Jan 8 2017 - Displaying images sanely

I think one of the most difficult challenges I face with not having a strong programming background is not knowing exactly how syntax is set up for different languages.

Case in point: Renpy. You would think flipping an image is a simple thing. Spoiler alert: It is. But figuring out how the heck the engine expects you to do it with the spaghetti documentation that exists is kind of a nightmare in my experience.

I have a picture, and I want to be able to display it facing left or right. This isn't a difficult thing to ask. But there are a lot of ways to do this, some of which are more trouble than others. It's possible to declare the image transforms upon initialization, but when you could potentially be flipping thousands of images, you need a much better solution. Same with exporting duplicates of every image that could be flipped and hoping you remember the naming conventions.

It's a nightmare, and while it might work for a one-off instance, it DOESN'T work for my project at all (or most projects, I'd wager).

Fortunately, there's a much easier solution, one that isn't covered in ANY of the documentation at all.

I present to you the xzoom command.

    scene black

    "This here is just a test scene meant to play around."

    "We're going to play around with some images right now."

    show tzania happy at right:

          xzoom -1.0

 The gist here is pretty simple: By declaring a show command with a colon, you can apply transformations such as scale, zoom, rotate, whatever. It does NOT work like the following:

                 show tzania happy at right with xflip

Despite the fact that the documentation seems to indicate this should work. (It doesn't because it has no idea what xflip is. Or xzoom. Or a lot of other things for that matter.)

So lessons learned once again, and if you ever need to flip an image in renpy quickly, this is how you do it. (You can also use yzoom -1.0, that works just as well but with the other axis.)

I'm sure I'll figure out other ways I can use this to my advantage in the future.

Dec 13 2016 Devlog: Cracking the code

Tonight I'm going back to the usual tone I've set lately, and delve into some of the programming issues I've been wrestling with. It comes with a surprising revelation: I'm actually sort of okay at this thing it seems.

I still feel like a hack when assembling things, but tonight was one of those nights where I made a plan, followed it through, then came up with a better way to do it immediately after. So I'm going to be talking about that.

How do you make a game?

Today I'm going to take a break from what I've been writing about lately to talk about new lessons I've learned as an indie game developer (and why it feels weird to call myself that). While I won't be talking about programming issues (at least not directly), I'm going to instead discuss some of the other lessons I've learned the last couple of months.

So hopefully someone out there finds this useful. I need a break from the usual thing anyways.

Programming is Hard

Been awhile since I updated. There's a reason for that: My actual job has been keeping me busy. And by busy I mean working the crap out of me. I've been putting in overtime hours for the last few months.

I've kept plugging away at this programming thing, and understanding how DSE works. The original intention was to use this as a precursor for a gamedev blog - so people could get updates on progress. This is difficult to do when the most I can do is poke at the coding for a couple hours at most, and compounded by my working every day of the week.

Still, not an insurmountable task. I've learned quite a lot about many things, a great many deal regarding the DSE (and just how friggin' powerful it can be!).

Speaking to others about my not-so-secret project, I describe myself as less a programmer and more of a hacker. I don't come up with a lot of code myself, mostly I appropriate from others until I get it to do what I want it to. This has mixed amounts of success, but I'm really proud of how far I've come these last few months.

When last I left off, I was dealing with syntax issues, and understanding why the code wasn't recognizing my Day variables. Given tonight's little project, I think this is a nice time to review.

So, anything that occurs during the init line is not set in stone - those are the default values set in when the game launches. Any variables changed during the course of the game should be saved as a state when Ren'Py saves the game - meaning even if Day = 0 on launching the game, it will still be Day 39 when you load your game (rigorous testing concluded this functioned properly).

After much hacking, I've accomplished not merely setting up additional time slots for events to occur, but I've also locked choices during specific days of the week, removed them from the planning menus, and also set aside an option for these things to be overridden should the need arise (say, a holiday for example). The scope of the game is pretty large, perhaps too large to be reasonably accomplished, but I'm not one to let something like that keep me from progressing.

Today's project (or the project I started a few days ago really) involved a very simple thing: How do we make sure that events play out only in a specific location, at a specific time? For reference, the events are structured like so:

    $ event("library", "act == 'library'", event.only(), priority=200)

    $ event("garden", "act == 'garden'", event.only(), priority=200)

    $ event("cemetery", "act == 'cemetery'", event.only(), priority=200)

    $ event("dojo", "act == 'dojo'", event.only(), priority=200)

    $ event("workshop", "act == 'workshop'", event.only(), priority=200)

    $ event("laboratory", "act == 'laboratory'", event.only(), priority=200)

    $ event("office", "act == 'office'", event.only(), priority=200)

These are some of the placeholders I'm using for now, but they illustrate what I'm working with. Let me break down the code for you: The first part of the string is the event that is occurring (so I have for example an event named 'office'). The second part, the 'act', tells us that this event plays out when the current act is the 'office' option from the planning menu. So when you go to the office, the office event plays out. The 'only' descriptor states that this is the only event that should play out, and any other possible options should be pushed aside regardless of whether they are eligible to play out. Lastly, we have the priority, which tells us how important this event is in relation to the others. In this case, all of my events here are set at a priority of 200, which isn't too terribly important since 100 is the recommended default.

So I set up some testing events to play out, to make sure they occurred properly.

    $ event("tzan_intro", "act == 'cemetery'", event.only(), event.once(), priority=190)

    $ event("tzan_ar01", "act == 'cemetery' and period == 'late_eve'", event.only(), event.once(), event.depends('tzan_intro'), priority=200)

Once again, let's  break down what's going here. You can see that the event "tzan_intro" has a higher priority (lower numbers are higher priority) than the normal cemetery event up above. We can also see here that it only plays once. This plays out any time you visit the cemetery, but only the first time.

It worked just fine. The second one though, that took a bit of doing. Because for some reason, it just would. Not. Trigger.

I spent the last few days pounding my head against the wall figuring out why. Was it not tracking the period name? Or was it not referring to the variable correctly? After much running in circles, I realized the error of my ways, and also learned about something very cool I could do.

The problem... was the priority of the second event. Because it is lower on the list than cemetery, which as I noted has an event.only tag, it was being disregarded every time. As soon as it was placed on a lower priority, like with the first event, it played out correctly the next time I visited the cemetery in the late evening.

This revelation however opened my mind to how powerful this events system can be. Because you see, I can have multiple events play out, in order, so long as they are not pushing one another out.

So for example, I can have the normal cemetery event play, where a player arrives at the location and gets a brief description, and then it can load the next event, where they meet a character.

Needless to say, this is a pretty powerful revelation to have, and I really look forward to the day when I can openly share more about what the game is intended to be. But for now, I have to keep playing with code until the framework is solid. And also cobble together some art assets.

But so far, I'm rather proud of the improvements I've made so far, and the amount I've learned about how DSE, and Ren'Py in general, work.

Lessons learned: Syntax is everything

I may have mentioned this before, but I am not a very good programmer.

Back in high school, I learned the basics of HTML. Straight HTML, mind you. I could make some of the ugliest damned webpages you ever saw, all with the glory of friggin' Notepad. It taught me the basics of program logic, but beyond that I can't say I ever learned any useful programming skills.

That said, I am capable of sort of reading code. So transitioning to Python and learning the rules the hard way (ie: jumping right in with both feet) has been interesting to say the least. *laughs* I've made some real progress.

Ren'Py utilizes Python scripting, but it seems to have its own rules and shortcuts, which make things easier for guys like me who haven't bothered to learn programming via proper channels. What I do is much less programming, and much more like hacking things apart and trying to stitch it together into some sort of Frankenstein's Monster in the hopes that it works (it's aliiiiiiiive!).

Tonight I set some fairly simple goals for myself:

- Set up the class system, and create placeholders for all of the classes

- Ensure that only Attend Class shows up on the appropriate days

- Check to see that the correct class is being executed on a given day and time period

Needless to say, it provided me with a few challenges right off the bat. Chief of all: How do we determine when classes become available?

Because of the structure of the game, it is necessary to differentiate between morning and afternoon classes, as well as to differentiate 'Monday' classes from the rest of the week. This creates ten courses, all of which have their own set skill increases associated with them. Furthermore, if I feel the need to create actual events that take place during these classes, I need to find a way to have them all execute in the correct order.

