The Continents, They Are A-Changin'

So, it's been quite some time since the last revision of Mythosa. Is it time for another one? Of course! I can hear the groans already...

OK, this one isn't as big as they've usually been. In fact, this is less a revision than a shuffling of a few items. There are a few parts of the latest incarnation with which I've never been entirely happy. Since I want to redraw the map in CC3 (so I can work with a more "practical" world map, versus the "artistic" one currently posted), I figured I'd take advantage of the situation and fix some things. These include:

• Atharys: The western landmass has always seemed sort of "tacked on". Originally it was intended to be similar to the continent in the Young Kingdoms that's west of Pan Tang. But it just seems...out of place. However, there's stuff there that I like that. New positions for them will be found in the re-organization. I don't want to get rid of the Sylvari-Kyrgar-Vykir conflict either, so Atharys will become a large island (or island chain) off Karnthas's western coast. The Free Cities will remain, though whether they stay where they're at I'm not sure (if I move them south I may have to break off Ivenmir, since Ice Wizards seem to belong in a northern region).
• Malgotha: It's always just been sitting out there, big and boring. I'm going to shrink it a bit, slide it slighty to the east, and pull the interesting ruins from Atharys (Temple of the Screaming Gods, etc.) down to it.
• Southern Karnathas: Most of this continent works for me, but the southern cities just ain't happening. Zeldora is fine (and long a Mythosa mainstay), but the rest will be merged with cities from Atharys. Grimthorn is probably gone, as is Stormhaven. Greyharbor will liked merge with another city. Valthas will end up down there, making its dreams of empire more of a direct threat to the continent.

That's about it. Not changes to Zarkhir (that whole area just "works" for me), the gods remain the same, history, etc. So the end result will simply be - more quality! No timeframe on when this will get done.

Richard Garfield on removing busywork in games

An old article, but I just ran across it: Removing Busywork.

Short and worth reading.

wHat is It With peopLe and unNecessary cApitaliZation?

Seen here, in the first reply:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Small-Engines-Lawn-1746/Lawnmower-starts-stops.htm

though I've seen it elsewhere, too. I mean, look at this:

From your Description, it Sounds like you need to Remove, Disassemble and Soak the Carburetor Overnight in Carburetor Cleaner (I Use Gunk).

Who thinks that's the right way to capitalize words, especially since it requires much more work that just doing it right?

I can't even read anything lengthy that's written that way; it's literally painful. A guy at the Dwarven Forge forums used to type everything like that, and he generally posted on every single thread. I always skipped his posts since they were so hard to read. And they usually didn't add anything of substance.

Everything Was Better in the Past...

From here:

If you characterize the game Dungeons and Dragons as a vehicle used to express your interests, then maybe latter day 3.5 and 4e are completely appropriate for today’s audience. They don’t get into the larger scope stuff in the core rules. It’s not about historical-based anything. It’s game mechanic based, where the game mechanic takes precedence over fantasy immersion, historical period immersion, or role-playing a character while in character, method-acting style, immersion. While you can use the core rules to make the game larger in scope, the core rules don’t have it as an assumption or an expectation that you would actually make a game as I described in the last sentence. The primary assumption seems to be that the bulk of the game is centered on tactical combat. The design of the game follows that assumption. As such, it seems to be that a lot of people trying to make a 4e game into another style of game other than tactical miniatures wargaming, are having a tougher time of it than in earlier editions.

Pardon my vulgarity, but are you fucking kidding me? Back in the early 90's (when the public was just starting to get onto the 'net en masse), when I was young enough to give a shit about gaming "holy wars", I spent an inordinate amount of time defending AD&D (1st and 2nd edition) against the people who claimed that you couldn't really role-play or induge yourself in the "alternate reality" of the game, particularly compared to their choice of game (often the World of Darkness games). As they saw it, AD&D was all about combat and hack-n-slash and shallow as a kiddie pool. Now, suddenly, it's the epitome of historic/fantastic/role-playing immersion, but 3.5+ isn't. Nice to see the cliche - "the more things change..." - is alive and well.

What the post really amounts to is "I like old things and new things scare me so here's why what I like is superior". I really shouldn't waste my time on that stuff - it just angries up the blood. But for some reason, it still annoys me. Maybe because it's the same damn thing, not just year after year, but decade after decade...

