Did I say in that comment thread that I’d update tomorrow? Well, truthfully, I didn’t want to start another Starcraft II mission (I’ll post a review for this when I finish it. So far: OH. OHHHHH YEAH.) at 10:30, so I decided to start writing this. I’ve been sitting on the topic for a little while. It’s a pretty far cry from the last post, but I have a screed about my issues with evangelical Christianity that can get us back to philosophy later.
Game balance. Balance carries a lot of weight in discussing a game. But what is it, really? The answer, according to me, is that a game is balanced when none of the players has an undue advantage. That is, in a perfectly balanced game, the player with more skill would consistently win.
Most games come pre-balanced, when you think about it. “Traditional games,” by which I mean card and older board games, are generally mirror matches. Checkers, chess, poker, go fish, Warcraft II…you can’t find an imbalance if you literally play exactly the same as your opponent. (Yeah, yeah, Horde had death knights in WC2 and Alliance had paladins, I know.) Imbalance requires a more complicated game. For example, Dungeons and Dragons. Different character classes in D&D are generally agreed to have different power levels. (The following sentences pertain to 3.5) For example, a wizard is usually said to be more powerful than a fighter, because a fighter hits things really hard while wizards do things like create their own minor universes. Does this make D&D imbalanced? After all, every character could play a wizard if they liked, right? When everyone sits down at a table, armed with pencils and dice, don’t we have the mirror match we had before? Obviously, this line of thinking would render every game balanced, so what we’re really looking for here is what defines a game that is balanced well. The game should allow players of various playstyles to all compete as they wish and still have a chance. But now we have a tension. If you want your games to showcase skill, you might argue that the players shouldn’t be able to do whatever they want—they have to play smart. I think this contradiction goes away if we further amend our definition to say that, in a well-balanced game, players can “play smart” without necessarily putting themselves into a straitjacket.
With that definition, then, the key idea in game balance is choice. In fact, I’ll go out on a limb and formulate this into a superawesome rule: In a well-balanced game, a player may make the maximum number of choices before competition without sacrificing effectiveness. So for D&D, we have the issue that as soon as you say “I want to play an X” your balance breaks. In (..flamebait…) D&D 4e, classes are better balanced against each other, by which I mean that playing a particular class does not break the balance. Later choices, such as powers or feats, may break the balance, however. I also want to point out that this definition makes no note of strategies employed within play—I think it’s perfectly fair that a well balanced game has strategies that simply don’t work.
D&D is a bit abstract and hard to talk about because of how broad it is, so let’s switch to World of Warcraft. (Third Blizzard product mentioned tonight…am I shill? Also, my WoW knowledge may be a tad out of date.) When you start playing World of Warcraft, the first question is: What realm and type of realm do you want to play on? In general, this is balanced—you change playstyle based on realm (PvP, RP, both, none) but since the entire game world is the same playstyle, you don’t lose anything. Next choice: Horde or Alliance? With the addition of paladin and shaman to both sides, neither has a clear advantage in PvP or PvE—whatever each faction says. The factions are, therefore, relatively balanced, the only caveat being that Alliance sucks. Next choice: Race and class? Here’s where balance starts to break. Some races have much better racial powes than others. Classes…class balance in World of Warcraft is responsible for 23% of the world’s internet arguments, ranking right next to moral relativism and whether .9999…. = 1. It changes, as balance is wont to do in a game with patches—I remember druids sucking, I remember druids rocking, and I don’t have time to figure out where they are now. Suffice to say that, after choosing a class, the balance in WoW is precarious. Finally, at high levels you’re going to need a talent specialization as well, which perform with different levels of effectiveness at different classes. World of Warcraft is not that badly balanced—D&D 3.5 is arguably worse—largely because it allows the player so many options before the balance really breaks. Eventually, a player is handicapped based on their own reasonable choices.
Starcraft (four) on the other hand, is generally held as pretty balanced, mostly because it has been played since time immemorial. Here, there is only one pregame option: Protoss, Terran, or Zerg? (Screw you, MS Word. Those are all words.) Whichever option you pick, you’ll be able to compete with whatever other option your opponent picks.
