Some notes and goals for this next month, arranged by area of brain-space.
+Writing+
1. Finish one short story per week (what does this mean? first draft? finished product? we'll see.)
2. Kester's Monster (working title) - finish final revisions & rename it
3. Ammit & Co (short story cycle I wrote in Korea) - Assess, clean up and continue
4. Brainstorm for more stories. (I have a list already, which I will use and to which I will add).
5. Writing Exercises -
a. Transform weird news feed articles into short story seeds
b. Set aside a day or two now and again for Speed Writing (story, RPG, whatever)
c. Carry small notebook. Write observations.
+RPGs+
1. Monday Night Cogs via Skype - Finish up.
2. Occult Research Bureau via Posts - Start. Continue.
3. Other Games in Person (In a Wicked Age, Don't Rest Your Head, etc) - Play.
4. Engel s02 - Work out details
+Academic+
1. Continue looking at post-grad programs
2. Reflection on authors for personal study
3. Continue investigation of Literary Theory for personal study
+Career-wise+
1. Finish training for ESL job, start teaching.
2. Find another job. Quick.
+Health+
1. Exercising: running, toning, etc.
2. Eat healthy foods.
3. Avoid unhealthy foods.
+Read+
1. At least one book a week.
2. Not just speculative fiction.
+Internet and Computer+
1. *Dramatically* cut down time wasted. (Facebook reduction is just a start.)
2. Actually participate in those forums things I read. Do this while still paying attention to the above goal.
+Social+
1. Spend time with friends.
2. Make some new friends.
3. Be a better correspondent with people not present.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Review: Fiasco by Stanislaw Lem
I recently read Solaris by Polish science fiction master Stanislaw Lem. It, and the two movies that were based on it (directed by Steven Soderberg and Andrei Tarkovsky) are some of the best science fiction I've ever seen (or read). I highly recommend all of them: they are not the watered down Star Wars space opera, but hard sci fi at its very best: a dual commentary on science and religion in light of the limits of human knowledge.
Interested in reading more of Lem, I picked up Fiasco at the Chicago Public Library because it looked interesting. The plot, essentially, is that a star ship is sent from earth to a distant sun, where evidence of civilization has been detected. The mission is to make contact with the alien civilization and to exchange information with it, in a congenial neighborly sort of way.
Unfortunately, things don't go according to plan.
The POV character of the novel is, for the most part, a "dare-devil" pilot who is killed in the first chapter and then brought back from his cryogenic tomb four hundred or so years later. He has amnesia, and eventually takes to calling himself Mark Tempe, since he can't remember his real name.
The ship makes it to the planet, but complications arise. First, the aliens ("Quintans", since the planet is the fifth from its sun) don't seem to want contact nearly as much as the humans do. They've created a wall of radio static around the planet, which makes any attempts at communication difficult. Furthermore, in the area of space surrounding the planet they've established what may be a web of automatic defenses. Of course, since the Earth crew has no idea what the aliens are like, every single enigmatic facet of the solar system is an enigma that must be solved and interpreted, then (when more evidence becomes available) solved again and reinterpreted.
Eventually it becomes clear that there are at least two superpowers on the Quintan planet, who have been in continuous conflict with each other for many centuries. The war has been pushed off planet and into space, where it has also become essentially automated. Competing and intertwining defense grids now keep vigil beyond the atmosphere, while on the ground an uneasy ceasefire is maintained. Further attacks on the Terran ship and rebuffs of its attempts at contact frustrate the crew, who surmise that centuries of war and mistrust have left the two powers paranoid and unwilling to make contact. In their own defense, the crew decides to put on a show of power -- a show which may or may not lead to an interstellar war. I'm not saying.
Overall, I thought Fiasco was very intelligent, as well as being a fun read if you're into science fiction and speculation about contact with alien civilizations. Most of the book is spent attempting to figure out what is going on down on the planet, and what the Quintans are thinking -- as Mark says toward the end of the book, we make a model of the other person, which contains their own model of the situation, which we must answer with another model of a model, and so on ad infinitum. Making my own guesses about how the book would end was part of the whole fun.
The book isn't quite as good as Solaris, however; and part of the problem is that it isn't quite as timeless. Fiasco (as you will probably have guessed from the above synopses) was written during the Cold War. (Published in 1987). It's very much a child of that time, and so those particular themes didn't resonate with me quite so well as they would have back in the day. However, despite this, Lem's continuation of his pessimistic view of the chances of Contact with other races (as seen also in Solaris). I would recommend reading Solaris instead of this if you have to choose or are not otherwise a fan of science fiction, but if you read a lot of science fiction, and don't require the presence of space princesses or space pirates, this is good hard science fiction.
Interested in reading more of Lem, I picked up Fiasco at the Chicago Public Library because it looked interesting. The plot, essentially, is that a star ship is sent from earth to a distant sun, where evidence of civilization has been detected. The mission is to make contact with the alien civilization and to exchange information with it, in a congenial neighborly sort of way.
Unfortunately, things don't go according to plan.
The POV character of the novel is, for the most part, a "dare-devil" pilot who is killed in the first chapter and then brought back from his cryogenic tomb four hundred or so years later. He has amnesia, and eventually takes to calling himself Mark Tempe, since he can't remember his real name.
The ship makes it to the planet, but complications arise. First, the aliens ("Quintans", since the planet is the fifth from its sun) don't seem to want contact nearly as much as the humans do. They've created a wall of radio static around the planet, which makes any attempts at communication difficult. Furthermore, in the area of space surrounding the planet they've established what may be a web of automatic defenses. Of course, since the Earth crew has no idea what the aliens are like, every single enigmatic facet of the solar system is an enigma that must be solved and interpreted, then (when more evidence becomes available) solved again and reinterpreted.
Eventually it becomes clear that there are at least two superpowers on the Quintan planet, who have been in continuous conflict with each other for many centuries. The war has been pushed off planet and into space, where it has also become essentially automated. Competing and intertwining defense grids now keep vigil beyond the atmosphere, while on the ground an uneasy ceasefire is maintained. Further attacks on the Terran ship and rebuffs of its attempts at contact frustrate the crew, who surmise that centuries of war and mistrust have left the two powers paranoid and unwilling to make contact. In their own defense, the crew decides to put on a show of power -- a show which may or may not lead to an interstellar war. I'm not saying.
Overall, I thought Fiasco was very intelligent, as well as being a fun read if you're into science fiction and speculation about contact with alien civilizations. Most of the book is spent attempting to figure out what is going on down on the planet, and what the Quintans are thinking -- as Mark says toward the end of the book, we make a model of the other person, which contains their own model of the situation, which we must answer with another model of a model, and so on ad infinitum. Making my own guesses about how the book would end was part of the whole fun.
The book isn't quite as good as Solaris, however; and part of the problem is that it isn't quite as timeless. Fiasco (as you will probably have guessed from the above synopses) was written during the Cold War. (Published in 1987). It's very much a child of that time, and so those particular themes didn't resonate with me quite so well as they would have back in the day. However, despite this, Lem's continuation of his pessimistic view of the chances of Contact with other races (as seen also in Solaris). I would recommend reading Solaris instead of this if you have to choose or are not otherwise a fan of science fiction, but if you read a lot of science fiction, and don't require the presence of space princesses or space pirates, this is good hard science fiction.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Pop Quiz Time!
Who wrote the following passage?
"Physics...is a narrow path drawn across a gulf that the human imagination cannot grasp. It is a set of answers to certain questions that we put to the world, and the world supplies the answers on the condition that we will not then ask it other questions, questions shouted out by common sense. And common sense? It is that which is understood by an intelligence using senses no different from those of a baboon. Such an intelligence wishes to know the world in terms that apply to its terrestrial, biological niche. But the world--outside that niche, that incubator of sapient apes--has properties that one cannot take in hand, see, sniff, gnaw, listen to, and in this way appropriate."
Is it...?
a) C. S. Lewis
b) Stanislaw Lem
c) H. P. Lovecraft
d) Michael Crichton
"Physics...is a narrow path drawn across a gulf that the human imagination cannot grasp. It is a set of answers to certain questions that we put to the world, and the world supplies the answers on the condition that we will not then ask it other questions, questions shouted out by common sense. And common sense? It is that which is understood by an intelligence using senses no different from those of a baboon. Such an intelligence wishes to know the world in terms that apply to its terrestrial, biological niche. But the world--outside that niche, that incubator of sapient apes--has properties that one cannot take in hand, see, sniff, gnaw, listen to, and in this way appropriate."
Is it...?
a) C. S. Lewis
b) Stanislaw Lem
c) H. P. Lovecraft
d) Michael Crichton
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
Oh, it's on!
