Tis The Holiday Season

Just pumping out a post 'cause I'm not sure how much time I'm going to have to blog this week. Sofia's out of school, so while he's sleeping in (at the moment), I'm going to be hanging with her in my "free" time. Parent-teacher conferences at the middle school today...it will be interesting to hear what they have to say about my 6th grade daughter. I'm genuinely curious.

I don't talk as much about my daughter as I do my son. I don't know why other than I'm constantly amazed by his accomplishments. Sofia's amazing, too, but her "magic" is so much less demonstrative. I have a feeling that she will probably have the "bigger impact" on the world when all is said and done: she'll either end up some scientist that invents something brilliant or else she's going to wind up being some sort of famous film or music-related celebrity. But none of that is anything happening right now (other than she can astound people when she sits down at a piano in a hotel lobby)...right now she is this incredibly sweet, funny, friendly kid who just likes to smile and snicker and play. Since we brought my mom's piano home, not a day goes by without the sounds of music filling the house at some point. Right now it's a big Christmas piece she's working on. Delightful.

Yes, you heard me...delightful. I'm one of those curmudgeonly types that gets annoyed with people who start their Christmas-ing before Thanksgiving. Usually. This year has been...different. The "yacht rock" radio station that has long been on our satellite car radio...since at least 2019 as it helped soothe our nerves through the entire pandemic...disappeared a couple weeks ago to be replaced by the "Hallmark" channel which plays nothing but holiday music. And Sofia, of course, LOVES holiday music and so we've been listening to it, whenever we're out driving to one of her various things: school, church, soccer, basketball, piano, guitar. Whatever. And darned if I haven't gotten in to it, too. Like the yacht rock, it's soothing on the nerves.

Well, most of it (I'm not really into the "hip hop Christmas" stuff...give me Andy Williams or Nat King Cole any day of the week).

So, yeah. I've started the holidays early. I think we got our first thing of eggnog the week after Halloween? That went fast, and I haven't replaced it yet. Still have our "Autumnal" wreath on the door, but evergreen one is coming. We've got tickets to Mexico for Christmas...took us a while because they're so damn expensive (you can fly to Japan for half the price!). Not sure if that's just because the current administration is only interested in people taking one-way trips south of the border or what (*sigh*), but since they've made damn sure that's my in-laws can't renew their visas till 2027 (*sigh*) we must purchase four tix if we want to see our family, rather than just flying mis suegros up here. Too bad for the local economy, of course, as we'll be doing all our shopping down there...but then Trump has been nothing if not hard on the local economy. 

But enough of that...I've been in the holiday spirit, as I said, and I've been focusing on other things. My son, who I gush about far too much, has his first national volleyball tournament for his club in Los Angeles in a couple weeks, and he and I will be flying down there with the team. The last couple days we were at a local "exhibition" tournament...it was pretty wild. He's a U15, but his team was playing in the U16 division...four matches in the group stage on Saturday with two matches on Sunday in the playoff bracket; when not playing or warming up he and his teammates acted as line judges and scorekeepers for the various games going on non-stop on four courts in an airplane hangar-like gymnasium (they were running U14, U16, and U18 divisions...all men's volleyball). Holy smoke...what an event! And the L.A. one is supposed to be a LOT bigger...I can hardly imagine.

Anyway, their team is great and pretty talented. They ended up winning their division, winning in straight sets for both of their playoff games. They were rotating liberos between Diego and another, more experienced kid (except for D and Jesus, all the other kids have been together for two or three seasons), but by Sunday's championship game it was just Diego, clearly in command, exhibiting presence and leadership on the court, making spectacular saves, picking up his teammates...all the usual "Diego" stuff. When they were down 18-9 in th second set of their first playoff match, Diego came in as a DS to serve 15 straight points and put them up 24-18...he didn't come out after that. Just great stuff from the kid. We had been contemplating trying to get to his soccer game Sunday afternoon and said we'd think about it after we saw how the morning match went...he came of the court and just said "I'm staying for the volleyball." 

[fortunately the club was playing the no-win bottom of their division and got a 4-2 result even without their captain]

But it was an exhausting weekend. Diego had a hard time getting up this morning (he still has a couple days of school before break)...though he's excited because "cousin Spencer" is picking him up from school today! Yes, my 27-year old "nephew" is back in town...all 6'1", 205# of baby-faced kid. He just finished up a year long stint of chefing at some fancy restaurant across the street from the Opera House, and now he's back in the PNW before doing another jaunt, this time in Japan (his dad's originally from Canada so he has joint citizenship and can do a work exchange on the maple leaf passport). Anyway, hanging with us all weekend at the volleyball stuff, he's taking Diego rock-climbing this afternoon (just what my kid needs...to be introduced to another recreational hobby...). Fingers-crossed that Diego doesn't fall asleep in class or on the boulder....

Hopefully, I'll get a chance to run some D&D for Spence while he's in town...I know he digs that. He's heading out to Spokane on Wednesday (Thanksgiving with his mom's mom), so our window is tight, especially with the kids' soccer practice on Tuesday. Wait, wait...just checking and it looks like they might have the night off!. All right, maybe Tuesday evening then. If we DO get our game on, I've already decided I'll be breaking out C1: The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan...a perfect little scenario for Diego, Sofia, and Spencer.

Mmm...looking through Ye Old Blog archives, I don't see I've ever written much of anything abou Tamoachan. It's a decent enough tournament adventure...probably my favorite of all the old TSR tournament modules (looking at both the A- and C- series). I've run it at least two or three times in the past, usually with the three pre-gens designed for the scenario. It's pretty tight, design-wise, and even though it's a fairly linear gauntlet (much like the tournament portion of S1) it has a ton of flavor and a lot of interesting bits and bobs. Though, man...I don't think I've run it since the early 90s (maybe the early 2000s...?). I should probably give it a quick re-read. I have no idea how the thing holds up in my current "paradigm" of game play, but Philippe ran it at Cauldron for some folks who had a good time...it should still work for a one-off.

Other than that....

I'm working on the book. It's slow going. I started writing the section on running combat...turns out this could probably be a whole book, in and of itself. Which is not really what I want, so I probably need to rethink the section. 

It's tough. I'm trying to condense and consolidate decades of knowledge and essays into a practical guidebook that IDEALLY would have a smaller page count than any of the existing (AD&D) rulebooks. It's a rather daunting prospect. This is far less about writing "AD&D for Dummies" and more like a Strunk & White's Elements of Style. Lord, how I wish I'd studied technical writing in college. Maybe I should go back and re-read my Strunk & White...it's still on the book shelf somewhere. 

Yeah. Probably going to end up bigger than S&W.

But I am writing.  A little bit óvery day. Except when I'm at all day volleyball tournaments. But OTHERwise...one brick at a time. Just laying one brick at a time. 

*sigh*

I should be publishing a couple adventures soon, too, depending on my illustrator's time schedule. Hopefully I'll have a couple PDFs out by year's end. We'll see. December tends to fly by when you're in the midst of holiday cheer with friends and family. And  now that my brother's hash is finally settled (he was evicted on the 12th...a day before my birthday)...I need to put the sale of my mother's house into overdrive. Sofia and I might be working on that a bit the next couple days, depending on when I can borrow my buddy's junk hauler. A lot to do but it is finally getting done. Finally.

Mm.

My apologies...did not mean for this post to slide into a downer note. It's the gosh darn holiday season! And I'm excited about all the stuff I've got on my plate right now. Yes, the busy-ness is off the charts. Yes, finding time to take a breath is a challenge. BUT:

- volleyball tournaments

- guitar recitals

- holiday feasts and get-togethers

- trips to see family and friends in Mexico

- school Christmas concerts

- running D&D

- publishing adventures

- writing books

- closing my deceased mom's estate

And just listening to cheerful music as I drive around town on my various errands...man, that is all GOOD STUFF. I am enjoying myself. I am really, thoroughly enjoying myself.

And I'll admit, part of it is that I'm home in Seattle for Thanksgiving (my favorite holiday of the year) and that I get to eat some God-honest turkey for a change. I seem to be the only person in my family that craves a drumstick and a pile of apple-sausage stuffing drenched in gravy. My goodness! I am SO looking forward to Thursday!

Hope ALL of you have a happy one...I pray that all of you find some joy in season, and find a way to share that joy with others. Even a smile goes a long way this time of year.

Cheers.

: )

"Dear JB" Mailbag #40

Hi JB!  So I am a bit perplexed over the situation and would appreciate any advice. Also my blood is boiling, but I'll try to keep this fair and factual. 

