Unboxing: Lone Wolf Adventure Game

This is my first-ever unboxing/review video posted on this here blog (okay, I'm not exactly doing a full-on, in-depth review here but this is still a first for me)! 

I welcome your comments, please be gentle! Seriously, I'm a bit of an amateur so feedback, hints, and tips are welcome. I hope you like the video, please comment and let me know what you think! Also, let me know your thoughts about the game itself.

Review: Talus and the Frozen King

I'm about to break a cardinal rule when it comes to books, and I'm going to do a bit of cover-judging. BUT, not in the way you think. I'm going to reverse it, and judge the cover in relation to the book. The cover depicts a man in very Medieval-looking armor, with equally Medieval-looking sword and shield.

 

Why, you ask, is this a problem? Well, I'm not sure if the following is a spoiler, but here is your warning that the following may be a small spoiler in the minds of some readers:

 

The story is set in the Neolithic Age. That's right, we're dealing with characters who are not much beyond the cave man stage of human evolution. So, in the book, we see a lot of people wearing furs, wielding tools and weapons made of bone and stone, etc.

 

So, why the cover with the guy in the Medieval garb and with Medieval weaponry?! I'm going to guess that some marketing person decided that depicting Stone Age folks on the cover wouldn't grab the attention of readers. Well, I disagree. Actually, I believe the reverse would be true: I think many fantasy readers are tired of seeing another Medieval scene depicted on fantasy novel covers. If you threw some cave men on that cover, you might get MORE readers! Just a thought. Maybe if there's another printing, the cover can be changed to a truer reflection of the content of the book.

 

So, beyond what I thought was a poor choice of cover art, how was the book itself?

 

Well, I liked Edwards' concept of basically transplanting Sherlock Holmes into the Stone Age, right along with a Watson-esque partner. I also liked Edwards' turns of phrase; the man is very capable of creating vivid imagery.

 

In all, he definitely has the chops to write a good novel. I'm just not sure Talus and the Frozen Kind (hereafter referred to as TatFK) is that good novel. It seemed to be a fairly bog-standard mystery yarn. There's a king that is murdered, and that king has a lot of sons who might have motivation to kill him. Okay, not the most original idea I suppose.

 

There were a lot of characters, and Edwards made an effort to distinguish the sons of the king from one another. Talus himself is an inquisitive and talented bard who has the traits one might associate with someone who has preternatural powers of observation and deduction: Talus is "strange" and socially awkward. Love is a mystery to him, as are the passions that might make someone commit murder. Yes, by now we've all encountered the character of this sort, an outsider and observer of human experience who is quirky, perhaps even somewhere on the autistic spectrum (like Will Graham from the "Hannibal" TV show). So, his character isn't entirely original, but I still appreciated how Edwards depicted Talus.

 

What I did find interesting is the overarching quest that Talus and his partner Bran are pursuing. They come upon the mystery of the king's murder on their journey to a specific destination, and their motivation for finding said destination is intriguing. I found myself wishing the story had been focused more on their quest, rather than this stop-over in some obscure village to solve a king's murder. However, I can see how I, as the reader, needed to see Talus in action while simultaneously learning about the overarching quest.

 

Ultimately, I think Edwards is a good writer, but he's still in search of a plot that will be more engaging, and a world that is more fully fleshed out. I felt at times he might have depended too much on a "gee whiz" factor when it comes to his setting in the Neolithic. But that gee whiz will only get you so far. I'm not saying that the world of Talus doesn't have potential. It just needs more flesh on the bones, and perhaps Edwards can add said flesh in subsequent writings.

 

So, perhaps Edwards had a clever idea and just didn't execute it all that well. That's my overall opinion about the book: good concept, lackluster execution. But then again, I'm not the biggest fan of mystery novels, so I could also be biased against the plot of TatFK.

 

Speaking of genre, this book is in the sci-fi/fantasy category on the Barnes & Noble bookshelves. However, there wasn't anything overtly magical or fantastical in the novel. There are hints of the supernatural, but that could just be the perception and beliefs of the characters. 

