Thread Link

ESSAYS ON GAME DESIGN

Essay Twelve: The Blood of Uncanny Monsters*

“The Blood of the monster is the doom of the unwary.”

“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

“Fantasy, abandoned by reason, produces impossible monsters; united with it, she is the mother of the arts and the origin of marvels.”

“History is not the story of heroes entirely. It is often the story of cruelty and injustice and shortsightedness. There are monsters, there is evil...”

“… I prefer the monsters of my fancy to what is positively trivial.”

Synopsis: The Blood of Monsters is far more than the blood of simple animals, or the nerveless sap of tree limbs. The blood of the monster is a deep, potent, ancient, terrible thing, capable of warping the world, and either wondrously enabling, or viciously crippling and killing, the Hero. Beware the blood of the monster, and do not easily discard the tremendous potential it encloses within itself.


Essay: In myth it is often the case that the blood, tissues, organs, or parts of a monster have unique, if not astounding properties of their own, quite apart from those possessed by the whole or intact, living creature itself.

Yet far too often these additional (or inherent really) “monstrous characteristics” are overlooked (sometimes entirely) in fantasy, mythological, and magical gaming. Monsters are slain, their blood washes over the characters to no real effect, and the monstrous bodies or corpses thereafter simply discarded, as if they were the inconvenient, tiresome, or useless detritus of the true business of adventuring. No real consequences ensue from, or for, the slaying of monsters, from being in close proximity to them when they are killed, or from being washed and covered in the gore and curses and hatred and pollution and ferocity of their ultimate demise. The death of monsters becomes a mere mathematical and mechanical expression of character survival beyond beastly endurance, rather than a fascinating cosmic struggle between weird and uncanny physical, supernatural, and magical forces and the life-force of men. And the killing of monsters likewise has either no additional benefit, nor any additional consequence, other than the taking of their treasure or the removal of their objection to whatever goal(s) the hero currently or ultimately pursues. In short the monster is far less a real monster, far less a real threat, far less weird and far less dangerous, than if hunting and killing monsters implied nothing more mysterious, fantastic, and potentially lethal than a mere exercise in hit point reduction to “less than zero.” As a matter of fact killing most monsters in many role play games implies a level of danger and consequence that is exactly that, less than zero. Once slain or nearly slain a monster is then no more of a real threat than the paper-tiger number stats used to summarize his imaginary existence. But is this really a proper expression of the idea of monstrousness? In the imagination? In myth? Or even in-game?

Certainly not so in myth, where the blood of monsters and weird beings often has dramatic (and even sometimes life-long) effects upon the heroes who encounter such marvels, perhaps even upon nearby observers, other monsters, or the very landscape itself. In this respect I think myth is often far more engaging, richer in content and implication, tremendously more interesting, and far more versatile than typical fantasy (or other genres of) role play gaming. Monsters actually mean things in myth. They are not simply the enemy soldier du jour, dressed in some fantastic garb of hoary yet impotent flesh or rotting, undead sheets of nothingness. They are not merely “tactical challenges” as would be the case as if an infantry battalion in a wargame were suddenly compressed into a single fearsome body and sent forth to fight tooth and claw against armed adventurers. Instead monsters are “danger incarnate,” they are a warping of the woof of existence, their being alters and changes things around them, they bend reality, sicken or extend it, they reshape nature (physical, mental, and spiritual) into a monstrosity of devastating potential. In myth (from which spring the sources of the idea and shapes and names and forms of monsters in role play games) monsters are dangerous, deadly, uncanny, they distort the nature of the things they encounter, and they do all of this both within and well-beyond the very narrow confines of combat. It seems to me then that the monster should be returned to his more natural (or unnatural, depending upon your point of view) state(s) of being, a being that exudes, reflects and engenders corruption, weirdness, lethality, and real, unremitting and unrepentant peril. Both in life, and in death. *

In short I am advocating the idea that even the blood, tissues, and corpses of monsters might very well, and even in some cases definitely should, have effects both upon the characters encountering them, and upon the entire atmosphere and environment of the role-play milieu. That monsters become far more than mere combat automatons, far more than just tactical challenges, far more than an enemy in a rubber mask and a plastic suit of armor who can execute feats of multiple backflips or shoot acid from a naphtha gland in his mouth.


Monsters are not simply monsters because they look weird, because men find them to be distasteful, evil, ugly, frightening, gigantic, or unique adversaries. Monsters are also monsters because of their peculiarly monstrous qualities, which extend far beyond motive and appearance and down to the very marrow of their bones, as well as throughout the blood or ichor that washes unseen through their twisted veins. And that when this blood (and/or body) becomes exposed to the world at large, when it stains the flesh of the hero, and when the bones of monsters litter the landscape, other things occur of definite and noticeable effect. Things that are sometimes wondrous, things that are sometimes terrible, occasionally even more horrifying in implication or outcome than the threat of the original monster itself. (I use the term monster in this respect in a very generalized sense. Of course the same “monstrous properties” might be said to exist for supernatural beings and alien creatures, in horror/supernatural/adventure/superhero, and sci-fi gaming. And I would hardly argue against the same types of monstrous properties I am advocating for mythological and fantasy based monsters is such cases. Rather I would just expect that given the nature of the creature in question that such properties would manifest differently, but also quite obviously, in those other types of circumstances.)


With that in mind I am going to suggest some effects that will result from the injury, death, or shedding of the blood of uncanny monsters. Some of these effects will be light, some dramatic, some wondrous, and some terrible. Feel free to add your own ideas. This is an Interactive Essay on the notion of “Monstrosity.”


The Corpus Dejecti: First of all, let me speak about the remains or parts of a monster’s body (whether or not the creature itself has survived as a result of loss of these assets). The remains or parts of a monster are valuable because of the unique properties they bestow both upon the monster itself, and anyone else either fortunate enough, or unfortunate enough, to gain control of or contact such remains. To that end let me detail just some of the possible parts of a monster’s body that could be invaluable, a treasure in itself, or horrifically disastrous, an unshakeable and lifelong curse.


The Blood
The Brains
The Eye or eyes
The Third Eye or the Secret or Invisible Eye
The Tongue
The Horn or horns
The Scales
The Claws or nails
The Heart
The Liver
The Lung
The Glands
The Tears
The Ichor
The Tail
The Foot
The Hand
The Paw
The Snout
The Jaw
The Ear
The Tendril or Tentacle
The Wings or feathers
The Fin
The Bile
The Stolen Part
The Flesh
The Muscles
The Excretions
The prized and blood or ichor stained possessions of a monster


Each of these parts might render some beneficial aid to the possessor, or might render some monstrous curse. In the case of especially powerful or weird monsters, it might very well render both, and/or multiple effects.

In addition such tissues or remains can be prepared, modified, presented, and intentionally used (with the right knowledge) for other employments, such as:

Creating inks and parchments
Creating Book materials
Creating unique potions
Creating unique magical items
Creating technologies, machines, artifacts, and devices
Creating unique traps and tricks
Creating illusions
Creating unique spells and powers
Disrupting other things, objects, places, or events
Dispelling magics
Enhancing or disrupting miracles
Augmenting or disrupting mental or psychological powers
Augmenting or disrupting physical capabilities
Augmenting or disrupting spiritual capabilities
Invention, Design, and Craft
Summoning or turning away other monsters
Summoning or turning away the undead
Summoning or turning away demons and devils
Foreseeing possible futures
Solving puzzles
Overcoming obstacles
Developing new scripts, ciphers, and codes
Gaining control over, or freeing other creatures
Gaining control over, or freeing spirits
Communicating secretly and/or over a distance
Creating Glammors
Creating powerful blessings or curses
Making objects tough or nearly indestructible
Destroying other objects
Extending or shortening life
Curing or causing disease
Creating or controlling intense emotional states
Charming others
Exciting Love, or Hate
Allowing flight
Healing or preserving health


The Effects – I will divide effects into obviously beneficial and obviously malignant effects. Some effects may seem to fall into both categories. Some effects can be viewed as blessings, others as curses. These effects can occur on the level of the individual, or on the cosmic level (effecting the world at large), or both, when the blood, tissues, and other remains or parts of a monster become exposed to a hero or the world through direct contact. These effects are not intentionally controllable but occur as a result of the unique properties of the monsters interacting with the unique nature of the individual or circumstance to which the blood or remains of the monster are exposed. These effects can also be acute, immediate, temporary, chronic, delayed, or life-long and permanent (unless somehow brought under control or removed).


Beneficial Effects:

Magical powers increase
Sensory Capabilities improve
One can read the thoughts of others
One can know the hearts of others
New capabilities are gained
One becomes stronger
One becomes wiser
One becomes more intelligent
One becomes more charismatic
One becomes more resilient
One becomes faster or more dexterous
One’s flesh becomes invulnerable to certain things
One rarely tires or rarely needs to sleep
One needs little food
One needs little water
One becomes powerfully intuitive
One becomes prophetic
One becomes clever and ingenious
One can speak with monsters


Malignant Effects:

Magical powers decrease
Sensory capabilities become clouded, restricted, or confused
One’s own thoughts become scattered, confused, and open to suggestion
One becomes unable to understand the motives of others
Old capabilities are lost or diminish
One becomes weaker or feeble
One becomes more foolish, reckless, or unwise
One becomes denser, slow-witted, or more stupid
One becomes repugnant or repulsive to others
One becomes drained, lethargic, or inflexible
One becomes slow of body and reflex
One is easily injured or sickened
One exhausts easily and often, or is chronically anemic
One becomes uncontrollably gluttonous
One becomes a drunkard or an addict
One becomes uncontrollably arrogant and prideful
One becomes uncontrollably envious and covetous
One becomes uncontrollably lustful
One becomes uncontrollably angry, petty, and ill-temperate
One becomes uncontrollably greedy
One becomes uncontrollably despairing and cynical
One becomes uncontrollably slothful and lazy
One becomes uncontrollably bloodthirsty and vicious
One becomes easily duped and made fool of
One becomes blind
One becomes deaf
One becomes unable to smell
One becomes unable to taste
One becomes leprous
One becomes mute
One contracts a chronic and perhaps incurable disease or condition



Blessings:

Good fortune is enjoyed
Crops become plentiful
Good and pleasant weather
Enemies avoid invasion or warfare
Water supplies are clean and plentiful
The earth is enriched, plants and animals thrive
The natural environment becomes filled with beneficial magic
Wealth increases
New resources are discovered, old ones are easier to exploit
Miracles occur
The Gift of Tongues – other languages can be understood, or the language of other creatures can be understood
Powerful and beneficial creatures or allies rein habit the area
Trade prospers
Resistances to malignant forces develop


Curses:

Water becomes polluted, fouled, and poisoned
The air becomes poisonous and retched
Foul, dangerous, catastrophic, violently stormy weather
Natural disasters abound
Plagues become common
Droughts develop and wild fires break out
The earth becomes weak, polluted, unyielding and unproductive
The natural environment becomes resistant to beneficial magic or open to malignant magic or other influences
Wealth decreases and resources become depleted
Treasures corrupt or corrode
Misfortune multiplies or lingers
Confusion and misunderstandings of speech and language
Malignant serpents, insects, and other creatures spring from the ground
Warfare and Civil warfare erupt
Vulnerabilities to evil develop


The Death Curse of the Monster: Sometimes at or near the moment of their death particularly powerful, intelligent, and malignant monsters might curse an individual, a party of people, or even an entire region or nation with an especially effective and malicious curse. In such cases extreme and immediate counter-measures must be taken, sometimes even involving the undertaking of a complicated Quest, it order to nullify or reverse this curse. Otherwise, if the curse is not counteracted it may very well unfold as prophesied in a most destructive and devastating manner.


Conclusion: Make use of monsters, their blood, and their remains in a far more interesting, productive, potent, and imaginative way to reflect their real and inherent potential for creating both endless wonder, and appalling desolation.


* I use the term uncanny poetically. I do not mean to imply that a monster must be supernatural (in the gaming or mythological sense) for its blood to have weird or powerful effects.

Jack7

D&D/Fantasy Adventure/Scenario: The Familiar Man –

Introduction: This adventure revolves around the creature known as the Homonculous. And is involved with events on our world, and on the world of Ghantik, described in this thread: the Worlds Apart.

Thread Link

A Group of Ilurgists (in this case Ghantikan sorcerers of the Ulbraen – fanatics dedicated to maintaining and expanding Elturgical power) have created a new type of creature. A thing they call the Parah, but which they also call the Homonculous, in parody and mockery of how it was created, and out of what materials.

The Homonculous was designed to exist in our world, on Terra, and the Ulbraen, working with their even more dangerous underworld partners in Kitharia decide to send the first of their homonculors to Earth in order to test it and to use it against human beings and human societies.

The Homonculous is sent to our world in a state of suspended animation, disguised as a small statue. To some men it appears beautiful and of exquisite workmanship, made of precious gems and metals. To others it appears hideous and misshapen. Monstrous in appearance. To some men it appears as a sort of misshapen lump of some unknown metal. As if it had fallen from the sky.

However even in this “statuesque-shape” it begins to immediately exert psychic influence over the human couriers to whom it has been entrusted. When given the homonculous the couriers were instructed by the Ulbraen agents to transport it to Belgrade where it will be given to the human Warlock Klingsor, who has become a sort of de facto human earthly and mortal ally of the Ulbraen cult of the Eladarin, and of Ghantikan Ilurgists. Klingsor thinks the homonculous will be a powerful new Elturgical tool for him to employ in his quest for personal and magical power, given by his allies on Ghantik. But his allies in Ghantik hate all humans and intend to use the homonculous to enslave the mind of Klingsor and to “bind” the homonculous directly to him, both mentally and physically, so that in effect he becomes their tool in their covert war on humanity and against the Byzantine Empire.

However unknown to the Ilurgists the trip along the Weirding Road which leads from Ghantik to Terra has changed the homonculous, making it even more self-aware and allowing it to partially overcome the magical spells designed to make it into a sort of magically animated automaton and psychic weapon against men. Once on Earth and away from the direct control of his makers the homonculous decides to influence his couriers to turn away from Belgrade and to head East and South, towards the Orient. Along the way, while stopped in Alexandria, the homonculous escapes his statue-form and animates, thereafter eluding his couriers. Wandering alone at night, and disguised as a large, talking lizard the homonculous finally takes up with a teen-aged orphan, a young boy named Koptoi. Appearing to him as a beautiful, two-foot tall youth the homonculous convinces the boy that he is a Spirit of Good Fortune and if the boy will take him East then he will show him treasures and make him famous and into a prince. What the motives and ultimate destination of the homonculous really are no one knows. Except the homonculous.