I think I see a pattern here. You get balance in one of two ways: Either you give players few to no choices as to their initial conditions (the “checkers” route, also seen in Starcraft), or you allow them enough options that they can fix themselves (more World-of-Warcrafty). Another assumption I’ve made is that we’re ignoring the crafting of the characters/conditions themselves as part of the game—that is, maybe we should say, “Well, sure, build X can’t beat build Y, but a skilful player is one who knows to pick build Y, so. Balance.” Game designers need to recognize, though, that in the Internet age, gaming, especially competitive gaming, isn’t constrained by such things. If I want a good D&D build, there are dozens of websites where I can find great ones. We can’t rely on player ignorance as a source of balance.
(This didn’t go anywhere but it was fun to write.)
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Innate Goodness, and Why I Don't Care
Are humans innately good? Are humans innately evil? I ought to have an answer for this. After all, a nice vague definition of humanism would be that I "believe in humanity." Seems I ought to have a firm grasp on what I believe in, and where humanity stands on the moral compass matters. I've been challenged on this point of humanism by Christians, who insist that the evil in the world proves humanity's evil. What tidal waves say about God's innate moral compass, they don't tend to say. But let's be honest here: the idea that man's tendencies are innately immoral form a key part of standard Christian doctrine. They say we live in a fallen world, where original sin travels by bloodline, and their philosophy supports it. After all, isn't evil simply the absence of God? Clearly, then, only divine intervention provides any goodness at all.
I find all this a bit ludicrous, and take a more optimistic viewpoint. However, one subject must be broached when discussing any philosophy of human moral behavior, theistic, pessimistic, optimistic, whatever: the Holocaust. I'm not invoking Godwin's Law, here, I'm serious. Something about the Holocaust sets it far apart from other examples of mass violence. People will talk about Genghis Khan's death count, or Stalin's purges. If they really like to pull the whole "not so different" thing on Western culture they'll bring up Indian removal/smallpox. What sets the Holocaust apart, though, is the pointlessness of it. Jews (and gypsies and homosexuals and others, I know) were not threats to the Reich.The death camps were secrets, so no political power was gained as with the initial demonization of the Jews compared to Stalin's purges. Jews were already so persecuted as to lack significant property holdings--this was no land grab or economically-motivated genocide, like Indian removal. In the later years of the war, the Holocaust impaired the German army logistically--trains that could have carried troops to the front lines were instead packed full of undesirables. Hitler knew that effect. Hitler's commanders were aware of it. Yet the death camps remained open and operating even while they crippled the war effort. And for what? To punish, for crimes that never happened. To "cleanse", as if a group of people were a stain merely for common heritage.
It's not hard to make the logical leap from "if Holocaust, then human beings are bastards." How else do we explain it? How else do we come to terms with the fact that hundreds of apparently normal individuals willingly participated in the mechanistic extermination of strangers never shown to pose a threat to them and with no promise of material gain? What lurks in the hearts of men to permit that?
It's not hard to make the logical leap from "if charity, then human beings are kind-hearted." How else do we explain it? How else do we come to terms with the fact that millions of apparently normal individuals willingly participated in the physical reconstruction of Haiti, in the service of strangers never shown to offer an advantage to them and with no promise of material gain? What shines in the hearts of men and women to promote that?
Each of those paragraphs describes the same species. Certainly, differences exist. Nazi brainwashing is exactly as destructive as it sounds. Yet, many in Nazi Germany resisted the treatment of Jews. Many risked their lives, despite growing up in the same society. They were outnumbered, true. But this only proves my point: a potential for good exists in all circumstances. Let me quote Neil Gaiman/Terry Pratchett for a moment:
Thinking of people as "innately good" or "innately bad" reflects a very mystical view of the world in which "good" and "evil" are concrete, objective terms that are directly reflected in the laws of reality. In truth, life is not so simple. Good and evil are often commingled and difficult to untangle. Humans are, according to all available evidence, products of gradual biological evolution rather than being imprinted with divine fire or passing along an inherited original sin. Possibly unique among all animals, human intelligence rises to the point that a nebulous concept called "free will" becomes applicable. Humans aren't innately evil. Nor are they innately good. They are innately people, and that means they can act in uncountable different ways, sometimes at the same time.
I'm not a humanist because I believe that people are just naturally awesome. I'm a humanist because I believe that people can be good if given the chance. I'm not a humanist because I believe this will always happen. I'm a humanist because I believe it can. In an Orwellian nightmare world where no relationship was valued and no life had worth, I would still be a humanist, so long as I had the courage to realize the power, not of human virtue, but of human potential. And courage is exactly what it takes. If we were innately good, we could only conclude that any problems will solve themselves. If we were innately evil, we could only conclude that any problems were unsolvable. An innately human humanity, though, must face its demons not as overlords, but as surmountable challenges, and then ask itself: What's stopping us?
