The Innocents Of Muslims

I've been listening and watching the news reports of riots in several countries in response to this anti-Muslim film that has appeared on the internet created by a Coptic Christian. I have mixed views on this whole debacle which I will attempt to elaborate upon.

Firstly, people have been comparing this film with "Monty Python's Life Of Brian" which is understandable, but in my opinion incorrect comparison. Life Of Brian at no point made any swipes at God or Jesus or Christianity in general, instead it was a send up of Biblical epics and a satire on the religious fervour of the age. This film "Innocents Of Muslims" is none of these things. Instead a far more relevant comparison is with the silent film "Birth Of A Nation", which although it is silent and contains no nudity or bad language at all and is in black and white, never the less is still a 15 certificate here due to its content. The film, nothing short of a manifesto and platform from the Ku Klux Klan, depicts black people (all played by white actors blacked-up) as moronic, illiterate, violent people only interested in molesting and raping white women and children. The film is reprehensible in the extreme. In both cases, these films are made to treat their subjects with derision, contempt and hatred disguised as either a moral message in the case of "Nation" or "humour" in the case of "Innocents".

Should Youtube pull it? I think they should. By their own terms of usage this film clearly is a video designed to denegrate and is pretty much hate speech disguised as humour. There is no attempt to make any reasoned argument or cogent point, it is just 15 minutes of ridiculing Muslims simply for being Muslim. Whilst I am the first to admit that I have problem with certain tenets of the Muslim faith (as I do with most faiths) the way to deal with those ideas is to make reasoned arguments and points, either through serious debate or satire. But at no time do I feel it is excusable to denegrate people simply for being religious. So under Youtube's own guidelines the movie should be pulled.

Does such an action conflict with free speech? I don't think so. Freedom of speech has never come without a certain level of responsibility. We cannot for example, slander/libel people or use free speech to incite criminal behaviour and violence. This video, as I state above, doesn't seem to want to make any point other than "Muslims are silly/evil/pathetic etc" and as such I think it can certainly be classed as hate speech and certainly slanderous by default. It is bile dressed up as mirth.

So are the protests valid? Yes and no. Everyone has the right to be offended by things, even if others are not and everyone has the right to peaceful protest. But from what I've gathered this video is so badly done so ineptly handled that I would urge Muslims rather than get angry, laugh at it. laugh at its stupidity, laugh at the ineptitude with which this man has made his so-called "points". In reacting as they have, the protesters have given this man and his bile all the publicity he could ever want (no one really knew of this video's existence until the riots started). Also, whilst I agree with the concept of peaceful protest, this has not been. Surely perspective is needed here. This man doesn't deserve the publicity he now has.

In summary I say this: If you want to make a film about the evils, or perceived evils, of a religion, then do so with intelligent arguments. One can choose to present those argument as either documentary, drama or indeed comedy, but do it with intelligence. Ensure you show the clear distinction between critique of a subject and derision of those who agree with a subject. One can criticise a church or faith without claiming all within are morons. Also, get some perspective. An odious little man has made a hateful piece disguised as comedy and it has garnered far more publicity than it deserves. Treat the piece with disdain and contempt by all means, and simply disregard it as utter tosh (which from all accounts, it is).

Thats my tuppence worth anyway.

My thoughts and tips for first-time GamesMasters - Part 1

I have always intended writing and posting up my thoughts and tips on GMing.  Why?  because I know as a GM how daunting the prospect of GMing can be to any gamer and I honestly believe that a few helpful tips and suggestions from experienced GMs can make all the difference.  I should stress that what will follow in the next few posts are not absolutes, merely my thoughts on the subject and they can be taken or ignored, in whole or in part, as you see fit.  I will also, as is the way of things, give direct examples to highlight why I have reached the conclusions I have.

Ultimately what I want to do is to encourage other players, who are considering trying to GM a game, that it is worth having a crack at.  It is a daunting task that first game but if you follow my advice or at least take it under advisement, I think you will find the first time a lot easier than you might have thought

Part 1 - before you even begin a session

So you have decided you are going to have a go at GMing.  You've been a player for a while and want to have a shot at refeering.  But given everything that a GM has to contend with it looks very difficult.  is it?  Answer is yes and no.  certainly inexperience at GMing plays a factor in that difficulty, as do the nature of your players (I'll deal with this in one of the subsequent posts on this topic) but these can be at least alleviated to some extent if you have done your homework beforehand.

So firstly, choose the right system for you.  Preferably the system should be one that is pretty simple to use with straightforward mechanics.  I say this as it can help beginning GM's if they don't have to worry about extensive record keeping first time out.  Also, choose a game you happen to like especially if its in a genre you happen to enjoy.  If you like sword and sorcery, use a fantasy system you are comfortable with.  If sci-fi is more your passion, then go with a sci-fi game.

As an example, and one I will use many times over the course of these blog posts, I will mention my friend Alan, who decided as his first ever attempt at GMing to run a dungeon bash using the Palladium Fantasy RPG (this was back in the mid 90's).  Now personally, I would have used something more basic like Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, as the Palladium rules are far more in-depth and require more record keeping than old D&D.  However, although Alan did make some fundamental errors that night (more on that later) the one definitive thing he got right was his choice of system.  Why?  because it was a system he was completely comfortable with and knew like the back of his hand.  That it wasn't as simplistic as other game rules he could have used he used a system he knew well and that was the right choice for him.

So when I say simple by all means take the easiest system mechanics wise you can find but if there is a system that you know very well and are comfortable with, even if it is a more complex system, then go with that.  However do try to find a happy medium between rules complexity and necessity for a 1st time game.  Palladium may have suited Alan but had he used another system like RoleMaster or Runequest I think that would have been the wrong choice, due to the amount of record keeping and tables involved.

One thing I would say to any beginning GM is that no matter if it is your favourite genre or not, it is best that horror not be attempted by a novice.  Horror relies far more on a GM creating the proper atmosphere (I've been GMing for 25 years and I've never quite managed that atmosphere yet although I've come close a few times).  It is more than anything a matter of the GM being able to be so comfortable with their rules and the scenario that they can settle back and concentrate purely on mood.  This is not something that novice GMs are really able to do, especially as they have so much else they have to consider as well.  So my advice is get some experience as a GM first, then have a crack at running a horror game.

With regards to your scenario that you choose to use, my advice is keep it straightforward.  For a fantasy game, run a dungeon bash.  Sci-fi and other genres have their own variants.  The goal is to keep the game straightforward and therefore manageable.  That doesn't mean that you can't have lots of traps and monsters but keep the game itself down to its bare bones 9which is why dungeoneering works well as it all takes place in one locale with little room for things to go wrong for a Gm with players doing the oddest things (again more on this later).  Player-Characters should be level 1.  Why?  This is for two reasons.  Firstly it means that special abilities and powers that a GM would have to keep track of are far less likely to be available to characters of 1st level allowing for less headaches for a 1st time GM.  Secondly it means you can avoid some of the more complex villains and monsters that a game may have purely because they are designed with higher level characters in mind.  Again this keeps things simple and straightforward for the new GM to keep a track of.

