Ascending to Infinity (Album Review)

I've written about the Italian symphonic metal band Rhapsody of Fire before in my blog. After the release of the last album in their epic fantasy saga (which I wrote about here) a couple years ago, they made the decision to split the band in two. Rhapsody of Fire would continue touring and (I presume) playing their classic material, while the band's former lead guitarist, Luca Turilli, would found a new band as a vehicle for his own composition work. This new band came to be known by the (very inventive and original) name Luca Turilli's Rhapsody...

Now Turilli has released several solo albums over the years under his own name (and one as Luca Turilli's Dreamquest, which featured him on keyboards rather than guitar). I don't really see why he couldn't have simply released more music as Luca Turilli, instead of going to such confusing arrangements. But here we are, and this is what we have.

A mere year after Rhapsody of Fire's From Chaos to Eternity, the first album from Luca Turilli's Rhapsody was released, titled Ascending to Infinity. And somehow it took me almost a year to get around to buying it, probably partly because of all this two band weirdness, but here I am at last...

Unlike Rhapsody of Fire's albums, which featured a continuing fantasy tale, Ascending to Infinity is a collection of individual songs touching on different mythological topics, from Atlantis to Excalibur to Michael and Lucifer... The album seems to be wreathed in allegory, though, and to be honest, I'm not really sure what many of the songs are actually supposed to be about. Frequent snippets in Latin and Italian don't help with understanding... But in any case, it's the sound that's important here.

And the sound is... Luca Turilli doing what he does best. The compositions and arrangements are almost ridiculously epic. 'Born to sound cinematic,' the booklet proudly proclaims. Indeed. The jazzy cover song Luna, though not as such bad in and of itself, seems kinda out of place and unnecessary on the album, but otherwise it is musically pretty impressive. Turilli plays both guitar and keyboards on this album, and does both masterfully.

There's a new vocalist, Alessandro Conti, to get accustomed to, of course. But stylistically the singing remains fairly similar to Fabio Lione's vocals for Rhapsody of Fire (and equally coloured by a heavy Italian accent, but I guess no one's perfect). The other musicians are all Rhapsody of Fire alumni (Dominique Leurquin and Patrice Guers on second guitar and bass respectively, and Alex Holzwarth on drums, though he would later leave to focus on playing with Rhapsody of Fire), so there's a lot of experience and talent here.

So yeah, I do quite enjoy this album. Musically it continues in the strong, epic tradition of both Rhapsody of Fire and Turilli's solo works. It does, however, leave me a little cold on the lyrical side, perhaps suffering from the lack of a cohesive story. It remains to be seen whether this two band format will work and continue in the future. Turilli does kinda have a habit of starting projects that never go beyond one album... And just after writing that, I see on Wikipedia that a second album has apparently been announced for 2014. Welp, we'll see. After Ascending to Infinity I'll certainly be looking forward to it.

A Quick Mass Effect Addendum: Paragon Lost

Right on the heels of wrapping up my playthrough of the Mass Effect trilogy, I decided to watch the anime movie Mass Effect: Paragon Lost, which I purchased recently.

The movie is basically a prequel to both Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3. It's set just before the former, featuring the 'collectors', the main enemy of that game, while starring James Vega, a character from the latter (voiced by  Freddie Prinze Jr, as in the game).

So yeah. It is, indeed, an anime movie. For a person who's not a big anime fan there's bound to be some culture shock regarding the art style. Even for an anime fan like me, moving from the game graphics to an entirely different style took a little adjustment. The animation quality is reasonable, though of course we're not talking anything like Studio Ghibli quality here...

The movie was written by Henry Gilroy, who's apparently best known for his work on the Star Wars: The Clone Wars animated series. It's reasonably loyal to the canon of the video games (although there may have been one or two plot points I wasn't quite sure of). It's not a particularly deep story, mostly based on action. But it kept me entertained for one and a half hours... I'd definitely recommend playing at least the first two games before watching this, though, as there are both references to the first game and some spoilers concerning the second.

And yeah, that's about all I have to say about it. If you enjoy both Mass Effect and anime, there's a fair chance you'll enjoy Paragon Lost. At least if you're not expecting anything too earth-shaking...

The Mass Effect 3 Post

So it's done. I have finished the Mass Effect trilogy.

