Random RPG Thoughts #17: Railroading and Capture Scenes

Recently my first OSR-experiment was reviewed, a story-telling dungeon adventure based on the original Haunted Keep dungeon. The reviewer, Bryce, frankly did not know what to make of it, loving some parts and hating others. More specifically he hated “the railroady bits”.

At first I had to have a hard look, because I also “hate railroady bits”. So I was kind of baffled to be accused of inserting railroading in one of my own adventures. I even moved toward story-based gaming because I hated the lack of choice some GM's gave me. But Bryce was right, my first scene did look like railroading – the way he read it, and possibly also the way I wrote it. So what happened? I'm not sure, but it sure got me thinking about the railroad thing.

Being on the Losing End

During the scenario there are at least three occasions where the idea is that the heroes will (have to) be on the losing end of a confrontation. First their relatives are kidnapped before their eyes, secondly they may be locked in and have to consider help by a noble family dwelling underground, and thirdly they might be captured in true comic book style, to be gloated over by the arch-villain.

Now being on the losing end of a confrontation is not being railroaded per se. You might think so with the talk about play balance, and some players may seem to think so when they start to balk about not being able to win. In my view, “bad” railroading only starts to occur when the players feel they have lost control over where they want to go. Or not to go. Not just their characters have lost control, but the players have. Basically the players then feel nothing they do right will help to change the situation.

Notice that I'm not saying much about story, or keeping things on track. Players rarely balk about winning too easily. Although the better ones do. Instead, what I think bothers most of us, is the “losing” bit in losing control.

But Losing – and then getting back on top – can be Very Exciting

Regular movies, tv shows, comics and books are full of heroes losing out. In the starting scenes they may be overwhelmed, later on they may be captured, beaten, knocked down, and so on. In most shows, the upbeat ones, they win again later on.

Yet, in D&D this may prove to be harder to do. Typical heroes will be stacked with spells, armour and weapons, and may burn down any enemy before they can speak. So, capture attempts tend to evolve into all out, life or death fights. This is partly because the average player may expect a GM to punish signs of weakness severely. Shame if that's true (and it surely has been in my own games), because this way you miss out on a range of potential nail-biting moments.

So, what if you knew you could trust your GM?

Yeah right. To an extent I should trust my GM, to be fair. But I should also trust him to make trouble for me. Yet, suppose that you could also trust the GM to never bring you into an unfair situation, even if you were captured (or *&% forbid “railroaded”?)

Suppose you're overwhelmed, but you also know you can run away to live another day, then a no win confrontation is less bad. Most GM's will actually handle this well enough. Or, if you know you'll have the chance to later rescue the ones you saw being kidnapped, it's probably less bad. Or, more extreme, if you know that the villain captures you, but that the game master promises to help create a chance to let you escape, it's probably also less bad. It might even be fun, because you get a new kind of challenge.

No Direct or Indirect Harm shall be done through Forced In-Game Capture

There's no hard rule for this in OSR, maybe it's more of a story gaming thing, but you could make it one: THE GAME MASTER MAY LET NPC's CAPTURE ONE OR MORE PC's (under gunpoint, by knocking them out, lulling them to sleep, etc.), BUT SHOULD THEN LATER PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE (OBVIOUS) SERIOUS ESCAPE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE ANY REAL HARM IS DONE TO THE CAPTURED PC's. Naturally, pc's may still try to escape before capture, against all odds, but if they get hurt during this attempt, that's their own risk. The GM should carefully signal what kind of situation this is, of course.

Now, would this work? What do you think, out there? I'm sure going to give it a try.

Meanwhile, I'll also do a little rewrite of the scenes that looked too much like railroading, and update the module.

UPDATE: Shadow of the Haunted Keep was updated. It now should no longer contain "railroady bits". Or at least fewer of them :-)

Random RPG Thoughts #16: Gaming Shelves

James M. form Grognardia just started a meme I actually like. What's on your gaming shelves? It probably tells a lot about your gaming likes, dislikes, who and what you admire, and probably also what you'd like to play. And yet, you may have forgotten that this is so for your own shelves, just having left those books and games up there for so long. James has a lot of first edition D&D and AD&D - much what you'd expect, from him, or from Eric Holmes when he wrote Fantasy Role Playing Games in the early 1980s.

So what have I got? This is the top shelf:

And below it are some other shelves with Spirit of the Century, Arduin Grimoire, Maelstrom, Cyberpunk, and a host of other stuff. On the lowest shelf there's the bookcase boxes of Traveller, Runequest, and some very old ragged copies of oriental adventures, fiend folio and the like. And on top there's this :-)

So what does that say about me? ;-)

Random RPG Thoughts #15: World War I RPG

It's November 11th. At the 11th hour, this day 94 years ago, WWI ended for many countries. For some it did not. For some historians it was no more than the start of a twenty-one year armistice in a prolonged war between Germany and much of the rest of the world.

