The case for the Snake

As those who follow my blog (and know me in real life) sometimes life gets crazy busy. But,  I wanted to take a moment off the beaten path and talk about the passing of man whose life was a legend in the NFL and sadly did not live to see his enshrinement in the NFL Hall of fame.

I'm talking about one man: The Snake, Kenneth Michael Stabler.

 The Snake played in one of if not the best eras of all of pro football. It was a time where the rules were no where near as restrictive as they are today. A time ruled by such team as the "Steel Curtain" Pittsburgh Steelers, the undefeated Miami Dolphins, the NFC has teams such as the Dallas Cowboys, the Purple "People Eater Defense" of the Minnesota Vikings and the "Over the Hill Gang" of the Washington Redskins. Then there were the next tier teams like the Browns, Patriots, Bills and Denver who were above average talent wise. In short this was time when there were teams that would DESTROY some of today's teams. A time where you could actually touch a QB or hit a receiver. 

Unto this stage came the winningest team in not only football, but from 1966 to 1985 the winnigest team in all of professional sports: The Raiders. And from 1972 to 1979 the man leading the Silver and Black offense was Ken Stabler. 

The Snake was the first left-handed QB who rose to real prominence in the NFL. The Snake was also known to call his own plays, to have a great command presence, and to know where to put the ball. He was also the QB with the fastest time to 50 wins, a QB other teams feared and fearless in the 4th Quarter.

But here is the rub: he is also the only QB of the All-Decades team- 1970s, NOT in the Hall of Fame, and one of only two players with that accolade, the other being Drew Pearson, WR of the Cowboys. Let that sink in. One of the best QBs of the decade when the NFL eclisped baseball as America's sport is not enshrined. What the Hell Hall of Fame?

The prevailing reason why he's not in is usually he only had a few good years in Oakland? What???? there are QBs I'll talk about in a minute who didn't have a single good season or even win a Super Bowl, yet they are in. To put it sustainably the sports hacks who vote on the Super Bowl are a bunch of idiots or worse.

Now people will talk of his mediocre to sub-par years in Houston and New Orleans. To me if Archie Manning is in playing for the hapless Saints of the 60s and 70s or the injury shortened career of Gayle Sayers allows him in the Ken should be in, let alone Joe Namath (see more below).

To get a sense of how good he was during his run with the Raiders, lets look at his time with the Raiders as a starter via his stats. While his stats look pedestrian today, keep in mind it wasn't until the late 1970s that the "Mel Blount Rule" was enacted.

Year	Age	Tm	Pos	No.	G	GS	QBrec	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	TD	TD%	Int	Int%	Lng	Y/A	AY/A	Y/C	Y/G	Rate	Sk
1973	28	OAK	QB	12	14	11	8-2-1	163	260	62.7	1997	14	5.4	10	3.8	80	7.7	7	12.3	142.6	88.3	34
1974	29	OAK	QB	12	14	13	11-2	178	310	57.4	2469	26	8.4	12	3.9	67	8	7.9	13.9	176.4	94.9	18
1975	30	OAK	QB	12	14	13	10-3	171	293	58.4	2296	16	5.5	24	8.2	53	7.8	5.2	13.4	164	67.4	19
1976	31	OAK	QB	12	12	12	11-1	194	291	66.7	2737	27	9.3	17	5.8	88	9.4	8.6	14.1	228.1	103.4	19
1977	32	OAK	QB	12	13	13	10-3	169	294	57.5	2176	20	6.8	20	6.8	44	7.4	5.7	12.9	167.4	75.2	16
1978	33	OAK	QB	12	16	16	9-7	237	406	58.4	2944	16	3.9	30	7.4	49	7.3	4.7	12.4	184	63.3	37
1979	34	OAK	QB	12	16	16	9-7	304	498	61	3615	26	5.2	22	4.4	66	7.3	6.3	11.9	225.9	82.2	34

In his time in Oakland he went 68-25-1 as a starter. To put his playing time in career consider those of his contemporaries during a 10 year span of their careers: Ron Jaworski, Terry Bradshaw*, Steve McNair, Joe Namath*, Steve Grogan, Brian Sipe, Drew Bledsoe, Tony Romo, Ken Anderson, Randall Cunningham . 