And what an experience it was. A unique combination of shooter and RPG, with some thrilling storytelling, wrapped up in a delightful space opera setting. Over 100 hours of fun times in total. (You may wish to check out my commentary on Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 before you proceed.)

Of course I don't want to build up too much hype. Like any thing, it won't be to everybody's tastes. And it's not like the games are without flaws. But, on a personal level, I did rather fall in love with the series. Saying it was my favourite game might be jumping the gun a little, as there are of course many games out there I really love, but it's definitely very, very high up on my list.

But onwards to my commentary on the third instalment!

I don't want to give out too much spoilers, of course. But as this is the finale of the trilogy, we're obviously heading into climax territory. A final showdown with the Reapers is looming. The entire galaxy is at war.

This premise means we're in for an epic story... but, as a downside, Mass Effect 3 seems to have the narrowest scope of the trilogy. It's all about the war, the big picture, less about individuals and exploration. You'll mostly just be fighting a couple different, relatively faceless factions. Even your choice of squadmates is more limited than in the previous game.

Gameplay remains mostly quite similar to Mass Effect 2, although there are some small changes again. There's a little more equipment management again, though not the full-blown inventory management of the original game. On the other hand, some of the mini-games (like hacking computers) are gone. Scanning planets remains, but in a very stumped form that makes you question the need for it in the first place...

In action you'll need to pay a little more attention to healing, as you'll only regenerate a portion of your health bar. Cover still plays a large role, perhaps even a little more refined than in Mass Effect 2. And you do need to be cautious. Some enemies can do a lot of damage in a very short time, if given a chance. Like the previous games, I played through it on normal difficulty. There were perhaps a few more challenging, even downright difficult parts this time, particularly towards the end of the game, even though I was at a reasonably high level (or at least I couldn't think of much more to do to level up). But nothing I couldn't beat in the end, and it was all pretty fun.

I probably visited many more systems than in the previous games, because this time exploration directly benefits the galaxy's readiness for the final battle. However, this exploration didn't feel particularly rewarding, mostly consisting of just scanning systems, without much action or story.

Technically, it may have felt marginally more glitchy than the previous game (but clearly more stable than the first game). Some of this was caused by the game still heavily loading data at the beginning of some scenes. Unlike the PS3 versions of the previous games, this one didn't install data on the hard drive, which I expect will have increased load times somewhat. Naturally being the newest game it's also probably a little more detailed visually, and there was some fairly decent music, too. But that stuff's just dressing, the meat of these games is elsewhere.

At around 40 hours, it was a little shorter than my playthrough of Mass Effect 2, but this is due to the fact that, unlike the first two games, the trilogy box version of Mass Effect 3 didn't include DLCs (not even the expanded ending, which you have to download yourself). There are several additional missions available, of course, but, frankly, they're relatively pricey and, alas, I just couldn't afford to buy them right now. Maybe for my next playthrough... Oh, and speaking of the ending, I'm going to steer right clear of that whole controversy. Suffice to say, I had no problems with the ending as it was now.

Oh, right. There's that multiplayer mode too. And... I couldn't be less interested. Seems kinda pointless. But I guess there are folks that enjoy teaming up to shoot some bad guys... Me, I'm all about the story.

I seem to be kinda focusing on negative aspects above. But the truth is, I loved every minute of this game. Now my main problem is, though, that the next game I play won't be a Mass Effect game...

Pathfinder - My Friend and My Foe

Today I ran my Pathfinder campaign again.

I do love Pathfinder. I like feeling connected to the long, amazing history of the world's first role-playing game. I like owning many beautiful hardback volumes of intriguing rules, monsters and whatnot. I like the wealth of material available, from full settings to adventure modules. I like playing with miniatures, it's a nice change of pace from the usual role-playing games I play. I even like the ubiquitous clichés, sometimes it's just cool to get down to the basic themes of old-school gaming.

I do love it, but it's really a kind of love-hate relationship. I won't lie to you, preparing for a Pathfinder session can be stressful, more so than most RPG's.

It's a game with a fairly steep learning curve, it must be said. The core mechanisms are actually quite simple, but there's so much more to master, particularly as a GM. The subtleties of combat, unique abilities of different monsters, the abilities of each character class, the myriad feats and spells and magic items... Where does one even begin learning it all? After a couple years I still feel like a total noob.