In my country we don't remember this day. My country (the Netherlands) was what is called neutral. All our direct neighbours, UK, Germany, and Belgium, all were in the Great War. They do remember.
And it always gets me thinking... could you capture the feel of this war in an enjoyable RPG?


Are you Serious? A WWI RPG??
Yep, I am. As far as I know, there is no successfull attempt at an WWI RPG as of yet. Unless you count Call of Cthulhu variants, where the battlefields are infested with ghouls and unspeakable horrors of another kind. And you might argue that the Great War was highly un-enjoyable, and so not fit for a Role Playing Game.

Yet, we do have games about horror, we even have spying and post-apocalyptic military role playing games... why not a WWI RPG? It does not need to be pro-militarist at all. It could be pacifist in spirit.
Death rates might not have to be a problem either. They aren't in DCC, nor were they in old old school games, nor in CoC. A highly random death rate might even add to the fatalistic feel, combined with an "every day that we live counts" mentality. Your epitaph, or farewell letter might also work out as a special part of the character.

Experimental Storytelling in WWI?
You could even do the story backward. Start with the epitaph, then do the dying scene, then do what went on before, in scenes back to where the war started. It would demand a special sort of role playing, but if Pinter can do it in Betrayal, or Nolen can do something likewise in Memento, why couldn't we? Reverse story telling. And we as a player know how it will end.

Or another way to give it more connection is by introducing something like "the Angel of the Battlefield", where you as a player are an angel, following all sorts of souls during the war, each time up to their point of death. And when the die, you pass to another, perhaps even on another front, or at another point in the war. Or hey, maybe the hero you follow stays alive? That would be cool too.

I'm sure I'll get myself to writing it in due time. My question is, would any of you like it? Are you at least intrigued by the idea? Don't be shy. Let me know.

Random RPG Thoughts #14: Planning Shining Moments

Do you remember that one time that something worked real well for your character in a session, when everything went like a flow,  and you felt like everybody cheered? Remember when you finally defeated that nasty rival, or humiliated him back? Remember when you solved that puzzle unexpectedly? Or that time your sneaking action saved the day?

Those are examples of shining moments for players. As a GM you can have these as well, when you really surprise the players, have a scene that really has the players glued to their seats, or whenever you feel you're really making the game flow great.

Here's a thought I had today about shining moments. Usually we wait for them to happen.

Then, if you're good at spotting them, you'll expand on them, by using more description, and making these moments last longer. One Game Master friend I know is really good at this. He can really make his players shine. But I suspect he also just waits for them to happen.

I figured: we don't have to wait. We can plan them. Maybe we cannot force them to happen, but we can make sure, that there are specific opportunities, for each single player, to make them happen.

Three Possible Ways to make Shining Moments Happen
1. You can plan them. Especially if you play old school, you'll know that there are some things that only one character class can do. A thief is better at traps or stealing, a fighter at killing something, a mage at solving a puzzle with spells. Make sure ahead, that there is at least one occasion in your session, where each one character class can shine. Do that for every player character you have in your party.

If you're playing newer style, or if there is less differentiation in your party, find the areas where each player character is special and different from the others. Focus on that skill, or asset, and make sure it needs to be used somewhere in the adventure. And once such a moment happens, and the player picks up on this, build on it. If a hero does well, give it some extra power. If not, extend the moment and give extra rolls, make it a tense moment. Fudge the dice if necessary, embellish, make the moment longer.

2. You can make shining moments more probable, by making sure the player characters need each other. When players are dependent on each others actions for success, it's also more likely that a rescue action, or team action, becomes a shining moment.

3. You could have a non-player-character, specifically aimed at one of the player characters. It can be a rival, an enemy, a friend, an admirer, a lover, anything. Anything that helps to get the player hero to have special attention, and generate a special moment. The non-player-character could need a rescue for example, or a duel, or a very romantic moment, and so on.

How about you? Did you ever plan your shining moments? Did that work? Or do you only pick up on when they happen?

Random RPG Thoughts #12: Could Players Build their own Contacts?

While revamping the Samaris booklet, I tried to think up a way to make a sourcebook more interesting to players. In general source books, like modules and adventure kits are game master eyes only. Which means that all the effort you put into it only reaches about 15 to 20% of its potential audience - at least in the form you put it. Sure, a Game Master will translate what you think up, and make it into his or her adventure. Probably he or she will show the artwork, once it comes in handy. But otherwise it stays secret.

That's a shame, most of the time, I think.

Lost Processing Power in the Role Play Group

Which brings me to another area where energy is often lost. Most role playing games are structured like an old style single core processor. When multitasking, all programs have to wait for their turn to be processed by that single core. The same happens when players wait for the Game Master to hear what happens with their actions. Players have to wait a lot. Even with fast GMs. And even when they play out partial scenes with eachother while waiting for the GM response.

Also a shame most of the time...

