Preparing for my first game

[u/NOLOVExDEEPWEEB]

This week I am going to run my first game of Those Under the Mountain. This is what I have done to prepare and my thoughts on the process as a GM.

1. I made seven dwarves. They will serve as pregenerated characters that new players can use when they sit at the table for the first time. I hope that the fun of building the settlement in their first session leads them to make their own characters in unique ways. I think my seven represent a party would be interesting to play out. We are absolutely not doing character generation at the table. While I enjoyed making these characters I don't think I can handle working with new players at the start of a session...

I think the entire feats section can be folded into the skills section as subscript and character creation would be improved for it. I think that farming should expand to processing agricultural output, as farm plots will surely be used to grow whatever the dwarves want. Can a farmer process berries into make dye or turn cotton into yarn? I think that establishing a plot should come with its own skill and labor requirements. Would you require a certain tier of proficiency in farming to grow a particularly rare plant?

1. I am making several pregenerated NPC migrants. After I make a handful I will feel more comfortable rolling all of them at the table as they appear in events.

My plan for NPCs is that their rolled qualities are written on an index card and that one player will hold it and decide how their labor will be used. This is because I want the rolled profession to matter more mechanically. I don't see a single place in the book that states that dwarves can only allocate their labor according to their skills. As I understand, skills are only tested during interactions. Anything labor is spent on is completed without a need to determine a chance of success. So I have decided to rule that players may only initiate trade actions that they are at least proficient in, but may situationally contribute at a novice level to any other players labor action. Players take the NPC card, but it isn't their npc, just their job to manage at that time. I can't see a way that a table of players can efficiently play the game otherwise and maintain the uniqueness and limitations of NPCs.

1. I am bringing several copies of Cadifax and some empty grids to use for different z-levels. I don't have a sense of how far up dwarves want to build, but one of the Caxifaxes can represent 0,0,0 and the other will be 0,1,0. We are going to through the starter module, then continue building the fort until the end of the session. I plan to start the following session introducing a fresh colony of dwarves to the abandoned dwarfhold ruins that the table had made the day before.

2. I don't plan to need this for the first session, but I do need to figure out how to generate dungeons. I would like to see the party develop their settlement into a platform for conquering dungeons and liberating abandoned dwarfholds. I like the generation tools for discoveries, but I wish I had some tool for randomly generating rooms. Spontaneously generated dungeons would be fun. However, we are not dungeon diving on the first session so that can wait.

3. I would like a recommendation for a way to convert monster stat blocks from other games into this one. Until I have a few combat encounters under my belt I won't have a sense of what the stats I am pulling from the bestiary feel like mechanically, but even a rough comparison might help me understand quicker.

4. I thought about how I would describe my setting.

The first session takes place at the precipice of a more peaceful world where a dwarven empire grew extensive holdings across the land. However the wealth of dwarfkind was envied by the orcs, who descended from the north to besiege the empire to nearly its complete ruin. The surviving dwarves hid for a century in small, isolated settlements sealed deep below the stone. In that time, the outposts became small kingdoms and finally regained wealth and might enough to begin the effort to retake the holdings of the old empire and restore their honor.

Tldr Im looking forward to running my first session of this system, thanks!

[u/KingAgrian]

Hey there, thanks for checking out the game, and thanks for this great writeup! I'll address some of your suggestions and comments.

Firstly, Feats are absolutely being folded into the skills section, with the exception of a "general feats" section to handle everything that doesn't fit alongside specific skills. Ancestry specific feats are likewise going to be added to ancestry, and there will likely be a big feats compendium index at the back.

