F is for Forestry

I missed the April A-Z Blog Challenge this year, so I'm doing my own...in June. This year, I will be posting one post per day discussing my AD&D campaign, for the curious. Since 2020, this is the ONLY campaign I run. Enjoy!

F is for Forestry and Forests, something the Pac Northwest has in abundance. All apologies to Davy Crockett, the Evergreen State is "the greenest State in the land of the free;" fight me!

Ha! Actually, when one compares forest cover to square mileage, Washington ranks only 25th at 52..74%, behind Tennessee (52.83% and 23rd) and well behind Maine's #1 position (89.46%!). Blame Eastern Washington with its vast stretches of farmland (or "vast stretches of nothing" as I used to call it). But we do have thick, dense forests from the Pacific coast to the eastern foothills of the Cascades, all (or mostly) evergreen. You can see why a native Seattleite like myself would operate under the illusion that we're all lumber jacks 'round these here parts. 

Just my side of the mountains (at least till you get out to Okanogan and the northeast part of the State). 

Still, it's a D&D campaign and forested wilderness is a necessity...after all, I need some place to stash all the rangers and druids. And for me, these guys are squarely over on my side of the state's political border (i.e. the Cascades), though you'll find them poking around the Inland Empire on occasion.

I've described my rangers before, and I haven't stopped loving them since I made the mental transition from floofy Aragorn to Jeremiah Johnson. These guys are rough, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest that PC rangers use charisma as a "dump stat:" it doesn't affect their ability to gain (animal) followers at high level and it's reflective of long periods of time spent living in the woods and not talking to folks. Or only talking to them with an axe. 

If you know what I mean.

; )

Taciturn. Yep, that's the word of the day for rangers. These guys prowl the forested slopes of the Cascades and Olympics making the land safer for the settlements of human woodsmen living on the edge of the wilds. Any half-elf ranger grew up on the peninsula, more likely than not, and their human parent was probably a ranger, too. They are the avenging protectors of humankind (whether they get along with and are appreciated by their fellow humans or not). Gosh, they're a great archetype.

Then we have the druids.

We do have druids on the east side of the Cascades, but they're still in the shadow of the mountains where there's still plenty of forest. I set N2: The Forest Oracle in Thorp, and the Village of Hommlet (with its "Old Religion" druid cult) is set in Twisp. But that latter town is about the farthest east you'll find druids...the wood elves of Colville hold no great love for druid types and do not encourage their sect in the northeastern forests. As with rangers, if your half-elf is a druid, you probably grew up on the Olympic Peninsula (almost certainly the west side of the Cascades) and your human parent was probably a druid, too.

Druids are an interesting bunch. I've mentioned the inspiration my campaign has taken from Bob Pepper's artwork, specifically his DragonMasters card game. Well, one of the "suits" of those cards are the Druids, and one might well wonder if my druids bear any resemblance to Pepper's. The short answer is: no, but there is a little more to it than that. See, Pepper's druids DO make an appearance in my setting...as the (human) Atlantean refugee types that were part of the campaign when originally conceived as South American. Those guys? The shipwrecked Numenoreans that every fantasy campaign needs? They're the folks populating the greater Seattle area.

Yeah, Atlanteans as the Denny Party. Welcome to Hollywood, people.

So the druid religion is tied to the forests of western Washington (i.e. west of the Cascades) and thus tied to the Sea Kings (as I call them...though I'm pretty sure I swiped that term from an MZB novel) who have settled the City of Seven Hills, thus uniting form with function to close the circle. We'll talk about the Sea Kings later, but suffice is to say they're a pretty godless bunch (unlike the actual Denny party, who were devout...if pretty conservative...Christians) with a lot of their own magical woo-woo stuff going on. 

We'll leave Tacoma for a later post, too. There's a reason why there's no "Emerald Empire." Not yet.

Anyhoo...foresters. The sea and the woods have long been the lifeblood of the western Washington economy, but my setting doesn't have the maritime economy of the real world (because there isn't anything beyond the west coast...just endless ocean). As such, it is the forests that are of prime importance, and much of the shipping that does occur (along the coast, down to the mouth of the Columbia) includes a substantial amount of timber.  In a D&D world full of monsters, deep dark forests would be especially perilous to "puny humans," if it wasn't for the work of the rangers and druids. Not that they aren't dangerous individuals themselves, but they act as a balancing 'check' against hostile forces that would quickly overwhelm small communities of ship-building woodsmen. The unicorns of my world aren't very nice.

Working Cycles

Been doing "world building stuff" the last few days. It's slow going.

The advantage of using a real world setting is that a lot of things have been done for you: placement of natural features (mountains, rivers, lakes, etc.), lists of resources, climate maps, topography, vegetation, etc. All that stuff is "in place" and easy to suss out given access to the internet and a decent atlas (which I have).

The hard part is dealing with the people of 11,000 years ago. Not a lot of info about that period of time, and "accepted" archaeology would make the indigenous populations a bunch of tiny family units and "tribes" of neolithic cave folk.

Which is definitely NOT what I'm doing. Prehistoric: yes. Stone age: no. This is a prehistoric iron (and bronze) age, based heavily on a mix of Atlantis mythology mixed with sword & sorcery fiction. It's not Kull the Conqueror...more Edgar Cayce, MZB, and Peter Timlett's Seedbearers trilogy...the main idea based on the idea that there was a more advanced civilization that will (eventually) fall on a very hard dark age long before our (current) recorded history begins. Call it the Orichalcum Age of man. Or, perhaps, the Tumbaga Age (since tumbaga appears to be the orichalcum equivalent in South America).

[oh, yeah: plus dwarves and elves and goblins, etc. It IS D&D after all. My world has dragons...though maybe not blue ones, as lightning-breathing monsters are a little too "Friday night monster flick" for my taste]

But, of course, there's no record of communities in South America from more than the last couple-four centuries, and precious little info from pre-colonial times that would be useful to world building. Furthermore, my deliberate placement of the setting at the beginning of the Holocene epoch, means the climate (especially in the region I'm concerned with) is far more cool-temperate in range, resulting in vastly different flora, fauna, and agricultural practices.

So I'm cheating. I'm operating under the assumption that life moves in more-or-less regular cycles. Communities (towns and cities) tend to form in the same places for the same reasons (convenience of landscape, access to resources, etc.); populations are greatly reduced in number but, so far as glaciation allows, they're more or less the same as today. Livestock and crops might change over 10,000 years, but not their presence, nor placement in the overall geography. Mined resources are the same, of course, though with reductions in the amount of ore produced.

[I'm actually using 16th century gold production rates, divvied up proportionally by region based on 21st century percentages...calculates out to a bit more than 3.3 tons (107k ounces) of gold per year in regions south of Panama. This works under the assumption that the population is pretty close to the same, that Atlantean/dwarven/elven mining methods are at least as advanced as Spain's in the 1500s, and that there was more gold and gold more easily/conveniently found.  Consider that modern accounts of pre-modern gold mining generally ignores what was being done in the Americas prior to colonization, and that a LOT of gold was found when Europeans did arrive]

Names of places are a problem, of course. Wikipedia states there are about 600 indigenous languages in Latin America, and I don't see myself learning Quechua-Mayan just to make the setting feel more "authentic" (and it's doubtful that any of these languages were the same thousands of years ago anyway...). On the other hand, making up "fantasy names" for towns is a pretty ridiculous prospect. I suppose I could simply research the etymology of existing names and come up with English equivalents, but that poses its own problems. For example, Cochabamba (the 4th largest city in Bolivia) takes its name from a transliteration of the Quechua word for the region which means "Lake Plain." However, the city itself was called Llajta which just means "town." There's probably more than a few llajtas in South America.

