Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Seeking some Lost Files

Quite a long time ago, in 2009, 2010, I had another wiki called "the Same Universe Wiki."  It included a list of tarot card results.

Those results are lost, except for what I posted on this blog.  These three pages:



And now I am forced to ask ... did anyone out there in the world save the complete list?  If you did, I would like to have it please.  I'd hate to have to rebuild the concept from scratch.  I remember it took a lot of research.

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

Authentic RPG Podcast, with Fuzzy Skinner


Good to be able to get another podcast onto the blog, at last.  This one features Fuzzy Skinner, who has been a reader here for sometime and was willing to step into the limelight.  As ever, I ask you to say a kind word for her, as she's poured her all into this podcast and been terrifically forthcoming as she talks about herself, her players and the games she runs.

Give her some support, and keep listening for these podcasts.  I will be pushing to get the next two done ... and then after a break I will start to talk about how the second season is going to be framed.

Thank you for listening and for all your support.



Comedy

Let's talk about comedy.

Comedy is a construction in which subjects with particular characteristics are placed in jeopardy which, ultimately, never comes to pass.  The jeopardy is played upon, usually up to the very last scene, to give the impression that it might occur ... for comedic effect.  In some cases, when the jeopardy does "occur," such as in one of the film cuts of Army of Darkness, the jeopardy is played for laughs.

The protagonist of a comedy is usually someone that is incompetent, occasionally due to a lack of intelligence but more commonly from a lack of social intelligence ~ due to being of some other culture, social class or pattern of thinking.  Or planet, as in Third Rock from the Sun.  A good example, taken to a clever extreme, is to bury Brendan Fraser in a time capsule for 35 years in Blast from the Past, so that his "incompetence" can play off the familiar perspective of the remaining cast.  Usually, such a plot is resolved by having the incompetent characters achieve competence through luck in some fashion, or by having it revealed by the third act that the character was actually the most competent ~ or at least empowered ~ of everyone.

In tragedies, incompetence, in whatever form it takes, usually results in death.  When Cinna is murdered by the mob in Act III of Julius Caesar, because his name happens to be the same as one of the villains, his death is nothing less than pathetic (or pathos).  When Juliet is too incompetent to tell a dead Romeo from a live one, she has no chance.  When Patroclus pretends to be Achilles, he ends up being killed by Hector.  In tragedy, incompetence is a death sport.  In comedy, the incompetent is protected by plot armor.

The point of comedy is for us to enjoy the protagonist as a stranger in a strange land, so that mayhem might ensue.  It is possible to turn this on its head.  The Marx Brothers were able to make everyone else feel that they were in a strange land, as the dialogue was controlled by Groucho and Chico.  The Three Stooges are a threat to everyone who comes near.  In all cases, however, the point is to make the observer feel smarter than the people in the film or play, who just don't understand what's happening.  We know, so we enjoy the joke.

Irony occurs when the participants of the comedy act and speak as though they know what is going on, when in fact, they don't.  Seinfeld is a good example; but we're innundated with ironic comedy now, in the form of Archer, Rick and Morty, The Family Guy and so on ... all of whom make the audience feel terrifically expert, in that the characters on the screen are so wonderfully dense.

Ironic comedy used to be marked by having the characters brought to task for their folly; and this explains the final end of Seinfeld, which was lost on most of the audience who had bought into what the cast was saying as "truth."  When they wound up in prison, this was justified by these having been horrible, awful people; but by then, the only audience left were fundamentally horrible, awful people, who did not understand the final scene.  This is a problem with much modern irony.  Audiences don't know the characters are being ironic.

The folly that these ironic characters speak is hubris; the certainty of being right because, well, I'm me.  In tragedy, hubris again usually ends in death.  But not in the pathetic sense of Romeo and Juliet, but in the, Oh Christ, can't-this-guy-just-please-die-now of Richard the III.

Okay.  In D&D, most players are concerned about dying due to incompetence.  They second check everything, they plan, they worry they're going to make the wrong choice ... and because they do their best to control incompetence, it is usually only bad luck, which cannot be accounted for, that brings about death.  (fudging, however, introduces plot armor, so this can't happen)

But hubris is another animal altogether.  There's no sense in arguing, "don't be hubristic," because if you're capable of realizing you might be hubristic, you're not.  Hubris is not merely being conceited or narcissitic; it's the willing disassociation that comes of failing to see this trait in one's self. And then, ultimately, being hoisted upon your own petard.

A petard is a bomb.  To be "hoisted," or "blown up," by your own is the act of conceiving the bomb, building the bomb, putting the bomb under one's own chair, setting the timer and then waiting for it to go off.  See the aforementioned Richard the III.

Players will occasionally invent the idea of being blown up by petards, but they are almost always imagined as a result of the DM's conceptions, and not their own.  Thus, all the focus on incompetence.  "We didn't make this bomb, but if we're not awfully careful diffusing it, the bomb will go off."

The trick to creating tragedy out of a sandbox campaign, where the bombs are mere parts in the hands of the DMs, and constructions in the hands of the players, is to induce, through game play and suggestion, that building the bomb should sound like a good idea to the players.  "Hey, if we take this part, and pour this into that, and shake it up really good, that would be just what we need ... uh oh, why is it ...?"  BOOM.

This isn't easy.  Done right, the players should be able to recognize "this isn't a good idea," but be willing to go with it because it's the best idea they have.  That way, if at some point, someone does have a better idea, there's still a chance of avoiding the bad play.

Of course, a large number of players, not being very bright, will seize on the "not good idea" algorithm and just start killing whatever NPC is talking.  And there is only one answer for players like this:

Boom.

It is easy to kill an incompetent party.  They read the situation wrong, they act hastily, they use 21st century logic in speaking with 16th century aristocrats and ... well, that sort of thing should go wrong for the player.

It is harder, much harder, to get the competent party deeper and deeper into their own mess, as they keep trying to fix their situation only to find they're making it worse, because they really are hubristic at heart.  They really do think, "This will work!" ... only to find it doesn't, because it wasn't thought through.

The point of tragedy, unlike comedy, isn't to make the audience feel smarter.  It is to make the audience feel dumber.  Because, we hope, the audience will get caught thinking, "Woah, if I had been in Richard's situation, I would have done just what Richard did ..."  [trust me, it did seem rational for a 17th century audience].

I'm sure you can think of a film you've seen, which ended badly, where you realize, if you'd been there, you'd have done no better than the protagonist.  That's the point.  You're meant to empathize. You're meant to feel that you're not really as bright as you think you are.

