 6 - Moria (Rivendell to Lorien):

This session starts with a Ring-Quest party forming with Goldberry, Gildor, Strider, Glorfindel, Gloin (played by Faith), Gimli (played by Gary) and Boromir (played by Helen). Oh and an NPC Gandalf. Faith and Gary aren't really sure they're going to be able to stick around, but they've come along for a session anyway. Now apart from the fact that only Strider and Boromir have names that don't begin with 'G', that seems like a viable party, though maybe Gloin at 235 (40 years older than Thorin at the time of The Hobbit) is a bit old to be going adventuring. The party leaves Rivendell and travels towards Moria. Fights with the Watcher in the Water, a bit of riddling to find the secret door, and some fights in the tunnels with Orcs lead to a confrontation on the bridge where Glorfindel (Erik's PC) falls fighting the Balrog. The two Dwarven players decide they won't be coming back and drop out of the campaign. They decide that their characters are going to continue to fight in Moria against the Orc Hordes, trying to re-take it for the House of Durin; the rest of the party 'knows' they're still alive (in game terms) somewhere in Khazad Dum. Erik really wants to keep playing even though Glorfindel is dead, and likes Elves, so when the party rests up in Lorien, Haldir joins the party. However, Gildor's player Charles (who played Pippin originally) also drops out of the campaign and Gildor 'stays in Lorien', mourning the death of his friend Glorfindel.

Session 7 - Anduin I (Lorien to Amon Hen):

By this point eight players have been involved. Two of the three players from the first session have dropped out (Alan and Charles AKA Frodo and Pippin/Gildor). But the quest continues. Deirdre is keeping the quest alive with her character Goldberry acting as the Ringbearer. The party heads south - with Goldberry, Strider, Haldir and Boromir (with NPC Gandalf of course). The party reaches Amon Hen, where they are ambushed by Orcs. Goldberry is killed. The rest of the party send her body over the Falls of Rauros in an Elven boat. Before she dies she gives the Ring to Strider. He, Boromir and Haldir vow to continue.

Session 8 - Anduin II (Amon Hen to Cair Andros):

About to depart from Amon Hen, the PCs meet a Rohirric commander, Eomer (the PC of Iain, a new player), who is in the area on patrol. He joins the party. They journey downriver towards a Gondorian garrison near Cair Andros: on the way, they raid an Orcish stronghold in a cave-system near a Gondorian fort. Here, Strider is killed fighting a giant horned troll, but he impresses on Eomer the importance of the quest, and he takes the Ring. There's a whole bunch of caves here, enough for several sessions adventuring from this Gondorian keep on the borderlands if the party wishes, but having scouted the caves the party continues south.

Session 9 - Ithilien (Cair Andros to Osgiliath):

At Cair Andros, the party is joined by a new PC. Charles has decided that he wants to give the campaign another go so he rolls up a new character - a Thief, who he decides is a Gondorian soldier called Beregond. The DM decides that Beregond's commanding officer has sent him with the party as a guide to the next garrison, at Osgiliath. The PCs make their way to the ruined city and fight Orcs and Nazgul on the way.

Session 10 - Morgul Vale (Osgiliath to Minas Morgul):

At Osgiliath, two more PCs join the quest. These are Ioreth, a Cleric run by Deirdre, who re-joins the campaign, and Eowyn, a fighter, run by Jeanette, a new player. Ioreth is a healer attached to the Osgiliath garrison. The DM rules that a force from Rohan has arrived to bolster the Gondorian forces, which has included Eowyn disguised as a man. They join Eomer, Boromir, Haldir and Beregond in an journey to the fortress of Minas Morgul, where a Gondorian army is encamped in Morgul Vale. On the way they are ambushed by Southrons coming to break the siege, and nearly caught by the Witch-King's magic - but Eowyn eventually kills the Witch-King with a little help from Haldir. However, both Haldir and Eomer are killed; with his dying breath Eomer gives the Ring to Boromir.

