Every so often I'll be carrying my roleplaying books around with me in public, either as reading material or because I'm working on an adventure or something. And, every so often, someone will ask me, "Are you doing homework?"
Which is, I suppose, understandable. I'm carrying around what a couple of textbooks. They're textbooks about dragons, but they're still textbooks. I'm reading charts, and taking notes, and doing calculations. I look like I'm doing homework.
But I tell them, "No, no, this is fun. This is Dungeons & Dragons."
Which isn't entirely true. It is homework. It's self-imposed homework, it's fun homework, but it's still homework.
It's a weird hobby.
Showing posts with label thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thoughts. Show all posts
Friday, May 09, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
New Look
It had been overdue for a while; I think the last time I changed it was over a year ago. And I don't really wear all black anymore, so my blog doesn't need to, either.
I might, eventually, return to some variation on that, because black background white text does look pretty spiffy. But for now, this is good.
I'm still not totally solid with the way the sidebar looks, though. Wondering whether I should rearrange my gadget scheme, or add some more. Particularly, I think I may break up the blogroll by topic.
And I am, at the moment, really not happy with the label system I'm using. Not sure whether I should actually go back and do the work to redo it, or just start using a new one and leave the old one as an artifact of earlier times.
I might, eventually, return to some variation on that, because black background white text does look pretty spiffy. But for now, this is good.
I'm still not totally solid with the way the sidebar looks, though. Wondering whether I should rearrange my gadget scheme, or add some more. Particularly, I think I may break up the blogroll by topic.
And I am, at the moment, really not happy with the label system I'm using. Not sure whether I should actually go back and do the work to redo it, or just start using a new one and leave the old one as an artifact of earlier times.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Lessons From The Internet
I'd rather be attacked competently than defended badly. There's nothing more painful than someone who agrees with you, but has no idea what they're talking about.
No, not even that.
No, not even that.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
As Much As I Love Novels
Occasionally I hear D&D described as "like writing a novel." Or GMing as something that GMs do because they can't hack it at other creative pursuits. The Chatty DM occasionally refers to himself as a "failed novelist"--mostly as a joke, I think, but it serves to illustrate the point.
I really don't think this is accurate. There are better analogies than novel writing--directing a movie, for one. (Not my idea. I just stole it.) But the larger point:
I don't GM because I can't write novels. I GM because I love to run games. Because there are some things I can do with a roleplaying campaign that I can't do with a novel, or that are easier in roleplaying, or that are more fun in roleplaying.
And when I want to write a novel, I write a novel. Some ideas, some techniques, are fundamentally novelistic. But I don't think of writing a novel--or any other creative pursuit--as fundamentally superior to roleplaying.
I really don't think this is accurate. There are better analogies than novel writing--directing a movie, for one. (Not my idea. I just stole it.) But the larger point:
I don't GM because I can't write novels. I GM because I love to run games. Because there are some things I can do with a roleplaying campaign that I can't do with a novel, or that are easier in roleplaying, or that are more fun in roleplaying.
And when I want to write a novel, I write a novel. Some ideas, some techniques, are fundamentally novelistic. But I don't think of writing a novel--or any other creative pursuit--as fundamentally superior to roleplaying.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Justifying My Rampant Intellectual Kleptomania
What I don't generate randomly or spin off a secret, I steal. Shamelessly.
Partially because it helps maximize content volume while minimizing work. (Though I tend to give everything my own spin, and at the least have to translate it into game-meaningful content, which is the most work intensive part. So it doesn't minimize effort that much.)
Partially because I like the easter egg aspect it lends to the game. This comes up a lot with character names--names are the most easily Google-able. This would probably drive some people crazy, but I think it's funny when the players finally realize exactly where I got the name of that ancient artifact sword.
