Wizards and Warriors

Sometimes, it is about nostalgia.

When I was a kid, I absolutely loved any kind of "fantasy" stuff I could find, and it seemed like what I could find was pretty scarce. Movies that had magic or dragons or whatnot in it were "must see" films for me (provided I was old enough that my parents would let me see it). Star Wars was a big deal back then (and I was, of course, a fan), but I would much rather have seen a dude in armor wielding a real sword than a spaceship or laser gun.

On TV, such stuff was even more rare, and a television show like Wizards and Warriors was a fantastic find for my nine-year old brain. I remember very little of the show (though in later years I ended up modeling several RPG characters on Dirk Blackpool), but I do remember the following:

• I considered it to be "my favorite show on TV."
• I knew enough to know the channel and time slot and was diligent in having my ass in from of our (7"? 9"?) color TV in time to watch.
• The show constantly being preempted for shit like ice skating.

[no, ice skating isn't really "shit" ...but find your own damn timeslot, huh?]

Anyway, as with many "lost treasures of my youth" I've kept half an eye/ear open for any word of availability for this show. Partly for the sake of nostalgia, partly for closure (let me see the episodes I missed!), partly out of curiosity (the things I've read about the show on-line have piqued my interest). Regardless of how dated it might seem today (I realize many of my "faves" as a youth don't hold up in the light of adulthood), I'm interested. Plus, my own children might be interested in watching it when they're old enough.

[I was watching a video clip today of the intro to the old cartoon Thundarr the Barbarian and my boy came along and started watching. He made me replay it, and then told me, "Papa, let's buy that movie!" A kid after my own heart]

Only took 30 f'ing years!

Last night, I was taking a look around the 'net for clips of the old W&W and Lo & Behold, I found that Warner Brothers just released a DVD of the complete series July 29th (a "burn on demand" deal). Right the heck on! While I am, of course, still in Paraguay, I plan on putting in my order ASAP to get a copy of this lost piece from my childhood; I'll pick it up when I'm back in town November. I am soooo totally stoked!

Next up: Tales of the Gold Monkey and when the hell are they going to re-release the animated Hobbit on DVD? Ooo-oo...maybe Matthew Star or The Phoenix!

: )

Fighting Women (Redux)

[checking my privilege as I walk through the Valley of Darkness]

So in the comments section of this morning's post explaining my reasons for male-female specific mechanics (found in the chargen section of ability scores), Monkapotomus wrote the following:

"Ultimately I suppose it is no different than racial caps on attributes but it seems strange to me that you would have a specific type of female character in mind that you want to model but not a specific type of male character you want to model."

Ouch. That hurts.

What Monk has hit on, is a basic in fallacy in my thinking and design process. "Justified" or not, my design choice places a restriction on the character concepts of half the population...and no corresponding restriction on the other half.

Yes, any player can choose to play a character of either sex. Over the years, I've had several players (both male and female) choose to "play for the other team." But the majority of the time, my players (both male and female) have preferred to play characters with whose sex they gender-identify. All the women with whom I've played (more than a dozen as I count in my head), more often than not, chose to play female characters...regardless of whether they were straight, bi-, or gay.

[yes, even when playing fighters in 1st edition AD&D with its sex-related strength restrictions]

As Monk says, it's not really the arbitrary cap that I'm using that's a problem...especially considering I have a particular concept that I'm trying to model. But I'm only trying to model something for female characters...characters that will (probably) usually be played by female gendered players. And yet, I'm saying to the male folks, "Have at it! You can do anything you want! You're male, after all!"

Which is, of course, unfair.

So much as it irritates me to A) admit I was wrong, and B) change my carefully crafted mechanics (I thought it was a pretty neat effect/cool, myself), I will be rewriting this part of the book. Players can still swap (one) ability score for another, so I'll leave it to them to decide what they want to model conceptually. And that freedom of choice will be the same for all players, regardless of gender.

Sorry for my short-sightedness. Thanks for calling me on it.
: )

Stop looking at me like that! It's being changed!

Fighting Women

[in which JB starts down the road to crucifixion]

Forget Robert E. Howard's Conan character for a moment. Or Karl Wagner's Kane character. Protagonists that are uber-strong, super-cunning, catlike in their speed, steely-thewed, and charismatic "leaders of men." In other words, forget the characters that (if modeled in D&D) would not only have a high level and (perhaps) multiple classes, but exceptionally high ability scores across the board. Forget that.We used to see the occasional character like that back when we used the ability score tables from the 1E Unearthed Arcana (Type VI method of generating abilities? I think that's what it was called), but since then I've seen very few uber-statted character's rolled up at my B/X sessions. Maybe one (named Farnsworth). And he ended up down four levels to a vampire and fleeing for his life, so I'd hardly compare the dude to "Conan."

