Raptor Inamorata

The NFC Title Game

2012-01-18T15:44:00.000-08:00

So, most every place I look and listen this week, everybody seems to be firmly of the opinion that the New York Giants will do a little stomp dance on the face of the San Francisco 49ers. Or at least that seems to be the general public sentiment. The Vegas line favors San Fran, but in that Vegas-zoney way that seems to be based on making money off the rubes, and not on the actually abilities of the teams.

The New York Giants, as awesome as they looked last weekend, are a team built to beat the New England Patriots, the Green Bay Packers, the New Orleans Saints, or the Dallas Cowboys. (We'll also take Atlanta Falcons, San Diego Chargers, Pittsburgh Steelers and Detriot Lions as answers here.) The Giants are built to bring too much pressure up front with their base defense, while blanketing the other teams leading receivers - this forces high flying, high octane offenses into mistakes, and makes them rely on steady ball advancement, reducing possesions an offensive opportunity. At the same time, the Giants offense is built to exploit weak defenses, not overcome strong ones.

Look at the games the Giants lost this year - almost all of them were against teams playing the way the Giants play, disruptive pressure defense and opportunistic offense. Most of those teams do not have playmakers the quality of Eli Manning or JPP, and they still beat the Giants. I know the Giants are healthy for the first time all year, and if the Saints has beaten the 49ers last weekend, I would say they are the Super Bowl Favorite. But the Giants have to beat the 49ers, a team whose offense is used to taking what it can get and relying on the run, also a team whose defense is probably the best defense in the NFL this year. I dont see how that is a matchup that favors the Giants.

DM Questionnaire, via Playing D&D with Pornstars

2012-01-18T14:26:00.000-08:00

Another Survey via Zak @ http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/

1. If you had to pick a single invention in a game you were most proud of what would it be?

A one-handed injection dagger for delivering swift action potions and poisons. Or a dark elder god revived in the format of a herd of cattle.

2. When was the last time you GMed?
September 2011

3. When was the last time you played?
January 2012

4. Give us a one-sentence pitch for an adventure you haven't run but would like to.

The party follows a criminal/murderer/villian into an underground cave complex that holds an entire village of hideous mutants and outcasts who the villian aids and assists as a spiritual leader.

5. What do you do while you wait for players to do things?

Plan or tweak upcoming encounters, actions and moments to fuck with them as best as possible. If they take a REALLY long time, I'll get a snack, or hunt some extra forbidding music or pictures.

6. What, if anything, do you eat while you play?

Depends, but usually one meal, plus many sugary or salty snacks.

7. Do you find GMing physically exhausting?

No.

8. What was the last interesting (to you, anyway) thing you remember a PC you were running doing?
Trailing another PC and guiding him away from the knowledge that my PC had murdered his father.

9. Do your players take your serious setting and make it unserious? Vice versa? Neither?

Both, really. The players are respectful of the setting in some sense, but it takes a serious second place to whatever their moods or desires are at the time of the game. Funny day for the players makes for a funny game, a serious day for a serious game.

10. What do you do with goblins?

Give them class levels and kills PCs with them, if I can.

11. What was the last non-RPG thing you saw that you converted into game material (background, setting, trap, etc.)?

Giant city catacombs beneath Montreal.

12. What's the funniest table moment you can remember right now?

13. What was the last game book you looked at--aside from things you referenced in a game--why were you looking at it?

Legend, an OGL derivative. I was looking at it for design ideas for my homebrew campaign, specifically some role-playing mechancis.

14. Who's your idea of the perfect RPG illustrator?

High Energy, Very Unusual, A Little Dark.
This: http://www.circusfare.com/ or this: http://toxoplasm.org/

15. Does your game ever make your players genuinely afraid?

Aside from a few attempts at true horror adventures, no.

16. What was the best time you ever had running an adventure you didn't write? (If ever)

I had an amazing time running the original Temple of Elemental Evil module with a group I played with in high school. Mostly the creative party solutions to navigating a dungeon of that size with all the personalities involved made the campaign oodles and oodles of fun.

17. What would be the ideal physical set up to run a game in?

Big screen behind me for pictures of the gameworld and npcs, a large table with battlemap and easily adjusted terrain pieces, small side tables next to each player for character sheet, dice, books or laptop. Warm, good natural light that is not overwhelming. Comfy, sinky chairs.

