One Game, One Campaign

The wife (inadvertently) woke me up around 3am with her nightmare/thrashing. While I comforted her and she quickly returned to sleep, I was once again left lying awake in bed. Just too many thoughts in Ye Old Noggin.

*sigh*

One thought was this recent post over at Grognardia. Yes, I still read the old man, on occasion. I already expressed my specific thoughts on his post in the comments, but I figured I'd go into more depth over here.

I've loved RPGs for a long, long time, and over the years I've collected an absolutely huge number...of which I've played more than a few. Dozens, probably...Boot Hill, Top Secret, Gamma World, Star Frontiers, Marvel (and Advanced Marvel) Superheroes, Stormbringer, ElfQuest, James Bond 007, BattleTech (MechWarrior is the RPG), ShadowRun, Teenagers From Outer Space, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas & Superspies, Beyond the Supernatural, Rifts, Vampire the Masquerade, Werewolf the Apocalypse, Mage (the Awakening?), The Hunters Hunted, Ars Magica, Over The Edge, Fantasy Wargaming, DragonQuest, DragonRaid, Traveller, Guardians, Star Wars, CyberPunk 2020, Risus, InSpectres, Spirit of the Century, The Dresden Files, Cadillacs & Dinosaurs, Maelstrom (and Story Engine), Fiasco, Warhammer Fantasy Role-Playing...probably (definitely) a few more that I'm forgetting at the moment. 

A lot of games...many in multiple editions (learning a new edition is often akin to learning a new game). And, of course, a few of my own games (Cry Dark Future, Five Ancient Kingdoms, War of the Mecha, DMI and its variations, etc.). Yeah. I've played a LOT of games.

But the vast bulk of these games...with the exception of my own stuff...were played before the age of 30. Which is to say: more than 20 years ago. Since entering my 30s, I'm either playing some one-off (usually a demo or con game), or I'm playing something of my own ("play testing"), or I'm playing D&D. And mostly, it's just D&D. 

And since 2020 it's solely AD&D 1E. 

It's not that I'm not (still, continuously) enchanted by RPGs and amazed at the creativity, artistry, and design I see on display every time I walk into a local game shop. I LOVE games...I do!...and I'll buy the occasional RPG these days just to marvel at its beauty and throw some financial support at the industry. But most everything I've purchased in recent years...unless it's D&D related...simply goes on the shelf. If I bother to buy a print copy at all. I have a lot of digital RPGs stored on the ol' laptop, and those never get played (I only play games out of a printed book)...those are, generally, purchases for 'research purposes' only. 

But I don't have any need or use for most of the hundreds of game books I own. I can't, for example, see myself EVER playing 3E again, and yet I must have a literal dozen volumes of that game sitting on my shelf. I keep it for reference, for occasional inspiration, and as a constant warning against nostalgia and the danger of impulse buying (i.e. if I got rid of it, there's always the chance I'd run out and re-purchase the damn thing on a whim...that's happened to me multiple times over the years). 

No. The only books I need...and the only books I use with any regularity...are the PHB, DMG, and the three Monster Manuals. Pretty much the same books I used to carry around in my backpack when I was 12 years old (minus the UA and the DDG). 

I now play ONE game and, since 2020, I've run only ONE campaign. That's all I need: just a single world. Truth be told, due to my other priorities, I only have time for a single world (and barely time for that!). But even if I were to re-order and re-organize my life to prioritize gaming, I still wouldn't need more than that...I'd just spend MORE time in my world. 

Whereas in years past, I'd break my head, starting up new games from scratch with new systems and/or new genres (hell, even in the early days of this blog, when I was only running B/X, I was constantly "starting over" and tweaking my game...)...NOW, I simply work on building the world I have. I can add layer upon layer. I can pile depth upon depth. I can detail it down to the Nth degree, if it suits my fancy. Any and all work I decide to do...whether a little or a lot...is an investment into my campaign, making it richer and richer over time.

It is the great, not-so-secret Secret that all the great world builders have discovered: spreading your imagination thin, defusing your energies over multiple works and worlds, does not lead to satisfying fantasy. In fact, satisfaction is a false carrot to chase at all...we receive satisfaction ONLY when we pause and look back over what we have wrought...what our investment of time and effort has yielded. Like a master gardener checking out the fruits of their labor. And after that pause, we simply go back to work...again...adding more depth, adding more investment to our project.

And when we pause again, we look back at what we've wrought and we feel MORE "satisfied."

And the process repeats. Those of us who scatter our energies (as I did myself...for years) seldom look back at our "works" for they are naught but a wasteland...wasted time, wasted effort. Looking at all that waste...campaigns started and abolished, games played and discarded...can be disheartening. Few of us want to take the time to sit and reflect given just how sad  the could have beens can be; few of us have the courage for self-assessment of a wasted life.

Which sounds harsh, but only if one chooses to dwell on the superficial "first pass" of squandered potential. The FACT is that every moment you've spent in your life...gaming or otherwise...has led you to the exact present moment in which you currently stand. And even if you can't find it within your heart to feel a profound sense of gratitude for your gift of life (I assume none of my readers are undead) and the blessings you have in that life (whether few or many)...well, at least you've acquired wisdom. And with wisdom, you can change what you're doing so that the next time you pause and reflect at what you've wrought (whether with your life or your gaming or both) you can feel some degree of satisfaction.

If you're reading my blog, chances are that gaming is an important and valued aspect of your life. Assuming that is the case, then how you approach your gaming should hold some importance to you. If you, like me, are a habitual Dungeon Master, the world you build should be the single most vital part of your gaming life. 

Why wouldn't you want to focus your attention and energy on a single world? Why wouldn't you want to make the world in which your fantasy adventures take place as wonderfully detailed as possible?

And lest you think I'm being rhetorical, I think there are only two possible answers to that last question:

1. You are fearful of committing to the art and process of being a Dungeon Master, OR
2. You dislike the world/setting that you would otherwise be creating.

And IF the answer is the second one (as opposed to the first, which is perhaps more common among those not having accepted their vocation...as was me for many years), then the next question is: why are you bothering to game in that world at all? If you are not whole-heartedly on-board with the genre or IP of the setting (whether it is your own homebrew or the pre-published 'grand design' of someone else), then why are you wasting your time with it? Take the parts you like, build them into a world you can commit to for the long haul, and rock that as the foundation for your game.

I cannot expound enough on how liberating it is to operate in this way. By settling on ONE system...one that requires no expansion rules like B/X, no curating like OD&D or 5E, and one that had been vigorously play-tested long before I got into the hobby...I cut out so much worry and stress from my gaming and can just run the thing. By settling on ONE campaign setting, fit for the system, I can spend any free time and energy I have in drilling down different bits and crafting adventures based on that setting. Scenarios, not plots, not "capers." Simply opportunities that players can choose to explore...or not.

And if they don't, those opportunities continue to exist in my world (until they don't) adding to its depth (until they vanish, to be replaced with different opportunities). 

I was considering addressing another "Dear JB" letter before writing this post, one about liar DMs and cheating dice rolls (i.e. "fudging"). However two things stayed my keyboard. One was that most of the responses were adamantly anti-fudge/cheating (from 5E aficionados!) which is, frankly, a welcome change from older Reddit posts. The other, though, was one particular response, which said (in part):

I think the problem here is in the "players losing = death" forced narrative.

In the older editions of TTRPG, like the original D&Ds, the game was a wargame with a unique premise. The expectation was that your characters would die and you'd have to reroll and that was part of the game. You could pick between a martial character like a fighter and level faster, getting up to speed more quickly, or you could pick a wizard and be intentionally weaker and level slower, but with huge pay off if you reached higher levels. Retrieving equipment to pass it down was expected, and dungeons sometimes had mechanics to specifically prevent this. The focus wasn't really on a wider campaign narrative or character story arc.

As TTRPGs matured, however, the role-playing elements started to see the spotlight, and gradually the expectation shifted towards one of collaborative story telling with a wargame aspect that meant random chance still played a role in narration.

Overtime, however, we start to run head-long into the central problem with this set up: your character becomes tied to the story and character death removes you, rather jarringly, from the plot. There's no longer an expectation that players will be at disparate levels, and trying to introduce a level 1 character into a campaign already 5 levels deep will result in you being useless. So your new character is shot up in levels without ever earning them, has a backstory forcibly integrated without ever really experiencing it, and is shoehorned into a plot that never expected to handle them. It creates a terrible dissonance that's difficult to work around and will never be as satisfactory as your first character that was there every step of the way.