Heroes in fiction are known for being exceptional...usually in one or two ways...but for me, the best heroes aren't exceptional in every regard. They have some normalcy that we can relate to (if not outright weakness). Superheroes are fun and all, but if they are infallible godlings most of the time...well, they can get boring.

In the new FHB ("fantasy heartbreaker") I'm writing, I have players (mostly) roll 2D6+6 for their ability scores  (this is something I've started to incorporate in all my "B/X based" designs lately. Um...a total of three, at the moment). This gives a range of 8 to 18 for player character ability scores with an average rating of 13. Since the normal human range of ability is still 3 to 18 (average 10-11) this makes the heroic player characters a "cut above" the average slappy.

Mechanical bonuses for ability scores start at 13. Exceptional range of abilities is 15 to 18. Since a player would need to roll a 9 or better on 2D6 to hit 15 (a 28% chance), most PCs on average will have one or two "exceptional" attributes...like the fictional heroes I prefer.

Please note: there is no mechanical disadvantage for a low ability score. The game doesn't even have a "roll under ability" mechanic, so there's really no penalty for having a low score. You just don't receive any bonus.

Now, I did said "mostly." As I wrote in yesterday's post the exception to this is female characters (not players) who roll 2D6+3 for their strength (STR) score. This is done with the purpose of reducing the average strength of a female character (from 13 to 10) and capping a female character's maximum strength at 15. Now there is some recompense for this...female heroes have learned to compensate for their lesser muscle mass in other ways, and receive 3 bonus points to distribute among their ability scores (which is pretty good since each point increase above 12 is it's own "breakpoint").

Why would I do this? And no, I don't just mean, "why would I open myself to criticism" (I can be something of a masochist at times). Instead, I mean:

"Why bother to write sex-specific game mechanics in a day and age when we are striving for inclusivity and working hard not to be part of the problem by carrying forward old fashioned stereotypes into fantasy tropes...especially given a fantasy setting with magic and dragons, etc.?"

[notice, I said "sex-specific," not "gender-specific." Spent half a day yesterday researching transgender lingo to make sure I've got my brain on straight when it comes to sensitivity. "Sex" is considered distinct from "gender" because the former is a product of biology and the latter is a mental-societal construct and, thus, open for interpretation: see Uruguay for the logical reinterpretation of this census datapoint. Regarding my game mechanic: it doesn't matter what gender the player or the character consider himself/herself to be, the mechanic is tied to the biological status of the character's sex: male or female]

*ahem* Where was I? Oh, yeah...why would I do this? Well, two reasons: one good and one bad.

The Bad: I hate Wizards of the Coast. Well, "hate" is probably too strong a word, but they have been rubbing me the wrong way for years now. And their abstract ability scores that (in 3rd-4th edition) went "to infinity an beyond" with no real rhyme or reason or justification just bugs the hell out of me. What does it mean that a 16th level elf girl fighter has a strength of 22 (for example) and a burly half-orc dude has a strength of 17? Not a blessed thing. It's just abstract numbers giving you a mechanical bonus that makes ability scores O So Important for killing folks and collecting those XPs.

[yes, I realize ability scores are capped in the new 5E rules]

So given a choice between being like WotC and "doing something different," I usually opt for the latter (usually...I'm totally stealing the advantage/disadvantage mechanic for Cry Dark Future). I want ability scores to represent something...and if a character can have a strength of 20-30, just what does that represent? By my game's definition of the Strength ability score, that would be "one big honking brick shithouse of a person." Which leads me to my better reason...

The Good (or, at least, "Justifiable in My Mind"): I'm trying to model something specific. 

No, no, not that "women are the weaker sex." Even if that is a biological reality (across most of the animal species on planet Earth), we're still talking about a fantasy game. There's no reason to say that women (or for that matter, men) of a certain subset can't grow to a size and muscle mass of equal proportion to any NFL linebacker. Call them the "titan" sub race of humanity. I can even picture them: they are all (male and female) around 7' tall with big hair (80's style), anime-fantasy garb, and sporting two-handed great swords in back sheaths that "normal" humans couldn't even lift. They only live in the southeastern part of the continent, but some have emigrated to other portions of the game world where they mix and mingle freely with other humans. People with strength over 15 are presumed to have at least some "titan blood" in their ancestry.

See how easy that is? Easy-shmeezy.

