Good Society – first impressions

I picked up Good Society as part of Storybrewer's recent Kickstarter. While the pdfs were delivered earlier in the year, I waited until I had the physical books in my hand before reading them. So these are my first impressions; I’ve not played it yet.

Good Society is a Jane Austen roleplaying game. It has a modern-day approach focussed on telling Jane Austen-like stories. While it can be hacked (and there’s a volume of variations, Expanded Acquaintance, which I’ve yet to read), if you’re using Good Society to run an investigative horror game, you are doing it wrong. (And that’s not something I like to say.)

As I’m a fan of Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility and (to a lesser extent) Emma, Good Society was pushing on an open door.

Physically

Physically, Good Society is a 6x9 hardback with pleasing layout and art. There’s lots of white space, giving the text plenty of room to breathe. The writing is engaging and easy to read—at first glance the game looks fiddly, but everything is explained clearly and I feel like I’m in safe hands.

I found the font a little small and I need good light to read it by—particularly the green flavour text where the contrast is reduced. (As I get older, this is a more common complaint and one of the benefits of pdfs.) It’s a shame the font couldn’t have been a touch larger—the margins are wide, and I’m sure a larger font could have been accommodated without additional pages.

Good Society also comes with a deck of cards (desires, relationships and minor characters) plus pdfs for character roles (kind of like playbooks), family background, connections and public information.

Characters

Characters are created as a group. Each player controls a major character with a:

• Desire—what they want (to marry, to get revenge, to deal with a scandal)
• Relationship—to other characters (siblings, secret betrothals, rivals)
• Role sheet—who they are (heir, socialite, dowager)
• Family—how they were brought up (old money, new money, foreign)

Good Society is set up so that the characters’ differing desires create conflict and drama. Desires and relationships are provided as cards, and Good Society collects them into playsets to suit different styles of game.

A Jane Austen character needs more than just major characters—it also has a cast of minor characters. Therefore, each player also creates two minor characters. Minor characters are played by the facilitator (if there is one) or by other players.

One thing missing from character generation is any sense of numbers. Thankfully there are no skills or attributes—there aren’t even any dice. Which brings me to system.

System

Good Society is one of these new-fangled games without dice, attributes, or skills. Characters can do whatever they like, given they are characters in a Jane Austen novel. There are no scenarios or adventures—instead, the players create conflict (and the story) by advancing their characters’ desires.

Mechanically, Good Society uses two types of tokens: resolve tokens and monologue tokens.

Resolve tokens shape the story in significant ways—they feel a bit like Fate tokens (for compels or using them to state a fact—not for adding +2 or re-rolling the dice). Although as I said, I have yet to play Good Society and they may feel different in play.

Monologue tokens are played on other players to force them to reveal their character’s inner thoughts in a monologue. (Not so you can use that knowledge, but simply because it suits the genre.) I’m looking forward to trying monologue tokens.

The strangest element of Good Society’s system is the phases of play. Good Society takes place over 3-8 cycles of play (decide how many cycles to play before you start). A cycle includes:

• Novel chapter: actual roleplaying, typically based around an event or a visitation.
• Reputation: assess characters’ reputation and assign tags.
• Rumour and scandal: Creating and spreading rumours.
• Epistolatory: Writing a letter. (You don’t actually write a letter, just describe who you are writing to and what the letter contains. I guess you could write a letter if you wanted to.)
• Novel chapter: Another bit of roleplaying.
• Reputation: assess characters’ reputation again.
• Rumour and scandal: More rumours.
• Epistolatory: Another letter.
• Upkeep: Refreshing tokens, and so on.

Each cycle should take 2-3.5 hours of play, so about a session’s worth. From an old-school roleplaying perspective, these cycles of play look very strange. But the bulk of time appears to be spent in the novel chapters, which is roleplaying as we know it.

Five things I like

In no particular order:

• Good Society is well-written and presented. Although I’ve not played it yet, everything is explained clearly and I don’t think I will struggle with it.
• I like the monologue tokens—I’ve played in a Shakespearean larp that had done something similar, but I’ve not used it in a tabletop game.
• I like stories driven by the characters’ desires. (That’s very like Lady Blackbird and freeform larps.)
• Characters are created collaboratively as a group. As a result, character creation looks like it will be fun.
• Good Society can be played without a facilitator, which I am looking forward to trying (once I’ve got a few GM-ed games under my belt). I want to play too!

