I’ve tuned up the look of the blog a bit recently. I created and added a logo. I moved a few things around and added some gadgets. I also renamed a few things, continuing the firearms-related theme found here.

I also came up with a new title for reviews, Ballistic’s Report. Thus far I’ve used it on one, count ’em, one review and read-through. I will certainly do more. FATE Core is on my list, as is revisiting some older GURPS releases, such as Action, which I’ve heard referred as “the most under appreciated publication in GURPS.”

We’ll see!

In addition, something happened last month.

Analytics shows pretty clearly that a control chart of my pageviews would have shifted mid-March. Not sure why (though I’m very glad!) but my traffic routinely pushed through 250 pageviews per day. On April Fool’s Day, I broke my all-time record (no, really – not a joke) with over 700 Blogger-views that day. Perhaps they were all robots; we’ll see what Analytics tells me. Still: more people than I’d have ever expected are dropping by to see what’s up. Of course, Blogger also gives me over 20,000 pageviews to Analytics’ 13,000, a 50% inflation factor. That’s a lot of Robot Overlords – but thanks for dropping by anyway.

I also joined the RPG Blog Alliance, as well as submitted an application to RPG Bloggers, which asks for three months of posting history before you apply. Well, at just under a post per day, on the average, I feel like I’ve kept up my end.

Finally, a word of thanks. I’ve had fewer than five challenging posts – even those disagreeing with me are largely doing it politely. That’s with something like 2,300 unique visitors, assuming that’s accurate. The encouragement of my fellow bloggers and visitors makes this worth doing for me, so again:

Thank you!

A retroactive (and oft-repeated) introduction: After an actual-play hiatus where I was mostly writing and playtesting for GURPS. I was invited to play in a Pathfinder game, and after a few sessions, it was time to buy the book and learn the rules! I decided to try and read the Pathfinder rules cover-to-cover and see what inspiration strikes, for good or ill!

You can find the first installments here:


Classes (Barbarian – Monk)
Classes (Paladin – Wizard)

Skills (Appraise – Heal)
Skills (Intimidate – Use Magic Device)



Additional Rules

Chapter 7 is a bit of a hodge-podge. It includes a smorgasbord of rules that apparently don’t go well into any other chapter. A few round out character creation and capability. Overland travel and movement go here too, instead of in the Game-Mastering chapter (which is really about running games as opposed to playing games).

So, what’s contained in this a la carte menu of oddness?

Let’s start with everyone’s favorite:


Many words have been penned, and electrons slain, discussing (mostly disparaging, really) the D&D alignment system. Somewhere between a useful help to roleplaying and a terrible crutch, users of which are doomed to roll-play rather than role-play and likely wind up eating kittens.

I know evil is bad, but come on! Eating kittens is just plain . . . plain wrong, and no one should do it! Ever!
       -The Tick
Armless but not Harmless

In any case, your alignment is more or less your moral compass. Sort of. Except when it’s not. Maybe it’s a crossroad of morals (good – neutral – evil) and ethics (lawful – neutral –chaotic). Maybe not. In any case, the rules define a 3×3 matrix that defines certain game aspects, especially in a world where gods, demons, devils, monsters, and outsiders are real, powerful, and interact and intervene directly with humanity. So like it or not, it matters in game. A key bit is “alignment steps,” which are the number of horizontal and vertical motions (only – no diagonals) on that 3×3 table from where you are to what you’re interacting with. A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of the alignment of his or her deity.

The game defines two orthogonal axes for alignment: the Law-Chaos axis and the Good-Evil one, with neutral as a center point for each. Thus the three-by-three matrix. The book notes that evil alignments are not usually good for PCs, at which point legions of those who love playing evil PCs will chime in and say “bulls**t.” One of the things that is true is that disparate alignments, properly played, can (and maybe should) cause intraparty conflict including harsh language and death. It gives a brief description of each of the nine possible alignments, for which I will reproduce the one-line summaries from the book.

  • Lawful Good: Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
  • Neutral Good: Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order.
  • Chaotic Good: Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
  • Lawful Neutral: Lawful neutral means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.
  • Neutral: Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion.
  • Chaotic Neutral: Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.
  • Lawful Evil: Lawful evil represents methodical, intentional, and organized evil.
  • Neutral Evil: Neutral evil represents pure evil without honor and without variation.
  • Chaotic Evil: Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

I’m going to nitpick. I think Neutral should be phrased as “naturally, without prejudice or restraint.” Or possibly “act according to natural imperatives, without prejudice or restraint.” Since animals that are going about the business of obtaining food, mates, shelter, and survival are usually classed as neutral, that’s probably how it’s intended. An animal doesn’t eat you because he’s evil, he does it because he’s hungry. A dog doesn’t avoid pooping on the carpet because it’s wrong, or poop on the carpet as a rebellion against The Man (though he may do so as a show of anti-dominance) – he does it because he has to poop, and that carpet seemed a pretty good place to do it.

Secondly, both Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil re-use “evil” in the definition, which is lazy and doesn’t help much, though the “Good Versus Evil” section notes “Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.”

The alignment rules certainly don’t capture the complexities of human behavior in many ways. If a character will make tremendous sacrifices of wealth and personal injury or death for one group of humans, but will kill or enslave others without compunction or remorse, that probably makes you Lawful Neutral. I suspect a lot of human cultures would fall here. The samurai, as an example – rigorously adhering to law, tradition, and a code of honor, but capable and willing to kill without a second thought, up to and including him or herself! Maybe Buddhism would be Neutral Good. I’ll stop there before I get myself into trouble, if I haven’t already.

“All models are wrong; some are useful.” 

This statement by George Box probably is where I’ll leave the alignment discussion. To the extent that the 3×3 matrix helps guide behavior, it’s useful. To the extent it structures the various interrelations between gods, men, and squidzillas, it is useful.

Vital Statistics

The last few things needed or wanted to round out a character.

Height, Weight, and Age

The game lays out some random methods for generating age, height, and weight. The tables tell me I’m 15 pounds overweight and suffering -1 to STR, DEX, and CON as well as +1 to INT, WIS, and CHA. Hrpmh. Not wrong, but ‘Hrmph.’


Encumbrance comes in two parts: that imparted by armor, and “everything else.” It notes that unless you’re weak and/or carrying a lot of gear (or loot!) only worry about the Armor Check penalties as well as modifiers from armor to movement speed.

If you are laden with stuff, you take the weight of all your gear, including armor, and compare it to the Carrying Capacity table. What does that tell you? At STR 10, you can lift 100 lbs. over your head, lift and stagger around at five feet per six seconds with 200 lbs., and under decent circumstances push or drag about 500 lbs. At STR 20, this is multiplied by four.

How would this compare to GURPS? Well, at 500-lbs, you can push or drag an object. GURPS sets this limit at 15xBasic Lift. If we set the two equal to each other (questionable), we’d decide that ST 10 in DnD is roughly ST 13 in GURPS. There have been arguments as to what “lift over the head” means for the GURPS usual 8xBasic Lift limit of things. If a STR 10 person in Pathfinder can press 100 lbs over his head, that might well be ST 10 or so in GURPS. At Pathfinder STR 20 (drag a freakin’ ton around, or press 400 lbs. over the head, that’s somewhere between ST 20 and ST 26). So the two aren’t that far off in that range, for what it’s worth.

It then gives the geometric progression for extending the table as well as how to modify height and weight for large and small critters.


The first paragraph is pretty key. It divides movement into Tactical, Local, and Overland, as well as defining movement rates at a Walk or Hustle, and two speeds of running (x3 and x4).