Back to my friend Alan, and the first 2 mistakes he made in his game.  The players that he had were all experienced players and Alan, believing they would not play minute characters, gave us characters that were not only mid-level for the system (5th-6th level out of 15) but he also created some of them as multi-class characters.  This meant that instead of 5 very simple 1st level characters to contend with he was dealing with 5 reasonably powerful characters with lots of spells, skills and abilities to count on.  This meant his scenario was already in trouble as he didn't keep it straightforward.  His mistake here was believing that experienced players would never play 1st level characters.  The answer is of course they will, especially if they know its the GMs first time as a GM.  Their experience doesn't demand that they be given higher level characters, as if giving them 1st level characters demeaned them.  Their experience would show through with how they then played those characters.  True experienced players will take 1st level characters for a beginning GMs game, and so will yours.  For that reason I would also say never try and GM using people's standing characters in an ongoing campaign, have them make up new characters or make them yourself.

And so we come up to the subject of characters.  As i said above, either make them yourself or have players make them with you there to observe.  At the start make sure that you tell players of any restrictions to character races or classes or abilities you are imposing.  This comes under "House Rules" and I will deal with this specifically in the next blog.

As an example I was asked to create a character for a superhero game (it was using either Marvel Superheroes or the HERO system, I can't remember which).  The GM for the game, Carl, took me right through character generation as we sorted out what powers my character had.  To be fair my character had a vast array of different powers but Carl said nothing until the end, after the character had been made.  Then he talked about needing to change the elements of the character to make the powers more uniform as the character was meant to be a mutant.  This was badly handled by him.  What he should have said, right from the start, was that the characters in his game were going to be mutants and we could have, as character generation went on, created a character with a uniform set of powers that would have been more consistent. But he didn't and it was a waste of a character as he couldnt be used.  Moral of the tale:  if you have restrictions (no elves in a game or no Wookiees or no Dragons (yes my Falkenstein players no that restriction well) then ensure your players know that from the off, rather than only telling them after the character is created.

Also, and the example I'm about to use is a cock-up of my own, ensure that when dealing with player's equipment lists that you double check them to see there are no unreasonable items.  For example, I ran a game of Dark Conspiracy (a near future horror game) in which all the characters were on a coach that got abandoned in an old Wild West town and were besieged by spirits and zombies of the old townsfolk and gunslingers and such.  All of a sudden one character stood on the roof of the saloon, observing the horde of zombies marching slowly down the main street towards their building, and fired a LAW rocket at them.  This rocket he had bought and placed in his equipment list and had I seen it it would have been disallowed but as i hadn't seen it I left it there.  Given that the error was mine I couldn't then disqualify the weapon at that moment so instead of a big old shoot out as I had planned, most of the antagonists were destroyed in one well placed rocket blast.  So please do double check equipment lists, both for items that can't be afforded or owned and for items that they simply shouldnt have.

So the scenario is written the characters are done.  Now its time to play.  On to Part 2.

The Rainbow Warrior - gay characters in RPGs

I guess what made me consider this, and I've been thinking on this subject for many months, was a post on a message board regarding Dragon Age 2 computer RPG and the decision to make one of the NPCs a gay male character who would flirt with the male player character.  This caused some players (the hilariously named "straight male gamer") consternation and feelings that they had become marginalised.  This of course I completely refute but it started me thinking:  Are gay characters allowed in tabletop RPGs?

The simple answer is yes, they are.  However as with life, nothing is that simple.  There may be GMs who are uncomfortable with the notion of someone playing a gay character and may indeed place an embargo on such a character type.  Would they be right to do so?  Well as odd a reaction as I think the GM would have in such a ban, I'd have to say yes they are right in respect of their own game.  A GM can place on his world or scenario any character restrictions he/she so chooses (for example, I have never and will never allow players to play dragons in Castle Falkenstein).  Whilst the reasons may be nonsensical to players the GMs view is final and if they decide they do not want gay characters in their games then its his/her way or the highway.

But what about the games themselves, leaving aside potential GM biase and restrictions?  Well here I say the question isn't so much "can players choose to play a gay character?" but rather "how out will the character reasonably be?"

I will explain.  Take a game like the Star Trek RPG or Prime Directive RPG.  In these games we shall assume the character is a member of the Federation.  Could they play an out gay character?  I'd say yes as it would be entirely in keeping with Roddenberry's vision. This is not to say that the character would never experience prejudice but in general the character could be out without any legal problems and could I suppose be married to their partner if they so desired.  This is because the Federation has an ideology that would allow for such an openly gay character.  The Klingon Empire might not be so open, and any Klingons who were gay would undoubtedly be more in the closet or face possibility of death or being shunned by their family and friends.

Castle Falkenstein, a game I use a lot, is set in a Victorian society.  Yes it is one with magic and dwarfs and dragons etc, but it is at its heart Victorian scoeity and in that time it was illegal to be gay.  Now anyone wishing to play a gay character in that game must keep that in mind when deciding how in the closet their character is.  Similarly any game taking place in medieval times (like Chivalry & Sorcery or Pendragon) would be pretty much burned at the stake for being gay and players must bear that in mind.

On the other side there are fantasy games like Blue Rose which actively allows for gay characters and indeed goes to great lengths to promote their equal status.  Here in such egalitarian states being gay and openly so is perfectly fine.

Most other games are pretty much neutral on the issue allowing the GM to place whatever world view he/she wishes onto it.  This is where a GM with a major problem with the notion may put their foot down and deny such an option but most will not.

Why would anyone wish to play a gay character in the first place?  I'm sure some would argue that being gay or not is irrelevant to a game which all about adventure and action.  Well, yes and no.  Certainly if all the game is is just dungeoneering, hack & slash adventure (or equivalent from other genres) then the choice of playing a gay character is pretty irrelevant other to provide I suppose an interesting quirk to make them look unique in the crowd.  If that is the only reason for it and the GM is okay with that then I have no objection, as it allows at least an interesting slant on what could otherwise be a pretty generic character.

But if there is more to your game than action/adventure, where social interaction and indeed romance can come into play, then sexual preference can indeed become an issue.  So why would people play a gay character if that is the case, given that heterosexuality is the more prevalent in society?  There are of course two very obvious reasons, both being equally valid.

The first reason is that the player themselves may be gay.  If we accept the notion that oft times as players we don't so much play someone completely different but merely play ourselves as we would be if we had those abilities, skills, powers etc, then we must accept that this is true across the board.  Most of the characters I have played have been white, male and heterosexual, because they are me in another guise.  if I am allowed to play characters that are extensions of myself then players who are gay or bisexual must be allowed the opportunity to do the same because that is fair and in keeping with the game.

The second reason is that sometimes we like to play someone who isn't quite ourselves.  be it on gender lines, perhaps a different ethnicity, then we must accept that one aspect we can change is to play someone of a differing sexual preference to our own.  Whether we do it to merely explore a different side of life (under the old "walk a mile in their shoes" mentality) or simply to add a quirk to our character to make them stand out from the crowd, it must be acceptable to do so.  We aren't talking about things that are abusive or illegal here (although of course we commit acts of shocking violence as our characters during combat) so there are no real moral considerations.

So to players I say this:  if you are gay, or if a player in your group is gay, dont be afraid to make your character gay or be surprised or annoyed or offended if there is a gay character in the group.  if you aren't gay and are looking at creating a unique character in your party, then sexuality is certainly one aspect you could try.  Only be mindful that the world your character inhabits may not be as toelrant of homosexuals as your gaming group is and as such you need to decide how out your character is and accept the consequences of that decision (if you are playing a character that is out in a world where being gay is a crime, that could definitely create some interesting role-playing scenarios and character development as they would essentially be a fugitive).