 

Bottom line: TatFK was a good quick read, a lighter bit of fiction that started out slow but picked up the pace as the story progressed. The plot was somewhat predictable and clunky in execution, but the author has an obvious talent for storytelling and vivid description. I would definitely try another novel by Graham Edwards, to see how his style evolves over time.

Oh, and he needs to insist on more accurate cover art! The mismatch between the cover and the content was jarring. Cover art may not be the reason one should buy a book, but good cover art that reflects the story well can enhance the experience of reading a novel. It also seemed like a blatant marketing ploy to lure fantasy fans into buying the book.

Review: Gygax Magazine #1

As regular readers of this blog probably know, I believe there are two different kinds of nostalgia: the kind that can enrich one’s enjoyment of the present, and the kind that can cause one to linger on the past and thus neglect the present (and strip away enjoyment of the now). Perhaps, to refine this concept a bit, one can take nostalgia and do either of these things with it. “Good” nostalgia can spur a dynamic present, such as when fond memories of one’s roleplaying youth spur on successful roleplaying now. “Bad” nostalgia, on the other hand, can cause one’s present roleplaying efforts to falter, if one continually considers their present roleplaying efforts to be inferior to their past activities in the hobby.

Gygax Magazine #1 created a flood of nostalgia for me. It was immediate upon looking at the cover, and only increased as I flipped through the issue. My very first thought was, “Here is Dragon Magazine reborn!” There were ads throughout that reminded me of what I saw in the old Dragon, which had enticed me to learn more about games beyond D&D, expanding my knowledge of gaming options. Seeing an “Ecology of…” article made me smile. The layout of the articles, the illustrations that accompanied articles, and comics such as Phil & Dixie were a sight for these sore, older eyes. It was definitely like seeing long-lost friends.

A side-by-side comparison with an issue of Dragon.

 

One is from 1993 and one is from 2013.

BUT, let's move beyond the nostalgia. Let's set those feelings aside, and consider Gygax Magazine #1 on its own merits, as a stand-alone product.

It seems to me that the publishers (which include Ernest Gary Gygax Jr. and Luke Gygax) are trying to assert a certain "pedigree" by using the name "Gygax" for the magazine title, as well as using the initials "TSR." So to me they are trying very hard to make that association with the old days of D&D. Which I don't think is a bad thing, but I can see how some might consider this to be too much in the realm of "standing on the shoulders of giants."

I won't go into an exhaustive review of all the articles, but rather give you impressions of the ones I found most interesting:

"The cosmology of role-playing games" by James Carpio was a fun exploration of the RPG universe, with D&D being the big bang, of course. An interesting analogy, at the very least.

"DMing for your toddler" by Cory Doctorow made me smile and reconsider introducing my kids (five and seven) to roleplaying much sooner than I've planned!

"The Gygax family storyteller" by Ernest Gary Gygax Jr. was a nice glimpse into the life of the co-creator of D&D.

The "Gnatdamp" piece by the inestimable Michael Curtis was the biggest treat! I really enjoy his work across the board, and I can't wait to subject players to this village! ;-)

"An AGE of great inventions" by Rodrigo García Carmona was of particular interest to me because I've started a Dragon Age RPG campaign, so any material for use with the AGE System is welcome!

There were some editorial issues here and there. Some articles didn’t have the square mark that was placed at the end of other articles, leading to some confusion as to when a particular article had ended. I felt like this was a particular problem for Tim Kask’s "Still playing after all these years" fond-memories article, which seemed to finish rather abruptly, as well as Lakofka's "Leomund's Secure Shelter" piece.

The ending of "Keeping magic magical" by Dennis Sustare was, well, awkward:

"And if you design a magic that is compelling and new, perhaps some publisher will say, “That looks great. Let me print and sell that for you!”

It seems like they didn't know how to end the article, and slapped on a rather saccharine declaration.

The placement of games in James Carpio's RPG cosmology was a bit off. For instance, Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG should have been further out, in the 2012 area.

But these are relatively small quibbles.

I realize that my review is coming a bit late to the issue #1 party, and that a second issue has been released. But I wanted to join my voice to the review chorus, being one of the many who loved Dragon. I wish the modern era could support a monthly print gaming magazine the likes of Dragon, but alas I do not think that is to be. But I praise the people behind Gygax Magazine for their efforts, even if we only get four issues a year and not nearly as many pages.