Meanwhile the Caerkara has learned of the creation of the homonculous and where the couriers were last seen (in Alexandria) and they come to Earth to warn the Basilegate and solicit their help in capturing and/or destroying the creature. At about the same time the Ilurgists learn that the homonculous has escaped their immediate control and ask Klingsor for his help to track down the creature. Klingsor, anxious to gain control of the homonculous and make it into his own, personal familiar contacts agents of the Consociatio who accompany him to Alexandria to search for the homonculous. As the Caerkara, the Basilegate, Klingsor, and the Consociatio all head towards the Orient to locate the homonculous, the Ilurgists of Ghantik send a monstrous chimera into earth to track and kill the homonculous while it moves ever closer towards its own secret destination. A destination that may just involve a very ancient, powerful, and entrapped Demon who was long ago banished to a spiritual prison within a long deserted desert stronghold by the Apostle Thomas.

Jack7

Thread Link

The Parah (the Homonculous) – The homonculous was created on Ghantik through the use of Ilurgy or Ilturgy (powerful Ghantikan sorcery). Those evil beings responsible for the creation of the Homonculous call it the homonculous in mockery of both men, and of how the creature is created. In their own language they call the thing the Cǻforil, which means “misshapen flesh,” or the Parah, which means the “little slave.”

A homonculous is created out of the remains of stolen and murdered human children, the corpses of men, and the bodies of women.

The Homonculous can vary in size, but is usually between one foot and three feet tall, and is made primarily from human flesh. Because it is a sort of magically created hybrid, and because the body contains elements from other creatures as well, it is both part chimera and part monster. Embedded and woven within it’s bones is secret information as well as the formula of an Ilturgical spell that will allow for the enslaving of human minds and the transference of control over the minds of men so that the masters of the homonculous can use it to create a group of mentally and psychologically enslaved sorcerers.

The Homonculous begins as a flesh-pot shaping (literally) of human flesh that is slowly transformed over time into a statue made out of rare Ghantikan mineral substances mixed with Elturgical alchemical substances that can be used to enliven and animate dead flesh. The creators of the homonculous also use Elturgical quicksilver for the creature’s blood. Anyone drinking the blood, which instantly replenishes itself within the body of the homonculous, can be turned into a mind-controlled user of Ilturgical magic.

The creators of the homonculous, a shadowy group of underground Ilturgists (outlaw sorcerers), hate all human beings. They also fear and despise Thaumaturgy (miraculous or divine power.) They plan to create several powerful sorcerers on Earth by giving each their own homonculous. The sorcerers and warlocks on Earth assume these gifts are for service to the ilturgists, but the ilturgists plan to enslave their human servants in order to use them to assist with various nefarious plans including cultic murder and human sacrifice, human trafficking and enslavement, using humans for experiments, and interference in human affairs so as to weaken human societies and assuring that Thaumaturgy never infiltrates into Ghantik.


Appearance – The homonculous can appear as either the creator or user desires to see it. It is short, one to three feet tall. As a façade it can appear as any sex or race. Those who stumble upon the homonculous unintentionally see it initially as a small, bat-winged, distorted, misshapen and mutilated man about with long claw-like hands and feet, bent nails, sharp, uneven teeth, glowing eyes, and with a noxious and nauseating odor which is repulsive and sickening to most everyone except the owner. The eyes are apparently made of gemstones with a third eye centered in the middle of the forehead. This “other eye” is extremely dangerous and has several secret and arcane functions, all of which can be lethal to the unwary.

Powers - When acting as a familiar the homonculous can be used by a sorcerer or warlock to see visions, to listen in on or read the thoughts of others, as a spy, to increase fertility or sexual desire and lust in self or others, to enchant and encharm others, to read magical texts, to transfer knowledge of Ilurgy, to increase and augment magical power, or to create or sustain illusions. The homonculous has a base of known spells and charms of its own (unique to each homonculous, and these spells can vary in power as well as in kind), but it will usually be unwilling to share these, even with the sorcerer for whom it is operating as a familiar. It can help create more of itself if necessary through the flesh of innocent victims who have been tortured and murdered. But these sub-homonculous are usually little more than robotic automatons, incapable of sophisticated action. They also lack all but the most basic powers and capabilities of the true Ilturgical homonculous.

As a disguise the homonculous can transform itself into a raven or an alien bird or a reptile or a crab or spider.

The homonculous gives protection to its creator or owner up to within a distance of 50’. These forms of protection include increased resistance to magical charm and psychic influence, immunity to poison, and resistance to being turned to stone. While in contact with the homonculous the sorcerer or warlock also becomes much more charismatic and believable, even when engaged in an intentional and obvious lie.

The homonculous carries with it a multi-colored and gilded Egg (of unknown origins), very beautiful and desirable in appearance, whose shell is actually a clever composite of various Ilurgical glyphs, symbols, and magical scripts. If the writings can be deciphered correctly, and the riddle contained on and within the shell solved, then the shell will magically unwind revealing inside a substance that will allow the user to create Chimeras of various kinds as well as totally new life forms and creatures that have never before existed. This Egg is a sort of secret communication and covert weapon entrusted to the homonculous by its creators for the day when they intend to undertake a secret plan to attack humanity directly and openly through their sorcerous agents. For this reason the homonculous usually keeps the Egg well hidden in a secret location, as well as disguised with wards of invisibility.

Invention and Creation – The homonculous must be created over a long period of time. For raw materials the Ilturgist must obtain a human body, preferably that of an honest old man or woman, or of an innocent or chaste young boy or girl, who was murdered through treachery and deceit. The body must then be buried in an unmarked grave for three days to which has been added various small insect-like creatures (created by the Ilturgists) that both partially consume and transform the corpse. Thereafter the body is retrieved and through evil sorceries and various ilturgical spells, potions, and alchemical and Eldarikal processes is slowly shrunken and transformed into the homonculous.

Destruction - If a homonculous is killed and then its bones ground up and dissolved in its own blood then it will make the sorcerer who drinks of this calcified-blood potion immune to all disease, magic and psychic charm or influence (including that of the original creators), except for Thaumaturgy, will cause aging to slow greatly, will greatly magnify the magical powers of the sorcerer, and is the first step in a shortcut method for creating a sorcerous human Lich. This is a side effect of the creation process of the homonculous and is unknown even to the original creators.

A homonculous cannot be bled to death, nor is it afraid of or affected by undead creatures or beings. It cannot be killed by normal methods, but it can be frozen or reverted back to its statue-shape. If it is sufficiently damaged in a short enough period of time then it will fall into suspended animation while it regenerates. At that point it can be dissolved in strong acid, or burned to ashes within an Elturgical or miraculous or even a very hot normal fire of not less than 3000 degrees. It is also said that if the homonculous can be tricked into drinking a potion made of freshly dug mandrake root then its flesh and various components will unravel and it will be forever destroyed.


Next: The Gorkîllion (the Corpse Taker, or the Shambling Mound)

Jack7

Yesterday I saw on the internet a recorded interview with Jim Butcher (my current favorite author of modern fantasy).


During the interview the woman interviewing him asked who his favorite authors were (who he reads when writing). The first person he mentioned was Robert B. Parker. I well understand Butcher's inclinations. Parker is without a doubt the single best writer of crime fiction alive today. He reminds me of a cross (in all the good ways possible) of Raymond Chandler and Ernest Hemingway.

He's brilliant, and not just at crime fiction either. He's written some of the best Westerns I've ever read. There are a lot of things to like about Parker, but to me the bets is that his characters are obviously all men. (I don't mean all his characters are men, I mean all his male characters are actually men - not plastic, not artificial, not afraid to be men men, but real men.) His characters are throwbacks to the days when real men write real books about real men. He appeals to me as a man. To most all of the masculine qualities I associate as best in manhood. I don't know how to say it any better than that, but after I read his books I generally end up thinking to myself, "this is exactly the way a man should behave." It's a real shame so much of that has been lost in our culture (Western, and even American culture).

Now I like Westerns and Frontier works (which appeals to the Frontiersman/Explorer/Woodsman/Survivalist in me), and Military fiction (which appeals to that part of me interested in the military and in service), and Adventure works (ditto), and I like Mysteries and Vadding works (cause that's a big part of my nature, problem solving, sneaking about, infiltration), and Espionage works (double ditto). All of these things appeal to the man in me, and they all either interest, fascinate, or excite my nature. Doesn't matter if these kinds of things are fiction or non-fiction. It's all equally enticing to me. (Well, maybe non-fiction is more enticing, but the really best fiction is usually base don real life anyways, so it all works out eventually I reckon.) Cause that's the way I'm made.

Now sometimes my inclinations will swing in one direction or another. I might prefer a work on survival better than a Western at one moment, a Western being the best possible thing I can read the next. It sorta fluctuates from time to time with me, exactly what I like best to study or read, but that's about the gist of it. All of the things I mentioned tend to interest me, stimulate me, encourage me or provoke to have adventures of my own. I reckon I like danger a whole helluvah lot better than being bored. Then again I like pretty much anything a whole helluvah lot better than being bored. I'd rather be a stiff than be bored stiff. At least dead I'd be free to explore things again. Least ways I hope I will be.

Anywho, and all of that being what it is, I suppose that most of the time, and generally speaking, I prefer works on crime. I like to study crime, to work on my own cases (and I've had some good ones), to read about crime, and to read crime fiction (usually as much to see how others operate, even fictional characters, as the cases themselves - I'm always picking up "working and operational tips" from every source I can that to me seems worth pursuing).

Parker's works are first rate to me in this regard. The cases themselves are often very interesting, but to me it's watching his characters work that really excites me. And that I enjoy. (You know it's often been said that good work is it's own reward. That's certainly true. But good work is also a step into the future. A better one than not being good at what you do.) The way they work, their methods of operation, what they do and just as importantly, (and I think most people overlook this when it comes to work against criminals) what they don't do, or what they do or don't do in order to break or bend the rules in order to try and achieve Justice. And Justice is far more important than the law. I'd rather see one instance of real Justice achieved than all mere efforts of the law ever undertaken. Of course, in the end, there's only one real kind of Justice, the kind that prevents bad things from happening in the first place. Everything else is really just catch-up, if that much. Justice should never be blind, and it should never be slow. It should always see farther, hear clearer, sense more cleanly, and anticipate more cleverly than anything else, so that it kills injustice before injustice can ever be born. Certainly before injustice can stand upright. Maybe I should write a play or something about that. Justice as the sleepless Nemesis who never stops hunting and thwarting rather than the senseless judge who is always trying to put the useless pieces back together again after it's far too late. After all you break it and you buy it even though it's already ruined, but you save it, and everybody's got a decent shot at enjoying it then. Well, that's for another time I suppose. I'd best get back to what I meant to say about Parker and his men.


Of his crime works two guys stand out to me. Stone and Spenser. (It also don't hurt much that both men are real dog lovers.) Now I really like Spenser. Didn't think I would when I first started reading him, but I've been through four books now and in everyone the guy appeals to me. I like to read how he works, try and guess what he'll do next, and in which way. I like the way he talks. He's clever. He's usually ahead of the competition. He's a helluvah good Dick. No doubt about that. I'm not sure if I had a buddy like Hawk I could always stand behind the guy. Fact is I'd probably bust him. But the friendship between Spenser and Hawk is admirable. I understand it, even if I personally couldn't stomach some of the things Hawk does or how he operates. But I do understand it.


One other thing I really like about Spenser. I both admire and fully understand why he works alone. why he quit the Force and can't stand to be part of an organization. Been that way most of my life. As I've gotten older I reckon I've mellowed. Don't mind being part of an organization now. Don't mind having superiors. Don't always mind taking orders either. But by nature, and I've always been this way, even as a kid, I've always desired to work alone. I like working alone. Being a loner (in certain respects anyways). I suspect I'll always be that way too. For the most part. I'd much rather go undercover alone, with no-one really knowing exactly where I am or what I'm doing til I decide somebody needs to know. So I get that about Spenser. We're simpatico in that respect.


Stone, however, Jesse Stone. Well, he seems like a brother to me, only far closer to me than my real brothers. He tends to think like me, act like me, operate like me. I read the way he's working a case and I think to myself, "yup, that's pretty much exactly the way I'd work it." Some people, familiar with Stone, even tell me we sorta talk alike. Not in vocabulary so much as in mannerisms, and style. I suspect there's some truth in that. And like Spenser he's also a helluvah Dick. And a superb Chief of Police. He's more company man though than Spenser, but then again he operates outside of policy. Sometimes way outside of policy. I admire that. Really admire it. I've never thought much of organizational structure and policy just for the sake of organizational structure and policy. That kinda thing doesn't float me very far. I'd much rather run on my own wind, and tack my own course. What I like about Stone, really like about Stone, is the fact that he operates within the system but he ain't part of it. He's in it, solid to all appearances, but in all of the ways that count, he's really an outsider lookin in. In that way he's quintessentially American to me. In it, but not. Clan man, but ain't. Outsider. His own self. Enterprising. Frontiersman.

I also like the guys who operate with Stone. Captain Healy for instance always makes me laugh. He reminds me a lot of a guy I once knew. The one thing I don't like about Stone though is that he's a lush. He needs to kick that in the head and just be done with it. He carries the booze around like a dead albatross. One day it might get him killed.

(By the way, I see a lot of Stone in Butcher's Harry Dresden. I see now how Butcher took a lot of Dresden from Stone and Spenser. From Parker. I knew that sub-consciously I liked all three characters, for pretty much the same reason I reckon I like all such characters. They seem familiar and natural and similar to me. But I never really thought about how close they all were til I heard Butcher mention Parker as one of his big influences. Butcher and Parker don't write a lot alike, not at all. Parker is sparse, and sharp, externally oriented, and all craft. Butcher is wordy, and rambling, and articulate, and self-concerned. But their characters are pretty much the same guy wrapped in different mannerisms, and working along different tracks. Same Rome, different roads.)

