To go hand in hand with the class update article I just posted here's some racial information. More specifically, how it ties into class. In 3rd Edition (3.5) each race had a favored class, broken as follows. I'm also going to include their 3.75 ability score adjustments for reference.
Dwarf -- Fighter; +2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha
Elf -- Wizard; +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Con
Gnome -- Bard; +2 Cha, +2 Dex, -2 Str
Halfling -- Rogue; +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Str
Half-Elf -- (any); +2 to any attribute
Half-Orc -- Barbarian; +2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Int
Human -- (any); +2 to any attribute
The reasoning behind this was not explained to my knowledge, but kind of makes sense. The dwarves are a very martial race, so it makes sense they would gravitate towards fighters. Elves are an inherently magical race so the path of the arcane comes easily to them. With fifteen classes to choose from now it makes sense that the list of favored classes would get expanded. Since the classes are based around ability scores, and the races get bonuses and penalties to ability scores, it stands to reason that the two would be tied together.
Here's the breakdown of classes associated with each ability score:
Strength: Fighter, Sorcerer, Cleric, Knight
Constitition: Barbarian, Warlock, Monk, Shaper
Dexterity: Rogue, Filch, Ranger, Bard
Intelligence: Wizard, Sorcerer, Filch, Warlock
Wisdom: Priest, Cleric, Monk, Ranger
Charisma: Lord, Knight, Bard, Shaper
With fifteen classes I think it makes sense for each race to have four favored classes based around their primary ability score. This works in most cases. The elf would have a favored class associated with Intelligence; the halfling would favor those classes based around Dexterity, etc. The two races that this doesn't work for are dwarf and half-orc. Dwarf would have Strength-based classes, while the half-orc would have Constitution. Reversed but it makes more sense thematically.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
D&D 3.75 Class Updates Part I
Well, I've been thinking a lot about how D&D works, what with the impending release of 4th Edition and the continuing releases of the Pathfinder RPG (D&D 3.75). Seeing the changes implemented in Pathfinder to the classes has sparked my thought process, which boiled down to this: How the heck are classes in D&D defined? I don't think there is any rhyme or reason behind it beyond "hey this sounds cool" and "it's been in the game since the beginning."
It's time to throw that thinking out the window, my friends. I wanted to start with my thought process behin the whole thing. I've struggled a lot with how to classify the classes (?). What separates them mechnically? How could they be grouped? 2nd Edition D&D broke the classes down into the following four categories
Warrior - Fighter, Ranger, Paladin
Priest - Cleric, Druid
Wizard - Mage, Illusionist
Rogue - Thief, Bard
Those were the base classes as presented in the 2nd Edition PHB. In 3rd Edition I started to break it down even further. Thoughts that came into mind included grouping by base attack bonus (low, middle, high), ability focus (feats, skills, magic), or traditional (warrior, priest, wizard, and rogue). Nothing really fit.
Here are the 11 classes as presented in the 3rd Edition PHB:
Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard.
Of these classes I've had problems with two specifically - Paladin and Sorcerer. The Paladin was too specific, and basically meant that all Paladins were the same beyond their personality (which with LG characters still tended to be the same). The Sorcerer was not different enough from the Wizard to justify a separate class. It had fewer spells and received new spells less often, which meant that a party with a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard would always lag behind in terms of spellpower.
In addition, 3rd Edition took the approach that the party should be composed of four characters - Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard. All of the encounters are based around the presence of these four classes, or at least classes that fulfilled their function. What did this requirement actually mean? You need a tank, a healer, a skill-user, and a spellcaster. That's the approach that 4th Edition is taking, and I don't really like identifying them as such. Too World of Warcraft-y.
And then it hit me. There are six ability scores - Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. These abilities have been with the game since the beginning, and have persisted throughout each incarnation. Why not base the classes around the ability scores? Heck, 75% of that work's already been done!
So you have the six ability scores, and you can divide them into two groups - Physical and Mental. That gives you six base classes. When you look at it like that you start to see how the classes came into being. Fighter? Strength. Wizard? Intelligence. Taking it a step further you can combine abilities between the two groups to create a few more. Bard? Dexterity + Charisma. While combining the aspects of two classes, these new classes took on a life of their own.