What I'm trying to model is what I see in fantasy fiction: the heroic female adventurer. They're there, though sometimes it can be hard to find them. Teres in Wagner's Bloodstone. Jirel of Joiry. Howard's Dark Agnes de Chastillon and Red Sonya of Rogatino (and their directly inspired Red Sonja...she really deserves her own post) as well as his character Valeria from Red Nails. Eowyn. Lythande and (many) other characters by MZB. Aspirin's character Tananda (from the Myth series). Kildee Wu (from Steve Perry's otherwise fairly bland Black Steel novel; I haven't read the other Matador books, but they appear to feature female assassins as protagonists). "Harry" from Robin Kinley's The Blue Sword (and Aerin Dragon-Killer from the prequel-sequel). And, sure, Brienne of Tarth.

Ride, Harry, Ride!

These are all "warrior women" of some form or another. There are other female sorcerers and thieves and minor "adventurer" characters scattered through fantasy literature (Cythera from David Chandler's Ancient Blades trilogy comes to mind as a good one), but right now I'm just talking about good fighters in fantasy fiction...fighters that happen to be female.

Some are exceptionally clever, some are fairly ignorant and uneducated. Some are charming seductresses, some are awkward with potential partners. Some are lesbians, though not the majority. Some use magic or sport "psychic powers." All are deadly combatants in hand-to-hand.

None of them are iron-thewed, 'roided-out monsters.

But then, my new fantasy heartbreaker doesn't require a character to have a high strength to be deadly in combat. "Fighting skill" (that is, one's capability in mortal combat) is a product of the character's experience...i.e. the character's level. And remember, a character that gets a better "roll over" result on his or her attack is going to score more damage. Strength does not add to one's attack roll (though a character with "exceptional" (15+) agility does receive a +1 bonus); instead, it simply increases the maximum damage the weapon can do. You still need to hit...and hit well...to do that damage.

My purpose here is to model the types of female adventurers one finds in fantasy fiction. Outside of video games and the superhero genre, I don't generally see super strong or brawny heroines. Instead, I see highly capable women who use their other attributes...brains, fighting spirit, whatever...to make up for any "deficiencies" their lack of muscle might cost them. And that's what I want to represent. Not all male adventurers are "brawny" types either (see Elric, for example)...but then, that's why all players have the option to swap an ability score to better fit their character concept, right?

But perhaps, perhaps, perhaps I am being insensitive here or marginalizing female players by having sex-specific creation mechanics. Because even though a male or female player can choose to play a character of either sex, real live people reading the game book are going to say, "O look...girls are so weak!" and we will have all sorts of mayhem ensue because of it.

If that's the case, um...sorry? Should I put in some sort of disclaimer in the book? Or essay? Or apology? Because I really, really don't want to change the mechanic. I have another B/X game (a more pulpy action game) that doesn't even have a "strength" score because, you know, who cares how much Indiana Jones can bench press? Fitness and physical prowess are better ability scores for that type of genre...and in such a game, biological sex really doesn't matter.

Okay...gotta' go. Please comment as I'd like to hear folks thoughts. Thanks!

Revising B/X Ability Scores (Part 2)

[continued from here]

So here's what I've currently got for revised ability scores.

Wait, wait, wait...just before I start, let me clarify something. While the title of this post is "revising B/X ability scores," I'm not really talking about house ruling B/X or writing a clone that's the equivalent of Labyrinth Lord that "mixes it up."

What I'm posting about is a new(ish) project of mine, a fantasy heartbreaker that is more basic in scope than Five Ancient Kingdoms. A smaller volume, a smaller scale with a (hopefully) easier ruleset that anyone with a handful of weird-sided dice can pick up and play sans difficulty.

In such a game...a game which has a specific objective...scale is extremely important. What does an 18 strength represent? Andre the Giant? Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson? Someone smaller?

[Johnson is 6'5", 260+ pounds and a lot of muscle. Andre was 7'4" and over 500 pounds. In the USA, only 3% of adult males (and 0% of adult females) are taller than 6'3"]

Does strength represent actual physical muscle? Or simply the application of strength? In 5E "Basic Rules" Strength measures "natural athleticism and bodily power" but the former would seem to overlap on 5E's definition of Dexterity ("physical agility, reflexes, balance, poise" all of which goes into the variety of skills needed to develop athleticism in sports). Is it a measure of size? Fitness?

In my game, Strength "measures your character's brawn, hardiness, and physical stature."

Gwen Christie is 6'3". And strong.

That's pretty reasonable. It gives the DM an easy method of describing an NPC to the players: "the guy looks pretty strong." Of course, tying it to actual muscle size has gender-related implications...but that's probably its own post (we'll see). It's definitely not "athleticism" except in the "physical strength" portion of the athletic equation...but feats of athleticism are not tied to ability scores in this game the way they are in other "roll under attribute" systems.

