Twilight: 2000 – A Look Back at GDW’s Gritty Post-Apocalyptic Masterpiece

Time to print a lot of character sheets...You'll need them

 

Time to review and reflect on another of the games that I played as a teenager, but this time, sadly, no longer have the books for:

This offering by Games Designer Workshop is a great, great game with a gritty realism. For some reason, out of all the games I had back in the day, I sold these… and I can’t really remember why I did, either… ahhh, foolish youth.

For those not in the know, the game covers the events of World War III, starting with the (then) current timeline of the late 80s and the Cold War. From there it branches off to the start of a Sino-Soviet war and then a war breaking out in Europe between the Warsaw Pact forces and NATO. “Limited” nuclear exchanges happen and the war spreads to form a truly world war as industrial capacity breaks down, food becomes scarce, and command and control of the various armies disintegrates. The conflict grows and eventually engulfs most of North America from invasion from the south. In short, the shit hits the fan everywhere.

The players are cast in the roles (most often) of US Army soldiers trying to survive the falling apart of their unit/division as they are left to fend for themselves. In most cases the main overall theme is to try and make it back to Western Europe and get a transport back to the US.

Two main points stick out in my mind from my time playing Twilight: 2000: 

One, combat is downright deadly as would be imagined. Body armor helps, but not enough if the hit happens in the right location. Because of this, we were never that attached to our characters, because death was too common of an occurrence. This is the biggest departure I think that players of Fantasy RPGs struggled with. Armor is there but doesn’t save you like in D&D. Plus there aren’t any clerics to reattach your severed arm…

Two, we quickly learned the value of two weapons that still stand out in my mind nearly 20 years later. For close-in combat, nothing beat the H&K CAW (Combat Assault Weapon), an automatic shotgun. We learned through a few characters to sling the

Speaking of which, we learned that an even better tactic than using a CAW at close range was using an M-19 grenade launcher from a distance. We would stand back and fire from our vehicles at a target, only venturing in after the smoke had cleared.

Another interesting point is the scarcity of gas and diesel. Stills helped offset this (ours seemed to get shot up regularly), and we learned to leave them camouflaged and go back to them after the firefight. We had a couple of HMMWVs and once had an LAV-25.

The problem was the LAV became a burden, as it required so much fuel. Better yet was when we got FAVs (with M-19 grenade launchers, ‘natch). It was much more fun, as speed was a huge advantage compared to the larger vehicles. This represented the setting well — only large installations with solid logistical support could field tanks. Even with a few TOWs or other rocket systems, we avoided fighting them whenever possible.

Another interesting point is the scarcity of gas/diesel. Stills offset this (ours seemed to get shot up regularly...as in EVERY session) and we learned to leave it camouflaged and go back to it after the firefight.  We have a couple of HMMVs and once had a LAV-25. Problem was the LAV became a burden, as it required so much fuel. Better yet was when we got FAVs (with M-19 grenade launchers ‘natch). It was much fun as it would have been for the larger vehicles, speed was much better. This represented the setting well as only large installations with a logistical support could field tanks. Which even with a few TOWs or other rocket systems we avoided fighting.

.

Equipment lists and weaponry were up-to-date as of the early 90s and would need some updates if you played the 1st Edition rules. The supplements to the game, like the

Which brings up a related point: trying to figure out vehicle combat was overly complex and frustrating as all hell.

In terms of characters, none were particularly memorable except one that I played in a tournament. The GM ruled that a flash-bang grenade had blown off my Welsh gunner’s leg… mind you, I was on the outer edge of the effect radius. Basically he didn’t understand the rules or what that type of grenade actually did. That incident, along with some neckbeard historical gamers at the same con, turned me off to open gaming for a long time.

The character creation process was good and flowed well, allowing for various nationalities, genders, and areas of responsibility across the service branches. Rank is hardly an issue — outside of your own squad, NCOs and officers can’t just boss you around. The army is falling to pieces and command and control is non-existent.

I only had minimal experience with the 2nd Edition rules. We took our characters from 1st Edition and tried them out. Later on we used the 2nd Edition rules in a modern-day “brush fire wars” type rather than the World War III angle (before GDW did it). We jet-setted around in our Learjet for the highest bidder. Not much came of that, and college beckoned for all of us shortly thereafter, and not long after college, GDW folded in 1996.

