A Response to a Lousy Review.

  The tagline of this blog mentions that I rant.
  Buckle up.

  Ever know that guy that bad-mouths a movie, or a book, or something and then you learn he hasn't seen/read it? Or the guy that starts disparaging something and the more he talks the more he reveals that the problem is the guy talking made an error?
  You know what I am talking about.

Discussion and a Mild Rant: Movie Franchises and the Star Wars Mess

Hi! First, I haven't seen Star Wars: The Latest, yet, and I have no plans to [we will get to that]. But I want to talk about it a bit.
  Full warning: I rant, I got whisky for Christmas, and it is late.

Frothing Rant: Wonder Woman in the early '70's

Maybe I am an old grognard in comics, too.

Maybe I devoted too much of my life to reading comics and learning about them.

RPGs, Deceit, the OSR, Publishing, FUD, and you! - A Rant

  Warning - rant follows.
  My blog's tagline mentions something I don't do enough of - talk about the industry of RPGs. There are reasons for that, the biggest being I am a hobbyist publisher. Not a 'small press'; not an 'indie'. A hobbyist. I strive to generate high-quality work, yes, but I will never, and do not wish to ever, generate a wage off of my RPG publishing.
  But there are people I talk to and interact with on G+ who either do make a wage off of gaming and related activities or wish to. Semi-series to serious authors, artists, etc., too. I enjoy reading of their interactions with and participation in what I will call 'more serious RPG publishing' for lack of a better term in much the same way I enjoy reading about baseball trades; it impacts my hobby, so I am interested.

Classic Traveller: Reactionless Drives and Repulsor Tech

  Let's get nerdy and jump into the deep end of the scifi RPG pool - reactionless drives.

  In short, the reactionless drive 'issue' boils down to this:

  1) So far, in Real Life, it appears that in a vacuum and microgravity (or close enough) you need to expel reaction mass to generate thrust. Burn a rocket and shoot out the exhaust; use magnetic bottles to eject ionized gas; have hydrogen bombs detonated by a shock plate; whatever. In short, to move mass X through space you somehow hurl mass Y in the other direction and the reaction generates thrust.

The RF Resonant Cavity Thruster which is being tested in space about now might change the 'in Real Life' part of this post. We live in interesting times

The issue is this - with this as true travel through space is hard, expensive, short-range, and slow because you have to use mass to move mass.

  2) In fiction lots and lots of people use reactionless drives - ships move, but they don't have to throw mass 'that way'. 

  3) So some people say 'Yay, reactionless drives are fun! They let my book/game/whatever be Horatio Hornblower in space!'

  Other people say, 'Boo, reactionless drives are no fun! They break my ability to accept the book/game/whatever and mean that everyone should just be hurling planets at one another at 99.9999% C!'

  As much as some would like to label the latter group 'pearl-clutching ninnies' in the what was perhaps the very first fictional portrayal of reactionless drives (Doc Smith's Lensman books) the characters did, indeed, escalate until they were destroying planets by hitting them who two other planets. 

  From opposite directions.

  Both doing 99.9999999% C.

  And both were made of antimatter.

The father of Space Opera wrote BIG stories.

  So there is a risk there.

  You'd think that such a rather nerdy, niche, obscure issue wouldn't be that big a deal, right? I mean, it isn't as if people obsess over things like food or fuel sources in fantasy rpgs, right?
  But reactionless drives are a Big Deal in SF TRPGs, so much so that one side of the debate has the slogan 'friends don't let friends use reactionless drives'.
  Part of the problem is classic Traveller.
  If you are among the few guys who might read this blog who don't know what Traveller is, hoo-boy: you are missing out.
  As I remember, Traveller hit the FLGS in Spring of 1977. Dad owed me a huge favor involving a situation straight out of a 1980's sitcom

...but that is a story for another time...

  so I got it that week and started reading it.
  Two weeks after I got it, I saw Star Wars for the first time.
  Great timing.
  Traveller is a pretty crunchy game. The original books are full of mathematical formulae you need for play, including an intro to the use of vectors. The ship building rules, planet generation rules, sub-sector generation rules, etc. are essentially minigames. The game is developed enough that you can run a full game that is all about being explorers based on a remote, agrarian frontier world: you slip out into barely-explored space and come back with valuable knowledge and rare items. Or you can run a full game that is all about being mercenaries based on a remote, agrarian frontier world; you are guns-for-hire for the brush wars that erupt far from centralized power. Heck, you can run a full game that is all about being merchants based on a remote, agrarian frontier world; you are trying to corner the market on farm machinery!
  Oh, yeah - the trade system is another mini-game.
  Anyway, Traveller supports SF RPG play from asteroid prospectors trying to earn enough for more oxygen to intrigue among galactic nobles at imperial court where entire solar systems are used as currency and everything in between. A seminal game in the early days of tabletop RPGs.

  And it uses reactionless drives.

  I can remember the debates about this from Back in the Day, and they were pretty serious on the old Traveller Mailing List from time to time. I remember particularly when T4 was coming out with new ship construction rules.

  Personally, I have never had an issue with reactionless drives for one simple reason - we are surrounded by 'reactionless acceleration' all the time.
  Gravity.

  "But, Rick!," I hear you say, "Gravity involves mass! The mass of the attractors!"

  Yeah. I know.

  As a little aside, I have fond memories of my Physics 360 prof telling us a humorous aside as we discussed gravity. He was quoting someone else (whose name I don't think he mentioned) and I am paraphrasing,
"The Medieval world used the concept of Crystal Spheres to predict the movement of the sun, moon, planets, and stars and were very, very accurate about it. If you pushed a Scholastic to tell you what it was that made the celestial objects move he couldn't tell you exactly what it was - he could measure its effects, he could make very accurate predictions about the future, etc. but what it was? He only had measurements and formulae. So he said it was the angels."
"Today people laugh about that, and say 'it is gravity!' But all we have done is give the angels a new name. We can measure its effects; we can make very accurate predictions; but as to what it really is? Could be angels."
  Anyway, the idea of a gravity-based drive being 'reactionless' is actually kinda' goofy. The reaction mass is just other places.
  Here is an analogy - beam powered propulsion. This is the 'planet based laser pushing a vessel with a light sail' idea. In this case the reaction mass is the planet that holds the laser - the vessel doesn't carry reaction mass for the main trip.
  With sub-light thrust using gravity fields the 'reaction mass' is, well, the rest of the universe, really. Even some of the biggest proponents of 'reactionless drives are broken' admit this (not all - just some).

  We know Traveller uses artificial gravity (it is explicitly mentioned in the books) and even use a form of defensive gravity generator, the repulsor. So I assume that the drive systems in spaceships are gravity-based in any spacefaring civilization in Traveller unless otherwise noted.

  One of the things I like about classic traveller in particular is a lot of things are implied, giving a GM plenty of room to move around. Look at gravity technology in books 1 through 8 of Classic Traveller and you see a lot of discussion about artificial gravity in use. Indirectly, usually. It really lets you go off on your own and has some interesting little quirks. G-carriers, air/rafts, repulsors, grav belts - artificial gravity tools are all over the background clutter of the CT game.

  Looking at the development of ships by tech level I decided to add something to a campaign I wrote up in 1986, re-wrote in 1988, and eventually never got to run. I have ported it over to my about to be launched campaign. That is....

Repulsor Shields
High Guard stats:

Repulsor Shield Tech Level Table
Tech Level-            11    12    13    14    15
Shield Rank-           2      3      4      5      6
  this is the maximum shield rating available at each tech level

 Repulsor Shield Displacement Table
Rank                 1    2    3    4    5    6
Displacement-  2    5    8    11  14  17
  this is the percentage of the ship required for the shield generator

Repulsor Shield Cost Table
Rating-    1       2    3     4     5     6
Cost-       1.5  0.7  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5
  in millions of credits

Repulsor Shield Power Requirement
is calculated by: R 0.01M
Where R equals the rating of the repulsor screen and M is the total displacement of the ship.

  Feel free to point out any errors I am making as I am recreating these really experimental devices from memories about 30 years old!

  If you do more than glance at this, you'll realize that repulsor shields are just another maneuver drive! Rather than provide thrust for the ship, though, they push away any inbound missiles. In combat a ship with active repulsor shields applies its shield rating against all  incoming missiles! This is, naturally, in addition to any counter-fire, dedicated repulsor bays, and nuclear dampers.
  The downside is that a ship with active repulsor shields cannot launch or recover any sub-craft, regardless of size, and also cannot fire any missiles or even use deadfall ordnance.

  Thoughts?

What Do You Mean, 'What Is It For?'?!

  Ah, the internet, where you can argue over all sorts of things. The most recent internet argument I got into was with someone explaining that monsters with a no-save level drain are badwrong and there is no reason to have them other than,

  "...imbecilic blind worship of the past..."

  Uh-huh.
  Of course, I had already pointed out some reason for having such monsters in your game, to wit;

• Instilling terror in the players
• Driving quests for spells, etc. to get Restoration
• To 'throttle' level progression without nerfing XP/raising the bar or railroading players

  Now, I guess I might have just tossed in a link to a past article of mine, but there is that to say and more, so here we go.

What Do You Mean, 'What Is It For?'?!

  Ah, the internet, where you can argue over all sorts of things. The most recent internet argument I got into was with someone explaining that monsters with a no-save level drain are badwrong and there is no reason to have them other than,

  "...imbecilic blind worship of the past..."

  Uh-huh.
  Of course, I had already pointed out some reason for having such monsters in your game, to wit;

• Instilling terror in the players
• Driving quests for spells, etc. to get Restoration
• To 'throttle' level progression without nerfing XP/raising the bar or railroading players

  Now, I guess I might have just tossed in a link to a past article of mine, but there is that to say and more, so here we go.

