Catalyst Castle

This is part 4 of a discussion I began last month. The object of this discussion is to help myself and those I role-play with get more out of our games.

In part 1 I talked about something called the GNS theory devised by a man named Ron Edwards. If you haven’t already, or need a refresher, you can read part 1 here. The basic gist of the article was that most people tend to gravitate towards one of 3 preferences for play, those being Gamism, Narrativism, or Simulationism.

In part 2 I talked more in depth about Simulationism, my personal preference for play. You can read the article here.

In part 3 I talked more in depth about Gamism. You can read the article here.

Now I’ll give you a summary of Ron Edwards’ article on Narrativism. This essay was perhaps the most well written one of the bunch, probably because it was written after the others. It featured extensive commentary on designing narrativist RPGs, so I’ll try to focus on just the parts that apply to actual play. If you’re interested, you can read the full essay here. (If you want the really short summary, skip to the last 3 or 4 paragraphs of this article.)


Ron Edwards begins by explaining what he means by “story” in the context of roleplaying:

Long ago, I concluded that "story" as a role-playing term was standing in for several different processes and goals, some of which were incompatible. Here's the terms-breakdown I'll be using from now on.

All role-playing necessarily produces a sequence of imaginary events. Go ahead and role-play, and write down what happened to the characters, where they went, and what they did. I'll call that event-summary the "transcript." But some transcripts have, as Pooh might put it, a "little something," specifically a theme: a judgmental point, perceivable as a certain charge they generate for the listener or reader. If a transcript has one (or rather, if it does that), I'll call it a story.

The mere presence of story as the product of role-playing is not a GNS-based issue.

Edwards goes on to associate narrative play with an expression: “Story Now”. He explains it thus:

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing.

Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. The Now refers to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying attention to one another as they do it. To do that, they relate to "the story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays, and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments. Think of the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of input and emotional feedback among one another. The Now also means "get to it," in which "it" refers to any Explorative element or combination of elements that increases the enjoyment of that issue I'm talking about.

There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s). Story Now has a great deal in common with Step On Up, particularly in the social expectation to contribute, but in this case the real people's attention is directed toward one another's insights toward the issue, rather than toward strategy and guts.

So, this all sounds interesting in theory, but what does it look like in action? Here’s what Edwards says:

How is this done, actually, in play? It relies on the concept of something called Premise and its relationship to an emergent theme. [Premise is] that "problematic issue" I mentioned. Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from the in-game events.

Narrativist Premises vary regarding their origins: character-driven Premise vs. setting-driven Premise, for instance. They also vary a great deal in terms of unpredictable "shifts" of events during play. The key to Narrativist Premises is that they are moral or ethical questions that engage the players' interest. The "answer" to this Premise (Theme) is produced via play and the decisions of the participants, not by pre-planning.

A possible Narrativist development of the "vampire" initial Premise, with a strong character emphasis, might be, Is it right to sustain one's immortality by killing others? When might the justification break down?

Another, with a strong setting emphasis, might be, Vampires are divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing living people, and which side are you on?

Edwards elaborates further on the importance of premise being addressed as a group in narrativist roleplaying:

Premise must pose a question to the real people, creator and audience alike. The fictional character's belief in something like "Freedom is worth any price" is already an implicit question: "Is it really? Even when [insert Situation]?" Otherwise it will fail to engage anyone. […] The Premise's imaginary resolution is up for grabs among the group in role-playing. […] Everyone involved has his or her fair crack at it as one of the authors.

The [premise] is the idea that you wish to explore in the story. It brings unity to the story and is explored throughout the story by the actions of the players and the main characters. Even the obstacle or conflict that forms the plot usually resonates with the [premise]. It is the thread that ties everything together and usually teaches the players [theme].

The actions of the players teach the players something, which becomes non-circular when play actually addresses Premise.

Edwards goes on to address some common misunderstandings about narrativist play:

The number of textual rules involved, as well as how much the rules must be consulted during play, are irrelevant. "Narrativist? Must be rules-light!" is just one of those little humps to get over. […] Focusing on single Techniques to define Narrativism will not yield understanding. For instance, Drama resolution is not in and of itself Narrativist. Nor are the common use of improvisation, trading of narration, and overt Director stance, in and of themselves, Narrativist play. […] Issues of "consciousness" in terms of Premise are collectively a complete red herring. People daily address Premise without self-reflecting, both as audience and authors. There's no special need to say to one another, "This is the Premise" in order to be playing Narrativist. […] Depth and profundity of the Premise and/or theme are false variables. The key issue is whether participants care enough to produce a point, not whether the point is deep.

The essay next addresses what Edwards calls “minor issues with Narrativist play”:

The first minor issue is not really a big deal - simply, not everyone is necessarily a whiz at addressing Premise even when they try. If they were, we'd see a lot more great novels, comics, movies, and plays than we do. Signs of "hack Narrativism" include backing off from unexpected opportunities to address Premise or consistently swinging play into parody versions of the issues involved. I don't see any particular reason to bemoan or criticize this bit of dysfunction; all art forms have their Sunday practitioners.

The second is a recent phenomenon: the "do it right" purists, often recently made aware of GNS or other theories, who then get on their fellow participants' cases during play to accord with some theoretical ideal.

The third was mentioned earlier, based on the tendency for pre-game preparation to develop Situation so far along the process of addressing Premise, that the participants' input during play essentially delivers only the final moments. I call such play "96%-ing," which can be functional, but it tends to play safe to a degree that undercuts the process.

The fourth is maintaining privacy among the participants about what's important to each one, whether about one's own character or the characters of others. Such play might be thought of as keeping Premise personal and close to the vest. That privacy may detract from others' enjoyment.

The final minor problem is to resolve play-Situations rapidly and without developing them much beyond the initial preparatory circumstances: "over before it begins." This typically occurs when people are so floored by the possibility of actually addressing a Premise through play, that they hare off to do so before some RPG god notices and intervenes to stop them. Usually, this sort of play is a short-lived phase as the group builds trust with one another.

After that, Edwards addresses the two biggest problems that may crop up in narrativist play. The first is an overbearing player, who wants to address premise and develop theme, but only where it concerns their character. The second is a controlling, “railroading” GM who forcefully maneuvers play so that premise is addressed the way he wants it to be, and the only resulting theme can be the one he’s already chosen. Edwards continues with this observation:

Going "no system," […], combines the undermining aspects of both of the above two approaches, especially when the author idealizes story as a product rather than Narrativist play as a process. Don't forget, all role-playing has a system; turning it over to "oh, just decide and have fun" merely makes the system crappy and prone to bullying.

Frankly, un-structured Drama turns out to be ill-suited to Narrativist play. It's clear why people turn to it so consistently; years of suffering through task-resolution systems that fail to resolve conflict, with the attendant Simulationist creep of rules-revisions during the 1980s, is enough to put any aspirant Narrativist off of "rules" and "systems."

Like the previous 2 essays, Ron Edwards ends this one with a “hard question” about Narrativism:

Are you Simulationist-by-habit, which is to say, well-trained to this mode by the first group you encountered? If so, is that what you really want? If so, then excellent. But! If not, if you'd rather be addressing Premise, then you have a lot of habits to break - perhaps even those which, in your mind, originally defined the activity.

The second, larger question is much like the Gamist one: why role-play for this purpose? Why this venue, and not some more widely-recognized medium like writing comics or novels or screenplays? Addressing Premise can be done in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of artistic media. To play Narrativist, you must be seizing role-playing, seeing some essential feature in the medium itself, which demands that Premise be addressed in this way for you and not another. What is that feature? If you can't see one, then maybe, just maybe, you are slumming in this hobby because you're afraid you can't hack it in a commercial artistic environment. Maybe you even hang with a primarily-Simulationist group, with the minimal levels of satisfaction to be gained among them, because it's safe there.

But let's say you do answer that question, and hold your head up as a Narrativist role-playing practitioner, addresser of Premise. Fine - now you have to ask yourself whether you can handle artistic rejection. That's right, no one might be interested in you. This is exactly what all aspiring directors, screenwriters, novelists, and other practitioners of narrative artistry face. In which case, you'll have to decide whether it's because your worthy vision is unappreciated and should seek new collaborators, or because your vision is simply lacking. It's not an easy thing to deal with.

Here’s the short summary of what I got out of Ron Edwards’ essay:

Narrativism is playing with the express intent of addressing a premise (“Does might make right?”) and establishing a theme through the process of playing (“Might does make right.” or “Might does not make right.”). The point is to create a story as the object of play, not as an incidental by-product.

