Tuesday Morning Musings (On A Wednesday)

So...a real "throwback" post: I'm sitting at a restaurant, eating breakfast and blogging. Haven't done that for a while. 

But here I am, waiting on an eggs bennie while savoring my coffee and being glad to be out of the cold for a minute (it's about 10 degrees below freezing at the moment, despite the sunshine). 

[food just arrived]

[okay...food is finished]

I am out of practice, obviously. I cleaned my plate before reopening my laptop. Might have to order a piece of coffee cake, so that I can sit here a while.

Oh, who am I kidding. I was going to order the coffee cake regardless.

I think that judging the Adventure Site Contest took a bit out of me. Maybe. It's hard to say for certain. But I just haven't been all that interested in "adventure writing/design" since that last post posted. Now, of course, I have other things going on. The boy is getting ready to graduate (and has been applying to high schools). Volleyball season has started (both kids are playing; I'm, again, coaching). Snow. Travel (heading to California this weekend to see my father). Other stuff. Taxes are around the corner...although I already had to start some of that for the financial aid applications.

Gaming has been of the "war" variety. I've been revisiting BattleTech recently. The boy got the new BT set for Christmas, and we've yet to play...reading through it, I didn't see much difference (if any) from my own version of BT. And then, while cleaning out my mom's house, I found a brown paper-wrapped box set of classic BT (the 2E version, which was the version to carry the moniker BattleTech, rather than Battle Droids). The box included all the original box stuff (maps, counters, sheets, etc.) plus CityTech (and all its paraphernalia) AND a copy of first edition MechWarrior. I have no idea where any of this came from...I still possess all MY old BT stuff (including CT, AeroTech, and MW), and no one in my family (besides me) ever played...so where did this all come from? A real mystery.

[the paper wrapper, had "Battle Tech" handwritten on it in what appeared to be my brother's handwriting...however, he professed complete ignorance of it. Given the addled state of his brain these days, this may mean nothing...he's killed a lot of brain cells...but I'd think I would have known/remembered if he ever played. And so far as I recall, he never has]

Then there's Axis & Allies. The boy and I are once again engaged in battle for global supremacy the last couple-three days, though I expect it to end in the next turn or two. We aren't the hardcore type that play with "bids" and specific "opening moves" and both of us are too stubborn to simply concede after losing one capital or another. As the Allies, I made blunders allowing Italy to control the Mediterranean and most of Africa and the Middle East...meanwhile, Japan/Tokyo was just captured by ANZAC after successive waves of UK and US forces wiped out the Imperial Navy. Right now, it's a race for Moscow from every side, and while I'm pretty sure the "good guys" will prevail, fortune can be a fickle bitch. We'll see. 

Anyway, we've already decided to play another round (reversing our roles) and I'm anxious to show him "how it's done." He remains convinced that the Allies are "O.P." due to the financial might of the Americanos, and of course, there's some truth to that...if you play a cautious game and allow the Allies time to muster their resources. By the time Japan decided to go to war, I was dug in at Fortress Philippines and the Pacific was mine for the taking. 

[I will note that my son tends to beat me...or, at least, break even...when we play on only one side of the Global A&A (i.e. either Pacific OR Europe). However, when we play the entire world, I find it much easier to distract and harass him into making errors, using forces from one board to support the other...it was especially evident in this game where he was worried about putting down the "annoying" UK or Russian or Chinese forces instead of focusing on taking the Victory Cities he needed to win the game. I suppose that's an example of "playing the opponent;" I know I have MY weaknesses in play that he exploits, too]

Why are war games so fascinating? I suppose they're not...at least not to everybody...but, to me, they're such a different form of entertainment. In a way, they are like a puzzle one is trying to solve...while your opponent constantly changes the shape of that puzzle (and simultaneously competing against you). But to what end? So you can cheer and brag? We're just going to reset the puzzle and fight the (same) war again...as we've already done numerous times. 

War games are NOT like D&D. As a DM, I am "setting the board" for the players, but I am not trying to solve a puzzle in competition with them...only the players are working at puzzle solving. And I am not allowed to change that puzzle (in play)...as the DM, I am only allowed to run the puzzle, "playing" the puzzle (I suppose) to the best of the puzzles' ability. Actually, scratch that...I'm not playing anything. The puzzle plays itself; I just roll the dice and arbitrate results.

I guess I'm a puzzle creator?

Playing a war game...like A&A or WH40K or BattleTech or Blood Bowl or Car Wars or whatever...is very different from running an RPG. The players facing each other over the gaming table are adversarial (which is how I see my role as a DM, by the way...that's another post), BUT they are on equal footing. The forces may not be symmetrical, the level of skill/knowledge/experience may be different, but generally speaking, they are playing by the same rules. The opponents are competing to solve the same puzzle.

When I run D&D, I'm not trying to "solve" anything.

You do not have to be a puzzle creator (or have any ability to build puzzles) to run D&D as a Dungeon Master. And you need a lot more skills in your toolbox than just "puzzle building" to be a competent Dungeon Master. But refereeing an RPG is a very different animal from a playing a "war game." A very different animal indeed.

My thoughts of the morning.

[UPDATE (posted Wednesday): the war is all but lost for the Axis. The German forces have broken on the mass of infantry and Allied aircraft that defend Moscow, the Japanese forces reduced to three land units and a fighter, marauding in the USSR, Gibraltar has been taken, the German and Italian navies sunk, and the Americans just took Rome, while the UK marches through north Africa towards Cairo]

[Diego conceded this morning]

Space Wars

So the Seahawks season is over and, despite yet another close win (against a 4-13 halfling team...big whoop), the orks are out of the playoffs (*sigh*). I may discuss that in later post (or the playoffs in general), but at the moment I'm not in the mood for Blood Bowl.

[not that Blood Bowl hasn't been on the mind a bit...the kids have been clamoring for it in recent days and are in the process of painting up a couple BB teams (wood elves and amazons; Christmas gifts from last year, if I remember correctly)]

It should come as little surprise that in MY household, there's been plenty of game playing that's been going the last couple weeks (during the holiday vacation season). What might be surprising is that almost none of it has been D&D related. Instead, it's been card games, board games, and war games...specifically a new war game that was on the boy's Christmas list: Star Wars Legion. Prior to New Year's eve (when we had to clean the table for a dinner party) our dining room was dominated by battlefield detritus and unpainted models. Now...well, the battlefield hasn't returned (yet) but the table is once again dominated by scores of miniatures...primed miniatures that are in the process of being painted.

Since it IS game related and it's been the main thing occupying my attention lately (at least, the bandwidth I reserve for gaming), I figured I might as well write something about it.

Under the tree this year.

Star Wars Legion is a miniature war game; the core box set comes in two varieties Republic vs. Separatist or Empire vs. Rebels. The rules for both are the same, but the models included in the box are different. We, of course, have the latter set because...duh. 

I find the game VERY reminiscent of 2nd edition Warhammer 40,000. Not necessarily in game play (initiative and turn procedure is NOT 40K-esque, and the thing uses custom dice rather than standard d6s), but in terms of army construction and general paradigm. Each player picks up a faction. Unit types are given "rank" categories, which limits how many of each type can be included in the army list. There are normal generals and whatnot or "special" (Unique) figures based on film characters. There are "upgrade" cards that can purchased for specific points...very much like 40K's "war gear" and "psychic power" cards. And just like 2E 40K, the special characters, can punch above their point value, absolutely dominating the battlefield...something that the 40K designers endeavored to rectify between 2E and 3E.

[when it comes to 40K, I logged the most "game time" playing 2E, though I spent more years collecting & building 3E and/or 4E, before chucking the thing around the time of 5E]

Which is FINE...it is very Star Wars. Luke Skywalker should be able to carve his way through a unit of stormtroopers. Vader should be a big, menacing presence on the moving (slowly) about the battlefield. Mandalorians with jetpacks should be highly mobile, elite units. Etc.

