Chess

The modern incarnation of an RPG owes its existence to D&D. D&D is, at its core, a stripped down wargame, where the player controls only one unit, albeit with far more individual options and customization, rather than an army. Wargames, in turn, are inherently derived from a long line of more abstract games which represented physical conflict. The oldest, most recognizable, surviving form of these ancient wargames is chess. Chess is, simply put, one of the finest games ever made. It is deeper, richer, and more complex than any other game ever made. Today, I would like to talk about it because I HATE chess.

First things first, what the game is. Chess is a two-player game in which both players are given an identical number of identical game pieces in identical arrangement on a symmetrical playing field. The game is flawlessly balanced. Nobody has an advantage due to anything inherent to the game or its parts. Who is playing black or white changes nothing relevant to ones chance to win. This means that nothing on the board actually decides the result of the game- it's all up to the people playing and their decisions. It is almost poetic how the game levels the playing field between two people, and gives them an abstract medium through which they may engage in a test of wits and wills. It is, truly, mind versus mind.

I have a similar opinion of many other, (And, in my opinion, far better) games, such as checkers, tic-tac-toe, and eastern chess equivalents. At the start of the game, there is no advantage. If you lose, you only have yourself to blame- the opponent bested you, fair and square. There's no random chance, and the only unpredictable element is the other player. Compare this with more elaborate games associated to gaming as a hobby, such as wargames and RPGs. Quite frequently, there is a great deal of randomness, and even where it is absent, the fields are rarely balanced, as setting up your playing field is as much a part of the strategy as actual play decisions! 

In wargames especially, players are often given a limited abstract currency (points) which are used to dictate how many units they may have, with more powerful or specialized units costing more points. Many wargames may also allow many different win and lose conditions, and the conditions may be different for each player. In all of these other games, gameplay is far more about what is happening on the table or in the game, than it is about what's happening in the minds of the players. It's not one mind versus another, it is simply tactics versus tactics, play versus play.

But this is where I believe the genius of chess ends. It is a beautiful game to think about and talk about, but I think it is a terrible game to play, mainly for two reasons.

First off, in the absence of humanity, it is not a game, it is geometry. Modern computers can play chess far better than any human ever will, and when computers are pit against each other at maximum difficulty, especially if they use the same code, the result is (almost) always a draw. Because both sides are so beautifully, perfectly balanced, there is no theoretical reason for either side to ever win. If the "best possible move" is always made by both sides, the result will always be a draw. Now that this has been so thoroughly explored and exemplified, I don't think there's much reason to play this game any more. Doing so almost seems an act of ignorance to me; there is no game left to be played here, we're just making dumb mistakes the pieces shouldn't make.

And my second reason for disliking chess is also my reason for hating it. In almost every other game based on conflict, such as wargames, you see one of two mechanics:

A) Kill all of the opponent's pieces, and you win.

B) Take some specific target, be it a unit or a location, (possibly keep it for a set time) and you win.

Chess follows neither of these mechanics. The reason it doesn't, is because chess is not about winning. 

Instead, a player cannot make a move which would result in their "king" piece being captured. If a move would leave their king open for capture, they cannot make it. So, if I threaten to take a player's king on my next turn, they must prevent it from happening on theirs, if they can. They have no choice. The game ends when one player cannot make a move, resulting in checkmate, and victory for the other player.

Chess is not about winning, it is about losing. It is about using your mind to slowly beat someone else's mind into submission. It is about methodically stripping another person of their choices and freedoms. It is the glorified, obsessive focus on the agonizing defeat of an opponent. It is, inherently, psychologically abusive. It is a game for sociopaths and cold, unfeeling machines. It is a game meant for intellectual bullies and dominating egomaniacs. It is a perfect symbolic manifestation of the mental state of medieval culture, which can clearly be seen in their violent, tyrannical history straight through the industrial revolution. It is a mental state the human race is still struggling to recover from. It is the philosophy which generates all forms of prejudice: The idea that one can be made superior, by making all others inferior.