Tactical Movement
Much as I hate to say it, the movement rates are rather more inherently sensible than those assumed in GURPS. A walk is 3 yards per 2 seconds; a hustle is Move 3. Run x3 is for characters in heavy armor, and is about Move 3.5, while Run x4 is Move 6 in no armor, or about Move 4.5 in chainmail. I suppose you could just look at walking as using a “Step and . . . ” series of maneuvers (Move 1, or 2mph).
The book says that in combat, characters hustle or run instead. This is probably true, but it’s not realism, it’s fun/play that drives it. You want the kind of mobility that allows you to engage many foes in an interesting time frame. In a real fight, I don’t think you’d waste energy that way, but we’re not in a real fight, are we? That is, the reasons characters are not walking, but hustling or running are not obvious, as the book states – but that doesn’t prevent the statement from being true.
Local Movement
Pretty easy. You can walk or hustle as long as you want, but if you’re running, you can only run for as many rounds as your Con score without resting. At six seconds per round, that means you’re looking at a 1-2 minute interval. Hrm. Chapter 8 says it holds more about long-distance running.
Um, why not consolidate all the movement rules here? Or put them all into Combat? Weird.
Overland Movement
Mostly, this is about modifying your speed based on terrain, and lists it as mph or miles per day. Effective travel speeds in good terrain are:
  • Walk: 24 miles over an 8 hour period actually moving.
  • Hustle: You can hustle for an hour in between sleep periods, covering about 6 miles. Then if you don’t sleep, you take nonlethal damage in escalating amounts and become fatigued. Suck.
  • Run: You can’t. Tough noogies. Hustle instead.
Modifiers and other stuff? Sure:
  • Terrain: lowers movement rates. Check the chart.
  • Forced March: you can push yourself farther. Every hour, make a CON check at DC 10 +2 per hour, or take nonlethal damage. So with high CON, you can push yourself for a few more hours by default, which can make a big difference. I suspect Rangers rock here, as they should.
  • Mounted Movement: mounts take lethal damage for pushing at a hustle, and so can ride themselves to death. Forced march checks auto-fail. Ouch. Take care of your horses.
Evasion and Pursuit
Basically, “when it’s not obvious, make a CON check.”
This really covers two special cases: vision and light, and breaking things.
Vision and Light
Important take-aways from this section seem to be
Maglite of Power, +10
  • Stealth can’t be used in areas of bright light, including direct sunshine and the daylight spell
  • Normal light includes under a forest canopy in the daytime, torchlight within 20′, and the light spell
  • Dim light throws down a new concept (Concealment, a 20% miss chance) without a reference to the underlying mechanic (maybe you miss automatically on a roll of 1-4? Dunno, we’ll see). You can use Stealth to conceal yourself. Moonlit night, 20-40′ from a torch, or bright starlight.
  • Darkness: 50% miss chance, total concealment, no DX bonus to AC (big deal for Rogues), -4 to Perception checks based on sight, including STR and DEX based skill checks. Unlit dungeons, moonless nights, and most caverns.
Breaking Stuff
Smashing a weapon is done with a sunder combat maneuver. Smashing an object is an opposed sunder with the object’s AC. That’s 10+Size Modifier, -5 for being DEX 0, and an additional -2 for being inanimate. So basically 3+Size Mod. Auto-hit if you can line it up, or +5 to hit for a ranged weapon. OK.
Ah, but you have to overcome its hardness, which subtracts points of damage. Basically GURPS’ DR.
There are then a bunch of special cases, such as objects taking half-damage from ranged weapons that aren’t siege engines. Some of these are GM’s call. 
Nonmagical objects never make saving throws. 
You can also try and break something suddenly by making a STR check vs. the object’s DC (13 for a simple door, 23 for rope bonds, 28 for an iron door) which is on a table.
* * *
And that’s the chapter. 

GM: +Jeromy French
Players: +Douglas Cole +Matt Sutton +kung fu hillbilly +Joshua Taylor

We pretty much leaped directly into combat, crashing our ship into two others that were grappling together, a “fellow” pirate and their quarry.

We were able to pilot our ship unnoticed towards the two vessels, and slammed our ship into the smaller of the two, and the only one that was armed.

Pel started off the combat, quaffing an invisibility potion provided by Gimble ( +Joshua Taylor‘s character), who is our resident far-too-helpful alchemist (remember, this ability is the one that makes my inner destroyer of munchkin’s cry). Still, poof, I was gone and then I shot two arrows at the bad guys, Sneak Attack, and nailed him.

Malgrim ( +Matt Sutton)  I think cleaved two foes, Gimble set someone (or several someone’s) on fire, and then we saw that there were spellcasters involved on the other team. Alejandro ( +kung fu hillbilly ) rapiers him successfully and nails him with a dagger as well for about 12 points. Definitely got his attemtion.

Atori the magic watersnake misses; these guys have decent AC.

Gimble flings another firebomb at the guy who threw a ball of fire at him (not a fireball, but a ball of fire; definite difference). He hits, but some of the flame seems to actually absorb into his skin. Five other neighboring marines also are splashed with this flaming mix (alchemy bomb) and have to make DC 15 Reflex saves. At the end of the round, five foes are on fire, and no PCs were accidentally lit up. For Gimble, that’s a notable improvement.

Malgrim, who’s drunk a potion of bull strength, and usually operates under Enlarge Person, makes another good use of Reach and enlarge, does Great Cleave and kills two.

Pel looses two arrows at two targets, nearly gets a crit on one, but solid shots on both. He scores 14 points of Sneak Attack damage on each, killing both.

Malgrim draws fire from two marines, both of whom hit and land a total of 17 HP of damage. Two more run over to Alejandro, and another closes on Pel.

Bad guys’ attack. Atori the Wonder Worm gets slashed for 6 HP by a flaming marine. Marine8 attacks Pel for 5 HP. The twe marines facing Alejandro get all fancy against AC 19 and hit him for something like 16 HP.

Alejandro strikes back at one of his foes, hitting for 6 HP. Those on fire continue to burn for 7 HP each. Gimble himself casts Invisibility on Alejandro, and seeks the high ground (hey, it worked for Obi-Wan). Malgrim does his cuisinart impression, and misses both of his potential foes.

Pel tries to bluff his way into invisibility, rolls a 1 (still good for a 10), which means he is left to leap overboard (Pel swims like a fish), but takes 5 HP due to extreme bellyflopping, since Pel rolled 2 1’s in a row, this time for Acrobatics.

The two marines swing at the now-invisible (Concealed) Alejandro and miss. Two marines gang up on Atori the Wonder Worm and while the potential flanker misses (punk), the other hits for 6 HP.

Alejandro breaks his invisibility to hit a marine from the flank for 7 HP; Atori back-slithers and nails the marine-on-fire with 13 HP, killing him. Gimble casts Targeted Bomb Admixture on his stuff, which prevents them from getting all explody, and moves behind his quarry. Malgrim, however, Cleaves and kills two in a row again.

Pel climbs up the side of the ship with his Rope Master ability, and since he also has Fast Stealth, he rolls 31 for Stealth and becomes one with the background. This was basically the plan for leaping overboard. Turns out I do not swim like a fish; I misremembered something from Character Generation. Still, this is what I wanted. I’m all sneaky behind the captain, who seems pretty much like a badass.

Alejandro’s marine tries to slash at him, but drops his sword. (oops). Gimble’s foe chops at him, misses.

