Dragons are Great and All, But Dungeons?

I've talked a bit about pen and paper gaming in previous posts, how ridiculously awesome it is, how disappointed I tend to be with newer systems. I think its about time to actually discuss how I run a game.

I've been told I'm a strange creature as far as GM's go; I'll let my players do damn near anything that doesn't kill immersion or outright violate the laws of common sense, I tend to build my worlds from whole cloth instead of utilizing existing settings, and I don't give my players a storyline. That last one seems to be the most unusual from what I've heard. I run my games open world, there are things happening, monsters to slay, maidens to rescue, machinations of the foulest sorts guiding forces of various descriptions, but I leave it largely to my players to explore the world I've created. Its not that I don't want to tell a story, its that there is more to a world, and therefore a game, than any one series of loosely connected quest lines. I run my games open because that's how the world is, your growth is determined by your conviction, your path is shaped by your interests. Sure, another story about a sinister lich/cleric/warlord/ruler trying to conquer/destroy/enslave the world can be a lot of fun, but there's more going on than that. What happens if you misjudge where your party is at mentally? What happens if the story you set up doesn't have the punch you thought it would?

By setting up a world, with individual characters, with factions interacting and forces influencing events on various scales, some of which directly effect the party, some of which will have effects later, some who'll never directly influence the party at all, I can create a world where something will always be happening. I can run a game that isn't done until we want to be done. And by letting players flex their creative muscles and bend rules that don't make sense or justify actions that fall beyond the normal scope of the game, they can shape the world in new and interesting ways, creating their own story lines and dealing with unforeseen consequences.

I love to run a living world because it forces me to be creative and active on a much higher level and it lets my players decide not only what stories they want to tell, but how far they want to pursue them. It's hard, admittedly; you either have to be able to work with a shit-ton of world level events simultaneously or improvise at blinding speed, but its incredibly rewarding if you can pull it off.

We Can Be Heroes

I am feeling kind of crappy so this will be a shortish post, but I would like to talk about hero worship. Its something that happens a lot when a person becomes famous for doing something great. We put them on a pedestal because we like what they did and after a while we tend to forget that they were people too.

Its not bad to have heroes. To aspire to do great things, and look to others for inspiration, is a great way to go about your life. The bad part is when people attempt to use heroes as a symbol. This does a couple of things that harms them/the people who follow them. First, it dehumanizes them, which not only fucks up living heroes, but also turns people who did great things into inviolate paragons. It might not change the good things they did, but its important to remember that Gandhi liked giving little girls enemas. Its important to remember that for all the spiritual significance assigned to her, Mother Teresa allowed and encouraged ailing people to slowly die in agony in dark rooms of her design. Not saying they didn't do great things, but context matters. My second point is along the lines of the first point but it is focused on the people who perceive them. Turning people into symbols makes them seem superhuman, which is harmful to people who look up to them because they make progress seem impossible. If you work for a long time and don't see much progress it can be disheartening, and looking at people who achieved something can inspire you, but it can also make you feel as if you aren't accomplishing anything worthwhile.

All the people in history that have ever done anything good have all stumbled along the way. Einstein didn't sprout forth from the womb fully formed and having created the theory of relativity. There was a long process, some of which involved fucking his cousin. Really, any time you compare your work to other people's accomplishments, it can make you feel bad, but people who are heroes are the worst in that regard, because its clearly not just your own perspective that they are good at what they did. Everyone agrees that Martin Luther King Jr. is the best, and wow, you are totally not as accomplished as him. You suck.


All I can say is, look up to people but keep in mind that neither they, nor you, are perfect. Take your time, do the work, and you will succeed at whatever you are working on.

Gygax is My Spirit Animal

I'm late, I know. I'm bad at things and my heart is made of smelly cheese. Rather than self-flagellate over my established failings in punctuality I'm going to ramble about gaming some more.

I've written about my possibly unhealthy obsession with pen and paper gaming before, and none of that has changed. I fucking love tabletop gaming, rolling dice might as well be an aphrodisiac. That said some aspects do run afoul of my pickier sensibilities from time to time. As I've mentioned before, I game for the high degree of customization and adaptability available in a pen and paper situation. I dig the complexity of options and versatility of interactions; which makes it troublesome to me how many systems are trying so hard to become video games. When a system goes from versatile feats based on the development of skills and abilities to a series of powers or maneuvers dependent on level I see a problem. I will admit that its largely an issue of nuance but its a little difference that matters. One option encourages the growth and development of an interesting and at least relatively unique character and the other rewards you for your numbers going up by making your numbers go up.