I find all this a bit ludicrous, and take a more optimistic viewpoint. However, one subject must be broached when discussing any philosophy of human moral behavior, theistic, pessimistic, optimistic, whatever: the Holocaust. I'm not invoking Godwin's Law, here, I'm serious. Something about the Holocaust sets it far apart from other examples of mass violence. People will talk about Genghis Khan's death count, or Stalin's purges. If they really like to pull the whole "not so different" thing on Western culture they'll bring up Indian removal/smallpox. What sets the Holocaust apart, though, is the pointlessness of it. Jews (and gypsies and homosexuals and others, I know) were not threats to the Reich.The death camps were secrets, so no political power was gained as with the initial demonization of the Jews compared to Stalin's purges. Jews were already so persecuted as to lack significant property holdings--this was no land grab or economically-motivated genocide, like Indian removal. In the later years of the war, the Holocaust impaired the German army logistically--trains that could have carried troops to the front lines were instead packed full of undesirables. Hitler knew that effect. Hitler's commanders were aware of it. Yet the death camps remained open and operating even while they crippled the war effort. And for what? To punish, for crimes that never happened. To "cleanse", as if a group of people were a stain merely for common heritage.
It's not hard to make the logical leap from "if Holocaust, then human beings are bastards." How else do we explain it? How else do we come to terms with the fact that hundreds of apparently normal individuals willingly participated in the mechanistic extermination of strangers never shown to pose a threat to them and with no promise of material gain? What lurks in the hearts of men to permit that?
It's not hard to make the logical leap from "if charity, then human beings are kind-hearted." How else do we explain it? How else do we come to terms with the fact that millions of apparently normal individuals willingly participated in the physical reconstruction of Haiti, in the service of strangers never shown to offer an advantage to them and with no promise of material gain? What shines in the hearts of men and women to promote that?
Each of those paragraphs describes the same species. Certainly, differences exist. Nazi brainwashing is exactly as destructive as it sounds. Yet, many in Nazi Germany resisted the treatment of Jews. Many risked their lives, despite growing up in the same society. They were outnumbered, true. But this only proves my point: a potential for good exists in all circumstances. Let me quote Neil Gaiman/Terry Pratchett for a moment:
It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.
Thinking of people as "innately good" or "innately bad" reflects a very mystical view of the world in which "good" and "evil" are concrete, objective terms that are directly reflected in the laws of reality. In truth, life is not so simple. Good and evil are often commingled and difficult to untangle. Humans are, according to all available evidence, products of gradual biological evolution rather than being imprinted with divine fire or passing along an inherited original sin. Possibly unique among all animals, human intelligence rises to the point that a nebulous concept called "free will" becomes applicable. Humans aren't innately evil. Nor are they innately good. They are innately people, and that means they can act in uncountable different ways, sometimes at the same time.
I'm not a humanist because I believe that people are just naturally awesome. I'm a humanist because I believe that people can be good if given the chance. I'm not a humanist because I believe this will always happen. I'm a humanist because I believe it can. In an Orwellian nightmare world where no relationship was valued and no life had worth, I would still be a humanist, so long as I had the courage to realize the power, not of human virtue, but of human potential. And courage is exactly what it takes. If we were innately good, we could only conclude that any problems will solve themselves. If we were innately evil, we could only conclude that any problems were unsolvable. An innately human humanity, though, must face its demons not as overlords, but as surmountable challenges, and then ask itself: What's stopping us?
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Unpatriotism
I don't think I "love America" in the sense I usually see it used. At the same time, I don't think of myself as anti-American, nor do I think of myself as pro-people-usually-labeled-our-enemies. Rather, I simply think that such nationalism is a harmful concept.
Let me explain by way of example. My local newspaper (the Tulsa World) ran a feature on Independence Day in which they asked various people what they loved about America. Most of them answered some variant of "freedom." That's a pretty good answer, really. I'm pretty fond of freedom myself. The problem comes when these people discuss how America is "the only country in the world where we can do and say what we want." The problem comes when they say things that are blatantly untrue.
It's true that America has quite impressive protection for individual rights. The Bill of Rights is an amazing piece of legislation. It is not true that other countries do not also respect individual rights. It is not true that other countries place no value on freedom or democracy. To suggest otherwise is nothing less than myopia, a myopia caused by our preoccupation with loving America, rather than its virtues.
