Robert’s blog (1.0)

Based on certain posts I've seen in rec.games.frp.dnd, rec.games.frp.gurps, and on the Pyramid newsgroups recently, I have some free advice to all roleplaying referees: Do not switch systems in the middle of a campaign.

If you switch from D&D to GURPS, your players--especially the one who created the über-archer--will be greatly annoyed that the capabilities of their characters are greatly changed. Modifying GURPS to be more like D&D isn't worth your time. D&D does D&D just fine and is loads of fun. You and your players will enjoy GURPS much more if--when your D&D campaign concludes--you start a brand new GURPS campaign, and they create GURPS characters rather than trying to convert D&D characters.

Likewise, if you're running a D&D3e campaign, why not wait until it winds down before switching to D&D3.5e.

There are times to change rules midstream. When a rule is getting in the way of the fun, it's better to change it than not. Changing all the rules midstream is just a recipe for disaster.

Once again I've seen someone stating that it is "wrong" for armor in a roleplaying game to make you harder to hit.

Properly designed, there is really no difference between "armor makes you harder to hit" and "armor absorbs damage". Realistically, armor does both. Roleplaying games, however, are abstractions.

For example, let's take pair of warriors: Tom and Jerry. Let's say that in system A, Tom has a 50% chance of hitting Jerry, that Tom does 1d6 points of damage per hit, and that Jerry has armor that absorbs 2 points of damage per hit.

Now, let's say that in system B, instead of Jerry's armor absorbing 2 points of damage per hit, it lowers Toms chance to hit by 28 points. Now Tom only has a 22% chance to hit.

With system A, Tom will do an average of 0.75 points of damage per round. With system B, Tom will do an average of 0.77 points of damage per round. That's close enough to the same. (To get closer, you'd need to be able to modify the chance to hit by less than 1%.)

(This, of course, assumes that hit points are the same in both systems. Comparisons between actual RPG systems are rarely so simple.)

So many people go on about how silly it is to use different mechanics where you can have a unified mechanic. Well, damage absorbing armor is one of those mechanics that can be eliminated by using another existing mechanic.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not really saying that a damage absorbing armor mechanic is "wrong". I'm just arguing that "armor makes you harder to hit" is not wrong.

I'm much more bothered by the fact that most roleplaying games have no or only a very rough correllation between chance to hit and damage inflicted. In D&D, you can only have a 5% chance of hitting, but still have just as good a chance of doing maximum damage as if you had a 95% chance of hitting.

It's even worse in a game like GURPS in which armor absorbs damage. The slow guy in heavy armor who is easy to hit never takes maximum damage. The quick guy who is hard to hit--if you're lucky enough to hit him--can receive maximum damage.

My thinking is that if someone is hard to hit, when you do hit them, it's very likely that it isn't going to be a solid blow. I don't know if that's realistic, but that's how I'd like things to work.

I just viewed the trailer for Mel Gibson's film The Passion. If you haven't heard, this is a film about the crucifixion of Christ. The most noted feature of this production has been that the dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin. Here's an article about it.

I'm eager to see a film featuring one of my favorite languages (Latin). I'm at a loss, however, for why this film would be in Latin. If you want to attempt to depict the story realistically, there shouldn't be a lot of Latin in it. If you don't want to be realistic, then why the Aramaic?

The depictions of the cross itself in the trailer seem more consistent with art than with scholarship. Also interesting is the choice for the Italian pronunciation of Latin heard in the trailer when Pontius Pilate utters that immortal phrase, "Ecce homo." (John 19:5, which was written in Greek, actually says "Ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος")

So, I'm left wondering exactly what the point is. In any case, I just hope it won't be unbearably gory.

D&D 3.5 is out. Although much of it looks to be good, I'm not buying it.

Firstly, it is too much too soon.

A revision that merely clarified rules and corrected errors would have been welcome. New players would get a better product, and old players would have the option of not buying them since nothing actually changed. Instead, players and groups are forced to decide whether they will soldier on with the old rules--which new players won't be able to buy--or convert to a new edition less than three years since the release of the last edition.

There was about 11 years between AD&D1e and AD&D2e. There was also about 11 years between AD&D2e and D&D3e. I was eager for a new edition when those were released. I am not eager for a new edition now.

Secondly, I've not been impressed with the quality of Wizard of the Coast products recently. While the D&D3e game was a vast improvement, the books themselves suffered too many errors, lack of clarity, and poor design. It seemed as though the latter stages of the project had been rushed too much.

