Quantcast
Channel: Playing D&D With Porn Stars
Viewing all 1081 articles
Browse latest View live

Jackson Hobbit v RIFTS Psionics

$
0
0
Here is a pair of entries for the second round of the Thought Eater DIY RPG Essay Tournament.

If you're new to the contest, it's like this: these two essays are not by me--they're by a pair of anonymous DIY RPG writers who were both assigned to write something interesting and original about hoary old RPG topics.

Anybody reading is eligible to vote for which one you like best and voting will be cut off once all the votes for all the second round Thought Eater essays are up...

The rules for the second round are here.

First One


If you like this one better, send an email with the Subject "ART" to zakzsmith AT hawt mayle. Don't put anything else in the email, I won't read it.



Epically Boring: The Hobbit movie is not a model for adventure design.

Peter Jackson's treatment of The Hobbit has been panned by purists of The Professor's work . As much as Peter Jackson does violence to Tolkien's Hobbit, I disliked his adaptation because of the scale and the ridiculous action sequences. The scale of the events and the stakes of the story are epic but the scale does nothing to make the themes and plot of the story better. The character's have a more superhero like competence that makes it hard to suspend your disbelief. The films felt like something that wanted to be a “gee whiz” experience with a story tacked on. This mirrors a lot of what I've seen from WoTC with their 5E adventures. The current D&D 5E adventures have been about epic scale and the characters must become a sort of force of superheros to fight the threat. This made the Hobbit films and the 5E fairly predictable and banal. My point is that I'd like to see WoTC move away from making every published campaign the way Hollywood makes epic blockbuster films. 

There are these guys in the movie Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle who's entire existence is about what ever is “EXTREME!” In their world, there are only two choices EXTREME! or lame. Everything has to be over the top and enough is never enough. If it isn't EXTREME! then its lame. Peter Jackson's Hobbit and the more recent editions of D&D are these guys. Anything that's not EXTREME! is lame. That manifests in two ways. First, the scale of the events in the movie and the D&D adventures are on the epic scale. Second, the characters in both Hobbitand D&D have become comic book superheros in terms of what they can do physically. Let's start with the scale.

We can't just have dragons that are a danger or a cult that is a danger to the locals or even a maybe a kingdom.. There must be a DRAGON CULT TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD! We just can't have a demon threatening a town or maybe a city. We have to have A DANGER THAT THREATENS TO OBLITERATE THE REALMS! We can't just have an Underdark adventure with some drow we need an INSANITY THAT THREATENS TO SHAKE THE FORGOTTEN REALMS TO ITS FOUNDATIONS! EXTREME! Similarly The Hobbit is loaded with EXTREME! scale. All the material taken from the appendices in LoTR about the necromancer, the fight at Dol Guldur and strategic importance that Smaug was killed never appeared in the text of The Hobbit. Instead of having what feels emotional experience where something we are kind of invested in as viewers or players, we have a retread of an overplayed theme. Superheroes out to save the world, again. They aren't motivated by their own interests, they are thwarting the interests of some bad guys because the bad guys are threatening to destroy the place where the good guys keep their stuff.

Tolkien's Hobbit, as it was originally published and conceived, is a story about an event that was very important to the characters involved in it. Though the Battle of Five Armies is important in the greater epic of the Third Age of Middle Earth, we don't get any of that in the novel itself.The slaying of Smaug and the battle further the story of how the little hobbit became a hero and the king of the dwarves learned a tragic lesson. The events were in service of the story. For Jackson, the story is service to the set pieces intended to make 14 year old boys say, EXTREME!This move towards always epic all the time has been paralleled in the modules published for 5E. All three adventures have a threat which, if the PC's fail, would result in rampant destruction in Faerun. The epic scale is built in to the assumptions the design team had in building the game as is evidenced by the following quote from the 5th Edition D&D Player’s Handbook: The Wonders of Magic page 8. “Many adventures are driven by the machinations of spellcasters who are hellbent on using magic for some ill end. A cult leader seeks to awaken a god who slumbers beneath the sea, a hag kidnaps youths to magically drain them of their vigor, a mad wizard labors to invest an army of automatons with a facsimile of life, a dragons begins a mystical ritual to rise up as a god of destruction- these are just a few of the magical threats that adventurers might face.” This sort of approach was not always so.
There were some classic D&D adventures with high stakes and heroism was, I think, the default assumption in the early days. Demonweb Pits and Temple of Elemental Evil are two examples but there was no assumption on the part of TSR that every published module had to end up with the PC's trying to save the world. There were plenty of modules where the adventurers just killed monsters and took their stuff. It was OK if they saved a village or made life a little easier for the guys guarding the borderlands. At the very highest level adventures, there were some threats which could be on the apocalyptic level but it wasn't the default assumption. Most of the adventures were with tough but adversaries that could be defeated by a group of adventurers that didn't resemble the Avengers. Which leads us to the second part of the EXTREME!

Rabbit sleds, dwarves that leap like Bollshoi ballerinas, orcs with big swords instead of arms (OK that was pretty cool), trolls with catapults on their backs and the list goes on an on. After a while, it all gets boring. If everything is EXTREME! it eventually becomes so ridiculous that the degree to which you have to suspend your disbelief is beyond your willingness. While 5E fixed a lot of those problems, it still has some elements where characters become superheros, more or less, at higher levels. This is a much bigger issue in 4E and 3E where I've heard DM's complain about how parties could kill Orcus in three rounds without loosing a single character. Even lower level characters have no fear of villagers in the more recent games where an OD&D character could be taken out by a tavern wench with a rolling pin.

I don't know if this is just me being a cranky middle aged dude telling the kids to get off my lawn but it seems like there is some room for RPG's where the scale is more focused on what ever is important to a small group of characters. The superhero PC's don't have to save the world from CHAOS every campaign. Campaigns of smaller scale and smaller scope have plenty of interesting events that PC's can become extremely important without blowing up the setting. So hey WoTC, lay off the EXTREME!


Second One

If you like this one better, send an email with the Subject "RHC" to zakzsmith AT hawt mayle. Don't put anything else in the email, I won't read it.

Psychic Powers are Ur-Magic
(or: one thing Rifts got very right!)


My thesis for this article is that psionic or psychic powers are a kind of Ur-Magic.  That is; creating an effect with only the power of your mind is a primal way to change the world.  This idea is the stone that lays the foundation for the majority of fantasy magic.

Most systems of magic in gaming share this core idea.  Magic in the Rifts setting is an excellent example of how to state this idea expressly and clearly.

Magic in Rifts is basically a variation on spell points.  It's a common reaction against the Vancian magic of previous games like D&D.  Points make things easier to track with a simple system of numbers instead of reams of paper and charts. The thing that interests me is the underlying explanation for those points.   The P.P.E. point system is a very direct explanation of how psychic power is the source of all magic.

I will take a brief look at a few other examples of this idea from popular culture before diving into why I think Rifts got it very right.  

Harry Potter

The Harry Potter series is probably the most widely popular example of fantasy magic to date.  The ideas that proliferate the series are not particularly original.  Witches fly on brooms, dragons breathe fire, and evil wizards wear black robes and serve a dark master.   Not ground breaking stuff, there.  The execution of those ideas is easy to get across because they are culturally familiar.

The example I want to illuminate for the thesis of this exercise is the source of a wizard's magic. Fully fledged wizards in that world all cast spells using wands, gestures, and incantations, but under that performative fluff is a core of willpower.  Take a look at the first descriptions of Harry using magic, from chapter two of the first book:  

Once, Aunt Petunia, tired of Harry coming back from the barbers looking as though he hadn’t been at all, had taken a pair of kitchen scissors and cut his hair so short he was almost bald except for his bangs, which she left “to hide that horrible scar.” Dudley had laughed himself silly at Harry, who spent a sleepless night imagining school the next day, where he was already laughed at for his baggy clothes and taped glasses. Next morning, however, he had gotten up to find his hair exactly as it had been before Aunt Petunia had sheared it off. He had been given a week in his cupboard for this, even though he had tried to explain that he couldn’t explain how it had grown back so quickly.

Another time, Aunt Petunia had been trying to force him into a revolting old sweater of Dudley’s (brown with orange puff balls). The harder she tried to pull it over his head, the smaller it seemed to become, until finally it might have fitted a hand puppet, but certainly wouldn’t fit Harry. Aunt Petunia had decided it must have shrunk in the wash and, to his great relief, Harry wasn’t punished.
His anxiety at being humiliated manifested in a magical effect.  There is no incanting, gesturing, or wand flicking.  His will is brought to bear on the situation he wants changed, and reality changes under that power.

A sign of exceptionally powerful wizards, is that they eventually come full circle.  Dumbledore is shown casting spells without use of a wand a couple of times.  For lesser wizards, losing a wand prevents them from performing magic altogether.  I would argue that this indicates a stronger connection to the psychic Ur-Magic that is a source of their reality bending powers. 

...............

You can see this idea permeate all sorts of popular depictions of magic or psychic power.   

In Star Wars the application of will is what gives more power to those individuals who can use The Force.  The scene where Yoda lifts the X-Wing from the swamp shows this exact thing.   Yoda has sufficient belief that his will can lift the spaceship from the muck whereas his student's mind was blocked by doubt.

Stephen King's "Carrie" also works this way.   Carrie White's psychic outbursts are more pronounced (and ultimately combustible) in direct proportion to the exertion of her will.  The application of greater mental force creates larger catastrophic effects.

Dungeons and Dragons psychic abilities sometimes use the exact mechanics of some spells.  In some versions of the game spellcasters can gain the ability to cast spells wordlessly using thought and gesture, or purely verbally without gesture or materials.  Closer to the pure psychic power of Ur-Magic.

Looking at one of the crunchier parts of the rules in 4E Dungeons and Dragons illustrates this single source, too.  Dispel Magic in fourth edition dispels effects based on their keywords instead of their source of origin.  It doesn't differentiate between a psychic effect and a magical one.  I would argue that this is because they both alter the world away from the mundane in the same way.

In the Dragon Age video games, it is dispelled in a similar way.  Templar characters can dispel magical effects by using a sort of reverse-magic.  They channel their will to assert reality in the face of magic, thereby turning it off.

White Wolf's magic:
There are a few different systems for magical powers in the various games that make up the World of Darkness.   Taking a brief look at three of them will show a continuum running from unfettered and free form powers on one end, to structured powers with specific expressions on the other.  
1.  Vampire    
Vampire is the most successful game from the World of Darkness.  The magical powers that vampires possess are all very specific.  Each power draws its source from Prime energy that is stored in the blood.  Each effect costs a certain amounts of blood points, and the effects progress in set increments.  Each increment has a proscribed list of what exactly it can do.   This is magic with the most levels of interference between the psychic power of pure will, and the expression of reality warping effects.

Those levels of interference make it easily gameable.  Filling in bubble sheets, tracking the points, and refilling your power reserves on yet another random hobo are all easy to track. It ultimately makes for a game that is easy to play.

2.  Mage 
One step removed from Vampire, is Mage.   In the magic system for Mage things are less codified, it is more malleable and the effects are open ended. 
"Reality is a work in progress; constant change keeps the universe alive.  Magick is the most dynamic example of change - the alteration of reality by enlightened force of will."  (Mage: The Ascension, Core Rule Book pg.6)
Each power still costs a certain amount of Quintessence (also called Tass), but the desired effects are not from a list. Instead the wizard makes them up on the spot from a range of Spheres they can influence. The description of Quintessence as the source of magic is described somewhat nebulously, but it is still communicated in terms of will or emotion.
"Most views regard Quintessence as an ever-fluctuating pool from which all creation arises and returns.  As a basic "life-force," it is often gathered by events of great passion and colored by those same emotions.  Sharper students realize that this means Awakened Ones are their own best source of Quintessence, with their Avatars providing the internal wellspring." (Ch.4, Pg.65)
Mage is tougher to play than a system of easy points and lists like Vampire or Rifts offers, but it has more flexibility once you know your way around the mechanics.

3.  Wraith 
Wraith: The Oblivion takes this idea and cranks it all the way up.  It was the least commercially successful game that White Wolf published.  It is the most difficult game to play or run, and it is also the closest thing to a representation of psychic Ur-Magic in the World of Darkness systems.   
In Wraith, players take on the aspect of a ghost with unresolved emotional issues (called Fetters).  They play through the game's goals to gain Passion points (called Pathos) to fuel their abilities.  They then use this magic to reach across from the afterlife and affect the physical world.  Ultimately the goal is to resolve the emotional Fetter that is keeping them from passing on.  Everything in the game revolves around emotional role playing, and applying the character's will to create the game's effects.  The playing field is almost entirely removed from the familiar physical world, and it this makes it much harder to gameify than any of the other systems.

...............

Rifts got it very right! 
(This includes a rehash of some Rifts basics, for those readers who may be unfamilliar with it, so bear with me if you're an old pro)

The point system that Rifts uses for its magic is called P.P.E., or Potential Psychic Energy.  It does exactly what it says on the label.
"PPE is the fuel that makes magic spells possible. In the past, nobody contained enough PPE within a single person to invoke it into a spell, but with the coming of the Rifts, vast amounts of Psychic Energy flood the earth, making it a readily available resource for those who can control it."
PPE is blatantly and directly emotional psychic energy.   The post-apocalyptic setting for Rifts is the explanation for where magic came from, and why the eponymous Rifts themselves are ripping open space.   

The short of it goes like this: 
Nukes fell, people died in agony, their collective psychic energy erupted all at once.  This activated the dormant Ley Lines around the world, which triggered cataclysms and tore open Rifts.  Those in turn killed more people, which released more PPE, and so on... and that was the apocalypse.

It has codified magic into a physical energy.   The Ley Lines even glow bright blue with it when seen at night. This power is harnessed and stored by spell casters inside their bodies, and they have a reserve of it that replenishes and grows as they train their wills.

It's easily gameable, it's quick to learn, and it communicates exactly the Ur-magic nature of mental power.

The psionic powers in Rifts work almost identically to the magical ones.   They use the same layout for psychic powers that they do for magic spells.   They have specific things they can do, unlike the vague Spheres in Mage.  Psionics advance much the same as spell casters, they have a parallel points system called ISP (Inner Strength Points) The two types of points are even largely interchangeable.  Psychic characters can power a wizard's magic devices with their ISP, though at double the cost.

Ur-Magic is an inversion of the worldview created by science.   No matter how hard you actually think at your teacup, it will not heat up.  No magical Force will enable your will to levitate your coffee mug above your desk.  But, in the fantasies we play, the Ur-magic powers bend the world in the same way.  Things blow up, reality bends, and the game is more fun than the mundane world we usually inhabit.
-
-
-

Princess of the Silver Palace by...a lot of people

$
0
0
So here's what we did:

You know that old TSR module Palace of the Silver Princess?  Y'know...


When she came it was as exile, descending from tempestuous night in a silver ship. She fled the collapse of her shining principality in the Immeasurable Abide, an implausibly vast agglomeration of paradisiacal cosms beyond the outer void. All she loved of her glittering homelands was consumed by the tyranny that lurks behind all tyrannies: by the Manifest Density which waits at the end of time. An agent of that creed, the Hegemon Ankylose Dysplasia , driven by colossal lust, sought pursuit beyond the Abide but was prevented by his preposterous gravitas and the girth of his pride from passing through the furled dimensions and on to the lesser cosms where the world hangs.

...that one?

Anyway, I farmed out every page to a different DIY D&D Blogger and we rewrote it--I'm shocked with how well it came out. You can use the old maps, but the key has been completely renovated with all new stuff.

Tom Middenmurk wrote a brand new freaky princess legend, Kelvin Green gave us some sweet picture map rooms, Stacy Dellorfano made the Princess' chambers seriously fucked up, Raggi dreamed up some incredibly elaborate ways to screw (or at least frustrate) your players, Humza invented some classy ghouls, James Mal made one of my favorite new trick rooms, and a whole lot more.

