Saintly Saturday: St. Eusignius of Antioch

Today is the feast of St. Eusignius of Antioch. He was a soldier of the Roman Empire who served under several emperors, including the father of the St. Constantine the Great, Constantius Chorus and St. Constantine himself. He was present when St. Constantine saw the Chi Ro appear in the sky predicting his victory against his rival Maxentius. For those curious, these are the first two letters of the word Christ in Greek. All told, he served the Empire six decades as a soldier. By some accounts, this service lasted until Julian the Apostate came to power in A.D. 361 and by others he had retired to Antioch where he was denounced by a fellow citizen and therefore appeared before to the Emperor.

In both accounts St. Eusignius upbraided the Emperor, recalling Julian’s own history: Julian was the nephew of the first Christian Emperor, he had been raised within the Church and baptized, he attended school with Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian and had been a Reader of the Church he attended in Nicomedia. Eusignius recounted the image of the Chi Ro in the sky and the victory it presaged. Despite these admonitions, Julian had St. Eusignius beheaded in A.D. 361. Julian’s reign would be short. Foolishly, he went to war with the Persians and died in battle in A.D. 363.

I have got to admit, as an old grognard I really like this guy. Unfortunately, he is emblematic of the time we live in. Ever since I was a kid, I have had the Baby Boomer mantra “Don’t trust anyone over 30” forced on me (ironically, normally by people who were over 30) and it is pervasive in the culture. We cater to the young instead of listening to the wisdom of our elders. In fact, we have created an entire industry out of various retirement homes so we don’t even have to see them, let alone listen to them.

As a trained historian, I see this path fraught with danger. There is truth in the old axiom, those who don’t understand the past are doomed to repeat it. Not only have we forgotten much of our own past, we are willfully ignoring it and, in some cases, actively trying to shut down any attempt to learn that history. Cultures tried this path already in the 20th century. It ended in the death of millions.

Thus, I find in St. Eusignius a kindred spirit — an old grognard willing to stand up and remind an Emperor of what an idiot he was for ignoring the past. I also think that the OSR, in its own way, has followed in his footsteps. We have doggedly reminded the RPG world that the past is not only important to remember, but that games written 40+ years ago are still relevant and fun to play. Imagine for a moment, if WotC had listened to the Julian Apostates of world and turned its back on TSR, D&D and all that history. Imagine a world without the OGL. Without our past remembered, honored and played, we would not be living through the Golden Age of RPGs that we are living through today.

In this sense, we stand forth as icons of why the past is not only important, but why it is necessary to bring the past into the present in order to make that present better than the past. If only we could bring that message beyond our wonderful little corner of the internet.

Meditating on OSR Innovation

Another bandwagon I am compelled to hop onto is this meme about innovation in the OSR: rules or settings? First, let me get this out of the way: when hasn’t the OSR been innovative? Seriously. I will grant that we can look like a bunch of reactionary grey bearded curmudgeons, but from the get go we have been pushing rules written at various times in the 70s and 80s in all kinds of interesting directions. Why are people looking for the next Tékumel or Blackmoor when there are literally as many astounding worlds as there are bloggers?

For example: part of the “complaint” about innovation is getting beyond 2000 cp in a dusty room…a reference to all the whinging about the Dwimmermount experience. How wasn’t Dwimmermount innovative? I said this before and I will say it again — James Maliszewski pushed us all to deal with, understand and chew on the concept of the megadungeon. Regardless of what you think about how his Kickstarter was handled or whether or not you care for the final product, the whole experience has made the hobby better.

For myself, I was never much influenced by Tékumel or Blackmoor. I hold no special place in my heart for either of these products, nor do I have any real interest in investing much time on either product. The same can be said of most setting products. Those who read this blog know that I have never played a single game in either Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. The guys I play with have always been DIY when it comes to world building.

On the other hand, new systems don’t really float my boat either. Look at me, my favorite system was written back in 1981 and, when push comes to shove, I’d be happy playing nothing but B/X for the rest of my life.

What do I really want in a product? I want to be able to use it at the table. This either means that I can easily plug and play with an adventure or have a product that gives me awesome ideas that are easily applied to my games. This is the best way to be innovative, because there are so many products out there that are not very easy to use. Let me give you a couple or three examples of what I believe are innovative products:

Demonspore by Matt Finch
This is one of the best adventure modules ever produced by the OSR simply because it is designed to be plugged into an existing dungeon. It doesn’t have to be, but it can and I did and it was brilliantly easy to do.