I'm probably being a bit of a fuddy-duddy about this but I don't really care. I understand that there are perceived market factors in play, the new generations of gamers like a simplified system or whatever. I understand the desire to streamline what can be kind of ridiculously convoluted systems. Seriously, just the licensed books for D&D 3.5 numbers in the high sixties. But the effort to streamline also seems to act as a restrictive measure on the flexibility of the system. While I understand that nobody, especially me, wants to pay a thousand bucks to get a nice, relatively complete set of books; the methods used to clarify the system also demand a higher degree of specificity in the use of power. Classes that once stood as starting points in the development of a character and bases for roleplay options have started shifting into the MMO vernacular. You don't talk about the paladin in terms of her dedication and righteousness, you talk about her capacity as a tank and the control value of her powers. We don't talk about the sorcerer in terms of what his innate connection to magic does to his mind or what his draconic heritage means for his future, we talk about his DPS. I'm not saying the trend in the new systems makes this kind of roleplay impossible, but it is so much easier to ignore the story-potential of a character when more and more the only thing we're given rules for is how that character is equipped to kill shit. I know I'm picking on D&D pretty hard, and they are by no means the only perpetrators, but I feel like they lead the way, I mean D&D has been The Big Name in tabletop for a lot of years.

I feel like an old man yelling at these damn kids for their newfangled power cards and skilltrees, why back in my day you had to pass a tumble check just to get your armor on or whatever. I'm not saying that there aren't any good things to be had from the new breed (13th age has some interesting showings in the mechanics department) but I'm always left wanting more, and not in a good way. Give me some real skills, give me a chance to love my character for more than their ability to one shot a group of mooks, for fucks sake give me more control over my character than I'm liable to find in a Bioware game and we can talk. Until then I can't see myself spending money on, much less running, the new wave. I can't imagine I represent much of a loss in their profits but that's fine, I'm plenty capable of enjoying myself with some 3rd ed D&D or homebrew oWoD. Maybe I'm not alone. Hopefully, I'm not alone. If so, good luck out there. I hope to see you all at the table someday.

The Importance of Being Earnest

Mythology is a weird thing. It is, at its core, the primary method of instilling values in a society. In some cases, its certainly true that mythology can be taken entirely too seriously, as in the case of biblical literalists. Don't get me wrong, I've no particular interest in the existence, much less characteristics, of anyone's respective deity, but if you feel the need to push science to acquiesce to the demands of your mythology you're a fucking asshole. That's not really the topic of interest today though. My interest lies in the habit of misrepresenting mythology.

First, lets establish the difference between mythology and fiction. Mythology is concerned with highlighting the ideal path of action in the more mired and nuanced situations in life. It does this typically by writing that nuance large and hyperbolising factors within that situation. Fiction is only really concerned with entertainment and provide escapism. That's it. Now you might have noticed that that somewhat broadens the standard perceptions of mythology into things that are typically described as fiction. That is intentional.

I think entirely too often modern mythology is disregarded as just a pretty escape. This feels like a huge mistake to me. Most, if not all, of us were raised on stories where the hero's were earnest and caring; stories of great friendships overcoming implacable forces. Stories strewn with courage and dedication. Now how many people do you know today who you would describe as earnest? Many of us move on from the stories of great heroes doing wonderful things as we were simply setting aside childish things. There's nothing wrong with not caring to keep reading those stories as adults, but I think its tragic that more of us don't hang on to those lessons. I'm not saying we should all be wearing capes and making whoosh noises (though we should, those things are awesome and life is too short to not enjoy them), but I am saying that as cliche as it might sound being honest and good and true is a far more beautiful goal than being rich, we ought to start valuing it more.

Ain't No Place For No Hero

I recently re-watched The Wicker Man, and no not the Nick Cage movie; the good one from 1973, and noticed something that I hadn't before: there is no hero in this movie. There is a protagonist, the sergeant, and an antagonist, basically everyone on Summerisle, but no one that I would consider the hero of the story. This is because all of the major players receive at least some characterization, and because they all have flaws as well as a good side. You are forced to empathize with both sides. Heroes are supposed to be paragons that show us the best human qualities, but the problem with heroes is that they kind of cease to be humans after a while and end up being two dimensional.