Last Spenser book I read had Spenser operating near Paradise and Stone and Spenser actually working together. Overlapping on a case, so to speak. It was really interesting to me.

In any case I just want to say that I highly recommend Bob Parker and both the Stone and Spenser crime novels. If you like that kinda thing, then you'll like those guys. And if you don't then I'm not sure I can help that much. Nevertheless that's my story and I'm stickin it to ya.

Thread Link

Jack7

Thread Link


ESSAYS ON GAME DESIGN

Essay Eleven: Luck Be Not Lazy




Synopsis: “Boldness makes you luckier.” Boldness and risk taking make you more likely to survive and succeed than timidity and cowardice. This is true both in life, and in-game.


Recently while reading the book The Survivor’s Club (I am a survivalist and often study various aspects of survival art and science) I came across a very interesting equation by Nicholas Rescher.

The equation is as follows:

λ(E) = ∆(E) x [1-pr(E)] = ∆(E) x pr(not-E)

Rescher was attempting to mathematically illustrate how conclusions are drawn about the conditions and functional nature of “luck.” I have not had the time to examine the mathematics in detail for myself since I have only the basic equation formulation and a basic interpretation by the author of the book (not the author of the equation). I plan on looking up the entire background of the equation when I have the time.

Basically the equation states that how lucky an individual (or theoretically an event, with variable exchange) is considered to be depends upon a number of factors, but not least is the level of sufficient risk associated with any endeavor. That is to say the greater the risk taken by an individual, when success is finally achieved (though success is not guaranteed), then naturally the “more lucky” such an individual is considered in relation to others. This is of course only logical, and can be illustrated in the following way.

Two men decide to cross a chasm. One does so by a secure wooden footbridge with a safety railing, another along a length of tightrope. If both men make it safely across then most objective observers would say that the man walking upon the tightrope was “luckiest.” His risk was greatest and when (if) he succeeds then luck has been said to play a greater role in his crossing (in spite of any personal skill he might possess in wire-walking) than in the guy who has crossed the chasm on a relatively secure footbridge (in which case chance or luck plays a much smaller, if any, role as regards the crossing). This is self-evident, though perhaps often ignored or not noticed in this way in most circumstances by some observers.

But I suspect that an even more interesting underlying and basic assumption fundamental to the structure of the equation (though it may not necessarily be overtly stated, when considering “normative variables”) is this: the greater the risk you take the more lucky you are likely to be. Not merely as a matter of relative comparison to others in different circumstances, but as a practical and fundamental matter in most any circumstance. And by extension then the more risk you assume in your given situation then the more likely you are to eventually succeed within that given situation. (Also this implies that luck is not a matter merely to be judged and quantified after the fact, or after the conclusion of the endeavor, but as a functional force, and likely an indirectly measurable force, operating throughout the course of events.)

Think about that for a moment. For the idea may just very well be fundamental to the nature of what many consider “good fortune.” Whether most people realize it or not.


The implication is that with great risk comes not only great danger, but also a greater probability towards actual and more capital success. (I think that there are several reasons for the likelihood of this conclusion, some physical, some psychological, and a few of which I will discuss here). The equation actually states that if you succeed then a larger level of risk can be said to include within the nature of the success a greater degree of good fortune, expressed colloquially as “luck.” But underneath the equation, if you examine it closely, is a sort of sub-structural formulation that implies that the greater the level of risk you assume in attempting any given or particular thing, the more likely you are to actually succeed, but that this does not become absolutely mathematically obvious until after the events are actually concluded.

In short the equation is covertly implying that all things being equal, and excluding the impossible (of course, as well as the intentionally foolhardy and reckless), it is the one who assumes the greatest risk who is far more likely to be lucky and in the end, to succeed as a result of the advantages bestowed by luck. (Is luck the only factor in success? Good Lord no. Preparation, skill, cunning, cleverness, drive, desire, etc. – all of these factors and more, or even less, can help to assure success. But what it is saying is that among roughly equivalent situations and/or competitors it is the more daring and less risk averse who is mathematically far more likely to “get lucky” and win the day, other factors not withstanding. Risk is therefore, as counter-intuitive and paradoxical as the idea may seem, one of the open and golden gateways to good fortune. Or as the old maxim goes, "Fortuna favet fortibus." There is far more to that observation than mere Latin wit.

We all know that boldness is a fundamental aspect of the nature of Heroism. (Indeed, I personally would not attempt the execution of the function of anything heroic lacking the mettle of individual bravery as my guide. There is neither room for in most risky situations, nor likelihood of success in most dangerous situations for the ‘timid hero.’) Heroes therefore are universally bold. Or on the royal road through hardship and risk to becoming universally bold. Yet often heroes also triumph over seemingly vastly superior opponents with vastly superior resources. Why? Because they are bold. Because they are daring, and audacious, and brave. They also almost universally, whether in real life, or in myth or literature, “get lucky” or at least luckier than everybody else around them. Why? Because fortune does indeed favor the bold. The bold risk great things and therefore fortune is a natural and interested companion along the way. Fortune is attracted to bravery and risk-taking. (This does not imply that all risks are equal, or even equally fortunate, only that fortune prefers boldness to a lack thereof.)

Now it might appear on the surface that the heroic individual, or group, is often both bold and lucky. But the actual truth is they are lucky precisely because they are bolder than everyone else. Hence luck does not make one bold, being bold makes one lucky. There is a direct, if not always immediately observationally evident, correlation. That man who takes the most risk is that man who is likely to be luckiest and to be most successful. Even if bravery does not create good fortune in a particular circumstance it at least maintains and augments what good fortune already exists within that circumstance.


There are several reasons for this I think, some derived from my own personal observations, others I have gathered from anecdotal evidence, some taken from historical studies, still others implied by the equation I listed above.


First, the psychological ones:

1. The man who is audacious and daring tends to impress others with their vision. Small visions do not attract interest or followers. Bravery impresses and heroic visions and examples evoke imitation. Courage inspires devotion. And devotion inspires more courage as well as more of itself, which thereby tends to augment good fortune through cooperative enterprise and shared labor and objectives. Making success far more likely.

2. The individual who is brave tends to impress even dangerous creatures and animals, which will sometimes flee a man who the animal could easily kill because the man exhibits no fear. So if something or even someone thinks you’re crazy enough to be unafraid (regardless of whether you really are or not in that situation) when they think you should be then this gives them pause about their own chances of success against you. Courage in yourself can often inspire caution in an enemy or dangerous opponent, tipping the scales of good fortune, as well as the initiative and control of the situation in your favor.

(This has happened to me on more than one occasion with animals, men, and situations. For instance I’ve been shot at and drawn on on more than one occasion. Most recently this happened to me about two weeks ago. Yet I managed to defuse that particular situation without bloodshed or anyone being harmed because I walked towards the gunfire instead of freezing or fleeing from it when guns were drawn. Not that walking into gunfire is the most impressive or important kind of courage, it is far from it. Other things are often far more dangerous. I know that from personal experience. But the policeman in this case had the wrong location and the wrong target and he was obviously afraid of attack himself and so he drew and fired when he thought he was under attack. I don’t blame him by the way, he did indeed think he was under attack and may have even thought he could possibly be killed. He was also a young fella and a bit of a rookie. I doubt he had ever drawn his weapon before in the line of duty, but that’s just an assumption mind you based upon my observations of the boy, I didn’t really ask him. But he didn’t do anything really wrong; he was just surprised and scared by the situation, not knowing what was really going on. So I supported him when his commanding officer came out to do the in-the-field inquiry about why and how he had discharged his weapon. But I was able to prevent any real harm during the incident by walking into his line of fire [he wasn’t shooting at me, but I caused him to pause by interjecting myself] and taking control of the situation with my voice. Thereby stopping any further firing. I don’t think most people realize how effective an instrument the human voice can be in controlling a dangerous situation but those of you with law enforcement or military backgrounds probably know exactly what I mean. Your voice is probably often your most effective tool of courage and control. So I wasn’t afraid at all when it was happening, though my wife later yelled at me, as she often will, by saying “you stupid white guys run towards gunfire instead of away from it.” But obviously it has got nothing to do with being white, I’ve known a lot of brave men from all kinds of backgrounds, or even really with being stupid I would argue, but with training. I wasn’t afraid at all and so acted as I have trained myself over time, to walk towards danger and not away from it, and to attempt to command any given dangerous situation by not panicking, but by trying to assume control of the circumstances. I also wasn’t scared at all in this situation because I wasn’t thinking about myself at all. Over time I have basically trained fear for my own safety out of myself so that when others are endangered I think about others and not myself. Which eliminates the occupation with “self-fear.” It has become a matter of habit by now, and I never consciously weigh dangers for myself in my mind in that way anymore. However this does not mean the elimination of fear, if my children or wife had been under fire or endangered then I would have been afraid, I would have been thinking of their survival. I do not think though, and thank God this has never occurred, that even in that situation it would have paralyzed me, but I would have been afraid. Afraid for them. Indeed after the shooting I spoke about before was over and I realized just how bad the situation could have become for everyone – there was another officer who could have drawn and started shooting but he remained basically calm and watchful - I had about two minutes where I needed to sit down. To prevent my legs from shaking. But that was about 15 to 20 minutes later. Various friends and some people at church heard about this little adventure from my wife and the police and they all said I was a lucky fool. Just shook their heads. But I wasn’t a lucky fool; I was lucky because in that situation my training allowed me to be bold enough to prevent the situation from becoming completely out of control. I guess what I’m saying is that training yourself to move towards danger may seem apparently crazy, and so the assumption is that you just get lucky that nothing bad happens. Actually you get lucky because you act boldly. The crazy is only relative to those who do not understand that boldness enhances good fortune, not detracts from it.)

3. Bravery does not allow for panic, especially not debilitating panic. Courage is usually prepared for most situations (through exercise, practice, training, and habit) or at the very least does not panic and make situations worse. Boldness has “faith in itself.” Because boldness and enterprise are habits and skills that can be learned through practice. Perhaps some people are naturally born fearless or bold. But regardless of the veracity of that statement a person can become bold and daring through the exercise and practice of courage, just as is the case with bodybuilding through resistance training. You become muscularly and physically stronger by working ever-heavier resistance against weak and inexperienced muscles. You become more courageous by placing yourself in dangerous situations and exercising control against your fear. Eventually your “courage physique” will increase and it will take more and more danger to cause fear any real friction or resistance against you.

That’s all I’m gonna say about the psychological factors because it is not my intent in this essay to discuss all possible psychological variables. But merely to present basic possibilities.


Now for some of the physical factors:

1. I suspect that on the physical level there is an “Entrainment of the unlikely” but nevertheless “necessarily possible” whenever boldness is a factor operating upon the physical environment. That is to say that boldness has both a physical and a quantum effect upon the surrounding environment much as it does on the psychological environment in which courage is in operation. Though the effect may be subtle, it nevertheless positively influences events in favor of the party operating “boldly.” The apparent physical effect is displayed as a tendency of events to move favorably in relation to the “bold party.” Though of course more than one party may be simultaneously operating in a bold fashion. It is not my intention in this short essay though to discuss competitions or conflicts between separate parties acting against each other each in their own bold fashion. That subject can be taken up by another if they so desire.

2. I suspect boldness is probably also a “quantum excitement” to the local environment, causing obstacles and frictions to move away from or bend away from the “bold party.” Friction and resistance does not build up in the environment against the bold, but rather boldness acts as a sort of overlaying energy field that slightly tilts the operational environment in the favor of the bold. You might think of daring and risk as exciting the local environment in such a way that it acts as a sort of simultaneous lubricant for good fortune, and as a sort of barrier against misfortune.


Now if all, or indeed if any of this is true, then this idea has large scale implications for human activity and work in the real world. It also has large scale gaming implications, because heroic gaming could therefore be used as a sort of imaginary training ground for the development of higher and higher states of mental and psychologically habitual (behavioral habits begin in the mind after all) boldness, which could then be effectively transferred outside the self-contained environment of a given game and exported to the wider world.

But for the moment, since this is a website and forum dedicated to gaming let’s examine how we might exploit the idea encapsulated by the statement: “Boldness makes you luckier.”


So I’m going to make a few suggestions as to how to use this hypothesis within your game and/or game setting.

1. If you use some factor, variable, or attribute in your game that represents or expresses Luck (I use several in my games) then (given that my previous statements and hypotheses above make sense to you) anytime your players display real courage this should have a corresponding and even compounding “Luck Effect.” If they are brave, and bold, then their level of Good Fortune should naturally increase, or be augmented in some way. Good luck is never lazy, and it is rarely risk-averse. Rather the braver the character the more likely he is to be lucky in any given situation (assuming he or she does not face impossible odds or an inescapable situation).

So acts of courage and heroism are more than likely to have a direct and positive corresponding effect upon factors of good fortune and the benefits bestowed by luck. I can’t tell you how to do this exactly in your game or setting (because I don’t know the details of your setting) but it is my recommendation that you bind together in some way acts of heroism and boldness to corresponding gains in good fortune. (However these things might be expressed, as bonuses to saving throws, or as “luck advantages,” or as gains to certain types of abilities or skills, or whatever the particular case may be in your situation.)

2. I would also suggest that acts of cowardice and timidity have a corresponding suppression upon factors involving luck. The risk averse would also be averse to natural good fortune. After all the obverse of my proposition, that bravery makes you luckier, is easily demonstrable. No great thing was ever achieved by timidity. The timid do not attempt and therefore naturally do not achieve great things. That is self-evident. Therefore good fortune can hardly be considered a close ally of timidity or cowardice, for achievement is the opposite of being retiring and timid. And achievement against great odds can be called one of the potential proofs of good fortune. So the bold often achieve where the timid will not go. And good fortune goes where the bold dare to lead her. Therefore fortune is long time friend of the bold, but always the stranger to the timid.

3. Courage might not only affect “Luck Factors” but even attributes like Charisma, Wisdom, and leadership. Courage should and will increase luck and overall good fortune but it might also temporarily or even permanently increase attribute scores like Charisma, Wisdom, Intelligence, or leadership abilities.

