The Wilson Yip directed and Donnie Yen starring martial arts action film Ip Man is easily among the most entertaining martial arts films ever made. Yen's charisma and mischievous smile -- and his prodigious martial arts talent -- combine to make his depiction of the Ip Man one of the pantheon of great kung fu lead characters. It ranks right up there with Bruce Lee's character Lee in Enter the Dragon, Jackie Chan's portrayal of Wong Fei-hung in Drunken Master 2, and Jet Li's portrayal of Chen Zhen in the classic Fist of Legend.
Had you asked me within the first few moments after my first viewing of Ip Man if there could be another portrayal of the character as memorable as Yen's, I would have laughed at the thought. Of course, I would have been overlooking the Hong Kong film industry's ability to make multiple films about the same character that all add some new interesting point of view -- a point of view worth experiencing.
Jet Li's characterizations of Wong Fei-hung are as wonderful as Jackie Chan's, though the portrayals are very different. Bruce Lee, Jet Li, and Donnie Yen have all portrayed Chen Zhen in dynamic and exciting films that each have a different feel politically and aesthetically. Ip Man itself shares many features with the story of Chen Zhen.
If Hollywood were to release as many films about the same subjects and same characters as the Hong Kong industry does, critics would write screeds about the lack of originality in the industry. One's first thought might be to agree with such critics, and extend that assumption to Hong Kong film makers. Such an assumption would be wrong. The Hong Kong film industry has demonstrated with films like Fist of Legend, Legend of the Fist, and Fist of Fury (aka The Chinese Connection) that it is entirely possible to get tremendous variation, depth of vision, and creative interpretation while making multiple films about the same subject.
All of which explains why I can be so excited when I hear that Wong Kar Wei and Tony Leung Chiu Wai have worked together to create their own version of the Ip Man story, even while loving the Yip and Yen production. I cannot wait to see this film.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Friday, September 09, 2011
[Rethinking 4e -- Freeform D&D] Monster Manual 3 on a Business Card
One of the most frequent assertions you will read throughout my "Rethinking 4e -- Freeform D&D" columns is that levels don't matter. The reason that this is true is that the game is designed to have the same level of risk for the characters no matter the level they have attained. A 1st level character fighting level appropriate characters is just as likely to perish as a 30th level character fighting against foes of his or her level.
The game features a static risk profile, meaning that characters must always have some level of concern for their survival. This is partially mitigated by the fact that the characters are fairly durable at all levels, but the level of danger always remains. This is a good thing. It also means that once you understand the underlying intentions of the game, and the math, it is very easy to run a 4e game without having characters actually gain levels beyond a certain point.
I will be writing a lot about this in the weeks to come and that writing will be presenting some of the underlying assumptions of the "power level" of characters and monsters. Character power levels will be based on the recent Essentials products. I am choosing them because while they are not "optimized" to the point of maxing out every possible point of damage from the system, they provide a nice base line for mechanical assumptions. I will also be using the monster building information from the Monster Manual 3 update -- which you can read on page 7 of this document. Even better, you can check out the Blog of Holding website where the author has taken all of the information in the MM3 update and condensed it into information that can fit on one side of a business card.
That's right, you can build any monster you want -- for any level of foe- with nothing more than 8 lines of text. That's pretty awesome, and that's how simple 4e is. The only thing that the card lacks is how much damage an ongoing effect should do -- that's 5 hit points per tier of creature by the way -- and what special effects can be added to a given power. That doesn't really matter though, because if you want a power to "daze" or "stun" or "push" an opponent you just have the attack do that (and possibly reduce the damage 25% to represent that effect).
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
[Rethinking 4e -- Freeform D&D] Diceless Skill Challenges
I recently visited one of my favorite gaming blogs Playing D&D with NSFW -- that's not the actual name of the site, and the site is surprisingly safe for work given its name -- and entered into a discussion with Zak who runs the site.
To make things brief, Zak reviewed The Slaying Stone, one of the modules for the 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons that has come out in the past year or so. Of the modules recently released by Wizards, The Slaying Stone has received some fairly positive reviews for the way it gives more freedom than many modern modules. The module isn't as linear as many of Wizards, or Paizo's, offerings and is a nice move toward more open settings -- especially considering how linear most 3rd edition and 4th edition modules have been.
While others may have been happy with the "open-ended" nature of the module, Zak was very critical. Most of his points are valid, but most also apply to any written module. Then again, Zak wants DMs to be more DIY than many are/can be. His vision is that players be given freeform and interactive gaming experiences from their DMs, a vision that combines art and game in a way that would make Greg Stafford proud. To put it another way, DMs are people with imaginations and not computers that are limited by the programmed choices they are given and they should act that way.
