B/X BLACKRAZOR: geezer

Showing posts with label geezer. Show all posts

Thursday, November 13, 2025

"Dear JB" Mailbag #47

A birthday present for Yours Truly...

Dear JB:

How much roleplay is there in your games?

Seriously, everytime people here [at Reddit] discuss character choices theres usually a big thread of coments about "oh, that's a great option to roleplay your concerns/fears/doubts/powers into the game". In theory it does indeed sound great but most games I've been a part of are very gygaxian. So any roleplay scenes we do have is usually very short and "oh no, this is terrible" doesn't really go beyond the flavor of the scene for me. So really, how much do you folk actually go into character on your games?

How Much Roleplay

Dear HMR:

I've been playing RPGs for more than 40 years. Started around 1982 (age 9); today, I am 52 years old. Over the decades I've played with more than 100 different individuals (that's a rough count, but I can get to at least that number of people off the top of my head)...from elementary and middle school, through high school and university, a handful of times (briefly) after graduation, and then quite a bit since 2005 or thereabouts, including participation in 4 or 5 gaming conventions.

I've played a variety of RPGs over the years..not just editions of D&D, but all sorts of Palladium games (Heroes Unlimited, TMNT, Rifts), Chaosium games (Stormbringer, ElfQuest), White Wolf games (Ars Magica, Vampire, Mage, etc.), Atlas games (Ars again, Over The Edge), indie games (Risus, FATE, InSpectres, Fiasco, etc.), and, of course, TSR games (MSH, Gamma World, Boot Hill, Top Secret, Star Frontiers). Throw in some Traveller as well (Classic and Mongoose only). Lots and lots of games...ROLEPLAYING games.

By definition, an RPG is a game in which players play a role in the game. You are not a meeple moving around a board; instead you play some sort of character. A soldier. A magician. A scientist. A vampire. A mutant animal. Whatever. How much role-playing have I seen in my role-playing games? I've seen nothing BUT roleplaying in my roleplaying games.

But you're talking about something else.

You're not talking about playing a role. You're talking about role-playing, in terms of the psychiatrist definition, specifically:

"to act out or perform the part of a person or character, for example as a technique in training or psychotherapy"

[that's from Google dictionary]

I've never been to psychotherapy, but I've done more than a few "role-playing exercises" over the years, usually as part of on-the-job training dealing with a customer service component facing our external customers (man, it's been a long-time since I held a real job...I forget all the "corporate speak" I used to know). Usually, this was all done in aid of developing tactics for, um, "crisis mitigation" or "de-escalating conflict" and, uh, "active listening"...or something. Jeez, I don't remember all this jargon. It was...fine. It's stuff I can do in my sleep, partly because I'm a trained actor and partly because I'm not braindead and I have enough empathy that I can shift my perspective to someone else's shoes. MOST people can do this...so long as they don't have crushing anxiety about "playing pretend" in front of other people. Then again, part of these trainings involved "cultivating a safe environment" in which to do these exercises.

[man, I do NOT miss the office life]

This, however, is not what occurs when I sit down to play an RPG. With a couple-three exceptions, I have ALMOST NEVER SEEN PEOPLE "PERFORMING" IN THIS WAY AT MY TABLE.

The caps are for emphasis, not "yelling," but perhaps I do want to yell a bit. First, though, I'll talk about the exceptions:

AS A PLAYER:

I've had the chance to play FATE a couple times at conventions. Once was a 1930s period piece (Spirit of the Century), the other was a Dresden Files session. As a game, FATE provides systems that interact with the "portrayal" of character traits on one's character sheet...in other words, act a certain way and get a bonus, fail to act and take a penalty. It's all good fun and allows a washed-up, ex-performer like myself to 'ham it up' and reap fat mechanical benefits from doing so. That's part of the game.

ALSO, there have been times where I was required to play (again in a tournament setting) a pre-generated "character" that had a literal personality/background to it. This did not require me to play "in character" (i.e. it did not require me to perform or use a silly accent) but it DID require me to "think" or "take action" based on the CHARACTER's motivations, rather than my own. I am thinking specifically of one convention game in which this occurred (a game of Mongoose Traveller)...but, now that I consider, playing Steve Jackson's Paranoia also requires this kind of "brain-shift." Hmm. So does Steve Jackson's Toon.

[as an aside, I tend to dislike Steve Jackson games...Car Wars, as a non-RPG, is an exception...and I especially DETEST Toon. It is really, really crappy]

[***EDIT: both Toon and Paranoia were written by Greg Costikyan, NOT Steve Jackson...although Toon was published by Steve Jackson Games. Costikyan also did WEG's Star Wars and the game Violence, both of which I own, neither of which I play, but (as with his other works) still make for entertaining reading. Thanks to Faoladh for pointing out my mistake!***]

AS A DM/GM:

When acting as the Game Master it is my job to play the part of all the non-player characters, nearly all of which are "not me" and are supposed to have their own motivations, many of which are specific to their "character" and vastly different from my own. In this way, I am "roleplaying" CONSTANTLY as a DM/GM, as I must get out of myself and into the head of the NPC/monster in order to determine what is the thing's appropriate actions/behavior. Sometimes, it is appropriate for an NPC to surrender rather than fight to the death. Sometimes it is appropriate to treat the players' character with deference...or scorn. It just depends.

Now, does this mean I am using odd accents or funny voices? Generally, no. If I "speak" for a character, it is generally because I've got a bunch of information to impart that's not easy to sum up, and it's EASIER for me to simply converse with the players "in character," rather than saying "He tells you this" (and then the players say something) "Well, then he tells you THIS" (and then the players ask some questions) "Then the guys answers this other thing" (etc.). Sometimes it is FASTER and more EXPEDITIOUS to respond as the person being interrogated/questioned.

And the "funny voices?" That happens for one of three reasons: A) to distinguish ME (the DM/GM) talking versus THE CHARACTER, B) to distinguish one NPC from another NPC, or C) because I'm tired/silly/bored and lapse into something. However, "C" is a much rarer occurrence.

Here's a typical example of "A:" when the neonate vampire PCs are dragged into the room of Axle, the Prince of Seattle, I'll use a "voice" for the Prince (when he's speaking) while I use my "normal voice" to describe what else is happening around the players that their characters can see, hear, etc.

Here's a typical example of "B:" in my home campaign, when players pick up a retainer or NPC party member, I will (RARELY!) give this character a "voice" of its own...usually because the players had reason to interact with the individual. THEN, if I am describing a situation in which the party is conversing with a DIFFERENT NPC (who needs a voice to distinguish themselves from my "normal voice" DM descriptives), that character might get its own distinct voice to create separation for my players' ears. Still, this is something I ALMOST NEVER do, largely because I don't tend to create scenes where I'm talking to myself. That's...ridiculous.

[by the way, it IS helpful to have different voices in your "repertoire" if you (like me) enjoy READING BOOKS TO YOUR KIDS. It's helpful to the listener to be able to distinguish when one character is talking from another. I did this for years (duh). Of course, I was also on the speech team in middle school where this kind of practice is quite necessary. However, playing RPGs is NOT the same thing as "reading to people." At least, it shouldn't be...]

But these "voices" are a tool in the DM's toolkit, used for a specific purpose (or, as said, because it's late at night and I'm loopy from booze and just acting silly)...not because the act of play is performative. Even as a DM my responsibility is to RUN THE GAME; that's the only duty I need to perform. Being a dancing monkey for the players' entertainment? No. If they are 'entertained,' that is a tertiary benefit, at best.

So, then, HMR: to your question.

You talk about wanting to "go into character." You say you've read discussions of "character choices" that provide opportunities to "roleplay your concerns/fears/doubts/powers into the game." You seem to lament that most of your games have been "very gygaxian," whatever that means (I infer you mean it to be the opposite of what you presume an RPG is supposed to do). You SEEM to be talking about scenes in which PLAYERS are performing the act or portraying characters.

Look, pal: I don't run acting seminars. This isn't scene work. We are not working our script, rehearsing for some performance, or improvising high drama. NOT. AT. ALL.

We are playing a game. And that game does NOT have, as its objective, PUTTING ON A SHOW.

If you think that's what playing an RPG means, then sorry, you're wrong. Yes. You are wrong. You are playing the game WRONG.