And one thing I don’t

One jarring note in Good Society occurs exactly three times (four if you count the index): the game is set in the fictional town of Habershire. Which would be fine, except that a name ending in -shire is an English county, not a town. It seems an odd mistake for a team that clearly love Jane Austen.

Overall

Good Society is full of intriguing ingredients (cycles of play, resolve and monologue tokens, desires, major and minor characters, cards, playsheets). It’s hard to judge what play will be like (possibly harder than most RPGs), but I suspect it makes for a satisfying game. I hope to find out sometime in 2022.

Further viewing

While on the subject of Jane Austen (not something I normally talk about on this blog), may I also recommend Bridgerton and Belgravia, which are Austen-adjacent and cover many of the same themes. I’ve only seen the TV shows, but there are novels for each.

Then there is the wonderful Lost in Austen, my favourite time-travel story in which our modern-day heroine swaps places with Pride and Prejudice’s Elizabeth and the story is never the same again.

2024 update: I've now played it! Click here to see what I thought.

My writing is getting worse. And better. (Grammarly, PerfectIt and WordRake.)

Grammarly, PerfectIt and WordRake are add-on writing aids for Microsoft Word. They do slightly different things, which is why I haven’t been able to give up any of them. We’ll take them in the order I used them.

As with any writing aid, take their suggestions with a pinch of salt. Even though I don’t always accept their recommendations, they always make me stop and think.

I’m not sure how valuable they are for fiction writers. However, I write games and clearly expressing myself is essential, so I find these tools help.

PerfectIt

PerfectIt is proofreading software, and essentially it does lots of checks on your text to ensure consistency.

Spotting different version of cooperate/co-operate

So it does things like check that your bullet points and tables are consistent and that you’ve spelt words consistently (learned/learnt, co-operate/cooperate). I first used it when I was a bid manager in Jacobs, and it was invaluable in checking that our text was consistent and professional before submission.

Perfectit has loads of checks. For example, it picks up where you’ve used an acronym but not explained it, and also where you’ve explained an acronym but then haven’t used it again.

I now use it mainly for my Freeform Games work, and I find it catches easy-to-miss errors that would take me an age to catch.

WordRake

WordRake checks your work for clarity, removes redundant words, and tightens everything up. In addition, I found it draws attention to phrases I tend to overuse—in my case I use ‘a bit’ too often.

Always check each suggestion

WordRake is great at eliminating unnecessary words, making my writing shorter and punchier.

Grammarly

Grammarly is the editor everyone has heard of, and it’s pretty good. It picks up a wide range of grammar issues and makes them easy to correct. (It also picks up consistency issues but isn’t as thorough as PerfectIt.)

Grammarly makes it easy to make changes - just click the button

Grammarly has a free version, with basic spelling and grammar checks. But the paid version is better. I used the free version for about a week before trying the full version—and I haven’t regretted it.

However, I wish Grammarly used the document language when checking for spelling. I’ve set Grammarly for UK English, but we prepare our games for a US audience for Freeform Games. So Grammarly suggests changing color, recognize and so on. It’s a little annoying.

My workflow

My writing/editing workflow is now:

1. Write/edit the text.
2. Run Wordrake to tighten it up and remove unnecessary words.
3. Run Grammarly to sort out other issues.
4. Run PerfectIt to check consistency.
5. Read through it again to make sure I’ve not missed anything.

(And then 6, publish/submit it, followed by 7, spot another obvious error.)

You can’t proofread your own work

The best thing about these tools is that they catch lots of small errors I miss when proofreading my own work. They don’t catch everything, but they’re pretty good.

The worst thing is that I’ve grown used to having these tools to hand, making me sloppy. They don’t stop me from making mistakes, but they make it more likely that I don’t spot them.

Mistakes still slip through, so they’re no replacement for another pair of eyes.

If I only had one

I would pick Grammarly. While I continue to write and edit professionally, I’m happy to use all three. But if I was on a budget, I’d keep Grammarly.

