Markdoc

Actually, I’d say it’s the neckbeard. In a few (admittedly rare) cases a goatee can look rakish and devil-may-care. A neckbeard, on the other hand looks good on absolutely nobody, even if paired with bib overalls and a straw hat. Cheers, Mark

In my last game, I showed the players a map, defining "the world as they knew it". A year or two into the game, I showed them another map, and they went "Wait - that little island there? That's where we are?" A couple of years further in, I showed them another world map and they went " Wait - that little group of islands there? That's where we are?" Basically (see my comment above) I sketched out the general area where they were with kingdoms, timelines, etc, but only detailed one part of the one kingdom where they started. As time went on (and the adventure progressed) I filled in more of that kingdom and then in the fullness of time detailed several parts of the other kingdoms where their travels took them. The whole world outside that area (for them) never amounted to more than vague sketches and sailor's yarns Having a decent skeleton to hang the lot on made it easy to add coherent details as I went along. cheers, Mark

Which is where the hate is coming from, yes? I have to admit the hate for her puzzles me. Best I can work out is it's simply heat and sound coming from the rubbing together of a mass of tiny egos. Cheers, Mark

I think this is the key. It looks to me like you don't want to accept what she says. Fair enough. I look at what she says and run it though a simple mental filter. Is what she says even credible? (It is). Are any of the people accused contradicting her? (They are not). Do other people involved support her claims? (They do). Does she have anything to gain financially? (She does not). Conclusion? She's probably telling the truth. I'll change my mind if contradicting evidence turns up, but for now, there is no reason to do so, unless one actively just doesn't want to. The fact that she's disgruntled means nothing at all, because if she's telling the truth, you'd *expect* her to be disgruntled. Cheers, Mark

In Norway, all tax returns are public. Anybody can see what anybody else earns. Doesn't seem to have caused a problem. Some companies have an open pay policy. It also doesn't seem to cause problems. Many companies and institutions have fairly tight salary bands and which band you sit in is public. The obsession with pay secrecy is an artifact of a system that rewards those who control often arbitrary pay awards. It's not naive to note that other systems are possible and appear to work as well or better - that's just recognition of reality. My last job was one were both payscale and bonuses were largely transparent (meaning pay grade and annual bonus were public, though the precise figure was not). My colleagues knew I earned more than they did, but there was no resentment because they also knew why. I knew who earned more than I did, and approximately by how much, but the same applied. So no, not naive - just aware. Just because something is the status quo does not make it inevitable or the best system. I admit I'm hard pressed to think of a good reason for pay secrecy, even though I understand why it's a sensitive topic. Blaming her for the fact that someone else might (but in fact, did not) take her initiative and use it wrongly smells strongly of grasping for a reason to blame her for something. You could use exactly the reason to claim that the accounts department should not release figures internally, because hey, what if someone leaked the company accounts? When a group decision is made (for example company policy), of course there is pressure to join in. That is equally true of the "don't discuss salaries” rule. I'm guessing from what you wrote, that you didn't read anything about this situation before posting, which to be honest, is a bit of a disappointment. To spell it out, the bonus she was denied WAS RECOMMENDED BY HER PEERS PRECISELY FOR SETTING UP THE SALARY SPREADSHEET. The colleague who worked with her to set it up WAS RECOMMENDED THE EXACT SAME BONUS FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON. There is, in this case, not the slightest shred of a reason to assume that he did something different to get his bonus - in fact, we are explicitly told the opposite. And to honest, the amount in question was utterly trivial, which means this whole discussion is almost certainly not about the money but about fairness. To me, it doesn't look like what she did was counter to the company's wishes, but I can see reasonable grounds to disagree. But when one colleague gets a bonus for an initiative, and the other is denied a bonus for doing the exact same thing, that starts to smell a bit dubious. At the very least, it strongly supports her claim that pay is not being awarded on the basis of merit. Cheers, Mark