Of course it doesn't help that my group hasn't been able to get together all that often lately (we've only had a dozen sessions since summer 2011, with sometimes even half a year passing between sessions). And every time you feel like you're almost starting from scratch (not entirely true, of course, but it's not like you can remember everything for that long). I know people to whom complex rule systems like (modern) D&D or GURPS seem to come entirely naturally, like second nature. This doesn't exactly help, as I am clearly not one of them. I have lots of trouble remembering details.

Knowing all this, picking up those thick rulebooks begins to feel like a chore, and patience is not one of my virtues. You feel like you're never going to be good enough, no matter how hard you try. So you procrastinate. And you procrastinate. And then you beat yourself up about not preparing enough.

There's no such thing as a perfect RPG session, of course, regardless of system. There will always be important rules you forget. There will always be flaws in your plans. The players will always do something unexpected. There will always be plot holes you don't realise until the players stumble upon them. It's something you have to live with as a GM. Just try to forget about it and have fun. But when you add relatively complex rules to the equation, those feelings of inadequacy and self-consciousness easily grow manifold.

But it's not like you can quit, either... Who'd want to do that? It is, after all, one of the most important, awesome games in the world...

The Flow of the Game: One More Soar Engine Post

I blogged yesterday about the core ideas of my new (and untested) RPG rule system. As I had a little time to kill, I figured I might as well try to tackle one more aspect of it. This one's a little harder to put into words, though, and the aspect of the system that is, for me, perhaps the largest question mark. The core roll mechanisms are simple enough that they should, in my mind, work reasonably, but whether the flow of the entire game, based on ideas below, works is another matter...

Mostly action in RPG's tends to go on these lines: The GM describes the enemies. You attack one of them. They attack you. You repeat this until someone runs out of hit points or retreats.

With Soar Engine I'd like to try something slightly different. As I've said earlier, the idea is to make it a little more situation/goal oriented, rather than focusing on HP and repetitive action. The GM describes a situation. The players react to it. Ideally, the GM doesn't have to do much more than that once the scene gets under way. Let the players be creative, and focus on the big picture. Since the majority of enemies can be defeated with a single action, and the player characters don't have hit points (at least in the traditional sense – failed rolls can still have adverse effects, though), you don't need to go into too much detail about what exactly the NPC's are doing. (Essentially, in a combat situation, you could say the NPC's are actually attacking constantly, but it's the players' own actions that determine their effectiveness.)

Except when it suits the narrative. You still have to keep the players on their toes, of course. Mix up the game, drop in some twists and surprises. So at any point the GM can declare what I'm calling a 'Reaction Event'. At this point any characters involved must make an appropriate action (usually defensive in nature, but creativity is to be encouraged). Maybe the characters walk into an ambush, or trigger a trap. Maybe the enemies suddenly regroup in a massive counter-attack. Maybe the boss monster has charged up its devastating main attack...

Enforcing a clear turn order during action sequences is, in my mind, a good idea. It gives the game a little structure, and, most importantly, ensures that everyone has a chance to play. You could roll for 'initiative', but I think it should be entirely random (i.e. not affected by characters' stats), its only function to make sure that different players have a chance to act first. A player's turn involves one cohesive action (and one dice roll, if needed). The time it takes to do this isn't really important, nor do I think it's necessary to keep track of 'rounds' in addition to individual players' turns. Once you've gone round the table simply move to the first player again. (Think of a movie scene. You have a shot of one character doing something. Then the camera cuts to another character. It's not an exact science, the passage of time is highly subjective. Every detail doesn't need to be shown, nor do events involving different characters necessarily take place simultaneously.)

Reaction Events are outside the regular flow of turns. All involved characters make their rolls immediately, and once the situation is resolved, turns resume where you left off. The GM can have a turn too, of course. It doesn't necessarily involve much, since much of the time NPC's don't attack in the traditional sense, but could be used for a bit of extra narration based on preceding players' actions, or it could be used to trigger timed Reaction Events.

I have mostly been talking in terms of combat, but the same mechanisms can, of course, be used for any kind of action. An 'enemy' could be a bomb that needs defusing, a computer that needs hacking, a runaway train that needs stopping, or whatever.

That more or less wraps up what I have to say about the rules, until I actually get around to writing them up (which I probably won't be doing until I've had a chance to test the system at least once)...

