Wednesday, February 24, 2021

Dungeon Crawl Classics: Putting the Family through the Funnel

I picked up the Dungeon Crawl Classics Humble Bundle many months ago, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading the core rules. This was my first foray into OSR gaming, and I was blown away by the scholarly nature of Joseph Goodman's magnum opus. For those who are unfamiliar, let me summarize by explaining that when Goodman calls you to "adventure as 1974 intended you to," he really means it. The aesthetic heart of Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG is in Appendix N. In this appendix, Goodman explains that Gary Gygax, in the 1979 AD&D Dungeonmaster Guide's own Appendix N, lists the fantasy and science fiction novels that inspired him. In his own eponymous appendix then, Goodman explains his research process—that he took a deep dive into these inspirational works so that he could emerge with a mid-1970s vision of fantasy role-playing adventures. My own survey of Robert E. Howard's Conan's stories enabled my perspective to expand, and so I am duly impressed by the rigorous methodology that Goodman followed, balanced with admiration and perhaps a bit of jealousy.

After my initial reading of DCC RPG, I reached out to several friends and encouraged them to check it out. My copy then sat on my digital bookshelf for some time. A week or two ago, I realized that it had been some time since I had the "I want to play tabletop role-playing games with my family" urge, and this surprised me. That momentary realization started the snowball that became the avalanche, and I found myself re-reading DCC RPG and convincing my family to give it a shot.

All six of us came to the table to play on Sunday afternoon. I had explained to them about "the funnel," which I think is one of the most wonderful concepts in DCC RPG. I gave each of them four zero-level characters, which I generated using Purple Sorcerer's excellent online tools. These twenty schlubs were going to go into "The Portal Under the Stars," which is the funnel adventure provided in the DCC RPG rulebook.

I explained to them that the characters were all randomly generated and walked through the basics of the character sheets. I asked them to name their characters. Alignments are important in DCC RPG, and I gave them the option of choosing right away whether the characters were Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic; however, I think everyone took the other option, which was to leave it blank and resolve it during role-playing later. The older three players chose what one might broadly call "genre-appropriate" fantasy names. The eight-year-old named his characters with traditional English-language names: Andy, Jimmy, and Joe. The six-year-old seemed to pull his names from the other things we talked about during the rules explanation: Old, Farmer, and Loc (which is pronounced, and probably a misspelling of, "Luck"). His other character was named Cram, and no one knows where that came from.

From this point on, there are many spoilers of from The Portal Under the Stars. You've been warned!

The adventure starts with all the characters and their menagerie standing before a magical door. I mention the menagerie because these 0-level characters begin with just the basic tools of their occupations, and we had excellent representation from the agricultural sector: as twenty men and women looked at the magic door, they were joined by a cow, a goat, a hen, and a duck. The door is clearly magical from its markings and origin, and so there is obviously some kind of puzzle or mystery involved. You've already read my spoiler warning, so I will just come out and say that the door becomes unlocked and untrapped if the players wait until the stars align with the constellations shown on the door. 

I am no expert in level design, but I would like to posit that this is a bad opening for an adventure. Anything the players do besides wait is going to be wrong, and waiting is neither obvious nor interesting. If a player looks to try to determine whether the constellations are in line and fails that one Intelligence check, then they are stuck fumbling about and taking trap damage from the door. My wife, who had been hesitant to join, even shouted out how this was "just like last time" we played an RPG, where we got to a door and got stuck. I wish I could remember that actual situation (and I haven't asked her to jog my memory, partly out of fear), but I think it drives home a more general design point. Doors by themselves are not interesting, and a puzzle that requires you to do nothing is more like a meta-puzzle, something to make grognards chuckle but that has no resonance with new players.

Once they had the door open, Old was the first one to cross into the dungeon proper. The trap in this room was eventually triggered, four spears being thrown at the party. Old was spared, but the other three were direct hits and kills—or so we thought. One of my wife's characters was a mercenary with Hide Armor, which was the only armor in the whole game. When I asked players for their Armor Classes, everyone read what was given on their sheets. However, it turns out those Purple Sorcerer character sheets do not take into account armor when listing the character's default AC. It was a life-and-death difference for her character, whom we role-played as having a near-death experience from the impact of the spear that didn't quite go through his armor.

This was, incidentally, not our first misreading of those convenient Purple Sorcerer sheets. Armor is listed merely as an inventory item with no stats given, but weapons are listed together with the player's to-hit bonus and their damage bonus. Reading across the sheet then, a character with 13 strength is shown as having a "+1" modifier, then their club (for example) is listed as "Club +1 (1d6 +1)". Those are all the same +1, listed multiple times, but some of the players regularly misread this as meaning the club had a +1 and also they had a +1 from their Strength, for a total of +2. I mention this here in case it is helpful to other new players: as cool as the Purple Sorcerer sheets are, they have some idiosyncrasies that are not the way I would prefer the information presented to new players.

