Original Edition Delta

I spent a lot of time researching medieval archery (longbows, crossbows) around 2am this morning because...well, I don't honestly remember what put that particular been into my bonnet. For whatever reason, I felt I needed/wanted to "correct" some things.

[I also spent a good bit of time researching The Runaways. Cherie Curry was a phenomenal talent for her age. Well, I suppose they all were, but I know quite a bit more about being a vocalist/front than those stringy-instrument things...]

Anyhoo, while watching videos of dudes with British accents shooting arrows into things and comparing my copy of D&D with CHAINMAIL and a bunch of pseudo-scholarly web sites devoted to medieval weapons, I...

[oh, wait! I remember! I was checking archery technology in relationship to the development of armor in western Europe...again...especially in the 13th through 15th centuries. Duh]

...I found myself getting more blah-blah-blah-blah because is the kind of shit I am always doing: re-re-inventing the damn wheel just trying to reconcile historic stats with design models. Surely a lost cause when players would prefer to do cool stuff like putting an arrow through a dragon's eyeball.

[having been stabbed in the eyeball with a lollypop stick a couple years back and managing to make a full recovery without the need for medical attention (I got the medical attention, but the doctor did nothing but set me home with some painkillers) I would be inclined to think such an attack, while inconveniencing, would not be nearly as deadly as the players might assume...just given the scale and all]

However, I am what I am (depressing as that can be at times), and I can't help but feeling that if I could just get it right once, then I would stop repeating the damn wheel.

Enter Delta's D&D Hotspot.

Delta's blog is a wealth of good material, most especially for folks (like me) who are interested in the development of D&D over the decades and the modeling of historic accuracy with the oldest versions of the game (including Chainmail). I've been reading his blog for years, but I've never really put in the time to read back over his older stuff. I could have saved myself a shit-ton of trouble if I had. Not only is his archery conclusions fairly close to my own, most of his house rules (Original Edition Delta...available as a free, 6-page PDF) are excellent, well-reasoned, and quite practical. I especially dig on his encumbrance ("stone based") rules and - oh, lookee - a thoughtful distinction of weapons and the use of "real time" for wandering encounters. His system for helmets is pretty much the same as what I was using for my Goblin Wars setting and (with adjustments), Land of Ice.

O Those Mathematicians! If I'd checked here first I might have shaved a couple hundred hours off my design time.

You might want to check it out (if you haven't already)...I'll probably be making reference to OED in future (design-related) posts, seeing as how most of it is so right on.

Okay, now that I got that out there, I shall return to my B/X dissatisfactions...

Missing the Mark

I’m feeling the need for a new micro-game.

[we’ll come back to that in a second]

How O How did I miss the new television show featuring one of my all-time favorite superheroes? That would be Green Arrow, about whomI've blogged before. The new TV program is called ARROW (duh) and is running on the CW (I thought that was the Country-Western channel?), but I couldn’t tell you when it normally airs because I am the parent of a small child…unless shows are running late at night, I’m generally only watching them “On Demand.”

So having newly discovered Arrow, I’ve been trying to catch up on all the shows I’ve missed. It’s not awful (which I feared) and certainly a step up from The Cape…has kind of a J.J. Abram’s feel to it (what with the flashbacks and the mysterious past/hidden agendas and the castaway-island-weirdness stuff) which is generally a good thing, if not terribly original. On the other hand, the casting for Oliver Queen just seems so YOUNG. Though I suppose the idea of the older gentleman, play-boy (read: creepy chauvinist-womanizer) doesn’t work as well in the 21^st century as it might have in the 1960s (see Mad Men). The reinvented Queen is a young Hollywood in the tabloid style of today’s n’er-do-wells (see Paris Hilton, Jack Osborne, etc. for examples).

My how the world turns.

I also like the Longbow Hunters-style archery (of course) and the reinvented “Speedy” (Queen’s crank-snorting younger sister in this show…ha!)…and the hood, too. Warms my heart, it does. I’m not too keen on the green leather jumpsuit and the romantic interest looks like she belongs on one of those WB shows…but otherwise, it’s enjoyable throwaway action-TV and really has some potential to go to some of the dark places worthy of Green Arrow (as opposed to simplistic PSA-style, “One To Grow On” moralizing).