The first idea that came to mind was to use the day counter that comes packaged into the DSE code. It looked a little something like this;

init python:

    register_stat("Strength", "strength", 10, 100)

    register_stat("Intelligence", "intelligence", 10, 100)

    register_stat("Charisma", "charisma", 50, 100)

        dp_period("Morning", "morning_act")
        if (day == 1 or day == 8):
            dp_choice("Attend Class1", "class01")
        if day == 2:
            dp_choice("Attend Class2", "class03")
        if day == 3:
            dp_choice("Attend Class3", "class05")
        if day == 4:
            dp_choice("Attend Class4", "class07")
        if day == 5:
            dp_choice("Attend Class5", "class09")
        if (day == 6 or day == 7):
            dp_choice("Something Else", "class05")
   
    # This is an example of an event that should only show up under special circumstances
    ###dp_choice("Fly to the Moon", "fly", show="strength >= 100 and intelligence >= 100")
        dp_period("Afternoon", "afternoon_act")
        dp_choice("Study", "study")
        dp_choice("Hang Out", "hang")
        dp_period("Evening", "evening_act")
        dp_choice("Exercise", "exercise")
        dp_choice("Play Games", "play")
   
        dp_period ("Late Eve", "late_act")
        dp_choice ("Twiddle Thumbs", "twiddle")
        dp_choice ("Stare at ceiling", "stare")

It makes perfect sense, except that when you try to run it, it throws an exception: "day not defined".

What gives? Day is clearly defined - it says so right down below in the start code! This was the first major lesson of the day - Day is not defined in the intro block, and you cannot define it in the init code because every time you load the game, it would force the day to become 0 - regardless of what the actual day was. This provides a problem, because you only want the day to become 0 at the start of the game! How do we get around this?

It took some finagling, but I found that placing the day planner code after the day code is initialized gets around this. Now the game properly only provides the correct option depending on what day number it is. Which led to the next problem: While the correct option was showing up, for some reason none of the events were playing out properly! The day progressed, and the correct placeholder for the class was showing up (proving that the correct buttons with the correct commands were being displayed). But for some reason, the execution of the day planner was skipping over my placeholders.

Eventually, I found the source, and it lay in the event planner's code.

    $ event("class01", "act == 'class'", event.only(), priority=200)

    $ event("class02", "act == 'class'", event.only(), priority=200)

    $ event("class03", "act == 'class'", event.only(), priority=200)

The problem lay in the act. The correct event (Class 01 for example) was being called. But instead of executing the correct event, it was attempting to jump to 'Class'. My mistake was in thinking that act meant a classification of an action - instead, that's the part of the code that tells it 'jump to this event name' (or 'when this action is called, jump to this event', I haven't figured out which yet). So essentially, I wound up breaking it completely by accident, but it wound up fixing itself once I corrected the error. So now the correct classes show up on the correct days I tell it, and the correct placeholder activates.

Unfortunately, this has presented a new problem that I didn't anticipate until I sat down to write my progress for the night: While the code works in execution, loading a saved game during the start of the day (when you would decide what to do for the day), everything breaks.

Why does this happen? Because when you load the game fresh and jump right into a save, the start-of-day code has already executed, meaning none of the day planner options have initialized, because they were not defined when the game loaded. Using the "roll back" option to step back to just before the day initializes causes the code to execute properly, but you should not be required to step back the first time you load your game because it hasn't figured out what Morning is.

I haven't found a solution for this yet, but hopefully tomorrow I can figure it out (if I don't manage it tonight before I go to bed).

So while I've hit my goals for the evening, I'm still left with one puzzle that I may leave for tomorrow.

Wildly Inadvisable: Being Inadvisably Wild

More on the skills tonight, I suppose, since I really want to write something tonight. Progress on separation of the skills went by rather swiftly, but imagining how it would all work together is taking a bit of work. But here's the basic concept.

For the most part, I'm keeping the "Perfect 10" idea I had for the General Skills. It lends itself well, and it makes me think that maybe I might have a good thing going. Now that I've looked at what I've done, there's been some reconsideration on the level cap thing for the general skills. If I put a cap on it, perhaps it will be 20, and there are a few reasons for this (assuming I want a cap at all).

Based on some NPC drawings I did up, a good "villain", or at least one for this particular game, has a fairly high base for magic-based skills. Using this as a litmus, I decided to ponder difficulties and the benefits for taking points and specializing in certain areas. For instance, Mind Control, a specialty of the Advanced Spell Control skill.

Basically, any spell that falls into usage by this are things that take either little effort, or take preparation. A few of them might be usable at will - for example, Mind Control. Of course this all will eventually tie into making Willpower rolls, which is good, but as a base, I wondered how many ranks it would take to destroy or create memories in a person's mind, based on previously-written DCs, under the new system. Using one of my villains is a great way to test this.

As written, and by preparing to use the rules I set forth, in order to perform such a feat, it could take approximately 6 character points to achieve this level of mastery - and in fact, this could even be enough to allow total domination of a strong-willed creature. Here's how this works out.

For every CP you spend, you gain two skill points. For every two skill points, you can spend one on a Specialty. Specialties grant you a +2 bonus to their respective field. For example, Mind Control grants you a double bonus for that particular use of the skill. So, with 6 points, that gives you a total of 12 skill points. That's 8 ranks, and four specialties, which when added up, gives you a +16 to Mind Control (if you decide to take it all four times, mind you). Depending on your ability, this could mean that you can either remove someone's memories, create new ones, or just dominate them outright (subject most likely to a Willpower roll, of course).

That seems rather excessive, however - a powerful ability for only 6 CP spent. Of course, all of that progression is difficult to swallow in a single gulp. So either something is very wrong with my DC tables, or I need to adjust how skills works. Perhaps the main issue is that the DCs appeared fine when I was only dealing with a die roll for these skills. But when you are guaranteed the maximum result, it makes things considerably more difficult.

On the other hand, however, if we make the Difficulty for resisting Mind Control equal to the caster's Advanced Spell Control skill (which in the above example is 16), most people should be able to resist that - even the average Joe ought to have a decent chance at resisting that, since the average Willpower for any given person should be 7-9. Now, this only gives the normal person (or even PC!) a 30% chance of resisting the effect of what could essentially be a total mindwipe. This is both good and bad, because it gives a player few options at resisting an extremely powerful effect, while at the same time not entirely trivializing an extreme amount of specialization.

Of course, it also means that for only 6 CP, you are pretty much given the license to go fuck around with people's minds free-range. With only a one in three chance of failing, odds are in your favor that you will win - even better since your Magic skill will inevitably increase the difficulty. If the average Magic score grants a +3, then there goes any chance you ever had of resisting an effect.

I think that some DCs need to be reconsidered in light of this. Most effects should have their ability shifted up by at least five points or more. This way abilities will require more progression (another three skill points, which translates to two more CP), and which promotes a more balanced approach to increasing the power in one's arsenal.

Now, the negatives: This means it can be pretty easy for an enemy to be able to dominate even the PCs, which is a very bad thing. Of course, since the only thing that really sets a PC above any normal person is their choice of skill arrangements and Advantages, it can be difficult to find a good balance to this. Willpower was originally meant to be one of the few stats that was extremely difficult to increase - particularly due to the influence of Corruption playing a major part in the system.

Perhaps certain effects should be shifted up even further, to make purchasing the ability to control another person even more demanding. More consideration will have to occur on this point, and I think I have gotten away from the main topic at hand, which was that skills have new specialties available to them.

Some skills will allow abilities that can be used by a character, both inside and outside of combat. Such abilities include being able to create computer viruses, cast special spell rituals (summon SUV anyone?), or even the creation of magical items. I'll get into that some other time, but magic items are rare and should remain so - after all, they are very powerful and time consuming to make. We're talking days for something simple, weeks or months for something most players would consider "useful". But again, that is a topic for another time, the important thing is how this impacts skill progression.

Some skills have many specialties, some of which now affect certain attributes that are otherwise difficult to increase. Athletics has specialties which allow you to increase Health, Fatigue, Speed, or even your Stamina. Feats of Strength can now be used as a good determination of what kinds of objects a character can lift - and if they deal any bonus damage when throwing them at someone (or something!). Similarly, some specialties may in fact have their own branches of even further specializing. In the case of enchanting magic items, perhaps you can spend a point to lessen the time it takes to create an item.

