"It's Just a Game"

The game has put me in contact with many people all over the world for almost a quarter of a century. I met my oldest friend on this planet because of the game. Whenever I move to a new town, whether within the same country or in some far corner of the world, it's the gamer community that I find people to hang out with and find things to do with.

The game has been the gateway to much of the literature that has shaped my mind. Howard, via Conan comics, came first, but the game opened the door to Tolkien and then to the TSR hackwork novels and eventually to the works of Leiber, Moorcock, Howard (proper), Wells, Verne, Lovecraft, and a growing list of fine 19th century and early 20th century authors. Now I read it for its own sake, but the game was the gate.

The game has been my creative inspiration since I was a child. It inspired me to write, first the fiction (I should post it, some of my 1997 stories have recently been recovered... awful), which led to the metal zine, and now to RPG work.

The game allowed me to actually have an intellect. The fantastic wordplay and frequent use of mathematics (and I'd come up with house rules that required ridiculously more complex math than anything in the rules, but I did it because of the game) increased my appreciation of English and math, and I excelled in those classes. Trying to be more "authentic" within the game led to my love of reading history books, for fun, outside of any classroom or academic reasons. The game showed me that mainstream society could be completely full of shit and that authority figures were never to be blindly trusted, because as a child I was able to see through the Satanic Panic as a complete farce. As it turns out, not only did the police, teachers, "journalists," clergy, and the "good kids" not know anything about D&D (while claiming they knew all about it and how dangerous it was)... but as I learned later they didn't know very much about Satanism, either.

The game is how many people, in the thousands, formerly in the millions, spend time with like-minded people exercising their minds in a social situation for the pure joy of it.

No. It's not just a game. And if that's all you think it is, you really have forfeited the right to be taken seriously on any matters concerning this hobby.

It Begins Again

Cheap Advertising

So, yeah, I may very well have to stop selling The Random Esoteric Creature Generator for Classic Fantasy Role-Playing Games and Their Modern Simulacra very soon due to contractual obligations. Not 100% sure (and wouldn't it be funny if this post messed that up. :P), but looking good.

If you want a copy of this version in this format for this price with the Aino art... I'd do so pretty now-ish. If you want one that's a bit more expensive and a bit more professionally produced and perhaps available at your local gaming shop... well, don't buy it now-ish.

Buy it here.

Could someone tell the Acaeum folks? :D

Making your campaign METAL!

This came up on RPG.net some time back... "How do I make my campaign METAL?"

Most people, of course, went for style over substance and went for the look that metal is known for, without capturing anything that will make it feel metal. I saw that awful Metalocalypse show for the first time yesterday, and when most people want to "metal up" their role-playing, it's kind of like that - stereotypical and fucking stupid.

Here's a reprint of my suggestions to make your campaign HEAVY fucking METAL:

Considering all of metal's concepts solidified in the 70s through mid-80s, the most metal thing you could do to your campaign is run it using AD&D 1E. ;)

But you want to make it metal...

War pigs.

Make the violence horrible. All of the ruling class - all of them - are despicable warmongers who sacrifice the well-being of their people to wage ever more senseless and destructive wars.

If it's rich, it's evil. If it's powerful, it's evil.

The PCs serve as Iron Hippies, fighting the power in the only way it understands... violence and force. The "points of light" are not physical locations, as the entire world is a dark, dark place. The points of light are in the hearts of the true, the unconquered, those that can see through the lies.

... until one day in the campaign... it's the PCs who are rich. And powerful. And even if they've always fought well for the cause, they're going to wake up one day and find that they're the enemy they've always been fighting against. Power always corrupts, always. If it's rich, it's evil. And the PCs have killed a lot of evil, and taken its stuff, and have gotten very rich. If it's powerful, it's evil. And the PCs have gained a lot of levels, and are very powerful. They've sold out, they've come too far to truly embody the spirit they've always championed, and it's up to the next generation of oppressed, angry warriors to be able to fight the good fight.

That's fucking metal.

The LotFP Promise!

No regular blog today, but the hot topic right now is you know what.

I give you a solemn promise... I won't look at it. I won't play it. From this point forward, I'm not even going to mention it on this blog. Ever.

