You highlight that the faction descriptions provide an order of battle for each faction. What do you think makes for a good order of battle description in this type of adventure design? It seems to be an under-discussed topic, I can’t find any blogs discussing it.
What I'm looking for as a GM is instructions for how the faction responds to the most common military actions from the PCs. Say that the PCs... attack. This is *very common*. How does the faction respond? Do they send everyone asap in a flood, or do they group up to defend their leader and so on.
Here's an example from The Ivory Islet (No Artpunks III):
---
Faction brief: (see also: Faction Detail/Relationship chart) Archbull Hannibar heads the facility, supported in the Preservatory by his captain, Cursecrusher. They command the Goldtusk Guardians, nag warriors sworn to defend the Islet. An uneasy alliance and trading relationship exists with the natives of Gurgotha. Extraplanar operations are spearheaded by Hannibar’s second-in-command, Ebontusk-who is smitten with the unsealed fox spirit, Daiji. Hannibar’s forces are bolstered by the covenanted devils he spared from exorcism. Simmering tensions and mounting enmities are being corralled through regimented oversight, keeping the disparate elements working together in unison- for now.
Order of battle- Preservatory (Map above)
General Guideline: Highly intelligent and with perfect memory, nags follow boundless memorised chains of contingency plans with rigid efficiency. Their clumsy and docile demeanour belies the ability to snap into aggressive operations should their herd be spurred into action. GMs are encouraged to reward novel or even bizarre strategies, the nags initially struggling to respond appropriately on the fly. Alterations could include slower responses or inaccurate information being disseminated across the guards, triggering suboptimal countermeasures. Conversely, consider being less lenient than usual concerning orthodox tactics and conventionally popular spells, and swiftly punish repetitive stratagems with feasible counterplay (but never fudge rolls!).
Unless stated otherwise: the nags are under orders to subdue smallfoots for interrogation, being worth more to the defenders alive than dead- but have no qualms about crippling physical injuries. No quarter is given while the Full Alert is in effect. Coded trunk-cries enable incredibly specific information to spread far even amidst the heat of battle.
Pre-Alarm Patrols: The Preservatory is densely packed relative to the size and number of its inhabitants. However, the defenders’ current patrol routes were designed to prevent idle trunks, not optimize coverage. Furthermore, only the named nags know of the proscription. The other guardians half-heartedly follow assigned routines, primarily engaged with grumbles about ration allocations, interpersonal gossip, and venomous arguments on mythological minutia.
Raising the Alarm: Stop rolling Patrol Progress while any of the below is in effect. Should an alarm be sounded-First Alarm: 1d4+1 goldtusks (1d3-1 of them having herdwards) arrive within 2d6 rounds to investigate the location of the alarm. An eliminator arrives 2d6 rounds later, carrying an alpha astra. Certain safety-trumps can be issued to either call off this second wave, or escalate into the second or full alarms (sound like indistinguishable elephant noises to non-fluent smallfoots).
A Second Alarm (either for backup, or the second alarm raised after an initially inconclusive incident) brings Cursecrusher, an eliminator,1d3 goldtusks and an alpha astra within 2d6 rounds. Subsequent signs of explicit invasion trigger the Full Alert, with two of their number Hasted and sprinting together towards the Alarmory [6].
.....
------
and so on. It fully details the response herds and what they do when they're infiltrated, as though it was, ya know, an actual military force.
This is an extreme example, and I don't think everything should receive as much detail (no be as militant), but broadly I'd recommend reading the No Artpunk (they're all free) modules to get a sense of the prior works.
A personal quibble about room keys: the habit of keying everything in Level-Number format is inefficient and unnecessary. It's entirely unnecessary on maps themselves. Just write "Level X" on the level's map, there's no need to write X-1, X-2, X-3, and so on for every room. It's also inefficient when writing long lists of rooms.