An important aspect of narrativist play is making sure that all players have the opportunity to take sides on the premise and impact the emergent theme. Players can’t be railroaded by the GM into expressing a particular theme.

I have to say that after simulationism, narrativism holds a lot of interest for me. The idea of walking away from a game feeling like more than just a series of events had transpired, but that an actual story with a definite message had been told, sounds like a very fun experience. However, I do like that simulationism doesn’t impose the expectation of telling a story with premise and theme. If it happens then that’s cool – but if it doesn’t – oh well, we still had fun.


That raps up my summaries of Ron Edwards more in-depth essays on GNS. Hopefully it’s given people food for thought. With this information in mind, I’d be interested in hearing more from everyone on what they think of each of these modes of play. It’d be nice to get a more thorough understanding of peoples’ preferences.

This is part 3 of a discussion I began last month. The object of this discussion is to help myself and those I role-play with get more out of our games.

In part 1 I talked about something called the GNS theory devised by a man named Ron Edwards. If you haven’t already, or need a refresher, you can read part 1 here. The basic gist of the article was that most people tend to gravitate towards one of 3 preferences for play, those being Gamism, Narrativism, or Simulationism.

In part 2 I talked more in depth about Simulationism, my personal preference for play. You can read the article here.

Now I’ll give you a summary of Ron Edwards’ article on Gamism. This essay was a little less clear than his essay on Simulationism, so I hope I can do a decent job of summarizing it. If you’re interested, you can read the full essay here. (If you want the really short summary, skip to the last 3 or 4 paragraphs of this article.)


Edwards begins by explaining how gamism takes place on 2 separate levels: the out-of-game real people level, and the in-game character level. He says the following about what it means for the real people:

The players, armed with their understanding of the game and their strategic acumen, have to Step On Up. Step On Up requires strategizing, guts, and performance from the real people in the real world. This is the inherent "meaning" or agenda of Gamist play (analogous to the Dream in Simulationist play).

Gamist play, socially speaking, demands performance with risk, conducted and perceived by the people at the table. What's actually at risk can vary - for this level, though, it must be a social, real-people thing, usually a minor amount of recognition or esteem. The commitment to, or willingness to accept this risk is the key - it's analogous to committing to the sincerity of The Dream for Simulationist play. This is the whole core of the essay, that such a commitment is fun and perfectly viable for role-playing, just as it's viable for nearly any other sphere of human activity.

He then explains what it means for the player-characters:

The in-game characters, armed with their skills, priorities, and so on, have to face a Challenge, which is to say, a specific Situation in the imaginary game-world. Challenge is about the strategizing, guts, and performance of the characters in this imaginary game-world.

For the characters, it's a risky situation in the game-world; in addition to that all-important risk, it can be as fabulous, elaborate, and thematic as any other sort of role-playing.

I think the key here is his use of the phrase: “Step On Up”. Imagine a carnival game, such as ring-toss. The game attendant announces “Step on up!” to potential players. When a passerby chooses to “Step On Up”, they are accepting the challenge and putting something on the line. The game will require at least a minimum of skill or good fortune. If they win, they get a prize and they look good in front of their friends. If they lose, they’ve lost the price of admission, or have to settle for a consolation prize. Gamism is about integrating that kind of challenge into roleplaying.

Next, Edwards talks about the role of competition in gamist play:

Competition is best understood as a productive add-on to Gamist play. Such play is fundamentally cooperative, but may include competition. That's not a contradiction: I'm using exactly the same logic as might be found at the poker and basketball games. You can't compete, socially, without an agreed-upon venue. If the cooperation's details are acceptable to everyone, then the competition within it can be quite fierce.

So what is all this competition business about? It concerns conflict of interest. If person A's performance is only maximized by driving down another's performance, then competition is present. In Gamist play, this is not required - but it is very often part of the picture. Competition gives both Step On Up and Challenge a whole new feel - a bite.

How does conflict of interest relate to Step On Up and to Challenge? The crucial answer is that it may be present twice, independently, within the two-level structure.
• Competition at the Step On Up level = conflict of interest regarding players' performance and impact on the game-world.
• Competition at the Challenge level = conflict of interest among characters' priorities (survival, resource accumulation, whatever) in the game-world.

Edwards goes on to discuss competition further and how it might factor into a game in different ways. Players might be competing directly with one another for impact on the game-world. Players may not necessarily be competing, but player-characters might be. Players might compete against a Game Master. Players might cooperate with a Game Master, while the player-characters compete against the Game Master’s NPCs.

Many RPG texts either imply or state outright that “winning” is not part of the game. Edwards explains how this is not really true, or at least, doesn’t need to be:

I'm defining "winning" as positive assessment at the Step On Up level. It even applies when little or no competition is going on. It applies even when the win-condition is fleeting. Even if it's unstated. Even if it's no big deal. Without it, and if it's not the priority of play, then no Gamism.

Because gamism is specifically about facing challenges of one kind or another and either succeeding or failing, the game must provide clear choices for players and player-characters. Choice is important because only through choice can there be consequences.

Edwards give two example of how challenge can manifest in a game, which he calls the Gamble and the Crunch:

The Gamble occurs when the player's ability to manipulate the odds or clarify unknowns is seriously limited. "Hold your nose and jump!" is its battle-cry. Running a first-level character in all forms of D&D is a Gamble; all of Ninja Burger play is a Gamble. More locally, imagine a crucial charge made by a fighter character toward a dragon - his goal is to distract it from the other character's coordinated attack, and he's the only one whose hit points are sufficient to survive half its flame-blast. Will he make the saving roll? If he doesn't, he dies. Go!

The Crunch occurs when system-based strategy makes a big difference, either because the Fortune methods involved are predictable (e.g. probabilities on a single-die roll), or because effects are reliably additive or cancelling (e.g. Feats, spells). Gamist-heavy Champions play with powerful characters is very much about the Crunch. The villain's move occurs early in Phase 3; if the speed-guy saves his action from Phase 2 into Phase 3 to pre-empt that action, and if the brick-guy's punch late on Phase 3 can be enhanced first by the psionic-guy's augmenting power if he Pushes the power, then we can double-team the villain before he can kill the hostage.

The distinction between Gamble and Crunch isn't quite the same as "randomness;" it has more to do with options and consequences. Fortune can be involved in both of them, and it doesn't have to be involved in either.

Edwards has this to say about what might constitute success in an RPG:

So what constitutes "success" at the Step On Up and/or Challenge level during play? Is it the right to keep playing? Improving one's character's effectiveness, begging the question of what for? Getting some kind of "victory points"? The metagame/game relationship between these is phenomenally important. I think that, in Gamist play, the metagame-part is the key one - a completely informal Social Reward (e.g., "Killed more goblins than you!", even in a game-system which confers no consequence for doing so) can easily outweigh an in-game one.

Edwards’ essay also talks about some of the problems that can arise with gamism:

The core problem in Gamist dysfunction is not knowing what the Step On Up is actually about. […] The other, more extreme dysfunction arises from the player who is basically a poor sport, or, "the Wimp," which is unfortunately the most common dysfunctional Gamism.

Reading the essay, and reading a lot of talk from various RPG blogs and forums, reveals that a lot of people look negatively on gamism in RPGs. Edwards defends it as a valid element of roleplaying:

Some folks seem to think that Gamist play lacks variety, to which I say, "nonsense." Scrabble is "always the same," and it's fun; simple games do not mean simplistic, shallow, or easy. What matters is whether the strategy of the moment is fun. Well-designed, multiple-edged Step On Up activities with fully-developed competition are endlessly diverting and provide an excellent basis for friendship. Anyone who thinks that such things in role-playing necessarily cannot be fun and will necessarily destroy social interactions is badly mistaken

Ron Edwards ends his essay with this “hard question” about Simulationism:

Why is role-playing your chosen venue as a social hobby? There are lots and lots of them that unequivocally fit Step On Up with far less potential for encountering conflicting priorities: volleyball, chess, or pool, if you like the Crunch; horse races or Las Vegas if you like the Gamble; even organized amateur sports like competitive martial arts or sport fishing.

Do you play Gamist in role-playing because it doesn't hurt your ego as much as other venues might? Is role-playing safer in some way, in terms of the loss factor of Step On Up? Even more severely, are you sticking to role-playing because many fellow players subscribe to the "no one wins in role-playing" idea? Do you lurk like Grendel among a group of tolerant, perhaps discomfited Simulationists, secure that they are disinclined to Step On Up toward you? In which case, you can win against them or the game all the time, but they will never win against you?

