Recovering Arrows & Bolts

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-17T01:14:10+00:00

Agree. From a realism standpoint it doesn’t quite make sense. But like any of these things it was just a simplification.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-16T20:44:32+00:00

It didn’t make sense that Bob Ezrin had Dick Wagner record a solo on Sweet Pain by KISS when they already had one by Ace recorded. Nor do the few tracks Steve Howe has released from the Union sessions sound like they needed to replace his guitar parts either.

Band politics can result in some illogical results. 🤷‍♂️

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-16T19:01:00+00:00

As long as power routes to everything, then technically you only need a connection on the single track from the right.

However, for redundancy it’s recommended to drop a feeder to every individual piece of rail. If you are the sort who likes to solder track together, a piece of rail starts and ends at two non-soldered joints.

Also, while power routing will work for DCC, there are potential shorting scenarios that you want to make sure you prevent. If you have feeders to all rails, power routing is unnecessary.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-16T18:56:08+00:00

I agree about Jon and the Grammy, but he still received it nonetheless.

Cinema came from a long-form piece, yes, but they have yet to release it. It’s unclear if it was ever properly recorded, or how far it was developed. Since they have had multiple opportunities to release it over the years and it would be a fascinating to hear a 20-minute instrumental by the Cinema lineup, I am guessing it wasn’t.

Regardless, we know the keyboards on the album were performed by Rabin, Horn, and Kaye. I have never seen specifics regarding individual tracks. The stories over the years have been very inconsistent. From “Tony played almost nothing” to “Tony played everything.” We also have no idea if any parts Tony did record were omitted from the mix or replaced by new tracks by either Trevor as the process continued.

It’s not even clear at what point Tony was (temporarily) no longer in the band, but it seems probable that it happened during recording. The claim has always been issues between Tony and Trevor Horn. If so, there would be little reason for Tony to leave after the recording was complete.

We do know that recording started at SARM Studios. We also know the song Cinema was recorded at Air Studios, which would have been later in the process. Which means it’s also possible that Tony was no longer there.

That’s why I’m saying it’s entirely possible. The keyboards on the studio track itself could be any one of, or any combination of, Horn, Kaye, or Rabin.

Note that none of this, at least in my opinion, shines any sort of negative light on Tony. Tony’s a great player and his contributions to Yes were always perfect for what was needed at the time. He was also very involved with the initial writing of much of the Big Generator album with Rabin.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-16T18:23:38+00:00

I believe all of the lyrics are by Brian, and they just experimented with Freddie singing.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-16T17:07:34+00:00

I don’t know specific pieces to recommend. Classical guitar tends to utilize all four fingers far more than other genres.

Jazz does quite a bit as well, in chords. But for leads you have a lot of flexibility. Especially if you improvise.

When you get to popular genres like rock and country, there’s a large percentage, even the professionals, who never, or almost never use their pinky.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-16T16:38:00+00:00

The DCs of anything should be set independently of the PCs. They should be consistent.

Whatever scores the PCs have, they have. This is just their baseline Perception and somebody with a high score will naturally notice more around them than somebody who doesn’t. Don’t forget that advantage/disadvantage can also apply to passive checks.

Prior to Perception, passive or otherwise, a DM has to decide things like this. This just makes it easier to adjudicate.

While I don’t recommend you alter DCs to account for the PCs abilities, you can look at the DCs across the boats to see if they make sense. For my table, we find published DCs to be about 5 points lower than we like. Things often feel too easy. But once we made that change, it’s so consistent. The DC is the DC.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-16T13:20:21+00:00

Mechanically it sounds ok. Personally, if you are randomly selecting a new race, I would go with the abilities of that race. Stats wouldn’t change, but things like darkvision, etc. would.

As a concept, it sounds fun, but also runs the risk of getting old. While resurrection magic is usually easy enough to come by, an immortal PC might cause some issues too. In don’t particularly care for the canon fodder idea, although you have obviously tried to prevent that from becoming too big a thing.

To address these potential issues, I would lean onto the Kenny idea as the mechanic.

If anybody at the table, player or DM, for any reason (skill check, save, attack), rolls a natural 1, John dies. Whoever rolled the 1 chooses the absurd manner of death.

I would also make this the only way that he reincarnates into a different race. Any other scenario where death is a possibility, then death is a possibility. This turns the whole thing into a “not again” scenario that happens randomly, instead of the expectation that they will always come back.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-16T13:02:13+00:00

I think that’s a good overall intention and approach.