Sergeant Howie has been tasked with finding a girl that has been kidnapped and his drive to do so is impressive at times; but he is also xenophobic, aggressive, and self righteous. He spends a large chunk of the movie breaking into people's homes and actively violating their privacy, strong-arming the population in the process. Also he spends quite a lot of time lecturing the islanders about how they are "corrupting the youth" by not teaching them about Jesus, and how their pagan beliefs are evil. The islanders motivation is that they just want to make sure that their island prospers again, which they believe will only happen with a sacrifice of sufficient quality. They are also under attack by an outsider, and as such, treat him coldly in a lot of cases, which Howie views as a kind of insubordination and as responds with hostility. Both sides of this conflict have problems as well as virtues.

The beauty of this kind of narrative setup is that it forces you to analyze the situation and realize that the world presented is not black and white (and hopefully viewers can get the fucking message). My favorite kinds of bad guys in movies are ones that you sympathize with. This empathetic response humanizes the villain and makes for a functional counterpoint to the hero, not just a monolithic evil to be overcome. Movies that tend to hit you on multiple emotional levels tend to make you think, and that is a great thing that people like me tend to look for in a story. 

Ozymandias from Watchmen is a great example of this kind of "villain". He is trying to eliminate the problems associated with nationalism by forcing humanity to have to work together against a larger foe. His point of view is understandable, even if you disagree with his methods. Another good version of this type of character is Gerard Butler's character in the movie Law Abiding Citizen. He's a justifiably broken man who's goals reflect his brokenness. All his character is trying to do is show how the justice system doesn't always work, by exploiting its flaws after committing crimes. 

Making the good guy also have flaws that are understandable also makes him easier to empathize with, and as such also make him a more believable character. As I stated above, Heroes are representative of ideals and making them flawed twists their moral certitude in interesting and beautiful ways. This makes it harder to call them real "heroes". Superman is a hero, Batman is not. Supes is supposed to represent hope and justice and everything that is shiny, but he also holds a moral position that is incorruptible. This makes him harder to empathize with, but easier to idolize. Batman on the other hand beats the living hell out of people and uses psychological and physical torture to accomplish his goals. You might not agree with how he does it, but you can understand why. 

Humans are naturally pack animals, and because of this they will react to a deep, human, empathetic character more strongly than with a shallow, one dimensional character. More rounded/empathetic characters make for better, more believable characters and stories, and I wish we would see more of them. 

Ferris Bueller You're My Heeeeerrooooo

So here's a tricky bitch. The only thing that can make a hero is actual heroism. I know that sounds like a pretty obvious thing but apparently it's difficult for some people. Anyone who goes beyond the realm of reasonable expectation to save another person is heroic. Be they cop, fireman, civilian or solder. Now here's where that gets tricky. When saving people from harm is your job you really only deserve the hero title for going way above and beyond.

That last bit is pretty important. I'm not saying that the fireman who runs headlong into a collapsing building to save someone isn't a hero. I'm not saying the cop who manages to deescalate a tense, possibly terminal, dispute isn't heroic. I am saying that just being a cop, fireman, solder, doctor, or (insert your favorite hero job here) does not fucking make you a hero.

The first point that I feel needs to be made on this front is that all of those things are, at their core, occupations. Now an occupation is something you do, in our society, for compensation in the form of monetary recognition. If nothing else this means that, well, its their fucking job. The fact that their job is hard or potentially dangerous isn't enough to warrant exceptional respect. Heroism requires a degree of exceptional behavior, by definition if you do something for a living there's nothing exceptional about it. Now, if someone from one of these fields helps you personally, sure give 'em a pat on the back and a hearty thank you. But pursuing a career doesn't entitle you to special fucking treatment.

Now, I came to this conclusion (trying as hard as I can not to be a bitter, hateful bastard) for one very simple reason. There is no real way to ensure that someone goes into a line of work for the "right" reasons. Since in this instance that right reason is a desire to help people its an important distinction to make. The fact that a relatively capable sociopath or passingly convincing martyr complex can find their way into the "heroic" vocations necessarily removes the intrinsic heroism of the job.

Its unfortunate, but these things need to play a bigger role in how we think about our society. The term, "hero" comes with some pretty heady perks and if we're just handing it out to anyone willing to go through the right training program its inevitable that the kind of people who will abuse those perks will find their way into those programs.