- Middle Earth Role Playing (MERP). This is a gritty, low-magic, gloriously detailed game, with brutally violent combat and a meticulously realised world. Some people say that it doesn't 'feel' like a Middle Earth game should, but I've never understood that. The atmosphere of the thing, from the art to the text to the mechanics, seems saturated with Tolkien. I love the fact that everything is open to you, too: the idea that you can be a Haradrim, an Uruk-hai, or an Easterling was like a breath of fresh air to me after all the finger-wagging and moralising of 2nd edition AD&D.
- Cyberpunk 2020. The game I've probably played most after D&D; I spent a ridiculous amount of my teenage years on this thing. It's grotesquely, awfully, irredeemably broken, from the core mechanic to the equipment to the roles, but oddly enough my friends and I never seemed to care. Hunting cyberpsychos with railguns was just althogether too much fun.
- Shadowrun. I spent a ridiculous amount of my teenage years on this, too, and for a long time it vied with Cyberpunk 2020 for the mantle of my favourite game. But I hear that in recent years the game has rather lost its way a little. That's a pity, but I suppose deep down I always looked on Shadowrun as something of a guilty pleasure. At 14 or 15 I wasn't at all keen on genre-bending, or at least thought that I oughtn't to have been (I was much too serious for that, dontcha know), so the fun I had with Shadowrun was always tempered by a healthy dose of shame. Looking back now that attitude was utterly absurd, but I still have to cringe a little at the thought of fat geeky guys with beards pretending to be elves in a William Gibson novel. That last bit seems like just a step too far.
- Changeling: The Dreaming. I don't like White Wolf games, as a general rule, and especially don't like the World of Darkness ones. It's all too emo, and too politically just so. But I do like Changeling: The Dreaming, which was by far the most original setting of the bunch and full to bursting with great ideas. It was done with impeccable taste, too: the production, art, writing and tone were absolutely perfect for what the designers were trying to achieve. My only real criticism was that the thing was easier and more interesting to read that it was to play - as with a lot of White Wolf games, there were never enough (for me) examples of what a Changeling game was actually supposed to be like.
- The Burning Wheel. This just does what it says on the tin, for me: it's a rules-heavy, setting-lite, gritty fantasy game, and it works. You have to invest rather more effort into it than I'm used to, but with a good group all that energy pays off.
- Risus. I love Risus. In fact I would go so far as to call it my favourite game, if only I had more opportunities to play it. It's always billed as a 'comedy game', and though it works for that, I've never been happy with people limiting it to just a 'beer and popcorn' deal. With the right group of players the game can do absolutely any sort of genre or tone, and a damn sight better than a lot of other rulesets out there; I'm forever scheming of ways to use it to run Arthurian fantasy, ancient Mesopotamian mythology, Pacific exploration games...you name it.
Thursday, 31 July 2008
Not D&D
James Maliszewski and Brian Murphy have been posting lists of "RPGs other than D&D" which they like. Here are mine:
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
If Only...
When I was about 13, I really wanted to be that guy.
Even now I occasionally feel a twinge of sadness that I'll never be able to patrol an icy waste on the back of a giant lizard. Life can be crushingly unfair sometimes.
Tuesday, 29 July 2008
Play by Email, and Losing Touch
Glutton for punishment that I am, I think I'm going to start up a new play-by-email campaign. If and when I do, I might advertise it here, so keep your eyes peeled.
It's no exaggeration to say that play-by-email is the only reason why I'm still in the hobby. I don't get to play face to face very often, especially over the past five years that I've been in Japan, and with the marital and work commitments I have. There are quite a lot of English-speaking role players over here, but finding the time and opportunity is tough.
Moreover, when I first came to Japan I'd actually been away from the hobby for four or more years, and had lost touch entirely with what was going on. When I first started playing PBEM games back in around 2003, believe it or not I didn't even know that a Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition had been released. I was astonished to find out that TSR no longer existed, that there was no more Planescape or Dark Sun or Al Qadim, that half-orc barbarians were now core rule characters, and that play was now dominated by something mysterious and awful called an attack of opportunity. It was only through a now (sadly dead) site called pbem.com that I came back to the fold and started involving myself in rpgs again. My first game was a 3rd edition one that lasted for two years and was thoroughly enjoyable, mainly because the DM was good enough not to bother enforcing most of the rules. I played a dwarf fighter called Gorky, who spent most of the time insulting his comrades and charging around swinging an axe. I was re-hooked.
