Headcanon

There's a thing gamers do, typically when playing video games, that I've been doing for years, but never had a name for.

Headcanon.

Video games are relatively limited in terms of freedom to react to in-game events. Even the best roleplaying computer games can only offer so much. Headcanon is when the player imagines story elements that are not inferred by the game itself, or that even directly contradict game events. It can be as simple as deciding your character's way of unwinding at the end of the adventure, or as deep and complex as how they felt the the first time they killed someone, and how that experience colours their response to violence now.

There's a link here to a Tumblr full of headcanons for the Mass Effect series. It does contain spoilers.

This is a pretty cool tool, both for writers and roleplayers, to help get into a character's head. Have any of you tried this? Or are there games you'd consider doing it with?

Here's my own list for my current Mass Effect run as a female Commander Shepard, Earthborn Sole Survivor for those who know the game, obvious spoilers below:

Cross-Gender in Games

One of the attractions to gaming is that it allows the player to explore worlds and personalities that they would otherwise never experience. Fantasy wish-fulfillment is a major part of the hobby. We play aliens, robots, mutants, demigods, superheroes, elves, wizards, detectives, sentient gas clouds, and everything that falls in between.

Yet there aren't many gamers I've met who'll regularly play the opposite gender to their own, at least in a tabletop game. I suppose the reasons are different for everyone. Some guys find it uncomfortable to act like a woman in front of their friends, especially if a romantic sub-plot comes up and they're expected to flirt with a male character. Some people, like myself, just find it easier to get into the mindset of their own gender. Others just haven't really thought about it much and choose their own gender because it's what first comes to mind when creating a character.

Now, I'm not saying I find it difficult to portray women. I have lots of women in my books and frequently use female POV characters. But that's different. That's work, and I work very hard to make sure I'm not screwing things up when I write women. My crit partners will tell you, one of my biggest sources of insecurity as a writer is the fear that someone will read by books and think "there's no way a real woman would think that!"

Gaming is fun. It's my downtime. I want to play characters I find comfortable and easy to slip into. So when coming up with character ideas, my mind tends to tick off the "male" box. It's a habit. But it's one I wouldn't mind breaking, in the right circumstances, where I don't feel quite as much pressure to "get it right."

For example, I'm playing through Mass Effect again, this time with a female character. I'm flirting with Kaidan, and fully intend to romance Thane in Mass Effect 2. I'm enjoying the experience, in no small part because Jennifer Hale is an amazing voice actress. Also because I find I'm looking for more strong female protagonists these days.

Someone once said to me that the female Commander Shepard is so much more impressive than the male. Where the male Shepard is a badass, female Shepard, Femshep, is like a force of nature. I found this interesting, since Femshep has the same dialogue and physical actions as a male Shepard. So, setting aside the comparative quality of the two voice actors, what we have is people crediting the female Shepard with being more impressive than the male, despite the fact the two do exactly the same things. The only difference is gender. Are certain actions more impressive, more heroic, just because it's a woman doing them?

In contrast, are gentler, softer actions, like showing compassion or caring for someone with an injury, considered more kind if the character is male?

Society holds men and woman to different standards. It's unfair and I believe it's most often damaging, particularly when a woman is shamed for behaving like a man with regard to her sex life, or when a man is mocked for showing a feminine side. But can this inequality give rise to positive responses? Is it right that we applaud an action more when a person is acting outside of typical gender stereotypes? Perhaps. Perhaps things have been so unfair for so long we need a little extra positive reinforcement to fix it.

One thing I love about gaming is the chance it offers to explore these concepts. We can create our own stories, where men and women can show their weaknesses, their softer sides, and find the strength to overcome their challenges.

Hmm, this topic became more of a ramble than I'd intended. Still, it's given me some things to think about. What about you guys? Anything to add?

Authors' Nationalities

Last Sunday was St. Patrick's Day, the day when national monuments, rivers, and even beer are coloured green and most the world becomes more proud of the Irish than we are ourselves.

Characteristically, it was a cold and wet day. St. Patrick's Day is notorious for its bad weather. Still, it got me thinking about nationality, in particular relating to how authors let their nationality influence their work.

I have not yet written a book set in Ireland. While Nathan Shepherd is of Irish descent, he's about 2 generations removed from his ancestral homeland. His Catholic upbringing influences his dreams for having a family, but he is lapsed in his faith, like many Irish people.

I do have an idea for a book about an Irish character, but I haven't decided yet whether it'll be set entirely in Ireland.

Essentially I like the freedom of being able to set my books anywhere I choose. American cities, especially in urban fantasy, allow me to play with contrasting themes of progress and history; the old world and the new, myth and science clashing, coming together, becoming something new, just like the story of so many people from so many different countries coming together and creating a nation.

