4e class roles system has, for our group, been a very good thing. It's similar, in its broad strokes, to the way MMO's organize their classes. They map almost exactly to the archetype set-up of City of Heroes, my MMO of choice; the execution of each role is quite different, and CoH breaks strikers down into melee and ranged, but the basic structure of tank, damage dealer, buffer, and debuffer is the same in both games. I'm told that World of Warcraft has a similar system, though I don't have any direct experience with it.
The advantage for us is that half the group has played various MMOs, and the other half is familiar with the basic principles and with similar ideas in other video games. It was very easy for the players to understand the basic sorts of things that each class could do, how they should be played, and how they interact with each other. We're learning the finer details in play, but the basic structures are familiar.
This'll be a bigger deal with new players. Not all the people I've taught to play D&D have been video gamers first, but a lot of them have been; the interest areas do overlap. And these days, if a video gamer doesn't play an MMO, chances are good that they know someone who does, or have played a game that borrows some of that class architecture. That D&D now uses some of this common language may make it more familiar to these people, its outlines easier to understand, and provide some common reference points to aid in my explanations of the system.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
The 4e Teamwork Angle
As I was mulling over yesterday's game, another issue popped up: action points. None of them have used any action points yet, and if they'd thought to do so Takom might not have gone down, and the fight would have been over a lot quicker. I don't think they all understand what action points are, because they're very different from the mechanics of the same name that we used in 3rd. I'll go over them next week, before the game, and see if they do any better.
But there's still a significant teamwork angle to the game, and though my experience with it is limited, my sense is that this is a good thing -- at least, compared to 3rd, the only edition of D&D I have any extensive play experience with. The tactical thinking/communication load on players is greater, and this may be an issue for casual players, but it also looks like the work involved in other parts of the system has been reduced.
Thyme's player, one of the least system-wonky person at the table, has mentioned that the system seems a lot easier to handle than 3rd. Part of it is probably presentation, but the system does seem a lot cleaner and clearer in a lot of places, and your character's abilities are more clearly explained and organized.
Thinking about it, the less system oriented players have had an easier time of it than the crunchy ones. Takom, after all, was run by the most system oriented guy at the table, the one who ran a cerebremancer because neither a wizard nor a psion gave him enough options. The ones with less interest in or experience with the system talk to the other players more about what to do, which slows the game down a bit, but also keeps them from barreling into situations where they end up on their own.
And, in my experience, casual players had a bigger problem in 3rd edition: they'd get overshadowed by the gearheads. This never caused massive friction in any of my game, but I could see where it could have been a problem had the situation been slightly different. I've run several campaigns where one or more players were much better at building characters, or more interested in building characters for statistical effectiveness than roleplaying reasons, than the others. These characters had the effect of shutting down combat before anyone else could participate, or dominating it to the point where no one else's contributions were meaningful.
Now, at least, the system players need everyone else to succeed. This could cause its own set of problems, if they decide to start telling everyone else what to do and how to run their characters. But at least it opens the possibility for those kinds of people to get satisfaction out of the game without shutting everyone else out.
It's another reason why I want to run 4e a lot, hopefully with a couple of different groups. It's new and shiny and most importantly it's fun, and that's enough to keep playing it. But I'm still trying to figure out how the game and the table interact; what's supposed to happen, what actually happens, and why.
But there's still a significant teamwork angle to the game, and though my experience with it is limited, my sense is that this is a good thing -- at least, compared to 3rd, the only edition of D&D I have any extensive play experience with. The tactical thinking/communication load on players is greater, and this may be an issue for casual players, but it also looks like the work involved in other parts of the system has been reduced.
Thyme's player, one of the least system-wonky person at the table, has mentioned that the system seems a lot easier to handle than 3rd. Part of it is probably presentation, but the system does seem a lot cleaner and clearer in a lot of places, and your character's abilities are more clearly explained and organized.
Thinking about it, the less system oriented players have had an easier time of it than the crunchy ones. Takom, after all, was run by the most system oriented guy at the table, the one who ran a cerebremancer because neither a wizard nor a psion gave him enough options. The ones with less interest in or experience with the system talk to the other players more about what to do, which slows the game down a bit, but also keeps them from barreling into situations where they end up on their own.
And, in my experience, casual players had a bigger problem in 3rd edition: they'd get overshadowed by the gearheads. This never caused massive friction in any of my game, but I could see where it could have been a problem had the situation been slightly different. I've run several campaigns where one or more players were much better at building characters, or more interested in building characters for statistical effectiveness than roleplaying reasons, than the others. These characters had the effect of shutting down combat before anyone else could participate, or dominating it to the point where no one else's contributions were meaningful.
Now, at least, the system players need everyone else to succeed. This could cause its own set of problems, if they decide to start telling everyone else what to do and how to run their characters. But at least it opens the possibility for those kinds of people to get satisfaction out of the game without shutting everyone else out.
It's another reason why I want to run 4e a lot, hopefully with a couple of different groups. It's new and shiny and most importantly it's fun, and that's enough to keep playing it. But I'm still trying to figure out how the game and the table interact; what's supposed to happen, what actually happens, and why.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Kobold Fury
We had some more 4th edition excitement tonight. Unfortunately, we only got through one more encounter, the second kobold fight on Kings Road. I was a little late, we had dinner right in the middle of it, people kept getting up to do stuff on their turn, people kept taking ages to decide what to do -- it happens. Most of the delays were decision and/or rules lookup based, so I have confidence that the situation will improve as we get more comfortable with the system.
That one encounter was pretty thrilling, though. Four of the five characters present (Brandis's player was not in attendance) were bloodied, and the fifth, Scourge, was an infernal pact warlock whose temporary hitpoint-related powers we misinterpreted. Thyme got knocked unconscious twice. And Takom, uh . . .
Turns out that, in fine D&D tradition, the getting surrounded by kobolds is pretty bad news for the wizard. The two crits didn't help much, either, but that main of it was just the familiar equation of three dragonshields vs. one 1st-level wizard. After a short period of mourning for the fallen (and a bit of gloating by the DM, because I actually managed not to wuss out and have the kobolds attack a different, better defended character) Takom's player has replaced him with Ubuntu, the tiefling paladin, which ought to be entertaining.
The most interesting thing about the affair is that while the kobolds were the proximate cause of his demise, the incident was really due to poor communication by the players. If Stonefist had realized what he was trying to do earlier, he would have been able to use his daily exploit, covering strike and move him out of range of the otherwise extremely difficult to get away from kobolds.
It'll be interesting to see if the players can learn to better co-ordinate their tactics. It occurs to me that it could just be that the system is too complicated, and requires the players to keep track of too many things -- their allies capabilities in addition to their own -- but right now I think it's an area where they could significantly improve if they just talked to each other more.
Of course, some of this is probably my fault. My 3rd edition fights tended to be way too easy -- and around here, I'm the DM who actually cares about combat -- so they're just executing the "charge in and start hitting things" routine that has always brought them success in the past. I may encourage them to go hit up the dragon graveyard before they invade the kobold lair (though as the module expects, they are now very enthusiastic about wiping out those damn shifty kobolds; so far they've been just exactly the right mix of vexing and smashable) so they can get some more practice with the edition's assumptions before taking on the allegedly killer Irontooth encounter.
That one encounter was pretty thrilling, though. Four of the five characters present (Brandis's player was not in attendance) were bloodied, and the fifth, Scourge, was an infernal pact warlock whose temporary hitpoint-related powers we misinterpreted. Thyme got knocked unconscious twice. And Takom, uh . . .
Turns out that, in fine D&D tradition, the getting surrounded by kobolds is pretty bad news for the wizard. The two crits didn't help much, either, but that main of it was just the familiar equation of three dragonshields vs. one 1st-level wizard. After a short period of mourning for the fallen (and a bit of gloating by the DM, because I actually managed not to wuss out and have the kobolds attack a different, better defended character) Takom's player has replaced him with Ubuntu, the tiefling paladin, which ought to be entertaining.
The most interesting thing about the affair is that while the kobolds were the proximate cause of his demise, the incident was really due to poor communication by the players. If Stonefist had realized what he was trying to do earlier, he would have been able to use his daily exploit, covering strike and move him out of range of the otherwise extremely difficult to get away from kobolds.
It'll be interesting to see if the players can learn to better co-ordinate their tactics. It occurs to me that it could just be that the system is too complicated, and requires the players to keep track of too many things -- their allies capabilities in addition to their own -- but right now I think it's an area where they could significantly improve if they just talked to each other more.
Of course, some of this is probably my fault. My 3rd edition fights tended to be way too easy -- and around here, I'm the DM who actually cares about combat -- so they're just executing the "charge in and start hitting things" routine that has always brought them success in the past. I may encourage them to go hit up the dragon graveyard before they invade the kobold lair (though as the module expects, they are now very enthusiastic about wiping out those damn shifty kobolds; so far they've been just exactly the right mix of vexing and smashable) so they can get some more practice with the edition's assumptions before taking on the allegedly killer Irontooth encounter.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Warforged and the Default Setting
My favorite race that I never got to play is now 4th edition ready, allowing me to achieve new and exciting heights of non-play. Swank.
They also come with a place in the history of the new default setting, and a few more details about that setting -- specifically, how the empire of Nerath fell, and a couple of things that were going on in the decades before that. They even drop a note to explain the economics behind the warforged: Nobles could get out of required military service by paying for their production.
I kind of suspect that the setting will get a lot more defined as supplements come out and things have to be fitted into it in interesting ways. The core books play pretty fast and loose with that implied setting; it's there, but there's a lot that's clearly marked "do your own thing." I wonder how long that will last.
They also come with a place in the history of the new default setting, and a few more details about that setting -- specifically, how the empire of Nerath fell, and a couple of things that were going on in the decades before that. They even drop a note to explain the economics behind the warforged: Nobles could get out of required military service by paying for their production.
I kind of suspect that the setting will get a lot more defined as supplements come out and things have to be fitted into it in interesting ways. The core books play pretty fast and loose with that implied setting; it's there, but there's a lot that's clearly marked "do your own thing." I wonder how long that will last.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Waranger!
There are two new (to core) classes in the 4e Player's Handbook, the warlock and the warlord. They both have "war" in their names, and this, of course, is an excellent thing.
But it is my considered opinion that they did not go far enough. Every class should have "war" in its name.
For some, this is fairly simple. The fighter becomes "warrior," the cleric "war-priest," the wizard "war-mage." The ranger, similarly, is easily converted to "waranger." The rogue might sensibly be referred to as either a "war-thief" or "war-lurk," though these lack a certain iconic elegance.
The paladin vexes me.
But it is my considered opinion that they did not go far enough. Every class should have "war" in its name.
For some, this is fairly simple. The fighter becomes "warrior," the cleric "war-priest," the wizard "war-mage." The ranger, similarly, is easily converted to "waranger." The rogue might sensibly be referred to as either a "war-thief" or "war-lurk," though these lack a certain iconic elegance.
The paladin vexes me.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Dungeons and Dragons and . . . Gladiators
With 4e, my long simmering idea to run a gladiator campaign has re-emerged. Not in anything approaching full force, mind you; the tropes of classic heroic adventure and sandbox-y wilderness exploration sing their own siren songs.
But ever since I read Dragon #303 (the only issue of Dragon I have ever owned, though now I'm not sure now where it is) I've thought that having an entire campaign revolve around the gladiatorial arena was a pretty neat idea. I put it aside in favor of other things, but what's got me thinking about it again is that I think 4e would be a much better fit for it than 3e.
Having just one fight per day wouldn't massively skew the power curve or the XP system; I'd just have to take into account that the players would pretty much be able to use all their dailies, if they wanted to, and make the fights a little tougher than usual. And the game seems geared towards big, set-piece battles, so I can use lots of monsters and throw in lots of gimmicks and I'd have a lot of support from the books on how to do that. It's also an excuse to use mechanically interesting but plainly bizarre monster combinations.
If I was going to do this, I'd make the party a team of gladiators, and the setting would revolve around them and other teams fighting monsters and occasionally each other. Put together a tournament system, some kind of rankings they could work up in, and probably use an actual, numerical system so the players have something to keep track of. Then add in enough behind the scene schemes within their stable and between stables to keep things interesting outside the fights, and to make ways to make the fights meaningful. Rivalries, bets and so on; maybe the start out in some small town, outskirts ring and have to work their way up to the big leagues, maybe there's an emperor who they can impress by pulling stunts and doing daring deeds in the ring, or particular kinds of daring deeds.
I'm still considering whether they'd be slaves or whether gladiatoring (gladiateering?) is legitimate employment. To a certain degree it depends on the death rate, and how final death is. I'm kind of leaning towards the former, based on its potential to generate subplots, but figuring out why they're crazy enough to want to be doing this could be interesting in itself. The free-agent model would also work better with mixing the idea with some urban adventuring/mystery solving.
There's a lot more I could do with this, but right now I haven't figured out where it ranks in the ever-shifting pantheon of games I want to run. I really badly want to do a straight up, 1st-30th sword&sorcery-ish exploration game, but I doubt that's particularly realistic. I'm also not sure which one I'd get more players for, as I don't yet have a solid college group, and might need to do some recruiting.
But ever since I read Dragon #303 (the only issue of Dragon I have ever owned, though now I'm not sure now where it is) I've thought that having an entire campaign revolve around the gladiatorial arena was a pretty neat idea. I put it aside in favor of other things, but what's got me thinking about it again is that I think 4e would be a much better fit for it than 3e.
Having just one fight per day wouldn't massively skew the power curve or the XP system; I'd just have to take into account that the players would pretty much be able to use all their dailies, if they wanted to, and make the fights a little tougher than usual. And the game seems geared towards big, set-piece battles, so I can use lots of monsters and throw in lots of gimmicks and I'd have a lot of support from the books on how to do that. It's also an excuse to use mechanically interesting but plainly bizarre monster combinations.
If I was going to do this, I'd make the party a team of gladiators, and the setting would revolve around them and other teams fighting monsters and occasionally each other. Put together a tournament system, some kind of rankings they could work up in, and probably use an actual, numerical system so the players have something to keep track of. Then add in enough behind the scene schemes within their stable and between stables to keep things interesting outside the fights, and to make ways to make the fights meaningful. Rivalries, bets and so on; maybe the start out in some small town, outskirts ring and have to work their way up to the big leagues, maybe there's an emperor who they can impress by pulling stunts and doing daring deeds in the ring, or particular kinds of daring deeds.
I'm still considering whether they'd be slaves or whether gladiatoring (gladiateering?) is legitimate employment. To a certain degree it depends on the death rate, and how final death is. I'm kind of leaning towards the former, based on its potential to generate subplots, but figuring out why they're crazy enough to want to be doing this could be interesting in itself. The free-agent model would also work better with mixing the idea with some urban adventuring/mystery solving.
