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?

Scenes and nuggets - the DGP way

Anyone remember the DGP "nuggets" system? It was back when GDW had handed over most of the development of their Traveller game to Joe Fugate and crew of DGP. They had been thinking on adventure design a bit. The result was that they designed adventures in the format of "nuggest", which were self contained scenes. I wrote about them once before in relation to campaign play of Battletech. Now I'm thinking of them again, for organizing your scenario in a more general sense.

Each nugget had some thing that would happen, some NPC you could talk to and a place to visit. The new thing was that DGP had sorted these in order, and told you which nugget had to go after the other. It was kind of like the solos, where you had forks in the road where you had to choose were to take the plot. I always thought these nuggets were a sweet idea, but I also never felt they worked as promised.

In Trail of Cthulhu the authors write about how to structure your adventure along a "spine" and then have branches off that tree. Core clues, those that are crucial for the mystery, are forming the spine of the adventure. I have not yet played much ToC, so I have no  solid opinion on how well that works. It doesn't read like it would work that well, but maybe it just puts into words what we have been doing all along. The thing is, this is what the nuggets DGP used reminds me of. I guess nobody is surprised that this idea was old.


Now I feel like pulling out some of those old Traveller books and taking a look at them with ToC in the back of my mind. For those who are interested in adventure design, it might be something worth studying. Identifying where you have choke points is very crucial if you want to make sure you don't limit your players, and maybe structuring your scenario in nuggets like that is a good way to find out the logical structure of your design? If you do that, you can then design where to break up the rails, and where to leave them in. I for one am going to take a look at those old nuggets again.

How to write adventures - stringing scenes together

I've posted before on my thoughts about scenes as the currency of gaming. This post is about how to use them to best effect. I'm not claiming to tell how it is, this are my thought right now, and will probably change.

Having scenes thought out, I think it's quite tempting to decide from the start which of your darlings you want to use, and what's going to happen. Especially the latter is tempting. If you "figure out" that they players will do B after doing A, you can be pretty sure that they will want to do C instead and will violently protest about that B you dangle in front of them. Don't do that. I at way to got at doing just that. So, how do you do?

I've tested out a few ways myself, and read about what others have done. I think that there are a few way to do scene based design without laying down the tracks. I think the best way is to have one opening scene, one scene with some kind of conclusion to the main conflict and in between you have the other scenes. If you introduce a threat in scene one, and put in some things that leads up to the conclusion or what brings the conflict to a head you can kind of have your cake, and eat it too. Say you have a bad guy planning to do a bad thing at a specific place at a specific time. Then it's fairly obvious which the concluding scene will be, and if the first scene is designed to involve the players you probably have your adventure right there. You could probably run that after just thinking about the supporting cast and some key locations, and after putting some stats to that you could improvise the rest.

My latest game, which we cancelled due to scheduling problems, was supposed to be some attempt in this vein. I had a starting scene introducing the action, and when a key event happened a NPC would show up, kill another NPC and then I'd let the law descend and see which way the player character jumped based on whom they had befriended before the murder. That way I hoped to tell a story, while giving the players the ability to steer most of the action. Key for me here would be that even if the players did nothing, I could make sure something happened, and if they did take the plot and run with it, I could just throw in that smoking gun and go along with the ride.

Wish me luck herding the cats back together and we might see if it worked!

Thinking more on my last CoC game

I have been thinking some more of my reactions to the latest CoC session. There was a time in the beginning of the session where the players where basically flailing about. They even said right out to me that they did not know what to do. It made me start to think I had to do something, and after some futzing around things did start to move again. Not in the "right" direction, it did start to move again. It did also manage to move in a direction that the characters did intersect with the major NPCs and the things that were going on, but that was another thing.

So, today I was catching up on some old email. I am, and have been for years, a subscriber to the Roleplaying Tips newletter from Johnn Four. Usually it contains at least some new nugget to use in a upcoming game, or something to file away in that GM folder of tricks.  This issue I had lying around had as a main feature a piece by some guy called James and he wrote something which made me think. Take a look at this:

  It is not the referee's job during a session to provide
  excitement for his playing group. His job is to administer
  the setting and resolve character actions. If the characters
  are taking no action and are not interacting with the
  setting, then the referee has literally nothing to do. The
  players are wasting his time.

