Forget the Supers

At least, for right now.

Never did get to the play-test I wrote about in the last blog post. See, the plan was to run a modified-for-my-game version of Mall of Terror (Heroes Unlimited Revised), and then a real life maniac gunned down several dozen people in a Walmart. Yeah. Less than 24 hours before a shooter in Dayton, Ohio killed nine and wounded 14 in less than 30 seconds...about three melee rounds in B/X terms.

Hard to model that type of destruction in game terms. Hard to balance that with "super powers." Even if I wanted to. Which I don't have the stomach for, not at the moment.

But even if I did, such events merely serve to remind how insipid the whole superhero genre is, as far as "fantasy adventure" in a contemporary setting. You can tell structured stories (in media, for example) or you can use giant invasions of creatures (aliens, zombies, whatever) that are immune to conventional armaments as a source of constant conflict...but for a game the latter gets old pretty fast, and the former isn't suitable for the style/type of game I want to run.

Hero Worship

On a related note, as a means of burning off the ennui that was brought on by this chain of events/thoughts, I took the time to stream the entirety of the rather brilliant series The Boys last week (on Amazon Prime). Yes, I realize it's adapted from a comic series. Yes, I realize there are some substantial changes from the original medium. It's still brilliant, and I like the changes that were made for the new medium. It's probably the best series of "godlike" (Avengers/JLA) supers ever written...clever, touching, funny, and (at times) even surprising, which isn't a word I'd usually when talking about the genre.

It's also incredibly cynical (though, as I understand it, not nearly as much as the original comics were created by a guy rumored to absolutely hate superheroes as a genre). Which is fine. I dig on cynical super movies: I've owned The Watchmen since before it was produced as a film, and I enjoyed both Super and The Mystery Men to watch them multiple times. But The Boys take things to an all new level. It's basically the world of White Wolf's Aberrant RPG, except that instead of having M-R nodes activated by a fallen space satellite, the world's superhumans have been created through an old Nazi chemical compound injected (clandestinely) into babies all over the country. If I wasn't so enamored with non-mutant heroes (like Iron Man or Green Arrow), it would make a great basis for ANY super-themed world setting. But then, you already have that in Aberrant (replace Project Utopia with Vought and Team Tomorrow with The Seven).

Caestus Pax...the Team Tomorrow
version of Homelander.

Yeah, the more I think about it, The Boys is really just a Hunters Hunted version of Aberrant.

Anyway. I'm going to be taking a break from the supers thing for a while. I like where the game is at (even thought up some new mechanics this morning that I need to implement), but I just don't feel like playing it right now. Instead, I need some real escape from reality. I'll be at the Dragonflight Convention next weekend, and I've already penciled out a schedule including ALL the B/X games at the con. I'm not going to run anything, just lose myself in fantasy bloodshed and mayhem.

Or maybe I'll cut out the bloodshed. Maybe I'll try playing some non-fightery types for a change...wizards sporting all utility spells, cowardly thieves, or pacifist clerics. Something with a different approach to treasure gathering. Maybe.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the break.

RPGaDAY 2017 #9

From the #RPGaDAY2017 challenge (info here):

[as I'm starting this thing a little late, I shall be doubling up on my daily posts until I catch up. Early posts will be post-dated to the date they were originally supposed to appear]

What is a good RPG to play for about 10 sessions?

Ten sessions? That's a tough one. And it depends on a lot of factors: how long are these sessions we're talking about? Short, two hour sessions? Or those eight hour marathons sessions we used to play on the weekends in our youth?

Do the ten sessions include prep between sessions? Are we allowed pre- and post-game maintenance phases a la Ars Magica or Pendragon? Are players familiar with the system that's being played? Is this one of those games where you have to kill an entire session just to create characters for the game?

There are a lot of games that can be adapted to this kind of "mini-series" format, but they won't always provide satisfying gameplay. Some RPGs, like Dungeons & Dragons, only show their true strengths over long-term play. Some RPGs, like Ron Edward's Sorcerer, can't be drawn out past three or four sessions without feeling contrived and over-long. Even Call of Cthulhu begs for a shorter time period...if half the group isn't insane after five or six sessions, your GM isn't doing it right.

However, tough as it is, JB does have an answer that satisfies...at least if it was ME that had to run a ten (and only ten) game session. And that answer is The Hunters Hunted from White Wolf.

No, I don't mean that big orange monstrosity they put out in 1999; that was Hunter: the Reckoning, and it helped make a game line (World of Darkness) that was already a little too super heroic even more so (to my chagrin as a fan). In fact, even though I stopped insanely collecting every WW book and supplement about the time of the original Wraith ("the Oblivion") it was the publication of Hunter: the Reckoning which caused me to turn my back on the whole WoD game line (I had still been picking up the occasional Black Dog imprint for Vampire). Ugly.

Nope, I'm talking about the original VtM supplement written by Bill Bridges and published in 1992. At under 90 pages it provided pretty much everything you needed to create and run a Hunter campaign, in the classic vampire horror story style (think Fright Night, Salem's Lot, Bram Stoker, etc.). It's quite good, for what it is, and it's absolutely perfect for a short-term series, whether you want to play over-the-top (Buffy, Blade) or something darker and more grim. Ten sessions is plenty of time for a group of would-be hunters to chase down the handful of vamps (or coterie of mages or clan of werewolves...whatever) inhabiting a medium-sized city.

THIS one! Yes, it's scary...scary fun!

And ten sessions is great for the type of development that occurs in the standard Vampire game (characters start out relatively proficient, and won't grow to super heroic proportions in ten sessions...especially mortals who lack vampiric disciplines). Unlike other systems (Palladium, D20 Modern) there's no pressure to "level up," as there are no levels. Yeah, the short time frame of the saga won't be a hindrance to character advancement in HH.

I've only had the opportunity to run a Hunters Hunted saga once...and (if I remember correctly) it was the last time I ran any World of Darkness game (I ran WW games through the end of high school and all through college...a good five or six years, at least). My main player wanted to try a WoD game, but "didn't want to play a monster;" a Hunters game seemed like the obvious choice. While we had a great time, he decided he wanted to switch to a standard vampire after the first couple of sessions...the overall vibe of playing a mortal had been a little too freaky/scary for him. Too bad, really (especially as we never got back to VtM, switching instead to 3rd Edition D&D), because I had really been grooving on the whole thing. Unleashed my inner Crypt Keeper or something.
; )

I've often thought of dusting off Ye Old Hunters Hunted and rewriting it with a B/X chassis (perhaps using elements of Beyond the Supernatural), but I just haven't had the heart to do so. Bridges wrote a fine little supplement for Vampire. It's one White Wolf game I wouldn't mind running again.

Cap's "Civil War"

[yes, there WILL be SPOILERS. Consider yourselves warned]

[***EDIT 5/28/16: Having just watched Captain America: Civil War a second time, I have revised much of my (negative) opinions of the film. You can see my new post here, if you're interested. I leave this comparison review up as a true recount of my initial impressions. But as with Age of Ultron (also discussed below) the film greatly benefits with a second viewing***]

My wife got me a copy of Avengers: Age of Ultron for Christmas last year (actually, she bought me two copies...accidentally. No, this was not something I asked for or really wanted; would have preferred some software to help with book layout...). ANYway, today [EDIT: yesterday] I took the time to re-watch the thing in anticipation of finishing this post (started a couple days ago) because I drew some comparisons between that film and the new Captain America: Civil War (AKA "Avengers Part III"). I'm glad I did, because now I can pretty much scrap most of what I wrote previously.

Here's what I'll keep:

...when you really examine it, the whole film [Civil War] is pretty flimsy...a weak plot with the sole objective of giving the audience what we all want: a brawl of epic proportions between the various superheroes of the Marvel universe. There are some nice, emotional moments scattered throughout the thing, but really they're just the bridge between fight scenes. The villain is particularly weak...especially considered next to the arch-menace of Ultron...which makes it more apparent and galling what chumps these "superheroes" really are. The movie is a popcorn flick, pure and simple. A good popcorn flick, sure, but nothing deeper than your average, decent James Bond flick.  

[hey, who doesn't like a good James Bond film?]

And...CUT.

Previously, despite these criticisms, I was holding it head-and-shoulders above the second Avengers film. I'm going to stop that now. Age of Ultron is a very good comic book film in the style of...well, of The Avengers. Even if one gets fatigued watching dudes bash thousands of robots, it LOOKS like the kind of credible threat that would drive the plot of a film containing so many superheroes from so many different walks of life. The story...and the way the story unfolds...fits the genre. Prior to my re-watch this morning, I was buying into the hype of various reviews I'd read, decrying the huge ensemble cast that prevented real character development from occurring.