Play-by-email is a funny thing, of course. It's not to everyone's tastes. But it would be wrong to call it a poor imitation or alternative to tabletop play. It's just different - like comparing television and radio. You don't remember the great sessions, because there aren't any sessions. Instead, you tend to remember fun interchanges (carried out over the course of a few days!) or great posts people have made. And the brilliant thing is that you can go back and review those great posts in years to come. (I run a game that's now over three years old, and I'm looking forward to one day downloading the 4000 or so posts everyone has made and reading the whole sprawling madcap thing together.) This isn't possible with tabletop role playing, much as I wish it was.
The anonymity is interesting, too. I've 'known' some of the guys I game with for over four years now, but I have no idea what most of them do or even how old they are. They're just "the guys". It's an odd sort of relationship that you develop with somebody who you know almost nothing about outside of the game - not exactly a friend, but a kind of comrade in arms. Surprisingly, it isn't an unpleasant thing. It's strangely pure, in a way. You both like to game, and that's the beginning and end of it.
It's no exaggeration to say that play-by-email is the only reason why I'm still in the hobby. I don't get to play face to face very often, especially over the past five years that I've been in Japan, and with the marital and work commitments I have. There are quite a lot of English-speaking role players over here, but finding the time and opportunity is tough.
Moreover, when I first came to Japan I'd actually been away from the hobby for four or more years, and had lost touch entirely with what was going on. When I first started playing PBEM games back in around 2003, believe it or not I didn't even know that a Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition had been released. I was astonished to find out that TSR no longer existed, that there was no more Planescape or Dark Sun or Al Qadim, that half-orc barbarians were now core rule characters, and that play was now dominated by something mysterious and awful called an attack of opportunity. It was only through a now (sadly dead) site called pbem.com that I came back to the fold and started involving myself in rpgs again. My first game was a 3rd edition one that lasted for two years and was thoroughly enjoyable, mainly because the DM was good enough not to bother enforcing most of the rules. I played a dwarf fighter called Gorky, who spent most of the time insulting his comrades and charging around swinging an axe. I was re-hooked.
Play-by-email is a funny thing, of course. It's not to everyone's tastes. But it would be wrong to call it a poor imitation or alternative to tabletop play. It's just different - like comparing television and radio. You don't remember the great sessions, because there aren't any sessions. Instead, you tend to remember fun interchanges (carried out over the course of a few days!) or great posts people have made. And the brilliant thing is that you can go back and review those great posts in years to come. (I run a game that's now over three years old, and I'm looking forward to one day downloading the 4000 or so posts everyone has made and reading the whole sprawling madcap thing together.) This isn't possible with tabletop role playing, much as I wish it was.
The anonymity is interesting, too. I've 'known' some of the guys I game with for over four years now, but I have no idea what most of them do or even how old they are. They're just "the guys". It's an odd sort of relationship that you develop with somebody who you know almost nothing about outside of the game - not exactly a friend, but a kind of comrade in arms. Surprisingly, it isn't an unpleasant thing. It's strangely pure, in a way. You both like to game, and that's the beginning and end of it.
Saturday, 26 July 2008
Points of Light: Rant #654
Blimey, I've been a bit ranty recently, haven't I? Race, women, rpg fiction, barbarians, the hobby itself... Well, when you're on a roll, why stop?
Today's rant will be about something called 'Points of Light'. I expect most people who read this blog will be familiar with the phrase, but for those who aren't, it's a supposed design-philosophy thing the D&D 4th edition designers have dreamt up, which is meant to take the game in a new direction. Essentially it can be summed up like this:
Okay, you're thinking. So far so good. D&D, and in fact most fantasy in general, has always been about that, right?
Exactly. D&D, and in fact most fantasy in general, has always revolved around "points of light" settings. It is absolutely not a new key conceit about the D&D world which has just come along for 4th edition; it is in fact The Oldest Trope In The Book. You're telling me the Conan stories, Ill Met At Lankhmar, the Chronicles of Amber, heck, even Viriconium can't be classified as "civilized folk [living] in small, isolated points of light scattered across a big, dark, dangerous world"? What about Middle Earth? You don't get much more "points of light" than that. How long were Aragorn and the hobbits travelling between Bree and Rivendell in The Fellowship of the Ring without seeing a single other person? It was weeks, I think. In fact, I would go so far as to say that thinking of a non-points of light fantasy setting in fiction is actually pretty challenging. Possibly those terrible David Eddings books... That's all I can think of offhand.
