text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41434353149326331482014-11-19T06:13:26.597-08:00B/X BLACKRAZORJBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-51288031800394814852014-11-15T17:11:00.001-08:002014-11-15T17:11:52.552-08:00When Cartoons Didn't SuckHappy birthday to me! Actually, it's past my birthday (that was the 13th), but every day since I've got back to Seattle (Thursday afternoon) has felt like my birthday. God, I love this town! I've just been positively giddy. I told the clerk at the local Fred Meyer that her produce was absolutely beautiful, and I've been singing "There's No Place Like Home for the Holidays" every morning in the shower. Gosh...I've been having so much fun just breathing cold, crisp air. Hell, and going to restaurants that serve breakfast! What a novelty!

Fact is that, while I've adapted to Paraguay, and can live there just fine (something I probably couldn't say with complete honesty six months ago), I certainly haven't "fallen in love" with it. I just conveniently forget all the things we're missing when we're not here. Tonight: fresh cracked Dungeness crab at my mom's house! No, not at a restaurant, are you insane? Pick it up at the supermarket, in season, for an exceptionally reasonable price...they'll clean it for free and you melt the butter!

[we had to get the car tabs renewed and an emission test this morning (after a friendly parking enforcement person pointed out the expiration), and my wife was just all smiles about it. "It's so nice to be somewhere the system works!" Efficient bureaucracy: there are a lot of anti-government haters that would miss it if it were suddenly stripped from them. Also nice? Being able to run to the grocery store after midnight and pick up quality diapers. It's the little things, people. I had to call AAA not once but TWICE yesterday to jumpstart my 13 year old battery that had lost its charge in the arctic cold front Seattle's been experiencing, and even with the wait it still didn't derail my plans for the day. That's just awesome]

Another way it's been feeling like my birthday is because I've been unwrapping a new "present to myself" daily. I ordered several things on-line over the last month or two and they were all (with one exception) waiting for me when I got home. One was my copy of Warriors of the Red Planet (Beta) which came from Lulu, is beautiful, and needs its own separate blog post. But most of the stuff I ordered were DVDs of several old TV series including Wizards and Warriors, but much more fun/nostalgic for me are the (animated) Tolkien trilogy (Rankin/Bass and Bakshi) plus Thundarr the Barbarian, Sealab 2020, (not the humorous remake Sealab 2021), and Jonny Quest. I can (and probably will) write a complete blog post or two on each of these marvelous cartoons, but suffice is to say, hey, remember when people were making cartoons for children that didn't suck?

Okay, got to go...Dungeness calls!
: )

Delicious!

JBhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-70279112827523327462014-11-13T08:38:00.000-08:002014-11-13T08:49:39.982-08:00Checking 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.

<o:p></o:p>

[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]<o:p></o:p>

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). <o:p></o:p>

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.<o:p></o:p>

It's a disgusting abundance of privilege that I have.<o:p></o:p>

[sorry…had to break to eat my cheese blintzes, fresh fruit, and sausage. Oh, and order another complimentary Bloody Mary. Business class, ya' know?]<o:p></o:p>

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. <o:p></o:p>

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?<o:p></o:p>

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.<o:p></o:p>

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?

<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

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.

<o:p></o:p>

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. <o:p></o:p>

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?<o:p></o:p>

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.<o:p></o:p>

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]

<o:p></o:p>
JBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-74207577034233925922014-11-11T05:57:00.001-08:002014-11-11T06:02:48.967-08:00Film HateCan I just talk about hate for a brief moment? I'm not talking about the absence or antithesis of love...I'm just talking about the standard dictionary definition of "intense or passionate dislike." There are some things that just make me really cranky...and while I could just keep 'em to myself, I have a feeling that might be bad for some of my internal organs.

So here comes a short (I hope) rant regarding films.

I don't work in Hollywood, so I have no "insider perspective" on the filmmaking process. I know that films cost a lot of money. I know that they take huge numbers of people working in collaboration to make them. I know that many of the decisions made by film companies revolve around the ability to recoup the money spent and make some profit so that the rich can get richer and produce more films, continuing the business of filmmaking (which helps employ all those people that work on making films). I know that no matter how much "vision" one, single person possesses (whether that's a writer, director, producer, etc.) that vision is going to be worked over a bit by all the other people involved in the filmmaking process...especially co-writers, co-producers, directors, film execs, etc.

And nothing I write on this blog is going to change that. Still, I'm talking about saving my spleen, here.

I HATE that there is so little originality coming out of Hollywood...that so many of the Big Budget Blockbusters are remakes (or "updates") of existing movies. Whether you're talking Straw Dogs or Clash of the Titans, I just feel like slapping people and saying this doesn't need a remake...if you want to introduce an old film to a new crowd, then digitally remaster it and re-release it. Otherwise make your own Goddamn movie, dudes. Aren't people being paid millions of dollars to do these things? And you can't think of an original idea? You suck.

I HATE it when films based on novels written in different time periods, decide to spruce up ("update" again) the material in order to make it more in line with out 21st century wants and perspectives. "Modernizing" it. Look, if you're going to make a live-action version of The Hobbit, then make The Hobbit. Don't make it into something else, restructuring the characters and plot to make it "cooler." If you don't feel like being faithful in your adaptation, then come up with your own original fucking idea for a movie. How many cars do you own?

[and just to add onto that...]

I HATE it when filmmakers choose to make films that use an existing piece of intellectual property (like The Hobbit) and then inject a bunch of random token characters into it because the original IP wasn't diverse enough in terms of gender and race. THERE IS IP OUT THERE THAT FEATURES DIVERSITY, WHY DON'T YOU ADAPT THAT?! There are lots of fairy tale books that feature female protagonists (Shirley Murphy's Soonie and the Dragon comes to mind). Oh, wait...that doesn't have enough blood and guts and combat for you?

Nice little tale. Dragon eats people.

[because bloody violence is what has made The Hobbit a beloved classic of children's literature for decades, right? That and all the songs/poems Tolkien threw in there]

Fine, how about adapting one of Robin McKinley's (award winning) books? How about adapting Jennifer Roberson's Cheysuli saga (when an author gets an eight book series published, maybe there's an audience)? How about adapting the saga of Brynhildr to the screen in a Norse mash-up the same way Ray Harryhausen adapted Perseus and Greek myth in the original Clash of the Titans? Are you just too fucking stupid to do this?

I HATE that so often Hollywood (when it comes to action/fantasy films) seems like the epitome of a "good ol' boys" network where the white, male (straight) hero front-and-center. I'm white AND male AND straight and I get tired of seeing the same old shtick.

You know what I really, REALLY don't want to see? I don't want to go into a screening of Star Wars VII and see three white buddies (two male, one female) going on a fantastic galactic adventure. That was fine in the 1970s, but it was certainly a tired concept by the time Harry Potter rolled into theaters. Give Lupita Nyong'o a kick-ass role as Lando's daughter-turned-space-pirate and let her be the "Han Solo" of the movie.

Oscar winners shouldn't have to play aliens.

Please don't make her a token "new apprentice" of Jedi Master Skywalker with the sole purpose of being killed off by the Big Bad Guy of the film. Please, please, please don't do that. And don't make her an "alien" (non-human), either.

Anyway, these are some of the things I'm thinking/fuming about today. Earlier I watched a trailer for the new Hobbit film (I'm not even going to bother with a link...you folks can find it, I'm sure). And it just made me irritated. And then it got me thinking about Hollywood and all these things I "passionately dislike." Things I really can't change or impact or control. Which, BTW, just makes me more irritated.

One of the wonderful things about this RPG thing...the OSR movement, the Indie movement, the DIY-self-publishing thing is how nice it is to have some control and to be able to make shit without being beholden to "money men." I know that what drives the film industry to do things I hate is (for the most part) money. It's the same reason why people choose to live in Paraguay (for those who HAVE a choice): here you can start a business and expect (on average) 10-30% return on your investment annually.

[which is crazy-huge compared to the 5-8% (or 5-10%) you'd expect in the USA. Here, you can recoup your costs after three years and then just profits, baby, ever after. The money doesn't, of course, get reinvested in the country...but who cares when you can afford to send your kids to school in the United States? Just sad, in so many ways...]

People in the self-publishing RPG biz aren't getting rich, clearly, but at least folks are getting a chance to make games (and play games) that they want. If game design is an "artistic" enterprise (and I'd say it is), then at least its not the compromised art of the (establishment) film industry. And that makes it cooler than Hollywood and (for me) mostly "hate-proof."

Mostly.
; )JBhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-49146147526149942692014-11-07T04:37:00.002-08:002014-11-07T04:57:00.219-08:00"It Doesn't Rain, But It Pours"

This is my "street."

Despite the saying, I hadn't literally found this to be the case until we moved to Ascuncion. Holy cats! It's rainy season right now, and the street in front of my house is a stream that goes up to mid-shin in places (after stepping out o the car I got doused in water up to the knees; had to change my pants)...and we're fairly elevated! The main boulevard (a block over) is an f'ing river. You'd think I wouldn't have bothered taking D to school today, but funny enough I've gotten...well, not "used to" the weather, but I'm a bit more adaptable to the garbage roads and road conditions. Or maybe I'm just not as timid as I once was.

[it probably helps that I drive an SUV here, and that it's not my car...definitely wouldn't try my Jetta back home in these conditions!]

ANYway, it is storming away outside, but I wanted to throw out a quick blog post, before I get back to writing. Yes, I've been writing lately...writing up a storm, if you'll pardon the expression. I want to get through as much of this book as I can before my current "mental deluge" dries up, so posting will probably be light the next week or two.

Or four, more likely...we're heading home (Seattle) for the holidays next week (traveling on my birthday, actually) and will be there through Thanksgiving: the greatest holiday ever invented by Americans. For my non-American readers (I know I have a few), allow me just to wax on for a moment. Combine family and a celebration of appreciation and cooperation (at least, that's what we're taught in grade school) with football, an all-day feast, and three-to-six pies of different flavors. The best part? The next day's a holiday, too. Drink as much as you like and nurse your hangover with turkey sandwich leftovers while catching up on those videos you've been meaning to watch.

[Black Friday shopping is a sucker's game, just by the way...I opt out whenever possible]

So, yeah...back in Sea-Town we'll have lots to do (seeing folks, going to the 'Hawks vs. Cardinals, buying peanut butter and tortillas to stuff our suitcases...), so probably not much time to write OR blog. We'll be back in Asuncion before December, but then heading for Mexico at the end o the year (to visit the other side of the family).

Hey! Is anyone interested in what I'm writing? Since no one in Paraguay is (no, my family doesn't care either). Welp, work progresses on the fantasy heartbreaker...and man-o-man, I am really digging on it. I've been using Holmes Basic as a model, but I don't thing I'm going to get it come in at his 48 pages. Unless I'm able to skim some page count from the monster section, which is possible (still debating how I want to organize that, actually...same problem I have with the revised version of Cry Dark Future). Maybe 60 (including art), but we'll see. We'll see.

[really need to get back to it]

But this is one that I am hopeful will be ready for play-testing by the holidays, and I may just start emailing interested folks "beta" versions before the New Year. If you belong to a gaming group living in...oh, say, Oakland or Jacksonville or New York and you're looking for something to do during Sundays in December, you might want to keep me in mind. I'll be asking for volunteers (on the blog) sometime in the next few weeks.

Well...if all goes well, that is.
: )

Not my car.

JBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-24373527455529657912014-11-05T11:45:00.001-08:002014-11-05T11:45:10.701-08:00Happy Birthday To My Sweet Wife!As one might imagine, I'm a little busy today. Will hopefully resume posting tomorrow or the next day.
: )JBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-3573748187166948282014-11-03T07:11:00.002-08:002014-11-03T07:11:43.055-08:00Might and Magic (Redux)Because many folks don't appreciate the football (or, at least, don't share my obsession with the NFL), I feel it best I follow up today's earlier post with a gaming-related post.

['course, if you DO enjoy the football stuff, you might find my reflections mildly amusing...or at least something worth arguing about]

So remember last week when I was talking about "color-coded magic" and "wizard schools" and whatnot (you can read the post here, if you missed it)? Okay, well, yeah, I worked out the spell lists and such over the weekend. That is to say: new magic system complete.

I was still able to keep elements from my prior system (like cross-polinization of magic and building on prior knowledge). I was able to break the magic up into separate "themes" (and, yes, the themes include some color-coding). The spells are still limited in number to a "Fantastic Forty" plus a "Forbidden Four."

Actually, it's a Fantastic Fifty and Forbidden Five...but one book is for NPC's only. After all, in this particular heartbreaker, PCs are supposed to be Heroes. You can't have heroes using the same terrible magic as the bad guys! Those guys are EVIL...you're supposed to be striving against the Forces of Darkness, not adopting their weapons.

[on the other hand, I'm thinking of installing some sort of "corruption mechanic" a la D6 Star Wars or The Mutant Chronicles. Is that too much for a "basic" game? Maybe]

ANYway, yeah. Just so you know. Once I finish the write-ups, I'll see how much of the magic is compatible with the existing B/X system (understanding that it would need to replace the current "Vancian" system) and if it makes sense, I'll post some spells here. But we'll see. Let me finish the actual writing/text first.

The First Book of Magic...Collect All Five!

Later, gators.
: )JBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-3138000043487147802014-11-03T06:12:00.000-08:002014-11-03T06:13:52.324-08:00HalfwayHappy Stroessner Day! Today marks the birthday of ex-Paraguayan president Alfredo Stroessner, who "served" the country from 1954 to 1981 following his successful military coup. Wikipedia sums it up succinctly:

"His 35-year-long rule, marked by an uninterrupted period of repression in his country, was the longest unbroken rule by one individual in the history of South America."

He was a real crap-sandwich for Paraguay...but he was a staunch anti-communist and so was backed by the good ol' U.S. of A. during his rule, while turning the country into "a sanctuary for smugglers in arms, drugs, and everyday goods like whiskey and car parts."

