Gaming Wants: #RPGaDAY2020 10

Today's #RPGaDAY2020 prompt is

Want

What do I want? (GAMING when do I want it a reasonable portion of my time)

This prompt has me thinking about what I actually want out of gaming. Kind of as a companion piece to an earlier post about how my approaches to gaming have changed in the past, maybe this one is about looking to the future. So, unordered:

A weekly game. There's something about the regularity, of meeting with the same friends in the same world week after week, that builds into something marvelous. And maybe this is only with a long-running campaign, or maybe weekly one-shots would work just as well. I think it's the high frequency that matters--I don't think its something that can be captured with an occasional pick-up game, or monthly. Maybe bi-weekly. Too bad that it's impossible to find a time that works for everyone as adults.

A healthy discourse. There was rpgnet and then G+, there was the Forge and Storygames, there's always been twitter (feels like), now there's the discord and The OSR Pit, but there's still no sensible critique, no teaching, no professionally-run recognition (did you see the ENnies??). This is an indie scene, people swirling around the same ideas and disagreeing, sometimes violently, and while that has advantages with a low barrier to entry and punk/zine/DIY aesthetic it also means that it's too easy for toxicity to just fester and for poison to spread and for good ideas to get lost and forgotten. There is building-work coming out tho, in multitudinous forms (did you see Anti-Sisyphus?? and the RPG Design Zine is so cool). I dunno, building a scene is hard. Ask me about magicians some time.

Interesting stories. There's a lot of different ways to get these, and I'm not sure I have a preference. Shared narrative control is just as cool to me as emergent story from gameplay, so OSR ideas can overlap with weird GMless improv exercises and both with everything else like bennie systems to Fate-ian aspect-calling. And what about baking the story into the system through genre-specific actions like PbtA playbooks or mechanics like Dread or even hard-coding characters and plot like Lady Blackbird? There's more than one way to bind a book.

Players who want to try new things. I think conditions have to be right for this, and they all involve the above three things. People who meet regularly, built trust together, and maybe want variety. Players need to feel they're not trying something too esoteric or toxic or otherwise off-putting, and maybe have a vague familiarity with alternate systems. And the game needs to be worth playing, by the resulting stories being fun/memorable/engaging.

What do you want?

Crooked Considerations: #RPGaDAY2020 7 - Couple

I've been doing the #RPGaDAY2020 daily blogging prompts, which this year come in the form of a dungeon map:

Today's prompt is

Couple

On and off over the past decade or so I've run a one-on-one game for my partner. I think the way an rpg plays with one GM and one PC is really fascinating and still an underexplored space. I've taken to calling them "duets", after a series of articles by Kirk Johnson-Weider on RPGnet several years ago.

Part of what is really interesting about duets is the close relationship you build during play. The focus is always on the PC--there are no other players to share the spotlight! It demands full engagement from the single player throughout, and a singular focus from the GM. It is very easy to build attachements to characters when the player-GM relationship is that close, and that leads to some difficulties when gameplay is stopped by PC death or other incapacitation. I think it's what I was trying to capture when I wrote guiding principles for developing Crook and several started with "there is only one player". If the PC dies, there is nobody else to continue the adventure. Even if the player rolled up a new PC on the spot, how would that new PC get involved in an adventure that was driven by the unique narrative of the previous PC?

Most systems assume that there will be multiple PCs. This is a big deal when play is assumed to be heavily combat-based or co-operation based--D&D for example, but really in most RPGs that aren't narrative-led. One way to account for this is to simply adjust the difficulty level. D&D 3 and up has CR calculations that can help; the OSR has Scarlet Heroes' clever way of translating ranges of damage into single digits based on hit dice. It also has the "fray die", which essentially gives the PC a way to taking out low-level baddies each turn for free. This generalizes into giving the PC extra powers, or increasing their power level. Heck, you could just "cheat" and give the player multiple PCs to control, or hirelings and henchmen.