With that in mind I started looking at the six ability scores and matching them up between the two groups. Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity VS. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Here's the list I came up with:
Strength
Constitution
Dexterity
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma
Strength/Intelligence
Strength/Wisdom
Strength/Charisma
Constitution/Intelligence
Constitution/Wisdom
Constitution/Charisma
Dexterity/Intelligence
Dexterity/Wisdom
Dexterity/Charisma
Fifteen combinations. Looking at the list like that you can see some immediate corrollations between existing classes. Bard = Dexterity/Charisma. Barbarian = Constitution. Etc. D20 Modern took a similar approach to this but genericized it too much. They removed the classes and made Strength heroes and Intelligence heroes. Too generic for D&D.
In comparing the list above to the clases there are still a few inconsistencies. As I stated earlier, the Paladin was a problem. What was the Paladin? A martial Cleric? Isn't the Cleric already martial? Isn't the Paladin really just a Cleric with less spells and a few specific abilities? The Paladin gets dropped to remove duplication.
The problem then becomes what defines a Wisdom based class versus a Strength/Wisdom class. So I took a look at a niche that was missing - the pure divine spellcaster. Someone who eschews combat for spells, just like the Wizard. That relegates the Cleric to the Strength/Wisdom niche, which means their spells are going to get reduced (not much) in favor of more abilities. I'm thinking more specific abilities around Domains.
The Wisdom class then becomes a pure divine spellcaster with no combat abilities. I'm going to call this class the Priest since that is what it is. Now things make sense - the paladin is now a Cleric of Heironeous (or other LG ideal) and the Cleric is now able to function as a fighting divine spellcaster.
The Druid is also a problem. What is a Druid but a nature-themed Cleric who can shapechange? The Druid as written gets dropped and its abilities get absorbed into nature-themed Domains. The wild shape gets turned into something else, but I'll get to that in a moment.
Taking the classes as presented in the 3rd Edition PHB here's what I came up with when applying them to the fifteen combos:
Strength -- Fighter
Constitution -- Barbarian
Dexterity -- Rogue
Intelligence -- Wizard
Wisdom
Charisma
Strength/Intelligence
Strength/Wisdom -- Cleric
Strength/Charisma
Constitution/Intelligence
Constitution/Wisdom -- Monk
Constitution/Charisma
Dexterity/Intelligence
Dexterity/Wisdom -- Ranger
Dexterity/Charisma -- Bard
Sorcerer is too much of a duplicate class to include, and both the Paladin and Druid get eliminated as discussed above. I think the matches make an eerie kind of sense actually - the Ranger is really a Dexterity and Wisdom based class, and the Monk combines Wisdom and Constitution. Now to fill in the gaps.
Let's just populate Wisdom with Priest. It's abilities need to hammered out but getting the concept is the hardest part, which is already done.
Charisma and Constitution are problems, and have been a problem in D&D for a long time. These two ability scores are pretty important for EVERYONE depending on how you view your character, Constitution more so because it governs hit points. Charisma is definitely a "throw away" ability score - few game mechanics are based around it.
The fix for that is to create a game mechanic that is based on Charisma and to base a class around it. In 3rd Edition they tried this with Sorcerer, but failed to make it unique enough. So where to go from there?
I toyed with the idea of making the Charisma-based class psionic in nature. It kind of makes sense - the force of your personality fuels mental powers. But the flavor never really felt altogether there and I abandoned it.
One phrase that kept rolling around in my head surrounding this conundrum was "sphere of influence." I don't know why, but I've always associated Charisma with this phrase. Playing around with some naming conventions I decided to create a mechanic that this Charisma-based class would have access to surrounding the idea of "Spheres."
Some of the names I considered for this class (since I think the name tells a lot about the thing) include the following: weaver, beguiler, psion, noble, wellborn, and patrician. Nothing jumped out at me, though I liked weaver (and Beguiler was a new class presented in PHB II). I've come around to the idea that this Charisma-based class was going to be an influencer of people and have abilities that make the party better, kind of like the Bard.