[“Speedy” = crank addict. Ha! Every time I think of it, makes me chuckle]

You know, it’s funny (interesting)…I know there’s a lot about Green Arrow that echoes the Batman character, which isn’t all that surprising as they’re both knock-offs of Zorro (invented 20 years before Batman, thank you very much)…wealthy socialites during the day and grim masked men of justice at night. The secret hide-outs, the gadgets, the M.O., the sidekick, the character-themed vehicles, the acrobatics, etc. all make them seem like mirror image characters, other than the color of their costumes.

However, it’s the minute differences of personality that (for me) makes all the difference in the world, catapulting one onto my Top 5 or Top 3 all-time list. And no, it’s not just the fact that GA has the beard and uses a bow instead of a Batarang. I mean, let’s just draw the clear distinction right here and now:

[and, yes, this will get back to gaming in a moment, really…]

Batman IS an interesting character…as a child I read his comics, watched the old Adam West show, saw the cartoons, saw that first Michael Keaton movie a dozen times or so, and own all the Christian Bale films (for whatever reason, I never got around to watching the in-between films). I owned the whole Jason Todd/Death in the Family series at one point, as well as the Frank Miller post-apoc Dark Knight Returns graphic novel. I like Batman, but after mashing all these sources together, here’s how I see Batman (minus the ninja training):

-          A man with a keen, detective mind; armed with gadgetry purchased by wealth; driven by a childhood trauma, but with an unshakeable resolve regarding preservation of life even with his relentless pursuit of justice.

Compared to Green Arrow who is:

-          A man with the hunting skills developed from his castaway experience; driven by a desire for social justice forged in the years of isolation and contemplation; owing more to the Law of the Wild than the Kantian philosophy of Batman (the issue of wealth and gadgetry varies depending on the GA series/portrayal).

Leave aside the fighting ability both characters possess: “Who’s a better fighter” is a pretty moot point in comic books (and their ilk) when nearly all (male) characters are scrappy and fight-worthy and have as much brawling power as is necessary for the story/plot at hand. Instead look at three things:

1. What motivates the character (origin of their heroic impetus)
2. What is the character’s method (power that sets character apart)
3. What is the line the character won’t cross (self-imposed limitation)

The last is perhaps the MOST important part of a superhero…at least one that is well developed…because while folks are always quoting the “with Great Power comes Great Responsibility” line from Spiderman, the unsaid part about being greater than other mortals is “with Great Power comes Great Temptation.” The question is important because without a line, nothing stops the character from using their abilities for selfish and self-aggrandizing purposes. Doing THAT drops the character from the ranks of what we call “heroes.”

For example: Nothing physically stops the She-Hulk from intimidating the hell out of normal people (she might do so on occasion for a laugh, or because she’s annoyed with someone, but generally she attempts to put people at ease despite her strength and power). Nothing stops Steve Rogers from pursuing a lucrative career as an underwear model and living a life of debauchery with fame and fortune. Nothing prevents Spiderman from becoming the world’s greatest cat-burglar or from Reed Richards using his scratch-built spacecraft to ferry the rich and famous into orbit for a hefty fee.

But the threshold of self-imposed limitation varies from character to character. She-Hulk MIGHT intimidate someone for amusement, but Superman would not despite having the same (or greater) power…at least not while in uniform. Spiderman will happily knock the teeth out of some mugger in a dark alley, but he generally stops short of psychologically scarring and inflicting mental torture on an individual like the Batman will. The line a hero won’t cross comes to define the character as much or more so than anything else…compare Wolverine to his fellow X-Men in the 1980s as a stand-out example.

And while Batman is all about inflicting fear and terror and rough justice on the street criminal, his own code of ethics stops him short of bleeding someone with an edged weapon…unlike Green Arrow. Sure, it’s a fine line but it IS a line: the Bat is perfectly capable of giving some guy a concussion or sending ‘em to the hospital with a rupture, but piercing someone’s femoral artery or spleen runs the risk of putting someone in the MORGUE. That’s a decided difference between the two. GA doesn’t rank in the same category of the Punisher (who sets out to murder criminals in the name of “justice”) but he is one of the more flagrant and reckless of masked vigilantes, judged solely on his methods, at least since the Longbow Hunters.

