Friday, March 15, 2024

These Simple Days

Again, I've had a long, difficult, unsatisfying week, where my own intentions and plans have been repeatedly put on a shelf.  This week worse than most, it seems.  No maps, no posts, no book writing, with five of us living here the house looks a disaster, and as of right now, I haven't any questions or answers for tomorrow's Q&A.

In self-defense, Tamara and I took a drive around eastern Alberta, visiting the badlands by Drumheller, the dinosaur capital of Canada, and then tooling through the pot and drumlin country between there and Stettler to the north.

Took this picture of Tamara yesterday; she's the smaller one at the bottom, just in front of the world's largest dinosaur's left foot.  For the record, 86 ft. high.  Tamara wasn't impressed; but she did love the appearance of the landscape, of which I'll post elsewhere sometime soon.

It was just a day trip, nothing very special, except that we enjoy each other's company a lot and we don't have any trouble talking continuously for 10 hours, even after all this time together.  I've been working on a story about her and I from way back in 2002, as the next post for Shifting Sands.

I've been enjoying that experiment, and there's evidence of it catching on.  I need a little practice writing non-argument, non-thematic content, but that'll come.  My biggest concern is that a lot of the stories I have to tell make me sound either irrational, like a fool, or contains too much of what my daughter calls my "assholicity."  It's a pity that in retrospect, so many of the moments when I stood up for myself, or went to war to die on a some hill or other, ends up after so many years with my thinking, jeebs, what the hell did I think I was accomplishing.

It may be different for other people, or maybe not.  Of course, other people quietly put those stories in a mental closet for permanent storage, in the hopes that the key to that closet might be lost as soon as possible.  I can't say exactly why I'm not doing that; or why I want to roll stuff like that out.  It won't be to make myself look good, I can tell you.  In fact, I'm very conscious of that.  All the stories I've told so far are fairly neutral, being things that happened to me, as they might happen to anyone.  I'm telling these in the hopes of building some credence for when I write a story about some moronic thing I did, or when I caused hurt to someone, or in fact failed as a human being.  I figure I'm bound to tell a certain number of those stories, before I tell even one story that puts me in a good light.  The last thing I want to accomplish here is my own self-aggrandisement.

Yesterday, travelling along country roads and highways in those parts, I talked to Tamara about hunting partridge and pheasants with my father, and the canoe trip I took down the Red Deer river, which we  crossed on our journey yesterday four times.  Tamara's not from around here; she spent her youngest years in a place called Hickman, Kentucky, on the Mississippi river, in the 1960s.  So everything we saw yesterday, especially the badlands, was new to her.  Most people can throw a rock across the Red Deer.  It's not the Mississippi.

But ... just now ... not in the headspace to write any story tonight.  I'm finding this post a trial, as I fuzzily await the end of this weekend.  My daughter and son have keys to their new place, and so begins the removal of furniture and other things from our environs to theirs.  They have a far harder weekend ahead of them than Tamara and I; we're given an exemption from these things as the "kids" have plenty of help from their friends, and don't need us old people.  Our job is to manage the grandson, whose in a state of confusion and panic because he hasn't had a proper home in more than a month, as this is the first time he's been old enough to understand what moving actually means.  I didn't encounter what Julian's encountering now until after I'd finished high school.

No, I'm writing this post in support of the fiction that I haven't died, and that I'm still in possession of my faculties and self-will ... neither of which seems, at the moment, remotely believable. There will be no Q&A tomorrow.  I trust I can get my wits together to return to work on my book, so that for the first time in four weeks, come the 22nd, I'll have a preview to post on Patreon.  And maps to post.  And blog posts.  And my sanity.

Saturday, March 9, 2024

Saturday Q&A (mar 9)

Maxwell in California writes,

Do you ever have game towns that enforce a law where weapons may not be openly carried (except by nobles, soldiers, or other people with special privileges)?

I ask because, while encountering and overcoming friction is central to playing the game, I think this scenario would be quite likely to make players bristle. I’m curious if or how you’d run it — and if so, whether you would, within the urban environment, deliberately provide some spaces of “breathing room” where players could try to get away with open carry. A description from an old post of yours, don’t know which, comes to mind: you suggested that an area of town with burnt or dilapidated housing could serve to stage a fight for a few rounds, before the NPCs scattered, knowing the authorities would arrive.

I’m imagining the knock on effects of a “no carrying weapons” law: thorough searches of property at the town gates; an outcry and swift arrival of the guards if a PC insists on wearing his sword belt into the street; players brainstorming how to smuggle the party’s best magic weapon to some crucial spot … as DM, I could get much mileage from a privileged NPC drawing his sword and threatening an unprivileged NPC in plain view of all.

Answer: I have used the rule of restricting player weapon use according to local ordinances, though I don't do it often. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but there is an understanding in the medieval world that anyone who can afford proper weapons is likely a member of the upper classes, or potentially in service of another lord, and therefore beyond contestation. I'd argue the only reason ever to have such an ordinance would be a situation where the town was in relative chaos, factions were fighting in the street, and the city magistrate was desperate in his or her attempts to establish order.

But note that the Montagues and the Capulets, among other rakes of the most civilised part of the world, Italy, were naturally expected to be carrying weapons with which to duel and such. In my opinion, it's far more likely that an ordinance would exist that stated where fighting with weapons could take place, thereby allowing enemies to blow off steam, than to actually restrict the weapons themselves. Thus, the authorities would arrive to stop fighting in the wrong places (see Dumas' The Three Musketeers), or perhaps on the wrong day (no fighting on holy days and such), or even the wrong time (morning please, certainly not after tea has been served!).

Finally, as far as threatening unprivileged persons, the point is that they're unprivileged. It's quite possible they wouldn't possess even the right to live ... though why a rational person would injure or kill such a person is quite outside standard practice for the period. Even in D&D, it could bring a lot of trouble from a privileged person if we happen to injure a cherished servant or the only gong farmer in the neighbourhood, it gives no treasure, a miniscule amount of experience and is quite ridiculous. It takes a 21st century person with a penchant for sadism gained from modern times and media to think this is a "thrill." As a DM, you'd be in your rights to say to a player intending to do such, "Um, no, you can't bring yourself to do it; you have a rational thought and it stops you." Or some such limitation. Think of it like not being able to jump a two inch wall in a video game, because it's not a part of game play. On the other hand, if you prefer your characters to have the freedom to create trouble for themselves, and don't wish to restrain them, let them have at it. The worst it can do is turn the campaign into a cartoon.


OhioHedgehog writes,

After a search of the blog and the wiki I've found very little about tattooing (which has suddenly become "a thing" at my table.) Wondering if it will be touched on in the Street Vendor's Guide? The background provided by following your posts about virtually everything else equip me with the wherewithal to create/design what I need on my own so I'm just curious.

Answer:  I hadn't intended to include tattooing as a service.  A quick search tells me that tattooing in the Medieval-Renaissance periods was typically done by individuals who'd acquired the skill, but who had no traditional location or shop where they might do it.  It may have been possible that individuals offered tattoos as a broader range of services, but actual prices would probably have been negotiated on an individual basis.

Creating the tattoo without modern equipment involved repeated puncturing of the skin with a hand-held needle to create the desired design.  It's possible that a light mallet was used for this purpose, to tap the needle in to improve the experience for the tattoo artist, who could thus be more precise since it would ease pressure on his or her hand.  Pigment and dye was then rubbed into the punctured skin; this could be done before or after the skin was penetrated.  Healing was dangerous because it would have been more difficult to keep the area clean and prevent infection ... something that wasn't much of concern among extremely isolated tribal peoples in the era, since they were wholly immune to any infection that might have occurred in their region of habitation as a result of hundreds of generation, even thousands, of continuous occupation.

As far as the Streetvendor's Guide goes, one must realise that even in this day and age there are many who resist the notion that tattooing is either healthy or commendable.  In many cases, open display of tattoos is treated as evidence that a person is either irresponsible or prone to self-indulgence, leading to preconceptions that may stand in the way of a person's financial or career success.  Much as I hate to admit it, by including tattooing in the Guide, regardless of how it's intended, could create the same sort of negative response that I'd receive if I included, say, slavery or a price to have someone murdered.  Comparing this against the actual benefit of including nine lines with a tattoo price on page 213 doesn't seem like much gain overall.  So I don't believe I'll be including it.


 _____


Thank you for your contributions.  Been such an annoying week, I'm sorry I'm only answering these questions today, and not some days ago on Patreon.  My apologies.

If readers would like to reply to the above, or wish to ask a question or submit observations like those seen here, please submit  to my email, alexiss1@telus.net.  If you could, please give the region where you're located (state, province, department, county, whatever) as it humanises your comment.

Feel free to address material on the authentic wiki, my books or any subject related to dungeons & dragons.  I encourage you to initiate subject material of your own, and to address your comment to others writing in this space.

 
 

Wednesday, March 6, 2024

It's, um, Not What You Think

My apologies for not writing here for days.  For those interested, I've produced content for the map blog, and for a recent project called shifting sands, and for patreon, but not here ... and of course, here is the only place that really counts.

My daughter, her husband and their son had to vacate their former place of residence at the end of February; they can't take possession of their next residence until the 16th of March, so for the present they're bivouaked with Tamara and me.  We're all friendly and pleasant, though our place is just 750 sq.ft., so naturally there are hurdles.  One benefit is that my daughter and I were able to record a video for her let's play site on Monday, which is always fun; she's been in the middle of a long and difficult move and hasn't been able to post anything, so she's glad to have something to put there.  Please have a look if you're willing, give her a like and let it run a bit, since that helps her stats.  It's me explaining how I play Oxygen Not Included, which might reveal something of my general character with regards to D&D.  It is, after all, a design-based logistical game.