The game has a LOT of fiddle to it: a lot of special rules and spot mechanics and tokens, reminiscent of Magic cards...a fairly obvious influence on the design of Star Wars Legion. But I like the game...a lot. For a NUMBER of reasons:

1) Star Wars is fun. Star Wars as a war game (stormtroopers vs. rebels) is a blast. The models are all recognizable by anyone with even a passing knowledge of the films, and their capabilities are well-modeled by the game mechanics.

2) Really quality components (easily stored in a nice box) and fairly straightforward rules that, after a couple play-throughs, are fairly easy to grok. No issues for the 12 year old, despite being for ages 14+.

3) Dirt-cheap investment. Anyone familiar with GW stuff knows how much money can be spent on the miniatures hobby. I remember when a single rhino tank was $35 or a landraider was an "outrageous" $50ish. Just checking Amazon this morning, the prices on these are up to $89 and $140. 

Holy. Crap. 

Star Wars Legion, by contrast, are cheaper to buy BUT (more importantly) have an 800 point structure limit. The core box provides two forces of circa 500 points...you can customize a legal army with the purchase of 2-3 extra units, probably with less than $70ish total in extra expenditure.  They're cheap enough you can outfit multiple "800 point armies" of the same faction for little money (the core box is currently available on-line for $95...compare that to 40K!). I bought myself a late Christmas present of the "Blizzard" box: three snowtrooper units (21 models), 2 speeder bike units (4 models), another Vader, and an AT-ST (!!) all with associated cards, upgrades, and extra tokens. Total price: $105. Scheduled to arrive tomorrow. One of these days I'll throw down the extra $13 to buy General Veers, and my "Hoth assault" army will be complete. 

[never mind...just took 2 minutes to place the order. It's still only $15 with tax...arrives tomorrow, too]

Arriving tomorrow.

Back in 1996 I paid $18 a pop for each two-pack of space marine terminators. I got six (total), all with thunder hammers and painted them up to be Khorne berserkers. Less than a year later, they were outlawed by 40Ks new rule set and (so far as I know) have never since been a legal 40K unit. Screw you, Games Workshop.

4) Easy assembly. The kids have been doing (most of) the cutting and gluing...I just do all the priming, out in the garage (to save on their young lungs). Even the really fiddly models (the AT-RT, the Mandalorians)...the kid put them together no problem, without adult help.

5) Lego compatible. Over the years, my kids have acquired quite the collection of Lego sets, many of which are Star Wars themed. While these have been used for plenty of "Lego wars" in the past, they are pretty close to the same scale as Star Wars Legion...which means that we have ready-made "terrain" for our battlefield. Who needs plastic forests and spray-painted "hills" when you can battle in the Tattooine cantina? Plus, I just like repurposing toys...or anything...in ways that make it useful. 

6) Fast gameplay. The game plays quite fast...once you get a handle on how each unit's special rules and instructions work. That part is kind of a pain, as each unit generally has at least 1-2 special rules associated with it (even before adding various "upgrade" cards), and you're bound to make mistakes in the first battle or two (we did). However, the limited NUMBER of units (that 800 points is only enough for 6-7 groups), combined with fast turn sequence means you get ramped up pretty quick. The whole "issuing orders" phase (a card drawing mechanic that takes the place of initiative rolling) allows for interesting tactical maneuvering, and the quick attrition means game play speeds up substantially as the game goes. Six turns (again: memories of 2E 40K) goes VERY fast, but battles are tight right to the end. We dig it.

7) With regard to rules, I'm generally fine. Yes, Luke is a beast. He's also been shot to death in every battle we've played. Same with Vader. The only mechanical issue that bugs (or that I'm not used to) is that troop models cannot be screened by other troop models. So, even though the stormtroopers advance in front of DV (because Darth is Sooo Slooow), rebel forces can ignore the troopers, focusing fire on the commander behind. In practice it hasn't been a big deal...but it does feel odd.

Anyway. War gaming is fun. War gaming in spaaaace is also quite fun. Even the nine year old is into it (she's currently painting her Amazon team, but has a Chewbacca and Leia for SWL and plans to get in on the next battle). The kids are getting to an age when I can fo this kind of thing with them...an age where I can unpack my old crates of 40K minis and not worry about them smashing them crazily, or pitching one in a tantrum of frustration (always a possibility with young or immature players). 

But I'm kind of over 40K. I mean, there's a lot of sly Star Wars references in the original 40K game (which I own, but have never played), and I'm tempted to run some first edition 40K using the SWL miniatures in place of GW stuff (now that would be a hoot!). I thought about introducing them to 40K proper, but even though I've got the stuff for it...what edition would I teach them? I mean...how many editions are there now? Eight? Nine? I've got rule books for the first four (five? Maybe) editions. But do I have a favorite? Not really. It's such a simple system, but there are changes to every version that changes the game in significant ways. 

Nah. I think I'll stick with the new Star Wars game for a bit. I'm sure 40K will still be around in ten years...in a twelfth edition with $300 tank models...if the kids want to try it out.

*** EDIT: Sorry, almost forgot: Go Dawgs! ***

Learning From The Oldest School

Tony Bath was a British wargamer who founded the Society of Ancients and (in certain circles) is celebrated for his long-running "Hyboria" campaign, based mainly on the setting Robert Howard created for his Conan stories. While Bath died in 2000 (at the age of 74), his writings have been collected and are still published by The History of Wargaming Project (edited by John Curry) under the title Tony Bath's Ancient Wargaming.

Good read.

Bath's writing, especially his 1973 work, Setting Up A Wargames Campaign, is remarkable because despite it being written about wargaming for wargamers, much of it (especially the thought process and philosophy) is directly applicable to Dungeons & Dragons and the burgeoning Dungeon Master seeking to build their own RPG campaign. Conclusions that I've only reached after decades of playing and pondering and reading the blogs/writings of folks much smarter than me, were carefully outlined by Tony Bath years before I ever laid eyes on the Moldvay Basic box.

Of course, it is no secret that D&D was created by wargaming enthusiasts. But when I write that Bath's book is directly applicable to the D&D game, I'm not talking about his rules for conducting tabletop battles, historical or otherwise. While such battles can be a part of one's D&D campaign (see the Gygax novels I mentioned in my last post as examples), the rules of D&D are far more concerned with the small scale actions of individual heroes (i.e. the player characters) then the movements and actions of troops. Instead, it is Bath's procedures and philosophy of creating and running campaigns and world building where one finds golden instruction.

It is only the vocabulary used that needs to be [slightly] altered.

"Almost all new [D&D players] start their careers by fighting a succession of single, unconnected [adventures]; this is inevitable since it takes time to get the feel of the hobby, to learn the rules, etc. But if a new recruit is really going to take up [D&D play], then before very long he begins to feel that something is lacking; that these individual [adventures], though well enough in their way, need some connecting link to make them more satisfying and to give an objective other than just trying to [kill monsters, delve for treasure]. In other words, the desire to [play] campaigns rather than ["adventures"].

"What makes campaigning so rewarding? Why, if you have fairly limited time available for the hobby, should you use time that could be spent in fighting on the table-top in [dealing with the minutia of encumbrance, rations, resource management, etc.]? The answer is that no real-life general could limit himself to the purely tactical problems of the battlefield, and a campaign is the way in which the [D&D player] general widens his horizon. 

"The player who merely participates as a [player character] finds the opportunity to practice strategy as well as tactics. He may find himself having to solve problems of supply and finance, and, if the campaign is a complicated one, matters of diplomacy, etc. as well. He must learn one of the hardest lessons for [of D&D play]: when to cut his losses and abandon [an adventure], instead of fighting to the bitter end.

"The [player] who [acts as a DM] to run a campaign gains even more, for he can give full reign to his creative genius, both as regards the rules he uses and the countries and characters he creates. A radio interviewer once asked me whether the desire to run a mythical continent of my own was a sign of power mania; I replied that this was possibly true to some extent, since most of us like playing God to some degree, but more important was the freedom it gave to a bent for organizing things.

