Constraint

Apologies (as usual) for the lack of posting. Had taxes to do last week, then had a kid come down with a cold which meant both kids were stuck at home until we could get COVID tested (good news: we're all fine). Then we had three soccer games over the weekend, one of which was in Tumwater (just south of Olympia), and so, yeah...I've been busy.

I've got a blog post in the hopper (er...on the draft board) that I'll hopefully get around to soon, but I wanted to "touch base" with folks quickly while I have a moment. Some readers might be wondering how the AD&D game is going. "Good" is the short answer. We are playing The Forest Oracle (modified) and so far things are going well. The party (two PCs and their henchman "Big Jim") have joined forces with three mercenaries named Kitiara, Caramon, and Raistlin who would be easily recognizable to long-time fans of the Dragonlance books. Their addition, for me, has been exceptionally amusing (though my players have no idea), because I simply play their personalities as they appear in the books...with a couple changes:

• Kitiara is 27 years old, and 3rd level. Not an officer in the Dragon Army (of course). Wears studded leather armor, carries normal (non-magical) weapons. Same ability scores as the adventure modules.
• Caramon is 19 years old, and 2nd level. All equipment as per DL5, save that he has only normal (non-magical) weapons.
• Raistlin is 19 year old, and a 2nd level fighter. No, not a mage. He has the same ability scores as in DL5, except with a +1 to STR and +3 to CON (so 11 and 13, respectively...body/spirit never usurped by Fistandantilus). Was wearing scale and wielding two hand axes and a scavenged light crossbow. Currently dressed in chain armor (taken from a dead bandit).

Young Kit (from DL5);
still Lawful Evil.

Anyway, no deaths yet (or permanent blindness...removed the nymph from the adventure). The party just finished dealing with the "wererat inn" encounter; belladonna was eaten, fun has been had by all, etc.

But that's not really what I want to write about. What I want to write about is the importance of rules in the game. Not just the AD&D game, but ANY edition of D&D. 

Which I'm sure I've already addressed a thousand times in a thousand posts (in various ways) over the years. But I want to try it again, perhaps from a different angle, and I don't mind repeating myself, because it's something that's worth reiterating and emphasizing.

D&D is a game. Games have rules that constrain play (in a number of ways). The DM is the arbiter of those rules. For the game to matter, those rules at the table must be iron clad. The game is engaged through its rules. We play the game because we want to engage with the game.

Here I will voice my strong disagreement with the "modern" sensibility that the game rules are only guidelines. This idea is stated quite plainly in the 5E Dungeon, from the first page (well, from page 4, the first page of text):

"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM and you are in charge." (page 4)

"Rules enable you and your players to have fun at the table. The rules serve you, not vice versa." (page 235)

"Remember that dice don't run your game - you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving." (page 237)

That last nonsensical bit is both preceded and followed by paragraphs on fudging dice rolls; basically, running the game by fiat as a freeform narrative, rather than as a structured game with rules, and I can't disagree strongly enough with the sentiment. Rules are "tools to keep the action moving?" No. That is absurd. How is a rule on encumbrance (as an example) used to "keep the action moving?" Nonsense.

Much of 5E is "nonsense" in my opinion (one of the main reasons I choose not to play it), but this type of thinking pervades DMs across all editions. You read it (or watch it or hear it) in numerous blogs, videos, and podcasts: the idea that game rules should be discarded and/or disregarded if and when they begin to interfering with "having fun" a term that seems to equate to: disappointing a player's expectation of what should happen. 

Please note that the "player" being disappointed can include the DM. Here's an example: a DM desires (i.e. has an expectation of) a climactic set piece battle between the party and the Big Boss of an adventure, an epic showdown to provide a "satisfying conclusion." That attachment to a particular end can result in the DM doing all sorts of machinations, manipulations, and mental gymnastics to preclude the PCs from interfere with the expectation. Which is just as bad (or worse!) than players crying and whining how "unfair" an energy drain or save-or-die poison attack is. 

Rules constrain our actions in the game. In the D&D game, a player's choice of armor for her character has a number of in-game consequences, helping to determine encumbrance and movement in addition to protective value (which, in the case of metal armor versus certain spells, might be a negative value). That choice matters...or rather, it should matter...but if the DM fudges attack rolls or ignores those movement values then the "mattering" disappears. And so too does the validity of the player's choice. 