What do you guys think? With the resources available today, it's hard to excuse a lack of research on foreign locations. Do you like seeing an author's interpretation of other countries? Would you rather they stuck to their own countries, whether because they know them best or because you want to read more about them?

Damsels in Distress

A while back there was a bit of controversy over a Kickstarter set up by Anita Sarkeesian to fund a series of videos examining gender discrimination in video games.

The first video in the series, dealing with the Damsel in Distress trope, is up now.

It's a good watch, and highlights some of the more notable examples of discrimination in early video games. That said, it does ignore some classics such as the Golden Axe and Streets of Rage games, which always featured a lead female character fighting right alongside the men. Still, I think it's worth a watch just to see how readily game developers have jumped to the quick and easy plot device of a weak female in need of a strong male to save her.

Silent Oath

A few days ago I received confirmation from my editor that the title for my second book had been finalised. Of the various titles I went through while working on this book, the one that stood out most was Silent Oath.

There is a line at the very end of Locked Within which refers to Nathan making his "silent oath" to protect the people of New York. Well, the next book builds on that and features Nathan's ongoing fight to keep people safe from the Council of Chains. There will be some old friends and new allies, as well as more powerful enemies for Nathan to fight. If you thought Nathan had to struggle before, just wait until you see what he has to endure next!

Though the release date for Silent Oath isn't yet decided, we are on target for release this year and I'll be doing some promotional posts as we get closer, sharing music that I used as inspiration and talking about how different this process has been from getting Locked Within onto the shelves.

I realise I haven't asked this on the blog before, but how did people feel at the end of Locked Within? What questions did you want answered? Assuming of course, you liked it enough to read more?

More generally, what do you guys like from a sequel? Particularly the ever-tricky middle installment of a trilogy?

Self-Publishing - Don't Rush

Today is World Book Day, and recent discussions about self-publishing got me thinking of a topic that connects gaming and writing.

One of the reasons given for writers to self-publish is time. Traditional publishing can take anywhere from a year to two years to produce a book on shelves, and that's after a contract is offered in the first place. Whereas you can have your book uploaded to Amazon and on sale in an afternoon. I'm sure that's a tempting proposition. I've seen some authors put out four books in a series all in the same year.

However, while there are writers out there capable of drafting and editing a manuscript to the best quality in such a short space of time, most simply can't. I know I certainly couldn't manage it. The fastest I ever drafted a book was the re-write of my second novel, which I managed in two months. That was full on, balls to the wall work. I did nothing with my free time except write. By the end I was exhausted, and it still needed editing before I could send it to my publisher.

Back in 2000, when Wizards of the Coast released their new edition of Dungeons & Dragons, they introduced their Open Game Licence. In a nutshell, this licence allowed independent game designers to use the D20 rules system for their own products.

What followed was a rush of new game companies releasing titles under the OGL. More gaming material was published between 2000 and 2008 than any time in the history of roleplaying games.

And most of it just wasn't very good. Most of the companies never got themselves firmly established, and to this day, there are maybe three games companies still turning a real profit from product lines made possible by the OGL.

I would hate to see self-publishing become the realm of forgotten books. Amazon's Kindle store could, if enough writers rush their books out before they're ready, end up filled with 1-star-rated books that will sit there forever. Self-publishing is really starting to be accepted as a legitimate path for authors. I think every author who chooses it owes it to themself, and to other authors, to work just as hard as a traditional publisher to make sure that their product is the best it can be. Otherwise the very things that make it an attractive option could lead to it being branded as the path for authors who just aren't good enough to be traditionally published.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Am I worrying for nothing?

Some Writers Don't Want to Self-Publish

 The topic of self-publishing has come up time and again. I sometimes wonder if the debate will ever end as to which one is "better."

The thing is, neither is better than the other. Any more than mayonaise is better than ketchup. They're both just different choices people can make. On more than one occassion I've had to defend my decision to go traditional. And not only that, to stay traditional. I honestly can't see myself ever wanting to move over completely to self-publishing.

I read this article last week, on Chuck Wendig's blog, and everything he said made perfect sense to me. It felt like I finally found a way to articulate the differences between traditional and self-publishing and why my preference is for traditional.

At some point, perhaps, I might dabble in it. Maybe release something on my own, perhaps if I decide to sell one of the roleplaying games I've designed or I really want to put a particular book out, come Hell or high water.

But the fact is, I love being a writer. I love the promotion work I get to do alongside my writing.