[compare Green Arrow to non-Ultimate Hawkeye who continues to use non-lethal “trick arrows”]

So while there are superficial similarities between the GA and Batman, for me they are extremely distinct based on the answers to those three questions: motive, method, and limit. And the Arrow’s answers to those questions make him one of my favorite characters while Batman’s answers (respectable though they are) do not.

Okay, so what does all this rigmarole have to do with gaming?

Welp, last night I was back in play-testing mode with the wife back in town from business and BECAUSE of the all the Arrow TV watching and comic book contemplation, I decided to run my Supers game rather than the new Space Opera setting. Longtime readers know how easily my mind wanders from one subject to another with only the vaguest inspiration, so I realize none of you are all that surprised.

The most recent iteration of DMI Supers has quite a few differences from the last version (play-tested with Will a few months back), and this time I even had a pretty serious adventure mapped out for the thing (cribbed from a prior adventure I’d written for Heroes Unlimited). Unfortunately for Greg (the sole player to show up…more on THAT in a separate post), I discovered the fast-and-loose style of DMI does not lend itself well or easily to the “scripted adventure” and we never got past “Chapter 1” nor did the game have the chance to show off its strengths.

ALSO, as with my Lost World game there were serious issues of motivation that just ended up “falling short.” The DMI system provides a versatile, visceral, and expressive system that is not only fun to play, but helps define your character within the play itself…I haven’t found the thing that JUMPSTARTS play. What gets you INTO it…what creates an impetus in players to be PRO-active as opposed to RE-active?

[in case I forgot to mention this in an earlier posting, this proactive player stance is important for a richer role-playing experience, but I don’t want to get off topic just at the moment]

Old school D&D is excellent at this, for example: character advancement is tied to treasure acquisition and the characters are (by definition) treasure hunters by trade. Consequently, players have an impetus to self-motivate in looking for treasure (and being creative in how they recover it), immediately immersing themselves in the game at hand.

The best version of DMI so far (by which I mean, the most EFFECTIVE version) has been my post-apoc-mutant-style game MDR. In MDR, character are presented with an immediate situation and goal (by design and by character definition) and thus have an immediate impetus to “get on it.” But the Lost World game and the Space Opera game and Supers game all have a more “open format” that is supposed to be built and based on the characters’ personal motivations, which is nice in THEORY…but then the players end up sitting back and waiting to REACT (using their proper motivation) to whatever the GM throws at you.

As opposed to being proactive.

SO NOW (going back to the original sentence) I’m starting to think I need to write a new micro-game. It’s been awhile since I’ve done one of these one-sheeters and maybe I need to go back to that format, at least briefly, in order to fix some of these issues. The micro- format forces me to be short, sweet, and elegant and really distill down the basic elements of a game…giving me a parsed version that can be elaborated on as necessary (and/or appropriate) if the stripped-down, basic version is at least FUNCTIONAL. I think the last one I completed was, in fact, the first version of DMI (for the Out-Of-Time game)…but that worked well enough that it led to the two-page version of MDR which worked so well that I started incorporating the basic DMI engine into other genre games. But the difference between OOT and MDR and the later versions of DMI is that those earlier games had set, specific victory conditions (so to speak)…and the later versions do not.

I’ve come to the conclusion that I’ve got to return to the basic parameters of DMI first if I want to develop it into a full-blown game engine…and I’ve got a feeling/inkling that (with regard to the Supers game) the key might be to revisit those three distinctions I’ve listed above: the motive, method, and limitation that really differentiates one street-born vigilante from another. That might actually be more important for such a game than the power list I so diligently slaved up.

*whew!* That was pretty random.

; )

So How Was That "No Skill Rolls" Thing?

So far so good, though I'd say the jury is still out.

Tonight, I was more interested in some of the other areas of the game....for example, negotiation, offspring, and play-testing some of the new character classes from the new book. Up today? A redux of the archer, the new-and-improved barbarian, and the summoner spell-caster (specialty: necromancy)...all of which worked just fine and dandy.

We had a total of six players tonight for the Keep on the Borderlands, four of whom needed to make new characters (only two of last week's three survivors were in session). The "standard" classes included a fighter, a magic-user, and a thief, so there were plenty of chances to exercise the "auto-skill roll" thing.