I mean, heck, I haven't looked at a 3.x book since 2000.

(...and I haven't listened to a new Metallica album since 1991... so... you know... I'm hardly one to bother with things I already know I'll hate. If I've missed something good? I don't give a fuck, I've already got good things, and there is nothing, nothing, nothing in all the publicity to suggest that the new stuff will satisfy like the old stuff... which was 1989 for D&D, and 1986 for Metallica, really...)

Artwork

'allo...

It's art time! Here I parade what I like best about traditional gaming art. This serves two purposes - to dispel the idea that line art is for some reason inferior, and to serve as a handy primer for any prospective artists that I might want to work with in the future. I don't really care if someone is into RPGs, I care if they're good, and I can just link them to this and be done with describing the feel that I want.

First, read this. Really. It's great. Then read this, especially Matt Finch's comments. That's great too.

Onto the comments on the masters. Just to note, I normally wouldn't just copy stuff like this wholesale, but I did find it in various weird places on the internet in the first place, so this was like a second-hand swiping.

JEFF DEE

I always liked Jeff Dee's art. It is extremely clean, devoid of unnecessary lines and distractions, without seeming incomplete or empty. Some of his better fantasy drawings:

This pic from module A1 Slave Pits of Undercity is just a perfect introductory piece of art. I love that this illustration actually has a good bit of detail, and it shows that Dee is professional and proficient (I can imagine a lot of artists these days making a complete mess of a simple idea like this). No action, no fantasy, no nothing except an atmospheric location.

I believe this one is from Q1 Queen of the Demonweb Pits. I like it for much of the same reason that I like the previous picture: It gets across the feel of a location while at the same time not skimping out on delivering a realistic quality to it all. Dee's environments are easily of "better quality" than his figures, realismly (I invented a word!) speaking.

I don't think I've ever seen a picture so... so... inspiring before. I mean, at least as far as making me want to play a paladin. Come on, this is awesome. It just explodes with righteousness. The evil black dragon has been slain, and the noble knight has suffered nary a scratch.

Although I will admit, his helmet bothers me. His boots, not so much. I mean, can't blame an artist for being a wee bit influenced by the times he lives in, even when illustrating something outside of time. But that helmet? Not buying it, man. It's not even the wings... it's the visor or whatever the hell that thing is.

Best. Umberhulk. Ever. Everything you need to know, from its preferred environment to its special power, is right there. Dude's about to get chomped.

Dee wrote and illustrated two superhero RPGs (Villains and Vigilantes and Living Legends). His love of that genre is really on display here, cape and all. Still, it does show exactly what it needs to (from D3 Vault of the Drow, I believe this is in Llolth's Fane?), as this kind of thing is better shown than described.

[Robocop voice]I like it![/Robocop voice]

From S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. Note the border-busting framing of the picture. Note the completely alien (heh. heh. heh.) portrayal of the mind flayer, completely against how it's usually illustrated. It really gets across the theme of the module.

Another from Expedition, and this is the most awesome picture in the history of Planet Oerth. Pure What the Fuckery. Note the detail of the surroundings is every bit as vivid and attended to, even though surely nobody is looking at it, what with GIANT ROBOTS throwing a BULETTE out of a FRICKIN SPACESHIP and in the laps of our hapless adventurers. Cheat Commandos, Rock Rock On!

DENIS LOUBET

Not associated with Dungeons and Dragons at all, but Denis' work with Origin Systems and the Ultima series surely made his imagery as much a staple of fantasy gamers' imagination as anyone else's.

Solid line work, solid detail, solid composition. A shot with no action and no posing may not impress the everygamer, but it's this kind of consistent work, presenting a world that could exist, that makes me love Denis.

I wanted to marry this girl when I was 12. Note the more natural pose for a class "icon" than you'd likely get these days.

I want to marry this girl RIGHT NOW.

Another illustration of an activity that is part of every adventurer's life, depicted as it would be if it actually happened, not all dramatized and sillified.

A Loubet action shot! A bit stiff, admittedly, but still gritty. Loubet is very meat-and-potatoes in a genre where meat and potatoes are often seen as undesirable. Have I mentioned his consistency? :P

EROL OTUS

Otherwordly and fantastic. Otus has never failed to deliver amazing art that inspires imagination.