When I play chess, I play capture the king, no castling, no en passant. It makes the game a little bit shallow, for sure, but it transforms it into a far lighter, far freeing experience. A game can be won by simply tricking an opponent to put their king in the middle of a trap! Metagame and poker face suddenly play a far bigger role! It isn't mind versus mind any more, but person versus person. This is why I feel we should leave chess behind like the archaic relic it is. 

Like the holocaust, it is a memory of where we came from, and deserving of recognition for its impact...

But that's all it's worth.

Why Piracy?

Most of my audience should know this, considering you're all personally invited at the moment, but I spent two years in a fine arts course in college and have considered myself to be an artist all my life. So, it may seem a little bit idiosyncratic when I talk about my blatant piracy and opposition to copyright law. After all, isn't copyright law the ultimate legal defense for the arts as a business? Isn't piracy the greatest modern financial threat to the creative arts' economic viability?

Yes.

That's the point.

And please don't be offended by that. I know some of you do make at least some earnings off your creative efforts. I shall explain. I may be anarchist, but I'm certainly not the bomb throwing variety.

First off, understand that I believe RPGs, indeed games in general, are the penultimate art form. An art form so profoundly deep that the audience is the medium. So, any discussion about RPGs is, at least in my mind, a discussion about art.

Now, answer me this: Why should I pay 50$ for an RPG book?

Comparatively, I basically never buy any book worth more than 30$- and that's for a REAL book!

Someone tried to argue that it's similar to the price for a fancy dinner with my girlfriend, which is wrong. I can, and somewhat infrequently do, have a filet mignon dinner with her for under 40$.

Another person argued it resembles the price of a new videogame, which I fully resent.
First off, if I can slap together a workable and moderately fun RPG in an hour on my own, I see no comparison to the years of combined specialist work and expense that goes into a modern videogame.
Second, I don't believe many, or really any, videogames warrant their price tag! They all wind up in a bargain bin for under 20$ after 6 months anyways! If that's what they're really worth, why would I spend more? It makes more sense to just wait until the marketing scheme plays out so people can look at it rationally.

Third, since I, and hundreds of other hobbyists, can make RPGs on a whim, some of them even illustrated in PDF format, as I can do, why should it be worth anything close to the value of a videogame?? Obviously, no specialist professional skills are needed, and actual creation time can be shockingly short- as brief as 24 hours. Add on top of that these people will make their RPGs whether they get paid or not. RPGs clearly have no real value.

It takes me a little over two hours to earn 50$. And I have a pretty good wage for unskilled labour at ~23$/hr. If someone walked up to me and said, "if you do this work for me for two hours, I'll give you a 5th edition Player's Hand Book", I'd laugh in his face. If the work isn't worth it, the money isn't either, because my money is a literal manifestation of my time, skill, and labor. I doubt everyone in my audience makes money the hard way like me, and so most of you would probably take longer to make that 50$. How long would it take you? Three hours? Five hours? My old room mate would take a whole shift to pull that off. Is that worth it to you? Does that seem to be a reasonable expense? If you said yes, over everything else your money could be used to do, then their priorities are clearly warped.

The pirates are winning because we are right.

It doesn't need to be wise, it just needs to work.

Jumanji!!!

This is a small mental project I've been working on. I like these kinds of exercises when I'm too busy to do any real work. This one is centered on the Jumanji franchise and its wholly dissatisfying board game.

Jumanji means "Many Effects" in Zulu

A supernatural boardgame, world, and semi-aware entity. The idea was devised in 1985 as a childrens novel, and then expanded into a 1996 movie, and then a single season animated series aired only in the US.

The book explores only the base idea- a board game, themed after a jungle and based on Trouble, where each turn causes terrible things from the jungle to manifest and harass the players.

The movie delves deeper, hinting at an interior Jumanji jungle, and briefly examines the actual psychological and cultural impact such a game would have.

