Storms seem to follow me. I think it's me. I've got a family tradition of coming from a long line of people who don't put up with crap, and sometimes (okay, a lot of the time) it backfires.
So I walked away from Pathfinder Society last week, and left a note on the messageboards stating so. And my reasons for it. And amazingly everyone understood, and sympathized with me.
Okay. They didn't. There was a whole lot of schadenfreude. A whole lot of people saying that I should have known better than to cheese the rules. Some people (I think maybe even Venture-Captains) saying that if I wanted to play a weapon wielding companion, that I should have played a summoner. (Except the summoner did not exist as a class when I started playing Brother Elias).
There were a couple of supportive people too, but they seem to be getting drowned out in the noise.
And there's a whole lot of people who don't actually read or know the rules before they speak. Incredibly, this seems to include the Paizo developers, who have misstated the pathfinder rules multiple times in that thread and neighboring ones regarding what animals and companions do and don't do.
I'm not sure what to say when the representatives of the company can't seem to be bothered to read their own rules documents before posting erroneous information.
And that was just Pathfinder Society.
What else happened this week? Hmm. I found out that someone that I used to know apparently really hates me, and I'm somewhat clueless as to any actual thing I might have done. But given the number of people that hate me, these things kind of get lost in the shuffle.
I also seem to have offended a player in one of the games I'm in, for which I'm not certain how to respond. (Confused? I am. But I go through a lot of life not knowing where the ground is.)
So my takeaway from this last week:
1) Not participating in Organized Play reduces frustration level.
2) Sometimes you can be hated, and not even realize it. (See Homer Simpson/Fred Grimes)
3) I'm an offensive person, even when I'm not trying particularly hard to be. (I bet I could be an archvillain if I really put the effort in.)
4) Six day long business trips are no fun. And I really wish that more gaming had happened over the weekend.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Walking away from the table
Rule zero is that the GM has the final say on the rules. That's a given. A player can either accept the GM's ruling, or walk away from the table. After two and a half years of playing in Pathfinder Society, I'm standing up and walking away.
I have a small blog read by almost nobody (not linked to, because I'm really not trying to drum up site traffic). I wrote a post for it a couple of weeks ago talking about my frustration with PFS, and how similar frustrations led me to walk away from LFR. Mainly the problems I have had centered on rules changing out from under players. And how whenever LFR or 4e would get a new program manager, that manager would immediately change the rules of the game to suit his vision of how the game or campaign should be. And that eventually, the fact of constant rules changes made it more and more difficult to keep interest in a character, because that character was not the same character that it was before each change.
There were other issues, like how rules changes in LFR were coming out as blog posts and tweets, and not as actual changes to the document which is supposed to contain the rules of the campaign. I expressed in my post my hope that Paizo was not walking down that same path.
Somehow Hyrum happened to read the post, and said something like “hey, let's discuss it”. And as timing is never good in my life, this week I happen to be out of town on business all this week. And I said, something like “How about when I get back in town?” and he said something like “Sounds good”. But then this week happened.
My first PFS character (who still has not hit the level 11/12 cap) started as a Druid. When Season 1 hit, I asked Joshua specifically about the rule where an animal companion with a 3 INT could take any feat. And I specifically asked about weapon proficiency feats. And I got an answer. And in the next printing of the Guide to Organized Play, there was a specific section dealing with and answering that question, that yes – animal companions with a 3 INT that can physically wield a weapon can take weapon proficiency feats. That section has been in the Guide for over a year and a half, and through multiple editions of the guide.
Yesterday, Mark made the statement that “the author” (not referring to Josh by name, which might be a Paizo thing, but really ended up sounding more like a slam) made a mistake on that ruling. He didn't say that he disagreed, and was changing the rule, which would have seemed to me like a much more civil way to phrase things, but that simply that the author made a mistake. A mistake that went un-contradicted by anyone at Paizo for somewhere like a year and a half.
This week, we also saw another major rules change. It is a rules change because for a long time (almost two years), the standard answer on the rules forum about animal companions was that handle animal checks can effectively be ignored if you invest a point of intelligence in your animal companion. This would seem to be supported by the rules that open up every feat and every skill in the book to an animal companion with a 3 INT, whereas 2 INT critters are limited to just a few skills and feats. The advice on the rules forum went un-contradicted by anyone at Paizo for a similarly long time period.
Anyway.
