Hamsterprophecy

Inevitability

2006-07-30T10:27:00.000-06:00

Hamsterprophecy: Prevision

I thought I could stick it out, but I was wrong. I have moved to WordPress.

Update links and such to http://hamsterprophet.wordpress.com.

[Edit] Mmm...thanks Joshua. Comments have now been turned off here.

The Book As Artifact

2006-07-27T18:43:00.000-06:00

Here's a honest question: are there any large-press games that are being produced with an eye towards how the book itself, as an artifact, informs play?

This is one of those things that really excites me about the creator-owned design and production process. We can make books that, by their physical makeup, interface with the imagined content that playing that game generates. One thing I'm really hankering to check out at Gen Con is Keith Senkowski's Untitled. I'm also very curious to flip through Shock:. The cover is gorgeous and evocative, and I can't imagine that the content is any less.

I know that Ron has posted about how he put Sorcerer together the way he did because he wanted picking it up and flipping through it to be a different experience, from the get-go, than picking up a standard-size game book. I think InSpectres has a good physical presence at the table, personally. Small and unobtrusive and glanceable.

Carry is laid out in a manner inspired by military field manuals (credit where credit is due - I may not have gone through with it were it not for Keith's prodding). It's pretty stark and serious and no-nonsense. I think it works. I'm very curious to see reactions from people who pick it up sight unseen.

This is one element of a larger concern that is becoming stronger within me. Production is an element of design. As I start to conceptualize new projects, I've been thinking about how the final product will look, and work, as a part of how the game itself will play. At this point, I can't even imagine saying "Well, maybe it'll be 5.5x8.5, unless I get a high enough page count, in which case I'll go for full-size, maybe with a hardcover."

Where am I on the spectrum with this? And what kinds of other concerns that relate physical book design to the gameplay experience should I be incorporating?

I Wish I Could Think About Something Else, But I Can't

2006-07-26T06:27:00.000-06:00

Carry AP at The Forge: Levels Of Engagement

Preorders will close on Friday at midnight (East Coast US).

I'll be sending out emails, but in case I don't track you down: If you're going to be at Gen Con and want your preorder there, let me know (here in comments or n.d.paoletta-at-gmail.com).

On Stupidity

2006-07-25T07:57:00.000-06:00

From Stephen Brusts' LJ

I was aware that considering the greater part of humanity to be idiots is popular in the science-fiction and fantasy community; I had not realized the importance it held in many people's personal identity. This intrigues me.

Of course, such an attitude is death to an artist. An artist who holds that opinion has only a few choices: to write down to his audience, thus producing insulting drivel (Hollywood is the obvious example); to see his audience as some sort of "elite," which leads to smug, snobbish work profound only in how cleverly it says nothing; or to deliberately cut himself off from any audience, generally followed by either cessation of work, or by a decent into the most worthless self-indulgence.

Literacy

2006-07-21T20:43:00.000-06:00

I finally managed to put the right words to the concept behind Carry.

Carry isn't about Vietnam. It's about the fiction that American culture has created about Vietnam.

Another Timestream Review

2006-07-20T15:28:00.000-06:00

So, a while back, I received an email from a very nice fellow with the Cerberus Too ezine, a Dutch gaming magazine. I don't really understand the structure of its relationship with the other stuff on that page, but the long and short of it is that I just today got the review translated into English! Many thanks to Herman Duyker for his helpful service. Below is the email he sent me:

It looks like this is a Flemish (the dialect of Dutch spoken in the North of Belgium) review. Text "in quotes" is a direct translation of one or more sentences; the rest is to briefly show what a paragraph is about.

Quite a lot of the review is actually a brief recap of the rules. I have mostly tried to translate the opinions, and left the paragraphs with the rules in it as brief statements of what that bit of text is about.

Note: I've bolded the direct quotes -N

(p.1 col.1)
- Timestream colofon

- Introduction of the Timetravel genre
- 3 types of characters - Travelers, TMers and Thralls
- Welcome to Timestream
- Small press RPG with freedom to create char & background
- Arena's and how they work - not quite like skills, but as areas of expertise

(p.1 col.2)
- Choosing a Style
- Travellers choose 3 Aspects and Ranges

(p.1 col.3)
- TMers choose 3 Techniques out of 6 available ones and choose an Arena to go with that
- Thralls cannot influence time themselves, but get that power from others. They can choose 3 Aspects and/or Techniques, but need to take a Loyalty and Masters Control Arena.
- Timestream isn't just played with dice, but also with tokens or counters. There are two pools, Time and Strain. A player starts with 10 Time and 0 Strain. Next is an explanation of gaining and losing Time and Strain, using tokens, and what happens when you reach 10 Strain.
- Each player chooses 1 or more Goals and Obstacles.

(p.2 col.1)
- Phase 2: Creating the Relationship Map or R-map that connects characters.
- Each player chooses a number of Anchors for his/her character (usually 2). An Anchor is a person to whom the PC is connected in some way. The Anchor needs to be someone that interests the PLAYER as well.
- This results in a R-map, showing the links between PC's. "This is a quite unique way to connect the characters, and for a change is something different than just saying that all the PC's are mercenaries, that everyone works for the same organisation, or that all characters accidentally meet up in an inn where a rich noble is just announcing that he is hiring adventurers to (strike out what doesn't fit) rescue a damsel in distress / search for an ancient artefact / protect a caravan."
- After choosing the Anchors, each player comes up with a Goal / Obstacle pair.

(p.2 col.2)
- Like time, about every attribute of a character in Timestream is likely to change. "The pleasant thing is that the reasoning here is very logical and fits perfectly within the idea of the game. A PC will not get stronger or more dextrous all of a sudden, but certain things (like reaching Goals, overcoming Obstacles, and breaking Strains) can raise or lower attributes."
- One thing that might be strange for many roleplayers, is that you do not roll for every action, but for an entire scene. Generally, you need one to four rolls to finish a conflict, depending on importance. "Even more special is that the winner of the conflict narates what has happened. This means that players take over part of the gamemaster's task!"
- Rolling for a conflict means adding an appropriate Arena and a possible Obstacle. Each Anchor in the conflict gives a +1 on the roll.
- When you fail, you must either lower the Arena used, the Obstacle, or your own Time pool by 1, or choose to take 1 Strain counter, or increase a Goal by 1, if it was involved in the conflict.
- When you succeed, you can raise either the used Arena or Time by 1, remove 1 Strain, or (if the conflict was related to a Goal) lower a Goal by 1 and remove 1 Strain, or increase an Obstacle by 1 and remove 1 Strain.
- It is important to note that the scores of Goals and Obstacles can go up and down. Until the score of a Goal has reached 0, it is not possible to reach it. Obstacles lowered to 0 are neutralised.

(p.3 col.3)
- It is also possible to study or train for the improvement of Capacities and Arenas.
- Besides this, there are various rules which fit in seamlessly with the concepts of this game.
- Despite the fact that time travel in Timestream won't break many heads, there are some rules to which it must comply.
- "Timestream is fairly simply laid out, with only a drawing on the cover and an image of a clock inside, but it is a pretty unique and original RPG. All rules support the concept completely and the interaction between the players and the gamemasters is something we usually only find in more obscure RPG's, like those by Jared A. Sorenson. The only problem is that no real opponents are described.\ No metaplot is suggested and there are no clear opponents. This makes the setting look incomplete, and makes the gamemaster do quite some work before he or she can launch a Timestream campaign."

[Summary]
Category | In short | Valuation
Layout | The layout is pretty Spartan, with only a painting | ****5
on the cover and the image of a clock inside. The
structure of the text is quite good, on the other
hand.
Content | The basics of time travel are set out very clearly | ****5
and many options have been thought out.
Unfortunately, there is hardly any setting
information given, which means the gamemaster will
have to decide for him/herself what to do with
all those cool characters. This game cries out
for a campaign supplement
Gamesystem | One of the best aspects of Timestream. The rules | ********9
are well thought out, original and fit perfectly
within the concept and the idea of this RPG. On
top of that there is a lot of player input,
which makes Timestream totally different from
almost any other role-playing game.
Score | A great role-playing game, that could use some | *******8
more (different) background(s).

Original by Dirk Vandereyken

Not bad!

Also, more good news coming down the Timestream pipeline, in the near future. There are developments afoot...

My Manuscript Weeps Red Tears

2006-07-19T18:03:00.000-06:00

So Luke sat down with me at DexCon and devestated my manuscript for Carry. In the best way.

Anyway, he gave me many tips for using InDesign, like, correctly - and I have but one thing to say:

Paragraph styles, I love you.

The Comments

2006-07-18T17:02:00.000-06:00

Carry...Carry's dark, man. - Judd

The game ended up being surprisingly affecting, and was good, so I pre-ordered it. - Alexander

The game itself is really sweet, dark as a coal miner's ass crack, but really interesting. - Kevin

So far, they have been sparse and fleeting. I hope that this is because it is a hard thing to express, and not that there isn't anything else to say. Time will tell.

DexCon 9 Recedes

2006-07-16T22:25:00.000-06:00

Holy shit.

Thats some good Con.

Judd's keeping tabs on it here. Bookmark that, because there will be many posts to come.

Sleep now. Work tomorrow. More later.

[Later]

God, I'm paralyzed with the sheer amount of cool stuff there is to say about this DexCon. For now, here's a rundown of the games I played:

Thursday

First, Polaris. Tony was going to try to cover a With Great Power... demo that Kat was unable to make, but only one person showed, and what he really wanted to play was Polaris. So Tony grabbed me and Shawn DeArment and we went for it. I think our fourth player (god, I'm so bad with names - which was NOT helped by the fucking lame badge puzzle that involved intentionally misspelling everyone's name tag...Dave, maybe?) wasn't quite prepared for the amount of soul-crushingly self-punishing crazyawesome play that me, Tony and Shawn can bring. But we had a really good game, and it was a nice first AP of the game for me.

Second, Carry. And what a group it was that sat down to play. Alexander (aka Iskander), Tony, Shawn, Steve and Rich (both of whom I met for the first time), and Judd. I was so freaking nervous, and the actual game got off to a sloooooow start. But, in the end, it rocked pretty hard. Again, the focus that Tony and Judd and Shawn, at least, brought to the table was cool, but in retrospect, we more pulled the mechanics along behind us then really engaged with them. The total gametime was something like 2.5 hours, and it was sick and dark and powerful.

Friday

First, a pickup game of Mortal Coil.

Oh, Mortal Coil. If Brennan wasn't so damn nice, I would cockpunch him for daring to write such an awesome, and awesomely beautiful, game. Alas, his bearded face brings nothing but sunshines and rainbows, and my efforts are thwarted.

So, Mortal Coil, run by Brennan, and with Alexander (again), Chris the Spook (Praetorian at RPG.net, I beleive), and one of the Ganaktagok Ganagtagang (I stole this phrase from someone else's blog, because it's awesome) - Fred, I think. Brennan's all "So, whats the tone?" and we're all "Bleak and depressing." The last scene of the game - my love, who was until a scene ago my mortal enemy (until she hated me so much that I used her hate to make her magically bind herself to me), brain melts as she forces me to run from the Witchfinder General, who only hesitates in following me because I used our bond to make her strike at him. The one making her brian melt? A little girl, who was until recently bound to one of my fellow rebels, in an organization that abuses children in order to heighten their emotions to where they can do magic. And we're the good guys.

Anyway. My summary: Mortal Coil is like PTA, but ALL THE TIME. Also, it's the most gorgeous gaming book I've ever seen. Jenn Rogers (who did all the art) is so freaking talented, its unbeleiveable.

Second, Carry. This time with Shawn (again! and playing the same character! He's a madman), RobNJ, Kevin "Award-Winning Game Designer" Allen Jr., Jeffery (who played in Hare and Hound at Dreamation), and a fellow by the name of Kevin, who has played a lot of Twilight:2000. This game kicked some serious fucking ass. We really engaged with the mechanics, which was nice, and I think more satisfying for me as the designer. Again, dark and painful and powerful as hell. I hope someone writes up an AP post, because I don't have much more to say than that. Well, except for my favorite quote about my game at the Con: "Dude, this is a FUCKED UP game, where my stakes are that, if I win, I'm going to FAIL my Find Traps roll."

Somewhere in here, I also saw the proof for Dictionary of Mu. Which is the most gorgeous gaming book I've ever seen. Art by Jenn Rodgers and layout by Luke Crane, you say? Why yes, that may have something to do with it.

Saturday

First, Burning Empires (!). I got up early to do breakfast with Crane & Co. (as well as Tony and Jared), and figured hey, I'm up, I should play something. Judd's table for Mu was full, so Burning Empires it was. The game was fun - I was a little overwhelmed by the context and setting info, but Luke started the session by saying that the scenario's a work in progress, and I have some feedback to email him about that. I played with Alexander, Chris the Spook, and another fellow who had a good time, but was pretty overwhelmed with the mechanics. But...well. Here's the thing. Burning Empires, in addition to being the most gorgous gaming book I have ever seen, period, bar none*, is also destined to be the most awesome military-style space-genre game ever. And I say this as someone who isn't really a fan of the genre. It WORKS, and it works WELL, for everything you ever wanted to do with soldiers in space. This book is going to fucking fly off the shelves, and it DESERVES IT. So I was happy I got to play the first demo EVAR.

*why is this so, you ask? What? The phrase "680 full-color pages inside of a digest-sized hardcover with gorgeous art" doesn't really capture it. When you see it, you will see.

Second, a pick-up game of Donjon. Run by Alexander. With me, Chris the Spook, Judd, Michael Miller, Dro and Mayuran. This game kind of bit. Something about the 7 players with the books directions to go shopping first and the task-based resolution just made it unfun. I'm sure there will be an AP about it soon.

Third, Carry again. This time with three folks who showed up for Pulp Era, but then Dregg cancelled it because he wanted to go play Cyberpunk, I think. Anyway, it was neat on a lot of levels. One of them had played Shock: at Dreamation with Joshua Newman, but other than that they didn't have much experience with indie games. Also, one of them was female, which marks the first time to my knowledge that a female person has played the complete game (Emily Care Boss played the proto-game at Dreamation, tho). The game went well, though not as well as the first two nights. I think 5 is the magic number of players for the game. 4 and 6 is no problem, and 3 and 2 can be done, but it loses a little in terms of sheer volume of fucked up shit happening. The girl didn't seem very engaged, in a "I'm here to spend time with my friends" kind of way. I would pull her a bit, and she would go to exactly where I pulled, and no further. They didn't really try to game the mechanics, which was sad, because I love how gaming the mechanics just makes the results more twisted. But, the game did go well, and I was well and fully over my nervousness by then, and I sold two pre-orders to them after, so I guess they liked it too!

And I played Plunder with Alexander and I think Fred, though I don't really remember, at some point in there. And the fucker robbed me of victory with a well-timed mutiny. I have a cockpunch waiting for him when he leasts expects it...

Anyway. That's the game summary. More to come (prolly in another post).

DexCon 9 Approaches

2006-07-12T21:13:00.000-06:00

I'm leaving tomorrow morning for DexCon. I was going to leave this morning, but I needed to use today to finish up my (ahem) first professional show (!), which opens this weekend.

I'm running three games of Carry (god, the stage fright...) and taking pre-orders, and short-demo'ing and pimping Timestream. I plan to play lots of Jungle Speed. I also want to get in some other games...hopefully My Life With Master, Mortal Coil, and anything else that tickles my fancy. I'm also bringing Citadels, which is a card/board game I really enjoy, and that I have yet to play with more than four people. And there's apparently some "Indie Publishing Roundtable" on Sunday, which sounds like a hoot.

I have no idea if there's wireless at the hotel. If there is, and enough interesting things happen, I may throw up some "live-blog" style posts over the next couple of days.

Word. If you'll be there this weekend, come say hi at the IPR booth!

RPG Design Handbook: Chapter 1 (part 2)

2006-07-10T23:30:00.000-06:00

Table of contents here.
Chapter 1 introduction here.

Identifying Your Play Preferences

The core tenant of this book is that design is rooted in play. Quite simply, your play, and what you enjoy about roleplaying in general, will directly and fundamentally inform the games that you design. Thus, it is worth taking some time to work on identifying what, exactly, you enjoy about the games that you play, and what you don't. (Hell, it's worth doing this even if you're not formally thinking about designing your own game. But I digress.)

Now, there are a number of conceptual frameworks within which to think about your play. These theories vary in degrees of specificity and philosophy, and many are presented in the next chapter. But, before skipping ahead to figure out which pigeonhole you identify with, you should do some thinking on your own.

This is a two-part exercise designed to get you into the mode of thinking critically about your play.

First, sit down and reflect on the games you have played in the past, and those you are currently participating in. Simply write down what things, in general, you enjoy about these games, and which you don't. This could be genre of game ("I like fantasy-themed games"), social interactions with other players ("I don't like it when people don't speak in-character in dramatic scenes"), mechanical bits ("Dice-pool systems are awesome"), or character-related issues ("I don't like the 'flawed hero' archetype"). Don't be shy - write down everything that comes into your head.

Now, put that list away. At your next session of play, pay attention to the things that push your buttons, good and bad. Take notes if it helps (and isn't disruptive to the game). The goal is to note what really excites you, or really annoys you, and then to identify the cause of that excitement or annoyance. After the game, sit down and write out another list like the first, but only about that specific session of play.

So now you have two lists, one of general trends and one of a specific game. Look at them in conjunction - they are both valuable sets of data. Go through them, but after every entry, add the word "because," then finish the sentence.

"I like fantasy themed games because I love fantasy literature, and I want to explore those worlds on my own."

"I don't like the flawed-hero archetype because I find myself more engaged by straight good vs. evil kinds of stories."

These "because's" will probably align into some general trends, and you will see some patterns emerge, including using the same "because" for a number of your preferences.

The point of this exercise is not for you to take this list and hold it as your gaming gospel. The point is to get you critically thinking about your play. It's a total immersion treatment for shunting your brain into a critical pattern of thought, in order to make it easier to both set goals, and make choices that are meaningful in trying to reach those goals. The actual lists are only as important as you consider them to be for your own purposes.

Chances are that this process will also spark some ideas and connections that maybe you hadn't thought of before. This is good!

Another powerful exercise is something that I gleaned from Luke Crane, the designer of Burning Wheel. I call it the "Immolation Technique."

Think of your favorite game. Now, go through and purge out of it everything that makes you unhappy. If you want to be really hardcore, take a sharpie and exacto knife to your copy of the game; it will probably suffice to make notes, or just to do it in your head. But by everything, I mean everything: mechanics, GM advice, flavor text, character options - everything that does not make you ebulliently joyful about that game.

Now, chances are, you will be left with a smoking ruin full of holes. The next step is to fill those back in with things that make you happy. Again, making a physical or mental list is probably going to be helpful here. The process of connecting the charred framework to your shiny new ideas - thats the design process.

Again. The first step is critically thinking about what you enjoy and what you don't enjoy. Identification of preferance makes it easier to set goals, and makes those goals more applicable to what you really want; setting goals make it easier to design mechanics and interactions, and makes those design choices more powerful and meaningful.

Edit: Joshua BishopRoby (who's name I almost always end up misspelling) is giving the two-list thing a whirl on his blog. Rock.

Carry Character Cards

2006-07-08T17:23:00.000-06:00

I'm working on a set of cards that can be printed out on Avery 3x5 index card sheets, or just printed out and cut out on whatever paper. Here's some work in progress:

They look nice all printed out. They should make gameplay smoother as well.

Warm Glowy Feeling

2006-07-08T16:31:00.000-06:00

Paul Tevis & Ken Hite mention Timestream (very much in passing) in the latest Have Games Will Travel. They seem to like the cover.

Squeee!

Thud

2006-07-02T10:09:00.000-06:00

I don't often feel like I read one thing and it switches on the light bulb....but this is one of those times. And surprise surprise, it's something Ron said. Here is the link.

"Thud. The non-role-players' resulting stare of puzzlement and hesitancy is fully justified. Why would anyone want to do that? Of course they'll be unsure; they're looking for the part which any social/fun activity has to have in it - the social and procedural reinforcement process. What do they do which "works?" Without that, and even without the negative practices I mentioned before, they won't have received the explanation they were looking for.

It'd be like explaining Monopoly by saying "we move pieces on a board!" and leaving it at that. Without even knowing what a turn is, or how you get money or how you know someone wins, they are definitely going to hesitate as play begins, or even as they sit down at the table."

I always have trouble explaining role-playing as a "thing" to non-gamers. This is....very helpful to my po brain, in this regard.