The most notable is Kenny Anderson who was the FIRST West Coast Offense QB under Bill Walsh when Bill was the OC of the Bengals, but that's for another time. Two other names jump out: Bradshaw and Namath...The  others? He was as good, if not better.

Now its as simple as this, if Joe Namath is in the Hall of Fame there is no reason to keep the Snake out. Joe is in for guaranteeing a win in Super Bowl III, that's about it. "Joe Willie" was a big as they come, but outside of Super Bowl III he didn't do much including some dreadful seasons with the LA Rams, like Stabler's dreadful seasons with Houston and New Orleans. NOTE: I'm actually a fan of Broadway Joe, I am glad he conquered his demons, but Hall of Fame?

Consider Jim Kelly, QB of the Buffalo Bills from 1986-1996 who is in the Hall of Fame. And I ask for what? Losing four straight Super Bowls? For holding no passing records at his retirement, for having one of the most dismal playoff records of any QB in modern history? Simply put, Jim Kelly being in the Hall of Fame is a huge injustice to Stabler. Basically the Hall of Fame Voters are saying its a greater achievement to lose four straight Super Bowls then win one in what might considered the mostly highly competitive era the NFL has ever seen.

Every argument to keep him out has a precedence for someone who is in that I can think of in more detail:

Too short of a time where he was good: The knock is he "only" had 5 good years. Fortunately there is a precedence for this: see Gale Sayers, he's in the Hall of Fame. Gale was a phenomenal player who had basically two good seasons. As electrifying as they were he's marginal career wise. If you put him in whats the case for keeping out Terrell Davis? Ugh and I'm a Raiders fan saying that!

Didn't win enough Super Bowls: Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Jim Kelly and Fran Tarkenton who are a combined 0-9 in Super Bowls (and Fouts never made it to a Super Bowl). All are in the Hall of Fame. Fouts is particularly puzzling because like Kelly he was a dismal playoff QB. At least the argument can be made that Fouts had no defense worth anything, unlike Kelly who actually had a very good D.

Tarkenton was 0-3 in the big game. He scrambled like crazy, and like Kelly he had a very good D so its largely moot from the excuse department. Tark held most of the QB passing records on his retirement so perhaps you can apply the "Dan Marino rule" as to why he is in.

The Snake on the other hand had the "misfortune" of playing at a time when the AFC had two other powerhouses in Miami and Steelers. Oh and look at that: Twice when the Steelers won the Super Bowl they had to beat the Raiders in the AFCCG to do it. Oh look in 1979 when the Steelers won the Super Bowl, who was the QB they faced in the AFC Championship Game? Ken Stabler.

Oh and one more point on this they made it to 5 straight AFC championship games against the likes of the Dolphins and Steelers with the winners going on to win the Super Bowl. "Jim Kelly lost 4  straight Super Bowls" that's at least better then the AFFCG loses I hear some wags say, Kelly didn't play teams anywhere near as good as the teams of the 1970s in the AFC championship games.

He was bad in New Orleans and Houston: Even Archie Manning was bad in New Orleans; they wouldn't become good for another 30 years after the Snake stopped playing for them. To lay that at Stabler's feet with no weapons around him? Oh and by the way? Manning is in the Hall of Fame despite never having a regular season better then 8-8 and having a dreadful TD to INT ratio as well?. Now his teams in New Orleans were terrible... but he sure didn't help. None of that has to do with the Snake. But to take another tack, Manning's career win/loss record is 35-101-3 and you get into the NFL Hall of Fame? Yeah... See Joe Namath above.

As far as Houston who did they have outside of Stabler, Earl Campbell and Dave Casper? Crickets... They peaked in 1980 and went downhill from there. Houston was a never quite made it team in the late 1970s.

His career stats particularly his TD to INT ratio is bad: Joe Namath is in for stats that are about even and Joe only had two winning seasons over his entire career.

