Soul Searching

I don't pray very often.

I just don't much anymore. Not because I don't believe in the power of prayer, but simply because I've gotten out of the habit of actually petitioning God for anything other than to do God's will. While I go to church more often these days than anytime since I was a child (I try to get my kids there every Sunday), and I do meditate and thank the good Lord for my many blessings and ask for aid to all the folks who need it, etc. there WAS a time when I could...and would...pray at the drop of a hat. For aid in all sorts of things. Things that, objectively, one might consider selfish. To do well on a test. To not get caught doing something I wasn't supposed to do. For the local team to win a big game. Things like that: the normal petitions of a young Catholic who believes in the intercession of the Trinity (and perhaps a saint or three).

I watch my son pray, and I find it amusing. He'll pray that he wins a hand of cards (we play a lot of cards in my house). Or that the Seahawks make a field goal. Or that we make it to [wherever] on time. He closes his eyes and clasps his hands and prays silently, unashamed of who may be watching. I admire him for it...even envy him a bit (I was never so demonstrative, nor...I think...so fervent, except perhaps when praying for God to save us all from nuclear war and Mount St. Helens). He prays with equal fervor for folks affected by hurricanes and earthquakes and mass shootings. He's a good little kid.

Why am I writing about this? I've been thinking about soul searching lately, self-meditation, praying for guidance. The subject keeps coming up for me randomly...like the universe telling me it's something I should be doing. Because lately I feel like I've been ignoring my "inner voice" (what some might consider the whispering of the divine) in favor of simply treading water: going through the daily routine, doing my day drinking, grinding out some semblance of substance in a life where I often feel like some slacker fraud.

I am reminded of an incident from my childhood, where my father gave me the worst tongue-lashing I can remember (and deservedly so), when he discovered I had been...in his words..."pulling the wool over his eyes." Pretending that I was the model student when I was, in fact, really letting shit slide. It was horrifying on many levels, and probably gave me all sorts of negative conditioning that still haunts my psyche to this day. In the moment it was occurring, I really thought he was going to take me out.

I wonder how much of this has been passed on to me and become part of my own "parenting style."

[terrible thought]

I picked up a copy of Michael Thomas's BLUEHOLME Journeymanne Rules today, and had a chance to read through it. I am a big fan of Thomas's original BLUEHOLME (the "Prentice" rules), and wanted to see what his concept of an expanded ruleset would like. I was...well...underwhelmed. The book itself is beautiful (the artwork and layout is fantastic), the scale (less than 120 pages) is about perfect, but the content isn't much more than the original, save that it "goes up to 11" (or 20...level 20...in this case).

And perhaps that's enough...perhaps that was Mr. Thomas's objective in writing it. If I didn't have the Prentice rules (or a copy of Holmes Basic), this would be a "must-have" book for this edition...this style...of Dungeons & Dragons. That's what Holmes is, after all: the world famous D&D game in a slightly different flavor. And while he offers a couple of new innovations (for instance, I like his variant weapon damage that makes sense within the style and scope of the original), on the whole it feels like it could have been more.

But how can I fault him? Really...who am I to pass judgment? He has created a very nice retro-mash of Holmes and the OD&D supplements, packaged it in the most pleasing form (art and layout) of ANY OSR clone yet (honestly, I can't think of a nicer looking OSR clone that I've seen), and provided all the rules he feels necessary for his preferred flavor of D&D. And me? What the hell have I done lately?

The truth is, I've been on an extended hiatus, due less to the busy-ness of my life and far more to straight-up lethargy, inertia, and my various addictions. I'm just saying this to "come clean"...as I sit here at the German pub, drinking beer and ignoring my other obligations. Hell, I just ordered a second half liter as I was writing that last sentence. The fact is, if I didn't have my family to anchor me (and really, it's just my kids) I would probably have no reason to go home at night. Or shower and shave (occasionally). Or clean my house. Or grocery shop. Or anything productive at all.

And being "productive" isn't the same as being "constructive." Productive is simply treading water at this point in my life, and that feels like a damn cop out. About 18 months back, I was writing about how I never learned to "hustle," and worrying about my damn legacy and a bunch of other bullshit. Part of the problem I'm seeing now is that I actually have an idea, an inkling, of what I should be doing with my life...and yet I'm not doing it. It's so easy to rest on one's laurels, to celebrate the small victories instead of seeking out the new challenge, the next mountain to summit.

Fuck. I'm really NOT trying to be poetic here.

It makes me want to (mentally) beat myself up, but I understand and realize that's truly a counterproductive waste of time. If someone came to me with this same, sad sack bullshit I'm writing here, I know what I'd say to him/her. But I've discovered in recent months how useless words can be to changing someone's behavior, let alone their life. Only self-action (i.e. actions taken by oneself) can change the road you're on, not helpful...or compassionate...or shouted...or constructive advice.

Time to put down the fucking beer and get on with it.