Currently I am a part of an online DnD campaign - and it is the best campaign of my life. I am enjoying it immensely, especially since my previous full-blown campaign's ending traumatized me a bit. My new DM - highly recommended - delivered fantastic sessions: great storytelling, balanced spotlight, the works.

Then one day it all changed, when one of the players asked if his wife could join. She’d supposedly been bullied out of another game. We are decent people, so we agreed. Later, we learned she’d been "bullied out" several campaigns with different groups. Red flag number one.

Her first action was demanding her paladin character be a literal anime space princess and would not accept any pleadings, with us being a rag-tag team of homeless scavengers. She would not budge, and the DM compromised, making her an emperor’s illegitimate daughter (not yet confirmed 100%, but enough to keep her satisfied). Red flag number two.

After some travelling she started subtly trying to change other PCs to fit in her narrative, masking it with back-handed compliments. Such as "Wow, your autognome was so much less annoying this time, keep it up!". And my poor autognome monk was not the only receiver of this treatment, this also included comments towards our cute elf warlock and several NPCs; she even started actively referring to other two players (including her husband) as "my simps". Then one day during combat, she threw a fit when the DM hit her 21 AC anime princess paladin several times. "This is not fair! Roll publicly! I don’t trust your rolls!". We were quite taken aback and again tried to reason with her, after which she claimed she was being bullied again before finally calming down.

By this time me and my friend (warlock) already approached the DM to discuss how she was making us uncomfortable. He said that he would talk to her, and for the next session it all died down, so we thought that it bore fruit. Then a week ago came a breaking point.

Princess multiclassed into warlock. The DM suggested a patron and was crystal clear (both directly and indirectly via NPCs): this patron was evil, would corrupt her, and may exploit her royal bloodline for its own ends. She agreed, as her potential patron promised her an ascension to the throne. We all thought: "How cool is that, her anime paladin will finally be going through an interesting ark!" Yet when the DM roleplayed her character’s growing bloodlust (exactly as warned), Princess was shocked. Princess was outraged. Princess said that her character would never-ever feel such dark urges.

After the session during our scheduled feedback time, she proclaimed she had a "joint complaint" against the DM. What exactly is a "joint complaint" if no one of the party participated, you ask? Turns out, she’d complained to out-of-game friends - who knew nothing about our campaign - and they accused the DM of "stripping her agency as a player" as there was "lack of wisdom saves to resist these urges". Guys, she screenshotted their nasty messages and sent them directly to the DM’s DMs. The messages where they mocked my DM and questioned his competence. I am fuming even now.

Seeing our DM - a kind, talented person - shaken was heartbreaking. So I lost my cool. I told Princess in no uncertain terms that this was unfair, highly unethical, and a violation of trust. If she didn’t trust the DM, she should find a DM that she DOES trust instead of trying to walk all over my favorite DM. She abruptly left the session, and I personally spent 20 minutes consoling our sweet DM.

Here’s the problem: the DM let it slip that he still wants to continue playing with her as there are couple of sessions left anyway and he wants to finish her ark. I also suspect that he is afraid that her husband may leave with her, and hubby is a valuable player and has a great and important character. I love this campaign and the storytelling, but Princess’s behavior is ruining my experience, my friends' experience and our DM's experience. How do I support my DM without enabling her? How do we protect his mental health if she stays? I do not want to pressure him to get rid of her, and my other teammates, although uncomfortable, would like to continue as is... 

EDIT: I deem this necessary to state: I am female, my warlock friend is female, we are not bros gatekeeping the sacred masculine DnD by booting a woman

Space Anime Princess Ruining My Game

Dear SAP:

I am angry right now...so, so angry. And it has nothing to do with you, or the world or the government or anything big and over-arching that affects anyone besides myself. It is a very personal issue/problem, relating to my idiot brother and our idiotic legal dispute and the idiotic legal system and the fact that it is forcing me to do all sorts of bullshit that I don't want to do and DEFINITELY don't have the time for, what with everything else on my plate. It is just one FUCKING DELAY AFTER ANOTHER and after waiting WEEKS for my hearing date to move a trial up so we wouldn't keep hemorrhaging money from my dead mother's estate, the judge dismissed the motion as it appeared the "defendant hadn't been served."  Despite me getting up at the crack of dawn and driving through fucking Seattle traffic to get to the Kent Regional Justice Center to file the fucking proof of service five minutes after the court opened (this after having already emailed it to them on August 21st per the idiotic bailiff's instructions). So NOW I have to redo the whole fucking process again in order to lose another month's worth of cash from this thing just because my brother is an asshole that I can't have removed without a court order.

Fucking hoboes. AmIright?

So, I'm angry. Like really, really pissed off, SAP. And since yelling and screaming obscenities won't do anything to help and I REALLY need to vent right now, I'm going to take it out on YOU. And I want you to know it's not your fault that I'm about to unload, it's me, it's all me, but you know what? You're a fucking idiot, too.

First Off: this is your Dungeon Master's cross to bear, not yours. Your DM has to "man up" and boot her himself...IF (and only if!) he has a problem with the person and her actions.

FOR EXAMPLE: Let's, for the sake of discussion, say I was your Dungeon Master. Yes, yes, and we'll assume I'm running 5E, and I'm all about the lovely "role-playing" and "story arcs" of your characters (have I mentioned I ran World of Darkness games for YEARS?). Let me put myself in your DM's shoes, and some new player comes to me with her "joint complaint." And I ask, um, who's complaining besides you? And she tells me "her friends" and puts screen-shotted comments in my face. Here's how I'd handle it:

#1 I'd tell her "Your friends can go fuck themselves."

#2 I'd say, "Remember how I said no phones at the table? Please get that out of my face."

#3 If she emailed me the screen shots I would hit 'delete' without comment.

And I would make it perfectly crystal clear that NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO PLAY AT THIS TABLE. If you don't like how I run my games, feel free to TAKE A HIKE.

This is easy, easy stuff.

Oh, you're worried the lady's husband will leave? As a Dungeon Master I cannot live in fear that my players will walk out of a game.  CAN. NOT. Do you know why? Because players CAN and DO leave games AT ANY TIME. That is the players' prerogative. Players get jobs. They change schools. They move. The die. They have kids. Etc. You cannot have an attachment to your players such that it dictates control of your game. Period, end of story.

My game = my rules. But YOU don't have to play.

Still, that's NOT your problem, because YOU are not the DM. Likewise, your DM's "mental health" ain't your problem either. Your DM has to take care of his own shit: that's part of being a grown-ass human being. 

You want to support your DM? Show up at his game. That's all the support any true DM needs or wants (though a thank you at the end of a session is always appreciated).

Sincerely,

JB

Nazis

It's early in the morning, and I have a couple hours before I have to get the kid up for his cross-country training, after which I need to go down to the court house to work on...just sad, sad shit that I don't really want to do.

But it's sad shit that I have to do, unfortunately. The last couple-three days would have been wonderful, wonderful summer days spent with my family and our friends...except that I have this serious stress hanging over my head, a cloud of poison that just taints the joy in my life. To be brief: I need to sell my (dead) mother's house in order to wrap up her estate (I'm the executor) but my brother is refusing to move out (I allowed him to stay there while we cleaned it, since he's a hobo) and now is determined to fight me in court. He's a stupid asshole without a legal leg to stand on, but he's just intent on dragging this out as long as possible, making it as time consuming and crappy as possible.

*sigh*

So, I'm up this morning, because this is the kind of stuff that wakes me up at 5am and doesn't let me get back to sleep. And while sipping some coffee and checking through Ye Old Email, I saw a reddit post about some kid (a 20 year old) who believes he's discovered that one of his players (another kid: 18 years old) is a "Neo-Nazi" and wants to know what he should do about it. 

[long, long pause]

There are many humans in this world that I'd prefer to not hang out with or have at my dinner table. For all sorts of reasons. I mean, for a LOT of different reasons, not just matters of "political ideology." There are plenty of people...even people I know, even family members...who I simply have little to nothing in common with and that generate "nothing much" of interest to me and whom (I'd assume) have little interest in what I might have to share with them. 

'Course, that's generally a false assumption...I get dragged into social settings with people I don't want to hang with all the time (this is usually my wife's doing) and...me being me...I usually find something to have a conversation with them, that's a bit better than what the weather is like this time of year. It's not terribly hard (for me, at least) to dig a little deeper under a person's surface facade and find some common ground, some place where we can meet and exchange ideas.