Realms of Crawling Chaos and Starships & Spacemen 2e both by Goblinoid Games
Both of these products are plug and play tool kits for Labyrinth Lord (though S&S 2e can function as a stand-alone game). Frankly, anything in the Labyrinth Lord line is designed to be modular so that if I want to do a Star Trek/Flash Gordon/Horror/Mutant Apocalypse mash-up without house ruling everything, I can. Indeed, I have yet to fully take advantage of all of the modular goodness provided in RCC and S&S 2e.

This whole discussion began with JB of B/X Blackrazor and his problems with the game White Star by James Spahn. Personally, I really appreciated JB’s perspective. I was pining over the game because of the excitement generated around this section of the internet, but my gaming budget is still Free. JB let me realize that I would have had buyers remorse if I’d scraped together the cash to buy it.

Like JB, I worked on my own version of a Flash Gordon-esque version of BX/0e but abounded it because it wasn’t a game I really ever wanted to play. Now, before I get accused to being bitter about Spahn’s success in the same way JB did, I have already shared what fruits came out of that whole experiment.

Way back when, I did a series of posts stripping the 0e spell list of special effects in order to create a system to build new spells based on 0e assumptions. I shared it as Ye Auld Skool Spell Creator. What may not be obvious is that this whole project began as an attempt to create a tool kit for creating Jedi-like powers for a sci-fi version of BX/0e so that my version of a Star Knight (or whatever else you want to call it) wouldn’t have to have Bless or Purify Food and Drink on their spell list.

Speaking for myself, this is not the best thing I’ve ever shared with this community; however, I do believe that it is the closest thing that I have ever produced that demonstrates what I want in terms of the Rules vs. Setting discussion. It is innovative in the way I want my OSR products to be innovative: I can use it at my table to create my vision of a sci-fi campaign or add cool new spells to my 0e-inspired games.

In other words, I don't need publishers to give the new Tékumel or Blackmoor, I want them to give me cool tools to help me make it myself.

On Vitriol Part 3

I have spilled a lot of virtual ink in my last two posts trying to point out the limitations of reason and logic and arriving at some kind of appreciation for and understanding of the nous — that part of the human mind that experiences beauty. The reason for this is that it is my answer to all of the vitriol we see flying through the interwebs.

The nous is not only where we experience beauty, it is also where we experience relationships. There is nothing particularly rational about why I have the friends that I do, or why I love my wife or why my children are some of the most important people in my life. They just are in the same way that beauty just is.

The irrationality of relationships is what makes them so critically important. If they were rational, most of us wouldn’t have many friends, nor would the human race have much of a chance at having enough kids for the species to survive more than a few generations.

Relationships have a way of existing despite the fact that we disagree on so many things. Just as an example: I am an Orthodox Christian. The vast majority of those who read this blog are not. Indeed, I would venture to guess that the average reader isn’t even Christian. Yet, here we are. We all have a relationship playing the games we love to play.

Ultimately, this reality forces us all to engage that rational and logical part of our mind to understand why we have these relationships and how it is possible that someone else who can be be called a colleague or even friend can so radically disagree with us on a variety of subjects. It is within this space, where the nous and the rational mind work together that understanding those who disagree with us happens. It is in this space where minds are changed and transformed.

Again, for example: I don’t like Thieves or Paladins. Thieves tend to lead to skill systems which I don’t care for. Clerics are paladins, why do they need a separate class that doesn’t do as good a job of being a paladin as the cleric does? Yet, my Lost Colonies campaign had both paladins and thieves because the friends that I made while playing the game do like thieves and paladins. I found myself asking the question: what is more important? The mechanics of the game we play or the relationships I have around the table? In answering that question, I found a way to include those paladins and thieves.

One of the reasons why I have been blogging as long as I have is because this corner of the internet has been focused so much on relationships. We play games we love to play. We love tinkering with those games. We love sharing ideas about those games. All of these things rise above all of our differences. The OSR exists despite the fact that we disagree more than we agree. Whether we know it or not we have been occupying that space in the human experience where the rational mind and nous cooperate. As a result this hobby has been transformed.

Vitriol exists when we forget the nous and abandon the possibility of relationship. I will grant that there are times when it is warranted, but the vast majority is wholly avoidable and we’ve proved it for years.