There's a lot more I could do with this, but right now I haven't figured out where it ranks in the ever-shifting pantheon of games I want to run. I really badly want to do a straight up, 1st-30th sword&sorcery-ish exploration game, but I doubt that's particularly realistic. I'm also not sure which one I'd get more players for, as I don't yet have a solid college group, and might need to do some recruiting.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
4e Burnout Already? Kinda, Sorta
I'm sort of sick of talking about 4e. Seems like that's all anyone's interested in right now, on the internet and in my home group. What's good, what's bad, how it fits together, how it's different from the other editions, and on and on and on. I've been thinking about it a lot lately, reading the books and thinking about things to do with it, changes to make, campaigns to run. I need to find something else to think about, because I don't, at the moment, feel any great need to discuss them.
I just want to play the dang thing. Worry about whether it's good or not later.
I just want to play the dang thing. Worry about whether it's good or not later.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Damn Shifty Kobolds
Played me some 4th Edition D&D last night. We basically just ran through the first encounter in Keep on the Shadowfell, and then the PCs tooled around Winterhaven long enough to figure out where to go next. Character creation took over three hours, next time we'll get through a lot more game.
It was fun. The encounter was pretty well designed (and I've picked up a few tricks in that area from the module) and we were able to keep rule look ups relatively fast and infrequent. I described the scene a little better than usual, and everyone had fun moving their minis (lego, for the PCs, and paper on pennies for the kobolds) around the mat and laying the smackdown.
Kobolds are a lot of fun. One of the players had heard rumors of their vile shiftiness, and those rumors turned out to be all too true. The dragonshields were the most irritating -- the fighter had a hard time getting close enough to them to hit. ("They'll shift! They'll shift! Box them in!") I should have reminded them to use action points; that would have been a good use for them, and made things a bit easier.
The party currently consists of Liam Nate Boniface Andrews, an Eladrin ranger, Stonefist Aleboot, dwarven fighter, Takom, human wizard, Scourge, half-elf warlock, Brandis, human cleric, and Thyme Flyse, half-elf rogue. (Whose player has posted her own session recap.)
The characters are still pretty sketchy, this being the first session, and a short one at that. Highlights include: Stonefist's name is on account of being descended from two destroyed clans; he took both to honor their memories. Thyme Flyse has hers because her parents have "a bad sense of humor." Scourge distinguised himself by asking around for the exact population of Winterhaven, because he "wanted to have options. Lots of options."
It was fun. The encounter was pretty well designed (and I've picked up a few tricks in that area from the module) and we were able to keep rule look ups relatively fast and infrequent. I described the scene a little better than usual, and everyone had fun moving their minis (lego, for the PCs, and paper on pennies for the kobolds) around the mat and laying the smackdown.
Kobolds are a lot of fun. One of the players had heard rumors of their vile shiftiness, and those rumors turned out to be all too true. The dragonshields were the most irritating -- the fighter had a hard time getting close enough to them to hit. ("They'll shift! They'll shift! Box them in!") I should have reminded them to use action points; that would have been a good use for them, and made things a bit easier.
The party currently consists of Liam Nate Boniface Andrews, an Eladrin ranger, Stonefist Aleboot, dwarven fighter, Takom, human wizard, Scourge, half-elf warlock, Brandis, human cleric, and Thyme Flyse, half-elf rogue. (Whose player has posted her own session recap.)
The characters are still pretty sketchy, this being the first session, and a short one at that. Highlights include: Stonefist's name is on account of being descended from two destroyed clans; he took both to honor their memories. Thyme Flyse has hers because her parents have "a bad sense of humor." Scourge distinguised himself by asking around for the exact population of Winterhaven, because he "wanted to have options. Lots of options."
Sunday, June 08, 2008
4th Edition and the God Format
Got the 4e books. I've got a session going tomorrow (er . . . later today) but I'm not sure how much I'm going to be able to say about it beyond "it is/is not fun." I'm still in the "ooh, shiny new book" phase.
I do like the format it uses for the gods, though. Name/alignment/domain and worshipers blurb/commandments. Especially for new role players, and with limited space, the commandments are a good way to get across how you should act if you worship a particular god. It helps that most of them include at least one that lets you know who you should beat up.
I do like the format it uses for the gods, though. Name/alignment/domain and worshipers blurb/commandments. Especially for new role players, and with limited space, the commandments are a good way to get across how you should act if you worship a particular god. It helps that most of them include at least one that lets you know who you should beat up.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Character vs. Setting
As I was writing about the assumption of a long term campaign in 1st edition, it occurred to me (at least partly) why that is. The game is about the world, not the characters. That's why Gygax keeps going on about "the milieu," that's why the game is supposed to last as long as possible. Because the point is the world that everyone is building.
This is a huge contrast from the sort of game that I usually run, and learned how to run from the 3rd Edition DMG and places like Gnome Stew. The game is about the characters; when they end, when they die or their adventures come to a satisfactory conclusion, the game ends, and you start a new one.
And on a slight tangent, to me, character death makes a lot more sense in a game of the prior variety than the latter. If the point of the game is the world, then one character dying just means it's the end of his particular story, and the chance to add another dimension to the setting. In a game that's about the continuing adventures of one specific group of people, there are probably other ways for them to fail, without having to deal with a character-sized hole in the campaign. Which can work, and be interesting, depending on how the characters are related and what they're doing, but it's a lot more disruptive.
This is a huge contrast from the sort of game that I usually run, and learned how to run from the 3rd Edition DMG and places like Gnome Stew. The game is about the characters; when they end, when they die or their adventures come to a satisfactory conclusion, the game ends, and you start a new one.
And on a slight tangent, to me, character death makes a lot more sense in a game of the prior variety than the latter. If the point of the game is the world, then one character dying just means it's the end of his particular story, and the chance to add another dimension to the setting. In a game that's about the continuing adventures of one specific group of people, there are probably other ways for them to fail, without having to deal with a character-sized hole in the campaign. Which can work, and be interesting, depending on how the characters are related and what they're doing, but it's a lot more disruptive.
Friday, June 06, 2008
An Endless Campaign
The thing that really jumps out at me, as I read through the 1st Edition DMG, is the focus on long term play. 3rd Edition, the only one I've played so far, assumes the game tops out at about two years of solid play. I don't think the books explicitly discuss it, but that's the advancement rate built into the XP tables. Sure, you can go into epic, but then the game gets really dang weird, and you need another book.
4e goes even further. You can not play your character past 30th level, because at 30th level you get the power of "You die, but it's awesome." Which is perfectly good if you have one group of players and their awesome adventures, with plot arcs and so on. Eventually, you'll need to have a satisfying conclusion.
1st edition is different. Right off the bat, Gygax tells us that "Limitations, checks, balances, and all the rest are placed into the system in order to assure that what is based thereon will be a superior campaign, a campaign which offers the most interesting play possibilities to the greatest number of participants for the longest period of time possible." How well the system, the maths and so on, supports this, I can't say, not having played it, but that's at least what it's designer assumes you'll want to do with it.
The other main section that got me thinking along these lines was "Territory Development by Player Characters." You don't play your characters to the maximum level (or the maximum interesting level) and then start a new campaign; eventually, your characters should settle down, clear some land, and maybe continue adventuring but also start dealing with managing a stronghold and political maneuvering and so on. Then, even if that player leaves the game, the DM still has their character and their stronghold and their contributions made to the world, and can continue to use them as background for future adventures.
None of this is particularly new--I wouldn't necessarily have noticed it if I hadn't already read about the sandbox-y, multi-character nature of those early games, and their assumed end game. But it does seem to stand out.
4e goes even further. You can not play your character past 30th level, because at 30th level you get the power of "You die, but it's awesome." Which is perfectly good if you have one group of players and their awesome adventures, with plot arcs and so on. Eventually, you'll need to have a satisfying conclusion.
1st edition is different. Right off the bat, Gygax tells us that "Limitations, checks, balances, and all the rest are placed into the system in order to assure that what is based thereon will be a superior campaign, a campaign which offers the most interesting play possibilities to the greatest number of participants for the longest period of time possible." How well the system, the maths and so on, supports this, I can't say, not having played it, but that's at least what it's designer assumes you'll want to do with it.
The other main section that got me thinking along these lines was "Territory Development by Player Characters." You don't play your characters to the maximum level (or the maximum interesting level) and then start a new campaign; eventually, your characters should settle down, clear some land, and maybe continue adventuring but also start dealing with managing a stronghold and political maneuvering and so on. Then, even if that player leaves the game, the DM still has their character and their stronghold and their contributions made to the world, and can continue to use them as background for future adventures.
None of this is particularly new--I wouldn't necessarily have noticed it if I hadn't already read about the sandbox-y, multi-character nature of those early games, and their assumed end game. But it does seem to stand out.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Guess What Came in the Mail Today?
Yep. I've (finally) answered Dr. Rotwang's challenge and acquired an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Masters Guide of my very own.The new(er) cover isn't quite as cool as the original efreet-fighting one, but it's not bad. Overall, I quite like the "book" part of the book. It's got a nice weight to it, and that wonderful old paper smell.
And, of course, it's got charts. I haven't had a chance to really study it yet, but what I've flipped through so far looks good. "Unexplained Sounds and Weird Noises," suggestions for tricks a dungeon might play on adventurers, a whole set of tables for generating random NPC personalities (including sanity!) -- all kinds of crazy goodness.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Spore, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
I'm kind of worried about Spore.
There's the standard "it won't live up to the hype" complaint, but few games do, and even if it doesn't it'll probably be pretty awesome. I've enjoyed every other Will Wright/Maxis game I've ever played, so I'm not worried about it not being fun.
What bugs me is -- IGN describes it as an "evolution game." It's not. If anything, it's an intelligent design game. Which doesn't bother me, intrinsically, because it makes a much better, or at least more approachable, foundation for a game.
But I do worry that describing it as an "evolution game" will get people mixed up, or that it's a sign that they're already mixed up. A minor worry, but something I think about.
There's the standard "it won't live up to the hype" complaint, but few games do, and even if it doesn't it'll probably be pretty awesome. I've enjoyed every other Will Wright/Maxis game I've ever played, so I'm not worried about it not being fun.
What bugs me is -- IGN describes it as an "evolution game." It's not. If anything, it's an intelligent design game. Which doesn't bother me, intrinsically, because it makes a much better, or at least more approachable, foundation for a game.
But I do worry that describing it as an "evolution game" will get people mixed up, or that it's a sign that they're already mixed up. A minor worry, but something I think about.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Dreams of Continuity
I always get kind of jealous when I hear about people who have been running different campaigns using the same setting, often for decades. I've never had any kind of serious, long term continuity in my games. The longest campaign I've ever run lasted about six months, maybe a little longer. And each of them has had, at least in theory, a completely distinct setting.
Which has had its advantages. I've been able to play with a lot of different kinds of things, and I like that. But I've never had a setting that I worked on for a long period of time, that grew from something basic and straightforward to something complex and multi-faceted. I like the idea of having a project like that.
What I always get stuck on is in building a cosmology that can acommodate "anything." Some kind of mult-world thing. That's always where I get stuck on setting design, when I do get stuck; I get the idea into my head that I have to have some grand framework supporting the whole thing, and I can never get that finished. And making it "multi-world" from the beginning always ends up seeming ridiculous and forced and opening up all kinds of weird problems that I don't want to deal with.
So I'm going to stop doing that.
The campaign I'm going to run this summer will end when the summer ends. And setting isn't going to be its main focus; I'm starting it off with Keep on the Shadowfell, may consider moving on to Thunderspire Labyrinth if that goes well and doesn't bore me out of my mind. (Though I'm going to need something to write for WoAdWriMo, and using an adventure written for the campaign seems like the obvious thing to do.)
If I end up needing setting material, I'm going to start with the 4e default setting and work my way out from there, see how well that goes. I've had some success with taking existing settings and tweaking them to my needs, and I want to see what I can do with the new setting. In general, though, I plan to focus more on developing my description and encounter-level skills than my world-building and scheme-planning skills.
But I'm going to have another campaign to run in the fall, and if I like 4e, and I like whatever setting evolves out of the summer campaign . . .
Well, we'll see.
Which has had its advantages. I've been able to play with a lot of different kinds of things, and I like that. But I've never had a setting that I worked on for a long period of time, that grew from something basic and straightforward to something complex and multi-faceted. I like the idea of having a project like that.
What I always get stuck on is in building a cosmology that can acommodate "anything." Some kind of mult-world thing. That's always where I get stuck on setting design, when I do get stuck; I get the idea into my head that I have to have some grand framework supporting the whole thing, and I can never get that finished. And making it "multi-world" from the beginning always ends up seeming ridiculous and forced and opening up all kinds of weird problems that I don't want to deal with.
So I'm going to stop doing that.
The campaign I'm going to run this summer will end when the summer ends. And setting isn't going to be its main focus; I'm starting it off with Keep on the Shadowfell, may consider moving on to Thunderspire Labyrinth if that goes well and doesn't bore me out of my mind. (Though I'm going to need something to write for WoAdWriMo, and using an adventure written for the campaign seems like the obvious thing to do.)
If I end up needing setting material, I'm going to start with the 4e default setting and work my way out from there, see how well that goes. I've had some success with taking existing settings and tweaking them to my needs, and I want to see what I can do with the new setting. In general, though, I plan to focus more on developing my description and encounter-level skills than my world-building and scheme-planning skills.
But I'm going to have another campaign to run in the fall, and if I like 4e, and I like whatever setting evolves out of the summer campaign . . .
Well, we'll see.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Alignment and Deities and Other Cosmological Nonsense
Unless there's significant rules cruft that makes it unfeasible, I'm might just house rule the 4e alignment system into something that's a little more recognizable to me. I might ressurect the 9-point system, but at the moment I'm leaning towards replacing "good" with "chaotic good," "evil," with "lawful evil," and leaving it at that.
I could leave in plain "good" and "evil," but the shades of distinction aren't absolutely necessary, and if I leave them out I can maintain the law/chaos axis as the one that's actually important, something I've wanted to implement for a while.
Cosmologically, that is. In such a system, mortals -- meaning the PCs -- think of evil/good as the important axis, and think lawful good and chaotic good have more in common with each other than lawful good and evil. But the gods might think differently, seeing themselves and the devils on one side of a great struggle with elementals and demons.
Such a set up would run the risk of putting too much setting emphasis on things the PCs aren't involved in and don't care about. On the other hand, it would let me have religious wars between two good churches. (Chaotic good gods are renegades from the standard divine set up? Or chaotic good mortals worship something else entirely?) Not sure whether that would be a good thing, but it could be interesting.