What about that? Do you agree?

Often when I play RPGs, I'm the referee. That means that, potentially, I will more often than anyone else have "nothing to do". That sounds boring.

Now, I think many of you dear readers are well aware of the tenets of the so called "old ways". The games master is supposed to make rulings, present the players with meaningful choices and let the dice fall where they may. I can dig that. Well, I can dig that when I run fantasy, but I also dislike not having anything to do. I am there to play a game as well, after all. So, what to do, and why did I specifically mentioned running a fantasy game?

When I run a game of standard, or not so standard, fantasy I usually make shit up all the time. I once had a few NPCs have a totally unrelated fight in the background of a city while my players where debating what to do. Afterwards I got praise for that, since it made the game world feel real. Not everything revolved around the characters and their quest. That is where I think I can do the sandbox thing. I have enough experience to make up odd or mundane things for a fantasy setting. If the players are not entertaining me, I can entertain myself and maybe they follow along that path none of us knew existed.

Let's compare that with Call of Cthulhu. In CoC, there's usually a conspiracy or plot going on. Someone is going to grab an occult macguffin unless the players intervene, or someone is trying to summon some extra terrestial horror, and following some clues the characters might be able to figure that out and choose to stop them. Let's bring back that part about being bored.

In my last session of CoC, I was bored. I could try to steer the players back to the plot, basically railroading of some kind or another. That was never my intention. While it might be a slightly less dramatic way to end, a fizzle is an end as well. No, my problem was not that I needed to have my players go and actually talk to any of those named NPCs I had given them names and addresses to. No, they could do that or not, but if they did not they would miss some of the clues to the plot. I have ended scenarios before without players understanding things, so that was ok. What was not ok was that I wanted to throw in some things for the players do to, because I wanted something to do.

This is where I think I slightly disagree with Jim Raggi. I think the GM do need to think about providing excitement for his group of players. Not in order to "steer the game back" to whatever it is you usually steer them towards. No, I think you need to provide some excitement for your players when they are not providing any excitement for you! Otherwise you wont be getting any, and there was probably another individual in your life you could share some excitement with instead.

So, what do you do when you want to make a session wake up again? I love random encounter tables, and like I said I have enough experience in fantasy to be able to play with the troupes. When running a game in the US in 1929 I am lacking the troupes. Maybe what I need are random encounter tables? Or maybe I just do what Chandler is supposed to have done, have someone charge in with a gun and let's see what happens...

Call of Cthulhu on rails

So, we played another session on CoC last weekend. It was the second of two sessions covering the scenario Blood on the Tracks by J. Todd Kingrea from the Pagan Publishing scenario collection Out of the Vault.

The scenario is basically a train ride on a train hijacked by a monster. The intent is to have a feeling of being locked in, of having someone around hunting you for mysterious reasons. I think it is an interesting set up. I'll do a short summary of events and then talk about what went well and what didn't.

So, our investigators left Boston for New Orleans, following the letter our intrepid reported had gotten from her old friend there. Everyone settled in and talked to the other travellers and had dinner on the train. After dinner and cigars most people retired to their rooms, some for "medical tonics for better sleep". Suddenly the peace was shattered when the priest yelled at the top of his lungs that he had seen the conductor run out from Ms Browns compartment, all bloody. The brave investigators broke down the door to the washroom and found the dead conductor.

They spent the night doing autopsies (good with a MD in the group, eh?), examining the blood trail and searching staterooms. Sooner or later the professor of anthropology they had talked to was missing and they started a search, finding him stuffed in a box in the baggage car. By now they all suspected some vampiric activity, considering the blood was missing. They did find, and open, the big crate in the baggage car. Interestingly enough, this lead to the conclusion that Sir Alexander's wife must be a vampire!