I started this post writing about prayer. I can't explain why I find it so difficult to pray (outside of church, when I'm modeling behavior for my children), except that I'm fucking out of practice. God doesn't care if you pray for selfish things, and as long as you understand God's answer to your prayers might well be "no," there's no harm (or foul) in doing so. I think I might benefit from doing some prayer...especially the deep, soul-searching kind. The last couple months I've been doing a little of this during Mass, and I've been receiving some inspiring ideas...ideas that I haven't done much about. Too tired, you know? Or too "busy." Or too lazy. Or something. Whatever it is, the inspiration fades after a couple donuts and a big, Sunday brunch followed by the football game on TV...just your typical, habitual Sunday ritual.

I think I need to start praying on days other than Sunday.

I'm going to leave it at that for now. I want to talk more about BLUEHOLME in a separate post (after I give it a second read and collate some of my more random-ish thoughts), but at the moment I've got some other stuff I have to get to.

Later, gators.

[EDIT: just re-reading this, my writing...and sentences...appear very short and "clipped." I want folks to know that, mentally, there were a lot of loooong pauses in my brain when I was typing this up]

48 Pages to Glory

There have been many excellent designers who've worked on Dungeons & Dragons over the years, from the initial concepts of Dave Arneson all the way down to...well, to whoever is working on the 5E design now. For the most part, it's taken a village to put together any version of D&D, even in the earliest editions: play testers, artists, editors, layout folks, etc. all had to come together to make a finished product that people could pick up and play. Singling out individuals as being "more valuable" is a little silly because none of 'em did it alone.

Be that as it may, I still hold four names in higher esteem than the others for their work. They are:

Arneson, Gygax, Holmes, and Moldvay

...and if that is terribly unfair of me, I apologize. It is what it is, and I have spent at least a little time criticizing each of them over the years for various design "missteps." Usually gently, but no one's perfect.

I have, at this point in my life, written a few game books...books heavily influenced by the work of these four men. My B/X Companion was done in the style of Moldvay's 64 page rule book, and my Five Ancient Kingdoms was written in the small, three volume fashion of the original D&D books. As I begin my newest project (stupidly, ridiculously...I have so many other irons in the fire), I set my eyes on the work of the one author whose work I've never used at the table, the one man who may have done more singly than any D&D designer in history, with the sole exception of E. Gary Gygax:

That would be John Eric Holmes.

Holmes Basic is a 48 page masterpiece. There, I've said it. Previously, I've referred to it as the "badass edition" of Dungeons & Dragons (that's meant as a compliment); these days, I don't think I've gone far enough in my praise. It is exquisitely concise, and provides near everything needed for a game. Well, a game that goes to 3rd level...but there's certainly enough here to build upon (as many folks have). I've seen many D&D campaigns (my own and others) fail to chart past the 3rd level.

What Holmes did in 48 pages is amazing. Of course, he was a brain surgeon...I think most folks would expect a bit of brilliance. Personally, I'm no rocket scientist...heck, I'm not even employed at the moment...but even so, I want to take a swing at doing this, doing what Holmes did: writing an adult fantasy role-playing game in 48 pages. That doesn't sound terribly hard does it? Even for someone of my hack writing skills?

Of course, it won't be a retroclone of Holmes...the Blueholme Prentice Rules already does a fine job of cloning John Eric. No, this will be using that "different paradigm" I was starting to talk about last month. And it will be a game designed to emulate (if possible) the feeling/style of those "good old days" I was waxing on about a couple days ago...something I want to play, in other words. Though I admit that trying to convey style AND rules in 48 pages is a pretty tall order. Really tall.

Yeah, maybe it's a pipe dream. But I'm going to give it a shot. We'll see what happens.

The plan is to go down swinging.

If any Holmes knowledgeable folks can hip me to the proper font and type size for such a project (assuming an emulation of style), I'd really appreciate the information. Not sure what I'll do about artwork at this point, though Holmes himself only used 14 or 15 small pieces (including maps). Probably more important that I just leave some blank spaces for insertion of illustrations.

More to come (I hope)!

Generic Unfocused Role-Playing Systems

So, yesterday was Veteran’s Day (no comment) and I didn’t post anything as I slept in till one, spent the day mostly doing yard work, and then finished up watching the Firefly series with my wife. Regarding the latter, I have managed to get my lovely spouse addicted to the series over the last couple weeks, and boy was she pissed when we got through the last episode: how dare this show get cancelled! And this is from a woman with immense dislike/disdain for a) westerns, and b) science fiction. Guess it was a good show, huh? Stupid FOX network.

ANYWAY, I did have a chance to wander down to Gary’s and read through the GURPS core books (now in its 4th edition!), but I just didn’t take the time to post my opinion. Please allow me to do so now (if briefly):

First, let me just say that GURPS, in its current incarnation seems very nice, smart, and even a little sexy. The system is of course elegant in its own way, certainly consistent, and GURPS is perhaps the best supported game on the market in terms of both quantity and quality of supplemental texts.