Mostly, though, I just like using things I think are cool in my game. I prefer roleplaying that focuses on emulation, rather than innovation. It plays more to the form's strengths. Using familiar material helps keep the inevitable misinterpretation that comes with a group of people trying to figure out what's happening through verbal interaction down to a manageable level. And one of the big advantages that roleplaying has over less active forms of entertainment is that you are actually involved, on some level, with what's going on; using material that you already think is cool takes advantage of that.
And, on an even more theoretical level, I am not much for pure and total originality in creative processes. There are hard limits to just how original it's possible to be, and even harder limits on how original it's desirable to be. If I have to choose between innovation in premise and competence in execution, I almost always choose competence.
Partially because it helps maximize content volume while minimizing work. (Though I tend to give everything my own spin, and at the least have to translate it into game-meaningful content, which is the most work intensive part. So it doesn't minimize effort that much.)
Partially because I like the easter egg aspect it lends to the game. This comes up a lot with character names--names are the most easily Google-able. This would probably drive some people crazy, but I think it's funny when the players finally realize exactly where I got the name of that ancient artifact sword.
Mostly, though, I just like using things I think are cool in my game. I prefer roleplaying that focuses on emulation, rather than innovation. It plays more to the form's strengths. Using familiar material helps keep the inevitable misinterpretation that comes with a group of people trying to figure out what's happening through verbal interaction down to a manageable level. And one of the big advantages that roleplaying has over less active forms of entertainment is that you are actually involved, on some level, with what's going on; using material that you already think is cool takes advantage of that.
And, on an even more theoretical level, I am not much for pure and total originality in creative processes. There are hard limits to just how original it's possible to be, and even harder limits on how original it's desirable to be. If I have to choose between innovation in premise and competence in execution, I almost always choose competence.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
A Bit of Non-Linear Thinking
It occurred to me, in a discussion with a friend, that I try to see problems in technological terms. He brings up this political/social problem, and his political/social perspective on it.
My initial response is a political/social one. My standard reply to issues of this nature is Ye Olde Efficiency vs. Stability, the idea that as a system becomes more efficient, it becomes less stable, and vice versa. If we lose languages and cultures, it becomes easier to get things done, but we are more vulnerable to certain kinds of disasters because our repertoire of responses is more limited.
But then I realize, after thinking about it some more, that this issue is going to be completely transformed by technology. Once machine translation becomes reliable (which may take a very long time, but unless the human brain is some weird quantum black box we have no hope of ever understanding, it will happen) the entire system of language interaction is going to be dramatically changed. I don't know how, exactly, but depending on the exact implementation--well, at the very least, it'll become less massively necessary to learn the dominant language.
This is how I try to see a lot of social problems. Social problems are big and messy and unsolvable, because they depend on cultural assumptions and value judgments. And conversations about social issues are even worse--I hate discussions where you go round in circles without getting anywhere, and that's what tends to happen when laypersons (and politicians) have these discussions.
But make it a technological problem, and suddenly it's solvable. Until that technological solution becomes its own social problem, but those issues tend to be much more clear cut and much easier to avoid.
My initial response is a political/social one. My standard reply to issues of this nature is Ye Olde Efficiency vs. Stability, the idea that as a system becomes more efficient, it becomes less stable, and vice versa. If we lose languages and cultures, it becomes easier to get things done, but we are more vulnerable to certain kinds of disasters because our repertoire of responses is more limited.
But then I realize, after thinking about it some more, that this issue is going to be completely transformed by technology. Once machine translation becomes reliable (which may take a very long time, but unless the human brain is some weird quantum black box we have no hope of ever understanding, it will happen) the entire system of language interaction is going to be dramatically changed. I don't know how, exactly, but depending on the exact implementation--well, at the very least, it'll become less massively necessary to learn the dominant language.
This is how I try to see a lot of social problems. Social problems are big and messy and unsolvable, because they depend on cultural assumptions and value judgments. And conversations about social issues are even worse--I hate discussions where you go round in circles without getting anywhere, and that's what tends to happen when laypersons (and politicians) have these discussions.
