Zak

Questions have been posed to Zak in the past about weather or not is is appropriate to support (or buy from) people who do bad things or have bad beliefs (racism was the example given.) He effectively said no. That doesn't seem much of a stretch, especially today where wearing blackface decades ago is enough to get you fired today (doing a perceived bad thing = losing support). So, I have seen enough to make me not want to buy or publicly praise Zak Sabbath products. To be fair, someone who publicly claims to be an anarchist-satanist, who praises the work of Marx is also probably on my no-buy list. So now will I be tared a right-wing extremist? I digress.

The question that comes up now: is the fact that I have been inspired by Zak's ideas regarding gaming also a bad thing? Am I a worse person because I thought some of his very specific thoughts were good? No. In fact I dare say that I Could continue to be inspired by his game creativity. Vladimir Lenin, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Kim Jong-il, Adolf Hitler all very much loved dogs. I love dogs. Therefore it is possible and probable that I will agree with very specific thoughts of the very, very, very worst people. The worst part about this is that these worst peoples are also in position to do things like build dog sanctuaries... Which I might want to financially support.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could spot narcissists and sociopaths at first glance? Then we could put them away quickly, maybe even help them. As a past victim of the worst of these, I am tempted to say yes--end their influence before it begins. The problem with that is that giving up fundamental trust sucks. I don't want to question the good folks at the Burger King who might have spit on my food. Inquisitions are unenlightened.

A Theoretical Question

If you had the relationship that you have with the other players in your game, but didn't have the game, would it be enough? It might be easy to say, "Well, there would just be something else to take the place of the game." I suggest to you that that is not true. Gaming is that special. It is interesting to consider what those relationships would look like without the game.

My first long-term gaming group broke up after ten years of gaming, because all that there was, was the game. I did next to nothing with those people outside the game. Such was my interest in having a game, I used them. They used me. When their interests moved away from gaming, the relationships with me ended. I had never experienced anything so stark, but none of it was healthy. Understand, that it is better to seek the healthy.

Now, I ask more of my players and of myself. I engage with these people on other subjects of similar interests. I eat meals with them and their families. I go to non-game events with them. I have much, much more of a friendship with these people than I did with my first group. I emphatically state that having a solid, well-rounded relationship with your others players only makes for a better game. Seems obvious but when the game is all there is, it is not enough.

Follow-up question: is this the problem with computer games?

A Quibble

It would be nice to see more accurate depictions of the historical Crusades and the people who fought them. We get depictions like the enclosed image from "Throne: Kingdom at War" regularly. In fact, this image is more accurate than most. What we are shown here looks like a late 11th early 12th century crusader knight. The helmet looks right, with the unfortunately flat top. The mail is called chainmail, which is redundant, and it doesn't seem to cover the hands as it should. Not that uniforms of the time were necessarily uniform in design, the cross on the surcoat would normally be over on the left. The sword would actually be steal, not just iron, and it would be on the other side. Spurs? Well, the jury is still out on those - for Crusaders of this period. What is missing is the spear, which would be the main weapon. I wonder if we can assume that this is a knight or even a Templar who would ride a horse into a fight? I do appreciate that we do not see plate armor anywhere, as is often depicted in our modern depictions of the 1st Crusade.

A Mistake I Made

People are regularly intrigued when I mention that I play D&D every week. Most of my non-gamer crowds are just that, they have never played a role-playing game. Some of these people of various ages and genders will prod me to get a feel for what D&D is all about. I am not too bad up to now, I feel I have a fine way of describing the game and making it sound interesting. I am always open to expose people to the game, even if my particular game table is full. I may be able to take on a new player if they are a good match for my existing players. In any case, people are, to some degree, interested.

Where I have failed before is to invite people to watch the game as we play it. My players don't seem to mind, and it is not too much of a distraction. The game goes on, the guest watches, and that is it. At some point in the night, the watcher gets up to leave, with some fine platitudes about how cool it all seems, and then we never see them again. Others made it clear how parts of it are confusing - there is a strange language for the uninitiated. But frankly, the game is boring to watch. I am not talking about that situation where younger ones are going through the Tomb of Horrors and a bunch of grognards are over in the corner laughing.

