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?

Reading T&T 7.5 - Troll Talk p.3

Let's start this walk through slowly. In the introduction, Troll Talk, Ken St. Andre tells how this edition came to happen, and also tells us how to use it. It's interesting to see that Fiery Dragon Publishing apparently wanted to do something on their own, and as a side effect of that Ken's latest ideas happened to be included as well. For those who have the tin box edition, AKA The 30th Anniversary Edition, it's clear that the so called "Revised" T&T booklet from that set is what's referred to here. Personally I felt it was a very weak and useless attempt to make T&T more like D&D3. After thumbing through it once or twice I never opened it again. Interesting is also, at least for me personally, that Ken mentions that he got a few suggestions from FDP how to add to this latest release by including a treasure generator. I actually contacted Ken about that, since I had been playing the tin box edition with old solos that often asked you to generate the treasure with the random treasure tables from 5th ed. Ken replied "We'll see what we can do." So I guess it was a good idea.

Then Ken mentions something interesting, and the most important thing is this post. He writes:

If you only remember one thing about Tunnels & Trolls, remember the line from Pirates of the Carribean - they aren't rules, more like guidelines really. ... Do what works for you and your gamers. If you haven't messed with the printed rules and made at least a couple of changes, you aren't really playing Tunnels & Trolls.

I find that last piece interesting. Many games have told you that you have the power to adapt the rules, but I haven't ever seen a designer who explicitly tells you that you're not playing the game in question if you play just the way it's written. That's old school to me.

Next up: Generating characters

Reading T&T 7.5 - Introduction

As every blogger knows, Fridays are a bit slow. I'm going to make the Fridays kind of special from now on. Inspired by some kind of threads on rpg.net where new and old rulebooks get dissected, I'm going to read through the Tunnels & Trolls 7.5 rulebook and comment on things as I move along. As always it will be my kind of perspective, old and new and something in between. Feel free to comment, and if we manage to find something really weird I'll make sure the Trollgod himself knows it. Welcome to follow along!

Visited the colossal caves lately?

If I somehow doubted that gaming had conquered the mainstream, those doubts are now dispelled. I saw this car as I was walking my daughter home from daycare. I just had to shoot that picture!

Watch out for those throwing axes!

Warhammer 40K roleplaying - a few thoughts

Since it was first released in 1987, Warhammer 40,000 Rogue Trader have tempted many gamers with the idea of a rpg in the far future, of only war. When Dark Heresy was announced I was thinking that it might be just what I have been hoping to achieve myself with rules tinkering without end. The fact it was fairly costly, and sold out so quickly I never got to see it made me change my mind.

Now I'm in the planning stages for running a one shot, using Savage Worlds as a rules set. As always when adapting a generic system, you'll have to get the gist of the setting and the feel it should have. So, what's crucial for a WH40K rpg? It has to be gritty and deadly, ok? It has to show the brutal and never ending war against all the universe, ok? It has to have cults of chaos, ok? It has to have an element of satire and dark humour, right? The problematic thing is that none of that is very well captured by rules. Especially not generic ones. So, how do you do adaptations like this anyway? I'm thinking iconic images, and themes will have to do and then rolling with the punches and just say "yes" a lot. Imagine doing that in GURPS or any such crunchy system! I think I've realized that doing things like this, I really need rules light systems!

How to do mysteries - the three clue rule

This is very short post. I'm just going to give you the link to Justin Alexander's great post about designing mysteries. He lays it out nice and tidy how to make a design with multiple paths. I found the link to it in the comments on Grognardia's discussion about railroady CoC campaigns. If I decide to sit down and write a CoC mystery it will be better now that I've read his essay! Go read it!

Who in gaming is worth knowing about?

After my exasperated outburst about people not knowing about Ron Edwards I started thinking. Jeff Rients, always with his eye on the pulse of gamerdom, asked a very relevant question. Maybe the contributions by the "Forgeites" are not really impacting the hobby very far? Maybe rpg theory is largely ignored by most gamers? Even if that it true (and I hope it's not), it still leaves me with the question of who you should know about?