This week, with these two rulings, my 8th level cleric (nee druid) with an ape animal companion who wields a weapon (who was specifically discussed in rules threads on both the rules forum and the PFS forum after he showed up at a local gaming convention, and who no-one at Paizo stepped up then to remark that he was not legal) has suddenly become an illegal build.
And the reaction from the “usual crowd” was pure schadenfreude. Supposedly I, and anyone else who saw the versatility of such a build should have known better, even though I specifically asked and was specifically answered by the Paizo manager in charge of the program, that such a build was borderline, and it was only right and just that I be smacked down.
Anyway.
I've got a choice. I can either keep playing a character that is effectively castrated, and play my other characters, at least one of which was somewhat hit by ruling as well, or...I can simply stand up and walk away from the table. I'm choosing to do the latter.
I've spent a fair amount of money on the game. I have the Core rules, both Bestiaries, the APG, the GMG, the Inner Sea Guide (which I just got last weekend). I bought the complete Legacy of Fire adventure path. I've bought several (or a bunch depending on how you number it) of PDF's.
But I will not be spending any more of my money at Paizo.
I will go to DriveThruRPG or Amazon or somewhere else. I'm left with the distinct feeling that my money and my custom are not appreciated, and that perhaps it would have been money better spent elsewhere.
I'm trying not to say this in a spirit of pettiness, I've seen enough of that on these boards from players and VC's alike. I'm trying to say it in the spirit of “my gaming dollars are going to go somewhere, and I'm choosing to spend them someplace that is not and has not caused me so much frustration of late.”
Wishing everyone all the best with their game.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Sportsmanship is actually fun
Okay, so I played Friday Night Magic tonight. For anyone who doesn't know, Friday Night Magic is a weekly event held in game stores around the country (actually the world). It is meant to be a casually competitive environment where everyone is welcome.
I play at the Gopher, what I refer to as the friendliest game store in town. It really is. There's another game store across town, that has what could be argued to be a better selection (given the ability of GopherDave to special order just about anything, I'd say this is not so much of a point), but nobody, but nobody is a friendly to customers as the Gopher. Probably a good indicator of this is the fact that when WinterWar rolls around every year, there is always a plethora of helpful volunteers, bringing everything from cargo vans to hand trucks to muscle to computer services (one year the store computer died a horrible death, but thanks to volunteers they were up and running before very many hours had past).
Anyway. Back to FNM. There are generally a couple of formats that you can play. There's "constructed", where you bring your own deck, and there's "limited" where you get cards at the event to build a deck out of. I generally choose "limited", because I don't want to spend hours and huge amounts of cash building a deck that will be obsolete within weeks or months. Of "limited" formats, you can either play "draft", or "sealed deck". In draft, you open a pack, select a card, and pass the rest of the pack around the table, while everyone else does the same. You do this for three packs of Magic cards, and then build a deck with what you have chosen (or "drafted"). In sealed deck formats, you simply open several packs of cards and then build a deck from those packs.
I generally choose sealed deck format over draft, as I think of it as less competitive. I have a bit of a problem with competition, as I tend to be over competitive. (Or "hyper competitive", or "jerk"). I like the fact that your deck in sealed is based entirely on what you open, and you don't need to spend hours reading articles on what the best draft strategies are.
Unfortunately, there was only "constructed" and "draft" available tonight. So I played draft. I didn't open or get passed any real "money cards" (cards that are worth more than $10. Some cards currently in the format are worth up to or over $100. But I generally don't have that kind of luck.)
So I ended up drafting black cards, and I made it a point to draft the pretty land whenever I didn't have an obvious card that I wanted to put in my deck. As it turned out, I got 16 "pretty" land, one rare that's worth about $6-$10, and had exactly 4 cards left over when I built my deck.
But here's the important part of this post:
I won the first round, but lost the last two. Back in my old competitive days, this would have been an exercise in frustration, as my cards weren't winning for me. But tonight I really didn't worry about winning, and after each game, I tried my hardest to tell my opponent how well I thought he played (all three of my opponents really did play well, and I didn't see any obvious play errors). And I did my best to compliment their decks.
And I found that as I was telling the guy across from me how good I thought he did (if he won) or how things just came together for me, and he didn't do anything really wrong (when he lost), that it made me feel good to say nice things to my opponent. (Why do I think about that scene in "How the Grinch stole Christmas" when his heart is growing?)