A Note to Tavis, Andrew & Dan and about ACKS Players Companion

I would just like to take a moment to thank both Tavis and Andrew for dropping by and commenting on some of my meditations on ACKS, especially Andrew’s suggestions for improving my Burglar Class. This is what I love about this little corner of the internet and what I love about the philosophy about many of the publishers who target the OSR community — they actively support and encourage folks to actually use their products in ways that the end-user wants to. To that end, I should mention that Dan of Goblinoid Games has also dropped by and endorsed my use of S&S 2e to fiddle with the LL Thief, which is really cool.

I’d also like to mention that having fiddled now with the Custom Classes section of the ACKS Players Companion, that this is probably one of the best things that has come out of the OSR. As I have mentioned before, ACKS is a great system if you want a character build opportunity with your B/X. Not being one of those guys, ACKS would not be my personal first choice of rulesets. That being said, however, the Custom Class section is easily portable to B/X or LL and allows players to add all kinds of flavor-filled classes to their campaign worlds to make them come alive. It also scratches that character build itch quite excellently. Therefore, I highly recommend getting yourself a copy, even if ACKS doesn’t seem to be your cup of tea.

Saintly Saturday: St. Gregory the Wonderworker

Today is the feast of St. Gregory of Neocaesaria the Wonderworker. He was a well-educated son of pagans who converted to Christianity. Around A.D. 240, he was elected as bishop of his hometown (modern-day Niksar, Turkey). Rather than go on, I am going to do something that I don’t often get to do — quote a saint about another. In his masterpiece On the Holy Spirit, St. Basil the Great uses St. Gregory as an example of a highly regarded early Christian who used the formula “in the Holy Spirit:”

But where shall I rank the great Gregory, and the words uttered by him? Shall we not place among Apostles and Prophets a man who walked by the same Spirit as they; who never through all his days diverged from the footprints of the saints; who maintained, as long as he lived, the exact principles of evangelical citizenship? I am sure that we shall do the truth a wrong if we refuse to number that soul with the people of God, shining as it did like a beacon in the Church of God; for by the fellow-working of the Spirit the power which he had over demons was tremendous, and so gifted was he with the grace of the word “for obedience to the faith among…the nations,” that, although only seventeen Christians were handed over to him, he brought the whole people alike in town and country through knowledge to God. He too by Christ’s mighty name commanded even rivers to change their course, and caused a lake, which afforded a ground of quarrel to some covetous brethren, to dry up. Moreover his predictions of things to come were such as in no wise to fall short of those of the great prophets. To recount all his wonderful works in detail would be too long a task. By the superabundance of gifts, wrought in him by the Spirit in all power and in signs and in marvels, he was styled a second Moses by the very enemies of the Church. Thus in all that he through grace accomplished, alike by word and deed, a light seemed ever to be shining, token of the heavenly power from the unseen which followed him. To this day he is a great object of admiration to the people of his own neighborhood, and his memory, established in the churches ever fresh and green, is not dulled by length of time. Thus not a practice, not a word, not a mystic rite has been added to the Church besides what he bequeathed to it. Hence truly on account of the antiquity of their institution many of their ceremonies appear to be defective. For his successors in the administration of the Churches could not endure to accept any subsequent discovery in addition to what had had his sanction. Now one of the institutions of Gregory is the very form of the doxology to which objection is now made, preserved by the Church on the authority of his tradition; a statement which may be verified without much trouble by any one who likes to make a short journey.

I would like to point out that St. Gregory’s witness, though powerful enough to the local Christians that they had refused to change anything in their liturgical life for well over a century, their practices were different from other local Churches. Note also that St. Basil had no real issue with this reality (as long as the dogmatic core of what was being taught and worshipped remained consistent).

If you would indulge me, I would make the case that the Church of Neocaesaria is a bit like that segment of our hobby that plays OD&D. I would argue also that there are certain principles found in OD&D that can be found in later iterations of the game that remain consistent despite all the rule changes and development of the hobby, just as St. Basil found himself on the same dogmatic foundation as St. Gregory, despite the differences in form.

When 4th edition came out, there was a lot of discussion about what D&D is, because the form had so radically changed that there was a question as to whether or not the principles that had allowed all of us to say, “I play D&D” (regardless of what ruleset we used) still existed. Although there had already been a move toward older styles due to the soul searching that followed Gygax’s death, I firmly believe that the existence of 4e accelerated the depth and the breadth of this exploration.