Perhaps another 'fix' to this is to have the initial 'rank' of certain Specialties do nothing more than grant access to an ability, instead of also granting a +2 bonus to it. That would require 3 additional Skill Points in order to attain the same amount of power, while at the same time not overpowering the initial rank of a specialty. You can be a Jack of All Trades, but you will suffer as a result. But likewise, a well-rounded character will be more versatile than a one-trick pony.

A lot of things to consider, and I've taken up enough time typing this. I'll sort through it later.

Wildly Inadvisable: The purpose of skills

Behind on blogging again, but life's twists and turns keep me on my toes lately. I've some extra time tonight, and in order to get to sleep, I think I will muse on Wildly Inadvisable, since I'm back to running it and the skills system has been bothering me quite a bit.

What's the point of a skills system? Well, that is a difficult thing to answer. In broad terms, it is a measure of things your character can do. This can include things such as creating objects, remembering a piece of information, climbing a wall, or casting a spell. In simple terms, this is a pretty easy thing. But taken into gaming terms, it can get pretty complicated, especially since there tend to be two types of skills: Combat skills, and non-combat skills.

In 2nd Edition AD&D, there was a pretty clear divide here. You had a list of Non-Combat abilities, such as Seamanship which got you a host of things like bonuses to swim, and the knowledge of how to work on a boat, but not necessarily run one. It was like how Professions became in d20 Modern - a measure of things your character has done in the past to give them an edge of sorts.

But many systems attempt to lump skills into the same category, and force them to play by the same rules, which can make things quite messy. Therefore, I have come to the realization that my previous dependency on d20-like mechanics is actually hurting the way I have conceived of the skill system for WI. Let's examine this.

How Things Turned Out

The concept behind skills seemed pretty straightforward. You had your attributes, which each had key skills tied to them. From there, these skills had specialties, ranging from resisting a specific type of damage to being able to create a computer virus. In theory, it works great. In practice, it's pretty messy overall, and it is hard to actually find anything in there.

Not to mention the messy amounts of math involved. For every two ranks you place into the basic skill, you can apply a single point to a "specialty", which basically means you gain a higher benefit to a specific instance. For damage resistances or elemental affinities, this is kind of cool. But it makes for a very messy skill sheet, particularly for a game that is supposed to be simplistic.

Fixing The Problem

In order to address this, a few ideas have occurred to me. Instead of an overly-complex system like I have already had set up, one can easily just separate things into combat and non-combat skills. Combat skills are those which do not have a hard 'cap' on them, and are intended to be scaled up as high as possible. Non-combat skills, on the other hand, should have a 'soft cap'. Is it really necessary to have to roll over a 30 to hack a computer database for information that is likely vital to the plot? Not really. So instead, let's have the two follow very different rules, instead of attempting to shoehorn everything into a single category where all the skills play by the same rules.

For lack of a better term, the Non-Combat skills should follow a "pip" system. Let's just say that each of these skills has ten "pips", or ranks that you can put in. Spend a point, get a "pip", similar to how it runs now. However, for every "pip", or maybe every two "pips", you gain an ability tied to that skill. For example, leveling Athletics could grant you a bonus to climbing, or maybe even let you avoid most climbing-based rolls. Or, it could grant you a higher base speed, to reflect your training. Likewise, the computer-based skill can be overhauled as well, so instead of having to roll for the skill, you instead can either perform the requested action if it is well within your ability to do so. Alternatively, treat all non-combat skills as if they had a result of 10. This is important for a second reason, and that is clearing up the combat system, while laying the foundation for the next major thing: Status Effects.

One main issue I have with the system as it is now would be that attempting to add in status effects threatens to slow down game play immensely. Roll Spell Control. Roll Status Defense. Determine whether it beats the target's Defense. Apply Damage and resolve Status Effects. On start of target's turn, roll Status Defense to see if still affected.

This really puts a strain on the combat system, and reminds me of the clunkiness that plagued the d20 system. Instead, I want to apply the above-mentioned "perfect 10" defense, with a bonus caveat: You can have benefits to your status defenses. You can have increased resistances to certain types of Statuses, lessened Status duration, or maybe even mitigate the drawback a Status has on you - perhaps even to the point of an immunity to that particular status. This is a great boon for making good 'villain' or 'monster' templates, which will be very important if the game system is to actually go anywhere. Players will likely not wish to pursue these options, but a monster with nothing to lose might enjoy an immunity to being blinded, poisoned, or even set on fire!

So what determines a "Combat" skill and a "Non-Combat" skill? A "Combat" skill is one that is important in combat, and has no real cap to it. This includes skills such as Resist Status, Dodge, so on and so forth, and may require rolls for it. Non-Combat skills, on the other hand, never have to be rolled, and have a soft-cap, after which point putting more ranks into the skill are pretty much pointless.

I suppose that's enough musing for now, and I covered all the important points I wanted to remind myself of, so that's good for now.

As for modeling stuff: Not sure how much time will be available for this in the near future, but we will see. I may have a contracting job coming available, so time will tell how this works out and whether a change in career is just a pipe dream or a distinct possibility.

Tonight's progress cut short

No images, sadly, and very little time allotted to actually updating due to house findings and potential job offerings. All in all, important stuff. Here's what I did manage to touch on though:

- Attached ear to side of the head
- Attached hand to the body
- Mirrored and attached geometry
- Minor tweaks to base mesh


Unfortunately, it seems mirroring the geometry only worked to identify several key problem areas that will need to be addressed. Lots of strange geometry down the center of the model, and there are a lot more points with lots of vertexes meeting, and several Ngons that are aggravating me. Sadly though, I must be up early tomorrow in order to go to work, so that's about as much as I'm getting done tonight.

Also, odds are low of a game occurring this weekend it would seem: Friend Zeth is unfortunately back on the road again, due to Home Stuffs which I gather are greatly important, and sadly one of the group's other mainstays now has a night-time job, which will likely preclude him from any games. In addition, with the loss of Eyolo due to babies, things do not look very good this weekend.

From what I'm seeing, probably the best game prospect at the moment is Wildly Inadvisable, which I suppose isn't a bad thing. It's about time I got back into the swing of things with that anyways, and it will give me a chance to really sit down and take a second look at how status effects and the skills system works.

Anyhow, that's all for tonight. Perhaps tomorrow will see another update, but with the weekend looking to be a bit hectic, I may not manage another entry until late sunday. We'll see.

A note on updatage

An actual update will occur tomorrow. Was planning to do some work once I'd gotten home, but then that got torpedoed by stuff, which is not something I'm liable to go over here.

Mostly because it is boring.

Also, upcoming gaming weekend, hoping to finally get back into the swing of things. Currently on my docket of scheduled games are Roguelife and Wildly Inadvisable. I've been pondering system stuff for the latter, and am considering taking another long look at the core mechanics of spells - namely status effects and such, and really asking myself how one can make interesting spells while at the same time not making something be completely broken beyond belief.

I may also be considering dealing with how skills are laid out, and how one improves upon them. The idea of using the skill system to enhance the defensive characteristics (such as status effects) is interesting, but far too cumbersome. After looking at a few other systems (notably Legend), I may be considering changing the whole thing. The point of the game was to make something lightweight and easy to use, not something that requires advanced algebra every time you want to do something! That is not very fun. Well, okay, maybe it is, but it is just time consuming, which detracts from the real fun!

I may roll some advantages into that instead, and remove the previous 'cap'. For example, perhaps one can take advantages that grant defensive benefits, such as increasing your overall status defense by one, or granting you a +2 defense against a specific type of effect (see how I re-used an idea there?).

On the docket to be played this weekend... unknown, but there could perhaps be some Guildion. For as far as I know, Flotilla is currently on hiatus, due to the GM having a terminal case of the babies, who takes up much of his free time to do much of anything. Like concentrate on a computer screen for more than half an hour. So until that is resolved, odds are pretty good that game will be on indefinite hold until further notice.

Anyhow, real stuff tomorrow - this has already gone on far too long as it is.

Sometimes, I really hate blogger

So I am reading this article (which is a blog I love dearly, mind you), and decide I want to reply to it. But sadly, it doesn't want me to post, as it seems to have a character limit on replies. Which saddens me, because as I look at it, I seem to have written a lot. Seems I was, oh, a few paragraphs over the limit.