But while it's always "worth the effort" to find commonality and make connections with our fellow humans, a lot of times that 'connecting' is the ONLY thing of any value coming from the effort. Just because I've learned someone shares my love of a good tuna melt doesn't mean I'm going to grow, develop, or evolve in any meaningful way. Making connections aren't the same things as making bonds.

However, over my five plus decades of life, in interacting with all sorts of people (and having a very wide and eclectic social circle) I've drawn some conclusions about humanity, that I'd like to share. 

#1 Humans, as entities, are GOOD. I really, honestly mean that. We are beings of "goodness," by our very nature. I understand that is a pretty difficult idea to swallow when there are countless examples of people who have done (and who continue to perpetrate) really evil and despicable acts. But it's something I've come to believe based on my experience. This is not some belief I have based on my religion (although my particular religion would agree with my personal conclusions)...I just have never experienced the contrary. I have never seen or experienced any evidence of a human that was "born bad" or is "evil to the core." Some might say (perhaps) that I've just been lucky in this regard...I acknowledge that's a possibility (though my religion, which has been around a lot longer than me, would say otherwise).

#2 "Bad humans" are the result of bad choices. I believe that humans have free will...we absolutely do. Nothing "makes us do" the things we do, once we're adults. We have the ability to choose what we do. 

"But I was starving!"

"But my child was going to die!"

"But we were facing an existential threat!"

Bull. Shit. We always have a choice...humans always have a choice. "But they put a gun to my head! I would have died!" We will all, some day, die. ALL of us. Shuffling off this mortal coil is part of our human experience...wanting to prolong our lives (i.e. "survive") is also human nature and totally understandable. But it does not remove our free will. "Coercion" is a subjective thing, influencing different people to different degrees. 

In the end, humans always get their say in their own actions; and it is their actions that define our behavior, good and bad.

What we perceive as "bad people" are people who have made bad choices. I'd guess that all the people reading this blog can look back at times they've made bad choices in their lives...I know that I have. And it doesn't matter the reason or motivation. A "bad" choice made for "good" reasons is still "bad." And if you make enough "bad choices," even if you're making them for "good" reasons, people are going to perceive you as a "bad person."

However, I should probably use more specific language. When I say "bad" I mean "evil," not just "wrong." An evil choice is one that does harm, intentionally. And for it to have been "intentional," the person making the choice must have had awareness and knowledge that the choice would do harm. 

And, by the way, that "harm" includes "harm to ourselves," not just harm to others. If I know cigarettes are bad for my health and will kill me, then deciding to smoke is a "bad choice."

We all make bad decisions, bad choices, over the course of our lives; most of us make a LOT of bad choices. But we also make good choices, too. And many, many of us repent of our bad choices and try to make amends for those bad choices...or, at least, try to "not make the same mistakes" (bad choices) in the future. That's all to our credit. 

What we perceive as "evil people" are people who have made bad choices, and continue to make bad choices, and who seem unwilling or unable to stop making bad choices. And I acknowledge that it can be hard for a person who has spent years or decades of making bad choices to suddenly stop...habits are habits, and habitual behavior becomes identity. And changing one's identity is akin to asking them to dissolve themselves...it goes against that "survival" aspect of human nature, mentioned earlier.

I've seen this in action with my own brother. Oh, he doesn't do "evil" to others, except in minor ways (the stress he's causing me and my family is pretty small in the grand scheme of "harm" one can do in the world). But he has spent years of self-harm with his decision-making, to the point that it has warped his own perception of who he is, i.e. his identity. It has not mattered that he's had other people...good friends, family members, loved ones...trying to help and support him and show him what he could be, or remind him of what he once was. He embraces his current identity, and continues to make the same poor choices and continues to refuse help and continues to blame his problems on external factors...rather than his own decisions.

But he's a 49 year old man. Not an 18 year old kid.

#3 With life and free will, change is always possible. Just because you've been a jerk in the past, doesn't mean you have to be a jerk in the future...nor even a jerk in the present. Of course, once you have a reputation as a jerk, it's hard for people to see you as anything else, even if you're trying to turn over a new leaf. That's just the way things are.

But it's possible. I'm a person who's gone through multiple "transformations" over the course of my life...51 years isn't a whole helluva' lot int he grand scheme of things, but it's still half a life. I went from being a real "goody-goody," to some kind of "tough guy/badass," to a "slacker/hedonist," to an "all natural Peaceful Warrior," to a "grown up / professional," to a "world traveller," to a "stay-at-home dad."  And even the current "role" that I'm playing can be broken up into different chapters, as I've had to evolve and adapt to my kids' stages of development. 

[just a couple days ago I was talking with my son, discussing the importance of our relationships with other humans and the creation of those relationships while still retaining our authenticity...ideas and concepts that will be important as he enters the arena of high school, but very different from what I'd tell him when he was my daughter's age]

These transformations have never been easy, mainly because I'm not a very patient individual and real change takes time; replacing prior habits with new habits is not an overnight process, even when one is focused and dedicated to altering your behavior and identity. In fact, the shorter the time you give yourself to change, the harder it is...gradual change (like the kind that transforms a young man into an old man) is the easiest of all, but it will take a good long time. 

Interestingly (well, interesting to me) I can say that all the transformations I've made have been done out of love; occasionally love for myself, but USUALLY out of love for others. Love for a girlfriend, love for my parents, love for my wife, love for my kids. I think...I think...that for real change, real transformation to occur, a person must be highly motivated. And for most humans (a fairly lazy bunch, when you get down to it), it's hard to think of a much higher motivation than love. Death, I suppose...but as transforming identity is akin to death, it's hard for death to motivate much more than changing (small) aspects of our identity (quitting smoking or changing diet, for example).

Does ostracizing individuals aid them in finding love?

Back to the "Nazi" gamer kid.

I don't make a big secret about my politics: I tend to lean pretty far to the left. Once upon a time, I thought it was somewhat important to not support (i.e. give money to) folks who championed beliefs that were antithetical to my own...especially people who I felt were making deliberately harmful choices with their works or their propaganda or...well, with their lives.

Of course, I never thought once about the people who might be putting money in my pocket, supporting me financially by buying my books, regardless of our "political differences."  

But I've grown since those days. For one thing, I've gamed with a lot of different people over the years, from all sorts of backgrounds, none of which ever made any difference to me...even (or especially) when I was younger. Because we weren't coming together to discuss politics; instead, we were there to play games. And we're still there to play games. LOTS of people like Dungeons & Dragons...people of all genders, people of all colors, people of all religions, people of all political ideologies. Are they good at playing the game? That's the real question. Do they get along well with their table mates? Do they respect the authority of the DM? Do they lie and cheat? Do they contribute to the fun of the activity?

I don't make a big secret about my politics, but I'm not expressing my politics when we sit down to game. I may use my knowledge of real world religions to inform the various churches and temples of my world (maybe), but I'm not trying to convert my players to any particular belief system. 

Do I permit and allow and accept hatred and intolerance at my table? Eh. It just doesn't usually come up. When we were kids, it was pretty "par for the course" to make transgressive remarks and shit-talk and whatnot...which is something you find in teens and adolescents of all stripes (in my experience). But I don't allow bullying at my table, and I tend to curb things before people get uncomfortable...mainly just by focusing the action on the game being played. If the players aren't focused on the game, then chances are I'm doing a poor job of being a Dungeon Master.

I play with (and allow) all sorts of people at my table. If a really hardcore white supremacist or lefty radical or whatever came to my table and was uncomfortable about the folks I allowed to sit in I'd say, "you don't have to play." If one of my kids complained about one of the new kids I was allowing into a session, I'd say "you don't have to play" (of course, the new kid would only be there because he or she was invited by one of my children, so this only happens as a 'sibling issue'). 

Let me be clear: I dislike Nazi (and Neo-Nazi) ideology...a lot. 

But there's a LOT of ideology out there I dislike. I've been pretty disgusted by actions the state of Israel has taken in recent months. To me, the war in Gaza has looked a lot like good old fashioned genocide, and the unprovoked attacks on Iran are indefensible. Very bad choices, in other words. Doesn't mean I'm an anti-semite, or that I "hate jews." I don't even hate the Israelis...I'm sure there are many Israelis who share (some of) my feelings. I know former Russians, now Americans, who are repulsed by Putin's invasion of Ukraine, even as they are proud of their heritage. My own government has made (and continues to make) bad choices, sadly, in the name of political ideology.

