Mystery Dice Goblin

Sometimes people ask me to review their products. Sometimes they send me their products. My time is limited and my bandwidth for a lot of these things is...even more limited.

Mystery Dice Goblin is a group that sells dice and dice accessories (bags, etc.). Like all gaming nerds, I've purchased plenty of such things over the years, to the point that I'm a bit jaded: if I'm going to buy a dice bag or box, it better be some sort of hand-crafted, artistic nonsense, and better be in a price point that doesn't make me feel like an idiot (or is just so cool that I can't live without it). Usually, I'm a "pass" on most such things.

And dice? I have enough dice. 

But they sent me some of their signature product: their "mystery dice" bag: a small, resealable bag with a full set of seven dice. They sent me three such bags, which my kids and I quickly divided up.

And what do you know...the gimmick works! It's kind of cool to rip open a mystery bag and 'oo' and 'ah' over the dice inside. All three of the sets were different, with gemlike finishes and inset, colored numbers. Of the three sets, two of them were nice enough that they might have been worth purchasing even had they been visible (sadly, my set was not to my taste...but two out of three ain't bad).

Pic is from their web site...

As a stocking stuffer, or birthday party gift bag or similar, these are great little packets for handing out to kids (or adults) who are into geeky dice games. And the price is good: a six pack of mystery bags is only $40, which is cheaper than a standard $8-10 box. And, as said, the gimmick's fun. Like ripping into a Cracker Jack box to get the prize. Dig it.

All right: Friday commercial done.

In other news: disappointing Seahawks game last night, but we've watched a lot of disappointing Seahawks-Niners match-ups the last couple years. Two dwarf teams in a row (Giants, too)...and dwarves are rough for orks. Especially when the dwarves are GOOD (which is the case with San Francisco, injuries or not). *sigh*

Watched The Spine of Night the other day. Not bad. But not great. The story felt very post-apocalyptic up until the end when it gets all mythical, fallen gods, and blah-blah-blah. Would have preferred fallen space men in a 50th century Earth, but oh well (AND, if one is looking for inspiration for a PA, warring city-state campaign world, the first hour or so is pretty groovy). Some of the (still) art was great. Some of the animation was pretty...mm..."pedestrian."  In other words, the movie was a mixed bag and uneven. However, for what is (basically) a 90 minute film that would have been par for Heavy Metal magazine, it wasn't terrible. 

And...this ain't the greatest blog post. But it's Friday and I'm busy. Later gators!

Hard Stuff

Happy (belated) Easter! Got through Triduum with flying colors, though Easter Vigil went long this year and not much sleep. Whatever. Sunday was a glorious, sunny day...quite enjoyable.

Also nice to drink beer again.

; )

The wife and daughter are out of town this week...flew down to Mexico to visit the fam, so Diego and I are "batchin it." Played Space Hulk for the first time Sunday afternoon. Lost horribly. Game is a lot harder than it looks. Hopefully we'll be playing some Axis & Allies and things will go better. Hopefully...we'll see. 

[D&D is probably on the agenda, but Sofia being out of town puts a bit of a crimp in things...she doesn't want us playing without her. Maybe some side adventures]

Watched Secrets of Blackmoor tonight...finally. Fascinating documentary.  Recommended. Wish there was video of Arneson GMing. For that matter, wish there were videos of Gygax. Just for context. You hear great things from their players. Would like to see them in action.

Afterwards, watched an episode and a half of a "celebrity lifestream D&D" series. It was terrible. And depressing. Even more depressing because it featured Deborah Woll (who I've praised before) and Marc Bernadin (who I haven't, but who I respect immensely). Just...terrible. But professional actors need to work and earn...I get it. Just sad they they're playing shit D&D. Sad.

So sad.

Since it's Easter, and I'm joyful, I won't say anymore about it...or 5E. Maybe later. When I'm feeling ornery. Like I was the other day.

Speaking of which: asked my son what HE would like to see in a "How to DM book," i.e. what would he find helpful in such a book. He told me the following (in this order):

1. Explanation of how morale works in AD&D.
2. Explanations of encumbrance (specifically, how encumbrance, armor and movement...particularly wilderness movement...interact and work within the game).
3. How to write an adventure, ESPECIALLY a "low level" adventure. 

All good topics, none of which were discussed in that book I referenced the other day.

[to be clear, I did not provide him with any context other than "I'm thinking about writing a book explaining how to DM; what would you hope/expect to read in its pages?"]

Anyway...it's late and I need to sleep. More later.

Return of the Jedi

Last night my family watched Return of the Jedi (AKA Star Wars, Episode VI). This was not our first time.

I was cooking dinner tonight...grilling, in fact (no rain...for a change)...and had briefly considered posting pix of how I make Paraguayan chimichurri and baked mandioca. Eh. Another time. My grill is on its last legs (at least the charcoal pan), and in need of a replacement (probably in the Spring). The film I just threw on as "background noise" while putting stuff together...although the movie I started streaming was Rogue One. It was my daughter that switched it to RotJ.

My daughter (Sofia) is nine years old. Because she is my daughter, she's already seen these films...multiple times. However, this is not the same with her classmates. Oh, some have seen the movies...her friend Posey, and most (all?) of the boys. But not her best friend (Milana), and another friend...Maddie...has only seen the original trilogy, and only over the last three weeks. 

They, of course, love it.

Still Good

So they've been playing a lot of "Star Wars" at recess. Acting out the movies. Pretending to be the heroes or the villains or the stormtroopers, etc. This is why she wanted to watch Jedi...they've been self-performing the films sequentially and only just gotten up to "Jabba's palace." Sofia says they know most of the lines (well, she does anyway), but she just wanted to 'go over it.' The film had only just started as my wife and son got home from soccer practice (her turn driving tonight), and Diego exclaimed "Hey! I want to watch!" So we did.

It's interesting, watching my kids re-watch these films...films that were so much a part of MY childhood (I saw all the original films in the theater...multiple times). Sofia is...mm...about where I was at her age as far as understanding goes, but interesting to see her amazement at non-CGI special f/x. My son is much more developed and mature for his age and eyes things with the critical eyes of a film critic and seasoned campaigner (a lot of pseudo-military stuff in these SW films and my boy is all about the war games and military history). 

BUT...just astounding how well they hold up as entertaining films for kids. I do not approve of, nor appreciate, all the the things my kids find "awesome"...a lot of their pop music, for example, or some of the kids shows they dig, or many of their book choices (I can't stand those "Wimpy Kid Books" and they both eat those up). But here's something that we all connect on.

It is also interesting that the 9 year olds are SO into this...perhaps this is the "sweet spot" for those movies? I believe Diego was about the same age when he started his "D&D Club" at school, mainly to run a Star Wars RPG of his own devising (based on the B/X chassis...natch). That club has since gone defunct, but the kids who enjoyed it are still playing D&D (albeit with different groups outside of school). But...Star Wars (and, specifically, the original trilogy) were a unifying factor. 

Sofia last night (during the opening scene in the new Death Star): "Darth Vader is the BEST!" He's pretty good all right, probably my favorite "supervillain" of all time. Religious zealot, scarred cyborg, rage-filled brute...plus, James Earl Jones. Just...menacing. Shiny helmet. Black cape. Featureless mask. It's all delightful. Jedi may be the worst of the first three films, but turning Vader into the hero at the end was a stroke of genius (although I prefer the original cut of the climactic scene which has NO inserted Vader dialogue during the crescendo of the film's score...why make the scene weaker, Lucas? Jeez).

Ok. I'll stop. 

[by the way, while Sofia has a huge appreciation for DV, I know that her favorite Star Wars character of all time...from all the films...is still Darth Maul. She will tell you the same, if asked. She prefers the Rebels for our Star Wars Legion games, but I'm guessing that'll change as soon as she sees a Maul model on the shelf]

Why am I talking about this? Partly to grease the ol' 'blogging wheels' (a little rusty lately). But also because it's (very slightly) pertinent to a project I want to talk about. NOT a Star Wars project, but...perhaps..."SW adjacent?" That might be accurate.

First, though, I need to get back to that whole 'procedural gameplay' thing I mentioned earlier. We'll get to it.

