O is for Originality

[over the course of the month of April, my plan was to post a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. While I was unable to complete the project on time, I find I still have things to say. Our topic in question is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: how to approach it, how to run it, how to enjoy a system that deserves to be played NOW, nearly 50 years after its inception. Consider this a 'crash course' in the subject]

O is for Originality...something that is overrated within the so-called "Old School" community.

Not that this series is meant to slam the (mostly commercial) venture that is the OSR these days. But many of the new DMs coming to the AD&D game these days...or even old DMs returning to AD&D after decades of hiatus...are doing so by way of the Old School Revival that's rumbled along these last 17+ years. And in the commercial offerings that carry the "OSR" branding...specifically the for-purchase, pre-written adventure modules (of the kind that new and/or rusty DMs lean on to both inspire themselves and polish their chops), you find a particular type of pathology on display: the urgent need to add "original content" that never was to their offerings.

As if the game didn't offer enough content already.

I write quite a lot of adventures for use at my own table (both for my home campaign and for gaming conventions I attend). And when it comes to designing adventures, especially for convention play, I do not include "original content;" that is, I do not create "new, original" monsters, or magic items, or spells. Oh, you'll see some adventures I've penned for various writing contests that include one or two of these things (because they are elements of the contest), but these adventures don't see actual running at my table except when/if "play-testing." For my own campaign...and when demonstrating AD&D at cons...my adventures don't include anything you wouldn't normally find in the books...for a number of reasons:

1. The content already included in the books is (for the most part) tried and true and already tested within and against the (long-tested) rules of the game.
2. There is more content in the books than I have ever used in totality...which is to say, I've yet to use EVERY monster, or EVERY magic item, or EVERY magic spell over my 40+ years of gaming.
3. For purposes of playing (and "mastering") a game, players need a consistent structure within which to learn and hone their skills, not a rug that gets pulled out from under them with every new dungeon. As I wrote earlier, I am all for metagaming as it IMPROVES player engagement.

Thus, I have no need or desire for adding "original content" to my games...in fact (as per reason #3), I find original content can be detrimental to one's campaign if used in a less-than-judicious fashion.

And it's really not needed! Again, I will make use of a metaphor suggested to me by a DM of far more experience and wisdom than myself: AD&D can be compared to a piano. Consider the ubiquitous piano with its 88 keys...the industry "standard" since 1890. How many people have studied and learned and composed music on a piano over the years, challenging themselves and entertaining others? And how many of them have attempted to add "more keys" to the piano to make the thing "more original?" How many have said, man, these 88 keys aren't enough...there's just not enough sound here to make a decent song!

The idea is ridiculous, as anyone with the slightest  passing interest in music might tell you. And, yet, how many DMs are unsatisfied with the content of the core D&D books? How many have said that the 350+ monsters in the Monster Manual or the 300+ magic items in the Dungeon Masters Guide or the 400+ spells in the Players Handbook are insufficient for their crafting of adventures? Are you kidding me?

There is a TON you can do with the "limited" amount of content in the books: writing an adventure is much like composing a piece of music on a piano. And just as a piece of piano music can be played differently by different musicians (softly, loudly, quickly, slowly, jazzy, or arranged with other instruments, or whatever), a single adventure can be "interpreted" differently by different DMs...or run differently by the same DM on different occasions depending on the players involved.

Orcs aren't "boring." YOU are boring. What is needed is NUANCE, not novelty. Situationally, there are as many different ways to use orcs in your game as there are to use humans...these are intelligent (if imaginary) creatures after all. Consider all the way humans can differ...not just in form or function, but culturally.  I know that many of my fellow American look at all Latin American people as one big mass of brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking people (I know this as I was once one of those Americans) but it is so, so not the case. Even if you ignore the individual differences of individual Mexicans (for example), Mexicans are VERY different from Ecuadorians who are VERY different from Panamanians who are VERY different from Paraguayans who are VERY different from Brazilians who are VERY different from Argentinians or Chileans, etc., etc.. In fact, they are SO DIFFERENT from each other, that unless their country is right next to another they tend to know NOTHING about the differences they have...yeah they know the people there speak Spanish (and, perhaps, have a decent soccer team) but they are often completely ignorant when it comes to someone else's history, politics, customs, food, etc.

It's like the way MUCH of the western world thinks of Africa as one big, homogenous country with border lines drawn on it. There are THOUSANDS of different ethnic identities in Africa and wildly differing genetic diversity even amongst people who share the same color of skin. Would a westerner consider all white people to be one big group? Is a Dutchman really the same as a Sicilian? My Basque friends from Bilbao certainly don't consider themselves "Spanish" in any way, shape, or form. "Your Catalan is getting quite good" they tell me (in English). 

As an American I know there are huge differences of culture between our 50 States. Yes, there are plenty of similarities, but a Washingtonian is a LOT different from a Hawaiian or a Georgian or a New Yorker or a Texan. It's not just politics that divides my country: we are (and always have been) separated by regional and cultural identity, even if we've been united (for most of our history) by some rather singular and lofty ideals that...once upon a time...we all agreed on. But are we different? Do we vary? Hell yes! Even within my own State of Washington, there is a vast difference between the "island folk" of the San Juans and the hard drinking/snorting fisher folk and lumberjacks of the Olympic Peninsula and the multi-generational farmers of the Palouse and the military folks in Everett and the very complicated metro area that is Seattle. Seattle, itself, is large enough that different neighborhoods have their own cultural identity...we're not all elitist tech-savvy "Lib-tards." Far from it! I've lived here since I was born (in '73) and MOST of that time, Seattle was pretty darn "working class" and that's how a lot of us "long timers" still see ourselves. Besides, everyone knows the elitist, tech-money d-bags live in Bellevue.

[haha. I joke. Bellevue is full of wealthy Asians, duh]

The POINT is, just saying an orc is a 1 HD antagonist and that we need a blue-skinned version that explodes when you hit it or one that has feathered wings or an orc that shoots lasers from its eyes in order to "spice things up" is simply showing a profound LACK of imagination. And it's short-changing both your players (who are trying to master the system...something they can only do when there is consistency of application) and yourself (as a designer and Dungeon Master).  What? Are you afraid that if you start "humanizing" orcs (or goblins or lizard folk or giants, etc.) by giving them nuance and ethnical variety that you're going to somehow turn them into something the players don't want to kill and then there goes the game? Have you not noticed how many different motivations, excuses, and justifications humans have found to kill each other over the centuries? My cup runneth over!

Yes, I am well familiar with the classic TSR modules of early days of AD&D and how the MAJORITY of them (pre-'85, i.e. "the good years") would include a new monster or two. I would just point out the following for consideration: A) you almost never see new magic items or spells, things which (in my estimation) have the highest potential for unbalancing or "breaking" the game, B) many times these new monsters are unique encounters and/or thematically linked to the adventure (i.e. not likely to show up elsewhere in a campaign), C) compared to the MAJORITY of the monsters in a 30-60+ encounter area, one or two new critters are a pittance, and D) you generally do NOT see these shenanigans in adventures designed for introductory, low-level play (no new monsters in B1, B2, N1, N2, etc.). Players have to learn the ropes before you start serving up curve balls!

SO...to bring this entry to a summation and close: it is NOT a mark of "creativity" or "good Dungeon Mastery" to be adding new, unique content to your game. Anyone can do that; the Fiend Folio is an entire book filled with new creatures created by a wide swath of designers (more than 70). Pursuing "originality" (in terms of content) as a goal in and of itself isn't the best use of your time and energy as an adventure designer. In my estimation, you'll get far more value out of finding ways to use that which is already present in ways that are unusual, challenging, surprising, and in ways both deeper and more nuanced. Engage your players through good system use, rather than novelty. 

AD&D campaigns can last a long time and you can get a lot of mileage out of it as written. However, when it comes to the vehicle's actual components, there's still a lot of tread left on the tires; no need to change them out so soon!