Soar Engine Addendum: On Video Games and the Tabletop

As an addendum to my post earlier today about my new RPG rule system, Soar Engine, a thought or two about its (and RPG's in general) relationship with video games...

As I said in the previous post, playing Mass Effect was a big influence on developing the concept of Soar Engine. But it runs deeper than that. For basically all of my adult life, video games have been a huge influence on me (perhaps even more so than as a kid). And for many years I've yearned for a pen & paper RPG that more effectively captured a little of the feel, and aesthetic, of video games.

The things I enjoy in my RPG's – larger-than-life characters, over-the-top action, etc. – I sometimes describe as cinematic, but what I really want to say is video game like (though that obviously doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well). However, I'm not sure I've ever quite succeeded in bringing in this feel quite as well as I'd like.

Of course video game RPG's, one of my favourite video game genres, were (and are) heavily influenced by their pen & paper counterparts. But going the other way, drawing influence from video games, is a little more challenging, I think. Speed is naturally one of the main issues. You can devise a system that emulates the mechanics of some game, but taken to the table it inevitably becomes much slower. And that naturally detracts from the feel of the game.

So with Soar Engine I hope to emulate the feel, or perhaps I should rather say aesthetic, of video games, rather than paying too much attention to underlying mechanics, like counting HP and damage, equipment management and whatnot. The power system I explained in my previous post could, in all its simplicity, be used to emulate the special abilities of characters from all sorts of video games, from biotic attacks to summoning Bahamut to level your enemies. And that, in my mind, is what in the end defines these characters – their unique ways of making the action feel dramatic. That is what I want to bring to the tabletop.

A Little More on the Soar Engine

This post is pretty much about procrastination (and racking up an impressive amount of blog posts for this month), but whatever...

Recently I wrote about Soar Engine, the concept for a new RPG rule system I was developing, mostly just for kicks at this point. I thought I'd take a moment to try to put into words some of the core concepts (not that anyone really cares, but on the off chance that a small handful of my friends might be interested).

As I indicated in the previous post, Soar Engine is a rules light system with a focus on dramatic action. It is, first and foremost, a storytelling game. Ideally, the rules would encourage creativity, not hinder it. But I also still want it to be a storytelling game. Making tactical decisions based on well defined rule mechanisms is, in my mind, part of the fun. Balancing these two elements can be a challenge.

Characters in the Soar Engine are very simple. They have a simple list of ten 'stats', defined by numerical value (0-5). These combine elements that many systems divide into 'attributes' and 'skills'. (They probably correspond more to the former, but include a few things like 'fighting', which most systems would treat as skills, distinct from generic physical/mental traits). In addition to these 'stats', they have a few 'powers', specific to that character. These could include special training, special gear, supernatural abilities etc. Powers don't have levels, you simply have them or don't.

And that's it. A number of stats and a handful of powers. In a nutshell, you roll dice, add the appropriate stat, and if you have an appropriate power you get an additional bonus. However, like I said, 'tactical decisions' are also part of the fun, so there are some advanced things you can do with powers ('all-out' attacks, 'combos' etc.) that grant you additional bonuses – but for a cost, of course. (For example, doing an 'all-out' action will give you an additional bonus, but will lock that power for the remainder of the scene.)

There are no rule mechanisms that describe the character's personality (in form of advantages/disadvantages, or whatever). The purpose of the rules is to create dramatic action, nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is entirely up to the players, and the narrative. You're free to write as much as you wish about a character's background and personality, of course, but building rules around it would only limit the narrative rather than add to it.

I said in the previous blog post that there are no hit points. This is... mostly true. Most enemies you'll take out with just one successful action (often a physical/supernatural attack, though it could be almost anything, limited only by your creativity – and available powers). Tough 'bosses' might require multiple actions (perhaps entirely different actions, to keep the players on their toes and coming up with creative ideas), but this is a fluid thing determined by narrative, not numbers. As for player characters... despite being a game about powerful, heroic characters, I feel there should still be an element of danger that contributes to the decision making process. Characters won't die, but they can become temporarily 'crippled' if they fail rolls too often (or roll a fumble, or, as I'm calling it, an 'epic fail').