So, a while back a friend of mine wrote a facebook note about how he, as an atheist, has been discussing the bible with his family, and trying to show them alternate ways of viewing the bible (other than the fundamentalist literal infallible interpretation thing). I wrote a comment saying that I liked his post, and offering the literary objections to the literal interpretation business:
Well, time went by, and I almost forgot about the comment; but then yesterday I got an e-mail saying that someone else had posted a comment, and found that it was a response to mine:
It's been a while since I've engaged in an internet debate, but I thought I'd pick this one up and play with it for a bit. Here's my first response:
We'll see where it leads.
Being a lit major, I come at this question from a completely different angle than you do, I'm sure: when I'm talking to those of the more fundamentalist persuasion, I often mention that I object to a literal interpretation of Genesis (as well as several other books of the bible) not for scientific reasons, but for literary reasons. When we accept that the various books of the bible are not all written as History in the sense that we 21st Century Americans think of it, we can see that Truth doesn't always come to us in the form of historical narrative, or even in the form of non-fiction prose. (The Psalms are a good example of this.)
Often enough, it doesn't matter much to a Christian faith whether or not certain biblical stories were historically accurate in the sense that they actually occurred in reality: whether or not the book of Job is based on actual events, or the book of Esther actually occurred that way, doesn't matter to us nearly so much as what the stories they tell mean; the messages they convey. I would argue that the same is true of Genesis. Rather than being a scientific document or a historical document, it a creation myth; but to me, that makes it no less valuable a work, and no less indicative (to a Christian) of humankind's relationship with God.
Well, time went by, and I almost forgot about the comment; but then yesterday I got an e-mail saying that someone else had posted a comment, and found that it was a response to mine:
Michael,
If you'll allow me an analysis of your view...
If these stories are just stories, but their true value lies in the lessons we can adduce from them, what would those lessons be? For instance, what useful understanding can we glean from the creation stories in Genesis? What knowledge can we take home from the story of Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son at god's nod or from the command to kill those who break the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2)? It's fine to say they're allegories, but allegories to what? Surely nothing praiseworthy.
The apologist here will likely try to explain why the bible offers such seemingly inaccurate claims historically, morally, and scientifically, but the fact that they must do so, and that they can apparently do so with more clarity than the book itself, should lead somebody to conclude that the book is muddled and unnecessary, given that we have human reason with which to acquire actual understanding.
Additionally, one thing the bible has that other stories, such as Goldilocks or The Illiad do not, is several claims to the books literal and unchanging truth (these claims lead us into very murky waters, with 33% of the world taking the stories as the book instructs - literally). Again, perhaps it's an allegory, but if so, it's an allegory that could be usurped in clarity by virtually any man, woman, or child on this planet (and an allegory, if you're approach is correct, that has only been grasped by a handful of people - making it a very poor allegory indeed). Both god and humanity could easily do better.
It's been a while since I've engaged in an internet debate, but I thought I'd pick this one up and play with it for a bit. Here's my first response:
Thanks for the analysis. I'd be loathe to derail Jonathan's comment section, so we might need to take this elsewhere if it leads anywhere.
I find your frequent use of the word "Allegory" intriguing, because allegory is exactly the genre of literature that can be best deciphered in the sort of rational, logical way that you are talking about. In the symbolism of allegory, there is generally a one-for-one correspondence between the symbols and the things symbolized. In Bunyan, the character of Christian represents your average Christian, while the Slough of Despondency represents...being despondent. It's also exactly the sort of symbolism that myth doesn't do.
This is why I disagree so heartily with your statement that apologists can explain (well, you said the bible, but I was talking about Genesis so as to not step into other genres) with greater clarity than it can itself, and further, that because something is unclear or difficult to read that it is therefore unnecessary. "We have human reason with which to acquire actual understanding," you say. This makes my eyelid twitch. Are not myths (and stories in general) ways that human knowledge and understanding find expression? A prominent fantasy author once wrote an essay entitled "Sometimes Fairy Stories May Say Best What's to be Said." Another author once wrote, "[Aspiring authors trained in over-rational interpretation] still do not realize that a symbol is not a sign of something known, but an indicator of something not known and not expressible otherwise than symbolically. They mistake symbol (living meaning) for allegory (dead equivalence)." This is, in fact, why some people write fiction instead of nonfiction in the first place, and why many authors, asked what their works are about, will often say that they want the piece to speak for itself.
Now, it's possible that you're trying to say that given the traditional Christian view of God and his authorship of the books of the bible, it would have been more effective to communicate what he wanted through other means: actual historical and scientific treatises, perhaps, or at least a point-by-point credo and/or list of rules and regulations. Well that would open an entirely different can of worms, and I'd say if we want to continue we should probably find somewheres other than Jonathan's comments to do it. The space limits here are a bit constraining, anyway. If you want, I can send you a friend invitation and we can work something out.
We'll see where it leads.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Review: The X-Files opening titles.
I've started watching the X-Files recently, and am enjoying the first season. This was prompted by hearing about the new movie coming out, and figuring if the movie was good it might make up for what I've heard the last couple seasons were, I decided to go back and start the series.
Well, apparently the new movie isn't all that great; but I'm enjoying the series for now, so I'll keep watching for a while.
However, after four episodes, I can't keep silent about the opening titles.
They are atrocious.
First of all, the music. I'm sure the wavy synth was creepy back in the early nineties, but now it just sounds *cute*. And you don't want people subconsciously associating your paranormal thriller show with *cute*. Then there are the images. The first series of still images with a hazy UFO in the sky -- that's great, that's fine. The second, of some anonymous person drawing...something...okay, that's mysterious at least. Then we have an electro-globe. Not scary or mysterious. Sure, back in the sixties movie mad-scientists always had them in their labs, but nowadays they're about as creepy as a lava lamp. Then comes a twisty head of a guy opening his mouth, ostensibly in anguish, except you just *know* that it's the janitor of the studio where they put together the titles. "This could be my big break!" and all that. Next we have what appears to be a mirror image of a seed sprouting, superimposed by the words "Paranormal Activity." Seeds sprouting are about as paranormal as *wet rain*. Wait, I get it -- maybe the plant itself is paranormal?
In any case, the font they use for the words Paranormal Activity, along with the shadow beneath and the way the words fade into the picture...it all screams "Power Point Presentation." And that's it really -- this whole opening sequence is like a bad power-point presentation, and one that doesn't have a coherent structure to it.
Immediately following the paranormal seed, we get a zoom in on Mulder's badge with (in a new font) "Starting David Duchovny". That's all fine, I guess. But the next shot is a...blue...something...with a person's shadow, and the words "Government denies knowledge". The image isn't even interesting, let alone creepy or mysterious, and the words...well, I mean, I don't get where the words are supposed to be coming from, you know? If they were cut out from a newspaper, that would be something. But these words are just floating there. They're outside the fiction, like "The show, a new genre unto itself, would be called..." Except they seem to fit *in* the fiction. The effect is rather odd.
Then we get Scully's badge, which, fine. Whatever. But then comes the best/worst part of the opening sequence. It's a darkened room. Maybe a warehouse or something. Except, it's all foggy and misty. And there's agents Mulder and Scully; Scully's got a flashlight out, and Mulder's drawn his gun, and they're both looking concerned and intense. And we zoom in on their faces, except we don't just *zoom in* on their faces, we zoom in increments, so the effect is like four still camera shots, each a little closer than the last. Like the first part of the sequence, with the flying saucer. Then, we fade to white. I don't think that my description here can properly convey how cheesy this shot is. But trust me, it's way on over the top. Because they look so darn serious, and the cute widdle warbly music is playing in the background, and the standard screen composition of the shot, and the 90s television film quality....one simply cannot help but love this part.
So, then we have a falling white misshapen silhouette, which tumbles into the neon-blue outline of a handprint, er, except that one of the sections of the pointer finger is red instead of blue. Despite looking like a flash animation, this title is actually somewhat intriguing. Is the blue/red hand supposed to be infrared? I'm sad that the white silhouette is falling.
Then, in quick succession, we have an eye blinking and then a stock time-lapse shot of clouds rushing past. These images are at least mysterious; as in, it's a mystery what the people who put this sequence together were *thinking*. Okay, the clouds at least get explained: there's a flash of lightning, and the words "The Truth is Out There" appear on the screen, in the same thin sans-serif font (which is so boring as to be effectively an absence of font) that they used in the titles for Silence of the Lambs (if you don't remember it, that's okay -- I only remember it because I was surprised at how unremarkable it was the first time I saw the film). So, the wide expanse that the clouds are rushing past is supposed to reinforce the idea that the Truth (of which the Government is perhaps denying knowledge, probably about Paranormal Activity of some sort) is "Out There". This doesn't explain the blinking eye -- unless it's Chris Carter's eye, since the "Created by Chris Carter" title appears alongside the blinging eye.
You know what they could have done? Maybe, after the the teaser, they could have had the words "The X-Files" sort of angle their way towards the camera, while this weird sound plays, half growl and half howl. Then cut right to the show, and give us the "Starring" and the "Created by" as titles at the bottom of the screen during the real show.