; )

The Art Of Peril

 Continuing from the prior post...

As several astute commenters deduced, this discussion on art in D&D was "goosed" into action by Delta's blog post on "old school" art from Monday. Delta's main point was that:

"...one of the biggest sensibility differences between old-school D&D art and and newer-school art is the amount of violence depicted against ostensibly player-character-types..."

I have some quibbles with Delta's conclusion ("flipping through the earliest 1st Edition materials, you're going to get the idea that in D&D, player-character life is cheap") but not with his declarative that the images presented are going to create particular ideas in the minds of the reader. Again, returning to my prior post, our imagination constructs ideas and images from memories, and memories at their base are generated from external (sensory) stimuli.

Dungeons & Dragons is a fantasy game that absolutely requires imagination (in all participants) to play effectively. I would go so far as to say imagination is probably the defining characteristic of role-playing games, as opposed to computer (video) games, board games, or card games, ALL of which are playable without imaginative input from the participants involved. As such the importance of exercising one's imagination (both through use and through assimilation of pertinent memories for use) cannot be understated. The ability to play the game is limited by one's imagination (or lack thereof), and as we wish to pay attention to how that imagination is cultivated, we should take a hard look at the purpose and objective of the game.

Dungeons & Dragons is a game of facing peril and overcoming its challenges.

This is clearly evident from the rules of the game. No, D&D is not a game about "telling stories;" as I have written (often) before, there are MANY role-playing games that are designed to create/tell stories (in many genres!) and that serve that purpose better than D&D. Folks using D&D as a vehicle to tell stories are pretty lazy (or else suckers for the marketing). Systems are not included to be ignored; dice are not rolled because players "like rolling dice." The fantasy world of role-playing IS designed to amuse, entertain, fascinate, astound, and escape reality. Yes, absolutely. But the game is designed with the mechanics it's given in order to face peril and overcome challenge. This is the reason for combat rules. And armor class. And hit points. And saving throws. Etc.

SO...given the above raison d'etre of D&D, let's take a look at the artwork that is Oh So Necessary for implanting those building blocks of imagination (integral to the game) and the job they do at conveying the perilous nature of the game.

I spent roughly three hours this morning combing through the core books (PHB, DMG, and MM) of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions of D&D making notes on the artwork and just how much "peril" was communicated. Things I looked for were instances of evident fear (either on terrified faces or actual flight), instances of helplessness or restraint/capture, killing blows (i.e. an attack from which the individual was most definitely NOT going to walk away from without clerical assistance), "zaps" (from traps or magical monster attacks that may or or may not be lethal), and the presence of Already Dead Bodies. At first, I attempted to do a simple count for each book, giving more weight to some illustration over other (half a point for a scared face, two points for a killing blow that shows entrails/viscera, etc.), but the results were somewhat confused and, for my purposes, not nearly descriptive enough. So I went back through all the illos (again) and simply made tallies for each particular instance of each category for each book.

For an illo to be counted, the recipient of the "peril" had to be a PC type (the dragon on p.21 of the 1E DMG doesn't count, for example, as all the creatures being killed are kobolds). Overwhelming odds (the purple worm on p.166 of the 1E DMG) or potential surprise (p.91 of the MM, p.99 of the DMG3) were NOT counted for purposes of "peril" as such illustrations could simple be viewed as "precursors to heroism," or some such. Neither were the cover illustrations of ANY edition counted in any way (as covers are prone to change, even within editions)...only interior artwork was reviewed. Artwork taken from earlier products (2E illos include a LOT of previously published artwork from 1st edition) still count towards peril, as the illos were used in the core books and thus help teach the game to prospective players.

Here then are the results, as I calculated them:

1st Edition (AD&D)

Fear: 18

Held/Helpless: 12

Kill Shot: 8

Dead Body: 6

Zapped!: 7

Total: 51

AD&D 2E

Fear: 4

Held/Helpless: 1

Kill Shot: 2

Dead Body: 4*

Zapped!: 1

Total: 12

DND3 (3rd Edition)

Fear: 6

Held/Helpless: 10

Kill Shot: 1

Dead Body: 2*

Zapped!: 3

Total: 23

*Dead bodies! Okay...let's talk about these for a moment. Three of these four instances in 2E feature "bodies in repose" that may or may not simply be sleeping, they looked so peaceful (and no evidence of violence...see p.125 of the PHB2 and p.24 of the DMG2). The final one seems obvious; equally obvious, however, is the party's intention to raise their companion (p.116, DMG2). The "dead bodies" in 3E are even more "iffy" in nature: the caption on p.153 of the PHB3 tells me the individual is dead, but he looks more like someone having his leg regenerated. The other image (from the MM3) appears to be a mermaid helping a drowned man (p.135)...hardly "peril."

Oh, and speaking of iffy...the thing that's really absent from 3E, compared to the first two editions is any sensations of fear...hell, there's hardly any trepidation illustrated. The six instances of "fear" counted for DND3 all come from the MM3. Four counts come from the illustration of the tarrasque (where four small figures are seen running from one of the most tremendous threats of the D&D universe, p.174). Yes, I count each character as one "instance"...more fear, more death makes more impression from a single illo. The other two instances of fear in the MM3 are also instances of small figures running from gigantic foes: the remorhaz (p.155) and the red dragon (p.67). There are plenty of other illos where small figures stand toe-to-toe with impunity against huge and colossal monsters.

Yeah...no.

And that's what really causes me to shake my head in looking at these late editions. Just what do the art directors think D&D is about? What are they conveying to the reader? Because, I'll tell you that any adventurer who thinks he's going to stare down a purple worm in ANY edition is probably asking to be eaten. 

The illustrations of post-1st AD&D simply fail in communicating the perils inherent in the game. Keep in mind that 1E has plenty of illustrations that do NOT contain peril: images showing heroic confrontation, or fantasy and wonder abound in the pages of the PHB and DMG (whose share of "peril images" I count as 9 and 12, respectively). Yet, 1E still manages to communicate the danger of the game world to the reader. Not (as Delta concluded) that "life is cheap," but that fear and death are a part of the game.  This is preparation for the imagination. 

Failing to prepare the mind with art showing only heroic confrontation, victorious parties, and happy tavern scenes (a lot of these in 2E for some reason...) is going to lead to false expectations and, I can only imagine, DM fudging and protectionism to stave off player disappointment. At least in 2nd edition, which is close enough to 1E that players should be gaffled just as readily for stupid shit as in the original Advanced game.  In 3E, I suppose disappointed expectations can be avoided with careful use of that edition's complex challenge system and obsessive attention to optimal "character builds."

Anyway... some folks asked me about B/X and how its art helps illustrate the perils of that particular edition. By my method of calculation there are only two instances of character peril illustrated in the contents (both in the Basic book; both of the "zapped!" variety). My own B/X Companion (which was illustrated to my specifications and in like vein to the original books) contains only two instances of peril, one each of the "kill shot" and "dead body" variety (actually, just a severed arm being gnawed by a Baba Yaga-like hag). That ain't much peril. However, Moldvay's basic book supplements this by providing detailed play examples (in both the Encounter/Combat section and the Dungeon Mastering section) featuring player character death. Gygax does likewise in the 1st edition DMG (p.71 and then p.97-100...the latter describes a particularly gruesome PC demise). While such textual examples are helpful in making explicit the perilous nature of the D&D game, I don't think there's any debating the old saw "a picture is worth a thousand words." More images of peril would go a loooong way.

Fortunately, we also have adventure modules to help us out:

"Uh-oh."

By the way, I also calc'd out the first edition Fiend Folio art because I consider it part of my personal "core" AD&D volumes, even if the numbers weren't added above. Here's how that most grim and perilous tome stats out in terms of communicating "peril" through its artwork:

Fiend Folio (1E)

Fear: 12

Held/Helpless: 22

Kill Shot: 8

Dead Body: 2

Zapped!: 2

Total: 46

I think the fact that the total instances of character peril in the FF alone is more than the combined core books of 2E and 3E says quite a bit about the game's art direction post-1988.

