Monday, September 15, 2014

OD&D Attack Progressions Compared (Originals and Clones), Part I

Moldvay Basic
A comment on the last blog post made me want to do this.

Here are the attack progressions to hit Armor Class 2 by level for ten games--the three major OD&D versions and seven contemporary clones:

Dungeons & Dragons (0e) (1974-78)
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1e) (1979)
Moldvay Basic/Cook Expert Dungeons & Dragons (B/X) (1981).
OSRIC (2006)
Labyrinth Lord (2007)
Swords & Wizardry (2008)*
Swords & Wizardry White Box (2009)*
Lamentations of the Flame Princess (2010)*
Seven Voyages of Zylarthen (2013)*
Delving Deeper V4 (2014)

Those with an asterisk list things in attack bonus form rather than table form, but for the sake of this comparison all will be listed in table form.

For OSRIC I used version 2.2. I assume the numbers are the same across all versions but I may be wrong on that. For Swords & Wizardry I used the recent 'Complete' edition, which may or not have different numbers from the original 2008 edition. The numbers for Delving Deeper are from the most recent edition, which differ somewhat from those of earlier editions.

I hope I didn't make any mistakes.

Looking at the tables a number of things leap out. Some things were not surprising. Some were.

I'll make some comments tomorrow. But I welcome any comments or observations anyone would like to make.

(If you turn your phone sideways, I think these will exactly fill up the screen. You probably already knew that. But I didn't.)

To Hit Armor Class 2:
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
FIGHTING-MAN
Level
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1-5
6-10
Total
0e
17
17
17
15
15
15
12
12
12
10
16.2
12.2
14.2
1e
18
18
16
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
16.4
11.6
14.0
B/X
17
17
17
15
15
15
12
12
12
10
16.2
12.2
14.2
OSRIC
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
16.0
11.0
13.5
Labyrinth Lord
17
17
16
15
14
13
12
12
11
10
15.8
11.6
13.7
S&W Complete
17
17
16
15
15
14
13
12
11
10
16.0
12.0
14.0
S&W White Box
17
16
15
15
14
13
13
12
11
11
15.4
12.0
13.7
LOTFP
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
15.0
10.0
12.5
Seven Voyages
17
17
17
15
15
15
12
12
12
10
16.2
12.2
14.2
Delving Deeper
16
16
15
15
15
15
12
12
12
12
15.4
12.6
14.0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
MAGIC-USER
Level
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1-5
6-10
Total
0e
17
17
17
17
17
15
15
15
15
15
17.0
15.0
16.0
1e
19
19
19
19
19
17
17
17
17
17
19.0
17.0
18.0
B/X
17
17
17
17
17
15
15
15
15
15
17.0
15.0
16.0
OSRIC
19
19
19
19
19
17
17
17
17
17
19.0
17.0
18.0
Labyrinth Lord
17
17
17
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
16.6
15.4
16.0
S&W Complete
17
17
17
16
16
15
15
14
14
13
16.6
14.2
15.4
S&W White Box
17
17
17
17
16
16
15
15
14
14
16.8
14.8
15.8
LOTFP
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18.0
18.0
18.0
Seven Voyages
17
17
17
17
17
15
15
15
15
15
17.0
15.0
16.0
Delving Deeper
17
17
17
17
15
15
15
15
15
15
16.6
15.0
15.8
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
CLERIC
Level
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1-5
6-10
Total
0e
17
17
17
17
15
15
15
15
12
12
16.6
13.8
15.2
1e
18
18
18
16
16
16
14
14
14
12
17.2
14.0
15.6
B/X
17
17
17
17
15
15
15
15
12
12
16.6
13.8
15.2
OSRIC
18
18
18
16
16
16
14
14
14
12
17.2
14.0
15.6
Labyrinth Lord
17
17
17
16
16
15
15
15
14
14
16.6
14.6
15.6
S&W Complete
17
17
16
16
15
15
14
14
13
12
16.2
13.6
14.9
S&W White Box
17
17
17
16
16
15
15
14
13
12
16.6
13.8
15.2
LOTFP
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18.0
18.0
18.0
Seven Voyages
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Delving Deeper
17
17
17
15
15
15
15
15
12
12
16.2
13.8
15.0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
THIEF
Level
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1-5
6-10
Total
0e
17
17
17
17
15
15
15
15
12
12
16.6
13.8
15.2
1e
19
19
19
19
17
17
17
17
14
14
18.6
15.8
17.2
B/X
17
17
17
17
15
15
15
15
12
12
16.6
13.8
15.2
OSRIC
19
19
19
19
17
17
17
17
14
14
18.6
15.8
17.2
Labyrinth Lord
17
17
17
16
16
15
15
15
14
14
16.6
14.6
15.6
S&W Complete
17
17
17
16
16
15
15
14
14
13
16.6
14.2
15.4
S&W White Box
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
LOTFP
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18.0
18.0
18.0
Seven Voyages
17
17
17
17
15
15
15
15
12
12
16.6
13.8
15.2
Delving Deeper
17
17
17
17
15
15
15
15
15
15
16.6
15.0
15.8
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
AVERAGES
Level
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1-5
6-10
Total
0e
17.0
17.0
17.0
16.5
15.5
15.0
14.3
14.3
12.8
12.3
16.6
13.7
15.2
1e
18.5
18.5
18.0
17.5
16.5
16.0
15.0
15.0
13.8
13.3
17.8
14.6
16.2
B/X
17.0
17.0
17.0
16.5
15.5
15.0
14.3
14.3
12.8
12.3
16.6
13.7
15.2
OSRIC
18.5
18.3
18.0
17.3
16.5
15.8
15.0
14.8
13.8
13.0
17.7
14.5
16.1
Labyrinth Lord
17.0
17.0
16.8
15.8
15.5
14.8
14.5
14.3
13.5
13.3
16.4
14.1
15.2
S&W Comp.
17.0
17.0
16.5
15.8
15.5
14.8
14.3
13.5
13.0
12.0
16.4
13.5
14.9
S&W WB
17.0
16.7
16.3
16.0
15.3
14.7
14.3
13.7
12.7
12.3
16.3
13.5
14.9
LOTFP
17.8
17.5
17.3
17.0
16.8
16.5
16.3
16.0
15.8
15.5
17.3
16.0
16.6
7 Voyages
17.0
17.0
17.0
16.3
15.7
15.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
12.3
16.6
13.7
15.1
DD
16.8
16.8
16.5
16.0
15.0
15.0
14.3
14.3
13.5
13.5
16.2
14.1
15.2





