Don't Talk Like a Pirate, Play Like a Pirate

In 2008, I began advocating that people should celebrate "Play Like a Pirate Day" rather than participate in "Talk Like a Pirate Day." My contention was that one of the most irritating things you can hear your co-workers say is, "Aaaargh, Avast, Ye Mateys" a couple times an hour in some half-hearted participation in a day of international live action role playing. Even worse are the inconsistent uses of "Yar!" I think what makes it most irritating is the fact that these small offering of participation are lackadaisical at best.

I would rather my co-worker show up dressed in full "Age of Sail" apparel, blunderbuss and cutlass in hand, and charge into the office while staying in character as much as is possible for the day.

That might be fun, in the "employees showing up to work in costumes on Halloween" kind of way. You know... like when a person comes to work in their full blown Optimus Prime costume -- one where they can actually "transform" from robot to big rig -- you are truly impressed with your co-workers commitment. On the other hand, when your other co-worker shows up with only a pair of "cat ears" on and a mild scowl on their face, it's annoying.

Most participation in International Talk Like a Pirate Day is of the cat ear type, and not the Optimus Prime type. That's why I still believe that it is time for the phenomenon to die. That doesn't mean that we should no longer have a day "celebrating" piracy and the outlaw attitude, or as the founder of Talk Like A Pirate Day called it "Piratitude." Pirates are still awesome (though not as awesome as Transforming Robot Pirate Ninja Dinosaur Mutant Demon Hunters), it's just talking like a pirate that is lame. I think gamers, and geeks of all kinds, should lay claim the holiday and re-cast it as "International Play Like A Pirate Day." That way the costume role players can "play pirate" and other people can play pirate themed games, read pirate themed novels, or watch pirate themed films.

As I wrote last year, "from now on September 19th will be a day when families and friends get together and enjoy some form of Piratical Recreation. Such recreation can include celebrating by talking like pirates, certainly role play (in the traditional sense) is play. Our celebration is inclusive, not exclusive. But families and friends will no longer be limited to listening to the 'yars' and 'aaarghs' of everyone around them. Some might choose more formal ludographic participation -- that's game play."

Here is a list of recommended activities for this year's festivities -- thankfully the Day doesn't fall on a Weekday this year:

1) Play a pirate themed roleplaying game. In particular, we recommend Pinnacle Entertainment Group's excellent PIRATES OF THE SPANISH MAIN. This is highly recommended for those who want to talk like a pirate. It encourages such behavior in an appropriate venue. Besides, by role playing (in the game sense) participants can act far more Piratical than is allowed under modern mores and laws.

If you want a more heroic bent with mystical aspects, you can always play Pinnacle's 50 Fathoms instead.

2)If you own a copy -- and not many do -- play an exciting session of the classic Broadsides and Boarding Parties

If you don't own a copy of Broadsides, try one of these two excellent pirate games from GMT Games.

3) Blackbeard: The Golden Age of Piracy. The game is a redesign of Avalon Hill's classic game of the same name. The new version is suitable for 1 to 5 players and has less "down time" for players who aren't in their current turn.

4) Winds of Plunder is a quick and fun game that is more in the style of the "Eurogame" than Blackbeard or Broadsides.

5) You can play the previously reviewed Sword and Skull.

6) Lastly, we recommend watching one of your favorite pirate films. We've included some of our favorites in the carousel below.

Or your can sing "For I am a Pirate King!"

Geekerati Radio: Once More Speaking Out with Our Geek Out

On May 14th, 2007 the Geekerati Radio podcast streamed its first "live streaming" episode at Blog Talk Radio. That day I turned on my computer, started up Skype, and dialed a conference call with Bill Cunningham, Eric Lytle, and Shawna Benson. Within minutes we were discussing what we thought of the then upcoming 2007 summer blockbuster movie season. We scheduled the show to run for one hour, and the episode ended up at 73 minutes. Sixty of those minutes streamed live, the remaining minutes were "overtime."

Given our love of all aspects of popular culture the "overtime" feature became a regular component of our show. Unlike most podcasts, those based at Blog Talk Radio are live shows that can receive callers and we wanted to take advantage of that benefit. We also seem to have an uncanny ability to speak on and on about the things we love. So this left us with circumstances we could leverage to make our show a little more distinct from other podcasts/online radio shows. We could have live callers like a radio show (not that we ever received too many of those), and we could have bonus footage that could only be heard on the archive of our episode. Those who listened live could call in, but those who relistened -- or listened at a later date -- could hear the full content of our show. We loved it.

Between May 14th, 2007 and September 13th, 2010 we recorded 131 episodes of the show. For the first couple of years we aired weekly almost without fail, but that changed as life's obligations intruded one time too many into our schedules. The show came to a grinding halt, but that is all about to change.