After mulling the idea around I settled on Lord. The Lord is my Charisma-based class with abilities relating to spheres (like the Cleric/Priest has abilities surrounding domains and the Wizard has abilities surrounding schools). The name lord has kind of a noble connotation, but I think the name works - it's simple, it's direct, and it can apply to any number of character concepts. The Lord is someone who can stop a swordblow from landing, command men and women to do his bidding, and to control the situation from behind the scenes. That covers Charisma.
With that in mind the Strength/Charisma class almost writes itself - Knight. This fulfills the honorable warrior role the Paladin previously occupied and creates a new class to incorporate more of the sphere based abilities. I'm going to start with the Knight as presented in the PHB II but take it in a different direction.
Four left - Strength/Intelligence, Constitution/Intelligence, Constitution/Charisma, and Dexterity/Intelligence. You could make an argument that the Bard is really a Dexterity/Intelligence class, but I decided to focus it on Charisma instead. One idea I've always liked and haven't seen implemented well in 3rd Edition is the concept of the spellfilch - a thief/mage combo from 2nd Edition. Changing it slightly to be just Filch fills the role of the Dexterity/Intelligence class, which will have abilities akin to the Arcane Trickster prestige class from the DMG.
The two Constitution classes took some thinking. I came up with the idea of a class who cannibalizes his own body for power, and thus the Warlock was born (Constitution/Intelligence). Not sure what its abilities will be at this point but the concept is there. Perhaps a focus on summoning (kind of like the World of Warcraft warlock). Still thinking on that one.
To me, the idea of Constitution and Charisma brings to mind someone who uses their body to change how they appear. With a little creative tweaking this becomes the Shaper - a classed based around the wild shape Druid ability but with expanded abilities. The Shaper could be a totem-based warrior or an avenger of nature.
That leaves Strength/Intelligence. There are quite a few prestige classes that work to fill this niche (including Eldritch Knight and Spellsword) but nothing's really struck me as being the right fit for a base class. What about fitting the lame 3rd Edition Sorcerer into this role? Unearthed Arcana had alternate class abilities for all of the base classes, and one of them was the Battle Sorcerer - access to fewer spells but combat abilities to compensate. Why not turn the Sorcerer into this variant? I decided on that and thus the Strength/Intelligence-based Sorcerer class was born.
That rounds out the list, which looks like this now along with the classes primary focus:
Strength -- Fighter (combat feats)
Constitution -- Barbarian (rage)
Dexterity -- Rogue (sneak)
Intelligence -- Wizard (schools)
Wisdom -- Priest (domains)
Charisma -- Lord (spheres)
Strength/Intelligence -- Sorcerer (arcane combat)
Strength/Wisdom -- Cleric (divine combat)
Strength/Charisma -- Knight (presence)
Constitution/Intelligence -- Warlock (
Constitution/Wisdom -- Monk (personal training)
Constitution/Charisma -- Shaper (wild shape)
Dexterity/Intelligence -- Filch (arcane skullduggery)
Dexterity/Wisdom -- Ranger (wilderness)
Dexterity/Charisma -- Bard (music)
Fifteen classes. The new ones (Priest, Lord, Sorcerer, Knight, Warlock, Shaper, and Filch) I think fulfill existing roles and create interesting combinations that would otherwise have required multiclassing for lesser effect. Each class needs to stand on its own, and it also needs to make sense from a multi-class standpoint.
I'm going to give this post a publish to give myself a breather.
It's time to throw that thinking out the window, my friends. I wanted to start with my thought process behin the whole thing. I've struggled a lot with how to classify the classes (?). What separates them mechnically? How could they be grouped? 2nd Edition D&D broke the classes down into the following four categories
Warrior - Fighter, Ranger, Paladin
Priest - Cleric, Druid
Wizard - Mage, Illusionist
Rogue - Thief, Bard
Those were the base classes as presented in the 2nd Edition PHB. In 3rd Edition I started to break it down even further. Thoughts that came into mind included grouping by base attack bonus (low, middle, high), ability focus (feats, skills, magic), or traditional (warrior, priest, wizard, and rogue). Nothing really fit.
