Culture: Code of Hammurabi (1754 BC)

Law is a cornerstone of civilization.  So, this week I wanted to give a shout out to one of the oldest and most influential law texts of all time, the Code of Hammurabi:

Officially consisting of 282 laws (although there is no 13th Law because, then as now, the number 13 was considered to be unlucky), the Code of Hammurabi is a monumental achievement.  Not only is the Code both one of the earliest forms of law and one of the earliest examples of lengthy writing, it stands for the notion that human behavior should be regulated with justice and fairness (for example, the Code contains one of the earliest examples of the presumption of innocence), although Babylonian notions of "justice" and "fairness" were different from modern views.

In addition, the Code supported the notion that the law is meant to be open and accessible: the Code was written in Akkadian, the daily language of Babylon, and was inscribed on a stele and placed out in public, so any literate person could read it.   Over half of the Code covers commercial transactions, and a third deals with family matters but the text is far ranging and it also is one of the earliest examples of a fundamental law (i.e., a constitution).  

Named after the great Babylonian king who extended Babylon's control throughout Mesopotamia, the Code of Hammurabi was enacted because Hammurabi had conquered many disparate peoples and wanted to have a uniform set of laws to help administer and unify his new empire.

One of the most famous (and misunderstood) laws in the Code is #196: "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye."  However, the purpose of the law was to *RESTRICT* compensation to the value of the loss.  Thus, it is more accurately read as "only one eye for one eye."

My favorite law from the Code is #5:

If a judge try a case, reach a decision, and present his judgment in writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judge's bench, and never again shall he sit there to render judgement.

Government accountability is always a good thing.

Written nearly four millennia ago, the Code of Hammurabi has long since passed into the public domain and several English-language translations can be found here.

RPG Design: Tactical Depth

The primary way in which RPGs differ from make believe (and other story games) is that the participant's creativity is harnessed and channeled via rules (aka the mechanics of a game).  This week, I wanted to talk about one of the most important (but sometimes overlooked or misunderstood) considerations for a tabletop RPG's mechanics: Tactical Depth.

Not a lot of Tactical Depth

By "Tactical Depth," I mean the relative number and types of meaningfully different options available to PCs that can change the state of the game, both in and out of combat.  More specifically, as elegantly stated by Brian Gleichman, there are three major elements of tactical game design:

• Resource Management

In order for a game to be "Tactical," at least some resources need to be limited, whether they are hit points, spells, or even time (this is the reason why tracking time is important for a certain style of Old School play).  For example, in D&D, the more time one spends searching a room, the greater the risk of encountering wandering monsters.

The need to manage resources creates tactical decisions, namely "Where do I spend my resources, and for what benefit?"

• Dissimilar Assets

A game becomes more "Tactical" when the players have more options available to solve in-game problems.  For example, a PC can open a door with either a lock pick, spell or brute force.

On the other hand, when there are less choices or all choices lead to the same outcome, a game has less tactical depth.  For example, in Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974), all weapons did 1d6 damage, making OD&D less tactical than the later editions.

Furthermore, the element of Dissimilar Assets plays out at both the party and at the individual level.  Here, the composition of the party in games where PCs have better defined niches is more tactical because niche protection creates more distinct tools to solve problems.  By contrast, when PCs are more generic, such as 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons (where every PC has healing surges and spell-like powers), this element of tactical play becomes more shallow.

• Maneuver

As Messr Gleichman notes, Maneuver means "getting the right resources into the right position at the right time in order to maximize your chance of success while protecting against the same from your opponent."

A game becomes more "Tactical" as Maneuver increasingly affects mechanical resolution (e.g., movement, facing (front v. flank v. rear), range, terrain, environment, etc.).  By contrast, more abstract (and often lighter) games result in less tactical depth, particularly if they are mapless (i.e., theater of the mind).

So why exactly is Tactical Depth important for RPGs?  YMMV, but for most people having meaningfully different options that can change the state of the game goes to the heart of playing a "game" (and a fundamental part of the fun).

