I have a serious question for you all:

How much interest is there in continuing the Age of Worms campaign? Have we be gone from it too long? I have two or maybe three weeks to start getting it ready again and I would like to know if the group as a whole wants to continue or not. We're at that dividing line where we go from fun, low level play to the high level slog and I can tell you from experience, it only gets harder from here. I have plenty of ideas for alternatives, as I'm sure you all do as well. I suppose this is pursuant to our discussion a few weeks ago about what kind of games we want to play in the future. Please give me your honest opinions. I genuinely want to know.

---

Belief is easy. Doubt is hard.

Hmm...

Well I like the character of Delnor a lot and am interested in seeing how AoW plays out, but there are definitly disadvantages in a high level game the biggest one being pace. Hell look how long a single battle took in Morningstar the last two Tuesdays.

Had you asked me 5 months ago do I want to continue AoW through high level, I woud have said Hell yea.... however, since we've been away form it for so long now, I could let it go just as easily as get back into it.

There are also a lot of possibilities and a lot of characters out there yet to try.

I guess, I could go either way at this point.

I'd definitely like to continue as it hasn't become a slog yet and I like the characters and story. If it becomes more work than joy, then I'm ok for bailing out at that point.

I'm not familiar with the details of the adventure path, but if it's possible to trim out extraneous encounters (without too much effort) I would support that option as well. Other options, like ditching xp, could also help aleviate the potential problems.

---

~Ryan Wolfe

It's things like not using XP that have made me reconsider it. I used no XP in the little island adventure I ran when Emily and Jason and I went to Jekyll Island and I was amazed at how liberating it was not to have to worry about where everybody was XP-wise. I'm not sure how we could implement it mid-stride though, especially since our group is very heavy on item crafting. I don't know how we'd deal with that either without XP.

Another problem I see is that this campaign is the big-budget popcorn flick of campaigns. Things are going to get tough very soon and the "save-or-die" paradigm is going to be all over the place. Since we have at least two players who don't want to return from death, this is going to make it especially tough on continuity. Don't get me wrong: I have definitely come to respect your all's position on that issue. What I'm saying is, a campaign like Age of Worms isn't really conducive to that level of realism; encounters are designed where you can bet that at least one person is probably going to die. The designers assume players will want to come back from death and that death and resurrection are just part of the fabric of the game. That's not really the kind of game we as a group are interested in anymore, it seems to me, so I worry that that could spell trouble on down the line. It strains credibility, to me at least, to have a new character every two or three sessions just because somebody rolled shitty on a save-or-die spell. If we'd decided from the outset that we wanted to have a no-rez game, things might be different. But we had a wholly different group when this game started and we couldn't have foreseen things changing as much as they did. It just seems to me that we are operating at cross-purposes at times with the way the campaign has been designed. That's no one's fault; but I'm trying to be realistic with you all about what's to come. It's not a question of if you will die, but when. And I'm not sure that's the kind of game I want to run.

---

Belief is easy. Doubt is hard.
Edited by QuillofNumenor on Jun 22, 2007 at 05:12 PM

Good point.

I wonder if there is ANY high level D&D campaign that does not rely on the trivialization of character death to preserve continuity. What great fantasy novel (or movie) are they trying to emulate where the heroes die regularily only to rise again the next day with nothing more than "dang, there goes another level and 5,000 gp!"

---

~Ryan Wolfe

Wow...um... Dan I understand where your coming from completly. I've felt like I've heard it in your voice for a while now. My take is that if you don't want to run high level then you shouldn't feel obligated to (especially considering you have done a tone of the DMing for the group since I joined). We as a group have a ton of ideas for new games. If you choose not to run AoW anymore then I will likely jump in with the Burning Sky. All that said... I am enjoying Kelit Athenu and this campaign.

Your call... me backing you 100% no matter what the choice.

I'll back whatever you decide. I have enjoyed AoW to this point and have missed playing it these last few months. Dingo still has a large manlog. I agree with Ki Ryn that it hasn't yet slowed too much, but as you are the DM and someone who has "gone before" I trust your judgment if you think it will soon become more of a pain than a pleasure.