Once you get players into that mindset, your game is going to get a LOT more meaningful.

Dump the comedy.  And all that that entails.

Monday, May 21, 2018

A Curious Thing


Like most boys of my generation, of my part of the world, I learned to read in the first half of first grade, when I was about six.  But I don't remember not knowing how.  And I don't remember when I learned that I liked reading ... but certainly by grade two I was reading, because I have memories sitting in Mrs. Nichols' class reading a book.  And I remember writing fiction by grade three, as I remember doing it in Mrs. Zachariah's class.  I've read constantly and ever since.

When we begin to read, everything is new.  The stories are all new, but so it the non-fiction.  We decide to read a book about dinosaurs, and everything in that book is new.  We read about ants, or the human body, or stories about Abraham Lincoln, and every page contains something we've never seen before or heard.  Knowledge is fresh and exciting as it pours from hundreds of books into our heads.

Then, a curious thing happens.  We begin to fill up.  Stories become old and familiar.  Facts about what the heart does, or who travelled across Asia to China, cease to be special.  But it's no problem, not really.  When I went from Elementary to Junior High, there was a whole new library, a bigger library.  And it happened again with I went to High School.  And then, even before I graduated, I found the University of Calgary Library.

Of course, we have the internet now.

But if we keep reading and reading, another curious thing happens.  As we dig deeper and deeper into something we love, more and more we keep finding the same old stuff, over and over.  Where once every page was fresh, now whole chapters just repeat things we already know.  We find ourselves reading whole books and learning nothing new.  Nothing new at all.

Most, here, decide that's pretty much it.  Oh well, that was interesting; but it seems done.  I know everything I'm probably going to know about butterflies.  Or gemstones.  Or D.H. Lawrence.

There are those who will tell you that it's impossible to know everything ... particularly if it is a very deep subject, like engineering and medicine.  But see, these things have their specialties too.  And eventually, when reading a whole book only yields the odd sentence or two that tells something new ... it stops being worth it.

Or rather, it starts to frustrate.

Because, if the reader is anything like me, the answer is no, what I know isn't enough.  It isn't.  I started reading content about D&D in 1979 and burned through just about everything in about six years.  By ten, every book, every new game, every adventure, just sounded like more of the same. And I know that many reading here know exactly what I mean.  But I wanted more; I always wanted more.

If TSR and game stores couldn't put books on the shelves that would tell me what role-playing was, well, there were books about role-playing that had nothing to do with games.  And if the company couldn't tell me more about medieval life and people, there were books about that too.  And if the company couldn't explain why there was no economic system, there were books about economics. And about games.  And about anything in the world that I could think of that might eventually come back around to giving me something new that I could know about this game.  Because for me it wasn't butterflies, or gemstones, or D.H. Lawrence.  It was D&D.

Again, with reading, something curious happens.  We read and study and follow and collect our collective bits of new things, until we finally get right out there on the frontier ... where we stand and everything behind us is what we know, and everything in front of us is what nobody knows.

From there, we're on our own.  From there, the process is to stop looking for new things in books, but to start making new things with our hands.  Because no one else is left, but us.  If we've done our work right, we're ready.  We're not following, we're leading; and we have a responsibility to think and work and make things well.

Yet ... well ... it's not as though we had any choice.  When I picked up those first books as a boy, I might have been led anywhere.  I might now be making any thing.  Somehow, through twists and turns, I would up here.  With this obsession.  When once I read with delight, now I make with delight.  And write it down with delight.

So it goes.

Sunday, May 20, 2018

Bend Your Mind



If you've not been following along with this series, you'll want to start with this index post, with a list of the foregoing content relative to what's written below.

Here we are.  On the precipice of making an adventure.  The adventure of the town of Stavanger.  And you, Dear Reader, are naturally waiting for me to get started, supposing through all this build up that I have some sort of plan, a sequence of events that will enable the party to overcome some set of obstacles that will make them into heroes.  Or rich villains.  Or at least alive at the end with more experience.  Any of which will do at this point, because for most of you, all this build is still just a blank sheet of paper.  Which we have to fill by writing something.  Somehow.

I could just "write" an adventure for Stavanger; it's just time and effort.  And having something to say.  I've been practicing at having something to say for four decades.  But I do not propose to make an adventure here for its own sake, so that it will simply exist.  I want it as a template used to teach others; to empower them past that blank sheet of paper.

Let's talk about "game feel."

Apart from the mechanical construction of the game, or the theoretical supposition that is the metagame, or the kinesthetic process of learning the game through actual game play, there is a deeper, underlying aspect that is almost entirely missed by most players.  Throughout the game's play, the structure and function of the game must transmit messages through its design that produce an emotional response, often one that is invisible to the participant.  Here we're talking about the way the die hits the table and bounces before you find yourself hunching over to look at it; or the hesitation in the DM's eye before you hear what monster has walked through the door; or the tone of voice of the other players as they respond to ... whatever.  The quality of everyone's game is tempered by how much of this emotional "feel" is positive and enticing, and how much of it is missing.  Completely missing.  And you've been there.

The reason why a DM tries to change tone of voice while speaking about the dead that has just risen is game feel.  It isn't just that the dead monster is rising; or that dead monsters, once they have risen, will roll such and such a die when they attack; or that you're encountering this monster for the first time in the game, or that the monster resulted because of something your character decided to do.  If that was all D&D offered, it would be a dull, uninteresting game.

But it isn't.  Because human beings have the capacity to make other human beings feel or believe things instinctively, in an off-handed and spontaneous way that video consoles can't do.  A dedicated, talented video designer can spend thousands of hours building a game that will get this response out of you (as something like Limbo can), but human beings can do this in mere seconds, even without being good at it.  Even an uncertain DM can make the dead rising sound scarier with a slight tonal shift, as we human beings are built to respond in just that way.  This is role-playing's strongest suit; that it is played with human beings.

Okay ... but how does the uncertain DM know to sound scarier in that moment, or how to sound scarier?  That, O Reader, is cultural memory.  The DM doesn't have to think about it; the dead rising, that's a cultural thing.  We've grown up with it.  The dead are scary.  We've all thought about it.  And when you think of it, even enough to feel it a little, you know exactly how you're supposed to sound when you want to scare someone else.