Barbie

But first, this:

Had the chance to see the beautiful, delightful Barbie movie last night; as I mentioned, mi suegra is in town, which gave the wife and I a chance to go out. Originally, we’d planned to watch Oppenheimer, but it was at a bad time for the theater we wanted to attend, so Barbie got the nod.

Just fantastic. Maybe the best new film I’ve seen in (literally) 20 years.

I’m not sure what I expected: something like Legally Blonde (a film I dislike…sorry, Reese), or the Brady Bunch (a film I *do* get a kick out of), or some giant toy commercial. The previews made it look a bit like Will Ferrel’s Elf movie, and there are some traces of that, at least in the beginning.

"Love Letter;" get it?

In fact it’s none of those things. And what starts off as an entertaining, funny romp quickly ramps up around the halfway mark to something far more. The film is nothing less than a giant love letter to women, to men, and (especially) to Barbie and to anyone who has ever played with and/or wondered what the hell is the appeal of this doll that’s hung around sixty-some years.

Incredibly well-written and directed, superbly acted, and featuring gorgeous visuals, the Barbie film had me laughing out loud multiple times, crying multiple times, and clapping my hands at various parts. It is dipped, nay drenched in irony and yet is so un-ironic and kind-hearted…like Barbie herself, there’s not a mean bone in it.

It’s a movie that helps renew my faith in humanity…or, at least, my faith in Hollywood’s capability to make a great motion picture.

My family recently watched the Barbie Dreamhouse Challenge…a fun little TV series to stream Saturday mornings on the couch after a family breakfast. Prior to that, I had no idea the sheer scope and range of appeal of Barbie, and only a cursory idea of its impact…perhaps because I never had Barbie (or Ken) dolls as a kid. My own children, of course, do…at least since my daughter turned age 3 or 4…and BOTH my kids have engaged in hours of imaginative play with the toys, sometimes in conjunction with a parent (me, a lot), but just as often by themselves. They’ve acquired quite a collection, and include many Barbie-sized superhero dolls in their various adventures and family dramas (there is an extensive network of blood and legal relations between our toys, not to mention histories and backstories). 

Both my kids want to see the new movie, and while some of the nuance and humor will be lost on them, there’s nothing terribly awful in the PG-13 film that I’d object to them viewing. Quite the contrary, actually.

And I wouldn’t mind watching it again myself.

; )

Batman

Hey! Must be the money!

["Ride wit me" playing in the background as I start to type this post. Followed quickly by another incredibly insipid song, "Butterfly" by the stupid stupid band Crazy Town. Only difference...far as I can see...is that Nelly was nominated for a Grammy for God-knows-what reason]

*sigh* Don't mind me. It's been a long day. And a long week. And a long month.

I decided, a few days ago, that it was time to introduce the kids to the various Batman movies. Of course, they know who Batman is...in addition to numerous animated shows, Lego films, and comic books, they've seen many of the old Adam West sitcom episodes (and the 1966 movie starring the same actor). But for [reasons] we've just never gotten around to watching the later films, not the first series kicked off by Tim Burton in '89, nor the Chris Nolan series from the early 2000's, nor any of DC's rather sorry attempts to create something like the Marvel Cinematic 'verse.

Which, considering A) the kids have seen nearly every Marvel film ever made (multiple times), and B) have long proclaimed Batman as one of their favorite superheroes of all time...well, it felt like it was time to fire up Ye Old On-Demand streaming service and get to watching.

Now, a couple+ of preamble thoughts for folks.

1. I've never been what you call a "big" Batman fan. Despite having owned and read comics and toys and (does anyone remember these?) colorforms of the Caped Crusader since I was a wee lad of 3 or so, he was never very high on my list. Captain America, the Hulk, and Spider-Man certainly outrank him. Within the DC universe he'd definitely come in somewhere below Green Arrow, Green Lantern, and Wonder Woman (heck, I owned more Blue Devil comics as a teen than I ever owned of Batman titles). He was just never one of my favorites, okay?
2. Having said that, I've seen many of the various Batman films over the years. Well, I watched the first Michael Keaton one, and I've seen all the Chris Nolan films (multiple times). And I have seen Batman vs. Superman and rather enjoyed it (right up until the ending with Wonder Woman and Doomsday making trashy fan-service appearances)...Affleck may be my favorite Bruce Wayne of all time. 
3. As an adult I do enjoy a LOT about the Batman concept...though I probably still prefer Batgirl.

So, after running through the trailers for all the various Batman films, the kids decided that the first (1989) one with Jack Nicholson and Alec Baldwin's ex-wife (sorry...hold on. Kim Basinger. Jeez, my memory).  It was...pretty good. Some of it is really good. Not, unfortunately, most of the Keaton bits...he brings too much comedic sensibility to the role, something that doesn't fit very well with [my perception of] Batman. But I rather love all the other members of the cast, and their performances.

And here's the other thing I quite liked about the film: it wonderfully captures a near picture-perfect look at the starting career of a 1st level superhero in Heroes Unlimited. Of course, I'm talking an early edition of HU, not that bloated "2E" version. Burton's Batman could easily be a 1st level Hardware character from HU Revised (you need the Revised edition for its rules on building super-vehicles) splitting the character's budget between his car, flimsy "bat-jet," and computer-filled lair.

Grapple gun? Check.

Which I love (duh) as it gives me great ideas for the types of encounters, story, and staging one would do for such a character/game.

A day or two after this, we sat down to watch Batman Returns, the kids having thoroughly bought in to the project. Having never before seen the film, I was quite taken aback by how strange and surreal the thing is...far more of a Tim Burton film, I suppose, but quite dark and strange for a superhero film...especially a pop icon superhero like Batman. 

[and which led me to research the strange development history of every single Batman film. Fascinating, though quite a deep rabbit hole to tumble into]

Also it's a bit...mm...tedious? I fell asleep during the movie (a lot of long days lately, did I mention...?) and so will probably need to go back and re-watch the ending. But this film, too, struck me less as a coherent story, and more of a series of images, scenes, and situations designed to provoke emotional responses...which is fine (some films do that), but I guess it's not my preference.

However, Batman Returns still feels like someone's Heroes Unlimited game...probably more so, due to its overall weird disjointedness. Watching it felt like Burton was the young GM who, fresh off a successful romp in HU with his one buddy (Keaton, playing the bat-themed hardware character) brings in a second, NEW player (Michelle Pfeiffer) and tries to find a way to integrate her cat-themed anarchist into the ongoing campaign. It's still low-level, high-competence gameplay of the HU variety...no world vaporizing Thanos on the horizon, no Kryptonian mothership crashing into New York, just a weird penguin-themed villain teaming up with smash-able stooges with guns...with the usual, expected results.

Yeah, "expected." It's a tad strange to watch Batman casually murdering folks in these movies (as compared to the comic character or the later Nolan films), but casual murder of mooks and villains is par for the course in your average Heroes Unlimited game. Well, in my experience...probably there are GMs out there who have seen more Principled (in the HU alignment sense) behavior from their PCs. 

It's just tough when hand grenades retail for $60 a pop.

Anyway. The busy-ness continues (it's taken me some three days to find the time to write this up). Another multi-game soccer tournament going on this afternoon on the other side of Lake Washington. The stress of life events has been...getting to me, a bit, I guess. If the dog gets me up at 2am, I can find it difficult to get back to sleep, especially if I start to dwell on all the stuff I've got going on. Which sucks. I might have to get back on the regular coffee. Musings about Batman and (especially) Heroes Unlimited is a welcome distraction from everything.  Might have to get a game going, in the near future. Stuff like these old movies are fairly inspirational.

One last interesting (to me, anyway) thought. When the 1989 Batman (Burton) film premiered, I was 16 years old, and definitely NOT a Batman fan. I think I might have still been collecting Silver Surfer comics at the time(?)...a bit more "cosmic" in scope in terms of conflict. I had been exposed to the Heroes Unlimited game by this point (friends in high school), but they were running something far more high powered with the Revised rules in combo with Transdimensional TMNT. Those guys (they were all guys...my gaming with females ended at middle school and didn't start up again till university), were BIG into comic books in general and Batman in particular (I'm sure they saw all those movies, while I tapped out after the first). And, yet, they never ran anything "street level" in their games...instead they added as much "twink" as they could, even creating a list of "mega-powers" when HU's major powers weren't deemed beefy enough. Thinking back, it really makes me wonder what the appeal Palladium held for them, at all. Crunchy character building? Granular move-by-move combat? Bullet calibers and grenades?

