minidota 1.03 open version

As always, tenletter gets to hear of developments in the land of miniDotA

…the open version of miniDotA 1.03 is now released – meaning if there are any Warcraft programmers out there that would like to use a DotA-esque environment to do development, balance testing or demoing, then this map is for you. The open version is full-featured like the closed version, with two major differences: no DotA heroes are included (only 9 custom heroes); and the map is unprotected, meaning it is easy to load the map into WorldEditor and create your own ideas.

JASS knowledge (the Warcraft programming language) is helpful, but not essential.

me three

yip i’m joining the fray :p

• What’s your thought process when creating a character for a setting?

i tend to think along the lines of what to do, do i want tricks or hits……..i think this makes me someone that considers build first……..the reason why she’s adventuring also tends to feature in the build

• Given that you’ve formulated your character, do you come into a game with any set expectations as to how your character should ideally progress in terms of storyline and stats?

i’ve learnt to only come into the game with one expectation………..that my character lives to see the next session

• How do you feel about being given narrative  focus, or the ability to steer the plot towards a direction of your choosing?  Would that be onerous to you or would you prefer it?

being able to steer the story through my actions is the way i like to roll………..the pc’s actions must have consequences, why else would you play?

• Would you prefer to be a Leader or a Follower (or some other  role) in terms of Party Dynamics?

hmmm it depends on the situation, but being the hero is all good

• What’s your favorite in-character gaming moment, and why?

hmmm i don’t really have a favourite moment, i have many moments that i enjoyed instead

me too

Following j’s sterling example, here’s my take on the interview.  (Warning, Archon felling will be mentioned again.)

What’s your thought process when creating a character for a setting?

I tend to spot either a specific mechanic or specific concept (e.g. sneak-attack or stealthy, unexpected attacking) then grow a (usually quite specialized) hero around it. Also I favor melee/martial types over the more mundane magico-caster types.

Given that you’ve formulated your character, do you come into a game with any set expectations as to how your character should ideally progress in terms of storyline and stats?

As I tend to be tied quite closely to mechanical aspects of my character it follows that I have clear ideas on how the character should progress.

That said, I’d love to play a setting where it isn’t guaranteed that particular options are available to my hero – instead a set of 3 or so options are provided by the GM and it is the players job to do “on the fly” optimization for their characters.

How do you feel about being given narrative  focus, or the ability to steer the plot towards a direction of your choosing?  Would that be onerous to you or would you prefer it?

If done well, either option is great. But I must admit, it can be very demanding on the GM to allow the players to have (say) their own mercenary/merchant company that can chose to do what-ever they want. (It’s tough enough to have them explore a linear dungeon without fail.)

Would you prefer to be a Leader or a Follower (or some other  role) in terms of Party Dynamics?

I like to think that different characters are natural leaders for their specialization. The charismatic bard just shouldn’t lead the battle charge – the devious thief shouldn’t lead the arcane research – the mumbling barbarian shouldn’t give a rousing speech – etc. Thinking in terms of a “classic” party leader isn’t moving with the times; instead there is the “face”, the fist, the brains, the eyes, the shadow, etc of the party. And all players together should form the heart of the party.

What’s your favorite in-character gaming moment, and why?

When my (very low level) barbarian completely vindicated his brute (yet unsuccessful) ways with his first attack to fell a full-power Archon. (Yes, the sequence of dice rolls was particularly unlikely, requiring the archon to actually fail a Fortitude save among other things. No fudging of dice – all rolls (including GM) on the table.) …why we even bothered trying to fight him (and his Pegasus mount) is beyond me – we had already spent the vast majority of party resources just finishing the actual quest; I seriously doubt that we were supposed to fight with him.

A Player Interviewed

This interview originally comes from the Life and Times of a Philippine Gamer. This is something (or something very similar to what) I may use the next time I run something. Or perhaps, I’ll just give it to my next GM. Anyway, here are my responses:

What’s your thought process when creating a  character for a setting?

I tend to start with the mechanical aspects of my characters. Only once my character is about 90% complete (mechanically), do I start fleshing it out. I dig around the setting to build the background to match the mechanics of my character (deities applicable to character talents, proficiencies or combat style, for example).