We like being cheered on, to do well, before rolling the dice.  And to cheer on others.  Why?  Because it feels good.  It makes no sense.  And now and again, a player will remark on how little sense it makes.  The die isn't going to roll differently.  It has nothing to do with what we say before or after we roll.  But we feel that is does; and we feel the urge to cheer others on.  Because we have a long cultural history of that; and we like that the game gives us a place to express ourselves, in that way.

When our sword hits an opponent, we make a swing with our arm, like we really have a sword in it.  If we're at a table where it feels safe to express ourselves that we, the game is better.  When the DM encourages it with similar movements, the game is better.  When the die roll is emotionally interpreted, the game is better.  When we can yell and shout when things are going well, or grumble when they're going badly, or be emotional in the face of adversity, the game is better.

When someone reads something I write about building blocks and trade systems, or removing the story, or having more rules, they perceive in their imaginations that this will turn the game into a boxed-in, calculating, soulless, bookkeeping nightmare, which will suck out all of the fun.  Most gamers have sat through games where DMs spent the night digging through reams of paper for small answers to uninteresting questions, or comparing every die roll to yet another chart, or tediously demanding players account for every arrow fired, every morsel of food eaten and every ounce carried.  And when the DM is incapable of handling that density of information quickly, immediately and directly, the game is bad.  Oh, so bad.

So here is where we must start in using these building blocks.  They must be alive.  They must breathe.  They must be human beings.  They must possess the juice that makes the mechanical aspect of their existence recede into the distance, leaving only the satisfying feel that they might offer the players, who are enacted to live part of their lives in this place.

How ... oh how, do we do that?

To begin with, we have to bend our minds around corners. We are so used to thinking in the mechanics and theoretical aspects of the game, we forget it is about feel.  Feeling is life.  Life is made meaningful by moments of having control; by reacting to stimuli; by having a context, like the terror of the dead rising, in which the players can believe and which reflects the players' other life; by adding details that influence the players' senses ~ how does this feel, smell, move, grab, sting, whatever sensation we can convey with words; by having actions mean something, consequence, reward, a reason to feel proud, a reason to regret; and finally, by boundaries, limitations, things that players can bang their heads against and find, sometimes, that they're real and that, sometimes, they're not.

We can write a long time on these six things.  And I have, on this blog.  For now, let's just try to keep them in mind: agency; response; context; sensation; meaning; and boundaries.

[In the interest of disclosure, I'm paraphrasing work that has been done by others.  In my defense, this is a new concept; it is sadly applied only to video games, and rather prejudiciously in my opinion; and that RPGs require a different language to make the meaning clear.  So I have proposed it]

I know this isn't very helpful.  Rest assured I'm not done.  But you've got to bend.  Because this stuff isn't easy; it is only now, late in life, with the help of an endless internet flow of material, and contact with very smart people, that I'm getting a handle on this, on how it formulates and manifests.  It isn't going to be ten simple sentences and the clouds will part and you'll understand how to invent things.  It doesn't work that way.

Try, as best you can, to keep this game feel stuff in your head, and recognize that anytime you can get any of those six elements in your game, your game will improve.

Now let's talk about tragedy.

Those people who are telling you, Reader, that the game is about "story," are very sadly misinformed about what a story is, or how it happens.  When stories are not comedies (and let's understand, comedy is when we're certain that the story is sure to come out all right), they're tragedies.  Very few role-players are interested in running their characters through comedies ... and though it has been "tried," it hasn't really been tried, because even if you think you've run your character through a comedy, you haven't.  If you think you have, you don't understand comedy.  I suggest you read a book.

Very well, tragedy.  Tragedies are dramas based on human suffering.  The tradition has been that misfortune is brought on by some decision that is made, or fundamental depravity, character flaw or frailty, that ultimate comes to fruition with the result that the character dies, others die, kingdoms fall, people suffer generally and the audience is both amused and reconciled with their own weaknesses and mortality.  This is exactly what players play to see if it will occur.

There are many kinds of tragedy, and many kinds of drama that are supposed to not be tragedy, such as melodrama, epic drama, mystery plays, morality plays, farces and miracle plays.  Understand, for everything except tragedy, it is absolutely necessary that the story plays out in a single way, in which the main character cannot fail or die.  In tragedy, anyone can fail and everyone can die.  So if we're going to talk about "story" and "role-playing," we are absolutely talking about tragedy.  I know some will disagree.  But they're wrong.

As the reader knows, I don't believe in "story-telling" games ... but I will concede the point that every non-player character, prior to meeting the party, has stories to tell: about their own life, about the lives of their friends, about people and fantasies the teller has never met.  These stories are both truths and lies; they are signposts of character; they are clues to adventure; they are deceptions designed to lead players to their deaths.  These stories are many things; and just as I can say this about all the stories we could collectively tell together, O Reader, these stories are legion.

What we need to do is to put these stories into the heads of the people who dwell in Stavanger; and then leave it to the players to decide which stories are true and false; which stories are empty or full of intent; which stories are designed to enlighten and which are designed to obfuscate or mislead.  Some of our villagers are, yes, signposts.  But some are inaccurate signposts.  As DMs, we're here to know which are which ... and to let the players make the wrong decisions, and perhaps pay dearly for that.

Some of these stories do exist to help the players; but not because the players are heroes, but because some of the people in our little village have an honest and willing motivation to be friendly and helpful.  NO ONE exists because the party exists.  These people, we must think, would exist if the party were never here.

This way, the player characters are the enactment of their own deeds, and not our deeds.  They are the victims of our generosity and our malevolence, both, but most of all, the victims of their own insistence that we, as DMs, surely tilt one way or the other.  The player who will insist everyone in the world is a villain, because the DM prefers villains, will lose chances at friends ~ while the player that insists everyone is a friend, because the DM is the player's friend, will soon fall victim to a villain.  This is not our problem.  We are gifted with the privilege of deciding for ourselves how many villains and friends our world will possess, and in what number, and the balance be damned.  The player's dilemma is never knowing one way or the other, or how many, and that is just too damn bad.  For that is the world we live in now, friends.

So in deciding the residents of our village, let us keep tragedy firmly in our thoughts.  Let us dwell upon how agency empowers the player to ward off tragedy or succumb to it.  Or upon how the player responds to tragedy.  Or how the player will find context for tragedy, making or not making sense of it.  Or how tragedy feels, or looks, or tastes in our mouth, or suggests itself in the faces of strangers, or in the change of the wind, or the darkness of water when black clouds gather.  Or in what it means about other tragedies that might be waiting.  Or what boundaries tragedy has thus made, which can be overcome, or cannot.

Let your minds be fertile, O Tragedians.  We are not done yet.