Weird. They never did want to play Rifts and ridiculed that game soundly (unlike myself). 

All right. That's enough for now. Time to wake the family.

Not D&D

So I've now managed to watch the new D&D film twice; it's available for free on one of the many streaming services my cable company gives me.

[oh horrors! People cry...JB you have so little time for ANYthing, why would you waste it watching the same movie TWICE, let alone THAT one? Well, folks, the fact is my family watches too much television as it is...usually starting around "dinner time" and then only ending at "bedtime;" because of our daily schedule of activities it amounts to about 2+ hours every week night. So for me to throw on the film in the background while cooking is no big deal (TV's going to be on anyway) so long as no one complains about what I'm watching (and they didn't...in this case)]

I am going to pen my thoughts on the thing. There will (probably) be SPOILERS.

You may think, from the title of my post, that I didn't like Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves. That would be incorrect. It isn't stellar, mind-blowing cinema, but it's likable enough: breezy, lightly entertaining fantasy fare. A good, on-the-couch-with-popcorn movie (which is how I viewed it the first evening). My family, including my wife, enjoyed it quite a bit.

Despite liking it, however, I'm rather astounded at the reviews the thing has received. 93% popcorn rating? 90% Rotten Tomatoes?! Wha-wha-what? Really? I mean, it's about on par with one of those Ant-Man films and none of those have cracked the high 80s. Heck, it wasn't much of a cut above the latest Shazam! film, and that thing was under 50%.

Thing is, despite better (and more likable) actors, tighter directing, updated special effects, and delightful music score, I found a lot of the film quite similar to the original (rightly panned) D&D movie. A lot of parallels. That's not an attempted 'put down;' I just find it...interesting.

Okay, let me list a few of the things I quite liked about the film:

• The actors, their approach to the film, and the chemistry was all quite good.
• Some fun little "D&Disms" were nice to see: all the traditional PC races (minus...elves?) make an appearance. Seeing black dragons, intellect devourers, and owlbears in a live-action  film is fun. Some iconic spell use (Bigby's hand spells, Evard's black tentacles, timestop, etc.) is neat and showcases some of the unique aspects of D&D versus the usual fantasy drama.
• Immensely enjoyed some of the traditional class portrayals. The paladin was great (love the idea that he "smells" evil). The half-elf sorcerer was quite a good example of a low-level magic-user. Dug the bard flashbacks when he was wearing some sort of plate armor (perhaps in his days as a fighter?). And the fighter lady (Holga? I really can't remember any of their names) was highly reminiscent of my friend's long-running character, except she used a talking sword and preferred her potatoes mashed. Oh, and she didn't have a thing for halflings.
• I quite liked the tiefling character! At least, I didn't hate it. But I'm sure many 5E aficionados will say "that's not a tiefling!" and perhaps that's why it appealed to me. The small horns, prehensile tail, and shapeshifting druid thing all gave the character a very fairy tale fey vibe that I quite liked (as opposed to the edgy half-demon warlock with fire abilities and sexy high charisma). No, she was cute and bumpkin-y ("guileless") and a good stand-in for the 'Tolkien elf' which I'm, frankly, quite sick of.
• Even though I'm not a fan of the Forgotten Realms, I quite liked that the film was set in an actual D&D campaign setting with recognizable names, places, and lore. It may be a stupid setting (sorry to the folks who love FR), but at least it's a nod to the extensive IP of the game.

Aaaand,,,that's about it. But I assure you that's a LOT of what made the thing enjoyable (or interesting) for me to watch. Oh and, sure, it also had some funny bits.

Here's what I disliked:

Despite the use of D&D tropes and recognizable game elements, the movie was very much NOT D&D. So much not D&D. It actually fought against itself in this regard (are these treasure seeking rogues or altruistic heroes?) which, for me, made the whole thing a bit of a muddle writing/story-wise. 

But the world doesn't even FUNCTION like a D&D world:

• Where the hell are the clerics? They are mentioned once in the beginning (wrt their inability to heal the bard's dead wife) and then never make an appearance. There's no healing magic at all (not that it's needed; see below), but boy you'd think some undead turning ability would be pretty handy fighting all the undead foes. No clerical ANYthing, even from the "divine" character types that DO appear (druid, paladin).
• This is not how magic works. Or maybe it does in 5E. No spell books? No memorization? No interruption of spell-casting? Because that battle with the red wizard at the end should have been pretty one-sided with all the shucking and jiving she was required to do. And the bard has...no magic? Even in 5E, that's not a thing.
• This is not what combat looks like in D&D. Now, I LIKED that the fighter girl could smack five or six dudes for every one attack of the bard (which is clearly something different than the 1E version, despite what I wrote above). But the way the group tended to stand back and let one character have their spotlight melee moment is NOT D&D (the paladin versus the assassin clan was probably the most egregious example). Points for avoiding and running away from some fights (like with the dragon), but generally there wasn't enough slaying and slaughter for a typical D&D game. Oh, except for castle soldiers: boy, for a group who prided themselves on not harming (killing) anyone in their heists, they sure beat the living shit out of a bunch of Neverwinter guardsmen who were just kind of doing their job. Oh, and the slingshot? I hate the slingshot.
• What's with the inter-species romance? I guess that's just played for laughs, but there's a lot of iffy-ness in the human-halfling thing. Like, I can buy that Holga and her ex- fell in love and that it was a unique situation...but now he's with another human? And in a later scene Holga is eyeing up another halfling? While I understand that people have their kinks, that's an awkward fetish thang to throw into the film. The tiefling/half-elf is far more believable (especially with the tiefling standing in for a wood elf), considering that there's at least a nod to the different cultural backgrounds (urban versus fey). Ah, well. 
• I hate 5E. There's a lot of 5Eisms..."attuning" magic items, for example...that just sets my teeth on edge. And is that how druid shapeshifting works in 5E? Just change at will, as often as you like, into any creature including fantastical ones (like owlbears)? Why not shift into a dragon and burn the place down? Sorcerers and "wild magic?" Oh sweet Baby Jesus. Do bards not carry weapons? Do "Harpers" not learn how to play a harp. *sigh*

All right, enough with the negativity. I said (a long time ago, maybe on someone else's blog) that the way to make a "successful D&D film" would be to create a GOOD FILM that had aspects relatable to D&D in it. I also opined that it would be pretty damn impossible to make a film that truly replicates gameplay because what makes the game great is NOT (generally speaking) anything that translates to a cinematic, story-telling art form. Judging by its success (there is talk of a spin-off series), this may be the best movie makers can do with such a tricky subject. I confess that I'm honestly surprised at how favorable and effective the formula worked...but I suppose it's the same formula that worked for Marvel.

Finally: it was a lot of fun to see the OG D&D gang (from the cartoon) make an appearance in the otherwise stupid labyrinth scene...so much so that I found myself wishing the movie was about them, rather than the story at hand. And as the rest of the film unwound its reel, this was a persistent thought that wouldn't quite dislodge itself from my brain: what a missed opportunity! What a fantastic idea!

Because if you do just want to make a light-weight fantasy movie, with magic and wonder and the tropes of D&D, you could do a lot worse than drawing inspiration from that cartoon. Heck, what's a D&D movie without a Dungeon Master? What could more firmly stamp a film with a D&D moniker than to have the appearance of a DM? Besides which Venger is a deeper, more interesting and nuanced antagonist than ANY of the "bad guys" in the existing D&D films. Yes, that includes Hugh Grant's character...fight me on that if you will. Plus, you still get hand-wringing sentimentality, self-doubt, impassioned speeches, humorous pratfalls...basically all the same stuff that (I guess) makes Honor Among Thieves a hit movie.

And it would be far more similar to D&D.

Live-Action D&D Television

[was going to write something about copyright law, fair use, and game "licenses," but everyone's sick of that stuff, right? Maybe next week...]