BUT...here's what DOES happen, when you play the game RIGHT:

Played correctly, your players should become fully immersed in the action at the table, so engaged with the game play that they lose track of space/time outside of the game. What's more, the MORE they are 'pushed' through the game play, the more they will identify (strongly!) with the character they are playing. They WILL speak as their character. They will act (i.e. BEHAVE) as their character, in game. Not because they are trying to portray "a character." No! Because the character IS the player. And the character subsumes more and more of the player's identity.

It is not that players portray characters. It's that characters REPRESENT PLAYERS. We are not "acting as" characters; instead, the character is the vehicle which allows US to "act," i.e. take action in the game world.

And what does that look like? It can look like the PLAYER being angry or scared or upset or triumphant or doubtful or righteous...actual, honest-to-goodness emotions. Because the players are so invested in game play that they (momentarily) forget they are playing a game. A game that does NOT have "life-or-death" stakes...just a game! But they won't treat it like a game...instead, they will treat it with deadly seriousness. "We're all going to die!" is the kind of delightful exclamation that every DM wants to hear at their table because it means they are doing their job correctly.

The GM/DM's job is to run a tight game that keeps the players firmly glued (as best as possible) to what's going on. No, that doesn't mean you are putting on a show; heck, it doesn't even mean that you are constantly barraging them with life-threatening perils ("you're jumped by 15 assassins...again!"). No, you keep their attention by keeping them interested and engaged with the game being played...for example, if they hear a rumor of an adventure site, certainly loaded with treasure, while resting in town, let THEM (the players) decide how best to approach the situation. How to get there? What are the logistical difficulties? Do we have the resources to pursue the quest? Is it worth our time, effort, and risk? Let the PLAYERs debate this (while YOU just interject little tidbits to keep their fire stoked), and soon-enough-they'll be worked into a froth just trying to figure out how many wagons to outfit for the excursion.

RPGs are a way of "playing pretend" but they are not ABOUT the "pretending." The pretending is not an object in and of itself. This is not ComicCon...we are not "cos-playing." Cosplay, like LARP, is a different animal from an RPG. RPGs are still games to be played...even if modern RPG gamers seem to have forgotten this fact.

Yeah, it's a nerdy hobby. So is wargaming and stamp collecting. Doesn't mean it's not enjoyable.

So, yeah: all my RPGs see a ton of roleplaying, but not very much "role-playing" at all. Even so, the players STILL get to feel genuine emotions (as opposed to portraying "fake emotions") and that, HMR, is one of the great joys of this type of game play. Embrace it.

Sincerely,

Friday, November 15, 2024

Something To Listen To

It's Friday, which means (I suppose) that it's time to pen another post for the slowest readership day of the week. *sigh*

I've been busy (yes, yes, we know...). My birthday was on Wednesday, and the family went down to the Paramount to watch the stage musical Wicked. Never seen it before, but I remember when the book came out (back in the mid-90s). I've enjoyed these "retellings from the villain's perspective" stories immensely over the years (Maleficent, Circe, etc.). Of course, Marion Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Avalon was probably the first and best of of these...then again, I've never read Mr. Maguire's novel. Certainly, no one's made a musical out of MZB's book, but I'd guess that's due to Morgan Le Fay having less 'cultural cache' then the Wicked Witch of the West.

Anyway, it was pretty good. The performances were top notch, especially Ephaba whose technical proficiency (voice wise) was pretty impressive...I don't remember witnessing that kind of singing ability since (perhaps) Phantom of the Opera. The production itself was pretty spectacular (some really elaborate set and costume design), even if the story was a little light-weight. Our family enjoyed it.

[by the way, I find it a little weird this recent theme in media of humanizing both the 'outsider' and the 'establishment' and bringing them together in these kumbaya stories (Wednesday Addams, anyone?). Maybe that's just me, but...well, whatever. Sign of the times, I guess]

The other thing I spent half the week listening to was the exceptionally good When We Were Wizards podcast. 15 episodes of oral history about the foundations of Dungeons & Dragons, TSR, and the rise and fall of Gary Gygax as told by the people who were there...and there were a lot of people interviewed for the show. Yes, quite fascinating, and rather compulsive listening...even my 10 year old got sucked into listening to multiple episodes. Gary's personal story is as incredible as it is tragic. Few people in this world are propelled into immense fame and fortune by falling into the exact right set of circumstances for their time and talent...and fewer still (if any) are prepared to handle it with wisdom and maturity.

For those of us who enjoy the game of Dungeons & Dragons, we owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Gygax and to all those people who helped in the game's creation. But mostly, I think, to Gygax.

Okay, that's enough. I have a couple things to work on today (perhaps for a weekend blog post? We'll see...). But right now, I might enjoy another slice of this delicious pineapple upside down cake that my wife bakes me every year for my birthday. Goes perfect with the morning coffee.

Cheers!

: )

Tuesday, June 11, 2024

Page Counts

Waaaay back in January, I mentioned Ben Gibson was hosting an adventure writing contest (specifically, an adventure site writing contest), but I absolutely failed to write any particular follow-up post on the subject. My apologies. Here's the skinny: the contest ended and, yes, my entry won.

However, that latter bit is completely unimportant. What IS important is that the compilation of the best entries was released (um, yeah, back in April dude) and is currently available for FREE over at DriveThru. Would you like a handful of adventure sites to sprinkle into your game world as little side excursions? Well, here you go: 32 pages of PDF consisting of eight "adventure sites," each constricted to two pages of text plus map. Not bad. And did I mention it's free?

Here's the bit that I like about it (besides being one of the entries): it's 32 pages.

There was a time when D&D adventure modules ALL clocked in at about "32 pages." That time was long ago, in the magical time period known as the 1980s.

[funny side note: my kids have romantic notions of the '80s and have often said they wish they'd been alive at that time. My daughter, especially, has lamented that time travel isn't possible, as she'd want to travel back in time to the 1980s and live her childhood then. It makes me laugh. Yes, there are many things about that decade that I miss and/or that I'm nostalgic about, but having LIVED through them...yeah, no. Mm. Okay, enough...that's a tangent I could wax on about all day...]

And there's good reason for that number. 32 is just eight pages, folded and saddle stitched. Half the size of the B/X books which (at 64 pages each) were just about the limit for a saddle-stitched printer of the time.

Hm. Okay, I'm making an assumption there: my own printer has told me that 64 pages + cover is pretty much the limit of their capabilities. Not sure what reprographics technology was like back in the early 80s. But all those old TSR game manuals (Top Secret, Star Frontiers, Boot Hill, Gamma World, etc.) clocked in at 64 pages or less.

But TSR's adventure modules were always smaller, maxing out at 32 pages apiece...at least up through 1985. 1985 sees the release of WG6: Isle of the Ape (at 48 pages) as well as the Temple of Elemental Evil "super-module" (although that one wasn't saddle-stitched). Beginning in 1986, larger saddle-stitched modules become more and more common offerings from TSR, including most of the final Dragonlance scenarios, B10: Night's Dark Terror, other BECMI-era modules, the DA (Dave Arneson) series of adventures, etc. Of course, 1986 brought the entry of even more "super-modules" to the market, too (A1-4, GDQ, I1-3, etc.) as well as the infamous H-series (Bloodstone).

In other words: about the same time adventures started turning bad.

Boo-hiss! JB you suck! I love Mentzer's I11: Needle, and I12: Ravenloft 2 is an absolute masterpiece!

Sure, sure, whatever. I'm sure there are plenty of good adventures published by TSR after 1985...my own purchase of modules post-'85 were very few and far between (unless I was picking up old modules...used...from The Book Exchange in Missoula, MT). Fact is that there was a period of time as a kid when I simply had little access to adventure modules at all...that period being between (roughly) 1986 to 1988. As a kid without income (any "allowance" my parents gave me was pretty paltry and probably spent on the occasional comic book), and no car (few places within biking distance of my house at the time carried ANY D&D stuff...maybe B. Dalton's books), there was simply no real opportunity to even peruse these latter-day modules, let alone purchase any. And by the time I got to high school (1988) I was (mostly) out of the D&D hobby anyway, having discovered actual game stores (in the University District and Capitol Hill) and a plethora of distractions...including other RPGs.

These days, though...