In the AD&D campaign I'm currently running, I use a modified version of the training rules found in the DMG. The rules have been explained to the players; the players understand the manner in which the rules operate and how it constrains them. In our current adventure, the cleric just achieved enough x.p. to advance to 3rd level, and even possesses the cash necessary to procure training. However, the party is in the middle of a "quest" and the nearest priest is days away from their current location. The player has a hard choice to make: he can continue adventuring (still gaining an extra hit die, increased attacks and saves, etc.) OR he can choose to seek out a temple that can initiate him into the "higher mysteries" (i.e. 2nd level spell use). The latter choice will also impact the party, as the PC is the only healer in the group...although the party did just acquire two potions of healing. Of course, if "Peter the Adept" decides to separate from the party, the player (Diego) could simply introduce a new 1st level character to the group (they are staying at a roadside inn, after all)...and who's to say he might not enjoy playing the new character more than the prior one?

All these choices matter because we have rules that we've laid down and that I (as the DM) am enforcing. I could waive them, make the game easier...but I don't think that's in the best interest of my players. I want my players to have meaningful choices, because that leads to deeper engagement with the game world. Just "getting on to" the next action encounter does not. Action IS necessary...it is the fundamental reason why we play the game...but without the deeper meaningful choices (created by rules which constrain action), it is a hollow exercise. 

Rules do not serve the DM; rules serve the game. The DM does not serve the rules; the DM serves the players by acting as an arbiter and enforcer of the rules. As the rules constrain action, so too does the DM constrain the players, providing choices that carry weight and impact ("meaning") in the imaginary environment, making for a richer campaign, a greater engagement, a deeper experience. The rules provide limits...those limits make the game challenging.

I understand that type of play is not everyone's cup of tea. Some people prefer "no constraint" D&D and see my constraints as old-fashioned and/or downright myopic, believing it is in the best interest of the table to allow dwarves to achieve any level of fighter, or half-orcs to be paladins, or wizards to cast an infinite number of attack "cantrips," or tiefling warlocks to exist at all. Folks will see me as needlessly limiting the "fun" to be had, disappointing players' expectations and curbing their imagination.

To which I say: 

I'm playing Advanced D&D, a challenging game with challenging rules for players who want to be challenged. 

Some people like a challenge. When I play a game of Hearts, I try to 'shoot the moon' with every hand. Every. Hand. Because that's the most challenging way to play: trying to make everyone lose at the same time. And because playing otherwise is too easy after the scores of times I've played the game. Even just sitting around a table, yukking it up with friends and family, and drinking cocktails...too easy without the extra constraint.

I've expended far more hours and effort at Dungeons & Dragons than at any card game.

Show and Tell

A couple days ago, Timothy Brannan commented on my "Bubble" post. Part of what he wrote included the following:

Moldvay, Holmes and Mentzer Basics were all a product of their times. That is getting people (often read as "kids") to learn how to play. As someone who has been developing college curriculums for 20+ years I can tell you kids and young adults don't go to books to learn how to do something, they want a video or podcast (but mostly a video) and that's where they go first. If I were writing a course on how to learn D&D I'd first look at my video budget. BTW this is not a value judgement on learning, it is a different modality. I used to work with severe Learning Disability students back in the 80s that used similar modalities because they could not process information via text and they did fine this way. I know people that swear by audiobooks too and others that hate them. (I have spent much of my academic and professional career on these exact issues.)

...which I find interesting and worthy of exploration.

My son is young (he turns eight this week), but he already exhibits a lot of his father's love of gaming (duh, of course). He enjoys card games (rummy 500 is his current favorite, but he plays cribbage, poker, and a few others, including Uno, Pokemon, and Magic: the Gathering). He loves Blood Bowl (we had a BB "World Cup" tournament over the summer that was pretty epic). He just acquired Axis & Allies & Zombies for Christmas (it was the top of his Santa list). And he's been playing my old games of Dark Tower and Dungeon! since he was three and four, respectively.

[he is also interested in designing his own games, as I've blogged on a couple-three occasions]

As I write this, in the early morning hours while the rest of my family sleeps, I can see from my vantage point two board games (AA&Z and Camel Up!), completely set-up, on two different tables, where he was tinkering with both (a third table holds a recently used Yahtzee and a cribbage board, though my four-year old daughter was the one messing with the latter), and I know there's a new Star Wars Monopoly floating around somewhere (acquired from los Reyes Magos).

As far as I know, he's never read a single instruction book or manual.