Here are the 11 classes as presented in the 3rd Edition PHB:
Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard.
Of these classes I've had problems with two specifically - Paladin and Sorcerer. The Paladin was too specific, and basically meant that all Paladins were the same beyond their personality (which with LG characters still tended to be the same). The Sorcerer was not different enough from the Wizard to justify a separate class. It had fewer spells and received new spells less often, which meant that a party with a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard would always lag behind in terms of spellpower.
In addition, 3rd Edition took the approach that the party should be composed of four characters - Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard. All of the encounters are based around the presence of these four classes, or at least classes that fulfilled their function. What did this requirement actually mean? You need a tank, a healer, a skill-user, and a spellcaster. That's the approach that 4th Edition is taking, and I don't really like identifying them as such. Too World of Warcraft-y.
And then it hit me. There are six ability scores - Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. These abilities have been with the game since the beginning, and have persisted throughout each incarnation. Why not base the classes around the ability scores? Heck, 75% of that work's already been done!
So you have the six ability scores, and you can divide them into two groups - Physical and Mental. That gives you six base classes. When you look at it like that you start to see how the classes came into being. Fighter? Strength. Wizard? Intelligence. Taking it a step further you can combine abilities between the two groups to create a few more. Bard? Dexterity + Charisma. While combining the aspects of two classes, these new classes took on a life of their own.
With that in mind I started looking at the six ability scores and matching them up between the two groups. Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity VS. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Here's the list I came up with:
Strength
Constitution
Dexterity
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma
Strength/Intelligence
Strength/Wisdom
Strength/Charisma
Constitution/Intelligence
Constitution/Wisdom
Constitution/Charisma
Dexterity/Intelligence
Dexterity/Wisdom
Dexterity/Charisma
Fifteen combinations. Looking at the list like that you can see some immediate corrollations between existing classes. Bard = Dexterity/Charisma. Barbarian = Constitution. Etc. D20 Modern took a similar approach to this but genericized it too much. They removed the classes and made Strength heroes and Intelligence heroes. Too generic for D&D.
In comparing the list above to the clases there are still a few inconsistencies. As I stated earlier, the Paladin was a problem. What was the Paladin? A martial Cleric? Isn't the Cleric already martial? Isn't the Paladin really just a Cleric with less spells and a few specific abilities? The Paladin gets dropped to remove duplication.
The problem then becomes what defines a Wisdom based class versus a Strength/Wisdom class. So I took a look at a niche that was missing - the pure divine spellcaster. Someone who eschews combat for spells, just like the Wizard. That relegates the Cleric to the Strength/Wisdom niche, which means their spells are going to get reduced (not much) in favor of more abilities. I'm thinking more specific abilities around Domains.
The Wisdom class then becomes a pure divine spellcaster with no combat abilities. I'm going to call this class the Priest since that is what it is. Now things make sense - the paladin is now a Cleric of Heironeous (or other LG ideal) and the Cleric is now able to function as a fighting divine spellcaster.
The Druid is also a problem. What is a Druid but a nature-themed Cleric who can shapechange? The Druid as written gets dropped and its abilities get absorbed into nature-themed Domains. The wild shape gets turned into something else, but I'll get to that in a moment.
Taking the classes as presented in the 3rd Edition PHB here's what I came up with when applying them to the fifteen combos:
Strength -- Fighter
Constitution -- Barbarian
Dexterity -- Rogue
Intelligence -- Wizard
Wisdom
Charisma
Strength/Intelligence
Strength/Wisdom -- Cleric
Strength/Charisma
Constitution/Intelligence
Constitution/Wisdom -- Monk
Constitution/Charisma
Dexterity/Intelligence
Dexterity/Wisdom -- Ranger
Dexterity/Charisma -- Bard
Sorcerer is too much of a duplicate class to include, and both the Paladin and Druid get eliminated as discussed above. I think the matches make an eerie kind of sense actually - the Ranger is really a Dexterity and Wisdom based class, and the Monk combines Wisdom and Constitution. Now to fill in the gaps.
