Friday, January 8, 2021

Dear Daniel Fox / Zweihander Guy,

Hi,

First, let's get this out of the way you can skip til after the picture of your game if you want: 

We're not friends, I'm not defending you, I don't like you, I think you're a monster, you supported fake allegations, that's terrible, you should've called for an investigation, you burned books and that's weird symbolism, etc.

That's not what this is about. 

Zweihander is a retroclone of Warhammer
if anyone needs context.

What this is about is I am letting you know that a bunch of people who I also do not like are about to try very hard to cancel you and they will do it for a long time.

Prepare for an oblique reference to this very post from this guy
with a lot of in-jokes underneath from his friends.


Why They'll Do It

Basically, in their mind: you're up next.

The reason they're going to try to cancel you is that you're doing well with your game or they think you are. Most of them want to be in your position, or at least want to stop being reminded that a person can be successful being like you instead of like them.

It's true they have other grievances (legitimate or not, it's not important right now for this post) but anyone whose tweets are read by over 10,000 people in this tiny crab-bucket of a community will be magnified enough for people to find grievances if they're motivated. They are motivated because: 1) you're big and 2) you didn't hire them and 3) you are still on social media and thus within reach.

It irritates them that you are a relentless marketer, it irritates them that you (like me and them and everyone else in the part of RPGs reading this) espouse progressive values but that you do it while not being their personal friend, it irritates them that you are making probably-ethically-dicey decisions about working with large companies that they do not have the opportunity to be tempted by, it irritates them that you work with Zoe Quinn and the Swordsfall guy and thus can burnish (legitimately or not) your progressive credentials. But really everyone else in RPGs has as many things someone could complain about, it's just--you're in front of them in line so they care. 



Who?

"They" is not vague and not a conspiracy--conspiracies are secret and this is not secret. The core of it is the cloud of Old School Renaissance people who hang out around the Troika/Melsonian Arts/SWORDDREAM clique and the OSR discord and OSR 4chan.  These guys love harassing designers, they've been doing it for years, and they hate talking to people outside their bubble.

Probably lots of other people also don't like you, but these folks see you as in their space and are particularly organized when they decide to do harm. They treat each other like a support group that can only protect its members by attacking people outside of it. It's depressing to say but they've become a sort of homegrown OSR version of Something Awful: inside jokes, dadaist tweets, bad faith assumptions, and a complete terror about changing their minds in response to new information.

They've talked shit about you for years because of your relentless self-promotion but the most important thing is the list of possible targets has shrunk:

Mike Mearls is off twitter, Adam Koebel is cancelled, Raggi only hangs out in his own Facebook group, Frog God is quieter after their scandal, all the really right-wing people like Pundit were never taken seriously, James Maliszewski finished his walk of shame so long ago most of them probably don't remember and everyone else is either not in their lane (storygamers, cthulhu guys), doesn't promote their work with their own name (Mork Borg), too big (Mercer) or has some clear claim to marginalization that makes them a harder target for people pretending to have progressive values.

So, basically they're targeting you by default. When they think of "we make indie swords-killing-goblins but not THAT way" they think of you. In ten years this will seem quaint: everyone who produces indie RPG content will be anonymous to avoid this kind of thing. But you're not so you're next.

"I'mma do a thread".

Example

The inciting incident for this open letter, and what makes it a good object lesson is:

Ok, so recently we've all been talking about politics because of the Capitol terrorists. (Yes, I myself trotted out my footage of cops aiming guns at me for Black Live Mattering two blocks from city hall and then taking me to county and I asked why they weren't doing the same to these chuds at the Capitol.)

So, in your string of basically unremarkable progressive political tweets--the same ones pretty much everyone reading this makes--you "liked" some right wing guy complaining about losing his book deal. Maybe you suddenly meant, out of nowhere, to reverse polarity and become a right-wing media mogul, maybe you were liking it mockingly as in "I like that this guy lost his book deal". 

No matter which, anyone in the community who is upset by this and wants to say anything about it in public has exactly one reasonable course of action: talk to you and ask lots of questions, engage. There's other things to do if that doesn't go well or if they don't believe you after, but that's the first thing any responsible person does. (Gee Zak why don't you talk to these people? Because they blocked me long ago.).

That, of course, is not how the crab-bucket works: somebody assumed the worst, tweeted it out, got lots of retweets, saw you apologize/clarify, but no matter, now very many of them are busy subtweeting about how you're still evil because, well, that's what they do:

Cavious?



How They Will Do It

1. This is not your cancellation moment. 

This is just an early scuffle. However: every single time they vent any other grievance with you, they will refer back to this moment. They will do it so often that it will be taken as an article of faith among the less clever that it was somehow proven that you supported whatshisface right wing guy. Any attempt to explain yourself will be dismissed as "getting into the weeds".

2. This will happen over and over.

They say one thing and even if it's debunked half of them won't remember, and then a few months later there'll be another and the people who believed the last one will believe this one twice as much because of the last one, then maybe that gets debunked but then there's another--and on and on until one sticks because (all together now) the RPG community offers no social punishment for spreading misinformation.

3. Most of them probably don't believe it...

...but they already have decided to dislike you enough that they don't really care. The way most of us don't care whether David Cameron fucked a pig's head, we just think "Hey he did worse things, why investigate? Sure." So many of them have already put you in the category of people who don't get to have fairness

4. Some of them will believe it. 

Several sacred crackpots are part of the OSR-As-Group-Therapy clique. Sooner or later someone like that will interact with you, or see something you've done that seems harmful to them, won't contact you, won't investigate and will say you're a monster all over the internet. At least three influential trolls have already decided you're the next bad man they will never shut up about. Some will spread it out of malice, some will spread it out of the naive assumption that anything earnest sad people post is true, many will spread it just because they are apathetic to you and you're kind of in their way (like what you did to me).

5. There won't be a working defense

...because you are seen as having power and the person they will trot out to attack you will be seen as not having power, so no argumentation or logic or attempt to be nice will fix it. And if you ignore it, they will just begin to campaign to professional gatekeepers like conventions and book outlets and publishers that you be kept out of various spaces.

6. Having allies helps them attack you

You now have fanatics! You know what that means: people can pretend to take literally any preference you state as a threat. Why? Because if they disagree they might hear from the fanatics! And you know you have them--and so all your conversation is coded messages to this fanatical Zwei-army! And this person planning on attacking you? They aren't the aggressor--they are a victim of your fanatics. These fanatics have already stopped them from attacking you--silenced them even. Literally having fans makes you guilty.

7. Angry, meet Dishonest and Gullible

Once they get a certain critical mass of shares going for whatever they're hating on you about, they'll get the Something Awful refugees like Kai Tave in on it (because they will hate on anything) and then the Story Gamers (because they will believe anything). At that point people who control things will be like "We're getting a lot of complaints" and...that's all they need. Just to sense that there's more money in hurting you than being neutral. And you'll be done.

8. You are not allowed to do nothing

If you're thinking "Well I just won't do anything controversial" that won't work. Once you're targeted by people like this, they never let it go--people who worry about whether a guy who produced a clone of a game from the '80s that was tabletop who didn't do anything to them personally but advertises his stuff a lot and annoys them and has a beard is woke enough do not have other things to do with their lives.

The only thing you can hope for is an equally juicy target shows up and it divides their attention. They will keep sniping at you for years until they find something that gets traction. Why not? If they snipe and miss there's literally no downside and a good chance it earns them followers because you're bigger than them and thus a more interesting subject to followers than whatever their indie game is.

9. Apologies might work, but not forever.

Apologizing will only create a demand for you to acknowledge and be responsible for more and more of their own baggage. Once they see they can get someone with more juice to do things, it's "Why aren't you attacking this target for us with All Your Power?""Why didn't you ever do this thing we never brought up until now and never heard of?""Why are you friends with this guy instead of that one?" Even if you can convince some of them to trust you, they will be allied to-, and feel more kinship with-, the people who joined them in complaining about you in the first place who don't trust you. You will always be disposable to them--plus they're all scared of being cancelled as well if you fuck up again.

There's this sense that somehow, in some way, the only way to honor the feels that their vulnerable community has is to tend the tree of liberty with the blood of Slightly More Successful Artists. You're worth more to them as a sacrifice than as a henchman.

Maybe maybe you'll read this and do something to stop it before it happens. I don't know.  I don't know if that would be good or bad, in the end, but I'm generally pro-information.