Shifting Power to the Players

And then there was this poll on a recent blog (sorry, forgot who you were - let me know ;-) about who plays the Henchmen in a traditional dungeoneering group. Do the players play the henchmen, or does the GM do so. Or something in between? Now Contacts could also be considered to be sort of Henchmen. Sort of. Players could play their own contacts, at least to a degree.

Now you might say that part of the fun of contacts is that they provide role playing opportunity for the GM. But if you're like me, you'll have ample role playing opportunity anyway - and players could add some colour of their own. You could also co-play a contact with the player and decide what the contact does.

Alternatively, players could play eachothers contacts, based on simple game master instructions. Then you could have small scenes played out between players while the game master busies him or herself with other players. This can add a lot to the game, as is already kind of demonstrated in more theatrical live action role playing games. The NPC will become much more special if played by a player - in general.

Making the Setting Part of the Player's Responsibility

Going a step further, players could build their own contacts - or flesh out contacts suggested by the game master. The game master could give a few ground rules, and the player would actually make the contact as if it were a player character, with skills and background and all. At least where the player is concerned.

Then making a final step... players could flesh out contacts suggested by a sourcebook. When you as a player have to choose, say two or three contacts from a sourcebook, and have to flesh them out, then the sourcebook also becomes more fun to read. And it becomes legitimate to read the sourcebook too. (That's another thing, as sourcebooks may be well kept hidden from the players by jealous game masters).

Players would thus become cocreators of the setting too. Some GM-power would shift to the players. And the single-core processing model of role playing would shift a bit to multi-core processing.

So... the upcoming commercial Samaris sourcebook will have over a hundred potential contacts, to be fleshed out by the players. It's their town of adventure too! 

Random RPG Thoughts #11: How MegaDungeon is D&D's Underdark?

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was already waning for me when the Dungeoneers Survival Guide was published. We played several home brews by then, diverting more and more from 1E (first edition AD&D). A good friend bought the tome however, and we enede up flipping through the pages and thinking about its implications.

The rules were... a bit outdated for us already. We had moved to using skills earlier, based on RuneQuest. But to other players it was a sign that we probably were on the right track with skills, or that we could return to AD&D, because hey, now we had skills! Even if they were named "proficiencies". But there was something more intriguing about this book, except the bulk of rules and concepts we would never use.

A mega-mega Dungeon called Underdark

It was the idea of a huge underearth network. The Underdark. It was filled with whole peoples, cities, tribes, cultures, feuds, wars, wonder and treasure in a world wholly new. There lived Drow elves, mindflayers, and floating cities of Aboleth - whatever these were. It was a mega-mega-dungeon.

It wasn't mapped, we had to do that ourselves (some of us tried, cutting and pasting 3d geomorphs from photostats in the rear of the book). It wasn't layed out, or explained, we had to wait for years and several editions later before something more detailed came out. Sure it had been around as an implicit idea since 1978 in Vault of the Drow, but we never thought of it as a full setting. Now it glared at me and really sparked my imagination. A mega-mega-dungeon.

Now we didn't really have an idea what a mega-dungeon was at that time, in the mid-eighties. We couldn't fathom that it might be a real "thing" in a later movement called OSR. It just hit my fantasy cells, and I kept on thinking how cool it would be to run a mission down such a huge web of dungeons. As a player, that is. Because usually I was a Game Master, and still am.

Indiana Jones meets the Mosquito Coast

I figured I might play a Harrison Ford look alike, being a mix of Indiana Jones and the father in the Mosquito Coast - someone leading a mission (his family) so deep into unknown territory out of idealism, that he actually forgets who he has the ideals for, and ends up estranging his family instead. Even now, over twenty years later I wonder what it would have been if I could have played that character. Eventually I did play someone like it, named Alexander Mallory, but that was different.

We never did the deep earth exploring. Not even laying down a deep earth realm, much like Mordor, in our world Yaddrin, called Findath, did enough to really let it work. Bits and pieces, small forages, hit and run missions, one escape from its depths after a failed teleport. But no real attempt to hit into the heart of it. I guess we made the concept to scary and to unattractive to delve into.

Is it really a MegaDungeon, this Underdark, or What?

I'm not to sure if Underdark is a Mega-Dungeon. Giga-Dungeon is more appropriate, I guess. Probably people like Jovial Priest or James M. from Grognardia would know best. James is working on publishing his long awaited (judging from the pledges on his kickstarter!) Dwimmermount mega-dungeon, and that will probably be big - and unexpected and weird. Michael Curtis of Stonehell might know. What do you think? Does it qualify as the mother of all mega-dungeons? Or rather the mother of all giga-dungeons? Let me know.

Artwork thankfully borrowed from the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide: by Jeff Easley.