What I Remember: A Rant About Old School and When Old Was New

  There is a bit of a kerfuffle online right now about the 'real' Old School of TRPGs, who is telling who what, who is wrong, which people are 'the Taliban'.

  BTW, if there is a person or group who is not involved in actual oppression, rape, torture, murder, and warfare but you call them 'the Taliban' because they have the unmitigated gall to disagree with you, please assume that I ignore all of your opinions about politics, culture, morals, ethics, and etiquette.

  Why? Because thus it has always been. I remember a spirited fight at the Ball State dorms about,

  "No, man, like, the REAL way to play D&D!"

  In 1977. And these two guys had been having the argument for over a year. Then the Monster Manual hit and they really started fighting.

My "Problem" With the New Ghostbusters Movie

  No, I don't care that it is all women, anymore than I cared that the original was "all men" (I remember thinking Annie Potts was funny, and some woman named "weaver" was kinda' plot central, wasn't she...?).
  No, I don't know/care if there is a conspiracy to do something by someone somewhere for some end.
My problem?

  Laziness.

  Look, Ghostbusters is an iconic film that has been seen by a bajillion people. It is as funny today as when it was made 32 years ago.

  As a guy who studied film in college and teaches with movies I am amazed at how Ghostbusters and Groundhog Day are holding up over time.

  Quite frankly, the movie doesn't need a reboot. It might never need a reboot! Rebooting the film is laziness and the waste of a goden opportunity to create a true film franchise on the cale of Bond films.

  There was a great line in the original,
  "The franchise rights alone will be worth millions."

No, Your Fantasy World is NOT Just Like Manhattan, but with Orcs! A Fevered Rant

  Since I am not trying to criticize a person and the contemporary internet can't seem to be capable of telling the difference between "I disagree with this idea as presented" and "I think the person who wrote this idea is a horrible monster" I will NOT be linking to anything.

  As I have mentioned before, modern people have this amazing tendency to assume "the past was Just Like Today, but no one was smart enough to be like me and my friends!" This can lead to all sorts of silliness ranging from a guy dressed as a punk rocker in a fantasy Japanland to characters in a fantasy Medieval Europeland Deeply Concerned about topics that are niche political concepts of the 21st Century.
  Certainly this can be fun. I have quite fond memories of a player in one of my 1e campaigns in the mid 1980's set in a faux Europe. The character's name was Sean O'Malley of Malibu, a straight fighter whose samurai armor was made of body panels from an old VW beetle and whose battle cry was either 'Mitsubishi!' or 'Toyota!'.
  I mean - one the one hand it is just a game.

But on the other, I have a strong personal aversion to playing Papers & Paychecks skinned to look Medieval! I have a personal conviction that thinking about how different things were in Medieval times/would be in a fantasy setting can do a lot of things - make our campaigns more entertaining and immersive; give us an opportunity to learn and understand more about history; understand the contemporary Real World better.
  As much accuracy as possible also makes for better roleplaying, so NO! Horses are not bicycles; 100 miles is not a short day trip; families do not average 1.2 children; magic isn't technology + bad Latin; [and for today's rant] medieval systems did not use faddish contemporary economic concepts!

  Friendly note: I had a thesis titled "The Impact of Theological Anthropology upon Microeconomic and Macroeconomic Activities of Post-Christian Populations". If you wish to discuss economic theory in general with me, reach out but please keep the comment sections for gaming. 

  The article that triggered this rant had it all;

• The assumption that so many people had the money to commission +1 swords that people could make a living doing nothing else but making custom items
• The assumption that so many people were capable of making custom items that ideas like supply chains and competition were important
• The assumption that this actually affected the behavior, professions, etc. of entire local/regional populations of demi-humans
• A structure where wizards 'sell spells' for a living
• The idea that a mage could learn a spell and not know what it actually does until it is cast a few times
• That local/regional governments are concerned that 'the value of spells in the open market might drop to 0 g.p.'
• That spells might come with EULAs, usage fees, etc. that could be, and would be, enforceable
• That wizards have 'R&D shops, that wizards 'acquire' others, etc.
• This leads of course to the idea of Open Source Magic, etc.

  Don't get me wrong - if you wanna' run a campaign where wizards in high-rise towers buy out young upstart mages' new spells, put their own 'brand name' on them, and resell them all with an entire floor of lawyers ready to do patent trolling using the King's cavalry - don't let me stop you.

NOTE: Hackmaster 4th Edition had a section on spell licensing, Open Source, and Dweomersharing in their Spellslingers Guide back in 2002 that was about as in depth as the article I read andhad the Hackmaster humor, too.

I have NO IDEA why you are playing a fantasy game where when your wizard says his henchman is 'Agile' he means 'he knows the project management methodology' instead of 'he has a high dex score' but - whatever

  But the Ancient, Classical, Medieval, and Pre-modern world looked nothing like this! A fantasy setting set in anything but an Urban Fantasy 'just down the street in 2015, but with faerie' would look nothing like this!

First, let's discuss how much I hate some of the core assumptions. A world awash in cash looks nothing like reality. Let me be even more blunt - a lot of the contemporary world has no idea what having enough cash to custom order luxuries looks like! If you look at Medieval history you will see that in the early Middle ges a king  might only have 2-4 outfits of clothing, let alone a mercenary! A large volume of trade was done in just that - trade using goods, not coin, meaning even many nobles with great (true) wealth were cash-poor. Having an economy awash in coins without inflation just makes money within the game effectively meaningless.
  We see this in the article itself with talk of 'well, since NPC X can make such a good, steady income by making +1 swords to order, why would she ever adventure?'.
  Yeah. Good question, isn't it?

  A world awash in magical items is simply a game-breaker in terms of roleplaying.
  "Why would that be, Rick?"
  Thanks for asking!
  Because this means there is even LESS reason to adventure and to even want things.
  Look at it this way - if the economy is so awash in cash that there is enough steady business in making custom +1 swords to create a market large enough to drive suppliers' prices down AND there are enough people capable of making magic items at a volume to meet these criteria, THEN magic items are going to be all over the place outside places filled with murder-death.
  It gets worse - this would rive the need for/utility of adventurers down AND mean that they hav less potential earnings, too.
  Walk with me:

1.   The economy produces enough wealth that adventuring is a bad idea for anyone capable of crafting magic
2. Magic items can be purchased for cash broadly
3. Low-level people going into danger for money and magic must be niche, desperate cases
4. If they fail, they die. If they succeed they cease to be niche, desperate cases
5. Once they are no logner niche, desperate cases they too, can do the non-dangerous things that provide more money than does adventuring
6. This will allow them to accumulate wealth more quickly and at less risk than adventuring
7. Which will allow them to buy ever-more-powerful magic items, etc.

We aren't even talking about how if magic items in general are purchasable then any town militia can be prepared to handily deal with things like vampires, the undead, etc. removing reasons for adventurers to adventure.

  Example:  Adam, Bertram, Charlie, and Denise had heard a rumor in an inn about trouble in a remote village - something about a flying creature that could not be harmed by steel. They had set out at first light and ridden hard - they were nearly broke and needed the money.
  They entered the village three days later - good time for the 60 miles! Although tired from the ride they immediately sought out the village elder.
  "The trouble, you say? Oh, the local shire reeve came the very next day, what with him having Boots of Speed and all. He handed all 8 of the local levy  +1 Spears from his Bag of Holding and they went out and killed the gargoyle that very day! He took its stolen gains for the crown, giving the men 10% to split, a'course."
  "It is a real shame you folks rode all that way for nothin', too."

  Adventurers are supposed to exist because they are both unusual and needed. A world that rich in magic, money, and people of high enough level to turn money into magic items? They are neither unusual nor needed!

  Now, can you have fun in a world where mages and clerics and such are, well, really common and the campaign is all about trying to find a way to break out of the grind and make it big in a world of corporations, spell licenses, etc?
  Sure! That game is called "Shadowrun". It is explicitly set in the modern world with modern concepts.

  But Shadowrun and 'FRPG as the modern world with 'Thee and Thou' both have a problem I call the Traveller Paradox. TheTraveller Paradox is roughly this:
  Traveller does a really good job of building a system that incorporates contemporary economics, trade, and such into a game world. It does it so well, as a matter of fact, that huge numbers of players realize that their characters can do very well for themselves by engaging exclusively in in-world economic activity! In the end you wind up with the paradox of a game of epic adventure where the best class/skill combo is 'Merchant/Broker' and campaigns often devolve into.

'this session is about how an interstellar war between two vast empires... is disrupting your business's' supply chain and will reduce quarterly profits if you don't find an alternate distribution hub! What do you do?'

  If you want to do this, feel free.Personally, I don't think it belongs in a game with knights, dragons, and kidnapped princesses.

 

G.K. Chesterton's Fence, AD&D 1e, and What Happens When You Don't Understand What You Are Changing - A Varied Rant

  The subheading on my blog warns you about my rants.

  G.K. Chesterton was a prolific writer of the early 20th Century who once told a parable about reform and a fence, which I will paraphrase

  Two men are enjoying a pleasant stroll through the country when they come upon a fence barring their way. This rather stout, well-maintained fence stretches from the thick forest on each side and completely blocks the trail.

  The first man looks at it and declares,
  "I do not understand why this fence is here; I will tear it down so I may continue to enjoy my stroll!"

  The second man replies,
  "If you do not understand why this fence is here you certainly should not tear it down." "What if it prevents a mad bull from running wild? Go, research and think about it and once you understand why it is here, then you might still want to tear it down."