Um...okay. Character development isn't really what the comic book film genre is about. The characters have a long history of development...hell, many of them are OVER-developed, going through changes every couple decades that make them unrecognizable all in the name of doing something "new" (in order to keep selling comics with a popular character...). What's interesting about these films...what's fun about these films...is seeing how the filmmakers (producers, writers, directors, actors) translate these established characters to screen. How they choose to interpret or re-interpret the characters in the new medium, especially considering the 21st century timeframe for supers that had their glory years in the '60s, '70s, and '80s.

Right or wrong, I'm not expecting the same thing from a Marvel film that I expect from other films. Likewise, I'm not expecting 100% faithful adaptations of comics. I'm looking for something that allows the characters room to be comic book-y, that allows them to hold true (somewhat) to their roots, and that holds my interest in the same way that a good story arc in the comics can.

And neat F/X and action sequences, sure. These are punch-drunk superheroes, after all.

You dig me? And so suddenly, I realize that the main thing shaping my "first impressions" of these films isn't the overall "is this a good film" but actually the interpretation of characters that I already know and (in some cases) love. It doesn't matter if Wanda Maximoff is wearing a red tiara and cape, and it's not even all that pertinent whether her abilities come from being a mutant or some weird genetic experiment with a magic crystal. Does she go from being a villain to an Avenger? Does she exhibit both self-doubt and vengeful bad ass-ness? Do the filmmakers figure out a way to make it believable she'd want to get it on with a robot?

Here's what I hate about Age of Ultron: the characterizations of Captain America and Hawkeye. That's it. For whatever reason, when Joss Whedon directs an Avengers film, he makes a truly wimpy Captain America...a guy who's the butt of other character's jokes, who is frequently at a loss or questioning his abilities or responsibilities. I don't see the confident, self-assured war veteran, pillar of virtue that was the rock of the Avengers...the go-to leader because, hey, who else would you rather have leading you in battle? This guy...I find it hard to believe that hard cases like Black Widow and Hawkeye can take this guy seriously. Iron Man certainly doesn't.

And Hawkeye? I respect the filmmaker's decision to draw their inspiration from the dour, mask-less family man found in The Ultimates (the re-imagined, updated "Avengers"). But...well, I prefer the ex-criminal, Circus-trained dude. I mean, the thing that was endearing about the guy was his sense of humor about his own lack of super-powers and the comical way he'd run out of arrows. It made him different from a Green Arrow clone. The way this Ultimate Hawkeye translates to the screen is a little too much like WB's Arrow, what with his awesome reflexes and tactical ability (he makes Cap look like a rank chump). I find him terribly unbelievable as portrayed, but I guess that's just me...

You take those irritations away, however, an Age of Ultron is a fantastic genre film. It sucked that they offed Baron Strucker so fast, but everything else (including the various subplots) were perfectly to my taste.

Civil War gives me a better "first impression" only because I prefer the characterizations. There's blessedly little of Hawkeye, and this is the baddest ass version of Captain America I've yet seen in film. He kicks a truck! His shield defies the laws of physics! He is willing to take a stand for his principles, even though it means going against his friends, colleagues, and country! He is large and in charge...and he's a guy that others like, trust, and want to follow.

This guy? Awesome.

I also love the current interpretation of the Falcon. I could hardly give a shit about the Black Panther (he's fine, but the character is fairly bland...bulletproof suit? fighting ability? retractable claws? tracking?...hmm, where have I seen a similar power set?), save that my son thought it was pretty cool they'd put BP in a movie (no, I have not allowed my 5 year to watch either of these films). But the Falcon just gets more awesome every time he makes an appearance. Anthony Mackie is great, the updated backstory is a far cry from the original comic book version (giving the character a real reason to make a "buddy connection" with Cap), and his flying suit? Awesome. Making Red Wing into a portable drone? Awesome. All his little built-in gadgets...believable experimental military tech? Awesome. And his relationship with Cap? Great. I only had a chance to read some of the Cap-Falcon comics later in life, and they were okay, but I'll watch any film that has this Falcon in it, with to without the good Captain. He has definitely climbed into my Top 5 list of film superheroes.

But fun as it was to watch the heroes lay a beat down on each other in exciting fashion...Ant-Man's scene stealing was worth the price of admission for me (sorry, but we've had waaaay too many Avengers films to not have Giant Man make an appearance)...fun as it was, the film played too small.  Which would be fine if this was a film that (as the title implied) was simply focused on Captain America and his particulars. These individual titles, unlike the Avengers, are places where it's appropriate to have that individual "character development." Civil War was a little too crowded with too little pay-off.

SPOILER: This does not
happen in the film.

I mean, the Civil War story arc (that is the direct inspiration for this film) spans most every title in the Marvel Universe and raises issues regarding "registration," WWII-style internment, security versus privacy, and all sorts of ugliness. Heroes and allies turn on each other, one-time criminals become "good guys," and yes, Iron Man and Cap end up on opposite sides. The whole arc is big and bold and beautiful, culminating in Captain America being assassinated on the steps of a federal courthouse following his arrest and arraignment. That's some serious, serious subject matter to be having in 2006 and 2007 in the last years of the second Bush administration (when we were still dealing with our self-made Middle East shit-storm).

This Civil War? We get a dozen heroes having street brawl on an airport tarmac.

It's just weak. Crossbones to Captain America is like Bane to Batman...and here he's in and out in less than ten minutes. Helmut Zemo is one of the coolest, baddest adversaries in Captain America's rogues gallery. He's an evil mastermind, a genetic engineering genius who makes mutants that wouldn't be out o place in the latest TMNT film. Here? He's a sad, lonely mercenary who has somehow stumbled on Cold War secrets that eluded the U.S. Government for decades and uses them to punk "Earth's Mightiest Heroes."

Few people can rock the purple costume like
crazy mad scientist Baron Zemo II.

I don't know. Just...weak. I mean, I used to order bacon and black coffee for breakfast, too...though with a side of plain oatmeal (I guess my death wish wasn't quite as pronounced). This and a saved voicemail is the extent of this villain's characterization?

[sorry...if the bias isn't apparent, I'm a big Zemo fan. His stories gave me real chills as a child]

But, again...even such a "mini-Zemo" might be a fine antagonist if the film was confined to Cap's personal circle...Bucky, Falcon, one or two others. Throwing the Avengers (minus the Hulk and Thor, but plus Spider-Man and Ant-Man) into the mix requires a world-shaking menace: omnipotent A.I.s, alien invasions, or Ragnarok, in other words. The bar has been set too high for this many "enhanced beings," even if you take the heaviest hitters off the table.

Doesn't mean I didn't like the film...I enjoyed a lot of it. As I said, for this genre of film, the long-time-comic-book-translated-to-big-screen, it's the characterizations that are important. Watching Hawkeye fire Ant-Man on an arrow (a classic tactic)? Awesome. Watching how Paul Bettany brings life to a character (The Vision) who was always pretty flat and lifeless (to me)? Awesome. Watching Downey as Stark make a hash of things (again) despite some fairly WTF plot/writing? Still fun...as was watching his inevitable beat-down (must Iron Man fight every Avenger at some point? He has now picked fights with Thor, Hulk, and Cap...oh, and War Machine, too, if you count his fight with Rhodey in IM2).

But...(*sigh*) I guess I just wanted more. I guess I've turned into one of those "impossible to please" fanboy-types. I mean, it was cool to see all the "diversity" on display in film...if by diversity, you mean "black dudes." Even without an appearance of Sam Jackson's Nick Fury, you still have a film that prominently featured War Machine, Black Panther, and Falcon (I'm don't think I count Vision as "a person of color," though some might...at least allegorically). That's quite a few POCs for ANY comic book movie (considering the source material)...but where are the ladies? The Avengers have had a number of prominent female characters over the years (Wasp, Ms. Marvel, Monica Rambeau, Tigra, She-Hulk...those just off the top of my head) and while most suffer from the "pants-less" trope, I'm sure they could get updated costumes, same as the Scarlet Witch. Instead, we had ladies "checking out" of the film...Pepper Potts and Agent Carter have both departed (in different ways) and they're never shown on screen, even in flashback. Stark's new Girl Friday hardly counts as a female protagonist.

*sigh* (again). I liked Civil War as the popcorn film it was, and some of it was truly excellent stuff. But I found myself disappointed mere minutes after exiting the theater as the "refrigerator moments" started hitting me one after another. I don't like that. Especially considering the film contained several of my favorite all-time comic characters (Ant-Man, Cap, Bucky/Winter Soldier, and Falcon...and I'm an Iron Man fan from waaay back in the day), I wanted more. With the material they had to work with and the talent they managed to hire and the budget the film possessed, I expected...well, I expected to NOT be disappointed. And yet, here I am.