4. Courage causing increases in luck and good fortune might also have a corresponding positive effect upon things like intuition or even psychic abilities (I use the term psychic to reflect both mental abilities and spiritual capabilities.)

5. Courage would make one “fortunate” in the types and quality of the individuals you attract to yourself as friends, allies, and followers.

6. Another suggestion I might make is that in game terms at least allow for a sort of generalized and conditional reaction to acts of heroism, bravery, and boldness on the part of the surrounding environment. This could take any number of different forms but the overall effect would be that the environment “acts lucky” towards the person exhibiting bravery, initiative, and enterprise.

7. Courage and luck might have a beneficial effect upon the degree of power and level of control one may exercise over magic, magical items, artifacts, and devices, and/or more mundane types of tools/technology.

8. If courage increases good fortune and good fortune makes survival more likely then heroism and bravery should likely have direct and positive effects upon any useful survival mechanism or skill within your game.


These are but a few simple ways that the relationship between boldness and good fortune could be exploited in game, and could also serve as a sort of “reward system” to your best and bravest role-players. I could go into other related matters such as the possible mathematical relationship between boldness, confidence, and chance mechanisms, like gaming dice. But I’ve explored pretty much what I personally wanted to explore as regards this subject, and since I am presenting this post as an Interactive Essay others can add related or peripheral content as they see fit.

But in summation I would also like to encourage you all to make better use of heroism, enterprise, initiative, and boldness in your own situation(s), both in real life and in-game. I suspect that given time you will find yourself more and more inclined to boldness through practice (assuming you are not already), and as a result of that more likely to find yourself enjoying an ever increasing level of good fortune and definite luck.

Good luck to you then.

Jack7

Usually, I get very little time to watch television or see films. But it being the holiday weekend I got the chance to see a few things I've been wanting to see for awhile now but didn't previously have the opportunity.


Watchmen - It wasn't nearly as bad as I suspected it might be. I even enjoyed it. Yes, it was comic-bookish and the plot was not particularly well developed in the film in comparison to the Graphic Novel but it was a well enough developed film in its own right. And yes the politics were silly, incredibly unrealistic, and comic bookish too, as is almost always the case with comic book materials, but given the source I thought it was a pretty good tale on the level of the individual character (especially as regards Manhattan and Adrian, whom I really thought I wouldn't like beforehand) and liked it for that. But for love of Red Skelton, I wish though that comic book writers and film-makers alike would stop already with the 5th grade juvenile American Empire/Dystopia/Utopia Hippie-squiggly/porky-piggly in first deep doe-eyed puppy love with the failed throwback Sixties (even in a series set in the Eighties they gotta go back to the Sixties, like the Seventies weren't bad enough or like the world first arose in that mostly stupid, backwards, febrile, misguided era) sea of moss green catfish crap they so often love to swim in. Man, what do most of them get their visions of the world and history from nothing more than other comic books? Even when they write anti-comic-book comic books (excuse me Graphic Novels) that's about the extent of their "prophetic visions" of the present and future.


That's the big joke? Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In set to guys who keep bringing knuckle busted kung-fu fists and face-masks to machine gun-fights? Yeah, I guess it's funny enough if you never bother to look behind the curtain. No wonder though they're still writing comic books about guys who still get into hand to hand fist fights as grown men yet somehow never get punch drunk, and about guys who get belted by lethal doses of radiation and yet still somehow magically turn into men who can bend iron and read minds. No wonder they fall for the things they fall for.

The Dresden Files - I gotta say, seeing as how the Dresden Files are about the most enjoyable modern fantasy books I read, and sometimes (though not always) not a bad set of Dick stories, I really enjoyed this first season. Yeah, things were changed around, sometimes significantly, and I could not imagine Dresden at all as he appeared and was sometimes portrayed in the series in comparison to the books, but the series was enjoyable enough in and of itself that I didn't really care. I thought the woman playing Murphy was a looker, and I thought the television series in and of itself was sufficiently good to stand alone. Without being a perfect representation of the books. (I'm not a fanboy of anything much anyways, I'd rather something be good than merely accurate, if that's the only two choices I got.) I can't understand why Sci-Fi (excuse me, Sy-Fy) dropped it in comparison to the load of swill they often put out on the airwaves on a regular basis. But then again I'm not a big network honcho making the really tough calls between the Dresden Files and Mega-Shark/Giant Octopus. Or whatever that thing was I saw being made fun of on The Soup. Maybe Battlestar Galactica drained the aluminum thinking cap the Execs share during developmental season of all their spare Cylon brain-juice. So they do what they can with what they got left to work with I reckon...


In any case I thought that the early episodes of Season One (and I suppose it never made it past season 2) reminded me a lot of Brimstone (which I always thought was too good for TV anyways - the first time I saw it at the recommendation of a buddy, he asked me what I thought of it, and I said, "it won't last long Scott, it's way too good for TV"). Which as I generally make it in my book is high praise for about any show. A little later it also began to remind me of the X-Files (also not bad as far as TV goes). It had just started to get its own legs when I guess they killed it. No good show goes untimely ripped from the womb of great potential I guess. Or something like that.


Carnivale - This thing, which I had never seen before (we don't got HBO, and I don't want it, but every now and again I hear tell they make something decent) was easy on my eyes. I like this kinda thing myself and to tell the truth I've ordered more of it. Gonna watch the whole first season eventually. The jacket said it was made in 2004. But the disc info said the second season was made in 2007. Odd to be sure, if that's true. But the thing was weird enough to have been scripted in one of my dreams. So I ain't exactly complaining. And if it stays as good as the first two episodes I saw (or gets even better) then to me that's all psychological honey pie. And everybody likes honey pie. Though she can drive you a little crazy every now and then.

Speaking of likeable, I also really liked the Tarot Card intro. Very original and stimulating.
I liked the attention to detail too. I'm looking forwards to more of this.

Well, that's how I been Mediarized lately.
It weren't exactly curing cancer mind ya, but it was enjoyable enough to kill a few spare off-hours.

Jack7

This is my sort of summation answer to some of the responses in this thread: Where Has All the History Gone?



I know it has been an extremely long time (internet time anyways) since I have replied to some of the comments previously addressed to me in various threads. This is because I have been extremely busy. New work assignments and clients, the CAP, new assignments and flight camp, various trips, vacations and stuff with the family (I got a white-water rafting trip this weekend with the wife), work for church, remodeling and repairing the home, etc. have all kept me hopping. And tired.

Hopefully now that the summer is about over things will calm a'bit though my squadron has just been put on alert for hurricane season and I've still got a back-log of training materials to wade through. But I'm hoping it'll slow down a little anyhow.

But when I can and as I can I hope to go back through some of the old responses and questions directed to me and answer them as best I can. I'm thinking maybe one response a week or something like that, and hopefully I can create a new thread about once a week or so to as I've got a list of subjects I'd like to post about. We'll see what my schedule allows. Anyway stuff like this distracts and relaxes me so when I have the time it's good to divert myself from other things. I can't say when I'll get to what but I'll get to what I can as I remember about it or re-read it.

As for my response to this thread:

I think this assumption about what can be done with possessions in the game misses much of the same point as how people look at possessions in the modern world. I know that there is a tendency to look at things in the modern world (generally speaking) as being based purely upon their monetary (or cash, to "cash in") value. That is to say that everything that exists is usually assumed to have some fixed, or even floating, monetary value (in hard currency terms as a measure of liquidity and immediate usefulness, meaning an "exchange rate"). And the tendency therefore is to want the immediate value of the thing and therefore the impulse is to "liquidate everything." A desire to instantly convert whatever you have to "cash" and thereafter to exchange the cash for something else that you want more at the moment than what you originally converted into cash. You see this all of the time on shows (valuing and exchanging heirlooms for established cash rates) about old goods, and in the abominable savings and investment rates in many developed countries. People don't really prepare much for the future, build upon their assets, invest, or save (in historical times one would say the much more well understood term hoard), instead in the modern world the impulse is to immediately liquefy and then spend. This attitude is so prevalent and ubiquitous in the modern world it is rarely even questioned and even rarer is the analysis and consideration of the fact that it has not always been so. As a matter of fact, hieratically speaking, it is only recently so.

Now I could say a lot about what I think the value, or true lack of value is, in such an approach to assets, properties, goods, savings (hoarded treasure in historical times), estates and lands, heirlooms, etc. But suffice it to say I think that the attitude that you liquefy or covert all of your possessions, treasure, heirlooms, relics, artifacts, family objects, etc. into immediate cash is not an attitude that would be common in historical times (especially not medieval), nor would it be common to many settings based upon a semi-fictional or fictional alternative fantasy world, for obvious societal and economic reasons. It is rather simply a modern attitude superimposed upon a gaming structure based upon historical antecedents that would not have really worked at all in any way similar to modern economic principles (especially regarding cash) or interests. It is like taking a Dorian culture, superimposing upon it Victorian morals and social customs, and saying, well, a fantasy based Dorian society would therefore look a lot more like London than Greece, wouldn't it?

In historical times, just to use an example of what I mean, titles, historical precedents, class structure (not as the game uses the term, most of the classes in D&D are not classes at all, but professions, and very unusual and extra-class professions at that, as the term is commonly used), treasure hoards, etc. were far more effective components of power and wealth and influence than was mere cash. Indeed it is only into rather modern times at all that cash alone was seen as real power to obtain and do things in the world. Cash alone, and even up until the industrial revolution, was seen merely as a means to obtain titles, power, real wealth (and cash alone was not real wealth), lands and estates, investments, properties - in other words things that were seen of real value and which offered an on-going income. (Cash did not really become psychologically associated with the idea of being a "hard asset in and of itself" until very recent times. Until then it was a method of obtaining things that made you wealthy or powerful or influential.)

For instance if you got cash through adventure or warfare you immediately set about getting lands, properties, and if possible sponsorship and titles. Cash alone was meaningless because it could, unless you were careful, be so easily removed from your possession by someone having far more influence, authority, or power. (Laws and systems of justice, like economic systems, were also far different than in contemporary times.) It was these things, these hard assets, which gave you an opportunity for advenancement and for a steady source of future income, not cash, though cash might contribute to your overall opportunities for advancement. People did not take cash and invest it as an abstract investment vehicle to make more cash because things like modern businesses and stock markets and industries do not exist as we think of them today. The entire economic system rested upon entirely different premises and as a result it worked in entirely different ways than is common in modern times.

(As a matter of fact one of the very ideas underlying D&D and many fantasy based games is that the more powerful party can relieve others of their money by strength of arms. As often also happened in the real world. It was however much more difficult to relieve a man of his fortified and well armed and well-soldiered lands and estates. Or a baron of his region, or a king of his nation. Meaning cash and money were assets easy to lose, more important treasures could and would be secured in far better ways. To own something didn't mean others couldn't take it away from you, it meant that to keep it you had to be strong enough or clever enough to keep it. And you couldn't do that with cash. Cash had no built in method of self-defense from the ambition of others, as an estate or castle or keep might. In games for instance it is common for PCs to take or even steal from others. But if such a world were real then believe me others would be at least attempting to take back or to take from the PCs as often as opportunity presented itself. Kings and nobles would seize, thieves steal, more powerful warlords loot. You could not assure your own safety or property through the power of cash. Cash would simply be a lure for attack and ambush and forcible seizure. Unless your treasure was well-hidden, or in some better and more secure form than cash or money then you'd be spending as much time defending what you possessed, as hoping to add the possession of others to what you already owned.)

If an individual did obtain cash it was immediately set to work at the getting of real and physical things that would thereby grant power and influence to the owner. Things were not liquidated in order to obtain cash, cash was expended in order to get productive and important things, and it was in that way that one became powerful, influential, and ultimately wealthy and successful. In many ways that economic system was the exact polar opposite, or at least the very obverse image of our own. Therefore the intent of those types of economies were not to sell things to get cash, but to use cash to get things. I don't know if I can explain this any more explicitly but those types of comic systems were very different from our own, operated by entirely different principles, and has entirely different aims. Cash was not King, but rather Kings used lands and estates and properties and the law and influence to make cash. It didn't operate the other way around. Few people bought kingdoms know matter how wealthy they were or could become, and few could become wealthy by cash alone because there were precious few ways to make it or spend it compared to modern methods. And because there were few ways to make and spend it it tended to be hoarded or accumulated to use at really big projects like public building, and warfare. But cash was not used to make more cash, and things were not sold to get cash, rather cash was expended to obtain or maintain power or to get things or positions or titles or influence. Wealth did not rest upon cash, cash resulted from wealth, which was a far more long term and dangerous project and prospect than is the case today. Money in societies that used it has always been useful, of course, but it has up until very recent times not been the chief determination of power. And that is what is being entirely missed with the idea of superimposing modern economic systems based upon modern societal and cultural paradigms and mores and economic concerns, such as the industrial or high tech based economy, upon a basically medieval fantasy model. (Now of course some fantasy models do to some extent mimic the modern world more closely than others, but when you have a society in which individuals are running around toting swords and spears and bows instead of mass produced guns and plastic credit cards then it only makes sense that the economic system will operate upon entirely different principles and models.)

In an historical and basically fantasy-historical model it is far more likely that gold will be given as presents (such as the Vikings did with rings and bands) to faithful underlings, that treasure will be spread around to impress allies and rivals alike and to maintain a power base, and that important heirlooms will be closely guarded and protected to maintain lines of legitimacy and historical claim than it would that such things would be liquidated and converted into cash to buy a new suit of armor. What men did intend was buy lands and estates and then attract local smiths and their families seeking the protection of the landowner, and the smith then lived on the property to make armor and weapons as his keep or payment to the landowner (sometimes earning money which was often then reseized through the tax base). And thereby having that system established the landowner would thereafter attract followers and soldiers and the system then would continue to grow and feed itself, unless of course the owner lost out to a more powerful competitor. But rare was the occasion when an enemy could be bought off with cash for any length of time. Oh, they could be bought off alright, for maybe a year or so till they wanted more, but what could be done with real wealth was attract followers to protect what you owned. Which wasn't a big pile of cash. Rather it was far more important things through which you could generate cash, if necessary. Most of the time cash wasn't necessary. Men and servants and animals and crops and soldiers were. And you kept them through power, and influence, and property, not cash. That idea came about much, much later.