But hating the bad doesn't transform the bad.

I've gone from being angry (a lot) and hating things to being sad (a lot). Lots of things make me sad. War and poverty.  Dictators and would-be dictators. Children with cell phones. Lots of things. But sadness doesn't create transformation either. I can be sad about the Neo-Nazi gamer kid ("oh, so sad...") or I can be angry about him ("get the hell out of my hobby!") and the end result will be pretty much the same: there will still be one more Neo-Nazi in the world, doing Neo-Nazi stuff. He might not be my problem (not now, not yet), but that doesn't mean it's not problematic. 

And so, in the words of that Jesus guy, we've got to strive to love our neighbors as ourselves (yep, that old saw...). Which, by the way, ain't the same thing as being permissive of asshole behavior (hate speech, racist epithets, etc.). But I wouldn't kick someone from my table just because of how they voted in the last election. I can't change how you voted in the last election (even if I cared)...and that doesn't mean you won't somehow be changing your tune before the next election.

I've known a LOT of stupid 18 year olds that matured into something better than they were in their youths. I was pretty stupid myself...about a LOT of things.

We tend to throw around little "truisms" like flawed humans or nobody's perfect. Over the years, I've become less and less enamored with these phrases...phrases that imply that there's something wrong with the way we were created. In a grand scheme of the universe...if you believe in a primary actor/mover ("God" in the common parlance) setting things in motion...then you will (as I do) be forced to come to the conclusion that we were created a diverse group of individuals on purpose. We are all "perfect" in our own way...perfect vessels for the souls that are within each and every one of us. With our changing technology, however, we have become a far more secular, and far less spiritual species...and that has led us to (a tendency to) ignore or disregard or disbelieve that animating spirit within each of us...that real, actual thing that is the true uniter of us as a species, despite all our surface, external differences. Our inability (or unwillingness) to connect to each other's souls has...more than anything else...led to the polarization and discord we see in the world, even within nations that once had (if nothing else) a shared identity. 

How can various nations hope to get along if the people within those nations cannot even get along?

I am neither a politician, nor a lawmaker; my actions take place on a much more limited stage, a much smaller scale and scope. And yet, I understand that my actions...my choices...still make a difference. And I'll be even more specific than that: I believe playing D&D with human beings makes a difference. Yes, a silly game about fighting monsters and finding treasure. Outside of kids' sports teams (which longtime readers will know I'm a big fan of), there are precious few formal ways we have of interacting with other people in a cooperative (non-competitive) fashion. Of making human connections. On a larger scale than a romantic couple or even many (most?) nuclear families. Especially for adults...adults who have so many worries and stresses in their lives. 

We need to make human connections. As I wrote waaaay back at the beginning of this post, sometimes the connection itself is the only thing of value from socializing. That was not meant to disparage the act...we do not do this enough in our current society. And with D&D gaming, you have an automatic "in" to connecting with a fellow human on a deeper level than their surface identity.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

I've been thinking about it a lot, and yet I haven't known how exactly to express it. This seemed like an opportune time. With regard to the Nazi gamer kid, I could have simply kept my fat mouth shut on the matter, but... (*SIGH*) I have a voice, I have an audience. And I do think it's important. 

Yes, it does matter that you're a damn stupid Nazi. That's a bad, bad choice. But as long as you're respectful or the game and of myself and of the other players at the table, you can play D&D with me. 

We really need to stop hating the fuck out of each other.

"Dear JB" Mailbag #19

[sorry to throw down more of these lazy-ass posts, but I'm a bit short on time recently]

Dear JB:

So firstly, context. My players have been getting along very well! The main thing I've begun to notice is that they tend to split into mini groups. 

Out of five they tend to split

• Goliath barb and Gnome Artficer
• Human fighter and human artificer
• And rogue who sticks to her npcs.

Again, players are getting along well, but I'm a smidge worried that character motivations may split as the characters sometimes don't even get along lol.

Without strong arming them or going over the table, how could I get them together more?

How Do You Get Characters To Bond

Dear DM:

I'll admit that I'm a tad unclear on what you mean by the players tendency to "split into mini groups;" are you saying the party tends to split up while on adventures? Going separate ways in the dungeon? Because if that's the issue it is easily solved: most such parties will be destroyed if they insist on tackling adventure sites in piecemeal fashion. And once they create new characters (with the wisdom that comes from a 'hard knocks' experience) they'll be more like to stick together.

However, from your terminology ("artificer," "rogue") I gather that you're playing a newer version of the game. And perhaps your issue is with the characters simply "getting along" in the game world. That is, the characters...being played as actual entities separate from their players...sometimes allow their "character issues" to interfere with becoming a cohesive party. Or something.

Group dynamics are a tricky thing: people can be friends, co-workers, colleagues, and/or family members and might still have disagreements with each other. Even STRONG disagreements. Married couples and siblings (generally) love each other very much, and share strong bonds, but they can be deeply divided about things like politics or religion or even what types of movies or music they like. My brother and I, for example, have such a strong bond from sharing our lives together that often times we appear downright telepathic to others, because our minds and thoughts move in such similar ways. And, yet, we disagree on fundamental levels regarding politics, religion, and music (Bel Biv Devoe, Adam? Really?). 

And the larger the group, the more complicated those group dynamics become. Because each person in a group is a unique individual with their own likes/dislikes, hopes, fears, desires, and level of confidence when it comes to expressing themselves.

Now, once upon a time I subscribed to the idea that people could play a character that was different from themselves...the "this isn't ME making these decisions, it's MY character and how THEY would act" thing. However, over the years, I've only found one person who could truly be this objective about their playing piece: myself. And even to myself, my motives are oftentimes suspect. What actually occurs in this attempted dissolution of personality is that we tap into aspects of ourselves...sometimes aspects that we dislike or don't usually acknowledge even to ourselves, in order to "create" a persona that appears to be a different, separate entity. And I'm not just talking about "playing an evil PC;" check out the hardcore atheists that enjoy playing devout clerics (in a non-caricatured fashion).

It is similar to (part of) the process of an actor embodying a role: actors can only bring to the stage what is inside themselves and so they have to...purposefully...find that connection between their own personality and the character they are playing and weave the two together. We all have our "dark sides" and our "light sides;" what's more, we all have all the feelings/emotions that go into making the myriad of human behaviors and reactions to LIFE, as it happens...even if we don't all have the traumatic or uplifting experiences to cause those emotions to manifest into specific behavioral patterns.

But D&D is not acting: we are not attempting to shape ourselves into a character in order to portray the playwright's words in an effective matter, conveying the author's story with the director's themes. No.

What we ARE doing is playing a game of fantasy adventure. And our characters are the vehicles for that experience. And without all the mental gymnastics an actor needs to perform in order to (for example) transform Sir Anthony Hopkins into Hannibal Lecter, we can still say "Hm. If I were a wizard confronted by an owl bear, with only these few spells in my repertoire, what would I do?" That's it: that is what 'role-playing' is when it comes to the D&D game.

SO THEN: how do you get your players' characters to bond? By getting your players to bond. 

And how do you do that? Why, by imperiling them: putting their characters in jeopardy...if not mortal danger...such that it forces them to cooperate and rely on each other for aid and support. 

It's really that simple. The beauty of older edition games (which, I gather, you don't play) is that there is also a common objective (the attainment of treasure) which helps focus the players in the same direction. But with or without that, you ALWAYS have the objective of survival to fall back on...and this IS a game of fantasy adventure we're playing.  Adventures are dangerous; as Bilbo Baggins remarked, they're a nasty business that tend to make people late for supper. 

Will players continue to bicker and butt heads at times, both in and out of character? Yes, of course...because that is what people do, even cherished friends and loved ones. But they will form a strong bond if thrown into the fire together...an incredibly strong bond. And you, DM, are responsible for providing that flame. 

Sincerely, 

JB

Dystopian Present

Well, this must be what it would be like to live on Venus. Yellow clouds of poisonous air obscuring the view from my windows, and being unable to step outside my habitat without a spacesuit.

Yesterday evening, I was very angry...very, very angry. Angry about the state of things in my country, in my world. Angry about how they got this way, angry about the ignorant, selfish people that have caused so much of this, angry even at my own culpability for not doing more, for not actively working against the ignorance and selfishness.

I proceeded to stay up late and drink heavily and did NOT write the rant I meticulously plotted in my head, most all of which was aimed and belittling and insulting people. Not very constructive that.

