Warning: Post May Offend Some Readers

I'm not kidding. This is the post wherein I will likely hurt some feelings. I may even loose some of the readership I have left. I hope not, but there's something I'm tired of, so here we go.

In this country we have gone so far in our collective desire to not offend fringe groups that we (almost) de facto vilify any opposing views. I want to address two specific cases in point, where this intersects with gaming.

Point #1 - The Objectification/Exploitation of Women

There are some fairly vocal folks in this hobby, curiously enough, mostly men, who decry women in fantasy game art being displayed in provocative ways. I have read reviews where the reviewer wouldn't recommend an otherwise good product simply because there was a bare female midriff on page 132 and a glimpse of cleavage on page 243. Bared and oily skin is a traditional trope of much of the imagery associated with fantasy gaming. It isn't strictly necessary, look at Lord of the Rings. But sometimes it does add to the experience. There's a reason they tapped Arnold to play Conan and Sandal Bergman to play Valeria. It wouldn't have been the same with Mike and Molly.

A quick glance to the right will show you where my gaming head is most of the time (ADD not withstanding). There's plenty of cheesecake AND beefcake in C&C. I love all of it. It's funny to me that the same people that rail against the cheesecake don't seem to have a problem with the beefcake. They'll sometimes  comment about it, but will rarely, if ever, allow beefcake to factor into their review.

Here's a couple of examples from C&C that I like:

Finally, I want to say to anyone who is offended by the objectification of women in fantasy roleplay art: They're drawings and paintings. They are not real women. No one was objectified in the making of this post.


Point #2 - Traditional Values

I'm a Southern Conservative, in case that wasn't already obvious. I'm not a narrow-minded bigot, but I do have my opinions, views, and values. I was having another ADD dalliance with D&D5 recently, when I discovered this little nugget:

You don ’t need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon’s image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character’s sexual orientation is for you to decide.

PHB pg 121

Firstly, I'm fairly certain that anybody with enough imagination to play D&D in the first place could figure this out. Even if they were a little unsure of things going in, by the time they get to page 121 in the character creation process, they should have a handle on the notion that they can imagine pretty much any character they want to.

It just pisses me off that we are nearly constantly exposed to the notion that these fringe groups (population-wise) get so much damn play in our society. "Call Bruce Jenner a hero" "Use whichever bathroom you want to" "Make me a cake or I'll sue." Of course, if you're more about traditional values, or even the concept of liberty that grants you the right to your own opinions, you're a narrow-minded bigot.

Why do these things get exclusive coverage anyway? Why are there no lines about settling down and starting a family the old-fashioned way? And that crap about Corellon Larethian is MADE UP. And, by the way, what kind of game are the designers expecting people to run where sexual orientation even matters?

Bottom line: Our youth are constantly exposed to "alternative lifestyles" without any counterpoint for traditional lifestyles. Bruce Jenner is not a hero. He's a guy that ingested large doses of estrogen and put on a dress. He didn't save a life or help found this country. This country was founded by men who weren't afraid to be men and do man shit. George Washington didn't have a sex change and Thomas Jefferson didn't have two mommies. If somebody wants to transgender or be gay, then go for it. Just don't vilify me when I don't want to be assaulted with it morning, noon, and night.

Quick Thoughts About Primes

This will be brief. It is just my thoughts on the main knocks I see about Primes and the SIEGE engine.

Primes

There are quite a few comments about Primes being a base target of 12, and non-Primes being base 18. It seems that many folks are more comfortable setting the base difficulty flat and then modifying it if a Prime comes into play. Some players seem to dislike saying, "The lock is heavily rusted and difficult to open. Its difficulty is +4, so if your DEX is Prime, you need a 16." They are more comfortable with saying, "The lock is heavily rusted and difficult to open. Target number is 15 + 4, for 19. Add +5 to your roll if DEX is Prime."

I may not be saying that exactly right, but that's the spirit of the thing. I can see both sides, but I don't really think either way is a ball-breaker. I can see the second way being a bit more intuitive, but it's a near thing and I think the first way (which is RAW) has certain situational advantages.

SIEGE Engine

I was basically ambivalent about the first point. I mentioned it because it is something I've seen a good bit and I wouldn't want it to seem like a big deal. This second point, though, it riles me up.

Some forum posts and reviewers like to whine about the following:

"Your cleric rolled a 19 Dexterity check to sneak by a guard, but the rogue's stealth roll of 15 is somehow better because… well, he's a rogue."

This is patently absurd, and is carefully worded to support the "point" that Primes don't work. What this example fails to effectively communicate is that the author is referring to the roll itself. Of course, a 19 is a better roll than a 15. Things don't stop with the raw roll of the die, though. The thief had a base difficulty of 12, since DEX is Prime for rogues, plus he adds his level to the roll. So, he beat his target by 3, not counting level bonus. The cleric, on the other hand, had a base difficulty of 18 (non-prime, presumably), with no level bonus. So, yes, the thief achieved a better Sneak check result than the cleric. Which should be expected.

I don't mind well-reasoned, constructive criticism. I don't like it when someone picks something apart, then presents the pieces in a certain light, just to support their dislike of something. If you don't like it, then don't like it. Move along. But, don't ruin for the next guy with such carefully crafted "criticism".

Breaking My Own Convention

There is a game, a game I've never talked about. I absolutely love this game. The reason I've never talked about it is that it violates one of my principle desires in a rules system: it isn't freely available. Even D&D is free now, so this is a bit of a sticking point. It is OGL, though, so maybe that's worth something. Anyway, the game is . . .

I have admired this game from afar for some time. Quite some time. I really dig the art, and just the "feel" of the game. Something about it just feels so much like AD&D to me. No matter how many times I flirted with it over the years, I never really reached critical mass with it. Ascending armor class and base attack bonuses give me 3.x flashbacks right out of the gate. So, I would flip through it wistfully, but never sank my teeth into it.

Well, it isn't 3.x. It is built on the OGL, but apparently not the SRD. It has no interest in touting compatibility with 3.x. In fact, in some ways, it sits somewhere between OD&D and AD&D, power level wise, as near as I can tell. I'm currently perusing a couple of modules (praise to the powers that be, they refer to them as "modules"!) and so far the most significant stat I've seen in an NPC is a 16. One time. The baseline for character generation is 3d6 arrange to suit.

Something I have always liked about the system are the character classes. There are a slew of them, which admittedly is a love/hate thing for me, but you can't have an AD&D experience without them. I feel the fighter is underpowered (of course), but easily fixed. Plus, and a BIG plus, the ranger is non-casting. He's just a badass in the woods. As he should be.

There are no feats or skills. Skills are covered by the SIEGE engine mechanic. I am quite certain that if you read passed the logo above, you already have an interest in C&C and thus are familiar with the SIEGE engine. Having not played the game, I can't comment on either the rapture of such a flexible and elegant system, nor on the supposed burden it promises to some readers. Apparently one loves it or one hates it. I remain undecided in fact, but love it in theory.

One thing I have seen talked about is the math. It seems the game is based on the underlying math of 3.x and there is a concern that it breaks down at higher levels. I am interested in this, in an academic sense. It is doubtful I will ever have a group to explore the system with, let alone get to high enough level that the system begins to unravel. I am curious, though.

So, there it is. My secret revealed. I love a game that isn't free. I almost forgot to mention another selling point for me. This is a little silly to some perhaps, but meaningful to me. Troll Lord Games is based in Little Rock, AR. I am a Southern boy, born and bred, and I like the fact that a game I like comes from the south. I'm not sure if the Chenault boys are from the south, but their game is, which gets it marks from me.