So, here’s the short summary of what I got out of Ron Edwards’ essay:

Gamism is about a figurative “Step On Up!” call. The game presents a quantifiable challenge to the players, the player-characters, or both. Success and failure each have their own consequences. The fun comes from accepting the challenges, having something at stake, and making choices that have real consequences.

Competition may be a part of gamist play, but that doesn’t necessarily have to mean competition between players or between player-characters. Competition between PCs and NPCs is a valid form of gamism, but the challenge has to be real, not just a carefully orchestrated illusion set up by the GM.

In general, I think I prefer to have gamism in my board game and card game experiences, and keep my RPG experiences gamist-lite. I do, however, like the idea of players and PCs being given real challenges where their choices and strategies matter, and success or failure holds real consequences. I also don’t mind heavy gamism in RPGs that are designed to have short runs, such as my Dual of the Fates RPG (currently in beta-testing).

This is part 2 of a discussion I began last month. The object of this discussion is to help myself and those I role-play with get more out of our games.

In part 1 I talked about something called the GNS theory devised by a man named Ron Edwards. If you haven’t already, or need a refresher, you can read part 1 here. The basic gist of the article was that most people tend to gravitate towards one of 3 preferences for play, those being Gamism, Narrativism, or Simulationism.

I hope each of us will be able to get a better idea of what we enjoy about roleplaying, and what our friends enjoy about it. Once we know this, it can help in 2 ways. First, Game Masters will be able to better facilitate the kind of play that their players enjoy. Second, I hope it will encourage tolerance of other play styles. For example, if I enjoy Simulationism but the game is leaning heavily towards Gamism at the moment, at least I know that some of my friends enjoy that; and, hopefully, since the Game Master knows what I like too, some Sim play will be coming around soon.

Now, after my last article there was some further discussion offline that made me think I need to expound a little bit further on what each of these play styles involves. Ron Edwards wrote 3 more essays, each on one of these gaming agendas. Again, it can be difficult to wade through Ron Edwards essays, which are very wordy and full of jargon. So I’ve taken it upon myself to read through these and try to isolate some key points for you. I’ll start with his essay on Simulationism, since I think it could be the easiest to misunderstand. If you have the interest and the patience, you can read his full essay here. (If you want the really short summary, skip to the last 2 or 3 paragraphs of this article.)


In the beginning of the essay he makes these statements in the introduction, quoting his earlier essay about GNS and clarifying what he means by “Exploration”:

Simulationist role-playing has a great deal of power and potential. In the previous essay, I wrote that it "... is expressed by enhancing one or more of the listed elements [Character, Setting, Situation, System, Color]; in other words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration."

Obviously the thing to do is to get as clear an understanding of "Exploration" as possible. It's our jargon term for imagining, "dreaming" if you will, about made-up characters in made-up situations. It's central to all role-playing, but in Simulationist play, it's the top priority.

So, Simulationist play is very much about immersing yourself in a “virtual world”, if you will. It’s about fleshing out an imaginary character and a fictional world in a meaningful way. Edwards makes this observation:

Simulationist play looks awfully strange to those who enjoy lots of metagame and overt social context during play.

“Metagaming” is basically shorthand for treating roleplaying as a game. Metagaming is essential in Gamism, where players discuss strategies out-of-character and create characters that are optimized for success. Metagaming is also essential in Narrativism, where players make a concerted effort to produce a story of critical merit. In Simulationism, metagaming is undesirable because it draws players out of the immersion in the characters and setting. Edwards expounds on this through these statements:

The key issues are shared love of the source material and sincerity. […] it's fun to see fellow players imagine what you are imagining, and vice versa. […] To the dedicated practitioner, such play is sincere to a degree that's lacking in heavy-metagame play […] Sincere shared creativity: all role-playing has to have it. For some, it's the whole point.

However, Edwards goes on to admit that metagaming cannot be completely avoided. Metagame discussion is appropriate if its aim is to further the exploration of the “virtual” characters and world, rather than to further a player agenda such as “winning” (Gamism) or storytelling (Narrativism).

Switching gears, Edwards next makes some specific observations about the contrasts between Simulationist play and Narrativist play. He uses the example of playing a samurai character, or any character with a similarly strict code of behavior, in two different games: Sorcerer (Narrativist) and GURPS (Simulationist). Basically, the point he makes is that in a Narrativist game, the purpose of playing such a character would be to tell a story in which your character will, sooner-or-later, be forced to break their code of conduct or somehow suffer for refusing to do so. What choice they make, and the consequences of that choice, are what create a story of critical merit. In a Simulationist game, the purpose of playing such a character would be that the code itself establishes, to some extent, your character’s role in the setting and the story.

He also points out that enjoying a particular thematic element of the game doesn’t necessarily constitute Narrativism over Simulationism, if it evolves naturally through play rather than being proactively developed.

For play really to be Simulationist, it can't lose the daydream quality: the pleasure in imagination as such, without agenda.

Ron Edwards ends his essay with this “hard question” about Simulationism:

Role-playing is a hobby, leisure activity. The real question is, what for, in the long term? For Simulationist play, the answer "This was fun, so let's do it again," is sufficient.

However, for how long is it sufficient? Which seems to me to vary greatly from person to person. Is the focus on Exploration to be kept as is, permanently, as characters and settings change through play? Some say "sure" and wonder what the [heck] I'm talking about, or perhaps feel slightly insulted. Or, is [a shift in agenda] ultimately desirable? Is play all about getting "it" to work prior to permitting overt metagame agendas into the picture? Some might answer "of course" and wonder why anyone could see it otherwise.

So! Is there an expected, future metagame payoff, or is the journey really its own reward? Is Simulationist play what you want, or is it what you think you must do in order, one day, to get what you want?

I judge nothing with these questions. I think that they're important to consider and that answers are going to vary widely, that's all.

So, in summary, here’s what I got out of Ron Edwards’ essay:

Simulationist play is about diving headlong into a “virtual” character and world, and having fun exploring those without concern for “winning” or telling a story with any special theme or moral. If your characters do manage to get ahead it’s only because that’s what they would naturally try to do in the setting, and if an incredible story does end up getting told it happens naturally and organically, not because anyone planned it that way. While this kind of play might seem a bit aimless, it possesses a certain daydream-like quality that allows the players to just run with the characters and the setting without any concern for overt metagaming agendas.

Honestly, I think I have the most experience with Simulationist gaming over any other style of roleplaying. Most mainstream RPGs seem to focus on this mode of play. I’d probably say I enjoy this mode of play a lot, though I don’t mind dabbling in the other 2 modes either. I especially wouldn’t mind trying out some more Narrativist games because I haven’t done much of that, and I think there could be some good potential for fun there.

In this edition of Words to Live By, I wanted to share a couple of my favorite scriptures from the Bible dealing with responsibility. So many people in the world seem to shirk responsibilities. People don’t want to accept responsibilities, or they try to pass their responsibilities off on others. This can be seen in the general spirit of apathy present in the world today. Back in the day, long before my time, people in general wouldn’t be content to stand by and watch while other people suffered. Today, most people fail to act when they see others in need.

“Do not hold back good from those to whom it is owing, when it happens to be in the power of your hand to do [it].”

-Proverbs 3:27

The principle that I draw from this scripture is that we should not hesitate to act in someone’s behalf if it’s within our power to help. We shouldn’t be content to just take care of ourselves, but we should feel a sense of responsibility to all those around us.

“Therefore, if one knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him.”

-James 4:17

This scripture takes it a step further, saying that failing to do what is right, isn’t just failing to do what is right, but is actually doing something wrong. In other words, lack of positive action isn’t just a lack of action, but can in itself be negative action.

I think it’s very important for each of us to personally shoulder our own responsibilities and to look out for the welfare of others. That’s a principle that I really cherish, and one that has had a profound impact on my life and my outlook. It hasn’t always had the degree of influence on my life that I’d like it to have, but I continue trying to apply it every day.

What do you think about the scriptures mentioned above? Have they had any influence on how you view responsibilities? Are there any scriptures that have especially touched your life?

I saw these videos on YouTube the other day, and thought I would share them. A dice manufacturer at GenCon, the biggest gaming convention in the US, explains how dice are made, along with an interesting scientific explanation of so-called "lucky" and "cursed" dice. Ever wonder why you can only roll 9s and 12s all evening, and then when you pick up a different die to roll with you get a 20? Watch the videos below to find out why. Total running time of videos is about 20 minutes.

I had the pleasure of attending a costume party last Sunday evening. It was put on by Joshua and Hannah Frye. The occasion was that Josh is moving to the Miami area, and he wanted one last party with a bunch of his friends. Josh and I used to be good friends when we were around 10-12 years old. Since then we’d grown apart as our interests changed. I hadn’t done anything with him or his family in years, but it was nice of him to think of me on this occasion, and it was cool to hang out with them again.