"As your campaign develops, you will find yourself adding fresh angles to it which, while quite unnecessary from a purely practical viewpoint, can add much fun and interest to the proceedings.

"It is however true of campaigning, as of so many other things, that the amount of enjoyment to be obtained from it is pro rata to the amount of effort that is put into it. This will vary from person to person and group to group according to ow much time and interest people have to spare, but the main ingredient necessary is enthusiasm for the project and a sense of responsibility toward the other players. 

"...if you are running a large or complicated campaign it is necessary to pick your players wisely."

[excerpted, with adjustment, from the introduction]

None of which is very new info to longtime readers of geezer blogs like this one...as I said, the remarkable bit is just how much of it is applicable to D&D and how old this material is. 

Following the introduction, Bath gets down to the nitty-gritty of building one's campaign from the ground up...assuming you are creating a fictional setting like Bath's own Hyborea campaign. And, of course you are: you are a Dungeon Master for a D&D game that is going to have magic and monsters and whatnot even if it is set in (a fantasy version of) our real world.  Bath discusses the drawing of maps, the outlining of political borders, the importance of rivers and roads and natural features, the seeding of population centers, and the impact and use of weather. He discusses setting up factions and characters (and their personalities), determining resources and economics of nation-states, and how all these things drive the campaign, creating dynamic environments and providing ideas for situations and scenarios. 

It is all good advice and most of it is readily adaptable to one's D&D game.

What I am lauding here is practical application of Bath's procedures to world-building. This is not about crafting histories and backstories and "plots" or "story arcs." These things are unnecessary to creating and running a campaign that is vibrant and engaging for the players.

What IS necessary is a world with things to do. A world with a degree of verisimilitude, where there are consequences (good, bad, and indifferent) to the actions of the players. A world that gives the players the chance to make an impact based on their own actions. 

Of his own campaign world, Hyboria, Bath writes the following:

"Like all good things, Hyboria had small beginnings. In the early days I had no experience of campaigns and only the vaguest ideas on rules of map movement; things like finances, supply, etc. had not yet reared their ugly heads with all their attendant complications. So we...usually just decided to have a war between two countries and set up one or possibly two battles which decided the result of the war. That was back in the dim and distant past -- in fact the first two or three battles were actually fought on the floor with 54mm solid figures -- a process I definitely don't recommend.

" The long history of Hyboria (which is all recorded in very considerable detail) began with the first Brythunian war when the ambitious King Mamedides of Hyperborea invaded its southern neighbor. This resulted in the Battle of Warrior's Pass, fought under the most extraordinary rules, and the repulse of the invasion. I commanded the Brythunians on this occasion; I then changed and led a second Hyperborean invasion, which was more successful..."

Please take note: the history of Bath's campaign world (which he chronicled in SoA's bi-monthly newletter Slingshot) BEGAN with these first battles. His world was created by adapting various real world cultures (ancient Greek and Roman and Persian, medieval European and Viking, American Indian, etc.) to a fictional map drawn from Howard's tales, and then assigning it characteristics: here is a wealthy country. Here is an ambitious ruler. Here is a mountain pass. How do these things intersect with each other to create an interesting, playable scenario?  

Do we care what has gone before (play began)?  No! What matters is the play of the game. The world-building sets the stage for the play. We may, after play begins, chronicle the history of how play unfolded...how legends arose from our gaming table...if it so amuses us (as, generally, it does). But as players of a game (whether Dungeons & Dragons or a wargame), it matters not a whit to us WHY, for example, a PC became a magic-user instead of a druid or monk. We do not care about backstory or motivation; we are not actors researching a role for a play, nor authors plotting a trilogy of novels. What we care about is the situation at hand and how the game will play out.

Dungeons & Dragons was created by wargamers, and its no wonder: in Bath's writing he constantly name-drops fantasy authors like Tolkien, Leiber, Srague de Camp, etc. (authors found in Gygax's "Appendix N") as being widely read by members of his Society of Ancients and being inspirational reading for wargaming campaigns...even though SoA itself decided very early on NOT to include anything "fantastical" in their rules and games. The idea of "fantasy adventure" fires the passions and imaginations of LOTS of people, not just wargamers. But wargamers, by trade, seek to create rules and model adventure in a fashion that allows its experience in a safe, comfortable environment. Around the gaming table, in other words. 

D&D, and other fantasy adventure games, simply "drill down" to a more specific, smaller level than large scale warfare.  And by doing that, they make the experience of play even more intense and personal to the people involved. Which might account for why the FAG hobby has more devotees than wargaming in the present, even if there is a lot of confusion on the best way to run/play the game.

More blueprint posts to follow.

Food and Faith

The importance of food to humans can't be understated. True, man does not live by bread alone, in fact there are two things vastly more important: air and water. But assuming we have those two things, food comes in at #3, depending on whether or not one views sleep/rest as a "consumable."

And yet we tend to undervalue it in the Dungeon & Dragons game. "Mark off a day's rations," is about the extent of our interaction with food, unless we're talking about some sort of magical trick/trap found in the dungeon. It's just not as interesting to our game as, say, which spells the wizard has available, or the damage output-to-hit point ratio of our front-line fighters. There aren't even rules relating to starvation or malnutrition through the first half dozen iterations of the game; the closest B/X gets is this note in the Cook/Marsh expert set (page X51):

Characters who run out of food may face a variety of circumstances that must be handled by the DM. Possible effects of hunger might include the need for more rest, slower movement rates, minuses "to hit," and gradual loss of hit points.

[Aaron Allston's 1991 Rules Cyclopedia is the first place I find any hard rules on starvation, and it simply incorporates these four suggestions (need for rest, slow move, attack penalty, HP loss) into a single system...and a ridiculous one at that (a first level character who goes a single day without food and water will probably die, suffering 1d10 damage). But at least Allston was trying!]

Food and issues around food scarcity were driving factors in the European conquest of Latin America; truth be told, it is still the driving issue of these slave nations (you can't really call them developing nations when no real "development" is being done and when they are purposefully kept in a state that allows for exploitation of people and resources). You can't eat gold, after all.

Everyone reading this probably understands that the regions I'm talking about had large concentrations of people...many, many times the number of people living in the regions now known as Canada and the United States. These Central and South American (and Caribbean) lands could sustain this multitude of people precisely because it was so abundant with food supply, and the civilizations that existed had developed societies designed to make the best use of that food supply. True, there was some cannibalism among certain indigenous groups, but this appears to have been more of a ritual nature than a source of sustenance: the land already supplied the nutrition needed to grow people.

Our history books tell the story of how the indigenous Americans were mainly wiped out by diseases to which they had no immunity, germ warfare spread by plague-ridden "Old Worlders" either by accident or purposefully (the anecdotal "disease-ridden blanket" is actually from North American sources). But the human body is remarkably resilient, when in good health. Our immune systems work exceptionally well to fight off infectious diseases when we keep ourselves rested, fit, and fed with nutritious foods. Many of the issues Europe had with its own "black plague" incidents came from the poor living conditions of the people at the time.

Nearly all the European action during the first fifteen years following Columbus's discovery of a "New World" took place in the Caribbean; the first real city founded on the continent wasn't established till 1510 (a fort was built in 1509, but was abandoned after eight months). By that time, there were nearly a dozen settlements in the Caribbean, the vast majority of them being in Hispaniola.  The first recorded small pox epidemic hit Hispaniola in 1518-1519 and killed 90% of the the indigenous people remaining. However, by 1508 (ten years prior) they'd already been reduced in number from a pre-Columbian estimate of 600,000 down to 60,000.

