GOZR Scraps and Bits

In the process of creating GOZR, I left a bunch of stuff on the cutting room floor and changed a lot of it as I went along. Just the process of editing and what-not. Here's the original GOZR map vs. the final version.

Really happy I went this direction. The original map is fine, and I think if I had finished it up it would still look pretty good. But the final version feels more intuitive to me. The north-south direction of the river is a line that grounds the whole thing and helps place all the elements where they are supposed to be. To the east you have endless dunes and to the west you have endless badlands. Down south you got endless bogs and forests and up north... endless mountains. And there's the city right in the middle.

 

More About Gooz Love

In this post I pose the question "how do we get gooz babies?". Spoiler... I don't answer that question. I present possibilities. But the mystery stands. And even if I answer this question at some point in an RPG book or a comic, that doesn't mean it's true for your GOZR game. You know the drill... the game book isn't the game you play, the game you play is the game you play*.

So here's another question. If one of the possible answers is that gooz are created by some super-science machine, then why do gooz have genders at all and why do they display sexual traits? There are images of gooz in the book who clearly have mammalian breasts of the kind suitable for feeding little goozlings. Sure, you can say that they come out as wee babies, as the text implies, but then you need milkers to milk feed them.

But hell's bells... it's super-science. Surely the Pretty Ones are capable of engineering a method of feeding baby gooz that doesn't involve gooz boobs, right? Maybe. Maybe with them gone, that system is defunct. How you gonna feed these goozlings? It's complicated, right?

Look here... the gooz are clearly imperfect creatures. Some have three arms, for pete's sake. They have varying numbers of fingers. They come in all shapes and colors. The Pretty Ones, as advanced and magical as they were, weren't gods. They were fumbling around with arcane science and they created these dinky degenerate servants.

Gooz are DNA hot messes with Pretty Ones and many other creatures' genetic material in their bodies. We all know that nature is not neat and clean. Gooz are natural, right? They are messy. They have sex traits. Hell, even if they are born from machines, they probably also have sex now and then.

I think what seems clear, to me anyway, is that they don't have sex baggage. They aren't highly sexualized. They lean pretty hard in the "meh" direction with regards to sex and gender. "Whatever, pal." would be their response to these questions.

For myself, as an observer and chronicler of the ugly ones, this question is fascinating and I hope to explore it more in the future.

Also, maybe next time I can talk about actual gooz "love". Not just this sex stuff. Do gooz fall in love? Do they have life mates? I think you know that the answer is going to be "some do, some don't".

*A good friend ran a robust playtest adventure of GOZR before it was published and he completely ignored the entire setting. His adventure was in "Gooz York"... a kind of far future post-apoc New York. It was a hoot. 

DCC RPG and TQB

Recently, Ben Milton of The Questing Beast made a video with this spicy thumbnail right here. There's usually a tagline like "we need to talk about Goodman Games" or something.

Ben looks like he tried to read a stereo manual from 1984.

I had to watch it. I love DCC! I ran several excellent campaigns years ago and have always found that game to be supremely entertaining, massively charming, and just a heller good time.

TL:DR: Ben feels DCC is too wordy, not useful at the table, and is stuck in the past. There's more to it, and Ben isn't entirely negative. Watch it yourself. Here's Ben responding to some of the criticisms.

EDIT: Ben frames his video in terms of the OSR. My diatribe below seems to ignore this fact. I don't think Ben is talking about all TTRPGs. But even within the OSR sphere only, I stand by these words.

 

Plenty of folks have responded to this video. Many have said things similar to what I'm about to say. But I wanted lay down my own take because Ben touches on some points that are pet peeves of mine, and I feel like there are some blind spots in his treatment.

1. THE TABLE ISN'T NECESSARILY THE ONLY PLAY SPACE

Ben's laser-focus has always been on an emergent, on-the-fly gaming style. I like this a lot. Many of my own game ideas are in this vein because I'm also an adult with other responsibilities and if I get a chance to run a game it's very nice to have something easy to just pull off the shelf and run with zero prep.

But zero prep is not the only way to play. And the prep phase of a game is still part of the game. Call it a pre-game if you want. It's not only a valid approach to game design, but one that many players strongly prefer.