Actually, if you check the article, she used an officially approved internal discussion tool - as far as I can work out, she discussed what she had found on twitter, but did not release any information about anybody's salary. Nor did she take anything - all the information collected was voluntarily provided by the people involved. So, really, I can't see anything wrong - morally, ethically, legally, or by company rules - in what she did. If her story is correct (and to be honest, I see no reason in this case t believe that it isn't correct: there's no lawsuit, no payoff for her to speak out - in fact, the likely consequences are all negative.) then she was just d***ed over by her manager (particularly since it appears a white guy who worked on the project with her got the exact same bonuses she was denied and still works at Google.) In general, a policy of transparency in salaries is probably a good thing (and I say that as someone who personally takes care to negotiate the best possible deal, but actually prefers not to reveal actual numbers) - as noted upthread, it is often used to conceal dubious hiring and remuneration practices: I've certainly seen this in real life. Certainly, there is nothing to offend in voluntarily sharing figures - unless the management actually does have something to hide. cheers, Mark

No GM - no matter how dedicated, no matter how obsessive - can completely detail a whole world. It's taken billions of people thousands of years to do our one The question then is simply how much detail you want to put in your area of focus and how much in the area outside your area of focus. My rule of thumb in that in both cases, I need to have enough detail that I can answer most questions without breaking the flow of the game. That often means making something up on the fly, but making something up is far easier if you already know the background. So in the area of focus (that could be a campaign city, a country or a region) that means more detail than outside the area of focus (things far away are almost necessarily going to be more vague). How much detail that needs to be is going to vary from GM to GM and group to group, but for me in the area of focus, that means at least a rough history/timeline, a reasonably detailed geography, a political structure/influence map, a magic system (or systems) a religion (or religions) and a basic economy/technological level - plus a cultural "feel" to tie that lot together and explain it. That might sound like a lot, but in fact, it can probably be summed up in a dozen pages or less. The actual detail is adventure/story related: specific NPCs, specific locations, specific events. The last campaign I fully wrote up had maybe 16 pages of maps and background, 120 pages of actual adventure and about 80 pages of NPCs - so background was maybe 10%. That was quasi-historical, but even in a purely invented setting, the background material for me is at most 15-20% of what I write up, and it's probably closer to 10% overall anyway. cheers, Mark

Oh, I'm sure it'll prove to be useful. As you note, we are finding more and more diseases (allergy, cancer, heart disease, asthma, etc) can have an infectious cause, or at least trigger) so more information will help us plan for better health. But that's more long-term research: it's not likely to have any impact on how people interact with their doctors in the immediate future. It's kind of like the hoopla around personal gene sequencing. Companies were promising "better control of your health" and similar scams if you paid to have your genome sequenced, but without far more information, your genetic sequence usually tells you little or nothing about your health or prospects. One day, that probably won't be true, but we're not there yet: we simply don't know enough to put most of that information in context. So, in both cases, big steps forward in the accessibility of a useful technology, but some way away from practical applications. Even though we're not there yet, we're close enough to be able to see how this will likely play out, in .... let's say 10-15 years. You can get a genome sequence (that's your baseline), an infectious disease/vaccination profile (that's your immune history) and a sequencing of a sample from your bowel and mouth/sinuses (that's a glimpse of your current microflora) and from that collection of information plus a checkup and a diet/exercise checklist generate a "health profile" (what your risks are) and a "druggable profile" (how you will likely respond to different classes of medication). We're actually kind of doing much of this, right now, in a baby-steps sort of way, but at the moment there's no way to combine all that information into a coherent whole. It's like all the groups working on this are each writing one page of a single novel - but without page numbers and in different languages/editions/size formats. It's going to take a while to synthesise it correctly so that we can read the novel. cheers, Mark

It's a new technology, and if it can be done for 25 bucks a test, it's about 5-10% of the price of current tests that do the same thing, so that's pretty cool. How useful would it be? For high risk patients (like transplant patients) we already do this type of test, but that's not for diagnosis. It's for planning future treatment. The drawback of this new test (like the old tests) is that it relies on antibodies. Normally, it takes 2-3 weeks for your body to generate a measureable antibody response. So the test will tell you what you've had, but not necessarily what you have right now. That could still be useful - especially as we collect more information on how individuals respond to infection and long term risks of infection - but probably won't have an immediate effect on medical practice. Cheers, Mark

Lava Sharks!