I get it. I even agree...to a point. Share that attitude in the Savage Worlds community and you'll get some support, but you'll also get blank stares from the working/gradschool attending/ fathers who make up a good part of that community. They'll tell you that professional modules are a boon to their gaming livelihoods.
I was fine with all of Zak's criticism of the module, until he wrote the following quote, "Because it [The Slaying Stone] demonstrates even with an author with the best will in the world making a conscious effort not to write a railroad the basic requirements of new D&D push published modules in the more-sucking direction."
In essence, Zak is stating that 4e's mechanics require that the game's adventures must follow certain rules. That is complete and utter balderdash, and this series of Rethinking 4e posts -- however slowly they come out -- is dedicated to eliminating that assumption. [Edited after great clarifying exchange with Zak over on his blog -- additions are in italics below.]
Zak is criticizing WotC's module writing guidelines here as articulated on page 31 of The Slaying Stone, but there are those who would point to pages 189 and 202 of the Essential Dungeon Master's Book or pages 57 and 104 of the 4th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide and argue that the phenomenon is endemic of the entire edition of the game. They would argue that the rules of 4e make all adventures predictable and identical. If it takes 8 - 10 encounters to gain a level and those encounters are all based on experience point "budgets," DMs are hindered.
Those who take Zak's criticism of module writing and extend it to how the game "must be played" are taking things too far.
As Zak writes in his piece:
"Type IV DMs can run whatever adventures they want (just like everybody else) but if they want to get them published they have a ton of hurdles to jump."
His criticism is limited to writing for published modules, and rightly so. WotC wants their modules written to the Rules as Written, and those are written with "safety wheels."
Zak, and those who agree with him, Those who take the argument further than Zak are mistaking all of the "safety wheels" of 4e for the actual rules of the game. You see, 4e has safety wheels all over the place. From the way powers are written to the Essentials approach to the use of clearly articulated cards that instruct players how "powers" work, the game is set up for any DM to be able to walk into a random room of 5 people and to get them all playing the game within 10 minutes. This is any random room. No one other than the DM will need any gaming experience, or to have read any of the rules. With its "safety wheels" 4e is quite simply one of the two easiest role playing games to teach ever written.
Rethinking 4e is about getting beyond these "safety wheels" and straight to the rules. When you do that, a couple of amazing things happen. First, levels almost completely disappear from the game. I'll post on that in a later post, but suffice to say that since the danger level of the game is static throughout the level scaling that levels are now fluff. Second, the game is extremely simple and free form. Players may "want" to roll for skill challenges, but they don't have to. Third, this game is easy and elegant. It is elegant in a way that Fudge or FATE or Burning Wheel are elegant. Fourth, it is ideal for creating storytelling games where "role playing" overpowers "roll playing," though it certainly allows for the latter as well.
So...let's get to the "safety wheel" I want to address in this post...Skills and Skill Challenges. Skill Challenges are one of the hardest things for people to grasp in the 4e system. So much of the game seems centered on structured play that when you get to the Skills and Skill Challenges section where it essentially tells GMs to force players to create narrative that many people react in shock. Skill Challenges almost seem out of place. They belong in games like Burning Wheel, Mage the Ascension, and My Life with Master not in a "combat" game like 4e. Players get so caught up in looking at 4e as a descendant of 3e/3.x that they forget that it is also a descendant of every role playing game ever written. D&D has influenced every other role playing game, but many other rpgs have influenced 4e.
Nowhere is that more apparent than the Skill Challenge, where players are asked to present ideas to solve a problem by using their skills. Any player may use any Skill -- whether they are trained or not. There are only small limitations on how skills may be used if untrained, only a couple of the skills have uses that can only be done by those trained in the skill. For example, you can only "detect magic" and see the forces of magic flow through the world if you are Trained in Arcana. But you can still use Arcana to cast a malevolent ritual if you are untrained. You are less likely to succeed, but you can still try.
The problem is that every Skill Challenge presents a list of sample Skills that can be used and Sample Difficulty Classes for those attempts. They also provide information about what succeeding at those attempts mean. Some read these as the "only" things that can be done that matter...that would be wrong. That would be playing the game like a computer. You are a DM, reward creativity. Make stuff up. It's okay. Let the players use Skills in creative ways. Look at the Skill Challenge to see what can be done and if a player finds another way of doing it, let them try.
In fact...I recommend trying it without dice at all.
Huh? What?! No dice, but that cannot be done!
Yes. Yes it can.
You see, there are two kinds of people in 4e, trained and untrained. Anyone can attempt any action, but trained people are much better at things related to their skill.
How much better?
In 4e players are expected to have a 65% chance of succeeding at an "Easy" Skill Challenge of their level. What "of their level" means is up to the DM, but amounts to 1st level characters can hide from normal guards and 30th level characters can possibly hide from powerful arcanists with means of detecting infiltrators. Low level characters can long jump 7 feet and Epic characters are straight out of Wuxia.