[and let me tell you, if you are a successful businessman or politician in Paraguay, you drink an awful lot of whiskey]

So, of course, it is yet another holiday in Asuncion, and my child was awakened early this morning by another round of fireworks celebrating this "national treasure." Because they love-love-love their fireworks here. Oh, yeah...and this morning the city of Asuncion is without water today due to a broken pipe. Hey, remember that time that your capital city of half a million (with an additional Monday workforce of two-four times that) had no running water?

Yeah, that's been my morning.

And yet, the Seahawks were able to handle the Goblin Raiders yesterday and are still in the hunt for the division lead, so I can't feel too bad. Always nice to get a win against Oakland (old AFC West rivalries die hard, ya' know?). And so I thought I'd revisit my earlier pre-regular season "reflections" now that all the teams have had a chance to play through at least half their schedule.

Something fun while I wait for the city to get the water back on.

AFC EAST Standings
New England Patriots (7-2)
Buffalo Bills (5-3)
Miami Dolphins (5-3)
NY Jets (1-8)

The guy at ESPN who thought that Geno Smith was going to win nine games this year? He's an idiot. I've been giving my buddy, Steve shit for two years now about being high on Smith ("high" being the operative word); the only question is will Ryan survive the year. He's not a bad coach, but he's had inferior talent at the QB position for too many years (and you'd think that's a GM's drafting responsibility). As predicted by most (including myself), it looks like this is New England's year (again). However, kudos to both the Bills and Dolphins for making their seasons relevant and fighting for a play-off berth. The Dolphins shellacking of the Chargers yesterday was a beautiful thing.

AFC NORTH Standings
Cincinnati Bengals (5-2-1)
Pittsburgh Steelers (6-3)
Cleveland Browns (5-3)
Baltimore Ravens (5-4)

We're all allowed to get one wrong, and yes, I was wrong about the Steelers being mediocre this year. However, before you Pittsburgh fans start jumping up-and-down and yelling "I told you so" (like I do with Steve-O), allow me to point out their wins have been at home against Cleveland (barely), against a weak-sauce Carolina, crap-sandwich Jacksonville, last year's bottom Houston (at home), a Charlie Whitehurst led Tennessee, and (at home) against the struggling Ravens. I did not reckon with how weak their schedule was this year (next up: the NY Jets!)...still, the second half of their schedule is a little tougher (getting to play the Saints at home is a lucky break), and while a team that drops a game to Tampa Bay is probably not going to get to the predicted 10 wins, they might still get nine. Nice to see Cleveland stuck with Hoyer, by the way (and has been rewarded for it). The Bengals are looking more and more like a paper tiger.

AFC SOUTH Standings
Indianapolis Colts (5-3)
Houston Texans (4-5)
Tennessee Titans (2-6)
Jacksonville Jaguars (1-8)

My prediction of a good year for the Titans was conditional to Jake Locker staying healthy. Charlie Whitehurst may be the worst quarterback in the NFL (after Geno Smith). I know this because I watched him for a season at Seattle in one of current regimes weirdest missteps. The Titans' season is over. I see that even I was too optimistic when I said five wins for the Jags this year; I was trying to be kind to Gus Bradley who has one hell of a nightmare on his hands. What do people in Jacksonville do during football season? Watch the SEC, I guess. I was wrong about both the Colts and the Texans, by the way...unless Foster's injury causes Houston to tank in the second half of their season.

AFC WEST Standings
Denver Broncos (6-2)
Kansas City (5-3)
San Diego Chargers (5-4)
Oakland Raiders (0-8)

When do we move the mantle of "Ageless One" from Jerry Rice to Peyton Manning? Next year? Maybe. But my prediction was Denver failing to make it back to the Super Bowl, not failing to make the play-offs. Nice to see I was right about KC not folding like a cheap shirt (even their blogger was predicting an 8-8 season...the "anti-homer"). Still think the Chargers can make the play-offs as a Wild Card. Still think Oakland is...well, when you look up "crap sandwich" in the dictionary, it should probably have a picture of the Raiders.

NFC EAST Standings
Philadelphia Eagles (6-2)
Dallas Cowboys (6-3)
NY Giants (3-4)*
Washington Redskins (3-6)

*Yes, the Giants could still get to halfway mark of their season at .500 with a win tonight, but come on...do you really think that's going to happen? Really?

Did I say the Cowboys and Romo would get one more shot at the playoffs this year? And that mediocre coach Jason Garrett would get a contract extension? Yes I did, and I'm thinking that prediction is still looking good. The Eagles are still leading the division thanks to several close wins; we'll see how Nick Foles's broken collarbone (and Mark Sanchez's return to the captain's seat!) affects the second half of their season. Wasn't Mark Sanchez sidelined for Geno Smith? As for the other two teams: crap sandwich times two.

NFC NORTH Standings
Detroit Lions (6-2)
Green Bay Packers (5-3)
Minnesota Vikings (4-5)
Chicago Bears (3-5)

What a difference an additional wide receiver from a championship team makes, huh, Matthew Stafford? Ex-Seahawk Golden Tate is the 4th best receiver in the NFL this year, on pace for a 1600 yard season. It's enough to wish we'd kept him instead of Percy Harvin...but that's just me. The Packers are still in it (as predicted), and...um, who was it that said the Bears "aren't going to sniff the playoffs" this year? Who said that? Yeah, me. The homer at ESPN who said Chicago would win ten? Sniffing glue. Boy, I'm kind of feisty today. Wonder when that water's going to get turned on.

NFC SOUTH Standings
New Orleans Saints (4-4)
Carolina Panthers (3-5-1)
Atlanta Falcons (2-6)
Tampa Bay Bucs (1-7)

Welp, I was right in everything I said here, but I missed the mark on how truly awful the division is this year. The AFC South has nothing on their NFC counterpart's claim to worst division in the NFL. There's only one word to describe it: crap sandwich. Well, I guess that's really two words.

NFC WEST Standings
Arizona Cardinals (7-1)
Seattle Seahawks (5-3)
San Francisco 49ers (4-4)
St. Louis Rams (3-5)

Ahh, here we go. Let's see: Arizona did leapfrog San Francisco (as I figured they would), but they've leapfrogged Seattle, too, to become the team with the best record in the NFL. And this despite having to play several games with backup QBs. This is what happens when a well-coached team (10-6 last year) gets to play a 3rd place schedule. Fortunately, Seattle still has two games to play against the Cards, so their placement at the top of the division ain't yet secure.

O my poor Seahawks! The one thing I hadn't predicted was how damn injured we'd be this year. Playing with a 4th string center last night? Missing all but two of last year's starters on the O-Line (including our Pro Bowl tight end that we use almost exclusively as a blocker)? Watching Dashawn Shead (who??), a 3rd or 4th string corner getting beat for a TD pass from Raiders rookie Derek Carr? Our offense in week nine is in week two of "life after Percy Harvin" trying to rebuild and redefine itself after spending all of preseason building around a troublesome (and/or troubled) player. They still have time to turn it around (if the season ended today, the 'Hawks would be in as the #2 Wild Card based on their tie-breaker over the Packers). But they really have to handle their business in the coming weeks (five division opponents to end the season!). Hopefully, some of our (what is it now? nine?) injured starters will be back on the field to finish out the year and make a strong push. But I have a feeling we're going to see more "ork-ugly" games as we head down the stretch.

Why couldn't they have put Peyton Manning on the cover of Madden this year? Wasn't he the MVP or something?

All right, all right. Enough of this. We'll see how the whole thing ends up over the next eight weeks. Now let's get back to some gaming posts, huh?

[still no water]JBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-71982024455056467492014-10-31T14:51:00.003-07:002014-10-31T14:58:29.285-07:00CosplayHappy 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!JBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-16189188515489385032014-10-30T14:46:00.000-07:002014-10-30T14:48:07.488-07:00Considering WitchesDidn't have much time yesterday (don't have much time today, either). I'm still considering what would be the "set spell lists" or even the choice of "schools" should I go that route (as discussed a couple days ago). In other words, haven't made any progress on dismantling the magic system already written for the new fantasy heartbreaker.

Maybe it's because (subconsciously?) I think it's a bad idea? Maybe.

But flavor...I like flavor. Flavor is important. It makes a game tasty. Without flavor, you might have a robust game system, chock-full of nutritious, caloric-value (just to carry an analogy too far), but I want more than that. I'm not trying to create Hero System: Fantasy or GURPS: Wizards or something. Too bland for my taste. The idea of different schools of magic is flavorful.

Anyhoo...part of the reason I didn't do any work/writing yesterday is that I was again perusing old Dragon magazines. In this case, I was reading every article I could find on witches and witchcraft (for those who're curious that includes issues #5, #20, #43, and #114). I didn't have access to these issues back when I wrote up a "B/X Witch" for The Complete B/X Adventurer...but even if I had, I'm not sure I would've used much of the stuff here. Certainly not the gemstone level titles (a little too Amway-esque)...not sure where that idea came from. Maybe some of the more interesting NPC spells from issue #5; some of those are pretty cool.

[strange there's no author attached to that article. Wonder if anyone ever figured out the writer]

The point is, maybe because it's so close to Halloween, I've got witches on the mind. I dig the concept of witch mythology (the fantasy witch if you will) - both good and bad - and wouldn't mind seeing something witch-like in the new heartbreaker. The problem is, how to do it without being offensive to folks.

I remember Long's book with much fondness.

Modern witches, for those who don't know, are very different from the critters you find in classic fantasy literature... whether you're talking The Wizard of Oz or Narnia or those old school Halloween masterpieces. They're very different from the witches portrayed on television and 21st century film, too...but that's not the kind of witch I'm interested in (the witches of Charmed or whatnot are meant for a different RPG than D&D and its ilk). Nor am I talking about the Satanic, Black Mass coven-types of B-horror films, either.

For me, "old school" witches are more fun than frightening...even if the bad ones do (on occasion) eat children. From Baba Yaga and The Old Sea Hag to the beautiful Circe or Morgan Le Fey...the solitary witch is what I'm talking about. That chick in the first Conan movie or Glenda of Oz. In many ways, they are the female equivalent of the solitary sorcerer: someone who has removed herself from society (generally, by her own choosing) in order to practice her craft. Perhaps out of the (real medieval) fear of being burned at the stake by one's neighbors.

When these Halloween-y witches get together at all, it's only once a year or every seven years or every century (depending on the story) to celebrate in a big brouhaha (bruja-ha?), otherwise staying out of each other's way unless engaged in some petty rivalry or magical dispute. Apart from these occasional gatherings of celebrated solidarity, these "fantasy witches" are private individuals, opting out of any sort of politics, mundane or magical. Any "Queen of Witches" title is more honorary (or a straight recognition of power) than an actual office to which other witches owe "fealty." I daresay the term might be one designed to poke fun at Earthly feudal titles...the witches are, after all, opting out of standard patriarchal society.

Ah, vinyl. In rotation every Halloween.

Does that all make sense? I'm not trying to be offensive here, I'm talking about a tradition of folklore and fiction. I'm not trying to "perpetuate stereotypes" of witches, I'm talking about enjoying some of those stereotypes in a fun fashion...and a little Grimm-dark fantasy to a fantasy adventure game.

Still, maybe that doesn't fly with some folks. Certainly, I've put my "pulp B/X adventure" game on-hold indefinitely because, no matter how one slices it, any game that includes "savages" (or even "natives") is going to tick someone off. It's borrowing from fiction that was created at a time when Colonialism and white privilege was "okay" (and being packaged and sold to folks of a white privilege persuasion). The pagan persecutions and witch-burnings of earlier centuries was also deemed "okay" at the time, and that is where the majority of our folklore on the subject (with its "wicked witches") comes from. If I do a "for fun" version of witches that buys into that folklore, I may be perpetuating harmful perspectives that some people will apply to real world witches and pagans (both present day and historical).

Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

I don't want to offend folks. I don't want to contribute to ignorance. And I don't want to include "disclaimers" in my writing...it wouldn't be a big enough section of the game to warrant such singular treatment (in my opinion), anyway.

Am I making too much out of this? People don't worry how elves or wizards are portrayed in RPGs because we consider these to be fictional creations...magic is considered fictional in general and real life hermetic magicians are considered delusional by most of the population (similarly, no one worries about offending people of the "Jedi Religion"). I don't think dwarves are offensive to little people, as they are based on a fairy race of Norse mythology. But witches...well, a lot of people really did get tortured and murdered back in the day for their non-Christian beliefs. Real people. And there are plenty of real people today that consider themselves witches, though they don't sport pointy hats and green skin. Making light of the history is a bit like making a game where your intrepid explorers (*ahem*) shoot "savages" (pick a continent). And running with folklore that demonized a particular group of individuals is kind of "making light," no?

Maybe I'M just overly sensitive. But, well, that's what I'm thinking about today. More later, I'm sure.

It's not easy being green.

JBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-85832380660383428102014-10-28T09:19:00.001-07:002014-10-28T09:23:30.098-07:00Quick Addendum to Might and MagicAnd I mean really quick.

In my last (very early morning) post, I mentioned (briefly) M.A.R. Barker's Empire of the Petal Throne and its skill lists. For those who don't have EPT for reference, here's how it works:

In EPT you receive a handful of skills during character creation that help round out your character. These come in a couple different varieties. First there are background skills, similar to AD&D's "secondary skills" in that they are professional skills with no real game mechanics attached. These include things like butcher, carpenter, and wheelwright, as well as physician, poet, scholar, and slaver.

Actually, some have some mechanical benefits: the assassin-spy-tracker (that's one skill) can hide in shadows, and the alchemist can brew elixirs and poisons, for example. There are a few, but most don't have more effect then, "Oh, fisherman? You know how to fish." New characters receive a random number of these skills...as few as one, or as many as ten.

