Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Fantasy Core RPG Character Generation

FANTASY CORE RPG 
CHARACTER GENERATION
(c) Jerry Harris, 2012
Published here as Open Game Content.
(This link will take you to the Fantasy Core Index.)


Choose a class: 
Barbarian
Paladin
Knight
Ranger
Thief
Wizard

Abilities
Roll abilities based on class choice, which determines Normal, Prime, and Sub-Prime abilities.  Players may arrange the scores as they wish, but may not change them.

Normal Abilities: 10 + 1d4
Prime Abilities: 14 + 1d4
Sub-Prime Abilities: List as 10

● Strength (Str): Physical prowess.  Add bonus to melee attacks and damage.
● Dexterity (Dex): Coordination and balance.  Add bonus to ranged attacks, AC, and Reflex saves.
● Constitution (Con): Physical stamina.  Add bonus to hp and Fort saves.
● Intelligence (Int): Knowledge, training, practice, and learning ability.  Bonus starting spells for Wizards. 
● Wisdom (Wis): Experience, intuition, and empathy.  Add bonus to Will saves.  Bonus healing spells for Paladins. 
● Charisma (Cha): Forcefulness or persuasiveness of personality.

Ability                           Deficient
Score          Bonus         Abilities      Penalty
10-11             0               9-8              -1
12-13           +1               7-6              -2
14-15           +2               5-4              -3
16-17           +3               3                 -4
18                +4              

Characters should never start off below 10, but scores could be reduced from play.  A 3 in any Ability means the character is seriously disabled and cannot adventure.

Hit Points (hp)
First level hp: Max HD + Con bonus.
After first level roll HD + Con bonus or take ½ HD + Con Bonus, whichever is greater.



Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Most classes have restrictions on weapons and armor they may use.  Some classes may optionally use certain items, but lose some of their special abilities with them.  The Equipment list has further restrictions based on ability bonuses.  Using a non-proficient weapon gives the user no bonuses to attack (except for magic weapon bonuses).  Using non-qualified armor, the wearer will not be able to make any attacks and cannot run.  
   
Experience Points (XP)
The Ref should award XP for each group member for accomplishing tasks, as determined by the Ref and/or the players' own stated intentions.  It is recommended that the players should definitely have a hand in determining what their main goals are, while the Ref’s determine the minor ones on the way to those main goals.)  This should be graded based on the level of the characters and the magnitude of the accomplishment.  What is a major task for low-level characters is probably a minor one for high level ones (6th and up).  A qualifying task involves some amount of risk, a possibility of failure (and consequences for failure), and/or use of strategy and ingenuity to accomplish. 
    
Award 1 XP for a minor task (such as puzzle-solving and successful negotiations), 2 for a tough task, and 3 for a major one.  No more than one major award (if that) should be given per adventure.  A major task should qualify as an accomplishment the characters could brag about to their peers without embarrassing themselves.  Very large tasks, like removing a corrupt king from power, should be broken down into a multitude of major accomplishments. 

Low-level example: obtaining the map to dungeon from an unscrupulous antiquities dealer (1 XP), defeating the ogre, toughest monster on level 1 (2 XP), solving the puzzle to find the ogre’s secret hoard (1 XP), clearing out level 1 of the dungeon (3 XP).  Typically though, simple business transactions or negotiations, encountering (average) wandering monsters, and minor set encounters, award no XP (but could still be lucrative).  If a group fails to accomplish anything in a session, but still makes an effort at doing so, award 1 XP.  Refs should not award XP for every encounter.  Players should not expect XP for every encounter. 



Level Advancement
Characters earn XP only via adventuring.  I’d recommend handing out XP at the end of an adventure session, but you could also hand them out after any XP-paying encounter, as you will.  Players pay XP to gain the next level, one level at a time.  They must also complete a number of major tasks in order to advance, even if they already have the XP to level up.  The cost may seem pretty low, but as detailed later, characters may also be using XP to influence events in the game and to save themselves when facing certain death.  Refs, it is also recommended that new characters be given the opportunity to earn a couple of easy XP up front.