[I don't own copies of 4E or 5E so I can't comment on those particular volumes. However, as game play for those two editions are fairly distinct from earlier editions...even 3E...perhaps those editions' artwork conveys exactly what they're supposed to communicate]

Comments, as always, are welcome.

: )

Ruins of the Undercity

The new micro-game is coming along swimmingly...usually, I can knock one out in a day, but I didn't have as much time to work on it Friday as I wanted, and my entire weekend was taken up with Good Ol' Family Time (Happy Birthday, D!)...and the problem with doing a one-page Supers game is figuring out how (or if) to list a good enough slate of powers.

Anyhoo, right now I'm taking a break from that because, well, because I've got other projects on my mind. Several have been bouncing around the cranial sphere of late (i.e. the last year) with progress occurring on 1st one, then another, then a third...often with results that end up causing me to go back and modify (or even re-write) an earlier project. Not necessarily because I'm "wishy-washy" (though I admit that may be part of it) but because my thought on game design continues to evolve.

Recently, I've been rethinking about delving back into D&D Mine...something that's been on-hold since I started bouncing around the three-way triangle of dinosaur pulp-space opera-superhero fantasy games I've been working. I just haven't been in much of a "D&D mood" of late for a number of reasons, two of which are:

- my growing dissatisfaction with even B/X D&D (leading me to write D&D Mine), and
- the lack of a rule set that can do what I want it to do

The latter of which is one of those terrible circular traps: I'm out of the mood of writing D&D because I'm frustrated with the lack of a good rule set for D&D because I haven't completed the writing of my own rule set for D&D because I'm out of the mood of writing D&D. See what I mean?

In fact, I just spent an hour or so blowing off steam on the subject with an employee at the local game shop...which sucks for my readers, of course, because (having already vented my thoughts out loud) I have little left to write on the subject.

But PRIOR to that, I did take the time to read a game supplement someone has recently published and sent me requesting a review. That someone is Kabuki Kaiser and that supplement is Ruins of the Undercity. While I am generally slow at getting to (and often less-than-complimentary) this kind of thing, I've decided to make an exception and say a few words on the book...possibly to avoid making a decision on what other writing I should be pursuing at the moment.

Ruins of the Undercity is compatible with Labyrinth Lord (the B/X-retroclone) and provides a Random DM-less  Dungeon Generator for One Player or More. It does this mainly by adapting the old random dungeon generation rules from Gygax's 1st edition DMG, putting them in a specific game world/setting and updating them to be both LL friendly and compatible. Those of you who, like me, owned the old DMG and used the random dungeon generator for solo play on days when you didn't have your regular game group available and couldn't get enough D&D will remember those old random tables generating quirky maps with twisting corridors and ill-fitting and strangely shaped rooms. I'm not really interested in talking about THAT part of the book...it may be done fine or not, but it's not terribly original (save that Kaiser adds additional random town tables for both before and after a delve). Instead, I want to talk a bit about the setting specific stuff.

Actually, let me back up a bit...I want to talk about D&D Mine first. Those of you who recall me blogging about that project (5 or 6 months back) will recall I was having some frustration with reconciling the fantasy setting with the basic tenets of D&D, namely how to to reconcile the background setting (an ancient Arabia/Persia setting) with the basic conceit of the game (going into holes looking for treasure). Or perhaps you DON'T remember, because perhaps I never got around to discussing it. Well, suffice is to say it WAS frustrating for me...D&D in its most basic (i.e. primordial) form...doesn't do well with the idea of wandering free-booting adventures because it's original incarnation (after Chainmail) was with the static delve site of Arneson's Blackmoor. And Gygax's Greyhawk. And whatever-it-is Rob Kuntz called his basic mega-dungeon. The rules and regulations, the mechanic limitations of the game, were created for a particular type of exploration...and don't work as well once you pull the PCs out of the dungeon and start expanding their "fantasy world." Since the time players got bored with the initial premise and started looking "outside the box" designers (both the Founding Fathers and their descendant designers) have been tweaking and adjusting and modifying trying to find away to "make it work;" the subsequent evolution of the game has done some good things and many, many bad things ever since.

[that is REALLY abstract and over-simplified, but it's not the point of the post and I just want to get on with it, not rehash earlier blog thoughts]

In the end, I figured the only way to do my D&D Mine in a way that even VAGUELY resembled D&D (and still make sense) was to factor a similar "ancient mega-dungeon" into the game's setting...an Arabian Nights inspired fiction containing both the post-Islam Bagdad and the mythology of ancient Mesopotamia. And the way to do that would be to set everything in  one huge and fabulous city of ancient origin (like Sinbad's Bagdad) built upon the site of an earlier ancient and awful (and necromantic) ruin and city. GMs would still have full leeway to design the dungeon (entrances would be dotted all about the town), but would have justification for the adventuring action of professional treasure seekers. It wasn't what I had initially wanted, but it would be a possible "out" for me.

Still it was frustrating, and I never got around to writing it up, instead adapting old AD&D modules (like Dwellers of the Forbidden City) to the new game rules for play-testing. Figured I'd finish making sure things worked before bothering to write up the setting.

So now we return to Ruins of the Undercity, which basically beats me to the punch.

The premise of RotUC is remarkably similar to my own Big Fat Idea...an ancient and huge city, built upon the ruined heap of an older, more ancient ruin, providing all the "home base" stuff up top (not to mention places to work one's standard D&D endgame scenarios) with a huge "adventure complex" (to be randomly generated) underneath. RotUC also has a similar "flavor" to it, skipping the more Western Europe flavored monsters in exchange for something more Middle Eastern or east Indian (love-love-love the magic turbans). Even leaving out the random dungeon generation stuff (and rules for "solo play") it's a tasty game setting, and one I wouldn't mind stealing from...absolutely adored the "lich thieves" (though their metal masks was a little to Frank Miller 300 for my taste).

A lot of his monsters (Kaiser provides a fairly fat bestiary) are recognizably cribbed from the Fiend Folio, though it would appear he only took his favorite ones that might do well in the setting (two thumbs up from moi). He adds a few of his own, setting-specific ones, however, and is happy to change the modify the original FF critters to suit his purpose...he also provides combat tactic lists for the non-straightforward monsters (the better to use them in solo play; very serviceable), which is a nice little default to have on-hand.

However, there's nothing absolutely special about the first 64 pages of the book...most anyone with a Fiend Folio and DMG could come up with something similar (including the random town events) with a little mental effort and the time and energy to put it all together (most anyone could do it, but I haven't seen it in such a nice little compilation before; it makes for a good supplement/setting book). What IS impressive (to me) was what came AFTER those first 64 pages, specifically the Appendix A with regard to campaign play, specifically with regard to a codified system of personal objectives for player characters. Long term game goals is something I like to see (and encourage) in my players, but it's something I rarely encounter: most players are too busy learning the game rules, are trying to stay alive or finding gold coins to bother thinking about such things. Kaiser puts together a specific list of high level goals (many of which can be accomplished prior to achieving Name level) for adventurers, as well as the specific mechanics required for accomplishing these objectives. Some examples include: becoming a high priest of the city's patron deity (available even to non-clerics), becoming a member of the city council or even the city's ruler, founding or taking control of a guild house, becoming a city folk hero, achieving immortality through undeath, or wedding a king/queen in a distant country. All of these are cool and will appeal to different personalities (and might evolve out of random events); some PCs might accomplish multiple long-term objectives (I don't think any are mutually exclusive) and they all provide role-playing rewards outside the normal D&D "box" without breaking the D&D game system. That's cool and new and I wish I'd thought to do it first.

