Posting So I Don't Forget This...

I happened upon this gem earlier today.

"Iconography has great influence on human psychology; what we perceive, visually, becomes reality. The phrase 'a picture is worth a thousand words' might be better expressed as 'a picture trumps a thousand words.'"

"Not allowed to give quicklings Mountain Dew."

So, I recently stumbled across a small list on the vast and wonderful web...

I'd be frighteningly willing to allow many of these things in my game.

Specifically allowed are the elf with the Scottish accent (as soon as I play Shadowrun next...) and the gnomish god of heavy artillery (who I have decided is named Gelaris Thundertube, which is roughly three hundred times less dorky than Gelf Darkhearth).

Thoughts on the Nature of Things.

Being the witty and personable fellow that I am, I have a splendid collection of equally astute friends. From time to time, these worthy persons occasionally give me gifts, as has been known to happen throughout the nation. I am always thankful to receive such presents, especially when they are in line with my eccentric and occasionally odd interests, but I do not always take the time to peruse them right away.

In today's case the perusal portion of the process took about two years.

In short, I just read 'Fantasy Imperium' last night.

For those few of you with short attention spans that still struggle to gain insight from my ramblings, though I doubt any of you are left, I shall make it short and simply say, "Oh, dear..."

Allow me to lead the rest of you down a merry pathway for a time and I shall endeavor to provide additional enlightenment.

There was a time when, as a matter of course, games would set characteristic maximums at differing levels depending on the gender of the character. Generally by limiting female character's strength score. What was that from the back? No, males received no limits to any statistics, why do you ask? Sarcasm aside, this was and is defended by many as "realistic" (more on this below) but has generally been dropped from most games produced from about 1990 on (if not before). Since, you know, it's sexist and pointless and drives off players.

'Fantasy Imperium', my copy dated 2006, has such rules. They are, in the interest of full disclose, mostly optional. The non-optional part is that female character's may re-roll their "attractiveness" statistic...

Because it's a woman's job to be pretty.

Right?

And we wonder why the hobby is not that popular amongst females...

Galloping forward once more, the rules system seems horrifically convoluted, the sub-title exudes pretentiousness ("An Interactive Storytelling Game of Historical Fantasy"), and the chosen setting is Europe... with magic.

The setting has many problems. One, it's basically impossible to boil enough information on Medieval Europe down to a setting chapter that is either usable or accurate. Two, despite the vast and complicated theologies of the times, the author has decided that Christianity is the One, True Faith. This despite the provisions for "mythical races" in the rulebook...

Perhaps this is just mine own opinion, but the existence of centaurs would rather successfully argue for the presence of the Greco-Roman Pantheon.

But apparently not.

The game's piety system is vastly amusing, however. As long as one performs the rituals, one can have a high piety score, belief isn't necessary and believing in God only nets one ten points out of a one to a hundred (or more?) scale.

But enough. Though the game is bad, it's not 'Racial Holy War' or 'F.A.T.A.L.'

However, it is enough to make me wonder about the thread of misogyny that seems to weave itself into this hobby. One could, perhaps, forgive the old 'Fantasy Wargaming' its flaws as it was a product of an earlier, more benighted, time (the '80s) and it did provide really spiffy lists of the Hosts of Heaven and Hell... Nonetheless, it is part of the spectrum that includes the previously mentioned games, as is 'Fantasy Imperium'. It is possible that we simply live in a misogynistic culture and that permeates everything, but that merely redefines the problem on a grander scale.

We should, I think, consider how this sort of thing begins, and why it begins. It's easy to point at 'F.A.T.A.L.' and see that it crosses the line, the trick is finding the seemingly innocuous thing that might allow someone to think that the next step is OK as well. Keep in mind, as horrifying as it is, that the author(s) of 'F.A.T.A.L.' and 'Racial Holy War' are a part of this hobby and they started gaming somewhere before they wrote their games...

Moving on, or backwards for a bit, I wish to touch on the old AD&D limits on a female character's strength score. A sadly large number of people defend these, even unto this day, as being "realistic". The usual counter to these folk is, "So, where are the realistic dragons?"

I don't think that addresses the problem.

I am not sure if the problem can be addressed. It may be pure misogyny, it may be far more harmless.

I do know how I plan on addressing the argument in the future however.

I plan on implementing what I call "Conan-reality" in my games.

As I was thinking about this old, old argument, it came to mind that, "realistically", there was no way that R.E. Howard's Conan could be as supremely muscular and powerful as he was described in the stories. Historical barbarians could be strong, but were generally worn down by the hardships they endured, not built into towering powerhouses. However, I like the archetype of the mighty barbarian and I plan on keeping it.