In fact, while he opened the new Axis & Allies (and Zombies) himself, and set it up in its entirety, he has all but refused to read the manual, other than the parts on set-up and disposition of forces. He wants me to read the instructions and teach him how to play. And lest you think he will eventually get restless waiting on me and buckle down and read the instructions himself, I would draw your attention to the fact that he's owned Arena of the Planeswalkers since last Christmas, and has never gotten around to playing it, because no one in the house has read the instructions.

[he has used AotPW and its neat minis for other purposes, however...he's just never played the game as intended]

Now this is a child who enjoys reading...he's read the first three or four Harry Potter books, half a dozen of those Wimpy Kid books, and more than double that number of Nancy Drew mysteries (the original ones, written in the 1930s)...he's currently on the Ski Jump Mystery. And that's when he's not reading non-fiction history books, which he really loves...especially anything about World War II or ancient Egypt. He's read a lot of the Magic Treehouse books, but he prefers the dry, "Fact Finder" series that provide the historical foundation for the time travel adventures. The kid even read (an abridged) Moby Dick over a four hour road trip...that was last April; I haven't even read Melville!

But, of course, there's a difference between reading a book and a manual. A book's sole purpose is to entertain and/or inform. A manual's job is (or should be) to instruct, for the purpose of understanding how to do something...like operate a blender or maintain your car or play a board game. Some people really dig on manuals (my wife is one, and she's not a huge reader). Most of us, though, prefer only to use them minimally...as a reference when actually needed. After all, manuals are merely a means to an end, whatever that end might be (working the blender, changing the car oil, playing the game).

In asking my son how he'd like to learn a new game, his clear preference was to have me read the manual and then teach him. His second preference? Have mom read the manual and teach him. Asked if he'd rather watch a video instead of reading the instructions himself, he said "sure"...if his parents weren't available and a video was (my child isn't given ready access to the internet). Reading instruction manuals is just "really boring."

And when I really think about it, it's hard for me to find a lot of disagreement in my heart. Reading manuals are one of my least favorite methods of learning anything, even ones that include photos or illustrated examples. Even videos are a poor substitute for teaching...you can't ask questions of a video, nor ask for additional clarification when required.

I have this story in my head about role-playing games, about learning to play them from reading them, because I've read and learned so many over the years...all the way back to B/X Dungeons & Dragons (which I taught myself to play). But this hasn't been the way I've learned most of the games I know. All the card games I know how to play have been learned the same way as my boy: I've been taught them by other people. Even Magic cards (which were showed to me by a roommate back in 1999). But most of the "standard" card games I know were taught to me by my grandmother in Montana (they play a lot of card games in Montana over the long winter months): everything from rummy and hearts to cribbage and pinochle. I asked my mom to buy me Dungeon! when I was eight years old, and I'm pretty sure it was she that first read the instructions and taught me to play...as she taught me to play Scrabble, Clue, Monopoly, and (presumably) Candy Land.  I taught myself Risk, but I'd seen it played before by my teenage uncles and their friends (again, in Montana). My father taught me chess.

Even recently (three or four months back), I purchased the deck-building game Ivion only after I was taught the game in a demo with the husband of the game's designer. I know deck-building games are a "thing," but till Ivion I'd never figured out how to play any of them. I even purchased a Blood Bowl-themed deck-builder about five years ago (based on great reviews) that sits on my shelf to this day.

Of course, it's not just games I've learned from other people. Every job I've had has required on-the-job training. Sure Burger King showed me a couple 30-minute videos during my first day of orientation (as a 14 year old), but an experienced person walked me through all the ins and outs of the kitchen (and only allowed me to make the most basic of sandwiches till I'd mastered that). The 15 year career I quit to move to Paraguay required four weeks of training in Olympia before I even got a desk in the (Seattle) office, and then 11 more months of a probationary period where I was assigned a dedicated trainer who audited every single action I took for my first six months.

And around the house, I am hesitant to start ANY home improvement project unless I've done it before or consulted with someone more knowledgable than myself (like a contractor buddy or my mom's 65-year old boyfriend who's a retired Boeing engineer and ex-military). I am more likely to pay someone to do the work, not because I have money to burn (I really don't) but because I don't trust myself not to screw things up without at least some solid instruction.