Perhaps surprisingly, the players did NOT "go crazy" with it. They hired two more "meat shields" (both of whom would die in the first combat encounter), but while the thief did flex his "thief muscles" he did so no more than usual (he climbed a wall without rolling and maybe checked for traps once). There were no locks to pick. I did make folks roll for listening checks, including the thief, but with a 1 in 3 chance I don't remember anyone ever missing that roll.

The reason why I say the jury's still out is that they weren't really scouting "virgin territory." There were back in the goblin (and ogre) caves, or they were in the outdoors (lizard man mounds and giant spiders oh my!) where lock picking and trap searching didn't really seem appropriate. We'll have to wait to see what happens the next time they're in a new labyrinth of exploration. I will keep you all posted, but the early results look promising.

Really.

[and I'm not just saying that for my own ego...I've play-tested lots of rules that later had to be chucked out the window. So far, this one's looking good, but I'm not quite ready to call it]

Only one character (besides the hirelings) died tonight...a new fighter (played by Dave, he who ruined everything) got hammered to death by the goblin chieftain while engaged in melee combat. The party otherwise made out like bandits, hauling in plenty of loot, reclaiming their dead companions' gear (the archer managed to find the remains of his dead son who fell in last week's final confrontation), and making friends with the "especially evil" tribe of lizardmen (whoops! missed that descriptive quote earlier!).

Not bad at all. The venue was good tonight (the karaoke mercifully suspended for the evening) and everyone seemed to have a great time. I know I did. I'll calculate experience tomorrow...right now I'm going to bed. *yawn*

Bows, Crossbows, and Guns

AKA Adding Firearms to B/X D&D

So, today I’ve been spending a bunch of time reading up on the harquebus.

As one might guess, this is not an especially specific weapon, but a general term (along with its variant names, like the arquebus) for a rather broad class of firearm: in this case a 15th century, matchlock weapon.

Oh boy.

Here’s the grossly abbreviated shorthand genealogy of the firearm:

- Hand cannon (often just called a handgun)
- Matchlock Harquebus
- Flintlock Musket
- Cap-and-Ball Rifle
- Modern Firearms

Now the flintlock doesn’t get invented till the (early) 17th century, and after that, all the romance of man-to-man combat is pretty much down the tubes, no matter what DuMas may have written about the King’s musketeers (interestingly, the French musketeers were never all that potent a force on the battlefield of the 17th century…ah, France…). In terms of archaic warfare, flintlock is the shizzle y’all…stick a bayonet on the end and you’ve got everything you need to (eventually) develop the Redcoat, that pride of Great Britain that made England such a dominating military force up through the 18th century.

So we will skip the flintlock (musket) generation and everything later, as it is so decidedly NOT Dungeons & Dragons. Why not? Because D&D has elves, yo. And elves shoot bows (there ain’t no bows in 17th century warfare). Furthermore, D&D has magic swords (yo). And swords lose a LOT of their luster (except in a spirited cavalry charge) after the musket-bayonet combo.

Musket-bayonet also replaces the pole arm…and D&D has ALWAYS loved its pole arms!

So, no...we are simply going to concern ourselves with the handgun and the matchlock harquebus for today’s firearm discussion. But first, we need to do a quick back-up to touch on the standard D&D missile launchers, the bow and crossbow.

Both the bow and crossbow (the latter being pretty much a “mechanized” bow) have been around since ancient times and were ably represented on the battlefields of Europe well into the 15th century, long past the development of full plate armor in the 14th century. As such, they’re presence in D&D is, of course, standard.

I was a bit surprised at some of the stuff I researched regarding bows and crossbows. For instance, B/X rates of fire for these weapons are fairly accurate. Personally, I always had difficulty with the arbitrary 10 second round with regard to missile fire. The 10 second round is just fine and dandy to model the abstract nature of D&D melee combat (a character can swing a sword more than once in ten seconds, but an attack roll simply determines whether or not any of those swings land for damage, and the damage roll determines how many land and how well you land them). But limiting missile combat to “one round, one arrow?” It always seemed to me like the artificial time of the round was NOT very accurate for missile combat.

