Project Xenophon

So the module is fully written as system neutral. My original plans were to write it up in both a retroclone and 3.5 compatible manner, but I must admit I'm running out of steam for the latter portion. How many people truly care for the statistics and numbers to follow along with a module?

They may have broken my nose, but my barbed wit has scarred their ego for the rest of their life!

One of the mechanics that is great fun in Piecemeal (and one of the few bard combat powers), is the Scathing Remark and its brother the Witty Retort.



These abilities allow a bard to cause luck point damage to the recipient. So while they have no use against minions or monsters (as they cannot do physical damage), they can be useful against villains and their trusty lieutenants.



The scathing remark functions very similar to an attack roll. A d20 + bonus + skills, with an additional bonus for the quality of the comment. If this "connects" you cause the target to lose a number of luck points, equal to the roll of one of your luck dice. Thus for an average bard it would be for a d6 luck, for an insanely lucky bard it could be as high as a d12. Note this is a one time per combat event. A bard also has the option for taking a "High Brow", "Normal" or "Low Brow" approach. The idea being taking one extreme lets you re-roll the attack die and choose the better at the expense of re-rolling the luck die and choosing the worse result and vice-versa for the other extreme.



A witty retort works as a defensive mechanism, you try to beat the "attack" of the scathing remark, and if you succeed you launch your own "attack" in the same manner.





Why is this good? The first major benefit is that great lines can make for great memories, and anything to encourage it is a good idea in my books. It also keeps another stat as useful for Bards, meaning they can't really consider any stat a dump stat easily.



Why is it bad? In some campaign themes, the witty banter may not be appropriate. A scathing remark can just as easily be curses to the twelve gods, or condemnations (the same with retort) if you wished to tweak it in that manner to fit theme.

Play Example: Social Conflict Results

In following with the previous post, below is the write up (cleaned up to remove in-jokes and Princess Bride lines) for how the social conflict about two kings and a mutual defense pact broke down.

The King of New Balos believes the two kingdoms should merely sign a non-aggression pact, so as to focus on the larger issues. The Lord of the River Cities believes forming an active alliance is required.

In this case it is a major issue so each side needs to gain 25 influences to convince the other. Neither parties suggestion violates a moral or survival concern of the other, so there are no modifiers to required influence.

Round 1.)

The King and Lord select what they will do this round, and reveal after both have chosen Tone, Appeal and Maneuver.

The King decides to choose a heated (passionate) tone , while the Lord chooses an academic tone. This means the King can score epic failures and successes easily, while the Lord cannot suffer or score any form of epic victory.

The King makes an appeal to emotion while the Lord makes an appeal to Logic.

The King is part bard, but did not choose the debate skill, so he has only standard maneuvers. He chooses "Refute" (Always a defense roll, Appeal roll only if you have momentum). The Lord decides to choose "Interject" (Always an appeal roll, a defense roll only if you have momentum)

Now they roll for Momentum in this round of discussions. (Awareness Die + Social Mod + Intelligence Exceptional Mod)

The King rolls a d10+1 for a 6
The Lord rolls a d8 for a 7

The Lord has momentum in this round of negotiation. The Lord launches his appeal,

"A shadow of the Talon greatly overshadows us as it is, and those who stand against the Talon see us as a resource to aid in their own prevention, our only hope is to form a unified defense."

This is a rational statement (+2), its an appeal to Logic so the Intelligence mod of +1 is used, and it incorporates the skills "Current Politics" (+2). The Lord has a Presence of 4, this totals +9. the Lord rolls a d20+9 for a 21.

The king refutes:

"Your lands are but a herd of peasants and merchants, without a strong army or fortress between then, a unified defense merely means I protect your holdings at the expense of my own. A cost I cannot afford"

This is a rational statement (+2), its a refute so intelligence modifier is used (+0), and incorporates the skills of "Military Logistics" and "Fortification" (+2 each). The King has a Presence of 2, for a total of 8. The King rolls an 11 +8 for a 19. Thus the King has been given pause for thought by the Lords words.

