The second set of lessons is more about campaign design. I learned that much as I like the idea of the players exploring a strange new world, I chafe at not having NPCs around to give me a voice (however subordinate) in discussions. That’s something I can work on both as a GM and as something to consider if I run a similar campaign in the future.

Running parallel to that, I think that next go around I need to have a stronger relationship web between the characters. If the characters are going to be the whole of the civilized world – as they were in New Dawn – they need stronger reasons to be connected and to be in moderate conflict. Since I don’t have NPCs to offer moral/social conflicts or subplots the player characters have to provide those for themselves.

To do, rather than have the PCs essentially be strangers at the start of play (which was a planning failure on my part) each PC would have relations with at least 2 other PCs – someone who is a friend or they have worked with and someone who they have a mildly negative relationship (perhaps one PC witnessed another fail at something, or there’s a family rivalry, or a philosophical rivalry, or they share a dark secret). This makes sure everyone has some allies and some potential conflict points that can be explored in play. This should tie everyone together a little more, giving the players more things to talk about in character, and things that might clarify their worldview for dealing with issues.

We had this in only one area in New Dawn: Razor and Silver were brother and sister, with some mutual over protectiveness and affection. This played a little bit for Voi’s ogling or Silver, but I think it would have worked much better if we had intimated to those relationships in advance, and extended the web a little bit.

Have other people worked with this in other games? How close is this to the R-Map process that Vincent Baker discusses on Forge? Is there somewhere I should go to look for more discussion of these issues?

OK, now that everyone is up to speed with what happened in the game, I wanted to briefly discuss some things I’m taking away from it in the future.

First, I think I clearly need to establish a strong sense of “Table Rules” for the game group – something that I have been able to avoid until now. Avoid is really the wrong term, because it makes it sound like establishing clear table rules is a bad thing.

I've been in a ongoing Facebook debate about the situation in Iran, and for the sake of putting everything in one place (and avoiding the character limit for posting) I felt it best to put a final version of my thoughts here. I'm unlikely to change from these positions without hard evidence otherwise, so people can comment but should not expect further debate.

Any who disagree are of course welcome to do so, but I feel that I have laid out an argument based on history with a strong moral grounding.

kriz1818

drcpunk

• a nice breakout of parrying AC vs dodging AC, with an armor-absorbs-damage game mechanic that isn't too intrusive.
• rules for money that state that anyone with more than 50 sp immediately squanders half of it on high living every week. Once a month you are able to ue that squandering as a circumstance bonus on some sort of research, but otherwise you're heroically pissing your money away, just as Hyborian Age heroes should.
• lots of combat related feats and combat moves that anyone can try ripped straight from the Conan stories. I'm usually a rules light GM when it comes to "can I try this" but I know many players need to have a list of their options laid out for them, and to my mind this system gives them just enough.