By the way, that's any character -- trained or untrained -- who has a 65% chance of succeeding on an Easy challenge. What about trained characters? If they have a good statistic in the area, say Strength for Athletics checks, then they succeed 100% of the time. A "natural 1" is meaningless on a Skill Check. The difficulty of an "Easy" check at 1st level is 8. You need to roll an 8 or better on a twenty-sided die, after modifiers. A trained individual adds 5 to their roll, so only needs a 3 or better. That means they only need to have a 14 in the related statistic to be able to succeed on an "Easy" task 100% of the time.
A "Moderate" check requires a 12 or better, which means it is designed for a person with an 18 or higher in the related statistic to have a 65% chance to succeed (an 18 in a statistic adds +4 to rolls). A trained person with no stat has a 70% chance and with an 18 has a 90% chance of success. All of this is without help from friends, or the right equipment, or any number of other things that could alter the number.
A "Hard" check requires a 19 or better to succeed. This means that an average person has a 10% chance of success, a high stat person has a 30% chance of success (15 or better for the 18 statistic). A person who is trained, and has a high stat, has a 55% chance of success. If that person has a +2 bonus from background or race, very likely given that "Hard" checks are supposed to be for those who are the best at what they do, then they have a 65% chance of success.
Though I provided the difficulty numbers for 1st level, it doesn't matter if the test is higher. Why? Because the difficulty increases scale with the assumed improvements of the characters as they go up in level. In other words, levels don't matter for skill checks.
All that matters is the difficulty you want to set. Is the test something that everyone in the group is capable of doing (Easy), something only the physically/mentally capable or trained are capable of doing easily (Moderate), or something that only the best of the best can do when conditions are right and their approach is good (Hard). And in that description comes a hint as to how you can do Skill Challenges without rolling dice -- unless someone happens to want to know who does something "better" when they have equal ability.
If you want to run a diceless skill challenge. First decide on the difficulties of doing certain actions. Is finding the clue/jumping the chasm Easy, Moderate, or Hard based on the above criteria?
Once you know that, have the players describe what they are doing as they use the ability and use that description in the place of the die roll. The more difficult the task is for a particular individual, the more specific and elaborate they must be about how they are achieving their goal. The low stat and untrained player can describe how his or her character is meticulously examining a crime scene, using their real world experience as a mystery novelist to aid them, and you can use that in the place of the roll. That is, if you want the game to be about "player skill" rather than "character ability." If you want to balance the two, you allow reasonable but within character explanations. An unintelligent character isn't likely to examine a scene like a forensic investigator, so how would that character succeed at a "Hard" action? They likely wouldn't, that's what training is for -- trained versus untrained. If they happen to come up with a wild and creative way of achieving the task, then let them succeed but it is more likely that they follow the instructions of a skilled individual and "aid" that character.
Here are some guidelines for adjudicating Skill Challenges without dice, based on the difficulty and the stats/training of those attempting to use a skill.
To make things brief, Zak reviewed The Slaying Stone, one of the modules for the 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons that has come out in the past year or so. Of the modules recently released by Wizards, The Slaying Stone has received some fairly positive reviews for the way it gives more freedom than many modern modules. The module isn't as linear as many of Wizards, or Paizo's, offerings and is a nice move toward more open settings -- especially considering how linear most 3rd edition and 4th edition modules have been.
While others may have been happy with the "open-ended" nature of the module, Zak was very critical. Most of his points are valid, but most also apply to any written module. Then again, Zak wants DMs to be more DIY than many are/can be. His vision is that players be given freeform and interactive gaming experiences from their DMs, a vision that combines art and game in a way that would make Greg Stafford proud. To put it another way, DMs are people with imaginations and not computers that are limited by the programmed choices they are given and they should act that way.
I get it. I even agree...to a point. Share that attitude in the Savage Worlds community and you'll get some support, but you'll also get blank stares from the working/gradschool attending/ fathers who make up a good part of that community. They'll tell you that professional modules are a boon to their gaming livelihoods.
I was fine with all of Zak's criticism of the module, until he wrote the following quote, "Because it [The Slaying Stone] demonstrates even with an author with the best will in the world making a conscious effort not to write a railroad the basic requirements of new D&D push published modules in the more-sucking direction."
Zak is criticizing WotC's module writing guidelines here as articulated on page 31 of The Slaying Stone, but there are those who would point to pages 189 and 202 of the Essential Dungeon Master's Book or pages 57 and 104 of the 4th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide and argue that the phenomenon is endemic of the entire edition of the game. They would argue that the rules of 4e make all adventures predictable and identical. If it takes 8 - 10 encounters to gain a level and those encounters are all based on experience point "budgets," DMs are hindered.