Instead, I'm going to put my analysis of our group here. I guess this will count as my blog update for today? (Yesterday, technically, behind a day again!) I'm fairly sure you should know which category you fit into, if you're in my group.



Geez, how to describe my group. We have had an interesting lot over the years, but I think I'll just stick with the ones who play most often.

First of all is the person I would call the Fluff. I call her this because she is not very into the rules of any given system, despite having had the longest track record of playing with me. Her thing is that she tends to play rather reserved characters who are kinda-average dudes that don't really make a lot of hard decisions, and are by and large good at heart. She, like most of us, craves the experience of just *being* that character and interacting with the world, be it shooting something in the face, or just casually chatting it up with the other characters in the group. Her backstories are usually fairly lightweight and easy to deal with, often times to the point of frustration because she will give so few details that it can be difficult to tell what will engage her as a player.

Next is the Main Character. I call him this because in any given situation, that is how he will act. He sees the game as one would see a typical RPG game, with a singular main character who helps to drive the plot. This is a blessing and a curse, because if you drop a plot line in front of him, he'll snap it up like a fish eating a worm. However, this very same enthusiasm often causes friction with the rest of the group, because he will be trying to force the plot forward while the rest of us are still not ready to move onto the next "plot point", or while we are preparing to do something else. On occasion as a GM, I've been able to harness his impatience and made it work in the narrative - charging ahead in his giant warmachine inside a cave system, he sets off a trap that causes the tunnel to collapse, which actually causes more damage to the cave system overall, because his machine is so large and heavy. But sometimes, this very same impatience has ruined a many good scene, particularly when the 'spotlight' shines on other players, and his role is to not say anything and let the 'leader' do the talking, instead of actively antagonize the people we are dealing with. Success with this character are almost guaranteed - even with dice rollers, his luck is off the charts, and 95% of the time, if he makes a roll, he will succeed it with almost the best results possible. Great for moving the plot forward, but occasionally does not mesh well with the others.

Then there's the Comedian. Another guy I've known for awhile, he hasn't played for as long as some of us, but most of the time his characters are downright hilarious. I consider him to be invaluable to the games, because in a lot of our serious-business plots, he adds that touch of lightheartedness that is needed to help balance things out. I dislike playing games without him, because his sheer comedy value during the game is so necessary a lot of times to keep us engaged.

Then there is someone similar to the Comedian, who I guess I'll call the Teacher. That is kind of his role in life now, but in the games he often plays a similar amusing role as the Comedian, but spends more of his time looking for ways around a given situation that doesn't involve just shooting at its weak spot until it dies. As a GM, he has surprised me several times by looking at things he has created or acquired in the game, and applied them in ways I had not anticipated - but interestingly enough, by applying them in a way that correctly solves a given problem, and also helps to make the narrative that much more interesting.

Next, we have the Drifter. He's a great GM, if you can tie him down long enough to do something. He has a tendency to create something, then grow tired of it in short order as it is not quite what he originally envisioned, or it does not live up to his incredibly high expectations. An intelligent player, a great character creator, and an incredible penchant for backstories make for a guy I'd love to have in every game. But unfortunately, if a game (or his own character!) don't fit his vision perfectly, he is more likely to just give up and want to forget about the whole thing entirely, which is a real shame.

Lastly, there's the Storyteller. This guy is nothing short of amazing, because of the things his characters will tell you. This man is a social interaction king, and he is quick to pick up rules as well. But interaction is his real game, and the best part about any character he creates. Every character he makes has an immensely interesting backstory that works with the game world, and even better are the stories that his character comes up with, often on the fly, that both entertain and help to expand upon the gameworld itself. A regular fountain of knowledge, he can play dumb, he can play smart, and he can play a dumb smart kind of guy. Having him in the group usually means that when he's around, there will be someone who can engage with the other people in the world, and who will say things nobody would ever expect, and who will do things that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

That's my group in a nutshell. The Drifter is hard to nail down, but I've found the Comedian and the Fluff manage to make a great combination together, and with the Teacher as well, we have a fairly stable group. Throw in the Storyteller, and you have a group of fellas that will entertain you from here and back - even if you never actually manage to leave the tavern floor.

A new year, with a few new things

I had told myself that I wanted to get back into the habit of doing this thing again. As the holiday season has come to a close, I already missed the first monday update of the year - a sad thing, to be certain, but I believe it to be forgivable, given my life's recent upturn, and the surprising developments that have been taking place this year.

Today, I'll be just talking about a game system I have just recently discovered - so recent, I've just started skimming through it in the last hour. It is a game called Legend, and it can be found on Rule Of Cool, as if that didn't sound awesome enough already. It can basically be summed up as D&D 3.5, but with many of the design philosophies of 4E. A different approach from Pathfinder, which is D&D 3.5 improved and spiffified (yes, I just made that a word), Legend does something new and unique that I see as a bit of a game-changer in the game design philosophy.

As I may have mentioned, I've designed some game systems myself, and often I have found myself struggling with issues of balance. Legend approaches this with a fresh perspective: Every class has these things called "tracks". Tracks basically detail when you are granted abilities. This is similar to how Pathfinder and D&D 3.5 did things: Classes gained abilities at X level, some gained multiple at the same level. Later 3.5 and also Pathfinder introduced "class options", which let you trade some abilities for other abilities instead, as a way of mixing up the classes.

Legend, on the other hand, has decided that, by granting you three 'tracks', you can substitute one track for one in another class, in order to multiclass. I have yet to finish reading through this, but already this seems exciting to me. Additionally, because of this methodology, it also manages to solve 'power balance' between different races, or monster classes. Vampires, Lycanthropes, those sorts of things are resolved by utilizing one's 4th, "free track" that every character gets. You get a choice between a few different types of "normal variants", such as True Mage, Necromancer, or my personal favorite, Vigilante. Or, you can swap that to be something like a Vampire, or a Demon. Like traditional races, you get racial feats and ability modifiers. Unlike them, however, you also gain additional powers based on your level, or your 'advancement' along that track.

This makes for a very intriguing system, and at the same time, it also makes for a system that is fairly lightweight and easy to understand. If you are X level, and have these chosen tracks, then these are the abilities you have. Skills, HP, all of that are based on your "base" class. You can be a Barbarian with some Paladin tendencies, but your core abilities are all based off your Barbarian class, which is pretty nice. No more trying to remember how many skill points you got off what level, it's all standardized and easy for you to calculate, which is a boon.

But thanks to the whole Track system, you can now do things that were previously not acceptable. Now you can create your own "track" templates for players to choose to gain additional power from for specialized games. For example, if everyone is in a Space Marine game, everyone has to take the "Space Marine" free track, where they gain additional benefits and powers. Or maybe even allow them to choose from a few different ones. Doing this doesn't break the game whatsoever, which makes having to balance encounters not very difficult at all, since it is already built into the game itself.

Overall, this looks like a very awesome system, and I am rather excited to look it over. I know one of the first things I want to try to do with this system.

I want to play some fucking Kamen Rider. =D

*edit*

Oops, I forgot to mention quite possibly the coolest thing about this system: It is free. Yes, completely free for download. Of course, you can go ahead and donate (please do, if you can!). Proceeds go towards making more stuff, but mostly to Child's Play. In short, the money goes to a good place, but you don't have to donate if you don't want to. Or you can donate later if you like. Whatever you feel like.

So check this out if you can. It is very awesome, and deserving of at least some of your time.

Why do the gods play games with mortals?

An odd thought occurs to me, and I should put it into writing, as it may be of use to myself later. Or to someone else, even.

Why do gods play games with men (or other mortals, I suppose)? There are many answers, perhaps as many as there are ways to interpret the question. In this case, I am referring to a pantheon, fictional or otherwise - a group of deities who seem to be important to the world at large, but yet appear to simply lounge around all day doing what? Playing complex chess games with mortal lives? Here's a stab at it.

Some people say they do it because they are bored. And while this may be a contributory factor in the equation, it is not necessarily the only reason. Often times, it is as a 'contest', where one god may bet against another. But what is the primary reason for these games? The answer is surprisingly simple, really. It is because, with all of their omnipotence and infinite wisdom, there is one thing that the gods cannot do: Agree on anything.