Posted by at 8 comments:
Labels: , ,

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Game Review: Swords & Wizardry White Box

This is the first in a series of reviews of some of the so-called 'clones' of old school editions of Dungeons & Dragons. Let me first define some terms:

 A clone is a game that adheres closely to the mechanics, substance and/or presentation of a particular edition or editions of Dungeons & Dragons such that without the legal protections of the Open Game License and the Systems Reference Document it would clearly be violating copyright law.

 A retro-clone is a clone that on the main strives to emulate a particular edition as precisely as possible.

 A neo-clone is a clone that uses an edition or editions as a template but is designed to differ substantially from the original.

 The original is the edition the clone is, well, cloning.

 Now on to the review.

Game: Swords & Wizardry White Box (2009).

 Availability: Softcover: $9.99. Hardcover: $18.99. Boxed Set: currently unavailable. PDF: Free.

 Status: Neo-clone.

 Original: The Three Little Brown Books (1974), or more accurately, the first two of the three--Men & Magic and Monsters & Treasure.

 Introduction: Swords & Wizardry (2008) was the third major retro-clone to be published after Labyrinth Lord (2007) and OSRIC (2006). A year later in 2009, Swords & Wizardry White Box was released, authored by Matt Finch and Marv Breig. Unlike other clones, Swords & Wizardry never tried to emulate one particular edition of OD&D. Rather the intention was to emulate a style of play over a particular time period. If Swords & Wizardry as a whole embraced a sort of average of the original 1974 edition + the supplements + Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, White Box was an attempt to dial things back to the minimalist mechanics and presentation of the 1974 version. So, although it's not specifically designed to be a clone of the three little brown books, we'll use those as a point of comparison.

 Comparisons with the Original:

 1. The first thing the reader notices is that, unlike the original, Swords & Wizardry White Box is extremely well organized and presented. Now, don't misunderstand. I never thought that that was a major fault of the three little brown books. But some do. White Box has an attractive and readable contemporary font and layout. There's a full table of contents for the entire game, and so on.

 2. White Box adheres to the minimalist mechanics and substance of the original. There are approximately the same number of items of equipment for purchase, spells, monsters and the rest. However White Box comes in at only about 70% of the word count of the original. This is primarily because most of the material in the third of the three little brown books--The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures--is absent from White Box.