Take the dry location listing from construction notes: "Locations: 2-48, 2-49, 2-56C, 3-51, 3-117, 4-51A, 4-51B, 4-74, 4-151A, 4-152, 5-6, 5-18, 5-25, 5-41, 5-42, 5-46 to 5-49, 5-52, 5-104, 6-1, 6-50, 6-51, 6-54, 6-68, 6-92 to 6-98, 6-104 to 6-107, 7-78 to 7-84, 7-138, 7-139, 8-25, 8-26, 8-76, 8-159, 8-162, 8-165, 9-31 to 9-48, 9-76 to 9-82, 9-108 to 9-126, all worked areas of Level 10, SL5-32, SL5-36 to SL5-42, SL6-4, SL6-6, SL6-35, SL9-27, SL9-30"
Wouldn't it be so much easier to parse if we organized this list by level? For example:
Locations by Level: 2 - 48, 49, 56C; 3 - 51, 117; 4 - 51A, 51B, 74, 151A, 152; 5 - 6, 18, 25, 41, 42, 46 to 49, 52, 104; 6 - 1, 50, 51, 54, 68, 92 to 98, 104 to 107; 7 - 78 to 84, 138, 139; 8 - 25, 26, 76, 159, 162, 165; 9 - 31 to 48, 76 to 82, 108 to 126; 10 - all worked areas; SL5 - 32, 36 to 42; SL6 - 4, 6, 35; SL9 - 27, 30.
Ideally we would devote a line to each level, but I've kept mine to the same format restrictions as the original. Just bolding the levels in my list would go a long way.
Over-prioritizing uniformity is a common style issue in dungeon keying. In general, I think it's good to be flexible with format issues like this. The Level-Number format works great for referencing a single room, but it's very poor for maps and long lists of room keys wherein it adds redundant information at the cost of visual clutter.
And yeah - totally agree about being overly devoted to uniformity. Uniformity is valuable and creates a language, but that language can also get in the way. In places where it's especially ugly, I think it can be worth developing (and gently introducing) new conventions.
Another example is when you have a hard format like explicit blocks for treasure and inhabitants, and then you end up writing "Treasure: none. Inhabitants: none".
Information conveyance is the goal (imo) and uniformity *can help*, but doesn't in all cases
You highlight that the faction descriptions provide an order of battle for each faction. What do you think makes for a good order of battle description in this type of adventure design? It seems to be an under-discussed topic, I can’t find any blogs discussing it.
What I'm looking for as a GM is instructions for how the faction responds to the most common military actions from the PCs. Say that the PCs... attack. This is *very common*. How does the faction respond? Do they send everyone asap in a flood, or do they group up to defend their leader and so on.
Here's an example from The Ivory Islet (No Artpunks III):
---
Faction brief: (see also: Faction Detail/Relationship chart) Archbull Hannibar heads the facility, supported in the Preservatory by his captain, Cursecrusher. They command the Goldtusk Guardians, nag warriors sworn to defend the Islet. An uneasy alliance and trading relationship exists with the natives of Gurgotha. Extraplanar operations are spearheaded by Hannibar’s second-in-command, Ebontusk-who is smitten with the unsealed fox spirit, Daiji. Hannibar’s forces are bolstered by the covenanted devils he spared from exorcism. Simmering tensions and mounting enmities are being corralled through regimented oversight, keeping the disparate elements working together in unison- for now.
Order of battle- Preservatory (Map above)
General Guideline: Highly intelligent and with perfect memory, nags follow boundless memorised chains of contingency plans with rigid efficiency. Their clumsy and docile demeanour belies the ability to snap into aggressive operations should their herd be spurred into action. GMs are encouraged to reward novel or even bizarre strategies, the nags initially struggling to respond appropriately on the fly. Alterations could include slower responses or inaccurate information being disseminated across the guards, triggering suboptimal countermeasures. Conversely, consider being less lenient than usual concerning orthodox tactics and conventionally popular spells, and swiftly punish repetitive stratagems with feasible counterplay (but never fudge rolls!).
Unless stated otherwise: the nags are under orders to subdue smallfoots for interrogation, being worth more to the defenders alive than dead- but have no qualms about crippling physical injuries. No quarter is given while the Full Alert is in effect. Coded trunk-cries enable incredibly specific information to spread far even amidst the heat of battle.