Revised NPC stat blocks for ALIEN

As I found with Liminal, I am finding myself frustrated with standard stat blocks. This time, it’s Destroyer of Worlds, for Alien. 

Very minor spoilers ahead.

Ambush

So, one of the encounters in Act 1 is an ambush by a named NPC and five insurgents. However, Destroyer of Worlds, and Alien, make it hard work. Here’s how it currently works:

Page 54 lists the Ambush event—the insurgents try to take the PCs prisoners. There’s no mention of their stats or weapons or what their tactics are.

Page 17 lists the named NPC. (I'm going to ignore him for the remainder of this post, and concentrate on the faceless insurgents. Although the wider point applies.)

Page 19 lists stats for all the minor NPCs, including the insurgents. There we find this:

Page 84 lists the AK-4047 stats:

The M4A3 service pistol, meanwhile, isn’t listed in the Destroyer of Worlds book (it’s in the main rules), although you can get the information you need from the PC character sheets:

So, time for a quick quiz.

How many dice does an insurgent roll if they are attacking with their AK-4047 at medium range?

Ummmm…

I really don’t want to be flipping between pages just to find out how many dice I am rolling.

Better stat blocks

First problem is the stat block.

Even for key NPCs (as the one directly above), the stat block is hard to use.  That’s fine for everyone who knows that Command is a Wits skill (or is it Empathy)? But it would be much clearer if they laid it out like this:

Strength 4: Close Combat 1, Heavy Machinery, Stamina 1
Agility 5: Ranged Combat 5, Mobility 1, Piloting
Wits 4: Observation 4, Survival 1, Comtech
Empathy 1: Command 1, Manipulation, Medical Aid

That way I can immediately see that for Command, I’m rolling 2 dice. (10 for Ranged Combat!)

Would that be so hard? It takes up a bit more space, but it’s MUCH more usable.

Insurgents on Trello

But even that’s not quite what I’m looking for. This is a combat encounter so I need to know how many dice they are rolling. I’ve therefore rewritten the stat block to make it easier for me to use in play.

I’m using Trello to manage the game, and I’ve created a card for the insurgents that looks like this:

(The card will also include the named NPC stats as well.)

This tells me:

• The dice they’re rolling—all I need to think about are range and aiming modifiers.
• Space to track each insurgent’s health.
• Their tactics—they are trying to capture the PCs so they try to get them to drop their weapons first. I like to think about these ahead of time rather than figure out something sensible in the middle of play (when I am busy).
• Their reactions when they start losing—they will flee rather than fight to the death.

And if I need their skills, then they’re at the bottom; out of the way, but there if I need them.

Curse of knowledge

My instinct is that the designers are suffering from the curse of knowledge. They are intimately familiar with how the game works, but they’ve forgotten how to think like a newcomer. 

Unless you’re fully familiar with Alien (and I suspect most of us play Alien between other games), the current stat blocks are confusing and require endless cross-referencing and looking up of tables.

A plea

I don’t suppose that Free League will change their stat blocks, but if I ever write an adventure or encounter for Alien, I'll make it as easy to run as possible.

First impressions: Traveller Explorer’s Edition

Mongoose has just released their Traveller core rules in a 75p 74-page “explorer’s edition”.

This contains:

• Character creation—scouts and scientists only
• Skills and tasks
• Combat
• Encounters and dangers
• Equipment
• Spacecraft operations
• Space combat
• Common spacecraft (a Scout/Courier with deckplans)
• World creation

So that’s very like the original little black books I started my roleplaying journey with, way back in 1981.

I picked it up because I’m thinking about running Traveller next year, and I wanted to see what the latest rules look like. Although I wrote about Secrets of the Ancients a few years ago, I haven’t played Traveller since the mid 90s, and I haven’t run Traveller since the early 80s. (And when I read Secrets of the Ancients, I ignored all the actual stats.)

Initial impressions

Traveller Explorer’s Edition feels very like the original Traveller. The system is still 2D6 with a target (usually) of 8. Character generation is still a mini-game (and there’s still a survival roll, but you don’t die). The weapons still include cutlasses, autorifles and backpack-powered laser rifles. Starship combat has been improved (thankfully), but everything else feels very familiar.