But what if you don't want to change the power dynamic of the PC compared to the game world? I think in general, out of an instinct for self-preservation, most PCs that are on their own will try to avoid combat or difficult team-based challenges. Solo PCs will avoid situations where they could be taken out of play through death or otherwise. And that's not just out of self-presevation, that's to keep the duet game going!

Now that's not to say that the threat of death can't still be omnipresent. Foolish actions can (and if you're playing in an OSR style, should) still lead to dire consequences. But if the PC will be avoiding mortal peril, how else can you bring conflict into the game? I think it can come from risk-reward decisions, moral choices, and consequences for actions which lead to new adventure opportunities. Situations where it's unclear what might happen, and where potential outcomes drive the story further. To borrow from several modern rpg systems, we want the PC to fail forward: failure shouldn't throw up a wall that stops them from continuing, but it could throw up an alternate, more difficult, path.

I think (to clarify my own thoughts here explicitly), I'm saying that "you die" is the same kind of play-blocking as "you fail to pick the lock".

So for Crook, I want to have something that avoids blocking, something that has specific rules for failing forward or success by degrees/with consequences. Something in the realm of games Powered by the Apocalypse and its progeny (Blades in the Dark for sure), or Mouse Guard. Fate Accelerated is quite good for this too! NB these are games where the player is given some more narrative agency over things external to the PC, but I don't think that's strictly necessary to have a mechanic that avoids blocking play upon failure.

SO: In Crook, failing means that things don't go the way the PC wanted (whether that's slightly or catastrophically), but the PC can die only if they really deserve it AND if the player agrees to it.

Improving the Geekosystem

Today's #RPGaDay2016 prompt is: what hobbies go well with RPGs?

Role-playing has always existed in a geeky ecosystem (a geekosystem?) alongside sci-fi, horror, and fantasy novels, comics and movies, as well as board games and video games. These are obviously great interests and hobbies for role players--not just because they're fun but I think specifically because they provide shared background knowledge. It's easy to underestimate the importance of making sure everyone at the table understands the genre conventions of the games we play. When your group all have a passing familiarity with Tolkeinesque fantasy, that's a lot of groundwork already done!

There are some less common hobbies that dovetail with roleplaying in a very satisfying way. For rules-lite or even GM-less games, I can't express enough how good it is to have a feel for improv. More and more I'm seeing crossover of improv comedy and theatre with RPGs, from the structured explorations of Nordic LARP to the celebrity/comedian players in show games like Tabletop and Harmonquest.

Now, these might be a little esoteric, but the basic principles of improv are so obviously applicable to role-playing in general I'm kind of surprised it's taken this long for people to realize it and start formalizing it in games (like Fiasco) and GMing advice (like in Graham Walmsley's excellent Play Unsafe).

Even a totally basic memory for the phrase "yes and" can, I believe, improve and transform your play. If there's one thing that trying improv as a hobby can give to roleplaying, it's this: accept what is offered, and build on it. Players will try to do things or make assumptions about the world. Roll with it! Make it hard and make it interesting, but accept it. The same goes for the players responding to the GM. Accept the GM's world as presented, and add to it. We don't have to contradict anything already established as important--play within the constraints you've set up yourselves! Improv as a hobby is great for anyone at the table--not just the GM.

A Character Reference

The final week of BrigadeCon's #RPGaDay2016 begins today. BrigadeCon is an online convention taking place at the end of October, and the RPG Brigade raises money for the Child's Play charity. If you'd like to give some games and toys to hospitalized kids, please consider registering and donating.

Today's #RPGaDay2016 prompt is: what makes for a good character?

This is a ridiculously huge question. It's easily the biggest of the prompts, considering that it's of interest to basically all of storytelling in general and not just roleplaying. Of course it is a key question for RPGs and comes up everywhere--just the other day Craig Dedrick posted on Gnome Stew about creating a character via a solo session.