The Lord sees how much influence he scored, this was an appeal to logic so The Lord rolls an intelligence die (d8). If the King had an exceptional intelligence score he would take less damage (or more if it was exceptionally bad). The Lord rolls a 5.

The Lord has thus scored 5/25, while the King has scored 0/25.


Round 2.

The King chooses again to be heated, and to use an appeal to emotion, this time with an Interject.

The Lord chooses to use a Humourous tone (Nobody can score epic successes, you can still suffer an epic failure as per normal), to use an appeal to Logic and a Statement (you score double influence but get no defence roll).


The Lord rolled a d8 for 4 and the King a d10 +1 for 3.

The Lord begins:

"Balos is a god of war, I guess I assumed you would be happy to ride to war if the Talon attacked instead of holing up in your swamp with a non-aggression pact"

This is a damn good argument (+5), it also brings in the Lords Skill in Religion (+2), as an appeal to logic the Lord adds his +1 intelligence modifier and 4 Presence. The Lord rolls a 16 + 12 for a 28. The King is interjecting and lost momentum, thus the King has no rebuttal as he is busy interjecting with his own point. The Lord is making a statement so he scores double influence. 6 x 2, 12 additional influence is score.

The King has interjected with his own point, while trying to ignore the good sense the Lord is making :

"You have a strong reputation for treachery, you have slain the mayors of several of the towns you now run while in their employ, I have no assurances you would come to MY aid."

A solid argument (+2) that uses his "Military history" skill (+2) and his Presence of 2, and social mod of 1 for a total of 7.

The King rolls a 16 + 7, this would have been an epic success when using heated tone, but as the Lord used a humourous tone, no epic success can be scored. A humourous tone is thus useful against heated opponents, but self destructive against an academic tone. As the Lord has no defense roll (he made a statement) the King rolls a d8 (his social die) and scores 3 influence.


So the king has score 3/25 influence while the Lord has scored 17/25, the king needs to make up ground. He decides to throw in a favour to score influence. Between rounds.

He will send his captain of the guard and several instructors to help the lord train an army, to revisit talk of an alliance after the Lord has a suitable military to contribute. This is an issue of minor import, and the offer is worth 7 influence. The King now stands at 10/25 Influence.

Round 3.

The King goes for a heated debate, an appeal to emotion and a refute.
The Lord goes for a heated debate, an appeal to logic and talking points. Talking points allow two appeals, but each with a penalty, it also does not allow a defense roll.

Momentum is rolled.

The king rolls a d10 + 1 , for a 7.
The Lord rolls a d8, for a 3.

The King begins.

"Without a suitable host of warriors under your command, it is fairly pointless for me to risk it all defending you, arm yourself first"

This is a weak argument, but it was something (+1), its an appeal to emotion (+1), and there is a presence of 2, rolling a d20 +4 the king gets 22, which is also an epic success. The Lord is issuing talking points, so he has no defense.

The King rolls a 7, x2 is 14 points. Ouch.

The Lord, sensing he is about to be dismissed by the King and his dreams of an alliance dashed, lashes out in a series of poorly backed talking points.

"Let me break this down for you, One, your kingdom is a squalid dump in a swamp facing down the Talon Empire, you need all the help you can get to even avoid starvation. and TWO, I bear with me the power to tap into the arcane powers and grant use those advantages we may need against superior numbers".

For the first appeal, the Lord suffers -5 for a talking point, +2 for a solid point and +2 for his "Economics" skill, +1 for his intelligence modifier and +4 for presence. The lord rolls a d20+4 for a 13.

For the second talking point the lord suffers -5 for talking point, +0 for a flaky and vague point, +2 for the "spellcraft" skill, +1 for intelligence and +4 for presence. The lord rolls a d20+2 for a 9.

The King refutes:

"In the long run we may need butter , but for now we must focus on swords. I doubt your dabbling in the black arts will bring us boon as much as bane".

The King's first refute has +2 for a solid point, +2 for presence. A d20 + 4, 14. He brushes aside the notion that his kingdom is not somehow self-sufficient. Against the black arts he gains +1 for a somewhat rational point, and +2 for his presence. 3 + 3, he fails to refute the notions of the power of the black arts. Somewhere deep in his mind his irrational fear and wonder of magic has begun to influence his decisions.

