The new and improved defender of RPGs!

Thursday, 31 October 2013

Famous Pipe Smokers

Tonight's famous pipe smoker is quite appropriate for Halloween!  Because besides being quite famous for smoking a pipe, I'm told he also appeared in quite a few old scary movies:

Yes, Peter Cushing, aka Van Helsing (the original and best!), aka Doctor Who (in the cheesy 60s movies).  And let's not forget the scary Grand Moff Tarkin.

And, I should note, an avid  miniature wargamer.

Yes, Peter Cushing was a pipe smoker.


Currently Smoking: Neerup egg + Rattray's Accountant's Mix

Wednesday, 30 October 2013

RPGPundit Reviews: Traveller (Mongoose edition)

The RPGPundit Reviews: Traveller Core Rulebook (Mongoose)















There's straightforward rules for vehicle combat as well.
















Currently Smoking: Neerup Poker + Brebbia no.7

Tuesday, 29 October 2013

On "The Poorest President in the World" and Clueless Gringo Left- and Right-Wing Misconceptions

 So this image has been going around the internet for quite some time now, or variants of the same (the particular example here seems to be from a "new-atheist" group):

I live in Uruguay, so I thought perhaps I ought to educated people about this. "Pepe" Mujica is generally seen as a very admired figure here these days, and technically speaking nothing in the picture above is wrong. He does give back 90% of his money (however, he also said he's very troubled by this internet meme that rose up about it, because it makes him sound like he's somehow praising poverty, when in fact he says he doesn't believe poverty is a good thing, he wants to get rid of it!).  He is leader of the party that legalized marijuana and same-sex marriage in uruguay. He's a Maoist-oriented Communist and former MLN "Tupamaro" rebel leader (that's still now the name of his political party), so he probably is an atheist, yes (inasmuch as he believes in Marx instead of God).

I have heard, however, some people engaging in some mistaken assumptions about the guy (and by association, about this country), aside from the aforementioned notion that Mujica seeks to glorify poverty or believes that poverty is a better state to be in than wealth. His general tone in reaction to that, by the way, has struck me as always inflected with quite a bit of scorn toward affluent first-world internet-liberals not understanding fuck-all about what they're talking about.  Only someone who's never actually seen REAL poverty could ever try to imply that its in any way a desirable state for mankind, or that its somehow praiseworthy.

In any case, the other big confusion I've tended to see about the guy coming from the clueless gringos is that he was a "freedom fighter" in the 1960s (implying that he was fighting for democracy against a dictatorial regime), or that he is in fact now a Chavez-style petit-dictator whose election win was somehow dubious or who plans to dismantle Uruguayan democracy.  Usually its the lefties who want to believe the former, and conservatives who make the latter claim.  Neither is right.

In the 1960s, the Tupamaros in Uruguay were a terrorist guerilla movement. They were NOT "fighting an oppressive regime".  The Tupamaros began in the early 1960s and most of their violent terrorist/rebel actions took place in the late 1960s, when Uruguay was a DEMOCRATIC republic with a legally-elected president.  There is some controversy because now that they're the government, they have tried to revise how the history is taught in schools, making it sound like the Tupamaros "rose up" to fight the dictatorship that happened in 1973-1983, but that's not true. The guerillas happened FIRST, they attacked a democratic government, and the dictatorship only happened later in part BECAUSE of the guerilla movement having left democracy so damaged in the country.
And of course, it was NOT the Tupamaros' goal to "fight for democracy". They were fighting AGAINST democracy with the clearly-stated goal of taking over the government by violent force and forcibly imposing a Soviet-style marxist-lenninst state in Uruguay.