For example, Dungeon Squad 2 (2016) is a very fast, very light roleplaying game "designed for youngsters with powerful ambition but short attention spans."  However, this game is so light (it's markedly less tactical than even the original Dungeon Squad) that it can scarcely be called an RPG: it has almost nothing in the way of the three major elements of Tactical Depth (i.e., there's very little in the way of resource management, there's very little practical difference between Hero and Rascal, and there's no maneuver).  In actual play, the mechanics feel little different from flipping a coin.  Consequently, Dungeon Squad 2 is really more a story game than an RPG.

By contrast, GURPS (Generic Universal RolePlaying System) (1986) is highly tactical (especially if you play with the optional rules), with emphasis on all three major elements of Tactical Depth.  However, very tactically deep games are not for everyone, both from a flavor and from a mental investment perspective.  For example, Chess is intensely tactical but that required depth of tactical thought is a turn off for many board gamers.

In addition, RPGs may be deep in some of major elements of Tactical Depth but not others.  Some RPGs may even eliminate major elements of Tactical Depth.  For example, Barbarians of Lemuria (2008) has pretty much no element of Maneuver.  (I would argue, however, that if a game eliminates all three major elements of Tactical Depth, it is in fact a story game rather than an RPG).

Arguably the greatest real life example of Maneuver

For Sorcery & Steel, my rules set, as with its Core Mechanic, I've tried to retain approximately the same Tactical Depth as its Old School roots (noticeable Resource Management and Dissimilar Assets combined with mechanically significant Maneuver) to produce similar flavor whilst playing.  Again, I want to keep its DNA recognizable while fulfilling my other design goals.

Movie Review: Red Sonja (1985)

This week, I wanted to give a shout out to a fun, if flawed, Swords & Sorcery romp that I watched many times on VHS when I was younger, "Red Sonja":

In this film, our titular character (played by newcomer Brigitte Nielsen) out is out to stop evil Queen Gedren (played by Sandahl Bergman), before the latter uses a powerful artifact of dark sorcery to destroy the world by flood and earthquake.  Sonja and Gedren have history: Sonja rejected Gedren's advances, so the Queen had Sonja raped and most of her family murdered.

Years later, after a magical spirit gives Sonja great sword fighting skills by and she receives training from a sword master to hone those skills, she finds that Gedren has also murdered her sister, a priestess guarding the Talisman (the aforementioned artifact of dark sorcery), whilst stealing the Talisman.  So, the Red One sets out to seek bloody vengeance (and also to save the world).

Along the way, she forms a motley party of adventurers (including Arnold Schwarzenegger playing a Conan the Barbarian expy), carves up anyone who stands in her way, and learns that not all men are evil.

This film has many, many drawbacks: Richard Fleischer, who directed "Conan the Destroyer" (1984), also helms this flick and "Red Sonja" shares many of the same problems, such as the dull direction, the significant departure from the dark, brooding, serious style of adult fantasy of "Conan the Barbarian" (1982), the weak story and lack of tension, the uninspired soundtrack, the cheap laughs, etc.

There is also plenty of bad acting and dialogue, such as this classic line:

Gedren... Where are youuuu?

Sandahl Bergman, who was supposed to be Sonja but declined, does a decent job of chewing scenery as the villain but Arnold mostly sleepwalks through completing his contractual obligations.

Speaking of which, as the third in Arnold's barbarian trilogy, this film was meant to be another Conan film but the producers ran into problems when they lost the rights to that character.  So, instead, they decided to change the main character.  Based on the character Red Sonya of Rogatino, Robert E. Howard's short story "The Shadow of the Vulture" (1934), Red Sonja is a swashbucking warrior woman popularized by Marvel Comics and set in R. E. Howard's Hyborian Age (also home to Conan the Barbarian).

Anyway, IMHO, "Red Sonja" is still fun if you take it for what it is, a lean 80s Action flick with 65 on screen murders, including the decapitation of the hapless sorcerer and one dude getting crushed to death.  The action choreography is mostly decent to good and the costume and production design (except for the Killing Machine, which was laughable even in the '80s) are excellent.