I also agree with the res trivialization being a problem, but some campaigns are more formulaic (in the D&D, not cinematic, sense) in terms of "balance" across the ruleset. AoW is definitely not a venue for serious roleplaying, but it has to this point been good Christian fun. I wouldn't terribly mind a departure, though. This group consistently plays well, no matter the setting.

---

"Let no good deed go unpunished, no charity awarded without horrific price. For I am the darkness you fear, and by that I mean I am scary."
- Lord Soth, Perverse Meanderings & Black Stools

Leave it to Dave to put it far more succinctly than I ever could. That's exactly my feeling. And I feel like we have all matured as gamers over the past year; I know I have myself simply from the widening of my tastes and looking at new ways of running/playing the game. I suppose a game like Age of Worms is less satisfying to me now than it once was. And of course, I'm a player in the Age of Worms as well, so I am able to get my fill of "good Christian fun" outside our group, so it's less interesting to me to go through it again.

It is a difficult position, because I certainly don't want to deprive anybody of a campaign they're enjoying, but at the same time, I can't run a campaign I'm not enjoying. One of the biggest mistakes a GM can make is forgetting to have fun himself. I can tell you that the further we get into Age of Worms, the more over the top the action and story will get. I don't think I'm spoiling anything when I say the end goal is for you to fight a god. That just doesn't have the appeal to me it might have once upon a time.

Another issue that I haven't mentioned yet is that DrJ is going to be leaving us soon. I apologize for mentioning this before he has a chance to himself, but given the circumstances I think it bears on this discussion. He has gotten a job in a town about two hours away from us. That means we'll be down a PC for Age of Worms, and our only real fighter-type guy at that. I know we can do Star Wars with just four, but I'm leery about trying to do Age of Worms that way. Plus it's another blow to continuity. I don't know if you guys care about that as much as I do but it just bugs me when characters come and go; it feels so artificial and jarring to me. I'm not blaming anyone personally, don't misunderstand; it's just the nature of this particular type of campaign, where people die or come and go, makes it hard to suspend disbelief when there's a new PC every few weeks.


Thank you for your support Trevor, it means a lot.

Perhaps I just can't reliably run a campaign past level 12 or so. I can accept that as a limitation. But if that is the case, then perhaps it's all the more reason to do shorter-term, smaller-scale games that don't migrate into high level territory. Basically, what I'm hearing is that most of you could go either way. Before we make any rash decisions, perhaps we should talk about what alternatives might be. I have a few ideas I can toss out to you, and also Trevor has expressed interest in the Burning Sky. Of course, Burning Sky is another titanic, 20-level campaign. I have no idea if it reaches some of the more absurd heights of Age of Worms, but I would definitely approach it with reasonable expectations in mind.

---

Belief is easy. Doubt is hard.

I absolutely agree with this. If you actually aren't enjoying running AoW, then that's then end of the discussion right there. I'm liking the game but I certainly can't enjoy it if it's become a chore for you and will get worse rather than better. For any game, if the guy in charge isn't having fun, the game needs to change. I'm good with whichever way we go as long as we're meeting up every Tuesday eve for something.


Edited by Ki Ryn on Jun 23, 2007 at 10:16 AM

Hello All,

Not to bust in on your conversation here but I do have something to say. I have read this thread and think that the limitations you are talking about have more to do with your setting/game mechanics then it does with your Game Mastering skills. D20 and its derivative systems are going to share a similar flaw in that the players’ power level will increase over time that is the “reward” of the game. It does not lend itself to a grim and gritty/realistic feel at all unless you heavily modify it. If you go through all the trouble of modifying it then you might as well be playing a different game. This is what this post is all about. After all the D20 system was created to simulate a "idealized" presentation of how the world works not reality and eventually you get to the point where disbelief is not only suspended but hung by the neck until dead.

I feel that too, because much like you I'm running an Age of Worms game that is getting past my comfort zone and the players are getting to the "brute force is the answers to every question" stage (this is not meant as a comment on the players in this game but a reflection of my experience with the Age of Worms Adventure Path). As said before in this thread the Age of Worms really does lend itself to that style of play too so it may not be just my players.