[though I should say I have been much better in recent years in taking the initiative in home projects...but that wasn't the case for the first four decades of my life]

Learning from others...at least learning the basics...is the way most of us feel more comfortable learning. Probably it's a cultural thing (schools and stuff) but regardless of whether we learn best by seeing, hearing, or doing all of us want someone to teach us the various skills we want to learn. Once we've acquired knowledge of the basics, THEN we can refine our knowledge through our own exploration or experience with the subject matter (or seek coaching for more speedy or targeted improvement). But the more complex the skill we're attempting to learn...and the more consequence to failure...the more we desire the help of a teacher.

Now, of course, I have taken the time to read game manuals...many, in fact. However, in all the cases where I have "self-taught" myself something I believe there are caveats that can be attached as to why this occurred.

• In the case of some games (Axis & Allies, Camel Up!, Battleship Galaxies, Pokemon, Go Go Gelato, Lost Cities, etc.) there was a case of my children begging me to read an instruction manual in order to teach them, so that we could play a particular game. My kids have been my biggest impetus to learning new games over the last three-four years.
• In the case of some games (Firefly, Nautilus, Dragonriders of Pern), the theme or setting of the game was one I had particular interest in AND there was a significant (or possible) method of "solo play" included with the game. I have acquired other games with themes/settings that have special appeal for me (The Dark Crystal, The Call of Cthulhu Card Game, Bang!, Arctic Scavengers) that I've never bothered to learn as I have no one with whom to play.
• Some games, almost all RPGs, I've acquired for reasons of nostalgia, intriguing theme, or specific "design purposes" (i.e. to examine them for how they designed their various systems and incorporated them in the game). However, while I've "read" the manuals for most of these, I can't say that I've learned how to play them. In fact, if you asked me point blank to run most of these (including Everway, Dragonraid, Hero Wars, Privateers and Gentlemen, Blood Red Sands, or the newest Star Wars line from FFG), I would need a substantial amount of "refresher time" (probably a week or more) to re-read and absorb the material before we could have anything like a first session.
• Other games have been much more easily digested (and thus remembered/retained) because their basic "chassis" are so closely akin to another game I'm already familiar with...like, for example, Dungeons & Dragons.

Yes, Dungeons & Dragons, the game on which I base the lie that "all you need to learn a game is a good instruction manual" because, of course, I was able to learn how to play D&D without the aid of anyone teaching me. This, by the way, is absolutely true: I received my copy of the game, I read it, I introduced my friends to it, taught them (to the point that some of them would later run the game as DMs themselves, for other friends), and never looked back. Having said that...

1. The edition I first acquired was the Tom Moldvay basic set, perhaps the single greatest edition for learning the basics of "dungeons" and "dragons" ever published. Complete with multiple page-long examples of character creation, running encounters, creating adventures, and running players through the game. The included The Keep on the Borderlands adventure module also provided great notes from Gygax and examples of home bases, wilderness areas, and dungeons...and tying them all together.
2. The basic premise of basic D&D isn't all that far removed from the Dungeon! board game which, as I noted above, I had already acquired and learned (through my mother) prior to picking up my first box of Moldvay. Just the concept of a multi-level dungeon (filled with monsters, traps, and treasure) gave me a leg up on understanding the game's premise.

I probably can't overstate how much Moldvay's examples of play helped me. I read and re-read these examples many times, even after playing the game the first time. The encounter example (page B28) shows how to use the reaction table, how spells work (in and out of combat), how to conduct missile and melee combat, and how players interact with the DM and each other based on alignment (not to mention basic kibitzing during a game). The "sample dungeon expedition" (page B59 to B60) shows how the DM presents information to the players, how to clarify that information, how to present traps, how to describe features of the adventure site, how to award treasure, how to deal with character death (it happens), and how to manage a group of players...at least, a group all bent on the same objective of play. From these examples, I could look at my own DMing (at a young age) and at least get some idea of whether or not my game looked at all like the one Moldvay was playing. Everything else I learned later (adding the "Advanced" texts to our game) was built off this foundation.

If I had come to the game through some other gateway (especially the original version of the game or first edition AD&D) I can understand how a teacher would have been pretty much essential, just to prevent frustration with trying to understand the instructional text of the game. Hell, I'd be hard pressed NOW to try to parse out the D&D "instruction manual" as it is today, without my basic foundation (I've blogged before how I've literally fallen asleep every time I've attempted to read through 4th edition Champions). I can definitely see that, lacking a foundation and any teacher or mentor, I too would be left with little alternative besides combing the interwebs for some video to show exactly how I'm supposed to play this game...