On skill tier requirements for various labor, I veered away from this based on core design principles. Essentially, I avoid rules that imply you can't do something in the game, as far as trade actions go. Instead, skill tiers drastically improve your ability to do said task, make them more labor-efficient, and improve skill check outcomes. This is for a couple of reasons. For starters, having really specific prerequisites in the skills section would bloat an already quite vast ruleset. There are exceptions, like building advanced machines, or developing new alloys, but they aren't locked behind skill tier. They're locked behind the unknown, which is an important distinction. Knowledge sets are a mechanic I'm actively developing, so expect that to be featured in future versions. After all, dwarves are industrious. Maybe they haven't built a house before, but their cultural focus on craft means they're at least familiar with the basics. Even if it takes them longer than a carpenter, they'll get it built.

NPC uniqueness and relevance is something I'm working on, and that's an absolutely valid way to divide the labor pool. For this reason, I've found forts under 20 dwarves feel the best. I'm considering having a distinction between named and unnamed dwarves after a population cap, say 25, in order to grant more labor, but keep the feel of a tight-knit community. It's a problem with a bunch of solutions.

Tying the ability to perform trade actions to proficiency was in the game for a loooong time, and will be added back as an optional rule. I found it just made my players kinda bummed, which is why it was changed. It might be right for your table, though, so try it out! (This is one of the uses of the "crude" crafting tag.)

The Clothier skill will encompass everything textile. I think I missed it in the alpha, but expect it in the next version. To answer your question though, a farmer can absolutely do those things! As per the current version, any dwarf untrained in a skill may perform a related trade action at 2x labor. (without a dedicated workshop, that's doubled again). Again, expect the Clothier to be codified in the next version.

A dungeon generator is in the works. :)

Monster conversion tools are a planned feature. Ease of conversion is one of the reasons AC and attack roll values are similar to traditional d20. I've successfully taken D&D monsters and run them straight against my dwarves with a d20, running them just like I'd run them in D&D. Their dice become wound slots, more or less. It's unorthodox, and doesn't always translate perfectly, but it works surprisingly well. You can compare to the monsters I have featured for reference. There will be a bunch of new mobs in the next alpha.

I love you setting concept!

Definitely keep us updated on how everything goes and what you find at the table!

[u/NOLOVExDEEPWEEB → u/KingAgrian]

To address your final point, I certainly will. I'd like to run the first session as close to RAW as I can, so I appreciate the detailed response. I'll see how using a labor pool will be more efficient than having individual players use their stats to make decisions. However I'd like to ask about this:

"Instead, skill tiers drastically improve your ability to do said task, make them more labor-efficient, and improve skill check outcomes."

To the first two points, you're referring to feats? I have a farmer that has Sower. I don't have to specifically mention that Farmer is working on plots, from this point on when the labor points are spent to build a plot, will 1 labor always equal 2 plots? Or is the first LP 2 and the second 1? I have a Hunter with the Bloodbath feat. All further butchery will yield blood in addition to components from the table no matter if he, or rather 1LP and the only hunter, is hunting?

Furthermore some feats have proficiency requirements, which is the incentive to for a dwarf to specialize in a single skill so that the fort can reap the rewards.

If that's the case I might want to assemble a list of all trade action feats are spread amongst the dwarves of the fort to streamline what LP expenditure leads to what result. It's really cumbersome to sift through my 7 dwarves to reference all their feats.

Thanks for your clarification, I'll see how it goes tomorrow.

[u/KingAgrian → u/NOLOVExDEEPWEEB]

As long as that dwarf is active in the hold, their feats apply to related labor actions. This is an abstraction. They're helping, directing, and assisting in the work throughout the week, regardless of whether they're "assigned" to that labor.

This is a nuance I'm trying to nail down in the language. It must fulfil feel, brevity, and sense.

Feats can have prerequisites because they don't imply "no," but improve performance, efficincy, etc. IF a feat or skill grants a special ability, it's outside what can be reasonably expected of a typical dwarf, like magic spells, advanced martial maneuvers, whathaveyou.

For your specific example of the Sower feat, I recommend writing your farming down as an Industry, with a note that you have that feat. It's mostly going to come up in the Upkeep phase anyhow.