[Bartolome de las Casas writing at the time after living in Hispaniola for decades, puts the pre-Columbian population even higher, stating more than 3,000,000 of the native Taino people were killed between 1494 and 1508. Modern scholars feels his figures are an exaggeration, however, despite the fact that more than 20 million people combined currently inhabit the Dominican Republic and Haiti, the two nations that comprise the island once known as "Hispaniola"]

What changed with Columbus's arrival that caused such a steep decline? Half a million bullets? No, the Spanish weren't interested in killing the native population, whom they had enslaved to work the gold mines of Hispaniola (Pueblo Viejo is still the largest gold mine in the Americas and the 2nd largest gold mine in the world); the first African slaves began to arrive in 1503 precisely because of the declining population and high infant mortality rates among the indigenous people led to a smaller workforce for the mines. No, it was starvation and lack of nutrition (exacerbated by overwork in harsh conditions).

The food that sustained the peoples of the Americas...the beans, corn, squash, and small game...were not the foods to which the Spaniards were accustomed: bread, olives (and olive oil), meat (domesticated), and wine. Not only did they want the familiar foods of their homeland, they had an aversion to eating the native produce. Part of this was due to a philosophy of "right food" based on class and status; not only was it a mark of prestige in Spain to eat better (i.e. expensive) food, especially meats, but eating the food of the indigenous risked becoming like the indigenous: ignorant, heathen savages. When Columbus returned in 1494, he brought Spanish livestock with him...cows, pigs, goats, and sheep...which, devoid of natural predators, multiplied and devoured the native habitat, Planting of Spanish crops (including cash crops like sugar) helped displace the native flora as well.

But for the Spaniards, having their own food was more than a matter of comfort; it was a matter of faith. What is Catholicism without the Body (bread) and Blood (wine) of Christ? The acceptable and preferred foods of the Spanish had been ingrained through both their faith and the propaganda of times: the end of the 800 year Reconquista in 1491, the Alhambra Decree (issued in 1492, four months before Columbus's first voyage) required the expulsion or conversion of all Jews from Spain, and the Spanish Inquisition (formed in 1478 and largely used to suss out Moores and Jews) all contributed to the mindset of a "unified Catholic nation." And Catholics, unlike Moores and Jews, eat pork. Pork and pork products (like lard, used as a replacement for olive oil in the Americas) was a strong symbol of the conqueror's faith, a sign that they belonged in this new land which the Church had insisted be converted to Catholicism.

[mmm...originally was going to devote a big section to the Reconquista and why it wasn't really all that much about religion at all...but I'm already running long; will need to change the title of the post]

So yummy to nosh!

The religious conversion of the Americas went, more or less, according to plan...lip service to a spiritual philosophy and showing up to ritual services once a week isn't a big deal when the alternative is death at the hands of a gun-toting conquistador. Food conversion is a much bigger deal: people have to eat to survive. And hundreds of thousands (or millions) of people need a lot of calories to maintain health and fitness, especially under extreme working conditions (like as a slave laborer in a Spanish gold mine). The decimation of their native food supply, their restriction from eating the food supply of the upper class "lords," the enforced harsh working conditions, all combined to turn a "physically tall, well-proportioned people of kind and noble bearing" into downtrodden, malnourished people easily extinguished by the introduction of foreign viruses.

*sigh*

Alexis has done a lot of work on food in a D&D campaign: the gist is that characters require two or four pounds of food per day depending on whether or not a person is "resting" or "laboring" (characters that actually engage in fights require a lot more) with penalties (and eventual starvation) resulting from failure to eat the required amount. This is very reminiscent of the rules for food in the post-apocalyptic game Twilight 2000, in which a character must consume three kilograms of food per day, modified by the type of food being consumed ("civilized food" counts for 1.5x its weight, MREs count for double). Alexis's rules are a bit more generous, but his penalties (including checks for contracting maladies) hit rather hard. I'm not sure about his starvation rules; I'm not taking the time to run the math on his system. T2000 simply has individuals starve to death "after about a month of no food or several months of half-rations." Very abstract, with accumulating fatigue levels reducing ability scores prior to actual death.

AD&D, like B/X and OD&D, has two entries for "rations" on its equipment list: iron and standard, both of which provide seven days worth of food to a single individual. Unlike those latter editions, AD&D defines the weight of these two different foodstuffs as being 7.5 pounds (iron) or 20 pounds (standard). Doing the math (and assuming no increase to weight for "bulk") this works out to about a pound of food (iron) or close to three pounds of food (standard) per human per day. I'll also note that 3rd edition only provides weight for trail rations (defined as "jerky, dried fruits, hard tack, and nuts") at a rate of one pound per person per day (less for "small" characters, despite hobbits' notorious appetites); this appears to be the 3E equivalent of iron rations.

But just what are "iron rations?" Hard to say as I can't find an origin for the term. Australians in WWI used an "iron ration" (field ration) designed to be eaten in case of emergency (i.e. because supply lines were unavailable) and consisted of a bit more than two pounds of food including both dried meat (jerky) and hard tack. WWII Germany issued three types of ration: the march ration, iron ration, and iron-half ration, of which the "iron" is more of a "half ration" (and weighs 1.5 pounds without packaging). The United States military's "C-ration" (a term in use from 1958-1980 and a plausible source of inspiration for an RPG designed by war-gamers of the period) had a packaged weight of 2.6 pounds. None of these were designed to be consumed for long periods of time, and all were supposed to be supplemented by fresh food or prepared food whenever possible.

I suppose in a magical world (i.e. your typical D&D setting), one can simply say the magic-infused foodstuffs provide double or triple the caloric value of our real world...but is such "cheating" necessary in a world where a 5th level cleric can conjure nourishing, life-sustaining sustenance out of thin air? It does seem that the figures provided in all published editions of Dungeons & Dragons are grossly under-representative of the actual amounts of food necessary to sustain (human) life...but without a system in place to track the very real problems of over-exertion and malnutrition, why should it bother your average Dungeon Master? It's why purify food and water is so under-utilized in your average campaign.

Yet another batch of thoughts, facts and figures I need to take into account as I build this thing.

Putting Some Of It Together

As the recent discussion over at The Tao illustrates, there's more than one approach to "advanced play;" playing Dungeons & Dragons in an advanced fashion isn't simply a matter of opening up your old copy of the DMG and throwing a military pick +1 into your B/X game or saying "magic-user spells go up to 9th level." Some of the rules and systems penned by Gygax are pretty gnarly and their overall level of usefulness (let alone "fun factor") is highly questionable. And yet some of the AD&D stuff IS useful and worthy of purloining.

I think that, for any would-be redesigned and world builder, it's important to understand the evolution of the game. Okay, "important" is probably the wrong word...how about just "a good thing." AD&D didn't just arise out of a vacuum...in fact, NONE of the various editions of D&D did. All of them were built upon the foundations of earlier works. In addition to nefarious business reasons, the MAIN reason Gygax wrote his original volumes was to help tie together the copious, scattered rules haphazardly printed in a number of publications, and organize and implement them in a coherent, consistent fashion...PLUS add additional "necessaries" (not to mention his own ideas and philosophies of game play) to fill in specific blanks and thereby provide a (fairly) complete game system in a polished, professional package.

People can argue Gygax's success in this endeavor, but personally I think the results speak for themselves. First edition AD&D had the longest tenure of any edition, including its years of greatest (relative) success and popularity, and probably could have continued longer if not for specific (and debatable) business decisions.  It's still the foundational version of many players' home games, which might be fairly amazing...except, of course, that Dungeons & Dragons is an amazing game.