This isn't always the case, of course. Sometimes there are really great moments where a character death feels right and adds a lot to the gravity of the story. Sometimes there are new characters that can naturally integrate themselves into the plot to replace the old.

However, those tend to be exceptions, not the rule, when death is left to random chance.

So, it should come as no surprise to regular readers that I have some serious quibbles with this person's analysis; however, I want to focus on specific elements with regard to what they mean to my post this morning.

First off, I'll go ahead and AGREE that there has been a shift in D&D gaming to "campaign narratives" and "character story arcs" and "collaborative story telling." I'll also go ahead and AGREE this makes the issue of character death a "problem" from the perspective of derailing the "narrative" being told (and, yes, that's a significant part of what leads to cheating/fudging at the modern day table). 

Here's the thing, though: ALL THAT IS A FUCKED UP WAY TO PLAY D&D.

Leave aside, for the nonce, that this idiot seems to have forgotten that dead PCs can be brought back to life...fairly easily!...in the D&D game. We had plenty of "main (player) characters" that were raised from the dead MULTIPLE TIMES back in our long-running campaigns; my own PC must have been raised or wished back to life at least a half dozen times. 

But (as said) leave that aside. Tell me: why O why do you play Dungeons & Dragons at all? Is it because you want to tell stories of the 'fantasy' genre in collaboration with other people? Because, you can do THAT a lot easier without restricting yourself to big books of rules and the random whims of dice rolls.

Personally, I think most PLAYERS (i.e. non-DMs) play D&D to experience the spills and thrills of being another person participating in adventures in a fantastical land of might and magic. Full stop. And the BEST WAY for you, as the Dungeon Master, to provide that experience is to craft a deep, rich world chock-full of opportunities (scenarios) that the players have leeway and agency to explore. Sometimes dying, sure (danger is part of adventure) but always with the option to make a new character or raise the dead one (i.e. always with the option to "get back in the game"). 

Your best path, then, is to pick ONE system you can live with and master (possibly tweaking to taste), and then spend ALL your world building efforts on ONE setting that you love and are committed to. Thusly, you will be able to provide the best experience to your players, such that they will want to keep returning to your campaign...regardless of whether or not it has a "narrative story arc" in it. Players want to LIVE their D&D; they can't live it if there's no world in which to live. Focusing just makes it so much better.

I might write a series of posts about my own campaign world, something that...to date...I've hesitated to do (though don't mind mentioning it in passing). For one thing, much of my world is amorphous, the subject of wild rumor and speculation (at least, in areas the players haven't visited) and therefore subject to change. For another thing, I think a DM describing their campaign world is about as boring as a player talking about how kewl their character is, i.e. pretty darn boring.

But maybe it would be helpful to some people. And "helpful" is something I'm really interested in being these days (far more than being "interesting," which was my M.O. for most of my life). Maybe this can be the subject of the personal A-Z challenge I was thinking of doing in June? I'll have to see if I can come up with 26 subjects for discussion...shouldn't be too hard.

ANYway.

I'm running out of steam. I think I'll go lie down for a bit; I've said pretty much all I want to say at the moment.

[published after dragging my sorry ass out of bed and getting the kids up and off to school]

Why D&D

[blogger tells me I started this draft on October 30th, 2021. In light of comments on my recent "Why World Build" post, I think it's high time I got back to finishing it up...as best I can]

Last week Grognardia posted an excerpt from a 1979 issue of White Dwarf that included part of an interview with Gary Gygax. My attempts to find a PDF of the mag/article have been wholly unsuccessful, so I will transcribe the text from the image:

D&D/AD&D allows players to have adventures. In a world where these aren't likely - at least without risk of life and limb - this is a real boon. The game form also allows each group to tailor the campaign to their own likes. The game form additionally allows participants to freely use imagination to the fullest. Participants can create and develop personal heroic fantasies. Mistakes are rectifiable - or at worst a new start can be made. Wealth abounds. Good and evil are easily distinguishable. Roles are clear, and soul-searching basically unnecessary. Each and every play is competitive and self-sufficient. DMs, in turn, are the creators and orderers of universes (in short, gods). Instead of a limited and restricted actuality, D&D/AD&D offers boundless realms where real success is quite attainable. Finally, the game form offers various challenges, group co-operation, and is open-ended, so that one player isn't clearly a winner, the rest losers.

[White Dwarf #14, in answer to the question 'Why do you think D&D has become so popular?']

I'm curious to know how much of this was thoughtful or calculated response, and how much of this was off-the-cuff musing (one of the reasons I went looking for the whole article).

[never mind: just found the thing via a comment on the original Grognardia post; it's worth a read]

Please note, I'm not the one emphasizing the word "adventures" in the quote: that's how it's written in the original White Dwarf article, causing me to infer that the word was emphasized by Gygax himself.

Just what is an adventure? I'm not talking about in "game terms" (Gygax isn't speaking in game terms when he's answering the question of D&D's popularity)...when I say: D&D allows players to have adventures, just what is this adventure thing that is deemed to be so desirable?

My old American Heritage Dictionary offers four definitions of the word adventure:

1. An undertaking of a hazardous nature.
2. An unusual experience or course of events marked by excitement and suspense.
3. Participation in hazardous or exciting experiences.
4. A financial speculation or business venture.

[my Webster's dictionary offers the same four definitions, but with slightly pithier wording]

Reading over these, it should be clear that old edition D&D...the kind that I play, the kind available to Gary & Co. in 1979...checks every single one of these boxes, including #4. After all, it doesn't get much more "speculation" than risking your (character's) life in pursuit of monetary gain, does it?

There are many humans...not all certainly, but many...who long for "adventures." We read about people undergoing adventures, we see films about folks having adventures, we listen eagerly to people recount tales of their own adventures. But few of us have the fortitude, opportunity, or finances necessary to live a constant life of "real" adventure. 

D&D offers adventure to its players: the chance at mentally/emotionally experiencing hazardous, exciting, and suspenseful undertakings without the physical toll that real adventures demand. Regardless of your physical capabilities and for a minimal financial cost, the opportunity for adventure is present every time you sit down at the table.

Why do people long for adventures? Now, that's a tougher question with a plethora of possible answers (I can think of a few). Why are some "called" to the sea? Or outer space? Or war? Or L.A. with a chance of being in the movies (or New York with a chance of being on Broadway)? There is, of course, an adrenaline rush associated with risk...that thing that causes folks to sky-dive or base jump or throw their life savings on one spin of the roulette wheel. But there are other reasons besides adrenaline...curiosity, for example, not just for other places and strange experiences, but curiosity about how we, ourselves, will handle the pressure and impact of an "adventure."

But, as I said: not everyone who wants adventure has "what it takes." I may want to travel to space or Antarctica, but I don't have the money to get there. I may want to be a undersea diver or submarine pilot, but I don't have the training/education. I may want to see the Middle East or Okinawa, but I don't want to join the army (and I'm too old these days to do so, anyway). Heck, even if I wanted to experience a firefight (speaking of military action) I don't really relish the idea of getting hit by a bullet myself.

And even though it's fun to watch television shows about "treasure hunters" on the Discovery channel (or whatever), the whole thing looks like a miserable affair. I mean, the show is edited...I'm sure there are long periods of misery and boredom that never even make it to the screen. All for little/no financial gain (the real money is in selling your TV rights to the network). 

D&D is a far easier path to adventure: you don't have to be young and fit or trained and educated or know the right people or have money to burn in order to adventure. You can experience the adrenaline rush, assuage the curiosity, gain the prestige, feel the sense of accomplishment, earn (imaginary) wealth beyond dreams of avarice, become a bonafide "hero" in the (game) world...all by dint of playing the game. 

That's a powerful, heady draw.

My handful of Spanish readers will undoubtably be familiar with Don Quixote, Cervantes' masterwork. Quixote could be the patron saint of role-players...a man looking for adventure and all-too-willing to escape into his own imagination in order to find it. All long-time D&D players have some measure of The Don in flowing through their veins. If they didn't, they'd be doing something else. If they didn't have a longing for adventure...or if they had the means of pursuing real adventures...they wouldn't be bothering to sit down at the table, over and over again. They certainly wouldn't find the experience very enjoyable.