I like the clean layout. Two columns, lots of white space, clean illustrations, ragged-right text. It’s really nice to read, which is a very pleasant change compared to some recent games.

The skill list brings back many memories—it doesn’t look that different from what I remember. New to me are skill specialisations (so Pilot is subdivided into Small Craft, Spacecraft and Capital Ships) and level-0 skills (basic awareness).

Character generation is slightly more involved than I remember, and includes events. I tried it, taking the risky route of Scholar (Field Researcher specialising in archaeology). In my first term I was betrayed and gained a rival; in my second term I was put on some advanced training (but didn’t gain a skill—I must have flunked the exams). During my third term I was severely injured during a disaster, forced to leave and gained another rival.

Traveller Explorer’s Edition doesn’t include a character sheet and I don’t know if Traveller still uses the old 6-figure “UPP” (Secrets of the Ancients doesn’t), but in old money my character would be:

7B74A8 Science (Archaeology 2), Investigate 1, Medic 0, Diplomant 0, Electronics 0, Driver 0, Streetwise 0, Medic 0, Flyer 0, Admin 0. Cr 10,000. Age 30.

I have no idea if this is a good character or not. It feels light as they have only three actual skills. However, if I was doing this as part of session 0 I would have more skills—I could have two free skills from the Connections Rule, plus some from the “Skills Package” (Astrogation 1, Electronics 1, Gun Combat 1, Medic 1, Pilot 1, Recon 1, Stealth 1, Survival 1) which I assume is there to make the group more playable as whole.

On the other hand, my character already has an interesting backstory with a mishap and two rivals.

However, there’s no advice on creating GM characters. I don’t want to go through that rigmarole for every minor NPC that the PCs encounter, so I hope the main rules include guidance for generating simple NPCs on the fly.

It also feels weird to create a character with no idea of how they will turn out. That’s very different from all the games I’ve been playing lately, where players choose the attributes, skills and abilities their characters get. (Unless they’re playing pregens, of course.)

I haven’t tried spaceship combat or generating a world. Yet.

Overall?

So overall, I’m impressed. There’s enough here for me to run a game of Traveller (although I will get the core rulebook), and it makes it even more likely that I will run Traveller in the near future.

What's next?

With The Dee Sanction wrapped up, it’s time for something else. My current plans:

Fate of Cthulhu

Cthulhu has arisen—can our heroes travel back through time to avert catastrophe? This will be my first experience with Fate Condensed—I usually use Fate Accelerated. I’ve picked the Cthulhu timeline because, in all my years playing Call of Cthulhu, Cthulhu itself has never featured. Time for that to change.

I’m not sure when this will start as Jon is running a delightful London-based Cthulhu Deep Green investigation at the moment.

ALIEN: Destroyer of Worlds

For the Monday night crew, I will run Destroyer of Worlds. I ran Chariot of the Gods for them back in the early summer. Destroyer of Worlds is Aliens to Chariot of the Gods’ Alien. I need to practice running combat in the Alien universe. I’m finding Destroyer of Worlds a bit frustrating—Free League haven’t made this easy to GM.

We’re currently being Greek heroes in Agon at the moment on Mondays. I’m not sure if Destroyer of Worlds will follow that in January, or whether we will play something else first.

One-shots

I may have the opportunity to run a few one-shots, and I have these ready to go.

• Monster of the Week: I’ve made a couple of changes to The Seeds of Doom and want to rerun it. Possibly with my nephews over Christmas.
• The Aurors: Hunting dark wizards in the world of Harry Potter. I’ve submitted this to run at Airecon (Covid permitting).
• Kingdom, Fiasco, Follow: I’d like to play more of these, as I feel I haven’t quite got the hang of them fully yet. At the moment, we use them to fill in gaps between other games or when we know a player can’t make it.

And further out

These are further on the horizon.

Traveller: I am very tempted by the new edition of Secrets of the Ancients. I’ve written about it before, but I didn’t run it. The new edition looks very nice, but I haven’t run Traveller since the dawn of roleplaying.