The fourth century in Christian history had a very similar pattern. There were a number of theologians deeply influenced by philosophy that started doing and saying things that were far enough away from what had come before, that the Church had to ask the question “What is Christianity?” Their answer is recorded in the dogmatic statements of the Ecumenical Councils.

What is fascinating about this history, however, is that those very same councils would use words and forms that were never used by Christians before them in order to defend what had come before. In other words, they borrowed things from their contemporary milieu, re-applied what had come before into this new-milieu, and came out stronger.

It is here that I need to quote Robert Conley:

To me the Old School Renaissance is not about playing a particular set of rules in a particular way, the dungeon crawl. It is about going back to the roots of our hobby and seeing what we could do differently. What avenues were not explored because of the commercial and personal interests of the game designers of the time.

We live in a new milieu. It is no longer the 1970s. Our cultural and technological landscape is radically different. What Robert is suggesting is that we take the principles of our hobby as they existed in the 1970s and re-apply them to our current reality. What we might end up with may very well look different from OD&D, but our hobby today is going through a golden age because of this process of re-applying what we learned from the hobby as it was in the 1970s.

For example, player freedom, agency and creativity are core principles that I insist upon. In my own experience, the best way that these get expressed is within the context of an abstract combat system. My recent musings on some of the shortcomings of this abstraction, however, resulted in a few folks reminiscing about how glad they are that they no longer play that way. Indeed, Robert himself prefers a far more concrete form of combat simulation (but acknowledges that the trade-off is far more time spent in actual simulation).

This is a pattern found in the 1970s, when several folks moved away from the D&D abstraction towards a more realistic model — because that realism was a core principle that they found important enough that they changed the way they played the game.

The beauty of our current situation is that we have all of the history to go back to and see how it was done before and what resulted from certain choices in game-style and rule-set. We, because of our milieu, now have the freedom to go back and tweak these choices and explore how other choices impact the way the hobby is done. And we are stronger for it.

Saintly Saturday: St. Patrick the Hieromartyr

Today is the feast of St. Patrick the Hieromartyr. He was Bishop of Prusa, which is a city in the region once known as Bithynia, now in the northwestern coast of modern day Turkey. In the area are some natural hot springs. The local Consul Julius attempted to persuade St. Patrick to his pagan way of thinking by pointing out that the bishop owed thanks to the gods for providing the springs for the benefit of humanity.

The hieromartyr gave an answer that is surprisingly compatible with our own scientific understanding of the phenomena. He explained that there was a fire underneath the earth that heated the water which then welled up and produced the hot springs. Since God created the earth, fire and water he owed thanks to Jesus Christ through whom all things were made, not some pagan god of the spring.

Angered by this answer, Julius had St. Patrick thrown into the boiling water of the spring. As with the youths in Babylon thrown into the furnace by order of Nebakanezer, it was those who threw St. Patrick into the water that were harmed, not the saint. Refusing to see this as a sign of the truth of the bishop’s words, the Consul had St. Patrick beheaded. This most likely happened during the reign of Diocletion (A.D.284-305).

I recently noted via Zenopus Archives that domains have, at least in part, remained a part of the next iteration of D&D. For me this is disappointing, because it means that, at some level, Julius’ world view will be hard wired into the mechanics of the game and I will have to do extra work or forego several options in order to make St. Patrick’s view compatible with the mechanics of the game.

Let me explain what I mean by using an understanding of Genesis that (while completely compatible with an Orthodox Christian understanding) does not fall under the popular literal interpretation of the creation story. Note that there are two different accounts of creation. Modern scholars place the authorship of Genesis 2 during the Babylonian exile and Genesis 1 during the period immediately after this period. Regardless of whether or not one places much validity in this time frame it does offer an interesting context with which to understand the creation accounts.

When compared to the various pagan beliefs that would have surrounded the authors of the Genesis accounts, it is very easy to see them as polemics against these very beliefs. Indeed, Genesis 1-11 seems to be imbued with imagery from Mesopotamian myths, but with the narrative purpose of crediting Elohim for creating all of these various “domains” thought by the pagans to be divine beings. In other words, there is no god of the hot springs because God created the earth, fire and water.