Something to play with. I need to see the 4e deity set up, and decide whether I want to use it, to really be sure what I'm going to do. I might not even use gods at all.
I could leave in plain "good" and "evil," but the shades of distinction aren't absolutely necessary, and if I leave them out I can maintain the law/chaos axis as the one that's actually important, something I've wanted to implement for a while.
Cosmologically, that is. In such a system, mortals -- meaning the PCs -- think of evil/good as the important axis, and think lawful good and chaotic good have more in common with each other than lawful good and evil. But the gods might think differently, seeing themselves and the devils on one side of a great struggle with elementals and demons.
Such a set up would run the risk of putting too much setting emphasis on things the PCs aren't involved in and don't care about. On the other hand, it would let me have religious wars between two good churches. (Chaotic good gods are renegades from the standard divine set up? Or chaotic good mortals worship something else entirely?) Not sure whether that would be a good thing, but it could be interesting.
Something to play with. I need to see the 4e deity set up, and decide whether I want to use it, to really be sure what I'm going to do. I might not even use gods at all.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
To the President Cave!
Last night, at my kitchen table, Tommy Ocean ("Description: George Clooney), Mikaela "Mikie" Daniels (waitress and Buffy fan), Abraham Lincoln (a supernatural creature who takes the form of our sixteenth president because "Abraham Lincoln frees slaves!"),Kazak (an abomination from 2071), and Don Filks Ruth (an assassin from 1865) saved President (Harrison) Ford from Nazi ninjas, but were unable to stop the rest of the Nazis from stealing the Washington Monument and blasting off in it. ("They must be headed for the secret presidential moonbase!")
Yeah, I ran some Feng Shui yesterday. Highlights included a fight in the President cave (like the Batcave, but the bar is better), Mikie stabbing Hans, the main ninja/Nazi, with a flaming American flag ("American flags -- my only weakness!") and a decapitated wooden ninja statue signed by Harrison Ford.
It was pretty fun. It would have run a lot faster if I'd prepped better, but I might not have been able to muster the same level of bizarre-itude if I'd planned things out ahead of time. The players took to the game with enthusiasm, and made up for a lot of my waffling. They did a good job with stunts; thinking up good ones gave them something to do while they waited for their turn, and they figured out pretty quickly that they could invent appropriate items of scenery.
I'd planned for this to be a one-shot, and had been planning to use a series of Feng Shui one-shots in the event of player absence from my upcoming 4e campaign, but the characters came out so well I might just run this as a back-up game instead. The guy who's most likely to go missing wasn't there last night, but if necessary we can have him make a character, too. It doesn't take long. I might, someday, run a full Feng Shui campaign, but for no I'm pretty happy having it as my game-for-when-I-don't-have-a-game.
Yeah, I ran some Feng Shui yesterday. Highlights included a fight in the President cave (like the Batcave, but the bar is better), Mikie stabbing Hans, the main ninja/Nazi, with a flaming American flag ("American flags -- my only weakness!") and a decapitated wooden ninja statue signed by Harrison Ford.
It was pretty fun. It would have run a lot faster if I'd prepped better, but I might not have been able to muster the same level of bizarre-itude if I'd planned things out ahead of time. The players took to the game with enthusiasm, and made up for a lot of my waffling. They did a good job with stunts; thinking up good ones gave them something to do while they waited for their turn, and they figured out pretty quickly that they could invent appropriate items of scenery.
I'd planned for this to be a one-shot, and had been planning to use a series of Feng Shui one-shots in the event of player absence from my upcoming 4e campaign, but the characters came out so well I might just run this as a back-up game instead. The guy who's most likely to go missing wasn't there last night, but if necessary we can have him make a character, too. It doesn't take long. I might, someday, run a full Feng Shui campaign, but for no I'm pretty happy having it as my game-for-when-I-don't-have-a-game.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Keep on the Shadowfell: A Good Read
Keep on the Shadowfell has performed its intended purpose: I'm excited about 4e again.
The adventure looks pretty good, but I'm no particular judge of that. It does have a couple of neat miniature (read: whatever weird junk happens to be within reach) placement tricks, which I should have been using already, but at least it didn't take me any longer to find out about them. Just stuff like not putting all the miniatures down at the same time, if a couple members of the group are hiding, or putting the battle map out and letting the PCs move around a bit before starting things up.
If 4e ends up becoming my game of choice (Not that I have one now; I've played more 3.5 than anything, but when I run games, I always have to figure out whether I want to use Iron Heroes or d20 Modern or GURPS or whatever else.) I'll probably get a fair amount of use out of it, because it's got everything I need to start up a game with new players at short notice. I've done that kind of thing before, but this looks like it'll make it a lot easier.
Oh, and there's a gnome in it. Page 31. I guess Mearls and Cordell wanted to let it be known that they haven't forgotten about them. I'll be surprised if there isn't a full gnome write up in the PHB II.
There's not a whole lot more than I can say about the adventure, and the game it represents, without playing it. I'm running a campaign this summer using 4e, and I'll probably use Keep to kick it off, so there'll probably be lots of commentary on it and the system in the coming weeks.
The adventure looks pretty good, but I'm no particular judge of that. It does have a couple of neat miniature (read: whatever weird junk happens to be within reach) placement tricks, which I should have been using already, but at least it didn't take me any longer to find out about them. Just stuff like not putting all the miniatures down at the same time, if a couple members of the group are hiding, or putting the battle map out and letting the PCs move around a bit before starting things up.
If 4e ends up becoming my game of choice (Not that I have one now; I've played more 3.5 than anything, but when I run games, I always have to figure out whether I want to use Iron Heroes or d20 Modern or GURPS or whatever else.) I'll probably get a fair amount of use out of it, because it's got everything I need to start up a game with new players at short notice. I've done that kind of thing before, but this looks like it'll make it a lot easier.
Oh, and there's a gnome in it. Page 31. I guess Mearls and Cordell wanted to let it be known that they haven't forgotten about them. I'll be surprised if there isn't a full gnome write up in the PHB II.
There's not a whole lot more than I can say about the adventure, and the game it represents, without playing it. I'm running a campaign this summer using 4e, and I'll probably use Keep to kick it off, so there'll probably be lots of commentary on it and the system in the coming weeks.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Keep on the Shadowfell and Edition Angst
I did it: I broke down and bought Keep on the Shadowfell.
Even though the rules will be out in a week. Even after hearing about possible printing problems. Even though my group might not even want to play it; the previous plan was to do a bit of Feng Shui, and there's one guy who really wants to do that because he played a bit of KotS and didn't like it.
Partially, it's because I feel kind of bad about getting my core books off of Amazon. This way, I got something at the FLGS. It's not much, maybe, but it's not like I haven't bought things there before.
Partially, it's because I've never run a published module. I tried, with The Heart of Nightfang Spire, but I don't know what was up with that thing; there's a trap at the beginning that I just couldn't figure out, and the whole mood was off, anyway. So I figure, even if we don't end up using it before the rules come out, I can use it to kick off the campaign, take a bit of the design load off while I'm learning the rules.
And (not incidentally) find out just what an adventure is supposed to look like, anyway. I've never had a real good grasp on that. My campaigns always start off with an actual adventure, but it usually trails off into a mess of plot threads and intrigue. If I''m going to do WoAdWriMo, I want to get some idea of what I'm up against.
Mostly, though . . . I want to get some idea, personally, of what the edition actually feels like. I don't have torrent software, no need for it, and at any rate I much prefer to read books for the first time in actual copy. That's important to me, for whatever reason.
But there's an uneasy feeling I have. I hear about 4e a lot, I read about it a lot, I think about it a lot, and all in hearsay and abstract terms. I'd like to get a stronger handle on it, and something I can distract myself with until the edition comes out properly.
Even though the rules will be out in a week. Even after hearing about possible printing problems. Even though my group might not even want to play it; the previous plan was to do a bit of Feng Shui, and there's one guy who really wants to do that because he played a bit of KotS and didn't like it.
Partially, it's because I feel kind of bad about getting my core books off of Amazon. This way, I got something at the FLGS. It's not much, maybe, but it's not like I haven't bought things there before.
Partially, it's because I've never run a published module. I tried, with The Heart of Nightfang Spire, but I don't know what was up with that thing; there's a trap at the beginning that I just couldn't figure out, and the whole mood was off, anyway. So I figure, even if we don't end up using it before the rules come out, I can use it to kick off the campaign, take a bit of the design load off while I'm learning the rules.
And (not incidentally) find out just what an adventure is supposed to look like, anyway. I've never had a real good grasp on that. My campaigns always start off with an actual adventure, but it usually trails off into a mess of plot threads and intrigue. If I''m going to do WoAdWriMo, I want to get some idea of what I'm up against.
Mostly, though . . . I want to get some idea, personally, of what the edition actually feels like. I don't have torrent software, no need for it, and at any rate I much prefer to read books for the first time in actual copy. That's important to me, for whatever reason.
But there's an uneasy feeling I have. I hear about 4e a lot, I read about it a lot, I think about it a lot, and all in hearsay and abstract terms. I'd like to get a stronger handle on it, and something I can distract myself with until the edition comes out properly.
Wherein I Discuss Puzzles
Trollsmyth has some cool ideas about applications for the timed dungeon doors thing. This is one of the things I love about blogging. Bouncing ideas off of people, and ending up with things that are even crazier than what I come up with. And, of course, it gives me a good clue to what ideas are actually interesting.
The whole thing got me thinking about puzzles. The calendar/timed doors make pretty good RPG puzzles, as long as the GM is willing to keep track of them, and they don't end up making bottlenecks in the dungeon and stopping the session while one person solves them.
If I worked up a labelling system, and turn them into a cipher-type puzzle that gets easier to solve the more doors they solve, the puzzle people would be really happy. But I've also got a player who just likes to take notes, and keep track of things; even after the puzzle had been solved, she'd still get a kick out of being able to tell the rest of the group which door to go back to.
The best part about these sorts of puzzles is that they're fairly well integrated into the game part of the activity. A puzzle based off of the calendar the DM uses, that you can only solve by exploring the dungeon, and rewards you with even more dungeon, isn't the kind of thing you can pick up in a drug store. And of course, building a bit of world info into a puzzle, a challenge the players can solve, gives them a reason to actually pay attention to the background for once.
Even better, though, are puzzles that I think of as "environment puzzles." I give the players some not-immediately-obvious situation, say, some bit of treasure on a pillar in the middle of an underwater lake. I give them a sketch description of the area, maybe make some modifications if they ask a question that suggests a particularly interesting possibility, and they figure out some way to get to the treasure. The fun part, of course, comes with rolling the dice, because then their plans never go quite the way they want.
I figure most people are already doing this. I got a lot of it, originally, from Roleplaying Tips #5: How to Turn Brain Teasers Into Amazing Roleplaying Opportunities. But this is the kind of thing I didn't know, when I first started out, and I'm still trying to work out, after having been at it for a bit: how to play to the medium's strengths.
The whole thing got me thinking about puzzles. The calendar/timed doors make pretty good RPG puzzles, as long as the GM is willing to keep track of them, and they don't end up making bottlenecks in the dungeon and stopping the session while one person solves them.
If I worked up a labelling system, and turn them into a cipher-type puzzle that gets easier to solve the more doors they solve, the puzzle people would be really happy. But I've also got a player who just likes to take notes, and keep track of things; even after the puzzle had been solved, she'd still get a kick out of being able to tell the rest of the group which door to go back to.
The best part about these sorts of puzzles is that they're fairly well integrated into the game part of the activity. A puzzle based off of the calendar the DM uses, that you can only solve by exploring the dungeon, and rewards you with even more dungeon, isn't the kind of thing you can pick up in a drug store. And of course, building a bit of world info into a puzzle, a challenge the players can solve, gives them a reason to actually pay attention to the background for once.
Even better, though, are puzzles that I think of as "environment puzzles." I give the players some not-immediately-obvious situation, say, some bit of treasure on a pillar in the middle of an underwater lake. I give them a sketch description of the area, maybe make some modifications if they ask a question that suggests a particularly interesting possibility, and they figure out some way to get to the treasure. The fun part, of course, comes with rolling the dice, because then their plans never go quite the way they want.
I figure most people are already doing this. I got a lot of it, originally, from Roleplaying Tips #5: How to Turn Brain Teasers Into Amazing Roleplaying Opportunities. But this is the kind of thing I didn't know, when I first started out, and I'm still trying to work out, after having been at it for a bit: how to play to the medium's strengths.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wherein I Discuss Time, and Also Doors
One interesting thing that could be in a dungeon would be doors that open only at certain phases of the moon. This would work best with large dungeons, or if you otherwise had a reason to return to it over time. Then the dungeon would cycle through different areas being open; the players might even need to complete some task or puzzle in one area to get further into another.
Some doors might be open for relatively long periods in the moon's cycle, others for only a single day. And if there was more than one moon, a door might open at certain specific combinations of phases. There'd probably have to be some kind of notation system, a code for the PCs to figure out, that indicated when these doors would be open, so the players wouldn't have to go through and check every door every time they entered the dungeon.
Other time-based doors are fairly simple to imagine. Doors based on time of day, days of the week, months, seasons, and specific times of the year would all be fairly straightforward, though, again, it's a good place for a puzzle, especially if the time when it opens is fairly specific, or a long way away. It wouldn't necessarily have to be code-based (my group likes codes); the information they need might be written down somewhere, or known by other inhabitants of the dungeon.
More exotic time-based requirements are possible. Eberron's planar conjunctions would make an interesting criteria; any fantastical, regularly occurring even would work well, especially if it was somehow important to whoever built the dungeon. (If it was built by mortal hands, that is.) Doors like these would also make a good place to use fantastic calendars. Using the contemporary calendar of the world would encourage the players to actually pay attention to it, while a calendar constructed specifically for the lost civilization responsible for the dungeon could help illuminate its culture and strangeness.
Some doors might be open for relatively long periods in the moon's cycle, others for only a single day. And if there was more than one moon, a door might open at certain specific combinations of phases. There'd probably have to be some kind of notation system, a code for the PCs to figure out, that indicated when these doors would be open, so the players wouldn't have to go through and check every door every time they entered the dungeon.
Other time-based doors are fairly simple to imagine. Doors based on time of day, days of the week, months, seasons, and specific times of the year would all be fairly straightforward, though, again, it's a good place for a puzzle, especially if the time when it opens is fairly specific, or a long way away. It wouldn't necessarily have to be code-based (my group likes codes); the information they need might be written down somewhere, or known by other inhabitants of the dungeon.