It is, perhaps, interesting to see what type of folks do NOT enjoy D&D. My wife, for example, is plenty smart enough to understand the game. But she finds little/no joy in it. She loves to travel, to see new places, have new experiences. But she is extremely risk adverse. Hates gambling/speculation in any form (her company 401K is set as conservatively as possible), enjoys exercise so long as it's non-contact/competitive (bruises like a peach), has no love of violence or horror or fantasy. In many ways, thinking about it, she is perhaps too imaginative...too empathetic/sensitive (she has stated on more than one occasion that she doesn't like how RPGs make her "feel"). D&D scares her...and she's not a fan of being scared. She'd rather relax, chuckling, with an episode of Friends that she's already watched a dozen times.

Other folks (like myself) don't have quite that degree of empathy. We want the adventure with the minimal loss risked entailed in playing a game. 

Of course, that's just with regard to playing D&D. Being a Dungeon Master is a different story: the DM doesn't get to experience adventures, after all; the DM makes the adventures. The DM is the shepherd, and the players are the flock, being led to green pastures where they may sup on adventure to their hearts content.

Why be a DM? Because you get to be God. Which ain't an opportunity you get every day, either.

There's probably a whole 'nother post on that subject.

; )

X-Men, X-Fan

Mmm...coffee.

Sunday night, the family watched the first (year 2000) X-Men film. I'd been wanting to do this for the last week or so, figuring it was time to introduce the kids to the whole concept of the Marvel "mutant." They, of course, had been resistant, preferring to watch Agent Carter or re-screenings of the various Avengers films, but Sunday I finally got my way. Of course, they ended up digging it...mutants are fun, after all.

For me, I was reminded of all the reasons I dislike this particular film franchise. I haven't blogged about it much (at least, not that I remember...and I'm too lazy to go searching through my back posts at the moment), so guess what? Here it comes:

First, my relationship to the films: I've seen the original two movies multiple times. I didn't LIKE the first one, but I enjoyed it (for reasons I'll describe below), and there were parts of it that definitely begged for revisiting from Yours Truly. The second film I found to be better done and more enjoyable (probably due to cutting of clunky exposition necessary in a first film), and is probably my favorite of the franchise. The third film I found pretty bad/dumb: I've only seen it once. The fourth (X-Men Origins: Wolverine) used a story arc retcon that I hated in the comics, but was still "okay" right up till the end when it turned pretty detestable...at that point I vowed never to see another X-Man movie in the theaters.

However, I broke this promise when I went to see the next film X-Men First Class with my wife (who is a fan of the X-Men since she was a kid).  I found the premise to be interesting but the show wasn't great...mostly bland and un-memorable. This one killed the X-Men for my wife and I've never been to another theater showing of the film. We watched The Wolverine (the next installment) on cable TV, and it was so terrible I swore off the franchise all together. 

I skipped Days of Future Past. I watched Deadpool (free on cable) because so many people told me I had to see it, that it was so good at lampooning the genre, that it was so funny and irreverent and better than the last few movies. I thought it sucked. The last 20th Century Fox mutant film I watched was a small part of Apocalypse, on TV, while drunk, when the family was out of town and I was hanging with my brother and he wanted to watch it. I dozed off during the movie, finding it both badly done and boring.

For me, the franchise got very old, very fast. It was so much a "one-trick pony" that it was simply disappointing on a fundamental level...far more so than the MCU. Just as the mutant-themed comics turned me off over time by shifting focus to their most popular character (Wolverine) the films badly stumbled by A) over-milking the mutant prejudice theme, and B) over-focusing on Wolverine and all his issues...when for me, the joy, the beauty of the X-Men comics was never found in these things. 

See, I was an X-Men fan back in the day...and from a young age. While my elementary school days was a more eclectic collection of comics, in middle school (extremely formative years for Yours Truly) and early high school it was all mutants, all day. X-Men, X-Force, Excalibur, New Mutants...these were the comics my friends and I collected. These were the comics we had to pick up, that we pooled our money to buy, that we swapped and shared. We played a LOT of Marvel Superheroes RPG in those days, and much of our gaming was informed by the stuff we were reading in X-Men comics...despite the fact that there wasn't a single mutant character in our campaign (that I can recall).

[our campaign world didn't contain any Marvel properties at all...it was our own version of "Earth"...and the game being what it is (we were using the Ultimate Powers Book, of course) there were too many interesting character choices to have simple "genetic mutants" infesting our game]

I quit reading X-Men sometime around the early '90s, before I graduated from high school (class of '92) and maybe even before that (I moved on to Silver Surfer about a year before going on a semi-permanent hiatus from comic books). I remember being bemused...and then disgusted...about the Wolverine solo series. Wolverine was a cool character...one of my favorites even...but enough to hold his own series? Doing what? Stabbing folks? He was a bit character with a fairly specialized skill set (as were all the characters in those days)...I had issues where all he did was shovel hay with a cowboy hat and drink beer with Kurt; he never even ranked "team leader" for most of the run! Anyway, it was about that time I stopped buying single issue comics, so it appears I wasn't the "target demographic" the publisher was aiming for.

I realize now, that my experience with X-Men more-or-less coincided with the Chris Claremont run (1975-1991) on the series. 16 years on one title provides a lot of coherence of vision, not to mention a whole lot of story lines, most of which have been completely ignored by the film franchise...despite being the things that made the series "beloved" to fans that grew up with those comics....

I know, I know. "Cry me a river, JB. Wah-wah-whine." Once again I'm bitching and moaning about 'nostalgia' and ignoring the fact that things change. Uh-huh, yep, sure: things do change; I get that. When I started this blog, I didn't even have kids...now my oldest is 10 years old and playing D&D. I am well aware that I am prone to being mired in nostalgia, lost in the past. I've seen Cobra Kai (great series, by the way)...the irony inherent in its protagonists is not lost on me. But listen folks: what are these film studios trading in, if not the nostalgia of an aging fan base? Why not create new and original story lines, or new and original characters? Changing characterizations of existing characters (Cyclops and Storm especially) or changing storylines to fit characters that weren't in the original storyline (Magneto's "Brotherhood of Evil Mutants" predates the involvement of most of the X-Men that appear in the first film) doesn't seem to be the way to go when pandering to a fan base.

Though perhaps the filmmakers felt people would be grateful enough just to see their comics on the big screen? Not a terrible hypothesis...it originally worked for this fan (until it stopped working).

*sigh*

Monday night, the family watched X2: X-Men United and, as I wrote, I enjoyed it more than the original. It wasn't that it was more like the comics of my youth; instead, it was a matter of already understanding the filmmaker's vision and so, rather than being put off by disappointed expectations, I could simply relax and enjoy what the product was: Hugh Jackman hogging the spotlight and stabbing people. Teen romances that never were in the comics. Magneto and Mystique featuring prominently. Cyclops and Storm relegated to weaksauce bit parts (with less meaningful screen time than the cameos of minor characters). The bad juju about the evils of bigotry. Etc.

Ah, well...my children liked both movies (they preferred the second of the two) and there are far worse "changes" in the world. The Seattle Sounders' uniform this season, for example: purple and orange?! What in the everloving name of F is that all about?! Holy blankshow, Batman! 

[and, for the record, I would welcome changes in some areas. The season's only just started and the Mariners are already under .500 for, like, the 25th straight year. Crapola]

*ahem* Anyhoo. I suppose that's about all I have to say on the subject (for the moment) except that, as I chip away at my latest attempt at superhero RPG design, these movies are indeed on my mind and in my memory...especially as I look for something that illustrates the genre as presented in cinema. That's really the key thing (for me) to remember: it's not about how "disappointing" a film may be as an homage to the comic book, it's how well it works as a serial story in and of itself. Because in the end (assuming this game ever gets written), it's really not about emulating the intellectual property of Marvel (or anyone else), but about helping the GM/participants create their own "super world," just as my friends and I did in the past. And as we used X-Men comics as an inspiration, I would fully expect younger folks to use the movies in the same fashion.

Times change.

As one last aside, I have to say I think it's especially interesting that Disney has managed to recover the X-Men rights, and am extremely curious to see how/if they will incorporate mutants back into the MCU. If it were up to me, I would reboot the whole thing, without regard to the original franchise films. Treat all that stuff in the same way as Claremont treated X-Men prior to his takeover in the 70s (i.e. fairly unnecessary). We've seen plenty of example reboots in film (the many Batman franchises, Spider-Man, the Hulk, etc.) so why should be any compulsion to tread the same sorry-ass missteps made by 20th Century Fox?

But of course they will. The X-Men movies made a ton of money and the film industry as a business has shown itself to be both unimaginative and ever-chasing of past success (*double sigh*). 

All right, that's about enough for a Wednesday. 

Any team that FEATURES Wolverine
(the ultimate non-team player)
ain't no "team." Sorry filmmakers.