Now they had noticed that the radio was smashed and that communications with the engine was down. Our war hero decided it was time for more pulp hero antics and climbed over to the engine via the coal box! He had his big gun with him and managed to blow the two living corpses away. Then there was a fight in the railroad car with the vampire and his acolyte. They ran down the whole train and the fight ended in the baggage car with a stake through the heart of the vampire. Then they had managed to slow down the train and had a lot of explaining to do when the authorities arrived.

So, how was it? Well. I more than once used the guidelines from Unknown Armies about 30-50% being professional level and had everyone with that level automatically succeed at crucial checks like in Trail of Cthulhu. I never had anyone need to be pushed by their Drive into action. Also, I actually forgot to check if anyone's Pillar of Sanity was threatened when they rolled for SAN. The latter was a failing on my part.

Mood wise I think it worked ok. Having one after another being killed off did heighten the sense of being hunted somewhat. I think the fact that things were moving along a pace determined by the villain was a good thing. It meant that even though the investigation could inform the decisions of the players, nothing had to stop because they didn't figure it all out. In fact, I don't think they ever did. The fact that guns are so deadly in close quarters made any gunfight slightly lopsided. I rolled really bad on my part and every second (no, really!) shot fired was an impale! Maybe you need to have a mix of "gun fodder" and some nasty mythos critters to drive home how useless guns are against those.

One of my house rules that will come to matter is how I handle SAN recovery. The doctor who did the autopsies and with reckless abandon ran after the vampire with his hunting rifle did suffer. He gained a temporary insanity and how have this thing for cleanliness. It will affect his work, I gather. But, more importantly he lost 8 SAN which he will never get back. They ended up with a train filled with bloody murder, corpses and guns had been fired. No chance of plausible denial there, so no SAN recovery even though they defeated the monster. That rule will colour this campaign!

Now they will arrive in New Orleans and there are cults, murders and monsters up ahead. I can't wait.

An interesting way to start a sandbox

I have been listening to podcasts again. Yeah, I do that a lot. Me and my spouse cover different ones. She listens to 'casts about book of fiction and science news while I enjoys listening to people talk about ways to explore and invent imaginary worlds. Yeah. Solid stuff.

I did pick up a nice idea from the Happy Jacks podcast which I now have listened to a new episode of. Blame none but me if you think the following is stupid, though, it's my interpretation of an off hand remark made on the show.

For me the idea of a sandbox hinges upon the very proactive players. Frankly, I have seen few that would fit the bill. So, how about a way to show them the possibilities and wet their appetites before letting them loose? I'm thinking like this. How about you start your sandbox campaign with a pilot? You know how they do tv-shows, when they have a longer pilot episode where the main players gets introduced and suitable arenas of conflicts are delineated? I'm thinking that maybe that is a good way to start a sandbox campaign.

The way I would do that, would be a short but quite scripted episode where I expose the players through a simple plot (yes a predetermined one), to the things they then can poke and prod to their hearts delight. That way you would show how a story could look like in this world, and who the powers are they might want to topple, or play nice with. Naturally this would be strict by scenes, with time limits and also by cut scenes. Very focused and railroady.

Then I'd let the loose.

I wonder if that would fly?

"I really want to game that show!"

I've found that after I see a film, or a TV show that I find cool, I immediately want to game that show.

Now, those who have been around have heard of licenced settings, and probably have already experienced the problems with those. I have been thinking along those lines again after having seen a couple of episodes of a show called Leverage. Let me think out loud for a moment, and maybe I have something new to say.

To begin with, let's talk about Leverage for a moment.

In Leverage we have, just like the good old Mission Impossible, a setup where somebody have been harmed by a bad guy and the Leverage team agrees to help them out. Then there's the briefing when we get to hear about the bad guy and how he can be approached. Roles get distributed amongst the experts in the team and they get rolling.

Now. Try to imagine that happening at a game table.

In order to make that work, you'd have to have players capable of from an outline of a villains personality concoct a plan to fleece him of his ill gotten gain. Likely? No.

Sure, if you have a team that must include someone who hacks computers, one who's a master at close combat and one actor it means that the plan will use those skills. Apart from that, sewing together a plan and then pull it off is another matter entirely.