Probably should have been
a novel, not an RPG.

One final (really) note: when I watch a superhero film, I often get a vibe, and an itch, to play or run a particular RPG based on the action/story that's presented. This was no different. However, the RPG I found myself drawn to (based on the themes expressed) was Aberrant, which is unusual. I almost found myself picking up the PDF off DriveThruRPG (since I don't have my book here in Paraguay to flip through). Fortunately, I slept on it and woke up slightly saner remembering that characters like Iron Man and the Falcon don't fit into the world of Novas and Teragen. Still, I'm thinking a bit about Aberrant now, and how packed it is with cool ideas. Maybe more on that later.

Texas Rangers

I know it feels like this has been a light blogging week for the old Blackrazor…at least it’s felt that way to me. I know I have a tendency to throw up pages and pages of posts…I’m not trying to be “prolific” or compete with Grognardia or anything, I just happen to have diarrhea of the brain a lot. Plus I tend to be a pretty self-centered naval-gazing bastard, which leads to a lot “of reflection” and (ranty) blog posts. Got another of those latter types getting teed up in my brain as I type this little missive.

ANYway…while I haven’t been blogging, I HAVE been working/writing this week, though you won’t like what it’s about: more B/X Star Wars mischief. In fact, I’ve written two looong Star Wars/Experience Point posts and have published neither, because every time I read back over them they just read like whine-whine-whine. F that noise…you folks have better things to do with your time than read about my frigging lightsaber fetish.

On the other hand, I’m seriously considering just writing up the damn game as an actual Star Wars RPG and giving it away as a free download. My understanding is Lucas doesn’t have a gripe about “fan-based derivatives” unless one tries to make money off them? It would certainly save on production costs if I could go the West End Games route and stick film photos in the book (instead of illustrations).

All right, all right…I DID say “no Star Wars,” and I meant it…that’s a whole ‘nother week’s worth of posts. Instead, I wanted to talk about a different fetish of mine: Texas Rangers.

No, not the baseball team. I’m not a huge fan of baseball anyway (I enjoy it, but it ain’t the NFL), but if I was rooting for any team in the World Series it would have to be the Giants. How can you not love a team that has Kelly from the Bad News Bears?

No, no, I’m talking about the REAL (so to speak) Texas Rangers…you know, the law men with the six-shooters?

When I was a kid, long before I discovered D&D and knights and armor, I dug the Lone Ranger. “Long before” is, of course, extremely subjective but there’s a lot of growth and development occurring between the ages of, say, 5 and 8…enough that they seem like two different lifetimes.

Guys who are older than me probably have even better/stronger memories of the masked hero and his horse, Silver. I never saw the old black and white serial, but I most definitely watched the Saturday Morning Cartoon (where do you think I learned that you extinguish an oil derrick fire with dynamite? Lots of useful lessons back before they started adding “morals” to the epilogue!). I also had a large action figure or two that I believe was made in response to a feature film done in the early 80s (THAT I don’t remember at all).

The toy was only “okay” (if memory serves I actually had Tonto and my brother had the LR for some reason), due in large part to the limited number of supporting cast dolls. At least, with my Star Wars figures (sorry) I had Storm Troopers and Darth to “fight” with my Han Solo and Luke, etc.

What WAS cool was the little mini-comic that must have accompanied the toy (I don’t recall where else I would have acquired such a thing) detailing the origin of the Lone Ranger. How he and a huge posse got bushwhacked in a box canyon (was the bad guy’s name “Black Bart?” Maybe), and he alone survived…hence the moniker: The LONE Ranger.

Now, I have no idea why he decided to don a mask (shame at being out-smarted by such a low-down sidewinder? Maybe), nor why he decided to go it alone rather than put the badge back on (isn’t that kind of like desertion? And he probably didn’t get the Texas Ranger salary after turning vigilante).

We won’t bother to ask how he could be considered “lone” with his faithful (Apache?) companion.

Anyway, far from the current mythology of the tough as nails “One Riot, One Texas Ranger” kind of guy, the Lone Ranger was more of classic (ancient) hero paradigm. There’s a bit about him that calls to mind Roland, or perhaps Theseus…I don’t know.

I just liked the mask, myself.

When I picked up Deadlands (1st edition only…D20 Re-Loaded and Savage Worlds ain’t my thang), the first archetype to which I was immediately drawn was the Texas Ranger. THIS was “my dude,” mask or not. Some folks might be drawn to the more “fantasy-trope” characters (mad scientists, hucksters, shamans) and some want to base their character off of the typical western badass (Jonah Hex, the Two Gun Kid, the Outlaw Josey Wales or any of Eastwood’s “no name characters”). Me, I wanted a Texas Ranger…and if he could get dry gulched and left for dead and come back Harrowed…well, so much the better.

[and just by the way, I HATE “rangers” in D&D, every edition. They make me want to vomit]

I like Deadlands a lot but, to me, the game feels nearly un-playable and is problematic for all sorts of reasons, design-wise (probably a major impetus behind later editions moving to different game systems). The Weird West setting is probably the main thing I enjoy, though at times it does seem a bit “kitchen sink-ish” (especially with Lincoln as a superhero).

The western genre in general is NOT especially conducive to the “adventuring party.” Buddy pictures, sure. Solo gunmen, you bet. D&D-type crawls? No. And yet that’s what a DL game is apt to be like…take 3 to 5 players, make characters and then set off in a Wagon Train-like serial? That’s kind of dumb…for a role-playing game.

If single player role-playing wasn’t such an exercise in narcissism, the Deadlands world would be ideal for a Lone Texas Ranger (undead or not) to ride around exploring. But even if a 2nd player was down with playing 2nd fiddle Tonto, I’m not sure how long one could sustain a DL campaign.

Of course, the Wild Wild West serial lasted quite a few episodes before being cancelled.

Quitting While I'm Behind

My recent posts on WotC's "Tomb of Horrors" and Gamer Generations both included some not-so-flattering remarks about 4th Edition "Dungeons & Dragons."

Now, long-time readers will of course be aware that I've denigrated many editions of Dungeons & Dragons in the past...most especially 2nd Edition AD&D (which I have often claimed to loathe with a passion) and D20 in both its 3.0 and 3.5 versions. Likewise, I'm no huge fan (anymore) of BECMI or the Rules Cyclopedia, finding that Mentzer's system is a little too "kiddy-fied" for my taste. My preferred edition is B/X, hence the name of this blog, but 1st edition AD&D is the version of Dungeons & Dragons that I played most often in my youth and is the one with which I have the most actual play experience.

Now, a lot of times in this blog I talk about "good game design" and what makes a good game (these are table-top RPGs I'm talking about...just want to avoid any confusion out there). I own a LOT of games, and in the past I owned EVEN MORE, and there are some games I have played that I've NEVER OWNED (like say, GURPS). All of these RPGs were designed by real people, people with the best of intentions (I assume), and when I criticize a game I try to be objective about it.

Often I fail. That's just me...I get worked up sometimes.

However, just because I lambast or beat up or curse a game for some reason or another, it doesn't mean that I don't find something good and (God Help Me) "fun" about it. Case in point: I recently (within the last year) re-purchased Palladium's Rifts, a game I all-but-swore I'd never play again. It's STILL terrible and practically un-playable (except by masochistic 13-15 year olds...at least that was the "peak" of mine and my friends' Rifts experiments). But it's still representative of, not only history, but some real nuggets of powerful imaginary content...not to mention some sweet artwork and the chassis to run a post-apocalyptic Borg game (namely using Warlords of Russia).

And who wouldn't want to do that?

Not every game is good for every occasion...not even necessarily in the genre for which they're designed. Capes is a great little superhero game...unless you and the other players are interested in a superhero slugfest. Then its lack of permanence makes the end result O So Un-Satisfying (I know this from experience). Vampire was great at setting the Dark and Gothic Punk mood/ambience...and then turned into a superhero fang-banger game with lots of running gun battles. Hollow World Expedition (or HEX) is a fantastic-looking game, chock-full of inspiration for running a fast-and-furious pulpy adventure game...unless you really want fast-and-furious since the mechanics of action are a little on the clunky side. Castle Falkenstein appears to be a fantastic game all around...except that every time I try reading it I fall asleep.

These are games that I own and will continue to own, providing inspiration and possibly things to tinker with and get a game going with the right people. In some ways, I'm like the guy who collects old junker cars and has them spread all over the front yard, buying 'em for cheap with the idea that I'll fix 'em up "someday" and either sell 'em for a profit or (at the least) own a classic vehicle that is the envy of the local car show.

Yeah...I'm that guy.