Those who take Zak's criticism of module writing and extend it to how the game "must be played" are taking things too far.
As Zak writes in his piece:
"Type IV DMs can run whatever adventures they want (just like everybody else) but if they want to get them published they have a ton of hurdles to jump."
His criticism is limited to writing for published modules, and rightly so. WotC wants their modules written to the Rules as Written, and those are written with "safety wheels."
Rethinking 4e is about getting beyond these "safety wheels" and straight to the rules. When you do that, a couple of amazing things happen. First, levels almost completely disappear from the game. I'll post on that in a later post, but suffice to say that since the danger level of the game is static throughout the level scaling that levels are now fluff. Second, the game is extremely simple and free form. Players may "want" to roll for skill challenges, but they don't have to. Third, this game is easy and elegant. It is elegant in a way that Fudge or FATE or Burning Wheel are elegant. Fourth, it is ideal for creating storytelling games where "role playing" overpowers "roll playing," though it certainly allows for the latter as well.
So...let's get to the "safety wheel" I want to address in this post...Skills and Skill Challenges. Skill Challenges are one of the hardest things for people to grasp in the 4e system. So much of the game seems centered on structured play that when you get to the Skills and Skill Challenges section where it essentially tells GMs to force players to create narrative that many people react in shock. Skill Challenges almost seem out of place. They belong in games like Burning Wheel, Mage the Ascension, and My Life with Master not in a "combat" game like 4e. Players get so caught up in looking at 4e as a descendant of 3e/3.x that they forget that it is also a descendant of every role playing game ever written. D&D has influenced every other role playing game, but many other rpgs have influenced 4e.
Nowhere is that more apparent than the Skill Challenge, where players are asked to present ideas to solve a problem by using their skills. Any player may use any Skill -- whether they are trained or not. There are only small limitations on how skills may be used if untrained, only a couple of the skills have uses that can only be done by those trained in the skill. For example, you can only "detect magic" and see the forces of magic flow through the world if you are Trained in Arcana. But you can still use Arcana to cast a malevolent ritual if you are untrained. You are less likely to succeed, but you can still try.
The problem is that every Skill Challenge presents a list of sample Skills that can be used and Sample Difficulty Classes for those attempts. They also provide information about what succeeding at those attempts mean. Some read these as the "only" things that can be done that matter...that would be wrong. That would be playing the game like a computer. You are a DM, reward creativity. Make stuff up. It's okay. Let the players use Skills in creative ways. Look at the Skill Challenge to see what can be done and if a player finds another way of doing it, let them try.
In fact...I recommend trying it without dice at all.
Huh? What?! No dice, but that cannot be done!
Yes. Yes it can.
You see, there are two kinds of people in 4e, trained and untrained. Anyone can attempt any action, but trained people are much better at things related to their skill.
How much better?
In 4e players are expected to have a 65% chance of succeeding at an "Easy" Skill Challenge of their level. What "of their level" means is up to the DM, but amounts to 1st level characters can hide from normal guards and 30th level characters can possibly hide from powerful arcanists with means of detecting infiltrators. Low level characters can long jump 7 feet and Epic characters are straight out of Wuxia.
By the way, that's any character -- trained or untrained -- who has a 65% chance of succeeding on an Easy challenge. What about trained characters? If they have a good statistic in the area, say Strength for Athletics checks, then they succeed 100% of the time. A "natural 1" is meaningless on a Skill Check. The difficulty of an "Easy" check at 1st level is 8. You need to roll an 8 or better on a twenty-sided die, after modifiers. A trained individual adds 5 to their roll, so only needs a 3 or better. That means they only need to have a 14 in the related statistic to be able to succeed on an "Easy" task 100% of the time.
A "Moderate" check requires a 12 or better, which means it is designed for a person with an 18 or higher in the related statistic to have a 65% chance to succeed (an 18 in a statistic adds +4 to rolls). A trained person with no stat has a 70% chance and with an 18 has a 90% chance of success. All of this is without help from friends, or the right equipment, or any number of other things that could alter the number.
A "Hard" check requires a 19 or better to succeed. This means that an average person has a 10% chance of success, a high stat person has a 30% chance of success (15 or better for the 18 statistic). A person who is trained, and has a high stat, has a 55% chance of success. If that person has a +2 bonus from background or race, very likely given that "Hard" checks are supposed to be for those who are the best at what they do, then they have a 65% chance of success.
Though I provided the difficulty numbers for 1st level, it doesn't matter if the test is higher. Why? Because the difficulty increases scale with the assumed improvements of the characters as they go up in level. In other words, levels don't matter for skill checks.