In reality (at least according to the stuff I was reading) this is actually pretty good. In battle, a longbow man wouldn’t try to loose more than six arrows per minute (i.e. one per 10 second round) due to both accuracy and fatigue considerations. In a pitched dungeon battle, the same would probably apply.

Likewise, the crossbow is slightly slower than longbow -- though unless it is one of the more powerful types, requiring a winching mechanism to draw (which I assume is NOT the case for the 5 pound B/X crossbow), it's still pretty quick. The two-handed weapon classification in B/X (which I have always assumed to mean “attacks last in round” like any other two-handed weapon) is enough of a slow-down to hand-cocked crossbows.

Regarding penetration of bows and crossbows being better (or worse) depending on range, I consider this accounted for in the range penalties to hit (though perhaps short bows and slings should take a DOUBLE penalty at range to account for both reduced accuracy AND reduced penetration).

The heavier crossbow (the kind with a winch) is said to have better penetration than the longbow, but is NOT as good as a firearm, and is slower than a firearm. This will be accounted for later…now, onto firearms.

The hand cannon is present in Europe…

[by the way, I use a European-esque setting…goes with my Germanic-Celtic roots…your mileage may vary, depending on your own cultural preference]

The hand cannon is present in Europe from the 1300s up till the 1500s when the matchlock harquebus all but replaces it (it is the slow fuse/match of the mid-1400s that makes the matchlock feasible). The hand cannon (or handgun as I’m going to call it for the rest of this post) is lame-lame-lame. Basically, you’re carrying a portable cannon, attempting to hand light it and aim it at a target, all while trying not to blow yourself up. Add to that that the thing had crappy range, had all the problems inherent in early black powder weapons, and was terrifically inaccurate, and one wonders why anyone would employ such a weapon.

Mainly for the spectacle, I'm guessing.

Fire, smoke, NOISE…all these things went into making the weapon darn intimidating, to say the least. Cannons themselves were fine and dandy against troops or fortifications (though so poor in maneuverability that they fail to replace catapults till the 15th century or so)…a portable version in the form of the handgun certainly packed a “wow” factor. Not to mention, folks obviously sensed some potential, as they continued to develop the handgun until they achieved a relatively superior portable firearm in the form of the harquebus.

The matchlock is still a pain in the ass compared to both the bow and the crossbow, but it is a helluva’ lot better than the handgun. Sometime during the mid-1400s sees the invention of the “slow match” or “match cord,” a fuse that will burn about 1 foot per hour. This allows the gunsmiths to manufacture the matchlock (and thus harquebus) in which the fuse can be held, until triggered.

What does this mean? Well, for one thing it means you can use two hands (and both eyes) to aim your firearm instead of needing to touch flame to flash pan yourself. It also means you can carry your weapon (and match cord) flaming and ready rather than having to kindle a torch in a panicked pinch.

From a D&D standpoint, this makes the harquebus a much better option for the wandering adventurer...well, better than the handgun anyway; it still has its own problems.

For one thing, convenient as the match cord is, it has some fairly problematic issues. While it’s slow to burn, it DOES burn up, and its yet another type of ammunition that needs to be carried (in addition to powder and shot). In the rain or damp, or if it gets wet, it can be difficult to light…and no cord means no bang-bang. In the dark (like underground) the match cord gives off a red light, easily spotted…and according to Wikipedia match-cord also gives off a very specific odor, making any kind of surprise (in a dungeon setting) pretty much impossible with standard nocturnal creatures (who generally have better than average olfactory senses).

Also, there's the inherent danger of carrying a lit fuse around on your person anyway…especially when you’re also carrying explosive black powder. Not to mention that the weapon itself, like all primitive firearms, has the potential to explode in your hand, possibly injuring yourself or a nearby party member, while certainly ruining the weapon.

So what exactly do you get for your money? Well, a matchlock harquebus is still a smooth bore (i.e. non-rifled weapon) and didn’t have a range any greater than a B/X short bow. A trained musketeer could fire three times per minute (about every other 10 second B/X round), and I don’t see why a harquebus couldn’t fire that fast…so long as the match cord stays dry (it remains lit while firing, though you remove it from the “lock” while re-loading). You get the same noise and smoke as the more primitive handgun (enough smoke that you probably won’t be able to see much after a firing off a few rounds from a stationary position).