This is doubly true when you set aside fantasy fiction and just think about D&D settings, especially homebrew ones. Rich Baker goes on to expand on the brave new 'Points of light' world:
This sounds like every D&D setting, homebrew or otherwise, which I have ever played in. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the above description pretty much sums up a D&D campaign. When were we not playing 'points of light' games?
It makes me a little angry sometimes. What do they take us for? And yet the majority of D&D fandom seems to have lapped up the phrase as if it actually is something innovative and unusual. Do none of them actually read fantasy fiction? Or remember the campaigns they played five or ten years ago? Or is it just really easy to pull the wool over their eyes? I've said it before: worrying times in D&D land. Worrying times.
Today's rant will be about something called 'Points of Light'. I expect most people who read this blog will be familiar with the phrase, but for those who aren't, it's a supposed design-philosophy thing the D&D 4th edition designers have dreamt up, which is meant to take the game in a new direction. Essentially it can be summed up like this:
The world is populated by a variety of intelligent races, strange monsters lurk on other planes, ancient empires have left ruins across the face of the world, and so on. But one of the new key conceits about the D&D world is simply this: Civilized folk live in small, isolated points of light scattered across a big, dark, dangerous world.
Okay, you're thinking. So far so good. D&D, and in fact most fantasy in general, has always been about that, right?
Exactly. D&D, and in fact most fantasy in general, has always revolved around "points of light" settings. It is absolutely not a new key conceit about the D&D world which has just come along for 4th edition; it is in fact The Oldest Trope In The Book. You're telling me the Conan stories, Ill Met At Lankhmar, the Chronicles of Amber, heck, even Viriconium can't be classified as "civilized folk [living] in small, isolated points of light scattered across a big, dark, dangerous world"? What about Middle Earth? You don't get much more "points of light" than that. How long were Aragorn and the hobbits travelling between Bree and Rivendell in The Fellowship of the Ring without seeing a single other person? It was weeks, I think. In fact, I would go so far as to say that thinking of a non-points of light fantasy setting in fiction is actually pretty challenging. Possibly those terrible David Eddings books... That's all I can think of offhand.
This is doubly true when you set aside fantasy fiction and just think about D&D settings, especially homebrew ones. Rich Baker goes on to expand on the brave new 'Points of light' world:
Most of the world is monster-haunted wilderness. The centers of civilization are few and far between, and the world isn’t carved up between nation-states that jealously enforce their borders. A few difficult and dangerous roads tenuously link neighboring cities together, but if you stray from them you quickly find yourself immersed in goblin-infested forests, haunted barrowfields, desolate hills and marshes, and monster-hunted badlands. Anything could be waiting down that old overgrown dwarf-built road: a den of ogre marauders, a forgotten tower where a lamia awaits careless travelers, a troll’s cave, a lonely human village under the sway of a demonic cult, or a black wood where shadows and ghosts thirst for the blood of the living.
This sounds like every D&D setting, homebrew or otherwise, which I have ever played in. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the above description pretty much sums up a D&D campaign. When were we not playing 'points of light' games?
It makes me a little angry sometimes. What do they take us for? And yet the majority of D&D fandom seems to have lapped up the phrase as if it actually is something innovative and unusual. Do none of them actually read fantasy fiction? Or remember the campaigns they played five or ten years ago? Or is it just really easy to pull the wool over their eyes? I've said it before: worrying times in D&D land. Worrying times.
Friday, 25 July 2008
Women
Okay, so I've done race in two recent entries. Now it's time to turn my hand to women in gaming. This post is mainly inspired by this rpg.net thread, about female berzerkers.
First things first, the whole fighting-woman cliche (you know the one - ripped, nubile young female, leanly muscular, hyper-sexualised, probably bisexual, and yet of course uber-sexy) has totally passed me by. It's one of those fantasy/sci-fi tropes that I just Do Not Get. (Like elves. And vulcans.) Now don't get me wrong - I yield to no man in my liking of nubile young women. In fact, in my liking of women full stop. But I'm old fashioned enough to like my women to be women, thankyouverymuch, not simulacra of men. The idea that such female characters somehow strike a blow against sexism is utterly laughable to me, given that they do exactly what feminism was supposed to fight against (see women as objects - in this case sex objects).
