When I came into RPG gaming, the default ideal was that the GM customized the system and created the setting to suit the group. I was 21 in 1978, with a long history of playing wargames. I was used to modding and kitbashing, though those terms may be later than the practice. I bought blank counters and created my own units, re-wrote rulesets, and created my own maps on big sheets of matting bought at art stores. Coming into RPGs, I did the same thing. Before I ever played an RPG game, I was going through the ruleset, discarding, adding, and modding. I played exactly one game before forming my own group as GM, because I knew that was the part I wanted to play.
Somewhere in those long years, things changed drastically. Using commercially produced settings and adventures became the default. I was going along in the old way, and only noticed it when new players joined the group. I bought a few adventures - modules people called 'em for no reason I could see, as they weren't modular at all - and maybe used a bit or two from them. I bought the old Greyhawk campaign, and never used it at all. More and more games were coming out with default settings as opposed to the old idea of implied setting. Meanwhile my own games were moving very far indeed from the games as depicted in the rulebooks. I added rules from this or that game, changed character generation completely, dropped lots of rules that were cumbersome for me in play. The results would not be recognizable to anyone who played those games in any other group.
Currently, there is a fetish about playing games in the RAW - that is, Rules As Written. Changing rules, kitbashing, modding are all verboten. This is, in my opinion, just wrong. It's an abdication of the rights of the group to the rights of the designer, even if the designer intends nothing of the sort. It's passive - insidiously passive. I don't like it, and think it's bad for the hobby. Groups should be pushing their own agendas, and so should individuals. Leaving everything on the designer level, as RAW does, turns groups from participants into consumers.
The only time I can see as justification for RAW is in playtest, and even then the playtesters, when they meet with problems, should be willing and able to get around the problem in play before feeding back the problem and their own solution they used in play.
Anyway, as always, my opinion.
-calsh
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Troupes for OHMAS
Here is how I am implementing troupe play in On Her Majesty's Arcane Service - as a strongly recommended option, but not required. These ideas are not intrinsic to OHMAS - you can use them in any game.
Troupe play is play with each player having more than one character, serving different roles. Troupe play for OHMAS is highly recommended for long term play. There are several ways to structure Troupe play for OHMAS. Choose from the oprions below to best fit your group:
The Mission Impossible Toupe
The players each have one character in play at any given time, but the group leader selects the particular characters used in this session or story arc from two to three characters offered from each player. The characters should be different types, but roughly equivalent skill level.
The Tri-level Troupe
The players each make three characters - an older character with lots of skills, a mid-level character with moderate skills, and a young character with few skills. Groups can be mixed - with varying levels of competence - or matched - with everyone more or less equivalent.
The Teacher/Trainee Troupe
The players each make one fighter type, one Esotericist, one Warlock, etc. for the number of players in the group. Each player has one older character, the teacher. The rest of the troupe are Trainees.
The Classic Troupe
The players make two characters each - a spell-casting type and a competent warrior type. They also make a group of young trainee warriors. Each competent warrior is paired with a spell-caster played by a different player, The trainee warriors are miscellaneously played by anyone who wants to as an additional character.
The Battle Troupe
Each player makes a group commander, and the other players each make a character to serve under each leader. The follower characters should be lower powered than the commander. This would probably work best with smaller groups.
-clash
Troupe play is play with each player having more than one character, serving different roles. Troupe play for OHMAS is highly recommended for long term play. There are several ways to structure Troupe play for OHMAS. Choose from the oprions below to best fit your group:
The Mission Impossible Toupe
The players each have one character in play at any given time, but the group leader selects the particular characters used in this session or story arc from two to three characters offered from each player. The characters should be different types, but roughly equivalent skill level.
The Tri-level Troupe
The players each make three characters - an older character with lots of skills, a mid-level character with moderate skills, and a young character with few skills. Groups can be mixed - with varying levels of competence - or matched - with everyone more or less equivalent.
The Teacher/Trainee Troupe
The players each make one fighter type, one Esotericist, one Warlock, etc. for the number of players in the group. Each player has one older character, the teacher. The rest of the troupe are Trainees.
The Classic Troupe
The players make two characters each - a spell-casting type and a competent warrior type. They also make a group of young trainee warriors. Each competent warrior is paired with a spell-caster played by a different player, The trainee warriors are miscellaneously played by anyone who wants to as an additional character.
The Battle Troupe
Each player makes a group commander, and the other players each make a character to serve under each leader. The follower characters should be lower powered than the commander. This would probably work best with smaller groups.
-clash
Monday, August 17, 2009
On Death and Dying in Roleplaying Games
A big discussion is always generated whenever anyone discusses PC death in RPGs. It's one of those sharply defined subjects where everyone has an opinion, and anyone who tries to convince them otherwise will have to pry that opinion from their cold, dead minds. I normally avoid writing about such subjects, but i will herewith offer my opinion, with the stated proviso that you are perfectly free to disagree - that's what comments are for - and I won't mind at all if you do, and we can agree to disagree without it being some kind of make or break litmus test. I will pause here to allow anyone who wants to get all angry about it to leave the blog...
