Mix N Match

I've (probably) mentioned this in the past, but I really enjoy watching the reality show Top Chef. Personally, I'm not much of a cook, and while I'm not adverse to learning how to cook, cooking good food generally takes a loooong time...more time than I like to spend preparing my fuel. Sure this is yet another personal flaw...I don't grow my veggies or slaughter my own meat either...but while I may not have a "full appreciation" of my food, I can honestly say I have a great respect for people who do. Also, I like to eat at their restaurants whenever I can afford it.

Anyway, the thing about Top Chef is that (in addition to the sheer expression of creativity on display), is that it's fun to watch the various challenges, which usually involve a specific ingredient (or ingredients), a particular theme, or both. Top Chef's main imitator (which I don't like as much but do occasionally watch) is a show called Chopped which has pared the premise down to a specific format: cook three courses (starter, entree, and dessert) over three rounds, each round containing three specific ingredients that must be used in the dish. Each round, one of the four contestants is "chopped" till there's only one left.

[Chopped is really more of a poor man's Iron Chef. The original, mind you...I have never been able to sit through the American version and Bobby Flay is such a fraud]

I was thinking just how much fantasy these days, and especially fantasy in, of, and for role-playing games tends to echo this formula: authors and designers are taking the same "fantasy ingredients" and attempt to produce a "winning dish" (i.e. something that sells well) by "cooking" them up in different ways. Which elements exactly? Something like fighters, wizards, elves, dwarves, hobbits, monsters, treasure, good, and evil. Often thieves and cleric-ish types, too.

Now, I loves me my Tolkien: his work is inspiring, his writing often beautiful, and his world (and language) building pretty off-the-chart. But while his stuff is mythic in scope and I enjoy reading it, I can't say it's my favorite fantasy. Middle Earth isn't even the kind of fantasy world I'd want to play in or a base a campaign off.

Still, some authors dig Tolkien enough to throw their own "spin" at his epic (Brooks, Donaldson, Jordon...I'm looking at you) and there's no doubt his world has left an impression that's hard to escape. But Tolkien emulators aside, is there a point we reach when we stop liking the taste of the ingredients, no matter how well or original the manner in which they're cooked?

Maybe it's a silly question. For the author or game designer, there's something about the challenge of working with familiar elements that gets our juices flowing. And there's been some great art created from these elements: I look at Wendy Pini's "space elves," or Bakshi's Wizards, or even David Chandler's Ancient Blades trilogy (which, to my eyes is clearly inspired by B/X Dungeons & Dragons). Even the television show Game of Thrones is a ton of fun and offers yet another take on elves and monsters and gold acquisition (I find Martin's books to be a bit less fun).

But, silly question or not, I think it's worth asking: is it sustainable? Giving the fantasy critters guns and bionic implants worked for Shadowrun. Blowing up the fantasy world and making the hobbits cannibals and the dwarves into gladiators worked (somewhat) for Dark Sun. But there are more than a few games and game settings that the fantasy ingredients didn't work for. I'd be interested in seeing the financials for Al-Qadim...there's been no release of AQ material (as far as I know) since it was published with 2nd edition AD&D, and there was quite a bit of material written for it in the TSR days (material that could easily be swiped and re-purposed, as WotC likes to do).

Still without elves
...or audience!

On the other hand fantasy games that don't include these familiar ingredients simply haven't found the same level of popularity. Tekumel and Talislanta have their niche market, but it's a small niche; I would guess that the folks currently running an "old school" D&D campaign probably outnumber the total number of players who have ever run a game in M.A.R. Barker's world, but what I know is that it's really hard to find ANY blogs about Talislanta on Ye Old Internet. People may be playing fantasy with "no elves," but they sure aren't talking much about it.

Yes, yes...I realize there are more kinds of "fantasy" than just the sword-swinging type. I've been reading a lot of Scooby Apocalypse lately (more on that later), and awesome fantasy that it is, there's nary a sword to be seen. But what I'm most interested in, gaming-wise (which is kind of the point of this post...and this blog) is the sword-swinging brand of fantasy...and you just don't see all that much of that kind of thing without some sort of pointy eared, elfin-types running around.

[yes, Shadowrun has swords, too...magic swords even]

I guess I'm just wondering this morning (as I scratch around for something to write about besides tieflings...again), does the inclusion of Tolkien elements automatically make something "knockoff fantasy?" If it's a game that includes these elements is it basically just a re-imagined form of D&D (and thus, a form of fantasy heartbreaker)? And does it matter? Should it matter?