I feel I've been something less than charitable to folks who "don't like to read the instructions" (even my own boy!) or who prefer watching a video to reading a manual. Instruction manuals aren't terribly fun (usually) and even when they are written in a "fun" way, it's usually somewhat less fun than the fun anticipated from the end for which they've been written (for example, playing the game the manual explains). Dungeons & Dragons especially is a hard game to learn, regardless of edition. I was simply fortunate that my introduction to the game was written for persons "Ages 10 and Up" (yes, I was reading above my age level back in 1982), and that it was written in such a particular, precise yet streamlined manner...even including a page count (64 minus illustrations, tables, and example text) that wouldn't bore the shit out of my young mind. Something to think about with regard to my own game design going forward.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a manual to read about World War II zombie invasions...

Probably everyone loses...

Robot Dummies

There's an episode of the old series Challenge of the Superfriends called R.I.P. Superfriends in which, over the course of the show, the Legion of Doom manages to kill off every member of the Justice League with a potent doomsday weapon in the form of a fairly portable crystal/blasting weapon. The episode opens on a fairly somber note with the Superfriends gathered around the grave of Batman in a cemetery, before doing a flashback sequence to show what happened, and then proceeding with all the 'friends getting hunted down and gaffled.

Of course, good triumphs in the end...at the end of the show it is revealed that the heroes killed were all just robot dummies that had been manufactured to fool the Doom-dudes into thinking they'd killed the Superfriends so they'd get rid of their killer crystal.

[never mind that the imitations exhibited the exact same powers, abilities, and personalities as the real deal counterparts. If one can manufacture Superman clones, do you really need a Justice League?]

For my four year old, this has been particularly fertile ground for his imagination. Over the last several months (since first observing the show), we've played plenty of adventures involving the deaths of superheroes and villains, with the deceased individuals invariably coming back to life upon discovery that the corpses all belonged to "robot dummies."

And it's not a terribly unique "twist" when it comes to cartoon action. We just watched the old (1982) animated film Flash Gordon: The Greatest Adventure of All (a cool little gem that needs its own post), in which the defeated (and "killed") Ming the Merciless is shown, at the end, to be a robot dummy. In more recent media, we've been binging on episodes of The Avenger's: Earth's Mightiest Heroes (2010) and there's an early episode where Nick Fury is crushed to death by a raging Graviton only to find it was, again, a robot dummy.

[people probably think I'm a terrible human being and father for showing my young child such violent cartoons. It's even worse than that: last week, I taught my child to play poker (five card draw) and it's now become his favorite game. "Let's play cards, Papa!" is an oft-heard refrain in the household. I am a terrible, terrible person...]

[we play for plastic pirate treasure...gold "Jake the Pirate" doubloons and Mardi Gras beads (which are worth two coins each). My home is a den of iniquity...]

Apply face and power set.

*Ahem* ANYway...the existence (and destruction) of robot dummies in the super-heroic genre, improbable as it might be, serves a practical purpose: it keeps the heroes (and the favorite recurring villain...Doctor Doom anyone?) alive and well. Which is important in an episodic, serial medium where you hope to keep your (cash-paying) audience coming back on a weekly or monthly basis. The reduction of character death to an absurd non-happening is a necessity...if you want your fans hanging around for the long haul.

But for how long should that "long haul" be? Is it cool for a specific comic book character to have a thousand issues under his or her belt? For the company producing the comic (and for the employment of writers and artists and editors) it's a good thing...comics have always been a "for profit" enterprise even before the days of expanded media and merchandising. But is that an appropriate model for an RPG campaign? If each weekly game session is the equivalent of an "issue," than a character like Captain America (with more than 600 self-titled issues) has been "played" for more than 11 years. Which I could imagine for an RPG like D&D where characters are in a constant state of development (moving from dungeon to wilderness to court intrigue and barony management)...but for a genre that's not known for much more than finding creative ways of punching out new bad guys, well...

Maybe Will was right...maybe the superhero genre is just too simplistic for an RPG. At least, in the way that it's been imagined by the major (American) comic book companies [gosh, reading old Jim Shooter blog posts are rather enlightening with regard to that industry]. Anyway, something I'm hashing out in my mind right now (in my limited free time).