I can't get it out of my HEAD

2006-06-27T19:39:00.000-06:00

Now, the only thing I know about Gaunt's Ghosts is their unit writeup in the various Imperial Guard Codex's for WH40k.

But, knowing only that - I would do it with Carry.

IPR now providing preorders.

Carry Cover. Oh yeh, and preorders.

2006-06-26T11:01:00.000-06:00

Here's the final cover.

Also, preorders are now open, from now until July 17. Details here. You can order via paypal, or through Indie Press Revolution, soon as Brennan gets it up for me. There will be linkage.

RPG Design Handbook: Chapter 1

2006-06-25T09:38:00.000-06:00

Table of Contents here.

Why Design?

Introduction

Here's a statement: At some point during your time roleplaying, you have broken, ignored, modified, adopted, or otherwise changed a rule in the game you were playing. Maybe you decided that keeping track of encumberance in AD&D wasn't worth the time; maybe you realized that not once had you ever spent a point of Willpower in Vampire: the Masquerade. Maybe you created an entirely new monster from the ground up in order to surprise the heroes. Maybe you added a hit location randomizer to better simulate the vagaries of hand-to-hand combat. Maybe you settled everything in the game by talking instead of rolling dice, or the other way around.

Congratulations. You're a RPG designer.

Like anything else, there are a number of interpretations of the term. For the purposes of this book, it means just what it says: a RPG (I'll just use "game" from here on out) designer is someone who designs a game. By adding or changing the rules you use in play, you are designing right into the structure of your game, even if it's just a little bit. It's kind of like how an interior designer will paint a wall or hang a curtain, even though they didn't build the wall or install the window. Adapting your environment to your use is design.

I bet that you want to go further, though. You don't want to be the interior designer; you want to be the architect of the whole house. Right on. Since the beginning of our hobby, there has never been a better time to write and publish your own game. There are huge communities dedicated to design and play; services that enable you to publish texts with a minimum of effort and investment; and the infrastructure to put your game directely into the hands of the consumer or the retailer.

That sounds great, right? But there's one question that you will need to come back too, over and over again, throughout the entire process: Why am I designing this game?

There are a number of reasons, and none of them necessarily better than another. "Because there isn't a game out there that does what I want it to do." "Because I have this great idea, and I want to implement it my way." "Because I want to make money." "Because I won't be able to sleep until someone plays this game." The only wrong answer is "I don't know."

The rest of this chapter is dedicated to giving you the tools to answer this question coherentely and in a way that is useful for the rest of the design process. There are two critical components to consider when you first start thinking about designing your own, original game:

What are my play preferances? Everything you do is informed by your opinions and experiences, and game design is no different. Whether you are trying to fulfill or change your preferences for fun and fulfilling play, identifying those preferences in the first place is a crucial step.

What are my goals for this game? This sounds like an easy question, but its not. Further chapters will have a more detailed breakdown of this question into three, or nineteen, component questions. At the outset, however, you do need to think about your goals - not only for the game design itself, but also for who your audience is and how you will get your game to that audience.

Finally, this chapter will conclude with a breif overview of the design trends over the last 30+ years of the hobby. This is intended both to give you a reference point for the kinds of games that you tend to enjoy and the kinds of design that produced them, and as a resource that will give you a very rough idea of what published games to look at that had goals similar to your own.

One last word. As the term "play preferences" indicates, this book will continually come back to your own play, and how it informs your design. Actually playing games is the only way to learn the critical lessons that will lead to informed design. If you haven't really played that many games - well, maybe you should do some more gaming and see if there's already a game out there that fulfills you in play. Even if you have a wide experience, embarking on a design means you should play more, not less. Every game you play will teach you more about design, if you pay attention.

The philosophy of this book can be summed up thusly: The point of design is play. Without play, design is meaningless.

Now, lets get started.

Carry Preview Thang 2

2006-06-19T13:25:00.000-06:00

So Mark Vallinatos is a badass, and turned up some more photos, one of which blew the previous Carry cover photo out of the water. So here's the new cover, also with a tweaked logo that I like more.

Also, here's a shot of an interior spread.

Oh! And I got this call from the folks at DexCon. Now, the original plan was that I was only going to be able to be there on Saturday and Sunday, due to some work I had lined up. Well, the project fell through, so I will be able to be there the whole time (woot). Anyway, I originally scheduled one game of Carry for Saturday night. Well, apparentely the organizers think that there will be enough demand for "more serious and different" games that they asked me to run two more sessions, which I, providentially, will be able to do. So there are now sessions of Carry on Thursday, Friday & Saturday, all 8-midnight. Check out all the other awesome Indie events here.

I look forward to teh awesome.

Indulging In Futurism

2006-06-16T14:44:00.000-06:00

My predictions?

The changing role of the distributor will be the main pressure that changes how games get into the hands of customers. Distributors will begin dropping RPG titles that don't turn them a profit, concentrating on other hobby gaming things (CCGs, collectible minis, etc). Only the biggest publishers (WotC, maybe WW, maybe SJG) will be worth carrying - and I bet that those will start looking more towards mainstream book distributors, to expand their market. Hobby game distributors will either fold, or re-constitute themselves as only carrying high-turnover products. More services like IPR will spring up, each serving a different facet of the market. The FLGS will either begin talking directly to those kinds of services, or directly to publishers, or just stop carrying RPGs in general. Publishers will take advantage of direct contact with retailers and customers to more closely tailor their print runs to their audience, hopefully taking more time to create good product, resulting in happier customers and healthier, smaller, businesses. D&D will continue to do well, carried in bookstore chains and supported by its online iterations as well as the pen-and-paper game.

I hope to look back in 10 years and wonder why everyone got so bent out of shape over this crap.

One Of Them Preview Thangs

2006-06-14T18:22:00.000-06:00

So this is the current cover for Carry. You can click on it to see it larger. Thoughts?

What Is Indie?

2006-06-10T23:35:00.000-06:00

For better or for worse, "indie design" has become synonymous with "the Forge."

It's the same in music. "Indie rock" has become a label for a particular sound, not for the quality of being released without a deal with a record label. I'm willing to bet that, for most of the people who actually pay attention to such things, saying "I'm an indie game designer" is pretty much saying "I'm a willing participant in the Forge community," with the heavy implication of "I agree with/follow 'Forge Theory'".

My point here is not to say "indie is the new mainsteam" or "the Forge is a bunch of wankers," or whatever. My point is that, these days, it seems to me that the indie label is a marketing concern. There are people who will buy your games because they identify you as part of the Forge, and there are people who will specificially not buy them for the same reason.

So, if you read my last post, then you will see my concern with calling that rubric the "Indie Designers Guide to Game Design." Not to mention that lacking creator ownership doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to you, or something.

So...whats the most accurate way to express it? The Modern Designers Guide? The Small-Press Designers Guide? One Dude's Guide? The RPG Design Guide?

Second question. Would there be a point to such a project? Or is there something about going through the design process the way the majority of us have (really liking RPGs, tinkering with mechanics, stumbling across small-press games, designers and competitions on the internet, getting feedback and doing a bunch of reading) that would be lost in it?

Thoughts?

An Indie Designers Guide To RPG Design

2006-06-09T10:30:00.000-06:00

Table of Contents

1. Why Design?
- Identifying Your Play Preferences
- Idenfifying Your Design Goals
- Breif History of Design Trends

2. Core Questions
- Power 19
- Big 3
- Alternate 3

3. Methods & Conceptual Frameworks
- The Process of Roleplay
- System Does Matter vs System Doesn't Matter
- The Social Contract
- The Lumpley & Czege Principles
- Bricolage
- Threefold Model (GDS)
- The Big Model (GNS)
- Design What Matters vs Design (Away) What Doesn't Matter
- Freeform Play
- Asychronous Play
- Push & Pull

4. Authority/Credibility
- The GM Is Not A Person
- What These Mean For Play
- Examples Of Distribution
- Techniques For Distribution

5. Organizing Play
- Overall Play Structure
- Scene Framing & Techniques
- Pacing
- Story/Plot Creation

6. Organizing Characters
- What Is A Character?
- Players vs. Characters
- Character Advancement/Reward Cycles
- Relationships Between & Among Characters

7. Resolution Mechanics
- Karma/Drama/Fortune
- Manouver Resolution
- Stakes Resolution
- Probability & Expectations Of Probability

8. Mechanical Techniques
- Guages And Dials
- Currency
- [And other things from Design Patterns]

9. Playtesting
- The Purpose Of Playtest
- Organizing A Playtest
- Playtest Stages & Methods
- When To Stop Playtesting

10. Publishing
- Art
- Editing
- Layout
- Printing
- Advertising
- The Internet
- Three-Tier Distribution
- Cottage Distribution
- Conventions
- Promotion & Marketing

11. Annotated Index of Extant Games

Next Up: Should this really be called the "Indie" designers guide?

Taking A Break

2006-05-27T14:33:00.000-06:00

I'm taking a bit of a break from the whole online gaming scene. I'm moving into a new apartment, trying to get my life together, and have multiple projects (including getting Carry press-ready) on my plare, and I just don't have the energy right now to keep up with the blogosphere. If for some bizarre reason you feel the need to get in touch, drop an email to n(dot)d(dot)paoletta(at)gmail.com. May all of your gaming be awesome!

Push/Pull....?

2006-05-24T11:10:00.000-06:00

I don't find the push/pull conversation particularly interesting. This fact is starting to bug me, as it seems like a ton of the designers that I like & respect are getting very excited by it. So, either:

1. I don't get it, and haven't yet found an explanation that connects to my feeble brain.
2. I totally get it because it's part of how I play and think about RPGs anyway, so it's like reading discussions about how, say, plays and films are like TOTALLY DIFFERENT man, WHOA!
3. I think I get it, but I think that it's basically reformulating the basic process of roleplay, which is something I'm a little burned out on thinking about.

Number 1 just means that I'll eventually stumble across something that'll make it click. Number 2 means that hey, cool, now I have some new words to communicate with. Number 3, though - well, let me take a quick stab at #3.

To recap: the dynamic process of roleplay is that of collaborative creation mediated through the exploration of a fictional space. The players are audience/participants of this exploration, with each individual exploration "pendulum" swinging back and forth from audience to participant depending on the specific makeup of the fictional space.

Now, according to Mo,

Push is an assertion of individual authority.

Pull is a directed solicitation for collaborative buy-in and input.

Push and Pull slot in really nicely, actually - its the different ways that a/p's move the pendulum of exploration! When you are on the participant end, you can Push the pendulum of others either way (audience <--> participant). You can also Pull the pendulum of others from audience to participant, but I'm not sure you can really Pull from participant to audience (audience --> participant).

Very simple play examples!

[Push A-->P] I am a wizard in D&D. I use my Charm spell on another players character, who now roleplays his characters attraction to mine.

[Push P-->A] I am a wizard in D&D. I use my Lightning Bolt spell on another players character, who fails his save and takes enough damage to take him out of the fight. He has to wait until he gets healed or the fight is over to get back into the game.

[Pull A-->P] I am a wizard in D&D. I raise my arms and threaten another players character with magical death unless he does what I want.

[Pull P-->A] I'm not sure about this one. Maybe something like spending plot points to put myself in someone else's scene, but I think thats more of a Push. Some help here?

So if I'm totally mangling Push/Pull (#1!), lemme know.

Games? What The Eff?

2006-05-16T03:38:00.000-06:00

Look.

What I do, it's not a game. It's not a story. It's fucking roleplaying. It's its own thing, it has its own tradition, its own conventions, and its own processes. It's aesthetics are unique, and its product is irreproducable. It is not contained within the tradition of art, or of narrative, or of game theory. It has lessons to learn from those, but it is not bound by those lessons. It is something that is powerful, meaningful, and even stupid in its own right, and not because of its relationship with other forms of entertainment. It does what it does better than anything else. It's audience is legion; it's marketing is barely tapped; it's potential is endless. It is collaborative creation mediated via the exploration of shared fiction. It's facets are many, its proponents are vocal. And its fun as fucking hell.

Thats all.

Updateyness

2006-05-12T13:20:00.000-06:00

So I finally did a little cleaning up around here, updated all my side-bar links and added new ones. As always, if you wanna do a blog link exchange, leave a comment either on the "Add Your Voice" thread, or on this one.

So, Vincent is, as always, is full of wisdom. Carry is now subtitled "A role-playing game about War." I might even go down to "A game about War," but I dunno.

[EDIT] After some thought, I'm pretty sure the title is going to be:

carry. a game about war.

I'm going to work on a logo today - it'll be sweet. [/EDIT]

I hope to have my Timestream thing done by next week, but I need to change the title on that one, too.

I had a dream about Timestream last night. I think I subconsciously worked something out, and might actually start working on a second edition, or at least an updated set of Aspects and Techniques, because of it. Time (heh) will tell.

Oh - and if you don't follow the Forge, I'm officially on board for GenCon. Woooo!

[EDIT] Oh yeh! Make sure to check out Game A Day every so often. I have been posting stuff there, I promise![/EDIT]

Dammit!

2006-05-11T12:18:00.000-06:00

Fuck. I just lost The Game.

Manly? Moi?

2006-05-08T21:17:00.000-06:00

Hehe....Judd called me manly on the latest episode of Sons Of Kryos.

You should listen to that podcast, if you don't already. It's fucking awesome, and I really look forward to (crossing fingers) playing with Judd again come GenCon, if not before.

I'm also going to take a personal moment here about the game he talks about there, Hare and Hound, mainly because listening to him talk about it made me relive it a bit. It was the most emotionally intense and totally fucking awesome session of roleplay I've ever had, and it was a whole of firsts for me - my first con, my first meeting with all of the people at the table, and my first time playing a female character. So, when we got to that scene, and Judd said that he was uncomfortable - well, yeh, so was I. But I wanted to go through with it, see what would happen with this character, and what that would say about her story. And it was awesome.

No moral here. Just wanted to say that.

Bryan Wins Death Stakes

2006-05-07T13:02:00.000-06:00

(another cleaned up transcript from the Foundry)

JMendes says "Ok, cool. Christian, it's Death Stakes aboard a giant Battlestar-Galactica-like space opera thing. Join?"

Christian says "Hi Bryan. Nice to meet you."

Christian says "I'm in."

hamsterprophet tries to think of a good space opera name

JMendes says "'There's no way you were dealt that hand on chance alone,' the squadron commander growls as he sees the chips begin collected off the table. As he prepares to shuffle the deck again, the claxon goes off. 'We have multiple incoming Dalaks. Heavy bombers with fighter escort. This is not a drill. All pilots, man your craft.' You run to your space fighters and sit there, ready to be launched, tension mounting in the pit of your stomach, as it always does before a fight.
Damn Dalaks, why don't they leave us alone? The wind suddenly rushes out of your chest as acceleration from the slingshot hits you, and you are in space."

JMendes says "First one with a name gets first shot at narrating his own death. :)"

hamsterprophet is Jax Xaos, a freewheeling rebel type with a mean temper and a quick trigger finger.

JMendes says "Now, Jax, tell me how you died."

Bryan is S-Lander, a pilot that never gets any dirt on his uniform and who always has a glint in his eyes and a shine on his teeth.

Christian says "Alright, for one sentence of setting, here's my character out of my ass: His name's Rink Banastan, flyname Taurus. He's a large guy, and a sadistic asshole, but strongly supports authority and order. He does have feelings for some NPC that you can determine (of any gender, whatever), probably in the same flight squad."

hamsterprophet says "I immediately break away from the main body of ships. As I pull up the positions of the attacking forces on my screen I see that we'll need to even the odds quickly. I immediately key in a trajectory that will bring me in wide, and hopefully the rest of the squad will keep the fighters busy. As the commander yells at me to stay in formation, I swoop by one of the enemy fighters a little too close, and he breaks away to pursue me. I lead him away from the ships and out into space....but suddenly another ship decloaks right in front of me! Before I can warn the squad it triggers its pulse laser, and I'm just too close to avoid."

JMendes rolls his eyes. "Aaaactually... the ship's laser hits the back of your ship, blowing out one of its engines and sending it into a spin. Thanks to swift intervention of the emergency repair systems, you are able to bring the ship into controlled flight again. Crippled but eager, you re-join the fight."

JMendes says "S-Lander, the action is thick in your part of space. One of your squadron mates has just blown one of the enemy fighters right off your tail, but now he is being tailed himself. Now. Tell me how S-Lander dies."

Bryan says "I quickly burn some extra fuel, pull an eight g turn and fire my lateral thruster. Flicking on the targeting computers, I notice an extra button on my control panel that the techs just installed, but before I can figure out what it does, two Dalak TK-12 Gunships fly up on my tail."

Bryan says "Luckily, my forward thrusters were repaired from the last battle, so I jerk the throttle and fly on backwards, blasting the two TK-12s out of the air. Then I yank my control stick to the left to avoid the shards of metal twisting in the air. My poor squadron mate cries over the com, "Quick, they're all around me.""

Bryan says "I turn my fighter around. She's shaking violently. I think I must have hit some of that debris. When I kick in afterburners, I feel a jerk in the ship, and my back starts to get warm, and then my back is burning. I the last second, I turn to see a fireball just before it consumes me."

JMendes rolls his eyes. "Aaaactually... your ship jerks and the systems die, and for a split second, you are dead in space. But then, the backup circuitry kicks in and you are in control again. You swoop towards your squad mate Taurus, who is being pressured my two enemy fighters, but you are far away."

JMendes says "Taurus, you are asking for help, but none is forthcoming. So far, however, you have been able to outmaneuver your pursuers. Now, tell me how you died."

Bryan kicks back and relaxes fingers from all the typing and eagerly awaits Taurus's death.

Taurus curses under his breath as the ships on his tail unleash a firestorm of laserbeams on his ship. "I need assistance NOW! You fracking bastards are all going to be fracking court martialed for breaking formation!" He kicks down the pedal hard, savoring the sudden pressure, but his pursuers persist. A sudden turn left, a swipe to the right, and a maneuver that almost made his lung burst later, he lost one of them, but the second fighter remains. Taurus bites his teeth together and grips the controls so tightly that his knuckles turn as white as snow. "Alright, fracker. Let's see what you're made of." He hits the booster again and the ship zooms forward. The mothership is right in front of him, and he is on a collision course. Sweat runs down his forehead and burns in his eyes. He has to keep swerving left and right to avoid the bursts from behind, but his left wing takes a severe hit. "Frack!" Control lights flash and sirens sound as the mothership looms ever larger ahead of him. Closer. Closer. Just a little bit. In the last possible moment, he pushes hard to the right. His already damaged wing screeches against the mothership's side, but his pursuer slams right into it in a huge burst of flames and debris. But before Taurus can celebrate, his own wing finally gives way. The ship starts to turn and tumble. The mothership's back engine glows in front of him. He pulls hard at the controls, but it's too late. His ship crosses the mothership's engine exhaust and melts away.

Taurus says "Sorry, I'll make the next one shorter :)"

JMendes says "No way! Long and cool is good! :)"

Bryan says "This is all good."

hamsterprophet says "as long as its cool, dont matter how long it is!"

Taurus says "Alrighty then."

JMendes rolls his eyes. "Aaaactually... An enemy torpedo had hit the mothership's engine just seconds before, causing it to blow up in a glorious fireball. Your ship hits the exhaust of a dead engine and bounces away, spinning on itself. Just then, Blue Squadron is finally launched. They dive into the frey with wild abandon, and little by little, the enemy fighter escort is whittled away, as the bombers turn and flee."

JMendes says "The salvage operation goes smoothly. Ejected pilots are retrieved, and those occupying dead ships are rescued. It's weeks later and the senior officers are in the command room. 'We have to strike back. Captains, assemble your squads. Launch Operation Deep Strike when ready!'"

JMendes says "You are flying in stealth formation, approaching the small moon where the enemy has their strike base. The squadron commander finally breaks radio silence. 'Red Squadron, engage!'"

JMendes says "Now. Jax, tell me how you died."

hamsterprophet says "Remembering the dire threats of my commanders that I would be courtmartialed to hell and back if I broke formation without orders, I grit my teeth and keep wing-to-wing with Red 4 and 6. We release our flak barrage over the main planetary defense battery on the hemisphere we're attacking, and pull back out while the bits of flack are consumed. On the commanders order, we dive in in a full attack pattern while the defense batteries recharge. I release my plasma torpedoes on cue - but suddenly a flash of light flies up from the moons surface, and I see the glittering tip of a missile zooming towards us. I kick straight up and almost black out from the mad G's. When my vision clears, I see clear skies - and then the severed wing of Red 7. It smashes through my windscreen edge-on, breaking my hermetic seal. I suffocate in the vacuum so fast that I don't even feel the wing burst through my face."

