ZDL

First one is up. It might be a bit unusual a choice, but I like her.

Come see the violence inherent in the system!

Feel free to do a post in !WomensStuff@lazysoci.al we’re a woman only community that loves hearing about strong women

I kinda suck at starting conversations. If I just did a post every so often with a strong historical or folkloric woman would that be enough?

Historians are mostly men? 😉

Pharaoh Hatshepsut of the 18th Dynasty New Kingdom Egypt (~1479–1458 BCE).

She was the first female pharaoh (full deal, not regent), she reshaped governance away from strength of arms and ad-hoc decision-making toward merit-driven bureaucracy, and through this prioritized commerce over conquest, drastically enriching Egypt in the process by building up massive trading networks. She was responsible for some of the greatest monumental construction of the New Kingdom era. (Tragically these monuments were systematically erased by her successor, Thutmose III, because he was butt-hurt that a woman had ruled over men—but he did keep her trading networks even as he moved back toward the conquest model.)

Oh and she wore men's clothing. Fake beard and all. To cement her legitimacy as pharaoh.

As an alternative I might choose Zenobia of the Palmyrene Empire (267-272 CE). She broke free from the Roman Empire in a big "fuck you" battle to carve out one of her own, conquered Egypt, ousting the Roman provost in the process, setting it up as a client state, and by 271 she controlled Syria, Palestine, Arabia Petraea, and parts of Mesopotamia (and thus the trade routes of Asia Minor). All the while she was pitching Palmyria as a safe haven for scholars of all kinds.

She was such a problem that she became THE major enemy of Rome and they committed an enormous number of troops to take her out. She finally lost, and was caught while fleeing to Persia, ending her reign. She'd spent only five years ruling Palmyria, but they were an extraordinarily productive half-decade that had lasting impact in the region as people realize you could, in fact, stand up to Rome.

Oh wow. That sounds like a terrible state to be in!

McDonald's isn't food¹ either, but you can eat it.

¹ Except under the very broad definition "that which is eaten as food".

Champions was amazing, but it was also effectively a derivation (and improvement) of the earlier Supergame. (Yes, I know. Stupid title.) Supergame used d% and d6, not just d6, but let's see if any of this rings a bell: (😁)

• you build a character with 250 points¹
• you get a number of actions based upon a prime statistic (Dexterity or Intelligence, depending on the type of actions)
• two different types of damage (Physical and Agony), one of which is very slow to recover, the other very rapid
• a collection of powers that are more descriptions of effects, rather than specific instances (what, not how or why)
• a specific form of attack for Charisma (like, you know, Presence...)
• ... and a cast of dozens.

Champions' creators have always said they were inspired by Superhero:2044 and Villains & Vigilantes and have never even mentioned Supergame, but I find that a bit sus myself:

1. Superhero:2044 is a super-rare book. It was not very common to see it at all, ever. (The earlier pre-Zocci edition Superhero:44 was even rarer.)
2. Neither Superhero:2044 nor Villains & Vigilantes are in any way like Champions (aside from attempted genre).
3. Supergame wasn't super-rare. It was never a huge seller, but it was in most decent gaming shops in 1980-1981.
4. There's a good mechanical overlap of at least 50% between Supergame and Champions.
5. The game designer community of the late '70s and early '80s was very close-knit and there was a lot of cross-pollination.

Don't get me wrong: Champions was the better game. Being inspired by Supergame and making a better game is emphatically not a negative. I just think it's a bit weird that they refuse to acknowledge the influence.

And in the context of an RPG design essential reading, Supergame needs to be there to show the dramatic change in ideas that were beginning to pop up around that time.

¹ "Prime Statistics, super powers, devices, trainings, and abilities are all purchased using the same character construction points. The points are allocated according to relative effectiveness and usefulness. In other words, one power that costs 20 points is as useful in a variety of situations as any other power, ability, or device that also costs 20 points. Therefore, what is bought with these points is not the how or why of a power, but only the what."

Not the point. 😉

The point is that out of nowhere a guy who started off seeming nice enough turned out to be an assaulter. I'm mega-suspicious of everybody so I didn't get taken by (much) surprise. Most people aren't as paranoid as I am. To them that would have come from nowhere and they would have had no chance to stop it.

That's the issue. If I meet a bear in the forest, I know roughly what to expect. I know to avoid it, not to irritate it, not to get between it and its children if they're around. A bear is a known quantity. (A dangerous known quantity, but known.)

If I meet a random man in the forest, I don't know what to expect. There's a good chance he's a perfectly fine, sweet, gentle, decent human being.

Or he could be a Hans.

There's no way to know, and if it is a Hans, the lack of any possible witnesses in the forest plays doubly against me.

Yes. instead they learned that violence is how "adults" solve problems.

Not sure that's such a great return lesson.

Oh GOD no! If that had turned into a fight I would have lost, unequivocally. The only reason I "won" is because I circumvented his planned script and had a knife. (Knives are the Great Equalizer in enclosed spaces for weaker parties.)

The fact I had to literally threaten with deadly force, though … Remember that "bear or man" thing?

This is why "bear".

First I'll double up on this one:

Amber Diceless Roleplay

Pair it with Theatrix so you can see two completely different approaches to diceless, non-stochastic games. Amber and Theatrix make a fascinating "compare and contrast" study.

To your list I'm going to add (or at points replace with):

• Chivalry & Sorcery (1st edition)

The first game designed from the ground up as a social simulation where your character's place in society is far more important than grubbing through dungeons, killing things, and looting their bodies. (Indeed for some characters that would negatively impact their experience and growth!) I might put it alongside Traveller to show the difference between a game having a setting and a game being the setting. Also the grandfather of later "mega-mechanics" game systems.

• Bunnies & Burrows

To my knowledge the first attempt at making a game (and a pretty CRUNCHY game at that!) that is 100% based on non-human protagonists.

• Runequest (1st or 2nd edition)

First non-class-and-level game. Second game that came with a detailed, very non-European fantasy setting. Maybe put it alongside 1974 D&D to show how early people started breaking off from the D&D style.

• Maelstrom Storytelling

I'd actually replace Apocalypse World with this because it is the very first game, to my knowledge, that broke completely free of even the vestigial wargames roots of RPGs, complete with traditional story structuring being part of the game mechanisms, no fixed attributes (and no numerical ones), scene-level resolution (you roll once for an entire scene, not turn by turn). It's innovative enough that it's of interest. It's good enough that it's worth studying. And it has enough mis-steps and flaws that it's worth discussing. Pretty much any "storygame" owes a debt to this game.