Friday, January 02, 2015
House construction - current pictures - outside
Here are some current outside photos of the house we're building.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
DM Musing: Player Tactics Gone Mad
One of the ideas I most enjoy about combat in 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is the idea that players must decide on their actions prior to the start of a combat round. While I have not yet experienced this idea in practice, I love the order it proposes, one where players must decide and then take the consequences of their decisions in a way that keeps the game going.
In the game I'm currently dungeonmastering, each character's action expands into a mini-session of intra-party debate over that character's options and the potential consequence of those options. It has veered into unreasonably advanced discussions and I am starting to chafe over how much time each combat takes as a result of this. With seemingly every action, each player has some input as what is the best course of action and what will happen. Unfortunately, I take part in the discussion as well, giving away my strategies by advising the players on what course of action may be the least hazardous to their health. If I am to improve (what I see as ) this unculture, I need to improve myself and my own actions so that I do not contribute to it the way I do now.
I am considering whether I should bring an short-length hourglass, using it as limitation on how long a player may debate before either acting or spending the round doing nothing. This might not be enough as this still opens for input by other players, which is one of the biggest challenges in this case. The player characters do not yet have Time Stop and should not be permitted its benefits without first casting the spell.
Ideally, every player would know what his or her character is going to do, prior to his or her turn in the combat session.
In the game I'm currently dungeonmastering, each character's action expands into a mini-session of intra-party debate over that character's options and the potential consequence of those options. It has veered into unreasonably advanced discussions and I am starting to chafe over how much time each combat takes as a result of this. With seemingly every action, each player has some input as what is the best course of action and what will happen. Unfortunately, I take part in the discussion as well, giving away my strategies by advising the players on what course of action may be the least hazardous to their health. If I am to improve (what I see as ) this unculture, I need to improve myself and my own actions so that I do not contribute to it the way I do now.
I am considering whether I should bring an short-length hourglass, using it as limitation on how long a player may debate before either acting or spending the round doing nothing. This might not be enough as this still opens for input by other players, which is one of the biggest challenges in this case. The player characters do not yet have Time Stop and should not be permitted its benefits without first casting the spell.
Ideally, every player would know what his or her character is going to do, prior to his or her turn in the combat session.
DM Musing: Deus ex Machina in UiO Game
I have hit a dangerous spot in the D&D campaign I'm currently dungeonmastering. The players, thanks to an intentionally difficult combat and unintentional dice misfortune, have just about exhausted their abilities and still face the greatest challenge of the encounter (a zombie ogre). In their current situation, the fighter and druid are down to single-digit hit points (the sorcerer has that much at full health) and the archivist is struggling to get out of a pool of tainted water, with the assistance of the rest of the group. As the ogre's damage bonus along would knock any of them (except for the struggling archivist) out, they are in a race against it getting an attack on any of them.
Had it not been for their extraordinary misfortune with the dice, I think the situation would have been significantly different, with somewhat more of a sliver of hope. There are some strategic mistakes on their part (the failure to bring holy water to a situation that would certainly include undead and the archivist's choice of position between a zombie and the dirty pool), but dice matter in D&D.
Now I am stuck wondering if and how I, as the gamemaster, can help resolve the conflict in the players' favor. I am hesitant to see any of their characters bite the dust and loathe to bring about a total party kill. The only plausible means I have of intervention is with the introduction of another character, most likely run by me. The idea of intervening itself raises questions of dungeonmastering legitimacy as it risks coddling the players and preempting any sense of risk they may feel in the future (as well as a dissatisfaction over the apparent failure of their characters to manage on their own). Because of these questions, I feel the need to to check in with the main Dungeon Master (I am just an Assistant DM, substituting for the time being; he is currently playing the archivist the rest of the group is trying to save) and hear whether he's okay it.
If I intervene, new questions pop up, most notably how can I intervene without taking the spotlight from the players and their characters. Simply introducing a new character who comes in and saves the day bears the hallmarks of self-interest where the DM shows up the rest of characters for his own self-glorification. If I introduce a new character, that character must help through the other characters; in other words, the assistance is only useful through the participation of the original characters. Rather than lead the characters, the new one must support them and enable them to remain in the spotlight until they reach some kind of success (whether simple survival, a partial victory, or a full victory).
My ideas for intervention primarily revolve around introducing a supporting spell-caster (healer) with equipment that is useful to the rest of the party. In this case, that useful equipment would largely consist of vials of holy water and other means of damaging the zombie ogre. The caster could assist the rest of the group while retaining a background role. I anticipate no problems in terms of story legitimacy as the characters have been camped at the site for almost a week and have not been particularly covert about it.
What really strikes me about the situation is that characters were almost at full strength when they started this combat (with the exception of the druid, who fell during the climb into their current area and took 7 points of damage). I am surprised that it has taken so much of their resources to just get to where they are now. I have to question my understanding of the encounter's challenge, while considering the players' preparation for it.
Had it not been for their extraordinary misfortune with the dice, I think the situation would have been significantly different, with somewhat more of a sliver of hope. There are some strategic mistakes on their part (the failure to bring holy water to a situation that would certainly include undead and the archivist's choice of position between a zombie and the dirty pool), but dice matter in D&D.
