Building a world of nerds

  So yesterday, I laid out the barebones plan for a world I’m joking calling Dungeons and Dweeblings.  It’s a custom world using the D20 system to realize a part of the humor of Big Bang Theory, which stands as a pretty big fixation of mine right now.  Although a good start, the devil is always in the details, so let me see if this vision will withstand being expanded.

  The core of the experience in any Pen and Paper role playing game is the dynamic, the discussion, around the gaming table.  Every player comes with their own world view and baggage, their own heroes and dreams.  AD&D is brilliant as it offers a way to explore those ideas socially.  The core of the version that I’m putting together is the thus far over-represented people at the table and the under-represented in the adventure; I speak of core of the geek.  Big Bang Theory explores this sub culture quite thoroughly, both as a function of the living and working, as well as the social functions.  The flawed protagonists speak well of the geek culture from whence they come, as well as the world that increasingly caters to them while holding them at arm’s length.

  To set the center of the experience in the geek, the setting needs a solid non-geek presence, and a geek presence.  In my opinion, non-geeks are quite well placed in AD&D; warriors are professional weapon users, rogues are the make-their-own luck tricksters, wizards are the super-serious utility spell jockeys, and clerics are the super-serious devotees of their gods and divine notions.  Anyone of these classes could be made geek-like, but geeks themselves are harder to find.

  Google, ever the mainstay of geek argument resolution (for good and for ill), offers the following two conditions as the definition of geek.

1.     An unfashionable or socially inept person.
2.      A person with an eccentric devotion to a particular interest: “a computer geek.”

Right or wrong, this expresses much of what the popular culture sees in geeks.  I might add:

           3.      A person lacking in physical presence, whether by skill absence or interest absence.

  This third article is my own invention, and covers something I wasn’t expecting: when Nintendo, geek tempter of millions of obese, not active grown children in America, offers a chance to get up and get active, millions of obese, not active grown children in America say “meh” and continue playing games inactively, same as ever.  The wording needs fine tuning, as I know some very large gentlemen who have some very large social presences, but it seems the social convention that geeks are some form of unhealthy person.  Don’t I know it, at 220 pounds!

Wikipedia adds something very important to the discussion. 

4. A peculiar or otherwise dislikeable person, esp[ecially] one who is perceived to over intellectual.

  These ideas compound the above terms.  Dislikeable, and intellectual.  Both of which the Big Bang Theory carries in spades.  Since having an entire cast of unlovable characters would be a turn off, Big Bang Theory showcases flawed characters, with a lot of redeeming value.  

  I’ve covered a good chunk of the meaning that I need.  Comparing these characteristics to existing AD&D classes shows a general lack of overlap, so here are some of the newer, 3.5 approved classes that might work a little better.

1. Artificer – devoted to meticulous attention to detail, Artificers use magic to make, and possess the Retain Essence ability, to break down enchantments into their components and study them.  Artificer is my leading case for geeks in AD&D right now.
2. Psion – devoted to “sciences,” psions get things done using the force of their minds and wills.  While not a perfect match, they meet the criteria for introspection and deep focus.  A commitment to Telepathy or Psychometabolics is unlikely to be very geeky.
3. Archivist – The highest ranks of your church involve Clerics and Paladins with deep investment, lots of responsibilities, and the miracles to match.  You’re an archivist, you cannot cast any spells from faith, but you play by the gods rules and learn every spell that crosses under your nose, sometimes learning more than the Cleric has time to study, such as the reason why that miracle is offered by the god.  Archivist is a much more appropriate class.
4. Swordsage – in the Tome of Battle.  Swordsages are warriors who do not plan to be on the front lines, taking injuries.  They plan to be striking enemies with swords!  They have a near obsessive devotion to a particular interest, and prize a high intelligence score for the higher skill points it gives.
5. Illusionists – Don’t get me wrong, all wizards prize intelligence.  But how much planning is needed to summon 1d4 rats or a fireball?  Illusionists come with a significant power, but also a penalty.  They can do anything, but anything they do can be disbelieved.  A firm grasp of the illusion rules is necessary for this class.

  I’m sure that there are others that I’m missing, but this seems like a good start.  It covers most of the classic for roles for party members (Artificer is the unlocker, archivist the healer, Swordsage the warrior, illusionist the mage, psion the utility caster).  New character classes should fill in these gaps, and the classes themselves should reflect a game world rich in geek-ness.  As I said above, the non geek culture needs to be pretty solid, so I don’t think any class would be forbidden.   This contradiction would have to sorted out, either with new mechanics or powers that emphasize the attributes of the geek.  But such a thing I will have to plan for tomorrow.