Mujica, who was shot six times and imprisoned for 14 years for his terrorist insurgency, probably killed people at that time (his wife, who is now a senator and was also a rebel, admits that she killed people, I personally know someone whose uncle she killed).  However, since the restoration of democracy in Uruguay in 1984, Mujica has also publicly stated that he rejects his former ideas about armed uprising as a path to social change and that he now believes in the democratic process.  Many on the right here tried to keep pointing to his guerilla fighter past as a criticism, and that's definitely valid; but a lot of them tried to imply (when he was running for president) that he still had a plan to instill a marxist-leninist state, and he clearly does not.  The larger "Frente Amplio" coalition his party is a part of has been governing the country now for some 8 years, Mujica for 3 of those, and there has been no "chavista"-style repression of the press or appropriation of private property.  In fact, his government has come at a time of unprecedented economic growth for the  country, and generally speaking Mujica has been good for business.

Just for the record, today Uruguay has one of the most stable democracies in South America, and is one of the most economically prosperous countries.﻿ And while (however unjustifiably they try to do so) President Mujica and the Frente Amplio cannot take credit for being the sole cause of that prosperity and stability, they certainly have played their part in allowing it to happen.

So anyways, while technically true, most of those Mujica caption-memes don't really tell the full story. Except for this one, this one is awesome:


Currently Smoking: Neerup Poker + Brebbia no. 8

Monday, 28 October 2013

UNcracked Monday: I love this... the Dongion






Currently Smoking: Ben Wade Canadian + Image Latakia

Sunday, 27 October 2013

Golden Age Campaign Update




So we'll see you in December, dear readers!


Currently Smoking: Mastro De Paja Bent Apple + Dunhill 965

Saturday, 26 October 2013

RPGPundit Reviews: The Patriot Incident

This is a review of the adventure “The Patriot Incident: A Terror Network Game Module”, published by Bedrock Games, written by Brendan Davis. Its an adventure written for the Terror Network RPG.
I don’t have Terror Network, nor am I a particularly huge fan of either modern rpgs, spy/law-enforcement rpgs, or the like. However, I do have to say I found this a very well-written adventure. 
The game assumes the players are FBI agents, and the action of the game plays out a bit like an season of “24″ (at least, that’s what it reminded me of).  A good mix of action and investigation, twists and turns, a race against the clock to prevent a terrorist threat, and all the other kind of goodies you’d expect.

The action in the adventure begins with the PCs being called in to investigate the murder of a Syrian arms dealer, with the possibility of this death being connected to international or local terrorist organizations; the Syrian died in what looked like some kind of arms deal gone wrong, but with who, and to what end?

I don’t want to spoil the details of the adventure’s plot itself, since it involves some twists that I think make it very interesting; in the classic style of this kind of genre, player characters might find that the initial suspects don’t turn out to be who they’re really looking for.

What I will talk about instead, then, is the adventure’s structure.  First, its non-linear: the PCs aren’t railroaded from one scene to the next, they can end up moving through any number of directions in their search for the truth and to stop a potential disaster. The GM is provided with a handy “investigation map”, which is really a kind of flowchart that shows which directions the PCs can go, and where these directions can in turn lead them to.

Nor is the adventure set up in a stupid “narrative” style, where things happen in a set order regardless of what the PCs do; instead, events take place along a timeline; character’s actions can change the timeline of events, and inaction will lead to things happening when they happen, not when the PCs happen to show up. Thus, this is a firmly immersive adventure, the kind I like.

The book is about 80 pages in total, small in size, with a full-colour cover, and a few black and white illustrations scattered throughout the interior text.  You also get a map of the Boston area (where much of the adventure is set), location maps of a terrorist compound, repeats of the same at the end of the book, as well as player handouts for clues and whatnot.

The book provides detailed and credible descriptions of the main terrorist organization that are the “villains” of the adventure, lots of information about Boston to help the GM run that part of the game (including things like websites for more information, notes on Boston lingo and accents and information about the Boston FBI Field Office), guidelines about things like obtaining warrants and the Patriot Act, and details about several locations in Boston (and other towns in the Mass. area) that give me every sense that the author is writing about real locations in that city (whether this is the case or not), all of which would really help for emulation.