GMs, dont be put off by gay characters.  Unlike my embargo on dragon characters in Falkenstein (which is down to the fact that they would imbalance a game) gay characters no more imbalance a game than a straight character does. Certainly the world you place that character into may be tolerant or intolerant of homosexuals to a greater or lesser degree either way, but that does not stop people from playing gay characters.  As mentioned above, a character being gay in a world intolerant of them could give a very dramatic extra edge to any scenario or campaign if the PC is out, or indeed outed.

So wave the rainbow flag and dont be afraid to let the characters express themselves.  its role-playing after all,

Role-Playing or Roll-Playing - Which Is Best?

Before I answer that question let me first define the two in my eyes.  For me, Role-Playing is when players interact with each other, speaking as their character and talking directly to other characters, be they PCs or NPCs.  rather than saying "my character says this" or "my character does that" they either speak straight out to the character or they say "I am doing this".  Roll-Playing is more a case of the characters being much more defined by the stats and the game much more  a game of rolling dice and checking skills at opportunity.  Interaction is limited or comes down to "my character will do/say such and such".

So which is best?  I'd say that the honest answer is whatever works best in your group or game.  For me, I have always preferred Role-Play over Roll-Play (if for no other reason than I hate all the record keeping) and in my games character interaction within the group has now gotten to the point where action is almost seen in terms of interaction between characters.  Diplomacy, subterfuge and intimidation are often employed far more readily than a swift sword or spell (although these make a wonderful plan B).  A friend of mine plays AD&D with her husband using mostly published scenarios (mostly because they both have busy schedules and dont have time for writing their own games).  She plays multiple characters so that there is a group of adventurers rather than a lone warrior or mage.  In that sort of situation, Role-Play becomes almost impossible to do and so, naturally, Roll-Play comes to the fore.

Is one style of play better than the other?  Well, yes and no but I would argue the yes and no comes down not to anything objective that can be measured, but more a subjective appraisal based on personal taste.  A Roll-Play style game wouldn't suit me as a GM or my players in the groups I ahve but at the same time a Role-Play game doesn't suit my friend in the situation she is in.  So our style of game is best for the situation we are part of and it works for us.

Ultimately it comes down to how much fun we are having.  if the scenario is fun and we are enjoying the game, thats all that truly matters.  I can happily play both styles (as I did when I visited my friend the other week) and indeed do enjoy at times doing some roll-playing (which works very well for a dungeon bash).  My friend and her hubby similarly have played games with me as a GM and do a lot more Role-Playing in those as is my style.  Whichever is better is whichever gives you the most fun.

So for those who sometimes sniff or look down on one style over the other, be advised.  No style is intrinsically right or wrong.  All that matters is that you find a style that works for you and your group of players and enjoy yourself.

RPGs for the beginner!

So you have heard about this hobby called Role-Playing Games and you are interested in playing, how to start?  Well there are a couple of options:

I would certainly suggest, if you have never played a game before or don't have friends who are gamers, that you try and find a local RPG club.  There are more of them than you might think (though sadly less than there used to be).  They can often be found on college or university campuses and are generally open to the public (although best to call and enquire first).  The advantage of a club is that you cna very quickly find out if RPGs are your thing or not and there will be plenty of expert advice from veteran players and the recently new.  remember that they were all beginners at some point so don't feel that you are somehow out of place.  A respectable RPG club will be very welcoming to new players and give them plenty of advice.

Failing that, or after having played a game you feel you want to try a game of your own, here are my thoughts.  When it comes to buying a system, go for one that is simple and straightforward.  Most of the big systems have plenty of reviews for them on various online retail sites and specialist sites like RPG.net.  Some of these games have beginners versions of themselves that are designed to introduce new players to the hobby of RPGs.  Also, I would tend to say that when it comes to picking a first game go with your favourite genre, with a notable exception I'll mention at the end of this.  if you like fantasy, get a fantasy game.  if sci-fi is more your passion, go for a sci-fi game.  If you have a liking for a particular genre (or even tv show/films as there are many licensed products out there) then you are much more likely to enjoy using the game system.  This is not to say other systems and genres have no merit, only that it will make your first step into RPGs easier if the game is based on a genre you love.  Also your local gaming shop will be able to give tons of advice on good systems for a beginner to try out.  Whilst I am sure you might get the odd one trying to sell you the most expensive the overwhelming majority of stores will give proper advice on giving players the best system for their needs.

The only exception I would make with regards to picking genres or systems for a first timer is not to pick horror.  Horror RPGs are very difficult to pick up and play as a first time gamer as they are games reliant so much on atmosphere, and are so devastatingly difficult and brutal to characters, that the experience can often be underwhelming for a gamer.  Once you've got a few games under your belt then I would consider horror games but for the first few times, stick to the big genres like fantasy, scifi, westerns, super heroes, urban fantasy or modern games.

Also, don't be afraid to buy an older RPG 2nd hand. Whilst there is no doubt that modern games are more complex and wide-ranging with choices, there is something simple and direct about a lot of retro games that allow for new players I feel a little more than newer games (although I admit that is an entirely individual view, one I'm sure others may agree or disagree with).  I'm not an evangelist when it comes to the whole retro v modern gaming debate (I see merit in both sides of that debate) but as a way into the hobby for a beginner I see no problem with picking up a 2nd hand copy of the old red box Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set and using it as a first time game to get the concepts of role-playing down.

Ultimately, the games are about fun.  Get a few friends round and give it a go.  You may feel strange getting into character at first but go with it, it really is fun.

Free RPG's - cheap or inexpensive?

What I mean by the title is that there are two ways to look at free to own RPGs (mostly pdf's).  Either you view them as cheap and wouldn't have made any real money if they had been released to the market or you see them as very good games that could have made money but for one reason or another have been released free to own.

My opinion is that they are certainly worth a look.  Yes some undoubtedly will be cheap and cheerless and really not much cop at all but others may very well be worth your look.

There are many games available as free to own pdf's that fall into the category of retro games such as "Basic Fantasy", "Labyrinth Lord" and "Mazes & Minotaurs".  Whilst a lot of these games harken back to AD&D 1st edition for their inspiration and can be quite clunky they are also, in my humble opinion, ideal for beginner players.  Why?  Because the games are usually well thought out, easy to read and understand, simple enough so that new players can grasp the concepts without bombarding them with too much information early on and given the price tag, exceptional value for money.  Now yes the person getting them will need to buy paper and ink for the printer and so on but even factoring those costs in you still end up coming out ahead.  Get a few sets of dice and you and your players are raring to go.  I also found official products released by West End Games for their D6 system, which are free to own on pdf from retailers like DriveThruRPG.com which included a fantasy system which would be very generic for sure but also very easy to use and run for beginners.

Why my interest in beginners?  because unless our hobby gets new people interested it will literally die with us.  And if free to own retro games get people interested in the hobby that they might want to check out some of the current crop of games that are out there for sale, then I say all the better.

So in closing shop around and look for some of these free games and check them out.  You may find an RPG there that will suit your needs perfectly.

Here are some links for some of the free RPG's I mentioned:

Basic fantasy:  http://www.basicfantasy.org/

Labyrinth Lord:  http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html

Mazes & Minotaurs:  http://mazesandminotaurs.free.fr/revised.html

D6 Fantasy (also D6 Space and D6 Adventure):  http://www.sycarion.com/open-d6-pdfs/

Legendary Quest:  http://legendaryquest.netfirms.com/

Dungeon Slayer:  http://www.dungeonslayers.com/

Other games are available free from DriveThruRPG.com  Just put in an advanced search for items costing $0.00 and a list of supplements free trial gamesa and full RPG rules systems comes up.  its a great way to see a lot of stuff for no cash at all.