Let's talk about unpacking characters.

Because we are going to have a lot of characters in this village.  And if we are going to have some idea of how the players are going to interact with them, and what the players will want to do in order to get on the villager's good sides, and unlock some of that sweet, sweet adventuring goodness, we're going to want to identify what motivations the villagers have.

What do they need?  Or want?  What knowledge do they possess, and in what form?  Are the players a match for the strongest, the most courageous or aggressive of them?  Are the players kind enough, understanding enough, fair enough.  Should a player show mercy or indifference, when the time comes?  Is this a time for prudence or rashness?  Can the players be properly grateful for less than they wanted?  Can they give back, if they get more than wanted?  Where are lines the players must walk, always understanding that too much this way or that will mean confrontation, loss of respect, humiliation or exile?

Remember, we want a village that exists in and of itself.  If the players enter, make a bargain, stay nearby a night or two, accept hospitality and choose to move on, without investing themselves, the village remains as it was, content and unchanged, as if the player had never been there.  As DMs, we lose nothing.  It is up to the players to investigate, take risks, engender good will, stir up confrontation and come away with gain that they have earned themselves.  It is our role to place the gains, make the lock, determine how it is unlocked and then cover it up with slime or flowers, whatever we think will obscure the view of the buried lock from the players.

They ought to know the locks are there; one in each building block.  But we won't stick signs in the ground to say where they are buried ... well, perhaps a few, if we're generous.  The players will have to dig.

That slime, those flowers, these are the villagers.  One villager is the creative sort, who knows where the lock is but needs encouragement, support, or perhaps a moment of straight talk.  In another place, the players must be curious, to hear a story a few times and guess where the lock might be.  In another block, the right move might be inaction, as the players watch a little girl beaten half to death, for a "crime" that seems harsh and wrong.  Yet this may be the culture, and the players must be open minded here.  Players may be asked to give their perspective, and may give it poorly.  Or players may find their love of learning has come to the wrong, or perhaps the right place.

I am not simply drawing these out of the air.  Two years ago, I put up a post of 24 character strengths, which sits conveniently in the sidebar, voted by readers as one of my ten best posts, ever (at least up to 2017).  Those strengths are reflected by 24 weaknesses.  Where there is bravery, there is cowardice.  Where someone in the village may be in love, others will hate.  While one resident may be a loyal citizen, another will be a traitor and a scoundrel.  Where one chief might forgive, another will condemn. Where there is spirituality, there is doubt and nihilism.

It is our task to settle on which of these is the strength, or the weakness, or more than one, of the personality I suggested each block, and each clan, should possess.  The guidebook is already written.  We only need to decide what the consequences of each are.  How does "hope" play out; what is wanted, or needed, by those who hope?  The return of someone who is lost?  A cure for an illness?  A win in an upcoming tournament?  The restoration of someone's reputation?  It is up to us.  Sit for awhile, wrap your minds around the idea of hope, and things will come.

Then we only need to make that hope manifest.  We, as DMs, know where the someone is.  Or if the illness can be cured.  Or who will most likely win.  Or if the reputation deserves restoration.  We know everything.  But the players don't.  They're bound to find out.

Each block has a story.  A story of despair, of integrity or criminality, of social wellbeing or social destruction, of humor, of ugliness, of 48 different categories of human motivation.

Throw in some monsters for color, some influence from outside quarters, the eternal issues of man vs. nature, and all you have to do from then on is make it all make sense somehow.  Then you'll understand why making an adventure is just "time and effort."  The paper is already full of words.  You only have to bend your mind so you can see them.


For more on this narrative, see this post on Comedy.


Saturday, May 19, 2018

Adding People

If you've not been following along with this series, you'll want to start with this index post, with a list of the foregoing content relative to what's written below.


I can hear what you're thinking.  We've created a map that is substantially no different from any other urban map we might find online.  That's not right.  All that writing and thinking and explaining, and what the hell is this?

Thankfully, this is not the end.  For this post, I wanted to start with base outlay of the town, to help explain how we're going to add depth to it.  The reader will remember that we divided the town into three groups: the fisher folk, the hunters and those who found themselves in the orbit of the shaman.  In this series, I haven't explained shamanism; for the present, I'll leave it to the wiki.

In reality, the division of labor is simple, but not so simple as that.  I had also said there was leather to be tanned, primitive weapons and other tools to be made, raw materials to be gathered (firewood, sapling wands for fencing, peat, fresh water, reeds and more), enclosures to be maintained and boats to be repaired or built.  We know the fisherfolk are near the water; and that the hunters are settled in the outside circle of the village, against the forest, but what can we do to make sense of this ... mess?  How does this become an adventure?

Okay, let's step back.  There is one matter I have not brought up, which would seem pertinent to the map above.  Who lives in Stavanger.  Each rural enclave that we explored was dominated by a single clan; where is the single clan that occupies Stavanger?

I'd argue, there isn't one.  In the mere 20 years of this Stavanger's existence, members of the other clans have walked or paddled their way into Stavanger.  They came as warriors, as marriage partners, as petitioners, as impoverished, as people looking for a better life, as slaves and tribute, or just to see what was there.  And stayed.  So the answer to the question is all of the clans are represented in Stavanger.

But not to the same amount!  Some clans-people came in small numbers; some dominate the town.  The clans from the sea make up the fisher folk that are here; the hunters come from the south and from Haugaland.  The chief himself is a member of the clan of Sauga.  Let's look at the map again ... and this time, I'll add the clan names, with the size of the name denoting their importance in Stavanger:

Let me stress that the handicrafts and occupations on the map are not trade references; these are subsistence
pursuits, needed to keep the residents alive and well.  References refer only to things produced in enough
abundance for trade.

This gives us a lot to work with.  The four principle clans, Harald, Sauda, Osthus and Orre, represent the four parts of Rogaland: west, north, south and center.  The Osthus are fishers and boatmakers, but they live on the lake (Breiavatnet) and not the sea (called Vagen, or "bay").  The Orre are toolmakers and hunters.  The Harald are fisher folk, and dominate the long house.  And finally the Sauda are hunters and the chief clan.

The Verda and Randa clans are hunters, and somewhat important; the Sand, who are tanners, also have some sway.  Erfjord is hardly represented here; they are toolmakers; perhaps weaponmakers and perhaps also boat makers.  The Vormed, too, are unimportant. They are hunters and tanners.  The Skudea are fishers, but on the wrong side of the mud flats ... but still, it is only a few hundred yards from their boats.  Finally, the Loda are fishers, too.