But make it a technological problem, and suddenly it's solvable. Until that technological solution becomes its own social problem, but those issues tend to be much more clear cut and much easier to avoid.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
This Is Not Just About Emo Kids
I've noticed a tendency to glorify angst. It's something that that writers do, that artists do, that important people thinking important things do. Depressing is considered more valid, more important, more meaningful than uplifting.
This is bullshit.
Misery is important, and valuable, and educational. There are things that you will never understand if you haven't been truly, honestly miserable at least once in your life.
But it's not profound. It doesn't make you a better person. It doesn't make you a more interesting person. It's not some rarefied state that the masses, in their happy ignorance, cannot hope to comprehend.
Misery is easy. Happiness is hard.
This is bullshit.
Misery is important, and valuable, and educational. There are things that you will never understand if you haven't been truly, honestly miserable at least once in your life.
But it's not profound. It doesn't make you a better person. It doesn't make you a more interesting person. It's not some rarefied state that the masses, in their happy ignorance, cannot hope to comprehend.
Misery is easy. Happiness is hard.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Still Not Done With the Topic
A few more thoughts on the September podcast.
It's interesting that they talk about D&D in terms of story issues, and how the mechanics support or undermine those. It's very close to the idea that I'm familiar with, that emulation is a primary goal of roleplaying. Telling brand new stories is often less effective than retelling stories everyone really loves in new ways, and the rules need to be able to support the assumptions you need to tell those stories.
Also: copper pieces are there so you can laugh at the peasants. Look at World of Warcraft. Low-level players use copper pieces so the high level, gold-using players can laugh at them.
Building in the assumption of non-basic book core classes and races into the game from the beginning is cool.
They talk about psionics. Will Incarnum be in the new edition? At this or a later date? That's a book I have, never used, really want to, and unfortunately don't see how I'm going to in the near future. And that makes me sad, because it's a really, really cool system.
Similar question on the Tome of Magic front, because the classes and subsystems there are also very cool, and I've used them a little bit but not quite in the way I'd like.
I assume The Book of Nine Swords classes are going to be updated at some point (because the Wizards people seem to like them, based on the groups they've talked about on the website) and their general philosophy is informing aspects of the new edition.
It's interesting that they talk about D&D in terms of story issues, and how the mechanics support or undermine those. It's very close to the idea that I'm familiar with, that emulation is a primary goal of roleplaying. Telling brand new stories is often less effective than retelling stories everyone really loves in new ways, and the rules need to be able to support the assumptions you need to tell those stories.
Also: copper pieces are there so you can laugh at the peasants. Look at World of Warcraft. Low-level players use copper pieces so the high level, gold-using players can laugh at them.
Building in the assumption of non-basic book core classes and races into the game from the beginning is cool.
They talk about psionics. Will Incarnum be in the new edition? At this or a later date? That's a book I have, never used, really want to, and unfortunately don't see how I'm going to in the near future. And that makes me sad, because it's a really, really cool system.
Similar question on the Tome of Magic front, because the classes and subsystems there are also very cool, and I've used them a little bit but not quite in the way I'd like.
I assume The Book of Nine Swords classes are going to be updated at some point (because the Wizards people seem to like them, based on the groups they've talked about on the website) and their general philosophy is informing aspects of the new edition.
Reasons to Switch to 4th Edition
If it makes the game easier to DM.
If it gives fighters fun things to do at high levels.
If it gives bards fun things to do, period.
Heck--if it gives everyone more fun things to do.
If it makes combat faster.
If it makes combat more interesting--more tactical options. Especially, if it makes the tactical game more obvious, because that's a part of the game that doesn't always come naturally, but is always fun if I can come up with something.
If it makes high-level play functional.
If it makes single-monster encounters less horribly swingy.
If it really does achieve the goals that Mike Mearls outlined in the September podcast--fix the math, fix the class balance, fix the encounters-per-day boondoggle. Note that none of these problems make 3rd unplayable. But fixing them would make it a lot more playable, and a lot more fun.