OH, WAIT: I almost forgot that today marks the 20th wedding anniversary of my wife and I. I am a very blessed and fortunate man to have such a special person share her life with me. Without her love, it is quite possible I'd be even more curmudgeonly and ranty than I am. Thank goodness she's strong enough to hang in there!

Okay, that really is enough.

: )

Our Last Best Hope

One thing I'd like to get back to one of these days is the dozen-or-so, half-finished drafts sitting in my blog's memory. I mean some of them are still pertinent. However, for the sake of "just doing something" (baby steps, right?) I'll write about something more current:

The last month or so, I've been dipping my toes back into the Magic: The Gathering world. The reason for this is pretty simple: my son has discovered Magic cards. Back in June, he be can collecting and trading Pokemon cards, and was gifted with a huge stack of the things from an older kid (11? 12 years old?) who'd moved onto MtG. While we played these earlier in the year, what's become a big part of the fun for my first grader is trading cards on the playground (before and after school), and Magic cards became the currency of choice sometime around the 2nd week of September.

I have a fairly substantial collection of MtG cards, most of which were purchased off an old roommate back in 1999 or 2000. We...myself and my housemates of the time, including my spouse (before we were married)...found the cards enjoyable for casual play, especially down at the Baranof, over breakfast, while nursing our tremendous hangovers (ah...wasted youth). But casual play was all we ever did with them. While it was fun to build decks and tweak them with the nickel cards you could pick up at Gary's (back in the day), none of us wanted to invest substantial amounts of money in them. For us, it was just a cool substitute for Rummy or Cribbage...something fun to play while relaxing with a beer (or whatever) in the evening.

While I did end up amassing a couple thousand cards, they got boxed up and (mostly) forgotten sometime around 2000 or 2001...after my wife and I moved out of that house and "grew up;" getting married, buying cars, and houses, etc. But as with many of my gaming products, I kept the cards (still in shoeboxes), figuring some day they'd get brought out again. And now they have.

[just in case anyone's wondering: I am a packrat, but I wouldn't call myself a hoarder. I have been known to part with things, even things of substantial nostalgic or symbolic value (my old electric guitar, for example). And some things...like my 2nd Edition AD&D books...I found exceedingly easy to discard. I don't hang onto EVERYthing, folks!]

However, after a couple-four weeks of deck building and playing and attending one local, MtG competition (at a local shop with a substantially younger crowd), I find myself kind of sour on Magic, again. The cards are still neat and I really dig on the newest series (it's all inspired by South American-flavored pulp: lost world dinosaurs, Aztec-ish vampires and conquistadors, plus various South Seas pirates)...but I don't want to invest in a paper product that disintegrates in water, and certainly not to the extent that I could compete in a competitive environment. And just beating up on my six year old is kind of a dumb exercise in gaming. At least when we play Rummy he can win a hand or two.

But the boy still likes the cards and I picked him up a booster pack for him this weekend, as well as a new RPG for yours truly: Our Last Best Hope, a GM-less story-game by Mark Diaz Truman, inspired by the disaster movies of recent years that focus on world-threatening melodrama. Films like Armageddon, Interstellar, The Core, The Day After Tomorrow, and any of various zombie-apocalypse films that have graced the screen...stories where a small band of heroes must work together and overcome various obstacles to save the human race from extinction.

It's a well-known trope these days, and I'm kind of surprised at how familiar I am with it, considering these types of films bore the shit out of me. I mean, the formula's pretty tired, the drama pretty contrived...and yet these stories remain popular and (probably because there are so many of them) I've seen more than my fair share of them. Heck, some of 'em (like Armageddon) are a lot of fun, even...or especially...when they are at their most ridiculous. Regardless, the game is exceptionally well-crafted, and playing within such a recognizable genre gives players a real chance to ham things and have a great time.

Underrated classic

Hell, you could use it to model a lot of high stakes, crisis-type situations. Something like the 1966 film Fantastic Voyage...which I just re-watched with my kids a couple weeks ago (despite its age, I still find it a great film)...would be perfect for Our Last Best Hope. Even though humanity isn't on the brink of destruction, The Fate of the Free World is!
: )

I won't get into the specifics of the rules here except to say that compared to other "Story-Now" indie-games, it's very concise and focused with excellent practical in-game resources and a lot of new-tech support (including QR codes throughout the book that you can scan with a phone app for video examples of specific rules). But for me, it shows that there ARE real reasons for playing other RPGs, and other systems. You could not use (for example) the D20/Pathfinder system to emulate the large-scale disaster drama with the same kind of laser-focus that Truman brings with Our Last Best Hope.

It really warms my heart. Damn, there are some designers doing good work out there.

Anyway, Diego's not old enough to play (he's still a little young, even for D&D), so it'll probably be a while before I get a chance to try Our Last Best Hope. But it's definitely worth keeping on the shelf for some future, rainy day. Unlike the Magic cards, I doubt it'll take sixteen years for me to find an excuse to play it.
; )

No Small Parts

My internet's back up...enough said about that. I plan on writing at least one or two posts today, but they probably won't have as much "game related" substance as people like. Probably. We'll see.

The second planned post is one I've already started writing, a little rant/rave about the latest Captain America film. Normally, that's what I'd be finishing up this morning. However, I am currently unable to get last night's Game of Thrones episode out of my mind, so I'm going to subject Ye Old Blog readers to my thoughts on it.

First, though, I'll give you a little view into my "real life" world. My kids are young (ages 5 and 2), but they tend to go to bed late. We shoot for 9ish, but it's usually closer to 11pm. My family's a bunch of night owls (we like mid-day siestas). Nearly every night, my wife watches some television after the kids are down, and more often than not I join her, even though I'd prefer to be writing or sleeping (I get up earlier than she does, and I'm the one that gets up with the toddler at 2am or 4am or whatever). But Sunday night is Game of Thrones night, so there's no arm-twisting involved.

[my wife, BTW, is delightfully obtuse about all things fantasy-related. It put a smile on my face when she reminded me, "Don't forget, the new episode of Lord of the Rings is on." I generally don't bother to correct this kind of thing; like I said, delightful. Plus, I more than ably fill my household's "nerd quota" all by my lonesome]

So, after reading the 5 year old to sleep (Treasure Island), I made it down to the sala and tuned into GoT...only to find it was already 40 minutes into the episode. I don't know why I assumed it was on at 10, but whatever. The wife came down a few minutes later, and we clicked over to another channel about 5 minutes before the end...since we'd watch the re-broadcast at 11:30, I figured I wouldn't spoil the end for myself.

Wow.

It's the end of the episode that I'm thinking of today...that I keep replaying in my mind's eye. The sadness of it, the tragedy. Honestly, it keeps making me tear up, though I'm always a bit more emotional when I've had a short night's sleep (plus, I've been nursing a caffeine headache since yesterday...that's another long story). No, I'm not going to spoil anything by describing what happens. The thing would only hold an emotional impact for those who are diligent watchers of the show, while the casual or non-viewer would be less interested in the trials and tribulations of a minor character.

A minor character.

There's some semi-epic foreshadowing in an earlier scene in the episode that takes place backstage of a theater production. One of the actors is bitching about only having two lines in the production (ironic, considering the end of the show), to which she is told "there are no small parts"...which she, of course, doesn't get.

There ARE no small parts. Well, okay, there are (I'm supposed to be appearing as "American #2" in an upcoming Paraguayan film...again, long story...), but that doesn't mean they're unimportant. It doesn't mean they can't have an impact. The last stage role I had was in Moliere's Tartuffe, and I had zero lines. In fact, I played the butler...a character that is not listed in the cast role at all, but was rather created for the show. I was on stage through the entire play. I did all sorts of humorous business without speaking a single line, directing household servants, aping the residents, announcing people with an absurdly large gong...getting laughs, in other words, and being integral to the production. Despite not being one of the "principals," I was important to the show...I mattered.

And I had a blast doing it...though as a younger man, I probably would have chaffed at the part, just like the young actor in GoT. Here's the thing: in real life, we are all just "small parts," folks. This is a big old world, and human history stretches thousands of years behind us and (hopefully) thousands of years before us. Even if you can put together enough scratch to take care of your family two to three (or more) generations down the line, there's no guarantee your children or your children's children won't just blow it all...there's no guarantee some unforeseen catastrophe is going to mess up your legacy or wipe out your family line. No matter how grandiose we are in our sphere of influence, we are still very small cogs in the wheel of life.