JMendes rolls his eyes. "Aaaaactually... The lose piece of fuselage rams right into your cockpit, but stops less than an inch short of your helmet, which seals itself automatically in response to the loss of cabin pressure. Your control systems are shot, however, and you begin creeping towards the ground, under the influence of the moon's tiny gravity. In the meantime, Red Leader's voice is heard again. 'Viper, this is Red Leader. You have window of opportunity.' As the assault landers come in on cue, a flight of enemy fighters appears over the horizon. 'Red Squadron, this is Red Leader. Take them out. Keep them away from the landers.'"

JMendes says "Now. S-Lander. Tell me how you died."

Bryan says "Not wanting to break formation for fear of Court Martial, I follow close behind Commander Taurus's fighter. As we close on the enemy fighters, I notice something strange out of the corner of my eye, but when I glance to my right, I don't actually see anything. I engage and follow closely Taurus orders. I say 'Let's get these fracking bastards.' And then blast the enemy."

Bryan says "We engage the enemy, and after we take most of them out, I notice out of the corner of my eye that what I saw earlier was a second fighter squad heading for our troop landers..."

Bryan says "I say, 'Sorry, Tarus, but you're going to have to court martial me. I'm breaking formation. There's a second fighter group.' I pull a high g turn and kick in my afterburners. And then I remember the button that I forgot to ask the techs about. I lean forward to push it, when I see one of our own on my tail blasting away. He hits my engines sending my fighter into a flat spin and I fall to the planet in a dizzying spin. When I hit the ground a pine tree spears up through the bottom of the ship and empales me. Legends will be sung about Lander the Empaled."

hamsterprophet says "haha, nice!"

Bryan says "should be impaled not emplaed."

JMendes rolls his eyes, "Aaaaaactually... the tree crushes under the weight of the ship, which explodes when it hits the ground. The autoeject mechanism sends you flying across the small grove and you land, bruised but in one piece, thanks to the low gravity."

JMendes says "Taurus, your squadron is spread all over the place, under the pressure of the two attacking enemy wings, but the landers are touching down under relative safety, thanks to your collective efforts. 'Red Leader, this is Viper. We're on the ground. Thanks.' You find yourself alone in low altitude, without cover."

JMendes says "Now. Taurus. Tell me how you died."

Taurus is fuming about his troops. Those fracking idiots, the bunch of them. Just as he was about to unleash his fury over the intercom, one of his wingmen resumes formation, and together they patrol the skies to make sure that there won't be any surprises. "Wolf, where the frack were you? I thought I made myself perfectly clear last time." She was one of the pilots he severely disciplined upon their return from the previous mission. She's a piece of work, and Taurus gave her a personal visit to make sure she wouldn't ever screw up like that ever again. At least her bruised arm from his visit didn't diminish her flight abilities enough to get her shot down. "Sorry sir," she says, but her voice sounds not quite as respectful as he would like it to be. He would have to pay her another visit, and this time really show her who's boss. Just as they're about to turn around and head back to the base, he checks her status and sees that her ship has drifted horizontally, to an angle behind his own. "Wolf, get back in formation. What the--" The sounds of her lasers tearing through his ship and burning holes through his body are the last thing Taurus ever hears.

JMendes rolls his eyes. "Aaaaactually... the scene fades to flashback, back at the squadron briefing room. 'Is everyone clear?' you ask. 'The fracking Dalaks need to be completely convinced. Tiger, you blast Lander's ship as soon as the enemy shows his face. Wolf, you get mine at the first opportunity. Afterwards, join formation with their squadrons and blast away at the dummies from Blue Squadron. In the meantime, let's hope Viper Team can extract us after the strike.' The scene fades back to the fight as you crash-land your ship."

Taurus says "Niiiice."

Bryan nods head at the flashback. 'Sweet.'

JMendes says "Jax, your lifeless ship finally touches down, right in the thick of the ground fight. Hand blaster shots rage all around the battle field and the smoke of fused power armor cells fills the air."

JMendes says "Now. Tell me how you died."

JMendes :) "Yeah, I loved it when Nate pulled a flashback on me earlier, and I thought this was the time to use it."
"I flip down the blast guard on my helmet and grab my non-reg, and unnecessarily large, blaster rifle from behind the seat. I crawl out of my ruined craft and get a bearing on a pocket of enemy troops. Timing my shots precisely, I manage to pick off two or three without them noticing that my shots are coming from a different direction.

hamsterprophet says "I flip down the blast guard on my helmet and grab my non-reg, and unnecessarily large, blaster rifle from behind the seat. I crawl out of my ruined craft and get a bearing on a pocket of enemy troops. Timing my shots precisely, I manage to pick off two or three without them noticing that my shots are coming from a different direction."

hamsterprophet says "Suddenly, I feel a harsh impact across my shoulder blades. The smoke of my burning jacket assaults my nostrils as I roll over and face directly down the barrel of a Dalak elite stormtrooper. The sun glares off his visor as he kicks the rifle out of my hands. He smirks, and flips a setting on his gun - then shoots. I'm covered with sticky webbing that glues me to the ground - right in the center of the fire started by my burning jacket. I'm consumed in crackling flames as the battle rages on around me."

JMendes rolls his eyes. "Aaaaaactually... Just as the Dalak is lording over you as the fire spreads, a lone blaster shot pierces his helmet and he falls to the ground, lifeless. A three man strike team in power armor rushes to your side and puts the fire out. 'Johnson, Bierce, get the pilot out of here,' one of them says. 'I think they bought the bait. Sound retreat.' In concert, the other two pick you up by your armpits and head back to a nearby assault lander."

JMendes says "S-Lander, you stand around to take your bearings. According to the plan, you were supposed to wait for extraction near your crashed ship, but the explosion was unexpected. Between you and the ship, a small group of Dalak troopers are being pinned down by the long range fire of a Terran sniper."

JMendes says "Now. Tell me how you died."

Christian says "My connection is bad and getting worse, so I think I have to bow out of the game for tonight."

Christian says "Can you guys blog this or put the log up somewhere? I'd love to be able to read the stuff again, and I think I'll give up on my connection now, but I don't want to miss what's coming."

JMendes says "Sure thing."

hamsterprophet says "yeh, I should be logging it, i'll make sure i have a copy"

Christian says "Cool, and thanks for GMing! It's amazing how much fun and storytelling we can get out of something as strange as Death Stakes :)"

JMendes :)

Bryan says "Realizing that I'm ten clicks away from my extraction point, I quickly look through the ship to grab my survival gear. The button the techs installed that I didn't ask about is sitting loose on the seat so I grab it and stuff it in my pocket. I look myself over and notice, as always, my suit has no dirt on it. I smile my nice white smile and then run off into the woods towards the Terran sniper hoping to reach him before he is extracted...."

Christian says "Night guys."

Bryan says "about halfway to the sniper in the woods, I see a woman who is covered in dirt. 'Howdy,' I say. She answers, 'I need help...the fighting." I walk over to her and take the sleeve of my suit and wipe the dirt off of her face. She warms up to me, and soon we are off towards the sniper. We make record time and I find out that the sniper is the last Terran trooper on the ground in this section. He's waiting for me..."

Bryan says "and calls for a lift. As we're waiting, the woman I rescued eyes start to glow red. She a bomb. I grab the sniper and throw him as far as I can off the side of the hill. I run and jump to follow him, but the woman explodes vaporizing me into a red flash. The sniper survives."

hamsterprophet says, "dude, nice"

JMendes rolls his eyes. "Aaaactually... right before she explodes, out of some obscure instinct, you hand reaches for that fateful button and you press it..."

JMendes says "... and reality fades from your eyes..."

JMendes says "A split second and a bright flash of light later, you wake up... as you try to take your surroundings in, your back feels sore from sitting in that VR chair for so long. Slowly, you stand up and start disconnecting the elctrodes."

JMendes fights cheese with cheese... :)

Bryan says "Sweet. S-Lander leans back in the chair and smiles."

JMendes says "Jax wakes up as well, as a technician beside him brings the simulation to a halt. The commander is there as well, analyzing the results. 'Yes, I think it'll work. Very well, launch Operation Deep Strike when ready,' he says, then turns and heads out."

JMendes says "It's five months later and peace has been declared. Your squadron is on a routine border patrol, when an unidentified blip shows up on your radar screen. Now. Jax. Tell me how you died."

hamsterprophet lol's

JMendes fights cheese with cheese. :)

Bryan says, "I thought you were going to have us replay the battle."

Bryan wipes sweat off of brow.

JMendes :)

hamsterprophet says "the blip has a greater velocity than any recorded vehicle, Terran or Dalak. It's far too large to be a missile. As it approaches the Terran space it starts to slow to normal speeds. I signal to the squadron "Continue patrol pattern. I'm going to check it out." As I approach and bring it up on visual, I see a tubular craft in a totally unknown pattern, with no intelligible markings of any kind. "Patrol Alpha to base, unknown craft incoming. Am investigating.""

hamsterprophet says "as I approach, my instruments start wigging out, reading levels off the charts for gravity and atmosphere density. I try to back out, but even with my thrusters at full reverse I'm still inching towards the object. As I get closer, the power to my craft sputters and goes out, and I'm stuck in a dead ship, pulled into a massive gravity well."

hamsterprophet says "I see the sheet metal of my ship start to tremble and rupture, and resign myself to an ignomious death by crushing."

JMendes rolls his eyes. "Aaaactually... Just before your ship collapses under its own weight, the gravity field subsides and the ship coasts limply towards the object. Right before you crash, a small window opens in the fuselage and lets you into a huge chamber, closing itself afterwards. Your ship bounces around the chamber walls for what seems like eternity, until it comes to rest amid a pile of debris."

JMendes says "S-Lander, as Jax's wingman, you followed him in and were captured by the same field. You exit your own craft, wondering what to do next. There is air here and the gravity is gentle. Suddenly, you hear a loud noise in the distance."

JMendes says "Now. S-Lander. Tell me how you died."

Bryan says "I call out to Jax, 'Are you okay?' And after I hear back an affirmative, I call out, 'Who's there?' Nothing answers, so I say to Jax, 'I'm going to check it out.'"

Bryan says "After walking for what seems like forever, I find a screen at the end of the building. The sound I heard is deeping from the speaker. I touch the screen and a strange looking green face appears. It say in Terran, 'We've come to test you.' I push back my hair, smile a white smile, and say, 'Shoot.' The green face says, 'Why would we want to kill you now.' I say back, 'You wouldn't.' It says, 'How would you know?' I say, 'I don't.' It says, 'This is not intelligent life.' I hear the airlock open behind me and am sucked out into the cold depth of space. My head explodes shortly before my body freezes."

hamsterprophet says, "lol" dude....awesome."

JMendes is laughing in his chair!

hamsterprophet says, "that may be a winning entry.....we'll see what Joao thinks....."

hamsterprophet is literally LOL as well

Bryan says, "Thanks."

JMendes says "Jax, you feel yourself being picked up by the air current and suddenly, you are out of air. The object fades from Terran space, scheduling a return in another ten thousand years. Your names are listed as Missing In Action."

JMendes drowns in a vat of molten cheese...

hamsterprophet says "haha! awesome"

hamsterprophet says "Death Stakes rules"

Bryan says "That was pretty fun."

Joao Wins Death Stakes

2006-05-06T20:24:00.000-06:00

(cleaned up transcript from the Foundry)

hamsterprophet says "we could play Death Stakes"

JMendes says "!!! Oooh yeah"

hamsterprophet says "do you wanna GM or shall I?"

JMendes says "Beat me to it, I was gonna type exactly that! Go ahead and GM for me, then. :)"

hamsterprophet says "hehe. Ok. Whats a good setting?"

JMendes says "I'm up for pretty much anything... space opera of some kind, perhaps..."

hamsterprophet says "never mind....the Mortal Kombat soundtrack just came up on my iTunes"

hamsterprophet says "i think its a sign"

JMendes doesn't really know enough about the whole MK stylistic thingie, but yeah, I suppose it is. :)

hamsterprophet says "do you know any of the characters? Raiden, Subzero, Johnny Cage?"

JMendes ...

JMendes says "Wait you're talking about the van damme movie, aren't you? I thought you were talking about the game(s)..."

JMendes never saw that movie...

hamsterprophet says "same characters. ok. so Subzero and Scorpion are both undead ninjas, and they're bitter enemies. Subzero wears blue and can freeze things and shoot ice bolts. Scorpion wears tan and can shoot a spear out of his fist that pulls the person next to him and teleport a bit. So, you're Subzero. The two of you are facing each other in a circular death match arena, with giant spikes everywhere and dim lighting and blood stains on the floor. The announcer goes FIGHT! How does Subzero die?"

JMendes thinks for a bit... "This is gonna be tough

hamsterprophet says "(the basic stylistic thing for MK is lots of blood and special moves. and flipkicks)"

JMendes says "We circle each other for a bit, trying to get a glimpse of some weak point or trying to find the other's guard down, as we've done so many times in the past."

JMendes says "I tentatively shoot a few bolts at Scorpion, just to gauge his reaction. He steps aside with ease and jumps onto a spike, springboarding off it and landing all the way across the other side. I turn to face him, but when I look, he isn't where I was expecting him to land."

JMendes says "I do guess the next half-second, but I am already too late. The tip of Scorpion's spear makes an appearance on the front of my blue suit. I fall to my knees as it retracts again, then fall forward, immobile."

hamsterprophet rolls his eyes. "Aaaaaatually.....as your eyes fall on the empty space where Scorpion should be, you guess at his plan and leap straight up in the air. You see his spear shoot between your legs as you execute a graceful backflip and land directly behind -him-. Now, how does Subzero die?"

JMendes says "I touch my palm to his back and he starts to freeze, but he too was already expecting me to guess his move, so in a split second, he is no longer there. We sommersault around each other and the arena and meet each other at the center, each throwing as much punch and kick as the other can barely hold back."

JMendes says "Then, we break apart once again, and I send an array of bolts, covering a wide angle, which he only barely avoids. Then, out of the blue, he yells, NOW, and my head is hit from behind by (someone, don't know the characters)'s foot. I turn to face the new menace."

JMendes says "Taking advantage of my momentary stun, Scorpion does a triple sault and lands right at my side. A well placed flip kick sends me flying onto one of the spikes."

JMendes says "I stand up ready to face them, but there is a trail of blood..."

JMendes says "Everything turns red..."

JMendes says "I fall forward."

hamsterprophet says "lets go with...i dunno...Reptile, who's in green and has poison breath""

JMendes okies.

hamsterprophet rolls his eyes. "Aaaaaactually.....your vision clears, and you realize that you got slammed between two spikes, one just to either side of your chest. Your enemies have both turned to face the judge, and you catapult yourself from the floor, flying directely towards their unprotected backs."

JMendes says "Is there a key phrase coming soon, Nate? :)"

hamsterprophet says "Ice spikes grow from both of Subzeros hands as he flies through the air....now, how does Subzero die?""

hamsterprophet is totally on it at ALL TIMES

JMendes says "The judge takes in the whole of the events in the arena and stares back at Scorpion and Reptile. They continue to look at him for just a moment longer, as realization of why he isn't being forthcoming dawns on their minds."

JMendes says "A well-aimed bolt flies from my right hand and hits Repitle right in his neck. Scorpion, however, knew what was coming just soon enough to dodge it."

JMendes says "I land beside the stunned green man and touch him with my palm, all the while concentrating on Scorpion, who jumps away from me. He throws his spear in my direction, hoping to catch me as I freeze his ally, but he isn't fast enough."

JMendes says "I jump to the side, then sommersault towards him, as he slides towards me. Again, we trade blows with each other in the center of the arena, neither of us able to gain a definite advantage."

JMendes says "But then, when the time comes to break away and I jump back, he unexpectedly comes forward, pressing the attack. I am caught off balance and unable to keep him at bay."

JMendes says "Suddenly, I trip over Reptile's frozen body and fall backward. Scorpion does a double sault and lands on my chest, his right foot hitting my throat. He puts his spear fist against my forehead and smiles. 'Goodbye, brother,' he says, right before the spear comes out."

JMendes says "(are they brothers? i got that feeling from the way you described them earlier...)"

hamsterprophet rolls his eyes. "Aaaaactually....as you gaze into the empty sockets where his eyes would be, you see the barest flicker of....hesistation?...as he says the word 'brother'. You freeze, eyes locked on one anothers, for a split second, then the judge shouts FINISH HIM! You jackknife up, knocking Scorpion offbalance, and his spear shoots out and across your forehead, tearing open a gash just below your hairline. You roll in opposite directions, and as you come to your feet you manage to grab the spears cord before it retracts. Now, how does Subzero die?"

hamsterprophet says "(eh, why not? I actually dont know)"

JMendes says "For the briefest of moments, we are locked in a tug of war, circling each other and pulling hard on the cord. Changing strategies, Scorpion tries to catch me off-balance by suddenly running towards me, but I see it coming. I extend my own free hand, palm wide open, and place it firmly upon his chest. 'Goodbye, indeed,' I say, with a smile of my own."

JMendes says "As Scorpion begins to freeze, he meets my stare with unexpected confidence. I feel movement behind me and a cloud of gas encircles me. Surprised, I try to hold my breath, but too late. I let go of a half-frozen Scorpion and turn to face a freshly thawed Reptile, grinning sinisterly at me. Again, the judge shouts, 'FINISH HIM'. Reptile does a tripple sommersault right above me and lands behind me."

JMendes says "Stunned by the poison, I am unable to react. He takes my head in his hands and twitches them. There's a loud snap."

hamsterprophet rolls his eyes. "Aaaaaactually.....as Reptile takes your head in his hands, everything fuzzes and we go to a flashback. You're standing in a dimly-lit room talking to a beautiful woman in a purple ninja outfit. She says "Remember....Scorpion and Reptile have made a pact to help each other win their matches, so that they may face either other for the tournament championship. I have a small amount of a little-known powder that will serve to completely counteract the effects of Reptiles toxic breathe. Take it before the match - and if you defeat both of them - well, we will have something to talk about if that happens. She puts a small pouch in your hand and gives a mysterious smile, and then the scene fuzzes back to realtime. (more)"

hamsterprophet says "your eyes glow blue, and Reptiles hands suddenly become encased in ice, connecting him to your head. He growls "Impossible!" and you reach behind and get him in a reverse-bear-hug, lifting his feet off the ground. You begin spinning towards Scorpion, using your feet as weapons and Reptiles body as a shield.""

hamsterprophet says "Now, how does Subzero die?!"

hamsterprophet says "this game makes the best fight scenes ever"

JMendes says "Still half frozen, Scorpion is unable to effectively respond to my attacks. He slowly backs up under my pressure until his back is against the wall. As I continue to hold Reptile's body in my bear hug, he freezes completely. I do a backward sommersault and throw the frozen body at Scorpion, hitting him right in the face. It bashes his head severely, shattering into a million pieces all the while."

hamsterprophet is literally LOL. "AWESOME"

JMendes says "He falls to his knees and I step forward, ready to end the fight. I place my palm on his head. He knows what's coming next. 'No mercy,' I mutter under my breath. After he is frozen, one swift round kick ends his plight. As I walk towards the center of the arena, a lone figure is standing there. A female figure."

JMendes says "A beautiful ninja in a purple outfit is standing there, smiling at me. 'I knew you could do it,' she says in a soft voice. 'And now, I'll be the one who beat the champion.' I look at her, sizing her up. She doesn't look so tough."

JMendes says "Then I begin to feel stiff. 'Oh, wait,' she says. 'I never did tell you about the side effects, did I?'"

JMendes says "I see everything in slow motion, yet I am unable to react. It's as if I'm watching the scene from above, shouting at myself, 'look out, you idiot, she has a sai!' And indeed she does. Drawing it from her belt, she walks slowly towards me. Smiling ever so sweetly, she plunges it into my belly. 'What's the matter, Subzero?', she asks, 'Lost your cool?'"

JMendes says "The world spins around itself as I fall to the ground, unable to respond..."

hamsterprophet says "The last words you hear are the judges ritual call. 'FINISH HIM!' Then it all goes black."

hamsterprophet says "dude. you totally just won Death Stakes."

