[Black Company] I have the book...any questions?

[JoeGKushner]

Does this occur at game start or aafter game has started?

It's something out of the novels. Goblin and One-Eye are old veterans who are like 10th-15th level. Tobo is some kid who comes in at the end over 20th level.

If its at game start, then you approve the 12th level "old man" and the 12th level "young pridigy" even though they have different "backgrounds" for how they are 12th level.

if its later, and one of them is coming in, you again use the "old man veteran" or "young prodigy" as acceptable justification for their levels. What tobo establishes is that its not necessary to have "a lot of experience" to justify "a lot of levels".

This isn't the problem. The actual difference in the levels are. Tobo is in essence one of the most powerful people, at his time anyway, on the planet.

I don't get "justify" as the question at all. Are you saying its just not an acceptable "justification" or explanation in your games to be "a child prodigy" or even "a fast learner" to explain level advancement and power?

Not at all. I was happy as a clam when the random starting ages for different classes were removed. I mean, am I the only one who thought it was creepy that these old men via magic users were travelling with these younger people?

IMO this does not equate to having "wildly different power level" characters, just having characters with different justifications/backgrounds explaining their levels.

but if you do plan on having different level characters, the better questrion might be "what do we need to do different in GMing a game where there might be wildly different levels?" After all, the tricks and challenges of a game featuring a 15th level wizard and 10th level other guys might be different from ones with evenly levelled characters.

I can understand that not being in the books, but it might make for an interesting web thingy.

It's more of this different level characters issue. I could be missing it, as I've been reading the book over and over trying to playtest some of the magic and masterwork components, but I just don't see any detailed thought given to handling it.

 

[rjs]

Disparate Levels

The fact that Tobo is "levels" higher than Goblin and One-Eye can be easily explained by the fact that Tobo spent years learning from the Black Company wizards, and then years longer in the Land of Unknown Shadows learning from the best people there (Lady included).

Now this said, I see Tobo as an exceptional situation, an outlier if you will. He was a being prophecized to come into being, first by Hong Tray and later by the people of Taglios. So, unless you plan to have some device like this in your games, I don't see this as much of an issue.

However, there may be instances where the PCs might have someone like the Taken along for the ride, or some other figure of great power. Handling this is artful side of GMing (not to give a cop-out answer). If the PCs are 10th level, and they have a 50th-level wizard in their party, yes, this requires a lot of careful planning, but in most cases, I would recommend such characters to be used "off-stage," busy with other circumstances suited to their powers, or as plot devices.

Would I suggest the Taken (or someone of equivalent or nigh equivalent power) to work alongside the party? Absolutely not. Or at least, not for very long.

The rules in the book handle games for all levels, but, from my experience, the best Black Company games are where the characters, being at low or mid level, do expectional things, despite the fact that they do not compare (at least in regard to power) to the might of the great evils in the world.

(Gosh, I love Mondays )

 

[JoeGKushner]

The fact that Tobo is "levels" higher than Goblin and One-Eye can be easily explained by the fact that Tobo spent years learning from the Black Company wizards, and then years longer in the Land of Unknown Shadows learning from the best people there (Lady included).

And this is where I'm feeling failure on the books part. It spends a good deal of time talking about different models of play based on the Black Company timeline and events but doesn't providing any information on modeling characters who are prodigies. Nothing really deep about camapiagn level or what they do when they're on downtime. Despite the changes, it's still D&D where experience is earned through killing and not through learning, as from the novels themsleves.

The rules in the book handle games for all levels, but, from my experience, the best Black Company games are where the characters, being at low or mid level, do expectional things, despite the fact that they do not compare (at least in regard to power) to the might of the great evils in the world.

(Gosh, I love Mondays )

And this is cool. I love this book. I've got these questiosn because I've read the series and read the book and the two do not equal out. One is a form of entertainment via passive activity of reading. The other of gaming where some type of balance has to be maintained. In doing so however, quite a bit of the illusion of the Black Company itself is actually removed. Might not be as much a problem if there were support coming out down the road talking about different options for character generation-utility, maybe troupe style play or something but as it is, it doesn't quite capture several important elements of the Black Company campaign.