There are also detailed descriptions of persons of interest and suspects, which are detailed with both information about the character, and crucially, “what this character knows”.  At the back of the module there are stats for all of the important NPCs in the adventure.

All in all, while like I said this is not the kind of setting I typically get excited about, I have to admire how well the design of this adventure really is. I think that anyone who’s interested in this kind of FBI-agent Jack Bauer kind of action RPG would do well to pick up this adventure at least, if not the Terror Network game itself (though I think that the way the module is written, to its credit, it could very easily be run with any other game system; mechanics are very much in the background of solid adventure design here).


Currently Smoking: Stanwell Compact + Image Latakia

(originally posted May 3, 2012, on the old blog)

Friday, 25 October 2013

Thoughts on "Zero Charisma"

So The Wench and I have just come back from watching Zero Charisma, the crowdfunded nerd-comedy about a D&D guy.  For those of you uninformed about the film, its a story about a guy with very low social skills, living with his grandma, no decent job, never had a girlfriend, but runs a game twice a week with a stable of other similar social-retards.  Then everything changes when a new guy joins the group, who's more of a hipster-nerd, with a social life, hot girlfriend, has impeccable geek-cred (runs a famous geek website) but still has a life, and starts to encourage the rest of the group to get out of their shells.  Everyone except the main character starts to do so; main-dude sees hipster-geek as his "nemesis", becomes jealous, things spiral out of control, and hilarity ensues.

Both The Wench and I agree that the movie is very funny, unlike, oh, EVERY SINGLE OTHER GAMING MOVIE I EVER SAW.  I generally can't stand movies, fan-films or webcomics about gaming geeks; they're usually unfunny, stupidly self-referential, and tend to be more about mild ribbing while still implying that geeks are pretty darn wonderful instead of some kind of meaningful satire.  You know what all those movies and webcomics remind me of? When Evangelical Christians try to make humour "poking fun" at themselves.

This movie avoids that trap: it points out that in fact, geek culture is pretty fucking awful sometimes and the people in it are shitty.  Even hipster-geek is fairly shitty, though far less so than his counterpart.
They're also realistic, within certain limits; watching it we saw characters that we immediately identified with actual people we know (though it also reminded us in some ways just how different RPG-geeks here in Uruguay are from the ones in North America; there's no one here that I would be perfectly able to identify with the main character, while there are half a dozen geeks I remember from Canada that would immediately fit the bill).

Nor does anyone really end up "learning a valuable lesson". By the end of the film, while people have changed, main-geek guy has in no significant way "turned around his life" (no, he doesn't get a girl, nor does he figure out how to be normal with people), nor for that matter does hipster-geek figure out that the slavering Lawncrappers are actually wonderful people that should be tolerated (quite the contrary, he realizes just how fucked up they are, and that its by their own choice).

So yes, its awesome for all that.

What's more, its awesome because it takes a look at how geek culture is evolving; it doesn't really manage to do this in a very nuanced way, but within the specter of RPGs it looks at how the mainstreaming of all things previously "nerdy" is making geek-culture less and less the safe-haven for Lawncrappers it once was.
More interestingly still, it raises up the question of "who is a real nerd"?  This is a topic that's been a big deal the past couple of years, with accusations flying left and right about "fake geeks" (and that particularly toxic variant, "fake geek girls") being used to mean anyone who somehow doesn't pass the user's personal litmus-test of geekdom (which usually involves being in some way sufficiently separated from mainstream society, when you get right down to it).

The question (which the movie raises subtly but never really answers) is an important one: who gets to claim geekdom? The people who choose to be geeks because they like the activity, or the ones who are there for some other reason; be it to be seen as trendy, or because its the only place that will tolerate them?