[well, I HAVE thought of similar goals/objectives, but I haven't codified them like Kaiser has; and certainly not in such a way that they work directly with the campaign setting for which he's created them]

So that was cool. Coupled with the nice game setting, the sensible monster lists, and some out-o-the-box magic items (fairly pulp fantasy stuff with good and bad benefits of the kind usual to folklore and NOT found in modern D&D editions) this is a nice little book to pick up and run a campaign. The random dungeon creation and solo play rules are fine, but nothing I'd proclaim as a reason for getting the game (my days of solo gaming are long behind me...I don't have time for that anymore!). I did like the random town events (easy to use and more sensible than a lot of the tables I've seen on the internet the last couple years), and Ruins of the Undercity is probably something I would use...if I hadn't already decided to re-write the rules of D&D to my own personal purposes.

But I'll certainly be checking out parts of RotUC if and when I ever get back to finishing up my version of D&D Mine...especially the rules in aforementioned Appendix A.

[Ruins of the Undercity available for purchase here]

Playing Hooky

My son has been ill recently, and was unable to sleep last night except in my arms...which meant I was unable to sleep last night, except for the occasional dozing.

Which is fine because it gave me a good excuse to call in sick to work today.

; )

So other than some napping today, I had the opportunity to revisit a couple episodes of Firefly and check my ideas on removing wounds from the game I'm currently writing. And what do you know...even when you take out the blasters and arm people with standard guns & ammo, the rule remains the same: one shot = one kill (except for the heroic Player Character equivalents).

Again, this seems perfectly fine for a cinematic-style RPG...which is what I'm attempting to design. Doesn't matter whether one is shot with a pistol or a rifle or a grenade; if the "attack roll" succeeds, the target goes down. Which helps keep the pace of the action lively AND allows the story to move forward to the next scene.

I was talking with the Doc about this the other day (yesterday) and he wasn't a fan of the idea. 'What if someone gets shot in the leg?' No one gets shot in the leg, except possibly a protagonist. 'Then you need to do hit location charts and such.'

No, I don't.

Because it IS a space opera game, there is armor (from low-tech ballistic cloth to hi-tech, environmentally-sealed power suits) that needs to be accounted. And so weapons do different amounts of damage in order to determine their armor penetration (armor reduces damage in this particular game). For the most part, though, this just means PCs need the right tool for the job...a thrown rock isn't going to do much against a stormtrooper, but a blaster will burn a hole right through a chest plate.

Anyway, I need to get back to my writing right now (before I take a nap). Just wanted to give a quick update.

3 Days, 3 Games, 3 Different Styles (Part 1)

The following three-part series will be a description of three very different games I played over the the course of Dragonflight XXXI this past weekend. Both my attempts at running games completely fell through (no one signed up for my table) but I was able to get into other folks’ games as a player. I would change the names to “protect the innocent,” but folks can look up the game schedule at the Dragonflight web site anyway so why bother? I will only be using first names however.

I will try not to run these too long, but we’ll see how THAT goes. ; )

A note or two about me before I begin: I’m an average looking white dude in his mid-30s. My hair is dishwater blonde and cut short, and the hair’s been getting a might thin in front the last year or two. I’m “medium-build” mainly ‘cause I’m out-of-shape and carrying an extra 20 pounds; I’m about 5’9”. I have literally decades of gaming experience, mainly as a GM in 15-20 different systems, and I have a working knowledge of a couple dozen more. I have a background in performing arts and I generally don’t have too much trouble “slipping into character.”

On the other hand, I also have an ego the size of a freight train, and a fairly aggressive/impulsive style and don’t really like to “hang around the back of the party.” I try to curb what I call my “asshole impulse” and usually attempt to not usurp leadership roles in a group…both with varying degrees of success.

Keep all these things in mind as I walk you through my gaming con experience…
: )

When I was first looking though the roster of RPGs being offered, one of the few that really caught my eye was “All in a Day’s Thievery,” a Traveller game set in the Firefly/Serenity universe. Since I have wanted to run this kind of game myself, pretty much ever since I picked up Mongoose Traveller, I was totally stoked to try it out. Unfortunately, I realized later that I had signed up to run my own con game in the same time slot.

“Thankfully,” no one showed up to my game.

I actually waited till close to 3:30 to give up on running my own game (the time slot started at 2pm). It was around this time another GM propositioned me to join his group, since he was having a tough time getting a full boat. Turns out he was the same GM running the Traveller game I’d wanted to play (this as much as anything convinced me to give up my own game).

Al the “Gamer Dude” is a hefty, extroverted guy with probably 15-20 years on me…definitely old enough to qualify as a “grognard.” Except he’s running Mongoose Traveller, and appears to be some sort of licensed demo guy. While I didn’t quiz him on his history or anything, I gleaned that he’s originally from the east coast and is ex-military and appears to have picked up gaming “on-base” sometime in the past (when stationed in Tennessee? Maybe). He has played a number of different games in the past (though I don’t know how long his history goes back), but he ran ONLY Traveller at this particular con (and ran it pretty much every time slot of every day).

When I sat down at the table, there were already three players, each of whom had two pre-gen character sheets in front of him. All seemed nice enough, though all looked like what might be called the stereotype of my wife’s worst fears of geek/gaming culture. The guy next to me handed me one of his character sheets to play, and I figured, hey cool, I can play whatever they throw at me. At the time, I didn’t think it was odd that is was more than an hour into the timeslot, everyone had characters, and they hadn’t even started playing. I guess, he REALLY wanted six players (hence the reason everyone had two of the pre-gens).

Al went over the game with us. He discussed how Traveller works (roll 2D6, add skill, add ability score modifier, add any GM adjustments, and get an eight or better to succeed). He explained how his Firefly universe was a little different (core systems instead of core worlds). He explained how he had taken the Serenity RPG and adapted it to the Traveller system making a bit of a hybrid. He explained how we weren’t the specific characters from the series, but similar pastiches on-board a Firefly ship with a similar raison d’etre.

All good…we were all on-board (no pun intended) with everything he was throwing at us, and weren’t about to rock the boat with fanboy-nerdisms (we readily accepted it was a pastiche game). But his spiel went on for probably a good hour. Maybe more.

And we all sat, polite and listening, nodding our heads appropriately. Chuckling appreciatively. Patiently waiting to play.

And the spiel went on.

I mean we were ready! One of the first things Al asked was, “now are you guys familiar with the Firefly show?” John, the quiet guy next to me who had given me one of his pre-gens said “I have the whole series on DVD plus the deluxe movie box set.” I chimed in, “me too…on Blue Ray.” Oh were we geeks ready to get down! We were just waiting for the guy to say GO…and waiting...and waiting....

Al's spiel was probably slowed by the multitude of anecdotes…personal ones, gaming ones, Traveller ones, and Firefly/Joss Whedon ones. Blah, blah, blah.

His last words before starting (I’m para-phrasing):

“You guys can do whatever you want in the game. Just tell me what you want to do and I’ll tell you what happens. Or rather, I’ll tell you what you CAN’T DO, but if you want to still attempt it you can, that’s fine it’s not forbidden to try but you should know I only say things you can’t do because they’re futile. Like jumping off a cliff and flapping your arms to fly like this guy did in this one game [insert anecdote or two]…I mean you CAN try it, but you’re going to splatter on the ground and roll like 100D6 for damage…but otherwise anything REASONABLE yes, you can do it.”

Okay, got it.

Each pre-gen had a description of the character (physical) and a bit of background. We were a fairly mixed bunch, character-wise:

John #1 (call him “hat John” or just “John”) was sitting at the GM’s right hand. Later I figured out he has a history with Al and has run in several of his Trav/FF games before. He played the Captain as his main character (an ex-Brown Coat, basically Malcom Reynolds, but with a penchant for Civil War South memorabilia. For example, he wore a Grey coat instead of a brown one, the ship was called the “General Lee” and had a Dixie horn like the Dukes of Hazard car). His secondary character was the engineer, an ex-racer type from the “AVSCAR circuit” who wore an AVSCAR cap and reminisced about his prior days as a celebrity driver.