JMendes !! :):)

hamsterprophet says "that was awesome"

JMendes says "This is way more fun than I expected it to be. I gotta save a log of this!"

hamsterprophet says "yeh, me too"

Unsung On Sale

2006-05-06T10:56:00.000-06:00

If anyone remembers, I bought and posted my thoughts about a game by the name of Unsung. Well, the author has put it up on sale. I would get it if I didn't already own it, and I think you should too. If Kirt is reading this, feel free to post a link to my blog post - I don't use LJ, so I can't do it myself on your original post.

Damn!

2006-05-02T00:42:00.000-06:00

So regular readers of anyway. will remember that Vincent saw someone once that he thought was TonyLB, but wasn't, and he was mad. I can't be arsed to look up the actual post, but yeh.

I had a similar experience today - I was working a load-in with a guy who, I swear to god, looked and sounded exactly like Clinton R. Nixon. I kept on wanting to ask him how the Mouse Guard game was going, but I couldn't, and it was sad.

Champions Of The Gods

2006-04-30T14:08:00.000-06:00

"The Gods who create their Champions as Travelers tend to have a broad scope of interest and far-ranging goals. They may be Forgotten Gods who wish their Champion to change things in the past so that their future will be brighter. They may be established Gods who want their Champion to ensure that their power will not diminish. They may have a specific grudge against another God, and are making a tactical choice in regards to their Champion; they may want a defender of the faith who is capable of being anywhere and anywhen at the drop of a hat.

The Gods who create their Champions as TMers tend to have a more straight-forward agenda, or a particular situation which they want their Champion to handle. They may be a God who is facing defeat and has been saving up their power for a last effort to turn the tides. They may wish a miracle-worker or prophet who can proselytize in their name. They may need an avenger or a leader of men who can can best any mortal, or a Champion to carve out or aggressively defend a space for them among a host of similar gods. They may desire a Champion in the strictest sense of the word, one who goes forth and battles other Champions for the honor and glory of their God.

The Gods who create their Champions as Thralls tend to have more circuitous plans, and usually desire control, have a sense of paranoia, or feel the need for an iron fist of authority. Some of these Gods have had Champions fail in the past due to their autonomy, and wish to ensure that it doesn't happen again. Others take a much more personal interest in the doings of their mortal followers. Some, of course, just want to have their champion be as versatile as possible, even it means that they have to keep an eye on him at all times. Keep in mind that a Thrall is actually one step closer to his God than a TMer or Traveler – he is literally channeling the Gods Divine essence from the source, as opposed to being a granted a very discrete part of it. Most Gods keep a consequently closer eye on their Thralls than they would on a Traveler or TMer."

Indie Game Designer Primer Entry #35

2006-04-27T13:48:00.000-06:00

The GM is a myth.

There is no such person as the GM. The GM is a set of duties and responsabilities, which vary from game to game. These duties have traditionally been assigned to one player of the game, but this is not the only way that these duties can be divided among a group of players. Some of these duties are formal and written in a game text, while others are informal, and sometimes unspoken. These duties often include, but are not limited too:

*Providing antagonism for the player characters.
*Playing the roles of non-player characters.
*Looking up and arbitrating rules disputes.
*Disseminating rules amongst the group.
*Providing a physical space for play.
*Creating the backstory or world for play.
*Creating the plot for the story the group will tell.
*Being proactive and driving the player characters forward.
*Being reactive and drawing the player characters onward.
*Writing up the stats for non-player characters.
*Giving out rules rewards (like experience points, treasure and other game resources)
*Enabling and arbitrating the distribution of reward amongst the players (like fan mail).

Again: different games give the GM different duties in the text. Many groups also assign GM duties that pertain to that particular group and game. These duties are sometimes centralized in one person, sometimes divided amonst multiple people, and sometimes as evenly distributed among the group as possible.

Understanding which GM duties are called for in your game, and dividing them in a way that supports your design goals, is a critical part of design.

Sim and Immersion

2006-04-26T22:46:00.000-06:00

So I was just skimming this Story-Games post.

It seems to me that Sim and Immersion have the same problem. They're both too damn big.

Let us take some hypothetical examples.

A: I like Sim play!
B: Cool, me too! Lets's play X.
A: But....X isn't Sim. There's not even mechanics for drowning and falling!
B: But...yeh it is. In the books, no-one ever drowns or falls. Why the hell should there be mechanics for it? But there are mechanics for doing double-somersaults! Those are totally in all of the books!
A: Uh...ok. But no-one could -actually- do double-somersaults in that world. There's too much gravity. That's actually my big problem with the books - not internally consistent. This game, on the other hand....

A: I like Immersionist play!
B: Cool, me too! Let's play X.
A: But...X isn't immersionist. It has too many die rolls. How can I immerse when I have to pick up the dice all the time?
B: But...yeh it is. Every time I play I get so totally immersed in the story, man. It's awesome.
A: Uh...ok.

I'm not a huge fan of making new terms and categories...but really. Damn. I don't think there's going to be much productive discussion until subcommunities of these over-broad categories manage to clearly delineate what they do and why they like it, thus making it possible to compare and contrast amongst those delineations.

It's like, fuck. If we only had the word "fruit," it would be awfully hard to order a damn watermelon, now wouldn't it.

Squish

2006-04-24T13:19:00.000-06:00

I had a realization while playing Squash today. I miss 2nd ed. AD&D, because I had a grand old time reading the books and imagining stuff. It was a cool feeling, and I don't really have it any more, and I miss it a little.

These days, I don't bother with imagining while I read the game, cuz what comes up in play is always more awesome. Thats cool.

[Edit]

So I was reaming out my computer, and found an old document containing the "Role-Playing Guidelines" that the GM for my last, and most dysfunctional, D&D 3rd game a couple of years ago. It contained the following vaguely related gems:

[Under "OOC Chatting"]
All OOC talk will be designated with the “chicken-wing” sign. [This was that we were supposed to tuck one arm under the armpit and flap it like a chicken wing. This was meant to make it harder to have OOC chatter.]

Try to keep it to a reasonable minimum. This is a social game for people’s fun, so some of it is obviously appropriate, but too much unnecessarily detracts from the game.

OOC, when used, should be appropriately humorous, necessarily to the gaming group, or really, really funny in general. Horrific role-playing anecdotes can only be used when I have just made one myself, or when it directly pertains to the current events. Note: this rule has been created because otherwise, we would be a support group, not a role-playing group.

[Under "Bad Karma"]

Bad karma can be earned in a multitude of ways, such as:
o Being disruptive to game play
o Arguing rules in game, if a correction is not immediately visible (book and page, and paragraph reference)
o Being belligerent to other players, OOC
o Using OOC knowledge in game, or taking OOC issues into the game.

[Under "Good Karma"]

Good karma is a mystical entity that randomly strikes those who earn the gods’ good fortunes.

Good karma can not be used on the player who earns it. Rather, that player designates at the time of use who the good karma affects, and how so. All affects are subject to DM approval.

Yah, I'm a little bitter.

In other news, IPR is having a 20% off May Day sale. So hit that shit up. Buy Timestream.

Speaking of which! New, exciting developments for Timestream, coming very soon!

[Carry] Last Call for Playtesters

2006-04-14T11:11:00.000-06:00

Hiya,

As of very soon, the "public" playtesting of Carry will be over, and I'll be communicating solely with those who have already played and given me feedback. This means that the current version that's available for download will NOT be updated, though it will remain publically available for the curious.

If you are interested in playtesting and haven't gotten in touch with me, you need to drop me an email (n dot d dot paoletta at gmail dot com) ASAP.

Previous playtest threads:

[Carry] But, I want endgame now!
[Carry] Sweet Decline
[Carry] Obsidian Fist Playtest
[Carry] I-CON Game

Feel free to post questions. Thanks!

I Don't Want Anyone To Miss This

2006-04-12T09:38:00.000-06:00

Paul Czege sez:

The fact is that games are learning tools. People play games to learn about themselves and to take on skills. Your starting point as a modern RPG designer¹ isn't the metaphor. It's what you want to learn. And then you figure out how an RPG could teach it. But lessons are hard. We have defense mechanisms. So part of your task is figuring out how to make the medicine go down. Metaphor is just one tool in that arsenal. It's a way of veiling what you're doing, so as to fly under defense mechanisms. But Bacchanal doesn't have a metaphor, and it's as much a learning tool as My Life with Master. Bacchanal presumes that effective storycrafting is less about the way you string your sentences together and more about audience management. And it asserts that audience management is achieved by bringing personal honesty to your storycrafting. The game is a bit of a sink-or-swim, but it works pretty consistently because the dice mechanics impose constraints on narration in a way that gives the player plausible denial. "That debauchery didn't come from me. It came from the dice." So as long as you have one risk taker in the group, everyone learns something. What Ron is saying is that focusing on the technique of metaphor is putting the cart way before the horse. Figure out what you want to learn.² Figure out how a game can teach you that. Then worry about how to make the medicine go down. And it won't always be a metaphor.

Paul

¹I say "modern RPG designer" because most traditional RPGs aim at the same thing. They aim at giving the player a chance to validate his worldview and test his personal viability in a complex world. That's a pretty passive goal. And we all already have shelves of these games. Modern RPGs increasingly work to alter a player's worldview and impart skills. (Ron's own It Was a Mutual Decision is a non-Czege example.)

²The way to figure out what you want to learn is to figure out what truly interests you in the media you consume. All this stuff about making the medicine go down is me thinking about how my games work well in retrospect of having created them. I didn't conceive of My Life with Master out of consciously wanting a tool for teaching how to resolve being controlled via suppression of self-esteem. I just couldn't stop thinking about a game in which the player characters were evil henchmen.

Another "Duh" Moment

2006-04-11T10:08:00.000-06:00

Another issue I've been having with my Aberrant game (and, with Storyteller games in general) is the awarding of experience. Back in the day, I tried to give out experience as it says in the book (i.e. 1 automatic, 1 for fulfilling a story goal, 1 for good roleplay, etc), and realized I always gave the same player the "good roleplay" award, mainly because he's good at playing a character with a radically different viewpoint than his own. Since then, I've just based the amount of XP on the length and intensity of the session (short or slow sessions net 3, standard is 5, long or awesome sessions gets 7+).

The Duh Moment is me realizing why XP in this system is so unsatisfying for me - character progression doesn't tie into any actual mechanical stuff. No matter which resources on the sheet they use, or which flags I respond to as the GM, or which rolls are successes and which are failures, it's still basically up to me to decide how much they get, and thus how fast they progress.

Compare this to Dogs - every single change to your character is a direct consequence of the choices you make while engaging in the escalation mechanics. Boom.

For my Adventure! game over the summer, I tweaked experience to be more directly applicable, and it worked pretty well - your experience pool and your Inspiration pool were the same, and you could give other players Inspiration/XP as fan mail, in addition to the mechanical ways to gain Inspiration and the GM handout of XP. It was cool, because it encouraged the players to measure how important immediate benefits of spending Inspiration was, compared to the permanent benefits of spending XP.

But yah. XP progression in Storyteller gets the "bad design" stamp from me.

Walk Tall

2006-04-07T08:55:00.000-06:00

Dear Gamer: Walk Tall. is the best thread I've read at RPG.net to date. I suggest that non-regular RPG.net readers check it out.

Game A Day is dead. Long live Game A Day!

2006-04-05T14:18:00.000-06:00

So, as regular (hah) readers may have noticed, the Game A Day Project has been pretty defunct since the holidays. There are reasons beyond my own laziness - two of them, in fact. The first is that when I got started working again on my actual games (Carry, to be precise) I no longer had the energy to come up with gaming-related bits that I wouldn't necessarily use. The second is that I wasn't personally getting what I had wanted out of the project.

I am, however, ready to give it another shot, with two major changes. The first is that it's a place to post, not only game-related tidbits and thought experiments, but also little lessons learned from playing games. Not just RPGS - if you play any kind of game, and have a "huh, this is an interesting/applicable/crappy design element," but don't have the interest or energy to making it into a full AP post, Game A Day is where to put it.

The second major change, as indicated by the use of "you" in the above, is that I would like to open it up to the community at large. So, if you would like to post to Game A Day, leave a comment here and I'll hook you up. You need a blogger account, I suppose.

What's the point? Well, a repository specifically dedicated to gaming ideas, thoughts, bits and lessons seems like a useful resource to me, and they are the kinds of things that tend to get lost in active forum discussion. Feel free to argue/critique/lambast the idea in comments.

This sucks.

2006-03-30T10:19:00.000-07:00

This sucks.

[edit]

Wow, RPG.net mods jumped on that quick. Same post here. Still sucks.

Carry & Other Updates

2006-03-29T19:30:00.000-07:00

Got to run Carry at I-CON for Thor, Dro and Mayuran (three of the Burning Wheel mafia). They were awesome, and I eagerly await in-depth feedback from them. The game jumped from a 6 on the awesome scale to at least a 7.5 just from that game and the tweaks that I'm now making, centering it more on Burdens (where it should be) and tuning the actual play structure. This, combined with the general awesomeness of all the Indie peeps that showed up, made it a good time for me, despite the lack of sales.

I also helped invent a role-playing exercise called Death Stakes. It grabs your man-grapes and squeezes until you realize that illusionism is bad roleplay.

I finished Countdown for Game Chef 2006. It's not that great as a game, but I find it interesting in concept. I expect I may try to throw together a game, see how it holds up, then make it a little prettier and offer it as a free download. Anyone who wants to play, leave a comment.

I'm about a third of my way through my essay on Sim. Hopefully that'll get posted soon.

Every day I get home and wish that I could ignore the rest of my life and just work on games. I don't know if thats a good thing or a bad thing.

Playing Critically

2006-03-24T08:51:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking a bit about something that Luke said at Vericon.

(From my notes) Luke: Focused on one game, Burning Wheel. His advice, take a game you enjoy, and destroy and obliterate and burn out everything you don't like about it. It'll become unrecognizable, then you add in stuff that makes you happy.

So the last couple long-form games I've run have been Adventure! and Aberrant, two of the Aeonverse games from White Wolf. I understand that there was a d20 version of Aberrant released, but I fie upon that and stick to the modded storyteller system used in the original games.

I've noticed that, even though I have tried to play by the rules, there are definitly areas of the game which I just can't make myself engage with because they bore me. Specifically, the whole "NPCs have the same stats as PCs and you must track them" thing. If I ever have the urge to write a Storyteller-esque game (which Imp kind of will end up being, maybe-sorta), thats what I'm going to fucking burn out. It makes me sad, and sometimes angry. Which is lame. In play I scoot around it by just making up stats off the top of my head that are directly applicable. "Well, you're using your Dominate power on this baseline guard....I guess he has, like, 5 Willpower. Sounds good." Straight up No Myth GMing on my part. [EDIT: Looks like I'm not the only one.]

Which sucks, because it throws a big part of the mechanical structure of the game, the balancing between Powers and Taint, out the window. If I want a heavily Tainted adversity, I'll just make it up, without going into the guts and figuring out what mechanical reason he has to be Tainted. At our last session, I used a power to inflict two different kinds of damage over the course of an encounter, and one of the players (who knows the rules way better than I do) was all "Well, technically, it does one OR the other, which you pick when you take the power." And I was all "Well, he has the power twice!" Lame on my part.

I feel like the GM shouldn't have to keep track of more than any other player in terms of resources to affect the fictional material. It's always been something that I tiptoe around with traditional games, with greater (2nd ed D&D) and lesser (Storyteller) degrees of success. It's another "huh, I do that in all the games I design" thing that I kind of just noticed, like how I deal with character death.

What do I mean by "the GM shouldn't have to keep track of more than any other player in terms of resources to affect the fictional material"? Well, take Storyteller (or D&D, for that matter). The players all have a character sheet, which is a list of the resources they have to effect the fictional material of the game, in the form of traits and pools and powers and whatnot. Now, it is expected that the GM should have the same sheet for the principle antagonists, and at least an abbreviated stat block for lesser adversaries, along with knowledge about difficulty levels and what kind of mechanics to apply to which challenging situations. Assume a group of 3 players. That will probably give you at least 2 or 3 principle antagonists at any given time, plus mooks, plus all the environmental challenges they'll run into. That's a lot of tracking for the GM to do, and frankly, at this point in my gaming career doing that much paperwork is BORING.

Now look at Carry. Everyone has a pool of dice. The GM has no guidelines to how he uses his, while the players have their Approach and Profile to deal with. This is a design decision that I made, to not have the GM have to choose an Approach. Why should he? He should use his judgement to provide an appropriate level of adversity, depending on his resources, the other players resources, and the overall tone and direction of the game and the specific situation at hand. In practice, I enjoy this much more, because I don't feel like I'm responsible for maintaining some kind of platonic "well, if you ever WERE to engage Dr. Mephisto on the topic of windsurfing, his Watersports 4 would totally kick your ass" ideal.

So, my mythical Storyteller heartbreaker would give the GM a pool of dice depending on how badass or important the adversity is, and he can roll out of that pool of the dice for whatever he wants in response to the characters actions. Maybe he would choose two or three key traits that give a bonus dice (like, Kicks Magnetic Ass would give him an extra dice for bringing the characters magnetic mastery into the gamespace, or something). Or maybe each NPC has an "Effectiveness" stat, plus the menu of powers, and anything they do that doesn't have to do with a power, the GM just rolls their effectiveness.

Y'know. Something that would make me happy.

I-CON 25

2006-03-23T11:37:00.000-07:00

I will be at I-CON 25 this coming weekend, along with TonyLB, Jared Sorenson, Luke Crane, and Clinton R. Nixon. There's a buttload of other guests and shtuff as well (Michael Pondsmith from R. Talsorian and Steve Kenson from Green Ronin, among others), but I don't forsee myself straying too far from the indie gaming.

I have a demo of Timestream scheduled for Friday night, and a game of Carry for Saturday. I'll also be working on my boothmonkey skills, and will do my damnedness to finally play some Burning Wheel! The indie games schedule is here.

We'll see how it goes. It'll be an interesting contrast to Dreamation, I expect, but I also expect good times. Come next Monday, my two weeks of craziness will finally be over, and hopefully I can get back on track with general online participation, as well as getting more work done on Carry.

Character Death

2006-03-16T11:44:00.000-07:00

I just realized that none of my game designs include a provision for character death.

In Timestream, you play until you are done with the character (satisfied, bored, whatever). I mean, I guess if you had a really harsh Strain break, and you were very low on a Capacity and you brought it down to -6, you could say that you died. But, if you don't want it, no death for you.

The whole point of Carry is that everyone dies except your character.

The game I'm designing for Game Chef won't have anything about character death. Again, character failure could lead to a narration of character death, but that's a choice, nothing mechanical about it.

So, that's interesting, in a "huh, that's something I should think about" kind of way.

IGC06

2006-03-12T21:44:00.000-07:00

So the Iron Game Chef competition is going on, if you haven't been alerted already.

I'm not gonna lie - I was totally underwhelmed by the theme this year. Last year, I read the theme/restriction/ingredients, and got really excited about the million ideas I was getting. This year, I read the theme and ingredients, and went "Buh..." for about 2 days.

I guess its some combination of I feel like designing for a specific session length is something I've already done (see Carry), and being a little ticked that the only concrete "challenge" I wanted to set for myself for the competition was to design an open-ended, campaign-style game. So that's, uh, not going to happen. Finally, I think the structure of two categories of ingredients is a poor choice, and will give Andy feedback about that for sure.

BUT! I've been brainstorming, waiting for something interesting to grab me, and I think it has. So that's awesome, and I'll see what comes of it.

Sadly, I have probably my busiest week of the semester coming up, so I won't be able to be too active on the Game Chef boards, which sucks. But I hope that I can pull out a solid game, and see how it stacks up to some of the AWESOME ideas that are flying around right now.

So, we will see. If anyone reading this is also participating, good luck! May the best chef win....

Manouver Resolution

2006-03-09T15:06:00.000-07:00

Here's something that made my brain go "sweet!" It's from Story-Games, at the end of a thread entitled Sell Me On: Task Resolution

John Harper Said:

Maneuver Resolution. Yeah, that's pretty nifty.

However! I don't think MR has a "pre-defined result". Because if you have agreed to the result before the roll... well, you're resolving stakes. :-)

Remember, this is stakes resolution:
"If you roll a 25 or better, you hit and do 2d8 damage."

So, maneuver resolution would be:
"Roll to hit. DC 25."

"That would take a climbing roll. +2 for your rope."

"Make a stealth roll."

There's no agreement before the roll about what is being resolved (no stakes, in other words). It's just a roll "to see if you do it." The consequence of the action is not explicit and agreed-upon beforehand.