[why not? Well, I'm kind of moving away from the idea of "ability checks," for a couple-three different reasons. A) they're kind of a "lazy skill" system, B) they use a mechanic different from every other D20 mechanic in the game (where one is trying to roll high), but mainly C) they often penalize players who are trying to be creative/think outside the box (i.e. trying to do something for which there are no systems) by giving them an excellent chance of failure, based on their ability scores. In addition, they tend to weigh heavily towards certain ability scores (intelligence, dexterity, strength) and totally exclude others (wisdom, constitution, charisma). So right now, the mechanic of "rolling under an ability score" is kind of on my shit-list]

Now, it might seem like I'm spending an inordinate amount of time on the strength score. Well, strength is an interesting score and one sees it in a whole shit-ton of RPGs. It's present in my new FHB, too...and it's only one of two ability scores that make the cut from the D&D game. My six ability scores boil down to the following (in alphabetical order):

Agility
Charisma
Learning
Spirit
Strength
Wit

[I won't bore you with the descriptions of each]

I should note that Charisma is actually a late addition. I had limited the total stats to five because (originally) this was supposed to be far less wargame, and as such had little need for a stat that reflects the number of henchmen and morale in battle. Aside from a reaction bonus, that's pretty much all Charisma is used for in the basic delving game...and I'm not going to make a bunch of "charisma powered" feats and class abilities to suddenly make the stat pertinent in a skirmish-scale game focused on a small number of heroes (*cough* wotc *cough*).

Remember from my last post on the subject, I was talking about weighing ALL the ability scores so that players would be interested in all of them, regardless of class. Strength (just to blather a bit more on the STR score) may be useful to all characters in B/X because of its bonus to attack rolls and damage and kicking in doors, but wizards are hardly going to want to get into melee (and probably don't want to be the first ones through a stuck door, either).

[*ahem*]

ANYway...what changed my mind was remembering something from OD&D about hirelings of "unusual" nature, specifically monsters and the concept of followers over henchmen. Just checking out Ye Old Volume 1 ("Men & Magic"), scattered throughout several pages we find:

"Finally, the charisma [sic] will aid a character in attracting various monsters to his service."

"Monsters can be lured into service if they are of the same basic alignment as the player character..."

"Morale dice can cause a man or intelligent monster to attempt to surrender or become subdued. When this happens an offer of service can be made..."

"Loyalty of Non-Player Characters (including Monsters)..."

Couple all that with an interesting post over at Thought Crime Games and I started thinking, hmmm, maybe there should be other ways to overcome bad guys besides killing the shit out of them...like maybe converting them away from evil and over to your cause? Because like I said before, the characters in the new game are (default) "heroic good guys" on a mission. And it's not just an S&D mission.

[um...that's "search & destroy" for those who don't know]

More on the kind of mission later.

So, without further ado, here's how my revamped abilities work:

Agility: +1 to defense (think "ascending AC") per point over 12 when wearing no armor; characters receive half bonus when wearing light armor. Exceptional agility (15-18) gives a +1 bonus to attack rolls and reaction saves.

Charisma: +1 bonus to maximum followers per point over 12. Exceptional charisma (15-18) gives a +1 bonus to reaction checks.

Learning: 1 spell known per point over 12. Characters with exceptional learning (15-18) are literate and receive a +1 bonus when casting spells.

Spirit: +1 point of grit per point over 12 (a new resource that triggers some special effects). Characters with exceptional spirit (15-18) add +1 hit point per level and receive a +1 bonus to save versus magic.

Strength: +1 point to maximum weapon damage, per point over 12, when wielding a melee weapon with two hands; characters receive half bonus when using a melee weapon with one hand. Exceptional strength (15-18) gives +1 hit point per level and a +1 bonus to saves versus poison.

Wit: +1 additional "useful item" per point over 12 (character's otherwise have equipment limited by class). Characters with exceptional wit (15-18) receive a +1 bonus to detection rolls and surprise checks.

All ability scores in the game are determined by rolling 2D6+6 to achieve a range of 8-18. Female characters (not female players) only roll 2D6+3 for strength (they're smaller), but receive three extra points to distribute among their other abilities (they've learned to compensate in different ways). No score may be increased above 18.

[yes, non-gender neutral game mechanics]

Once ability scores have been determined, a player may freely swap any two scores to create a character more closely matching the player's concept.

All right, that should be enough to chew on for the moment.