Alejandro swings and misses; Atori does another 13 HP of damage to his foe and flings the corpse overboard. Gimble drinks a potion of shield and runs through his foe’s space, and the attack of opportunity swings idly by. He throws a bomb directly on the captain, nailing her for 13 HP (and this will continue to burn for full damage rolls for three turns).

Pel sneaks over and fires two sneak attack arrows into the captain, both hit, and scores 34 HP. That’s all she wrote for the Captain, and the single most effective attack Pel’s ever thrown.

Someone comes up behind Alejandro and guts him for 10 HP, reducing him to -2 HP. The disarmed guy punches at Gimble (AC 25 now), provoking a decisively feeble return strike.

Atori eats the disarmed marine, while Gimble heals Alejandro with Cure Light Wounds, bringing him back to 9 HP and now suddenly hale and robust; Pel gives Alejandro another potion for another 8 HP.

The marine swings at Pel; he misses. Alejandro steps and casts Hold Person at the last man standing, which holds him successfully. We lash that marine to the (unburning) mast.

Most of the other ship’s cargo has already been transferred to the unburning ship by the pirates we just killed. So there are about 7-8 of the original sailors surived our attack, and another 14 from those we saved, plus about 25 on our own ship. Time to split crews. Pel and Alejandro crew the newly acquired vessel with the 14 we

The minimum crew for each ship to navigate is 20 people. So we’ve got 47 crew for the two ships, and can sail them to port. We find many barrels of liquor, rum, and sailing logs. Pel looks around and digs out a secret compartment in the Captain’s quarters, with some personal effects, one of which is a marriage licence, plus a few bars of gold and a bag of gems. The spellcasters have tatoos on them; magical glyphs of dragons and waves – so no real plunder there other than spell components.

We dig into the marriage licence a bit, out of curiousity. There’s something that’s a marriage of convenience where you contract as a legal marriage for a certain number of time; this was a method to create alliances between pirates. The captain’s log also mentioned replenishing supplies at Tidewater Rock; there was a rumor that it was impenetrable, but they thought there was a way to assail it.

We broke there, having determined to sail back to a “friendly,” or at least “not so hostile” port and use Gimble’s black market contacts to offload the ship. We’re also going to nab some of the ballistae from our new-found acquisition and make some firing ports in our cargo hold. Anachronistic is trumped by Awesome any day of the week.

Call me special. Perhaps because of my Pathfinder read-through, perhaps because I’m just easy, I received a request from +Frank Coleman to review his new RPG, called WEST.

The PDF is a scant few pages long, so I figured I’d dive right in. As I told Mr. Coleman, I can’t promise to like it, but I can promise to try to be fair. I first wrote the review, then sent it to Mr. Coleman, and asked him to comment. When he does – and we’ve exchanged several cordial emails on the subject – I’ll paste his comments in-line.

So, here we go. I’ll comment on each section of the rules in turn, occasionally quoting them verbatim if I need to illuminate a particular point. Always keep in mind that this is the BETA version of the rules, that they’re undergoing/have undergone playtesting and improvement, and that things are in flux until it goes to final press!

About WEST

Well, the first paragraph seems to imply that anyone who likes complex rules cannot also have story, cooperative game-play, or individual character development. Apparently, those of us who play such games are all rules-lawyers.

I object!

Oh, wait. Was that too lawyer-ish?

Anyway, from a pure marketing and sales standpoint, I’d change this intro, focusing on the core mission of the work in a positive way, rather than disparaging a potential (buying!) audience. Even if it wasn’t meant that way, it’s all too easy to interpret it as such.

Here’s the original paragraph:

WEST is a flexible game system created for the use and enjoyment of all those whom favor the story, cooperative game-play and individual character development over a series of complex rules, the never-ending drama of rules-lawyers and the hassle of downtime administration. The purpose of WEST is to eliminate all of that and help you get down to plain ‘ole fun!

And here’s what I’d do instead:

WEST is a flexible game system created to support an interactive gaming experience focusing on story, cooperative game-play and individual character development. It creates a structure designed to avoid rules-lawyering and downtime administration. The purpose of WEST is to help you get down to plain ol’ fun!

I think the second is more positive-sounding, and invites you in. Also, WEST does not provide a setting (though it was written with the Old West as an example, it never really influences the rules other than in the equipment section). It’s a challenge resolution system first, with narrative-based character differentiation thrown into the mix.

What is WEST

Ultimately, it’s a card-based resolution system. OK, interesting! No dice, huh?

It’s also explicitly a Rule Zero game, but with a twist. Instead of “the GM is always right,” it’s more “you will need a set of House Rules” to ensure the system is tuned to your needs.

I approve. I’m a big Rule Zero guy.

What do I need to play WEST?

Very little. The rules, a deck of cards, a 3×5 card or piece of paper to write notes on, and a pencil.

You may need a Game Master, but you can also play cooperatively with two Master Decks.

NOT required to play WEST

The term “Master Deck” appears without warning. In a PDF-based game, a forward-link to the rules section or glossary would be a good idea. If you want to go all dead-tree, I’d like a reference to what page this is on. In this case “Master Deck (p. 6)” would be helpful.

And boom! This is also designed for Live Action play. Interesting.

One thing that might bear noting: as your character advances, you may need several decks of cards to round him out, not just one. You won’t be carrying an entire blackjack shoe with you, though – don’t worry about that.

What is the difference between Tabletop and Live-action WEST?

The first paragraph starts off strong, with a compelling description of what the rules differences are (none!), but lays out that you’ll be acting out the roles in a controlled environment. It’s written in an engaging fashion that makes you want to try it.

It then presents six rules:

The Live-Action Rules for WEST

  1. There’s a device to signal out-of-character talk. This is useful; +Nathan Joy and the group I play Dungeon Fantasy with use two chat windows as well (though it’s blurred): one for OOC chat and the other for character action and in-character dialog.
  2. Another is a general piece of advice not to use real weapons in the game. No real guns, if you use realistic mockups they should have the orange tip that says to any observers that nothing obviously lethal is going on, and no metal knives or swords. This is all sensible advice, though obviously individual groups will probably deviate – but you can always do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. By publishing this rule, it lays down an official expectation of what you might find if you were to go to play WEST at a convention or other public gathering. More on that later.
  3. No touching. Really, “no assault.” Offensive touching is not appropriate, and where there might be any doubt, don’t do it. Again, good advice.
  4. No stunts. Focus on the imagination and the story, not the physical action.
  5. No drugs, including alcohol. This one’s going to be oft-violated, I can tell. I’ll get to commentary on this along with #6. 
OK, so the first five rules all make sense to me. The last of them?
    6.  Dress the Part. The game insists if you do live-action WEST that you’re in costume. This paragraph has a strong streak of One True Wayism in the flavor text. There’s also some editing mistakes in it, which will be corrected before it goes to press, I’m sure. 
But where the intro promises a low-investment experience (all you need is the rules, a deck of cards, and your imagination!), this section throws that out the window.
It also says “you can’t get into the spirit of the thing unless you immerse yourself in it.” Well, the Royal Shakespeare Company would disagree – at least as far as costumes and props are concerned. They used to come to my alma mater, Rice University, every year at the invite of the Rice Players, and I recall four of them (three?) doing the entire cast of Twelfth Night with nothing more than moving a ribbon around to designate what part they were playing – no swords, no crowns, coins, or fancy costumes. Granted, not wearing jeans and t-shirts either, but it’s absolutely possible to immerse yourself in a role without props or costumes.
Ultimately, I think this section should be re-titled rather than rewritten (though I would rewrite the Dress the Part section) as “Rules for Live-Action Convention Play” rather than any play at all. After all, “it’s your game, have your house rules, and do what you want” is right there in the intro.
Here’s the Dress the Part section, and my suggestion:

Dress the Part– Yes, costuming is a rule! It is a role after all. This is part of the liveaction rules for a very real reason: You can’t get into the spirit of a thing unless you immerse yourself in it. WEST is a game you should prepare to play. Because character creation is so free-form and simple it will depend largely to flesh him or her out and develop them further. The harder each player works at building the atmosphere together the easier it is to believe you’re really there. It’s part of the cooperative experience. You owe it to each other. Research everything your Game Master gives you, build a persona and get together a costume!