Now regarding Dungeons & Dragons: I have owned, played, and run ever edition of Dungeons & Dragons EXCEPT the so-called "4th Edition." Did my faithful readers know I've actually run a 2nd edition game before? I know I've mentioned I've played and run both 3rd edition and 3.5, both at the table and over the internet.

In fact, D2o may have been my single-biggest RPG investment of all time...though I had almost every Vampire publication ever issued for the 1st & 2nd edition, and I had more than a dozen or so Rifts books at one time (not to mention a ton of AD&D stuff). And that's just the 3rd edition...I never bothered to buy 3.5 books (with the exception of the Complete Warrior and Adventurer books), instead just downloading and updating my 3rd edition stuff with the on-line System Reference Docs (SRD).

However, I stopped buying any WotC-issued D&D product long before 4th edition was even announced...and I mean I stopped buying cold, both new and used. Why? Because I wanted to stop the cash sink from a company intent on sucking every last dollar from my wallet? No...I continue to buy gaming product, both used and new, and even purchased Saga Star Wars last year. The jalopies continue to pile up in my game room, much to the wife's chagrin.

No, I stopped playing D20 because it sucked. Running it as a DM or playing as a PC. On-line or at the table. Every game came down to frustration and eventual disgust. With people that were friends, acquaintances, or even outright strangers.

Fortunately, my friends and I are still friends...we can all agree on our mutual dislike of D20.

; )

What was it about D20 I disliked so much? Well, I blogged about it a lot when I first started writing the ol' B/X Blackrazor, but in the end it comes down to a couple things: it emphasized character crafting over good play, combat over adventuring, and unwieldy mechanics over abstract models...the latter creating a steep learning curve that I find antithesis to creating easy access thus stifling the ability to grow the hobby.

Oh...that and WotC usurpation of every old RPG's system with their shiny D20 system. Yeah, I convert most existing games to B/X if I wanted (and I've known people that converted EVERY game to GURPS or Champions)...but just because you can doesn't mean you should...or that the result will be better.

However, setting aside my ideals and indie-gaming rhetoric for the moment, those other things I mentioned all led to a disturbing realization...the game was looking more and more (or trying harder and harder to be) like an MMORPG. You know, like a certain World of Warcraft game on the market?

Now let me be perfectly clear: I have played WoW. I have played it A LOT in the past. I see the attraction, especially for the lone gamer who, perhaps by chance circumstance, doesn't have a group of people with whom to game. Or for people that want a relaxing way to un-wind that takes no prep, imagination, or stress, yet is still a form of escapism that has an "interactive" quality over chilling on the couch in front of the television.

So yeah, I understand it. I've done it. And I know it for the complete soul-sucking waste that it is. Because at least with table-top RPGs you are connecting with humans, having human interaction, creating a community...in addition to stretching and flexing your creative muscles by being forced to use your own imagination and visualization, to create your own stories and decide for yourself which direction "the quest" may take.

Discussing the best group tactics for handling raids and such in an on-line game is not "role-playing." Planning and execution can be done in chess, too, but it lacks the richness and creativity of real role-playing. Of course, if you've never been exposed to that how would you know what you're missing...?

SO...4th edition. I've never played it. I've never DM'd it. I've never owned it, so I've never read it. I've read a lot of reviews of the individual books over at RPG.net. I've skimmed its core book pages at the local book store or game shop. I've had discussions with people that HAVE purchased it and read it. Nothing I've seen or heard has led me to consider investing in it.

And yet here I denigrate it and piss off the people that profess to play and love it. How dare I!

Well, what can I say? To me, it looks like its designed to appeal mainly to players of computer games. I've said this before, but I'll repeat it in this post: you can't make an RPG designed to play like a computer game that plays BETTER than a computer game. If people want a computer game, they'll play a computer game. Maybe WoW doesn't have a "dragon born" race yet, but when they DO (or something equally cool...like DEATH KNIGHTS), people will jump ship to play it. And if WotC and Hasbro design an on-line computer game that plays like 4th edition D&D...with all the races and classes and spells and magic items and cool powers...well, why would you need to play a table-top game if that were available? And why would WotC/Hasbro want to support it if they could get people to pay a $10-20 monthly subscription?

But, hey, that's just my objection to the game on principle...something I wasn't even talking about in those last couple posts. What I WAS saying (that upset some people) is A) 4th edition is not conducive to role-playing, and B) 4th edition isn't really "Dungeons & Dragons."

I suppose people have a point about the former...I haven't played the game so perhaps I shouldn't judge. However, I can say that D20 wasn't (very) conducive to role-playing, mainly due to its focus and emphasis (resolving challenges with combat and/or D20 rolls). But I suppose that really depends on how you define role-playing. And that's a much longer, and much more complicated post for another time.

As to my claim that "4th Edition isn't D&D," well, I stand by what I said. I suppose in a way this patently ridiculous as it DOES hold the title "Dungeons & Dragons," so it is in fact Dungeons & Dragons. But if Pepsi bought the rights to Coke and re-labeled their own drink "Coke" and burned the original Coke formula...well, is the drink in the can really Coca-Cola? People who'd had Coca-Cola in the past (Old School Gamers) would say, "no."

[and just to continue the analogy, Indie Gamers would ignore it and drink RC while Non-Gamers would drink beer...]

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck...but 4th edition doesn't walk the walk or quack the quack of older editions of D&D. Not even of D20, which was pretty far removed from the original game. It has elves and dwarves and gnomes? Sure...so do a number of other fantasy RPGs. It has classes and levels? Ditto that. You find monsters and fight treasure? There's a lot of RPGs on the market, past and present that operate with this premise...that doesn't make 'em Dungeons & Dragons. It just makes them "fantasy RPGs."

People: you're allowed to purchase and play whatever you want. But telling me that 4th edition is "the best edition of D&D there is" or that "this is the newest edition of the world's most popular fantasy RPG" is pretty absurd in my opinion. When I see people saying that, it reminds me of people who said, "D&D sucks, we should play Dragon Quest instead." Or Chaosium's Basic Fantasy RPG. Or Burning Wheel. Or Dangerous Journeys. Or Palladium Fantasy. Or RuneQuest. Or Fantasy Hero. Or MERPS. Or The Fantasy Trip. Or Rolemaster. Or Tunnels & Trolls. Or Warhammer Fantasy RPG.

Or whatever. A commentator in an earlier pointed out Ron Edwards's article on Why System Matters. I would instead point interested readers to Ron's discussions of what he calls Fantasy Heartbreakers. Now of course, 4th edition isn't a Fantasy "Heartbreaker;" this isn't a handful of guys self-publishing a labor of love that hopes to "fix" what is wrong with Dungeons & Dragons. But it IS similar if one considers the "fix" to be a necessary change/adaptation to the perceived idea of what gamers want in the 21st century. However, unlike the independent Fantasy Heartbreakers, by making use of the NAME (i.e. "milking the cash cow") they can ensure some degree of success, regardless of the content of their game, by branding alone.

At least until they drive the value of the brand down.

And whether or not THAT actually happens in my lifetime doesn't much matter to me, as the 4th edition game is not the type of gaming in which I'm interested.

Okay...that's enough for now. Here I was going to put up something more fun on the old blog and I'm talking about this stuff again. Sheesh!

; )

Slick as S**t through a Goose

SO…my apologies to, well, everyone. The last week and more has been spent obsessing over World Cup action. Many of my American and Canadian readers aren’t going to understand this, I realize…heck, ten years ago I didn’t get it either. But like sushi or steak tartar…or really ANY spectator sport…soccer is an acquired taste, and a frigging addictive one once you do “get” it.

Funny thing is, the U.S. used to be big into soccer back before the sport went professional. Hell, we went to the semi-finals in the first World Cup (1930) and were retroactively awarded 3rd place in the event by FIFA (at the time, there was no 3rd place award). That places the U.S. ahead of Mexico (whom we have a good history of beating in the tournament) for World Cup achievement, despite the latter country’s long history of passion for the sport.

In fact, it appears the only reason soccer died off in the U.S. is the rise of professional “American” football during the 30s and 40s (see the film Leatherheads for a fairly decent look at the early years of the NFL) at a time when FIFA was on hiatus due to World War II. If not for pro-football (that’s American football, Brits) and Nazi Germany, the U.S. might have become the same kind of powerhouse that Brazil is today. Don’t laugh…we won quite a few Olympic medals in the sport prior to the founding of FIFA. And the U.S. loves to throw money at their world domination of, well, everything.