So, first, the costumes: I went as some kind of medieval nobleman/warrior. Heather went as a medieval forest-ranger/archer. We didn’t exactly plan it that way, but our costumes matched really well. Hannah was Marie Antoinette. Josh was… something. His costume consisted of all black clothing, a black London Fog-style coat, and spiky, gray hair. When pressed for an answer as to who or what he was supposed to be, he finally answered with “Myself, 2 million years from now, when my powers have fully developed.” The rest of the costumes of the 20-or-so guests covered a wide range of characters including Don Quixote, the Invisible Man, a couple of evil clown minions, and a Zombie Caesar.


The evening was never boring, as the Fryes had 3 activities for us to do. The first activity was a Lego building contest. The party guests split into 2 groups. Each group got a bucket of Legos and 10 minutes to build something. 3 judges compared the creations for creativeness, etc. My team won, though it had little to do with me. ^_^

The second activity was an elaborate treasure hunt, which featured several well-written and well-hidden clues. The Fryes definitely have a knack for theatrics. They placed CD players in trees and on roofs playing creepy music to add mood to the night-time, out-door treasure hunt. Some of the clues were pretty challenging to find and to follow. I was very close to actually finding the treasure, but in the end, someone else beat me to it. The treasure turned out to be a wooden chest full of candy. The victors were kind enough to share. Yum!

The third activity was a costume contest. Everyone had gotten the chance to admire each others’ costumes over the course of the evening, and towards the end we all voted on which one we thought was best. Hannah won for her big, fluffy dress, and her elaborate hairdo. It was really well done. Josh told me afterwards that I was the runner-up.

Somewhere in there, there was another “activity” of sorts. While everyone was just standing around chatting, Josh suddenly put the lights out, there was a scream, and when the lights came back on one of the guests was lying on the floor pretending to be dead. Josh then moved around the room, accusing various people of the murder in an inspector-like fashion, until one of the other guests finally admitted to the murder in a dramatic/comical way. I’m not sure if all of this was staged ahead of time (the “culprit” was in on it), or if the idea was to just toss accusations around until someone came up with a funny improv confession. I really don’t know. I should probably ask. But as I write this it gives me the idea to write some simple rules for playing out such a scenario as a rules-light role-playing game. Hmm… Interesting possibilities.

Well, that’s that. It was a fun evening. I hope everything goes well for Josh in Miami, and hopefully I’ll have even more chances to cosplay in the future.

It’s been a while ago now, but I wanted to share some quick thoughts about my most recent trip to Keystone Heights, Florida. On November 8th, I went with about 20 brothers and sisters to help the congregation there cover some of their seldom-worked territory in the recent tract campaign.

Aaron and I worked with Dena O’Brian and a couple of other local sisters in rugged, rural territory. The roads were crazy! We actually had to go up and down hills in Florida! Some of the roads were only made of very loose sand, so Dena had to kick in the 4-wheel drive to get through. When the SUV started fishtailing in the sand it felt like the “Dinosaur” ride at Disney’s Animal Kingdom. It was fun. I didn’t have much success in the territory (I got to speak to a couple of Russellites, which was interesting but unproductive.), but Aaron had a good call on a man with whom he placed a tract, magazines, and a Bible Teach book.

Around noon time, the whole group met back at the O’Brians’ place and had a picknick lunch together. While the rest of the group began the 2-hour drive back to Lake Mary, Aaron and I continued in service for another few hours and then spent the night at Brian and Dena’s place. After attending their meeting the next day and going out for lunch, we headed back home. All-in-all, it was a good weekend.

I read a new manga the other day called Yotsuba&! It's a heartwarming comedy about the day-to-day adventures of a little girl named Yotsuba, as she makes friends with her neighbors, and experiences the world around her. This story comes from Kiyohiko Azuma, the creator of Azumanga Daioh. It isn't as laugh-out-load hilarious, but it has a slightly more endearing touch, and very kid friendly humor.

Yotsuba is a very lovable character. She's very zany, and absurdly naive. A swing is a foreign object to her, and she is quickly confused by an explanation of air conditioners and their impact on global warming. What's adorable is how much joy she finds in the simplest things, like rain.

It’s like her dad says about her: "She can find happiness in everything. Nothing in this world can get her down. Nothing."

Exploring the world through the eyes of such a positive character makes for an uplifting read.

Having played various role-playing games with a variety of people over the years, it’s obvious that not everyone has the same tastes and preferences when it comes to gaming. Most people seem to be looking for specific things when it comes to role-playing, rather they realize it or not. This can create tension or dissatisfaction when different people in the same role-playing group have different ideas of what constitutes fun. I’m writing this article (and one or more follow-up articles) with the purpose of exploring why we play role-playing games. I’m hoping that it will draw out some critical thinking and self reflection from my fellow role-players. By better understanding what we ourselves, and our friends, enjoy about role-playing, maybe we can build a better role-playing group in which all of us can get more enjoyment out of our games.

The first place I looked to for ideas on what to write in this article, is a web community called The Forge. On the forums there, a bunch of avid role-players and role-playing game designers really break down role-playing and make a science of the hobby. I’m not sure that such an analytical approach to role-playing is necessary, or even healthy, but some of their theories have a bearing on what I’m doing here.

In an article on The Forge, entitled “GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory”, RPG designer Ron Edwards discusses, among other things, player agendas in role-playing. The article is very wordy, and features a near-doctorate level vocabulary, but if you have the patience to read the whole thing, I would recommend it. I’ll summarize some of the applicable points here.

Ron Edwards discusses something he calls GNS, which stands for Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism. Each of these is a term that refers to a specific mode of play which a particular player may especially enjoy. Saying that a particular player is “Gamist”, for example, just means that they typically enjoy playing in a way that involves Gamism. None of these modes of play is superior to any other, neither are they mutually exclusive. A player might enjoy a mix of play modes, but they will usually gravitate towards one over any other.

Now for an explanation of what these modes of play are:

Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The characters, system, setting, situation, and flavor of the game provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).

Some examples of Narrativist play might include:
Exploring the ethical ramifications of your character’s actions.
Cooperating with the other players to produce a story with real dramatic impact.

Simulationism heightens and focuses “exploration” (imagination in action, or the attention given the imagined elements) as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of their exploration of the characters, system, setting, situation, and flavor of the game.

Some examples of Simulationist play might include:
Exploring questions pertinent to the game itself, such as “What does it feel like to be an android?”, “What would it be like to fight in a war?”, “What are the nobility of this kingdom like, and how do they influence the fate of the world?”, etc.

Note that two or three of these modes of play may overlap in a particular instance of play. For example, beating the bad guys is obviously a Gamist agenda, but the act or methods of doing so may also move the plot forward in a meaningful way (Narrativism), or shed some new light on the game world (Simulationism).

Remember that, as I’ve pointed out before, these modes of play are also not mutually exclusive. Just because you enjoy beating the bad guys doesn’t mean that you aren’t interested in the story, or in exploring the game world. And just because you’re after a good story doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy besting a rival or an enemy.

Myself, I think I enjoy a variety of modes of play, but I seem to tend to gravitate towards Simulationism. I like to have a rules-system with enough detail to support my character concept in a way that makes them distinct, and outlines their specific quirks and abilities. I also like to really get inside my character’s skin and try to explore both him and his surroundings. As a GM, I love tinkering with the rules and preparing game sessions that will introduce the players to interesting aspects of the game’s setting.

So, please participate by giving this article a careful reading and giving me some feedback on it. What do you think of the GNS model? What do you think of the different modes of play? Is there one that you think you primarily enjoy? Any that you don’t particularly care for? Let me know!

If you look closely, you'll notice I'm running a poll on my blog. It appears at the bottom of the lower sidebar on the right hand side of this page. The poll is about your favorite Star Wars universe era. You can find an explanation of these eras here. The poll will run until the end of the month. This is mostly just to test out the poll feature of this site, but I would also appreciate your feedback.

I know I've mentioned it before, but I have to say again how much I like the new Star Wars: The Clone Wars cartoon. It truly revitalizes the Star Wars universe for me. Last weeks episode, "The Downfall of a Droid", is an excellent example of how it does this.

Upbeat techno music is scattered throughout the soundtrack for the episode, giving it a fresh and exciting feel, instead of the dramatic orchestral arrangements of the movies. The battle that Anakin and Ahsoka fight against the IG assassin droids in a narrow ship's hold is both creative and visually dynamic.

