Cringe

"Dungeons and dragons is not just for a bunch of beardy boys in a basement, it's for everybody and anybody."



So says the BBC with a cringeworthy video from, I don't know, one of their journalists?



Let's skip the video for a moment and talk about the comic strip Knights of the Dinner Table, which focuses on role-playing groups playing a game a lot like 1st edition AD&D. In the main group, harried DM B.A. has to run a game to capture the interests of munchkin Dave, hack-and-slasher Bob, role-player Sara, and rules lawyer Brian. For some reason, this group of players stays together, despite their differences. Maybe it's friendship. What they don't do is exclude others.



This fictional group resonates with role-playing gamers. They know, or know of, people like these characters. Perhaps they put up with people like them, or perhaps they try to avoid them.



The good thing about D&D is that it's just a rules set. It can handle many different styles of play. If a player doesn't like that the other players shoot first and ask questions later, there's always another group. If a player doesn't like the DM's campaign world where there are no monsters, just misunderstood creatures, there's always another group. If a player doesn't like how every NPC is described like they're in a Frazetta painting, there's always another group.



At a large convention like Gen Con, I've played team tournaments entirely focused on combat and tactics, where good rules knowledge and a bit of luck is required to succeed. I've played ongoing campaigns where the primary focus is on building your own character. And I've played events with pregenerated characters, with an emphasis on role-playing and interaction with the other characters, where it's common for the players to never leave the first encounter of the adventure. All of these styles of gaming are supported with the same D&D rules set.



Now, let's go back to the video in the link. I wager that more than 90% of the people who talk about exclusion were never actually excluded. I've played for most of my life, in both home groups and organized play, and almost everyone has been eager for more people to play, and supportive of newcomers. I'd also wager that, for people of the appropriate age, they were more likely to be the excluders (calling role-playing games childish or nerdy) than the excluded.



That said, there's an important thing to remember. You can't expect every person to like you. In my experience, D&D groups can be cliquish. Some people rub each other the wrong way. I know I didn't get along with everyone who shared this wonderful hobby. But I moved on, persevered, and found people who became some of my best friends.



Remember, there's always another group.

How to enjoy Dungeons & Dragons

Seen on Twitter (paraphrasing):

I cringe when someone says "I play Dungeons & Dragons" and some yahoo says "Oh yeah?  What level is your character?"

I cringe at seeing someone being judgmental, automatically assuming the worst of intentions.  To illustrate, I'll assume the best of intentions.  The person talking to you is expressing an interest in talking about your hobby.  Is they way they phrased that the best?  Not at all.  But consider the person may have only oblique exposure to role-playing games through things like MMORPGs, where that is a better question.  Perhaps they played a long time ago, and the fact that characters have levels is one of the few details they remember.  Or maybe the way they currently play the game is to focus on one character.  Maybe they'd be interested in trying a different scheme, where one plays multiple characters in related campaigns with rotating DMs?

All I can say is if you react hostilely, you won't get a positive reaction.

There are multiple things a person could enjoy about a game like Dungeons & Dragons.  I'll give examples from Lord of the Rings.  One person may favor creating a character and his back story, and watching the character and his relationships develop during the game, as Frodo and Samwise do when they leave the Shire and go on their adventure.  Some people may favor the story, the epic adventure to destroy the One Ring and stop Dark Lord Sarumon's evil plot.  And others may favor the crunchy numerical combat aspect, like Legolas and Gimli competing over who could fell the greatest number of foes.  There are many ways to enjoy the game.

The original poster called the "What level is your character?" question gatekeeping.  Gatekeeping is when someone tries to enforce how people can enjoy a hobby and who can enjoy it.  This person is saying the person who favors combat and building a character's statistics is enjoying the game wrong.  In other words, she's the only one gatekeeping here.

A new edition!

A new edition of Dungeons and Dragons, that is. The announcement even got a fluff article in the New York Times.

It may be considered an admission that the fourth edition of the venerable role-playing game was a failure, given it's been around for less than four years, a much shorter lifespan than the eight years of 3e/3.5e and the 11 years of 2e.