So...we watch a lot of TV at my house.

Too much, I'm sure...at least by the standards of a guy who spent several years (in his twenties) not even owning a television, and not missing it one bit. But the wife enjoys it, the kids enjoy it, and it's a (lazy) way to all spend time together as a family...huddled around the video altar for an hour or two every evening. 

The current slate of programming isn't all that great...Wednesday was the last decent series we finished which, for me, was kind of a "light" (or kid-friendly) version of Sabrina. Yellowstone is what the wife likes to watch after the kids go to bed and it's...fine. It's just the same old 'powerful family drama' thing again (see Sopranos, House of the Dragon, Empire, Billions, etc., etc.), just in a different setting.

[I will say that the Kayce character is the most 'Montana' of all the characters written for the series...his attitude, physicality, manner of speaking, way of thinking is very much like any one of my uncles. They don't wear cowboy hats in Missoula, though...I'm guessing that's more of a Bozeman/Wyoming thing]

Current shows watched with the kids are multiple. Ghosts is pretty funny, and while some of the humor is too risque for my children, most of that is pretty over their heads. The latest install of The Mysterious Benedict Society has, I think, ended(?) and it kind of went out with a whimper instead of a bang, though that show has some of the most likable kids in television. National Treasure (based on the Disney film franchise) is...ugh...I'm not a fan. The main character is pretty cool/interesting but all her friends are SO DUMB and the plot is so contrived and filled with coincidence it's like reading a BAD Nancy Drew story (though IS there such a thing as a 'bad Nancy Drew' story...?). I find myself cringing a lot. Some of the Mesoamerican stuff is good...and some of it shows the writers could stand to do a little more research. Yeah...but the kids really dig it (it's a Disney show).

Then there's Willow...or as we like to call it: "D&D the Series." We just started this one last week or so (after rewatching the 1988 film) and, as of last night, we're all caught up with the series (I think the season finale is tonight, but we probably won't watch it till tomorrow). 

Oh, boy...where to start?

George Lucas originally conceived of the idea for Willow circa 1972...long before D&D was a pop culture phenomenon. His idea was to create a kids' fantasy film that (as with Star Wars) incorporated a plethora of tropes from myth and folklore: fairies, brownies, witches, knights, trolls, etc. The idea was always to have a little person as the lead (original title: The Munchkins) as a literal interpretation of the small guy going off into the big world of adventure. Lucas met Warwick Davis when doing Return of the Jedi (the actor's first role...he played Wicket the ewok) who would become a staple figure in later SW films. In 1987 Davis was offered the role of Willow; he was 17 at the time.

Having had a chance to rewatch the film twice now in the last year (coincidentally we showed Willow to the kids over the summer, before we were even aware the series was going to be a thing), I'd call it cute, light-hearted fare, typical of the late-80s and a cut above most kids' fantasy films not involving Tim Burton or Jim Henson. In fact, it might have been the LAST (halfway-)decent live-action film featuring swords and sorcery until the 2000s. 

[when was Legend done? 1985? Yeah, same with Ladyhawke. Highlander, Labyrinth, and Big Trouble in Little China were all 1986; The Princess Bride was '87. After that, there's nothing worth mentioning till Jackson's LotR (2001). Maybe the 13th Warrior in '99? Not much magic in it, though. I LIKE Erik the Viking, but that's more parody and snark than earnest fantasy]

SO...fast foward to the new Willow which is, yet again, another example of Hollywood nostalgia-mining IP from decades past to appeal to the hearts (and wallets) of aging geezers like myself. 

TV's Best Beard

It's...okay. The casting is pretty good. Warrick Davis, veteran actor, is a highlight; so is Amar Chadha-Patel (whose physical appearance will henceforth be the basis for ALL future D&D characters of Yours Truly, regardless of class). Tony Revolori is (surprisingly) growing on me. Elle Bamber and Ruby Cruz seem...fine, I guess (as actors), but their characters (especially "Kit") are written in a way that I find extremely obnoxious and grating. 

*sigh* I'm just not into teenage angst...and it is (for me) incredibly unbelievable given the circumstances in which the characters find themselves. They're just one step removed from "I miss my cell phone!"

Erin Kellyman seems to have already been typecast (after watching her in Solo and Falcon/Winter Soldier) and her emotional range seems...short. I can't tell if she's limited by the writing or her ability; probably a bit of both. But mainly her character ("Jade") is just...boring.

[I also hate Jade's sword; every time I see it on screen I just think of how unbalanced it looks and how many fingers she'd lose trying to wield it. Like, ALL her fingers]

The bit parts and cameos, however, are stellar: Joanne Whalley, Hannah Waddingham (!), Christian Slater (!!), Kevin Pollack, and Julian Glover all make the most of their brief appearances in the show. Adwoah Aboah, too, isn't half-bad, especially considering (I think) that this is her first on-screen acting role (?!). Every time some random human character appears on-screen with more than a few lines of dialogue/action, it's generally a much needed shot-in-the-arm for the series.

The show, Willow, is D&D. But not the good kind of D&D.

"I was once a paladin..."
(yeah, back before
your alignment change)

It was my (non-gamer) wife who first pointed this out to us: "This is just like Dungeons & Dragons!" You have the adventuring party composed of a pretty standard lineup (a couple fighters, a couple spell-casters, a thief, etc) going on an adventure, fighting monsters, looking for treasure, delving dungeons, finding secret doors, facing traps and obstacles, etc.  The classes and tropes are easily recognizable. First level adventurers off on their first real adventure.

But this isn't father's (or geezer blog writer's) D&D. This is D&D with DRAMA, where every character has a "secret past" (backstory!) or closeted skeleton or SOMEthing that is going to get worked out 'on-screen' over the course of the series. 

Because the STORY by itself (um, something-something about saving the world) isn't COMPELLING (or compelling enough) by itself. No. We need to resolve our unrequited love and deal with our murdered siblings and find out about our secret family members and blah, blah, blah.

Hey, remember the original film? Remember the backstory for Madmartigan? Or Sorsha? Or the titular Willow himself? Remember the film explaining why this farmer was interested in becoming a sorcerer? Or how he learned to be conjurer of cheap tricks? Or why his neighbors didn't like him despite him (apparently) being a normal hardworking family man with a decent farm, a doting wife, happy little children? Remember where he received his unbounded courage and tenacity and moral compass? 

No? Oh, yeah: because there wasn't any. Neither was there for ANY of the characters. You have a character, you have a situation (the plot of the film) and GO. Is Sorsha trying to work out mother-daughter issues with evil queen Bavmorda, some rivalry with General Kael, or moon over some lost lover or other? Perhaps. If she is (and that's all certainly possible for the actor to keep in the back of her mind) it isn't played out on the screen...it is simply background motivation that directs the character's actions.

Here (in the series) we have all this...um..."stuff," that is constantly being dragged out and examined and being discussed and worked on. And I suppose that if the series was about one featured character or protagonist that would be okay. But it's not about a single character...it's an ensemble cast, with six or seven (depending on whether or not you count the brother/prince) main figures, all of whom are (more-or-less) on the same team. 

So...this need to share spotlight time (and film minutes) on their various mental and emotional turmoils just feels like...I don't know...some sort of narcissism.

[which, you know, is kind of emblematic of late edition D&D ain't it?]

That and the anachronisms inherent in the show. Not just the dialogue which (again) sounds like typical teenage petulance and smack talk but the damn music. No need for a sweeping, epic score transporting us to a fantasy world like, say, Game of Thrones or Rings of Power or...heck...the original film Willow on which the series is based. Crimson & Clover? Enter Sandman? Good Vibrations?!

Um...okay. So this is a teen fantasy show that would have been at home on the CW ten years ago. Except with a bigger budget.

"Dude, JB is as big a curmudgeon about his fantasy television shows as he is about his D&D! Hey, Old Man, there's more than one 'right way' to create elf-magic-fiction content!" Sure, yep, absolutely. But, watching Willow would be a lot less jarring, less cringe-worthy experience if expectations weren't set based on the very IP the showrunners decided to mine.