At this point I expect some snarky reader somewhere is thinking "I bet he's just so insecure in his own masculinity that he feels challenged by such female characters." To that I can only say: Damn straight. I don't like my masculinity being threatened, especially not by women. Having it threatened by other men is bad enough! Why any man would fantasize about a woman stronger, fitter and faster than them is utterly beyond me. And at the same time, why any woman would want a man who was weaker, less fit and slower than them is also completely mind-boggling to me in the same way that, say, foot-fetishism is. Well, I never pretended this post was going to be objective!
But be that as it may, and like it or not, some people like to play tough-girl women in games. To this I say, great, go for it, if that's what you want to do, but let's be realistic about it. Tough-girl women are NOT likely to look like this:
She ain't hurting anybody. No, tough-girl women in the real world mostly look like this:
And I would argue that if were are interested in striking blows against sexism, we should be depicting more East German shot putter-type women both in our play and in our art. Because doing so would send out the clear and simple message that we all (claim) to believe in: It doesn't matter what a woman looks like. Which is the opposite message to what role playing games mostly send out today.
First things first, the whole fighting-woman cliche (you know the one - ripped, nubile young female, leanly muscular, hyper-sexualised, probably bisexual, and yet of course uber-sexy) has totally passed me by. It's one of those fantasy/sci-fi tropes that I just Do Not Get. (Like elves. And vulcans.) Now don't get me wrong - I yield to no man in my liking of nubile young women. In fact, in my liking of women full stop. But I'm old fashioned enough to like my women to be women, thankyouverymuch, not simulacra of men. The idea that such female characters somehow strike a blow against sexism is utterly laughable to me, given that they do exactly what feminism was supposed to fight against (see women as objects - in this case sex objects).
At this point I expect some snarky reader somewhere is thinking "I bet he's just so insecure in his own masculinity that he feels challenged by such female characters." To that I can only say: Damn straight. I don't like my masculinity being threatened, especially not by women. Having it threatened by other men is bad enough! Why any man would fantasize about a woman stronger, fitter and faster than them is utterly beyond me. And at the same time, why any woman would want a man who was weaker, less fit and slower than them is also completely mind-boggling to me in the same way that, say, foot-fetishism is. Well, I never pretended this post was going to be objective!
But be that as it may, and like it or not, some people like to play tough-girl women in games. To this I say, great, go for it, if that's what you want to do, but let's be realistic about it. Tough-girl women are NOT likely to look like this:
She ain't hurting anybody. No, tough-girl women in the real world mostly look like this:
And I would argue that if were are interested in striking blows against sexism, we should be depicting more East German shot putter-type women both in our play and in our art. Because doing so would send out the clear and simple message that we all (claim) to believe in: It doesn't matter what a woman looks like. Which is the opposite message to what role playing games mostly send out today.
Thursday, 24 July 2008
At 31 I Was the Captain of a Galleon - I was Poseidon's New Son
A snippet. Stephen Malkmus, of Pavement fame, once wrote a song called The Hook, which starts off with the immortal line: "At age 19 I was kidnapped by Turkish pirates - Mediterranean thugs..." I was just listening to it for the first time in a few years.
And by coincidence, I just posted over at my long-running rpg.net thread about Pirate Gith.
The D&D gods seem to be trying to tell me something. It's time, they whisper seductively in my ear, to run a game about pirates...
We had no wooden legs, or steel hooks/we had no black eye-patches or a starving cook/we were just killers with the cold eyes of a sailor/yeah just killers with the cold eyes of a sailor...
And by coincidence, I just posted over at my long-running rpg.net thread about Pirate Gith.
The D&D gods seem to be trying to tell me something. It's time, they whisper seductively in my ear, to run a game about pirates...
We had no wooden legs, or steel hooks/we had no black eye-patches or a starving cook/we were just killers with the cold eyes of a sailor/yeah just killers with the cold eyes of a sailor...
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
A Short Post on RPG Fiction
Good rpg-inspired fiction. Why hasn't there been any?
Oh, there has been entertaining fluff. Lots of entertaining fluff: what are R. A. Salvatore or Weiss & Hickman if they aren't amusing nonsense? (I think that even at the age of about 13, when I was first reading the Dragonlance Chronicles, I knew they were nothing better than amusing nonsense. I'd finished The Lord of the Rings about three times by then, and like to think I got the difference between the two.) But why has there never risen up out of the ether anything that is really worth reading? Something more than a mindless way to pass the time? The wikipedia entry I just linked to says that there have been 190 Dragonlance novels - a figure that boggles the mind from every direction - but I'll wager virtually none of them have been more than potboilers.