Free of course.

So check it here:
Princess of the Silver Palace
by
Tom "Middenmurk" Fitzgerald
David "Yoon Suin" McGrogan
Zzarchov "Neoclassical Geek Revival" Kowalski
Barry "actual Cockney" Blatt
Natalie "Revolution in 21 Days" Bennet"
James "I invented the phrase Gygaxian Naturalism. Sue me" Maliszewski
James Edward "Lotfp" Raggi IV
Trent "New Feierland" B
Humza "Legacy of the Bieth" Kazmi
Ramanan "I make all those cool online generators" S
Reynaldo "Break!" Madrinan
Kelvin "Forgive Us" Green
Daniel "Basic Red" Dean (thanks for picking up the slack on the folks who didn't have time to finish their pages)
Anthony "Straits of Anian" Picaro
Jensen "I talk to Paizo" Toperzer
Logan "Last Gasp" Knight
Kiel "Dungeons and Donuts" Chenier (thanks for the layout!)
Stacy "Contessa" Dellorfano
Patrick "Deep Carbon Observatory" Stuart
Scrap "Fire on the Velvet Horizon" Princess
Ken "Satyr Press" Baumann
and me a little bit


Oh and ps: the ghouls in Trent's last room were invented by Humza, the credits are a little wrong.
-
-
-

Der Giftschrank

$
0
0
So over on the 99% Invisible podcast* they have a whole episode about the history and functions of Der Giftschrank--"the poison cabinet"--which is not a low-hiss goth-industrial band (ok, probably by now it is, but anyway…) but a locked area in a library where restricted-access books are kept.

These things are not unheard of- in the kinds of fiction we make games from--there's the Forbidden Books section of the library in a Simpsons Halloween episode and if you read pulp horror novels from the 70s it's obvious the Vatican Library consists of nothing but evil devilbooks--but the existence of Giftschranke--and not just outright banned books--imply several interesting (and gameable) things that deserve to be looked at in more detail...

1. Ideas are dangerous

The concept of dangerous information is a commonplace--the Panama Papers, blackmailables, rocket fuel formulae, hoaxes, datatheft in Shadowrun, etc.--the concept of a dangerous idea, however is a lot more arcane and more fun. 

Outside concrete facts (real or fake) that people don't want other people to know or believe, there are a few ways ideas can be dangerous:

Heresies--This can run from the Phibionites to like Cthulhu worship.

Political propaganda--After WWII, Mein Kampf was placed in Der Giftschrank.**

Erotic works--Ideas upsetting to gender norms and whatnot or just, like, smutty pictures. Franz Von Bayros was in Der Giftschrank in the Yale art library.

Malculture--Ideas and images that are not overtly propagandistic but which are considered to make bad social practices seem desirable. During the Cold War, the East Germans kept American fashion magazines in Der Giftschrank. 

This last category is probably the most interesting and underexplored in game settings--because it speaks not to the kingdom's fear of evil clerics (been there), rival kingdoms (done that), or naughty bits (a cliche as old as Dragonmirth) but to the society's view of what makes itself different philosophically from its neighbors and what it thinks could destroy that. The Giftschrank says not only "we are not fashion magazines" but "we could be ruined by widespread dissemination of fashion magazines". What is in a setting's Giftschranke on cultural grounds tells you a lot about every single NPC from that setting and a lot about how PCs will be received.

Would Minas Tirith have Giftschranked literature depicting the joys of a simple rural life as undermining to the values of self-sacrifice and duty it demanded of young men holding the line against Mordor? Would The Hobbit itself have, therefore, been 'schranked?

Actually, probably not, because of one of the other interesting things about Giftschranke…
Poison Idea


2. The Society Thinks These Dangerous Texts Need To Be Studied

…I see Minas Tirith more as a book-burning town and Giftschranking isn't burning--or banning. The Giftschranke speaks to fear of ideas, true, but it also speaks to the admirable (per se) and sophisticated notion that even bad ideas need to be understood--all the better to combat them. Giftschranking restricts but does not prohibit access.

Reasons a culture might want to study 'Schranked texts:

Ulterior: Like secretly the Pope is a Chaos Cult member or jerks off to the saucy books. Like most hoary plot cliches, it's as dull in theory as it is useful in practice.

Forensic: If the authors of the dark text or their acolytes are yet among the living, the works may contain clues to hunting them down. Clearly the easiest schrankenmotiv to work into a game.

Scholarly: People just read this stuff to compile histories or studies or whatever. Suggests a relatively sophisticated culture where people have a lot of free time to do disinterested research. These kinds of individuals and institutions are unusual in fantastic settings (as they are in life) but can be a rich source of random gp-for-mcguffin fetch quests--again, as they are in life.

Rhetorical: This is mentioned in the podcast--reading a text makes it easier to refute its arguments. This is fun in a game because it suggests soft power and genuine persuasion are an engine in the setting rather than the more obviously gameable route of conversion by the sword. All across the kingdom there are clerics and monks explaining that rain can't be the tears of the Inestimable Cloud Titans because cloud titans are known to be warm-blooded and clearly…etc They make posters and have bake sales when they spread the word. The subtle permeations of propaganda can be fun because they are often unrecognizable as such at first. Like the Gnithians may be shocked to see that--counter to what they've been told for centuries-- elves do not actually fear water. 
Venomous Concept


3. Access To the Giftschranke Is Limited To The Worthy

Depending on the reason for the 'Schranking and the Gifting, access will be limited in one or more of the following ways:

Only the learned: A test of scholarship is implied.

Only the good: Tests of ideological or behavioral purity are implied.

Only the great: Signs of status and influence are required.

Only the initiated: Signs of membership are required.

Tests are always interesting in games, as they provide excuses for challenges, while signs of status or membership are effectively mcguffins to be chased. Also: all of this implies guards, security, etc, like around any treasure in any dungeon.



4. The contents of Giftschranke change

Regime change alters the contents of the Giftschranke--Germany's went from being heretical texts, then to pornography then to Nazi literature. The history of Der Giftschrank is a history of what the biggest monster is at any given moment.

So: you dig deep into the dungeon, fireball your way past the ancient reptile women and long-dormant golems, pick the lock and find…only books. But what's in those books tells you about that society's vulnerabilities.



5. Giftschranke can be virtual

The podcast notes that a new critical edition of Mein Kampf is coated with scholarly glosses debunking its arguments and providing historical context, calling this "a virtual Giftschranke". In college my epic lit teacher's copy of the Bible came the same way. 

The strategy of presenting a despised text through a scrim of critical thought which undermines or at least redirects interpretation of that text is an old one--the word "gloss" itself begins with margin notes on Bibles (and ends with the ironic quote tweet and Something Awful.com's shitty FATAL and Friends thread--where game books the SA harassment clique don't like are hateread under the protective fiction that all the books they don't like are somehow like FATAL). The idea of a dangerous text being circulated with these interpolations intact literally adds a new layer to the concept of the Eldritch Tome--you get the text, but you also might get who knows how many other mothers telling you what it means to the Snailmen, to the Shell People, to the Ranks of Khaine.

Even today, asking yourself what a society refuses to disseminate without commentary ("without context") attached tells you a lot about its values.



6. There is a moral and/or intellectual class system

In examining the philosophy of the Giftschrank note these four things:

A. There are dangerous texts
B. There is a kind of person for whom the text is not dangerous (it is for their perusal the books are preserved)
C. There is a kind of person for whom it is (they are not allowed in or are presumed not to have those intellectual tools)
D. The second kind of person is, nevertheless, still enough part of the society that they are welcome to read its other books

Person C is not interpreted as the enemy--after all, they are free to access the rest of the library. They are citizens, but second class. They are the ruled, but not the rulers. They can't handle the truth--but they are welcome to join the infantry, till a field, pay the taxes that create the Giftschrank that excludes them. The actual enemy is out there (they wrote the book) but they are a wolf, and the second, protected, class are sheep--someone you have commerce with- but are suspicious of-. These are the gullible and persuadable, the ones for whom ideas are truly dangerous, but who are nevertheless too useful to exile to the world of the evil. In all societies this class must include literate children, but it's most interesting and frightening when this class includes adults--who are allegedly legally and morally responsible for their own actions.

Only in the light of a malleable-but-not-anathematized class does the concept of "a dangerous idea" even makes sense--and in that same light the giftschrank's suspicion of democracy is made clear.***

Whose needs does the existence of this lesser class serve? The feudal monarch's, obviously, also the capitalist's (someone has to buy Crocs)--this can push worldbuilding away from seeing the society as a monoculture, with all the Shadow Dwarves privy to the same education.

This institutionalized condescension also makes 'schranked works extremely valuable--not necessarily to the sheep to whom PCs or malefactors might deliver them, but as a hostage. What ransom would a pope pay to keep Docetism off the streets?

Come to think of it--might be a good funding model for LotFP.
-
-
-
*Thanks for the recommendation, Ram

**The podcast notes that in Austria, inspection is still forbidden to minors and goths.

***The profoundly goofy and profoundly conservative philosopher Leo Strauss held that all philosophy was essentially dangerous in the hands of the masses (thus Hitler, thus Stalin) and that no 'Schrank was schrank enough to keep the Gift away from them--yet still they must be ruled. Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Bork were big fans.


Maze of the Blue Medusa is now available for pre-orders

$
0
0
click to enlarge

259 pages--full color--7.5" w x 9" h--that's bigger than Red & Pleasant Land so you can see the detail in the maps.

Go to http://gum.co/motbm-pre to buy the Hardcover + PDF bundle, go to http://gum.co/motbm-simple to buy the Simple PDF.

Also, a Deluxe PDF—hyperlinked throughout for ease of use & exploration for GMs and readers—is in the works now (it'll cost $10 if you purchase it alone). If you order the Hardcover + Simple PDF bundle available today ($50 + shipping) but wanna upgrade to the Hardcover + Deluxe PDF bundle available soon, you'll pay only the difference.

-
-
-

Elven Snowflakes v Better Than Dracula

$
0
0
Here is a pair of entries for the Thought Eater DIY RPG Essay Tournament.

If you're new to the contest, it's like this: these two essays are not by me--they're by a pair of anonymous DIY RPG writers who were both assigned to write something interesting and original about hoary old RPG topics.

Anybody reading is eligible to vote for which one you like best and voting will be cut off once all the votes for all the second round Thought Eater essays are up...

The rules for the second round are here.

First One


If you like this one better, send an email with the Subject "VED" to zakzsmith AT hawt mayle. Don't put anything else in the email, I won't read it.



On Tokenism [Elven Snowflakes]

There are two humans, an elven archer, and a dwarf with an axe, preparing for battle. Sixty feet of terrain - shrubs, rocks, trees, and a shallow stream - are all that stands between them and an orcish war party, brandishing deadly melee weapons as they charge. “So, what topic are you writing on?” Tolkien? 4e? Warhammer?

“So what? You’re saying elves and orcs are similar in different fantasy genres?” Maybe. “That’s the least original thing ever written on the internet.” Try and stay awake, I’ve got a point to make but I’m not sure what it is yet and we’re taking the scenic route to get there. 

I.
Tolkien’s dwarves, elves, orcs, hobbits, they’re the archetype, the ideal, yes, of course, when fantasy becomes a genre fantasy elves are like Tolkien’s elves, and so of course when D&D becomes a fantasy game it has elves like fantasy elves like Tolkien’s elves…

“Where are you going with this, exactly?” Let’s start with a thought exercise. Imagine an arbitrary elf. “Got it.” Is it a Warhammer elf, or a Tolkien elf, or a D&D elf? “Well, it could be any of them, but I thought you said that wasn’t the point.” Right, let’s get specific, imagine an arbitrary Tolkien elf. “Easy.” Ten grand says you just imagined Legolas. “Lucky guess.” Right, so imagine two arbitrary Tolkien elves, or five, or ten. How are they different? “Well, some of them are female.” Ah, now we’re getting somewhere.

II. 
Smarter people than me have already written extensively about this next part, so I’ll be brief: we use symbols a lot, all the time, in everything; symbols and caricatures are useful for quickly familiarizing ourselves with unusual situations/places/whathaveyou (e.g. fantasy worlds); fantasy draws heavily on stereotypes (say, Tolkien elves) because as cultural / mythological symbols they are a shorthand that carries a lot of subtext, we can say “ah, an elf, I know what elves are like”. Zak may have already written an article on this, or was it Nietzsche? 

By way of example I will say only that I have referenced “Tolkien elves” extensively so far, without identifying a single characteristic of what it means to be a Tolkien elf, and I guarantee everyone reading this knows exactly what I’m talking about. Hang on to this thought, I’ll be coming back to it.

III. 
“So what exactly are you writing on?” Good question, alright, thesis statement: Tolkien’s characters were caricatures even before they became archetypes, that is, the now-iconic fantasy races (orc, elf, dwarf, ‘halfling’) as he envisioned them are too shallow to be anything but stereotypes. “So what, Tolkien was being racist? Still not original.” No, well yes, he was, but no that’s not the point, he didn’t just make these archetypes that everyone used, he obliterated any possibility of creating something else, he killed the words he used for his races (elf, dwarf), he killed the word race. I mean, yes, people let’s say “generalized” about other cultures [races] in real life, but this was the 20th century, people could be racist but even when they thought that a race had tendencies they knew they weren’t all the same person; but Tolkien simplified the concept of “race” so far that he is single-handedly responsible not only for the human-centric nature of fantasy but also the incredible shallowness of most fantasy characters that plagued the genre throughout most of its life. “Fantasy doesn’t have shallow characters.” Count yourself lucky, you never had to suffer through what passed for fantasy characters before The Black Company came along and authors realized that a world could have magic and plot both, and if you even think of trying to tell me that fantasy is not human-centric we are going to have a problem, no, Drizz’t doesn’t count, and anyway in a magical world where literally anything is possible half his companions are human.

IV.
Obvious statement time: elves existed in fantasy before Tolkien, and were not like elves after Tolkien. “We know.” It’s good to see these things written out, even if they’re obvious, this next one will drive it home: before Tolkien, elves were a “unified race” in the sense we think of in fantasy e.g. they all shared a bunch of characteristics, were not human, had their own ‘kingdom’, etc. but also, they were not all the same - elves were magical, and not of this world, but meeting one elf didn’t tell you a whole lot about what the next elf would be like, that was part of the mystique, you never knew, is this elf dangerous? Helpful? Mischievous? Getting lost in fey woods meant asking yourself, Am I going to come out of this alive? With a lei of lilies around my neck? Or with a donkey’s head? 

All of which is going a very long way to say, it’s not that Tolkien’s elves are too similar to D&D elves, it’s that Tolkien’s elves are too similar to Tolkien’s elves. 

V.
“Isn’t that a tautology?” Bear with me, we’re jumping back to symbolism for a bit; “The symbolism of Tolkien’s elves?” No, the symbolism of the word elves, in different contexts; it’s not that Tolkien reinvented the concept of an elf (which of course he did, but that’s not the point), it’s that he defined it too precisely:

If we are talking Shakespeare (which in this context draws heavily on Celtic mythology) and I say elf, you think “magic, mystery, danger”, you think Titania and Oberon and Puck and any one of them has the power to kill you but they’re too busy chasing each other with magic flowers, the word elf in this context is broad, it’s a handful of big symbols, and that means you can have a Titania and an Oberon and a Puck and they’re all very different, some of them can fly and some can’t, some of them are invisible, they have their own realm that’s part of our world but not and only specific rituals can get you in, but there’s room for a bunch more rituals and a bunch more elves and a bunch more stories about elves and you can make up your own elf that acts however you want and is still an elf and still fits in with the other elves because the elves are a people, a race of people, not a race of person, singular.