Speaking of issue #2, here's the contents:

 

I think I still see some pure nostalgia pieces in there, but that's to be expected. I would expect to see such offerings become fairly non-existent as the issues come and go.

How the creators of the magazine are using their nostalgia is, to me, still up for debate. If they’re taking the initial issues to pay homage to Dragon as well as the early days of the hobby, I respect that. I think if they hadn’t paid respect to the past, they would have taken considerable flak for that. To bear the name Gygax, I think, must have seemed like a mandate of sorts for them to create a bridge to the past. Not to mention the fact that “cashing in” on the nostalgia of older readers would have been a foolish business decision, in I believe that’s a marketing tactic as old as the proverbial hills: make someone reflect on their younger days, which most of us also consider “better” days.

How we long-time gamers choose to use nostalgia is up to us. Let's see how the folks behind Gygax Magazine choose to use it going forward. I'm hoping it's for the good.

Film Review: Game of the Year

I watched the mockumentary entitled "Game of the Year," and I have to say that overall it was not bad. I guess that's not necessarily a ringing endorsement. While the film had its moments, I felt there was something missing. I'll try to elaborate on this feeling by the end of this review.

Ok, initial impressions included "it's cool that someone made a film we can add to the small pantheon of D&D/RPG-related movies." I also thought "it's awesome that the DVD cover is a play off of the old D&D module covers."

Then I started watching. The film's premise is that there's an RPG reality show called Game of the Year. It's sort of a Survivor for roleplayers, right down to a slogan of "Strength, Wisdom, Dexterity" replacing "Outwit, Outplay, Outlast." I thought the whole concept was pretty clever and funny. Roleplaying groups selected for the show compete to win the privilege of running a game company for a year. I have to say it I found myself wishing there really was such a reality show. It would be the only reality show I would watch, as I normally hate the genre.

It occurred to me, however, that the criteria for selecting a winning team for Game of the Year are never clearly defined in the film. What are the contest's judges looking for? How well a group plays together? That seems really subjective. Do they want the most messed up, drama-filled group, or the most cohesive? This omission of contest details was baffling.

As the film went on, I found myself thinking "I wish they would have played some of the characters straight, rather than reaching for comedic moments based on gamer stereotypes." Especially the GM character, Richard, who sometimes came off as that cliched "goofy and bumbling nerd" type. And what's with the clothespins holding stuff onto his screen? Lame. I can't take this guy seriously!

Overall, I felt that there was some excessive stereotyping with regard to most of the characters. Now, I expected the film to offer up a bit of education for those not familiar with gamer archetypes. But I couldn't help but feel that the character's behaviors came across as a bit heavy handed. Again, this was especially evident with the character of Richard, who I saw as the central character/linchpin for the whole story.

There were definite moments where I said to myself "I wouldn't pick this team to win a reality TV show." I have to admit that I found them sort of annoying. Maybe it wasn't just the characters themselves, but something about the tone of the film. The characters seemed, I don't know...sort of desperate all the time.

Which leads me to my biggest question: who is the intended audience of the film?

Was it just a love letter to gamers? I don't think the creators wanted it to cater just to roleplayers. Perhaps they wanted to make it a hybrid, with nods and inside jokes/references for gamers but also accessible to non-gamers?

But if non-gamers are to be part of the audience, then I think the movie served to reinforce bad stereotypes instead of showing that gamers really are normal folks. I think the film makers were attempting to tread a fine line between respect for gamers/the roleplaying hobby and lampooning gamers/the hobby, and they didn't really succeed.

The "linchpin" Richard says at the film's end that (I'm paraphrasing) "people think gamers are normal and solid and stable, but in reality we have problems just like everyone else." I am not so sure outsiders to the hobby think that gamers are normal and stable, with their act together and priorities straight. On the contrary, I think that the wider world has bought into the view of gamers as nerdy losers who shirk adult responsibility (i.e. "still live in their parent's basement") and who can be a bit unstable (i.e. "always living in a fantasy world of elves and goblins"). If the film was supposed to argue against these viewpoints, I think it missed that opportunity.