And ultimately, that's the one thing that was missing from the movie: there was no central figure who was a "real" RPG geek there (except maybe the two secondary characters in the gaming group, who we see too little of to tell for sure); main-guy was into RPGs as an escape from the world and because it was (before it started to change) the only social outlet where he could be as useless and ill-mannered as he was and still be accepted; while hipster-geek talked a big show about friendship and fun but he was clearly ultimately doing it because he saw it as part of the geek-hipster lifestyle.  Of course, having a guy who was pretty much normal (socially capable, well-balanced in life, relationships and career) and liked to game without being either a Lawncrapper or a Swine would probably have been boring. As it is, a movie about two problematic extremities of a changing hobby almost certainly made for better cinema, albeit incomplete commentary.


Currently Smoking: Lorenzetti Solitario Poker + Rattray's Marlin Flake

Thursday, 24 October 2013

Raiders of R'lyeh: Arkham Occult Societies First Update

So, I've now started to really in-earnest work on the upcoming sourcebook I'll be doing for Raiders of R'lyeh.  Its a sourcebook about occultist groups in Arkham, and it was originally going to be an exclusive bonus for backers, though its theoretically possible that at some point it might become available to other interested parties who missed the boat on that one.

Here's what its NOT going to be: Its not going to be a collection of Mythos Cults.  I think there's plenty of those already, and that's the kind of thing a clever GM (or "Keeper" if you prefer) will be able to come up with on his own.  Not that there won't be any Mythos stuff at all in it, there will be, it'll be touched on in just about every entry; its just not the "star of the show" in this case.  Rather, the book is going to be a descriptive list of different organizations and personalities in the occult world of Arkham circa 1910, most of which will be entirely original and not from existing Lovecraftian canon; so Keepers will be able to do what they like, and cherrypick what they want to focus on.  These groups will be running the gamut from occult-frauds and hucksters to "mainstream" groups from the larger world of occultism (Freemasons, Theosophy, etc) to dudes (or dames) that are positively weird in some way or another.

And right now, I have to say I've had a very fun time working on designing Arkham's own Masonic Lodge: "Miskatonic River Lodge #76", of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts A.F. & A.M.
There will be quite a few interesting characters in it, as well as details about Freemasonry in general and its place in Arkham's society.

So stay tuned for more details about what other groups and individuals will be appearing in this book; I can guarantee that for a relatively short sourcebook, its going to be jam-packed with usable stuff for Raiders or for any Mythos-themed RPG.


Currently Smoking: Neerup Egg + Rattray's Accountant's Mixture

Wednesday, 23 October 2013

List of Gonzo DCC Campaign Stuff!

So this weekend we played our periodic DCC game (its been once a month the last few months, but we might start doing it fortnightly for the next while).  Its one of my favorite games, because its the one The Wench plays in, because we run it in English, because we always eat great in that session (between the Wench and Rafa, who are both amazing cooks/foodies), and because DCC fucking rocks.

Anyways, in this session we saw:

-a vengeful hipster-elf in a giant robot

-a 'control collar' for use with wild zombies and/or potential store-thieves.

-a herd of giant Great Plains Snails

-an ancient crashed spaceship of the Pithian Knights

-a pair of Killer Androids.

-a rare ancient "Papers and Paychecks" gaming manual

Anyways, it was great fun; and I'll note that in true Gonzo spirit I was, in addition to the DCC manual, using (this session): the AD&D 1e DMG, the AD&D 1e Monster Manual, Hulks & Horrors, the Adventures Dark & Deep Gamemaster's Toolkit, and Vornheim.

No doubt, more reports like this forthcoming.


Currently Smoking: Raleigh Hawkbill + Image Perique

Tuesday, 22 October 2013

RPGPundit Reviews: Age of Treason: The Iron Simulacrum

RPGPundit Reviews: Age of Treason: The Iron Simulacrum



















Currently Smoking: Ben Wade Canadian + Image Latakia


Monday, 21 October 2013

Un-Cracked Monday

Today, I thought I'd take a second to show you a funny set of blog posts where someone named mightygodking has photoshopped fantasy novels of their (our) youth to reflect a more accurate portrayal of their content.  Be sure to pick up part 2 and 3!