There is China Mieville, who I've talked about at length before. His books don't directly have anything to do with rpgs, but he's at least open about the fact that he was a gamer and his experiences impacted on his fiction. He's an exception, though. By and large, there exists a strange, and wide, gulf between "proper" fantasy/sci-fi/horror fiction and fiction related to games (and also films and TV series).
I wonder why this is. Is it just a case that the best writers are worried they'll be constrained to the rpg ghetto? Possibly. I suppose if I was a writer brimming with confidence in my abilities I'd rather be known as a good writer than a good D&D (or whatever) writer. It's likely also a problem with the publishers, who are probably more willing to stick with tried and tested methods (the Dragonlance and Drizzt cottage industries being a case in point) than experiment with something new - which is what good writers usually do.
Still. It's unusual that while there is so much cross-fertilization between fiction and rpgs, that cross-fertilization hasn't resulted in anything approaching a Great Book as I would understand it. Or even a properly Good Book. Is it maybe the case that us gaming types invest all of our creative energies in the hobby itself, leaving nothing to spare elsewhere?
Oh, there has been entertaining fluff. Lots of entertaining fluff: what are R. A. Salvatore or Weiss & Hickman if they aren't amusing nonsense? (I think that even at the age of about 13, when I was first reading the Dragonlance Chronicles, I knew they were nothing better than amusing nonsense. I'd finished The Lord of the Rings about three times by then, and like to think I got the difference between the two.) But why has there never risen up out of the ether anything that is really worth reading? Something more than a mindless way to pass the time? The wikipedia entry I just linked to says that there have been 190 Dragonlance novels - a figure that boggles the mind from every direction - but I'll wager virtually none of them have been more than potboilers.
There is China Mieville, who I've talked about at length before. His books don't directly have anything to do with rpgs, but he's at least open about the fact that he was a gamer and his experiences impacted on his fiction. He's an exception, though. By and large, there exists a strange, and wide, gulf between "proper" fantasy/sci-fi/horror fiction and fiction related to games (and also films and TV series).
I wonder why this is. Is it just a case that the best writers are worried they'll be constrained to the rpg ghetto? Possibly. I suppose if I was a writer brimming with confidence in my abilities I'd rather be known as a good writer than a good D&D (or whatever) writer. It's likely also a problem with the publishers, who are probably more willing to stick with tried and tested methods (the Dragonlance and Drizzt cottage industries being a case in point) than experiment with something new - which is what good writers usually do.
Still. It's unusual that while there is so much cross-fertilization between fiction and rpgs, that cross-fertilization hasn't resulted in anything approaching a Great Book as I would understand it. Or even a properly Good Book. Is it maybe the case that us gaming types invest all of our creative energies in the hobby itself, leaving nothing to spare elsewhere?
Saturday, 19 July 2008
On the Formation of a Gaming Philosophy
I've been discussing character classes with Rachel in the comments to this entry, and as a corollary to that conversation started thinking about why I look at RPGs the way I do. If I had to sum up my role playing philosophy, I suppose I would paraphrase the late great Gary Gygax and say: "Why let game designers and writers do your imagining for you?" In other words, I believe that the amount of fun you get out of the game has little or nothing to do with the wide variety of rules, variations, and supplements which most games are accompanied by. In fact, I might even go so far as to say that the less rules, variants and supplements you have, the better. 3.X D&D was crushingly unfun for me because I just could not be bothered with the wide range of feats and skills I was forced to choose. And that was only in the core rules. The later supplements made that problem thousands of times worse.
But why do I think like this? I recognise that my view of gaming isn't objectively better than any other. This is how I put it to Rachel:
I come from a working class background, and like most kids growing up in Liverpool in the 1980s and 1990s, our family was far from being financially secure. We weren't on the breadline, or anything, but times were tough. I just never had any money to spend on games, and neither did my friends. For a long time we survived on just the 2nd edition Monstrous Manual and DMG. (We didn't even have a PHB, and just made up characters from what we could glean from the DMG and remember from the Basic D&D set. I've still never owned a single module for any version of the D&D game except Monte Cook's Dead Gods.) One of us eventually bought the Cyberpunk 2020 core rules, then another bought Shadowrun, and we made do with those, until our later teenage years arrived when we could get part-time work and buy much more of the stuff. (Most kids our age spent all their disposable income on cheap super-strength alcohol and pot. We were after more mind-blowing stuff than that - in the form of the entire Planescape line and Runequest II.)