Now, don't misunderstand me here. I love the Star Wars movies, especially the original trilogy. However, with all of the expanded universe content that's been produced in the form of books, video games, etc., I feel like Star Wars is getting worn thin. Some EU content manages to capture the charm of the original movies, such as the Thrawn book trilogy. Others try to freshen things up, but in ways that aren't to my taste. The New Jedi Order book series falls into that category. The Clone Wars cartoon, on the other hand, offers a new take on Star Wars without compromising the classic Star Wars style.

You can see 2 minute "dataclip" recaps of all of the cartoon episodes, and full videos of the last couple of episodes at the official website.

Have you seen The Clone Wars cartoon? What do you think of it? How does it compare to the movies and to other EU material?

I've been working some more on reorganizing my room. It's proven to be quite an undertaking, but I'm making definite progress. Yesterday, I pulled out all of my artwork that I've saved over the years, which is a lot, and undertook the task of organizing it. I got some 3 ring binders and sorted my art by genre.

As I did this, it occurred to me that if I ever wanted to share my art with a friend or acquaintance, I don't want them to have to look through a half dozen binders, and hundreds of crappy pictures, just to see a few good ones. The first solution that came to mind was to go through my collection and pick out a few of my better pieces and put them in a separate binder to create a sort of portfolio. Ultimately, though, that would be unsatisfactory. If at some point I get the urge to skim through all of my sci-fi artwork, for example, I'd like to be able to just flip through one binder. If I had some of my sci-fi art in my portfolio binder, though, then I'd have to consult that as well.

Then I thought I could make copies of the pieces I would want to include in a portfolio, that way I could keep the original papers in the appropriate binders. While I'm at it, I might as well do some digital touch ups, and maybe even some digital coloring of my favorite pieces. But Aaron pointed out that people might enjoy seeing the original hand-drawings rather than digitally enhanced versions. That gave me the idea to give each piece in my portfolio 2 pages. 1 page would be the final, digitally enhanced image, and the other page would feature 2 or 3 smaller images of the picture in various stages along with production notes. The final element that made the whole idea come together was when it occured to me that, rather than just putting this all in a binder to share with my friends, I could print it as an art book through Lulu.com, or a similiar print-on-demand service.

What do you think? Would you be interested in seeing a book collecting some of my art with production notes, etc.? Do you have any ideas or suggestions for how I might go about this project?

This post is prompted by a news article I read here. It announced that Jeph Loeb and Jesse Alexander, two of the original writers and executive producers of Heroes, are no longer working on the show. Apparently they were bumped because the show's ratings are continually dropping off. The article went on to relate the writer's opinion of why the show is failing.

I'm not sure I agree with all of the observations made in the article, but I will say that I have been somewhat dissatisfied with the show since the end of season 1. I'll cut them some slack because season 2 was cut short, and season 3 seems to have some good things going for it. I just thought I would share a few thoughts on what I think Heroes is doing well, and where I think they've made some mistakes.

I think that, for the most part, season 3 is on the right track. Arthur Petrelli makes a compelling new villian, and the whole family in-fighting aspect of the story is interresting. It looks like that will take off even further in next week's episode. I like what they've done with Sylar so far this season. Making Sylar a Petrelli was unexpected, but probably a good move. It makes him a lot more involved in the intricacies of the plot, and they've developed his character in unexpected ways.

The article mentioned above complains about how they've added so many new characters throughout seasons 2 and 3. I don't mind the new characters, but honestly I'd rather see more of the old characters who have sort of dissipeared from the show. I'd like to see more of the Haitian, Micah, and even Molly. What ever happened to Claude Rains?

Another thing that the article complained about was the way the show has moved away from it's "ordinary people with extraordinary abilities" origins, and has become more like the X-Men without leather jumpsuits. I think that's just a natural evolution of the show. As the characters become more accustomed to their powers, they're going to continue to be less and less "normal". I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but it certainly does change the tone of the story.

I think my biggest complaint against Heroes would be the somewhat hit-and-miss writing as of late. It seems that sometimes the writers just simply forget about what's come before. An outstanding example of this is Caitlin. After the plague of season 2 has been adverted, Peter never even attempts to travel to the future to bring her back. Did he really just forget about her that easily? Obviously the writers did. Less obvious examples are future-Peter being killed by a bullet in one episode when he should be invulnerable to that kind of thing, and Sylar missing a very opportune time to use his super-hearing.

I hope the show picks up the slack and continues to run strong for at least a couple more years, but I'm a little uncertain about it right now.

What do you think? How is Heroes doing? What's the good and the bad in your opinion?

Normally I would be making another post about my weekly time log for last week. However, it seems that my activities have pretty much stabilized. Over the last month I've drastically improved my study habits and field service so that theocratic activities are solidly in third place, right under sleep and work, which is right where they need to be. I've adjusted my other activities to accommodate a better spiritual routine, and now I'm just trying to maintain that.

This week I plan to introduce a new activity to my weekly routine. That will be language study. I want to start learning Japanese again. Also, I'll probably be doing more writing now that things are beginning to slow down around here.

Other than that, I don't see my activities changing much, so while I'll still be logging my time, I probably won't be posting updates of those activities on my blog. I might post a summary once a month, like I did here, but not every week.

I just got some new Star Wars Miniatures the other day. Wizards of the Coast just released a new set for the game called The Clone Wars. The set includes 40 new miniatures of characters from the time period of the clone wars, including new-comer Ahsoka Tano!

WotC is reducing the size of SWM sets from 60 figures to 40 figures, and this was the first set to use the new format. It certainly made collecting all of the new figures a lot easier and a little less expensive. Having less figures in a set also means that they could spend more time and budget on the sculpt and paint job for each of the figures, so the overall quality of the figures has improved somewhat.

I haven't been able to play with any of the new pieces yet, but looking over their statistics I know that a few of them will be new favorites. Captain Rex has some crazy abilities that allow him to move and shoot 4 times in the same turn, which is incredibly good. The Star Corps Trooper is a new clone trooper variant that isn't incredibly powerful, but he has a neat combination of abilities that would make him fun to play with. It's the type of piece that, if played smart, could be very effective.

The starter box for this set also included 2 new play maps that are both very attractive looking and present interesting tactical challenges.

This is a post to consider my activities over the past month, and identify trends in how I spend my time. My idea was to do this after 4 weeks, but I accidentally let a 5th week slip by.

Here are the top 10 activities I spent the most time on in the last 5 weeks:

1. Sleeping
2. Work
3. Theocratic Activities
4. Reading
5. Movies/Shows
6. RPG Preparation
7. Housework
8. Card/Board Games
9. RPG Play
10. Blog/Wiki

A few observations about those:

I'd like it if I could have RPG Prep time no greater than RPG play time. Doing so requires that I get more efficient and more disciplined about how I prep, and not over-prep. I have a feeling that I'll never get this where I want to though because, honestly, I like fiddling with RPG systems, building character stats, and detailing story ideas.

I was surprised how much time I spent on housework, because it never feels like I spend that much time on it. I guess that's good though. I suppose that it's spread out enough that I don't really feel like it imposes on my life.

It's a shame that writing doesn't even appear in my top 10 activities, because I enjoy it so much. Actually it's been hard to write with family visiting, because more activity in the house makes it harder to concentrate on writing. Not that I'm in a hurry to get rid of them, but hopefully my writing will increase when my family has finished their visit.


Now, the whole purpose of logging my time was so that I could see how I was using it and make adjustments where necessary. So here is a summary of some of the adjustments I've made over the last 5 weeks. The first week my theocratic activities only tied for 3rd place with reading. This past week they were firmly in 3rd place, with reading in 4th. My time spent reading has varied from one week to another, but overall it hasn't decreased much. So, I've actually been able to increase my theocratic activities. Work has been picking up, so I'm spending more time on that than I was 5 weeks ago, and my housekeeping has increased slightly. Other than that, not much has changed, at least not drastically.


So, what now? Over the next few weeks I'd like to continue raising my theocratic activities by maintaining and increasing my spiritual routine, especially in the areas of personal study and field service. Thanks reading my weekly time logs. I encourage everyone to try keeping a similar log. You'll be amazed how it can effect your productivity.

This post is coming a little late because I've been busy. Here's my report for last week. It wasn't as great as the previous week, but it was OK.

The biggest disappointment was that I didn't get out in service at all. Also, I missed 1 day of personal study. My theocratic activities still held third place amongst all of my activities though, right after sleeping and work. Reading was a pretty close fourth, and movies/shows and housework tied for fifth.

While I did miss service last week, I guess I can still be happy that, overall, I didn't let my spiritual activities drop below third place. That means I spent more time on personal study and meeting preparation to make up for it. I'm not entirely sure why I missed service both Thursday and Saturday, but I suppose a big factor might be my sleeping schedule. Sleep has been a bit erratic for me lately.