Currently Smoking: Stanwell

Sunday, 20 October 2013












Currently Smoking: Lorenzetti Tempesta Apple + Argento Latakia

Saturday, 19 October 2013

Breaking Good

So a funny thing happens when you spend 10 years living in South America.  And indeed, this week is the 10th anniversary of my arrival here.

The funny thing that happens is that you start to totally lose touch with North American culture.  Of course, a large part of that culture comes to south america anyways, secondhand. But only some things, and sometimes late, and sometimes in different ways.  Geek culture usually isn't a problem, because geeks here go out of their way to find everything new, so we have Doctor Who and Game of Thrones and Star Trek and the rest here, even if Doctor Who isn't on TV (or wasn't until very lately) and Star Trek doesn't get into cinemas.

But other things get here late or not at all.  Its part of the reason why when the Wench and I watch Saturday Night Live we no longer recognize any of the musical guests, and 4 times out of 10 we don't recognize the main host.

So its possible for us that we could only have learned about Breaking Bad with all the news of its ending.   Even though its six years old, the Wench and I have only just started to watch it now.

And its fucking good.

But then, you knew that already.


Currently Smoking: Lorenzetti Oversize + H&H Beverwyck

Friday, 18 October 2013

An analysis of the Conservative Paradigm

Today I was going to write something about comparing Lords of Olympus to Lords of Gossamer and Shadow, but I found myself distracted by an article, and especially commentary about the article.  The article was about how the head of the conservative lobby group Freedomworks said that "Obamacare" is bad because insurers should just charge the seriously ill more rather than expect healthy people to have to pay more to cover the chronically ill.  In the interview he also stated that while he doesn't think its the fault of someone born with a congenital illness, he feels that they should get help from "loved ones, family, a church, a neighbourhood", and said that the expectation to pay for universal healthcare makes people slaves.

Interesting. It was the comments on G+, however, that got me interested; wave after wave of liberal posters expressing outrage and disbelief, not being able to understand how conservatives could be such "monsters", and general confusion of how anyone could think like that!  The thing is, I think that a lot of liberals out there really literally don't understand how conservatives think, because there is such a huge paradigm clash.   The brainwashing of either group is so different, it starts from such different logical assumptions, such different memes about what's good or what's bad, that the liberals can only see the conservative viewpoint as that of "monsters" and vice-versa.

So, as a magician who has transcended the bondage of paradigms, to the point that I regularly get accused of being a fascist reactionary by liberals and of being a marxist scumbag by conservatives, and more importantly to the point that I can see just how badly you both suck ass in the ways you let paradigm overrule pragmatic reality, please allow me try to educate you liberals out there on how the Conservative paradigm works, vis a vis health care as our case-study:

To explain the conservative mindset, by which I really mean in this case the U.S. conservative protestant mindset: they view personal and community charity as laudable, and state-imposed charity as not.  The reason why they say things like the above without thinking themselves monsters is the same reason why they also vastly outstrip self-described liberals in terms of charitable donations per capita. 
That is to say, they believe that charity should be voluntary and based on a community, and not obligatory and imposed by a government.

Why? What's the difference to them?

First of all, there is the view that charity is one of the most important 'christian' virtues; and that it becomes meaningless if the option to give or not give is taken away from you through state-imposed welfare systems.  If everyone HAS to give it doesn't "mean anything" to them, because the point isn't so much about making sure everyone gets helped (see below) as it is about making sure the GIVER has the opportunity to make a free-will choice to do something spiritually laudable.
Or to put it in simpler terms: yes you care for the person you're giving to but you're not really doing it FOR them. You're doing it for Jesus. And for that to matter, it has to be YOU who makes the choice, and you can also make the choice NOT to give.  Government-imposed health care taxes take away that option (I mean, you can give more on top of your taxes, and again, conservatives DO give charitably WAY more than liberals do; but you can't "not give" anymore; you can't decide that someone deserves your charity or doesn't, instead someone else takes your money and decides for you).