This nerd is literally talking about bullying you into a locker


Why Do I Care?

Like I said at the top: I don't like you. I don't like them either. I mainly just want everyone else reading to understand what's going on when they watch them try to take you out in 6 months or two years, and I don't want anyone to fall into the temptation to pick sides or assume either side has a point or that this is about ideas or politics or empathy or free speech or whatever y'all pretend it's about. It's about: in a community you either follow quaint little ground rules for disagreements or there's an endless power struggle. And you both chose the endless power struggle.

Y'all deserve each other, but that doesn't mean everyone else does. 




Thursday, January 7, 2021

Frazetta Says There's Gonna Be A Fight


Sword & Sorcery is Frank

Sword and sorcery is very Conan, by which we mean to say it's very Frazetta. Unless your Conan looks like this...


The Conan of heavy brow, long dark hair, aswarm with muscle--the one in Marvel Comics, the one Schwarzenegger played, the one Jason Momoa played--is Frazetta's.

As the graph shows, people kinda had stopped talking about Conan until he showed up and started doing covers:

A thing I notice more than I expected to notice once I started gameblogging was how much images and illustration shape our ideas of what genre stories are going to be like. And I don't know about you but I've seen way more barbarians than I ever read about.

So, the question I want to talk about now is: what stories is Frazetta telling us about the genre he paints? 


Frank Frazetta grew up on comics, he started out as a comic book artist, he worked for years doing nothing else (including ghost-work forever on Lil' Abner), his work appeals to comic book fans, the comic pages he produced with his mature style were amazing, the originals of his paintings are sold on websites that also sell comics, but I don't think Frank would have achieved the status he did or would have had the impact he did on a public that did not--up until that point--give a rat's ass about who made fantasy art if his paintings were basically just "great comic book panel, but on a longer deadline". This is not to say Frank was better than any given great comic cover artist, but that he was giving us something subtly different than the great comics cover artists, supplying some until-then-unmet demand.


Which Was What?


Here's a thing you can do with a painting, to see what story is being told: List what you notice about it, in order.

Red beard on right.
Mountain.
Foreground guy's extreme pose.
Blood on the sword.
High axe on the left.
(Left beard guy's pose isn't great.)
The modulation of the snow.
The reddish foreground and vague intimation of rocks.
Everybody's white.
The right beardo's brow is kinda wormcolored.
He's losing his helmet.
Snow sprays.
What is going on with right hand beardo's non-axe arm?
The way their ankles sink in snow.
The gray in all their muscles.
Their belts and armor are so thick.
Lots of circles in this composition.

Ok, so let's look at somebody else (Ian Miller):
Fish.
Globes.
Wait is it a machine or an animal?
Wait is this zigzag thing a border or is this a machine?
Wait does he have a lighthouse on his head?
Is the fish moving or rotating? If he was how come the lighthouse is straight up and down?
Hey there's a little guy.
Does he know the fish is there?
The fish's expression is mournful.
Is this a metaphor?
He is part-machine but he has feelings.
Also he's old. Like: this is some janky old technology?
Look at how those scales are done. 
Hanging over those shadow areas.
Yeah this is a weird little world.
etc.

So what are the important differences here? Well for one--Frank has no question marks. You always know where you are in a Frank Frazetta painting. Frazetta's fantasy world is not enigmatic. We don't go "Oh what's this?" We know exactly what this is. It's frost giants. And we definitely know why it's there: so we can watch them fight. Where did those shields come from, what culture? The store where you buy fighty shields. 

That's not an automatic or even usual thing in art: we are in another world and yet we know exactly what's up.

Frazetta saves all depth and subtlety for rendering alone. The axes, poses, mountain shadow, these are Vermeer-Velasquez-tier attempts. The light falls where it will be most beneficial. It is magnificently rendered. In service of? Showing you that it's magnificently rendered. This is not as common as you might think--especially among illustrators, who are allegedly supposed to be telling you a story about the thing the illustration wants you to buy.

This painting's for the cover of "At The Earth's Core":

Never has any fantasy illustrator--nay, perhaps anyone in any way involved in fantasy as a genre--ever given less of a shit what is at the earth's core. What's there? A monster and a babe. Why? So we can see the monster be black and green and coiling from purple mist and we can see the babe be hot and fleshy. What layeth within the veins of this pullulating Earth, oh Frank? Uh...brown. Not even a stalactite, Frank? Nah.

Frazetta's backgrounds are gorgeous but they don't ever make us go "What's up with that place?" What is up with that place is the painter painted it with subtle colors in a way that makes it look cool. It's like Frazetta has a little bottle of Gaspar David Friedrich that he squeezes into the back of the painting...
Friedrich (1800s, German romantic) cares about ice. You see the ice, you see its complexity...then you see a boat. We've just been told a story by this painting:

Once upon a time ice, which I bet you thought was boring and static, got all crazy and spiky and killed some people. And now it's terribly quiet and lonely again at the north pole. Isn't nature wild?

Frazetta's paintings tell a story, too, but it is a remarkably simple and consistent story: There was this cool ____ who met this cool ____ in this beautiful, faraway place and they fought:









And, yes, there are ones that aren't fights, like the ones where somebody's just won a fight or is looking for a fight. Some of his best ones have no fights:
But I've never seen The Reassembled Man on the side of a van.

Just as Michaelangelo had the Medicis and popes, Frazetta's biggest career-peak patrons were Clint Eastwood (who got Frazetta to do a poster for The Gauntlet) and Sylvester Stallone (who wanted him to do a poster for Paradise Alley).

Who are these guys? Actors--that is: artists, who took acting classes and had to read plays and sometimes learn to dance and sing--who play tough guys. This is a nerd-jock overlap, where the question posed is often: What do I, a jock, want with a story about ancient civilizations and monsters? Fights. 

Ok, so it's maybe not an amazing insight that Frazetta paintings have a lot of fights, but let's look at how Frazetta paintings interact with the narratives that are attached to them.


Your Story Vs Frank Frazetta

You ever see From Dusk Til Dawn? Here's what I remember: Salma Hayek is in it and not nearly enough. That's pretty much it. That is also what Frank remembers:

Robert Rodriguez got interviewed about the poster:

That's why when Frank Frazetta saw the movie originally he called me and said “Where did you find this gal? I wish I was painting her when I was painting these things!” I said, “She's based on your paintings, that's why she looks like your paintings!” He said, “Oh, okay.” The whole costume design and headdress was all based on that painting....His whole comment on the poster is “That's all you need on the poster. You don't need anybody else but her and that snake.” I said, “Well, we kind of have to put in the other actors, too, because it's George Clooney and Harvey Keitel...” He said, “Alright, alright.” But if you look at the painting it's 90% Salma and at the very bottom is George Clooney. He didn't even bother to put Harvey Keitel on the poster! It's just George Clooney, Richie and he didn't even draw in the vampires, he just [put in] the monkey guys he usually does. Quentin and I thought that was the best. Alright! He didn't even bother with our vampires, he put his own creatures that he always has in his paintings! It's so fantastic.


Frank decided the only good thing about the movie was Selma Hayek with snakes and then he took it out of the movie and put it on the poster and now the movie is boring.

Have you every read this book?

I have. It sucks. I mean, ok: Edgar Rice Burroughs is a visionary, yes. He invented 4-armed apes and those martians and decided to have a story set on Mars before most anyone else did. These are all good ideas--but the execution is like: Jon Carter is good at everything! Then he gets to Mars and, guess what? Earth men are better than everyone on Mars and are super-strong and can jump like whoa. Then he meets someone who looks like a human on Mars. Guess what? She is super hot and loves him. Also a princess. He gets in a lot of fights, and you know what? He wins. 

What did Frazetta do? He put everything good about the book on the cover. Mars! Alien flowers! Alien building! 4 -armed apes! A weird alien! Heroism! Fights! Ok but where's the hot babe?

Ah, there she is. On the back. Along with a cool building.

Here's Edgar Rice Burroughs' description of the first building Jon Carter ever sees on Mars. That's a big deal, right? First evidence of an alien civilization. Time for some awe and wonder, right?

I was determined, however, to explore the low structure which was the only evidence of habitation in sight, and so I hit upon the unique plan of reverting to first principles in locomotion, creeping. I did fairly well at this and in a few moments had reached the low, encircling wall of the enclosure.