Jim Kelly threw a rate of 1 INT once every 19.5 passes attempted in the post season which is downright horrific. Stabler has 194 TDs vs 222 INTs at a time when receivers and QBs could actually be hit.Stabler was a big time QB, Kelly was a big time dud.

Stabler was money in the playoffs Kelly threw a pick in 14 of his 17 playoffs starts...

He didn't win enough "Big Games": The Raider played against some of the greatest dynasties of all time during the Snake's time in the 70s at the helm of the Raiders: the a-fore mentioned Dolphins, Steelers, Skins, Cowboys, etc. Tom Brady would be crying in his Uggs or to the officials (more then he usually does) if Jack Lambert dared to hit him. But, Stabler was 1-0 in the Super Bowl. So which is it NFL Hall of Fame voters? Either a SB win matters or it doesn't. Oh that's right, you selectively apply criteria for one player then not for another. 

Until the injustice of his snub of the Hall of Fame is corrected the Hall will continue to be a joke, and even when I visit this upcoming August, I will be holding my nose. The vindictive sports writers who kept him out due to an incident "allegedly" involving Stabler and a reporter has no basis of proof, but the likes of Paul Zimmerman of Sports Illustrated used this to foil Ken from making it in. I was only around 8 when this happened, but it seems to me that certain NFL writers (Zimmerman) with the "Ken Stabler will never make it into the Hall of Fame as long as I'm alive") quote on record should have never been in the position to decide or wield that much power. Stabler will long be remembered after people forget the douch-baggery of Paul Zimmerman.

To add further to his legend consider the some of the plays he was a part or his participation led to: the Immaculate Reception (or As we Raider fans call it the Immaculate Deception), the Holy Roller, Ghost to the Post, and the Sea of Hands. And to add further, while I can't stand Alabama he did have the Run in the Mud.

And way you slice it Ken Stabler was a QB for the ages. RIP Kenny. you will be missed, and you rode astride the NFL like a Colossus, towering over all. You'll get your due one day, too bad you weren't around to see it when the injustice is corrected.

To close, a video:

Postscript: My only personal bias regarding players or QBs are Kelly and Fouts. Kelly was/is massively overrated, and Fouts played for a division rival and was/is an ass-hat in regards to his announcing of Raiders games, hey I'm human. Gale Sayers, awesome player but HOF?

Why Hasn’t Elfquest Been Made Into a Movie Yet?

Still no Elfquest movie? 

This one has puzzled me for a while. There’s been talk and rumors for years, yet nothing. There have been various fan trailers on YouTube, and the elves of Elfquest still enjoy solid popularity at comic conventions and cosplay events, but so far…zilch on the big screen.

If you’re like me (early 40s), you probably remember the excellent four-volume series that was Elfquest. Written by Richard and Wendy Pini, it was a seminal moment for me as a pre-teen. I read all four books multiple times. Wendy’s art was incredible throughout, and the story was well done. It also had the benefit of hitting right in the middle of AD&D’s popularity in the early 1980s. I don’t think there was anyone my age who hadn’t read it at least once.

Elfquest tells the story of the elves known as the Wolfriders and their fight for survival against humans on the World of Two Moons. Very quickly the tribe is forced to flee their woodland homeland, setting them on a path to find the legendary Palace of the High Ones — the progenitors of all elves.

What makes Elfquest great is the believability of the Wolfriders. Compared to the other, near-perfect tribes of elves, the Wolfriders are the only ones who truly adapt to the World of Two Moons and thrive. Their passions are believable, they’re mortal, and they’ve mingled with wolves to survive.

One would think that with the massive success of The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia movies, studios would be hungry for more fantasy material. I think it would be quite easy to turn Elfquest into a trilogy. Cutter’s quest for the Palace of the High Ones has a natural beginning, middle, and end. To me, Elfquest (or Dragonlance) makes the most sense as the “next” big fantasy trilogy. Elfquest could be done very easily, in my estimation.

As I almost always do, the question becomes: how does this apply to gaming?