Or maybe they could have had images of Mulder and Scully wandering around on their journeys, while some Hindu chant plays, and they could overlay (in the same font each time, mind), "Two Federal Agents. Searching for The Truth. On Earth." and then halfway through the titles the music gets all dramatic, and shots from later in the episode are played. Oh, and I forgot! At the beginning it goes, "The conspiracies were created by the government. They keep the aliens secret. There are many layers. And they have a plan!"
Well, apparently the new movie isn't all that great; but I'm enjoying the series for now, so I'll keep watching for a while.
However, after four episodes, I can't keep silent about the opening titles.
They are atrocious.
First of all, the music. I'm sure the wavy synth was creepy back in the early nineties, but now it just sounds *cute*. And you don't want people subconsciously associating your paranormal thriller show with *cute*. Then there are the images. The first series of still images with a hazy UFO in the sky -- that's great, that's fine. The second, of some anonymous person drawing...something...okay, that's mysterious at least. Then we have an electro-globe. Not scary or mysterious. Sure, back in the sixties movie mad-scientists always had them in their labs, but nowadays they're about as creepy as a lava lamp. Then comes a twisty head of a guy opening his mouth, ostensibly in anguish, except you just *know* that it's the janitor of the studio where they put together the titles. "This could be my big break!" and all that. Next we have what appears to be a mirror image of a seed sprouting, superimposed by the words "Paranormal Activity." Seeds sprouting are about as paranormal as *wet rain*. Wait, I get it -- maybe the plant itself is paranormal?
In any case, the font they use for the words Paranormal Activity, along with the shadow beneath and the way the words fade into the picture...it all screams "Power Point Presentation." And that's it really -- this whole opening sequence is like a bad power-point presentation, and one that doesn't have a coherent structure to it.
Immediately following the paranormal seed, we get a zoom in on Mulder's badge with (in a new font) "Starting David Duchovny". That's all fine, I guess. But the next shot is a...blue...something...with a person's shadow, and the words "Government denies knowledge". The image isn't even interesting, let alone creepy or mysterious, and the words...well, I mean, I don't get where the words are supposed to be coming from, you know? If they were cut out from a newspaper, that would be something. But these words are just floating there. They're outside the fiction, like "The show, a new genre unto itself, would be called..." Except they seem to fit *in* the fiction. The effect is rather odd.
Then we get Scully's badge, which, fine. Whatever. But then comes the best/worst part of the opening sequence. It's a darkened room. Maybe a warehouse or something. Except, it's all foggy and misty. And there's agents Mulder and Scully; Scully's got a flashlight out, and Mulder's drawn his gun, and they're both looking concerned and intense. And we zoom in on their faces, except we don't just *zoom in* on their faces, we zoom in increments, so the effect is like four still camera shots, each a little closer than the last. Like the first part of the sequence, with the flying saucer. Then, we fade to white. I don't think that my description here can properly convey how cheesy this shot is. But trust me, it's way on over the top. Because they look so darn serious, and the cute widdle warbly music is playing in the background, and the standard screen composition of the shot, and the 90s television film quality....one simply cannot help but love this part.
So, then we have a falling white misshapen silhouette, which tumbles into the neon-blue outline of a handprint, er, except that one of the sections of the pointer finger is red instead of blue. Despite looking like a flash animation, this title is actually somewhat intriguing. Is the blue/red hand supposed to be infrared? I'm sad that the white silhouette is falling.
Then, in quick succession, we have an eye blinking and then a stock time-lapse shot of clouds rushing past. These images are at least mysterious; as in, it's a mystery what the people who put this sequence together were *thinking*. Okay, the clouds at least get explained: there's a flash of lightning, and the words "The Truth is Out There" appear on the screen, in the same thin sans-serif font (which is so boring as to be effectively an absence of font) that they used in the titles for Silence of the Lambs (if you don't remember it, that's okay -- I only remember it because I was surprised at how unremarkable it was the first time I saw the film). So, the wide expanse that the clouds are rushing past is supposed to reinforce the idea that the Truth (of which the Government is perhaps denying knowledge, probably about Paranormal Activity of some sort) is "Out There". This doesn't explain the blinking eye -- unless it's Chris Carter's eye, since the "Created by Chris Carter" title appears alongside the blinging eye.
You know what they could have done? Maybe, after the the teaser, they could have had the words "The X-Files" sort of angle their way towards the camera, while this weird sound plays, half growl and half howl. Then cut right to the show, and give us the "Starring" and the "Created by" as titles at the bottom of the screen during the real show.
Or maybe they could have had images of Mulder and Scully wandering around on their journeys, while some Hindu chant plays, and they could overlay (in the same font each time, mind), "Two Federal Agents. Searching for The Truth. On Earth." and then halfway through the titles the music gets all dramatic, and shots from later in the episode are played. Oh, and I forgot! At the beginning it goes, "The conspiracies were created by the government. They keep the aliens secret. There are many layers. And they have a plan!"
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Michael's Guide to Comic Books that I Have Liked, Part One
So, in the interest of proving that there is more to my life than reviewing Dungeons and Dragons (keen-eyed readers will note that *of course* there is more to my life than Dungeons and Dragons: just look how long it took me to read the darn book), I am introducing a periodic series here for the blog. A number of you have recently asked me about graphic novels and comic books; and which ones are good to read and so forth. So, every so often I'll highlight a good comic book that I enjoyed, and tell you a bit about it.
First up is "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud. I'm highlighting this first, because if you're going to read comic books it helps to be literate within the context of the medium. And Scott's book can help you with that. He's written a couple more books along this like, "Reinventing Comics" and "Making Comics", but 'Understanding Comics" is the bedrock, and I recommend it highly. It gives you the lowdown on the form and theory of comic books. Check it out.
First up is "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud. I'm highlighting this first, because if you're going to read comic books it helps to be literate within the context of the medium. And Scott's book can help you with that. He's written a couple more books along this like, "Reinventing Comics" and "Making Comics", but 'Understanding Comics" is the bedrock, and I recommend it highly. It gives you the lowdown on the form and theory of comic books. Check it out.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
I was reading a collection of essays by Ursula K. Leguin the other day, and found this quote, which I liked a lot:
"In many college English courses the words 'myth' and 'symbol' are given a tremendous charge of significance. You just ain't no good unless you can see a symbol hiding, like a scared gerbil, under every page. And in many creative writing courses the little beasts multiply, the place swarms with them. What does this Mean? What does that Symbolize? What is the Underlying Mythos? Kids come lurching out of such courses with a brain full of gerbils. And they sit down and write a lot of empty pomposity, under the impression that that's how Melville did it.
"Even when they begin to realize that art is not something produced for critics, but for other human beings, some of them retain the overintellectualizing bent. They still do not realize that a symbol is not a sign of something known, but an indicator of something not known and not expressible otherwise than symbolically. They mistake symbol (living meaning) for allegory (dead equivalence)."
"In many college English courses the words 'myth' and 'symbol' are given a tremendous charge of significance. You just ain't no good unless you can see a symbol hiding, like a scared gerbil, under every page. And in many creative writing courses the little beasts multiply, the place swarms with them. What does this Mean? What does that Symbolize? What is the Underlying Mythos? Kids come lurching out of such courses with a brain full of gerbils. And they sit down and write a lot of empty pomposity, under the impression that that's how Melville did it.
"Even when they begin to realize that art is not something produced for critics, but for other human beings, some of them retain the overintellectualizing bent. They still do not realize that a symbol is not a sign of something known, but an indicator of something not known and not expressible otherwise than symbolically. They mistake symbol (living meaning) for allegory (dead equivalence)."
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Review: D&D 4e Pt 10 - DMG 3-4 - "Combat Encounters", "Building Encounters"
Book Two: Dungeon Master's Guide
Part the Third: Combat Encounters
1. When I saw all the additional rules in this section, I got worried; but mostly they're just good guidelines. In fact, the sense of the section is that they're here only if you really need them, and not as hard and fast rules of the land. Rules lawyers may disagree, but for me, I think if a situation from here came up and no one at the table knew the rule off hand, I wouldn't feel bad about improvising on the spot. The cool thing about these rules is that an improvisation probably wouldn't be too far off -- they're pretty common sense.
2. The disease and poison rules are always fun things to have in the DMG. I love all of the made-up diseases they list off, like Mummy Rot and Slimy Doom. (Both were in earlier versions of D&D, but I still like them, even though as of yet I haven't found a place for them in my campaigns.)
Part the Fourth: Building Encounters
1. Just as the roles for party members is handy when creating the player characters, so too the Monster Roles is going to be helpful in making encounters. I can't wait to get to the Monster Manual! That's always my favorite part of D&D anyway.