While I was contemplating this system, I was also busy playing Mass Effect. This, undoubtedly, had a great impact on my ideas. Particularly I think it influenced the way I envisioned the 'powers'. I'm thinking the system would work well for a game based on the Mass Effect franchise (or other epic sci-fi with flashy supernatural/technological powers), though of course it should work just as well for other genres, too, the main difference simply being the powers available. ('Would work' or 'should work' – but keep in mind the system is still entirely untested.)

Speaking of Mass Effect and pen & paper gaming, I find it strange that no official Mass Effect RPG has been released yet, while a Dragon Age (the other major BioWare franchise) RPG exists. The latter is, after all, a fairly generic fantasy setting, which any GM with a modicum of time and experience could easily adapt to, say, D&D/Pathfinder. (Though, personally, I think there are much more interesting generic high fantasy settings already available for various systems, so why bother...) Mass Effect's original space opera setting, on the other hand, with its fascinating species and whatnot, would seem like something there could be a call for in the pen & paper world...

Anyway, I'm sure I'll return with more about the Soar Engine some day, hopefully with actual experiences. Till then, keep gaming!

Tenra Bansho Zero: First Impressions

I think I first encountered Tenra Bansho Zero sometime last year on some news website or other. It was a (then) upcoming translation of a Japanese tabletop RPG. Being an old fan of anime/manga and Japanese video games this naturally piqued my interest. I knew Japan had its own tabletop gaming industry, but games from the country very rarely make it to the west. The PDF version of the game has been available for a while now, while the print version is scheduled to be released soon.

I was tentatively interested for a while. I would have liked to know more about the game, but couldn't do so without buying the game. And, alas, I'm not made of money. Eventually, however, I had to give in to temptation and, grudgingly, bought the PDF earlier this week. (Grudgingly because I very much dislike paying money for intangible things. But, sadly, the print version is currently entirely out of my reach, in part because international shipping expenses for the books are, to put it bluntly, intolerable.)

The $14 for the PDF is, however, a fairly reasonable price, I suppose, considering the game's scope. Included is a 456 page rulebook and 240 page setting book (over 250mb put together). The books look decent, though perhaps not the most impressive I've seen. The setting book is in colour and has a fair amount of quality illustration, while the rulebook is black and white with rather less in way of illustration. Of course I cannot compare it to the Japanese original, but the translation seems to be of fairly decent quality.

It's all... a little overwhelming, to be honest. I'm not sure where to start. Well, the setting, I suppose. The game is set in a fantasy world called Tenra, which mixes up feudal Japan, magic and technology. Mecha and cyborgs exist side by side with magically empowered samurai, ninjas, Buddhist magicians, Oni and the like. The world is left intentionally vague, with the setting book mostly devoted to the different character types and only very briefly discussing things like geography. It should appeal to fans of fantasy anime, though. The setting manages to mix up many tropes of the genre, yet retains a somewhat fresh and original feel. The rules are largely built around this setting. I imagine you could theoretically adapt the system to other worlds (like, say, a more historical feudal Japan, if you exclude the technological stuff), but personally I see little need for this.

And as for the rules... As you can imagine from the size of the rulebook, there's something of a learning curve. At the core of the system is a fairly simple dice pool based skill system, with a simple list of attributes and skills. However, there are several different types of supernatural and technological abilities, with differing game mechanics, which makes for a lot of material to digest.

But what really places Tenra Bansho Zero apart from most games I've played, and will undoubtedly require a little getting used to, are some of the rules relating to player interaction and the game's pacing. Basically, the GM doesn't hand out experience points. Rather, players reward each other with 'aiki chits' for cool (and in-character) lines and actions. These chits are used to buy 'kiai points', which in turn can be used to boost actions (or improve stats). Each character also has a selection of 'fates', which describe their motivations, often involving other player characters in some way.

A lot of emphasis is also placed on the structure of adventures, dividing them into acts and scenes, with 'intermissions' where technical stuff involving aiki/kiai/fates happens. Speaking of adventures, the game is actually intended primarily for individual one-shot scenarios rather than long campaigns (though nothing's stopping you from running lengthier games either, of course). The book often makes use of theatrical comparisons, likening a scenario to a 'play', in terms of scope and structure.

