Stupid Gor and Foolish Censors...

I absolutely DESPISE the Gor novels.  Each book is a tedious bondage fantasy delivered in a literary monotone that makes me want to burn the thing after reading "I serve priest-kings" for the millionth time.  I can only imagine what juvenile mind created this drivel and try to picture who actually LIKES it... 

But I respect its right to exist...

The world imagined by Norman is personally offensive, being a cavalcade of abuse dressed up as honor, a dehumanizing exercise in tyranny.  Half the population (female) either live in slavery or live in fear of it, and the values of freedom and equality we fight to preserve are disdained by an author who would most likely go fetal if asked to defend his own back yard.  

Even so, I respect his right to exist as well...

In Norman's world, young girls are raised as family and then consigned to the slave pens when they come of age by adults who feel no remorse because they haven't connected with a child as being fully human.  And all the while, Norman defends this parody of life as actually SUPERIOR to our best intuitions over endless rambling pages filled with the exploits of an unsympathetic hero.    

But I'll defend his right to churn it out...

Actually, I did.  I was combat injured in Iraq.  A spinal cord injury from when our ground assault convoy was attacked just outside of An Najaf in the early days of the war.  I'm medically retired, being unfit for military service and walk with a cane when I'm not on my back working out pain.  But I'm still ALIVE...

Many others DIED.  They died defending the freedom of people like John Norman to churn out what I call TRASH.

You see, if anyone actually tried to enslave women and/or pass legislation making the practice legal, I'd fight it tooth and nail to my last breath.  The inherent dignity and worth of ALL people, regardless of race or gender MATTERS to me.  But as long as the only thing getting hurt is my sensibilities, I'll tolerate this crap because that's the VERY DEFINITION OF FREEDOM...

Now, I'm a MALE, so let's try this: I'm also JEWISH, but I'll absolutely defend the right of ANYONE to purchase Mein Kampf and wallpaper their house with its pages so long as its terrifying rhetoric isn't put into action.  Good?

Unfortunately, there are still those who would bully publishers, blacklist artists, and censor media they find offensive in flagrant disregard of these values.  Sorry, but freedom isn't secured nor equality gained in this manner, and people don't get to sit at the grownup table of American life until they understand this.

The censor's view is one-sided and self-directed.  They think censorship protects others, but it doesn't.  It only protects the opinions of whoever CURRENTLY has the power to impose their will upon society, and this changes.  How long until THEIR views become subject to the censor's power over what we can think? 

In truth, it's the perfection of narcissism and the height of cowardly self-indulgence.  And it's WRONG... 

Thirty years ago, our hobby (D&D) was under attack by those who objected on religious grounds, and they employed everything in the censor's playbook.  Bullying retailers, everything.  Thankfully, they failed, and every gamer alive today benefits from this triumph of free expression, including the newest crop of censors...

Just something to consider coming off the Memorial Day weekend!

An Essay on Human Evil...

Growing up, we played D&D and worried about the evil characters casually stabbing us in the back.  In our young minds, fantasy evil meant psychopathic villains willing to maim and kill out of sheer pleasure (or malice).  We imagined the deranged, not necessarily the evil, although our understanding became more nuanced as we matured under the guidance of society and the rulebook. 

But many systems eschew alignment completely, figuring that the character will fall into whatever they happen to be, and that this will inevitably be human.  And we agree, except in a world where good and evil are palpable forces to be reckoned with that bestow actual power within a cosmic order.  

However, even in these games, some recognition of what evil represents may be helpful, especially when developing compelling villains and/or understanding how the worst scoundrel can be a contributing member of an adventuring party.  Now going forward, we aren't talking about COSMIC EVIL, which is utterly detached from human psychology and anything we might possibly value.

No, we're talking about the HUMAN variety...  

UNDERSTANDING HUMAN EVIL

First, understand that most everyone is concerned with their personal well-being.  There are exceptions, of course, and plenty of debate as to what that word even means.  But as a general rule, everyone tries to procure food and shelter enough to survive without being thought selfish, because we simply HAVE to.   

But any behavior we might call "good" is predicated on the assumption that the lives and well-being of others are at least as important as our own and that we restrict our own behaviors in deference to this.  Which is why good/heroic/principled types don't kill innocents and/or steal from them.