The link above is to Ace of Spades, who discusses the announcement. The comment section is active, as might be expected on a subject that attracts this level of passion. There are the normal anti-nerd jokes, people talking about how they've outgrown the game, and people talking about how they still like the game (and which edition they like). Here's one interesting comment, on the Pathfinder game that follows in the style of 3.5e:

As for Pathfinder, it simply is not as backwards compatible as the publishers and fans like to pretend it is, and is quickly accumulating just as much dead weight rules books as 3E/3.5/4E did. Add to that the hard Left worldview of well near the entire management and workforce, and a dominant theme of Torture Porn masquerading as "edgy" and "adult", and you have a product with no real attraction above and beyond sticking with whatever junk WotC is spamming the shelves with.

I can certainly confirm the hard left views of the Paizo publisher on my Facebook feed. And while I haven't played enough of their adventures to see the torture porn, I did see an early example. This same publisher, at the time leading and writing for the new Living Greyhawk campaign, showed off his darker vision by having an early adventure start with a dirty, bruised and naked girl running into the PCs' coach.

"I draw my +2 shank and move into the flank...."

An unusual court case upheld a Wisconsin prison's ban on inmates playing Dungeons & Dragons. Not surprisingly, the case got mention on several forums with a high geek population, but also received comment at The Volokh Conspiracy (linked above). Apparently, Ilya Somin doesn't mind letting his freak flag show.

The prison policy is a pretty stupid decision, with rather idiotic justification. It leads to gang activity? Really? A cynic might point out that religion is misused as a justification for the racist thoughts behind actual gangs in prison; should we ban chaplains as well as Dungeon Masters?

I'd be happy if prisoners were both physically tired from hard labor and mentally tired from receiving an education that they would have no interest in playing D&D.

And a note to any prison wardens who might read this: The fact that this policy is receiving international attention doesn't mean people think it's a good idea.

The new cookbook

Found stashed on my computer, from around the time of the release of the 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons, is this Wired article, discussing how gamers would react to a new edition of a cookbook.

Among my favorite comments is this one, from one of those people who demands total realism in their game:

I just have to laugh at the recipe for Beef Wellington. In Wellington's day, ovens didn't have temperature settings! And pate de foie gras certainly didn't come in cans. It's like the authors didn't even care about replicating authentic early 19th century cooking techniques!

June 6 is D(&D)-Day

June 6th marks the release of the 4th edition of the Dungeons and Dragons game. Now, a new edition was pretty much certain, as Wizards of the Coast have extracted the most out of 3rd edition. However, the change in the game is remarkable. Many have commented that the new game is like creating a tabletop version of a MMORPG, and it's true. Many abilities interact with other players: harm an enemy, and also heal an ally.

Many have also commented that this new game is great, but it isn't Dungeons & Dragons. And I'm inclined to agree there. I remember the discussion of 3rd edition, and the creators of that edition had rules, the things that if they weren't present, the game wouldn't be D&D. Things like classes, levels, and the six ability scores are examples of these rules. Another is the traditional D&D spell system, and that is gone now.

When 3rd edition D&D was released, I immediately thought it was a huge improvement. Being able to combine classes was an excellent change. So was the skill system, a sensible system replacing the non-weapon proficiency system seemingly tacked on to AD&D. The new combat system, streamlined saving throws, and simple d20 mechanic were excellent improvements that simplified the game.

D&D 4th edition, of course, is supposed to simplify the game, and broaden its appeal. I think it has failed. Each player has fewer choices to make, being stuck into one class for ten levels, with few ability selections. But now, they must choose a variety of daily, encounter, and at-will powers, all different. Attack and move an enemy. Attack and move yourself. Attack two individuals. Attack for more damage. Attack with a better chance to hit. To me, this isn't a simplification over 3rd edition.

I'm afraid that, with both abilities and defenses scaling with level, everyone will have a significant chance to miss, no matter what you do. That risks a string of bad die rolling dooming you, no matter what you do. I'll of course know better once I've played the game more.

Meanwhile, to honor the new game system, I've posted my reminiscing about writing adventures for the two previous editions of D&D here. (It's a work in progress.)

R.I.P. Gary Gygax

Gary Gygax, co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons, has passed away.