18. If you had to think of the two most disparate games or game products that you like what would they be?

Savage Worlds and Palladium (FRP, TMNT, Rifts)

19. If you had to think of the most disparate influences overall on your game, what would they be?
Viola Spolin (Theater Games and Improvisation) and The Legend of Zelda (dungeon crawling traps and puzzly goodness)

20. As a GM, what kind of player do you want at your table?

Someone who is ready to try anything once.

21. What's a real life experience you've translated into game terms?

Losing camping gear, food, and extra clothing and setting up a camp in the dark woods at night.

22. Is there an RPG product that you wish existed but doesn't?

Eh. There are so many great RPG products. A really good desktop/tablet app that allows a DM to easily fill in campagin/game content for players to create digital character records and campaign journals would be pretty awesome.

23. Is there anyone you know who you talk about RPGs with who doesn't play? How do those conversations go?
I know some game designers who do not play RPG's, but are interested in them. Those conversations are interesting because of how torn the designers are between the freedom and excitement of a tabletop RPG game and the fear of someone breaking their systems.

Secret Santicore Trap Tables

2011-12-14T10:24:00.000-08:00

Here are a few linked trap tables that I created for Secret Santicore. Please enjoy them.

Transformation Trap
These two tables can be used separately, but are intended to be used together, so a player transformed by the trap would roll once on each table to discover what they have become.

New Form
1. Glinda, the Good Witch. Player becomes a Female Elf, S10 D10 C10 I13 W15 C17, and Primary weapon changes into Wand of Wonder with unlimited charges that is also a Mace +3.
2. Pigeon. Player’s possessions do not change, but the pigeon can only wear rings. Lose all racial and class abilities. Can fly at a speed of 40'.
3. Satyr.
4. Racial Enemy. Race changes to a race that hates the player's current race.
5. Unicorn. Player loses racial abilities, but retains class abilities, and gains a Unicorn's natural attacks, as well as a hatred of adult males of all kinds.
6. Slave of Dagon. Player becomes a horrible amphibious fish man. All statistics reduced by 2, all racial abilities lost, player gains the ability to breathe underwater, and land and swim speeds of 20'. The player must be immersed in water every 4 hours, or start taking Constitution damage.

Deformation
1. Tiny Hands. You always drop your sword on a natural 1 or a natural 20. It does not change the other results of the roll.
2. Massive Genitalia. Your Constitution increases by 2, but critical hits against you do additional damage (critical multiplier increases by 1).
3. Two Heads. You receive a -2 to Dexterity and Wisdom. You may take 2 Standard Actions instead of a Move and a Standard, but both actions are at -4.
4. Mucus Layer. Your skin becomes green and rubbery, and covered in a thin layer of mucus. You suffer a -2 to Constitution and Charisma, but gain Resist Fire and Electricity 5.
5. Marked. Your face in marked by evil. Good characters in your presence when your face is uncovered automatically dislike you, and suffer a -1 penalty to attacks, saves, and skill checks.
6. Tentacles. Each of your limbs becomes two tentacles. Your land speed changes to 10', and you can no longer wield traditional weapons, but you may hold items in your tentacles and strike with them. Each tentacle does 1d4 + 1/2 Str damage.

What is this corpse, and why shouldn't I touch it?
These two tables can be used separately, but are intended to be used together, so that a found corpse is defined and trapped.

Corpse
1. A troll at -8 hit points. In 5 minutes, it will stand at full hp.
2. The son of a local lord who has been missing. He wears his signet ring, and his parents will assume he was murdered by anyone wearing it.
3. Glinda, the Good Witch. Her wand has been cursed.
4. A leprous orc. Players touching it must succeed on a difficult (DC 18) Fortitude Save or contract leprosy.
5. A wizard's failed experiment at combining snakes and goats. Some snakes may still live inside the horror.
6. An ogre’s child, torn into a dozen pieces. Players waiting for 30 minutes will encounter the ogre, in an unstoppable rage.
7. A paladin whose blood has turned into holy water. A small pool of it sits next to the corpse. Any player willing to desecrate the body may harvest the water.
8. A pigeon with an extremely large ruby in its gullet.
9. A dead genie, and his now non-magical lamp. If players manage to resurrect the genie, he will grant one wish before disappearing.
10. Your mom. No, I don’t know how she got here. Player enters a rage in the next combat encounter.