In the short term, I'm using the modern names for places, landmarks, etc. because it would be damn near impossible to locate things otherwise using modern maps and atlases. If I told you to locate Antofagasta (in Peru), you could easily do so with an internet search; if I renamed it Salt Lake City (which is, more or less, how the name translates)...well, you can see the difficulty there, right?

Maybe I should organize communities
around language isolates.

Still, work progresses and I'm enjoying the world building (despite my complaints). And parts of it are fun (locating dwarves in a hilly region of Brazil known for its titanium deposits, for example; who needs mithril-steel!). It's just slooow going.

Okay, my kids are up. Got to go.

Morality and the Cosmic Struggle

[quick note: I've decide to try moderating comments for the time being as I've been getting an excessive amount of spam lately, and it's become a real irritation]

This isn't really what I planned on writing about, but after reading Father Dave's recent post, I figured it was time to finally throw down my two cents on alignment, my (current) thoughts on the concept, and how it will apply in my game setting.

Over the years, I've gone back and forth on the subject many, many times. My current stance (which I've had for less than six months) is to use alignment in my game. Multiple reasons go into this decision that I [still] don't want to enumerate [yet]. However, I will assure the reader that NONE of those reasons stem from a personal desire to simplify the game ("Rules As Written!") nor make my DMing life easier. Finding a way to use alignment in a meaningful and effective way is actually more difficult and not a headache to be readily embraced; it certainly isn't a headache I've found terribly enjoyable.

Still, I think alignment is important to my game world, as the cosmology of the setting is at least as important as the physical geography to its overall design.

SO...having said that (and having spent the last few days going though the OD&D monsters and figuring out the IFs and HOWs needed to slot them into my setting), please indulge me a moment to talk about my personal viewpoints on evil and how it works in a game context.

Father Dave's post discusses the importance of evil as a concept for an RPG; how reducing the game setting to one of moral relativism (if I may be allowed to paraphrase) makes the struggle between selfish individuals (and the stories told of those struggles) both boring and pointless. I assume some folks would take umbrage with this statement, as "boring" can be recognized as a matter of taste (television shows that I find tedious are undoubtably stimulating to others) and "pointless" ...well, what can be more pointed than watching humans (and/or tieflings, etc.) struggle in the face of adversity? That IS the point of The Game, after all.

But I understand the good padre is writing from his stance as a Christian theologian and I respect his perspective.

[ooo...I can see the potential for this discussion to get nasty. Lots of people get LOTS of things out of D&D besides any potential "meaning" or morality lesson, people who hold the game on an equally high (or higher) pedestal. I really, really don't want to have that debate here. Please don't go down that particular road in the comments; yes, I understand D&D holds a lot of juice for a lot of people of all stripes and persuasions...]

For ME, it is important that my campaign setting is sensible; if the setting doesn't make sense to me, I will (eventually) become tired of and frustrated with the nonsensical elements until I chuck the whole thing...something that has happened many, many times to me in the past. I'd rather have a game setting that will last, oh say, a hundred years or so (enough time that it should outlive me) and my best strategy for doing so is picking an epoch in our real world past that is so far removed from today that who knows WHAT might have happened "way back then" (knowledge does tend to get lost after a few thousand years...). However, making use of our Real World means using a real world cosmology or, at least, a close approximation given the circumstances of the setting and the rules of the game; that, to me, is sensible.

So then what is "evil" as I believe it? Father Dave defines evil as the absence of God. "Goodness" is the same as God...God is the source of all goodness. The more you remove good/God from the equation the higher the degree of evil; the padre compares evil to cold, and God/goodness to warmth. Cold increases the more you remove yourself from the source of heat; add heat and cold is diminished. Easy-peasy...that's a fairly typical Christian perspective on the way the cosmos functions.

My own take is a little more New Age-y (I'm not the world's greatest Christian by any stretch): God is All; All is One. "Evil" comes from denying this fact...by separating ourselves (through thought and/or action) from the truth (or Truth) that All is One. Forgetting our place and our purpose as "higher beings," parts of God's whole, destined and designed to do God's will because we are one with God. Forgetting our higher purpose...or ignoring it, or working against it...results in the only "sin" that matters: selfishly separating ourselves from God. This causes suffering in the whole (for All is One)...it is a sin against God, against ourselves, and against our fellows for we are all part of a single whole.

But why does such sin (or the possibility of it) exist? Here, I'll take a page from Tolkien and draw the analogy that Eternity is like a grand symphony, composed of many notes, chords, rhythms, and movements. Only with an omniscient understanding can its whole be observed at once; only with the perspective of God can it be seen how one part leads to the next, how each portion is necessary to the whole. The struggles and challenges of those humans residing on our planet may seem terrible and terrifying...or petty and sordid...when viewed with only a limited ability to perceive. But that limitation, too, is part of the overall scheme and design of the composition.

Putting that into D&D language: I am using the three-point alignment system of Law, Neutrality, and Chaos in my setting. A Lawful person is one who actively does God's will (purposefully, though regardless of whether or not there exists understanding). "Persons" mean creatures with a level of intelligence rising to the level of sentience; "God's will" generally means living in harmony (with others and with nature), and generally promoting the same. There are very few species in my game that are (culturally) of the Lawful disposition; most are angelic beings.

By my definitions, anyone NOT actively doing God's will would be in the "evil" category (to greater or lesser degree), but the difference between Neutrality and Chaotic is a preferred distinction for my setting. While there are certainly selfish people out there who are more interested in their personal  desires than following the Law of One, not all are so wicked as to actively be working AGAINST the cosmic design (i.e. trying to create MORE separation from God). This, then, is the distinction: a Neutral person is not working to create a closer bond with God, nor are they working to undermine oneness (and, generally due to ignorance and disinterest, these may perform deeds at various times that move the needle one way or the other: helping an individual in need one day, while cheating someone else another). These maintain the "status quo" of life on Earth, perpetuating its cycles, and maintaining the possibility to join one side or the other. In contrast, the Chaotic person, by thought and deed, continuously pushes to destroy One-ness through selfish aggrandizement, exploitation of others, and general awfulness.

Regarding non-sentient beings: most are of the Neutral alignment (all "natural" creatures, for example) unless their very nature is an offense to the natural order: undead creatures, for example, or certain magical abominations created by stray and terrible magics (like trolls). "Demons" are not "fallen angels" in the Milton sense, but there are certain ethereal beings whose interaction with humans usually take a malignant turn (for the humans), much the same way that interacting with other "forces" (fire, gravity, etc.) have the potential to cause harm to the unwary; such forces are labeled as "Chaotic" due to the danger their interference poses to humans attempting to follow God's will. Such creatures (and those who harness them as tools in their quest for personal power) provide a steady source of conflict in the setting.

Hope that all makes sense.

This, by the way, has brought up other headaches...er, "interesting challenges"...with regard to the design of the campaign's mega-dungeon. Licancabur is a natural formation, one that in recent centuries has been sacred and holy to the people of the region, much as such sites (Olympus, Rainier, Danali) have been sacred to other peoples throughout history. Moreover, nature may be aloof and uncaring to the wants and needs of human beings, but that doesn't make it evil...merely dangerous. So what "lawful" reason could there be for adventurers to delve its ancient depths, explore its hollowed out volcanic tubes, slay its denizens, and pillage its treasures? If Licancabur is not some sort of gateway to hell, what gives them the right to ravish it, sword in hand?