If they make non-combat interactions more interesting, more dynamic, and more relevant.
If it's got cool flavor. If the flavor in the base books is cooler than the flavor in the base
If it's easier to run encounters with multiple monsters with very different abilities.
If it's easier to build fun monsters, and otherwise work with the system. Particularly, if the design and development ideas are more transparent, because it's easier to mess with things if I know why they're a particular way in the first place.
If multiclassing is really as good as they say. "Any combo, any level, always works," and I'm totally there.
If turning undead is made less stupid.
If it gives fighters fun things to do at high levels.
If it gives bards fun things to do, period.
Heck--if it gives everyone more fun things to do.
If it makes combat faster.
If it makes combat more interesting--more tactical options. Especially, if it makes the tactical game more obvious, because that's a part of the game that doesn't always come naturally, but is always fun if I can come up with something.
If it makes high-level play functional.
If it makes single-monster encounters less horribly swingy.
If it really does achieve the goals that Mike Mearls outlined in the September podcast--fix the math, fix the class balance, fix the encounters-per-day boondoggle. Note that none of these problems make 3rd unplayable. But fixing them would make it a lot more playable, and a lot more fun.
If they make non-combat interactions more interesting, more dynamic, and more relevant.
If it's got cool flavor. If the flavor in the base books is cooler than the flavor in the base
If it's easier to run encounters with multiple monsters with very different abilities.
If it's easier to build fun monsters, and otherwise work with the system. Particularly, if the design and development ideas are more transparent, because it's easier to mess with things if I know why they're a particular way in the first place.
If multiclassing is really as good as they say. "Any combo, any level, always works," and I'm totally there.
If turning undead is made less stupid.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Teaching D&D
If you happen to be an experienced DM, and you're teaching D&D to someone, is it best to go with Players Handbook only, dungeon crawling, vaguely Greyhawk-ian standard D&D? Is it okay to add in more diverse mechanical material? More diverse thematic material? What if your normal game doesn't fall into any of those categories?
On setting--better to go with a published setting, or homebrew? Does it matter? Does it make a difference how weird the setting is? Is something like Eberron or Dark Sun, which both change various baseline assumptions about the world and how the game's played, better if its an established setting, so new players have a place to go to get a more solid grounding in it?
What if you really want to play something like Arcana Evolved, or Iron Heroes, but the only players around are new? Better to start them off with the basics, or is it okay to start them with the slightly off-beat stuff? In some ways, Iron Heroes might be easier to learn--none of that magic stuff to deal with. But how would learning it first change a player's perception of D&D?
What if you've got a mixed group? Some new, some old? Should you get the older players on board with staying core, to keep the group simpler for the new players? Should you let the experienced players use wacky supplements, but tell the new players to keep to the basics? Will new players even notice?
On new stuff--does it make a difference, in both whether to use it at all and who to allow to use it, whether it's new variations on old stuff or entirely new things? New feats and spells? New races? New prestige classes? New base classes? New subsystems? Are there some subsystems that are easier to use with new players than others? Psionics? Incarnum? Book of Nine Swords?
How much weird stuff should a DM use, when running a game for new players? Should you stay core, too? Take advantage of having some players who don't necessarily know that a troll has fire resistance? Or is it okay to go weird, since your players don't know the difference and aren't keep track of it? Is it okay to use PC parts in your NPCs that you aren't allowing the players to use? Is it okay to use subsystems that you aren't allowing your players to use? (Those last two don't apply just to new player campaigns.)
On setting--better to go with a published setting, or homebrew? Does it matter? Does it make a difference how weird the setting is? Is something like Eberron or Dark Sun, which both change various baseline assumptions about the world and how the game's played, better if its an established setting, so new players have a place to go to get a more solid grounding in it?
