Robert’s blog (1.0)

As you can see I'm starting to update to the currently fashionable 80×15 size for badges over there on the right side. Some are stolen from Steal These Buttons. Some have been made with Button Maker. Some have been made or modified by me with the GIMP.

Although I understand the sentiment against them, I've always been fond of the little web badges. There a bit like modern day heraldry. The 80×15 ones remind me of military ribbons.

The next fantasy campaign I run, I'm planning on using the c. 1981 D&D Basic and Expert Sets. These are the editions edited by Tom Moldvay (Basic) and Dave Cook with Steve Marsh (Expert). I call it B/X.

Allow me to list some reasons.

The B/X rules are so simple and simply laid out that everyone at the table can understand the whole game. Just two 64 page booklets. This is a nice change from most of the other roleplaying games I've played over the years.

I've also considered some other minimalist systems: Risus, Fudge, The Ladder, and Barbarians of Lemuria to name a few in particular. They're all either a bit too minimal, too free form, or too generic for the campaign I'm considering.

(I've got my own set of ultra-minimalist roleplaying rules I'll post someday.)

Another nice thing about the rules being brief is that they leave a lot of things open to interpretation. Since the rule books don't go into detail about topics, how you interpret things can add a lot of individual flavor to your campaign.

I used to criticize classic D&D for being illogical. Today, I have more of a gamist than simulationist attitude, so those things I thought were illogical don't bother me so much anymore.

I used to criticize classic D&D for being inconsistent. What dice do you roll in this case? Do you want to roll low or high? B/X has a moderate number of subsystems that are all very simple, easy to learn, and easy to play. Low complexity keeps the inconsistency from being a problem.

(Whether consistent mechanics are desirable is a whole 'nother discussion.)

Another reason I find myself preferring minimalist rules is that I love rules. I'm addicted to min/maxing and rules lawyering. I just can't help myself. B/X doesn't feed those habits.

The biggest problems with B/X are: (1) It's out of print. (2) I think it'd work just as well or better as a single 128 page book.

The choice of system aside, though, what I'm really looking forward to, however, is creating an ongoing campaign world. Campaigns I've run have always been disconnected. This time, I want to create a world for the PCs to explore and become a part of. There'll be plenty of adventures to find, but there won't be even the skeleton of a plot or plan on my part. Some PCs will, I hope, eventually choose to build strongholds. PCs will retire, and new PCs will be created. Some years from now, instead of relating backstory I've written about the world, I'll be telling parties backstory that was lived by past PCs.

Well, that's the goal, anyway.

Of course, there's still the Lord of the Rings campaign to revisit and the classic Traveller campaign I've been promising to run, the old west & pulp sci-fi campaigns I've been considering, giving Lejendary Adventure a try, and playing rather than refereeing. Too much gaming to be done, too little time.

My wonderful wife bought me the Return of the King DVD for my birthday. She even insisted on watching it with me. So, I have now, at last, seen the third film.

It is interesting how PJ's Middle-Earth seems so much smaller than JRRT's. It also has fewer peoples. I may be wrong about this, but it seems like those people can field unusually large armies, though. (And then, at other times, surprisingly small.)

This episode has a lot of small to medium sized changes from the book. (Not counting the stuff that was left out completely.) The essence, or rather an essence of the story remains. PJ has amped up the drama & removed nearly all subtlety.

The "searchlight" eye of Sauron was particularly amusing. I was very disappointed that we didn't get to see Gandalf's final confrontation with Saruman. The continued invention of more storyline for Arwen remains annoying. Delaying the reforging of Narsil didn't pay off. Frodo dismissing Sam seemed another unfortunate & unnecessary change of characterization. It would have been nice if Denethor's insanity had been given its reason.

I must agree with those who have decried the removal of the scouring of the Shire. At one point, I recall PJ saying that they were going to make the movies as if the stuff that was left out could have happened, but he depicts the hobbits returning to a Shire seemingly untouched by recent events. The problem isn't so much that PJ didn't include the scouring as that it was erased.

The Battle of Pelennor Fields, as depicted by PJ, was spectacular.

I guess what I said above sums it up: More drama, less subtlety.

Of the three, the first film is definitely my favorite. The third, second favorite.

A month or two ago, we rented The Gospel of John the movie, but I forgot to post a comment about it.

I'll admit, its been a while since I've read the book, but the movie came across as truly word for word as it claims to be. (The Good News translation.) It's a powerful illustration of why word for word adaptions from text to film seldom occur. We couldn't finish it.

I admire the ideal though. Also, I think that for some people who don't love reading, this could be much more accessible than the book while taking much less license in the adaption. If you've always wanted to read more of the Bible, but aren't an avid reader, this film may be worth looking into.