More exotic time-based requirements are possible. Eberron's planar conjunctions would make an interesting criteria; any fantastical, regularly occurring even would work well, especially if it was somehow important to whoever built the dungeon. (If it was built by mortal hands, that is.) Doors like these would also make a good place to use fantastic calendars. Using the contemporary calendar of the world would encourage the players to actually pay attention to it, while a calendar constructed specifically for the lost civilization responsible for the dungeon could help illuminate its culture and strangeness.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Character Death and a Good Campaign
I've been reading Jeff Rients' tales of PCs past and their rousing adventures, and something odd occurred to me: I've never had a character die. (Properly, in influencable circumstances, I mean. I've been victim of "rocks fall, everyone dies," but I don't know that quite counts.)
And I've had precious few character deaths on the other side of the screen. Three characters died in the "Desert Campaign," the most combat heavy game I ever ran, and the only one that had anything approaching a dungeon crawl. A couple died in the Gnome Town game I ran, but that was exclusively PC-on-PC violence.
In other campaigns, I had the occasional close call, but I always fudged it. Once I got a guy ressurected by the main villain of the piece (long story, it almost made sense at the time) and once I took the more convential route of "misremembering" how the dice came out.
Part of me feels bad about those incidents--lack of character, or something. Part of me thinks it worked for the campaigns. The way I tend to run games, I get very interested in the characters, and what they're going to do, and the history they're building for themselves. When I'm in the moment, running those kinds of games, even if I've said to myself beforehand that I'm going to let the dice fall where they may, killing them just seems like a waste of time.
On the other hand, fudging at the last minute probably isn't the best solution. But it always worked out alright. Those campaigns went fairly well, everyone mostly ended up having fun.
But the "Desert Campaign" was pretty fun, too. When people weren't arguing with me, or complaining that I wouldn't let them play a half-illithid whatever, anyway. But it had a different sort of style to it. We played at lunch, and it was mostly guys who liked building characters, killing things, and taking their stuff, in roughly that order. I flailed around a bit at the beginning, but once I figured out that what they reall wanted was to kick in the door and have a fight every day, things started to go pretty smoothly.
I was a lot less focused on story -- that is, what had happened before in the campaign, and what was going on outside the characters, and what might happen next if they didn't get involved -- and a lot more focused on what was going on in the fight of the day, and prepping the dungeon so I'd be ready for the next day.
Because I didn't particularly care about what the characters had done, or were going to do--they were interesting enough, on an individual level, but the the guy the player came up with next would be, too--I was a lot more comfortable really dropping the hammer on them. I even used a death ray on one of them.
It was fun. The players liked the fights, and the occasionally liked rolling up new characters, and not taking things too seriously. I had one guy who liked arguing, another who liked making just-barely-almost-broken characters, and another who liked playing the weirdest things he could find, but I handled it.
I liked the change of pace from my usual games, and actually getting to use the random monster and treasure tables in the Dungeon Master's Guide, for once. And I liked building the dungeon. The dungeon--which was, in the game, a tower, but in practice it was a dungeon--wasn't particularly good. It wasn't much more than a bunch of rooms filled with monsters and treasure. Very little in the way of traps, description, puzzles, or interaction amongst its inhabitants.
It did have a couple of virtues. It was extremely non-linear. Any place you could get to, you could get to in a couple of different ways. Which was good, because the players could still get to the stairs after they decided that the black dragon, and later the basilisk, just weren't worth messing with.
I think, if I'd continued to run that dungeon, or something like it, that I might have eventually worked out the finer points of dungeon design. But they finished it, killed the sorcerer at the top of the tower, and a short time later the campaign went on permanent hiatus, in favor of a campaign by the guy who liked to argue that ended pretty quickly, too.
It was fun while it lasted. I some important things from that game, even if, at the time, it was a source of serious frustration for me, and it didn't end quite how I would have liked.
I'm thinking about running my summer campaign along similar lines. Improve my dungeon design, because I know a lot more theory than I did then, that I'd like to put into practice. And maybe get more comfortable with PC death, so I don't back down from it as much even in games where specific characters are more important to the players, and to me. I'll have a good mix of players for that style, and it'd be good to test how well 4e can handle it.
And I've had precious few character deaths on the other side of the screen. Three characters died in the "Desert Campaign," the most combat heavy game I ever ran, and the only one that had anything approaching a dungeon crawl. A couple died in the Gnome Town game I ran, but that was exclusively PC-on-PC violence.
In other campaigns, I had the occasional close call, but I always fudged it. Once I got a guy ressurected by the main villain of the piece (long story, it almost made sense at the time) and once I took the more convential route of "misremembering" how the dice came out.
Part of me feels bad about those incidents--lack of character, or something. Part of me thinks it worked for the campaigns. The way I tend to run games, I get very interested in the characters, and what they're going to do, and the history they're building for themselves. When I'm in the moment, running those kinds of games, even if I've said to myself beforehand that I'm going to let the dice fall where they may, killing them just seems like a waste of time.
On the other hand, fudging at the last minute probably isn't the best solution. But it always worked out alright. Those campaigns went fairly well, everyone mostly ended up having fun.
But the "Desert Campaign" was pretty fun, too. When people weren't arguing with me, or complaining that I wouldn't let them play a half-illithid whatever, anyway. But it had a different sort of style to it. We played at lunch, and it was mostly guys who liked building characters, killing things, and taking their stuff, in roughly that order. I flailed around a bit at the beginning, but once I figured out that what they reall wanted was to kick in the door and have a fight every day, things started to go pretty smoothly.
I was a lot less focused on story -- that is, what had happened before in the campaign, and what was going on outside the characters, and what might happen next if they didn't get involved -- and a lot more focused on what was going on in the fight of the day, and prepping the dungeon so I'd be ready for the next day.
Because I didn't particularly care about what the characters had done, or were going to do--they were interesting enough, on an individual level, but the the guy the player came up with next would be, too--I was a lot more comfortable really dropping the hammer on them. I even used a death ray on one of them.
It was fun. The players liked the fights, and the occasionally liked rolling up new characters, and not taking things too seriously. I had one guy who liked arguing, another who liked making just-barely-almost-broken characters, and another who liked playing the weirdest things he could find, but I handled it.
I liked the change of pace from my usual games, and actually getting to use the random monster and treasure tables in the Dungeon Master's Guide, for once. And I liked building the dungeon. The dungeon--which was, in the game, a tower, but in practice it was a dungeon--wasn't particularly good. It wasn't much more than a bunch of rooms filled with monsters and treasure. Very little in the way of traps, description, puzzles, or interaction amongst its inhabitants.
It did have a couple of virtues. It was extremely non-linear. Any place you could get to, you could get to in a couple of different ways. Which was good, because the players could still get to the stairs after they decided that the black dragon, and later the basilisk, just weren't worth messing with.
I think, if I'd continued to run that dungeon, or something like it, that I might have eventually worked out the finer points of dungeon design. But they finished it, killed the sorcerer at the top of the tower, and a short time later the campaign went on permanent hiatus, in favor of a campaign by the guy who liked to argue that ended pretty quickly, too.
It was fun while it lasted. I some important things from that game, even if, at the time, it was a source of serious frustration for me, and it didn't end quite how I would have liked.
I'm thinking about running my summer campaign along similar lines. Improve my dungeon design, because I know a lot more theory than I did then, that I'd like to put into practice. And maybe get more comfortable with PC death, so I don't back down from it as much even in games where specific characters are more important to the players, and to me. I'll have a good mix of players for that style, and it'd be good to test how well 4e can handle it.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
4e D&D on the Amazon Best Seller List
The Dungeons and Dragons Core Rulebook Gift Set, 4th Edition, is the 7th item on Amazon's bestselling books list. And its even higher up the hot new releases list.
This gets me to wondering about just how big the release is going to be. Sure, it's huge in the gaming community, but although I occasionally see articles about comics in the paper (the Captain America fiasco, for starters) I've never seen one about tabletop games. I don't expect to see anything about 4th Edition in the papers, but I didn't expect it to get so high up on Amazon, either.
And why is it the Gift Set, rather than the Player's Handbook, that gets that high? I didn't even see the PHB on the list, though it's certainly possible that I simply missed it. But if that's not the case, well, in my group there are more people getting the PHB than the full set, but apparently that's not how it is everywhere. Maybe players are less interested in pre-ordering, or are more likely to do it through their FLGS.
This gets me to wondering about just how big the release is going to be. Sure, it's huge in the gaming community, but although I occasionally see articles about comics in the paper (the Captain America fiasco, for starters) I've never seen one about tabletop games. I don't expect to see anything about 4th Edition in the papers, but I didn't expect it to get so high up on Amazon, either.
And why is it the Gift Set, rather than the Player's Handbook, that gets that high? I didn't even see the PHB on the list, though it's certainly possible that I simply missed it. But if that's not the case, well, in my group there are more people getting the PHB than the full set, but apparently that's not how it is everywhere. Maybe players are less interested in pre-ordering, or are more likely to do it through their FLGS.
Monday, May 26, 2008
WoAdWriMo: A Declaration
I'm going to do Worldwide Adventure Writing Month this July.
I really, really want to say I'm going to be to busy. I want to hedge, say I'm not ready to commit, I want to wait to see how things are going to turn out. I'll be running a campaign then. I'll be busy. I don't want to completely commit to it, in public, until I'm sure that I can do it.
But that's what I did last year, and I never got around to it. I was never sure.
So screw "sure." I'm going to do it. Even if what I turn in ends up being mostly notes from my campaign, even if it ends up being ridiculous, even if it ends up driving me crazy, I'm still going to turn something in. This is a solemn, public vow, and I am going to hate myself for it come mid-July.
But what the heck. I did NaNoWriMo, right? How bad can it be?
I really, really want to say I'm going to be to busy. I want to hedge, say I'm not ready to commit, I want to wait to see how things are going to turn out. I'll be running a campaign then. I'll be busy. I don't want to completely commit to it, in public, until I'm sure that I can do it.
But that's what I did last year, and I never got around to it. I was never sure.
So screw "sure." I'm going to do it. Even if what I turn in ends up being mostly notes from my campaign, even if it ends up being ridiculous, even if it ends up driving me crazy, I'm still going to turn something in. This is a solemn, public vow, and I am going to hate myself for it come mid-July.
But what the heck. I did NaNoWriMo, right? How bad can it be?
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Return of System Obsession
So, I guess the list 'o systems now looks something more like this:
4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons
Feng Shui
"OD&D"
Star Wars Saga Edition
Iron Heroes
Castles & Crusades
Mutants & Masterminds
Truth and Justice
Encounter Critical
Savage Worlds
d6 Space
Stargate: SG-1 Roleplaying Game
Ars Magica
Forward . . . to Adventure!
Feng Shui is present on the list, and has taken the second spot, because I now have ownership of the book.
OD&D has scooted up because I've been further enlightened as to its awesome, thanks mostly to Sham's Grog 'n Blog and Square Mans. (Which you should reload a couple of times until you get a glimpse of the wicked cool Dune board game. I need to get my hands on a set.) I'm considering using it to run my college game next year. I fear its power may be necessary to combat the Exalted zombies who have taken over the local scene.
(Nothing against Exalted; the main reason it doesn't make the list is that I'd never go out and buy the rulebooks to start my own game, I'd rather get in on someone else's. It's these specific people, and their attitude, that riles me. Telling me that "D&D isn't fun" is not the way to get on my good side.)
I realized an interest in Savage Worlds, d6 Space, and Ars Magica when I was thinking about what I wanted to get from the Compleat Strategist. d6 Space is the variety I've heard the most about, but I'm also intrigued by Adventure, because I suspect it's something I could run mad scientist nazi smackdowns with.
Oh, and Stargate moved up a bit because I got closer to being willing to spend the money. Still don't have that many people to play it with, though, and enough other things that it's cozy on the backburner.
4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons
Feng Shui
"OD&D"
Star Wars Saga Edition
Iron Heroes
Castles & Crusades
Mutants & Masterminds
Truth and Justice
Encounter Critical
Savage Worlds
d6 Space
Stargate: SG-1 Roleplaying Game
Ars Magica
Forward . . . to Adventure!
Feng Shui is present on the list, and has taken the second spot, because I now have ownership of the book.
OD&D has scooted up because I've been further enlightened as to its awesome, thanks mostly to Sham's Grog 'n Blog and Square Mans. (Which you should reload a couple of times until you get a glimpse of the wicked cool Dune board game. I need to get my hands on a set.) I'm considering using it to run my college game next year. I fear its power may be necessary to combat the Exalted zombies who have taken over the local scene.
(Nothing against Exalted; the main reason it doesn't make the list is that I'd never go out and buy the rulebooks to start my own game, I'd rather get in on someone else's. It's these specific people, and their attitude, that riles me. Telling me that "D&D isn't fun" is not the way to get on my good side.)
I realized an interest in Savage Worlds, d6 Space, and Ars Magica when I was thinking about what I wanted to get from the Compleat Strategist. d6 Space is the variety I've heard the most about, but I'm also intrigued by Adventure, because I suspect it's something I could run mad scientist nazi smackdowns with.
Oh, and Stargate moved up a bit because I got closer to being willing to spend the money. Still don't have that many people to play it with, though, and enough other things that it's cozy on the backburner.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
The Compleat Strategist, and Awesome Therein
I just went to the New York location of The Compleat Strategist.
It is awesome.
My local store is pretty good, but it mostly sticks to d20, White Wolf, and GURPS. It might have a smattering of other systems, but I haven't check in a while.
The Compleat Strategist, on the other hand . . .
Wow.
Shelves full of d20 books I'd never heard of, systems I'd only read about only, and others I'd never even fathomed. Most of it I probably could have gotten online, but I can't browse online. I'm not surrounded by books, can't pick them up and flip through them, can't walk out with a book I only heard about today.
They even had a copy of the Stargate SG-1 book--the one that's out of print, because Sony revoked the license. I very, very badly wanted to get it, but a $50 price tag and a drought of acquaintances who both like gaming and would care that they were playing Stargate stayed my hand.
Instead, I'm now the proud owner of Feng Shui.
A tough choice, between that and d6 Space, (or perhaps Adventure, haven't heard as much about it but it looked cool) and I would have considered Savage Worlds if they'd had it. Something about it being out of print. I dunno.
(Amusingly, none of these were on the list of systems I want. Ah, well.)
So far, I'm happy with Feng Shui. Prep on both sides of the screen is fast a simple, since it encourages everyone to lean on action movie cliches, so it may fill that "one-shot system" hole I've had in my game line-up for a while. I need to get a chance to run it (I've got at least one weekend free before 4e hits . . .) but it looks like it fits my natural style pretty well. Fast, loose, a fair amount of action, but not nothing but fights, and encouraging cool ideas from the players.
We'll see how it goes.
It is awesome.
My local store is pretty good, but it mostly sticks to d20, White Wolf, and GURPS. It might have a smattering of other systems, but I haven't check in a while.