ANYway…let’s talk about games other than soccer for a minute. I have in front of me, four glossy, soft-covers. They are:

- Deathwatch: Final Sanction
- Under the Rose for Exalted (2nd edition)
- Legacy of Disaster for Legend of Five Rings (4th edition)
- Athlon Sports Pro-Football Magazine

The first three are all things I picked up at Gary’s on Free RPG Day last Saturday. The last is a magazine devoted to scouting the NFL (mostly for the purpose of playing “fantasy football”). I’ve been playing fantasy football for about three years now…I’ve been buying Athlon Sports for more than ten. I find it gives me a nice overview of the teams for the upcoming season, plus compared to other “pre-season” magazines, it’s made with quality paper, has good photography, and excellent lay-out.

Of course, the predictions aren’t always the greatest. For example, this year they’re picking the 49ers to win the NFC West…something they’ve been picking three years in a row. I have to think the publishers are either from San Francisco or just downright retarded; I mean come on! Likewise, they’re picking Seattle to come in #2 which means the defending NFC champ (Arizona) isn’t even going to the play-offs? Bizarre.

But actually, this isn’t really a new trend for Athalon Sports. I can trace the beginning of their wonkiness back to the season following the Seattle's Super Bowl XL loss in which, despite ranking all of the ‘Hawks stats as better than the rest, they predicted we would miss the play-offs due to the “Super Bowl Loser Curse.” Ridiculous. Instead, the Seahawks ended up one game out of the Super Bowl, only losing to the eventual NFC representative Bears in Chicago in over-time.

[meanwhile, it was the “defending Champ” Steelers that completely missed the play-offs in the 2006 season…go figure]

So accuracy of predictions is NOT Athlon Sports’ strong suit. And yet, of the four documents in front of me, I find their publication to be the most accurate, most interesting, and most practically useful.

Let’s start with the one I WANTED to like: Deathwatch.

Of all the various game settings that have been created over the years…for ANY game…the Warhammer 40,000 universe is one of my favorites. Especially back in the days prior to 3rd edition 40K (with the introduction of the Tau and Necrons…jeez, undead in space?), it was sci-fi as dark, grim, and gritty as the Warhammer FRP world. O sure…you can use "magic" (psionics), but you might well be possessed by a bloodthirsty demon! And legions of psychotically loyal killer space marines will hunt you down for being an abomination in the Emperor’s sight…

Deathwatch is the 3rd “40K RPG” Games Workshop appears to be releasing, and this one is the somewhat-long-awaited “space marine RPG” (the first two were for Inquisitors and Rogue Traders, special character types dating all the way back to the original 1st edition of the wargame rules). Of course, space marines were never “special characters” like Rogue Traders and Inquisitors in the original wargame…they were grunts. So now we have an RPG where you play a badass grunt.

Hmm.

Okay, aside from the glaring discrepancies in the rules (I’ll give an example or two in a moment), let’s talk about theme/premise. Um…what? The party is a group of hand-picked marines from a variety of space marine chapters put into a special squad and now gunning for the Emperor’s enemies on “special missions?”

Just because you elaborate on the stat-line of your average 40K marine profile does NOT mean you have an RPG. Just because you add a handful of skills doesn’t make it an RPG. The fact that space marines are default “trouble-shooters” (in the literal sense…they are trained to resolve situations with combat), ultimately sets the game up to be all about blasting people…and there’s no elaborate stat-line needed for such a game.

Check out 3:16: Carnage Amongst the Stars…you can run a Deathwatch game simpler and with more role-playing and pathos using ITS rules than the stuff in this 30 page booklet. Really, honestly.

Of course, 3:16 doesn’t have nifty weapons with “special abilities” (well, abilities other than rolling bunches of dice and blowing xenomorphs all to hell). Take the power fist, for example. It has two abilities that are unique to it (i.e. no other listed weapon has either of these attributes):

- Power field: a field of power wreaths weapons with this quality, increasing their damage and penetration. Such modifiers are already included in the weapon’s profile. When the wielder successfully uses this weapon to parry an attack made with a weapon that lacks this quality, he has a 75% chance of destroying his attacker’s weapon.
- Unwieldy: huge and often top-heavy, Unwieldy weapons are too awkward to be used defensively. Unwieldy weapons cannot be used to parry.

Emphasis added to point out the retarded-ness.

Exalted barely deserves mention…at least, mention bereft of derision. I’ve never played/owned/read ANY edition of Exalted, despite owning half-a-dozen-plus other White Wolf games. I was interested to see what the game was all about.

Apparently it is about elaborate fiction masquerading as an RPG. What the F?

If I wanted to play a game that looked something like Avatar the Last Air Bender, I would probably go with Big Eyes, Small Mouth. This game is just…so…much…dross…ugh! I can’t even wade through all of it just to get to the super-elaborate stat block pre-gens at the end. Apparently, this isn’t an actual Quick-Start offering from White Wolf, but an adventure module for Exalted; you have to own the game to play the adventure (there are no rules printed un Under the Rose). After browsing the adventure, I have no desire to own the game. The over-the-top super-enriched fantasy world is…well, it’s a setting. One that probably deserves an elaborate series of novels or short stories. But NOT one I want to have to study (like taking courses in ancient Mesopotamia) in order to understand how the game is to be played.

There is a huge disconnect going on here, in my opinion. RPGs either provide rules for “adventure creation” (for example: D&D) or provide rules for playing a particular established IP (for example: Star Wars, Firefly). White Wolf is trying to give you the game AND the IP and it’s super-elaborate-as-hell…ugh.

No. No. No. I don’t want it. You can’t make me learn about it. Crap on that.

Finally we have Legend of Five Rings, 4th edition. Like Exalted, L5R is a game I’ve never owned, read, or played. Like Exalted I have heard of it…though I had no idea it was in its 4th edition (they still haven’t gotten all the bugs out yet?! Sheesh!). I know there is a substantial portion of the RPG community that LOVES the whole “samurai-thang.” Personally, I find samurai to have the same level of “interesting role-play potential” as space marines (i.e. not much). Yes, it would be cool to ride around and duel folks with your katana over honor…however, it would seem (to me) to get OLD after awhile. Like that Highlander TV show…how many times do they repeat the formula that ends with someone’s eventual decapitation before you stop watching?

And UN-like Ron Edwards (surprise! My game design hero!) I am NOT interested in exploring the human drama that comes with conflicts of honor mixed with soap opera family conflicts. Sorry, just not all that interested in what RPGs can teach us about the human condition (at least, not when it comes to blade-slinging ronin).

Actually, I found the L5R booklet better than expected. It had good art in a Magic: the Gathering kind of way. The rules provided appeared short and succinct, variations of a couple different games that are escaping my memory right now (perhaps shades of Deadlands). The pre-gen characters had fairly short “stat blocks” than what I anticipated (certainly in comparison to Exalted!). All in all, I was intrigued enough to do a little further research on-line regarding Legend of the Five Rings.

Having said all THAT, I have to say that in the end, I find the game to be kind of dumb. Why not just call it Samurai & Shugenja? After all, that’s all it seems to consist of. Do you want to play a Warrior or a Wizard? A space marine or a psyker? And most any dude between the age of 17 and 30 is going to be laughed out of the table if he belongs to “Clan Unicorn.”

Or perhaps I’m being unnecessarily hard on this game…or all these games for that matter. I admit I’ve been feeling a bit crusty lately, as I’d rather be watching World Cup games than working (and being forced to nip out to the bar across the street to catch scores on the sly).

But really, is THIS what RPGs are coming down to? I mean is this WHERE THE MONEY IS in the RPG industry?

I mean, just look at the common thread. Your "party" is basically a group of ass-kickers (samurai, space marines, “exalted” heroes) with various tweaks to distinguish you from one another (clan, chapter, caste) brought together at the behest of some higher power (daimyo, Emperor, whatever-the-hell-Exalted-has) to perform missions that require ass-kicking.

Lame. I mean really, just…lame.

One commentator either here or on another blog I was reading wrote something about how “if it’s an RPG it should include combat.” Huh? Because playing an RPG is all about playing an ass-kicker of some sort? That’s as stupid as exercising in the gym for the sake of “getting big muscles.” What exactly is it all in aid of?

Again, let me reiterate that, cool and interesting as it might be, I do NOT generally play RPGs for catharsis or therapy or to address the drama of the human condition. But I DO play them and enjoy them for something else…stretching the imagination. And there’s nothing fantastically imaginative about ass-kicking with dice. Go play a fucking video game, chumps.

I mean, really. Have you seen what’s available on the console these days? Plenty of cool games that allow you to adventure through a linear environment, ass-kicking in many graphically enhanced ways, with guns and without, acting in concert with other players or alone. What the hell do you need an RPG for if that’s all you want to do?

