Today feels like a day for blogging.
So I have a couple of game ideas kicking around my head for running D&D. I seem to be gravitating toward ideas that somehow turn the paradigm on its head. I am unlikely to use these, but mulling over them makes me think myself clever.
Underwater! The PCs are merfolk, or sea elves, or otherwise aquatic kind of folks.
Backwards D&D. Generations ago, the ever present fighting between the High Races (dwarves, elves, humans, etc) and the Low Races -or Monstrous Races - (kobolds, goblins, ogres, orcs, bugbears, hobgoblins, etc) took a turn. The monstrous races chased the High Races out of their cities and forests and clanholds. Now the PCs, members of the High Races, live in dank dungeons beneath the ground, hiding from the monsters. From time to time, bands of monsters invade their hidden homes, seeking loot and murder.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
a book!
Would you believe that I finished a book?
I am hard pressed to believe it myself.
Last night I finished A Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin. I know, I know, I'm a few years behind.
I enjoyed it immensely.
My analysis:
I like how the story turns. Every big "bang" in the story is something that makes me think in Role Playing Game terms, as a DM, and each bang makes me consider how the author is steering the story TOWARD conflict, which is obviously important in both games and in books. Games and books about heroes sitting around in a happy peaceful land are typically un-exciting.
I like how Martin pulls no punches and doesn't hesitate to kill characters. This serves to more fully invest me in the story. I'm a big fan of (my perception of) grim and gritty - when people hack at each other with pointy metal things, bad stuff is bound to happen. It also speaks to motivation, I find myself never having eye rolling moments like when watching movies, muttering at the screen to the bad guy "will you please just kill him (the hero) already?!?!"
Next:
The Black Company by Glen Cook, followed by the second George R. R. Martin book.
I am hard pressed to believe it myself.
Last night I finished A Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin. I know, I know, I'm a few years behind.
I enjoyed it immensely.
My analysis:
I like how the story turns. Every big "bang" in the story is something that makes me think in Role Playing Game terms, as a DM, and each bang makes me consider how the author is steering the story TOWARD conflict, which is obviously important in both games and in books. Games and books about heroes sitting around in a happy peaceful land are typically un-exciting.
I like how Martin pulls no punches and doesn't hesitate to kill characters. This serves to more fully invest me in the story. I'm a big fan of (my perception of) grim and gritty - when people hack at each other with pointy metal things, bad stuff is bound to happen. It also speaks to motivation, I find myself never having eye rolling moments like when watching movies, muttering at the screen to the bad guy "will you please just kill him (the hero) already?!?!"
Next:
The Black Company by Glen Cook, followed by the second George R. R. Martin book.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Shared Imaginative Space
More game/D&D stuff. Here goes:
When I first got my hands on fantasy role playing, and then shortly after, actual D&D 2nd ed, there was no battlemat. No minis. Sure, there were maps. I can't swear that we didn't sketch out environments and movements sometimes on paper, but I don't clearly recall doing that. So, what I mean to say is that ages ago, we didn't use any kind of tangible representation for movement and positioning. This also means that scenes were painted using only words, gestures, and creativity.
D&D 3.0 (re)introduced battlemats and minis, 3.5 solidified that, and 4e seems to be continuing that trend. Now, I'm not here to rail against that, merely to conduct my internal debate about grid vs not-grid. I sorta like the grid and minis, but I feel torn on it. For me anyway, too much in the way of boards and grids and tiles and minis and so forth reduces or eliminates my imaginative space. Let me compare it to monopoly for a moment. Never have I played monopoly and fleshed out in my imagination the thimble rolling down boardwalk, checking into a hotel, and spending every dime to its name. So too I think that you can overkill D&D into actually being a boardgame with a lot of rules. And I guess I don't want D&D to be just a boardgame. I still want to see it all happen in my mind's eye. I do appreciate how a board and minis can make the experience easier in some respects. It provides an immediate and easy medium to convey positioning and spacing and some general environmental stuff.
When I first got my hands on fantasy role playing, and then shortly after, actual D&D 2nd ed, there was no battlemat. No minis. Sure, there were maps. I can't swear that we didn't sketch out environments and movements sometimes on paper, but I don't clearly recall doing that. So, what I mean to say is that ages ago, we didn't use any kind of tangible representation for movement and positioning. This also means that scenes were painted using only words, gestures, and creativity.