I do not love the idea of having to deal with cover artists, layout designers, a freelance editor, distribution, Amazon's upload system. They're just things that lie so far outside my comfort zone and areas of expertise that I am more than happy to let my publisher handle them.

I hear a lot of worrying things being said about traditonal publishing. Another timely post on Chuck Wendig's blog addresses the misinformation being spread. I'm all for people making their own choices and deciding their own path. However I can't abide the spread of misinformation, whether intentional or accidental. I think it's hugely important that, as much as traditional publishing is not held as being superior to self-publishing, it can't be demonised, either.

And aside from that, I love my publisher. I enjoy working with them. I want them to succeed as much as I want to succeed myself. I was once told that, when I become famous and can rely on my name to sell books, I should make the move to self-publishing so I'd get even more money. I was told I could even set up my own publishing company to handle all the non-writing side of things.

Well I'm sorry to say that won't be happening. If I'm not built for self-publishing on a small scale I'm certainly not built for running a company!

And the thing is, if I am fortunate enough to become a household name, why wouldn't I want my publisher, the company that brought me into the industry in the first place, to share in that success?

I'm not a publisher. I'm a writer. And I couldn't be happier with that arrangement.

Gamers in the Media

I'm proud to call myself a gamer. It's a hobby which has brought many friends into my life and helped me practice my creative skills. It's something I hope to pass on to my children as they grow up.

But damn it all if I don't cringe every time I see gamers represented in the media. Whether fact or fiction, gamers are still most often shown to be unwashed, socially inept creeps, often with an apparently limited grasp of reality.

Now some of this ties to a period in the 80s when ultra-conservative religious groups decided that roleplaying games were the tools of the devil. Unfortunately, this is not the only thing to blame for how roleplayers are presented.

Gaming attracts teenagers who don't fit in elsewhere. It's a non-physical activity, so you don't need to be fit or athletic. Many games, especially those released in the 80s and 90s, involve a fair amount of rules and math, so academically-minded kids have typically found it an easy outlet for using and expressing that side of themselves. And of course, those are the kids so stereotypically picked on for being nerds. Whether that's the case in real life doesn't matter, though I speak from experience that it was the case in my school, because it's how the media often chooses to portray people who love science and fantasy. Just look at The Big Bang Theory, a show taking high school clichés of science nerds and applying them to modern adults.

So gamers make easy targets. Despite the mainstreaming of sci-fi and fantasy pop culture, it's still acceptable, even expected, for gamers to be the lowest of the low when it comes to geeks and nerds. In Shrek The Third, to show how much of a loser Artie is, even the roleplayer kids pick on him. The 2006 mockumentary, Gamers, depicts the lives of several adult roleplayers and sends the message that these people, all men either still living with their parents or desperately trying to get a girlfriend - the easy clichés, need to grow up and leave their hobby behind if they want to achieve anything in life. Worse, going further back to 1982, an early Tom Hanks movie, Mazes and Monsters, depicts Hanks as a young man whose parents forbid him to play roleplaying games, and when he becomes involved with a new gaming group without their knowledge, winds up literally believing he has his character's powers and can fly, culminating in his friends stopping him from jumping off a building.

Unfortunately, real life doesn't offer much better. Most documentaries about gaming feature individuals who live up to the negative stereotypes, often showing snippets of gamers talking about their character as though they were real people. One of the more hard to watch examples I've seen is The Dungeon Masters, a documentary centering on three Dungeon Masters (or Game Masters/GMs) and their lives. We have a woman with an abusive past who spends much, if not all, the documentary shielded by the guise of her drow (dark elf) persona, in full make-up even at a tabletop game (full costume such as this is typically reserved for live-action roleplaying, or LARPing). A military reservist who abandoned his first wife and family and brags about his goal to kill off all his players' characters. And the one who hit hardest for me, a wannabe fantasy author being supported by his long-suffering wife and refuses to take on more hours in work because he claims it will take time away from his gaming and writing. While I have the utmost sympathy for any abuse survivor, these are not healthy people, certainly not examples of what so many gamers are really like. These individuals need help, not to be scrutinised and held up for the judgement of others like this.

While I think there's great responsiblity on the part of the people producing these films for how they choose to portray gamers, I think that we, as hobbyists, need to accept our share of it, too. It always seems to be those of us who most fit the negative image that are most willing to talk openly and share their interests. Maybe if more gamers, as a whole, could be as open, a greater variety of personalities and lifestyles will be shown.

There have been some steps, thankfully, to show a more positive image.

Role Models features Augie, a boy who loves LARPing and whose parents disapprove. However while the movie presents unlikeable characters who also play the game, the eventual message is that the game is fun and Augie is a great kid and his parents should be proud of him.