As an ironic aside, this understanding of creation — that plants, animals, rocks, water, etc. are mundane things created by God rather than as divine beings or things imbued with divine beings — is the only religious view of the ancient world that is not only compatible with modern science, but is the fertile soil in which modern science was able to flourish. If water is merely a mundane thing, it is possible to observe it and experiment with it rather than worship it.

The mechanical use of domains by D&D 2e+ hardwired the pagan view of creation into the game of D&D. It necessitates a view that there is no one God that created all things (and therefore all domains). Rather, there is a plethora of gods, each living in or having power over a limited scope of creation. In other words, there is no room for St. Patrick and his world view. In other bit of irony, it also limited the scope of the pastiche that is D&D and therefore limited what I feel is the reason for its long-term success.

One of the reasons I stopped playing D&D for many years was this domain mechanic. While I have created schemes to make domains compatible with my faith (using various cults of the saints instead of gods), it amounts to a level of preparation that is not only completely unnecessary in older editions of the game, but which, despite my best efforts, never quite overcame the pagan outlook of creation hardwired into the game. Thank God for the OSR.

***

Pool of St. Padraig

This is intended as an encounter area that can be placed inside a dungeon. This will appear as a boiling hot pool of water that radiates of magic. Anyone touching or entering the water will take 1d6 points of damage for every round of contact unless that person is currently being affected by a divine magic spell.

For the duration of the divine magic spell, the person so affected will be able to take advantage of the magic of the pool. Anyone thus entering will be affected by a Sanctuary spell. In addition, depending upon the need of the person entering the pool, one curative spell will take effect. Cure Wound spells, Cure Disease, Neutralize Poison, and even Restoration are all available. Which ever spell is most needed (or, alternatively, the highest level spell that could affect the person entering the pool) is the one spell that will take affect. These curative affects of the pool can be used once per week.

Why the OSR Rocks

When I asked the question Is Christianity Compatible With D&D the other day, I had no idea it would make its way across so much of the OSR. Along the way, however, something quite wonderful happened.

Firstly, religion (and Christianity, in particular) can be a touchy subject. Throughout this ongoing discussion (despite the wide ranging viewpoints and experience of those who voiced their opinion) I never felt as if anyone didn't approach the subject without some amount of respect for the subject or for those who are in the middle of the discussion.

Secondly, James and Stuart (in what I see as an attempt to sum up the discussion) have chimed in to point out that D&D is indeed

a cultural Borg ... that rolled around borrowing from just about every source it encountered.

and this smorgasbord of options includes Christianity. Whether you roll with a heavy dose of theological Christianity (as I do), a Hammer Horror version of Christianity or none whatsoever is entirely up to you. What is important to me, at the end of the day, is the reality that all of these options are not only acceptable but supported by the game.

There was a time in my life, not so long ago, that had I asked the question Is Christianity Compatible With D&D, I very much doubt that such an acknowledgment would have been made. For that I'd like to take a moment to thank all of you and to remind folks what a cool place this corner of the internet happens to be.

Saintly Saturday on a Monday: Holy Cross

The first cold brought home from school by the kids is always tough (being sick while also being a primary caregiver is never easy), but this year it kicked my butt. I was in bed most of the weekend with a splitting sinus headache, barely able to see straight, let alone write anything coherent. Therefore, this week I'm having Saintly Saturday on a Monday.

In the Orthodox Church, September 14 is major feast called the Elevation of the Holy Cross. This celebration lasts a whole week. This past Saturday and Sunday are officially called the Saturday and Sunday after the Holy Cross.

About the year A.D. 325, St. Helen (mother of the first Christian Emperor St. Constantine) went to the holy land and did a bunch of groundwork to figure out where various events recorded in the Gospel actually happened. She discovered that the Emperor Hadrian had erected a pagan temple over Golgotha. She had the temple razed and beneath discovered three crosses. She was convinced that one must be the True Cross, but was at a loss as to which one it might be.

At the urging of St. Macarius, the bishop of Jerusalem, a woman who was deathly ill was brought to touch the three crosses. As soon as she came near the True Cross she was completely healed. Therefore, Marcarius lifted up the True Cross in the church for all to see as they all cried out "Lord have mercy!" This event is commemorated every year at this time.

One of the things I never tire of emphasizing is the irony of the Cross. It has gone from being seen as an instrument of one of the most heinous, tortuous, humiliating and awful ways to die to having this said about it:

Let us venerate the holy resurrection of Christ. For behold, through the cross joy has come to all the world. Blessing the Lord always, let us praise His resurrection. For enduring the cross for us, He destroyed death by death.