Anyway, that's a roundabout way of saying, my formative gaming years were spent making the best of a pretty threadbare collection. I'm really glad that it turned out that way, because it forced me to rely more on my imagination than what was in books. There's probably nothing superior in my imagination than anyone else's, but maybe I feel more confident in prioritising it above rules and sourcebooks. I think that's probably true of most gamers of my generation.
But why do I think like this? I recognise that my view of gaming isn't objectively better than any other. This is how I put it to Rachel:
Strange as it may seem to say, I think my D&D philosophy mostly came about due to economics. My formative D&D experiences all came about when I was an adolescent, and then teenager, with basically no money to spend on books and supplements. One set of core rules between us was about all my friends and I could afford. So we had to get creative with what we had!
I come from a working class background, and like most kids growing up in Liverpool in the 1980s and 1990s, our family was far from being financially secure. We weren't on the breadline, or anything, but times were tough. I just never had any money to spend on games, and neither did my friends. For a long time we survived on just the 2nd edition Monstrous Manual and DMG. (We didn't even have a PHB, and just made up characters from what we could glean from the DMG and remember from the Basic D&D set. I've still never owned a single module for any version of the D&D game except Monte Cook's Dead Gods.) One of us eventually bought the Cyberpunk 2020 core rules, then another bought Shadowrun, and we made do with those, until our later teenage years arrived when we could get part-time work and buy much more of the stuff. (Most kids our age spent all their disposable income on cheap super-strength alcohol and pot. We were after more mind-blowing stuff than that - in the form of the entire Planescape line and Runequest II.)
Anyway, that's a roundabout way of saying, my formative gaming years were spent making the best of a pretty threadbare collection. I'm really glad that it turned out that way, because it forced me to rely more on my imagination than what was in books. There's probably nothing superior in my imagination than anyone else's, but maybe I feel more confident in prioritising it above rules and sourcebooks. I think that's probably true of most gamers of my generation.
Friday, 18 July 2008
Asian Gaming
RPG Pundit, the writer of The Most Famous Uruguayan Gaming Blog on the Planet, recently re-issued an old post of his on 'Caucasian Adventures' and games set in East Asia. It's basically a broadside leveled at the creators of the satirical concept-game of that title. 'Caucasian Adventures', for those who don't know it, is supposed to to illustrate the inherent 'racism' in RPG depictions of East Asia, by being a laughable and stereotypical 'European'-style adventure as seen through the eyes of a non-Caucasian. It was created by a few of the smart-alecky types over at Story Games.
Let's say straight away that I have a vested interest in this topic. I live in Japan, work as an English-Japanese translator, and am married to a Japanese woman, so I feel that on this (rare) occasion I am reasonably well qualified to comment on the subject. (Let's also say straight away that I detest most anime, am turned off by manga, and view 'traditional' Japanese culture with great skepticism. Just to be clear.)
Anyway, on with the post: I hate the idea of 'Caucasian Adventures'. To a certain degree I can appreciate the sentiment, because I routinely notice racism towards East Asian people in the Western media - the kind of ignorant (not hateful) aren't-those-small-people-with-funny-eyes weird? sort of thing that would be viewed as patently unacceptable if directed towards Black or South Asian people. And I also appreciate how awful games like Legend of the Five Rings are: naff imitations of Japanese society with a thin veneer of cultural accuracy which is actually utterly wrong.
But RPG Pundit is right on the money with both of his main points. First, to quote him directly:
There's nothing I can add to that except to say 'amen'. Caucasian Adventures comes from that same awful, sophomoric impulse that drives the postmodern/poststructuralist movement generally - endless, masturbatory, self-congratulatory criticism that creates precisely nothing interesting or of lasting value. I mean, I detest Legend of the Five Rings, but its writers can be safe in the knowledge that they've created a fun game that thousands of people have enjoyed playing, whereas all the creators of Caucasian Adventures can feel happy about is the fact that they're morally superior and politically 'right on' - and have a vaguely funny title page.