I wasn't able to put a preview up of the Streetvendor's Guide last Friday, and the way it looks I won't this Friday either.  There's lots going on, I'm struggling to find quiet time to do my job (which for whatever reason needs doing) and frankly I haven't even been able to open the document since last Thursday.  Lately, the time I've found for myself has been spent making maps because it's comparatively relaxing compared to producing serious content.  It doesn't help that I've run into a block regarding the layout of the wood section early parts ... as that's what I've started putting together.  Things are sure to settle down after a week or so, when I can return to my weekly pattern of equanimity.

Did have a useful conversation about the production of content, motivated by yet another one of thos many youtube videos in which some person talks about all the people who are quitting youtube and how hard it is to make money on the platform, and what's it all for anyway, and besides the real hard part is finding something meaningful to make content about.  You know the type.  Here's an example from a mature, adult woman whose able to express herself competently without having to posture like either a testosterone-driven jackass or an estrogen-possessed flake.

I trust that's an equally balanced insult of people of both sexes.  I don't want to play favourites.

Creating something new is hard.  Therefore, it's obviously easier to create something that's, um, derivative.  Something derivative may receive a lot of views and likes, but at the same time it's not exactly soul-sustaining.  If we make something derivative, it feels like it's derivative, so any actual praise we get for it feels, um, empty.

If later we then create something actually original, we can't help noticing that it gets precisely the same praise as something derivative.  Often, it gets less praise.  This is discouraging.  In fact, it's discouraging in the same way that praise for derivative stuff feels empty.  This is true even if the channel is making money.

All in all, this result undermines one's motivation to produce ... anything.  In fact, it's rather crippling.  Fortunately for me, I experienced this spiral in roughly the 1980s, when my audience consisted of no more than 60 persons at the best of times, and more usually a circle of about 6 friends.  Eventually I settled into a groove of comfortably creating content regardless of anyone ever seeing it.  I had no idea the internet would eventually happen.

Now that it has, I try occasionally to take some advantage of it ... only to be usually disappointed.  But I've been better trained to handle that then most people who are turning to the internet as, um, an alternative to working a real job.  Only to find, all too often, that creating stuff is a lot like a real job that fails to provide the purpose of a job: income.

Lets see ... I ought to provide some sort of advice here.  If you're going to make a youtube channel, film yourself doing something you're already doing every day.  If you like to sail, and you would be doing that anyway, learn how to post four well-secured cameras in the right places around your vessel and then film yourself until the power on these cameras runs out.  Then teach yourself how to voice over, so you can explain where you are, what you're doing, why you're doing it and so on.  The end product of cutting all four camera feeds may turn out to be utter garbage ... but at least you got to do what you would have done anyway.  And you've gained some knowledge of how cameras, editing and overdubbing works.  Win-win.

I write.  If the world were empty of all people, if I were the last man left alive, I would still write down things today because four years from now, I'd enjoy reading what I wrote four years ago.  This is the sort of madness you'll need if you're going to do something for a living, without a boss that pays you money just for showing up.

DON'T decide to do something you've never done before and film that.  Don't.  You won't like the thing ... and if your channel somehow does well, you'll learn to really, really, really hate the thing.  Eventually, you'll hate your fans for liking that you do something that you hate.  You'll hate them.  And that'll come out.  And you'll regret it.  Not just because your channel isn't popular any more, but because it once was, it stopped being, and you're going to utterly hate yourself for letting it fail.  It's a lose-lose.  Don't do this.

DON'T base your channel or anything else you're doing on someone else's work.  You may have a mission to teach people the wonders of history, but if all you're doing with your history channel is repeating information that exists in books, or hundreds of other history channels, in the end you're going to feel like you're on a hamster wheel.  You may have a wonderful plan for your next presentation, you may put hundreds of hours into making your presentation pretty, or witty, but if you're on a hamster wheel and that's not where you really want to be, in a few years you'll realise that this is all getting you nowhere.  Even if it makes money for you.  In the end, you'll realise you're not making any kind of difference at all, any more than all the other copies of your work do.  You'll realise you're not special, and you're never going to be.  You won't like that.  And worst of all, it's not going to be an alternative to doing a "real job."  It will be a real job.  One you might be able, someday, to get numb to, but not one that's going to fill you with joy.

Truth be told, most of us don't do something every day that's worth pointing a camera at.  Sorry.  Just how it is.  Most of the time, these people who sigh and show regret for the internet not being what they hoped for are just too, um, ordinary to be watched.  Again, sorry.  Just how it is.  Performance is for performers.  It's a type.  Not everyone is a class clown.  And most of the time, being a class clown isn't all that rewarding anyhow.

It's great that youtube and the general internet gives everyone a shot at being a class clown, or some other kind of performer ... but realistically, a "shot" isn't much.  It's not fame.  It's mostly not rewarding.  It's mostly a wasted afternoon getting ready for the audition.

Saturday, March 2, 2024

Saturday Q&A (mar 2)

Maxwell in California writes,

I found this new framework of yours both inspiring and practical.

Last night I spent an hour or so trying to write up the “foraging” motivation across the eight hex types. Got about halfway; I went too fast and kept struggling to come up with the less-than-literal interpretations of foraging which would make sense in the more civilized types of hex. I’m returning to it now and just trying one hex type.

Suppose a type 7 hex: “homestead.” The homesteading race — the one whose presence grows with the hex type; let’s say they’re humans — is still establishing their grasp on the land. To keep hold, they must spend all day in the backbreaking labor of pulling stumps, carrying water, plowing and sowing, inspecting the crops for pests, etc.

Their “foraging” was to come out into these lands in search of somewhere to settle, but now they’re attached to the homestead. Foraging presumably minimal. However, among the few dozen people in a thorp there will be a few hunters, maybe shepherds and prospectors too — and those are foraging activities. Good hunters earn respect for bringing home precious meat; they have a well-understood position in the family unit that compliments farming. Shepherding may not seem like foraging, but I think it would count if we imagine the shepherd as seeking good pasture land, venturing further from the homestead than other inhabitants. Prospectors would be itinerant, probably not part of the family units, possibly less well-respected— and if on their irregular returns to the thorp for supplies, they bring tales of strange creatures in phenomenon, they will likely to get written off as fibbers. (And where there are prospectors, there’s the chance one actually does find something; that leads to a dash to a more civilized hex to register the claim, if such authorities exist, as well as the possibility of claim jumping.)

If there are longer-term nonhuman inhabitants of the hex, even if they’ve developed agriculture, they probably must also forage in order to feed themselves. They may have names or myths for each and every berry bush and fish-filled river, and would see all of those as their property — even ones that happen to grow right by a new homestead.

Imagine a farm boy walking the boundary fence to check if anything needs mending. Each day he’s been pausing to note the progress of the wild blackberries growing in a wagon-sized bramble just ten paces past the fence, eager for the day when he can pick them — and today ought to be the day, but when he arrives he sees all the ripest berries have been taken.

There may or may not be snapped branches and foot prints. I think that’s a little on the nose, and we would expect goblins or similar to be utterly adept at moving without trace (though young, excited goblins could make mistakes.) Either way I expect a boy would be curious; he might sneak out that night to post up, nervously clutching a hoe or some other improvised weapon, trying to catch a glimpse of the thieves.

Another kind of foraging: unintelligent or low intelligence creatures doing their thing, in whatever way befits the creature. Wildcats stalk birds, birds and squirrels gather nuts, owlbears shake the trees to catch and eat squirrels — and so on.

Another kind: “foraging” for somewhere safe. A prisoner on the run from a higher-type hex could take refuge in a type 7. You yourself have brought up a few times the example of robbers and highwaymen being hidden and fed by country folk, in defiance of any authorities, because the robbers share their ill-gotten gains. A man who escapes from jail in a neighboring higher-type hex could make for the type 7, seeking refuge.

There. That’s a lot further and deeper than yesterday; I’m glad I tried again. I’ll definitely be applying this framework to flesh out Tenerife: my party landed there last session and will start exploring it tonight.

Answer: I think it's helpful to go back and look at the etymology of a word, to perceive how it might be differently defined in a connotative, rather than a denotative sense.

"Forage" comes from the 13th century French "forrage," which is fodder for animals, pillaging and looting. The 12th century German is "fodr." Roving in search of provisions in English is the late 15th c. "Provisions" in the sense of something provided or necessary is attested to the mid-15th c. I'd suggest that the primary concept here is the searching for something that is needful ... so I think you're dead-on with the sense of would-be homesteaders searching for a place to settle. On the other hand, however, they ought to still be in the condition of searching, not in the condition of pulling stumps or cutting trees. That, I should think, would be technically "building."

Beyond food, then, what else do we search for that's needful? Well, security, knowledge and understanding, spiritual fulfillment, purpose and meaning, freedom from strife, material wealth, proof of being brave or honorable, inspiration. If we think only in terms of how many NPCs engaged in a thing that's necessary to produce a "situation" or an "adventure," we find that we can do that with 1 person, or 100, or 10,000. So with your would-be homesteaders searching a wilderness hex, we can add prospectors looking for metals, priests searching for enlightenment, a herbalist searching for an extremely rare and valuable plant (which makes Rapunzel's hair magical), refugees fleeing from persecution, a lone knight in search of a jabberwock and so on. Carefully thought out, any of these would also satisfy the "foraging" structure for a wilderness hex.


Shelby M. writes,

I have a couple of questions regarding a scenario my players are facing and talking through at the moment. They have been mistaken by smugglers posing as licit bargemen to be allies of a fence the smugglers know. The party is debating whether to entertain the delusion (in which case they would all board a barge and proceed to another location to pick up the goods) or to throw back the cover and kill the men here. My questions are these: 1) how do I appropriately communicate the danger they might be in by going to an unknown and extremely isolated location where there could be an unknown number of pirates (suddenly hostile, as the ruse would be up) without explicitly stating so? 2) In your trade system, how would you generally determine what goods a trading vessel would contain?

