Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal

Chirine,

When you were doing dungeon crawls in Phil's games how was mapping handled? Was there a dedicated mapper who recorded the size and shape of the various rooms and corriders on a piece of graph paper, or was the dungeon map laid out on the table and the party indicated where they were going? That is, did the party know the general layout of the dungeon, but not the specific contents of the rooms?
Or did Phil describe what you encountered and the players jotted down quick notes for future reference, as more detailed mapping was not really the way things were done?

Shemek

Originally Posted by Hrugga

Ahh. I have seen similar things in the Dominican Republic as well. Also where my wife is from in the countryside(used to be a dirt road until recently; where some people have dirt floors and homes of made of sticks, literally) people have large barrels that they cover with cloth to catch rainwater directly from the sky and sometimes from the roof. They live walking distance from a river as well. Very generous people for the most part, but they love to gossip!!!

H:0)

Agreed - and you could do much worse then use those folks as models for the rural people your PCs will be meeting, too - all that gossip is very useful! (Mayhem usually ensues, too.)

Originally Posted by Dulahan

I love it!

And thank you as well. Will bring it up to said person. and Mrelu it is, it certainly makes sense. And since their clan is an Empire Wide one without any real affiliation otherwise, gives them a good 'in' for traveling elsewhere is my thought too.

I look forward to learning what there is to know about Mrelu, and finding out what else we're going to see in play as the players do what players do.

Yep; it's a good scenario!

You're welcome. I'll work on what I have; it may take a bit, as I did out the house from under 5th Daughter's boxes.

Originally Posted by AsenRG

Indeed, Uncle!
That's also the reason why I keep saying that I don't see a difference between an adventure and a slice of life* book. Well, there isn't if we're following the right of a good character, anyway.
And the above is why I think that half the issues of RPGs are due to people playing boring characters.

*Of course, a slice of life on Tekumel is probably enough of an adventure to last someone from our time a whole lifetime!

There was existential angst in the movie, Uncle?
I mean, yeah, when I was watching it, I was kinda feeling an existential anger. But it was due to "damned Disney didn't follow the novel, and everything they changed was to the movie's detriment, even the dresscode!"
I might have uttered the above phrase once or twice while watching the movie, I suspect!

I'd agree with this. I am trying to keep the right balance with this in my book, for exactly the reason you give! The most similar thing I can think of in the historical genre would be Robert Carey's stirring account of being one of the Border Wardens - I forget which March, sorry - and which is extensively covered in G. F. Frasier's "The Steel Bonnets". Which, I might mention, was kind of our basic guide to life on the frontiers of the Seal Imperium. No reivers on horses, but lots of them on foot...

I thought that the added backstory stuff about Captain Carter's dead family was a bit much, and I thought that it slowed down the action with too much 'relevant angst'. But, I assumed that Marketing told them that they needed this kind of thing to enhance the appeal to the market demographic.

Costuming-wise, I thought that the film was just fine, given that it was being done in the US for a US market by a US company; that automatically imposes some decisions on the director and costumer. So, I'd say that I liked the look of the film; I can always play the games with my Bronze Age figures, which look the part as given in the book.

Now, I do have to say that I have gotten some grief for my miniatures - Tekumel, Ancient Egyptian, and Barsoom - from people. These days, one is better safe then sorry, and with the high costs of lawyers, after taking legal advice I have instituted a policy of no gamers under 18, and no gamers under 16 (the local age of consent) unless accompanied by their parent or guardian.

<shrug> What can I say; I live in a very odd country.

Originally Posted by Shemek hiTankolel

Chirine,

When you were doing dungeon crawls in Phil's games how was mapping handled? Was there a dedicated mapper who recorded the size and shape of the various rooms and corriders on a piece of graph paper, or was the dungeon map laid out on the table and the party indicated where they were going? That is, did the party know the general layout of the dungeon, but not the specific contents of the rooms?
Or did Phil describe what you encountered and the players jotted down quick notes for future reference, as more detailed mapping was not really the way things were done?

Shemek

Usually, I took general notes, and then did what little mapping that we did as a party - mostly because I always had a graph paper pad in my gaming bag, and lots of pencils as well. I'd have to duplicate the map that resulted so Phil could have a copy, and I also had to make copies of anything he generated during a game.

Phil hated to show us anything; we got to see the full Jakalla underworld map a few times, but he's whisk the thing way from you if you tried to make notes. Everything had to be done by direct exploration; if you sent some people down there, all you'd get back were verbal descriptions, which was nothing we'd care to risk our lives on. Phil would say "the corridor is about so-and-so long, branches to the left and right at the end" and that's what you'd get unless you asked pointed questions. We never knew the general layout of anything, unless we'd been there, and we know what was in a room because we had been in them and took notes. So, my maps and notes got to be pretty important; Phil was also - like all the local GMs of that day - intellectually honest, so any 'changes' between out maps and his were either our errors or the result of third-party actions. Phil, like Dave Arneson, used to get a lot of laughs over the major mistakes people would make mapping and get a little cranky when I was there to do it - my maps always tended to be very reliable and detailed.

I do think, though, that this was because I always approached mapping like I was going to make a model of the place being explored; we did that a few times, with my collection of wooden blocks, and some very fun games resulted. I still game this way, using the generic tiles that I made; I lay out the tiles, and when done I make the map of the place and game off the map until the players actually go into the room or corridor.