Session 11 - Cirith Ungol (environs of Minas Morgul):

Not yet tiring of the shenanigans in Morgul Vale, the party decides at the next session to go on a little side-quest up into the hills. Erik, now that Haldir is dead, rolls up another Elf (he really likes Elves) called Imrahil. The DM says that there really aren't any Elves in the Gondorian army, but Eriks says "can he be a sort of Half-Elf... using the rules for an Elf?" Oh, all right says the DM. However Charles (the only original player, who had actually dropped out of the campaign for a bit) can't make this session. The DM rules that Beregond is busy with his military duties - in game terms, he is spending the day reporting to the commanders of the Gondorian army about the Mordorian forces to the north and the state of the defences. Nevertheless, Boromir, Eowyn, Iorweth and Imrahil go off into the hills above the Morgul Vale. There they meet a giant spider and some Orcs, and have some fun dungeon-bashing, before coming back to camp.

Session 12 - Gorgoroth (Minas Morgul to Orodruin):

Charles unfortunately can't make this session either (so Beregond is still busy doing stuff for the army, probably scouting). Boromir the Ringbearer, Eowyn, Ioreth and Imrahil head off across Gorgoroth to take the Ring to Mt Doom. They have some trouble with Orc patrols and have to evade Nazgul but eventually they get there. Boromir makes a speech remembering all the brave souls who have helped them and casts the Ring into the fire. Then the PCs are racing a volcano to get the hell out of there! Frankly at this point even if the PCs do snuff it they've already saved the world so they can congratulate themselves on a heroic sacrifice well-done. Haldir and Eowyn both fail their Save v Dragon Breath to avoid the fumes. Boromir and Ioreth decide they'll carry their unconscious brethren so the DM makes them take another Save - they both make it and the DM rules that they narrowly get their companions out of the danger zone. There's little point in role-playing the journey back so the DM concludes that at last, weary and dehydrated, they stagger into a Gondorian patrol who are amazed that they had not perished. Returning to a jubilant camp, they are told that a heroes' welcome awaits them in Minas Tirith.

**********************************************************************

12 sessions. 10 players. 17 PCs (and Gandalf as an NPC). In that time the party fulfilled the point of 'Ring-Quest' and had a bunch of exciting adventures. None of the original PCs, or even players, finish the campaign. In a few places, the DM had interpret the actions of players that had an effect on characters (such as Beregond being absent). It's not quite as polished as Lord of the Rings but it's not bad I don't think. It's closer to 'heroic fantasy' than most D&D games I've played.

I've been trying to find a format for a travelling 'quest'-style game where the party is always changing. Even typing this out has made me realise something. Back in the old days when most of the 'scenarios' I read came from White Dwarf, there was a clichéd opening that was 'travelling all day you at last come to a village at sunset. As you make your way to the inn...'. Sometimes it was just 'Finding yourself in an inn...'. I used to wonder why. I've realised that 'the inn' in which the party finds itself is (spiritually) 'The Prancing Pony'. The things happening in the scenario weren't the 'quest': they were incidents along the way. They were the Barrow-wights' tombs. They were the diversions to Cirith Ungol. The 'quest' was the reason the party was always travelling. The way to get an episodic 'quest' with a changing party is to end each session (as the Rift City campaign ends) back at safety, at the next Inn, at the Keep, at the army camp, at the Homely House. There the PCs can rest and personnel can be swapped.

Every session needs to be like this - and the PCs either return to where they started to try again tomorrow, or go to the next point down the line. Bag End - Crickhollow - Tom's House - Bree - Weathertop Camp - Rivendell - Lorien - Amon Hen - Cair Andros - Osgiliath - Minas Morgul - Minas Morgul again: then Orodruin for a big climax. That's a fair campaign and allows plenty of opportunity for replacement PCs or new players to integrate themselves into the action.

The rules seem simple. If a PC is left behind, they're left behind, and they need a reason to do so, which means the DM needs to tell a story why. If the player comes back later, they need a new PC. If the quest has some McGuffin, the Guardian of the McGuffin must be appointed and successors designated as needed. Beyond that it just (just!) requires some flexibility by the DM. Parties can stay in one place (more adventures around Minas Morgul) or move on (in the example above the PCs barely glimpsed the Caves of Chaos before heading to Osgiliath). But whichever way, there must always be the possibility of integrating new PCs at the beginning of every session.

'Points of Light' + Nodes = 'Nodes of Light'. Cool. That might work.