I do love America. But the America that I love is an ideal, a dream--a dream of equality, of freedom, and of fairness. It is an America that does not exist. We still live in an America where women make less than men for the same work. We still live in an America where whether or not you can marry the person you love depends on whether or not society approves of that love. We still live in an America where the color of your skin matters as much as the content of your character--not at all times or in all places, but that reality is ours.
When I say "I love America," I don't mean that America we live in. I mean that I love democracy--for all its flaws, for all the stupidity of the crowds, no system delivers rulership into the hands of the ruled as well, no system as adequately solves the moral problem of governance by force. I mean that I love the concept of individual liberty, the idea that no matter what, a person has certain rights as a human being. Isn't that the core principle of humanism, after all? I love freedom of speech. I find it absolutely repugnant that, in some European countries, it is illegal to deny the occurrence of the Holocaust--although I find the Holocaust abominable. I love due process and protection from authority and equal protection under the law and the belief that all human beings are created equal, Deist overtones aside.
So when American elections are unfair? When America tortures its prisoners? When America denies due process to terrorism suspects? When America's latent sexism or racism rears its head? I don't love America then. And so that's why I say I don't love America--because I don't give two shits about this particular piece of land, or this particular group of people. I care about the principles and promise behind the name and behind the location far more than I care about the nation in particular. If America ever abandoned them, it wouldn't be an America I could love.
I think this obsession with America-loving only serves to reinforce a status quo. It works as a thought-terminator: I like America. I associate trait X with "America." Therefore, I cannot allow trait X to undergo change. Several times during the health care debate I heard that this was "not the American way." No arguments on economies of scale, or the value of decentralized systems, or other arguments I can think of. No, government interference in the health care system was wrong because it didn't fit our vision of America, and we love America, don't we?
Nationalism is a dangerous concept. It allows us to make mental shortcuts. Too much care for a particular country causes us to morally demote all the others. As a humanist, I consider it my duty to look beyond labels motivated by history and the current state of affairs, and see the commonalities. Do I love America? I love only the aspects of America that are universal, and not truly part of America at all. I love the parts of America that can be completely decoupled from this patch of earth. So I call myself an unpatriot--someone dedicated to the same high principles as the original American patriots, but where they saw their goal as freedom for a nation, I see our goal as a species in the coming century to be freedom from nations.
Let me explain by way of example. My local newspaper (the Tulsa World) ran a feature on Independence Day in which they asked various people what they loved about America. Most of them answered some variant of "freedom." That's a pretty good answer, really. I'm pretty fond of freedom myself. The problem comes when these people discuss how America is "the only country in the world where we can do and say what we want." The problem comes when they say things that are blatantly untrue.
It's true that America has quite impressive protection for individual rights. The Bill of Rights is an amazing piece of legislation. It is not true that other countries do not also respect individual rights. It is not true that other countries place no value on freedom or democracy. To suggest otherwise is nothing less than myopia, a myopia caused by our preoccupation with loving America, rather than its virtues.
I do love America. But the America that I love is an ideal, a dream--a dream of equality, of freedom, and of fairness. It is an America that does not exist. We still live in an America where women make less than men for the same work. We still live in an America where whether or not you can marry the person you love depends on whether or not society approves of that love. We still live in an America where the color of your skin matters as much as the content of your character--not at all times or in all places, but that reality is ours.
When I say "I love America," I don't mean that America we live in. I mean that I love democracy--for all its flaws, for all the stupidity of the crowds, no system delivers rulership into the hands of the ruled as well, no system as adequately solves the moral problem of governance by force. I mean that I love the concept of individual liberty, the idea that no matter what, a person has certain rights as a human being. Isn't that the core principle of humanism, after all? I love freedom of speech. I find it absolutely repugnant that, in some European countries, it is illegal to deny the occurrence of the Holocaust--although I find the Holocaust abominable. I love due process and protection from authority and equal protection under the law and the belief that all human beings are created equal, Deist overtones aside.
So when American elections are unfair? When America tortures its prisoners? When America denies due process to terrorism suspects? When America's latent sexism or racism rears its head? I don't love America then. And so that's why I say I don't love America--because I don't give two shits about this particular piece of land, or this particular group of people. I care about the principles and promise behind the name and behind the location far more than I care about the nation in particular. If America ever abandoned them, it wouldn't be an America I could love.