Levels 2 – 5                             Levels 6 – 10
2nd      17 XP/2 Major Tasks         6th     31 XP/4 Major Tasks
3rd      18 XP/2 Major Tasks         7th     32 XP/4 Major Tasks
4th      19 XP/2 Major Tasks         8th     33 XP/4 Major Tasks
5th          20 XP/2 Major Tasks         9th     34 XP/4 Major Tasks
                                                10th       36 XP/4 Major Tasks

Notes
All calculations involving ½ level or two abilities averaged are to be rounded up.  Always at least +1, if more than 0.  Essentially skills increase by one, every odd level.
Natural Roll: The number as rolled on the dice without modification.
"Ref" is the game referee.  NPC is a Non-Player character controlled by the Ref.
BAB is Base Attack Bonus.  Rd is Round.  AC is Armor Class.
The DC’s for skill use are generally listed as either 12 for hard tasks, 18 for very hard tasks.  The Ref is free to set more variability in those numbers for different situations.  I would recommend not bothering to roll for anything less than DC 12.
Untrained skills, namely Stealth, Charm, Negotiate, Intimidate, Climb, and Acrobatics, can attempted by any class.  However, only classes that with those skills listed for their class can add ½ level to their ability scores, and thus improve at them.  Trained skills, such as Lockpicking and First Aid, cannot be used by the untrained.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Fantasy Core RPG

FANTASY CORE

PDF of Fantasy Core Rules

Character Creation Rules, Spell Lists
Weapons & Armor, Equipment, Travel & Transport
Combat Rules
Additional Rules
Oriental Character Classes
Demi-Human Character Classes
Title Level Advancement
NPC and Variant Classes
Magic Items
Naval Combat
Undead and Demonically Possessed Creatures

Playtest 1Playtest 2


ADVENTURES
Sample Adventure: A small tower with an evil wizard
Diamond Temple: A small dungeon
Zombie Manor; An abandoned keep with a bunch of zombies
Goth Hallow Adventure: A series of connected tombs
Endless Night: A haunted house adventure
Expedition to the Doomed Peaks: D&D meets Doom.  What could go Wrong?
Dark Continent Redux: An adventure setting into the jungle to kill an insane wizard


SETTINGS
Fantasy Ireland: Roleplaying in a mythic Ireland
Jianghu: An Oriental Setting
Southland: Australia as a big monster-filled continent
Cyber-Pulp: A cyber-fantasy set 20 minutes in the future
Robomeck: Transforming robot RPG

ALTERNATE SETTINGS AND RULES
Pulp Fantasy Core
Cyber-Pulp Fantasy Core Index 
Card Based Rules


Oh God, not another clone! Yes, it is. Let's just get down to it.

What is it?

Fantasy Core RPG is loosely based on the Modern RPG's, essentially stripped down to Old School sensibilities, with some other stuff thrown in. The characters are not superheroes, but should be a bit harder to kill and more potent than usual. Characters are not endlessly customizable, which should irritate the players. However, they are much more capable starting at first level, thereby irritating Ref's. Nobody should like this game.

What's in it?

Six classes for now, all human, and some basic rules. I'll be posting the game in pieces to allow individual critique. The classes only go up to 10th level.  This is part of keeping the game simple. Also, above 10th level, a fantasy game essentially becomes a superhero game, which should probably have a different set of rules.

So what's in this game for me as a Ref or player?

A real sense of mystery and a reawakening of the pioneer spirit. In other words, this hasn't been play-tested, so who knows how well this will work in practice in the real world. More concretely, I made this game because I didn't love any of the other versions and clones I've seen (and I've looked at a bunch of them). I wanted a game that was easy to teach and run as a Ref.  As a player, all the classes are cool right up front, without messing with making the right character build or waiting until you hit a certain level before you get good.

What's in the future?

For the most part, it's just going to be the rules and the character classes.  Some monster stats will be published with the sample adventures.  Don't expect a "Monster Manual" anytime soon though.  There may be some setting ideas. I have a listing of NPC classes that I like. I've got some Demi-human classes and Oriental-themed classes, but I haven't been happy with them to this point, so we'll see. I have a follow up game that builds on this, which I'm more enthusiastic about. It's Fantasy Core in a more modern, pulp setting.

This game is published as Open Game Content. Here's the verbiage, which following posts will refer back to.


OPEN GAME CONTENT:

Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of the Open Game License Version 1.0a (OGL).