But if we talk Tolkien (and by extension, D&D, all fantasy) and I say elf you think “longbow, dual-wielding, austere, lives in the trees, ancient, detached, mildly xenophobic”, which is to say that the word “elf” doesn’t make you think of some cultural similarities the way e.g. “French” does, it makes you think of a specific person, and you’re not wrong to do so; all the elves have those characteristics, yes there’s a Legolas and an Elrond and a Galadriel but an elf by any other name...they’re interchangeable, the symbol is too strong and too specific, they all have the same strengths and the same flaws, just to greater or lesser degrees, it’s the same person over and over again, and it’s why fantasy stories focus on humans, or skip characterization entirely, because “elf’ is already the entire character, there’s no room to go deeper, and it’s why when I say “Tolkien elves”, or D&D elves, or Warhammer elves, I don’t have to explain what I mean or give them names, they’re all the same person, Tolkien elves are all Legolases, and D&D elves all have +2 Dexterity, and Warhammer elves even have interchangeable pieces.

VI.
If I had a dollar for every time an author told me how lithe an elf was, I’d never need to work again; and yet not once, not even one time, has an elf been “bulky”, or “fat”, or “rotund”, you’d think with hundreds of authors fighting for this space someone would want to be original, but they can’t, if they want to stand out the elf uses a gun or has dark skin but the symbol is so strong that when they ask the question “how can I, an author with limitless power over my world, make this elf unique” all they can think to do is change what he’s holding; and that’s because they are asking the wrong question, the word “elf” is a trap, and it stands always in Tolkien’s shadow. 

I will wager everything I have that not only will Wizards of the Coast never, ever, ever put out an illustration of an Elven powerlifter or a Dwarf-Raistlin, it will never even occur to them to do so. This is not a complicated (or even, dare I say, original?) concept - it’s the very simplest inversion of the trope - but the symbol is so specific that it’s fragile, Dark Sun has planet killing magic and Eberron has sci-fi spaceships and they’re still D&D, but if you put out a D&D sourcebook where the cover shows an elf with a bodybuilder’s physique and a cigar it breaks the symbolism, the shared understanding of what game we’re playing, and now it’s a radical statement about masculinity or feminism or something but it’s definitely making a statement, in your face and on purpose, you can’t look at that picture without thinking that’s not an elf, I guess elves are all cigar-smoking jocks in this adventure, why did they make elves into something they’re not?

VII. 
I’ve read the books twice, I’m literally watching The Two Towers right this second as I write this to see if it helps, and Lord help me even while they’re on the screen right in front of me I couldn’t tell you which of the hobbits is Merry and which is Pippin. 

VIII.
Final thoughts: first rule of D&D blogging is if you’re going to make people sit through your ravings offer them something they can take back to the table in exchange, so here it is: break the cycle. Tolkien elves are slender and good with bows, so D&D elves get “good with bows”, so when a player sits down and wants to use a bow they end up with an elf; Tolkien orcs are good with axes, so D&D orcs get “good with axes”, so if a player wants to use an axe they end up with a (half) orc, who’s going to pass up those sweet stat bonuses just to be original when the game is explicitly telling them which race is better? “I play a gnome barbarian”. Your party hates you. 

This is going to be controversial, standard DIY D&D “this won’t work for everyone” disclaimers apply, but I feel very strongly that the play experience is improved by decoupling racial bonuses from race, call it something else, “training bonuses”, your players will thank you. Let them play an elf character with the dwarven racial traits, or an orc character with the halfling racial traits. “It doesn’t make sense for an orc to be able to hide behind a gnome.” That same orc can summon a magical floating hand, is so good at crime that he can steal prepared spell slots, and that’s the part you want to complain about? I promise you, everything I have, your players will have fun explaining how they got their ‘racials’, they’ll be more invested in their characters, and they’ll have more fun. 


If nothing else, the next elf your players roll up will be a little more memorable.



Second One


If you like this one better, send an email with the Subject "IHP" to zakzsmith AT hawt mayle. Don't put anything else in the email, I won't read it.



Cooler than Dracula

Spoiler Alert: There will be spoilers regarding Ravenloft (module I6), and this will be your only warning, so if you continue reading, do so freely, and of your own will.

Ravenloft (module I6) by Tracy and Laura Hickman, is a classic AD&D adventure starring Count Strahd von Zarovich, the first vampire, who longs for the woman that he loved and killed. Strahd dominates Ravenloft both in the adventure and on the gaming table. He is certainly the master of the land, but the Hickmans also made him the master of the adventure. Strahd, the authors inform us, must be kept alive for the sake of the story (Ravenloft, page 2) until it is time to kill him, yet Strahd’s strategic options are quite limited (Ravenloft, page 3), likely to protect the party from him since Strahd’s audience needs to survive too1 in order to witness the fall of Strahd, the romantic, brooding, tragic, brilliant wizard-vampire dark hero of this story. The familiar and correct critique of Ravenloft is that Ravenloft is indeed Strahd’s story, and that the adventure as written manipulates the PCs in order to tell Strahd’s tale of woe2.

This manipulation includes the PCs receiving a letter pleading for help that the PCs are assumed to rush off to (Ravenloft, page 7) without any pause for investigation, doubt. or preparation. Another example of the manipulation was mentioned earlier: Strahd, according to the authors, must live since the adventure ends with him, and yet Strahd  is so powerful that if his strategic options were not greatly limited, he would simply destroy the PCs. The Vistani are another example. Madame Eva tells the PCs the truth when she reads their fortunes, since this  furthers the objectives of the story, even though she is “very neutral” and “serves Strahd as long as it benefits her and her troupe” (Ravenloft, page 11). There is simply no reason for her to read the PCs fortunes and tell them the truth about Strahd’s location and the location of important items. If the PCs fail, Strahd (the genius) will likely deduce that Madame Eva gave the PCs the information, and Strahd will kill Madame Eva and perhaps all the Vistani. If the PCs succeed, the Vistani will lose a powerful benefactor. Since the Vistani have the ability to leave Ravenloft when they like, they have no need to kill Strahd or to help others do so in order to escape him, and lying to the PCs, and then warning Strahd, would likely earn them a reward. 

Unfortunately, the familiar and correct critique stops short of being useful. Ravenloft is manipulative. So what? People still enjoy it. The truth is, however, that more people would enjoy it if it were less manipulative, and the irony is that although Ravenloft, is manipulative, it does not need to be manipulative in order to create a gothic, horror experience for the PCs, out of which a gothic horror story can emerge, and fixing Ravenloft to remove the manipulation is quite simple.

One fix involves going back to the original source: Dracula. The fearless vampire hunters in Dracula know something about vampires, thanks to Van Helsing. Dracula is reluctant to simply attack them head on, despite his superior strength, due to their preparation and due to his being on foreign soil. The PCs could have a Van Helsing of their own, whether a PC who knows a lot about vampires, or an NPC sage, or the village priest who has been protecting Ireena. 

In addition, just as Dracula felt vulnerable on foreign soil (I believe Dracula would have been much more aggressive in Transylvania), Strahd needs to feel vulnerable too. Rather than have artificial restrictions on his attacks, Strahd should be careful for good reason. For the fragment of the Sunsword that the PCs possess (of course they do) might be a lesser but still potent version of the whole sword, and thus Strahd does not want to face it in a fight unless he absolutely must.

Something else that could make Strahd vulnerable, protect the PCs a bit, and add to the gothic mood would be to give Ireena insight into her past life as Tatyana. In fact, a PC could be the reincarnated version of Tatyana or Sergei, both of whom Strahd mourns greatly. As the reincarnated Tatyana or Sergei gets closer to Strahd, more memories resurface, and the PC gains valuable insight into how to fight Strahd.

The Vistani would make much more sense in the adventure if they were dissatisfied with Strahd for some reason. Perhaps he takes Vistani too when he feeds, and for this reason, Madame Eva does tell the truth when she gives the PCs their reading, but, also for this reason, she does not allow her fellow Vistani to share or sell to the PCs the potion that protects them from the mists. She wants Strahd dead, she wants to keep her connection to Ravenloft, but she does not want her people endangered. 

These are not the only changes that could be made to Ravenloft, but these changes would involve minimal alterations to the text of the adventure, and they would provide in-game reasons for what had once been contrivances. Ravenloft has had a  well-deserved reputation of putting story above player agency, but it has also earned its reputation as a fun, classic adventure. Those of us who criticize a great work owe it to ourselves and to other fans of it to improve it, rather than simply repeat the same critique over and over again.


1.This point was made clear in House of Strahd, module RM4, a revised version of Ravenloft.

2.This is often expressed as “railroading,” but that term is used too loosely. 
-
-
-

Why There's No Tabletop RPG Theory

$
0
0

Video games get Bartle Types, we get this guy.

Theory Is Inevitable

Video games make a lot of money, and now even boardgames do. Money means colleges create majors in the thing that makes that money. Those majors require teachers who can explain not just the narrow technical skills underlying specific iterations of the thing, but the principles that broadly apply to any form of the thing. These principles will be written down. So: Theories of games are inevitable.

Tabletop RPGs like D&D don't make a lot of money but they are as essential a part of any theory or practice that covers video games and boardgames as theatre is to the much more lucrative world of film. Film theory ends up saying a lot about performance and thus theatre, likewise, a theory which can't explain tabletop RPGs is not a theory of games.

The theories that will develop to explain games will be used on tabletop games, whether you want them to be or not.

Which is good for theory, because tabletop RPGs punch a hole in the side of any attempt to keep a general ideas about games clean and symmetrical. Tabletop RPGs are an important outlier: "In games, you have limited choices--oh wait no you don't", "The rules of the game can't change in the middle--oh wait yes they can". Tabletop RPGs keep theorists of play honest--if your theory can describe what they do, they can describe a lot of what games in general do.
-
-
-

You aren't obligated to care about theory, but...

What does it look like when a field is described by a theory it doesn't care about?

I'm a painter for a living and have been for a long time. I feel fairly confident saying my field is full of artists making art that is then described and evaluated by theories none of these artists care about. And to be honest, it's kinnnnd of a shitshow.

The artists aren't stupid, but what they have to say is largely ignored by decisionmaking moneypeople in favor of gatekeepers who are, if not versed in theory, at least versed in the buzzwords and intellectual niches that theory creates. You essentially cannot productively discuss contemporary art in any public way because nobody even agrees on the terms of the conversation. The public is so shut out of that conversation that a person will stand right in front of a painting and say "I don't know very much about art so I don't know if it's good or not" in a way they never would with a movie or a song. The conversation is, in short, not serving anyone. 

So maybe you don't care about theories of games--but if you play, theories of games care about you. And you might live long enough that this fucks your shit up.
So, here is the question:

Where would tabletop RPG theory come from?


1. Academia


True story:

I've met a bunch of people who teach RPGs at major universities, but this one was different because I did not meet this one (who I'll call The Academic) because they liked my RPG stuff or wanted me to talk to their students.

At some point somewhere I was talking to a clique of Indie gamers--mostly diaspora from the Forge scene (the early capital-I Indie RPG site which would lead to stuff like Fate, Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Story Games.com, etc)--that the Academic was closely associated with, The Academic asked me to private-message them so we could have a conversation about games in private.

This conversation was over 30,000 words long and at least half were The Academic's--for comparison that's about the length of a 150-page novel. It lasted months.

Then we met up in real life, talked more, had coffee and pizza, then the Academic hugged me and said they loved me. Like platonically, but the actual word "love" was used.

Some bullet points from this conversation:
  • The Academic is upset at how many people in the Indie tabletop RPG scene pretend to be theorists and to have scientific authority while not using any of the genuine tools of social science or being up on any of the theories of games that've actually been tested.
  • The Academic has played with a lot of the Indie gamers and decided they were "terrible players" and decided they didn't seem to actually play games enough or pay attention when they were playing and they acted like they could talk their way into being better designers or players.
  • The Academic had "very strong negative feelings about the Forge and (some of) its offshoots, particularly Story-Games. "
  • When I pointed out specific shitty things that specific major Indie scenesters The Academic was associated with had said, The Academic agreed they were shitty and said, of one of them, "I see ___destroy a lot of potentially interesting conversations with people I'd like to talk to because of how [s/he] communicates" and that they were "not someone I'd invite into any conversation I wanted to stay nuanced or productive."
  • The Academic admitted that they were trying to politely groom said conversation-annihilating scenester into being more useful and added that The Academics motives for doing this were: "completely self-serving." 
  • The Academic admitted they did not voice these concerns to anyone in the Indie scene because the Academic was considering writing, academically, about the Indie scene and didn't want to burn bridges.
  • "You have no idea what a relief it is to say these things to someone."
The next time I saw The Academic doing anything online, they were back to palling around with-, and helping-, the same Indie gamers they'd complained to me about, endorsing the most bigoted parts of the Indie RPG drama club and saying, in public, the complete opposite of what The Academic had said in private.

The moral of this story? Well there's a lot of them, but one is that every "academic" in tabletop RPG theory is down in the same internet trenches with everyone else--mainly because without the RPG internet there's no connection between academia and the designers or games. If the RPG academics have theories genuinely separate from what you hear on the web, they're refusing to share them and so they don't matter because no designer will ever make anything based on them and no players will take them into account.


2. From Full Time RPG Designers Writing About Theory

...by which I mean Robin Laws.

Most full-time designers are always busy designing and hustling--except Robin Laws, who has time to write theory. Monte Cook, Mike Mearls, Mark Rein-Hagen--they're mostly like Fuck that. Like sometimes Kenneth Hite will talk about a theoretical thing for like 3 minutes on the podcast he has with Laws before getting back to researching the role of the Hohenzolleren family in the manufacture of Bavarian duck-hunting rifles but that's about it. His heart lieth not there.

Laws is an ok start, he accurately identifies the variety of motives for play, but he weirdly believes all tabletop RPG play is escapist and his designs kind of bear out an obsession with the idea that the point of tabletop is copying previously existing story media (GUMSHOE being an obvious example: the game's designed to "make players feel powerful" and is pretty clearly designed around making railroading and "path" adventures easier). Gotham will not last with Robin alone.

So into this mainstream professional theory vacuum have hurled the random internet rubes--that is non- and part-time designers, and oh, how we have hurled.


2. Snark



This review of Superman Vs Batman is great. It's not helpful, useful, or arguably even particularly insightful--it's just well-written. It is written in a delirious ecstasy of hate--and that's what makes it so fun.

"Batman has a motivation and – contrary to what you may have read – it’s a perfectly valid one. He hated Man of Steel. He’s watched it fourteen times and he’s just had enough of it. He’s the only person involved in the whole project, on screen and off, who actually wants to rip the power cord out of the whole franchise."

As a genre, the Ecstatic Hatewatch is not accurate or fair (Batman has not, for example, seen Man of Steel, this sentence, for example: "It’s awful but so is everything" cannot be true). The Ecstatic Hatewatch tries to get by on pure literary talent and the fact that the object of criticism is so vile that a real-world response based on loathing-borne distortion and a real-world response based on even the most nuanced take possible would have no practical difference. i.e. Whether you're reading Nixon's public record or reading Hunter S Thompson's Hatereads of Nixon, the answer is impeach the guy--thus justifying the liberties with reality the Hateread takes.

At the end you do wonder, though: I know why Thompson had to watch Nixon--why did this guy have to watch this movie? And all the other superhero movies and shows he apparently watched and hated?

The answer is so he can write this piece of extended genius snark about it. Topical snark, too--people, ironically, read that review for the same reason people went to see the movie: people already decided Superman and Batman are interesting as subjects so they went and saw Superman vs Batman and they read that piece of writing because it's about that movie everyone's talking about.

And why write it? So people will read it, and pay attention to you and then you can trade that attention for one of the many rewards, tangible and intangible, that you can trade attention for--like money.