The "realistic" limitations on a female's strength go in the same basket as the "realistic" limitations on the barbarian.

I hear the horde of the outraged, "But, but..." and a million reasons are proffered.

I'm not going to listen to them. Not even those that harshly restrict everything in their campaign world to "realistic" levels (where, I might ask, is the fun in that?).

Suffice to say that there could be any number of reasons for the seemingly "unrealistic" and I see no reason to artificially penalize female characters.

Best Old Advertisement.

I have never played this game, as far as I remember it was an old Play-by-Mail game, and I really have little idea what it was about.

Apart from the obvious interstellar papal assaults, of course...

Part of me wants to know, but the rest of me thinks it best to be unable to compare the reality to the grandiose vision that dances in my head.

Commentary Regarding the Thief

James Maliszewski has a few things to say in regards to the thief as a class.

And, whilst I can understand his reasoning, and I find he has several solid points to make, I am still going to keep the class around in my games.

One of the comments to his post, however, was a tiny eye-opener...

"The OD&D Thief was the first "Skill" class - determined by its abilities to perform particular non-magical skills. As the other classes caught up with non-weapon skills, the double damage of the thief came to fore as a defining element of the class, transforming it into the lightly-armored, sometimes invisible striker that inhabits MMORPGs." - Jeff Grubb

This, in my opinion, is what to avoid. I don't want a thief who is a better fighter, I want a master of stealth and a dungeoneering specialist, not a combat wunderkind.

The combat specialist is, and should remain, the fighter (and his varied sub-classes).

And, on that note...

Next time: The Fighting Men.

Why I Hate Second Edition AD&D.

Browsing throughout the amazing array of the internet, I have come across several persons who have expressed their love for second edition AD&D. And, without fail, at least one of their reasons for loving it is one of the reasons I don't.

I am not, contrary to what many might expect, posting this to belittle or deride these folk and their opinions. Many of them hold opinions that match mine in other areas and many gamers were introduced to the hobby through second edition AD&D and it would be a grave mistake to shun them. However, I do feel the desire to enumerate and expound on my reasons for disliking this edition.

I am not going to state that a second edition was unnecessary or unwanted. No less a person than E. Gary Gygax opined on the need for a second edition in his Sorcerer's Scroll column in Dragon magazine.

And there is one of my reasons for disliking the second edition that appeared. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the second edition that Gary outlined in his column. In fact, it was, in many ways, the exact opposite of what was foretold. Instead of new classes, for example, classes were dropped...

In the matter of the dropped classes, especially the assassin, I continually see the, to me, flawed reasoning of, "well, that's just a role, a way you use your skills, it doesn't need to be a class..." Might I humbly point out that being a man of the cloth is also just a role and certainly doesn't need a class? That stealing things is just criminal behaviour and certainly doesn't need a class? That anyone can learn to fight, and as such, a fighting class is certainly unneeded? You see, I trust, my point... 'Murderer' was not a class, as anyone can murder. 'Assassin' was a class, because it was built on the skulking, malevolent, stereotype of the black-clad killer. There is, to me, a considerable difference. The cavalier and barbarian can be considered elite examples of their type (due to the high attributes needed to enter those classes). In other words, a normal knight or tribesman is, in fact, a fighter. An exceptional one (differentiated by having multiple scores of 15 or better) will be a 'cavalier' or 'barbarian'.

Moving on, my second reason was the distortion of other classes. I present the 'mage' and 'cleric', formerly the 'magic-user', 'illusionist', 'cleric' and 'druid'. In this case, I don't so much condemn the idea behind the changes so much as the terrible execution. The idea of the specialty priest and the specialty wizard were and are good ones, the flaw lies in consolidating the spell-lists. In the cleric's case, the various domains were neat, but really, each deity should have had a separate spell list and granted powers. In the mage's case, combining the lists destroyed the illusionist. Why on earth would a player pick a class limited in spells and magic items and possessing a high ability requirement, when that player could just play a mage and have access to all the spells of the former illusionist? Yes, there is a slight increase in the number of spells castable, and there is a minor boost in regards to saving throws, but if you didn't roll more than one 16, it's all rather moot, as you can really do exactly the same with a mage who chooses to learn a lot of illusion spells and you'll have more options to boot.

In short, where others see a "simplified", "cleaned up", version of AD&D, I see a waste of squandered possibilities and horrid implementation.

Of course, what really killed second edition for me was the T$R Code of Ethics.

Next time: The Illusionist, His Kith and Kin.