The Compleat Strategist, on the other hand . . .
Wow.
Shelves full of d20 books I'd never heard of, systems I'd only read about only, and others I'd never even fathomed. Most of it I probably could have gotten online, but I can't browse online. I'm not surrounded by books, can't pick them up and flip through them, can't walk out with a book I only heard about today.
They even had a copy of the Stargate SG-1 book--the one that's out of print, because Sony revoked the license. I very, very badly wanted to get it, but a $50 price tag and a drought of acquaintances who both like gaming and would care that they were playing Stargate stayed my hand.
Instead, I'm now the proud owner of Feng Shui.
A tough choice, between that and d6 Space, (or perhaps Adventure, haven't heard as much about it but it looked cool) and I would have considered Savage Worlds if they'd had it. Something about it being out of print. I dunno.
(Amusingly, none of these were on the list of systems I want. Ah, well.)
So far, I'm happy with Feng Shui. Prep on both sides of the screen is fast a simple, since it encourages everyone to lean on action movie cliches, so it may fill that "one-shot system" hole I've had in my game line-up for a while. I need to get a chance to run it (I've got at least one weekend free before 4e hits . . .) but it looks like it fits my natural style pretty well. Fast, loose, a fair amount of action, but not nothing but fights, and encouraging cool ideas from the players.
We'll see how it goes.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Love Through Action
There's a cool new blog out there, Love Through Action, and it's worth checking out. Please excuse a bit of deviation from my normal topics, I just thought this would be worth letting people know about. It's about a kid with cancer and doing good deeds and--well, the blog explains better than I would.
Thanks to Qwerty for the link.
Thanks to Qwerty for the link.
Quotes VI
"I'm starting to envisage a massive egg-thief campaign here, progressing from birds of prey, to griffins and hypogriffs, to dragons, but don't think I'd ever be able to justify it." noisms
"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." Major Mike Shearer, UK military spokesman
"We're not shooting for authenticity here, but awesome-osity." Jeff Rients
"Being the biggest name in fantasy gaming since 1974, D&D has always attracted more than its share of players who didn't really like it in the first place and wanted to 'fix' it in ways that shredded its very soul." James Maliszewski
"I don't eat. I don't need to eat. When I do eat, I eat rocket fuel." "Bill"
"I eat rope. By the transitive property I could eat a guy named Rope." Mike Gravel
"Whoa, hold on! Are you saying that, should Obama be elected, all the white people won't be put on ships and deported to Africa?" Michael Clear
"Eating snakes is just as bad as being gay." Artemis
"Beowulf makes so much more sense in a tree." Amanda
"He kept throwing up. Until I killed him." Qwerty
"Develop AI, Orbital Mind Control, Google Football League, Buy New Zealand, Build Singularity, Crop Circles, Elimination of Evil." Google's Corporate Goals
"Note that this method works in any game that is awesome." Jeff Rients
"Being born is like being kidnapped. And then sold into slavery." William Shakespeare
"Facing the terrible trio is like some bizarre surrealist dream, where you're in battle against a law firm composed entirely of Egyptian gods and former high school mascots." Scipio
"Bah! Three little boys can't defeat the President! Riding a robot spider!" Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Not releasing Thundarr on DVD is an ongoing crime against awesome." Jeff Rients
"If religion is the opiate of the people, is UU the methadone of the people?" BlackBoc
"If they did three or four more National Treasure movies, getting more and more ridiculous, and then had a movie where Nicolas Cage was running around swearing that the Egyptian Pyramids were put up by Abraham Lincoln as a clue to where Mark Twain hid Franklin Pierce's fabulous treasures, and everyone in the movie called him crazy, and then he was wrong? That would be amazing." Montykins
"....right or wrong? I so want to see that movie now.
Just to see the pyramids start rotating when they push the right sequence of stones just after the put the giant counterweight on the Sphinx to make up for the missing nose that opens the Masonic cache that leads down into the Nile Chamber where the ancient dumbwaiter lowers them into Harriet Tubman's Underground Railroad to Riches." Eric Burns
"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." Major Mike Shearer, UK military spokesman
"We're not shooting for authenticity here, but awesome-osity." Jeff Rients
"Being the biggest name in fantasy gaming since 1974, D&D has always attracted more than its share of players who didn't really like it in the first place and wanted to 'fix' it in ways that shredded its very soul." James Maliszewski
"I don't eat. I don't need to eat. When I do eat, I eat rocket fuel." "Bill"
"I eat rope. By the transitive property I could eat a guy named Rope." Mike Gravel
"Whoa, hold on! Are you saying that, should Obama be elected, all the white people won't be put on ships and deported to Africa?" Michael Clear
"Eating snakes is just as bad as being gay." Artemis
"Beowulf makes so much more sense in a tree." Amanda
"He kept throwing up. Until I killed him." Qwerty
"Develop AI, Orbital Mind Control, Google Football League, Buy New Zealand, Build Singularity, Crop Circles, Elimination of Evil." Google's Corporate Goals
"Note that this method works in any game that is awesome." Jeff Rients
"Being born is like being kidnapped. And then sold into slavery." William Shakespeare
"Facing the terrible trio is like some bizarre surrealist dream, where you're in battle against a law firm composed entirely of Egyptian gods and former high school mascots." Scipio
"Bah! Three little boys can't defeat the President! Riding a robot spider!" Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Not releasing Thundarr on DVD is an ongoing crime against awesome." Jeff Rients
"If religion is the opiate of the people, is UU the methadone of the people?" BlackBoc
"If they did three or four more National Treasure movies, getting more and more ridiculous, and then had a movie where Nicolas Cage was running around swearing that the Egyptian Pyramids were put up by Abraham Lincoln as a clue to where Mark Twain hid Franklin Pierce's fabulous treasures, and everyone in the movie called him crazy, and then he was wrong? That would be amazing." Montykins
"....right or wrong? I so want to see that movie now.
Just to see the pyramids start rotating when they push the right sequence of stones just after the put the giant counterweight on the Sphinx to make up for the missing nose that opens the Masonic cache that leads down into the Nile Chamber where the ancient dumbwaiter lowers them into Harriet Tubman's Underground Railroad to Riches." Eric Burns
Monday, May 19, 2008
Players: Inspiration, Aid to Laziness
As much as I like being a game master and a novelist (sorta) it does get to be annoying sometimes. Because right now, when I'm gearing up for a game, and should be focusing my creative energies on that, I suddenly realize that the short story I was working on is not nearly as interesting as what's going on in the background, because there lie the seeds of an epic tale.
This is not the first time this has happened.
But for the most part, it's a good thing. The writing reminds me just how much less work gaming is, when I have the players there to protagonize for me. Though I know I must have done it when I was first starting out, I can't imagine railroading my players past "hey, here's where the game starts, think up some reason to get yourself involved," because then I'd be stuck making all the decisions, and who wants that kind of responsibilty?
Well, novelist-me, I guess.
This is not the first time this has happened.
But for the most part, it's a good thing. The writing reminds me just how much less work gaming is, when I have the players there to protagonize for me. Though I know I must have done it when I was first starting out, I can't imagine railroading my players past "hey, here's where the game starts, think up some reason to get yourself involved," because then I'd be stuck making all the decisions, and who wants that kind of responsibilty?
Well, novelist-me, I guess.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Gnome Rodeo: Why It's Awesome
Gnome Stew has a new feature that I hope very much becomes a regular one (and that does look like the plan): Gnome Rodeo.
It's a big ol' list of links, mostly about GMing but with a few contests for flavor. Having a large, (and I think Gnome Stew aims to become a mighty force in the GMing blog-o-sphere) active, and consistently useful blog doing this is excellent.
If writing something clever about GMing will get you linked by Gnome Stew, that'll encourage people to write clever things about GMing. And everyone who reads Gnome Stew gets easier access to all those clever things people are writing about GMing, because Gnome Stew (and its readers) are out there, searching the web.
And Gnome Stew's multi-author, comment-encouraging, community driven set up makes it pretty close to the best possible forum for this endeavor.
I haven't gotten a chance yet (limited computer access, it's been a busy weekend) but as soon as I do I need to go through my own list of GMing resources. Can't be extolling the virtues of the program if I'm not going to contribute.
It's a big ol' list of links, mostly about GMing but with a few contests for flavor. Having a large, (and I think Gnome Stew aims to become a mighty force in the GMing blog-o-sphere) active, and consistently useful blog doing this is excellent.
If writing something clever about GMing will get you linked by Gnome Stew, that'll encourage people to write clever things about GMing. And everyone who reads Gnome Stew gets easier access to all those clever things people are writing about GMing, because Gnome Stew (and its readers) are out there, searching the web.
And Gnome Stew's multi-author, comment-encouraging, community driven set up makes it pretty close to the best possible forum for this endeavor.
I haven't gotten a chance yet (limited computer access, it's been a busy weekend) but as soon as I do I need to go through my own list of GMing resources. Can't be extolling the virtues of the program if I'm not going to contribute.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Adjustments to the Look
I'm continuing to make changes to the layout. Added a few blogs to the blogroll, and fiddled with its settings. I may make some more changes to it, and move some more things around. Mostly, I just like tinkering with it.
And while I needed an "about me" type of section, what's there right now might be too much. I'm going for short, entertaining, and relevant, but getting there may take some time.
And while I needed an "about me" type of section, what's there right now might be too much. I'm going for short, entertaining, and relevant, but getting there may take some time.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Gnome Stew
Gnome Stew is up and running!
I don't read as many GMing help-sites as I used to, but Treasure Tables was one of my favorites back in the day, and if Gnome Stew ends up half as good (and so far, it does look very good) it's worth checking out.
I'm not a huge fan of the layout right now, with all the text way over to the left--looks fine above the fold, but once I scroll down it gets a little disorienting. But that's a massively minor nitpick.
The community features intrigue me. If they end up getting used, it could end up as a pretty powerful game blog hub. I'm not aware that we really have one right now. There are some sort of hub-esque things, blogs big enough that most people know about them, but nothing like When Fangirls Attack that keeps everyone talking to each other.
The take home message: Gnome Stew. It's cool. Go there! Do it now!
I don't read as many GMing help-sites as I used to, but Treasure Tables was one of my favorites back in the day, and if Gnome Stew ends up half as good (and so far, it does look very good) it's worth checking out.
I'm not a huge fan of the layout right now, with all the text way over to the left--looks fine above the fold, but once I scroll down it gets a little disorienting. But that's a massively minor nitpick.
The community features intrigue me. If they end up getting used, it could end up as a pretty powerful game blog hub. I'm not aware that we really have one right now. There are some sort of hub-esque things, blogs big enough that most people know about them, but nothing like When Fangirls Attack that keeps everyone talking to each other.
The take home message: Gnome Stew. It's cool. Go there! Do it now!
Why I Keep Geeking Out About A Villain's Life
Man, I already thought A Villain's Life was cool, and sort of sweet, but now I care. Doctor Cataclysm, please be okay!
Yeah, I'm still geeking out about it. It'll pass. In the mean time, a small insight:
Most media has a fairly clear division between real/non-real. Movies have a screen, books have their pages. Even if there's a framing device, in most cases it's still pretty easy to tell, just from the format, that it's fiction. Yes, that book may claim to be a journal, but its still professionally printed with the publishers name in the front.
This kind of fiction, this fictional blogging, has a little less of that. It's still obviously fictional--there are no superheroes, no superpowers, no weather machines. But that's only discernable from the content.
In form, this is just another blog. It's framing device is built into the media itself. I tend to dislike frames in books, just because they're not. You can tell, very easily, that the frame is also false, so it tends to interfere with my suspension of disbelief. Your mileage may vary.
But this is cool. I get information about Doctor Cataclysm in exactly the way I would if he was real. 'tis a trick, rather like a well done game story, that allows for stronger audience/character attachement.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Yeah, I'm still geeking out about it. It'll pass. In the mean time, a small insight:
Most media has a fairly clear division between real/non-real. Movies have a screen, books have their pages. Even if there's a framing device, in most cases it's still pretty easy to tell, just from the format, that it's fiction. Yes, that book may claim to be a journal, but its still professionally printed with the publishers name in the front.
This kind of fiction, this fictional blogging, has a little less of that. It's still obviously fictional--there are no superheroes, no superpowers, no weather machines. But that's only discernable from the content.
In form, this is just another blog. It's framing device is built into the media itself. I tend to dislike frames in books, just because they're not. You can tell, very easily, that the frame is also false, so it tends to interfere with my suspension of disbelief. Your mileage may vary.
But this is cool. I get information about Doctor Cataclysm in exactly the way I would if he was real. 'tis a trick, rather like a well done game story, that allows for stronger audience/character attachement.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
4th Edition Excerpts: Giants and Epic Destinies
Who and a what huh? Hill giants are just like stone giants? When did that happen? Why was I not informed?
Okay, maybe they play similarly in combat. I wouldn't know, having never had a party of the right level to express my thwarted interest in giants. But how does that translate to "too similar?" They may have the same intelligence, but they don't act the same. Maybe they could use a little mechanical differentiation, as the kids say these days, but I can tell 'em apart.
And I'm all for limited campaigns, and the presented material does look kinda cool, but I'm not so sure I want my game system structuring my campaigns for me. On the other hand, giving characters a concrete way to provide feedback to the DM sounds kind of nifty. "Ah, Dave has taken 'destroyer of zwirfs' as his epic destiny. He must want to fight zwirfs." On yet another hand, shouldn't the DM be able to figure that kind of thing out?
I'm still looking forward to 4e. I've liked all the preview material so far. (Except for the sword wing. No hints of history, and it does nothing horrible to the PCs, fulfilling neither of my main monster criteria.) And, if it plays fun, fast, and with less work, that'll be worth any weirdness in the setting fluff. And any weirdness generally.
But those bits of it strike me as just a little bit off.
Okay, maybe they play similarly in combat. I wouldn't know, having never had a party of the right level to express my thwarted interest in giants. But how does that translate to "too similar?" They may have the same intelligence, but they don't act the same. Maybe they could use a little mechanical differentiation, as the kids say these days, but I can tell 'em apart.
And I'm all for limited campaigns, and the presented material does look kinda cool, but I'm not so sure I want my game system structuring my campaigns for me. On the other hand, giving characters a concrete way to provide feedback to the DM sounds kind of nifty. "Ah, Dave has taken 'destroyer of zwirfs' as his epic destiny. He must want to fight zwirfs." On yet another hand, shouldn't the DM be able to figure that kind of thing out?
I'm still looking forward to 4e. I've liked all the preview material so far. (Except for the sword wing. No hints of history, and it does nothing horrible to the PCs, fulfilling neither of my main monster criteria.) And, if it plays fun, fast, and with less work, that'll be worth any weirdness in the setting fluff. And any weirdness generally.