Random RPG Thoughts #10: Reincarnation in Role Playing

 Just read a nice practical piece on using Reincarnation in 4E by DMG 42. It's pretty good. Here the players actually cooked up a set of rules and convinced their game master to pre-roll their new characters they would eventually reincarnate into if they would die.
Nice twist.

About a year ago I did a series about how to use Reincarnation in your games for the Blog Carnival on Death, and I think it's still a beautiful area of exploration for your games - whether you remember past lives for yourself, or not. And whether you liked Battle Star Galactica with reincarnating Cylons or not.

So I figured I'd call your attention again to the series.

The Joys of Reincarnation deals with the more practical sides of working with reincarnation of (player) characters in your everyday campaigns. How do you go about it?

The Shock of Reincarnation deals with the role playing aspects. How does it feel to remember - and do you inherit the skills and memories of your previous incarnation? 

And The Secret of Reincarnation deals with integrating the concept in your campaign universe - how commonplace is the knowledge, are there brotherhoods or sisterhoods protecting the secret, does everyone reincarnate - or is it a freak magick thing?

Art: by me - the grand Duchess wakes with a shock from a Reincarnation bath

PS Rob Schwalb seems to have a nice post on this too, but I can't check that right now, as his site does not respond. Maybe by the time you read this, you can.

Random RPG Thoughts #9: Fooling around with Artwork

Figured this weekend that my new Dark Dungeon RPG Starter Set needs more artwork. If I go from 25 pages to 80 in lay out, while adding only some ten pages in text, I want more pictures.

So, I just fooled around a bit with some iconic art to make the basis of a drawing of my own... Cheers.

Random RPG Thoughts #8: Sharing Worlds in an MMO ain't easy...

“Help me! Help me!” The player shouted over the channel, and my sister in law quickly jumped into the fray. Except that there wasn't any. “Where are the monsters?” she panted, confused for a second. Then she realized. She'd already done this quest, so the world had changed for her. No monsters left for her to see. Invisible. She was on another timeline. “Looks like you're on your own” she said - “In MY world this town is already rescued. You have to kill the monster yourself.”

What?

What happened to my sister in law, was in an MMO, a computer moderated shared fantasy world. Although shared is a big word here, as it seems. Players can shout at one another, but the group effort was suddenly gone. Not so shared in this case. That was a change from before. Then you could always help eachother.

But before, though you could help eachother, the world never really changed. You could rescue a town as many times as you liked, because it would be threatened by the same monster again and again. Like trolls from a freezer, monsters and enemies were respawned everywhere. Maybe then the world was sort of shared, but you couldn't really change it.

C'mon, real sharing can't be that hard?

So why don't the programmers allow you to let one person win the quest, and let the others have bad luck, and have em rescue someone else? That's what they try in some other MMOs, my brother tells me. But the problem is, that people pay to play in an MMO, so they won't be pleased if there is nothing left to do because someone else was there first. So even in this other MMO, the evils do respawn, after a longer while.

That's the problem with shared worlds, preprogrammed ones at least. It seems to be very hard to really share them, and have a unique gaming experience for all players at the same time. So in practice you may end up playing alone, and just meeting in the lobby. Or you play in a world where you don't make a difference even if you are umpteenth level, because everything trollspawns after dying – including you yourself.

I don't know, but it looks like MMOs are in need of an other way of generating stories and quests. At least to capture my attention or limited spare time. Which may be possible. Just have to figure a way how.

How about Tabletop Sharing Games?

Most tabletoppers don't share their games with other Game Masters. With Dark Dungeon we did do so, for about fifteen years. Eventually we scattered again as core GMs got into real jobs or emigrated across the ponds. We didn't have paying customers, we didn't have quests everybody needed to do (although we tried), and we didn't have respawning monsters. But we did have similar problems.

Sharing the world and allow players to change the world - or even let all GMs change the world turned out to be scary. Most GMs didn't care to do world-shattering stuff. But those who did seemed to be unable to communicate or compromise on what would happen. Most of the time it went well enough (I guess I just overruled some of them), but at one point the older players became really frustrated. And that was because the younger players spawned all sorts of horrible creatures, armies and treasures where the older players had already saved and solved the world and wanted... well, to be seen as heroes. They didn't want a new spawn of monsters for a new groups. Or at least they wanted the same respect from the new players as they figured they had fought for in the old groups. And the new groups, they wanted respect too. That was less easy than it sounds.

So, sharing is something we seem to seek out. But also something that's hard to do.

Random RPG Thoughts #7: Ending the Sandbox

In recent discussion with a frustrated player, I figured that sandboxing may not just have points in favor. In fact, some players might even prefer a more linear game, at least some of the time. Because pure sandboxing has one major flaw. There is no built-in ending.

Those who have played MMOs, or Bethesda style “explore the world until you drop” style computer games might recognize this one. There is always another village to rescue, another enemy to blow away, another dungeon to explore, another treasure to loot, another creature to be slain by. Surely there may be small story arcs, quests, and even an overall theme. But typically there is no real epic ending which you would find in games like Fallout or Ultima Underworld. The goal of the game seems to be infinite growth. A bit like our capitalist economy. Infinite wealth and consumption, but no real fulfilment.