Corruption. Perversion. The temple has become a den of inequity. The hallowed halls are defiled with mutants and monsters of the vilest sort. Something must be done to return the place to a state of grace, though it may take years, and the blood of many would-be heroes, to do so.

And, for now, that's enough to kick-off a campaign. Because my setting takes place some 9000 years before the time of Christ, there are no Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions in the game, but there are religious orders and clerics. The line between magic-users and clerics is very thin, in my setting, the difference being mainly one of perspective and mission. Only followers of the Law of One have access to the full range of healing powers; worshippers of false gods and natural powers are little more than hedge wizards, and idolatrous demon-worshippers have no access to healing magic at all, being only capable of harnessing the powers of malice and harm for their personal "benefit."

Magic-users as a class hold themselves aloof from matters of the spirit and worship, but they are aware of the way the cosmos works, and ignore it at their own peril. Many wizards, lacking wisdom or lost in their pursuit of knowledge and power, will tread the path of chaos. Bad things undoubtably await them (in this life or in the next), but such a road will not curtail their progression.

My use of alignment in D&D isn't meant to dictate behavior, neither with regard to players, nor their characters. With regard to player characters, alignment is a stamp and statement of where their souls lie in terms of the cosmic struggle. There is no requirement to "act one's alignment:" presumably, a character's actions will stem from a [Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic] motivation, and even if not, so what? Individuals slip up, make mistakes, and act against type. Lancelot sleeps with the wife of his friend and liege. Hercules gets drunk and kills his family. Darth Vader decides he'd rather go out a hero than watch his son be murdered. Do such deeds make up for a lifetime of goodness/badness? Maybe, maybe not...the player is free to discuss a possible alignment change with the DM (me) if she wants to entertain that possibility.

Regardless, I'll assume that the character is doing plenty of acts "off-screen" that readily bolster and justify the alignment chosen.

Actions have consequences...all sorts of consequences. Kill all the lizard men in the local swamp and you have no lizard men. In some ways, this is a good thing: fewer dangers in the swamp (if the lizard men were apt to ambush unwary travelers), perhaps more game to be found by the locals (since the lizard men aren't hunting it). Perhaps, though, the lizard men acted as a natural "buffer zone" between the local village and a different threat of some sort, a more dangerous tribe of creatures that will now take their place. Perhaps the lizard folk worshipped a black dragon and their occasional "sacrifices" kept the thing from looking for prey elsewhere. Perhaps they hunted a particular type of animal that is difficult for a non-scaly hunter to eradicate, and now the unchecked pest threatens to overrun the swamp...maybe some sort of giant spider whose venom was ineffective against the lizard people (but is fatal to humans).

The point is: the genocide of the lizard people isn't necessarily evil...it may have been an expedient solution to a very real problem. But actions have consequences, and there may have been more than one solution to "the lizard man question." Finding a harmonious approach is, generally, the Lawful way, as I'm defining the term...but sometimes, stamping out a Chaotic threat IS the "Lawful" method needed.

But that isn't to say my world is one of moral relativism; I personally don't believe in moral relativism, and since my setting is my own, personal creation, I get to determine the truth of the matter. So there are absolutes of good and evil, right and wrong, broadly defined as moving in alignment with God or against God. And unfortunately, for most humans trapped in a fallible bodies of limited perception, having actual knowledge of what is God's will is pretty much impossible to fathom. Which is why we rely on the wisdom of priests and the teachings of religions for guidance. It's only too bad that the priesthood and writers of religious tracts are (mostly) composed of fallible humans of limited perception.

*ahem* Anyway, having a system of alignment allows me to shape the scope of my setting in (morally) absolute terms: these creatures are an abomination, these magic items are designed for the use of Law, these spells can only be used in the service of Chaos, etc. Alignment allows me to steer the tone of the game and provides a convenient shorthand for defining the nature of the cosmic struggle in my own morally absolute terms. It provides another layer to the physics of the game world, an extra dimension of challenge to be navigated, an additional meaning to the experience of play.

Again: its purpose is not an edict of player (or character) behavior.

That being said, it would probably be strange to have both Lawful and Chaotic characters in the same adventuring party.

The Fall of Gondolin

I have three fat hardcovers sitting on my nightstand ("bedside table") at the moment: The New Urban Crisis (by Richard Florida), Crude Volatility (by Robert McNally), and The Fall of Gondolin (Tolkien, compiled and edited by his son Chris). Two of these were procured from my public library, the third was purchased new from the local Barnes and Noble.

Guess which one I chose to own.

I've been wanting to write a post for a while about fallen "lost kingdoms" in the fantasy setting...not only the ubiquitousness of the trope (going all the way back to Plato's Atlantis), but the absolute usefulness of such for your fantasy adventure game (or literature, for that matter). Having an Atlantis (or Lemuria or Numenor or Valeria or whatever) can be used to EXPLAIN so many things in your setting...like, where did these weird monsters come from, who invented magic, why are there dungeons dotting the wilderness, etc. Not only that, but with enough time having passed between the fall of the ancient empire and the "present day," there's plenty of excuse for a DM to change meanings/explanations with "new revelations," as warranted by situation and circumstance.

[plus, I have to say that I love...and am happy to steal...certain concepts that come out of these fallen empire tales. I think Martin's "Valerian steel" makes a great justification for a +2 magic blades, for example (+1 blades being of the "castle-forged" variety) and I once did a whole magic system based on MZB's Fall of Atlantis book]

But Gondolin is a little different.

I've long been fascinated with Gondolin. Really. I purchased my copy of The Silmarillion probably in the early 2000s (before I started this blog, but not long before) mainly to read about this place (Gondolin) that I'd only heard of...anecdotally...in Tolkien's more famous novels (though wasn't I glad to find all the other juicy fantasy goodness therein!). I'm almost positive my first exposure to "Gondolin" as a concept was during my reading of The Hobbit (sometime in elementary school) when Elrond informs the protagonists that their swords were made in Gondolin for "the Goblin Wars" and that Glamdring had once been worn by the king of Gondolin.

And I'm sure that I probably confused Gondor with Gondolin the first time I started reading The Lord of the Rings (around middle school)...though by the time I finished the trilogy (late in high school) I managed to figure out these were two VERY different things in Middle Earth, in terms of both place and history.

The Fall of Gondolin book is new, a compilation of all the tales written of Tuor (a human transplant to the elven stronghold) and the final days of the city-state, plus commentary and history provided by Chris Tolkien. It is not a single tale, but a record of the many times Tolkien sat down and rewrote the thing. After all, it was the first of his (written) stories of "Middle Earth." For those who haven't read it, I'll provide am all-too-brief synopsis:

Tuor a pseudo-neanderthal hobo wanders the wild coastline for many years, wishing he had a boat. One day a god rises from the sea and gives him a message to deliver to Gondolin, along with an elven Sancho Panza sidekick to show him the secret entrance to the city, which is hidden inside this circle of mountains. The message: the elves of Gondolin need to stop sitting on their duffs and take the fight to Melko (later Morgoth, AKA Satan) or their city will fall. High King Turgon likes the young man but has zero intention of marching to war when he's spent centuries building up his arsenal behind the most siege-resistant city that ever existed. Tuor quickly gives up his task, partly because he prefers civilization but mostly because he's smitten with Idril, the king's daughter. Once he's shaved and groomed, she likes him, too, and they get married.