In addition, characters receive from two to five professional skills. These come from a list based on the character's class, of which there are only three: warrior, priest, and magic-user. Warrior skills are pretty much weapon proficiencies (spear, axe, crossbow, etc.) but priests and magic-users have a selection that ranges from additional languages to spells. While the starting number of pro skills is random, characters receive an additional skill with every level, so eventually a character can claim all on the list (each list has a dozen or so). The interesting thing is that they must be chosen in order...a warrior can't learn bowman until he's learned crossbow, for example. The most advanced skills cannot be claimed until all the lesser skills have been learned.

Summoning The Vapor of Death. Ooo!

In addition to this, priests and magic-users have a random chance per level of learning bonus spells from one of three separate lists ("groupings"). The spells in these groups are very similar to the ones in OD&D, and they are grouped by power (so Group I spells are the "weakest," though many are still plenty potent). Group III spells cannot be learned until 4th level, but with enough experience, EPT spell-casters can become quite powerful.

Over-all, a very interesting system and very "magical" in feeling. I very much like the "knowledge needs to be built on knowledge" attitude of the professional skills. The random bonus spells are appropriate for a campaign setting that features psychic abilities (and the, perhaps, spontaneous development of such abilities), but probably doesn't make much sense for my current project.

Ok...got to go. More later (I hope!).JBhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-10609937165289564262014-10-28T00:01:00.002-07:002014-10-28T00:02:03.228-07:00Might and Magic (Part 2)[continued from here]

People may notice that the list of blogs listed in the sidebar include a random sampling of non-active blogs that probably need to be deleted...and perhaps someday they will, if I ever get around to getting active on Patreon (and want to make blog listing a "reward" for some level of support). However, I still hold out hope that these might "fire up" again, at some point in the future. And sometimes, I still reference them for their old posts.

Such is the case with long dead Grognardia. As I wrote in Part 1, I was up till the wee hours combing through old (digital) copies of The Dragon, and I was using some of James's old posts to add a bit of additional perspective. Just in random passing, I came across this old post of his and (especially in view of my recent thoughts, dissatisfaction with magic-users as is/was) it reminded me of something. I hate the lumping of spell-casters into one or (at most) two types "magic paradigm."

See my post on this back in 2010. At the time, I was working on The Complete B/X Adventurer (man, THAT has been selling like hotcakes the last two months, just by the way) and in an effort to add more content to a skinny book, decided to throw in some different types of spell-casting classes. I ended up with five total (gnomes, mystics, summoners, tattoo mages, and witches), each with their own variant form of magic...not just "magic-users with different spell lists," but completely different approaches to the form and function of magic. The bee in my bonnet (at the time) was this idea that isn't it Goddamn boring to have everything simply be arcane or divine?

Let me answer that: Yes. Yes it is.

This is the reason you don't find illusionists in D&D after 1st edition (at least, not as a core class). First, ya' fold all their spells under a heading called "arcane," then you say:

"Hey, if you want to specialize in illusion magic, pick illusion spells."

Much as I want a certain cosmology in my game world, I don't want a unified field theory of magic.

[hmm...I say this after already creating a brand-new variant magic system for the current project consisting of a single list of spells: the Forty Magnificent Marvels. Sigh...back to the drawing board...again]

I like the idea of different magical schools, each dedicated to a different brand of enchantment. Fire mages, necromancers, druids, etc. It's not a terribly original concept, I realize: I believe I first saw this kind of paradigm circa 1983 with DragonQuest (I created a stone giant who was a member of the Earth Magic college...sadly, we never had the chance to do more than chargen that day...). Ars Magica does a little of this, too, and I've used the concept a couple times in past FHBs I was developing ("LORE," which I briefly mentioned before, had some of this). The original WHFRP had demonologists, necromancers, battle mages, etc. each with their own separate spell list, skills, and (in some cases) horrifying drawbacks.

I dig this...it has a very old school (please, PLEASE forgive the use of that term!) pulp fantasy vibe. Like the rival wizard guilds in a Leiber story trying to show off why their magic is supreme (shades of 70's Hong Kong flicks with feuding martial art schools). Heck, it's the kind of thing that could work well with the concept of "wizard duels." Forget counter-spells: an illusionist doesn't know the first thing about countering a fire mage's spell. But create a mechanic to simulate dueling, and you can still have two mages of different backgrounds duking it out.

Now that I think of it, this is a big part of why I dug Magic Cards, waaaay back: the idea that you were a Red Mage or a Blue Mage or whatever, and the deck represented your spell book. I always liked working with a "theme;" but then, I've long been one of those people that prefer the fluff of a game over practical application (often to my detriment). Hmm...now that reminds me of the Rankin-Bass film Flight of Dragons with its different colored "wizard brothers."

Of course, that just reminds me of Tolkien (again) with its grey, white, brown, and blue wizards...and weren't Frank Baum's witches color-coded as well? Differing magic by color has a long and distinguished tradition, I suppose...

*ahem*

And to tie this back to the last post... One thing I was considering (just an idea, mind you), is providing more static spell lists for magicians. Limiting them (I suppose you'd say) rather than throwing this huge list of spells at players, only to have them (mostly) choose the same spells over and over. There would be some variation, of course (just as fighters get to choose what weapons they want to carry), and perhaps different lists depending on theme (a druid style list versus the illusionist, for example). Magicians would still acquire effectiveness with experience, though perhaps not so much a greater repertoire of spells. And the spells that would be gained (with increase in level) would be equally limited...something akin to Barker's EPT (1st edition) skill trees, building on knowledge already known.

No necromancers, though...otherwise everyone wants to be one.

The trade-off here...or, rather, what would be gained...would be an increased effectiveness from the get-go. Your magician (or pyromancer or whatever), would have a number of spells at his or her disposal right from 1st level...perhaps the equivalent (in D&D terms) of seven or eight spells ranging in magnitude of 1st through 3rd level. Something fairly equivalent to Gandalf, in other words. None of these would be over-powering, "game changing" sort (unless applied in creative fashion)...most would be of the "utility" type (said utility being determined by the school or "theme" of magic).

Anyway, just an idea I have...I'll see if I can work up some sample lists in the next couple days and post 'em to the blog. I have a strong suspicion that long-time players of the MU class in D&D might hate-hate-hate this concept for a number of reasons: it undermines the work they've put into mastering spell lists, it reduces the choices/options they have, it penalizes the creative strategies they've developed over years of play, it doesn't have the same feel as Vancian D&D, etc. And if folks DO raise these objections, I say: FINE. Go play D&D.

Take your 1st level sleep bomber or charm personer with your bandolier of throwing knives and go play D&D. Pick your edition...it's all the same (except that recent ones let you shoot lasers...um, "cantrips"...just like Harry Potter). Go skulk behind the fighters and clerics for umpteen game sessions until you've acquired enough points that you can be effective. Go do it...I'm not going to stop you! And when you've reached the lofty level where you outclass the non-spell-casters and there's the potential threat of grumbling, you can always incorporate feats and maneuvers and weapon specialization and be a merry band spending an entire game session on a single battle that will be a challenge for your immensely talented party.

That's one way to play (and a time honored one, to be sure). I'm just trying to work on a different way: one that appeals to me. I'm a guy who doesn't play magic-users...like never ever ever. And not because I don't like magic or something. I love stories of wizards and sorcerers and magicians and witches (well, most such stories...sorry, Ms. Rowling). Gandalf is a personal favorite...in fact, I lied! I did...once...play a wizard in 3rd Edition, and I modeled the character on Gandalf, right down to taking Martial Weapon Proficiency: Sword.

[I believe I related this story in the past? We couldn't get past the first obstacle in the adventure because I, as the party wizard, had not taken the "correct" spells. 'What do you mean you don't have fly? You're seventh level!' The DM, folded the adventure in disgust and our session ended. It was the last time I've ever played a straight wizard PC]

I don't like magic-users in D&D. I don't like the way they're conceptualized, I don't like their mechanics, I don't particularly like their steep power curve (and I'm a person that likes power!). So, I want to make a magician class that I'd like to play. That's all this is, folks.
: )JBhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-60360751136135041892014-10-27T15:33:00.002-07:002014-10-28T00:02:43.855-07:00Might and Magic (Part 1)I have so many different ideas for blog posts I want to get up, I feel a little stymied in where to start. But I guess I better do something...here goes:

I was up till...oh...2:30 or something in the morning reading the first twelve issues of Dragon magazine (at the time called simply, The Dragon). I went looking for a particular article, which then led me to another, thence to another, and so on until I finally just said, 'whatever...I'll just read the first twelve issues and see where it takes me.'

Minus the fiction, of course...boy, there was a LOT of fiction back in those days. Much more than what I remember back in the mid-late 80s (when I first started reading Dragon). Anyway, the main article of interest for purposes of this post is Bill Seligman's March '77 essay, "Gandalf was only a fifth level magic-user," found in The Dragon #5.

I love this article...perhaps not the way it is written (though the point here is not to critique Mr. Seligman), but the concept. That is, the idea the man is trying to express. The point (for those who don't have access to this particular issue) is that the abilities displayed by Gandalf throughout both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy can be modeled in OD&D (the only edition at the time) with the stats of a 5th level magic-user. That is to say, the majority of magic Gandalf displays in the text can be mimicked using existing 1st and 2nd level spells (or slight variations) with only the occasional use of a 3rd level lightning bolt spell...though the author points out the latter could possibly be explained by Gandalf's use of Narya the Great.

Seligman also states that Sauron's displays of magic can be modeled with a 7th or 8th level caster's ability (or 12th level "if you're going to be nasty" and allow that he has the control weather spell). Personally, I'd say that Sauron is at least 11th level in D&D terms, given his ability to manufacture magic items (like, ahem, magic rings).

As I said, I really like this. For one thing, if you look at the Tolkien books as adventure guides, you can see just how much is possible with a 5th level Magic-User carrying a bunch of utility spells and one (maybe two) "blasting" type dweomers. Gandalf is no slouch as an adventurer, being quite clever and not reliant on his magical abilities. It helps, of course, that he carries a sword like Glamdring (presumably the sword-equivalent of something like the dagger +1, +2 vs. goblins or similar)...but I've seen plenty of low-level (and not so low-level) magic-users that would be skulking around the back of the party, even with such a blade. Clever and yet bold: this is the kind of character I'd like to see in my own games...but herein lies the problem.

Being 5th level means needing an umbrella.

Gandalf is a very cool character in literature, but how does one get to him in the game? If he starts at 1st level (with only the capability of casting a single spell), he's certainly not going to resemble "Gandalf." More like a very raw apprentice...and one who tires quickly (blows his wad with a single spell-casting). Of course, if he survives to level up (probably by ducking and skulking), you'll get there eventually...and then you'll pass that "Gandalf level" rather quickly and soar into the stratosphere of magical power: polymorphing Nazgul into rabbits, conjuring walls of fire and stone to shore up Minas Tirith, and teleporting back to the Shire as necessary.

Just not quite right.

["JB! D&D isn't Tolkien!" Got it...just bear with me, ok?]

The problem (or, more accurately, MY problem) is that D&D is too slow to get to (what I consider to be) a competent level of magic, is too quick to ascend to lofty superhero levels of power, and too focused on combat, in general...the latter due to the nature of the game.

[plus, not enough geezers (though I recognize that may not be everyone's style)]

That all counts as ONE problem, by the way...it's a problem of granularity that doesn't really exist in the other classes. Characters increase in effectiveness doesn't jump in the same leaps and bounds as other classes...the differences between a 1st level fighter and 5th level fighter are very minimal compared to the difference between a 1st level (raw apprentice) MU and a 5th level "Gandalf." The gulf between the 5th level Gandalf and the 12th level Sauron is gigantic, which is a good thing....until you consider that it's not so terribly hard to advance from 5th to 12th level. Certainly it doesn't take thousands of years (considering the age, experience, and power of Tolkien's "Big Bad Guy") of game time...depending on the amount of playtime, the generosity of the DM, and the skill of the party, and the particular edition being played, a player could reasonably expect to reach 12th level within one to three years of play. I know 3rd edition shot for about one level gained per month (assuming weekly sessions). That is a fast, fast road to power.

How to rectify that?

Much as I liked the essay about Gandalf being "only" 5th level, there IS a part of me that says "how weak sauce!" when you know that it doesn't take that much effort to get to (and beyond) 5th level. Hey, Old Man: he who falls behind gets left behind, ya' know?

Okay, that's one thing I want to talk about...the article made me consider that Vancian magic isn't that terrible as put forward in the original LBBs. But there's tweaking that needs to happen with the advancement dynamic of the wizardly class to get to what I want to see. That and I think I'd like to restrict the variety of spells available to the mage...even more than I've already planned for my "basic" game.

But that has to do with a different issue that I'll be discussing in Part 2.
; )JBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-31116254484348363632014-10-26T05:36:00.000-07:002014-10-26T05:37:52.119-07:00Heroic Smack TalkBack in August, the Prismatic DM posted a neat idea about modeling the dramatic "throw down" in your B/X or LL game. It reminded me of my old blog post on vows, but with a more immediate, impactful effect on game play. Which is (in my mind) better...because it's something that can be practically implemented by player choice, rather than waiting for the DM to "set something up."

Anyway, cool as it was I wasn't 100% down with the mechanics of the maneuver, and I hadn't given it much additional thought until I was posting yesterday's entry on Eowyn. I said I wanted to model the same type of Eowyn-Nazgul interaction in the new heartbreaker, and I've already got a couple systems that will work (in aid of) that goal, but I really don't have anything for the "throw down" or heroic smack talk (as I like to call it) in place.

Not that what Eowyn does is really a challenge. In B/X terms, it's more of a standard negotiation (reaction check) kind of maneuver. "Hey, leave my dead uncle alone, huh? I don't want to fight over this." But the character blows the reaction roll and the fight's on. Not that Eowyn has a low Charisma, but there's probably a penalty involved here given the overall circumstances.

Usually, smack talk is made to ENCOURAGE a fight. Unlike the B/X reaction check, where combat only results due to a low roll, there are times in heroic fiction when a person is actively trying to entice an individual to battle. That's the kind of "smack talk" I'm talking about. And while it may not apply to Eowyn's case, as she was trying to discourage a fight, there are times when one might want to go the other way.