This brings me to the problem with gaming a film or a tv show. You can probably never get it to flow that smoothly unless you have very capable players and have some Director behind the GM screen. So much of that which happens roll along fairly narrow paths. The amount of information available must be just right, and everyone must act in the most logical way. All the time.

If there's a way to make this happen by rules, social contact or something else then I far so far not seen it. I guess I will keep watching films and tv shows and dream of those moments of perfect drama and suspense.

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.

Roleplaying and tv shows, films and other media

Last Thursday I got back with one of my former gaming groups. The game master is a world builder and a tinkerer, so his games always have a very personal touch. He had been taken by the format of the Buffy and Angel games, and the idea of the game as a tv show, which is something I've thought a bit about.

I played a short season of Primetime Adventures earlier this year. That game is designed to give the feel of a tv show. You have a "screentime" stat for each episode, and you have game mechanics to enforce a kind of game that give that feel. I didn't like it. It felt very much like a tv show, but I realized that all those personal interaction my friends talk about when their favourite show is the topic of the day, that is not my thing. The soap opera element, if you can call it that, is not very enjoyable to me. Sure, interacting with NPCs is fun, especially if you don't only do if to gain a favour or service of some kind. But, to have the game focus on my inner struggles and my relations to my friends doesn't sound like the kind of "adventure" and thrill I seek at the table.

Now, is our game it wasn't too bad, since my friends have already set a lot of wheels in motion and I got to enjoy that by watch and participate in weird things happening. There's also a lot of exploration of the unknown in the setting, so I think I'll enjoy it. I was thinking, in light of the railroading discussion, that if you have a tv show style of game, then the game master probably have a season script and a plan for what will happen. It will be interesting to see if I will perceive that, and be annoyed by it. If it will be rails, and I'm supposed to be doing "exploring my relations" game, then I'll tire quickly. I wonder if I've ever thought so much about a campaign before as a player?

Beyond the Mountains of Madness - a few thoughts about a CoC campaign

So, after playing very intensively we managed to play through all of the campaign before the whole crazy mess of Worldcon and moving started. The way it played, and the way it is written got me thinking.

The very first thing we noticed when making characters, is that there are recommendations for suitable skills for the investigators. Also notable is the fact that the most important people in the Antarctic expedition are all NPCs. The latter is important, since it means it will almost certainly mean that the important decisions during the expedition will all be taken by the Keeper, as a NPC, not the players. Our Keeper decided that since this meant he would have to be talking to himself, it would be both silly and boring. Naturally that meant that some key personnel had to be Player Characters instead. Having taken care of that the reason for the first problem becomes obvious. This campaign have a story, a way it is supposed to unfold. Now, I'm not saying that has to be a bad thing. Most CoC scenarios are written so that it begins with a relative/friend/acquaintance of some sort call on the investigators to come and help out with something. That of course means that there is something going on, already defined, and the players are supposed to follow the trail to the end and confront the problem. I can hardly imagine investigative roleplaying being handled any other way. Still, we managed to both ride the rails and do some serious detours.

We had to go to Antarctica, and we had to investigate the mountains. Had we not done that it would not have been an adventure. While it might be fun to have a wide open space to explore once in a while, I've found that those campaigns tend to be quite meandering and without focus without the right kind of players. Having a clear set goal isn't always bad. What did make the campaign interesting was how we were all playing characters that knew nothing about the mythos. We came to the icy waste to make scientific discoveries, and while some terrible things happened, and having been slowly lulled into the feel of a scientific expedition with all the mundane tasks of such a journey, we still decided to look at it as a scientific mystery to be solved. Finally our characters could no longer deny that things were a foot of vast importance. But our first way to handle things was still to collect data and try to talk to the mysterious creatures we encountered! Having the expedition leaders out of the equation we all had our own plan for what we wanted to accomplish, and that became a new drive for our investigation. I think my conclusion is that if you make the personal goals of your character the main focus you can still play what is a very railroady campaign, and still feel like you do your own thing. Probably it will derail things and open it up into something potentially even more interesting. It was quite an experience, and my character went silently totally insane and had she survived she would have created the most elaborate mental cover up possibly denying the journey ever happened. Instead she blew herself and two traitors up with dynamite. What a way to go.