With that being said as prelude treasure (and I use that term to cover all things like properties, lands, estates, treasure and treasure hoards, important heirlooms - that more often than not implied some historical connection to power or nobility or influence - legacies, and all such related things) would not be converted to cash in order to achieve some more immediate and consumer-based end. (Indeed the very idea of consuming, in the modern sense, was not as we think of it today since so few resources were converted into consumer goods because the number and variety of consumer goods was necessarily limited in comparison to our world. You might have a large variety of a few basic items but not a real variety of goods and items compared to us.) Instead treasure would be put to use to achieve other and more concrete ends and purposes.

Such as, but not limited to:

Storage and Hoarding - This would have numerous advantages. Give it away to assure loyalty as was the case with Vikings, who along with most ancient and medieval societies did not often give presents of pure money but gave presents of things, created and already worked and fashioned things, because of the simple reason that good craftsmen and artisans were in relatively short supply so one assured one's prestige in gift giving not by giving money but by giving impressively worked and crafted goods and items. One also used treasure to buy stores in case of emergency or preparation for war, famine, disease, etc. But once again you didn't exchange things for money but rather you used money to buy important resources, which were always in demand (it was very rare for supply to exceed demand in non-theological societies, because it took a long time make things - this is a consideration that should not be overlooked - because in the modern world we often have supplies that exceed demand - non-technological societies have the opposite problem - so they look at wealth not as money but as commodities).

Attraction and Influence - Treasure and land and estates and titles and important things attracted followers and those eager to sell their good sand skills for protection, and a chance to work and live in relatively safety. This is something basic and fundamental to ancient (the importance of the Pax Romana) and medieval societies that we moderns are mostly oblivious of. Safety from war, death, starvation, invasion, rape, terror, and disease were all far more valuable than mere money, which could assure security form none of these malignant influences. Often treasure and nobility and estates could not either, but they were considered far more secure than money as defensive systems. In addition treasure equated to influence and power. Money itself did not.

Income - The very term income means to come-in. (People nowadays think of it as their earnings or wages, it was not - it was something you got off your lands or estates or investments.) It did not mean money as we think of it today. It meant food and crops, resources, labor, trade-able things and objects and items, as well as money. But in time of real famine and disease money was useless. It was often also useless in time of war, unless it had previously been used to purchase troops, because the enemy would often either not take your money (knowing he would get it by conquering you anyway) or simply agree to the ransom or payment then conquer and kill you anyway. But things, important things like estates, and lands, etc. could be used to generate income. So the system worked in reverse to our modern way of looking at money, which is basically abstract.

Fame - Fame was often nearly as important as power and influence. Sometimes it was a source of power and influence. It assured nothing in itself, which again is often the opposite of our society, but fame could be used to exchange to gain some influence with those who did have real power. Fame could derive from achievement (extraordinary genius, like that of Archimedes, though it did not save Archimedes), or through historical ties or ties to those in power. You couldn't buy such ties with money alone and attempting to do so was looked upon in most cases as foolish and often beneath contempt, but historical ties could be linked to money or wealth to try and gain more power and influence over those with greater power. Hence the vast importance of historical legacies.

So, that is my response to this in a nutshell. Medieval and ancient societies do not have the same types or kinds of economic systems or interests or concerns that we do and therefore they did not look at money in the same way that we do, and they had much more respect for and placed far more importance on things like legacies, heirlooms, hard assets and treasures of all kinds than we do, who tend to think of such things as little more than their corresponding monetary value. And therefore fantasy gaming worlds, derived basically far more often than not from medieval and ancient backgrounds and models than from modern ones would also tend to have systems that are far more like historical models than modern ones. Modern ones concerning "money" as we think of it wouldn't even make sense in the context of most non-tehcnolical and non-modern societies.

Now of course the details would vary depending upon which exact era you are discussing and what geopgrhaical or cultural point you want to investigate, but the basics remain the same. Most people would have been far better served to inherit an estate and a legacy than a wad of cash, which could in such societies far more easily stolen and would be far harder to protect and really prosper from by the way.

Well, I'm sure I made plenty of typos but I got other things to do. I edited as best I could.

Jack7

This is more of a question post. I'm looking for help.
________________________________________

Does anyone know something about podcasting? I freely admit I know far less than I probably should.

I keep getting really interesting podcasts from the Orthodox Christian Network which I'd like to listen to (like the one below) rather than just read because the podcasts include Byzantine chant and song and music sometimes other things as well (which I greatly enjoy, it's kinda like sitting back and closing my eyes and listening to mass or an interesting theological discussion off my computer). But downloading these files is a hassle on dial-up (all we can get out here).

What I'm looking for is good podcasting software for Windows that will allow me to download or interface with podcasts far more quickly and efficiently.

I'm not interested in podcasts for my cellphone. I never use my cell phone for anything other than business or necessary communications or emergencies. It's nothing more than a big security hole as far as I'm concerned. But I'd like something really good for my computer.

If anyone knows of anything good and useful then let me know. I'd appreciate it.

__________________________________________

http://www.myocn.net/images/stories/...0900814_20.mp3


On Harmony of Thunder Orthodox podcast: The gospel of St. John tells us that no one has seen the Father except the Son. On this week's Harmony of Thunder, we explore a sermon of St. John Chrysostom that asks the questions: What does it mean that no one has seen the Father? And what does this mean for us as Christians? Join Fr. David in enjoying this wonderful and remarkable sermon.

Click below to listen.

Click here to download MP3 file. Click below to read a transcript of this week's program.

Harmony of Thunder, program 20 - St. John Chrysostom homily 15

I wasn’t always Orthodox. Of course, with a name like Smith, that probably doesn’t surprise you, dear listener. More about that later. But I wasn’t always an Orthodox Christian. Sometimes, when I was sitting in the church of my youth, I would hear sermons in which the preacher would try and tell us what difficult parts of the Bible meant, and I would wonder if he had really gotten it right. It’s one of the reasons that I spent so much time studying scripture – I wasn’t convinced that the preachers who were explaining the scriptures to me were doing a very good job.

In St. John Chrysostom’s fifteenth sermon from his series on St. John’s gospel, (I’m using a translation done by Sister Thomas Aquinas Goffin and published by the Catholic University of America in 1957 in their “The Fathers of the Church” series) the great preacher reminds his listeners and us that the scriptures must be studied and interpreted very carefully, as he says, “Moreover, the Lord also, by urging the Jews to search the scriptures made our study of them still more imperative. Indeed, He would not have spoken thus if it were possible to grasp them at once and from the first reading. No one would ever search out the meaning of what is evident, but only the meaning of what is obscure and found only after much seeking. It is for this reason, also, that He said that they are a hidden treasure: to spur us on to the search.”

And sure enough, in this sermon St. John Chrysostom does indeed search out the deep meanings of the scriptural passage: “No one has at any time seen God. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed Him.” Let’s take a look.

Hi, welcome to Harmony of Thunder, where we explore and enjoy the rich tradition of Orthodox preaching. I’m your host, Fr. David Smith. Each week, Harmony of Thunder chooses a sermon from scripture or from the works of a saint and we spend our time together looking at the style, the illustrations, and the spiritual message of the preacher.

Lord Jesus Christ, through the prayers of Your Most Pure Mother and of all the saints, bless your Holy Orthodox Church with great preachers and people who want to hear them. Amen.

Listen to the opening of the passage that St. John Chrysostom addresses in his sermon. St. John the Evangelist tells us that “no one has at any time seen God.” And yet, we have numerous Old Testament texts that tell us some of the prophets had seen God. In Exodus 33:11, we read, “So the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” In Isaiah 6:1, 4-5, it says, “In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. … So I said: “Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, The LORD of hosts.” The same thing happened to the Prophet Daniel as well, in Daniel 7:9, “I watched till thrones were put in place, and the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, its wheels a burning fire.”

So what could St. John have possibly meant by saying that no one had seen God? Certainly he was familiar with these Old Testament passages, and certainly he would not have disputed with these Old Testament prophets that they had, indeed, seen God. St. John Chrysostom explains the apparent discrepancy: “How is it, then that John said: ‘No one has at any time seen God’? He was affirming that all those instances were manifestations of His condescension, not the vision of pure Being Itself. If they had actually seen the very nature of God, they would not have beheld it under different appearances. For, that which is itself, simply, and without shape, and not made up of parts, and not restricted by limits, does not sit nor stand nor walk about, since all these are functions of material bodies. However, He alone knows how He exists.”

Here we see the difference between the pure being of God and the impure becoming of mankind. We cannot behold pure being, since our minds and hearts cannot grasp its existence, and so God, in order to show Himself to men, must necessarily have visible energies that we can behold, as the preacher says: “However, what God actually is not only have the Prophets not seen, but not even angels or archangels. If you ask them, you will not hear them reply anything about His substance, but only singing: ‘Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth among men of good will.’”

The message, then, of this passage of scripture, “No one has at any time seen God. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed Him,” tells us that there was indeed one man who could see the essence of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. He not only saw God, as if he was some kind of mystical superman, but dwelt in the very heart of God, He who was in the bosom of the Father. The essence of God is not seen, He is dwelt-in. And so for us, our vision of God, our belief in God, our faith in Him, does not come through the sight of the eyes but through love. Through in-dwelling. We can see, “First, that even these very words manifest His power: second, we have received a much clearer teaching and know that ‘God is spirit’ and that ‘they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.’ We learn, too, the fact itself that it is impossible to see God and that no one knows Him except the Son; and that He is the Father of the true and Only-begotten.”

Here the great saint and preacher has made the main theological point of his sermon, that the Man-God Jesus Christ has dwelt inside the very essence of God the Father. But what conclusions will he draw from this point? What does it actually mean for us as Christians?

The fact is that the vision of God is born in a relationship of love, and so it must be with those of us who call ourselves by the name of Jesus: “Now, we must have for one another an intimacy, not merely like that which friends must have for one another, but as much as member must have for member.” And later he says, “It is for this reason that God have one house for all of us – this world; distributed all created things equally; kindled one sun for all; stretched above us one roof – the sky; set up one table – the earth. And he also gave another much greater table than this, but this, too, is one – those who partake of the mysteries understand what I say. He has bestowed one manner of generation, the spiritual for all; one fatherland for all – that in heaven; we all drink from the same chalice. He has not bestowed more abundant and more honorable largesse upon the rich and meaner and less upon the poor, but has called all equally; He has furnished temporal things as generously as spiritual.”

I wasn’t always Orthodox. Of course, with a name like Smith, that probably doesn’t surprise you, dear listener. Since becoming Orthodox, I have had to become much more familiar with the cultural differences that separate people than I would have liked to. It’s an odd place to be – I’m living in my own country, the country of my birth, and in my hometown as a matter of fact, and yet so often when I go to church on Sunday I feel like a foreigner. I’m not saying that I don’t love and appreciate the culture of the people in church, not at all. And I’m not saying it’s uncomfortable either, or that we should seek to eliminate cultural differences in the Orthodox Church. Instead, I’m saying, along with St. John Chrysostom, that these cultural differences must not separate us. This is what St. Paul says about our cultural differences around the table of the Eucharist: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

How can you, dear listener, embrace this very important truth, even today?

Lord Jesus Christ, Savior of the world, fill us all with your Holy Spirit that we may worship you in spirit and in truth as one body, with you as our head, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, one God, Amen.

Jack7

Our story so far: Our intrepid hero hears the siren song of the White Rabbit while being flayed in his mind. In the middle of that he discovers a Sea Hag. Then something else happens but no body seems to be able to remember that part. More Sea Hag, possibly followed by more of that. Not absolutely sure, but it’s a good guess.

Continuing on our hero bathes with his buddies and decides to have brunch. His woman Wanda warns him against all of the steak-fries and Wizardly claptrap. Our hero wonders what that might mean if nobody is looking.

In part three we have a song and a happy go lucky Bard about town. Good times. At this point our story takes a strange and wonderful turn, as there is suddenly a surprising and totally unanticipated close encounter with a new friend and his home made hot rod. Then while our cluster of comrades make their way cautiously back to their camp sinister forces watch from the black of the night and gather to surround them… Hold on to your helmets good people, it’s about to get hairy again.

_____________________________________________

FALFLA, PART FOUR: A LAMENT FOR LAMIA


We were almost back to camp, just about within spit-shine distance, when I suddenly heard a weird noise. Using my amazing powers of hearing and a tin-horn I keep as a back-up ammo case and spit wad gun I rolled a lucky number seven and promptly crapped out. Butt that’s not the end of the story true believers. I took an extra action point and decided if this wasn’t going anywhere then it must mean either I was about to be over-Hydrated again, or more than likely, I was about to be the victim of a random encounter. And boy was I right about that.

Busting through the trees and the scrub grass like a herd of hungry jack-rabbits was a whole gang a’dopples. They were led by a Lamia whose prominent and enflamed boobies seemed really outta place for this neck of the woods, because sure, yeah, her boobies were shape-shifters alright, but they also appeared as drunk leprechauns in chorus girl outfits. (Thus their nickname among adventurers, the German-Irish Chaun Artists.) The really nasty and awful sad part was they couldn’t even color coordinate properly. And since magenta is very last year I felt kinda ashamed to be attacked by the lot of em, especially given the laws in the area concerning interstate commerce.


Still I thought I probably knew the Lamia from somewhere and this was verified when she gave me a wink and a nod and shouted out, “Kill that guy with the sitar who smells like su-monsters, dipping snuff, and elven grown tingleberries.” I found it hard to believe that anybody knew about the su-monsters. That was supposed to have been wiped from my record when I turned eighteen.

At that point her boobies all took a run straight at Jyles, I guess because they thought tingleberries were blue.

“Not him you idiots, the one who looks like he could trick you into paying for your own engagement ring!” It was right then I recognized her.

“Oh, hey Lilith. How ya been?”

“We’ll talk afterwards lover,” she screamed. “But right now I’m gonna kill ya first.”


