Last Saturday I ran a online Stormbringer game for an online game con. It was in the middle of the nineties the last time I did something like that, so I was a bit rusty.
Running a game online has its own problems, and running a con game is also its own beast. I knew, in theory, how to do it. This is as much a reminder to myself for the next time as well as some advice for the potential reader.
Base the scenario on scenes
Have a clear idea of the location, and the concrete opposition in that situation. It will help you pace the game, and you know how much the game have progressed in time and in the plot.
Make the end goal simple to grasp
Don't make it too fancy, or subtle. In a long campaign you have all the time in the world to establish the metaphysics of the world or the power players in your setting. In a con game you can't let the players game their way to a stance on the global problems. There just isn't time.
The player characters have to be distinct
Make sure the characters have something they are good at, and some things they don't like. It's probably a good idea to make sure there are NPCs that push their buttons, as well as some of the other characters.
What I did
Sadly I didn't heed all that advice. I did a fairly involved setting, with subtle power play. I also included references to other media, which some of the players clearly had no experience of. But, my biggest fault was I did not break it into scenes. I just started it and knew where it was headed, planning on shepherding it along as we played. Naturally, it made it less focused than it should be, and rushed when I looked at my watch and how far we had proceeded.
But, some of my players got to shine, do weird things and kill every human being on that plane of the Multiverse. That's worth something.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
The strangeness of Fate
I'm now a few sessions into a Fate game. It's a fantasy game, with magic and elves and all that jazz. Even though those parts makes me grounded in the familiar tropes, the rest of the game still makes me reel sometimes. I think Fate is probably the most different game I've played.
Different than what? I hear you ask. Well, most things. First off, it's very loosey goosey as far at delimiting what is turned into game mechanics. Aspects, the core of the system, can be something looking like a class, a part of the character psychology or a relationship. I guess most people have heard about that part. That part I think I've got down pat by now.
Now, how you use those Aspects and Skills, that is where it gets weird. At least it's what trip me up. In Fate you have those aforementioned loosey goosey crunchy bits, which really gets in your face when you use them. The thing is, I'm used to have the game mechanic be some kind of binary system. Do I succeed at this or that? Fairly simple, you do or you don't. In Fate you have specific actions you take. You might Attack, Defend, Overcome or Create Advantage. That to me feels strange.
I'm used to expressing what I want to achieve, getting some feedback from the GM of what I need to roll and then get some kind of adjudication of what that means, cooperatively sometimes. Contrast that with Fate, where you can do all those actions mentioned before with almost all abilities, and they make narrative and tactical sense! That last bit is interesting.
I don't know how often I've read or heard that Fate is one of those narrative modern "story games" or whatnot. In my experience it's not. Fate is in your face crunchiness and the most tactical game I've so far played. Even when you do things that are "pure roleplaying" or "story" in that they are driven by your character's foibles or relationship, it's still tactical thinking. You set up an Advantage so you can then invoke it, or activate a negative Aspect so you can get more Fate points to then boost your next skill roll which might be a, say, social Attack. That seriously trips me up. Interesting, but odd.
Different than what? I hear you ask. Well, most things. First off, it's very loosey goosey as far at delimiting what is turned into game mechanics. Aspects, the core of the system, can be something looking like a class, a part of the character psychology or a relationship. I guess most people have heard about that part. That part I think I've got down pat by now.
Now, how you use those Aspects and Skills, that is where it gets weird. At least it's what trip me up. In Fate you have those aforementioned loosey goosey crunchy bits, which really gets in your face when you use them. The thing is, I'm used to have the game mechanic be some kind of binary system. Do I succeed at this or that? Fairly simple, you do or you don't. In Fate you have specific actions you take. You might Attack, Defend, Overcome or Create Advantage. That to me feels strange.