The only other thing that I think did not work well in the game system are the hesitation rules. Basically everyone had a factor that governed (more or less) your actions in a firefight, and hesitations required pauses reflecting the PC’s ability to keep it together under fire. While realistic, it was also a drag on the game — you had to wait while everyone else was doing something. One lucky roll during character creation and you were infinitely better in combat than your foes or teammates. If you are like me and roll crappy for your PCs (that’s any system), then this was a source of frustration as well.

Summation: The entire line was well done with very good artwork and an abundance of supplements. We never used the modules all that much, but there certainly was a wide range of them.

In short, a great game — lots of fun. Just don’t play it if you can’t handle the concept of your character dying, because the likelihood of it if you go into every combat like it’s D&D is very high.

Warhammer Siege: The Most Promising Supplement That Was Utterly Unplayable

"Such a cool cover for such a flawed book."

Ahh, the good old Warhammer Siege supplement for 3rd Edition Warhammer Fantasy Battle. Was there ever something so promising, but ultimately unplayable?

When I was in high school I can’t begin to tell you how much we looked forward to playing this, how much effort we put into creating scale model stone throwers, siege towers, drills, sheds, catapults, and other siege equipment, to say nothing of the scratch-built castle I made that was huge. I don’t think there has ever been a bigger letdown in the history of man…ever. I don’t say this lightly either. Read on to find out why.

My friends and I (Dave and Jeff) spent a great deal of time playing Warhammer 3rd Edition in 1989–92ish, with a fair amount of Warhammer before college beckoned in the Fall of 1991. We were all pretty well versed in the rules and how it played by then and were looking forward to the new challenges that Siege offered. We had progressed rapidly from Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay to Fantasy Battles to Siege. Each of us had large armies and were some of GW’s biggest fans this side of the pond.

An assault underway on the Might Fortress

As mentioned above, we got our supplies, armies, and terrain together and gathered in the basement of Dave’s house. I think we prepped for several days before the game actually began (incidentally, Dave’s ping pong table was perfect for a Warhammer table). We pointed out our respective armies: Jeff playing his Orcs and Goblins were the defenders of the castle, and I was playing my Empire army as the attackers. (I recall we rolled randomly to see who attacked and who defended.)

After noticing some interesting loopholes (I had units of Landstrum (levies) that I never intended to bring onto the main board, continuously in the remote zones scavenging for supplies to reduce my point costs) is one that came to mind. Mind you, I didn’t actually have the models either, but they were never coming on the board. We finally got the main game rolling.

I’m not going to bore you with half-recollections, but skip to the meat of this post.

As mentioned above, we got our supplies, armies, and terrain together and gathered in the basement of Dave’s house. I think we prepped for several days before the game actually began (incidentally, Dave’s ping pong table was perfect for a Warhammer table). We pointed out our respective armies: Jeff playing his Orcs and Goblins were the defenders of the castle, and I was playing my Empire army as the attackers. (I recall we rolled randomly to see who attacked and who defended.)

After noticing some interesting loopholes (I had units of Landstrum (levies) that I never intended to bring onto the main board, continuously in the remote zones scavenging for supplies to reduce my point costs) is one that came to mind. Mind you, I didn’t actually have the models either, but they were never coming on the board. We finally got the main game rolling.

I’m not going to bore you with half-recollections, but skip to the meat of this post.

Finally, the strategic phase, foraging, strategic time, etc., was over and we got to firing. Now, in order to save points I had skimped on ammo for the siege weapons, figuring I could scavenge for them. We looked through the rules and… nope, no go. I was horrified: I had made such a huge blunder. You can forage for supplies but not ammo. Immediately, one thought: do I have enough ammo? As it turned out I had plenty. (Makes no sense for stone throwers, but I digress.) I tried to hide it and grabbed for my dice.

Reluctantly, I have my catapult fire: it launches and it does middling damage to the wall it’s facing. Next up, the 10-man cannon with barely any ammo. I figure that I’m not going to have enough ammo to do anything to the castle and will have to fall back on a futile ladder and ropes assault. The dice roll a pretty good result, we then flip to the section with wall damage and look on in horror as one shot blows away the section of wall it’s firing at and does so much damage that the secondary collapse blows up the entire facing, to say nothing of the Orcs that it vaporizes in the resulting collapses.

