A Heaping Pile of Awesome

The wife got back safe and sound Thursday night, and my single parent duties have ended (well...until next week when she one again has to jetset off to the East Coast), but I took a couple days for myself and left the blogging on the back-burner. Caught up on some sleep, reread Al-Qadim (found even more I liked) as well as found a new, incredibly kick-ass reality TV show in the form of Full Metal Jousting (which actually kicked sleep's ass for awhile as I had to stay up till 2am watching back episodes last night).

I would dearly like to write more about AQ and FMJ (and hopefully will sometime in the next couple days), but I can't, as I just spent the afternoon at the Cinnebarre movie theater (no relation to the RPG) in Mountlake Terrace, drinking Guinness and watching John Carter of Mars in 3-D.

I'm going to go ahead and call it one of the all-time best fantasy-SciFi films I've ever seen. Definitely in the Top 10, quite possibly Top 5.

As others have written, the marketing for this film really didn't do it justice. I was not terribly impressed with the previews I'd seen, and I'm fairly nit-picky with films. This one? Really not much to pick at all.

Now, I should probably say up-front that I've never read Burroughs (sorry, folks, I have a large backlog of reading material I'm trying to catch up on...ERB is scheduled for around 2014 or 2015). As a consequence, I can't say how true to the book the film is.

However, I HAVE read a lot of other later imitators of Burroughs's John Carter character, including John Norman, Michael Moorcock, and S.M. Stirling. Of the bunch, the character portrayed on the screen...and the story narrated in the film...blew away anything I've read from others and certainly exceeded any expectations I had on this film. It was simply fascinating to see how much of the plot had been borrowed for other fantasy stories over the years. And yet JCM's story felt fresh...it felt original (as in "the originator") rather than a pastiche of the films that have stolen from it.

What can I say? Sometimes Disney gets it right (like with Dragonslayer or that first Pirates of the Caribbean film); certainly Pixar are the #1 guys doing this CGI stuff (the six-armed aliens might as well have been animatronics. Or real aliens, I guess. Best CGI acting I can recall seeing). But the other film stuff...acting, pacing, art direction...great, great work. Perhaps not as spectacular as Avatar, JCM was still a damn sight better than that film.

And I prefer a better film to a better spectacle anyway.

Airships and pseudo-steampunk tech, weird cultures and traditions...with no heavy handed exposition needed to explain what the f is going on, may I add. As with Whedon's Firefly, the filmmakers just created a world, invited the audience in, and figured you were smart enough to figure stuff out (fortunately, it's a bit simpler than Firefly so it's pretty easy to grok in a single two hour movie).

And what a world! I think my favorite part was the panoramic views of Mars. Holy smokes...I never wanted to set an RPG on Mars so bad! Made me consider scratching my Arabian Nights setting for something a little more out-o-this world. Where's the Barsoom campaign setting for Labyrinth Lord, huh? Come on now! You OSR folks are going to leave me to cannibalize that Savage Worlds Mars book? Please don't do that!

All right, now I'm just raving. Suffice is to say I liked it a lot. My buddy Steve-O (who accompanied me) is a bit of a SciFi connoisseur (or at least and aficionado), and HE thought it was a heaping pile of awesome. Said he wanted a sequel. Of course, he hasn't read Burroughs either.

Point is, it was a great film. Certainly a Disney flick I'd want my child to see (when he's a little older, that is).

: )

***EDIT: Oh, just found this little gem for folks interested in old school fantasy role-playing on Barsoom. Check it out...it's exactly what I was looking for!***

Hating on Rangers

From Dragonsfoot: a guy directed the following question at me:

The Ranger from The Strategic Review, would you allow its use in your B/X game?

Or are you from the school of thought that would say, "If you want to play a ranger or druid or what ever in a B/X game, why play B/X? Just go ahead and play 1st Edition AD&D and be done with it, adding all that stuff to a B/X game makes it some thing else other then a B/X game anyway?"

To which my [edited] reply was:

This is really two different questions, not an either/or. The short answers are "probably not" and "no." Longer answers follow.

Regarding the ranger from The Strategic Review: this is not something with which I'm familiar, so I can't say for certain. But just because it's an OD&D class (or a class written for OD&D) doesn't necessarily mean it's in my B/X game...

Regarding my school of thought: I consider AD&D to be OD&D + Gary Gygax's House Rules...here are my thoughts on adapting AD&D classes to B/X play...

#1 The Advanced Edition Companion...provides Labyrinth Lord with adaptations of the all the old PHB classes...I'm not saying they're perfect...but they're good enough for a starting point...

#2 That being said, I personally find the ranger to be a dumb class, as I do most if not all of the PHB sub-classes.