My point in posting this is that your crew looks like the kind of people that would be willing to invest some time and energy in finding a better rule system for your style of playing. I would suggest building something with the Fudge system for example. I understand it is a very customizable core set of mechanics that can be built upon till you reach what you are looking for in scale and realism. Also there are hundreds and hundreds of free game systems out there that may have already been researched and play tested that may "feel" better for the stories you are trying to tell. Of course this all assumes that you are willing to put the time and effort into looking for them and everyone is willing to give it a shot. I got the feeling that this crew was going to do a series of smaller games anyway so this may be an excellent time to give these new systems a shot. That can be time consuming but it could fix the issue you have having telling your stories and lead to longer and more enjoyable games with rich characters that adventure together for years.

I hope this helps out if not feel free to ignore everything I have just said.

Peace Jester

PS. I took the liberty of posting some links to various game systems you may want to take a look at. Once again don' feel obligated to do anything with them. I just put them up in case you wanted them.

C.O.R.E. Link
http://bbs.dragonslanding.com/viewtopic.php?t=2279
Fudge -- You can download the free version on the right hand side of the page.
http://www.fudgerpg.com/fudge.html

After about 3 min searching on google
http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/alley/1557/freerpgs.htm
http://www.hoboes.com/html/RPG/netgames.html
http://dmoz.org/Games/Roleplaying/Genres/Universal/Free_Systems/

---

Man an imperfect beast seeks a perfection he will never know.
Edited by Death_Jester on Jun 23, 2007 at 11:19 AM

I'm considering StarWars Saga or (more likely) True20 for the next thing I run. Admitedly, that's quite a ways off at the moment, but I think both systems are worth a try - and are simple compared to D&D 3.5 (and so perhaps easier to run at higher levels).

Really though, I haven't DM'ed anything past leve 12 myself, so I'm not sure whether it is the game system or the adventures that are the real problem. I have played to level 18 and that campaign (especially towards the end) was the best role-playing I've ever experienced in a D&D game. The high-level stuff was written from scratch, tailored specifically to the characters, and didn't include much dungeon delving, which probably contributed to the playability. I expect that generic, dungeon-centric adventures at high level are going to eat up a lot of 5,000gp diamonds no matter what.

Edited by Ki Ryn on Jun 23, 2007 at 01:45 PM

Thanks for those links Jester. It's not the amount of rules in the D20 system that is the problem, though, and most of those systems seem to rely on "less is more" when it comes to rules. I've learned that more rules usually equals better in a game system, at least to a certain degree. I do want to look at True 20 again though.

---

Belief is easy. Doubt is hard.

Okay, here is my idea for what I'd like to run next:

A fantasy version of Roman Britain, set at Hadrian's Wall (a wall and fort system that bisects the island). Instead of defending against Celtic hordes, though, you'd be up against mythical monsters out of Grecco-Roman mythology as well as British mythology. It would be a scarce-magic world, with virtually none present in Roman society. You'd have to go beyond the wall, out into the untamed wilds, to see real magic.

I'm not sure if it would work but I'd like to try using vitality/wounds in this setting. I would want it to be pretty grim and realistic as far as combat and death go, including all the amputations and location-specific wounds in the Morningstar rules. One problem with it I see is that healing would be weird. I think I'd get rid of the cure line of spells and instead only allow vigor, but have it only affect vitality. Then there would probably need to be another spell that affected only wounds (say, 1d4+1 per casting).

I would allow some spellcasters, but they'd be limited. A druid especially would fit in, but I'd probably want to use the spontaneous casting variant from Unearthed Arcana, if for no other reason than to limit the number of spells he knows. Cleric would probably not be allowed, nor wizard unless we modified it heavily. Definitely allowed classes would be: fighter, knight, ranger (no spells variant), rogue and barbarian. Not sure if bard could be implemented. I might be able to work up a class that has some of the abilities of a bard but is more like a noble, using powers to inspire and lead rather than through music.