I'm used to expressing what I want to achieve, getting some feedback from the GM of what I need to roll and then get some kind of adjudication of what that means, cooperatively sometimes. Contrast that with Fate, where you can do all those actions mentioned before with almost all abilities, and they make narrative and tactical sense! That last bit is interesting.
I don't know how often I've read or heard that Fate is one of those narrative modern "story games" or whatnot. In my experience it's not. Fate is in your face crunchiness and the most tactical game I've so far played. Even when you do things that are "pure roleplaying" or "story" in that they are driven by your character's foibles or relationship, it's still tactical thinking. You set up an Advantage so you can then invoke it, or activate a negative Aspect so you can get more Fate points to then boost your next skill roll which might be a, say, social Attack. That seriously trips me up. Interesting, but odd.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Wilderness and pursuits
I've found that while a chase is often quite intense in a movie, they are seldom as much fun in a game. But, while that's interesting, today I'll talk about a related subject, namely wilderness pursuits.
If you have a team of PCs pursuing some, say, orcs, how do you make that interesting? In a Pathinder/D&D game it's very easy to reduce it to daily rolls on Tracking/Survival and then it becomes mechanistic and devoid of that interesting suspense a good chase should have. If we flip the coin and make the players being players, it's probably their characters being chased. Still, just making a die roll to avoid being hunted down is just as dull.
This is how I'd make these scenarios interesting. It's a compilation of my own ideas, and some I've collected from blogs and podcasts. This will fiunction both as a list for my readers to be inspired by, and a note to myself for things I have to remember to bring to the table.
If you have a team of PCs pursuing some, say, orcs, how do you make that interesting? In a Pathinder/D&D game it's very easy to reduce it to daily rolls on Tracking/Survival and then it becomes mechanistic and devoid of that interesting suspense a good chase should have. If we flip the coin and make the players being players, it's probably their characters being chased. Still, just making a die roll to avoid being hunted down is just as dull.
This is how I'd make these scenarios interesting. It's a compilation of my own ideas, and some I've collected from blogs and podcasts. This will fiunction both as a list for my readers to be inspired by, and a note to myself for things I have to remember to bring to the table.
Tactics
- Use the terrain - Someone being followed in the wilderness are probably going to make it harder for you to track them. You'd try to look for different terrain, like trying to not just stomp forward over that soft and marshy ground. Not only will you run the possibility of getting stuck, you will leave excellent tracks to follow. Have you ever seen any Western movie about a chase? That's where you'll want to go for inspiration. I know for a fact that riding in a small streak or creek is a classic way to hide your tracks. You'll want to do that.
- Create hindrances - If you are trying to run away, the best way to succeed will be to make the guy following you slow down. One way is to use those tools you use in a dungeon. Dig holes, cover them with vines and branches. Tie up a branch of a tree and put down a tripwire which release it in the faces of your follower. Build traps to spindle, fold and mutilate your tracker.
- Ambush - Sometimes you have to face the fact that you're not getting away. Then it might be prudent to not just stand your ground and await the attack. Instead, plan an ambush! Use cover, hit from afar and run before they collect their wits.
- Split the party! - One thing which is a big "no, no" is splitting the party. While it might be hard on the GM, it's a sound tactic. Make your follower have to choose which set of tracks to follow. If you combine it with the techniques mentioned above, you might even decimate your opponents while doing it.
GM techniques
There are a few things a GM might do to keep a pursuit scenario in the wilderness feel more tight. Here are a few of those.- Interludes and personal development - In Savage Worlds there is a mechanic called Interludes, where a player gets a benny for telling a short vignette about their character. Even if you don't use that game system, why not take the opportunity to ask one of the players if they perhaps tells their friends more about that time back in the days when they sit down by the camp fire at night? They might balk at the idea, but try it out.
- Have a timetable - The best way to make a chase of any kind interesting is to have a timetable. Make sure things happen in the world, and to the people involved in the pursuit at schedules intervals.