2. There's a big change here from the way encounters were constructed in 3.5. "CR" stats are gone, and the sliding scale of XP is also gone, and that's probably a good thing. Now monsters give a set amount of XP. Creating an encounter is as easy as taking the average monster XP for the characters' level, multiplying it by the number of characters, and then filling in threats until you have an amount of XP to match.
3. And Encounter Templates make it even easier! They give example scenarios, and you just plug in monsters of the appropriate level and role. Ka-pow! Mischief managed.
Same with traps, minions, and bosses.
4. One of the things I'm actually excited about for this version of D&D is the battle grid. Why is this the case, when back in 3.5 I never, ever used a grid (and probably missed out because of it, really -- 3.5 probably would have been a greatly improved experience for me if I had, in retrospect). But with 3.5 the problem was that the rules were really trying to do everything: in 4e they've narrowed the focus down, and encounters just make a lot of sense with a battle grid. That's why sections like "Encounter Settings" get me excited about running the game.
Part the Third: Combat Encounters
1. When I saw all the additional rules in this section, I got worried; but mostly they're just good guidelines. In fact, the sense of the section is that they're here only if you really need them, and not as hard and fast rules of the land. Rules lawyers may disagree, but for me, I think if a situation from here came up and no one at the table knew the rule off hand, I wouldn't feel bad about improvising on the spot. The cool thing about these rules is that an improvisation probably wouldn't be too far off -- they're pretty common sense.
2. The disease and poison rules are always fun things to have in the DMG. I love all of the made-up diseases they list off, like Mummy Rot and Slimy Doom. (Both were in earlier versions of D&D, but I still like them, even though as of yet I haven't found a place for them in my campaigns.)
Part the Fourth: Building Encounters
1. Just as the roles for party members is handy when creating the player characters, so too the Monster Roles is going to be helpful in making encounters. I can't wait to get to the Monster Manual! That's always my favorite part of D&D anyway.
2. There's a big change here from the way encounters were constructed in 3.5. "CR" stats are gone, and the sliding scale of XP is also gone, and that's probably a good thing. Now monsters give a set amount of XP. Creating an encounter is as easy as taking the average monster XP for the characters' level, multiplying it by the number of characters, and then filling in threats until you have an amount of XP to match.
3. And Encounter Templates make it even easier! They give example scenarios, and you just plug in monsters of the appropriate level and role. Ka-pow! Mischief managed.
Same with traps, minions, and bosses.
4. One of the things I'm actually excited about for this version of D&D is the battle grid. Why is this the case, when back in 3.5 I never, ever used a grid (and probably missed out because of it, really -- 3.5 probably would have been a greatly improved experience for me if I had, in retrospect). But with 3.5 the problem was that the rules were really trying to do everything: in 4e they've narrowed the focus down, and encounters just make a lot of sense with a battle grid. That's why sections like "Encounter Settings" get me excited about running the game.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Review: D&D 4e Pt 9 - DMG 2 - "Running the Game"
Book Two: Dungeon Master's Guide
Part the Second: Running the Game
1. I'd heard before about the "Preparation Guide", which is the first part of this section. It gives you tips on how to prepare for a game if you have Four hours, Three, Two, One or No Time to prepare for your game. I thought it sounded great! I often go into games with little time to prepare, and having tips for when I don't have a lot of time sounded pretty sweet.
But the preparation guide assumes that, unless you have four or more hours, you'll be using a published adventure. True, it gives you a short side-bar about "If you don't want to use a published adventure...", but doesn't tell you how that changes based on preparation time - just that you should choose a dungeon map, and use the sample encounter groups from the MM. Sometime I should explain how much better my adventures are when they aren't published. (Although we did have an awful lot of fun with the Iron Kingdoms' published adventures a while back.)
2. Most of this chapter is for beginners, but it is good advice for the most part. The GM/Player relationship is a wee bit conventional for my taste, but things like Delegation and the afore-mentioned ability for players to suggest Quests does help out.
3. The Information Imperative is wonderful: Essentially, it states that if the characters need a piece of information for the adventure to continue, the DM should not hide it behind a skill roll or otherwise make it possible for them to not acquire the information.
4. Passive skill checks are cool, but a lot of paperwork for the DM.
5. The section on Improvising -- pure gold! From "Saying Yes" to the "Tips from the Pros" sidebar in which the writer learns that letting players have authority can be cool, this is one of the best parts of the book so far.
6. The troubleshooting section reads like a condensed version of the best advice one sees on the rpg.net forums for problem groups. Good stuff here.
Part the Second: Running the Game
1. I'd heard before about the "Preparation Guide", which is the first part of this section. It gives you tips on how to prepare for a game if you have Four hours, Three, Two, One or No Time to prepare for your game. I thought it sounded great! I often go into games with little time to prepare, and having tips for when I don't have a lot of time sounded pretty sweet.
But the preparation guide assumes that, unless you have four or more hours, you'll be using a published adventure. True, it gives you a short side-bar about "If you don't want to use a published adventure...", but doesn't tell you how that changes based on preparation time - just that you should choose a dungeon map, and use the sample encounter groups from the MM. Sometime I should explain how much better my adventures are when they aren't published. (Although we did have an awful lot of fun with the Iron Kingdoms' published adventures a while back.)
2. Most of this chapter is for beginners, but it is good advice for the most part. The GM/Player relationship is a wee bit conventional for my taste, but things like Delegation and the afore-mentioned ability for players to suggest Quests does help out.
3. The Information Imperative is wonderful: Essentially, it states that if the characters need a piece of information for the adventure to continue, the DM should not hide it behind a skill roll or otherwise make it possible for them to not acquire the information.
4. Passive skill checks are cool, but a lot of paperwork for the DM.
5. The section on Improvising -- pure gold! From "Saying Yes" to the "Tips from the Pros" sidebar in which the writer learns that letting players have authority can be cool, this is one of the best parts of the book so far.
6. The troubleshooting section reads like a condensed version of the best advice one sees on the rpg.net forums for problem groups. Good stuff here.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Matrix is Unrealistic
Talking with Sam yesterday, I realized that, despite all the realism that went into making the movie "The Matrix", there was one detail about the movie that breaks my otherwise intact suspension of disbelief.
No, it's not the sequels: it's the character names. Let's take the three main characters. Neo, Morpheus, and Trinity. What's wrong with this picture?
That's right: they're all supposed to be the world's greatest hackers. But none of them utilize leet-speak in their names! Come on, movie! Who do you think you're fooling? The proper names for the three main characters are:
n30
m0r4h3u5
and
7r1n17y
See? Just a little adjustment like that, and the whole movie becomes a startlingly believable tale of a man kung-fu-fighting AI programs in his head while flying in some sort of hovering submarine thing being chased by killer squid-robots.
The same thing goes for the conversation on N30's computer early in the film:
"w4k3 up, n30."
"w7f! wh0 4r3 y0u?"
"t3h m47r1x pwn5 y0u, n00b!"
"0h n035!"
"f0110w t3h wh173 r4bb17, kk?"
"101 wu7?"
"kn0(k kn0(k, n30."
Man, they could've really made something with the concept, if they'd just taken the time to get it right. Sad, really.
No, it's not the sequels: it's the character names. Let's take the three main characters. Neo, Morpheus, and Trinity. What's wrong with this picture?
That's right: they're all supposed to be the world's greatest hackers. But none of them utilize leet-speak in their names! Come on, movie! Who do you think you're fooling? The proper names for the three main characters are:
n30
m0r4h3u5
and
7r1n17y
See? Just a little adjustment like that, and the whole movie becomes a startlingly believable tale of a man kung-fu-fighting AI programs in his head while flying in some sort of hovering submarine thing being chased by killer squid-robots.
The same thing goes for the conversation on N30's computer early in the film:
"w4k3 up, n30."
"w7f! wh0 4r3 y0u?"
"t3h m47r1x pwn5 y0u, n00b!"
"0h n035!"
"f0110w t3h wh173 r4bb17, kk?"
"101 wu7?"
"kn0(k kn0(k, n30."
Man, they could've really made something with the concept, if they'd just taken the time to get it right. Sad, really.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
The Politics Test
Sources for scores for Obama and McCain:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Review: D&D 4e Pt 8 - DMG 1 - "How to be a DM"
Book Two: Dungeon Master's Guide
Part the First: "How to be a DM"
1. There's a list of Player Types, how to engage them, and potential trouble spots to watch out for. This will be of help to players not all that familiar with Gamer culture, and it might be a helpful reminder to people who have been playing the game for a while. The "Types" are rather stereotypical, but I suppose they may be for a reason.
2. The next section covers how you can fill in gaps if you're missing certain character roles in your party. I should have mentioned this earlier, but making Healing part of the Leader role was a very good idea, and I'm glad they did it -- few people play this game so they can go around healing their buddies; but it's an important character to have in a group.