The party moved more slowly into the next room, which was the central room of the dungeon, doors on each of the four walls. One of the players set off the trap here, which put everyone in peril, so we rolled initiative to see who would do what. DCC RPG generally uses individual initiative, but for the funnel, we followed its advice and had each player roll once for the characters under their control. The 11-year-old was first, and he had his guys run back to the chamber they came from. The 6-year-old was next, and he had his characters run through a different door into the unknown. I had assumed he would follow his brother's lead, and I was getting ready to have his characters roll against his brother's to see who would get to safety; I never expected him to go through a new door. We'll come back to that point, but for now, suffice it to say that this put all of his guys in immediate mortal danger as well. Now the party was fighting danger on two fronts, which was cinematic gold. 

The party survived with a few casualties, but let me digress for a moment to an interesting conversation from the family's reflection. In a conversation with my wife and the older kids, I tried to express my concern that the youngest son, after choosing to send his characters into an unknown room, likely did not possess the abstract thinking skills to determine whether this was a good or a bad idea. My wife heard this differently and got defensive, saying that she did not like the implication that there was a "right" and a "wrong" way to play it if we were supposed to be role-playing. For her, I think this is a sticking point of role-playing games: she recognizes that one one hand, you are role-playing, but on another hand, there is a tactical, resource management aspect. However, that wasn't my point: I was not so concerned that he went into the unknown, even though it's not at all what I would have had my characters do, but that, given his age, he likely doesn't have the tools to even frame that question. Put another way, it was perfectly reasonable to jump through a doorway that may contain danger to escape a room that certainly contains danger, but I'm not sure he can really weigh the implications or reflect on it as an adult would. It's a curious thing to play with children.

Later in the adventure, the party entered a room that contained six crystalline humanoids who moved slowly but ominously toward the party. The players did not know if they would attack or not, and after some uncertainty, one of my wife's characters hurled a hand axe at one of them. This turned out to be a mistake. It prompted the creatures to defend themselves, and it was quite the melee. I think this battle took out half of the remaining characters, including Old, who had become something of an icon. I had encouraged the players not to make Old such a central figure: I could see how my youngest son would not move him off the front line, even after he miraculously survived many chances with death. I was afraid he would die, and die he did. To my youngest son's credit, he got a little misty, but he moved forward with Loc, his one remaining character.

The final major encounter of the adventure is interesting. It presents, on its own, an almost insurmountable challenge, but other actions that the party takes in the dungeon can make it manageable. Indeed, my family's characters had inadvertently done everything they could to facilitate success in the final room. It was awkward, then, when the adventure's read-aloud text described the room as if none of these things had happened; I had to stumble through a few sentences and improvise alternatives in a way that the other rooms had not required. 

The party found the secret treasure room, which contained a desiccated corpse, evidence of evil activity, and some clues about the background of the whole adventure. There was another odd bit of writing here, where the corpse was referred to by its in-fiction role, but there was no way that the players would have known this at the time. Given the popularity of this module, I would have expected that to be edited more tightly. In any case, whether because the few remaining characters were not interested in dying, or because their players were just tired, the party decided to grab the loot and skedaddle. It was ironic, then, when my wife said that there weren't any indications in the dungeon of what it was all about: Who was buried there? What happened to them? In fact, clues were available, but the party took the arguably wiser risk-averse approach: grab the treasure and avoid the corpse. 

Playing the adventure reminded me how secret doors and traps, if not handled well, really destroy the rhythm of a game. If you allow that secret doors or traps can be anywhere, then players are forced into looking for them everywhere, which is not interesting. There are parts of the module that have really interesting traps, such as the central chamber mentioned above: there's something that clearly looks dangerous, and the party can consider what to do about it. It also contains a secret door that has no indicators in the fiction that it exists. I will have to keep my eye out for this as I look at some of the first-level modules, keeping myself open to modifying them to remove what I consider bad game design elements. Incidentally, I mentioned this frustration in an online discussion, and I was pointed toward The Angry GM's article, "Traps Suck." I agree with the spirit of his article, and it's good to see other people taking a design-oriented look at these tropes.

I believe my family is interested in continued adventures after the funnel. I noticed something really surprising in reviewing their characters after the adventure: not a one of the survivors has a Strength higher than 10, and only one of the deceased characters had a Strength as high as 13. I had not reviewed the character attributes ahead of time, but I expected that random distribution would give us a greater range of highs and lows. That, of course, would make it pretty easy to determine who might step up to the role of Warrior. At first I was taken aback, but then I thought about it, and it's actually quite interesting: in this town, from which twenty randos risked life and limb to retrieve hidden treasure, they didn't have any brawny men to lead them into the fray. Now, the survivors have a taste for adventure, and some will have to devote themselves to martial study, not because of their strength but despite it.

Running tabletop roleplaying games is a funny thing. I used to do it every weekend when I was younger, but that was before I had anything like access to the networks that I have now. I could only learn by reflection and by the very limited number of other peoples' games I played in. Now, there are endless resources for learning about running games. It's a skill that sometimes I fantasize about developing further, which I think is in part because of the realization of my weaknesses when I was younger. Playing DCC RPG was a good weight for me, since the rules are fairly simple, the challenges are immediate, and the module I ran—despite my criticisms—was certainly competent. I have enjoyed some of the more narrative games my family has explored in recent years, such as FATE and Dungeon World. I think DCC RPG might be at the right weight for me to run family games more regularly with just a minimal threading of narrative between modules.