What do I mean by dumb? Well, I don't think it brings anything "to the table," really. In general, I don't find the sub-classes to be new "classifications of adventurer," but instead variants of existing classes (druid, illusionist), or souped-up versions of old classes (paladin, ranger, assassin). The monk is an exception but is a pretty complex class, unlike its B/X counterparts.

To me, any new classes should fill niche roles that are not already filled by existing B/X classes. A ranger is just a "fighter plus." Why would anyone choose to play a fighter instead of a ranger? They use the same armor, weapons, and combat tables; the ranger just has extra "special powers."

Because of the ability score restriction? Nothing prevents a player from rolling until he gets the proper scores.

Because of additional XP needed? Assuming an open-ended campaign, this poses little restriction over time.

Because of an inability to hoard treasure/magic items? This is why portable holes were invented.

And what is the ranger supposed to be anyway? What mythological or historical archetype is it based upon? Is it supposed to be a fantasy Green Beret (as in "airborne ranger")? To me, it appears evident that the ranger is a knock-off of Tolkien's Dunedain, specifically the character Aragorn/Strider from The Lord of the Rings.

Aragorn is a unique individual, not a "class" of adventurer. And I'm not running a Tolkien-esque campaign anyway. Rangers can kiss off.

As I said, that's the slightly edited version, but it contains the crux of the matter:

The ranger class is based on a specific individual literary character from fiction, NOT an archetype.

The term "class" (to me) means "classification of adventurer." There's no such thing as an "Aragorn" class of adventurer, and I find the AD&D ranger to be a rather poor attempt at modeling a unique set of skills in a "class-shaped" package. Are hunters and trackers a part of a fantasy literary tradition? Sure they are...going back to Hawkeye and The Last of the Mohicans at least. There should be a "woodsy" or wilderness savvy adventuring class in D&D, I totally agree with that.

Should such a class be restricted to "good alignment," possess spell powers, have artificial restrictions on gear acquisition, and gain special bonuses against "giant-class creatures?"

No. Fuck no. That's just silly.

Is there any justification for it being ambidextrous (as the 2nd edition and later rangers are)?

NO. That's DOUBLE-silly. Where the hell did that come from anyway?

Look, I understand that some people read what I write and pish-posh my point of view. "It's fun to have more options, fighters are so boring." This is, I'm certain, the same reasoning that decided juicers in Rifts weren't "kewl enough;" that they needed mega-juicers, and titan juicers, and dragon juicers.

It's the same line of thinking that leads to the Bio-Synth Cyborg class (that's Synnibarr, folks).

Even if I was playing a Tolkien-esque campaign, I wouldn't use an "Aragorn class;" again, the literary character is UNIQUE not "standard." He's a fighter with excellent longevity and a robust constitution due to his half-elven heritage. He's a great tracker/wanderer/goblin killer because he's been doing that shit for decades. He's got some healing lore because it's a literary device.

He's also the One True King, yo. Where's the King Arthur class? Where's the Lancelot class? For that matter, where's the Merlin class?

OH, there IS a "Merlin class," you say? It's called the magic-user? Really. So you get the powers of being half-demonic and aging backwards and druidic spells and bardic singing and...

No, no, no...those are literary conceits by particular authors. The magic-user class is more generic than that.

Right. That's what I mean. So take your "ranger class" and shove it where the sun don't shine.

I'm currently in the process of writing this little book, called The Complete B/X Adventurer...I know I've mentioned it a couple times before. It includes several new human classes (humans are O So Versatile) for fun and enjoyment. Each is designed to fill a particular niche or role or classification found in fantasy or "heroic" literature that is not already found in D&D.

There is no "ranger" class.

There IS a scout class however...an outdoorsman and wanderer, in some ways similar to the inhuman halfling. There is also an archer class...a master of the bow, similar to Robin Hood or William Tell. You'll also find a couple different types of hunters...specifically the bounty hunter (who specializes in two-legged prey) and the witch-hunter (who specializes in the supernatural). Any of these might fill the roles left vacant with the absence of a "ranger," depending on what you're looking for.

If what you're looking for is a guy who "does it all," who has all the fighting ability of the fighter, plus spell-casting ability, plus tracking abilities and bonuses against "favored opponents," etc....well, you're playing the wrong type of D&D. Go play your superhero game, because I'm sure you'll find B/X a little too "dry" for your tastes.

Now a word of full disclosure: I have played an AD&D ranger before. Specifically, I once played a ranger/thief-acrobat/bard (half-elf to boot)...I am no stranger to cheesy characters. In my defense, I was 12 years old at the time; I've grown up a bit since then. That doesn't mean I've "lost my imagination and childlike sense of wonder;" if anything, I think I am more imaginative and creative NOW than I ever was as a child. At least, I am more practiced in harnessing my imagination...and I don't need the crutch of a big class filled with cool powers to get my creative juices flowing. I realize that for some folks this is helpful...but dammit, playing Guitar Hero doesn't make you a guitarist, and having a ton of special abilities doesn't make you a more proficient adventurer.