Maybe it doesn't; maybe there are more important things to be concerned about. I was wandering around the internet today (looking for ANY kind of Talislanta stuff), and I accidentally fell down the "Alt-Right rabbit hole" of blogging, SciFi, and gaming. Wow, just...wow. So much fucking awful. I'd rather spend any amount of time with tiefling/dragonborn-loving players then spend an hour in a room with those folks. Box of stupid indeed! I know atheists who are doing God's will on this planet better than these "Christians" (making a kinder, gentler, more compassionate world). What a pile of anger and hatred...a steaming, stinking pile.  Fuck...that...noise.

*ahem*

ANYhoo, my daughter has a playdate with her friend today (the daughter of my son's First Communion teacher), so I've got some vacuuming and straightening up to do; their plan is to play "pirates" ...we don't have any Barbie stuff in my house...and I need to make sure they've got all their cutlasses and costumes ready to go. I'll try to write something more useful later today, though I can't guarantee it won't be about tieflings.
; )

Gaming Romance (Redux)

Happy (belated) Valentine’s Day!

That is to  say, I assume this will be belated since I’m writing it on February the 14^th (in my home) and my internet connection is currently disconnected…so you are probably reading this on the 15^th.

[I hope this is posted by the 15^th]

[***EDIT: it is still the 15th...barely...took more than 24 hours and two calls to India but I'm back on line...finally***]

Anyway, my original plan was NOT to be blogging, but instead to be playing…that is, play-testing…the new game, 5AK, my version of D&D Mine and one hell of a fantasy “heartbreaker” (appropriate for Valentine’s Day, ja?).

Unfortunately, for some damn reason all my players had plans with their wives or families tonight. Go figure.

My family ended up going out for pizza (yes, yes, my wife received flowers and a nice card, but we’re going to do our “romantic thang” on the weekend, when it’s easier to make reservations). And now here I am blogging.

Funny enough, I’ve been working on the “romance” rules for 5AK all afternoon. This really had nothing to do with the holiday…it just happened to be the thing I was working on. Romance and romantic entanglements play a large part in fairy tales and fantasy, so it’s important to have rules that model this in a fantasy adventure game (which is what I’m writing).

Yes, I realize that many folks don’t bother with such things in the standard dungeon crawl campaign, and the closest thing to romance in the AD&D books is Gygax’s “wandering harlot” table. To me, this is just another example of the unfortunate fashion in which D&D was designed (i.e. a perfectly fine dungeon delving board/war game that morphed into “something bigger” and had additional stuff “tacked on”). You’re welcome to disagree, of course…but I’d bet there’s a lot of cold and lonely Name level characters shivering in their strongholds and wishing they had a Valentine!

; )

Anyhoo, as a starting point I’ve gone back and read this old blog post from a couple years back (said reading being done earlier today, prior to coming home and finding my internet down). The brief rules therein are good enough for a standard (i.e. “semi-generic”) B/X game, but I need something a little “beefier” for my Arabian Nights-flavored setting, where social class distinctions are semi-important. Also, I have this “thing” about wanting “game content” to be open at all levels (not just waiting till you reach high levels in order to “do neat stuff”), so that has to be taken into account.

And, oh yeah, there’s that part about my game just using D6s so I have to work out systems that DON’T involve the use of percentile dice.

Still, it’s coming along (play-testing, of course, will be needed...*sigh*). I’m toying with the idea of making different systems depending on player character gender; I have a pet peeve with fantasy games that make all genders universally interchangeable.

No, I am not talking about imposing AD&D-style “ability score limits” and their thus consequential class/level limits. THAT, to me, is pretty dumb given the role and abstract nature of ability scores and class/level.

In fact, let me (briefly) go off on a tangent for a quick moment: in my game, “class” is short for “classification;” it’s not a career path or some apprenticeship program, either of which might be limited by the social mores or patriarchal (or matriarchal) laws of a given setting. Male or female, player characters are “adventurers;” that is their profession and its open to anyone. Now, what is the manner in which you go about adventuring? If your tendency is to wear armor and hit things with a sword, you get classified as a “fighter.” If you use magical arts (regardless of whether you were taught at a wizard school or by the witch/wise woman down the street) then you are a “magician.” Get it?

This is why you won’t see arbitrary armor and weapon restrictions in my game. You’re an adventurer…you can use whatever is available. Of course, some things require training/practice to use them more effectively, and some maneuvers (like free-climbing a sheer cliff) might preclude the wearing of bulky armor, but that’s just sensible to what I'm trying to model. And, no, there is no “skill system” in sight…the abstract classification still provides a description of the “skills” your character knows/practices. Duh. It’s just not a “job,” per se.