Indeed, I actually rate "Red Sonja" above "Conan the Destroyer," which I found to be rather dull.    "Red Sonja" is faster paced and filled with more action.  Queen Gedren is batshit insane and is at least funnier than the evil queen in "Conan the Destroyer".  And the kid sidekick (Prince Tarn) is way less annoying than Malak the Thief, actually has a character arc and proves to eventually be brave and useful.

Also, there's nothing really silly in "Red Sonja" on par with Zula (played by Grace Jones) wearing a tail or Andre the Giant in a rubber monster costume.

So, if you have some spare time and you're a fan of Swords & Sorcery, you could definitely do worse than spend 90 minutes back in the days of yore, when women were women and men mostly met the business end of Red Sonja's blade!

RPG Game Play: Finding Players

A few months ago, I discussed the importance of the group putting a "social contract" in place, preferably before play begins.  However, before you can have a "social contract" for your game, you need players.  So, this week, I wanted to focus on an issue that affects every game and every table: Finding Players.

This discussion is inspired by a recent conversation and assumes the point of view of a game master.

Being the game master is great fun for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that you get to pick the game you want to play.  However, it's an obvious condition precedent to gaming that you first need to get other people who buy in to your idea for a game or campaign.  Indeed, more than a few campaigns have stalled, collapsed, or not even gotten off the ground due to a lack of players.  Moreover, even if you already have a group, this is something you should still think about recruiting more players because most, if not all, groups suffer constant attrition from the vagaries of life (e.g., new job, new school, changed life circumstances, etc.).

Finding players is a question of marketing, so before you even start looking for players, it behooves you put together a winning pitch to sell your campaign.

When putting together a pitch, you should be able to describe what kind of game you want to run in a short, clear, and engaging manner.  Prospective players should be able to quickly understand what you want to do in a way that (hopefully) fires up the imagination.  For example, I'm currently recruiting for a second concurrent Sorcery & Steel campaign and I pitch it as "Wander the eastern Mediterranean in a tramp freighter during classical Antiquity" or "Traveller/Firefly meets old D&D."

If you are able to interest someone with the pitch, you should have additional details (e.g., Play Location/Method, Game/System, Time/Frequency, etc.) ready.  Don't be discouraged if you don't hook people right away, though if you are having difficulty, perhaps you need to hone your pitch.

Once you have your pitch down, where do you pitch?  Roleplaying is a collaborative form of storytelling, so you need to find collaborators.  To that end, work your social networks, both offline (e.g., friends, family, co-workers, etc.) and online (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.).  Don't forget corkboards at your local friendly gaming store (if your town has one), library, etc.

There are also recruiting forums at most online RPG communities and other websites (e.g., Craigslist).  However, the best results I've gotten are from Meetup.com.

Assuming you have the luxury of enough players for your campaign, I like to vet players as much as possible before allowing them to join and sites like Meetup are good because if someone volunteers information about themselves, that's a good sign.  If that information matches your playstyles and other preferences, even better!

Good players are worth their weight in gold, while disruptive players can quickly make things unfun for everyone else, so the time you invest here is more than worth it.  Best of luck!

Video Game Review: "Dark Heart of Uukrul" (1989)

This week, I wanted to give a shout out to another overlooked CRPG gem from yesteryear, "Dark Heart of Uukrul":

"Dark Heart of Uukrul" is an Old School dungeon crawling CRPG where you play a party of adventurers (Fighter, Paladin, Priest and Magician) exploring the underground city of Eriosthe.  Not only must you survive and level up, but your ultimate goal is to figure out a way to defeat the eponymous dark lord.

Reminiscent of Ultima IV's innovative character creation, the computer asks a series of questions to determine your beginning stats.  Thus, each PC reflects their attitude and experience.  Additionally, within each class, there are subclasses, but what, if any, effect a subclass has upon the game is not explained, nor can it be easily deduced.

