Do you as the GM have obligations?

Not too long ago we talked on our podcast with Swedish rpg luminary Anders Björkelid. He and his friends in the rpg club NisseNytt toured conventions with massive well researched scenarios, and published their fanzine where they pontificated upon our hobby. Anders summarized their attitude to scenario design, and their modus operandi as (paraphrased) "every player deserves an experience and a story, regardless of what they do". This I remembered when I read LotFP last week. James Raggi mentioned something similar, but with the opposite intention. He claims the GM have no obligations to the players. If they complain about being bored you ought to say "Yeah, so what are you going to do about it?"

So, do you have an obligation to the players, or not?

I find the idea quite compelling if I go to a con and sign up and pay for a game to be guaranteed a story. If I am proactive and engage I will have fun, but even if I sit back and have a day when I just want to hang out and see what happens, something still happens!

On the other hand, I know that a game where the players are engaged will be more fun, and it will be easier to run for me if the players are there as co-creators. Maybe we even share narrative control, and it will be more of a interactive storytelling.

Interactive storytelling is actually one of the key words for what NisseNytt was all about. So how does this tie together?

I think you as a GM do have an obligation to the players. But, I also think as a player you have an obligation to engage in the game.  Middle of the road, wishy washy conclusion, eh?

Have you, dear reader, read any of the Play Dirty GM advice by John Wick? If you have not, I suggest you do. John is sometimes very polarizing, but he is seldom boring. His way of GMing is all about bringing stuff to the players. But, it's not at all holding hands and telling a story. No, he suggest you hurt the PCs as much as you can, and kick them while they are down. "They will love you for it", he claims. I guess you could say John Wick argues you have an obligation to make life tough for the player characters, so to sweeten the final victory.

Obviously, there are more than one way to skin this particular cat.

Maybe this in one of the reasons role playing games are such a powerful tool too express yourself through. It's adaptable to multiple approaches, and none are wrong. I have played in a NisseNytt scenario where I knew there was a story going on, and for me the big thing was to follow along to participate through the viewpoint of my character. I've also played with James Raggi, where he sat back and watched us squirm after presenting us with a extremely messy situation we as players had to sort out as our PCs. Finally, I've also played a session of Dogs in the Vineyard where the game master put me, the player, under more and more pressure to act with my PC as the situation we had become part of spiralled out of control as it began to emotionally engage us as players just as much as our PCs. I was down, and the kicks kept coming.

I loved all of those situations. So, ask yourself this the next time you sit down behind the GM screen. Do you have an obligation to the players this time?

Good News - Wilderness arrives!

Does this look awesome or what?

I have now contributed funding for two projects related to John Wick's Houses of the Blooded, and both have been great.

Wilderness suffered a bit because the person doing the layout was in an accident and while she would survive it was a clear setback to the project. Now, John is on top of things and could muster another do finalize things. The result is amazing.

Now when it's becoming clear that more and more projects don't deliver, I'm saying that John Wick and his associates will keep getting my money. He delivers. Thanks John, Jesse and everyone else involved!

New book for Houses of the blooded!

Yesterday I noted that there is a plan for a supplement to John Wick's Houses of the Blooded game. I haven't managed to get a group together to play the game yet, but it is a great read, and I have learned a few GM tricks from that book.

So, take a peek at Coronets but Never Crowns! How about chucking in a few bucks if it takes your fancy? I already did.

What's the probability? AEG knows!

Remember the last post? I did find something yesterday that made me want to post a follow up.

Have you scratched your head about dice pool based systems? Those really drive me crazy when it comes to probabilities.

When AEG once printed the Game Masters' Guide to 7th Sea, designed by John Wick, they included something really nice, a table of probabilities.

If you own a copy of the GMG, turn to page 203 and you'll see the probabilities of reaching the different Target Numbers with different sized dice pools.

A big Thank You! to AEG for that table!

I wish every game designer included such a table in their game.

Some thoughts on a Glen Cook novel

I might sound like a broken record (imagine how some youngsters wont understand that expression!), but I have once again been thinking about campaign frames, story and player influence.

Recently I finished a novel by Glen Cook, A Shadow of All Night Falling. It had a sad ending, where the fates of nations and individuals were intertwined. Some people sacrificed a lot and it wasn't very clear if they really got what they wanted. Now, imagine that happening in a rpg campaign.