There is a limit to what I will read. That's the truth. My time and, frankly, my attention span is rather limited. A 32 page adventure scenario is pretty much the limit of what I can dig into. Oh, I've picked up other offerings...both from the OSR and those "glory days" of the late 1980s...that are far, far larger than 32 pages. But in general they are a slog to read through. And as adventures, they are tricky (for me) to conceptualize and 'hold' in my mind.

Let me explain what I mean by that: when I DM an adventure I need a good "grasp" of the thing to be effective in running it. I need to be able to keep track of the NPCs, the encounters, the way the adventure 'works' (functions) as a site (or sites, if multiple). I need to be able to hold these things in my head in order to react to the antics of the players in a fashion that is appropriate. And by "appropriate" I mean A) in a way which doesn't harm the verisimilitude of the play experience and B) does not cause a cascade effect of errors down the rest of the adventure due to dereliction or neglect.

Probably I should give examples...and yet I'm so set in how I do adventures already, I don't have any "bad examples" to provide. Perhaps I'm just lazy: maybe I could take and run a 60+ page monstrosity without needing to look stuff up, flip through pages, get confused, get lost. Maybe. Perhaps I've tried running such an adventure in the past and just...can't...remember.

But here's the thing: an adventure is just a scenario. That's it; that's all it is. It (ideally) has a key of encounters that should be both sensible and appropriate (two terms I'm using very specifically). And (again, this is for me) it should have an overall design concept in which those encounters function together in synchronicity...not like a "well-oiled machine," but more like a healthy living organism. Because when we play Dungeons & Dragons we are immersing ourselves in a world and a world lives and breathes. And the person running that world is also a living organism, one subject to error and illness.

Ugh. I'm probably not laying this out right. Let me approach it from a different angle: 32 pages is IMMENSE, okay? Considering that you are providing a single scenario for adventure...something that the players may choose to ignore or move on from or spend several evenings delving...there is a LOT you can pack into 32 pages. Ravenloft was only 32 pages...and it has more than 120 keyed areas, AND wasted page count on full page illustrations and fortune-card mini-games. The entire Against the Giant series (G1-G3) was published in a 32 pages, and that can take months to complete. 32 pages is a LOT.

If you need more than 32 pages to pen your adventure module, then it probably needs to be broken up into more than one scenario.

That's my opinion, of course. But it feels like a lot of these huge page count adventures are "something more" than a single scenario. They are "setting guides." Or they are "mini-campaigns." And, especially with regard to the latter, why wouldn't you break them into different sections, different linked/related adventures rather than a single, unwieldy book?

Of course, there are also the vaunted "mega-dungeons": the Barrowmazes and the Stone Hells. I know some folks love these. I know that some folks consider mega-dungeon delving to be the TRUE way of playing D&D based on the examples set down by Gygax and Arneson (with Castles Greyhawk and Blackmoor, respectively). They're not for me. I am nearly as interested...and yet far more invested...in the world outside the dungeon, as in the dungeon itself. The idea of playing through a dozen levels of anything is foreign to my game...why O why would I ever want to purchase such a thing for my table?

Heck, I've never been able to finish reading the Temple of Elemental Evil without dozing off.

So, I've come to a conclusion: I'm not going to write any any adventures with a page count higher than 32. 'Big deal, JB, you don't write adventures.' Well, I'm starting to. And I'm going to set some working parameters for myself. 32 pages, including cover page, appendices, pre-gens, etc. That's it. Truth be told, I am a little disappointed that Dragon Wrack was a whopping 41 pages...however, in my defense it did include six pages of pre-gen write-ups and a three page Chainmail supplement.

No more!

I'm totally serious here (silly as this subject might sound). An adventure should offer maximum playability with minimal prep. A 32 page adventure module can be read and digested in an afternoon, and run in the evening...THAT should be the goal. The adventure isn't the game, after all. Oh, it's a big part of the game, but it. Ain't. The. Game.

[I feel like I'm writing a lot of sentences like that lately]

32 pages should be an absolute maximum for the adventure proper. Many adventures shouldn't even need that many pages (pick up a copy of classics like S1: Tomb of Horrors or C1: Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan and remove the illustration booklets...count how many pages those are). Just what are we doing these days with the adventures being published. Here's a list of the last 25 adventures reviewed over at TenFootPole:

a 60 page "non-adventure"
a 17 page adventure with a 7-room dungeon
a 32 page "walking simulator" (not an adventure)
a 17 page adventure with a single encounter
a 30 page adventure with 6 encounters
an 18 page adventure with 12 rooms
an 87 page adventure with 30 rooms
a 100 page adventure with 60ish rooms
a 48 page "digest pointcrawl" with 17 encounters
a 100 page dungeon of nine levels
a 150 page supplement/setting guide
a 104 page jungle hexcrawl
a 120 page city supplement featuring 3 dungeons ("not an adventure")
a 58 page adventure featuring 67 encounters
a 34 page regional guide with "nothing of interest"
a 182 page adventure (holy jeez)
a 31 page adventure featuring 3 mini dungeons of 6ish rooms each
a 75 page "Call of Cthulhu-type" adventure
a 38 page "not an adventure"
a 30 page adventure that seems pretty good
a 24 page adventure that also seems pretty good
a 24 page adventure with 35 rooms
an 8 page adventure describing 12 encounters
a 44 page incomprehensible "adventure"
a 19 page "adventure" consisting of random tables

[why am I looking at Bryce Lynch's reviews? Because A) he is prolific and experienced, B) he has standards to which he adheres, C) he (tries to) only review things classified as "adventures" and does so fairly indiscrimately]

Of those 25, 14 have too high a page count for (my) practical purposes, 3 more are non-adventures, and 4 of those left have a higher page count than the number of encounters in the thing (which is totally unacceptable). That's 21 of 25 (84%) automatically eliminated from my consideration for running, regardless of how "good" the review might be.

Of the four remaining, #22 and #23 get eliminated due to their ratio of encounters to page count. Yeah, there are more encounters than pages, but nor much more...a designer should not need a whole page to detail an encounter, and even though I realize the number given is the average...well, that's still too much extraneous detail/padding for my taste. Tighten it up, folks!

*sigh* I'm sure I'm coming off as entirely unfair and/or "out of touch with the times." Yeah, okay. I'm mean and old (and getting meaner and older). But here's the thing: adventures are meant to be played, not read. Yes, I know some people purchase these things strictly for reading enjoyment. Yes, I'm aware that writers publish material with this very criteria in mind (and that's how they earn their bread). Yes, I realize that a shit-ton of people don't really understand this hobby we're in. I get it. Fine.

Adventures are meant to be played, not read. D&D is meant to be experienced through play...not through reading a book and/or watching other people (i.e. on a streaming series). I get that people derive enjoyment from this type of thing, and that's fine (if, IMO, "weird"). But folks that are doing this are NOT "playing D&D." They are not doing the activity that we call gaming. They are doing AN ACTIVITY, but it is NOT gaming. It is reading. It is watching. It is "fanning." It is consuming.

But it's not playing D&D.

Adventure modules facilitate play of the game. That is: they make it easier. Or, rather, they should make it easier. That was their original purpose. But that's been lost...for the most part. It happens. A lot of things have been lost over the years. Doesn't mean we all need to (or want to) travel back in time to the 1980s.

My parameters are my own. You're welcome to create your own parameters. "32 pages" works for me.

Friday, April 19, 2024

On Winning

For one, brief moment...in this moment...I feel like I'm on top of things.

This is not a very common feeling for me; so much of the time I feel like I'm running behind...like I'm constantly trying to do the bare minimum to tread water or stay afloat or get just enough done so that things don't completely fall apart. It's like the pressure (I imagine) of going into the 9th inning of a ball game with a one run lead...you're winning, but it's a struggle to make sure you don't give up the tying (or go ahead!) run, knowing that you'll be batting the bottom of your order against a really good closer if you somehow screw things up.

Or something like that.

At this moment, I'm feeling comfortable. To continue the baseball analogy, this morning feels like we're in the 4th inning and have a five run lead. Yes, there's still ball to be played...several innings worth...but for the moment, we're taking a breather, cruising a little bit. It's not so imperative to press at the moment...it's not so necessary to hold on for dear life.