Earlier this year, a friend was giving me a ride home after a gaming session. I was kind of tired, and as I usually do in that state I was blathering on about whatever my mind had gotten stuck on. Amazed (and bored?) my friend asked me "How do you know all these biographical details about all these game designers!?" after I had talked about when someone started this or that game company. I am interested in the history of our hobby, and some things sticks in my mind. The ups and downs of the business end of the hobby seem to be one such thing. So, is this something everyone should know about? Quick! When did Greg Stafford start The Chaosium? Who else was involved? What? You don't care?

So who do you think everyone should know about in gaming? I guess the most famous people probably are Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. Being there from the start counts a lot. How about Rick Loomis, who in 1970 started the oldest game company still around doing the same kind of business? How about Mark Rein*Hagen who helped create the phenomenon that is White Wolf? How about Matthew Sprange who runs one of the most successful game companies today? How about Ed Simbalist? Frankly, I'm not sure I know who everyone should know about. I have many times found that the one-game-gamers who only know of Gygax and D&D to me seem like they have deprived themselves of some of the sublime heights possible in the hobby which so succinctly combines game elements, storytelling and performance art. And some really cool game mechanics and worlds, to boot! Just look at two very distinctly different games like Dogs in the Vineyard by Vincent Baker, and Tunnels & Trolls by Ken St Andre. Both opened vistas in my head I didn't even suspected existed!

So, hell know who is important enough in the big scheme of things. I just hope everyone out there treats the whole field of the hobby is one big dungeon, filled with treasure. Who don't want to explore some more, and get just a little bit more loot home? Happy delving!

Ron Edwards? Who?

I just read Jim Raggi write this in a response to something Ron apparently got published in the latest issue of Fight On! magazine. What really makes me sigh about this is that so many people, especially over at the post about it on Grognardia, have no idea who Ron is!? Guys, Gary is dead! Things have happened the last thirty years! Ron Edwards has a somewhat abrasive on-line persona, but his is very smart and have thought a lot about gaming. Do yourself a favour and read up on his stuff. You might hate it, but it will expand your views on gaming. Read carefully, please do.

I want to see the manager! or "Who runs this dungeon anyway?"

Just a couple of days ago I found my copy of the 5th ed T&T again. Having used 7.5 for my regular gaming needs, it is very interesting to see how this celebrated edition compare. While the editing it far better than the shoddy job Fiery Dragon did, it still has its quirks. Like missing page numbers!

I did find this one gem I wanted to share, about the making of a dungeon (2.5 How to be a GM):

There is also the consideration of a motivating character, a proprietor -- the mastermind who created the complex within the logic of the fantasy world itself (this is frequently an alter-ego of the person who created the dungeon on paper). This alter-ego may provide a "reason" for the presence of the dungeon, and may or may not take any kind of participation in occurrences within the dungeon itself. My own dungeon Gristlegrim is run by an incredibly ancient and learned wizard of the same name; he rarely puts on personal appearances. On the other hand, Liz Danforth has a devilish little fellow who "built" her dungeon as a lure to entice the unwary into situations where they are willing to bargain for their souls; his personal offices can be found in the lowest levels.

I find this very interesting. Somehow the idea has gotten foothold that once in the early days of the hobby it was all wild merriment without rhyme and reason, and then came dungeon ecology and story; chaos had been conquered and now it all Made Sense. In this quote we see that in the Phoenix Circle they had a driving force behind their dungeons, and a reason for them to exist. The history of the early hobby is different from how it is often told.

I expect there will be more of these kind of hidden glimpses of a bygone age as I continue to peruse this volume. For historians of our hobby is this a goldmine. You all know that Flying Buffalo Inc. still sells this edition, right?

But, I think it has value in a more practical sense as well. My dungeon was the Dungeon of Voorand. My players knew him to be the slightly nutty "god" of the goblins, and he had a very real presence by the gaming table, where any kind of oddness could be blamed on "that crazy goblin". My personal stamp was all over the place, and the play on my name made it even more obvious than the fact that I of course was the one who had drawn the dungeon. Do you want to make up a theme for a dungeon? Think about the proprietor and I bet there will be ideas to use at once.