My brother Brian and his wife Cherie finished their visit last week, however, and my brother David will be leaving tomorrow. While I enjoy their company, I know that their presence disrupted my schedule somewhat. Hopefully things will begin to stabilize more soon.

In the coming weeks I need to refocus on service and personal study in order to keep up my spiritual routine.

Here are a few more words of wisdom I wanted to share. This time they are taken from the Lord of the Rings novels by J. R. R. Tolkien.

"'I wish it need not have happened in my time,' said Frodo.
'So do I,' said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.'"

-The Fellowship of the Ring

I really like this thought. No one, if given the choice, would choose to face the kinds of problems and challenges that we deal with on a daily basis. Oftentimes, we can do little to control the circumstances we live in or to prevent bad things from happening to us or around us. What we can control, however, is how we react to them. A man's (or woman's) character can often be judged by how they react to adversity.

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

-Gandalf, The Fellowship of the Ring

The above is good council not to judge others to harshly. We cannot see every aspect of any situation, and many people get judged wrongly by short-sighted people. I wouldn't want to be guilty of committing such an injustice. Actually, that's something I have trouble with. Sometimes I can be quick to judge, or see things in stark black and white when I could be more understanding.

Please share your thoughts on the quotes above. Are their any book or movie lines that mean a lot to you?

Gareth and I missed playing "Times Forgotten" campaign of the Mutants and Masterminds RPG last week, but we finally played out Issue #3 this morning. Issue #3 will be called "Battle in the Web of Darkness" because that's pretty much what it was about. It was a fairly short game, and it basically involved just a single fight scene.


In the last issue, Claas and Lynn were exploring the dungeons underneath Kingstown's massive cathedral. Issue #2 ended with them opening a door into a darker section of the dungeons where the ceilings, walls, and floor were covered in giant black spider webs. As Issue #3 begins, Claas and Lynn delve further into the darkness. Eventually they reach a place where the corridor splits. To the left, they hear the sounds of someone crying out. To the right, they hear the sounds of heavy machinery operating some ways away.

Claas and Lynn choose to go left, looking for Lynn's brother Larry. After traveling down another corridor, they arrive at a large open chamber. Pillars support a high ceiling. Across from the entrance they came in through there is another passageway, and there is a tunnel leading upwards through the ceiling. The chamber is covered in the same dark webs as the corridors, and littered with various medieval torture devices. On the far side of the room they spot Larry. His arms and legs are chained and he's held in a large water tank, with only his head above the water. The water boils around him as he tries in vain to use his powers, and he calls out for help.

Lynn immediately rushes to her brother's aid, but Claas takes a more careful approach, hiding behind a pillar and examining the chamber more carefully. He spots a shadowy figure descending through the tunnel in the ceiling, creeping along the dark spider webs. Claas grabs a couple of torches of the walls and uses his time-slowing run to move along the edges of the chamber, setting fire to the webs on the walls as he goes. Battle quickly ensues, as the shadowy figure on the ceiling moves towards Lynn and Larry, and three hounds come charging out of the other entrance to attack the intruders.

The shadowy figure can soon be identified as a man in black robes, bearing the same symbol that has been seen all over the cathedral, and also appears as the pendant on the necklace Claas wears. From his perch on the ceiling, this mysterious villain begins spraying black webbing at Lynn and Larry, threatening to entangle them. As Lynn struggles against the webbing to release her brother from the water tank, the man drops from the ceiling to inflict a venomous bite on her.

Meanwhile, the hounds chase Claas around the chamber until he comes to Lynn and Larry's aid. Lynn manages to drain the water from the tank Larry is in, allowing him to use his fiery powers. He begins hurling balls of fire at the hounds and their master, and engulfs his body in flames, frightening one of the hounds away. While Claas battles with the spidery villain, his fist begins to crackle with blue energy again. A final blow knocks the man prone, rendering him unconscious and dying with blue energy crackling across his chest where he received the hit.

Claas says that he believes there is more going on in this cathedral than is obvious, and wants to investigate things further, but Lynn and Larry just want to return to their own time. They begin to retreat towards the entrance. To be continued...


So, as you can see, the game basically consisted of one big boss battle. I was pleased that, in spite of this, Gareth said he still didn't get bored. I always worry that combat might become drawn out, but Gareth made things interesting by finding creative things for his character to do in combat. The only thing that disappointed me a little, was that I gave Gareth an opportunity to discover another one of Claas' powers, but he let the opportunity slip by. Oh well, all of his powers will come out eventually, it's just a matter of time.

I have to say that I'm a bit frustrated with how some of the characters' powers work in Mutants and Masterminds. Some of them just seem needlessly complicated. One power, for example, requires that the person using it roll to see if they aimed properly, then the target character must roll to see if they can minimize they effects of the power, and then the target character rolls again to see how much damage they take. It's hard to remember all of that. I practically need a flowchart just to make sense of it, and it seems like it ought to be able to be reduced to just a single die roll. Probably between now and the next time we play, I'll try to see if I can rework some of the powers so that they're more streamlined in how they function.

It started out very innocently. I've been reading the rulebook for an RPG called Primetime Adventures. It is a game where a group of friends get together and roleplay the events of a make-believe television show. It looks like a fun game, and I'd love to play it some time.

However, reading the book also got me thinking about ideas for a television show, and also got me thinking about what makes entertaining television. Meanwhile, my day job doesn't require a whole lot of thought process to carry out, so I found myself thinking about ideas for shows while I worked. A few days ago, I hit on an idea that instantly caused an imaginative explosion inside my head. The more I think on the idea, the more possibilities for entertaining stories pop into my head. I believe I've hit on an idea that has huge potential. It makes me want to quit my day job so I can write this series. I doubt that will ever happen, but I'd still like to write some of the stories this idea brings to mind in my spare time.

I don't want to say too much about my idea yet, as I'm still working out the details. For now I'll just say this: It's a character-driven drama disguised as a sci-fi action series. It involves aliens, superheroes, and an apocalypse - combining those elements in a way that I think will be unique and compelling, while not treading too closely to already existing shows like Heroes or Smallville.

I'll post more about this idea as I continue to develop it.

I'm starting a new regular column in my blog called "Words to Live By". The purpose of this column is to share words of wisdom from various sources that have significant meaning to me. Sometimes it will be serious, and sometimes humorous. For this first edition of the column, I wanted to share some thoughts from my recent Bible reading.

"That YOU should put away the old personality which conforms to YOUR former course of conduct and which is being corrupted according to his deceptive desires; but that YOU should be made new in the force actuating YOUR mind, and should put on the new personality which was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty."

-Ephesians 4:22-24

Here the apostle Paul was talking about being made into a new person who would be pleasing to God. It's easy to get bogged down in negativity, thinking that you could never please God. This scripture makes me realize that we can change our personality to eliminate flaws and undesirable traits, even to the point of changing how we think. Furthermore, God is the one who creates our new personality. This tells me that He wants to help us make those changes. Also, God creates this new personality, tailor made for each one of us. Putting on the new personality does not mean that we lose our individuality, it just means that we become a better version of ourselves.

"So keep strict watch that how YOU walk is not as unwise but as wise [persons], buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked."

-Ephesians 5:15, 16

Yeah, this one's been on my mind quite a bit lately. Knowing that we are living in the last days of this system of things, it's important that we pay attention to how we use our time. I've been doing this through my weekly time logs. I strongly recommend to anyone that they try logging how they spend their time for a few weeks. It really makes you aware of your strengths and weaknesses in time management, and empowers you to make improvements.


What about you? Please share your thoughts on the quotes above, or share some of your own favorite words to live by.

This post is coming a little late, but I just haven't had a chance to do any blogging lately, mostly due to visiting family.

Last week was GREAT. Once again, I managed to put my theocratic activities firmly in third place (after sleeping and work), and I met a couple of other goals which included getting out in field service twice and doing some personal study each day.

Here are a few more observations:

Sleep was very irregular last week. I still got a little more than 50 hours of sleep through out the week, but it was like, 6 hours two days in a row, and then 10 hours, and then 5 and a half, etc. I'm not sure what that means, it's just an observation.

Reading was a big activity last week with 13 hours devoted to it. That's quite a bit of time, but since my theocratic activities went so well I'm not too worried about it. I'm finding that a big part of balancing my schedule is just making sure I get spiritual activities done instead of putting them off while I waste time, rather than cutting back on anything in particular.

One sad note about last week is that I got no role playing in all week. Oh well. I still had a lot of fun doing stuff with my family.