Answer: I could do with a little more detail, but I'll offer what I can. So, the party aren't a barge crew, but they must have access to a barge enabling them to pretend it's their own. Except for the scenario where the party might turn on the smugglers (who ought to have a fair experience and level-ability), I don't see much danger in going to an unknown and extremely isolated location. Smugglers (a) want to ship stuff and make money; and (b) don't want to be exposed to the authorities. So long as the party helps with (a) and avoids (b), the smugglers will be happy and in no mood whatsoever to hurt the party. After all, like all criminal groups, they rely on like-minded people's aid and work to get (a) to happen. If they kill everyone who meets them in an obscure location (and where else could smugglers meet to avoid (b)), they'd be poor.

So what "ruse" are you speaking of? That the party members aren't the smugglers they're pretending to be? If they take the barge and load up the stuff, they're no longer pretending. From that point, they ARE smugglers. So long as they then don't rush off to the authorities to tell them everything, there's no "ruse" to expose. Pirates, smugglers, et al, aren't "suddenly hostile." Why would they be? Oh sure, Cap'n Flint killed his men to keep his treasure hid, but not until those same men helped him get all that treasure. And too, there was a LOT of treasure involved in Treasure Island. It took Ben Gunn months and months to move it all. So unless the players are going to be in the room with that sort of hoard, they're fairly safe ... and if there were that sort of hoard, why would they be invited there.

The danger is in being inspected by authorities after the party has picked up the goods. That's what they should worry about.

To answer the other question, the trade system is designed to price items, not randomly determine them. I'd ask myself, what would smugglers be smuggling? It ought to be things that are either (a) not allowed in a country, like alcohol or opium, or (b) things the country taxes very heavily, like salt and other spices. Different countries have different issues here. If a kingdom is in turmoil, efforts will be taken to keep weapons out of the hands of ordinary persons, so those are good things to move. If guilds control monopolies on clothing, metal goods, medicines or food, then those are good things to smuggle because, selling them comparatively cheap, they're easy to turn over into coin. If a region is dead set against science or education, then books and pamphlets are good. If there's religious persecution, then artifacts and holy writs from the persecuted peoples make a good smuggling choice. And of course, there's always the movement of stolen goods, where the country being left is a bigger threat than the country being hurried towards. You need to assess what the target country wants, based on your worldbuilding concept, and then create the smuggler's motivation accordingly. It definitely shouldn't be random.


_____

Thank you for your contributions.  I like weeks with responses.

If readers would like to reply to the above, or wish to ask a question or submit observations like those seen here, please submit  to my email, alexiss1@telus.net.  If you could, please give the region where you're located (state, province, department, county, whatever) as it humanises your comment.

Feel free to address material on the authentic wiki, my books or any subject related to dungeons & dragons.  I encourage you to initiate subject material of your own, and to address your comment to others writing in this space.

Friday, March 1, 2024

Further Chatting about Chat

So, some may wonder what I was clarifying with my earlier post today, just as some no doubt wondered what was the point of this earlier post regarding "lore."

I feel that much of the discussion surrounding what chatGPT is, or what it does, reflects sentiments against the idea itself.  Much like the way that television media discusses the ills and evils of social media or the addictive internet (its most devastating competitor for eyeballs), writers of magazines, both on and off line, have been waging a war for a year now to sow fear about and resistance against Chat.  I've seen Chat accused of making people stupider, destroy privacy, destroy facts, take jobs from people, wreck education, cause real-world harm and no doubt initiate the rapture.  These articles are being written by people increasingly working in an industry that's progressively embracing Chat (an industry I'm part of) because in truth, it's fantastically useful in the hands of someone who knows what he or she is doing.  And because, yes, it's going to destroy thousands of jobs held by people who have been writing magazine-level dreck all their lives (and are unable to write anything better).

Once upon a time, I used to write for a real estate magazine.  I wrote three articles a month, about 650 words an article, which paid me $450.  Sometimes, I was asked to write a fourth or a fifth article for an associate magazine of the one I usually worked for, because the umbrella company ran about fifty different publication "fronts" all over western Canada.

These magazines were free, being available at stands located on downtown corners and LRT stations, in strip malls and sports centres and outside convenience stores.  They were essentially rags designed to sell advertising ... and for the most part, the writing was precisely the level that I see pushed at me by articles arising out of google's algorithm.  I had this side job for 7 years, during which time I produced some of the worst writing I'd ever produced.

The three articles were as follows: (a) an article on some element of real estate, which I was to explain for the uninitiated; (b) an article on the real estate market, which had to look like economic reporting but in fact could only come to the conclusion that the market was great and was on the rise; and (c) an article highlighting some neighbourhood in Calgary where people might want to live.  And obviously, every neighbourhood was wonderful, just wonderful.

My deadline would be the Tuesday before publication, which was the Friday after.  I succeeded in that about 19 times out of 20.  Sometimes, I would write an email to ask for another day to finish one of the articles.  The only reason I was ever late was because I hated writing these articles; ugh.  And now and then, I couldn't force myself to do it when I had to.  In all honesty, I both researched and wrote the articles on the same day they were due.   On average, research and writing together, for one article, took between 25 and 40 minutes.  I'd get up early Tuesday, sit down in a state of misery and slam out three articles in under two hours.

After a year, much to my surprise, I found that the editors loved me.  And I mean LOVE.  Because I was on time (other writers were turning in their stuff late Thursday night or Friday morning, though their deadline and mine were the same) and because I would throw in little bits of dry humour or an odd framing of a point that had paying clients congratulating the company on my being such a "great" writer.  But I've been honest with all of you here; I was not a "great" writer.  I was a terrible writer, basically cribbing details off the internet and then rewording them to fit the requirements.

If I had chatGPT then, like I have it now, I could have written all three articles in about 25 minutes.  Not because chatGPT would have written the articles for me, but because and I'd have had to do was to take Chat's awful writing and edit it out at my normal writing speed, about 65 words a minute.  No research would have been necessary, because it would all have been there in the program.

I promise all of you here, if you're reading an article written by someone for the internet, he or she is copying that article from a slightly worse effort by chatGPT.

Many people are scanning down through this post because they think I've chosen to write nothing of consequence, but the truth is that Chat is as an important technological advance as the internet itself.  This won't be understood by most people, partly because it's being touted that Chat is "writing" the content.  It isn't.  The content is a distilled mass of foregoing content, often in the hands of someone like me that can write and isn't concerned with whether or not it's "morally right" to use this tool.  For the last 20 years, every writer in the world has been stuck either with google or wikipedia when seeking to research anything; and while the usefulness of either vastly dwarfs the library where I used to sit and research freelance articles I wrote in the 1990s, these tools have been made obsolete — not only because the answers one gets are more to the point and reflective of what's actually wanted by a question, but also because each question asked is kept in Chat's memory, so that future questions can be asked IN CONTEXT.

Once this is grasped, that I can say to chatGPT, "Earlier you said that cream had to be separated in a machine -- what sort of machine is that," without having to go back to the beginning of every question, it's easy to understand what a leap forward this is.  I can maintain a single dialogue about oil fields in Indonesia that runs 50 or 60 thousand words, including text that I've punched in from other sites that Chat also remembers, all in context, so that I can question and pick out and have chat evaluate constantly.  Whereas the company I work for had some bad experiences with Chat last year, they've realised that yes, all their writers can produce about four times as much work each month in relatively less time.  I'm not discouraged from using Chat; I'm encouraged.  And everyone I know whose working in any field associated with writing right now will same the same — privately.  Publicly, this isn't supposed to be common knowledge.  Publicly, the narrative is being run by those companies who are directly threatened by Chat.  Publicly, the general population, who know nothing about writing, or how to do research, or anything about where words actually come from, are being told, "There's nothing to see here, move on, move on."  Which they are doing gratefully.

When I had that conversation about "lore," I wasn't looking for an answer to the question, "what is lore," but rather to expose that the whole matter and subject of lore is really just propaganda being used to sell company products, especially those products that have become stale and old as the years have passed. But if we repackage those products as "lore," this gives them a specific specialised flavour that encourages "true believers" to invest themselves towards the whole cannon, not just the works they've happened to buy. It's the same strategy we're seeing with Marvel and many other products, whose "shout out" mechanism for past glories pushes the stay-invested model.

Chat's answers, as the short back-and-forth I published earlier today explained, were dredged out of the industry's garbage-writing "lore" of a different kind ... the endless propagandistic dredge of reasons why we should all keep buying D&D products and thinking about the game in such and such terms, feeding the fanboy game player's need to "keep on top of what's happening" all the time.  Asking Chat these questions is much like those conversations I used to have on boards like RPGNet many, many years ago, where I'd spend time trying to corner some true believer into admitting that character backgrounds or game balance was really just a lot of bullshit.  The difference is that Chat won't move the goal posts; it won't derail the argument into some other discussion; it won't devolve into name calling or mockery or attempts to get others to dogpile as a means of winning the argument.  It'll try, as best it can, to argue the point on its merits ... which can be fun, as with something like "lore," there are no merits.

Some will say that you can make Chat say anything you want.  That you can argue it in a circle until it spits out whatever answer you think it ought to spit.  I don't think I asked leading questions in my example.  It's fairly easy to see when Chat got stumped; it helplessly repeated itself because there was no other answer except to repeat the propaganda.  This is how propaganda always is.  The only reason it "works" in human context is by those strategies I just named.  Proponents of sexism, racism, gun violence, abortion, whatever we might name, succeed in their rhetoric by moving goal posts, gish galloping, derailing, appealing to authorities, half-truths, name calling or any number of other deceptions.  This is what intelligent people do to maintain their biases.