Okay...back to the grind (my kid's up). Just a couple things: looking at a very, very old version of my "superhero" RPG for possible re-vamp (the reasons will need to be discussed later), but I've come to the conclusion that (even if the genre is worth doing) one needs a very good mechanic for doing it, even (perhaps) a "gimmicky" one. Otherwise, why not simply use one of the many systems already on the market. Supers! is plenty good enough, for example, or MSH (if you don't need much granularity) or HU (if you like a lot of granularity). My "old school" supers game doesn't "have it" as it's currently written. It's serviceable, but that doesn't make it worthy of publication, you know?

Ok, okay! Kid wants to watch The Avengers...got to go!

Success

Some mornings you just can’t find the right pithy phrase to name a blog post. Today, I’m just going to go simple.

Last night was round 2 of play-testing for my space game. Again, I was limited to two players (of four) players due to prior commitments. Also again I was operating on very limited sleep…about two to three hours…and a loooong work day. And, yes, while I stayed away from the whiskey, I did quaff (most of) a pitcher of beer…

BUT, I am going to call the game session successful. Much more so than last week. In fact, I’d say it went better than any prior iteration of the card mechanic RPG (Out of Time, MDR) due to certain changes I instituted…namely, the need to spend cards to utilize ANY thing more than “average effort” in a success check.

This had all the desirable types of results I was looking for:

• Cards got spent and played, depending on the “stakes” necessary
• In turn, this led to decreased effectiveness over time as resources ran slim. This is the way I had originally envisioned the game being played, but previously the dice mechanic was too “easy” with players steering tests into areas of high suits and not needing to expend cards for extra success. NOW they do the same thing, but once the cards are spent, they have to switch to a different “arena” (where they still have cards).
• Players were forced to use different avenues to accomplish tasks (see the last note) because of running low on cards. This was also how I imagined the game being played, and forcing card expenditure accomplished this, causing players to take different tactics when one suit ran low.
• The use of cards provided the “game balance” I was looking for…as one player ran low on cards, the other player was forced to step in and step up. Perfect…everyone gets their turn in the spotlight.
• Doing the card play in this way made ALL the cards important. Whereas before players would short suit themselves during character creation to keep a bunch of Aces and faces, now having “depth” in a particular suit is just as important (if not moreso)…at least if you, as a player, are attached to a particular style of play. For example, if you want to solve problems with your fists, you better have a bunch of clubs. Heron had a single Ace of Spades and had to hold on to it until he REALLY needed it since it was his only spade. This was cool…though now I’m thinking a 7 card hand might be better than 6.
• Or Not: Drive points (given as a reward for role-playing certain aspects of your character) can be utilized much like cards. By limiting the cards in a player’s hand, it forces them to complicate themselves in order to “regain effectiveness.” This makes for interesting play, and I imagine it will come faster and easier as players get more comfortable with the concept (I hope).
• The complication die/card draw (what Josh calls “the calamity die”) worked well in practice, helping to add depth to a roughly sketched scenario…in addition to being fun.

Since the wholesale change of the system turned out to be so effective, it means I will need to rewrite much of what I’ve previously written (doh), AND I will also have to re-tool many of the character advantages (double-doh), and probably the entire credit/purchase system (triple-doh!). However, that’s a small price to pay for sporting a system that does what the game designer (me) wants it to do…pretty exciting stuff, in my opinion. It was a great session from my perspective and the only thing that kept me from being more giddy was my extreme fatigue and the knowledge that I would have another looong night with sick baby once I got home.

[and I did, too]

Some other random thoughts of things learned from last night’s playtest:

Classes work well with the system, even the new rules. Unfortunately, for long term play some of the classes seem mutually exclusive. For instance, Josh’s “mole man” (a fringer/survivor with a home environment advantage of “space station”) worked great for this session that happened to be ON a space station…but Heron’s spacer pilot didn’t get to do a whole helluva’ lot of flying. And if they HAD taken off in Heron’s ship, what would Josh have done? The key may be a lot of cut scenes and environmental (scene) changes…or possibly finding a way for PCs to operate towards the end of a single scenario objective even when separated. Think Return of the Jedi (Luke’s on the Death Star, Han and Leia are on Endor, Lando flying the space mission).

NPCs (named versus mook) worked well enough for me, but needs to be even MORE simplified. This may just be my own leftover baggage from wanting “major villains” to be as competent as PCs (think my favorite Star Wars baddie, Count Dooku, who kicks an incredible amount of ass). However, there are ways to do this withOUT assigning cards. I’m going to have to mull over this.

