What? Didn't this go out about the time they came out with 3rd edition?
The fact that I know they came out with a third edition a rule book should indicate that I do things that perhaps some think a man shouldn't.
Because I still play. In fact, the name Torggil comes from one of my most successful characters. He wasn't a particularly good person, just chaotic neutral. And he did things that weren't all good. But he wasn't bad either. He was, however, my richest character, and even killed a dragon, well, for the horde of course.
So I still play, but there are reasons for this. The biggest reason is that its cheaper than a night out.
Cost. Here, in Australia, a rather frugal night out usually means spending $40 or more down at the pub (more if you eat). I can play for $12- a few cans of Pepsi max and a bag of Doritos.
Avoids Legal Complications. It eliminates the worry of a DUI. I play with my mates on Skype now. I don't even leave the house, even if I decide to have a couple beers.
Stress Relief. If I run into orcs, or a character that is at odds with mine, I can fight or kill, and not worry about jail time. My character could end up getting killed, but that's okay. A pen and piece of paper will have me up and running with another in no time. I can also pretend that thing is my boss, or one of the turds at work that I look after, and they can get a piece of my wrath.
Enjoyment. It activates my imagination and stimulates my creative skills, allows me to interact with people or things on a different level, and allows me to be someone else, somewhere else. I get to walk right away from my problems for a while, and deal with completely different ones. That time may allow me a fresh approach on the old ones, a different viewpoint can sometimes be seen if you can stop obsessing for a while.
Being Social. It gives an excuse to meet up with my best mate and brother on a more or less regular basis.
In the last decade though, I do have to wonder if the game has been making a comeback. Episodes that featured D&D have been seen on Futurama and my one of my personal favourites, the IT Crowd.
So as far as I'm concerned, its fun. And with the game only once every couple weeks or so, even The Wife lets it slide.
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
Monday, 2 April 2012
Cars, Cars, Cars
Day three A to Z must be the letter C. And C, if you've been following my Blog, must be for cars.
As you can see from my driving history, cars must be important to me. I've had 13 vehicles in a driving history that only spans 18 years. Thats a different car every 14 months. There are only 3 cars left to talk about, the VS Commodore SS wagon, the Audi 80, and the Honda Prelude.
Each and every car I've bought is because of how I'd look in the shop window, driving it. They've all had their faults. They've all had their pluses.
My passion for cars did lead me into a sales job. I moved 22 cars in 13 weeks, and got the sack anyways. It really should be 23 cars. I sold a V8 SS ute- and I know he wouldn't have bought it unless I had given it a few revs- but because my name didn't end up being on the paperwork- he went to the sales manager to sign the papers- I got fuck all credit for the sale.
But I'm not bitter.
For me, its the rush when the engine catches. That knowledge that right at that instant, I can go where I want to. I can get there when I want to. Cars define freedom for me. Yes, license fees, fuel costs, maintainance, rego, and insurance all cost money, but freedom, ironically, isn't free. I'll pay the price, because the illusion is worth it.
Sure, if it has tits or tyres it'll keep ya broke (just ask The Wife) but both are fun to ride. And similarly, both are worth it.
Like marriage, I've been to forced to make tough decisions with cars. Do I buy gas or vodka? Do I go to the mountains or get an oil change? Life is about decisions, and not always are they in favour of the car. Sometimes I want that bottle of vodka. After all, I live with The Wife.
Of all these cars, which one was the best one I've ever owned?
Well, each has had its own merits. The Blazer was the right vehicle for the job- at least for that trip to Mountain Park. But it handled like the Diplomat (with fuel consumption to match) but I think the Diplomat had more ready power. The Diplomat was the first vehicle to be in my name- and so is the sentimental favourite. The most modern car was the Nissan (okay I know the commodore is a later model, but Nissan seems more modern somehow) with features like heated steering wheel, and seats, electric sunroof, and an engine that is quicker off the mark. It also holds my land speed record, yet that isn't enough to make it my favourite.
My favourite car isn't the most modern. My favourite isn't the biggest or the sentimental. My favourite is actually the Honda Prelude. Its not the quickest, but it is the oldest (date of manufacture to date of purchase).
Why?
Its a manual. A proper five speed, and the four wheel steering makes it handle. The car is insane in the corners. That makes the Prelude the most fun. But with over 371000 kms on the clock, the car is on its way out.
So, ultimately, what am I going to replace it with?
It will be another 5speed. It will be another sports car (my apologies to The Wife). I'm thinking something made by Nissan.
Don't worry. I'll let you know.
As you can see from my driving history, cars must be important to me. I've had 13 vehicles in a driving history that only spans 18 years. Thats a different car every 14 months. There are only 3 cars left to talk about, the VS Commodore SS wagon, the Audi 80, and the Honda Prelude.
Each and every car I've bought is because of how I'd look in the shop window, driving it. They've all had their faults. They've all had their pluses.