Indeed, this lack of information also shows up in other parts of the game.  Sometimes, this is a problem.  For example, no stats are given for items so finding out what they do is a process of trial-and-error.  Sometimes, this adds additional flavor and/or challenge.  For example, a particular sprite in combat can be several different creatures, so the player doesn't initially know what he's fighting until battle begins in earnest.   Old School!

Often compared unfavorably to the contemporary and well-loved Gold Box series of CRPGs (e.g., Pool of Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonds, etc.), based on 1st edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, "Dark Heart of Uukrul" also uses a third person view for exploration and a top down view for combat.  In addition, like most CRPGs, "Dark Heart of Uukrul" uses a class/level system.  However, the similarities stop there.

Written by Ian Boswell and Martin Buis, a couple of comp sci students from New Zealand, Uukrul was a fresh perspective on CRPGs that placed a much stronger emphasis on player skill and creativity rather than combat, making it more akin to Zork and other text adventures.  As Boswell notes:

"[W]e did set out to make the game memorable, and the things the player remembers most are solving challenges, not hacking up monsters. It’s the puzzles and the plot that people remember. Both Martin and I were fond of puzzles and intellectual challenges, so we imbedded some of our favourites into the game, and created new ones of our own. The very best puzzles, I find, are ones where you see the pieces, but the “big picture” is hidden from view until you put the pieces together the right way, and then the logic dawns on you and everything makes sense."

As a result, although overshadowed by the Gold Box series, IMHO "Dark Heart of Uukrul" actually does a better job of emulating the feel of an Old School dungeon crawl, where thinking your way out of jams is more important that fighting your way out.

Speaking of dungeon crawling, Eriosthe is enormous (in today's parlance it is a megadungeon) with passages and rooms that seem to stretch out for ages.  The dungeon design is excellent, pushing the player to think.  Fortunately, there's an excellent automapping function.

Furthermore, in the best Old School tradition, you feel a real sense of dread and foreboding and you're always gambling whether to push forward or to fall back and recoup your strength because you have no idea what the heck might show up.  Speaking of which, there's still plenty of fighting to be had.

It's good that the exploration phase of the game is strong because combat is lacking for several reasons.  Firstly, although PCs can move diagonally (if there is space), they can only attack orthogonally, which leads to some strange situations.  Secondly, there are NO RANGED WEAPONS!  Consequently, your ranged offense is entirely limited to magical attacks from your Priest and Magician.  Thirdly, there are no sounds in the game.  While this actually helps in the exploration phase of the game (there are short well-written statements which add to the atmosphere), in combat the absence is noticeable.

Not known for fantasy games, Brøderbund commissioned and published "Dark Heart of Uukrul" to cash in on the popularity of CRPGs such as Wizardry and Ultima.  However, the game was a commercial failure with only 5000 sales (of which I was one).  Nevertheless, something of a cult following has developed over the years.

This is another game that isn't for everyone but if you are looking for a challenging dungeon crawler in the best Old School tradition and if you are willing overlook its shortcomings, "Dark Heart of Uukrul" just might be right for you.

RPG Design: Proficiencies v. Feats

This week, I wanted to compare and contrast two mechanics from different editions of Dungeons & Dragons used in character creation  and development: Proficiencies v. Feats.

By "proficiencies," I'm referring weapon proficiencies in the 1st and 2nd editions of AD&D, which determined how well a PC used particular weapons.  There were also non-weapon proficiencies, but they operated rather differently and are outside the scope of this discussion.

Weapon proficiencies were a significant departure from the approach of Original Dungeons & Dragons and the Basic lines.  In those versions, all classes could, by default, use all permissible weapons without penalty.  So, for example, a Cleric could wield a Mace, Hammer, Flail, Club or Staff equally well from the start.  By contrast, in AD&D1 and AD&D2, a 1st level Cleric was only proficient in two permissible weapons and had a -3 To-Hit penalty when using the others.

I understand why some people are unhappy about the change.  However, the reason that I've adopted weapon proficiencies for my rules set, Sorcery & Steel, is because of a further development in Unearthed Arcana (1985), namely Weapon Specialization, which allowed Fighters to invest additional weapon proficiencies for additional bonuses.  This is one of the few things that I liked from UA.