Now compare the groups with each other.  Orre and Verda, remember, are adjacent clans in the south; here, they settle far away from each other.  Perhaps they are relatively unfriendly?  And the Skudea, despite being from the coastal grouping of the Loda, the Harald and the Osthus, are utterly isolated. The Sand stand apart from the Sauda, though they are adjacent clans in Haugaland; and the Sand support the Vormed, and to some degree the Erfjord.  Perhaps this helps explain the politics of Haugaland?

Or is it that Haugaland clans have settled in a way that enables them to control both sides of the village?

This helps a lot.  For one thing, we can set ourselves to giving personalities to whole clans, rather than struggle with five hundred individuals.  Not that everyone in a clan is the same, but we can use some generalizations to help establish the base personality of a group of inhabitants. Which parts of the village are friendly?  Which clan is most likely to approach a stranger with a greeting or with a weapon?  Which is the most diplomatic, or energetic, or indomitable?

Is there a pecking order?  Who pays tribute to whom?  Do the clans intermarry?  And if so, who has the chieftain married?  Who has married the chieftain's sister?  We have plenty of opportunity for making a mistake and stepping on the wrong toes, if we're not careful.

This does not, however, actually create an adventure.  And we have all these blocks to define: not just those containing houses, either.  The hex 0204 could, if we want, be a potential block.  Who knows what's out there in the bushes, just a hundred yards away?

This is something we can take up with our next post.


Post Script

Been a lot of crickets out there this week; and hey, I don't mind, I'm certainly challenging a lot of stereotypes and bringing mounds of ideas and information into the conversation. It would be hard to address that without already having been part of the conversation.

I will remind the reader, however, of when I asked if you could please spread what you're reading and liking to other people.  Post this series on reddit.  Mention it, with as little fanfare as you like, on a bulletin board.  Wave it, hash tag it, write it to a game writer on twitter.  Help a new person see it.

Building Stavanger with Blocks

If you've not been following along with this series, you'll want to start with this index post, with a list of the foregoing content relative to what's written below.

The next goal would be to create an urban map of the dev-5 Stavanger that we've described, made of building blocks, then apply some of those base needs that those blocks need in order to create player experience and adventure.  Remember: we're not making the town for its own sake, but as an interactive tool ... something the players can walk through and thus become invested.

Before getting into that, however [and sorry for the tease], I must address some relative points regarding scale and the actual town of Stavanger ~ because whatever system I might try to create, it is never going to reflect, or simulate the real world.

This is a google image of Stavanger's downtown, centered on the oldest building in the city:

Note how we're allowed to call the Norwegian name, St. Svithun's Domkirke, "Stavanger Cathedral," but
we're still required to pronounce "Qatar" as cutter.  Pedantry is inconsistent and stupid.

St. Svithun's Domkirke
According to my reading, the church was built between 1100 and 1150; with the principle architecture and towers in place by 1125.  It creates a problem for me that I'll address later, but that's not important just now.

The reader may recall that I had settled on a block size of 3.7 acres for my town map hexes ... and that has been a devilishly hard thing to conceptualize.  Thankfully, Google Earth has come to the rescue.  The circle above, centered on the cathedral, is a space of 3.7 acres.  Which is rather clear.

Additionally, I've come across this marvelous document, discussing (among other demographic things) the number of persons per housing unit in various cities, as well as the number of rooms per housing unit, in obscure places around the world.  I have come across several references to low density villages possessing four housing units per acre; and the document here gives me reason to settle on a convenient number of 2 to 5 residents per housing unit (as it gives data for very low development parts of the world, such as Gambia and Malaysia-Sabah.  It's not a fully reliable number, but it is ballpark enough that if I say that a primitive culture might have 32 to 80 persons per urban game block, I'm not utterly talking through my hat.  This may not matter to some, but it matters to me.

Okay, let's get around to mapping Stavanger.  I know this is the part that starts to get out of control.  Everything up to here is conjecture ... but we are, effectively, going to build an adventure, and we're going to need a map to do it.  I'll see if I can't give the reader some tools to handle the problems that arise in creating an interesting framework upon which to hang pre-made adventures and on-the-fly adventures alike.

Let's start by superimposing the map above onto a field of hexes:



Now, all the hexes are the size of "blocks."  We can decide from here how dense the village of Stavanger is going to be.  We know from the links, and other content that I've covered, that 225 people per block would be very dense; some of the blocks above, of downtown modern Stavanger, probably are that dense.  But our village will be a lot less so.  I've suggested that 32 persons per block would be the low end; that 80 would be high.  I've already described long houses in a previous post, saying that there are three in my Stavanger of 892.  We can say that those three each have 80 or so people; and then stipulate, say, the independent family dugouts have an average density of 32 per block.  And I said that Stavanger had 553 people.

That makes 13 blocks; 3 big ones and 10 smaller.  Good enough.  But where do we put them?  Randomly scatter them over the map?  That's a very poor idea; we have a map of an actual place.  We can do a little forensics and decide for ourselves how to arrange those blocks ~ and use some of what we already know about Stavanger to do it.

So here's Stavanger again, only now I've muted the real city so that I can label some of the local colour that we can take into account:


If this is your fantasy world, you can always take any real place from anywhere in the world and deconstruct that place a little.  That's all I'm doing here; I'm just taking advantage of the real Stavanger to create a fictional one.

I have no idea if the land between the lake (Breiavatnet) and the sea was swampy; but that seems likely, particularly as the modern images show the lake shore and the sea shore have both been encased by concrete.  I'm suggesting, then, that 0402 and 0403 are left empty ... except as places where fishing boats could be landed during the night, where they could take advantage of the tides (which are not a great change, but critical).  0402 could be a mud flat, barely a foot above sea level, which might rise enough to let the fishing folk ease their boats out in obedience to the tide.

The best access to both the sea and the flat would be 0301 ~ which becomes the future market, someday.  That's a good hex for the fishing folk's long house.  The hunter's longhouse can be nearby, where present government buildings are ... with fair access to the fresh water of the lake and the forest.  A grouping of lodges (the secondary density blocks) can encircle the hexes between these two longhouses and the forest, following around the edge of the lake.

The present location of the church (which will be built 200 years later) can serve as the shaman's longhouse.  The access to the sea is up to us.  We could stipulate that the mud flat extends into 0401, 0501, even 0601, cutting the shaman's house well off.  That could serve the shaman's purpose, however; the shaman is, in a sense, the balancing power against the hunters and chieftain, and certainly doesn't need access to the sea.  We can then stack the remaining lodges behind the shaman and have our village laid out (knowing why it was built that way).