Anger isn't just a coping mechanism (we tend to get angry to feel like we are in control, to stave off our fear of helplessness)...it is a tool, given to us by our Creator. Used properly, it helps us to transform ourselves, bringing focus to our will, spurring us to do the hard work that ends up being needed when we have procrastinated in doing what should have been done all along.

And it's only by changing ourselves for the better that we can change our world for the better.

Not that most of us are willing to do that. Heck, many of us lack the capability for it (as with all skills, it's something that requires practice, and atrophies from disuse). But as I look outside my window this morning, I force myself to repeat a mantra in my mind:

Things can always get worse. Things can always get worse. Things can always get worse.

There is nothing more true or more sure in this world. Suffering will continue to increase the longer we allow suffering to continue. Because of ignorance. Because of selfishness. Because of our lack of love.

Sorry if that's a downer. 

By the way: Happy birthday, AB. Hope you're doing well, wherever you are, my brother.

Class Proliferation

Just continuing from where we left off...

First off, let me say that, aside from the reasons I noted in my previous post, there's no special reason you need to have a "class system" in your role-playing game. Traveller doesn't need a class system. Neither does Pendragon or original Gamma World. There are some systems like Vampire the Masquerade that actually confuse their own design purposes by including a class system (see "clan"), though VtM does demonstrate yet another reason class systems are expedient: they limit what might otherwise be a baffling number of choices/options to a manageable number.

[I hear some folks might saying, HEY! Gamma World has classes: humanoids, mutant animals, and pure strain humans! To be clear, original GW only offers two choices: a PC with mutations or a PC without. If you choose the latter, you get some bennies when it comes to interacting with ancient technology. I don't see a "class" distinction when there's no real, mechanical difference between choices]

I'm not a stupid man (usually), but I just don't have the patience to wade through some of the character creation systems out there. I've played FATE games on multiple occasions (at conventions) and had a good time using "lite" streamlined chargen (once) or pregen characters. I own a couple-three FATE games. But I haven't run them...haven't even finished reading the rules. My eyes just start to glaze over when I start skimming the aspects and stunts and skill lists (skills! why are there always skills!). I have a much easier time managing a "light" class-less system (say Over The Edge) than something so robust...I don't want to "build" a game with a toolbox, I want to PLAY.

It may simply be that Dungeons & Dragons spoiled me a long time ago. The expedience of its class system with its distinct, recognizable archetypes just proves to be such a useful working template for fantasy adventure games that it's hard to get away from it...whenever I pick up an RPG that has  "quick-start" characters or archetypes (like Hollow Earth Expedition or Shadowrun or Deadlands), I always find myself asking 'Why didn't they just make this a class-based system? Wouldn't that have been easier?'

However, it's not always wine and roses in the world of classes. Class proliferation, the expansion of the choice list to fill an ever greater number of niche interests, can eventually lead to wrecking the joint...especially in games where the classes cease to be recognizable and/or the distinctions get muddied or outright buried. Palladium's RIFTS is probably "Exhibit A" for class proliferation leading to a loss of expedience due to proliferation: the original core book contains 28 distinct classes (or more if you count each "dragon RCC" separately) and each supplemental "World" or "Dimension"  sourcebook (more than 50 of which exist) add another half-dozen...or more!...new classes to the mix, many of which are no more than slight variations of others. Do you really need to include six variations of the juicer? For that matter, do you really need juicers and crazies and borgs? Aren't they all just enhanced/altered fighters with different downsides?

In the world of Dungeons & Dragons, class proliferation isn't nearly as extreme, but it IS present, and has been for decades. The original Little Brown Books had only three classes in 1974, increasing to five with the release of Greyhawk (1975), seven with Blackmoor (later in 1975), and nine (including the psionic variation which "drained" existing class abilities in exchange for psionic ones) with Eldritch Wizardry in 1976. That's nine classes if you're not counting each multi-class or race-class combo separately. By 1978 the AD&D Players Handbook had eleven classes available to players, with a character's race providing only slight variation (though many-many multi-class options).

While this was only officially increased to fourteen with the advent of Unearthed Arcana in 1985, the time between 1978 and 1985 saw the appearance of a number of classes in Dragon magazine, many of which were used in peoples' home campaigns (we used at least two or three, and I'm sure we would have included anti-paladins, if we'd had that copy of Dragon).

So how many classes do you really need? How many classes are "too many?"

It's pretty clear that most folks feel you need more than three (unless the capabilities of those three are so minimal in distinction that a race variation can make one feel "heavily modified;" see OD&D). But is 4th edition's 22 (spread across three PHBs), each possessing four "paragon" options (4E's equivalent of "prestige classes") that become accessible at 11th level, too many? I would certainly say, "yes," but it's possible I'm in the minority.

Classes (and class-race combos) are certainly something that can be tailored for each individual's campaign; in fact, in some games (like Rifts) I'm not sure a campaign can really function without a strong editing hand. But what a particular gaming group can stand with regard to class quantity is up for debate.

Back in D&D's "primordial ooze" days, new classes (and class options) were added in dribs and drabs until a saturation point was reached round about 1979. My evidence for this? The very unscientific fact that TSR was happy to stand pat with its "official" class list till 1985. While I realize that other things were keeping the company's main designers busy (lawsuits and finding new ways to spend their wealth), I have to think that if there'd been a real clamoring for new classes, the company would have found some way to put out a new or updated or modified PHB; heck, just a "revised edition" that included a handful of extra pages.

[by the way, this falls into the "more evidence" drawer when it comes to my idea that subsequent editions are written MAINLY for returning, experienced players. Once you've added a bunch of classes over time, veteran players come to a new edition with an EXPECTATION of being able to play with their favorite shiny bauble. It's why there's so little "pruning" that occurs between editions, despite the fact that a dozen plus classes is probably excessive for a new player]

So what, JB? Having classes is fun! Having more classes just means more options which means more fun! You just said that groups are going to vary in opinion over "how many is too many."

That's right; I did say that. I said that limits are going to vary depending on groups...but there reaches a point, with ALL campaigns, when the proliferation of classes is going to be too many. When the number of class options is so many that game play is no longer expedited. That number may vary from table to table, but each table has a number. And I think that knowing that number...or, rather, finding that number...can be useful.

I've delved into this a little bit in the past when I was reminiscing over the gaming group of my youth. While it lasted only seven or eight years, it represented a substantial investment of time (in hours spent) back before my friends and I had much in the way of responsibilities or distractions. I would estimate that we spent at least three times as much time on Dungeons & Dragons as on ANY year I've spent regularly playing as an adult, the equivalent of a 20+ year (adult) campaign. Which is about right for the power level we were often playing at.

[to be clear, we ran...roughly...three full campaigns during this time period, taking characters from 1st level up to (what would be) a retirement-worthy high level]

Most of this was played with 1st edition AD&D; our group disbanded shortly before 2nd edition was released. Including the Unearthed Arcana (we never used Oriental Adventures), here's our breakdown of classes:

Cavalier (subclass: Paladin): never used. Never ever ever. It wasn't that they weren't cool, or that we couldn't roll up characters with high enough ability scores. No one wanted to be strait-jacketed by their codes and alignment restrictions. Plus, what good is a horse in a dungeon?

Cleric (subclass: Druid): we saw several clerics over the years, though the first PC cleric did not appear until we picked up the Expert set (circa 1982) and the followers that came with high levels outweighed the lack of "oomph" at low levels. My friend Matt's longest running PC was a cleric of Athena. A visiting player brought his high level cleric to one of our game sessions (another cleric of Athena? Maybe). There were also two Drow clerics of Lloth at later points (one male, one female, both played by different players at different times); one of these (female) was multi-classed. We never had a PC druid (I rolled one up, a female half-elf with the oh-so-original name "Galadriel;" she never saw play time). One half-elf "converted" (mechanically and religiously) to a cleric of Artemis. There was also one "healer" PC, based on the NPC class published in Dragon magazine; "Fr. Cornelius" was Chaotic Evil and insane and lasted all of one session before being castrated and left for dead by his fellow party members.