This is one of the reasons I have never given much credence to conventional wisdom, because it (as St. Paul implies) sees the Cross as foolishness. It is also one of the reasons that I get such a kick out of the OSR. It tends to turn gaming conventional wisdom on its ear.

For example, newer is not always better — otherwise why would so many of us get such a kick out of playing with rules from circa 1974-1981 (whether in their original form or an emulation) and largely turn our back upon the latest and supposedly greatest version of our favorite FRPG?

The OSR is chuck full of things like this. JB over at B/X Blackrazor recently reminded us that the simple d6-per-side initiative is not only easier to run, but it speeds up combat and can make the game more fun to play. For myself, I am a firm believer that the "limitations" of rolling on random tables or of rolling character stats in order are actually liberating because they allow us to think outside the box and therefore be more creative than living with no limitations at all.

This, of course, is not to say that the OSR is never wrong, that older is always better, that you can never have any fun playing with individual initiative or that it is impossible to be creative with a point-buy character creation system. All I am saying is that (like me this weekend) conventional wisdom needs a good kick in the butt every now then and the OSR is very good at doing that.

Meditating on Orcs

In response to James' call to create a buzz about orcs across the old school blogosphere, let me begin with my absolute favorite depiction of "orcs" in print or film:

Yep, those are the "goons" from Disney's Sleeping Beauty. I don't know what it is, but whenever I watch this classic with my kids, every time I see these guys run across the screen, I am transported back to my very first experiences with D&D and my attempts at making heads or tails out of the Holmes edition. In short, these guys make me want to play. I can't say that about pig-faced orcs, green-faced orks that cry "Waaagh!" or (especially) Pete Jackson's full body-suit orcs.

The inspiring thing about the Sleeping Beauty orcs is their deliciously deviant diversity. Yes, the guys are kinda cute, but there is a dangerousness about them that I just can't get enough of.

In terms of D&D, my own version of orcs are distinct from the goblinoid races and are a byproduct of a world where magic interacts with sin. There are several ways that orcs can be produced:

• They can be manufactured by either evil magic-users, powerful half-orc champions or any other number of likely candidates for general of an orc army.
• There is an evil that wanders across my world called the Blight Demon. It feeds off of negative emotions — anger, greed, gluttony, etc. One of the byproducts of a "feeding" is the creation of Blight Spawn. These include such oddities as owlbears, perytons and orcs. The Blight Demon allows the sin of its victims to become physically manifest. This is one of the reasons for the wide diversity among orcs.
• Finally, through repeated debauchery and heinous behavior, people can slowly transform over time into orcs.

In other words, these are true monsters.

Saintly Saturday: St. Timothy the Apostle

Today is the feast day of St. Timothy the Apostle. A companion of St. Paul on many of his journeys around the Mediterranean, he is the recipient of the letters 1 & 2 Timothy, he became the bishop of Ephesus and he was eventually martyred for proclaiming the Gospel.

Personally, I very much identify with Timothy. Whereas Peter et. al. walked with Christ when He was on earth and Paul was visited by the Risen Lord, Timothy is part of the second generation of Christians (having received the faith from his grandmother Eunice and his mother Lois, cf. 2 Tim 1:5). In other words, he represents all of us who first encountered Christ through the faith of others. This faith was powerful enough that he left his home, his family and his country for the sake of Christ and His Gospel (cf. Matthew 19:29). He received this faith, he protected this faith and he passed it on to the next generation which through almost two thousand years has been passed on to us.

Not to place RPGs on the same level as the Gospel (not even close), but in a sense, I am also of Timothy's generation in terms of this hobby we love so much — I was taught via the Holmes edition of D&D. Just as when the first generation of Christians began to disappear and the four Evangelists wrote down the Gospels, when Gary Gygax died, many of us pulled out our old gaming materials trying to hold on to and rediscover what it was that brought us into the hobby in the first place. One of the fruits of this process has been the OSR, for which I am truly grateful.

In his second letter to Timothy, St. Paul exhorts him to "continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it" (3:14). If there is anything I have learned about our hobby is that it is all about doing. The OSR has reminded me of this beautiful reality. Though there are as many rulesets out there as there are tables, we all have a shared experience. Though many of us homebrew our settings (or DIY places like Greyhawk or the Wilderlands to the point they barely resemble the originals) it does little to damage that shared experience.