I'll let the reader think about that for a bit, while I go and make a map ... then we can get into further methods of sorting out our adventure building.

Building Blocks & Stavanger Index

The series on urban adventures and the description of Rogaland/Stavanger is getting so long that I feel I need to organize the relevant posts.  Read the posts from the beginning and bookmark this page.  Here they are (and I will expand the list as new posts are added):

Part One: Building Blocks

What Good are Town Maps? ~ Introducing why town maps don't deliver on all they promise regarding adventure support.

Putting Down Roots ~ How are towns formed; how do people and processes accumulate over time?  And what sorts of conditions create what kinds of towns?

The Steady Urban State ~ Misconceptions about how towns are laid out, discussing how money and labour divide the motivations and designs of one neighborhood from another.

Dogpiling ~ Why it is hard for players to adventure in a town, what makes a town especially dangerous and how a DM can circumvent those issues.

I'll Ask Again: What Do We Want a Town Map For? ~ What do the players want?  What informs them about how to see the environment, and what matters when it comes to adventure.  How time presents as a factor in town adventures, and how urban environments in real life defy our ability to effectively explore every nook and cranny.

How Much Can You Search? ~ What is an ideal scale for designing a map that will separate out the bits and pieces of how a player can search, given limitations on time?

Building Blocks ~ Defining a city block, both in terms of its size and why that size is the subject of study for urban planners.  What can we know about density and how can that knowledge inform our game design?

A Day at the Beach ~ An example of how a particular, obscure urban block can be expanded into a role-playing and adventure opportunity, just by knowing how the people in that environment live, and what they know.

We Know Already How This Works ~ Using city blocks as a tool, what are the four purposes that we should keep in mind when having a party hex crawl through a town, or through an game space?

One Block at a Time ~ A conclusion to the subject of building blocks, with what a designer should keep in mind.  Some examples of blocks, with the understanding that such a list could easily contain hundreds of possibilities.  My intention to keep expanding the list in the future.

Part Two: Building Rogaland

The Failed Plan ~ My original plans for explaining and expanding on my development-infrastructure worldbuilding concept, which I have tried before without success.  I had a new strategy, it got bolluxed by the death of wikispaces and now it is my intention to unveil the process piece by piece.  Includes a 6-mile hex map of Rogaland.

Haugaland ~ Introducing 5 development cultures (dev-5), starting with the NE corner of Rogaland. I discuss wilderness vs. rural lands, and how the wilderness can be subjected to a random die roll to create building blocks of adventure.  Relating the way adventures can be designed according to topography, terrain and relationships between wilderness and civilization, as opposed to whim.  Description of rural/wilderness blocks.

Making a Standard that Creates Distinctions ~ Further discussing how to breathe life into a low development culture, to make it into something that players would care about and feed adventures.  What makes this primitive rural clan hex different from a slightly less primitive rural clan hex?  How nuance is all important.

More About Rogaland's Dev-5 Culture ~ Describing the rest of dev-5 Rogaland, excepting the settlement of Stavanger.  How isolation creates separate entities that can, in turn, build conflict ... and that although different rural blocks may have similar characteristics, that does not mean that we can't invest those blocks with unique ideas.

Stavanger's Initial Growth ~ Describing a primitive settlement in a dev-5 culture, and how that settlement morphs over time to become slightly less primitive, with an influx of people and without any fundamental change in the environment, culture or technology.

Building Stavanger with Blocks ~ Once we decide to make a village map of Stavanger, how do we decide to lay out the various buildings?  This post gives a shorthand way of thinking it through.

Adding People ~ Buildings and even occupations are not enough. A settlement is made of people, who interact with each other, promoting group personalities and conflicts.

Bend Your Mind ~ Setting the mindset for building an adventure from scratch: what are we looking to achieve, how is the adventure going to make our players play, and what sort of motivations will the players uncover as they investigate the adventure?


More to come ...

Friday, May 18, 2018

Stavanger's Initial Growth

Prior to this, in the posts about Haugaland and about West Rogaland, we've been talking about rural culture.  As Rogaland in general possesses a 5 development (dev-5), these are hunters living on clan lands without much technology.

Stavanger is an actual village, the only one in Rogaland in the year 892.  It is but 20 years old.  Already, it has jumped to a type-6 settlement ... but before we describe that, let's for a moment remember that it would have been a type-7 settlement for a brief while.

I hate that I keep having to explain this, but a type-7 settlement is the lowest form of settlement; a type-1 would be the highest.  Between 7 and 1, the characteristics of a settlement are modified, according to a complex scheme that does not only account for size, population and production, but also for what happens to be produced as a reference in my trade system, and the cultural development of the region.  The idea here is to unify the various worldbuilding systems I've been describing on my blog for a decade now: trade, my maps, my hex-generated infrastructure system and the late coming development/technology system.

[the 10th anniversary of this blog is in just ten days; say something nice]

To explain briefly about the map: Stavanger shows four food (bread slices) and two labor (hammers).  Because of the infrastructure number (type-6), the hex naturally supplies 2 food and 1 labor.  Note how Randa, with type-7, has no labor bonus.  Stavanger gets +1 food from the fish reference.  Note how Osthus, which is also type-6, but has no settlement, also gets a +1 food from a completely different fish reference.  Finally, Stavanger gets a +1 food and a +1 labor from being a type-6 "settlement," rather than a rural hex.

To get a sense of how Stavanger grew, let's go back to when it was a type-7 settlement, rather than a type-6.  It is a year or two after Stavanger was founded, say 874.  There are some 150 people living there.  What might that entail?  First, that food production is noteworthy; not just because the hex itself would likely be the most productive in Rogaland, but because tribute to the tribal chief and bartering would cause food to find its way to the region's center.  The requirements of the chief, the need to protect and elevate the chief's family, the conditions of Norway's climate and the associations between the chief and the population would result in the building of a long house, to shelter most of the people.  A warmer climate might have a scattering of huts, but this is Norway; it gets cold.

The present labor of more than 75 strong-backed residents would mean it could be a fairly substantial long house, large enough to house all of Stavanger.  The house would be near the water, as fishing is the primary occupation (note the fishing symbol, or trade reference, on the map above).  Inside and out, there would be areas for assembling raw materials, making tools and garments, tanning leather, carving, cleaning and drying fish and building primitive boats.  Many of the residents would be transient; paying fealty and tribute to the chief, seeking shelter when shunned by their clans, small nomadic groups stopping before moving on and, of course, the occasional outsider.  The clan leadership itself would be minimal; the "chief" would be a figurehead, but he or she would likely have no real power without strong support from the main body of villager leaders.