Should give you guys things to think about :)

RPGs - Where are the Beginner's Games?

One of the things that has concerned me for some years now, has been a trend amongst RPGs to become ever more complex.  I understand the motivation behind it, that players want real flexibility in character creation and choices hence the inclusion of skills and advantages/disadvantages and combat options and feats of all kinds.  Whilst this is as i say understandable it does leave the question of how do we as a hobby get new players involved, especially in this age of computer RPGs and MMORPGs?

Recently, I saw "beginner's box sets" for 2 games that are amongst the biggest sellers in RPGs, namely D&D 4th edition and Pathfinder.  I myself bought my daughter a few years ago a box set that was pretty much an introduction to D&D 3rd edition.  All these box sets have the same essential components and the same flaw. The components are simplified versions of the Player's handbook and DM's Guides, along with a map for figures (and sometimes some figures or cardboard cut outs) and some dice.  These sets go for roughly £20-£25 and are for the most part clear, concise and well laid out.  I haven't tried the beginner's box sets for pathfinder and D&D 4th but from watching Youtube clips and reviews they seem similarly laid out and very much designed to get new players introduced to their parent systems, but in a gentler way than paying out for the appropriate corebooks for the parent game.  It sounds like a good deal yes?  My answer is, sort of.

Some people play RPGs and instantly become a fan.  others play and like the concept but perhaps not that particular game or that particular rule set or setting or genre and it just becomes a matter of finding the one that fits.  Others play and whilst they think its okay they don't make a hobby of it and others yet play but it really doesnt grab them like they thought or hoped or assumed it would.  Depending on which group you fall into, the beginner's set becomes a different proposition.

Taking the groups in reverse order, starting with those who play but don't really get into it or those who get into it but not in a major hobby way, the beginner's sets are not a bad deal at all.  Why?  because if they aren't getting into the hobby then the game becomes just another boardgame amongst others that can either be tossed away or donated or kept for the occasional game.  In that respect the asking price doesn't seem too high.  Similarly if the concept sounds good but the genre or rules doesn't fit then the asking price is similarly not too bad compared to the near £50 one would pay for the corebooks for either Pathfinder or D&D 4th edition (3rd edition being out of print can be picked up relatively cheaply 2nd hand if you shop smartly).

But what if playing one of these beginner's sets gives you the gaming bug and you want to purchase the main rules?  Then the beginner's set losed a great deal of its lustre and looks a lot more cynical.  You see the corebooks aren't the next stage up from the beginner's set.  They repeat everything that is in the beginner's set and just adds more stuff.  In other words the only real difference between buying the core books straight away and buying the beginner's set first is that you have spent more if you buy the beginner's box set as all the corebooks still need to be bought to play the game proper.

So what is the answer to this conundrum?  Well, back in the mists of time at the dawn of the hobby some bright spark thought it would be smart to release a beginner's set dealing with the simple core rules, and then releasing add on sets dealing with ever higher characters and rules, gently easing the gamer into the rules rather than bombarding them.  it also meant that the beginner's box set (this is classic Dungeons & Dragons I'm talking about here of course) wasn't replaced by corebooks but was a corebook itself that was then added to buy subsequent releases.  I have noticed that the Dragon Age RPG, released recently by Green Ronin publishing, is going back to that method of releasing and I honestly believe that it is the way to go.  it would also ensure that the often excessive price tags placed on games these days due to the sheer volume of the tomes can be more evenly spread out.

So I would urge gamjes manufacturers to go back to the simpler method of incremental releases, that would at least bring new players into our hobby rather than overloading them with huge volumes at excessive prices.  We risk pricing ourselves out of existence, both intellectually and fiscally, if we don't start looking at this issue.

Role-Playing Games - An overview of mine and why I like them!

I have decided to do a series of articles about Role-Playing Games.  Why?  Because it is something I am very positively passionate about (and will make a change from my usual rants on this thread) and I honestly do feel that RPG's deserve a far bigger audience than they already have.  Computer RPGs have certainly grown in popularity over the years and I honestly feel that their Pen & paper parents deserve as much success.  So sit back and let me start off with an overview of the games I play on a regular or semi-regular basis and why I like them.

Castle Falkenstein:  This is a fantasy game, though one not set in a Tolkeinesque pseudo-medieval world as so many fantasy games are but in an alternative Victorian society with magic, dragons, Fey and Steampunk technology all around.  I bought this game back in the early 90's when it was first released and it has pretty much been my number one system ever since.  The reasons for this as numerous.  Firstly, the mechanics (rules system) itself is elegant and simple, using playing cards rather than the usual polyhedral dice for task resolution.  This allows the players to use a little more in the way of tactics in their game which my players have taken to very quickly.  Secondly, the world itself is evocative and given the time period, allows for many different sorts of adventures.  I never have any trouble coming up with plot ideas for CF games as I can easily run games that are thrilling espionage tales, games of gothic horror, games of the wild west or just simple variances on classic High Fantasy.  The mixture of the Victorian setting, steampunk technology and fantasy elements allows for a myriad of gaming styles.  Thirdly, being a rules lite system it really does allow for some actual Role-Playing rather than constantly relying on the dice.  As a GM I am heavily into getting Role-Playing into my games and CF is one of the best examples I've seen.

Kult:  A game of modern day horror that is also as easily used for a modern day setting without supernatural elements, thus making it an ideal modern setting.  The mechanics are extremely simple, requiring only one 20-sided die to resolve all task resolutions (including damage resolution) making it very easy for a beginner to pick up and use (although unlike some of the other games I will mention, Kult is by nature of its atmosphere, not the best game for a beginner to play).  Character creation is pretty straightforward, minimizing dice rolling in favour of the points system that was so en vogue during the 90's, allowing for a widely differing characters even if they start from the same stock template.  Players do mention the lethality of the system (it really can kill you with a single punch, let alone a single shot) but it is a game of dark and terrible horror so the lethality does fit in with it.  Some of the creatures (okay let's be honest, ALL of the creatures) are extremely difficult to kill whilst it is extremely easy for them to kill you, which does present a GM with a huge problem when trying to get a balance right.  I think I have now, by really focusing on psychological horror, and the slow build up of tension over many inter-connected scenarios, rather than go all out for blood and guts.  The gamebook I have carries with it a warning that no one under 16 should play.  I upped that to 18, only system I'd never let a younger teen near.

Call Of Cthulhu:  One of the grand old masters of RPGs, and the game by which al other horror games are judged, CoC is a classic that has earned its respect.  Character creation is simple as are the mechanics and it allows the GM (or Keeper of Arcane Lore as he/she is known as in CoC) to instead concentrate on atmosphere.  based obviously on the works of H.P. Lovecraft and his successors, it strives to really get the atmosphere right, rather than be a stalk and slash horror.  Whilst not as psychologically harrowing and deadly as Kult, its still a pretty lethal game (as it should be, its a horror after all) and I've run many a fun game (short scenario and longer campaign) with this system.

Dungeons & Dragons (Basic):  The game that started it all off for me back in the mid-80's.  The old Red Box with the basic Rules for levels 1-3 caught my imagination and when a friend of mine bought it I was hooked.  Since then I got the Expert, Companion and Master rules sets that followed it to fully flesh out the world.  Whilst the game system would seem a little abstract to some gamers today, I think there is much to love about old faithful D&D and I do at times give thought to pulling out the old books again.  I'd also say that for someone starting in the hobby, they could do a whole lot worse than get this set 2nd hand as it really is the perfect intro to fantasy RPGs.