But you DO get penetration. At close range, even the weakest handgun could pierce the stoutest plate armor.

So, for your enjoyment, I offer the following items to the standard B/X equipment list (folks playing different versions of the Original Adult Fantasy Game will need to make their own adjustments):

Bows (cost/encumbrance)

• Crossbow, Heavy*+ …40gp/80cns

Firearms (cost/encumbrance)

• Handgun*+ …30gp/90cns
• Harquebus+ …50gp/100cns
• Pistol+ …35gp/20cns
• Black Powder (per shot) …2gp
• Match Cord (per foot of cord) …1gp
• Firearm Shot (10) …2gp

*Two-handed weapon, attacks last in round
+Takes one full round to load

Range in feet (Short/Medium/Large)

• Crossbow, Heavy …5-80 / 81-160 / 161-240
• Handgun …5-40 / 41-80 / 81-120
• Harquebus …5-50 / 51-100 / 101-150
• Pistol …0-25 / 26-50 / 51-75

Heavy crossbows and handguns add +1 to attack rolls at all ranges. Harquebus and pistols add +2 to attack rolls at all ranges. If using the optional Variable Weapon Damage rule, all weapons listed here do 1D8 damage.

Note: Pistols may be used in melee, and may also be used as an off-hand (light) weapon.
Harquebus and pistols require lit match cord to fire. One foot of match cord will burn for 6 turns. If the DM allows, a harquebus or pistol may be outfitted with a wheellock mechanism for twice the normal price (there is no match cord requirement for such a weapon).

Opponents without firearms are easily intimidated by individuals using black powder weapons, and must check Morale after the first wound suffered from any firearm (not just the first death).

Firearms are prone to malfunction. Whenever a character using a firearm rolls a “1” on the attack roll, the weapon has misfired. Roll 1D6:

1-2 Weapon explodes! (character takes damage as if shot by weapon)
3-4 Match cord goes out and must be relit (handguns explode, wheellock weapons break and must be repaired)
5-6 Weapon misfires (but match cord doesn’t go out); character may fire again next round

Let's see...am I forgetting anything? Cannons really weren't all that great until the 16th century (bombards were effective, but difficult to maneuver on the field) and really need their own post. Since I don't use Variable Weapon Damage, I allow all classes to use all weapons (except for shorties), though I suppose some folks will want class-specific designations. How about:

- Clerics may use all firearms

- Dwarves, Elves, and Fighters may use all listed weapons

- Halflings may use pistols only

- Thieves may use anything (though firearms are NOT stealthy!)

- Magic-Users may only use handguns

That's about it. I leave it to individual DMs to adjudicate the "fog of war" that comes about from firing off too many of these smoke-wagons.

Fuego!

; )

The Lowest Guys on the Totem Pole

At least they didn't make 'em play in traffic.

I've said before that I'm not really into LARPing...never have been. Unless you count running through the woods as a 10 year old pretending you're a member of the Wolf Riders (complete with bows and arrows). Of course, we didn't have any "rules" associated with those games...maybe "don't shoot arrows into each other," but that's just common sense.

That the Convention chose to sequester the live-action folks away from the rest of the gamers (and the hotel)...well, I can't help but think that's saying something. Sure, maybe the LARP people wanted a "big space without distraction from the rest of the con." But an unattached garage? I mean, people were parking cars in it!

I wandered over to the garage Saturday afternoon, curious as to what I would find. A trifle nervous to be honest. I mean, MY basic inclination would have been to sequester LARPers off-site myself, but I understand that this prejudice comes from my own "fear of the unknown." They're just people, right? Right?

In the garage, there was one long table with chairs, and a bunch of scattered papers and junk...probably left over from the last game. There were also three people who had set themselves up in three folding chairs in the middle of the garage. One was a guy with a long ponytail, probably around my age or a little older (late 30s, early 40s). One was a woman probably in her 20s or 30s. The third was a kid, a girl, who must have been around 13-15, maybe 12. They were sitting side by side in the chairs, with the little girl in the middle.

The dude with ponytail beckoned me over. I approached semi-hesitantly.

"Do you want to role-play," they (the adults) asked.

I shook my head...no just 'checking stuff out,' seeing what's going on.