[heck, I'm not even dinging the show for sometimes poor pacing and occasional crap editing. Well, I wasn't till now]

"JB, that Willow movie was 35 years ago! Expectations have changed about YA fantasy! Why do you think D&D had to evolve?!"

Mm-hmm. Indeed. Welcome to fantasy in 2023.

Now, I realize that I am hopelessly behind the times when it comes to modern (well, post-modern) sensibilities, but for me...geezer that I am...adventure fantasy is about something like escapism from the petty squabbles and dramas of daily life. Take the character "Kit" for example and her quest to find her father (which seems far more important to her than her initial quest to find her brother)...I'd say there's more than a few people out there who have had their fathers exit their lives in some fashion, and hardly ever is it for some 'heroic' reason. It might be inoperable cancer or a sudden heart attack that leaves a kid half-orphaned at the age of 12 (as happened to my buddy, Matt) . It might be the guy walking out on the family with no warning (as happened to my brother and I). Hell, I know two different guys (John and Ben) who BOTH had their fathers leave their mothers for some hippy-dippy commune before either was born. 

This kind of thing happens. Worse things happen with parents. I knew a guy who had a real problem with his mother because she sold his younger sister to a couple guys in order to finance her crack habit. There's some fucked up shit in this world...lots of reasons to want to escape reality for an hour or two on a regular basis. Do I need to have a fantasy setting, with magic and monsters, in order to deep dive the emotional wreck of human relationships? Isn't there therapy for that? Support groups to join? Books to read? 

How about a subplot related to the story at hand: for example, Kit has been trained to be a warrior/knight type but pretty obviously has been pretty sheltered up until the events of the story...how about dealing with the emotional baggage that comes with murdering sentient beings for the first time in her life.  She's having a semi-polite conversation with some hairy trolls one moment, and then whetting her blade in their lifeblood the next. And everything is still like "Oh no big deal. How can I get my romantic interest to not still be mad at me?" 

But, okay, maybe we want to de-emphasize the emotional consequences of murder and bloodletting in this "fun adventure fantasy." How about dealing with the issues of duty versus love with regard to her betrothal to a political ally who happens to be on the same adventure with her as with her lover. Instead, she pretty much ignores the man she's supposed to marry, as opposed to A) trying to get to know him, or B) arranging for some fatal "accident" that will remove an unwanted complication from her life. You know?

[can you tell I'm not a big fan of the writing?]

This is adolescent, narcissistic D&D. We are on an adventure, killing monsters, surviving dangers, and working on our (young adult) emotional baggage. We don't have to particularly get along or cooperate to survive because, you know, "plot immunity." Not a lot of fear or real stress, except for the stress of meeting expectations ("Will I ever learn magic? Jeez I was happier just baking muffins!"). This isn't swords & sorcery...it's High School Musical with Ren-Fair costumes and less singing. 

*sigh* I know...I'm an ass. My family's enjoying the show, and the thing has some stylish touches that are entertaining (really dig on the bits of psychedelia scattered about the series, as well as the occasional steampunk flourishes). But, for the most part, its style without substance. The substance of the show is...for my taste...rather bland. Not "vanilla" (pains have been taken to make the show very NON-vanilla in fantasy terms). But bland. 

Ah, well. One episode (I think) to go. We'll see if the finale changes my mind.

Cocaine Bear

Um...

Dragons & Hoards

This could probably have been entitled "Fantasy Economics (p.3)" but I thought the subject deserved a catchier title. 'Cause today we're talking dragons.

While it's easy to grasp how treasure might be mined, minted, and circulated in coin form (and thus acquired by adventurers) a more pressing/nagging question for some folks is certainly 'why do monsters hoard treasure?' While ancient tombs guarded by undead Midas-types are self-explanatory (reasons why they're un-looted remain unclear), what's less obvious may be the desire by living folk...the orcs and goblins and giants and whatnot...to acquire chests full of the local human currency. Surely they're not a part of the local economy, right? You don't find hobgoblins drinking at the tavern or shopping for knives at the local farmer's market, do you?

[well, you could, of course. The DragonLance books have occupying soldiers (including hobgoblins and draconians) interacting with the locals, buying food and drink, harassing the barmaids, etc. But injecting this kind of symbiotic relationship with sentient humanoids into one's campaign might make the players feel more like murderers than they already do!]

The mistake here is in assuming that the monsters have no economy of their own. Okay, slimes and golems and owlbears (probably) don't...but the sentient races most certainly have something. These are tool-using societies. They build, they manufacture, they eat food, they wear textiles, they have a language for communicating with each other. And remember what coinage is: an easy, portable medium of exchange for goods and services. Coins are certainly useful and practical for ANY sentient species, both within their own community and with other communities...at least those communities that aren't as xenophobic (and murderous) as your average human town or village.

[remember that bit in Tolkien about some goblins/orcs having alliances with dwarves? Forget "racial animosity" for a moment and consider that two subterranean species are most likely to simply be fighting...when they ARE fighting...over the same prime territory/resources/food supply. Kind of like real life humans]

Dragons, however, are a different matter.

Even mind flayers have societies (though probably not one you want to visit). Dragons, on the other hand, are solitary creatures, only occasionally being found with a mate or clutch of young. And yet dragons are renowned for their treasure hoards...in fact, it is the promised acquisition of vast wealth that can entice foolhardy adventurers to brave certain death in a dragon's lair.

[I mean, except for the grossly stupid 5E version of the game, with its empty-handed dragons]

But WHY do dragons have hoards filled with thousands upon thousands of coins? That is the question. Because it's a fairy tale trope? Because they collect shiny stuff like a magpie? Because they just want to deprive humans of their precious wealth?

The film Flight of Dragons (loosely based on Dickson's The Dragon and the George) suggests dragons covet gold to act as "fireproof bedding" on which to lay. I'm not buying it. Lizards and snakes suffer little discomfort sleeping on hard rock (they prefer it, in fact, as it helps warm their cold blood on a sunny day)...and, anyway, dirt is softer than metal and just as fireproof. Plus, dragon breath is extremely destructive...certainly hot enough to melt gold (in the case of red dragons). Besides, D&D dragons aren't exclusively fire-breathers and is a gold bed really going to help against acid saliva? How about electricity?

Let's start with biology.

The first thing everyone should understand is that dragons need to eat. However, they appear reptilian, which would generally means a slower metabolism. Large snakes (like boa constrictors) can go three to four weeks without eating. Crocodiles can go months (though they generally eat every other week). Komodo dragons eat only one meal per month.

So dragons probably don't need to eat all that often...which is a good thing because, being large creatures, they're going to need to consume large amounts of food when they finally tuck in. A snake will eat 15-20% of its body weight; Komodo dragons can eat as much as 80% of their body weight in a single day. Crocodiles and alligators generally eat as much as their prey supply allows (they'll just keep eating), but they can get by on 5% of their body weight every couple weeks and they're just fine. For me, I'm inclined to go the Komodo route (with long periods of sleeping/dormancy) in order to prevent the countryside from becoming too devastated.

Well, then how much does a dragon weigh? An excellent question, and one without an easy answer. Lots of editions of D&D provide numbers on length for the various dragon types, and some even give out wingspans (I think it's 2E that notes span as approximately the same as length), but there isn't any hard weight measurements...unless you go by 3E's size charts which are, frankly, preposterous. Dragons have to be able to fly, after all, and so weight in relation to wings becomes incredibly important.

Here's a good article on wing loading, applicable to both animals and aircraft. Wing load is expressed as a ratio of mass (in kg) to wing surface area (in square meters), and with regard to birds (who don't benefit from jet propulsion) the practical limit for flight is about 25:1 (some particularly ungainly gliders, like the albatross, might exceed this a bit). That is to say if the mass exceeds 25kg to the square meter of wing surface area, it ain't getting off the ground (hello kiwi!). As such, clocking a "colossal" red dragon at 12+ tons (per the 3E MM)...well, it ain't happening.