If you have ever been a GM, then you remember what it felt like reading your first adventure module or scenario, understanding what the story was about, and then making plans for how to run it. For some, this is a chore they no longer savor. They want the bullet-point style. "Just give me the room contents in a list and shut up". I get it.

But for others... no. They want to read the adventure, then they want to sit with it, make notes, change some things, add new things... do the prep work. This, for them, is a fun part of playing the game.

2. THE LATEST WAY ISN'T THE BEST FOR EVERYONE

Ben assumes his gaming preference is - by default - the latest and greatest advancement in RPGs and older approaches are somehow outdated. I think it is because he is an educator and he absolutely loves emergent game play, not game prep. I really do understand this, and I enjoy that style too. But man I hate the attitude and the concept.

This isn't aimed at Ben... I enjoy his videos. They are super helpful and fun. He was very positive about my Black Pudding Heavy Helping and GOZR books, which was a big confidence boost for me.

No, this is aimed at the idea that old is badder and new is gooder that many in the RPG spaces seem to assume. I'm here to put into the public record that newer does not equal better. Innovation is super important, and new modes of play keep the fires burning. But unlike computer software, games from 1979 are still very playable, just as they always were. You might not enjoy them, but someone else damn sure does and they probably don't want you to bullet-point them.

Some GMs love to savor a meaty game text. Read it, understand it, then prepare to run it... that is fun for them.

If you don't enjoy prep work or reading wordier adventures... don't. It's fine. But if you do... then the advice that games should always embrace the bullet-point style is bad advice, isn't it?

3. THE SUGGESTED CHANGE COULD DESTROY DCC

Finally, I wanted to say that DCC RPG has a robust and rabid community of fans. If Goodman Games switched their approach to bullet-point adventures, I suspect no new players would give a shit and all the old fans would be turned off by it. Because that's not what DCC adventures are.

We have this baseline assumption that everything must evolve or die. I don't entirely agree. Change can be good, and necessary. But we're talking about hobby games here. This is comfort food for the soul for many, many people, myself included. I'm not into RPGs because I want to be on the cutting edge. I'm into them because they are part of my soul. And sometimes my soul wants to read flavor text and chunky adventures. DCC's style feeds that need. Sometimes I want something fast and emergent to run. OSE's style feeds that need, for example. We want both and all things in between.

GOZR ACTs

Follow up to this post...

An idea I have for the inevitable GOZR revision or supplement is to change the Action Classes to Action Class Targets. ACTs rings better than ACs and is more direct. The definition is in the term.

For these kinds of revisions, I'm trying to avoid changing the game rules. I like the rules as they are. My main priority for any kind of revision or supplement is clarification with as few changes or revisions as possible.

For example, I have an idea to expand page 2 of the book to two pages (it's the first page of character creation). I have a fondness for that page but I recognize it is a bit scrunched and not quite as clear to new eyes as it is to mine. I'll rearrange it, expand the starting weapons table and symbols table. And so forth. Much of that work is already done, just needs cleaned up.

Hymla Comic

Just a quick follow up to this post... I completed a 13 page Hymla comic called "Eye Am". Right now I'm not sure where this will end up. I can just post it online, and that's fine. But I want it in print. I'm kicking around ideas such as Black Pudding Comics (various fantasy stuff) or a straight up Hymla comic book. If I manage to do a second story as long as this one, I'll probably just do a Hymla comic book. Time will tell, I guess.

Here's a page from it.

 

Where Do Goozlings Come From?

In GOZR, there is no mention of sex, romance, marriage, or any of that stuff. There's a pronouns table on page 2 and only 50% of the results are male/female. Clearly, gooz don't have the same sex and gender ideas or hang-ups that humans have. It doesn't seem to be much of an issue for them.

The book mentions "delicious gooz babies" in the creature section. The nasty Harawg-Zuul like to eat gooz babies, according to the lore. And in the Recent Events of Some Gravity table on page 26, one entry is "Baby Boom". It says: "Thousand goozlings born one night. In the distance creaking wings, ancient hungry devil!".

So the gooz aren't super hung up about sex and gender, but they do have little goozlings. Where do they come from?