All that matters is the difficulty you want to set. Is the test something that everyone in the group is capable of doing (Easy), something only the physically/mentally capable or trained are capable of doing easily (Moderate), or something that only the best of the best can do when conditions are right and their approach is good (Hard). And in that description comes a hint as to how you can do Skill Challenges without rolling dice -- unless someone happens to want to know who does something "better" when they have equal ability.
If you want to run a diceless skill challenge. First decide on the difficulties of doing certain actions. Is finding the clue/jumping the chasm Easy, Moderate, or Hard based on the above criteria?
Once you know that, have the players describe what they are doing as they use the ability and use that description in the place of the die roll. The more difficult the task is for a particular individual, the more specific and elaborate they must be about how they are achieving their goal. The low stat and untrained player can describe how his or her character is meticulously examining a crime scene, using their real world experience as a mystery novelist to aid them, and you can use that in the place of the roll. That is, if you want the game to be about "player skill" rather than "character ability." If you want to balance the two, you allow reasonable but within character explanations. An unintelligent character isn't likely to examine a scene like a forensic investigator, so how would that character succeed at a "Hard" action? They likely wouldn't, that's what training is for -- trained versus untrained. If they happen to come up with a wild and creative way of achieving the task, then let them succeed but it is more likely that they follow the instructions of a skilled individual and "aid" that character.
Here are some guidelines for adjudicating Skill Challenges without dice, based on the difficulty and the stats/training of those attempting to use a skill.
| Difficulty | Low Stat & Untrained | High Stat or Trained | High Stat & Trained |
| Easy | Moderate Detail | Any Plausible | Automatic |
| Moderate | Highly Detailed | Moderate Detail | Any Plausible |
| Hard | Improbable | Highly Detailed | Moderate Detail |
Looking at the chart above, the DM could set the difficulty and allow the players to describe their actions and adjudicate success based on the solutions offered by the players. Given that the players are, at some level, supposedly role playing the character on their sheet (meaning that a low intelligence character shouldn't act like a super genius), any offerings should be made within the context of the character's implied limitations.
Taking the character's "persona" into account, the DM could adjudicate the investigation of a room by asking the players to explain what they are doing as they look for clues. Let's say one character lacks training or Wisdom, one is a Wise Cleric, and the other is a high Wisdom Thief with training in Perception. The players should describe their attempt in ways that are appropriate to their "persona," but if the check is easy and the non-Wise character give a moderately detailed description of what they are attempting you can reward that character with a clue that could "easily" be found. The same goes for the other characters.
Key here is to make sure that the players are portraying their characters, and to reward them if they do. If the low stat and untrained character has a player describe in wonderful and hilarious detail how they accomplish a task that is nigh-impossible, you can let them succeed. The player will be happy, and the group will be entertained. If it is a wonderful description, that doesn't quite fit with even an "improbable" description, then use this as a chance to have the character fail "spectacularly." Don't punish good role play, but don't necessarily give success either. The character might fail in an interesting way, a way that requires a High Stat & Trained character to provide a wonderfully detailed description of how they help the other character.
This is a chance to really make the game far more free form, and it fits well within the rules. Remember, all things being equal and routine a character has a 65% chance of performing a challenge of equal level so long as they have the right kind of character for the job. You could even get rid of "stat values" if you wanted and replace them with descriptors and it would work easily.
But that is a discussion for another time.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Play an Unfamiliar RPG on Labor Day Weekend
Roleplaying games are a wonderful hobby. The provide a great social atmosphere where you can hang out with friends and experience a combination wargame/improvisational theater. Depending on your gaming group, it will likely tend toward one more than the other.
Though they are a wonderful hobby, roleplaying games are still arcane and mysterious. If you haven't played a role playing game before, the presentation of statistics, abilities, powers, hit dice, skills, and combat resolutions systems can look as daunting as statistical notation. Neither are actually difficult to understand when you know what you are looking at, but both are nearly incomprehensible to the neophyte. Let's face it. People who play roleplaying games are friendly, but roleplaying games themselves are sometimes elitist snobs. This creates an obstacle for new players, and sometimes an obstacle to existing players trying new things.
How many people hate the 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons partially because it has "new fangled" and arcane ways of handling things? (ex. "What do you mean Fighters have powers? They're Fighters, not spellcasters.) How many people avoid the Indie RPG movement because if it's obsession with terminology like "gamist, narrativist, simulationist?" Assuming x a person who hates/avoids based on the criteria given, I think the answer to both of those questions is:
.
Given that games themselves often present the obstacles to recruiting new gamers, or inspiring players to play new games, it is incumbent on us "the gaming community" to bring new people into the hobby or to try out new things.
We can be thankful for the fact that there are plethora opportunities for us to recruit new players or try out new games...without spending a dime.
That's right. There are free games out there.