But back to the "purloin-able:" while things like ability adjustment inflation isn't really "inflation" (simply a codifying of the rules found in the supplements with the addition of "something for wisdom"), other changes...like HP inflation and adjusted combat matrices...aren't immediately clear. After some scrutiny, I find myself coming to the conclusion that they're mainly adjustments made to increase PC survivability:

• Extra hit points apply mainly to fighting types in standard "order of battle" (fighters, clerics, thieves). Meanwhile variable damage of monsters remains unchanged for the most part.
• Fighters increased chance of attack (+1 per level gained) means they'll hit more often, thus shortening battles, and reducing wear-n-tear. Note: nearly all "standard" low-level monster types (goblins, orcs, gnolls, ogres, hobgoblins, bugbears) remain unchanged in both Hit Dice and HPs from earlier editions...and the introduction of extra damage versus size L creatures also helps shorten fights with dangerous (i.e. high damage dealing) monsters.
• "Special" creatures, especially mid- to high- level undead seem to have received an INCREASED boost (most have an extra HD), probably to retain the same level threat to mid-high level characters (off-setting the additional attack/damage capability of fighter-types). However, clerics have access to more spells, and are much better fighters (equivalent to the standard fighter of earlier editions in terms of both HPs and hit probability). Thieves, while receiving extra hit points, retain the same combat progression as before albeit with a slight (-1) penalty, easily offset by the bonus received when back stabbing.

Again, I think all these adjustments are made in terms of increased survivability (i.e. increased playability for players) rather than any attempt at A) balancing the classes, or B) modeling "reality." Personally, I've long felt that B/X (aka "streamlined OD&D") does an excellent job of modeling the real world in the abstract...which is probably why it tends to be so deadly and prone to PC fatalities. The real world is less forgiving than most heroic fantasy.

All that being said, I like the idea of increasing (PC) viability, for multiple reasons: it's conducive to long-term play, it cuts down on player frustration, it (theoretically) increases player "boldness" thus contributing to the pace of play. And taking Gygax's professed tactic from his later years (using OD&D but starting PCs at 3rd level) is not to my taste at this time; I really, really want players to start from zero. But how to reconcile this inflated combat ability with abstract modeling?

Here's the thing: it's actually helped by my proposed South American setting. Hit points are an abstract concept when it comes to PCs anyway (representing a variety of factors, not just "meat" to be carved). D&D generally assumes PCs will be meeting humans of like-technology (warlords fighting warlords), not steel versus cloth & bronze. The Europeans steel armor, long swords, and firearms gave them a slight edge versus the indigenous Americans, small enough to model using the B/X variable weapon damage versus the increased HPs found in AD&D. For example:

Incan Weapons: short bow (d6), sling (d4), javelin (d4), spear (d6), hand axe (d6), battle axe (d8), club (d4), porra (2-handed club) (d6), bola (d2+entangle)

European Weapons: long sword (d8), dagger (d4), crossbow (d6), arquebus (d8), pike/lance (d6), halberd (d10)

A typical butcher.

As can be seen, most weapons in the Incan arsenal are in the d4 or d6 range (as would the weapons of most indigenous American peoples) while the Europeans' average is much closer to d8. Given that I would provide fighters from both sides with d10 hit dice, this still works out to be a small advantage for the conquistadors, easily overcome (as in history) by the numeric advantage enjoyed by the native peoples.

I'm slightly less keen on the combat tables themselves. I like the granularity of the fighter matrix, but the range of armor classes is too broad as is (I think) the range of progression. There's just only so much skill at fighting a person can acquire, and the extra numbers mean little unless you have armor classes in that -4 (or lower) range. And just what is that supposed to represent anyway? A creature moving impossibly fast? How would strength increase your ability to hit that? A creature with super impenetrable skin or wearing titanium power armor? Why not simply say "magic weapons required" to hit the thing?

Ideally, I'd use some sort of table that compares weapon type to armor type and adjust the target number based on class & level (as Oakes Spaulding did in his Seven Voyages of Zylarthen). However, I don't want to have to redo the tables every time a new type of armor or weapon gets introduced, and the system is much less effective against monsters with natural attacks, so rather than open that can of worms I'll stick with "playability" and stick with the B/X tables, perhaps with minor adjustment. I do want to take into account the historical armor of the time on both sides of the battlefield, and that's going to take a little adjustment from the usual leather-chain-plate paradigm.

[it may come as a surprise to some folks that the Incans wore body armor: a form of quilted fabric that was extremely effective (like ancient kevlar) at stopping attacks from spears and arrows. It proved slightly less effective against the long swords and firearms of the Spaniards, but even many conquistadors later adopted it as armor, being far more comfortable for the climate, and a perfectly effective at defense against native missile weapons. Alexander the Great is said to have worn something similar called linothorax. The Incans had a good command of metallurgy, using bronze for their spears, axes, and arrowheads; they just didn't turn it into breastplates]

Anyway, that's some of the stuff I'm doing. I'm also continuing work on the geography of the setting. Jesus, South America is a big continent. That makes for a lot of room to play with, but a ton of area to map (downloaded this hex program and it took me a day just to get a basic overview...at 60ish miles per hex!). Right now, I'm feeling like the official start date of the campaign should be around the beginning of 1511, around the anniversary of Juan de la Dosa's death. Darien has already been founded on the mainland by Vasco Nunez de Balboa, but most of the European "civilization" is still happening on the islands in the Caribbean. Pedro Arias won't arrive for about three years, the Mayans won't be found for six (except by a shipwrecked Jeronimo de Aguilar who is still residing in Darien), Cortez won't land in Veracruz for eight, and Francisco Pizarro won't reach Incan territory for 15 years.  At this point in history, there's still plenty of forays being made into the mainland wilderness but the knowledge of what's "actually out there" as fall as indigenous civilizations, is far from known, and the possibilities are still pretty wide open.

Though I'm not sure how I feel about creating alternate history (that's a subject for another post).

I'm seriously considering adapting Len Lakofka's "Lendore Isles" adventures (L1 and L2) to the Caribbean by the way. I mean, they were written for "Advanced" D&D, right? I'll talk more about that (maybe) in a future post. Also, thinking about starting a new series here at Ye Old Blog: "Get to Know a Conquistador," profiling the various slavers and treasure-hunters who pillaged their way across the Americas (usually dying in the attempt). Don't know if that sounds like "fun" to you folks, but it would certainly allow me to record some of the "fun facts" I've been digging up recently.

Later, Gators.

"With Great Power Comes Great Mental Illness..."

Apologies, apologies. Yes, I disappeared for a damn long time there...it's been a pretty busy month and a half. So sorry.

[what happened to the Middle Earth "guide?" Um...let me get back to you on that]

I gave up drinking (alcohol) for Lent this year and it's been a fairly tough go. Not (just) because I'm a (functioning) alcoholic...going without doesn't give me the shakes or anything like that. It's just that I'm so used to having a drink or three just in the course of doing stuff...cooking, watching a game, going out, streaming some show. Not to mention I've been mainlining NPR since the end of the football season and alcohol really helps take the edge off of whatever the Trump administration is doing these days...

(*sigh*)

Caught myself actually thinking about wanting a smoke the other day, and it's been nearly two decades since I last had a cigarette. Crazy. Instead I pounded a box of Girl Scout cookies ("thin" mints) over the course of three days (my daughter did help). Obviously, I'm a man who needs his vices.

So hear I sit, drinking yet another can of LaCroix (because it's cold and bubbly and, no, I don't know why I don't just drink water, dammit). But at least I'm blogging something, which is a start. Got to start somewhere. Even after you've started, sometimes it's necessary to start again.

And again. And again.

I'm going to talk about Shadowrun in a minute, but I just need to get a couple things out there first. I have been gaming a lot lately, but it's been almost exclusively Axis and Allies, which was a Christmas gift to my son, and which we've been playing non-stop for three or four weeks. We're using the 1941 rules, which are wonderful...the game is short and streamlined compared to other versions, and you can get through a game in about an evening and a half. We've played probably a dozen times, my son resetting the board after every defeat (no, he hasn't won yet, but he loves the thing and he's stubborn as hell...kind of like his old man).

