Book Review: The New Death and others

Even though this blog has been in existence for less than a month, I have been asked to write a book review. Naturally, I feel it is my duty to apprise my cherished readership about RPG related products they may find of use. The New Death and others * is not a set of rules, or a module, or a game supplement per se, but the author asked that I provide “either a normal book review, or a review of its suitability as gaming inspiration.” Well, 'gaming inspiration' certainly falls within the purview of this blog. Also, why write a blog and turn down free swag? (If Raggi is reading this, my sensibilities would not be offended by a complementary copy of Carcosa.) Thus I present my humble commentary.

The New Death and others (hereinafter 'New Death') is an e-book that collects short stories, poems, and vignettes by James Hutchings. This is the same James Hutchings who is responsible for the 'Age of Fable' website. (For the record, 'Age of Fable' earned a place on my Links page before Hutchings contacted me about New Death.) The short stories are indeed short; I think the longest runs no more than six pages. Make no mistake, I consider this a good thing. As the Bard said, “Brevity is the soul of wit.” I would think that someone traveling for the holidays might appreciate this format since it allows the reader to frequently start and stop without having to consider a given piece within the context of a longer narrative.

Among the poems, there are some that are based on stories by Howard, Lovecraft, Smith, and Dunsany. The influence of these staples of fantasy literature extends beyond Hutchings' poems and into his prose. (Perhaps I am mistaken, but there seems to be a hint of Borges as well.) I'm afraid that my appreciation of poetry is not what it could be. I make this disclaimer because my lack of praise for the poetry should not be interpreted necessarily as a deficit of merit, but as a deficit of my ability to evaluate such.

In “Everlasting Fire,” mention is made that making puns is the Eighth Deadly Sin. If this were indeed so, Hutchings would be on death row right now. Some of his stories (such as “The New God”) turn on a pun while others (such as “The Adventure of the Murdered Philanthropist”) are infested with them. If puns are to the reader's taste, then the reader is in store for a feast. Personally, I prefer them in small doses if they must be included in my literary diet at all.

All in all, there is a respectable variety of stories and there is little conceptual repetition. Some stories are cute and some are clever. With certain exceptions, New Death supplies as much gaming inspiration as any work of imaginative fiction. In my opinion, these exceptions are what sets New Death apart from 'any work' and permits me to add this book to the 'thoul approved' reading list. These exceptions are the stories (and one poem) that regard Telelee.

Telelee is Hutchings' outstanding setting that incorporates the city of Telelee and the wider world beyond. “How the Isle of Cats Got Its Name” provides the following description of the city:

...Telelee is as the sea into which all rivers flow, or the market where all gather, or as some moralists have it, the lowest point in all the world, to which all base matter must descend.

A story set in Telelee will have protagonists, but Telelee is always the star. This is where Hutchings' creativeness shines and if gaming inspiration is to be found anywhere in the book, it will be found here. Outside of New Death, Hutchings has a blog devoted to Telelee, although the blog refers to it as Teleleli. I don't know the reason for the difference. If Hutchings wants to provide gaming inspiration, I suggest that he cull his blog, excise the puns, organize the information, and publish Telelee / Teleleli as an actual setting – perhaps system neutral – for role-playing games. (He should then find some outlet for his puns and whatever other inner demons he might have.) Regardless, even without Telelee, New Death is suitable for gaming inspiration; with Telelee, such inspiration is almost guaranteed.

New Death is available for download from either Amazon or Smashwords for a low, low price of ninety-nine cents. Most people spend more than that on a cup of coffee. New Death is more valuable than a cup of coffee (and lasts longer), so the buyer is getting a real bargain here.

* From what I can tell, the 'o' in 'others' is not capitalized.

It's Not Easy Being Human

In Metamorphosis Alpha, a player may choose to play a mutant with superhuman powers or a human without superhuman powers. The world of Metamorphosis Alpha is a dangerous place even for characters with superhuman powers, so there seems to be little reason to play a boring human. To add insult to injury (or rather injury to insult in this case), 'True Humans' are susceptible to more damage from weapons (according to page 19). Metamorphosis Alpha does provide subtle incentives to play a human, but can those incentives outweigh the obvious advantages of mutant abilities?

The Metamorphosis Alpha rulebook contains two blank character sheets; one for humans and one for mutants. Essentially, the differences are that humans have the leadership potential ability and mutants have mutations. There are other differences between humans and mutants, most of which are not reflected on the character sheets. However, beneath the space for 'name,' the mutant character sheet has a space for 'creature type' while the human character sheet has a space for 'next of kin.' This underlies the sociability of humans as an advantage in Metamorphosis Alpha.

According to the section on Human Tribal Areas on page 23, all human player characters begin the game “in some sort of human settlement.” The implication is that mutant player characters do not begin the game as part of an organized society. (There is no section on Mutant Tribal Areas.) According to page 10, “Player mutations start in the forested area of the ship, with no material goods.”  Humans are “...assumed to possess the normal living materials common to [their] tribe...plus any other assorted items the referee sees fit to give...” (p. 11). Curiously, both the human and mutant character sheets have a section for 'judge-given items' separate from other item inventories. Societies of humanoids and mutant creatures are described in the rules, so depriving player character mutants of starting equipment and community support seems to be an artificially imposed factor in an attempt to balance humans against mutants.