 3. White Box maintains the six classes of the original, including preserving the idea of race as class, jettisoned in the later editions. Ability Score adjustments and bonuses are slight, as in the original, but altered somewhat. The confusing 'point swapping' mechanic for the purpose of upping one's experience point bonus, is dropped in favor of giving a +5% adjustment to high wisdom and charisma scores. And an optional adjustments for high or low strength scores is added.

 4. Unlike in the original, weapons are given variable damage rolls, though this is done in a simple and elegant way, more like the Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert set than the proliferation of possibilities offered in Greyhawk and even more so in AD&D.

 5. Spell lists are very similar to the original with only a few small differences. The number of monsters is approximately the same but includes a greater diversity than the three little brown books. About half are from the original with the rest coming from the supplements or even the Monster Manual. This is a good example of where, to frame it positively, Swords & Wizardry White Box is less interested in historical purity than, well, fun.

Minor Annoyances:

 (I will include this section in all reviews, no matter how much I like the game overall.)

 1. In a number of places White Box goes out of its way to, in its own words, present 'options for your consideration'. For example, you can give Fighters with a 15+ strength a +1 bonus on attacks. Or not. Or make the requirement slightly easier at 14 or even 13. I used to like this. Now I don't. Do not misunderstand. That White Box, like the original, stresses that the referee and players can and should modify the rules according to taste is absolutely correct and laudable. But, before I do that I want to know what the authors think. After all, presumably they know much more about the mechanic than I do. They thought about it, wrote it and playtested it. They're the authors after all. So while I reserve the right to change things, I have a rational interest in knowing what they prefer.

 2. White Box 'rationalizes' certain mechanics of the original, such as the saving throw system. As opposed to the five categories of the original--Save Versus Death Ray or Poison, Save Versus All Wands - Including Polymorph and 'Paralization', Save Versus Rusting, Magical Vibration Attacks or Coughing Fits (okay I made up that last one) and so on--there is only one saving throw number that increases (or decreases) by 1 per level. Different classes get small bonuses on some kinds of saving throws. Parallel to this is a general smoothing out of the attack bonus increases per level. Personally I find chunky and discontinuous increases preferable (for a variety of reasons) and I would rather, say, save versus Dragon Breath than, well, just make a saving throw. It's increases the fairy tale otherworldly vibe for me. But I admit that I might be in a minority on this. I could mention 'descending armor class' but I won't. I don't want to seem too much a curmudgeon.

 3. Why oh why do most old school games list all spells alphabetically, as opposed to listing them alphabetically only within the spell levels? Since almost all do it, many must like this approach. I don't.

 4. White Box also rationalizes the way magic items are 'assigned' to treasure hordes. Again, when I first read the rules, I thought they were an improvement. Now I think the Swords & Wizardry system is a needless and confusing complication. And without being too ideological about it, scaling the power of magic items found (as part of the official mechanic) is too rational and new school for me.

 5. White Box is somewhat schizophrenic as to its audience. In some ways it purports to be an introductory game--with its explanations of what role-playing is, the kind of dice used, and so on. But I can't imagine anyone unfamiliar with these sorts of games simply picking it up and playing it. Again, there is very little material--short of a view general paragraphs--on dungeon design, wilderness adventures or campaign creation. By contrast, the original game had all of that and more (though some would say it was frustratingly ambiguous or incomplete), going as far as presenting detailed rules for aerial combat and sea combat, among other things. Now, in regards to the last two features, I think it fair to say that few actually used those rules. So, from one point of view it makes sense to ditch them. But even if they weren't used, they still (in my view) served to spark the imagination of the reader. This is the sort of world we are in (Gygax and Arneson seem to be saying): the wilderness is dotted with castles where Lords challenge intruders to jousts, Viking longships cruise the coasts, and sieges often feature Balrogs hurling fire over parapets. Leaving that consideration aside and stepping back to the issue of game mechanics, how would novice players be in any position to make informed decisions on the options White Box puts up for for their 'consideration'? White Box is a great system for, say, an experienced referee to use with novice players. But that's different.

Major Triumphs:

 1. For a few years, White Box was the only major game in town that emulated the really minimalist approach of the three little brown books. That there is now more competition is not a fault of White Box. It did it first.

 2. In places, Finch and Breig precisely and evocatively describe the old school approach in words that have never been equaled:

 The rules are extremely short, compared to the multi-paged rule-libraries required to play most modern roleplaying games. Yet this game contains within itself all the seeds and soul of mythic fantasy, the building blocks of vast complexity, the kindling of wonder. The game is so powerful because it’s encapsulated in a small formula, like a genie kept imprisoned in the small compass of an unremarkable lamp.