We then stare at each other dumbfounded. Did that really just happen? Did we miss something in the rules?

I can’t stress this enough: the three of us literally stopped the game, looked at each other, then we huddled around the rule book, looking at the relevant rule sections. Now the three of us had each taken turns reading it and it’s still “What the Hell?” We also figured we had the rules down pat, but nope.

We had read the rules right and the castle wall was history from one shot. A nanosecond later we all come to the same conclusion. Did they play-test this at all? And that pretty much ended that game right there. We tried a couple more scenarios and the results were pretty much the same.

What a disappointment, one of the greatest of my thirty years of gaming. 

Now sure, the rules have some notes about how the GM can increase the walls statistics but the wasn't the point. As written they were pretty wobbly. Perhaps the envisioned that people would take the top end artillery? 

Siege rules were written with the models ACTUAL foam walls in mind?

 

The back portion of the book had rules for 40K, but we weren’t into 40K, so we never tried the 40K rules for it. One would imagine that if gunpowder weapons could blow up a fortification with one shot, then what lasers, bombs, siege dreadnoughts, etc. would do to it? Sure, the energy fields might have made them last a tad bit longer, but ugh, who wants to game that out?

So that was my first (and pretty much only) brush with Warhammer Siege, and it sticks out in my mind like a sore thumb. The rules could not have been conceivably tested in any way, shape, or form. It’s probably fitting that the large (as in 3-foot castle), counters, siege engines, and the like are mostly long gone now. It would be too painful to look at the time and effort put in for such an enormous letdown. Certainly a low point for me in terms of gaming.

As a quick aside, I always wanted to create 10-man cannon and crew. Maybe I will as homage reminder of the game. 

There you have it. What were your experiences with Warhammer Siege?

Boot Hill RPG – Fast, Deadly, and Perfect for Old West Campaigns

 

 

There are some great role-playing games out there that I’ve known about for years but never played, and this is about one of them. Boot Hill written by Gary Gygax and Brian Blume was one of TSR's first games released.

Anyone remember those “Gateway to Adventure” advertisements that came in the D&D boxed sets? In my case, mine came via one of my Christmas gifts in 1982 from an aunt: the Moldvay boxed set of Dungeons and Dragons Basic. The box and the advertisement are long since gone (I still have the rules), but the memory of looking through them still lingers on, sort of like looking through Sears and JC Penney catalogs as a kid to look at the toys.

I would pour over it, looking at all the cool ads for games from TSR in addition to D&D, the blurbs Gangbusters, Gamma World, Boot Hill and Top Secret. Out of them, I only played Gamma World a bit, as we mainly focused on D&D and AD&D as kids.

A few weeks ago I was thinking of that old ad and I started thinking about Boot Hil. Out of all of those old games, the only one I never read through was Boot Hill. So I got a set of rules and was surprised by two main things as I read them: 1) the combat system (rightly) is deadly, and 2) the system is rules-lite and more spartan than OD&D.

As I get older, crunchier systems fall by the wayside as gaming time is a finite commodity at this stage of my life. While Aces & Eights (see below) and Deadlands are interesting (and I like the Savage Worlds rules), I’m less inclined to invest in them, mainly from a time perspective.

Boot Hill, on the other hand, is fast and furious and has a lot of possibilities. (Yes, I know that’s what

"One bad-ass movie."

Savage Worlds says, but I’m not talking about that rule set right now!) The other interesting aspect is that because the rules are only 34 pages, the possibilities are wide open. 

The rules themselves are deadly, be warned. Characters are no where near as robust as they might be in other RPG systems. Firearms deal some impressive damage relative to the durability of the characters.

While there are modules for Boot Hill which I'll cover in future posts the might not be needed. For source material there is more than a person could ever hope to read or watch in their lifetime when it comes to Westerns.

For my own part, I’m slowly collecting the Time-Life Book series from the 70s/80s, The Old West. There are 26 volumes, so I have a long way to go, but there are many more sources. For further inspiration there are movies, movies, and more movies.