There appeared to be no doors or windows upon the side nearest me, but as the wall was but about four feet high I cautiously gained my feet and peered over the top upon the strangest sight it had ever been given me to see.

The roof of the enclosure was of solid glass about four or five inches in thickness, and beneath this were several hundred large eggs, perfectly round and snowy white. 

That's it. am I being unfair to the ur-titan of sword-and-planet sci-fi? Maybe, let's try to find a more impressive building. Let's see what else he's got:

A word from the leader of the party stilled their clamor, and we proceeded at a trot across the plaza to the entrance of as magnificent an edifice as mortal eye has rested upon.

Oh shit, this is going to be good... 

The building was low, but covered an enormous area. It was constructed of gleaming white marble inlaid with gold and brilliant stones which sparkled and scintillated in the sunlight. The main entrance was some hundred feet in width and projected from the building proper to form a huge canopy above the entrance hall. There was no stairway, but a gentle incline to the first floor of the building opened into an enormous chamber encircled by galleries.

I mean...ok? Now look again at Frazetta's building. It's wonderful--especially from a guy who never draws right angles, hates painting architecture and--as noted--doesn't start you off with mystery.

In a million ways, Frazetta is far more of a poet than Burroughs: his Mars has fights and monsters and babes but it also is a place of weird, looming, colored light, picturesque while it is brutal. It's all in the rendering. The Burroughs books best use is to simply: let you pretend you are in this painting for a few hours.

I had a job to work on a Conan-influenced RPG once and the publisher sent the Conan book he wanted me to use as a model. I was reading it at my girlfriends' Airbnb while she was falling asleep--

"The girl on the cover is so cool I want to be her"

"Oh yeah?"

"Will you read to me the part you're reading while I try to sleep?"

"Sure"

Four sentences in...

"Oh it's so bad. Ok stop."

And this is a non-native-english speaker. Now, Howard's not for everyone but the point is: at least for her, Frazetta sold the book and the rest is details. Worse details.

So what is sword and sorcery according to Frank? Beautiful. The women are beautiful, the men are beautiful, the monsters are beautiful, the jungles and animals and plants and (rare) buildings are beautiful, the horses are beautiful, the backdrop planet that hangs like a moon too-big and in the wrong colors is beautiful, the violence is beautiful. Everything is a paragon of its class, nothing is undercut by being a lackluster example of itself.

Ok, fine, what artist doesn't like beautiful? But consider some side effects: since everything is a paragon, almost everyone is the same in Frazetta:

The two guys? They're heroes. What are they like? They seem to expect some danger but otherwise--one's blonde and one isn't. The woman? She's like them only wearing less clothes. 

It's not just that Frazetta makes things beautiful, it's that the beauty of the things is his story.

Just because a painting is beautiful and a genre illustration doesn't mean it has to tell that story:

That's Bob Pepper. He's telling a story about danger and conflict and monsters but...it's saying something else. Also, Pepper has achieved something Frazetta never has--he makes the book look like it might be good.

Frazetta tells us only this story: These people fought and it was beautiful. Because it is not just a beautiful painting but part of its beauty is based in everything in it being very good at being itself. Some artists find beauty in ugliness, humbleness, quietness, not Frazetta. He finds beauty in beauty. Or, as anyone who has tried to photograph the Grand Canyon and failed can attest, he does a harder thing: he shows us a painting which makes the beautiful thing beautiful even after its been reduced to two dimensions. 


Frazetta and the Sword and Sorcery Narrative (or lack thereof)

.

Ok, I do have some questions about the Egyptian Queen: Is she, like, supposed to be there? Is she a captive? Is she scared of the leopard? What is that column made of? But something about how she's lit--like a stripper at the beginning of her stage time--tells me no-one involved cares or will tell me.  They're there so the painting will be there. Frank serves no god, not even the narrator. The column is made of those colors because that is the most beautiful thing. She is smooshed against it because it is the most fetching pose. The leopard looks hungry because Frazetta finds the beast at its most beautiful when its stalking. 

The genius of Frazetta as a sword and sorcery illustrator was that he told you not so much why you'd want to read that book but rather why you'd want to read sword and sorcery at all. This world is beautiful that's why. The flipside is: not a single fucking plot detail. Sometimes he didn't even read the books.

Think of a really good sword and sorcery tale--as soon as you get into details you get away from the Frazettian vision. That Fritz Leiber story where the Snow Women are waging cold war on their husbands? Too satirical for Frazetta. Jack Vance? Too clever by half. Clark Ashton Smith's 7 Geases? What kind of hero just shows up and gets immediately cursed?  Frazetta would fight you and all of nine nations before he put a trap or make a picture that showed how a magic item worked or painted an evil king next to an advisor maybe he didn't get along with.

It's hard to make an engrossing time-based entertainment that's just a string of superlatives. You can watch seven seasons of Game of Thrones because it has politics and treachery and characters that aren't all the best fighter in Westeros, you can read Tolkien because there's a riddle game and Frodo and Bilbo aren't sure they are heroes, and Boromir is maybe bad and there's an invisibility ring and...details details.

But there is no time in a painting--you get it all at once. So Frank doesn't care. There doesn't need to be a plot. All that shit they tell you in screenwriting class about setting the stakes before the fight? Don't need to: everyone in the fight looks cool and they're fighting in a cool place. That should be enough for you jamokes. Fuck stakes.

That Frazetta movie, Fire and Ice? It should've just been like John Wick with skeletons. Just 120 minutes of axes forged by a generic non-culture smashing skeletons.

I don't know if this makes Frazetta the best or worst possible tutelary deity for game masters and game designers. It is beautiful to be in a dungeon, it is beautiful to fight a dragon, who cares about anything else?

Monday, January 4, 2021

Talking (Literally) to Story-Gamers--Ron Edwards, Vincent Baker, Mark Diaz Truman, et al

Indie game bigwig Ron Edwards (with Jez Gordon) pretending 
to be a frost giant at Gen Con for me. He would later claim
that this afternoon (the only time we met) was part of a highly
sophisticated psyop against him and I am not joking.


CONFLICT RESOLUTION 101...

...is you talk to people. So, as a person who has always tried hard to do that I figured I'd show a concise record of what happens when you do that. This is for the benefit of anyone in the future trying to deal with the problems of the online RPG scene  and for anyone trying to figure out what drives hatemobs.


WHY STORY GAMERS? 

This article's about real-life interactions with people from the indie games/postForge/Story Games/hippie games clique for a simple reason:

These were the pretty much only conversations where I ever saw anyone discuss with anyone, in real time, their own toxic online behavior.

The old-school gamers simply never have these conversations (they went straight from being very nice in real life at conventions--and not bringing up any concerns of any kind--to lying online, with no back-and-forth at all), and other gamers just never interacted in real life at all.

So, in no specific order...

RON EDWARDS

Who they are:

Ron Edwards founded and owned The Forge, birthplace of the Story-Game scene. He also is the main guy behind GNS theory. In kinda-relevant news he also is a biologist or biology teacher, so he knows what real theories are, it's part of his job.

How he made contact:

I don't agree with GNS theory but I took it seriously and was not about to condemn it or him until I'd given him a chance to address the issues I had, since, yknow: always try to talk to people before talking about them. He wasn't much part of the online drama the Story-Games people caused so I didn't blame him for that (at the time) but for years I couldn't even find him and he didn't respond to emails. Eventually we did videochat.

The First Conversation:

I shared video footage of my group playing and we talked about fitting it into GNS theory. I asked "Aren't scientific theories supposed to be disprovable? What would disprove your analysis?"

He went "Heh, you got me there! I don't know."

(Coming from an art background I know that theories about art can, yeah, actually be disproved just like scientific ones.)

I mostly viewed him as harmless at that point and he wasn't much involved in online drama and I had no ill will against him.

But then:

Ron got suddenly shitty in an online thread about a painting (not mine). My first comment was like "Hey, do you really mean the thing you're saying?" and he immediately went off (transcript).  We stopped talking online after that.

The Second Conversation:

We met at Gen Con at the behest of a mutual acquaintance and had a nice conversation for an hour or two. It was an hour or two, and lead to the photo at the top of this blog entry. I basically was like "Look, you got asked a question, you teach, right? Why was it such a big deal to just answer and not be a dick? The world's not a conspiracy against you" and he was like "Yeah, I'm sorry".