Is it simply that gooz do hook up, bang, and pump out little gooz babies? But they're just not obsessed about it all? Or maybe gooz babies appear spontaneously where someone spilled some milk or honey? Or maybe there's a super-science device deep in Goozer City, built by the long-dead Pretty Ones, and it randomly creates new gooz?

In a little comic, seen below, I have a gooz mention his auntie. This would suggest some kind of familial hierarchy. But then again, one doesn't have to be related by blood to be an auntie. Maybe gooz aunties and uncles are honorary, not obligatory.

I'm just asking questions here. The mystery remains, for now.

Goozin'

File under: A bit of a ramble, isn't it?

Now and then I dust off GOZR and get fired up about it. I love the gooz! I adore them. I love this game. It's a game I created with as few constraints and expectations as possible. It was a liberating experience, and a ton of work.

I saw the ugly bastards in my mind, inspired by so many things I've seen over the years, and they took my hand in their calloused, bumpy hands and lead me into their world of simultaneous ugliness and exquisite beauty.

I wish I could maintain this level of enthusiasm for one thing all the time. I'd have already created a follow up tome and some adventures, at the least. And a comic. But that isn't how my brain works. I do what I can, when I can. I try to strike while the iron is hot. Often I fail.

But I didn't fail with GOZR. I made a good thing and put it into the world.

GOOZ ARE THE OTHER GUYS

Gooz are scum, riff-raff, sub-optimal. According to the lore they inherited, gooz were created by the Pretty Ones to serve them. But the Pretties are all dead (right?). Now gooz are on their own. They are the lowly ones, the ones that didn't have anything.

This is not the same kind of framing as a game about playing hired henchmen or torchbearers. Gooz would be in that category, but the heroes those folks aid are no longer around. This is a game of "what if the main characters all died?".

The gooz become the main characters. What does that even mean? I guess it's up to you.

GOOZ ARE UGLY

Hey, that's a nasty word, isn't it? Yeah, kinda is. But that's how the gooz were seen and that's the idea they inherited. Is it true? Are they really ugly? What does "ugly" even mean?

THE WORLD BELONGS TO THEM

For better or worse, these dinky degenerates run the show. What will they make of their world now? They're not perfect. They're degenerate, right? They have greed, violence, and pettiness just like anyone else. And they were thrust out on their own in a ruined world, quite suddenly it seems. This is a rough period for gooz. A transition. A bumpy ride. Where is it going? That is also up to you, the gamer who chooses to step into their world.

I am not sure what lies ahead for GOZR, for me. I have ideas. I have some new pages for the follow up book, tentatively titled GOZR RISING. Some of those pages have been sitting idle, finished for a couple of years. I'm slow, I tell you.

At this moment in time I am seriously thinking about a GOZR comic book... an obvious direction, and one that I had in mind all along. Hell, the game book itself is in comic book format (American comic book size). A GOZR comic book is not only obvious, it is perhaps inevitable. Unless I die before doing it.

Artists I Like: Drew Rausch

Here's another Instagram find. Drew Rausch does these very cool limited pallet images with lots of black and silhouette. Mostly horror or Halloween themed. They're just wicked and fun. He has prints and maybe some mini comics on his site. Good stuff.

 

GOZR Hit Points and Death

In GOZR, you have hit points (HP). I'd say 99% of you know what that means. For the others, a HP is your life force. It's a number that gets reduced when you are hurt by something. When it hits zero, you are dead.

Or are you? And why did I go with something so common, so ho-hum unoriginal as hit points?

DEATH OR DEBASEMENT?

I didn't want zero HP to simply mean death. But I didn't want any fiddly "you really really die at -10" type of stuff. So in the end it seemed obvious to me and a light bulb went off. Just let the damn players decide it.

You get chewed on by a 12-legged lizard and reduced to zero HP. The GM looks at you and asks "Well, are you dead?". It's your choice, see. But a choice with a price.

"I choose death."

Ok, then you make a new character and they get a little benefit for your noble choice.

"No, the lizard chews me up and spits me out because of the nasty taste. I had just ate that dead hinrat we found and the thing's foulness permeated my body. I am alive, but unconscious."

Cool! Now roll on a little table because you can't just cheat death for nothing. You are going to have some kind of permanent problem. A missing limb? A basic stat gets worse?

WHY HP?