Trap
1. Corpse explodes dealing high (8d6) fire damage to all within 20’, Reflex Save for half. Trap is a rune scrawled on corpse's back, and can be noticed with a difficult perception check.
2. Already claimed as food by nearby massive, rabid bear. The bear will attack anyone touching the corpse in a berserk rage.
3. Covered in Super Glue. Corpse sticks to player until that can succeed on an extremely difficult (DC 20) Strength Check. Each check takes 1 hour.
4. Smells truly awful. Player must succeed on a difficult (DC 18) Fortitude Save or be nauseous for 4 hours. Players succeeding are still at -1 to attacks, saves, and skill checks for 4 hours, and no one wants to stand near them for at least 1 day.
5. Corpse is made up of doppelganger ants. Doppelganger ants attack anything that touches them, swarming for 3d6 damage per round. Once they kill their prey, the ants mimic their victim as a corpse.
6. Corpse is lying in an acid pool. When touched, the corpse falls completely apart, and the player must succeed on a difficult (DC 18) Reflex Save or fall into the acid pool themselves, taking high (8d6) acid damage.
7. If moved, desecrated, or otherwise disturbed, the corpse rises 2 rounds later as a Skeleton Warrior or Death Knight.
8. The corpse is a sacrifice by a local kobold tribe to their god, an ancient black dragon. Interfering with the corpse will bring the anger of the kobold tribe. Killing the tribe will anger their god.
9. The corpse is inhabited a camouflaged alien intelligence that lashes out to control the mind of the first person to touch it. Players interacting with the corpse must succeed on a difficult (DC 18) Will Save or be possessed.
10. Corpse is under a collapsing ceiling. Trap can be found and disarmed with difficult (DC 25) skill checks. If the wall collapses, any player within 10’ of the wall must succeed on a difficult (DC 18) Reflex Save or take heavy (8d6) crushing damage.

Easy Type D&D 3.5 Character Rules

2011-08-24T17:15:00.000-07:00

Thank you for planning on running a character in a game I am DMing. These rules simplify the Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 character creation process, and should let us focus on basics and getting to the actual playing of the game. These rules are heavily influenced by Zak S. quikie character generation rules.

We are using the 3.5 rules, which can be viewed at http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm

To create your character follow these steps:

1. Roll 4d6 six times, each time dropping the lowest die. Record the 6 values and place them, as you desire in the 6 attributes (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma)

2. Choose a Race, and note the benefits below:
Human: +1 to any stat, 30' move, Choose 1 Skill
Dwarf: +2 Con, -2 Cha, 25' move, +1 to Attack Goblins, +2 to Save vs. Spells, +4 AC vs Giants
Elf: +2 Dex, -2 Con, 30' move, Cast Sleep 1/day, Add Search, Proficient in Rapier
Half Orc: +2 Str, -2 Int, 30' move, Proficient in Great Axe
Halfling: +2 Dex, -2 Str, 25' move, +1 to all saves, +1 to Attack with Thrown, Add Stealth
Gnome: +2 Int, -2 Wis, 25' move, Cast Silent Image 1/day, 4 AC vs Giants

3. Choose a 3.5 Class (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/classes.htm). Note your BAB, Saves, and Special Abilities. Ignore skills and skill points.

4. If you are a Rogue, choose 4 of the following skills. If you are a Bard, Monk or Ranger, choose 1. If you are a Human, choose 1 additional. If your intelligence is 16 or higher, choose 1 additional.

Bardic Knowledge
Bluff
Climb
Disarm Device
Parley
Perception
Search
Spellcraft
Stealth
Thievery
Track
Tumble

4. Calculate Bonuses - Calculate your bonuses with Weapons (BAB + Stat) and Skills (Level + Stat). Stat bonuses are equal to +1 for every 2 points you exceed 10 (round down), or -1 for each 2 points you are below 10 (round up). At 1st level, you receive maximum hit points.

5. Ignore Feats. Choose spells, if necessary. Clerics and Druids can memorize any spells they would like from their spell list. Wizards must choose 3 known spells at 1st level. Add 1 armor, 2 weapons or shields, a dagger, a spellbook (if a wizard) and 10 gp worth of equipment from the SRD.

That should be all. We'll go over people's characters before we begin. Thanks,

Sam

20,000 Leagues

2011-08-09T15:59:00.000-07:00

So I've never read the famous Jules Verne novel, nor have I seen the more commonly experienced Disney film, and so much of my knowledge of this important piece of science fiction is composed entirely of hear say and speculation. In an attempt to correct this serious oversight, I finally began to read the novel earlier this month, and here are a few of the wildly mistaken assumptions I had made about the story.

1. First, I thought Nemo's submarine would descend to actually be 20,000 Leagues beneath the surface of the ocean. This would likely put the submarine actually in the Earth's crust. The 20,000 Leagues spoken of in the novel's title are 20,000 leagues at Professor Aronnax (our erstwhile narrator) travels with Captain Nemo while under the sea.