And that was the end of that and I was like cool, it's nice to talk to people irl and it seemed like everyone else felt the same way: Charlotte Stokely (testified for me) was there and so was Jez Gordon (joined the hatemob) and James Raggi (weird failed neutrality? idk). You can ask them what they thought, they're all on social media.

Aaaand...It All Fell Apart:

After the 2019 hatemob started, Ron posted a long youtube video about me. If this was just "Ok, now I decided Zak was bad" it would hardly be worth mentioning, but Ron went WAY further. Some highlights:

  • Ron says apologizing to me at that Gen Con and me not apologizing back (I hadn't done anything wrong but I guess he assumed I would anyway?) was the worst thing that ever happened to him in his entire life including times Ron was physically beaten up
  • He says he felt completely humiliated when he got back to his hotel. 
  • This still-cited titan of RPG theory claims that because of information he knows from spies in Berlin that this was all part of some kind of either CIA-trained or quasi-religious psy-op technique I used on him. Because I grew up in California. (I didn't.)
  • These highly-sophisticated techniques apparently included controlling his food intake and breathing.
  • I am not joking.
  • For some reason Brendan Necropraxis shared this video, without comment in the OSR discord while they were trying to cancel me as if, like, this was a thing that humans should be paying attention to. I've never figured out why.


MARK DIAZ TRUMAN

Who they are:

Mark Diaz Truman runs an outfit called Magpie Games and also did some kind of social justice-y organizing at conventions I think for profit.  He is or was involved in the Indie Game Developer Network (IGDN) I think.

How he made contact:

I didn't know him from a hole in the ground but one day in a casual online conversation about how toxic Story Games people act toward outsiders he pushed back and acted like this wasn't a thing. I showed him the first and easiest proof I had to hand.

To my shock, this shocked him. Even more shocking, he was like "Ok let's talk." 

We talked over vidchat...

The First Conversation:

Mark admitted to always kind of casually assuming that I was a harasser because that's what people in his community said. I asked whether he ever asked for proof and he said "No" and said "Well isn't that incredibly stupid?" and he admitted, yeah, that was unfair.

This conversation lead to Mark writing a post called Two Minutes Hate about how toxic Story Games people were shitty to outsiders and people of color. It marks a high-water mark of that scene being anywhere near even remotely self-critical, pissed a lot of Story-Gamers off to this day but really soft-pedaled their abuses and avoided naming names.*

The Second Conversation:

Mark got so much hate from supposed friends that he wanted to write a second post to clarify. We talked. I told him the problem with the original post and the new one was that:

-If you want to write a thing like that, you need to define words like abuse and harassment and then accuse everyone whose behavior matches those definitions of those things. By name.

He said, straight up: there is no way he would be calling out Ash Kreider (he said their name) or the other obviously-broken-stairs in his community by name. Not because of any moral issue but because, financially, it would be ruinous. He wrote a milquetoast walkback that pleased nobody.

Aaaand...It All Fell Apart:

Basically, as soon as the 2019 hate started, Mark forgot all that stuff he'd said about proof and caved, apologizing for ever having called out his fellow indie scenesters.


AVONELLE WING

Who they are:

Avonelle runs game conventions.

How she made contact:

Avonelle made this post about her community's Sacred Crackpots. She called them "mad mystics". Around this time she also said that if anyone was dealing with her community's drama and wanted to they should get in touch. I took her up on it. Again we talked over vidchat...

The Conversation:

I basically was like

"Your 'mad mystics'/'sacred crackpots' attack people outside your community and start harassment campaigns."

"Well we're trying to care for our Mystics"

and I was like "Yeah but that's your choice, in the meantime why don't you also try to protect their victims from them?"

I asked "Why doesn't your community fact-check these claims?"

...Avonelle tried to reply with the idea that well Because Women Should Be Believed and...But I pointed out her Mad Mystics were never making accusations about things that weren't recorded--they were talking about online stuff you can link to, so that argument doesn't make sense. There's no reason to "believe" anyone about a recorded conversation.

She then conceded that was true. Then I asked her why she really joined in the harassment without evidence. She said she didn't. I said I have the receipts. She said "I'll take a look at them, we should talk again later". 

Aaaand...It All Fell Apart:

I sent her the proof of her dogpiling an attack and she never answered and then blew me off.


VINCENT BAKER



Who they are:

Probably the most important Story-Game designer, did Apocalypse World. Ex-mormon.

How he made contact:

Vincent added me on Google+. Occasionally when I had problems with people in his scene I'd talk to him about it privately to see is there was a way to cool things down because he's well-respected with those folks. He is the only person in this blog entry I never had a real-time videochat or irl face-to-face with, but we talked in private messages occasionally.

The conversation we had:

Vincent's first piece of "advice" was that he personally, never responded to people like RPGPundit attacking him because he (Vincent) felt that these people advertised him. So he saw it as kayfabe and he was like "Good! It sells books!"

I pointed out that Vincent's harassing friends were, unlike right-wing trolls, both taken seriously in the scene and making criminal accusations so I couldn't just ignore them and it was dangerous. He would  not defend anything they said, but recommended I talk to Paul Czege and said he was nice. Vincent even gave 10$ to Demon City at the beginning.

Aaaand...It All Fell Apart:

When the 2019 mob started, Vincent retroactively painted attempts to cool things down by talking to him privately as somehow bad and evil on his Twitter. Like, "try to get a mutual acquaintance to help create a dialogue" is exactly what you're supposed to do in a conflict but Vincent pretended it was an evil scheme to manipulate him and the force of Vincent's rep and Beardy Adult In The Room persona just ran roughshod over that.

Secondhand people reported Vincent had secretly admitted he stayed out of a lot of conversations because he was afraid I might show up. Needless to say he never mentioned this when we talked.

Also, if he did: you're welcome.


JESSICA HAMMER

Who they are:

Jessica Hammer hates being called a Story Gamer. She's an academic at Columbia University (last I knew) who does things including study games and gamer culture but as far as the online scene goes: she endlessly supports major Story Gamers people and is friends with them and talks to them all the time for years and does not so much talk to the rest of the indie game scene.

So, she's like one of those conservative columnists who constantly yammers on about not wanting to be part of the Republican party. I don't know what she does at home, but from the POV of the rest of us--she supports exactly the same missing-stair behavior as all the other Story-Gamers.

How she made contact:

Typical google+ thread about how toxic Story-Gamers are. She or I reached out to the other and said "Hey lets talk privately".

The conversation we had:

This started with a lot of private back-and-forth-messages. They were not friendly but were basically professional. I was like "Let's talk in real life because this is confusing".

So I was visiting New York and we went for pizza. At the end of that conversation she hugged me and told me she "loved" me. 

She said--

  • She's is upset at how many people in the Story-Games tabletop RPG scene pretend to be theorists and to have scientific authority while not using any of the genuine tools of social science or being up on any of the theories of games that've actually been tested.
  • She has played with a lot of the SG gamers and decided they were "terrible players" and decided they didn't seem to actually play games enough or pay attention when they were playing and they acted like they could talk their way into being better designers or players.
  • She says she had "very strong negative feelings about the Forge and (some of) its offshoots, particularly Story-Games. "
  • When I pointed out specific shitty things that specific major Indie scenesters she was associated with had said (PH Lee claimed George RR Martin wanted people to be raped, Ash Kreider said an artist of color (Hyun Tae Kim) should be denied work because their art was fetishy and sexy), Jessica agreed they were shitty. Jessica said, of one of them, "I see (Ash Kreider) destroy a lot of potentially interesting conversations with people I'd like to talk to because of how [s/he] communicates" and that they were "not someone I'd invite into any conversation I wanted to stay nuanced or productive."
  • Hammer admitted that she was trying to politely groom Ash into being more useful and added that her own (Hammer's) motives for doing this were: "completely self-serving." 
  • Hammer admitted they did not voice these concerns to anyone in the scene because she was considering writing, academically, about the Indie scene and didn't want to burn bridges.
  • "You have no idea what a relief it is to say these things to someone."
  • "As a game theorist, Ron Edwards is an excellent biologist."

Aaaand...It All Fell Apart:

PH Lee and Ash Kreider (both then going under different names at the time) lied about rape threats from a whole other guy, and got caught by a fellow Story-Gamer. I pointed this out to my followers to warn them these were dangerous people and instead of being like "Oh, that also is bad, I am sorry people that I help did that" Jessica Hammer just blocked me.