The cartoon dives straight into the inner workings of Jumanji itself, exploring the vast humid hell and all its twisted abominations.

A movie tie-in game was made, but it was wholly disappointing. I would like to fix that.

Many questions exist as to how the game should work.

1. How does the game decide effects?
A) The die result, like in the book?
B) The square you land on, like in the movie?
C) Jumanji decides randomly or arbitrarily, like in the cartoon?

Answer: To accommodate all three visions of the game, all three elements should be applied. Generally, each turn you have to draw a result from Jumanji. The duration of the effect is decided by your roll, while its magnitude is decided by the square you are on. So, although high rolls and double turns get you closer to winning, the effects are FAR worse for everyone playing, but going too slow results in the entire damn jungle being turned loose! Also, the closer everyone gets to winning the game, and the more players there are, the harder the game gets!

2. How are results derived?
A) A deck of cards?
B) A magic 8-ball device?
C) An electronic device?
D) Have a player act as "DM"?

Answer:
Electronics are bad because dead batteries make children cry and grow up to be serial killers. The 8-ball is the most stylistic, and matches the "popper" from trouble, but is the most limited in options and writing space. Cards are cheap, reliable, and effective... But easily lost and damaged. Having a DM player allows massive versatility and potential, but increases the number of minimum players and reduces the market audience. Instead, behind the crystal lens screen, (Which allows more text on a smaller card) is a simple mechanical device, similar to a bill counter, card shuffler, or the UNO card spitter. It flips cards from the centre off to the sides. So, when you need a new result, simply press down on the disc, which opens a shutter so you can see the top card. When you release, it flicks that card to the side. Then, when you're done, you can twist the cover off, reshuffle the deck, and put it back in. For added variety, all cards are double sided with different effects. Reshuffling can result in entirely new events! If all the cards are dealt out, it reveals the backplate which says, "Jumanji! I win!" implying that the board is sentient, counts as a player, and has won by turning the entire jungle loose upon the world.

3. What about the game pieces and track? How do you emulate their magic? CAN you emulate their magic?

The obvious idea is to simply have a metal backing under the track and put strong earth magnets in the bases of the game pieces. At the very least, this would keep the board sorted during more active sessions. As for the parts moving on their own...? Well, the more I think about it, the less ndcedsary it seems- at least as far as a game goes.

4. What kinds of effects should be included in the game? (Work out what they do later- brainstorm!)

Answer:
Monkeys (Increase in number)
Lion(s) (Increase in number)
Tiger (Gets bigger)
Volcano
Earthquake
Monsoon
Quicksand
Giant spiders
Giant mosquitos
Poison dart flowers
Stampede
Crocodiles
Man Hunter (Richter Van Pelt)
Man Hunter (German Trapper)
Headhunters
Cannibals
Slavers

Witch Doctor

Sandstorm

Giant gorilla

Giant Ants (Black or Red)

Merchant

Pirate(s)

Conquistador(s)

Conman

Jungle Man

Dinosaurs

Giant snake

Giant crocodile

River of gold

Poison fog

Parasitic mushroom

Swamp thing

Killer bees

Piranhas

Land Leeches

Toxic frogs

Snakes

Hidden Temple

Conquistador

Quetzelcoatl

5. How are we going to replicate the effects without magic or murder?

Well, there's obvious game manipulation, like moving pieces back, skipping turns, etc., but that gets old fast. We could incorporate a sort of pseudo-roleplaying class system, where each player chposes one of four "strengths" in the form of a card at the start of the game. Certain effects could target or exempt specific strengths. We could incorporate effects which act like minigames, such as little cameos of "Cherades", "Truth or Dare", "Twister", "Tag", and others. For instance, a Volcano could force all the players to leave the current room as fast as possible without touching the floor, and anyone who does touch the floor has to hop on one leg for the rest of the game. This would make the game very active and energetic- possibly even exhausting. We could incorporate elements of an ARG, where players actually have to go running around doing stuff while playing the game. For instance, because the pieces stay put on the board, you could have an effect where a player must hide the board somewhere that another player could stumble upon it by accident. The danger here is that if the player sucks and the effect lasts too long, players may loose interest, so wording would need to be very precise. The game could include effects which emulate the possession of an item. For instance, the Witch Doctor could set everyone back one space, but also give any player with the "Smart" strength a "Monkey's Paw". That player can make up to three efects end, but must also call a new effect from Jumanji to do so.