But those bits of it strike me as just a little bit off.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Literary Pretensions: Iron Man
Iron Man is about technology. In the movie, he's also very specifically about the corporatization of technology, and the responsibility creators have over their creations. But he also represents a general conversation about the role and effects of technology.
In Iron Man, technology has a dark side. In the movie, Tony Stark creates the suit, but he also creates the villains he uses it to battle. And in the comics, Iron Man's suit has, on occasion, become a villain in its own right.
But Iron Man is a superhero. He's technology personified, and, for the most part, he's a force for good. The wrongs he has done, even inadvertently, he works to right. Technology is a powerful tool in that fight, and he has a unique control over it.
Which is at the heart of the Iron Man concept. How do we control technology? In what ways does it affect us? Tony Stark has a remarkable talent, but he simultaneously depends on technology to survive. His injury was inflicted by a man-made weapon, but another device keeps it from killing him. He uses technology to do good, but the evil he fights is often similarly empowered.
And, of course, it's not just shrapnel in his leg or his liver or something. It's his heart that has shrapnel and a magnet in it, magnifying its importance in both physical and metaphorical terms.
"Technology" isn't the only thing that Iron Man is about. And being "about" things isn't the most important thing about Iron Man--the most important thing is smashing bad guys with fancy gadgets.
But what he's about is important. Superheroes, and other culturally important stories, give us a window into our culture's collective unconscious.
Technology is very much on our minds.
In Iron Man, technology has a dark side. In the movie, Tony Stark creates the suit, but he also creates the villains he uses it to battle. And in the comics, Iron Man's suit has, on occasion, become a villain in its own right.
But Iron Man is a superhero. He's technology personified, and, for the most part, he's a force for good. The wrongs he has done, even inadvertently, he works to right. Technology is a powerful tool in that fight, and he has a unique control over it.
Which is at the heart of the Iron Man concept. How do we control technology? In what ways does it affect us? Tony Stark has a remarkable talent, but he simultaneously depends on technology to survive. His injury was inflicted by a man-made weapon, but another device keeps it from killing him. He uses technology to do good, but the evil he fights is often similarly empowered.
And, of course, it's not just shrapnel in his leg or his liver or something. It's his heart that has shrapnel and a magnet in it, magnifying its importance in both physical and metaphorical terms.
"Technology" isn't the only thing that Iron Man is about. And being "about" things isn't the most important thing about Iron Man--the most important thing is smashing bad guys with fancy gadgets.
But what he's about is important. Superheroes, and other culturally important stories, give us a window into our culture's collective unconscious.
Technology is very much on our minds.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Random Thoughts on Iron Man
I loved Iron Man. Awesome movie. Shame I didn't get a chance to write about it until now, but thems the breaks.
I wasn't expecting it to be so funny. It works. It would have been interesting if they'd put one of those testing videos Tony Stark took on YouTube, but it obviously wasn't necessary.
I love tech-y, shiny, robot type stuff. I knew the movie had the suit in it, but then it turns out to have even more robot awesome, and I am officially happy.
I was impressed by the psychology of the movie. I think this movie has the most coherent explanation for why its superhero became what he is, out of all of them that have come out so far.
And his relationship with Pepper Pots seemed more human than the sort of "no, I can't love you, it's too dangerous" business most superheroes satsify themselves with. I mean, it had that, but it had a lot more than that--we work together and depend on each other but I'm desperately afraid of commitment, etc. Standard pieces for relationship movies, but stretching the superhero box a bit.
And--this is a personal thing, not analysis--I liked Tony Stark. A lot more than I like, say, Peter Parker, or Bruce Wayne. I sympathize with Peter, and Spiderman, and I accept Bruce Wayne as necessary. But I don't even particularly like Batman, as a person, I just think he's cool.
I hadn't realized that, until I saw Iron Man. It made him a likable guy. A messed up guy, but in an understandable way. And, in the end, a mostly decent guy.
I wasn't expecting it to be so funny. It works. It would have been interesting if they'd put one of those testing videos Tony Stark took on YouTube, but it obviously wasn't necessary.
I love tech-y, shiny, robot type stuff. I knew the movie had the suit in it, but then it turns out to have even more robot awesome, and I am officially happy.
I was impressed by the psychology of the movie. I think this movie has the most coherent explanation for why its superhero became what he is, out of all of them that have come out so far.
And his relationship with Pepper Pots seemed more human than the sort of "no, I can't love you, it's too dangerous" business most superheroes satsify themselves with. I mean, it had that, but it had a lot more than that--we work together and depend on each other but I'm desperately afraid of commitment, etc. Standard pieces for relationship movies, but stretching the superhero box a bit.
And--this is a personal thing, not analysis--I liked Tony Stark. A lot more than I like, say, Peter Parker, or Bruce Wayne. I sympathize with Peter, and Spiderman, and I accept Bruce Wayne as necessary. But I don't even particularly like Batman, as a person, I just think he's cool.
I hadn't realized that, until I saw Iron Man. It made him a likable guy. A messed up guy, but in an understandable way. And, in the end, a mostly decent guy.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Homework for Fun
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.
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.
Monday, May 05, 2008
WoAdWriMo: Ideas
Yes, it's that time again: WoAdWriMo is nearly upon us. Word is, it is in dire need of hosting. Unfortunately, the best I can do is pass the request along.
I'd really like to participate this year; didn't last time, mostly out of fear of failure. This time, it's a mix of that (there's always some of that) and time issues. It comes right as I'll be frantically learning the 4e rules and trying to run a campaign, but I could get that to work in my favor, if I just write the adventure using material for the campaign. That way it even gets a tiny bit of playtesting.
I've even got some ideas. Possibilities include:
- the idiocy I've produced so far for ChattyDM's contest
- my old, weird idea about verbifying Keep on the Borderlands
- the same idea relating to Keep on the Shadowfell
- along similar lines: Fall Off the Shadow Keep (stolen)
- pilfer something from a (new, improved, more sensical) version of my Very First Campaign
- pilfer something from my most recent campaign
- use something I came up with thinking about last years WoAdWriMo (most of the good ones are in the contest entry)
- fix up some of the material from an Iron Heroes one-shot I never ran
- fix up some material from the one-shot I ran instead
There are probably some more rattling around in my head somewhere.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Look! More Internets!
Wizards of the Coast plans to bring back old settings. Never played any, always been fascinated.
Plausible Deniability possesses, among other things, an article on Geek Social Fallacies. I've suffered a sort of reverse #4, "no mixing of groups because this one is magic!" I got over it.
Qwertyuiopasd is posting again. About Batman villains. I approve.
Plausible Deniability possesses, among other things, an article on Geek Social Fallacies. I've suffered a sort of reverse #4, "no mixing of groups because this one is magic!" I got over it.
Qwertyuiopasd is posting again. About Batman villains. I approve.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Everyone Rides Dinosaurs
Or rather, everyone cool rides dinosaurs. This was one of the best things about Eberron, the dinosaur riding, but they did not, in my opinion, take it far enough.
No. In my setting, the halflings aren't the only ones with access to the dinosaur awesome. Everyone cool rides dinosaurs. The players ride dinosaurs, important NPCs like kings and bartenders ride dinosaurs, major villains in spiky black armor ride dinosaurs. Even plenty of people who are not cool ride dinosaurs. Like bards.
No one rides horses. (Even bards.) They might ride things that are significantly stupider than dinosaurs, but they don't ride horses.
A lot of the different knightly orders have running arguments about which dinosaurs are best. This has evolved into bi-yearly contests in the civilized realms, jousting and that sort of thing, where you're on teams depending on what sort of dinosaur you ride. When two riders of different sorts of dinosaurs meet, they have a tendency to engage in an impromptu dinosaur-measuring contest.
Non-dinosaur riders tend to think this is sort of stupid, but they tend to think that everything relating to dinosaurs is sort of stupid. That's the problem with dinosaurs: they're sort of stupid. You can train them, and some of them are less stupid than others, but there are some definite limits to their intellectual capacity.
No. In my setting, the halflings aren't the only ones with access to the dinosaur awesome. Everyone cool rides dinosaurs. The players ride dinosaurs, important NPCs like kings and bartenders ride dinosaurs, major villains in spiky black armor ride dinosaurs. Even plenty of people who are not cool ride dinosaurs. Like bards.
No one rides horses. (Even bards.) They might ride things that are significantly stupider than dinosaurs, but they don't ride horses.
A lot of the different knightly orders have running arguments about which dinosaurs are best. This has evolved into bi-yearly contests in the civilized realms, jousting and that sort of thing, where you're on teams depending on what sort of dinosaur you ride. When two riders of different sorts of dinosaurs meet, they have a tendency to engage in an impromptu dinosaur-measuring contest.
Non-dinosaur riders tend to think this is sort of stupid, but they tend to think that everything relating to dinosaurs is sort of stupid. That's the problem with dinosaurs: they're sort of stupid. You can train them, and some of them are less stupid than others, but there are some definite limits to their intellectual capacity.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Doctor Cataclysm
I mentioned Doctor Cataclysm, and his blog A Villain's Life, in sort of an offhand way, but it really deserves a full, proper post. If you haven't read it, go read it now, so far it's very short. (I further recommend that you add it to your feed, and if you don't have a feed, to get one, but now we're shading into irrelevancy.)
I'm really quite taken with it. I have a mild obsession with non-standard storytelling, and I've been interested in the idea of fictional blogging for a while. And, of course, superheroes are cool. Supervillains even more so--especially mad scientists.
That's all certainly part of it. But Doctor Cataclysm himself is really quite charming. He's a super villain, but he's not psychotic. When he's not engaging in (excellent) supervillainy, he occasionally stops muggers, and worries about being "too much of a moocher." The villainy is entertaining, but it seems like a cross between a job and a hobby, (love your work, I guess) and less like destroy-the-world craziness.
Which is good. It's relatable. And, at times, very sweet. (Though I recommend running through the previous posts before hitting that last.)
My favorite thing about this is that it's not fiction in blog form. It is, in fact, a fictional blog. In addition to recounting his villainy, he blogs about movies, politics, and YouTube videos. The politics and the videos are fictional, which is probably necessary, (though the videos might make an interesting project) but the movies are real, which is excellent.
The only trouble is that there's not very much of it, yet. Which is great for me, and you, and everyone getting into it right now, because there's not much to get into before we're up to speed. But I sure hope it keeps up, at the same level of quality, because it sure is a lot of fun.
(I can think of one other nitpick--the most generic of the generic blog templates. But in some ways, that adds to its charm, and I can't fault a brand new blog for not having figured out it's look yet. I still haven't really figured out mine.)
Oh, and a thank you to Neitherworld Stories, for linking to A Villain's Life in the first place. From there I have also learned of Velvet Marauder, but haven't yet had quite the chunk of time I'd like to get through it.
I'm really quite taken with it. I have a mild obsession with non-standard storytelling, and I've been interested in the idea of fictional blogging for a while. And, of course, superheroes are cool. Supervillains even more so--especially mad scientists.
That's all certainly part of it. But Doctor Cataclysm himself is really quite charming. He's a super villain, but he's not psychotic. When he's not engaging in (excellent) supervillainy, he occasionally stops muggers, and worries about being "too much of a moocher." The villainy is entertaining, but it seems like a cross between a job and a hobby, (love your work, I guess) and less like destroy-the-world craziness.
Which is good. It's relatable. And, at times, very sweet. (Though I recommend running through the previous posts before hitting that last.)
My favorite thing about this is that it's not fiction in blog form. It is, in fact, a fictional blog. In addition to recounting his villainy, he blogs about movies, politics, and YouTube videos. The politics and the videos are fictional, which is probably necessary, (though the videos might make an interesting project) but the movies are real, which is excellent.
The only trouble is that there's not very much of it, yet. Which is great for me, and you, and everyone getting into it right now, because there's not much to get into before we're up to speed. But I sure hope it keeps up, at the same level of quality, because it sure is a lot of fun.
(I can think of one other nitpick--the most generic of the generic blog templates. But in some ways, that adds to its charm, and I can't fault a brand new blog for not having figured out it's look yet. I still haven't really figured out mine.)
Oh, and a thank you to Neitherworld Stories, for linking to A Villain's Life in the first place. From there I have also learned of Velvet Marauder, but haven't yet had quite the chunk of time I'd like to get through it.
Questions Relating to Web-based Serial Fiction
Why is it web-comics rather than web-fiction?
Is that what fanfiction is? The text-only equivalent of webcomics?
People like funny stuff. Is funny easier to do with a visual medium?
People like pretty things. But one of the most popular webcomics out there is xkcd, and Penny Arcade was popular even before it looked awesome. (Of course, back then, Penny Arcade had a lot less competition.)
Is pure text fiction significantly harder to serialize than a comic strip? The only serialized fiction I know of is Othar Tryggvassen's Twitter. (By which I am fascinated, as previously discussed.) There has to be something else like that out there.
Does anyone blog fiction? There's Banter Latte and Short Little Stories, (both, oddly, by comics bloggers, at Websnark and Damn Good Comics, respectively) but that's not quite what I mean.
Webcomics, at least the serious/story variety, tell a continuing story over a series of installments. Does anyone use blogs to do a similar thing?
Does anyone read them?
(I would mention Doctor Cataclysm, but that's clearly not fiction.)
Is that what fanfiction is? The text-only equivalent of webcomics?
People like funny stuff. Is funny easier to do with a visual medium?
People like pretty things. But one of the most popular webcomics out there is xkcd, and Penny Arcade was popular even before it looked awesome. (Of course, back then, Penny Arcade had a lot less competition.)
Is pure text fiction significantly harder to serialize than a comic strip? The only serialized fiction I know of is Othar Tryggvassen's Twitter. (By which I am fascinated, as previously discussed.) There has to be something else like that out there.
Does anyone blog fiction? There's Banter Latte and Short Little Stories, (both, oddly, by comics bloggers, at Websnark and Damn Good Comics, respectively) but that's not quite what I mean.
Webcomics, at least the serious/story variety, tell a continuing story over a series of installments. Does anyone use blogs to do a similar thing?
Does anyone read them?
(I would mention Doctor Cataclysm, but that's clearly not fiction.)
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Japan Travel Blog
If you've an interest in Japan, take a look at I (topic marker) something (destination). My friend Karen is spending the summer there, and she's blogging about it.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Metal Steampunk Vikings
Yes. This is what my next campaign needs to be. Metal. Steampunk. Vikings.
Loud, horned hat dudes wandering around in a Conan-esque Lost World, fighting robots and finding rayguns.
Weird, clanking, brass and springs constructs rampaging around in the wilderness. Mysterious machines from dimensions beyond time. Mad scientists demanding tribute along with the necromancers and dragons and mad god-kings.