  This is a simple concept - understand why before you remove or change - that seems to escape a lot of people. Especially some in gaming.

  In high school I had a friend named George who ran a game of AD&D 1e. We had two players that were in both groups and he and I spoke about the game fairly often. One of our 'shared' players, a guy named Brent, loved to play elves but hated, hated, hated, the level limits on elves. He argued with me often that he should be able to go to any level he could as an elf. I always said no.
  George said 'ok' and removed all level limits on all demi-humans. Then he removed all class limits. Then he removed all characteristic limits from demi-humans. He had removed alignment restrictions to classes before any of this.
  Then he was wondering why there were so many half-orc fighter/assassins in his game. Never mind the slew of elven fighter/magic-users with castles. And no human PCs.

  They did not understand the why of class, level, and stat requirements in AD&D 1e and they tore them out without understanding them. As a result, they had a wild bull get loose.

  If you look at the 1e limitations on demi-humans you see some interesting things:

1. Only Humans, Half-orcs, and strong Dwarves are establishing domain fortresses
2. Only Half-orcs can't establish a thieves guild
3. Only Humans, Half-elves, and Half-orcs can be cleric PCs and only Humans are any good at it

  Not only do these restrictions make guys who can, say, wear armor while casting Lightning Bolt rare and therefore more interesting, it means there are great reasons for playing humans - the domain game.

-------------------------------------------------

  In 1e half-elves and gnomes have access to classes other demi-humans can't be: half-elves can be rangers, gnomes can be illusionists. Half-elves are (in my experience) popular because they have so many possible multi-class combinations but gnomes have that sweet niche of being illusionist/somethings. Who doesn't want a fighter/illusionist or illusionist/thief in the party?!

  In 3e there was a decision to let any race be any class. Sure they tried to give a sop to things by saying some races were 'better suited' to certain classes, but especially for gnomes that changed around a bit, etc.
  When 4e came out I remember reading a statement from one of the designers about why gnomes had become 'monsters'. He said [paraphrased] "Well, they were just a lot like dwarves and we really didn't understand why anyone would play them or what they were for."
  OK, leaving aside the different flavors of elf available, the reason that gnomes had nothing special about them because the designers of 3e removed what made them special! Team A tore down a fence they didn't understand and that resulted in Team B not really grasping why those post holes were all over the place.

  Half-elves and Half-orcs are, as I mentioned, the only demi-humans that can be cleric PCs. Despite the low level cap this works out to be an advantage because this makes these races the source of multi-class clerics, combos that are always welcome in any party. If you let every demi-human be a cleric and expand the access to multi-class combinations there is no reason to play a half-elf - after all, if elves, who have better bonuses, etc., can do the same thing being an elf makes more meta-sense than being a half-elf.

-------------------------------------------------

  There are plenty of other examples. The most common one I see is 'Gee, I don't understand alignment, so I removed it' followed by 'why do all my players play murderhobos?!'.
 It's a puzzle.

-------------------------------------------------

At the end of the day (and near the end of my rant!) the radical changes by some who want to 'fix' level limits, racial class restrictions, and even alignment where these limits are replaced by nothing reveal mainly two things about the people making the changes: they don't understand the why of these game elements and they don't grasp that Gary was actually a competent, good, even great game designer.

-------------------------------------------------

End Rant.

Talking About the Punisher

[Warning! I haven't edited this puppy yet]

  I have never been one to shy away from controversy. And I have been gone a long time. COmbined, let's shake things up at talk about the Punisher.
  He's a popular topic right now; he is in the current season of Daredevil (which the family and I are watching weekly) and Joss Whedon said a few hilarious things about him, too.

Quick Aside: Garth Ennis is a hack and I don't read anything he writes anymore unless I must. Just FYI.

 To me the most interesting thing said about the Punisher was by one of the men who created the character, Gerry Conway, who said [paraphrased],

  'The Punisher is such a thin character on his own that he is a Rorschach test.'

  This feels true enough to stand.

  Since I love to redirect and to talk about myself, let's detour a little.
  I graduated high school early and enlisted in the army at 17. I was active duty for 8 years as a linguist, cryptographer, intelligence analyst, and electronic warfare specialist. I was tactical and out of Ft. Bragg. I was in Desert Shield/Desert Storm/Desert Sabre.

You did know the ground offensive was called Desert Sabre, didn't you?

  During combat operations my team was attached to the French 6th Light Armored, meaning we went to war with the French Foreign Legion. I came back with a handful of medals and seriously considered joining the FFL, but I had met this girl....

  Anyway, once upon a time after the war I encountered a man about my age that was shocked and horrified that I had been a soldier. When he found out I was in combat he was obviously Deeply Troubled. But the worst, for him, was to learn that I was proud of my actions. He declared that I was just a cold-blooded murderer because...

  Violence Is Never The Answer.

 So we had this conversation, a talk familiar with many of the vets out there, where I asked him what he would do if he saw a woman dragged into an alley. 'Call the cops', 'Yell at the guy, tell him the cops were coming', 'Call for help'. It always boiled down to either the police came and used violence or other bystanders came and used violence. But the speaker never used violence.

  Now, the idea of wanting other people to do hard things is OK. My kids change the litter box and mow the lawn for reasons beyond 'it builds character'. The problem is when you pretend those things don't need doing or, worse, convince yourself those things are Bad, or, worst of all, firmly believe that doing them is Beneath You.

  Back to comic books.

  Marvel introduced the Punisher in 1974. Now, for you kids out there that need to GET OFFA' MY LAWN! you might not know that 1974 was a really, really bad time to live in an American metropolis. New York City was so beset by violent crime the police officers union was warning tourists to stay away and the nickname 'Fear City' was being used. Detroit's Devil's Night mass arson/riots tradition was well underway. The Zodiac Killer had just sent another letter after being uncaught (and he never was); in the Northwest and Utah young women were vanishing at the rate of 1 per month as the as-yet-unknown Ted Bundy was on his killing spree; the BTK Killer had just begun; The Zebra Murders are ongoing; the domestic terrorist group the Weathermen were still very fresh in NYC's memories, as are several other active domestic terror groups; the previous decade had seen massive riots in cities across America, including multiple days of riots in NYC just the year before.
  The Vietnam War was ongoing.
  The Knapp Commission had revealed massive levels of corruption in the NYC police department ranging from taking bribes from tow-truck operators to issue tickets up to working for the mob as enforcers. The same story was being found true in Chicago, Los Angeles, etc., etc.

  In short, there was a very unpopular war going on; infrastructure was falling apart; wages were flat while unemployment and inflation were rising; violent crime, riots, and, serial killers, and terrorists made the streets and homes unsafe; and the police were either corrupt or scattered and unfunded.

  The collapse of American cities into violence and fear was widespread enough to be a key element of a Bond villain in 1973, much like how Russian mobsters were big decades later.

  Media had already been responding before this; While the wide acceptance of war movies, often based on WWII but going beyond, meant that audiences were more used to a high body count than you might think, films from Enter the Dragon to Shaft opened up audiences to the idea of a contemporary, sophisticated, non-soldier hero who kills to pursue justice. Films like Billy Jack, Coffy, and even Magnum Force were portraying vigilantes who killed their targets, usually in a positive role (although Magnum Force opposed this view). The seminal movie Death Wish came out shortly after the Punisher appeared, again showing lethal vigilantes in a positive, if nuanced, light.
 
  And here comes Frank Castle.

  And he wasn't alone, not really. If I could travel back in time to my parent's garage in 1981 in the back left, next to my dad's Swing and Jazz records were cases of - war comics. Hundreds of issues of titles like Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos, Fightin' Army, Our Army At War, Our Fighting Forces, and more. I also had Weird Western Tales, Billy the Kid, Creepy, Eerie, House of Secrets, House of Mystery, Ghostly Tales, Tomb of Dracula, Scream, and more.

  So when the Punisher showed up the movie theaters and comic books racks were awash with violence, death, automatic weapons, and vigilantes who killed their targets. you could barely throw a rock without hitting somebody shooting somebody else for vengeance.

  So why does the Punisher stick out so much?
  I have a theory.
  [Yeah, you're shocked, I can tell. "Rick? With a theory?!"]

  Let's start with the most obvious - the Punisher hangs out with Spiderman. Not to get into a long rant about the Comics Code Authority, but what we would now call 'mainstream comics' had pretty much been stuck with the CCA for a long time by that point and the idea of a character in a superhero comic who killed people and WASN'T a villain surprised some people (which I will talk about more, later).
  Another thing was the same sort of concern that led to the CCA in the first place - the fear that looking at X makes people X. We've all heard it before -
  "Penny dreadfuls will make kids violent"
  "Pulps will make kids violent"
  "Crime radio programs will make kids violent"
  "Movies about mobsters will make kids violent"
  "Violent TV shows will make kids violent"
  "Violent video games will make kids violent"
  Well, back in the 1940's the whole "violent comic books will make kids violent" card had been played very, very hard and a lot of people believed it. Some people seem to still believe it.

  But one interesting thing I have noticed about people who complain about the Punisher is their resemblance to certain science fiction and fantasy fans; just like a surprising amount of SF/Fantasy fans don't know anything about the major works pre 1970 or so, a huge number of people I encounter that claim to be 'comic book nerds' don't know much, if anything, about War, Romance, Horror, or Weird comics from the 1950's - 1970's.
  Now, this is fine - I know people that only like Star Wars (the original) and don't read or watch anything else and, yes, they are 'legit nerds'. But I have a hard time with such people telling me

"The Punisher is bad because there is no place for heroes that kill in comic books."

