We have a guest writing today, concerning the subject of AD&D's Historical Campaign settings. This essay doesn't represent my feelings about them per say (I'm much less interested in a slavish adherence to the outcomes of actual historical events; also, there probably was never a Roland, etc.) I do agree with some of his points. Enjoy!
Ruminations on fiction, roleplaying, and assorted irritants.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Mechanical Dissonance and Cognitive Harmony
Once again we return to the topics of fluff and crunch. These terms appear to originate with Games Workshop, particularly with the 40k line. In their original usage, crunch applies to the numbers section of an army book whereas fluff is the attendant stories of those armies. Why do I hate these terms, then? They seem useful, they describe an element of reality, particularly in Games Workshops products where story and rules are separated by an impassable divide.
The answer is, of course, I don't really begrudge them for the wargaming crowd. They are applicable there, even if I find it a distasteful design method. They mean something useful which can be discussed by using the linguistic tools available, namely that the background of an army is its "fluff" and the manner in which it works is the "crunch." Of course, this suggests that the background is less important, which is true for many wargamers. They don't care who their armies are, just that they are an extension of their will. This is an attitude taken from games like Chess—the White Pieces don't have any personality distinct from the Black Pieces.
But this division is a lethal mind-poison in terms of roleplaying games. First, it suggests that the two are separate and refer to different things. The statistics for a sword are crunch, the description of the sword is fluff. What a bizarre and useless differentiation! What is worse is that routinely making use of these terms destroys the unity of rules and lore (my preferred terms, since they do not denigrate or elevate either element).
The answer is, of course, I don't really begrudge them for the wargaming crowd. They are applicable there, even if I find it a distasteful design method. They mean something useful which can be discussed by using the linguistic tools available, namely that the background of an army is its "fluff" and the manner in which it works is the "crunch." Of course, this suggests that the background is less important, which is true for many wargamers. They don't care who their armies are, just that they are an extension of their will. This is an attitude taken from games like Chess—the White Pieces don't have any personality distinct from the Black Pieces.
But this division is a lethal mind-poison in terms of roleplaying games. First, it suggests that the two are separate and refer to different things. The statistics for a sword are crunch, the description of the sword is fluff. What a bizarre and useless differentiation! What is worse is that routinely making use of these terms destroys the unity of rules and lore (my preferred terms, since they do not denigrate or elevate either element).
Monday, February 27, 2012
The Grognard's Anthem
There's an Australian band called Tripod who wrote a Dungeons and Dragons opera. On that album, Tripod vs. the Dragon, there is a song entitled "I will still play." The lyrics towards the end of the song proclaim:
That is the perfect encapsulation of the way I feel about modern D&D. I started playing D&D when I was young, probably at the age of ten or eleven. Before that I made up my own roleplaying games based on the SNES games I loved (like Link to the Past) using only six sided dice. I discovered D&D at my grandfather's house where a stray book was lying around. I don't remember what edition it was from, but my father thought I was too young for it. So I didn't start playing then, but the images in that book had entered my brain.
Laugh at me that's nothing new, it was always that way.(For the curious, here is Tripod's website)
Change all the rules to the game from what they were in my day,
but I will still play. I will still play.
That is the perfect encapsulation of the way I feel about modern D&D. I started playing D&D when I was young, probably at the age of ten or eleven. Before that I made up my own roleplaying games based on the SNES games I loved (like Link to the Past) using only six sided dice. I discovered D&D at my grandfather's house where a stray book was lying around. I don't remember what edition it was from, but my father thought I was too young for it. So I didn't start playing then, but the images in that book had entered my brain.
Friday, February 24, 2012
A peek at Arunë Sudus: The Veldthound
Here's a little look into some of the design work that's being done right now on Arunë, specifically the veldts and savannah of the far south.
VELDTHOUND
(created by Steve Doolittle for Arunë Sudus)
If encountered singly, this wild dog does not seem any more dangerous than most types of opportunistic scavengers: It is a thin, narrow-bodied canine of slight build, covered in scraggly black and taupe fur, possessing almost comedically large ears which are constantly pricked, and seeming to pose little threatening interest towards anything larger than a hare.
Like most dogs, though, the danger lies in packs.
VELDTHOUND
(created by Steve Doolittle for Arunë Sudus)
If encountered singly, this wild dog does not seem any more dangerous than most types of opportunistic scavengers: It is a thin, narrow-bodied canine of slight build, covered in scraggly black and taupe fur, possessing almost comedically large ears which are constantly pricked, and seeming to pose little threatening interest towards anything larger than a hare.