Given that you’ve formulated your character, do you come into a  game with any set expectations as to how your character should  ideally progress in terms of storyline and stats?

Mechanically, yes, I tend to have an idea how I want my character to progress. As long as I have the (illusion of)  final choice for any of my character’s storyline progress, I’m happy.

How do you feel about being given narrative  focus, or the ability to steer the plot towards a direction of   your choosing?  Would that be onerous to you or would you prefer it?

Even though I like being in control of my character’s personal story, I prefer a tighter and more controlled narrative framework to play in. I don’t mind either form of play, though if stuck in the extremes of one or the other type of play, I may get a bit frustrated. (Too much railroading = bad; too much freedom = bad. I’m a fussy player o_O.)

Would you prefer to be a Leader or a Follower (or some other  role) in terms of Party Dynamics?

Leader, for the most part. I tend to know when my characters are not the best to lead for certain scenarios and will then look to the character in the group that I think would. I especially enjoy leading from a tactical point, making both elaborate battle plans and on-the-fly strategic choices. I enjoy playing the brains of the party. My second favourite role would be the face.

What’s your favorite in-character gaming moment, and why?

While fighting a bodak (DnD 3.5), I realised that my character could only fail against the save-or-die-gaze on a 1. Wanting to finish the fight quickly (thus minimising the number of save rolls needed to make), I decided to battle the bodak head on,  with eyes wide open (while the rest of my party shielded their eyes, giving themselves an additional chance to miss the bodak with their attacks without getting full immunity to the death gaze, thus prolonging the battle, requiring more save rolls be made). Of course, when the bodak was on it’s last few hit points, I rolled a 1 and died. Everyone else survived.

Smurfette, a fascist?

For a funny take on the Smurfs go here.