I savor these moments: they're few and far between, and they don't last. Tomorrow, for example, is Saturday and we have a soccer game at 9am (Sofia), a playoff volleyball game at 2pm in Bellevue (Diego), and 5pm Mass in Shoreline for the anniversary of my mother's death. On Sunday we'll be hosting Sofia's birthday party (I'll be picking up cupcakes at 10am), Diego's golf at 11ish (unless he skips it for Sofia's party) possibly another playoff volleyball game at 1pm (if we win Saturday), plus a flag football game at 5pm, and (hopefully) dinner reservations in the evening. And sometime between now and tomorrow, I have to pick up supplies and such for the party, and it would probably help to get her a gift of some sort...tricky since the kids get out of school at noon today.

This moment is simply the calm before the storm.

Sometimes, I wonder at how games like Dungeons & Dragons...complex games that take time and effort to master...were ever invented, let alone became popular. Because they WERE popular when I was a kid; popular enough, anyway, that most kids had at least heard of D&D (and, thus, their parents), even if they hadn't played the game. We had sports and school and church and stuff, too, back in the 1980s but we seemed to have far more time for playing D&D then we do now. Hell, we had more time for a LOT of stuff that my kids don't seem to have: bike riding and camping trips and books...man, I read so many books in my youth. So many.

But I know what's different now: we live in the Age of the Screen. The television, the game console, the laptop, the smart phone, the streaming services...all things the eat up the time.

Yes, of course they offer plenty of convenience and time-saving: my wife only needs to go into an office twice per week, I can write books while parked on my couch, birthday parties can be stocked via Amazon orders and bills can be paid without needing to write checks and place them in the mail. No need to take cooking classes or higher handy-people when How-To videos abound for free on the internet.

And, yet, the screen is mesmerizing, hypnotic, consuming. I can waste hours over the course of the day reading wikipedia entries or streaming useless videos on worthless subject matter. My family can (and does) spend hours of our "free" time watching television shows in the evenings and filling "empty" moments on the weekends. My kids will (when allowed) blow hours of their childhood lives playing nonsensical video games, rather than exercising their own creativity and imagination...and they fail, so often (so, so often) at any sort of self-direction outside of using a game console or screen device for game play.

At least the weather is getting nicer and I know they will (of their own volition) spend more time in the yard, playing football and baseball and badminton. But indoors, when the sun goes down or the rain comes out? It's back on the screens, more often than not, rather than choosing something NON-screen related. Unless I am there and available for them.

This was not the case in my youth: we had only one screen (the television) and it had less than a half-dozen channels. When my parents were unavailable (which was MOST of the time), my brother and I were forced to entertain ourselves: reading, playing, gaming, or just making shit up. I feel like we even talked more...with each other, with our friends...but perhaps that's a false memory. My kids certainly talk with us (parents) a LOT, if not each other, and there were plenty of times I was absorbed in some book or other rather than engaging with my brother.

Yeah, that one's probably inaccurate.

*sigh*

I sat down to write an article "On Winning" and its turned into the usual Old Man Yelling At Clouds post. I am getting to be a geezer, darn it...just in case there wasn't already enough evidence of that. Mm. Let's try to salvage something:

With regard to volleyball, I wrote back in February that youth sports are a wonderfully safe way for kids to learn how to fail, building character calluses that will give them some durability against the future blows life deals out. I also wrote that I expected a lot of failure this season and hoped that it would still be both fun and useful.

Well, it turns out we've had much less failure then I anticipated. The players have been eminently coachable, and the amount of effort and athleticism they've squeezed from their bodies is simply remarkable. We have, for the most part, been under-sized and under-manned in every single game we've played (the sole exception was against a team comprised entirely of 7th graders playing up a year) and still managed to roll out enough victories to be playoff eligible. Every single player on our squad of nine is lacking in one or more key areas: size, speed, skill, confidence, discipline, jumping, serving. And yet they compensate for each others' weak ares and they are scrappy as hell; even the games we've lost (with one exception) have been "tough outs" for our opponents.

I am immensely proud of them (in case you hadn't guessed). They are playing their best volleyball right now, at the end of the season, and they are excited and eager to play more, to win, in the playoffs.

And this is the other wonderful thing about youth sports: when it's working, it should be building kids' confidence and sense of self. Team sports, especially, are useful as players find ways to contribute to the team's overall success: yes, some players are stronger than others, but everyone gets their moment to shine. Everyone can celebrate their teammates' individual victories; everyone can be there to support each other in hard moments (and know they have that support). It is so easy to get kids...young, impressionable humans...to gel as a cohesive unit, when you give them an opportunity to play and have an objective for their focus. School pride, for example, or a championship run.

Again, old edition D&D is much like this. Players are a team of disparate individuals, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and yet each necessary and valuable contributors to the team's success. And when they are successful...working with and for each other, picking each other up, doing their own part...that success breeds enthusiasm and energy, eagerness and engagement. All rallied around - and directed towards - a common, shared goal or objective.

Coaching and DMing aren't all that different. In both cases, my work mainly consists of opening my players' eyes so that they SEE what it is they're doing and why. To help them understand the value of both themselves AND their teammates. To FOCUS them so that they can be successful, together, despite their differences.

There is, sadly, not enough of this in our world today (yes, yes, the curmudgeonly opinion of one old geezer). For my own kids, it's important (to me) that I wring out every last drop...for their sake.

Happy Friday, folks.

: )

Thursday, September 28, 2023

Distinctions of Age

I'm finally starting to get it.

That's going to make little sense to anyone. "Get what exactly? D&D?" No...that I figured out a while ago. I'm talking about other things. Aging. Youth. Wisdom. Generation gaps. Political divides. Perspective. Knowledge. What it means, what it's worth, how it's acquired. The burdens of maturity. The challenge of distributing or disseminating information to others. For others. For their benefit.

Apologies. I'm not trying to be obscure with what I'm writing about, or what I want to say about the subject of these things that I'm (finally, after decades) starting to really, truly grok. But this isn't a post about those things. It is a post about me...about my relationship to this newfound understanding. About my widening awareness.

Oh, and least anyone wonder: this isn't about me knowing death or contemplating mortality (my own or others). No. And if it comes off as melancholic at all, please know it is a very wistful kind of melancholy, not my usual soul-drowning dark melancholy (the kind that I have been a slave to many times throughout my life).

Fact is, I'm feeling pretty good at the moment. Coming off of Covid (yeah, the 'Rona finally caught me...evaded it nearly five years, though). I'm off the booze and caffeine again. Head's clear. Moderating the exercise and diet. I feel like I'm coming into the "fullness of my strength." No, I am not "strong" at every aspect one can master in life: but I am very aware of my own capabilities, of what I can and can't do. And of the things that I am good at...well, I'm pretty darn good at them. I know my own limits and my own capabilities and...with regard to both...I can still accomplish what I want and need to accomplish. For the most part, I'm just fine-tuning at this point.

I am a rock. One still in need of polishing, but solid enough.

But what I'd perhaps aspire to be is a sun. Something giving off light and warmth...a force for life. A force for good. A fixed point, a gravitational force...though no different from the trillions of other lights in the sky, not O So Special or anything like that. Solid enough, strong enough. But shining. A beacon of sorts.

Yes. I suppose that is the aspiration.

And so...onto my relationship with knowledge and a "deeper, wider perspective." As I wrote: I'm starting to get it. And it's...tough. It's tough because you have this incredibly useful well of understanding that you're starting to tap into...and, it's not the kind of thing that you can share. Because the people you'd like to give it to aren't capable of drinking it. It needs to be lived to be understood...it requires the experiences that come with living 50+ years. The perspective that comes. Not just from experiences...lots of young people have lots of huge, tremendous, terrible "character-building" experiences. No, it's a combination of experiences AND years lived. It has to include the passage of time. Because then you start living cycles. And then you start understanding how the younger folks think...because you've been there. You've been a teen. And a kid in your 20s. And in your 30s. And in your 40s. You've been through those stages of life, AND you have the experiences under your belt, AND you can see how those experiences interact with each "stage of life" at those moments in time.

It's a heady feeling. And a frustrating one. And yet not a frustrating one (they'll get to where you are...eventually)...because you've learned patience along the way.