To focus my answer, I want to riff on that a little: the player collaborating with the GM to create a PC. Craig suggests starting with a sketch of the PC when they're young and playing through key scenes of their life as they grow--sort of like a game of Microscope focused on just one character. As the PC grows up, the player and the GM adjust the PC's abilities and stats based on what's happened in their life. At the end of the process, you have a fully realized character.

This method of character creation has all sorts of handy side-effects. It allows the GM to build the PC directly into the setting, history, and plot of the game. It allows the player to tell the GM through play what they're interested in and what sort of a person the PC is. It ties the stats and abilities of the character to their backstory. It's quite a clever way to make character creation into actual gaming time that also ensures the PC exhibits some elements of good characters.

The first of those elements is consistency.

A good character fits into the world. This doesn't mean that the player can't be creative and play whatever they want, just that they need to tie the PC into the setting in a logical way. Eberron has Warforged because someone wanted to play robots in a fantasy setting, and it totally works. This does require both player and GM to be flexible--there is some negotiation involved in fitting a character concept into the game.

Internal consistency is also important. The PC's abilities and statistics should reflect their background and their current status. This could be as simple as ensuring your fighter has high Str, but it also includes the fighter with a high Int because they wanted to be a wizard but got bullied into being a fighter, as well as the aspects generated by having adventures with the other PCs in Fate's Phase Trio, and the Instincts and Beliefs that drive characters in the Burning Wheel.

Characters should -make sense-, by fitting into the game in a consistent way.

The second element is a clear goal.

A good character has something they want. It doesn't have to be complicated: maybe the adventurer just wants to acquire as much treasure as possible and retire in a lavish stronghold. Maybe the aging and grizzled warrior wants to die gloriously in battle. Maybe the PC wants to find his missing brother, or cure the townsfolk of lycanthropy, or become CEO of the company. The character's goals can be linked with their internal consistency as well--they want the things they want because of who they are and where they are.

The point is that PCs with clear goals allow the GM to create obstacles. If I know where you want to go, I can put things in the way. This is how grand adventures are generated--characters struggling to get what they want.

The third element is being active.

A good character actively tries to accomplish their goal. They want something and they are going to work to get it. There's not much point in making a PC who is going to stay home and wait around. Of course, they can be reluctant. Bilbo certainly didn't want to go on an adventure at first. Maybe the PC's goal is just to get back home. But the character needs to attempt to do things, not to just give up, otherwise there's no story.

A solid PC is part of the setting and has a personal history. They know what they want, and they try hard to get it. All of these elements are linked, and if they can be generated all in one go through collaboration with the GM, then all the better for the game.

I Have a Gift

Today's #RPGaDay2016 prompt is: what game are you most likely to give as a gift?

I don't think I've ever given a roleplaying game as a gift (unless board/card games with a strong narrative count, like the FFG LotR LCG). I've known enough gamers that it's not like I don't have anyone to whom I could gift an RPG. Perhaps taste in games is something so individual that it's even harder than usual to determine what gift to give. After all, you don't want to give someone a gift they don't want--or that they already have. If a friend is interested enough in roleplaying that giving them a sourcebook or a core rulebook would be sensible, they might already have it somewhere--or they specifically don't have it because they're not into it. It amplifies the natural difficulty with gift-giving (which I obviously also overthink).

However, this changes when there's no money involved. If I don't have to buy the game, the risk of somehow "getting it wrong" is diminished. There's so many cool games and supplements available for free, and it's fun to share them. I find myself evangelizing certain systems because of cool setting details or an interesting mechanic, and I'll send people a copy of the PDF or a link to the SRD. I don't know if that counts as a gift, but it feels like the spirit is the same: hey, I think you'd like this!

As specificity is the soul of narrative: the games I send to people most often are probably Fate (usually to show people how cool the Phase Trio is, or to pick out some interesting advice from the System Toolkit) and Lasers & Feelings (because it's just so small and silly and perfect). Hey--you should try them out!