 

[Ace]

Hey, I agree with you guys. My point was that if your players are like mine, by the time they figure that out, we'll have a TPK on our hands... that is the only reason I would be easy on them. They need to learn a new way of playing d20 games.

If I let them learn the hard way, they won't want to play long enough to learn.

Edit: I should mention that that is what happened with my Conan game. They played like it was D&D and paid the price twice in 4 game sessions. Suddenly, no one had time to play anymore... :\

First off I am reading your thread on green ronins board with pleasure and if things go right our DM (who considers Black Company a major inspiration) will be running and I will be playing a Jack of Trades named Crow -- $44.95 is bit more than I want to pay but if I actually use the book its OK

Also I apologize a bit for this thread and if your players just have "Christmas Busys" I will admit I am wrong but if what you say about them " suddenly being to busy to play" that is a serious warning sign -- let me repeat what it says

STOP TAKING AWAY YOUR PLAYERS FUN YUAN TI

I shouted that because it needs saying LOUD -- before players go into a campaign as brutal as D20 Black Company or Conan they need to want to play that type of game

You can 'learn em a new way of playing D20 games" unless they want to play them in the first place -- they play high powered D&D because its fun -- I know from personal experience -- many good players HATE high casulty low powered games

Those games are a blast for control freak and versimtude happy GM's like me but they suck suck suck for a lot of players -- heck I don't like to play in them all that well because I don't get to do cool stuff

If the players are having less fun with that style of game you simply can't run it with them -- its not a matter of cracking down and making them toe the line. If it comes to a conflict -- simply put you lose.

Its not 1983 -- there are plenty of games out there and even in benighted areas with few games there are lots of other things to do instead -- EQ, PS2, Internet etc etc

Ok two stories from my game experience and how I leanred not to run high casulty games with my current play group

GURPS 3E Man Mech and Magic --

3 PC's 150 points armed with Rapier, Katana and I think an Axe and 1 75pt NPC with a Boltgun (think a tube that shoots arrows by TK) -- lightly armored and fairly skilled vs a mob of bandits ---

Combat -- real time 2 minutes -- game time -- 4 seconds

results -- 6 dead bandits

game results -- the players took one look at GURPS and 2 (of 3) decided "crap that could be my character-- going back to D&D

Sample 2 --

The Riddle of Steel battle Demo -- 2 players new to the rules -- both have real world (Kendo/Iado and Rapier) sword experience so rules learning and appreciation i unually high. There is also one bystander -- they fight 4 matches Rapier vs Cut and Thrust Sword-- 3 of these result in kills --

game results -- 1 player and 1 bystander refused under any cirumstances to play TROS. The other one liked it but than he liked GURPS (and was the only one)

similar experiments have led me to suggest that many players aren't interested in in high lethality/low gain games. They like superheroic combat ans lots of spellbling er magic items

players who aren't coming around anymore are voting with their feat and you have no veto

If you are dead set on Black Company or Conan and this is not a case of the Christmas Busies you need to talk to the players and explain things -- If they say they don't like the set up either go back to D&D (by the books or previously OK house rules ) or get a new play group -- your choice

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Those games are a blast for control freak and versimtude happy GM's like me but they suck suck suck for a lot of players -- heck I don't like to play in them all that well because I don't get to do cool stuff

I think this is the general advice from the post, and it is good advice. Maybe this deserves to be spun off into its own thread, but I'll just mention it here because my suggestions are in line with how things happened in the Black Company books.

Really, the Black Company novels give a good example for what kind of rewards players in a D20 Black Company campaign should expect. That is, notoriety. As time went along, the Black Company's reputation itself began to awe and intimidate everyone they came upon. It was a double-edged blade to the Company, for certain, but it gave them numerous advantages in certain other situations. Notoriety "awards" are perfect for a low-treasure campaign.

I suppose though it works best in a campaign where the DM is good at making notoriety work convincingly, and adequately for a substitute for the magical bling.