Now I am stuck wondering if and how I, as the gamemaster, can help resolve the conflict in the players' favor. I am hesitant to see any of their characters bite the dust and loathe to bring about a total party kill. The only plausible means I have of intervention is with the introduction of another character, most likely run by me. The idea of intervening itself raises questions of dungeonmastering legitimacy as it risks coddling the players and preempting any sense of risk they may feel in the future (as well as a dissatisfaction over the apparent failure of their characters to manage on their own). Because of these questions, I feel the need to to check in with the main Dungeon Master (I am just an Assistant DM, substituting for the time being; he is currently playing the archivist the rest of the group is trying to save) and hear whether he's okay it.
If I intervene, new questions pop up, most notably how can I intervene without taking the spotlight from the players and their characters. Simply introducing a new character who comes in and saves the day bears the hallmarks of self-interest where the DM shows up the rest of characters for his own self-glorification. If I introduce a new character, that character must help through the other characters; in other words, the assistance is only useful through the participation of the original characters. Rather than lead the characters, the new one must support them and enable them to remain in the spotlight until they reach some kind of success (whether simple survival, a partial victory, or a full victory).
My ideas for intervention primarily revolve around introducing a supporting spell-caster (healer) with equipment that is useful to the rest of the party. In this case, that useful equipment would largely consist of vials of holy water and other means of damaging the zombie ogre. The caster could assist the rest of the group while retaining a background role. I anticipate no problems in terms of story legitimacy as the characters have been camped at the site for almost a week and have not been particularly covert about it.
What really strikes me about the situation is that characters were almost at full strength when they started this combat (with the exception of the druid, who fell during the climb into their current area and took 7 points of damage). I am surprised that it has taken so much of their resources to just get to where they are now. I have to question my understanding of the encounter's challenge, while considering the players' preparation for it.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Film Musing: Salt (2010) [SPOILER]
One thing that struck me about Salt (2010) was at the end where the villain unveils his ultimate plan for destroying the United States. After a very complex series of conspiracies and gradual reveals (all of which show some attention to detail on the villain's part), he reveals that he will destroy the US by launching nuclear missiles on Mecca and Teheran.
When I first saw those city names, I was struck numb. Not because of how dramatic or insightful the plan might be, but rather due to its idiocy.
How on Earth would nuking those two cities destroy the US? Neither of the countries has the capability of retaliating against such an attack (with the exception of retaliating against US bases in the region, hardly the cornerstone the US' existence), so the US would be in no imminent danger. The kind of retaliation that is implied (terrorism and international sanctions) take too long be an actual threat to the existence of the US. That it would come to light by virtue of PotUS' death that the bombings were themselves not the intention of the US, but of a Soviet conspiracy would do much to put the US in the clear of things.
It's clearly an effort on the part of the writers to appear edgy and more up-to-date than the clichéd we'll-nuke-Moscow plans of villains past, but it falls flat and takes much of the punch of what, until then, had been an enjoyable thrillride.
When I first saw those city names, I was struck numb. Not because of how dramatic or insightful the plan might be, but rather due to its idiocy.
How on Earth would nuking those two cities destroy the US? Neither of the countries has the capability of retaliating against such an attack (with the exception of retaliating against US bases in the region, hardly the cornerstone the US' existence), so the US would be in no imminent danger. The kind of retaliation that is implied (terrorism and international sanctions) take too long be an actual threat to the existence of the US. That it would come to light by virtue of PotUS' death that the bombings were themselves not the intention of the US, but of a Soviet conspiracy would do much to put the US in the clear of things.
It's clearly an effort on the part of the writers to appear edgy and more up-to-date than the clichéd we'll-nuke-Moscow plans of villains past, but it falls flat and takes much of the punch of what, until then, had been an enjoyable thrillride.
Monday, April 09, 2012
Gamer Musing: Dragon Age 2
I'm playing Dragon Age 2 (a fantasy action-RPG) these days. While I loved Dragon Age: Origins and thoroughly enjoyed DA: Awakening, I have held off on DA2 due to the many changes Bioware made to the DA gameplay and the uproar the game's ending brought about. In playing DA2, I see the points of most of the criticism leveled against it.
Dragon Age 2 is an okay game, but a bit of a mess. The mess includes both the story and the gameplay (though this post will only begin with the story).
DA2's story takes place over several years with huge gaps in-between the years you get play out (apparently, the whole story is a decade long). These gaps throw me off of the story as my character, Hawke, makes friends and acquaintances and establishes himself without my input or overview. I am told about Hawke's exploits, but end up playing the same guy he was when I left him one year (then three years) ago. There is something weird about advancing Hawke as much as I do during the years I get to play him only to have him show up in the same armor and with the same stats when I regain control of him after in-game years of down-time. Along with all of the other stuff he and his companions do in those years, surely they could have improved in some way. This is one of the ways Bioware fails to blend the ambitions of the story with the gameplay.