My passion for cars did lead me into a sales job. I moved 22 cars in 13 weeks, and got the sack anyways. It really should be 23 cars. I sold a V8 SS ute- and I know he wouldn't have bought it unless I had given it a few revs- but because my name didn't end up being on the paperwork- he went to the sales manager to sign the papers- I got fuck all credit for the sale.
But I'm not bitter.
For me, its the rush when the engine catches. That knowledge that right at that instant, I can go where I want to. I can get there when I want to. Cars define freedom for me. Yes, license fees, fuel costs, maintainance, rego, and insurance all cost money, but freedom, ironically, isn't free. I'll pay the price, because the illusion is worth it.
Sure, if it has tits or tyres it'll keep ya broke (just ask The Wife) but both are fun to ride. And similarly, both are worth it.
Like marriage, I've been to forced to make tough decisions with cars. Do I buy gas or vodka? Do I go to the mountains or get an oil change? Life is about decisions, and not always are they in favour of the car. Sometimes I want that bottle of vodka. After all, I live with The Wife.
Of all these cars, which one was the best one I've ever owned?
Well, each has had its own merits. The Blazer was the right vehicle for the job- at least for that trip to Mountain Park. But it handled like the Diplomat (with fuel consumption to match) but I think the Diplomat had more ready power. The Diplomat was the first vehicle to be in my name- and so is the sentimental favourite. The most modern car was the Nissan (okay I know the commodore is a later model, but Nissan seems more modern somehow) with features like heated steering wheel, and seats, electric sunroof, and an engine that is quicker off the mark. It also holds my land speed record, yet that isn't enough to make it my favourite.
My favourite car isn't the most modern. My favourite isn't the biggest or the sentimental. My favourite is actually the Honda Prelude. Its not the quickest, but it is the oldest (date of manufacture to date of purchase).
Why?
Its a manual. A proper five speed, and the four wheel steering makes it handle. The car is insane in the corners. That makes the Prelude the most fun. But with over 371000 kms on the clock, the car is on its way out.
So, ultimately, what am I going to replace it with?
It will be another 5speed. It will be another sports car (my apologies to The Wife). I'm thinking something made by Nissan.
Don't worry. I'll let you know.
Sunday, 1 April 2012
Black Betty: A Driving History part 11, 2004 *supercharged* Commodore
We call her "Black Betty". After many years of denial, I'm now gonna fess up. I bought this particular commodore for 1 reason.
She's supercharged. I spoke about that feeling of power that I get everytime I start a car (see the very first Driving History post- the 87 Lebaron). Well, this car gave me that rush, more powerful than on that first drive.
Acceleration wise, she's pretty quick. 185kw of pure power. But when you're already doing 100, and there's a big assed road train in front you, maybe driven by my stepson, just plant your foot. The power is intense as you sink into your seat, blasting past the three trailers and prime mover like they were standing still. That's what I'm talking about. Power. Speed. Driving taken to the next level.
There were a couple of issues with this car. The first is, blinded by the power, I proabably paid about $2000 too much for it. The second, this wonderful engine is married to a 4speed auto. But then, at the time, I was still fumbling with the intracacies of driving a manual (see a Driving History, the TX5), so the Auto was the probably the best option.
Do I have any really good stories about it? Well, I have one. But I wasn't there, it was the fault of The Wife.
Both The Wife and I work 55km from where we live. There are a number of routes one take to get to work. Including a short cut. This short cut will knock 10kms off that, if the road is up to standard, and you don't go too fast. The Wife used to take this road alot with lines like "Its not that bad," or "The council has just graded the road."
Then one day, she went to work, a little early. And she decided to take the short cut. Only she was in the habit, as one gets into when one knows the road, of taking it a bit fast. The commute usually takes about 40 minutes. But an hour later she hadn't arrived at work. I had no clue what was going on, because that route has no mobile coverage.
The wife went rocketing down that road, and obviously hit a rock or something because (as we found out later) she punctured the tranny pan. She said she "heard a big bang" and the car kept going a short distance, then stopped. She had to wait an hour and a half to get a ride to the nearest town (no mobile coverage, and no one uses the road). I think she was lucky to have waited only an hour and a half.
The repair cost $400, the tow was extra. The impact site looked like someone had put a big calibre bullet just above the pan. And fortunately, the car's computer stopped the car before any damage was done to the transmission itself.
I'm sure it must have given her a fright, but, she still uses the road, though not as often.
Buzz
This is my dog Buzz. He's a right little bastard. He likes to be held, which is all well and good, except that he also likes to play.
He sleeps in our bed, either over or under the covers depending on how cold he is. But in the mornings, he likes to go for a walk. So when I get up in the morning, before I've even had a chance to get out of bed, he jumps on me and starts licking my face. He does this because his walk is first thing in the morning.
If I try to ignore him, he starts to playfully growl, and then he tries to nip my nose.