Vince Lombardi once said: "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." Yeah, I used to think this too. But there's more than one way to be a winner. I recently saw this MadeForTV movie called School of Life. It's set in a middle school, whose basketball team hasn't won a game in many years. One teacher helps them overcome this losing streak. How? By cheering the other team when they make a great play. By cheering their own team when they screw up. By cheering either team either way. Just because the score isn't what you'd like it to be doesn't mean that you can't be happy for the people who are doing well. I tried that tonight, and as sappy as that seems, it was actually fun.
Anyway. After the tournament, I played a casual game with Rigar, and then played a round of Multiplayer Madness (that I asked one of the other players to pick one of my decks randomly for me to play). And I had a fun time there too. (I won, but that really wasn't important. It was just fun to play). And then I came back home. I just really wanted to write all this down so I remember how much better it felt losing two rounds, and telling my opponent how well I thought he did, than it ever used to feel winning, but being a jerk about it.
So, hey, I played Friday Night Magic, and I won! Even though my match record might suggest otherwise.
I play at the Gopher, what I refer to as the friendliest game store in town. It really is. There's another game store across town, that has what could be argued to be a better selection (given the ability of GopherDave to special order just about anything, I'd say this is not so much of a point), but nobody, but nobody is a friendly to customers as the Gopher. Probably a good indicator of this is the fact that when WinterWar rolls around every year, there is always a plethora of helpful volunteers, bringing everything from cargo vans to hand trucks to muscle to computer services (one year the store computer died a horrible death, but thanks to volunteers they were up and running before very many hours had past).
Anyway. Back to FNM. There are generally a couple of formats that you can play. There's "constructed", where you bring your own deck, and there's "limited" where you get cards at the event to build a deck out of. I generally choose "limited", because I don't want to spend hours and huge amounts of cash building a deck that will be obsolete within weeks or months. Of "limited" formats, you can either play "draft", or "sealed deck". In draft, you open a pack, select a card, and pass the rest of the pack around the table, while everyone else does the same. You do this for three packs of Magic cards, and then build a deck with what you have chosen (or "drafted"). In sealed deck formats, you simply open several packs of cards and then build a deck from those packs.
I generally choose sealed deck format over draft, as I think of it as less competitive. I have a bit of a problem with competition, as I tend to be over competitive. (Or "hyper competitive", or "jerk"). I like the fact that your deck in sealed is based entirely on what you open, and you don't need to spend hours reading articles on what the best draft strategies are.
Unfortunately, there was only "constructed" and "draft" available tonight. So I played draft. I didn't open or get passed any real "money cards" (cards that are worth more than $10. Some cards currently in the format are worth up to or over $100. But I generally don't have that kind of luck.)
So I ended up drafting black cards, and I made it a point to draft the pretty land whenever I didn't have an obvious card that I wanted to put in my deck. As it turned out, I got 16 "pretty" land, one rare that's worth about $6-$10, and had exactly 4 cards left over when I built my deck.
But here's the important part of this post:
I won the first round, but lost the last two. Back in my old competitive days, this would have been an exercise in frustration, as my cards weren't winning for me. But tonight I really didn't worry about winning, and after each game, I tried my hardest to tell my opponent how well I thought he played (all three of my opponents really did play well, and I didn't see any obvious play errors). And I did my best to compliment their decks.
And I found that as I was telling the guy across from me how good I thought he did (if he won) or how things just came together for me, and he didn't do anything really wrong (when he lost), that it made me feel good to say nice things to my opponent. (Why do I think about that scene in "How the Grinch stole Christmas" when his heart is growing?)
Vince Lombardi once said: "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." Yeah, I used to think this too. But there's more than one way to be a winner. I recently saw this MadeForTV movie called School of Life. It's set in a middle school, whose basketball team hasn't won a game in many years. One teacher helps them overcome this losing streak. How? By cheering the other team when they make a great play. By cheering their own team when they screw up. By cheering either team either way. Just because the score isn't what you'd like it to be doesn't mean that you can't be happy for the people who are doing well. I tried that tonight, and as sappy as that seems, it was actually fun.
Anyway. After the tournament, I played a casual game with Rigar, and then played a round of Multiplayer Madness (that I asked one of the other players to pick one of my decks randomly for me to play). And I had a fun time there too. (I won, but that really wasn't important. It was just fun to play). And then I came back home. I just really wanted to write all this down so I remember how much better it felt losing two rounds, and telling my opponent how well I thought he did, than it ever used to feel winning, but being a jerk about it.
