TERROR NETWORK OCTOBER BUNDLE

We are putting out a Terror Network bundle for October. You can get all the Terror Network books and modules in PDF for $6.00. This includes the Terror Network RPG, The Agency Resource Guide, The Patriot Incident, Operation Hydra, Operation Hydra Den and Average Joes. 

You can get the Terror Network Bundle: HERE

INTERVIEW WITH ELEANOR FERRON

This has apparently existed since 2010 but I only just learned about it from the Tales of the Grotesque and Dungeonesque site. Jack has been posting about Ravenloft this month and in one of them he featured a gorgeous Tarokka Deck by artist Eleanor Ferron (here: Beautiful Tarokka). I recommend checking out Jack's posts on the demiplane of dread because he makes several insightful observations but also puts up lots of gameable material. The Tarokka Deck he featured is noteworthy because it is very well done but also because Tarokka decks are pretty hard to acquire these days (the cheapest I've seen the originals is 80 dollars). I was so intrigued I decided to do interview with Eleanor about the project. 

BD: It looks like you started out with a background in History. How did you get into art and illustration?

To paraphrase a quote I once heard, "when someone asks when you started drawing, ask them when they stopped." I think a lot of people draw, it's simply a question of whether they themselves consider their work to be art, or whether they think of it as just doodling. Art and illustration has always been something I did. When I was young I used to draw comics for my friends, with weekly issues, ongoing storylines, the works - they were about as sophisticated as you would expect from a pre-teen, of course. However, for a very long time I considered my interest as just a hobby, and as a result I tended to put it off to the sidelines. Eventually, I realized art was something I wanted to do, and whether or not it ended up the primary focus in my life, I needed to stop dismissing it. I'd say I began to seriously focus on my artwork few years after graduating from college.

BD: Did your History Training have any influence on your artwork?

I would say everything has an influence on my artwork. That's not a very helpful answer, I'm aware! But when it comes to creative endeavors, such as writing or drawing, I feel that's really the case. Artwork is an expression of ideas, even if those ideas are simply "what someone looks like", and the only way to get ideas is to go out and look for them. My background in history teaches me to pay attention to things like which domains - countries - are in contact with which other domains, and how they'd influence each other culturally through that contact. These are things that would come out in their appearance.

BD: Judging by your portfolio page you have a broad range. There are many different kinds of images and a variety of mediums from comics to plush toys. What is your favorite medium to work in?

These days I usually work digitally, which has a number of advantages. There's no mess, no set up, I can imitate a variety of styles with different brushes, and the Undo button is a godsend. All that said, when it comes to results, nothing can compare to a simple pencil or micron pen on sketchbook paper. 

BD: How did you get into plush toys?

My mother quilts as a hobby, and taught me how to use a sewing machine - she used to sew me clothes when I was much younger. I never had the patience for either quilts or the precise measurements needed for clothing, but sewing is always something I've known how to do. I started experimenting with moths as plush toys because they weren't very complex in shape, and because almost no one else makes them. It was one of those "if you want it done, do it yourself" scenarios.  

BD: Which artists inspire you the most?

One of the wonderful things about the internet is that I can find thousands of amazingly talented artists to look at, to the point where there's far too many to name or even remember. The two I will always name off the top of my head, however, are Talon Dunning and Tony DiTerlizzi, who captured my imagination as a kid and never let it go. I would also name Lissa Treiman, Alexandria Neonakis, and Claire Hummel, although in a different way - they were all former classmates of mine, though not always in art classes. I still look up to all three of them a great deal.

BD: You’ve done your own Tarokka Deck (a kind of Tarot Deck for Ravenloft), I saw some images online and they look very nice. Why the Tarokka deck? how did this project come about?