No really...

Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but most sandbox games have no set ending in mind. That's the whole point. A sandbox has the forte of having many possible paths to explore. The players choose which one, and that's what you start to develop and unfold as a Game Master. That's why I love sandboxing. You give the players so much more choice, and so much more possibility to go for what they like. They don't just pick their path to adventure, they can literally pick their own adventure.

However, when players cannot make choices, or when you give them too many options, a sandbox may result in a scattered unfocused game. Perhaps the players have taken on too many enemies at once, and they can't handle it. Perhaps as a game master you threw around so many clues that you yourself aren't sure to which subplot each clue belonged. Let alone that the players can still fathom what's happening around them, in such a case. When too many unfinished threads add up playing may seem futile. The sandbox game may then not only become rich with adventure, but also rich with frustration.

Solutions to curtail Neverending Story Sprawl?

How to avoid this? I'm not sure. Smart players will focus and choose their own objectives. If players talk with each other and agree on a course of action, the game will be good, if not great. It's also the responsibility of the player(s) to try to stay on track. And as a Game Master you try to help them.

Perhaps less focused players, or those susceptible to information overload need some more help. Choose for them. Give them stronger hints who is the enemy they should handle first. Choose the story arc for the session, or coming group of sessions, and lead them. The only thing is that smarter players, or ones more into the game, may be offended a bit. Or feel railroaded. That's what I found out.

In one session the loose plotlines seemed so out of reach of most players that I decided to tidy them up in a single session and just push the adventure into a final battle with the enemy. Most players seemed happy that they finally accomplished something in the mini-campaign. My wife was not amused however, and thought the adventure was a railroading experience. As a Game Master I was also slightly bored as I had the feeling I had to push the players forward. So, it seems solving the problem may at times be a trade off.

Various Players, Various Goals, Various Endings?

In addition, the frustrated player of the conversation I mentioned before, was not present at above session, and felt that his goals had not been met. As it turns out, he set different goals from the rest of the group. So, he actually would have needed another session to reach his own story climax – or ending. Which brings me to another point. Sandboxing allows different players to pursue different goals. But they'll also want different endings for these goals.

Conclusion for the moment: Ending a sandbox campaign means work. And... How to strike the perfect balance for all players between sandbox and linear... I'm not quite sure yet.

Random RPG Thoughts #6: How Psychopatic can Our Games Be?

This week, Breivik was first brought to court. He showed no remorse for the seemingly random bombing and shooting of over seventy victims in Norway last summer. In fact he said that what he did was the right thing to do from an ethnic and political perspective. Family members of the victims were rightfully not amused.

Now you could call Breivik a psychopath, or a sociopath. And he probably is, perhaps in addition to being extreme rightwing or a foreign secret agent with an extreme mission. Nobody goes out shooting like that. You just don't. Except when it's war. Or except... when it's a game.

When Zzzoom for the Spectrum came out you could also shoot at civilians. It didn't give you points, but they flew through the air in such a fun way that I couldn't resist shooting them. Naturally they were just bits and bytes. Later I played Carmageddon, and drove over poor grandmas with shopping carts. Bits and bytes, no more. More recently I played GTA III (I stopped there), and found that shooting hapless civies or driving over them was... something you just could do. And when you reached cheat mode, or were bored, you could climb on a rooftop and start shooting everyone in sight with your sniper rifle and scope. Bloody and sick. But even if the police helicopters came and suicide by cop was the only end to it, I'm sure I tried this more than once. Shooting civilians ad nauseum. Bits and bytes.

But if it were real, I would have been like Breivik, without a cause.

And I'm not by long the only one who played these games, or played them this way.

Table top roleplaying games sometimes have even more disturbing situations. No, let's say it differently. Most fantasy role players at one time or another must have stumbled on a goblin village, and burned it down. If they didn't do it for the experience points and the loot, they might even have done it for “the good cause”. That's almost like Breivik with a cause. Unless you call burning a goblin village an act of war, in which case it may be a straight war crime. You could also say its sociopathic.

I remember my players have done things like it, at least in our teens. Sure, a game is a game. And blowing off steam can be a good thing. You could even see this killing for the killing as a way of exploring possiblities. Thoughtful game masters have confronted me and fellow players with the moral consequences of killing. They confronted us with the victims, and the different sides and truths of a conflict. That was enlightening, and an experience I don't regret. I'm also very thankful for having it in a game world and not for real.

But to be honest, I've also seen a lot of senseless game killing without consequences. And also refraining from killing without consequences. When you think about it, and try to imagine the bits and bytes or fantasy creatures as in some way real... isn't that sad?