Tuesday marked the 1 year anniversary of the "last" episode of Geekerati Radio, but this Sunday marks the triumphant return of an activity I deeply enjoy. Shawna Benson and I will be joining forces to discuss the upcoming fall season of television. Shawna is quite the television buff and she's got the lowdown on what's hot, what's not, and what the sleepers and disappointments will be. It should make for a great discussion.

Join us this Sunday at 4pm Pacific as we discuss the upcoming season, reminisce over Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and ponder the future of "television scheduling." We live in an exciting era for content. If you want to participate in the conversation, you can call us at (646) 478-5041 during the episode. We'll be happy to take your call, it can't be as weird as our infamous "what is this show about" call.

Our past episodes include interviews with:

1. Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weis
2. Brandon Sanderson
3. Brent Weeks
4. Marc Bernardin
5. Tim Minear
6. John Rogers

That's only a smattering of the guests we've had in the past, and the kinds of guests we'll be having in the future.

Geek Out About Your Job

Hi! Eric here again.
Speak Out With Your Geek Out is all about getting rid of the negative sterotypes about geeks. Both on the internet and in your 'real' life. Almost everyone has something that they do for a living. It should be something you're proud of and fulfill you in some way. That's not always the case but it's something to which most of us aspire.

My second post for #speakgeek week is about loving what you do for a living. You can geek out about anything. That's what makes the word so common. You can be a Fantasy Football Geek or a Food Geek. But you can also geek about what you do at your job. For me, my job is in the field of Chemistry. Analytical Chemistry is wonderfully rewarding profession.

I have always enjoyed chemistry from my early days of childhood. I was always watching science shows like Mr. Wizard, Bill Nye the Science guy, and even Beakman's World. Remember them?

Mr. Wizard

Bill Nye the Science Guy

Beakman's World

At my work for California EPA I've had a lot of fun doing things for my job. We've blown up explosives in a microwave. I get to shoot things with an X-ray gun to analyze them. I've dissolved all types of stuff in concentrated acid to analysis with plasma. 10000K, hotter then the sun, Plasma! How awesome is that?!? I've also had great opportunities to teach kids and adults about chemistry in some of public outreach events.
Oh and then there's my other job: game designer. I'm having a lot of fun doing that too.

Go Out and Game Out

Hello, Eric here. It is officially Speak out with your geek out week and this is my first post for the event. What is Speak out? It's a pro-geek event that encourages you to be positive about your geeky hobbies and vocations. Blog, post on Facebook or Tweet with the hashtag #speakgeek all week long with us! It was put together by friends of the blog Monica Valentinelli , Jessica Banks and Amanda Valentine. This will be the first in a short series of geek-talk posts.

For today I want to talk about one of the things I geek out about the most, hobby games. More specifically Boardgames and D&D Encounters night at my favorite game store, EndGame in Oakland. The positive message for you today is find a local gaming community and go out and play.

Let's talk about why I go here once a week for seven hours of gaming every week, all in one great evening. It's a great place to meet people who are as excited about boardgames and D&D as I am. We have a very regular group of people who make the core group of the night, but new players are always welcome. EndGame prides itself on community building and Wednesday night is one of the prime examples of this. The environment is a really fun and loose. You'll never have to sit out of a game. People bring lots of new games try out every week. I've gotten to try out many new games(both newly released and older games I've missed) from all different genres here. It is also a good place to meet people who like to design board games. Prototypes of new games can often be seen on the tables on Wednesday nights. It's also where I met my co-designers Evan Denbaum and Chris Ruggiero. We designed Race to Adventure together at one of these Wednesday night events. Check out the blog for the game's origins here: Race to Adventure! aka the wallet game

I also help run Dungeons and Dragons Encounters here on the same nights. We have two tables for the current season Lost Crown of Neverwinter. This is a fun free publisher sponsored event for playing D&D at your local gaming store. At EndGame it is 1-2 hours starting at 7pm every Wednesday. When play is done people are welcome and encouraged to stay for boardgame nights. One good bridge for this group is the D&D adventure board game Castle Ravenloft. We are stuck on the last adventure trying to defeat the evil vampire Lord Strahd.

He's the toughest villian in the game, by far.

I greatly encourage you to find a local FLGS (Friendly Local Games Store) to play hobby games. It is a great way to share your geek hobby with others. If you can't find a FLGS with board game nights, ask them if you can start your own event at their store. Most store owners are more than happy to host events if someone else is passionate in organizing them. And if you don't have a neighborhood game store, try finding gamers in your area on the BoardGameGeek website.

Wong Kar Wei and Tony Leung Chiu Wai Take on Ip Man with "The Grandmasters"

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.

h.t. to David Chute

[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).

[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.

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.