I'm not just referring to the many free role playing games one can download at 1000 Monkeys 1000 Typewriters. Nor am I just referring to great free games associated with children's literature. Though I am referring to both of those.
In recent years, there has been a wonderful event each June entitled "Free RPG Day." The event is coordinated by an ad agency that gets game companies to sponsor the event by offering products. These products often include basic rules of the game, and are often beautifully designed (textually and visually) professional projects. If you go to your local game store on Free RPG Day, you can pick up Free RPGs.
But what if you missed the Day?
Thanks to the Internets. Every day is "Free RPG Day."
You can download games from this year's "Free RPG Day" from the internet for free right now. Why not use this as an opportunity to talk all of your friends into a crazy Labor Day Weekend gaming session?
Here is a list of games/adventures from "Free RPG Day 2011" that are currently available:
I highly recommend the DragonAge and Savage Worlds offerings.
Have some fun!
Though they are a wonderful hobby, roleplaying games are still arcane and mysterious. If you haven't played a role playing game before, the presentation of statistics, abilities, powers, hit dice, skills, and combat resolutions systems can look as daunting as statistical notation. Neither are actually difficult to understand when you know what you are looking at, but both are nearly incomprehensible to the neophyte. Let's face it. People who play roleplaying games are friendly, but roleplaying games themselves are sometimes elitist snobs. This creates an obstacle for new players, and sometimes an obstacle to existing players trying new things.
How many people hate the 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons partially because it has "new fangled" and arcane ways of handling things? (ex. "What do you mean Fighters have powers? They're Fighters, not spellcasters.) How many people avoid the Indie RPG movement because if it's obsession with terminology like "gamist, narrativist, simulationist?" Assuming x a person who hates/avoids based on the criteria given, I think the answer to both of those questions is:
.We can be thankful for the fact that there are plethora opportunities for us to recruit new players or try out new games...without spending a dime.
That's right. There are free games out there.
I'm not just referring to the many free role playing games one can download at 1000 Monkeys 1000 Typewriters. Nor am I just referring to great free games associated with children's literature. Though I am referring to both of those.
In recent years, there has been a wonderful event each June entitled "Free RPG Day." The event is coordinated by an ad agency that gets game companies to sponsor the event by offering products. These products often include basic rules of the game, and are often beautifully designed (textually and visually) professional projects. If you go to your local game store on Free RPG Day, you can pick up Free RPGs.
But what if you missed the Day?
Thanks to the Internets. Every day is "Free RPG Day."
You can download games from this year's "Free RPG Day" from the internet for free right now. Why not use this as an opportunity to talk all of your friends into a crazy Labor Day Weekend gaming session?
Here is a list of games/adventures from "Free RPG Day 2011" that are currently available:
- Eden Studios
All Flesh Must Be Eaten Quickstart & Adventure - Exile Game Studios
Hollow Earth Expedition Quickstart & Adventure - Fantasy Flight Games
Black Crusade Quickstart and Adventure and characters - Goodman Games
Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG Quickstart - Green Ronin
DragonAge Quickstart - Paizo
“We Be Goblins!” Pathfinder Adventure - Paradigm Concepts
Arcanis RPG Quickstart & Adventure - Pinnacle
Savage Worlds Quickstart & Adventure, titled “The Wild Hunt” - Stone Tablet Games
Aspect Quickstart Adventure - White Wolf Publishing
World of Darkness Quickstart
I highly recommend the DragonAge and Savage Worlds offerings.
Have some fun!
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Upcoming Space Marine Game is Looking Pretty Sweet!
I've been enjoying the spare moments I have been able to devote to playing "Space Marine: Kill Team." It's a fun little coop game that fills the "I want to play Gauntlet, but with Space Marines" void quite nicely. It starts as a simple mission where your small squad must explore the interior of a Space Hulk, and we know how simple Space Hulk missions tend to turn out.
Let me just say that I thought "Kill Team" was wonderful time wasting perfection, but then I saw the trailer for "Space Marine" over at Kotaku. It blew my mind.
Apparently, the entire purpose of "Space Marine: Kill Team" is to set your expectations of what a Space Marine game can be at a really high level, just so they can blow those expectations out of the water.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
First a D&D Song, Now One Inspired by "The Jerk"
Allie Goertz's latest song is a love song inspired by Steve Martin's classic comic film The Jerk. As it uses quotes from the film, it's got some amusing moments and is a great listen. All that's missing is an Opti-Grab on her glasses.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
It was the Best of Conans, It was the Worst of Conans
Do me a favor and give a quick look at the Conan poster below. It shows Conan battling against some tentacled horror. Think about it for a few seconds. Do this because the review and discussion I am going to write below may not be exactly what you are looking for. I'm not going to write with great ire about the Neo-Nihilism of the film, or how it fails to meet Howard's vision. Nor am I going to blog about how it perfectly captured the "Panther like grace" of Howard's epic hero with a visually stunning world that for the first time has captured Hyboria.