All right, I’ve wandered a bit off topic. Just to bring it back for the moment, understand that I hold table-top RPGs in hella’ high esteem, and if the three games I picked up at Free RPG Day are an indication of the general mold of commercial games being issued these days…well, that’s a bloody shame, that's what it is. But, whatever…this blog post is not any kind of attempt at resolving the issue, it’s just me venting my opinions about the nicely printed free booklets I picked up on Saturday.

Well, that and me taking a break from all this soccer watching.
; )

Slaughtering Sacred Cows

There are three different things I wanted to write about today…I’ll see how many I get to. All pertain to my supers game (working title: B/X Supers), which is taking shape a lot faster than anything else (mainly due to the lack of IP infringement inherent in an original non-derivative work). They are:

- Random character generation
- Attack-less combat
- Minor heroic characters

This post will address the first item.

I almost started this as a poll: which do you prefer, random or non-random character generation? Or rather, “chargen” as we call it “in the biz.” But then I got to thinking : just how random IS random chargen anyway?

For the most part, early edition D&D…held up by many as the shining star example of random chargen…isn’t all that random. In B/X, OD&D, or AD&D “random-ness” consists of exactly 8 dice rolls, possibly 9 if you are a magic-user and your DM has you dice for the spell(s) in your spell book. The basic eight are:

• The Big Six ability scores
• Hit Points
• Starting gold

That’s it for OD&D and B/X. AD&D has some other stuff if you’re using the Unearthed Arcana (Comeliness, Social Class, Birth Order, etc.) as well as the optional “Secondary Skill” roll in the DMG (which I don’t see used all that much).

Chargen itself consists of quite a bit more than those random rolls…and none of it is random.

• Choice of class
• Choice of race (some editions)
• Choice of alignment
• Choice of equipment
• Choice of spells
• Choice of proficiencies (some editions)
• Choice of deity (some editions)
• Naming the character
• Crafting a character history/back-story (some groups)

Considering a 1st level character can get killed by misfortune at the drop of a hat, that’s quite a bit of non-random work (especially for an AD&D character). And these choices and options have just gotten MORE cumbersome over time for “the world’s most popular RPG.” Weapon mastery, non-weapon proficiencies, skills, feats, religious spheres, ranger specialties, future mapping (for prestige classes), etc. It raises the question “with all this CHOICE what’s the point of random rolls at all?”

I know that as a DM in my youth, I often did away with random rolls in chargen. Yeah, you heard me. As a DM I’d ask: “what do you want to play?” Player: a magic-user. Me: “okay, you have a Strength of 9, Intelligence 18, Wisdom 14, Dexterity 15, etc.”

Hit points? Same deal. “Let’s see you have a 5th level fighter. That’s a hit point range of 5-50…call it 32 hit points and add your Constitution bonus.”

As a DM, I wanted to GET GOING with the “actual play” stuff…other players already had characters (some of whom were also “non-random” creations), so all the random stuff would be assigned by Yours Truly and off we’d go on the adventure. The player would still be “buying” (selecting) equipment even as we were getting into the first monster encounter. What can I say? I prefer to move at a brisk pace.

[hmm…I could probably write a whole series of posts on playing “fast and loose;” maybe I’ll do that next week]

Here’s the thing (or one of the things): I liked to get to the action AND I liked the threat of imminent death. And the way you get that threat is by not being afraid to kill players…in traps, in combat, in random freak dungeoneering accidents. And the only way THAT can work (and still be fun) is if players don’t end up side-lined too long due to a terminal arrow through the gullet.

[a note on resurrection and raise dead: this type of powerful magic (including wishes) was generally reserved for only the longest running, most beloved characters. When chargen is fast (even for making an experienced character; e.g. “you’re 12th level you have X hit points and the following 5 magic items”) it’s generally more expedient to make a new character than march the party several days journey to the nearest temple with a high priest or whatnot]

Expedience is the most appealing part of random chargen. At least for me…I’m not really sure why else it’d be desirable. Because you want to be “surprised” by how the character turns out? Because you really can’t decide what character class you want to play? News flash: you’re going tohave to make a choice about the latter, regardless. And if you’re playing B/X, those choices are wide open (there are no minimum qualifications or pre-requisites for any of the human classes).

So assuming expedience is your thing (and not just the “suspense” of what you’re going to roll), is D&D random enough? Should class be rolled randomly (as it is in the Warhammer Fantasy RPG)? Should back-story be determined by dice rolls (like Cyberpunk’s “Lifepath” system)? Should even skills/abilities/advancement be determined randomly (hello, Traveller!)?

Okay, let’s check out the “non-random” type of chargen: the path of all choice.

[there’s also a 3rd type of chargen, something I call “the competitive form,” but I’ve only ever seen it in one game: Amber Diceless. Hmmm…maybe Baron Munchausen, too, whose whole game is one big chargen process]

For me, the biggest example of the all choice/non-random chargen system would be White Wolf (mainly because I’ve never played GURPS or Champions). Assign points for abilities. Assign points for skills. Assign points for powers (or spells or whatever). Assign points for willpower. Assign “freebie points.” Assign “flaws” to gain more points. Use bonus points to get “merits” or boost other stats.

Chargen in White Wolf takes a LONG-ASS TIME. Longer still, if you don’t have affirm character concept in your head already. Which, added together, makes most of their games fairly lame for me…because it cuts down on the action by taking character death off the table.

I say this from experience. I enjoy action and danger and challenging characters (or mauling them might be a better way of putting it)…I like swift and violent games more often than not. But if a character gets killed (or even knocked into “extended torpor” for a Vamp chronicle) what happens?

The player ends up sidelined for a long, long time.

Having a character offed in play is punishment enough…forcing a player to sit out because chargen takes so bloody f’ing long is ridiculous. Of course, it never actually comes to this as the “concept character” is SOOO beloved to the player (the player had to think long and hard, and delicately craft their fine creation) that allowing a character to die isn’t really an option. Too much drama and heartbreak down that road…and unlike D&D there’s no “raise dead” or “resurrection” spells.

I look at chargen in a game like Werewolf (which is nothing if not a combat game), and think, “now THIS should be a MMORPG.” Or Sim-Werewolf or something. Let players spend hours crafting the perfect character, and then they can tool about their deathless little virtual worlds to their hearts content, pretending to be, well, whatever.

But noooo, MMORPGs don’t allow your character concept right off the bat…you have to get to “level 60” or some such before you can be a plate armored knight on the back of a horse (WoW)…or “level 40” before you can fly through the air with a cape or have a character with super-speed (City of Heroes). Lame.

Like most Americans, I’m not much for delayed gratification…and extended choice in chargen delays my action-oriented game play more than I can stand.

Now having said all THAT, I think that SOME choice (and extended chargen) is important in any Supers RPG.

a) In general, superheroes are a lot less mortal than D&D characters (they may die 2-3 times in a couple hundred issues, but that’s a pretty slim amount). Likewise, they have a tendency to come back…either as clones, or robots, or updated with new costumes, or magically or whatever. So it makes sense that players put a little thought into a character they want to have around for the long haul (i.e. a continuing series).

b) Random power selection, in my opinion, generally turns out to be ridiculous more often than not. Some character conceptualizing is appropriate to the genre. One thing about Marvel that always irritated me was the random power selection…especially when I had a character concept in mind.

All right, that’s enough design stuff to chew on for right now. Your thoughts are appreciated.
: )

Live From Hell

There is no pain quite like back pain.

Oh, there are lots of painful things in this world that are probably of equal or greater intensity. Childbirth. Getting knee-capped with a 9mm. Having white-hot pokers used to put out your eyes. Being kicked in the balls repeatedly.

But as far as pain with no obvious source of external stimuli? Back pain is right up there at the top. At least with other illnesses and injuries, you can pass-out and sleep for awhile. I've been unable to sleep for two days as there is no position I can lie in that doesn't cause intense, shooting pain through my upper back and neck...well, at least when I "relax."

A couple years ago, my wife and I did a pilgrimage/hike with my father-in-law in Mexico. We later calculated the distance was about 60+ miles, all of which is walked in a day and night without stopping except for the occasional short meal break. I had thought, no problem, I walk a lot and I have the endurance to go for 20+ hours without sleep. I'll be tired, but I'm in good enough shape to do this.

In retrospect, it was the craziest, most dangerous thing I've probably ever done. There was no trail, no road...no path. People knew the way because they followed other people that did it for years, or who lived indigenously to the area (and didn't own vehicles), or because people from nearby towns/villages would come set up stands along "el camino" to sell snacks and drinks.

We crossed several mountains. In the pitch blackness with fading flashlights (no stars because of the cloud cover...it was rainy season). On sheer, flat rock or loose rolling gravel. Just hoping there would be no rain and no flash floods. And hoping there would be no injuries...because there was no way an ambulance would find you or that any chopper was going to land and airlift you out.