There's Only One Old Faithful

Today's #RPGaDay2016 prompt is: what was your group's funniest rule misinterpretation?

I don't know if this says more about my memory or my gaming group, but I'm struggling to think of any rules misinterpretations that we didn't just correct or handwave.

Most of the funny misinterpretations I can recall are like the Dread Gazebo; where there's a miscommunication or lack of understanding between GM and players. Sometimes it's just a simple slip-up that we latch onto and use to mess with the person making the error. We tried playing Rifts once, and the GM had pre-written character sheets for us rather than make us go through the agony of generating Rifts characters ourselves. His hasty writing was difficult to read, and amongst our belongings were a "snipper rifle" and a "geiser counter". Obviously these became a running gag, and items that showed up in other games. All part of the rich tapestry of shared references for nerd social cohesion.

The Weirding

Today's #RPGaDay2016 prompt is: Your dream team of people you used to game with.

I had a group of friends I made during university, and we would game together nearly every week for five years. When I moved to England for grad school, the amount of gaming significantly dropped--I'm lucky if I can play a one-shot once every four months. I miss just seeing my friends weekly, let alone gaming with them.

In the first week of university, I knew nobody. My experience with gaming was mostly PC adventure games and Magic: the Gathering, with a few gamebooks and an AD&D introductory box set I played with my little brother maybe twice. In the common room of my dormitory, I saw some people sitting around with some books, dice, and a DM screen. I came in and sat down and just watched for a bit, like a weirdo. I asked if I could join in, and they said yes. If they thought I was weird for just watching them play, it didn't show. Turns out, they were all weird too. I had found my people.

Over the next few years about half of the gaming group would become my roommates, in one apartment or another. I'd stay up til 4 am with them, individually, talking bullshit and games and life. We'd GM campaigns for everyone in each other's apartments. I'd meet my romantic partner in one of these campaigns.

I can't even imagine how much of my life has been shaped by sitting down in the common room because I spotted some dice and a DM screen. I love each and every single person I've gamed with because of that, and I'd love to play with all of them again.

Off on the Right Foot

Today's #RPGaDay2016 prompt is: What makes a successful campaign?

Boy, I guess they got tired of the softball questions! I'm just going to come right out and say that there is no one correct answer. Reams and reams have been written on this and I don't think we're going to come to a consensus.

However...

I think it's crucial to get the first session right. That means in-game and out-of-game.

In-game, the PCs need to be tied together in a way that motivates them to work as a team -and- to go out into the world and help each other with their problems. This needs to be more than "you meet in a tavern and already know each other". Why are you meeting and how do you know each other? It can be built into the system, like the way Fate character generation has players create aspects that tie the PCs together (for example by guest-starring in each others' past adventures in Spirit of the Century). Or it could be part of the story: uniting the PCs through a faction (maybe they all work in the same guild), or through a common problem. I started my urban horror game The City by having all the PCs share a horrifying experience.  After a crowd of hundreds of people around them all collapsed and they were the only ones left conscious, they were transported into an alternate dimension full of booming voices that threatened them, and left each PC with a forehead mark that only the other PCs could see. That pretty much guarantees party cohesion for at least a few sessions. Tying the players together isn't that hard and I think it's a crucial step to player buy-in--and buy-in, ultimately, is what keeps campaigns going.

Out-of-game elements are just as (if not more!) important towards buy-in. A Session Zero might be the way, or bankuei's Same Page Tool, or any other variation of the social contract. The point is to make sure all the players agree on details like the level of commitment to playing regularly, what genre conventions should be followed, and understanding what content is ok or not ok. This also involves finding out if the players are actually into the proposed system and setting and playstyle--and if not, collaborating to find a combo that works for everyone. It might be possible to do this implicitly by playing with a gaming group of peers that you know really well already, outside of gaming alone. However, making at least some elements of the social contract explicit will always help, especially if you have a diverse group of players.

