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.
Friday, March 28, 2008
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.
Monster Design in D&D
Pardon me as I wax metanerdy.
I imagine that most folks that read this have played D&D, and even if someone happens to be reading it that hasn't, you can easily imagine that its a game about killing orcs and dragons.
So anyway, about monster design in D&D. As I said, everyone assumes dragons and orcs and stuff. Check. Good solid monsters, close to "realism" - assuming that by realism I mean "Traditional Tolkien style fantasy". But the medium for Lord of the Rings was film*, while obviously D&D is an interactive game.
Let me pause here. I'm writing this because of course my brain churns furiously, lately, about D&D related stuff, and I saw this post by another blogger, about monster books, and about the difference in monsters that are "fun", and monsters that are designed mechanically. He's referring to a difference in approach. "Wouldn't it be cool if there was a monster that sucked people's faces off and had like four arms with lobster claws on them?!?" as opposed, as he references, to: "We need an aquatic abberation monster that fits into Challenge Rating 2."
I recently also read, and posted about this stupid monsters article. It rails against, I think, both types of monsters. Those created simply as filler, because they needed 80 monsters to slap between these covers so that they could sell a book for $19.95, which gives us such gems as the Owlephant and Duckbunny. Then there are monsters that were created with the Gygaxian theory that you can never make your player's lives too hard. Monsters that eat your armor. Monsters that pretend to be treasure. Monsters that pretend to be clothes. Monsters that pretend to be swords. Monsters that are the floor. Monsters that attack you from the ceiling. Monsters that pretend to be a cloak. Monsters that live in books and attack you when you read them. Etc etc etc ad nauseum. Jeff, in his previously mentioned blog post, talks about the fun of a monster that steals the map from an adventuring party. Yet another monster that exists solely to screw with the players (oh, and their characters).
And as I sit and ponder on these things, it occurs to me that sure, crazy ass monsters that eat your armor and steal your map are fun - in a way. It challenges the players as well as the characters, in a different way that encounters with non armor or map destroying monsters do not. I guess its all about the group, and the mindset. I mean, the rustmonster is easily a part of why we have satire like the card game Munchkin. I remember rustmonsters and mimics and things, and how much spice they added to D&D. Yet, as I've seen others discuss, I'm not sure whether I'd be hugely pissed, or able to just laugh it off and tell stories about it later - if the plate armor I'd just dropped all of my life savings on, got eaten by a beastie the next time I was out at the local dungeon. I think previously, I'd have laughed it off - not being of the questioning mindset, and that the DM/the rules were always right, and were just how it was. You don't get pissed, dude, its D&D! The rust monster ate your armor?! That's AWESOME! Let me tell you about this one time that my cleric found this succubus who was fighting a mimic......... Now I remember how fun stuff like level draining was too :P
So anyway, yet again, I run out of steam and wind down.
[edit:
I own the 2nd edition AD&D book Monstrous Compendium Annual volume I. I love flipping through it, checking out all of the completely ridiculous monsters in it. I don't have it here, or I'd be more specific, but you've got (from memory)
A monster that pretends to be a house
An elephant-humanoid with two trunks and a bad attitude
Cats with antlers
A monster that pretends to be a sword (previously mentioned)
Evil fish
A man-purse that sucks your blood like a mosquito
A monster with a scorpions tail that pretends to be a coin
A skeleton monster
A skeleton monster on fire
A skull
Two skeletal arms
A mushroom monster
/edit]
* Sorry, I don't know why I half-ass baited you, there.
I imagine that most folks that read this have played D&D, and even if someone happens to be reading it that hasn't, you can easily imagine that its a game about killing orcs and dragons.
So anyway, about monster design in D&D. As I said, everyone assumes dragons and orcs and stuff. Check. Good solid monsters, close to "realism" - assuming that by realism I mean "Traditional Tolkien style fantasy". But the medium for Lord of the Rings was film*, while obviously D&D is an interactive game.
Let me pause here. I'm writing this because of course my brain churns furiously, lately, about D&D related stuff, and I saw this post by another blogger, about monster books, and about the difference in monsters that are "fun", and monsters that are designed mechanically. He's referring to a difference in approach. "Wouldn't it be cool if there was a monster that sucked people's faces off and had like four arms with lobster claws on them?!?" as opposed, as he references, to: "We need an aquatic abberation monster that fits into Challenge Rating 2."
I recently also read, and posted about this stupid monsters article. It rails against, I think, both types of monsters. Those created simply as filler, because they needed 80 monsters to slap between these covers so that they could sell a book for $19.95, which gives us such gems as the Owlephant and Duckbunny. Then there are monsters that were created with the Gygaxian theory that you can never make your player's lives too hard. Monsters that eat your armor. Monsters that pretend to be treasure. Monsters that pretend to be clothes. Monsters that pretend to be swords. Monsters that are the floor. Monsters that attack you from the ceiling. Monsters that pretend to be a cloak. Monsters that live in books and attack you when you read them. Etc etc etc ad nauseum. Jeff, in his previously mentioned blog post, talks about the fun of a monster that steals the map from an adventuring party. Yet another monster that exists solely to screw with the players (oh, and their characters).
