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.

Roll for Initiative

During the past several months, I've been thinking a lot about the mechanics of rpg's.

A long time ago, I read an article written by Justin Achilli, in which he talked about the art of designing character sheets. He said that every skill you put on it, communicates with the players about what kind of characters the game is meant to have.

As an example, he mentioned the computer skill that snuk it's way onto all the OWoD sheets. This in turn led to hacker werewolves. That was never really in the game designers heads. But since it was on the character sheet, it was obviously ment to be used. So you get ferocious, nerdy, H4xx0r werewolves... Yeah. I have a hard time picturing it too.

But it made me think more about the things we take for granted when we home-brew our systems. In this particular case, Initiative, and whether or not we should get rid of it.

Not in all systems of course, but in some. If you're running a very combat-heavy game, you will need Initiative like you need Oxygen, but I'm starting to think it has no place in horror games. Now before you start screaming obscenities at your screen, or phoning the asylum to have me committed, let me explain.

Initiative is great for keeping track of combat, it's true, but it also creates a probability curve of success that is bad for suspense. If you want your character to be good at fighting, step one is always a high initiative, followed by a good combat skill, and finally you round off with lots of damage. Presto, an almost unbeatable war machine.

But take away Inititative, and suddenly things get scarier. It doesn't matter if you hit like a truck, or have the unerring accuracy of a laser if you're dead before you can swing. Suddenly every fight becomes edgy and uncertain. As a fight should be in a horror game.

Let's take a Jasonesque slasher villain as an example. How scary is he if;

1. you know you how likely you are to hit first?
2. you know the amount of damage you can pull off in a single round?

You now know if you should take him on or not. The best tactic has crystallized itself in your mind, and a good portion of the suspense is now dead.

If Initiative is a part of the rules, the usual way to resolve this dilemma is to make Jason very hard to kill, but in my experience, a ridiculously tough enemy is more annoying than frightening.

Getting rid of Initiative has the added benefit of making minor monsters nastier. You can't just yawn and mow down the gremlings, if you can't be certain to hit first.

This is the key, right here. The death of certainty and apathy.

Picture all the good horror movies you've seen. Or most good movies over all. Most have a scene where an unlikely person gets in a telling hit that changes the direction things are going. Translated to the table-top, this means that the Psychotic Granny actually becomes dangerous, without you having to explain why she had 6d10 Initiative!

The flip side is that characters who are not Masters of the Seven Secrets of Doom, can now make more of a difference in a desperate fight, than when they know for a fact that the villain will mulch them in the first round. Sure it's likely, but you can't be certain!

The problem really, is that I have no idea how to mechanically make combat work without the damn thing. But I'm working on it, and when I know, you'll know!

Sniper Elite V2 (PC)

The other day I finished the final mission of Sniper Elite V2, the shooter/stealth game from Rebellion Developments, released last year, and figured a review would be in order.

Sniper Elite V2 takes place in Berlin, 1945. You play Karl Fairburne, an OSS officer and elite sniper. Karl is assigned to Operation Paperclip, and tasked with recruiting German scientists for the US, though you mostly spend your time killing said scientists in order to deny them to the Soviets. If this is because Rebellion Developments wanted to minimize the impact of Operation Paperclip or because most gamers hate escort missions, I'll let you decide, but as I'm writing this, I can only remember one escort mission, and the only thing you had to do was give a guy cover fire, so not all that many escort jobs in total.

This game is extremely atmospheric. It oozes mood in every mission. Between the music, the sound effects and the graphics, the game does everything it can to draw you in. And it does it well. No complaints there whatsoever.

But pretty sights and sounds only go so far. The devil is in the details, and in all games, those details are in the gameplay.

Not to worry though. The gameplay in Sniper Elite V2 is quite good. They haven't re-invented the wheel, which is fine, since it allows you to dive right in.

You have a cover system that works well most of the time, but it handles corners somewhat poorly. The rest of the ”day to day” gameplay is pretty standard. You sneak through the ruins of Berlin, carefully scanning the buildings for enemy snipers, dodging (or eliminating) patrols, and when you have the target in your sights, you eliminate him. If you choose to play on higher difficulties, you will have to contend with accurate bullet physics, which will of course make things harder.

A couple of things really stand out from other games though.

The first is the X-ray damage camera. When this effect occurs, you get a graphic view of your bullet tearing it's way through the enemy. You get to see bone exploding, blood spurting, and organs being ruptured. Quite a graphic reminder of what getting shot means. You can set the frequency of how often this occurs, and it can get annoying if it happens too often. I have to say though, that it can be very satisfying to see your target go down so vividly.

The second thing that really sticks out is not so good. It is in fact, pretty silly. You see, from time to time, you will encounter tanks, and you destroy these tanks, not with anti tank weapons like bazookas, but by sniping their bright red fuel tank covers. That's right, you can kill tanks with one well placed bullet. It's very silly, but in the grand scheme of this game, it's a very small thing. It is in fact the only bad thing I can say about it.

In conclusion, if you like assassination games, and you are a fan of WWII, you'd do well to pick up this game. It's a lot of fun to find that right spot to shoot from, while large groups of bombers sail overhead. Then you wait for a bomb to explode in order to cover the noise of your gun, and bang! Mission successful.

I leave you with this trailer:

Here we go again...

So, it's Monday again. Monday, the most hated day of the week. Sometimes I think the biggest reason Garfield was so loved, was because he hated Mondays, and not for being a fat, lazy, lasagna-scarfing bastard.

So why do we hate Mondays? It's because we have to rejoin society again. Work, school or whatever occupies your time, it's on once more. On weekends we can meet friends, indulge in our hobbies or just put our feet up and say ”Fuck it, I'm not washing the dishes today!”. But come Monday, it's time to wash those plates, to smile politely at your bosses inane jokes and put up with the loud mouth on the bus, who's taking up too much space and reeks of bad perfume. In short, it's time to make civilization work again.

If by some miracle we could all do whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted with no worries as to the quality of our lives, I think we'd last two weeks. Then the human race would implode in a storm of fire and blood. We are at the pinnacle of altruistic egotism, we are happy to help others, but we are happier to help ourselves. Without society and civilization to keep us even slightly in check, nothing would ever get done. Why grow food, when you can steal someone elses dinner? Because he will call the police, of course.

In other words, without Monday to drag us screaming and kicking into another week, we would degenerate back into cavemen, clubbing our neighbours with rocks and seeking shelter in muddy holes. The world we live in is far from perfect, but it could be so much worse, and that's thanks to Mondays.

So instead of hating on it, let's all just tip our metaphorical hats to this unappreciated day, and say Thank You.

That's what I think, but then again I'm in an odd mood, perhaps because it's Monday.