• Back in the day there was the Elfquest RPG from Chaosium that went through at least two revisions I’m aware of. I never played the system, so I can’t comment on the mechanics, but the setting itself was compelling. 
• The Quest for the Palace of the High Ones functions much like the War of the Lance in Dragonlance — a clear dividing line in the story. To some this might not matter, but for me it makes the world feel like it has two distinct eras: games set before the quest, and games set after.
• In my 2nd Edition campaign world I borrowed the idea of the High Ones arriving via silver ships. This eliminates the standard “oldest and wisest firstborn race” trope. They may be old and wise, but they are fundamentally alien to the world. By doing this, I’ve positioned them as at best neutral toward humans — and at times they have warred with each other. Since they were the last race “on the scene,” there’s also no need for the traditional animosity toward dwarves. It gives the elves a very different flavor in my opinion.

I’m not necessarily looking at this as a gamer with 30+ years of experience expecting it to appeal directly to me. I’m looking at it as a gamer who has kids. I haven’t read the series in years, but it always felt like part of the broader scene. There were write-ups of the main characters in Dragon magazine before the dedicated RPG came out, then more support afterward. Minis were produced, and it made it to a second edition. It never reached D&D levels of popularity, but what did?

To close, without getting stereotypical, I could easily see my daughter enjoying the read — and my son as well. One would think that with some of the craptastic movies that get made these days, Elfquest would be a no-brainer.

 What do you think? Shouldn't Elfquest be on the big screen? 

The Thing

Since its sub zero Fahrenheit here in western NY, (it about -2 with wind chill its -22) I figured this would be a great time for this post given the location of the movie!

Continuing my musings on campaign worlds on the blog as of late, here's a thought: How about a game (and it could work in almost any game system) based on the Thing? Obviously, the horror genre games would work, but in a way it could be derivative of zombie genre as I covered here or perhaps using Twilight 2000? These are just a few thoughts that come to mind.

The Thing is based on the work Who goes There? (1) (which I'm still reading despite reading two other books). It was first made into the movie, The Thing from Another World in 1951; smack dab in the middle of the UFO craze of the 1940s and 50s. Later it would be remade by John Carpenter in 1982 as The Thing with a prequel in 2011. All three are different with the 1982 and 2011 versions obviously having the same storyline. While I like all three, the 1982 version is clearly superior.

That the 1982 Thing is a very good is an understatement its exceptional; and at time very underrated movie. Underrated in the sense that there are tons of clues scattered throughout and is very much a mystery movie wrapped in the horror genre. Reading the novella that is drawn from this is readily apparent. Add to the fact that Carpenter and his team a had a long period of time to work on the story (and it shows) there is lots of subtle clues throughout. On such place browse these clues is  the forum at Outpost 31 For the sake of brevity here, for those not in the know The Thing had an unusually long time before they actually started shooting (something like 17 months as far as I can recall) and Carpenter admitted they had plenty of time to plan out the plot, which camera shots they would use, etc to far greater detail then he might otherwise done.

So as an RPG? Imagine it starts out at a research station isolated in the Arctic or Antarctic (doesnt have to be the same Outpost 31 although it could be) and the players are confronted with the events as the unfold in the beginning of the movie. Where it goes from there is almost endless but at the same time a nice tidy sandbox. Perhaps a better ploy is to just get into the action as they will most likely already know the story. Add a different cast of characters (the players PCs) and keep the weaponry minimal. Then again even having high-powered military rifles, the PCs are screwed  as they aren't very good against Things (2).

Barring that, how about a Thing has made it to the mainland and Blair's prediction starts playing itself out. Its going to take lots of flamethrowers or nukes once its too far gone.

In such a post apocalyptic scenario(s), movies like 28 Days Later or World War Z are going to seem like a walk in the park!  If Things start reproducing in vast quantities in large human population centers, its largely game over. Such a game would quickly shift to extreme paranoia and one of ultra-extreme survival. Come to think of it with no recourse but to wipe out 7 billion or so Things it might be an exercise in futility.