Let's just populate Wisdom with Priest. It's abilities need to hammered out but getting the concept is the hardest part, which is already done.
Charisma and Constitution are problems, and have been a problem in D&D for a long time. These two ability scores are pretty important for EVERYONE depending on how you view your character, Constitution more so because it governs hit points. Charisma is definitely a "throw away" ability score - few game mechanics are based around it.
The fix for that is to create a game mechanic that is based on Charisma and to base a class around it. In 3rd Edition they tried this with Sorcerer, but failed to make it unique enough. So where to go from there?
I toyed with the idea of making the Charisma-based class psionic in nature. It kind of makes sense - the force of your personality fuels mental powers. But the flavor never really felt altogether there and I abandoned it.
One phrase that kept rolling around in my head surrounding this conundrum was "sphere of influence." I don't know why, but I've always associated Charisma with this phrase. Playing around with some naming conventions I decided to create a mechanic that this Charisma-based class would have access to surrounding the idea of "Spheres."
Some of the names I considered for this class (since I think the name tells a lot about the thing) include the following: weaver, beguiler, psion, noble, wellborn, and patrician. Nothing jumped out at me, though I liked weaver (and Beguiler was a new class presented in PHB II). I've come around to the idea that this Charisma-based class was going to be an influencer of people and have abilities that make the party better, kind of like the Bard.
After mulling the idea around I settled on Lord. The Lord is my Charisma-based class with abilities relating to spheres (like the Cleric/Priest has abilities surrounding domains and the Wizard has abilities surrounding schools). The name lord has kind of a noble connotation, but I think the name works - it's simple, it's direct, and it can apply to any number of character concepts. The Lord is someone who can stop a swordblow from landing, command men and women to do his bidding, and to control the situation from behind the scenes. That covers Charisma.
With that in mind the Strength/Charisma class almost writes itself - Knight. This fulfills the honorable warrior role the Paladin previously occupied and creates a new class to incorporate more of the sphere based abilities. I'm going to start with the Knight as presented in the PHB II but take it in a different direction.
Four left - Strength/Intelligence, Constitution/Intelligence, Constitution/Charisma, and Dexterity/Intelligence. You could make an argument that the Bard is really a Dexterity/Intelligence class, but I decided to focus it on Charisma instead. One idea I've always liked and haven't seen implemented well in 3rd Edition is the concept of the spellfilch - a thief/mage combo from 2nd Edition. Changing it slightly to be just Filch fills the role of the Dexterity/Intelligence class, which will have abilities akin to the Arcane Trickster prestige class from the DMG.
The two Constitution classes took some thinking. I came up with the idea of a class who cannibalizes his own body for power, and thus the Warlock was born (Constitution/Intelligence). Not sure what its abilities will be at this point but the concept is there. Perhaps a focus on summoning (kind of like the World of Warcraft warlock). Still thinking on that one.
To me, the idea of Constitution and Charisma brings to mind someone who uses their body to change how they appear. With a little creative tweaking this becomes the Shaper - a classed based around the wild shape Druid ability but with expanded abilities. The Shaper could be a totem-based warrior or an avenger of nature.
That leaves Strength/Intelligence. There are quite a few prestige classes that work to fill this niche (including Eldritch Knight and Spellsword) but nothing's really struck me as being the right fit for a base class. What about fitting the lame 3rd Edition Sorcerer into this role? Unearthed Arcana had alternate class abilities for all of the base classes, and one of them was the Battle Sorcerer - access to fewer spells but combat abilities to compensate. Why not turn the Sorcerer into this variant? I decided on that and thus the Strength/Intelligence-based Sorcerer class was born.