[quick side note: my internet connection was down for almost a week. That last Seahawk post? I wrote and scheduled that back in February. This is the reason for my delay in getting this up. Hopefully, my posting should continue unhindered for the foreseeable future]

The Big Day, Boys and Girls

The NFL season kicks off tonight...let's see if Carroll can deliver one more time!

Go Seahawks!

I like the philosophy!

What's A Wounded Wraith Look Like?

[aka "Yes, I've Been Sidetracked Again"]

Over at Delta's blog, a discussion on the Animal Growth spell has led me down a road of really considering (once again) the significance and literal definition of that hoary term "hit dice."

Personally, I dig on hit dice. I think it's a great short-hand for monsters in the D&D game (or any game that involves a lot of "monster fighting"), providing a measure of a creature's vitality, combat ability, awareness (saving throws), approximate challenge level, and XP value. In Five Ancient Kingdoms, I put hit dice to even more uses including a replacement for armor class and number appearing in lairs.

[bigger monsters and monsters with special abilities are encountered in smaller numbers...go figure]

I like hit dice...I like the easy scaling of them in the early editions of the game. Using the "normal human" as the standard unit of measure (i.e. as the standard 1 HD creature), it's easy to say:

One hit dice represents the ability to sustain one mortal wound.

Or, to put it another way, one hit dice worth of damage is the amount of damage needed to kill a normal human. Larger creatures can take a lot more damage than a normal human...assuming you're talking a weapon that does the minimum damage needed to kill a person (a rocket launcher can "one-shot" an elephant as easily as a human, but we're not talking about modern weapons of warfare). When I imagine an ogre, I'm thinking of something the size and ferocity of a grizzly bear (they do share the same 4 HD), and my mental picture has all sorts of weapons sticking out of the guy, not slowing him, as he wades through a party of adventurers.

It's easy to scale size and ferocity (assuming the monster is aggressive) based on its size compared to humans. A hill giant is listed as 12' tall...twice the height of a human, and presumably proportionate in the other two dimensions. That's why 8 HD is a good measure for the hill giant...he's eight times (2x2x2) the size of a "normal human." Now it gets sketchier as things get bigger...storm giants are 24' feet tall, double a hill giant, but they don't have 64 HD. The challenge to the PCs need to be within reach, right? But then, maybe it's silly for characters (even high level ones) to be fighting something the size of a house.

And, yet, that's "heroic" right? Beowulf (or Turin Turambar) goes out to fight the giant, fire-breathing dragon and somehow manages to win. Hell, sometimes the hero even survives the fight (see Sigurd versus Fafnir).

Of course, such heroic battles are rarely of the "nickel-n-dimey" combats one sees in the fictional duel. The hero finds an opening and strikes home...he's not whittling down a bunch of hit points. Because (as has been pointed out before) you don't kill a whale with a broadsword.

So hit dice, much as I like them, only really works to a point. And I can accept that, if the scale is right (i.e. small enough). In 5AK, sea monsters go up to 30 HD, but that's not really killable by an adventurer...the biggest "bad guy" one will go up against is in the 10-12 HD range. The largest scale "monster" that a small scale hero can reasonably tackle.  How is a cloud giant going to fit down a 10'x10' tunnel anyway?

But HD fall down again when one looks at the opposite end of the mass spectrum...what do hit dice represent for an incorporeal monster? How many mortal wounds can an (already dead) ghost take? In other words, does a wraith bleed?

Going back into my mind's eye again, I don't like the picture I'm seeing.

The wraith/specter monster was based on Tolkien's Nazgul (the Black Riders, Ring-Wraiths, whatever you want to call them). They show up in Chainmail (at least the edition I have) and they are directly referenced in both first edition OD&D and the Holmes Basic set. I'm sure most of my readers are passingly familiar with The Lord of the Rings...how many combats do you remember taking place that involved going mano-a-mano with wraiths? And how did those fights resolve? I ask only because, if you're going to model a monster on a piece of fiction, you should be able to model the fiction, too.

How many times did Eowyn "roll to hit?"

Incorporeal creatures are where hit dice...as a standard measure of a monster...start to break down. Yes, it can model combat ability, and challenge rating, and saving throws, etc. But substance? Vitality? Such a creature lacks these things. Assuming the hero has a weapon capable of damaging such a creature (be it enchanted or silvered or whatever), it would appear that any blow would be likely to disrupt the monster, sending it back (or to) wherever such things go when they're unlife comes to an end. The alternative...that you just keep sticking this ghost with either A) no noticeable effect, or B) the ghost starts "bleeding" ectoplasm or something both seem...*sigh*.  I don't know...too "video gamey?" Certainly, unpalatable to my taste.

