Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea

This kickstarter also looks worthwhile:

It's already through several stretch goals. I've backed it.

X-Cards Are Moronic

X-Cards are moronic. If you are so fragile that your mental well being is threatened by Dungeons & Dragons or other role-playing games, you need serious help. Too harsh? Consider this absurd example from the comments at RPGPundit:

I've been in about 20 games with tools such as the X-card, Lines and Veils, and Open Door Policy. These are all tools to help people know they are supported in case something comes up. They have been used zero times in all of those games.

In a space horror type game I was running for 2 close friends (at home / private space), we had a situation come up where I suggested that a fungus had taken over our brains. One friend turned a bit pale, and requested a no-thank-you. If I had explained the X-card that game, that's what she would've grabbed (we had that discussion later). Turns out it was triggering due to some history (I didn't ask and didn't care). Main thing is I was supportive of retcon and changing the narrative to suit.

If mind-controlling space fungus is a trigger for you, you are ill. You don't need X-Cards, safewords, or guardrails; you need therapy. We hear a lot of talk about making the gaming community a more welcoming space these days. If this is what you mean, I want no part of it.

Operation Unfathomable

This kickstarter looks very worthwhile:

I've backed it and hope it clears the stretch goals.

Lightning Bolt

In OD&D and AD&D, the spell Lightning Bolt rebounds and doubles back if space limitations and/or a non-conducting barrier, such as stone wall, prevents it from extending to its full length. (Men & Magic 25; 1E PHB 74; 1E DMG 45). Non-conductive materials include most non-metallic minerals as well as glass and wood. So while the spell will "sunder wooden doors," "splinter up to 1' thickness of stone," and presumably shatter a window, it will rebound back from all of these surfaces "damage caused to interposing barriers notwithstanding." (1E PHB 74) By extension, a lightning bolt should not rebound when it strikes most bodies of water, because water is conductive unless it is pure, but apparently should not harm living creatures that are fully submerged. But what is the justification for the rebound from non-conductive surface? Is there an actual basis in physics for this phenomenon?

Magic Resistance

Speaking of Swords & Wizardry, I noticed something peculiar about the rules: it borrows the magic resistance mechanic from the second edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, rather than the rule stated in OD&D or the first edition.

On page 92 of Swords & Wizardry Complete, magic resistance is described as follows:

One of the "Special" items that may be listed for some creatures is "Magic Resistance," followed by a percentage. The given percentage chance is the likelihood that any magic used against the creature (other than bonuses from weapons) will fail to take effect. Roll d100 and if the result is less than the given percentage, the magic will fail.

In contrast, the rule in OD&D and the first edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons differed. As stated on pages 5-6 of the first edition Monster Manual:

"Magic Resistance indicates the percentage chance of any spell absolutely failing in the monster's presence. It is based on the spell being cast by a magic user of 11th level and it must be adjusted upwards by 5% for each level below 11th or downwards for each level above 11th of the magic-user casting the spell. Thus a magic resistance of 95% means that a 10th level magic-user has no possibility of affecting he monster with a spell, while a 12th level magic-user has a 10% chance.

The same rule was stated in the entry for the Balrog in OD&D's Monsters & Treasure, but was omitted when the Balrog was deleted from subsequent printings.

The mechanic used in Swords & Wizardry did not appear until the second edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. For example, page 66 of the second edition Dungeon Master Guide states:

Magic resistance is given as a percentile number. For a magical effect to have any chance of success, the magic resistance must be overcome. The target (the one with the magic resistance) rolls percentile dice. If the roll is higher than the creature's magic resistance, the spell has a normal effect.

It is interesting that Swords & Wizardry adopts a second edition mechanic in no small part because second edition's reputation in the OSR is mixed at best. It also is notable because Swords & Wizardry Complete often makes clear when it is departing from the original rules or offering an interpretive gloss on those rules; for example, see pages 27, 34, 36, 40, 41. It does not do so with respect to magic resistance though. So no explanation is offered for why this choice was made.

On the one hand, the second edition mechanic has the virtue of simplicity: no math necessary, just a straightforward percentile roll. But it also plays differently, particularly if one retains the same basic magic resistance statistics for monsters. (With one exception, Swords & Wizardry states the same magic resistance statistics for demons that were stated in the first edition Monster Manual.) Under the OD&D and first edition rule, magic resistance scales; as magic-users increase in level, they become more likely to overcome a creature's magic resistance; under the second edition rule, the magic-user's level makes no difference. This has the effect of making creatures with high magic resistance more powerful on balance.

I don't prefer one mechanic over the other. But if I used the second edition one, I'd also modify the magic resistance of creatures from those stated in OD&D and the first edition. I'm surprised that Swords & Wizardry did not.

Frog God Games Plays Politics

I’m a big fan of Swords & Wizardry. But the third printing of the ruleset—currently on Kickstarter—is disappointing. The cover artwork is terrible. That’s obviously a subjective judgment, so judge for yourself:

[Undead Bullwinkle and the Butterflies]

The semi-transparent yellow product logo looks awful placed over the bright yellow magical energy emanating from the skull's head, if that's an accurate description. I cannot tell what the cover depicts or why it is happening. The cover is hardly innovative; it looks like the sort of art one would have seen on a White Wolf product many years ago. If the quality of the art were my principal complaint, however, I likely would not complain overmuch. But there is so much more to dislike.