SO...I offer two slightly different game mechanics for your perusal. Both should be compatible with B/X. I call them The Goad and The Challenge.

The goad is what you use to encourage a fight with a lesser opponent. This is the classic dun moch maneuver of Star Wars (when Dooku or Vader taunts some lesser Jedi into a fight). This is Rage getting Armor all riled up so that he loses his cool in combat. The goad issues a challenge to the weaker opponent (a character of lesser HD/level), calling into question the character's courage and saying, "Here, come get me. Heck, I'll make it easy for you."

To goad an opponent, the person goading (called "the antagonist") rolls 2D6 using their Charisma reaction modifier. The result of the goad (which must be done prior to initiating combat) is determined by consulting the following table:

2 or less: the target is immune to the goad (or future goads); if the target of the goad chooses to fight anyway, she receives a +1 bonus to attack rolls against her antagonist, who receives no benefits.

3 to 5: the target is immune to the goad and future goads from this antagonist.

6 to 8: the goad has no effect; the target may choose whether or not to fight; if the target chooses to fight, treat this result as a 9 to 11 instead.

9 to 11: the goaded target must fight, receiving a +1 bonus to attack rolls (the antagonist leaves himself open, inviting the attack). However, anytime the goaded target misses an attack, the antagonist immediately receives a bonus attack against the target. The effects of the goad continue until the goaded target receives an attack that inflicts maximum damage.

12 or more: as the 9 to 11 result except that the target is goaded into attacking recklessly, suffering a -2 penalty to all attack rolls instead of receiving a +1 bonus.

How's that? Individuals more than four HD/level lower than the antagonist should be immune to a goad attack (assuming they have an accurate gauge of the antagonist), as should ALL 1st level characters. You don't want the neighborhood ogre calling out newly minted adventurers!

Different tactic from Eowyn.

Now a challenge is similar to a goad, but here the the challenger is calling out someone of equal or greater HD/level. The challenger rolls a 2D6, again modified by any Charisma reaction modifier (how lordly/intimidating is the challenge?). The result of the challenge depends on the result of the die roll:

2 or less: the target is immune to the challenge (or future challenges from this source); if he chooses to fight he receives a +1 attack bonus against the challenger (the challenger receiving no benefits).

3 to 5: the target is immune to the challenge and future challenges from this person

6 to 8: the challenge has no effect; if the target chooses to fight treat this result as a 9 to 11 instead.

9 to 11: the target accepts the challenge (i.e. the target must fight); the challenger receives a +2 attack bonus and a bonus die of hit points (rolled immediately) for the duration of the fight.

12 or more: as a 9 to 11 result except that the target of the challenge fights at a -2 penalty to all attacks, as he seeks to prove his greater skill "playing" with the challenger.

Issuing a challenge can really give the edge to someone of equal level, and so DMs may wish to limit the bonus effects only to targets that are of actual greater HD/level than the challenger, though a successful challenge (9+) should still entice the target to fight...a result of 12 or greater, should force the target to make a morale check or surrender to the challenger. Again, this is only for challenged targets of HD/level equal to the challenger.

It should probably go without saying that only sentient creatures (and only those with the ability to mutually communicate) can issue or accept goads and challenges.

I suppose that some negotiations, like the one between our friends Eowyn and the Witch-King, have an implicit challenge within them...a do this, or else kind of negotiation. With this type of system, you really can't mix and match...a challenge is something designed to provoke someone to battle...which is not at all what Eowyn was trying to do. She was attempting to back off the Nazgul: a "Get thee hence, demon!" kind of thing. In many ways, this is the equivalent of a turning attempt...and perhaps it should be modeled as such and not limited to clerics/undead (think Gandalf vs. the balrog: "You shall not pass!").

Hmmm...that may be fodder for another blog post.
; )

Okay, that's enough for now; I've got a baby to attend to and coffee to brew (not necessarily in that order). I will say that I want to return to the concept of "vows" sometime this week. But, yeah...got to go now (hold on, bebecita!)...
JBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-52300097380565756132014-10-24T08:04:00.002-07:002014-10-27T22:40:14.104-07:00EowynLong before I ever started this blog, probably shortly before (or, more likely, shortly after) I discovered The Forge and became really interested in the nuts and bolts of game design, I tried my hand at creating a system for a new fantasy RPG...one very different from B/X or D&D.

In fact, I'm going to say it was before I discovered "indie game design" because that was about 2005, and this was an idea I came up with when traveling in Canada with my wife back in the early 2000s...maybe even before we got married (which was in 2000). Whew...a loooong time ago.

This game idea was called "LORE" (which was an acronym for something, though I can't remember exactly what), and I can't seem to find the docs that had my notes...they're probably on some old zip drive back in Seattle. Anyway, back in those days, my main objective was to make sure that character creation could model various (fantasy) literary personalities (Conan, Elric, etc.) from the get-go without needing to wade through a bunch of "low levels" to become a proficient character. And the main literary person I used to model the LORE system was Tolkien's character, Eowyn.

This pic is too small.

Eowyn is one of my favorite characters from literature...at least as far as bit parts go. I dig most everything about her; I identify with many things about her. I think many people do: for most of us there have been times that we've been underestimated in our lives or frustrated at the pull between doing one's duty and doing what we want to do. Those who are younger siblings may have felt the pang of being told we need to "stay home" while the older sibling goes off to do something we want to do...and older siblings (like myself) have felt the guilt of not being "responsible enough" (even when our rebellion is only within our own minds). There are some archetypal emotions at work here.

But, mainly I like Eowyn because she kicks ass. This is the equivalent of an unblooded, 1st level fighter...and yet she's not afraid to talk smack to the Lord of the Nazgul. And then she backs it up by killing off his evil dinosaur mount, going toe-to-toe with the guy, and sticking her sword betwixt his eyes. Eowyn is pretty badass...at least in Tolkien's book.

There's no crying in battle!

I am on record as saying I received immense enjoyment from the Peter Jackson LotR films, and that I feel they do an excellent job of staying true to their source material (if you own/watch the Extended Version DVDs...which I do). But while I really, really, REALLY like Miranda Otto in the role of Eowyn, and find her interpretation of the character quite good (along with Jackson's writing, she really helps fill out and bring life to a literary character), I pretty much HATE the direction/depiction of her climactic scene on the Pelennor Fields. What is this: cowering? Is she going to cry or something? And the cheap way she delivers the line, "I am no man" after the Witch-King is already on his knees? What the hell is that? Kicking an enemy when he's down?

The scene in the book shows a stronger, confident character. First off, she calls out the bad guy right from the beginning...she gives him a chance to back off, and lays all the cards on the table, long before the first clash of battle...even before drawing her sword. But here...I'll quote the text, and you tell me what sounds better:

"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!"

A cold voice answered: "Come not between the Nazgul nd his prey. Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where they flesh shall be devoured, and thy shriveled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."

A sword rang as it was drawn. "Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may."

"Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!"

Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. "But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him."
[see what I'm talking about? this isn't some chica who's in over her head, backed into a corner and just trying to make a stand. She's just as proud and lordly as Aragorn or Theoden or Boromir or any of them. Except, of course, she actually kills something bigger than an orc. She can talk the talk AND walk the walk]

The winged creature screamed at her, but the Ringwraith made no answer, and was silent, as if in sudden doubt. Very amazement for a moment conquered Merry's fear. He opened his eyes and the blackness was lifted from them. There some paces from him sat the great beast, and all seemed dark about it, and above it loomed the Nazgul Lord like a shadow of despair. A little to the left facing them stood she whom he had called Dernhelm. But the helm of her secrecy had fallen from her, and her bright hair, released from its bonds, gleamed with pale gold upon her shoulders. Her eyes grey as the sea were hard and fell, and yet tears were on her cheek. A sword was in her hand, and she raised her shield against the horror of her enemy's eyes...

...Suddenly the great beast beat its hideous wings, and the wind of them was foul. Again it leaped into the air, and then swiftly fell down upon Eowyn, shrieking, striking with beak and claw.

Still she did not blench: maiden of the Rohirrim, child of kings, slender but as a steel-blade, fair but terrible. A swift stroke she dealt, skilled and deadly. The outstretched neck she clove asunder, and the hewn head fell like a stone. Backward she sprang as the huge shape crashed to ruin, vast wings outspread, crumpled on the earth; and with its fall the shadow passed away. A light fell about her, and her hair shone in the sunrise.

Out of the wreck rose the Black Rider, tall and threatening, towering above her. With a cry of hatred that stung the very ears like venom he let fall his mace. Her shield was shivered in many pieces, and her arm was broken; she stumbled to her knees. He bent over her like a cloud, and his eyes glittered; he raised his mace to kill.
[a few things to notice, here. One is the constant attention Tolkien pays to the Witch-King's eyes, for (aside from the crown floating above his head), nothing other part of the creature's head is visible. This is starkly different from the "empty helmet" (and hollow eyes) of Jackson. Then there's the potency of the Nazgul. In Tolkien's prose there's only two hits: "Me hitting you, you hitting the floor." Jackson's Nazgul swings his ridiculously over-sized flail no less than seven times before finally connecting with Eowyn's shield. It looks silly on screen (again, I say this as a fan of the film trilogy), making a battle between two champions look like...I don't know...a cheesy Kevin Costner-style fight scene. It makes me wince to watch the thing]

But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee.

"Eowyn! Eowyn!" cried Merry. Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her. The sword broke sparkling into many shards. The crown rolled away with a clang. Eowyn fell forward upon her fallen foe. But lo! the mantle and hauberk were empty. Shapeless they lay now on the ground, torn and tumbled; and a cry went up into the shuddering air, and faded to a shrill wailing, passing with the wind, a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up, and was never heard again in that age of this world.
See, there's no clever repartee from Eowyn once the fight starts...just business. She's "all in" before the Nazgul even decides she's worth his attention (I cut out the bits where he ignores the hobbit for a worm writhing in the mud). It's a classic scene of fantasy literature, that makes me dig the character much more than the weak-sauce portrayal in Jackson's film. This is why I still love those Rankin-Bass films...in addition to their beautiful animation, they adhere as closely to the text as they can while still being edited for time constraints.

Check out the video here. The dialogue and sequence is near word-for-word perfect.

Anyhoo, LORE of course was never completed, nor even developed to a point suitable for play-testing. But the idea of building a game capable of creating an "Eowyn-like" character is still something in which I'm interested. It's something I'm paying attention to as I work on the new heartbreaker (though, as magic is more prominent, it's unlikely I'll really get there. Hey, it's not supposed to be a LotR role-playing game!).

Just a couple more notes (I know this post is getting long):

Interesting that in Chainmail the Wraith figure can only be slain by another "fantasy character," like the Hero or Super Hero. I suppose Eowyn fits the bill as a "Hero" (she's certainly not the Super Heroic "Conan archetype"), which means she can slay a Nazgul on a 2D6 roll of 12. A pretty legendary task to be sure.

Second, in B/X both wraiths and (the more Nazgul appropriate) spectres are immune to normal weapons, so Eowyn wouldn't have been able to harm them anyway (though, of course, in B/X such creatures don't wield physical weapons, as they certainly do throughout Tolkien's books. Yes, I know, I know...there's a big difference between literature and RPGs. But I'm talking modeling, here, and many features of D&D were modeled after Tolkien's work). Eowyn isn't really an adventurer either (though perhaps she'd like to be one) and might be better modeled by Moldvay's NPC monster, the Noble:

"Noble" is a general term for the lord of a castle and any of his or her relatives.
The noble is is a three hit dice monster with AC 2 (presumably plate & shield) and damage of 1D8 (or per weapon). This would certainly be a good model for Theoden in B/X and probably both Eomer and Eowyn. But I'm just saying...

"Come get some, dwimmerlaik!"

JBhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-59132607594382270072014-10-23T09:14:00.002-07:002014-10-23T09:15:50.707-07:00Guarding the Galaxy...From Themselves

Our "heroes."

I'm a little surprised I've never yet written a blog post about Guardians of the Galaxy. Well, okay, maybe not. I've been making a bit of a concerted effort to keep the blog firmly on the subject of gaming (with the occasional Seahawk-related digression...it is football season), so perhaps NOT opening my yap about the film is me showing restraint. After all, if I really wanted to, there are plenty of movie and comic and book reviews with which I could fill this empty space...but then, you can get such opinions a lot of places other than Ye Old B/X Blackrazor.

Still, I did want to write a post after I saw the film (this was back in August, during my five day jaunt back in Seattle). But I had a bunch of other stuff going on at the time (like shopping for the return journey to Paraguay) and...yeah, I never really got around to it.

ANYway, just wanted to take a short break from the D&D stuff (sorry) and since it was either this or Aquaman (maybe tomorrow) I figured I'd start with this.

Guardians of the Galaxy is the best Star Wars movie since Star Wars.

"Eat my space dust, suckers!"

That was the overwhelming impression I had coming out of the theater. There hasn't really been a movie like Star Wars, since the original...even the sequels/prequels take themselves a bit too seriously with their angsty soap opera of the Skywalker family. Sure, there have been other movies that have tried to rip off Star Wars or conjure its success with their own brand of SciFi wa-hoo. But of the bunch I've seen, Guardians of the Galaxy is the closest thing to Star Wars...the feeling of Star Wars...since Lucas first delighted folks with his homage to Flash Gordan and Saturday matinee serials. And just in case I'm being unclear, I mean this in a very complimentary fashion.

Now, I realize that the story is based on comic books and existing comic book characters, but they are comics with which I'm UNfamiliar, the sole exception being Rocket Raccoon who is/was one of my all-time favorites (certainly my fave with regard to anthropomorphic animals). Since this Rocket is very different from the upright, "space ranger" type that I grew up reading, I can only assume that the film takes some liberty with all the characters...unless, of course, I just missed a Rocket "reboot/makeover" somewhere in the last twenty years.