All of this made me wonder if the film makers really had a good idea of what gaming is all about, be it shared storytelling, expressing creativity and imagination, escaping from reality, having a good time with friends, or even getting in some good old hack and slash. There were moments where I, as a gamer, wondered at the decisions made by the creators, and thought that perhaps the creators weren't themselves gamers. This just seems like a film that should have been made by gamers. If the creators are in fact roleplayers, then their creation missed the mark, IMHO, when it comes to a fully-accurate depiction of roleplayers as more than just the stereotype.

I think the film is worthy of a gamer's time, for its nods to the hobby. But I am wary of putting this forward as a good film to introduce non-gamers to the realities of the hobby and being a roleplayer. The film is just too vague and, frankly, "bipolar" about the subject matter that I fear non-gamers would come away from it even more confused about what roleplaying is really like. Or worse yet, those who may be cynical toward the hobby may find their cynicism amplified.

What I would really love to see, someday, is a film that is an actual documentary showing how there are gamers out there like me: a regular guy with a real life, a person who has a typical adult life (and all accompanying responsibilities and duties) and finds time to roleplay. If there's such a film out there already, please let me know! Because, sure, there are the fatbeards and catpissmen that non-gamers would mock as typical RPG nerds. But when will someone portray the RPG hobby as being peopled by a diverse cross-section of lifestyles?

More Thoughts on Game of the Year (Spoiler Alert!)

The following are some other thoughts that came up while I was watching the film (WARNING - what follows may be considered spoilers):

Ew, someone said "five foot step" during a game session. The old schooler in me cringed.

Is is just me, or were they using a strange mix of books from different D&D editions and other game systems at the table? That's weird to me, but I guess it wouldn't phase a FLAILSNAILS player. Seriously, there was a moment when I saw someone using a Conan RPG screen with D&D 3rd Edition books on the table. What's that about? This is one of the things that made me wonder about the gaming pedigree of the film makers and who the film was geared toward. Wouldn't real gamers watching the film notice such a thing and question why a hodgepodge of different game system materials were used all at once?

I thought the portrayal of the married couple's troubles was a bit over the top. They were way too angry over a game, IMHO.

The camera work in the film is a bit too much on the choppy side. I know that shaky camera style is supposed to be new norm, but it can be done wrong.

Wow, am I jealous of this group's game collection! You have to see it to believe it. Shelves upon shelves of game books, board games, etc. A thing of beauty...

I think they definitely nailed the awkwardness that arises when you are in a new roleplaying group. The scenes where players were trying to find new gaming groups to join were spot on.

It was a funny idea for the players to put their hands on their heads to indicate when they were speaking out of character.

I thought the love triangle aspect was a bit hackneyed. The way that several male characters were smitten with the female character Jennifer seemed like a rehash of the old "gaming nerds are desperate to get girlfriends" cliche.

The Gary Elmore (heh heh, his name is like Larry Elmore) character was funny, with his over-the-top, confrontational, frustrated novelist style of DMing.

So, the character of the "cool" roleplayer that doesn't want his girlfriend to know he's a gamer goes to a con? That might tip her off, eh?

The deleted scene where they play Axis and Allies is great. The Asian guy who is always asked to play Japan? Even though he is actually Philippino? Good stuff.

The deleted scenes were some of the best stuff on the disc, actually. The trip to the Miniature Market store was a highlight. The special features in general were great, such as the short film called "The Game."

On the Slaying of Dragons

So, more than a year after receiving A Dance with Dragons by George R. R. Martin in the mail (from the now defunct Borders, may they rest in peace), I've finally finished reading it.

First of all, I was in no rush to finish this one. Why? Because who knows when GRRM will finish the next book in the series! What's my motivation to finish? So I can sit around for years waiting for the next installment? No thanks. So I took my time with this book.

What did I think of it, now that my year-long read is over? Well, I'm very torn. And frustrated. Martin is, to me, a Pygmalion figure. Like the aforementioned Greek legend, he's fallen in love with his creation. Which is fine, I suppose. I am sure I would feel the same as Martin were I in his shoes. I mean, we're talking a legacy in the making here. His writing is still superb.