2. Second, I always imagined 20,000 Leagues as a sort of Moby Dick under the waves, with a giant squid replacing the whale. After 80 percent of the book, there's just no particularly antagontistic giant squid*. The closest part of the tale so far to a classic hunt across the seas is the opening, where Professor Aronnax and the American military hunt Captain Nemo's sub, which they suspect to be some sort of super-whale.

3. I am amzed by the volume of text taken up in a blow-by-blow recounting of the animal and vegetable species encountered by our erstwhile professor, their classifications, scientific names, and physical characteristics. If my memory worked any better than a pasta sieve, I would now know more about the (speculative?) flora and fauna of the Ocean floor than I would ever have any need to. As is, I have a much easier time classifying the many types of sea creatures I do know of now, and could probably explain to you the difference between a seal and a sea lion (really, appears to be all about the teeth vs. tusks).

4. Finally, the book's central story is almost exclusively about Captain Nemo, who he is, and why he does what he does - this is the mystery served to the reader, wrapped around a travelogue of the Ocean. The key plot point that has been on tap since the first section is: when will Aronnax and his companions escape? And since one can tell from the makeup of the novel that once they do, it will be all over, I have become a reader rooting hard against the (theoretical) protagonist characters of the novel.

This final point is, actually, the aspect of the book I am enjoying the most. Verne positions the narrator as a man who is trapped, and who sees his companions wisdom when they speak of escape fro Nemo's wonderful ship, but who is drawn by the knowledge and wonder available to him to ignore his better senses and reason. Verne carefully puts the reader in the exact same situation, and thereby makes a passive and potentially uninteresting narrator someone the reader can connect with in a deep way, and whose struggles carry a great deal of meaning. Reminded me of all the fun things you can do with a narrator, other than just making him or her unreliable.

*POST UPDATE - I totally ran into the giant squid once I hit the last tenth of the novel. The point still stands, but the giant, evil quid (devilfish) is totally in the novel.

Systemic Stories

2011-07-26T16:39:00.000-07:00

Found an old Choose Your Own Adventure in the bookstore underneath my office building the other day. It's from late in the series run, with a number well over 100, and is clearly after the writers had mastered the form, and well into when the writers were bored with the form.

Reading it again has reminded me why I always felt that the Choose Your Own Adventure books were pretty limited as entertainment - there is no logical system to determine whether or not you will succeed, or that will help you predict results. The Choose Your Own Adventure books are essentially large branched narratives - and the pleasure of them is exploring all of the nodes, and seeing the many possibilities, not figuring out how to reach a specific ending. This is clearly detectable in the very late entries in the series where the writers start to experiment with the format, even going so far as to include 'cheater's' endings which could only be found by leafing through the book - there was no way to reach those endings by navigating the book as expected.

I preferred the Lone Wolf books, and a series that escapes my memory at the moment that actually pitted two book equipped players against one another. Both of these series included mechanical systems whereby your player could use certain skills, items, or actions to influence the outcome of a choice. Players choosing options well suited to the task, that they had bonuses or advantages with would perform, on the whole, better. Very simple, and actually not the point I'm coming around to making, but something that remains very true for me.

When I am exploring a system as opposed to a place, I want to be able to poke the system and see what happens - I need access to levers or knobs, or inputs of some type, and then I desire to see how fiddling with different knobs will affect the outcomes of the system. In a broad sense, a Choose Your Own Adventure book can function this way, but in this case, every decision point is a different knob, and many knobs are totally non-pertinent to each specific outcome. The large number of knobs and difficult to parse interrelatability make that system much more difficult for me to explore, and therefore less interesting. Where a Choose Your Own Adventure book works well is as a way to explore a place or event - it gives you paths into the many different nooks and crannies of a story, without concern about probabilities, realism, etc - it makes it easy to tour those nodes or events, without providing any information about how they work.

So, I am wondering what it would look like to write a story about a system. To follow the logic above, a traditional piece of fiction gives a reader a guided tour of a place, time, or story - and that generally matches my personal expectation for a novel, and what I think I get out of a novel. So what interests me today is how I would write a piece of traditional fiction that did that for a system, instead of a story. Or perhaps, more interestingly, viewed its story as a system. Is a system even interesting if you, the reader, have no control over which levers and knobs are turned? Is that the same as asking why folks like on-rails storytelling video games? I think the two things could be different, but I am unsure on what that piece of fiction would look like. Off to do more thinking.