So, hey, I played Friday Night Magic, and I won! Even though my match record might suggest otherwise.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Wow, is it Thursday already?
The key to happiness is low expectations.
There's a lot behind this. There's the difference between expectation and dreams or hopes.
Defining terms.
Dream - something that you desire to achieve, and that if accomplished would be greatly fulfilling
Hope - holding open the possibility in your mind that a goal will be achieved
Expectation - the anticipation of the realization of a goal within a stated timeframe
So a dream or hope can be held onto for years, decades, even a lifetime, with the possibility that it may eventually come true. Many people buy lottery tickets, dreaming about being rich, and living in style, and never having to work again. Dreams are good things. They keep us getting up in the morning when the rest of our lives suck. You could go your entire life with a dream in your heart and never see it realized, and on your deathbed (or as you get hit by that oncoming train) not feel disappointment that you did not achieve your dream.
Expectations are another thing entirely. An expectation is like a milestone that you feel should be achieved at a given point in time. Think of it as an internal quota. "I expect to you to get your homework done by the time I get home." or "I expect to see an improvement in your grades next semester." are both examples of expectations - though for some people, those might be dreams <g>. (Does anyone but me still use <g> for an emoticon anymore? )
I'm not saying that you shouldn't have reasonable expectations. Reasonable expectations are what keeps the world turning. I expect my car to start in the morning. I expect my roof to keep the rain out of my living room. It's the unreasonable expectations that sink us. If I were to start expecting dice to roll how I want them to, my life would be full of disappointment. If I were to start expecting my dog to answer me when I talk to him, I'd be surely either disappointed, or committed. (Even more so, because I don't actually have a dog.)
It's finding the right line to draw between reasonable and unreasonable expectations that determines whether or not we will actually be happy in life. It's good to set your expectations high enough you can function in life. It's bad to set your expectations so high that you are met with disappointment at every turn.
Not a long post, but definitely a lot of words to say that I expected myself to post something yesterday, but didn't. And that I'm slightly disappointed in myself. Meanwhile, I'll go back to dreaming about being a writer someday.
There's a lot behind this. There's the difference between expectation and dreams or hopes.
Defining terms.
Dream - something that you desire to achieve, and that if accomplished would be greatly fulfilling
Hope - holding open the possibility in your mind that a goal will be achieved
Expectation - the anticipation of the realization of a goal within a stated timeframe
So a dream or hope can be held onto for years, decades, even a lifetime, with the possibility that it may eventually come true. Many people buy lottery tickets, dreaming about being rich, and living in style, and never having to work again. Dreams are good things. They keep us getting up in the morning when the rest of our lives suck. You could go your entire life with a dream in your heart and never see it realized, and on your deathbed (or as you get hit by that oncoming train) not feel disappointment that you did not achieve your dream.
Expectations are another thing entirely. An expectation is like a milestone that you feel should be achieved at a given point in time. Think of it as an internal quota. "I expect to you to get your homework done by the time I get home." or "I expect to see an improvement in your grades next semester." are both examples of expectations - though for some people, those might be dreams <g>. (Does anyone but me still use <g> for an emoticon anymore? )
I'm not saying that you shouldn't have reasonable expectations. Reasonable expectations are what keeps the world turning. I expect my car to start in the morning. I expect my roof to keep the rain out of my living room. It's the unreasonable expectations that sink us. If I were to start expecting dice to roll how I want them to, my life would be full of disappointment. If I were to start expecting my dog to answer me when I talk to him, I'd be surely either disappointed, or committed. (Even more so, because I don't actually have a dog.)
It's finding the right line to draw between reasonable and unreasonable expectations that determines whether or not we will actually be happy in life. It's good to set your expectations high enough you can function in life. It's bad to set your expectations so high that you are met with disappointment at every turn.
Not a long post, but definitely a lot of words to say that I expected myself to post something yesterday, but didn't. And that I'm slightly disappointed in myself. Meanwhile, I'll go back to dreaming about being a writer someday.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Large Tables - The Unfun
I'm starting to really have a personal issue with large games. I play in several different RPG's right now, and it really seems like the upper limit for enjoyable play is seven players.
I generally think of three players (and one GM) as too small. It just seems like an empty table. This is especially true if there are six players (in the game) and only three show up. It's almost impossible to advance the story line, because you don't really have a quorum to decide anything. I always feel like I shouldn't make decisions on behalf of the rest of the players if they aren't there. So it always seems to me we end up spinning our wheels when there are only three players.