My deck is actually a Tarokka Tarot deck, which takes some explanation. Tarokka was a fictional Tarot analog created to be a companion to the Ravenloft campaign setting. There's been several decks of it printed, including a lovely one by Talon Dunning. It's a fine product, but the problem I have with is two-fold. The more practical problem is that the decks are nearly impossible to find, as neither of them are available for sale anymore, and both seem to have had very limited print runs. Talon has noted that his Tarokka Deck goes for around $350 on sites like eBay. My other issue with the Tarokka deck is a personal one, in that I simply prefer using Tarot. A part of this comes from the childhood inspirations that got me into the Ravenloft campaign setting in the first place - there's a game called Quest for Glory 4 that ranks among my all time favorites, and the Tarot imagery used in that game had a huge impact on me growing up. That being said, I always felt the Tarokka deck was less robust than the actual Tarot, which always aggravated me when I attempted to use it. For instance, there's no card in Tarokka to symbolize the concept of "love", which strikes me as a rather glaring omission.

At the same time, the overt Judeo-Christian references in Tarot don't really work in the Ravenloft campaign setting, and there were elements of Tarokka that I liked, such as the many subtle (or none-too-subtle) references to the setting itself. My goal with the project was to create something personal that combined the two, merging the setting I loved with the Tarot symbolism I loved. As a result, my deck is technically a Tarot deck, heavily altered by influences taken from the Tarokka deck.

BD: Did the original Fabian Deck have any influence or was the Talon Dunning your primary starting point?

It was mostly Talon's. I think I've seen the original Fabian Deck all of twice.

BD: You mentioned this is a Tarokka Tarot Deck; was your primary goal to have something for use at the game table or to have something for use at the Tarot table inspired by the gaming table? 

I only really use Tarot in gaming, so the former. Back when my gaming group held a Ravenloft Larp, I had the role of a Vistani fortune-teller who would perform readings for other players. I was using the Tarokka deck back then, I'd borrowed one of Talon's from another player. I don't have the opportunity to do that any more, but I still use my deck for the Ravenloft play-by-posts I'm in.

BD: What has the reaction to the Tarokka deck been like?

Pretty muted, honestly. *laughs*  I actually finished the deck back in 2010, and released a PDF of it for people to print in 2012 - you can find it hosted on the Fraternity of Shadows Ravenloft website. It didn't make a lot of ripples at the time. It was only recently that I made an actual deck using Gamecrafters and posted it up on my G+ account, at which point Jack Shear took notice of it and shared it on his G+ account. He seems to be responsible for most of the attention the deck has gotten.

BD: Jack’s post is how it came to my attention as well. You have been active on Fraternity of Shadows, contributing to resources like the Nocturnal Sea Gazetteer as an artist, but also as an author with articles like The Ocean’s Ferry Men: Dread Selkies of the Nocturnal Sea. What draws you to Ravenloft and how do you try to capture that mood in your artwork?

Summing up what draws me to Ravenloft requires a lot of thought. What originally drew me was the writing, certainly. I think the first product I got my hands on was the Children of the Night compilation, and it blew me away. Jezra Wagner, in particular, was such a haunting character for a young mind. So I suppose I like a touch of darkness and melancholy in my games. But I think the ultimate answer of what attracts me is the broader themes of Ravenloft, along with my other favorite, Planescape - Planscape, to me, is a game about people but more so philosophy, while Ravenloft is a game about philosophy but more so people.

It's hard to explain how to capture the mood, because I think mood is everything to Ravenloft. Certainly, there's a kind of pseudo-Victorian styling to it, but I try to branch out from that in my work. I think the answer is "atmosphere", as well as a feeling of overlap between the familiar (in other words, things from our world) and the fantastical. Ravenloft is an exaggeration of the real world, to the point where emotion has physical effects on the world around it. The best way to capture that is to try and make things as evocative as possible.

BD: How is illustrating cards different from other mediums?

It's not that different from a simple illustration. The major difference, I would say, is I needed to be aware of the border. My illustrations needed to be a precise size, without exception, which meant there were some cards I had to crop or alter to fit within the set constraints.

BD: What is different about your Tarokka deck?