And likewise, we are all important. We all have impact...direct, emotional impact...on those who know us, those who come in contact with us. Each of us has the chance to make a difference (for good or ill) on other people, no matter how small we seem in the overall scheme of things. We will never know just how much people care about us, truly, because the measure of a person's impact is often felt in how much they are missed after they're gone...it's impossible, really, to know how much one is appreciated by those around us, because we can't put ourselves into their thoughts and feelings and see what we mean...and even the most eloquent of communicators can hardly communicate their appreciation in a way for us to grasp, even if they themselves can grasp the full extent to which they appreciate.

I read an interview with comic book mastermind Stan Lee a couple years back...something throwaway, in a Costco newsletter or something. He explained that the reason he'd published comics under the name "Stan Lee" (his actual name being Stanley Lieber) is that he'd always looked down on his work, and felt that he'd save his real name for the Great Thing he would someday do...the Great American Novel or whatever. It wasn't until decades later in life (like LATE in life) that he realized, from talking to other people, how much people respected and appreciated the work he did. That his pulpy, throwaway entertainment that he'd done "to pay the bills" had had a profound impact on people's lives. That it had meant something to them. That it had changed them, influenced them, mattered to them.

But Lee is perhaps a poor example of what I'm writing about. He IS a big deal, and I'm sure he understands and appreciates (now) his value and legacy. Many of us don't. Most of us don't receive the adoring fan mail or bouquets of flowers thrown at our feet and the only time we feel really, truly appreciated is when one of our kids runs up to us and gives a big smiley hug. But we shouldn't feel our children are the limit of our "sphere of mattering." We have the opportunity to touch lives every day...to interact and build relationships and impact others. That matters.

I know that part of the appeal of playing a role-playing game like Dungeons & Dragons is the chance to be the protagonist or "hero" of an epic fantasy adventure. To take the role of a larger than life character having a profound impact on the game "world." Some folks might crave this in part because they feel a lack of power to impact the real world...a lack of "mattering" in the grand scheme of things. Today, at this moment, that seems to me to be a poor way to approach the game. RPGs, even light-weight ones like D&D ("light" with regard to tone and theme), have more to offer than just that. If that's all you're searching for, there is a lot of opportunity to experience disappointment in the game. Your character can die. Your character may fail. Your character may prove less effective than other characters. I suppose that a lot of the latter edition changes to D&D have been created in part (consciously or not) to head off this type of disappointment...carefully balancing encounters and character builds to ensure maximum heroic "mattering" through all levels of play. But even if it succeeds at this design goal...isn't that then just reinforcing the illusion?

The illusion you don't matter unless you're a world-shaking hero?

I was very moved by last night's Game of Thrones episode ("The Door"). It's not just the major protagonists...the Ned Starks and Tyrion Lannisters...that experience tragedy and sadness in Martin's cold, unforgiving world. It's not just the principals who have the chance to impact us emotionally. And, silly as it sounds, I think there's something that can be learned from that.

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...

Star Wars 7: Geezers and Abandonment Issues

I want everyone to know that I am breaking a (pinky) promise to my son by writing this...I told him I would do no writing on my laptop this weekend as my castigo for yelling very loudly at the bank folks on the phone after...well, never mind, it was their fault. Anyway, I said I wouldn't do any writing but it's 5:30 in the morning and everyone's asleep but me, who has been unable to sleep for 3+ hours now (since I got up with the baby), so...well, I'm breaking my promise.

Saw Star Wars VII this evening. Just walked in and purchased tickets. Star Wars isn't as big in Paraguay (though you'd never know it from the saturation of merchandise/PR/screenings). Plus, I went to the subtitled version (folks here prefer their films dubbed). But really, it's not as popular. I've met many Paraguayans (usually the non-billionaire, non-American educated, non-English speaking ones) who've never even seen a Star Wars movie. And I'm talking folks in their 20s and 30s.

Anyway...

It was a very good movie. Certainly the best Star Wars film I've seen in decades. I'd recommend it to anyone who likes the movies (especially the original trilogy). Heck, I'd recommend it to anyone...my wife has never been a big fan of the franchise, but she was downright stoked after seeing the film. She wants to go back and see it again...as in, we're already trying to figure if we should catch another showing tomorrow (since it's so easy to get in), or wait till we get to Mexico, or both. It was the first film she can remember seeing that she wishes was longer than its actual running time, mainly because the pacing through the latter half/two-thirds is so frantic and action-packed it was hard for her to believe the character development (in terms of relationships/bonding) that took place between characters.

And she'd just like to see more of the same. As with me, we left the theater hoping the sequel isn't too long in the making.

So...that's the "review" sans spoilers. I'd like to offer a few more thoughts on what I saw, and though I'll try to avoid giving anything away, if you haven't yet seen the film you may not want to read even what follows (and the comments section might be a bad read, too, depending on what folks write).

First off, I'd like to say that going into the film I experienced a momentary (and very slight) trepidation at the knowledge that the main protagonists (and, presumably, the main protagonists for the future installments) would be characters I'd have a hard time relating to...namely, non-white, non-male characters. Yes, I realize how ridiculous this is...I live in a world where the cinema is absolutely dominated by white, male protagonists, especially in the action, sci-fi, and fantasy genres and I am one privileged sonofagun. It was a momentary weakness. I quickly realized that there were already six Star Wars films featuring blonde haired, blue eyed men in the title roles (Luke, Anakin, Young Obi-Wan)...it certainly wouldn't hurt to let someone else drive for a few films.

And guess what? The new characters are awesome, wonderfully fun and interesting to watch, and I can't wait to see more of them. I am sooooo glad the filmmakers chose this direction in casting...it made the film so much more interesting to watch. The bad guys are back to resembling Space Nazis, but now their ranks are made of both men and women. There's more diversity in terms of people of color mixed among the non-alien extras and cast, and no I didn't think it felt "forced" at all. Rather, it looked natural to have more non-white humans on display than the first two trilogies combined.

[and I don't think that's an exaggeration]

So, yay, progress. Except that it's sad that I even feel the need to note it. At least my daughter can grow up and watch a movie and not aspire to being a princess in a bikini or a midriff-baring politico. That's kind of nice.

Stylistically, there's a nice return to the original trilogy, and I'm not just talking aesthetic...although that's there, too: the galaxy is once more a shabby, run-down place (probably even more so than the original trilogy...things have not been totally smooth since the end of the rebellion). But, no, I'm talking about a return to a focus on cinematic storytelling...the first ten to fifteen minutes is wonderful for how little dialogue is there (stormtroopers barking orders notwithstanding). You're left to just take in the sights of this strange galaxy, these new characters, this interesting spectacle-story. It grabs your attention and engagement without any vomited exposition. You see the character of the characters through their actions, not their words.

And then, of course, there's the action and pacing. Once the movie starts to pick up steam, it's pretty go-go-go with just a couple pit stops along the way. But it's well done, with a lot of movement-motion...again, something the original trilogy had that was in short-supply for the prequel trilogy (you had nice little set-piece combats in static environments...but gone were the chases and the sweeping ship-to-ship dog fights and whatnots). It's a lot more dynamic than saber-fights.

And I have to say, the Millennium Falcon was sorely missed from Episodes I-III. It is practically a character itself...at least as much so as R2 and C3P0 were. Having the Falcon in the movie (I don't think that's a spoiler...it's in all the trailers) makes up a LOT of ground. It communicates so much about the state of this fantasy universe...it doesn't matter whether it "makes sense" regarding its FTL travel or space-worthyness. The Millennium Falcon, in all its shabby glory, is a big (and needed) piece of the franchise. It's like the Enterprise for Star Trek...you just don't get the same experience without it.

Likewise the Geezers. I have probably downgraded Harrison Ford over the years in a way that's unfair. He's like Madonna...not the greatest range, but she gets everything she can out of it. Ford brings as much nuance (if not more) to "Old Han Solo" as he ever did to Indiana Jones. It makes you realize that before he was ever a galactic hero, Han Solo was kind of a hotshot loser. And now you see where that road leads: sad sack loser. Still with the heart of gold, still with the quick wit (and quicker trigger finger), but this guy never really was Jedi material...nor was he ever really in the same league as a princess. Ford (and his character) are a highlight of the film.

The other highlight character (for me) was Kylo Ren, the villain. I haven't written my blog post on the Ant-Man film yet, in which I wanted to discuss how the villain really makes (or breaks) any kind of "heroic cinema." Kylo is great, truly disturbed, and fascinating to watch...powerful, yet flawed. His image is an echo of Darth Vader as originally imagined (if you read The Secret History of Star Wars, before the mask became a permanent fixture), and his character is what I always imagined Anakin was supposed to be (before the prequels gave us...well, what we got). He is the young, power-hungry Mordred...twisted and tragic. And his get-up is as visually cool as Darth Maul.