Frog God Games hired an all-female design team to create a new look to appeal to potential female customers. Here is how the company explained the project:

We didn’t just want to do an exact reprint, and the history of the changes here date back a while ago to when we were talking with designer Stacy Dellorfano about the fact that many OSR games have a physical appearance and presentation that really targets the 40 year old guys who’ve been gaming since forever, and doesn’t have nearly as much appeal to younger or female gamers of the generations following that first wave of players from the 1980s. In point of fact, old-school games, with their light-rules aspect and emphasis on a game master’s “common sense” interpretation of situations, are actually a really good tool for anyone who feels like rules-lawyers may be spoiling the game by trying to be over-authoritative or even overbearing with a GM. But if the appearance and presentation make the game look like it’s purely a throwback and not a modern tool for good gaming, then there’s a real obstacle to the game’s push into the mainstream gaming community.

As a result of this analysis, we engaged Stacy as a designer to produce an edition that’s no less appealing to older male gamers, while being MORE appealing to younger and to female gamers. Stacy put together a team, all women, to address this dual objective.

There are so many doubtful assumptions inherent in the company’s statement that it hard to know where to begin. The proposition that the artwork of the current printing alienates women who otherwise would be playing Swords & Wizardry is dubious to say the least. There certainly are old school games accompanied by provocative artwork that could conceivably alienate female customers. But that’s not true of Swords & Wizardry. There are roughly 30 illustrations in the current printing that depict adventurers; of these 12 are of or include females and none of them are of the sort that occasionally elicits criticism, such as women clad in chain mail bikinis (a complaint that is both overdone and half-baked in my view). One of three adventurers shown on the cover is a woman. If there is anything alienating or marginalizing about the current rulebook’s artwork, it is less than obvious. Can anyone identify specific artwork that might offend and explain why?

I also am skeptical of the underlying assumption that there is a common female aesthetic point of view to which the company can cater. Women’s tastes in art vary as much as men’s. But addressing Frog God Game’s argument on its own terms for a moment, what makes it think that it is possible to simultaneously cater both to its male customer base’s tastes and those of potential female customers? If we accept the company’s implicit premise that men and women respond to art differently according to their respective sex, how could an all female design team ever hope to create a new printing “that’s no less appealing to older male gamers?” The company appears to have reconciled this apparent conundrum with conventional leftist gender politics. In an update to its Kickstarter project, a Frog God Games representative suggests the opposite, explaining that rightly or wrongly the gaming industry has been perceived as a “no girls allowed” zone and that the company is just explicitly saying the opposite, which is a fairly unobjectionable sentiment. But Dellorfano has been far more explicit:

The era of 70s gaming mimicked in many OSR products was perhaps the least welcoming time for women. This is an era where the creators were actively saying women don't buy D&D so they're not interested in listening to their concerns, where boys weren't just making the gaming table uncomfortable for women, they were telling them they weren't allowed, where stats for female characters were capped, and openly sexist material was being published that did as much to mock the women who disliked it as it did to minimize their involvement.

It's no surprise that when I ask women why they hate the OSR and will never do anything with it, they tell me they think the OSR is still trapped in the mindset of the 70s, where sexism was open and allowed and seldom questioned. This is a period where we were only represented in science fiction and fantasy works as token characters or sexual objects and love interests. This is a time when we watched our mothers and grandmothers crumble after lifetimes of being marginalized and treated poorly. This is a time when an amendment to the constitution banning discrimination based on gender *failed*. This is not a time most women want to go back to, and whether you know it or not, whether you like it or not, whether it *should* happen or not, the mimicked TSR trade dress and art style of the 70s reminds many, many women of that time.

Whether one approves or disapproves of this explanation, it is explicitly political in nature. To suggest, as some have, that the third printing of Swords & Wizardry is apolitical is just not true. That Frog God Games would embrace any politics whatsoever is lamentable, but the politics it chose to embrace are pitiful.

As an initial matter, I think Dellorfano’s complaint that “stats for female characters were capped” is misleading. I don’t have encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, but OD&D did not address sex differences in character statistics and the only statistic in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons that appears to have differed based on sex is strength (see pages 9–15 of the first edition Player’s Handbook). That’s not sexism; it’s reality. If you think otherwise, please explain why the U.S. Army has different physical fitness standards for male and female soldiers. A fantasy game is free to dispense with reality; realism is hardly required in a game that involves sorcery, monsters, and gods. But recognition of sex differences is not sexism.

More generally, the argument that the 1970s generally were inhospitable to women such that women naturally cannot appreciate old school artwork from the era is preposterous. By this logic, women also could not enjoy other art, books, films, or music from the era. It does not paint women in flattering colors to suggest that they cannot distinguish the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment from the artwork of Erol Otus. Plenty of women opposed the ERA, by the way; its principal nemesis was Phyllis Schlafly. For anyone born after 1982, this is all ancient history anyway. In short, it’s highly unlikely that women younger than Dellorfano or those who do not share her politics see old school games in the same light.

At any rate, what about the new art will appeal to women? The pinkish hues? The butterflies? Had men produced a cover like this in an attempt to appeal to women, one can imagine the hue and cry that would have resulted. As near as I can tell, the only explanation on offer is that Otus, Easley, Elmore, Sutherland, and Trampier are just too triggering. That's unreasonable. I cannot grasp what Frog God Games hopes to achieve by playing politics in this fashion.