Owing to the fact that I was born in the early 1970s, I’m not as big a fan of the serial westerns or 30s–50s stuff. I’ll probably get there, but I’m more in the mold of Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter, A Few Dollars More, Fist Full of Dollars, Outlaw Josey Wales, Pale Ride and of course Unforgiven. I’m also partial to Dances with Wolves, Tombstone and Open Range. I’m also partial to Dances with Wolves, Tombstone, and Open Range. For classics, John Wayne is okay (True Grit), but the likes of Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas in westerns appeal to me more.

On the subject of great Westerns, Tombstone that has way too many great scenes to count but this one in particular is epic:

So in reality, what more could you ask for from a Western RPG? Boot Hill is a fast and light system for gunfights and a very open rule set that you can combine with AD&D as needed. Some people dislike the 1st/2nd Edition rules, saying that there isn’t much for campaign play. They’re right, there isn’t, and that’s the beauty of it. The way I look at it, the more open the better, and it’s not like there is no material on the American Old West, as I mentioned above.

For me, if I run a game of Boot Hill I’d modify the skills from 3rd Edition for use in 1st/2nd, after that the sky is the limit. Think of the great Western films: most of the action is against factions, against people and their interactions. So it takes a different mindset to play because it’s not “open door, kill monster, take treasure.” Sure, you could do that and it’s probably not a bad idea for training wheels at the start. But after a while it gets more episodic.

Where I differ is that the times I’ve seen or read about people mixing the two genres it’s usually AD&D with some Boot Hill. Imagine a campaign of Boot Hill with a minimal amount of AD&D, or none at all. If I ran a game of Boot Hill, that’s what I’d aim for.

I also read about a great house rule for Boot Hill on a forum (forget which one, might be the ODD Boards): if your character dies you have to go to the kitchen and roll up a new one. If you get him completed before the action is over, you can reenter the same gunfight! Sounds like FPS players will like this as a “respawn.”

In closing, Boot Hill looks like a great system. It’s also cool to see that TSR’s advertisement worked on me, 30 years after the fact!

As a side note, there are places to discuss Boot Hill on the web, like the ODD Boards.

As noted above, for those who don’t know (or must be aware of), Aces & Eights has a hidden meaning for the title of their game. When Wild Bill Hickok was shot and killed in Deadwood, South Dakota in 1876, he was playing five-card draw poker. In his hand were the two black aces and the two black eights, forever known from that point on as a “Dead Man’s Hand.”

There are differing opinions on whether or not this is true, along with what the exact cards he had in his hand when he was shot and killed in Nuttal & Mann’s Saloon in Deadwood, South Dakota Territory, on August 2, 1876.

To close, Boot Hill is a fine game. The word I've used over the years is "skeletal" in terms of the rules being very bare bones.

 

What are your thoughts on the Boot Hill? 

 

NOTE: and excellent resource can be found here for nearly all of the Boot Hill products from TSR. 

Dragon Magazine Retrospective: My Favorite Issues and Why They Still Matter

 

Everyone has their “Golden Age” when it comes to Dragon magazine, and in reality it’s no different than say White Dwarf. A lot of one’s views will be dependent on just where you entered gaming. As I’ve discussed on this blog and on sites like Dragonsfoot before, I was a latecomer to 1st Edition AD&D in terms of its product run. I started gaming in 1982, but for years my friends and I really mixed and matched stuff together as we explored the game. In other words, like a lot of kids I suspect we freely mixed and matched 1st Edition and Basic and never thought twice about doing so.

So with that in mind, I really didn’t start reading Dragon on a consistent basis until well after many 1st Edition gamers would consider it to be on the decline. To me this is puzzling because around #105 things started to get really good, again from my perspective.

The run from about issue #80 till around #170 fits my style of gaming perfectly: detailing out first edition stuff (albeit late 1st) that I can easily insert into my 2nd Edition games with little or no fuss. To me there is little I have to change — it fits like a glove. 

In a no particular order here are my top ten all time favorite Dragon magazine issues with their overall themes.
 

1. #134- Dragons - This issue is the be-all, end-all when it comes to dragons and anything dragon-related. It’s a great reference for amping up 1st Edition dragons and good dragon tactics in general. The cover is pretty cool too, a bit weird now, but still cool.