We're even experimenting with our own rules. We wanted to add giant diesel-powered mecha to the board (inspired by the Japanime/manga Kishin Corps, as well as Pacific Rim), but haven't been able to decide on rules for the things. Instead our most recent game has introduced kaiju (giant monsters, a la Godzilla or...again...Pacific Rim), to act as a neutral, third party "spoiler." Jury's still out on their inclusion (we're in the middle of our first game using them), but we'll see if they'll swing the tide of the war one way or another...or if they simply devastate civilization while world's powers burn each other to the ground.

Something like this...

So, yes, I am doing "tabletop gaming" (of a sort), and A&A isn't the only one, though it's the only one worth mentioning. I was really, really looking hard at rewriting Heroes Unlimited to my own specs...and I may still do so...but when I open the book and start hacking through jungle I find it Just...So...Daunting. Hats off to Mr. Siembieda for actually putting together this thing...I mean, I couldn't (certainly wouldn't) put together these lists of gadgets for hardware characters and implants for bionic character and this system of magic, and All These Random Tables, and...and...

(*double sigh*) It's actually kind of hard deciding what exactly to keep.

But I did get a little inspired watching the new season of Jessica Jones this last week; at least, binging it added fuel to the smoldering blaze. I've decided I LOVE Jessica Jones (the show, not the character). Unlike prior Marvel Netflix shows, the new season of JJ is awesome right out of the gate, rather than waiting 2-3 episodes to find its feet. It does hit its peak about three episodes from the end season, resulting in a looooong denouement but...whatever. The show is filled with such bitterness and sadness and melancholy, you KNOW how it's all going to end, even if you're not sure the exact path the plot takes to get there. And you're already bought in, so...yeah. Tears and booze. And regrets and recriminations. Jessica Jones.

She really reminds me of a girl or two I used to know.

Even added the Whizzer!
With mongoose!

Anyhoo, the thing about JJ (and ALL the Marvel Netflix series) is how "small time" the superhero world is in the setting. And Heroes Unlimited may be...hmmm, I'm not exactly sure what I want to say.

...may be the only supers RPG that does small time(?)

...may be the "best" supers RPG at doing small time(?)

Probably something like "may be my personal favorite RPG for doing small time." And yet every revision, every supplement has seen increases in the power level of the game. Never mind Rifts and its (wholly compatible) madness. But if you dial that power creep way down, you can really start to see a good system for modeling the likes of Jessica Jones and her associates (not to mention antagonists). It's just that looking at the words "good system" makes me want to guffaw aloud as I consider Palladium's systems. So, so sorry.

SO...Shadowrun. I picked up a copy of the 4th edition the other day (I think it's the 4th...it says "20th Anniversary Core Rulebook" on the cover). I did this for a couple reasons: first, it was dirt cheap ($9.99, used). Second, I wanted to see what was new and great  and "happening" with Shadowrun, thinking maybe it would galvanize me to take action with my long unpublished Cry Dark Future manuscript. However, I've yet to read page one of the tome (it's sitting in bed next to me as I type this) because...well, because I've been busy. And maybe because I'm lacking the heart (or stomach) to look betwixt its covers.

This one...pretty sure it's
the fourth edition.

HOWEVER (still with me folks? Okay, almost done)...however, even though I've been lugging this thing around in my backpack, NOT reading it, it's been on my mind a bit. And so, when I was in a local game shop Wednesday, making the acquaintance of the 23 year old store manager and found out her RPG experience was mainly with Shadowrun, I found myself not only talking about my own experience with the SR game, but about my own, unpublished, SR-knockoff. And I ended up giving her an old manuscript Thursday, and picking up her feedback Friday. AND, as was the case SIX YEARS AGO (jumping Jesus on a pogo stick!), the comments were universally positive. There is, apparently, still a market for Shadowrun (who'd have thunk it?), and one that has serious complaints about the RPG's current level of accessibility (low), and that might find real enjoyment in something a little more "lightweight" while keeping the same Shadow-isms.

In other words, publish the damn thing already.

Now for those of you who have followed this blog for...Christ, years!...for those who've been following the saga of this thing, you might recall that I basically started rewriting the whole damn book from scratch, making it much more of a post-apocalyptic fantasy game. Something like Appleseed (at least the cinematic version) with elves and dwarves. Ralph Bakshi's Wizards meets Thundarr meets Heavy Metal meets Ghost in the Shell. With pointy ears. And VERY different game systems (especially pertaining to character creation, advancement/development, and material resources). A complete frigging overhaul might be a good way to describe it. An overhaul that I have never completed.

Here's the thing I've just realized in the last couple days (as I dug up and reread both my original manuscript and the current, unfinished rewrite): the overhaul is a different game. It has the same name, and a few of the systems but the setting and theme are completely different. Hell, the name "Cry Dark Future" doesn't even fit. Dark future? Whose future? Tolkien's? It's post-apocalyptic fantasy, it's not "future" anything. Hell, even the guns are about the same as current (real world) technology...the only thing "futuristic" is the cybernetics, and those could just as easily be skinned as magical or steampunk or whatever.

What I really have on my hand are two different books. One finished and one not. Two games, not one. The finished one is even playable.

It is, though, in need of a lot of polishing. Rereading it really made me cringe in places. I kind of hate how I wrote it: my style, my wording. It does need an overhaul, but mainly in phrasing. It needs to be clearer, more succinct and useful in conveying its rules. And it needs to be more creative in how it models certain in-game systems.

So, yeah. Looks like I'm back to finishing Cry Dark Future. Just to put it to bed...finally.

Expect the blogging to be light and sporadic for the near future. Again: apologies.

Thrones of 'Mail (Redux)

So, after some reconsideration I am probably NOT going to do any type of Chainmail mash-up with Game of Thrones. Probably. And for a couple reasons (neither of which has anything to do with me lacking the time, or having too many projects as is). No, instead I've realized:

A) The project has limited usefulness considering my actual resources. Which is to say, I have neither the money nor the time to purchase and pain hundred of different minis of different Westeros armies, much as I might like to. Even using a Chainmail scale of 20:1, we're talking about battles featuring thousands of troops on both sides. I mean, who runs that kind of thing? Well, war gamers (obviously), but I've never been that hard core. And folks who are tend to be pretty devoted to a single genre, historic time, and/or game system. And I'm just not that devoted to GoT.

B) Despite its popularity as a television program, a lot of fans quite frankly "don't get" what the show is about. And I don't mean "blood-and-soft-core-Tolkien-porn;" I'm talking about the overall story of the show.

Take my wife as an example. She is a very smart lady. She is a fan of the show and has watched every episode. After watching last night's episode (twice...something we tend to do as we'll often miss parts of the first broadcast while putting kids to sleep and whatnot), we had a brief conversation and I realized she has almost no clue as to how the whole backstory-plot ties together. She didn't know why the blonde girl is on the other side of the world, or who Ned Stark's sister is, or why those Dornish chicks seem so upset, or...well any of the setting's history, really.

Which is fine: you don't need to know this stuff to enjoy and be a fan of the show. There's plenty of Hatfields-McCoys stuff to latch onto ("You killed my brother/sister/father/child/cousin, so now I must kill you.") She knows Ramsey is an asshole. She thinks Jon Snow is the hero. She thinks Tyrion is great (though she doesn't get why he's helping the dragon lady). She knows Cersei has problems with the religious zealots.

Etc. There's plenty of engrossing, immediate things going on to keep one's interest. But when you ask "do you know who these people are" or "what their relationship is" or "why are they doing these terrible things," my wife is like, huh, I don't know. Hadn't thought about it.

And honestly, I would probably be the same way if I hadn't read the first two novels of the series and spent a ton of time surfing the A Song of Ice and Fire wiki researching Martin's world and characters for various projects over the last couple years. That to me is the most fascinating part of the fantasy epic: the fictional world, its history, and the complex way in which its history unfolds.