Some Thoughts on the "Old School Renaissance"

If you spend any amount of time in the fantasy/D&D on-line community you've no doubt heard of the "Old School Renaissance". I don't know that I can describe it properly (mainly because people are so anal about categorizing their niches these days), but it essentially consists of people who want to recreate the gaming experience of the early days of D&D and RPGs, generally when people were playing "Original D&D". Often it entails recreating rules-light clones ("retroclones") of old games with an eye towards modern sensibilities. Of course, the definition of "old school" varies; most seem to agree that OD&D is "old school" while many apply the label to 1st Edition AD&D as well. Some people even consider 2nd Edition to be "old school" (I don't, but to each his own). Some games that are considered "retroclones" include Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, and OSRIC. Links at this post may explain it better.

I look at the Old School Renaissance with a mixture of interest and bemusement. The latter mainly due to, again, the anal nature of how some of its participants want to categorize and validate the various aspects of their hobby (not that this is new or restricted to the gaming community). One example that stands out is how upset some of the old schoolers are that Monte Cook's Dungeon-a-Day is billed as a "megadungeon", since he apparently doesn't have enough old school cred to use such a term or it can't be applied to something d20/3E, or whatever (I'm not sure of the specifics, and frankly I don't care; the argument is silly regardless of its reasons).

Snarkiness aside, as I said it bears a certain amount of interest for me. Part it is nostalgia, which I think is the subconscious appeal for a lot of folks: OD&D and the clones remind many people of a time in their lives when gaming was their only care in the world; they didn't have to worry about obligations to their spouses (well, wives, since most of these people are dudes), kids, lawn care, the economy, their health, etc. Nostalgia makes the crappy, amateurish rules systems they used as kids seem "better" than modern systems, since it's more of an association with what their lives were like back then rather than how "good" the rules systems were. I'm sure many of them would take offense to that and argue about why I'm wrong, though I'll wager the more enraged they are, the more right I am.

But nostalgia is certainly not the only draw. I think there was a different overall "feel" to the games of that time. It was a feeling more of mystery, of exploration, of discovery... I may not be describing it properly, but I would say it was more about the experience of immersing yourself in another world. The focus wasn't on "character builds" like it tends to be today (and has been since the "Complete" handbooks of 2nd Edition, if not earlier) but on interacting with the world - seeing what lies within that cave or what's over the next hill. Again, I may not be describing it well; I suspect people who cut their teeth on d20 or Warcraft might not get what I'm saying. Many who entered the hobby prior to that probably will.

Of course, it's easy to look at the past through rose-tinted glasses. Were all campaigns about "immersion in worlds of imagination"? We all know the answer to that is "no". Hack-and-slash, min-maxing, and munchkinism have been a part of the game since the beginning and have always been the dominant play style. That's why games like WoW are and always will be more popular, and "true" RPGs (or mass market RPGs played the "right" way) will always be a niche. The difference, I think, is that these days there's a lot more support material for the style that emphasizes character "builds" (powers, feats, prestige classes, magic items, etc.). I wouldn't say there's LESS material for other aspects of the game, but the class-oriented splatbooks we've gotten for every version since 2E (specifically thinking of D&D/AD&D) imply otherwise. That's not a bad thing - it just is what it is. It's the evolution of how gamers approach the game coupled with the business models that WotC and other companies have found to be the most profitable.

Now does this mean I'm abandoning 4E and starting up a "Swords & Wizardry" campaign? Not at all. Besides the fact that I think my players would hate that (if we dropped 4E I doubt they'd want to go any farther back than 3.5), I don't have any desire to go back, other than as an occasional one-off shot of nostalgia. Mechanics may vary, but I believe that "feeling" is more a product of the presentation of a campaign than what ruleset you're using (though for me, I think achieving a particular feel is easier with 4E than 3.x or even 2nd Edition).

Peering into rec.games.frp.dnd

I was going to post about something I ran across on rec.games.frp.dnd awhile back, but when I checked Google Groups the original post was gone. Ah, well. It was someone complaining that their players were bored since 4E wasn't offering enough options for their PCs - powers, feats, whatever. I was going to make the point that the campaign should offer enough of interest that a lack of mechanical options didn't have to be a problem, but without the original post the point is a bit moot.