Pre-Alarm Patrols: The Preservatory is densely packed relative to the size and number of its inhabitants. However, the defenders’ current patrol routes were designed to prevent idle trunks, not optimize coverage. Furthermore, only the named nags know of the proscription. The other guardians half-heartedly follow assigned routines, primarily engaged with grumbles about ration allocations, interpersonal gossip, and venomous arguments on mythological minutia.
Raising the Alarm: Stop rolling Patrol Progress while any of the below is in effect. Should an alarm be sounded-First Alarm: 1d4+1 goldtusks (1d3-1 of them having herdwards) arrive within 2d6 rounds to investigate the location of the alarm. An eliminator arrives 2d6 rounds later, carrying an alpha astra. Certain safety-trumps can be issued to either call off this second wave, or escalate into the second or full alarms (sound like indistinguishable elephant noises to non-fluent smallfoots).
A Second Alarm (either for backup, or the second alarm raised after an initially inconclusive incident) brings Cursecrusher, an eliminator,1d3 goldtusks and an alpha astra within 2d6 rounds. Subsequent signs of explicit invasion trigger the Full Alert, with two of their number Hasted and sprinting together towards the Alarmory [6].
.....
------
and so on. It fully details the response herds and what they do when they're infiltrated, as though it was, ya know, an actual military force.
This is an extreme example, and I don't think everything should receive as much detail (no be as militant), but broadly I'd recommend reading the No Artpunk (they're all free) modules to get a sense of the prior works.
A personal quibble about room keys: the habit of keying everything in Level-Number format is inefficient and unnecessary. It's entirely unnecessary on maps themselves. Just write "Level X" on the level's map, there's no need to write X-1, X-2, X-3, and so on for every room. It's also inefficient when writing long lists of rooms.
Take the dry location listing from construction notes: "Locations: 2-48, 2-49, 2-56C, 3-51, 3-117, 4-51A, 4-51B, 4-74, 4-151A, 4-152, 5-6, 5-18, 5-25, 5-41, 5-42, 5-46 to 5-49, 5-52, 5-104, 6-1, 6-50, 6-51, 6-54, 6-68, 6-92 to 6-98, 6-104 to 6-107, 7-78 to 7-84, 7-138, 7-139, 8-25, 8-26, 8-76, 8-159, 8-162, 8-165, 9-31 to 9-48, 9-76 to 9-82, 9-108 to 9-126, all worked areas of Level 10, SL5-32, SL5-36 to SL5-42, SL6-4, SL6-6, SL6-35, SL9-27, SL9-30"
Wouldn't it be so much easier to parse if we organized this list by level? For example:
Locations by Level: 2 - 48, 49, 56C; 3 - 51, 117; 4 - 51A, 51B, 74, 151A, 152; 5 - 6, 18, 25, 41, 42, 46 to 49, 52, 104; 6 - 1, 50, 51, 54, 68, 92 to 98, 104 to 107; 7 - 78 to 84, 138, 139; 8 - 25, 26, 76, 159, 162, 165; 9 - 31 to 48, 76 to 82, 108 to 126; 10 - all worked areas; SL5 - 32, 36 to 42; SL6 - 4, 6, 35; SL9 - 27, 30.
Ideally we would devote a line to each level, but I've kept mine to the same format restrictions as the original. Just bolding the levels in my list would go a long way.
Over-prioritizing uniformity is a common style issue in dungeon keying. In general, I think it's good to be flexible with format issues like this. The Level-Number format works great for referencing a single room, but it's very poor for maps and long lists of room keys wherein it adds redundant information at the cost of visual clutter.
Howdy Aidan, welcome :)
And yeah - totally agree about being overly devoted to uniformity. Uniformity is valuable and creates a language, but that language can also get in the way. In places where it's especially ugly, I think it can be worth developing (and gently introducing) new conventions.
Another example is when you have a hard format like explicit blocks for treasure and inhabitants, and then you end up writing "Treasure: none. Inhabitants: none".
Information conveyance is the goal (imo) and uniformity *can help*, but doesn't in all cases