[as I've written before I have played World of Warcraft in the past, and watching the health bar go down on a spectral spirit that my warrior has to repeatedly hack is just about the least "immersive" thing I find about an MMO"RPG"]

In Chainmail (the first introduction of TSR's "wraith"), you have a monster that can attack quite well (both mounted and on foot), but that cannot be harmed except in "fantasy combat" (such as by a hero, wizard, or individual with a magic weapon). This is different from most other "fantasy combatants" in Chainmail. A hero or ogre (for example) can be fought using the "fantasy combat" system, but they can also be destroyed by good ol' fashion melee or missile fire (though doing so is a tough prospect for the normal rank-n-file troops, seeing as how they need to inflict multiple hits/wounds). Wraiths are immune to "normal" combat...a trait they share with only a handful of fantasy creatures: dragons, elementals, "true" (regenerating) trolls, and treants (though the latter may be sent on fire, even by normal troops). Even lycanthropes and wights can be slain in normal Chainmail combat...creatures that, in D&D, require special weapons to injure.

"Fantasy combat" consists of trying to throw a particular number on 2D6 (the number being dependent on what's doing the attacking). Succeed and you kill the creature. In other words, you either one-shot the wraith or you fail to injure it...assuming you even can injure it. The same holds true for the dragon, by the way (again, mimicking the fictional account of dragon slayers looking for that chink in the armor to bring down the beast).

Anyway..,ugh, this is what's bugging me at the moment. But I've got to take a break to go "fight crime" with (a very small) Batman right now (and probably feed him lunch) so I'll have to return to this topic later. If I can figure out a way to rectify it in a non-irritating manner.

The Day Before The Day Before

I'm sorry. I'm about halfway through a meandering follow-up post on B/X ability scores but it's tough, really tough, to not get distracted by the beginning of football season.

In Paraguay (where I currently reside) no one gives 200 guaranii for the NFL (current exchange rate in Paraguay? 4300 guaranii to the dollar). But soccer...oh boy, I've got 12 sports channels on the cable network and (literally) eight of them are playing soccer games or having talk shows discussing soccer as I write this (the others? racing, tennis, cycling, and the UFC channel which only shows fights). There is no coverage of American football, and while I might be able to find one game a week (we'll see...there was no coverage during preseason), I'm pretty much relying on the internet for my football watching fix.

"Cry me a river," I hear folks say. Oh, I know, I know...it's an addiction. I grew up with the Seahawks (they were founded in 1976, three years after my birth), and my family's had season tickets for several decades. The rising greatness of the 80s, the mediocrity of the 90s, the rebirth in the 21st century culminating in a glorious smack down victory in the Super Bowl last year...I've lived with it my whole life. Like playing RPGs (which I've also done most of my life), football is entertainment. There are people suffering all over the world and for all the good such things do to bring people together over a community event (gaming or watching sports), it doesn't remove the base causes for most of that suffering.

But like I said: addiction. Not as self-destructive as, say, my excessive heavy drinking or my (former) pack-plus-a-day smoking addiction.  But an addiction, nevertheless. Forced to pick between watching the second half of last week's game versus Oakland and putting my child to bed with a story, I chose the child. But then again, it was preseason and the 'Hawks third-stringers were already down by two or three TDs. Would I have done the same in the regular season?

[ha! actually I would and did...even during last year's Super Bowl I spent a lot of time away from the TV to entertain my toddler. Family IS more important, I guess...but that doesn't cut down on the withdrawal pain]

So today I've been reading the 2014 NFL season predictions over on the ESPN. Each team has a designated reporter that follows the team all year long and provides a detailed breakdown of how they think their team will do against the 16 game schedule they've been handed by the League to come up with a final Win-Loss ratio.

What a bunch of homers.

If the season lines up as predicted, the final results will have 287 wins and 225 losses (there should be 256 and 256, barring any ties...we've had a single tie in each of the last couple-three seasons. No, it's not soccer). If you do the math, that means (on average) every team should have about one more loss than what's been predicted by the "experts." Since I can't seem to focus on gaming, I'll post the data here (along with my own thoughts) for other antsy fans who don't have the time to load and comb through the multiple web pages:

AFC EAST (2014 Predictions)
New England Patriots 12-4 (Last Season: 12-4)
New York Jets 9-7 (Last Season: 8-8)
Miami Dolphins 8-8 (Last Season: 8-8)
Buffalo Bills 7-9 (Last Season: 6-10)
Hard to argue against the Patriots as long as Brady is QB. According to the predictions (from both sides), the Pats will beat the Broncos in their one match-up of the season, which means the Patriots can claim home field advantage through the play-offs...and that would mean seeing New England in the Super Bowl one more time (based on their past play-of performances). Last season, the Patriots had to find a way to the post season with a sub-par receiving corps...this year, they're missing a big cog in their O-Line. I don't know, it's tough to see the ride ending for New England. On the other hand, who saw the Red Sox tanking this year? As for the other teams...I don't think Gino Smith wins nine games (that's just me), and...ugh...Buffalo? Jeez...when are those guys going to turn it around? Here's hoping they can top Miami (who has a host of problems).