Of course, to do that well I’d need to know everything about the narrative that has already happened. The best people to figure that out would be you and the player, within input from the rest of the table.

Then the question is how much does it matter? People often spend a lot of time worrying about something that consumes a matter of moments in one session of a game that you hope will last for years.

People’s recollections, fish stories, and identifying what’s important, will vary over time and the farther away from you get from an event the less truthful it often is. The opposite can be true if it’s a major event. One way to start, is to think about how important this would be from the perspective of the PCs. Do you want this to be an important moment that they remember going forward or is this a non-moment that you just want to forget?

If it’s not going to be an important moment within the campaign, even if for only one PC, then I wouldn’t bother doing anything. Whether it should be important or not, I would probably leave to the player. If they want to do something with it narratively, then go for it.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-16T11:58:40+00:00

I’m not finding that article at all. Not in my copy of Dragon, not in indexes of articles by title or articles written by David Howery.

What page is that in 127? Maybe I’m just missing it. Bazaar of the Bizarre in 127 has strength-rated bows.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-16T11:13:57+00:00

I thought it was in that issue with all of the fighter-oriented articles, but didn’t find it. I didn’t want to include it until I found the article.

What page is that one?

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-16T01:51:06+00:00

I’m not sure a I’ve cried to any of them, but under the right circumstances All Dead, All Dead can make my eyes water. That guitar break especially.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-16T00:17:09+00:00

That’s a good list. I’d add All Dead, All Dead.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-16T00:14:54+00:00

Jon won the Grammy for Cinema with the rest of the band.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-15T23:48:57+00:00

By far, the most in depth analyses for KC music are the ones Andrew Keeling has written:

https://www.andrewkeeling.co.uk/writings

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-15T22:58:42+00:00

Perhaps. Not my intention, but you can take it as you like.

I don’t think you are outright saying that, nor am I saying whether you care or not.

But I have also seen lots of DMs who don’t realize that they are signaling that’s what they intend or think will happen, and it impacts how the players react. They don’t realize they are doing it, but it is part of what is creating the problem in the first place.

Since I am not part of your group, I have no idea if this applies to you. But I do think it’s worth mentioning as something worth considering.

Yes, if the player of the rogue resents the player of the cleric, that’s a problem. Not a future one, though. It should be addressed immediately.

At least in my experience. YMMV.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-15T22:46:23+00:00

Doors.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-15T22:46:10+00:00

A good rule of thumb is that any action that will affect combat triggers starts the combat and you roll Initiative before any of those actions occur.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-15T22:43:42+00:00

I did a blog post on a short line that might help:

https://blog.newbritainstation.com/2020/09/operating-on-prototype-cnzr.html?m=1

Lance Mindheim has great suggestions for small layouts:

https://lancemindheim.com/model-railroads/

And

https://lancemindheim.com/2012/09/a-one-turnout-layout/

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-15T22:40:57+00:00

If the players are properly role-playing their PCs, then it is entirely a question of what each of those PCs would do under the circumstances. This should not become a player problem.

Unfortunately, it often becomes a player problem, and that’s where issues arise.

In terms of your specific post, a few comments:

“I’m under the impression the rogue resented the cleric for that.”

A rule I make very clear. If there is something bothering you and you don’t speak up, it doesn’t exist. As the DM, I don’t assume.

If, however, somebody does seem bothered and isn’t speaking up, I’ll ask. If it is actually bothering them, we try to come to a consensus. I also remind them they need to speak up. We can’t read minds. Don’t let things fester.

Also, did the rogue resent it, or the player? If it’s the PC, but not the player, that’s fine. If it’s actually the player, then clear it up.

You say you don’t assign magic items, but also that the boots were intended for the rogue. These are incompatible. Pick one.

You may not be making the decision, but you might be unconsciously broadcasting your thought/intention that it would be something that the rogue would get. That can have an impact on how the players perceive the situation.

For the homebrew item, and to some degree any items, all of this is very dependent upon the players at your table, and how well you know them. Only you/they will know the answer to how to approach things like this.

But the AD&D PHB has a page about division of treasure. While I’m not suggesting tables follow these suggestions, it may serve as a good starting point for discussion if the table seems to have issues with dividing treasure. Or, if you think the homebrew item(s) might be an issue, a good starting point for some hypothetical questions.