And that's what's so frustrating: his work is incredible, but the way he's told his tale in this novel (and the novel before this one) has become bogged down in detail and secondary characters.

I understand if Martin wants to cement his legacy as someone who elevated the fantasy genre to new literary heights. I understand how someone would want to show off a world they have painstakingly created. Heck, isn't that what any GM worthy of his binder wants to do at some point? And part of me was very curious and excited to see more of Martin's world.

But does all of the above really make for a great story that still engages long-time readers? I'm not so sure about that. Is it possible that Martin could have show us his world in a more focused, shorter narrative? I think so.

The books in the Song of Ice and Fire series have always been long, but the last two have included an increasingly large number of viewpoint characters, some of whom were minor figures in earlier novels. I know that such events occur often in real life, where individuals can be thrust into the spotlight after the demise of those who stand above them. But does this serve a story when it happens over and over? Much is made of how willing Martin is to kill off characters, but can this attrition go too far? I think you can kill off reader interest if you kill too many central characters, or if those characters live but are laid low (i.e. become down on their luck figures) over and over by events.

It can also be very jarring to have to reorient oneself in space and time at the beginning of each chapter, due to Martin's huge cast being spread out across two continents. The series has seemingly become a travelogue. We see characters on journeys that never seem to end. I know this is supposed to be fairly realistic with regard to travel in a medieval world. But is all this realism starting to undermine the story? Ultimately, readers want a cohesive narrative that moves forward at a good pace. The backdrop is secondary. Yes, we want a lived-in, authentic-feeling world in which the characters and plot to exist. But when the world begins to overwhelm the story, things become muddled.

One other nitpick: the repetition of certain phrases is irritating. Words are wind. Much and more. Little and less. Leal (meaning loyal) subject. Dark wings, dark words. Mummer's farce. Over and over and over.

I read the first Ice and Fire novel, A Game of Thrones, around 2002. Long before the series gained its current notoriety. I'm a long-time fan. I really want Martin's series to succeed as a coherent body of work that will stand for years to come as a paragon of the genre. But I also want it to end, and end well. All good things must do so. I just hope that he doesn't drag this on much longer.

The Walking Duh!

I love the Walking Dead television show. The comic books...well, they're OK.

Look, I think the comic is pretty good. I know a lot of people worship the comic. But there's some things that bug me about it. I'll try to articulate my feelings but it's sort of hard to put my finger on how to describe exactly how I feel. I know this is just my opinion, but I need to vent (I guess you could consider this a pseudo-review/critique of the entire series thus far).

I know that I should be backing up my statements with some concrete excerpts/examples from the comic, but I don't have the time to do so at the moment. I would really like to do a follow-up post where I give some examples. I guess I really wanted to write this and see if anyone else feels like I do. My only issue is that I don't own any of the comics or trade paperbacks. I've been borrowing the trades from my local library system, and they're always in big demand, so it's hard to have them around for long in order to reference for something like this.

That being said, here goes:

1) The characters seem to jump to these extremes that are totally...well, they seem almost bipolar. They'll find a new place to live and immediately say "this is it, this is where we can set up a life! Our struggle is over!" And I mean someone literally says that out loud, which is a no-no in good writing. There's a lot of moments where I'm like "show me, don't tell me." I mean, they come over a hill and see a town down below, and someone just starts assuming right away that they've found the promised land. Hey, here's an idea: have a character say the place is "paradise" AFTER they've lived there for a while. I know, what I've just described has happened, but there are instances where they're jumping to huge conclusions. These people instantaneously go from being cautious survivors to extreme optimists. This can be summed up in one sentence: "Nobody talks like that!"

Look, I know these people are supposed to be living through the end of the world, and yeah that would make people behave pretty irrationally and have big mood swings. Would they have moments where they would jump to conclusions and have flights of fancy because they desperately need hope? Yes. But there are a lot of times when the comic comes on strong with the notion that, despite the adversity, Rick's group is pretty focused and most of them have the ability to think rationally. So these moments of naivety are really jarring.