Secondly,  its about "fairness".  Just as liberals have an almost insane obsession with "equal" (and more recently, with "tolerant"), conservatives have an almost insane obsession with "fair"; which in both cases can lead to some pretty absurd extremes that tend to defeat the purpose.
A liberal might think that the "fair" thing would be for everyone in the country to have basic access to medical services (but that's because they're confusing 'fair' with "equal").  But to a conservative, that's just not the case; because its not "fair" that some people have to work hard only to have their hard-earned dollars taken away from them by the government while some deadbeat who does nothing is allowed to get free medical treatment (that he "doesn't deserve", see below) without doing anything to earn it.  Its "unfair" in that the right to property is sacrosanct, and the government is confiscating our property (money) to give it away to other people. 
Now, if you actually sit down and talk to a conservative, they will be quite ready to admit that of course there are cases of people who work very hard with more than one job and still couldn't possibly afford health coverage in America's fucked-up system. They would also admit that of course there are also people (little kids, the elderly, those who are disabled through no fault of their own rather than by "lifestyle choices") that really need health care, and that are in no way just "deadbeats".  That's why they argue for the need for community to step up.  But accepting the reality of those peoples' existence does not preclude the bigger issue that they know there ARE people out there taking "UNFAIR" advantage of the system.  And that's intolerable.  Because just like a liberal will generally, when pushed to the wall, claim that its would be better for a large number of people to be unable to achieve their full potential (and thus be harmed in the process) than any one person be treated unequally, so too will a conservative claim that it would be better for a large group of people fail to get medical treatment than for even ONE willfully deadbeat slacker to get free money (in the form of healthcare) from their pockets "unfairly".

That sounds callous, but again, the point a conservative would make is that it shouldn't be the government's business to give health care in the first place; that should be up to the FAMILY, the CHURCH, and the COMMUNITY.  Why? Why are those better? Because, they will tell you, those institutions do not give out their services "equally" like some deranged marxist; they are able to Judge who "deserves it".

There, our last point: it is inherently part of the point for conservatives that health-care in the hands of family, church or community would NOT reach everyone. That, to them, is ultimately a good thing.

Because those institutions Judge.  They don't allow for "deadbeats", they're "fair" in that they will help those who really need it and cast out those who don't "deserve" it.  People without a family, or a church, or outside of a community, are immediately suspect because they are not under the supervision of the pillars of tradition that ensure compliance to societal norms.  A conservative will very strongly agree that the community (including the churches) needs to make certain that it stretches out far and wide to make sure it can help anyone who "really needs" it, they have no problem with that; but again the point is that by default if you do not have a strong social network within a church and community and find yourself helpless because of that the question is WHY were you not within these institutions in the first place? What was wrong with you that you had no church, no family, and no community around you to give you charity in your time of need? Accidental isolation can sometimes happen but a lot of the time, a conservative would guess, it was that you did something to DESERVE being ostracized, that you are in some way in violation of society's norms, and therefore do not deserve society's protections.  Just as it would be "unfair" for taxpayer's money being used to fund deadbeats, it is also only "fair" that if you make "lifestyle choices" that don't keep you centered within the norms of society, then you made your choice to be a "weirdo" of some kind and probably haven't "earned" the right to be helped by the community.  If something bad happens to you, you probably "deserve" to not get help, because you chose to not be part of the "normal" society that you're now demanding help from.

And that, liberal ladies and gentlemen, is how the conservative paradigm works, and why they can say these things and feel morally justified.

Tread carefully now,  or I might just have to do a liberal version next.