I think this obsession with America-loving only serves to reinforce a status quo. It works as a thought-terminator: I like America. I associate trait X with "America." Therefore, I cannot allow trait X to undergo change. Several times during the health care debate I heard that this was "not the American way." No arguments on economies of scale, or the value of decentralized systems, or other arguments I can think of. No, government interference in the health care system was wrong because it didn't fit our vision of America, and we love America, don't we?
Nationalism is a dangerous concept. It allows us to make mental shortcuts. Too much care for a particular country causes us to morally demote all the others. As a humanist, I consider it my duty to look beyond labels motivated by history and the current state of affairs, and see the commonalities. Do I love America? I love only the aspects of America that are universal, and not truly part of America at all. I love the parts of America that can be completely decoupled from this patch of earth. So I call myself an unpatriot--someone dedicated to the same high principles as the original American patriots, but where they saw their goal as freedom for a nation, I see our goal as a species in the coming century to be freedom from nations.
Procrastination Special: Combining Failure and Filler and ROBOT TRAIN EXPLOSIONS
Is this thing still on? I have no apologies, but I promise to start making posts again. Tomorrow's, for example, will be about why I don't think we should love America. I had this idea on Fourth of July, but as I started to type it I was arrested and beaten until I told them where the munitions cache was. In the meantime, this is a campaign journal for a Dungeons and Dragons game I started last night.
The setting is Eberron. Until recently, we were Living Forgotten Realms gamers, and Living Greyhawk before that. I've never played "real" D&D in the sense that many seem to--where the DM runs the story himself and anything can happen. Usually I've stuck to modules. But in the last few months, my group has gotten increasingly dissatisfied with LFR mods' writing and with the direction the campaign is going in general, as well as the groups we've been finding for it at our local shop. When we don't play at the local shop, we usually run a game one of us has written (possible in LFR). Last week, as I mentioned, we ran Tomb of Horrors. It was not as crazy dangerous as it should have been, I felt. We only had one death, that was in the final encounter, and they started it naked (granted, their gear was at their feat). I think the combat encounters were not properly made to fight parties--solos without the proper measures to overcome action economy, etc. Anyway, everyone still had a really great time, and I had fun running it. So when one of my players said "You know, I'm just going to say it. I'm tired of LFR. I don't intend to ever play it again, except with you guys", I saw an opportunity. I said, "Why don't we just start a total home campaign? I've heard good things about Eberron. I'll look into it." And, so, off we go. It's paragon tier--they started at level 13. This is a bit high for Eberron, so their characters are supposed to be fairly well known, but I don't think I'm really facing them against Eberron's paragon tier. Anyway, where my game differs from the setting, Keith Baker can go fuck himself. Ahem.
First session, we start with individual RP sessions for each character as an introduction. Varius (Elven avenger) was out on the warpath with a Valenar warband, and wakes up to find a recent arrival attempting to introduce a dangerous snake into a tent. After catching this person, he interrogates him and discovers that he has an aberrant dragonmark of House Tarkanan (guild of assassins and thieves). His cover story bases him in Sharn, and so he lets his would-be assassin go and heads for the nearest lightning train.
Next, the air genasi warlord (does Eberron have genasi? I dunno.) and his warforged bodyguard/warden Staunch were stationed in a fort in Aundair. As the colonel wakes up and heads to the officer's hall for breakfast, he takes a drink and immediately chokes on some poison (out of game, he suffered an attack vs. Fort, which failed). Examining the staff reveals that one recent arrival is, yes, from Sharn.
Finally, the halfing has a cool story. Fennel was a halfling sorceror working as a navigator on an airship when his wild-mage tendencies crashed the airship...into a mountain of dragonshards in the Shadow Marches worth far more than the airship. Hailed as supernaturally lucky, he's gained some fame/notoriety as a wandering oracle. Along the way, he's gained a traveling companion (because halflings don't go walking around a fantasy bayou alone), Gozzigush, the orc barbarian. While walking through the streets of one of the larger towns, someone hands him a magic item--which promptly sets off a curse. The barbarian, however, is able to chase down the man and find that, yes, he too has an aberrant dragonmark. To Sharn wit ye.