Is investigative roleplaying railroading by default? A CoC case study

Some of you might have followed along in the discussion on Grognardia's retrospective on Shadows of Yog-Sothoth. The question arose if it has to be the case that investigative roleplaying with a "trail of breadcrumbs" leads the players along a railroad. Since I have just posted about my experiences of Beyond the Mountain of Madness, and accused that campaign of being a railroad, I felt it could be an interesting theme to continue and comment on. I decided to take out some of the CoC greats from my shelves and do some case studies.

First out is a golden oldie, Trail of Tsathogghua by Keith Herber. It was published in 1984, roughly the same era as Shadows of Yog-Sothoth. It's a collection of two loosely tied scenarios and one unrelated. The first one. The Trail of Tsathogghua is an expedition to icy lands, where an artifact has been found. It looks a lot like Mountains with the expedition leaders being NPCs and there is a timeline with things that will happen regardless of player actions. Also, at certain points interactions with authorities will happen, and they all happen "off stage". Roll some dice and the Keeper reads you the next clue your expedition member have uncovered. Should you fail, then there are NPCs around to tell you what you need. While the list of NPCs looks like it could be great fun to interact with some of them, it's still a good example of a very railroaded adventure. The second part The Curse of Tsathogghua is tied to some of the facts that became unearthed in the first part, and that one survivor from that expedition acted upon those facts and now the investigators follow his, incidentally, tracks. The idea of having a NPC with this special role who must survive, is just bad adventure writing. Having an adventure hinge upon something to happen is bad. The last and final part is totally detached from the first two. Interestingly enough, this last adventure The Haunted House is very different in style. It describes the background of a big mansion and why it is haunted. The the adventure is just a description of the adventure site, with appropriate hauntings described in different rooms. Go where you like, experience what you like. A good example of an investigative adventure that's wide open.

The second piece I wanted to look closer at is another adventure written by Keith Herber. This time it's his The Sanatorium in the Chaosium volume Mansions of Madness. It happen to be considered his best adventure, so it's extra interesting as a comparison. In this adventure there is a site (a closed environment), and a bunch of NPCs. There's also a menace. Compared to Trail this is very different. Something have happened, and you will have to get the information from the NPCs at the site before the menace kills you. Both adventures present a situation and a "story" that you will piece together. That's the common thread in both, as investigative roleplaying. But, while what happens in one is only at the players initiative, in the other it's always at the instigation of an NPC. There are no things that will happen, only factions with intentions and private goals. If the players wont interact with the NPCs, they wont find the clues to stop the menace, but they have all the power in the world to decide what happens. No NPC will push the story forward without you as a player pushing him or her first.

Worth noting is that one of these adventures is site based, and the other is based on a journey. The Haunted House is also site based, and is more open in style. The campaign that started the discussion Shadows of Yog-Sothoth, is also based on a lot of travelling. The other classic I have on my shelf, The Fungi from Yoggoth, is also a campaign where you travel a lot. I guess there's a strong temptation to hide one clue at each location and make them depend upon each other in a linear fashion. The sin here is, in my view, to make that the "story" that's supposed to happen. Do it have to be that way, though? Thinking on the format, you would imagine that it would be possible to avoid the worst sin by removing the linear dependencies to some degree and write the campaign so that visiting a site is not dependant on a string of former events. I know DGP worked on that kind of "plotting", with their nugget system for the Traveller material they published.

To make a parallel to T&T and D&D, where the dungeon is the backbone of the "story", we have many good pieces of analysis written in the OSR about multiple entrances, and interconnectivity between levels. I think this is a way of thinking that could be used while designing for investigative roleplaying as well.

So, in order to wrap this up I think the golden oldies tend to fall into a tendency of railroading when a lot of travel is involved. My hypothesis is that it makes it too easy to confuse all that travelling with "story" and thus needlessly limiting the players. Investigative roleplaying is not this by default, but it sure has happened more than once. Should I win the lottery I will take a closer look at the other classic as well, since it's supposed to do it just right.