My suggestion

Dress the Part– Yes, costuming is a rule, and is part of the live action rules for a very real reason: It tells your fellow players you’re serious and invested in the shared experience. If you’ve traveled and invested time, effort, and money in the game, it’s fair to have the same expectation of others. Because character creation is so free-form and simple it will depend largely on each player to flesh him or her out and develop them further. The harder each player works at building the atmosphere together the easier it is to believe you’re really there. It’s part of the cooperative experience. You owe it to each other. Pay close attention to everything your Game Master gives you, build a persona and get together a costume!

Granted, this is my own personal flavor on things, but I think the above suggestion is bang-on for convention play, but not appropriate for five men and women gathering at a home or other space for some free-form weekend fun.

How do you create a WEST character

Fourteen cards. You get the entire series of cards: Joker, plus 2 through Ace. You pick your suits based on  how you envision your character.

The game is based on the concept of certain suits being considered trump. Three of the suits represent certain flavor: clubs are physical activities, diamonds are mental attributes such as perception and cognition, hearts are charisma-based. The game gives a simple rule for the value of a trump suit in a challenge, and (on the face of it) it’s potentially a minor one, giving you a slight edge in certain contests. There’s a pointer to Resolving Challenges for how this really matters.

Spades are ignored for no particular reason that I can tell, at this point in the rules. Maybe they come up later. (They do).

Initiative Order

Pretty straight-forward. Draw a card, take actions in order based on the value of the card, improved if the action being contemplated is pertinent (if you draw the 9 of clubs in a physical task, it counts as a 10). Joker means you’re boned and cannot act. All of this is in real time.

Resolving Challenges

Ah. All of this is a modification of the rules of the card game War. I would honestly move this way, way up in the sequence of the rules presentation. This is an editing and sequence issue, not a content one, so it’s easily fixed. The rules for trumping belong here, not under character creation. Initiative order should probably be a sub-head under Resolving Challenges as well. Plus the definition of a challenge should come first! That sort of thing.

If you’ve never played War, you may well be lost here. ” . . . meaning that the card values are tied – War would result.”

OK, so? What does that mean?

As it happens, the way I learned it you put three cards face down, and turn over the fourth and retry the contest. But when I played War, you kept the cards of the opposing player if you won, and since your character deck is never more than 14 cards, I don’t think you do this. This section needs to assume less! This is a recurring theme in this brief ruleset.

Degrees of Success

OK, so the difference between the card values in a contest matters, and there are such things as critical fumbles and heroic successes. These get no explication at this time.


Oh! Here’s the fourth suit. They are not associated with challenge types, they’re associated with skills. How many skills you have is limited to how many spades you have in your chosen character deck. Oh, and there are things called experience points, which allow you to get skills after character creation.

This seems a key concept that needs to be isolated to its own section, rather than tucked into something which itself needs to be in a different place.

Character Skills

These skills – trained skills – are things you can do. In GURPS, they’re skills, rather than Advantages or Powers or Ability Scores (like Strength). These skills are player/GM determined, looks like. This reminds me a lot of Aspects in FATE.

Skill Challenges

You call out that you’re going to have one, and if you have that skill, spades are trump. That’s a nice simple rule, though I might do something slightly differently. You get +2 instead of +1, and if you draw the right complimentary card, you might get even more. So you get a bonus simply by virtue of having the skill. If you then draw a spade, you get a further +1. If you’re doing a physical activity (like shooting a gun) and you happen to draw a club, you also get +1. If your skill is the GURPS-equivalent of Fast-Talk, then, you get +2 for having the skill, +1 if you draw a spade (and have the skill) or a heart, but bupkiss if you draw a club, diamond, or a spade without the relevant skill.

But as a rule, I shouldn’t propose rules-changes without having played the game, so I won’t. I’m sort of an inveterate rules-tinkerer, though, so it’s my nature. Alas.

The Master Deck vs. Character Deck

Really just a (useful) tool to keep the GM sane. All random NPCs just draw from a deck of regular playing cards, though if the PCs can draw a joker, I’d try and add 2-4 Jokers for the NPC deck as well.

The Character Card

Write down your name, description, skills list, items you carry, and character background.

The Surprise Rule

This needs to be tucked into the section on Initiative, which itself is a special type of challenge (a combat challenge).


It took me a bit, but damage is represented by either permanently or temporarily randomly losing cards. If you’re out of cards, you’re out of play (killed, but “out of play” seems as appropriate as not; how you’re out of play can be GM decision). A bruise is a card lost for only a scene (not defined; presumably when a scene starts and stops is also a GM decision). A wound represents a permanent loss for the entire game session. Unless you can find some Healing (below).

Frank Coleman elaborates: 

A lot seems to get clarified through the Hangout Play-tests. 

For example: Cards are drawn from the hand at random when a player-character is bruised or wounded by an aggressor. Those cards are permanently removed from play unless they are healed naturally (at a rate determined by the GM and returned at random in the same fashion) or by the use of a skill or device, which may give a bonus (degree of success) or increase the rate of healing. Yes, losing a low-numbered card is a good thing. It can increase your statistical chances of being better but that’s IF its pulled from your hand at random. The Joker (your auto-fail) always stays put. The 14 vs. 13 cards thing was a typo. There are 14 cards in a Character Deck, however once you lose your Joker you’re dead (if you take 14 wounds) if you take 14 bruises or any combination thereof down to 0 you’re simply unconscious.

A scene is an individual encounter, whether it is social interaction or combat scenario. When these “acts” end a character regains his or her bruises. Wounds do not return to your hand without a specific amount of in-game time passing (as determined by the GM) or through the use of skills and devices (medicine, medical equipment, etc.).

Weapons and Damage

Let’s start with the basic concept: injury levels are a certain number of bruises or wounds, maybe both. That works well.

The actual values are a mixed bag. A gunshot is one wound . . . but so is a leather whip. A quarter-stick of dynamite does seven wounds to everyone within ten paces (!!), while a keg of black powder only inflicts four (5) wounds within five paces.

These could use rationalization based on actual propensity to hurt people, but the general theory of the rule is simple and makes sense within the card-based paradigm of the rules.

You need house rules for all of this stuff; the GM should be able to roughly assign stats for weapons on the fly. You don’t need something as detailed as what I did for GURPS – in fact, that’s quite the opposite of what’s needed here – but general rules would be good. Getting hit with a small pistol like a derringer would be 1 wound, a larger one or a sword or axe is two, a rifle is three. Heck, “look up the damage in your favorite other RPG and convert” would work too! Dividing the GURPS injury dice by two or three for number of wounds might work, but you’d want to avoid such references in a game that doesn’t require much besides a 10-page rulebook. Still, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to reality-check this stuff, since you want to avoid pinging the SoDoM. That will break immersion right across one’s knee.


Pretty difficult to heal up. Bruises come back right away from scene to scene, but wounds can take a while. There are guidelines for between-session healing and a general (and generally insufficient) hint at using skills to heal up.