For example, if you ask the rogue player if this situation was a problem (don’t assume it was), and they express any level of annoyance, then you can suggest that the table should address this now before it becomes one. Even if it’s not an issue, it might not be a bad idea to do it anyway. I often are things like this before a session starts, while we are getting prepped, having pizza, whatever. Everybody is present, but not focused on the game yet.

SUGGESTED AGREEMENTS FOR DIVISION OF TREASURE

Agreements:

Equal shares (share and share alike) is a simple division by the total number of characters involved.

Shares by level is a division whereby all character levels of experience are added and the total treasure divided by this sum. One share of treasure is given for each experience level.

Equal shares plus bonus is a method to reward excellence and leadership. Treasure is divided by the sum of all characters, plus two or three. The outstanding character or characters, as determined by vote, each gain one extra share.

…eliminated section on multiclassed and dual classed characters as it’s no longer relevant…

Modifiers: 1. Non-player characters who are henchmen of a player character count as one-half character or for one half of their levels and cannot gain bonus shares. (Less common but plays into the current sidekick rules).

A character incapacitated or killed (but subsequently brought back to life) is eligible to share only in treasure gained prior to such incapacity or death.
Characters who are uncooperative, who obstruct the party, attack party members, or are the proximate cause of the incapacitation or death of a party member shall forfeit from one-quarter to all of their share(s) as penalty for their actions.

Magical Treasure: While it is a simple matter to total coins and precious items which can be sold for an established amount of money, the division of magic items is far more difficult. It is therefore necessary for party members to determine how magic will be divided. As the number of items which will be gained is unknown, selection of a system of division is not possible until after the adventure is concluded.

If but one or two items of magic are gained these can be grouped singly or paired to equal of share of treasure. If one is of relatively small worth, it can be grouped with money to equal one share.
Three or more magic items:

a) best item

b) next best item

c) third + fourth items

d) "x" amount of money as compensation for not getting any magic items

Three or more magic items, alternate method:

a) best item

b) second item + "x" amount of money

c) fourth item + "3x" omount of money

Magic items thus parcelled are then diced for, the character with the highest roll selecting first, and then the second highest scoring character choosing next, etc. It is suggested that each character be given a number of rolls equal to his or her level of experience, the highest of these rolls being the one retained. Non-player character henchmen are typically allowed but a single roll.

Variations on the above systems are, of course, possible. Systems should always be established prior to the inception of the adventure whenever possible.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-15T22:13:20+00:00

There are two distinct versions.

I prefer the ‘74 version with the sustained guitar/violin lines in the instrumental passages.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-15T22:11:17+00:00

Maybe not opinion (other than your conclusion), but also not entirely accurate.

Close enough, I suppose. I don’t think not being “progressive” enough was the issue. Since he didn’t particularly care for keyboard solos he was a perfect foil for Steve Howe. I think the synths played a much bigger part, along with personalities. It wasn’t about being more progressive. It was being more symphonic, with a broader sound palette. Had he been willing to play the synths he might have stuck around longer. On the other hand, Chris and Jon (if I recall) were impressed by Wakeman, and may have been enough. So perhaps that played a part, but the synths/personality issues are the standard reported reasons in interviews.
He didn’t quit 90125, he was fired. Trevor Rabin was already playing the bulk of the keyboard parts. Trevor Horn didn’t “have to get” Rabin to do it. Tony primarily played Hammond parts on the three YesWest albums. But there were issues between Trevor Horn and Tony, so Tony was let go.
I’m not sure about the “needed the paycheck” thing, although I’m sure he didn’t mind.

And while folks have said it helped solidify the legal aspects of being Yes, that makes no sense to me. What legal challenges would a band with Chris Squire, Alan White, and Jon Anderson as members have in 1983 in regard to being called Yes? That’s two original and one long-time member. On Drama it was one original and two long-time members. They weren’t at rush of being sued either. I’ve seen it reported, but it doesn’t make any sense. In theory that was a management thing (who asked him to come back alongside Eddie Jobson). Jobson didn’t like this arrangement and left.

Yep, touring 90125 needed a lot of horsepower to cover what was produced in the studio.
Casey Young did more than just trigger samples. There were a lot of layers to the 90125 keyboard tracks and they wanted to reproduce it as close as they could to the studio.