What if you really want to play something like Arcana Evolved, or Iron Heroes, but the only players around are new? Better to start them off with the basics, or is it okay to start them with the slightly off-beat stuff? In some ways, Iron Heroes might be easier to learn--none of that magic stuff to deal with. But how would learning it first change a player's perception of D&D?
What if you've got a mixed group? Some new, some old? Should you get the older players on board with staying core, to keep the group simpler for the new players? Should you let the experienced players use wacky supplements, but tell the new players to keep to the basics? Will new players even notice?
On new stuff--does it make a difference, in both whether to use it at all and who to allow to use it, whether it's new variations on old stuff or entirely new things? New feats and spells? New races? New prestige classes? New base classes? New subsystems? Are there some subsystems that are easier to use with new players than others? Psionics? Incarnum? Book of Nine Swords?
How much weird stuff should a DM use, when running a game for new players? Should you stay core, too? Take advantage of having some players who don't necessarily know that a troll has fire resistance? Or is it okay to go weird, since your players don't know the difference and aren't keep track of it? Is it okay to use PC parts in your NPCs that you aren't allowing the players to use? Is it okay to use subsystems that you aren't allowing your players to use? (Those last two don't apply just to new player campaigns.)
Monday, September 03, 2007
Learning D&D
Is it better to learn D&D (or any roleplaying game) from an experienced DM, or a brand new one? With a group of entirely new players, or a group where everyone but one or two people basically knows what's going on?
Is it better to learn to DM as your first D&D experience, or after you've been playing it for a while? With brand new players, or experienced players? Is it possible to learn to play D&D as the DM, but with experienced players?
By better I mean--which is more fun? Which is more likely to keep you in the hobby for the long run? Does it affect playing style? DMing style? DMing skill?
How do most people learn to play D&D? Are there differences between how D&D is learned, and how other games are learned?
What effect does already knowing another game have on the learning process? Does it have any other, longterm effects?
Probably some of these questions are answered by market research. I know that Wizards published a study of the player population and its various habits in the run-up to 3rd Edition. I assume they still do market research; do they still publish it? Do they have plans to publish it?
Is it better to learn to DM as your first D&D experience, or after you've been playing it for a while? With brand new players, or experienced players? Is it possible to learn to play D&D as the DM, but with experienced players?
By better I mean--which is more fun? Which is more likely to keep you in the hobby for the long run? Does it affect playing style? DMing style? DMing skill?
How do most people learn to play D&D? Are there differences between how D&D is learned, and how other games are learned?
What effect does already knowing another game have on the learning process? Does it have any other, longterm effects?
Probably some of these questions are answered by market research. I know that Wizards published a study of the player population and its various habits in the run-up to 3rd Edition. I assume they still do market research; do they still publish it? Do they have plans to publish it?
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Revolutionaries
Watched Pan's Labyrinth. Great movie. With help from Harry Potter and Zompist, it's triggered a couple of thoughts.
The basic struggle--political, moral--is between those who think that people are equal, and those who don't. However. The very act of fighting for the prior conviction tends to convince people of the latter.
People in power, as a general rule, think they're better than other people. Why else would they be in charge? Those who challenge them, then, tend to hold the opposite conviction.
But revolutionaries are not average people. And it's one small step from "not average" to "better than average."
I don't know which side I'm on.
I don't know which side I want to be on.
I don't even know which side I'm supposed to be on.
The basic struggle--political, moral--is between those who think that people are equal, and those who don't. However. The very act of fighting for the prior conviction tends to convince people of the latter.
People in power, as a general rule, think they're better than other people. Why else would they be in charge? Those who challenge them, then, tend to hold the opposite conviction.
But revolutionaries are not average people. And it's one small step from "not average" to "better than average."
I don't know which side I'm on.
I don't know which side I want to be on.