I would tentatively set the game to run about 10 levels or so at most. I would probably start you at 2nd level. Armor and weapons would be greatly limited, i.e. short swords (gladii) and spears and boiled leather or light chain mail the norm for Roman soldiers. You all would most likely be part of a legion so you wouldn't have to come up with a reason for why you work together (not unlike how we did it in Morningstar).

This is one of my favorite historical eras and locations and I think it would be fun to play a grim, gritty fantasy version of it. I'm a Roman history buff though, so I know it might not appeal to others as much as it does to me. What do you all think?

---

Belief is easy. Doubt is hard.

Hmm, I guess I better save my monk idea for Trevor's campaign then.... :)

We ran a few levels of D&D with wounds/vitality back in the day. I think for cure spells we had them heal vitality as normal, plus wounds equal to spell level (or maybe it was one would point for each d8 rolled in the cure?). There are certainly solutions, and I'm all for gritty!

I haven't read them, but maybe Iron Heroes or some of those other warrior-focused books would be a good fit. Then again, avoiding extra complexity might also be a good idea.

As you craft the background for the story, consider working in reasons for smooth character replacement (assuming ressurections outside of the Holy Land are fairly rare). For example, if the PC group is a specific squad, replacements would be assigned as casualties occurred. Or perhaps a given family is oath bound to have one son in service so long as they have sons of age to send (so if one dies, the next is drafted into his place). Even if the reasons are different for each character, building them into the story might make transistions easier later on.

---

~Ryan Wolfe

How well did the vitality/wounds work in a D&D setting?

I don't really like cure spells healing both vitality and wounds. In Star Wars, you have to make two different checks to heal somebody with both types of damage, so it seems weird to combine them for a fantasy campaign. And since I want to use the vigor spell to heal vitality, there's no real way to add that to the wound healing. I was thinking of having a new spell line, something like "wound healing." The first tier one (probably a 2nd level spell) heals 1d4+1 per caster level up to +5. Then as a 3rd or maybe 4th level spell, "improved wound healing" which does 2d4+1 per caster level up to +10, and then finally "greater wound healing" as a 5th or 6th level spell that does 3d4+1 per caster level up to +15. Having them be two separate spells will force a spellcaster to choose two spells to be an effective healer, which will cut down on other spell use, which will keep things lower-magic. At least that's my theory.

And it should be easy to have replacement characters in such a setting: if a soldier dies, somebody else gets promoted to fill his spot. There would be hundreds of soldiers stationed along the wall, so coming up with a new one shouldn't be a problem. Or, you could play an indigenous Briton who joins the legion as a scout or local informant. Plenty of possibilities.

In history, Britain was basically a backwater and most of the Roman troops there were auxilia (troops from conquered or client provinces). There would, of course, be some "true" Roman soldiers there, especially officers, but the rank and file would have been native Brits. If we were going to do this, I'd really like to see somebody play a Roman officer, while others play native Britons in the army. That could make for some fun interplay with the cultural differences.

---

Belief is easy. Doubt is hard.

I love the setting idea. Would it be safe to assume it will take you a while to get everything in order? I ask because it give me an oppertunity to start Burning Sky when this chapter of Mourning Star is complete.

Regarding wound/vitality in D&D. When Ryan and I tried it before combat took forever. The problem is that you are still dealing a d6/8ish damage instead of the SW 3d6/8. If we found a way to scale back to the amount of vitality/wound that characters started with.... What if you rolled Hit Points like normal but 2/3rds are vitality and 1/3rd is wounds? This would continue until your wounds equaled you CON and then your hp would all start accumulating as vitality.

An example 2nd level fighter with maxed out hp's & an 18 CON would have 19 Vitality and 9 Wounds. An example 2 level rouge with no CON bonus would have 9 Vitality and 3 Wounds
Edited by trevor on Jun 23, 2007 at 07:40 PM

Unearthed Arcana has a section on Vitality and Wound points - addressing some of the D&D specific issues. I'm not neccesarily saying we should use the rules presented, but it brought up some areas that might be a concern. As with most things d20, changing one thing impacts more than you would initially think.