This makes total intuitive sense to me, and has a very clear empirical determinent: do you establish the results of the roll before you make it? If yes, its stakes resolution, with the stakes being whatever that result you established is. If no, its manouver resolution, and (here's the exciting part) something else has to happen after you roll to establish the result.

In a lot of gaming, this is by fiat by whoever has the authority over that roll - like, in D&D, the GM calls for a Perception roll. A character succeeds. All that has been established is that he succeeded at the Perception roll - now, the GM says "You see rustling in the bushes." Thats the system of GM authority kicking in to establish the result of the manouver.

Another system from D&D - the random roll tables. Like, with a Wand of Wonder - say you have to make an Intelligence or Spellcraft roll to use it (stakes resolution). Then the system says "Roll on this table of random magical effects." The GM rolls (manouver resolution) and gets a shower of flowers. Stuff like that.

Looking at it from this perspective, resolution mechanics can have quite the range of combinations of Stakes and Manouver mechanics. Like Dogs - overall mechanic is Stakes Res. Each Raise, though, is Manouver Res - the system asks "Can you beat this dice result with that dice result?" If you can, you get to narrate something, but the result of the raise itself is not set before you make it. The player has authority to narrate in something appropriate.

It seems to me that the field of "what happens after you succeed at a manouver roll" could be quite a fertile field for design.

Edit: John Harper has provided his term definitions at Story Games. Very nice.

Everyone, I Tell You!

2006-03-07T21:46:00.000-07:00

I maintain the position that everyone should play InSpectres. No, I don't care, shut up, play InSpectres.

Played it tonite for our one-shot night - oh man. My InSpectres play continues to be an unbroken string of Awesome. Player comments: "I like this game a lot more than I thought I would" and "Wow, this is a really fun game." I had a blast.

Damn you, Sorensen! Between InSpectres and PTA, us lowly mortals have an awful high standard for reliably fun play to reach.

...

2006-03-06T21:28:00.000-07:00

I've been looking through this site for the last hour: National Vietnam Veterans Art Museum

I find it...very powerful.

As I do more research for Carry, read more memoirs, get more information about how the survivors of Vietnam reflect on their experiences, I can't help feeling that making their stories into a game is disrespectful. Maybe even insolent. Like, people shouldn't be having fun with this stuff. What right do I, a college student that has absolutely no idea what combat is like, let alone Vietnam itself, have to engage with this material in the way I am? Why am I taking these experiences and putting them into a form which is meant to create an enjoyable evening's pasttime?

What if I do it wrong?

What if I do it right?

Carry: Sweet Devolution

2006-02-26T23:53:00.000-07:00

Finally played out a full game of Carry. It was awesome! Class in the morning, full report to come tomorrow, but quick highlights:

The mechanics work. Yay!
There need to be mechanics changes for 2-character play. Fair.
Sgt. orders a prisoner killed. The Cpl. disagrees with the order, but does it. This leads to more fallout for the squad. Perfect mechanical support of this moment. Awesome.
The two characters facing off, forcing the surviving squad members to chose which side to join. Great scene.
The slow transfer of the Cpl. character from supportive of the Sgt. to totally against him. Nice.
The inevitable tragedy that is built up to over the course of the entire game. Kick ass.
Having at least 3.8 hours of fun in 4 hours of play. Rockin'

This game kicks ass. More tomorrow.

Edit: AP thread up at the Forge. [Carry]Sweet Decline

Timestream Premier Edition now at Key20

2006-02-25T14:59:00.000-07:00

The perfectbound, full-color edition of Timestream is now available at Key20 in addition to IPR.

That is all.

Edit: And the coilbound, black-and-white (Reference) edition is also available. Note that Key20 has a nifty automated process that will get you the PDF for free if you purchase either print edition.

Another Reason To Love Hippie Games

2006-02-22T21:17:00.000-07:00

We kicked off our Aberrant game last night, to great success (I thought, at least). We spent the first 45 minutes or so polishing characters and talking about them, and generating a group Kicker - I believe I used the phrase "Ok, so we have characters, and we have a situation. Now we need an event that will kick the characters into that situation. Ideas?" And off we went. It was tres awesome, and even the minimal notes I had made ended up being useless, as the game went in a very different, and fun, direction. In a nutshell, we determined that Project Utopia was piloting a program analogous to the Army Reserve, the Utopian Auxiliaries (UAX, because everything with an X is EXTREEEEEME!). The Kicker was that the girlfriend of one character and the nephew of another both "volunteered" to be part of the program, which the Aberrants, a faction all the characters are involved in in various ways, beleive to be spreading its totalitarian plan of Nova sterilization. (If anyone needs a translation/explanation, I can do so in comments.)

The part that made me re-realize how far we've come from this kind of game, though, was this: at one point, the boyfriend character was confronting his girlfriend about what kind of treatment she was getting at the Utopia facility. I asked his player what he wanted to roll for the conflict, and he said "Uh....I love you + you're my girlfriend? It's a relationship, I dunno what I should roll." I made a smarmy comment about how the Storyteller system isn't exactly...suited...for such things. But it made me think about how there's a slew of games out there, right now, in which you can essentially roll I Love You + You're My Girlfriend and have it be exactly right.

Anyway. Keep up the good work, everyone.

(Oh, and this marks my 100th blogpost. Woo!)

Carry Playtest Report...

2006-02-20T18:28:00.000-07:00

Is up at the Forge. Many thanks to Joe McDonald and his crew. My response is there, and is reminding me of that old saw about the designer that doesn't write down the rules that he actually uses to play with.

So, new version of Carry to come soon...I will hopefully be playing some myself this week, so after that.

Comments and questions welcome on the linked thread!

My History with Roleplay

2006-02-17T09:05:00.000-07:00

I read Tolkien really early. Like, I think my dad checked the Hobbit out of the library for me at 6, and I read the Lord of the Rings on my own shortly thereafter. So I was into fantasy shtuff right off the bat, and when I saw the old red-box D&D at Toys-R-Us with the Dragon on the cover, I snagged it.

My first memories with that, other than just reading the books and thinking it was really cool, was running around with my friend during recess in third grade. We would pick a class (this was when Dwarf and Elf were still classes, IIRC), and spend our starting money on the one-column equipment list (I always got wolfsbane). Then we would fight imaginary monsters on the playground.

Somehow, over time, this morphed into me getting the 2nd Ed. AD&D books, and me playing actual games with my friends. My memory isn't particularly strong, so I have no idea how long this process took, but I knew I was GMing games in various campaign settings (Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft - I still love Ravenloft) by 5th grade.

Cue lots of D&D. None of it was particularly memorable - making characters, fighting some stuff, maybe two or three sessions, making new characters. I was usually playing with only one or two other people, so I would often run a character in addition to GMing. I loved reading the sourcebooks almost as fiction, but play would rarely interface with anything but the broadest color. I did run modules from time to time, but I think 3 sessions was really the longest any of that ran either.

I did a lot of stupid shit along the GM is God mode - like making a player with a wizard character actually memorize and recite to me the Magic Schools chart from the 2nd Ed. PHB, each school and its opposing school, in order to get an extra first-level spell. Like making everyone sign a contract (I don't remember what it said at all) in order to be in the game. Like lying and telling a friend that I didn't want to play with that I stopped playing, just so he wouldn't ask anymore.

I remember that I drew a lot of maps, typed up a lot of NPCs and created a lot of room descriptions that never saw the light of day.

One day, sometime in middle school (7th-8th grade, somewhere in there), when I was at the bookstore (not a game store, but a Hastings with a pretty big RPG section), I saw this game called Vampire. I was into Ravenloft, and vampire-y stuff in general, so I got it.

I remember. I was all WHOAH! You don't have to roll to make characters AT ALL! You get to choose all of your stuff, and have all these cool powers, and its in the modern day, and WHOAH! This is SO DIFFERENT!

Cue about 4-5 years of gradual WW play and collecting. We also played 2nd Ed, but I think we played more WoD games. I do remember some of these characters - and, yet again, "campaigns" would rarely last more than 3 or 4 sessions at a stretch. I don't feel that we were particularly into making a Story, but I knew that I was totally into the mythos of each gameline, like all the Clans and Disciplines and the Metaplot and how it all hung together in certain evocative ways. There was a lot of killing things and taking their stuff.

A couple of things from this period - once, I statted up these werewolves because one my players was totally "twinking" and I wanted to teach him a lesson. He had a silver broadsword, for some reason, is all I remember. Anyway, he got initiative and took out both werewolves in ONE ROUND, and I was so pissed I threw a handful of dice at him. This was....a low point.

At the end of high school, two major things happened. One was the release of WW's Hunter: the Reckoning. The other was my "senior project."

Senior project was 5 weeks at the end of school where you could do anything you wanted, as long as you could make some case that it was academic and that you had some product at the end. I designed a roleplaying game. My goal was to take all the parts I liked about WW and AD&D and put them together into a fantasy/sci-fi setting where anything was possible. The less said about it, the better - though, someday, I want to revisit it and make it awesome.

Hunter grabbed me by the balls. I was so into it, all the themes and the everyman-struggling-against-the-darkness and the mystical overtones and the multiple points-of-view and everything. I somehow drifted onto the WW Hunter forum, which supported both in-character posts to the canonical Hunter-Net, a mailing-list that only Hunters had access to, and OOC posts about the game, arguing points of canon, etc. I played through an entire character arc on those boards, from Imbuing to his eventual suicide, over the period of about 6 months, and he continues to be my favorite and most fully-realized character I have ever played. My Hunter forum play will eventually get its own writeup - but this was the first time I had felt like I had put closure to a story arc.

My senior project taught me that I needed to learn more about designing games, and that I really wanted to design games. These impulses led me to the Forge at the beginning of college.

My freshman year, I played with a group that exhibited almost every single bad gaming stereotype you could think of. We played 3rd Ed D&D, a Vampire elders game set in Victorian Age Vampire, and the aborted attempts of a couple of other games. This year, combined with my introduction to the Forge, taught me that I needed to game with friends, not make friends with gamers.

The summer between freshman and sophomore year, I played a summer game of Mummy: the Resurrection with two of my good friends from my high school gaming years. It rocked on toast, and is probably still my favorite long-form game. We met every week, played, and completed a full story arc. Yes.

Last summer, played a similar game of Adventure! It didn't click quite as well, but it was fun, and satisfying, and I wish I could play it longer.

Now, I've been playing a lot of one-shots of Indie games, as well as getting a game of Aberrant off the ground. The last 3 years have been a gradual upwards trajectory of play ranging from good to awesome, in a huge variety of ways.

I don't think I had a particularly negative or damaging formative play experience, but it was very tightly limited. My wanting to design games stems less from trying to fix things that broke me, and more from the sheer joy of doing it. Now that I have some design under my belt, my priorities are changing a bit, but I still think the process is a huge part of why I do what I do.

Coincidence?

2006-02-14T22:49:00.000-07:00

So just as the shtuff about Ron's Brain Damage post gets to really swirling, I run across these threads on RPG.net:

What games have you been thrown out of?

What games have you walked out of?

Many of the accounts (3 pages so far in the former thread, 14 and counting in the latter) concern Vampire and Shadowrun games. Not all, by any means, but a siginificant portion. These include games where the GM shot the poster with a paintball gun when his character was shot in-game, where the poster was physically attacked by another player and gave him a bloody nose in self-defense, where posters have been given smokescreens and run-arounds to be kept away from other gaming groups, where posters say that they should have walked or should have been kicked out for their behavior, but weren't.

Anecdotal, self-selecting, etc. But....these threads come at a very illustrative time.

Edit: Things just keep striking me. Like this quote from a thread entitled "What exactly is an RPG": "A bunch of guys (or gals) get together, one of them tells a story, everyone else plays the part of a character in the story. The storyteller, usually known as the Game Master, tells what is happening, the players tell what they do in response to what is happening, and the storyteller decides the outcome of their actions, usually by rolling some dice and comparing the result to one of the characters' skill scores."

I'm really glad that I don't play like this any more.

Sim Designs?

2006-02-13T22:21:00.000-07:00

I have yet to see anyone make a solid statement for a published system that facilitates Sim play.

Anyone want to bite on this?

What kind of Sim does it support?

My Thoughts On Unsung

2006-02-09T11:22:00.000-07:00

Note: This isn't really a review, especially as I haven't played the game (yet). I've read it exactely once, and am giving impressions, mostly as they relate to Carry.

I got Unsung for a couple of reasons. First, it's one of those games that I kinda-sorta paid attention too during it's development, and I want to establish a habit of actually finding out how those end up. Secondly, it's been mentioned in passing that it's in the same general vein as Carry (i.e., a war game that doesn't suck). Thirdly, I need to do better with the whole reading/playing other games as I'm developing mine thing. So, I get on the intar-web and order the coil-bound version from lulu.com. In general, I prefer coil-bound, so I'm always happy when its offered. It's 53 pages, color front cover, 8.5x11, written by Kirt Dankmyer via his Ivanhoe Unbound imprint.

The game is cool. My focus is on how it's similar too and different from what I'm doing with Carry, so that's what I'm gonna talk about.

Basically, Unsung is about forcing hard moral choices onto the characters, with a heavy dose of shared appreciation of said moral screwage. The "setting" is a group of characters who regularly face situations that will force those choices, with the actual setting qua setting being left up to the group (though Kirt offers a fantastic spread of genre settings that hit pretty much everything that qualifys). Systemwise, characters have a small number of traits (6, I think), with a simple d20 roll-under mechanic for determining success.

Carry, on the other hand, is about exploring the effects of the one specific high-stress situation (squad in Vietnam) on the characters, and how their issues interface with the rising stress, and their pre-determined doom. Just to make that clear.

Anyway, the core of Unsung is Gifts and gift points. Essentially, a player can give another players character a Gift whenever it would be appropropriate. A Gift is a detail or event in the scene that forces a moral challenge on the Gifted (heh) character, who must then succeed at a Responsibility check to retain control of the character. If they fail, they suffer a Lapse, where their character must take the morally easy/expedient choice, usually the most violent, brutal action they can. The Gifting player gains a Gift point if the Gift is accepted (more on this in a sec). Gift points can be used to help succeed at rolls (including Responsability checks), take over non-protagonist characters, increase stats, etc.

So, the core of the game is creating a group of characters that continually face morally stressful situations, then having the players Gift other characters with tough choices in order to gain the currency of increased effectiveness and advancement. There is also a Retirement point system, which means that the group accumulates RPs in every mission, and then when they hit whatever threshold (default 50), its time to wrap up the narrative. Character death is also very possible and needn't be avoided, as it can be a powerful statement. Also, gift points stay with the player, not the character, so you still are in on the game even if your protagonist bites it.

This is all cool. My only problem with the rules is the continual presence of veto power - usually, if anything is going to happen to your protagonist, both you and the GM have a veto to use over it. While I admire the social contract enforcement application of this rule - as in, there is a continuous tool available to you when you feel like others are being inappropriate towards your character, encoded in the rules - I feel like it's ...kind of weak as a design statement. To me, it takes the game from being about forcing moral choices to being about allowing moral choices.

However, the issue that it addresses (in my mind) is very real, and very applicable to Carry. That is, this kind of genre gets into some heavy shit. Making the choice to kill a child to save a group of hostages, for example, or to execute an innocent man in order to preserve peace between warring gangs - this is all stuff that, for some people, will push buttons. Especially for police officers, military personnel, and other people that do have to or have dealt with these real issues, how do you make the game a valuable experience?

In Carry, I'm looking to call for a very clear discussion about people's backgrounds and their lines with the material that will come up in play - but once that has been had, all bets are off. In Carry, if you can't deal with the shit that comes up, there's either been a breakdown on one level (social contract level or literal communication level), or you've just learned something about yourself. In Unsung, if you can't or don't want to deal with it, you have a veto. Different approaches.

The awesome thing is the Gift system, and how that encourages everyone to get involved with everyone else's issues. I touch on it in Carry with the Backstory mechanic, but it's not very developed. The difference is that, in Unsung, the actual adversity comes from everyone at the table. In Carry, the GM provides adversity until and unless the players actively pursue conflict among themselves - until the endgame, when the characters have to turn on one another. But, if playtesting reveals that more total table input would be appropriate, I'll definitly be using Gifts as a model.

Oh, and the other thing I really like about Unsung is the Rule of Currency, where if one roll would obviously influence the chance of success of the next roll, you apply a modifier based on the former to the latter. Where this gets really cool is you can roll Instinct (what it sounds like) to apply to Guts (doing violent stuff), and you always have the option to double that bonus, for the cost of making a Responsability check (as of you were given a Gift), possibly suffering a Lapse. This balance of rewards and fallout really appeals to me as a designer, and it's a very cool and elegant way to say that when people gain strength from their savage nature, they will probably lose their moral conviction. Very nice.

Hopefully that makes some sense. Is there anything else anyone is curious about? Any more explanation needed for anything?

Good Stuff Out There

2006-02-07T16:24:00.000-07:00

For those who aren't "in the know", Story Games is ready for more! The Story Games Forums are supposed to be a middle ground for people who want some free-wheeling RPG.net-style gaming discussion peanut butter in their Forge attitude/focus fudge, or, alternately, want Forge-y behavior and attitude vanilla swirled into their RPG.net "Sell me on..." and general-hanging out chocolate fro-yo. The metaphors, they are a a-mixin. Anyway, check it out.

Thor makes a damn good point in The Algebra of Settings in RPGs

Emily has a great February deal on Breaking The Ice. If you've been on the fence, the time is now!

There is a playtesting forum for Carry over at The Windsor Gaming Resource. They haven't played yet, but its great to get feedback from gamers who aren't necessarily into the indie scene. My favorite comment thus far:

This really wasn't what I expected. When you stated that it would be played in one session I didn't expect something so open ended. As in on[e] session could take some time, and there is a ton of replay value as the scenes would change each game. I expected more of a 'tournament module' type of thing like you see for D20. Here are your characters, here is the adventure, it should take about 3 hours, go! I am again impressed by the format, the concept and the balls to try something like this.

Wow. Thats awesome. I can't wait to hear about their actual play!

And I have to finish reading BtI, Unsung and the last couple pages of OctaNe, not to mention Amber Diceless and reviewing the bits of Aberrant I don't remember. It's good my reading load for real life is light, because I wouldn't be getting any of it done. My thoughts on Unsung will be posted when it's read, as a couple people have expressed some interest in those.

Oh, and if you haven't been reading Deep In The Game you should be.

My Week In Gaming

2006-02-02T11:31:00.000-07:00

Saturday: Game Design seminar w/Luke, Jared & Vincent at VeriCon. Ticket to Ride w/girlfriend and suitemates.
Sunday: Chillaxin.
Monday: Ticket to Ride w/suitemates.
Tuesday: Brainstorm session with weekly RPG group, laying out agenda for the semester. Schedule weekly meeting on Sunday nights.
Wednesday: octaNe and Jungle Speed arrive.
Thursday morning (midnight-2.30 am): Introduce people to Jungle Speed. Play up to 7-person games.
Thursday day: Unsung arrives. More Jungle Speed as I run into people.
Friday: Apples to Apples arrives. More Jungle Speed. Reading OctaNe and Amber Diceless. Play the drinking game variant of Apples to Apples.
Saturday: More Jungle Speed. More Ticket to Ride (1 5 person game in afternoon, 2 1-on-1 games w/girlfriend after dinner).
Sunday: Guess what? More Jungle Speed. Game night, we talk about our first medium-length story arc and create characters for Aberrant. Afterwards, more Jungle Speed.

I count this as a good week.

Doing Carry Right: The Big Three

2006-01-31T14:30:00.000-07:00

This is post one of my series of posts about Carry wherein I conduct all that question-answering that you really should do when first writing a game. Also, this post is intended to be an example of the kind of analysis that Jared, Luke and Vincent were getting at at VeriCon.

What? is your game about?

Carry is about the psychological issues of soldiers in Vietnam. It's about seeing how the pressures of war change this group of men, and how their own issues and burden feed into that process. It's about considering how we fictionalize conflict, and it trys to get at the fact that war fiction interfaces with the actual events of war in a very strange and unique way.

[The Jared & Luke in my head are now nodding, but with bemused looks that indicate that I may say that now, but lets see how smart I am once they're done with me.]

How? is your game about that?

All of the characters are defined by their Profile, which fluctuates over the course of the game. Some profile are more psycho, and others are just abnormal. Over the course of the game, the non-played characters in the squad get killed off, focusing pressure more and more on the played characters. Finally, there's an endgame where the surviving characters snap and turn on each other. Mechanically, the endgame determines who actually survives, and what legacies and memories the played characters leave behind. The mechanics have a high level of variability, in order to encourage and allow the nonsensical nature of what happens to troops on the ground in war.