As stated above, it's a marriage between standard Tarot and Tarokka. I also made an effort to incorporate parts of the setting that are often ignored, or which simply weren't as developed at the time when the other Tarokka decks were drawn. I wanted to illustrate the diverse range of characters that could be drawn from the source material. Were I to do it today, the drawings would likely be even more diverse.

BD: What changes would you make if you did started again on the Tarokka deck today?

There are many artistic changes I'd make just to improve the artwork and make things fit better within the boundaries of the cards. I'd also likely change the way I portrayed various figures from various parts of the setting. In addition to my Tarokka project, I also have a personal project to re-write bits of the setting to my taste - as you can imagine, it's a very long running project. It's developed a lot more since I drew the deck, so I would likely incorporate the setting changes I made into the work as a whole. 

Anyone interested in obtaining one of Eleanor's Tarokka decks can contact here at: rinatheelf AT gmail DOT com

Eleanor's Portfolio: http://eferron.daportfolio.com

HISTORY AND GAMING

This entry is more more about history than gaming itself, but the two often intersect and when they do, fireworks are not an uncommon byproduct. I've been following a number of conversations and blog posts regarding historical campaigns and related topics in history and I see a lot of anger and angst from all sides. I am not particularly interested in the specific arguments anyone is making but rather why people choose to dig their heels in and become so enraged over the subject because my experience of history as a student in college was completely the opposite of this. The flame wars and tears are not at all what I encountered and certainly not why I continue to love history as a subject. 

I should probably start by saying I am by no means an expert. I have an undergrad degree in history which doesn't entitle me to much in this sort of conversation. Never went to graduate school or entered a PhD program, though I was given the chance to teach history to English as a Second Language students as part of my own degree and that was quite rewarding (and I was working under an instructor so it wasn't like I was head of the class or anything). The history department at my school was wonderful. It had a great mix of professors from a range of viewpoints. There are different schools of thought in history and it was nice to have exposure to a variety of them. They were all passionate but there was never the anger and frustration I see so much of online. And one of the most common answers they gave to our harder questions was "I don't know, let me look into that." That last bit was quite important. 

That isn't to say there were not heated debates or arguments, but they were generally the exception and recognized as getting in the way rather than helping analysis. I remember seeing two professors clash over the meaning of an ancient Greek word in the History office. It was funny because that sort of thing rarely occurred and they both became obsessed with finding the answer. I think importantly though,when they did find the answer, the person who had been incorrect didn't change course or try to recast the argument in his favor, he acknowledged that he had been wrong. 

For me the thing about history that I love is it lets you asks all kinds of questions about the past. That is really the starting point in any history paper, asking a question and trying to find an answer. What I don't know about the past is what makes it so fascinating to me. That I might be wrong in my assumptions makes it exciting to investigate. And that willingness to acknowledge what you don't know and where you can be wrong, even if you think you know the answer, is important. Now this isn't some sort of statement about how we don't really know anything, so every idea is dandy (I found most history professors to strongly reject that kind of thinking) rather it is about letting go of your ego and the need to be the smartest person in the room. You only become smart about history when you know where your weaknesses are and what you need to learn. At least, that is how I came to view it from my experience as a student. 

I imagine some folks may be reading this and thinking I am weighing in on some debate about female warriors in history or whether HARN gets medieval life right. I am not. I have zero interest in those arguments. What interests me is the angst around them, the certainty both sides seem to bring to the debate and the way they invest so much emotion in the conclusions. If history made me that angry, I wouldn't bother with it. 

And just to be clear on that debate, I don't know the answer at all. I never had much interest in military history and was never intrigued one way or the other. I have some notions based on what I do know about history of the times and places under discussion but would honestly need to go back and do the research, get myself up do date on the latest articles on the topic. And while I love HARN and I do like the Medieval period, I was always much more interested in the Ancient Mediterranean and the Middle East. I would need to review my HARN books before wading into that particular discussion (and again that seems like time better spent learning about something that interests me). 