JOHN WICK

Who they are:

Not the one who's been single-handedly fighting his colleagues for years because they fucked with him for no reason in 2014 and have refused to de-escalate no matter how clearly he signals he isn't going to stop. This is the guy who did 7th Sea and Legend of the Five Rings. I don't really know if you'd call him a Story-Gamer, but whatever.

How he made contact:

He made a video or an essay about how D&D doesn't do "stories" properly. I can't remember if this was his same video about Tomb of Horrors was terrible or not. I made a comment about how that didn't make sense to me--he said "Hey why don't you come on video and we'll talk?".

The conversation we had:

I went on his youtube show and we had a completely friendly chat and I said a story can be about tactics--I used Three Billy Goats Gruff as an example.

He was like "Ok, yeah, true, fair".

I remember saying like "Hey be careful about saying crazy things online about game design, people learn by watching designers they admire".

And he was like ok, that makes sense, and admitted sometimes he gets emotional and says crazy things (he used the word "crazy") and that's a thing he acknowledges. Later when I threw a party at Gen Con he came.

Aaaand...It All Fell Apart:

Honestly I have no idea what his excuse was or when he gave up. Dude just blocked me and I haven't heard a thing.


THE "REAL" PERSON

A leftish reporter I listen to recently wrapped up his long-running interview podcast, and he said an interesting thing in his final "lessons learned" episode basically to this effect:

Often the person who comes out when you talk in real time seems very different than the one you meet online but while the usual interpretation of this is that the real-time persona is "real" and the online one is some caricature, the truth is that it's actually neither or both. The desire of many people (or at least weak-willed or anxious people) to be agreeable in person is as much a distorting factor as the way the distancing of social media makes them apathetic or outright sadistic online and really you can only judge the "real" them (both of them) by their actions.

(I think those two proportions might be related: the more someone is unable to advocate for their real concerns in person, the more likely they are to expel those emotions by acting like a sociopath online, but that's my guess--the interviewer didn't say that.)


SO WHO WERE THEY REALLY?

I think Mark Diaz Truman was genuine at first (otherwise he borrowed a lot of trouble for no reason) and it seems like Jessica Hammer was but since she admitted to being dishonest with and about the S-G community just to write about them she might've been doing the same with me.

The rest it's hard to tell: they may've just been on an emotional rollercoaster, unable to fix in their own minds what they wanted out of these conversations, or they might've just wanted to avoid pissing me off, or they might've wanted the very minor benefits of me saying to y'all that they're a reasonable person unlike their terrible co-workers or they might've just wobbled back and forth.

At any rate, the outcome and the root problem was always the same: either they forgot every precept they claimed to subscribe to the second it became emotionally or financially inconvenient or they were passive-aggressively holding back issues they had all along. Under these circumstances no matter how much you talk to a person like that you're never really talking to them. It isn't a conversation about real thoughts in their heads.

Why would anyone do that? Honestly I'm going to guess because all I can do is guess--they won't talk.

It just seems like they live in a world of fear. Ron is terrified someone is coming for him because of years of arguing with people like this and spawning a scene with people who now hate him, Vincent Baker is scared of not being able to maintain the image of a detached hippie genius and being sucked into being considered responsible for what his shitty allies and fans do (despite refusing to cut ties with them),  Truman's scared of losing money--he said so, Avonelle is scared of activists she courts activisting at her (con organizers get a lot of shit), Hammer is terrified of having to be responsible to anyone for what the scene she's obsessed and claims to be "studying" does and of not just being considered a fly on the wall, John Wick is terrified of his contrarianism being a liability instead of a delightful marketing strategy. 

They agreed to talk because of fear and they don't want to commit to what they said because of fear. It's no wonder they hate being asked why they did things.

The indie business doesn't have to be this gross, I promise.

-----

*They had all these conspiracy theories about why he did it. "It seemed like the right thing to do" is always implausible to these folks when it comes to disagreeing with them. Avery Alder was like "I bet he's working on a project with Zak" and other people assumed we were pals. We weren't and never were.

-

-

-

Thursday, December 31, 2020

Staggered, Dazed and Hindered (or, What Was Mainstream Game Design?)


If I were asked to sum up the term "mainstream RPG design" up in three sentences I’d say:
Blind: A combined condition. The character cannot see, so everything effectively has full visual concealment from him. He is hindered, visually unaware, and vulnerable, and may be impaired or disabled for activities where vision is a factor.
A lot of people (or at least a lot of people like you, who read blogs about role-playing games in their spare time) talk about "mainstream game design" in terms of being something they don't want to do. But what is it? Why do people make it? What can we learn from it and attempts to avoid it?

It's not exactly Dungeons and Dragons. Editions of D&D take an unusually long time to produce and are pretty fraught due to fan and corporate interest, so every edition of D&D--technically the world's most mainstream RPG-- inevitably includes:

-a mishmash of relics left over from how things used to be (a thing called "saving throws" which are just a kind of stat check in every other game)

-trailing indicators of current trends (inspiration, traits), and

-innovations (advantage/disadvantage)

...so it's rarely a good example. While most RPG design trots from trend to trend, D&D--like the other still-surviving big properties from the 80s and 90s--gets slingshotted forward in time every five or ten years and bounces around drunkenly trying to find a level until it starts all over again.

I would say the current Monster Manual and spell list in 5e are pretty much mainstream design incarnate, but if you really want to know what would happen if you gave a monkey a Mac and 5 cents an hour and said "Write the most mainstream game possible" for any given year, D&D as a whole is too much of a patchwork to use as a model.

Instead, I'd propose that the best way to find an example of the zero-experiment flattened-bobcat dead-center of the middle-of-the-road at any given time is to ask Green Ronin.

And the hallmark of Green Ronin design is: breathtaking thoughtlessness. 

The Green Ronin name is not especially attached to any specific property (unlike White Wolf and World of Darkness) or system (unlike Pinnacle and Savage Worlds)  or designer (unlike Pelgrane and Robin Laws) or even design philosophy (unlike most smaller indie presses) and they have a record of license-chasing, including Dragon Age, Song of Ice & Fire, D&D/D20 and DC Comics.

Green Ronin is to RPGs what Dark Horse would be to comics if you subtracted out Sin City, HellboyConcrete and anything else anyone made by someone who was paid well and wanted to be there.  They'll make you whatever you want, poorly, and throw in a copy of Predator vs Buck Rogers, free.


If the Ronin is Green, it's only because that's the natural state of a chameleon. 

So GR is going to provide us our example:


DC Adventures


Why DC Adventures? Though it is almost a decade old there are two reasons for this--one good, one bad. 

The bad reason is: the DC Adventures game is the only Green Ronin book I can get through without falling asleep.  I'll need a picture from a different, more recent, GR game to show you what I mean:

They not only put this picture in a book, they put it on the page meant to advertise it. Thanks to the art that came along with the license, DC Adventures at least doesn't look like someone plugged a mannequin directly into a Cintiq and hit "print".

The good reason is: it is probably their most popular game. If you add in the parent system--Mutants & Masterminds, it definitely is. It had a whole line, with a whole line developer

People wanted this game--and it can still be found on the shelves of local game stores next to D&D, Pathfinder, Star Wars and maybe some 40K games.

A lot of folks may read this and go "Well that's just 3.5./the D20 era." or even "Well this is just a crunchy game". Well, no, because:

-All those D20 designers are still around and making things

-Deciding to adapt someone else's system is a choice

-The total self-sabotage, in terms of "helping fun be had" is on the shoulders of the person doing the adapting is real.

-These same kinds of bad decisions where you don't think what the player gets out of the system are being made now with people adapting 5e, people adapting Fate, people adapting PBTA, people who were at Fantasy Flight doing 40k, etc. etc.

Has "normal" moved on since this game was put out? Yes. But what's important isn't the trends in game design they're aping, it's the utter thoughtlessness with which they do it.


---

So that's the context, as for what's inside, it does what it intends to do, and what it intends to do is unambitious and will be soon superceded. Its limitations are real and frustrating, but chosen. Let's see what that means...

