It's a small world

If you never heard of the Hungarian writer Frigyes Karinthy, don't feel bad. Neither had I until I looked further into the theory of Six Degrees. He invented it in his short story, Chains (Láncszemek) in 1929.

The idea of the theory is that through no more than six persons, you are connected to everyone on the entire planet. Of course, you can question how well you have to know someone for them to count as a degree. Let's assume for the sake of this post, that you have at least chatted amiably with the persons in question, on more than one occasion.

Now considering that both the Chinese and the Indian populations have exceeded a billion each, it's likely that the theory falls apart, particularly in the more rural areas. However, I don't think it would take too many extra degrees, until even these huge populations are connected.

I am an average middle class guy from Helsinki, Finland. A nobody on the global scale. I have no famous friends, but a former colleague of mine (1^st degree (I'll respect her privacy and won't post her name)) is the mother of HIM frontman Ville Valo (2^nd degree). He in turn, is friends with Jackass star Bam Margera (3^rd degree). Bam knows an awful lot of people, but let's take a few examples from his MTV show Viva la Bam; the band Slayer, Jack Osbourne and Sean Penn (all 4^th degrees).

From Slayer, we get as an example the bands Motorhead and Manowar as my 5th degrees. (They toured together).

Jack Osbourne is the son of Ozzy Osbourne (5^th degree), and I can't even begin to guess at all the people he knows. All these people are my 6^th degrees.

With Sean Penn, we get a veritable Who's Who of Hollywood stars like Christopher Walken, Gary Oldman and Al Pacino. They are all also my 5^th degrees. And let's not forget that Sean was married to Madonna. So all their friends and aquaintances are my 6^th degrees.

Of course, none of these famous people have the faintest idea who I am, and it won't affect my life in any way what so ever, but it is fun to see how the connections can criss-cross the planet.

House of Cards, then and now

I first saw House of Cards in the early 90's on the BBC, and I fell in love. I had never seen anything like it. The treachery, the plotting, the cold-blooded destruction of lives, careers and reputations. Incredibly powerful stuff.

Ian Richardson as Francis Urquhart, the Tory Chief Whip has been cemented in my mind as the ultimate cunning statesman; as smooth and charming as he is vicious and cruel.

But this isn't about that. Well not exactly. This is about the 2013 remake starring Kevin Spacey as Francis Underwood, the Democratic Congressional Majority Whip. Mr. Spacey is an excellent veteran actor, and delivers a good performance as usual.

Both shows follow the same path more or less, but with the BBC version lasting only four hours, and the Netflix show spanning thirteen 45 minute episodes, the americans have been forced to find more things to do. This naturally changes the story quite a bit, but it's not necessarily a bad thing.

At first, I was unconvinced as I started watching, but I soon realized that to simply copy the original would have been wrong. This remake is more of a proper rewrite, in that it is an american show about american politics. Their political system is bigger and perhaps more complicated (I'm no expert), and the new show reflects that I think. Soon enough I happily settled in to enjoy what they had to offer.

That's when a creeping sense of unease set in. Several changes have been made, and while mostly understandable, several major changes felt out of place.

Take Francis as an example. Superficially the changes from Urquhart to Underwood are unimportant, but where Urquhart wielded a scalpel, Underwood uses an axe, and there is no way Urquhart would ever have made the mistakes Underwood did. Like go on CNN and make an absolute ass of himself. This takes away a great deal of the characters panache. At times it feels as if he hadn't really thought out his scheme at all.

Underwood does use the famous line ”You might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment”. This line was made famous by the original House of Cards, and has been used by real politicians since.

Then there's Francis's right hand man. Originally Tim Stamper, now Doug Stamper. The name change is of no matter, but the personality change is definately a problem. A whips job is to reign in and guide the more junior members of the party, MP and Congressman alike. Now Tim could get the job done, with terror if need be, but Doug comes across as whiny rather than scary. Not good...

But the worst major personality change comes in the shape of the young female journalist. Mattie Storin becomes Zoe Barnes. Again no issue with the name, but the character, as an inexperienced reporter with a keen nose for a good story and great instincts, who becomes involved with the great statesman, Mattie filled the role admirably where Zoe is rude, arrogant and as sublte as a brick to the face. The whole character fails completely. Instead of sympathy I felt contempt.

There's a long plotline with Mrs. Underwood and her work, that never existed in the original, but this works pretty well, as they really needed something to do with their time increase. I didn't find it that interesting, but it wasn't bad.

They have also done a good job depicting the relationship between corporate and political America, I have no complaints about that.

Overall, the Netflix version is pretty enjoyable, but it feels quite clumsy compared to the original. It misses the mark more than once, but not so often as to ruin the show.

Selecting the Enemy

Many if not most RPG's have monsters, which is awesome. Let's face it, fighting monsters is good fun, but how to pick the right one?