And that's fine...the liberties they've taken (such as with Ronan the Accuser...what a great villain that guy was in the film!) make for a great film that I can only judge on its (individual, probably non-canon) merits. This is an attitude I've taken with other films recently, and it's done a lot to ease my mental stress. And you know what? The new take on the Falcon in the most recent Captain America reboot is sooooo much better than the comic book character (sorry, Red Wing!), sometimes I just feel like applauding the filmmakers' divergence from accepted comic book continuity.

"I am the most boring thing in this film."

Having said that, Zoe Saldana's character is so utterly boring and pointless, I really wish they'd gone way-waaay off book with her. Great: she's a badass female assassin who's a bit "detached" emotionally. Haven't we seen this trope a gazillion times? I'm all for women kicking ass, but why doesn't she get the delightful quirkiness the rest of the cast does? Like the guy who interprets everything literally, or the bioengineered raccoon with an inferiority complex, or the simple-minded tree, or the putzy protagonist? I've already seen Saldana do this shtick in Colombiana...she's too good an actor to get stuck as a green-skinned killer who really wants to be good but can't because she hasn't found the right friends to let her open up and blah-blah-blah.

ANYway...(*sigh*) like most films it's not perfect, of course, but there's a lot of fun to it. And it uses my favorite-favorite SciFi trope of all time: the normal human who's had to adapt to life in space, and NOT as a "master race." This is the concept where the galaxy is full of weird sentient beings and humanity is anything but the "dominant species." The animated film Titan A.E. is great at this (I could write a couple blog posts on that movie, BTW). So was the old Continuity Comics title Armor (any of you catch that one? The Canadian brothers that get abducted by alien slavers and adapted to the needs of a pirate fleet? Great stuff).

I really dig the "stranger in the strangest land" thing, and Chris Pratt does a great job of "making do" with what he has as opposed to being some sort of gifted "Chosen One" (like that Alex kid in The Last Starfighter). The whackier the better, I say...if you got whisked away from Earth and jammed into an utterly alien society, how would you cope? Would you be able to cope? Or would you just fall apart?

[I think it's fitting that...in this particular genre...it's usually a youngster or kid who ends up being the hero, as kids are often more adaptable to new and drastic life changes than us sedentary adults]

"Go ahead...make my day."

When I saw this film was first coming out, I thought it looked pretty interesting (again, not knowing anything about the comic book canon of the IP) and it gave me an idea for a little game called Outlaw Space. At the time, I was very interested in GM-less type games, and this was one of my stabs at a concept. But after actually watching the film, I found myself surprisingly satisfied...I no longer felt the need to create a game that told a particular kind of story. I found that I had "gotten my fix" with Guardians of the Galaxy, and I really wasn't interested in doing a pastiche of the movie. Right now, between Star Wars, Firefly, and Guardians I've got plenty of space cowboy wahoo to fill my imagination...at least, for the time being.

Though I'm sure there's a sequel already in the works.
JBhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-37637619390532835392014-10-22T09:30:00.001-07:002014-10-22T09:32:43.597-07:00Hating on LizardsFast Paraguayan Fun Fact: All over Asuncion, there are these little yellow lizards that are all about getting into your home and scaring the beJesus out of you in the middle of the night by showing up on walls and counters and such. Some are tiny...barely over an inch...though I've seen some as long as eight or nine inches (these you bat with brooms). They're a damn plague is what they are; not as bad as the cucarachas, but...ANYway, the funny thing is, they're not native to the country, or even to the continent. Some years ago, a person brought a box of lizards to Paraguay from China, and the lizards escaped into the wild and they've been here ever since. Kind of like the damn chickens in Kauai. Now why anyone would want to bring a box of lizards from China (or anywhere else) is still a mystery...

You might think this is some kind of segue into a discussion on dynamic dungeon ecosystems or something, but you'd be wrong. My brain is not working hard enough this morning to generate that kind of power. No, I just hate these damn lizards. I've never liked creepy-crawly things, I've never been a fan of the outdoors or camping, and it's a constant irritation that I'm the dude that has to deal with this shit when my wife or kids are freaked out 'cause I'm the "man of the house." Seeing as how I'm about the least "manly" man I know, you'd think I'd get a pass or...well, whatever.

[actually, now that I think of it, I do know at least a couple of guys who are "less manly" than myself (they will remain nameless), but I really had to think about it. I'm pretty much a cream puff...though I do like hiking the occasional mountain]

No need for a loincloth. Really.

Lizard men, on the other hand, is something I can definitely dig on...at least as an RPG monster.

Lizard men...I prefer that term to the gender neutral "lizard folk" because to me folk implies some sort of family/culture (which I don't like my monsters to possess) and I think the archaic use of "man" as a gender neutral term harkens back to Old School pulp of which the monster was most certainly born. Besides, can you really tell the gender of a lizard person? Shouldn't we just call 'em "lizardoids" or something?...

*ahem* Lizard men (as I was starting to write) first appear in Supplement I (Greyhawk). They are not present in Monsters & Magic (book 2 of the LBBs), which isn't all that surprising when you consider that the entirety of the original monster list falls into one of these categories:

carryovers from Chainmail (and its Tolkien influence)

derivations of creatures from Chain mail (horses, for example)

human antagonists fit for wargaming (pirates, bandits, etc.)

creatures from Saturday matinee horror flicks (vampires, giant insects, The Blob, etc.)

creatures from (mostly Greek) myth...though these may in fact be based on film, too (of the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad variety)

It isn't till Greyhawk that we start to see creatures derived from more literary sources, especially pulp fantasy and science fiction. Though maybe these, too, are found in horror and SciFi cinema...I'm not a huge lover of the B-movie genre, so I don't have the "chops" to really give a proper analysis.

Actually, in reading a few articles on-line about where these critters came from (many derived from Gygax's mind...at least their abilities, if not their names and images)...I see I'm waaay off base in my assumptions. Many times, Gygax was just "stretching things" to make them fit the needs of his campaign. Many images of iconic monsters (like kobolds and pig-faced orcs) simply come from the artist's rendering (and we've been using those images, incorporating them into the stats and background color ever since).

Well, at least that's better than simply making monsters to fill a niche created by a class ability.

As you might have guessed, I'm thinking about monsters today (well, and lizards...though they only come out at night). A lot of fantasy heartbreakers get dinged (in part) for their zealous adherence to the same old-same old equipment list found in the PHB (and elsewhere). For me, I'm considerably more concerned with the list of NPC antagonists (i.e. "monsters") that I want to include, and making sure they're distinct from "what has gone before," as well as being part of an internally consistent cosmology.

It's not just about re-skinning ghouls as "plague zombies," or orcs as "subhumans;" it's about creating the right flavor of adventure with the right creatures. Gygax made his gnolls "hyena-headed" because he needed something "more evil" and "disliked hyenas intensely." This just feels terribly appropriate to me...I feel the same way about lizard men. While all the entries for lizard man read about the same (from Greyhawk to Mentzer), the best summary of the creature can be found in Holmes's (two sentence!) description:

"These aquatic monsters will capture men in order to take them to the tribal lair for a feast, with the man as the main course! They are at least semi-intelligent and use weapons such as spears and clubs."
Really, that's all you need to know. They eat people, but they have the rudimentary intelligence to form a tribal structure and manufacture crude weapons. In other words, they are (presumably) aware of sentient beings (being sentient themselves) but choose to eat them! How evil is that? Kill 'em all!

Of course, the fact that they are much bigger and stronger (HD 2+1) than humans with a hide like mail (AC 5), means that they're a scourge that ain't going away anytime soon. Sure, a posse of mounted knights could drive them away on the open battlefield, but it's a fool's errand to take a horse and armor into the swamp with the aim of "stamping 'em out." And if lizard "folk" multiply like lizards (birthing half a dozen at a time), how long till your pseudo-medieval countryside is crawling with them, the same way Paraguay is crawling with these little scaly bastards?

Just a thought. I like lizard men in games, because I hate lizards in real life. Those folks with pet iguanas and such? I just don't get it. I've had roommates in the past with two foot (plus) long lizard pets, and while they're "fine" in the cage, taking 'em out and letting 'em run around was just...well, let's just say I used to drink even more than I do now (*ahem*). Anyhoo...

I didn't put lizard men in Five Ancient Kingdoms (though it would've been easy enough to do so) because they don't "fit the fiction" of the game (pulp fantasy versus mythic Arabia). But they're definitely going into the new heartbreaker, if I can make them fit the cosmology. And they're going to be the kind of creature one will feel no compunction about killing, sans hand-wringing.

'Cause I really, really don't like lizards.

[as an aside, if you want to add lizard folk to your Five Ancient Kingdom game, the stat-line would look like this:

HD: 2+1, Armor: Light, Hit/Kill: 8/12, Move: 6/12, Mettle: 4, Save: H2, Hoard: D

The monster works well with the "sword & sorcery" alternate setting described on page 48 of Volume 3, Dragon Master Secrets]JBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-44845105423783342742014-10-21T09:37:00.000-07:002014-11-07T08:26:11.530-08:00The Basic Weapon ListAll right! So now I come to the end of my series (yesterday's post was really the last "concept" post) detailing my thoughts on the weapons that should be included in a basic fantasy adventure game like the one I'm currently working on. That was the real point of these posts (in case it wasn't clear)...this blog is serving as my "design notes," so that interested persons can see my thought process (and so that I don't have to include a bunch of sidebars in the game as to "why the designer is doing this"...don't you hate needless padding?).

However, before I post my final list, I wanted to post a few addendum thoughts regarding missile weapons: in an indoor or subterranean environment (like a "dungeon") there's really not much call for long range weapons. Not only are you working with fairly short distances before your arrow hits a wall, not only are you losing the ability to "arc" missiles (due to a capped ceiling), not only are the quarters cramped in general with monsters who (in the main) are trying to get into melee...not only that, but in the darkness you're probably going to be out-shooting your light sources.

So for my game, I don't need a lot of shooting weapons. Certainly not the seven found on the battlefields of Chainmail (short bow, horse bow, longbow, composite bow, light crossbow, heavy crossbow, arquebus). Heck, I don't even need all four to six of the ones in older "basic" editions of D&D. Give me bow, crossbow, and rock (thrown or "slung") and I'm good. And no, I'm not going to worry too much about ranges.

Having got that out of the way, here's the weapon list for my basic heartbreaker:

Ye Old Armory

Axes
- Battle Axe*
- Hand Axe (t)
Blades
- Dagger (t)
- One-Handed Sword
- Long Sword*
Missiles
- Bow
- Crossbow
- Sling
Others
- Club*
- Mace/Hammer
- Spear*(t)
- Two-Handed Weapon

* indicates weapon may be used with 1 or 2 hands
(t) indicates weapon may be thrown

Weapon Notes

Unless stated otherwise, all weapons have a maximum damage of 6

Two-Handed Weapons have a maximum damage of 8

All axes add +1 to maximum damage

All swords add +1 to attack rolls

Crossbows, Maces, Hammers, and Two-Handed Weapons add +2 to attack rolls versus heavy armor (though the latter loses this bonus in tight quarters).

Daggers, Clubs, and Slings subtract 2 from attack rolls AND maximum possible damage

Crossbows require a full (10 second) round of combat to reload

Okay, that should just about do it. The "two-handed weapon" entry includes all pole arms, zwiehanders, giant mauls, etc. The exact type of two-handed weapon doesn't matter as they are all...from the standpoint of game mechanics...effectively the same weapon.

Any questions? Comments? Additional thing I need to consider? Or should I just start working on my post about "wandering monsters?"
: )

JBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-72663491397166029002014-10-20T18:49:00.000-07:002014-10-21T04:59:12.330-07:00Revisiting Variable Weapon DamageLet's see...where was I? Oh, yeah...basic weapons.

[I suppose I should extend a congrats to the St. Louis Skaven this week...those tricksy, tricksy rats. Congrats. I was smart enough to only have a couple Fullers on hand this weekend so as not to get too tossed. Ugh...]

Taking a look at the Moldvay list, I find that I want to talk about variable weapon damage. Back in 2009, while working on my B/X Companion, I thought it would be a great idea to vary weapon damage by character class instead of by weapon (an option I included in the book), in order to allow PCs of any flavor to use whatever gear best suited their personal taste. Over 18 months later, after many actual games of awesome B/X play I came to the conclusion that I really preferred straight, Rules As Written, D6 damage for ALL weapons (with minor bonuses for two-handed weapons). I wrote why here, and have been using some variation of "standard D6 damage" ever since.

However, with some evolving ideas I have regarding the nature of hit points, I'm starting to reconsider my stance. Yes, it's easy (for me) to roll D6s when it comes to damage...but then, I've been working on getting rid of damage rolls, anyway. With that in mind, does a six point range of damage make sense?

So we come to that wonderful unit of measure, the hit die, and what it represents. Simply put it is a measure of attacking power, equal to one human scale soldier.

The ashcan that started it all.

There are no "hit dice" in Chainmail; at least, the explicit term is not used. The number of dice rolled for attack (and the target number needed to "kill") depends on what type of troop attacking and the type of troop being attacked. Hit dice, as explained in the second book of OD&D (Monsters & Magic) is described in terms of the default combat system (Chainmail, remember?) so that an ogre (with 4+1 HD) would roll 4 times, attacking the same as 4 men, and requiring the equivalent of 4 wounds (four successful attack rolls) to kill. The +1 gives the ogre a +1 on one of these attack rolls and +1 to the number of "hits" (i.e. HPs) possessed.

Again, these attack dice are not as straightforward as they might appear, as they depend on the type of troop being attacked to figure their relative value. Chainmail is explicit that an ogre fights as "heavy foot." With 4 HD, these attack dice look like the following against various defenders:

vs. Light Foot: roll 4d6, any 5+ kills.
vs. Heavy Foot: roll 4d6, any 6 kills.
vs. Armored Foot; Light Horse: roll 2d6, any 6 kills.
vs. Medium/Heavy Horse: roll d6, any 6 kills.