Evil individuals put their own well-being first, with all others accorded lesser priority.  But this isn't necessarily the dividing line, since everyone has to see to their own needs first to some extent as a matter of efficiency.  However, evil types, lacking any philosophical commitment towards others beyond themselves, cannot help but see others as a means to a selfish end...

They cooperate out of self-interest and even obey laws to avoid punishment, but also because said laws benefit THEM.  They can also have friends and enjoy the pleasure thereof.  At least until the relationship loses its luster and/or the "friend" no longer pleases them (or betrayal offers more).  This is the insidious aspect of wickedness: its ability to adopt solidly GOOD trappings.

EVIL CHARACTERS

Now, the rank-and file evil character is selfish and hedonistic, although everyone knows this already.  But they'll gladly fight the extra-dimensional demon lord because they LIKE the world as it is and don't want to see it turned into something icky where they can't find good beer and might end up a sacrifice!

Understanding this reveals enemies (and evil characters) not as mustache-twirling villains, but as fully realized PEOPLE with their own lives and experiences that OVERLAP with the full range of conventional "good" behaviors and make them alternately more real and more tragic, especially if they were CORRUPTED...

WHAT ABOUT LAW AND CHAOS?

Many systems, including our own Pits & Perils RPG, adopt LAW as synonymous with good and CHAOS as evil.  Now of course, some object to this as too simplistic.  But consider this.  Good characters accept personal LIMITATIONS (or laws) on their behavior, while evil individuals accept NONE except out of convenience, meaning their actions are best defined as being CHAOTIC (without laws)...

Note also that this allows for the nuance we'll be talking about later in this post.  So read on and decide...

CRAFTING THE CORRUPTED VILLAIN

Enter Darth Vader.  How does an essentially good person fall to corruption, and what does this say about how they see themselves in the grand scheme of things?  And what if they think they have a moral imperative to do what they must?  Are they merely misguided individuals or selfish personalities with a cause?

I got a glimpse of this last week when I engaged a person who objected to an earlier post.  In truth, we mostly agreed on things, and differed only on what terms we found useful until our talk stumbled into the following disagreement:

This person felt they could ATTACK whoever they WISHED because they had a MORAL IMPERATIVE and were completely justified.

Now, was this person evil?  No.  We all know the internet does things to people, and I was a bit off-base myself.  But it's a good case study on how good people (with a good cause) might abandon basic humanity for their personal crusade until THE CAUSE becomes paramount and everything else secondary.  Including the very people it purports to help.  The fight becomes an end unto itself.      

Ego takes over and the REASON for the cause falls away like stages of a rocket, leaving only THE FIGHT.  And the ENEMY.

This variety of evil is more nuanced still, and it makes for interesting villains, although players are certainly free to adopt such characters for themselves!  Obviously, these figures have a capacity for redemption, which is something else that players might try on for size if the GM (and campaign) allow.

Evil is so deceptively close to good, with so much overlap and frightening proximity, that we should all tremble at the thought of it and where it might be hiding.  This is heady stuff and good fodder for role-playing, being the stuff of heroes AND villains...

The Real "Problem" with Gaming...

OK, so we've read about various "problems" the gaming hobby supposedly has, and we've mostly stayed out of the fray because we really sympathize with the worst of these.  The mistreatment of women IS A PROBLEM THAT REALLY HAPPENS, albeit a HUMAN problem that applies to gaming only inasmuch as hobbyists are a subset of the general population.  And we SHOULD oppose this...   

Sadly, this is a REAL problem in the general population, so we aren't minimizing anything here, and I hope we can all agree that the abuse of women MUST BE STOPPED.  

In contrast to this important issue, there's another thing that bedevils us.  Apparently, we also have a cheapskate problem, something that threatens the industry and declares consumers evil for acting in their best interests when buying luxuries. 

We have less sympathy here.  Reasonable people who aren't making enough money in their current job will at least try to find another one, especially if a particular industry isn't one that supports whatever compensation they aspire to.

Now, we can talk about health care and fixing the system or whatever, and this is a conversation worth having.  But until you succeed in making the world better, you'll have to contend with reality as it is.  And telling people to change their discretionary habits to subsidize an OPTIONAL industry isn't gonna work.