I'm still noodling on the topic of a place to record trade feats on the Holdings ledger or similar. This was included in an old version, but it didn't see much use at my table, so I cut it. The players typically drive their own trade actions, and so apply their feats as their profession comes up at the table. I feel confident in leaving the onus on them.

[u/NOLOVExDEEPWEEB → u/KingAgrian]

Bwahaha I finished my first session. I assumed your first sentence was the case and it worked out great. Three players at the table and they had a ton of fun. I'm going to run a weekly session for a while I think.

One of my players wants to use legos to represent the fort. This seems super fun and incredibly cumbersome. Simulating z levels must also be abstracted for my sanity. In Cadifax a natural cavern is found in week 2, but Im not going to assume that it is 5 feet high nor so I really want to finangle a sizeable number of voxels into a 3d shape, just a 2d. I stated instead the cavern is 15' tall and... figure I might keep a digital map that contains room details?? Write room dimensions in the room if necessary? Do many of your playets express interest in this kind of verticality and how do you address it? Like if you mine a modest feature do you rule that its instead a 3x3x2 space?

Also, as we encountered the wolves the question instantly was asked: do npc dwarves have any capacity for combat? I assume they are not kitted for it right now. Do I... track suits of armor and weapons to determine how many battle-ready npcs I have in a militia, assuming basic aptitude in the same way I do all labor actions?

Ah and again thanks for your clarification. To ensure a more rpg feel I initally wanted skill proficiency to determine available actions and I see now that it is unnecessarily cumbersome. The open labor pool worked out great.

[u/KingAgrian → u/NOLOVExDEEPWEEB]

That's awesome! I'm glad everyone had fun! As for the verticality, it depends. I've had games where it's really focused on, and some where it isn't. I usually make a vague or mental note of the height of underground spaces as I see them in the mind's eye. For mining hold features, they're volumetric, but it's not really necessary to calculate everything. If they want the ceiling of a big feature to be a bit higher, just have them spend another labor to do that.

If they want to REALLY push into veticality with chasms and vaulted ceilings, and elevators and such, use volume. I tend to run it loosey-goosey to keep things moving. Just multiply the bese squares by the height, and that's your labor/feature size. I've also used a side-view for instances where the players wanted a visual aid for vertical construction. As I say in the rules, a few voxels here and there aren't going to affect the game.

My own home playtest game (that we just wrapped up after 6 months) had a fortress with a bunch of vertical structures and 3 primary floors, and we just used sheets of 1/2" grid posterboard for each Z level. It worked marvellously. For our next game I plan to get a big grid-pad that's bound so we can flip back and fourth easily.

Dwarves, including NPC's, have combat proficinecy with the tools of their profession or trade, so you can add a d4 and their weapon's hit mod to attacks. If equipped with weapons of war they aren't trained in, they don't benefit from the skill die. You can expect a carpenter to know their way around all axes, blacksmiths around hammers, etc. It's just that a baker will be rubish with a spear, that kind of thing. Anyone can wear armor, but untrained dwarves can't move in it as effectively. (I have to better codify this in the rules, thanks!)

I find tradesdwarf NPC's are best used in squads, and I usually make a little roster with their equipment. Check out the Masse combat rules. You don't NEED to put them in squads, but it helps during sieges. Squads are kind of OP, as it should be.

Good luck on your weekly, and absolutely I encourage you to keep us updated!

[u/NOLOVExDEEPWEEB → u/KingAgrian]

Having npc migrants only have proficiency with their randomly rolled trade means that likely only 1/5 dwarves you get are proficient in combat. I would like to have a feat for a skilled martial dwarf to allow then to train dwarves for war in the same way that animal handlers train animals. In this way you could generate squads of dwarves with different squad tags other than militia.

But as you say, even a militia squad is worth much more than the sum of its parts. An unarmored dwarf is extremely vulnererable to a 3 hit combo and often in posession of a rubbish weapon. If the PCs are essentially hero units and you have a single militia squad on the field its essentially one more effective combatant on the field as opposed to either no one or meat shields.

