Back and Boston Herald Anti-gamer

And we’re back! I’ve been MIA for a few months really (wow it goes fast).  Between work, family, and a general high-level of entropy in my corner of the Universe, gaming just hasn’t been able to fit into my life of late (other than reading on odd blog here or there). That being said, we’ve turned a corner and a little bit of space has opened up…so we’ll snatch it and add some gaming back into the mix.

One of the topics that I read of late (in blog posts by The Ogre Lair Times and  Purple Pawn) was the “revelation” by Boston Herald staff writer Laurel J. Sweet that the U of Alabama shooter was a gamer….It seems equally coincidental that she also studied biology, watched TV, and wiped her own ass (sources close to the aledged shooter indicated that her ass-wiping activities dated back to childhood, but declined to be quoted as the investigation is ongoing and they were not authorized to speak with regard to said ass wiping), and voted for Barack Obama……all, subversive activities that obviously led to her murderous rampage. All sarcasm aside, I declare:

Shame on you, Boston Herald! You’ve sunk to tabloid status in my book. Any journalistic organization worth its grit wouldn’t have posted such a sensationalist piece, especially since there have been studies that refute any link to violent crime/suicide and role-playing games….other than to reduce them.

~AoB

Roll-playing Redux

Almost two years ago, I posted a little rant on the use of the term “Roll-playing“. Yesterday, Gleichman included some debunking of its use as a part of his “Complexity series” (which I’ve been greatly enjoying). Anyway, I went back and read the post and thought that it might be worthy of reposting. It didn’t garner much interest two years ago, but it might now (what with the growth of my readership). So here it is.

~AoB

Roll-playing – now how do you mean that?

It always irritates me when some-one uses the term “Roll-playing”. It is typically used to differentiate games that have a lot of crunch, have a gamist (GNS) agenda, or otherwise fail to fulfill some essential role-playing criteria of whomever is using the term. It is essentially a derisive term and I think it is a disservice to the gaming community for gamers to continue to use it. I mean, we’re all geeks….what do we mean by saying “Roll-play”, that “I’m a better geek than you are?” Jeeze, that’s what we need more of….

Roll-playing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Roll-Playing is a pun on the phrase ‘role-playing’ (as in role-playing game) for when character statistics and rolling dice (especially for combat) become more important than role-playing or telling a story. It generally is used to refer to hack-and-slash games such as Dungeons & Dragons. The use of the phrase “roll-playing” is generally considered to be derogatory, and snobbish.

It is also sometimes called ‘Rule-Playing,’ when the mechanical rules of the game become the most important part of the game.

If confronted with this, some users of the term will add caveats, “Dude, its not for me to say how you ought to play…I’m just describing a style of play that I don’t happen to care for…”. Its like saying “That’s so gay…..not that there’s anything wrong with that…”

Many people use the term seemingly unaware of the negative connotations associated with it (Stephen Chenault attempts to use it as a positive in the forward to the Castles & Crusades Players Hand Book, “Where Rollplaying and Role Playing Meet”). The fact of the matter remains that one would be hard pressed to find many who would stand by the statement, “I prefer Roll-playing over Role-playing”.

The term implies that somehow types of gaming that fall under the nebulous umbrella of Roll-playing don’t quite qualify as Role-playing or are an inferior types of Role-playing. What’s up with that? “I am the Uber-Geek! Behold my d20 and cringe in fear!”

Now, there will be some who think that I’m picking nits and there may be some truth to that. But I’m not just talking about someone knocking specific sub-types of gaming. I am talking about the precision of meaning, however.

What do they (oh, yes I’m talking about them) mean when they use the term “Roll-playing”. If not to be derisive, do they mean “games that use dice”, “games that provide a strong tactical focus”, “games that are rules-heavy”, “games that limit GM fiat”, “games with random-generation of characters, encounters, treasure…”, “games with a heavy combat focus”, “games that resolved social interactions, etc. mechanistically”, etc?

The point of using a buzzword is to make it immediately clear to your reader (or listener) what it is you mean. “Roll-play” doesn’t do that. Not by a long shot. So I wish they’d cut it out.

If you’re one of them…you know those guys who use the term “Roll-play” and don’t mean it in a bad way, please leave a comment that explains what it is that you do mean. And be precise! Who knows, I may be completely off my rocker…

~Adaen of Bridgewater

Boomstick!

To reference the King of California while ignoring tense, I’m Back. After letting daily life (mostly work…..OK OK, I’ve been playing some Vampire Wars on Facebook too….that stupid little game is addictive….) interfere with posting here at the HAG site, I noticed a rather rude comment in the queue with regard to my most recent post on the new series Krod Mandoon. Aside from highlighting what a mental midget he is, Chad (who I like to call “Hanging Chad”….sounds like something that might deposit itself in one’s underpants) unwittingly highlighted to me that I hadn’t posted here in over a month. So once again, I’m Back….and with my Boomstick.

The site traffic has been really good even without me actively posting recently. In the February timeframe, we went over 100,000 hits (and that doesn’t count those who read us via RSS, Atom, etc.)….Now, I know this is really small potatoes (especially when compared to the illustrious  Raincoaster), but considering the size of the niche here (Gamer Geeks, etc.), we’re all pretty happy that anybody is reading at all. So keep stroking my ego. I’ve been working on some posts and will have some fresh, new content up soon.