“I understand,” I said good-naturedly, but I had to admit, it was a bit awkward. The last time I had seen her she was flat on her back in our ranch house stable with all four hooves in the air, smoking an imported Chubanian, and talking about how our children would have really shiny coats, big, strong teeth, and beautiful skin. Right after that she starting platting her mane, used her tail to flick a bottle fly off of my face and told me that she’d love me forever. So I told her I was going to buy some Longbottom chewing tobacco, and accidentally called her Rachel on my way out the door for the next county. I guess I got busy after that as I never went back. Why females take that kinda thing personally I’ve never understood, but then again I don’t make the rules.

As it turned out I was right, it was indeed a purely random and yet vengeful encounter. Sure it didn’t make much sense out here in the woods, running into her of all… well, whatever she was, but who is gonna argue with a random encounter chart? It’s like arguing with Fate or the Dice or detention class statistical progressions or something else I never learned the term for. In cases like that it’s always better to just take what you get, no matter how ridiculous, and hope you can close the deal by the time for your next love-ballad and round of lard-cakes to queue up.

Now when everybody saw that the dopplechauns had peeled off of Jyles and were headed for me the party all formed a circle with me at the right end. Or maybe it was the wrong end cause Lilith could still see me and I wasn’t sure but I thought she was muttering something about “draining his blood out his spine and making him pay the court costs.” Now a good old fashioned Spinal Tap is one thing, and depending on how it’s done I got no real argument with that, but there was no way I was paying court costs.

After that it was all kind of a blur. There were several seconds of swords, daggers, fangs, claws, broomsticks and feather dusters whoosh-whooshing and chopping through the air, followed by several minutes of panting, heavy breathing and what sounded like horse snorts. Somebody screamed out, “Darkon loves Baalzebulb!” - I never knew who, or why even - but that confused all of the dopplechauns who thought it meant the Sith and Hutts had finally arrived. But it was really just an overweight Clay Golem on a personal mobility scooter. He had come to deliver the take-out. How come those guys always get there at just the right time?


Anyways I had the Angus charge over and knock him off his chair and into the fight. His heart didn’t seem in it though cause all he did was gripe and moan and groan about “if he only had a brain then he’d have left that dame a long time ago.” I had to agree with him on that one. Brains apparently weren’t his strong suit.

Still after Wanda threw an anti-depressant spell he perked up pretty good and soon enough we had all the dopplechauns beaten down to Sprites, or at least to Pixies with a bad case of the counting coup.

“How do ya like that ya boobies?” I screamed. “Who’s ya momma now!”

Jyles looked at me sorta sideways and said, “These creatures are henchmen. Why do you keep calling them boobies?”

I was gonna answer but right at that moment Lilith trotted over at a prancing high step and gored me hard in the testaculars. I wasn’t really sure how to respond to that other than with the vomiting and the unconsciousness and all. But when I came to again I saw Lilith and Wanda talking among themselves in a little gal-fab. I wasn’t sure if that was a good thing or not but I was pretty sure I was looking at another hernia, and maybe some more court costs.

Rolph sat me up and Jyles took his rod and hit me in the groin. I vomited again and I thought I saw Broadway all lit up, or maybe it was Toledo after a cheap bull fight, but then the pain went away like… well… like magic.

“Hey, that’s pretty neat guy. Does that thing cure spite wounds too?” I asked.

“No, not usually, but it does deliver morphine in concentrated doses,” he replied. “But just to be safe I also placed a hypnotic suggestion in your mind that you are now a Eunuch named Lord Hamperstamm, and that you are probably also the late Earl of Knuttingwall. You may also have a dry mouth and suffer allergies around blue or tingle berries for the next several days but after that the swelling should recede, and you should return to semi-normal. However that is normally defined.”

“Care to hazard a guess on that score?” I asked him.

“If it’s all the same to you fella, no, not really,” he replied.

So I thanked him for his ministrations and then walked kinda slow and funny over to the ladies. “Hey gals,” I said cheerfully. “Who wants first crack at me this time? I think I’ve been hammered by Jyles already so we’re good as far as that goes. But I also think I’ve got a lot of money too now. Something about living in the Hampertons. Is that some kinda selling point?”

“You’re supposed to be a Eunuch now you idiot!” shouted Lilith.


“Yeah, about that,” I said. “I think I accidentally may have made my saving throw or something cause I’m not really sure what that word means. But if it has something to do with flapjacks and water weirds then I’m totally there dudes. Plus if you two wanna try and nurse me back to health then I promise ya the best twelve hours or so of your life that none of us will never remember again.”

I’m not certain but I think that Lilith must have gotten cooties in the wilderness on the way over cause she suddenly started stompin and buckin around real good and before I knew it I took three hooves to the head in quick succession. Pretty hard.

On the way down to the ground I noticed somebody riding sideways into the clearing on the back of a big Brahma Bull singing something about funky town and Able Seaman Jones. Oh great, I thought, just what we all need. A visit from Happy Jack. About that time I took a fourth hoof to the head and everything went black again. And I’m still not sure that fourth hoof was purely an accident.


By the way folks, if you’re enjoying this thrilling and fun serial adventure then be sure and send me a postcard telling me what’s wrong with ya. Then we’ll both know.

Jack7

ESSAYS ON GAME DESIGN

Essay Ten: U Plus (U+)


You, Plus

Synopsis: Use this method of development and creation to improve both your character and yourself. For it is a method of developing a character based upon your real self, only better.


Note: If you consider Role Play Gaming an activity that is totally divorced from the real world and your real self, or relatedly if you think gaming should be used to escape or get away from yourself, then this method will probably be of no value to you. If however you consider gaming an activity that is complimentary to or a natural part of your larger and greater life then this method of self and character development may very well be useful to you in more than one way. I should also point out that this article (I should develop a better term for this kind of work) is also an interactive essay (meaning you may add to it, or write your own related essay in the response posts). So if after reading this piece you should decide to make your own suggestions as to variations upon the method, or to critique it, or it has inspired a related set of ideas, then feel free to comment and to contribute. Given the limitations or caveat of course of the first sentence of this note. There is no need to point out that, “I have no interest in playing that way because I think gaming should be entirely escapist and unreal.” I already understand that viewpoint. I am not arguing it, and I think it would be useless to spend my time debating that viewpoint as it is diametrically opposed to this method of character and game development. I am however presenting a contrary set of principles. A different model and paradigm for both approaching the game, and for assessing (and exploring) how the game might be useful in a wider sense to one’s larger life. That having been said though if you have a real critique to make or some form of improvement you’d like to suggest regarding this method of game and character development then feel free to weigh in with your comments. I will respond as soon as my schedule allows, and of course you do not need me to discuss or debate these ideas. You can do that quite well enough among yourselves.

Indirectly related to this method of character development is the idea behind the Renaissance Gild, which I do not intend to create a gaming thread about, but the basics of which can be found posted to my blogs. In this sense then you might think of this method of character development as the gaming or avocational version of the Renaissance Gild.


U+: This is a form of Player and Character creation and development that is basically applicable to any role-play gaming system, and maybe to other types of gaming systems as well. I will use D&D as an example of how to apply and play the system as regards the attributes, but it could be used with or applied to any of the attributes of any character during most any type or genre of game. Just so the terms I’ve used won’t be confusing to anyone reading and trying to understand what I’m saying I’ve included a Definition of Terms supplement to the end of this article.

Instead of rolling for character attributes, using any artificial or traditional system, what one does is analyze one’s own (personal or individual) attributes and then apply those to the necessary character attributes. The intention is to produce a character whose attributes mirror your own real world attributes as closely as possible, or at least as closely as desired. This is the You part of the equation, or the Y.O.U. Stage. I’ll get to the Plus part in a moment, which is the second stage of the entire process.

How do you determine and fix your own attributes to a character?

Well, rather than give you a static and not necessarily accurate system for your own game, the way we do it is in three steps. These simple and basic steps can be applied to any gaming system with very little if any necessary modification.


Character Creation:

First and foremost, analyze yourself. Be as brutally honest about yourself, your capabilities, your strengths and your weaknesses as possible. This gives you a basic idea of what you (as a person) would be like as compared to the gaming system that you use to affix attribute scores. The point of this step is to try to express your real self and your real attributes in a gaming form suitable to the way characters are expressed within the gaming system you are using.

Secondly, you and your fellow players and your DM or GM must decide on a “Value-Method.” For example, how do you value strength, and how do you set a strength-value? For instance if a person can bench press 120 pounds (in real life) does that give him a strength of 12? Or, do you take a given real world number or target, say if one is able to bench press 350 (or more) pounds (meaning that if you can really bench press 350 pounds you would have an equivalent game strength of 18), and then let people work out a percentage of what their own strength would mean proportionally and in comparison to that standard? It doesn’t really much matter (within reason) how you set the values or by use of what method, as long as you are consistent and everyone can use the same value standards to determine their own real world abilities and attributes. Of course some attributes, for instance, Wisdom, Charisma, or even Intelligence (in some cases) will be much harder to affix and apply as an objective standard to both player and character. I’ll explain a method of resolving that problem in step three.

Third, the individual player gets together with all of his other players, and with the DM or GM, goes over the attribute scores he has assigned his character which were based upon his own real world attributes, and then negotiation and compromise begins. For instance if a player sees himself as 14 strength (in both real life and correspondingly for the score he desires for his character) but most other people in the gaming group see him as either a 16 (or a 12 if going in the opposite direction), then a compromise might be reached in which the player settles upon a strength value score of 15 (or a 13 if most think him weaker than he thinks himself). Then the same is done with every attribute and every character until agreement or consensus is reached. How long this third step takes, and whether agreement is reached quickly or slowly I suspect would depend upon the nature of the group and the players and DM(s) involved.

After these three steps are finished every player now has a character with all attributes assigned, and each character more or less precisely reflects the nature of the actual player (at least as far as the agreed upon attribute scores are concerned). This is the YOU step of the process, and is the Character Creation stage.

This system of assigning character attribute values is not nearly as easy or quick as more traditional methods, nor nearly as arbitrary as chance, accident, and die roll. But it does provide an excellent system for player-character sympathy and association, and it is a superb method of encouraging both player (individual person) and character development throughout the course of play.


Character Development:

After the Character Creation stage comes the Plus stage. In the plus stage the intention is to foster both on-going and long-term development on the part of both the player and the character. This is accomplished in the following way.

A player chooses one (or more, but I recommend one) attribute in which he or she feels they (both player and character) are weak or deficient or not as promising as they wish to be. For instance if a player feels that both he and his character are not as physically healthy as they wish to be (reflected in D&D game terms as Constitution) then they choose that attribute which reflects their dissatisfaction with their health and toughness (Constitution). Within the game the character then sets out, whenever opportunities present themselves, to increase or augment their Constitution. To improve their constitution score, augment it, or add to it. To build it up. This could be achieved through any number of ways. Through the reading and practice of manuals of health, through exercises designed to increase health and toughness, through seeking cures for diseases, through magic or scientific advances, through self-monitoring and careful observation followed by corrective action, and so on and so forth. Or, ideally, one could employ a combination of useful methods. The point is that over a period of time one sets out to improve the character’s abilities and capabilities within the realm of the targeted Attribute.

At the same time a corresponding effort is made by the player in his non-gaming time (though to a degree the in-game efforts could be considered a form of practice or habit reformation for the real world effort) to achieve the same effect. If the player chose to strengthen his character’s Constitution then he attempts in the real world to do the same for himself. By whatever means necessary (within reason and that is legal and ethical) and by whatever means is actually effective and beneficial. The point is to achieve a concurrent and practical desired improvement on the part of both the player and the character in regards to whatever attribute is targeted. (I use this system for the improvement of general gaming attributes, but it could just as easily, with some modification, be applied to simultaneous player-character improvement in other areas of ability, such as in co-development of particular skills or skill sets.)

The same general process of development can be applied to any attribute (or skill, or capability) one wishes to improve, or to gain new advantage in. So one is not limited, of course, to the example I gave regarding Constitution. One could improve one’s Intelligence, Charisma, Wisdom, Dexterity, observational skills, deductive capabilities, tracking ability, etc. The important thing is that one makes the effort to find effective methods of improving and beneficially developing one’s attributes and/or capabilities both in-game and in the real world. Improving one’s character is used as encouragement and motivation for improving one’s self and vice versa. (The character then becomes a sort of “imaginary model” for corresponding self-development.) Methods of co-development may also be complimentary.

Reading magical manuals to improve one’s strength in-game might correspond to reading books on exercise and fitness and developing weight programs to train one’s physical self in real life. Real world exercises might lead to one developing certain game exercises that have the same effects on one’s character (used in the widest sense of the term to reflect both in-game character and real world character).

One also needs to choose a target objective to develop a suitable time-frame in which real achievements and improvements can be made and measured. The time frame really doesn’t matter as long as verifiable, measurable, and beneficial improvements can actually be made within the agreed upon limits of the time frame or timeline involved. Just as a recommendation however I suggest one year of real world and playing time for a target objective of increasing an attribute by one point (gaining a new one point advantage to the attribute). This gives one time enough to read, research, exercise, practice, and make actual and real improvements and generally still have enough reserve time to deal with family and work demands, as well as to accommodate the unforeseen demands of the accidental occurrence or the unexpected situation. (This is in fact my exact method of employing U+, I use a timeline/time-frame of one year real world playing time to try and make improvements to both my character and myself.)

Through this method one can also achieve complimentary secondary or tertiary objectives. For instance a player wishes to increase both his own strength and his character’s strength. Correspondingly he also wishes to lose (or gain) weight in real life in conjunction with his increase in strength. There may be no need at all for his character to gain or lose weight, but increasing strength and gaining or losing weight in real life may very well be complimentary goals for the player. (For example the player feels he or she is too fat or too thin in real life, but his or her character is of an ideal weight. The character then can serve as a sort of imaginary goal for desired weight and/or physique on the part of the player. Playing the character reinforces this complimentary secondary goal much as it reinforces the other primary goals of attribute and skill development.) So at the same time the player is seeking to increase both his own and his character’s strength he is also looking to lose or gain weight using the same basic principles of development. The practical uses of such a system of development are like the game you play itself, limited only by the power of your own imagination, creativity and desire. It is, because of this, an extremely useful method of Role Play, for the overall intention is to use one’s role to simultaneously develop both one’s imaginary character and one’s real self. Beneficially, positively, and through a method that promotes an on-going basis for continued improvement to both player and character.