  Tell that to Sgt. Rock, the crew of the Haunted Tank, or the Unknown Soldier! If you think all comics, ever, were always and always will be Silver Age Batman to Richie Rich then I really have no idea what to tell you except - Nick Fury.
 
  There are plenty of examples from other companies, but Nick Fury is also a Marvel property. Nick, formerly Sgt. Fury of the Howling Commandos, famously heads SHIELD.
  And he kills more people than James Bond. Indeed, so many members of Hydra were killed in the comic pages that there was a spoof years later (by Marvel!) that showed the after life had a separate entrance for a miles-long queue of Hydra agents.
  So Marvel had a hero in the same universe as Spidey dropping bodies every issue eleven years before the premiere of the Punisher.
  Yet I don't hear people calling Nick Fury a 'psychopath' or saying his fans are 'fascists'. Do you?

  So what do I think is going on? Why does the Punisher harsh the mellow of certain sorts so much?
  Simple - he breaks their daydreams.

  Let's be honest - probably more than most other media, four-color superhero comics are about wish fulfillment. Sure, sure, so is radio, and pulps, and so on, but the four-colors really snuggle up to wish fulfillment and give it a big ol' hug. No matter how grim 'n gritty the Dark Age got Superman still sold well. People look tot he superhero genre for a bit f wish fulfillment more than they tend to do in other media, in my opinion.
  There has always been violence in comics, even if it was just a thrown brick. Superhero comics are full of violence.
  Fatalities are obviously acceptable in comics. War and Horror comics were full of death, often gruesome death. And Nick Fury sure as heck killed a lot of people before returning to his helicarrier to talk to Iron man and Captain America.  So why is the Punisher disliked so?

  Well, what is the wish fulfillment of being, oh, the Flash? You can do things other people can't do and you use those abilities to make things better, right? Superman has been making money since 1938 because people don't just wish they could fly, they wish they could fly and make the world better. That is pretty cool.

  The Punisher actually does fit in there. He is better than other people at what he does. He is smart, tough, skilled. He likes children, puppies, and apple pie. He is loyal to his friends. He risks his life every day because he wants to make the world a better place.
  But he does it by killing criminals.
  Just like Nick Fury.
  But where Nick, the Unknown Solider, even the Agents of SHIELD are all soldiers, or spies, or cops, Frank Castle is an ex-soldier. He is a vigilante. Is he dealing with threats the police aren't equipped to handle, just like Spiderman? Sure. Is he taking up the slack left by corrupt cops, corrupt judges, and corrupt politicians, just like Batman? Yes, he is. Is his solution the sort that prevents too many recurring villains, like Nick Fury. Yup.

  I believe the problem of the Punisher is - some people think that violence is beneath them; that the ultimate responsibility of getting things done belongs to someone else. They always want to be Batman and never think about the guards at Arkham.

  Don't mistake me - I like Batman never killing; I think Superman vs the Elite made great points. I mean, my favorite superhero is Fawcett's Captain Marvel!
  But that doesn't mean there is no room for the Punisher. And it doesn't mean the Punisher can't say important things. And it very frankly doesn't mean other superheroes would automatically hate him.
  Oh - and liking the Punisher doesn't make you a Fascist.

  One of these days I will review the movies.

Hugos, Edition Wars, Critically-Acclaimed Junk, Journalism, and Why I Don't Bother - a Rant

WARNING: This began as a google+ post and has not been edited and probably never will be edited.


  Well, the Hugos and I don't really have a lot in common. I love a good SF story, sure, and some past winners of the Hugo are great writers.
   But winning the Hugo didn't make them great. And a lot of great writers never won a Hugo and more were never nominated.
  More critically, a lot of the winners are, in my opinion, not very good. The classic example is "They'd Rather Be Right". Ever read it? It is DREADFUL. A terrible, terrible book that has been used as a 'what not to do' example in creative writing books for decades. It was, however, the winner of the second ever Hugo for Best Novel. That's right, the 2nd Hugo for best novel went to a written-to-order book so bad one reviewer commented [paraphrase] 'the fact that it won by vote throws the idea of universal franchise into doubt'.
  So why *did* such an awful book win?
  Langford (who has won 28 Hugos during his life. Yes, 28) thinks the book won because one of the co-authors was popular as a writer of short stories so many voters selected it based on his name. And let's face it - the annual stories about 'worst x to win a Hugo' are a tradition in SF fandom. This is because it is based on voting by a very small group.
  For years and years the highest number of votes was about 1,000 and it was typically about 500-700 for a loooooong time. That is NOT "SF fandom as a whole picking the very best x from this year" that IS "a narrow group of people expressing their opinions in a particular way".
  Which is fine.
  Why would I care?
   'This narrow group of people is working to keep out members/products they don't like'?
  Meh.
   'The award used to prestigious and now the actions of the people in the group have tarnished it'
  Ummmm. "They'd Rather Be Right" was the SECOND EVER Best Novel winner. The Hugos were never that prestigious.
   In a very real way I see the kerfuffle about the Hugos as very much like edition wars or 'story games vs.'.  Let me show you what I mean.
  I don't play 3e any more. I know that some people think PF/3e is the Best Game Ever and I am vaguely aware that some of those people think 1e/2e suck; and some of them think less of me for liking 1e/2e/OSR.
  I don't care.
  I am NOT going to argue that 1e/2e is 'better' than 3e not do I think less of them because they prefer 3e to other versions. Since this is true their own emotional investment has just as low an impact on me as their opinion.
  Think of it this way;  Some people like the Yankees, some people like the Mets. Just like I don't care if someone has an emotional response to me being a Braves fan I don't care if they have an emotional response to me playing AD&D 2e Skills & Powers.

  So there is a group of people somewhere that I don't know and don't typically interact with that think I can't be a "real" fan of SF if I am x or am not y?
  I don't care, any more than I care if someone somewhere thinks I am not a "real" TRPG player if I don't play system z in such-and-such a manner. Sorry, folks, I am too busy writing and running my games with family and friends to notice what someone I don't know thinks about people they don't know.

  "But, Rick!," you say, "Don't you care about quality? Promoting and supporting good games, good supplements, good books, and good other stuff?!"
  First, of course that isn't true. Second, they are unrelated.
  Yes, I think 1e/2e is better than 3e. But this isn't a life or death situation, it is a game and I know that my preferences in this case are largely subjective. Do I think a lot of SF that is critically acclaimed isn't very good? Yes, and I think that is much more objective than game preferences, too. If you want to see a real rant that will upset people, ask me for my list of 'SF books I think are over-rated'.
  See, when it comes to genre fiction I concur with Sturgeon's Revelation - 90% of all of it is junk. Sometimes junk is popular (Flowers in the Attic sold forty million copies. Forty. Million. Copies.) and sometimes junk is critically acclaimed (They'd Rather Be Right, The March, The Executioner's Song, etc.). Telling me 'a clique of insiders just gave an award to a junk book!' is like saying 'that group of journalists is promoting a narrative rather than objectively reporting the facts!'.
  Yeah, I know
  People have been breathlessly telling me,
  "Did you know that [really obscure person  whose only distinguishing traits are politics and membership in some obscure group] admitted on Twitter that they [voted/wrote/play/attacked someone] only because of politics and ideology?"
  Here is a good representation of what that looks like to me;

Of course they are - that is part of what they do. Heck, those are often large contributors to why people join committees or become journalists - to promote their own ideologies, politics, narratives, preferences, etc.

  What was that? 'What should be done about it?'
  Well, that is up to you. The Hugos seem to be a pretty typical response. Group A dominates a rather small pond, outsiders want change, there is a struggle.
  Gamer Gate is also pretty typical; Group X and Group Y learn they actually despise each other; name-calling commences and quickly escalates to attempts to shame and ostracize.

  Hmmm? 'What is Rick going to do about it?'
  Nothing.
  Well, nothing different.

  In 1990-91 I interacted with the top award-winning journalists in the world when I was in military intelligence in Desert Shield/Desert Storm. The best of the best; the cream of the crop.
  I haven't read a newspaper since I returned. I treat TV and radio journalism as low-rent reality shows. When a news story breaks I wait at least 2 weeks for the story to settle so it might be possible to find out what actually happened. I had no idea 'video game journalism' was a thing until tons of people told me about it.

  Fr the last I don't know how long I only buy fiction from writers I have enjoyed in the past or when I can get a free sample of their work (kindle/nook) or pick up a cheap copy at a remainder bin or something. I will put down a book and swear off a writer pretty quickly these days, too. I have very little leisure to read and refuse to waste it.
  I have never bought or read a book because it had won the Hugo, Nebula, etc. and, based on sales, I bet you haven't, either.

  Besides, there is something else at play here, too. I don't want to boost the signal of people who are trying to use me, especially if they don't like me.
  Here is something that I have seen far too often in the last few years,
  Someone on the internet: "Can you believe what person A said?"
  Me: "Who in the name of Jedidiah Buxton is person A?"
  Soti: "Oh! Well, they are involved in [really obscure/niche/whatever group] and they are really upsetting me by saying X"
  M: "Never heard of them."
  After a few days, though, lots of other people are talking about them, too, so I eventually look them up and...
  They are nobodies trying to leverage internet infamy into cash. They are saying and doing outrageous things to both win the support of fringe groups and to get notice from others.
  And it often works, letting people earn a living, even get rich, by doing nothing but saying loopy things on the internet.
  A loooong time ago I had a (now long gone) anonymous blog on the internet. One of the rules back then was 'when your blog gets to a decent size (which back then wasn't much) pick a fight with a more prominent blogger and hope for a feud to drive traffic to your site. Once you plateau from that, make peace and keep going.'
  There are a fair amount of people trying to do something similar today with the internet. Just like I didn't participate then I won't participate now.