The fact that it’s divided into two core books is a bit off-putting (to me) who would prefer RPGs to return to the days of smaller more concise rule sets, but whatever. The main thing I wanted to look for was anything that would stand out as clear objectives of game play in the book…i.e. does anything in the rule set tell one how to play this damn game in the first place? This is due to the comment thread on my axiom post of the other day; check it out to see what I mean.

See, to me it appears that one thing RPG designers have gotten away from is explaining just what the hell people are expected to do with their gigantic rule books. Game authors simply assume that people buying their games are role-players who have played before or have friends who have, and who are going to simply using the author’s new game to play the same way they always have, just using a new set of rules. I believe this is a problem for a couple/few different reasons:

1 – it completely neglects the idea of growing the hobby, by limiting texts to existing role-players.
2 – it assumes that all role-playing gamers “play the same way” as the game author (which may not be accurate)
3 – it assumes that existing gamers know how to play the damn game (at least in the fashion the designer intends).

Now that being said, GURPS is a game that’s been around for awhile and has a pretty decent following, and since I don’t play it, who am I to knock it?

Well, how about a potential player (with a game this large should I call myself a “potential investor?”)? I buy A LOT of games, and some (like Palladium) that might raise eyebrows from some folks. A game has got to offer me SOMEthing, though, if I am going to make a purchase and I can’t help take a critical eye to any prospective game.

So back to “clear objectives;” does GURPS have ‘em?

Well, not that I could find in the player’s book. This is simply a huge guide to making a character for the GURPS game. Subject to GM approval, of course. Created with an eye towards what’s “fun” to play, of course. With plenty of options for making a “heroic” character, of course.

Interestingly, GURPS points out that their character creation system is NOT as realistic as it could be, as “realism” would require randomness in chargen, rather than a balanced point buy (after all, some people are born smart AND strong, and some people are born neither). However, GURPS points out its system is designed to provide “game balance” (so that some characters don’t upstage others) AND also allows players to create HEROIC characters (rather than Joe Shmoes).

I call this interesting because it is very straight-forward and matter-o-fact about things other games do, but simply assume “need not be present in writing.” I give GURPS a thumbs up for being smart and classy even if, right here, it pretty much loses my interest (because I’m not interested particularly in playing characters that are “balanced” or “heroic” and I am no fan of the drawn-out process of point-buy chargen).

Still, it doesn’t tell non-GM players what exactly they’re supposed to do, except “look to the GM.” Ugh.

Now the GM Book DOES have some information on how to create an adventure and run a game, which is a step up from Rifts, but it’s still pretty abstract about it…and even a bit disingenuous from what I’d see as the GURPS stance. I’ll get to the latter point in a second; basically, the books states it is the GM’s job to CHALLENGE the players (though it doesn’t specify whether this means challenging the players, their characters, or both). GMs are supposed to use their role and understanding of the system to craft adventures that offer “a challenge.”

There is even a sidebar on “dungeons” (!!) and creating site-based adventures. Here we see the origin of the GURPS game…someone wanted to do D&D with an elegant, consistent system (that included rules for skills, advantages, and disadvantages) that could be easily ‘ported to other genres. Ugh…here I thought Steve Jackson had more high-minded motivations…I know a lot of people use GURPS for reasons other than creating site-based adventures.

But that’s just it. GMs are supposed to “challenge” their players? Really? Your telling me GURPS is designed to facilitate a gamist creative agenda?

If such is the case, where’s the meta-game? In the character creation system (min-maxing through the point-buy?)? In simply being smarter than the GM or the other players (where’s the “balance” in that?!)?

And here I thought GURPS was best suited for facilitating the simulationist, with setting books like “The Prisoner” and “Renaissance Italy.” I guess those supplements were simply written to allow players to be challenged by GMs in different settings, rather than allowing exploration of the unique setting material. Wow…I was waaay off! ; )

SO anyway, not exactly what I’m looking for in a game. I am too old, too busy, and (yes) too lazy to spend the time learning a universal system when I don’t personally believe all role-playing games can be distilled to universal game mechanics. I just don’t. Gamma World would not benefit from a GURPS-like system and neither would Hubris Game’s Maelstrom RPG (the former doesn’t require the extra rules to play, the latter is played with a system that resolves scenes not tasks…in many ways Maelstrom is far more elegant than GURPS). And as a stand-alone game? Eh…it’s a little bland (despite being sexier than its predecessors), while still somehow seeming “over-produced.”

On the other hand…for RPGs with cool settings that have totally lame systems (or settings that don’t HAVE RPGs), one could do a lot worse than picking up GURPS and the corresponding supplement (I see GURPS did a Blue Planet supplement in 2002). But you’ll probably need to bring your own clear, specific objectives to the table with you.

: )