[remember, the ogre receives a +1 bonus on one die roll, so (for example) really only needs to roll a 5+ against a medium or heavy horseman]

Using OD&D's alternative combat system (the D20 system in place with every edition since, and which is the base for D20 in general), hit dice transforms to a probability of inflicting damage within one round of combat, and a measure of vitality (HPs) for a creature, each HD being equivalent to a single fighting man...the latter being made clear with the advent of Supplement I (Greyhawk) when both fighters and monsters were awarded D8 hit points per HD (and non-martial adventurers/humans being awarded fewer).

Here in Greyhawk we see the first "variable damage by weapon" chart, which is generally adapted in Moldvay. The only differences found (at least where the weapons on the two lists match) are the pole arm whose D8 damage in OD&D increases to D10 damage in B/X (matching the missing "halberd" damage type), and the spear which, in OD&D, has 3 different damage ranges depending on how it is used. Both sword and battle axe are given D8 damage...though note that a battle axe does not carry the "two-handed only" restriction found in B/X.

Just for review, here's how the variable damage types break down (in B/X, which contains a better "dungeoneering weapon list"):

D4 damage: torch, dagger, sling stone ("rock"), club ("stick")
D6 damage: arrow/quarrel, hand axe, mace/hammer, spear, "short sword"
D8 damage: battle axe, "normal sword"
D10 damage: pole arm, two-handed sword

The more I stare at this list, the more sense it starts to make for me...but only with a changing idea of what hit points are.

See, before I was looking at the D6 damage thing in light of the idea that all normal humans have D4 hit points...a range of 1 to 4. But this isn't entirely accurate. A human being in B/X (or OD&D + supplements) has a HP range of 1 to 8 (with a single hit die); however, most humans encountered aren't "worthies" sporting more than four. Allow me to break it down (a little different from my D6 post):

1 hit point: an individual on death's door. Any damage will slay this person. True invalids, babies, people without the will or strength to stand on their own. Such individuals may take no action in combat, save to crawl around on the floor.

2 hit points: small children or the elderly. People with diminished capacity, suffering from severe illness, or wounds. Such an individual might survive a weapon wound...if they're very lucky. Such individuals suffer a -2 penalty to attack rolls in combat.

3 hit points: a "deficient" person...someone who's out of shape, lacks energy/vitality or a "will to live," but who is otherwise capable of normal (if weak) human action.

4 hit points: a normal person in full health.

5 hit points: a normal person in full health but one who is exceedingly healthy/strong in body OR incredibly strong-willed and spirited (able to fight through pain/illness, etc.).

6 hit points: a normal person in full health who is both exceedingly strong in body AND in willpower/spirit.

To this range of 1 through 6 use the following adjustment:

If a character has had formal fight training (professional soldiers, noblemen, etc.) add +2 hit points.

This gives us the full range of 1 to 8.

This is what I'm currently using, by the way, to calculate HPs for creatures of all shapes and sizes (and by reverse applying these principles, for finding out what kind of monster is encountered based on the average number of HPs per HD the thing has). A normal "orc soldier" would have 6 hit points, for example...an exceptionally strong or cunning one would have 7, while a leader type with both size and an iron will would have the full 8 hit points. A soldier "past his prime" (perhaps retired based on injury in battle) would still have 5 hit points (3 HP category + 2) while even an elderly chap (if he can carry a sword) would still have 4 hit points.

12 to 14 HPs

This is per hit die, you understand. The aged gnoll warrior would have 8 HPs (2 HD at four each) compared to average adult warrior, who'd have 12 (6 per die). If they were hardened veterans, they'd have 14 apiece, while elite types (the chief's bodyguards and such) would have 16. A gnoll child would be pretty tough (4 hit points), but would not fight as well as a human warrior (-2 penalty to attack rolls, reducing Base Attack Bonus to +0).

OKAY...having given you an overview of this "HD reinterpretation," let's look at the weapons and their damage maximums.

First, change the term "short sword" for one-handed sword, and "normal sword" for longsword. Then consider the following:

Remember that damage range is based on "roll over" attack number and so die type (in this case) equals "maximum rollover" (i.e. maximum damage).

Battle-axes and longswords (both with a maximum length of c. 4') can be used one or two-handed.

When used two-handed (and only when used two-handed) these weapons bump their maximum damage from 6 to 8.

True "two-handed" weapons (zwiehanders and pole arms) have additional penalties when used within the close confines of a dungeon environment (even in a wide chamber, you're often dealing with a low ceiling, precluding the full range of motion...poleaxes and two-handed swords inflict their greatest damage when being swung downwards on an opponent). Personally, I would probably model this with a -2 penalty to both attack and maximum damage...but in an open space/chamber, these weapons could prove devastating).

Here we see the damage range of all weapons is enough to slay an adult human at least 50% of the time with anything bigger than a dagger, stick, or rock (these "lesser" weapons can still inflict death on a healthy adult person with a perfect strike of "4 over"). A perfect blow with a one-handed weapon will slay even a trained warrior ("6 over") and a perfect strike from a two-handed weapon will slay even an elite fighting man ("8 over").

The "Big Boys" (two-handed swords and pole arms) have the potential to deliver significant "over-damage," but rather than giving them a ten point damage range, this might be better modeled by having them decrease the effectiveness of armor by 2 (a +2 bonus to attack individuals wearing armor) and leaving their maximum damage at 8. Remember, wearing armor not only makes it more difficult for your opponent to inflict damage but reduces your opponent's ability to inflict significant damage (because the "roll over" target is higher). A +2 bonus to attack armor reduces armor's effectiveness, and increases the chance of doing good (i.e. "killing") damage.

Okay, that's about it for this series...though there might be a slight addendum tomorrow.JBhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-7362546223437061572014-10-17T06:37:00.000-07:002014-10-21T13:17:44.185-07:00No Such Thing As "Normal" (Part 2)[continued from here]

I know I said I wouldn't be examining the PHB in this series but guess what: I lied. I wanted to look at the dimensions of a short sword to figure out what exactly the hell it is. Because there's really no such thing as a "short sword" proper. There are swords that are shorter in length than others...but as swords have a variation of...oh, say, 24" (blade length) up to the monstrous two-hander...well, suffice is to say there's no such thing as "normal," either.

While I'm not a historian, I am something of a sword fanatic. I've studied swords, I own lots of books on swords, I like looking at swords in museums (and have done so all over the world), I fenced and read about/studied fencing for a number of years, I own real (non-replica) swords. Swords are my bag, baby. And for a geeky number-crunching, categorizing, pigeon-holin' dude like myself, swords are maddening, because for the most part they don't fall into hard and fast categories.

The easiest way to look at swords is to see them for what they properly are: the weaponized evolution of knife (and cutting/slicing) technology. Nothing beats a spear for poking, and its hard to argue against an axe for chopping. But the sword is a versatile weapon that can be used to harm folks in a variety of ways, including chopping, poking, slashing, and bashing. They're quick and maneuverable, and yet they're long enough to keep shorter, faster weapons at a good distance. Even though various "types" of swords are specialized for different types of combat (rapiers versus gladius versus broadsword versus saber) in general a sword is still a sword and two swords of different types are still more similar to each other (in how they are wielded) than they are to other weapons. A scimitar and an estoc are quite different, but they are much closer to each other than either is to a pike or mace.

[you can quibble but...well, you can quibble; leave it at that]

Hence, we find in Chainmail only a single entry called "sword" that falls into that intermediate scale between maces/picks and the flail weapons. The two-hander, used and wielded much like a big, edgy pole arm is a few more rungs up the ladder (between halberd and lance), but there's no "short sword, long sword, broad sword, bastard sword, blah-blah-blah." Everything not a dagger or a zwiehander is a sword. Period.

So what the hell is a "short sword?" Because we need to answer that before we get to the even more strange "normal sword."

The PHB has all their weights in GP and their way off real world weights (due to representing "bulk" not just poundage, I suppose), so we can't really rely on that. Length may be a better clue: the short sword is listed as "circa two feet," and with no other info to go on, one assumes this is overall weapon length (like the 6' two-hander), making the short sword only slightly longer than the dagger. Considering 4-5" for a one-handed hilt, that leaves us room for a 19" blade, smaller than even the ancient Greek xiphos or (most) examples of the Roman gladius. It's barely bigger than a seax, which is really considered a knife, not a sword.

Here's something I was told by a guy who is a historian, as well as a real-life blacksmith, who does quite a bit of sword-work for Ren-fairs: in the olden days, if you were using a sword to fight, it would probably break...and sooner the more you used it. Battle is as hard on equipment (if not harder) than it is on people, and people heal. What's more, swords were fairly expensive weapons, so when your sword broke, you didn't just throw it away. Instead you took it to a smith who'd file it down for you into a shorter blade. This process would repeat when the blade would (inevitably) break again, and then you'd have the thing filed down into a largish knife called a dagger (or dirk, though that's a Scottish term). Could the "short sword" entry on the extensive AD&D weapon list be a stab (pardon the pun) at trying to be comprehensive in including these broken/mended weapons? Perhaps. Though it's maybe just as likely that Gygax wanted a weapon that would be the standard "broadsword equivalent" for shorties like gnomes and halflings.

In fact, if the latter is the case then Moldvay's normal swords becomes a bit easier to swallow: "short swords" are for halflings (and perhaps dwarves) while "normal swords" are for normal-sized folks (like humans and elves). Now, that actually makes some sense (and would also explain why a dwarf would choose to use a battle axe, as such a weapon would become their best melee damage option with regard to variable weapon damage).

But I still dislike the term "normal sword." Not only because there's no such thing as a "normal" sword but because, if you really want to categorize blades, there IS an easy way one could (somewhat) distinguish between them. And that way is to divide them into longswords and one-handed (short) swords, in addition to the two-hander group.

The longsword is "long" (the largest a bit more than 4' in total length, though that's not all blade), but what distinguishes the longsword is a hilt (with a grip of around 7-9") designed to allow two-handed use...despite the weapon being light enough to wield one-handed. This two-handed use was a crucial development (as was a forte...the base of the blade...that allowed easy gripping), in order to make the weapon more effective against the stronger armor being fielded on the battlefield. Along with more typical "anti-armor" weapons (the pick, the mace, etc.) the longsword became the knightly weapon of the late middle ages. It's ability to be used one or two handed (the former when riding or with a shield) just added to the versatility of the already versatile sword, and it would be a mainstay until armor started falling into disuse altogether (with the rise of gunpowder) and one-handed, dueling-style weapons became more the norm.

But D&D is a game of dudes (and dudettes) in armor, right? We don't need basket-hilted blades when we're wearing plate armor.

Longsword and arming sword...not that "short."

With the rise of the longsword, the old one-handed blades...like the Viking broadsword or knightly arming sword...are (were?) sometimes called "shortswords" but that's only in comparison to a longsword. The blade length of an arming sword (a typical "sidearm" in the age of the knight) is 30"...nearly a foot longer than the Gygaxian short sword of the PHB. 11" is a lot of distance...that will poke out the back of a person with a good thrust, and gives a lot longer slicing edge to "draw" in a slash. Despite lacking the armor piercing qualities of a longsword, these one-handed blades are plenty good weapons; you just need to be a bit more careful with your distance (because you're dealing with an opponent at closer range).

"Longsword"

OKAY, so...in a pseudo-medieval, non-gunpowder, non-battlefield setting that works combat in the abstract (i.e. is not as detailed as the system found in The Riddle of Steel RPG), I would definitely want to limit weapons to three basic categories: the one-handed sword, the one/two-handed (long) sword, and the 6' long monster that can only be used with two-hands. For me, everything from typical "earthly" fantasy...even across different real world sword cultures...can fall into one of these three categories, regardless of length, curve, edge, tang, guard, whatever. All that stuff is just extraneous "dressing" or "color" for how the weapon works in the game.

"Longsword"

If you really want to model specific types of swords and how they maneuver differently, I'd strongly recommend picking up a copy of TROS instead.JBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-12449094043889181462014-10-16T15:30:00.000-07:002014-10-16T15:30:33.417-07:00No Such Thing As "Normal" (Part 1)Much as I'd like to get sidetracked by a couple different subjects (specifically, "Changing Gamer Culture" and "Wandering Monsters"), I'm going to get back to my series on basic (D&D) weapons because...well, because I said I was going to, darn it! Jeez. One thing at a time, JB!

Now I wrote before that, up through Holmes Basic (i.e. prior to 1st edition AD&D) the weapons available to a D&D player character were the exact ones found in the Man-to-Man combat section of Chainmail. That wasn't entirely accurate, however, as Supplement I (Greyhawk) added a couple additions to the "standard starting thirteen," specifically the military pick and dwarves hammer which, considering my thoughts on hammers, makes perfect sense. The military pick and war hammer are pretty much the same weapon and as I describe them, fall into the same basic section as the mace. Gygax echoes this sentiment by keeping the same 12 step order (as from Chainmail) and lumping both these weapons in the same slot as the Mace (before Sword, after Hand Axe); he likewise gives them the same damage range.

I had not bothered to review Greyhawk prior to my first couple posts in this series, and so I was happily surprised to find Gygax had considered some of the same things I had and was not quite the blithering idiot he's been made out to be be. Here we find some ideas about what "space required" (from the PHB) actually means: for a flail, halberd, or two-handed sword the weapon require "not less than 6' of space on each side of the wielder" to use the weapon effectively (meaning such a weapon cannot be effectively used in a 10' wide corridor). Morning stars (the one-handed flail) require 5' on either side and battle axes require 4'. And check this kicker...pole arms and pikes?

"These weapons are not usable in dungeons as a general rule due to length."
Ha! Makes you wonder why gnolls (who are "subterranean 85% of the time," per the Monster Manual) have 35% of their soldiers carrying pole arms.

[okay, maybe Gary was a little idiotic at times]

ANYway...