Therefore after improvements have been made to the initial target attribute, through whatever method works and in whatever time frame is possible then one may continue to make new improvements to the same attribute (or set of attributes, or skill-set) or move on to a new attribute, set of attributes, or skill, or skill-set. Again the limits outlined by the actual possibilities are merely self-imposed. What you choose to intentionally change and improve is up to you, and your gaming group.


Now, at this point and as a side-note, I am not saying that I think gaming, of any kind, role play gaming included, should be one’s chief, much less one’s only, method of self-improvement, or of any type of improvement. There are many methods of improvement one could undertake, some more effective than others, and gaming should be used as but one tool in the overall toolkit. However I am saying that gaming, role play gaming in particular, because of the very nature of the type of gaming involved, is a perfectly suitable method of training, exercising, and practicing not only one’s role and character, but by extension, one’s real self through that role and character. That gaming can be used as a novel and effective method of focus and encouragement to make improvements to one’s character and to one’s nature, in more than one way, and in the widest possible sense of the terms of both improvement, and character. That one can easily use one’s full force of imagination (through the vehicle of role play gaming) as complimentary to and as a form of exercise towards real improvement in the real world.

(It is at least as vital a method of potential self-improvement as observationally passive methods of skill absorption such as, “How I learned to be a leader from watching Captain Kirk,” or, “What the movies taught me about how to succeed in business without really trying.” But you can’t role-play or experiment with techniques regarding leadership by merely watching Capitan Kirk on television or on-screen. You can however experiment and test different methodologies of action and success through the mechanism of your role-playing character. For that matter you can even role-play Captain Kirk if you wish and over time improve both the character, and correspondingly, yourself.

Conversely I suppose it could be said that gaming could be used as a form of practice for developing or improving malignant traits, or for practicing habits of degeneration rather than regeneration and improvement. That, like anything, it could be used positively or negatively. But I am not making that suggestion. I am rather proposing that it can be used as one method of improvement, and even of encouraging and focusing one towards goals of real achievement in the real world, rather than merely fantasy achievements in an imaginary world.)


A Brief Note on Developmental Background of this Method: In my setting the players have used the Y.O.U. (which stands for Your Own Utility, or usefulness) system of character creation for a long while now. Some time ago I encouraged my players to create characters that mirrored themselves in attributes (or in whatever other way they wished) as closely as possible. It has worked out very well for us and has the added advantage of creating a natural sense of association and sympathy on the part of the player with his character. (Imagine for instance playing a video game or a virtual reality game in which it was obvious the character was you, rather than some artificially created or contrived character only vaguely or suggestively like you in some ways and very much unlike you in others.) However after some experimentation with NPCs and characters who reflected my own attributes and nature I decided to also add the Plus part of the equation to encourage on-going and long-term development on the part of both the Player and the Character. It became, at that point, not merely a method of creating characters like the player, but of simultaneously developing and improving both character and player.

This system of course is flexible and open to many forms of alteration and experimentation, and I encourage both. For instance rather than the process I described above the player might choose one real attribute about himself which is a different attribute than that of his character, which he wishes to improve, augment, or increase. So that the processes of character and player improvement become parallel tracks of development, rather than corresponding tracks of development.

Another form of variation is that one can affix or assign values as I originally outlined, but players retain a “reserve value,” which is merely a group agreed upon number that they can apply to any one attribute they wish that they feel is too low or not a fair reflection of their own personal attributes. When creating their character they hold that number or value in reserve and then use it as they wish after all of the attributes have been initially determined. Adding it to what they feel is the deficient attribute score, from their point of view.

These are just a couple of possible variations upon the You Plus formula and process of character creation and development. Many others are possible and through experimentation the players and the gaming group can reach the best possible format of this system for their own game.

Also I should point out that not every player need employ this system, should one choose to use it in one’s game(s). That is to say that one player might want to use U+, another might wish to use a traditional method of character generation and improvement, hybrid systems might well develop, and so forth. The only real problem of employment is one of agreement, how and in what specific way one’s group agrees to employ the system.


Definition of Terms:

You or Y.O.U. – Stands for Your Own Utility. Basing character attributes for your gaming character (of whatever system or genre) upon the corresponding real world attributes of the player who will play the character. Values are determined and set by the individual Gaming Group.

Plus – The system that encourages simultaneous development (or some variation thereof) of both the character and the player through game play, and through related outside activities.

Gaming Group – The particular group of players and the DM or GM involved in any given game or set of games. The entire gaming group determines character-player interaction values and how exactly the U+ system is employed and works within the context of their particular game or games.

You Stage – The stage of character creation. Divided into three basic steps. 1. Self-analysis. 2. Determination of Agreed Upon Value Method(s). 3. Group-analysis, Consensus, and assigning of Final Values and Scores.

Plus Stage – The stage of character development. On-going and future oriented.

Thread Link

Jack7

THE RENAISSANCE GILD – AN INTRODUCTION


Synopsis: The Renaissance Gild is a simple yet effective method of fully developing a wide range of skills within a single individual, and of self-development of the polymathic capabilities and ingenuity inherent in each person.

Introduction: I have been working on this idea for well over thirty years (in one way or another), the accompanying Theory Paper and assorted supplementary material regarding this project for about three years now, and my own Personal Gild Program for a little over a decade. Anyway I thought it was about time to put the idea into wider circulation, both among my friends and colleagues, and as regards the world at large.

What the Renaissance Gild Is: The Renaissance Gild is less a formal agency, organization, group, or club, than it is intended to be an informal "movement of individuals." Though it could also easily become an informal movement among a vast number of individuals (my hope is that this is exactly what will develop over time), or it could even become a more formalized structure for group accomplishment, but I would not want such a movement or organization to in any way suppress or hinder the noteworthy accomplishments of individual Gild members. What is most important about the Gild is the promotion of individual achievement, not the primacy of formal group structure or exclusivity. Indeed no "membership" of any kind is required or necessary other than an honest motivation to achieve and accomplish and the steady, persistent, and patient labor demanded for real and lasting success.

How the Renaissance Gild Operates: One needs no formal degree or training in order to participate in the Gild. One may be self-educated, formally and institutionally well educated (I am both, and I recommend both if possible, but if a formal education is not possible or practical then I definitely recommend a good, solid program of self-education), or even not very well educated. One need not worry in any case, as one may counteract a poor education through a well-developed method of Renaissance Education, which I will discuss at another time.

The Gild is open to individuals of any age. A Gild member can be of any sex, race, background, nationality, or religion. Requirements regarding Gild members are not exclusionary, but rather progressive (not in the political sense, but in the objective sense) towards future achievement. What is actually required of the Gild member is hard work and serious study, along with much practice and persistent application to accomplish those things that are long lasting, practical, beneficial and useful, and/or broad in scope or accomplishment.

To this end I suggest three broad areas or categories of concentration for each Gild member: those of Art, Religion, and Science. Why do I recommend these particular areas of concentration for achievement to each Gild member? The reasons are simple, historical, and profound. Throughout human history, and indeed given what we know of human pre-history the same basic conditions apply, the greatest human advances have been made within these general categories of activity. Men have made their most important (and sometimes most destructive and counterproductive – but our intent is to avoid or overcome those malignant tendencies) discoveries and advances within the fields of Art, Religion, and Science. (I do not rank these categories of achievement in order of importance within my own mind, but rather for sake of simplicity, alphabetically.) Indeed nearly every form of human activity can be roughly classified as falling within the parameters of these three general subject areas.

For example, Art, from the very beginnings of human prehistory has been an important aspect of human expression, and perhaps just as importantly, of representing the world through images and symbols that others could understand.

Religion, also from pre-history onwards, has been an important, if not the most important to most people, method of rendering value to the world, of shaping how men behave towards their fellow man, and of speculating about conditions and events beyond the known and immediately evident world.

And Science (and I classify things like the earliest attempts at the creation of tools, of domesticating animals, of developing agriculture, etc. as acts of science or proto-science – even when such acts were not then understood to be scientific in the modern sense of the term) from man’s earliest roots has formed the basis for man’s attempts to control his environment and to understand and profit from his physical conditions.

Most things that people do or achieve can be classified as arising from an artistic, a religious, or a scientific impulse. Or sometimes from one or more category of activity working in conjunction with the others. For instance was the painting of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel a religious act of devotion, an artistic act of inspiration, or a scientific endeavor requiring great skill and technical mastery? Or was it in truth not all three?

So these categories are certainly not hard and fixed, impenetrable the one to the other, but rather all forms of human activity are open, fluid, malleable, and osmotic, and therefore art, religion, and science far more often than not cross-fertilize one another in very productive and beneficial ways.

There are of course also fields of human activity that could be considered sub-categories of the general fields of Art, Religion, and Science. As an example some fields of human enterprise naturally fall into more than one category of classification. For instance both Business, and Athletic performance can variously, depending on the particular circumstance involved, be considered an Art, a Science, or both. For this reason as regards my own Renaissance Program, rather than trying to determine whether I think my business and athletic enterprises are more truly Art, or Science, or both, I simply classify them as separate sub-categories of activity. I do the same with the fields of Politics, Social and Civic Activities, and Philanthropy and Charity operations. I also maintain a separate category for my various Avocations, because some are scientific in nature, and some are artistic in nature, and rather than confuse or overcomplicate the point I simply classify them separately. But generally speaking, if I wished, and for sake of simplicity, I could easily enough classify even activities like business, athletics, philanthropy, and my avocations as being Artistic, Religious, or Scientific in character. For ease of understanding I will give my example of how the Renaissance Gild works by employing the simple and general categories of Art, Religion, and Science. But first let me give my own brief descriptions of how I define Art, Religion, and Science for the sake of understanding how the Gild best functions. You are of course not bound by these particular descriptions or definitions. I offer them merely for the sake of illustration and to provide clear and concise examples of possible and pragmatically functional definitions.

Art - All of those concerns normally associated with the Arts and with creative functions of all kinds. It is everything from sketching to film to architecture to painting to music to writing, and even to things like acting and dance (I have little personal interest in acting and dance, but they are arts, so I include them in this description). Art assists with the way one perceives the world, and with how one represents the world to others.


Religion - How a man conducts himself towards his fellow man, towards other creatures, towards his world, and towards God. How he disciplines his behavior and does good towards others. His moral character, the practice which assists him with bettering himself and the world, and most especially important, towards establishing, maintaining, and bettering his relationship with God. The example of God he follows, the closeness of God in his soul, his actions in this world, and how he prepares himself for his life after his physical death.


Science - The methods by which one seeks to perceive and understand the physical aspects (and perhaps in some cases, other aspects) of this universe, how it operates, and in what exact manner(s) it may operate. How one seeks to master and manipulate both matter and energy, and to what ultimate end and in what way. Science is both an act of seeking to understand the physical universe and to control it or shape it for the better.



An Example of How to Use the Renaissance Gild:

An individual chooses one major accomplishment or perhaps two or more minor accomplishments for every year to two years, as a stated goal for achievement in each of the three various categories of Art, Religion, and Science. Each person picks what is best and most natural to themselves as far as the exact goals to be attempted, and as regards the sub-categories and sub-disciplines within each general branch of Art, Religion, and Science to be undertaken.

For Example:

_____________________________________________

ART

I intend to paint three canvasses in oil detailing my famous ancestors, their backgrounds, environments, and some of their exploits – major achievement

Or

I will write and publish a small book of poetry, and learn to play the piano – minor accomplishments



RELIGION

I will go on an extended Missions trip to help the people of Madagascar with their spiritual, medical, and physical needs – major accomplishment

Or

I will assist the poor of my local community, and I will give more money to charity and/or volunteer more of my time to worthwhile charities – minor accomplishments



SCIENCE

I will perfect my invention to the best of my ability and thereafter market it for the benefit of the public and for my own benefit and profit – major accomplishment

Or

I will conduct experiments in chemistry, biochemistry, and medicine to develop a better method for preventing and treating burns, and I will use my new telescope to make detailed observations of the moon and nearby planets hoping to make a new discovery – minor accomplishments

___________________________________________

As I have previously noted one can also develop sub-categories of endeavor, such as Civic Accomplishments, Political Aims, Avocational Interests, etc. in which one can also detail one’s personal aims and objectives.


Of course what each individual considers a major, or a minor accomplishment will vary with the individual concerned, but I offer the following examples above as possible guidelines for developing your own Renaissance potential.

Once one accomplishes one’s stated desire within any given field or category of activity then one records that accomplishment in one’s Accomplishment List (discussed below) and replaces the accomplished goal with a new objective.

In time the aim of your personal Renaissance project is to develop a wide range of useful and beneficial skills, to study widely and to be able to converse ably and competently on nearly any subject, to become ever better at what you do best, and over time to fully develop and exploit your own set of talents, your own genius, and your own polymathic capabilities. What separates the ultimate objective of the Renaissance Project from a standard set of Goals and Objectives (which are usually limited and aimed at only a specific, discreet, or narrow intention) is the Real Purpose of the Renaissance Model. The aim of the Renaissance Model is not merely to achieve a certain set of goals - but to achieve a certain set of goals and objectives and thereby to accomplish certain important and worthwhile work while one lives in such a way as to master and develop one’s full range of Artistic, Religious, and Scientific capabilities simultaneously, and in conjunction with each other. The aim of the individual Renaissance Program is to develop one’s individual Artistic, Religious, and Scientific capabilities and abilities so that each field of endeavor supports and compliments the other, and so that a person can best exploit and express their own individual force of Arete. In that way one seeks to become both a polymath, and to gain a real mastery of understanding in the way different fields or disciplines of activity and knowledge interrelate the one to another. A secondary and yet vital benefit derived from the individual Renaissance Project is the fact that one becomes acutely and intimately aware of the full range and breadth of possible capabilities inherent within one’s self...

See Full Article Here

Jack7

This thread made me start thinking (or rethinking) about real life adventures I'd like to take that were inspired by gaming. Or rather, to be more accurate, I have done these things in games (as well as researched them in real life), and therefore I'd now like to do them in real life as well.

Some of these things I imagine I may never get the chance to do (though you never know), but others I suspect I will get to do. Also I've already done many things in real life that I have also done in games, and vice versa, but I always thought of imaginary expeditions and adventures and real life adventures as cross-fertilizing one another. So for instance I have been a near life-long Vadder, and to me D&D (for example) was simply a form of complimentary vadding of the imagination.