[the wife's special area of interest is actually in the technical side of filmmaking...she can tell you all the gaffes and editing snafus that occur in a show, which such things go right over my head]

But as I said, you don't really need a "deep understanding" to enjoy a thing. One of the few memories I have from when I was five years old is the first time I got to go over to a school chum's home without the presence of my parents. My best friend at the time, his name was Eric Foy...no idea what happened to him, he left the school the following year and I never saw him again. Anyway, we spent the morning watching Spectreman on a television in a shady basement, then emulating the show the rest of the day. To this day, I honestly don't know any more about Spectreman now than I did then...some guy turns into a giant (hero) robot and fights giant monsters, generally by flying around and shooting bullets/missiles out of his fingers...but, really, what more do you need to know? Do you like giant robots shooting bullets at giant monsters bent on destroying the Earth? Here you go!

It's the raised arm that gives
you the "Shazam effect."

[I realize there was a similar, more popular Japanese import called Ultraman, but that was a show I never did get into, and thus no little about. Why not? Because I already had Spectreman...duh!]

[on a mostly unrelated note: considering how little I actually remember from when I was five...the same age my son is now...I wonder if our years spent in Paraguay will leave more than a handful of memories in his mind. I don't know. My parents were never ones to rehash the past and retell old stories, whereas Diego's father is an excessively long-winded dweller on "what-has-gone-before" and spends a lot of time conversing and reflecting with the boy. Who knows. He just went over to his best buddy's house (Seba) a week ago...the first time he's been allowed to go on a playdate solo]

SO...(getting back to Game of Thrones)...while for me, Chainmail (or something like it) might be a good way to model the basic (fantasy) war-game of the setting, I'm really not sure it would appeal to anyone but me. People fascinated with history and war (and war-games) often could care less about a fantasy world like Martin's, and folks interested in fantasy worlds like that in Martin's books don't need to recreate the fiction they're enjoying.

I'm a strange duck.

Painted by a different strange duck.

I would also like to say, for those who did read my last post on the subject, that I was talking out of my ass when I started talking about "Braunstein sub-plots." I don't know shit or shinola about Braunstein...other than what I've read about its part in the historic origins of the hobby. However, a game that could be used to model the political machinations and alliances of Game of Thrones (as an add-on to a war-game) can be found in the old Dragonriders of Pern board game (which, in the past, I've compared to a kind of "proto-RPG").

In fact, if I did change my mind about doing something with GoT, I would probably START with Dragonriders of Pern (rather than Chainmail), as there are some strong similarities in its premise: like Game of Thrones, it features a world of bickering, feudal lord types who must find a way to resolve their differences to combat a greater, world-threatening menace.

[yes, they both have dragons, too, but they're not really used the same...]

Yeah, that's an idea...but NO, no, no it still doesn't change my points A and B above! Plus, my copy of Dragonriders is back in Seattle so there's no way for me to cannibalize for rules at this juncture. So I'm going to stop talking (and thinking) about it now.

Really.

Well, I'm going to try to stop anyway...

Thrones of Chainmail

I have a lot of stuff on my mind (as usual) and no idea how to go about blogging it, nor why I have no idea. I suppose I'll just say that when you've been out of practice posting (the A-Z stuff really doesn't count...really), and your mind has a constant influx of thoughts and concepts, it just creates a logjam that's kind of the opposite of "writer's block." Perhaps the solution would be to simply post and post and post random shit until my mind gets "emptied" again, but...well, I'm not sure if that's really the best way to go about my business.

[my "business"...ha! That's a funny one]

*AHEM* Still, before I get to more serious topics (or not), let's start with something easy and (for me anyway) more recent. Had a chance to catch episode 1 of the new Game of Thrones season Monday night. I'm aware that a lot of folks find the series (and the books) disagreeable for one reason or another...I've written myself about how I find the novels a depressing slog that I'm not interested in finishing. But Martin's world is deep, richly textured, and interesting, and the GoT show is what I call "television crack," no different from Sex and the City (which series I've viewed in its entirety) or True Blood (which I watched with reckless devotion until the birth of my first child made late night viewing something that neither my wife, nor I, had the energy to pursue). I could do without the soft-porn fan-service that that the creators insist on including in every episode, but the writing is interesting, the acting is excellent, the production values are spectacular, and the subject matter...courtly intrigue and medieval warfare in a fantasy world...is right in my wheelhouse.

As a result, I'm a fan of the show, and as a long-time acknowledged "killer" or "adversarial" Dungeon Master, I take a perverse enjoyment in the way beloved characters get killed/maimed/degraded with rather reckless abandon. To be clear, I'm not especially happy when one of my favorites gets the ol' "Charley Manson Special" but at least its a refreshing change of pace to know that the protagonists are operating without the magical shield of "plot immunity." It's a schtick, sure, and one we've seen before (the reimagined Battlestar Galactic, which also made for compelling television BTW) if not quite so brutally.

I've lost more than one character to PVP.

[oh, and just so everyone knows, I am aware there are far more important things to talk about in the world today, like Venezuela's current economic collapse. But that shit is absolutely depressing. However, I might make some observations about Argentina in a later post, just to "keep it real"]

D&D, of course, is neither television nor literature and longtime players are probably inured to the idea of a protagonist being slain by bow or blade. How many times have we not seen our own "main character" fall beneath the spears of gibbering goblins or cackling kobolds? And though Game of Thrones IS television, presumably following an overarching plot of some sort (though the casual viewer might be forgiven for not being able to make heads and tail of it), it's hard NOT to equate the game with a fantasy RPG, seeing as how it shares so many tropes found in the hobby...unsurprising given the current state of fantasy these days (largely inspired by D&D and its associated fiction) nor the fact that its author (Martin) has a background in gaming.

[rangers? come on, man]

I've also written before (after my first exposure to the Game of Thrones series) that while some aspects of it are reminiscent of of my old, latter day AD&D campaign, it's hard to imagine anyone using the D&D system (any edition) to run a campaign truly resembling A Song of Ice and Fire...which is probably why Green Ronin (the series's license holder) opted for a completely new system when developing the RPG, rather than building on D20 or something. Heck, that's the main reason I was 'porting the setting into the Pendragon system last year (see my Buckets of Blood posts if you missed 'em)...a little side project that, at this point, I'm not terribly interested into getting back into, new GoT season or not.

[though someday I probably should get around to posting the last couple pages of notes concerning the alternate ASOIAF timeline that's supposed to be used in place of the Pendragon Arthurian/Camelot one. *sigh* if only I slept LESS hours in the night, right?]

Ah...civilization.

Thing is, I was considering that, all soap opera bits aside, a lot of Game of Thrones resembles a war-game campaign more than anything else. Pretty obvious considering Martin cites the English War of the Roses as a major inspiration for his novels. There's a number of large-scale battles in the series, and this is yet another reason why the story seems like a poor fit for a D&D system, where combat is prevalent but based on small scale skirmishes in subterranean environments...NOT open warfare on the field of battle.

And yet...

And yet, I can't help but consider that D&D itself has its roots in a war-game, specifically CHAINMAIL, and how much of the setting...much of the story...could be modeled fairly easily using a Chainmail system with only slight tweaks. Chainmail may have billed itself as "rules for medieval miniatures," but its system encompassed a historic range that encompassed about 1000 years (from the 400s to 1500s).  This could easily be tightened up to account for the specific ASOIAF setting. And if one replaced the Tolkien-based Fantasy Supplement with one based on Martin's supernatural elements (easy enough as they are so few), it's easy to imagine a tabletop campaign based in large part on Martin's books. Just imagine an army of 15mm knights painted in Lannister gold and crimson riding out to battle the armies of the North...

Throw in some Braunstein-like sub-plots and secret missions involving special "character" figures and...well, with a few random tables, one could probably recreate a pretty reasonable facsimile of the series.

It's actually a pretty interesting idea for a gaming project (I've never written/designed an actual war-game before, though I've played more than a few)...especially given my recent research/interest in the origins of the hobby (not yet blogged about) and some thoughts I have on "forward compatibility" (as opposed to backwards compatibility).