As a GM you can set up the potential for this high drama. You can show the powers that be to your players by exposing them to NPC's and hope they interact enough to show the motives and the personality flaws of everyone involved. What you can't do is making the players take a stance. They might do, or they might not. Sure, you can set it all up so that they player characters have some emotional or other investment in a faction, but it's still not sure. Looking at that potential and not knowing if it will fizzle of not, I can understand the lure of heavy handed story railroading.

As I read that book I thought it would have been great to have been the player in a campaign that ended thus. I wonder if it can be done, nicely, in a way that I'd enjoy? I'm not sure. The John Wick game, Houses of the Blooded, tries to do that  by making the players help build the narrative and the intrigue. I guess that should help create some enthusiasm. Hmm.

Another take on a "D&D Endgame"

I've been thinking a bit about the idea of a sandbox. It is basically the idea that you give the players an area wherein they can shape things. Having read John Wick talk about player empowerment in his Houses of the Blooded, I'm amazed by the similiarities.

John isn't exactly old shool. He masterminded they metaplot for AEG when they published the Legend of the Five Rings and acompanying CCG. Talk about story trumphing player initiative.

But, in HotB, he talk alot about how players can, and should, take the part of the narrator. To shape things.

I realized that this is the sandbox ideal, in another form. There have been a lot of discussion about the "D&D endgame", and how there are or not rules supporting something of that kind. Now, look at HotB. It's a game where the players will rule a land, have servants, fight for resources, spy on foreign powers, make strategy and take decisions on how to manage their fief. Add to that game mechanic that actually support player the tools to shape things. Hand out points, currency, for the players to help set the things in motion.

Don't it sound like old and new are converging here? I think the main difference is that in the game John Wick designed there are game mechanic for what the old school think is a natural development.

Sure, that means it's less of a wide open toolbox, but John is upfront with his intentions. He explains that this is a game about one specific thing, and D&D never did that. On the other hand, many have theorized that D&D also are a game about something specific, like exploring. I happen to agree, and also think it's kind of cool to make it explicit and have game mechanic support your vision. I will just mention gold for xp again, since I think it's the idea in a nutshell.

Take a peek at what John Wick is doing. He is interesting.

How to define your game as the anti-D&D, very differently

For those of you who know about John Wick, and keep up with his designs, it's no news that his game Houses of the Blooded is intended to be his "anti D&D". Looking at the core story of Houses of the Blooded, it's crystal clear that this is not the same as in D&D. Maybe John did have managed to design the "anti D&D". I'm going to talk more about that game at a later date, since John is a smart guy, and writes not only eloquently about game mastering advice, he also writes a lot. Not only that. He also writes about player advice. Like I said, I'll get back to that at a later date. Keep watching this blog! Now I'm going to talk about Old School, and anti-D&D.

There is a game, called The Burning Wheel which I long have been curios about. Thanks to a dear friend who lent me his copy, I have read most of it, and feel like I can talk about it a bit more. BW is designed by Luke Crane, and if you have ever listened to a podcast with (or met him) Luke, you know he is a passionated individual! When you visit the BW web page, the title of the page say "Fight For What You Believe". Ok.

Most of us have hear scary stories about this or that game, how crunchy it is, and how hardcore those people are that play it. BW is that game. Even though much of it is written in a chatty tone, it clear that this is a game designed with the idea that everything is taken care of the rules. As soon as you do anything, like expressing feelings or acting "in character", there are rules for rewarding, managing and otherwise just handle the situation. I realize I'm not making this sound very fun, but Luke is a very talented individual, and you realize that this game is a machine of cogs and wheels that works together like a machine, and a machine of sublime beauty.

I did say I was going to talk about Old School, wasn't I? Ok. Most of you have probably heard by now that Back In The Old Days, dungeon masters were less constrained by rules, and had to fly by the seat of their pants. Mostly because the games were less about detailed rules for everything. While I have some problems with that view of history (have you seen a game from FGU? They sure are from the 1970-ies and they sure aren't New School. Not Rules Lite either, at all) there are some merit to that view of things. Also, since so many bloggers today can be found who find retro clones like S&W liberating, I guess authentic or not, rules lite is perceived as the preferred way of doing things.