2) There are these pretty unrealistic moments where characters, mostly Rick, go off on these monologues about the situation of the survivors. It's really off-putting. I mean, he just starts holding forth on this really deep stuff for long stretches, and I'm left thinking "wow, this sounds like something someone would prepare for addressing a crowd at a town gathering, and not something that one would come up with whole cloth right after killing a bunch of zombies." I'll say it again: "Nobody talks like that!"

3) Then there's moments when they meet new people and tell these new people "we don't trust you" without an explanation. I would be like "listen, a few months back we got attacked by some maniac called the Governor who almost killed all of us." Give these newcomers concrete, detailed examples of what you've actually been through. Don't just tell someone you don't trust someone and not tell them why. Rick and the gang keep meeting people who've been lucky enough to be relatively sheltered from the undead hordes. Rick's people have come to the conclusion (rightly so) that they're more battle hardened than many of the people they meet. It would be a good idea to discuss this fact with new people they meet, so that they don't just seem like maniacs with no motivation other than being a paranoid gang. "Hey, if we seem like we're nuts, here's why." That would solve a lot of first contact problems for all involved, I think. Rick and the gang are looking for some humanity and some remnants of civilization, but when they meet other living people they lose all capacity to communicate clearly.

That's all I can muster right now. Again, I think the comic is a cool exploration of what happens when the dead rise and the world as we know it ends, and it most definitely has the ability to have a much wider scope than the TV show ever could. But there are definite moments when I'm reading the books that I'm kicked out of my immersion in the story.

P.S. I think the fact that the show's "reality" has diverged significantly from the comic book's reality is a huge plus. It gives us some "alternate universe" possibilities when it comes to the characters.

Review: The New Death and Others by James Hutchings

The New Death and Others is a collection of stories and poems by James Hutchings at the Teleleli blog. It's quite an eclectic mix of genres and written in a range of lengths, from extremely short vignettes to longer stories and everything in between.

I found Mr. Hutchings' decision to combine all of these genres and formats in one package somewhat jarring at first. I wasn't sure how to approach this collection. On one hand, it could be seen as a bold way to throw off convention and disregard order, to throw off the shackles that would normally dictate that genres be divided up in an orderly fashion. Another part of me wondered if this approach isn't already the norm in this age of self-publishing, a way for someone to showcase their range of creative abilities, interests, and strengths in one fell swoop.

But then again, it could be argued that Mr. Hutchings has put all of his proverbial eggs in one basket. He might have been better served by splitting up the pieces into more focused, separate publications.

Then I found myself wondering if he collected these together because all of the pieces were meditations on the same theme. I was wondering if Death wasn't supposed to be this theme, given the title of the collection and the appearance of death as a subject or a personified being in some of the pieces.

In all, I found that I enjoyed the fact that the collection made me ponder all of the above. That has to say something, doesn't it?

"Well," you ask, "that's well and good to get all "meta" about a piece of work, but what about the writing itself?"

In general, I found that I enjoyed a good portion of what Mr. Hutchings had to offer. There seemed to be much meditation on aspects of humanity (more often than not given concrete form), godhood, and yes, death.

Some of the more pithy items presented, such as the short opening piece "The God of the Poor," could be seen as throw aways, or as interludes. I think "The God of the Poor" is more the latter. Indeed, the majority of the short (some ony a few sentences) offerings in the collection were pithy in a good way, and I saw most of them as nice breaks from the longer works therein. Someone makes a love connection with a personified human trait in "A Date With Destiny" (Hutchings returns to the use of such personification with "The Doom That Was Laid Upon Fame" later in the collection).

The tales seem to be mostly in the realm of fantasy or horror, but with traces of other elements mixed in. You have the dramatic fantasy of "How the Isle of Cats Got Its Name" and the campy horror of "The End" (where it seems like monsters like to go camping and tell scary human stories). There's the dreamlike bizarreness of "The Enemy Within" that made me think of those brief and strange extremely-short stories that Lovecraft wrote such as "Polaris." There's the snarky irony of "Everlasting Fire" that follows the doomed romance of Lilly, a demonic office worker in Hell.