 

2. #125- Chivalry - Back in the day I played quite a number of cavaliers and played them a lot, not for any power-gaming reasons, but more for stomping foes into the dust in the name of king and country! Being the first book I bought with my own cash

aka (Unearthed Arcana) probably had something to do with it). In terms of iconic images, there aren’t many more powerful than a knight on horseback, lance leveled. I think I wore out my copy back in the day reading and rereading this thing. Even the other articles not dealing with knights are damn cool.

As far as the cover, look at that! A historical-based Arthur, how cool is that? Couple this issue with #118 (see below), the Arthurian characters from the Deities and Demigods (Legends and Lore) from 1st Edition, and you’re well on your way to an Arthurian-themed campaign. 

3. #127- Call to Arms - This is just as good as #125 in my book. There is so much meat in this you need a fork and knife. Single-class fighters are probably my second favorite class after fighter/mage. When you look at the options and idea starters this gives the DM and players, you can couple this with #125 and #119 for everything one would need for a strong feudal-style campaign akin to the

Again, the cover on this is epic. I think I drew that cover multiple times as an early teen. There is so much going on. I especially love the one orc saying basically “Ok, let’s go at this one last time!”

 
4. #136- Urban Adventures - Damn, this cover rocks too — see a pattern here? Urban adventures are a very underutilized part of the game in my opinion and often an area where newer players simply see as a “store” to exchange stuff for stuff they want from “shop-keepers.” What #136 does is give the DM a great host of options, and the article “50 Ways to Foil Your Players” is a gem in my opinion.

If that were not enough, there is a great golem article, a very good Star Frontiers one, and a host of others. In short, you can’t go wrong with the options this issue gives you.

5. #138 Dreadful Tidings - This one gets special mention for two reasons: a wide selection of alternative undead types which I’ve used for years (Hungry Dead, anyone?) and the article on the plague. The rest of it is a bit skimpy, but the two articles more than make up for it. The cover isn’t bad and has a good deal going on, but for some reason it doesn’t register with me. 

 

6. #160- The City Never Sleeps - Tie this in with #136 and you’ve got everything you need for down-and-dirty city creation and defenses in a magical world. Thieves guild articles and others fill out the special section nicely. I especially like the maps of the Inn of the Last Call.

For issue #160 the cover is okay, not my favorite, but okay. The real meat in this one is the articles.

7. #123- Arcane Arts - This cover sets the tone and is a great tool to use for the magically inclined characters of the campaign world. The special section has three outstanding articles and the Arcane Lore section with fire-related spells is fantastic. Of special note is the idea of the “Arcane College,” a great tool for DMs to use when PC mages get to higher levels.

Legends and Lore has Oriental heroes and the Marvel-Phile section has some of the heralds of Galactus.

 8. #118- Competitions and Tournaments - Tie this into #125 and Arthurian Britain (legendary, not quasi-historical) and away we go. Ever wonder about how to stage a tourney? Wonder no more — follow the pointers in this section and you’re well on the way to a good framework for a fair, festival, or what have you. Also consider the article “The Fairest of the Fairs” (#137) in conjunction with this issue for further idea kick-starters.

Some folks will not like this issue as it contains the infamous article heralding the coming of 2nd Edition by Zeb Cook — who makes the cut in terms of classes and who doesn’t… I’ll leave it at that to cut down on the rancor. Personally, I think Zeb did a great job given the circumstances.

This cover is awesome and the last of the great chess series that ran for years by the artist Denis Beauvais.

9. #116- Maritime Adventures - 

Long before “Of Ships and the Sea,” I used this issue to great effect as it covers everything needed for ships and sailing in a fantasy setting. As I got older I still liked the idea behind it, but I’ve never liked the idea of Ships of the Line akin to HMS Victory in a world of high medieval tech. To me a cog or at most a caravel represents the levels of seaborne tech for most worlds. And for me a caravel would be on the high side of maritime technology.

The cover is what it is: a picture of a red dragon mini with some smoke effects added. Nice, but not great.

The whole issue is great by my estimation and there really isn’t a bad article in it.

10. #106 - This was tough as I’m tempted to pick the likes of #115, #145, #148, #167 or #178. I give the nod to #106 solely based on the strength of the article “A Plethora of Paladins.” The Illrigger alone is so cool you can’t go wrong with it, and the class has featured in my 2nd Edition games.