Four players generally seems like a good number. You can (hopefully) fulfill all of the traditional party roles (striker, defender, controller, leader) or (fighter, cleric, rogue, mage - not necessarily in likely in that same order). And even if two people are filling the same role, you don't feel quite so fragile as a party.
Five players is good too. You can add support roles, and players can feel more free to play non-traditional characters, knowing that others can help pick up the slack. (A bard starts to really shine at a five player table, where he might be more of an anchor at a 3 player table.) And I still feel like my character can get face time in when there are four other people competing for the GM's attention.
Which brings us to six. I am in several games with six players. Deadlands has worked well for our gaming group at six players for a long while now. I'm still getting time to advance my character's storyline. I'm still getting time to do my shtick in combat, and I don't think anyone at the table is getting left out. The farthest anyone is from the DM is three seats away. (DM at one end, three players on each side of the table.)
And at seven, things start to go to crap. Now, someone is sitting four seats away from the GM. I've been there. It feels like the GM never hears you, and almost all of his attention is taken with the four players closest to him. Combat is mostly time spent waiting or your turn. And if you have a narrow corridor, you might as well go get something to eat until combat is over. I've had whole combats where I just tell the GM to put me on delay, and I'll let him know if I want to do anything.
And higher numbers than seven only compound the issue. I've heard people argue that animal companions make the problem worse, but as having played a character with an animal companion, having watched players with animal companions, and having DM'd people with companions, I think these players fall into two basic groups - people who have their shit together and don't waste time deciding what their animal is going to do, and people who generally tuck their animal out of the way until combat is over.
Maybe I've been lucky, but I can't remember any recent play experiences where other people's animal companions took any more time than "that guy" who was running a mage, but couldn't be bothered to have any idea what he wanted to do on his turn. I know that I tend to tuck my player out of the way while my character's companion is in the midst of combat. Or else my character will do something in a support role, and my animal will be up-front combat.
I know a lot of DM's believe that getting the most number of players at the table is a good thing. But I think there's a point where the logistics of paying attention to a large group of players really starts to outweigh any increase in fun.
I generally think of three players (and one GM) as too small. It just seems like an empty table. This is especially true if there are six players (in the game) and only three show up. It's almost impossible to advance the story line, because you don't really have a quorum to decide anything. I always feel like I shouldn't make decisions on behalf of the rest of the players if they aren't there. So it always seems to me we end up spinning our wheels when there are only three players.
Four players generally seems like a good number. You can (hopefully) fulfill all of the traditional party roles (striker, defender, controller, leader) or (fighter, cleric, rogue, mage - not necessarily in likely in that same order). And even if two people are filling the same role, you don't feel quite so fragile as a party.
Five players is good too. You can add support roles, and players can feel more free to play non-traditional characters, knowing that others can help pick up the slack. (A bard starts to really shine at a five player table, where he might be more of an anchor at a 3 player table.) And I still feel like my character can get face time in when there are four other people competing for the GM's attention.
Which brings us to six. I am in several games with six players. Deadlands has worked well for our gaming group at six players for a long while now. I'm still getting time to advance my character's storyline. I'm still getting time to do my shtick in combat, and I don't think anyone at the table is getting left out. The farthest anyone is from the DM is three seats away. (DM at one end, three players on each side of the table.)
And at seven, things start to go to crap. Now, someone is sitting four seats away from the GM. I've been there. It feels like the GM never hears you, and almost all of his attention is taken with the four players closest to him. Combat is mostly time spent waiting or your turn. And if you have a narrow corridor, you might as well go get something to eat until combat is over. I've had whole combats where I just tell the GM to put me on delay, and I'll let him know if I want to do anything.
And higher numbers than seven only compound the issue. I've heard people argue that animal companions make the problem worse, but as having played a character with an animal companion, having watched players with animal companions, and having DM'd people with companions, I think these players fall into two basic groups - people who have their shit together and don't waste time deciding what their animal is going to do, and people who generally tuck their animal out of the way until combat is over.
Maybe I've been lucky, but I can't remember any recent play experiences where other people's animal companions took any more time than "that guy" who was running a mage, but couldn't be bothered to have any idea what he wanted to do on his turn. I know that I tend to tuck my player out of the way while my character's companion is in the midst of combat. Or else my character will do something in a support role, and my animal will be up-front combat.