Chat isn't intelligent.  It doesn't think at all.  It's bound by what it knows.  And what it knows is tons and tons of both good stuff and crap that's been dumped on the internet these last 30 years.  Digging into that is like putting on gloves to go dumpster diving.  Messy, full of possible sharp objects, not nice smelling ... but at the same time, people throw out a phenomenal number of interesting things.

I think it's interesting to pluck them out and turn them this way and that.

For Clarification

Me.  When you give replies around a specific subject, you obtain the details for that reply from other internet sites, yes?

Chat.  No, that's not how I work. My responses are generated based on the vast amount of text data I was trained on, which includes websites, books, articles, and other text sources up until my last training cut-off in January 2022. I don't access the internet in real-time to retrieve specific information for responses. Instead, I generate responses based on patterns and information learned during training. So, while I can provide information and answers on a wide range of topics, I can't access or retrieve real-time data from the internet.

Me.  So you access the internet as it was.

Chat.  That's correct. I was trained on a diverse dataset that includes text from the internet up until my last training cut-off in January 2022. However, I don't have the ability to access or retrieve information from the live internet. My responses are based solely on the information and patterns present in the data I was trained on. If you have any questions or need information within the scope of my training data, feel free to ask!

Me.  And the responses you give on subjects, say dungeons and dragons, is based on the information you were fed before 2022

Chat.  Exactly. When you ask me about specific subjects like Dungeons and Dragons, my responses are generated based on the knowledge and understanding I gained from the text data I was trained on, which includes information about Dungeons and Dragons up until January 2022. My responses are a reflection of the information and patterns present in that training data.

Thursday, February 29, 2024

Books, End of February

Three months have passed since my publishing this post, during which time I've continued my reading plan.  I've completed just 10 books in that time, far short of November's tally, especially in that two of the books were quite short.  I'm continuing through a longer novel at present, the title of which I won't mention until writing the next of these posts come the end of May.

It's not my intent to strut or puff myself up.  Anyone can listen to the audio version of a book; it's just a question of time spent.  I produce this list just to show what may have been on my mind of late, what things have been influencing my thinking and what I've learned about myself.

For example there are three books I have on this list that were, as regards the writing, bad.  For two of these, I expected that ... in fact, I intentionally read one book specifically because I knew the writing would be bad.  I've been investigating a theory; but first, let's have the list out.  Title, author, last time I read it.

A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens — 2010

Flying Colours, C.S. Forester — 2022 (I like this book)

The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald — never

The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkein — 2002

The House on the Cliff, Franklin W. Dixon — 1973

The Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne — never

Split Infinity, Piers Anthony — 1995

Time Enough for Love, Robert Heinlein — 2008

Treasure Island, Robert Louis Stevenson — 2010

War of the Worlds, H.G. Wells — 2005


Some of these dates are guesses, based sometimes on having read the book when at a particular residence, or place of work, and sometimes because I read it aloud to someone else, as in the case of the Hobbit.  The Dixon book was in the drawer of my school desk when I was nine and was lost in the fire of my elementary school that I discussed on this blog some months ago.  Yes, it is a Hardy Boys book.

Which books were bad?  Well, Dixon's book, obviously.  I read a great many Hardy Boys' books when my age had single digits, not unlike many children of that time.  From the perspective that I have now, the book wasn't only juvenile and contrived, as one might expect, but painfully constructed in its sentence structure, the repetitive pattern it had of delivering exposition, it's going to the same well over and over again when building a dialogue between Frank and Joe — whom I'd always thought were equal characters, but no.  Joe's role is to set up Frank's exposition, and as a result the character is the worst kind of cardboard.

None of which should surprise anyone.  The books were made for children and Dixon may have been restrained by gawd knows what group of busy-bodies telling him how to write.  The larger point here is that for someone who eventually became a writer, it's clear these books were the worst guide I could ask for.  Worse, I could see dozens of bad habits that I used to have, and some I still have, grossly evident in the book.  Much of the pain I experienced dragging myself through the four-and-a-half hour audio came from identifying certain moments of myself in the writing.  A self-stabbing with a real knife could not have hurt more.

The impetus for taking up Dixon came from an earlier book on the above list, but I'll put that aside for the moment.  For the record, it wasn't The Great Gatsby or The Scarlet Letter.  Before getting into that, however, I want to talk about Split Infinity, which I read specifically to see what sort of repeat of experience I'd get after the Hardy Boys.

I adored Anthony in my teens, tearing through the books like A Spell for Chameleon and On a Pale Horse, but the bloom had begun to rub away by the mid-90s, by which time I was writing professionally.  Too often I found myself wondering at Anthony's choice of phrasing or the clumsy direction of his plot work ... but all in all, back then, I hadn't felt it was so awful.  Rather, I merely considered that I'd grown up, moved on, was harder to please and so on.

But I remembered that reaction those many years ago and wondered what I'd feel about Anthony now.

Oh my gawd.

I can't say for sure if it applies to other works, but for the book I read, Anthony has this execrable habit of stepping out of the story every few pages and giving the fucking definition for some word he's just used, or being sure to explain that yes, humans do/are this thing he's just claimed.  Fuck.  It is really head-pounding stuff.  More than once I found myself saying aloud, "Oh, for the love of Christ, shuuuuut up!"  It was all I could do to muscle my way through the book, which is exactly what it felt like.  I wouldn't say it was as bad as Robin Hood, but if I was given the choice of which one I had to read again ... I'd probably have to pick Robin just because, at least, there's an excuse for it's 1880s content being bad.  Editors existed at the time that Anthony wrote this!

I have to assume that it also had deleterious effects on me in my early efforts to be a writer, as I did like the book quite a lot when I was 16, as I bought it the year it was published.  It distresses me when I remember having read the book half a dozen times in my late teens and early twenties.  I have no idea what was wrong with me.  I'm glad it's not wrong with me now.

All right.  The Hobbit.

Jeez.

I know, I know, this is a D&D blog, and we're talking about a holy book and all.  This could lose me some patreon support.  All I can say is that I have other ... good qualities.

No, I didn't like the book.  Not, I'm thankful to say, because of the sentence or paragraph structure.  And I think that as a children's book, it more or less holds up.  I read it aloud to my daughter when she was 8, and to Tamara who had never read the book in 2002; and while the later reading didn't exactly impress me, it was all right.  I had no real complaints.

But reading it in December, right after A Christmas Carol, it really suffered.  The characters are pretty stale, and not just because the book's been part of my memory since around 1978.  I read it the first time after seeing the Rankin/Bass cartoon; my father had bought a copy in the early 70s when Tolkien's star was rising, so it had always been around.  But reading it now, there's not much to the characters.  The multiple dwarves don't have a presence except in the fact of their number, while on paper Gandalf is kind of a dick.  Things just "happen" to Bilbo that get him into trouble, and then they just "happen" again that gets him out of it.  I can see how various film-makers have tried to give Bilbo a sense of genius (the riddling part is the best in the whole book), but honestly this genius is made of the same cloth they use to make plot armour and magic character survival dust.  Smaug, on the face of it, is there, and then not.  Maybe it was an audiobook effect (its just a 6-hour book in voice), but I found many bits and pieces of the book that I'd once thought were "cool" coming out as very definitely meh.

For those who worship the book, I imagine that comes from having not read much else ... except along the same lines.  It's easy to see how Dicken's work maintains it's 181-year tradition, though as a book it's only 2 hours and 43 minutes.  Nonetheless, it's a rich, powerful read, with every line evoking life and visual cues.  The Hobbit, in comparison, feels like a book trying to squeeze juice out of a lemon that's been drying on the counter three days.  There's juice there, to be sure ... but not a whole lot of it.

I plan to write a short take on The Scarlet Letter, but not about the writing quality.  My thoughts on The Great Gatsby can be stated briefly enough.  It's a book that I knew virtually everything about going in, though I've never actually read it.  I've discussed the book with some as though I had, but heck, I can be honest with you folks.  At, least, today.  None of you like me now anyway because of the hobbit thing.

We should not be giving Gatsby to grade school students, certainly no one younger than 17.  It wasn't part of the curriculum when I was in junior high, but it was for my daughter — and that is way, way too young an age.  The themes are best understood by those who have had a little of Nick Caraway's experience — which takes until a person has reached their mid-20s.  It does well to teach it in university, because there's a good chance the student will read it again in their 30s; but giving it to kids in grade school, it pretty much assures that the book, and anything else like it, will be hated for the rest of their lives.

I think it does an excellent job of exposing the "self-taught" model, which is alive and well everywhere on youtube.  This notion that by absorbing great books, or travelling, or doing anything that would supposedly give insight through only the effort of experience is what makes Gatsby the utter worm that he is.  Not a monster; not a bad man; not a cad or a bounder, as he's often represented, especially in film ... but a pathetic fool woefully out of his depth, pretending to be witty and able.  All through the book, he's neither.  Which I think, for most people, and especially young readers, a difficult truth to accept, even when Fitzgerald states it as plainly as English allows.  People want to believe in Gatsby; they want to see tragedy in Gatsby, because they want to see that same tragedy in themselves.  I think Fitzgerald expected this; I think the book plans much of its ending around that.  But Gatsby is only a fool.  A fool that stumbled into money and didn't know what to do with it.  Oh, how often is that play played out by those who play online.

Tuesday, February 27, 2024

Likes

On most social media sites, which includes anything which can be jointly read by a widescale number of people, "likes" serve as a form of validation.  Posts and content with a higher number of likes are given more visibility, because algorithms, for all their evils, prioritise content that receives approbation.  More likes push content to the top of feeds and suggests its importance to other.  The more likes a post receives, the more likely it's going to be seen by a large audience.