So, there you go. That's what the Jumanji tie-in board game would have looked like, had I made it.

Playing Card Randomizer

This is a clip of an experiment in diceless randomizer engagement that I've been toying around with. It's vaguely inspired by MET, but was more strongly driven by my search for a randomizer which is capable of some very specific qualities. This one is... Very close to what I'm looking for.

It uses a standard deck of playing cards, including the jokers. When a check or save needs to be done, simply shuffle and draw. If you draw a face card, you must redraw, but the results use the original face card's suits. I have not decided what the Ace of Clubs should do.

1-10 = Numeric Result

Colour Suit = Determines roll polarity.
Red = Positive Value
Black = Negative Value

Court Suit  = Can invert polarity under the given condition
Hearts = Negative when used for acts of evil or cruelty, such as murder
Diamonds = Negative when used for acts of good or kindness, such as charity
Spades = Positive when used for acts of an intellectual nature
Clubs = Positive when used for acts of a physical nature.

Face Cards = Redraw to find actual value; use the face card's colour and court suits
Jacks = Double Result
Queens = Best of Two
Kings = Two Combined

Jokers = Indicate a critical result
Harlequin = Fluke
Mime = Flunk

Aces = Grant the player group points against you when drawn
Hearts = +1 Destiny Point
Diamonds  = +1 Fortune Point
Spades = +1 Karma Point
Clubs = ???

* Typically produces results between -10 and +10, but can easily exceed those bounds.
* Can generate criticals independent of natural rolls
* Far more interesting randomization implementation
* Integrates well into gameplay themes

Best Possible Result: King of the most beneficial suit combination, followed by two Kings, resulting in a draw of  all four Jacks, which resulted in a draw of all four tens, giving a final score of 80.

Making SD&D

Rules:

1. No art. Artwork will never accurately represent what the designer wants, will always restrict the imaginations of the audience, and will always take up space.

2. No tables. Everything must be described by a rule. Development is procedural, not static or retroactive. A table demands reference, and reference is an interruption to the game. You should be able to play without the rules even being present, and without noticing them in any case.

3. 1 book = 1 page. My primary assertion, (or should I say "accusation"?) is that every single d&d book is disgustingly bloated for production value purposes. You aren't paying for a game, you're paying for a pretty book which speaks at great length about a game. I believe the entirety of what makes up a core book can be compressed onto a single, double-sided sheet of standard letter format paper. (As with a board game for example) D&D has always been related, somewhat indirectly, to board games, so the 1-page instructions is a good thematic fit which suits the game's roots.

4. Only one real core book. All you need to play is one core book, or sheet in this case. Everything else is supplemental, covering things that don't actually have anything to do with playing the game. For instance, many d&d books repeatedly go over "what is an rpg?" Book after book! I will compress it all into a single "Greenhorn's Guide" supplement. Nobody needs it but the newbies, so why sell it to EVERYONE??

5. No content. This is a pure abstract SRD of the game engine. No content means no barriers. There is no pressure to play any pre-defined campaign. Your settings are not defined by anyone else's limited ideas for races or classes. Nobody uses premade content anyways, we all modify it or create our own whole-cloth! If you have an imagination you do not need examples. Seriously, there is no need for content. Furthermore, content bloats up each rule section. Most of the page-flipping that occurs during referencing comes from trying to find little rules scattered between huge piles of content you aren't using!