3. The "Kinds of Games" section lists various styles of play, and the advantages and disadvantages of each. For example, "One DM" vs. rotating DMs, Ongoing vs. One-shot, etc. I think it's a good summary, and helpful for beginners; as is the Table Rules section that comes next.
Part the First: "How to be a DM"
1. There's a list of Player Types, how to engage them, and potential trouble spots to watch out for. This will be of help to players not all that familiar with Gamer culture, and it might be a helpful reminder to people who have been playing the game for a while. The "Types" are rather stereotypical, but I suppose they may be for a reason.
2. The next section covers how you can fill in gaps if you're missing certain character roles in your party. I should have mentioned this earlier, but making Healing part of the Leader role was a very good idea, and I'm glad they did it -- few people play this game so they can go around healing their buddies; but it's an important character to have in a group.
3. The "Kinds of Games" section lists various styles of play, and the advantages and disadvantages of each. For example, "One DM" vs. rotating DMs, Ongoing vs. One-shot, etc. I think it's a good summary, and helpful for beginners; as is the Table Rules section that comes next.
Review: Dungeons and Dragons 4e (Part Seven)
Book One: Player's Handbook
Part the Last: Rituals
Some of you are probably quite sick of all this nerdy stuff by now. No fear! We're finished with the first book as of the end of this post, and then we only have *two more books* to talk about: the Dungeon Master's Guide and the Monster Manual.
Thus far, as I was telling Jonathan last night, my impression is that a lot of the changes in 4e are steps in the right direction, but that they probably don't step quite far enough to get me to play the game regularly. Still, it's early to tell for certain; much will depend on the DMG (and not much will depend on the Monster Manual, but I like creature catalogs anyway -- they're fun).
Okay, so Rituals.
Rituals are essentially spells that take a little time to perform, and that are always read off of a scroll or out of a book. "Spells" in traditional sense are now mostly offensive or combat-based. Most of the magical effects that aren't specifically combat-oriented are now Rituals.
This makes sense for a couple reasons. The first is, as all the classes now have their own at-will, encounter, and daily powers that work mechanically like spells do, and since all those powers are combat based, it makes sense to let the magic-users focus on spells that will be useful in combat as well. This is very much borrow from MMOGs.
Secondly, in previous editions of D&D, where all the non-combat spells existed side by side with combat spells, choosing a spell like "Knock", which unlocks doors, meant that you couldn't choose something like "Magic Missile", which kills things. Which meant that hardly anyone bothered with Knock.
Rituals are a fairly elegant fix to both of those problems, and in addition it appears (at first reading) that they are not limited to magic-using characters. As long as you train a Ritual skill, you can use them.
As Will pointed out the other evening, the fact that Rituals take some time to complete also means that they can provide some tension, with several characters having to fend off attacking beasties as the other characters try to finish up the ceremony. Cool.
...And that pretty much wraps up the PHB. Next up we'll start on the Dungeon Master's Guide, which is of great importance to me, since 90% of the time I'm the one running the game anyway.
Part the Last: Rituals
Some of you are probably quite sick of all this nerdy stuff by now. No fear! We're finished with the first book as of the end of this post, and then we only have *two more books* to talk about: the Dungeon Master's Guide and the Monster Manual.
Thus far, as I was telling Jonathan last night, my impression is that a lot of the changes in 4e are steps in the right direction, but that they probably don't step quite far enough to get me to play the game regularly. Still, it's early to tell for certain; much will depend on the DMG (and not much will depend on the Monster Manual, but I like creature catalogs anyway -- they're fun).
Okay, so Rituals.
Rituals are essentially spells that take a little time to perform, and that are always read off of a scroll or out of a book. "Spells" in traditional sense are now mostly offensive or combat-based. Most of the magical effects that aren't specifically combat-oriented are now Rituals.
This makes sense for a couple reasons. The first is, as all the classes now have their own at-will, encounter, and daily powers that work mechanically like spells do, and since all those powers are combat based, it makes sense to let the magic-users focus on spells that will be useful in combat as well. This is very much borrow from MMOGs.
Secondly, in previous editions of D&D, where all the non-combat spells existed side by side with combat spells, choosing a spell like "Knock", which unlocks doors, meant that you couldn't choose something like "Magic Missile", which kills things. Which meant that hardly anyone bothered with Knock.
Rituals are a fairly elegant fix to both of those problems, and in addition it appears (at first reading) that they are not limited to magic-using characters. As long as you train a Ritual skill, you can use them.
As Will pointed out the other evening, the fact that Rituals take some time to complete also means that they can provide some tension, with several characters having to fend off attacking beasties as the other characters try to finish up the ceremony. Cool.
...And that pretty much wraps up the PHB. Next up we'll start on the Dungeon Master's Guide, which is of great importance to me, since 90% of the time I'm the one running the game anyway.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Review: Dungeons and Dragons 4e (Part Six)
Book One: Player's Handbook
Part The Eighth: Adventuring
1. Before we get into adventuring, I should point out something about Skills that missed on the first read-through: Skills no longer have a numerical value. You're either trained in a skill, or not. That simplifies things a *lot*, but it's also going to effect the game quite a bit in ways that won't be obvious until we play it.
2. At last, on page 256, we get to the rules about playing the actual game. Fourth Edition DnD has a focus on Quests that goes beyond older versions of the game, and probably stems (again) from MMOs. Regardless, Quests in a tabletop RPG can be a lot more flexible than Quests in World of Warcraft, as can the definition of "completing" them. The rules also allow for players to create their own quests, which obviously a computer game can't allow. As much as I have mixed feelings about the amount to which 4e follows MMOs, its strengths lie in the places where it makes itself recognizable to the MMO crowd, but then uses that to focus on the things it can do that MMOs cannot. That's what we see here in the Quests.
3. Action Points are something new to this edition. You get them for reaching "milestones", which apparently means that you survive two encounters in a row without taking an extended rest in between. You can use them to take an extra action on your turn, or to activate certain feats, or to use certain other powers. They also seem like a great place to house-rule; I can think of a dozen other uses that one could implement to change the atmosphere of the game. (And another dozen ways they could be rewarded, too -- this Milestones concept is a bit odd.)
4. The rules for travel times, light and vision, and rest are all fine, and don't really merit mention. The light and vision section makes me look forward to reading the DMG,'cause I'll be interested in the advice they give about dungeon making.
Part The Ninth: Combat
1. This section is the heart and soul of Dungeons and Dragons. It will be another make-or-break point for me; if combat feels like the equivalent of filling out my tax form, I will lose interest after the first couple rounds, and probably never play 4e except out of social politeness again. I'm also interested to see what they've done with the rules for grappling, which was something in 3e that everyone hated. I've had many players in 3e games go way out of their way just to avoid initiating a grapple check.
2. Minis are a must. The 4e rules assume that you use them, and the mechanics make abstraction difficult. There's a lot wailing about this from the internet; I don't think it really matters all that much to me; I don't think requiring visualization is necessarily a bad thing. Certainly it might make the game more difficult for a beginner, but at the moment the minis market is larger than the RPG market, and WoW of course beats D&D on visuals already. It isn't impossible to play without visualization, but it would be difficult. It is what it is, at least, and i don't fault it for it. Too many of my abstracted battles in 3e just became pounding-on-each-other contests, anyway. Also, it's not like you have to have Wizards of the Coast Official Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures to play -- use coins, use dice, use whatever.
3. Initiative is only rolled at the beginning of the encounter, not every round. I can't remember which way was in the 3e rules -- I've played it both ways before, and they both have advantages and disadvantages. This way means less rolling; the other way means that turn order strategies must be more fluid.
4. Attacks of opportunity, which I am notorious for forgetting about, still exist.
5. Of course, the proof of these rules will be in the pudding, that is, the playing. When will *that* take place? ....I'm trying to work that out. :) Soonish.
6. Grappling looks a lot easier. Thank the gods. Make a STR attack vs REF. If you hit, the enemy is immobilized until it escapes or you end the grab. While grabbing someone, you can move them with a strength vs fortitude roll. If you're grabbed on your turn, you can escape by making a successful Acrobatics check vs. Ref or Athletics vs. Fortitude.
7. Shifting (a move action where you simply move one adjacent square) does not allow for an attack of opportunity. That's pretty damn useful. Also, when you escape from a grab, you can shift as a free action.
Next Up: Rituals - What the heck are those??
Part The Eighth: Adventuring
1. Before we get into adventuring, I should point out something about Skills that missed on the first read-through: Skills no longer have a numerical value. You're either trained in a skill, or not. That simplifies things a *lot*, but it's also going to effect the game quite a bit in ways that won't be obvious until we play it.