-The cover is Alex Ross--as mainstream as it could be. On the credits page we find the actual designer Steve Kenson (who did its parent, Mutants and Masterminds and now the equally unappealing Icons and is still around). Nicole Lindroos and Chris Pramas, the company's heads (of whom the less said the better, at least for them), as well as a huge list of DC Comics artists--though artist names are not attached or indexed to the specific pictures they did, which, given the fat block of names, kind of guts the point of crediting them--even I can't figure half of them out and I can tell when George Perez inked himself at 400 feet. Which you might call thoughtless. Maybe I missed something and real credits are elsewhere idk.

Quotes from the book are in italics:
Halfway between skills and powers, advantages are minor abilities characters have, allowing them to do things others cannot. They range from special combat maneuvers to things like financial resources, contacts, and so forth. Many advantages have no rank, or rather just one rank; a character either has the advantage (and the benefits that it grants) or does not. Other advantages may have multiple ranks, like abilities and skills, measuring their effectiveness.
Why do we have skills and advantages? If you must have ranked and unranked things, why not divide them by that instead and name the two different things that way?

Oh but these are quibbles in comparison to the concept of ranks themselves:
Each rank represents a range of measures. Time rank 4 is actually all measures between 1 and 2 minutes, and time rank 16 is everything between 2 and 4 days! So if you’re looking for a measurement that’s not on the table, pick the next highest one that is; so 12 hours is a time rank of 13 (more than 8 hours, but less than 16), and 6 miles is a distance rank of 11 (more than 4 miles, but less than 8).
This idea of ranking different measures of things (time, space, weight) using universal ranks was in the orginal DC Heroes RPG in the '80s. Possibly earlier. 

In D&D magic a spell might last Level Minutes or Level Hours—say 3 hours or minutes at Level 3. In games like this a power lasts Level Time (and then you look up how many minutes or hours 3 is in Time).

I have yet to discover a single advantage to this system either in terms of playing or writing the game—you still have to look something up, you’re just looking up the measurments table instead of the power description. In addition, though it looks like precision, the math requires vagueness “Time rank 4 is actually all measures between 1 and 2 minutes” well that’s everything from 10 to 20 combat rounds, Ronin, kinda not terrible helpful considering the amount of work it takes to design a system of measurement and keep it consistent across all powers.

The time it takes a Speed 14 hero to cover 30 miles is rank –1, or 3 seconds.

Fuck off.

Don’t directly add ranks. Putting rank 4 distance together with rank 6 distance is not rank 10 distance! Rank 4 is a distance measurement of 500 feet. Rank 6 is 600 yards (1,800 feet). Adding the measurements, you get about 2,300 feet. If you directly added the ranks, you’d get rank 10 distance, or 4 miles! If you have different ranks, it is best to either handle them separately or convert them to measurements, add the measurements together, and convert them back to a rank. In the previous example, 2,300 feet is rank 7 distance (around half a mile).

Fuck off again.

Measurements are approximate. Especially at the higher end, where each rank represents a wide range of measurements, the Measurements Table isn’t intended to provide precise values; it’s just a ballpark estimate so you have an idea of how things work in the context of the game. Don’t focus too heavily on precise answers, just use the table for general guidelines.
Then why are we using this system? Can we just have hours and minutes back?

Interestingly enough, the actual numbers in the Measurement System are similar in important ways to the original Mayfair DC Heroes game which used a totally different resolution engine. In Marvel, the strongest heroes lift around 100 tons  according to the game and the Official Handbook (if you’re wondering: no, this isn’t at all consistent with the comic depictions, the Hulk picks up ocean liners no problem he's not even mad). In DC Heroes and Adventures that’s a mere 12 strength, which is where Wonder Woman was in the 2nd ed DC Heroes. 21 here is 50k tons, and iirc in DC Heroes it was 50k tons in the older game. The heroes themselves however are very different: Wonder Woman is now 16 strength and Superman and Captain Marvel now 19. This means: systemwonk canon is more stable than comic book canon, and, at least if you ask DC, Wonder Woman is benchpressing 16 times what Thor is.
To determine the distance a hero covers in a given amount of time, add the rank of the time to the rank of the hero’s speed, with normal human ground speed being rank 0. So a normal person can cover 2 miles in an hour (time 9 + speed 0 = 9, the rank for 2 miles). In fact, with normal human speeds, you can just directly compare the time and distance columns of the table! As another example, a hero with Flight 12 can cover 8,000 miles in an hour! That’s 12 (speed) + 9 (time) = 21, the rank for 8,000 miles. The same character can go an amazing 16 miles in just 6 seconds (the time of one action round)!
This is a lot of work to avoid just writing a power that says “You can fly Level x 20 mph or Level x 20 feet per round”.

You’d think this would at least make power descriptions shorter? No.
You move through soil and sand at a speed rank equal to your Burrowing rank, minus 5. So Burrowing 8, for example, lets you move through the ground at speed rank 3 (around 16 MPH). 
Why isn’t your speed at least just equal to your Burrowing rank? Because of the math burden created by the measurement system.

The DC Heroes universal measurement system is also strange from the POV of transparency and accessibility. You’d think if the game is meant to be accessible to people familiar with D&D or DC comics or just numbers, you’d make however strong Superman was supposed to be at 20 or 25 or 30 (in the original Dc Heroes it was 50) or another round number to “cap” the system, then scale down from there for everyone else—thus giving a new player a good idea of how powerful an ability was “half as strong as Superman” or even “as fast as Superman is strong” etc. But nope: 19. And Mr Battlesuit (a generic Iron Man style character you can use as a base) has a Stamina of 1? Is that a bad score? Ok my dudes.

Here’s a great vulnerability of these kinds of rules: false efficiency.

I look up a power or object or rule (say pg 57?). It says the effect leaves someone “Hindered”. I then have to turn to page 18 and look up Hindered:

What’s hindered?
“Hindered: A hindered character moves at half normal speed (–1 speed rank). Immobile supersedes hindered.”
(And hindered isn’t Impaired or Fatigued or Exhausted— whole other things—so the chance of me memorizing it straight off isn’t great)

It’d be a lot simpler if it just said what hindered meant under the description of the power//object/rule. It’s simpler for the designer’s life to just go “Hindered is a condition, it’s the same every time, I’ll stick this word here instead of this sentence” it’s harder for the player or GM referencing it—if it’s a deluxe pdf  and the word “hindered” is hotlinked, it’s still a click away and you may not easily be able to click back to where you were.

It looks, if you're an engineer, like efficiency but if you actually think about play at the table it’s not.

Even worse, the next page has combined conditions—conditions that reference 1 or more other conditions .

Some are just stupid and unnecessary:

Restrained: A restrained character is hindered and vulnerable. If the restraints are anchored to an immobile object, the character is immobile rather than hindered. If restrained by another character, the restrained character is immobile but may be moved by the restraining character.

Incapacitated: An incapacitated character is defenseless, stunned, and unaware. Incapacitated characters generally also fall prone, unless some outside force or aid keeps them standing.

Staggered: A staggered character is dazed and hindered.

So if you have a bad guy with a power that staggers people, you gotta look that up, then look back at the other section to find Hindered (pg 18), then turn the page to look up Dazed (pg 17). 

…insted of just writing “This leaves the target with 1 action per round and at half normal speed.”

Like that's it. That is the description. Really could you not just have done that?

This isn't a fault of the D20 system, this is what failure to think about what you're doing and who you're doing it for looks like.

Also: the conditions could’ve at least fit on one spread of the book but they stuck a couple pictures in there and so fucked that right up.

This fiddly language even get into the description of what different level superhumans are like. From Power 10 Superhumans:

Power level 10 heroes may have a balance of attack and effect, defense and resistance, or may go for being stronger on one side than the other, having great combat skill, but comparatively limited damage, for example, or great Toughness, but lowered defenses.
Not like "Teen Titans are Power Level 10" but: that.

Spending Hero Points in this game is hilarious trash. (From the point of view of someone who likes games to be a challenge from the character’s pov. If you’re a dull person I'm sure its all as exciting as the new Decembrists album.) Some things you can do:
You can “edit” a scene to grant your hero an advantage by adding or changing certain details. For example, a hero is fighting a villain with plant-based powers in a scientific lab. You deduce the villain may be weakened by defoliants, so you ask the GM if there are any chemicals in the lab you can throw together to create a defoliant. The Gamemaster requires a hero point to add that detail and says the right chemicals are close at hand. Now you just have to use them!

