PressTheBeast

And so, the NatheQuest bestiary continues. Something I've been thinking about is appropriate descriptions for monsters, particularly in terms of appearance. There are two main issues I've noticed in bestiaries. The monsters rely on artwork, text description, or player presuppositions. The latter is okay in some cases. We know what a Viper looks like, so it doesn't necessarily need that much description; an Orc is different. I don't know what an Orc is in a concrete sense. Given the way RPGs come alive at the table, I think there is a strong argument to made that games should avoid using artwork as a crutch . The imagination of players at the table ought to be inflamed by the text and the dreams they inspire, more than the art.  The other issue is disharmony between the mechanics and the physical description of the monster. That is: the cause and effect is unclear. When running a challenge oriented style of game, as I do, its important that the monster description indica

Luke Gearing wrote a blog post about writing a limited bestiary and designing your campaign " monster first ." My current Daemonium campaign used that approach for the game's first and most significant region, Cashua. The end result was a relatively cohesive feel: NPCs within could talk about and reference regional threats and monsters in a concrete way because they were solidified by the game's structure. As I wrote up the monsters, I included regional bits of folklore and references to Cashua.  While that was great, the Treasure Table suffered because of a lack of preparation. I simply used the generic OSE Treasure Table and when something like, say, a magic sword came up I would give it a name, backstory, and on a 2-in-6 some additional special ability (This number was hit with remarkable frequency). While this worked it definitely felt like a bit of a hack job. The magic items lacked the "life" of the bestiary and because I didn't have time to sit on

RPG reviews are completely messed up. The vast, vast majority of reviewers have no experience with the actual product in question. They've never run the module, never run a full game with the system, and only have conjecture about the content and comments on the art. It seems like just an extension of marketing, rather than an actual look at the merits of a given work. The juice comes out in play, not speculation. I don't watch video reviews, but I imagine the problem is even worse in that god forsaken realm. Every day I am recommended a Questing Beast video, in which his mouth is agape beside an image of the latest greatest RPG book. Instead of these, I tend to favour play reports and, especially, retrospectives. They aren't common, and good ones are rare, but even a poor retrospective is worth more than a hundred reviews. Table Top RPGs are enjoyable to me in part because the experience of them is "slow" compared to other mediums. Different player groups and cam

A few months ago, Cadillac Monteau saved enough coin to purchase his very own galley. He wrangled up some orphan children and found a strange foreign merchant with a few sailors to come on board. I then got to work designing the South Seas, where the goal of his voyage lies in wait. Procedures in use for sea travel are from Wolves Upon The Coast. They are very easy to use: if you can run a normal hexcrawl this is not much different. Things get easier if you make sure the players are the ones handling ship logistics. They are responsible for repairing it, tracking supplies, etc.  The start of the session was about 40 minutes of accounting. This side of the campaign hadn't been played in a while, so logistics needed to be worked out. Supplies were tallied up. The main difficulty is food. Using the standard ration cost (From Knave) things get pretty pricey. I am considering offering discounts for bulk purchases. I don't mind the upkeep costs, I just think it seems reasonable to of