[Luke breaks in, to tell me that I haven't said anything about the soldiers Issues, and he thought the game was about that. I go, oh yeh, almost forgot that really important part]

Also, the players create Burdens for their characters, which are the issues and problems that they bring with them into the war. These Burdens are the lens through which the characters interface with their Profiles and the events of play.

[Jared says that thats a lot of stuff, and it's time to move on.]

What? behavior does your game support/reward?

Well, there's two parallel sets of resolution mechanics. The first, for Squad scenes (non-combat, essentially), makes you give the dice you roll for conflicts to other players. This rewards the recipient for impressing the other players in a Fan Mail-like fashion - but, in rewarding others, you are also increasing their future effectiveness.

[OK, so how does this support seeing how pressure changes the soldiers over the course of play?]

Well, everything is a tradeoff - you want to win conflicts, but in so doing you weaken your future effectiveness and increase someone elses. The only way to get more dice other than that is to change Profile - so, if you get low on dice and noone is giving you any, you have to go a little crazier.

[What about Burdens?]

Your Burden is represented by a permanent die, which you can use in conflicts if you can bring your Burden to bear - essentially, if you can sell the table on it.

[Cool. Whats the "parallel mechanic"? And why have two, isn't that just making it more complicated?]

Well, the other one is for Action scenes, basically for combat scenes. The highest ranked played character has to give the other characters orders, which they can agree with or not, independently of whether they follow the order or not. If they agree, they give him a dice, if they disagree, they give the GM (representing the adversity) a dice. When the GM calls it, they roll their dice pools, and the difference is points that go towards killing, wounding and maiming members of the squad. This is entirely dependent on the difference in the rolls, not on who has the higher total.

[Oh, there would be more questions. But this is long enough already, skipping to the good part:]

So, does section 3 match up with sections 1 and 2?

Looking back over it, no. It doesn't. The behavior that my mechanics support: trying to maximize your effectiveness via impressing others. Choosing between orders and the survival of the squad.
Bringing your Burden to bear as much as you can. That kind of stuff.

So, class, what is my game about? Impressing the other players. Making choices about the value of obedience versus the value of survival. Seeing your Burden everywhere. That stuff under the first question, thats emergent post-play evaluation and back-cover blurb material.

The bullet-point to take away from this demonstration is that your game is about the behaviors that it rewards.

Questions?

Notes from VeriCon

2006-01-30T19:43:00.000-07:00

Vincent Does Theory
He invented a rule that got us to do something we wanted that we wouldn't otherwise do without that rule. RPGs are the same.

Agreement around table is the only thing that makes anything happen.

Rules don't resolve disagreements between players, they resolve discrepencies in agreement.

Expectations - violating expectations in game can be/is on the same scale as "real life" dissapointments.

Luke: Permission. I give permission to do X, it hinges on process to maintaining agreement. Permissions create expectations.

Jared: Example w/D&D, Call of Cthulu and Paranoia. People who only play one have certain expectations, built by the game text/experience. Other games, like Vampire, don't have a tight focus on expectations, and players have to engage more actively.

Luke: All games have a premise, some muddled, some clear. Premise creates expectations; expectations, permissions and agreements create social contract. All games assume functional social contract. People -> group -> cohesive group - > playing game.

Jared: House rules in RPGs can create lots of discrepancy in expectations.

Question: How is giving permissions different from creating expectations?

Vincent: The process by which I allow you to do X - thats permission. Expectation is that I want you to do X. Establishing rules to meet expectations is creating permissions.

Luke: Functional game = same page in terms of we all have X expectations and give each other Y permissions.

Question: How do explicit permissions/expectations interface with actual events in play that could steer play away from perm/expec?

Luke hands Vincent chalk.

Vincent: "If I use chalk I'm just going to draw a line." He proceeds to do so, marking hashes along its length. The line is the procedures of play, the hashes are events. All games have seperate procedures and events.

Luke: You could say that procedures link events.

Vincent: draws this picture

In order to illustrate that as long as functional play is happening proceduraly, events don't really matter per se.

I interject with a stupid comment that derails discussion. We establish that overall expectations for game are premise, and situational expectations are preferences that change with the changing events of play.

Thor & Luke: Game designer & rules & text & group all intersect on generating expectations.

Moving On

Question: When designing a game, how important is it to design all-new mechanics?

Jared: Definitly look at games out there. Lots of games come out of published games the designer wishes was better. Personally, enjoys making his own mechanics because its more interesting.

Luke: Focused on one game, Burning Wheel. His advice, take a game you enjoy, and destroy and obliterate and burn out everything you don't like about it. It'll become unrecognizable, then you add in stuff that makes you happy.

Vincent: Totally bogus to design a game just to design it. His job is to find what he likes and make it do compelling that you'll like it too.

Three Questions

Jared: Three Questions: 1) What? is your game about. 2)How? does your game do that. 3) What? Behaviors does it reward/encourage in the players.

Luke and Jared proceed to grill people on their designs, with amusing and enlightening results. The following notes are amusing things and/or bullet points, but I think 3 or 4 people offered up their game designs to be...critiqued, generating various amounts of discussion.

Luke: (in response to "What do you mean by 'what'?) "No fucking Forge 'what do you mean by the word 'what' shit. Answer the question."

A well designed game won't have mechanics that don't interface with the premise.

Jared: GURPs isn't a game.

Luke: Disagrees. Strenuously.

Dev makes Luke fall over.

The Point: What you do in play with mechanics is what your game is about. Look at the distance between start and end of a section of play (a full reward cycle, in Forge lingo). Whats the difference? What has changed? Thats what the game is about.

Setting Versus System

I get a phone call I have to take and miss the first 10 minutes of this section. Again, lots of discussion, and these notes are summary and/or amusing points. When I get back:

Vincent: No such thing as a "game world" because all we see is moment by moment.

Personal thought in reference to the "level playing field" argument: You don't want to feel like others will get something you won't, so appealing to the mechanics as an impartial judge becomes important to you.

Jared: In response to comments about octaNe being a better game to play Die Hard with than Feng Shui (yes, this was all on topic): "Which is why I'm a better game designer than Robin Laws." He asks us not to mention this to Mr. Laws.

Vincent: What I need to know as a player is what I can contribute to each event in play, and how that contributes to the other players and their characters. Stuff on your sheet is a useful mnomic device to remember which rules to apply to which situation.

Luke: (in reference to comment that you experience a movie by yourself but play RPGs as part of a group) Just as you are the most important member of the audience at a movie, you are also the most important person at the table, except that you have participatory power (implication: and thus a different responsability).

Joshua (Newman)/Emily: "Physics" kind of means genre conventions and premise conventions. The physics of Star Wars are that Han Solo is cooler than everyone else, etc.

Luke: There is no game world, just people around a table.

Vincent: Rules can refer only to things in the game world, but they don't have to. Limiting yourself to stuff that is there in the world means you're missing out on lots of stuff that would support what your game is about.

Jared: The idea behind game design is to make it be about something. You can only model reality so far, and only if thats what your game is about.

Publishing

I took no notes here. Everything was pretty much stuff that has been covered in the Publishing forum at the Forge. It was cool to find out that Vincent has spent only game money on game stuff ever since the first printing of kill puppies for satan.

Oh - and for the second weekend in a row, Jared ran one of his own games, a short game of InSpectres. I couldn't stay for it (damn!), but there ya go. I also, sadly, missed out on a mentioned game of Jungle Speed.

But yah, this was cool. I know my notes may make no sense, so feel free to ask about something and I'll do the best I can to explain.

More Awesome News

2006-01-28T20:07:00.000-07:00

I am very happy to announce that Indie Press Revolution had brought me on board! Woo-hoo! They currentely have the print editions of Timestream available, both perfect and coilbound, with the PDFs soon to come. All my stuff is here.

Oh, and I recommend that you use IPR instead of lulu for the perfectbound, because it's over 25 bucks. Which means you get free shipping.

Update: here's the official Press Release.

Thanks Brennan!

Carry the 2nd

2006-01-27T23:11:00.000-07:00

Carry revision 2 is now available for perusal. Click here to download. I also posted a Connections thread at the Forge with some more information.

I'm totally looking for playtesters, by the way.

Changes from revision 1.1:

Formalized Burden Creation to include feedback from Dreamation: three sentences that gestalt into your Burden, discussion of lines and military experience.
Decided that there will be 3×5 cards for easy Grunt choosing and reference.
Moved all of chargen into one section, with the Squad section just being for reference.
Explicated that dice are chosen in ascending Months In order. Added some guidance as towards choosing initial dice pools.
Reworked and expanded Profile descriptions, including their best and worst Approach.
Added rule that the GM can bring in a Burden die on a Fodders side if the Grunt rolls theirs. There’s a strong possibility that each character writeup will include a “Fodder Burden” entry, which is that characters Burden if they are not taken by a player.
Added rule that you can roll your Burden Die even if you can’t use anything in your dice pool because of your Profile/Approach.
Cleaned up Squad Scene conflict resolution rules (IIEE stuff, mainly).
Added that you must change Approach when pushing a conflict.
Added some stuff to how and why you should give people dice after rolling, as well as a tip about keeping multiple dice collections separate.
Added some explication as to how Action resolution works, and why you would choose to give to one or the other.
Added rules for establishing Backstory on the fly during play (thanks Rob!).
Reworked Endgame. It should be better now.
General editing, rewording and clarification.
Updated all examples.

Ticket To Ride: Europe

2006-01-27T22:19:00.000-07:00

So I got this game at a silent auction, brand new, for 18 bucks. So it has a pretty low barrier to me thinking I made the right choice.

Oh man. What a good choice.

I played a couple games with my suitemates last night, and it was pretty dern fun. In terms of game design, it's fantastic - it rewards the following behaviors: taking the most risks (and succeeding), going as big as possible, and going as quickly as possible. However, the system is such that trying to fulfill all three at the same time throws them into tension - making really long trains takes extra time to draw extra cards, and so does trying to take the most risks. Taking a big risk (in terms of going for the longest routes) only works towards getting the longest train if its in the same region as the small routes, and so on. So you have to make measured choices. Throw on the layer that everyone is going through the same process and a little resource management, and you have one fun game.

So yah. Identifying behaviors to reward, creating structures that force choices and sacrifices to be made among those behaviors - good stuff.

I look forward to this semester being my semester of playing more games, of all kinds. In my suite we have Loaded Questions, Ticket to Tide and Cranium, and are shortly receiving Apples to Apples (fun!) and Jungle Speed (GPA will drop!). Not to mention I need to play Under the Bed and My Life With Master, as I own them but have not yet played.

The times, they are good.

Another Thought On Art

2006-01-26T10:53:00.000-07:00

The whole modernist and then post-modernist thing in art, specifically in film and in writing, is about deconstructing the traditional narrative and finding other ways to express via that medium.

The whole modern (in the sense of contemporary) thing in RPG design is about replicating the traditional narrative.

I find this interesting - I don't know if its relevant.

Carry Continues

2006-01-24T19:26:00.000-07:00

If you are following/interested about Carry, there's a fantastic AP Thread at the Forge.

The Best Thing About Dreamation

2006-01-24T15:41:00.000-07:00

Was that it reminded me that role-playing is fucking fun.

Like, seriously. All this theory bullshit? It's cool, and its valuable, and there are great things that come out of it. But I didn't think about it all weekend, because I was having such a good time actually playing.

For all the shit that people give Ron, he's right about one thing. Actual play, actual play, actual play. Without play, this is all meaningless.

Yes, some people can't play, for whatever reason. It's a reality. But for those of us that can, we should, or we have no business as game designers.

I don't care what you play. I don't care who you play with. All I care about is that you have enjoyable, healthy play. If you get it from D&D, thats awesome. Shadowrun? Fantastic. PtA? Great. Doesn't matter. Play, talk about your play, make it better.

Along those lines, I'm going to russel up some play right now.

What I Learned From Dreamation

2006-01-22T19:44:00.000-07:00

Friday Night

Why yes, trying to get over the George Washington Bridge on a friday night will involve lots of traffic.

Running in at 8.02 for your 8.00 scheduled demo is not the best way to start off a Con...

...unless nobody shows up for it, and you play Mortal Coil instead, where you learn that:
- Nobody likes a pretty boy.
- These people that you read their words on the intarweb, they are cool fucking dudes and dudettes.
- Immortal Soldier God with a drug problem and a gun = bad, but hilarious, times.
- Why yes, Keith Senkowski does indeed curse as much IRL as he does on his blog.

The game Jungle Speed is so freaking awesome, I still have the tremors. And I, like, suck.

Saturday Morning

Tony L-B is Major Victory.

I wish I was a cool kid, like Jared Sorenson.

Alexander curses as much as Keith, but will tell you how to make your demos not suck instead of kicking your ass at Jungle Speed. So thats cool.

Brennan doesn't take himself too seriously. I like that in a guy who's handling my money...

Tony will take what Alexander told you about your demo, and distill out something that will actually make someone buy your game.

Explaining your game to someone who has never heard of it, multiple times, will eventually make you remember why you wrote the damn thing in the first place.

Holy fucking shit. Someone will actually PAY me for this thing? Like, me, in person? Give me money in exchange for my product? I don't know if I can deal.

Saturday Afternoon

Being totally ready for your afternoon demo, and still having no-one show up, still sucks...

...unless you happen to be sitting at the same table as one of the Continuum authors, who doesn't have any players either! Talking shop with someone whos into your niche can be pretty freakin' sweet.

Jesus Christ, is Tony ever not demo-ing Capes? Well....no.

Thats right. The last copy of Under The Bed EVER! Bitches. (Well, until the next printing...)

With Great Chili = Awesome.

People asking you if they can demo your game (Carry) is very, very cool. Like, too cool for words.

Saturday Night
Just....wow. Carry is going to be really, really good. Once I, like, write all the good parts.

In case it wasn't FIRMLY established, PtA pwns us all. Hie thee to this AP thread.

Rebecca's job is to take care of you. She takes her job very, very seriously.

The absolute best thing you can do for your weary, emotionally wrecked body is to dump adrenaline into it by playing a couple more hours of Jungle Speed. I'm told that the twitching will, eventually, stop.
- Knuckle wounds only mean you play the game seriously.
- Beware the Harbinger.
- Why yes. I will build the wizards tower. Thank you very much for the opportunity. Dick.

Cash money in your hands = glow of sweet, sweet satisfaction.

Miscellaneous

To reiterate, everyone really is that cool. In addition to the above, Ben, Emily, Shawn, Lisa, Thor, Andy, Joshua, Luke...and I'm sure I'm missing many....thank you.

And I'm spent. There's fodder for many more posts here (mainly about Carry), and I'm sure that stuff I missed will come out. But yeh. I had an awesome time, despite my 2 no-go games, and whats more a valuable time. As one may expect, my fears were unfounded, and with this one under my belt I feel hella more confident.

Now, to see if GenCon is even a remote possibility....

Signpost: Elements Of Design

2006-01-20T09:51:00.000-07:00

Gah. Hurried post, but I want to write up a descriptive document along the following lines:

Elements of Design (Conceptual): The Elements of Exploration. Scene Framing. Distribution of Credibility and Authority. Reward/Reinforcement Cycles. Underwriting.

Elements of Design (Mechanical): Flags. Fortune/Karma/Drama. Currency. Guages & Tracks. And many more.

Player Buy-In, or, We All Want To Play

2006-01-20T09:05:00.000-07:00

Here's something interesting that I've observed about the indie scene and it's development. Because much of it is in response to the general bizarre social dynamics and outright dysfunction of the roleplaying community over the years, there is this wierd kind of over-compensation in design. It goes like this:

I don't want my game to support dysfunctional play (alternately, I want my design to hilight dysfunctional play so that the group can deal with it in the open).

One of the hallmarks of dysfunctional play is the deprotagonized character - that is, the character with pages and pages of backstory about an ancient prophecy blah blah blah that, who, in play, just sits there as he kills orcs all day. Or the like.

The reaction to always being deprotagonized is that you stop investing in the character, leading to a downward spiral (my char never gets to do anything cool, I'm not going to invest in him and try to do anything cool, etc).

I want to ensure that everyone is invested in their character (alternately, everyones invested in everyones character) in my game.

And tipping over into the interesting part: If I don't make everyone be invested, they won't be.

It's something that I feel underlies some conversations and designs - the idea, or fear, that if something like player investment is not demanded by or supported by the rules, it won't happen at all. It's easy to see how this corrolates to the System Does Matter ethos, right? Or do I need to go into this?

But, here's the thing - in a functional group, everyone is there to, y'know, play. There's this lingering fear that the people at the table will be intentionally reticent or trying to "break" the game (I know I have it), and the reaction to it is to try to design around or against it - "making" people invested in their characters so they have an interest in sustaining the game.

But the fundemental assumption of roleplay is that you're making shit up with your friends, right? There's an initial amount of buy-in that happens just by sitting there, at the table, playing the game. Your interest in investing in your character is that you want to play the game. Your reward for your investment? A good time.

Obviously, there are certainly different forms of investment, aimed at different play experiences, as well as things like investment in the game world or in the other characters. But I feel like starting with the assumption that the people are there in order to play, not in order to mess up play, is one that isn't necessarily made. And it should be. Its healthy.

Maybe I'm just focusing about this because it's something I've noticed in my own design-think, and that I'm working on fixing. But the basic point is this - social dysfunction will always trump good design. Design for the functional group.

Oh, Deary Dear

2006-01-18T22:20:00.000-07:00

Warning: softy personally stuff ahead.

So, I'm looking at the schedule for Dreamation. My Saturday Timestream game is at the same time as the Continuum tournament game.

(For those who may not know, Continuum is a time travel game that came out a couple of years ago (2002, maybe?), and it widely regarded as a really, really cool game thats really hard to play. Timestream is, of course, my "cinematic" time travel game.)

Now, Continuum is a fantastic text, both in ambition and in execution. There is so much thought in there, and so much of it is well-realized in terms of mechanical process, that you can't help but admire it. All of which is, sadly, hitched to a fairly boring/traditional task resolution system, with all the extra combat rules (hit locations!) and bizarre character progression that that implies, not to mention a design philosophy that I find at once fascinating and slightly repugnant (your character can't gain Span until you, the player, have been playing a continuous campaign for months or, for higher levels, years? Uh...ok dudes). I will say that the Time Combat rules are a completely and absolutely brilliant conflict resolution system, and that if the entire game was based around them, I probably would not have had the drive to write Timestream.

So, as you may be able to see, Continuum was both a huge inspiration for me, and a game that I was very much reacting against with Timestream. Which may explain why going up against it, as it were, is putting big, big butterflies in the ol' digestin' hole. I feel like my potential audience totally overlaps with theirs, so thats one problem, but I also feel....I dunno. Small. It's been out for a while, has some amount of presence (at least in the Indie community, where I've seen many a mention), and is bigger in both imaginative and physical scope (i.e. it looks and reads like a "real RPG"). And here I am with my little 6x9 84-page "light" system with no fan base. It's hard not to feel intimidated.

Which is totally an emotional reaction - rationally, I'm sure that my presence there won't be a blip on their event's radar, and that the indie track audience probably isn't the type to be clamoring for tournament events. Not to mention that, since my event is a continuation of the one the night before, I'll hopefully (fingers crossed!) get a repeat player or two. But it's as if I got a serious opportunity to submit a set design for a Broadway show in a professional competition, or something. I'd do it, but I would feel mighty presumptuous going up against the established designers...

So, basically, on top of my general nervousness at going to my first Con ever (!), and meeting all of these awesome designers and gamers (!!), and talking to folks about business-y stuff (!!!), and selling product for the first time (!!!!), and worries about running my first demos of my first games and not having it suck (!!!!!!!), I get to have this niggling back-of-the-mind voice worrying about being dismissed as not good enough to compete with Continuum.

Why yes, I do have a touch of performance anxiety. Why yes, it does make me feel better to throw it out for public consumption.

In any case, it'll be an interesting car ride.

CUT TO: Samuel L Jackson punching a snake. The snake is wearing a pair of jeans.

2006-01-18T20:15:00.000-07:00

I saw this in my latest issue of Wired.

Snakes On A Plane

There's snakes. On a mutherfuckin' plane. AND THERE AIN'T NUTHIN YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

Related things you must see: this, this, and this.