Hillfolk: I’ve had this since the 2012 Kickstarter but have never got it to the table. Wow, that’s nearly ten years. I played it once, at Furnace.

Urban Shadows: I backed the 2020 Kickstarter. It’s still in production, and I hope to try it with the Monday night crew. I’ve had mixed success with PbtA games, but I’m hoping this will work for me.

Good Society: Another Kickstarter, and one that landed in my doormat in October. I have too much on my plate now, but I know that some of the Monday night players are keen to try this. I’m not sure how well it works online—it uses cards. I need to figure that out.

Other London: Before too long, I’d like to return to Other London, my modern urban horror game. I started planning an investigation some time ago, and it’s time I returned to it.

The Dee Sanction - review

I've spent the last few posts talking about my campaign for The Dee Sanction. But I haven't reviewed the RPG itself, so here goes.

TL;DR—lovely setting, but I'm not sold on the system.

High Concept

In The Dee Sanction, the player characters are Agents of Dee, practitioners of magic rescued from execution by John Dee and working for his secret organisation to avert supernatural and magical threats. You could think of The Dee Sanction as an Elizabethan version of BPRD or the Laundry, but with the weirdness toned down. What separates The Dee Sanction from Call of Cthulhu, Liminal, The Laundry and similar RPGs is its setting: Elizabethan England.

Physically

Physically, The Dee Sanction is an A5 68 page, perfect-bound book with a colour cover. The internal layout is (generally) two columns in a small but clear font, with occasional black and white artwork. The paper is matt white, and despite the small font, the high contrast means it is easy to read—even with my crappy eyes.

I'm delighted that The Dee Sanction is so condense. As I've said elsewhere, I find most RPGs extremely overwritten with too many words, and that's not a criticism I can level here.

As an 80s fanzine contributor, I have a soft spot for A5 booklets with black and white art. The Dee Sanction presses a lot of my buttons. It feels like a fanzine with 21st-century production values. The occasional artwork is nicely atmospheric, adding to its feel.

I find it interesting to compare The Dee Sanction with Liminal, another recent British roleplaying game. While Liminal has an upmarket glossy feel and gorgeous artwork, some layout decisions (long paragraph lines, low contrast between text and background) meant I found it harder to read than The Dee Sanction's simple elegance.

That's not to say The Dee Sanction's layout is perfect. In particular:

• Too many terms are in bold, including Die/Dice, Agent, Player and GM. Unfortunately, that means some pages look like they have measles, making it hard to find the terms I needed.
• The bullet point font is often (not always) different from the main font, which to my eyes looks wrong.
• Page 45 is a single column of text. I found it harder to read than other pages, confirming that the two-column approach was the right choice. (I'm guessing page 45 was an error.)

Agents of Dee

Character generation first requires choosing your attributes (which The Dee Sanction calls 'resources')—Physicall, Intellectuall, Supernaturall. Then you select an occupation, a damning association (a secret society or organisation), a focus (an occult tome), and your slight magical power (or 'favour of the angels'). These are all rolled on tables filled with evocative descriptions—the tables in The Dee Sanction are a definite highlight. You then choose abilities and round off your character with some belongings and a name.

One omission from character generation—there's nothing about the characters' crimes and backstory, nor questions to bond them with other characters. For example: 

• Who introduced you to your damning association?
• How did your focus help you learn your magic?
• What were you doing when you were arrested?
• Who betrayed you?
• What impressed you about the other agents when you first met them?
• How do you practice your magic?

I did that anyway, but I was surprised not to see it in the book.

The PCs feel different to your usual RPG hero. They are commoners whose lives have been touched by magic and drawn into Dee's organisation. They aren't heroes, but ordinary folk undertaking hazardous missions.

Here's a character I created for our game.

Friar Philip Dickinson of Totness

Portrait from the wonderful
artflow.ai

Philip had just become a monk when the monasteries were dissolved. He fell in with the Goodly Servants of Light (his damning association), who introduced him to the Problemata (his focus).

Intellectuall: d6, Physicall: d4, Supernaturall: d8

Abilities: Architecture, mechanics, quote and verse

Damning association: Goodly Servants of Light (belief in the prophetic focus served in the construction and scrutiny of monuments to channel the wisdom of the Almighty).