In fact, it was the Illrigger that made me reevaluate kits and dump them emtirely much from my 2nd Edition games. I find most of the NPC classes work just fine in 2nd Edition and you can easily use them with the likes of “Sages and Specialists,” which are more akin to NPC classes in presentation anyway.

The cover…while not a "chain mail bikini" it’s starting to get close.

Honorable mention / runner-up status goes to the likes of #99 (for the expanded sword system and troop tables), #102 (Anti-Ranger), #119 (Druids), and #124 (Airborne Adventuring). The cover of #119 is especially awesome! #126 is another favorite of mine, especially for the cover.

These issues for me were the “sweet spot” of gaming articles and heavily influenced my gaming and my perception of the game. It probably also explains why, to some degree, 2nd Edition became such a non-issue to me. My group and I were already mix-and-matching the various gaming systems for years. When 2nd Edition came out we continued to do so.

Gygax & Arneson vs. Jobs & Raskin: The Unsung Co-Creators Behind Big Revolutions

Who and Who?

Most people in the gaming world know the name Gary Gygax, but fewer recognize Dave Arneson. Likewise, in the tech world, Steve Jobs is a household name—Jef Raskin, not so much.

But the parallels between these two pairs are worth considering.

If you’re curious about the early days of personal computing, Andy Hertzfeld’s site is an incredible resource. He was one of the original eight creators of the Macintosh, and his behind-the-scenes stories offer a glimpse into how the Mac came to be. You can even find the iconic 1983–84 photo of the team there.

Jef Raskin was the one who originally envisioned the Macintosh project—until Jobs took it over and radically changed its direction. Sound familiar?

In the early days of D&D, Arneson showed Gygax some of his early ideas. Gygax ran with them and expanded the concept into something bigger. The tricky part is: we’ll never really know how much of what became D&D was Gary’s and how much was Dave’s. My gut says it was a mix—each pulling from different sources, shaping the foundation together.

In both cases, one figure became the face of a revolution, while the other became a footnote—despite having sparked the original idea. And in both cases, the full story is messy. In Arneson’s case, legal disputes kept parts of it sealed. In Raskin’s case, his original vision for the Mac can only be glimpsed through later projects like the Canon Cat, a fascinating what-could-have-been.

None of this is to discount Gygax or Jobs. Gygax’s genius was in pulling together disparate influences into something greater. Jobs had a vision that changed the world. But both men stood on the shoulders of others—collaborators, visionaries, and unsung pioneers.

So here’s some food for thought: How do we measure creative credit? How do we honor the sparks and the flames?

I encourage you to read more about Dave Arneson and Jef Raskin. Let me know what you think. Am I way off, or closer than I realize?

Who and who, you may ask?

Most people in the gaming world know the name Gary Gygax, but fewer recognize Dave Arneson. Likewise, in the tech world, Steve Jobs is a household name—Jef Raskin, not so much.

But the parallels between these two pairs are worth considering.

Dave Arneson, co-creator of D&D

If you’re curious about the early days of personal computing, Andy Hertzfeld’s site folklore.org is an incredible resource. He was one of the original eight creators of the Macintosh, and his behind-the-scenes stories offer a fascinating glimpse into how the Mac came to be. You can even find the iconic 1983–84 team photo there, along with updates on where the team was as of 2012.

Jef Raskin was the one who originally envisioned the Macintosh project — until Steve Jobs took it over and radically changed its direction.

Sound familiar?

In the early days of D&D, Arneson showed Gygax some of his early ideas. Gygax ran with them and expanded the concept into something much bigger. The tricky part is: we’ll never really know how much of what became D&D was Gary’s and how much was Dave’s. My gut says it was a true mix
— each pulling from different sources, shaping the foundation together.

In both cases, one figure became the face of a revolution, while the other became a footnote — despite having sparked the original idea. And in both cases, the full story is messy. In Arneson’s case, legal disputes kept parts of it sealed. In Raskin’s case, his original vision for the Mac can only be glimpsed through later projects like the Canon Cat — an interesting “what might have been.”

