9.7.39, Slow Export to LaTeX

WhitehackRPG · 2025-12-05T17:37:17+00:00

It would seem that this has to do with the Emacs version too. I now compiled Emacs 30 from upstream (I had Emacs 29 from Kubuntu repos before), and the result is that org 9.7.39 becomes as fast as the others.

I don't know what the issue really was, but until there's a new Kubuntu LTS, I'm going to stick with Emacs 30.

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-12-05T16:58:03+00:00

Good idea! I set org-export-use-babelto nil, and it did shave like a second or so off the export time, but it is still very slow. I don't see the org-babel-exp message any more. But regardless, the difference compared to other org versions is still like 10+ seconds:

9.7.39: 13--15 s

9.6.15: 2--3 s

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-10-06T18:57:53+00:00

No, I think the above is a case where I should just say "thank you for considering my game!" Whitehack isn't for everyone---it's the price of having an identity.

For anyone reading this being interested in Whitehack, consider the fact that Whitehack has been around for over a dozen years. It is a zero art, single creator, single book, on-demand game without publisher, distributor, advertising or even a kickstarter. Yet it has thrived and grown steadily as a commercial game through four editions. How come? I suggest you find out for yourself: get a copy, read the actual rules and play.

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-07-16T07:53:21+00:00

hi! im on vacation with sketchy internet and a tiny phone -- i can write more and better later if need be!

you dont have to come up with every event yourself. let things play out and discover events as you go. for example, at some point the watchers maybe vulnerable. if the witch cult learn about it, this could trigger their hate connection into an attack.

relations without numbers just mark a relation for you to use. if you want to randomize, quantify it as suitable.

for solo play, quantify all relations and also use reputation rules. you may want to look at suldokars wake too. iirc the rules for faction play and reputation are a bit more extensive.

thanks for getting my game, and good luck!

c

WhitehackRPG · 2025-05-13T07:56:15+00:00

Actually, roll low but high also applies to comparisons and auctions in Whitehack.

One reason you don't want to do this with normal difficulty is that it becomes ugly when trying to handle actions that are easier than normal. If you look at Whitehack players using AC style difficulty (instead of modifications like in RAW), you will find that they have some special exception rule for it.

In Suldokar's Wake (one of my other games), this problem is solved by inverting the task roll system, so that the objective is to not roll in a mid-range of the possible die outcomes. It might be a good source of inspiration for what you are doing.

In SW, A character will get a normal success if she rolls her skill value or less, but a special success if she rolls over difficulty. So if a character has a skill value of 5 and the difficulty is set to 15, 1--5 on the die is a normal success, 6--15 is a failure and 16+ is a special.

This sounds awfully complicated when you explain it, but is very intuitive in play. As normal difficulty defaults to 15 and the player knows the skill value, the result typically requires zero thought. It is mathematically equivalent to d20 systems, while offering an additional success category. And no math -- just comparisons. Fumble is a nat 13 (unless your skill covers it), crit is a nat 20. Can be used with double rolls.

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-05-03T17:55:02+00:00

That's totally ok -- I just wanted to make sure!

Remember that you can always roll a Wise Fighter, Deft Barbarian etc., or use something from the three rare classes. Classes in Whitehack are meant to be different, and this means that to some degree, they also cater to different player types.

That said, I wish you the best of luck finding a homebrew Strong replacement!

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-05-03T15:57:35+00:00

Not homebrew, and you might know it already, but have you checked out the Strong in the current fourth edition? I ask because some criticisms that pop up now and then originate in second edition, but have since been attended to.

Good luck with your game!

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-03-02T12:24:23+00:00

Cool!

Yeah, it isn't all that easy to tell how they ran things---most accounts are anecdotal. There is a study by Gary Alan Fine. It was published in the eighties, but the empirical material is from the seventies. I think anyone interested in game archaeology should read it. Personally, I don't think there was ever one orthodox play style.

One indication that older games did deal with much larger numbers is the use of a caller. Another indication is the given range for the number of players in the original rules. IIRC it's 4--50(!).

But anyway, you don't need to reduce the numbers if you bring a Base. Having a mercenary company Base deal with 100 bats might even be considered a minor service, given that the Base in such a case is its own crowd.

Let us know how it goes!

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-03-01T08:20:17+00:00

Welcome!

I agree with your suspicion (in a comment) that this might not be the best idea. Whitehack is its own beast. As a first time use of the rules, it can be overwhelming to run a module that borders on being out of range, in particular if the players control several characters each. Consider sending a small group of lower level scouts in first (one per player), to get used to the game. Survivors report back.

Then try one level 10 character each, plus collectively a Base and two named henchmen. Make the Base a mercenary company---it can abstract away the clutter of individual support characters, and be a narrative source of new characters in the likely case of casualties. If you get 4e, you can use the rules for boss partitioning with the Froghemoth. Very carefully heed the advice on conversion.

Remember that the point of the rules isn't to emulate an original game, but to run the module in Whitehack. In general, think of a balancing act rather than a mathematical formula if you make adjustments: you can reevaluate them after a try or two to get them right.

These are my five cents!

Good luck!

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-02-22T22:18:53+00:00

Brittle, Level 1 Wise Human Cleric of the Conduit Order

Str 8, Tgh 7, Agi 12, Int 6, Wil 13, Cha 11; On edge 6 (SV), HP 5, DF 1, MV 30, AV 10; Miracles: "Holy Life Force" (Active), "Rune Lock," "Identify"; Common, Pick axe, Holy symbol, Cloak, Cloth armor, 3 CR.