And so we present the real "problem" in gaming:  

For those who think they're gonna pull down 50K with health insurance selling games, here's the sad fact: the amateur origins and home brew capabilities of gaming as a hobby are inherently limiting (read: self-limiting) with respect to its marketing appeal beyond a few publishers.  Consider this...    

First, RPGs can be defined as:

A set of WRITTEN rules to a game that takes place inside the participant's HEADS.  We give these to clever, intelligent players and tell them they're free to ADD OR CHANGE ANYTHING...

Furthermore, once they grasp the BASIC CONCEPT of role-playing, creative people can MAKE THEIR OWN!

And herein lies the so-called problem.  If you like fantasy and are generally good with the rules (and willing to change the 10% you otherwise don't), D&D is the ONLY game you'll need to play, and this is why the FIRST RPG remains the LEADING one.

Sure, editions change.  We get that, but our point stands.

Of course, people DO play other systems, and there's plenty of legitimate reasons for doing so.  Maybe you prefer a different genre and want to game in post-apocalyptic worlds or whatever...

Or perhaps you want a different ruleset, or believe (as we do) that players interact with mechanics too, and that different rulesets offer different EXPERIENCES that are worth having.

But the fact remains.  So long as gaming (1) takes place largely in the imagination of the players, (2) requires that individual GMs assume much of the preparation involved, and (3) this quality is one of the principle ATTRACTIONS of the hobby, the demand for endless releases is necessarily limited...

So is the desire for $90 full-color interior books!

But on an AMATEUR, small-press level, folks do write and publish an impressive array of products that we DO buy.  And not just to support our friends!  These materials can be EXTREMELY good (and we've reviewed a few right here).  More importantly, we enjoy them for the same reason everyone else does.  Because these products recognize the basic qualities that made the hobby appealing then and continue to make it an enjoyable pastime now...

No matter how well a book is produced and/or the rules written, gaming is something that PLAYERS (not the book) actually DO.  And no one will EVER succeed in packaging THAT.

And you can buy amateur stuff without giving up coffee!

Gaming was always an AMATEUR affair.  It started out that way, and remains at its best in this context because the FUN comes from people interacting with EACH OTHER and SHARING THEIR OWN materials, and this fact NECESSARILY limits the industry.

If this is the "problem" with gaming, we'll take it, and quite happily, thank you!  Our products are out there for whoever wants to pick them up, and you can pay more for the P&P hardcover (although we recommend waiting for a Lulu sale) or get our ENTIRE catalog digitally for less than the price of two movie tickets.  Get what looks interesting to you (if anything at all).  We've accepted, and fully embrace, the amateur backbone of our beloved hobby...

Vancian vs. Moorcockian Magic

Vancian magic is the rule of the day in many old-school games, although spell points (per our own P&P) come in second, with several variations of these themes.  Both approaches have something big in common; chiefly, that characters have but a limited number of spells they can use in a given period, which is the point.

Really, the designation "Vancian" just refers to the narrative justification for why characters might not be able to cast more per day (i.e., the words fade from the magician's mind).  There are undoubtedly a great many rationalizations for why this might happen, like running out of "energy" or whatever.  

But the real idea is that spell-casters have a limited number of available spells per game day as a means of overall balance.  Spells make the impossible happen, and this power must be bounded lest these characters dominate the game.  But there's another element of old-school magic; that of magic as an IMPERSONAL force.

In these games, magic use is almost universally depicted as some pseudo-scientific manipulation of natural energies, and this is certainly more palatable to anyone still worried that role-playing somehow teaches kids to summon  demons.  But this doesn't square with how, historically, magic was thought to work.

Elric of Melnibone (P. Craig Russell)

Traditionally, magicians were thought to call and command an assortment of demons, elementals, and spirits based on the specific culture and/or religion in question.  Again, this approach may be questionable to some, especially those possessing certain religious convictions and anyone who feels this somehow detracts from the magician's personal agency, etc.

But then, Jack Vance wasn't the ONLY writer who influenced the emerging hobby.  Michael Moorcock, creator of Elric, that tortured anti-hero of Melnibone, imagined a world of ancient and powerful entities sworn to law, chaos, and, often, only to themselves, bound by pact to a people and subject to their enchantments...

In a "Moorcockian" setting, magic involves commanding various spirits, and this is also a matter of justification, subject to the following alternate magic rules:

(1) Spells are cast by commanding spirits, which means they aren't really formulas so much as powerful spoken names.