Palladium Fantasy RPG:  Off the back of the success of games like Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and Runequest, came this little known but excellent RPG from Palladium Books.  Character creation is pretty long-winded (not helped by the terrible way the rulebook is set out) but it does allow for some very unique characters making their way in the world.  Anyone who has played D&D/AD&D will pick up the basics of combat and the like very quickly as the mechanics are almost identical (even if the stats aren't).  The tone is certainly more mature and dark than the high fantasy style of D&D/AD&D so not really a game for younger teens but for older teens and adults this is a perfect game.

Pendragon:  I have the 4th edition of these lovely rules, depicting adventure and high romance in the time of King Arthur.  Very in-depth character creation really gets to the heart of the character as more than a few numbers on a page.  Wonderful as a game but not really one that can be played as a short one-off scenario as it really demands campaign play and as such I have sadly rarely used it fully but I do love it very much.

MERP:  Middle-Earth is a fantastic classic game from the 1980's which gives the rules and background to adventure in the world of Tolkein.  A very simple set of rules (just an awful lot of tables) which I think any half intelligent beginner could pick up and learn fairly easily.  And the crit tables are laugh out loud funny as the people writing it definitely employ a real sense of gallows humour.

Buffy:  Yes the RPG of the series and its very good.  Simple rules very much designed with beginners in mind and the rulebook goes to great lengths to get the atmosphere just right.  I would also say at this point that the Angel RPG and the Ghosts Of Albion RPG, all use the same system and can be used with each other so yes, you could have a game where Willow & Tara arrive via a spell in Victorian London to help William & Tamara (now that could be a metaphysical experience).

Other games I've used but to a lesser extent over the years are:  Star Wars (D6), Nephilim, Traveller, Dragon Warriors and Space Master.  I may do my thoughts on these games in a separate blog but next, a quick intro to RPG's for the beginner.

Don't want to start any blasphemous rumours BUT....

Okay, I see a lot of posts from organisations like GLAAD and HRC and various other gay rights publications and invariably it deals with either a position by the church or some politician or political party holding homophobic views based on their religious beliefs.  Essentially saying that God doesn't like gays, or more accurately gay people having sex with each other, and finds such acts an "Abomination".  But let's look at this logically for a minute.

Gay sex is an abomination unto the Lord the Bible says.  Okay, but so is eating shellfish or wearing a garment made of two different threads.  Are we seeing church leaders campaigning against oyster bars or stores that sell poly/cotton blend shirts?  Do we see them demand those who like oysters on the half shell or wear the above garment being denied rights for doing something which, according to their God, is as bad as having sexual intercourse with someone of the same gender?  Of course not, because the idea is ludicrous and even they would say that "this rule doesn't apply now" and yet the gay sex thing does.  This is inconsistency, a double standard which they dont even try and explain away but fall back on an argumentative line of "well God doesnt like them" which is impossible to refute (even though given their own standards of evidence is impossible to confirm either).

But does God have any moral standing on this at all?  I mean this is the being who, if the Bible is to be take as read, has no problem with slavery.  Certainly he also has no problem with Infanticide and seemingly no problem with incest either.  So we are left with a Supreme being who is suppsedly against polycotton shirts, eating oysters and gay sex and yet for slavery, incest and infanticide.  is it just me or is this God really off morally?

I will leave that question for others to answer on their own, for me it is simply a sign that whilst the Bible does have some good ideas, it is extremely backwards in other regards and the ones who espouse it as all get out really need to do their homework and realise this simple truth:  This book was written for a specific peoples at a specific time in a specific place under very specific circumstances and should not be assumed to still apply to us, here and now in our circumstances.  I'm not saying ditch the Bible, or for that matter ditch faith, but I do say we need to get it into proper context and perspective before more innocent lives are ruined for the sake of this religion which whilst supposedly being about love, seems hellbent on embracing hate.

Never ending fire in the smoke!!

So, just when I think the nightmare might be behind me, that the past is finally buried and that the clouds are lifting, I am reminded at just how much my past will forever haunt me.

I joined a dating site, nothing unusual and actually talked to someone on it.  I saw her due to a post that she had given where she disagreed with the notion of child abusers having ot have a sign post in their garden as she felt it would encourage vigilante's.  I replied to her saying that i agreed that it could and also there is the possibility that the person was innocent, and in those circumstances they shouldn't be persecuted at all.  I intimated that I knew this from personal experience to a degree.

In reply she asked me what that experience was and in my subsequent reply I told her.  i told her I had been falsely accused of molesting my daughter, that I was never charged or even arrested but the very notion of an accusation was enough to cause my mental breakdown that I still suffer from to this day.

her reply?  That whilst she sympathised with me and hoped I could put it behind me she has children and as such she couldnt take the chance that it might even be remotely true.  No smoke without fire she feels.

Is that to be what is left of my life?  To live alone because of that?  Am I to be assumed guilty by accusation alone (even though there was no evidence to back up the accusation, as no abuse took place)?  if so, what is my hope, realistically, of finding any love and happiness in this world if I am to be forever tainted with these lies?  And if that is the case, if these lies are to dog me for the rest of my life, then I honestly want my life over.  Gone, done, finished.

I dont want to be alone all my life.  I dont want to wake up each day to the emptiness.  But it appears that due to the lies of one person, I am cursed to that.  And right now, its a curse I dont want.

The Kitten Board and Buffy Season 6!

So a guy called DrLloyd is doing a history of The Kitten Board from its beginnings as merely a Willow & Tara fan board through its period of being (and to some extent still is) a protest board over the death of Tara and the introduction of Kennedy. 10 years have passed since that fateful run up to the episode "Seeing Red". Given the passing decade, have my views on Season 6 and Tara's death changed at all?

Truth is, if anything my feelings have merely become better expressed. Whilst I certainly no longer feel the raging anger and feeling of betrayal towards Joss that I once did, nor has anything in the passing 10 years made me feel that he has made any real attempt to make what I feel are well overdue and obvious amends.

The more I see Season 6, and I have watched season 6 again since the original transmission (the wonders of DVD) it makes even less logical sense now to kill off Tara than it did then, and it made no sense then. I will probably at some point write some great tome, pouring over every point and principle involved in what I see as a colossal mistake that blighted the show and a very positive storyline for LGBT people and others (I belong in the others category) and for no real gain, either critically or commercially. But worse yet, they lost the moral argument, and that is a shameful indictment of Joss.

Truth is, its all too late to do anything. Buffy finished the following season, unable to get back the mass exodus it lost when Tara died, and the comic book has really done nothing other than underline that point. Joss is unable to accept blame which is his perogative but it does leave me thinking less of him as a person as well as a writer.

The Diet!

Yes I am on a diet, one that is self-inflicted so I cant blame others. Nor can I blame others for the causes of needing the diet.

The causes? Simple enough a lack of a decent diet (in so much as foodstuffs) and exercise (it appears sadly that masturbation does not count as an exercise routine). Add to that my general state of not really giving a damn about myself and the meds I'm on having the effect of slowing my metabolism down and the result is over weight me.

So why the diet? Well its not for reasons of vanity, I simply cannot summon up enough self-esteem to even care moderately about my looks or if I attract others based on the belief that no matter what I did, short of a full body transplant, it would not make any more physically appealing. No my reasons are health ones.