While not all Ecstatic Hatereads are this good--it will not have escaped your attention that the RPG internet has this dynamic in motherfucking spades. For example: 7th Sea designer John Wick's recent Ecstatic Hateread of Tomb of Horrors was widely circulated and widely discussed and widely regarded (rightly or wrongly doesn't really matter) as a way to grab attention before his recent Kickstarter, and at least one participant in Something Awful's trolly RPG group has explicitly considered monetizing their Ecstatic Hateread thread, FATAL and Friends:


The snarky Hateread is thus published not to find anything out but for its own sake. Like all snark, it's not useful because its accountability is--when push comes to shove and facts get checked--to its own entertainment value rather than to the truth.


3. The Stuff That Calls Itself Theory...


Translation: "Coherent"="Good Hippie Indie Game"
"IGT"="Game By Satanic Devil Minion Others"

If you google "rpg theory" Indie RPG scenester stuff comes up--the Forge and its predecessors and spawn sprawl across the threshold of any idea of "RPG theory" like plague corpses across a doorway.

The meeting grounds for dissaffected soon-to-be Indie theorists were a product of the early internet--fans of things getting connected to other fans of things, realizing they have experiences in common, sharing for the first time, finding goals, collaborating for the first time.

A lot of the earliest web discussion about games was like the web discussion about everything else: snark--i.e. psychotics using anonymity to shit on people for liking Picard more than Kirk or Kirk more than Picard. Sites like The Forge and rec. art.whatever that came up with the Threefold Model were Circles of Seriousness partially (and only partially successfully) designed to wall off their discussions from the snark brigade.

The actual theories devised in these places aren't that important today (though the games are and whatever else you don't like about them you can say: they seem to like them), but the way these social conglomerates dealt with the theories very much is.

Ron Edwards' popular GNS theory is an object lesson, there's a lot to say about what's wrong with the GNS but let's stick with the biggest bullet wounds:
  • Vincent Baker--the most successful postForge designer--has disavowed it.  He's said it was valuable for helping to develop the idea of Narrativism as a goal some players had (the idea that some people's main goal was to have a satisfyingly 3-part-dramalike in-game story emerge from the game--an idea that had eluded the authors of the earlier Threefold Model) but that's all.
  • So has (lowkey) pretty much everyone else. Although people still use the lingo, every single other proponent of it (besides Ron Edwards, the guy who invented it) I've seen talk about to in the last decade goes "Well ok, it was wrong but it helped me personally" or just starts trolling whoever brought it up (ie: Snark).  If there's anyone who still believes it besides Ron Edwards and can answer questions about it I have never seen them anywhere on the internet (feel free to speak up in the comments if you know something I don't).
  • It has no objective diagnostics or repeatibility. The theory describes 3 kinds of Creative Agendas in games-- "Gamist""Narrativist" and "Simulationist" and Edwards claims a game could only pursue one Agenda during any given instance of play. Edwards can't describe any diagnostic that another human who wasn't Ron could use to tell which of the three Agendas play was moving toward, or how to measure if it was "only" pursuing that one agenda or whether different people were having different kinds of fun reinforced simultaneously in contravention of the theory.
  • It fails the basic requirements of a scientific theory. A scientific theory should be able to describe an experiment which could disprove it--Edwards can't do that.
The failure of the tabletop RPG theory that was nearly synonymous with tabletop RPG theory to make sense, much less be a theory, is kind of a drag but in itself it's no worse than the drawbacks of Laws' ideas. The real problem is the culture that it implied and engendered, because it affects how everyone in tabletop RPGs views the word "theory".

While Laws is a professional mixing mostly with professionals--in private, at conventions, etc, staying out of the internet foam and fracas that is going to produce the generation of game designers that will eventually replace him--the Indie theorists were- and are- deep in it, and this was-, and still is-, disastrous. 

People have dumb ideas on the internet all the time. The specific and exceptional (exceptional, i.e.--not shared by any other clique of RPG designers and fans anywhere ever) problem with this dumb idea is a result of four specific characteristics of the theory:
  • A) It pretends to be science.
  • B) It isn't.
  • C) It was popular with a relatively close-knit clique of people.
  • D) These people with whom the theory is popular went on to design and critique games and become influential members of the Indie RPG scene.
There is no other idea about RPGs that shares all of these characteristics simultaneously. The ideas held by the D&D 3.5-obsessives at The Gaming Den, for instance, have maybe A and B and arguably C going for them but no hint of D. C is pretty rare in itself--the level of tight-knitness the postForge displays is pretty much unheard-of outside people all working at the same company. 

(Incidentally: the postForge Indies constantly deny being a clique or having a common culture despite the fact that a quick look at the roster for like the Metatopia con or who is Patreoning who confirms that none of the major scene designers or talkers are more than a single degree of Bacon away from any of the others and looking at the credits for their games shows most of them work together all the time. Vincent Baker--as in so many things--is an exception  to this general state of denial. He's like Yeah we know and influence each other and are conflict-averse hippies.)

It's important to note that--especially now--not all or even most of the talk of the postForge was about the theory and many people probably never believed it.  The vital part is: the quality of the discussion in the clique was so bad that for over a decade nobody in that clique ever pointed out that the theory made no sense and there's no accountability for being completely wrong. 

To do game theory, you have to do science, and to do science, when someone goes "So what's the evidence?" you can't go: "Sorry, kids came home! Nice talking to you!""Clearly there are a lot of opinions here! Let's sink this thread for now!""This isn't a courtroom, I don't need evidence!""Hey I like your books, man, relax!""Listen I like D&D, I'm not attacking D&D." or any of the other inane deflections you get every time you ask most of the major Indie theorists about the real-world basis of any of their ideas.

(When I said this culture has been disastrous I mean it--theory aside, folks from this scene have fallen for every hoax that trolling and paranoia could cook up. Mail I got from A Very Very Major Game Designer after the post 5th edition D&D harassment campaign that raged through the Indie scene: "Basically, I keep getting 'Zak hates gays and women' and when I ask for proof, people suddenly shut the fuck up...I've had people cite the blog post you linked to, and when I pressed them to actually read it they were like, "Oh, well, I was told he said something nasty, maybe not." It's been eye opening for a few people." but--even more tellingly--the ones who don't fall for these hoaxes and don't buy these conspiracy theories don't call for any accountability on the part of the ones who do--and keep Patreoning and Kickstarting them.)

A good theory does not have to answer every person that challenges it (like: if someone is an MRA, nothing compels you to talk to them), but it does have to answer every question that challenges it (theory can articulate what its assumptions are), detached from the asker. Indie theory is peddled by people who use their right to not do the first thing to avoid their responsibility to do the second thing. Except Vincent Baker--but unless he's in a really good mood, he doesn't actually point out to his friends(/customers) that he actually totally disagrees with them--and to some degree he's monetized even hearing what his game ideas are, via Patreon, and will explicitly say talking theory is a form of advertisement for his stuff--so not much real public discussion can come out of it.

Also, if you don't know tabletop RPGs--isn't it weird how easy it is to point out specific names? The scene is that small.

In the end, the postForge's life as a theory factory was the victim of its own desire to produce self-supported Indie-darling designers and its success doing so. In a scene whose talkative core is 2-3000 people, the demands of selling shit are incompatible with the demands of calling people on their shit, and decent theory requires that second thing.


4. Smarm 

But RPGs are always small--why was the Forge/post-Forge/Story Games/ Indie/Theoryhead scene particularly bad? As The Academic said "...somehow the Forge particularly bugs me because they are simultaneously disgustingly insular/ignorant and want to be treated as important and meaningful by others."

The Indies did not master anything to do with games. What they did master was a language of seriousness.

Once a language of seriousness was established to talk about bad theories of games and sometimes good ideas for actually making and distributing games, that same language spread all over the online RPG scene and was used for discussions aspiring to all kinds of seriousness:
  • Activist. We're gonna set goals having to do with making games and changing the game community and we're gonna achieve them!
  • Financial. We're gonna give you the straight dope on how to get your games out there!
  • Creative. We're gonna take games seriously as art and push the boundaries of what the form can do!
  • Intellectual. Every observation about games, no matter how unconsciously taste-based or ass-pulled is couched as if it were part of a vast project of Expanding The Design Vocabulary!
  • Moral. The fact that everyone reading you agrees with your white middle-class moderate-left political preferences in every way should not stop you from reminding them what they are every day! And announcing your super-conservative game design promotes them!
  • Interpersonal. "Well I just think it's interesting that while some of us are attempting to communicate legitimate criticism, some of us are…" (passive aggression passive aggression passive aggression)
This language was about using platitudes to claim moral high ground--and it worked. Boring other gamers kept them away from anything called Theory for years--as well as all their other high-minded discussions. They just said "Well I ain't worried about theory an' issues of expression an' representatin' I'm worried about killin' orcs waaaa hoooo!" and crawled off across the low ground to have their low fun.
-
-
-
Here's some theory about game-mastering from Burning Wheel designer Luke Crane:
All of the games talk about fun and fairness, enjoyment and entertainment, but then they break that cycle by granting one member of the group power over all of the other members of the group. It's classic power dynamics. Once you have roles of power and powerless, even the most reasonable and compassionate people slide into abuse. [source]
So: All game-mastering by definition always leads to abuse. An adult with a job said that.

Now--and this is in no way a joke, I mean this--the only appropriate response to this is that everyone who reads it tries to get in touch with Luke Crane's friends and they very gently ask Luke if he's feeling okay and if he might want to seek out professional help.

In case you think Luke's grown out of this, here's a more recent one:

I see this behavior of women being stripped of their ability to make decisions in every single D&D game I play. I can point to examples in five different groups all playing the same edition of the same module over a span of roughly four years. That's roughly 33 players, of different ages and backgrounds. [source]

According to this paragon of Indie-RPG design fame every single time he sits down to play D&D he watches women being abused and he's done nothing about it for years. And this is from a dude who plays D&D all the fucking time. Often followed by positively gleeful actual-play reports.

Why doesn't anyone in Luke's game group do anything about this? Haven't they heard of feminism? And why in god's name do they keep playing? If the women in our group were treated like that they'd be slitting throats.

Again: the only appropriate response to that is Luke (and possibly his whole group) go to therapy. There is no other.

But, of course, this is not the response of serious folk reading Luke. Why isn't anyone losing their shit about this urgent weird abuse situation? Because nobody takes it seriously--despite constantly performing the offices of seriousness.

Luke is showing how seriously he takes the responsibilities of DMing and everyone else is Listening To Him Share His Perspective. There is tremendous reverence for the fact that a member of the clique is speaking, but none for the content of the message. 

And the Theory here is left to be extracted from...
  • Luke says the very role of game master in D&D causes abuse
  • Luke says abuse is bad
  • Luke says he sees women abused every time he plays D&D
  • Luke says he likes D&D and its a good game and well-designed
Any attempts at clarification from Luke fail--because he and his ilk aren't really trafficking in seriousness, they're trafficking in smarm.

Thanks, Guy Trying To Explain Why His Marvel Game That Was Out When The Avengers Was The Most Popular Movie In History Completely Failed

This article by Tom Scocca on smarm is really good. It's so good, in fact, and so relevant to what has replaced genuine discussion of ideas in RPGs that I am gonna put lots of quotes from it in italics for y'all.

First of all, what's smarm?
Over time, it has become clear that anti-negativity is a worldview of its own, a particular mode of thinking and argument, no matter how evasively or vapidly it chooses to express itself. For a guiding principle of 21st century literary criticism, BuzzFeed's Fitzgerald turned to the moral and intellectual teachings of Walt Disney, in the movie Bambi: "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all."
The line is uttered by Thumper, Bambi's young bunny companion, but its attribution is more complicated than that—Thumper's mother is making him recite a rule handed down by his father, by way of admonishing her son for unkindness. It is scolding, couched as an appeal to goodness, in the name of an absent authority.

Smarm's like and unlike snark.

Snark is, roughly, flinging a jokey insult instead of a full-blown and rational critique. (Here's me being snarky.)

Smarm is, roughly, couching your side of the argument as non-argument.

Although Scocca's article contrasts the two, it goes without saying, neither snark nor smarm are rational critique. They're rhetorical techniques. Snark is both marketing and entertainment. Smarm is just marketing.


What is smarm, exactly? Smarm is a kind of performance—an assumption of the forms of seriousness, of virtue, of constructiveness, without the substance. Smarm is concerned with appropriateness and with tone. Smarm disapproves.

A person who snarks(about an important thing, not a bard--fuck bards) and then refuses to answer questions which would turn that snark into rational argument is just being a jerk. You might say the same of the smarmer but the smarmer has a more difficult dilemma: their original smarmy position is a refutation of the whole idea of argument.
The evasion of disputes is a defining tactic of smarm...Debate begins where the important parts of the debate have ended.
You can ask me to go from the snarky "Bards suck" to "Ok why?" and I don't have to give anything up to then answer your question.

It's harder to go from the smarmy "I am unwilling to have a fight with someone who isn't in my weight class" to "Ok, prove the contention you just made that you're smarter than whoever you're talking to and then go back to the discussion we were just having about the claim you made" because answering either would drag the answerer down into having a conversation. Since the douche had just recruited some phantom authority (some magical IQ test in the sky, one presumes, that somehow would rate him higher than me) as being opposed to it, even having a conversation would be admitting they were just now wrong.
Like every other mode, snark can sometimes be done badly or to bad purposes. 
Smarm, on the other hand, is never a force for good. A civilization that speaks in smarm is a civilization that has lost its ability to talk about purposes at all. It is a civilization that says "Don't Be Evil," rather than making sure it does not do evil.
Or, as we say around here "Don't be a dick"...while pasting over wildly divergent definitions of "dick".

For people reading this (or the ones who talk anyway) it's a reflection of a wider reality: what holds this "community" together is discussing similarities and differences on the internet. However, what holds all of humanity as of 2016 together is: a self-loathing about discussing things on the internet. 

We think of your-, my-, their- argument as a good and noble thing with a pedigree going back to classic civilization and philosophy. We think of an internet argument is some kind of desperate polyp that eats your soul.

The purpose of RPG smarm is usually to evoke the spectre of the second connotation.

Snark wants to be read as worth reading because it's So Fucking Clever and Smarm wants to be read as worth reading because The Stakes Are Impossibly High but in the end, the snarky Hatereader and the smarmy Scoldreader issue from the same process: A thing that would not normally have been consumed was consumed because someone hoped not to enjoy it but to get something out of complaining about it.

The object of the complaint--Warhammer or Exalted or Kingdom Death or first edition D&D or fourth edition D&D or LotFP or any other hated game--often together with the people who made and enjoy it--are Nixon, Trump, Hitler. They don't deserve what humans owe one another: Fact-checking, innocent-until-proven-guilty, research, evidence, paper trails, caveats, caution, care. The target is undeserving because it has been pre-judged by an authority the writer hopes will issue not from anything written in the piece that'd hold up when players are asked or when a blind taste-test is performed or when compared to sales figures or in a courtroom or in a peer-reviewed journal or even from just watching a video of people playing but from the number of plusses or re-shares or Yes. Thisses. it gets.

You can watch snark open smoothly into smarm like a blossoming hateflower as forum moderator Paul Matijevic waxes nostalgic about the douchey misogynistic Something Awful threadshe participated in:




Oh thank thee, noble Potatocubed. If what you want is explanations of ideas about how games actually work, the snarky "Chill about elfgames, bro" is exactly the same kind of useless as the smarmy "A lot to think about here but let's agree to disagree, thanks for a great discussion".


4. Anonymous Reviewing Schmucks Doing Thankless Work

I love these people and we all should: they buy a new game or game thing, they sit down in front of it and read it all the way through and try hard to do what the snarky and smarmy don't: provide facts, give evidence, admit when personal bias might be in their way, do the work, tell people, respond to questions, criticize. Then they put it up on the internet, get a few hits, move on to the next one. Almost none of the people who do this well are known as game designers even on the indie level. Their work is googled constantly ("carcosa rpg review")--but their names are known only to the folks on their forums or blogs.