- Bring more guns - Want to rack up the tension? Bring reinforcements! It would be fun if the guys being chased suddenly joined up with friends and could take the hunt to the hunters, right? Bring in those Allies or Enemies if your game system have them.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
The Vampire sandbox
I listened to a podcast that discussed the first scenario for Vampire, in the back of the 2nd ed rulebook. I remember when Vampire was the hottest thing, and how I bought that book and pored over it. I tried to figure out how to make a "personal horror" game out of it, and even though we played it a bit it never really fulfilled its potential. Looking at that example scenario do provide some fairly good hints on how the creator, Mark Rein Hagen, really envisioned his game.
The scenario is very limited in its geographical location. There are no extensive secondary world to explore, there are no obvious fights and no obvious treasure. But, there are a crowd of NPCs.
While I never really came to appreciate the "super heroes with fangs" aspects of Vampire, I did find the idea of a NPC based scenario to be intriguing. I've found that it is a challenge to make them flow well, though. If the NPCs one after one come up to the PCs and talk, then walk away to make way to the next in line, it will feel like the players really are standing there with a line of people. To make it still feel like a place, like something is happening, was always a challenge to me.
If we take a look at some scenarios that look like that, which I've had more success with, I at once think of Call of Cthulhu. Many CoC scenarios have many people to talk to, but they also almost always have a strong plot element. Sometimes even so strong it can be considered railroaded. But, I've found that is one of the best ways to make the "crowd of people" scenario work. If you have some plot going on, with things happening no matter what, all that talk doesn't feel as much like it's happening in a vacuum.
Now, you know what I first thought when I listened to how the podcasters (I wish I remembered which podcast it was, but my mp3 player have crashed and I have no copy of the file anywhere and no recollection of how I found it) described the scenario? I thought, "this sounds like a sandbox"! But, often sandboxes are described as a setting, a place, where the players are free to create their own plot and explore freely. This is another kind of sandbox, that is almost not a place and not about exploration. It's a sandbox of people.
I've never thought about that before, and naturally it makes me wonder if anyone have thought of doing a sandbox like that for their game, their old school game of D&D and similar games? Has it been done, or have we not yet left the dungeon?
The scenario is very limited in its geographical location. There are no extensive secondary world to explore, there are no obvious fights and no obvious treasure. But, there are a crowd of NPCs.
While I never really came to appreciate the "super heroes with fangs" aspects of Vampire, I did find the idea of a NPC based scenario to be intriguing. I've found that it is a challenge to make them flow well, though. If the NPCs one after one come up to the PCs and talk, then walk away to make way to the next in line, it will feel like the players really are standing there with a line of people. To make it still feel like a place, like something is happening, was always a challenge to me.
If we take a look at some scenarios that look like that, which I've had more success with, I at once think of Call of Cthulhu. Many CoC scenarios have many people to talk to, but they also almost always have a strong plot element. Sometimes even so strong it can be considered railroaded. But, I've found that is one of the best ways to make the "crowd of people" scenario work. If you have some plot going on, with things happening no matter what, all that talk doesn't feel as much like it's happening in a vacuum.
Now, you know what I first thought when I listened to how the podcasters (I wish I remembered which podcast it was, but my mp3 player have crashed and I have no copy of the file anywhere and no recollection of how I found it) described the scenario? I thought, "this sounds like a sandbox"! But, often sandboxes are described as a setting, a place, where the players are free to create their own plot and explore freely. This is another kind of sandbox, that is almost not a place and not about exploration. It's a sandbox of people.
I've never thought about that before, and naturally it makes me wonder if anyone have thought of doing a sandbox like that for their game, their old school game of D&D and similar games? Has it been done, or have we not yet left the dungeon?
Monday, March 3, 2014
Some extra rules for BRP - autofire and initiative
I've been very much in love with BRP lately. It's a game system I've played since I began this hobby, and it still feels like it can do anything. When Savage Worlds and FATE come and go as the "go to" systems for setting conversion, I always feel BRP could do it.