  So, at the end of this long rant I urge you - relax.

Why Wizards Don't Suck on the Battlefield

  This is, naturally, directly related to my last post.

  A little over a quarter century ago we had a guy sit in on a game for a session or two. As I recall he was playing a 6th level magic-user with an interesting mix of magic items and spells. He joined a large party (5 players and 8 characters, I think) and we went to Lew Pulsipher's Mount Thunder, where PC skulls as common as mice.
  The party got into an altercation and the visiting player cast Mirror Image, then Shield. The he drew a dagger and closed with the front line, doing very well for himself and helping turn the tide. This led Lew to discuss the idea of Pocket Quarterbacks vs. Fran Tarkenton. Wizards who stay in the middle of the formation and lob spells over his defenders = pocket quarterback. Guys like the visitor who wander around both casting and fighting are Fran Tarkenton (look him up, kids).

  While I have certainly mentioned what I call the Four Roles a few other places, let me repeat them;

    1) Fighters are Physical Offense
    2) Magic-users are Magical Offense
    3) Clerics are Physical and Magical Defense
    4) Thieves are Intelligence and Scouting

  And the other classes make sense, too; paladins are physical offense and magical defense, etc.

  Now, while I say, many times, wizards are magical offense and have said very recently that wizards suck on the battlefield (see the link in the first sentence) that isn't quite all there is to say. See, wizards don't have to suck on the battlefield, you just need to stop thinking of them as artillery and start thinking of them as melee combatants.

  Yes, really.

  While a wizard is artillery to a party they aren't to an army. But 'not being artillery' doesn't mean 'useless in battle'. Let's talk a little about wizards on the battlefield and mention Battlesystem.
  You remember Battlesystem right?

  Anyway, let's look at the spell caster above. Good armor class from the Shield spell; the Mirror Image adds to his survivability. How about we toss in, oh, Blink? Wow! His survivability goes up farther, he's more capable in combat (lots of flanking and rear attacks), and all of his images start blinking around, too!
  If he were to engage a Battlesystem unit I might treat him and his images as a unit, not an individual (there are a lot of him) and I might make the opposing unit make a morale check for 'engaged with an enemy they cannot hurt', especially if they have low hit dice. These spells are easily accessible for a 5th level mage. Other good 3rd level spells for the battlefield are Haste and Slow (although they would only affect one unit marker in an army). Invisibility, 10' radius might allow a unit to move around the battlefield for a while.
  Another major battlefield impact available to the wizard is Wall of Fire; this spell can be used to stop arrows and protect a flank in an emergency. Wall of Ice, Stone, Iron etc. are similar.

  But the really big one at 4th level must be Hallucinatory Terrain.

  Normally I stick to the rule for 1e spells that "outdoors the range changes to tens of yards but area of effect stays tens of feet'. I make an exception for Hallucinatory Terrain simply because it can't do what it is described as doing ('open fields looking like a swamp', 'a rock strewn gulley looking like a road') so I have its range and area of effect switch to tens of yards

  The ability to hide the real terrain of a battlefield should have obvious advantages! Your reserves are bidden behind a 'steep hill'; the open field now looks like a huge thicket of scrub and boulders; the inviting open field to the left flank of your army is actually a river; etc.

  But this leads us far enough down the primrose path to discuss the true magical master of the battlefield. That is, of course,

The First Edition Illusionist!

  That's right, the 1e  illusionist is the King of the Battlefield.
  Let's look at what a 9th level 1e Illusionist can do with a selection of spells
  1st level- Wall of Fog, Hypnotism, Detect Illusion, Phantasmal Force
  2nd level- Fog Cloud, Mirror Image, Improved Phantasmal Force
  3rd level- Invisibility, 10' r., Hallucinatory Terrain, Spectral Force
  4th level- Massmorph, Shadow Monsters

  While Wall of Fog and Fog Cloud do no damage, they are good at providing concealment and perhaps making foes move if they think the Fog Cloud is a Cloudkill. Not great, but not useless.
  Mirror Image, Detect Illusion, and Hypnotism are really about self-protection.
  Invisibility, 10' r. and Massmorph are about concealing units on the battlefield. If the illusionist gets a chance they can hide an entire unit (up to 90 creatures) as a copse of trees (Massmorph) or simply make up to, oh, around 40 medium creatures invisible. The sudden appearance of 40 heavy crossbowmen in what was thought was an open field would be a bit of a shock. Having 90 heavy infantry appear on the flank you though was anchored by a thicket of oaks would be even worse!
  I mentioned Hallucinatory Terrain above. The reason it is even better for illusionists is they get it a level earlier - a 5th level illusionist can potentially hide parts of the battlefield.
  The Phantasmal and Spectral Force spells, though, have the potential to truly wreak havoc on the battlefield. The have ranges of up to 170 yards (potentially out of short bow range) and the illusion can travel anywhere within range. While magic-users get Phantasmal Force they get it as a 3rd level spell while illusionists get it as a 1st level spell (!) and illusionists have sole access to Improved Phantasmal and Spectral Force - both of which last for 2 or 3 rounds after the caster ceases concentration and include some more senses other than just sight.
  Each of these three 'pure illusion' spells can create a huge range of effects from ditches filled with flaming tar to 500 pikemen in formation. Also remember; unless foes disbelieve in their nature AND make a saving throw these illusions can injure and kill!
  The sneaky spell here is Shadow Monsters. I say sneaky because of the impact it has on the other spells. Shadow Monsters is, really, an illusion so good it is partially real, but it can only be used to make creatures - almost a summoning. A 9th level illusionist could use this spell to make a giant, 2 ogres, 10 goblins, or 18 kobolds. The latter two are, effectively, battlefield units.But the Shadow Monsters stick around after the caster is doing other things and keep existing and fighting (if diminished) even when successfully disbelieved. Shadow Monsters, with its range of only 30 yards, is a really nasty surprise to any unit that gets too close to the caster and could be a last minute way to plug a gap in the lines in an emergency.

  So - what would fighting a battle where one side had an illusionist like that look like?

  Baron Mordan was indignant. He had been for over a year, ever since the king gave a grant of land to some upstart from the city. Mordan had learned from friends that the man had begun life as the son of a scribe and had made a fortune as a vagabond and mercenary before earning the king's favor on the Orc Marches. 
  Mordan was descended from nobility and was a 5th cousin to the king! Yes, yes, he was aware that by being the 4th son of a 3rd son he was reduced to a small barony on the border. While this land had been prosperous under his father Mordan struggled to generate any real income from the lazy peasants. When he found out that the king had given the next valley West to some common scribbler he had been furious!
  Burt Mordan had begun working immediately; his men at arms were loyal before too long there had been a series of 'problems' on the border between Mordan's lands and those of the new "baron" Worrel. Mordan had complained loudly and bitterly over each incident, even after his own brothers had told him to be silent. But it had paid off - at the last moot Worrel had directly accused Mordan of deception and theft. Worrel had offered to trial by combat, but Mordan knew of the man's reputation as a swordsman. No, Mordan had insisted on the old ways, the Lord's Battle ways. No scribbler could be a commander of men like Mordan; now it was to be settled by force of arms!
  Mordan had set out with his own 50 heavy cavalry, 200 medium foot, 300 militia short bow men, and 500 militia pikemen with an additional 100 heavy foot mercenaries (whom he planned to pay with loot).
  He knew the upstart had only 100 light cavalry and 200 medium foot with perhaps 200 militia archers and 300 militia pikemen.
  After 3 full days of marching directly toward Worrel's keep Mordan had yet to face any opposition. The villagers had fled, seemingly ordered by Worrel, and there was no battle. But on the evening of the third day Mordan arrived  on the top of the last hill before Worrel's keep.
  He had to admit - waiting to fight here had been the best option for Worrel; The forest on Mordan's right flank  and the river on his left would limit his mobility. He noted that the meadows near the river were marshy, so his cavalry and heavy foot would need to avoid that area.
  On the other hand, Worrel had erected no ditches, palisades, or stakes in defense - the only thing between Mordan and the keep were the few forces of Worrel! Mordan pitched his camp between the trees and the river less than 500 yards from the outermost of Worrel's troops.
  Dawn was clear and crisp, promising a perfect day for a battle. His commander told him there had been only one incident in the night - a guard had vanished. Probably a deserter, as nothing was missing and there were no reports of trouble.
  Worrel's forces were drawn up about 400 yards away; a pikewall 100 men wide and 3 ranks deep with 50 medium foot on each flank; Another 100 medium foot were on Mordan's right, 100 light cavalry on the left, with 4 groups of 50 archers each 20-30 yards behind. Worrel's forces made a line from the swampy river on Mordan's left to the heavy trees on Mordan's right. Mordan did not see the rest of the foot and assumed they were in the keep.
  Mordan decided simple was best; his pikemen formed up as the center, 3 ranks deep and 100 men wide. The main pikes were flanked with 50 medium foot on each side. The mercenaries formed on the right flank, the cavalry on the left. The short bow men were in a group 50 men by 50 men 50 yards behind the pikes. He kept 200 pikemen, 50 bow men, and 50 medium foot in reserve with another 50 medium foot guarding the camp. While Worrel's light horse would be more maneuverable in the marshy land on the left if they did anything Mordan's heavy cavalry could charge the flank. With the light cavalry pinned Mordan would simply march up, wait for the pike crush, and have the mercenaries roll over the medium foot. His reserve would then follow on and pin Worrel's forces against the river.
  He'd own the barony by nightfall.