I feel it is my duty, as a humor-loving human, to spread the word. Snakes on a plane. Summer 2006.

Dreamation 2006 & Other Matters

2006-01-16T12:41:00.000-07:00

In case you don't know, Dreamation 2006 is happening next weekend. Full details on the con are here.

Michael S. Miller and Tony Lower-Basch have been doing a mad good job of coordinating the Indie Games Explosion gaming track and vending booth. Which promises to be about 19 kinds of awesome. For a schedule of the indie games offerings, check this out.

I will be there, running two sessions of Timestream and one of Carry, hopefully playing in a couple games of somethin', and cutting my chops at the sellin' booth. I'm totally geeking out at the prospect of meeting the fine, fine people that will be in attendence. I really hope I'm not totally lame. Anyway, for more formal details on my own schedule and demo offerings, check the website.

There's other news coming down the pipeline this week, also, but I'll wait till everythings actually set before announcing.

Also, I've been getting a little pickup in sales of Timestream, which is awesome. This is just me being excited, not really news, but hey.

I also have an essay entitled "What Roleplay Is" that I've sketched out, building on my early posts here, that I'm trying to pull together. It's basically a descriptive analysis of the unique dynamics that define the act of roleplaying. I look forward to getting some feedback on it from you smart people.

Carry is coming along. I'm putting a lot of thought into the endgame, and hope to have something clean for the demo at the con. Speaking of which: if you're going to be there, and are interested in playing, it's not going to go till 4 in the morning. I anticipate 2 hours of play (which is what it's designed for), and then Q&A and feedback discussion. But yeh, don't let the time slot scare you off!

Huh...and it appears that my website needs a little fixin. Dern.

Anyway, that's all the news, for now. Word.

Percolation

2006-01-12T19:08:00.000-07:00

I really don't know what to make of the Push/Pull thing. I'm letting it percolate in my brain for a bit, methinks.

In other news, I'm finding it really difficult to work on stuff right now, which is bad, because I need to pull my shit together for Dreamation. I'm starting to get the Fear again. Blah.

So, basically, read this as an apology for not posting anything worthwhile recently, with a hopefullness for pulling out of the slump soon.

Visibility

2006-01-10T13:07:00.000-07:00

Good Call, Ben. Check it out.

It's Alive!

2006-01-08T00:35:00.000-07:00

The new Hamsterprophet Productions.com site is up and running. Still needs some tweaking, but hey, it's about a bazillion times better than the old one. All hail Wordpress!

I did decide, however, to keep my blogs seperate for the time being. I dunno, I kinda like having seperate things. Could it change? Yeh, eventually. But for now, I'm happy.

An Entirely Different "Wow"

2006-01-07T11:12:00.000-07:00

So I'm looking through the chapter on Shadowguiding from White Wolf's Wraith: The Oblivion, because the whole Wraith/Shadow thing was very cool, and I'm stealing a lot of it for Imp. On page 177 I come across this sidebar:

A Matter Of Trust: It is recommended that at the beginning of each session, player and Shadowguide sit down for a few minutes to discuss the character the Shadowguide will be tempting. Some players may balk at this, fearing that by sharing the secrets of their character with their Shadowguide, they are also giving the Shadowguide's character an unfair advantage in the form of knowledge of their Passions and Fetters.

While unscrupulous players may take information they learn out of character (i.e., as Shadowguide) and let their regular characters use it, Wraith players should be mature enough to seperate what they know from what their characters know, and to trust their fellow players not to "metagame" or cheat. If you can trust your fellow players to report their dice rolls honestly and create their character honestly, you should be able to trust them to keep your character's secrets.

(from the 2nd Edition, 1998)

Oh man. Sometimes, there aren't the words.

I M Lemming

2006-01-07T01:17:00.000-07:00

Now, in case anyone hasn't figured it out, I really just want to be Joshua BishopRoby. So I'm playing around with Wordpress for my website, mainly because I'm tired of it looking like it's straight out of 1996 (which is when I learned HTML, so it basically....is). It'll prolly take a couple days to get up off the ground, but then this here thingy is moving over dere. I think Game A Day will stay here (seperate spheres, seperate spheres...) for the nonce, though.

Yup.

Reactions to Art/NotArt

2006-01-06T12:52:00.000-07:00

The latest widely addressed topic - are RPGs art?

I think that, yet again, there's a huge f'in difference between the Text and the Play. In short, an RPG sourcebook is not art. Actually playing an RPG, thats where the art does or does not happen.

The Text is an object. It can be aesthetic or not, well-written or not - basically, it can be a nice thing or not. But it's not a novel. It's not a text that has been written in such a way that your interaction with it brings beauty, or meaning, or whatever into your life. It's closer to a play (though, I would argue that plays-as-written are a seperate artform than plays-as-performed), in that it's something that has to be enacted.

The Actual Play can be art. Is it always? No. But it certainly has the potential - I truly think that a session of roleplay can be as beautiful or as touching or as memorable or as meaningful as any book, play, sculpture or painting.

The difference, though? The artist, in roleplay, is not the author. It is the players. That's right. I don't think that I'm an artist - I'm an enabler. If I am good at what I do, I enable the true artists to do their thing, reliably and well. If I'm bad, I give the artists a vague idea of what they can create, which they may or may not actually acheive.

Does it need an audience to be art? Of course. And every single fucking session of roleplay that has ever happened has had an audience - it's the participants. Roleplay is based upon the interaction of audience-participants, remember? Roleplay is the only entertainment form in the world that is always seen by the exact audience that it is intended for. When roleplay becomes art, it is always witnessed by those best enabled to appreciate exactely what that art is saying.

The unfortunate reality is that, the majority of the time, RPGs are read and not played. Which, given the reality of math, is unavoidable. But it leads to the conflation of the author/designer with the artist. RPGs are a kind of combined form of entertainment (Text) and art (Play). It's no surprise that people hold strong, strong opinions on both sides.

Wow

2006-01-06T11:11:00.000-07:00

A lot going on in the last week or two.

First of all, I am now skyped, as all the cool kids seem to be doing it. Nic = hamsterprophet. I have no headset, but it seems to be working ok via internal mic & speakers....anyway, do with it what you will.

Second, my latest Game A Day post is actually, like, topical. In other Game A Day news, I'm going to be lamecore and cut back to only posting on weekdays - I need time to recharge every so often, and weekends seem like a good time to do it.

Thirdly, I set up a couple of Google Alerts for hamsterprophet and various Timestream and RPG combinations, pretty much for shits and giggles. It's interesting - I get a couple of searches every other day or so, but the thing actually clicked on is almost never my site, blog or product on other pages. It's very cool that there's that many searches related to me(!), but very strange that the first click-through is always to something tangential (like, my GamingReport.com profile? wierd). So, it may be an interesting experiment to do something of the like for yourself. Just a thought.

Fourthly, Victor & Josh & me spent some time talking about the RPG Theory Journal idea, as well as got in touch with Mr. Jonathon Walton, and it looks like we're going to encourage PUSH and work with it to see if it meets the needs we see for the community. Basically, when it comes out, get it and read it. Think about it. Start thinking about what kinds of articles YOU want to contribute. Victor has good advice - start development through blogging and discussion, pull it into an article, start polishing. PUSH is open to all kinds of content, from theory articles to short-form RPGs to reviews (I think). Anyway, it's a great project, and I look forward to the first issue!

And, uh, yes. Some theory stuff soon. Keep on keepin' on, all you rockin guys and gals.

Announcement

2005-12-30T01:29:00.000-07:00

Timestream is now available at Key 20 Direct. Right now the PDF downloads are available - if all goes well, physical books should be available by the end of the month.

A big thanks to Jason at Key 20 for his overall awesomeness.
---
Edit the 2nd (priority order, not chronological...): Physical copies of Timestream are now available for direct purchase from my lulu.com storefront. PDF downloads also available there, but I highly, highly recommend going through Key 20 for those instead (as there, you get the whole zipped package at once).
---
Edit: Also, out for the weekend. Not that it matters too much, except that there will be no Game A Day posts until next week, which will be starting off with the "December in Review" post. Word.
---
Edit The 3rd: Also, sick as a dog. Blogging, alas, falls pretty low on the priority list when I have limited energy. Back ASAP.

Why Play?

2005-12-29T12:38:00.000-07:00

This is coming off of a question posed by Mike Mearls at the end of his latest LJ post, as well as some of my thoughts about my goals.

I hear people say that D&D is all about killing monsters via teamwork, and WoW is the same thing, but I don't think that explains *why* people play D&D. I don't think I've ever heard anyone tell me they play D&D because they like to kill stuff and gather treasure. That's an expression of the game in motion, but it doesn't necessarily explain why people play the game. People didn't play Pac-Man because they liked clearing mazes filled with dots. They didn't play Super Mario Brothers because they liked jumping over turtles. And people don't play D&D or WoW simply because they like killing stuff, gathering treasure, and becoming more powerful.

Why do I game? which is the same as What are my goals as a gamer?, I think. It's not that easy to answer.

To have fun, yes. But not enough. Too vague.

To spend time with friends who have the same interest. Still too vague.

To use my imagination. To make up something (creator) that I enjoy watching unfold as well (participant). I just...really enjoy the process of roleplay. Of making characters, putting them into relation with each other and a fictional world around them, and then taking the input of everyone at the table and pulling that together into a coherant narrative. That's kind of the GM answer, I think. As a player, I enjoy exploring my character, and asking what makes sense for him to do in this situation...now how about this one....now how about when he has this background that comes back to haunt him...I like to build a backstory through actual play, and be able to look back on it and see the characters journey.

Does that answer the question? Maybe. But it's back to the wierd self-definitional issues that roleplay has. I enjoy roleplaying because...it's roleplaying.

You?

Framing Our Discussion

2005-12-27T12:00:00.000-07:00

The point of theory is to answer questions.

I'm going to take a look at the theory schtuff that we have so far, and what questions those are answering. Because, really, so much of debate can be set aside once the boundaries of the query are established - that is, a lot of the time, people argue about shit that the theory isn't trying to address.

The Big Model is kind of incoherent on this question, which is one reason why it's easy to attack it for not being "complete", I think. But, looking at different parts of it in semi-isolation makes it a little easier to see what it's addressing. At base, the question the Big Model is trying to answer is "Why do people roleplay," with the requisite after-questions of "Why is much gaming dysfunctional," and "What do the previous answers mean for a designer?" The recognition of Social Contract, and then the formulation of Creative Agenda are the responses to the first two questions, and I think they are sound ones. The last one is trickier. Thats where all the stuff about Stances and Techniques and Ephemera come in, but again most of this stuff mostly descriptive. So it's talking about stuff that exists, but there's little connection to how to, like, put it into a game. Which is fine - I don't think this is what the Big Model is about.

So, it seems to me that the Big Model has done a bang-up job of observing and describing what people enjoy when they roleplay, and how that stuff creates and/or can ameliorate dysfunction.

Joshua BishopRoby's Interaction Model, on the other hand, is about the actual processes that create that enjoyment. That is, he's talking about what elements go into getting everybody on the same page, and then how they interact with each other to produce an enjoyable experience. So, the Interaction Model is about describing what actually happens when people get together and play.

Chris Chinn on Deep In The Game, talks more about the roots of dysfunction in game texts and how that can be changed. So, he's bridging into design here, in terms of what designers need to actually do in order to provide a good experience. This is also what Troy is doing on Socratic Design - here are questions that the designer needs to answer in order to design their game. These guys are both talking about the groundwork that needs to go into your game, keeping things like CA in mind.

Now, the best example that I've seen so far of taking a good, hard look at actual design elements of a game is John Kirks Design Patterns of Successful Roleplaying Games. Basically, he analyzes common design patterns in order to both identify common mechanical elements, and describe how they work when put into different combinations. So, Design Patterns is about actual mechanical design stuff.

If I were to put together a syllabus for this stuff, it would look something like this:

Introduction
- What is roleplaying? (What I've been working on, there should be a new post about this soon)
- Why do people roleplay? (CA. Also Technical and Social agenda stuff, from Ben
- How does roleplaying work? (Interaction Model. Techniques, Stance and Ephemera. Conflict/Task resolution.)

Beginning a Design
- Recognizing and avoiding dysfunction. (Chris's stuff, and CA)
- Beginning a design. (Troy's stuff)
- Elements of design. (Design Patterns. Forge stuff about scene framing, conflict resolution, etc)

More Design Elements
- Ritual in roleplay (Ben & Polaris. Meguey. Chris Lehrich's stuff)
- Fruitful Void/Emergent Dynamics (Lumply)
- Other stuff.

Self-Publishing
- DIY (Clinton)
- Everything on the Publishing forum at the Forge.
- Con Presence (Luke)

Hmm. This post turned kind of rambling.

The point is, in an academic sense, we need a framework of some kind to hang discussion on. Not that I want to compartmentalize people or ideas, but there needs to be a synthesis of thought before it can be robust. This is why I'm a fan of the RPG Design Journal idea. Something central, that can be challenged and critiqued as a unit, not just dismissed as voices in the wilderness.

GNS & Miniatures

2005-12-24T12:54:00.000-07:00

This started out as a post on the Game A Day Project, but turned into a real blog post. The post there is the result of these thoughts.

Today, I'm going to talk about a miniature wargaming system that I think would be cool.

This thought arose out of my ponderings on what I enjoy about Warhammer, as a hobby and as a game. As a hobby, I enjoy painting miniatures (though I am now at the critical mass - as in, I have enough for whatever armies that I can field decent-sized ones to actually play, but not nearly all of them are painted. At the rate I've been going, I won't need to buy new miniatures for 10 years. That's a good thing). I also enjoy putting together army lists, reading the Codex's, and thinking about how my army fits into the overall background of the capital-A Army. I also enjoy coming up with little backgrounds for officers and character models, and sometimes I keep track of their exploits over a series of games and give them promotions.

As a game, I enjoy seeing them all on the table. I like the strategic challenge of playing against someone at or slightly higher than my own skill level. If it's a reasonably close game, with ups and downs, I enjoy it, whether I win or lose. If it's a total crushing loss or victory, I feel kinda gipped.

Now, this is total contrast to many people I've played with - that is, the ones that min/max the army list to get the best (most effective) units for the least cost, the ones that load up on invincible characters and skimp on "core units" as much as possible, and the ones that are happiest when they are dominating the table. Not only do I usually lose to these people, I find the game itself unpleasant.

This screams Sim/Gam clash to me, in a way that makes total intuitive sense to me. So, maybe it's an example to store in the memory banks when trying to explain the difference, in actual play terms, to roleplayers that also miniature game.

Now, on Game A Day, are my thoughts for a Sim-supporting miniature game.

Merry Merry!

2005-12-24T01:21:00.000-07:00

A quick note to wish all those celebrating a totally awesome whatever you're celebrating. If you're not celebrating anything, well, have a fantastic couple of days. If you're American, and in a snit about people saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," get over it.

That's right - I'm one of those bleeding-heart pinko PC people. Damn sniggity.

I also hope you get in some good gaming over the holidays. Word.

Carry, Revision 1!

2005-12-22T13:54:00.000-07:00

Finally, the revision to Carry is done! Well, kinda. But mostly!

Carry was my entry for the Iron Game Chef 2005 competition. It was a "inner circle" winner, which means it placed in the top 9 of the ~30 (40? I don't remember) entrants, but not in the top 3.

The game is about a squad of soldiers in Vietnam, and how that circumstance brings out all the tensions and issues between and among them. It's based heavily on Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried, as well as the movies Platoon and Full Metal Jacket. It's a tightly structured game - you choose a character in the squad, play through all the other characters getting killed, mustered out, etc., and then have an endgame that (should be) a kind of cathartic end-to-all-their-stories, a la My Life With Master. It's not about having big guns.

I'm looking, at this point, for readers and playtesters. I will be demoing the game at Dreamation 2005, in mid-January, and would like to get some outside feedback before then if at all possible.

The revised PDF file is here. It's 22 pages, ~300 Kb.

Some Forge Threads:
[Carry]Burdens
[Carry] Good Playtest, Mediocre Play

Game Chef Threads:
First Post on the Peer Review Thread
Peer Review Response: Carry
Judge Responses

Why am I saying mostly revised? Well...

The character, Profile and Approach writeups all need a ton of revision work, but are functional enough for now.
The Source Material part needs to be done and revised. Basically, I need to take notes while watching Full Metal Jacket and re-reading The Things They Carried.
Endgame is totally and absolutely fucked. I kind of want to play some and get some outside feedback before trying to un-fuck it, so I don't keep getting twisted in my knots.

Except for Endgame, it should be totally playable. Basically, I need to see how the addition of Burden Die change things, and if those are good changes.

Questions and comments, on this post and on the game in general, totally welcome.

P.S. - also started an Indie Game Design thread on the Forge, here.

Less Talk, More Do

2005-12-21T10:53:00.000-07:00

Head over to Victor's and tell him what you think about beginning a Journal of RPG Theory.

What Are My Goals?

2005-12-20T13:40:00.000-07:00

Warning: long post full of self-reflective wankery, and probably whining.

Something strange is going on. Maybe it's just that I'm becoming more aware of it, but it seems that there's been many recents bursts of anti-Forge sentiment, in addition to the usual suspects. Many of which bring up good critical points, though, I think, oftentimes made in a generalized and over-perjorative manner.

There's also the stirring of post-Forge movement, which I don't know how I feel about.

Of course, this is all coming at a time when I am the absolute happiest with the activity, clarity and general awesomeness on the Forge Publishing and Actual Play forums, as well as when I'm in the middle of getting my first title some traction, and getting ready for the playtest cycle on my next one.

So I feel pulled in many directions, and having to take stock of

My motivations for design.
My motivations for theorizing (or at least for theoretical wankery).
My goals for my games as creative product.
My goals for my games as something profitable.
My goals as a gamer.

Which seem to be conflicting, in some ways.

On the creative level, I'm perfectely happy making something I like and think works, putting it out there, and revisiting it every so often. But I also take it seriously, as (ideally) a craft - and that means I think it's worth charging for. I don't see why I shouldn't make beer money off of the amount of effort and time I put into design and play (because, really, they need each other), especially when I feel like I'm fulfilling needs that I don't see filled in the marketplace.

However, do I have the will to really make a business effort out of this? I don't know. So far it's been hard, and I hope that payoff is coming down the road, because it sure as hell isn't immediate. I fear that at some point I'm just going to not be able to sustain the effort any more, say hell with it, take the losses and leave everything as a free download.

All in addition to a time when I'm unsure of my place in the community, as well as the future of that community. Unless the three-tier system implodes under its own weight (which wouldn't be horribly surprising, but I don't think is a certain thing either), we're never going to be a significant market presence. One reaction to this is "fuck the market, I'm doing my shit, and it's different anyway." Which is totally cool. But that's not me. I don't want to identify what I do as something other than roleplaying. I don't want to sidestep all the "mainstream" players. I was one, and I still play those games, and have fun. If the indie community moves towards becoming a seperate community with a seperate market, thats cool. Will I be part of it? I don't know.

Another reaction is to focus on our strengths, in a thoughtful manner. Focused games with a specific play experience in mind, honesty in design goals, availability to the community and willingness to consider critiques and evaluations in a forthright manner, support for each other (both by playing each others games and hiring each other as editors, artists, etc) in addition to a low-risk, low-audience business model. Now, doing this while maintaining positive links to the larger role-playing community, is that a challenge? Probably. But it resonates with me.

I don't know where I'm really going with this. I fear that the Indie community is going to fragment into individual voices in the wilderness. I hope that there will be cohesion and progressive development, even if it means dropping a lot of Forge baggage in order to be more inclusive/welcoming. I see both as possibilities.

Thoughts?

Good Summary

2005-12-18T14:15:00.000-07:00

In this Forge thread, Sydney Freedberg said:

"Hey, don't prejudge us -- or your own group, or even yourself. Now that I'm versed in Forge theory and understand not only that different people like different games but also that certain personalities do best with certain mechanics, I'm way less prone to write someone off as a "poor roleplayer" or "a powergamer" or "a munchkin," and way more likely to think, "oh, he likes to do [this thing], I bet if we played [insert other game here] with him, we'd have a lot more fun." It's easy to think of Forge theory (especially GNS) as a device for labelling people as one type of gamer forever; in fact it's a tool for figuring out that you can have different kinds of fun with different kinds of people, as long as you don't insist on your own One True Way of Fun with people who are into something else."