I have a feeling that I'm going to be harping on about buy-in a LOT here. I genuinely believe that no campaign will last without it, so we should try to get it right.

Fragile Crystalline Structure

Today's #RPGaDay2016 prompt is: Which gamer most affected the way you play?

This is kind of a tricky one. When I'm a player, I tend to hang back and just enjoy the gaming ambience. I like to explore the world the GM creates and see what crazy stuff the other PCs do. As far as I know I didn't pick this up from any specific gamer. I suspect I'm hardly alone; most players figure out how to play as they go, picking up cues and behaviours from their formative gaming groups.

This is -weird-. There's a staggering amount of information on good GMing, and there's a fairly regular interest in classifying types of players and researching gamer personalities. But I've seen little on what we can learn from specific players, or on how to be a good player in general. In fact the only thing I can think of offhand is Grant Howitt's piece. And somehow, roleplayers cobble together a feel for how gaming works.

So if we don't learn how to play by modelling good behaviour, how do we learn? Well, maybe we all learn from -bad- play. As a gaming group coheres socially, part of that process is figuring out what doesn't work and what isn't acceptable, gradually and intuitively, from each others' mistakes.

I played in a game once that lasted maybe three sessions. The three players had strong and divisive personalities, and the GM was not yet practiced at maintaining the peace. The game world was a detailed homebrew fantasy setting, with kingdoms and economies and a unique pantheon and such. One player spent gaming time poking holes and criticising the world building. We managed to play through an adventure fine, but the atmosphere was less fun than it could have been, as we would often argue about some setting detail.

It came to a head when the GM explained that the currency in this kingdom was crystals. The nit-picking player started criticising this, and then explained how he was going to use low-level spells to destroy as much crystal as possible, with the specific intention of destabilizing the economy to prove how stupid crystal currency is. The argument between him and the GM raged to the point where the third player and I had our characters commit suicide. Total game meltdown.

I'm not sure I -learned- it from that game, but it solidified for me that buy-in to the setting is up to the player. It is -more fun- to accept the world on its own terms and explore, rather than try to destroy it from within with some kind of reductio ad absurdum apocalypse.

The behaviour of that player also influenced my thoughts on GMing--I have an intuition that making too many setting details is dangerous, either because of inconsistency or more likely because they misdirect players away from stuff that actually matters. Today I really like to give players input into the setting so that they can actively contribute rather than simply discover what I've come up with. It's possibly contradictory, but I think the same intuition drives the way I play, of just taking the GM's setting on board as-is, for better or worse. The play experience at that table, how one player just not giving a shit destroyed the game, shows how important buy-in can be.

Better Late than Never

RPGaDay 2016 has been going on for more than a week already, but I'll jump on the bandwagon. This year it's being hosted by BrigadeCon, so check their site for more details and the full list of questions.

Today's #RPGaDay question: Largest in-game surprise you have experienced?

About a decade ago I was GMing an urban campaign using d20 Modern, with dark fantasy, near-future sci-fi, conspiracy and horror themes. It's not as grimdark-serious as it sounds--often I'd twist up genre conventions to mess with the tone. Also, my players knew when to open the release valve, so often we had moments of genuine comic relief.

During one session, the PCs headed to the laboratory of a mad scientist NPC who was one of the few people they could trust. He was nowhere to be found, and was possibly in danger. During this moment of tension, the PCs started searching--investigating other rooms, looking for notes or other clues, checking in the supply closet. A player cracked: "and then he jumps out and yells "SUPPLIES!"

We laughed pretty hard. I'm pretty sure someone did a spit-take. It was spontaneous and unexpected, and worked a lot better than the joke originally did in UHF. Thank goodness for players that are that switched-on! The City campaign lasted for about three years, and taught me a lot about GMing and engaging with players.