 There’s not a lot of detail given about the monsters, because the more detail given, the more your own mental image of the fantasy world is going to be locked into a single track. We’re not going to say that giant ants are red, nocturnal, three feet long, and fond of eating Elves. Because in your mind, they might be blue, diurnal, five feet long, and eat only plants unless they’re attacked. Details about monsters toss roadblocks in front of your imagination. Yes, details can also inspire the imagination, but we’re making the assumption that if you’re interested in fantasy gaming in the first place, you’ve got a good imagination that doesn’t need details about the size of a giant ant.

 I didn't include much of that sort of thing in my own 'minimalist' old school game, partly because I knew I couldn't possibly improve on the above.

 3. The writing is punchy, crisp and fluent. And no, that's not a feature of all old school games--even of otherwise laudable ones. And yes, it matters.

 4. The PDF is free. It sounds almost condescending to mention that, but it shouldn't be. Finch and Breig don't want to bilk you. They just want you to have as much fun playing it as they (I'm guessing) had writing it. I have no doubt it made a number of old school converts. I know that because I was one of them.

 Overall Assessment:

 That there are more Minor Annoyances than Major Triumphs is a feature of my review template more than anything else. Swords & Wizardry White Box is one of the best products the OSR has produced. Any clone of the three little brown books must take the measure of it, and will in some ways be measured by it. There are now other options out there that may appeal to slightly different audiences--Delving Deeper for historical purists (believe me, there's nothing wrong with that!) and my own humble effort, among others--but White Box is still the gold standard.
Posted by at 8 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, September 12, 2014

OSR Art Friday: Girl With Sword


Among the best fantasy art of contemporary 'Old School' games is that commissioned for James Raggi's Lamentations of the Flame Princess (LOTFP) products line. The above piece graces the cover of the Rules and Magic booklet for the 'Grindhouse' edition of the LOTFP roleplaying game. It is by Jason Rainville and I assume was created sometime in 2010 or 2011. More of Rainville's work can be found at deviantArt.

 Raggi's game and related supplements are almost defined by the art they contain.  They are generally not for children. The illustrations are often graphically violent and/or sexual, sometimes macabre and often cynical or at least, well, arch. Some would say it's nihilistic, though I don't think that gets it quite right.

 I like it.

 The best pieces almost always tell a story. Scratch that. The best pieces almost always tell an interesting story that makes you think. Indeed, the attraction of many of them is that it isn't completely clear what the story is. That is they are subject to multiple interpretations, and part of the fun is puzzling out which one works best.

 Contrast the above scene of implicit combat with, say a typical 3e, 4e or 5e illustration. Most of those are also of combat scenes. And almost always they catch the figures in mid-jump or mid-charge or mid-something or other that is supposedly incredibly exciting. But in fact they are dramatically static, equivalent to (as has been pointed out before) an almost arbitrary screenshot from a video game.

 What is going on above? The first interpretation for many is that it's a girl suddenly finding herself in the position of defending her family against some unseen attacker, perhaps someone or something supernaturally horrific. Her father is almost certainly dead-killed first (though how did the girl get between him and the attacker?). Her mother stares at the unseen (by us) attacker in fear, instinctively protecting her baby. The girl grips the adult sword steadily but awkwardly. It's obviously too heavy. How did she get it? Are the tears due to to simple terror at what now confronts her, or the realization that she herself is already 'tainted' by perhaps wounding or killing one of the attackers? Logically there is no hope. But somehow one thinks that this girl may have a chance, surprising all of us-even and especially the enemy who thought it would be easy.

 An alternative view is that the bleeding man was himself one of the enemy (would her father have been sleeping in his breastplate?) that unfortunately (for him), took no account of the young girl. Who would have?

 She's not a victim. She's a heroine. That's why we like this piece.

 She might die. They all might die. Bad things happen-even to innocent girls. That's not cynical. Just, well, accurate. But you can go down fighting...
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Thank You For Saving Everyone

For weeks and perhaps months after 9/11, the street side walls of practically every firehouse in Manhattan were covered with cards and letters, many of them written by children. You could walk from Ground Zero well up the length of the island and see them. In many cases the flutter of pinned up notes surrounded photographs of the fallen firefighters from that particular company.