At Xmas it became apparent to me at the dinner table that I really had put on pounds and then some. A shirt a friend had bought me wouldn't fit (truth is it was probably too small to begin with but it still made me embarrassed) and my own shirt was nearly bursting loose after the meal. Although my weight had nothing to do with my spending the next 24 hours after the meal throwing up at every opportunity, it did make me feel that it was time for a change. Also, whilst I hold little love for myself, I would definitely hurt my loved ones if they saw me die and being somewhat of a fatalist I felt I was heading that way, or at the least to an early grave.

It made me think about death and it scared me. Leaving those I love behind scares me. And although I dont believe in either Heaven or Hell, they both scare me. I am comforted by the notion of the end being that, the end. But dying a slow, painful death due to ill health brought on by my progressing towards obesity, that does scare me. Hell scares me because although I dont think I'm a bad person I can't claim to be a good one either. I have made mistakes and choices that I am not proud of. I've never tried to hurt anyone and in doing so I've hurt people, which makes me quite the coward. Truth is I am very much hoping for a chance to redeem my worthless life. I dont care if I never see Heaven, as long as I dont see Hell.

So part one, diet trying to get my health back to some degree. Eating low fat foods and doing more everyday moving about than I usually do. I have felt an increase in my energy levels and today a shirt that for the last couple of years hasn't come close to fastening round my neck is close to it again. I dont care about flat stomachs and washboard abs and six packs and all that vain nonsense, just to have something like equilibrium again will suffice.

As for the rest, my inner peace, I feel I am damned for the choices I made, some of them whilst not really thinking beyond the most carnal of thoughts. I know I shut off, I know I am very insular and very difficult to get any emotion out of because these days I am so scared of getting hurt i have pretty much accepted hermitude and loneliness to what I am sure would be continued pain if I put myself "out there".

I've come close to suicide many times and never done it. That I haven't has far more to do with my fears of what awaits beyond and what it would do to my family and friends here than it has to do with any desire on my part to go on existing. So I do what I can to survive, and this diet is part of that.

truth is I dont live, I merely exist. And the sadder truth is that for the most part, I'm okay with that.

Gaming is for all, not just some!!

A strange argument is brewing up on BioWare message boards regarding a single aspect of their games such as the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series, and that is the ability for a player to choose to have a relationship with either a male or female character, regardless of the gender of the player's character thus allowing for both straight and gay relationships. Now these relationships are entirely voluntary and importantly, are not necessary for the completion of the main storyline, they are merely an extra that a player can choose to initiate if they so choose to add a little something to the basic game. Dragon Age 2 has even ensured that rather than the Player having to start all romantic initiations, NPC's will also attempt to flirt with them. Again these characters can be turned down, there is no onus upon the player to accept this romantic tangent to the storyline.

And yet, true to form, a very vocal minority seem to be extremely uncomfortable with this. They have got it into their heads that somehow allowing this fluid romantic base, where any gender can find romance with any gender, is somehow biasing against straight male gamers. their argument being that most players of these sorts of games are heterosexuals males and as such they and only they should be catered for and others should simply not be bothered with. Also they are extremely uncomfortable with the idea of playing a straight male character in the game and another male attempting to flirt with them. My question is simple: Why are they bothered by this?

I will admit my experience of playing MMORPG's and RPG's on computers is extremely limited, but I am a pen & paper RPG player/GM/scenario writer of near 30 years experience and so from that point of view I will make my comments. Firstly, these games treat romance as an optional extra, not a requirement. If they were a requirement I'm sure that the sexual orientation of the character would be chosen in character development so the game could be tailored to that character (I'll get back to this point more in a little while). Secondly, the characters who initiate flirtation can be rejected without any drama so its not like they are being pursued. Thirdly, its a game folks. The character you are controlling is not you, its someone else. They are RPG's, not real life simulators where you are playing yourself. Fourthly, are the detractors honestly saying that if they saw someone they thought was attractive they wouldn't try and initiate some sort of contact/flirtation? Are they suggesting that people ask them first what their sexual orientation is before initiating a harmless bit of flirting? And moreover, aren't they flattered that someone would actually find them attractive, even if that attraction is not reciprocated?

As a scenario writer and GM, I can say one thing above all others: Scenarios are always tailored to suit a character. This is not the same as making it easier for certain characters than others, but a good GM will amend a details here and there to meet the changing and evolving nature of the scenario as it is played out. Whilst romance is not exactly a necessity of any game I've ran, neither have I been remiss in allowing it. As for NPC's finding the character attractive, that's just the breaks you take. If you have a character in a game that has a high score for attractiveness there is a good chance that people who find your gender attractive (of either gender) will find you attractive and if they are possessed of self-confidence they may very well chance their arm with a bit of flirtation. Does that mean the flirtation has to be reciprocated? of course not, but neither should it be seen as any sort of affront or agenda when a GM or scenario creates a situation where a person the player would not find attractive finds the character attractive and attempts to chat them up. That these players find affront shows me not only do they latent, if not blatent, homophobic ideologies but also that they are bad players, unable to actually role-play. As a player I've played men and women, gay and straight, black and white, religious and non-religious and I have done so with equal fervour and passion because I am playing a role, someone either vaguely similar to myself in some aspects and completely dissimilar in others. If I were merely playing myself it would cease to be role-playing, and would cease to be fun.

BioWare deserve applause for creating an environment where heterosexual or homosexual relationships can occur without it being on any sort of soapbox or feeding any agenda other than the obvious: That gaming is for everyone and if a game's company can invest a little time and effort to create a gaming environment that is inclusive to all without making others feel shut out then that is the right thing to do, both from a moral point of view and a business one - god for the soul and the bank balance. Those who are moaning are moaning simply for moaning's sake, moaning that they are now being treated as equal gamers with every other demographic, rather than the pedastal that they only had due to other's not thinking as forwardly as BioWare have.

So for those with a major problem with BioWare's ideology, get a life. This company has finally done what any good pen and paper GM has been doing for years, showing respect for their players.

Feeling very alone!

I'm not sure when it started, or more accurately when I first really felt it, but for the past few months I've begun to feel something I've never really felt before to any great extent, and that is isolated.

I live on my own, and live away from the vast majority of my friends and all my family. I've never regretted that decision, as I needed to heal and I still don't regret it, as I still need to heal. But its not physical distance that is causing this feeling of isolation for me, but an emotional one.

I feel like I've all but lost my daughter. For weeks now getting to speak to her on the phone has been a quest in itself. I always call at the same times every week. I did this to provide her some structure amongst the chaos of her home life. her Mum was ill and unreliable so I was determined that my daughter could count on me and that she knew when I would call her. But now it seems that has all been for nought.

The most heartbreaking point has been last night. Having not been able to contact my daughter in over a week I even called her mobile phone (which has a notoriously bad signal even when I do get her) to again, no answer. So I texted her instead, asking her to actually be home so I could call her. I got a reply, asking who I was. I replied "your Dad" (albeit in text speak shorthand). I got a further reply, saying that the person sending the text was sitting beside their dad so who the hell was I. I replied, apologising and explaining that the humber had been my daughter's. I got another reply, telling me that I was not to text again and calling me a fucking bastard (although both words were mis-spelt). It would appear that either my daughter doesn't think me important enough to give me her new number or it was her and she truly despises me. Whatever the reason, it has left me feeling empty inside.

The natural reaction is to turn to friends or family. But my friends get enough of my worries and woes and I do not wish to burden them further and I am so distant emotionally from my family these days I don't even think to contact them (though I did last night to try and get Saffron's number).

So I now feel lonelier than I have ever felt. But for the first time, I feel alone, which I have never felt before. its no-one's fault its just the way it is. I've always been odd, but for the first time I honestly feel like I don't matter to anyone which is a terrifying place to be.