The basis of any good pantheon of gods is that you have a myriad of deities, often on two or more distinctly different sides. In D&D terms, this would be the difference between your good and evil gods, your lawful and chaotic ones, and your neutral guys who just want to chill out. But what is the purpose of a god? Everything must have a purpose, and I am wondering if perhaps we've been giving gods the wrong sort of shine. Yes, they are all-powerful. They do what they want, when they feel like doing it, and to hell with anyone that might disagree. Sorry, did you just say something to me? Bam, you're a cockroach, enjoy the rest of your life, simp.

What's that lady? You don't want to have hot wild sex with me? Screw you, I'm going to turn into a swan and screw your brains out anyways. Oh Zeus, you always were a bit of a cad. But in fiction, a lot of gods tend to follow this pattern - just really big, powerful jerks who do what they do, and whose pantheons physically interact with the mortal realm, often with disastrous consequences.

There are many different takes on pantheons, and why the mortal world exists. Often times, it is the gods that created the mortal realm. Other times, someone before the gods, who then later came and took things over. Or sometimes the gods consist of mortal beings who ascended to a higher plane of existence. In this particular case, let's just assume that a group of individuals have been together for most of existence. A lot of times, pantheons are depicted as being something similar to a big dysfunctional family. I like that, so let's roll with that.

For argument's sake, let's just say there are 26 people all living under the same roof. And of course, not everyone is going to get along. Almost never works out quite that way. Arguments ensue, but there has to be some way to get some answers laid down. Well, you're a god, you can do anything you want. Add fifteen rooms to the house, destroy them, whatever it's all good.

Except that, well, how can you decide anything when everyone can do the exact same things everyone else can? How do you decide if the walls should be pink or beige or aqua? What are you going to do, fight over it? You're both invincible. It would be an exercise in futility to try to duke it out - you'll be sitting there for thousands of years until someone finally decides the argument isn't worth it anymore, and then the victory is bittersweet, because everyone else is getting agitated because you're just stinking up the rest of the household all the time. You need a way for everyone to kind of get along. Some sort of common ground that everyone can relate to.

Enter the mortal realm. Okay, so you've got 26 different people, all in the same home, all with the exact same powers. But you need to try to make things livable, because quite frankly, it is really pretty annoying when people are sitting around bickering for thousands of years over how they failed to properly utilize the color scheme in the foyer. So, the heck with it, it's obvious you will never decide things on your own, without some form of outside assistance. So you decide to set up a game of sorts, one where you can't use your powers, because that would make the game pointless.

In short, it is a game where you choose a champion, and let *them* decide for you. That way, no one can really be angry, because it's sort of like the lottery - you either pick the winning number, or you don't. You'll win some, you'll lose some.

So everyone pitches in, and helps creating this thing - obviously, they have to make it so that the game is advantageous to them, while at the same time disadvantageous towards the others. So everyone plays a part in the creation process: some races are really super tough, but also super short, but really smart, but also have to make themselves dumb all the time with something they drink. Oh hey, let's make all of these things super frail, and require them to eat and drink and even sleep! That'll give everyone an advantage. Oh but my guy doesn't need to sleep, he's immune to that. But of course, now he has no such thing as free will, and as a result is dumber than a box of rocks.

Over time, you wind up with a world of mortal beings, going about their daily lives, thanks to the parts that the gods played. Over time, the 'game' grows more complex. Stakes may grow higher, politics may jump into things, and tempers may flare. But the one rule is pretty unshakable: The gods cannot directly intervene. Because to do so would ruin the fragile balance that they all have struck with one another. Everyone is invested in this thing, some maybe more than others. But despite being all-powerful, despite being capable of doing anything in the world, they still will require mortals to make their decisions for them - because otherwise, there would be no way they could all agree with one another.

It's just a fact of life. Even the jerk who would want to knock down his sister's sandcastle realizes that there is no winning or losing outside of the game - only endless bickering and arguing. Yes, you may not like them, but the fact is, you're stuck with them for all of eternity. All of it. You can't just run away, because there is nowhere to run to! So, the best you can do is try to get your hits where you can get them, and play the game, and see how much influence you can wield by the mortals that you choose to focus your attentions on.

Ironic, in a way, that the ones who created this world, and to whom are often asked for guidance from, are in fact the very same ones looking for that exact thing from the mortals they preside over.

Free will is a very real thing in this world. In fact, it may even be the most important thing! Because without that allowance of 'free will', the gods would just be playing themselves, and that would hardly be sporting. It would be cheating, and would go against the atmosphere of the thing. Not to say someone won't try to cheat at some point, and some gods will. But those who are caught (and often are) wind up having their next game penalized, either by virtue of losing 'votes', or by not being allowed to participate in the next vote.

Small games often decide very simple things, and are often equated to a bet of sorts. This is along the lines of, "I want to sit in that chair today." "Okay, I'll let you if that little guy manages to beat the living crap out of that tall dude." "Cool, you're on." And suddenly, the gods are taking an interest in a seemingly-normal bar brawl. Other times, some of the gods may team up, asking to make a change to the world itself - or to their home, even. Those may be games whose decisions are solved by entire wars between kingdoms, who may have bits of guidance from those on above, hoping to manage to eke their way to a victory below, so that their team wins the vote they are looking for.

I like to think this is a very fascinating concept. It makes the gods all-powerful and important, but yet it answers the very simple question as to their motivations. It isn't that they care - in fact, they care a great deal. But at the same time, because they care so much, they cannot act, because to do so would to be going against the very reason that they created the mortal world in the first place.

It's like making a rule, and then saying you can never break this rule. And then having someone ask you to break that very simple rule. It is just something that can't be done, because to break the rule that one time, it would invalidate everything.

Unless, of course, everyone else agrees to let the rule be broken. Just this once. Which may, in turn, spawn other contests if there is a stark division between the teams, who cannot come to a conclusion if the rule should be broken. Or if someone should challenge it.

And now, you know why the golds play games with mortals. It is because that is the mortals reason for existence. But fret not, because you shouldn't worry too much about it all. Your life is your own. The only thing that you need to know is that your life is quite meaningful in some way or another. Don't worry about the gods, and how you fit into their 'plans'. Because really, whether you were going to 'fit in' or not really doesn't matter.

What matters most is, you have a life, and you should live it out as best you can. And if, by some miracle, you can help the gods arrive at a decision somehow, then that is something praiseworthy.

GM Style: Add More Characters

So I was reading a blog post over at my favorite gaming blog, Gnome Stew, that was talking about how long people should wait to introduce new characters. Reading through some of the comments, as I occasionally do, I started seeing some very intriguing possibilities for the major game I run, Roguelife. The idea is that they have a ship full of characters, but I've been saying for some time now that the ship itself is understaffed - it's a pretty large ship, but the group doesn't really have the cash to allow a large number of crew on-board (though with some recent windfalls, I'm sure that could change). But the problem still remains: they're still running on a skeleton crew, and that is going to start biting them pretty soon, once they start to realize *spoilers*.

Anyhow, this got me thinking about how we could add more named NPCs to the roster while maintaining a good connection for the party. I've discussed with my players several times that it doesn't make sense for them to have certain PCs going on the 'away missions' - the talker is not a very good shooter, for one thing, and the mechanic is very good at very nearly getting herself killed at every turn. So I asked a couple of my players a question to get the ball rolling: How would they feel if I randomly handed them character sheets with a paragraph of description at the bottom and said "here, play this character"?

To my surprise, the two I was talking with openly embraced the idea, which gives me hope that the others will see it this way as well - and if they aren't, nothing is stopping their characters from participating. But this method will help to enforce the harsh idea that yes, they *could* die at any given time, and at least this way, if they do bite the big one, it will make it a lot easier for them to pick up another character, since they'll probably have a favorite secondary they could use instead, should, god forbid, their main character die.

This makes things very interesting in another way, though: it also makes it possible for us to start using other scenarios, such as "Dave got critically injured during the last mission, and can no longer participate... you're going to need to take someone else with you this time to fill his place." I think this makes for a very interesting scenario, and gives the players some breathing room - especially in a game where healing is something that only occurs naturally.

So, if you are thinking about trying to shake up your game a little bit, tend to use a mission-based structure for your game, and are in an environment where you are utilizing a large group mechanic (such as on a spaceship of sorts or military organization, etc), or are playing in a high-stakes game, maybe you can consider this approach.