---

~Ryan Wolfe

Yeah I was reading it, seems pretty straight forward. As Trevor says, it would probably make combats take a bit longer since you have to burn through the additional wound points to kill your enemy. In this setting, we'd be using smaller damage dice too, probably nothing bigger than a d10, which would make it even harder. I wish there was a way, using the normal hit point system, that you could simulate dismemberment or other serious wounds, but I've never seen one.

---

Belief is easy. Doubt is hard.

Oh, and I'm not sure how much time I'd need to get prepared Trevor. If you felt like trying out Burning Sky, I'm sure that would be beneficial for me, but I also think I could come up with something in the next two weeks before we finish the current Morningstar chapter. I don't want to force you to run if you're not ready.

---

Belief is easy. Doubt is hard.

I'd like to try out that role - my main concern being what class(es) would best represent it. There is time enough to figure all of that out though. Is the plan to try an pick up a 5th player for that game? If so, a 2-3 civilized-local ratio would not be bad either.


Edited by Ki Ryn on Jun 24, 2007 at 08:57 AM

I wasn't planning on finding a 5th player. I really want to bring Emily into the group but she doesn't have Tuesdays free right now. I don't know of anybody off hand who is a likely candidate, unless DeathJester can get Tuesdays free.

---

Belief is easy. Doubt is hard.

DeathJester and Hyphen are typically weekend gamers only. If Emily were available that would be great. If not I say we run with 4. I've always felt like 4 is the perfect size when Roleplaying is a priority over rollplaying. Plus knowing that we won't need an Arcane caster takes one more role away. I see an officer, trapfinder, a druid, & a melee guy.

As far as me needing time to prepare... It's already prepared. I have material on hand to run from 1st-6th. I get a new adventure emailed to me once a month. Assuming I'm alternating chapters with someone thats a lot of material. If you are gung ho for the Roman/Britain thing then I say we go with that just cause I really like the idea. When there is a time when our group needs a second game on tap I'll be ready to run within a week or two (character creation and such).

You make the call Dan.

While I've been wanting to run something like this for a while, I only came up with the idea this week I'm still brainstorming for a story at this point, so an extra few weeks to prepare while you try out Burning Sky will be better. Let's try out the first adventure and then once we reach the first good stopping point I should be ready to go.

---

Belief is easy. Doubt is hard.

Can someone with the ability set up a "Burning Sky" Campaign thread?

http://enworld.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=20945&

I hope this took. This is the players guide to the Burn Sky Campaign
Edited by trevor on Jun 24, 2007 at 11:26 AM

Done.

---

Belief is easy. Doubt is hard.

Should I move this Age of Worms forum to the "Inactive Campaigns" section of the site?

---

"Let no good deed go unpunished, no charity awarded without horrific price. For I am the darkness you fear, and by that I mean I am scary."
- Lord Soth, Perverse Meanderings & Black Stools

trevor is right about us we are pretty much stuck to just playing on the weekends. One of the disadvantages of having a home in the country is that the distacnce you have to drive to get someplace. I have to get up at 5am just to get to work by 8pm and that puts me going to bed early. If you all ever do a weekend game however we are all over it. Just let us know.

Peace Jester

---

Man an imperfect beast seeks a perfection he will never know.

That's too bad Jester, but I understand. How many situations like that, or similar ones, have kept otherwise good gamers apart over the years?


Fine by me, unless anyone has any objections.

---

Belief is easy. Doubt is hard.

You get super busy for one weekend... and wow you miss a lot of discussion.

Although I'm sad to say goodbye to Delnor, I am looking forward to both Burning Sky and the Britannia thingamajig.

Dave don't delete Age of Worms quite yet.... In case we want reference any of our discussions or House Rules or whatever.

Don't worry, I'm not deleting it, just moving it out of the Current Games section.

---

"Let no good deed go unpunished, no charity awarded without horrific price. For I am the darkness you fear, and by that I mean I am scary."
- Lord Soth, Perverse Meanderings & Black Stools