What kind of game do we play then? Do we feel inside like little Breiviks? Or like traumatized people from the horrors of a war? Do we? Why? Not all of us are players from former war zones. Are we?

Or are we just frustrated and bored? Or worse, is Breivik also just... frustrated and bored?

Pick #74: If you thought you knew Roleplaying, You probably don't know Jeepform

I didn't know about Jeepform. No monsters. Not necessarily. No violence. Not necessarily. No dungeon. Games about relationships. About love. About trauma. About connecting. About exploring possibilities.

Sounds vague? It sure did to me! It's a whole different approach to roleplaying than D&D, Traveller, Savage Worlds, Supers, or even World of Warcraft. It's more like a crossbreed between immersive chamber theater, theater sports, and psychological exploration.

Yes, you can tell many sorts of stories in Jeepform, another name for Freeform of the Jeeper group. It says the name derives from "they go by Jeep", which might mean that I could join with my own '92 Jeep Cherokee if I can get it running again, but maybe that's besides the point. Freeform games are focussed on having a story-role-playing experience, without many rules or dice in the usual way, but with one or more game masters that you trust. Games can be live action, or semi-live action, with players moving around several rooms while imagining the scenery, characters and events.

One game focusses on four Elvis impersonators going on a journey, with flashbacks and all. Another is a strange dream journey through Agnes' divorce and her memories, somewhat remniscent of Lars von Trier's Dogville. A game could be about anything. Some Jeepers also made games you can actually buy, like Under my Skin or Breaking the Ice, with somewhat adult relationship themes. But with a very different approach to telling the story.

It's different. It confuses me. And I'm mightily intrigued.

Random RPG Thoughts #5: Responding to Zak's Questions

Why not! Here's my 23 cents on Zak's Q.

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

 

Embedding the player characters in the world, giving them powerful positions with quite some responsibilities as well. Taking care they have families or friends, or both to care for, contacts who work with them, organisations that work for or with them. Makes the game completely different.

2. When was the last time you GMed?

 

Yesterday. I planned to go to a friend's birthday, but we were sort of snowed in. The session was somewhat unusual, as the player characters set up some embassies in other cities. Also they engaged a non player party of Romagnese warriors to act as their private vampyre hunter party. These hunters then were sent out to pester and exterminate some of their foes.

3. When was the last time you played?

 

Almost two weeks ago. I played the captain of an experimental sailing ship with what you might call limited warp capability. I started near Europe and ended up near New Zealand. My captain still has to find out. But the time before that was about a year and a half before that. I try to master at least a few times a month, but playing happens seldomly.

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

You find yourselves lying on the wet pavement, and have no idea who you are, or why, when sirens wail and sounds of gunfire come your way.

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

Think of what the non player characters and organisations are up to. Go to the toilet. Eat something. Or else stir up things by throwing in some action, or let one of their friendly NPC helpers say something helpful or odd.

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

High quisine, if possible. My wife is an excellent cook, and some of my players aren't bad either. Actually, I cook fairly well if I do, too.

7. Do you find GMing physically exhausting?

Usually I find it invigorating, except when we go on too long, in which case I need a lot of sleep afterwards. Sleep which may be hard to get once my daughters wake up at 0600.

8. What was the last interesting (to you, anyway) thing you remember a PC you were running doing?

 

Keeping my ships crew alert and courageous as we entered a rather scary warp gate.

 

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

 

If I'm lucky I am in sync with my players. But once in a while my serious mafia movie setting may turn into a silly comedy styled like Allo Allo or Blackadder. Usually the same couple of players who do that...

10. What do you do with goblins?

 

Seldomly use them. The closest thing I used recently is another version of orcs, where the orc women are in fact rather beautiful and hard to distinguish from straight humans.

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

 

The last? I turn about everything I find in history into gaming material! I think the last big thing was introducing a train and train tunnel into my fantasy campaign - which starts to evolve more and more into something steampunkish.

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

There must be zillions. But the first that comes up is how (this is 1985 or so!) sorceress Ben da Blop teleports over a chasm five foot wide, and rolls six consecutive ones on a d20. And a one is a fumble in our game. So I figured she teleported herself straight into the rock.

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

 

James M's 1000 suns on RPGNow. To see if I might buy it, as a Traveller fan. From my shelves I think it was the Talislanta hardcover. Still haven't played this Vancian style game, but think it's the most inspiring game book around.

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

Perfect? I think there are many great illustrators and illustrating styles. Actually I'd like my rulebooks with more pictures than rules sometimes. I'm not too thrilled by very graphic violence however. Most of the time.

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

Yes. Including nightmares. Or lasting moral dilemmas. Although that last one was perhaps a bit too heavy. Fortunally I also run quite a few lighter games.

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

Doing Tomb of Horrors. Loooooong ago.

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

Is that a live game or a table top game? Or a semi-live game? Best set up is a warm location, with good food, a big empty tabletop, and enough good chairs. Like a big kitchen table. And a place where the GM can sit at the short end of the table and see all players well.