If you're going to have several in-game years pass and the relevant characters aren't suffering from some kind of stasis, then they should receive something to reflect those years. While extra levels and items may be inappropriate within this kind of game (as such freebies could cheapen the levels and items gained through actual gameplay), some kind of extra ability would go a long way in reflecting what the characters do during their off-screen years. Given the dialogue-personality aspect of a DA2's gameplay (where the initial few dialogue choices locks Hawke in as having a diplomatic, humorous, or aggressive personality for that year), it would have been appropriate if the game gave Hawke an ability for having a particular personality that year (for example, a humorous Hawke would receive an ability to reduce his aggro/threat level in combat, a diplomatic Hawke would receive better prices in stores, and an aggressive Hawke would do more damage in combat). That way, the player would have had some participation in Hawke's off-screen dealings.
This is just a suggested solution to making the years-between storyline less off-putting. I don't care for the kind of story-timeline-breaks DA2's story takes because they add a perspective that makes the story less imminent and less dramatic. Yet, if they're going to be used, then there should at least be some gameplay reflection of them, something that helps me believe that my character went through those years.
Dragon Age 2 is an okay game, but a bit of a mess. The mess includes both the story and the gameplay (though this post will only begin with the story).
DA2's story takes place over several years with huge gaps in-between the years you get play out (apparently, the whole story is a decade long). These gaps throw me off of the story as my character, Hawke, makes friends and acquaintances and establishes himself without my input or overview. I am told about Hawke's exploits, but end up playing the same guy he was when I left him one year (then three years) ago. There is something weird about advancing Hawke as much as I do during the years I get to play him only to have him show up in the same armor and with the same stats when I regain control of him after in-game years of down-time. Along with all of the other stuff he and his companions do in those years, surely they could have improved in some way. This is one of the ways Bioware fails to blend the ambitions of the story with the gameplay.
If you're going to have several in-game years pass and the relevant characters aren't suffering from some kind of stasis, then they should receive something to reflect those years. While extra levels and items may be inappropriate within this kind of game (as such freebies could cheapen the levels and items gained through actual gameplay), some kind of extra ability would go a long way in reflecting what the characters do during their off-screen years. Given the dialogue-personality aspect of a DA2's gameplay (where the initial few dialogue choices locks Hawke in as having a diplomatic, humorous, or aggressive personality for that year), it would have been appropriate if the game gave Hawke an ability for having a particular personality that year (for example, a humorous Hawke would receive an ability to reduce his aggro/threat level in combat, a diplomatic Hawke would receive better prices in stores, and an aggressive Hawke would do more damage in combat). That way, the player would have had some participation in Hawke's off-screen dealings.
This is just a suggested solution to making the years-between storyline less off-putting. I don't care for the kind of story-timeline-breaks DA2's story takes because they add a perspective that makes the story less imminent and less dramatic. Yet, if they're going to be used, then there should at least be some gameplay reflection of them, something that helps me believe that my character went through those years.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Just a thought
I am 28 years old and I am still living with my parents.
In what interpretation of my life does that not equal failure?
In what interpretation of my life does that not equal failure?
Thursday, March 31, 2011
March blogging concludes
With this, I have reached the end of my project to blog a little each day of March. The entry lengths have varied a lot, though I'll have to do the word count tomorrow (I'm too tired now). It's been good, though as I have said before, I need to dedicate myself to more substantial entries. It may be difficult, but I want to produce more coherent writing, supported by facts and implications of research. It will be interesting.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Does a nation have the right to survive?
One of underlying questions in part of Battlestar Galactica is the question of whether the human race deserves to survive. The writers toy a bit with the question, which finds its most poignant point during the double assassination ploy by Commander Adama and Admiral Cain (the ploy is resolved by Adama's reflection on whether he or Cain deserves to survive/live on).
This question has applications outside of the BSG series though, one of which is whether any of our nations have a right to survive. Some nations, most notably Israel, vocally and regularly claim this right and that any and all necessary actions to ensure their survival is justified by this right. Other nations implicitly assume this right whether in protest to a broader identity (for example, Basque separatists in Spain or the United States' claims to international exceptionalism) or as a reasonable consequence of their nation's intrinsic value; it should be noted that this value is itself an assumption, and may in some cases only be substantiated within a limited array of perspectives.
When applied to nations rather than individual lifeforms, this question sets up other questions: does a nation truly live? does a nation have a lifespan outside of the humans who claim membership in it? can a nation survive without a population? how do we determine where, chronologically, one nation begins or ends?
Does your nation have a right to exist/survive?
This question has applications outside of the BSG series though, one of which is whether any of our nations have a right to survive. Some nations, most notably Israel, vocally and regularly claim this right and that any and all necessary actions to ensure their survival is justified by this right. Other nations implicitly assume this right whether in protest to a broader identity (for example, Basque separatists in Spain or the United States' claims to international exceptionalism) or as a reasonable consequence of their nation's intrinsic value; it should be noted that this value is itself an assumption, and may in some cases only be substantiated within a limited array of perspectives.
When applied to nations rather than individual lifeforms, this question sets up other questions: does a nation truly live? does a nation have a lifespan outside of the humans who claim membership in it? can a nation survive without a population? how do we determine where, chronologically, one nation begins or ends?
Does your nation have a right to exist/survive?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)