I am scared of dying but right now I am scared of living. People talk about pain being good in the long run but I just don't see how that can be true. I am in constant emotional pain with very little respite. I'm not sure I have options left any more.

So England lost. Germany won quite rightly as they were easily the better side, both technically and mentally. The lampard shot was clearly a goal and maybe, along with the Tevez goal later that evening, this will mean technology gets used in footie games and about time too.

But I don't hate the England team. I don't hate them or their manager or their fans. I hate the hooligan element of their fans but I hate the hooligan element of any fanbase. No my emnity is reserved purely for the media who once again assumed, due to England winning the World Cup ONCE, that they have some divine right to assume they will again simply because they qualified for the tournament. Is this the fault of the team? No, this is purely the media's doing.

I've seen members of my famiy be quite specific talking about "English scum". it's one thing to love your team, similarly to perhaps be playfully disdainful of rivals but hate? Its too much and is frankly why I'll never be a true footie fan. I love my team, but not to the point of hating another team, thats too far. I don't get it and moreover, I don't want to get it.

By all means hate violence, cruelty and abuse and those who would use them. Hate poverty and disease and those who cause them. Hate man's inhumanity to man. Hate those who claim to preach love whilst in reality they are preaching hate, intolerance and segregation and calling it an act of love. Hate the public's fascination with the vapid, the talentless, the brainless and the attention-greedy and show disdain for those who seem to see fame, and it's acquisition by any means necessary, as the goal rather than a side effect of having talent and becoming successful for that talent. And show disdain and derision for those who, either in small ways or large, abuse or misuse your trust. All these manifestations of hate and scorn I fully understand.

But hating a football team, or any sports team, simply because they are not your particular team? No, that I neither get, understand, nor wish to emulate. I am a fan of Manchester United and as a fan I want to see them do well. But do I hate their rivals like Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and the rest? No, of course not. My loving one team does not mean by contrast I have to hate others. The two are not linked nor should they be and those who cannot separate those two principles, I don't know whether to hold them in contempt or pity them.

Of course, England are centuries old rivals to us Scots. Of course we enjoy the moments when we see our rivals beaten by our team. But should that rivalry become a poison in our soul that causes us to refer to the England team as "scum" and actually support the opposition? Clearly not. I support Scotland, and as such did not support England but I wasn't supporting the opposition either. i watched the game as a true neutral, willing neither side to win or lose but merely enjoying a game.

The media need to calm down. Already the first cries of "Capello out" and "we need an English manager" (forgetting their last English manager, Steve McLaren, was woeful in the job) have been sounded. I don't know what went wrong in the England camp that caused them to perform so dismally but they need to sort it. But the media need to get their commentary into perspective and be less full-on when it comes to talking up England. Yes, of the home nations England are the best team right now no question (and I accept that part of the Scottish bitterness may well be fuelled by jealousy) but they are not world beaters yet every World Cup and European Cham,pionship out come the pundits convinced that England are world beaters simply because once, many decades ago, they won the World Cup. 1966 was a lifetime ago, folks, and it needs to be forgotten and the new teams judged on their own merits, not on the presumptive past glories of others.

Presumption and assumption - and why it can be damaging!

I got into a strange argument earlier with someone. Not for the first time I was accused of being a self-pitier, someone who, they infer or outright accuse, only says negative things about themselves to engender sympathy. In short, that I am an attention seeker. I refute the claim but it made me think about these people and their motivation.

For my money, there are 3 kinds of people who speak only in negative terms. Firstly, there are those who do, as I have been accused of, say what they say to get attention and perhaps some consolement. Secondly, there are those who can easily see both the multi-coloured view of the world and the monochromatic view that is seen as pessimistic but chooses only to voice the negative. Thirdly there are people like me. People who have grown up without any great experience of, nor any real understanding of, the multi-coloured world and whose vision is entirely monochromatic. Our view of the world is not a conscious choice, it merely the reality of what we see. In short, we are being berated for our uncomfortable honesty.

I say uncomfortable because the people who make these accusations see the world in so many hues and shades and colours they cannot grasp the idea that others simply cannot. And because they cannot understand this simple truth they fall back on steroetypes and presumtive mistakes to try and align the person with their thoughts. As they cannot grasp the concept of a monochromatic view they assume we are making a conscious choice for whatever reason. The error lies not with the person with the monochromatic view, but with the aperson with the multi-coloured view.

So I say to these people this simple thing: Don't assume. Don't assume that someone with a bitter and negative view of the world is somehow faking it or attention seeking. Allow for the possibility, as it is a real poissibility, that what they see is all they can genuinely really see. Yes, such people have no doubt got serious issues to work through in order for them to start to see the colours, but don't dismiss. people in this position don't want either pity or sympathy, just maybe a little understanding and acceptance.

Also, don't ask someone "how are you?" if you aren't interested in the answer. if you are only asking out of some social norm then my advice is this: don't ask. It insults people if you ask them how they are when all you really want to hear is "I'm good thanks" or words to that effect. But if you do ask, then don't blame the person you are asking if you don't get a positive answer.

I was told I needed to get some rose-tinted glasses and lose the piss and vinegar ones. But that assumes that those glasses I wear are a choice, they aren't. As they are not for many people I am sure.

I am fortunate that thanks to my friends and role models like Amber Benson, I am beginning to see some of the colours but its a long struggle. I say that not to engender pity or sympathy, but because its the truth. Why should I lie about how I really feel just to make some stranger who makes assumptions can feel better? If they can't handle truthful answers to their questions then they shouldn't ask them.

Re-consideration - what a joke!

Yes, my reconsideration has come through and, unsurprisingly, I have been denied. Why? because iot seems that reconsiderations can only be granted in cases of clerical error or discrepency, not for medical error. So now I move on to the appeal process and this is where the system is even more rigged.

Firstly, the appeal can take up to 3 months to sort out, and sometimes longer. Meantime the £105 a week I was on will be slashed to £51 a week. Why? because I don't qualify for the top rate of Income Support (£64 a week) because I'm appealing. Yes folks, you get penalised for appealing against a decision. And somehow, this is considered fair by the powers that be.

Secondly, I have to prove I'm ill. Now this seems a no-brainer but its more complex. My doctor knows I am ill, and has the medical records to prove it. She has treated me for years. The assessor who has ruined my life for the moment met me for no more than 30, maybe 45 minutes at most and has decided (I beleive deliberately) to mark me as fit for work, over-riding my doctor. Now at an appeal, one would think in a civilised society that the doctor who has actually treated you and knows you would carry the greater weight in terms of evidence, but the reverse is true. the assessor has the advantage.

Fathom that for a moment. An assessor hears something or for some other reason takes a dislike to you, or is under orders from higher than they are to cull the herd. They can write up a report which is negative without sounding biased (intelligent people as they are) and this report, made under less than adequate circumstances in a short interview, is given more weight than your own doctor. The fix is in, the game is rigged and rigged entirely against the people who need help most.

I asked for the guidelines that the assessors must adhere to in order to reach decisions, so that I cna see for myself how a person of "sound mind and judgement" might have made an error at my medical assessment, and guess what? I'm not allowed those guidelines. Why? Could it be because a previous DWP employee told me that there are no guidelines, that assessors make completely arbitrary, subjective judgements, that are entirely based on opinion and their interpretation, rather than actual facts. opinions made in short time rather than an actual proper length of time. If an assessor excludes information, deliberately or otherwise, they are not accountable as you have to prove they did it deliberately which is almost impossible.