Further, likes are evidence that a reader has actually engaged with content.  Liking a post requires minimal effort, yet it shows support, agreement, or simply to acknowledge that the content has been seen.

For content creators, like myself, likes serve as a feedback mechanism.  It acts as an encouragement for more product.   For a creator, the opinions of the reader are of great importance.  So please, in addition to giving your support in so many other ways, please consider taking a moment when you see something I've posted on Patreon and press the like button.  It may seem unimportant, but every metric matters.  Every vote counts.  In the long run, it could make a very big difference in the number of people I'm someday able to reach.

Monday, February 26, 2024

Resilience

"Civilisation means something more than energy and will, and creative power.  Something the early Norsemen hadn't got — but which, even in their time, was beginning to appear in Western Europe.  How can I define it?  Very shortly, a sense of permanence.  The wanderers and the invaders were in a continual state of flux.  They didn't feel the need to look forward beyond the next march, or the next voyage, or the next battle.  And for that reason, it didn't occur to them to build stone houses, nor to write books."
Kenneth Clark, Civilisation


As I consider virtually everything about D&D, I find myself consistently thinking differently.  I'm not in the least interested about the "excitement" of adventure.  There's no skip in my heartbeat when I read about a new monster or spell, or character class, or upcoming splatbook.  I should think that with all the boredom these things evoke, my jaded self should have shuffled off the RPG coils of lost vaults, shrines and dragons long, long ago.

The rank and file seems concerned with what has been done; or more to the point, what they've experienced, or played, or read, all in the past tense.  There are a few living in the present, like JB, who fill me with interest ... but so much is given to the "lore" that was discussed in the last post.  Gawd, what a pretentious, self-righteous label that is, for something that's just a lot of half-assed writing shoved between advertisements for miniatures and game cons.  Somehow, I don't remember the advertising in my copies of The Iliad, The Faerie Queen or Dante's Inferno.  I must own expurgated versions.

That, or I have a higher standard for what I consider "lore" in the zeitgeist of human experience.

But that's me, absolutely not in the bag for the RPG community.  As Clark notes above, significance in a civilised condition is that which is considered as a whole over time.  It's not what we do today, or even the immediate goals for this Thursday.  It's in those things we contribute with the future in mind, with the encouragement of resilience in the face of adversity that it offers.  What's not wanted is a small, static society that never looks outward from its borders.  What we have done is never enough, especially if what we've done can only be understood by a very small number of people who consider themselves "in the know."  Approached that way, one day some small change in the way the real society functions will come about, and all that we celebrate and praise will be swept away like old food into a garbage bucket.  As Clark says,

"Such societies become petrified, anxious only to hold onto their own social order.  The great, indeed the unique merit of European civilisation has been that it has never ceased to develop."

These words, spoken in 1969, are anathema to millions of people who have decided everything about old European civilisation needs to be torn down one brick at a time.  All right, have at it.  I'm not here to defend it.  Resilience, yes?  A culture that managed to survive a thousand years, the Mongols, the Black Death, Holy Wars, Napoleon, two world wars and a holocaust can take care of itself when faced with the perils of social media.  I'm only interested in discussing the stultification of a great idea by reworking it's past incarnations over and over and over, in part through the glorification of same using ridiculous cool-sounding jargon.

I have created nothing of resilience, so far as I know, which is not to downplay the remarkable resilience of my supporters thus far.  But this is the goal towards which I move, ever so painfully and uncertainly.  Still, I prefer to live in the future ... not because it's an escape from the present, but because it gives weight and import to the present.  It causes me to think every hour of the present contains some duty I ought to be fulfilling.  I should think that after 40+ years of working on D&D that I should be tired, I should be ready to rest and stop troubling myself with such efforts — but strangely, the effort seems more imperative now than ever.  I feel less tired about D&D than ever.  Once upon a time, drawing things and writing out game rules in isolation, I may have felt it was all for naught.  I am far from that place now, when there are plainly listeners waiting for me to write.

It would be folly, however, not to recognise from time to time that I am different.  Oddly so.  I suppose there's something wrong with me ... though it's obviously not Aspergers or Autism, which I've been accused of having by people who have done the diligent research of watching the film Rainman.  Not an accurate depiction, by the way.  In any case, had I either of those syndromes, I could not now be writing this post, which certainly recognises social conventions, defies repetition and expresses a tremendous range of interests.

No, it must be something else.  Oh, I have it.  I prefer to be a better DM.

Saturday, February 24, 2024

Lore

Me.  for RPGs, define "lore."

Chat. In RPGs (Role-Playing Games), "lore" refers to the backstory, history, mythology, and overall world-building elements that provide context and depth to the game's setting. It encompasses everything from the creation myth of the world to the detailed histories of different regions, cultures, and characters within it. Lore often includes information about significant events, legendary figures, mystical artifacts, fantastical creatures, and any other elements that contribute to the rich tapestry of the game world. Players often engage with lore through in-game texts, dialogue, quests, and supplementary materials provided by the game developers, such as novels, comics, or online wikis. Lore adds immersion and context to the RPG experience, helping to create a believable and engaging fictional universe for players to explore and interact with.

Me.  If it defines "everything" to do with worldbuilding and RPGs, what's the value in using a different word for that?

Chat. You make a valid point. While "lore" does encompass a wide range of elements related to world-building in RPGs, using a specific term like "lore" can help to focus discussions or communications on this particular aspect. It's a shorthand way to refer to the collective history, myths, cultures, and other background details of a game world.

Additionally, using the term "lore" can convey a sense of tradition and depth, especially in the context of RPGs where immersion in the game world is crucial. It emphasizes the importance of storytelling and world-building in these games, distinguishing them from other genres where such elements might not be as prominent.

Ultimately, while "lore" does cover a broad spectrum of world-building aspects, it serves a purpose in RPG discourse by highlighting the significance of these narrative and contextual elements within the gaming community.

Me.  So, it's essentially a word intended to invoke a feeling, rather than actually defining anything to do with game design.

Chat.  In a sense, yes. The term "lore" does carry connotations of depth, tradition, and immersion within the gaming community, particularly in the context of RPGs. It's a word that encapsulates the rich backstory, mythology, and world-building elements that contribute to the overall experience of playing an RPG.

While "lore" doesn't have a strict, technical definition within game design, its usage has become ingrained in RPG culture to signify the narrative and contextual aspects that enhance gameplay. So, while it may not define specific game design mechanics, it does evoke a sense of the storytelling and immersive world-building that are integral to RPG experiences.

Me.  If it doesn't have a strict, technical definition, then it's pretty must useless for telling anyone how to design a game world in a functional, structured sense, yes?

Chat.  That's correct. While the term "lore" is useful for discussing and appreciating the narrative and world-building aspects of RPGs, it doesn't provide a structured framework or guidelines for designing a game world in a functional sense. When it comes to designing game worlds, developers typically rely on more concrete principles of world-building, such as establishing consistent rules, creating engaging environments, designing compelling characters and cultures, and crafting meaningful narratives.

While "lore" can inspire and inform aspects of game design, it's just one component of a larger process that involves careful planning, iteration, and consideration of various gameplay elements. Developers may draw upon established lore to enrich their game worlds, but they also need to ensure that the lore aligns with gameplay mechanics, player experiences, and overall design goals.

In summary, while "lore" is valuable for fostering immersion and storytelling in RPGs, it's not a substitute for the structured approach required in game design.

Me.   How is it useful? You just said it doesn't have a strict definition, it isn't technical and it's existence is primarily to evoke a feeling. None of this is utilitarian in nature, and therefore utterly useless for telling a dungeon master how to make, prepare or run a game world or an adventure.

Chat.  Apologies for any confusion. Let me clarify the utility of "lore" in RPGs:
  • Inspiration and Creativity: Lore can serve as a wellspring of inspiration for game masters (GMs) or dungeon masters (DMs) when crafting their own game worlds or adventures. Even though it doesn't have strict definitions, the existing lore in published settings or games can spark ideas for new stories, characters, or locations.
  • Establishing Atmosphere: Lore contributes to the atmosphere and tone of a game world. By immersing players in rich histories, myths, and cultures, it helps to create a more engaging and believable setting. DMs can use established lore or create their own to set the mood for their games.
  • Player Engagement: Well-developed lore can captivate players and encourage them to explore the game world more deeply. Players may be drawn to uncovering the mysteries of ancient civilizations, discovering forgotten lore, or interacting with characters rooted in the game's backstory.
  • Consistency and Continuity: While lore may not have strict definitions, it provides a framework for maintaining consistency and continuity within a game world. DMs can use established lore to ensure that their stories, characters, and events align with the established background of the setting.
  • Community Building: Shared lore can foster a sense of community among players and GMs who are familiar with the same game worlds or settings. It provides a common ground for discussion, speculation, and collaboration, enriching the overall gaming experience.
While "lore" may not offer precise guidelines for game design or adventure preparation, its utility lies in its ability to inspire creativity, establish atmosphere, engage players, maintain consistency, and build community within the RPG hobby. It serves as a tool for storytelling and world-building, enhancing the immersive experience of playing or running RPGs.

Me. Define utility.

Chat.  Utility, in the context of this conversation, refers to the usefulness or practical value of something. It's about how something serves a purpose or fulfills a need. In the case of "lore" in RPGs, its utility lies in its ability to inspire creativity, establish atmosphere, engage players, maintain consistency, and build community within the RPG hobby, as I mentioned in the previous response. So, utility essentially refers to the practical benefits or advantages that something provides.