Fighter (subclass: Ranger, Barbarian): my co-DM (Jocelyn) 's second oldest PC was a straight B/X fighter, and probably the most badass character to ever roam our campaign; she deserves her own post. My brother played a dwarf fighter/thief; another player (Crystal) played a 6'3" female human fighter fighter who sported about 50 weapons including a man-catcher ("to catch me a man") and exceptional (%) strength. My brother played a barbarian also ("Bork") who was killed at least once in an intra-party feud. There were a couple 1E bards who started in the ranger class (one was mine) but we never had any dedicated rangers. One of the earliest character sheets I still have stashed is a level one elf (B/X) named "Silver Fox;" no idea whose it was. Jocelyn's oldest character was a 1st level (B/X) halfling that I gave her when she randomly showed up to the first adventure I ever ran and needed a character...it is the only "halfling fighter" I remember anyone ever playing back in the day. Matt also ran a half-elf "archer," though I can't remember if this was taken from Bard Games' The Compleat Adventurer, a Dragon magazine, or was some kit-bashed combination.

Magic-User (subclass: Illusionist): quite a few of these, though most were played by one guy (Scott); his longest running PC was a straight MU named "Lucky Drake" (later "Lucius Draco"). He also ran an illusionist (who adventured through D1: Descent to the Depths of the Earth), and a (male) Drow magic-user/assassin with house-ruled pyrokinetic (psionic) ability. Also seen: a half-elven fighter/magic-user and a female (wild?) elven magic-user with red hair and a penchant for fire/arson. Now that I think of it, fire and arson were fairly common proclivities of magic-users in our games. Not Lucky, though...he was a strict lightning bolt type of mage.

Thief (subclass: Acrobat, Assassin): quite a few of ALL of these. Jason's longest running PC was a thief, grandfathered into AD&D from B/X. Matt had an assassin. Scott had the aforementioned magic-user/assassin. After the UA's release, most thieves (at least three, maybe four) chose to become thief-acrobats upon reaching 6th level (two bards did). In one campaign, my bard took assassin as his second class (instead of thief...no, this was not the guy who started as a ranger). My brother's halfling thief-acrobat was the kind of douchebag only an annoying younger brother can run. A couple of (prominent) halfling thief henchmen/NPCs. Scott ran a female half-elf thief who was brutalized and killed by a tribe of bullywugs (I1: Dwellers of the Forbidden City) in what may have been the lowest point of our many year campaign...a campaign that had MANY low points (see Matt's healer character above).

Monk: I created a monk character with the name "Soft Treader" (because I suck, okay?) who wore a cape with a hood that looked a bit like Moon Knight (not really an inspiration) and, as far as I remember never used his hand-to-hand attacks; had a crossbow and "jo sticks" instead and made it to about 2nd level before being abandoned (or killed...I honestly don't remember). Pretty sure he was Lawful Neutral, which didn't fit in all that great with the (usually Chaotic) party we were running.

Bard: three of these, though one (mine) really had three iterations across the years: first as a fighter-thief-bard, then as a ranger-acrobat-bard, and finally as a fighter-assassin-bard. The other two were both female; one (another half-elf ranger-acrobat) was a prominent NPC. The other was a crazy-ass mix of storm giant/human/elf that (I think) was of the "standard" fighter-thief variety...albeit one with a bunch of crazy air elemental type powers (this was NOT my character; another long post).

A few years after this group disbanded, I did have the opportunity to run a short (maybe three month?) AD&D campaign for my brother and some friends. They were in high school at the time and were tired of me maiming their PCs with Chaosium game systems (ElfQuest, Stormbringer, etc.). The group consisted of a fighter, a couple clerics, and an evil magic-user or two. Oh, and another (1E) bard who was sacrificed pretty early on in order to power The Machine of Lum the Mad. Since that time, I've really only run/played BECMI or B/X...at least as far as anything resembling a "campaign."

So what's the breakdown? How many different classes are we talking? Well, that's really only about EIGHT classes, plus multi-class combos and racial variation. I mean, the monk? I can hardly call a class played in one or two sessions by a single player (probably one just "trying out" the new rules) as really viable class. Other than the thief, most single-class characters were a "main" class: fighter, cleric, or magic-user. Subclasses were something to be shoehorned into a multi-class character (or bard) or left for NPCs. The thief subclasses were the exception for us, and I'd guess this was due mostly to them all being "thief PLUS" type classes: they had all the abilities of a thief, plus extra abilities. And UN-like other subclasses (paladins, rangers, barbarians, etc.) there were no behavioral restrictions mandated by their class. Any rule that restricted us with regard to who we could loot and what we could carry (treasure-wise) was enough to render classes undesirable and untouchable.

Getting crowded in here...

If we had played without behavior restrictions, would we have made use of more classes? Possibly. Certainly the cavalier's "boost ability score over time" looks like the kind of tasty exploit we would have lapped up. But it's hard to say: the original four B/X classes (fighter, magic-user, cleric, and thief) were so straightforward in how they worked. A class like illusionist seemed pretty easy to add, because it was (mainly) just about swapping out the spell list. And you can do a LOT with four classes, a handful of races, and an ability to combine the two (or more) elements.

Which, unfortunately, doesn't really answer my question.

I just want to add a couple-three more thoughts (as I wrap up an already-too-long post): one is that my remembering of my old campaigns' classes is probably not accounting how much of our enthusiasm or affinity for a particular class was due to level restrictions. No one played dwarves (for example) because they max level was capped in all but the thief class (and who wanted to play a dwarf thief? He can't even climb walls!). This was a major consideration for us "back in the day."

Secondly, regarding 3rd edition (and 3.5 and, by extension, Pathfinder): I've played this brand of D&D and despite it only having only 11 "core classes" (we won't count the later "Complete" line of 3.5 that added at least 12 additional "core classes" to the mix), it was TOO MANY for my taste, simply because of the lack of restriction in combination. I suppose there's nothing "wrong" with a gnome or half-orc ranger...in some ways, that's a nice option to have, an example of "outside-the-box" thinking, casting against type, etc. But there IS something about allowing (for example) ANY race to become a paladin, or a monk, or whatever that makes a class that once felt special and privileged to be "less special." And the open-ended multi-classing? That defeats the whole purpose (and advantages) of having a class-based system; instead you're doing a class-less system, just not one as robust as other "point-buy" RPGs (like GURPS).

In the original AD&D PHB, there were a total of 56 race-class combinations available to player characters (58 in games that allowed the human and half-elf bard options). 22 of these were specific, demihuman multi-classes, almost all of which were composed of primary classes (not subclasses). 50 is probably more than one will see in a long-running game (mine used less than half this number, and we enjoyed trying out new things and tinkering)...but I can see wanting to have 150% to 200% more available than what one would expect to find over the life of a campaign. For me, based on my past experience, 40 would feel like a pretty safe maximum.

Besides, I could always add more if some player really REALLY wanted to have something unusual (a half-giant pyrokinetic archer, for example).
; )

Kender

Four days?! Have I really gone four days without a post?

Welp, the holidays are well and truly upon us. I'm leaving town (heading to Mexico for what may be my last trip south for a LONG while) and I've been running around trying to get everything squared away for Christmas. Combined with fighting my annual bronchitis (and the morning grogginess that comes from chugging NyQuil) I just haven't had time to sit down and write.

[well, I did spend one morning writing several scathing paragraphs about Douglas Niles, but in the spirit of Christmas decided it would be best not to publish those remarks. Suffice is to say that Against the Cult of the Reptile God remains the only highlight of his TSR career...in my opinion]

All right, time to play out the string. This should PROBABLY be my last DL post for the foreseeable future.

At the beginning of most every DragonLance adventure (I don't recall one that doesn't...and I ended up reading through all of DL1-DL15 over the last couple weeks), the author takes pains to point out that the Krynn setting has several "important differences" from the standard AD&D play:

1. Gold has no value in the world (except that, in later modules, it has some value outside the starting region of the DL campaign).

2. Clerical spells have not existed for 300 years (though they become available to both characters and antagonists beginning with the second module in the series...still it colors NPCs attitudes toward clerics).

3. Dragons haven't been seen for a thousand years and are considered a myth (though this also changes following the first module as dragons run rampant over the setting).

4. Halflings are unknown in Krynn; instead they are replaced by the Kender race.

Thanks to the popularity of Tolkien, "Hobbit-equivalents" have been found in fantasy gaming since the very beginning. OD&D originally had them (available as a fighting class with a maximum level of four...probably the most accurate modeling of the species ever to see print). DragonQuest makes them a more balanced adventurer (though still with tongue-in-cheek references to LotR). Palladium uses "gnomes" to fill the same ecosystem (I've see other RPGs use "brownie" in the same way). Warhammer Fantasy has perhaps my favorite depiction of the handling species (with the snarky wit typical of all GW games, they are grubby, gluttonous thieves and low-lives). As a fantasy race, the halfling is as ubiquitous as elves and dwarves.