As relatively scrupulous as they are, theory is unlikely to come from them because for one many of them just don't temperamentally seem into it, but more seriously because they don't have much data to work with. A reviewer is talking about a book that they might not ever use, or one they've used once, or one they will play with for a few months, love, review well, and then notice a gaping flaw in long after. So even though there are reviewers who say useful, interesting and insightful things, it's in a limited context and isn't really tested or stretched out into theories--at least the way it's usually done.


5. "Let's Read..."s And Old Things

This is a lot like reviewing, but with one difference: the things they're looking at are old. Pull something off the shelf, decide to care, go through it--often more thoroughly and slowly than a reviewer, as there's no commercial urgency. Likewise, due to the lack of commercial urgency, the work can be even more thankless.

The Let's Reader however, does always have some data to work with--even if it isn't as various or clean as what the researcher would want. We don't know anything about how the new horror game we just read interacts with the world, but we know that Vampire: The Masquerade attracted a great many women to the hobby even though it had sexy lady pictures in it, we know a lot of people played it despite rules the designer found regrettable. Likewise, we know RIFTS was wildly popular despite....everything about RIFTS. We know Tb was less popular than Burning Wheel despite being the same in a jillion ways. We know that OD&D was, despite early skepticism, played and used. We know people really like advantage/disadvantage. We know universal tables have fallen from favor. We know DC Adventures--a generic late trad crunch disaster--was much more popular than the nearly identically packaged Marvel Heroic--a generic late Indie/postForge roll-to-see-who-talks disaster. We know Warhammer managed to be successful despite being almost D&D with different art and one cool subsystem in a market choked with things that could be described that way. We know some of the published classes in Dragon made it into the game and some didn't. We can now read these things and their claims and at least start to judge them in terms of whether they did what they set out to do or whether they did a better thing or a worse thing.

Jon Peterson's look at early D&D--Playing At The World--shows how this approach can sometimes sprout into theory. In between tracking down where all the stuff in D&D appeared there, it meanders into why various things in RPG history happened.

Here's Jon summarizing his discovery of the first "edition war":

The difference can be attributed to the opposing philosophies of board wargames and miniature wargames. Miniature wargaming was more artisanal, less prefabricated; more demanding, less commercially viable. To the avid miniature wargamer, board gaming must have appeared crude, aesthetically dull and confining in the rigidity of its rules; to the unrepentant board wargamer, miniature gaming looked expensive, labor-intensive and contentious in its latitude toward system. Not all players want to have to design a game in order to play it, but for creative gamers, miniature wargames inspired new heights of craftsmanship and sophistication. 

It looks like advocates of focus, clarity, reliability and (a resulting) popularizability have been divided from advocates of flexibility, customizability and eccentricity since literally before the hobby started.


He also uncovers some data on the familiar-to-videogame-theorists issue of whether addictivity is good in games:

A second pioneer recognized that Gygax and Arneson had created “a new order of game,” one so addictive that another early commentator fears “it’s worse than heroin.”

What makes these observations of theoretical importance is that we all have the data provided by the intervening years to analyze at least parts of these claims.

Likewise the interview with David Wesely--author of the first Braunsteins way in the prehistory of RPGs--has more real theory in it than all these other Theory From The Closet interviews put together, because we know how this story turned out.

Obviously the Old School blogs do a lot of this because they require, by definition, people reading old stuff, but the culture's skepticism about the whole idea of theory means even when it produces genuinely interesting theory, it often pretends it hasn't. Which is ironic because the mere requirement of talking about games that've been tried out on millions of people rather than eight white beardstaches at a con means the OSR has actually done a fuckton of theory. It's just called "advice" instead.


Ok so the point is

There's no rule that says you have to throw down with your A-game or fuck off but until some people are willing to do that, ideas among moneypeople about what tabletop RPGs do will be slowly colonized by echoes of whatever somebody's saying Skyrim did to their lab monkeys. Plus the usual circular bullshit everyone is used to. The dreaded Online Argument is the level that the theory of games is at and only you can do anything about it.

So you can listen to that for the next 15 years and whatever it does to games, or you can start developing some ways to reward signal and discourage noise. Even when the noise likes the same game you do.

If you don't vote, you can't complain later.

-----

And now, a word from our sponsor...
Get it while you still can.

-
-
-

Jeff Grubb's Genius Subplot Rule

$
0
0
Your keynote speaker

Ok, one thing that gets discussed in most superhero game books but is chronically hard to actually wedge into a game is subplots.

Modules generally have villains and scenarios laid out, but the part of the comic where not only does the Flash have to stop the Meteor Men from eating Atlantis but has to rent a tuxedo for his cousin Alf's wedding is not usually written into the game and it's hard to design since--unlike a villain--it has to be individualized to the character and it isn't necessarily easy to play it out since the player doesn't have a clear goal--which can leave the other players going "Ok, how long are you pretending to talk to your landlord before we can go back to the game?"

On the other hand, without these, you lose a dimension of the game--even in a tactical sense. The Kingpin's awesome plan in Born Again wouldn't work if Daredevil didn't have a connection to Karen, Foggy, Ben, et al.

Jeff Grubb solved this problem. Here's how:
That thing int he red box belongs in the Museum of Genius Simple Mechanics right next to Call of Cthulhu's rules for acting insane ("Here are some names of insanities--now act insane until the duration ends").

Making a commitment gets you karma--which is a spendable experience point thing you can use to beat people up or not die or whatever. If you fail your commitment you lose it.

That's it. That's the whole mechanic and it works like a charm. Players invent subplots for themselves and interact with unsuper NPCs all the time.

The genius of it is: it's the only Karma award a player can just get without doing anything hard. So the player is not only incentivized to build out his/her PC's private world, it's the only thing on the table they can be sure they'll be rewarded for--no risk, no waiting for villains to attack, etc. the PC doesn't even have to leave the house to make a commitment.

Example--the players are hunting for Nazi science jerkArnim Zola:
"Ok I'm a chemist would I know Arnim Zola?"
"Funny you should mention that he spoke at your school a few months ago."
"Can I talk to whoever coordinates the visiting lectures?"
"Sure it's a fellow student" (idk, that's how it worked in art school)
"Ok, I'll call them"
"'Hello, Gwen Stacy speaking?'"
"'Uh...hi Gwen'"
"'Oh it's you--omg, giggle...'"
"Oh god I don't want to go out with her I know she's gonna die"
"There's karma in it..."
"Fuck, ok..."

And then Sleepless the paranoid numbercrunching social leper goes on a date with Gwen Stacy while everyone else is watching the Vault for boats full of sedatives and I get to attack the movie theater with Ani-Men. And then Sleepless has to pretend to spill popcorn on Gwen so that he can get away to the lobby and fight them. Classic.

Incidentally, this belies the old saw that a game is 'about' what most of its rules are about--this 8-word rule creates immensely complicated situations.

I feel like other games could use a mechanic like this--not every genre, but any one where you want a semi-static social constallation (as opposed to exploration or fast-pitched thriller pacing) to be a part of the game. Like RIFTS+ this mechanic basically gives you Apoc World on the cheap.
-
-
-

The Frightful and The Trailer

$
0
0
Look a trailer:




Ok, now to some FASERIP:

Veterans of the Stadt's General Enforcement Squadron Anti-Malefactor Technical Key Unit: Nonlicensed Superhuman Terrorist Watch Elite Reich Kommandos (GESA-MTKU:NSTWERK), The Frightful first came to public prominence after confronting a group of mutant animals and metahuman terrorists attempting to escape from a hostage situation created during a screening of Successfully Annihilating Private Ryan.

Thought the Frightful were routed by the combined efforts of Dr Velocity, Hannah Von Berlin and The Shocker, they escaped in their black and yellow drag racer and totally plan to be a pain in the ass again later.
Pierrot Lunaire 

F Am (50)
A In (40)
S Gd (10)
E Ex (20)
R Ex (20)
I Ex (20)
P Gd (10)

Health 120
Karma 50

WEAPONS
Moon bombs: These are annoying white apples that explode in a burst of talc and dust, causing a RM-strength stun result in the form of a blinding coughing fit

TALENTS
Leadership, Martial Arts A-E, Tumbling, Acrobatics, Thrown Weapons
Kleine Nachtmusik

F Pr (4)
A Gd (10)
S Pr (4)
E Ex (20)
R Gd (10)
I Gd (10)
P Ty (6)

Health 38
Karma 26

POWERS
Darkforce generation: AM--can spread darkness in a 500 ft radius for d4 rounds once per day or around a small target (usually one person's head) for 10 rounds

Sonic attack: Atonal terror-musik fills the air causing a Stun check to everyone in hearing range or, each time she is hurt an In (40) strength sonic attack explodes in the attacker's head

Schleimhaut

F In (40)
A Rm (30)
S Rm (30)
E In (40)
R Pr (4)
I Gd (10)
P Ty (6)

Health 140
Karma 20

POWERS
Body Armor: Ex vs physical attacks, Gd vs energy
Slimy skin: Trails a lubricating goo wherever he goes, with In level slipperiness

TALENTS
Wrestling, Hunting, Survival
Schrodinger

F Gd (10)
A Ex (20)
S Gd (10)
E In (40)
R In (40)
I Ex (20)
P Ty (6)

Health 80
Karma 66

POWERS
Indeterminacy--At will, Schrodinger can have a 50% chance of not existing. Practically speaking this means half of all attacks on him randomly have no effect.

WEAPONS
Schrodinger's Box--A small single-use Kirbytech indeterminacy bomb the size of a softball, causes everything within 500' to wink in and out of existence randomly when activated for d4 rounds.

TALENTS
Electronics, Engineering, Physics, Repair/Tinker
-
-
-

I Want Them To See The Wolverine Coming

$
0
0

Ok, so.

The specific example Robin Laws uses here is really really really really not helpful because it brings in a bunch of side issues.

So don't read this article and respond to the specifics of the example Laws uses.

Experience tells me that blog readers really like to get into the weeds about examples so I'll repeat that:

Don't read this article and respond to the specifics of the example he uses.
Sie nicht diesen Artikel lesen, und er verwendet, um die Besonderheiten des Beispiels reagieren.
Je, si kusoma makala hii na kujibu specifics ya mfano anatumia.
이 기사를 읽고 그가 사용하는 예의 특성에 응답하지 마십시오.
No lea este artículo y responder a las características específicas del ejemplo que utiliza.
Maa ko ka yi article ati ki o dahun si awọn pato ti awọn apẹẹrẹ ti o nlo.
Ne pas lire cet article et répondre aux spécificités de l'exemple qu'il utilise.
Ne olvassa ezt a cikket, és válaszoljon a sajátosságait a példa is használja.
不要讀這篇文章和他使用的例子的細節作出回應。
Nie czytaj tego artykułu odpowiedzi do specyfiki przykładzie on używa.

As usual, if you do this in the comments anyway you will be mocked mercilessly.

Got that? Instead let's look at the nut of the issue, which, shorn of the specifics, is a problem any GM might face...

The question is this: What do you do if one PC is about to take an action which will radically change the direction of the game for everyone to one you know for a fact the other players don't want to do?

Laws recommends breaking the fourth wall, which I might also do.

But, speaking through that wall, I wouldn't say what Laws says. Instead I'd say this "You gonna let them do that?".

If Nightcrawler wants to play heroes rescuing kittens from trees instead of outlaw mutants on the run, they need to roll initiative to keep Wolverine from stabbing that crooked cop. Just like in a real X-Men comic.

If:

-the action is taking place where no other PC is around to stop Wolverine from stabbing the cop (and the other players are NOT OK with that)

or

-Nightcrawler trying to stop Wolverine from stabbing a cop isn't the kind of pvp action the players signed up for

...then the GM has to accept responsibility that they fucked up. They designed (or purchased and robotically carried out) a scenario where Trish's Wolverine act--instead of propelling the game--got in the way of what Lisa and Freckles and Jo-Jo wanted to do. The GM should do better next time.

Trish is at your table to be Trish. You, as a GM, need to know Trish and to create scenarios which utilize Trish's impulses (and Lisa's and Freckles' and Jo-Jo's) to propel it, not make Trish feel "dysfunctional" for doing a thing which creates exactly what so many Indie designers try to get dice to do: make drama.

If you like Trish as a human, you will be able to get Trish into the game, regardless of playstyle. The only reason to boot someone is if they, as a person, suck--and wanting to kill a cop or a bishop or a gnome king does not a sucky person make--even if that isn't something that is going to make the game better that day.

-
-
-

Casablanca Orphan

$
0
0
Here is an entry for the Thought Eater DIY RPG Essay Tournament.

If you're new to the contest, it's like this: this essay is not by me--it's by an anonymous DIY RPG writer who was assigned to write something interesting and original about hoary old RPG topics.

Anybody reading is eligible to vote for which one you like best and voting will be cut off once all the votes for all the second round Thought Eater essays are up...

The rules for the second round are here.

The difficulty is I have an odd number of entries, meaning this one's orphaned. This is how it'll work--if you like it,  send an email with the Subject "TNA" to zakzsmith AT hawt mayle. Don't put anything else in the email, I won't read it. If you don't, do nothing. At the end I'll look to see if it has more votes than the average entry. If so: it goes to the next round.

Everybody games at Rick’s
Casablanca is better at D&D than The Lord of The Rings.

For the purposes of this piece, I’ll specify that the 1942 Hal Wallis production has more to offer an aspiring Dungeon Master than the entire Multi-Media entity that is The Lord of The Rings. There’s a lot of discussion about the influence that Tolkien may or may not have had on Dungeons & Dragons. I’m not going to rehash any of it. It’s online. Go google it—it’s fascinating to me and I think considering the obvious connections, it’s worth your time to investigate.

But now, I’m going to tell you that Casablanca is a better use of your time, if you’re mining something for ideas or just looking for inspiration. If you haven’t seen it, you should go fix that. Casablanca is one of those things that lives up to its hype—it is a satisfying use of your time, and I recommend it to everyone. There’s something in it for you. Tolkien and Tolkien derived works though… Your mileage is going to vary.

For starters, it’s more efficient. I’m always looking for ways to save time—to waste as little of my life as possible. Casablanca clocks in at a lean 102 minutes.  Any version of The Lord of The Rings is going to take up way more of your time and head space. Even Ralph Bakshi’s animated film is another half hour on top of that, and it doesn’t even finish the damn story.

More than that, it offers dungeons dark and dangerous, more so than The Mines of Moria. Enemy occupation, underground resistance, rampant and organized crime, desperate people, exotic locations, villains, heroes, ancient streets, harsh wilderness, love, memorable characters, are all features of the city of Casablanca.  And the way to around or through any of them isn’t as clear as the, “Go East”, path to Mordor.

The stakes are the same. You’re playing for the fate of the world. In The Lord of The Rings, Frodo destroys the ring or the world falls to evil and the free peoples of Earth either perish in flame or are crushed under the heel of a seemingly omnipotent dark lord. In Casablanca, it’s the same thing—though, “The Ring”, in Casablanca can be Letters of Transit or Victor Laszlo, or Rick’s heart, depending on your interpretation.  Whichever your McGuffin of choice, it needs to get where it needs to go or Nazis conquer the world. It’s time to save the world.

But The Lord of The Rings is Epic High Fantasy that doesn’t ask any questions as to how. The way to the end is never in any kind of doubt. Strider will re-forge Narsil into Anduril and lead The Men of The West against The Dark Lord. Frodo must go to Mordor.  We must fight to the end or all is lost. As an adventure, or a narrative, it’s rail-roady. Of course we go to Mordor.  The only road is through the long dark of Moria. If we don’t, we all perish in flames or we bag out on this whole role-playing game thing and do something else. It is the on or off switch of adventure. You accept the call, and send your hero on their little journey or you don’t.