But I wonder why gamers in particular have such an intense relationship with history online, why so many discussions in gaming hinge on some question about history. It just seems so counter-productive to me. Like folks are using history as a bludgeoning instrument to score points. I would rather see people admit what they don't know. I am sure some of the folks are genuine experts and speak from a legitimate place of authority but a lot of them seem to be people like me, former history students who probably should be wary of adorning themselves with the 'expert' mantle. When I see a lot of these kinds of debates my first thought is 'boy do I have a lot to bone up on and re-learn'. 

This isn't to say I regard myself as unable to speak on the subject. If it is an area of history I studied a lot and understand, I will happily comment on it. I wrote a previous blog entry on Approaching History in Gaming and I tried to give a mini-lesson on historiography because that was a subject that held a lot of interest for me and I felt people would benefit from knowing more about it. But if someone pointed out where I got something wrong or pointed to an alternative viewpoint I wouldn't freak out, it wouldn't trouble me that in the years since I left college, I muddled some of the details of historiography (though I did review my copy of Iggers before writing that post just to guard against that a bit). 

I am genuinely interested in other peoples thoughts here (even if they think I am way off base) so feel free to comment. 

Martial Arts in Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate

I've touched on this before but would like to write about it in more depth because it has come up in discussions with play testers. In Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate, the martial arts system is modeled on wuxia film and television series rather than real-world martial arts or fighting. That means we emulate the gravity defying (and sometimes logic defying) feats you see on screen. It also means we are not particularly worried about real  technique. This is a game where a character can lay on the ground and dodge sword blows by rolling, squirming and doing handstands. It is a game where characters can channel energy blasts and leap on a person's sword blade to deliver their own lethal attack. 

I participated in martial arts regularly for many years and it was a passion of mine that only ended because I developed complications from Crohn's Disease that required I stop intense physical activity. This was good for Ogre Gate. Prior to that, I had a lot of difficulty developing martial arts systems because I was so focused on what I learned from sparring and competition. Time away gave me the distance I needed to take a more laid back approach that emulated the highly stylized stuff you see on the screen. Also being unable to do the kinds of daily exercise and training I was accustomed rekindled my interest in wuxia in general, because wuxia is a genre where characters are physically unbound and transcend such limitations. It had a new appeal to me and I found the grittier martial arts movies (which I also enjoy) started to have less of an appeal. I've gone back and forth over the years and expect to in the future but presently wuxia gets more screen in my household. 

So now when I show people the Kung Fu Techniques in the book, I explain that these are not meant to reflect realistic combat. For Ogre Gate, I don't care about that. I care about being able to do the stuff Jet Li does in the Swordsman. There is an internal logic to it of course. These things are not created whole cloth. For example characters being able to leap up and walk on a sword blade to strike their foe happens because the setting has lightness Kung Fu where characters can shift their body weight and make themselves lighter (this is why characters in martial arts films glide over lakes or leap over twenty foot walls). By the same token, blasting your foes with red energy is there because the setting includes Chi and internal martial arts. 

Rather than describe this, I would rather show you what I mean through some clips. I chose these mainly because they were easy to find in a search. The first clip is from New Dragon Gate Inn (which I reviewed HERE). I personally rather like this scene so I'm glad it was easy to find when I searched it. This is gives you some idea of wuxia swordplay. 

The second clip is from a series I haven't seen. I've seen the 2003 version but this is the 2009 version of Heavenly Sword and Dragon Sabre. I liked the 2003 series, however (can't say if the 2009 series is good or not). This scene gives a pretty good sense of open handed technique in the genre and some of the stylistic elements surrounding that. 

The third clip is from a series I quite like, the 2006 Return of Condor Heroes. I was hoping to find another battle from the show but this one still illustrates my point. It is a good example of some of the more fantastical stuff you see in wuxia like spinning blades suspended in the air and using ribbons of cloth like spider webs.