The Moldvay version of Basic cleans up the weapons list, reducing it to "dungeon-worthy" gear and re-organizing it not by length (as such doesn't matter to the basic rules) but by weapon type. Specifically by five weapon types: axes, bows, daggers, swords, and "other." The bows section (which I realize I haven't to this point discussed in the series) is cut down to the short, long, and cross- varieties, leaving out the heavy crossbow and composite bow found in earlier editions. Axes and daggers remain the same weapons found earlier (though with the addition of the "silver dagger," its first mention in any version of D&D). "Other" lumps in the mace, hammer, pole arm, and spear, as well as two new weapons: the club and the sling. The cleric never had it so good.

[actually, the sling was introduced with the 1E PHB. However, I'd contend that part of Moldvay's objective here was to provide a number of options for all class types...hence the silver dagger (for magic-users with too much gold in the bank) and a plethora of blunt (cleric) options]

Flails and morning stars were dropped from the list; likewise halberds and pikes (unless they were subsumed into "pole arms" and "spears"). It's in the sword category however that we find what may be my one (main) gripe about the Moldvay's list:

Short Sword
Sword (normal)
Two-Handed Sword

"This is a really big sword."

The two-handed sword, what the Germans call a zweihander (hey, zwei is German for "two!"), has been around since Chainmail and has been a mainstay of D&D editions until 3rd edition when it was replaced by something called a "greatsword" which, as far as I can tell is a term first used by Michael Moorcock in his Elric books (at least the term "greatsword" is found as in the Stormbringer RPG as early as the 1st edition, 1981), though it is the literal translation of claymore, the two-handed weapon of Scottish highland fame. For swords, two-handers are heavy (5-7 pounds), long (5'-6'+), and carried like a pole arm...over the shoulder and without scabbard. Aside from various movies featuring guys in kilts, Verhoeven's 1985 film Flesh and Blood has an excellent depiction of a typical zwiehander in the hands of a Landsknecht merc (played by a young Rutget Hauer, ladies!).

I've got no problem with the two-hander as an adventurer's weapon...so long as one accounts for the pole arm-like space requirements needed to wield the thing. It's the other entries on Moldvay's sword list that I dislike.

But this post is getting pretty long, so I'm going to have to break it up into two parts...sorry, folks.

[to be continued]JBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-77200968282009023042014-10-15T08:41:00.003-07:002014-10-15T08:41:51.131-07:00Patreon Fever DreamsFast Paraguayan Fun Fact: beware of any medication (prescription or otherwise) that you buy in this country, as they tend to "double up" on normal FDA style dosages. As it is, I took a half dose of their Sudafed type drug, and almost immediately started to experience a host of sweaty, feverish side effects plus increased heart-rate shortness of breath, etc. The last couple days have been rough, considering this has just been a head cold, and not my annual October bout with bronchitis.

ANYway, perhaps due to the medically induced fever, I've been giving serious thought to doing the Patreon thang, and monetizing the blog...something I've never really considered in the past. I never wanted to stuff this blog with advertisements, and I was never so hard up as to throw a "Donate" button on the blog...I always figured that people who wanted to support my "work" (such as it is) would simply buy the publications that I occasionally put up for sale. And folks have...and that's awesome.

But ya' know what? The last couple-three years with the birth of my children, it's been mui difficile to find the time to blog, write, work full time, AND take care of my family responsibilities. Being down in Paraguay (and thus NOT working full-time) has allowed me a little more free time to blog/write (at least, once I got the older child into half-day daycare), but it's tough to justify the time I spend when it's mostly for fun. We all need hobbies (and creative outlets) but part of being an adult is making sure those are properly prioritized with one's other duties.

So...Patreon. For those who don't know about it, it's an on-line method of old school patronage...you pledge support for artist/creators, and then pay them something when they actually make something (like a blog post). It's a cool idea; several of the bloggers I follow are using Patreon (not necessarily for their blogs...Tim Shorts for example has a Patreon page for his micro-adventures). The more people that pledge a creator, the more money the creator receives for his/her work, the more incentive to create work. People can also pledge support at different levels, often with "special bonus incentives." Game designer and artist Anna Kreider gives free advance PDF copies of all games and publications she writes to patrons of the $20 level.

But $20 per blog post is a little steep for my bank account. For my own hack level of writing, I was thinking something like a nickel. I mean, if I had a nickel for every blog post I've written I'd have...um...close to $75. On the other hand, if I had a nickel for every page view, I'd have more than $38,000. That's a lot of nickels.

Anyway, it's just something I'm considering. It would mean a lot of futzing around learning new web sites and rigging things up with the blog...which I hate to do. Even if I do decide to get on-board with Patreon, people don't have to pledge anything...you can read the blog just like normal. And, no, I wouldn't be charging my patrons for little, cheap-o posts like yesterday's "I'm sick" announcement.

[Patreon also allows you to set a maximum monthly amount you want to pay if you're worried about prolific creators]

Okay, that's enough of that. I'm still sick, but I'm getting better (I even ate some food this morning). Yak at you later.

Coming soon?

JBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-63972475686837536792014-10-14T06:15:00.003-07:002014-10-14T06:15:34.523-07:00Sick as a DogWill try to get back to the series tomorrow. Sorry.
: (JBhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-64975159099290875042014-10-13T13:54:00.001-07:002014-10-13T13:56:22.159-07:00Flails and Hammers

Sweet medicine.

Thank goodness for beer...specifically Fullers Wild River...and the love of one's children. Between these things, I can take a Seahawks home loss to Tony Romo and the dark elves. At least if I'm in Paraguay...if I'd actually been in Seattle (or at the game), I tremble at the thought.

But after a couple-three liters of Fullers and taking care of my sick son, I was able to postpone my numb ache...at least till 3:30am when I woke up with a slight rage on. Listening to the analysis of the game on my internet radio this morning (and not drinking beer) that rage is back a bit. But I'm not going to spend this post in needless hammering of my favorite team. I've got hammers to hammer.

We're going to start with flails, though.

It pains me to say this (well, a little), because one of my All-Time Favorite movie is the 1952 film Ivanhoe. Not only is Elizabeth Taylor on display at her most gorgeous (and I'm sure those of the proper persuasion can say the same about Robert Taylor), but the judicial battle scene between Wilfred of Ivanhoe and Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert has got to be my favorite fight scene on celluloid. At least, my favorite that doesn't involve a lightsaber.

[really, I'm trying to think of another one, and I've got nothing]

Our hero Wilfred is armed with a battle axe, but Sir Brian goes into the fight using "mace-and-chain" ...a one-handed flail sometimes referred to as a "morning star" ...and proceeds to put on a clinic with the thing. He still gets beat (he's the bad guy, after all), but most of the (scripted, film) fight is fairly one-sided. And it's neat to watch.

Other than this fight, and the Nazgul flail of Jackson's (non-faithful) adaptation of the Pelennor Fields scene in Return o the King, I really haven't seen an example of one-handed flail use depicted, like, ever. Even in medieval wood-cuts and tapestries, you'll see depictions of the two-handed, adapted farm implement (often in the hands of dudes that look like peasant levies or even "rabble"), but no depictions of the one handed, spike-ball-on-chain weapon. It existed, clearly (there are pieces in museums around the world)...but outside of gaming (video games, RPGs) and the (very occasional) Hollywood flick, you don't see the weapon in action. Makes you wonder how prevalent it really was.

"Ridiculous" too strong a word?

[just by the way, I can write a whole post on the (fictional) battle of Pelennor Fields...and probably will...just not right now]

As I've written before, I'm not a historian...I mean, no more than a guy can be with a laptop and internet access. Living in Paraguay, it's not like I have access to English language books on medieval warfare...hell, I don't even have access to Spanish language books on the subject (Paraguayan subjects of interest in the main would appear to be sex and soccer...not necessarily in that order...and things associated with those interests, like dance clubs and fireworks, seven nights a week).

But, look...even if the one-handed flail was a common or semi-common weapon of the mounted knight, even if the two-handed flail was a common weapon of peasant levies in medieval Europe...even if this was the real deal, these are battlefield weapons. They are weapons that need a lot of room/space to use. Not just to use them at their most effective range (you can't choke up on a chain weapon the way you can half-sword a long blade), but because you don't want to injure your buddies while whipping this thing 'round and 'round. This is NOT a weapon you want to take into the cramped confines of a dungeon, and its no wonder Moldvay left it off the equipment list (the first edition of D&D that did). As was discussed earlier, these are weapons that were "grandfathered in" to OD&D and Holmes Basic from their listing in Chainmail. But Chainmail is a game for mass medieval combat, battlefield combat, with some additional rules for sieges and list combat (duels, jousting) when such arms might have been employed to good effect. In the kindest way possible, what kind of person thinks it's a good idea to take such a weapon into a 10' wide corridor?

So, much as I dig on the flail concept, I've axed 'em from my new heartbreaker.

Now...hammers.

Here's the deal. Unless you're the Mighty Thor, you don't throw a war hammer. A war hammer is a specialized weapon of war, designed specifically to overcome armor. Like the mace, they don't have to actually penetrate armor to inflict damage, transmitting pain through armor via impact. Unlike the mace, they can't be wielded indiscriminately (you really have to hit with the correct portion of the head to get the maximum effect, whereas a mace has the same contact surface from all angles), but it transmits more force than the mace because of this concentration of power. In game terms, the ease of use plus amount of impact balances between the two weapons (mace and hammer) to the point where they are the same weapon from a (game) mechanical standpoint.

And neither one is made for throwing. Yes, there is a sporting event called the "hammer throw;" it is one of those ridiculous strong-man type games invented by the Scots where you sling a cannonball attached to a chain (see "caber throwing" for tossing trees after you're out of cannon shot). It has no relation to the war hammer.

In Chainmail, there are only three weapons that can be thrown: the axe, spear, and javelin (though I find no stats for the latter weapon). The spear has been a throwing weapon since antiquity, the hand axe...well, in certain Nordic traditions it's been around for a few hundred years, too, depending on which History Channel show you're watching. These weapons are presumably the only ones meant to be thrown in OD&D (since I can't find any "ranges" for missile weapons in my LBBs, I imagine the designers meant players to use Chainmail for ranges, even when using the Alternative Combat System). By Holmes Basic, this has been expanded to include thrown daggers (a staple of sword & sorcery literature), and these three weapons- daggers, hand axes, and spears - are the only thrown weapons listed as missiles.

[carries through to Moldvay Basic as well]

The idea of a thrown hammer is confined to magical weapons, and here we see the inspiration is clearly Thor and his hammer Mjolnir. Magic war hammers in OD&D "can be hurled in the same manner as axes" (there are specific ranges given for throwing magic axes), and here also we see the advent of the "dwarf thrower" hammer (is that supposed to be a pun?). Are there magic hammers in Chainmail? In the section on Magic Weapons we have only this line:

"Enscorcelled arms are of two kinds, enchanted arrows and magical swords, although Odin's spear and Thor's hammer are properly in the general category."
Gungnir and Mjolnir are thus the models for non-sword weapons, and its interesting that other than magic swords, the only magic weapons that can reach +3 enchantment (in OD&D and B/X) are the spear and the war hammer...especially considering that the war hammer isn't even on the Basic Weapons list until Moldvay!

Anhoo, no more. Cool as it is to model your character after Thor, war hammers and picks aren't throwing weapons, and I'm tired of this particular brand of crazy. War hammers are strictly melee weapons, and no different (mechanically speaking) from maces.

Hammer throw or flail attack? You decide!

JBhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-86667133041842286062014-10-12T08:03:00.001-07:002014-10-12T08:14:14.804-07:00Basic WeaponsMost of my blog posts are fairly "off the cuff" (in case anyone hadn't noticed), something that gets me in trouble more times than I'd like. Of course, even when I do "plan out" posts, things don't always go as planned, so most of the time I'm, like, "why bother?"

Well, here's one of the times I'm bothering (just a little)...I wanted to talk about the weapons I'm including in the new "heartbreaker," but then I realized that just a little explanation might need an extra post or two, and then I thought, shit, I probably need to explain where these damn weapon list come from in the first place. Because, you see, I'm not terribly interested in including "design notes" in my publications. It's not that such design notes aren't useful or interesting (usually I find them interesting, when I'm reading other people's work), but A) I try to NOT pad page count (to keep costs down), and B) I have a blog to ramble on about why I do stuff.

[for instance, remember last month's multi-part discussion on chopping saving throws? See, that kind of stuff I don't want to have to explain in the game book itself. Putting it on the blog allows interested people to see my bizarre thought process...it also provides a forum of sorts for feedback in the form of dissenting opinions expressed in the comments section]

ANYway...basic weapons. Let's talk about where these weapons come from.

Prior to AD&D (1st Edition) with its extensive list of diverse and different pole arms and swords, we had an extremely simple list of weapons to choose from. The list in Holmes Basic (published prior to the release of the 1E PHB) is the exact same as the list found in Men & Magic, LBB #1 of OD&D. For the sake of the post, here it is (exactly as it appears in OD&D):

Dagger 3
Hand Axe 3
Mace 5
Sword 10
Battle Axe 7
Morning Star 6
Flail 8
Spear 1
Pole arm 7
Halberd 7
Two-Handed Sword 15
Lance 4
Pike 5

[the number listed next to the name is the cost of the weapon in gold pieces. There's no difference between OD&D and Holmes, save that Holmes charges 2 gold for a spear instead of one]

I won't bother with the missile weapons but the list is the same in both OD&D and Holmes.

It's not a bad starting list but there are a couple interesting things to consider. First, it has separate entries for "pole arm," "halberd," and "spear," and "pike." Second, it's listed in no discernible order: the list is neither alphabetical, nor arranged in ascending order of cost, nor by grouping of weapon type (for example, axes together). There's also some conspicuous absences that we find in later editions (like the "short sword" and "war hammer"), yet it includes weapons that are missing from later Basic editions (morning stars, flails, halberds, and pikes).

So where does this list come from? I mean, sure, Holmes gets its list from OD&D, but where does the list originate? And why was this the list the one finalized for inclusion in OD&D?

As usual, we need to go back to Chainmail to answer these questions.