There are some oddities in the rules, though. Like almost every other rules set out there, it's more inspired by action movies than real life. I shall not try to bring up the dreaded "realism" argument, but sometimes you want to tone down the action hero aspects for a grittier game.
Autofire is one of those things I'd live to tweak. I've been thinking on this a while, and also been reading people's tweaks. This is my presents thoughts, archived. If you have any input I'm quite interested to hear it. I might still change things up a bit until I actually try these ideas out
When you autofire, roll to hit as usual. But, do not add +5% per bullet! If you hit, take a note of your margin of success. A successful hit mean one bullet hit, and one more bullet per 5% of margin of success. But, regardless of success level, mark of all those bullets fired.
That will mean skill matters, and recoil is kind of factored in by removing the extra +5%. Optionally: subtract -5% per bullet fired if you really want to make recoil matter.
Another effect of autofire is to make people keep their heads down. To make that happen, I'm thinking of adopting a concept found in some games from GDW, namely Coolness Under Fire.
CuF is a skill, with a base chance of your POW. You can put skill points into it, just like any other skill. When you'd normally call for initiative rolls, instead roll CuF. For every 10% of your margin of success you get a +1 bonus to your DEX rank for initiative. Those who succeeded then act like usual in DEX order.
Those who fail their roll must take cover at once, and may not attack. Each round you make another roll to try to get to act.
Optional: For every bullet fired towards your area you take a -5% penalty to your CuF roll. That way autofire is very useful to lay down covering fire.
The other big thing is if CuF should be a skill at all. I'm still not sure about that, and change my mind every day. I'll put this out there as a working draft of my ideas. Hopefully I get to try them out when I've decided on something.
There are some oddities in the rules, though. Like almost every other rules set out there, it's more inspired by action movies than real life. I shall not try to bring up the dreaded "realism" argument, but sometimes you want to tone down the action hero aspects for a grittier game.
Autofire is one of those things I'd live to tweak. I've been thinking on this a while, and also been reading people's tweaks. This is my presents thoughts, archived. If you have any input I'm quite interested to hear it. I might still change things up a bit until I actually try these ideas out
Autofire
On of the oddities about autofire is that it's no harder to hit regardless how many bullets you put in the air. Recoil is abstracted out, and the amount of bullets that hit have no relation to your skill. I'd like to change that.When you autofire, roll to hit as usual. But, do not add +5% per bullet! If you hit, take a note of your margin of success. A successful hit mean one bullet hit, and one more bullet per 5% of margin of success. But, regardless of success level, mark of all those bullets fired.
That will mean skill matters, and recoil is kind of factored in by removing the extra +5%. Optionally: subtract -5% per bullet fired if you really want to make recoil matter.
Another effect of autofire is to make people keep their heads down. To make that happen, I'm thinking of adopting a concept found in some games from GDW, namely Coolness Under Fire.
Coolness Under Fire
I'm not sure yet if this should be a derived ability, or a skill. The latter makes it easy to slot in among the other abilities. But, it's only partly something trained so I'm unsure if that makes sense, but also what to derive it from! Average POW and INT? Is low INT maybe a benefit? For now I'll treat it as a skill.CuF is a skill, with a base chance of your POW. You can put skill points into it, just like any other skill. When you'd normally call for initiative rolls, instead roll CuF. For every 10% of your margin of success you get a +1 bonus to your DEX rank for initiative. Those who succeeded then act like usual in DEX order.
Those who fail their roll must take cover at once, and may not attack. Each round you make another roll to try to get to act.
Optional: For every bullet fired towards your area you take a -5% penalty to your CuF roll. That way autofire is very useful to lay down covering fire.