(2) When a spell is cast, there are discernible, visible effects related to the spirits being called.  These linger one round beyond the effect's stated duration before fading.

(3) Yes, even spells that otherwise conceal the caster, and this is left to the GM to work out as befits a particular effect.

(4) If spells known are NAMES, then spell slots (or points) represent the number of times per day that spirit can be reliably commanded without consequence to the character.

(5) Sorcerers might attempt to utter known names beyond this limit by rolling saving dice (against death, where applicable), with failure still indicating success, but also a loss of hit points as decided by the GM.  Perhaps 1d6+1 per spell level in D&D...

Spells that deal damage can be
re-imagined as THIS within the narrative context...

As a balance, spirits may only be summoned under specific environmental conditions.  For instance, fireball involves calling fiery elementals in the presence of a torch, etc.

By way of example, the following spells (from Pits & Perils) as presented in a Moorcockian system:

SPELL           ENVIRONMENT           NAMES ASSOCIATED
Calm            air/wind              Balaat, Muhr  
Hide            shadows/night         Kohur, Nizaria
Ruin            blood/fire            Glazrebul, Mahabdrah

Of course, characters can learn new names, and might possibly uncover MAJOR NAMES.  These correspond to demons and possess powers commensurate with the system being used.  These may be called, although doing so ALWAYS requires saving dice or expenditure of a number of spell points (or slots starting at 1st level) equal to the being's level or something similar per the GM...  

These linger for a number of rounds equal to the character's level and perform as commanded within limits.

With minimal effort, most old-school systems can adopt this Moorcockian magic system which is, after all, really just another justification for WHY magic works and why it's so limited.  But summoning spirits alters the narrative as well and opens the door to unique rules, easily implemented, that make magic challenging!

Origin Stories from David Wesely

Last week, David Wesely was in town (Omaha) visiting family, and since we always try to get together whenever he does, we invited him to join us at PretCon 2016.  Luckily for us, the Major graciously agreed, taking time out to speak with his many admirers and to offer his inexhaustible store of gaming lore...

Because, you see, David Wesely was actually THERE...    

In Wesely's original (Braunstein) game, each player was given a character by the referee, each with their own goals and objectives within a single-session game.  This was the beginning of people controlling a single character instead of a whole army.  The origin of role-playing as we know and love it.

Incidentally, Braunstein is German for "Brown-Stone", and we eventually saw Arneson's "Black-Moor and Gary's "Grey-Hawk" as a play on this naming convention...

Braunstein became the working title for this sort of game, with references to medieval and third-world "Braunsteins" in the earliest correspondence between the original group.  And of course, this includes the game that would eventually become D&D, but only after going through a transitional phase, shedding its original properties for something both more familiar and standardized.

Major Wesely and Captain George holding a
copy of Olde House Rules' Barons of Braunstein in its (still
very limited) print form.  Maybe this will change...

Understand that in Braunstein, actions and outcomes were pretty spontaneous and subject to interpretation from Wesely (something we talked about in this post).  And Blackmoor began in a similar fashion, something underscored by this little story Dave shared with us at the gaming table at PretzCon 2016...

In the very beginning, players were still assigned characters per Braunstein.  Since Wesely was still in the Army and, alone, had combat training, Arneson made him a fighter (while others got to be magicians or something similar).  

So as Wesely tells it, the party was camping in the woods when a powerful troll emerged from the shadows.  And Wesely's fighter attempted to hamstring the horrid beast with his great sword, being trained and equipped to do this warrior stuff.  

But Arneson said "sorry, trolls are made of stone and your sword shatters against its leg."  This was an early act of refereeing by another of the founding fathers of the gaming hobby.  And it got everyone present demanding more detailed and objective standards for monsters, armor, weaponry, and gameplay in general...

Now it occurred to me then (and even now) that this seemingly innocuous moment between friends helped to propel the hobby into a more detailed and concise form, adding specific rules for what characters and monsters were capable of in the context of a game, and Wesely's story at PretzCon demonstrates this.

Interestingly, our own games are trending back to this earlier mentality, although some effort is made to preserve a basic thread of objectivity with regards to powers and enemies.  But we still emphasize human interaction, critical decision-making, and proper role-playing in a setting where powers and whatnot, although important in any fantasy game, come second to actual personalities!