I know a lot of DM's believe that getting the most number of players at the table is a good thing. But I think there's a point where the logistics of paying attention to a large group of players really starts to outweigh any increase in fun.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Mercy?
One of the topics that I continually wonder about in (especially) fantasy RPG's is: What do you do with an enemy that surrenders?
Okay, so you fight a gang of X (goblins, orcs, human tribesmen, human outlaws, etc). At a certain point in the fight, the boss is dead (or maybe a sub-boss), and the remaining mooks all throw down their weapons and surrender.
Question 1: Do you accept their surrender, or do you simply slaughter them where they stand. It doesn't seem very heroic to kill people who have surrendered to you. Definitely doesn't seem "good", or "lawful". I know a lot of players like to play neutrally aligned characters, and aren't constrained by such concepts as good or evil, but to me it seems a bit distasteful to simply "kill them all and let Pharasma sort them out."
Question 2: You've accepted the surrender of the mooks. You've interrogated them, but they refuse to give up the information you seek. To what extent do you use coercion to secure the information? Do you intimidate? Do you torture? At what point in the interrogation sequence do you cross the line from hero to villain?
Question 3: Okay, so you've wrung out all the information that you possibly can from your captives. You are miles from any town or form of civilization, and cannot spare the time to take them any authority. What do you do with the prisoners?
Okay, so you fight a gang of X (goblins, orcs, human tribesmen, human outlaws, etc). At a certain point in the fight, the boss is dead (or maybe a sub-boss), and the remaining mooks all throw down their weapons and surrender.
Question 1: Do you accept their surrender, or do you simply slaughter them where they stand. It doesn't seem very heroic to kill people who have surrendered to you. Definitely doesn't seem "good", or "lawful". I know a lot of players like to play neutrally aligned characters, and aren't constrained by such concepts as good or evil, but to me it seems a bit distasteful to simply "kill them all and let Pharasma sort them out."
Question 2: You've accepted the surrender of the mooks. You've interrogated them, but they refuse to give up the information you seek. To what extent do you use coercion to secure the information? Do you intimidate? Do you torture? At what point in the interrogation sequence do you cross the line from hero to villain?
Question 3: Okay, so you've wrung out all the information that you possibly can from your captives. You are miles from any town or form of civilization, and cannot spare the time to take them any authority. What do you do with the prisoners?
- Let them go? Well, they might rejoin the big boss and you will just have to fight them again later.
- Kill them now, after they've surrendered? It seems to me that there is an implied responsibility not to kill an enemy whose surrender you accept. (Maybe it's just me, but that just seems like a "dick move").
- What I always argue for, and what always seems to get people to look at me funny is to simply cut off their thumbs and release them. You've pretty much guaranteed that the enemy will not come after you later, while still leaving them able to have a reasonable chance of living out a life, albeit a somewhat harsher one. I read Bernard Cornwell's Agincourt recently, and in it, the english archer protagonist is captured by a french lord. The lord lets him go after taking the little finger of one hand. He made a point of the fact that he wasn't even taking the index and middle fingers, so that the archer could still function as an archer.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Minis Minis Minis
I finally got my self together enough to take some photos of Mini's that I've painted and modified.
Vekna
Vekna was a dwarf fighter/battlerager that I played in Living Forgotten Realms before that campaign died. (YOU ARE DEAD TO ME LFR. DEAD DEAD DEAD!!! um. anyway...) Vekna started out on foot, but I quickly found that a mount was exceedingly good. So he started with a riding lizard. This is a Dungeons and Dragons Miniature (DDM) Monitor Lizard, combined with a Duergar Warrior.
To modify the duergar, I cut off his shield, and shaped his left arm. His right arm I cut away from the body, so it could be swung out to hold a hammer. The large hammer the duergar is holding was removed entirely, and the legs were cut off to that they could be remounted in a saddle riding position. The hammer is constructed from a paper clip, some plumber's epoxy putty, and some JB Kwik wrapped as a handle.
The lizard was a simpler modification. I rebased it onto a large base, and added a basic saddle and bridle from plumber's epoxy putty.
Later, I discovered that if he was going to be a fighter that charged into battle, a horse would add extra damage to his charges. So I picked up a mounted warrior DDM and removed the human rider. I created a saddle from epoxy putty to hold a similarly modded duergar warrior. The flying cloak was taken from the original human rider, and merged with the duergar figure's cloak.