De Colores is a Spanish folk song associated with the Cursillo movement. Having just returned from serving on the music team for a Walk to Emmaus (the Methodist expression of Cursillo), I thought I'd share this new verse I found on the somewhere on web.

Sing the chorus, sing the chorus
Because no one can really remember the verses,
Sing the chorus, sing the chorus
'Cause what rhymes in Spanish does not rhyme in English.
Sing the chorus, sing the chorus
Because all the words never really seem to fit.
Sing the chorus and clap your hands loudly and
No one will notice you really don't know it!
Sing the chorus and clap your hands loudly and
No one will notice you really don't know it!

...which he wishes he would follow more often.

An online forum is what the users make of it. So, make it what you want to be through your posts.

How do you do that?

1. Don't feed the trolls. I know its really, really hard. Responding to trolls at all, even to call them trolls, validates them. The only effective way to deal with trolls is to ignore them.
2. Avoid metadiscussion. Discussions about discussions tend to go nowhere. This was one of the first rules of netiquette I learned c. 1991, and online discussions are still suffering from it today.
3. Don't bother criticizing the moderators. If you must, though, confine it to private messages.
4. Write posts like you would want to read. Which is really the underlying rule behind the others. Do you want to read responses to trolls? Do you want to read criticisms of moderators or metadiscussion? Is that what you go to the forum for?

It seems like many of the online discussions I frequent these days are suffering from exactly these issues: trolls, metadiscussion, & moderator bashing. All at the expense of the topic at hand. I hope that writing these guidelines out will help me to follow them better.

I finally broke down, joined the new Castle & Crusade Society, signed the NDA, and gotten a look at the draft C&C PHB. My current impression is that it is half way between d20 & the old Basic/Expert/&c. boxed sets. It definately isn't afraid to chart its own course, though. There are aspects that, while maybe not entirely original, definately depart from any published edition of D&D. I have been thinking that I'd like to use Basic/Expert for the next fantasy campaign I run, but I could see using C&C instead.

When Microsoft started embracing & extending Java, what did Sun do?

They could have simply continued to make sure that their own Java offerings on both Solaris & Windows were rock solid & delivered on the promises they were making about Java. They could've concentrated all their energies on selling the advantages of Sun Java on Windows.

Instead, they sued. They had a nasty, nasty lawsuit that dragged on forever. They fought a nasty battle in the press as well. They ended up leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth. While it didn't kill Java, I guarantee Java would be stronger today if Sun had handled things differently.

Today, there's another call for Sun to make Java open source.

Now, I don't begrudge Sun the right to decide not to go open source. I do feel free to criticize their publicized reasoning.

They say, "Sun would be very favorable to an open source destiny for Java if compatibility and other issues, such as brand and license management, can be addressed [...]"

Sun: Door still open on open source Java

Don't they realize that IBM could just create an alternative to Java? Would Sun prefer C# to be joined by more Java alternatives? Will that increase compatibility?

As long as Sun keeps a tight hold on Java, there's a danger that IBM & others will stop supporting Java to search for or create alternatives. Indeed, there are developers that now echew Java in favor of un-Java-like but open alternatives.

Has Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP, or any other open source programming language you care to name suffered from compatibility problems any worse than Java has?

(Is Sun really interested in a high level of compatibility between Java implementations? When I was in a position to pick between Sun & IBM, Sun sales people used incompatibilities between Sun's Java & IBM's Java to try to sell me on Sun.)

If the Java brand becomes associated with "Sun lock-in" as C# is associated with "Microsoft lock-in" then Sun has ceeded a huge competitive advantage to Microsoft.

(Although, mcs might mean C# isn't a MS lock-in.)

The only license management issues to deal with are removing stuff from Java that can't be open sourced. Other than that Sun's (& IBM's & everyone else's) lawyers can defend an open source license in just the same ways they defend proprietary licenses.

Java has become one of those infrastructure bits that helps us all. It could be something that all the interested parties can own & share a stake in. It is one of those good examples for when open source makes good business sense.

Sun has every right to do whatever they wish with Java, but if they're going to make public statements about why it isn't open source, they need to do better than this. Because these sorts of arguments don't bolster my faith in Sun, and--as a Java developer--I need faith in Sun as long as they're keeping a tight control over Java.

Music sharing doesn't kill CD sales, study says

"We find that file sharing has only had a limited effect on record sales," the study's authors wrote. "While downloads occur on a vast scale, most users are likely individuals who would not have bought the album even in the absence of file sharing."

...and...

Moreover, their data seemed to show that downloads could even have a slight positive effect on the sales of the top albums, the researchers said.

God of Rock,
Thank You for this chance to kick ass.
We are Your humble servants.
Please give us the power to blow people's minds with our high-voltage rock.
In Your name we pray.
Amen.

School of Rock