This entire work, Fantasy Core RPG, Pulp Fantasy Core RPG, Fantasy Core Ireland Setting, Expedition to the Doomed Peaks, Jianghu Setting, Cyber-Pulp Fantasy Core, Endless Night are designated as Open Game Content under the OGL.

OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a

The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.

1. Definitions: (a)"Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content; (b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c)"Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute; (d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) "Trademark" means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) "You" or "Your" means the licensee in terms of this agreement.

2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.

3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.

6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.

7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any
Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.

8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

10. Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.

11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.

12. Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.

13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.

14. Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.

15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE

Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.;

Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, John D. Rateliff, Thomas Reid, James Wyatt, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave
Arneson.

Fantasy Core RPG Rules, Pulp Fantasy Core RPG Rules, Fantasy Core Ireland Setting, Expedition to the Doomed Peaks, Jianghu Setting, Cyber-Pulp Fantasy Core, Endless Night, Copyright 2012, 2013, 2014 Jerry Harris



END OF LICENSE

Monday, September 17, 2012

Baseball Journal

 9-15-12

It wasn't until the seventh inning that I finally noticed that the White Sox pitcher, Francisco Liriano, had a no-hitter going against the Twins. Hawk and Stone, definitely old school broadcasters, never mentioned it while it was going on. Hawk was pointedly mentioning the number of consecutive outs at the end of innings and that eventually clued me in. Liriano eventually gave up a hit that inning, a two-run homer, but that was the only one he gave up. Something of a good thing. I was about to bust being torn between wanting to say something to dad, who I was watching the game with, and not wanting to jinx it.


The White Sox beat the Twins, 5 - 3, though the ninth inning did feature the Twins loading the bases with nobody out. It was a nice, crisp game in about 2 1/2 hours. This is probably the last time I'll get to see the Sox this season, maybe the post season too. Who knows?  I'd like to think I won't have to watch another Twins game this year, but I should be so lucky. Given the way things have gone, I've seen them so often, they're like a home team.


My unanswered question about the Sox has got to be the mustaches. I didn't even recognize Youkilis. Then I noticed Dunn and Konerko sporting lip rugs.  Thankfully, Gordon Beckham and Pierzynski haven't joined the club. Are they planning on dressing up as 70's porn stars or as New York beat cops for
Halloween?


Meanwhile, I've finally figured out the Yankees. The players aren't paid by the game, they're paid by the minute! Yes, all batting-glove adjusting, face wiping on the mound, foul balls, chit chat, calling time, it's all just part of their contracts. And they get paid double time if the game goes over three hours!


 9-16-12

"The sixth batter of the inning is the first out," says Len Kasper. It was that kind of sixth inning, about an hour's worth. It was a four-hour marathon altogether between the Cubs and Pirates in the end, but all worth it.


Where to begin? When the score was 6 - 1 Pirates early, it looked bad. Pedro Alvarez hit an opposite field, out of the park home run. Darwin Barney's consecutive errorless streak probably should have come to end in the first, but generous scoring kept it intact. But the Cubs came back on an Anthony Rizzo home run to make it 6 - 5. (And some truly bad sportsmanship on behalf of a greedy fan grabbing the ball out of the basket, out of another fan's hand.)


Then there was yet another opposite field, stadium-clearing home run by Alvarez. Score now 9 - 5. Then in the bottom of an already lengthy sixth inning, Rizzo came to the plate with the bases loaded. A no-doubter slammed directly into the bleachers. The Cubs would take the lead 10 - 9.


A digression must be made here. It's a throw-away promotion every game that suddenly caused a Chicago area Mazda dealer to scream out, "Nooo!" You see, the promotion is, if a Cubs player hits a grand slam in sixth, somebody wins a car. Rizzo later said he wanted to drive the car to the winner. Bob Brenly, in the Cubs' tv booth with Len, actually had a topper. When he was broadcasting with the Diamondbacks, their promotion was guessing the player and the inning for a grand slam for a million dollars. Not quite lottery odds, but just about. Bob still remembered the name of the woman who'd picked Jay Bell as her unlikely grand slam benefactor (what an unlikely choice, by the way). When she came into the broadcast booth, Bob introduced her as "the future Mrs. Brenly," much to her husband's chagrin.


(Another digression, the light-hitting infielder, Jay Bell, also scored the World Series winning run in 2001. As he crossed home plate into the arms of his exuberant teammates, he looked liked he'd just won the lottery too.)