If a GM uses Twilight 2000 it could add a good twist on the horrors of World War III;  dropping some Things into that already horrific scenario? That could really mess things up. Of course it could also muddy stuff too much. Perhaps a better solution is to simply use the rules for Twilight 2000 and place it in modern day with the scenario outlined above. The only issue is that there is no really rules for monsters per say in Twilight 2000, so the GM would need to do some work, not insurmountable, but doable. Another thought is use the Savage World system which would definitely keep things moving quickly, but I think with minimal fuss All Flesh Must Be Eaten would be best.

In closing, I think such a game is better for a one-off/short campaign, or rather a series of short episodes as opposed to a multi-year/session campaign. There probably isn't going to be much "winning" if the Thing(s) make it out of Antarctica. It could be a fun/blow um up/ go out in a blaze of glory type of deal, but if there was ever a "no win scenario" this is it. Think of the end of the 1982 movie, not much (read: none) hope at the end and lots of question marks instead...

And of course I would be remiss if I didn't point out one of the best lines in the history of cinema: 

No kidding indeed.

(1) Who goes there can be found on such online places at the iTunes book store for free.

(2) The Norwegian with the sweet gun was using a Heckler & Koch HK33. Details to the weapon at IMDB is here or the full details on a wiki for weaponry used in movies.

X-Men Days of Future Past

(Arrrgh blogger ate this post so here I go again in rewriting it).

After the craptastic showing that was X-Men 3 (how that piece of "ship" got a 58% on Rotten Tomatoes I'll never know, should be in the negatives...) I had zero hopes that even X-Men First Class would be good, but low and behold it was. So, it was with a bit of trepidation we sat down as a family to watch X-Men Days of Future Past on Blu-Ray after Santa dropped it off over the holidays. I have to say I think its the strongest X-Men movie since X-Men 2, X-Men United.  That's saying a lot as X2 is a damn fine movie. Then Marvel pumps out the Guardians of the Galaxy (I'm a fan of the "classic team" but I digress,

Before I go into the movie however its important to cover the actual story it's based on. Days of Future Past follows (roughly) the same mini-arc of X-Men 140-141. Days of Future past came on the heels of the epic Dark Phoenix Saga (widely regarded as one of the best comic book arcs of all time) and in some ways is well remembered, but overshadowed by such a monumental previous storyline. Issues 140-141 has an adult Kitty Pryde react out to her younger self from a dytopsian future where mechanical Sentinels rule North America and are relentlessly hounding mutants to extinction.

Kitty is able to avert the assassination of  Senator Robert Kelly and thus avert the events of the future timeline. In a way it's outcome is mirrored by the T-850 in Terminator 3 Rise of the Machines, "You only postponed it. Judgment Day is inevitable". Since Rachel Summers also comes from that future timeline about 30 issues later, perhaps "Days of Future Past" is inevitable. (Note there are the Days of Future Present and Days of Future Past arcs but these are not the focus of this post).

On to the movie itself: as with most of my objections with the X-men movies, this one of course focuses on Wolverine as the main character. At this stage I'm majorly over Logan. Unfortunately, the movie studio isn't so they keep milking it for all its worth. It's as if they figure a 6'2" actor really portrays a 5' 4" mutant well... more likely they figure actor Hugh Jackman will get women to go to see this as well... Great we get it, he's the anti-hero...next!

So.... with all that said the true star of this movie is the younger Charles Xavier played by James McAvoy who conveys the Professor in an outstanding manner and one can easily see him as the later Patrick Stewart version. From the very first scene as the younger professor he is stealing the show. At first he is walking... which is a bit disconcerting for continuity in the previous movie, but they explain it quick enough. I won't spoil while but they had to do this in order for the story to work given the Professor's prodigious mutant abilities.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the amazing portrayal of Bolivar Trask by Peter Dinklage who is the creator of the Sentinels, 20-foot high mutant hunting  robots. It is the Sentinels who hound the mutant into near extinction in the dytopisian future that Wolverine is sent from. Peter plays a very methodical villain and is a believable one. Then of course after Kevin Bacon as Sebastian Shaw in First Class... yeah....

I won't spoil the main premise of the rise of the Sentinels but lets just say they did a great job with the hows and whys and typing it back to a certain mutant.