 This option is intended to give players more input into the story and allow their heroes chances to succeed, but it shouldn’t be used as a replacement for planning and cleverness, just as a way to enhance them.
So the chance of having a chemical in a lab isn’t random, it’s the effect of having done hero stuff. Let's say you didn't have a hero point: is there suddenly no chance of having a defoliant in a lab? Is the cleverness of thinking there might be suddenly negated by not having previously done a hero thing and gotten the points?

It's philosophically complicated but I don't think it's pushing it to say:

A straightforward way to reward cleverness is to say if you think of the idea "maybe the lab has defoliants" then maybe you can look for them and if you (cleverly) play to the character's strengths and they happen to be in chemistry or noticing stuff than maybe this looking is more likely to be successful. 

Throwing in a currency that is given for previous play encourages something else but it isn't in-game cleverness.

Ok, you're not convinced? This is much worse:

You can spend a hero point to gain the benefits of one rank of an advantage you don’t already have until the end of your next turn (see the Advantages chapter). 

So essentially there’s a whole arsenal of effects under Advantages….
Accurate Attack Trade effect DC for attack bonus.
All-out Attack Trade active defense for attack bonus.
Chokehold Suffocate an opponent you have successfully grabbed.
Close Attack +1 bonus to close attack checks per rank.
Defensive Attack Trade attack bonus for active defense bonus.
Throwing Mastery +1 damage bonus with thrown weapons per rank.
Uncanny Dodge Not vulnerable when surprised or caught off-guard.
Weapon Bind Free disarm attempt when you actively defend.
Weapon Break Free smash attack when you actively defend.
You suddenly get to-/have to- sort through mid fight. 

This rewards system mastery and staring at page 70 mid-game instead of being engaged with the fictional positioning. That is: what your character in the comic-book panel in your head is actually up to.


None of this has anything to do with how The Flash beats the Weather Wizard. This is just pure systemwonkery. It’s opposed to tactical transparency. You gotta actually know the system to gain the benefit which is a bad thing at most tables including any one I've enjoyed.
You can spend a hero point to get sudden inspiration in the form of a hint, clue, or bit of help from the GM.
Yes this is like the Idea roll in Call of Cthulhu. it’s stupid there too. Learn to say "I look at the ceiling", Batman.

You can also use hero points to remove the cost of “Extra Effort” rolls, which opens up a variety of other options that look a lot like the Advantages (enhancing speed, enhancing strength, etc). So: more system mastery. Less tactical transparency. You get stronger by having done something unrelated last scene and having read the book alone a lot.

What's a better hero point system look like?

In Marvel Superheroes/FASERIP hero points just help you with a roll. Period. It might not even work and you have to announce you're spending them before you roll--so it can't be reliably used to circumvent a problem that could be solved by thinking.

It’s simple, and though it somewhat mitigates pure tactical challenge it doesn’t make you think outside the character’s pov much, unlike say spending a point to claim some acid was already there or going ok I want to use my points to temporarily be better at throwing specifically. It encourages a kind of thinking I like.

In FASERIP you go "Do you want to spend karma on the roll?". That's it--it's a moment of gambling that makes the stakes feel higher. It works, too, it really does feel like that panel in a Marvel comic where someone goes "Must...move...thing...before...I...drown...".

I can save people, act in character, fight a bad guy (all things I’d be doing anyway) and then the math slides in my direction according to how much effort I put in. In DCA game there’s an element of having to switch to being the author rather than being like “I am trying hard” (represented by 70 karma pts) there’s “I need a new idea”--ok, spend  a hero point.

Karma in FASERIP makes conditions more favorable—-it’s very comparable to effort and motivation. Hero points in DCA move you into the writer’s position--or the minmaxer's--forcing you to squeeze the rules to get an efficient result. 

--

Character gen is point-buy.

There are a number of archetypes prebuilt and you can customize them (like "Battlesuit guy")—which is a bone to how fucking pointlessly complex the system is. They build half the person for you then let you fiddle with whatever parts you dare to understand.

Other than the archetypes, character gen doesn’t do much to inspire new ideas unless you want a megapowerful character and so end up having to buy disadvantages that make you more interesting. But such is point-buy.

--
More crunch: if you wanna play Master of Kung Fu you need hella system mastery.

The Gadgeteer and Martial Artist rely a great deal on their advantages (as do other archetypes like the Crime Fighter and Weapon-Master). You’ll want to read the descriptions of all of the character’s advantages from the Advantages chapter so you know the benefits they provide. Remember to make use of them during play to give your character every appropriate, well, advantage.

In particular, note how some advantages and even powers work together. The Gadgeteer can use Quick-Thinking to speed up the process of inventing (see Inventing, page 145) and Skill Mastery (Technology) to make some inventing checks as routine. Similarly, note the Martial Artist’s Power Attack advantage, good for doing extra damage to slow, tough, opponents, and the Skill Mastery (Acrobatics) advantage for pulling off formidable (DC 25) Acrobatics checks as routine!

I don’t get the point of any system where just having a really good "Acrobatics" isn’t all you need to be good at acrobatics.

At least in Pathfinder, you can justify it by going "Ok monks and rogues might make more of their high dex than another class" but in a superhero game there's no excuse
there's no classes. Spiderman is good because he has a high score. Its simple. It works. There isn't a problem, in any take on the superhero genre, with letting Spiderman do all kinds of acrobatics.

Enhanced Strength 10, plus Enhanced Strength 2, Limited to Lifting (Lifting Str 14; 400 tons) • 22 points.

I mean why?

You can have abilities that increase your dodge, but…acrobatics isn’t one of them?

Feinting in combat is part of Deception and makes the target get the “vulnerable” condition til next round.

Here's a complete player skill override:

You can use Deception to send covert messages using wordplay and double-meanings while apparently talking about other things. The DC for a basic message is 10. Complex messages or messages trying to communicate new information have DCs of 15 or 20, respectively. The recipi- ent of the message must make an Insight check against the same DC to understand it.

Noncombat skills are very lightly supported—both “Streetwise” and “Magic” —undeniably useful knowledge-bases in the DC Universe—are given as examples that might be chosen under the grab-bag skill “Expertise” alongside “Carpentry” and “Cooking”.

So helping to solve the crime (half the story in lots of superhero comics and games) using Streetwise or Magic is weighted the same as being good at kitchens and bathrooms.

This interferes with defining the character, personalitywise—in a game where even Deception can give you a bonus in basically any fight and a list of combat-useful Advantages literally as long as a child’s arm that you all buy from the same pool, choosing to have a character that can cook is choosing to make your PC less effective in most situations.

How come Green Arrow got killed and had to come back from the land of the dead in a Kevin Smith comic and Batman didn’t? Well because Green Arrow spent vital character creation points learning to make chili:


This is a problem that can only be solved three ways, as far as I know:

-Establish the campaign world up front such that the challenges are such that only well-rounded or characters will survive (this can be very boring—because it means you have to make the campaign more predictable and know or convince your players you know what the game will be like before it starts) and will include making chili.

-Set aside a given number of points or a section of character gen for only noncombat skills (DC Adventures feints toward this with “Complications” but doesn’ follow through).

-Randomness.

There are people who will make “thematic builds” instead of “combat builds” but putting these players side by side in a superhero game risks making combat less interesting. You got people who are straight up so nightmarishly good that letting anyone else try is pointless—this is already a problem on the scale superhero games operate, exacerbating it by letting the details get out of control is not really feeding into any group’s needs or wants.

A good game doesn’t force the Superman player into a position where them having their fun risks fucking up everyone else’s. Players and campaigns (like ongoing comics) need to be able to have moods—sometimes they do this, sometimes they do that. If the ony way to do That is to choose to be decisively, worldbendingly worse at This, then you’ve made the campaign less flexible.

Having a PC that is stupid but strong (and, character-gen wise, stupid because they are strong) is one thing—that can even be funny and interesting in the game. Having a character have to choose between being strong and, say, having a hobby driving drag racers is just making the character less interesting in a way that doesn’t benefit the game at all.

If you're going to have "personality trait"-like skills in the system, encourage players to take them without an effectiveness penalty.

--

You can use Intimidation in combat as a standard action to undermine an opponent’s confidence. Make an Intimidation check as a standard action. If it succeeds, your target is impaired (a –2 circumstance penalty on checks) until the end of your next round. With four or more degrees of success, the target is disabled (a –5 penalty) until the end of your next round.