Casablanca, like any given night of a role-playing game with your friends, defies any one genre. It’s a war-time romantic barbarian musical comedy propaganda action spy flick with some shout-outs to film noir. (Note: This is exactly what happens in a good game of D&D) And the way to the end isn’t clear at all. The path to victory is any way you want to go, and the small choices your player characters make, change the conditions of victory as you make them. Do you help Victor Laszlo escape and ensure this NPC of great power and influence can live and continue to fight The Nazis? Or do you sneak into Rick’s after hours and steal the letters of transit to ensure your own escape? Do you help two old lovers reunite and shepherd them to safety? Do you stay in Casablanca and help refugees to escape? Do you turn rebel and kill the Nazi commanders visiting Casablanca before heading into the desert to the Free French in Brazzaville?

Or maybe you turn pick-pocket, and join Ferrari’s organization. Your next job is to find a way to persuade Sam, a bard of some renown, to leave Rick’s behind, and come work for you at The Blue Parrot. And that becomes the adventure, because any of your choices is going to shift the narrative and change the course of the game and the story. In Rings, Evil does shit. Then Good has a meeting, recites some poetry, forms a fellowship, and does what it’s supposed to do.

If you reskin Casablanca with fantastic monsters and characters, change the nouns and give everyone swords and magic, you have whole campaigns worth of adventures, ones where you set your own limits and decide your own fate. Your choices, being small and varied with no immediately obvious consequences to the metaplot, are more meaningful because they shape the game and the game world. There is more to explore, and you’re not just moving from one encounter to the next.

 While wading through orc hordes in Moria to get to The Balrog at the end of the bridge and face him in battle to escape to the surface might be a few really cool fights and an okay evening. And there’s nothing wrong with it. But for my time and money, give me more. More choices, more gray, more intrigue. More everything! Don’t force me to accept this one chance to save the free peoples of Middle Earth. Let me go forth and find another way.

This sounds like I’m baggins on ToIkien (see what I did there?), but I’m not.  I am forever grateful to Mister J.R.R. for his work.  For Halflings, rangers, wraiths, orcs, giant spiders, wizards, et cetera. I read my Illustrated Middle Earth Encyclopedia for fun, damn it! It’s all awesome! But I never understood why anyone would want to play a Middle Earth RPG-- MERPS or The One Ring or anything like them. I just find them limiting in a way that something like Casablanca isn’t, and I’m against limits in my adventure gaming. There is more to offer players and dungeon masters when you don’t limit your game to epic high fantasy.

The ability to shift, change, and build on the imagination of the players is the strength of D&D. It is not a novel, nor is it epic. It’s better.-
-
-



Lovecraft, Nerds And The Uses of Ick

$
0
0
You might not like Lovecraft, but chances are you like something Lovecraftian--like this or this. So, one more time, let's talk about Lovecraft....

Imagine someone loved, someone you know the story of: your brother, your dog, your lover, your parent, Prince, Lemmy, yourself--someone with a definite content you can imagine, with unique details that apply only to them.

Then imagine you discover their story has ended. They're done, as are their works. Something was continuous and unique and now it isn't anymore.

That's fear of death. That fear is not Lovecraftian. The weak, worried man and his bleak work were afraid of many things, not death so much.


In his most classic works, the ones that make him important to later writers, artists, filmmakers and game designers, death is rarely the point. Death is one of many by-products (insanity, disturbing hybridization, obsessive Cassandrian documentation) of a more terrible revelation. Half the time the monsters are barely active, much less murderous. The horror is simply that there was contact.

Alien is a lot like At The Mountains of Madness (and Prometheus is even more like it, as many folks have noticed) except when it's being a thriller--Jones! Here kitty kitty--that is, when it's afraid of death.

The old gothic horror's set dressing is death: skulls, skeletons, vampires--and the gothic has love in it, so that you care about the victim when death happens. Lovecraft was another thing: characters you didn't come to care much about discontinuing--or living right past the moment they might've died and instead, at the real climax, being made witness to a horror. And what was the horror of, if not of death?

It was a horror of a pullulating, spawning, unknowable, inevitable and important otherness--that thing Werner Herzog was talking about when he went into the jungle and described as "…this overwhelming misery and overwhelming fornication...overwhelming growth and overwhelming lack of order." That is: life.


Autobiographically:

He faced death with courage. Struck by a cancer of the intestine which had spread throughout his body, he is taken to Jane Brown Memorial Hospital on the 10 March 1937. He will behave as an exemplary patient, polite, affable, of a stoicism and courtesy which will impress his nurses, despite very great physical suffering (happily attenuated by morphine).

That's from Michel Houellebecq's H.P. Lovecraft - Against the World, Against Life, which argues, well, that HP Lovecraft was against the world and against life. Ok, so he wasn't scared of dying, was he so weird as to be scared of living? Absolutely, totally and--in a letter written a few days before his improbable marriage--articulately:

And as for Puritan inhibitions-I admire them more every day. They are attempts to make of life a work of art - to fashion a pattern of beauty in the hog-wallow that is animal existence - and they spring out of that divine hatred for life which marks the deepest and most sensitive soul...An intellectual Puritan is a fool - almost as much of a fool is an anti-Puritan - but a Puritan in the conduct of life is the only kind of man one may honestly respect. I have no respect or reverence whatever for any person who does not live abstemiously and purely.

Lovecraft was so grossed out by sex, commerce and casual social ties that he left them entirely out of his fiction. As for race:

 The organic things inhabiting that awful cesspool could not by any stretch of the imagination be call'd human. They were monstrous and nebulous adumbrations of the pithecanthropoid and amoebal; vaguely moulded from some stinking viscous slime of the earth's corruption, and slithering and oozing in and on the filthy streets or in and out of windows and doorways in a fashion suggestive of nothing but infesting worms or deep-sea unnamabilities. They — or the degenerate gelatinous fermentation of which they were composed — seem'd to ooze, seep and trickle thro' the gaping cracks in the horrible houses ... and I thought of some avenue of Cyclopean and unwholesome vats, crammed to the vomiting point with gangrenous vileness, and about to burst and inundate the world in one leprous cataclysm of semi-fluid rottenness. From that nightmare of perverse infection I could not carry away the memory of any living face. The individually grotesque was lost in the collectively devastating; which left on the eye only the broad, phantasmal lineaments of the morbid soul of disintegration and decay ... a yellow leering mask with sour, sticky, acid ichors oozing at eyes, ears, nose, and mouth, and abnormally bubbling from monstrous and unbelievable sores at every point …

There are two remarkable things here: first--it's vintage Lovecraft. Second, it's not from The Horror at Red Hook, it's from HP's letter to a pal describing my grandfather's neighborhood in NYC. 

Lovecraft's specific brand of racism arose from disgust, the disgust from ignorance, the ignorance from another and larger fear: fear of unmediated intercourse with other people. That is: life.


Lovecraft is what happens when we take a familiar figure--the shy, nervous, fragile, conflict-averse, fastidious, introverted bookworm who is hopeless with money and whose main social outlet is nerd conventions--and put him in an era, class, family and professional situation where avoiding The Other is the path of least resistance. This is a man who never learned anything in a bar or a short-order kitchen or on a ballfield; he learned from parents and books and nothing he learned there taught him about these “italico-semitico-mongoloids” he lived among.

In these conditions his fear of life--which we can just go ahead and call his nerdiness--could only encourage his racism. I just want to be alone in bed with my books. And he is kind of a perfect test-case because he wasn't otherwise generally an asshole: people who he did mix with reported a courteous, kind, generous man, eager to reach out through amateur press associations (the pre-internet) to help fellow aesthetes through the terror and darkness that is this mortal coil and its ungentlemanly expectations.

He looked on New Yorkers with repulsion but he looked on New York with awe:

I fell into a swoon of aesthetic exaltation in admiring this view – the evening scenery with the innumerable lights of the skyscrapers, the mirrored reflections and the lights of the boats bobbing on the water, at the extreme left the sparkling statue of Liberty, and on the right the scintillating arch of the Brooklyn bridge. It’s something even more powerful than the dreams of the legend of the Ancient world – a constellation of infernal majesty – a poem in the fire of Babylon! (…) All of this happens under the strange lights, the strange sounds of the port, where the traffic of the whole world is concentrated. Foghorns, ships’ bells, in the distance the squeals of winches… visions of the distant shores of India, where birds with brilliant plumage are set singing by the incense of strange pagodas surrounded by gardens, where camel-handlers in their colourful robes barter in front of the sandalwood taverns with deep-voiced sailors whose eyes reflect all the mystery of the sea. 

...and, though not experience-curious, he was book-curious. He knew at least that the amoebas and pithecanthropoids that occupied its streets came from faraway places and these places had cultures--and it might be to this vision of the city and this knowledge that we owe an insight that makes his stories more than the sum of his terrified parts. The honest, perceptive, innovative artist in Lovecraft is decisively getting the upper hand over the arrogant racist whenever the stories remind us that the incomprehensible and inimical aliens are not just bigger, but older, wiser and immensely more sophisticated and significant than those they disturb.

This reveals a strange paradox of the imperial racist--the works of these foreigners are magnificent, their physical presence is loathsome. In Lovecraft, the "primitiveness" and "degeneracy" only come when the xenomorphs mix with-, or are worshipped by-, the humans--again, it is contact that is bad.

The racist made these stories horror stories, but the artist made them about gods. And if there are any gods, we should all be afraid of them. This is a fear that can be about many other things, it has legs.

Lovecraftian horror--the genre--is easy to copy: books, neuraesthenia, tentacles, all that. But if the ideas were all there were to it, we could just read Burroughs instead. Lovecraftian horror--the emotion--is rarer: disgust and awe in the face of the alien. 

Lovecraftian disgust and awe can be evoked in relation to things that don't appear anywhere in Lovecraftian fiction--for example, in Alien it's about the processes of human reproduction.


The awe is the reputable part, we understand awe, if not the objects of awe. So let's look at the disgust:

Mandy instantly dislikes anyone wearing a one-sleeved dress and I am suspicious of those who, for any reason, wear Crocs. Very many people, far past any genuine concern for physical safety, are scared to go into a porn theatre--or to certain bars.

These are minor examples of Lovecraftian disgust.

While Lovecraft was afraid of life and intercourse with people unlike himself, Lovecraftian disgust more generally--the kind the stories expand on and incarnate--is aesthetic, taste-based: an aesthetic fear so severe that it overrides the curiosity or sense of fairness that would discover whether that fear was justified.

It is kind of the opposite of Stendahl syndrome.

Lovecraftian disgust is not disgust at clear signifiers that death is near--wounds and wolf tracks--that would be rational. Lovecraftian disgust is never rational, it is emotional and emotions are evolution's first-drafts of thoughts, made for when there's no time for evaluation, or no imperative demanding one.

Lovecraftian disgust is visceral, the kind that goes ick. The feeling of having a gun to your head isn't ick. Ick is a fear of life--someone else's icky life. Fear of mollusks, for instance--which are totally harmless--is Lovecraftian.
ick

Once I met an art student who was making a really ugly painting of bearded men at prayer and doing it on purpose. I asked why and she said they were Muslim fundamentalists and she (she was of Middle Eastern descent) wanted to make Muslim fundamentalists look ugly and ridiculous and gross, and make people associate the image of fundamentalists with grossness. This was an attempt to recruit Lovecraftian disgust as a propaganda tool.

Likewise Trump complaining about how John Kasich eats is an attempt to recruit Lovecraftian disgust to political ends. But then so is the way we retweet how hideous Trump's toupee and terrible pigleather face are. 

In Taxi Driver, DeNiro's disgust is supremely Lovecraftian:

Whatever it is, you should clean up this city here, because this city here is like an open sewer you know. It's full of filth and scum. And sometimes I can hardly take it. Whatever-whoever becomes the President should just really clean it up. You know what I mean? Sometimes I go out and I smell it, I get headaches it's so bad, you know...They just never go away you know...It's like...I think that the President should just clean up this whole mess here. You should just flush it right down the fuckin' toilet. 

...as is Rorschach's disgust in Watchmen (created by avowed Lovecraft disciple Alan Moore)--in both cases the filth is clearly literal grime and a metaphor for every other sin in the city.

The dirt in a city, the tan, the toupee, eating, praying, the simple ugliness of people we think are ugly: all signs of life, not death. And icky.


Silence of the Lambs is a fascinating case: Hannibal Lecter is pure gothic--cold, crisp, polite, intelligent, quiet, patient, efficient, articulate, inevitable, living in a stone room, arguably charming. Like Dracula, he is asexual but apparently capable of a weird kind of romantic or at least personalized affection toward our hero and he is as bald as a skull. And he is seen killing, repeatedly, because people are in his way.

Buffalo Bill--whom he never shares a shot with--is sloppy, shifty, loud (always listening to music--and pop music, not dead people music like Lecter likes), awkward, breeds moths, has a dog and long hair and moans about fucking. Bill is all about life and therefore Bill is icky. He is a whole subculture of one down in his lived-in basement. (A trans friend who loves this film said she feared transitioning for years because she was afraid of being like Buffalo Bill.) And we never see him kill anyone--and even Lecter points out that for Bill, the murder is incidental--it's simply a result of Bill's total indifference to the lives of others while carrying out his own imperatives.

Lecter is bone, Bill is flesh.



As even the dullest bulbs notice, DIY D&D and OSR gaming in general emphasize the horror end of D&D--a lot more than TSR ever did. Part of it is the high mortality rate of the low-level game: If you're playing zero-to-hero D&D, then you'll lose a lot of zeroes and when this happens the only consistent aesthetic this really fits is either Dungeonmirth/Python style life-is-cheap black humor or survival horror. Horror is totally metal and horror is grimdark and those things, done well (ie like Warhammer used to do it) are both good.

LotFP: Weird Fantasy and other DIY D&Ders have often foregrounded horror--and occasionally even went ahead and claimed horror is helpful and good for you and worth pondering.

A formidable example comes from the poet Patricia Lockwood contemplating a Donald Trump rally, which I recommend you read but which I'll excerpt a bit of here to keep life linear:

It’s us, was the undercurrent. It’s just us in here. A handshake moved through the air as the speech walloped on, and then something more than a handshake. The more he spoke, the more Trump sounded like a rich man at dinner with a young woman whose passport is her face and her freshness, explaining to her the terms of the arrangement: that he would wear her on his arm, turning her toward the lights, that she would defer to him in public, that he would give her just enough of what he has to sustain her. I wrote in my notebook, “Trump is offering to be our sugar daddy? He wants to make America his trophy wife?” What he was really promising was freedom to move in the world the way he does, under his protection, according to his laws. Nobody owns me, he keeps telling us, not the lobbyists, not the Republican high-ups, not the Washington insiders. I’m not in anybody’s pocket; hop in mine. His wives, you might have noticed, grow lovelier and lovelier. It is a practiced seduction; it has worked before. We ignore it at our peril.

An example of the dangers of avoiding horror is offered by the RPG community itself:
From Something Awful's RPG forum--where people go to reaffirm each others' Lovecraftian disgust about women not playing the same edition of D&D they do.
There's a decent chunk of people who think Lovecraftiana and other disturbing horror themes in games are badwrongfun--and in fact that all not-power-fantasy themes are badwrongfun--and they all have something in common: they definitely do not want to talk to gamers who disagree with them. They're cool with attacking them, smearing them, and even reading their books to make fun of them, but they view the idea of engaging them as a contaminating anathema. A good chunk of them would be suspicious of this essay simply because it contains someone talking about Lovecraft (who is icky).

Again: an aesthetic fear so severe that it overrides the curiosity or sense of fairness that would discover whether that fear was justified.

This person who attacked Scrap Princess for inventing a biohorror stinger monster said "I lack both the capacity and the will to understand anyone who would accept that in their game".