Speaking of Lovecraft as I mentioned above, it seems that Mr. Hutchings is definitely a fan of said author. He includes a poem based on Lovecraft's Beneath the Pyramids. And stories like "The Scholar and the Moon" definitely show the influence of that old man from Providence, but not in a bad way. Oh, and there's also a nod to Clark Ashton Smith and Lord Dunsany amongst the offerings.

The poetry was less to my liking, but I did find some pieces that entertained. "If My Life Was Filmed" is a quicky snarky ditty. My biggest issue with the poetry is that I wish there was less rhyming. But when it comes to sharp-tongued works like "Unprotected" (that one made me go "ouch") Mr. Hutchings can be forgiven the preponderance of rhyme.

I'd have to say that some of my favorite selections included the very engaging tale called simply "Todd," "The Adventure of the Murdered Philanthropist," "The Producer," the parable called "The Bird and the Two Trees," "The Death of the Artist," and the eponymous "The New Death" (yeah, in reflecting on how much an anthropomorphic Death pops up in the collection, I'd say I'm sensing a theme here).

In all, I'd suggest you do yourself a favor and check out The New Death and Others. It's definitely worth your time to take a read and have Mr. Hutchings bend your mind this way and that with his words. You may not be thrown into the stratosphere by what you read, but you'll definitely find yourself musing deeply upon a darker side of things. For me, that's worth the coin that is my precious free time.

My Impressions of Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG

Yep, it’s time to talk about the elephant in the blogosphere.

Perhaps something of a caveat is in order before I get into my impressions on Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (hereafter referred to as DCC), the latest and arguably greatest roleplaying phenomenon to come down the proverbial pike since…take your pick: Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC, Castles & Crusades, Hackmaster Basic, OpenQuest, etcetera etcetera ad infinitum.

Here’s the caveat: I’m grumpy today. It’s in the 90’s here in good old Southern New Jersey. It’s not even summer. These temperatures are no doubt going to be the norm from now on thanks to climate change. I miss my nice full springtime. I dread the disappearance of the equinoxes. Another part of the caveat: perhaps the massive solar flare of yesterday has affected my mind.

Now the third and perhaps most pertinent part of the caveat: for good or ill, I usually don’t react well to hype. Whenever something seems to be super popular (or infamous), my gut reaction is to distrust said hype (again, whether the hype is positive or negative). But I’m trying to set that knee-jerk reaction aside, as well as my grumpiness, when I write about DCC in a moment. I am not going to do an in-depth review per se, but I wanted to give some impressions as I scan through it, in the spirit of sharing.

Let me open by saying that there certainly was a lot of blogosphere hype leading up to the game’s beta release today. I think we can all agree on that. That hype did ignite my knee-jerk negativity toward anything trendy. But even putting that aside, there still seems something a wee bit suspect about how much positive press DCC was getting seemingly sight unseen. To me, it sounded like a few DCC insiders were active in the blogosphere in order to lay some groundwork before the release. I guess that could be considered “astroturfing” (i.e. a false grass roots movement) to get the OSR crowd primed for the game.

Now all that said, I’m trying not to be so skeptical. I don’t really want to believe all that. But it’s still strange to me that there was so much of a positive buzz surrounding the game before the beta. I guess some of the big OSR movers and shakers could have gotten advance copies of the beta, given their influence in the blogosphere. Anyway, just something to think about…

Now that I’ve gotten all that off my chest, let me spend some time going over some impressions as I go through the beta.

First of all, the art. I know there’s been some negative and positive reactions to the art. Some see it as too plentiful and/or too “professional” for a game that claims to be “old school.” Personally, I like it. I never got the whole “old school must equal amateur art” thing. I think those who feel that way are just being overwhelmed by nostalgia. To me, the art is not too obtrusive, adding just the right amount of balance and breaking up the text nicely. I like the juxtaposition of the comic strip pieces and the more serious depictions of adventurers. The comics seem inspired by the old strips one might find in the old Dragon magazines. I really love the little touches of homage, like the drawing on page 17 that’s a recreation of the AD&D alignment drawing.

I’m not down with the Zocchi dice thing. If I actually play the game, I’ll be resorting to rolling the appropriate old fashioned, even-numbered dice and dividing as needed (if possible, as I believe there are some Zocchi dice that are not so easily divisible). Ultimately, my opinion is that this usage of "weird" dice is mostly just a gimmick, and that just doesn't sit well with me.