RPG Pundit's second point is more interesting:
I think he's 90% right. Any criticism of sourcebooks like Oriental Adventures (or, say, Al Qadim) falls flat on its face when you consider the fact that RPG settings have played even harder and faster with European culture down the years than they have with any other. Legend of the Five Rings is full to bursting with egregious stereotypes, jarring anachronisms, nonsensical garbage and ham-fisted attempts at the Japanese language. But Greyhawk is even worse! As RPG Pundit says, there is no need for satirical works like 'Caucasian Adventures' because they already exist - they are 90% of the fantasy RPG sourcebooks that have ever been written.
Where I object is when Pundit declares that "RPGs are all about cheap stereotypes". I don't accept that; while cheap stereotypes are fun and easy, I have to say that I partly think role playing is all about acknowledging cliches while at the same time transcending them. Games are generally chock-full of stereotypes - the heroic knight, the silent moody ranger, the rebel without a cause, the hot bisexual vampire-slaying high school girl, the man or woman 'with a past', the bumbling wizard/scientist/clergyman... But at the same time those stereotypes develop into unique personalities very quickly. We start off with a rough sketch because it's quicker and easier that way and we want to get on with the game. But during the course of events the character gets knocked around and battered into something approaching a fully-realised, three-dimensional person, with a history and a personality forged "in fire and blood" (as the saying goes). And that's all to the good.
Let's say straight away that I have a vested interest in this topic. I live in Japan, work as an English-Japanese translator, and am married to a Japanese woman, so I feel that on this (rare) occasion I am reasonably well qualified to comment on the subject. (Let's also say straight away that I detest most anime, am turned off by manga, and view 'traditional' Japanese culture with great skepticism. Just to be clear.)
Anyway, on with the post: I hate the idea of 'Caucasian Adventures'. To a certain degree I can appreciate the sentiment, because I routinely notice racism towards East Asian people in the Western media - the kind of ignorant (not hateful) aren't-those-small-people-with-funny-eyes weird? sort of thing that would be viewed as patently unacceptable if directed towards Black or South Asian people. And I also appreciate how awful games like Legend of the Five Rings are: naff imitations of Japanese society with a thin veneer of cultural accuracy which is actually utterly wrong.
But RPG Pundit is right on the money with both of his main points. First, to quote him directly:
So hey, fuckers, you want to make a REAL statement about how bad all the "oriental adventure" sourcebooks for RPGs have been? MAKE ONE THAT DOESN'T SUCK. Because I have news for you bucky: making what amounts to a bunch of cheap shots while feeling all self-righteous about how non-racist you are is all just a load of bullshit, and doesn't actually do anything of worth.
There's nothing I can add to that except to say 'amen'. Caucasian Adventures comes from that same awful, sophomoric impulse that drives the postmodern/poststructuralist movement generally - endless, masturbatory, self-congratulatory criticism that creates precisely nothing interesting or of lasting value. I mean, I detest Legend of the Five Rings, but its writers can be safe in the knowledge that they've created a fun game that thousands of people have enjoyed playing, whereas all the creators of Caucasian Adventures can feel happy about is the fact that they're morally superior and politically 'right on' - and have a vaguely funny title page.
RPG Pundit's second point is more interesting:
[The creators of CA are] wrong because the "western" version of the Kara-tur type asian-stereotype setting isn't "Caucasian Adventures" with two WASPS lounging around on their yacht; the "caucasian" version of "oriental adventures" is Greyhawk. Its the Forgotten Realms. Its Space:1889, Fulminata or Roma Imperious, its Deadlands and Call of Cthulhu, and any other shitload of RPGs that are "inspired by" medieval or other western historical periods.
Because RPG writers haven't made "Oriental adventures" full of mistakes and occasional stereotypes because they're evil and racist; they've done it just because they didn't give a fuck about historical or anthropological accuracy. Because RPGs aren't about that. RPGs are all about the cheap stereotypes.
I think he's 90% right. Any criticism of sourcebooks like Oriental Adventures (or, say, Al Qadim) falls flat on its face when you consider the fact that RPG settings have played even harder and faster with European culture down the years than they have with any other. Legend of the Five Rings is full to bursting with egregious stereotypes, jarring anachronisms, nonsensical garbage and ham-fisted attempts at the Japanese language. But Greyhawk is even worse! As RPG Pundit says, there is no need for satirical works like 'Caucasian Adventures' because they already exist - they are 90% of the fantasy RPG sourcebooks that have ever been written.