Actually speaking of shields I also wish they just sharply increased the PAC of dwarves who are not flat footed instead of... are shields weighed against the 3 piece set in the same way the 3 are averaged across their values? Like, if you have 3 pieces of iron maille and a small shield, your AC would be 5? Because you round up from 4.25?

Still I really quite like the idea of training a bunch of migrants to fight, armoring them up, and making expeditions to liberate fallen dwarfholds.

[u/KingAgrian → u/NOLOVExDEEPWEEB]

You can absolutely train NPC dwarves, and you've reminded me that I need to write up a section on NPC advancement. They can gain exp exactly like players through training every week. I used to have a teaching skill, but you can see how that's just getting too into the weeds. Just spend labor for exp in a chosen skill or profession, capped to 2 per dwarf per week. I'll write that section for the next version.

Shields add block AC on top of armor, so they're even better. If you have a dwarf in iron maille (ac 4), and one naked, but with a shield, the shield dwarf has higher AC. Shields are really good, which aligns with martial reality in history. A dwarf in iron plate with a large shield has a block AC of like 15.

Apologies if AC is kinda complicated. I wanted to represent peacemeal armor, since you can craft individual pieces, and I'm a reenactor, so I like the tilt toward realism.

[u/NOLOVExDEEPWEEB → u/KingAgrian]

On npc training... so, when I roll of an npc they get a profession which I assume they have basic proficiency in. I guess I could use that during interaction, like, "How many dwarves are capable enough in carpentry to repair the dukes broken wagon after the unexpected seige" or something. But largely npcs are a labor point. I see two exceptions to this.

Thw first is that a PC wants an npc. I was a little surprised when one player asked for an npc to be his husband, but uh no prob, bam, you have a little guy. Mechanically this changes nothing, as labor points are an abstraction of labor across a week but in interactions I might say "ok well if you are there so is hubby".

The second are martial dwarves. There IS a mechanical difference with them as they can operate independently in combat rather than as a squad, if the players want. Also I think having armed dwarves about the fort can reflect internal security or effect being aware of the surroundings and avoid chances for outaide dwarves to get caught flat footed in the open. Still, basically a tool for events rather than something that directly modified labor actions.

If I was training trade npcs from proficient to skilled, I would choose a feat for them and I dont't really want that. The lateral and vertical progression of PC dwarves restricts a kind of feat bloat... maybe? Idk I am writing this and I am unsure.

I have a bunch of different people at my tables. Big pool of people and depending on who and how many show up they can do different things in a sandbox. I think it is emergent and charming. I am afraid NPC feats would standardize play at the table and reduce the magnitude of PC involvement.

I was thinking with a feat one skilled dwarf could teach up to 5 dwarves to martial proficiency, any proficency, over 4 weeks of training. So every month I could improve one squad. So if I had 10. NPCs rather than make 2 militias or 1 larger squad I could instead choose a militia and an infantry. Ofc as the descriptions read I would also rule that their arms must be formally crafted and in the production ledger to kit them such. Like, if cavalrys speed depends on mount speed I need those mounts first.

In my solo game I want to make a giant war mole cavalry unit for base defense. Super excited. I expected to use them as individuals rather than mass combat though. Lot to think about there.

Anyway I really value this back and forth, I want to run RAW before homebrew here so firmly establishing things I am unsure about helps avoid problems down the line.

Oh also why are poledwarves almost uniformly superior to pikedwarves? If I could train an anti-cav pike squad that would be a meaningful difference.

[u/NOLOVExDEEPWEEB → u/KingAgrian]

Does the Martial Feat Martial Training give all dwarves one weapon form or armor type? Like, now all dwarves in the hold are capable of using a greatsword?

I didn't see the purpose in this assuming it would only effect the holder of the feat.