Me.   Something that's "practical" is concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than theory or ideas. In "theory," lore creates community building, consistency and continuity, player engagement, establishing atmosphere and inspiration and creativity, but you can't prove that it does so. You're just expressing a belief. That is not practical, and it's not utilitarian. It suggests that the whole concept of "lore" is an invented form of propaganda by RPG publishers in order to make participants feel better, while in fact not helping them DO anything.

Chat.  I understand your perspective, and I apologize if my previous responses didn't sufficiently address your concerns. Let's approach this from a different angle.

While it's true that the direct, tangible effects of lore in RPGs may not be easily quantifiable or provable in the same way as, for example, the rules of a game system, it's important to recognize that utility can also encompass less tangible benefits.

In the realm of RPGs, the practical use of lore lies in its ability to enhance the overall gaming experience for participants. While it may not offer step-by-step instructions or concrete tools for game preparation or world-building, it contributes to the enjoyment and immersion of players and game masters alike. Here's how:
  • Engagement and Immersion: Lore provides players with a rich tapestry of history, mythology, and culture to explore, which can deepen their immersion in the game world and enhance their enjoyment of the experience.
  • Inspiration and Creativity: Lore serves as a wellspring of inspiration for game masters, sparking ideas for new stories, characters, and plotlines that enrich the game world and keep players engaged.
  • Atmosphere and Setting: By establishing the background and tone of the game world, lore helps to create a vivid and immersive atmosphere that draws players into the story and enhances their enjoyment of the game.
  • Consistency and Continuity: While not strictly enforceable, established lore provides a framework for maintaining consistency and continuity within the game world, helping to ensure that the stories, characters, and events remain coherent and believable over time.
  • Community and Shared Experience: Shared lore fosters a sense of community among players and game masters who are familiar with the same game worlds or settings, providing a common ground for discussion, speculation, and collaboration.
While these benefits may not be as immediately measurable or tangible as those provided by more concrete game elements, they nevertheless contribute to the overall enjoyment and satisfaction of participants in RPGs. So, while the utility of lore may not be as readily apparent as that of other game elements, it nonetheless plays a valuable role in enriching the RPG experience for all involved.

Me.  I'm not speaking of things that are either measureable nor tangible, but practical and useful, as per your own definition.  Once again, you've only offered "ideas," not "practical" things of use.  Engagement, immersion, inspiration, et al, are subjective concepts.  I'm asking what objective use lore has in defining what a I ought to do when sitting down and starting to define my game world.  I can't just "write lore."  That's a totally useless prescription.  I can't "create atmosphere."  Without knowing what atmosphere is, or what I want, I have no way of knowing what to create.  Moreover, because it's subjective, the "atmosphere" of my world may in the end be totally different from any other, because I'm different, my players are different, and our goals are probably different as well.  So in essence, you're just spouting a lot of desired qualities for a world, but nothing in the way of actually making the world.

Chat.  I understand your frustration, and I appreciate your patience in clarifying your concerns. Let's delve deeper into the practical utility of lore in the context of creating a game world for RPGs.

When it comes to defining your game world, "lore" can serve as a foundational tool to guide your creative process. Here's how:
  • Establishing Context: Lore provides context for your game world by defining its history, cultures, geography, and other key elements. This context serves as a framework for your world-building efforts, giving you a starting point from which to expand and develop your setting.
  • Creating Consistency: By establishing a coherent backstory and mythology, lore helps you maintain consistency within your game world. This consistency is essential for creating a believable and immersive setting that resonates with your players.
  • Generating Ideas: Lore can inspire ideas for characters, plotlines, conflicts, and other elements of your game world. Drawing upon established lore or creating your own can spark creativity and help you generate interesting and engaging content for your RPG.
  • Setting Tone and Atmosphere: Lore influences the tone and atmosphere of your game world by shaping its history, cultures, and mythology. Whether you're aiming for a gritty, realistic setting or a whimsical, fantastical one, the lore you create will help set the desired mood for your game.
  • Enriching Player Experience: Well-developed lore enhances the player experience by providing depth, richness, and texture to your game world. Players are more likely to become invested in your game if they feel immersed in a richly detailed setting with a compelling backstory and mythology.
While lore alone may not provide a step-by-step guide for creating your game world, it serves as a valuable tool to inform and guide your creative process. By establishing context, creating consistency, generating ideas, setting tone and atmosphere, and enriching player experience, lore plays a crucial role in shaping the world of your RPG and making it come alive for your players.

Me.  Am I to wave a magic wand to create context?

Chat. Of course not. Creating context for your game world involves a deliberate and structured process. Here are some practical steps you can take to establish context using lore:
  • Identify Key Themes and Concepts: Determine the central themes and concepts you want to explore in your game world. This could include elements like magic, politics, war, exploration, or morality.
  • Develop a Backstory: Create a backstory for your game world that explains its history, origins, and major events. Consider factors such as the creation myth, ancient civilizations, cataclysmic events, and key historical figures.
  • Define Cultures and Societies: Flesh out the cultures, societies, and factions that inhabit your game world. Consider factors like government, religion, economy, social structure, and cultural practices.
  • Map Out Geography: Develop a map of your game world that outlines its geography, including continents, regions, cities, landmarks, and natural features. Consider how geography influences climate, resources, and travel routes.
  • Create Legends and Myths: Craft legends, myths, and folklore that add depth and mystery to your game world. These stories can provide insight into the beliefs, values, and fears of the inhabitants of your world.
  • Establish Relationships: Determine the relationships between different elements of your game world, such as nations, factions, religions, and species. Consider factors like alliances, rivalries, trade routes, and conflicts.
  • Iterate and Refine: Continuously iterate and refine your lore based on feedback from players, playtesting, and your own creative insights. Be open to making changes and adjustments as needed to ensure that your game world feels cohesive and immersive.

By following these steps and engaging in a systematic approach to world-building, you can create a rich and immersive context for your game world that enhances the overall experience for your players. While it may require time, effort, and creativity, the end result will be a vibrant and compelling setting that captivates the imagination and draws players into your RPG adventure.

Me.  Okay.  I use lore to identify a key theme, as per your instruction.  Tell me the first practical "step" that I need to do.  Don't give me an instruction about a goal I'm trying to obtain at some unknown point.  Explain a step I can take according to this instruction.  For example, "to turn on light, flip switch."  Give me that sort of step.

Chat.  Got it. Let's break it down into a concrete step-by-step process:

Step 1: Identify Key Theme Instruction: Use lore to identify a key theme.
  • Concrete Step:  Review Existing Lore: Examine the lore of your chosen RPG setting or any source material you're drawing from. Look for recurring motifs, symbols, or themes that resonate with you or that you find particularly compelling.
  • Brainstorm Themes: Based on your review of the lore, brainstorm potential themes that align with the world's backstory, cultures, and events. Consider concepts like power struggles, redemption, survival, exploration, or the clash of civilizations.
  • Select Key Theme: Narrow down your list of potential themes to one or two that you feel most strongly about or that you think will resonate best with your players. Choose themes that offer rich storytelling opportunities and that you're excited to explore further in your game world.
  • Define Theme: Clearly define the chosen theme in a sentence or two. For example, if your theme is "power struggles," you might define it as "the constant battle for control and dominance among competing factions in a world torn by conflict."
  • Reflect on Implications: Consider how the chosen theme will influence various aspects of your game world, including its history, cultures, characters, and plotlines. Reflect on how the theme will shape the tone, atmosphere, and overall direction of your RPG adventure.
By following these concrete steps, you can effectively use lore to identify a key theme for your game world and lay the groundwork for further world-building and storytelling.

Me.  Oh, I see!  I need to build my game world on existing game worlds based by other people.  I need to look at their written material (the word "lore" is a buzz-word for "stuff written by others") and decide which things I like and which I don't, selecting the "theme" I like, write a sentence or two about it, then reflect on that theme.  You do realise this requires that (a) I want to use other people's ideas; (b) I know what a theme is; (c) I know how to define a theme; and (d) I already have "aspects" of my game world to fit this into, which I don't, because I haven't created anything.  Your "first step" assumes that I've already done a heap of work first.  What if I haven't done that work?  What if I've never played or run the game before?  What if everything that's been written by other people is not what I want, because I want to create an original world.  If that's the case, then all the "lore" written by others is pretty damn useless, isn't it?

Chat.  You raise valid points, and I appreciate your feedback. Let's address each of your concerns:
  • Using Existing Game Worlds: While using existing lore can be a helpful starting point, it's not the only approach to world-building in RPGs. Many game masters prefer to create entirely original worlds from scratch, drawing inspiration from various sources including history, mythology, literature, and their own imagination.
  • Understanding Themes: If you're unfamiliar with the concept of themes or unsure how to define them, it's important to take the time to learn about them. Themes are underlying ideas or concepts that recur throughout a narrative, and they can provide coherence and depth to your game world. Resources such as writing guides, online tutorials, or discussions with experienced game masters can help you develop a better understanding of themes and how to use them effectively.
  • Starting from Scratch: If you're starting with a blank slate and haven't yet created any aspects of your game world, it's perfectly fine to begin by brainstorming ideas and concepts that interest you. You can explore different themes, settings, cultures, and plotlines without being constrained by existing lore or preconceived notions.
  • Creating an Original World: If you're committed to creating an original world, you have the freedom to build it according to your own vision and preferences. While existing lore can provide inspiration or serve as a point of reference, you're not obligated to use it if it doesn't align with your creative goals.
Given your concerns, here's a revised first step that doesn't rely on existing lore:
  • Revised Step 1: Brainstorm Ideas
  • Brainstorm Themes: Spend some time brainstorming potential themes, settings, cultures, and plotlines for your game world. Consider what interests you, what kind of stories you want to tell, and what themes you want to explore.
  • Research and Inspiration: Draw inspiration from a variety of sources, including history, mythology, literature, art, and personal experiences. Explore different genres and styles to find elements that resonate with you and that you want to incorporate into your game world.
Define Your Vision: Clearly define your creative vision for your game world. Think about the tone, atmosphere, and overall direction you want to take with your RPG adventure, and begin sketching out the broad strokes of your world-building efforts.