I call bullshit

2011-07-07T18:06:00.000-07:00

I was going to update this once a week, so as I had a place to work out small ideas, and as a sort of healthy rigor thing, and then today has been epically shitty. So, no post today. But I will get something up tomorrow.

Thinking about Classes

2011-06-30T17:53:00.000-07:00

So, today's post is going to be just a little ranting and raving about classes in tabletop RPGs.

Classes are, and have been, a major system and method for implementing character advancement and differentiation in RPGs. Starting with Chainmail and early D&D, classes defined different character roles, abilities, and archetypes. I've been reading a bunch of the Old School D&D blogs recently, while also casting back into my library of late 70's/early 80's tabletop games, and thinking about what classes mean, and how they have changed.

In some modern systems (D&D 4E is a good example) the distinctions between the functionality of classes has all but disappeared, leaving class to define the flavor of you character - not WHAT he can do, but more generally HOW he does it, whether with magic, faith, etc. This has certainly led to a leading criticism of 4E, which is that all of the classes are basically the same. However 4E also includes the concepts of character roles, generally imported from MMORPGs and more tactically oriented table games, which means these modern classes may primarily function as skins for similar abilities, but each class has been placed into one of four broader baskets which define WHAT the character chooses to do and is best at - what role he plays in the group when in combat, and to a lesser extent, in roleplay and adventuring.

This topic is rife in the OSDD blogs at the moment, with a lot of great discussion about what a class can and should be, and different ways of looking at classes and how to define them. Check out particularly - The Nine and Thirty Kingdoms, which has an ongoing discussion of class archetypes and examines them in literature and tries to define simple broad characteristics. This partially is to serve the old school commandements of simplicity and restricted character power (encouraging players to creatively use a limited set of abilities or powers rather than to amass a list of powers which are fired off one by one).

I am not, necessarily, an old school only kind of a guy, and actually like some of the power-gaming and more detailed character creation that has come from modern tabletop games. But I think the impulse to define a classes capabilities in a short, clear way is a strong assist to roleplayers at the table, and I think the impulse to have a class cover the role or the what a character does in the game in good.

I'm, therefore, currently playing with the idea of using classes to match to play styles - starting with a very simple set of classes taht resemblt the basic 4, and letting each one's abilities be defined by how the player likes to engage in the game - are they interested in overwhelming enemies with pure physical might, or do they prefer tactical battles where they take advantage of unfair situations. Is the player focused on acquiring magical power and using knowledge to advance in the game, or would they rather harness creative inspiration and risk taking?

Some of this work is going into a project I'm working on at the moment, but I'm interested in what people think about the following four 'core' classes:

Warrior - Attains power through skill of arms, primarily uses equipment to fight monters and navigate the world around them. Defining factor is ability to study many different styles of fighting / use many different kinds of equipment and use the appropriate one for the situation.

Mage - Attains power through study, primarily uses magic to fight monsters and navigate the world around them. Defining factor is great flexibility with magic and the ability to touch deep magical reserves restricted from other characters.

Rogue - Attains power through practice, primarily uses skill and manipulation to fight monsters and navigate the world around them. Defining factor is the large resolution bonuses such characters gain when they can catch an opponent at a disadvantage, or create a disadvantage for an opponent.

Champion - Attains power through devotion to an ideal, primarily uses inspired actions and specially granted magical powers to fight monsters and navigate the world around them. Defining factor is the ability to pull of small miracles and stretch the use of their abilities into any situation that their devotion drives them to.

I know thats all a little vague, but you can see the kernels of the classics inside these archtypes, and hopefully how these classes are a little broader while still defining a clear role for the player at the table. These classes would be paired with another defining characteristic to form a complete character, who has both a role in the world, and a history and place to come from.

2011-06-30T12:22:00.001-07:00

This is an almost totally abandoned blog. Very sorry, friends and countrymen. I shall try to begin posting again soon. Sigh.

Bad Valve, No Biscuit

2009-04-02T15:46:00.000-07:00

Was at the Game Developer's Conference Last week - as usual, it was great fun - lots of neat sessions and talks, great people, and very interesting discussions and meetings. One of the most entertaining sessions each year is the Game Design Challenge - 3 designers are given a concept and asked to design games around them (not to implement, tho). Always provides some very interesting presentations. This year's challenge was to design a game about sex and autobiography - "My First Time." One of the participants was Kim Swift, a designer on Portal and a Valve employee. Except Valve forbid her from participating. Now, if I were a responsible journalist of any kind, I'd stop here. But, instead, on with groundless speculation!!!!