Thursday, February 18, 2021

Depersonalization

I recently came across a paper that referred to "personalization" of feedback to students being generated by a machine-learning algorithm. For some reason, this gave me pause to think about this use of the word. What the authors meant, and how this term is used across e-commerce, is a reductionist view of humanity; it is one in which people are considered as feature vectors in a machine learning algorithm. You bought Product A, and so you might like Product B, because other people in your cluster bought Product B. Using the most popular contemporary machine learning techniques, an analyst cannot even look at the cluster and tell what it is in any human sense: it is a computational and statistical phenomenon with predictive powers, so here is an ad for Product B. 

That is the opposite of personalization. Personalization means that I know you like puns so I stick one in my email. Personalization means I know to put just this much sugar and that much cream in your coffee. Personalization means I know you're struggling with this course, and so I give you an extra emotional boost in my written comments, reminding you that you can do it. Personalization means I love you. The adoption and abuse of this word by modern businesses is shameful. It is the antithesis of personalization. It is the reduction of the person into mere bits.

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

User stories vs Sprint Planning in the Spring 2021 Game Studio

I'm excited to be able to teach my Spring Game Studio course this semester, even if it's not ideal. The ways in which it falls short are that we cannot use the actual studio space due to physical distancing restrictions, the time it's offered was determined by the college rather than the department and is terrible, and it's almost all Computer Science majors--in part because of that awful scheduling that prevented our being able to synchronize with the other majors that regularly send students. That said, I am very grateful to have about a dozen eager and excited students, and I am able to continue to explore how to manage multiple simultaneous teams. When it comes to distributed work, we can be more intentional about it than we were when the Spring 2020 studio had to suddenly change character due to the pandemic.

The Spring 2021 studio started with six different game ideas, and it took us until the fourth week of the semester to narrow it down to just three. This process involved building MVPs that were valuable in explaining the games and building teams around them. I wrote up a methodology for distributed development, based on my notes from last year, and that is currently available on GitHub. 

On Friday of last week, all three teams met together so that I could talk about the planning and production process. This was designed to help them bridge the pre-production work and prototyping they had been doing to get us into the expected rhythm and rigors of the methodology. I showed them how we could use HackNPlan to manage parts of the project, and conveniently, I was able to use the context of one of the abandoned projects: it was something new and unbuilt and yet still familiar, which is much better than talking about re-engineering something that already exists.

This allowed the teams then to come to our Monday meetings and plan their projects. Here, however, is where I think I made a mistake. I had hoped that they would be able to articulate their features as user stories, then break them down into tasks, and then assign tasks during the meeting. Even though I knew how hard it was to turn ideas into user stories, I don't think I gave them enough time here. When I am leading an immersive learning team, I will often just do this for them, based on their discussions. The result was that it took well over an hour for each team just to figure out what a few of their stories are, let alone the problem of prioritizing them, committing to them, and planning the work required to satisfy them. The meetings went too long, with the concomitant fatigue.

I think I could have handled it differently. One option would have been to schedule separate meetings, one for story identification and one for sprint planning. This also would have given me a chance between meetings to give feedback on story articulation, whereas what I had to do on Monday was traipse between three different online meetings. An alternative would have been to allow the teams to designate one or more team members who would devote their time to the story identification. That is, they may have served as I have done in a Product Owner role.

I'm still happy with the work they have done and proud of their progress, but I wanted to make sure that I tracked this idea here on my blog so that next time, I might remember to separate these processes. Also, the methodology (as of this writing) mentions Trello as an option, but I had forgotten that Trello does not allow for convenient separation of story articulation and commitment vs. task articulation and planning. I should simply remove it from the methodology next time, because it does not allow for the precision that I would normally have on the studio's whiteboard. Unfortunately, I learned this lesson because one of the three teams tried to use Trello and then broke down in their planning meeting when they couldn't follow the steps I had shown in the previous meeting. 

Tuesday, February 16, 2021

Initial observations on splitting the two-week project into halves

I never followed up on my December frustrations about how CS222 is being offered this Spring. The short version of the story is that, after talking with some colleagues, I came to peace with offering the course in a rotational model. We're now at week five, and my two sections are each split into a Tuesday attendance group and a Thursday attendance group. It's not ideal, but it's what we have.

Today, I want to capture a few thoughts about a change I made in the course. This was inspired by an insight from my colleague Huseyin Ergin, who has taught CS222 just a handful of times. He came up with a clever way of helping students understand model-view separation early in the semester: during his version of the two-week project, he had the students first build a console application, then augment it with a GUI. Through this process, his students got to see that if they separated their model, they would reduce the redundancy in their code. I believe my colleague David Largent may have done this last semester, too, when he taught both sections of CS222. I decided to give it a shot this semester with my two sections.

I kept the overall course calendar that I usually use, but I divided the two-week project. Normally, I have the students create a GUI application that can pull in the latest changes and also sort by who made the most changes, as you can see in the Spring 2020 requirements. I knocked out the sorting requirement for simplicity, in part because I became aware that practically none of my students had ever built a GUI before. Usually, the instructor teaching the prerequisite course introduces some simple Swing or JavaFX, but this wasn't covered last Fall; hence, I wanted to give the students more time with the GUI.