Unfortunately, there's another elf, Maeglin (cf. Iago) who's not thrilled with Tuor's arrival, and doubly irritated with his marriage into the royal family (something he hoped for himself). While wandering in the mountains, he's captured by Melko's minions and turns coat, agreeing to aid in taking the city. Melko starts kitting out his army in plans for a sneak attack.

Meanwhile, Idril has a premonition/dream that things are about to fall apart and tells Tuor that he needs to gather some loyal henchmen, dig a secret escape tunnel out of the wine cellar, and  don't tell Maeglin anything. Fortunately, Tuor is like most of us and has an easier time following directions when they come from his wife than when they come from God. When the sneak attack arrives during a city-wide holiday party he's not totally unprepared and is able to muster the city's defenses (as much as can be managed against a combined force of balrogs, metal-plated fire-wyrms, and more orcs than the world has ever seen). It's a lost cause and a lot of heroes die heroically, but Tuor is able to escape the final sack of the city...along with his wife, child, and a few hundred followers...and make it back to the safety of the wilderness. The End.

[Maeglin, in case anyone was wondering, gets thrown off a building (by Sancho, I think)]

It's a nifty little tale, both vivid and gripping, and I find it fascinating that Tolkien wrote it in 1917 while recovering from trench fever during the Great War (i.e. World War I). It was the first story he wrote of his Middle Earth "mythos," long before his children were born and he started telling them hobbit stories at bedtime. It was based in large part on his experience with a mind-shattering war, and it is the foundational piece around which he had to fit all his other later stories (the Simarils, the War of the Ring, etc.). He attempted re-writes of the thing multiple times over the course of his life, but only his first draft was ever completed...though for me, despite its flaws, it reads with the kind of mythic majesty that one only finds in the fiery inspiration that first births such creations.

[I'm not really trying to be "poetic" with that last sentence...I'm trying to sum up my feeling on the subject in a single thought. I've had similar experiences with my own writing (at times); I've known other artists who had similar experiences with their works of art...not just writing, but visual, or musical. Sometimes some raw creativity gets lost in later attempts at refinement. Perhaps that's one of the reasons that we tend to hold the works of young artistic geniuses in high esteem, as over time the fire dims and one's accomplishment shifts to longevity and quantity of output from actual, creative quality. Maybe...but I digress]

Anyway, for a D&D setting, such an event can serve some of the same purposes as any other "fallen kingdom" story. It can explain why a people (elves, in this case) are scattered and few and don't build cities or particularly large communities. It can explain why certain magic artifacts have been scattered about (looting, refugees). It can provide a large adventure-site for exploration (if you can find one of the secret ways that lead to its ruins)...one somewhat easier to get to than a sunken island.

For me, I also look at the tale as one with a lesson to be learned regarding good and evil. Well, maybe more of a reminder than a "lesson." It's a reminder that when there's evil in world, evil that we're aware of, we need to find the courage to confront it, rather than sit in our comfortable, protected strongholds...especially if you have the power to do so. Turgon was given a great gift in Gondolin: a place to build his city in peace and security, a place to grow his people, a place with the time and resources to equip them with the tools needed to wage war against a real force of evil in the world (Melko). And then he sat on them. And did nothing. And a god sent a messenger to tell him to get it in gear. And he still sat, comfortable and complacent and secure.

And while he did that, evil bided its time, and found a way to destroy everything Turgon had created.

Maeglin was a bad actor who helped bring down Gondolin, but there are always bad actors. Appease one...or exile him or make him a "non-person"...and another one will probably, eventually show up to spoil your applecart. Even if Maeglin had not been tempted by evil left unchecked, someone would have. That is what evil does: it sways us to its side and corrupts us, makes us forget our better, higher purpose. Tolkien's allegory is often blunt in this regard (orcs being corrupted elves, balrogs being corrupted angels, etc.), but Maeglin is a far more subtle one...and just as true.

We live in an imperfect world, and we are imperfect people. It makes for a good testing ground for us, a place to develop our souls...it also (to use Tolkien's creation allegory) makes for a rather amazing symphony of divine music, when one can see it from a "higher perspective," filled with dazzling notes of touching beauty. But that development of our souls requires struggle...painful struggle at times. No, we can't ever achieve "total victory" over capital-E evil, no more than we can ever file off all the flaws that lurk in the shadows of our own hearts. But then, "victory over evil" isn't really the point...it is the struggle, the fact that you have the courage to try, and the conviction to endure the test...to strive against that which we know is wrong IS the point. The striving is what matters.

Failing to stand against evil may buy you some time, but it always, eventually leads to ruin.

Nothing lasts forever.

Crazy Train

Now where was I...oh, right: going off the rails.

The last couple days have been spent mostly researching ancient history, and the pseudo-science "archaeological" study of goofy, woo-woo lost cultures (like Atlantis). It would just be so useful if we had real, working time machines and an ability to go back and truly document ancient history (you know, when exactly did the dinosaurs die, who built the damn Giza pyramids, who was mining copper out of the Americas and exporting it to Eurasia to fuel the bronze age, etc.). I don't even need to go back and see Jesus healing lepers and such...just let me fly around the globe circa 9000 BCE and see what was going on. I promise I won't try to put modern Egyptologists out of business. Heck, I'll even agree to stay west of the Prime Meridian; I never had much interest in China anyway.

*sigh* So many people arguing so many crazy things on the internet. So much history tainted with bias and agendas. And so so soooo much of our history unknown. Radiocarbon dating isn't wholly  accurate, and our written material (what we can translate) just doesn't withstand the forces of entropy for more than a few centuries. Unless they're inscribed in gold, or other precious metal, that is...but then, such "books" of that type were likely melted down for ready cash long ago by folks who couldn't decipher them anyway. Or confiscated by the Vatican. Or whatever.

But you folks don't want to to hear about all that stuff...let's talk about games!

SO...one of the purposes in writing the new fantasy heartbreaker (recall that I've already got a pseudo-heartbreaker under my belt with Five Ancient Kingdoms), was to get something down that was more like "Basic" D&D. Yes, funhouse-style gaming...though, now the specifics of the setting are starting to make this look like a long-term sandbox-style campaign setting. ANYway...part of getting back to "basics" was going back to those funny-shaped dice that D&D helped popularize...all those D8s, D4s, and D12s (not to mention D20s!). I wanted to make a game that people would recognize, even if it was a "little different."

Then I started looking at Star Wars.

Specifically Fantasy Flight Game's new Star Wars RPGs (Edge of Empire, Age of Rebellion, etc.). I could find surprisingly little posted on-line about these games (considering the production value and general popularity of the setting)...then again, I didn't spend time perusing the FFG forums. I know there are people playing it. I know there are even more people who simply own it (I want to own it...the artwork and production values are stunning!). The main knock people seem to have (and there aren't all that many negative reviews out there, please realize) is the proprietary dice required to play with their weird symbols (as opposed to numbers or pips).

Personally, I'm not terribly into a this kind of gimmick (says the guy who has special "zero dice" commissioned for sale with 5AK...hypocrite, much?). *AHEM* Personally, I am NOT really into this kind of gimmick when it leads to overly-complicated mechanics that are hard to decipher (how hard is it to read "zero" on a six-sided die? Not bloody-damn hard!), but the REASON behind it (to introduce narrative aspects into the standard mechanics of the game with a single simple dice roll) isn't a bad one. Just one that was kind of clunkily executed.