  Before too long Worrel's archers began to fire, mainly at the pikes. Mordan had his own archers target Worrel's archers. Mordan heard a cry from the right - a group of heavy foot were marching from the trees! In just a few moment 150 heavy footmen in Worrel's livery were formed up, blocking the advance of the mercenaries. A moment later, they began marching forward, apparently eager to attack the smaller force ahead of them!
  Mordan shifted his archers to the new threat and while they began to fall it wasn't fast enough - the larger force was going to hit his right flank hard.  With a loud battle cry the mercenaries rushed forward to engage and-
  Worrel's heavy footmen vanished, like a puff of smoke. 
  Mordan stood in his stirrups, staring at the right flank. The mercenaries were disorganized, almost a mob, as they tried to find their missing foes. Mordan sent a runner to order the mercenaries to form back up and continue their advance.
  He realized his archers didn't have orders, but before he could order them to fire on Worrel's archers there was another shout, from behind him.
  A wedge of heavy cavalry, also wearing Worrel's livery, was trotting towards his rear! The archers, completely unprotected, were scattering , most of them running for the shelter of the reserves, who were forming a square, or the treeline. Mordan ordered his cavalry to wheel as he sized up the new threat - 80 cavalry, all in plate with lances! He faced a dilemma; if he engaged them, Worrel's light cavalry would be free to move; but if the heavy cavalry engaged bypassed his reserves his main body would be forced to form squares. He decided to charge the cavalry. He quickly sent a runner to order the reserves to the left and to move the mercenaries to cover the rear of the pikewall.
  Very soon his was leading his horsemen at the trot, then a full charge at the enemy. He leaned forward, lance in hand, ready for the terrible shock of impact....
  And the enemy rode through his forces like ghosts. Several of his men slipped from their horses when there was no impact, a number of horses stumbled and went down, likewise. Some lay still, seemingly dead.
  He gathered his cavalry together, minus 10 men unhorsed, and took stock of the situation.
  His pikewall was still slowly advancing and still under constant enemy arrow fire. The mercenaries, having seen the vanishing enemy horses, were struggling to return to the right flank to oppose Worrel's footmen. His reserves remained in a square with about 1/3rd of his archers within, the rest of his archers were scattered.He and the remaining 40 heavy cavalry were out of place. And where  Worrel's light cavalry had been waiting there was now a thick wall of fog, hiding them from view. 
  Like phantoms, the light cavalry appeared out of the fog and began a charge across the battlefield between the opposing pikes towards Mordan's right flank! Realizing Worrel hoped to catch the mercenaries before they could get back into formation he ordered his tired cavalry to follow him as he raced to keep them from catching scattered infantry in the open.
  He knew his horses weren't fast enough to beat the enemy cavalry there, but they could drive them off before too much damage was done. If he was lucky he might drive them back into the medium infantry behind them and try to roll up Worrel's flank.
  Looking back he saw - Worrel's light cavalry charging out of the fog. But that was impossible! Both groups were the size of all of Worrel's cavalry! The second group was charging, at full gallop, along the river bank towards Mordan's rear. Remembering how marshy the meadows were he decided that those troops must be more phantoms, like the earlier ones, to distract him from the real troops, ahead.
  The mercenaries, realizing they were about to be caught in the open, had hastily formed into 4 small squares as Worrel's lancers approached. The light cavalry ignored them, however, and charged around them, heading along the treeline toward Mordan and the heavy cavalry.
  A great crash and shouting arose from Mordan's left flank - the 'phantom' cavalry had struck the medium infantry on the left of the pikewall and were inflicting terrible losses on them. Horrified, Mordan watched the cavalry in front of him fade away into nothingness. 
  As he drew up to try to figure out what was going on he saw a messenger riding hard towards him. When he arrived the messenger's horse was blowing as hard as any of the destrier's in the cavalry.
  "My lord! The captain asks for assistance in the camp!"
  "What?! Why?"
  "Well, my lord, some of the trees. Some of the trees..."
  "The trees? Spit it out, man!"
  "Some of the trees turned into men, my lord! A grove of trees turned into soldiers and they are attacking the camp!"
  "Ride back and tell the fool captain they are phantoms, some sort of glamor to distract him."
  "My lord, the captain ordered me hence as he lay dying from a wound."
  "Dying...?"
  Mordan looked past the messenger. A column of smoke was beginning to rise over the ridge from the location of his camp.
  Mordan turned to survey the battlefield: His left flank was broken and Worrel's lancers were slaughtering scattered infantry; his pikes, weakened by salvoes of arrows, demoralized by the loss of the left flank, and terrified by the magic, were wavering. The mercenaries were finally in formation, but were staying close to the tree line. He watched as the reserves noticed the smoke from the camp - in moments they were running towards the camp.
  As Worrel's pike wall lowered their weapons into position and gave a great shout the rest of Mordan's army broke and began to run back towards his lands. The mercenaries, more disciplined, began to slip into the forest.
  The cavalry with him were holding firm, for now, but all of them were looking at him expectantly. 
  Even he started in surprise as a voice appeared out of thin air,
  "Greetings, Baron Mordan."
  "W-Worrel? Is that you?"
  "I am Baron Worrel, yes."
  "Where are you?"
  Almost instantly a small group of horsemen appeared just a few yards away. Mordan sensed several of his men prepare to flee. Of the four Mordan recognized only Worrel, who was on the finest warhorse Mordan had ever seen. Two of the others were retainers, and obviously warriors, but the fourth was a beautiful woman on a palfrey.
  "Here I am, come to accept your surrender."
  "Surrender? This was a single battle!"
  "Indeed. But recall, when you demanded Lord's Battle I pointed out that I was granted a barony for defeating the Red Orc Chieftain on the field of battle. Besides, while your troops were busy here some of my closest friends visited your keep. Surrender and you can dine in my keep with your wife and your sons this very evening."
  Mordan sagged in the saddle. Defeat on the battlefield and the taking of hostages - Worrel had fulfilled the rules of Lord's Battle. Mordan's lands and titles were now Worrel's.
  Moments later Mordan's men were returning home, Mordan had no sword, and he was riding between the two retainers.
  "I apologize, Mordan," said Worrel, "I failed to introduce you. This lady is my wife, Lady Gwenhyfar. She is a student of magic."
  

Why Wizards Suck on the Battlefield

  Hey, everyone, sorry I've been gone a lot.

  I was relaxing a bit the other night and talking gaming with someone I have not played a lot with when I ran into another variant of the discussion I call 'not this again', but is sometimes called 'linear fighters and quadratic wizards'. The basic argument is pretty old and is roughly,

  "At low level fighters easily outshine wizards but at high level wizards are like unto gods while fighters are just mildly better fighters."

  As I've mentioned before, I don't agree with this assessment at all. I did my usual response of pointing out that at any level a fighter, cleric, or thief will almost certainly just flat-out kill a wizard of the same level one-on-one. 

  Disagree? OK, let's look at the numbers:

  [of course I am talking about 1e/OSRIC/etc! They are my favorites!]

  13th level magic-user Abelard the Average. H.P. 30 A.C. 2 (magical stuff)

    Abelard has a total of 25 spells, 2 scrolls, and such

  13th level fighter Mendacus the Middling. H.P. 59 A.C. 0 (cool armor)

    Mendacus has a nice sword and something that gives him extra damage, like ogre gauntlets

  At average encounter distance for a dungeon assuming no surprise Abelard has time to cast a single spell before Mendacus closes. Further, the spell had better be 3rd level or lower because of initiative rules.  We have no idea what spells Abelard has gotten, blown, etc., but let's assume that one of them is a Fireball. Average damage for Abelard is 46 h.p. - not enough. And since Mendacus will probably save it is only 23. That's insulting.

  So Mendacus closes and with 2 attacks a round will almost certainly prevent Abelard from casting (by hitting him about 19 times out of 20). It will take Mendacus about, oh, 2 rounds to cut down Abelard.

  It is similar with clerics and thieves; Abelard must have the right spell, use it at the right time, and his foe must be very unlucky or the mage dies.

  "But that's not what I mean!" said the person I was talking to, "I mean that the mage can cause a LOT more damage to foes than the fighter can!"

  That depends on what you mean, actually. Look at Abelard; if he has a lot of luck and the right access, etc. he could cast Death Spell, which has the potential of killing up to 80 creatures of 2 HD or less! That is pretty serious. Fireballs and Lightning Bolts do a lot of damage, too. 

  But then the spells are gone. And once his spells are gone Abelard can't deal out that damage like that until he gets a good night's sleep and a fair chunk of time to re-memorize.

  Mendacus can slaughter until he needs sleep. With a great deal of luck (rolling a lot of maximum numbers; the goblins standing shoulder to shoulder, chest to back, etc.) Abelard could kill 400 goblins in 10 rounds. With average numbers Mendacus will kill 120+ goblins in the same amount of time. Abelard will be out of spells; Mendacus will still have a sword.

  So while the wizard can, indeed, drop a lot of death in a short period of time, the fighter can easily surpass it over time. 

  I am not saying that fighters are better than wizards or anything like that! I am just pointing out that they each fulfill their respective parts of the Four Roles well. Without all of the roles filled any party will suffer.

  That is when we entered slightly different territory. The person I was speaking with said,

  "But you must admit that even from medium level the wizard is much more effective on the battlefield"

  That got me to thinking about the mass battle I recently ran for my Blackstone campaign. In that one I had pointed out what I have learned from that and other mass battles.