All in all, it's pretty fascinating, though of course it is very difficult to judge how well some of the more exotic concepts will work in practise. And, naturally, with all the games I'm currently playing there might not be a window for testing it any time soon... Of  course, particularly since I've paid actual money for it, it would be cool to try it some day. The PDF format may be a slight hurdle, though. I'm not the best at memorizing stuff, and I'm used to being able to browse rulebooks during game sessions. And with the size of this book, printing everything necessary wouldn't exactly be... practical. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I do much prefer my RPG books as, well, books... But I'll have to settle for what I can get.

While I've written about various RPG systems and settings before, this may be, to the best of my memory, the first time I've actually 'reviewed' a tabletop game. I expect I may write similar posts about future game acquisitions... Till next time!

Birth of the Soar Engine

In a blog post last week I mentioned I was, against my better judgement, jotting down a few ideas for a RPG rule system. I have now named it the Soar Engine. (Or SOAR Engine. I haven't quite decided on the best typography.)

Concerning the name, 'soaring' is, of course, a type of flying. I'm using it figuratively (although there is of course no reason why games couldn't involve flying), as in letting one's imagination soar. But it actually came about with me toying with various words in my head, trying to think of a cool acronym. The words that, in the end, made up 'soar' were 'situation oriented action roleplaying'. Which, basically, means very little... (I also debated for a while between 'system' and 'engine'. 'Soar System' would have had that nice alliteration, but I eventually decided it looked too much like a typo'd 'solar system'. In any case, I like 'engine', because the rules are meant to drive the narrative, not define it.)

It's a very minimalistic set of rules, but with a twist or two. One of the main ideas is that there are no hit points. Rather, action is more goal or situation oriented. You decide on an action. You either succeed or you don't. You move on to the next obstacle, or try a different approach. What you don't do (hopefully) is get stuck in a loop taking turns punching each other. It's intended for heroic characters, the kind who routinely take out minions with one hit and walk away from failures saying: 'It's just a flesh wound.'

Of course I have no idea if it works in practise at all like I've imagined it. I hope to run an alpha test adventure sometime this spring or summer. It'll be a long time till I make any material public. If ever.

This thing has been... kinda like an earworm. The idea keeps bouncing around in my head, and I just need to get it out of my system. A couple days ago, I spent an evening designing a character sheet. I guess that means I'm somewhat serious about it. Although I've made a lot of stuff like that over the years that has never been used, at least there is some actual potential for making use of it now. I'm fairly pleased with the end result, too. It's the first time I've made a fillable PDF (yeah, I know, so modern).

Welp, if anything worthwhile comes out of this, I'll undoubtedly blog about it some day. If not, well, one more unfinished idea for the archives...

The Mass Effect 2 Post

Late last year I, at long last, played Mass Effect when the trilogy box was released for the PS3. (Here's the review blog post I wrote.) After finishing it, I, naturally, immediately started playing Mass Effect 2. However, stuff happened (trips, illnesses etc.), and I got sidetracked for several months. Last night, however, I finally finished my playthrough. And it was... fairly awesome.

If you're not familiar with Mass Effect, I suggest you start with my post about the first game. Much of what I say about it is also true for the second. In this post I'll focus mostly on the differences, of which there were some.

I don't want to say too much about the plot, in case of spoilers. Suffice to say that commander Shepard is still around, the Reapers are still out there, and the authorities still aren't taking the threat seriously. One interesting feature of the trilogy is that you can import your save file from the previous game. Choices you made earlier will have an effect on events in this game as well.

Gameplay remains quite similar. However, there seems to be a slight shift in focus away from RPG elements towards tactical combat. Most notably the inventory management, which played a large role in the first game, has been basically removed entirely. You still get equipment upgrades, but these are one-off things which usually benefit your entire team from that point on. (This, I think, was probably a good move, since managing the upgrades in ME1 was something of a hassle.) The characters also have fewer talents to level up.

Meanwhile, the role of cover in combat is emphasized even more than in the first game. They have also limited ammunition, which may force you to switch weapons should you happen to run out (though this happened relatively rarely for me). Exploration has also been changed somewhat. Instead of just hitting a button, you now have to manually scan planet surfaces in a mini-game. (Which, honestly, is pretty boring.) The storytelling and the game's dialogue system, on the other hand, remain practically unchanged, and still play a crucial role.

Visually the game has probably improved a little from the first one. It's still maybe not one of the most detailed around, but the graphics worked well enough for me. (The game also felt considerably less buggy than the port of the first game.) If there was one disappointment, it was maybe the way certain 'hub' locations were presented, particularly Citadel, which just felt much more confined and less impressive than in the first game.