None of this is to discount Gygax or Jobs. Gygax’s genius was in pulling together disparate influences into something greater. Jobs had a vision that changed the world. But both men stood on the shoulders of others: collaborators, visionaries, and unsung pioneers.

So here’s some food for thought: How do we measure creative credit? How do we honor the sparks and the flames?

In 1985, both Steve and Gary lost control of the companies they helped create. Perhaps a blog post for another time.

I encourage you to read more about Dave Arneson and Jef Raskin. Let me know what you think. Am I way off, or closer than I realize?

Peter Jackson and Faramir: How the Movies Missed the Mark on Tolkien’s Most Noble Character

As a family, we’ve been sitting down and watching the Lord of the Rings movies, and the kids have really enjoyed them. My son, being younger, has fidgeted around a bit, but my daughter has watched all the way through.

Last night we finished The Two Towers. As a quick aside, she likes (as I do) both Samwise and R2D2. There are a lot of parallels there, and maybe I’ll cover that down the road. But back on topic…

As we watched The Two Towers last night, I took another look at Faramir and how much Peter Jackson bungled the character — or at least the context of the character as written by the good Professor.

Tolkien is on record as saying that of all the characters, Faramir is the one he identified with most — a personification of his own values. Before I get into this, I’ll state upfront that I enjoyed the movies immensely. Most of the changes made sense within the constraints of film (the Elves at Helm’s Deep being a good example). I’m not a rabid purist, and no, all you fatbeards, Tom Bombadil still sucks and is entirely unnecessary, certainly for the movies.

I’m not that unreasonable. But in the case of Faramir, it looks like even Jackson realized he erred in the theatrical cut and tried to “correct” some of it in the extended edition of The Two Towers.

Peter Jackson missed the whole point of Faramir and the two sons, Boromir and Faramir. It’s easy to say, and I don’t think there will be much disagreement here. For those not in the know, here’s a quick recap, as these three characters all revolve around each other beyond their familial ties.

Denethor (played by John Noble)), the last Steward of Gondor. The Steward of Gondor is just that — not a king, but the caretaker of the throne. Flawed, slightly unhinged, and certainly no better for using the palantír, Denethor has major blind spots concerning his two sons. He can see no fault in his eldest and no use for his second.

Boromir (played by Sean Bean), eldest son of Denethor. Especially well portrayed in the movies by Sean Bean. He tries to claim the Ring from Frodo in The Fellowship of the Ring but dies protecting Merry and Pippin. In the end he realizes his error, but in his own way he shares some of his father’s flaws. I don’t see this as a fault. He is not weak in willpower per se — it’s just that he is no Faramir.

Faramir, younger son of Denethor, well portrayed in the movies by David Wenham. In the books Faramir is likeable, eager to please, focused, well-meaning, and above all just and even-tempered. He is also very much a martial character. But as written by Jackson in the theatrical cut, he totally misses the mark.

To what am I referring, in a roundabout way? In the extended DVD version of The Two Towers, where we meet Faramir, we see how badly Jackson failed to understand this seemingly minor character as Tolkien wrote him.

Faramir is depicted as succumbing to the power of the One Ring and willing to hand it over to his father. The problem is that Faramir was the one character Tolkien wrote who the One Ring had no sway over. Think about that statement for a minute. Of the entire myriad of characters that appear in the books, it is Faramir alone who is immune to it. (Bombadil doesn’t count — he’s so nonsensical he’s in his own category.) In the books even Sam considers the possibilities for the brief time he is a ring-bearer, but not Faramir.

With the extended version of the movies it gets worse, in my opinion. Jackson basically admits two things with Faramir. One, that the movie needed something else, with the shift of some scenes from Two Towers to Return of the King. So some of it was dictated by the needs of the film. Okay, on that level I understand what he did.

Two, he is on record (paraphrasing here) as saying “having someone immune to the power of the Ring lessens its effect.” (Double blink. Double facepalm.)

Well, Peter, maybe you missed the whole point entirely — even with the changes in your version of the story. In fact, if you had taken a step back you would have seen it plain as day.

Rather than have Faramir trying to prove himself in the movies (“a chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to prove his quality”), you should have considered who and what Faramir was. Instead of having Faramir trying to be just like his older brother and win his father’s love, it’s as simple as comparing the three and how Denethor treats his sons.