  What I have learned, in a nutshell, is that Wizards Suck on the Battlefield.

  "But Rick!" you say, "All those spells! He can fly! Tturn Invisible! Cast Fireball! Cloudkill!

  Meh.

  Seriously.

  When you are talking about armies taking to the field, and I mean armies with forces of hundred to thousands or more per side, wizards are very limited.

  Let's take a look at the big scary, Fireball. Wizards get it at 5th level so its range is...
  150 yards.

    I know a lot of people keep all spell ranges at 1" in the book = 10', but I follow the rule that missile weapons and spells switch to 1" = 30' outdoors/on a battlefield, just like Gary intended.

  The edge of short bow range. Medium range for a heavy crossbow. A salvo of heavy quarrels at a 5th level mage is probably going to disrupt his blood flow, let alone his casting.

  And the Fireball is only 40' across. Plenty big for a dungeon, pretty small for a battlefield. it is going to catch at most somewhere between 12 and 26 foes, typically. If those foes are normal orcs, goblins, etc. they are going to die.

  And the 5th level mage's lone Fireball is gone.

  OK, how about a 9th level wizard? One with the bane of the battlefield, Cloudkill! I mmean, Cloudkill is terrifying; 40' wide, 20' deep and tall; instantly kills anything weaker than an ogre; can kill virtually annything (read your DMG).
  Cool!
  It's range is 10 yards.
  30 feet.
  Within short range for a thrown dagger at battlefield scale.
  It lasts (in this case) 9 rounds, creeping forward at 1/12th the speed of a walking man. In this case it stops after going a total of - 100 yards. In the meantime an entire pike square could move out of the way or even split up to let it pass. Great way to blunt a wild charge, yes, but very, very dangerous to cast and if the conditions aren't just right it is mainly useful to make formations move or break up.

  So if Abelard is 9th level and has the very best mass combat spells and takes those spells by preference to all others he could kill about, oh, 80 foes and either break up an enemy formation or stop an enemy charge. This will take him 5 or so rounds.

  That's pretty nice, but in a battle with 2,500 men on each side not as big a deal as you might think.

  What about 9th level Mendacus? How is he going to do? Well, against goblins he's going to be the the Angel of Death. He has 9 attacks per round against them (the 'fighters vs. less than 1 HD humanoids' rule) and will really only miss 1 in 20 times and if he has a magical sword each blow will kill an average goblin. In the five rounds it takes Abelard to kill 80 goblins Mendacus would kill about 43 goblins, round down to 40. Half as many.
  But Mendacus can keep going on. Assuming Mendacus has an Armor Class of 0 and is facing roughly 10 goblins a round he will be able to fight for about 17 rounds before he is at half hit points and needs to retire for healing. In that time he would potentially kill 145 goblins.

  Yes, yes, there are a lot of assumptions going on; Mendacus will have to close with the goblins, keep up with them, etc. But the point still stands.

  While wizards have the capability to do a great deal of damage in a short period of time, the fighter can do much more damage over a long period of time. The total potential damage of a fighter over the course of a day is much higher than the total potential damage of a wizard over the course of a day.  

  Since large-scale battles are much more about attrition over time the fighter is better suited to that particular type of encounter. This is easily forgotten if a particular group, DM, campaign, etc. focuses mainly on dungeon crawling or similar actions because those types of encounters are often about delivering damage quickly. It is also "concealed" by the habit of parties to pull back, rest, and regain spells; they essentially base the pace and rhythm of adventuring about 'recharging' the mages.

  An aside: This is one of the reasons I keep track of encumbrance, components, rations, random encounters etc. It isn't just 'utilizing/taking advantage of the resource management aspect' nor is it just a way to vacuum gold out of PC's pouches. These things are there to also set the pace and rhythm around overall party supplies, 'throttle' the wizard's ability to deliver damage, and allow fighters to shine more as they deal with encounters after the wizards are out of spells.

  As I noted in my post on the mass battle in my campaign I linked above, wizards are very good at some elements of the battlefield; for example, they are very good and eliminating enemy siege engines.

  Many years ago I remember a number of people commenting negatively about something Gary wrote, in Dragon I believe. As  I recall he was speaking of a large battle among Northern barbarians and noted 'the spell casters largely neutralized each other'. People were very upset and spoke a great deal in print and at conventions that this was inaccurate, that wizards would be a key element of the battlefield.
  At the time I thought it unlikely that the man who derived AD&D from his rules for mass combat would get it wrong.
  I don't think he did. One of the key roles of the wizard on the battlefield will be to neutralize enemy wizards.

  'But Rick,' you say, 'Didn't you just way that wizards suck on the battlefield? Why would wizards deal with each other, then?'

  Great question! In addition to wanting enemy wizard's spellbooks and wands, this is because of the thing wizards are good at on the battlefield other than Fireballing catapults;
  Taking out enemy leaders.

  Remember Mendacus and his ability to slaughter 145 goblins before he stops for some gatorade? Abelard dumping a Fireball to kill 30 goblins seems less effective. But dumping it on Mendacus to force him off the battlefield is a great idea, especially if it catches the troops guarding his flanks. So if Mendacus has a wizard ally you can bet his goal is to prevent Abelard from forcing the Angel of Death to the sidelines.

  And this isn't to say that magic is not going to have a profound effect on how battles are fought! One of the most obvious is having teams of archers tasked specifically to attack enemy spell casters. Someone suddenly turns visible? A streak of light blossoms into a Fireball? A guy in robes is flying over the battlefield? Scattered teams of 10 troops with missile weapons target them immediately.

  Another would be to have elite troops in reserve and mobile so they can respond quickly to holes in the line caused by spells and, as importantly, engage guys like Medacus and his sword arm! Just having some hobgoblin mercenaries engage Mendacus (and thus dropping his number of attacks per round) makes a huge difference.

  There will also be some minor changes to battlefiel practice: pikewalls will probably have 3 densely packed rows and then reserve pikemen will be further back and scattered to reduce the damage of spells; Missile units will be broken into smaller groups and more widely dispersed to both dodge spells and react to spell casters; Cavalry units might well have a screen of light cavalry sweep out in front of a charge to check for illusions, spells, and to attempt to trigger magical attacks.

  I will write more about this topic soon.

Next Time: Why Wizards Don't Suck on the Battlefield

The "We've Finally Had Time to Read the 5e books" Post

  Not a real review, but just the comments of me and my sons as we have read through the books.

The Reviewers
  Me: 47 year old man
  Ja.: 17 year old man
  A: 15 year old half-man
  S.: 14 year old boy
  N.: 12 year old boy

The Good
  Me: "The artwork is really good. The binding is very nice."
  Ja.: "The books certainly are gorgeous."
  A.: "I love the artwork."
  S.: "Very pretty to look at, at least."
  N.: "The art is nice and the last picture in the PHB is a badger, so bonus points."

The Interesting/Positive
  Me: "You don't need multi-classing anymore since you can take various options to various classes to emulate a multi-class, which is interesting."
  Ja.: "Looks like they have cleaned up a number of monsters."
  A.: "Turns out that being almost-dead might actually have longer term effects than just the next long rest."
  S.: "Random dungeon creation charts are back, which is great."
  N.: "The various tables to help with motivations and background might lead to directions you'd never consider without help."

The Weird/Negative
  Me: "...and yet you can multi-class, at least as an option, so let the min/maxing and 14 levels ahead character optimization begin anew!"
  Ja.: "Monks can get an hadouken? What the?"
  A.: "I've already figured out a way to get multiple spells off in a round and I've only had the books 15 minutes."
  S.: "I should be third level after the 3rd or 4th session? So we'd have retired 2, maybe 3, 20th level character parties in just the Blackstone campaign?"
  N.: "They nerfed golems? Who nerfs golems?"

The Harsh
  Me: " Where do the credits acknowledge Runequest, Rolemaster, HackMaster, and Castles & Crusades 'for their contributions to the "new" content of this book'?"
  Ja.: "If you want something for nothing and think character death is a horrible event that should never happen this is the game for you."
  A.: "I don't want to play this, even to playtest."
  S.: ""The DMG reads as 'we're sorry that 4e destroyed your creativity - here's some charts!'"
  N.: "They nerfed badgers? THEY NERFED GIANT BADGERS?! This game is dead to me."

  Full review in a few weeks.

Sideline: Appendix N and Me

  Jeffro has been writing a great deal about Appendix N over at Castalia House. One of the things he says over and over again is,
  "Why didn't anyone recommend these books to me before now?"
  I think this is a good time to share something personal; a bit about my father.