At least, I've learned patience. I wonder if, perhaps, some middle-aged folks my age haven't. That's possible. I wouldn't call myself a patient person by nature (I'd say my natural tendency is to be impatient...with myself as much or more than anyone else). But I've done work on this over the years. Meditation and prayer aren't really my cup of tea (which is fine; I know it works for some). But I've found ways to exercise my mental discipline...fasting, for example...that have helped build up the "muscle" of patience.

All of which, I realize, is largely esoteric and unhelpful. "Why bother making this a blog post, JB?" Well, first off, I wanted to post toYe Old Blog this morning. Second off, it helps mark my head space at the moment. And third off...wellll...

There's always the chance that someone might find this...vaguely...hopeful. Some young reader, whose feeling like, damn I just can't get it together, or the world is so confusing or I just can't get how/why shit is the way it is, and what do I need to DO about it...what do I need to DO to make it so that I feel a little less miserable or confused or disheartened about this particular place and moment in time?

To which I'd say: you don't need to DO anything. Or (rather): just continue "doing" what you do. If you don't like what you do, then do something else and/or find a way to do something you DO enjoy doing. And WHILE you're doing....whatever it is...you CHOOSE to be doing, try ALSO to (simultaneously) add a little more kindness, a little more compassion, a little more patience for people. Not just other people. ALL people...that includes yourself.

Do that. Just that. Not a lot...just that.

Understanding will come. Perspective will come. Wisdom will come.

All, right. That's enough. Much thanks to all of you for your indulgence.

: )

Sunday, July 30, 2023

How Harry Potter Ruined Literature

Well, not all literature, of course. Just children's literature.

As part of the "clean up" of my mother's estate, I've had to go through all her worldly possessions, the vast bulk of which were retained in the house in which she lived the last 45 years. My mother was not one to throw things out that might retain usefulness...and far less likely to do so for anything of sentimental value...and so I've found plenty of possessions that I recall her having owned since BEFORE we moved into the house where she lived the majority of her life (i.e. the house my family moved to when I was four years old). Hell, I've found things from before MY time, carefully preserved, in boxes, chest, dressers, etc. An old steamer trunk contained not only her wedding veil, but the top piece from her wedding cake and (what I can only presume is) a saved piece of the cake itself. A cedar "hope chest" containing mementoes of her childhood, including her own childhood journals, diaries, and scrap books. 75 years of life saved...her own, her family's, those of myself and my brother.

And, of course, books. My family..on my mother's side...has always been readers and lovers of books. I own shelves and shelves of books in my own home...more than half a dozen stuffed full. My mother had twice as many, most of which go from floor to ceiling, some shelves having two rows of books (one in front of the other)...and then there are cardboard boxes, crates, filled with other books (carefully organized by author or genre) that she probably intended for donation, having found a need to clear shelf space (to make room for new volumes).

Going through the books in my mother's home, I have come across shelves containing my own books...books from my youth, books that I haven't read since I was a child of 10 or 11 or younger. Most of these slim paperbacks, the kinds of books one (once) found on the shelves of school and public libraries designated for young readers. Adventures or mysteries or (subdued) science fiction featuring young (kid or teen) protagonists. What I used to think of as typical kids reading. Many of these...especially anything with a detective or mystery or "horror" (think "ghost story") theme I've collected for my daughter, who struggles to find books that pique (let alone hold) her interest.

And I realized something the other day as I collected these books and showed them to my nine year old and saw her delight and excitement...I realized just how different children's books are these days. The books that I used to read...regardless of the genre, regardless of supernatural or fantastical elements that they might include...were still just about kids. Normal everyday kids. Kids thrust into strange situations or experiencing dramatic circumstances, but kids readily identifiable as normal children.

NOT individuals suddenly discovering that they have "magic powers" and are destined to go to wizard school to learn why they speak to snakes. NOT kids who are descended from Greek gods. NOT kids who have been trained since birth to become super spies covertly working for MI6 or the CIA as soon as they hit puberty. NOT children endowed with wealth and resources and family legacies of secret societies.

In other words, NOT the protagonists of the various popular kids books...or, rather, series of books...that line the shelves of Barnes & Noble and that my son (and the few kids we know that might read as voraciously as my son) tends to read. Kids' literature these days are not about a normal child having to deal with an extraordinary turn of events...instead, they are stories of extraordinary, fantastical "children" dealing with the burden of being some sort of "Chosen One" figure.

WTF.

Frankly, it made me (and makes me) more and more irritated the more I think about it. Yes, the Pevensie children of C.S. Lewis's The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe are destined to become the High Kings and Queens or Cair Paravel, but only after starting as normal everyday children and undergoing incredible experiences. They are quite ordinary in many respects, and the children of Lewis's later Narnia chronicles are even MORE ordinary...just normal kids trying to get by in spite of the weirdness of their surroundings. The same holds true for Baum's Dorothy Gale...folks of Oz may presume Dorothy has some magical powers or abilities, but Dorothy herself operates under no such delusion.

But those aren't the books I'm talking about anyway. Those take place in Narnia or Oz or whatever...most of the children's books I'm talking about take place on real world Earth with normal kids that discover an extra-terrestrial or a treasure map or a haunted castle or whatever. Normal kids with normal kid issues (family, school, whatever) in addition to whatever circumstances the author of the book throws at them...and forced to find inner resolve or ingenuity or courage or determination or whatever to deal with that extraordinary situation as a normal child in addition to dealing with the standard kid issues of family, school, etc.

In REAL fashion. Not just casting a spell on your parents to make them forget you exist so you can go off and fight evil with your wand.

I'm sorry...I know a lot of my readers are probably twenty-plus years younger than myself and grew up reading and loving Rowling's books. I've never liked them all that much. And their incredible success has fueled trends in children's literature that I dislike immensely. Call me an old curmudgeon (I call myself one anyway).

Just wanted to get that all off my chest.

Friday, December 23, 2022

Killing It Softly

All right...maybe a very SHORT blog post.
; )

There is weirdness in the virtual (internet) air these days...anxiety over Dungeons & Dragons that I simply don't understand. Stuff about One D&D and the new OGL and the "death" of the game or the "death" of the OSR or...I don't know. Anxiety.

And I conclude this is just a cyclical thing, because Once Upon A Time, many years ago, I had similar anxieties. The Game Will Die. Go extinct...like the dodo. And my children's children's children will never know the joy of kicking in a dungeon door and sticking their imaginary blade in some fairytale monstrosity.

Alexis used to give me a hard time for worrying about that kind of thing.

Who would carry on the legacy of D&D when all the old idiots like me had passed from this planet? Who would be left to understand the "right" way to play D&D?

*sigh* It seems like every few years I have to take stock of my own past idiocies. It's a constant process of refinement called "living an introspective life."

Cyclical. I was recently hipped to this old Raggi blog post from waaaay back in 2008...never read it at the time, and only heard about it through this video post of him reading the transcript. However, even if I had read it back in 2008, I'm afraid much of it would have been over my head...just as it is clear from the comments that much of it was over LOTS of folks' heads. The problem is, he is conflating multiple issues into a single rant and thereby burying (or at least, confusing) the kernels of truth that he'd hit upon.

It's taken me decades of self-work and re-wiring analysis to synthesize this kind of thing. Here's probably the best bit:

You're not playing a game pretending to navigate your playing piece (called "a character") through some story where you get to be the hero! You are using the rules to pretend to be someone and experience and react as that person would though a dangerous world. Nothing more, and nothing less. If you want to be the hero...then you get to try. To guarantee success is to defeat the entire purpose of role-playing.

[if you want to read the most pertinent bits of the post, rather than the entire screed, I'd suggest beginning your read AFTER the indented tangent]

And, you see, to me that IS fun...if by 'fun' one means an enjoyable pastime that one wants to continue pursuing for the pleasure of it. Despite his provocative title, Raggi doesn't "hate fun;" he hate's a particular brand of time-wasting that some folks (including he himself!) lazily assign the convenient label of "fun."

I can grok that. I've been hitting the holiday goodies and holiday booze a little too hard lately myself (and my waistline bears witness to the fact). Tis the season, as they say. And while it's all well and good to hate one's lax discipline in January (and vow to take steps to rectify the back-sliding), it's important that we appreciate just why we have this period of time when we "let ourselves go:" we are enjoying the company of our fellow humans and sharing a bond of seasonal joy (and stress!) together.