Dinosaurs.
Loud, horned hat dudes wandering around in a Conan-esque Lost World, fighting robots and finding rayguns.
Weird, clanking, brass and springs constructs rampaging around in the wilderness. Mysterious machines from dimensions beyond time. Mad scientists demanding tribute along with the necromancers and dragons and mad god-kings.
Dinosaurs.
Cool Happenings: Duranmas Duranmas, Contests, and Crosslinking
As a purveyor of fake modern awesome holidays myself, I heartily approve of Duranmas Duranmas. You should approve it too!
ChattyDM has an adventure concept contest. The catch: 10 words.
I finally figured out what Trollsmyth is trying to do. It says right up at the top, "I’ll also link up with as much good stuff as possible for your websurfing convenience," and even expanded on the idea further. But it didn't really click until he linked to a comment about plot and story in a Grognardia post. Then I realized: he wants the game blog-o-sphere cross-linked.
This is an excellent idea. Something I should do more, too.
ChattyDM has an adventure concept contest. The catch: 10 words.
I finally figured out what Trollsmyth is trying to do. It says right up at the top, "I’ll also link up with as much good stuff as possible for your websurfing convenience," and even expanded on the idea further. But it didn't really click until he linked to a comment about plot and story in a Grognardia post. Then I realized: he wants the game blog-o-sphere cross-linked.
This is an excellent idea. Something I should do more, too.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Wizards Are Weird
Wizards are very odd kleptomaniacs. Even if this is 4e, and 4e wizards don't need material components to cast spells (off the top of my head, I don't know) they'll still have the ability to produce any number of odd, valueless, seemingly useless objects at the drop of a pointy hat.
Warlocks can't do this. Sorcerers might be able to. Mostly, though, it's something wizards do, because they're weird.
They're not born with power. They want it, but they don't have the sense to do the easy thing and cut a deal with some extradimensional being. (Clerics, I'm looking at you, too.) Whether from principles, morals, or fear, they work for their power.
But then, they're not usual in that, either. They're not like fighters, or rogues; not practice and discipline and skill. They spend all their time reading books. And thinking. And tinkering with the fundamentals of the universe.
All without wearing pants.
Warlocks can't do this. Sorcerers might be able to. Mostly, though, it's something wizards do, because they're weird.
They're not born with power. They want it, but they don't have the sense to do the easy thing and cut a deal with some extradimensional being. (Clerics, I'm looking at you, too.) Whether from principles, morals, or fear, they work for their power.
But then, they're not usual in that, either. They're not like fighters, or rogues; not practice and discipline and skill. They spend all their time reading books. And thinking. And tinkering with the fundamentals of the universe.
All without wearing pants.
Armor and Other D&D-isms
So Charles Ffoulkes is responsible for the weirdness that is D&D armor. I knew it was screwy already, having a friend who does Real True Historical Re-enactment, but I'm both glad to see that there's an explanation for it beyond, "eh, some daft thing that Gary put in there because he thought it looked cool."
Not that that would have been bad, necessarily. I know some people who are deeply disturbed by the idea that not everything in D&D is 100% historically accurate. The most annoying guy I ever gamed with would go on, at length, about how studded leather armor doesn't make sense, like the mere fact that he knew it wasn't real true medieval armor made him really, really cool.
I've never gotten so worked up about it. I like that D&D is filled with D&D-isms, bizarre little easter eggs that only make sense in the history and context of the game. I like that it has monsters inspired by plastic toys, and spells named after characters that people actually played.
I like that D&D doesn't always make sense.
Not that that would have been bad, necessarily. I know some people who are deeply disturbed by the idea that not everything in D&D is 100% historically accurate. The most annoying guy I ever gamed with would go on, at length, about how studded leather armor doesn't make sense, like the mere fact that he knew it wasn't real true medieval armor made him really, really cool.
I've never gotten so worked up about it. I like that D&D is filled with D&D-isms, bizarre little easter eggs that only make sense in the history and context of the game. I like that it has monsters inspired by plastic toys, and spells named after characters that people actually played.
I like that D&D doesn't always make sense.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Eladrin Are Ruled by Undead
Mostly by not-entirely-evil lich/mummies of their ancient kings. They still have living kings, but they tend to be not quite as important as the dead ones, because after a king dies he sticks around as an undead, and keeps all his followers and wealth. So mostly the living king gets used as a pawn by the more powerful houses of the dead.
Elves tend to have slightly more normal ruling systems, (often little or none at all) but there are also an unusual number of elven vampires and death knights running around, enslaving elves and mortals and building little fiefdoms. Elves also have an unfortunate tendency to come back as ghosts. It's just something that they do.
I'm not as completely sure about the elves as I am about the other races so far, but some one's ruled by undead. And since I don't know what else I might do with elves, it might as well be them.
This also sort of assumes 4e, but if I might end up using this for a setting that doesn't have eladrin. If so, I'll just stick it all together and say some elves are ruled by undead kings, and some are ruled by vampires.
As a further note, this is not entirely stolen from Eberron. Some of it is also stolen from the Incan empire, who mummified their kings and kept them around as rulers of political parties. Part of the reason they lost their war against the Spanish was they were already in the middle of a civil war between two mummies. (Not kidding, read 1491.)
Elves tend to have slightly more normal ruling systems, (often little or none at all) but there are also an unusual number of elven vampires and death knights running around, enslaving elves and mortals and building little fiefdoms. Elves also have an unfortunate tendency to come back as ghosts. It's just something that they do.
I'm not as completely sure about the elves as I am about the other races so far, but some one's ruled by undead. And since I don't know what else I might do with elves, it might as well be them.
This also sort of assumes 4e, but if I might end up using this for a setting that doesn't have eladrin. If so, I'll just stick it all together and say some elves are ruled by undead kings, and some are ruled by vampires.
As a further note, this is not entirely stolen from Eberron. Some of it is also stolen from the Incan empire, who mummified their kings and kept them around as rulers of political parties. Part of the reason they lost their war against the Spanish was they were already in the middle of a civil war between two mummies. (Not kidding, read 1491.)
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Dinosaurs Make Everything Better
The PCs are all dinosaurs. You run around avoiding meteors and stomping things.
This could be played totally straight where the players are all dinosaurs doing dinosaur things. I spent a lot of time pretending I was a dinosaur as a kid, so there's got to be some fun there.
Or it could be more of a reverse Turok kind of deal, and the dinosaur-PCs eat Marines or Lost World explorers or scientists or whoever it would be entertaining for dinosaurs to eat.
Maybe Dinosaur Escape: Washington, D.C.
This could be played totally straight where the players are all dinosaurs doing dinosaur things. I spent a lot of time pretending I was a dinosaur as a kid, so there's got to be some fun there.
Or it could be more of a reverse Turok kind of deal, and the dinosaur-PCs eat Marines or Lost World explorers or scientists or whoever it would be entertaining for dinosaurs to eat.
Maybe Dinosaur Escape: Washington, D.C.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Halflings Are Cannibals
Not all halflings, of course. Some of them cremate their dead. And their have been rare instances of halfling burial, generally under unusual supernatural circumstances. But most halflings, in most cases, eat their dead.
They're a nomadic people, and thus they feel that it's better to carry their lost loved ones with them then to stick them in the ground in a place to which they may never return. They also believe that, by eating a person, they can absorb that person's strength and wisdom, and carry on their works. There are also some practical considerations; though not all halflings inhabit swamps and waterways, many do, and it's difficult to properly bury someone in that sort of terrain.
It's very unusual for halflings to eat non-halflings, or even members of their race that they don't have a strong personal connection to. It does happen occasionally, most often when the odd, marginalized sect comes up with the idea of eating their enemies. It's even more unusual for a non-halfling to partake of a halfling funeral ritual, but that, too, is not completely unknown.
Halflings don't usually bring it up when they live around other races. They think everyone else's practices are a little unnatural, but they're aware that a lot of other people find theirs downright repulsive, so they don't push the issue. A halfling adventurer might ask it of their comrades, in the event of their permanent death, but only with people they'd known deeply for years.
(Yes, I sort of stole this from Dark Sun. Dark Sun is cool.)
They're a nomadic people, and thus they feel that it's better to carry their lost loved ones with them then to stick them in the ground in a place to which they may never return. They also believe that, by eating a person, they can absorb that person's strength and wisdom, and carry on their works. There are also some practical considerations; though not all halflings inhabit swamps and waterways, many do, and it's difficult to properly bury someone in that sort of terrain.
It's very unusual for halflings to eat non-halflings, or even members of their race that they don't have a strong personal connection to. It does happen occasionally, most often when the odd, marginalized sect comes up with the idea of eating their enemies. It's even more unusual for a non-halfling to partake of a halfling funeral ritual, but that, too, is not completely unknown.
Halflings don't usually bring it up when they live around other races. They think everyone else's practices are a little unnatural, but they're aware that a lot of other people find theirs downright repulsive, so they don't push the issue. A halfling adventurer might ask it of their comrades, in the event of their permanent death, but only with people they'd known deeply for years.
(Yes, I sort of stole this from Dark Sun. Dark Sun is cool.)
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Dwarves Are Crazy
Dwarves get psychotic when they see the sky. They have some weird dwarven word for "sky madness," that they call it, because I haven't decided whether I'm going to go for "old and germanic" for dwarven, or "lots of 'kh' and 'g' and 'd' and little triangle things over the vowels." Everyone else mostly just assumes that dwarves are all nuts, especially in the Southern Lands, where it's more common.
It's really the night sky that's a problem, the stars or the planets or the moons. And for most dwarves, it's not really a huge problem. In ages past, a dwarven sorcerer-king learned to craft a sort of charm that mostly protects against the curse, or whatever it is, and with these forged the first above-ground dwarven empire. Nowadays, like most of dwarven government, they're largely religious in character, and the priesthood controls their manufacture.
It still comes up often enough that that's what a lot of people think of when they think of dwarves: weird, psychotic, atheistic serial-killers. Usually it happens to dwarves who have been exiled, but every so often, for whatever reason, the charms don't quite work.
And that's why dwarves are crazy.
It's really the night sky that's a problem, the stars or the planets or the moons. And for most dwarves, it's not really a huge problem. In ages past, a dwarven sorcerer-king learned to craft a sort of charm that mostly protects against the curse, or whatever it is, and with these forged the first above-ground dwarven empire. Nowadays, like most of dwarven government, they're largely religious in character, and the priesthood controls their manufacture.
It still comes up often enough that that's what a lot of people think of when they think of dwarves: weird, psychotic, atheistic serial-killers. Usually it happens to dwarves who have been exiled, but every so often, for whatever reason, the charms don't quite work.
And that's why dwarves are crazy.
Truth in Advertising
Livejournal's "sponsored links," that it displays on the link-out to this blog, are as follows:
Sandbox
Fast Cars
Lasers
Elder Scrolls
Solar System
Dinosaurs
(You can see for yourself on my friend Maggie's LJ.)
I am amused.
Also, this blog would be better if it fit that topic list more closely.
Sandbox
Fast Cars
Lasers
Elder Scrolls
Solar System
Dinosaurs
(You can see for yourself on my friend Maggie's LJ.)
I am amused.
Also, this blog would be better if it fit that topic list more closely.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The Implications of Paragon Paths
Boy, does Wizards want you to buy the splatbooks.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm still looking forward to 4e, and I was probably going to buy a lot of those books anyway. Really, most of the people who care probably would have bought them anyway.
But technically, in 3.x, prestige classes were an alternate rule. You didn't have to use them, and DMs who didn't want to deal with them had rules text to back up that call. But in 4e, these paragon paths (which I do think are cool) are required.
And, according to that preview, there's only one for each class in the Player's Handbook.
Maybe there are more in the DMG. I kind of doubt it; now that they're required, it doesn't make much sense for a player build tool to be in the DM-only book. If you want more, you're going to have to buy more books, or a subscripition to D&D Insider.
The way these are pitched, they're integral to your character build and, particularly, concept. So if you want your cleric to be anything other than a "warpriest" -- say, a pacifist, or an oracle -- and to be mechanically differentiated by that role, you'll need more books.
Which, honestly, was sort of required by 3.x, too. If you want your character to be really unique, mechanically, the options in the core books probably wouldn't cut it. If you'd already played a standard cleric and wanted to do something a little different with your build, you'd need to buy more books. The people who care about that were probably going to buy those options books anyway.
But it's interesting that they're making it this explicit. Especially with all the talk on the interwebs about 4e just being a money grab.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm still looking forward to 4e, and I was probably going to buy a lot of those books anyway. Really, most of the people who care probably would have bought them anyway.
But technically, in 3.x, prestige classes were an alternate rule. You didn't have to use them, and DMs who didn't want to deal with them had rules text to back up that call. But in 4e, these paragon paths (which I do think are cool) are required.
And, according to that preview, there's only one for each class in the Player's Handbook.
Maybe there are more in the DMG. I kind of doubt it; now that they're required, it doesn't make much sense for a player build tool to be in the DM-only book. If you want more, you're going to have to buy more books, or a subscripition to D&D Insider.
The way these are pitched, they're integral to your character build and, particularly, concept. So if you want your cleric to be anything other than a "warpriest" -- say, a pacifist, or an oracle -- and to be mechanically differentiated by that role, you'll need more books.
Which, honestly, was sort of required by 3.x, too. If you want your character to be really unique, mechanically, the options in the core books probably wouldn't cut it. If you'd already played a standard cleric and wanted to do something a little different with your build, you'd need to buy more books. The people who care about that were probably going to buy those options books anyway.
But it's interesting that they're making it this explicit. Especially with all the talk on the interwebs about 4e just being a money grab.
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.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Multi-DM Persistent World Campaign
Crazy idea: a sandbox game with no regular group, in the style of the West Marches but with the setting that powers it shared between multiple DMs.
This could just be on the design end: you have multiple people collaborating on a setting that one of them then uses to run a game. Co-operative worldbuiling. Or you could get fancier, and have each participating DM run their own player pool through the game.
Which could, in turn, run a couple of ways. You could have multiple independent games, seperated geographically or by convention, or you could have multiple DMs supporting the same player pool, with players switching back and forth between games. My personal situation better supports the former option, since I don't know many other DMs locally. But the second option could be interesting.
There big issues I've identified so far are time-keeping, DMing style, and griefing.
That last is also the least important; though I assume there's some potential for one DM to put way to powerful monsters in places they're not supposed to be, without warning for the players or the other DMs, a little thought put into who you invite into the project ought to keep the chance to a minimum. A bigger problem would be people doing that kind of thing accidentally, but that would happen even in a single-DM game.