But what is worse, and what upsets me more than anything else, is that because of this I will not now get my daughter in the Summer. I have not seen my daughter since December 2008 and was looking forward to not only seeing her in the Summer when she came down, but in surprising her for her birthday. None of these can now happen. To say I am heartbroken is an understatement. There is already consderible distance between my daughter and I due to geography which ahs led to a distance in our relationship as I am pretty much just a voice on a phone now. It was a chance to build fences and bridges between us and also with my family, who have not seen her since Xmas 2007. We are all but strangers to her now. This news has put another nail in the coffin of my parenting and it is painful beyond words.

Right now I hate the world.

Money becoming an issue

Another blog and another rant against a system which is as ludicrous as it is dehumanising.

I've still to hear back about my reconsideration, which could be today or up to another 2 weeks before I hear. The fact that, should be reconsideration be successful, they will backdate the money is not going to help me now. My Income Support form is in but that cna also take up to 2 weeks and so I find myself in a terrible situation - starve or beg for a loan from the very people who have put me in this situation in the first place.

Yes folks, the Crisis Loan looms and whilst it may solve my problems temporarily, it won't solve them in the long term. But there is something deeply sinister about all of this, I feel. I am unable to get a grant as I dont qualify as I will only be looking for food which it appears is very difficult to get and i have tried to get a Crisis Loan before and there are so many hoops to jump through it makes getting one next to impossible.

However what galls me is this: The DWP make a horrendous mistake with regards to my benefits. They drag their feet (deliberately so IMHO) in coming to a response about my reconsideration (I beleive to try and get people to take a different benefit instead so they can refuse you with a clear conscience, although that rather pre-supposes that they have a conscience which i truly doubt) and then place me in a position where I then have to beg for money from them to live on. Money I would then, in the most perverse part of it all, I'd have to pay back once they rectify their error. And the strange thing, is that if I were to treat them as they have treated me I would be at fault whilst they are whiter than white, purer than pure and untouchable.

Corruption is at the very heart of the DWP and personally I believe it needs a serious re-evaluation. Not only in terms of its working practices but also its staff. i personally think that those who have dealt with me at Coatbridge deserve to be fired. But heyl, telling them that will only ensure that I get nothing as they are vindictively petty.

My last blog was the scared man, this blog is the terrified and angry man. But what i truly am is disheartened and to be honest, disillusioned man. Disillusioned with the world and disillusioned with living. Should my reconsideration go against me, given all the distress they have already caused me and knowing that it will sound the death knell on any chance I have of seeing my daughter in the Summer, I just won't go on. My life means very little to these people, but maybe my death might wake them from their callous complacency.

Medical Assessors - the fix is in!

Been a while since I needed to rant and rave at the stupidity of the world but this was needed.

For many years now i have had to deal with the nightmare of clinical, borderline manic, depression and social anxiety and paranoia that accompanies it. it means that at this juncture, i am simply too emotional, too highly strung, to be safe to work with. As such i have been on Incapacity Benefit for many years. The main reason for my current condition was I suffered a nervous breakdown due to being falsely accused of molesting my child. It devastated me.

Last December, as can sometimes happen, I was called in by the Government and their agents the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for a assessment to prove that i am unwell. I sat with an independant assessor for a 30 minute interview. In that interviw I explained my mental and emotional constraints clearly and moreover, what had been the trigger. When he heard that, the interview changed. He gave me a look of "no smoke without fire" and from that point on, I was swimming against the stream.

I was told I would hear back from them within 2-4 weeks. 9 weeks later I receive the news that my Incapacity Benefit had been stopped due to the assessor stating I was fully fit for work and completely ignoring not only what i had said, but also the notes of my doctor. A 30 minute interview that has changed my life for the worse.

What is worse is the system for appealing. I was distraught and weeping as I called to try and find out why i had been taken off benefits, only to dioscover that there is a points-based system. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I am not a human being, merely a name and numbers. It seems that I was merely 3 points short, and I had identified 9 points that the assessor had missed out ( I beleive quite deliberately).

Now comes the highly dodgy part. There is no objective test, no objective guidelines, for the assessor, or anyone looking to my appeal, has to go by or be held to. They cna, for any number of reasons including personal dislike or political pressure, mark against you and worse, you really have no comeback because the only people you can genuinely appeal to are the very people shafting you. Its an in-house system and that can only lead to one thing - wholesale and widespread corruption.

What is truly worrying, is that we are talking about a benefit paid out to those who are at their most vulnerable - the physically, mentally and emotionally infirm - and these people have no real protection as there is no objective code of conduct, no objective standards that must be adhered to. We are at the mercy of subjective opinion based on fleeting interviews and are then unable to truly fend for ourselves and we cannot even contact anyone within that organsiation for clarity as to what objective tests if any there are to protect the vulnerable.

It seems that facts and truth are irrelevant. personal prejudice or political machinations are more likely to decide your fate than whether or not you are a genuine case for help.

I know many take the system for granted, and many abuse it and the Government is right to pursue those people. But it must not, in its zeal to look efective, stomp on the weakest to make itself look tough. These are not the actions of leaders but of tyrants.

I have no idea what will happen to me. The Coatbridge Office that deals with the claims in our area come across as a very incompetent lot (who have consistently given me misleading or inaccurate information) and I also fear are very petty. In a moment of honest frustration, desperation and distress I snapped when given false information after false information and I honestly believe they are petty and vindictive enough to hold that against me.

If they do, and I state this now, then I no longer wish to live in this country. Sadly I cannot and will not be able to afford a passport so it will be the end of me I feel. There are times when I don't want to live, and this is definitely one of those days.

It's Medication time!

Well, a week from now I will be back, or just arriving back, from my medical to see if I still qualify for my Incapacity Benefit. I think I do but sadly there are 3 big reasons why I beleive I am going to fail:

1) I don't sound mad: I honestly believe that the people they bring in for these tests have no idea what a clinically depressed person looks like (not that there is an actual type) or worse has a pre-supposition of what one is. I sadly rarely come across as that supposition. I am coherent, eloquent, capable of stringing a whole sentence together without using phrases like "You ken" or "ken what I mean" (to my non-Scottish readers, ken is a Scots version of the word know) and I don't sound unintelligent. This I think counts against me as I think these adjudicators see Clinically Depressed, and for that matter the mentally ill in general, as incoherent dullards, incapable of basic English. It is a reverse snobbery and it really gets my goat.

2) Friend of mine, who is disabled, failed her assessment. Now she is right to point out that they seem a little more cagey about the mentally ill but her denial of benefits, when she is such an obvious case, doesn't exactly fill me with confidence cos I figure if they can do that to her they could do it to me as well.

3) The Government are on a cull: This sort of ties up the other 2 points really. The Government have set a target of getting 1 million people of sickness benefits and back to work. laudible, even commendable, but sadly it has now become a case of "1 million any way they can". I am painfully aware of how some people use and abuse the benefits system and I agree wholeheartedly with them being found out but what scares me, given the problems I've mentioned above, is that I'm on a hitlist. I know that this is feeding into my paranoia and is aggravating my sleep to the point where I can barely think straight.

So where does this leave me? Terrified to put it bluntly. I am not ready yet to return to the field of work as I still find people much too scary to work with full time and whilst I ahve considered a college course, I've not really found one yet. But if I lose my benefits I will have to work and that will leave me even more isolated and terrified and I am scared, rightly or wrongly, of having a relapse and doing harm to myself again.

So I am a nervous wreck and there is still a week to go.