Geography and DM fiat meant they were all on the same lightning train as it pulled into Sharn, but as it pulled in, the front car exploded, releasing the dangerous elementals within. The PCs being suicidal, like most PCs, charge out of their train cars to combat the new threat, including some very nasty lightning burst attacks. But they defeat the elementals in the end, and in doing so, everyone meets each other. After the fight's over, a man approaches them and says, "You need to come with me right now."
"Why?" say the PCs.
"Well, I know things. I know there have been two attempts on your life in the past few days. I know that someone's willing to blow up train cars to get to you. I know where a safehouse can be found. And, I know why they're doing this." At which point the PCs figure, alright, sure. They follow him to an abandoned commercial building, where he comments that he "knew the owner, pity he died recently." He hides them in the basement. They ask who he is. "I can't tell you that. Recent events suggest we have problems with security leaks. I'm not sure any of you can be trusted yet." They grumble, and ask what he expects them to do. "Well. I'm going to try and see if I can gather some intelligence up top, but Tarkanan activity is focused in the Cogs. You could see what you find down there." They decide to wait four hours (warforged needs a rest) and head down.
The Cogs is an industrial district so deep that they run factories off of the volcanic energy. The manifestation of the Elemental Chaos doesn't hurt either. Asking around, most people don't want to talk about House Tarkanan. One guy, however, speaks up. (PCs: It's because of our great Streetwise roll!) He says that in a particular factory are some people who know about the Tarkanans. The PCs head down to the factory and find five dragonborn waiting there. "Who sent you here?" they say. PCs reply, "Just some guy we ran into, look, we want to talk abou--" "Well, they match the description." DRAW WEAPONS ROLL INITIATIVE YOU ACTIVATED MY TRAP ENCOUNTER. The dragonborn have the coolest first round ever--basically, imagine a three by three square. The PCs are the five squares on the east and south sides. The dragonborn run up to the three squares bordering the top-left, but not in the square themselves, they all dragonbreath, and then they all charge, crossing each other's path. They high-five on the way. However, they are Cog gangsters fighting fairly capable adventurers, and as such get TRASHED. (PCs: It's because we're so awesome!) I planned it this way, actually, this encounter was a few ELs below the others. Wanted them to feel awesome. One gangster is taken alive and questioned, and says that some guy (matching the description of the one who directed them to the factory) told them to wait here and kill the PCs, for three thousand gold pieces a piece. Someone's tossing some pretty serious money at this PCs-are-alive problem. However, he also tells them where they were going to rendezvous with the man for payment, so the PCs go there.
It's deep underground in a cave complex. So deep that it turns into a platform of rock jutting out into lava. This might not have made any sense, but it was cool enough that nobody asked questions. The man they saw earlier is there, laughing. "Oh!" he says, "You're really supposed to be dead by now. You know, some people say we're crazy." (The PCs charge and bloody the guy in a single round, but on his first initiative..) "But do you know the crest of House Tarkanan?" It's a beholder. And that's exactly what rises up from below the platform--a Beholder Eye Tyrant. The fight is pretty iffy for the PCs--it has a petrifying eye and a death-eye, so there were multiple times they were a few saves away from being really screwed. At one point I hit the warlord with a Disintegration Ray, and it does ongoing damage. Ongoing 2d20. I rolled 36. He took three turns to save against it, spending most of the rest of the time dropping down and having people shovel potions down his throat. Still, they kill it. On the body of the man, they find two notes. The first identifies a 15,000 gp bounty on the heads of all those named on the "attached House Cannith memo." The second is a memo saying that House Cannith, in preparation of defense of key assets, is looking to assemble a third-party expeditionary force, and lists six or seven candidates--all the PCs who had attempts on their lives, plus several other names which were marked off. Signed and notarized, Merrix d'Cannith.
They find the Cannith offices, and present the memo. After being compared to internal records--to verify its authenticity--the safehouse guy comes out, revealing himself as a Cannith agent. He's happy they're alive, and takes them to see Merrix, who is in his laboratory enclave. Taking his obligatory-steampunk-goggles off, he reveals the problem: the Genesis Forge. This factory, the size of a small town, was an amazing feat of engineering, but was located in Cyre. Cyre exploded. It was assumed that the Genesis Forge was lost. However, rumors leaking out of the Mournland suggest that the Lord of Blades intends to claim its remnants. If there's any chance that this threat is real, or that the Forge could be used to pump out an army of fanatical warforged, House Cannith needs to know, and wants to mount a small expedition of, oh, say, five people, into the Mournland. The PCs go--having to navigate through some deadly mist, their journey made easier by a ritual of magic flying eagle mounts. They come to the Glass Plateau, where crystals and newly-formed rock juts out of the bare landscape surrounding the city of Making. (I think the Forge was at Whitehearth in the book, but I like this better.) There is a warforged encampment outside, and several patrols walking the perimeter of the forge. The PCs land near a rocky encampment not far from an entrance, planning an ambush. One rolls a 7 Stealth. They get jumped, but manage to beat off the warforged. The last one, bloodied and surrounded and prone, surrenders. It says that the warforged have claimed the area, but that they have not been able to venture into the Forge, as it is "hostile to constructs." The PCs turn towards the entrance, determined to enter the Forge, and I say we should really stop for the night...