So these are things I've done in games that I'd like to do in real life in the future:

1. I'd like to walk or travel by horse and camel the Silk Road, starting from Istanbul (Constantinople) and then all the way into China.

2. I'd like to sail the entire world, starting from the East Coast of America (Charleston) to land on the West Coast of America, when finished, in a true sailing vessel. Though I'd probably take along an engine enabled craft just as an emergency back-up. I'd christen her the Endeavour, after my old ship.


3. I'd like to thoroughly explore the cistern system of Constantinople, along with any other underground and abandoned areas of that ancient city that I could possible make my way into.

4. I'd like to buy a small keep or castle in England or Scotland (maybe Bohemia) and then use the surrounding lands to raise really good horses. On that estate I'd also like to build a small private amphitheatre, and an observatory, and a good solid library complex, all of my own design. After I got a good herd up and the estate was flourishing I'd rent it out and then let the caretakers continue raising the stock. I'd probably thereafter vacation there.


5. I'd like to put together an archaeological expedition into Central (preferably) or South America and make a new discovery.

6. I'd like to track down and discover an animal thought extinct or very rare and then photograph and record it.

7. I'd like to explore a previously unexplored or only very rarely explored underground complex. Natural or man-made (long abandoned).

8. I'd like to visit some ancient libraries (especially old monastic collections) and read and study some very rare texts. And I'd like to visit some relical shrines in the Middle East.


9. I'd like to retrace the Lewis and Clarke expedition route by foot and horse. And then motorcycle back across the country on the way home.


10. I'd like to build a real and working ballista (based on an ancient Greek or Roman design) from scratch (no kit), and have forged for me a really fine katana made by a skilled Japanese swordsmith with an inlain pattern design I invented and sporting my family and personal crests.


So, what are some things you've done or built or accomplished in games that you'd also like to do in real life?

Thread Link

Jack7

This dream occurred some number of weeks ago. I recorded it immediately but due to my work schedule couldn’t post anything regarding it.

The Dreaming DM, Part Three - The Dream of the Thing Under the Water: My uncle and I (in the dream he was actually a few years younger than me even though he is really about ten to twelve years older than I am) were at a lakeshore. The lake itself was a rather bizarre body of water. At times the water was a deep blue with rather active wave cycles and currents for an otherwise undisturbed lake. But at other moments the water was a deep, almost milky and opaque green and at those times it was completely still. Like a mirror, though a sort of dirty and dingy one, and despite the darkness of the water one could see the sky above and the motion of the cloud formations which were different in reflection off of the water than if you gazed at them directly above. When they were reflected off the surface of the lake the clouds seemed to transform into bizarre shapes and figures, some of these reflections seeming almost entirely abstract, others seeming to take on the distorted images of unreal or mythological or frightening creatures.


There was a rather large crowd milling about the lakeshore as if they were waiting for something but after some time most of these people went away. Wandering off as if they had been disappointed by something, or the failure of something, I wasn’t sure which. My uncle and I remained talking until almost nightfall when the water nearest the shore to us began to bubble and seethe, as if in a heated cauldron. Suddenly a large, and for lack of a better term, carousel statue, or set of statues, arose from the bubbling water. The statues or figures were like a huge assortment of chaotically arranged metallic men and animals in various poses and in various stages of activity. It looked as if someone had taken a three-dimensional photograph of a wild carousel scene, or of a disorganized circus of violent activity made out of metal and had mounted it upon a domed base of translucent green and milk striped marble. The thing swiveled for perhaps a quarter of a turn, then a terrible grinding noise began, like metal being sheared apart in a car crash, and something very like a voice underneath the noise shouted out something in a sort of wail of despair. I could not though hear what was actually said. My uncle turned to me and said, “Did you hear that Jack?”

To which I replied, “Yes, but what does it mean?”

At that point the entire object “broke in half,” right in the center, and the two halves receded apart and downwards as if I were watching a mouth open wide, and in an almost leisurely fashion, from a side view. Oddly, as the halves split and the opening widened all sound ceased. The environment became completely silent and still. Then the two halves rejoined in a reversal of the “opening” process until no seam or split or division could be seen and the whole structure resubmerged entirely intact. Seemingly moments later it reemerged and although the domed base was exactly the same the entire upper part of the structure had changed or been transformed. It was now an entirely different set of figures, monstrous in appearance yet each figure was smaller than a normal sized man. Some of the figures seemed engaged in struggle against one another, several seemed in different stages of dying, and one I remember quite clearly had a claw around its throat. And its throat was scaled, almost serpentine.

This process repeated itself several more times, with violent bubbling and churning of the water, although each time the object reappeared it was on the surface for a longer period of time and the entire cycle of submergence and reemergence seemed slower and slower.


Finally, immediately after the sun had set and twilight was finished the object rose again from the water and this time the appearance of the “stage” (for the figures on top of the domed marble base reminded me of a fixed or set stage) was filled with snakes. Dozens, if not hundreds of small snakes, but also some very large ones, a few being gigantic. Although there were no human figures in the scene at all the appearance of the snakes reminded me of the Statue of the Death of Laocoon and his Sons. There was a sort of pale bluish cast to the entire object that made it glow slightly, as if from some type of internal illumination or possibly radiation, and once again all of the figures seemed made of some type of metal.

The figure split open again and when it did so my uncle said to me, “I’m going to swim out and go down that hole and see what is inside.” He pointed to the opening made by the splitting of the two halves and said that he believed a sort of tube or shaft ran down the middle and that he could get to the bottom of that before the water reflooded the shaft, then survive the flooding by holding his breath long enough for the object to reappear again and for the maw to reopen. Then he would swim back out and tell me how the object reappeared in a different form each time.

I advised him against it very strongly because I didn’t think he could possibly get in and thereafter survive the water long enough for it to resurface. He assured me he could, but I pointed out each cycle was taking longer and longer to complete. Plus, I suspected the entire device was a huge and fascinating trap, designed to lure the curious.

Nevertheless he swam out to it and went down the shaft at which point the figure slowly closed back in on itself and then resubmerged. It took a long time to reappear and when it did it was the same set of snake figures as when it had last submerged. It also did not split open again but simply sank leisurely back into the water as if it were a large boat slowly sinking to the bottom. I knew my uncle had drowned. But I decided I would conduct my own investigation by diving into the lake with scuba equipment and trying to find the object underwater to see if I could recover his body and discover what the object actually was and how it operated. However, before I could do this I woke up.


For Adventures regarding this dream see Here

Jack7

I’ve been very busy lately. I’ve had little time for recreation and leisure, kinda wish I had more time for it right now to relax some, but that’s neither here nor there.


Before the dam broke loose I had intended to reply to several threads I was involved in, and to create several new ones, and even to write a few essays ‘bout gaming.

But life gets in the way.

Nevertheless I’ll get to what I can in the order I think most important as I can.

If it seems like I’ve ignored something any of you folks have said to me, don’t take it personally. I’ll get there, God willing, soon as I can weigh anchor.

See ya when I see ya.

Jack.

Jack7

Thread Link

Synopsis: So what this thread is really about is this: regardless of what edition of the game you play, how "pure" are you in insisting that the edition you are playing be free of influences from other editions, games, systems, elements, events, rulesets, etc.



I've seen a lot of recent arguments over edition of game (primarily D&D) lately (the 5th Edition and 4th Edition and older editions and so on), which I'll be honest, I find both somewhat amusing and befuddling, for reasons I'll cite in a moment.


Now let me say before this thread becomes another useless argument about edition that this is not what this thread is about (which edition is superior or inferior). I'm using that edition-centric idea as a backdrop to express another and a different point. I want to veer away from the edition fights, per se, which I don't think go anywhere productive anyways most of the time and instead swing towards the edition of the game as a sort of expression of edition purity versus edition innovation.

Now personally I can’t imagine getting exorcised or even exercised over one particular edition or another. That is I can't imagine caring about one edition or another as a “fighting matter.” I do enjoy arguments and debates about specific design differences or ideals involved with or within one edition or another. But it's hard for me to imagine caring enough to get angry or upset or emotionally involved in opinions about this edition or another of a particular game (any game, including D&D). Maybe that's my age showing, or maybe that's pretty much always been my way of looking at games (or most other things for that matter). To me a game is either useful and enjoyable (in that normal order of importance) or it is not. Editions kind of split or specialize that general ranking of importance to me. D&D is the most important RPG to me personally for a number of reasons; the various editions thereafter divide and differentiate my opinion about D&D (the overall fantasy game itself) in various ways. For instance, to me AD&D is the single greatest edition of the D&D game overall, but 4th edition has the most interesting and often useful, if sometimes overly complicated, ideas and structures regarding character classes. But in either case I'm not about to name my children after Gary Gygax or James Wyatt, it's just not that important a matter in the big scheme of things. I also can't imagine getting into a real and bitter slap fight (“I hate you mister,” or “I’ma carrying a grudge for a long time over this feud,” or “I better not see you after sundown without your gunbelt on kid”) about the edition of a game (though I can and have enjoyed debates and criticisms and arguments about specific points of game design), where I get all fired up as if I have a personal stake in the outcome of the fight. To me gaming arguments are analytical and critical affairs, designed to promote interesting considerations about elemental and practical usefulness, not guerilla warfare and voodoo curses you wage against your nemesis.

So that led me, after reading some of the other threads here and elsewhere about various game related fights, to wonder, what exactly is being fought about? And to what end? (I've often seen fights waged, sometimes over a long period of time, over seemingly immensely unimportant matters to me, only to discover later on that it wasn't the apparent articles or details being argued that mattered, but that something else lay in the background of the fight, rarely discussed or openly mentioned, which was the real target issue of the fight.)


Now I don't know that I can discover the background fight (if there is one, or even if there is just one) because I just don't spend that much time on these issues. Yes, I like gaming matters, especially useful ones, and I reckon I have far more knowledge than most (compared to the general public) about many gaming matters, but I admit to having almost no real knowledge or even interest in highly specialized or technical matters related to D&D or RPGs. Games to me serve a function but they are not an occupation in and of themselves. (Though I can easily see why people who are involved in games as an occupation, either directly or indirectly, would develop and need specialized knowledge about detail and errata and even opinions I'd consider non-sequitur or useless to fight over). In this sense you can consider me an "outsider looking in" as I suspect many of us are, including both those who comment from time to time, and those who patrol sites like this but never or only rarely comment.

Still the various arguments, usually though not always centered around edition, have made me think about some of the “lurking in the background arguments” that may be some of the real bases of these disputes. One background idea that did occur to me was "purity."

Now I admit I have never been a real and pronounced purist, not as regards many things in life, but especially not in regards to games. To me far more important than the status quo is practical and real and pragmatic value. To me the established way of doing something is only really valuable as a starting point to innovate and move towards something better. The establishment isn’t the future; it’s only the present as a result of the past. Early on in playing any game, but especially RPGs (because RPGs are naturally conducive to "open modification" because they are, after all, about role play) it struck me that any game could be improved by modification. I never, ever played AD&D, or any other edition of D&D, earlier or later, as a purist rules-based exercise. Instead, almost as soon as learning the game I began modifying the game with house rules, creations and innovations of my own, adopting rules or systems from other games, etc. None of my players, past or present, have ever insisted on a "pure edition" or even ruleset of the game, and when I played I never insisted on such a thing with whoever was doing the DM deed with or to us.

I expected and enjoyed a wide range of rules, systems, games, events, historical devices, styles, elements and so forth to influence me either as a DM and setting creator, or as a player operating under another DM. However it seems to me that this may no longer be the case, or to be more accurate that this is assumed to no longer be the case in many of the internet arguments regarding the various editions. (And I think that this "purity assumption" may indeed be in actual fact little more than a somewhat baseless assumption or a canard when it comes to actual games and their practices for most people. That is to say the purity argument, and this is an assumption on my part regarding the background elements of these arguments, as opposed to what is apparently being argued, is not a, or the, real argument. We'll find out though through the poll, as far as an internet poll can be reflective of any actual reality.)

So what this thread is really about (the rest being background and prelude) is this: regardless of what edition of the game you play, how "pure" are you in insisting that the edition you are playing be free of influences from other games, systems, edition elements, events, rulesets, etc.

To me personally the answer is I am completely bastardized (the adjective, not the verb) when it comes to gaming. What is important to me is my stetting, not the edition of the game. In fact I guess you could say when it comes to my fantasy setting that I've created my own form of D&D which is a mixture of various elements of different editions of the game, different rulesets from other games and fantasy RPGs, houserules and innovations of my own, and so forth and so on. I simply cannot imagine it being important playing this or that “pure edition of D&D,” or any game, (to the exclusion of others) when I could and do take and adapt and adapt the best elements from various sources to create my own and more efficient and useful game compound. That being the case then editions be damned to me, they are useful only to the extent that they give me a general gaming background and to the extent that the various elements they contain are actually useful to me. I still consider it (the game variation and setting I’ve created) D&D (because that is the main and original source material and background from my fantasy role play gaming) but it is as far from "pure" as the United States is from being a nation of a single peoples. (Nevertheless, like the US, the [ad]mixture often works far better, in the aggregate, than any single element or source could by operating entirely independently.)

So to me what is of paramount importance in RPGing is my setting, and my fantasy setting and game is an amalgamation (still with a primarily D&D centered culture and background, though far from pure) of many elements, including things liberally taken from various D&D editions as well as different components borrowed from other games and sources. So to me the very idea of arguing vociferously and heatedly and angrily about various editions and the assumed purity-value of those editions (as opposed to the value of particular elements of games that people find most useful) makes to me about as much sense as arguing about which is the best sport to play, and once you figure that out then eliminate all the other sports from your competitive repertoire. (I personally like and play a wide variety of sports.)

So vote in the poll if you wish and discuss this issue if you wish, and give your opinion on what you think is important, or most important in debates like this, edition purity or edition innovation (in the sense of personal modification of the game to fit your own situation). I personally suspect that most folks are like me, their games are about as edition pure as the driven snow after being flushed through the streetplows of Detroit. But I could be wrong, and on occasion I have been, and so that's why I put up the poll.

Say what you gotta say folks…
I said my piece.

Jack7