I like the “How is this game different” bit near the beginning. That was quite helpful. BUT it also sort of telegraphs the fact that the game is really for gamers, don’t you think? It makes it seem to me that there was never any real hope that the game will be discovered by newbies to the hobby. This might tap into one of the broader arguments in the OSR regarding whether or not the old-school gaming phenomenon will be able to pull in many new gamers (or if those who make up the OSR really want to have new blood brought in at all). On the other hand, perhaps Goodman Games is hoping the veterans will seek to introduce a new generation of gamers to the old-school style. That’s the possibility that makes me feel the happiest, and I hope that was the intention, since I’m one of those bleeding heart old school gamers who wants everyone to just get along when it comes to roleplaying (translation: screw the edition wars!).

Anyway, I’m glad that the game goes out of its way to proclaim that there are no attacks of opportunity. I HATE attacks of opportunity above all other latter-day D&D “additions.” This and some of the other declarations make it seem like the guys at Goodman Games are tapped into the OSR zeitgeist, if there is such a thing. All I know is, it made me smile. But that’s all because of personal preference.

I was intrigued by the mechanic that would allow wizards to NOT lose spells once they are cast. It’s like some semi-Vancian magic system, something that might appeal to gamers who are perennially turned off by the relative weakness of low-level magic users.

The game seems rather complicated in some areas, at least when it comes to the usual simplicity of old school games. For instance, I’ve tried to think about a quick and easy counterspell mechanic that can be used with Castles & Crusades. I’ve always dreamed of having mage duels in my games. It was cool to see the spell duel rules in DCC. I’m heartened to see someone feels the way I do. BUT their spell dueling system seems complicated to me. Lots of steps involved. Now, I may just be getting old and have limited free time, and that’s why I prefer very rules-light systems. So take all this with a grain of salt.

I know, I know, I’ve stumbled into the dangerous realm of “does old school mean rules light or not.” I don’t necessarily think that old school games need to be super-duper rules light, but they are at least lighter for the most part. Let’s not get into that whole mess right now.

As far as skill checks are concerned, I wasn’t impressed with what was shown in the beta rules. They’re just ported over from D&D 3.0/3.5 whole cloth. Blah. I’m not really upset by the use of skill checks. I just don’t see anything innovative about what DCC is doing here. Heck, my beloved Castles & Crusades uses skill checks, just a slightly different take on the mechanic. I just hope that they don’t go touting this aspect of the game as revolutionary.

This and other aspects of the game that I’m reading don’t strike me as terribly different from what has come before. And wasn’t DCC touted as being something innovative? To tell you the truth, it really seems like someone did a really professional job on a house-ruled, “Frankenstein’s monster” system that borrows a little bit of everything from the various fantasy RPGs that have existed over the last three or so decades.

So bottom line: I don’t feel a real urge to play this game once the full version comes out. I think there was a lot of hype about it being innovative, but that was mostly just advertising for lack of a better word. I don’t fault Goodman Games for trying to add another facet to the OSR diamond. I won’t even get all skeptical and cynical and claim that Goodman just did it to cash in on the OSR (unlike WotC, who I am convinced are trying to cash in on the OSR). I am sure that the Goodman folks are passionate and honest folk with good intentions. But while I can appreciate the homage to the origins of the hobby, and I think there are some ideas they put forth that are intriguing and fresh, there isn’t enough “new” when it comes to DCC to truly make it the game-changer (no pun intended) it was made out to be. It’s another potentially solid addition to the wondrous variety of games on the market. Now, depending on your stance on the whole topic of whether or not there can be too many games to choose from, this can be a good or bad thing. Me, I can sometimes swing back and forth, but most of the time I think the more the merrier.

Of course, this is all based on the beta rules. I might take a look at a copy of the full rules once they hit the street.

So there you have it. I’ve added my opinion to the growing cacophony. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on DCC if you’re so inclined.

UPDATE: I also forgot to mention that I'm also grumpy because I didn't get to go to my regular Wednesday Night C&C session! Grrr...