Somewhere in time

I have always been plagued by bursts of inspiration for a particular period in history. Now enjoying books or movies set in these times is easy enough, but it's harder when you want to run a campaign set in a specific historical era.

The reason I say I'm plagued is that these bursts can pass as fast as they come, usually lasting only a couple of weeks, sometimes just days. With an inspiration span this short it's difficult to keep up the enthusiasm necessary to GM a campaign, and it's rude to get your players all fired up only to tell them “Sorry, can't be bothered anymore” three sessions later.

Luckily I've come up with a solution of sorts. I've yet to test it, but I believe it'll work.

It goes a little something like this;

The players roll up a “main character” each, who together will run through an investigation, or perhaps unravel a conspiracy. Something that has been going on for a very long time, in any case.

Then, when they manage to uncover a vital clue, or some important fact, you run a side game, lasting only half a session to perhaps three sessions in length, detailing what they found. In these mini games they play pre-made characters who experience what went on in that time and place. And this is what's so great. These side games can take place at any time anywhere, as long as someone is around to document it. From the American Revolution to the beaches of Normandy. Ancient Greece to Cuba in the 60's, anything is possible!

This set up has several benefits. First off, the players don't have to sit through long briefings or read tons of documents, instead they get to play the event.

Secondly, you can illustrate what the bad guys have been doing in a more visceral way, perhaps even let the players be the bad guys, if they're into that.

Thirdly, you can play around with historical settings without the need for in depth research. Just add enough flavor to make it work. I'll discuss how I do this in a later post.

When I talked to my friend, who is also a GM, about this idea, he expressed concern about how to keep the players on track when playing these side characters. An idea that hit me, and this is where experimentation is needed, is that the main PC's only get XP when the side characters complete whatever they were supposed to do. I have no idea if this is going to work, but it might very well.

Of course, they'll need proper pre-briefs in addition to the pre-made characters.

So there you have it. My experimental solution for multi-era play without all the hassle of time travel or dedicated lengthy campaigns.

A friend to your wallet

The Steam Summer Sale is almost over. As of writing this, there's a measly 45 minutes left, but I'm not sad. You see I got all that I wanted out of it's juicy discounted innards.

I don't know if it was on Cracked or Reddit, that I stumbled over one of the best economic points available concerning gaming;

Price divided per hour of entertainment received.

But let me add a small caveat. I'm a PC gamer. Games for consoles are pretty damn expensive. Not that PC games aren't rough on your wallet on release, but eventually, like on the glorious Steam sales, the same games plummet in cost, if only you have the patience to wait.

So back to the price / hours.

When was the last time you went to the movies? How expensive was the ticket? Did you get away with less than 10€ (or dollars)? Even so, you paid something to the point of 5€ per hour of fun.

and lets not go into what an evening out costs...

Let me compare that to my copy of Skyrim, which comes down to 0,107€ per hour.

Or Deus Ex Human Revolution, 0,208€ per hour enjoyed.

Even Dishonored that I just bought on the sale comes down to 0,437€ an hour.

The “worst case” in my Steam library is The Sims 3, that I've spent a fairly unholy amount of money on, clocks out on 2,33€ an hour of unbeatable fun, and what that comes down to is that gaming can be the most financially affordable form of entertainment around. Just as long as you don't shop unwisely.

Good gaming friends!

From there to here

Long long ago, in an era shrouded in the mists of time, also known as the early 1990's, I watched the TV series Jeeves and Wooster. This was the first time I had ever seen the brilliant comedic chemistry of Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie.

After J&W ended, the channel aired the first season of their new sketch show, A bit of Fry and Laurie. Later still I tripped over Blackadder on BBC, and though neither Fry nor Laurie feature at all in the first season, they did appear in the following three seasons with varying frequency.

Over the years, they have both become household names, with many successes on their own. But how did it all begin? How did they meet? Can they even agree how it happened?

To my delight I stumbled upon the following video one evening, and I figured some of you, my readers, might get the same enjoyment out of it I did.

Happy viewings! 

Edit: i had a problem with the embed file, so here's the first part:

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

Vampires y'all!

Last week I started reading the Southern Vampire Mysteries, better known to all and sundry as True Blood. The books have even been retronymed (or so wikipedia informs me) into the True Blood series, probably to make more people buy them.

As I started reading I had watched the HBO show up until season 4 episode 7, but this was a long time ago, and overcome by curiosity, I started re-watching from the first episode.

I have to say I'm impressed with the work the screen writers have done. The books aren't all that long, and since American TV has a fetish for long seasons, they've added and stretched a few things. I was pretty surprised when I discovered that these things were not in Mrs. Harris's books.

Allow me to highlight a few examples. Warning, if you haven't watched the show, there are spoilers ahead. (And some for the books, I suppose, but to a lesser extent).

Tara Thornton.

In the show, she's Sookies best friend. In the books, they went to school together, but they don't really hang that much. This means that all the plot lines that revolve around Tara in the show are null and void. No alcoholic mother, no huge fight with, well... everyone. You get the picture.

MaryAnn Forrester (aka the Maenad)

In the show, half of the second season revolves around her efforts to turn Bon Temps into one huge non stop orgy. In the books, she pops up, the vampires decide to pay her tribute, she kills a couple of people and goes away. She has barely any screen time (page time?) at all.

Lafayette Reynolds

There is practically no difference between the TV and the books when it comes to the flamboyant cook at Merlotte's, except he's killed off at the beginning of book two, meaning like his on screen cousin Tara, all the stuff concerning him are also absent from the books. This is a shame really, since he's so damn entertaining.

I could go on, but that would be pointless, however, all the important bits are included in the show. Particularity in season one, there are scenes that are recited verbatim from the book. This combined with the skill with which the screen writers have blended the original content with their own stuff, is super impressive.

So are the books worth the effort, especially since the show is so good? The answer is: Absolutely! They are highly entertaining, well worth your time. They also explain more about the world and how things work between the different supernatural beings.

Besides there's one added bonus. Sookie Stackhouse is much cooler in the books. Seriously, go check it out.

Comedy break!

Yesterday I spent about five hours on cramped trains, and having just gotten home from work, I find myself too tired to bring you anything really interesting.

But since you took the time to come here, I give you the ever funny Key & Peele.Regular post (if you can call it that) next week.

Enjoy!