I poked around a little more to see what was being discussed. The population of that newsgroup is steadily declining, in sync with the ever-decreasing relevance of Usenet (something I've addressed before). Years ago I used to regularly read and post to the group, but these days I may at most pop in a few times a year to see what's being discussed. Given the type of people who still use Usenet, I wasn't surprised to see how many bytes were devoted to anti-4E rants, though I was somewhat disappointed to see some long-time veterans spewing out sophomoric vitriol that I would expect to see from grade school kids, not men in their 30's and 40's (yeah, yeah, I know - "welcome to the Internet!").

This is nothing new, but it still is something I don't get. From a gaming hobby standpoint, it's one thing to say you dislike a particular game or edition of a game. It's another to go to great lengths to show just how much you dislike it. You'd think people would spend that energy doing something for the things they do like. I mean, if that's how you want to spend your time, that's your business. Just seems like a waste to me (of course, for people who lack imagination or creativity, perhaps negativity is all they have...).

Mac Fans and Netbook Derision

I recently replaced my old laptop with an HP Mini netbook, which I've discussed elsewhere. So far, I've been pretty satisfied. My biggest problems have been with Ubuntu 9.04 (8.10 worked perfectly), not the hardware. But I've gotten Ubuntu configured how I want now, so between the OS and the Mini, I'm quite happy. Battery life is good, the keyboard is fine, etc. The only real complaint I have is that the special "function" key should be to the left of "ctrl" and not between "ctrl" and the "windows" key.

Anyway, I was reading this post at a Mac blogger's site and found it a number of the comments both amusing and befuddling. To summarize, the author tried a Dell Mini with OSX installed on it and didn't like it - the keyboard and screen were too small, and overall it didn't have the power of a full-blown Mac laptop. At the end of his post he said that he was aware that he "got" what netbooks were supposed to be but it wasn't something he wanted to be a part of. The post was fairly objective but there was definitely a negative undertone, which I didn't really get. You know that netbooks lack the power of a full-blown laptop - so complaints about that just come across as Mac elitism. I mean, seriously, what did you expect?

The comments, however, were far more interesting. There were lots of people who stated that they had good experiences with their netbooks, but there were a few that just came across as totals asses - the "Apple elitists" that we know don't represent most Mac users but seem to be the ones that we hear from the most. Particularly this douchebag: "If one can’t afford a Mac, then get a second job or better job. It’s as simple as that." Way to bust down those stereotypes, pal.

What I find most pitiful are the people that feel the need to extensively crap all over the concept of a netbook, particularly by pointing out that they aren't as powerful as regular laptops. Again, that's the point. Saying "I was going to get one for my mother-in-law but with her vision she probably needs a bigger screen" is perfectly understandable. It's another to say "these things are pieces of junk toys! They suck and if you buy one you're an idiot who also sucks! Apple is soooo awesome!" (I'm not exaggerating much with that overdramatization, either...).

I guess I should be used to such idiocy on the Web, but I still can't fathom why people waste the energy on something that really doesn't affect them and which they claim to not care about. Yeah, I know these are "Mac fanatics", but you get the same thing everywhere - gaming, sports, other computer systems, etc. The amateur psychologist in me thinks that these people feel threatened by the target of their derision and thus they feel the need to attack it (a topic I address in terms of gaming in another post).

Oh, well. For the record, if it wasn't for Linux I'd probably have a Mac myself. I thought about getting one (they're way too pricey, but I don't need a "second job or better job" to afford one), but I have neither the time nor the desire to become experienced in three operating systems. Windows and Linux are enough (though I'd give up Windows knowledge for OSX if the latter had anywhere near the marketshare of Windows, or if it supported more than a handful of games).

Ubuntu Crash Log

Since the bullet-proof Ubuntu went down on me again, I figured I'd start logging the occurrences; I created a spreadsheet for this purpose. Hopefully it'll help me determine what the issues are.

Now, I've never had Ubuntu crash on me (that I can remember...maybe once or twice?) on my old laptop or so far on my netbook. Now, that's 32-bit and my desktop is 64-bit, so that may be an issue. I'm also not entirely convinced it's not my "bleeding edge" (or was when I bought it) hardware, specifically the mobo and more specifically the RAM. Given that Vista 64-bit usually bluescreens on me when I use it for an extended period of time on the same box, I suspect it's a hardware issue. Though in Ubuntu, I've noticed that the one constant tends to be Firefox and VirtualBox open at the same time. So, we'll see.

If I finally succumb to temptation and re-activate my WoW account, I'll definitely need to look at replacing my hardware. Probably the mobo and RAM; I suspect the processor is fine.