I think I'll refer to this method as the 108 Stars approach, of Suikoden fame. Because really, that was one of the ideas I had in my head when I initially gave my players access to a functional spaceship all those sessions back. Allowing the players to control multiple PCs just makes that 108 stars dream that much easier.

As a tangent, I could force the players to create additional PCs - albeit at a much lower level - and force them to 'level' these side characters. Everyone should still gain some amount of inherent XP gain over time - but participating in the missions grants them a much larger amount of XP.

The other great thing about this method is that I can finally do away with the whole individual rewards system - and instead the entire ship as a whole gains the rewards, to be split not fairly, but to be used purely for the ship itself, and any equipment the group may wish to maintain. This has many benefits associated with it, I believe, such as being able to reward themselves with special equipment upgrades on occasion. After all, right now most of the PCs money tends to just get funneled back into the ship anyways (where it should be, really). It just seems like the next logical step to me.

I like to imagine that, much like some NPCs I had planned, that these additional characters would have price tags associated with them as well, allowing for some great amount of variability. PCs pay themselves a certain amount for participating in the missions - everything else goes towards the ship fund (which is kind of how it works right now already). For lower-risk missions, they could go send out some lower-level NPCs instead of their mains, who are probably busy with doing administrative bullshit, or working on far more important things.

It also makes it very easy to segue into a separate side-game temporarily in case the main group is on a mission that requires a specific player who is currently not present.

Lots of great ideas from this, and hopefully someone else manages to think of some others. Personally, I am excited by this prospect, and I hope that it will spread to my players as well. I have a lot of awesome things I'd like to do in the next act, so this will just make it even easier for me to make the stakes that much higher while not worrying too much if someone might die.

Of course, I'll also need to make some NPCs of my own, but I'm looking forward to that a little bit. There's something nice to be said about giving yourself strict limitations you cannot work around, or being able to craft character sheets that have a little something unique about them for the players to enjoy as well, on occasion.

Like allowing one of the players to control the military-grade assassination droid that they re-purposed.

It's the little things in life which give me the most joy, I think.

Try Something New

Sorry for the long break. (Who am I saying sorry to? The Internet itself? Myself? The blog? Perhaps all of that.) Being sick took more time to recover mentally than anticipated, but I need to force myself back into the swing of things, so here we go.

Sometimes, you just need to get out and try something new. I've started coming to this realization that my life is getting to be a bit too samey. While samey can be kind of nice, when it starts to fall back on the exact same kind of samey, it gets irritating - understandably so, since it means that you aren't growing.

It can be something as simple as going out someplace public you haven't been to in awhile - for me, it was the flea market I used to go to a few years back. Still pretty nice out there, and man was there all kinds of fantastic junk to be found (the best part of flea markets, really!). It really started to get the gears a little oiled, and kind of helped me shift perspective a little.

The mind is a funny tool, because it can put things together in very odd ways that don't always seem to make sense at first. I guess it's because the brain works on the substitutive property or something like that. Basically, it sees something and analyzes it in many different ways - it's like finding out you've got a round hole, and then taking every single square peg and trying to mash it in there any way it can, until it gets something that kind of works. Eventually, something clicks - maybe because it just happened to be the right sort of peg, or maybe because your brain found a way to actually smash that sonofabitch in there.

Don't mind me, because this is where I probably ramble on a little bit before I get back to my point. Anyways, on occasion your brain will consciously re-analyze these things and ask itself, why does this thing work? Or if you're real fortunate, what else can I apply this particular thought to?

The thought this lead me to was that a lot of people do things like run flea market stalls probably because they love what they do very much. After all, I can't see a lot of those places making a ton of money. One particular place that caught my eye, though, was a fairly large showroom of paintings a man had done himself. He had so many of them that they were also placed out in the hallway itself in a long row outside the shop. I imagine he likely didn't sell very many of those paintings... but why have a shop if you can't sell something?

Probably it's just one of those things where the money doesn't matter - it's the act of doing something you enjoy and then letting other people take it in that matters most. It makes me wonder what *I* enjoy doing that I can share with other people.

Which leads me to the whole point of this post: doing something different can yield some very interesting results. People tend to be noticed if they are doing something that most other people aren't doing - or by doing something particularly well. Even moreso if they are doing both at the same time. So I'm thinking to myself, what is the one thing I love doing at any given time? That leads me back to a thought I had earlier in the week, which is that I seem to feel a lot better if I take some time to just hum to myself. Sing, almost. I get these amazing pieces stuck in my head sometimes, and it just wants to flow out, yet I tend to deny myself these urges because it's... well, weird, to be frank.

But maybe that's just my brain trying to tell me something. Maybe I need to make some music again. There's nothing wrong with making a bit of noise once in awhile - particularly if that noise turns out to be something.

So I'm finding myself going back to try to teach myself some things I tried to learn many years ago, long before college. I've got this whole 3D thing figured out, maybe I ought to take some time to learn this music thing. If the songs in my head are so inspiring to me, then maybe it would do me a world of good to try to digitize them, slap them on repeat, and see what my brain can churn out then.

Sometimes, doing something different can yield some very interesting results. So go out and try something different, and see if something new occurs to you.

As a side note: Sweet Genius is a pretty good show, and has also started to shift my thought process some. Not because I'm a cook mind you (I'm not all that good at it), but it does get the creative gears going, as the main goal of the show is "Take these ingredients, get inspired by this object, and make something amazing."

If your mind is open to it, interesting new ideas can pop up many places. So go out and inspire yourself, and see what happens.

I'm going to try to start updating this thing three times a week again. Since I plan on doing some organizational things soon, perhaps a post or two about finding new ways to organize might be in order or something. Who knows, I might just find it useful again someday.

And just because, a quote from a commercial that also seemed to strike a chord with me: "What if someone had told Beethoven 'that symphony should have been done weeks ago?'"

Great things take time, so learn to take your time... and best utilize it, I suppose.

Ugh, Get It Away!

Some observant people may have noticed I haven't posted anything in awhile. Other observant people may have been able to attribute this to my being sickly as of late.

Here's the thing about me getting sick: It doesn't happen very often, and when it does, it tends to hit me pretty hard, but it takes a long time to catch up to me. Which means it drains my energy, and makes it nigh impossible to do anything remotely resembling something creative.

Though in the last few days, I've stumbled across some rather interesting things, so I'll just gush on them real fast.

First of all, witty and vulgar comes the Myths Retold blog. It's pretty rad, and kind of historical. Sort of. Maybe not so much. Through reading some of these entries, it led me to my latest art crush, Gunnerkrigg Court. I have to admit, it's got quite the archive, and at first I wasn't certain I would be a fan of it. A few chapters in, though, and I was hooked. It's a shame I've already made my way through the archives and caught up to current - seems like this story is going to be going on for quite some time.

I've also taken the time to catch up with the good ol' Doctor Who. Completely loving what's been going on, but my favorite episode of the season is still the one Neil Gaiman wrote: The Doctor's Wife. Still, despite that, the season looks like it will be wrapping up nicely with the death of the Doctor... or will it? I've got a lot of ideas as to where they can take this, and after the preview of the next episode, I think I can safely say there is definitely a whole 'nother season coming around soon enough.

That's probably as much as I'm getting out at this point. Sinuses are still being a bother, but maybe once this passes I'll be able to do something resembling creativity - and maybe even update this blog regularly again.

Inspiration: Find It Any Way You Can

Missed wednesday's post - I'll try to make it up by doing a second entry tomorrow night, possibly after whatever game has been run. Tonight, I'll be (finally) talking about some 3D modeling.

It isn't easy, first of all. It looks easy, of course, but the thing is that you can do pretty much anything with 3D. That's the problem, really. There's so much to learn, you can spend a decade and still not know everything there is to know about the things you can do with it as an art form. Just mastering the very basics takes forever - four years of art school and let me tell you, after nearly three years of that playing with programs like Maya, I've still got a lot to learn.

Because there is so much to it, it puts people off. Infinite complexity means nothing if you can't wrap your head around some part of it. For the longest time, I've been depressed over just how horrible my models tend to look - they look too bland, to me. Now, I think I can understand why: a good model means absolutely nothing without an amazing texture to go with it.