Exact same thing happened to me. I think it's easy to forget the point of the Big Model, especially when we start getting into more esoteric (though exciting) bits of it. And it's one of those so-basic-why-would-you-even-not-think-of-it-things. Of course, different people like different things! And when you get two people together that don't both like what they are doing, there's going to be conflict! Duh!

But the Big Model gives us the second part, the "I bet if we played [insert other game] here" part, or at least a start on it. As players, it gives a common vocabulary (though sometimes bizarre) to talk about why we like different games. As designers, it gives us insight into what choices we want to make, and why we are making them. And all of that, to me, is awesome.

I dunno. Every so often I need to remind myself of these basics.

The Lamest Thing Ever...

2005-12-15T19:09:00.000-07:00

...Is that I got this quote from a friend's away message.

"The F/S, or "fun-to-shit," ratio must be greater than 1 for it to be worth it."

Where would you say your gaming F/S ratio lies these days?

The Game A Day Project

2005-12-14T08:54:00.000-07:00

I'm starting a new project. It's partly practice, partly fooling around and, hopefully, partly productive. I've created a new blog for the Hamsterprophet Productions Game A Day Project. The goal is to post one game concept, setting idea, mechanic or other purely design-related tidbit every day, as fleshed out as I have time and willpower.

It's something I've been wanting to do for a while as a pure exercise. Why now, and why on a blog? Well, I feel that keeping it public will keep me to it. I also think it would be cool to get comments on ideas, whether they reach any kind of fruition or not. And maybe something will inspire someone else out there. That would be cool.

At the end of each month I'll go through that months posts and compile a best-of, flesh out those concepts a little more (incorporating comments, of course), and re-post a month summary.

How long will it keep up? Who knows! But it'll be exciting.

Cool!

2005-12-14T08:43:00.000-07:00

I'd never heard of it, but apparentely theres something called a Squidoo Lens. And there's two new ones of interest that have been created: Martin Ralya set up a lens for Game Mastering, and Rob Maudib set up a lens for RPG design & discussion. It's a step towards keeping track of the full-on Forge Diaspora, which is cool. I know I'm putting them both in my Sage sidebar. Thanks Martin and Rob!

A New Review of Timestream

2005-12-11T18:21:00.000-07:00

...can be found here. Many thanks to Andrew at Gamewyrd for the review!

[Imp] Theoro-Actual Play

2005-12-08T09:38:00.000-07:00

Here's a theoretical actual play transcript of The Imp Of The Perverse

Transcript only, no notes about system for this one.
GM; P1 playing Julius, and Minerva's Imp; P2 playing Minerva and Frederick's Imp; P3 playing Frederick, and Julius's Imp.

GM: The door creaks loudly as it swings in on rusty hinges. A waft of stale air puffs out, and you stare into blackness.
P1: I light my lamp. “Come, my friends. The villagers were very clear on the source of their troubles. Let us proceed!”
GM: Your lamp reveals a spiral staircase leading downwards and spiderwebbed walls, all roughly cut out of stone.
P1: I lead the way.
P2: I'm in back, clutching my derringer.
P3: I follow Julius. “Be careful, we don't know whats down here...”
P2: “...only that it sucks the blood of children. We must destroy it.”
GM: You descend into the earth, the flickering lamp providing your only guidance. As you descend, it grows colder and colder.
P3: Julius's Imp is going to make Julius drop the lamp.
P1: Nice. My chilled fingers grow numb, and the lamp slips out of them, shattering on the stone below. There's a brief flare of flame, then it goes out entirely. “Oh no!”
P2: I shriek in fright.
P3: I freeze.
GM: After Minerva's scream, there's a brief moment of silence. As you stand there, straining to see in the absolute blackness, you all become aware of the oppressive weight of the mountain hanging over your heads...
P1: I want to trigger an attack on Minerva by her Imp – her perversity is “Buried her sister alive.”
GM: Okay. Whats your intention?
P1: The Imp wants her to be so shaken by guilt that she can't do anything.
P2: Oh, I was thinking that she could think that she is her sister...
P1: Oh wow. Yeh, I want that.
GM: All right. If the Imp wins, Minerva thinks that she is her sister, being buried alive. Frame it.
P1: Suddenly Minerva feels like the earth is pushing in against her.
P2: “No!” I know that I was in stone, not earth.
P1: But you hear a grinding sound, as if the stone is collapsing.
P2: I fall to the ground, struggling against the stone.
GM: Julius and Frederick hear Minerva shriek again, and then the smack as her body falls to the ground.
P3: “Minerva!” I drop to my knees and feel around, trying to find her. I'm going to add to her side.
P1: You are finding it hard to breath...
P2: I start coughing, but find that I can move more readily. I yell “Minerva, no! I love you!”
GM: You both here her yells, and her continued struggle.
P3: “Minerva, I'm here! It's Frederick...”
P1: You hear your own voice, cackling with laughter...
P2: But I feel a hand, reaching through the stone to get me!
GM: As Minerva's voice rises in a maniacal laugh, Frederick finds her writhing on the stairs. As you touch her she stops, as if cut off by a knife.
P3: Minerva! Are you all right?
P2: I'm shaking and sweaty. “Yes, I...yes.”
GM: From the darkness below you you hear a deep, guttural voice. “But not for long. Fools.”
[Equally intense action scene]

I'm starting to get excited about this one...

Never Going Back

2005-12-07T11:10:00.000-07:00

Everyone, read Before Stakes: What is your intent?

I don't have anything to add to that thread that hasn't been already said, but it throws into clear relief one of the greatest things about recent, indie, conflict-resolution based RPGs. When clear intent and stakes are determined, it excises boring play. When everyone knows what all the players want out of a conflict, not only does it enable you to skip situations where you want the same thing, but your characters are taking different actions, it also allows everyone to know what people find interesting and exciting about the game as a whole, enabling further play to be more focused towards those interesting and exciting things.

There's a reason why people who love indie games love indie games, and this is a biiiiiig part of it, methinks.

Inside The Simscape: Constructive Denial

2005-12-06T12:53:00.000-07:00

In the comments to my last post, Rob said

"the multi-layered aspect of [my game] would seem to make it a "multi-sim" hybrid, as the various tools easily address different Sim focuses, not to mention the possiblity of gamist intentions."

Cool. I'd like to talk about different Sim focuses, as I think we're pretty much in agreement that the Sim "range" is pretty wide open. I'd like to go from these bases:

Sim happens via constructive denial of explorative input in order to create, sustain and extend the Dream, and the Right thereto.
The five elements of Exploration are: Character, Setting, Color, System and Situation.
The Dream is based on some kind of source material. It doesn't happen in a vacuum.

So I think a good place to start is talking about how constructive denial works in terms of each element of exploration, hopefully with examples from play.

Note: I started this next section as an afterthought, then realized it deserved it's own post. So, we'll get the elements of exploration next time.

Constructive Denial, General Comments

I'm going to make up a bunch of stuff real quick.

It seems to me that a useful framework is to see the terms Constructive and Denial in a 4-square comparison with their opposites.

.............................Denial.....................Acceptance
Constructive | Constructive Denial | Constructive Acceptance
Destructive | Destructive Denial | Destructive Acceptance

Some examples. Say these people are playing Adventure!

Constructive Denial:
P1: I'm gonna shoot him in the back of the head, execution-style.
P2: Dude, this is the evil genius. We need to find out his plan.
P3: Whatever, I'd rather waste him.
GM: As if sensing your intention, the doctor yells "Wait! If you kill me, you'll never find out where I hid the Diamond of the Zulus....and your long-lost sister."
P1: "What? I don't have a sister!"
GM: "Yes. You do."

Constructive Acceptence:
P1: I'm gonna shoot him in the back of the head, execution-style.
GM: Ok. [Graphic description of blood, brains, etc.] As his body flops to the ground, a small tube of paper rolls from his hand. It's a crude map.
P2: "Maybe this is a map to the location of the Diamond of the Zulus!"

Destructive Denial
P1: I'm gonna shoot him in the back of the head, execution-style.
P2: Dude, this is the evil genius. We need to find out his plan.
P3: Whatever, I'd rather waste him.
GM: Your gun jams as you pull the trigger.

Destructive Acceptence
P1: I'm gonna shoot him in the back of the head, execution-style.
P2: Dude, this is the evil genius. We need to find out his plan.
P3: Whatever, I'd rather waste him.
GM: Ok. [Graphic description of said wasting]

I would say that destructive responses to input are, for the most part, not to be desired for coherent, non-Participationist play. And the key difference between constructive denial and constructive acceptence is that denial is an active response, while acceptence is a passive response. It's easier to just go with whatever the other party says than to take it, think about how it contributes to the overall enjoyment and intention of the game, and then respond in such a way as to mold that input towards those goals. I'm sure that a lot of observed behavior straddles the line between denial and acceptance (is "yes, and/no, but" a denial or an acceptance, for example?)

Now, the process of Sim is constructive denial, not constructive whatever. This makes intuitive sense to me - measured and continuous denial shapes, conforms and guides input, while continuous acceptence, even if measured, leads to free-wheeling and wildly all-over-the-place input. It's constructive denial towards a goal - bricoling the Source material with the groups input.

So there's a couple different ways to go in order to look at play preferences that happen in the Sim sandbox. I think a good starting organizational rubric is to look at how constructive denial (and, for counterpoint, acceptence) works in terms of each of the elements of Exploration, and what kinds of observed behaviors support these interactions.

For now, I welcome comments on the (probably many) problems with my initial formulations about Constructive Denial.

To Sum Up

2005-12-05T09:53:00.000-07:00

In case anyone missed it...

My understanding of the basics of CA in the Big Model is as follows:

Narrativism is about Story Now. It's defining process is that of addressing Premise.
Gamism is about Stepping On Up. It's defining process is that of stepping up to Challenge.
Simulationism is about The Right To Dream. It's defining process is that of Constructive Denial.

I'm primarily interested in Sim, and the process of constructive denial, and as such that's a lot of what I'm going to be talking about. I also have more to say about what role-play as a form is all about.

---

My obligatory reaction to the theory & GNS forum closures at the Forge: I've never been particularly comfortable posting on either of them (I prefer my own sandbox), and I look forward to how the conversations in Actual Play and Publishing evolve. I also now need to pay more attention to blogs, and need to look into some kind of this crazy feed aggregator technology (anyone know a good plug-in for Firfox? Or is it already in here somewhere?)

I also think this is a really interesting idea, and something I would definitely read, at least. We'll see if anything develops.

---

Thoughts, comments and questions welcome!

More Discussion About Sim

2005-11-29T11:37:00.000-07:00

Coming from the comments to my Simulationism post.

Elliot sez:

"After warming a little to GNS following my initial exposure, I'm back to being pretty critical of the concept of Sim (and thus of the entire categorization system). This is motivated largely by the many times that I've seen people claim that their games are "Sim" yet include moral decisions or challenges. Of course they're always told that they're really playing Nar or Gam."

Uh....*shrugs* I'm a proponent of the idea that there's "little-letter" moments of each CA in all instances of roleplay, and I don't think this is too controversial a claim. Of course Sim can include moral decisions and challenge - all roleplay contains all of the CA processes. It's when it's mindful is when it tips over into "a Nar instance of play", or whatever. I think that the tendency to slide many Sim accounts into Gam or Nar is a combination of the Forge focus and, as Mark W. says, talking about Sim play is oftentimes just not very interesting to those not involved.

For the record, I think that illusionism is bad roleplay, so I'm not gonna really talk about it.

"If that's all there is to Sim, then I certainly agree with Ron when he says that (based on his own categories), Sim is smaller than originally implied by the essays, and that Sim's "functional manifestations are quite rare"."

I have no idea. I think Forge AP posts are a bad metric to go by, b/c of various reasons from the last post. Maybe it is quite rare - but then again, intentional play itself is fairly rare as well, right? I will say that I think the theoretical scope of Sim encapsulates a wider variety of play preferences than the scope of Nar or Gam, but it's more difficult to articulate those preferences.

"By contrast, Sim designs may still be ubiquitous even if Sim play is rare. Why? While Sim play entails not Addressing Premise or Stepping Up, Sim design just has to avoid facilitating those activities. If they happen, they happen, but that's up to the players. Based on a review I found, as well as your own comment (last paragraph) it sounds like Timestream falls into this category, rather than the more "positive" variety of Metal Opera-type Sim."

I dig it.

Mark W. sez a lot of good things, but basically "...there's a huge epistemic barrier to intelligent discussion about what happens in Sim play."

Well put.

Jim sez:

"I think Mike Holmes is right when he suggests that it's better to stop worrying about "sim qua sim" and start worrying about "participationism" or "virtuality" or whatever particular flavor of sim that interests you. Because you can't design for virtual nonfiction and illusionism at the same time, nor can you make illusionist and virtual nonfic-ers happy at the same table with some perfect social contract, any more than a high point-of-contact nar design squares with the vanilla narrativism that I prefer."

Yeh, I definitly see this. It's a product of the large scope of play preference - but, I would argue, to the extent that different flavors of Sim can be so different that they don't even agree they're doing something similar, while most Nar players have an easier time seeing a design as Nar-supporting, even if it's not their thing.

Rob: Cool! I definitely want to talk about your stuff, but in it's own post, hopefully soon.

Simulationism

2005-11-17T09:05:00.000-07:00

Intro

I'm not really sure how to start this post, as I'm not sure whether it wants to be a rant or more productive. In any case, it's about Sim, and how I really wish it wasn't the Big Model black sheep.

Now, this automatically triggers the "identity politics" thing , I suppose. But put that aside for now - I realize that comments about Sim are not comments about me or my choices as a roleplayer. And I know, personally, that I enjoy all CAs in various proportions, depending on my mood and group composition and all that kind of stuff. So I have a hard time understanding people who "don't enjoy" a CA, but thats another issue, and comes down to subjective experience, and basically isn't really worth getting into here. But, if someone put a gun to my head and said I had to choose one over the others, I would choose Sim.

The Ranty Bit

But. I really, truly don't think that Sim gets equal weight to the other CA's at the Forge. Now, this is due to a lot of factors - the background it grew out of, the preferences and focus of the early members, Sorcerer itself, the excellent suite of mostly Nar-supporting games that have come out of it and feed back into it, etc. And, unlike some, I don't think it's because Sim isn't understood, or defined, or whatever. It is. But, and this is key, I think that the primary dynamics in Nar and Gam play are both more similar to each other, and more easily described with tools we've borrowed from other areas of analysis, than that of Sim. Combined with the Forge's Nar-inertia, it almost necessarily falls into third place.

I'll get to the productive part in a second, it's about those dynamics.

Anyway, I think it's sad and pretty frustrating that people on the Forge act like Sim is on the same level as Nar/Gam, when, developmentally, theoretically and system-wise, its not. I know it's not a hundred percent of case, but I perceive an atmosphere that assumes that if you have a question about Nar or Gam, you can ask it and have it explained. If you have a question about Sim, it turns into a big deal - both because Sim identifiers/defenders/apologists jump on it, and because it's assumed by others that not "getting" Sim is a defensive reaction of someone who is really a closet Narrativist, or whatever. Not all the time, but enough that it feels like all the time.

The Productive Bit

I argue that the problem is that Sim really is harder to grasp with the tools we have at our disposal. Which gets into my primary processes argument/analysis/whatever. What is a primary process? It's the dynamic that defines the CA, as well as the engine that makes it go. It's a determinent - the primary process is that which defines the CA. As per usual Big Model stipulations, this is all assuming functional play, looking at enough play to see reward cycles, etc.

Ron Edwards has catchy phrases for the CAs:
Narrativism is about Story Now.
Gamism is about Step on Up.
Simulationism is about The Right To Dream.

Now, except kinda sorta for Gamism, those phrases aren't really processes. Those are descriptions and indicators, but a process is an active thing (a dynamic!) that requires someone, or a group of someones, to generate input to get it started. As I understand it, these processes have been hashed out on the Forge like so:

Narrativism is defined by the process of Addressing Premise.
Gamism is defined by the process of stepping up to Challenge.
Simulationism is defined by the process of Celebration of Source Material. Or Emulation. Or Prioritizing the Fiction. Or...

See what I mean? The basic debate about the process of Sim is still ongoing. Each of the posited processes means the same general thing, and its all pointing towards the same place, but evidently it's a lot easier to agree that Nar is about Addressing Premise than to agree that Sim is about Celebrating Source Material.

I argue that this is not because Sim is fundementally different in nature or harder to understand conceptually, but rather because Sim is both harder to describe with the tools we have at hand, and because the range of activity that falls under Sim is broader in scope than that which falls under Nar or Gam. And these feed into each other, compounding the problem.

We have other examples of Addressing Premise and Stepping up to Challenge outside of RPGs. Premise comes from the world of literary analysis, if I understand it correctly. A novel can address premise. A movie can address premise. [Obviously, not in the same way as an instance of play, etc]. Challenge, I think, is the easiest to conceptualize in terms of other activities - sports, card and board games, all that stuff where the point of the activity is to win and/or gain prestige. But, in what other source do we have, as Ron frames it, Exploration for its own sake?

Sim doesn't necessarily have to be "about" anything in the same way that a novel or movie is supposed to be "about" something. Or, to rephrase - if a movie isn't about anything, its generally considered not to be a very good movie. Not exactely the most compelling parallel. So, what tools to we have already available that we can use to describe the process of, as I call it, Exploration on Purpose? Not many. Definitely not as many as we do for Nar and Gam.

Sim is also broader in scope, in terms of actual activity that happens. What I mean by this is that both Nar and Gam consistently and by definition prioritize a certain element of roleplay. Sim, on the other hand, by definition encapsulates putting priority on any element of Exploration proper, as well as all the various combinations and degrees of emphasis between the elements of Exploration. I think many of the conversations I've seen on the Forge bear this out. When someone "gets" Nar, its like suddenly they're on the same page with everyone else who gets Nar. But two people who both consider themselves very Sim can totally clash when talking about it, because one of them enjoys (say) prioritizing Exploration of Character, and doesn't really care about exploring System, and the other is into exploration of Setting, but not Character. Or something along those lines. This is in addition to the recurring problem of mapping Techniques to CA in any kind of reliable manner.

So, we have a CA that has the least ability to map to other forms of entertainment, along with the intrinsic property of "holding" a very wide spectrum of technique and exploration preferences. This is just both harder to talk about and harder to come to consensus on than Nar, f'rex, which has a tight relationship to literature and "holds" a narrower range of play preference.

Something Concrete

I consider myself a person that prefers Simulationist play. I consider myself a designer that strives for games that support Simulationist play. So I'm going to take what I just said and do a little self-analysis and see how it fits.

When I was running my Adventure! game over the summer, I was aiming for Genre emulation both in terms of how the world worked, and in terms of how the story would progress. In GNS terms, I wanted to Explore Color and Situation, and to a lesser extent Character and Setting. System was something that I tweaked in able to enable more fun for the group, and to encourage more kibbitzing, but it definitely wasn't something to Explore. I feel like that game was fairly successful - not a complete blast, but definitely fun and enjoyable for all of us. We wanted to create a narrative that paralleled our understanding of the pulp genre, but I personally didn't feel that Premise was being addressed in anything but an occasional or accidental fashion. There were elements of Challenge, but mainly in service of exploring Character (how cool can you guys be taking down these 30 ninjas?) or in creating that story arc (you need to have a big fight with mooks before you get to the main bad guy).

As for design, I consider Timestream to support "high-concept" Simulationist play, with that concept being "cinematic" Time Travel. It is designed to encourage Exploration of this Situation in a huge way - the rules are basically about the different ways to use, gain and explore the time-affecting powers that you have. The character creation process also, I think, encourages Exploration of your character as s/he relates to the other characters, which also shades into Situation. There's a tiny bit about exploring Setting, as you can have different "settings" for the game (Pulp, Fantasy, Apocalypic, etc). Color is hit-or-miss. There's basically no boundaries or mechanical motivations for it, so each individual can run with Color as much as they want, which could be barely at all. There's some tactical stuff in the currency exchanges in the System that could be explored, but not, I think, enough to sustain a whole instance of play.

Does it support Nar play? It can, but I think it would have to be intentional on the part of the group. One of the early comments on it was that it wasn't "dangerous" enough, that there was no gas to make it go in the same way that, say, Humanity makes Sorcerer go. And I played with that for a while, but in the end, I didn't want to make it dangerous. Everything I tried with it made me uncomfortable, so I decided that that's not a priority for the design. And I'm happy with that decision. Does it support Gam play? I seriously doubt it. Maybe as a full PvP style game, but other than that, I think it would require a good deal of effort to make it pay off for Gamist play.

And that's enough for now.