DESIGNING IN OCTOBER

For me October is a particularly helpful time of year. One thing I've learned about myself, and it is quite consistent, is I do my best game writing and development during the Fall and especially the month of Halloween. I live next to Salem and that may have something to do with it. Around here Halloween is a huge celebration called Haunted Happenings that brings traffic to a crawl in the surrounding communities. The celebration culminates on the 31st but it builds all month. 

New England feels very different in October. The leaves start turning burgundy and yellow and the air grows dry. I always feel like the crisp air sharpens my mind and puts me in a more creative mood. The material I've worked on in October has almost always been the stuff I am most proud of. 

Maybe it is because I am at heart a Ravenloft GM and running horror scenarios is something I am most comfortable with. That mood works for me and it pulls me into the game more than any other. 

When we first started work on Beneath the Banshee Tree, for example, it was around October of 2013 (in fact I believe this is our first post on the subject: Beneath the Banshee Tree). By the middle or end of October I was running my first play tests and that was by design. Beneath the Banshee Tree is my favorite kind of adventure: a creepy investigation, perfect for Halloween sessions. You can check out a nice overview of it at The Alexandrian. 

But even The Patriot Incident, a modern adventure for Terror Network with no supernatural elements at all, was written with an October mood. I don't recall all the precise details of development, but I do now it was written around Halloween, which is why Haunted Happenings in Salem plays such a key role. You can't live where I live and not become pre-occupied with Halloween in October. Even if you hate the holiday, the traffic is everywhere. It is like mardi gras for New England. 

When Bill and I did The Landlord's Daughter for Colonial Gothic, I am quite certain that was in October as well. 

Sertorius was a multi-year project but once again the times we really hit our stride with material always seemed to be around October. Servants of Gaius was developed over a Summer and into Winter so I don't know if that quite qualifies. Certainly my best Servants of Gaius adventures occurred in the Fall. 

THE ENEMIES LIST

Ever since Servants of Gaius, the Network System has featured an Enemy Flaw. In Sertorius we developed the concept further to create mechanics that help the GM determine the nature of the enemy and the enemy's motives toward the PC. Like other Flaws, for this to function the GM needs to work it into the game and keep track of the characters' enemies. 

When players in my group take this flaw I immediately make an enemies list that includes names, stats, motives, etc. I also talk with the player to figure out how this person became their enemy. The purpose isn't to punish the player, but merely enforce the Flaw (which is important). 

I also give each enemy resources. These should be reasonable and reflect the power level suggested by the type rolled. For example if the player rolls on the Enemy chart and gets a Mundane enemy, his lackeys (at least the ones he sends to deal with the PC) should probably be mundanes too unless there is good reason for them to be an Ogre or Sertori. 

You also need to consider the nature of the grievance. Few enemies want their opponent dead (though that is a possibility on the chart). Mostly Enemies are worried about things like respect and honor. Be sure to keep the Enemy's plans to a scale appropriate to the grievance. No one is going to implode their personal empire over a minor misunderstanding (well most people won't do that). Again the results on the chart suggest what level the enemy would bring this to. 

According to the Enemy Flaw, each adventure the Enemy has a 50% of making an appearance. This need not be done by adventure, it could be placed on a time increment if that works for you. The important thing is to pick a schedule and stick to it. Then roll before the game itself, so you can work the enemy into your prep if need-be. 

This can take some thought depending on the scenario. You don't need to write down an entire adventure for the enemy, just develop some vague sense of the Enemy's plans. 

Really you want to treat your Enemies as important NPCs because that is what they are. You also don't want their status as an Enemy to shield them from the physics of play. Enemies can die just like anyone else. The Flaw still exists though. The player will eventually acquire a new Enemy or his previous enemy's kin will seek revenge. 

But what if you have multiple players with the Enemy Flaw and more than one enemy shows up during a single adventure? I suggest taking it case by case, but consider having them team up. It may well be in their interest to work together against the PCs. 