Slightly bigger issue is time-keeping; if you put everyone on personal time, affected solely by in-game activities, as I tend to do in my normal games, then you could potentially end up with some groups way behind others, depending on how active the different DMs are. Then you get weirdness like dungeons that haven't been cleared out yet, but will be, so you can't go there because of what will happen, but hasn't. My solution would be to put everyone on universal time, perhaps locked to real-world time, and your character hangs around in taverns until you take them out on another adventure. (Which seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for a character to do.)
Finally, DM style. Part of the idea behind the set-up would be to produce an environment with greater depth and variety than one DM can provide, but this could go too far. And everyone involved would have to use a similar format in their world notes, and a similar level of rigor in applying those notes.
This could work, and it might be fun. It's not something that's likely to happen; I'm probably too distractible to pull something like that off. The vision I have in my head is of a game that keeps going for years, with different players and different DMs, but one persistent world. But at least in my case, it's more likely to stay just as an idea.
EDIT: Reposted because I just realized I misspelled the title. Why do I keep doing that?
This could just be on the design end: you have multiple people collaborating on a setting that one of them then uses to run a game. Co-operative worldbuiling. Or you could get fancier, and have each participating DM run their own player pool through the game.
Which could, in turn, run a couple of ways. You could have multiple independent games, seperated geographically or by convention, or you could have multiple DMs supporting the same player pool, with players switching back and forth between games. My personal situation better supports the former option, since I don't know many other DMs locally. But the second option could be interesting.
There big issues I've identified so far are time-keeping, DMing style, and griefing.
That last is also the least important; though I assume there's some potential for one DM to put way to powerful monsters in places they're not supposed to be, without warning for the players or the other DMs, a little thought put into who you invite into the project ought to keep the chance to a minimum. A bigger problem would be people doing that kind of thing accidentally, but that would happen even in a single-DM game.
Slightly bigger issue is time-keeping; if you put everyone on personal time, affected solely by in-game activities, as I tend to do in my normal games, then you could potentially end up with some groups way behind others, depending on how active the different DMs are. Then you get weirdness like dungeons that haven't been cleared out yet, but will be, so you can't go there because of what will happen, but hasn't. My solution would be to put everyone on universal time, perhaps locked to real-world time, and your character hangs around in taverns until you take them out on another adventure. (Which seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for a character to do.)
Finally, DM style. Part of the idea behind the set-up would be to produce an environment with greater depth and variety than one DM can provide, but this could go too far. And everyone involved would have to use a similar format in their world notes, and a similar level of rigor in applying those notes.
This could work, and it might be fun. It's not something that's likely to happen; I'm probably too distractible to pull something like that off. The vision I have in my head is of a game that keeps going for years, with different players and different DMs, but one persistent world. But at least in my case, it's more likely to stay just as an idea.
EDIT: Reposted because I just realized I misspelled the title. Why do I keep doing that?
Monday, April 21, 2008
What I Might Actually Run
I still haven't gotten a handle on what I'm going to run this summer. I was going to do a sequel to last year's game, but that fell through when it turned out one of the main players wouldn't be able to make it for most of it. I could still run it, but I'd rather do something new, and go back to it later when I've got another game between the old game and the new one.
A significant part of me very, very much would like to run 4e. Not unreservedly, but enough that it's probably what I'll end up doing.
My original plan was to run the preview module, Keep on the Shadowfell, and spin off from there. Maybe even go on to Thunderspire Labyrinth, if Shadowfell is any good. I've never actually run a published module before, and I've got an idea that I might learn something from it.
Of course, I'm also thinking about running a palette-swap on the system, fiddling with the flavor to make it more steampunk. A couple of my players have indicated an interest in the genre, and I'd have a fair few crazy ideas to mine for a setting.
My other major ideas for 4e are to go with (a heavily hacked version of) the new default settting, or make it metal. These ideas are not incompatible, nor are they in oppostion to the idea of starting off with a published module. Even the steampunk idea could be made to work with that; I'd just have to file the serial numbers off the adventure, too.
And then there's the non-4e ideas. I've still never run Eberron, despite it being on my list since it came out, but the two players who have the book are the two who aren't available this summer. I've had Iron Heroes for ages, but I'm more likely to loot it for parts for a 4e game, since if I'm going to run a relatively combat heavy game I'd rather try out the monster/encounter set-up the new edition promises. Encounter Critical is an option; though a few people have expressed desire for a "serious" game, it might work as a pre-4e mini-campaign if I decide not to start the game with the module.
The final factor is the sandbox/megadungeon/hexcrawl game I want to run in the somewhat near future. That's not likely to happen this summer, partially due to player interest, partially due to work requirements. More likely, I'll run something else over the summer and start working on the sandbox thing either during that or right after it ends.
A significant part of me very, very much would like to run 4e. Not unreservedly, but enough that it's probably what I'll end up doing.
My original plan was to run the preview module, Keep on the Shadowfell, and spin off from there. Maybe even go on to Thunderspire Labyrinth, if Shadowfell is any good. I've never actually run a published module before, and I've got an idea that I might learn something from it.
Of course, I'm also thinking about running a palette-swap on the system, fiddling with the flavor to make it more steampunk. A couple of my players have indicated an interest in the genre, and I'd have a fair few crazy ideas to mine for a setting.
My other major ideas for 4e are to go with (a heavily hacked version of) the new default settting, or make it metal. These ideas are not incompatible, nor are they in oppostion to the idea of starting off with a published module. Even the steampunk idea could be made to work with that; I'd just have to file the serial numbers off the adventure, too.
And then there's the non-4e ideas. I've still never run Eberron, despite it being on my list since it came out, but the two players who have the book are the two who aren't available this summer. I've had Iron Heroes for ages, but I'm more likely to loot it for parts for a 4e game, since if I'm going to run a relatively combat heavy game I'd rather try out the monster/encounter set-up the new edition promises. Encounter Critical is an option; though a few people have expressed desire for a "serious" game, it might work as a pre-4e mini-campaign if I decide not to start the game with the module.
The final factor is the sandbox/megadungeon/hexcrawl game I want to run in the somewhat near future. That's not likely to happen this summer, partially due to player interest, partially due to work requirements. More likely, I'll run something else over the summer and start working on the sandbox thing either during that or right after it ends.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Rabbit Attack Day, 2008
In honor of our Most Beloved Holiday, I give you: a giant rabbit attack.
Which I believe is from the movie "Night of the Lepus," a movie that I have not yet had the pleasure of viewing.
Fun Fact: The original Rabbit Attack Day entry is the most popular single post on the blog.
Which I believe is from the movie "Night of the Lepus," a movie that I have not yet had the pleasure of viewing.
Fun Fact: The original Rabbit Attack Day entry is the most popular single post on the blog.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
What I Want to Play, In No Particular Order
- Eberron
- human dragonmarked artificer of House d'Cannith
- elven wizard from Aerenal
- a megadungeon
- fast cars and the idiots who drive them
- pirates!
- interplanetary sailing ships with that baroque/victorian feel, "aether" and the spinning models of the solar system and everything
- perhaps a captain of a ship like that
- or an aether surfer, something like Ray Tracer
- Tamriel (Elder Scrolls Setting)
- ancient desert ruins
- Promethean: The Created (though I'm a bit off White Wolf, at the moment, for non-game related reasons)
- Exalted (same caveat as above)
- dawn caste/other fight-y solar using those artifact throwing ring thingies
- freedom fighter against the corrupt dragon-whatever government
- maybe another solar type, or another exalt entirely, since I don't know much about the world
- Vampire (again, same caveat)
- Malkavian!
- or one of those annoyingly pretentious artist types
- Werewolf (yet again, same caveat) (also, assuming it's possible to play this as something other than "science is evil" eco-terrorists)
- Girl Genius
- kitchen sink post-apocalyptic: "wizards, dinosaurs, mutants & lasers"
- something like the setting of Jak 2, and the parts of 3 that weren't stupid
- something sandbox-y
- a halfling wizard, specializing in rays
Thursday, April 17, 2008
I Stab Things With Magic!
Your Score: Spellsword
51% Combativeness
16% Sneakiness
88% Intellect
33% Spirituality
From: Retro-Roleplaying: The Blog
51% Combativeness
16% Sneakiness
88% Intellect
33% Spirituality
Aggressive, but with the brains to back it up: You are a Spellsword!
Score! You have a prestige class. A prestige class can only be taken after you've fulfilled certain requirements. This may mean that you're an exceptionally talented person, but it probably doesn't.
Spellswords combine arcane might with combat know-how. They're much tougher than mages, like to wear armor, and can cast spells through their weapons. They're very, very, good at doing lots of damage to a single target very quickly, and while not quite as tough as most fighters, are still pretty hard to kill.
You're both smart and aggressive, which means that you're probably pretty dangerous when pissed off. You also tend to be somewhat straightforward, which is nice, and don't have much use for spirituality or mysticism.
| Link: The RPG Class Test written by MFlowers on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test View My Profile(MFlowers) |
From: Retro-Roleplaying: The Blog
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
I Read Too Much Science Fiction, And It Shows
How well would it work to have the PCs all play individuals who were part of a greater "over-person?" This is basically a trans/post-humanist concept, worlds where the basic unit of society isn't individual humans, but groups connected chemically or psychically or what-have-you. It works pretty well in fiction, and I think it's a cool idea just on a pure conceptual level, but I wonder how it would work in a game setting?
Partially, it would just allow the game world to really process what happens at a table naturally. Characters can have close to perfect information about what their fellow party members are up to, even in the heat of battle, when when separated by time and space.
But the concept would logically demand less character conflict than most of the games I've seen actually end up with, and are fun with. If the characters are all basically the same person, why would they have different, sometimes conflicting goals? There's probably a way to build an architecture that supports some of that, and still makes sense, but it would probably require some thought to get the reasonable/playable balance right.
Would this be worth it? Or would it be just an intellectual exercise? Seems like something that might make a good hook for a one-shot.
Partially, it would just allow the game world to really process what happens at a table naturally. Characters can have close to perfect information about what their fellow party members are up to, even in the heat of battle, when when separated by time and space.
But the concept would logically demand less character conflict than most of the games I've seen actually end up with, and are fun with. If the characters are all basically the same person, why would they have different, sometimes conflicting goals? There's probably a way to build an architecture that supports some of that, and still makes sense, but it would probably require some thought to get the reasonable/playable balance right.
Would this be worth it? Or would it be just an intellectual exercise? Seems like something that might make a good hook for a one-shot.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
What I Want to Run, In No Particular Order
- something sandbox-y
- a published module
- a megadungeon
- the party is a group of young, bored, reckless nobles who occupy themselves by causing trouble for their elders and their rivals
- kitchen sink post-apocalyptic: "wizards, dinosaurs, mutants & lasers"
- the new 4e default world
- Eberron
- something really dark ages
- fantasy Europe -- "Europa" or something of that nature
- pirates!
- old west
- ancient desert ruins
- steampunk
- interplanetary sailing ships with that baroque/victorian feel, "aether" and the spinning models of the solar system and everything
- everyone rides dinosaurs
- something like the setting in Jak 2, and the parts of 3 that weren't stupid
- Tamriel (Elder Scrolls setting)
- dragonriders for the Queen, who lives in an airship
- Expedition to the Moon!
- fast cars and the idiots who drive them
- magic fast cars and the idiots who drive them
- noble families based on hereditary wizardry
- 1st-20/30th: the players ascend to godhood and found an empire in the process
- that same world, 1000 years hence
Monday, April 14, 2008
Be Afraid! Be Very Afraid!
I just discovered something interesting. "Talk Like a Pirate Day" is, apparently, frightening to some people. Not that I've ever met anyone frightened by it, but I have, nevertheless, been informed that this is the case. Any event that involves it will, I have been told, necessarily be badly attended, on account of this phenomena.
This explains a lot about me. I have misinterpreted the normal fear response that the average human experiences when exposed to pirates as awesomeness. As a result, I've been scaring people off by my displaying the symbols and mannerisms of this most frightening of creatures. It will take years of counseling to retrain my shattered psyche, so that I can finally interact with people who are properly afeared of pirates.
Or, I suppose, I could revel in the SHEER TERROR I can invoke through the use of a simple pirate hat, which I, due to my unusual mental constitution, can tolerate.
This explains a lot about me. I have misinterpreted the normal fear response that the average human experiences when exposed to pirates as awesomeness. As a result, I've been scaring people off by my displaying the symbols and mannerisms of this most frightening of creatures. It will take years of counseling to retrain my shattered psyche, so that I can finally interact with people who are properly afeared of pirates.
Or, I suppose, I could revel in the SHEER TERROR I can invoke through the use of a simple pirate hat, which I, due to my unusual mental constitution, can tolerate.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
System Obsession
4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons
Star Wars Saga Edition
Mutants & Masterminds
Truth and Justice
Castles & Crusades
"OD&D"
Encounter Critical
Forward . . . to Adventure!
Stargate: SG-1 Roleplaying Game
EDIT: Iron Heroes
The games that I currently want to play; this leaves out d20 Modern, 3.X Edition D&D, GURPS 4th Edition, and Risus, because I've already played them, and I'm currently in a new system mood.
There are probably a few more I've forgotten. These are in the order of "estimated likelyhood to play," based on ease of access to materials and interests of potential players. 4th Edition is at the top because I'm absolutely getting the books, and barring natural disaster or mutiny I'm going to be playing at least a couple of sessions of it.
Stargate is at the bottom because it's out of print, and the books on Ebay cost over $60. Otherwise, it would be very close to the top. Curse you, Sony!
Everything else ought to be fairly obvious . . . I know more people who are into Star Wars than superheroes, it's easier to get people to play d20 than weird, newfangled systems, and I don't know many people who share my mostly unrealized fascination with old school gaming.
Star Wars Saga Edition
Mutants & Masterminds
Truth and Justice
Castles & Crusades
"OD&D"
Encounter Critical
Forward . . . to Adventure!
Stargate: SG-1 Roleplaying Game
EDIT: Iron Heroes
The games that I currently want to play; this leaves out d20 Modern, 3.X Edition D&D, GURPS 4th Edition, and Risus, because I've already played them, and I'm currently in a new system mood.
There are probably a few more I've forgotten. These are in the order of "estimated likelyhood to play," based on ease of access to materials and interests of potential players. 4th Edition is at the top because I'm absolutely getting the books, and barring natural disaster or mutiny I'm going to be playing at least a couple of sessions of it.
Stargate is at the bottom because it's out of print, and the books on Ebay cost over $60. Otherwise, it would be very close to the top. Curse you, Sony!
Everything else ought to be fairly obvious . . . I know more people who are into Star Wars than superheroes, it's easier to get people to play d20 than weird, newfangled systems, and I don't know many people who share my mostly unrealized fascination with old school gaming.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)