As I've repeatedly stated in this blog, one of the tenets of Christianity that I value and promote is that of human freedom. The OSR is an example of the wonderful, beautiful mess that freedom brings. As far as I am concerned, the more the merrier. Thus, when BHP announced its own in-house rule set, I was really pleased. It is another opportunity for me as a player to frankenstein my own game. Even though I use LL as the main ruleset at my own table, there are house rules we use that have been shamelessly stolen from virtually every iteration of the game.

From what has been passed down to me, this is exactly how it should be — because it's fun. I plan on having this fun, and sharing it with others for as long as I can. Hopefully, this thing will continue to have legs long after I am gone.

Thoughts on Sci-Fi RPGs Part 3

Given everything that I've said on this topic the last couple of days, here is what the OSR Sci Fi RPG I would write might look like:

Some Food for Thought

On Thursday, I posted some thoughts on 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.' While most folks reacted to my comparison of Mohammed to Christ, I did try to make a subtle point about the OSR. Based on those very same reactions, it appears to have been largely missed.

One of the reasons I love this hobby has nothing to do with the games we play. I play because of the people at the table, or, in the case of our little corner of the internet, the people behind the blogs. Although we are quite a diverse bunch who tend to like to argue a lot and can occasionally get rather snarky, I largely find that people who populate the OSR to be very decent human beings — despite our great diversity of opinions, backgrounds, interests, etc. In some ways (regardless of whether we espouse to be or not) we behave in a rather Christian-like manner. We freely give away much of our hard work and help support each other by buying what we do have to sell — even when we can get some of it for free. When one of us asks for help, it is almost certain someone will answer the call.

Thus, when one of us writes about the games we play, we generally don't expect someone to tell us that what we have written should not even be said. For example, "You like the Thief class? You shouldn't say such things in polite society!" is not something I expect to see (outside of an poor attempt at sarcasm).

Yet, whenever I venture into theology, apologetics or some other challenging aspect of religion, I am routinely criticized for doing so. Rather than wrestling with what I've said, I'm criticized for the act of saying it. Essentially: Gasp! How dare you speak of such things!

Mind you, I take no offense. As I've said from the very beginning of this blog I am very aware the worlds of Christian Theology and RPGs are definitely not seen as compatible by a good chunk of people out there. My hope has always been to reduce that number and to explore just how creative both Christian Theology and RPGs can be.

However, Thursday got me to thinking about this apparent disconnect between on the one hand the way the OSR is able to so deftly handle the great diversity that exists out here when it comes to RPGs and on the other hand the way it can try to shut down things outside of RPGs (note that even Jeff, who was largely trying to stay away from religion and politics, got directly and passively criticized for bringing up 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day' in the first place). Now, maybe I'm not deeply involved enough in the OSR to see this kind of thing more often, but it still makes me wonder.

On 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day' and the OSR

Jeff Rients over at Jeff's Gameblog mentioned that today is 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.' He has chosen to decline to participate citing that:

I'm pretty confident the violent fundamentalist Muslim nutjobs don't speak for all of Islam in the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't represent the mainstream of Christian thought.

In response to a comment I made in response to Jeff's post, JB of B/X Blackrazor stated:

Personally, I'm more in favor of converting Christian extremists to Islam. Islam already teaches that Jesus was the Messiah; what more are they going to get from Christians?

I'd like to take some time with this topic because not only is it important, but I believe it is relevant to the OSR. Many (if not all) of us have spent hours pouring over older editions of all sorts of RPGs. We have done so for a variety of reasons from creating retro-clones, to creating new RPGs based on older rule sets, to actually playing these older games, to using them as an inspiration for playing newer games. There are plenty of examples of OSR bloggers who have deconstructed the evolution of rules in an attempt to figure out which incarnation works best for them (see my current attempt to mess around with OD&D magic, for example).

The key here, is that without a close examination of these original documents, the OSR would not exist. The statements above by both Jeff and JB run counter to this fundamental truth about how we do our hobby. I have long read, enjoyed and respected both Jeff and JB so what I am trying to say is not meant to insult, diminish or dismiss either of these two. In fact, my respect for them is the very reason I am writing this post.