The setting is Eberron. Until recently, we were Living Forgotten Realms gamers, and Living Greyhawk before that. I've never played "real" D&D in the sense that many seem to--where the DM runs the story himself and anything can happen. Usually I've stuck to modules. But in the last few months, my group has gotten increasingly dissatisfied with LFR mods' writing and with the direction the campaign is going in general, as well as the groups we've been finding for it at our local shop. When we don't play at the local shop, we usually run a game one of us has written (possible in LFR). Last week, as I mentioned, we ran Tomb of Horrors. It was not as crazy dangerous as it should have been, I felt. We only had one death, that was in the final encounter, and they started it naked (granted, their gear was at their feat). I think the combat encounters were not properly made to fight parties--solos without the proper measures to overcome action economy, etc. Anyway, everyone still had a really great time, and I had fun running it. So when one of my players said "You know, I'm just going to say it. I'm tired of LFR. I don't intend to ever play it again, except with you guys", I saw an opportunity. I said, "Why don't we just start a total home campaign? I've heard good things about Eberron. I'll look into it." And, so, off we go. It's paragon tier--they started at level 13. This is a bit high for Eberron, so their characters are supposed to be fairly well known, but I don't think I'm really facing them against Eberron's paragon tier. Anyway, where my game differs from the setting, Keith Baker can go fuck himself. Ahem.
First session, we start with individual RP sessions for each character as an introduction. Varius (Elven avenger) was out on the warpath with a Valenar warband, and wakes up to find a recent arrival attempting to introduce a dangerous snake into a tent. After catching this person, he interrogates him and discovers that he has an aberrant dragonmark of House Tarkanan (guild of assassins and thieves). His cover story bases him in Sharn, and so he lets his would-be assassin go and heads for the nearest lightning train.
Next, the air genasi warlord (does Eberron have genasi? I dunno.) and his warforged bodyguard/warden Staunch were stationed in a fort in Aundair. As the colonel wakes up and heads to the officer's hall for breakfast, he takes a drink and immediately chokes on some poison (out of game, he suffered an attack vs. Fort, which failed). Examining the staff reveals that one recent arrival is, yes, from Sharn.
Finally, the halfing has a cool story. Fennel was a halfling sorceror working as a navigator on an airship when his wild-mage tendencies crashed the airship...into a mountain of dragonshards in the Shadow Marches worth far more than the airship. Hailed as supernaturally lucky, he's gained some fame/notoriety as a wandering oracle. Along the way, he's gained a traveling companion (because halflings don't go walking around a fantasy bayou alone), Gozzigush, the orc barbarian. While walking through the streets of one of the larger towns, someone hands him a magic item--which promptly sets off a curse. The barbarian, however, is able to chase down the man and find that, yes, he too has an aberrant dragonmark. To Sharn wit ye.
Geography and DM fiat meant they were all on the same lightning train as it pulled into Sharn, but as it pulled in, the front car exploded, releasing the dangerous elementals within. The PCs being suicidal, like most PCs, charge out of their train cars to combat the new threat, including some very nasty lightning burst attacks. But they defeat the elementals in the end, and in doing so, everyone meets each other. After the fight's over, a man approaches them and says, "You need to come with me right now."
"Why?" say the PCs.
"Well, I know things. I know there have been two attempts on your life in the past few days. I know that someone's willing to blow up train cars to get to you. I know where a safehouse can be found. And, I know why they're doing this." At which point the PCs figure, alright, sure. They follow him to an abandoned commercial building, where he comments that he "knew the owner, pity he died recently." He hides them in the basement. They ask who he is. "I can't tell you that. Recent events suggest we have problems with security leaks. I'm not sure any of you can be trusted yet." They grumble, and ask what he expects them to do. "Well. I'm going to try and see if I can gather some intelligence up top, but Tarkanan activity is focused in the Cogs. You could see what you find down there." They decide to wait four hours (warforged needs a rest) and head down.