Back to the game, in the seventh, Chapman came in for the Cubs and immediately gave up a triple to Starling Marte. Next follows a strikeout. Then a hot shot up the middle that should have tied the game is snagged in mid-air by Barney. He's totally redeemed himself. Then a walk. Runners on first and third. Then the obligatory, fake to third, throw to first move by the pitcher that never. . . Oh my God! It worked. Marte got hung up and tagged out along the third base line.


The Cubs would tack on a couple more runs to make the score 13 - 9, which would be the final. Rizzo would strikeout in the eighth and receive an ovation from the home crowd as he walked back to the dugout. He said he hated that, but definitely earned it.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Surrender

I give up… at least on the NASCAR Nationwide Series on ESPN. I tune in for the race and get a 40-minute pre-race show. I’m really starting to miss NBC’s old Busch Series coverage. You tuned into their broadcast and you got the last bars of the Star Spangled Banner, “Gentlemen, start your engines!” and a “Hi folks, we’re ready to go racin’,” within the first five minutes.

Thank goodness they got in all that Danica coverage in the pre-race. On Turn 1 of the first lap, four other drivers dodge a spinning car. Danica Patrick runs straight into him. Her day is done… once again… of course it wasn’t her fault this time… or any of the other times she’s gotten in a wreck. Not once. Just amazingly unlucky. I was afraid ESPN was going to cancel their broadcast right then and there. “Sorry folks, but the race is functionally over for us. We don’t have enough material on the other 42 drivers in the race to pad this out. You can still get live tracking and scoring via Race Buddy, if you still care who wins, which we don’t. We return you to local programming, likely a series of info-mercials.”

Who can tell the difference? Predictably, two minutes after Danica’s crash, the network goes to commercial. Even more predictably, I start flipping stations and inevitably find something more interesting than a commercial. Five minutes later, I flip back and they’re either back in commercial or the race is under caution. I start flipping around again. Repeat for the next two and a half-hours. Pity. The race actually looked pretty good, although it was somewhat credibility straining, as ESPN’s in-race advertising specialist, Carl Edwards, won the race. Was the win due to his superior talent, better equipment, or cunning strategy? No, I’m pretty sure it was that Subway fresh sandwich he had waiting for him at the finish line that drove him to victory. Subway: Eat Fresh.

This is actually the first time I am going to have to say that having an ESPN employee win a race that they’re covering, does look bad. It was likely all of the extra sponsorship mentions that Carl got in that really highlighted it. ESPN may have even cut to a Subway commercial after every time they talked to him. I wouldn’t know. As mentioned, I was flipping stations. It’s a biting commentary that even a good race can’t hold my attention through bad broadcasting.

Monday, June 8, 2009

F1 Turkish Grand Prix

To be honest, were I even able to watch the NASCAR race this weekend, I’d still have watched this instead. To sum up why in a word, Pocono. The good news is that, even though this race was on Fox, Digger did not appear during the pre-race. The bad news is that this race was probably about as exciting as Pocono. Regardless, I got what I came for: a Jenson Button win!

I didn’t buy my usual F1 season preview issue this year. Just as well. When I flipped through it on the newsstand, Brawn GP wasn’t even listed. The next issued featured all of one page interview with Button after his Australian win. The cover, however, was wondering which Ferrari driver would win the championship. Or something like that. It was so irrelevant I wasn’t paying attention.

This was the first time this year I’ve gotten a good look at the new cars. Let’s see, there were little bitty needle noses, little rear wings, and a big snowplow in the front. The Brawn and Red Bull cars had tremendous rear end boxes housing their magic diffusers. Then there was Renault’s fin, which was part of their top intake. If none of this sounds attractive, that’s about right. These vehicles were the high-tech equivalent of the NASCAR Car of Tomorrow: ugly as hell.

These changes, in addition to the reintroduction of slick tires (along with the option tire rule), were hopefully supposed to lead to changing the aerodynamics of the car enough to allow for more passing. I know that there was plenty of passing at the Australian GP. I guess it was a fluke. In modern F1, this pursuit is becoming futile, much like most overtaking attempts on track. The cars are so wind tunnel tested and aero-stroked, passing on track is matter of not just being faster, but a whole lot faster, or hoping for a mistake. I know that there was plenty of passing at the Australian GP. I guess it was a fluke with new cars with widely differing interpretations of the rules from the off season. Next year’s budget cap may make a difference, but I’m not holding my breath.