The Case of the Bitch, Part 6

Part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5 and now part 6:

~~~

As one’s view of yourself is mediated by the view of others, it enforces the idea that gender and identity are not only what you do, but also what is done to you, or what is thought of you. Taking into consideration some of Lacan’s views, identity is based on differentiation highlighting that the process of construction cannot occur without some input from others.  Within role-playing the idea of a whole self is not based on the image that one is seeing, but rather on the image/character created and as such the identity of self is being mediated not through the other, but through the self. By role-playing and creating characters, the player gains a sense of self independently as he creates his own other that is not another being. This own other however, is nothing more than a semi-conscious projection on the part of the player, as there is always a point of similarity/crossover between the player and the created character.

This crossover occurs in many different forms, ranging from clear and obvious shared character traits, moral beliefs and gender to the less obvious such as both being left-handed. This crossover also serves to demonstrate that there is a clash between the player and characters narratives. Neither has a narrative that is wholly theirs. This is not only because the character could not exist without the player, but also because the player’s gaming narrative would be fundamentally altered if he had not created that particular character. Another aspect of the clash that occurs is that it is not only the creating character that lapses back into the accepted roles, but also the other players. This demonstrates that the identity struggle that occurs here is not limited to the individual alone, but includes the struggle “between individual and group: characters struggle against or comply with social norms and expectations” (Culler: 1997; 113). The other players however; do not lapse back into accepted gendered stereotypical roles for their characters, but they lapse back into their accepted social positions within their group. This occurs as the other players treat the character as they do the player; thus, the narratives clash and the process of identity creation is hampered. Because the player is aware of his group’s habits, he would then not place as much emphasis on the actual character being created as he would on the character’s ability within action. He would by default whenever placed in a situation consider how he would deal with this instead of how his character would deal with it, a position which goes against role-playing and creating a character. You role-play to be a different person, not yourself with ‘special powers’.

Lloyd and Duveen [as cited in Lehr: 2001; 4] suggest that it is not only children who actively socialise each other, but also teenagers and adults. As children ‘police’ each other for gender and position appropriate action so too do those within a role-playing group ‘police’ each other for the appropriate actions and behaviours (Lloyd & Duveen as cited in Lehr: 2001; 4). The group dynamic within a role-playing group mirrors what occurs in society:

“one only determines ‘one’s own sense of gender to the extent that social norms exist that support and enable that act of claiming gender for oneself. One is dependent on this ‘outside’ to lay claim to what is one’s own (Butler: 2004; 7).

This is observed in the manner that the stereotypes of the gaming world in one form or another underpin the actions of gamers. Without having a stereotype acting as the norm to enable and support an individual player to claim his space within the world there would be no guide for actions to be taken.

Knowledge (Geography) – Mechanics

In part 1, I bemoaned the fact that Knowledge (Geography) was a horribly misunderstood and underused skill in DnD 3.x (and doesn’t even feature in 4e). Sadly, though, I think this series of posts would only interest RL geographer role players and, we all know, that you never ever see any of those on the internet. They’re as rare as girls on the internet. I bet that if there were more people that understood population demographics, we wouldn’t end up with Fallout-3-esque Little Lamplight settlements… unless, of course, there was a lot of underaged sex happening in the game world.

OK, enough complaining; time to move back on topic:

I believe that there are two methods we could use to bring K(G) some average-player attention. Firstly, we can make it more mechanically attractive (which I’ll be focusing on for the rest of the post) and, secondly, we as DMs can make more use of it, providing players with more opportunity to roll for K(G) (I’ll focus on this in part 3, with example scenarios of skill use and one geography villain concept).

Now to the mechanics:

Two things make certain skills more popular choices than other skills:

1. Mechanical and RP uses of the skill (perceived and actual)
2. Synergy Bonuses

The K skills lean more toward the RP and less concrete uses, than perhaps Tumble or Balance do,  therefore I shall be merging point 1 into my third post on the topic. So, let’s look at the synergy bonuses:

In 3.x, when you have 5 or more ranks in a skill, you may get an untyped bonus to other skills (or specific uses to other skills). From what I can tell, there are no hard design rules in place that limit these bonuses, except that none give a bonus other than +2. Bluff, for example, adds a synergy bonus to 4 different skills; and Tumble and Jump give each other a bonus. Right now, however, K(G) provides a very boring synergy, and K(D), K(P) and K(N), all three more popular K skills, provide a very similar bonus:

• If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (nature), you get a +2 bonus on Survival checks made in aboveground natural environments (aquatic, desert, forest, hill, marsh, mountains, or plains).
• If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (the planes), you get a +2 bonus on Survival checks made while on other planes.
• If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (dungeoneering), you get a +2 bonus on Survival checks made while underground.
• If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (geography), you get a +2 bonus on Survival checks made to keep from getting lost or to avoid natural hazards.

And:

• If you have 5 or more ranks in Survival, you get a +2 bonus on Knowledge (nature) checks.