He's a Lhasa Apso cross Jack Russel. He often sits with me at night either in my lap or at my feet, so naturally, I have to stir him up, I grab at his nose and get him growling at me.
The other evening, round about sunset, I got a call from a neighbour. He likes Buzz, because when Buzz comes to visit, unannounced of course, he styles himself right up as if he was at home. A good whistle from my driveway usually brings him home, which is good. I don't like him out after sunset, there are wild dogs in the area, and if they caught little Buzz, it wouldn't be pretty.
We also have paralysis ticks here, and they kill their host, so we have to check him daily for those parasites.
Still, he lives a good life, and we're happy to have him.
Apples to Apples
On the surface the political systems are very different when it comes to comparing the governments of Australia, Canada and the USA.
The USA is a republic, with a presidential head, while Canada and Australia share a decidedly more British model. The president is a directly elected office, while the Prime Minister is determined by the party leadership, and it is possible to be prime minister without a seat. Both Australia and America have elected senates. In Canada, its appointed. The American president faces primaries run state by state, and makes the actual election campaign run well over 12 months. In Australia and Canada, party leadership is appointed by party faithful usually well before any election campaign. In America, the Senate representation on a state by state basis is equal. In Canada, Senate numbers are based on provincial population. In Australia, votes can be cast on preferential basis- don't ask me how the system works, I mistrust it, while America and Canada use first past the post. In Australia every citizen of age votes by law, in the other two, you can if want- or not.
So, it sounds different right? Apples to Oranges? Can't make a comparison? Wrong.
Because of the nature of politics, consider:
The presidential race is down to 2 people in the US, the selection of either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. In Australia it's down to the Labour party or Liberal/National party coalition selection. In Canada, Its usually between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party (Jack Layton's rise of the NDP to official opposition status I believe has as much to do with election weary Canadians and the Liberal party's responsibility in calling it at least as much as the Charisma of the late leader. Mulcair, his replacement, I suspect was a poor leadership choice).
Each opposing side puts together a brief of policies during the election in which they believe will win the the majority of votes. Everyone knows the brief is pointless, and few if any promises will be kept. Because the information made public previously was inaccurate, or some crisis will arise which promptly sweeps everything else to the side (GFC for instance).
The election itself produces very like personalities in the candidates. A classic example is the 1999 American race between Gore and Bush- so alike in form and policy one needed a split screen TV to tell the candidates apart. This also seems likely in the upcoming Australian election, a conservative labour leader facing a labour leaning LNP coalition candidate. Who will it be? Speedos (a reference to Tony Abbot pulling a "Stockwell Day") vs the Backstabber? Is this even a choice?
Southpark had it right. Every election leaves a one a choice between a "turd sandwich" (complete with pickle) or a "giant douche". The only winner is the candidate who actually wins. The voters always lose.
Its always apples to apples.
The USA is a republic, with a presidential head, while Canada and Australia share a decidedly more British model. The president is a directly elected office, while the Prime Minister is determined by the party leadership, and it is possible to be prime minister without a seat. Both Australia and America have elected senates. In Canada, its appointed. The American president faces primaries run state by state, and makes the actual election campaign run well over 12 months. In Australia and Canada, party leadership is appointed by party faithful usually well before any election campaign. In America, the Senate representation on a state by state basis is equal. In Canada, Senate numbers are based on provincial population. In Australia, votes can be cast on preferential basis- don't ask me how the system works, I mistrust it, while America and Canada use first past the post. In Australia every citizen of age votes by law, in the other two, you can if want- or not.
So, it sounds different right? Apples to Oranges? Can't make a comparison? Wrong.
Because of the nature of politics, consider:
The presidential race is down to 2 people in the US, the selection of either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. In Australia it's down to the Labour party or Liberal/National party coalition selection. In Canada, Its usually between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party (Jack Layton's rise of the NDP to official opposition status I believe has as much to do with election weary Canadians and the Liberal party's responsibility in calling it at least as much as the Charisma of the late leader. Mulcair, his replacement, I suspect was a poor leadership choice).
Each opposing side puts together a brief of policies during the election in which they believe will win the the majority of votes. Everyone knows the brief is pointless, and few if any promises will be kept. Because the information made public previously was inaccurate, or some crisis will arise which promptly sweeps everything else to the side (GFC for instance).
The election itself produces very like personalities in the candidates. A classic example is the 1999 American race between Gore and Bush- so alike in form and policy one needed a split screen TV to tell the candidates apart. This also seems likely in the upcoming Australian election, a conservative labour leader facing a labour leaning LNP coalition candidate. Who will it be? Speedos (a reference to Tony Abbot pulling a "Stockwell Day") vs the Backstabber? Is this even a choice?
Tony Abbot in Speedos
Stockwell Day in a Wetsuit
Southpark had it right. Every election leaves a one a choice between a "turd sandwich" (complete with pickle) or a "giant douche". The only winner is the candidate who actually wins. The voters always lose.
Its always apples to apples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)