Additionally, I know that Elric the Damned must have seen new movies….Let’s hope he tells us about them soon. Incidentally, the household in Bridgewater has recently subscribed to Netflix, so I may have some thoughts on movies, etc. soon too.

~AoB

Movie Review – Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the fourth installment in the series.

This contrived failure limps by with a 6.

Indiana Jones tracks down a Crystal Skull and the mythic temple in the Amazon from which it originated while battling the ruthless KGB agent (Cate Blanchett) who is also seeking it and its fabled powers. Don’t blame Harrison Ford for this being the worst of the four movies. He plays Indiana Jones well and keeps him in character. It’s not easy being such a stud when you’re 66 years old. Indy has an amazing punch and huge capacity to take damage for such an old guy, but he plays the character as an older man for the most part. His acting and character kept me sane and in my seat. This movie almost sunk to a 5 as I almost considered considering leaving.

Cate Blanchett did a decent job as Irina Spalko in her mad quest to get the skull and its purported powers. She was a pretty good bad guy but lacked the ruthless evil that the antagonists in the other three movies possessed. None of the bad guys in this movie were driven by the joy of hurting others like in the other movies. They were bad, but not evil. It was nice to see Karen Allen again. She was good reprising her role as Marion Ravenwood and seemed to relish it. Shia LaBeouf (Transformers, Disturbia, I Robot) was also pretty good as Mutt Williams and in his function as a draw for the younger movie crowd. It has been 17 years since the last Indiana Jones.

So why am I so unhappy? The movie seemed to be contrived. It seemed that they tried to jam too many references or gimmicks from the other movies into this one but did it poorly and superficially. Jones is sinking in quick sand and all they can find in the jungle to pull him out is a great big snake? No sticks or vines nearby? It wasn’t funny at all. Then there were several things that were just totally outrageous with no possibility of being believed: refrigerator, monkeys, jeep in tree, waterfalls, etc. Yes, this is supposed to push the limits, but some things are just too ridiculous to believe or enjoy. When two dozen trained KGB soldiers are firing at Indy with automatic weapons at short range, how can every single one of them completely miss him? Spielberg could have used fewer soldiers or had them start shooting when Indy was further away or had some cover. But no, why bother having any sense of reality? In so many cases, they made it so hard to believe in the movie when it was so unnecessary to make it like that. When they are actually exploring the various tombs and crypts, the movie glides back to its roots and is believable.

I liked the plot. It was the execution and script that sunk it. One category that I really enjoyed was that the movie used special effects similar to those from the 1980s. It kept the feel of the movie in line with the first three. It was a good nostalgic effect.

I love the Indiana Jones movies and walked into the theater wanting to enjoy the movie. But from the first scenes, it just made me angry and disappointed.

Roll-playing – now how do you mean that?

It always irritates me when some-one uses the term “Roll-playing”. It is typically used to differentiate games that have a lot of crunch, have a gamist (GNS) agenda, or otherwise fail to fulfill some essential role-playing criteria of whomever is using the term. It is essentially a derisive term and I think it is a disservice to the gaming community for gamers to continue to use it. I mean, we’re all geeks….what do we mean by saying “Roll-play”, that “I’m a better geek than you are?” Jeeze, that’s what we need more of….

Roll-playing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Roll-Playing is a pun on the phrase ‘role-playing’ (as in role-playing game) for when character statistics and rolling dice (especially for combat) become more important than role-playing or telling a story. It generally is used to refer to hack-and-slash games such as Dungeons & Dragons. The use of the phrase “roll-playing” is generally considered to be derogatory, and snobbish.

It is also sometimes called ‘Rule-Playing,’ when the mechanical rules of the game become the most important part of the game.

If confronted with this, some users of the term will add caveats, “Dude, its not for me to say how you ought to play…I’m just describing a style of play that I don’t happen to care for…”. Its like saying “That’s so gay…..not that there’s anything wrong with that…”

Many people use the term seemingly unaware of the negative connotations associated with it (Stephen Chenault attempts to use it as a positive in the forward to the Castles & Crusades Players Hand Book, “Where Rollplaying and Role Playing Meet”). The fact of the matter remains that one would be hard pressed to find many who would stand by the statement, “I prefer Roll-playing over Role-playing”.

The term implies that somehow types of gaming that fall under the nebulous umbrella of Roll-playing don’t quite qualify as Role-playing or are an inferior types of Role-playing. What’s up with that? “I am the Uber-Geek! Behold my d20 and cringe in fear!”

Now, there will be some who think that I’m picking nits and there may be some truth to that. But I’m not just talking about someone knocking specific sub-types of gaming. I’m also talking about the precision of meaning.

What do they (oh, yes I’m talking about them) mean when they use the term “Roll-playing”. If not to be derisive, do they mean “games that use dice”, “games that provide a strong tactical focus”, “games that are rules-heavy”, “games that limit GM fiat”, “games with random-generation of characters, encounters, treasure…”, “games with a heavy combat focus”, “games that resolved social interactions, etc. mechanistically”, etc?

The point of using a buzzword is to make it immediately clear to your reader (or listener) what it is you mean. “Roll-play” doesn’t do that. Not by a long shot. So I wish they’d cut it out.

If you’re one of them…you know those guys who use the term “Roll-play” and don’t mean it in a bad way, please leave a comment that explains what it is that you do mean. And be precise! Who knows, I may be completely off my rocker…

~Adaen of Bridgewater