By starting with a brainstorming session and drawing inspiration from various sources, you can begin to shape your original game world according to your own vision and creative preferences.

Me.  Let's revise your definition of "lore." It doesn't mean "the backstory, history, mythology, and overall world-building elements that provide context and depth to the game's setting." It means, stuff other people have written in relation to existing RPG content.

Chat. Thank you for the clarification. Let's revise the definition of "lore" to better reflect its commonly understood meaning in the context of RPGs:

"Lore refers to the body of knowledge, stories, and information created by authors, game developers, and community members within the context of an established RPG setting. It encompasses the backstory, history, mythology, and world-building elements specific to a particular game or fictional universe, as documented in official publications, supplementary materials, and community-generated content."

This definition highlights that lore is indeed tied to existing RPG content and encompasses the collective knowledge and creative contributions of individuals involved in the RPG community.

Me.  Which may or may not be useful in worldbuilding.

Chat.  Exactly. While lore can be a valuable resource for world-building, it's not the only approach, and its usefulness depends on various factors such as personal preferences, creative goals, and the specific needs of the game being developed. Some game masters may find existing lore helpful as a starting point or source of inspiration, while others may prefer to create entirely original worlds from scratch. Ultimately, the utility of lore in world-building is subjective and contingent upon the individual circumstances of each game designer or storyteller.

_____

I'm tempted to write a number of these. 

Saturday Q&A (feb 24)

There's no Q&A today.  These dearths are simply unavoidable.  I don't wish to cut readers off entirely from making comments, while at the same time I simply don't have enough readers willing to comment to keep this post active every week.  So here we are.  I can endure the humiliation.

_____

If readers wish to ask a question or submit observations upon any content of mine, including things seen on the Authentic Wiki or Patreon, please don't hesitate.  Please submit  to my email, alexiss1@telus.net.  If you could be so kind, please give the region where you're located: state, province, department, county, whatever.  Feel also free to address my books or any subject related to dungeons & dragons. 

Friday, February 23, 2024

Assigned Encounters

Suppose that instead of proposing a "random" encounter system, we made instead an "assigned" encounter system ... and that this assignment would occur according to established precepts that went some way towards a wide elaboration of situations and adventures.  Suppose further that we start with some known attribute of a given hex, so that the encounters could be assigned in a "hex crawl" format.

What might those attributes be?  The most obvious, that used historically by D&D, is "terrain type," which breaks the map down into mountains, hills, plains, coasts and so on.  I don't suggest this; it's covering old ground that I began experimenting with in my early days of D&D, more than 40 years ago.  I've not seen any effective distribution of the sort I've proposed in all of this time, by anyone, that fundamentally improves upon familiar 1970s design.

But what else?  We're left, unfortunately, with time of day, weather conditions, unexpected events produced by the die, the presence of landmarks, caves, ruins, magical sites and what not.  These are interesting sign posts, but in themselves they don't suggest a framework that in turn suggest actual situations or adventures — except of the sort long descended to cliche.  What we want is a new, rich and promising proposal, that would appear to build upon itself if only the right sort of thinking could be suggested.

Suppose, therefore, that we create an area map of a sort, with hexes, offering some degree of specificity, not nearly that of a halled dungeon but nevertheless tactile in scope.  Suppose then that we establish some selective framework for these hexes, based upon, say, the presence of a certain kind of habitation, or degree of being civilised, which would include knowledge of each hex's wealth, available food and existing facilities.  Such a structure might suggest a sort of "logic" for where situations ought to exist ... and more to the point, what kind of situations ought to exist.  And if the initial distribution of hex "types" and contents was already built upon a somewhat random generation, the situations wouldn't need to be also generated.  We might, instead, create a list of situations that would feasibly or rationally occur in certain kinds of hexes ... and then, as a matter of course, assign the situation that felt best in a given moment while the game was going on.  Or, overall, assign situations over scores of hexes ahead of time, with the idea that the situations complimented one another in a grand scheme.

Okay, stick a pin in that.

Let's review, first, what sort of things would specify hexes.  To begin with, stark topographical features: mountains, hills, untapped forests, karst, dry plains or deserts that deny farming, rivers, lakes and coasts.  Next, access, from stone roads to cobblestone, dirt, cart tracks, cart paths and foot paths.  Habitations, from thorps through hamlets, villages, with different sorts of towns and cities.  All this needs to make better suggestions for us than "put a ruin where the hills are," as there are potentially hundreds of hexes with "hills" — and a "ruin" has to be more than a place on a hill.  For a ruin to exist, it must have at some point been a place that people wanted to build, who had a use for that thing, and then a reason to abandon it.  So some sort of historical, cultural, sociological and economic framework has to also exist, which is strong enough to give definite concreteness to any ruin we want to conjure into being.  Not because there aren't ruins on hills, but because we want a good reason why a ruin should be on this hill and not that one.

Further, we should define what ruins are, as there are ruined temples and settlements that occur because of war, disaster, plague, famine, social unrest, persecution and, in D&D, the wrath of other beings.  While D&D is usually taken to having simplistic premises for why things exist, what I'm proposing is a framework dense enough to give even seasoned players a nuanced, novel, enticing situation, while enabling ourselves to enjoy a structure that makes the invention of those situations within our grasp — particularly, in diminishing the skull sweat normally involved.  I propose that by adopting a new way of thinking, we might see what situations suggest themselves automatically.

It's a dead-end, at least as my thinking goes, but consider the following ecological elements that a small frame game topography suggests.  Micro-habitats, for example, allowing a mix of single hexes that variously contain wetlands, rocky outcroppings, a single mountain, even a very small desert.  We might establish the presence of keystone creatures whose presence greatly defines a small hex group — thus making dozens of naturalised non-political "provinces," some of which monsters control and some of which civilisation controls.  We could define migration routes, the non-civilisation modification of habitats and areas of ecosystem death, which parties would encounter as they crawled from hex to hex.

For myself, this is no better than putting a ruin on a hill.  We've given no logic to why a particular hex should contain a particular keystone being.  We're still just making a list of things that might exist; we're not making a list that suggests what things should exist.

Suppose, then, we change the standard precept.  Instead of thinking what sort of creatures exist where, suppose instead we think of what sort of motivations might exist universally among all creatures — at least, in a generalised manner.  Obviously a lich has very different motivations from a gelatinous cube ... but we can at least accept that both have a motivation, which is turn is shared by other creatures capable of the same general nature.

Thinking along those lines, we might propose creatures seeking to enhance their own survival, defending their territory, increasing their territory, increasing their number, prioritising cooperation or investigation, exploring, securing resources, producing beauty and so on.  This list bears little value as it is, however, as the examples are far too expansive.  We want a framework of ongoing motivations that would potentially involve small enough groups that the party could encounter, and be affected by.  

I'd suggest, off the top of my head, eight basic motivations encountered in D&D on a normal, predictable basis: convert, recruit, reform, trade, raid, forage, fortify and build.

Convert would seek to change minds, promote a cause, propagate beliefs, spread religions, build coalitions among residents, encourage good will, defend the faith, encourage growth of the people and their institutions.

Recruit would be less about changing minds and more about changing professions — thus, offer incentives or rewards to increase the army, increase the number of artisans, replenish population, organise for war, encourage immigration.

Reform imposes order on chaos, providing food, improving health, rooting out criminals, adjusting taxes, changing existing governments, pursuing heresy, purging the unwanted, enacting new laws.

Trade improves relations with other lands, encourages peace, brings in money, provides work, introduces foreigners, increases the supply of goods and gives opportunities, affecting the rebuilding of roads and other facilities.

Raid seeks immediate gratification at the detriment of others, makes parts unsafe, disrupts supplies and trade, threatens life, moves a region towards war.

Forage seeks new food sources, encourages exploration, opens new land, drives speculative investments, gives opportunity for adventuring, social mobility and status, eventually drives emigration from more populated areas.

Fortify strengthens existing power structures, moves a region towards the defensive, unifies villages and towns upon great projects, encourages distrust of outsiders, strengthens communities while isolating them from each other.

Build is separate from fortify, as the direction is towards scholarly and cultural pursuits, in the expansion of learning, literacy, artistry, philosophy and a general "renaissance" of thought and purpose; but on the whole, also the general improvement of everything, from sewage systems and the bringing of fresh water to the expansion of commercial facilities and recreation.

These are by no means comprehensive of all the motivations that might exist.  I'm just proposing eight to start.  Additionally, some of these have very large sub-motivations that could be a group all their own.  Others might be expand, dominate, exterminate, escape, rebel, enslave, rob, terrorise or sabotage.  With all the implications those might suggest, beyond their more obvious definitions.

We can later adapt ourselves to be more precise, but for now it's best that we generalise these categories.  For example, by keeping a wide definition of "raiding," which we can define as any sudden, swift incursion into an existed structured society with the intent to pillage, plunder or EAT the residents, we can include everything in our supposed "situation' from a scaled army to a horde of rats.

Okay, stick a pin in that and we'll address the earlier pin regarding structure.

From our pre-generated wilderness, let's suppose eight basic hex types:

Wilderness dictates a distinct lack of civilisation by the dominant occupation in that area.  This is to say that to the humans of a kingdom, an "wilderness" means there are no human residents, permanent structures or deliberate forms of infrastructure.  It doesn't mean there are goblins there, with their intact lair and personal facilities ... wilderness just dictates that whatever's there, it isn't part of the trade or culture of the main.  The lack isn't "complete" ... the dominant civilisation may have built a road through the wilderness, established trails, temporary hunting camps and such.  But these are especially maintained, so any road through a wilderness will be at its worse as regards condition.  Moreover, the road won't be patrolled, so we may count on nasties using that route also for their own purposes ... and being perfectly aware that humans and other civilised persons are bound to be coming along semi-regularly.  Naturally, should any character wish to establish themselves in a non-occupied place, choosing a wilderness with a road is a really good idea.