Questing in Elfgames III - character backgrounds

Some of this is re-capping and re-casting conversations I've had in several places over the last few weeks. If you've seen some of this before, please bear with me (especially you Jens!), it's all part of the process of trying to understand what's going on in my head. I've been particularly considering how to connect the epic with the pretty mundane stuff that most PCs do which is effectively being pest-controllers for the local nobility/communities. My thinking on this has lead to character backgrounds and how they can relate to the game-world.

Many variants of D&D use tables to determine backgrounds. Well, no such thing in B/X or BECMI obviously but I do remember having discussions with Jens over at the Disorientated Ranger when he was starting to get Lost Songs of the Nibelungs going about using 3d6 to suggest background.

In the discussion with Jens, I insisted to him that all heroes should be orphans brought up by Dwarves. I was exaggerating but the point I was trying to make is I think valid and deserves looking at. Jens was keen to have PCs rooted in the world and I think he's completely right. PCs need links into the world - it's their world after all, they should have features in their personal history that link them to the wider history. They should know where they were when they heard King Kenneth had been assassinated (or their parents should know), they should remember the War of the Two Towers, they should have a view of the Bretexian rebellion against Eutopia. They have family backgrounds and have had personal lives that exist inside a rich social tapestry. The PCs inhabit a social space, and there should be a way of generating some kind of information about where they are in society, maybe even a social position statistic.

I've been thinking about taking 3d6 rolls apart - this post some time ago talked about having three sets of stats to cover early childhood, later childhood and adolescence. In B/X I think there's a roll that can do something to say not just what events shaped your early life (as in the suggestions about using stat rolls to suggest events that may have affected you) but also your place in society too: the roll players make to determine starting gold. Taking the same idea that the first d6 represents 'inheritance' and the next d6 is what you get from your upbringing and the last d6 is how you've been living immediately before the beginning of your career as an adventurer, you roll your 3d6 and get 1,4,1 which means an early life of poverty, a later childhood of around-average wealth and teenage (or Elven, Dwarven and Hobbitish equivalents thereof) years of poverty again. Perhaps you were from a poor family but your parents worked hard and became successful (farmers, craftspeople, traders or whatever) but you rejected them and fled from home to become a wandering vagabond (or maybe they were killed when the Beastlord invaded causing you to flee, whatever the cause you ended up washing pots or working as farmhand somewhere, if that third roll of '1' is any guide).

It may make sense to conceptually at least split these all into 7-year blocks. Under Roman law in my understanding, children up to 7 were regarded as 'infans', which I believe means something like 'without speech'. They had no real rights and were not seen as 'people' - just the property of their parents (which is why infant burials are common inside Roman towns, even though the law forbade burials inside the city limits). So 7 years might reasonably mark the point where a child acquires legal status. In both the 'Gold' example above, and the stats examples from the post about character creation, the first lot of numbers can be seen as what happens up to 7. This broadly equates I think to an idea of 'inheritance' - what you get as your start in life (for stats it could be genetic and/or based on your 'early years'; for social position, it's where you are in the pecking order when you're born).

The second block would then represent what we might conventionally regard as 'childhood' - when a person is legally recognised as a person rather than a thing, but isn't yet really self-sufficient. This would be from 8-14 in this scheme.

At 14 children in the middle ages were often apprenticed out - again traditionally for 7 years, leading to finishing apprenticeship at 21. The alternative of course is going into the church and getting an education. The first degree also generally finished around 21 (as it still does in many places). So 'around 21' (or its equivalent for other races... I'm sure I can stop adding that qualifier now) could be the effective starting-point of a Level 1 character. In this case the last roll reflects what you've been doing more-or-less by choice - in the earlier post I thought for example higher STR might be because the PC has been doing lots of exercise or training, high INT would mean they'd been studying or whatever. Here, a high roll would indicate that the character was doing something lucrative/prestigious. This might mean serving in the household of a lord or having a part in some heroic deed that was rewarded or something of that nature.

So, this conceptually at least produces a character aged 21 for a Human. I've generally used a semi-random system for generating ages, something like 16+d6, if it's ever been important. It seems like the right ball-park - somewhere around 18-21 seems like the right kind of age for D&D adventurers... because going to University is like descending into a labyrinth of homicidal monsters, or something?