Not a very exciting place.  Or, rather, tremendously exciting compared to life in the forest.  It is all a matter of perspective.  From a player character viewpoint, if our party of primitive fighters were to show up, this is where intrigue would be found, with varying leaders pushing to have their agendas addressed, for their personal gain.  The party would enter this milieu with their own agendas, being pressed to make more friends than enemies as we role-played the game.

All right, it is 892 again.  Stavanger has grown to 553 people ... still a village, but too large for just one long house.  Let's say there are three of note and a group of lesser shelters, of the sort depicted above but more distinctly built about six feel below ground-level (with turf on top) and large enough for two or three families (we'll get to why in a bit).  The three noteworthy buildings are divided according to their occupations.  Most of the fishing folk dwell in one that is nearest to the shore where the boats are protected.  The hunting long house, or "lodge," is closer to the forest; and it houses the more powerful chieftain and more influential and official body of village leaders, or elders.  Finally, a third longhouse, less ornate and protective, shelters much of the common folk; and this house is the residence of Stavanger's shaman and small body of the shaman's personal servants.  People who cling to the shaman in order to have a place in the village hierarchy.

The amount of free labor is greater ~ thus we add another labor to the symbols shown on the map above.  That accounts for all the benefits Stavanger gets from being a settlement (remember, it got a +1 food when it was just a type-7 settlement, back in 874).  This labor is applied to more boats, more tools, the making of weapons to protect the chief and the region (stone-and-wood weapons), possibly crude armor (cloth and shields) and the collection of more raw materials.  Brush and other wooden enclosures, less sophisticated than a palisade, have been built along the forest to protect the village.  Most of the wood nearest to the village has already been cut down for firewood.  During the day, much of this labor is gone from the village; the hunters into the forest, the fishing folk out onto the water.  Only the children, the women and the shaman's followers remains (the shaman might disappear for days at a time, seeking mushrooms, herbs, a vision, whatever).

So we can see the evolution of the village.  If we started our game in 892, the players would never see the type-7, early Stavanger that was there before.  But we want to have some of it in our heads; so that we can envision where the residents came from, what they see as important, to them ... and where do they want to go in the future?  But we will get to that.

Okay, I mentioned that I would come back around to families.  I will; but I'm going to start a new post with it, to help maintain one principle subject per post.  I know that this is a tremendous wash of information for the reader, and that it can be overwhelming trying to imagine keeping all this in one's head.  Keep this is mind: we are not talking about rules.  We can simplify rules until the cows come home, but we're still stuck with the necessary proposition that creating a believable, fascinating world with depth is an unbelievable, monumental task ... one that, again, the official company simply ignores, pretending that every adventure can be made entirely out of stereotypes.

If we can see how the village of Stavanger works, we can put ourselves and our players into the place; and help them to walk around, watching the residents work, watching the interaction between the residents present itself ~ and understand what is important to these people.  What would change their lives?  What would they want?  How does the party fit into that equation.

Until the next post, then.

Thursday, May 17, 2018

Codependency

The following sequence rose from events played between February 25 and 26, 2009.

In my last masterclass, I addressed the matter of players having to make up their minds how to interact with the campaign setting, and how the DM will be typically pressed to make this interaction happen for the players.  In short, the players want to adventure; and will wait for the DM to create the adventure for the players to run in, because this is easiest for the players.  Opposed to this, however, is the experience and opportunity that arises when the players do for themselves, even if doing for themselves is the harder option.  Good play calls for all the participants to dig in and work together to make things happen ... not when the DM provides for all the others, who then become hopelessly dependent on that DM.  Dependency is never a good thing.

This post is meant to address the contrary point of view, and how "doing for the players without waiting for the players" is easiest for the DM too.  In many ways, by creating the adventure from whole cloth, so that players know what is expected of them, makes everything easier for the DM as well.  Which is why DMs do it.  Nothing makes a D&D running go well like having the players be dependent upon our story, our plot twists and our moment-to-moment whims.

It will not be popular to say, but many of the substantial problems that arise in having ONE PERSON control all that is said and done at a game table for a bunch of people who are dependent upon that person's intentions to create, or not create, the adventure that is going to be run, arise from the same issues that we connect with codependency.  Role-playing is addictive; and while it is not a drug, I will rush to point out that the link explicitly states that codependency relationships can also arise from gambling, which is also a game, and the dysfunction that arises out of family relationships ~ which, incidentally, psychology invented role-playing in order to combat.

Which is to say that role-playing itself is not a bad thing.  It can be healthy, if approached in a healthy manner.  It is that healthy manner that promotes role-playing as a therapy.  We stress how every participant must learn to be responsible for themselves, and in their contribution to the general welfare of the relationship.  But when we say that the DM is responsible for everyone having fun at the table, ie., for the emotional state of other people; or that the DM is responsible to always say "yes" to player efforts at problem solving, ie., supporting and enabling the ability of another person to feel successful and validated; we are drifting dangerously into codependency.

When the DM knows who the players are going to talk to, and why, and what's going to be said, because that is the way the adventure goes, this removes everything else, the "unexpected," from the equation.  This shrinks the problem of managing the players' motivations and probable actions to a framework that most DMs can handle.  It is especially necessary for new DMs, who are hardly able to handle even this much interaction ... which is why "story-telling" DMing is presented as the best, more rational way to play.  Because it is easiest.

This is not the hall the players would see; it's a town hall from Passau,
a like town to the one the players were in, built in the 14th century.
Impressive, no?  Imagine how it was to the medieval eye.
Let's take an example from the campaign we left at the end of the last post, Who is Responsible.  The players have learned that to become guards protecting a merchant's wagon train, they must be bonded by the merchant's guild.  To be bonded, they must find a merchant to stand up for them.  And because they don't know any merchants, two players, Tiberius and Joseph, have decided to go where the merchants are: the merchant's guild.

And just like that, I'm in a trap.


continued elsewhere ...
This is the first of two such posts I will be writing in the month of May for the Tao's Master Class blog, where the rest of this post can be found. Examples on the Tao of D&D blog can be found here and here.