Final thoughs
The big problem with this will probably be for those players who fail their CuF, and get to sit there and do nothing. I guess that's why the rules are like they are in the book, but I have played enough conflict simulation games to appreciate the idea of having a field of combat a little less ordered and with a little less control. I mean, RPGs are not like chess, right?The other big thing is if CuF should be a skill at all. I'm still not sure about that, and change my mind every day. I'll put this out there as a working draft of my ideas. Hopefully I get to try them out when I've decided on something.
Friday, January 17, 2014
Empty rooms and slow moving dungeons
You how the players in your game always wakes up when you without hesitation give a name to a NPC, or suddenly mentions the look of a door in the dungeon?
I have been sitting in agony, trying to get a game moving again after I in passing mentioned some details of dungeon room that was in all other respects just empty. Naturally, if there's a description it has to mean something, right?
A suggestion for us all.
If there's one item, smell or oddity in each room, they will have to consider it all.
Should this lead to games where everything is examined for 15 minutes and the players insist on rolling some ability to find the clue, then just drop a piano on them. Yeah, in a dungeon. Go ahead.
I have been sitting in agony, trying to get a game moving again after I in passing mentioned some details of dungeon room that was in all other respects just empty. Naturally, if there's a description it has to mean something, right?
A suggestion for us all.
When describing a room in a dungeon, always mention one thing of dungeon dressing per room.
If there's one item, smell or oddity in each room, they will have to consider it all.
Should this lead to games where everything is examined for 15 minutes and the players insist on rolling some ability to find the clue, then just drop a piano on them. Yeah, in a dungeon. Go ahead.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Delving Deeper - long/short weapons
As a companion to my post about weapon speed/reach. These are the arms listed in the Delving Deeper boxed set, with an entry for which weapons have reach.
These rules are hereby designated as Open Game Content via the Open Game Licence.
You might disagree about some of those, but these are the ones I'd use. Even if they all only do 1d6 damage, this rule will add some tactical chrome to it game experience. Have fun with it!
These rules are hereby designated as Open Game Content via the Open Game Licence.
Battle axe short Dagger short Flail long Hand axe short Lance long Mace short Morning star short Pole arm long Short sword short Spear long Staff long/short Sword short Two-handed sword long War hammer short
You might disagree about some of those, but these are the ones I'd use. Even if they all only do 1d6 damage, this rule will add some tactical chrome to it game experience. Have fun with it!
Monday, January 13, 2014
Long weapons with reach for older editions
I just revisited my old favourite Stormbringer, and found that in that game there's a neat mechanic for how to handle reach and speed of longer weapons. As you probably already know, there are rules for weapon speed in AD&D, but they are fiddly. This is how I'd adopt the Stormbringer rules for D&D.
These rules are hereby designated as Open Game Content via the Open Game Licence.
To Engage an enemy you roll 1d20 below your DEX, forfeiting an attack to do so. After that you will have Engaged your enemy, and that figure loose the advantage of having a Long weapon, and must Disengage to regain that advantage. Disengaging uses the same procedure.
Optional: If you fail your roll to Engage/Disengage, the opposing figure get one free attack at your figure.
Long time readers of this blog might remember that I wrote about this rule once before. That rule used the initiative roll in stead of a DEX check. It would be fun to try both out and see how they feel in comparison.
These rules are hereby designated as Open Game Content via the Open Game Licence.
Long weapons and Reach
Weapons are rated as Long or Short. If you have a Long weapon, and are not Engaged, you will have the advantage and may attack once before any enemy with the same initiative count.To Engage an enemy you roll 1d20 below your DEX, forfeiting an attack to do so. After that you will have Engaged your enemy, and that figure loose the advantage of having a Long weapon, and must Disengage to regain that advantage. Disengaging uses the same procedure.
Optional: If you fail your roll to Engage/Disengage, the opposing figure get one free attack at your figure.