ALSO (regarding NPCs), I have a rule about bestowing names on NPCs automatically gives them significance and importance. This actually came into play during the session, when Heron christened some nameless mook “Butt-Boy” (or something equally descriptive). Under the terms of the rules I should have dealt him some cards and converted him to a “major NPC;” instead I skipped the step as it was too complicated for the quickfire action of the time. In retrospect, I think dealing a “named” mook a single card (and assigning hit points) would have been an easier, simpler way of accomplishing what I wanted. I’m going to have to mull over this as well.

Frenetic pace and lavish card spending was definitely the way to go. I think Josh had more fun doing this then he had in previous sessions (he tried both Out of Time and MDR). He definitely seemed more engaged in the action of the game…but then, he was also digging hard on his mole man character (“Jub-Jub”).

Finally, although it’s a space opera trope to have the occasional alien protagonist, I’m thinking of making non-human PCs a completely optional side rule, and getting rid of the Jokers all together (dammit! I forgot about the Jokers!...they need to be revamped for the rule changes, too!). It’s just more fun to do “humans in space” and keep the aliens as NPCs or sidekicks (sorry, Spock). Even a weird human (like Jub-Jub) is easier to grasp (as a concept) and relate to than a “mostly human” type o character. Dralasites and vrusk are cool and all, but…well, I don’t know. It’s another thing I’m going to have to think about.

All right, that’s enough debriefing for now. I’ll be working on the space game over the holidays (hopefully getting some writing done in Mexico)…at least when I’m not pestering my artists to get their submissions in for the new book. I don’t plan on doing another space opera play-test till 2011 (got to get back to Heron’s BX game and I understand the DCC experiment may be finally over as well…we’ll see what’s up next down at the Mox)…but you never know. It’s certainly possible that we’ll run another session before Christmas.

Cheers!
: )

Dealt Dinosaur

All right, you can download my new, one-page micro-game here:

Out of Time

Personally, I think it's pretty sweet.

This is actually the foundation/skeleton for a decent little Lost World RPG. The full version would have fuller examples and elaborations on how to use the ability scores for task resolution, not to mention more stock antagonists (cannibals, Vikings, Roman legionnaires...plus more dinos, of course!). It would (will?) also furnish rules for scenario creation, probably with a few random tables.

The "end game" included with the micro is a simplified version of what I would use for a full game. It should be enough for play-testing. Unlike some RPGs there IS an objective to the game: getting the heck out of dino-land. As with the D&D endgame, not everyone will choose to pursue this goal, instead continuing to wander ("adventure") or settle roots in the prehistoric world.

Those folks will probably be eaten.

Anyway, hope you enjoy it; any and all feedback is appreciated. In addition to six-sided dice, you will also require one (1) deck of playing cards. I recommend using ones with a dinosaur theme. I picked up a set for myself today ($6) from Top Ten Toys: The Age of Dinosaurs.

Intimidating Artwork

[saw the Captain America movie last night...sorry, Josh!...and will be posting about it later today after I've reflected on it a bit. This little "tide you over" post is somewhat related]

I just want to say a brief word or two about visual artists...you know, folks that draw and paint and sketch and whatnot. I throw around the word "artist" a lot in reference to any creator or undertaker of creative endeavor, but for this post I'm discussing those guys (and gals) that make pictures using something other than a camera.

There is a huge amount of talent floating around right now.

I mean, the overall quantity of quality art to be found on the market today is just astonishing. To me, anyway. I've read comic books since I was a small child, I've seen masterworks in Italy and Spain and France and London (not to mention the museums of the good ol' US of A), and the stuff in-between (I like to go to art showings or peruse the paintings on the walls of coffee shops and cafes or the prints at sidewalk-street vendors)...and I am AMAZED at the sheer amount of high quality artwork that can be purchased all over the place.

Where do all these folks come from?

Lil' D and I stopped into the local comic shop the other day to get the proprietor's take on the recent comic book movies...

[yes, yes, I read film reviews, too, but you know the quality of your average superhero flick is generally less-than-Oscar-worthy. I'm not going to see 'em for quality cinema, and I want the comic-quality-control opinion of a Subject Matter Expert on the subject. Jeez!]

...and as usual I am blown away by much of what I see. Rows and rows and pages and pages of high quality artwork for sale. More than any one person could read in...well, perhaps ever. Certainly one person couldn't subscribe to ALL those mags!