Consider that the “prized” eldest son fails and is tempted by the Ring, thereby not justifying the faith his father places in him. This makes it an easy contrast when his second son — the one he has no use for (“Do not speak to me of Faramir, I know his uses and they are few”) — is actually, at least in these terms, superior to his brother.

Instead of rushing to make Faramir the kid brother who desperately wants to prove himself to his father, it would have been better to use Faramir directly out of the books. It was such a simple, powerful contrast that I don’t know how he could have missed it. I think he fails to give the moviegoer credit here.

I can’t state it any better. Jackson created a wonderful set of movies and I have no doubt about his zeal. But on this one thing he whiffed — and whiffed badly. He and his wife/writing partner Fran (who took an excessive glee in my opinion) in mangling some key parts of the story missed the point of Faramir entirely.

Perhaps even more so than Frodo,, Faramir has a Galahad quality to him. Faramir was designed to be immune to the Ring, but for a reason that Jackson missed entirely. Faramir succeeding where Boromir failed highlights the differences between the two brothers and the flaws in Denethor’s powers of observation.

Jackson could have used this masterfully but didn’t. Denethor grossly underestimates Faramir, and as a result highlights his own failings all the more — and by contrast, those of Boromir. If there is any doubt, consider this:

Page. 280, The Two Towers, The Window on the West- "But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo." 

One would think that this is hardly open to interpretation, Peter.

The changes to Faramir greatly alter his character and cheapen him in my honest opinion. In essence, he is dumbed down simply to keep things consistent in the movies. Most moviegoers will never know of this, but for those who have read the books it leaps off the screen as a clear example of missing the mark on a small but important part of The Lord of the Rings. No wonder some have dubbed him “Filmamir.”

For more about Faramir and some details on Jackson’s thoughts on why he changed the character in the movies, check here: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Faramir or here: http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Faramir

What is your take on Faramir in the Lord of the Rings movies? 

THAC0: The Great Divide? What the Hell?

F (ExTSR) is Frank, as in Frank Mentzer, longtime cohort of Gary Gygax, writer of the Red Box (1983) of D&D Basic and one of the few active folks from the advent of TSR and the role-playing age on Dragonsfoot (which is now no longer the case).

There are people who think of THAC0 solely as a 2nd Edition AD&D creation when in fact according to Frank it predates 1st Edition and may even have been in common parlance around the time of the Lake Geneva Campaign. And again for those that don't know the Lake Geneva Campaign was THE grand-daddy of them all in terms of RPGs campaigns; it was the one that Gary DM'ed and well, pretty much wrote AD&D as we know it.

Now on to THAC0 itself: THAC0 stands for "To Hit Armor Class (Zero)."

In 2nd edition AD&D in melee combat, one rolls a d20 and compares it against their THAC0 score. For example if your THAC0 score is a 18 and you roll a 14 you would hit Armor Class 4. In other words, straight up on the die with no modifiers THAC0 represents the roll you need to hit AC 0 on a d20. In a nutshell that's all there is to it. So why is it that people look like this when you bring up the subject of THAC0 in gaming circles?

"Is it THACO or THAC0? I don't see the difference...

Seriously, simple math is that hard folks? The only argument that I can see possibly being made is for a unified mechanical rule of later editions which THAC0 is not. But, then again 1st and 2nd Edition has lots of wonky bits to it anyways. 3rd edition and later did tidy up stuff, but abandoned this one when it wasn't broken. Plus I'm not a fan of a single mechanic simply for its own sake, but can see the utility in some systems.

Maybe its the seemingly "weird" subtractions say for speed factor where lower is better. Sure AD&D (both 1st and 2nd) are not consistent whether high or low rolls are good or bad.

But the next time somebody starts squawking about the "difficulty" of simple math and unified mechanics being superior just point out they can, you know...do math. For the older grognard crowd point out that THAC0 appears in their "Ye Olde Holy Book" aka the 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide written by Gary Gygax. For those who want to save vs disbelieve its right there on pages 196-214.

Be prepared to save vs. long winded diatribe regarding about how Gary didn't really like it. Dudes... shut the Hell up, it's in the freaking book, your book no less.

And if you are having issues? Here is a great breakdown of how THAC0 works.