So I started brainstorming an easier way to do the same thing. And that's where my "basic" idea starts to fall apart.

See, one thing I really wanted to return to was the "roll D20" to hit, to save, to everything. People love those little 20-sided dice and I wanted to give 'em to them. There were three main mechanics in Moon, and all of them used a D20 mechanic. I was intending to keep these mechanics for the new iteration. But now...well, now it's going to be a "roll 2D10" instead.

Bell curves. Nerds like me who look at dice and percentages (well, and maybe some hard-core gamblers, too) know that rolling 2D10 is a lot different from rolling a D20 (and not just because 'you can't roll a 1'). When rolling a D20, each number (1-20) has an equal chance of being rolled (5%) and all "+"s and "-"s from, say, ability scores or level move the needle in simple increments of 5%.

2D10 is different. The percentage chance of rolling very high or very low is much smaller compared to numbers "in the middle." Which, when considering a "roll over target number" scenario (as is my basic mechanic), means easy rolls get easier to make, and harder rolls get harder.

Blah blah blah...what does that mean, JB? Let's look at a basic example: combat. Attack rolls versus armor class (though I'm not sure if I'm going to stick with the "AC" term in the final document). At the moment, you've got three basic target numbers when fighting an armored man:

10 (unarmored)
13 (light armor)
16 (heavy armor)

with a shield adding +1 to those numbers (11, 14, and 17, in other words).

Needing to "roll over" the target number to hit means a dice roll of 11+, 14+, or 17+ against non-shield wielding opponents. Since all PCs get at least a +1 to their attack roll (bonus is level-class-based), this means that, effectively, each character type needs to roll a result equal to the actual AC of the target to make a successful attack (for example, if the PC tries to damage a dude wearing heavy armor and a shield, she needs to roll 17, as 17+1 = 18). We can see that with a straight D20 roll the chance of success for each AC is:

10 (11) - 55% (50%)
13 (14) - 40% (35%)
16 (17) - 25% (20%)

With the bell curve of 2D10, this looks fairly different:

10 (11) - 64% (55%)
13 (14) - 36% (28%)
16 (17) - 15% (10%)

Armor becomes substantially more effective, and the +1 AC bonus from a shield makes a bigger difference...though with a diminishing "rate of return" (only a 5% bump if already wearing "heavy armor" - but you're basically forcing your 1st level opponent to roll the equivalent of a 19+ on a standard D20 to do damage).

Because of the bell curves, smaller adjustments (a +2 versus a +1) make a bigger difference. While at the "top end" (+5ish) it works out to be about the same success chance against hard difficulties as a D20 system, the success against easy target numbers is much greater...in the +10%-15% range. That's the equivalent of giving the D20 character an extra +2 or +3 against easy-medium targets without needing to resort to inflation of effectiveness by making sure everyone has more potent magic weapons (if sticking with the combat example). 

For DMs that don't want to clutter their campaigns with needless enchanted items (just for the sake of meeting expectations of character effectiveness) this is a bit of a godsend...and at the same time makes sure that the harder challenges remain appropriately hard (plate armor doesn't suddenly become useless unless upgraded to mithril, etc.).

Of course, that's just the effective outcome of switching from a D20 base to a 2D10 base for "stunt" rolls (what I call the action mechanic: attack stunts, magic stunts, and physical stunts). The whole reason for switching to a 2D10 mechanic was to enable me to create additional outcomes (similar to FFGs "advantage," "threat," "triumph," and "despair" results) at the same time as determining success/failure. Rolling two dice instead of one allows me to do this by allowing me to compare the results of each die separately (to its partner) in addition to examining the sum total of the roll.

At this point, I'm keeping it simple (it's supposed to be a "basic" game, right?) and just looking at "doubles" rolls (double 10, double 4, etc.) in relationship to two factors: whether or not the end result was a success-failure, and the character's level (I'm tempted to add a 3rd factor: a comparison based on class and type of stunt, but haven't developed the idea yet). Since doubles get rolled 1 in 10 times on a 2D10, that gives a 10% chance of "something interesting" happening on any particular stunt roll...not particularly over-whelming and not much different from saying a D20 roll of "20" is a "critical" and a roll of "1" is a "fumble." It just allows me to be a bit more nuanced with my effects.

SO...I've decided that I'm going to stick with it. The 2D10 thing instead of D20, that is. I realize this puts me outside the normal FHB model (again, jeez...just like what happened with 5AK), but I think the end result will better model what I want it to model.

Which is treasure hunting descendants of Atlantean colonists fighting the monstrous creations of older Atlantean migrations in the South American wilderness with orcichalcum spears and bronze armor, 11,000 years before present. Oh yeah...and sorcery, of course. Got to have sorcery.

More later.

A little too long in the jungle.

2012, Earth Changes, and 5th Edition

As the Broncos continue to march through the play-offs due in no small part to the faith-powered arm of Tim Tebow, I’m well aware that “the End of the World” is on a lot of folks’ minds. Hell, if Tebow finds a way to beat the Pats at Foxboro, many Denver residents may spontaneously Rapture.

[actually, I checked the numerological implications of Tebow just to see what exactly was going on there; turns out a lot of things point to his potential as a MAGICIAN. While I’m pretty sure Tim isn’t a closet occultist, most of the principles of real magic are based on BELIEF and VISUALIZATION, made possible by a mind disciplined by MEDITATION (which is, in many ways, the equivalent of passive, humble PRAYER). Possibly #16 is working real magic – what a Christian might call Biblical SORCERY – though without knowing it. The power of belief generated by his loyal fans doesn’t hurt much, either]

In all seriousness, I know that there’s been a lot of “2012 talk” buzzing around since the New Year: my wife told me there was an SNL skit based on the Mayan Tzolkin/2012 predictions, and even a local brewery (Tangletown in Green Lake) is offering a series of new Apocalyptic Beers over the next 12 months as we await The End. Oh, yeah…and I heard something about it on CNN the other day, too, when I was watching the Republican debate coverage.

The fact that people are talking about it…even if they are making light of it…tells me that the idea IS out there, and the possibility of the world getting snuffed is probably of at least minor concern nagging the back of some people’s minds. I figured I’d offer my two cents on the issue since I’ve been studying the subject since 1997 or so…longer than some of my blog readers have been playing Dungeons & Dragons.

#1: Sure, We Will All Die. It’s always possible a global disaster (meteor strike, solar eruption, global pole shift) might wipe out the planet. It’s also possible that something else might kill us, individually, and equally remove us from this life we enjoy and all our friends and loved ones. Don’t you people ever watch Spike TV’s “1000 Ways to Die?” Life is a precious, precious thing and both stronger and more fragile than what we generally assume. But it WILL eventually end for each of us (and for our loved ones, our spouses, our children, etc.) and tough as that is to come to grips with, it is the reality of our present, material existence. I’m not saying this to be a downer; I think that embracing our mortality can help us appreciate what we have Right Now…which is one of the best things we can do to live our lives with as much joy and love as possible.

#2: The Earth Will Probably Live. The Earth Changes that have been predicted by most prognosticators mainly spell doom for humanity, NOT the planet. From my studies, the most likely thing to happen is a shift/flip in the Earth’s axis which would devastate civilization, shift continents and oceans, and turn the planet upside down. But the planet (and life on the planet) will continue to exist, even if humanity does not. Should a man-made disaster (global warming, nuclear holocaust, bioengineered disease) cause the destruction of the race, life will STILL survive on the planet, and the planet will eventually recover and repopulate without the destructive interference of humans. And IF humans survive, there will still be a planet for those who are left. For those worried about the ecosphere, this planet will outlive us.