Currently Smoking: Lorenzetti Egg + Brebbia no.7 mixture

Thursday, 17 October 2013

Cultural Diversity in RPGs

Cultural Diversity in RPGs

There has been a lot of talk lately about cultural diversity in RPGs, specifically about both artwork and depictions of characters in the setting text; with people demanding that out of politically correct motives there should be more ethnic diversity in roleplaying games.


I don’t care how much the Tangencites call me a racist, or pressure me to include white people, claim that I’m speaking from a position of “east indian privilege” or that its “subtle racism” to suggest that just because there weren’t actually any white europeans in the Mahabharata that’s a good excuse not to have them in a game based on the selfsame concept. Their absurd arguments about how this is a “fantasy setting” and that my refusal to budge on this issue while I do include many other anachronisms is clearly a sign of my extreme prejudice against whites will fall on deaf ears.

I don’t care how racist it may seem to some. If it makes me unpopular on Tangency, so be it.  In order to honor my setting and maintain a sense of credibility, I can’t have white people in it.

Well, there’s “whiter” people and “darker” people in it… yakshas are gold-skinned, and there’s Pandu, who’s a pretty unnaturally pale guy.  But those aren’t really actual white people, and I’m not trying to use them as a substitute so don’t go around accusing me of that either.  And before anyone mentions it: NO, just because Pandu is a very pale-skinned guy who is kind of a fuckup and gets himself cursed in a really stupid way and then dies young setting the grounds for a divisive war of succession that would bring all of Bharatan civilization crashing down; it does not mean that I’m making him symbolic of white people nor am I suggesting that all white people are kind of fuckups who piss off mystics and then get magically cursed and die from having sex leaving defenseless sons to the mercy of their blind uncles and evil cousins who want to usurp the throne (that should probably be theirs by right anyways, because the uncle was the elder son who was denied the throne only because of his blindness). Its just a fantasy story! I’m not implying that all white people are somehow like Pandu, and if you think that, its pretty clear that you are the one who has a pretty warped set of perceptions.

Shit, some of my best friends are white people. I have nothing against them. But I just don’t feel like some politically correct asshole should be able to FORCE me to include them in my RPG setting, just for “ethnic diversity” for its own sake.

I mention a distant kingdom of southeast asians… does that help?

Anyways, to conclude:I’m not a racist; but I won’t budge. No White People in Arrows of Indra.  If that makes me unpopular, so be it, but somehow I trust that white people who game will care more about whether its a really good game (which it will be) than about whether or not there’s a white person on the cover, or a kingdom of white people in the book.  I think that gamers are gamers first, and that gamers of all stripes are interested in the same thing: that the game be awesome.  That’s why lame, prefabricated PC-settings where “diversity” is more important than the setting actually making sense, or kicking ass, tend to do rather poorly.  And why I feel fairly certain that white people will buy Arrows of Indra even if they don’t feel “represented” by the skin colour of the characters in the setting. They’ll still relate to the characters and peoples in the setting of Jagat as adventurers, rogues, heroes, kings, merchants, priests, magicians, soldiers, people with families, people with duties, dark secrets, problems, struggles, all the things of the human condition.  I don’t think you have to be East Indian to feel a connection to the setting, because regardless of skin colour the setting is a human setting. Whether its the Mahabharata, the Iliad, the Arthurian legends, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, or Game of Thrones.  We all get this stuff.


Currently Smoking: Raleigh Jopo + Dunhill 965

(originally posted April 18, 2012; in the old blog)

Wednesday, 16 October 2013

Arrows of Indra: Vanara









Currently Smoking: Ben Wade Canadian + Image Latakia

Tuesday, 15 October 2013

Lords of Olympus Q&A

This is the revival of the Lords of Olympus Q&A series; what with the new blog, I figure we ought to let people know about it again. 

The rules are simple: if you have a question about LoO, then please post it in this thread on the theRPGsite, the home of the OFFICIAL Amber DRPG, Erick Wujcik, and Lords of Olympus Forum! Remember, its the only official Amber RPG fan-forum that was authorized by Erick Wujcik himself (who was a moderator there until his untimely death).