Also don't be afraid to use cunning plans if the Enemy is smart. If your enemy's just show up every few games to shove the PC into a pile of dung as they chortle, you may not be making the best use of them. Certainly there is a place in Sertorius for the Biff Tannens of the world. But don't forget the schemers. 

I suggest trying to find characters from history, fiction and film to serve as models to help you design Enemy's quickly. Salieri is an interesting model for an Enemy. He is a schemer, he is also a bit complicated and seems to have a certain image of himself that he believes in. Perhaps most importantly his motivation is envy. He is jealous of Mozart's talents and wants to destroy him because of this. That is a perfectly valid motive for an Enemy in Sertorius, the PC simply being better at something. 

Enemies are well worth the work you put into them. They become recurring NPCs that keep things interesting and keep your players on their toes. 

WIDENING THE LENS: WHY WE SHIFTED FROM FOCUSED TO BROAD DESIGN

There are a lot of different ideas about game design out there. One thing you see people talk about is whether games should be focused or broad (or somewhere in between). This can apply to many different aspects of the game from the genre to the system to the goal of play. Some folks believe that games can only do one thing really well and the more you try to add the more that diminishes the game's quality. I personally do not believe this. I think there is a place for focused design and I think it has value, but I also think most groups do not consist of players who all agree 100% on a narrow set of preferences. I've seen this at my own table and through the customers of our products. There is nothing wrong with narrow design and there is nothing wrong with broad design but both do have consequences worth considering and these days I have moved from more a more focused approach to a middle approach that avoids either extreme. 

Let me give an example with one of our own games: Crime Network. It is, in my opinion, a wonderful system. It is also very focused on a narrow type of setting, one where the player characters are all members of the mafia. This is narrow in terms of concept. But the mechanics also feed into that. I think in hindsight we could have, and should have, made the mechanics even more focused on mafia material. One aspect of the game we decided was missing after it was released was it ought to have had a higher level of lethality than other Network products. Or I should say, a particular kind of lethality: making the one shot kill easy to pull off. But on the whole this was a game built around the idea of playing mobsters and I think we did a pretty good job. 

That said, how many people are really going to buy such a game? And out of the folks who buy it, how many people are going to run campaigns regularly for the rest of their gaming days? Even in my own group, while everyone had a blast playing, it wasn't something I could run constantly. It was more of a game for special occasions and seemed to work best in 2-4 month long campaigns. 

Many of our early designs were quite focused. I like focused games. I think they are a lot of fun. But I also like games with broader appeal and I also am interested in designing to the realities of the table these days. The reality is, it is somewhat rare to have a group of players who are all on board for this sort of off-beat concept. I happen to know  several such players and when we play Crime Network or a similarly focused game it is great. But it is much easier to recruit gamers if you are starting with a more broad concept.

At the same time, when you get too broad with a game, it becomes quite vanilla. Sometimes that is good. Vanilla is a popular flavor of ice cream for a reason. Not only is it something most people find they can stomach but it works great as a base for more complex flavors. With games it is the same way. You can take a game that is quite broad and use it for many different kinds of campaigns. That said, I am not terribly interested in making something broad or generic. I do like my games to have a certain amount of flavor attached to them. 

Narrowness can also be about design philosophy. Whether that be one of simplicity or one of agendas. And again I think here, for me it is much easier to avoid this and just look at what people are really after at the table. Players have a stubborn habit of being all over the map in this respect. It is easy to come up with a overarching idea of design that sounds good and wins arguments on the internet, but much less easy to make a uniform theory hold over actual playgroups. People are just too diverse and their tastes too personal. So now I've chucked all that. I don't worry about it. I just worry about what happens at the table, what people like, what they want, what makes the game work for them. Perhaps most importantly: what works for me as a GM and Player. 

This isn't a rejection of how we designed things in the past. I am proud of Crime Network and our other early games. It is just an explanation of our development, how we went from narrow and light to where we are now. It also isn't a statement that we will never do another  highly focused game. We well may. But If we do, it will be with the understanding that with greater focus, the more narrow our audience and the more game may be suited for special occasions.