The number of cards you’re cycling through is fixed and small. Losing them is probably a Big Deal (unless you lose a low-numbered card? Is that a good thing?)

Off-Handed Use
If you use the wrong hand for an action in play, you take a penalty. More on this later.

Wild Cards

Again, something that should be re-organized into a general section on Challenges. Wild Cards allow narrative modification, much in the way it happens in FATE. As long as the narrative element has not already been firmed up by the GM, you can add one. What impact does that have on play? Examples? None to be found, and they’re needed for something like this.

Experience Points

Interesting. You start play with a sequence of cards from Joker through Ace. You can promote cards, within limits, with experience. I wonder if it would be a good idea to have, on your character sheet, the sum of all card values in your hand (Jack = 11, King = 13, Ace = 14; standard character starts with 104 points) so that the GM, at least, knows what power levels are coming to the table.

Ballistic’s Report
So, that’s the survey of what’s there.

Overall, this seems like a neat concept, in that it’s more or less a simple playing-card addition to a set of LARP rules or tabletop rules. The mechanics are fairly simple and easily remembered – once you’ve played War, it’s pretty basic.

I do think that the manuscript (and remember, I’m reviewing a Beta version) needs to be re-organized – badly. Probably something on the order of

  • Playing the Game
  • Characters
  • Challenges (this includes cards and what to do with them)
    • Resolving Challenges
    • Combat Challenges
  • Props and Equipment

That sort of thing.

While I’ll give kudos for brevity, there’s too much left unsaid. If you’ve never played War, you can’t grasp the game. The process of character creation (you get a sequence of cards, but it’s up to the player to choose what suits he wants, and he can choose . . . any he wants?) could use an example or three. The game play seems like it would work a lot like the couple of sessions of FATE I’ve seen or played in, and that book is over three hundred pages long. I’m not saying that WEST needs a thirty-fold expansion in length, but taking the time to walk through some of the core concepts via examples would help beginners grasp the game.

Some of the rules seem overly specific given the abstract nature of the game. Off-Handed Use, I’m looking at you – the card-based abstraction present in the game drowns out something like this as an unimportant detail.

On the flip side, I think more detail is needed for some things. When you take a wound, you lose a card. But it might be (say) the three of diamonds, which means you’re better off now that you’ve been wounded than not! Probably should have a wound take off your highest card first, from Ace down to 2, so you grow less capable as you’re wounded.

And how many times can you go through your deck? All of that needs to be made more explicit, I think.

But would I play it?

As a tabletop game, alas, probably not. If I’m going to do something like this, I think FATE does it better. I should say, FATE seems to do it better at this stage in WEST’s development. One thing that might be interesting is to have short scenarios that can be played out in about an hour or so, so that you can pick up the game, read all 10-15 pages of rules, set up a scene, and play it out. That would put it midway between a full-on 300-600 page ruleset like GURPS, Pathfinder, or FATE and a card game like Munchkin.

As a LARP game – were I into such things with the time to do it? Absolutely, and I think this is where it can shine. I see it as a far superior resolution to something like Rock-Paper-Scissors, or even Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock. It has real strategic elements to it, can handle abstract but meaningful character differentiation through suit and skill selection, and it’s trivally easy to carry around a quarter-deck of cards.

Thanks to Frank for providing the advance copy of the manuscript and inviting me to review it!

A few days ago I put out a challenge to come up with maps suitable for +Jason Packer‘s campaign. While I got some really neat submissions from some of my regular readers, plus a lame-ass PowerPoint sketch by yours truly, a new reader (at least that I know of) rose to the challenge so well I wanted to break his comments and submission into their own post.

ZukePrime  stepped up to the plate and gave us three maps. The first was his own creation. He took the basic description, and created the map to the left. There was a broken coast (check), a huge area of swamp (check), a massive mountain range to the north. Presumably one of the towns/cities/villages in the west is presumably Frostharrow.

The darndest thing about this is that it was supposedly his first effort. He “only” used black and white to keep it simple.

Jeez. I’ve had and attempted Campaign Cartographer for some years now, and not once produced anything even remotely this cool. This map deserves to be used in someone’s campaign.

But nooooo . . . that wasn’t good enough. He had to go and do more. He modestly comments:

I’ll be redrawing the map as a fun project…this time in color. Here’s the thing: I’m brand new to CC3 and mapmaking in general, so this is my official “first attempt.” CC3 is definitely hard to master. I think the best place to start is Joe Sweeney’s YouTube page, where he has a whole bunch of tutorials as playlists. I just follow along. 🙂 The key to CC3 is working in a logical, layered approach. If you have the product, it helps to follow the tutorial pdf’s they provide as well. You always start with the landmass/coastline, then add your significant terrain features, then rivers/lakes. After that you “populate” it with towns and features. The biggest difficulty for me is editing out mistakes and trying to get the right sheet effects to kick in. I’ll try to add more with my follow-up submission in color. What I love about CC3 is it allows noobs like me to produce cools maps in minimal time.

OK, so other than this being his first time frackin’ ever with the package, no problem, right?

Anyway, so then he saw Jason’s actual map. So, naturally, he changed his design, and started crackin’ away with the same outline that Jason wanted for his own campaign. While he published two iterations of it, I’ll only show the second one, which is more complete. Zuke comments (I”ve strung them together from previous comments).

 This is the basic landmass outline with a 25 mile grid. The map is 500×400 miles for reference. The “unnamed sea” is set into position, and I’ve added some rivers/streams to fix the area of the Gray Marshes. The effects you see around the landmass (highlighting etc) are the default settings in CC3. Next up, putting in the Granite Halls and Gray Marshes.I’ve been playing around with the sheets, so it’s taking me a while to do this properly. I’ve just added some river courses and laid in the Verdant, Gray Marshes and Granite Hall areas. I don’t like the default color symbols as much as the B/W symbols…so I’m experimenting with mixing/matching. Note the foothills are just a test. This is fun!

Clearly, there will be further iterations as he refines his technique. No matter what, this is a very impressive offering, especially given his proclaimed lack of experience with the program!

Notionally, I should be able to follow the tutorials and get the same thing done. Right? Right? We’ll see. I am going to have to schedule some of my next vacation or not-home-with-the-toddler time to work through the tutorials, read the manual, and follow Joe Sweeney’s advice, to determine whether I’m just missing a few key concepts, or I’m just a no-talent hack. Maybe both.

Anyway, by the time I finished this post, Zuke had populated an entire album with maps. His closest-to-finished entry is below.

So, kudos to ZukePrime for great work. Surely no one could do better than this.

(Hear that sound? Gauntlet meeting concrete? I super-secret double-dog dare someone to do better.)

In my old job, there was a principle called MECE. Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive. This was applied when trying to organize information that already existed into groups for later analysis. This might be a customer demographic, or slicing a business into segments based on some sort of grouping, maybe to figure out which part of a business was making money, or how.

Peter’s post on Fixed-level Ripostes got me wondering about various combinations of this sort of thing. See, a riposte trades a penalty to your defense roll for a penalty to your foe’s defense roll on your next turn. Huh. OK, well a Deceptive Attack – a core, vital part of the Fourth Edition rules, trades a penalty to your attack roll for a penalty to his defense roll . . . all on the same turn.

Those are both considered Options in GURPS. The first is an Active Defense Option (GURPS Martial Arts, pp. 124-125), the second is an Attack Option (pp. B369-370).