At first, I only published the requirements for the first week. These requirements, as usual, expressed the functional requirements as a user story and the nonfunctional requirements as a checklist. I used a familiar context: reading recent changes from Wikipedia. I also added a required submission at the end of the first week, which I do not normally do: indeed, since it's "the two-week project", I usually just give students two weeks to do it. With the two-phased release, I decided to grade the first part, in hopes that the feedback would help them improve the final submission. At the time of the first week's submission, I released the additional requirements for the second week, which the students are working on now. The added requirement is to add a JavaFX GUI while maintaining the functionality of the console application.

In truth, when I first set up my assignments on Canvas, I didn't think critically about how I would grade the first week vs. the second week. It wasn't until we got into the project itself that I decided that the first week would be purely formative, and only the second week's grade would "count". However, Canvas just shows it as a deadline. This led to the predictable result: a few students nailed the first week's requirements with some minor problems, many realized that they didn't know what they were doing, and a few rushed in to push out anything that compiles right before the deadline. A few students expressed a kind of "woe-is-me" attitude in the submission comments, but most were actually quite positive. That is, they acknowledged that this wasn't what they wanted it to be, but they were eager for feedback to help them with the second week.

Now, I would not say I intentionally tricked them, but I never sound aloud, "The first week doesn't really count toward your final grade." It is actually ambiguous in the course plan's grading scheme since it doesn't say anything about how the first and second weeks are graded. Reflecting on this experience, though, I think it might be a useful deceit: the deadline encourages the students to get started and realize where they are rather than push all the work (and realization!) off to the second week. No one pushed back and complained that this grade would not count, which makes me think that they released a collective sigh of relief. I'm eager now to see how this second week goes and whether the overall performance on the two-week project is improved from previous semesters, and more importantly, whether it better prepares students for the more important final project.



Wednesday, January 13, 2021

Reflecting on almost a year of FamJams: What the family learned

I will be giving a presentation at GodotCon 2021 entitled, "(Almost) A Year of Fam Jams". The presentation will be a summary of how my family started doing game jams together and what we learned from the process. It draws liberally from my blog posts on the topic. The presentation is already recorded, and the conference organizers will set up a time that it streams, during which time I will be online to answer questions.

In preparing for the presentation, we had a family meeting in which I asked everyone what they learned over the past year and what advice they would give to someone who wanted to start fam jamming. This was an interesting exercise, and one thing that stood out to me was that some of them were happy to give advice that it wasn't clear they themselves had learned yet. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a powerful human capacity! I hope they understood when I pushed back on these points, because I wanted to make sure I distilled our true and best ideas for the presentation.

I took more notes from this meeting than I could fit into the presentation. This blog post gives me a chance to share my notes more exhaustively. I will start with the youngest family member and move up from there. I believe this order might be enjoyable and also demonstrate the differences in ability to form abstractions and conclusions. I have listed the items so that the first statement captures the essence of what the family member shared, and then I provide my commentary on that item after that.

#4 Son:

Put the game's name on the title screen. This was one of the first things anybody said in response to my question, and it made me laugh. He's right! We do always put the name on the title screen. Now, it's less clear to me that he understands the value of this in setting the expectations of the player or conveying the theme, but that will come.

Make sure everyone can work at the same time. That is, he recognizes that we don't want to be in a position where anyone is "busy-waiting", such as waiting for access to a particular machine or resource. Astute!

#3 Son:

Use the black keys when composing music. Readers may recall that this son is very interested in using LMMS to compose music for the games, and I showed him many months ago that he could avoid some dissonance by using only "the black keys" to get a pentatonic scale. He's latched on to that, and his compositions have been more ear-friendly for it.

Make the game's music match the theme of the game. This is a great observation, and I think it first came up in Get the Food. We definitely came back to this idea in other games, too, including Find the Ornaments, where we talked about what might make a song sound like the holidays. (Also, I don't think it only comes in games titled Verb the Noun, but more data may be required.)

#2 Son:

Have someone who can do everything that needs to be done. His point here is that you don't want to have three people who all want to write the music for the game and nobody who wants to do art. It's an interesting perspective, since I tend to think about it the other way: design the game such that it leverages the abilities and interests of the people involved. In fact, my wife brought up this point in response. Both sides are true, and I'm glad he brought it up.

Playtest with people who didn't program the game. He has noticed that if his older brother and I work on the programming, we might sometimes have blinders to things that are wrong or just feel bad. Again, this is a pretty astute observation. At first, I thought he meant people outside the family, but he really just meant that people inside the family should be giving feedback during the whole production process. 

Leading does not mean you tell people what to do and wait until they are done: it means you check in with them and give them advice. This is an amazing point, and I remember that he struggled a bit with it the first time he was creative director. I think it was something like his telling other people to work and then his sitting down with a book. He got the idea, though, and we worked through it. Now, he is much better about communication, negotiation, and critiquing. 