But I'll write about that more later. Time to get the kid for soccer practice!

Thieves and Assassins

It is really difficult to sit down and blissfully write about fantasy assassins with the tragic happenings in France this weekend that left hundreds dead and injured.

My own weekend had plenty of disappointments, any one of which would be reason to call the whole thing "a downer." My birthday party got cancelled at the last minute due to the place having no electricity. I got in another car accident, minor, but damaging nonetheless. The national team lost in Peru in a game where some might question the officiating. My wife has had to work the entire weekend, and the baby's been squirrelly, meaning my sleep has been deprived (again). But all of these  "weekend wrecking" complaints are nothing, nothing to what Parisians are experiencing this weekend...fear, sorrow, outrage, depression, helplessness. If watching the Seahawks lose the rest of their games could somehow do something to rectify the situation, I'd give up the season (which would mean a lot of bad weekends pour moi)...but that's ridiculous. As ridiculous as the horrifying events of Friday night.

Because it IS ridiculous...just imbecilic. About the most selfish act one can do is taking others with you on your own mission to commit suicide (those selfish pricks that shoot up classrooms and movie theaters and college campuses all so that they can achieve a few minutes of publicity and "death by cop"). But these stupid fucks claim some sort of political motivation for their actions...just what do they think they're going to accomplish? All they're doing is inciting the flames of war, as the reactionaries will simply call for their politicians to bomb them, Bomb Them, BOMB THEM MORE.  I think western societies have already demonstrated they need little provocation to make use of all their stockpiled weapons and munitions that would otherwise be sitting around gathering dust. How the fuck is perpetrating murder helping their cause? It's nonsensical, in addition to being a ruthless, despicable crime.

It would seem to me...and gosh, maybe I'm being totally moronic here...it would seem to me that if you have the wherewithal, time, energy, and ingenuity to smuggle weapons, manufacture explosives, recruit operatives, and organize a coordinated terrorist attack on one of Europe's greatest cities (and one purportedly to have been "on watch" against such attacks)...if you can do THAT, don't you have the stones to manufacture an intelligent, sane means of protest against the actions your country is taking? You couldn't use the same resources to organize some sort of movement in the country, gosh maybe exercise political power of some sort? This is a democratic country we're talking about right? Surely the politicians there are influenced by voter unrest in the same way they are in the U.S.? And if not, isn't there still some sort of positive, constructive way to use your effort? These kinds of attacks are about the stupidest thing you can do. Even if you're seeking to bring awareness to the apathetic masses, the main thing you're accomplishing is the generation of fear. And scared people will turn to anger (in order to control their fear) and then action (to assuage their fear and anger). It's the fucking way the human collective works...they're not going to run like scared rabbits, and most of them aren't going to have the enlightened perspective of a Gandhi or Christ to turn the other cheek.

So now there will be more death and destruction. You fucking morons.

That's about all I want to say on the subject...I've said my prayers for everyone involved (i.e. the world) and hope things get better. Hope that people get smarter. Hope that those suffering from this devastating tragedy can find the strength and peace they need.

Now, back to D&D.

[sorry, if it seems callous, but if my writing can entertain some folks...and I know I that I have several readers (and customers) in France...then that, at least, is something I can do. I have little power to do anything other than blog and entertain at the moment]

Over the years, I've blogged many times about the assassin subclass. I've written that its unnecessary. I've written that it doesn't really work for the basic, dungeon-crawling premise of the game. I've written that I like the concept, that I don't like the concept, that the concept could benefit from real strictures that filter out individuals who just want to play a "more powerful thief." If you're interested, just check this link and you can read all my various assassin posts.

Okay. Now just forget everything I've written.

As I did with the druid and the monk, the first thing I want to do is ignore the actual subclass (for the moment) and take a good hard look at the class from which it derives: the thief, in this case. One might be tempted (I know I was initially) to disregard the thief as "not basic enough;" that perhaps the thief, itself, should be a subclass of something called the rogue, a lightly armored, adventurer type that can specialize in a number of different ways (thief, assassin, bard, acrobat, etc.). Tempting as that is, though, I think it's a mistake.

And it's cheating, anyway. This series is about working with Holmes, not circumventing it. Holmes has a thief; obviously the learned doctor found it a good enough archetype to include in his Basic book, despite it being supplementary to OD&D.

And it is an interesting character class. Unlike the fighting-man (who's advantages apply entirely to combat situations), or the magic-user and cleric (with their auto-working spells), the thief has a number of different skills that can serve a variety of functions, though all with improbable success chances (at least at low levels). A beginning wizard might be limited in spells, but the spells always work...no such guarantee is given to the thief.

The thief, then, is a bit of a gambler by nature. Dare I try this maneuver? Nearly every skill has some consequence for failure. Fail to pick a pocket and get nabbed. Fail to disarm a trap and get poisoned. Fail to climb a wall and fall to your death. Fail to hide and be discovered. Even failing a listen check can lead to an ambush (if the other party members insist their thief "scout" has to walk point).

The thief is a gambler, a loose cannon because he (or she) is a criminal by trade. Their skills are all focused on a single objective: stealing valuables. That is the definition of a thief; my google of the word returns the following:

noun: a person who steals another person's property, especially by stealth and without using force or violence.

This is what a thief is, not a lightly armored, sneaky fighter. NOW, considering that as our baseline for the class, what then is the assassin, as a subclass?

A person who steals another person's life.

Note: this is stealing of life; the word carries some connotations that separate it from ending a person in battle or what might other be considered a "fair fight." There is an underhandedness to it; a this-is-not-right element. When two opponents enter mortal combat, there is an understanding between them that the probable result will be death for one of them. Theft of life, though, is the taking of life with no such agreement...and with no possibility that quarter might be asked or mercy granted.

This is what an assassin is: a thief of life. If I were to do a bard subclass, I'd probably, similarly, make it a thief of hearts and minds (like any modern day "gangster of love"). But right now, we're only concerned with the assassin. Given our "thief-y" perspective on the class, we can make a few calls about how the subclass should work:

• First, and most important, the assassin need NOT share the same skills as the thief. The objective theft of the subclass is different; therefore, a different set of skills is needed. Locks, for instance, have existed since ancient times, and generally existed to guard valuables (money boxes and chests)...this is not the thing an assassin seeks to steal. The skills of an assassin should be focused on their task: getting close to their victim to land the killing strike (or administer a deadly poison).
• Second, to maintain the feeling of the assassin, its skills should function like the thief...start low (the gambler) and increase with proficiency. This is Holmes, so we don't need a bunch of complex formulae. A straight table of percentages should be adequate.
• Remember that this is D&D...there can be a magical quality about how skills occur, even if they are "non-magical" in nature. Consider the master disguise artist Horace Hamilton Smythe (from PJ Farmer's Dungeon series), or the "faceless man" assassins from Martin's Game of Thrones books. There is nothing in Holmes that requires a thief to purchase "thieves tools;" there is no such item listed on the equipment list in Holmes (neither was there such an item prior the 1E PHB). Thieves, and their subclasses, simply have skills they can perform (at the drop of a hat) that other individuals cannot.
• Along a similar line of thought, to make the subclass pertinent to the fantasy setting, its skills should be applicable even with regard to non-humans (despite this making little sense). Disguising oneself as a gnoll or goblin, for instance, or applying assassination techniques to humanoids of any anatomy...either they all carry their vital organs in the same place, or the assassin has simply made an extensive study of all such creatures' anatomies (and hence the percentage chance of success associated with the skill). Should there be a hit dice restriction to this? Maybe. I certainly don't see an assassin being able to manufacture a hill giant disguise, but a talented enough assassin could perhaps deliver a deathblow to such a monster (and maybe even one of up to fire giant size).

All right, that's enough to work with. Let me see what I can come up with for the subclass.

I really wish this post was about nothing but D&D.