And then I wanted Vekna to have a flying mount. So I found a hippogrif DDM, and took apart yet another Duergar Warrior figure. The glaive is made from a solid rod, again wrapped in JB Kwik, and attached to a piece of sword from a random DDM mini. I had to carve away a bit of each wing where it meets the hippogrif body so that the legs would fit better.
Mounted Archer
I don't even remember this character's name. It was for Ryan's campaign, and that campaign kind of imploded upon itself, when the entire group failed some mission, and then our NPC "boss" decided to send us to a far-off land. Which we never actually made it to before the campaign ended.
To make the mounted archer, I started with a Graycloak Ranger DDM. I did some extensive carving of his cloak so that it wouldn't interfere with his saddle. I also separated the left arm from the body, and pinned it parallel to the ground so that his bow would be extended at arms reach ready to shoot.
For the mount, I started with a Unicorn DDM. I cut off the horn (and yes, I'm going to burn in some D&D Hell for that. <g>) I formed a saddle from epoxy, and completely repainted the horse.
On the Graycloak Ranger, I also added some facepaint to give him a more guerilla/covert ops feel.
The archer had an animal companion, which was supposed to be a small (or tiny) raptor. Having nothing like this in my collection of D&D Minis, I attempted to make one.
The bird is made from a paperclip, pulled apart to form a wingspan. The feet and tail are a second bit of cut paperclip. This skeleton was then covered in plumbers epoxy putty It's really really cheap compared to green stuff, and since I've never used the green stuff, I don't know what I'm missing. You can get the epoxy I use for about $3 a tube at Walmart. Look for the blue outer putty, with the white middle. (I'm not sure which part if hardener and which is epoxy.) The base is a small DDM base, with some putty covering a steel nut (for ballast). Of course a paper clip forms the riser joining the bird to the base.
I've also taken some photos of party members in Dave's Champions game that I play in. I'll include those in a later post.
Vekna
Vekna was a dwarf fighter/battlerager that I played in Living Forgotten Realms before that campaign died. (YOU ARE DEAD TO ME LFR. DEAD DEAD DEAD!!! um. anyway...) Vekna started out on foot, but I quickly found that a mount was exceedingly good. So he started with a riding lizard. This is a Dungeons and Dragons Miniature (DDM) Monitor Lizard, combined with a Duergar Warrior. To modify the duergar, I cut off his shield, and shaped his left arm. His right arm I cut away from the body, so it could be swung out to hold a hammer. The large hammer the duergar is holding was removed entirely, and the legs were cut off to that they could be remounted in a saddle riding position. The hammer is constructed from a paper clip, some plumber's epoxy putty, and some JB Kwik wrapped as a handle.
The lizard was a simpler modification. I rebased it onto a large base, and added a basic saddle and bridle from plumber's epoxy putty.
Later, I discovered that if he was going to be a fighter that charged into battle, a horse would add extra damage to his charges. So I picked up a mounted warrior DDM and removed the human rider. I created a saddle from epoxy putty to hold a similarly modded duergar warrior. The flying cloak was taken from the original human rider, and merged with the duergar figure's cloak.
Mounted Archer
I don't even remember this character's name. It was for Ryan's campaign, and that campaign kind of imploded upon itself, when the entire group failed some mission, and then our NPC "boss" decided to send us to a far-off land. Which we never actually made it to before the campaign ended.For the mount, I started with a Unicorn DDM. I cut off the horn (and yes, I'm going to burn in some D&D Hell for that. <g>) I formed a saddle from epoxy, and completely repainted the horse.On the Graycloak Ranger, I also added some facepaint to give him a more guerilla/covert ops feel.
The archer had an animal companion, which was supposed to be a small (or tiny) raptor. Having nothing like this in my collection of D&D Minis, I attempted to make one. The bird is made from a paperclip, pulled apart to form a wingspan. The feet and tail are a second bit of cut paperclip. This skeleton was then covered in plumbers epoxy putty It's really really cheap compared to green stuff, and since I've never used the green stuff, I don't know what I'm missing. You can get the epoxy I use for about $3 a tube at Walmart. Look for the blue outer putty, with the white middle. (I'm not sure which part if hardener and which is epoxy.) The base is a small DDM base, with some putty covering a steel nut (for ballast). Of course a paper clip forms the riser joining the bird to the base.
I've also taken some photos of party members in Dave's Champions game that I play in. I'll include those in a later post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)