If you want to read reviews by other passionate Howard fans, you can find Leo Grin's here, James Maliszewski's here, and John R. Fultz's here. All three are people who have written critical comments about Pulp, Howard, and/or Role Playing Games that I have found thoughtful.
I want to write about Conan: The Barbarian (2012) from a different perspective, from the perspective of "vast narrative," and how the phenomenon of "vast narrative" doomed this particular theatrical adaptation of Conan to be a troubled film at best.
Keep your thoughts about this image of Conan in your mind as I discuss "vast narrative" below.
What is "vast narrative" and why is important when discussing an adaptation of a character who has his roots in the pages of a much admired Pulp magazine?
In Pat Harrigan and Noah Wardrip-Fruin's book Third Person: Authoring and Exploring Vast Narratives (published by MIT Press in 2009), they discuss certain types of "vastness" that might appear in combinations for some narratives. In particular, there are the following types of vastness.
First, is vastness of "narrative extent" which is akin to The Wire taking a single season to cover one investigation, or Patrick Rothfuss taking 600 pages in order for his fantasy hero to go to college and acquire student loans -- thus beginning his journey to greatness.
Second, is vastness of "world and character continuity" where characters "operate withing less cyclic narrative models" and where "often ingenious methods [sustain] open-ended narratives are a major theme of the project." Think of a narrative that attempts to adapt the stories in order to keep up with the times. Soap operas have this kind of vastness.
Third, is vastness of "Cross-media Universes." This is the kind of vastness we will be most discussing regarding Conan and Harrigan and Wardrip-Fruin describe this vastness as follows: "Though it is now typical for a blockbuster narrative (e.g., The DaVinci Code or Harry Potter) to sprout multiple instantiations (e.g., novels, films, games, comic books, or narrated tours of real locations), one narrative form is generally still considered "canonical," from which the others are derived. On the other hand, some narrative 'universes,' such as those of Doctor Who and Star Wars, instead treat contributions from many media as authorized (often elaborately authorized) elements of a vast fictional quilt." (emphasis mine)
Fourth, is "procedural potential" which represents how computational power has allowed interactive narrative techniques to far exceed the paper forms of Choose Your Own Adventure books. The Fabled Lands novels achieve high vastness in this area, as do many interactive video games.
Lastly, there is "multiplayer interaction" where fan culture creates vast narrative universes around many types of media. This includes online fiction, any fan created art, table top rpgs, and MMOs. -- (Harrigan and Wardrip-Fruin 2009, 2)As I mentioned above, we are most concerned with issues of vastness that arise from "Cross-Media Universes." Like Star Wars and Doctor Who -- possibly moreso than either -- Howard's Conan exists in a vast Cross Media Universe. What is Hyboria? For Leo Grin, James Maliszewski, John R. Fultz, and Me it is Robert E. Howard's world in its purist form We go back to the "canonical" texts as we find them to be the most rewarding. They are rich tales that we, or at least I, consider to be among the great works of the American literary tradition. You can read some of my thoughts on Conan's importance and subtlety here (I quote Plutarch in that essay).
For others though, this might not be the case. For some the real Hyboria, and the real Conan for that matter, might be the Conan "resurrected" by L. Sprague DeCamp. De Camp's interpretation and adaptation of the Barbarian are scorned by most modern Howard fans, but the character might have fallen into obscurity if not for his efforts -- and the efforts of Glenn Lord made sure that the harm DeCamp did could be limited. But many only know the DeCamp literary Conan, or the Robert Jordan (yes that Robert Jordan) Conan. Many hands have written books about Conan, often featuring Boris Vallejo covers, that many readers have enjoyed -- for all that they are depictions of Conan that lack any of the depth of the character as Howard wrote him. For these fans, the Thrud and Blunder tales provide enjoyment, and they are what they expect to see in a Conan film.
Still others have fond memories of Roy Thomas and Barry Windsor Smith's Comic Book adaptation of the character is "canonical." This audience doesn't come close to covering all the different Comic Book interpretations of the character which are as vast in their interpretation as Roy Thomas and Barry Windsor Smith's are different from Kurt Busiek and Cary Nord's and includes dozens more interpretations of the character.
There have been television series featuring Conan, including a children's cartoon, a couple of role playing games, and a number of video games. Then there are the two Arnold Schwarzenegger movies.