AFC NORTH (2014 Predictions)
Cincinnati Bengals 10-6 (Last Season: 11-5)
Pittsburgh Steelers 10-6 (Last Season: 8-8)
Baltimore Ravens 9-7 (Last Season: 8-8)
Cleveland Browns 6-10 (Last Season: 4-12)
Okay, Pittsburgh homers: 2013 season? Eight wins. 2012 season? Eight wins. I know the Bengals can't win a playoff game, but what makes you think Big Ben (or the defense) is getting better with age? I'm more inclined to give Joe Flacco and the Ravens a wild card pass to the playoffs (with a 9-7 season, yes). But noooo, everyone loves-loves-loves the Steelers. The Browns looked better than the Steelers last year...right up till Hoyer got his leg nuked. This year, the Browns have lost Gordon AND they've got the whole Johnny Football circus AND they've got...what 11? 12 defensive backs? What are they doing. Like the Bills, it would be nice to see the Browns pull themselves out of the toilets one of these years. Sorry, I think all these teams are over-rated right now.

AFC SOUTH (2014 Predictions)
Indianapolis Colts 11-5 (Last Season: 11-5)
Houston Texans 8-8 (Last Season: 2-14)
Tennessee Titans 7-9 (Last Season: 7-9)
Jacksonville Jaguars 6-10 (Last Season: 4-12)
People keep calling the AFC South "the weakest division" in the NFL...haven't they seen the NFC East? I do not think the Texans are a .500 team. I don't see a 2-game improvement over last year for the Jags (sorry, Gus Bradley)...call it five wins this season. I think the Colts start the season with a three game losing streak and miss the play-offs. Really. The Titans have a much easier schedule than the Colts (and don't have the Mathis suspension hanging over the heads of the defense) and I think they squeak through as division leader. Assuming Jake Locker stays healthy this season.

AFC WEST (2014 Predictions)
Denver Broncos 12-4 (Last Season: 13-3)
San Diego Chargers 10-6 (Last Season: 9-7)
Kansas City Chiefs 8-8 (Last Season: 11-5)
Oakland Raiders 6-10 (Last Season: 4-12)
Okay, KC is like the opposite of homers. Why the predicted drop-off from last year's season? You don't think Andy Reid (who was a perennial play-off coach with the Eagles) won't have his team tuned better in his second season? You don't think he'll be able to a least split with Denver? Doesn't KC have the best home field advantage outside of Seattle? Didn't Alex Smith just land a giant contract (i.e. the Chiefs aren't searching for a QB like some teams)? Doesn't Charles still have some juice? I see KC back in the play-offs, maybe as a wild card, but don't count them out as a division leader. People feel that the Chiefs inability to win big games last year was the proof of "fundamental flaws" in the team. No...it was a sign of team growth from an outfit that only had two wins the year before. Expect the Chiefs to win more big games, and quite possibly the division. As for the other teams: I like the Chargers chances to make a Wild Card, neither Carr nor Schaub is going to help the Raiders much this year, and Denver will NOT be back in the Super Bowl. You know how people are saying the Seahawks are going to have a "Super Bowl hangover" due to there being no "back-to-back" Champs since the 2004-05 Patriots? Well, it's been longer than that since a Super Bowl loser made it back to the Big Game: that's the 1993-94 Buffalo Bills. All these "predictors" who say the Seahawks have no chance "because of history" but Denver does? They're ignoring history. No way, Elway.

NFC EAST (2014 Predictions)
Philadelphia Eagles 11-5 (Last Season: 10-6)
Dallas Cowboys 8-8 (Last Season: 8-8)
New York Giants 8-8 (Last Season: 7-9)
Washington 7-9 (Last Season: 3-13)
Probably the worst division in football despite having (potentially?) great quarterbacks in every team. For whatever reason, all these teams suck. Will Chip Kelly really enjoy the same success this season? Or will the other teams have figured him out? Will Eli Manning continue to stink up the joint? Will Jason Garrett finally rise above mediocrity? It's hard to believe Washington will do anything. Ugh...this is going to be a bunch of 8-8 teams (or worse) plus a pretty bad 'Skins team...I can't even predict whose going to win this division. Eli? Really? No...give Romo one more shot at the postseason (and a fat contract extension for mediocre coach Jason Garrett).