The Cogs is an industrial district so deep that they run factories off of the volcanic energy. The manifestation of the Elemental Chaos doesn't hurt either. Asking around, most people don't want to talk about House Tarkanan. One guy, however, speaks up. (PCs: It's because of our great Streetwise roll!) He says that in a particular factory are some people who know about the Tarkanans. The PCs head down to the factory and find five dragonborn waiting there. "Who sent you here?" they say. PCs reply, "Just some guy we ran into, look, we want to talk abou--" "Well, they match the description." DRAW WEAPONS ROLL INITIATIVE YOU ACTIVATED MY TRAP ENCOUNTER. The dragonborn have the coolest first round ever--basically, imagine a three by three square. The PCs are the five squares on the east and south sides. The dragonborn run up to the three squares bordering the top-left, but not in the square themselves, they all dragonbreath, and then they all charge, crossing each other's path. They high-five on the way. However, they are Cog gangsters fighting fairly capable adventurers, and as such get TRASHED. (PCs: It's because we're so awesome!) I planned it this way, actually, this encounter was a few ELs below the others. Wanted them to feel awesome. One gangster is taken alive and questioned, and says that some guy (matching the description of the one who directed them to the factory) told them to wait here and kill the PCs, for three thousand gold pieces a piece. Someone's tossing some pretty serious money at this PCs-are-alive problem. However, he also tells them where they were going to rendezvous with the man for payment, so the PCs go there.
It's deep underground in a cave complex. So deep that it turns into a platform of rock jutting out into lava. This might not have made any sense, but it was cool enough that nobody asked questions. The man they saw earlier is there, laughing. "Oh!" he says, "You're really supposed to be dead by now. You know, some people say we're crazy." (The PCs charge and bloody the guy in a single round, but on his first initiative..) "But do you know the crest of House Tarkanan?" It's a beholder. And that's exactly what rises up from below the platform--a Beholder Eye Tyrant. The fight is pretty iffy for the PCs--it has a petrifying eye and a death-eye, so there were multiple times they were a few saves away from being really screwed. At one point I hit the warlord with a Disintegration Ray, and it does ongoing damage. Ongoing 2d20. I rolled 36. He took three turns to save against it, spending most of the rest of the time dropping down and having people shovel potions down his throat. Still, they kill it. On the body of the man, they find two notes. The first identifies a 15,000 gp bounty on the heads of all those named on the "attached House Cannith memo." The second is a memo saying that House Cannith, in preparation of defense of key assets, is looking to assemble a third-party expeditionary force, and lists six or seven candidates--all the PCs who had attempts on their lives, plus several other names which were marked off. Signed and notarized, Merrix d'Cannith.
They find the Cannith offices, and present the memo. After being compared to internal records--to verify its authenticity--the safehouse guy comes out, revealing himself as a Cannith agent. He's happy they're alive, and takes them to see Merrix, who is in his laboratory enclave. Taking his obligatory-steampunk-goggles off, he reveals the problem: the Genesis Forge. This factory, the size of a small town, was an amazing feat of engineering, but was located in Cyre. Cyre exploded. It was assumed that the Genesis Forge was lost. However, rumors leaking out of the Mournland suggest that the Lord of Blades intends to claim its remnants. If there's any chance that this threat is real, or that the Forge could be used to pump out an army of fanatical warforged, House Cannith needs to know, and wants to mount a small expedition of, oh, say, five people, into the Mournland. The PCs go--having to navigate through some deadly mist, their journey made easier by a ritual of magic flying eagle mounts. They come to the Glass Plateau, where crystals and newly-formed rock juts out of the bare landscape surrounding the city of Making. (I think the Forge was at Whitehearth in the book, but I like this better.) There is a warforged encampment outside, and several patrols walking the perimeter of the forge. The PCs land near a rocky encampment not far from an entrance, planning an ambush. One rolls a 7 Stealth. They get jumped, but manage to beat off the warforged. The last one, bloodied and surrounded and prone, surrenders. It says that the warforged have claimed the area, but that they have not been able to venture into the Forge, as it is "hostile to constructs." The PCs turn towards the entrance, determined to enter the Forge, and I say we should really stop for the night...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