2. At last, on page 256, we get to the rules about playing the actual game. Fourth Edition DnD has a focus on Quests that goes beyond older versions of the game, and probably stems (again) from MMOs. Regardless, Quests in a tabletop RPG can be a lot more flexible than Quests in World of Warcraft, as can the definition of "completing" them. The rules also allow for players to create their own quests, which obviously a computer game can't allow. As much as I have mixed feelings about the amount to which 4e follows MMOs, its strengths lie in the places where it makes itself recognizable to the MMO crowd, but then uses that to focus on the things it can do that MMOs cannot. That's what we see here in the Quests.
3. Action Points are something new to this edition. You get them for reaching "milestones", which apparently means that you survive two encounters in a row without taking an extended rest in between. You can use them to take an extra action on your turn, or to activate certain feats, or to use certain other powers. They also seem like a great place to house-rule; I can think of a dozen other uses that one could implement to change the atmosphere of the game. (And another dozen ways they could be rewarded, too -- this Milestones concept is a bit odd.)
4. The rules for travel times, light and vision, and rest are all fine, and don't really merit mention. The light and vision section makes me look forward to reading the DMG,'cause I'll be interested in the advice they give about dungeon making.
Part The Ninth: Combat
1. This section is the heart and soul of Dungeons and Dragons. It will be another make-or-break point for me; if combat feels like the equivalent of filling out my tax form, I will lose interest after the first couple rounds, and probably never play 4e except out of social politeness again. I'm also interested to see what they've done with the rules for grappling, which was something in 3e that everyone hated. I've had many players in 3e games go way out of their way just to avoid initiating a grapple check.
2. Minis are a must. The 4e rules assume that you use them, and the mechanics make abstraction difficult. There's a lot wailing about this from the internet; I don't think it really matters all that much to me; I don't think requiring visualization is necessarily a bad thing. Certainly it might make the game more difficult for a beginner, but at the moment the minis market is larger than the RPG market, and WoW of course beats D&D on visuals already. It isn't impossible to play without visualization, but it would be difficult. It is what it is, at least, and i don't fault it for it. Too many of my abstracted battles in 3e just became pounding-on-each-other contests, anyway. Also, it's not like you have to have Wizards of the Coast Official Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures to play -- use coins, use dice, use whatever.
3. Initiative is only rolled at the beginning of the encounter, not every round. I can't remember which way was in the 3e rules -- I've played it both ways before, and they both have advantages and disadvantages. This way means less rolling; the other way means that turn order strategies must be more fluid.
4. Attacks of opportunity, which I am notorious for forgetting about, still exist.
5. Of course, the proof of these rules will be in the pudding, that is, the playing. When will *that* take place? ....I'm trying to work that out. :) Soonish.
6. Grappling looks a lot easier. Thank the gods. Make a STR attack vs REF. If you hit, the enemy is immobilized until it escapes or you end the grab. While grabbing someone, you can move them with a strength vs fortitude roll. If you're grabbed on your turn, you can escape by making a successful Acrobatics check vs. Ref or Athletics vs. Fortitude.
7. Shifting (a move action where you simply move one adjacent square) does not allow for an attack of opportunity. That's pretty damn useful. Also, when you escape from a grab, you can shift as a free action.
Next Up: Rituals - What the heck are those??
Review: Dungeons and Dragons 4e (Part Five)
Book One: Player's Handbook
Part the Sixth: Feats
1. Okay. I'm really not going to have much to say about Feats, because there're still a lot of them, and they're in a list that I'm not going to read just now. Plus, knowing whether or not their implementation has improved will depend a lot on how they are played in the game (and not on how they look on the sheet). So a quick read-through of the game isn't going to answer that question for me. As Will pointed out to me earlier, the game has spent an enormous amount of effort on standardization. That's a good thing, and will no doubt go a ways toward helping me out.
2. The other thing that I absolutely have to talk about is Multiclassing, which in 4e is completely tied in to Feats. By taking Multiclass feats, you are able to integrate the abilities of another class with your own class. You are, however, limited to one extra class at most: No Wizard/Warlord/Rogue/Barbarian/Druid hybrids here. (Although you could probably use Retraining to switch out if it came to it -- I'll have to check on that.)
Basically, you spend one feat to get a Multiclass, which usually comes with some small bonus or ability. Then you can use Multiclass Swap feats, which allow you to give up the ability you would get at this level for the ability you would get at this level from your secondary class. Any time you gain a level, you can choose that level's class power to swap, reversing your previous swap. You can buy another swap at level 8 and another at level 10.
If you buy all three multiclass swaps, at level 11 you can choose to continue to train in your multiclassing rather than take a Paragon Path. In 3e terms, this would basically mean that you were creating your prestige class incorporating the powers of two of the basic classes. It's a pretty elegant solution, I think, if you really feel it necessary to have classes in the first place.
Part the Seventh: Equipment
I'm skipping the Equipment chapter, since it's a long list of the Equipment you can buy.
Which means next up is Adventuring.
Part the Sixth: Feats
1. Okay. I'm really not going to have much to say about Feats, because there're still a lot of them, and they're in a list that I'm not going to read just now. Plus, knowing whether or not their implementation has improved will depend a lot on how they are played in the game (and not on how they look on the sheet). So a quick read-through of the game isn't going to answer that question for me. As Will pointed out to me earlier, the game has spent an enormous amount of effort on standardization. That's a good thing, and will no doubt go a ways toward helping me out.
2. The other thing that I absolutely have to talk about is Multiclassing, which in 4e is completely tied in to Feats. By taking Multiclass feats, you are able to integrate the abilities of another class with your own class. You are, however, limited to one extra class at most: No Wizard/Warlord/Rogue/Barbarian/Druid hybrids here. (Although you could probably use Retraining to switch out if it came to it -- I'll have to check on that.)
Basically, you spend one feat to get a Multiclass, which usually comes with some small bonus or ability. Then you can use Multiclass Swap feats, which allow you to give up the ability you would get at this level for the ability you would get at this level from your secondary class. Any time you gain a level, you can choose that level's class power to swap, reversing your previous swap. You can buy another swap at level 8 and another at level 10.
If you buy all three multiclass swaps, at level 11 you can choose to continue to train in your multiclassing rather than take a Paragon Path. In 3e terms, this would basically mean that you were creating your prestige class incorporating the powers of two of the basic classes. It's a pretty elegant solution, I think, if you really feel it necessary to have classes in the first place.
Part the Seventh: Equipment
I'm skipping the Equipment chapter, since it's a long list of the Equipment you can buy.
Which means next up is Adventuring.
Review: Dungeons and Dragons 4e (Part Four)
Book One: The Player's Handbook
Part the Fourth: Epic Destinies
So, as a game D&D 4e is split into three different segments. In Levels 1-10, your character develops its base class. In levels 11-20, your character receives their Paragon Path, which is a powerful specialization within the base class. Levels 21-30 are about preparing for the end game, and that's where you decide your Epic Destiny. An Epic Destiny is about paving the way toward character retirement. Epic Destinies aren't based on your base class; they're based on what you want the end of your character's story to be. Does your wizard become an Archmage and start his own school of magic? Does your character join the ranks of some Pantheon or another? Does your character simply become a wanderer? That's what choosing an Epic Destiny is about. Your choice, at level 21, will guide your character toward the end of his chosen path, aiding him with powerful abilities.
As the game points out, not every player group is going to play this thing to an end point. A lot of people are going to want to just perpetually keep going, leavin their character available for high-powered adventures. And that's fine; but it's also cool that the rules allow for a certain amount of mechanical help in bringing the game to an end. I approve.
The available Epic Destinies, in the PHB at least, are:
Archmage
Deadly Trickster
Demigod
Eternal Seeker
Does that seem like a small amount to you? I kind of think so, too; but I assume this is yet another area where future volumes will allow some growth.
Part the Fifth: Skills
First, the number of skills has been scaled down quite a bit. For example, Search and Spot are now simply Perception. In general, I like how they're handling the skills. I like Passive Skill use, and I like the Knowledge skills, particularly the Monster Knowledge checks, which let you know if your character recognizes the monster, knows something about it, and possibly knows its weakness. That's a handy bit of mechanics, there. Most of this chapter is a list of the skills and what they do: that's not something I'm going to read in this particular form.
Next up will be Feats, which I'm particularly interested in as they were always my least favorite part of 3e character creation.
Part the Fourth: Epic Destinies
So, as a game D&D 4e is split into three different segments. In Levels 1-10, your character develops its base class. In levels 11-20, your character receives their Paragon Path, which is a powerful specialization within the base class. Levels 21-30 are about preparing for the end game, and that's where you decide your Epic Destiny. An Epic Destiny is about paving the way toward character retirement. Epic Destinies aren't based on your base class; they're based on what you want the end of your character's story to be. Does your wizard become an Archmage and start his own school of magic? Does your character join the ranks of some Pantheon or another? Does your character simply become a wanderer? That's what choosing an Epic Destiny is about. Your choice, at level 21, will guide your character toward the end of his chosen path, aiding him with powerful abilities.
