Hey, You Cheated!

Cheating in games is bad, right?  Haven't we all be told "Cheating is Bad". I've heard that before, many times.  All the way back to mom telling me "Winners never cheat and Cheaters never win."  Yeah, I heard it, then I saw the real world.  BAD cheaters never win, the good ones, well, they're re-elected.  (whoops?  too controversial?)  But think about your teachers, your parents, your role models, even sports athletes when I was growing up all said no cheating.

Then I remember going to the Pennsylvania Renaissance Faire and cheering for the black knight, where everyone was chanting "Cheat To Win" over and over again.  Was he cheating?  Definitely!  Now I was there many years ago, so I don't remember what he did, but it was probably taking someone sword away while they were bowing to the beautiful princess or something, but everyone laughed.  He got yelled at, but then started to win anyway.  The crowd loved it, the kids screaming "Cheater!" at him, trying to tell the guards when he would do something underhanded.

Why would they do this?  Because it was fun!  People loved it, it got them involved.  The goal wasn't to teach morality, though the cheater did, in the end, lose, that isn't the point I'm making.  Cheating isn't always a bad thing, especially in some kinds of gaming.

In roleplaying games, I will freely admit that from time to time, I'll cheat as a Game Master.  If I'm running a dungeons and dragons game, and the bad guy rolls a critical hit 5 times in a row, yes, I'm likely to make some of them just hits, or even misses (though that's not likely) just to keep the game fun.  No one likes an adventure ending because of insane rolls.  If the players can take those kinds of hits, yes, I'll likely not "cheat" but if that one volley would remove most of the players from the game, that's not fun for me or for them.

On the same context, though significantly more rarely, I will also admit that I have cheated while playing RPGs.  I really can only think of one example though, and I was playing a character in the Wheel of Time D20 game.  I was playing an Aiel, supposed to be this highly skilled, deadly beyond compare class and they were nothing but weak fighters in the game.  That's not the point of my cheat though, I still remember it, and why.  I rolled a D20 (as you do in D20 games, go figure) for 5 reasons consecutively.. some attacks, some strength checks.  I got five 1s in a row.  To prevent my third fumbled attack in a row, I lied and said it was a 2.  Just as a note, I had played that character in four five-hour sessions... so 20 hours of playing.. and never rolled over a 5 on the D20..  Something was telling me to stop playing that game.

There are several gamers I've played with that like to cheat, knock dice, or just lie about what they rolled to make themselves seem more powerful or strong.  At first I would try and position players in a more close area, making cheating harder, or watch more closely.  Then I realized that I was enjoying running games less when I had to watch, and they were enjoying the game less as "average" characters.  Personally I like the idea of a fumble here or there (note there is a limit to how much fun that is, see above) and the randomness of the dice.  That's why I try to, except for exceedingly unlikely occurrences, let things happen as they will.  But if that player is not going to have as much fun without that cheating, as long as it's minor, I'd rather overlook it.  We're not in tournament, we're not "professional" it's just to have fun.

Back to my very weird-al-esque roundabout way of saying it, you have to remember why you're cheating, and what you're cheating about.  I'm most certainly not saying to cheat constantly and win every game you can, not at all.  What I am saying is that sometimes cheating improves the game, makes things better for everyone involved.  If you're cheating just because you want to win the game or be the best, I'm finger-waggling at you right now, you bad person you!  But sometimes cheating isn't all that bad, even if you're cheating on a game with your daughter just so it can end, because the sweet girl is just getting tired of playing but doesn't want to stop until it's done.

So is cheating bad?  I think you really need to think more about why, not what, you're doing to really answer that question.  So now get going back to your games, and no cheating... unless it's the right thing to do!

Final(?) Fantasies

I'm learning that although I truly do love to write, I'm having a very difficult time thinking about things to write ABOUT, a problem I didn't expect, considering how long-winded and over spoken I usually am, so I decided to think back to things I like that aren't NEW to me, but just staples of my existence, such as it were.