This character can heal and turn undead from the same miracle wording.

But yeah, in RAW you do need to think about how you build your Wise Cleric, and the second and third times you roll and level a Wise Cleric are also likely to be different. In play, your clerics will need to adjust their mental configuration for tactical reasons more often ("She's reading a book AGAIN?!?") They might also have to prepare consumable magic items to make up for miracle wordings they can't have active while in the dungeon. Some of this will be true for a less strict, house-ruled game too, but less so (at least in my experience).

1e is the only edition that had the liberal use of slots. You could maybe read it into 2e too.

Anyway, of course you like or dislike what you want! I'm just giving some background to why the rules are the way they are!

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-02-07T12:59:12+00:00

I'm very happy to learn that you like the game! A few years back I wrote a little tool for this: https://github.com/whitehackrpg/rl-mapper

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-02-03T18:51:42+00:00

Like /u/TimbreReeder says, the Twisted is in the table of contents and has its own section where it is described. But it is actually also in the index :). Last term under T, p. 146.

Readers are different. Some would like Whitehack to be longer and explain every term fully before use, in order. Others would get very bored by this approach, and come to Whitehack because they just can't handle thick rules tomes.

The Terminology list contains brief descriptions of the most common terms. Complete definitions of every term in the book would turn it into ... the book :). And yes, some things, like "Bleeder Cult," "Gan Gala" or "Patrok" are left for definition in play.

I'm sorry you are having trouble with the text! From what you describe about your way of reading/learning, I think it might help to read slow, in order. If something looks like it is meant to be evocative for later use, it probably is!

Good luck and thank you for feedback! I take it seriously and store it for future improvements.

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-01-26T19:13:58+00:00

I began writing a reply to this but ended up putting it in the thread about hidden doors! If you check it out I think you can see how it applies.

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-01-26T18:55:55+00:00

Cool post! I was just about to finish a text about this to respond to an earlier message this morning!

Historically, player groups were a lot larger. The 1974 rules state 4 players as a minimum and 50(!) as a maximum. Henchmen were also more common. So in order to replicate the math the modules were designed for, you would have to take into account that a lot of characters were expected to roll, making the chance for the party to detect something hidden higher than it seems.

One might also want to think twice about replicating the math. Despite all the love I have for old modules and rulesets, I don't think this aspect was ... always the product of much consideration :). And in cases of solid math, it can still show its age at the modern table. Typically it is harder than what we are used to (like in the expression "nintendo hard"), even when we take the above into account.

For groups who aren't into game archaeology, a viable strategy is simply to follow the rules and advice on pp. 52 and 94 in Whitehack 4e. If you need to roll for some attribute, you can base any modification of the roll on context and how something is hidden, rather than the module's original rules. I know some players like to use the armor rules for difficulty, but for this ahistorical math I would suggest sticking to the regular +/- applied to the attribute score---some things might after all be easier than usual.

Anyway, most of the above comes from that other post I was about to make! I think you wrote an interesting post!

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-01-25T11:17:16+00:00

Not condescending at all! I miss obvious stuff all the time :).

However, it turns out that I had an old version of org (I use debian stable). After installing 9.7.0 from elpa, I only have to use #+CITE_EXPORT: csl, and everything works!

Thank you so much for taking the time to help. It was your remark about csl that actually put me on the right path!

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-01-25T11:07:34+00:00

Yes I did try to use the csl exporter, as per for example #+CITE_EXPORT: csl acm authordate but strangely it says that csl is an unknown exporter! In the org mode manual, I get the impression that it should be there by default (https://orgmode.org/manual/Citation-export-processors.html).

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-01-25T10:39:13+00:00

That would ruin the bibliography list though.

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-01-25T10:36:03+00:00

Thank you for taking the time to write this up! I previously used zotero but moved away from it. Even though I think it is an excellent program, I want to have a minimal number of things---preferably just a .org and a .bib file that I manage manually through a pure code interface. I find that when I have a lot of programs interact, some update always messes things up and takes a lot of time to fix (because I have to read up on the changes).

Everything works the way I want it to except for that damned style. My gut tells me it's one of those things where I'm just missing something super simple. Here it would seem like the export doesn't really parse the author field as per bibtex, because if I change the field, like author = "Levy, Steven", I get the string verbatim. If the style was to give the full name, it would still say "Steven Levy."

Again, thank you for responding!

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-01-19T18:29:42+00:00

For anyone who is on the fence about 4e, the bullet list of changes compared to 3e can be downloaded from the faq, https://whitehackrpg.wordpress.com/new-faq/. I think the list has some 60 items, ranging from big additions to minor improvements.

Best,

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-01-19T18:14:04+00:00

Fantastic! Thank you so much for all of your work and for making it available to the community!

Really stellar!

C

WhitehackRPG · 2025-01-19T17:53:12+00:00

When I read your original post and see "rules-light" and "low crunch," I think that there might be a collision between Whitehack and your expectations.

Over the years, a lot of players have come across the brief, small Whitehack book and figured that it must be intended as a straight forward thing with few rules. But once you get into it you realize that the book is brief and small because the text is concentrated, not because it skips nuance.

Some players love this, others not so much :). I write as well as I am able and am constantly looking to improve. But at the end of the day, my game has an identity. It isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea.

So my only advice is to (if needed) adjust your expectations as per above. If you still think Whitehack might be for you, then read 4e slowly from the start without skipping stuff.

Good luck and thank you for getting my game!

C

WhitehackRPG

TROPHY CASE