Any question you post to the thread above will be answered within a week's time by yours truly, and will be summarized here on my blog on a regular basis.

So, on to the questions:

Q: "I'm studying the game and preparing to run it in some week.
My first question: you stated that "Olympian Magic and Primordial Magic function in every world"; am I correct in deducing that Ineffable Names, Elementalism, Enchantment and  Glamour don't work in some world?
PS It's a good game, RPGPundit!"

A: thank you!  And yes, your deduction is correct; while each of those other powers will usually work (at variable levels of strength) in different worlds, they will not necessarily work in all worlds.  Those several powers are meant to be the most significant cross-world powers available.
Note that this also means that there can be other powers that only work in one or two worlds; there are power-creation rules available in the LoO rulebook; though in some cases the GM might wish to have these powers available through role-play rather than point-buy.  In any case, the powers listed in the rulebook are those that are generally functional to some degree in the vast majority of worlds/realms.

Q: "Another question about the naga example: when our hero switch to Prowess to hit the neck of the naga, the naga too has to switch to bite and so has to loosen the grip?"

A: Actually, you will note in the combat example that I mention that the Naga continues to squeeze the hero in its grip; because it is using two different "appendages" (for lack of a better term), squeezing with its coils while trying to strike at him with its head, it can continue to use might to squeeze the hero while using prowess to try to bite at him; this is only possible because the PC has given the naga the opportunity to strike at him by letting go of the naga's head in order to try to strike at it.  The point of the example is that trying to switch abilities is an often dangerous move, and that the GM should be very careful to make sure that a) the ability can be switched, and b) that what the PC is attempting would really be governed by the new ability and not the old one.  Remember, in the example "Brett" first asks the GM if he can headbutt the Naga with Prowess, and the GM rules that in this case the headbutt would still be Might; "Brett" was trying to get to switch to his better ability without having to take any risk on his part.  Of course, its not that any switch MUST involve risk, just that it often does.
A lot of this is just common sense: the naga can try to bite even while it keeps squeezing, so it makes sense that it be able to do both.

That's it for today!  Please feel free to write with any LoO questions!


Currently Smoking: Castello 4K Collection Canadian + Image Latakia

Monday, 14 October 2013

UNcracked Monday

Today, I'm off to attend a friend's civil wedding, at an ungodly early hour. Here in Uruguay you have to be married at the "civil registry" (Uruguay is a strictly secular country, and religious weddings do not count legally speaking, and technically cannot even take place without the civil registry wedding first); and this is often a problem on account of the massively incompetent and uncaring bureaucracy of Uruguay's civil service.  They randomly assign you a date and hour, which can often make it very difficult for your friends or family to attend (as its almost always on a weekday and during working hours); and this is if the whole thing isn't shut down due to union strike actions (as indeed, my wedding to The Wench nearly was).  Its a profoundly shitty system.

Anyways, for today's post, I present you a very good article about the influence of Aleister Crowley on modern society!


Currently Smoking: Dunhill Shell Diplomat + C&D's Crowley's Best

Sunday, 13 October 2013

Golden Age Campaign Update

So last night, the PCs got to go to Jolly Olde England for the first time in the campaign; of course, wartime England wasn't all that jolly, and they went there to team up with the Seven Soldiers of Victory, and with MI6 Master Spy Ian Fleming, to stop a vicious saboteur supervillain called the Iron Hand:


The PCs helped stop him from destroying several important London institutions, and then flew back home escorted by the Blackhawks.  It was a fun adventure.


Currently Smoking: Lorenzetti Stanze + Rattray's Accountant's mix 

Saturday, 12 October 2013

RPGPundit Reviews: The Rustbelt

RPGPundit Reviews: The Rustbelt






























Currently Smoking: Stanwell compact + Image Latakia