There are some things that gamers just accept.  Sometimes a game is so good that you overlook problems in logic, such as titles that don't make sense, sequels that aren't really sequels.  Then just to confuse you, they make a few sequels that ARE really sequels, scratched into the numbering system like you'd see a nasty scribble from that professor in school who wrote so many notes on your essays that his only possible motivation could be stock in a red ink factory.

Yes, if you've got ANY experience in gaming, you know I'm talking about SquareSoft gone Square-Enix's trademark "never can fail" Final Fantasy.  First let me say that I AM a fan of the game, but that doesn't mean I have to like everything about them.  They are Bad, Good, and just plain Weird in many ways.  Let's start with weird, since you're all wondering.

Final Fantasy 2.  Just think about that.  That's almost as stupid a concept as "The End" at the end of Never Ending Story, it just doesn't make sense.  forget that there are still 11 more AFTER THAT ONE.  Thirteen sequels in a non-direct sequalage method, that has got to be a record, or at least a pathetic franchise abuse.  But then they throw in others, like X-2, which ARE direct sequels.  And just to make a point on that one, why the hell is it "Eight", "Nine", "X", "Eleven", blah blah... you don't just CALL it the roman numeral!  I mean I never pulled out my NES for a little fun and pulled out my MCMXLII cartridge!  (That's 1942 for you roman-numeral challenged people).

Now the good and bad.  To itemize these you really need to go through each game.  And thanks to the rediculous over-marketization of Square-Enix, you have to go through every iteration of every game.  Rather than write on every single aspect of every single game, some of which I havn't played in years, I'll just go over some key irritations and bonuses.

Things are changing every game, as they try to make the game play even better.  Sometimes it's timing based, sometimes it waits for commands, sometimes you get to position yourself, sometimes you don't.  Combat in every Final Fantasy is pretty much different from every other in at least SOME ways, usually many ways.  This is good AND bad, because sometimes the changes are so different that except for some familiar summon names, you're playing an entirely new game, only making it MORE obvious that the Final Fantasy name itself is little more than a marketing ploy.  Some personal key points I remember.   Final Fantasy 4 (or 2 if you got a SNES in the USA) was the first experience of characters leaving and joining the party, storylines adapting around the characters individually rather than as a group, and the like.  This is my personal favorite, and I could talk much about this game, so if you want me to, feel free to ask, and I might.  Seven again re-defined RPGs by opening on the PS1 and PC (not to mention confused the HELL out of the entire USA gaming population while they tried to figure out how they got from 1, 2, 3, to 7).  Cloud was angsty, but justifiably so.  the world took a dump on him, and the whole game was basicaly his global search for enough shovels and toilet paper to get him out of it.  Eight had Squal, who to me was little more than an angsty highschooler (and he was even a highschooler IN THE GAME).  I just know some of you out there will live and die by how cool Squall was, and all I can say is have fun leaving comments about how slanted this review is.

SPOILER PARAGRAPH:
I absolutely loved 10, not because of any overwhelmingly new concepts, it really wasn't that revolutionary as far as changes go, but it WAS the first one with voice, and it was also the first one that didn't end with "Everyone is happy".  I LOVED that, I mean, life sucks, now even the heroes end the story, and guess what, life STILL sucks!  then they had to go and screw it up and make a sequel so that everyone could be happy again..

damnit.

END SPOILER

11 I can say I've never played, and probably never will.  I won't pay monthly for a game, I work too hard for my money to throw it away on a game like that, I need it for the strip clubs and hookers.

13... well.. that's the one thing about SquareSoft... sorry, enix... If they tell you it will be released a certain date, add ALMOST enough years to make everyone HATE the damn company, but just below it, so that people will forget that they promised a game fucking 4 YEARS earlier!