To see the rest of this post, you must pledge at least $3 to my Patreon account. This will enable you to see all material to date on the Master Class, but it will require that you wait until June 1st to see the content. Because it is difficult to keep track of who is donating $3 to me each month, I am no longer accepting small direct donations for the Master Class blog.

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

More About Rogaland's Dev-5 Culture

I'd like to try and get this post squeezed in today before I have to go do something else ... so I'll give it a try.

On the right, we see the rest of Rogaland, as it appears in a stage of 5 development (or "dev-5").  Haugaland, that we covered in the link, is not shown, is attached to the upper right corner of the map.

With Haugaland, we can loosely divide the region, or tribe, into four parts.

The clan of Harald, at the top of the map, is off by itself, and from the type-7 hex, we see that it isn't any more than a very obscure enclave.

At the bottom of the map, the two clans of Verda and Orre form an enclave around the lake of Orrevatnet.  Again, both are type-7; we may assume they are interrelated and friendly, but that is not necessarily so.

Finally, in the middle, surrounding the mouth of the Bokna Fjord, the large circle of water that surrounds the islands shown, we have four clans ~ Randa, Osthus, Loda and Skuden ~ and one actual village, Stavanger.

We can see that it is the end point of a circle of communication, which we presume extends overland to Verda-Orre and up the shoreline to Haugaland, pulling the Land of Roga together.  Stavanger is the only settlement ... all of these other hexes are clan lands, without agriculture, where hunters are able to sustain themselves on the rich natural game, fish and other forage that exists.  There's nothing here, except for Stavanger, that is different from what we learned about Haugaland.

I want to stress that this is in our favor.  By designating these places as "not much," we don't necessarily make them cookie-cutter replicates of each other.  All it gives is a very definite sense of what players would find there if they went: foragers, who fish a little and hunt a little, living a subsistance lifestyle.  It doesn't say every hex is the same!  A hex could have a special shaman in it, or an object that could wash up on the shore in only this hex, that the players could only find if they chose to explore there.  We are freed, however, of having to invent a whole culture from scratch in every one of these places.  These are basically all clans belonging to the same tribe, with the same basic beliefs, the same anthropological social structure, the same familiar foods and habits ... and representing something to the players that can be embraced as a reliable consistency that can be banked upon, exploited, used as crutch or however the players want to see it.  There's a weakness in making everything staggeringly different; the inconsistency becomes a malaise, which the characters just don't embrace.  We've all created a bit of something we consider imaginative and ready for adventure, to have experienced players respond to with a shrug.

There is something comfortable about consistency that we should not discard, thinking that everything about the game world has to be jazz hands and sparkly fire streamers.  Players are going to grow familiar anyway ... why not make your preparation process as a DM a bit easier by giving the players a bit of what they want?

Let me step out of that argument a moment and bring up the fact that there are no type-5 hexes here.  Even the settlement of Rogaland is type-6.  Type-5 hexes in a dev-5 culture are rare.  We can imagine them as a sort of sylvan paradise; the atmosphere that is usually associated with the elven settlements of Lorien or Rivendell.  Places where we do not have merely common beauty, like an emerald-green forest or a field of flowers, but startling, eye-popping beauty, with waterfalls, or magnificent oak trees hundreds of feet high and a thousand years old.  Where the fish leap out of the ponds and into your bucket.  Where the water is so fresh that your grandparents can taste it.  These would be places of pilgrimage; where the tribe would gather once every five years, or where the tribal chieftain would be crowned.  And they would be places where rare herbs were found, where faeries would congregate and remain in contact with the common tribe.

Most of all, and I cannot stress this enough ... not every part of the world would be lucky enough to have such a place.  Rogaland does not.  And before we move onto where we describe Rogaland as a more developed culture, a type-5 hex will have a different meaning. In a more sophisticated culture, a type-5 rural hex won't be occupied by hunters and gatherers; it will be occupied by people who till crops for living, who grow things.  Whatever the hex was when the land was mostly empty will have been altered.  There may be a sylvan  hex-block in such a culture ... but it won't be the sort of sylvan hex that exists in a completely hunter-gatherer culture.

Too, there's nothing that says that a sylvan hex has to be associated with any civilization.  Just as an eradicator monster such as a lich or a beholder can wipe out all life in a hex block to make a home, a faerie culture can expand life, making an obscure sylvan hex block as beautiful as an eradicator hex block is ugly.  The key is to imagine that the world makes sense, then to set up those hex blocks in a pattern that evokes adventure, rather than crushing it.

I need to talk about Stavanger, but time is running short.  I can put it in its own post.  This will suffice for now as content.



Getting Organized

While I'm organizing what next to show on the blog, for those who are looking for some simple points on how to build adventures, I suggest watching this video all the way through, whether or not you have ever heard of the video game, the Secret of Monkey Island:


The savvy reader will have noticed that I am behind on two promises: that the podcast did not come out this last Sunday, and that I did not write a masterclass post and get it up yesterday.

I had some things get in the way of life on the weekend and it put me behind on both of these things.  I am, admittedly, behind. I now strongly feel that it was a mistake to even think of setting the podcast up on a schedule, which I'm going to ignore going forward.  The podcast will be in place when I'm able to apply my brain to it.

The masterclasses are trickier; but I have promised that I will do two per month and I certainly will.  I'm just a little squeezed.  I should have the first of them up tomorrow, if I have to suspend the campaign early Thursday in order to do it.  I should be fine, however.

One thing about being a creator, we have to create when we're in a head space to create.  If I had set the podcasts to all come out starting the beginning of July, I could have easily hit that mark: and understand, that is how television and film does it.  They do not cut product days, or the day of, a product being aired, unless they're being run by idiots, or it is some temporal show like the news or a talk show.  And those things have hundreds of people who can be counted on to make stuff come out right.  Not just me.

Right now, I have what most people would consider a ridiculous amount of free time at my disposal; but I'm also working a physical job that tends to wreck me the day of working, so that it isn't until the next day that I'm ready to be productive.  And I have stretched myself very thin, with many projects on the go.  I'm solving that by trying to better organize my time and putting it where it is most important.  I know that the people who support me enough so they can read the masterclass were just as pleased to see the content I put up last Sunday about Hordaland.  I didn't expect that post to run as long as it did ... but once I got started, I found I had a lot to say.

I want to write a follow-up post to that; and get the podcast edited; and write the masterclass post; and finish running my online campaign this week; and write some of my book, that I picked up briefly last week; and spend some time with my partner tonight; and be in a fit state of mind for work on Friday.

Everything is fine; please bear with me.