Which is kind of the whole point of this post tonight, I suppose - finding new ways to inspire creativity in yourself. Some time ago, I was curious about "how do I do this?" or "How can I solve X problem in a manner that pleases me?" Such topics include rendering a beautiful, lush field of grass that doesn't look like crap, or like someone threw a texture on the ground. Other topics included things like using textures that look crisp and sharp.

That was my problem - I didn't fully understand the render nodes. For the uninformed, render nodes are basically little tree-like diagrams connected sort of like a web. Things connect in different ways, until you get to the very top node (or the root, if you will), which is what you use to slap onto an object. Suddenly, voila, you have a texture on your thingus! It's akin to magic, or so I am told.

Last night, I took some time to sit down and try to re-educate myself on how I can use these to create amazing-looking textures without making everything look so cookie-cutter. One such instance of this is when you are looking at some wood cabinets. Sure, if you get some pre-fabricated cabinets, sometimes they use the exact same mould for all of it - which makes everything look all the samey. Real wood cabinets, however, have distinct and varied patterns - no two pieces are the same, though they will usually share some similarities.

Using the pre-made "wood" shader in Maya is no good, as I have now come to learn. There is nothing 'standard' in 3D (another pitfall, I am finding). Everything must be custom-tailored to one's needs in any given project (which of course makes it more difficult, since you must know everything in order to proceed in any given project). However, knowing how to tweak it is something entirely different - you can get some amazing results in a fairly short order if you understand the purpose behind the nodes you are given, and how to utilize them properly.

Of course, now that I understand how to properly use this one little thing, it's got me thinking in a completely different direction... now I am starting to see how I can use this for *other* objects. Metal textures, rock textures, anything that has a distinctive pattern to it that needs to be varied but similar, the possibilities are starting to swirl about in my head.

Sometimes, taking a step back and looking over the things you've done in the past is a good way to re-inspire yourself. Look back, sometimes, and ask yourself: Was there something I wanted to learn but forgot about? Can I find a solution to that problem now?

You never know - you could surprise yourself.

As a side note: if I ever manage to get something half-decent as a render (likely a simple object), I'll probably throw it up on the internet somewhere and link it here. I'm likely to start with things like tables and cabinets and desks, just to make it easy on myself and to get a feel for how to really make something shine. Then, maybe I can tackle dynamics... because knowing how to produce life-like flames is freaking amazing.

You can quote me on that one.

Things you can do with d20 Modification

The d20 Modification project, which was originally designed as making the d20 Modern system compatible with Pathfinder, can be used for a lot of interesting things. Like the old Modern system, it still tends to favor the high-intensity action hero sort of game. Unlike the previous system, low-level combat is even more deadly, thanks to firearm overhauls - all guns have a minimum damage modifier, meaning instead of a handgun dealing 2-12 damage, it deals more like 4-14. At low level, that makes a huge difference.

Part of it is because, especially with massive guns like the Barret Light Fifty, the reality is anyone even in the vincinity of one of those rounds tends to turn into a fine mist. But according to the book, those guns 'only' deal 2d12 damage. That means one of the most powerful firearms in existence *only* deals 2-24 damage. At least this way the minimum is brought up some, and it gives more power to people using them. On the other hand, they also tend to come with accuracy modifiers, balancing that out.

With the introduction of the updated magic system, things are slowly falling into place allowing for a variety of interesting genre mixes. One of those mixes I've always had in mind was a Star Ocean-esque setting, where futuristic characters are learning to use magic - something that always fascinated me. But it occurs to me that there are other genre-types one can emulate with a system this versatile. For one thing, it is one step closer to being able to emulate something you can see in the Marvel Universe, where science and magic tend to exist side by side (but don't seem to play well together, usually, and occasionally blurs the line between the two). Or you could even attempt something in the vein of Disgaea - all kinds of craziness can occur there.

Urban Arcana could be re-envisioned - or even Urban Arcana Evolved (which is sort of like the future version of that). Sliders is another possibility, where characters may not always be existing in the same world from one game to another - which could make character choices even more interesting.

All of these things would require little-to-no modification of the system, really, and that was my main goal from the very start. When I was running a future campaign of mine many years ago, I thought it would be fun to pit the group up against some wizards, just to see how they would fare. Needless to say, the results were rather interesting, and the group perservered - of course, they also had far greater weapons than most fantasy characters often wind up with. But on the other hand, fantasy characters tend to get more awesome class abilities, so there is a balance there as well.

Overall, I'm rather pleased with the possibilities this system can offer, and hopefully I'll be able to get the rest of the magic system laid into stone. I don't think I'll be touching on the psionics or other FX abilities... but then again, maybe I might just at some point.

I wouldn't really bet on it though.

Special Edition: This Post

I'm a huge fan of Gnome Stew. I can't remember how I managed to find it, really, but while many of their articles have been kind of bleh lately, this one grabs me pretty good.

I have a huge problem with this myself, being unable to schedule regular times to run, and even worse, it's pretty hard for us all to come together without any in-home distractions (as there are many). But for an internet-centric group, it should be easier to find ways around this, I'd think.

Maybe this could give rise to a new sort of hybrid game - where players can edit wiki pages or post on a message board roleplaying stuff in between gaming sessions - helps keep players engaged, and lets us focus on the important things when it comes time for another session - and sessions can just pick up where conversations left off.

It's an idea.

Online Piracy - Hidden Threats, or Hidden Opportunity?

The internet has changed the entire world - a pretty big feat, considering it's age relative to how long it's taken to make such sweeping changes. Sure, the net itself was first invented back in the sixties, and didn't really start to take off until the boom in the nineties. But since then, it has transformed everything we do. I can remember a time ten years ago when it was impossible to watch movies online - when animated gifs were all the rage, and trying to download a file 300 mb in size could take an entire week.

But things are different now, and the culture that has begun to evolve on the internet has also changed the people who use it. Obviously, people resist change, and many battles have emerged over it. One of the biggest topics of debate: Piracy, or online file-sharing.

To be honest, file-sharing has a pretty spotted history. Back in the day, it was pretty hard to download anything directly - it was kind of illegal, after all, and nobody wanted to risk putting anything up for risk of being shut down (because, y'know, it was sort of illegal). But some people wanted to share whatever it was, for whatever reason - and someone found a rather ingenius workaround. Of course, it required a bit of technical knowledge (not too much, but enough to stump computer illiterate), and it also required a great deal of time. There were no filters on these early Peer-To-Peer (P2P) networks, so half the time you might get porn. If you were looking for porn, it might even work. If you were looking for porn in the first place, it probably came with a plethora of viruses that would make your desktop explode with popup windows from hell. Or reformat your hard drive.

Obviously, this high-risk situation made a lot of people leery about using these sorts of things, and so the culture thrived, as well as it could. Networks were "attacked" by companies after awhile, and the RIAA and MPAA started realizing that people were downloading their entertainment for free, and no one was getting compensated for it. Lawsuits were filed, and a lot of people were hurt as a result, due to complete ignorance of how the internet worked, or due to blatant disregard for the fact that it is stupidly easy to change one's IP address.

Meanwhile, at this time, social networking was starting to take off in the form of Myspace, and eventually Youtube began to emerge - a cool place to show the world whatever videos you wanted. Over time, the RIAA and MPAA started aiming their sights there as well - but at one time, it was possible to watch full movies on Youtube, for free, and technically, you couldn't be held liable for it at all - it's not a crime to watch such material.

The Internet had started what can only be described as a 'sharing culture'. Nowadays with current social networking like Twitter, Reddit, Facebook 'Likes' and Digg, the internet is all about sharing things. Saw something cool on the internet, gotta share it. It's just like with anything else - when you see something cool, you want to tell as many people about it as possible. Saw a new movie? Gush about it to your friends who haven't seen it yet - make them want to watch it. Heard a new CD or bought a new video game, and are eager to tell your friends? Invite them over to play it or listen to it and hang out. It's the sort of culture that's always existed, but on the internet, it is magnified - now you don't have to leave the bathroom to access this awesome video your friend saw on Youtube - he'll just tweet you a link you can pull up on your smartphone to enjoy.

Is this culture of sharing a bad thing? It's hard to say, because there are a lot of divisions on that topic. On the one hand, it shouldn't be a crime to want to tell/show people something that is awesome - on the net, you can put pretty much anything just a single link away. On the other hand, making these things takes a lot of time and effort on the creator's part, and every album/DVD/movie ticket not sold hurts the industry that produced it.