Because they work. In action adventure games, in my experience, this kind of system just works. It's a solid mechanic that makes sense and everyone understands it. I fiddled around with different kinds of systems and nothing sang to me. Everything felt like an attempt to avoid HP, but still felt like "you might as well have HP".

I like hit points. What can I say?

GOZR Action Classes

In GOZR, you have three primary stats, which are called Action Classes: Cunning, Magic, and Prowess. All rolls are based on one of those stats. The lower your stat's number, the better. Why?

ORIGINS OF THE THREE STAT SCHEME

Because GOZR's system started its life as another game called Dead Wizards, a sword & sorcery RPG set in the city of Kanebok, which later was folded into the Black Pudding setting of Yria. (I have a lot of lore that only really matters in my head, but I gotta say it out loud.)

I dropped Dead Wizards but had already conceived of the rudimentary elements of the game's system. I thought about my favorite sword & sorcery characters and what kinds of things they got up to. I decided that they most often deal with situations by their wits (Cunning), strength and skill (Prowess), and their natural or supernatural reaction to sorcery (Magic).

I think this concept is well-supported in RPGs. Games like Into the Odd, GURPS, Tri-Stat, Big Eyes Small Mouth, and Barbarians of Lemuria have three or four stats. D&D can be boiled down to three basic types of characters: fighting, clever sneak, and wizard*. Daniel Sell, author of Troika!, has a blog post that looms large in my brain and has influenced my thinking on games ever since I read it many years ago. In that post, he proposes an OSR house rule where all PCs are "adventurers" and at each level of experience you pick one of three skill sets to improve. And yes, they are fighting, skill use, and magic.

My concept of the game is that everyone is a hero, in the S&S sense. Larger than life. A cut above. Not your run of the mill milksop. So when it comes to dice rolling, you really only deal with things by might, skill, or sorcery.

*Original D&D had fighter, cleric, and magic-user. This is fine... but in sword & sorcery (as I perceive it) you don't need a cleric. The wizard and the priest are often one and the same. But I do think it's a useful distinction to include a sneak along with a fighter. It's elegant.

WHY STATS ARE LOWER-IS-BETTER

So that explains why I went with three stats. But why are the stats low instead of high? A lot of folks struggle with this. But it's super simple.

They started out as D&D armor class or saving throws.

The first iteration of Dead Wizards was basically a hack of OD&D. But then I morphed it to use the original armor class system as the core mechanic. Then it was as short leap of logic to say "hey, every roll is a saving throw!" or "hey, this is just like rolling to hit an AC in old D&D.".

And that meant the stats needed to get lower as they got better, exactly like a saving throw. I called them Action Classes because that makes sense to me and I thought the acronym "AC" was easy. Yeah I know... this is confusing to some folks because it's not really armor class. But just think of it like this... "what the AC of this action?"... and suddenly it'll make perfect sense to you, I promise.

The great benefit of this is that you know your target number already. It's right there on your character sheet. Since all rolls are player-facing, that means you know exactly what to roll. "My AC for smacking that wizard in the face is 10. I need to roll 10+ on a d20 to ring his stupid bell."

The GM can impose "unluck" to give you a -2 or worse penalty on that d20 roll to give some tooth to more dangerous tasks. And enemies have "threat", which allows them to do unexpected rules-breaking things like taking half damage or resisting magic.

WHY NO STAT-GETS-GOODER RULES?

The reason GOZR has no built-in method for improving those basic stats is also really simple. I didn't want power bloat. I didn't want to have a clunky system for improving a stat too much since you would end up with various modifiers anyway. If you start the game with an 8 in Prowess, then your fighting skill is 65% right out of the gate even if you have nothing to modify it. Finding a weird sword might get you some +1 or something. Being Lucky gets you +2. You can quickly approach 80% or better.

Your ACs can change, but they will do so organically, through play. For example, my friend Andy ran a wonderful GOZR adventure for our Monday night group and my gooz's Prowess was improved by 1 due to messing around with a magical (or super science?) dolmen of some sort. That's how you do it.

SUMMARY

• GOZR has three stats because those are the three things that S&S adventurers tend to muck around with.

• GOZR stats are lower-is-better because the stat itself is the target to roll.

• GOZR doesn't have built-in stat improvement rules because you don't need them.