John #2 (call him “beard John” or “John the Little” which is what Al called him) was a quieter member of the table. The character he had kept for himself was the cook-slash-mercenary/muscle of the group in the form of an older (50s) woman who’d lost both her sons in the galactic civil war, one on either side. Grandma in combat boots was her description; we just called her “Ma.”

Chris (sitting to my right, the GM’s left) also appeared to have some past history with Al, though maybe not a pleasant one. Al was pretty quick to cut him off at times as though he’d had experience arguing points with Chris in the past. His main character was the pilot, a woman of Africa-Asian ancestry that changed the color of her jumpsuits depending on her mood, and the doctor, a severe Nordic-type woman who changed her hair color and style depending on her mood.

So what about my character? Well, I was the First Officer. My character was male, his description being “an average standard Caucasian male.” I had brown hair and eyes, average height and weight, “nondescript looks.” I seemed to "blend into the background,” and was “quiet and observant, not seeking the limelight.” Of all the characters I had been both an Intelligence Officer AND had been on the side of the Alliance during the war. Besides, not seeking the limelight the only “character note” I had was that I liked jazz music (!) and when I was in port I’d seek out a jazz bar, or listen to jazz music on my headset if I couldn’t find one. Oh, yeah…and his name was Jonathan, “never Jon or Johnny.”

Basically, I was the most boring character possible.

Al told us it was up to us to figure how long we’d been on the ship and why we’d signed on. So it was up to me to figure out why my boring jazz aficionado/ex-Alliance officer had somehow joined an illicit ship piloted by ex-rebel scum…hmmm…

[I learned later that all these pre-gen characters…and Al’s particular Firefly campaign…had been used before and developed over time. For all I know, my character was created by an actual person, perhaps the classic “turtle-type” gamer…but, well, that's not exactly MY style]

So we settled down to gaming. Our characters were at a bar on Persephone, having just completed a job [any tie-ins from the last job to what’s going on now? asks JB. Nope says Al…cue anecdote about in media res…cue anecdote about James Bond and Indiana Jones…cue JB politely wishing he hadn’t asked]. You guys want to check the “HoloNet” and see what’s going on anywhere?

Um (taking the hint)…ok.

Turns out there was a planet that had been pretty nuked during the war, that the Alliance was now starting to re-patriate with new colonists.

"Hmm...interesting," says John #1.

Interesting? says JB (getting into character now that the game is up-and-running). Sounds like the Alliance is up to its old tricks, making a buck off impoverished refugees by dropping 'em on a radiation-saturated planet. Probably "undesirables." The bastards.

[I decided that the only reason I was with the General Lee was because being an intelligence officer, I'd seen through the lies and deceit of the Alliance and decided I'd had a belly-full and quit...the embittered ex-pat. Also, I decided the reason my character stayed on...and the reason he'd been accepted was that "unassuming" as he was, he was the real "brains" behind the outfit, helping to control from the shadows, and the rebs had just found me too useful not to hire]

"Um, yeah," says Al. "Anyone with Streetwise make a roll. "

My character the intelligence officer has a lot of useful skills like this and I easily blow the top of my check, as does the pilot (Chris) who has a high Intelligence score. Al slips us a note that says "there may be good salvage in the ruins of the city." Okay, as I said, I can take a hint.

Come to think of it, says JB, the Alliance scrubbers have probably knocked out most of the rads...its been a couple years. Might be there's some easy pickings in one of the cities that was.

Al is writing another furious note, this time for John #1. Turns out the AVSCAR guy grew up on the planet and has relatives there. They're already there? Or they need passage to the planet? 'Cause we need legit business to get there anyway, "just in case."

After some confusion, we figure out the cousins are already there and may be able to point us to a good site for looting swag. But this gives JB an idea:

I see I have contacts listed here: do we know anyone who can put us in touch with VIPs that WANT to go to the new planet but wouldn’t be allowed past quarantine? Not felonious murderers, just them that’s on the Alliance watch list and can pay extra to make a fresh start on a new world? After all, there’s no telling whether the salvage job will pan out, and we might as well try for a twofer, pay-wise to hedge our bets.

Al says “sure” but glosses over the details just saying that this bit of cleverness will earn us 25,000 instead of the 15,000 we were going to get for only hauling legit passengers. Everyone’s happy, Al asks if there’s anything else we want to do on Persephone.

John #2 asks: I’d kinda’ like to find some fresh fruits and vegetables for the larder.

Al: “The kitchen’s already full-up, top to bottom.” Sha-Bam! Shut DOWN. So much for being able to do anything we can think of. And John #2 goes back to being quiet.

After the pilot and 1st officer trading off some piloting and astrogation rolls (we were the ones with the skills you see), and setting appropriate watches over our cargo-hold passengers, we approach our destination planet. Al describes our in-bound flight. Describes how all the people are being herded through some sort of check point, like a herd of sheep through a narrow gate. This is just color, but we assume he’s telling us because it’s some sort of obstacle. We start strategizing, is there something we need do to get the refugees through? Do we need to forge docs for the VIPs?

Deciding to try to get John #2 into the action (and having glanced over to see what useful skills Ma has besides fighting), I suggest we let Ma, the doc, and I take one of the orbital crafts to the lootable city, while the Cap and AVSCAR gets the refugees through the checkpoint with the intelligent (and streetwise!) pilot providing the forged docs. Ma can act as the pilot/muscle of the orbital craft, I’ll be along as back-up craft pilot (useful, nondescript skills), and the doc can monitor our vitals so we don’t take too many rads in ruined city. All the players seemed to think this was a fine plan.

On the other hand, Al was a little exasperated. “You don’t need to worry about the refugees. They’re FINE [apparently they made the mistake of paying us in advance thus giving us no reason not to jettison them to the whims of fate].” What we REALLY needed to do was make a piloting roll to set the craft down without crashing (‘cause dice rolls are the important part?), THEN we needed to go find the cousins who would take us to the ruined city.

Okay…it’s a dungeon crawl. I finally get it. We were sitting around the tavern (Persephone bar) checking notices (the HoloNet), took a journey through the wilderness (rolling astrogation not to get lost), and ending up looking for a ruined city to loot (the dungeon crawl itself).

In all seriousness, I am only just now making this connection…I guess he WAS an old grognard after all! At the time I was just thinking, okay, the dude just wants to get us to his adventure his way and is trying not to let us get side-tracked with all this “other stuff.” Unfortunately, the “other stuff” we were doing was the kind of stuff one might find in, you know…a Firefly-esque universe?

That’s pretty much what we’d all signed up to play…certainly John #2 and I. Not just Dungeon Crawls in space using Traveller instead of D&D with the background color of the Firefly ‘verse. Even when I used to play the original Classic Traveller as a kid, we never just did dungeon crawls. I know you CAN run it that way…like you can use Stormbringer to do the same. But (as with Stormbringer) it’s really not designed for that kind of adventure.

Anyhoo, I never got to the actual dungeon…er, “ruined city.” Because another one of Al’s buddies showed up (who he took a couple cell phone calls from during the game…nice), and after some more time outs and anecdotes and exchanges of gifts (Traveller 5 on CD Rom) I could see I needed to get back to Seattle to pick up my very sick wife from work.

I handed off my character to John #2 (Al’s buddy having already been handed the AVSCAR engineer), shook hands all around and apologized for leaving early while explaining I had had a great time with them, thanking them all for the game.

And you know what? I was telling the absolute truth. I DID have a blast and it was fun despite the complaints I’ve listed here in this post. Despite my critical diatribe let me just enumerate the good things, so you understand where I’m coming from:

1) I got to PLAY Traveller without having to prep a damn thing. And the Mongoose version runs pretty smooth and Old School, let me tell ya.

2) I got to play a Firefly/Serenity-themed game with dudes who were on the same page, who weren’t jackass superfans shouting down the GM, and who weren’t afraid to play the theme. Just wish we’d had some Chinese cheat sheets to swear off of (one thing the Serenity RPG was smart about).