Anyway, in basic terms the 7 3d6 rolls that players make to determine their characters can be read in this sort of way to produce background. It can at least give you an idea of emotional, physical, financial and intellectual 'ups and downs'. Jens suggests getting the party to create characters as a group and connecting them together based on their rolls, using repeated numbers as points of contact. This is a great idea, but not one I think I can port over into my current campaign structure, as it has a large 'drop-out' rate. We've had something like 11 players and around 16 PCs so far; some of the players have only played 1 or 2 out of 7 sessions, and there have been several fatalities. In theory it's an open table so anyone can at any time join the group: this means the idea of rolling characters together at the beginning is a non-starter. I'd love to try it out with a small stable group for a more focused campaign, however.

So - what's the point of all this? I need another way to connect PCs together and to their world in a post-hoc way. The PCs are already given, and I need to be able to find ways that the PCs can have a connection the the world that will generate quests and missions and 'plot'.

Returning to Lord of the Rings for a moment, the members of the Fellowship are predominantly 'important' people in their societies. Aragorn is the heir of the Isildur and foster-son to Elrond, himself the heir of Turgon and Gil-Galad, son-in-law of Galadriel; Legolas is the son of Thranduil, King of Mirkwood; Gimli is a kinsman to Dain Ironfoot, the King under the Mountain, and Balin, Lord of Moria; Boromir is the eldest son of the Steward of Gondor. Even among the Hobbits, Merry and Pippin are the sons of the Master of Buckland and the Thain respectively, and Frodo is the heir of Bilbo, a rich and famous Hobbit who is well-connected both inside and outside the Shire. Only Sam is a relative nobody, though he is the nephew of Andy Roper, who is at least somewhat famous in Hobbit-circles.

Taking other fantasy stories we can see that there is a plethora of lost heirs, unknown youngsters with the potential to become powerful wizards, and others whose background has destined them to an extraordinary life. Frodo has extraordinary adventures because he inherits the Ring; Harry Potter (to move across genres a little) has extraordinary adventures because he inherits secret magical powers; Luke Skywalker likewise inherits secret magical powers, and meets Merlin who gives him Excali... no wait, meets Gandalf who gives him Nars... no, wait, I'm sure I know this... anyway there's Elof and Pug and Garion and Taran and Aldric and Ged and any number of others who have something - some gift or talent or secret or family tie or friendship - that throws them into adventure. Colin and Susan have a family heirloom that attracts the attention of a witch. Even Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy have adventures because their uncle has a magic wardrobe (though I'm not sure he's actually their uncle).

Links to the wider world are a way of providing plots. The PC has a brother - what is the brother up to? Kidnapped by a wizard? Leading a rebel army? Sitting at home dreaming of going to wizard-school? Fishing with the Lizard People of Storm Island? Joining the Thieves' Guild or the City Watch? Running for Mayor? Quietly tending the herb-garden of a monastery?

Who taught the PC Magic User to cast a 'Sleep' spell? How did the Cleric come to receive the blessing of the Lord of the Forest? Who trained the Fighter in the use of the longsword? Was it their mother or grandfather or an aunt or a wandering monk or a local hoodlum that taught the PC their skills? Were they inspired to adventure by tales of a heroic ancestor or watching their brother executed for a crime he didn't commit or seeing their village destroyed by the ravages of the Beastlord's armies?

Those option and possibilities took as long to write as to think of. Any could get the PC involved in something. All of the party members should have these sorts of links back to the world around them. Ties of family and background to events and people that have bearing on the world, and the things happening in it.

But how to implement this, in a campaign that is already in progress? That's the question I suppose, and I don't yet have an answer.

More to come, I think. I've been talking with Jens today, and he very kindly sent me Lost Songs of the Nibelungs in so far as it exists at the moment. I have some reading and thinking to do on the systems he's using there. I have also been thinking about how to have an 'epic quest' when the party itself is such a flexible beast - in the 7 sessions of my current Rift City campaign, for example, I'm the only constant. All of the players have missed at least 1 session, and even some of the players that have been to around 5 or 6 sessions have lost PCs. But perhaps there's a way. I shall think on that too.