We also have Wil Wheaton's Tabletop showing people getting together and enjoying a range of different games. It's great to see this sort of thing, because it not only shows a side to gaming that's totally normal, but having anyone with celebrity status endorse something lends it extra credibility and acceptance. I'd argue that this is probably essential viewing for anyone either curious about the hobby or who is uncomfortable about it and seeking reassurance that it's not all cloaks and cults.

The tv show Community even had an episode based entirely around a session of Dungeons & Dragons (D&D), one of the oldest and certainly the most famous (infamous?) roleplaying game.

Perhaps fittingly, going back to 1982 again, E.T. depicts one of the most realistic groups of gamers I've ever seen in a movie. It's easy to miss, but before Elliott meets ET for the first time, he's trying to get his brother Michael to let him join in a game of D&D he and his friends are playing. Are these kids drug-users? Are they dressed in funny outfits? Do they call each other by their character names when they go to school? No. They're just a bunch of teenagers having a good time with a game.

Gamers are a lot of things, far more than we get credit for in the media. Among those in my own circles of friends, we are accountants, software developers, PhD students, authors, graphic designers, teachers, doctors, civil servants. Even the priest who married two friends of mine is a gamer. We own our own homes. We have our own children.

We're normal people, we just happen to like sitting around a table to play a little make-believe and roll some funny-looking dice once or twice a week.

The Myth of Editors

I was recently listening to a 2-part episode of Fear The Boot which was about the process of getting published. Fear The Boot is actually a gaming podcast, and easily one of the best shows out there on the topic. I strongly urge any of you interested in gaming to check them out.

They do special episodes from time to time, which branch into different areas. Since many of the hosts and regular listeners have an interest in it, they decided to do a show about getting published.

One of the things which came up, since all the guests on this episode are self-published, was the idea that books published traditionally would be subject to major changes. Words like "shredded" were used, and in general I felt there was a big fear among the people on the show that a writer has to give up a huge amount of creative control if they choose traditional publishing.

I wanted to address this today. This is an absolute myth. Or at least, if you have a good editor, it is a myth. A publisher's submissions editor is not going to offer you a contract if your manuscript is in such dire need of re-writing that drastic changes would happen in the editing process. Of course there will be things that need to change. Editors know the industry and the market far better than you, and they know what the average reader is most likely to enjoy. When you're in the editing process, your manuscript has already proven itself to be something a reader is likely to pick up. Your editor's job is to make sure that when that reader has finished it, they want to read more of your work.

Working with an editor is a partnership. There's a lot of back and forth discussion about what you're trying to say in a given scene, and whether you can find a way to say it better. The image of the editor as a harsh taskmaster, returning your manuscript with red lines drawn through swaths of your work, demanding that it be cut or changed so that it's "more commercial" is something I have never experienced.

I have had two amazing editors in WiDo. Kristine Princevalle, who started me on my editing journey for Locked Within, and Amie McCracken, who took over when Kristine left WiDo and is still with me for the sequel. I have learned more about the craft of writing from these two women, in such a short space of time, than I have in all my years reading and keeping my work to myself. A good editor is equal parts partner, critic, and teacher. I would advise anybody who is wary of dealing with an editor to let go of those fears. Whether you have a publisher who assigns you one or you hire yourself a freelancer, your editor is going to be your best friend when it comes to your work, believe me.

Time and Gaming

This week I had to make a pretty tough decision with regard to my gaming. There's a lot of work that goes in to running a game, it's a pretty big investment of time and energy. For most of my time as a gamer, I've been the one to run the game, and most recently I've been running a fun, if rules-heavy, game called Hellas, which is a space opera game inspired by Greek myth.

Since the girls were born I've been on a break from GMing. I wanted to get used to the new routine before I went back to running games.

Unfortunately, I neglected to take into account a few things, like bedtime and the possibility of the girls needing to be fed or changed in the middle of a game.

Taking the time to have proper quality time with the girls when I get home from work, feeding them their supper, bringing them upstairs and reading to them, just doesn't leave me with enough time to get myself set up to run a game on the night. And, while my wife and I are not given to using her disability as an excuse for anything, the simple fact is of the two of us, I'm the one better able to carry the girls to bed and to quickly go upstairs to check on them if needed.

So, rather than rush the girls or put my players through drastically shortened playing time and moments when their GM has to disappear to check on a crying baby, I've extended my GMing break indefinitely, for weeknight games, anyway. At some point I'll be able to take up the job again, but I don't know when that will be. For now, I have to content myself with being a regular player, and getting some occassional GMing done with weekend games.