Which is, of course, one of the great benefits of the Great Game of Dungeons & Dragons. It helps us connect with our fellow humans, sharing joys and excitements and stresses with them in a fashion that is UN-likely to leave (real) folks dead and bleeding on the ground.

Has crass commercialism killed the spirit of Christmas? I realize that sometimes it can feel like this. But what IS the "spirit of Christmas?" It's not like Jesus (the dude my fellow Christians and I celebrate) was born on December 25th...that was simply the day the Romans celebrated their winter solstice festival...the darkest day of the year and the mark of the return to growing light in the world. Folks wanting to listen to cheerful music, decorate their homes with lights, give gifts, and eat/drink special foods with loved ones this time of year should feel little guilt in their holiday enjoyment...whether they're believers in Christ and His message or not! If you're celebrating your shared humanity...and not robbing and murdering folks...then you're probably showing more "Christmas spirit" than MANY of us display for MOST of the year.

I celebrate Christmas in my own way...just as I play Dungeons & Dragons in my own way. I have adapted holiday traditions of my mother's family, my father's family, and my wife's family, as well as creating traditions of my own for my own family. My children will synthesize these traditions and add their own twists and tweaks...just as they will do with their D&D games. Just as their children will do, some day down the road.

Will the continued commodification of D&D and the iron grip of corporate greed destroy D&D? Are you kidding me?

Pick up an extra copy of your favorite rule system (print on demand is still available for many books). Teach the game to someone young and imaginative. Pass along the rules to them to explore on their own. Share your joy. Engage with your fellow humans in a deep and meaningful way...one that is active rather than that of the passive consumer.

Doing this might assuage some of the anxiety. Maybe even cause it to dissipate entirely.

I (half-)joke that I'm an old man. "Old" is an extremely relative term. I'm not even 50 (that's next year), and my low impact, semi-healthful lifestyle has kept me at about the same level of fitness for a couple decades. Even so, I've been playing D&D for longer than many players have been ALIVE...that makes me a real geezer in relation to the gaming community.

Here's my "geezer wisdom" for my fellow gamers this holiday season. Worry less, play more. Play for the experience; play for the connections it makes with others.

I'll talk at y'all in the New Year (or possibly, next week). Have a happy one, folks!

Saturday, June 4, 2022

Other Games

Watched the first episode of the new Stranger Things last night (well, this morning...around 1am) and now I am annoyed. Like, really annoyed. Not because of the new characters or plot developments or story arc changes...no, all that stuff is neat, interesting and welcome. Well done, intriguing, makes me want to watch more.

No, what has annoyed me to no end is the new D&D player boasting about her 14th level rogue character...in 1986. Three years before 2nd edition would introduce "rogue" as general class specification of thieves and bards, and 14 years before 3rd edition would introduce "rogue" as a specific, playable class in lieu of the thief.

Color me the brightest color of nerd on the planet...fine. For a series that prides itself in grounding its setting in a particular time period, this is an annoying, gross misstep that I simply cannot unsee. It has tainted my enjoyment of the show; it's broken my suspension of disbelief. It's lowered my opinion of the Duffer Brothers' "D&D cred;" born in 1984 did they ever actually play the brand of Dungeons & Dragons their protagonists do?

*sigh* The things that annoy us. Everyone has their pet peeves...this is just one of those things that really chaps my hide.

[the idea that ketamine...i.e. "Special K"...would have been available to a casual drug dealer in '86 in as small a town as Hawkins also seems a bit dicey, though that may simply be my naivete regarding 80s drug culture (it wasn't on my radar till the 90s). But THAT particular anachronism bothers me a lot less...go figure]

Moving on to other, non-"nerd rage" topics: I wrote...mm...last weekend (maybe?) that I wanted to introduce my kids to some new RPGs, particularly Gamma World and Top Secret. Top Secret it was (or, as my kids call it, "super spies"). My son's British MI6 agent, "Chad" caused me no small amount of amusement (mainly due to his name which, to him, sounded "very English") though his antics were a bit more Johnny English than James Bond. In the end, he was KIA while trying to rescue the U.S. president (Operation: Executive One, from the TS Administrator's screen)...having his foot shot off by a shotgun-tripwire trap.

Fun, but not as much fun as D&D (that cleric magic can really mitigate missteps, you know?). And I'm afraid Gamma World wasn't even tried, and probably won't be any time soon. There's a LOT that I dig about the GW game...just reading the 1E rules or early adventures like Famine in Fargo and The Albuquerque Spaceport are a JOY. But I'm not a huge fan of the GW system...it's just so...

Mm. I don't know the word I'm looking for. It's kind of immune to planning or manipulation. It's too "swingy;" there's no mastery of design, really. Um...hm. Okay, how 'bout this:

Gamma World, unlike other RPGs, is poorly done when it comes to character generation. Not because it's poorly themed (I rather like the PSH, Humanoid, Animal selection), but because...outside the first choice of "character type"...you are a slave to the random die roll. It is possible to create an Uber-mutant...or a complete genetic dead end. And it's all based on a random throw of the bones. Vast discrepancies in effectiveness are possible between different players' characters...and the success of the PCs adventures largely comes down to how heavy a hand the GM is willing to take.

Such is not the case with D&D, for example: 1st level characters have their different skill sets, but they are largely comparable in power...and experience/leveling gives a good indication of what types of challenge/obstacle are appropriate for a party of a particular size. That's ain't GW, where a beginning mutant may (by dint of fortunate rolls) come out as a powerhouse while her amigos are all primitive weenies. I saw a lot of this, Back In The Day (when I used to run 2E)...more than GW setting nonsense, this is what eventually turned me off on the game. Somehow, I always seem to forget this aspect of Gamma World, right up till it's time for chargen.

[and I'll probably forget about it in the future as well. Dennis Laffey's GamMarvel World idea remains an intriguing one...something I'd love to run with pre-gens sometime...]

Other games: I picked up the latest version of Twilight 2000 a few (three to five) weeks back. It continues to sit, unopened and shrink-wrapped, on my living room coffee table. I don't know why. I don't know what I'm waiting for. I'm going to open it. Soon. One of these days.

Ugh. I'm scattered all over the place this morning. Truth be told, there's nothing burning terribly brightly on my mind this morning, other than the sunshine streaming through the window. I'd like to go for a bike ride today, I think...a little exercise, a little fresh air. That's what I need...not more games.

I already have/own/run the BEST game. The session with the new kid went well yesterday. I won't bother to bore folks (more than I already have) with tales of the party's exploits, but great fun was had, and much success as well. I don't know why I need to collect and hoard other RPGs.

All right, this post is going nowhere...maybe I'm just tired (still). Going back to sleep for a bit.

Friday, April 22, 2022

Change

Yesterday was my daughter's 8th birthday. It was a lot of fun, lots of crazy kids running around, enjoying themselves. A house full of 2nd grade girls, doing crafting projects, making tortillas, playing hide-n-seek, breaking pinatas (well, one pinata), etc. Fun, fun, fun.

And, of course, a time for reflection and nostalgia when (later, after the guests had left) my daughter and mother and I went through photos from 2014 when she had just been born and was still a little red-faced babe with a spiky mohawk. *sigh* Change. So inevitable. So uncomfortable...at times.

My D&D journey has taken me back to the beginning of my personal history, now that I'm (pretty exclusively) playing first edition AD&D. To an outside observer I can understand how my adherence to that old edition of the game can seem like a curmudgeonly way of clenching my fists and trying to hold tight to some piece of history, resisting the inevitable march of change...of progress. I can see how the AD&D aficionado must often seem like dowager Lady Grantham pining for the pomp and tradition of the previous century (sorry...the fam has been rewatching the Downton Abbey series for, like, the third time through).

Image of the inner
soul of a typical
first edition gamer.

But that's...not quite right. Nor is it simple nostalgia, nor is it the flighty/flakiness of the gamer of a person unwilling to commit to a single version and must constantly play and try other games. These things...obstinance, nostalgia, flakiness...are certainly present in me (all to a great degree, actually), but that's not what's going on here. And I want to talk about just what IS going on...at least from my perspective.

As I mentioned at the end of my last post, German AD&D enthusiast Settembrini recently interviewed Trent Foster Smith (in English) for his Zock-Bock-Radio podcast. Trent's been doing the AD&D thing for a long, long time, and I think some of his insights on that edition are pretty spectacular (and, no, I'm not just talking about the bad AC numbers in the MM). However, he and Settembrini both seem to have some blind spots about B/X, its appeal, and why it seems to have taken such a strong hold on the "old school" D&D community, especially through the OSE (Old School Essentials) clone. Let me start with that, as B/X is a large and significant part of my journey.