One piece of the technology I was excited by was the KERS energy return system. For right now, it just weighs down the car, but allows it to be fast enough in places to hold up a faster car trying to pass. Further development of this system in racing may be helpful in integrating it into road cars. Fuel savings on the road are being offset by the weight of the system. Race engineers will be looking for all sorts of ways to slim it down. I wonder if this will end up getting axed under the budget cap? A headline on a cover on an F1 magazine from a few years ago read, “Technology vs. the Sport.” We may finally get this issue answered next year.

Well, on to the race coverage. The opening montage featured a lot of Lewis Hamilton and no Jenson. I wonder when this was put together? Ah, what to make of Lewis the Backmarker? I’d say he gets attention during the race like Dale Jr. and Danica get in their respective series, but that isn’t really fair. He is the current world champion, while the other two are really mostly marketing icons. What I don’t get is the utter hatred that the British racing press and many fans have for him. One day, he’s the superkid, the future of racing. Next, he’s the F1 equivalent of Kyle Busch, the ultimate villain. If he’s just whiny and engages in gamesmanship, that would put him on par with every other driver, in every other series. I guess this is what I get for not being able to watch every race.

Whatever. I’m still totally getting off on Jenson whipping his ass.

You know Jenson is.

Fox sports doesn’t have any control over the race production, so I can’t criticize them. F1 produces the coverage and packages it for everyone else around the world, to add their own commentaries. This may somewhat explain why the volume was so subdued during the race. Every time they went to commercial, I was reminded of this as the sound blasted me awake. The bottom line ticker was a bit less intrusive than the top line ones used in NASCAR and the IRL. There were a couple of good panning shots across some of corners. I share the commentators’ lament that there wasn’t a good shot around Turns 7, 8, and 9, the big curve. (Why don’t they name the corners on these new tracks?)

The commentary team themselves did a pretty good job with what they had to work with. That is to say, no control over the pictures and a fairly boring race. I liked how they explained the rules and differing race strategies. Though they did explain the “Option Tire” rule, the group failed to explain how stupid it is and how little impact it has on the racing. Come to think of it, KERS is really just Push-To-Pass, another failed Champ Car racing “innovation.” (F1, please carefully regard what happened to Champ Car before following their example any further. Having everyone drive the same cars, getting rid of all the European drivers, and eliminating more European race dates, for example.)

There was some false drama over race strategy and about Button’s gearbox, but functionally the race for the win was over when Vettel bobbled the car on lap 1 and Button passed him. That was it. I could say that there was plenty of action in the back, but that was mostly Barrichello trying to make his way back to the front after a bad start. After he damaged the car, that was that.

I tuned in to see Jenson on the top step and getting post race interviewed, and I did get that. I have to quibble with the announcers again. This year isn’t the first time he’s won. They forgot his 2006 win in a rain-soaked race in Hungry. By the way, F1 car numbers are handed out based the team’s finish the previous season (skipping #13). The race results were quite the sight with all those double-digit car numbers listed at the top. And there was Jenson Button, car #22, on top. Given that there were only twenty cars in the race that should tell you how far this team has come since last year.

J.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

NASCAR I’ve got issues

NASCAR held two town meetings last week, the day after the Charlotte race. Actually they could have more easily done that right at the track during all those rain delays. These meetings had the immediate effect of addressing NASCAR’s number one problem. It was decided that Tony Eury Jr. had to go as Junior’s crew chief. Until “The Legacy” starts winning again, the sport is in deadly peril, and I’m glad that the governing body took this extraordinary step in the right direction. Said Mike Helton, “Yeah, we saw what Obama did in firing GM’s CEO, and we thought we’d seize the initiative as well and make some changes on Junior’s team.”

Other less important issues were discussed. Double file restarts with lap-down cars to the back might be worthwhile. But really, inside of a lap or two, it’s going to be right back to business as usual with the leader sprinting away. All this may do is change who the leader is going to be.

Of more lasting use, NASCAR said they’d look at finding ways to modify the COT to give it better handling. Wow, it only took three years for NASCAR to hear what all the drivers were saying about the car (even Kyle Busch, whose driving style is well suited to the COT).