Favours of the Angels: Flurry (cloak, smother, blind)

Stuff: Verse for a gloomy part-song, bracelet, shovel

Mannerisms: It's always better to music... (Dickinson plays the crumhorn)

Setting

Setting an occult investigation game in Elizabethan England is genius. And although there's much detail in the game itself, simply imagining an Elizabethan occult spy game is pretty much all I needed. That, plus a bit of Elizabethan period detail (taken from Shakespeare in Love, Elizabeth, or even Blackadder) was enough for me to run a game of The Dee Sanction.

And there's plenty to draw from—this is the time of Shakespeare, the Spanish armada, the gunpowder plot, catholic conspiracies and so on. (Wikipedia is a great help.)

I found a couple of off-notes, though.

• I found comparing Mr Garland to Al from Quantum Leap or Rimmer from Red Dwarf to be jarring in tone. I played Mr Garland as sinister and mysterious, appearing with a sulphurous smell.
• It's not clear how Dee organises his agents. Does he have many? Or are the PCs on their own?
• I abandoned the Black Seal amulets as they felt too much like magical mobile phones. I prefer to isolate my PCs and make it challenging to contact Dee.

But overall, The Dee Sanction's setting is delightful.

System

The heart of The Dee Sanction's system is rolling a die depending on your attribute (er, I mean resource). So, for a mental challenge, roll Intellectuall. If you roll a 1 or 2, you fail. Otherwise, you succeed. The die you roll depends on the level of that resource—anything from a d4 (50% success) to a d12 (83% success). If the challenge is easy or tricky, you can 'step up or down' the die accordingly.

(I ended up using a more graduated scale, as I described in this post.)

I was surprised at how competent this makes the Agents: an average PC (d6 in everything) succeeds 66% of the time (assuming no stepping up or down). In my game, this occasionally gave the players a sense of security in their rolls that jarred with my mental image of 'ordinary folk.'

The Dee Sanction suggests that instead of dice you can also use playing cards. While this is a great idea to make the game more inclusive, it makes the rules fussy. I don't know how many GM's are likely to use playing cards instead of dice, but the game would be clearer with just dice.

Inevitably, combat is the trickiest part of the rules, and unfortunately, it's not explained well. Here's how combat works:

• When an agent attacks, they roll against their Physicall (stepping up or down depending on their adversary's potency). If they succeed, they do 1 hit of damage—providing their adversary doesn't succeed in an armour roll. (Agents rarely have armour.) If they falter, then they roll 1d6 on their adversary's consequence table. That may result in the agent taking damage.
• When a creature attacks, the agent rolls to defend (again using Physicall, and again adjusted by their adversary's potency). If they falter, then roll 1d6+2 on the consequence table (which probably means taking damage). If the defence succeeds, nothing happens. (Unfortunately, enemy attacks are not explained in the combat rules; they are a page later under 'The Nature of the Enemy'.)

Combat is therefore asymmetrical: the players roll both to attack and defend and risk taking damage on both rolls. However, they only do damage on their attack. This isn't as unfair as it sounds—in fact, combat is heavily weighted towards the players as the PCs only falter (fail) on a roll of 1 or 2, and even then, they may not take damage.

Unravelling: Unravelling is The Dee Sanction's version of sanity rules, and is a mixture of immediate reactions and ongoing effects. It's simple and evocative.

Lost in Translation

Lost in Translation is the scenario that comes with the rules. It's a solid investigation set on a Polish farm cursed by the fae. The atmosphere is dismal and bleak, there are no happy endings here.

The investigation is solid, but it could just as easily be for Liminal or Cthulhu Dark. The Polish setting was a surprise—I would rather have seen something set in London, or even just rural England.

While my players loved the bleak setting, I was disappointed by Lost in Translation. It doesn't reflect The Dee Sanctuary's 'covert Enochian intelligence' tagline, and it didn't show off the system. We made very few dice rolls, and combat only occurred when the players dragged Slavomir from his farm. (They decided not to engage the main villains of the scenario, which was wise but somewhat unsatisfactory.)