Looks like all my KOTOR characters.

But while those are the only two characters I want to specifically mention (in this post), all of the principles are great (well-written, well-acted) and, as I said, I am excited to see how their stories develop over the course of these new films. I will certainly be shelling out the ducats to see Episode VIII, whenever it gets released. However, right now I have a question to ask:

What is up with J.J. Abrams and the abandonment issues?

Seriously, how unhappily neglected was he as a child? There is this constant theme of orphaned, abandoned, unloved, and disappointed children that runs through his shows. You saw it with most of the main characters in the Lost television show, you see it in the reimagined Star Trek film (where both Kirk and Spock lose their parents), and now you see it with Fin, Rey, and Kylo. What's up with that, man? My wife said the movie brought up a lot of "maternal instincts" in her...me, I just got the idea I ought to do a better job of taking care of my kids.

And speaking of which...my son really wants to see the film, and both my spouse and I really want him to see it, but there are definitely some pretty intense, nightmare-inducing scenes in the movie, not to mention some pretty scary themes (killing and abandonment stuff). Right now, we've decided to recount the story to him verbally to see how he handles it, and then we'll consider taking him...but maybe not. A guy I know is taking his six-year old to see the movie in a few days, and I want to know how she handles it. That might decide me.

Anyway, that's all I want to say about the film at this time...except that again I can't help but think Cascade Failure is a great jumping off point for a Star Wars game (really works with the rundown future concept). Okay, maybe now I can get some sleep.

May the Force be with you.

[sorry...couldn't help myself]
: )

Checking My Privilege

I’ve been thinking a lot about diversity and inclusiveness lately (as in, the last 12-13 months or so), mainly with regard to game design. My rant the other day had an element of this and…well, I’m on a plane heading for Chicago at the moment with shit-for-TV playing instead of Guardians of the Galaxy, so I might as well pound out a blog post on the subject.

[creating games with “adequate diversity” (and with attention to including all sorts of folks) is something of a hot-button topic these days, so I’ll probably take shit from both sides for my reflections on the subject. I’m cool with that]

Gosh, where even to start? I feel challenged to even address the subject of diversity when I come from a place as privileged as I do. I’m white, male, straight, American, non-trans-anything. I’m married with a couple kids. I’m Roman Catholic and even though Catholics sometimes take some heat for their religion, it’s tough to feel marginalized when you’re part of the single largest religion on the planet (at least, if you’re including the “lapsed” and “non-practicing” Cat-Lickers).

I’m about as white-bread normal as they come. I’m a drinker, but a functioning one. I eat meat, but know it’s bad for my cholesterol.  I’m not a porn watcher, but I want it to be accessible (except for my kids). I watch a lot of football. I drive a car and have a bank account. There’s nothing “oppressed” about my life, and (for the most part) the society I live in is one set-up and designed to support me. I may bitch-and-moan when Americans stupidly vote Tea Party Republicans into office, but that’s just a principle thing. I and my family benefit from having a Republican controlled Congress. Paying less taxes just means I’m getting richer…my health care and retirement and whatnot is already paid for, and I live in a nice enough neighborhood of Seattle that if my kids end up going to public school they’ll be in one of the best.

It’s a disgusting abundance of privilege that I have.

[sorry…had to break to eat my cheese blintzes, fresh fruit, and sausage. Oh, and order another complimentary Bloody Mary. Business class, ya’ know?]

I’m not in the top 1% of Americans, probably not even the top 10%, but I’m well above “median income,” and I’ve never really suffered; and hell, there’s no real suffering in sight. I own a nice house, I’ve got no crushing debt (car and student loans were paid off long ago), and while two kids can mean a financial burden, I’m still able to get to a few Seahawks games. Whether or not people of the same sex can marry has no effect on my life; what does matters is if my cable and high speed internet are up-and-running. Regardless of whether or not I “support the troops,” the troops are certainly supporting me and my lifestyle. The fact that I have time and energy to complain about WotC or lack of diversity in films or the weather in Paraguay should tell you that truthfully, I really have no complaints at all.

Thus it’s a challenge for me to have any kind of “cred” when it comes to talking about changing game (design) culture.  I can’t talk from a background of being oppressed or underrepresented or misrepresented because, hey, I belong to the ruling class. And it’s not like I got this through hard work or metaphysical visualization-manifestation. I just happen to be born into the right place at the right time with the “right” gender-color-orientation. Dig?

So why bother? When the best you can be considered is an “ally to the cause” and the worst is some misguided dude with “white knight syndrome,” why the F even bother? Why not just continue to design shit without any secondary agenda? “For my children?” They’re already set on a course for being as privileged as myself (if not more so). Because of my “white guilt?” No: it’s hard to feel guilty about “writing what you know,” even if what you know isn’t incredibly diverse. Because it’s “different” or “novel?” Well, novel ideas are a better way to get on the market than recycled hash, but that’s hardly a reason to make the effort when the hash sells fine.

No. There are a couple-three reasons at work here (for me, anyway):

• There’s a problem in gaming and I don’t want to be part of the problem. The problem is, there’s a lot of white-male (sometimes juvenile) designers designing games for a white-male (sometimes juvenile) audience…not necessarily on a conscious level, mind, just because that’s what they know. And there are more people out there who game…or who might enjoy games…than just white males of a juvenile persuasion.
• Growing the hobby (i.e. creating more audience) is something I’m all about. It seems only logical (to me) that making games more inclusive (with inclusive language, concepts, art) are going to make some folks (who might otherwise have been “turned off”) more interested in exploring the hobby. Maybe not, but I don’t need to cater to the die-hard, grognardy, fans. There’s already people (designers/publishers) doing that and keeping those folks involved in the hobby.
• It’s the Goddamn “right thing to do.” That is to say, it’s not right to be exclusive when it comes to design…not when we live in a world where different cultures and backgrounds are afforded the same opportunity (and thus access) to the same games. If they’re there, why leave them out, or make them feel marginalized?

My wife is originally from Mexico (she’s lived steadily in the US since 1997). In years past, when I asked her to state her race (for example, on a census report) she said “Mexican.” Nowadays, she identifies as a “Latina” but that’s not really a race, either. Technically she is a mestizo, as are the vast majority of native Mexicans: a person of mixed (white) European ancestry and native Mesoamericans (“Indians”). Because nearly all of Mexico is “mestizo” they’ve stopped using the term, thus my wife’s lack of a term for herself. (she has absolutely zero identification with “Native Americans”). My wife is NOT white. Our children are white with dishwater blond hair and green eyes (like their papa), and they’re different enough that my wife has remarked she might be identified as “the help” when she’s out with them.

I asked my wife her opinion about the diversity (or rather, lack of diversity) in film-thang (she doesn’t care about games). She states that it doesn’t bother her and that she doesn’t care. She says she’s always considered it silly that people complain about underrepresentation in film because she “goes to movies to see other people anyway” (whether they’re white, or black, or blue-skinned). It doesn’t matter to her what ethnicity is cast in a film, unless it’s a piece about a particular culture or time period.

What IS of concern to her, and what IS important is the lack of strong female characters in film. Star Wars (for example) has white folks and non-white folks and alien folks…but why are they so over-whelmingly male? A couple bit parts aside, the only female character in the prequel trilogy is Padme, and what purpose does she really serve besides acting as a goal/objective for the (male) protagonists in the first couple films before being relegated to mere “set decoration” in Episode III?

Weak Sauce

So, my (non-white) wife would say lack of diversity/inclusion bothers her more when it’s gender inequality that’s on display. If she were a gamer, I’d imagine the same standard would apply: if she’s pretending to be a wizard or cyber-hacker it doesn’t matter whether she’s white or black or “troll-colored.” The equal representation of male and female (and active, protagonist female) is more important.

All right, this is getting long….maybe I’ll get back to this subject in a "Part 2," but right now I’m getting to land. Later, Gators.

[posted from Chicago O’Hare]

Happy Birthday To My Sweet Wife!

As one might imagine, I'm a little busy today. Will hopefully resume posting tomorrow or the next day.
: )

Cosplay

Happy Halloween from Paraguay!