Well, that got me thinking. Can we invert the principle, and apply a MECE framework first, and then populate it with GURPS options second? In short, how can one modify an attack or defense roll, and what impact does it have.

Let’s start with the framework. “Modify your attack roll” and “Modify your defense roll” make two good divisions. These can either go up or down, and that is MECE. You either choose a bonus or penalty to an attack or defense.

OK, what about the effects of that modification? Well, we already have “occurs this turn” and “occurs next turn.” Good division. We can also say “impacts me” and “impacts my foe.” Finally, the impact might be “modifies attack roll” and “modifies defenses.” Let’s stop there and see if I can come up with a format that is readable that breaks that down well.

The chart is a comprehensive format, all right, but how to read it?

By the way, I acknowledge that I’ve taken Yak Shaving to an entirely new level here, in all likelihood. I had no idea that I’d wind up with so many options. Yeesh.

Modifer is “what do I do when I have the choice?” So “I get a bonus to my attack roll” is what I do (+4, for example). It impacts the defense of the foe on this very turn (+2 for his defense). That’s a Telegraphic Attack.

Some of these are nonsensical. Can I get a bonus to my attack this round that gives me a penalty to  . . . my own attacks this round? Probably not. 
Oh, and of course, I need to toss in my Setup Attacks! A penalty to hit this turn, for a penalty to your foe’s defense next turn.
That leaves a few things filled (and probably a few left out), and nearly two dozen blank spaces, which may or may not make sense. I’ll comment on a few that might, and crowd-source possibilities for the rest!
So . . . which of these might not be totally stupid? I’ll make a number for all of them, and make some comments, noting whether whatever comes out makes any sort of sense. I’ll color-code the less-desirable ones red, the maybe good ones black, and the ones I think really worthy bold.

I was doing this pretty late, so I may have reversed the “degenerate” commentary periodically. Basically, if I’m attacking, modifiers to my foe’s defenses and attacks and my defenses until my next turn make sense. Likewise, if I’m attacking, I might do stuff that impacts my own next turn. But if I’m attacking, my foe’s next turn is what’s coming next, and “this turn” doesn’t make much sense. Or maybe the other way around. In any case, only one really makes sense.
If I’m defending, I’ve already attacked. Nothing I do can impact that retroactively. But I can certainly impact my foe’s current and following attacks, following defenses, or my own next actions when my turn comes again. I try and make sense of that in my commentary below.Sorry if I have confused myself or others!

  1. I get a bonus to my attack this turn in exchange for a likely bonus to my foe’s attacks against me on his next turn. This one doesn’t make sense, since “foes’ next turn” is too far away to matter. This one’s right out.
  2. This one is interesting, in that it’s like a Telegraphic Attack, but instead of being easier to defend against on this blow, it would make your next blow easier. If I did this, it’d be something like “you get +4 on your attack, but your foe is at +4 to defend for your entire next turn.” This still seems like “bad idea” to me.
  3. A bonus to my attack roll that modifies the foe’s attack on his upcoming turn. Maybe a different kind of Telegraphic Attack, that isn’t easier to defend against, but makes me easier to hit – maybe “Predictable Attack.” +4 to my hit roll this turn in exchange for +4 to his hit roll next turn. This invites abuse, I think. Probably a bad idea.
  4. A bonus to my attack roll this turn that probably provides a penalty to my own hit rolls on the following turn. “Unbalancing Attack?” If I did it, it’d be something like +2 to this attack, in exchange for -4 on your next one, maybe even a -4 to DX instead!
  5. A bonus to my attack now that impacts my defenses on my following turn, of course negatively. Seems a lot like #4, and maybe make them degenerate: that -4 to DX also gives -2 to Parry and Block, and -1 to Dodge.
  6. A bonus to my attack that modifies my attacks this turn? The only thing I could think of here is (say) shifting bonuses or penalties between multiple attacks in some way. So instead of Rapid Strike being -6/-6, you can throw one at -3/-9. That might allow a -6 attack to the vitals, followed by a -9 to the torso. 
  7. A bonus to my own defense that gives my foe a bonus to his attacks next turn? Sounds complicated. 
  8. Likewise here, a bonus to my defenses that gives my foe a bonus to his defenses . . . actually, maybe this one isn’t so bad.
  9. Degenerate with #7
  10. Degenerate with #8
  11. A bonus to my defense that likely gives my next attack a penalty to hit? That one might actually be worth looking at. I put myself in a good position to defend against one blow, which puts me in a bad position to attack the following round. 
  12. Likewise, a bonus to my defense right now that puts me out of position to defend well the following turn. The key to both 11 and 12 would be some sort of exchange rate like +2 this round, but -6 to hit or -3 to defend the following. Against all foes, probably.
  13. I think this one’s degenerate with #14.
  14. This one I like. I take a penalty to my attack rolls, in exchange to a penalty to my foe’s attack rolls on his turn. I call this Evasion, and I’d probably make it something like a penalty to hit and to Parry/Block (but maybe not dodge?) in exchange for a penalty to hit for my foes. This one makes a lot of sense when considering dodging firearms and lasers.
  15. A penalty to my own attack this turn that gives me a bonus to hit the following turn? Huh, some sort of wacky setup, but seems rife for abuse. I can’t hit the brain this turn, so I’ll take a penalty to hit this time, and be even more accurate on my next attack. Nah.
  16. Hard to imagine something that I take a penalty to my attack roll, my defenses this turn are fine, but my following turn my defenses are impaired.
  17. A penalty to attack rolls in exchange for a bonus to my defenses. Well, since the only way to get a +2 to your defenses is to go All-Out Defensive, allowing unlimited trades is a bad idea. Maybe something like -4 to attacks in exchange for +1 to defend, a full-power bu wild version of Defensive Attack, which exchanges damage for defense. I suspect this was considered and rejected during the Martial Arts drafting process. 
  18. I take a penalty to my own defenses to make my foe miss me next turn. This one might have value, since not having to defend at all has benefits in some cases. 
  19. Degenerate with #18
  20. Degenerate with Riposte
  21. A penalty to my defense in exchange for being better able to hit next turn? Hrm. Maybe to cancel out penalties, but never raise your skill higher than base? I defend, but I’m lining up my blow better – not to make it harder for my foe to defend, but offset penalties for footing, darkness, or location.
  22. A penalty to my defense this turn in exchange for a bonus to my defense next turn. Hrm. Setup Defense?
  23. This one can’t happen. By the time you’re defending, your attack this turn is over.
  24. This one would only make sense in terms of penalty shifting. Where instead of taking 0 for your first parry, -4 (or whatever) for your second, you could take -2 for your first parry, -2 for the second, -8 for the third. Or -4 for the first, -2 for the second, -6 for the third, reserving bonuses to potentially needed further parries on a given turn. I kinda like this one.  
So, only two that really might be worth looking at hard, another ten that might bear going “hmm…” before accepting or most likely rejecting, and an about even dozen that probably are rejectable as either nonsensical or rife for abuse.
Shaved the yak pretty fine there. If you got to this point, you get a digital cookie.

There’s a bunch of pretty awesome stuff going on elsewhere, so I thought I’d link to them. Most of you probably follow these guys anyway.

+Mark Langsdorf is doing great stuff over at No School Grognard. A lot like me at the beginning, he has a backlog of great ideas that he’s playtested over the years in real games. He’s got a lot of neat stuff on magic going on over there. (There are four links there, and that’s not all).

The inimitable +Peter V. Dell’Orto at Dungeon Fantastic is currently musing about house rules for fixed-level, rather than variable, Ripostes in GURPS combat. I’ll be following up on this one tomorrow for GURPS-Day to be sure!