While I allow all classes to Weapon Specialize and to go beyond Double Specialization, I use this mechanic to make Fighters pop as a class,  since they have the most weapon proficiencies to invest.  This makes them clearly the best at general combat at higher levels.  Conversely, I also use weapon proficiencies to make Magic-Users both tougher and more versatile at lower levels, by giving them many more initial weapon proficiencies and many more additional weapon proficiencies as they level.

Only one starting weapon proficiency?

Since their introduction in 3rd edition D&D (2000), feats are a markedly different way to improve and customize PCs: feats are much broader than proficiencies and can give a character many different kinds of special capabilities (e.g., Deft Hands, Enlarge Spell, Investigator, etc.).  I feel the addition of feats reflects the influence of computer RPGs, such as the all-time great Fallout (1997), whose Perks grant also special effects, most of which are not obtainable via the normal level up system.

Feats are also one of the mechanics that shifted the power level of 3rd edition D&D from heroic to super heroic.

Some people liked this shift.  However, it does add to the GM's burden and the increased power level for a D&D-type game breaks verisimilitude for me.

Feats also don't work as well at the tabletop because of the additional complexity since this adds a layer of number crunching on top of the skill system and since some feats add additional subsystems.  Additionally, many feats are linked together into feat trees but not all feat trees are equal.  So, this incentivizes players to spend hours pouring over long lists of feats to find optimal combinations.

This also encourages players to plan their PCs levels in advance.  Some people like this mini-game.  However, my tastes run toward faster and more casual gameplay.

Movie Review: Ninja Scroll (1993)

[NB- this post is a slightly revised version of one that I published earlier]

This week, I wanted to give a shout out to I wanted to give a shout out to my favorite animated film of all time, Ninja Scroll:

Better known in its native Japan as "獣兵衛忍風帖," Ninja Scroll is a stunning accomplishment.  Visually breathtaking, with a dark, twisted mystery and a tough-as-nails protagonist that would make Raymond Chandler proud and filled with explosive action, rich details, a wry sense of humor and interesting characters, this is a great story.  Full stop.

The plot follows wandering adventurer Kimagabei Jubei (牙神 獣兵衛), as he inadvertently becomes embroiled in a plot by an old enemy that will determine the fate of Japan.  Ninja Scroll has ninjas, samurai, super spies, demons, dark sorcery, and even pirates (sort of).  The only thing it doesn't have is a scroll.

As far as I can tell, that's the ONLY problem with Ninja Scroll.  Blending fiction and historical fact, the film is set in a well realized Fantasy Japan that's logical and internally consistent.  This logical bent extends to the superb character design, where the characters' skills and abilities make internal sense, are consistent, and sometimes take the story in unexpected directions.  Furthermore, the characters' flaws and foibles make them three-dimensional and relatable and also take the story in unexpected directions as well.

Writer/Director Kawajiri Yoshiaki's (川尻 善昭) attention to detail is outstanding and pays off in really inventive ways, such as the wire connected to Jubei's sword.  Also, the various plots within plots would make Frank Herbert proud.

Even if characters and the story were dumb (which, thankfully, is not the case), the fight scenes themselves are worth the price of admission.  As Jubei and his unexpected companions, Kagero and Dakuan, battle the Eight Devils of Kimon (鬼門八人衆), combat features gory splatterfests, chess-like strategy, clever misdirection and just about everything in between.  Jubei may be  a master swordsman and ninja, but the Devils of Kimon have him clearly outgunned and our reluctant hero only manages to triumph through various combinations of trickery, teamwork and luck.  Fight choreography is uniformly excellent.

As fair warning, Ninja Scroll does feature more than a little graphic sexual content, but such is part of the story and never simply for the cheesecake factor.  Personally, I think it adds to the sense of this bold, no-holds barred style of storytelling.

I've loved this movie to bits ever since it was released on VHS.  And the quality of the art and the story is such that it still holds up well after more than two decades.  Truly a masterwork!