Where I object is when Pundit declares that "RPGs are all about cheap stereotypes". I don't accept that; while cheap stereotypes are fun and easy, I have to say that I partly think role playing is all about acknowledging cliches while at the same time transcending them. Games are generally chock-full of stereotypes - the heroic knight, the silent moody ranger, the rebel without a cause, the hot bisexual vampire-slaying high school girl, the man or woman 'with a past', the bumbling wizard/scientist/clergyman... But at the same time those stereotypes develop into unique personalities very quickly. We start off with a rough sketch because it's quicker and easier that way and we want to get on with the game. But during the course of events the character gets knocked around and battered into something approaching a fully-realised, three-dimensional person, with a history and a personality forged "in fire and blood" (as the saying goes). And that's all to the good.
Thursday, 17 July 2008
The Master of D&D Art
Jeff Rients has been going all posting pictures crazy over the last few days, focusing on Bill Willingham. It's got me inspired to put up some of my favourites. Now that generation - Willingham, Roslof, Otus, Trampier - were much before my time, but I was lucky enough to get into the hobby during a period when (to my mind) the greatest D&D artist ever was at work: Tony DiTerlizzi. His pictures in the 2nd edition Monstrous Manual were a huge factor in what attracted me to the game; I can still remember paging through that book and gazing at those pictures enrapt, racing through all the possibilities. (Well, I skipped over most of the Jeff Butler stuff...)
So, a few favourites from the Master:
This is the Best Gnoll Picture Ever, in my opinion. The iconic Gnoll, if you like; the Platonic Ideal Gnoll to which all other Gnolls aspire. I love the ragged cloak, the hyena-like hunching stature and the understated nature of the piece - he isn't about to murder somebody; he looks more like he's standing on a hilltop, surveying his territory and mulling over what a Gnoll chief might do next with so many acres of fine real estate.
I love the seething rage on this werewolf's face. He looks desperate to kill, tear and destroy. Like he's just finished ripping somebody's throat out with his bare hands, and found that instead of being sated, all he can think about is his next victim. As with the Gnoll, he's also understated - unlike the ripped, cut, body-builder werewolves of later D&D and Werewolf: The Apocalypse, this guy is skinny and truly wolf-like - with terrible hunger. He feels more like the werewolf in Prince Caspian: "Where I bite, I hold till I die, and even after death they must cut out my mouthful from my enemy's body and bury it with me..."
You don't get much better than this medusa. I love how she wavers on the line of sexiness and ugliness: She's like an imitation of beauty which hasn't quite made it. I'm sure that's intentional on DiTerlizzi's part. Again, it's also a study in understatedness. The picture isn't trying to look awesome; just communicate a mood, which it does admirably.
And this is probably my all time favourite. The Troll to end all Trolls. Communicates ravenous hunger, wiry strength, disdainful cruelty and alien savagery all at once. I love it.
So, a few favourites from the Master:
This is the Best Gnoll Picture Ever, in my opinion. The iconic Gnoll, if you like; the Platonic Ideal Gnoll to which all other Gnolls aspire. I love the ragged cloak, the hyena-like hunching stature and the understated nature of the piece - he isn't about to murder somebody; he looks more like he's standing on a hilltop, surveying his territory and mulling over what a Gnoll chief might do next with so many acres of fine real estate.
I love the seething rage on this werewolf's face. He looks desperate to kill, tear and destroy. Like he's just finished ripping somebody's throat out with his bare hands, and found that instead of being sated, all he can think about is his next victim. As with the Gnoll, he's also understated - unlike the ripped, cut, body-builder werewolves of later D&D and Werewolf: The Apocalypse, this guy is skinny and truly wolf-like - with terrible hunger. He feels more like the werewolf in Prince Caspian: "Where I bite, I hold till I die, and even after death they must cut out my mouthful from my enemy's body and bury it with me..."
You don't get much better than this medusa. I love how she wavers on the line of sexiness and ugliness: She's like an imitation of beauty which hasn't quite made it. I'm sure that's intentional on DiTerlizzi's part. Again, it's also a study in understatedness. The picture isn't trying to look awesome; just communicate a mood, which it does admirably.
And this is probably my all time favourite. The Troll to end all Trolls. Communicates ravenous hunger, wiry strength, disdainful cruelty and alien savagery all at once. I love it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)