+Chris Conner (Grouchy Chris) follows up brilliantly over at Roll and Shout on a post +Patrick Halter did at Renovating the Temple on Deceptive and Targeted Attacks in GURPS. Combined, I think, with my melee skill levels overview, the three make a solid grounding in what to do with a surfeit of skill.

+Christian Blouin over at Palantir Commission is doing a series of really neat writeups and modifications all involving Tolkein’s world. If you thought that Tolkein’s Middle Earth was all played out, he’ll convince you otherwise. I don’t link to particular posts here, but between the actual play reports and the new campaign he’s designing, it’s a worthy read.

Of course, +Jason Packer and I continue our mutual exchange of ideas around his Taming of the Eastlands campaign, which has spawned no fewer than four maps.

Original content coming tomorrow, but this is a very good week for GURPSy stuff!

Well, been a bit since I’ve looked at Pathfinder, so it’s time to return to the read-through.

A retroactive (and oft-repeated) introduction: After an actual-play hiatus where I was mostly writing and playtesting for GURPS. I was invited to play in a Pathfinder game, and after a few sessions, it was time to buy the book and learn the rules! I decided to try and read the Pathfinder rules cover-to-cover and see what inspiration strikes, for good or ill!

This is a compilation of the links to read-throughs of Pathfinder-related material

Pathfinder Core Rulebook

0.  Prelude
1.  Introduction
2.  Races

3a. Classes (Barbarian – Monk)
3b. Classes (Paladin – Wizard)

Please make any comments you have at the individual entries!

So: we continue!

The chapter opens up with a brief discussion of wealth and coinage. Coins are based on a decimal system, from copper to platinum, with 1 platinum piece = 10 gp = 100 sp = 1,000 cp. There are also weights listed (50 to the pound, or about 140 grains or about 9g each). That makes a gold piece roughly the size of an old US Half-Eagle.

It also lists a bunch of other trade goods which are basically as fungible as cash, so that aspiring GMs don’t just have to be “all valuable metal, all the time” if they choose not to be.

Each character class starts out with a variable amount of gold to equip himself when gameplay starts. The monk gets shafted (of course, he doesn’t need much money) at 10-60gp, while the line fighter classes rock out at 50-300gp.

For comparison, a chain shirt and longsword costs 115gp total, toss in a heavy wooden shield for 7gp and it brings a standard sword-and-board guy to 122gp, though even more realistically you’ll go with “chainmail” armor for 150gp if you’re a fighter, making your kit cost 172gp, or about the average provision for fighter-types, and weighs about 54 lbs.

As a comparison, in GURPS Basic Set, mail armor that covers about 50% more than the torso would cost about G$225 (torso and the thighs, interpolated) and 24 lbs, a medium shield (DB +2) is $60 and 15 lbs, and a thrusting broadsword is $600 and 3 lbs. Total of G$885, or just shy of 90% of a character’s starting wealth, and weighs 43 lbs. Using GURPS Low-Tech, a longsword is G$700 and 4 lbs, a heater shield is G$75 and 13 lbs, but mail goes up in cost to G$900 and 22 lbs for the same DR 4 you get in the Basic Set, making the total kit cost G$1675, unaffordable by bog-standard GURPS warriors. Anyway, point is, you can kit yourself out with arms and armor befitting a stereotypical warrior – especially in Dungeon Fantasy/Pathfinder style games.

Note: Mail was very, very labor-intensive to make, and the prices went up accordingly. According to the author of the section on armor, mail was the armor-of-choice for the wealthy up until the protection per pound and dollar went down when plate was introduced and could be made better for less money. The author comes down firmly on the “armor” side of the “armor v. weapons” debates. Not saying he’s absolutely wrong, nor agreeing with that 100%. I did use his work to benchmark my bow article The Deadly Spring. OK, enough in-line footnoting. Moving on.

Selling Stuff

Brief but important: you can sell stuff with no skills or anything for half the listed price. Dungeon Fantasy uses a similar markdown at 40%.


That actually brings us quite naturally to the next big section on weapons. There are classes of weapons that get dealt with in the Class and Feats chapter, and occasionally get added as “you can use these” with Class abilities. There are some oddballs, such as “Double Weapons,” which can be used for two-weapon fighting without actually having two weapons. Reach Weapons are basically pole weapons (and whips) and give you 10′ of reach . . . but lose the ability to attack someone right next to you. Important safety tip.

There are a ton of subtle rules tucked into very brief mentions (like the reach note above). Light weapons are one-handed, can be used more easily in the off-hand, can be used while grappling. A One-Handed weapon can be used in either hand, but you can use it with two hands and get 1.5x the ST bonus you’d usually get(!), or half the bonus in your off-hand. Two-Handed weapons qualify for 1.5x the ST bonus as well, but must be used in two hands.

The Weapon Table

This is the go-to place for the summaries – but you’ll want to read the description and check out the picture, in case what you’re picturing isn’t what is on the table. As an example, they have an actual hammer listed as a Warhammer, when in reality a warhammer is what we would call a pick.

In any case, scanning through the table finds a lot of choices, some with special notes that allow them to do cool stuff. Brace allows doing double damage if you’re charged; Disarm gives you a CMB bonus when used to disarm. Other categories are Double (discussed above), Monk, Nonlethal, Reach, and Trip.

Again, it’s important to read the detail descriptions of each weapon you want to choose, in case there are some rules nuggets tucked in there.

So, let’s see if there are any “I Win!” buttons in each category.

Simple Weapons
Basic stuff that most classes can use.

Light Melee Weapons

These are your basic daggers, knives, and clubs. For 6gp, the 2-lb sickle does good damage and allows a trip maneuver. The basic dagger, for 2gp, has an enhanced critical threat range, but is only 1d4 . . . but it can be thrown if you like. One thing to note: your ST bonus (or DEX, using Weapon Finesse) may wind up being a pretty substantial part of your damage amount – more importantly, it’s the only fixed part, so pay attention to it.

Morningstar. Cheapter and lighter than the heavy mace, does both bash and piercing damage of equal amounts. Shortspears make a nice alternative to a dagger. They’re cheaper and you can throw ’em 20 feet instead of 10.

No candidates for “best ever” here. You have a 1d6 free double-weapon (quarterstaff; anyone can pick up a stick, apparently) that can be used with Monk abilities, and two spears, the long spear is a Reach weapon, but weighs nine freakin’ pounds.

The light and heavy crossbow do 1d8 and 1d10 respectively, but you’ll take time (a move and full-round action, again respectively) to load ’em each turn. Javelins appear to be balanced short spear, but takes penalties if used in melee. Crossbows shoot a long way (80 to 120′), but the world-champ of the thrown melee weapons seems to be . . . the two-handed spear. Granted, you get to do this precisely once per fight.

Martial Weapons
These are the bread-and-butter of fighter types.

Hand-axe is interesting with the x3 critical on a 1d6 weapon, making it superio – on a crit – to a 1d8 weapon with a x2. Low odds, tho. The kukri seems intriguing, with 1d4 and 15% critical threat (18-20) instead of the 1d6 and 10% chance of the shortsword. I’m unimpressed with the starknife.

The one-handers are basically your 1d6- and 1d8-class of weapons. The heavy pick crits for max of 24. . . making it equal to the battleaxe and warhammer only in that case. I’d avoid it. Scimitars (slash) and Rapiers (pierce) trade 1d6 damage for higher crit odds, and that’s basically equivalent to the x3 multiplier with lower odds. The interesting one here is probably the Flail. Disarm and trip, plus only maginally worse damage than the other 1d8s that have improved crits.