I don't even know which side I'm supposed to be on.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Wrestling Rambling
I've been reading a bit about wrestling in the past couple of days. I found If Destroyed, Still True, (great name) which has a lot of information about wrestling, among other things, through Fraggmented. (Have I mentioned Fraggmented? I should, sometime. It's a really great blog; talks a lot about status quo, and storytelling engines, absolutely vital concepts.) And Websnark had a post about the Chris Benoit . . thing, and there was some information about wrestling in general in that.
It's fascinating. I knew professional wrestling was "fake," and that there was some kind of good guy/bad guy thing, but I hadn't realized the complexity of it. Managers, interference, ongoing story-lines; it's not just a win/lose thing, there are all these shades of distinction, the difficulty of victory, the kind of interference. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it's a wealth of detail I'd never properly intuited.
Particularly, it occupies this interesting space between reality and unreality. It's set-up, but everyone knows it's set up. That's part of the point. It carries conventions of the fictional experience--"What are they going to do next?" rather than "what's going to happen next?"
This has certain advantages over the real. You can be somewhat certain that, whatever does happen, it'll be interesting. (Or, at least, you have someone to vent at if it's not.) There's a certain sport in reading the author's mind, figuring out the intent behind actions and what's coming up. There's a level of detail, of interaction between levels, that can't be present in an un-manufactured storyline.
But then, in the case of wrestling, it's not completely manufactured. People get hurt, people die: reality controls the story. No fiction is completely manufactured; even writing carries the fingerprints of the author, reflects the forces acting on the author. But wrestling isn't just indirectly influenced by reality, it directly confronts reality, molding it into something different, sometimes stranger.
And, ultimately, "the point of the stories is to create a context in which the wrestling matches "matter." And that's all. The stories are the means, the wrestling is the end." (J
It's similar, somehow, to what I discussed a few days ago about fictional characters interacting with reality. In some ways, it's a mirror image of that phenomena. One has fictional characters acting like they're real. One has real people acting like they're fictional.
That's true of all acting, but most acting doesn't have people being hit over the head with chairs. Wrestling seems to have its own place on the continuum.
A couple of twists: Vince McMahon is both in charge of it and a character, which is it's own separate universe of weird. And, of course, Japan has a truly bizarre take on the sport.
It's fascinating. I knew professional wrestling was "fake," and that there was some kind of good guy/bad guy thing, but I hadn't realized the complexity of it. Managers, interference, ongoing story-lines; it's not just a win/lose thing, there are all these shades of distinction, the difficulty of victory, the kind of interference. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it's a wealth of detail I'd never properly intuited.
Particularly, it occupies this interesting space between reality and unreality. It's set-up, but everyone knows it's set up. That's part of the point. It carries conventions of the fictional experience--"What are they going to do next?" rather than "what's going to happen next?"
This has certain advantages over the real. You can be somewhat certain that, whatever does happen, it'll be interesting. (Or, at least, you have someone to vent at if it's not.) There's a certain sport in reading the author's mind, figuring out the intent behind actions and what's coming up. There's a level of detail, of interaction between levels, that can't be present in an un-manufactured storyline.
But then, in the case of wrestling, it's not completely manufactured. People get hurt, people die: reality controls the story. No fiction is completely manufactured; even writing carries the fingerprints of the author, reflects the forces acting on the author. But wrestling isn't just indirectly influenced by reality, it directly confronts reality, molding it into something different, sometimes stranger.
And, ultimately, "the point of the stories is to create a context in which the wrestling matches "matter." And that's all. The stories are the means, the wrestling is the end." (J
It's similar, somehow, to what I discussed a few days ago about fictional characters interacting with reality. In some ways, it's a mirror image of that phenomena. One has fictional characters acting like they're real. One has real people acting like they're fictional.
That's true of all acting, but most acting doesn't have people being hit over the head with chairs. Wrestling seems to have its own place on the continuum.
A couple of twists: Vince McMahon is both in charge of it and a character, which is it's own separate universe of weird. And, of course, Japan has a truly bizarre take on the sport.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)