I haven't posted in a while, but I decided to make some comments on this television season so far.

Heroes is definitely going strong. The last episode was another good entry in the series. Arthur Petrelli is shaping up to be a fine villain, and I can't wait to see how this story continues to progress.

The Big Bang Theory continues to amuse. It seems like they've been focusing on Sheldon quite a bit lately. He's my favorite character on the show, so that's a win for me.

I haven't watched The Office in about 3 weeks now, and I don't think I'll bother to. Unfortunately, that show seems to have lost most of its humor now, and the little story-arcs with some of the characters are no longer interesting enough to keep me involved.

Recently I've gotten little bits of the new Star Wars: The Clone Wars cartoon. You can find brief video summaries of all of the episodes so far, and a couple of complete episodes, on Cartoon Network's website. It seems like a really engaging show, and a worthy follow-up to the animated movie. I hope I get a chance to see more full episodes of this series. I think it's a fresh take on Star Wars that really breaths some new life into the franchise.

After watching Heroes last night I feel that once again Peter and Sylar are the stars of the show. Making them brothers introduces an interesting dynamic to their rivalry. Now that Peter has acquired Sylar's power he is also manifesting "the hunger" that Sylar exhibits. While this makes for an interesting development, I'm actually far more interested in where Sylar might be headed. I love the irony in his character right now. Is he really trying to turn over a new leaf, or is he just putting on a good show? His actions would seem to indicate that he's really trying to impove, but then he turns around and does/says something that makes you wonder.

Speaking of the Petrellis, I wonder if Nathan's discovery of his powers being synthetic will cause him to become distanced from Peter. Of course, I'm assuming that Peter and Sylar came by their powers naturally. Maybe we'll learn otherwise later.

I liked what I've seen of Arthur Petrelli so far. The way they're portraying him reminds me of a true villian mastermind. He seems so vulnerable confined to a bed, and yet someone as powerful as Maury Parkman acts as his toady to carry out his plans. I suspect that he'll soon be healed, probably by Adam's blood, so that he can be up and moving around. It was said in the first season that Arthur commited suicide, but that obviously isn't true. I wonder what the story behind that is.

Overall, I liked last night's episode pretty well. Other than a small slip by the writers, forgetting that Sylar has super-hearing, it was a pretty well writen story. I'm looking forward to next week.

Another week is gone, and I've logged my hours once more. Here's my top 5 time spenders:

1. Sleeping
2. Work
3. All Theocratic Activities Combined
   
4. Reading
5. RPG Prep

Work moved back up to second place. My work should continue to increase over the next couple of months and then suddenly drop after the first of the year. That's when I'll be looking for a new job. My theocratic activities moved up to third place, which is right where I want them. Though I would still like to increase my time spent on service and personal study. Reading moved back up into the top five, while RPG Prep slipped from second place to fifth.

Those are the highlights. I had 42.5 hours unaccounted for last week, which is 1 less than the week before. Maybe I'll be able to continue whittling that time down, and thus become more productive.

Overall, I'm not too disappointed with my activities this past week, though I am planning on making a few adjustments to my schedule in order to increase my theocratic activities even more.

Gareth and I played our "Times Forgotten" campaign again today. I'm calling issue #2 "Inquisition". We picked up exactly where issue #1 ended; with Gareth's character Claas waking up in a medieval-looking room 1000 years in the past. As a reminder, this game isn't taking place in our world. It's an earth-like universe with its own history, though the progression of civilization in this world more-or-less resembles our own. Issue #2 seemed a little bit slower than #1, but I still had fun.


Claas woke up in a medieval-looking room 1000 years in the past. He's laying in a bed with a blanket thrown over him. No one else is there. Claas gets out of bed and opens a door that leads to another room. As soon as he does, his vision warps and he sees a medieval/renaissance-looking kitchen. The young woman and man that fought in the college gym are sitting at the table eating soup. A moment later, his vision returns to normal and the two people disappear, replaced by the same kitchen and an older man with long grey hair and old-timey spectacles.

The older man introduces himself as Prof. Christopher Parkas, and explains that he is the headmaster of the Great University here in Kingstown. He informs Claas that Claas and the other two appeared nearby an hour ago. He brought them back to his house on the campus of the university. The other two had woken up earlier, and after he fed them, they got into an argument and left. Claas says that he's going to go after them, but Prof. Parkas warns him to be careful. Knights of the Church are prowling the streets as agents of an inquisition against people who are "gifted". Parkas explains that the church feels that super-powers come from one of two sources. Those who serve the Church receive their gifts from god, but anyone else is guilty of practicing black magic. Claas asks Parkas where he thinks such gifts come from. Parkas is a renaissance man and says he believes there must be some scientific explanation for such powers.

Claas tells Parkas he'll be careful, and then leaves his house to pursue the other two. As he leaves the small building, his vision warps again, and he witnesses the young man and woman arguing in the street. The young red-headed man throws fire at the woman, before going his way. Then, Claas' vision returns to normal and he finds that the street is empty of people. It's the middle of the night, and everyone is shut in. Claas wanders off, looking for the other two people who traveled here from the present. The town is built entirely in an old renaissance era style, with coble-stone streets and oil lamps burning at roadside. In the distance, Claas spots a massive cathedral looming over the cityscape. Claas leaves the university campus and seeks out anyone who might be able to help him. Eventually he spots a beggar man and asks him about the presence of "gifted" people. The beggar informs him that those gifted by god serve at the cathedral, but he seems superstitiously reluctant to talk about those gifted by the devil.

As Claas continues to wander, he discovers a large iron building under guard. What looks like train rails can be seen passing through the building. When he asks the guards about it, one of them informs him that this is the Royal Steam Coach Station. The guard then asks Claas what he is doing out past curfew, and suggests that he go home. Claas continues to wander until he arrives at the cathedral. The massive building is under heavy guard. Emblazoned on the guards’ armor, and featured prominently on the building, is a symbol that closely resembles the one on Claas's pendant. Claas inquires about the building, but the guards tell him to come back during the day when the church is open to the public.

Claas decides that he will return to Prof. Parkas's home, but as he leaves the cathedral grounds, he notices that a couple of guards begin to follow him at a distance. As he heads towards the university, he sees two more knights on the road ahead of him. As he approaches, the two knights ahead of him draw their weapons and charge him. Claas slips into a side alley to escape, but discovers two more knights blocking that route. Class begins to climb up the side of a building to escape, as the knights draw bows and begin to bombard him with arrows. After a hard struggle, Claas reaches the roof of the building. As soon as he stands on the roof looking out over the city, his vision warps a third time. This time he sees an explosion erupt some ways away, and then as time seems to fly by in fast-forward, a fire sweeps across the city. After a moment, his vision returns to normal again. Meanwhile, the knights search for a way to get up to the roof, but Claas evades them by leaping from rooftop to rooftop. Eventually he shakes off their pursuit, and after resting for a bit, returns to Prof. Parkas.

When he arrives at Prof. Parkas's place, he finds that the young woman is there nursing some minor burns she has received. Claas officially meets her for the first time. Her name is Lynn Deyu, and she reveals that the young man she's been fighting is her younger brother, Larry. Agitated by being suddenly transported to another time, Larry took off to try to find a way back to the present. When Lynn tried to prevent him from doing anything reckless they fought again, and she lost track of him. Claas decides that it's too late to do anything else and Prof. Parkas offers him a bed for the night.

When Claas wakes up the next morning, Lynn and the Professor are already up. Claas leaves the house again and visits the university library. The library is a large, four story building, which occupies a quarter of a block. When Claas enters the building, he senses a large, but faint, "presence" like the one he felt in the college gym in the present. The "presence" seems as though it lies underneath the solid stone floor of the library. Claas finds a stairwell, and climbs up to roof of the building to survey the surroundings. From there he can see the cathedral and the steam coach station. He also notices a castle on the North end of the city. After this, Claas returns to Prof. Parkas's place and tells Lynn he's going to look for her brother, and a way for them to get back to the present. Lynn says she'll come along, because she doesn't think Claas could handle Larry if he decided to put up a fight.

The first place that Claas and Lynn visit is the Royal Steam Coach Station. Having come during the day this time, they find that it is bustling with activity. Inside there are four sets of train tracks. Two of them head south to other cities beyond Kingstown. One of the others goes north, straight to the cathedral, and the fourth one goes north to Ralaskas Castle. Tickets are being sold to ride the first two lines, but not the latter two. Claas and Lynn decided that Larry probably wouldn't have left by train, so they leave the station and head north on foot. They visit the castle briefly but find no leads.