#1 Son:

Prototype the gameplay with blocks. That is, don't get caught up in producing and perfecting the minutiae before you get the big ideas working.

It's fun to make different kinds of games. I couldn't agree more!

This son also mentioned something that may seem pedestrian, but it's really not: how to use Godot Engine. He's become quite accomplished with it, to the point where he can navigate the documentation and forums and figure out pretty much anything he needs. Right now, he's looking into networked multiplayer games; we had a good talk about IP addresses on our family walk yesterday. 

Lovely Wife:

Do drawings in pen or marker—not pencil—for ease of cropping and scanning. She has spent a lot of time post-processing the kids' hand-drawn artwork, and this is a nice, easy pro-tip.

Even though each game is different, there are certain things that you always need, such as fonts. I sometimes forget that, coming into it, my wife really had no idea how video games were made. That is, just because someone is smart and my age and played some video games doesn't actually mean they know what goes into the engineering of them. Now, she sees the patterns that I took for granted, like the idea that there are certain elements that you always expect to be on the to-do list.

We face challenges sharing workstations, and it's better to have each person have easy access to their own machine. She and I have tried to manage the proliferation of devices in the household, and we don't have a one-laptop-per-child policy. We have Old Lappy and New Lappy. Sometimes, this is not quite enough, and we're still trying to figure out the best way to manage all the technology needs and desires.

It is useful to follow genre conventions. Our first game was designed by a five-year-old and defies expectations, but after that, we moved more into conventional forms. This has been helpful for allowing everyone to imagine what the end product might be. It also has become easier as we have learned more about the tools themselves, since the tools are designed to help with common problems.

Determine your screen-size early. We had some mismatched expectations in our early jams about how to manage the size of screens, in part because the programmers saw this as flexible but the art production required it to be fixed. Now, we set the screen size early on, which means the prototype programming matches the expected final look, and the art comes in without needing to be resized multiple times.

Use drawing templates for young artists. As of The Flying Planes, we have been focused on trying to get more art into the games. In theory, this is simple: if we can put in one plane, then we can put in several. In practice, the kids drew them in all different shapes and sizes, which made it hard to get them all to fit and look right. Now, if we know something is to be mass-produced, she provides the kids with a rectangular template, which is really the bounding box. This makes it easier to scan and process as well as to integrate into the game itself. 

Determine a palette early. This is a standard graphic design idea of course, though it's not something most kids (or maybe anyone?) thinks of. The games that have had constrained palettes are certainly easier on the eyes. Maybe this would be a fun area for us to grow with the kids, allowing them to explore palette creation and see how they affect the look and feel of the game.

Final Thoughts

It was fun to go back through these notes. If you got here from watching the GodotCon video, in which I acknowledge that I would probably have to write a blog post to get all my notes together, I hope you enjoyed it! As always, please feel free to leave a comment, especially if you have some tip of your own to share with the community.

Thursday, December 31, 2020

The Games of 2020

What a year! I think it's fair to say it did not go the way anyone expected, and this had implications for my year in board gaming. There were many negatives: I didn't host any game nights for my students; I barely played any games with my friends in town; and a big family get-together was cancelled, which would have been an opportunity for both silly and strategic fun with family members. The biggest positive, though, is that my family loves games, and so we basically spent all year playing board games together. There were almost no interruptions! This was also the first year I tried any online board games, which in my case was mostly a handful of games of Scythe with my brother. It's not the same as sitting across the table from each other, but it's way better than nothing, and there are some fiddly bits that the digital implementation handles for you.

My records show that I played 101 different games in 2020, for a total of 525 unique plays. Once again, like last year, I am shocked to see the total number of plays decreased since the previous year. Whereas last year's numbers were even boosted by Bonk, this years were boosted by The Crew. We got Race for the Galaxy to the table a lot this year too, and that's one we usually play two or three times when it comes out, so I really expected total plays to be up. Maybe it's more related to the kids growing up than I gave it credit for, since where we used to sit and play several simpler games together, now it's more common to spend longer on crunchier titles. Well, it's not the quantity that counts, but the quality, and I feel like we had some great family gaming moments this past year. A few of the highlights to me have been playing Kingdomino with subsets of the whole family, finishing Clank Legacy, playing a lot of Journeys in Middle Earth and Arcadia Quest with my two older sons, getting the next son into Massive Darkness, and loads of family painting (1, 2, 3, 4). The two older boys and I also played a lot of Frostgrave this year, including a small campaign of random scenarios followed by new warbands in the Thaw of the Lich Lord campaign; now, I would call Frostgrave a miniatures skirmish game, but it's listed in the board game category on Board Game Geek, so it gets logged with the rest. More recently, we have been diving into some new Christmas games, most notably My City, which the three older boys and I have really enjoyed, and we four also just started an Imperial Assault 1 vs. All campaign.

Here are the games that I played at least ten times in 2020. As in the past, I have collapsed some different titles together, such as the various Arcadia Quest games or the variations on Clank.