First though, let me make it clear that this is all groundless speculation from here forward. I have no idea why Valve said no, and no delicous insider information on how it went down. Nor do I intend any disrespect to Heather Kelley and Erin Robinson, who ably took Kim's place and won, nor to Steve Meretsky or Suika Haro, the other participating designers.

Lots of ideas were thrown out as to why Valve might have done this, but one in particular stuck in my craw. It is entirely possible that Valve forbid Kim from participating because Valve does not want a Valve emplyee to have a higher profile than Valve itself.

This is nonnsense. First, Kim's popularity will only serve Valve in the short run, and Kim is not likely to stay an employee of the copany forever. We are entering a point where Game D?esigners are going to become their own brands - as more pople grow up with games, more will want to make them, and their heros will inevitably be working designers - this is happening,a nd the smart move is to support and nurture this idea, and to support these designers. If Kim is happy with Valve as an employer, then she will naturally want to extend that relationship if and when she moves on to her own projects. Wouldn't Valve want Kim brinign future indie projects to the Steam platform first? Doesn't Valve want a high profile personality in games on theri sie rather than against them?

Second, Valve ahs been great recently at supporting indie work, marketing it heavily on Steam, and releasing some very non-traditional games through the platform. And, I love Left 4 Dead.

So I'm confused. But strongly encourage all companies out there to view their designers as precious above the line talent, and not as property. Support young, burgeoning designers to both promote the health of games in general and to win yourself allies and ambassadors to the public that will only become more necessary and valuable over the next dozen years. Game Designers should be Rock Stars, and its happening whether you want it that way or not.

So, here's what I was thinking

2009-03-12T22:32:00.001-07:00

I've been meaning to start blogging for years, I suppose, but time, the great devil always slips away fro me. But now I'm unemployed, and what the hell - I should apply myself constructively to anything. Mostly I'll post here when I have stray thoughts about storytelling, games, art, independent media or politics. Or if I see something really goddamn cool on the internets.

I'll also try to post updates about upcoming and ongoing independent festivals and media events. You, know, just to keep ya'll in the loop.

Cheerio, Pip Pip, and all that jazz.

SXSW Suggestions

2009-03-12T13:29:00.000-07:00

Alright. First things first. SXSW is just around the corner, and though, once again, I am completely incapable of attending, I've been slathering over the schedule for days now. Here's the things I would be sure to check out:

Music
This is just a small selection, I don't know most of the bands playing - but I'd imagine a bunch of them are awesome, but these are the ones i know are awesome:
M Ward
Camera Obscura
Decemberists
Andrew Bird
MC Frontalot
And you shall know us by the Trail of Dead
Cory Branan
Sage Francis

Film
Strongman - Wonderful docu about Stanless Steel, a professional strongman getting older. Don't Miss.
Music Video Block (Mister Novocaine, Jerk It) - I've seen about half of these videos, and those two are my favs, but this block is probably a don't miss.
Reel Shorts 1 (That’s My Majesty) - Very Good short, playing with several others I haven't seen and a few I have. Should be a nice selection of short film.
Midnight Shorts (I Live In The Woods) - This short is hilarious. Rest of the block looks intriguing, but I don't know most of it...
Adventureland - Mottola's new flick. Should be funny.
Little Dizzle - Missed it at Sundance, heard great things.
Slammin Salmon - New Broken Lizard film. Very Funny.
Make-out with Violence - Intriguing title and description. Filmmakers have done good work in past, but otherwise I know nothing about it....
It Came From Kuchar - Solid docu about B Movie makers. Great characters, fun subject.
Dungeon Masters - Docu about Pen and Paper gamers.

Interactive
Being Indie and Successful in the Games Industry - Awesome indie developers.
Marketing Meets New Media: Building Your Audience Online - some interesting folks talking about marketing. I hate marketing, but as such, should go to more of these things. Also Burnie Burns and Kos on the same panel? Weird.
Funologists Live and In Person: Guerilla Game Research - Tracy Fullerton is AWESOME.
What we can learn from Games - Henry Jenkins is clever.
The BBC, Six to Start and ARGs : Bringing TV to the Web - I'm fascinated by mixed-media storytelling, and the BBC did a bunch of clever things over the past year.
New Interfaces for Performance - Ummm. I like virtual performance.
Bruce Sterling Session - Actually, I wouldn't go to this, but if you've never seen him talk, well, you should go.

Times and such are all on the schedule. And descriptions.