If you get into a fight with a bunch of adventurers, odds are you are already in trouble. So one alternative would to be to build a guardian that operates in a more subtle fashion - by using illusions and mental powers, say. For example, one wizard in my game defended his stronghold by creating a guardian - a tiny homonculus - that really only had one power: it could cast illusions. It also knew his stronghold intimately. The adventurers had the experience that every door they opened led into the same corridor that they had come from and that led back to the entryway. After going round in circles for a while, they gave up in disgust. A guardian that could manipulate the building (opening and closing doors, even moving sections of wall, opening trapdoors in the floor) - or which even was the building - could have similar effects. I also had one guardian who had a bunch of minor spells - it could teleport through mirrors, and could make things stick together (Clinging usable as an attack). It stuck boots to the floor, hands in pockets or packs, swords in sheaths ... the PCs finally disposed of it, but they remembered that fight alright, with a mixture of fondness and strong annoyance. One player called it "Most annoying monster ever!" - actually two board members have been exposed to that particular beastie, though I don't see them posting much any more. cheers, Mark

There's an alternate, very simple approach. Just build it as a bunch of skill levels for magic rolls, bundled into a focus. +20 with magic skill (40 active), Focus (OAF: Crystal, -1) 20 active points. Done. You can flavour the number of skill levels, and advantages/limitations to taste (set the crystal in an IAF ring, give it a warm-up time, etc) That way, your caster still has to make a roll, but with a +20 (or whatever you decide on) to his or her rolls, it should be a doddle. Mechanistically, it has the advantage that it works the same regardless of caster, so that you don't need to re-work out the cost for different-sized VPPs. Otherwise, what the other guys said: variable advantage, allowing you to trade off our skill roll for a focus. cheers, Mark

In the game I described above, I turned this concept around. Instead of the gods being the only source of magic, magic was everywhere and was not connected directly to divine influence. The role of the gods in this situation was as teachers: the new gods didn't invent magic, but taught the first priests all manner of wondrous spells, and a style of magic that let them utilize them - the same way the Horned Man also taught strategy and tactics, or the Woman of Tides taught shipbuilding. So you can be a sorceror and not a priest, or a priest and not a sorceror, or you could be both. What gave the temples their strength with regard to magic, was the fact that they were ancient organisations, with well-tested spells, which they could teach you (if you belonged to the cult). A temple-affiliated sorceror would have cult magic which ordinary people knew to be reliable, reproducible and 100% demon-free. And from the sorceror's point of view, joining a cult gave access to all their accumulated knowledge: the fast route to a vastly expanded group of spells. So most priests (or priestesses) know at least some magic, since they have access to training. Nothing's for free though - to gain these benefits costs either money, or service. For most people joining the cult fulfills these obligations, but some people don't want to. They have to research or steal their own spells. That gives greater freedom, but at the cost that you may end up with a spell with unexpected side effects: temple spells, having been worked out and tested by many sorcerors over the centuries, have had the kinks already worked out of them. Stealing cult spells gets you around that problem but adds the new one that you're always going to have to look over your shoulder for cult vengeance. cheers, Mark

Prior to the monotheistic franchises coming out on top, most people worshipped/propitiated multiple deities. So a warrior might spend most of his religion budget on the War god, but will probably have enough to splash out on the Goddess of love before heading out on leave, the Sea goddess before a long sea voyage and the Crops and fertility goddess when he gets a letter from his older brother complaining about the weather and the farm back home. It's not an either/or situation. In fact, in my last game, the religion was set up exactly like this. Within the overall religion there were multiple cults, each dedicated to one or the other aspect of a single god/goddess and their magic was more or less restricted to the sphere of influence of their patron. So members of the war god cult? No healing for you! Or at least, no healing at cut price rates. Basically, cult priests would normally be prepared to provide magical services for money (at least to respectable citizens), but if you are a cult member (which means paying a tithe, turning up for festivals and rituals, etc) you get access to cult services (such as spellcasting) but which can also include mundane things. So in a fishing village, most families would belong to the Sea Goddess cult, and they share not only magical services, but also "cult secrets" - the best places for fishing, the location of dangerous shoals, what old man Wellkin saw that night out by Devil's Reef - that kind of thing. They don't share those secrets with strangers, or even their neighbors who belong to another cult (ship builders who venerate the building god, for example). So every temple would have shrines to multiple gods/godesses - in the fishing village example above, the shrine to the sea goddess would be the biggest and finest, but even if there wasn't a priestess of the death goddess actually resident at the temple, there would still be a shrine to her, and from time to time a deathcult priestess would turn up on her circuit to perform the rituals for the dead. Same for the other gods: there might not be a priest of the wargod there, but the war god would still have a tiny shrine where passing warriors could pay their respects ... and so on. Since each diety had their own sphere, there's not necessarily any need for conflict between them or between their worshippers. cheers, Mark