That rounds out the list, which looks like this now along with the classes primary focus:
Strength -- Fighter (combat feats)
Constitution -- Barbarian (rage)
Dexterity -- Rogue (sneak)
Intelligence -- Wizard (schools)
Wisdom -- Priest (domains)
Charisma -- Lord (spheres)
Strength/Intelligence -- Sorcerer (arcane combat)
Strength/Wisdom -- Cleric (divine combat)
Strength/Charisma -- Knight (presence)
Constitution/Intelligence -- Warlock (
Constitution/Wisdom -- Monk (personal training)
Constitution/Charisma -- Shaper (wild shape)
Dexterity/Intelligence -- Filch (arcane skullduggery)
Dexterity/Wisdom -- Ranger (wilderness)
Dexterity/Charisma -- Bard (music)
Fifteen classes. The new ones (Priest, Lord, Sorcerer, Knight, Warlock, Shaper, and Filch) I think fulfill existing roles and create interesting combinations that would otherwise have required multiclassing for lesser effect. Each class needs to stand on its own, and it also needs to make sense from a multi-class standpoint.
I'm going to give this post a publish to give myself a breather.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Under Mound
Because "Weird Dave" will be in the midst of a transition from his apartment to a new home in the next few weeks and the majority of his stuff will go into storage making it difficult for him to run the Age of Worms temporarily, we agreed I'd step in a do a short session or two scenario for the Call of Cthulhu RPG. Here is the setting info;
Under Mound
This is a short Call of Cthulhu campaign set in Mound, MN in contemporary times. I find that to truly bring the horror of the setting closer to home, nothing beats actually setting it at home, as it were. Even the seemingly boring town of Mound has dark and terrible secrets that will destroy the lives and sanity of the normal, everyday people who happen to stumble upon them, their knowledge bringing terrible insight into the very nature not only of an insignificant lake town in the western Twin Cities but the entire universe. This will be a very freeform campaign based on what you as players do and your characters. Depending on your decisions, any number of dark secrets and events could take place, and even I'm not sure what will happen.
Characters
Making your characters, or investigators in CoC parlance, should be a group effort. They should have a reason to, well, investigate, as well know, if not like, each other. Something mysterious happens and they find themselves trying to find out why, hence investigators. Just look at any groups of people meeting up around Mound today, even this very group! Any one of them could discover the Mythos where they least expect it all with a little curiosity or bad luck. Also, think of what your investigator would be like if you bumped into them, say, down at SA or something.
Here are some examples off of the top of my head for group concepts; these are just ideas, so feel free to come up with anything you can think of, so don't feel confined;
High School/Middle school students/teachers, a gaming group (or other hobby group), clerks (video rental, liquor store, etc.), Scout troop, Church group (Our Lady, St. John's, etc.), group of elderly people (fishers, crafters, etc.), plumbers/computer repair (other professionals), Historical Society members, a local TV show star back home with their entourage, or funeral home employees.
Of course many of these could mixed and matched as well- a Church group could also be interested in fishing, or gaming group could be made up of video store employees. For instance, a dentist might know a young family who has just moved into town, one of which is a grand child of a historical society member.
The most important things to ask in Call of Cthulhu are about your characters life; these are just as important as your stats, so add a least of sentence of thought into them.
Who are you? Where do you live? Who are your friends and family? Where do you work? What is your relationship to the supernatural? What is your personality like? And so on.
I'll bring all needed equipment for you to make your characters this Thursday. I may be able to put a short scenario together as well. Hopefully, I can manage a bit of atmosphere and make it a pleasurably chilling experience!
Ia Cthulhu!
Under Mound
This is a short Call of Cthulhu campaign set in Mound, MN in contemporary times. I find that to truly bring the horror of the setting closer to home, nothing beats actually setting it at home, as it were. Even the seemingly boring town of Mound has dark and terrible secrets that will destroy the lives and sanity of the normal, everyday people who happen to stumble upon them, their knowledge bringing terrible insight into the very nature not only of an insignificant lake town in the western Twin Cities but the entire universe. This will be a very freeform campaign based on what you as players do and your characters. Depending on your decisions, any number of dark secrets and events could take place, and even I'm not sure what will happen.
Characters
Making your characters, or investigators in CoC parlance, should be a group effort. They should have a reason to, well, investigate, as well know, if not like, each other. Something mysterious happens and they find themselves trying to find out why, hence investigators. Just look at any groups of people meeting up around Mound today, even this very group! Any one of them could discover the Mythos where they least expect it all with a little curiosity or bad luck. Also, think of what your investigator would be like if you bumped into them, say, down at SA or something.