I even picked up a little something-something: a compilation of Mark Schultz's Xenozoic Tales (something for which I've been searching about two years...). More on that particular find later. Yes, I know it is not recently drawn (artwork from the 80's), but it's still excellent art in addition to being well-written.

[I'm kind of on the same page as Jim Shooter regarding the state of today's comics and the lack of story-telling ability]

But of course, my passion isn't comics (or movies) anyway...it's GAMING and the sheer amount of incredible artwork used in recently released games is simply astounding.

Card games. Man, I'm not even talking collectible ones (like Magic, etc.)...just one-off card games by a variety of companies, all with different themes and rules, all with gorgeous artwork. $30 and $40 card games...hoo-boy!...that are so beautifully illustrated, who cares if the game is as playable as Uno. Mad Zeppelin really caught my eye for its artwork (I was browsing Gary's today also), even though the game itself didn't sound all that great.

I was talking to Casey (an artist and gamer herself) who was working the counter and asked "where do these companies get all these fantastic artists?"

Well, that's where the money is these days if you're an artist, she replied.

She went on to explain that, tough as ever as the graphics biz is, for some steady pay one can do illos for card and game companies, although there's a catch: companies only pay you if they actually use your artwork in the game and if they don't use the artwork they still own the rights (!!!) to the stuff you've created.

Apparently companies will commission 10 or more illos, but the terms of the contract (all illos submitted are owned by the company and artist only gets paid for illos published) is fairly standard.

Why the hell would anyone sign a contract like that?!

What part of "that's where the money's at" don't you get, pal.

Ugh. At least when I've exploited artists (er...got people to give me stuff for free), I've said they retain their rights to said art and are welcome to re-sell and re-use it. But perhaps that's not enough. Maybe I need to pay people in the future, too.

*sigh* I don't have a business right now. I have a hobby. And if it were to ever turn into a "real business" (a la one of the large scale game companies), I'd probably have to start running it like one (i.e. cutting costs and exploiting starving artists as much as possible). Only if I wanted to keep afloat that is.

Shoot. For now, I'm just going to enjoy the pretty pictures.

Back in Civilization (Almost)

Welp, me and the fam are almost back to Seattle (been up on Flathead Lake in Montana the last few days) and I finally have a place to connect to the internet: the Oxford Suites in Spokane, Washington. Spokane (or "Spokavegas" as my friends from WSU always called it) has grown up a lot in the last 20 years...for a change, my wife and I have decided to linger a bit in the town rather than drive straight through, and it's quite nice. Riverfront Park has many of the same sights I recall from my youth (the Carousel, the mechanical goat) but also has new stuff (a friggin' gondola?!).  I am forced to admit it's quite beautiful...though I think I'm still too much of a "city slicker" to live in Eastern Washington.

Anyway, it's been very relaxing...I've let my cell phone run out of juice (not that I'm a big cell user...I only picked up my first one in January...talk about geezers!), and I didn't turn on a television my whole time in Montana.  I didn't crack a book, either...instead simply enjoying the outdoors, the company of my family and relatives, and lots of card playing.

My family are game players from waaay back, though mainly it's cards. Not poker (they do some of that but mostly they're not gamblers) but rather pinochle, cribbage, bridge, and rummy. Montana winters tend to mean lots of snow, and all my relatives are skilled card players...most of my card knowledge was taught to me by my grandmother.  Like Old School RPGs, cards have a simplicity and portability that allow for hours of entertainment with very little space requirements. Personally, I love playing cards...which is probably one of the reasons I have so much fun in Montana despite my general aversion to hunting and fishing.

Anyway, despite taking my computer and references with me, I did very little writing.  Well, I DID write up my own one-page micro-game a la Searchers of the Unknown, Mutant Scavengers of the Ruined Earth, and Scavengers & Spacewrecks. My little game is called  Clockwork...it's a one-page version of an RPG I've been working on for awhile. Those familiar with Boot Hill will recognize some of the obvious similarities in the game system...it's not really compatible with the other micro-games, because of this. But hanging out in Montana always gets me fired up about the Old West, so Clockwork is what I wrote up.

Actually, I found the one-page model to be pretty fun to work with...I have a couple of other half-written RPGs that might be good in this format.  As well as one more knock-off of an existing RPG....

Oh, any comments on Clockwork are appreciated. I'll probably get back to the full length version once I've completed my B/X Companion (one thing at a time).