Thanks!

I don't see why not, but in general, I try to avoid "superskilling" social skills, since you always seem to end up with variations on mind control. Cheers, Mark

Well, they have really good beer ... Seriously, though it was a really hard choice. They offered me the job (contract and everything) about 2 months ago, and after long discussion, I turned it down. Last Friday, they came back with an improved offer and basically it was too good to pass up. It's an executive-level position, it's on the global team, it's about 30K Euro pay increase, and apparently they really want me. I'll probably never get a better job offer if I stay here. I have a really nice job, but I don't really want to keep on doing the same job for the next 5-7 years until I retire. That's all the plus - the minus is saying goodbye to our comfy lifestyle and all our friends What finally tipped the balance was the feeling that after 16 years here, it was time to get out and try something new. Learning a new language and a new culture might stop the ol' brain from getting so mushy with age. cheers, Mark

OK - thanks for the replies! And just to swerve back on-thread again, this is how travel has always been We know from surviving texts that Roman travellers also corresponded with friends/relatives/service or company colleagues/etc. in distant locations and wrote things like "I will be spending some time in Alexandria in Augustus, winds and Gods willing, and had hoped to meet ...." and so on. cheers, Mark

A bribe consultant can inform you of the appropriate bribe required to obtain their services. And the first one, of course, is always free More seriously, in this scenario the PCs wanted to get a message to someone important in the court. But as raggle-taggle provincials, they had no way of accessing the court or talking to anyone important there. So they managed to find a woman who had, at one point, worked at the court (as a courtesan) who now - her youth being gone - made a living advising visitors to the court on etiquette, training in dancing and poetry, etc ... and of course how to offer bribes of an appropriate size, without seeming coarse or vulgar.. A few coins or an appropriate "gift" in the right hands can get you an invitation to a party, where a few more gifts and a conversation can get you an invitation to another party, where you can talk to a man, who knows a girl who works as a maid for the person you actually want to get a message to. A few more meetings, some more gifts and a "chance meeting" can be arranged where a careful conversation can be had and a very expensive piece of jewellery can be passed to the maid ... aaaand a couple of months later you have an imperial warrant. People like this really did exist, and intrigues like this seem to have been common in every society I know of that had a courtly culture - partly, I suspect because of the boredom of attending at court. cheers, Mark

Thanks! Odds are pretty good we'll be in Japan in the next year to two: we go back to New Zealand every other year to catch up with friends and family, and almost always take a week's stopover along the way. Tokyo was a big hit last year, so I don't doubt we'll be back to see more of Japan. I thought you decided you couldn't take the job in Tokyo - have you found a new lead? cheers, Mark