So anyway...I started the trek in heavy duty "blister-proof" hiking socks and boots from REI (these were worn through by the end, by the way). Stupidly, I was favoring my left leg through most of the day due to a slight tenseness/soreness in my right ankle and my problem "trick right knee" (it gets "tired" quickly due to starting the fencing sport a little too late in life - my mid-twenties). By midnight/1am, my left leg was shot to shit...I could not bend it or put weight on it without collapsing in pain, and so I was forced to rely on my right leg...my bad leg.

Around 3am or 4am we finally made it down the last, longest mountain. I don't know if the thing had a name or not; I just called it Goddamn Mountain. Because every time I stepped down on my right leg I would swear and curse the f'ing thing. By the time we finally rolled into the town at the end of the line, both my legs were shot to hell, and it would take more than a week for my right knee to fully recover from the experience.

The thing is, it was the longest and most excruciatingly painful experience I ever had. Normally, when you are "in pain" you stop what you're doing. You take your hand out of the fire and ice it. You walk off the sports field and take a break. You sit down and have a glass of lemonade. You pop an aspirin and try to take a nap.

On the pilgrimage, I couldn't stop...there was no option. The busses that would take us back to our original town was at the end of the trail...and as I said, no team of medics was going to air-lift me out of the jungle. I just had to keep walking, and keep feeling the pain. I wouldn't call it a "character-building" experience. Would you call being a tortured P.O.W. a "character building" experience? No...but it's a testament to the limits of human endurance that people can survive and sustain on-going physical suffering when there is no other option but to do so.

My back pain of the last couple days has been nearly as bad. Despite seeing a chiropractor for the last six weeks (three times this week!). Despite the emu oil and super-strength muscle relaxant ointment and popping Ibuprofin like candy and drinking lots of water and drinking lots of alcohol and acupressure release and...shit it hurts!

So what's the point of all my whining? Well, it seems to me that, in general, RPGs don't model pain very well.

Which to me is well...nearly an unforgivable sin. I mean pain and suffering is so much a part of the "adventuring experience." We stub our toes, or our thumbs, we get blisters and headaches, pull hamstrings and groin muscles, suffer all sorts of pain and injury and illness. Haven't you ever picked up a bit of a sniffle camping outdoors? I have...and it colors everything you do the whole next day.

Real life adventures can be a pain in the ass. And part of the heroism inherent in partaking in an adventure is enduring these aches and pains and inconveniences.

I always think of the early chapters of Tolkien's The Hobbit...how everyone, especially Bilbo (but even Gandalf and the sturdy dwarves), are miserable and complaining once the weather turns foul. As a kid I could totally relate to this, because every single camping trip I went on it poured rain. Cub Scout and Boy Scout outings or family trips, regardless of the time of year, it was always wet and miserable. That's just part of growing up in the Pacific Northwest (at least on the west side of the mountains). And while we could laugh and have fun reminiscing once we were back home, it was always a damn miserable time out in the woods. Especially if you added injury on top of it all (burns, cuts, scrapes, blisters...as well as the occasional concussion or broken limb).

Most players look at their hit points on a character sheet kind of like we look at our gas tank on a car. "Uh-oh...getting close to Empty. Better pull over at the next station and fill up." You don't want to run out of hit points in the dungeon anymore than one wants to be stranded on the highway with an empty tank. But as a simple resource, "hit points" don't do justice to the pain and suffering of the adventure experience.

Likewise, hit points are, in the main, a measure of the combat/fight-worthiness of a character. Once your hit points are depleted, you're no longer able to fight effectively...you're out for the count and probably winging your soul off to its final reward. Things that do hit point damage (falling, traps) reduce a character's ability to put up a fight...but that is ALL they measure. They don't measure fatigue (which is represented, in B/X D&D, with some small penalties for over-exerting oneself). They don't measure one's willpower or ability to withstand toxins/intoxication (these are in part represented by saving throws and sometimes by ability rolls against Con or Wis).

I've seen some RPGs that try to measure pain and suffering, all with mixed (and for me, unsatisfactory) results. Deadlands (1st edition) couples pain with fatigue in its Wind resource. White Wolf's early games (Vampire, etc. al), had pain and movement penalties associated with levels of damage (At "mauled" person loses two dice and can "only hobble." At "crippled" you lose five dice and can "only crawl"). Albedo has both physical damage levels and mental (stress) damage levels caused by firefights and combat. Violence had both life points and pain points (and each weapon in the game had a different dice roll for each).

But none of 'em really capture the debilitating nature of suffering. And certainly my favorite adventure RPG (D&D) has none of these. Which I think is too bad.

I know some readers have no interest in modeling the minor aches and pains of "real life" in an RPG adventure game, just as I have no interest in forcing PCs to "roll to see if you have a full bladder and need to find a bathroom." It's not "important" enough. It's not "dramatic" enough. It's not "heroic" enough.

Damn it...there IS heroism in pushing through the pain. I feel like a goddamn hero just sitting here and typing this meandering post! Aaarghh! My frigging back!

All right. I'll drop the subject for now...especially as I have no idea (at this time) at how I would model pain and suffering in an RPG. But I will be thinking about it, and if I come up with any scratch rules, you better believe I'll be returning to the subject.

Though I'll try to keep the whining to a minimum.

; )

Witch Hunters!

So I spent an inordinate amount of time perusing a hardcover game called Witch Hunter today over at Ye Old Game Shoppe (that's Gary's Games in Greenwood for those who haven't been reading for awhile). "Inordinate," says I, because it is the type of game I have venomously derided many times on this very blog...you know, the giant, slickly-produced, glossy hard cover tome, thicker than a college Calculus text and full of a mind-numbingly painful skill system.

In other words, the standard recognizable descendent of White Wolf Game Studio.

And not surprising, really, considering that Paradigm Concepts (the responsible company of whom I've never heard) appears to be based out of Florida, somewhat the same region as WW's Georgia location. Maybe they all game at the same local venues and cons?

Well, anyway, I didn't buy it (the game or the design), but the black-and-white artwork inside was wonderful, reminding me of something but not anything I could put my finger on...the old GW Slaves to Darkness, maybe? No...something more consistent. Even the print technique itself. Honestly, I don't know, but I flipped through the book gazing long and lovingly at some very cool artwork.

The CONCEPT of the Witch Hunter and 16th-17th century role-playing in general is a pretty cool one...at least I'M a sucker for this particular genre. On the other hand, I also am big into witches, and a new not-so-secret game project I've been mulling over is one based solely around witches living in the 1980s...you know, the old crone ones, not the little minxes of Charmed or something. The conflict...between the witch and the hunter...I find it makes for some fine, cool drama.

Which is why I find the Compleat Adventurer's witch hunter entry a huge and cool boon to anyone's B/X campaign. Talk about "flavor country;" I find the text for this character class to be the most inspiring (from a "adventure/campaign inspiration" standpoint) of any of the new classes presented. For the benefits of folks that don't own the book (now out-o-print) I'll quote some of it (written by Stephan Michael Sechi):

Witch hunters are an unusual class of characters who combine tracking skill with a knowledge of mysticism and ritual magic. There are two distinct types of witch hunters: those who are lawful good and the unscrupulous type known as chaotics.

Lawful good witch hunters work primarily out of devotion to their church and deity. Like paladins, they will only have close associates with those of their own alignment. As their motives are religious (rather than financial) in nature, lawful good witch hunters will not accept work that in any way conflicts with their alignment or beliefs. They may be employed to find missing persons, retrieve lost or stolen holy items, hunt down necromancers and other spell casters of evil alignment, or to perform any sort of missions which will be of benefit to the church. Though they may charge for their services [they] will usually donate at least half of their monies to the church, keeping only what they need to live...

Chaotic witch hunters on the other hand, have no ties with any organized church or religious group. Like bounty hunters, most of these individuals will accept nearly any sort of work providing there is money to be made. While chaotic neutral witch hunters are usually no worse (or better) than the average bounty hunter, their chaotic evil counterparts are dangerous fanatics who prey upon the superstitious beliefs of commoners and nobility alike. These witch hunters will often travel to villages and towns and "volunteer" to rid the area of witches, warlocks, and other spell casters, citing the dangers which such "devil-worshippers" present to the god-fearing populace. As proof of their good intentions, they will usually accept no fee until such time as they capture, bring to trial, and convict their first "witch." As students of history will recall, most witch trials consisted solely of torture, false accusations, and the subsequent execution of the defendant. There is a 50% chance that any such trial will strip up the demand for further trials [JB: wow!] thus ensuring the witch hunter's continued employment in the area. Not surprisingly, such witch hunters are much despised by spell casters of all alignments, and are occasionally subject to vengeful counterattacks.