They did a great job with continuity in the film tying back to X2, for instance a young William Stryker is in Vietnam just like he alluded to in United and the timeline flows well. The clothes, the furniture, etc. Someone however was paying attention to this did a very, very good job with avoiding continuity errors.

The final battle was well done. When watching it I did notice the rise of tension the fact that you're left thinking that any minute its going to go south. The visuals in some respects were jarring, I think it was the weaponry the sentinels were using that made me notice this. This is probably due to the me knowing them first through the comics in the late 1980s then just seeing them for the first time. The Sentinels of the future likewise are "off" to me. The image I couldn't get out of my mind was that of the machines in The Matrix, bug-like, rather then large lumbering metal giants.

Given the nature of my blog its not a movie review site; I often look at ways to incorporate it into gaming. I think a mutant campaign would be overdone at this stage of the game, but a dytopsian future one would work better. Perhaps a world where every hero is hunted, not just mutants? After all if you are the authorities you never can be too careful right? If going down the road of a Marvel Superheros game, I prefer FASERIP, a setting like this would work well.

There you have it, I give it 4 out of 5 stars. Great story, but would have been better had they used Kitty as the heroine and had flashback scenes a bit different and gritter with Wolverine in the future timeline.

Majorian- the last hope for the Western Roman Empire

Or what could make for a really great campaign setting for AD&D.
 

A coin of the Emperor Majorian

As I previously discussed here I am going to look at another idea for a campaign world, but this time through the prism of our real world history. This time out I am going to discuss the last great Roman Emperor in the West, Majorian.

As is my wont, before we delve into the AD&D aspects of this let us review a few basics of the historical Majorian to set the stage. I am also going to delve into counter factual history as from there it is a great place to set a campaign.

Much has been written about the other areas of the Empire during the decline of the 4th and 5th centuries. A good example is Jack Whyte’s excellent Camloud Chronicles which starts around the time Roman Britannia is crumbling, the Groan of the Britons, et al. To set a campaign there use the excellent resources for Heroic Britain from Dragon, namely Dragon #257 and #263

To my knowledge however not much has been written about the last Roman who had a chance to save the Western Empire, Majorian. Certainly not in a gaming sense.

Majorian or more properly Flavius Julius Valerius Majorianus Augustus, lived circa 420 – August 7, 461. He reigned as Emperor in the West from 457 to 461 while Leo I was Emperor in the East. At this time the west was in a deep state of decline and the Eastern Emperor held far more power. It is ironic that Majorian’s rise to the imperial office was in that typical Roman fashion: the unresolved chaos of Imperial succession. Rome never properly established a unified method of succession and attempts throughout the preceding two centuries resulted in varying degrees of disaster and success.

At the time of Majorian’s rise, the true power in the West was Ricimer, a Romanized Germanic

A 5th century legionnaire.

barbarian. Ricimer was able to overthrow the Emperor Avitus with the help of Majorian and the tacit complicity of the Eastern Roman Emperor Marcian. He initially wanted to replace the office of Emperor fully, but the Senate and Roman aristocracy balked. With the overthrow of Avitus he and Majorian were the two most powerful figures in the west. Ricimer who was friends with Majorian apparently thought he could bide his time with no leader in the west with the tacit approval of the eastern Emperor, but eventually Majorian is elected Emperor by his armies. No matter, Ricimer thought he could control Majorian. Unfortunately for him Majorian showed himself to be a very effective ruler.

It is also important to note the condition of the Western Empire at this time. Through any number of factors the West was disintegrating or near non-existent.

• The West was in dire straits by this time; The Western Empire had lost most of the main provinces: Mesopotamia, Hispania, Gaul and Britannia had been overrun by barbarians and the legions withdrawn resulting in the Groan of the Britons. Barbarians are pressing everywhere.
• Rome is sacked in 410  by Alaric and 455 by Genseric.
• The late period Roman Legions: The Roman legions were a shadow of themselves and were being pulled from the frontiers often to fight dynastic struggles.
• Most importantly the West's lands by 455/456 is a few provinces in Gaul and the Italian peninsula. This has the practical effects of reducing taxation to a fraction of even a few decades prior.
• Little aid was flowing from the more prosperous Eastern portion of the Empire. Little cooperation was taking place further hampering efforts.