Here are some examples off of the top of my head for group concepts; these are just ideas, so feel free to come up with anything you can think of, so don't feel confined;
High School/Middle school students/teachers, a gaming group (or other hobby group), clerks (video rental, liquor store, etc.), Scout troop, Church group (Our Lady, St. John's, etc.), group of elderly people (fishers, crafters, etc.), plumbers/computer repair (other professionals), Historical Society members, a local TV show star back home with their entourage, or funeral home employees.
Of course many of these could mixed and matched as well- a Church group could also be interested in fishing, or gaming group could be made up of video store employees. For instance, a dentist might know a young family who has just moved into town, one of which is a grand child of a historical society member.
The most important things to ask in Call of Cthulhu are about your characters life; these are just as important as your stats, so add a least of sentence of thought into them.
Who are you? Where do you live? Who are your friends and family? Where do you work? What is your relationship to the supernatural? What is your personality like? And so on.
I'll bring all needed equipment for you to make your characters this Thursday. I may be able to put a short scenario together as well. Hopefully, I can manage a bit of atmosphere and make it a pleasurably chilling experience!
Ia Cthulhu!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Video Games Live concert in Winnipeg!
I head about this on NPR on Saturday and thought it would be of interest to numerous people. Sounds pretty cool, actually. Its "an immersive concert event featuring music from the most popular video games of all times," with "top orchestras and choirs." The whole spiel is at www.videogameslive.com and you can listen to examples of the music at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12478692
Anyway, the next and closest showing is on June 5 in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I think it would be a fun little trip to make. According to Mapquest, Winnipeg is 450 miles from here and should take an estimated seven hours. The show is at 8 PM at the Centennial Concert Hall and tickets cost $36.75 at Ticketmaster Canada for the second balcony. Currently, there appear to be ten seats left in the second balcony, so we may want to decide quickly.
There appear to be many camp grounds near to Winnipeg; that may provide a cheaper place to stay, as well.
Some research shows that to drive into Canada, one doesn't yet need a Passport (that's only if we flew), but a government issued ID (Drivers License) and proof of citizenship (NOT a Social Security card, but a Birth Certificate.)
Anyway, if we do go, here are some other things to do in Winnipeg that should be fun and cheap;
The Forks Market- historic market place and home of cheap ethnic eats and other cool farmers market like stuff.
Chinatown- authentic and tasty restaurants.
Assiniboine Park, Zoo, Conservatory, and Pavilion- free zoo and sculpture garden, sounds interesting. A little like Como Park.
Winnipeg Art Gallery- very nice art collection, most significant Inuit collection in the world.
Crystal Casino- European-style gambling. Dress is "semi-formal," whatever that means. Maybe not that cheap, but may be of interest to some.
Anyway, sounds fun. Any takers?
Anyway, the next and closest showing is on June 5 in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I think it would be a fun little trip to make. According to Mapquest, Winnipeg is 450 miles from here and should take an estimated seven hours. The show is at 8 PM at the Centennial Concert Hall and tickets cost $36.75 at Ticketmaster Canada for the second balcony. Currently, there appear to be ten seats left in the second balcony, so we may want to decide quickly.
There appear to be many camp grounds near to Winnipeg; that may provide a cheaper place to stay, as well.
Some research shows that to drive into Canada, one doesn't yet need a Passport (that's only if we flew), but a government issued ID (Drivers License) and proof of citizenship (NOT a Social Security card, but a Birth Certificate.)
Anyway, if we do go, here are some other things to do in Winnipeg that should be fun and cheap;
The Forks Market- historic market place and home of cheap ethnic eats and other cool farmers market like stuff.
Chinatown- authentic and tasty restaurants.
Assiniboine Park, Zoo, Conservatory, and Pavilion- free zoo and sculpture garden, sounds interesting. A little like Como Park.
Winnipeg Art Gallery- very nice art collection, most significant Inuit collection in the world.
Crystal Casino- European-style gambling. Dress is "semi-formal," whatever that means. Maybe not that cheap, but may be of interest to some.
Anyway, sounds fun. Any takers?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)