That's just awesome stuff.

Witch hunters in CA are limited to human race and Lawful Good, Chaotic Neutral, or Chaotic Evil alignment. Interestingly, they all have the same exact abilities regardless of how they are aligned...the real difference (and there is a REAL difference between the Lawfuls and Chaotics!) is how they put those abilities to use.

Now some may feel the "witch hunter" character wouldn't be an appropriate fit for the pseudo-medieval fantasy world of D&D (though somehow monks do fit). However, I'd actually take a page from the original Dragon Lance books on this score...the early stories of Weiss and Hickman featured several witch hunts/trials/persecutions, even of main characters (notably Raistlin and Crysania). Hell, it's D&D. There's plate armor and no gunpowder. Might as well throw witch hunters in as well!

Even the Chaotic Neutral witch hunter (which for B/X D&D I would simply consider a "Neutral") sounds like a great character, similar to many of the witch-hunters found in Japanese manga and anime (the wandering "ghost slayer" or "vampire hunter" or whatnot). Solomon Kane is also a great inspiration of course, as is Van Helsing (in all his various incarnations). Dig it. You could have a whole campaign just centered around witch hunters of various alignments, perhaps companioned with other adventurers (including spell casters) of similar alignment and temperament. Or a Chaotic Evil (straight "Chaotic" in B/X) could be hunting a lawful party due to the "witches" in their midst, or even certain "evil" magic relics in their possession.

Anyway, I like it. I especially like that Sechi's witch hunter is not immediately assumed to be some goody-goody "fighting the forces of evil" or whatnot (a la Paradigm Concepts massive RPG). Just as with the other classes in (B/X and Original) D&D, you have the full spectrum of humanity available for the class, for good or ill. That's totally hip.

Now I should probably work up the class...

: )

Let's Forget Xena For A Moment

Got distracted by a perfectly beautiful Seattle weekend and ended up spending a lot of time outside this weekend (despite being a fairly “indoor” type of guy); however, I have been thinking about my Xena post (and the multitude of reader responses) A LOT the last couple days. Ruminating may be the operative word, but I would prefer fermenting or brewing for what's been going on in my head.

Let’s back up for a moment. I never meant to imply that there are NOT lady gamers that don’t approach RPGs with the same gonzo gung-ho gamist style of males of the ass-kicker-cherishing variety. I never meant to imply that women-folk don’t have various changes in mood that might allow for both an ass-kicking character one day of the week and something completely different on another (just as male gamers will go through different phases/moods of what kind of character they want to play).

Here’s an anecdote I did not relate the other day:

- In my third year of college I was approached by my buddy Joel to run a Werewolf game, specifically to introduce our mutual friend Sarah to RPGs; she was interested in trying ‘em out. I told him that I didn’t think Werewolf was a particularly good game to use as an introduction to RPGs (this at a time when I was a HUGE White Wolf fan and bought everything they published), specifically because there wasn’t much role-playing to it…I felt it was too combat-oriented, and more akin to playing “a video game” than an RPG. His reply? “Well, I think that’s all she’s looking for.” Just something escapist to take her mind off finals and what-not and to check out this role-playing-thang her drinking buddies were so interested in.

For some reason I can’t recall now, I did NOT end up running the WW game (the reason I didn’t bring up the anecdote in my earlier “girl gamer experience list” is that I never had any direct role-playing experience with Sara)…and frankly I was put off by the idea that anyone would want to play a role-playing game for nothing BUT combat/action.

Certainly there are people of both genders who are attracted to hard core ass-kicking to a greater degree than me. There ARE people that purchase and play Pathfinder and 4^th Edition D&D, games that seem to offer little more than the inherent “badass-ery” of one’s character…at least, that appears to be the main possible attraction I can find in these games.

OKAY, SO…admitting that there are some (or PLENTY) of female folks out there that love and take great inspiration from characters like Lux the Barbarian (D&D: Wrath of the Dragon God) or Perfidia (Knights of Blood Steel) or Mila Jovavich in Ultraviolet or that vampire chick (Kate Beckinsale?) in Underworld…my POINT was that there may be other girls/women that might be interested in what fantasy role-playing games have to offer IF the games were offering something other than ass-kicking badass-ery.

And yes, there are probably certain males who fit the same mold (my friend Rob comes to mind) but it would seem that most boys can at least identify a little bit with the “bad-ass” approach…at least enough to try a game out and then (if necessary) tinker it to their particular taste.

[to be fair, I am not trying to stereotype or pigen-hole ANYONE…male or female…with these assertions. For example, I am almost nothing like my old buddy Mac, who LOVED every B film produced with VanDamme or Seagal and thought Tango & Cash was the height of good cinema, even at the age of 20. He was a NON-gamer, though I was able to entice him to play Rifts at least once or twice (his character was a Headhunter). I don’t know whatever happened to Mac, but I know he cherished an aspiration to become a Navy SEAL]

Let me go back for a moment to my old buddy Jocelyn. Man, I wish I was still in contact with her so I could get her input on this, but she lives way the hell out in B.F.Eastern Washington these days and isn’t on facebook as far as I can ascertain. Jocelyn WAS a badass: she was about 5’9” or 5’10”, lifted weights, earned ribbons riding equestrian (her horse was named "Bill"), was plenty handy with a compound bow, drove a pickup truck, and listened to Heavy Metal music. She got into more fist fights than I ever did (once breaking her wrist on some poor girl), and as far as I remember she was always on the winning end.

She was also a talented artist and writer, and possibly even more than RPGs she and I shared a great love of books…we’d read ‘em and swap ‘em in a variety of different genres, though generally of the fantasy, sci-fi, or horror variety. She enjoyed using her imagination to tell stories, and they were definitely of the “softer” fantasy variety, not blood & guts...she liked faeries & elves a helluva’ lot more than swords & axes.

Her cinematic role-model was the Sigourney Weaver character of the Aliens franchise (at least in the first two films). This is a female character that is strong and capable without being a “badass” from the get go. Oh, she can be a badass…when she has to be, as a matter of necessity. But she’s not some super-strong, Stallone-like action hero. She’s human. She has her own weaknesses. She has fear…both for herself and those she loves. However, she is also resourceful and self-sufficient.

[now thinking about it, Carrie Fisher was plenty resourceful and self-sufficient in the original Star Wars trilogy as well...although often stuck in the "durance vile" scenario, she often came out swinging, could shoot more accurately than Luke, could pilot the Falcon, provided military briefings, walk into Jabba's palace with a flimsy disguise and no back-up, not to mention killing the slug with little more than her bare hands...and could shrug off a wound easier than her brother who gets reduced to a fetal position more than once...and yet, was not decked out as some bad-ass warrior; however, I don't recall Jocelyn being a big Star Wars fan]

Now maybe folks will think I’m comparing apples to oranges here: one-dimensional cardboard characters compared to ones that are simply better written. That’s missing the point…I am NOT just trying to “shoot fish in a barrel,” here. It’s just difficult for me to actually come to my point without the excessive preamble (sorry).

Let me try to enumerate:

1. I think RPGs (table top) are valuable and worth playing (not to mention fun) for most anyone.

2. I think there’s value to having the RPG market grow.

3. I think games as designed and as presented have an impact on HOW and IF people come to the hobby.

(3a. I think cinema-literature-comics of the escapist-fantasy variety also has an impact; though that is the subject of a different and longer post)

4. I think that there are some folks, specifically many women, who might find fantasy role-playing much more enticing as a pastime if the design and presentation were not skewed in a way that appears to appeal more to those that enjoy “badass-ery.”

[and just by the way, when I say “fantasy” I don’t mean “only pseudo-medieval/historical plus magic.” I mean science fiction, I mean horror, I mean western and spy genres. All of these are “fantasy.” When I play Boot Hill, I am living out the “fantasy” of being in the Old West. It’s still fantasy role-playing even without wizards and goblins, etc.]

THAT was the point of my original post. Game designers sometimes seem (TO ME) to be saying, “Well, we should be growing the hobby getting more people stoked to play and it seems like there is an un-tapped market of potential female gamers. What we need to do is more artwork showing how badass women adventurers can be…then more women will want to play our badass games!”

[perhaps TV and film producer folks say similar things]

Sure, maybe that will win a handful of converts to the cause…though I prefer to think that people in general (men and women) are smarter than designers (and producers) believe them to be, and that the women most interested in playing badass fantasy characters were already super-imposing their own female images into the game. But that may just be me being all Pollyanna and rosy and shit.

Okay, enough for now…please feel free to chew this over (or chew it up and spit it out). I think I’m going to “quit while I’m behind” and leave off on any more half-assed design theories for awhile. I've got other writing projects to work on.

; )