The Lord rolls an intelligence die to score influence 1. Unimpressed (And worried) the player burns two fate points and finally rolls an 8.

The Lord thus scores 25/25 influence, while the King has scored 24/25 required influence. The King has been convinced, though he had his doubts up until the end. He may still claim "Stubborn Refusal" and refuse to form this alliance, resulting in his own penalties to luck and destiny points..but why would he? He does need SOME kind of defense agreement in place after all.

Play Example: Social Conflict

I'll be running through an interesting social conflict tonight, so I thought I'd write it up in two parts. The first part (this one) will deal with the participants and situation.

Participant 1.) The King of New Balos

A brooding warlord in possession of a formidable fighting force, but a small and newly settled kingdom unable to sustain it in the long term. The kingdom is situated in a swamp and the bordering foothills of the nearby mountain range.

Level: 5
Class: 2 part warrior, 1 part bard
Intelligence: 11
Awareness: 16
Social: 13

Participant 2.) The Lord of the River Cities

A wandering specialist who through a combination of intrigue and military might has conquered or taken as allied vassals the cities and towns along a major river, up until it reaches the swamp. The once poor and backwater towns and villages are becoming prosperous due to the unified market and trade opportunities of the river. The lord has developed a reputation for beginning to dabble in dangerous magics in his court.

Level: 12
Class: 2 part warrior, 1 part thief, 1 part wizard
Intelligence: 13
Awareness: 14
Social: 10


Scenario: The two neighbouring kingdoms have each had issues with the neighbouring Empire of the Talon in its continual conquest of other nations. To their other side is the Grand Kingdom of the Eagle, which has recently assimilated (forcefully) the League of independent knights, in its own bid to counter the oppressive strength of the Empire of the Talon. Combined with the plague that has recently run through the region, killing over a quarter of the populace of some towns and cities, and it is a dangerous time to be a small fish in the big pond.

These two small kingdoms will need to work out arrangements for mutual defence, but they each have their own differing (and religiously motivated) views on how that should go down.

Magic as part of the laws of physics: Superstition becomes real

One thing I myself am often guilty of is making magic always "active". Magic is something you do to warp the laws of physics to be different from our own reality, it isn't really part and parcel.

To a degree I long ago started working in "medieval science" , disease really is caused by vapours for instance, there are only 4 elements and heavier things fall faster. But with magic I find myself often unwilling to put superstitious magic into the fabric of the world.

Let me give you an example. When undead is created its because someone used magic actively, either with a spell or a magical ability to cause the rising of more undead (like a vampires bite). I have a hard time say, having undead spring forth if a player kills someone on a full moon without leaving 2 copper for the soul to pay their fare on the afterlife. Or if the PC's kill a traitor but don't bury him on the crossroads, or if you light a candle in the vicinity of the recently deceased.

Likewise if a player kills a spider I don't make it rain, if they break a mirror I don't make them more likely to fumble for 7 years.

But maybe I should, what does everyone else think?

When danger reared its ugly head. He bravely turned his tail and fled. Bravely taking to his feet, He beat a very brave retreat

Today I'd like to talk about morale. I've seen some other people posting about morale lately and thought..hey..I like to jump on bandwagons!

(seriously, go read the Nine and Thirty Kingdoms, its a very different style of game than I would run in most cases but there is a lot of interesting things there)

In Piecemeal, its not feasible for most individuals to fight bravely on until the death, especially not as henchmen who don't even get a descent dental plan (ever wonder why the orcs have such bad teeth?).

Thus the effects of morale come into play. NPC's will have a morale score, this will be a highly variable score and can be pretty much anything. It can be increased by a PC with a high social score, a bard with skill-points in leadership, bearing a standard or flag, being outnumbered by or outnumbering the opponent.

If modifiers are not abundant, how do we get situations where people will almost certainly flee? The trick is to cause multiple morale checks on a turn.

Why have multiple morale checks instead of abundant modifiers and one morale check? Part of that is due to the way morale checks are rolled, and how it breaks down numerically. With individuals or small bands (4 or 5) you would roll a d20 per NPC with epic failures and successes on 1's and 20's as normal. With larger groups you would roll 3d6 per group. This makes a nicer bell curve on if people run or not.