Metamorphosis Alpha treats intelligence in inconsistent ways. The descriptions for the 'Time Field Manipulation' mutation and the 'Anti-Leadership Potential' mutation defect both treat intelligence as if it was an ability (like constitution or dexterity) with a maximum numerical value of 18. The 'Heightened Intelligence' mutation provides a bonus to mental resistance and “increases the ability to figure out ancient ship devices” (p. 14). The Devices, Equipment, Duals And Weapons* section on page 21 states, “While there is no separate category of intelligence, it is subsumed in leadership potential.”

Ward's article, “Some Ideas Missed In Metamorphosis Alpha” in issue number 5 of The Dragon (March 1977), claims that “...Mental Resistance...is roughly analogous to the Intelligence factor in D&D...” and should be used rather than leadership potential when figuring out technological items. This is incorporated in the 2007 official errata. When leadership potential was used as intelligence, only humans could figure out 'new' technology. This makes sense in that the technology was designed to be used by humans and humans could draw upon tribal folklore regarding technology. This also provides an advantage for human characters as opposed to mutants. Logically, however, what's to prevent someone (or something) from pressing buttons until a catastrophe occurs or the item's function is determined?

Leadership potential is an exclusively human ability. This is because, according to page 11, “nonhumans of any type” have an ingrained distrust of each other. (Do mutants not have 'next of kin' because they are estranged from them?) Again, this does not agree with the notion of organized societies of humanoid and mutant creature 'races' that are described in the rules. Because of leadership potential, human characters can acquire followers; another attempt to offset the advantages of mutations. The description of leadership potential continues:

When dealing with a mutated human, because of the change in him, he is too close to the “creature” and not close enough to the “human” to have this leadership potential.

When a player chooses to play a mutant character, he or she may play a mutant human ('humanoid') or a mutant creature ('monster-like'). The description of leadership potential suggests a 'spectrum' of human qualities, with 'human' at one extreme and 'creature' at the other. Evidently, mutated humans fall closer to the 'creature' end. At the risk of indulging in philosophical pedantry, what qualities are required in order to be human?

Page 10 expressly states what happens to a human who develops a mutation via radiation exposure, “...[H]is leadership potential is negated and his followers will...leave no matter what he does.” Will he be ostracized from his human community? What about non-obvious mutations? Page 10 also states that a player of a mutant human “...can pick mutations that will allow [the character] to pass among humans...” Certainly, there are benefits to being perceived as human.

Robotic units can be controlled by verbal orders from anyone with an appropriate color band, so it would seem that a human appearance is not necessary to control robots. However, per page 8, robots will not kill humans (or any form of life), but they will actively defend humans – apparently automatically. The main ship's computer, per page 23, will help humans but a “...mutant will be treated like any other dangerous creature...” Robots and the computer would have to rely on basic appearance and 'assume' that someone who looks like a human is a human.

Why can't a mutant who appears to be human have followers? Page 11 states that “...leadership potential is usually given to humans of pure strain...” (my emphasis). Would it be too unbalancing for mutants 'passing' as humans to have leadership potential? Having followers is symbolic of status as well as 'proof' of one's humanity.

Lastly, Ward's article, “The Total Person In Metamorphosis Alpha” in issue number 14 of The Dragon (May 1978), presents other advantages for humans – a +2 bonus against poisons and using d8s instead of d6s for hit point determination. (Alas, these advantages were not incorporated into the 2007 official errata.) Interestingly, the article also presents the possibility of a mutated human with a 'pure' human parent (a sort of 'half-mutant' as it were). Such a character receives the constitution benefits above and will not have a physical mutation defect. The character would necessarily come from “a mixed village of mutants and humans,” which provides the organized society benefits otherwise denied mutant humans. (This 'half-mutant' possibility is also excluded from the 2007 official errata.)

* I assumed that 'Duals' was supposed to be 'Tools,' but 'Duals' appears uncorrected in the 2007 official errata.

Pepper spray is in the eye of the ...

This transformative image is displayed for satirical purposes.

Luke Skywalker vs Dorothy Gale (and her little dog, too)

A young person is raised on a farm by an aunt and uncle. Said young person despairs of life on said farm. Said young person is swept up into adventure and confronts the Forces of Evil. Along the way, said young person meets up with a metallic man and some furry dude. At the end of the story, it turns out the young person had the ability to accomplish the goal all along! Many sequels ensue.

Alexis (in this post) discusses heroes and how stereotypical D&D player characters are not heroes. There is not much in the post with which I disagree. Alexis seems to suggest that Dorothy Gale is a hero. OK, I'm down with that. So I ask Alexis if he considers Luke Skywalker to be a hero. (I mean, Alexis doesn't have to like Star Wars to agree that Luke Skywalker is a hero.) In Alexis' opinion, Luke Skywalker is not a hero. Then I ask why Dorothy is heroic if Luke is not. Alexis laughs this question off and does not deign to provide a straight answer. Why should he? Clearly, I'm going to interpret things however I want.

Is there anyone out there that can play devil's advocate (or, in this case, Alexis' advocate)? Seriously, I'd like to know what qualifies Dorothy to be a hero as opposed to Luke. From what he writes, it seems Alexis thinks Luke is self-centered; that his goals are selfish. I guess bringing freedom to the galaxy was just incidental to his plans. What about Dorothy? She wasn't a crusader. Her motivation was to return to her aunt and uncle. If not for that motivation, Dorothy could have chilled out with the Munchkins. Am I missing something or does Alexis need to take off his green spectacles?

To avoid quibbles of canonicity, let us restrict ourselves to the original movie (Episode IV) and the original book, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.  Thanks.