3) I got to role-play in a large group…for me anyway, it’s been a loooong time since I was part of a four-man pack. It was also my first all adult game that wasn’t over the internet in a long time. Great.

4) The game provided me with challenges…trying to make my character both interesting and useful - as well as finding him a role in the group other than “quiet jazz dude” - was tricky, but I was satisfied with the job I did. Finding ways to scheme AND get the other guys involved in the plans was another challenge that I found fun. I don’t think I stepped on any toes…except maybe the GM’s!

5) The game provided me with a learning experience. How to do (interesting if not good) pastiche with Traveller. How NOT to blow two hours of gaming time with extended spiels. How to NOT shut down your players. How to NOT worry about fiddly rolls when they’re not the point of the adventure (for example, what if we had failed the astrogation roll? Al didn’t want us to be sidetracked by our own “side quests” but if you’re not playing sandbox you don’t want the ship to be lost in space! Is this just a way to make the people who blew points in astrogation feel useful?).

Yeah, that’s a lot of “what not to do.” But it was fun to watch it unfold. Even when I was shut down I had no attachment to the outcome of a one-off game so it didn’t bug me…I was just happy with #1-#4. But in a long term Traveller series? One would have to watch out for this kind of shit to prevent alienating players, I think.

My First Gaming Convention!

This week has been a rough one. I was out sick three days. The printer has been having problems getting my order done (latest SNAFU: the broken part won't be in till Monday and the print run won't be finished till Thursday...assuming no other problems). And I have frigging raccoons dancing on my roof at night. Seriously. Peering in through the f'ing skylight. Running around like friggin' Santa and his reindeer.

Really, just a headache.

On top of which, today was the first day of Dragonflight XXXI, the Northwest gaming convention I've never been to, but which I was determined to attend.

And I did. And I'll be back tomorrow.

Sorry for the late night post, but I've spent the last several hours comforting my beloved, beleaguered wife who has, unfortunately, succumbed to the same sickness I've had all week. Sorry, babe.

Anyway, there is so much I could write about in just this one day. I mean, literally, I have stuff for nearly half a dozen blog posts. Most of it (I am literally chuckling as I type this) actually pretty negative. But lovingly so! I loved it...oh, it was so...refreshing! Despite all the negative critical things I can (and probably will) say, I still had a good time!

Wild.

Let's see if I can sum up the day real quick...the elaborations will come (oh, trust me, the elaborations will come).

I had a lot of shit to get through this morning just to make it to the thing in time for the game I had committed to run at 2pm. And I didn't even make that. Even in the middle of the day, traffic to and from Bellevue is a bitch. Honestly, how folks can stand to live/work on the Eastside...I just don't understand. Plus they're the only part of King County that's majority Republican. Maybe the traffic is some sort of Divine smiting...

ANYway...got to the Bellevue Hilton no problem...thank God the Con folks chose a place with such no nonsense directions from the highway! The concierge didn't even look at me funny when I asked for the Dragonflight convention. Nice!

Found that it was cash or check only, so I was even later getting in as I had to find an ATM (and take it up the ass with the damn fee). However, even standing in line wasn't so boring as I could hear they were playing a movie (!) in the room next door with a familiar soundtrack...a track I at first mis-identified as Dune, when in fact it was Big Trouble in Little China.

My kind of people.

The pres (I think) actually registered me and showed me where to go to find my table and sign-in sheet. Low and behold NO ONE SIGNED UP FOR MY GAME. Again. Noob that I am, the pres informed me (apologetically) that the 2pm Friday time-slot is generally one of the slowest of the con...something I probably should have guessed.

So I changed the time to 3pm and gleefully set about wandering to check out the rest of the sights.

Wow. Again...much to discuss. Most people were playing board games or war games and not a few were playing pick-up card games of various types (MtG, Gloom). There were also plenty of dealer tables (and shelves! 8' tall and stacked with stuff!) set up in the ballrooms, most selling shit I would never, ever purchase.

Except for American Eagle Games and their blessed-basement-inventory-of-shit-they've-never-sold. These are the same guys from whom I bought a mint copy of The Compleat Adventurer, and they once again came through by bringing a crap-load of stuff I'd never seen on their shelves, almost everything circa 1980s. I bought a single non-game item that I am immensely happy with and deserves its own blog post.

So having something to read, I happily went back to my empty table which remained empty.

In fact the table became emptier because a guy who was also in need of players invited me to join his game (he had three of his hoped for six). And I did.

I've written before that I think the new Mongoose Traveller is the perfect platform to run a Firefly/Serenity game. Apparently, I'm not the only person to think so. Freaking fantastic. That in itself is worth three posts.

Tomorrow I run Death Frost Doom. We'll see how that goes...I am excited to go back (hmmm...should probably print out the pdf huh? Yeah, better go do that). More on this later. I just want to end this post on one last note:

Every person I encountered and talked to? Every single one? Very nice. Very happy. Even the guys playing Gloom. Not a single Grumpy Gus or arrogant jackass in the house.

Wow.

: )

Damn It J.J. Abrams!

So the wife and I watched the latest Start Trek movie (titled Start Trek) this Sunday and I have to say it was pretty darn good. Good enough that it put me in danger of becoming a “Trekkie.”

Goddamn it.

Both the wife and myself were impressed enough that we wanted to watch the original Star Trek series afterwards, starring Shatner, Nimoy, etc. And thanks to streaming Netflix we were able to do just that, changing a lazy afternoon into an eight hour “Star Trek Sunday.”

Now just for the record, I would like to point out that I have never been a fan of Trek. Oh, sure, if you asked me which was my favorite “edition” I would tell you the original series, hands down, but it’s not because Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner aren’t fine actors (they are, especially on-stage), or because that “Number One” guy with the beard was the cheesiest actor/character to hit television in the 90s, or even because Shatner was such a pimp. The simple fact of the matter is I grew out of Star Trek pretty early on…Star Trek IV (in 1986) being the last film I actually saw in the theater.

Fact of the matter is, I had stopped watching the re-runs of the classic series even before THAT, and as a kid given a choice between watching Shatner & Co. or watching an episode of The Cosby Show, I would have chosen the latter every single time.

Like Nascar, MTV’s The Real World, and E! Entertainment television, I simply never understood the appeal of Star Trek. I mean, I had a couple or three friends who were Trek-Heads in high school, but I shuddered every time they’d voice some “Live Long and Prosper” Spock-ism. Hell, even in college I knew a girl or two that absolutely adored the Trek and its Next Generation madness. It just wasn’t my preferred form of escapism.

And maybe THAT’s what I should say. I understand that people get their fantasy “rocks off” in many different flavors. I just don’t personally empathize with the love of Star Trek. And there is a GREAT love for that particular intellectual property…I ain’t blind to it.

It may be that I’m just not a humongous science fiction fan. This is one conclusion I’ve started coming to recently. Yes, I love watching a good lightsaber fight on the screen. Yes, I AM a huge (post-mortem) Firefly fan. Yes, I have read (and re-read) the science fiction works of John Steakly, J.M. Stirling, as well as Heinlein’s Starship Troopers and Harry Harrison’s Stainless Steel Rat.

But with all of these works, it ain’t the “scifi” element that draws me to them. I am NOT a technology buff in any sense of the phrase. I don’t give a shit about space ships and the stars don’t “beckon to me.” I like the New Agey tale of redemption, the Western, the military fiction. The planetary romance is an ADVENTURE novel, and I like adventure…I don’t care about the neat doo-dads or the intricacies of plasma fusion reactors or faster-than-light theories.

Recently reading Asimov’s Foundation series, I am interested in the intrigues and the fictional historical development…not the fact that someone is a psychic mutant or that characters have access to personal force fields. Hell, I didn’t buy my first cell phone till last December (when we were selling our house and my wife was out of town on business a lot I had to be able to field calls from agents all times of day). And even now, I generally only use it for playing Tetris while standing in line.