I think the key lies in making them fit in the game world. In a sense, a monster being an unnatural creature, will always stand out in a way an animal wouldn't. But if that animal was wildly out of place, like finding a polar bear in a jungle, you might well think your GM has lost it. Likewise, a misplaced monster can make a player sit up and say; What?

Let's first separate the monsters into Fantasy and Horror, these being the genres that use them the most.

Broadly speaking, any monster can fit into Fantasy, but there are pitfalls. The first is to use a very thematic monster that does not belong outside it's own game, i.e. a beholder making an apperance in Warhammer. Sure, thanks to the corrupting effect of Chaos in WFRP, you could explain away a beholder in the Old World, but it is such a poster-monster for D&D, that it doesn't really fit in anywhere else.

The second pitfall is to use too many different monsters in a too rapid a succession. Goblins followed by skeletons followed by three different oozes followed by, well you get the idea. The sheer volume of available creatures can make it tempting to just throw them out there, but this can make it chaotic and confusing, and in turn lessen the wonder and impact of the monsters you really want to showcase. Less is more, as the old saying goes, and it's true. Now I'm not saying you have to be stingy with the beasties, but try not to overdo it either.

Finally, there are monsters that really need a certain type of environment to make sense. Obviously these critters need to stay in these places, or they'll look foolish. From stone giants in sewers to finding mermaids in deserts, these guys should stay at home.

Now, Horror is a slightly different kettle of fish. Horror games tend to be more thematic than their Fantasy cousins, so obviously if you're playing a zombie survival game, zombies are what you'll face. Now this means you have less options when it comes to choosing monsters for your game, and this in turn means each monster becomes more important.

There are some exceptions though, such as Call of Cthulhu, that do have lots of different monsters, but these cases pretty much follow the second Fantasy pitfall.

When I say the Horror monsters are more important, I'm talking about their impact on the mood of the game. One of the finest examples of this is not a tabletop rpg at all, but a computer game series: Silent Hill.

Every monster you encounter in Silent Hill means something to the story. From the iconic Pyramid Head, to the Nurses, not to mention the Bosses, they don't just look scary, their existence makes sense in the world. This makes their impact stronger, which in turn makes the overall horror better.

Finally, Horror monsters need better timing than their Fantasy counterparts, since over use lessens the impact. You could argue that the monsters in Silent Hill appear too frequently for a tabletop horror RPG, and you'd be right. However, computer games use a very different dynamic than ”regular” rpgs. When it comes to good horror timing, movies are a better guide than electronic games.

So pick your monsters with care, and happy gaming!

Keeping your Villain in good health

As a rule, most villains are great at what they do. But so are the heroes. And what do heroes do? They defeat villains, that's what. And this usually means one dead antagonist. Or does it?

All GM's have felt the pain of having their lovingly crafted villain get minced in the first round, and the temptation to have him use some unknown immunity talisman and then teleport away shaking his fist, is tremendous. Sure, this is viable, but only if the PC's genuinely had no idea he could do that (or failed to take it into consideration), and if it is used consistently in the campaign. Otherwise the players will feel cheated. And rightly so, because you would be cheating.

A competent villain must of course have a good array of defenses, unless he is supremely overconfident that he can't be bested. The trick to these defenses is to have them clear in your mind from the start, and to use them fairly. If a PC can stop teleportation, so be it.

So how do you keep Mr. B. Adguy alive?

Of course, it depends a bit on the type of villain he is, but let the him go about his business in peace. He really shouldn't care about the PC's until they have foiled his schemes enough times. If the campaign devolves into nothing but the bad guy chasing the characters around, trying his level best to kill them, you will either get a TPK or your villain will go splat. Game over in any case.

And when he does notice, use mooks, goons and thugs with the occasionally more powerful henchman. After all, there are evil plans to organize! He can't be expected to chase after just anybody. Imagine Emperor Palpatine standing at the arrivals gate on some planet, checking passports just to catch rebels... it's just not on, right?

The added benefit to this, is not only keeping your villain in one piece, but it will make the final, encounter more dramatic. As the old adage goes: Familiarity breeds contempt. The Lord of Doom shouldn't frequent the same coffee shop the PC's do, at least not in his Doom-ly regalia.

In other words, don't over use him. It's cool if he shows up now and then, but be aware that the players will most likely try to kill him given half a chance. And there is nothing more devious than a determined group of players.

Besides, defeating an awesome right hand man makes for a good middle-of-the-story victory.

Let me finish with an example; In the old Transformers cartoon, the evil Decepticons were usually busy trying to steal energon cubes, or whatever, and the Autobots would inevitably show up to stop them. Fight ensues, Decepticons flee. If the show had been all about pure confrontation, it would have been a very short show indeed.