Group initiative
Roll initiative as usual and use the rules as written, except that before the first action are taken by the side winning, all figures equipped with a Long weapon get one strike each. These attacks are resolved in DEX order, and then the initiative proceeds as usual. No figure may attack more than once per turn in this way, unless explicitly allowed by other rules for multiple attacks.Individual initiative
Roll initiative as usual. When resolving actions, first make one pass through the count down for all figures equipped with a Long weapon. Each may may one attack, in DEX order. Then go through the count of actions once more for those who have yet not taken an action. No figure may attack more than once per turn in this way, unless explicitly allowed by other rules for multiple attacks.Long time readers of this blog might remember that I wrote about this rule once before. That rule used the initiative roll in stead of a DEX check. It would be fun to try both out and see how they feel in comparison.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Using the right tool for the job
Yesterday I was browsing my collection of game books. Some of them I don't read that often, and almost forgets about. I have a few...
My eyes fell on GURPS Black Ops, and it piqued my interest. Who doesn't like the idea of truly badass characters taking on monsters? I figured it would be fun to read some of it, and maybe import some ideas into a game some day. When I came to the section about building characters I paused for a second.
Characters in Black Ops are built on 700 points. For those of you who don't know much about GURPS, I checked the core rules about campaign scales, and there it said 500 pts is "Superhuman". Cinematic action is the name of the game.
This is where I got reminded of why it is a good idea to use the right tools for the job.
In the book there are five templates of 650 pts you can use as base for your character. They are the Combat Op, Intelligence Op, Science Op, Security Op, Technology Op. Sounds like it covers all the bases in the genre, right? What gave me cause for doubts was what was on those pages.
Those templates all took up one page each, with about an inch at the top with the stats, Disadvantages and Advantages. The rest was three columns of text listing skills, and taking the illustrations into account it was maybe two full columns on the average. I counted the skills on one template, and it was about a hundred. 100. Yes. 100!
If you have that many skills, how are you even going to find the ones you need?! Why list all those? I've never seem anything so unwieldy in a game before. It would have been easier to list what was missing instead. Sure, the idea is to play super competent characters being really awesome. But, will that list really help you do that? What you really want to express is how cool you are, and how many cool things that character can do. It just screams out to be simplified. Mayve into some kind of system of skill categories, or even in a more daring move, reduced to Aspects like they use in FATE.
Here I think we see one indication this kind of game is not best modelled in GURPS.
The next thing I noticed was the ratings of those skills. In GURPS you roll 3d6 and try to roll below your skill rating. Personally I cry foul when I see characters which break the ceiling of the system. These templates ranged from 12 to 22. Yes, roll below 22 on 3d6. Foul. Something is broken there, even if the list had been a fifth the size is was.
Here I think wesee another indication this kind of game is not best modelled in GURPS.
I've seen that kind of stuff in other games, sadly more than once. One example was this system which used roll low and a d20, i.e. a percentile system divided by 5 and less granular. This NPC I think of had 40 in some skills and spells, i.e. 200%!
If you want to play cinematic action, the best tool is probably not a game system that focuses on realism and detailed simulationism. You probably want to use FATE, or Savage Worlds.
This I think is also why the idea of a generic system is a failure. The idea is beautiful, and the amount of "generic" systems in my collection tells the long story of that strong allure of having one system for all your games. But, the sad fact is that you have to tweak and adapt a system to the style and setting you are using. Some games can be changed more or less easily and after a while it will become clear that you would have saved time using a system tailored for the experience you want.
...so if you see numbers like 200% in a percentile game, or 34 in a d20 based one, then it's time to look for a better tool for the job.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Some thoughts on veils and lines
Today I was listening to an episode of the podcast Saving the Game, and they were discussing the terms lines and veils. These come from the Sorcerer supplement Sex and Sorcerer. The idea is that in your play group you might have themes that one of the players or the GM feel is uncomfortable to bring up at the gaming table, and veils are things that might crop up, with it wont be played out in detail. Naturally, in Ron Edwards book he talks mostly about sex.