  • Race for the Galaxy (33)
  • Clank! (23)
  • Just One (21)
  • Kingdomino (21)
  • The Quacks of Quedlinburg (21)
  • Arcadia Quest (18)
  • My City (18)
  • Codenames: Duet (17)
  • Lord of the Rings: Journeys in Middle Earth (16)
  • Frostgrave (15)
  • The Crew (11)
  • Medieval Academy (11)
  • BONK (10)
  • Machi Koro Legacy (10)
  • Thunderstone Quest (10)
This year's gaming took my h-index to 25, meaning that there are 25 games that I have played at least 25 times. This is automatically computed by my Board Game Geek app and does not take into account any of my collapsing of categories. I remember being excited when my board game h-index exceeded my academic one, but now I'm pretty sure there is no comparison. 

Let's take our annual look at my top-played games of all time—or at least since I started logging plays in 2016. We'll look at the "quarters" and higher, which are the games I have played at least 25 times
  • Clank! (All expansions and Legacy) (75)
  • Gloomhaven (66)
  • Kingdomino (62)
  • Crokinole (61)
  • Race for the Galaxy (58)
  • Animal Upon Animal (56)
  • Carcassonne (51)
  • Camel Up (47)
  • Thunderstone Quest (46)
  • Pathfinder Adventure Card Game (Core Set + Crimson Throne) (41)
  • Rhino Hero: Super Battle (40)
  • Quiddler (39)
  • Labyrinth (38)
  • Arcadia Quest (36)
  • Reiner Knizia's Amazing Flea Circus (34)
  • Runebound (Third Edition) (34)
  • Terror in Meeple City (30)
  • BONK (29)
  • Temple of Elemental Evil (28)
  • Lord of the Rings: Journeys in Middle Earth (28)
  • Go Nuts for Donuts (27)
  • Massive Darkness (27)
  • Stuffed Fables (27)
  • Champions of Midgard (26)
  • Obstacles (26)
  • Red7 (26)
  • Incan Gold (25)
  • Loot (25)
How about that? Clank took over Gloomhaven! Everybody here except the youngest loves Clank. I suspect he will love it, once he gains some more experience points in reading, mental math, and of course, mash shuffling.

I also engaged in a modicum of table-top role-playing games this year. I wrote in June about getting some friends together online to play Dungeon World, and during the year, I was able to run six more sessions of that with my family. I intended to write a bit more about that here, but the short version is that some games were not as good as others, and we made some characters we intended to pursue, but we tend to fall back on board games. (I also think I may have fallen into some of the mistakes Professor DungeonMaster mentions in his latest video.) We also played a few games of Fate, which was also fun and maybe more in keeping with some of the kids' interests in worldbuilding and improvisation. In any case, though, we run into the age-range problem: we haven't found one thing that all of us enjoy together just yet. Still, maybe there is some promise for more TTRPG fun in the new year.

Last year, I reported on books and video games. I had vague intentions of logging these again this year, but I was too lax in it to bother sharing anything quantitative here. I've taken up the challenge of reading more, which cuts into both painting and video game time, but I think it has been worth it. I have particularly enjoyed reading a collection of Flannery O'Conner stories, joining a discussion group on C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man, and, more recently, re-reading Frank Herbert's Dune series, which I originally read in the early 1990s. This last selection was not inspired by the upcoming movie but rather by coming across Matthew Colville's discussions of how much he loves the first novel. It spurred me also to pick up Dune: Imperium for Christmas, and we have already logged five plays of that since December 25. It was designed by Paul Dennen, who designed Clank!, so I guess that puts him right up there with Vlaada Chvátil and Isaac Childres for us.

Here are links to previous years' games reports in case you want to check them out:
Thanks for reading! Happy gaming in 2021!

Tuesday, December 22, 2020

Painting Journeys in Middle Earth: Shadowed Paths and Dwellers in Darkness

Hello, painters! It has been some time since my last painting post. The semester was of course a bit stressful, but I think the primary reason for the slowness has been that I've been trying to read more. I read a wonderful collection of Flannery O'Conner stories and letters, I'm currently rereading the Dune series that I first encountered back in the early '90s, and I wrote about how I took a deep dive into Robert E. Howard's Conan stories. In between these, I painted all the figures from the latest expansion to Journeys in Middle Earth: Shadowed Paths, including the Dwellers in Darkness villain pack. 

Regular readers may recall that I painted the base set and the first villain pack. The sculpts were in the same style, and I approached this set in a way that would keep the figures looking coherent. All the figures were zenithally primed from the airbrush as usual. I'll present the figures roughly in the order I painted them.

Shadow-Men

I approached these Shadow-men as an experiment. I had heard a few murmurs online about this trend of "sketch painting," where ink glazes are used over zenithal prime for quick paint jobs. I wanted these figures to look like the oathbreakers in the Paths of the Dead as represented in the Peter Jackson trilogy of movies, so I mixed up a glaze of green ink with a touch of yellow and painted it on. That's it. It is exactly what I wanted, and I think it gives these figures a haunting presence, distinct from the other figures.

A quick note about the basing may be in order. In the base game, I based all the figures using brown earth basing paste and a mix of flock. I used that approach on some of the figures in this set, but I also gave some a rocky base intended to be reminiscent of a cavern. I used a technique I have deployed before: a layer of superglue followed by a scattering of different sizes of grit, some larger cork rocks, and overall texture of baking soda. This is then painted using a combination of black ink wash and drybrushing.