Lost in Translation took us between three and four hours, so it is a good length for a convention, but I wished it showcased more of what The Dee Sanction is really about.

The mystery of tradecraft

Unfortunately, Lost in Translation does not elaborate on what I found to be the most mysterious element of The Dee Sanction: tradecraft. Tradecraft is a pool of resources from which all the PCs can draw. It comes in several categories: access, conspiracy, kit, magic, system, vigilance. At the start of each adventure or mission, the PCs choose one tradecraft, which lasts for the entire adventure.

So far, so good. But you need the correct tradecraft tag to defeat strong monsters. As powerful creatures have several tradecraft tags, it will take several missions to deal with them.

Unfortunately, I struggled to make sense of choosing the right tradecraft at the start of the mission to defeat the monster. That's different from other games where the clues to destroy the monster are seeded within the scenario, and I couldn't understand how that works in play. 

I ignored tradecraft in my short campaign (and I note most of the published scenarios so far don't use it).

Version 0.9

The Dee Sanction feels like it needed another round of proofreading and editing. For example:

• The rules for taking a chance (p.13) are in character generation rather than the system section.
• It isn't clear how best to use the names table on p.62. It uses a range of 2-24, which suggests 2d12. That gives you a bell curve around Ralph/Allen/Dorothy/Fortune—but John and Elizabeth are at the extremes.
• Lost in Translation could be clearer—for example, at two points, their angelic guide is described as a compass when it isn't described as such when it is first introduced. I worked out what compass meant, but I had to read it twice. Also, the map isn't as good as other illustrations—an annotated pen and ink sketch would be clearer and more in keeping with the rest of the book.

Summing up

The best things about The Dee Sanctuary are its setting and character generation. The system is fine, but agents seem too competent to be ordinary folk.

Despite its faults, The Dee Sanctuary formed the basis of one of the most memorable campaigns I have ever run, and I have a lot to thank it for.

The Dee Sanction #4: Campaign climax

This is the final part of my short campaign for The Dee Sanction. Part 1, part 2, part 3.

Jon is playing Margaret Chatwyn, temple clerk, and Terry is playing gardener Samuel Hodgeson. We are using Trello as our virtual tabletop.

Session #11: On the road

Hah! Players! 

I spent all week thinking about what was going on at Kenilworth, but Jon and Terry decided to intercept Abaddon instead.

Terry remembered that in their first adventure, Lost in Translation, Dee provided a mysterious compass to track the relic. They wanted to know if Dee could provide them with a similar device to track Abaddon with. The PCs had already provided Dee with a blood crab (so the request seemed reasonable) and a successful die roll meant it would be ready in a day’s time.

(The device was delightfully macabre—a bull’s eye suspended in liquid, always looking toward Abaddon.)

They tracked the crate to an inn in Bishop’s Itchington, accompanied by five people (two they haven’t seen, and three guards). The Agents got friendly with the guards, incapacitated them, and snuck off into the night with the wagon and Abaddon (in a box). And just as we closed for the night, the Agents heard ‘help me’ from inside the box…

Now, however, I need to decide two things:

• What does Abaddon want? (As the Agents will probably want to open the crate.)
• How does the School of Night react to the disappearance of their wagon?

Session #12: Demon in a box

Before the next session I worked out the answer those questions:

• Abaddon wants revenge on its tormentor (Abiathar Crescas, the Spaniard who controls him) and will then go to ground and prepare for the coming War of Heaven and Hell.
• When they discover their precious box is missing, the two remaining School of Night agents (one of which is Crescas, the Spaniard), race to Kenilworth for reinforcements.

As we approach the game’s climax and the PCs are less likely to veer away in unexpected directions, I have fewer things to think about.

We started the session where we left off last time, but Jon and Terry couldn’t decide what to do. They discussed their options, and I chipped in as Philip as I thought of things they hadn’t considered. They finally headed towards Oxford, travelling at night and hiding during the day.

As they had no means of contacting Dee, Philip rode ahead to London. He had the bull’s eye compass with him, so he could find them if they moved. If he didn’t return in four days, the PCs should start worrying.