D&D 3.0 (re)introduced battlemats and minis, 3.5 solidified that, and 4e seems to be continuing that trend. Now, I'm not here to rail against that, merely to conduct my internal debate about grid vs not-grid. I sorta like the grid and minis, but I feel torn on it. For me anyway, too much in the way of boards and grids and tiles and minis and so forth reduces or eliminates my imaginative space. Let me compare it to monopoly for a moment. Never have I played monopoly and fleshed out in my imagination the thimble rolling down boardwalk, checking into a hotel, and spending every dime to its name. So too I think that you can overkill D&D into actually being a boardgame with a lot of rules. And I guess I don't want D&D to be just a boardgame. I still want to see it all happen in my mind's eye. I do appreciate how a board and minis can make the experience easier in some respects. It provides an immediate and easy medium to convey positioning and spacing and some general environmental stuff.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Audience?
Who do you write your blog entries to?
I mean, do you just write them "to the internet"? Are they to your friends? Family? A niche group that's interested in the same things that you are?
Next question: How much do you define your audience? Do any of you give thought to "your audience"? Either at the dawn of your blogging, or before every post? Is your audience "Matt, Mark, Bill and Joe"? Or is it your fellow They Might Be Giants fans? Are you writing things that you think will be of interest to your audience, or things that are interesting to you, and hoping people won't gouge their eyes out while reading it? (I fall very much into the second category there)
I ask, because I think that I have two audiences, you (where you is/are the people who I am aware of that read this), and me. Am I narcissistic? I use my blog sometimes like a weird post-it-note. But its also my bulletin board for sharing stuff with the likes of you. Recipes, my quest to stay fit, my random gaming thoughts, and any other assorted stuff that comes flying out of my head and into the internets.
How's that for blogging about blogging?
I mean, do you just write them "to the internet"? Are they to your friends? Family? A niche group that's interested in the same things that you are?
Next question: How much do you define your audience? Do any of you give thought to "your audience"? Either at the dawn of your blogging, or before every post? Is your audience "Matt, Mark, Bill and Joe"? Or is it your fellow They Might Be Giants fans? Are you writing things that you think will be of interest to your audience, or things that are interesting to you, and hoping people won't gouge their eyes out while reading it? (I fall very much into the second category there)
I ask, because I think that I have two audiences, you (where you is/are the people who I am aware of that read this), and me. Am I narcissistic? I use my blog sometimes like a weird post-it-note. But its also my bulletin board for sharing stuff with the likes of you. Recipes, my quest to stay fit, my random gaming thoughts, and any other assorted stuff that comes flying out of my head and into the internets.
How's that for blogging about blogging?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Economy of Actions
Economy of Actions, a post on the gleemax forums by one of the WOTC guys, Rodney.
In very brief form, he's talking about how many things each player at the game table gets to do. In older D&D, players often had access to multiple attacks/actions in a round, not to mention minions, followers, summoned creatures, pets etc, that gave a player more share of the game pie than it did others. If the four of us are all playing D&D, and I've got two wolf companions, each of whom get to do stuff during a turn, and none of you have anything like that, I'm getting a bigger share of the game pie than any one other player.
This struck a chord with me when it comes to BBEG's (Big Bad Evil Guy), the endboss, or whatever you want to call him/her. And this goes for most gameist/sim games, D&D, Werewolf, etc. I had a hard time pitting 4 characters against 1 bad guy. This came up more than once in our recent Werewolf game. And quite frankly, I had to cheat like a fiend just to keep these big fights interesting, and to make them last more than like 2 turns. See.. it gets into numbers... if I have a big bad guy that I want to stand up to the four players, he needs to be able to last more than a round, so he needs to soak, or otherwise deal with the combined damage of the four players. He also needs to be able to hurt them back, in a convincing manner. He can't do mountains of damage, otherwise he's quickly dropping the good guys, which no one wants. But if I use "the rules", and he's doing his one measly attack per round, he's still a cakewalk.
Anyway, I didn't mean for this to be a YAY D&D 4e! post, but it kinda is - since 4e is gonna fix this little problem for me. Mostly I was whining about how terribly I had to cheat previously :P
In very brief form, he's talking about how many things each player at the game table gets to do. In older D&D, players often had access to multiple attacks/actions in a round, not to mention minions, followers, summoned creatures, pets etc, that gave a player more share of the game pie than it did others. If the four of us are all playing D&D, and I've got two wolf companions, each of whom get to do stuff during a turn, and none of you have anything like that, I'm getting a bigger share of the game pie than any one other player.
This struck a chord with me when it comes to BBEG's (Big Bad Evil Guy), the endboss, or whatever you want to call him/her. And this goes for most gameist/sim games, D&D, Werewolf, etc. I had a hard time pitting 4 characters against 1 bad guy. This came up more than once in our recent Werewolf game. And quite frankly, I had to cheat like a fiend just to keep these big fights interesting, and to make them last more than like 2 turns. See.. it gets into numbers... if I have a big bad guy that I want to stand up to the four players, he needs to be able to last more than a round, so he needs to soak, or otherwise deal with the combined damage of the four players. He also needs to be able to hurt them back, in a convincing manner. He can't do mountains of damage, otherwise he's quickly dropping the good guys, which no one wants. But if I use "the rules", and he's doing his one measly attack per round, he's still a cakewalk.
