metapunk

So, I’m torn. I was reviewing everything I still have yet to do with Martian Cycle, and I’m feeling overwhelmed.  But more than that, I’m not sure which direction to go in.

I’ve been working on my RPG for a long time, and in the last year or so, I’ve learned a lot more about the table-top RPG industry—well, as much as you can learn from the Internet, with fairly infrequent gaming sessions, and without actually going to gaming conventions like GenCon and the like (logistics don’t allow it, currently). (continue reading…)

“… and that’s when I pulled out my soul-drinking rune guitar, +1!”

In my last post I mentioned that I was trying to think carefully about how magic ought to work in Martian Cycle. In most games, and most fantasy fiction, magic is a given—that is, within the confines of the setting, magic is real and obvious to everyone.  In fantasy worlds, magic is the high technology of the day, and magical talismans are as common as cellphones are in the modern world.  Everyone has a crystal ball in their house for watching dragon races on, and the heroes might be able to sling fireballs as easily as you or I might turn on a light. (continue reading…)

In my last post, I referred to problems I’m having adding martial arts into the roleplaying game I’m designing, without providing any detail about the game itself. Not very effective writing, really, so I shall rectify this mistake presently.  For the moment, we’ll call the game The Martian Cycle…

(continue reading…)

So, I’m in the midst of a rewrite of the game’s two major systems–character creation and combat.  Originally I had planned to keep things really simple, “rules light.”  But the current version is shaping up to be more of a simulationist game,  so I figure why not include detailed rules for martial arts, since they’re a big part of the setting? (continue reading…)

What is it?  The short answer is: taking a wide view of human experience. Holodoxy is Greek for “whole thinking,” a name intended to contrast with various concepts of orthodoxy (“straight thinking”). Where orthodoxies represent traditional, hierarchically organized dogmas, both religious and secular; holodoxy is heterarchical (distributed, democratic) and fluid. Holodoxy means a global perspective, but one rooted in individual experience. Whether or not it achieves this I will leave to you to decide.

In any case, giving your philosophy a fancy Greek name is a little pretentious, so I often just call it the wide view; or more accurately “a” wide view—one of many possible wide views. (continue reading…)

I was reading through a binder of game design notes today, and someone asked me whether what I was reading was for business or pleasure.   I told her it was a little bit of both—a hobby that I’m trying to turn into a profession.

I’ve been into games most of my life.  I got started into table-top roleplaying in high school, with a system* which I soon realized was too idiosyncratic for my liking.  So, I started building my own system and annoying my friends with constant revisions and “tests of the combat system” involving endless gun battles in darkened warehouses.

(continue reading…)

I’ve added a Stories category, which is where prose fiction, poetry, or other random lexical smatterings will be found.  Of course, this is a shameless challenge to myself, because it means I’ll have to produce some on a regular basis.  We’ll just see how well that works…

Albert Camus said*:

“You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.”

I disagree. Sometimes you have to look long and hard to understand what happiness is before you can pursue it. And the meaning of life… well… If you’re always looking for a purpose, it certainly is hard to live—but if you don’t have one at all, living is even harder.

I’ve created the Holodoxy category to summarize the results of my own fumbling search for the meaning of life.  Take from it what you will—it’s a work in progress.  If you’re feeling brave, maybe you can help me refine it.  Constructive criticism is always welcome.

*I’m only joshing—I’ve never read Camus—I just found that quote on the Internet.  When it came down to a choice of which existentialist philosopher to explore for further reading, I picked Buber.  If it helps, I plan to read Camus…