When I listened at the podcast I started to wonder about the things the hosts listed as their personal lines and veils. Naturally they talked about sex, but also about other things. What made me think was when they brought up torture.
Personally I find torture really horrifying. It dehumanizes both the perpetrator and the victim, and it's useless for information gathering so it's basically just a power game. Still, it happens in games. But, more to the point, it happens in real life.
So, should you just ignore such icky stuff in your game? Should you maybe include it, and face it and through play explore what it does to people and include it as a motivator for stopping the bad guy/gal?
This reminds me of when I first started playing Dogs in the Vineyard. Our GM noticed that some of the things we as dogs encountered was making me shrink back and try to do ignore, maybe hoping to push it into the lap of some other player. Naturally he saw me squirm and pushed it harder towards me, forcing the issue and forcing me to make a stand. It was an awesome session. Someone might consider this a dick move, but I was playing God's emissary with power over life and death. There was a Situation going on, demanding me to act, and it made for a better game when I was forced out of my comfort zone.
So, how about that torture thing?
I can look at my visitor statistics and find that a large percentage of my visitors are living in a country that practice torture, and where people in the highest political levels have shown their support for the practice. Are you really cool with that? Would it be a good thing for you, if this applies to you, to be forced into that same situation I was in when I was playing Dogs? It did make me take a closer look at who I am and how I act.
I guess the answer is, it depends. I had signed up to play Dogs in the Vineyard. I knew what I was getting into, and wanted hard choices. Most people don't want to play that way.
The idea of having Lines and Veils, and talking them over before your game might be a good idea. To make sure you are on the same page, and so the GM can go all in after that, and not have to pull any punches. She knows you can take it. Sometimes, just sometimes, it might be worth thinking about those lines and where they are drawn in the sand.
I know for a fact that if I ever run Kult again, there will be no lines or veils. Then I will mess with my players, and if they squirm I will push harder to blow through beyond any lines. I know that something interesting will come out the other side.
When I listened at the podcast I started to wonder about the things the hosts listed as their personal lines and veils. Naturally they talked about sex, but also about other things. What made me think was when they brought up torture.
Personally I find torture really horrifying. It dehumanizes both the perpetrator and the victim, and it's useless for information gathering so it's basically just a power game. Still, it happens in games. But, more to the point, it happens in real life.
So, should you just ignore such icky stuff in your game? Should you maybe include it, and face it and through play explore what it does to people and include it as a motivator for stopping the bad guy/gal?
This reminds me of when I first started playing Dogs in the Vineyard. Our GM noticed that some of the things we as dogs encountered was making me shrink back and try to do ignore, maybe hoping to push it into the lap of some other player. Naturally he saw me squirm and pushed it harder towards me, forcing the issue and forcing me to make a stand. It was an awesome session. Someone might consider this a dick move, but I was playing God's emissary with power over life and death. There was a Situation going on, demanding me to act, and it made for a better game when I was forced out of my comfort zone.
So, how about that torture thing?
I can look at my visitor statistics and find that a large percentage of my visitors are living in a country that practice torture, and where people in the highest political levels have shown their support for the practice. Are you really cool with that? Would it be a good thing for you, if this applies to you, to be forced into that same situation I was in when I was playing Dogs? It did make me take a closer look at who I am and how I act.
I guess the answer is, it depends. I had signed up to play Dogs in the Vineyard. I knew what I was getting into, and wanted hard choices. Most people don't want to play that way.
The idea of having Lines and Veils, and talking them over before your game might be a good idea. To make sure you are on the same page, and so the GM can go all in after that, and not have to pull any punches. She knows you can take it. Sometimes, just sometimes, it might be worth thinking about those lines and where they are drawn in the sand.
I know for a fact that if I ever run Kult again, there will be no lines or veils. Then I will mess with my players, and if they squirm I will push harder to blow through beyond any lines. I know that something interesting will come out the other side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