The changes I’m about to propose will make skill selection a little more complicated, but, please, bear with me. I propose that 3.x skill synergies be made flexible, to a point. This can be used across all the skills, but, for this post, I’ll only be referring to the above 4 listed.

If you have 5 or more ranks in Survival, you get a +2 bonus to one of the following (chosen when the 5th rank of Survival is assigned):

• Knowledge (Nature), if you have at least 1 rank in Knowledge (Nature)
• Knowledge (Planes), if you have at least 1 rank in Knowledge (Planes)
• Knowledge (Dungeoneering), if you have at least 1 rank in Knowledge (Dungeoneering)
• Knowledge (Geography), if you have at least 1 rank in Knowledge (Geography)

I believe that adding this flexibility to the Survival skill allows you to better portray a character concept and background through your skills selection.

And now I get a bit stuck. I’d like K(G) to provide a synergy bonus to other K skills (as I did with Survival), but I want to assign it to too many of them. This is a problem, as I don’t want to make K(G) to popular and leave the other K skills feeling sad and lonely. While I ponder this further, I’d appreciate any comments or suggestions.

-j

30 Seconds Software and Boardgame

30 Seconds is a board game that started in South Africa, and revolutionized the “knowledge” gaming scene that was dominated for years and years and years by Trivial Pursuit.  Other games like “Who wants to be a Millionaire” might have gained temporary favour, but was always defeated by the classic Trivial Pursuit.

30 Seconds really arrived on the scene when it was played by the house mates in Big Brother South Arica (first series).  The most important difference between Trivial Pursuit and 30 Seconds, is that in Trivial Pursuit a team’s collective knowledge was important.  Therefor having a diverse team is very important.  In 30 Seconds the team’s communal knowledge is more important, therefor having a team with similar strengths is good.  Like all good games (and good gamers) we always try to improve on the rules.  30 Seconds has one very, very stupid rule… the negative dice.  Random bonus is fine in a game, but a random penalty is demotivating.  Rather double the squares on the size of the board, and make the 0-2 a bonus.  It’s much better moving 5-7 when you get 5/5, than moving 3-5 when you get 5/5.  Or even worse, imagine struggling, getting only 2/5… and then having thrown a 2, you don’t get to move at all.  It’s the same thing, but it works very differently on the psyche of the players!

I recognized (in 2003 already) the educational use that 30 seconds could have.  Imagine for instance trying to teach the capitals, states and other important cities and monuments to a class of kids.  If you had a small database of 200 or 300 words, this could be a quick and fun way for the class to gain the knowledge quickly.

So I created an application back then, and now rereleased it, now that printing cards are somewhat easier via Excel.  If you’re interested you can download the application for free at the website. Also you can become a fan of the boardgame on Facebook or a fan of the software.

Knowledge (Geography) – Introduction

In August, I wrote about a Facebook application called Word Challenge. The creators of Word Challenge, Playfish, have since released another application called Geo Challenge. Unlike Word Challenge, which I love, I despise Geo Challenge, because it epitomizes everything that is wrong with how geography is viewed by the general populace. Geography is often directly equated to nothing more than knowledge of one’s atlas and the ability to read a map. They should have named the application Atlas Challenge. However, Playfish aren’t the only ones guilty of this. If we look at other quiz-based games, for example: Trivial Pursuit, many geography questions are about capital cities; locations of deserts, mountain ranges and bodies of water; and sometimes a few history questions are thrown in (when they pertain to specific locations).

So, it’s no surprise that, in my experience, most DnD 3.x characters don’t have many (if any) ranks in Knowledge (Geography), as players rather choose the traditionally more useful knowledges that either provide good skill synergies or handy monster and item identification. So why am I writing about K(G)? Well, this post is the start of a mini project to see how we can make K(G) a more popular choice to place those precious skill ranks.

First, let’s look at what the SRD has to say about K(G):

Geography (lands, terrain, climate, people)

We can see that the designers were at least aware that geography is more than just the atlas. Unfortunately, we can also see that a lot of what K(G) covers is also covered by the other Ks:

• Nature: animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin
• Local: legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids
• Nobility: lineages, heraldry, family trees, mottoes, personalities
• History: royalty, wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities

I could pick out more K crossovers, but let’s leave it at this level for the moment. Geography, as a subject of academic study, is actually a broad collection of several sub-topics, so it’s no surprise that there is quite a lot of crossover with the other schools of knowledge. Now let’s look at some of the skill synergies (courtesy of the SRD, again):

• If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (geography), you get a +2 bonus on Survival checks made to keep from getting lost or to avoid natural hazards.
• If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (nature), you get a +2 bonus on Survival checks made in aboveground natural environments (aquatic, desert, forest, hill, marsh, mountains, or plains).

As you can see, the knowledge skill that actually lists terrain as a subset of the skill does not actually provide a bonus to checks on survival in different terrains, but helps you instead read a map. Bleh.

Thus ends part one of the mini project. The next two phases in project Getting K(G) A Bit More Player Love (GK(G)ABMPL) would be to generate a better list of examples of the use of K(G) and then tweak the mechanical side of it without stepping on the toes of the other K skills. Stay tuned for part 2.

deck suggestion? homura!

I thought I’d ask the tenletter crowd what deck they’d build around this card:

Preferably I’d like to hear Kamigawa Block suggestions – but I’m open to hear other thoughts too.

I’ll post my thoughts in comments in a week or so – but I don’t want to influence other people’s choices until then