The weapons found in OD&D are the exact same weapons (and presented in the same order) as those found in the Man-To-Man combat section of Chainmail. Chainmail has, in fact, three different combat systems within its contents: a mass combat system for troops on the battlefield, a "fantasy combat" system (for fantasy types engaged with other fantasy types: hero versus dragon, etc.), and a "man-to-man" system for one-on-one fights between individual, normal folks.

[actually, it has separate rules for tournament jousting, too, but I'm not sure I'd count that as "combat"]

Note I'm saying normal, non-heroic types: "hero versus hero" falls into the "fantasy combat" system (a hero kills another hero on a 2D6 roll of 8+, regardless of weapons and armor...well, unless the hero's wielding a magic weapon), and "hero versus normal" is better represented by the standard battlefield system (as heroes and superheroes mow through groups of troops). Nope, the man-to-man is strictly for two normal dudes facing off in a duel. The man-to-man system is supposed to be used for "small battles and castle sieges" and it compares the attacker's weapon with the defender's "armor protection type" to arrive at a (2D6) target number for killing the dude.

The classes of "armor protection" will be familiar to players of the basic D&D: no armor, shield only, leather, leather & shield, chain, chain mail & shield, plate armor, and plate with shield. Each weapon has a different "kill" number depending on the armor type: for example, a battle axe only needs a 7+ against chain (even with shield), but an 8+ against lighter armor types, a 9+ against plate, and a 10+ against plate and shield. A dagger is great against "no armor" (6+), but it's chance of success goes steadily downward from there up to 12 for plate (with or without shield).

The weapon types are classified by numbers, from #1 through #12 in the exact order presented in both OD&D and Holmes Basic:

Dagger

Hand Axe

Mace

Sword

Battle Axe

Morning Star

Flail

Spear

Pole Arms & Halberd*

2-Handed Sword

Mounted Lance

Pike

[*halberds are indistinguishable from pole arms in man-to-man combat but provide an extra die in mass combat]

Here, the number or "class" of the weapon makes a difference in who hits first in melee, whether or not the defender has a chance to parry, and whether or not either party receives additional blows in the exchange. This is provided by comparing the weapon class of each opponent to one another. For example, the attacker (person who initiates combat) always strikes the first blow, unless the defender has a weapon "two classes higher" (say, if the defender had a spear (#8) and the attacker was using a morning star (#6) or lesser weapon).

This can get rather complex. For example, a person using a sword (#4), attacks a Swiss pikeman (or "piker," as I prefer to call 'em). The piker (#12) gets the first blow in the 1st round (defender with weapon two classes higher), but strikes second in all subsequent rounds (opponent with weapon class two classes lower than the other strikes first). However, because the swordsman is eight classes below the pike, "the defender gets the first blow and may parry the second or strike the second." Based on the text that follows, it appears that this only applies when the defender is the swordsman, although pikes still always receive first blow over lower class weapons if there is a charge. Furthermore, because the sword is more than eight classes lower, the swordsman is allowed to strike three blows every round. If the swordsman was wielding a flail instead, he'd only get one extra blow (two total)...though when exactly these blows occur (prior to the piker? divided before and after the piker's blow?) and how the parries apply are mysteries unsolved by the text.

The point here is that these weapons and (especially) their arrangement matters. They are classified by length and weight, because this is Very Important Thing in melee combat. Not damage (they all kill their opponents, though the degree of success they have is dependent on their effectiveness versus the type of protection utilized). Timing and distance, folks.

I used to hate combat in ElfQuest (the RPG) back in the day because its "strike rank" system based on combatant size and weapon length did not model the fighting found in the comic books. In the comic, Cutter and his short sword makes quick slice-n-dice work of trolls with their spears and pole arms, he's so fast on the scamper...in the game, he'd have his arm cut off before he could strike a blow. What I didn't realize was that the Chaosium's combat system was taken from RuneQuest (I presume) which tries to model a more historically accurate form of combat. At least, that's what I've read (never having played RQ).

Prepare to die, shorty.

This is very different from how combat in D&D eventually developed, using the D20 roll and the "Alternative Combat System." The advantage the ACS has is that it's applied consistently...there's only one method of combat in D&D, whether you're dealing with man-to-man duels, man-on-troop brawls, or man-on-monster slaughterfests. One unified system. Unfortunately, the system leaves quite a bit to be desired (see prior discussions on ghost-fighting and dragon slaying, not to mention everyone's usual bitches about mass combat, armor reducing damage, etc.).

Moldvay's Basic game at least steps away from the Chainmail battlefield and gives us a weapon list more befitting what one might take into a dungeon setting. No pikers here, though even a spear is a stretch (and I'm with Charles on the 10' pole, too). Here (in Moldvay) we also see the advent of two-handed weapons striking last...not a terrible attempt to model the difficulty of fighting with a large weapon in cramped spaces. However, Moldvay has its own problematic parts, like short swords and "throwing hammers."

But we're going to talk about those in subsequent posts this week.
: )

By the way, one thing I do NOT intend on discussing is the extensive AD&D weapon charts...they're a hot mess because of their attempt to "patch" the realism that got dropped in the move from Chainmail combat to abstract combat. Yes, "realism"...Chainmail wasn't supposed to be abstract, it was blow-for-blow, only intended to model killing an opponent (anything that wasn't a "kill" - lesser wounds and fatigue, for example - are ignored outright). But all that space requirements and attack versus armor and speed factor jive...all that just served to complicate (and render absurd) the abstractness of the Alternative Combat System suggested in OD&D. For folks who love it...have at it. I don't plan on discussing in much in the coming days.JBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143435314932633148.post-80005271352068485192014-10-10T07:12:00.001-07:002014-10-10T07:20:52.465-07:00Getting Folks Down[AKA "Considering the Role of Unarmed Attacks in Abstract Combat"]

I'm a combat-phile. I'm a pacifist in real life and spend mucho time explaining to my child why violence is a terrible, terrible thing. I'm anti-war, anti-gun...hell, I'm pretty much anti-professional fighting (including boxing).

[yes, I realize there is a degree of violence in American football and that this is part of its appeal as a sport...we all draw the line at the hypocrisies we're willing to live with]

And yet the study of violence, weapons, and combat...both historical and present day...is a personal, unreasonable, serious interest of mine. Actually, "interest" might not be a strong enough term, though "passion" is probably too strong. I've previously speculated that in a past life I was probably some sort of bookie or super-fan of gladiatorial death sports, and this contributes to my semi-obsession. If I was an actual warrior (or someone who died by violence) I would likely not be so attracted to combat this life around.

But, ya' know what? Past life speculation is mostly mental masturbation, if perhaps slightly more practical (from a developmental standpoint) than researching poleaxes. I accept the dichotomy of my weirdness. And besides, this is a gaming blog with an emphasis on D&D, right? My readers will forgive my masturbatory research on bloodletting a lot faster than my digressions on goofy woo-woo New Age stuff.

Such is the blog-o-sphere in which we reside.

So...I'm a combat-phile: a real Martian (i.e. of the Mars persuasion), at least when it comes to favorite subjects of study. And so it is that I dig on trying to model cool combat stuff in my gaming, even as I try to make gaming about something other than combat.

[maybe I should be playing 4th Edition...Jeez!]

And when I find another combat-phile (professed or not) floating around the blog-o-sphere, I can purloin "food for thought" for days. Such is the case with Mr. Taylor's Spells & Steel blog. The particular blog posts I'm waxing on today can be found here and here. The quick summary:

Even in armed combat, the empty hand and grappling (locks, throws, and strikes) was immensely important to medieval combat, and

His design concepts for allowing unarmed maneuvers to occur on "critical" attack rolls (and how he chooses to model these types of attack)

Now for me, I am not interested in modeling actual, specific, blow-by-blow combat...my opinion has been (and continues to be) that abstract combat system plus active imagination provides the potential for far more realism than turn-by-turn, tactical detail...and at the same time has the greater potential for cinematic, flamboyant combat, too.

[sorry, Brian Gleichman...this is not the least of things on which we disagree]

An attack roll tells you whether or not you were successful at inflicting damage on your opponent (and using my revised combat system, it also tells you how successful you were if you did, in fact, succeed). The detail of what happens in a given round is a matter of the narration provided by the DM (and/or player) based on the amount of damage inflicted. It is presumed that a proficient fighter using an arming sword (or whatever) is elbowing and punching and rapping the guy with the pommel in addition to "cutting-and-thrusting." If the damage inflicted is less than mortal, the narration can (and maybe should) include some sort of unarmed, non-blade/bloodletting action.

Having said that, there's something about the concept of downing your opponent that begs to be modeled.

Historically, armored knights were juggernauts on the battlefield...man-sized tanks in an age that was conspicuously lacking in efficient anti-tank weapons. The best, surest way to kill an armored man was to get him on him back and drive a long, sharp weapon through a visor slit or a chink in the guy's carapace. Even Chainmail (ahh...again with the much-beloved Chainmail) models this in their man-to-man combat mechanics. The 2D6 roll needed to kill a man in plate armor is:

Dagger: 12

Sword: 10

Spear: 11

Pole Arm: 9

However, in all of these weapons, the target number drops to 7 if the opponent is "dismounted and prone." Unfortunately, as far as I can tell there are no rules in Chainmail for getting a man prone.

Footing, or lack thereof, can be a decisive factor in hand-to-hand combat. Bad footing (specifically, being bogged down in a muddy battlefield) is what allowed Henry V to achieve such an incredibly lopsided victory against the French in the Battle of Agincourt.

And, so it is that I've been spending a little time working on the subject of how to get folks down...as in down on the ground.

The number of weapons in my new heartbreaker are fairly limited...moreso even than the weapon list of B/X (which is quite a bit more limited than later editions of D&D). The reasons for this will (perhaps) be explained in a later post...but for the most part, weapons have a maximum damage rating of six, meaning that (without adjustment for high strength) the best damage one can achieve is six points, by rolling six over the defensive class ("AC") of an opponent. Just to reiterate, the "attack roll" is your die roll to see how effective you were at inflicting damage upon your opponent in the (10 second) melee round...a minimal success means only minimal damage was inflicted. In terms of locks (for damage) and strikes (for damage), this is inclusively assumed within the (gauged success) of the attack roll. Breaking a dude's arm, or giving him deep bleeder might be the result of 4 or 5 damage (depending on the number of HPs the opponent has) while punching him in the gut or clubbing him with the hilt of you weapon might represent 1 or 2 damage. Okay?

But what about throws and takedowns? These bestow an effect on an opponent (what 5th Edition might call "conditions") along with the possible addition of damage (depending on how hard the opponent hits the dirt). I don't have "critical hits" like Mr. Taylor (though rolling high is a better success than just barely hitting one's target number), so I have to consider a different mechanic to impose my will on my opponent, and I think the best way to do so is by sacrificing damage inflicted.

SO...as an attacker, you can choose to lose four points from the damage of a successful attack in order to down your opponent. This means you cannot "down" an opponent unless your attack roll is at least moderately successful (four over the target needed to hit), and it limits the amount of damage inflicted to 0-2 (unless the person doing the throwing is exceptionally strong and skilled)...in which case you might break the poor fool's neck or dislocate one of his joints.

Now there is a caveat here...a trained fighter isn't likely to be flipped by a peasant, no matter how lucky the attack roll. To represent this, an opponent cannot be downed unless the attacker's attack bonus equals or exceeds the attack bonus of the opponent. Attack bonus (for PCs) is determined by class and level: +1 per level for fighters; +1 per two levels for all others. Using multiple attackers (ganging up on the tough guy) can boost your attack rating for this purpose, but you're still going to need a lot of peasants to take down a veteran warrior.

"That tickles!"

[takedowns should also be limited to humanoids of "usual anatomy" that do not exceed a certain size...I don't really see ogres being subject to judo throws]

This actually melds well with the combat system as it stands. I said most weapons have a max damage of six. Unarmed attacks actually have a max damage of two (and suffer a -4 penalty to their attack rolls...it's really tough to knock someone out with your fists when their wearing full battle kit). This means its easier to takedown someone when you're using a weapon...whether because you can hook their leg or their arm or achieve a lock or use the weapon's leverage or because you just don't have a disadvantage of wading in empty-handed. True, this means that a character lacking strength cannot achieve a takedown without a weapon to assist (because the maximum damage that can be inflicted doesn't equal four)...but if you really want your aikido master character, you can choose to specialize in unarmed combat, which increases you max damage with a weapon by +2. So there.

[having said that, I might need to add in some sort of exception for the cinematic "running tackle" maneuver...maybe allow a character's full damage bonus for such a maneuver, rather than half? This would allow characters with STR 14 to takedown an opponent with an unarmed attack, though the attacker would likewise end up prone. Heck, maybe just give a +2 attack/damage to such a suicidal tactic...something to thing about]

So what happens once you get your opponent down on the ground? Do we get a 2D6 auto-kill result like Chainmail? That hardly seems fair (or appropriate) for my heroic fantasy game. If I was using 5E's advantage/disadvantage mechanic in this game, I'd be tempted to bring that into play against a fallen target (that is, in fact, what 5E does for the "prone" condition)...but so far I've been able to hold off on using A/D in this game (I am using it all over the place in my rewrite of Cry Dark Future).

I think that what I want to do is give a substantial bonus to attacks against the downed opponent...something like +4 to the attack roll until the defender can get back on his feet. The prone dude needs to lose his action/attack if he's going to regain his footing...and you can't fight with a two-handed weapon from a prone position (you can, but you won't have the same leverage/damage inflicting ability). You probably can't use a shield either while prone (at least, not while making attacks from the ground). A +4 bonus is pretty substantial...it doesn't negate the wearing of heavy armor completely (that would be +6), but it renders it less effective than "light armor" (you lose the ability to increase distance between yourself and your opponent). It means you're going to have a better chance of inflicting serious damage on your downed foe...which is, after all, what I was aiming for here.

"Who's laughing now, buddy?"

Neat, huh?

: )

JBhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com