So now if people are interested enough to come watch, then I will invite them to play. No more watching, no matter what they say. The best way to experience the game is, obviously, to play it. So, some afternoon sometime, I would invite the player over for a one-on-one situation. Characters would be made and a brief series of encounters would occur. If they need a friend along (I am an old guy inviting near strangers over to his house to play games after all), then that is fine. They will play too. The idea is to build interest and not just to confuse and bore.

Special Exceptions

From the Facebook, AD&D page: "Have you ever had someone try to introduce a very odd and over powered PC to your campaign? I once had a guy try to bring in Half Pink Dragon Lesbian that threw fireballs as a breath weapon. BTW this was a 1st level campaign. Needless to say I had to say no."

I have had players who want their characters to be extra cool. 'If the DM can give me extra consideration, then I will have more fun, being special' seems to be the thinking. In the past I have been more interested in having certain people play in my game, and so I would make allowances. Totally unfair, and of poor moral judgement on my part. I am not sure if it is just because I have behaved this way in the past that encourages players to seek allowances today... In any case, I recently had a player, one that we all liked, give me an ultimatum to receive a starting benefit for his new character. I refused and we lost him as a player. I felt pressure from all over, it is just a game after all. Why not? But, I am certain that I was right. Certain.

Remember folks, I am trying to keep my game going pretty much with no end in sight. I am not looking to just fill the next year or six months. I want a lasting campaign that mostly the same people will be playing in. I want lasting memories with my closest friends. I think we are all worth it. I think making special allowances for some players will also be remembered, but not in a good way.

Thought of the Day

If player Jim rolls thirty-five "twos" on thirty five in-game, combat, D20 rolls, what should the DM do to save Jim's character? Should the DM fudge thirty or so rolls so that the 1st level character doesn't die in combat?

So often I hear that the DM should fudge die rolls because they don't want the players to have a constant escalator of new characters. If the DM doesn't fudge, then the unlucky player will likely have to constantly be making new characters. That is not fun, so the DM should do something.

But what if a player's rolls will never hit even the weakest monster? After ten rounds of futility, will the monster run away? How is that fun? Okay, the character talks his way out of the futility and the monster leaves. That might be interesting. How many back-to-back fights will that work? To muddy the water, let's say player Jim on roll thirty-six says he rolled a 20 when he actually rolled another 2. Is that okay? Imagine the celebration and fun that would be had - A 20! And the next time Jim needs a 20, he can just say it, no matter the roll.

I am noting an absurd situation. But extremes should be considered when making policy. How sacred is that die roll?

For the DM who hides the roll to allow for fudging on his or her part, how do you feel about poker? If your friend is losing every hand at your poker party, and is down most of the actual money he came in with, will you throw in a few of your winning hands so that they might win? No? Why not? Because it's for money and not D&D? What contract did you sign?

Buy Original Lovecraft

Here is the EBAY LINK for this pulp.

Thrift Store Find

I went to Goodwill today and found all this stuff for $21.

It's Just A Game? ~ A Ramble

I have heard this from past players, that D&D is just a game, or is only a game. Okay, so are we talking a game like Monopoly? Is D&D on the same level as the Parker Brothers classic? While I am sure that some people get excited about playing Monopoly every Friday night, I wonder if the average D&D player would. People playing Monopoly get excited when they roll the perfect number, and the opposite, can get angry when they land on your hotel properties and have to pay. Is it those feelings that make Monopoly and D&D similar, as in, just a game? Is it the social involvement that makes something only a game?

Both games can be very involving. Paying and receiving cash, and especially dealing for properties, are huge in Monopoly, and distinctly social. A lot of that can go on in D&D as well. So if we accept that Monopoly is only a game, and it shares many important aspects with D&D, then is D&D only a game?

A game is described by Google as, "a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck." So a game doesn't have to be competitive, but it has rules and is "decided by" a series of things. So, sounds like D&D is just a game.

What is missing here is the focus on the word game versus the focus on the words "only" or "just." "It's a game" is a very different sentence than "It's only a game." Interestingly, "It's the greatest game" is only emphasized when changed to "It's only the greatest game." But I digress. I suggest that if D&D is "only a game" to you, then you are playing it wrong. Now, to unpack why...