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

Brothers in Arms squad based first person shooter, and Dungeons & Dragons. Or maybe the original Monopoly (and I don't mean the Parker brothers rip off, but the "Landlords Game" - look it up, it's really an amazing story! I'll write about it another time), and Call of Cthulhu.

19. If you had to think of the most disparate influences overall on your game, what would they be?

I think that's paranormal experiences like seeing ghosts or having past life memories on one side, at the very least as concepts, and real life history and economic crises on the other side. Maybe you can understand that real life ghosts (if you want to believe in that) fit well in a fantasy game. Economic crisis? Think of the immense debts Charles V of Habsburg incurred to get him elected as emperor. After that he had to go to war endlessly to pay off these debts, but of course... the wars only incurred more debt. My pcs try to unweave the tangled web foreign bankers and vampyres made for their emperor. That's my setting.

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

Players who make up their own plans and adventure goals, players who like real history, players who like acting, players who love knowing and learning things. Friends. A mix of women and men at the same table.

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

Many of my holiday frustrations end up in the game. Both situations and non player characters. Often if an NPC is really annoying, like the lady who refuses to let you go to the toilet because you're not a client, or the cops that stop you just to fine you for an extra fifty bucks because you don't have all day lighting on your vehicle... then my players know to ask if that's from my last vacations.

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

 

A role playing game that "normal people" would willingly play, as a parlour game. If possible, with the game master role passing from one player to the next in the same game. I guess I have to design it myself :-)

23. Is there anyone you know who you talk about RPGs with who doesn't play? How do those conversations go?

 

Yes, my parents. They're mightily intrigued. Still. Even if I'm a forty-something teenager now, and my parents are seventy-somethings. But I guess they still haven't got any idea how a game really goes.

Random RPG Thoughts #4: why cover art may be important after all

Look what caught my eye while clearing the living room of debris, after a playmobil playing session of my daughters and friends. See the semblance?

For those of you who are not versed in Dutch: the left book is a comic by Vandersteen, of the Suske & Wiske series. You might know them as Willy and Wanda, or Spike and Suzy. It's a very successful longstanding series, running in the hundreds. Which is outstanding for non-superhero stuff.

The right book you should all recognize. Or if not, it is the Moldvay Basic Dungeons & Dragons book, which drew in many players during the early 1980's.

Now why are the cover layouts so similar? And why, perhaps, is the success also similar?

Red is a color which alerts men more, at least when women dresses are concerned. Want to have better chances at seducing or alerting a man? Wear red. Maybe the same thing goes for book covers. Draw attention? Wear red! These two do.

And look at the boxed in comic style drawing! Both have an action scene - but by no means ultra-realistic.
Even the lettering has similar color and size. Both have a series number in a white roundel in the left had corner.

Go figure. I never noticed until I just mistook the left book for the right in the half dark.
Could it mean that prospective players might have been attracted because they thought they saw a new Suske & Wiske on the shelves, and had to have a look when they found out it was not?

That might open perspectives if you really really want to draw attention... Newsweek style covers, for example, or fave women' zine fronts. For an RPG.

I'm not sure what this means, but there's something here...

Random RPG Thoughts #3: Why is D&D so niche?

Dungeons & Dragons once was a huge hit amongst teenagers. And to some teenagers it still is. Except that some of them are now forty plus year old teenagers. Yet, certainly now in Europe, it is niche.

Science Fiction is a hit amongst many people, as a genre. Star Wars is one of the all time box office hits. But Science Fiction for people at large is... niche.

Fantasy is hot amongst teenagers. Lord of the Rings is an all time box office hit and a huge New Zealand mega production. Even the book it was based on is an all time hit, reluctantly admitted on literature lists in college. Bu fantasy as a genre is... niche.

Even since Harry Potter. Which is a brilliant concept coming of age series. Brilliant at least in the sense that Harry Potter and the novels grew in age with their audience. It thus gained a growing grown up audience. But even Harry Potter is a bit... niche. Mainstream niche perhaps. But nerdy niche.

Naturally, D&D and other typical role playing games are more niche than HP. Even since World of Warcraft - which is at least akin to tabletop role playing.

Most sensible grown ups will not come near the games. Why not?

Several reasons I guess. To name a few:

1. Typical RPG rules are way to complex, rulebooks are way to thick, and it appears to take a week long course to even start understanding the game. I suspect this is one of the most important put offs.

2. Typical RPG games look childish in a way, or simple minded. Mindless slaying of monsters and looting of treasure may seem a bit nerdy and adolescent.

3. Too few sexy women play the game. Including the typical party-going kind. This may have to do with reason #1. It may also have to do with reason #2. The game itself seems unsexy.

4. The competition element is unclear. Or at least the goal of the game is. This may be why How to Host a Murder games may not be so niche, even if they have small audiences too. There the goal for an evenings play is clearly set.