After all this, yes, I own all the Final Fantasies with actual numbers.  No, I don't own any Tactics, or Crystal Chronicles, I figured they were making up enough genres with the main games I didn't need to get into the OTHER made up genres with the same name.  Do I recommend them?  If you like RPGs with long drawn out stories, then yes.  They have side-quests, and optional baddies to kick the asses of, but they ARE a traditional JRPG.. you have one story, one goal, and one ending.  If that bothers you, then don't worry about playing anything except for Final Fantasy: Dress-Up-Barbie. (Read: X-2)

(NOTE: This is a repost from my old blog site.  Corrections are as follows:  13 finally came out, and I do own tactics now)

Dungeons and Dragons... A Retrospective..

I was thinking, while trying to determine what I should write about, what a geek column was if there was no Dungeons and Dragons mentioned in it, and I recently thought of the answer... a Tech Blog... So to correct this problem before it happens, I thought I would offer my opinions, as not humble as they are, on the evolutions of D&D...  Let me remind you that this is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of all the features of all the games, just my thoughts..

Dungeons and Dragons... For those of you who remember a pretty red box with small oddly shaped dice and a crayon, that name means something very different than what people think of today.  Back then you could play a Fighter, Magic-User, Wizard, Thief, Dwarf, or Elf.  Death was also something you came to know well.. In original Dungeons and Dragons, you were going to die, and you were going to die a lot.  It's a good thing people like me enjoyed making characters.

Then D&D evolved.  Now you can have both race AND class, and you had skills, and abilities, and more customization options than you ever knew you could have.  Dying was still possible, and likely if you were careless (or your DM was mean) but your survival chances were greatly increased by the vast new skills and proficiencies and talents your characters could have.  D&D had become "Advanced" and everyone celebrated their new, more detailed, and usually longer-lasting lives.

The next change was a minor, but major one, all at the same time.  Player's Option gave you more you could do, and with their three books, Skills and Powers, Spells and Magic, and Combat and Tactics, you had huge new lists of skills, and for the first time you got to increase your abilities after every level.  You could specialize your character at throwing, or even brewing, with weapon proficiencies and specializations for fighters, and other weapon skills for other classes, leaving noone totally behind.  My friends affectionately call this version 'god mod' not to say it's less fun, but to ever so tactfully reference the drastic change the characters can go through level to level, not to mention that even level one characters can be overwhelmingly powerful with only moderate rolls and carefully chosen skills.

Then there was Third Edition.  First I'll note that group third edition to include 3.0 and 3.5 versions, since I see 3.5 more as "repairs and balancing" than a new version.  Third edition is fun, and I won't say that it's not, especially since I run a game every weekend.  The big change going to Third edition was... well... everything.. Nearly every single rule was changed, save the "medieval fantasy" setting.   Powers were ramped up, skills got stronger, feats gave you more things you could do... if D&D made Adventurers, Advanced D&D made Heroes, and Third Edition made Homer's Epics.

But it was fun.  This wasn't your best friend that you grew up with, more like the sneaky cousin who was hiding in your closet, and had heard just enough of your conversations to get the general gist, and can fake it pretty well.  But that's sometimes good enough, right?  But now his brother wants to come play, and he brought his toys...

Enter Fourth Edition... I still don't know what to think about this.  Nearly all the skills, abilities and feats are based around your combat abilities, rolls, or stats.  Distances are now measured in "Squares" no longer feet, and you can't play without your trusty combat grid and miniatures..  You're sitting at a table with your closest friends, looking at a grid with little tables and chairs, or water objects (or colored-on grids) to represent rough terrain, and that's when it hit me, I'm playing a Tabletop Minis game... Now I like Warmachine or Heroclix as much as the next guy (as long as the next guy isn't Dennis, Gary, or Scott) but that's just not D&D... Dungeons and Dragons was all about the mental visualizations, the descriptions, the epic battles...  well ok, the battles are still there, but where's the rest?

I'm not saying it's not fun, rather I play a game every week and do enjoy it, with a few complaints, but I just don't think it's D&D anymore.

At this point I'd almost rather see them make a new name up, and let Dungeons and Dragons die in it's too-shallow, badly mis-named grave...