Giant Spiders

I am happy with the color selection on the giant spiders. Keep in mind that, unlike a lot of my board game projects, there is no color game art for any of these figures. After some image searches, I found inspiration for these spiders in the spelungula cave spider.

Pit Goblins

For these pit goblins and the following orc taskmasters, I turned to the approach I first experimented with in the JiME base set: acrylic washes over zenithal priming to get large groups painted quickly at the expense of being a bit desaturated. I was a bit lazier with these, using basically the same skin tone and uniform for all of them. Getting these painted quickly allowed my boys and I to replay the Hunt for the Ember Crown campaign using the new minis and heroes, while I continued to work on the unique villains for our eventual delve into the newer campaigns.

Orc Taskmasters

As with the Pit Goblins, these were done fairly quickly, though they had more interesting details to pick out.

Nameless Things

If I left the caption off, would it be funnier? Anyway, these were fairly straightforward paint jobs, but I think the results are good. I used some two-brush blending to layer in the initial highlights and shadows, drybrushing to accentuate raised areas, and then more focused washes to bring more darkness into the depths. Looking at these makes me wonder if I would do a better job now on a rancor than I did two years ago. Reviewing that blog post, I am reminded that the photos were taken in the era when I could just not get good color balance on my camera: the real figures look very little like the photographs.

Cave Trolls

Cave Trolls

I am really happy with how the cave trolls turned out. I used a slight variation in skin tone between them and then different colors for their ... well, I don't know what those are. I think they show a good combination of techniques, including two-brush blending for the skin and washes with layered highlights for the ... well, the thingies. It's not how I imagined cave trolls but they were fun to paint and look good on the table.

Gandalf

Gandalf

What fun it was to paint Gandalf, the iconic wizard. Every blue-robed, white-bearded guy with staff is trying to be as cool as Gandalf. I'm looking at you, Elias from Massive Darkness. Taking some inspiration from Sorastro's video, I used variation in blue-grey mixes and tried to get some textural differences across the materials. For the staff, I ended up leaving the top without a base coat, glazing on yellow ink to make it look lit up. I used only subtle OSL here. I should mention that I'm wary of OSL ever since listening to Dr. Faust's fascinating editorial on the topic, which can be found starting at about 11:30 in this video about painting Darth Vader.

Elanor

Elanor

It's Elanor of Gondor, whom I first wrote about painting in last year's Middle Earth Quest post. This figure is probably twice the volume of the tiny MEQ one, and she was mostly straightforward to paint. However, where MEQ Elanor had the White Tree of Gondor engraved into the sculpt of her cloak, this one did not. I decided to freehand, which regular readers may recall is a struggle for me, and this was doubly so for being on a rippled cloth surface. The final image shown above is actually my second attempt, but I took some work-in-progress shots of the journey, so I will share those here.

Here she is back in October:

Here she is after the first pass at freehanding the White Tree:

The photo is actually not as bad as I remember the figure, but I was unhappy with a few things here. First, I thought the tree was too stocky, looking to thick. This was accentuated by what looks like a bad baseline on the bottom: it does not line up with the hem of the cloak. This is troublesome though because I think the cloak itself is not sculpted realistically: if you unfolded it and laid it out, it would not be a regular shape, which adds complication to attempts to paint anything on it. Finally, I did not like how the tree is too far down on the cloak, since it seems that if it were embroidered on the back, one would cover the whole canvas and not skip the part under the hood.

So, here it is after covering up the first approach and reapplying the cloak's highlights.

Finally, here it is after the repainting but before the basing and varnishing. 

On this pass, I was more careful to sketch the outline of the tree with very thin lines and to build up from these. There are still some things I like about the original approach, but overall, I am happier with the second take.

OK, enough of FFG's expanded universe characters, let's get back to the canon!

Arwen

Arwen

I am happy with the color scheme on Arwen. Even though her yellows and greens are muted, they offer more color than almost every other figure in the set. I think this is fitting for her character. 

Balin

Balin

All the way from The Hobbit comes Balin in his distinctive red cloak. Similar to Arwen's gentle forest colors, I like how Balin's red makes him stand out. I tried to balance the warmth of the red by using cold greys to paint the raven on his shoulder. One thing I like about the dwarves in this set is that they are physically distinct from the humans and elves (which are pretty much indistinguishable from each other). The dwarves are not just small stout humans but really wide and stocky. The thing I don't like, which I mentioned in my original comments about Gimli, is that what they are wearing makes no sense. I'm with you from the hood down to the padded armor, but what kind of shoes are those? Why are there vertical striations across them? Dwarves are supposed to be master smiths and craftsmen, but I don't see that in this interpretation.