So, if you'd eliminate these points. Simple rules, less childish themes (and I do not mean adult themes instead), a sexier concept, and a clear goal for the evening. Would you entice a less niche audience?

I'd love to know!

Random RPG Thoughts #2: Do you need a Character Sheet?

Sometimes you only find out you need something once you don't have it with you.

Last weekend I was playing with a semi-regular group, but not at the regular location. I brought dice, including a smashing big one. I brought a ruleset, even though I rarely look at it during gaming. I brought my little webbook, with an adventure file of what we played before. I even had some jpegs of maps to use, just in case.

But I didn't bring character sheets. And my wife, usually the leading player, forgot her character booklet too. Now forgetting sheets isn't that uncommon. Some players always forget their sheets, and some write a new one for the same character each session. I don't really mind. I play a story style game, cinematic if I'm into it, and I rarely need exact stats. I mostly need a pretty solid idea of what a hero is like, and I'll wing their scores.

But to have a solid idea, you might actually need a character sheet. And I kind of forgot about that. My wife complained that she was running out of options because she forgot what this hero could do. Yeah, she knew about the few high, typical skills, but not about the many smaller ones that give flavor and extra options. Telepathy and Magickal Suggestion all right. But what else? This wasn't a regular character, you might guess.

And because she didn't know it well, neither did I as a GM. Options became a bit more narrow. Another player, who plays less often, and is a relative newbie suddenly realized that she also might be missing her character sheet. She had been playing a few sessions without a sheet already, because, well, she left it at home somewhere in an obscure place. Like in a dustbin or a box in the attic. Maybe that was why she was running out of options  sooner, and found herself sitting just waiting what came at her hero. Instead of taking action for herself.

Maybe she would have been less of a rookie player if she had looked at her skill list and background notes Maybe she'd say, hey, I have night vision! So I'll sneak around and have a look in near pitch dark! Or she might have used her history knowledge to see if she could tell about the allegiance of an older NPC. Or she might just have used another weapon.

I kind of forgot, and often thought that a character sheet may be stifling. I thought you don't really need one, and can let your imagination roam free. But maybe that's not (all) true. Maybe you do need a sheet with descriptors. A sheet with constraints, to actually spark your imagination.

How about you? Do you like to play with, or without a character sheet? Do you think a good game needs them? I'd like to know.

Random RPG Thoughts #1: The Long Tail

Seeing the plethora of OSR products, role playing zines, role playing games and both forae and blogs I wondered. Many products are free, a good number are good, a nice amount of them is inspiring, and there may even be nuggets in the less appealing product lines. There is enough to use in play for at least twelve lifetimes. I'm not going to play all this stuff. And who is? A few people for each supplement?

Is that worth all the hard work writing game stuff? Apart from that it might be fun to do?

There aren't many professionals out there who can make a living writing stuff for games. There is Pathfinder allright, but personally I think that's not the market I belong to. To play Pathfinder to me it seems you must be a human calculator with little else to do than amassing Paizo products. Sorry. There's a lot of good Pathfinder stuff I'm sure. But I'm past that sort of game - I just envy their very good artwork.

Theatrix or Amber? I never played them, but was always intrigued by the idea that you could go for story without dice or dungeon. Traveller I loved as an idea, Call of Cthulhu I play with my own ruleset now and then. And yes I play my own Dark Dungeon 2nd ed, for about twenty years now.

I'm also not yearning to play Hackmaster, for example, which is way to voluminous to me, like an Encyclopedia. There's many games like that. OSR? Yes, I appreciate the movement. Much so. But I'm not intending to get back to the mindless dungeon. Doodling maps, okay. Grinning at new monsters, yes. But playing a search and loot straight out? It has become like playing World of Warcraft without computer.

Which brings me back to my point. D&D sure hit a nerve when it first came out. But eventually the computer took over for this kind of game. With EQ, WoW, and so on. No live game master necessary. These computer games have the market now, once belonging to TSR.

But... there are other types of game. Ones you cannot play on computer. Ones you do need face to face vibes for. Ones with intelligent storylines. Ones with personal creativity and imagination - instead of just mindless blasting and marveling at impressive CGI. Ones closer to acting perhaps, or historic simulation. Or just games to play in your own head.

My question is, is there any real market for these games to be found? Apart from the dwindling number of gamers who once knew what it was like to play D&D? Is there a way to entice the huge group of Harry Potter fans to enjoy what we are enjoying?

Or are we forever confined to producing a plethora of products for a group of nostalgic men (and a few women) who live far away and apart? A group we can only reach through the long tail of the internet?




PS Because I'm doing the september short adventure challenge, I decided to postpone Ammersfurt adventures for a month. So you'll see the rest of the Ammersfurt series resuming in october, probably running until december.

PPS I decided that Saturday would be my day of for the september challenge. Next adventure will be tomorrow.