Like most dogs, though, the danger lies in packs.
The Sword of Virtue
A few days ago we discussed alignments; what they mean according to the AD&D PHB and why they weren't simplistic or useless. Clearly, the thought of an alignment straightjacket still beats strong in the hearts of angry gamers who have perhaps been abused by their DMs or simply do not understand it. I will attempt to address the functional aspects of alignment in this essay, rather than the theoretical aspects of it. Allow me to reiterate that alignments do not proscribe a character's personality, but rather simply describe a general set of guidelines that they tend to follow.
This brings us without pause straight to the question of paladins and alignment spells. These seem to be a bone of contention even more so than alignments themselves. When arguments against alignment are brought up, the most frequent complaint is that the universe itself recognizes alignments; there are spells and abilities that affect different people based on their alignment, which many think of as silly. Since we've brought the paladin into this, though, we will also have to discuss a few misconceptions that people have about that class in regards to alignment and behavior.
This brings us without pause straight to the question of paladins and alignment spells. These seem to be a bone of contention even more so than alignments themselves. When arguments against alignment are brought up, the most frequent complaint is that the universe itself recognizes alignments; there are spells and abilities that affect different people based on their alignment, which many think of as silly. Since we've brought the paladin into this, though, we will also have to discuss a few misconceptions that people have about that class in regards to alignment and behavior.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The Free and the Dead
I've been discussing the merits of various roleplaying systems with my friends of late, particularly the two different styles of roleplaying that seem to predominate the market today. These are, to write it in a reductive shorthand, storytelling styles and gaming styles. Now, while I do believe that GNS theory has a lot to offer to the discussion, let's put it aside for this argument. We can pretend, you and I, that the words "story" and "game" have no weight or semantic baggage and evaluate them from first principles.
I would argue that one of the important elements that makes roleplaying games fun is surprise. Responding to surprise is a piece of the puzzle that is almost integral for me. If the game has no surprise, I don't see the point in playing it. If I have already plotted out every move like a master chess-player and nothing deviates from my plan, I am bored. Stillness, as they say, is death. Movement, strife, is life.
I would argue that one of the important elements that makes roleplaying games fun is surprise. Responding to surprise is a piece of the puzzle that is almost integral for me. If the game has no surprise, I don't see the point in playing it. If I have already plotted out every move like a master chess-player and nothing deviates from my plan, I am bored. Stillness, as they say, is death. Movement, strife, is life.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Designing the Tenth Age
I've been working on a homebrew D&D setting for three years. It doesn't seem like that long when you think about how long some of those boxed sets have been around, but its been a long time for me. You see, I've changed settings and games so often in my past that it's been hard for my friends to keep up. More often than not I'm the GM, because that's what I like to do. So I'm sure it can get kind of hectic when a genre book pulls me in and suddenly we have to stop pretending to be warriors and everyone is a spaceman.
Except, over the last few years, that hasn't happened. AD&D has always been the mother of all roleplaying games for me. No matter who or what I dallied with, I always returned to her. It was a fit of pique that led me to design this latest setting, and somehow it has grown like a weed, spreading in all directions and consuming my desire for other games. I wanted to introduce AD&D to someone who'd never played it before; she joined our online gaming group (too far apart to play at a table any longer, sadly) and we were going to start out with some Planescape, the collective favorite. Except, she had no grounding in what a D&D game was supposed to be like, so all the Planescape meta-verse stuff just went right over her head.
Except, over the last few years, that hasn't happened. AD&D has always been the mother of all roleplaying games for me. No matter who or what I dallied with, I always returned to her. It was a fit of pique that led me to design this latest setting, and somehow it has grown like a weed, spreading in all directions and consuming my desire for other games. I wanted to introduce AD&D to someone who'd never played it before; she joined our online gaming group (too far apart to play at a table any longer, sadly) and we were going to start out with some Planescape, the collective favorite. Except, she had no grounding in what a D&D game was supposed to be like, so all the Planescape meta-verse stuff just went right over her head.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Aligning your Alignments
Alignments are badly maligned these days. You know the things I'm referring to. Those old clunkers of D&D design that show whether you are a sophisticated niceguy or an insane villain. You remember them, surely? No? You don't use alignments at your table? Interesting. I've been told by many that alignments are a terrible system designed by people that didn't really understand human nature, or philosophy. Alignments, others maintain, are useless appendages that were outdated long ago and should be dropped. They serve no purpose other than to hinder roleplaying. After all, how many people in your life have you met that were unabashedly good or unrepentantly evil? It's simply not how the world works.