NFC NORTH (2014 Predictions)
Green Bay Packers 12-4 (Last Season: 8-7-1)
Chicago Bears 10-6 (Last Season: 8-8)
Detroit Lions 8-8 (Last Season: 7-9)
Minnesota Vikings 7-9 (Last Season: 5-10-1)
Oh, over-rated division redux. Man, I really hope the Seahawks beat the hell out of the Packers. Of all the visitors to come through Seattle over the years, the Packers fans are by far the most insufferable. Really...worse than Raiders fans (who are at least fun and boisterous). The cheese heads are soooo obnoxious...I feel the way about them that Niners fans feel about the Seahawks. Having said that, the Pack is still the class of the North, though I see their season more of a ten win affair. The Bears aren't going to sniff the play-offs (sorry), nor the Vikings (despite probably one more big season from Adrian Peterson). I don't know what's wrong with Detroit: they have all the pieces they need (Stafford, Johnson, Suh) but they just can't get it together. What is it with Detroit? All the cocaine and hookers? The fact that no one in the organization actually resides in Detroit? God, that city needs something besides hockey and the perennial also-ran Tigers. Maybe this year. Maybe. Some of the "usual contenders" have fallen down the ladder (see below). And, of course, they've got Tate now.

NFC SOUTH (2014 Predictions)
New Orleans Saints 11-5 (Last Season: 11-5)
Carolina Panthers 10-6 (Last Season: 12-4)
Atlanta Falcons 9-7 (Last Season: 4-12)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 8-8 (Last Season: 4-12)
This is the Saints division to lose. I don't see Cam Newton getting the Panthers back to the playoffs without some sort of receiving corps, but maybe I'm wrong and maybe their defense will carry them through with a wild card. I do see an aging Atlanta team challenging the Panthers, and while the Bucs should be much improved with Lovie Smith, I don't see as dramatic a turnaround as Reid brought to the Chiefs. Maybe in the 2015 season (he's got a lot of work to do).

NFC WEST (2014 Predictions)
Seattle Seahawks 13-3 (Last Season: 13-3)
Santa Clara 49ers 11-5 (Last Season: 12-4)
Arizona Cardinals 9-7 (Last Season: 10-6)
St. Louis Rams 6-10 (Last Season: 7-9)
Oh, boy..."the toughest division in football." Except the Rams lost their QB for the season, and Arizona and San Fran are both seeing their defenses (the strength of each team) lose players right-and-left. I think the Seahawks will come out on top again...of the division, the conference, and the League. But then, I'm a Big Fat Homer, so you probably shouldn't listen to me. I do think the Niners are going to look more like an 8-8 team than 11-5...I don't think Kaepernick is quite ready to go the way of Tony Romo, but there is something about coming up short in big games that can wear on a person's confidence. I don't know...Kaep's young and (I'd guess) hungry, but he had a lot of early success against some paper tigers: Washington, Houston after they imploded, Atlanta when they were 4-10 and out of playoff contention. And now that Harbaugh's defense is...what is going on with those guys? Ten arrests since the end of last season? I thought the Niners were all about being "above reproach?" Whatever...we'll see if their 1st string offense can score some points against a Cowboys defense sans Demarcus Ware (San Fran's first stringers scored exactly 6 points in four preseason games...that's ugly). Personally, I think the Cards have a chance to leapfrog the Niners for a wild card spot, even with the losses to their defense. But we'll see what happens.

*whew* Glad I got all THAT out of my system. At the end of the year, I'll try to (remember to) look back on these predictions and see how terribly wrong we all were as a Lovie Smith-coached Bucs team throttle their way to Tampa Bay's second Super Bowl victory over a rejuvenated Dolphins squad (hey...you never know!) and we'll all laugh (or cry) about it. At least, us football fans will. Until then, though...well, hopefully we'll have fun watching the games play out and the season unfold.

It's kind of like the joy one finds in long-term campaign play. I used to look forward to my Thursday night sessions the way I look forward to football Sunday (still would, if I was back in Seattle). Ah, well. At least here, I can watch the football on the computer screen (if not in person). Man...Thursday cannot come soon enough!

Go Seahawks!
: )

Smells like victory to me!

[just in case anyone cares, my prediction success was 62% during the regular season and 91% in the playoffs (where I missed on one game). You can take that to Vegas, my friends]