I spent the good part of the other day estimating mass based on comparable reptiles and various sizes of wings to arrive at sensible conclusions. In the end, I ended up going with ratios provided by the greatest dragon ever to grace celluloid: Vermithrax Pejorative from the film Dragonslayer. Created by Hal Barwood and Matthew Robbins, the idea behind Vermithrax was to make the creature as frightening as possible while still making it fairly realistic and practical. The scale they decided on was a 40' length (which is more or less the scale of a D&D dragon) with a wingspan of 90' which, based on images I calculate to have a rough surface area of 107 meters square plus change. Given a scaled up Komodo for weight (something in the range of about 3 tons...Vermithrax is skinnier/tapered after all, and female to boot) gives us a wing load ratio right at the edge of the 25:1 mark...enough to get Vermithrax off the ground where she can soar on the air currents.

With these figures in mind and using the same proportions (in conjunction with the length measurements provided in the Monster Manual), I came up with the following average weights for various dragons (and, thus, the amount of food they need to consume):

• White: 1,620# (1,296# per month)
• Black: 2,531# (2,025# per month)
• Green: 3,645# (2,916# per month)
• Blue: 4,961# (3,968# per month)
• Red: 6,480# (5,184# per month)

There are better pix of
her wings...I just like this one.

These figures are ROUGH estimates, and don't take into account the vast range that can occur between size and age categories (not to mention dragons of different sexes...in the reptile kingdom males are generally 15-25% larger than females). However, it gives me an idea of what such a creature might be eating based on its natural habitat. 

[for example, a white dragon would do well with large seals or the odd polar bear, whereas a red dragon will need two or three cows, and a black dragon would be constantly eating whatever it can find in the swamp...much like a croc. Blue dragons would find it impossible to survive in a desert climate, unless eating some sort of fantasy critter (bulettes? small purple worms?)...in my own world, I'm more inclined to make them island dwellers and have 'em hunt pilot whale and similar aquatic mammals]

"But, JB...what does this have to do with a dragon's lust for treasure?"

Right...back to the point! This concept of dragons and their hoards are based on fairy tales, going all the way back to Fafnir, if not earlier. But fairy tales are stories and self-contained. They entertain us, perhaps impart a moral lesson, and then they're done...folks live 'happily ever after' or (like Beowulf) they don't. 

But with advanced gaming, we are engaging with the campaign world, living in it and experiencing the thing. The treasure of a dragon (for treasure they must have, it is part of what makes a dragon a dragon and part of the raison d'etre of adventurers braving their lairs) must make some sense. Certainly the size of the hoard being comparable to the dragon's age and might is sensible...it takes time to accumulate wealth, and dragons are long lived. But what about the HOW and WHY? Dragon claws aren't really designed for subtle manipulation, like picking up and counting coins. And while I can understand the odd magic item or piece of jewelry being the remains of would-be slayers that found their way into the dragon's den, surely those dead adventurers weren't carrying hundreds (or thousands) of pounds of coin on them...they went seeking death with EMPTY sacks, not ones already bursting.

It seems clear to me that for a creature that doesn't mine, and doesn't manufacture (or mint) that the best explanation for the treasure hoard is that it is TRIBUTE...tribute paid by lesser beings, bribes (in a way), to prevent the dragon from destroying villages and consuming both citizens and livestock. Of course, dragons don't go on shopping sprees, so the tribute simply accumulates over time (the hoard grows larger and larger) but dragons are an intelligent species...even the stupidest having an intelligence of 8 or 9...so they must have a reason for wanting and accepting such offerings:

1. Being an intelligent species, they understand the value of treasure and the size of their hoard is a matter of prestige and pride. A larger hoard symbolizes more power, thus a "better," stronger, smarter dragon. Dragons don't appear to have a society (though they might, just one invisible to the average human) but hoard comparisons could be used to determine rank and status among their own kind.
2. Size and composition of hoard would certainly be a factor in determining the suitability of a mate. D&D dragons are found in mated pairs, suggesting a form of monogamy or "mating for life." Not only does a dragon's hoard describe a better (more powerful) partner, but the joining of two dragons requires one to leave its hoard behind (they have no way to transport it!), so the dominant of the two must have a hoard of sufficient size for the both of them.
3. Dragons, as stated, need to eat...a lot!...even though (like reptiles) they can experience long periods of dormancy. While human-sized prey is hardly a snack for any size dragon (and a halfling isn't even a mouthful), a party of humans, plus their mounts and pack animals, might prove enough food that they can go without leaving their lair (thus conserving energy) for a longer period of time. A treasure hoard is thus an enticement for "intelligent" (i.e. foolhardy) prey to come to them. 
4. Finally, D&D dragons are portrayed as "cowardly" because of the rules for subduing dragons; however, this just shows their intelligence and sense of self-preservation. While dragons are loathe to relinquish any of their treasure (because a diminished hoard size is detrimental to the motives already listed) bribing powerful individuals is better than dying. Should a party prove too strong for an individual dragon, the hoard can be used to "buy off" the invaders. Being an intelligent being with a lifespan measured in centuries, dragons can afford to take the "long view;" better for a young dragon to seek greener pastures, establishing a new lair and beginning (again) the acquisition of tribute. Thus, the hoard also represents a bit of a "safety net," though some particularly old and curmudgeonly dragons might find it worth dying for ('I ain't moving!').

And so we have yet another reason that monsters will have a desire to accumulate treasure: living in wilderness areas inhabited by dragons, such creatures (goblins, trolls, ogres, etc.) will need all the money they can mine, borrow, or steal just to keep the dragons from devouring their villages. Human towns...what with their curtain walls and towers, armored knights and wizards...are too dangerous (or too much of a pain in the ass) for the average dragon to bother with. But out in the wilderness...in the swamps or mountains or jungle or arctic regions...a dragon can get by, hunting large game and reaping the rewards of subservient, fearful lesser beings who also make their homes far from the murderous humans and their allies.

Makes perfect sense to me.

; )

Back in 1986...

...two films were released in theaters, films that were similar in many respects. Both were of the comedy-action-adventure variety. Both were produced by Hollywood production companies. Both were made for under $25 million. Both had special effects that were "iffy" (especially seen through the lens of our jaded 21st century eyes). Both featured a male, American "everyman" type being drawn into an east Asian world of supernatural strangeness, with the American being an individual of destiny.

Both films had a supernatural, demonic, Big Bad Guy adversary armed with magic and minions. Both films centered around a plot of abduction that required the hero to perform a "rescue" in addition to combatting various mooks and monsters. Hell, both had Victor Wong in supporting roles.

I was 13 in 1986; both films carried the (then fairly new) PG-13 rating. I saw both in the theater. At the time, I enjoyed both. When I rewatched them, a few years later (on video) I found one to be clearly superior...so much so that I've watched it many times over the years, have owned it on VHS and currently own a deluxe BluRay version of it. The second film was so bad, I couldn't believe I'd even liked it (hey, I was 13!)...so much so that I've never bothered to watch it again.

The first film was Big Trouble in Little China from John Carpenter; it earned barely over $11 million, a bonafide box office flop. The second film was Eddie Murphy's The Golden Child: it earned over $149 million. 

Big Trouble in Little China has a 74% Rotten Tomato rating and an 82% audience ("popcorn") rating; by comparison, The Golden Child has a 22% Tomato and a 47% audience score. Both of these scores reflect and echo my own feelings on the films. John Carpenter and Kurt Russell (the star of Big Trouble) have stated they are proud of the film they created. Eddie Murphy has referred to his own film as "a piece of shit" (that was in '89)...and time has not been any kinder to the thing.

Thirty-five years later and I'm no longer 13. While I can see Big Trouble in Little China for the lightweight (if fun) film that it is, it still remains a personal favorite. It's not great cinema, but it's good...and it may be the best use of Asian American actors in a non-period Hollywood film prior to the turn of the century. Lots of reasons can be given as to why (financially) it failed so miserably in comparison to its inferior contemporary but, really, who cares? As far as I (and tens of thousands of others) are concerned, time has told the tale that ticket receipts alone could not.

There's something there that can (maybe) be applied to the various "edition wars" that crop up with regard to Dungeons & Dragons.  Maybe.

Back in 1986 my friends and I played Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, not B/X. We used all the hardcovers published to that date. We worked in certain aspects of Mentzer's Companion rules (where we could fit them into an advanced game), and we made use of some (not all) articles published in Dragon magazine. Of course, we also had house rules and variants that were regular parts of the game.