"Now with 100% less art"? GO FUCK YOURSELVES. This picture sells the roper and its fearsomeness more than anything else ever has.

What the hell is this? I don't know. Are they squabbling merchants or soon to be feuding wizards? It just exudes magical flavor. All of that stuff has a story, and this picture makes me want to find out (or make it up!) for myself. And those figures... realism be damned, they are part of another world...

Watch Otus make even the mundane seem atmospheric...

Another "every alchemist does it, and every other artist overdoes the showing of it," example where less is more. Nothing interesting is happening, but the illustration is jam-packed with interesting all the same.

That's magic.

One thing that Otus is great at doing is filling all of his pictures with the sense of overwhelming evil and doom. Even his village picture above gives the feeling that something just isn't right, and the distortions of the merchants and alchemist above give a sense of corruption that isn't obvious just from the basic composition of the piece. This gives it all - the location is evil, the action taking place is evil, and the figure performing that evil action is otherworldly, while the victim looks like a regular person. Excellent.

Erol Otus is the only person that has ever (OK, maybe also Michael Whelan) illustrated Lovecraftian gods correctly. If I'm ignorant of others, please tell me. But Otus is among the masters.

DAVID SUTHERLAND III

I hate to speak ill of the dead, but I was never so much a big fan of the majority of Sutherland's work in the D&D books. However, this one picture more than makes up for everything else. Talk about an iconic, larger than life illustration that brings a game out from the pages and directly into the imagination. Whereas Dee showed the nobility of the paladin and Loubet showed the piety, Sutherland captures the crusading power of the class. This is one of the few pictures that you can show all by itself and say, "This is D&D!"

DARLENE PEKUL

Other artists have given the D&D game an atmosphere that is irreplaceable, simply by lending their style to the game. Darlene's style is in some ways complimentary and the extreme opposite of Erol Otus' work. Whereas Otus showcases the corrupt and macabre, Darlene's work makes everything into a fairytale.

Case in point.

This illustration takes an evil creature (a succubus) on an alien world (note the black sun), and turns it into a vulnerable and sympathetic creature. How awesome is that? I also like how the woman's body doesn't have so much detail beyond the outside lines, and it still seems complete and correct. Less is sometimes more, but great is always great.

I really don't have a lot to say about this one... because I don't think I need to say anything.

I love how the adventuring party is shown as unintimidating as possible. Look at the old men! I also love the detail of the background. I loves me some background. When as much detail is shown in the things you're not supposed to be noticing as is shown in the focus of the illustration, you know you're dealing with an artist that cares.

DAVID TRAMPIER

The master. No comments needed.

This last one is a Tramp work, correct? I've never seen it properly credited... anyway, this is the absolute best visual representation there has ever been, and ever will be, describing what Dungeons and Dragons is all about. No question, no argument, the end.

Awesome.

Testing...

This is Times.

This is Arial.

This is Trebuchet.

This is Georgia.



Standard size.

If I'm doing it right.

This Blog's Appearance.

Speaking of criticism, James, I don't suppose we could talk you into using a slightly bigger font? The one you're using is just on the legible side of being comfortable to read for me.

You people tell me what I should do. I like the eeeeevvvvviiiiiiiilllllll, dungeony look of the black background, and I hate looking at big letters. But... you're the reader. Tell me.

Right now I'm using the Times font at standard size.

What should I do to make this thing more visually appealing without goofing up the atmostphere?

We're Going To Party Like It's 1974

Disclaimer: I was born in 1974, 11 months after the very first version of Dungeons and Dragons came out. I wasn't even aware that this version existed until looking up RPG websites in the early 2000s.

I am not a D&D grognard, by any stretch of the imagination. I came in with the Mentzer Basic box, seven months after it was released, and the idea that there can be such a thing as a Mentzer grognard is just... foolish. There's even a case to be made that the word can not be properly applied to someone who didn't play wargames before RPGs even came along. The idea that there could be "2E grognards" or... damn... "3E grognards" [you] [dumb] [shits] [!] is simply offensive and a gross misappropriation of the word. Sarcastic or not. Grognard isn't an attitude or a state of mind - you were either there or you weren't.