Thus the stage is set for the Emperor; Majorian begins to rollback the barbarians to the point of having retaken large swathes of the traditional Western Roman Empire in a relatively short period of time. In this Ricimer becomes more concerned as Majorian is breaking the cycle of weak puppet Emperors in the West that have been on the throne for decades and thus easy to control.

Now we arrive at that crucial counter-factual crossroads: what if the Vandals do not get wind of the plans of Majorian, Majorian acts against Ricimer before he does or both? It is a tantalizing one that begs a lot of questions and makes for a great campaign world (more on that later). It is Majorian who seizes the initiative and has Ricimer silenced. With this a cowed Senate falls into line.

What then? The Vandals do not get wind of the imminent invasion of Byzacena (area and province around Carthage) perhaps it is reclaimed. This is not entirely unreasonable. Majorian was already showing signs of greatness and pluck. The Vandals who have only recently taken over the area do not as of yet have a firm hold on the territory. So it is that Majorian’s enterprise to Africa bears fruit and with the riches and grain shipments of the area secured, the western Empire is back on solid footing, or at least on better footing than before. As an aside Britain is going to be a lost cause for some time, but is more of an outlier of the Empire anyways.

Looking further afield the Eastern Emperor is in his 50s, Majorian in his 30s. Majorian is a dynamic Theodosius did. This is entirely plausible as Leo I was succeeded by Leo II who ruled for only 10 months and then Zeno, neither of which were exceptional and barbarian lineage in the case of Zeno hampered him to a great degree. Majorian is a Roman through and through and a capable one. Perhaps Majorian is skilled enough at the political game to have Leo the Thracian overthrown by the time Majorian is say 40. Now free of the threat of Ricimer, Majorian has at least the opportunity to combine the Empire into one again.

So it is with these assumptions that we have a period ripe for an AD&D campaign: lots of intrigue, political infighting, small scale and large wars/raids, economic chaos and so on. Who wants to adventure in the boring, sedate lands of Cormyr??? The late Roman period offers a wealth of opportunities that a good DM can have a field day with.

A Roman inspired 1st ed image.

In the D&D sense the Roman Empire certainly got the short end of the stick. While the Greeks with their corresponding pantheon in Deities and Demigods have enjoyed support throughout the run of 1st edition and probably earlier, the Romans have been largely not represented. Sure there are a few Dragon magazine articles here and there (like #133) but not much else*. I think in most of the campaigns I played in from 1982-1987 the Greek or the Norse pantheons were utilized but again not in the Roman sense. This changed with 2nd edition for at least we have HR5 - The Glory of Rome Campaign Sourcebook. Some do not like the historical series, but I think they are one of the better products released during 2nd Edition; certainly suitable for game play.

(* Yes I know the Roman gods are largely/mostly based on the Greek but that is not the point I am trying to make here).

In terms of wizardry and magic a fantasy Roman campaign will be lower powered and certainly not high magic. Superstitions abound and magic could be a powerful force especially in the hands of NPCs but unlikely for the PCs if properly played. Likewise, the campaign is going to be very human centric with next to no demi-human PCs or even NPCs for that matter. Most likely any demi-humans will be thought of as barbarians from the mist filled woods of Germania or Hibernia.

To add a fantasy aspect the barbarians at the gates can be swapped for another race. Instead of the Huns, how about hobgoblins as Huns? From the sea instead of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes sweeping through present day Holland and Belgium on their way to England, how about sahuagin? Do not want to go the Roman route? Have the PCs as barbarians on the other side of the Rhine.

Chapter 6 of the Glory of Rome Campaign Sourcebook gives great examples of monsters suitable for a fantasy inspired Roman campaign. With the Empire bordering the wilds of Africa it is entirely possible to have any number of magical beasts along with the steppes of Russia and the wild barbarian haunts of Germania. After all it was said by Aristotle in ancient times: "There is always something new coming out of Africa". The oceans are often thought to hold unimaginable horrors for further sources of monsters.