Statements like those made above demonstrate that those who have made them have not gone to the source material and spent time to understand them. I'm sure everyone of us can find examples of statements made by our fellow gamers about any edition of D&D which demonstrates that they have not taken the time to understand why people like to play different editions or even to read the rules of those editions. Even I am guilty of making assumptions about 4th edition without ever having sat down to read those rules.

In light of this, I'd like to invite both Jeff and JB (as well as all of us) to take some time to deal with the original source material for both Christianity and Islam. To give us a start, let me give you a short, comparative list of things Islamic texts say about Mohammed and what Christian texts say about Christ:

1. Mohammed condones lying in three instances: war, reconciling people and husband to wife.
2. Mohammed was involved in slavery and slave trade. He would use his profits to purchase warhorses and weaponry in order to wage war.
3. Mohammed coercively forced conversion and prayer.

1. Christ is both God and Man, of one essence with both the Father and the Spirit.
2. Christ asked us to love one another — even our enemies.
3. Christ sacrificed Himself for our salvation.

If we accept that Mohammed and Christ are the prime examples of what it means to be human and what our behavior as human beings ought to be to their respective followers, than it should be relatively obvious that warfare and the mistreatment of human beings (especially women) are legitimate expressions of Islam. Whereas they are foreign to a proper expression of Christianity.

To answer Jeff's comment, what we have deemed as "radical" in Islam is actually able to stand on very firm theological ground. Whereas there are peace-loving Muslims, there is no such thing as a peaceful version of Islam.

To answer JB's comment, Islam understands Jesus to be a prophet, but denies the crucifixion, the resurrection and His divinity. Whereas Islam insists that Allah is a distant transcendental being who is completely separate from his creation, Christianity insists that God Himself loves us so much that He took on our humanity, died with it, resurrected it and ascended with it into heaven so that we might be able to share in His very being and His eternity. What does someone gain from converting to Christianity? God Himself.

Eradicating the Past

I saw Star Trek (2009) for the first time last night. This in and of itself demonstrates two things about me: 1) I have three young children and don't have the time or wherewithal to see movies in the movie theatre anymore 2) I found out a long time ago that being the first on my block to experience something "new" does not actually make the experience any better, it just usually costs more money. Therefore I am perfectly willing to wait until the DVD release (and take advantage of the pause button and subtitles).

Right off the bat I must say that I enjoyed watching the movie. It is a nice action flick that did a good job of making me suspend my disbelief about a bunch of things that are impossible and/or make no rational sense, had enough of a plot to entertain for a couple hours and was filled with some well executed eye candy. However, I cannot by any stretch of the imagination say that I liked it. In fact not only do I like this movie less the more I contemplate it, the more disturbing I find it.

I have spent much of my life studying history, both formally and privately. This is reflected in my long and steady participation in war gaming and rpgs. Although, as a Christian, there is much to criticize about Rodenberry's utopian vision of the future, I have to respect the loving manner in which this franchise has treated its own history. The best of all the Star Trek movies by a fair margin — Wrath of Khan — is an example of Star Trek paying homage to its own past.

Star Trek (2009) attempts to move forward from this grand tradition by eradicating virtually everything that has occurred in the Star Trek universe over the last 4+ decades in order to re-boot the franchise. They splinter the time line in the first minutes of the movie and never repair the damage. Everything that we ever knew about Star Trek is gone. I disagree with those that say this is an "alternate timeline." The elder Spock came from the Star Trek universe we all know. In order for him to exist in this "alternate" version, the original had to be destroyed. There have been plenty of times that Star Trek has played with time, but has always managed to correct itself within the course of a movie or an episode. This movie, however, deliberately refused to do that.

At the core of this particular decision is an attitude that says, "In order to move forward, we must (to a lesser or greater degree) eradicate the past." As an historian, I find this repugnant. My formal education concentrated upon those societies that lived through such an attitude at the socio-political level. The human damage is stomach wrenching and far-reaching. I know many who still have literal and emotional scars, including members of my own family.

This got me to thinking about the OSR. One of the questions raised in the wake of D&D IV is: how far does a game need to remove itself from its past to stop being that game? To frame this question in terms of Star Trek (2009): has D&D IV tried to go forward by eradicating the past? One of the things that I truly love about the OSR is that it is steeped in history. Even when we take the hobby into uncharted territory, we lovingly acknowledge the roots of the game. We pay homage to what has come before. In my humble opinion, the result is a richer experience and a better game.