After talking to Abaddon and their prisoners, the Agents finally had a clear idea of their enemy’s plan: it’s a Spanish/Catholic plot to use Abaddon to turn Elizabeth into a puppet, then have her step down as queen with Mary Queen of Scots taking her place.

On day two, one prisoner tried to escape. He bested Margaret (Jon), but Samuel (Terry) accidentally killed the prisoner while trying to restrain him.

We ended the session with the PCs slowly working their way back to Oxford, Abaddon still locked in the crate. Will Phil turn up as hoped? What are the School of Night up to?

Session #13: Murder hobo

Well, we ended on a great cliff-hanger, but I didn’t like how we got there.

We started the game a couple of days after the events of session 12. It was getting dark, and the PCs were holed up near a village. About a mile away they heard sounds of riders dismounting and saw Marlowe and six others at the local inn. Marlowe pointed in their direction, and the PCs noticed a captive, and correctly surmised that Marlow captured Philip and used the compass to track them.

As Marlowe and the riders could easily outpace our heroes, they realised they had three choices:

• Flee and let Marlowe recapture Abaddon.
• Release Abaddon, if they can trust it.
• Try and take Marlowe out.

And this was where we went a bit too murder hobo for my liking. I didn’t expect them to take the third option. There were too many opponents, and the PCs were a gardener and a clerk. But that’s what they did.

The PCs planned to attack at night, and things went well at first. They took out three guards and Crescus’ pet monkey, but struggled when Marlowe and reinforcements entered the fray.

We ended with a brilliant cliff-hanger though: Samuel, wounded, fled and left Margaret to be captured by the villains.

It was never a good plan, but I found that The Dee Sanction’s system didn’t help. Combat is weighted towards the players (particularly if you have boosted Physicall to d8) so that even a gardener is more than a match for an armed guard. To me, The Dee Sanction characters aren’t fighting men, and I was a bit cross it seemed to encourage that kind of play.

But anyway, we ended up with a great cliff-hanger, with several options:

• Marlowe now knows that Abaddon isn’t far away. Does he chase Samuel (who has already killed three guards) now, or wait until daylight? (The latter, as I want to give Samuel options.)
• Can Samuel release Abaddon?  (Of course!)

Session #14: Abaddon Unchained

We started with Samuel, who returned to the wagon and bargained with Abaddon. Samuel wanted Abaddon to help deal with Marlowe, but was worried about releasing a demon. In return for release, Abaddon agreed not to kill Protestants. Unfortunately, Samuel forgot the blood crabs, so when Abaddon was freed it put blood crabs onto the two remaining guards, paralysing them.

(Despite Samuel having nothing to back up his agreement with Abaddon, I decided that Abaddon would be honourable. After all, it had been locked up for centuries, and was grateful to this pathetic human. The bargain had enough holes in it for Abaddon, who would ignore it after a while anyway.)

Meanwhile, back at the inn, Marlowe locked Margaret away with Philip.

As Samuel led Abaddon back to the inn, Abaddon’s two puppets (the previous guards), joined them. Then Abaddon entered the inn. The first thing it did was reveal its true form—Samuel did not see its face, but saw black bat wings spring from its back. Samuel made his unravelling roll, but the others weren’t so lucky. (This was the only die roll of the evening.)

Abaddon turned Marlow’s remaining guards into puppets, killed Marlowe, and tortured Crescas to death. While Abaddon was busy, Samuel rescued Margaret and Philip and they fled into the night.

And there we ended.

Back in London, Margaret was worried about Dee’s disapproval, but when Dee learned that they faced a demon (a fallen angel), he was not upset. He knows that angels are powerful.

As for Abaddon, it disappeared and is not heard of again. (Maybe I’ll bring it back in a different game…)

We ended with two lovely end-credit scenes:

• In the first, Samuel and Margaret hear a strange noise behind them, they react—and we cut away.
• In the second, Samuel feeds his pet blood crab…

Overall

After 14 sessions, it’s time for something new. So that’s it for The Dee Sanctuary for the foreseeable future. Next time I’ll post my thoughts on the game itself.

Now that we’ve finished, I’ve written up the adventure (Abaddon’s Puppet) and posted it on my Itch.io page.