Since so many people think everything start and end with D&D, let's indulge them a bit and take a look at D&D. Is it rules light? Well, if OD&D is, and AD&D is if you squint, then 3rd ed sure isn't and 4th ed probably not either. So if you want to make an anti-D&D, which one do you oppose? Well, I did talk about core stories in the beginning. Maybe we can say that that element have been consistent throughout all editions. I think it might be true. Then Houses of the Blooded is the anti-D&D, no question about it.

If the true heart and soul of D&D is the rules light game about exploration of worlds of fantasy, then I think Burning Wheel must be the anti-D&D above all. It's about your character's believes and passions, screw the world. It's driven by rules and game mechanics while tell you how to act at every step. I'm pretty sure Luke didn't set out to design the anti-D&D, but maybe that was what he did.

Make no mistake, the surest way to make someone love your game is to be passionate about it. Would I love to play Burning Wheel? Right now? Cool! Would I love to play Houses of the Blooded? Sure! Old school D&D with rulings, and 1 hit point? Give it to me! I love how all these games are so furiously trying to be something different that "that game", and by that passion I get hooked, all the time, and buy a new game that I "have to" play at once. This is why I love this hobby.

The Indie RPG Awards voting for 2008 is on

I just saw a link on rpg.net that the Indie RPG Awards for 2008 is open for voting. Apparently I missed that there was a period when you could have suggested games for the award. For those who cheer every time some game from the OSR get screen time should be pleased to know that Mutant Future is nominated! Personally I'm happy I'm not eligible to vote, since both John Wick and Greg Stolze have games nominated. How do you pick between those two guys? Who knows, this might actually make me take a close look at Mutant Future.

I'm not a believer in James Mishler, the prophet

I guess a lot of you have read the discussions in the blogosphere lately where "experts" of all kind explain why the hobby industry is doomed, or not. It started when James Mishler laid down his version of things. Naturally people started arguing. This first post, percolated in my mind a bit before I decided what to make of it. Then he replied to some selected individuals and the points they brought up. Now it started to get interesting, since some of the people who replied are pretty thick in the middle of the actual production of games themselves. Now I just read his final word on the matter, and I'm not all that impressed.

Frankly, anyone who waves around words like Great Depression like James does need to chill. His knowledge of how to produce a RPG, and the steps needed and their relative costs, is probably ok. But, an expert on global economy he is not. His view of the greater economic trends is extremely limited, based entirely on the US and frankly something a publisher of books, magazines and games should keep away from. You think you know something about publishing games, being on the inside of the hobby for many years? I think you are right! You think that makes you an expert on macroeconomic problems? I don't think so.

So, would that damn the man? No, probably not. But, the fact that his analysis is really limited and he is obviously talking about things he isn't an expert on (unless he has unmentioned experience in politics and running a big company) makes you wonder how much he is off the mark.

Do I mean that everything James say is false? No, the sad fact is that most of what he say is probably correct. But, a while ago Joseph Goodman posted his analysis of how well D&D4 is selling, and is basically boiled down to "I know more than you since I have data to prove it, but I'm not making that data public". It's a situation most often reacted to by "Put up or shut up". Rightly, people were annoyed by his attitude. Now look at the attitude of James Mishler. He calls Gareth Skarka for "King of Snarks". Dude, who is being snarky now? If you want to be believed, scale back on the hyperbole.

Are roleplaying games to cheap? Well, considering how many hours of entertainment you get from a core rulebook they surely are. Since that is not a very convincing economic argument, how about this one. If the pay for the most well paid contributor to a game book is paid less than it takes to make a living, nobody is going to make a living out of writing game books. That's all there is to the whole debate. Now, you have to decide if you think it makes sense for people to expect to make a living out of writing for games.

How about pdf's then? Well, I've written already about the total cost of a pdf buy. I still stand by those conclusions that it makes little sense to buy a pdf for the prices you pay today if you have to foot the bill for printing yourself and get a less attractive product. You say that is intentional to make me buy the hardcopy book? I think the idea is flawed. Erik Mona and John Wick will soon have had core books out there for a deep discount. Time will tell how that pans out.