But these days, there seems to be an OD&D resurgence, through some vocal supporters, and the movement is gaining steam. Looking at this alongside the general traditional revival, I wonder if they are concurrent developments or if one is feeding the other. This isn't a problem, but there's one curious little bit...

People are overestimating OD&D and placing upon it phantoms of respectability beyond what it actually is. That's quite a statement considering I'm talking about the game that started this entire hobby. If you follow the line of thinking followed up here and there (including the "bombshell by Tim Kask" post on this very blog), you could almost get the feeling that OD&D was the most pure form of the game and that everything that came after was some sort of restriction.

Yet people who crow about OD&D, through experience or rediscovery, seem to ignore how a lot of people actually played (whatever version of) D&D "back in the day," after OD&D was no longer in print but before we had Dragonsfoot and access to Gary Gygax on multiple forums. We didn't have a clue what we were doing, and we did just fine. So fine that 20+ years later, we're wanting to share that "fine-ness" with the next generation, and into perpetuity.

Take a look at your Dungeon Master's Guide. You want to talk about a "toolkit for gaming"?

Let's face it... we never played "x edition" rules back in the day. That's a more recent (upon the advent of 2E, which was the first edition fully designed to bury and replace an earlier one I think - OD&D was in print and had new supplements released up through the end of 1979 - after all the AD&D rules were out, and after the Holmes Basic set was out, so neither the Basic nor Advanced lines were originally intended to erase or replace the original three booklets). We just called it D&D regardless of how we played it. If you played the Basic rules (or the whole BECMI chain - did one single group ever play a legit B -> I campaign?), you know you used some AD&D stuff, and vice versa.

We weren't restricted in what we were doing! Our focus may have been a bit narrow, but our gameplay wasn't. Even the DMG came up with specific examples of "make shit up" (chances for a halfling to bring down a human pyramid, anyone?). And if AD&D is "Gary Gygax's house rules," (which he didn't even use in many cases anyway, some of which were in the OD&D supplements to begin with!) then OD&D plus your additions isn't pure OD&D either - so who are we kidding?

Just because you played with AD&D and didn't use all the damn rules, doesn't mean you weren't playing AD&D and so should switch your base rules to OD&D. Taking ideas from D&D and applying them to the game you already like to play... well, that's something you're doing already, right?

Look, D&D is missing some very basic rules. It doesn't have it's own combat rules (the included rules are the "alternative" version - it refers to another game for that! Check out this passage:

Let us assume he gains 7,000 Gold Pieces by defeating a troll (which is a 7th level monster, as it has over 6 hit dice). Had the monster been only a 5th level one experience would be awarded on a 5/8 basis as already stated, but as the monster guarding the treasure was a 7th level one experience would be awarded on a 7/8 basis thus; 7,000 G.P. + 700 for killing the troll = 7,700 divided by 8 = 962.5 x 7 = 6,037.5.

Kidding, right? And what happens when a Fighting Man gains enough experience to cease being a Veteran and becomes a Warrior? How many hit points does he gain, going from 1+1 HD to 2?

The current understanding of OD&D is only possible because of what came after. At the time, and this is no exaggeration, some people were so befuddled by what they were reading that their attempts to fill in the holes and make sense of everything resulted in completely new games. And I see a lot of people these days, in their love for OD&D, conveniently ignoring some things while taking advantage of its less-defined behavior. They aren't playing D&D any less than I played AD&D even though I never used naval combat rules or Weapon Type vs AC charts.

Traditional D&D is traditional D&D, and it's all variations on the same theme. The same theme. And the original version of D&D has as many good ideas to mine as any version out there.

So, I think the proclaiming OD&D as the real stuff are missing the mark.

And just to clarify: The point isn't to denigrate the old D&D rules. It's just to put them into their proper focus. They are all that is, and all we've ever played. Dungeons and Dragons. That's it, that's all, doesn't matter if it's got an A or an O, came in a box or as just a book. To not feel bound by the rules-as-written is not a 1974 feature, it's a feature shared by any Gygax/Arneson iteration. Gary may have preached "standardization," but did he play "by the book"? No! And he added his own additional material on top that can't possibly be considered canon (Unearthed Arcana).