We’ve got some d10 and d12 weapons in here, so mwa ha ha to that. The greataxe and greatsword look pretty attractive, with the axe being a lot cheaper. Grab a glaive if you like a reach weapon, the heavy flail if you like the special effects (disarm and trip).

Exotic Weapons

For exotica, dealt with as a whole, the light weapons are unimpressive, though they can have some special stuff (one disarms, the other can trip). I may be wrong, but the bastard sword in one hand does as much oomph as a heavy flail, though it is 35gp. The Dwarven Waraxe is likewise as powerful in one hand as many martial weapons in two. These weapons probably get more interesting as you get higher level and can take appropriate Feats to make yourself a Disarm or Trip master, or can max out double-weapon fighting (two-bladed sword, looking at you).

Armor and Shields
This one seems relatively straight-forward. If you want a certain AC bonus, and you can use the armor (it requires a proficiency), you have few choices. Watch out for the Armor Check penalty, which hurt skill checks (but not combat). If you’re not proficient with that armor or shield, you take the penalty on combat as well.

So, what jumps out?

  • A chain shirt is expensive for that +4 AC bonus, but if you can afford it, it’s better than Hide. 
  • Studded Leather looks like a good choice for those with very high DEX (up to 20).
  • If you can afford the extra 50gp, you want a breastplate for AC6 rather than chainmail.
  • The Heavy armors chop your DEX bonus right out from under you; they’re built for the high STR set.
  • Not sure why you’d get anything other than a light wooden shield at the +1 AC level.
  • Same thing for the heavy wooden shield at +2.
  • Tower shields are very heavy, but for +4 to AC and you can cover behind it, it’s worth considering if you have the proficiency . . . and the STR to use it.

For a flat 300gp to a normal weapon, 600gp to a double weapon, or 150 gp to armor, you get particularly good stuff. It’s worth +1 to attack rolls for weapons, and -1 to the Armor Check penalty for armor. It’s worth doing, especially on the armors that are expensive to begin with.

Special Materials

Some neat stuff here, each with a defined game effect. Some of these options are monumentally expensive.

Adamantine:  Ignores hardness less than 20 (gotta wait for Ch7 for that one), grants damage reduction based on the armor type, and includes the Masterwork property. $3,000 for a weapon, $5,000-$15,000 for armor, depending on it’s type. Yow.

Darkwood: Half the weight, and a great thing to make shields out of. Adds 10gp per pound to the cost of a masterwork version of that item.

Dragonhide: Probably not something to wear around dragons or those related to them. The armor is immune to damage of a type the dragon was immune to – this explicitly doesn’t help the wearer! Druids can wear it, even if it’s “Dragonhide Full Plate,” which has gotta be its rason d’etre. Only costs twice as much to make as regular armor of that type, so there must be a brisk business in dragonslaying.

Cold Iron: Harder to enchant, and weapons cost twice as much to make. Effects demons and fey more than regular weapons.

Mithral: Ah, Tolkien’s gift to Materials Science. Behaves as one category lighter than normal for movement and other limits. Hmm. That means “Mithral Full Plate” counts as medium armor? Sweet. Doesn’t count for proficiency, though. Darn – and the “applies to attack rolls” hits you if you’re not proficient, so watch it. Weighs half as much, and you’re better casting spells in this stuff. Adds a couple thousand gp to the price of most armors. Weapons can be so fashioned, too.

Alchemical Silver: For were-creatures. This is cheap enough to start play with (90gp for a one-handed weapon; 20gp for a light one), and for -1 damage allows smacking down weres.

Goods and Services

Worth scanning the table in full, then checking descriptions. You can buy spellcasting services as well as hooded lanterns. Lots of toolkits, from thieves tools to healers, to Bards’ musical instruments.Clothing. Acid, thunderstone, tanglefoot bag. Lodging and food. And the 30,000gp for a sailing galley I remember from the old AD&D days. Yay, nostalgia!

Tell me what you think.

I do know I like the icon – I blended a picture of 3d6 with T-Bone’s crosshairs image that he used for a post responding to my Shoot/No-shoot commentary. I was going to use the GURPS logo, but I didn’t want to (a) give the impression that I don’t like my favorite system, or (b) infringe in any way on SJG’s trademark. The dice is better.

I don’t love the font. I’m open to other suggestions.

Edit: Trying again. I recreated a MILDOT reticle and superimposed it over the same dice. Playing with the Stencil font. We’ll see.

A few days ago I posted this sketch of the local area that will become the Krail’s Folly stomping grounds.

I think it’s a relatively compelling little map. But powerpoint just sucks as a graphics tool.

Fortunately, I have two other tools at my disposal. ProFantasy’s Campaign Cartographer 3, and Fractal Mapper 8.

Unfortunately, I suck at both of them, and need to crawl up the learning curve for both.

So, I will. But I’m also inviting anyone who likes maps to try their hand at it as well, as a fun challenge. I’ll post all responses, and ones that particular suit my ideas of the setting can expand on what they did, how they did it, and why in a guest-post. Woo hoo, exciting, eh?

Edit: Luka Rejec dropped by on Google+ and dropped off a link to his work. It’s spectacularly good. I was thinking to aspire only to “better than powerpoint,” which is a low bar. But if something that cool shows up, well . . . ain’t gonna complain now, is I?

Here’s a submission by +Jeromy French, who annotates his map as follows:

 My idea of a place called Frostharrow should be a more northern area where it can be legitimately cold. Thinking an area enclosed by mountains with a frozen forest sounded cool. I agreed and copied your marsh idea. When I immediately read the word Granite Halls I thought of an abandoned city carved out of stone. 

This one has the key geographic features all in a line, instead of demarcating a box within which the adventurers will bounce around. It labels the Granite Halls as a key landmark, and he had the same thought I did about the Gray Marshes: big-ass river flowing through it. This probably means from a crop-growing standpoint that if the PCs at least start from the Marshes and north, they’ll have coastline, a breadbasket, and a constant threat from the mountains and hills in the west, assuming that the Granite Halls are still occupied.

That being said, having the Granite Halls be a place instead of a region is really interesting, and bears serious consideration!

Zuke Prime over on Google+ just sent in a new entry, and it’s a doozy. He used Campaign Cartographer 3 in black and white mode. It’s a very, very pretty map.

I’m brand new to CC3 and mapmaking in general, so this is my official “first attempt.” The key to CC3 is working in a logical, layered approach. You always start with the landmass/coastline, then add your significant terrain features, then rivers/lakes. After that you “populate” it with towns and features.The biggest difficulty for me is editing out mistakes and trying to get the right sheet effects to kick in. What I love about CC3 is it allows noobs like me to produce cools maps in minimal time.

However! I’d probably change it a bit in certain ways. I think there’s too much forbidding terrain and not enough inherently desirable about the area that adventurers would want to carve out land there. But maybe not. There are a few places on the map that would make great landholdings, and the scale of the place – that bar is 100 miles – means you can get 10,000 square miles of freehold in three different places that aren’t swamp or mountains. So perhaps this is just fine. As always, I’ll invite him to comment on why he made his map, and in this case, how! That may well be a post of its own, since lessons in CC3 are independently valuable!

Of course, we can’t leave out the actual author of the campaign, +Jason Packer . He has been working on his own map, of course! His campaign will be called The Taming of the Eastlands, and you can follow his progress in campaign design over at RPGSnob. Maybe I’ll sign up to play!