This kinds of hearkens back to the debate about using miniatures in RPGs; we did, quite often, but we never let 'the perfect set-up' get in the way of fast and furious game play. We'd use dice to mark doors, imagine the walls in our heads, and place the figures so that we had a 'tactical display; of where everybody was in the situation. No rulers, no templates, no micro-measuring, just playing the game. Did it 'ruin immersion'? No, not for us, as a lot of what we did was all 'theater of the mind'. The figures were just fun to have - "That's me!"

Does this help?

Originally Posted by Shemek hiTankolel

Chirine,

An interesting question came up in my campaign the other day. I kind of know how I'm going to play it, but was curious if you had ever encountered something similar.
The main party, which has been involved in much "mayhem" over the last year, is finally in a position where they have been noticed by the right person/people. In the last game session they were able to "acquire" enough so that not only are they able to provide frequent and correct inducements, but their deeds have made them a good source of positive PR. They will be offered membership, into a low clan as they are "barbarians," next game session, but they will be out of the game for a few weeks and possibly up to 2 months as they train, study, and learn.
The group has agreed to start a second party as a sort of B Team to supplement the first group and provide ready character replacements should they be needed. The plan is that we will adventure with these new characters until the "old guys" finish their training, and go back to them every so often.
One of the players wants to play a warrior who will be a clan enforcer, someone who discretely acts as the clan's muscle, internal and external, and does the dirty work. Breaking kneecaps was one of the examples he provided.
Have you ever encountered or heard of such an individual during your travels in Tsolyanu?

Shemek.

I'm sorry; it's been a long day of moving boxes and crates, and I almost missed this.

Great plan; we had some alternate PCs for a while, so Phil could take a break from the 'main' campaign. I had to do a lot of new figures for them - I still have them. Go with it; you'll find it fun to play out.

Yes, indeed, from both sides of it. I'd occasionally get a 'friendly visit' from 'a member of the clan of ... ' who would indicate that somebody was unhappy with me - or that I was unhappy with somebody else. Normally, the 'enforcer; is a very smart and polished person, who is trusted to negotiate the issues before having to thump somebody. Said thumping can attract Imperial attention, which is most unwise. So, it's perfect for a player or group of players. (Mayhem ensues. As usual.) I used to do this same job, 'visiting people' on behalf of the Imperium and the Tlakotani dynasty. It did make for interesting adventures...

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Usually, I took general notes, and then did what little mapping that we did as a party - mostly because I always had a graph paper pad in my gaming bag, and lots of pencils as well. I'd have to duplicate the map that resulted so Phil could have a copy, and I also had to make copies of anything he generated during a game.

Phil hated to show us anything; we got to see the full Jakalla underworld map a few times, but he's whisk the thing way from you if you tried to make notes. Everything had to be done by direct exploration; if you sent some people down there, all you'd get back were verbal descriptions, which was nothing we'd care to risk our lives on. Phil would say "the corridor is about so-and-so long, branches to the left and right at the end" and that's what you'd get unless you asked pointed questions. We never knew the general layout of anything, unless we'd been there, and we know what was in a room because we had been in them and took notes. So, my maps and notes got to be pretty important; Phil was also - like all the local GMs of that day - intellectually honest, so any 'changes' between out maps and his were either our errors or the result of third-party actions. Phil, like Dave Arneson, used to get a lot of laughs over the major mistakes people would make mapping and get a little cranky when I was there to do it - my maps always tended to be very reliable and detailed.

I do think, though, that this was because I always approached mapping like I was going to make a model of the place being explored; we did that a few times, with my collection of wooden blocks, and some very fun games resulted. I still game this way, using the generic tiles that I made; I lay out the tiles, and when done I make the map of the place and game off the map until the players actually go into the room or corridor.

This kinds of hearkens back to the debate about using miniatures in RPGs; we did, quite often, but we never let 'the perfect set-up' get in the way of fast and furious game play. We'd use dice to mark doors, imagine the walls in our heads, and place the figures so that we had a 'tactical display; of where everybody was in the situation. No rulers, no templates, no micro-measuring, just playing the game. Did it 'ruin immersion'? No, not for us, as a lot of what we did was all 'theater of the mind'. The figures were just fun to have - "That's me!"

Does this help?

Perfect, and thanks for the insight. I usually don't show the map either, but I was curious if this was typical or atypical, as I can't think of one DM who did show the players the map, back in the day, but apparently it's not too unusual to do so today. Just curious..

Shemek

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

I'm sorry; it's been a long day of moving boxes and crates, and I almost missed this.

Great plan; we had some alternate PCs for a while, so Phil could take a break from the 'main' campaign. I had to do a lot of new figures for them - I still have them. Go with it; you'll find it fun to play out.

Yes, indeed, from both sides of it. I'd occasionally get a 'friendly visit' from 'a member of the clan of ... ' who would indicate that somebody was unhappy with me - or that I was unhappy with somebody else. Normally, the 'enforcer; is a very smart and polished person, who is trusted to negotiate the issues before having to thump somebody. Said thumping can attract Imperial attention, which is most unwise. So, it's perfect for a player or group of players. (Mayhem ensues. As usual.) I used to do this same job, 'visiting people' on behalf of the Imperium and the Tlakotani dynasty. It did make for interesting adventures...

Thanks again and no worries Chirine. Hopefully you are all finished and can relax.
This does sound fun and I'll mention it to the group. I think we all had some type of rough thug in mind, and not someone polished and urbane. Excellent!

If I may ask who was your alternate PC? Did you play another priest or follower of Vimuhla?


Shemek

When we first started Phil did NOT show us the map at ALL. He learned how to run dungeon adventures from me, after all.