I don't think so anyway.

As they say, necessity is the mother of invention, and being forced to work with a few simple tools (or a few sparse class attributes) CAN result in a rich gaming experience for those willing to explore the possibilities. Sometimes, managing a bunch of "special abilities" can detract from the actual experience of "play."

Resigning Yourself To Rifts

After Carter's query about converting more modules to B/X and JM's post about C2: The Ghost Tower of Iverness, I considered converting my HackMaster version of C2 (I don't own the original)...but then I actually bothered to read the thing and it's a train wreck. And rather than unraveling THAT I might as well take the time to explore a similar mess: breaking into Palladium.

To me, I find it surprising that there are people (especially anyone who's been playing for 20+ years) that have NOT played and/or owned a Palladium game. I mean, for all its well publicized foibles and flaws, it's just so damn ubiquitous.

Of course, I'm sure some people find it strange that I have never played, owned, or read a copy of Champions. And while I made one character for GURPS (a long time ago in a quiet moment during evening of Speech practice), I never played nor owned GURPS nor any of its many supplements...and to this day have no desire to do so.

So sure there are probably people out there who have been gaming nearly as long (or longer) than myself but who have never picked up or played Rifts, Heroes Unlimited, Beyond the Supernatural, Palladium Fantasy, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (and its add-ons), Ninjas and Superspies, Advanced Recon, etc., etc. After seeing the evolution of Dungeons and Dragons the last few years, nothing really surprises me in gaming anymore.

So as Norm was asking for advice, feeling "wary" of ending up all angst-ridden as myself should he step onto the Palladium road and pick up one of these little gems. Let me tell you, brother: "angst" is the LEAST of your worries should you go down that path!

Understand first off that I am 35 years old (36 in 9 days) and have been playing RPGs since I turned 8. I first played a Palladium game circa 1985 or 1986. I got into Heroes Unlimited around 1988 or so, and Rifts when it first came out (around 1990). WHEN I was a young, undiscerning, too-smart-for-my-own-good kid, I had the time and inclination to pore over these books for hours making sense of them and how to play them (at least, how to play them for MY purposes, which were pretty simplistic back then).

I pick up one of these doozies now, and I'm like WHOA...if I didn't already know how to play, I'm not sure I'd have the patience to learn from the rule book!

No, it's not quite as bad as the World of Synnibar, but Palladium's right up there.

The books (and here I refer to Rifts and Heroes Unlimited, having them both right at my disposal) aren't arranged in anything fitting the sensibility of a 21st century RPG consumer. Hell, they aren't even as nicely arranged as, say, Tom Moldvay's Basic set, with clear chapters in a step-by-step logical progression. The rules, while scant, are strewn haphazardly through the first 50 or so pages, mixed in with snatches of background and/or gaming advice for the particular genre being played.

The bulk of each game book is composed of the character classes and their cool powers.

This is why I rant that even though the game COULD be used for something other than drawn-out over-the-top combats it doesn't do a very good job of explaining WHAT those "other things" might be. The rules (such as they are) generally tell you how to make a character and how to fight. Boy, howdy, that sure seems to be promoting something, right?

Siembieda's language and writing is fairly clear and casual in most places (especially in the core books); it's simply trying to FIND anything that can be tricksy. Once out where everything is, you'll be rewarded in knowing what to look for in most every other book...until recently they were all laid out in pretty much the same way: character ability scores, SDC/hit points, healing, insanity, alignment, experience, combat, robot combat, and skills, followed by character classes and powers, and ending with equipment...pretty much in that order. Sprinkled throughout will be background material and "GM advice."

Now I DID check out Rifts Chaos the other day (again, a very cool idea...playing Rifts during the time of the Apolcalypse rather than a hundred years afterward), and I saw that K.S. had actually, purposefully changed the "organization" of the game rules (even stating up front that this particular core book was laid out differently from past books); however, it still seemed like a bit of a mess to me. However, I didn't purchase it so I can't give you fully skinny...nor can I say anything about Rifts Ultimate Edition ("RUE") though what I've read in reviews and such does not endear me to it.

Prior to RUE, the game SYSTEM was ugly (oh so ugly) but serviceable, and the its "universal" nature becomes quite a strength as characters and rules from various games can easily be 'ported from one to another. If you want Nega-Psychers from Beyond the Supernatural to be hunting down anthropmorphic ninja animals while driving a Zaentradi battle pod...well, you can do it. This isn't "twinking;" this is genre-crossing and dimension-hopping. Yes, it can be ridiculous if left without restraint, but it's the only way to really do some of the cool comics of the 1980's.