Oh do you take Intimidation or Deception? Intimidation lets me use a standard check to make an opponent Impaired, Deception let’s me use a standard check to make an opponent Vulnerable! Which is worse? Oh I’d better Master This System.

Here's an advantage you can have on top of having a good archery score, to be good at aiming:

When you take a standard action to aim, you gain an improved circumstance bonus: +10 for a close attack or ranged attack adjacent to the target, +5 for a ranged attack at a greater distance. See Aim, page 175, for details.
Green Arrow has this advantage.

Is this even a thing?

Like: Green Arrow is better at shooting with bows than anyone else. Fine, That already means his aiming means more than anyone else aiming (his shooting-people-with-bows number gets bigger). Does it have to get bigger again? 

Fast Grab, Improved Grab and Improved Hold are three different things. So if you want to make Lobsterman that’s that much more work.

“Inspire” and “leadership” are different things.

When taking a standard action and a move action you can move both before and after your standard action, provided the total distance moved isn’t greater than your normal movement speed.
This is a common advantage for fast-moving heroes, like the Flash.

Why not just include that as part of the superspeed power? It's actually a nice way to model that without adding a bunch of math.

Building powers--the supposed benefit of this system--is bananas:

 For example, a weather-controlling heroine has the following effects: Damage, Concealment, and Environment. Her Damage effect is the power to throw lightning bolts, so it has the descriptor “lightning.” If a villain can absorb electricity, then his power works against the heroine’s Damage (since lightning is electrical in nature). Concealment creates thick banks of fog, giving it the “fog” or “mist” descriptor. So if an opponent transforms into mist, with the ability to regenerate in clouds or fog, he can regenerate inside the heroine’s Concealment area. Her Environment is the power to control the weather, giving it the descriptor “weather.”

So in order to have Weather Control you need to read through all the powers til you find out “Environment” does whatever that was?

Practically speaking there’s only 2 ways to create a new superhero in this system:

-Read through the system yourself and totally master it
-Ask someone who’s done that already to make your character for you

There’s no good reason for this. Some people like the challenge of extracting a character from an opaque system: this game only works if everyone at the table is them or is willing to hand the translation of their creativity over to them or if everyone is ok with having a system full of bs nobody uses.

This is another example of False Efficiency: yes, controlling the weather in comics usually means you can zap people with lightning, which is basically just like zapping them with eyebeams, but even though bundling them as the same “effect” and calling Weather Control a combined power including both effects sounds efficient if you’re a programmer, if you’re actually playing it means you have to look up twice as much stuff and include more stuff when trying to write the power. So, again, it’s not actually efficient to any of the users

Look how hard it is to “build” telepathy out of its constituent parts:

Rapid: Your communication occurs 10 times faster than normal speech. Each additional rank increases communication speed by a factor of 10. This is useful for high-speed computer links, “deep sharing” psychic rapports, and so forth. Flat +1 point
Selective: If you have the Area extra, you can choose which receiver(s) within range get your Communication, excluding everyone else. This allows you to go from a single receiver (point-to-point) to all potential receivers in range (omni-directional) or anywhere in between. +1 cost per rank
Subtle: Your Communication cannot be “overheard” (it is encrypted, scrambled, or otherwise protected). With 2 ranks, your Communication cannot even be detected. That is, no one can even tell you are transmitting, much less what you’re saying. Flat +1 or 2 points

Like you can’t just say “you can send messages with your mind to whoever you want, buy a range”. This is just stupidity really, at this point, it’s not even an oversight.

Healing does not work on subjects unable to recover on their own, such as creatures with no Stamina rank or inanimate objects.

Fuck off.

Like Trail of Cthulhu, DCA recommends railroading. But the complications system actually intentionally enables it:


Some staples of the DC comic books, while enjoyable in the stories themselves, don’t always translate well to the medium of roleplaying games. You might want to take these “translation issues” into account when planning your adventures.

DEFEAT AND CAPTURE

Heroes in the comics are frequently defeated early on in a story. The typical structure is: the heroes encounter the villain, suffer a defeat or reversal, and then come back from defeat to overcome the villain. 
In longer stories there may be several reversals: the villain beats the heroes and escapes, then beats the heroes and puts them in a deathtrap, which they must escape to make their final confrontation with the bad guy.
DC adventures encourages this kind of narrative structure by awarding hero points for defeats, capture, and similar complications suffered by the heroes. Essentially, the more the heroes struggle early on in the game, the more resources (in this case, hero points) they have to overcome the villain later.
Defeat in the comics isn’t a serious problem, since it usually just results in the heroes facing another obstacle, like a deathtrap, rather than ending the story. Some players, however, don’t care for the idea of defeat, even when there is some kind of reward for it. This may come from other RPGs, where defeat has much more serious consequences, up to and including the death of the heroes! It can also come from associating any kind of defeat or set-back with “losing the game.” These players may overreact to potential defeats in the game.
The best way of handling this is to discuss it with your players. Point out that an early defeat by the villain is not necessarily a “loss,” but a complication, and that they earn hero points for complications, leading up to the point where they can use their earned points against the villain. If this doesn’t address the issue, you may need to give the heroes complications other than defeats, at least at first. When you do have the heroes defeated as a complication, make sure the players all know that there is no chance for their heroes to avoid this once you spring it on them, to minimize the opportunity for them to struggle and rail hopelessly against it.

In other words: if the PC gets captured its part of a plot and plots are planned.

Initial encounters also provide opportunities for the heroes to earn hero points. This means the early encounters in the adventure don’t have to go well for the heroes. In fact, it’s better for them in the long run if they don’t go well. The more complications the heroes face early on, the more hero points they earn for use later in the adventure. In the classic comics story, the heroes encounter the threat and suffer a defeat of some sort: the villain may get away, the heroes’ powers may prove inadequate to deal with the problem, their plan may not work, and so forth. The heroes then regroup, come up with a new plan, and try again.

...A good guideline for awarding hero points is at least one hero point per scene in the adventure leading up to the final scene.
A seldom appreciated knock-on effect here:

The abstract GM advice is: railroad them.

The incentive system is: use your hero points in that final encounter—which means knowing how to use them (it isn’t as simple as FASERIP where they just add to the die roll). At least in practice this means that the game is kinda designed to force you to numberwang around in order to “win”.

And, just in case you forgot:

This is a “Bystander”
STR 0, STA 0, AGL 0, DEX 0, FGT 0, INT 0, AWE 0, PRE 0 Equipment: cell phone. Advantages: Equipment 1. Skills: Expertise: Choose One 4 (+4), Expertise: Current Events 2 (+2), Expertise: Pop Culture 2 (+2). Offense: Init +0, Unarmed +0 (Damage 0). Defense: Dodge 0, Parry 0, Fort 0, Tou 0, Will 0. Totals: Abilities 0 + Powers 0 + Advantages 1 + Skills 4 + Defenses 0 = 5

Here’s a cop:
STR 2, STA 2, AGL 1, DEX 1, FGT 3, INT 0, AWE 1, PRE 1 Equipment: Bulletproof vest (+4 Toughness vs. Ballistic), light pistol, tonfa, cell phone, handcuffs. Advantages: Equipment 3. Skills: Athletics 3 (+5), Expertise: Current Events 2 (+2), Expertise: Streetwise 3 (+3), Expertise: Police Officer 4 (+4), Insight 4 (+5), Intimidation 2 (+3), Investigation 2 (+2), Perception 4 (+5), Ranged Combat: Pistols 4 (+5), Treatment 2 (+2), Vehicles 4 (+5). Offense: Init +1, Unarmed +3 (Damage 2), Tonfa +3 (Damage 3), Pistol +5 (Ranged Damage 3). Defense: Dodge 2, Parry 4, Fort 4, Tou 6/2, Will 2. Totals: Abilities 22 + Powers 0 + Advantages 3 + Skills 17 + Defenses 5 = 47

Jesus fuck. It literally occurred to no human being involved that a GM might want to pick up this book in the middle of a game and see whether the cop was good at shooting and that there might be a reason to not make that d10 seconds at the table excruciating.

So, yeah, traditionally I'd say "Do better!" at this point, but we know the incentives are all to make sure that doesn't happen. So, I don't know, end capitalism and make therapy reliable and free and then wait another decade?

And how many lectures on "creepy male gazey dude game art" were Green Ronin
staffers giving while making a point of showing us this?