Why do I want a bell curve? People are more likely to run away if other people are too. People are also less likely to run away if everyone else is standing their ground with courage and bravery. This makes modifiers a big deal in group situations, where additional checks might not. +4 to a morale check (up to a 16) and needing to make two rolls on 3d6 is far more likely to succeed than even a +3 (up to a 15) and needing to make one roll on 3d6.

What causes a morale roll? To lose more body points in a round than the opponents, to have more individuals on your side fall than the opposing side, to have gunpowder or magic used against you if you have not previously been exposed to it, or to have your leader fall.

What happens when a morale roll is failed? Well for most individuals they run or surrender. If an individual or unit has say the "Zealous" trait (such as fanatics or berserkers) they instead automatically move into "Wild Attacks" in a panic/rage.

Without getting into the niceties of Piecemeal round to round combat options, a wild attack in D&D terms would be getting an additional attack , having all attacks be at -5, and being hit on a 2+ automatically. As you can guess, not a long life expectancy for a berserker who loses it.

Why is this good?

It creates another aspect of being "good" at combat, making people run away or surrender. Given that people are worth more XP if they surrender than need to be slain, this brings more avenues for players to pursue without being mandatory.

Why is this bad?

It does cause a handful of extra quick rolls per turn to be rolled (should the opposing side wish, see main rule). But as these rolls have the option of making the entire combat finish up in one roll, I believe they actually reduce the "drag" of combat.

Gaining influence with factions and patrons

One thing I really love about Piecemeal's Social Conflict system is how well it deals with gaining favours and influence with powerful individuals and factions. If you haven't read the social conflict system yet, it boils down to scoring influence against your opponent. When you reach a certain level (based on what you are asking) you convince them (though they can claim "stubborn refusal" and get their own penalties).

This works well with gaining favours and loyalty, because it allows me to award a tangible non-treasure reward for quests and tasks, I split this into "Favours" and "Sway".

If you complete a favour for someone you earn a certain amount of temporary influence points with them. These represent favours, each favour can be cashed in once, with a limit of one favour per social conflict. If the players return a merchants stolen cargo I might have him give the group a favour of 10 influence. This means later if the players wish to get free passage on his ship they could immediately cash that in for 10 influence, starting them already closer (or automatically passing) the threshold to convince the merchant. If they returned cargo a half dozen times, they could not turn in 6 favours at once for 60 influence. Just because you keep returning his stolen wares doesn't mean he will automatically sail into a maelstrom and fight a demon-lord at your side.

Sway is a much stronger affair. Influence represents a permanent loyalty or duty to you from the individual or faction. Every social conflict you are in starts you with as much influence against the opponent as the difference between your sway with them, and their sway with you. So If I have two sway with the town watch (and they have none with me, which is normal for a PC) I can automatically win any social conflict for a matter of no real import. "Hey Crowley, would you mind checking on my house periodically while I am away in Korthos?".

When one gets to higher Sway, one can start automatically asking for more and more and expect the help. If you have saved the town from a rampaging orc warlord single handily, your sway in the town should guarantee you don't pay for room, board or drinks. If one has absurdly high sway, you have the power of Thusla Doom, who needs merely ask his followers to jump from a ledge to their death...and they do without question.


Why is this good?

It allows the PC's to keep track of their reputation and the good deeds they have done, the favours they have accrued in a much more tangible fashion. This means that in long running campaigns I as the GM don't have to remember absolutely every little detail from every minor good deed they have done in the last 3 years (real time), nor do I have to hand waive it and risk overlooking a good deed that I consider minor and forgettable but really stuck with the player. Often the GM and PC's remember different things.

When is this bad?

This allows Players sometimes a bit too much knowledge, in the same way knowing their hitpoints means they don't fear one goblin pointing a bow at them ("He can only do 4 damage and I have 40 hp, I'm fine"). I temper this, if it becomes a problem by having things crop up that may damage a PC's sway or favours owed without their knowledge (IE, bad deeds they have done travelling around and spoiling their reputation)