That is a very vast array of source material to draw from, each appealing to a different audience. To which audience should a director or producer appeal? That may seem like an easy answer, which will certainly be based on ones own biases, but the real answer is "the one that seems to appeal to the broadest audience." Ideally, this would be one that combines elements from some of the most populous fan groups -- and this seems to be the strategy that the Conan: The Barbarian team undertook. In an interview with Empire Magazine, Jason Momoa -- the actor playing Conan -- stated, "if people are really stuck on Conan being their own one thing, I think it's time to address it. We wanted to give respect to Robert E Howard, but you can't just focus on his fans. There are eight decades of stories and comics and movies since him, so Conan is different things to different people. You can't please everybody, but you can re-imagine Conan every couple of generations, like Batman or Bond."
Momoa's response is straight out of a description of the dilemma I presented, and presents the thought that one can "re-imagine" a character. Sadly for Momoa, and for the filmmakers, the recent success of Batman and Bond as marquee titles has been due to a return to emulation of "canonical" material -- even when presenting entirely new stories the "new" interpretations "feel" like the literary companions.
Combining the interpretations of multiple audiences is a tremendous challenge, but it can be done and done well. In Pendragon and The Great Pendragon Campaign, Greg Stafford manages to interweave disparate Arthurian sources into what may possibly be the greatest role playing game products ever written. In these texts Stafford uses material covering "Celtic Arthur," "Historical Arthur," "Early Romance Arthur," and "Late Romance Arthur" with great love and tremendous talent. (Harrigan and Wardrip-Fruin 2009, 94 -95)
It is possible to achieve greatness while taking into account a variety of narrative audiences, and while incorporating a vast narrative. Stafford carefully eliminates things that occurred after a certain point, and stresses certain Arthurian themes that repeat across narratives to create his game.
In translating Conan though, the obstacle isn't as easy to overcome as it was for Stafford in presenting Arthurian tales. Stafford had the benefit of centuries of academic scholarship to aid him. The Conan production team had no such allies, though they had some they seem to have underutilized. Instead, they were faced with what John Clute described in the Encyclopedia of Fantasy as follows.
Given the fact that something like 200 story fragments were found in [Howard's] papers, and that his style was very much heavier on heroic action than on the delineation ofcharacter, it is not perhaps surprising that many of these fragments were recast and "finished" as Conan tales: in some cases, a simple substitution of Conan's name as the avenging hero probably sufficed. As a result, the Conan bibliography is quite extraordinarily jumbled...These assortments of exfoliating texts constitute a genuine assault upon the perception of the reader, and the original figure of Conan tends to become more obscure...
Granting the challenges that the Conan team faced, how did they do and what did they do?
As the title of this blog post suggests, the created the Best of Conan films and the Worst of Conan films. The story is fractured and confused, as is the character, and the motivations of the character are mixed. He both is and isn't Howard's Conan and this is a direct result of some of the film's inspirational choices.
They "honored" the filmic audience by taking the revenge motif and slaughtered family from the John Milius film, and by having an overarching story that echoed Conan: The Destroyer's quest to awaken a dead god through the acquisition of an artifact and the sacrifice of a "pure blood" to activate the artifact. Just looking at their filmic influences they chose elements from both what was already the best Conan film, flawed as it was, and the worst.
They honored the comic book audience by including shots and costumes that seemed pulled out of Cary Nord's illustrations.
They honored fans of Howard by providing us with Easter Egg references to stories and by pulling lines of dialogue straight out of the fiction, sadly these lines were some of the worst performed lines in the film.
They also included the Giant Monsters from the God of War inspired Conan video game, and I swear one of the sets looked just like the game -- the temple where Conan fights the "sand warriors."
The Conan team didn't seem to have a coherent vision for the character, or the world. Some of the shots of Hyboria are spectacular, and Cimmeria looks like Cimmeria should, but others look straight out of the Milius film. It all points to lack of overarching artistic vision.
It seems clear that the team wanted to make a good film, and you can see the money on the screen as they say. It seems equally clear to me that they lacked any overarching artistic vision. Given the patchwork and collaborative exercise that film making is in its nature, this can destroy a production.
Is the film worse than an Uwe Boll film? No.
Is it Neo Nihilism run rampant? No.
Is it crap? No.
Is it good? No.
I'll still buy it when it comes out on DVD so that I can watch it again, but that's because I think modern Sword & Sorcery film fans are spoiled. Those who are overly harsh need to go back and watch Deathstalker, Gor, Yar, Ator, Zardoz, She, Deathstalker, Beastmaster 2, or one of a hundred other films from the 80s.
Those were miserable. Conan the Barbarian was merely flawed. I think those that are reacting strongly against it are often doing so because thy can see glimpses of just how good the film would have been with a consistent vision.
I think they should have gone back to "canon" only for inspiration, but then again I don't know how much I'd enjoy watching Conan run away from what might be a giant frog -- as he does in "The Scarlet Citadel." (To be fair it's likely Clark Ashton Smith's froglike demon/god Tsathoggua.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)