 The one I will always remember was the card with a drawing of the Trade Center Towers on each side. In between was a heart. Underneath was a message written in a child's hand:
Thank You For Saving Everyone

 In many cases, of course, these heroes and heroines physically rescued no one. The leading group that went up the stairs of the second tower that was hit (the first tower to fall) all perished before they could lead any one out. There was no time. Two made it up to the 78th floor elevator waiting area where the second plane had plowed directly through a crowd. There they reported back on what they saw and comforted the shocked, injured and dying in the few minutes they all had left.

 Just because they all died doesn't mean that that the above words weren't--at least partially--true.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Daddy, I Want to be a Slutty Lollipop Princess!

This post is dedicated to Hasbro, who in its most recent incarnation of Dungeons & Dragons, asked children (among others) to:

Think about how your character does or does not conform to the broader culture's expectations of sex, gender, and sexual behavior.

 The slutty lollipop princess image is from Hasbro's current (2013) version of the classic game Candy Land (for ages 3+):


"Daddy, I Want to be a Slutty Lollipop Princess!"
"No son, not until you're potty trained."

Okay, that conversation never happened. But this one did:

"Daddy, She's pretty."
"You think so?"
"Yes."

My daughter wasn't referring to Princess Lolly (above), but rather, the current Candy Land's Princess Frostine:

"But Lydia, look at her eyes. Don't you think her eyes are a bit far apart and her lips are a bit weird?"
"She's pretty."
"She injected a chemical into her lips with a needle. It's called Collagen and it's poisonous."
"Oh."
"She'll die horribly from the poison and other people will then take her toys."
"I understand. Dad, can I have her magic wand?"
"Yes, I'll buy you one tomorrow at Target."

Okay, so the second half of that conversation never happened either (though my daughter does indeed possess a magic wand that I bought for her at Target). But the first half did.

Now to be serious:

Implicitly offering Lolly and Frostine as role models for 3-year-old girls (aimed at the mass-market suburban toy store crowd) while simultaneously hectoring older kids and adults about sexual and gender stereotypes (in the manner of the most humorless and ideologically puritanical sociology textbook) is about the most cynical thing I've seen in a long time.

Okay, I've seen a lot of cynical things recently, but still.

As some of you know, I can be fairly accurately characterized as a social conservative. A close friend--a social liberal--agreed with me about Lolly and Frostine (liberal feminists and, say, conservative Christians can unite on that, I think), but she made the point that Hasbro is a large company, different people are responsible for writing different games, etc. etc.

Not good enough.

There are people in the company that vet all these games concerning these sorts of issues.

Tailoring the message is a cynical calculation. Nothing more and nothing less.

Hasbro is beneath contempt.
Posted by at 10 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, September 8, 2014

On Relativism in RPG Criticism

Protagoras. He would have defended 4e.
So there's this implicit difference of opinion among RPG critics. For some, certain games (or modules, sets of supplemental materials, and so on) are better than others. It's not a question of the critic herself or her gaming group simply liking the particular product more or preferring to play it over other games, but rather that the game in question is better, period.

 But for others, no game (or module, set of supplemental material, etc.) can be objectively better than any other. It all comes down to mere questions of personal taste. If I like X (and you don't), and you like Y instead (and I don't), that's fine. As long as you or your group is having fun (and different people and groups have fun in different ways), that's the only thing that counts.

 We can caricature the two positions as the fascist conservative objectivist position and the wimpy liberal relativist position.

 I'm a fascist conservative objectivist. Here, I'd like to lay out some considerations supporting my point of view:

 1. Objectivism in RPG criticism has nothing to with moral objectivism. I believe some games are better than others. But I don't believe that, say, playing a bad game makes one a bad person. It has nothing to do with that. Implying that my position claims that it does is a slander.

 2. Objectivism is not a metaphysical position. Regarding, for example, editions of Dungeons & Dragons, if I think that, say 0e is better than 3e, that doesn't mean that I believe there is a Platonic Heaven somewhere that contains, say, a pedestal holding up a woodgrain edition of 0e. Rather, my view is that any game product either explicitly or implicitly purports to do certain things. And it's largely an empirical question how well it succeeds in doing those things. To take a non-rpg example: what's better, a hammer or a pillow? That question is of course nonsensical--certainly neither is metaphysically better. But if the purpose is to drive in a nail, I'll take the hammer. On the other hand, if I want my bed to be more comfortable, I'd rather sleep with a pillow. Now, if someone were to come along and say, 'I don't care what you like, but when I drive in nails, a pillow works better' or 'I prefer to use a pillow to drive in nails,' or (worse), 'look, my group and I have fun using pillows to drive in nails, and who are you to argue with that?' I would say, well, I wouldn't know what to say. I guess I would assume that that person was just being argumentative for the sake of it, or was somehow defective in their understanding of the terms (or maybe I was), or that person was, I don't know, well, insane.