I’ve maintained steadfastly that the COT has been hurting competition. Good, contested races are the exception rather than the norm far too often. On some level, the networks may like boring racing. It allows them to go to commercial more often. Exciting races are harder to cut away from.

I understand NASCAR’s original thinking. They wanted to put the car’s handling more in the driver’s hands. With everyone essentially driving the same car (at least aero-wise), driver skill would be the differentiating factor. Great in theory.

In practice, putting all the drivers in nervous handling cars meant that they couldn’t push the envelope in performance without seriously risking a wreck. Thus, spread-out, single-file racing with plenty of wide berths for passing. Only the race leader would feel somewhat safe in opening up the throttle. Fiddling with the car’s ability to stick to the track, but leaving the engine the same, could only result in the drivers slowing down and concentrating on driving and not racing.

This issue isn’t unique to NASCAR. The IRL lessened the downforce on their cars for safety and competition reasons. Again, it was supposed to put driver skill, rather than aero technology, at a premium. The results have been the same. You can read about it here:

http://www.mynameisirl.com/2009/05/overtaking-talk-is-taking-over.html

Racing was once something of a test bed for automotive innovation. Now, it’s just marketing and ever more stringent governing rules to keep the competition between the top teams close. This is especially true in NASCAR, where their vehicles may actually have less relation to road cars than even open-wheel race cars do.

It’s a balancing act between safety vs. spectacle, technology vs. human skill, technology vs. cost, competition vs. the rules, and so on. Go too far in any direction and you’ll lose your audience. For example, fans like wrecks, but don’t want to watch a bloodsport, so there has to be plenty of safety precautions. NASCAR has made its choices, but the tweaking will forever continue.

There was an issue that wasn’t mentioned at the meetings, but I’ll go ahead and make a prediction about it. Given the dramatic fall in ratings and attendance for the first third of the season, look for things to get worse during the Chase. That’s not my prediction, because that’s going to happen (unless Junior goes on an unprecedented winning streak). Next year, look for a new Chase format. There will be big changes in the points structure and/or the Chase qualifications. Whatever. NASCAR’s contract with ABC/ESPN mandates some sort of “playoff,” but the network will agree to anything to help ratings.

I hate to bother making suggestions on this, because it’s pointless, but here goes. I’d like to see at least a much bigger point spread between first and second and between tenth and eleventh. Better still, only award championship points to the top ten finishers of each race. The networks mostly only cover the top ten cars during a race anyway (except for Junior). They may as well make it official that everyone else is irreverent. Yeah, I know that they say that the fans want NASCAR to stop screwing with championship rules. Wrong. The fans want them fixed.

The original points system rewarded consistency, which encouraged “points” racing and not necessarily winning racing. The original Chase rewarded the top ten most consistent racers during the season, and then whoever was most consistent during the Chase. Then it was the top 12. Then the regular season race winners got bonus points for the Chase. Most consistent and most victorious are titles that may not apply to same driver at the end of the season. Right now, Tony Stewart is in first place from running a heck of a consistent season, but all the drivers with wins are below him in the standings. NASCAR needs to make up its mind what they want drivers to focus on.

In my opinion, if a driver wins by consistency over drivers with more wins, people always bring that up. If it were the driver with the most wins who won the championship, nobody would care who scored the most top 10’s during the season.

I honestly expect NASCAR will start making some changes for the better. Next season’s action should be improved over what has occurred so far this year. If not, NASCAR will flounder and eventually fall out the hands of the France family. Even then, I am confident that the series will eventually come under the stewardship of someone who will make the necessary changes.

J.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Dover Cup race: That was more like it

Certainly this week’s race didn’t have much competition for comparison with last week’s. (Tellingly, there was no Fan Council poll sent out for the Coca-Cola 600.) If you consider the Nationwide Series a warm up for the Cup, then things got off to a good start. The ESPN crew was full of enthusiasm, and the race delivered a great finish. Congrats to Brad Keselowski for opportunistically finding Victory Lane again this year, as Logano and Kyle Busch took each other out of the lead in the final laps. Kyle was uncharacteristically mum after the race.

He had no trouble earlier in the week finding a camera and a microphone to discuss Junior’s crew chief change. Fox was quick to capitalize on NASCAR’s lead story with their opening montage playing Kyle’s comments and recapping events. It’s regrettable that Kyle and Junior’s rivalry hasn’t been more of the on-track variety. My own take is that I wish Hendrick had paired up Junior with an experienced, winning crew chief. The way this was done, it just looks like a panic move.