#3: Destruction May Be Avoidable. No, I’m not saying you should move to Montana or build a bomb shelter in your backyard. Most of my readings indicate that any Earth Changes that would cause the massive destruction of human society is directly linked to the actions and karma of the human race: a Cosmic Karmic House-Cleaning if you will. There is precedent in the mythic stories of our race (Noah and the Flood, the Great Deluge of Atlantis, etc.) where God or “the gods” were displeased and rained destruction down upon us…also, that individuals of righteous virtue were saved from death. Whether or not you want to survive and live in a post-apocalyptic world is a matter of debate (I’m not sure I do!), but if that’s your thing the universe is MORE likely to let you live if you have something positive to contribute to what will certainly be a “new world.” AND there is possibility (mentioned in some texts) that the universe will spare us the possible conflagration IF enough of us are on-board with the Universal Will and acting as contributors to the good of our fellow man. Living a “good life” (paying your taxes, treating people with respect, practicing unselfish kindness, etc.) is a start, but STANDING for an ideal, modeling it for others, NOT hiding your light, and CONTRIBUTING to the good of your community (however you can, based on your own individual ability…and, no, not just contributing judgment or “evangelizing,” I’m talking WORK)…that kind of POSITIVE ACTION is needed on a large scale (i.e. from multiple people) if we want to be a group worth saving. And if we’re NOT that…well, perhaps the universe will be better off without us. Try to see it from a universal (non-human-centric) point of view. How are we treating the Earth, really?

#4 Change Will Come Regardless. Whether we have wholesale destruction of the world we’ve built or a sea change in attitude towards our fellow humans and planet, changes WILL come eventually. We are constantly evolving as we journey through life: growing, changing, learning. Whether we do so slowly/gradually or quickly (often with great upheaval/upset to our normal routine) is USUALLY up to us; but sometimes the universe/God steps in and throws us a major Final Exam; whether it be an Ice Age or a World War. For the most part, these “disasters” (“natural” AND man-made, both) are caused by our own actions…karma, the law of cause and effect. And predictors seem to be pointing to the possibility of one of these “final exam moments” in the near future.

Only time will tell what shape such change will take. From an astrological perspective, 2012 looks to be a bumpy ride. Pluto and Uranus will square each other no less than half-a-dozen times this year, starting in June. Uranus is the planet that represents explosive upheaval, and when it interacts with planets it tends to cause upset in aid of cleaning up outmoded patterns and keeping things authentic. Pluto, on the other hand, is the planet that represents volcanic transformation and titanic shifts in consciousness as well as our deep-seated emotional attachments (some of which are left over from past lives). “Square” aspects in astrology are challenging interactions…they tend to be very uncomfortable and have lots of energy and planets in square alignment feel like they’re fighting each other. The coming squares between Pluto and Uranus promise dramatic changes for the entire planet as they are actually aspecting each other, not necessarily planets in individuals’ natal charts. But who knows how that dramatic change will show up? Maybe Ron Paul will cause a major rift in the Republican Party.

Now what does any of this have to do with 5th Edition D&D? Not much, as it’s doubtful anything will be released/published in 2012. However, it is possible that “dramatic changes/shifts of consciousness” will be occurring with the designers working on the latest version of the game. Even so, I’m not sure how much practical impact that will have in the development of the project. For one thing, the game (or rather, the brand) is still owned by Hasbro and as such its design and development is still deeply tied to the normal corporate profit-making requirements. The designers are soliciting feedback from individuals, but many of the young, internet-vocal folks ready to respond are likely to give info that moves 5E farther away from the game’s role-playing origins, developing instead social networking, smart-phone/IPad-style apps, and otherwise incorporating 21st century technology into the game…all wrapped in a new business model that still allows Hasbro to squeeze profit from the consumer (through monthly subscription and/or “collectible” aspects). Even when corporate executives give a rat’s ass about something their hands are tied by the business of business…pandering to share-holders and whatnot. The likelihood anyone will institute an “older approach” to gaming in the design/business model is pretty damn slim, in my opinion, as is the chance of older (“competing”) editions being made available as .pdfs. Far more probable is that the adaptation of certain “old school aesthetics” or even “retro-3rd edition-stylings” in an attempt to woo the OS fan base and Pathfinder players even while moving the game farther away from its original, simple, semi-ambiguous form for something slick and stream-lined and simplistic if “updated for a new century/generation.”

From my point of view, such updating is likely to be a less-than-good-thing (as incorporating technology only increases the likelihood of alienating/disconnecting folks from real human interaction). But, hey, we may all get buried under several tons of rock and water and lava long before that…and if we do the appearance of 5E is sure to be a moot point.
; )

What Marion Zimmer Bradley Taught Me (Part 1)

I’ve been reading a lot of Marion Zimmer Bradley lately…which is to say I’ve been reading A LOT lately (or a lot for me, anyway…my days of reading a new novel weekly or even monthly are long in the past). However, I purposefully picked up a whole slew of MZB paperbacks from the used bookstore the other day as I was doing research into the literary tradition of psionics (or more accurately, “mental powers”) within fantasy, and I remembered Ms. Bradley using a lot of that in her writing. So I picked up half a dozen Darkover novels.

Wow.

Let me first say that I’ve long been an MZB fan, though I haven’t read all that many of her books. I think I first came across her in her Lythande character portrayed in the Aspirin's Thieves World books. Later, I read The Mists of Avalon (of course…absolutely required reading for any King Arthur buffs) and The Fall of Atlantis (because I’m an Atlantis buff, too).

[and, yes, I’m aware that the latter book is actually a republishing of two earlier stories that had different titles]

But Darkover was never a series I got into. For one thing, it’s not really a “series” so much as a SETTING for a bunch of novels and short stories. Similar to McAffery’s Pern, Darkover is a planet that has been colonized by humans of the future…humans that lose touch with their earth roots and develop their own culture and history over several hundred or thousand years.

As with Pern, the Darkover setting and extensive history provides fertile ground for a number of different tales that highlight the human experience without being set around any particular protagonist or set of characters. In fact, I’ve so far read four of the Darkover novels and each has been from a vastly different epoch of the world. For those familiar with the series, the books I’ve read so far are:

- Darkover Landfall
- Stormqueen
- Hawkmistress
- Heritage of Hastur


Right now I’m working on The Shattered Chain, and I really want to pick up The World Wreckers.

Okay, so, great JB. You like the books. You’re a fan. Now let’s get to the point of the post…exactly WHAT has Marion Zimmer Bradley taught you?

Lots.

In some ways, she’s RE-teaching me things I already knew but forgot. For example, fantasy/sci-fi adventure doesn’t have to include combat to be powerful, dangerous, dramatic, or life-and-death.

Really.

I remember reading a comment on someone’s blog (maybe even mine), that fantasy role-playing games require some sort of combat system because, for a game to BE a fantasy adventure RPG, COMBAT needs to be involved. I know this echoes a sentiment expressed by my brother in a discussion we had awhile back (when talking about RPG design) that people EXPECT some sort of combat/fighting action to take place in any role-playing game.

Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Just because Dungeons and Dragons has a combat system and makes combat a part of the game does NOT mean combat is a requirement for any fantasy adventure game. ‘Fantasy adventure” is NOT defined by fighting or mortal conflict. It isn’t. The classic “hero’s journey” involves over-coming strife and proving one’s courage (and may involve mortal combat…I’ll have to check that on wikipedia), but it isn’t necessary for a fantasy story to be an “adventure.” I think I was two to three hundred pages into Hawkmistress before any sort of armed encounter occurred…a bird got shot by an arrow (and let me tell you, that was a deeply moving and emotional chapter!). Prior to THAT, the only “fight scene” in the book involved a girl kneeing a dude in the crotch to prevent attempted rape. Period. End of fight.

Was there adventure and danger and dramatic conflict present within those several hundred pages? Yes. Was there mortal peril for the protagonist and companions? Yes. Was their hardship and challenge, both physical and mental? Yes.

But combat? Melee? Armed conflict? Nope, none of it.

Darkover Landfall has no armed conflict at all. Yes, many people die. A guy does get killed by a “monster” (he is stung by a tiny scorpion ant) and some throats get slit in their sleep…but nothing that would require a combat “system.”

Heritage of Hastur talks a lot about the martial training of the Guard corps. It has a lot of talk about the breech of weapons compacts. There is much discussion on duels and challenges and several instances requiring/demanding revenge/justice. But the only “fights” involve one guy getting held (on two separate occasions) and being beaten unconscious.

Stormqueen! has some more siege stuff, but not a single fight involving any of the main characters.

All of these books are “adventures.” They have people traveling/going places, facing hardship, experiencing conflict, being “challenged” (physically, mentally, and emotionally)…and yet no one draws a sword and fights anyone. And on Darkover, most everyone carries a sword at some point. Darkover is nothing if not a sword culture for God’s sake!

Okay so that’s #1 that I’ve learned from MZB…you can have people going on adventures and not getting involved in “combat” per se. People being conflicted…hell, DYING…and no weapons being drawn. That’s Numero Uno.

Numero Dos: A party of adventurers can have multiple motivations and yet still be cooperative in the aid of a greater whole.

Not sub-plots (though motivations in novels/stories often lead to sub-plots and side treks), but MOTIVATIONS.

Now, I realize that novels and RPGs are NOT the same thing…just as novels and films aren’t (they both tell stories, but they do so in entirely different fashions). RPGs are GAMES and as such they are PLAYED. While you can have a story develop from an RPG session (and can even actively work towards that end with a game that facilitates a narratavist agenda…like, say, Sorcerer), any story that is created is a cooperative or JOINT venture between the players involved, and thus cannot readily be dictated by any one single author…not even a railroading DM…without some consent of the players involved.

[don’t believe me? I (as DM) say, “okay, you guys are here.” Player A says, “My character would never go there.” I (as DM) say, “tough, you are there” (or DM provides some complex justification for the use of force, it doesn’t matter). Player A says, “I kill myself.” End of story…literally!]

In general, when the desired outcome of an RPG session is to have SOME semblance of story (even just, “we all went to this place and did X, Y. and Z”), the easiest way to get that cooperation between players is for the DM/GM to get players motivated in the same direction. For example:

“The Big Bad Guy threatens the kingdom. You have heard that the Amazing Artifact can put an end to his evil reign, if you only you can retrieve it from the Mysterious Dungeon.”

But characters CAN have major motivations…in fact, their whole raison d’etre…as THE THING that determines/inspires action, even though it seems a minor “plot” to the whole grand scheme of things.

For example, often in the Darkover books there’s some grand overarching plot that is DIRECTLY IMPACTED OR PERTAINING TO THE PROTAGONISTS (for example, the whole “realm” is in danger due to a war of succession…and the protagonist is the actual heir to the throne, not some side bystander/rube that gets drawn into the mess a la the Dragonlance heroes, for example), and yet the whole world shattering plot is a SECONDARY motivation to the character’s own likes/loves, hates/schemes, whatever. And having it as such does not prevent the characters (often, Ms. Bradley’s books present more than one protagonist or “main character”) from working as a team towards the main goal…but it enriches how they get there, the journey they are taking.

Again this is not something that’s especially new, just something I haven’t sat down and considered for a while. I may not be especially clear, so let me see if I can illustrate with an example:

Imagine a (D&D) adventuring party as a “special forces” type unit…a small group of proficient, heroic types designed to work together as a team to overcome obstacles and succeed at mission scenarios…you know, 4th edition style play.

I realize that this is the way Dungeons & Dragons has evolved through the last 2-3 iterations, but understand it bears NO semblance to the original literary traditions that inspired it. Instead it seems more inspired by The Dirty Dozen, The Seven Samurai, Mission Impossible or some other action film designed to spotlight a variety of special effects in different action sequences…the better to amuse and entertain the audience (in this case, the audience being the RPG players themselves).

Even The Lord of the Rings is somewhat guilty of this type of dross…especially the film version (which showcases the burly axe-swinging dwarf, versus the suave sword-swinging ranger, versus the acrobatic arrow-slinging elf). But Tolkien was telling an Epic story and the true protagonists are, of course, Frodo and Sam and their heroic struggles…NOT the actions of certain flamboyant characters.

[and by the way I DO enjoy the LotR films and have watched them multiple times]

Now, compare THAT type of “special forces for the sake of overcoming evil obstacle” group with a group of individuals, each with his or her own motivation (and not necessarily possessing aims in line with their fellows), that happen to be joined in common cause, but whose cause comes SECONDARY to their own personal (and sometime selfish desires)…you know, kind of like real life with real, independent thinking folks?

For a “cheesy example” let’s look at the protagonists of the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon. Silly, right? But look at these misfits. They have great powers at their disposal (when they occasionally get their shit together) AND they have an over-riding goal (to find some way home), and yet their own motivations and desires often overwhelm practicality or actually sabotage and cause their own group trouble. Eric is an f’ing coward hiding behind his wealthy background, Diana is some sort of foolhardy adrenaline junkie, Presto and Bobby are constantly attempting to “prove themselves” to the others (Bobby that he’s old enough to hang with the big kids and Presto that he’s not some gigantic nerd with a “worthless gift”). Hank is the Boy Scout, always trying to “Do the Right Thing,” and Sheila secretly carries a torch for the blonde archer and hopes to impress him. I mean, all of them are teenagers with self-esteem issues, but they manifest those issues in different ways, making for an interesting mix (if not one that is incredibly efficient in overcoming obstacles/challenges). And cheesy or not, the cartoon wasn’t something I’d call a comedy.

In my old D&D campaigns, players DID have motivations for their characters, and any particular adventure dreamt up by the DM was totally secondary to the aims of the characters…Lucky was always looking for new magical writings to fatten his spell book, Sunstarr was always trying to impress the ladies, my character was always trying to amass power and show everyone else up (‘cause I was a big jerk)…whether or not we actually achieved any GOAL for an adventure was completely secondary to the story that we were telling about our characters and what they did and how they did it…in other words, by their actions, which were often in conflict with any actual objectives set forth by our GM.

In fact, this harkens back to what my brother was saying the other day about wanting more motivation, more background for his characters…that the random Hat and Relationship charts were a good start but not enough, and that the adventure background itself didn’t seem to be enough motivation. It’s one thing when players bring their own specific, concrete goals and motives to the table…but the Dungeons & Dragons itself doesn’t necessarily provide “meat enough” to build a character.

Rifts Atlantis

Yeah, back to Rifts for the moment.

Picked up Atlantis, Rifts World Book 2 the other day, something I'd been promising myself since before Christmas. I'd owned it previously, but sold it a few years back.