As the game points out, not every player group is going to play this thing to an end point. A lot of people are going to want to just perpetually keep going, leavin their character available for high-powered adventures. And that's fine; but it's also cool that the rules allow for a certain amount of mechanical help in bringing the game to an end. I approve.
The available Epic Destinies, in the PHB at least, are:
Archmage
Deadly Trickster
Demigod
Eternal Seeker
Does that seem like a small amount to you? I kind of think so, too; but I assume this is yet another area where future volumes will allow some growth.
Part the Fifth: Skills
First, the number of skills has been scaled down quite a bit. For example, Search and Spot are now simply Perception. In general, I like how they're handling the skills. I like Passive Skill use, and I like the Knowledge skills, particularly the Monster Knowledge checks, which let you know if your character recognizes the monster, knows something about it, and possibly knows its weakness. That's a handy bit of mechanics, there. Most of this chapter is a list of the skills and what they do: that's not something I'm going to read in this particular form.
Next up will be Feats, which I'm particularly interested in as they were always my least favorite part of 3e character creation.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Review: Dungeons and Dragons 4e (Part Three)
I was talking to Aaron just now and realized the enormous effect that World of Warcraft has had on the new D&D edition. It seems to me that nearly every design decision that went into this game was consciously moving either toward or away from World of Warcraft. Let's see. The artwork? A step towards. The absence of Gnomes? A step away. The class "roles"? Definitely a step toward. Choosing Tieflings as a character race instead of Orcs? Definitely a step away. Certainly, this whole game is Dungeons and Dragons informed by the experience of MMOs like WoW -- and that's not a bad thing, necessarily. WoW (like all other MMOs) exists as a direct descendant of earlier editions of D&D; so obviously there is some overlap. There are things that WoW can do that D&D can't; things that computer games can do that table-top RPGs can't (or at least can't do as well). But there are also things that table-top RPGs can do that computer games like WoW cannot -- and table-top RPGs will survive by carving out a niche in those places.
That doesn't mean that traditional RPGs can't learn a thing or two from MMOs. For example, the "Dungeonpunk" aesthetic familiar from World of Warcraft is definitely present in 4e. (And yes, I know it all really started with Warhammer and Planescape, but it was totally hijacked and made insanely popular via Warcraft). It's what kids these days want in a game, particularly in a pos-World of Warcraft age, and D&D would be silly, really, to try and use a more realistic Medieval aesthetic at this point.
Okay, but I'm reading about classes now.
1. As far as the classes themselves go, there aren't a lot of big surprises. There's a new class called "Warlords", and "Sorcerers" seem to have been replaced by "Warlocks." (Warlocks, by the way, are totally a WoW thing.) Barbarians, Bards, Druids and Monks are are gone (at least for this volume of the PHB).
2. Each class has a certain Role in the group, for easier party creation. Classes with the same Role are interchangeable: Warlords and Clerics are both Leader classes, although they go about their roles in different ways. Likewise, Fighters and Paladins both have high defensive capabilities, and so they're both intended to get up close to the enemy. When constructing a party, class roles will make it easy to keep track of what you have and what you might need. (They also stem from MMO experience, I believe.)
3. Here we get some more information about Paragon paths and Epic destinies. Paragon paths seem to be the 4e version of Prestige Classes. Epic destinies, I'm not quite clear on yet. But as far as Paragons, essentially when you reach level 10 you're able to choose a specialized extension of your base class, which grants you cool powers and so forth. For example, a level 10 Wizard can choose from the following Paragon Paths: Battle Mage; Blood Mage; Spellstorm mage; and Wizard of the Spiral Tower. You can bet that there will be other Paragon Paths in books to follow (probably there are more in the DMG, even). (Actually, the PHB promises us that in later volumes of the PHB (huh??) there will be more base classes; one would assume these new base classes will require new Paragon Paths to go with them.) Epic destinies, BTW, aren't simply extensions of the base-class; they're different somehow.
4. There are three types of powers: At-Will, Encounter, and Daily. At-Will powers can be used any time you like; Encounter can be used once per Encounter, and Daily can be used once every third saturday of the month. No, wait -- they can be used once per day, as one would assume from their moniker.
5. I have read nothing about Multiclassing yet; I seem to recall hearing something about it being rather different in 4e. More news as events warrant.
6. Each class now receives new fiddly-bits at the same rate as all the rest of the classes. The fiddly bits are organized well in each class's section (and color-coded, even!), but I am not going to read them until I have an actual copy of the book in front of me. My friend's advanced copy is not built for reading long lists like that. I will say, though, that the powers are just begging to have someone put them onto cards, which would make organizing and playing them even easier. I expect Wizards has something like that in mind; I seem to recall White Wolf has done it for Exalted (another game where such a thing would be a blessing). If I were to purchase and regularly run this game, I would want such an accessory at my table.
Next Up: Epic Destinies!
That doesn't mean that traditional RPGs can't learn a thing or two from MMOs. For example, the "Dungeonpunk" aesthetic familiar from World of Warcraft is definitely present in 4e. (And yes, I know it all really started with Warhammer and Planescape, but it was totally hijacked and made insanely popular via Warcraft). It's what kids these days want in a game, particularly in a pos-World of Warcraft age, and D&D would be silly, really, to try and use a more realistic Medieval aesthetic at this point.
Okay, but I'm reading about classes now.
1. As far as the classes themselves go, there aren't a lot of big surprises. There's a new class called "Warlords", and "Sorcerers" seem to have been replaced by "Warlocks." (Warlocks, by the way, are totally a WoW thing.) Barbarians, Bards, Druids and Monks are are gone (at least for this volume of the PHB).
2. Each class has a certain Role in the group, for easier party creation. Classes with the same Role are interchangeable: Warlords and Clerics are both Leader classes, although they go about their roles in different ways. Likewise, Fighters and Paladins both have high defensive capabilities, and so they're both intended to get up close to the enemy. When constructing a party, class roles will make it easy to keep track of what you have and what you might need. (They also stem from MMO experience, I believe.)
3. Here we get some more information about Paragon paths and Epic destinies. Paragon paths seem to be the 4e version of Prestige Classes. Epic destinies, I'm not quite clear on yet. But as far as Paragons, essentially when you reach level 10 you're able to choose a specialized extension of your base class, which grants you cool powers and so forth. For example, a level 10 Wizard can choose from the following Paragon Paths: Battle Mage; Blood Mage; Spellstorm mage; and Wizard of the Spiral Tower. You can bet that there will be other Paragon Paths in books to follow (probably there are more in the DMG, even). (Actually, the PHB promises us that in later volumes of the PHB (huh??) there will be more base classes; one would assume these new base classes will require new Paragon Paths to go with them.) Epic destinies, BTW, aren't simply extensions of the base-class; they're different somehow.
4. There are three types of powers: At-Will, Encounter, and Daily. At-Will powers can be used any time you like; Encounter can be used once per Encounter, and Daily can be used once every third saturday of the month. No, wait -- they can be used once per day, as one would assume from their moniker.
5. I have read nothing about Multiclassing yet; I seem to recall hearing something about it being rather different in 4e. More news as events warrant.
6. Each class now receives new fiddly-bits at the same rate as all the rest of the classes. The fiddly bits are organized well in each class's section (and color-coded, even!), but I am not going to read them until I have an actual copy of the book in front of me. My friend's advanced copy is not built for reading long lists like that. I will say, though, that the powers are just begging to have someone put them onto cards, which would make organizing and playing them even easier. I expect Wizards has something like that in mind; I seem to recall White Wolf has done it for Exalted (another game where such a thing would be a blessing). If I were to purchase and regularly run this game, I would want such an accessory at my table.
Next Up: Epic Destinies!
Review: Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition (RPG) Part 2
Book One: Player Handbook
Part The Second: Player Character Races
Up to now, the player character races have been as follows:
Human
Elf
Half-Elf
Halfing
Dwarf
Gnome
Half-Orc
With D&D 4e, they've switched some stuff up, as follows:
Dragonborn - Humanoid dragon-folk
Dwarf
Eladrin (Think "High Elves")
Elf (Think "Wood Elves")
Half-Elf
Halfling
Human
Tiefling (Half-Fiend)
Just a few thoughts. Before I realized they'd split Elves into "Eladrin" and "Elf", I wondered why they had two elf-like races. But apparently they've decided to focus the Elves on their woodland nature-y side, and came up with Eladrin as the more Fey focus. That's fine. Were I to run the game, I'd have the collective slang for Eladrin and Elves be "Elves", and maybe have some people distinguish the High from the Wood Elves, and Eladrin be what the High Elves insist on calling themselves.