ME2 is a pretty lengthy game, too. I finished ME1 in under 30 hours, whereas this time the game's clock read close to 50 hours. Even though I did relatively little additional exploration, maybe even less than in the first game (the game still doesn't really give enough incentive for it), I probably played through a few more optional missions. Many of the game's missions are related to characters on your team, which made them a little more interesting than much of the optional stuff in ME1. The trilogy box version also includes several missions originally released as DLC, which easily added maybe ten hours of play, and were, actually, pretty cool and interesting.

Some of the changes took a moment to adjust to, but basically everything that made the first Mass Effect game great is still present, and, occasionally, maybe even improved. The games have a great balance of intense storytelling, fast action, dialogue and exploration. And I'm really looking forward to playing Mass Effect 3 next...

Once More, without the Books

In yesterday's blog post I talked about my common yearning to read new RPG rulebooks. Particularly when I'm supposed to be focusing on another game... But there's also another way to procrastinate in RPG land: designing your own rule systems and settings.

I've worked on a whole bunch of RPG systems over the years. Some never leave the idea stage. Some I've used on occasion for a one-shot or mini-campaign. None of them proved to be particularly revolutionary and  all were soon forgotten.

Although on some level any creative work can be seen as a positive endeavour, there is really little more point in designing new systems than there is in browsing rulebooks you're not planning to use in the immediate future. For one thing, the issue with time an opportunity is still the same. I cannot possibly run every interesting game out there... But there's also another important issue, which is the fact that, as I've repeatedly said recently, I really do like reading quality RPG rulebooks. And should I run a game designed entirely by myself, I'd have even less opportunity to do so...

Regardless of all this I just spent a little time jotting down notes for yet another RPG system. Something I'd hope was a little different. Something that would accommodate things I enjoy, like epic, fast, video game like action...

I honestly don't know why I bother.

The Grass Is Greener (In the Other Rulebook)

I get these moods when I really want to dig into a new RPG rulebook.

Often it happens when I'm supposed to be preparing for a game. I enjoy reading rulebooks, but when you have to do it, well, it just becomes a chore, and you... procrastinate. I guess I'm also a rather restless person at heart, and like my bit of variety.

Right now, while my next game sessions already loom on the horizon, there's no acute rush. However, for the past few days I've been suffering from a slight cold, which is another good excuse for procrastinating and a sure way to get your mind wandering and looking for filler to fight the boredom.

It is not really a rational desire. I already have many games in my shelf that I've never played. And I'm already participating in several games, so the likelihood of having a chance to try anything new any time soon is fairly slim. Sure, you could maybe squeeze in some one-shot adventures, but to be honest, I'm not really too crazy about one-shots. Seems like a lot of work, getting to know the rules, creating characters etc. just for one evening... Reading RPG books without realistic potential to play them in the foreseeable future does seem a little... hollow. But this knowledge seems to count for little when I get the mood.

The problem, however, is finding those new books to delve in, me not being made of money and all that. Even if I could afford some particular book, I'm not one to buy a 'pig in a poke', so to speak. I've discussed some free games in my blog before, but finding new genuinely interesting and high quality material for free is... well, probably unsurprisingly, pretty challenging. And, superficial as it may sound, I do like my RPG books high quality, with lots of lovely art etc. The aesthetic experience is an important part of gaming for me.

Currently I'm still quite interested in Monte Cook's Numenera. But that won't be out for a good while yet, and still costs a lot of money. Another game that has caught my attention on a few occasions already over the past few months is Tenra Bansho Zero. Japan has its own RPG industry, but very few of their games make it to the west. This translation has been a fan's labour of love lasting many years, and from what I can see on the website, it looks fairly impressive. It's now available as PDF, with a print book available for pre-order.

The PDF version of Tenra Bansho Zero currently costs $14, which, I guess, is actually a pretty reasonable price, all things considered. However, I'm not sure I'm mentally capable of paying even that much money for something that I can't hold in my hands. Plus there is the 'pig in a poke' factor. Yet without access to the book itself I can't actually learn more about it. Do you see my dilemma?

So probably most often these moods of mine end with me cursing about not finding anything really worthwhile (or economical enough) to read... Life can be so frustrating sometimes...