Homesteads are hexes that the main civilization occupies but does not control.  Such places aren't cleared and have a low civilian population.  Some effort has been made to root out any baddies in the area, but resources are scant and there's a constant effort to live and let live with the former occupants.  For the most part, the homesteading peoples are considered threatening.  Not always the case, obviously.  Again, there are no patrols, and parts of the hex may definitely be considered "wilderness" ... though aid and refuge is more generally close at hand.  Homesteading is a risk, but it's also free land, so there's reason for those wanting a better life to try their hand.

Hamlets represent an expansion of homesteading, in which the civilised presence is greater, and apt to fortify their habitations.  Thus, as their number does threaten the former inhabitants, there's greater reason for conflict.  Hamlets even try their hand at forming parties meant to clear out the hex — but it needs to be clearly understood that this is in the process of doing so, and not having succeeded yet.  There are still plenty of monsters hidden in the nooks and crannies of the hex.  Using a hex that's 6.67 in diameter (along the apothem) allows an area of 38.4 square miles, so there are plenty of locations to hole up.

Large hamlets have been (mostly) cleared.  40% of the hex has been settled or features some sort of control, including gamewardens and patrols that have established peace.  The remainder experiences daily incursions in the form of hunters, woodcutters, foragers, herders, herbalists and the like that any serious conflict with former residents is little more than a temporary trouble to be put down.  More likely, it would come from an adjacent hex, rather than that surrounding the large hamlet.  At the same time, within the civilising population, the actual governing entities are weak and forced to manage a population that are but one or two generations removed from homesteading (when no law existed).  This creates conflict within the existing culture, rather than without.

Villages have begun to overcome the governing difficulties of large hamlets, now being 3 or more generations since those far off settlement days.  Very often, a single family has established a hereditary right over the hex, through good actions performed by a fore-ancestor.  However, the comparative presence of wealth that exists through the village's trade, plus problems related to general health and a larger population (some thousands, including main centre and adjoined farmlands) have begun creating problems of theft, drunkedness, incidents of violence and in some cases, blood feuds based on slights that may have occurred a hundred years ago.  On the whole, however, villages are peaceful, productive and managed.

Country towns are villages that have steadily grown but not due to either manufacturing or commerce.  This does mean the arable lands are good enough to allow continued expansion and intensification with irrigation, the creation of food ponds, widespread orchards, market gardening and a more diverse food supply — which, though greater, hasn't led to an increase in exports, and the increase is consumed locally.  For the gentry, life is good.  Institutional thinking and traditions have calcified.  Serfdom and social obligations for most of the population has been fixed, framed and forced.   Nonetheless, sporadic resistance occurs, poverty is endemic, times of famine may be catastrophic and administrative crackdowns on religious heresy or economic improprieties are brutal.

Manufacturing towns are transformed villages that benefit from resources, regular commerce and an industrious, expanded working class.  Mechanical workshops and transport are in constant use, bringing about the presence of a small middle class and the expanded influence of guilds and independent merchants.  Traditions are cast aside for the sake of work, as is religion to a lesser extent, though many locales observe sacred days and religious holidays zealously.  Organised crime is rampant, as is begging, fraud, smuggling and sometimes arson.  An influx of outsiders over time has produced a fragmented, patchwork cultural mosaic, with workers from different parts of the world living in their own neighbourhoods and outlying hamlets or villages.

Commercial towns and cities have everything a manufacturing town has, heaped even higher with a bureaucracy comprising of scribes, bankers, lawyers, royal officials, procurators, provosts and judges.  Factions compete with one another, often working with the criminals in order to gain an edge on competition.  Art, architecture and other cultural improvements, even the creation of gardens and monumental structures, especially temples, may occur as a demonstration of wealth.  All is hustle and bustle.


Not the first time I've listed these stages, but it does well to do it in context.  It should be easy to suppose the existence of these things for those who don't want to generate a map randomly, or according to some established precept.  What matters here is that each is clearly different from the one before, giving us a sense for what sort of situations might occur therein.  This is much better than the traditional concept purported by D&D, where there's a wilderness, a village or a big town or city, with no effort whatsoever to describe any of them.  It's just assumed we know.

Now suppose we dig into our pile of motivations and pick out a simple one: "raiding."  Popular with players, comprehensible, quite adaptable to any of the hexes above.  Let's run through those hexes again and this time assign encounters for each in accordance with this one motivation.

Wilderness.  Most obviously, the players themselves are the raiders, heading into the wilderness to plunder from a dungeon or some other lair.  Nothing new here.  But thinking in terms of raiding, we may suppose that one pre-existing group in a wilderness might be raiding another, a situation the players could walk into, not knowing any better ... a sort of ongoing local war.  Additionally, the players could be "raided" by the unexpected appearance of a swarm of giant rats, ants, zombies, whatever, existing in numbers too large for the players to handle.  This sets up a series of initial battles, followed by the players retreating and (hopefully!) warning the next hex over that there's an invasion of whatever on its way.

Homesteads.  As explained above, raids are fairly common here, with the players potentially joining the local settlers to root out some lair, or the reverse where the farmlands are being attacked by small groups of uncivilised humanoids or pests.  Raids in this environment could go back and forth for some time, with neither side really winning, but always urged to try and do so from self-preservation.  So long as the players are rewarded in some fashion, either by plunder found or the homesteaders embracing the players as people and fellow residents, there are lots of opportunities for what's found in those wilderness parts of the hex.  Naturally, the players could just loot the homesteaders and wipe them out, thus moving on.

Hamlets.  Here the players are benefitted from a palisaded fort when helping defend the inhabitants from a raid.  There are more residents of the hamlet, and it's more organised, so potentially gifts to the players could be greater.  The raid that happened might be launched from the next hex, and thus represent a larger lair, meaning more treasure and prestige.  We might also suppose the characters as ongoing raiders, clearing out lair after lair, each time gaining more appreciation from the hamlet.  Raiding the hamlet itself is more lucrative still, and for higher level parties, but would definitely have repercussions that would lead to pursuit of players, who must afterwards vacate the area.

Large hamlets.  With the absence of monsters to raid, the party may nonetheless be the target of groups wanting what the party has, striking at the party while they're at an inn or on the road leading into the hamlet.  Such things might be organised by local bandits, formerly farmers who are taking advantage of newcomers, who are liable to bring money as they look for places to settle or start a workshop.  They might also be arranged by cultists who have taken refuge in these hexes, as they're safe from most monsters, but haven't much of a constabulary.  Players may also get caught between large original families who are vying to be the dominant voice in this "wild west" sort of environment.  Think the Magnificent Seven, where bandits target a specific village to gather food for themselves each year.

Villages.  Despite the settled aspect, wealth is a growing factor in these sort of hex.  Plus there's the manor estate itself, which is a tempting target for players who can't find good horses or who possess little respect for authority.  Villages are also good targets for large bandit parties, or even friendly army units who must forage for food, or find a place to temporarily bivouak while on their way to somewhere else.  A raid could also occur with forced conscription, as armies must be raised from time to time in moments of need.  More likely and common, though, a "raid" is more likely to be a group of local toughs setting out to taunt or harass outsiders or people they don't like.

Country towns.  These may experience some of what goes on with a village, but the larger population is likely to challenge even a large bandit party, while members of the town might have sufficient pull at court to preclude a random plundering of stores or persons by a passing brigade.  Raids are more likely to consist of persecution of unwanted or heretical inhabitants or the desire to seize a few serfs for temporary forced labour.  Here, it's the constabulary that "raids" the locales on behalf of the manor lord, who often imposes heavy taxes that aren't paid, or has other expectations that aren't met and results in small moments of rebellion that must be controlled.  This can be done methodically, but occasionally a house is turned upside down and arrests made, or a nearby hamlet, still in the same hex, is entered and generally threatened.

Manufacturing towns.  Much of the conflict is factional now, between different guilds or associations competing for raw materials, labour, space, recognition or customers.  Shops not paying their dues are turned over, there's arson, destruction of property, upsetting and sabotage of wagons and storehouses ... and duels between town watch that are paid by two or more entities as private constabulary.  This is not to suggest that this sort of thing goes on all the time, only that should an adventure be sought after, the protection of a lone shop from a larger syndicate, or being met by a group of "officials" whose job it is to steal on behalf of one guild in the manner of privateers on the bonny blue, offers possibilities for combat, treasure, intrigue and moments of courage.

Commercial towns and cities.  Here, any sort of street fighting is possible, from incidents between the Guelphs and Ghibellines, established gangs à la Romeo & Juliet, attempts at usurpation, spontaneous killings of unwanted town council members, widespread blasphemy, street riots over food, whatever ... along with the usual small gang activities and trade disputes described above in manufacturing towns.  Cram a lot of people in a small area and there's opportunity for moments of raiding one's neighbours or members of some deeply disliked ethnic group, religious sect or philosophical society.  Such moments may consist of not more than 7 people, victims included, right there the open street, or the whole neighbourhood might be in an uproar.


Feasibly, we may take any motivation described above, and using a loose definition propose a group of possible situations to be met by players moving through one of the hex types herein described.  The problem has always been one of imagination ... but with a few crutches to lean on, knowing what sort of motive is driving the event and what sort of environment the event is taking place in, we could train ourselves to make good guesses about what sort of things we, and the players, could expect to happen ... and thereby be interested in the outcome, and how they might take advantage of that.