Pick your base, make your wanted adjustments, and... (must resist)... and... (no... must not)... and... (oh, what the hell) FIGHT ON!

(speaking of which, I really should finish up my contribution, shouldn't I? Monday deadline...)

Criticism is a bad thing?

James Maliszewski's review of Monsters of Myth has brought up several points.

A- Of what quality is OSRIC's license?

B- Is criticism bad?

The first point is pretty much irrelevant to most people. Only the tiniest fraction of us care about publishing details. Luckily, the argument this time isn't "Is OSRIC legal?" (it is). The argument is "How well does it do what it sets out to do?" And the answer is... inconclusive.

The truth is that all of these licenses that people are publishing under are not reaching the people who would care. Yes, our little incestuous internet groups know what they are... but who cares? By the very essence of their existence (the OGL), these games are not allowed to actually say what they are, and with what games their materials are to be played with. It's a shitty position that has no solution. Can't say "Dungeons and Dragons," and promoting one's own simulacrum as a brand new thing defeats the entire purpose.

So then there's Monsters of Myth, a book I haven't seen (and considering my own release, would it make sense to buy it?), presented by the people that made OSRIC in the first place. OSRIC in action. And you should head over to the review and the comments thereafter to continue that train of thought.

Doing so brings us to this quote:

So, what do the OSRIC creators get? Criticism from the old-school community. I will never understand this.

Now we're not talking about the "Well, this might be illegal..." stance. That's not what anyone was talking about. The discussion was on the quality of what the OSRIC guys actually did, and how useful the tool is that they've created for the purpose they gave in creating it.

Why the hell shouldn't the "old-school community" be critical of OSRIC? Why shouldn't you be critical of OSRIC? Why isn't everyone critical of everything?

"If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all," is a horrible, horrible bit of advice. Without criticism, there is no engagement of ideas about quality. Without criticism, there is no valuable feedback for creators of imaginative works. (an aside: "Really cool! This rules! Awesome!" is completely useless. It doesn't inspire, it doesn't tell a creator what he did right, it's just empty cheerleading that at best allows a creator to further tap his creative well to do his next project, and at worst encourages him to keep pumping out the same old shit when the natural thing to do is stop.)

Criticism causes a person to ask, "Why do I feel this way? Why am I doing it this way?" Someone giving criticism has to figure this out to say anything of importance at all, someone receiving criticism needs to consider this in order to know whether to heed the criticism they have received. Bystanders who witness the criticism can also take this opportunity to use the arguments to solidify their own viewpoints and sharpen their own critiquing skills.

All of this is 100% pure goodness. Anything that makes a person more discerning and less of a follower, in any way, shape, or form, is positive. Creators and cheerleaders may not agree, but if a creator can't take a bruised ego, fuck him. He can quit and he shouldn't be missed. If a cheerleader can't...

Wait a second. Cheerleaders. Cheerleaders are useless clumps of flesh that don't do anything, but get in line behind someone who does just to leech off of their greatness. To be a part of something and pretend they're contributing to it just by telling people how awesome it is. (and people who do things are great... to variable magnitudes of course) You can tell cheerleaders from actual thinking, or productive, people because they'll complain about criticism, will not be able to discuss the pros and cons of the issue at hand, and will be offended if you don't simply have a binary "Yes, I like it," or "No, so I'm just going to completely ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist," response to things. Cheerleaders are different than supporters. Supporters will assist and aid, but they will also criticize as harshly as they feel is necessary. Usually in private. And usually accompanied by direct offers of assistance or a referral to someone who can.

If anyone's ever said to you: "Can't you just sit back and enjoy x?," you have encountered a cheerleader. Or an insecure creator. What they're telling you is, "Turn your brain off and accept what you're given!"

The opposite of the cheerleader is the detractor. You could cure his mother's cancer and heal his baby's cleft palate, and he'll still find every reason to shit on you whenever someone talks about you or anyone that looks like you. The problem is, many people confuse critics for detractors, and cheerleaders purposefully conflate the two. The difference between a critic and a detractor is often very simple: Is there a solution implied with the criticism? Or is the message simply, "Fuck you and go away!"?