I was lucky enough to have an actual comic-book industry-based teacher by the name of Pat Broderick at my school. Some real hard nerds who actually pay attention to credits might recognize him as an inker and penciler for both Marvel and DC from way back in the day - and trust me, he still does a lot of that stuff and it looks amazing. But the best part were some of the conversations I had with him, particularly some of his insights into the whole 'piracy' thing.

To him, and this is something I see echoed many other places by many other artists, reading his comic books online (or anyone's, for that matter) is theft, plain and simple. He does this for a living, and every time you read a new book online without having paid a single penny, he is being denied that which he's worked a lifetime to earn. Which is kind of understandable. In so many words, he may have described the people who upload these things as having needing something particularly violent and disparaging occur to them. Which, again, is understandable.

On the other hand, if we take a look at some of the older stuff - bronze or silver age comics, whose value is quite measurable - those things are pretty hard to find - particularly some of the truly rare ones, such as some of the original Uncanny X-Men comics. Is it wrong to want to share those as well, with other people? The true value of these comics has long since exceeded what the original companies have done - after all, those books were already paid for and sold - now it is their very rarity that keeps people scrambling after them. Is it a 'lost sale' when you re-share something ten years old on the internet that didn't get a lot of popularity back in the day? If you share a long-extinct comic book series that was fated to ten-issue obscurity?

There is the same argument with movies and music. Is every single download/view a lost sale? That is how the RIAA and MPAA and other companies view it. Is this right, though? That is one of the primary arguments out there - each download does not constitute a lost sale, and the market is slowly changing to embrace this, but still there is that divide present.

Why is this all important to know? Because in the last few years, there have been a lot of concerned messages popping about the internet, about how certain companies would like to 'run' the internet, and take away its freedom to share anything, out of fear of lost profits. Youtube is already there, with people's videos being removed just because they used a song from a particular recording label, despite the actual content of it being more than just a song - fanmade compilations of shows, or 'fan music videos' being one of them.

Is it truly wrong to want to do these things? Some companies would say yes, and would prefer to force everyone to pay them money to enjoy themselves. But is that what's really right?

Being someone who wants to move into the entertainment industry, I look at this objectively, and I see where both sides of the argument arise, and wonder if maybe there isn't some form of compromise that can be reached. Anime in particular is one industry that has slowly started to accept what its fans want - streaming episodes of series shortly after or the same time as the original air date in Japan, with full translations, for free. Is that wrong? Technically, when you see something on TV, you don't have to pay for it (unless it is Pay-Per-View, of course). The money comes from the advertising that occurs during that show, and if no one wants to watch it...

Because of this, I think the entertainment industry as a whole needs to wake up and realize the world has changed. We are no longer using casette tapes, and VCRs are a thing of the stone age. This is the digital era, and we have come to expect things much differently. When people make these televised shows, really they are trying to pull viewers in to see the advertisements that companies pay them insane amounts of money to televise. The more people tuning in, the more likely they'll see those advertisements, and the more likely they will be to want their service/product.

The real money for these studios comes in after the fact - it's not the televising, it's the products that come along with it. The Anime industry is a great example of this - the real money isn't in the shows themselves, it's all the related merchandise: the limited edition DVDs, the figurines, the toy deals, the lunch boxes, the art books... all of that is where the real money comes in. Lately the gaming industry has started taking note of this as well - nothing makes me more likely to plop down extra money for a game if it includes an art book or something.

Why can't other entertainment industries attempt to follow this model as well? The point shouldn't be to force people to pay as much as possible for the initial product - it's everything that comes afterwards - the director's cuts, the limited editions, the posters bundled into the comics. Insanely cheap to make, but mass-produced and kept limited in quantity, you can make a real bundle off of those things, by making them hard to get - and people will gladly pay for them, because unlike something they can download on the internet, physical products are still something that cannot truly be replicated.

You can copy a video, but you can't copy an original figurine. And you can make that figurine cost three times what a single DVD is, or more if it is high quality and large-sized.

Seems to me that the logical way for the entertainment industry to take advantage of the digital age, maybe they should start looking at their own products as a form of advertisement. For bands, they see it as invitations to come see them in concert - can't duplicate that either. Sometimes you can watch them on TV, but is it the same as being there in person? No.

In the end, is piracy a good thing or a bad one? There's no good answer to that, and there's as many answers as there are people in the world. But I think I can safely say this: attempting to punish the world because a few people are jerks is kind of unreasonable.

Shift your thinking, and beat your competition. Look at those pirates as competitors, who are offering your very same product at a much better price. Give customers incentives to purchase your product as opposed to downloading for free (bundled extras help!). Special little extras available only online also work. But don't punish the people who just want to try your product out for a test drive - who knows, if you make it more available to them, they just might be interested enough to plop down the money for it - and then share it with their friends, who will also buy it.

Role Playing Games: Or RPGS?

There is a difference between RPGs and Role Playing Games. RPGs are more computer/console-based, and tend to waffle between one of two different tropes: you wander around randomly fighting things to gain experience to unlock greater powers, or you go from one battle in a 'chain' to the next until you reach the next portion, gaining amounts of XP along the way that you can then use to purchase whichever skills you like.

Sounds kind of familiar, right? But these games can be very different from Role Playing Games. Or, maybe even better, Tabletop Games.

Tabletop games evolved from old wargamers wanting to add a little extra something to their weekly war sessions - stories of how their figurines had gotten where they were, eventually evolved into something different from the norm - the Role Playing Games we know and love today.

It has since inspired entire generations of games made in similar veins, but there is still a distinct divide between what we experience on computers than what we experience at a table (or even virtual tables, if you will). Much of it is often attributed to not having an active gamemaster who can make up rules on the spot, or being able to change the game or even completely reinvent it as needed. But that's not the only place this divide comes into play: the design philosophies can often be different as well.

Now, many times people will argue that they are 'just the same'. But let's not lie to ourselves. There's a tremendous difference in the design philosophies between Final Fantasy X and our tabletop experiences. Take any random-encounter RPG - yes, old-school D&D has random encounter charts, just like most other RPGs. But those RPGs, you expect them, because they go by so quickly. Tabletop, however, is far more immersive - yes, you can have those random encounter charts, but you are in that area for a reason, and then suddenly TIGERS EVERYWHERE. What do you do?

There's a good point to understanding where this divide comes in, because as a GM, it's not just your job to set up a random encounter chart and go wild with it. It has to have a purpose and a reason. Let me share with you one of my experiments from my post-apoc future game, Roguelife.

The group was going to explore an abandoned city, looking for Quest Item X. Of course, X was something they had no idea where to find! It being a big city, I wanted it to be somewhat more old-school adventure - a bit of a departure from the traditional 'hallway segments', where the group goes from one battle to the next until they finally reach the end.

I set up a very large spreadsheet, which worked extremely well. It listed different building types, different creatures that could appear in those types, and depending on the sort of building it was (and it's size), you could expect to find a predetermined amount of loot within those buildings (if you were clever enough). This was awesome because it could generate some truly interesting things - in one building, they stumbled across a group of mutants who were being 'purified' by extremists - realizing they couldn't fight such a large battle, the group wisely opted to try looking elsewhere. In another building, they went all the way down to the ground floor, only to find an entire *herd* of Dire Caribou defending themselves from zombies. Successfully, I might add (they were, after all, DIRE Caribou).

Things like that can make for amazing gameplay sessions, but half of it is being able to know how to read those charts and react to them on the fly - how can you pull these elements together to create a similar scenario that the group may have already encountered, but adding some kind of twist to it? Another one had them trying to get into a gas station that was surrounded by zombies and... a DIRE BEAR. Oh man that bear almost tore them up, but they managed to bring it down and save the man inside.

Of course, since I made the chart, I already had an idea how these things could fit together. All in all, it was an attempt to make a tabletop version of a Roguelike - one that worked amazingly well.

So consider the type of game you are running, and the feel you want to give it. Is it a high-stakes game, where there is a clearly-defined goal and maybe even a clearly-defined path to achieve it? Or are your players looking for something more adventurey, where the destination is not as important as the journey to reach it?

Think it over. Talk it over with your group even. You might be surprised at what you can learn.