[and ability scores measure characters’ effectiveness against themselves, by the way, not against others…so an 18 strength means someone is very large, strong, and fit for their gender, but doesn’t necessarily mean she’s bigger and bulkier than the 7’ hulk with the 14 strength. Just means she’s more effective at using what she’s got. I can get away with this because ability scores have very little effect on in-game effectiveness…it really is a throwback to OD&D in this regard]

*whew*

Back to Valentine’s Day and romance…having said all that, there are still some gender differences, mainly setting related (the non-setting ones concern childbirth which does NOT need a game system to model, by the way). Being based on Arabian culture there is, for example, the bride price that needs to be paid by the potential groom. There is no reverse “groom price” that a female adventurer would have to procure in order to tie the knot…and in fact if she can expect to receive a big fat wad of cash from whatever dude happens to get ensnared with her feminine wiles. Then there’s the issue of concubines and marrying your slaves (the latter was permissible for free women, but frowned upon) as well as the (small) differences regarding inheritance and titles.

The game is not actually meant to be a snap-shot setting of 8th century Arabia…I’m sure GURPS has probably put out a book for that already. This is a fictional land (a la Al-Qadim) modeled on our real world one and with the traditional fantasy ramped up a half-notch...no, you won’t find elves and dwarves and orcs (sorry), but you will find more necromancy (undead) and dragons then your average Arabian Nights tale. And the Underworld (from OD&D and Holmes) IS a part of the game setting, though it doesn’t share the prominence you find in D&D. Instead, it is just another realm to explore, alongside the Wilderness and the Palace.

By which I mean: it’s important that there ARE rules for romance, and having gender differences add to the game setting, but it doesn’t have to be a perfect model of the historic real world. ‘Cause it’s not. It’s a fantasy adventure game, perhaps steeped in a little more “real world” stuff then, say, Krull.

Now, I’m still debating whether or not to include tarnsmen…er, “roc riders"…or not. Maybe that should be the “secret weapon” of the Arabs even as the Byzantines pull out their fewer (but terribly potent) “dragon knights.” Cool or not cool?

Later Gators!

I don't know why I try...

...to be original in any way, shape, or form. Clearly, I am constantly to find myself duplicating efforts that have already been done.

Picked up a copy of Al-Qadim today, the "Arabian adventures" campaign setting book for 2nd edition AD&D. Ugh. How can someone steal idea 20 years before you even have it?

Al-Qadim was written in 1992 (carrying the by-line of Jeff Grubb, a designer for whom I have immense respect due to the Marvel Superheroes RPG). It basically sets out to do everything I intended to do as background material for my D&D Mine project, drawing on the "three distinct versions of Arabia" for its material:

1) the historical Arabian Empire

2) the legendary or "mythic" Arabia

3) the Hollywood (TV and movie) Arabia

Which is exactly what I was drawing from as well.

Other sources of irritation:

• the "Holy Slayer" (i.e. assassin) carries the same hard-line guild requirements that I included in my version of the assassin. Remember I was saying I still wanted to use the problematic assassin class because I dig my version/rules for the class? Well, Grubb did it first.
• they include lamellar armor, dammit! Here I thought I was being all cool and innovative with that. Of course, AQ still keeps "scale mail" instead of replacing it with the former, which is kind of lame.
• the magic-user classes, ESPECIALLY the shi'ar kit, is done better than my own spell-using classes, which adhere too closely to the original game rules (even as they don't...more on that later). Double-ugh...it makes me want to scrap the whole mage concept and ONLY use a knock-off version of the shi'ar. Dammit!

I suppose I could just make my game MORE generic (i.e. more like "classic D&D"), but I agree with the conclusion Noisms came to the other day: having a particular authorial flavor or personality makes rule systems a lot more palatable (if not more digestible) than more generic, "bland" RPGs. I guess I'll just bite the bullet and accept that I'm not terribly original.

Or maybe I'll throw more Gorean elements into the game/setting.

; )

I am NOT tempted to re-write Al-Qadim wholesale (say, as a B/X campaign setting, something I was looking at doing with Dark Sun for sure)...it looks a little over-worked and under-whelming in most areas, and even though I LIKE a lot of what's in the book, I'm not sure it really delivers what it promises. And how can they get away with NOT presenting the True Faith as an option for character worship?

That being said, I fully intend to keep this one on the work bench, and may well borrow some of its cooler ideas (like the shi-ar class or random sandstorm tables) for my own game.

Salaam!

: )