"Come on...just a quick one? It's fun..."

I told them I was actually just waiting for my ride to pick me up (this was true) and brushed them off...but I was creeped out the way they were trying to tempt me. Like evil gnomes trying to get me to eat fairy food.

When they saw I wouldn't budge, they went back to their "game," which appeared to involve sitting on a bus (?) with the two adults trying to tempt the kid into something (?!) though what I didn't get...they seemed to be having some sort of philosophic or academic argument/discussion while the girl verbally defended her position.

It was weird. And kind of creepy. I didn't really want to know how the scene was going to play out, and decided to leave. I did my best not to run.

Am I the Only One that thinks Hawkeye is a Wuss?

Things don't always have to be complicated. I can appreciate the simplicity of hitting someone in the torso with an axe, or crushing an opponent's helmed skull with the over-hand swing of a warhammer...it doesn't always have to be elaborate sword-play or intricate ambushes. Heck, simplicity is a good eight-tenths of my reason for playing B/X these days.

Green Arrow is nothing if not un-complicated.

At least, the Longbow Hunter version, which is where I really started to appreciate the guy. Oh, I suppose I first gained a bit of a crush (is that the right term?) on him with Frank Miller's Dark Knight graphic novel, in which he manages to help bring Superman down despite only having one arm. However, even as a young kid I always dug it when the emerald archer made an appearance on the Justice League cartoon, and there was a time when I really wanted a Green Arrow "action figure," even though I never really collected action figures (well, aside from Star Wars action figures, of which I had an extensive collection).

I could say it goes back to a love of the Errol Flynn Robin Hood, probably my 2nd favorite "medieval movie" of all time (my favorite medieval film is the 1959 version of Ivanhoe, hands down). But really, I've been into archery for a long time. As a kid, playing "ElfQuest" in the woods, I always got to be Strongbow, my favorite character from that particular comic (Cutter was such a doofus). I've been trying to get my wife to let me invest in an archery set for years...she gave on the knife-throwing, but not the compound bow.

My uncles in Montana all got into bow-hunting back in the 80's, as they found hunting deer and elk with a bow was much more "sporting" (I suppose after 20 years of hunting with a rifle, it is). I don't hunt myself (despite owning a pair of excellent beagle hounds)...as a real life pacifist, I don't even like to kill spiders...but if I did hunt, I wouldn't mind trying it with a bow.

[Of course, the one time I tried my 60-some year old grandfather's hunting compound, I couldn't get the string back more than a couple inches...I was 13 or 14 at the time]

Anyway, it seems like every "comic universe" as some form of archer in it: Green Arrow, Arsenal/Red Arrow, Hawkeye, the Bowman, Manticore...whatever. Like most folks of my generation, I have my North Node in the sign of Sagittarius...astrologically, that would say I aspire to be an archer (or a book publisher...go figure). That may account for people's interest in superhero archery (age and interest coinciding)...but it may just be that Robin Hood/vigilante hero tie-in.

Though if the latter were the case, wouldn't we expect to see more swordsmen/fencers in comics? A la Zorro? The sword is (generally speaking) just as deadly as the bow and arrow when wielded with skill.

Well, regardless, I am a fan of Green Arrow...and NOT a fan of Marvel's Hawkeye.

His "make-over" in the Ultimate comics was fairly cool...until he somehow got turned into a "Bullseye-Hawkeye" combo. I've said before that the writers of the Ultimates comic series appear to be familiar with the Heroes Unlimited RPG, as all their versions of classic superheroes could be made using the HU rules. "Ultimate Hawkeye" is a perfect example of the Ancient Weapon Master class (available in the Powers Unlimited 2 book). But killing people with one's own ripped-off fingernails is a little over-the-top...even for a Palladium game!

: )

The Welshman is a character I created for the City of Heroes MMORPG...a game I spent a couple weeks trying out a couple years ago. A Green Lantern knock-off, I decided on the name after having a couple dozen bow and arrow related names rejected by the computer game. Since then, the name (and the character concept) has grown on me. Part of my design goals for my B/X Supers game is having a rule system that allows for the design of both a long bow toting Welshman as well as the incredible Hulk and the invincible Iron Man...and still be able to compete on a semi-even playing field. I'm working on it.

; )