Fight on! How to make combat interesting

I've read more than once about Tunnels & Trolls that people think it's a neat game, but that they get tired of rolling buckets of dice and that the abstract combat system don't work well for them. I'm a bit surprised that the dice pool system is much of a problem, considering how popular that kind of game mechanic is, and also how easy it is to manage by some shortcuts. Today, though, I'm going to talk about the combat system, and how you can get it to sing. Note: these ideas work for any game system! If I get a bit rambling, bear with me and see if I might have some cools ideas in here after all.

In his very enjoyable book Play Dirty, author John Wick writes about a lot of cool things to use at the gaming table. Naturally, he also writes about combat. Some of the tricks he writes about, I'll show you here as well and talk about other stuff in the same vein. When I attended the Ad Astra convention in Toronto earlier this year I listened to a panel about how to write combat scenes. When reading Play Dirty I was reminded of that, since in that book John wrote the same thing those panelists said. First off, a real fight is quick. Real quick. I remember making fun of AD&D when I was younger, because the game turn was so ridiculously long but you only got one attack in! In T&T a combat turn by the book is two minutes. Obviously these games are not good aproximations of real combat. They don't need to be, but if you really want to end a combat quick, here's how to do it.

So, if all those game turns is just waiting for a killing blow, and all the circling and shuffling about is just wearing each other down, then let's go for the kill. So, let's feint and kick him in the groin or poke him in the eyes. Then, when he is down, kick him until he wont get up.

Feint – SR on DEX or LK. Why not take the average? Level? Well, I use the level of the dungeon as a general metric, but otherwise use his level, or MR/10 if no level is applicable. You're playing D&D? Roll as many d6 as the difference in level between you, add then and try to get under your DEX.

Groin kick – SR on LK or STR or maybe the average. You don't need to give him 2d6 Spite damage, just say he's out of the fight. In D&D you can call for an attack against a tougher AC and call it a day.

Poking eyes – Make a SR on SPD to see if your opponent manage to deflect your attack. You are going to do something in the middle of his field of vision, so it won't be easy. Say, level based on MR/10 with a bonus of +2? Maybe base it on his SPD/10 if he has one.

One thing to notice here is of course that T&T have a very cool mechanic, the Saving Roll, which can be used for anything. This is important so I'll say it again, it can be used for anything. I wonder if people who claim T&T combat is abstract and unengaging have understood that they can do anything. It's in the rules, pal! Let's get back to John Wick and Play Dirty again.

John notes one thing I find really spot on. He writes “Never let your players say, 'I roll to hit'. You know what they're doing, you want to know how they are doing it.” That's not only amusing, but also very true. Nobody will roll to miss, so why bother “rolling to hit”? So, following John, a DM should ask “where”, “how” and “when”. Good players will catch on, since you'll be giving them a bonus for each of those three. Imagine the three maneuvers mentioned above, but with a hefty bonus because the player said he was crouching down as if hit, kick out just as that other NPC/PC character shoved the target off balance (hey, if it's a minute or two it will happen all the time as people scuffle around). Beautyful and grim. Also, quite fun. All this about bonuses makes me want to bring up Wushu. In that game there are no penalties, only bonuses. I have read many games that talk about cool maneuvers, but they all have penalties. Not so in Wushu. The more cool stuff you say to try, the easier it is to succeed. Now, I fully understand that not everyone wants their fantasy games to be like an over the top wuxia movie, but take a long hard look at the idea that you award stunts if you really want to spice up combat in your game. Penalties are telling the player "don't even try it, boy".

Now, you might not want to go that far, but there are still a few tricks left. One interesting suggestion from the panel at Ad Astra, was that since the fight will be very much waiting and then a few short blows before it's over, you have to make it interesting in some other way. The method that stuck in my brain was the idea that you can always describe the event from the viewpoint of another character. Since you only have one character as a player in a RPG, you'll have to make do with that. Try to describe you're next maneuver in combat by mentioning how you get caught up in the successful attack by the player before you in the initiative (or something like that). That player gets to shine once more and will hopefully reward you with some inspired narrative next turn where your character is in the spotlight. Make combat fun together. Having fun together is why we play roleplaying games, right? I would even suggest that if you treat them nice, you could probably borrow a creature from the Game Master if you promise to return them in decent shape. Go wild.

I'm not always very good at following my own advice in this post, but I'm trying and will see if I can't manage to collect some real life drama from my game table some time. Oh, and buy John's book!

Fight on!