The person on RPGnet who attacked Shanna Germain and a part of the game Numenera she wrote said "When I read the Numenera page in question, I thought/felt 'Whoever wrote this is probably evil”--and many game designers and moderators piled on.

Fred Hicks--the game publisher who attacked Kingdom Death--refused to talk to the women who defended it or the creator of the game explicitly on grounds of his (Fred's) fragile mental health.

The designer who claimed sexy zombies appear in games because people are secret necrophiliacs explicitly refuses to talk to, say, women who cosplay as sexy zombies, refuses to talk to anyone who disagrees with them, like Fred, on grounds of fragile mental health and deletes them when they talk.

These acts of Lovecraftian disgust are the result of years spent in sheltered internet pockets being told there are no personal or professional consequences to dehumanizing someone just because they like something you think is icky--and nothing good can come of talking to someone less than human.

These sheltered, life-phobic souls: shy, nervous, fragile, conflict-averse, fastidious, introverted bookworms, whose main social outlet is nerd conventions, with their small circle of gentle hobbyist correspondents are, ironically, imitating Lovecraft because they haven't read Lovecraft, or haven't learned anything from reading him. They aren't recognizing the disgust they're feeling for what it is despite having its consequences cleanly personified in the historical record.

When there is ick, there is fear, where there's fear there is ignorance, where there's ignorance there's disgust, and where there's disgust, prejudice.

Not everyone needs to face every horror---but if you never learn from horrors, you become one.


A Mere Wrecca

$
0
0

Participants in- and gawkers at- the tabletop RPG scene will have noticed a theme in commentary on D&D and its ilk: Played in the default style, D&D doesn't come out like Tolkien, and this is the subject of much wroth and writhing. For instance, Burning Wheel--one of many attempts to remedy that and the world's accidentally funniest RPG--introduces itself like thiswise:

Like the old grand-daddy RPG, Dungeons and Dragons, Burning Wheel is nothing more than a template—a trellis for the vines of imagination to grow on. But unlike it’s [SIC] predecessors, this system is versatile and powerful; it can handle any fantastic situation with consistency and accuracy.... 
Without being hokey or gimmicky, the system attempts to create an accurate portrayal of the model that inspired all of these games, epic fiction. Initially my mission was only to build the proverbial “better system,” but my true motive emerged as the system took root. I wanted to construct a game that could create better stories—something closer to the thrilling narratives that we all grew up on and that still grip our imaginations.

One of the very many absolutely undyingly adorable things about this intro is the author's faith that everyone of literate age grew up on "epic fiction" and not, say, Conan or Fafhrd & Grey Mouser or Arzach or James and the Giant Peach thus justifying his game's desire to be "closer" to a model he presumes all stabgames aspire to.

JRR Tolkien himself addresses just this kind of confusion in his lecture on Beowulf...

Nearly all the censure, and most of the praise, that has been bestowed on Beowulf has been due either to the belief that it was something that it wasn't, for example, primitive, pagan, Teutonic, an allegory (political or mythical), or most often, an epic; or to disappointment at the discovery that it was itself and not something that the scholar would have liked better--for example, a heathen heroic lay, a history of Sweden, a manual of Germanic antiquities, or a Nordic Summa Theologica.

At the heart of the concern that D&D isn't a Tolkien epic is the figure of the murderhobo--the greedy engine of unplotted terror that haunts the dreams of aspirationgamers everywhere. Urban Dictionary:

Murderhobo: The typical protagonist of a fantasy role-playing game, who is a homeless guy who goes around killing people and taking their stuff. The term originated in discussions of tabletop role playing games by authors seeking to create games aimed at styles of play not supported by traditional games like Dungeons & Dragons.

Typical forum post dredged up by random googling:

The murder hobo has been a problem for RPGs for years. These characters have no purpose or reason aside from killing people, taking their stuff, and then buying better tools to kill more people with. While we all admit these characters are a problem, we don't always have a suggestion for ways to fix them.

Typical blog dredged up by random googling:

If you feel you or players at your table are at risk of allowing a murder hobo (or worse a pack of them!) to flourish then follow these simple steps to inject genuine character and pathos into your game...

Heavens! A pack you say?

Notwithstanding the fact that even Robin Laws seems to not grasp the awesome storytelling possibilities of murderhoboes, intelligent gamers have long been aware of them. However, it's interesting to note Tolkien, the sore spot and source-point of all these dreams of morally-redemptive mythopoesis, himself creeps up to the edge of a similar complaint against Beowulf:

The plot was not the poet's; and though he has infused feeling and significance into its crude material, that plot was not a perfect vehicle of the theme or themes that came to hidden life in the poet's mind as he worked upon it. Not an unusual event in literature. For the contrast--youth and death--it would probably have been better, if we had no journeying. If the single nation of the Geats had been the scene, we should have felt the stage not narrower, but symbolically wider. More plainly should we have perceived in one people and their hero all mankind and its heroes. 

This at any rate I have always myself felt in reading Beowulf; but I have also felt that this defect is rectified by the bringing of the tale of Grendel to Geatland. As Beowulf stands in Hygelac's hall and tells his story, he sets his feet firm again in the land of his own people, and is no longer in danger of appearing a mere wrecca, an errant adventurer and slayer of bogies that do not concern him.

...and if you're fun you immediately go Who's this wrecca? Tell me all about this motherfucker. And if you're really fun you have access to Bosworth's Anglo Saxon Dictionary:

Wrecca, Wræcca: one driven from his own country, a wanderer in foreign lands, an exile, a stranger, pilgrim.

From wrecan--to drive (out) or to avenge--like the Swedish vrak--trash, the Icelandic rek--anything drifted ashore, related to wreck, of course, and wretch and wreak (as in vengeance or havoc).

Wrecca. Good name for a game.
-
-
-

Melville, Freud & Lovecraft (Thought Eater)

$
0
0
Here is an entry for the Thought Eater DIY RPG Essay Tournament.

If you're new to the contest, it's like this: this essay is not by me--it's by an anonymous DIY RPG writer who was assigned to write something interesting and original about hoary old RPG topics.

Anybody reading is eligible to vote for which one you like best and voting will be cut off once all the votes for all the second round Thought Eater essays are up...

The rules for the second round are here.

The difficulty is I am an idiot and accidentally left this one out when I was rolling out the entries, meaning this one's orphaned. This is how it'll work--if you like it,  send an email with the Subject "NUD" to zakzsmith AT hawt mayle. Don't put anything else in the email, I won't read it. If you don't, do nothing. At the end I'll look to see if it has more votes than the average entry. If so: it goes to the next round.



I reread Moby-Dick recently (you have to hyphenate it, it’s like Spider-Man) and I couldn’t stop thinking about how much it had in common with The Call of Cthulhu.

There’s a scholarly young man in New England who lets restlessness and curiosity drag him into a quest for a terrible sea monster rumoured to lurk in the Antipodes. He has a series of adventures, each more spooky than the last, involving half-mad sailors, derelict ships, strangely-shaped animals, the threat of cannibalism and the deep existential terror of having to interact with people from the Pacific Islands. By the time he realizes what a bad decision he’s made it’s too late and he’s pulled inexorably into a confrontation with the monster, which kills everyone aboard the ship except for one man who’s left alive to tell the tale. There’s a bunch of structural differences - Thurston is just reading about the voyage, Ishmael is actually on board - but the narrative progression is the same.

There are a couple of explanations for this. One is Freudian. Cthulhu’s a vagina, Moby Dick’s a dick, sex is a nightmarish leviathan that can never be looked at directly and the Pacific Ocean is the Victorian unconsciousness in which it lurks. As tedious as this kind of thing always is, I can’t help but feel like there’s something to it. More importantly, however, both Melville and Lovecraft had read The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym, which is by Edgar Allen Poe and about all the same shit. We don’t have to invent some kind of weird laborious psychosexual code language when we can just say that they liked a book. I like that book and I’m not terrified of women. Melville didn’t write eighteen billion pages about whale biology because he was wrestling with his homosexuality. He probably was wrestling with his homosexuality, but he wrote those pages because he liked whale biology. We don’t have to assume that just because sex is super important, nothing else we do is important unless it can be made to relate to sex.

Now Melville is a much better writer than Lovecraft. This is because he is more specific. Lovecraft will tell you that the monster is spooky and you should be spooked by it. Melville will tell you how a whale’s dick works. There is a scene in Moby-Dick where a guy wears a whale’s foreskin as a poncho. And despite this, Melville’s whales continue to be spooky. Advantage: Melville.

But Lovecraft has a much greater influence over our culture than Melville. Nobody has ever tried to make a roleplaying game about Melville. And I think this is because Melville is more specific. You can take Lovecraft and put him in space or the Himalayas or the grimdark future where there is only war. You can’t do that with Melville. I mean, you can, but there’s like one or two space Moby-Dicks. There’s a million space Lovecrafts. Lovecraft gets in everything, like sand the day after the beach. Melville is less flexible. If Lovecraft is sand then Melville marble. Beautiful on his own, but denser and harder to cut and you need to be much smarter about it if you’re going to make anything out of him.

Lovecraft, because he is not very good, dares you to improve him. The first thing you do when you’re writing a Lovecraft adventure is to make it more interesting than anything Lovecraft ever wrote. Well, the first thing you do is cut out all the racism, but you get the picture. Lovecraft’s work is full of such clever phrases as “the Thing cannot be described”, and when you read one of these you immediately try to describe the Thing. You have to do all the work of making it horrifying yourself. Lovecraft’s not going to help you - he’s just going to tell you it’s horrifying and ask you to figure out the details. And whatever weirdness you come up with is almost always going to be better than whatever Lovecraft is thinking of.

But it’s also not Lovecraft. Because Lovecraft is that shit writing. The implicit challenge of Lovecraft is “can you do what I did, but not shitly?”. And you can’t. So people are constantly Doing Stuff with Lovecraft, trying to Use Lovecraft, trying to make things Lovecraftian, and Lovecraft is constantly in the public eye but never actually supplanted. He can’t be. It always seems like there’s something Lovecraft never quite pulls off, some great achievement that’s persistently evading him, but if you actually achieve that - as Melville pretty much does - you don’t solve Lovecraft’s problem. He wants to pull it off while still remaining Lovecraft, and he can’t do that, because the inability to pull it off is what makes Lovecraft Lovecraft.

This is also D&D. D&D is pretty shit in most ways, and there’s a million spinoffs which are technically better, but you will never get rid of original flavour D&D because what makes D&D D&D is the big hole at the heart of it where something awesome should go. In order to radiate potential you need to not fill that potential. Patrick Stuart says here (http://falsemachine.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/art-in-games.html) that it’s actually easier to notice that a thing has psychic energy when it’s bad. I think this is maybe why. A good thing, like Moby-Dick, has a great idea and then lives up to it. The guy who wrote it did his fucking job. He did all the work and there is no room left for you to do any. But you want to do the work, you feel compelled to do the work, which is why you are drawn towards shit things that have ideas and fuck up the execution. There is something left in them for you to work with.

And I think this also accounts for the persistence of Freud. Freud has psychic energy. Freud actually talks about psychic energy, a little. He has a whole theory of cathexis, which is the process by which the erotic charge that’s supposed to accrue around people you want to bone gets redirected to something else, like a whale or a child’s hat or a piece of wallpaper or whatever. This is clearly stupid. People don’t become obsessed with weird shit because they’re not allowed to fuck their dads. But Freud is all about the unconscious and the inexpressible and terrible forbidden things lurking just beyond sight - the same shit Lovecraft talks about - and his stupid theories about it demand that we try to explain it better. We think we can outdo him, and so we keep coming back to him, and so he’s a constant presence in academia and literature to this very day. We don’t want to explain away Moby-Dick by saying it’s about sex but there’s something in that idea that prevents us from ignoring it. I still felt the urge to talk about Freud at the beginning of this essay. I don’t think Moby-Dick is about sex, I think it’s about whales, but I can’t just fuck the idea off altogether.


You might be more comfortable ignoring Freud then me, of course. That’s fine. The point is, the kind of infuriating vagueness that both Freud and Lovecraft possess can wield a huge influence over us and our creative process, even as we consciously acknowledge that it’s dumb. And also that Patrick Stuart should read Moby-Dick. Have you read Moby-Dick Patrick? I think you’d really like it.
-
-
-

David Foster Wallace Correlating The Mind's Contents

$
0
0
David Foster Wallace talking about an early bout of suicidal depression--as quoted in David Lipsky's Although of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself...

...it may be what in the old days was called a spiritual crisis or whatever. It’s just the feeling as though the entire, every axiom of your life turned out to be false, and there was actually nothing, and you were nothing, and it was all a delusion. And that you were better than everyone else because you saw that it was a delusion, and yet you were worse because you couldn’t function.

 What's interesting for RPG fans here is: that is exactly how the Cthulhu Mythos stat in Call of Cthulhu works. The more useful things you know about the Cthulhu stuff--the real engine of the universe--the lower your max Sanity.

Kill A Church

$
0
0
"the only Christianity they defeated was the last piece of Christianity within themselves. Which is a very good beginning, of course"
--Erik Danielsson in Black Metal Satanica, 2008


Short Preamble

Today's controversy. Remarkable for 3 reasons:

1-Most self-defeating moral outrage in human history.
2-RPG people are still signing onto it. Morally outraged that a comic book has a cliffhanger.
3-Some of the people reading this still pay attention to those RPG people when they talk about games and will keep doing it even after today.

I've long since accepted that 3 will always be true--there is no level of insane that an Indie game designer can be that people won't be like "Maybe I will give Crazy some attention and money?".

So let's not dwell. These conservatives are crazy, Some of you are still reading them, funding them, inviting them into the larger conversation about RPGs. You will never stop. It makes the world worse for fans online and creators, you don't care. Ok.
-----
But when the world is dumb: let's at least learn something...

Now fucktheory, who not only is very smart but comes at this--helpfully--from a wider philosophical and radical queer background (non-gaming, non-geek) is addressing the issue of cultural appropriation, but this pretty much applies to all the controversies of online psychoculture. Let's Read:

But this...


RPG examples abound. You must consult ninjas, the dumbest thing ever said about RPGs, etc.







This is an important point. The Drama Club never has a concrete checklist of what "doing the thing right" requires--whether that's use of violence, sexuality, cultural appropriation or diversity. At most they point to examples--which devolves to unbelievable vagueness ("be respectful") or, "Well I know it when I see it". In other words: they the critic get to decide what's morally suspect on a case-by-case basis rather than outlining a set of principles that their own work can be judged by.

Also: outlining principles or definitions (of, say "respectful") would invite discussion and Discussion Is Bad.







The obsession with whether a Cap storyline hurts me as a Jew and descendant of Holocaust survivors and all similar controversies where the Drama Club share a Concern on behalf of numb, objectified marginalized people whom they aren't which is inextricably linked to unacknowledged Contempt for the voices of equally marginalized artists they aren't isn't a condition arrived at through thought. It's just their own anxiety and desire for universal concession to concessions they themselves have made long ago made (there's a reason so many are religious or parents--conservatism is the fear someone else is having fun somewhere), writ large and pointed at anyone who points that out.

---

So, ok. Maybe you aren't invested enough in the world being good to click the Unfollow button when faced with The Bad. But at least know how it got that way. At least learn something while you're here at D&D With Porn Stars, even if you never ever ever ever ever do anything with what you learned.

Seeya.
-
-
-

The Lacuna: Winners Advance to Thought Eater Round Three

$
0
0
The winners of the second round of the Thought Eater DIY RPG Essay Contest are in...
source









If any of the authors (winner or loser) would like to out themselves in the comments, feel free to do so now.

Ok, rules for the third round:

-This round is inspired by a line at the beginning of Houllebecq's essay on Lovecraft:

"If one defines a writer not by reference to the themes that they treat, but by reference to those
they repudiate, then one agrees that Lovecraft occupies a place totally apart."