Obviously, another reason Elves have been split up so that Eladrin can be the Tieflings' foil. That's all well and good, except Tieflings already have a foil: they're called Aasimar, half-celestials. The foil of Elves are the Dwarves, and the Orcs.
Which brings us to the missing Half-Orc class. I've heard that one reason the Half-Orcs were scrapped was because it was assumed that they were the product of ravaging bands of human women forcing themselves upon orc males. The designers didn't really like the idea of one of their core races being implicitly the product of rape, so they replaced it with Tiefling. Sure; and Half-Orcs were never really my favorite of races; but why not replace them with, say, plain old Orcs? Bahamut knows they're more iconic in fantasy than Tieflings are.
Perhaps one reason is that Tieflings are intended to have that "TrollBabe" effect, where they're trapped in two societies but don't really fit in either. But they're not necessarily big and dumb like half-orcs usually were. Well...fine. I guess.
But let's talk about the Dragonborn for a minute. I...really don't like them for some reason. I think they look ridiculous; I think they're intended to fill a hole that didn't exist beforehand. They should be in the Monster Manual, not the Player's Handbook.
And Gnomes have been gotten rid of because they were never all that popular to begin with, and World of Warcraft has focused so much on the Gnome tinkering side that Wizards didn't want a part of it (much like Family Guy focused so much on Non Sequiturs that The Simpsons eventually stopped using them). That left the woody side of the Gnomes, which the Elves had already moved in on. So Gnomes have been sent to the Monster Manual, and probably not too many will miss them much.
Part The Second: Player Character Races
Up to now, the player character races have been as follows:
Human
Elf
Half-Elf
Halfing
Dwarf
Gnome
Half-Orc
With D&D 4e, they've switched some stuff up, as follows:
Dragonborn - Humanoid dragon-folk
Dwarf
Eladrin (Think "High Elves")
Elf (Think "Wood Elves")
Half-Elf
Halfling
Human
Tiefling (Half-Fiend)
Just a few thoughts. Before I realized they'd split Elves into "Eladrin" and "Elf", I wondered why they had two elf-like races. But apparently they've decided to focus the Elves on their woodland nature-y side, and came up with Eladrin as the more Fey focus. That's fine. Were I to run the game, I'd have the collective slang for Eladrin and Elves be "Elves", and maybe have some people distinguish the High from the Wood Elves, and Eladrin be what the High Elves insist on calling themselves.
Obviously, another reason Elves have been split up so that Eladrin can be the Tieflings' foil. That's all well and good, except Tieflings already have a foil: they're called Aasimar, half-celestials. The foil of Elves are the Dwarves, and the Orcs.
Which brings us to the missing Half-Orc class. I've heard that one reason the Half-Orcs were scrapped was because it was assumed that they were the product of ravaging bands of human women forcing themselves upon orc males. The designers didn't really like the idea of one of their core races being implicitly the product of rape, so they replaced it with Tiefling. Sure; and Half-Orcs were never really my favorite of races; but why not replace them with, say, plain old Orcs? Bahamut knows they're more iconic in fantasy than Tieflings are.
Perhaps one reason is that Tieflings are intended to have that "TrollBabe" effect, where they're trapped in two societies but don't really fit in either. But they're not necessarily big and dumb like half-orcs usually were. Well...fine. I guess.
But let's talk about the Dragonborn for a minute. I...really don't like them for some reason. I think they look ridiculous; I think they're intended to fill a hole that didn't exist beforehand. They should be in the Monster Manual, not the Player's Handbook.
And Gnomes have been gotten rid of because they were never all that popular to begin with, and World of Warcraft has focused so much on the Gnome tinkering side that Wizards didn't want a part of it (much like Family Guy focused so much on Non Sequiturs that The Simpsons eventually stopped using them). That left the woody side of the Gnomes, which the Elves had already moved in on. So Gnomes have been sent to the Monster Manual, and probably not too many will miss them much.
Review: Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition (RPG)
So, a friend let me have a look at his advance copy of Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition, and I'm reading through the core books. Here are my thoughts on them, in real time.
Book One: The Player's Guide
Part the First: Character Generation
1. By default, Attributes are no longer generated randomly. Random generation remains an option, but the default is assigning each attribute one number in a spread between 10 and 16 (with the number 15 being conspicuously absent). (A third option allows for a slightly more complicated point-buy system, where all the attributes start at 10 (save for one which starts at 8), and each point you buy increases the cost for the next point in that attribute, a la White Wolf.)
2. Alignments have been overhauled, to the point where even choosing an alignment at all is optional. This is long overdue. "Chaotic Good" and "Lawful Evil" have been replaced with simply "Good" and "Evil", while "Lawful Good" and "Chaotic Evil" seem to be specializations of the other two. While it might be a little confusing, and a little asymmetrical (sorry, Planescape!), Lawful Evil especially (and to some extent Chaotic Good) always seemed to exist just to balance out the cosmology. Also, neutral alignments (Neutral good, neutral evil, and lawful, true, and chaotic neutral) are gone and done.
3. There is still going to be a heck of a lot of math in this game; that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just an observation. The main part of the game strategy is still going to be working out the special-case rule exceptions that your character's powers grant you. That's what ends up making the game line collectible, and it's what eventually turned me off to D&D 3.5e -- because it means a lot of rule-exception hunting, and a deep familiarity with the exceptions available; for which I don't really have time or patience. Whatever improvements the new edition has, (and so far I'm liking all the changes I've seen), the handling of the fiddly bits and exceptions will make or break this system for me.
4. Gaining hit points at character advancement is no longer random, either. Not that anyone really used the random rules from the previous editions of the game anyway.
5. PHB characters now go to level 30 instead of 20. This is basically making the amp go to eleven.
6. Retraining means that if you don't like something you chose for your character previously (a feat or a power or whatever) you can retrain and change one feat or power per character advancement. This is good: it means you don't need to plan your character's future quite so carefully and in detail as in previous editions, where I always seemed to know what I thought was cool *now*, but maybe didn't know what prerequisites I would need to get the cool stuff I wanted *later*.
7. There are a lot of fiddly bit-type stuff listed here that I don't understand yet: Paragon and Epic destinies? What's the difference between a Power and a Feat? Hopefully these are all differentiations to make it easier to keep track of things, and not extra stuff that I'm going to have to keep track of in addition to all the stuff in 3e.
8. Oh wow. Those class-specific character advancement tables are out, replaced by a single universal table. Heck yes. Simplify, simplify!
Next: Impressions of Character Races
Book One: The Player's Guide
Part the First: Character Generation
1. By default, Attributes are no longer generated randomly. Random generation remains an option, but the default is assigning each attribute one number in a spread between 10 and 16 (with the number 15 being conspicuously absent). (A third option allows for a slightly more complicated point-buy system, where all the attributes start at 10 (save for one which starts at 8), and each point you buy increases the cost for the next point in that attribute, a la White Wolf.)
2. Alignments have been overhauled, to the point where even choosing an alignment at all is optional. This is long overdue. "Chaotic Good" and "Lawful Evil" have been replaced with simply "Good" and "Evil", while "Lawful Good" and "Chaotic Evil" seem to be specializations of the other two. While it might be a little confusing, and a little asymmetrical (sorry, Planescape!), Lawful Evil especially (and to some extent Chaotic Good) always seemed to exist just to balance out the cosmology. Also, neutral alignments (Neutral good, neutral evil, and lawful, true, and chaotic neutral) are gone and done.
3. There is still going to be a heck of a lot of math in this game; that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just an observation. The main part of the game strategy is still going to be working out the special-case rule exceptions that your character's powers grant you. That's what ends up making the game line collectible, and it's what eventually turned me off to D&D 3.5e -- because it means a lot of rule-exception hunting, and a deep familiarity with the exceptions available; for which I don't really have time or patience. Whatever improvements the new edition has, (and so far I'm liking all the changes I've seen), the handling of the fiddly bits and exceptions will make or break this system for me.
4. Gaining hit points at character advancement is no longer random, either. Not that anyone really used the random rules from the previous editions of the game anyway.
5. PHB characters now go to level 30 instead of 20. This is basically making the amp go to eleven.
6. Retraining means that if you don't like something you chose for your character previously (a feat or a power or whatever) you can retrain and change one feat or power per character advancement. This is good: it means you don't need to plan your character's future quite so carefully and in detail as in previous editions, where I always seemed to know what I thought was cool *now*, but maybe didn't know what prerequisites I would need to get the cool stuff I wanted *later*.
7. There are a lot of fiddly bit-type stuff listed here that I don't understand yet: Paragon and Epic destinies? What's the difference between a Power and a Feat? Hopefully these are all differentiations to make it easier to keep track of things, and not extra stuff that I'm going to have to keep track of in addition to all the stuff in 3e.
8. Oh wow. Those class-specific character advancement tables are out, replaced by a single universal table. Heck yes. Simplify, simplify!
Next: Impressions of Character Races
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