Gary Gygax died this morning at his home in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, about 55 miles southwest of Milwaukee.

His wife, Gail Gygax, says he had been suffering from health problems for several years, including an abdominal aneurysm.

Gygax and co-creator Dave Arneson developed the role-playing game in 1974 and it went on to become 1 of the best-selling games ever. Dungeons & Dragons is considered the grandfather of fantasy role-playing games and has influenced video games, books, movies and inspired legions of adoring fans.

Gygax' wife says he always enjoyed hearing from the game's devoted fans about how the game influenced their lives.

I've received notice of his death on multiple role-playing game-related mailing lists, but saw it first on the Actuarial Outpost.

Very cool

Ziggurat Con, the first gaming (Dungeons and Dragons, etc.) convention to be held in Iraq, got a mention at Instapundit. The convention organizers are looking for donations of gaming goods!

Covering

The Indianapolis Star included a review of Kenji Yoshino's semi-memoir Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights. Yoshino defines covering as "ton(ing) down a disfavored identity to fit into the mainstream." Despite the title, this reviewer doesn't see it as one-sided.

The Booklist review doesn't sound like it agrees with that assessment:

Yoshino, an Asian American law professor at Yale, whose gay status informs this work, explores the struggle for equality of gays in America from the broader perspective of the civil-rights movement. He argues that society resists allowing full equality for gays by instead advocating conversion, passing as straight, and covering homosexuality, tactics similarly imposed on racial and other minorities. Passing is reflected in the military's current "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Covering occurs when a gay is "out" but avoids offending the larger society by "covering." By favoring passing and covering, self--perceived liberal nongays, Yoshino argues, are in fact denying gays full rights. Yoshino considers "covering," the demand that gays not flaunt their orientation, to be the civil-rights issue of today. Yoshino views the "accommodation" model applied in law to religious and disabled minorities as a bright spot but recognizes its restricted application to gays. While accommodation could be more readily applied to traditionally protected groups, he is not optimistic about this course with America's increasing pluralism. An insightful read.

I have a confession to make: I'm covering, too.

I play games like Dungeons & Dragons, Magic: the Gathering, and German board games. I enjoy playing these games a lot. I attend conventions to play these games with people who share this interest, in particular as part of a worldwide D&D organized play group. When with friends who share these interests, we may talk about the best ways to design characters, reminisce about past games, or bemoan the current state of the game. (That's in addition to going out to dinner, sharing drinks, and talking about sports and current events, in case you're wondering.)

Yet in the course of a typical day, I cover up this avocation. I don't talk about it at the office or with the teller at the bank. I might wear a T-shirt with the name of a game convention, but I don't go telling people about it.

Wikipedia cites an estimate that 20 million people worldwide play Dungeons & Dragons, but the membership of the smaller group I'm in is probably in the low five figures. But consider that 20 million figure. It is one-third of one percent of the world's population. Now, estimates of gay population vary considerably, depending on the definition one uses, but the low estimate says 1.5% percent of people are homosexual. Clearly, I'm in a much smaller minority.

What's that you say? You're not born a player of D&D?

I ask you this: what foods do you like? Now, why do you like those foods?

Now, think of an activity you enjoy. Why do you enjoy it?

It's hard to describe, isn't it?

I think the fact that I enjoy playing these games more than playing a pickup game of basketball or tending to a garden is as much inborn as my preference for the flavor of peach over the flavor of banana. I really can't say why I enjoy these activities, but I do. (I admit that as of the present day, no one has found the "gay gene," nor the "D&D gene." Give science time!)

Everyone covers every day. I don't say, "Hi, I'm Greg. Roll for initiative!" I may have a fantasy about a tall, strong man (who wields a wicked axe and fights a demon army). You may have a fantasy about a tall, strong man (for rather different reasons). If that's the only thing you talk about, it gets in the way of finding common ground as human beings.

Covering is the civil thing to do. If we didn't, we'd be at each others' throats. If you're strongly anti-tobacco, you don't get in the face of the smokers. If you love cats, you don't try to convert everyone into a cat lover. And if you think homosexuality is a sin, you don't send protesters to a gay man's funeral.

(A few people don't follow these standards of decency. We call them "assholes.")