Like what? How about Camelot 3000? How about A Distant Soil? How about the Dungeons and Dragon cartoon that routinely crossed genre...heck, even Thundarr the Barbarian for some post-apocalyptic fun! Rifts can do this well...World Book 1:The Vampire Kingdoms is an excellent example (look at the NPC hero groups).

To be continued...

Amazing Garbage

I don’t like this cover.

There’re a number of reasons why. I think it’s too slick. I think it calls to mind Rifts more than The World of Synnibarr. I'm not even sure the game is worthy of a new edition cover.

Mainly, though, it’s because it’s not the cover I had on MY copy, a cover that fit so well with the game itself. I tried in vain to find an image of the old cover on-line with no luck. Since I no longer own the game, I’ll try my best to describe what I remember.

A winged, angelic woman in tall boots, skimpy hot pants, and an Olivia Newton John headband with a fantasy sword and ray pistol stands over the fallen bodies of several lion-headed humanoids, also with ray guns. The landscape is barren, red-brown rock perhaps what you’d expect the surface of Mars to be like. Cartoony, over-the-top, scifi-fantasy combat monsters. On Mars.

I’m not going to bother reviewing the game. There are plenty of opinions floating around the web. Some (few) people enjoy it. Others (me) find it to be an unrepentant piece of garbage.

What’s interesting is why I ever bought it in the first place. I met the designer when he was first pushing this game.

At least, I think it was Raven…I don’t remember him telling me his name, though, so perhaps it was a buddy who was helping to market Synnibarr. Anyway, here’s the story:

I’m from Seattle. I was born in Seattle (NW Hospital), grew up here, went to college here, got married here, work downtown, and own a house in Greenwood.

For whatever reason, Seattle appears to have a pretty substantial gamer community. I don’t know why, exactly. We tend to be fairly edu-ma-cated. We have a lot of transplants, including many folks from the mid-west. It tends to rain frequently (making Boy Scout camping miserable, but indoor gaming fun).

Wizards of the Coast and “Magic the Obsession” started around here. The cool-but-kinda-clunky HEX is one of the more recent “big package” RPGs to come out of here.

Anyway (the story)…I was taking the #7 bus home from high school once upon a time when I encountered a young man with sandy colored hair and blue jeans that introduced me to his newly designed game. I myself may have been reading an RPG on the bus which prompted him to talk about his game. He seemed very mellow and “normal” as he introduced me to some of the basic concepts and a huge blue, three ringed binder with the manuscript.

I don’t actually remember much of his pitch except perhaps that it promised…well, you know, all the things promised on the blurb of the book. In fact, he may still have been in the process of designing it.

It was with some surprise that I actually found The World of Synnibarr in my game shop some time later.

I can’t remember the name of the place…Games and Gizmos, maybe? Whatever its name, it used to be down on The Ave, just north of 45th in the University District. Later, it was bought out by Wizards of the Coast, who even later purchased the whole retail space to put up their giant flagship Seattle store/gaming center…which closed up years ago and has since reverted to normal retail, albeit sans any game store. F’ing WotC.

Anyhoo, the original published version of his game consisted of two or three of these large, blue binders stacked on a game table. The cover had a black imprint of a dragon-looking creature...the same image that was present on the back of the "angel cover" edition. I don’t remember if there were interior illustrations or not.

To me, I was amazed. Not at the size or the quality or the scope of the game/rules…I was amazed that I had met an honest-to-goodness, self-published game designer! For all I knew, this guy would be the next Gary Gygax! And I had met him! And here was his game, that he’d showed me on the bus, and he had did what he had said he was going to do…packaged it and was now selling it.

Remember, this back before the internet or pdfs, folks…we’re talking 1990 or thereabouts.

I didn’t buy the game then (the little money I had for games was either taken up acquiring the new Vampire or Rifts line, both of which I collected diligently while in high school). But sometime years later I found the first slickly published copy of The World of Synnibarr (with the angel cover) and remembering the guy and his blue binder game, decided I owed it to myself to finally pick it up now that I had the opportunity and the ready cash.

I was, of course, disappointed.

Over the years, I have collected many games and only a few have been “sold back” to the used game shop. The World of Synnibarr was one of them. But today, right now, I wish I hadn’t. Not because I want to read it for a laugh (as some people do), and definitely not because I want to play it (as only crazy people do).

I should have kept the damn thing for inspiration. One guy personally designed HIS grand opus and sold it…sold it successfully enough to merit at least three different editions that I’ve seen, including the current incarnation. Sold it despite being near universally derided by designer peers and gamers alike. Sold it without selling out to Hasbro.

That’s a goddamn worthy accomplishment people.

If I can find an "angel cover" edition in the used section of my game shop, I'll re-buy it again...if only I could get an autographed copy!