The D&D3e supplements were much worse quality from the core books. (Witness the blade singer prestige class in Tome & Blood.) I soon stopped buying anything D&D3e related at all.

(And don't get me started on the ".5" thing. Here's a hint: The dots in software-style version numbers are separators, not decimal points. This remains true despite idiotic market tricks like Mac OS 7.5.)

So, I'm looking at the new $8 computer speakers we just bought, and the box proudly proclaims "MultimediaSpeakers". (Incidentally, the bold type is their choice, not mine.)

I haven't been able to get text, graphics, or full-motion video out of them yet. Just as well, I only wanted unimedium speakers anyway, and they were cheap.

I finally hooked up the optical mouse I got for Christmas. Yes, my motto is "Don't put off until tomorrow what you can put off until next week."

I love it! These new optical mouses are a dream. Not only do they not need a special mouse pad like the old optical mouses, but neither do they feel unnatural like the old ones. In fact, the way the thing glides across the table seems even more natural than a ball mouse. It also seems to fit my hand even better than the ball Microsoft mouse it has replaced, despite not having the "for right handers only" curve of its predecessor.

This may replace the Kensignton track ball (known by such names as "Turbo Mouse" or "Expert Mouse") as my favorite pointing device.

Even if--as I suspect--Microsoft branded mouses are actually manufactured by a third party, you have to give them credit for always having some of the best mouses in the business. Plus, they work beautifully with both Linux and Macintosh. (Although, I haven't had the opportunity to use it with Linux on a Macintosh.)

(I don't remember when or where I learned that "mouses" is the proper plural for computer mouses. In any case, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition agrees. It does, however, also list "mice" as an acceptable plural.)

In other news, my home workstation seems to be at last in working shape again.

Last weekend I had the joy of serving on the team for (Southwest Texas) Walk to Emmaus #1073 at Mount Wesley. Lots of music, lots of food, some exercise, & lots of reflection. I learned a few things about what it would take to be music director. I got some experience playing bass. I also got to reconnect with some friends, make some new friends, & reconnect with God. Although I'd gone only for the chance to serve, it turned out to be the recharge I'd been needing & a chance to readjust my priorities.

Otto Jespersen, a Norwegian comedian, has been charged for burning a US flag. You see, Norway has a law against "insulting a foreign state's flag". (I'll concede for the moment the question of whether "burning" should be considered "insulting".)

Pretty funny, eh? As NPR said this morning: "While it is your constitutional right to burn the US flag anywhere in America, you may not do so in Norway."

Actually, I don't think it's funny. I think it is a perfect illustration of what makes the US the greatest nation on the planet: Freedom. Too many US citizens are treating our freedom as a joke and letting more and more of it be taken away.

Does a society really need to criminalize burning or insulting a cloth? Sure, it may be a symbolic cloth, but there's a commandment about confusing symbols with what they stand for.

Oh, and by the way: Burning has long been considered the proper way to dispose of a worn out flag.

I've heard the question asked, "How can you support the troops if you don't support the war?"

The problem for Vietnam veterans was not that people protested again the war. The problem was that some people carried it too far. They treated the soldiers as if the war was their fault. The lesson from Vietnam is not to not protest. It is to not blame the soldiers for doing their job.

(It is also worth remembering that, whenever the possibility of a war arises, no one wants it to be "another Vietnam". Although some may have misplaced their anger, history seems to have issued judgement in favor of the opinion of those protesters.)

It is really no different than how the President of the United States can say, "America is a friend to the people of Iraq." and "The people of Iraq are not our enemies." while threatening war to overthrow the Iraqi regime. Just as the President can distinguish between the Iraqi people and the Iraqi regime, those who are against war can distinguish between the US troops and the commander-in-chief.

Indeed, we should all celebrate our right to opening critize and protest the actions of our government. We should welcome such protests, whether we agree with them or not. It is a right that, I am sure, many Iraqis wish they had.

The lesson of Columbia is not that we need to increase funding of the space program. No amount of extra funding can eliminate all risk, and the program has an amazing safety record with the funding they have.

The lesson is not that we need a replacement for the space shuttle. A vehicle with a shorter operating history would be more likely to have undiscovered flaws.

The lesson is not that we should drop all manned missions in favor of robotic missions. Astronauts know the risks of their job better than anyone else, and they accept it freely.

Like most people, I have my own list of how I think our space program could be improved. The Columbia tragedy, however, shouldn't be coöpted for our personal agendas.

The lesson of Columbia will be--once we know exactly what happened--knowing how to prevent it from happening again. That's it. If you don't have better arguments to back up a change you'd like to see, then just be quiet, please.