  My father was born in the early 1920's,the oldest of 5 children. He grew up in Chicago and was a leader from a young age. He has clear memories of standing in line to see The Jazz Singer and reading the papers on Black Tuesday and the day after.  He enlisted in the army on December 8th, 1941 with all of his friends and was released from the army in 1946. He married his sweetheart in 1947 while in college and went on to become a doctor on the G.I. Bill. He held his dream job, being a rural country doctor, for his entire medical career. He eventually was father to 9 children. I was raised in small-town America as part of a large, extended family.
  Now, my father was an flawed and imperfect as any man, but he had great gifts that he passed on to his children; care for others, a dedication to honor and duty, love of children. Also smooth talking, a fondness for cigars, and solid poker skills (for his sons).
  But also a love of reading. I literally have no memories of my father without a book of some sort on his person or within reach. A paperback in his medical bag, a novel on his end table, always something.
  He loved the classics and the great books - I was reading translations of Cicero and the Aeneid as a teen alongside Paradise Lost, the Prince, and more.
  But he also loved the pulps of his own youth, and comics, too. He bought me a copy of A Princess of Mars for my 8th birthday and I finished the entire series (the first read-through) by the time I was 9. Then I read all 24 of the 'main' Tarzan books and the Eternal Lover and the Mad King all before I was 10!
  Note: If you love Burroughs or Ruritanian romances and haven't read The Mad King, you are missing out!
  The great thing was I read The Outlaw of Torn just 2-3 weeks before my first encounter with D&D; a wonderful warmup!
  My father had also introduced me to books like Sea-Kings of Mars, all of Lovecraft, Derleth, Clark Ashton Smith, Dunsany, and Andre Norton. He still has a first printing of Starman's Son, signed by Norton in the 60's before I was born.
  As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was in my late teens before I read anything by Tolkien or anything Arthurian. My earliest reads associated with D&D were the tales of Charlemagne's Paladins, and Three Hearts and Three Lions, and the High Crusade, and the Outlaw of Torn, and similar works.
  And I loved the Dying Earth stuff - I read the Night Land when I was 10 and followed it up with the Time Machine, Vance, and re-reading the Zothique stories, all of which had a huge impact on my creation of Seaward, my AD&D 1e campaign, just a year later. Looking back, Norton's Witchworld books, especially the first few in the High Hallack series, were a pretty strong influence, too.

  Jeffro's posts are a lot of fun for me. I am gaining fresh insights to old favorites as he writes and realizing how these books impact my own work to this day in ways invisible to me before.
  And I also get how it must feel to discover this trove of writing that was both right in front of you (in the DMG) but not really talked about enough.

  Writing this I called my father, who is in his 90's, now. He's re-reading Off on a Comet.

  So all of us book nuts have a duty - tell others about these books we love!

Are Only Swords Smart? And, if Not, What does this Mean? Part I

  As I have looked at intelligent weapons for the last few (hectic) weeks we have to pause to ask - are only swords smart?
  There is always a simple way of answering this - what did Gary/the DMG say?
  The obvious examples of things with intelligence are artifacts;
 - Baba Yaga's hut has an intelligence score. Of course, it is an evil tardis with giant chicken legs, so... why not be smart, too?
  - The Orbs of Dragonkind each have an intelligence score and an ego score and can struggle with their wielders just like swords!
  OK, so that seems to show that not just swords can be smart!
  What's that? Did someone say "yeah, but those are artifacts so they don't count"?
  Well, I have heard that before - that artifacts and relics are so 'other' that you can't treat them as examples. I don't agree with it, but I will admit it has merit, so let's keep looking.
  How about the Figurine of Wondrous Power - Onyx Dog? It has an intelligence of 8-10 and can speak Common. This seems to imply it is much more than the spirit or intelligence of a dog. [Well, unless all it can say is "I love you"]

Quick Aside: Can you see it now? An adventuring party of 4 - a paladin named Frederick, Dymphna the low-Int cleric, Vell'Ma the mage, and Norville the Shaggy, the thief. Norville has an onyx dog that says things like 'ruh-roh, raggy, a rombie!'.

  Anyway; the onyx dog looks fairly clever, although it isn't as smart as a dim sword. No mention of an ego, so let's keep looking.

  Then we get to Appendix H. I love appendix H because it implies so much! Gary tells us, rather casually, to simply take a few things from 'features' and a few things from 'attributes', randomly toss them together,and turn them into tricks.
  Why do I mention implications and stress how casual Gary was? Because Appendix H tells us, pretty clearly, that anything can have intelligence. From a pool of water to a machine to an illusion to FIRE - anything can be smart. Anything can have an intelligence score and, it is strongly implied, any smart thing has an alignment.

  Huh.

  Let's start with the obvious stuff, first.

  Intelligent daggers and staves shouldn't be a big stretch from swords. A dagger that can make its wielder Invisible once a day and can detect precious metals within 30' at will would be pretty valuable to a thief. A Robe of Eyes with its own intelligence could warn its wearer of creatures approaching while she slept. A smart Instant Fortress could act as its very own doorman, admitting people it knew without the owner being present.
  All pretty cool.

  But since this is obviously possible and obviously handy, why is it only really directly mentioned (and turned into a table) for swords? And why is it done for swords so often (after all, intelligent swords are almost 3% of all magic items)?

  Let's talk about magic item restrictions for a second..

  In 1e certain types of magic items are only usable by certain classes or class groups - a fighter can't use a Wand of Fire; a magic-user can't use Gauntlets of Swimming and Climbing, etc. This seems to imply that there is more than just power words or even force of will involved in activating certain magical items - there must be some sort of 'essence' associated with these items and their powers.
  Fighters seem to be the most restricted in this regard (I haven't done a real examination, this is just an impression). And many, of not most (or even all) of the powers seen in intelligent swords appear to be the sorts of powers a fighter could not use if the power was in, say, a wand.

  Here's my theory: the reason for the prevalence of intelligent swords is because the sword's intelligence is required to make the powers of the sword usable by a fighter. The intelligence of the sword is a form of proxy - since the fighter can't activate the sword's powers directly he, in the end, orders the sword to activate the power for him. The intelligence is, in a very real way, a workaround for the limitations faced by a fighter using a magical device.

  That seems to make sense for the powers that seem to mimic racial abilities, too. A human is never going to be able to use dwarven racial abilities. But a dwarven-forged sword with an intelligence could invoke those racial abilities on behalf of a human wielder.

  Suddenly intelligent swords with special magical powers make a lot more sense, don't they? And the fact that intelligent swords are the one thing really covered in any depth make more sense, too.

  Next: Part II

Chivalry - It Isn't Good Manners

  Many of us have at least elements of European Medieval culture in our game worlds. This makes a lot of sense for a number of reasons. But just like how Chinaland, Japanland, Egyptland, Vikingland, and MayincatecLand in campaigns are often muddled, so too Europeland can be a little - off. So let's talk about the Real World, Chivalry, Courtesy, and your campaign.

  In the Complete Paladin's Handbook it describes a paladin encountering a rude barkeep. The barkeep insults the paladin and, finally, spits in the paladin's face. The paladin simply wipes his face and leaves. This is meant to exemplify a paladins courtesy.

  A very common mistake in the modern world is to think 'chivalry' and 'courtesy' are synonyms. They aren't.

"Chivalry: Bravery in war; warfare as an art; a body of armed men. Those qualities expected of a noble knight."

  As opposed to,

"Courtesy: The showing of politeness in one's attitude and behavior towards others"

  These are different things, obviously. So when I hear a woman state something like,
  "I was carrying a heavy bag and none of the men standing around helped me; chivalry is dead!"
  I reply,
  "No, courtesy is. Unless someone there was of noble birth and trained as a warrior chivalry had nothing to do with it."

  Chivalry was (and technically still is) a code of behavior very purposefully designed to channel the energies of highly-trained, highly motivated, heavily-armed professional killers into protecting the weak and innocent. It is not about tipping your cap or wearing cologne.

  The actual elements of chivalry are pretty well documented. They are;

• Defense of the Holy, Catholic Church
• Defense of the weak, the poor, the helpless, and women
• Obedience to you lord and your king
• Honor in the pursuit of Duty
• To exemplify the seven knightly virtues-

1. Courage
2. Temperance
3. Prudence
4. Justice
5. Faith
6. Hope
7. Charity

  The seven knightly virtues look an awful lot like the elements of the code of Bushido, don't they? Of course they do, they both have the same goal. Feudal Japan and Feudal Euope were both hard,violent places and both knights and samurai were the toughest, best-trained professional warriors of their respective culures. Both chivalry and bushido are meant to channel the incredible power of these classes into being forces for good. European knights can be thought of as samurai with better horses and better armor.
  So, here is a question. Imagine if that barkeep in the Paladin's Handbook had spit on a samurai? Do you think the samurai would have just walked away? Did you know that the code of Bushido specifically mentions 'courtesy' while the code of chivalry doesn't?

  Let's back up a bit. Another element of chivalry is the simple fact that those who were part of chivalry were at least nominally nobles. This means that in a very real sense commoners cannot be chivalrous. it also means that knights had and expected certain privileges in society and also had different norms of behavior. A knight might very well never curse, especially in public; if he were to do so it would probably harm his reputation a great deal. A commoner, however, might very not face the same, or even any, repercussions for coarse language [thus the phrase 'not worth a tinker's damn' - tinkers were low-class people and known for coarse language]. Other habits expected of nobles, such as dress and such, were different from those of the lower classes and since they were related to attending at a noble's court, these are very directly courtesy ['courtesy' means literally 'how you would act at a noble's court'].
  It is very easy how chivalry came to be confused with courtesy even though they are very different. The fact that the chansons de geste, the romance novels and emo music of their day, confuse many with their fictions about courtly love, etc. But this does not mean that courtesy is chivalry nor that courtesy trumps chivalry.

  Let's look again at the barkeep and the paladin but through the lens of actual chivalry. Let us listen in on the paladin's thoughts.

"A commoner being rude in speech? To be expected from an uneducated lout; perhaps a coin for this unfortunate person will sweeten his mood? No? Ah, well, I shall-

This cur spit upon me?!  That is an offense to my honor!"

  At that point he would probably have his squire thrash the barkeep. If he were alone he would do so and if the barkeep struck back, well....  The barkeep might face prison. If the barkeep took up a weapon he might very well die.

  Here is a quick comparison of chivalry vs. courtesy.
  - Leading a lance charge against overwhelming odds with a smile on your face? Chivalry.
  - Holding a chair out so a lady may sit? Courtesy.
  - Being polite to others when speaking? Courtesy.
  -Allowing others to insult or strike you with impunity? Neither.