This is the truth It depends very much on the game and the players/GM. I like to have a solid grasp on coinage and trade costs, because it means I can answer odd questions about where things are from, what they're worth, etc. It also helps me come up with "appropriate" loot on the fly when I need to and can also be used as hints to unusual events, as noted above. But the players don't need to keep track of any of this. I like to have it there if they ask, but it's not there to be packed down their throats if they don't ask. In the last game one of the PCs was a merchant and his player liked to ask questions about how much things were worth, where they came from, and different currencies to try and squeeze a few more coin out of his trading. So he cared about this stuff. The other PCs gave him all their excess loot and let him "invest" it for them - they didn't care. In the game before that, we used the [money] technique. In other words, when the players set out on a mission for their lord, I said "The lord gives you [Money] for your trip." Players: "How much?" Me: "Way more than you need for lodging. The Lord says "Also, as you will be representing my house, you should have new clothes. Go to the shop of Akimura, who have dealt with my family for generations. Give him [Money] and he will ensure you are adequately clad" So they had enough coinage to cover expected expenses, so we could focus on other things. We basically never dealt with coins at all in that game. The one time the players found a treasure hoard it was described as "really a lot of money". The players used some for lodging, some for "bribes of appropriate size" (they had a "bribe consultant" - no really! - who helped them work out what "appropriate size" was) and all of the rest on a really expensive piece of jewelry. Both types of campaign are equally viable. cheers, Mark

Ugh - only 2 weeks have gone by and now I have to reverse myself. Yesterday I accepted a new job offer. I'm staying with my current company but joining the global team, which means I'll be moving to Belgium in September. I can get my unused Danish holiday time paid out, but I can't transfer it to Belgium, so I have to start accumulating holiday from scratch. I doubt that my new boss will be cool with me taking a month's leave 3 months after I start - especially given that negotiations over the job have dragged on over the last 3 months: she wants me on the team ASAP (well, straight after the August holiday break, which is pretty much the same thing). So, no Kyoto for us this year - it'll have to be next year. I'm also going to really, really, really miss living in Copenhagen and all our friends. Brussels is OK, but we have great social group here. Starting again from scratch is going to suck (sigh). On the plus side, it opens up a whole new region of Europe to explore in detail. I'm also looking forward to working on the global team: this puts me in a position to help with policy and practice across the whole company. So thanks for the kind offer - we'll have to take a rain check for now. cheers, Mark

Suddenly, Tony Stark's electrogenital shock collars don't seem so far fetched .... cheers, Mark

Players are often not that different. When we play fantasy games, we are often not just looking to play powerful ubermenschen, but also slough off the predictability of a day job, a mortgage, dinner with your spouse's family every other week, etc. A lot of players are therefore certainly not planning to get entangled in a whole new set of (imaginary) social obligations. For this to work, the PCs and the players need to have a reason to want to do it. It's not something I would ever recommend a GM force on his players, but often it grows organically out of the game. I find that a lot of players are willing to enter into official contracts/obligations in a game for much the same reason they do it in real life: the feeling that they can actually make a difference. cheers, Mark

I must admit I've always done this in my games. Players haven't always been the moneybags, though since huge hoards of coin tend not to crop up in my games very often. But almost inevitably in my games, the PCs tend to end up playing some role in political intrigues simply because of the kind of people PCs tend to be. And of course, where you have politics you have wealth (not always cash: it can be land, ships, monopolies, etc) Just off the top of my head, some of the relevant scenarioes have been - in the last campaign, the PCs gradually went from being wandering adventuring types, to local heroes, to being integrated into the local power structure - not just as combatants, but as members of the Temple hierarchy, the City Council, officers of the local militia and so on. Money in that game dealt with not just "How many ponies can I buy?" but "How do we fund an expansion of the militia and that new aqueduct?" In the game before, the PCs rose from humble servants and soldiers to being courtiers and generals, and running a full-scale military invasion. This involved not just being in the frontline lopping off heads, but all the stuff before that as well - getting allies lined up, the logistics of actually getting their army to where the final battles would take place, squaring the military activities with the other ruling powers, etc. In the campaign before that, they were roving adventurers, but still ended up collapsing one local government (and that adventure did involve a giant heap of treasure: the PCs' pursuit of the supposedly lost treasure set the local political scene aflame as all sides tried to grab a piece of the treasure, and local alliances unraveled. They also ended up - at a later stage dealing with a coup d'etat in a local city-state. And in the campaign before that, they were enforcers for a merchant house, dealing with piracy and political intrigue, but also dealing with mundane issues like counterfeiting and escorting dignitaries. Basically, because in most games PCs eventually become personally very powerful, they almost inevitably draw the attention of what ever passes for political authority. cheers, Mark