Dis

Dis

Barely-mentioned in the books and of obvious representational intention comes Dis. I think the figure is fine, although what's much more interesting to me is the contrast between her inclusion and how I understand the dwarves of Trudvang. In Tolkien's world, the unspoken assumption seems to be that the dwarf men and women mate like humans do, but the women stay in the mountains rather than soldiering or adventuring around Middle Earth. In Trudvang, dwarves are very different and exotic; not only do you only see male dwarves, their own legends about the mythical presence of women dwarves is what I interpret as evidence that they are not even males. That is, the dwarves tell stories about females who live far underground because they witness in other creatures a binary of sexes, but these same legends seem to me to mean that the dwarves are generated by the Earth itself, meaning they are no more men than is the stone. Fascinating, but I digress.

I like how Dis turned out, although after reviewing the cover art of the expansion, I understand why other painters have put her in golden armor. Once again here, the stockiness is really interesting, but practically, I don't see how she can walk in those greaves, her hands are exposed, she has the same oddly striated metal boots, and it doesn't look like she could put both hands on that hammer's handle if she tried.

This is the point in the set where, with the heroes and non-unique heroes painted, my sons and I revisited the Hunt for the Ember Crown campaign. We had tried it months before but suffered a loss near the end, so we ran it again, this time using Gimli, Elanor, and Balin, employing three of the new skill decks. Meanwhile, I moved ahead with the unique villains from the expansion as well as the three from the villain pack.

Balrog

Balrog

We'll start with the Balrog. It sat primed on my painting desk for some time while I considered how to approach it. One one hand, I had Sorastro's video, with its intense OSL and sparks, and on the other, I had also discovered Barks' more enflamed wings. I'm still on the fence about whether the source material should be interpreted as Balrogs being winged in the way a dragon is winged, but the sculptor already made that choice for me. After a few missteps, I settled on an approach that tries to emphasize the inner fire of the creature. There is subtle OSL on the underside of the wings, and I did very little highlighting besides that. The unfortunate result of the attempt to make the figure look shadowed and glowing is that, in regular light, it looks just unlit. I had initially thought of the Balrog like the Rancor, as being the showpiece of the set, but in truth, I think the result is just OK.

Spawn of Ungoliant

Spawn of Ungoliant

The Spawn of Ungoliant is the other unique monster from the expansion set. I agree with Barks that it was a fiddly model to paint. I think the egg sacks on the base turned out to be the strongest part. Honestly, I lost steam on the rest of it. I kept it on my painting table, and I would alternate between thinking that I could add some more colors and hue variation, and then thinking that it really wasn't worth it for a figure that would barely hit the table and that I wasn't really enjoying.

Incidentally, I think part of my lack of enjoyment has been my tools. I realized when looking at my order history that I've been using my "good" workhorse brush--a #1 Winsor and Newton Series 7--for four years. It lost its tip ages ago. I picked up some cheap brushes just to beat on, and I had kind of forgotten how it changes things when you actually pick out small details. I've bought myself some new good brushes for Christmas, so I'll stash those in my stocking and act surprised on Friday morning.

Ursa

Ursa

Here is Ursa, who, I must emphasize, is not a bear. I painted this figure as I did the Shadow-men, although it was months later so I had to try to recreate the hue of the glaze from memory. It turns out it is not a perfect match, but it should suffice: they still clearly are the same idea even if the tone is a bit different. After the initial glaze, I added a few spot washes to bring out the contrast in this figure. It gives it a bit more visual interest without taking inordinate time. I thought about painting the hammer or crown as metallics, but I really do think the monochromatic approach is the right one for my imagination of these ghostly characters.

Ollie

Ollie

I think I spent the most time on Ollie, in part because I was unhappy with my first pass at the skin and had to repaint that. It was strange, but I think what happened was that I didn't have a solid coverage in my original base coat, which meant that some of the underlying zenithal priming was showing through. When I added a highlight, it actually made the highlights darker because they were more saturated. What was especially strange though was that when I looked at it in the natural sunlight coming through the window, it looked OK, but once the sun went down and I looked at it with my office's artificial illumination, it looked terrible. This prompted me to just give it a clean coat, and I think the results speak for themselves.

I believe this photo is of the original skin, which even in the photograph does not look bad, but I'm telling you, there was some weird lighting stuff going on.


In any case, as with the other cave trolls, I like how mixture of techniques produces a strong model. I did hardly any weathering on any of these models, but I did stipple in some rust on Ollie's manacles. It was a weird observation, though, that it made the manacles look better, but almost made the rest look worse for the lack of weathering. In the end, though, they are not showpieces, so a strong tabletop quality suits me fine. (Although it makes me wonder: what would be a good project to practice weathering, and would it bring me joy?)

Supplicant of Morgoth

Supplicant of Morgoth

I don't know what a Supplicant of Morgoth is, but I did paint one. I gave this goblin a more pale tone than the rest in the set, and I like how the red surplice contrasts with the cold black robe. His robe is also curiously tattered, with numerous stitches and irregularities, and I think it gives him a unique look. My first pass on the figure had the beads hanging from his belt as metallic, in an attempt to keep a restricted palette, but I'm glad I juiced it up with a few different simple colors. I admit to some curiosity about how this figure shows up in the campaign, though I don't know yet if the boys and I will start this now or wait until after the excitement of new Christmas boardgames.

That's the whole set! Thanks for reading. As always, feel free to leave a comment, unless you're one of those spam bots who drops one here every few days. Those guys should knock it off.