Fast Paraguayan Fun Fact: Paraguay, as a country still trying to figure out its identity, has a shit-ton of random holidays...things like Kid's Day and Youth's Day and Friendship Day and Spring Day. "JB, people in the USA celebrate the first day of Spring, too...or at least mark it in passing." Yeah, but you don't see big banners put up across streets and decorations hung from lamp posts and lunch specials and people exchanging gifts and talking about "what I'm doing for Spring Day." It's like they're starved for things to celebrate.

So, it's not all that surprising when they borrow an American-style Halloween, too, though it's really not the same (this is one of those countries where everyone has big walls, no yards, and prominent razor wire...not the inviting household for trick-or-treaters...plus, see earlier posts regarding the perils of being a pedestrian in Asuncion). Still, my boy's preschool did a costume day ("no scary masks, please") and my wife, as is her usual thing, was up till three in the morning putting the finishing touches on it:

Robin assumes control of the Justice League.

That's my boy...the only one in the room who didn't have a store bought costume. You might not be able to tell, but the variety of suits on the rack was a little lacking. Superman, Iron Man, Hulk, Spider Man, and Buzz Lightyear for boys; Princess, Minnie Mouse, or Witch for girls. No female superheroes, no Star Wars, no monsters... No monsters?! Paraguayans don't do spicy food, and they don't do monster masks.

[but boy o boy do they LOVE candy!]

Diego wanted to be Robin after his Papa was dressed as Robin for a costume party a couple weeks ago. Why was Papa dressed as Robin? Because D loves to dress up as (and pretend to be/play) Batman, and he insists Papa play Robin. A 40-year old Boy Wonder with paunch and thinning hair. I'm always Robin...others in our house might be Superman or Supergirl or Wonder Woman or Batgirl (this was Mama's costume) or Green Lantern or Flash or whoever. JB never rates higher than "sidekick."

[when D was on his Iron Man kick for awhile, he DID let me play Rhodey to his Tony Stark. I didn't bother explaining I'm the wrong color...I was just happy to get a break from Robin]

Anyway, ever since since D saw me in my outfit (again, crafted by my wife), he's moved his obsession to Robin. Thus the new costume.

'Course it's only ONE of his costumes. In addition to dressing up as Batman or Aquaman (his two favorite superheroes) or Superman, D also enjoys dressing as a police officer, firefighter, pirate, or (most recently) a caballero (knight). In fact, we kit-bashed a knight costume for him from a bunch of plastic play-gear and this is what he plans on wearing when he goes trick-or-treating on Sunday (yes, that's November 2nd. It's even in a different neighborhood...well, really a gated cul-de-sac...that we have to drive to). My son loves to dress up and pretend and my wife and I support him in this, probably because we enjoy doing the same. We've often gone to absurd lengths to make our own Halloween costumes (especially my wife).

And yet, we only do this one time a year. We don't do conventions or ren fairs or cosplay. Heck, my wife doesn't even game, and I've never been one to LARP. It's kind of crazy...like we won't admit (or buy into) our deeper impulse to dress up and pretend except at socially acceptable times (like Halloween). I'm sure my love of "pretending" is what led me to pursue a degree in performing arts (acting). 'Course the last show I was in was...what, 2007? 2005? Certainly it's been a while since I got to put on a wig and costume for an "extended engagement."

Well, it is what it is. Perhaps the wife and I will start doing more costume events when we get back to Seattle, now that it's as much fun (if not more so) for our child. M is already in the process of making a "Wonder Woman" outfit for our six month old, though I'm seriously doubtful it'll be ready by Sunday. The question arises, "what IS such a costume for?" I honestly have no idea...it's my wife's thing. Far be it from me to rain on her creative expression.
; )

Got to go...hope everyone's has a happy one!

Halloween Jawas

Just in case anyone doubted that my child would share his father's geekiness, here's my 21 month old in the jawa costume his mother made for him (what is not pictured in the black mesh fabric "face" with attached glowing eyes/tea lights; it's pushed back into the hood to expose my son's smiling mug...I told you my wife is a lot more creative than myself). Jawas are pretty much his favorite thing of all time at the moment, though Star Wars in general is a big deal for him: the boy was very excited at all the Darth Vaders we saw walking the streets last night.

I had a brief moment of sorrow/depression this morning, when I realized that next year he'd require far less carrying by "papa"...would probably be running ahead to knock on doors and ring bells himself while I lagged behind. Ah, he's growing up so fast...I'm just trying to enjoy as much of his life as possible.

Tonight, I'll be play-testing my space opera game again, assuming I've got players showing up. If not, I think I'll start writing up my B/X space opera notes as an X-Plorers supplement...I don't really see anything scheduled on the horizon from Brave Halfling Press besides dungeon delving modules so I'm hopeful this won't be too much over-lap. My play-testing tonight is going to try some new "pacing" techniques, that should be cross-system adaptable...but who knows if they're going to work. I'll keep y'all in the loop.

Later.

Dragones, Navidad, y Comida Mexicana

"Dragons, Christmas, and Mexican Food"

Se acabaron las fiestas. The parties are over...at least for 2011. There's looking to be at least one more late nighter for the New Year, but the next few days should be on the quieter side. Kind of. I'm supposed to be singing Metallica covers with my wife's cousin's band at a bar tomorrow, part of a six-band set (I don't know what order we're in...sometime around 10pm) but I might bag it. The kids aren't bad, considering their age (about half mine or a little more), but only two of the members bothered to learn the song they told me to prepare (Iron Maiden's Hallowed Be Thy Name), and they want me to learn a SlipKnot song (*barf*) by tomorrow so I can "come in on the chorus."

I'll probably do it anyway...my chances at "rock n' rollin'" these days are slim and far between, and I can pretty much do Enter Sandman and Master of Puppets in my sleep...besides that's a lot closer to "singing" than Pantera or Trivium (the band's main influences...oh, and Slayer, of course). The things I do for family (and ego)...

But up until tonight, the partying has been pretty much non-stop since I arrived. Let's see...party Thursday, wedding on Friday, Christmas Eve (till 4am) on Saturday, Christmas Day (party, late night Mass, relatives, party) on Sunday, birthday party (for my son, who doesn't turn 1 till the 19th of January) on Monday (involving about 50+ assorted relatives), birthday party for my wife's other cousin (involving many, many more people) on Tuesday...

Today's Wednesday, right? Yeah, just (very loud) band practice and a quiet chocolate and churros with the wife and baby today. We did some laundry.

In between partying and stuffing myself with excellent food, I've managed to accomplish exactly 0 (zero) as far as writing is concerned. Hell, this is the first chance I've had to type ANYthing (the baby requires quite a bit of wrangling, too)...and I can see it's actually Thursday around 1:14am. And I should be hitting the hay soon.

However, I have managed to squeeze in enough reading time (on planes and busses and in quiet moments) to finish Anne McCaffrey's Dragonflight, something I've long been meaning to do. What an utterly fantastic book...I see how it launched such a successful (critically and popular-wise) series. I'll have to pick up the sequels when I'm back state-side. Just ridiculously good and interesting...it wasn't until about halfway through the thing I realized that it had not ripped off D&D's "chromatic spectrum" of dragons, having been written in 1969, well before Gygax and Arneson (and thus was probably part of the inspiration for the RPG).

And I have to say I prefer McCaffrey's version of dragons to those created by TSR. That is, her color/size/personality/role descriptives for dragons makes more "biological sense" to me than the different color = different breath weapon thang. And this despite the totally bizarre "telepathic/teleportation/time travel" abilities of the Pern dragons. I guess it's just a matter of taste, but her animal mounts had more personality and "reality" (for me) than any of the dragons in the Dragon Lance books (for example).

I have much more to say about the Dragonflight book (not pertaining to dragons), but I'll save that for a later post. I've had an epiphany or two reading these old school SciFi/Fantasy books (I'm halfway through MZB's classic Sharra's Exile, and I hope to finish it in the next couple days) and I want to collate my thoughts in a way that will be useful from a gaming perspective.

Now if you'll excuse me, I am going to bed. Have to get up early tomorrow and download SlipKnot.

R is for Romantic Entanglements

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic this month? Things necessary to take your D&D campaign from “eh, fantasy” to “kick ass.” And who doesn’t want that?]

R is for Romantic Entanglements.

A bit of a follow-up to the earlier post on offspring, the question might arise, how does one actually acquire children in the D&D game? Assuming one addresses the question at all (perhaps a BECMI player on the path of the Dynast immortal), “looking for love” can be a head scratcher for the average DM.