No, I’m not big into science fiction…especially not stuff that involves human interactions with alien intelligences. That right there might be my biggest turn-off about every version of Star Trek after the original series. Originally, Spock (a character I never particularly liked or thought was “uber-cool”) was the only alien on the vessel…and he was half-human! The Next Generation and later series were filled with these crazy alien races that I found neither particularly interesting nor believable…their personalities were still “human” just given to certain extremes (i.e. caricature) coupled with some silly biological differences and/or “alien customs.” Real human culture has plenty of differences without the need to create a gazillion humanoid “alien life forms.”

In fact, most of the sci-fi series I’ve SKIPPED over the years have been heavy on “alien” cast members. All the various Star Treks, of course, but also Farscape, Lexx, Babylon 5, etc.. Give me Firefly (with 0 alien races), or Aliens and Starship Troopers (where the only aliens are monstrous creatures with an appetite for human death). Even District Nine was (I found) a more believable take on human interaction with an alien species. And while I never actually saw Alien Nation (I read the comic book) that, too, seemed the more likely outcome of a human-alien meeting (i.e. fear and prejudice being the general outcome).

Not that I’m entirely cynical about humanity. But I think that many, many people are very challenged by things outside their normal familiar comfort zone. These people don’t like, or are afraid to try new foods, new cultures, new languages…they don’t travel very far from their home regions. And if you FORCE them to experience the strange and new (by simply moving someone of a different race/culture/ethnicity next door, let alone dropping an alien mothership into the neighborhood) they get all bent out of shape.

And anyway, I believe alien intelligences will be truly alien…there will be no meeting of the minds even to agree that “we should start a war with each other over territory in space.” I think aliens are more likely to be totally incomprehensible to the human intellect. But that’s just me.

And so we come back to the new Star Trek. It was very enjoyable in a non-Star Trek kind of way. Part of this was certainly the updated pacing of the film. Part of it was also the fun of watching new, young actors give fairly good portrayals of the classic characters.

But for me, I simply enjoyed the tone and gravity the film maker brought to it. The aliens of the film were few and far between (similar to the original series, actually). There were no klingons or farrengi or androids on deck, and the more alien rubber masks that appeared on screen had no lines. Yes, there were plenty of Romulans and Vulcans, but these characters are simply what I consider to be “alternative human species” in the same galaxy with their same petty human flaws (rage, jealousy, prejudice, vengefulness). It wasn’t some “borg” seeking to “assimilate/exterminate organic life” simply because…um, it’s a scifi blockbuster.

Another thing that made the film feel more serious, less whimsical was the way the Federation was treated: much more military and much less “military lite” (to coin a phrase from the Mekton Zeta RPG) than prior Star Trek entries. Even watching the old classic series, I see that they had military codes, court martials, and “dress” uniforms for certain occasions (in the Next Generation series I only ever remember seeing characters wear the same damn spandex jumpsuits). Anyway, the film still had no saluting and a surprising lack of military discipline (making a suspended cadet the #1 officer on a Federation warship? What the F?), but still felt like there was SOME protocol being followed…protocol that sometimes requires military personnel to make tough, non-heroic decisions because the discipline is needed to ensure the overall design continues to function.

Anyway…I enjoyed it. My wife enjoyed it (she also says ‘I always liked Star Trek,’ but this is the first time I’ve heard this in the almost twelve years I’ve known her, so I’m not sure how much she likes it). I was SURPRISED by how much I actually liked it…enough that it made me consider picking up a Star Trek RPG, if there is such a thing in print. I know I’ve seen them in the past, but much like the show/films themselves, I’ve always skipped ‘em when I was at the game shop. Now…well. I’m not about to purchase a pair of Spock ears, but I’ve got a lot more open to the idea of exploring the Federation universe!

"Shades of Grey" - Redefining Alignment

Before I begin, please be aware that all this applies to B/X D&D, and perhaps pre-Supplement OD&D (on which B/X is heavily based).

I've written before that I think the "cosmic throwdown" form of alignment is the best way to represent alignment in D&D...that is, do you stand for civilization or the evil, unknowable, unspeakable elder gods like Cthulhu and his ilk. After more thought, especially regarding the place of religion in a D&D campaign, I'm beginning to re-think that.

The traditional "good-evil" ideas prevalent in most D&D game worlds are...well, too simplistic and "cartoonish" (for lack of better articulation). I mean, you CAN play that way (and you can play Pathfinder or 4E, too...whatever floats your boat), but I don't know if that's as practical or consistent (with regard to the game rules/setting) as it could be.

Recently I've had a chance to play a cleric in an on-line Skype game. I chose to be Neutral and dedicated to a "toad" deity. The reason I chose my neutral alignment is I didn't want to be placed in the role of a "hero" and wanted the option to act in a way that could save my own ass. I thus made a slightly cowardly, slovenly character.

I ended up acting heroically and getting killed.

How the hell did this happen? Well, I'm starting to thing the cleric class, by dint of its design, seems prone to take on a leadership and generally "protagonist" role. Whether blazing a trail through undead, casting light, fighting in melee (they're not a "stand back and shoot" type), the cleric is going to be put in a take-charge position...and that's what happened with my character.

In watching my nephews play D&D, they've each had the opportunity to play clerics, and they too end up treating them as paladins. My buddy Matt often played clerics and when he did he was often proactive, NOT acting as a "support character" but leading his own (fanatic) troops.

I should note these players I talk about all played Lawful characters. My cleric was supposed to be Neutral but ended up acting Lawful in the end (to his detriment).

Anyhoo, talking about clerics is not the point of this post. I'm writing about alignment. Consider this idea:

How about divorcing alignment from gods, deities, and clerics altogether?

What if alignment were to simply describe the personality of a character/NPC/monster ("players may choose the alignments they feel will best fit their characters") rather than as strict doctrine to follow ("alignments give guidelines for characters to live by. The characters will try to follow these guidelines...")?

What if clerics gained their abilities (spells, undead turning) from following the dictates of their religion, not the dictates of their alignment? Aside from making the class more interesting from a role-playing perspective (did you keep the commandments? make the appropriate sacrifices?) is allows alignment to simply be used as expressions of human (or elf or dwarf or whatever nature). Here's what I was thinking:

Lawful = "Heroic"

Neutral = "Selfish"

Chaotic = "Psychotic"

Why call a Lawful character Heroic? Because by definition, that's what a follower of Law is: one willing to put the good of the group before the good of the individual. By the definition of Lawful in the Basic set (which I won't bother to quote here), even those "lone wolf" types of comic book characters (Batman, Wolverine) would be considered Lawful. Respect for life? Check. Keeps their word? Check. Self-sacrifice when necessary? Check. The Lawful character is Heroic.

Why call a Neutral character Selfish? Because the description of the Neutral character is a portrait of self-interest. Someone "most interested in personal survival" is not someone who puts the good of the group ahead of his (or her) individual self, by definition. Someone who only joins the group because it's in their best interest? Selfish. Someone who is not "helpful unless there is some sort of profit in it? Selfish.

But not necessarily evil, per se. Most civilized individuals (human, dwarf, elf, halfling) are going to fall into one of these two alignments. Only the true aberrants are Chaotic.

Why call a Chaotic character Psychotic? Here I will quote a bit. "...the group is not at all important. Chaotics often act on sudden desires and whims. They cannot be trusted and their behaviors are hard to predict."

Any Firefly fans remember the Reavers? This is the Chaotic individual (and a good model for Chaotic humanoids like goblins and orcs). Serial killers; individuals that have no interest in the laws of man or God, only their own gratification and depravity. Some might say a follower of Chaos is all about "personal freedom;" but freedom to do what you want at the expense of others is EVIL. And it is detached from reality (as a part of a society, culture, or world you are a cog in that group and to think your actions are somehow above the law or that you will face no consequences for acting against the ways of the group will generally set you up for a fall).

Possibly more on this later....

A Nice, Spacey Day...

Not much going on today, and me and the wife just vegged out with the beagles. The Seahawks had a bye this week (yay! no loss and hopefully they'll have a chance to heal up a bit before next week!), so we skipped the normal football watching.