Regards,
Eric Anondson

 

[Yuan-Ti]

Ace: I think you have hit it on the head. Actually, in the first adventure, there was a near tpk at the end, but the last guy standing actually managed to defeat the remaining enemies by himself so that the rest of the players (down but not dead, although one was "left for dead") survived. In the second adventure, I realized that this head-to-head stuff was the problem BUT ALSO that part of the problem was that I felt the game should be "realistic fantasy". That is, I wanted heroics to win the day, but blind frontal assaults (which generally only work in D&D because wizards are involved) to be foolhardy. The players chose a blind frontal assault against a fortified position (to be fair, they tried to bluff their way through, but the character doing the bluffing had no bluff ranks AND his bluff was to tell the guards that the party were the guards' missing friends...). The result was predictable -- most of the characters were down (not dead -- did not even have to spend fate points) and one was trapped. I realized that this was an opportunity to run a classic Conan scenario, so the PCs were captured and tossed in a dungeon for the next session, at which point they would be given ample opportunity to escape. We actually did not play any games for about 6 or 7 weeks after that, so I can't say the end was caused solely by our Conan session. But when we came back we were starting a whole new D&D game, having abadoned Conan and the other game we were playing in tandem with Conan.

Geez, that's a boring story. The whole point of it is -- Ace, you are right. Game styles cannot be forced on players. But my point still stands, I think, that DMs can teach them new styles by going easy on them in the initial stages of a new game. Something I generally failed to do in Conan. (As an aside, the fact that one PC tried to kill another PC in the second session probably also permanently soured the game for the players...)

Anywho, selling the players on Black Company will be difficult because only one of them has ever read the books. Some aspects will seem to underpowered, as well, I imagine.

 

[Ace]

Ace: I think you have hit it on the head. Actually, in the first adventure, there was a near tpk at the end, but the last guy standing actually managed to defeat the remaining enemies by himself so that the rest of the players (down but not dead, although one was "left for dead") survived. In the second adventure, I realized that this head-to-head stuff was the problem BUT ALSO that part of the problem was that I felt the game should be "realistic fantasy". That is, I wanted heroics to win the day, but blind frontal assaults (which generally only work in D&D because wizards are involved) to be foolhardy. The players chose a blind frontal assault against a fortified position (to be fair, they tried to bluff their way through, but the character doing the bluffing had no bluff ranks AND his bluff was to tell the guards that the party were the guards' missing friends...). The result was predictable -- most of the characters were down (not dead -- did not even have to spend fate points) and one was trapped. I realized that this was an opportunity to run a classic Conan scenario, so the PCs were captured and tossed in a dungeon for the next session, at which point they would be given ample opportunity to escape. We actually did not play any games for about 6 or 7 weeks after that, so I can't say the end was caused solely by our Conan session. But when we came back we were starting a whole new D&D game, having abadoned Conan and the other game we were playing in tandem with Conan.

Geez, that's a boring story. The whole point of it is -- Ace, you are right. Game styles cannot be forced on players. But my point still stands, I think, that DMs can teach them new styles by going easy on them in the initial stages of a new game. Something I generally failed to do in Conan. (As an aside, the fact that one PC tried to kill another PC in the second session probably also permanently soured the game for the players...)

Anywho, selling the players on Black Company will be difficult because only one of them has ever read the books. Some aspects will seem to underpowered, as well, I imagine.

Well I don't disagree with anything you said here -- Good luck with the Black Company game!

 

[Tharen the Damned]

Well, if players try the old D&D method of charging straight into the fray they get hacked to pieces.
But if you know the novels, the Black Company avoided open battles if possible. They never played "fair" if they didn´t have to. They tricked, deceived or bluffed their enemies. Even better, they let others do the fighting for them.
What I am trying to say: If the players use wily tactics their chance of survival increases a lot.

But what about EP for encounters?
Well, as a DM I would give them the EP even if they let others fight their battle if this was the tactic of the players.

I agree with Yuan Ti, that you have to learn to play "Black Company Style".
For me and my players it worked in the playtests after two or three short adventures.
After all:
Soldiers live and wonder why!

And still no Black Company Camapign Setting available in germany!

 

[Acid_crash]

don't feel bad, they don't have Black Company in my FLGS, and I live in oregon.

I've been reading this thread, and a lot of you mention how deadly straight up combat is in this world. Having never read the novels nor the campaign setting book... what in Black Company, as far as the rules go, makes this game so much more deadly?

 

[Acid_crash]

What would the average level be of a good starting campaign in Black Company, one that is just learning the world, system, and what type of adventure would be a good introduction to the game?