The kender is the first re-skinning that really steps far from the hobbit archetype.

Kender look like "wizened 14-year olds" and unlike halflings (hobbits) they wear shoes. They are described as having an insatiable curiosity, and no real sense of property ownership (they tend to "borrow" anything they find interesting that isn't nailed down). They have two system/rule-based abilities: they are immune to fear (magical or otherwise), and they have the ability to taunt others (save versus spells or incite folks to attack with reckless abandon...and substantial penalties) with "verbal abuse."

The model for the 3E "halfling."

It's basically a character class that models your annoying little sibling who you forced to play a halfling thief, because no one else wanted to play one in a campaign setting that features a war against dragons and a profound lack of treasure (because, hey, gold is worthless).

Kleptomaniac, annoying children...empowered to stick their noses into trouble, steal shit that doesn't belong to them, and irritate people with a special mind control power. In the books, kender make a nice bit of comic relief from the grim-dark melodrama and hopeless odds of the setting. In gaming? Well...

As I wrote earlier, we never actually played in the DL setting, or ran any of the modules. However, we have halfling thieves in our campaign whose personality and behavior was modeled fairly substantially off the kender. Well, one was...the other one was closer to a gully dwarf (being a bit slower of wit). Here's the thing, though: both were NPCs in the campaign, run by the same DM (not me). Both were played (mostly), for comic relief, though they never upstaged the other PCs. One (the dim-witted one) was, in fact, the henchman of another PC and was both fiercely loyal and affectionate to her (though being none-too-competent). The other was more-or-less Tasslehoff in all but name (his name was "Mouse," for the record), but far more helpful than a hindrance.

Neither of these displayed any of the "kender skills:" they didn't taunt (at least, as a system for taking control of someone), they weren't immune to fear ("Shorty" the henchman was quite the coward), they didn't use "hoopaks" for weapons. They were curious and they did acquire a lot of items with their light fingers (all of which were stored in their multiple, bulging belt pouches)...and they did speak (squeakily) in a childlike fashion with a kender's wide-eyed innocence.

[and...on rare occasion...act as a deus ex machina. Well, one time at least: when Mouse liberated MY character from an eternity of torment at the hands of Lolth. However, I was left to rot (literally and figuratively) for several months prior to rescue]

But that was just a choice of how our DM wanted to run halflings in her campaign. None of the players were running halflings (well, only my kid brother who...once...ran the guy as an annoying, klepto-style, as only a 10-year old brat can do. And, no, he never read the DragonLance books. That character was a thief-acrobat...) so she was re-skinning simply to make the race interesting as an NPC. After all, we were slavishly devoted to the Rules As Written in those days...to simply CUT halflings (or paladins or monks or whatever) from the game, even though no one ever used them, was unthinkable to us. Better for us to find some way to make use of their existence in D&D.

So, I guess I have a bit of a soft-spot for kender...not as a playable race, but as an NPC personality. I enjoyed Tas in the DragonLance books, and I enjoyed Mouse in his similar role as an occasional traveling companion (he did not accompany us on ALL our adventures...he was more of a campaign personality that would wander into our party from time-to-time). Unfortunately, I don't think there are many people who could pull off playing a kender-type...either as a PC or even as an NPC. I'm pretty certain I couldn't; I just don't have the whimsical humor necessary to portray such a character (maybe I'm too mean-spirited).

If I were to run a DragonLance campaign (and at this point, I've all but decided against the idea), I would include kender as a B/X-style class. Fear immunity would simply be a +2 bonus to saves and/or Morale (there are plenty of times in the novels that Tasslehoff acts in all the ways as someone who is nervous, scared, or paralyzed with fright, despite his statements to the contrary). They'd all receive some thief skills (notably picking pockets and locks...probably with a substantial bonus), but they'd receive a negative reaction with most intelligent species in Krynn (after all, not all humans are thieves, but all kender...well, they do have a reputation).

Taunting would work differently: a kender would be able to force a reaction roll, and could apply their Charisma adjustment as a NEGATIVE, even if normally positive (a low CHA kender would apply their reaction normally). Creatures incensed to fight would suffer a penalty to attack (probably not AC). Other PCs would be immune to this sort of thing, as would NPCs with more levels/HD than the kender (and I would limit kender to eight levels of experience, just like the halfling class they'd replace in B/X).

I'd probably remove the halfling bonus to missile combat (leave the AC bonus), and would use their stealth ability for any type of "sneaky thief skill" (move silent, etc.)...all kender would have the same chance to be unobtrusive, regardless of level. Wearing metal armor would negate these bonuses/abilities, of course...no lenders clinking around in plate armor should be able to sneak up on someone and rob 'em.

Personally, I think such a species works far better in a B/X-based campaign. Despite being written for AD&D, nearly all the protagonists are "single class," and all are pretty "basic;" even the elves in the DL adventure modules are all of the fighter/magic-user type (with the exception of Laurana). Only the Plainsman, Riverwind, uses a non-B/X class (he's a ranger), and he's easily converted to a straight fighter (he never uses any ranger abilities in the novels anyway).

Hmm...maybe I will write another DL post, just to do some conversion notes for folks who like the idea of B/X DragonLance.

But not today. I'm leaving my house around 6am tomorrow and I've got lot still to do (including packing). I'm not sure I'll be taking my laptop (which would be a first), but even if I do, I'm not sure I'll be blogging again before the New Year. If you don't hear from me...well, hopefully you'll all have a happy, happy one (I'm pulling for ya!). I'll be back for sure in 2019.

Later, Gators!
: )

The Need For Escape

Happy F'ing New Year.

Man, there's a lot of stuff I could (and would like to) write about. Most of it has fuck-all to do with gaming, however, and much of it is probably "too political" (and too partisan to boot)...things that many of my readers find tedious in the extreme. And I do have a few (fifty or so) gaming topics in mind for the New Year, though precious few are specific to Dungeons & Dragons, let alone B/X.

[though rest assured, I am compiling a list...for YOU, gentle readers, all for you]

In fact, my original plan for the day was to sit on down at the local cafe and bang out a couple-four posts to schedule over the coming week. This didn't happen as I ended up spending much of my morning dealing with the police and my delinquent brother and his asshole-ness. Which...trust me, I know...I could go on and on about and elicit all sorts of sympathy for, but fuck, there's not much one can do with sympathy, besides appreciate it and get on with the effort required for dealing with life's realities.

Thanks anyway. Everyone has problems, and my personal ones are pretty small compared to a lot of folks out there, even those of my fellow Americans.

So, instead I'm at the bar attached to a local game store, blogging like this. I bought a beer and a bowl of chili and a game (the newly re-issued Adventures of Baron Munchausen...a beautiful book with new rules for Sinbad the Sailor-type storytelling) and I'm calming my nerves and getting ready to be a fucking parent again with my two darling children who deserve so much more than their uncle's bullshit and the future inheritance we, as a fucked up society, are leaving them.

Games, especially role-playing games like D&D, are a fantastic cure for the various ills that plague us. Don't get me wrong: I use lots of escapist means to deal with my mental stress and suffering. But alcohol (one of my favorites) has a lot of downsides to it, and video games contain few of a tabletop RPG's virtues (like requiring literacy, engaging your imagination, and forcing you to interact with fellow human beings). Thank God for games...I can only wonder at what I might have done with myself over the years if I hadn't had them for an escape outlet.

That's it. That's all I've got for the moment. Seriously, no one wants the sordid details. But I'll try to get back to posting here in the next few days. I do have other things to write about, after all.

The Defenders (Part 1)

The last 24 hours have been pretty shitty by my standards. Yes, I managed to get my huge yard project done, but then I had to deal with my brother's jackassery. Having an alcoholic friend or family member can be rough for anyone, but when "alcoholic" meets "asshole-ness" (as it so often does), it can be a real shit-show to deal with.

So it was that I had to show my brother the door this morning at around 10am. I've been decompressing ever since.

[I say this not to elicit sighs or sympathy or well-wishes, by the way. I'm just trying to explain the space where my head is, at the moment, and a little bit of the why]

The best Marvel casting since Iron Man.