Think. Think. THINK. Think and engage, with everything, always. Anything worth experiencing is worth analyzing. Is the experience worth trying again? Why? Can it be better? How? What exact parts of it did I like? What exact parts didn't I like? How does it compare to similar experiences? Is one clearly superior to another?

So... this "old-school" renaissance, or, to better put it (because I will not be passive and just accept that kind of wording :P), the "traditional revival," or "the return of actual quality gaming," is in dire need of criticism. And that criticism will flow freely in this scene, considering every single person in it is already exercising their critical qualities to reject (or un-prefer, if you're wanting to be nice about it) more current forms of THE BRAND NAME just to be in this scene. Which creates another cluster in the grand clusterfuck of simulacra issues. The projects are borne out of communities all loving something, and building something to express their love and to make it easier for other people to come join their love-ins. Or orgies, whatever verbiage you prefer.

So the people that are simply enjoying whatever is current and "mainstream" in our hobby, through passive enjoyment or active acceptance, hear this mating call. Maybe they just haven't experienced the traditional styles on their own. Maybe they're intelligent, fully functional human beings that just prefer other systems, other styles.

But that's not most people. No. I get the impression that many people these days (especially younger people) grew up hearing “discrimination is bad” for so long that they believe that critical thought is actually morally wrong. And they see this critical scene being critical of each other, nitpicking at each others' styles of play, not to attack, but to refine and improve.

But all that these humanoids see is unpleasantness. Effort. (same thing, right?)

Which is where we need to note that "criticism" is different than "abuse" or "attacks." "What you're doing there is ILLEGAL!" is not criticism. "I think you might have legal trouble here and here because of this," that's criticism. "This is useless because I can't do this, or this, because of that," that's criticism too, and it should be considered. An intelligent creator, and intelligent bystanders of discourse, know(s) the difference, and welcomes negative feedback as being of the utmost value.

So we need to make a decision. Do we put on a happy face, and walk hand in hand to bring a "new age" of "old style" to the role-playing "masses?" Or do we just be who we are, and be selective, and picky, and honest, and risk the apathy of the general "just enjoy yourself, it doesn't matter how" crowd?

I don't think one of those choices are even possible. TSR had the advantage of, well, being TSR and gathering around the vision of one man (while kind of discarding the vision of another man along the way...). When that singular vision was clouded, the monolith started its long and slow fall. Now we're in the post-apocalyptic age, amongst the ruins, trying to put the monolith back up.

Sound pessimistic? Maybe. But I don't think we have anything to gain by being evangelical or putting up a false front of unity. We are who we are, and if we compromise that in the name of growth or acceptance... we might as well just go buy 4E. We're selling our passions to the common crowd either way.

Meanwhile...

(like this is some big academic essay or something)

See the elitist attitude running all through this post? It's intentional. It's not simply a matter of empty "stick it to the man" posturing and feeling like I'm better than "the humanoids" and all those people who I perceive as not engaging in critical thought. There's a reason behind it.

Any movement, any organization, any anything becomes more repressive as it gets bigger. Individual ideas are more difficult to be heard in a scene owned and operated by large public corporations, and anything inconveniencing those corporations are more easily squashed. Mob mentality is a real thing, and it can influence gaming preferences as well as the decision to lynch some poor fucker that doesn't deserve it. One person is usually reasonable. A large mass of people, not so much. These ideas influence every thought that I have. I think that power itself is unethical, and giving up individuality, in any way shape or form, for a common cause or common good is a great way to be marginalized by your own cause when your goals are achieved.

The best way to prevent this from happening is to question everything. Everything. (and listen when answers are given, will you?) Be critical!

Right now, you have the opportunity to make a difference. You can recruit new players, not into the movement, or into the style, but into your game, where you show, and not tell, all about your preferred style. You can publish an adventure and make it different than anything that there's ever been, and it'll gain a bit of notice just because there's not all that much in the way of new adventures out there. Everyone is just one good idea away from being someone.

And we're all creators here. Not consumers. Role-playing is a creative exercise on both sides of the screen. Everyone is constantly creating, and modifying, material for their own games. Even people who never post or publish a thing. Even those who publish for free and not for profit. This is a community of creators.

So up with criticism! Let your voice be heard! Demand that it be heard! And make it happen in a valuable way - don't be a cheerleader or a detractor! Do something!