But that was thirty-five years ago. A lot of different editions of D&D have been published since then. A lot of tinkering, a lot of changes. And a lot of changes in Yours Truly. I'm not 13 anymore; I'm a bit more discerning in my tastes...even my tastes when it comes to "fun." 

All right, more on this subject (well, on the subject of different D&D issues) later. Maybe tomorrow. Hopefully tomorrow. 

Have a great week, folks.

"Everyone Has A Gimmick"

This is a bit of a "throwaway post," but I feel like I've got to get something down on Ye Old Blog, and I've just had a hard time writing anything lately. Oh, I've started a couple-three things...I've got a post titled "Time Warp," one called "Down Rabbit Holes," and a third called something like "World Without End." Oh yeah...something-something about encumbrance. But I really don't have the mental brain sweat at the moment to address all these potentially O-So-Profound subjects with the requisite gravitas they so richly deserve. 

So F it.

Instead, I'm going to hearken back to someone else's blog post of yesteryear, specifically this little doozie from Necropraxis called Only Ten from back in 2012. For some reason I've had this old post open on some random tab of my laptop for I-don't-know-how-long and I don't even remember why I was looking at it (let alone what I was thinking saving it). Maybe it came up when I was doing some search for Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play? I don't know...really I don't.

Anyway, for the disinterested, the gist of Necro's subject was the following question: if you could only keep 10 printed RPG books, which would make the cut?  Now I'm not sure about my lovely readers, but I happen to be a middle-aged dude who's been playing (and collecting) RPG material for close to 40 years, and while much of it has been sold, lost, or stolen over the years, I still hang on to a substantial amount of printed material. Enough to fill a bookshelf and a half plus a cupboard, and (perhaps) a large plastic crate or two.  And that's just the printed material. That's a LOT of books to pare down to just 10...and a particularly tall order for a packrat like myself.

Still, while I'm glad I don't actually have to burn the bulk of my library, it's an interesting thought exercise. And it's one I went through in my head earlier today: just what would I keep? Strangely enough, B/X didn't make the cut (due partly to me having memorized most of it, and partly having purchased PDFs from DriveThru...when I absolutely have to look something up these days, B/X is quite searchable on the ol' laptop). Mainly I was thinking of games that would allow me to play (or recreate) multiple genres of fantasy, interesting systems, or thoughtful design. Here's  my list at the moment (in no particular order of priority):

1. AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide
2. AD&D Players Handbook
3. AD&D Monster Manual
4. Heroes Unlimited
5. Maelstrom
6. Warhammer 40,000 Rogue Trader
7. Sorcerer
8. Vampire the Masquerade (1st edition)
9. Hollow Earth Expedition

I can't really bring myself to choose a 10th book...there are a few that could make the cut. The Fiend Folio, of course (and almost certainly would be). Deities & Demigods (the original) makes a strong case if only for its official ability score tables up to 25 and discussions on clerics, worship, and divine ascension. Beyond the Supernatural, Rifts, Gamma World, Deadlands could all go in there...even Ars Magica (1e), Orkworld, ElfQuest, or Over the Edge. And I hardly need not be mentioned how much I love both Ken St. Andre's Stormbringer (1e) and Marc Miller's Classic Traveller (I have the core book compilation from GDW)...that last one (Traveller) might even be able to edge out HEX in the #9 spot. 

Ugh...I completely forgot Twilight 2000. But it's box set technically consists of multiple books. If the original system had a single hardcover, it would leapfrog several of the "possibles" for the #10 slot. It just has a wonderful system for near-future post-apocalyptic games. 

The thing is, MANY of the games I own would be simple enough to recreate, and many could stand a rewrite using a different, more convenient system. Such was definitely the case with Shadowrun (my B/X style knockoff Cry Dark Future is a testament to that). Beyond the Supernatural or Gamma World could both be remade quite easily using B/X (see Mutant Future for an example of the latter). I've run great Top Secret games using the Story Engine system (first published with the Maelstrom RPG)...it can easily be used for other genres asking for "rules-light-story-heavy" mechanics. Of course, OD&D is easy enough to make out of AD&D...if one wanted...

Some may find it curious that 40K makes the list when it's not really an RPG. What can I say other than it provides exactly the kind of science fiction I want...one day, far in the future, I'll completely rewrite both it and HEX (Hollow Earth Expedition) using a different system from what they've been given. But I find their books to be incredibly imaginative and inspirational, as is. Nice art, too.

Folks might note there are no "supplements" making my list. I generally can write my own supplemental material (that's kind of what I do). That being said, I love Ron Edwards's Sorcerer supplements, especially Sorcerer & Sword. Unfortunately, Sorcerer makes the list because of its elegant design principles (and diabolic themes) more than because it's a game I play a lot (I don't). It's an inspirational reference, especially for its narrative sensibilities, and I like it better than other story driven games like Fiasco, Polaris, and Capes.

The real odd duck on the list though is (duh) Palladium's Heroes Unlimited, an RPG I've written enough of in the past. You'll note the cop out above where I don't pick any single particular edition of the game...there are a plethora of differences between 1e, "revised," and 2e HU, enough so as to really alter game play for the participants. 1e was the best written, but "revised's" tweaks to certain classes are really welcome (including the addition of the magical power set) and I would probably go with that. 2e is just a tad over-the-top...although if you want to include uber-powerful characters (equivalent to Thor or the Hulk) you really need to check out the "mega-hero" option in 2e. It's rather beastly, though nothing one couldn't work out for their own campaign (my buddies' long-running HU campaign in high school created their own "mega-powers" list using only the revised rules...long before the advent of a 2nd edition).

And, yeah, for those who hadn't already guessed, this is all just a rambling preamble to talk about superhero stuff.

As I wrote in my last post, my in-laws have been in town, and were supposed to fly back to Mexico on...mmm, Tuesday? Yeah, Tuesday last. But after our last road trip with them, the kids discovered that abuelo (their grandpa) hadn't watched any of the Marvel movies (The Avengers, etc.) and so decided to embark on an epic marathon of film watching...basically one movie per night for 2+ weeks (in chronological order), culminating in Avengers Endgame the night before they were supposed to leave town. And since it's summer time, and we still have things going on during the days and evenings (and we don't watch movies during dinner) this has meant starting 2-3 hour films around 10pm every night and not getting to bed till near 1am.  Um...yeah. And I still get up around 6:30 to take care of the one beagle I have left.

Consequently, I've been in something of a fugue state with a mind inundated by cinematic superheroics for much of the last month. Makes it a little hard to focus.

[hmm...wonder if that's had anything to do with my lack of a "will to write" lately. Certainly can't help]

Anyway: I am NOT about to start dipping back into designing superhero RPGs (again) as happened last April (wow! A month long tangent that started with this post!)...I've just got too many D&D irons in the fire at the moment (and little enough time for juggling those). But that Necropraxis article made me consider long and hard which hero game I'd bring with me to a desert island and I was, well, a little surprised at my own answer. Despite having written on or about the subject a thousand times in the past.