Instead we watched about four episodes of Firefly and Star Wars Episode II.

The wife is NOT much of a scifi fan at all, so this was quite an unusual day. I've been trying to get her to watch the Firefly for awhile now, and I just got her to watch the first episode a couple weeks ago. But today I she finally started warming up to it. It's hard not to when you give it a chance...the characters are just so damn loveable.

"I love the captain," she says, "he's a badass but he's still got a good heart. How does that work?" No idea, sweetie...guess he's just a man with a code of honor.

Star Wars is, of course, another matter.

"I hate this movie," she says. Five minutes later: "I don't remember that part." Ten minutes later: "I don't remember THAT either...why don't I remember any of this?" What do you remember? "That I hate this movie. How come that chick has a different outfit in every scene and everyone else wears the same thing through the whole film?"

Well, it's not that great a film and certainly not the best Star Wars film but I was in the mood for some lightsaber fighting...and watching an old geezer open up a can of whup ass on some young Turks always does my heart good.

Firefly and Traveller is something I've already talked about, but I want to say a couple things about Star Wars in general.

There are a couple problems with playing Star Wars as an RPG, besides the obvious one (that players are simply "secondary stories" to the "real heroes" of the saga). One is the game degenerating into painful pastiche (it IS pastiche by definition, regardless, but can be doomed to simple repetition...in fact, the adventure formula in the rulebook pretty much sets up that particular pitfall). A second problem is matter of play balance between Force sensitive and non-sensitive characters.

I say "play balance" not game balance, because what is "game balance" anyway? Everyone gets the same number of dice to spread around their abilities...that's not an issue. But who wants to play a brash pilot or an an armchair historian, when one can play a Jedi? Hell, who'd want to play anything when you could play a Jedi?

Any why would anyone want to play a standard Force sensitive character when one could play someone that starts with a lightsaber?

Now I know that some players will prefer to play smugglers or bounty hunters, maybe even wookies. But there's no denying that these individuals are secondary to the overall saga of the Star Wars universe. Star Wars is first and foremost about the struggle between the Jedi and their various enemies...from the Sith to their own inner demons...and its these struggles that occupy center stage in the drama.

Which makes SW kind of a schitzophrenic RPG to game. If you've got three players and one of 'em is a Jedi, the Jedi is generally going to take on the prominent role in the group. If TWO of those players are Jedi, the third one will tend to end up in a "support" role.

In a film, the screenwriter and director can craft a story to make a disparate group (a smuggler, a princess, a young jedi-in-training) get equal billing and have an impact on the story through coincidence, conceits, and contrivance. If a GM does this in a RPG we call this "railroading." And anyway, I DON'T simply want to re-create a pastiche of the original films. I want to use the universe to tell new stories.

The simplest way to make it work (it seems to me), is to simply make the game ALL JEDI ALL THE TIME. That is, everyone plays a Jedi...whether left over from the Old Republic, newly trained in Luke's "new Jedi academy," or set in the adventuresome times before the events of the Clone Wars. Unfortunately, D6 Star Wars isn't geared to run this kind of game...well, not without doctoring. It has too many of some types of rules, too few of others...it ain't streamlined enough.

Which of course is why I've been working on my own version of a Jedi-type game for the last year or so. I should probably get back to it. Maybe I'll post a one-page micro-game version.

; )

Some People Call Me The Space Cowboy...

So what have I been doing lately, some might ask (since I certainly haven’t been posting much at all). This and that, is my admittedly cryptic answer. Anything fun (role-playing wise)?

Well…one of the “thats” I’ve been doing has been fiddling around with Traveller (Mongoose edition). I love this game. I know it’s playable (I’ve played it before). I know nothing about the whole "Imperium of Man" thing having only played/read the Classic books prior to picking up the Mongoose core book, so to me the game seems endlessly customizable…at least when it comes to creating the kind of RPG experience that interests ME.

Case in point: saw District Nine last week in the theater. LOVED it. Found it both disturbing and a vivid social commentary as well as highly intense…I was on the edge of my seat through much of it. Even with the aliens and hardware, this is not the type of thing that could be made into your average table-top RPG (though certainly a game like Shock would probably work well). At least for me, I am not interested in creating this kind of story IN PLAY with a role-playing game.

Case in point #2: Saw Sleep Dealers (recently rented…an excellent, cyber-punk type film out of Mexico). Also disturbing, depressing, socially relevant and yet sci-fi cool. This film could be perfectly replicated by Shock (gotta’ go pick that up one of these days), but again it’s not necessarily the game I want to play when I’m in the mood for Sci-Fi.

But Traveller, which would NOT work for either of these two pieces of fiction (see? System DOES matter!) is great for a whole slew of totally game-able ideas, generally of the ship-board variety and certainly for any type of story involving galactic or intergalactic empires: Dune, Warhammer 40K, Star Wars, Asimov’s Foundation, The Stainless Steel Rat, etc.

Me, though, I prefer something a little smaller scale: like a Firefly class trading vessel.

I am a late-come fan to the whole Firefly/Serenity hoopla, and not ashamed to admit it. I missed most of the series when it was on TV, skipped the film when it was in theaters, and only ended up watching the whole thing (rented) back-to-back about a year ago. I am now a HUGE fan (though not as much as the folks at the coffee shop down the street…hoo-boy! Ker-razy!).

Actually, I DID watch the 1^st episode ever (actually Episode 2) on TV when it was first broadcast, but at the time I was pretty unimpressed with it. Now that I own the whole series (on BlueRay!) and have listened to the commentary I realize the series was broadcast out of chronological order, which helps to explain why the thing made so little sense to me at the time (and why I subsequently skipped later episodes).

Anyway, except for its intergalactic scale, Traveller is the perfect system for a pastiche of Firefly (or Cowboy Beebop, for that matter). Switching up the tech levels, and changing Jump drive to inter-planet travel rather than interstellar makes the Trav totally feasible to model the Firefly universe.

Now I realize that there is already a little game called Serenity on the market based on the show and the film, but to date I have refused to purchase it. My perusals of its pages (more than once) continues to leave me unimpressed and uninterested in it, save as a reference book. I mean, the list of Chinese is pretty helpful but does the game system reward players for using it? Not that I see anywhere in the text (contrast this with the Dying Earth role-playing game where character advancement is directly tied to the use of flowery Vancian prose in game play…talking about adding flavor!).

Traveller’s chargen system also makes it fairly easy to model all of the characters from the TV show, River Tam being a notable exception. Well, Inarra requires a little fudging, too…unless you want design a new profession for “Companions” (the Events and Mishaps table would be interesting!), you kind of have to choose between Entertainer and Noble. Rather than forcing things, it’d probably be easier to simply design one’s own stuff.

Of course, while one CAN create the Firefly crew/cast with Traveller, THAT’s not role-playing either!

Frustrating is what it is…’cause what I REALLY want is simply more Firefly episodes. Ah, well…as Jayne would say, “If wishes were horses we’d all be eating steak!”

Pastiche is generally not role-playing in my book (sorry), but Traveller certainly can be. It has the capability of producing a Dune-like universe (or a Firefly-like ‘verse) that allows role-playing without the original characters. Ha! Dune really deserves its own post…you’d have to get rid of all interstellar spacecraft!

Anyway, Firefly is pretty doable in Traveller (hell, even a the basic Free Trader spacecraft is of a comparable size to the Firefly ship based on its Wikipedia entry. The Serenity RPG multiples its tonnage by 12X the listed value!). AND Traveller's chargen system has plenty of randomness in it, while still allowing for some player choice (and its pretty fun to boot!). For whatever reason, I’ve been starting to get back into the Science Fiction genre (all these movies lately, and of course re-watching the Firefly series), picking up used paperback novels like David Drake (Hammer's Slammers), Asimov, Anne McCaffery. Maybe I had too much R.E. Howard overload the last couple weeks…who knows?