A Witty Pun
I can see the great blank roll of the blog spreading out before me, whispering its desires: it wants to be filled up with words, mostly words about Dungeons and Dragons, and maybe what I'm writing currently, and most certainly about narrative and history. How can I fail to oblige? But I can't just post a little teaser as my first effort, so instead I'll give you a little overview of what this blog is meant to be and perhaps, in the process, a little information about my personal philosophy.
So, the point of this whole exercise is to ruminate on the nature of story, history, and games. I've been designing a campaign setting that I use AD&D to run for three years. Before that I had other settings, but none with this level of detail and effort. I frequently discuss theories about what it means to play roleplaying games in terms of philosophy and design, and since there are so many opinion leaders out there that write blogs and essentially espouse philosophies completely contrary to my own, I felt like it was time to get some word out to the general public. Maybe there are more people out there that think like my gaming group; maybe WotC has left behind others, not just me and a few old Grognards.
A little about me: I'm a medievalist and I've been desperately trying to translate my completed M.A. into a position somewhere so I can get a Ph.D. So far, no luck. I consider myself an amateur semiologist, a dedicated historian, and a writer. I've only written one book and that's being shopped around, but I have folios and folios of short stories waiting in the wings. I'm a dedicated Tolkienite, and I consider him to be the grandfather of modern fantasy. I am also a fan of Ed Greenwood and the Forgotten Realms, as reviled as that might make me. The amount of detail present in the Realms has certainly been a personal inspiration to the way I design settings. On a related note, I'm also a huge fan of both The Black Company and the Bungie games that took a page from Glen Cook, namely the Myth series.
So there you have it; I'm working on a Player's Guide to my setting right now, which should be completely written within a week or so. It's currently lacking in the art and layout department, but that'll come later. Oh, and if you're wondering exactly what my philosophy on gaming IS, it is as follows:
Roleplaying games can be meaningful and worthwhile experiences. However, important to note here is the word GAME. When you remove the element of danger, the game disappears. I've never found any joy in the 3rd Edition D&D character building "game," nor do I like my games to begin with superheros in peasant's clothing. My style of D&D has often been called Peasants and Pitchforks, as I am interested not only in the fantastic aspects of a world but also how they would realistically affect social paradigms and history. It's all well and good to pretend wizards exist, but if you don't stop to think about how the existence of wizards would change a lot of things, how societies would adapt around them, then what you're doing is nothing more than daydreaming. While that kind of no-consequences daydreaming has its place, it isn't at my table.
So, the point of this whole exercise is to ruminate on the nature of story, history, and games. I've been designing a campaign setting that I use AD&D to run for three years. Before that I had other settings, but none with this level of detail and effort. I frequently discuss theories about what it means to play roleplaying games in terms of philosophy and design, and since there are so many opinion leaders out there that write blogs and essentially espouse philosophies completely contrary to my own, I felt like it was time to get some word out to the general public. Maybe there are more people out there that think like my gaming group; maybe WotC has left behind others, not just me and a few old Grognards.
A little about me: I'm a medievalist and I've been desperately trying to translate my completed M.A. into a position somewhere so I can get a Ph.D. So far, no luck. I consider myself an amateur semiologist, a dedicated historian, and a writer. I've only written one book and that's being shopped around, but I have folios and folios of short stories waiting in the wings. I'm a dedicated Tolkienite, and I consider him to be the grandfather of modern fantasy. I am also a fan of Ed Greenwood and the Forgotten Realms, as reviled as that might make me. The amount of detail present in the Realms has certainly been a personal inspiration to the way I design settings. On a related note, I'm also a huge fan of both The Black Company and the Bungie games that took a page from Glen Cook, namely the Myth series.
So there you have it; I'm working on a Player's Guide to my setting right now, which should be completely written within a week or so. It's currently lacking in the art and layout department, but that'll come later. Oh, and if you're wondering exactly what my philosophy on gaming IS, it is as follows:
Roleplaying games can be meaningful and worthwhile experiences. However, important to note here is the word GAME. When you remove the element of danger, the game disappears. I've never found any joy in the 3rd Edition D&D character building "game," nor do I like my games to begin with superheros in peasant's clothing. My style of D&D has often been called Peasants and Pitchforks, as I am interested not only in the fantastic aspects of a world but also how they would realistically affect social paradigms and history. It's all well and good to pretend wizards exist, but if you don't stop to think about how the existence of wizards would change a lot of things, how societies would adapt around them, then what you're doing is nothing more than daydreaming. While that kind of no-consequences daydreaming has its place, it isn't at my table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)