...this is the essay where Houllebecq goes on to point out that Lovecraft studiously avoids sex and money in his fiction.

The crucial point here is: this is a lacuna that Houllebecq had to discover, it was not explicitly on top. Lovecraft's stories are not advertised as "Tales of cosmic horror that don't have typical human relationships or class in them".

So for this round I'd like the winners to take some subject and tell us what is avoided in it--and what this tells us and why it's interesting. It should preferably be something the authors may not even have been conscious of avoiding, and should definitely be something the rest of us are not yet conscious that they avoid.

So, for example, writing about how some iteration of D&D lacks noncombat task resolution is immediately out. Whereas if you discover that nobody laughs during the entire Morte D'Arthur or that no-one ever ever eats in a Clark Ashton Smith story or that agriculture never appears in any RIFTS module or that nothing from Green Ronin publishing ever has the word "pig" in it, that's fair.

As this is a fairly difficult and demanding remit probably requiring a little research, the range of topics is relatively unrestricted other than "it should be an RPG or obviously RPG-adjacent" and that it can't be Lovecraft or Tolkien as we've beat those two to death recently. I would definitely be interested in thoughts on RPGs outside the OSR usual.

-This is different than the previous rounds because I will exercise a veto/editorial power over these. If I get one that has a lazy line like "I don't know why this is, but I think it it's true, or at least interesting" about its central premise, I will be like "This needs to be better, try harder, rewrite". 

-If you are one of the winners named above, then email me your new essay by July 1st--zakzsmith AT hawtmayle with the all-caps subject THOUGHT EATER 3.
-
-
-

Four Projects, Three Castles

$
0
0
Project One:

Remember Red & Pleasant Land? Winner of 2 gold and 2 silver Ennies the Indiecade judges' award and an Indie Rpg Award?

Well that went ahead and won another award: the Three Castles Award. This one is very special to me personally not just because it has a nifty trophy...
...but also because the judge panel is fucking amazing this year and consists of names I've known ever since I was a wee lad and first started thinking about going into dungeons to kill dragons:

Dennis Sustare--as in Chariot of Sustarre, the most badass druid spell in AD&D--and who invented the class
James M Ward--who did Metamorphosis Alpha--the first sci-fi RPG. And who I've heard from multiple sources is literally the best GM in game history.
Zeb Cook--Whose name I know best from the cover of the Oriental Adventures book I read over and over and over and and over as a child.
Steve Winter--Who worked on FASERIP, including the best superhero sandbox ever.
and Steve Perrin--As in fucking RuneQuest.

That's an amazing slate and I'm honored that the people who added druids, laserguns, ninjas, rebel superheroes and die mechanics that actually make sense to RPGs even read Red & Pleasant Land much less decided to give it an award--especially considering the other nominees this year were hella impressive.
Let's hope in a couple decades she writes a game and I get to be on a panel giving her an award.

PS if you don't have one and are going to Gen Con, LotFP, the publisher will be there. Though copies do go fast.





Project Two:

Those of you wondering about Black Metal Amazons of the Devoured Land or Amazons of the Metal North or whatever we're calling it--we're working on it:
The girls modeled as the amazons for the paintings I'm doing, here are some pics from the shoot:







Project Three:

Maze of the Blue Medusa(Yes, I plan to do a book for every color in the goddamn rainbow) is now physically manifest and I am pleased to breathe a sigh of relief and note that neither man nor machine has ever devised a finer-looking megadungeon. Not empty boasting, check it:













Also, if you want to play it at GenCon, hurry up and sign up. The games are being run by Ken Baumann,  Satyr Press' publisher and actual real-life tv actor and he's been hilarious and clever in every game I've ever played with him and cracks everyone up.

Here's an actual-play report. A thorough review.

There will be copies at GenCon but like they will probably be gone in seconds because they're heavy so each vendor can't really carry that many so you might best just order one.

There might be a few expensive signed copies available, too, maybe. If you're into that sort of thing. And get an early flight. Stay tuned to this blog for details.


Project Four:

Some stuff about Project Four:

-Project Four is secret, because it will be the subject of a major and official announcement by a big game company.

-Project Four is going to make all the right peopleincredibly upset when it's announced. Before they even read it.

-Project Four is taking up all my time right now which is why I haven't been posting much.

-Project Four has two main creative people on it, both doing writing and art: me and a woman whose work I've admired for years.

-The necrophilia was her idea.

-Project Four is weird and experimental.

-While writing Project Four I checked into a hotel. Next to the bed was a bible and a copy of Keith Richards' autobiography. I consulted both a great deal.

-"Wherefore a lion out of the forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evenings shall spoil them, a leopard shall watch over their cities: every one that goeth out thence shall be torn in pieces: because their transgressions are many, and their backslidings are increased"
-
And now,  a word from our sponsor:

Here

Be Good.

$
0
0
The picture that sticks with me I heard about second hand--the rescue workers in Orlando going in to the club to pick up the bodies, many fallen where they stood, and all the victims' cell phones still ringing--their friends and loved ones calling to see if they're ok.

The image hits because it's about how things ripple out.

Matt Finch, "the Swords & Wizardry guy" is in a same-sex marriage and was more eloquent than I could ever be about the shooting and about how lives touch other lives--"Except for an accident of geography, Ian and I could have hit the point of "Death Do Us Part.""

Locally, on the same day LA Pride just barely escaped being bombed by some nutjob--and every woman here at D&D w/Porn Stars is L, B or T. This blog wouldn't exist if I wasn't playing games and without them I wouldn't be playing because I'd never have had a game group. My books would have no covers, for lack of models, and no playtesters, and no reason to exist.

An OSR and a DIY RPG scene without the inspiration of like Jennel Jacquays' Dark Tower and Caverns of Thracia, without Scrap Princess or Brendan or without many of the other L and G and B and T fans and creators who make this place fun would be much different and suckier.

I haven't got anything smart to say about it that will in any way contribute to one less person getting shot because (yet again) some asshole saw a sexy thing that wasn't their sexy thing and got offended. Just: be a good friend to your friends. Friends are all a community is and friends are all you really have.
-
-
-

Basically yeah the devil makes work for idle hands

$
0
0

Assumption 1:

Online communities produce good stuff when a large number of people who wouldn't otherwise meet can trade ideas with a minimum of noise and abuse. 

(Note that abuse and criticism aren't the same thing, criticism can be constructive. Abuse: lying, trolling, etc, can't.)

You get enough people talking with a low enough cost to talking and some statistically inevitable fraction of them will be smart and talented and learn from each other, becoming a whole greater than the parts. I consider that inevitable.


Assumption 2:

Abuse and noise come from dickheads.



Conclusion 1:

You get a good community producing good stuff by making a big community and excluding or rehabilitating dickheads.



Assumption 3:

Communities have a hard time agreeing who is a dickhead, or doing anything about it even when people clearly break rules the community espouses. This is familiar territory.

Any list of things not to do (guidelines, codes of conduct, strident Twitter hashtags about not being racist or sexist) falls by the wayside when contemplating members of that community who can claim to have some other value--they're productive,  they're powerful, they're entertaining, they're friendly, etc. Practically speaking, everyone can claim to have some other value--there's no douchebag so douchey that nobody in the community can't at least make an argument that some good outweighs the bad they do.

In the end most communities end up judging people more on whether they fit that community's genre of behavior than on whether the person did something to violate the community's explicit standards. Which just making them into abusive, harassy echo-chambers.

Conclusion 2:

Communities need better ways to determine who is a dickhead.

____

Gaming's most dickhead-rich subcommunities can give a helpful negative example. You can look at places where there's lots of participants, but so noisy or intolerant that no useful ideas ever get generated: When the desperately low level of discussion at Story-Games.com was criticized, the founder--Andy Kitkowski--defended it by going "Hey man, this is just a place for people to hang out and talk, people don't necessarily want to be challenged" when RPGnet's bigoted mods and sexism are brought up, Shannon Appelcline defends it by saying "The rules there create a pleasant community", Something Awful's purpose is, allegedly, to tell jokes--but the RPG threads aren't jokes, they're fairly earnest contests over who can most effectively smear people who don't play their preferred games, theRPGsite and Gaming Den have no rules or statement of purpose beyond "talk about games" and the same goes for many of the more hostile old-school forums.

What these places all have in common is describing no explicit reason to be beyond continuing their own existence.
____

Think for a second about the difference between two different definitions of the purpose of a community:

-To talk about games

-To learn about games

These both seem kindergarten-level innocuous but the first one suggests that members should be censured, excluded, avoided, rehabilitated or removed (practically speaking people usually just avoid) if they interfere with talking about games--which is an almost impossibly high standard. Even the most douchey members of the game community are fully capable of harassment, douchebaggery or abuse while still talking about games.

If we assume the point of a community is to learn about games however, we suddenly have a guideline with teeth, that can be used to judge behavior:

Somebody a sizable chunk of the community considers a charming rogue keeps shitposting? That doesn't help anyone learn about games.

Somebody is very earnest and well-intentioned and accuses a game of being broken yet can't provide any proof?  That doesn't help anyone learn about games.

Somebody's kinda funny while lying about someone's game? That doesn't help anyone learn about games.

Someone asks questions about how games work that make some members stressed out because they don't have the presence of mind to realize there's no penalty for answering "wrong"? That's fine: it helps people learn about games.

Obviously that doesn't solve all problems, and I don't think "learn about games" should be the one-size-fits-all purpose of game communities, but the point is...

Assumption 4:

The more specific and explicit a community is about goals their ongoing conversation is pursuing beyond "to have a conversation", the easier it is to collectively and fairly identify people who are acting against that goal and being dickheads.


Conclusion 3:

In order to be healthy and worthwhile and not abusive, communities need to focus as much or more effort on describing why they are talking at all as they do on what kind of behavior they consider shitty.


(Assumption 5:

For some people this conclusion is anathema because talking about games is itself the main entertainment, and it serves no purpose being pursued out in the real world. These people are too boring to care about and should get lives.)

____

At this point you might be wondering what I think the reason I write on this here blog is. It's been the same since the beginning: the purpose of this blog and any activity connected to it is to improve my game at my house. I write my ideas here so people can read them and maybe give me new ideas, I write books so that I can use them and so that other people will steal the ideas and write better books that I can use for my game, I talk about what a game community should be so that I can benefit from the ideas a good community produces. My goal is practical and selfish in that regard.

You don't have to have that same goal, but I do think you're better off if you know why you're writing and so is everyone else. Like once I remember Joethelawyer said he wrote his blog so everyone would know how smart he was--that definitely helped me know what kind of conversations I do or don't want to have with Joe.

I think a lot of people, consciously or unconsciously, do have this same goal as me in DIY D&D though: they have a game, they have ideas, they want to trade so they can have a richer and more fun game. Once you've explicitly said "this is why we're talking" a lot of bullshit can be cut through very quickly. For example: we collectively produced The Hexenbracken very quickly by describing a problem we needed solved--we want an easy-to-use hexcrawl--and then creating a thread that only allowed for behavior directed toward that goal.

The thing is: after a while you get what you need. You learn how to run the kind of game you want to run. When you need less, you give less, and the community tumbles past you. So just as the tree of liberty needs to be fed with the blood of tyrants, DIY D&D needs to be fed with problems to solve. When people have no real problem to solve they either don't show up or just show up out of loneliness, and you haven't got any decent reason to cut the good from the bad--after all you're just there to pass the time and shittiness passes time as well as niceness. This is why people tend to post better stuff when they're actually playing.

____

In the past few years, the DIY RPG scene has had a lot more success than anyone might've expected. It rescued lots of good ideas from the trash and invented lots of new ones that keep getting used, it introduced a new diversity to gaming, it produced publishing companies that actually turn a profit, it influenced a new edition of D&D that's proved to be popular, it put out products and web widgets that will probably be sought after for as long as tabletop RPGs are a thing, it exposed the pretensions of many of the worst elements in the game scene, and, more than all of that but less tangibly, it got information and new ideas into the hands of thousands of people who are using the ideas at tables that they might not have been inspired to play at before. It does, broadly, what it set out to do. But in order to keep doing it, it needs challenges.

So I guess the point is: cherish and share your problems. Tell people what you're trying to do right now and why it's hard to do it. Make it difficult. We're at our best when we have something to think at.
-
-
-
Get one here.

The City of Suffering

$
0
0

It is the City of Suffering, the City of Pain. No-one likes it, and it's universally (though never publicly) acknowledged to be a bad idea. Or a collection of them.

The streets are dark, the night an unheard-of yellow. A pinkly uncomforting light glows in the high windows. The wild festivals of other nations are unknown here--there are laws, but far more, there is decorum. Joy, or rather, exercises that point to joy, takes one form: display of expensive accessories for pets and children. Occasionally business connections or academic achievements are flaunted so long as they imply a responsibility to some institution or generation the citizen will not live to access but this behavior is more indulged than celebrated..

It is above all serious, but to no serious end: its jokes shoot for zany, flights of impotent, unrevolutionary fancy--like a man attempting to delight his daughter by pointing to a bicycle with preposterously large wheels and a bright yellow frame he would never himself dare to ride--or else they attempt to recruit laughter into a sort of stentorian combat on the side of a conventional wisdom embodying the nuclear hive of unapproached incompatibilities that power the city's dissatisfactions and enrages other citys' Distaffist Factions. They are traded in market tents of burgundy and dark gold.

Although the dissatisfactions are by no means unreasonable, the ultimate and secret source of the City of Suffering's greatest suffering is itself the agonizing closeness of its apathetically intertwined and competing anhedonias. The density of lonely but domiciled souls has inexorably resulted in a city, but they have no respect for what cities are for. They have no pleasures in common and are unified only by a devotion to pain, the performance of pain, the advertisement of pain, the creation of pain, all unacknowledged. An accosted citizen (and they hate to be accosted, they trust no-one clever enough to notice a stranger) would describe themselves as very happy and working for a better world: an aspirational one, obviously (but never admittedly) beyond the experiential reach of any mortal, given the rate of progress one has to admit is typical for sentient species. The only judgment Suffering citizens make is: How much of the distance between your reality and the ideal can you incarnate in the form of pain? How much of the misery of the world can you re-enact? Symbolism and art are permitted but not valued, as they generally turn pain into something that might be mistaken for something other than pain.

The representatives on the ruling Council of Elephantines seeks nothing--its function is to issue decrees implicating or at least juxtaposing anything interesting occurring elsewhere in- or with- (respectively)  the worst atrocities they can describe. The Council is a living commentary on the Councils of all other cities. The very concept of interestingness is suspect--it implies axes of improvement other than from irresponsible to responsible, and canvases smaller than The Planet. 

The City's shame is its lack of endgame: even if at some conceivable point all suffering might end, (practical discussions toward that end are considered vulgar and divisive luxuries of the underburdened) its citizens would be no less dreary--for in truth their citizenship is a lifestyle choice, an admission of a belief that lives worth living are more exhausting than living in constant exhibitionistic exhaustion, and risk is a vice of the overambitious. They have chosen a humble, snailing path across a plain presumed to be wholly flat, toward an undescribed and receding horizon, and despise inventions.

They hate adventurers, of course, and mock them from walled pavillions, and devise excuses to refuse water to their horses. "Poor horse" they say, while masturbating into soggy cheeses that they then name and raise as their own. 

If party members should come to trial they will be placed before a tribunal who will hold forth on the difficulties faced by its own members. Then the trial will end and the party will be executed for having had fun. They will be fed to Misericordiam, the Jackal Queen.

The wind across the city hisses like a serpent god slowly scheming off-screen, yet the daytime clouds coming in white waves present a guileless sky. The city is just a natural consequence of the gravity the dutiful but uncreative exert on one another, and like a lesser planet on the rim of a solar system it can only hurt you if you come close. 

There is no treasure here, and no magic to speak of.
-
-

-
Viewing all 1081 articles
Browse latest View live