Process:

Step 1: Go through everything and find those elements that are present and function nearly the same in all editions. This is the core of D&D. This is what makes the game D&D!

Step 2: Identify the missing gaps. For instance, saving throws, though always present, have no consistent form. Thus, though "saving throws" is part of the core of D&D, all that existed in step 1 was a placeholder indicating that something called "saves" had to be present, and that failing them can kill your character.

Step 3: For each mechanical deficiency, use the system(s) which, in this priority:
- 1. Have been most consistent for the longest.
- 2. Were present in active play for the longest.
- 3. Are generally considered to be the best version of said system(s) by the majority of fans.
- 4. If there is absolutely no consensus between game editions or fans, make something up that makes as much sense as possible in the game as it is now. It is best to find some commonalities among the systems you are replacing and focus on the net mechanical effect they produced and the feeling they invoked.

Step 4: We now have the "pure" game, or as close as we can get to it. This is the average sum of all that dungeons and dragons has become over the years. Now we need to relate it to each of its major forms:
• OD&D: A wargame supplement connecting Chainmail and Wilderness Survival to create an "army of one" style play with a focus on characterization borrowed from Role Play.
• BD&D; Rules Cyclopedia: A cleaned up and refined format of D&D as a game in its own right. Emphasis was on escalation from pathetic peasantry to deity over time.
• AD&D Revised Second Edition: What Gygax wanted D&D to be. For many, this is the only "true" final form of D&D. It is the most philosophically balanced mix of wargame/RP elements, but suffers from the most arbitrary and counter-intuitive rules to date. One of its most influential inventions was the OGL, which allowed a huge chunk of the gaming industry to subside off of overflow demand for the game, while simultaneously sustaining sales and reducing production costs for massive amounts of published material.
• D&D 3.5e: The version many people consider to be the penultimate RPG, it is an elaboration upon AD&D with a focus on intuitive, versatile rules and expansive player options. Eventually, form was abstracted from content, and we were blessed with the pure D20 system, taking the initial form of D20 Modern. 3.5e ultimately spawned Pathfinder, Hackmaster, and Fantasyquest after production ended.
• D&D 4e: Largely considered to be the worst edition of D&D, but nevertheless developed its own strong audience, sort of a subset of the D&D playing majority. Most 4e players consider 4e the single best version to the exclusion of all others, but are less critical of other RPGs, which is a perfect inversion of other generations. This game is actually much closer to its OD&D wargame roots with the design ethics of 3.5e and option complexity reduction. It was also an attempt to include innovations from VRPG design philosophy, particularly those in MMORPG design.
• Next & 5e: They designed the game in an "open" format, where prototype rules were available for public review and use, allowing the entire audience to comment upon, and thus directly influence, the new edition. So far, I feel this has sucked some of the character, the individuality and life, out of the game, and created something very hollow and artificial feeling.
The most defining elements, the things which made them impressive, and by relation made D&D impressive, but do not negatively impact any other editions or the core of D&D's true form, must be brought into the new game. It should have the fundamental greatness of each of its successors combined.

Step 5: Finally, it is time to distill. Simplify everything as much as possible. Anything that can be reduced or combined, must. For instance, why do we roll 3d6 to get a score to get a modifier? Why not roll 1d6-1d6 to just get the modifier at a similar curve?

Step 6: Once you have rendered the game in its lowest terms, it is time to innovate. You have your perfect foundation, so let's build a house! Make this D&D its own D&D. What is lacking in the pure foundation? Where has the game grown stagnant and why? How can the game be advanced by modern RPG theory or game design philosophy? What prevents D&D from delivering its promises? These kinds of questions, and many more, are used to make something new and unique out of D&D. The thing that makes D&D fun is its independence and individual character. It must have some form of idiosyncrasy to be true to the spirit of D&D! The process we have done now would create but a sterile, clinical, artificial, and hollow, pale imitation of D&D.