5th century legionaries fighting barbarians.

Of special note the Imperial Navy will not be as great of a force as they were in the preceding centuries so piratical raids are a problem in addition to the aforementioned monsters. The Imperial Legions and the army as a whole are far different as well. They are no longer what one thinks of in terms of the "classic legion" but more infused with barbarian recruits who have been at least partially "Romanized." They are effective but again a different fighting force than the preceding centuries. More so than in most any other campaign the article from Dragon #154 "For King and Country" would work exceptionally well with the PCs as part of the Roman Legions.

Need further inspiration on a military based Roman campaign? While set in earlier times movies such as Spartacus, Ben Hur and other "sword and sandal" epics can whet the appetite. For closer to the period, King Arthur or The Eagle will work, but is more applicable to Heroic Britain campaigns. On the book front the previously mentioned series by Jack Whyte and others like Eagle of the Ninth can be drawn on for further inspiration.

So, tired of the same old traditionally inspired pseudo Europe circa 1300 campaign? Consider the Late Roman period. In this case it does not quite become the Dark Ages, but certainly can be harsh. Just because Majorian might meld the Empire back together it does not have to be a smooth or pleasant process. Conflict is going to be ever present, political intrigue and backbiting, double crossing is at its height particularly in the Western Empire.

To close if you are looking for a different campaign setting you could do worse. A world under Majorian offers a wealth of possibilities and is certainly going to be action packed and deadly. A dash of counter factual history, some logical inferences and some imagination and you are off and running.

Star Wars Trailer Episode VII

Star Wars Trailer Episode VII- "The Force Awakens"

Given the theme of my blog its probably surprising to some that I haven't commented on this sooner. To be honest with the part time job and the holidays life was just a tad difficult. Enough excuses, here I go. I'm not going to go into a long, drawn out post about this, but hit the high points.

The likes:

• I really liked the look of the new designed X-Wings. I noticed it the first time through as they skim the water. Their helmets look about four sizes too small, just like Peyton Manning's helmet...
• The Millennium Falcon scene I liked. Others I know did not but I liked the action.Even accounted for the new deflector dish that was snapped off by Lando in Return of the Jedi. 
• Also with the Millennium Falcon scene I like the cut to the theme music at just the right time.
• The placement of the villain? In a deserted, dark, snowy forest? Thumbs up here.

The dislikes:

• The droid with the soccer ball? Really?
• Not sold on the "light saber" not even sure its a light saber per say. I put it in the dislike column for now until the next trailer or we know more. It may be that the knowledge of forging actual lightsabers is now fairly scarce. I don't think the wielder is a Jedi or Sith so that may explain it.
• Trying to make the storm troopers seem fearsome. Stop, give it a rest, these mooks couldn't hit the side of a Sand Crawler, oh wait they actually did hit that. These guys got their asses kicked on Endor. "An entire legion of my best troops await them..."- Emperor Palpatine. If these are your best I'd hate to see your worst..

The "I'm not sure":

• The "uproar" of  Jango Fett being the progenitor of the clones and thus the storm troopers? I wonder what plot twist this might entail so I'm not upset, more curious then anything else. Then again its not like the Star Wars franchise is internally consistent on points regarding the storyline anyway... For one its never really cleared up as to just how we get from Clones to Storm troopers so who the Hell knows (note I haven't watched the Clone Wars cartoon). My guess is that with the fall of the Empire clones are hard to come by or non-existent, thus John Boyega's character; perhaps the storm troopers are now mercenaries?
• The narration... first time I can think of a Star Wars trailer having narration. It sounds like they got Benedict Cumberbatch to do it, probably while they were filming Star Trek- Into Darkness... 

And of course no pop culture moment would be complete if that meme of all memes didn't have something to say.  This might be better then the trailer, you decide:

In closing I'm going into this open minded. In the back of my mind I can't shake the notion that Disney is going to "Disney it up...