ANYway, one thing about being awakened in the middle of the night and being unable to find sleep due to mental stress (or whatever), I finally had the chance to finish watching the last couple episodes of The Defenders series on Netflix. I wanted to finish it, before writing about it. What I want to write, what I hope to write may take me a little while to get off my chest...I've got more than a few things to say, even (possibly) tying it back to earlier series in this Marvel NY Universe. However, I'll give you the short version for those who hate reading through those "wall of text" posts I've been known to write:

The best thing about The Defenders is the cast. The worst thing about The Defenders is the writing. If you are a fan of these characters' comics, it is fun to watch. If you are a fan of the previous Netflix Marvel series, it is fun to watch. Judged by the cast, it might be (might) the best of the Netflix Marvel series so far. Judged by the writing, it is certainly one of the worst...if not THE worst.

That's the TL;DR, spoiler free version. I'd recommend the series; it's only eight episodes. However, I understand a lot of people have a lot more important stuff to do with eight hours of their time. Like running a marathon D&D session. Like watching 2 to 3 MLB games of their local team (assuming that, unlike Seattle, you've got an MLB team with a snowball's chance in hell of making the post-season). Like getting a good night's sleep (or two night's sleep if you are the parent of a new baby or infant child). Or like streaming the entire season of Game of Thrones, back-to-back, once the season finale airs this Sunday.

But if you do want to make the time for the show, I'll be happy. After all, I'm a fan and I'm looking forward to new seasons of ALL these Marvel shows with the hope-hope-hope that they'll so a better job with them...and the more people that watch The Defenders, the more likely said shows will get made.

[okay...thus ends the short version of my commentary; here comes the looooong version. And, yes, there will be **SPOILERS**]

I am a fan of the "Defenders." Not the actual, comic book Defenders mind you...the super group led by Doctor Strange, and often featuring similar "heavy hitters" of the Marvel universe (the Silver Surfer, the Hulk, and Prince Namor were all regular team members). No, I was never a big fan of the comic. But I am a fan of these Defenders, the Netflix television heroes based on a certain group of street level superheroes.

And when I say I'm a fan of these Defenders, I am talking specifically about the characters...not the series (The Defenders television series). I'm only watching The Defenders (TV series) because I'm a fan of the Defenders (characters). The series itself hasn't yet convinced me. In other words, it's not the plot or story arc of the show that's causing me to watch the next episode...it's the heroes and the actors who are heroically portraying them.

And I really do mean heroic. As far as I'm concerned, there's some really careless writing going on in this show, and the actors are selling it as hard as they can. I'm not talking about poor dialogue, I'm talking about poor characterization. Like Misty Knight carrying a torch for Luke Cage since his season ending, and when the first place she finds him (after he gets out of prison) is in the arms of Claire Temple and she's just like, hey, it's all good, nonchalant. Like Luke Cage being all buddy-buddy with Jessica Jones when the last time he saw her (in her series) he was basically like, "Bitch, I hate you and I would punch a hole in your head if I didn't have some code of honor." Like Matt Murdoch basically falling apart as a vigilante hero after he had (finally) seemed to come to grips with his secret identity, even revealing it to Karen Paige, accepting his role in his city's superhero fabric.

Jesus H. Just some real fucking continuity issues.

And yet I have such high praise for the actors playing these roles. They are giving their hearts and souls here...almost like they're desperate to hold onto a lucrative gig. And perhaps they are...the title roles aren't being played by big name movie stars. It's like watching the rookies try to make teams during the NFL preseason...these actors are leaving it all out on the field, even when the writers are fucking all their shit up.

Oh, boy...the writing. Fucking ninjas. Again.

At least this season there was no one dressed like an actual, stereotype black-cowled ninja (unlike the first two seasons of Daredevil and...probably, I can't remember...Iron Fist). Maybe one of the producers is reading my blog, as I know I've written this before: in comics, ninjas are cool; not so much (rather, not at all) in live-action television. I think people have been aware of this since the 1984 television series The Master (starring not-really-Asian-looking Lee Van Cleef). Man, I remember watching that show. And I remember thinking, why is this old geezer dressing up like a ninja and kicking ass? He's so old!

So, yeah, fucking ninjas. Again. I don't know why they decided to mine this particular vein of villainy to bring the Defenders together. There were plenty of interesting story arcs to pursue from the other Netflix series. The mysterious shadow corporation responsible (apparently) for both Jessica Jones and Luke Cage's powers. Daredevil's acceptance of his role as NY's Batman and the Kingpin's desire for revenge. Davos and the Meachum's machinations on Danny Rand. Colleen's newfound love of Fight Club. Etc. Yeah, I could rant for a while on this subject, and it's probably best to address it all in individual character notes.

[wait, what, JB?]

Despite all this...the poor writing, poor plotting, poor continuity, and all the fucking ninjas...despite of these many and varied complaints, it is still a real joy and pleasure to watch this cast work their craft (i.e. "acting") and interpret these characters. And it may be even more fun for me, because I'm a big fan of these street-level superheroes.

Daredevil, of course, I've been a fan of from way back. Well, since the 1980s, which is way back for a lot of folks (30+ years!). I was always fascinated with anything vaguely satanic, and a dude in a devil costume fit the bill (I was also a huge fan of Ghost Rider, back in the day).

The stuff with DD and Electra and The Hand (the ninjas) was great...the best of his comics. But the stuff with him and the Kingpin (and Typhoid Mary and all that) was great, too. And it was actually because of Daredevil that I first became interested in the likes of Iron Fist, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, and the Daughters of the Dragon.

See, while I always liked the swashbuckler look of Iron Fist, his character died long before I ever picked up a Power Man & Iron Fist comic. However, a while back (circa 2006) there was a Daredevil/Iron Fist crossover (yes, turns out Danny wasn't really dead. Duh, comics) where they switched costumed identities, in order to prove Murdoch wasn't really Daredevil. It made perfect sense, really...both characters are about the same height and build, both are caucasian, both have a similar "power suite" (superior martial arts ability; one due to enhanced senses, the other due to mystical, other-dimensional training and chi mastery). While Danny acted as Daredevil (and covered up that glowing fist), Murdoch was off in Kun-Lun fighting some other-worldly martial arts tournament for the Iron Fist.

Okay, it wasn't ALWAYS
covered up...

It was a pretty cool idea and one that made me dive headfirst into the Immortal Iron Fist, and his history...which, of course, led me to the Daughters of the Dragon (Misty and Colleen) and Luke Cage, as well as Luke's on-going family life and relationship with Jessica Jones and her whole story (Alias Investigations, the Purple Man, etc.). These days, I know more about these street level superheroes than the X-Men (have the X-Men done anything new these days?).

And why O why is that? What kept me digging into their backstories (and back issues)? Nothing more than the fact that they are a super cool and under-appreciated bunch of heroes with some very good story writing (at times) and some very interesting conflicts that work well on a small scale...none of this saving the world (or universe) shtick, we've got problems right here in the 'hood, y'all. And that's different, and that's interesting, and in some ways it's important.

Life is built on the "small-scale." Individual relationships matter. Family matters. Friends matter. These things shape us...our perceptions, our opinions. And our perceptions and opinions shape our decisions and our actions. No matter what our sphere of influence.

Why does Donald Trump behave as he does? Think about that for a moment. Consider his upbringing. Consider his young adulthood. Consider his life to this point. How have those things gone into making this man the person...the president...he is today? When you think about his origins (and I'm not just talking about his parents or elementary school...I'm talking about everything that led him to this point, including more than a decade as a popular television celebrity), is it very strange that he acts in the disconcerting manner that he does? Sure, it's strange that people voted for him to run the most powerful nation in the world. But when you consider the building blocks of his life's experiences, you can see how he was shaped into the man he is.

Small things impact us and influence us.

And so I am a fan of small-scale superheroes and their stories: Matt, Jessica, Luke, Danny, and their various associates. I should say I was already a fan of them in comic books...but I am becoming more and more of a fan of them in these Netflix shows. And that is despite the writing which -- perhaps because of the need to bring these four together for The Defenders crossover series -- seems to have gotten worse and worse. No, it is entirely due to this magnificent ensemble cast, and the way they embody their characters.

But I'll talk about them individually in a follow-up post (this one is getting huge). My last thought (for now), is that The Defenders is like a limited issue comic run written by people who may not have the best grasp of the characters they're using...people willing to sacrifice nuance for the sake of a cash-grab crossover event that will see fans of different titles all pony up the dough to make sure they're collection of [insert favorite hero] is complete.  It's like that...but it's different. Because those limited issue micro-series in comics are notorious for having lesser art (after all, a character's normal illustrator isn't necessarily working on the crossover title)...whereas here we have the exact same actors breathing life into these characters. That helps me forgive a lot of the bad in The Defenders.

All right. More later.