But in consideration for having the MCU force-shoved into my brain lately...well, sometimes I have to do something to spew the excess waste material from my cranium. Here are my current (as in, today, this morning) thoughts on the subject of superhero role-playing games (SRPGs):

• an SRPG should be run in real time, as much as possible. Day 1 of the campaign should start on a real world date (even if heroes/villains have been "training" or whatever for years). 
• an SRPG should be grounded in as much "reality" as possible (no picking up buildings by the corner, or flying faster than the speed of light). Super-technology can make impossible things possible, within reason, but shouldn't be readily accessible/understood by Earth humans (so as not to disrupt what passes for "daily life" in the real world)...at least when starting the campaign. Magic falls under the category of a "super-technology" (with the same stipulations).
• the campaign world should be set in the real world. Imaginary cities/countries (Metropolis, Atlantis, Wakanda) should be avoided. Extraterrestrial and extradimensional entities are okay, which can explain mythological-type beings (Thor or whatever).
• the campaign world should be allowed to spin out of control based on the occurrences of the game.
• all heroes/villains should start as "unknowns" to the general public, i.e. they have no reputation for being "super-anythings" before the start of play. Actions taken by characters will determine public perception.
• Day 1 marks the first appearance of super individuals in the campaign world
• an SRPG should be generally "free-wheeling" with logical consequences to follow
• no weapon fetishes: make and model of firearms and caliber of ammunition should have near zero impact on game play.
• experience increases effectiveness of characters. Active superpowers (things that turn on-and-off) either increase in scope/impact, or ability of character to use. Experience is gained through play. Time spent not playing will not result in experience.
• an SRPG is not a comic book. There is no plot immunity for characters.
• an SRPG is not a film. There are no guaranteed happy endings.
• an SRPG is a game about super (i.e. "greater than human") individuals in a human scale world and those individuals impact on the world. The PCs may become champions of the people or conquerors of the world. 
• The referee's job is to establish challenges for the PCs. For villainous PCs, these challenges can take the forms of law enforcement, task forces, and heroic super teams. Challenges should be commensurate with the scale of the PCs' abilities. Scale is determined by sphere of operation as mutually decided by the referee and the players.
• All PCs have a drive that allows them to push beyond the boundaries of ordinary humans.
• All PCs have a flaw that can be exploited by adversaries.
• All PCs have enough humanity to allow players (including the referee) to relate to the character. Thus, no artificial beings or alien creatures lacking human emotions, feelings, etc. The game is not about how well a player can portray a plant thing, inhuman monster, or celestial/infernal being. Likewise all PCs must be sentients of at least minimal intelligence for operating on planet Earth (the campaign setting); the game is not a comedy of errors based on an ignorance of cultural norms.
• There should be at least some randomness in determining a PCs particular "power set;" players are neither allowed, nor expected to come to the table with a fully formed character concept.

*Whew!*  Aaand...that's about it. I've decided that I'm no longer all that interested in forcing players to act cooperatively or assign them to super-powered task forces...I'm not even (particularly) interested in them acting as "heroes." Instead, I'd rather just offer them opportunities...multiple...just as one might with, say, an AD&D campaign setting. Being a planet such as we have, it's not like the PCs couldn't hop a plane and be most anywhere in less than 24 hours, so lot of possibilities for adventures are possible...and "story arcs" have nothing to do with any of it.

It's a little different from how I've thought about SRPGs in the past. 

Whimsy - An Addendum

I guess I have a few more things to say following yesterday's "Whimsy" post. I'll try to keep the digressions to a bare minimum. 

When I talk about whimsy in Dungeons & Dragons or adventure/game design, I'm using the definition from my old Merriam-Webster dictionary:

a fanciful or fantastic device, object, or creation esp. in writing or art

I don't mean capriciousness, nor light hearted or humorous, and I certainly don't mean "gonzo," which my MW simply defines as:

bizarre

...which is what you tend to get (in gaming) when you pile too much weird on top of weird.

When I wrote that Dragonlance was "post-apocalypse lite," I did not mean to imply it was light-hearted. I'm just saying that its particular version of PA fiction isn't quite as heavy and serious as what one finds in a "harder" look at the genre (considering "hard" to be like "hard science fiction"). And please don't infer my use of the terms "heavy" and "serious" to be "dark and awful" ...I'm saying it's not well thought out (see prior posts on steel currency and religion in DL). 

Dragonlance, for all its flaws, has whimsy. A treetop village is whimsy. A wizard cursed with hourglass eyes is whimsy. A dragon holding an elven king hostage in his own dreams is whimsy. And, yes, even a "steel currency" is whimsy...if also utter nonsense. 

No ewoks, just whimsy.

But for all its pretensions at being "epic fantasy," Dragonlance (at least in its fiction) is surprisingly down-to-earth. The characters care about money to pay for stuff. Their love lives are complicated and messy. People die of old age, get beat up, hurt, fall ill with sickness. They complain about things. They get annoyed with and yell at each other. It's not Tolkien. It's not Star Wars, following the exploits of some "chosen one." These people end up being the "heroes of the Lance," but ANYone could have been "heroes of the Lance" if they'd been in the right (wrong) place at the right (wrong) time...the reason we're following this particular group is because they are the shmucks that ended up with the job and we want to watch how exactly that happened.

[okay, there is SOME pretentious "chosen one" stuff in DL...Goldmoon and Riverwind, for example, or Raistlin being a vessel for Fistandantilus, or Tanis just "happening" to have a past relationship with a Dragon Highlord. But the other characters are more-or-less interchangeable with ANY D&D miscreants]

That, for me, is what makes whimsy work. If you have this "normal" world (assuming, for the moment, that monsters and magic-users are "normal") with otherwise normal challenges (politics and economics, combat being a dangerous proposition, etc.) THEN the injection of the occasional strangeness can produce a feeling of "magic." Whimsy can produce wonder. And that makes for a cool/better game experience.

When EVERYthing is weird/strange...so much so that the weird/strange becomes "business as usual"...that's when you get into gonzo territory. And that's a territory I don't generally like to hang out in. Maybe because it lacks a true "normal" point of reference for me to use in orienting myself to the material at hand.

Consider the animated Heavy Metal film.  The climactic short, Taarna, is pretty lame/throwaway as a story because so much of it is just weird on weird. It's an interesting visual image (at times), but the only scene that works for me at all is the one in the bar, because it reference so many tropes viewed in the western (gunslinger) genre. The BEST short of the bunch is probably Den of Earth because while the thing piles gonzo weirdness on top of gonzo weirdness it has a running narration from John Candy providing a "normal dude" commentary on all the weirdness. Despite its psychedelic plot/visuals it never loses its viewers' perspective or orientation.

"This mutant speaks
pretty good English."

Some OSR stuff...even some of the best OSR stuff...just has a hard time with this. Operation Unfathomable (which I own in hardcopy) is an example that springs immediately to mind. It's weird on top of weird with no chance to catch one's breath, no true respite from the gonzo, no chance to sit back and take stock. It's still cool, incredibly imaginative and evocative, definitely a fun read...and probably NOT an adventure I'll ever run. I want long-term campaign play (or gaming that has the potential for campaign play) not one-off weirdness. A world that will develop over time in recognizable fashion by the actions of the players, not something that starts strange, stays strange, and only gets stranger.  That ain't whimsy!

Neither is whimsy (necessarily) humorous or light-hearted. My buddy, Kris, who wrote the Black Rock Island adventure? Not a humorous dude. Too serious, one might say, though given to a terse chuckle when something (rarely) tickles his funny bone. Knowing him as I do, I'd say any humor or slapstick in the adventure is completely unintentional. He just isn't a jokey kind of guy (and the things that he does find amusing aren't always the same as the average person). Most humorous and "punny" stuff injected into old TSR adventures he'd call "dumb." And the black humor found in stuff like Warhammer FRP would just go straight over his head...just wouldn't even register.

Yes, whimsy can be light-hearted and humorous. A race of kleptomaniac halflings cannot help but draw chuckles if used with some restraint (they're really not much different from the mischievous house brownies of folklore). So can foodstuffs with magical properties. So can talking monsters that exhibit human-style foibles and personality flaws.

In the long-running AD&D campaign of my youth we had one character with an intelligent talking sword. It was beefy...a +4 broadsword with both dancing and defending properties, if I remember correctly...but it just would not shut up. Thing had a British accent, so was called "Chap" and the PC would argue with it constantly (it had a higher intelligence than its wielder). Both fanciful and amusing, after the character was retired from play, she'd still show up as a (shared) NPC, an occasional bit of comic relief in our games.

Comic relief has probably always been a necessary part of D&D play, because the game can be very tense and very emotional even when its not grim, dark, and awful. But comic relief isn't the point of "whimsy." Whimsy's purpose is to add magic to a game that might otherwise resemble nothing more than a numbers tracking game...whether you're talking hit points or gold or encumbrance or experience. D&D is more than just resource management and friends kabitzing around a table. And whimsy, in the right dosage, helps elevate the experience of play to something even more fanciful and fantastical.

That, I think, is what this game is all about: experiencing a fantasy. Folks may have additional reasons for playing, but they pale in comparison. There are better role-playing games for competition, challenge, and telling stories. But nothing's quite like D&D when you can add a bit of whimsy.

All right, that's enough for now.