The next obvious place to look is at the cathedral. When they visit during the day they find people going in and out freely. Inside the main hall of the cathedral, people sit in pews praying, while a priest goes through a series of rituals in front of the alter. The symbol from Claas pendant is featured prominently inside the church, and Claas asks Lynn if she knows anything about it. Lynn says that she’s seen it on a few old churches in the present, and that she knows it to be a common "holy symbol", but she doesn't know it's exact meaning or significance. Inside the cathedral, Claas senses many different "presences", but none of them seem to be emanating from anyone he can see.

Sneaking past knights of the Church, Claas and Lynn leave the main hall of the cathedral and begin to explore a network of rooms and hallways not open to the public. Eventually they find a stairwell, and climbing down a level, find themselves in an extensive dungeon where prisoners of the Church are held. Using Lynn's sonic blast power, they distract some guards and delve even deeper into the dungeon. Finally they reach a large set of double doors. Beyond these lies an even longer network of tunnels where the walls, ceilings and floors are covered in giant black spider webs. Echoing through the dark halls come the screams of those suffering at the hands of the inquisition. To be continued...


That was our second game. Overall, it was a pretty good session, though looking back I think it could have gone better if I had done a little more planning. I'm looking forward to playing again next week.

New episodes of the Big Bang Theory and Heroes were on last night.

In the Big Bang Theory, Penny gets hooked on a massively multi-player online roleplaying game called Age of Conan. The show poked some fun at people who experience such an addiction. Overall the episode was pretty funny.

In Heroes, a good portion of the show focused on Peter traveling to a possible future where characters' allegiances have shifted. The big surprise was that Sylar was a good guy living a normal suburban life with a young son.

We got a glimpse of Mohinder's fate due to his experiment with giving himself powers. I thought his "mutant" appearance was kind of cheesily done. Mostly they just covered him up and kept him in the shadows. The plot with mohinder made it seem like they were developing him as a Beast or Nightcrawler type mutant - someone who wears their powers out in the open for everyone to see, whether he likes it or not.

Hiro and Ando's antics were a nice comical diversion, including when they went to get the "key" at the end. I'm not sure where they're going with Matt's sudden new abilities, but it might be interresting. I thought it was odd that Molly looks exactly the same four years in the future. I would think a kid her age would have changed quite a bit in four years, but I guess they couldn't really help it unless they got a different actress.

When Nathan asked Linderman if he was appearing to him through telepathy, Linderman responded that it wasn't anything so obvious. It makes me wonder what the real explaination will be.

Yesterday I ran a new RPG campaign with Gareth using the Mutants and Masterminds 2nd Edition RPG. The campaign is called "Times Forgotten", and it is about an amnesiac man with super powers who travels through time in order to uncover his past and save the future. I've never kept a game log before, so I'm going to try to do it now. Let me know if this is interresting or not.

In the style of superhero comics, M&M refers to each game session as an "issue", so I'll discribe our first issue called "Awakening".


The game opened with Gareth's character waking up in an alley at exactly 5:37pm. He didn't know anything about himself or where he was, except that he remembered his name was Claas. Claas searched his pockets and even looked for tags or initials on his clothing, but found nothing. His clothes were custom. Nothing in his pockets but... well... lent. The only thing outstanding was a necklace with an odd metal pendant. It was Gareth's idea to play an amnesiac hero, so he had me actually create the character for him. He selected a few of the character's basic stats, but I designed his background and super powers, so Gareth actually knows nothing more than Claas does. After Claas was finished going through his clothing I informed him that it was exactly 5:40pm. Claas doesn't have a watch, but I continually informed Gareth of the exact time throughout the game. One of Claas' powers is a "time sense".

Claas quickly discovered another super-sense. He detected an odd "presence" emmenating from an apartment building across the street. As soon as he had crossed the street to investigate, an explosion on the top floor rocked the building. After a moment's hesitation, Claas rushed in to help save the occupants. After carrying two children out of the burning building, Claas ran back in to help more. Climbing an empty elevator shaft to bypass the burning stairs, Claas arived on the sixth floor where the explosion had occured. Claas could still sense an odd "presence" here on the top floor, but it was weaker than before. Diving into the raging inferno, he followed the beacon to an apartment where he found a young woman lying unconcious on the floor. Scooping her up in his arms, Claas ran for the stairwell. As he ran down the stairs, time seemed to slow around him. He dodged under burning rafters that fell unnaturally slow. When he stopped outside time returned to normal. Paramedics rushed the woman to the hospital with other burn victims, while someone treated Claas for smoke-enhalation and minor burns on the spot.

Claas slipped away from the crowd and took an hour to rest from his ordeal before seeking out the hospital. There he could sense the strange "presence" that seemed to be linked to the woman he rescued. Following a hunch, he followed discreetely as nurses finally brought her from the burn unit to a regular hospital room where she could recover from moderate injuries. Claas decided to wait around for the nurses to clear out before he would approached the woman, looking for answers. Before he could approach her, however, she appeared at the door to her hospital room. Glancing around to make sure she wasn't seen by the nurses or doctors, the young woman with emerald eyes and glasses snuck out of the hospital. Claas followed her outside and saw her get into a taxi. Not knowing how to follow her, he left off pursuing her and decided to wander around the city hoping that something might jog his memory. About this time Gareth began asking questions that led him to the knowledge that he was in a place called Central City, but Claas had no idea whether he was from here or not.

It grew late as Claas wandered around the city. Nothing he saw brought back any memories, but eventually he encountered two guys mugging a third man in an alley, and he sensed the "presence" he had felt before somewhere nearby. Deciding that he'd rather pursue this "presence" than help the hapless man in the ally, Claas went on his way. However, as he moved away from the alley the his sense of the "presense" grew weaker, so he decided to return to the alley. As he approached, he saw the victim fleeing out of the alley, and he saw a flickering light coming from between the buildings. Coming up to the alley he found the man's two attackers lying scorched on the ground, and he saw a figure walking away near the other end of the alley. Running to catch the departing figure, Claas found that time slowed again, allowing him to catch up to the person.

He was a young man, about 18, with red hair and green eyes, and he was giving off a detectable "presence" much like the young woman had. He greeted Claas gruffly, asking him what he wanted. Claas asked him why he saved that man, as the younger man walked towards his car parked in an adjacent ally. The young man asked why he wanted to know, and if he was a reporter. Claas replied that he wasn't a reporter, but that he was looking for answers. The young man said he didn't know anything, and told Claas to shove-off as he got into his car and began to drive away. Claas used his time-slowing run to catch up to the car as it stopped at the end of the alleyway. The young man saw him in his rearview mirror. Putting down his window so he could lean out a little bit, he told Claas again to shove-off, and then raised his hand and shot a ball of fire at him before pulling away. Not dettered, Claas tried to follow the red-headed man for several blocks, but eventually lost him near the vecinity of the city college.

Claas decided to explore the college. Although it was late now, the college was still open for night classes. As he wandered around, Claas became aware of two "presences" nearby, and also a third "presence" much like the others, but larger. As he explored, he found himself drawing nearer and nearer to the center of the much larger "presence", and also to the two smaller "presences". He finally arrived at the gym, which seemed to be the center of the larger "presence". As he peeked in through an open door, he found the gym empty except for the young woman he had rescued, and the young man he had met in the ally. They were ingaged in a heated argument and seemed ready to fight. The woman accused the man of killing people and putting other lives at risk. She told him that he needed to learn to contain his abilities. The young man acted like he didn't want to hear it. Before long, violence errupted with the young man hurling fire at the woman. Claas used his time-slowing run to rush in between them, trying to interrupt their battle and prevent them from fighting. The woman hit both Claas and the other man with a sonic blast. Claas discovered another of his powers when he went to shove the young man. His forearm crackled with blue energy, and he hit the man with tremendous force. Blows were exchanged by all three combatants, with Claas getting bombarded by both sides. Eventually, at the height of the battle, with the gym ingulfed in flames, Claas saw everything go white and then he blacked out.

When Claas came-to again, he was alone in a medieval-looking house. I informed Gareth that Claas was aware that it was exactly 9:15pm... 1000 years ago. To be continued...


So, that's how the game session went. Just to clarify a little further, this game isn't taking place in our world. It's an earth-like universe with its own history, though the progression of civilization in this world more-or-less resembles our own.

This is the first time I've played a game with the Mutants & Masterminds system. It's based on the d20 system used in D&D, Star Wars RPG, True20, and a few other games, but it has some of its own quirks. I like how many options you have for designing super powers. I'm not sure I like how some attacks work, however, and I'm a little iffy about the damage system. We'll see how it goes though.