Anyway, I didn't mean for this to be a YAY D&D 4e! post, but it kinda is - since 4e is gonna fix this little problem for me. Mostly I was whining about how terribly I had to cheat previously :P
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Books
I used to read books. Really I did. I read a goodly bit even. Fantasy, scifi, Tom Clancy military stuff. I enjoyed books alot.
Somehow, I quit reading though. I'm not sure precisely when, or exactly why. I wasn't a decision on my part not to read. I just quit finishing books, and then quit picking them up in the first place. I think that the reason is over-stimulation. All of my quiet moments have been spent playing computer games, xbox games, fooling with role playing game material, etc. I've picked up a few books, but the only book that I recall having read cover to cover in the last three years or so was World War Z. Its a shame too. I like(d) reading. I value reading. I think its important. I'd like to read again. And I'm going to try.
I've found myself suddenly interested in a whole smattering of fantasy books.
The Black Company books, by Glen Cook. The Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser books, by Fritz Leiber. Robert Howard's Conan books, particularly The Hour of the Dragon (also published as Conan the Conqueror).
Went by the used bookstore today looking to find some of these, and they had none, but I came away with George R. R. Martin's Game of Thrones, which tons of friends have highly recommended. And I picked up the first book in the War of the Spider Queen series.
Somehow, I quit reading though. I'm not sure precisely when, or exactly why. I wasn't a decision on my part not to read. I just quit finishing books, and then quit picking them up in the first place. I think that the reason is over-stimulation. All of my quiet moments have been spent playing computer games, xbox games, fooling with role playing game material, etc. I've picked up a few books, but the only book that I recall having read cover to cover in the last three years or so was World War Z. Its a shame too. I like(d) reading. I value reading. I think its important. I'd like to read again. And I'm going to try.
I've found myself suddenly interested in a whole smattering of fantasy books.
The Black Company books, by Glen Cook. The Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser books, by Fritz Leiber. Robert Howard's Conan books, particularly The Hour of the Dragon (also published as Conan the Conqueror).
Went by the used bookstore today looking to find some of these, and they had none, but I came away with George R. R. Martin's Game of Thrones, which tons of friends have highly recommended. And I picked up the first book in the War of the Spider Queen series.
Friday, March 21, 2008
More D&D
Part of the reason I love Mearls:
http://mearls.livejournal.com/146778.html
Particularly:
(quote)
my job as a GM is to chase the characters up a tree and let them figure out a way to get down. The thing is, there's a snake climbing the tree, the tree's on fire, there's a mob of zombies around the tree, and the rescue chopper floating overhead is piloted by a drunk 5 year old. You've got choices, but none of them are "I sit in the tree and while away a pleasant afternoon with happy thoughts." There's peril in every direction. As Ralph said in the quoted bits above, not choosing is still a choice with interesting consequences.
(/quote)
and
(quote)
Most D&D players want a background that looks like this:
1. My character has no notable friends and family.
2. My character didn't have any major villains or real issues with anyone.
3. My character wants to... get some treasure?
(/quote)
edit:
Since I'm all game theory and linking other people's stuff today, here's some more stuff that chased down from someone else linked from mearl's LJ. Mostly for my own reference, but feel free to enjoy it as well:
Great set of five articles about gaming: character motivation, central conflict, etc.
http://mearls.livejournal.com/146778.html
Particularly:
(quote)
my job as a GM is to chase the characters up a tree and let them figure out a way to get down. The thing is, there's a snake climbing the tree, the tree's on fire, there's a mob of zombies around the tree, and the rescue chopper floating overhead is piloted by a drunk 5 year old. You've got choices, but none of them are "I sit in the tree and while away a pleasant afternoon with happy thoughts." There's peril in every direction. As Ralph said in the quoted bits above, not choosing is still a choice with interesting consequences.
(/quote)
and
(quote)
Most D&D players want a background that looks like this:
1. My character has no notable friends and family.
2. My character didn't have any major villains or real issues with anyone.
3. My character wants to... get some treasure?
(/quote)
edit:
Since I'm all game theory and linking other people's stuff today, here's some more stuff that chased down from someone else linked from mearl's LJ. Mostly for my own reference, but feel free to enjoy it as well:
Great set of five articles about gaming: character motivation, central conflict, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)