The main difference between my beginning in the hobby and other folks starting around the same time is that I came to the game through Tom Moldvay's Basic set (the "B" of B/X) NOT the Frank Mentzer authored, two volume hand holder that started the BECMI odyssey of completeness. I would agree with Trent's assessment of the basic game feeling too staid and closed (as a system) compared to AD&D...if the discussion were limited to a comparison between Gygax's opus and Mentzer's series. But Mentzer's series...despite the B and E containing near identical content to the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B and X are quite different in terms of scope and tone. That "fuzziness around the edges" that Trent finds so inviting of addition and extrapolation is likewise found in the B/X books...books of a series that were never completed (they author's talk about a forthcoming "Companion" book that was never published until the series was re-booted by Mentzer with a shift in focus, direction, and...for my money...target demographic).

This is why...when I returned to "serious" D&D play, I came back to B/X rather than AD&D. Both B/X and AD&D have the ingredients that inspire. Both have the fuzziness to invite additional (design) exploration. Both of them are fairly simple to run (one more so than the other). And of the two, B/X is far more accessible to the Average Joe or Jane. That's why, when teaching the game to others, I always start with the B/X system (or Labyrinth Lord, back before B/X became readily available)...it is a far easier method of ingraining the basic premise and understanding of the game before moving into any sort of "advanced" play.

But as a game, B/X is limited. Sure, all D&D is limited...because there are only so many words you can put down in a text/manual and the human imagination quickly and easily surpasses the scope of that which is contained in the books. But B/X's limitations...which I found so charming and that opened so many possibilities ten years ago (back when I was writing my B/X Companion, The Complete B/X Adventurer, and blogging other material for the B/X system)...its limitations stop short of what AD&D offers, namely expanded campaign play. And while the open-ended nature of B/X certainly leaves space to develop that extended campaign play, AD&D's robust system already offers a paradigm for such, including extensive play-testing to resolve (or at least make note of) flaws of design that require addressing.

The world building cosmology on display in the AD&D books is the thing that's missing from B/X and its clones (including LL, OSE, etc.). AD&D shows the evolution of the mindset that is required to continue compelling D&D play. You see it in the extensive world-building of all three core books:

The MM: the hierarchies of demons, devils, the congress between lower plane denizens (night hags and their trading in souls), elementals, the various sub-races of elves and halflings, etc. and the various tribes of orcs (with their siege equipment and above-ground villages) and men (dervishes and pilgrims and whatnot).
The PHB: you see it in the bardic colleges, the druid and monk hierarchies, the "guilds" of thieves and assassins, the economy hinted at via the equipment lists, the sketches of the inner and outer planes and their cosmology, and various hints here and there (which races can be psionic, which races may NOT be resurrected, etc.)...all things which say SOMEthing about the world.
The DMG: an opening into the inner workings of the Gygax mentality regarding campaign construction and world building and yet again MORE examples of world building through the extrapolation of PHB material and the inclusion of more legendary items (artifacts and relics and whatnot) from the author's own campaign and imagination.

Without this evolution...without this attention to world building...the game becomes tired. It becomes just a matter of how one can run tricks and tart the thing up, creating new classes, creating new monsters, adding new (minor) rule tweaks and systems...none of which amount to deepening or enriching the play experience. Instead, it only amounts to sitting down at the table and saying, "well, what's our adventure tonight?"

Advanced play engrosses the participants in a way that basic play does not.

You can see this in the difference between the introductory modules T1 (for AD&D) and B2 (for Basic). T1: The Village of Hommlet spends an enormous amount of space (some would say an inordinate or excessive amount) on the village proper...its history (old and recent), its inhabitants, its various factions. Who cares? The B/X player cries. Where can I buy a two-handed sword? When do we get to the dungeon? This is, of course, the basic approach to the game...it does not invite players to live in the fantasy world or engage with it in more than a cursory manner.

The advanced version of the game does. And while DMs can take what B2: The Keep on the Borderlands offers and extrapolate from it, breathing life into the module, detailing the Keep's denizens, imagining the factions that might exist between Cave denizens, and the secret histories that connect various wilderness encounters with each other and the wilder world...well, most don't. It's more work than what's needed...it's more effort than the need for what the adventure was designed (i.e. an introduction to the game, its systems, its premise, etc.). It is a great introduction to the basic game...for both the players AND the DM. But trying to back-engineer it for advanced play...well, that's an interesting thought experiment, but you might as well be developing your own world.

[see, that's the part that (I think) the Greyhawk aficionados miss. DMs who dive deep into the Greyhawk lore for inspiration are, in a way, still playing just a LARGE version of Basic, juggling all the moving parts of someone else's campaign world...like some sort of mega-normous wilderness/dungeon combo. Not all of them, of course, but...well, that's a post for another time]

I got back into old edition D&D after realizing that there was nothing really preventing me from going back and playing old edition D&D except (perhaps) the need to find willing players. Previously, I had some sort of "block" about this idea of playing "old" games. I chose B/X because it was a well-written, well-designed version of the D&D game that, while streamlined and sensible, left enough out to still fire the imagination and not shut down possibilities with what happens after level 14 (as did Mentzer's BECMI series and the later Rules Cyclopedia compilation by Aaron Alston).

B/X alone no longer satisfies me...at this point, only Advanced play will do. And I have settled on the 1E rules as my vehicle/delivery system of choice for that type of play experience, as later editions seem to have missed the point, instead worrying about appealing to the changing gamer demographic, most likely due to, you know, the need to make money as a business:

2E tried to tell heroic stories (and sell novels/book series)
3E created complex systems that incorporated universal principals and unique character builds.
4E was designed to emulate MMORPG play/terminology (especially World of Warcraft)
5E ORIGINALLY attempted to appeal to as many prior gamer generations as possible, seeking to reclaim market share/brand identity by reaching out to individuals who felt alienated by earlier editions and create the One Great Compromise edition. However, due to the overwhelming popularity of the video series Critical Role (and its imitators) 5E continues to morph in a direction that is more about...well, something else. Storytelling, grandstanding, performance art...I don't know. I don't really want to dig into it. It appeals to some folks...that's fine; do you. That's not what/why I play D&D.

To draw this post to a close, I'm not playing first edition AD&D because it's the game I played as a kid (I did play it as a kid, which has given me insight into just how the game is played and its potential greatness). I am not playing AD&D because it is some mark of prestige or curmudgeonly badge of honor. I'm not playing it because its systems are perfect or elegant or the height of RPG design theory. And I'm not playing it because it's the edition with which I have the most familiarity (that would probably be B/X).

No, I'm playing AD&D because I've changed my mindset about what I want from this game and what I want from this hobby, and the 1E books deliver this in a method and manner better than any of the other editions. Its root and core is sound; its author, for all his faults and flaws, was able to convey the experience of advanced gaming in a way that I have yet to see equalled (which, considering the quality, may be a sad statement about the RPG industry).

Change is uncomfortable...and inevitable. More changes, I'm sure, will come. And I'm sure this blog will continue to document my own. Cheers.

; )

Saturday, November 13, 2021

It's My Birthday

Happy birthday to me.

I'm a little...pensive today. Not quite melancholy. I'm just thinking a bit.

48 years is a while. A lot of solar returns. A lot of personal history.

I want to take a day or three. I need to recharge a little. And I want some reflection time.

I'll be back in a few.

Wednesday, October 6, 2021

The Vids

[man, I've been writing some longwinded posts lately]

Waaaaay back in the comments on my "Drift" post, John Higgins wrote:

When I started playing in the 90s, we had two texts to draw from when learning how to play D&D: we had the Classic D&D Game boxed set (which has pretty much all of the same rules as Mentzer Basic and Moldvay Basic, any differences are minor to the point of trivial), and we had whatever AD&D 2nd Edition hardcovers and splatbooks we could get our hands on with what little money I and my fellow teenagers could scrape together (and the text of 2nd Edition is *terribly* prescriptive, always harping on the reader to practice "good roleplaying" over desiring high stats or powerful magic items or a powerful character, really driving home the dissonance between the venerable AD&D rules and the then-ascendant "trad" culture that said RPGs were all about story and character).