Junior looked slightly more upbeat at the beginning of the race. His Nationwide team winning on Saturday probably helped. Meanwhile when asked, DW and Hammy both openly doubted Junior’s ability to win a championship at this point in his career. Heresy? Reverse psychology? Trying to cushion the blow for his legion of fans? It’s gut check time for Junior and Junior Nation.

The rest of the pre-race flowed well. There was another Digger cartoon, but it was again a rerun. I’m telling you, the varmint is on his way out. Expect TNT and ESPN to give Fox some ribbing over their mascot at some point during their coverage. Jeff Gordon looked totally down and hurting. That interview was painful to watch.

There was a profile piece on Billy Bad Butt. I missed the incident last week that lead to the creation of NASCAR’s newest freaky crewmember nickname. For God’s sakes, there was 10 hours of rain delay. I couldn’t watch it all. In the same vein, ESPN’s piece the day before on Clint Bowyer, Richard Childress, and Bowyer’s spotter was pretty funny. The networks may need to spend some more quality time with guys on the team other than the driver and crew chief.

The season in review segment went by quick. Of course, it could have been shorter. Just show Edwards’ Talledega wreck. Highlights over. Oh, and then there was a shot of Ingrid. I’ve given up on getting a roundtable discussion of her hair. I’ll miss her and Miss Sprint Cup.

The race itself started off well. It was close, contested, and drivers were fighting for the lead. Unfortunately, this may have either been the team’s testing the limits of the tires for the rest of the race, or NASCAR ordered them to be entertaining at the beginning of the race.

Umm… Then I turned over to the Indycar race at the Milwaukee Mile. I’m not sure if I missed much action at Dover, other than Jimmie dominating. I know that if I’d missed the Indycar race, I really wouldn’t have missed much action there either. Dixon won, but his wife Emma wasn’t there, so I didn’t care. (I recall Ashley Judd wasn’t there the last time Franchitti won. Well, it’s not exactly a destination spot, unless you’re looking for brauts.) I’d read a story that they were offering all you could drink and eat beer and barbecue at the track as a promotion. I thought it was gag, but the stands were full. Sorry I wasn’t in Milwaukee.

http://pressdog.typepad.com/dogblog/2009/05/most-likely-still-time-to-get-to-milwaukee-this-weekend-for-the-most-excellent-mile-and-the-best-value-in-racingi-super-hig.html#more

Back to NASCAR (one look at the stands and you could tell they weren’t running any promotions), I missed the final, fateful pit stop, that put Jimmie back in ninth, but with more fresh tires than the drivers in front of him. The final laps featured some of the best racing of the year. This was actually enhanced by Fox losing their ticker. You could see more of the track, as the 48’s charge to the front commanded the announcers’ attention. With more screen real estate, the drama seemed bigger and added to the tension. This arrangement wouldn’t have worked out well in blow out win, but here it did. Fox might want to file this technique away for future use. (Not to mention, it forced them to show all the top cars finishing.)

Good call by Knaus and a great drive by Jimmie to make that call look good. Tony Stewart, second in the race, can console himself with his Fox Cup, as he’s now number one in the championship standings. Who’d of thunk that last year after his move to his new team. This was a definite high note for Fox to end their coverage on.

NASCAR breathes a sigh of relief. The hardcore fans that are left got a good race. Junior looked about as happy as he was going to allow himself to be with a top 15 finish. Finally, there was a heartfelt goodbye from the booth crew. Pity that Fox sports broadcasting isn’t as big a fans as their announcers are. I was surprised Digger didn’t make an appearance, or that there wasn’t some forced product placement, or a Fox show promo during their closing comments. Were it not for the fans in the booth, I think Fox’s NASCAR coverage would end up being horrific.

Well, this may be it for the NASCAR race blogging. I don’t have cable. After the digital switchover, I may not be able to watch the Chase when racing returns to over-the-air TV. As for next year, frankly, at times writing this has been a labor. Too many races have either been boring or controversial, rather than entertaining. Sometimes, the hard part has been watching the race itself to comment on it. In the meantime, I’ve got one more column in process about the sport overall.

J.