After all, the closest PCs will generally come to love in the D&D game is a random prostitute rolled up on the DMG’s “urban encounter tables” (more on THAT in a later post). Or I suppose one could be forced into a cheesy/loveless relationship via a heavy handed romance plot in an adventure module (Mines of Bloodstone, I’m looking at YOU).

Both of these are rather terrible ideas…the first because…well, because it’s not really chivalric love anyway (let alone the impersonality of rolling up random “romantic” encounters), and the second because…well, because it’s heavy handed and dumb besides.

And yet, while player characters can always become romantically entangled with each other, I wouldn’t recommend it…it can lead to all sorts of bad juju (I’m speaking from personal experience here).

Here’s the thing (isn’t there always a “thing” in these posts?)…here’s the thing: role-playing games are DIFFERENT from other artistic mediums that engage in telling stories (for example, books and film) in that they are COLLECTIVE. That is, there are multiple individuals not only participating in the activity of creating “what’s happening,” there are also multiple “starring roles” or “protagonists.”

And love stories generally only have two stars.

By the way, this holds true regardless of the love story being told…love triangles may involve three people, but two are always principle and one the “odd duck out.” Same with “less traditional love stories” (here I’m thinking of films like It’s Complicated and Brokeback Mountain where the principle lovers were already legally bound to others…despite being part of “the romantic story,” only the two main lovers were PRINCIPLE to the plot).

And yet, with a D&D group you have multiple players, each engaged in the game as their own “main character.” If one PC is in a romantic entanglement story with an NPC or (god forbid!) with another PC, it can often leave the other players feeling left out.

Why? Because love stories are powerful stories to tell…even in role-playing games.

This is one nice thing about computer RPGs that offer romantic subplots (think Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, etc.)…as there is only one player involved, such virtual romances are fine and dandy: there are no “other players at the table” that will get hurt by or feel left out of the imaginary romance. Same holds true for solo games (between one player, one GM)…for the gamers involved, one-on-one gaming allows maximum expression of one’s ego as the GM creates a world solely for the player’s amusement (and for the GM in the game it allows even greater control over what kind of stories are told…this is a two-way ego-stroking street).

But most tabletop games involve more than “one player, one GM (or console);” my current game seems to fluctuate between 6 and 12 players, with 7 and 8 being the usual number to show up. If I were to focus on one character’s “grand romance,” I’d probably be lynched…they get mad enough when characters with “wired reflexes” receive more actions/attacks in a round than the “mundane” PCs. I’m guessing that this, as much as anything else is a major reason DMs drop the subject of romance from their games altogether.

Still…isn’t that kind of lazy?

I’m not talking about character exploration here, I’m talking about adventure exploration and role-playing. And if you don’t think romance can be an adventure (even withOUT soul-searching character exploration), then at least maybe you’ll consider it to be an adventure GENERATOR.

• “Proving oneself” to a figure of romantic attraction has long been a part of the fantasy genre…what better reason to send a dashing hero (or heroine) after the local dragon/ogre/bog witch.
• “Rescuing the damsel/dumbass in distress” has also long been a subject of the fantasy adventure. But being kidnapped by the mustachioed villain (or orc raiding party) is kind of a burned out idea. I prefer this as a means of INTRODUCING player characters to potential NPC romances (and no, the NPCs don’t always have to be “beautiful incompetents;” how many times have the PCs gotten beaten up in a dungeon crawl? Perhaps the NPC is a hardy adventurer that was simply “the last man/woman standing” and surrendered to the bad guys rather than being hacked to pieces).
• “Quests”…to break enchantments, or to rescue the NPC’s kingdom/village/family are also great adventure starters (definitely different from answering the tavern classifieds)…plus saving the township from plague or drought or monsters will usually land you in the good graces of potential in-laws.
• “Elopement” is a whole different type of rescue option…who’s to say the object of one’s affection isn’t already engaged (perhaps through an arranged marriage) to someone else. Eluding the in-laws and authorities can be its own adventure (especially if you don’t want to blow up your lovers parents with fireballs and such).
• “Getting rich” is a specific type of “proving oneself” often found in fairy tales…call it the Aladdin Game. Sometimes proving yourself worthy of matrimony means building that castle/palace FIRST (especially if the spouse-to-be is royalty). Achieving Name level to earn that barony or noble title may be 100% necessary depending on the laws/customs of your campaign world and the heights to which one aspires.
• “Compatibility Issues” – how to put this delicately. It may be that one’s love is for someone physically unsuitable for the character. Usually this isn’t a story of twisted/aberrant romance; it’s a matter of falling for someone who’s been cursed/polymorphed into a human/humanoid form (or vice versa). While the characters might love each other, the polymorphed individual probably wants to return to his/her own form. How this happens (and what the two will do then) is the stuff of adventure tales.

However, even with these ideas, you still have the two sticky wickets: introducing the characters and involving the other players.

Ah, for the days of ElfQuest where one simply rolled for random “recognition” (“soul attraction”) whenever encountering a new elf tribe. Here’s a very simple mechanic one might employ (or tweak and adapt to their own game) that borrows from the old EQ:

1. Unless a PC is a determined bachelor (as decided by the player), there should be a certain random chance for attraction diced by the DM whenever encountering/interacting with a significant population with the appropriate desirables (for example, a human magic-user is probably not going to find a potential mate when visiting the local dwarf kingdom, unless the player makes it clear his character has “unusual tastes.”
2. Upon entering said population (or encountering individuals of the correct orientation/gender on the road/underground). The DM should roll percentage dice equal to the character’s level. THIS PERCENTAGE CHANCE IS NEVER GREATER THAN 10. If the PC is actively searching for someone to woo (“I need an heir for my dominion!”) double the percentage chance. No rolls are made for characters UNDER 4th LEVEL unless the PC is “actively searching;” inexperienced adventurers are too busy with the early part of their career to worry about love.
3. The percentage roll is made for each PC; however, a successful roll ONLY indicates that a potential match is available in the town. Unless the PC actually interacts with the population, the match will not be encountered/discovered. The DM can feel free to keep the result of the roll a secret.
4. The character tends to find love in the place he or she frequents. If she stops off at the temple to make a tithing, perhaps the attraction is with a worshipper or clergy member. If the character pays his respects at the king’s court, perhaps it is a member of the royal family or suitable court person. If the PC spends all his time in a tavern down by the docks, well…you get the picture.
5. The indication that there is a match indicates a mutual attraction, but NOT that the NPC is necessarily open to advances. A modified Reaction roll should still be made (and can be adjusted for things like kind words, flowers, a slain dragon’s head, or ample dowry offered), using Charisma adjustments as normal:

2 or less…Severe detriments to relationship*
3-5…NPC spurns advance*
6-8…NPC open to being wooed
9-11…NPC open to marriage, professes love
12+…NPC open to anything, including elopement, affairs, and impropriety!

Failure indicates the attraction is still there, but the PC is going to have to try harder…there are some “fixes” that the NPC just can’t seem to do without…a bath, better table manners, a fatter bankroll, perhaps even the need for more demure attire (female adventurers). SEVERE DETRIMENTS indicate there are forces outside of the NPC’s control at work (he or she is already engaged/married, is of a significantly higher station, is promised as a sacrifice to the local dragon, etc.) that need to be overcome for the relationship to occur.

As for the other PCs, the important thing is to A) give them the same chance of having romance occur (it is lack of CONSISTENCY that really hurts), and B) when it’s not their turn, make sure they have ways to become involved in the relationship. Certainly they can accompany their fellow adventurer on quests and rescues (and even aid/protect illicit lovers in their elopement!)…but also consider they can act as go betweens with parents (to arrange plans of matrimony) or act as witnesses, bodyguards, preachers for the wedding (clerics!), or provide testimony to the sound character of the PC (if the PC looks a little scurrilous and shady). Hell, dwarves can forge rings and magic-users/elves can enchant them (or provide other types of entertainment for the reception). As a single session (or two) “off” from the usual dungeon delving adventure, such an event can be a fun affair.

Oh, yeah…one more thing: I would suggest that any player who actually ties the knot and gets married receives an AUTOMATIC LEVEL UP.

What? Why? Because the act of making a marriage commitment is a big step in a person’s life and lends a certain degree of gravitas, maturity, and self-confidence to an individual…all of which I feel is enough to add a couple extra hit points and push one to the next plateau of strength of arms (combat ability) and heightened awareness (saving throws) if at the appropriate level break-point.

A character that gets divorced or loses his/her spouse doesn’t lose the bonus level…but a PC may only receive the bonus level ONCE no matter how many times he or she gets married. “Been there, done that.”
: )