 3. Objectivism doesn't preclude the possibility that the critic might be wrong. So: I say Hammer XYZ is better than hammer PDQ for driving in nails. I happen to be wrong about that for the simple reason that every time I actually used hammer PDQ, I was, well, a bit drunk. People, including yours truly--the fascist conservative objectivist--can be mistaken. It happens. But no, that's not a knock down argument for why objectivists should just shut up.

 4. Objectivism doesn't preclude the possibility that a particular difference of opinion might really be subjective. I Iike robots in my fantasy games. You don't. I would say that pretty much comes down to subjective taste. Now, for all I know, God or Plato in his Heaven or the Omega Point of the Universe, or Whomever or Whatever might come down on one side or the other--God: 'You were right, Spalding. For all of your sins (and they really were pretty bad), you were spot-on about that robot thing'--but I doubt it. However, if, say, you wrote a retro-clone based on game XYZ, and you claimed it was a totally faithful retro-clone in every way, and yet game XYZ included robots and your clone didn't, then I would say you were objectively mistaken. Your clone could be said to have failed, at least on that point or in that sense.

 5. Game design is an art as well as a science. Talking about it and debating it is not only fun but useful. It helps us design better games. It helps us choose to play better games. Heck, it probably helps us to play whatever game we actually have chosen, well, better. I think it was the great James Raggi who said (probably following some non-RPG sage) that the relativist position just stops the conversation in an annoying way. What makes one RPG (or novel, sculpture,  piece of software, skyscraper, or whatever) just work better than another? That's an interesting question. That's also a useful question. Shut up you fascist, if my group likes it, who are you to criticize it? Sorry, but that's just annoying.

 6. Relativism among some RPG critics is often only apparent. What's really going on is that they're just being polite. They don't want to offend. That's perfectly okay. All things being equal, no one should want to offend others.* And everyone, within reason and without denying anything or anyone or perverting some other important value, should strive not to. So if I say, 'game XYZ is better than game PDQ for reasons ABC but in the end you have to make up your own mind', or whatever, the 'in the end you have to make up your own mind' thing is perhaps just a way to be inoffensive and polite. So, often the objectivist vs. relativist debate simply comes down to a question of presentation.

 *In the above paragraph, note the 'all things being equal' clause in the second and third lines. Sometimes the other guy deserves it.

 7. Objectivism concedes that the majority can often be wrong. Relativism implicitly claims that it can't (since no group can ever be wrong in that meaningful sense). In a way I suppose that makes objectivism unattractive. Objectivists often appear to be stubborn curmudgeons howling at the wind. It's often claimed that we like that. Two points: anyone with any brain must acknowledge that the majority is often wrong about all sorts of things. (They're also of course often right about all sorts of things. That's that weird thing about truth. Sometimes people get it. Sometimes they don't.) So the 'you're in the minority' slur is, well, unfair, I think. Second, I can't speak for all of my objectivist friends, but personally, I don't like being in a minority (at least for most things). I'd prefer that most D & D players played 0e, 1e or a retro-clone variation. That would not only satisfy my altruistic urges--ah great, the world is having more fun now!--but also my more self-interested ones--ah great, now I have more potential people to game with, and my self-published 0e retro-clone will sell a million copies!

 If only.

 So, yeah, I think 0e and 1e (and the clones and related games associated with them) are better than 3e (or 4e or 5e). They're objectively better. They're better at what all of those games implicitly purport to do--establish a mechanism that best harnesses the desire of many of us to, well, use our imaginations and our minds to create and explore, in comradeship with other like-minded souls of course, an imaginary fantasy or fairy tale world for a few hours, once a week (while eating potato chips) in the unique way that a paper and pencil adventure game allows us to. The way I've expressed it, it probably sounds silly and/or pretentious, I know. But there it is. Perhaps someone else could say it better.

 What? Your desire is to move plastic figures around on a battle map for a few hours once a week (while eating potato chips)? Okay then, 4e is objectively better. You win.

 (There's nothing about being an objectivist that precludes stacking the argument.)
Posted by at 6 comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)