Well, it's mine again. Ugh! Palladium!

Actually, I'm half-ashamed to admit I'm pretty pleased.

I should probably say up front that I'm a bit of an Atlantis aficionado anyway...I'll buy most things that have anything to do with Atlantis, RPG or otherwise. Everyone has their Achilles Heel, right?

And, yeah, there are no accounting for tastes (I'm a little weird, folks). Recent back-n-forth banter in the comments of this blog has been knocking on my brain lately. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

So...much as I've lamented Palladium here (and elsewhere), re-reading Rifts Atlantis wasn't nearly as disappointing (or frustrating) as Wormwood. I'm not 100% sure why...Wormwood felt like squandered potential, but Atlantis feels like a true and (dare I say?) fantastic source book.

Maybe because there's just so damn many ideas in it. The Atlantean history...both ancient and recent...is pretty damn inspired without feeling as cheesy as some Palladium tropes. The tattoo magic is cool (I'm saying as an idea...I'm not debating game balance), and the bio-wizardry is well and truly horrific shit. Parasites? Microbes? Vats of magical transmorgifying fluids that grant super powers while mutating the hell out of people? Pretty friggin cool stuff.

Alien intelligences and inter-dimensional slave trading, not to mention the dimensional Market of Splynn (I don't need the separate source book; the stuff in World Book 2 is plenty to fire the imagination)...species betrayal and genocide and gladiators and monstrous creatures that truly look like some bizarre imagining of H.P. Lovecraft crossed with bionics and high-tech weaponry...rune weapons and mind slugs and the wyrm-worshipping religion of Dragonwright...there's just a ton of stuff packed into the book's pages, even with plenty of fantastic and original artwork (all black and white, but all excellent and some full two-page spreads!).

For $20 that's more "source material" than anyone has a right to expect. I'm drawn to Siembieda's introductory words:

Some books take extra time because they are so elaborate or demanding in some way, but not this one. Once I was able to make the time to write, it just flew off my fingertips. Suddenly Atlantis came to life and I just wrote and wrote and wrote. I could barely keep up with myself as the ideas poured out.

I totally understand this feeling: when the writing thing has been going well (like the module or chapters of the B/X Companion) the words just seem to flow right from the brain to the laptop. But this craziness in the Atlantis book? Truly inspired (and inspiring) stuff.

As with all of Palladium's stuff, the book suffers from its own base system, but that's a given. I didn't buy the source book for any wonderful rule mechanics. If anything, I bought it for nostalgia (and Atlantis, of course)...and I found myself pleasantly surprised by the sheer amount of excellent, original, and yes, thoughtful, content. There's very little, if any, of the exponential "power creep" present in later books. Instead, there's a monstrous playground filled with a truly evil and inhuman society that can act as both an extremely dangerous place for the average human adventurer and a lasting source of antagonism and conflict in a Rifts campaign.

That's awesome.

Adventure, Exploration, and Action

I love adventure and exploration fiction.

Which is probably not all that surprising since anyone who plays RPGs are drawn to the much the same kind of escapist fantasy (pulp or otherwise) as that to which I'm drawn.

But can simple exploration work in an RPG?

What got me thinking about this? Well Raggi's most recent post over at LotFP, for one thing. The fact that my wife and I spent several hours watching 17 straight episodes of Lost's most recent season yesterday for a second.

[yes, it should come as no surprise I'm a big fan of this show...I'd seen every episode previously, but it's been so damn long, I figured I'd better "refresh" before the final season started airing on Tuesday. Yeah, I have my own theories regarding the show, including the Jacob conflict (feels pretty obvious to me this is the Old Testament Jacob-Esau showdown and Richard is a Roman Legionnaire or an incarnation of the god Anubis, but hey I'm sure we'll all find out this season, right?]

I'm drawn to this particular genre of "weird adventure" like a moth to a flame...it's part of the reason I enjoy Jules Verne and other types of mystery-solving-through-movement.

Now Lost may not be a fantastic example of this due to the prevalence of action/violence, but let's look at Disney's Atlantis: the Lost Empire, a film I absolutely loved. Here, the main character has not a single action/violent bone in his body, and while there IS a fight sequence at the end of the film, it feels very secondary compared to the rest of the movie. At least to me. The fun is not in the action sequences so much as uncovering the weirdness and exploring this subterranean/underwater kingdom.

Of course, Atlantis didn't do very well at the box office, so maybe I'm different from some folks.

I'm not a huge action fan...yes, I did go see Ninja Assassin, but I've seen only a single Steven Seagal film and precious view of the usual trite "action" flicks. Most straight action films bore the shit out of me. But then I love a movie like Raiders of the Lost Ark. Is this because Indiana Jones is a "thinking man's action hero?" No. Is it because the action is so well choreographed by the film makers. Not really...I mean the couple gun fights or fist fights that occur are interesting in context, but there are few close-ups of the action...and much of the time Harry Ford is getting the crap kicked out of him.

I think that besides the compelling story of the film, there is something about this character's exploration of far off lands and ancient mysteries that is downright compelling to watch. Certainly in Lost, I am as much interested in figuring out "what's going on" as in seeing "what's going to happen next." Hell, that's the same thing that is so compelling (to me) about Lovecraft's stories. Precious little action, but they certainly pique the curiosity to "find out more."

This is very different from the post-apocalyptic fiction I've been blogging about the last week or so. In PA, no one really cares about "what's going on" only about "what happens next." After all, the past has this huge demarcation line called The Cataclysm or The Apocalypse, and it's a line no one can really cross...or cares to cross. That grim struggle for survival and community re-building is too all important to worry about. I'm reading Dies the Fire (about halfway through) and no one's too worried what Alien Space Bats are responsible for the Change...just how to deal with it. Same with the dragons in Reign of Fire or who-fired-first in The Day After. I haven't yet seen The Road, but my understanding is no one even bothers to explain what cataclysmic disaster has wrecked the world.

But in non-post-holocaust exploration fiction, what happens next isn't nearly as interesting as what happened before or what's going on...in fact "what happens next" is often a piece of the puzzle being unraveled...some part of the mystery being solved, the secret being revealed. Combat, if it occurs, is generally secondary to everything else, and most often a resolution to an adventure cannot be met through violence alone.

Look at the climactic scenes of any Indiana Jones film...or Mysterious Island, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, and Journey to the Center of the Earth. Or At the Mountains of Madness. Seldom, if ever, does the story end in a melee between the hero and the antagonist (which is the usual ending of most ANY action film). Characters can have adventures withOUT getting blood on their hands. Certainly I feel that my own travels around the world have been "mini-adventures" and I've never once got into a fight anywhere!

D&D is not set up to be this kind of game, and that's fine with me...I don't see it as doing "exploration adventure" so much. Hollow Earth Expedition on the other hand COULD be this kind of game, but it's a little too action-pulp oriented (in addition to being a bit mechanical-clunk heavy), a little too Doc Savage to be "action-free." Or rather, one could use it in such a way but it's not economically designed for this type of game...it's designed to shoot dinosaurs and beat up nazis.

The original question...can simple exploration-adventure work in an RPG...remains. I think it can, but it's not for everyone. I'm not sure how you can make it a game "worth playing," not because people don't like exploration and unraveling mysteries (they do), but because people like to get this "fix" through different mediums...cinema, literature, real travel and research. Can one make a "game" that embraces this genre and interests people in playing it? Maybe...call it a Traveller game that doesn't take place in space.

; )