And what did my friends and I learn from these texts? Very little, actually, because before we had ever rolled our first d20, we had already been thoroughly corrupted by JRPGs - Final Fantasy VII in particular - and assumed without even paying a jot of attention to the texts or the rules of (A)D&D that a role-playing game was a story simulator with some combat rules bolted on, just like the console and PC RPGs we were already familiar with. And so that was how we (mis-?)(ab-?)used (A)D&D.

This was a comment I meant to come back to, but never did (in my defense, I did have a lot of other stuff I wanted to jot down on Ye Old Blog before forgetting about it). However, John's comment in Friday's post about Second Edition Story Awards gave my brain a poke:

While I would never defend 2nd Edition's XP system, I'll say that it at least gets a perfectly functional implementation in the Infinity Engine video games (Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, Icewind Dale). Monsters are worth exactly as much XP as in the tabletop 2e core rules, but every time the party completes a task or mission or quest (or slays the "final boss" of a dungeon), some fixed XP award is granted which appears to bear no formulaic relation to anything else (beyond, likely, the built-in assumption that the party will be of a certain level when they complete the task, and so the reward is vaguely commensurate with the difficulty and XP needed for a party of that level). I would even go so far as to say that Baldur's Gate is an example of the 2e XP system "working as intended" - insofar as it deviates from the text of the rulebooks but lines up quite well with how I remember every single 2e-playing group I've ever encountered actually running things.

So let's talk about the video game thing. Specifically computer RPGs that emulate fantasy adventure gaming in a style similar to Dungeons & Dragons.

I have, of course, played a couple/three of these over the years, but probably not as many as one might expect of a geeky D&D blogger. Fact is, my family didn't even have a personal computer in the house till sometime around 1988 (an Amiga 500 for the curious), which was purchased around the same time I was entering high school. This probably seems crazy to folks now, but my parents even debated whether or not we NEEDED a computer (this is before the ubiquitous internet, young 'uns) and while, sure, it was easy enough in those days to say "computers are the FUTURE," there wasn't much imagination for what one would USE a computer for in the home. I mean, we had a typewriter for goodness sake (which I used to type term papers and such in middle school). Would a word processor alone be enough reason to justify the expense?

Because the MAIN thing most kids were doing with PCs in those days was playing video games, and my parents weren't big fans of such things...for any number of reasons (most valid). They certainly weren't getting the 'puter for that. We may have had some idea that I would have learned how to code or write BASIC with the thing...but once we got it home we found the thing's proprietary "user friendly" OS was absolute shit for this purpose (you couldn't even ACCESS code with it), so those dreams died on the vine. In the end, it did turn out to be a pretty shitty investment. I wrote a few papers using Word Perfect in high school (that I could just have easily done by hand), and I played a handful of video games before the system became obsolete (sometime around 1992). But my parents were divorced by then, and I was in university (or, later, work) where I had access to computers when I needed them.

I didn't buy a computer for myself (my first laptop) till after I was married and had purchased my first house (circa 2005). And that was with the idea that I might start doing some writing stuff (like games or books or something).

I give this brief history as a way to explain: I have never played games like Baldur's Gate or Pool of Radiance...computer games published in collaboration with TSR and aimed at emulating the AD&D game. For gamers of a certain age, these video games were their introduction to tabletop gaming...their development as D&D gamers were largely informed by these games, and their assumptions and expectations of play exhibit the sentiments instilled by these products.

Contrarily, I was tabletop gamer looong before I ever fired up "Bard's Tale" on my old Amiga, and as such I come to the CRPG genre with a different perspective: here is a way to play (in abbreviated fashion) D&D when D&D isn't otherwise available to you. At times when I didn't have a solid gaming group, and yet still had a deep desire to play, it was something that could scratch an itch. These games SUCK compared to the thing they were supposed to emulate, but they were OKAY. Plus, no need to juggle schedules with all the players: fire the thing up and the entire party is present. Sure, they lack the personality of real players (I hope!) and probably the creativity when it comes to challenges....but they are, at least, absolutely reliable.

Not D&D

But I'm not relying on these games to teach me how D&D works or plays. I am not looking at these games to show me how (as a DM) to design a campaign. I see them as the limited entities that they are: SSI's game Phantasie III is cool enough to have PC's travel to other planes of existence (the Plane of Light, the Plane of Darkness, and the Netherworld)...and, at the end, also gives you the choice whether to join the bad guys or good guys by the end (saving the world or damning it)...but compared to an ACTUAL game of D&D, even such choices and options are incredibly limited.

At least, if you're used to running a game that isn't a railroad / adventure "path" travesty.

Hey, I played one or two of those old "Fighting Fantasy" books (Choose Your Own Adventure with dice); they were a little better than a CYOA (or TSR's "Endless Quest" series), but you're still only playing someone else's story. A computer RPG is a bigger, sweeter version of the same thing, using the computer's computing ability to juggle and care for all the fiddly bits and dice rolls. But it's still just playing out someone else's story. And it is constrained by the limitations of the medium, in a way that the human mind and imagination just is not. And fun as it is, as awesome as it may be to play, NONE of these CRPG's provide adequate teaching or preparation for running your own campaign as a Dungeon Master; at best, they can give you some ideas on how to be a storyteller, which...apologies...is just not the same thing.

Because it's not just about drawing dungeons or wilderness maps, and it's not just about coming up with good "scenarios." To paraphrase an old war aphorism: all campaign ideas seem good until they make contact with the players. Managing that, is really what being a Dungeon "Master" is all about.

[though being a "master" of the system is also an important bit]

Now, I joke fairly regularly about being an Old Man...I do that on the blog, I do it with my family, I do it with 20- and 30-somethings I come in contact with. But I'm not really that old at all...I certainly don't feel "old" (middle aged, yes...and I've got some creaky past injuries that bother me from time-to-time). Despite my slow start with getting into the "computer thang" I'm not completely hopeless/lost/uncomfortable when it comes to technology...if I'm resistant to it, it's mainly due to my annoyance with having to learn new ways of doing things, not an incapacity/fear of doing so. But while I'm not really an "old man," I am old enough that (especially with regard to gaming) I straddle two worlds: life before ubiquitous (user friendly) computers/tech, and life after. And because my formative years were from "the time before" so, too, are my sensibilities about a LOT of things. I watch too much TV and read too little compared to what I once did, for example, but my opinion of what is "too much" and "too little" is directly informed by the fact that once there was less TV to watch and more books worth reading on the shelves.

[ooo...someone's probably going to get mad about that last statement]

My particular perspective is a shrinking one: the more years pass, the more folks are born on the other side of the Great Divide. Plenty of people born before the advent of the "smart phone" have grown up never really knowing the "inconvenience" of a phone tethered to your wall. Plenty of folks in their 30s have never known a television that didn't have at least "basic" cable...or even the days of changing a channel without a remote control (can you imagine!). I was just explaining to my kids how, when I was their age, MOST of the home baseball team's 162 games could only be heard on the radio...and how that allowed folks to do other things (while still listening to the call) instead of sitting on their ass in front of their video altar.

The Dungeons & Dragons game was published by a middle aged man, but it was written for folks of a younger (and more imaginative) persuasion. And it is still being published for those types of individuals. But the number of "young people" of the '70s and '80s, are far outnumbered by the "young people" of the '90s, '00s, '10s, and (now) '20s...and that outnumbered sensibility is only going to get greater the more time passes. My own kids, now D&D players, have never yet played a computer RPG...but even their sensibilities are colored by the time in which they live. They have so much more need of attention...so much more need of being entertained instead of finding ways to entertain themselves. Video games and tablets and cell phones and laptops are just such an easy drug to hook up to...let alone a television set with a gazillion channels and streaming services.

Damn frigging insidious.

To all my "young" readers that are trying to unlearn D&D lessons taught to them by computer games...or the lessons of editions of D&D that were written to emulate video games that were created to emulate D&D: I feel for you. And I don't judge you or your particular notions of what D&D "is." And I will try to help (if I can) or point you to better bloggers/writers than myself (when I can't) to try to offer you different options, a different perspective. I'll try.

But right now, I have to wash some dishes. They haven't yet invented the app to do that.