And as I sit and ponder on these things, it occurs to me that sure, crazy ass monsters that eat your armor and steal your map are fun - in a way. It challenges the players as well as the characters, in a different way that encounters with non armor or map destroying monsters do not. I guess its all about the group, and the mindset. I mean, the rustmonster is easily a part of why we have satire like the card game Munchkin. I remember rustmonsters and mimics and things, and how much spice they added to D&D. Yet, as I've seen others discuss, I'm not sure whether I'd be hugely pissed, or able to just laugh it off and tell stories about it later - if the plate armor I'd just dropped all of my life savings on, got eaten by a beastie the next time I was out at the local dungeon. I think previously, I'd have laughed it off - not being of the questioning mindset, and that the DM/the rules were always right, and were just how it was. You don't get pissed, dude, its D&D! The rust monster ate your armor?! That's AWESOME! Let me tell you about this one time that my cleric found this succubus who was fighting a mimic......... Now I remember how fun stuff like level draining was too :P
So anyway, yet again, I run out of steam and wind down.
[edit:
I own the 2nd edition AD&D book Monstrous Compendium Annual volume I. I love flipping through it, checking out all of the completely ridiculous monsters in it. I don't have it here, or I'd be more specific, but you've got (from memory)
A monster that pretends to be a house
An elephant-humanoid with two trunks and a bad attitude
Cats with antlers
A monster that pretends to be a sword (previously mentioned)
Evil fish
A man-purse that sucks your blood like a mosquito
A monster with a scorpions tail that pretends to be a coin
A skeleton monster
A skeleton monster on fire
A skull
Two skeletal arms
A mushroom monster
/edit]
* Sorry, I don't know why I half-ass baited you, there.
"But its not D&D!"
*whine*
I've been entertaining myself by keeping up with the Enworld forums, with regard to D&D 4e.
There's a few different kinds of traffic there right now. Alot of rules mechanics discussion, some newsish scoops about what this or that developer said, or what this or that publisher is doing, and then a healthy smattering of blatantly pro or anti 4e threads.
The ones that have amused me most greatest are the ones that whine about how "Its just not D&D anymore!" Or how they argue that its "Less realistic". These make me grin, and clap my hands in near-silent glee. Typically I only have to scroll one or two posts to see someone justly smack these posts down. Because c'mon people, "Not D&D"? We're talking about the game that is about killing monsters and taking stuff. and "Less realistic"? Like elves and fireballs were realistic in the first place.
But now to step back for a second, and lend them just a bit of respect, when they say "Not D&D", these are usually folks who have gone on and on and on and on about which editions of D&D they've played, and so on. So I think that what they're trying to say is that they're disappointed that its lost some of the feel of 1st/2nd/3rd edition. Or some combination of those. Which I suppose I can understand. Some people like keeping up with the weight of their coinpurse, or dwarves not being able to be higher than 12th level, or THAC0.
"Less realistic"? Obviously, I'm chuckling when I discuss D&D and realism, but perhaps they're talking about realism as it relates to its (arguable) source material, easily (but not only) Lord of the Rings. If they're using this as the base for their gripes about realism, then I can give them some credit.
Where am I going with this? Nowhere. That's where.
I've been entertaining myself by keeping up with the Enworld forums, with regard to D&D 4e.
There's a few different kinds of traffic there right now. Alot of rules mechanics discussion, some newsish scoops about what this or that developer said, or what this or that publisher is doing, and then a healthy smattering of blatantly pro or anti 4e threads.
The ones that have amused me most greatest are the ones that whine about how "Its just not D&D anymore!" Or how they argue that its "Less realistic". These make me grin, and clap my hands in near-silent glee. Typically I only have to scroll one or two posts to see someone justly smack these posts down. Because c'mon people, "Not D&D"? We're talking about the game that is about killing monsters and taking stuff. and "Less realistic"? Like elves and fireballs were realistic in the first place.
But now to step back for a second, and lend them just a bit of respect, when they say "Not D&D", these are usually folks who have gone on and on and on and on about which editions of D&D they've played, and so on. So I think that what they're trying to say is that they're disappointed that its lost some of the feel of 1st/2nd/3rd edition. Or some combination of those. Which I suppose I can understand. Some people like keeping up with the weight of their coinpurse, or dwarves not being able to be higher than 12th level, or THAC0.
"Less realistic"? Obviously, I'm chuckling when I discuss D&D and realism, but perhaps they're talking about realism as it relates to its (arguable) source material, easily (but not only) Lord of the Rings. If they're using this as the base for their gripes about realism, then I can give them some credit.
Where am I going with this? Nowhere. That's where.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)