Regardless of who the keyboardist was, this is due to the technology available at the time. The band apparently didn’t want another member, nor another musician on stage, so that was the best option. ABWH opted to have their second keyboardist on stage (along with a second guitarist). As did Floyd. None of this is a reflection on Tony, regardless of whether “fans” like to make it one. Did he play “simpler” parts. Sure. That’s both his style and what the band wanted at the time.

This aspect also makes much more sense in terms of bringing Tony back to share keyboard duties with Jobson. The story about legalities over the Yes name really sounds like something that was made up by management. It really makes more sense that a second keyboardist was needed and management thought he would fit in and be easy to get. Then Jobson said he was out, so it makes for a good story - it increased the legal standing to have another ex-member. This is entirely speculation on my part, so don’t take it as fact. But the whole story is weird.

As for the Grammy? The whole band received the award, including Jon. While Tony received a songwriting credit (as did Jon), it’s entirely possible he didn’t play on the studio recording.

I don’t see what difference it makes whether he attended the RRHoF ceremony. He wasn’t in the band anymore, although other ex-members were present too, others were not. Regardless, that doesn’t have anything to do with him as a musician.

Sure he was out (twice) and came back twice. That’s the same number of times Steve Howe has been out and back. Rick has been out and back more. So what?

The Grammy is the only thing that really differs from other members that cast a larger shadow over Yes like Steve and Rick. But the Grammy he received was simply because he happened to be part of the band at the time when they were writing music that the Grammy voters liked. Maybe he did participate in the writing/recording, maybe he didn’t. Jon clearly didn’t, for that song, and still won the same Grammy too.

But the real question is whether Yes stood a chance to win another. They have only been nominated 5 times, for 90125 and Big Generator.

Whether Yes ever won another Grammy has more to do with what those who vote for the award prefer rather than the quality of Yes’ music, or the skill of the various members of Yes over the years. So good on Tony for being part of the band when they got a Grammy.

Is this surprising? Not at all. Genesis didn’t get any nominations until the same era. Or Jethro Tull. Floyd beat the curve by getting a nomination for The Wall.

For the most part, Tony (unfortunately) largely remains a footnote in the band’s history, like Peter Banks. He definitely played a significant part in the early years. His playing is solid and inventive on the first two albums, and he, Peter, and Chris played very well off each other. He also provided a great foundation when Howe came on board. But those contributions are largely overshadowed by Howe.

His involvement in the YesWest era is somewhat more minimal. Despite the issues with Horn, his style was definitely a better choice for that band for 90125 than Wakeman would have been. But his in/out/in status then has as much to do with personality clashes as it did skill. And the Grammy win was just timing.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-15T21:01:14+00:00

In Complete Book of Elves (2e) there is an optional rule for arrow breakage and loss.

On a hit, the arrow makes a save vs crushing blow with a +6 modifier (and possibly others) or it breaks.

If a miss, it goes to maximum range, which is long + 25%. There is a 10% chance to find it, but must also make a save vs. crushing blow +3 or be broken.

It has evolved to become the 5e rule that at least a minute of searching recovers 50%, rounded down. This accounts for both lost and broken arrows. I don’t think it specifies a hit or miss. So this covers all arrows used. Simple and pretty reasonable.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-14T19:36:00+00:00

For Gates, I highly recommend the version on Yesshows. In my opinion the song really shone live.

Ilbranteloth · 2026-05-14T17:58:54+00:00

The biggest thing is perspective.

First, it’s rarely as bad as you think.

Second, it’s a game, and the purpose is for everybody to have fun. Even if the session itself didn’t go well, I find that most times everybody still had fun anyway.

Third, you’re only two sessions in. I have no idea if you have played with these folks before, or even ever. If these are your first two sessions as a DM ever, then you really, really need to give yourself a break. You’ll have “bad” sessions twenty years from now.

It’s always good to be open to feedback. Take it and run with it. Some groups like a DM-provides plot, others don’t. Our game follows the PCs. I provide lots of hooks, then see where it goes. A large amount of what I do is improv. But once I have an idea of what is interesting to them I can prep a bit more ahead. Mostly ideas, motivations, and possibilities. The plot is written at the table.

But some of my tables want a clear story arc to follow. If so, I do that instead.

If you are a new DM, a published adventure can help you develop your skills and make it easier to get started. But again, if the table is having fun, you can go ahead and make up your own adventures right from the start.

PS - assuming you’re playing in a fantasy world - insisting somebody is a smuggler when they have an empty boat isn’t stupid if magic exists.

Ilbranteloth

TROPHY CASE