The legendary Thuloid's gold

If you're reading this, you might be interested in a solid and fairly wide-ranging batch of discussions going on at Thuloid's latest post at the House, all assisted by that gleaming new Disqus plug-in.

The post looks at what makes a game interesting and the comments cover D&D and old school art, the aesthetics of GW's Age of Sigmar, the Iliad, Vampire, The World's End, Frozen, roleplaying the life enlisted, milking in the industry, and character history tables.

If you don't already know and you're a blogger, the House is a network you can join here.

_

Dragoncrawls and behavioural deployment

Still here. One of the posts I put up ahead of the lull was Dragons & Dungeons, on reversing the standard emphasis, and since then Red Orc and Jens D. have given the idea a bit more thought.

Suggested reading order would be the original post, Red Orc's follow-up then the latest.

I'm still wondering how it might work in wargaming. Maybe the forces would be set up based on likely unit activity, and the terrain simultaneously? Each force could be divided into a few categories, say Special, Scout, Column, Support and Patrol, which already happens to some degree in various games, with organisational charts, special rules etc.

Traveller, the epi-character and a very long game

First go read this. Epigenetics focuses on the idea of meaningful genetic change being passed down the generations by means other than DNA. Lamarckism is the supposedly discredited thinking that change to an organism in a single lifetime can also be inherited.

The article suggests that life has developed methods to transfer by reproduction not only genetic information, but even the experiences of the parents, a form of actual knowledge.

The significance of this is difficult to downplay, and the ramifications are going to keep people occupied for a long time. This is something traditionally fantastical, hard sci-fi at best. Before I come back to what this could really mean, a quick detour through gaming.

Apocalypse come (1) - Your actual eaters of worlds

In sixth edition 40K some factions can only ally come an apocalypse. Trouble is, a 41st millennium apocalypse might just end up being moar of everything available, rather than something suitably eschatological and worthy of the game that gave us Realm of Chaos.

But then a lot of apocalypses can seem fairly samey. In an effort to help I thought I'd run a series with a few slightly lesser-spotted ideas, but not for any one system or setting.

The first theme I've had in mind a few weeks, but a comment at BoLS recently prompted me to post. The context was the idea that the new Horus Heresy releases mean people start playing what is effectively a new game - Warhammer 30,000 - just space marine on space marine. The commenter joked there could be a Warhammer 50K of Tyranids only.

In case this is all new to you, and don't feel bad about that, the Tyranids are a biological, self-evolving, nomadic civilisation from the intergalactic gulfs or beyond, directed by their psychic hive mind. They consume pretty much everything and evolve around problems.

That was a pretty freaky idea once, but today, for me - and without the infiltration of the genestealer cults especially - they're just a more colourful, general purpose armed force.

So how to get the horror back, but without the cult body horror? It could be by homing in on the broader existential aspects, and going for a more save-or-die cosmological tone.

Fractal gaming

I imagine quite a few of us have a played a game within a game, where the characters themselves are playing, gambling say. But how often is this a game of the very same type - meaning an RPG inside an RPG, or a wargame inside a wargame?

This kind of 'fractal gaming' shouldn't be too hard to do with a rules-light RPG, with its freedom to improvise and rewrite rules on the fly, but it could be tougher with the narrower focus of a wargame, where we're given less scope for non-destructive interaction between individuals. Hold the thought.

Could we and the dice be seen as gods to the characters in our games? Collectively, we are the creators of the fictional world, and to the inhabitants we're potentially omnipotent, as omniescent as the game needs, and possibly even omnipresent: after all, the events exist only in the players' minds; things only happen if we go there. Hold that thought too.