OK? We're good? Let's go on!
First of all, this is one of the most simple to change mechanics in most systems. If you don't like what the designer offers, it's easy enough to just change it, so do so if you like the game otherwise, it's not really a valid reason to reject a game on its own, one way or the other. In a few games this sort of thing is inextricably tied into other things, so you can't just delete it. I tend not to like these games anyway, because I think they are over engineered, but your taste may vary, so look before you leap.
I'm generally in favor of the characters running the risk of death, though I generally place that risk low - see Life Spirals elsewhere in this blog. In addition, I like giving the PCs lots of ways to avoid death - sometimes immunity from limited forms of random death, as in PC immunity to random cannon fire In Harm's Way; Luck; limited auto-success or auto-fail; etc. In exchange, though, my rolls are in the open, and if a character *does* die, he dies. No fudging. Generally, these deaths are the result of a PC pushing things too far and failing. So be it. That's a good thing, in my book. They knew what the risk was, and they chose to ignore the warning. If the potential gain wasn't worth the risk, they wouldn't have run it. These deaths seem to come off rather heroic in general, and are remembered fondly by the party.
Some genres shouldn't have PC death as a GM-only option, like 4 color Supers. Gritty street level supers is another matter. Pulp games should be very chary of random, meaningless deaths, but a heroic death? Awesome! It's all about the feel you want for the genre you are emulating.
-clash
OK? We're good? Let's go on!
First of all, this is one of the most simple to change mechanics in most systems. If you don't like what the designer offers, it's easy enough to just change it, so do so if you like the game otherwise, it's not really a valid reason to reject a game on its own, one way or the other. In a few games this sort of thing is inextricably tied into other things, so you can't just delete it. I tend not to like these games anyway, because I think they are over engineered, but your taste may vary, so look before you leap.
I'm generally in favor of the characters running the risk of death, though I generally place that risk low - see Life Spirals elsewhere in this blog. In addition, I like giving the PCs lots of ways to avoid death - sometimes immunity from limited forms of random death, as in PC immunity to random cannon fire In Harm's Way; Luck; limited auto-success or auto-fail; etc. In exchange, though, my rolls are in the open, and if a character *does* die, he dies. No fudging. Generally, these deaths are the result of a PC pushing things too far and failing. So be it. That's a good thing, in my book. They knew what the risk was, and they chose to ignore the warning. If the potential gain wasn't worth the risk, they wouldn't have run it. These deaths seem to come off rather heroic in general, and are remembered fondly by the party.
Some genres shouldn't have PC death as a GM-only option, like 4 color Supers. Gritty street level supers is another matter. Pulp games should be very chary of random, meaningless deaths, but a heroic death? Awesome! It's all about the feel you want for the genre you are emulating.
-clash
Friday, August 14, 2009
Settings Redux
OK, Ok! Stop piling on, guys! I concede!
Yeah - there's things you can do to make better settings. Bill over on Hinterblog posted a few tricks even I use - Hooks, Open Settings, Glosses, and Open Elements. I won't repeat what he said, so link on over and read it from the squirrel's mouth.
There are some other things I use when designing settings. Settings are always - and I mean *always* - a compromise between depth and breadth. Deep settings are like using binoculars, you trade field of vision for sharp clarity. Broad settings are the reverse. Unless you are writing the Encyclopedia Brittanica, you can't have both.
One thing I like to do is create Dynamic settings. This means that things are poised on the brink of change. Player characters love to apply the leverage to tip the balance. Players have a chance to make the difference, no matter which side they choose.
Another trick I like is Balkanizing a setting - instead of making a uniform monoculture, I prefer a patchwork quilt of bickering, multicultural allies. Lots of room for intrigue and double dealing, even within one side, let alone the enemy.
Also, Chiaroscuro - light and shadow. Unrelieved darkness gets as boring as unrelieved white, so the good guys are not all good, and the bad guys are not all bad. It brings things into relief. I don't mean an undifferentiated gray either - rather areas of actinic light blending smoothly into pools of stygian darkness. The depth just pops.
Another cool technique is Spotlighting. Throwing certain small areas into sharp focus, with lots of detail. This show the GM what you are aiming for in the setting without crowding him out. It also gives illusory depth without compromising much on breadth. It implies much without nailing things down.
And there's always Logical Coherence. Logical Coherence can do wonders for implying depth that isn't really there. When using Logical Coherence, nothing is ever there "just because it would be cool" There's a reason for everything, and you can trace that chain of reasoning. This makes it wicked easy for a GM to extend and amplify the information you present. If you are rigorous when you lay it down, it will be strong, interdependent, and a joy to adventure in.
I may be a systems guy, but I do settings too.
-clash
Yeah - there's things you can do to make better settings. Bill over on Hinterblog posted a few tricks even I use - Hooks, Open Settings, Glosses, and Open Elements. I won't repeat what he said, so link on over and read it from the squirrel's mouth.
There are some other things I use when designing settings. Settings are always - and I mean *always* - a compromise between depth and breadth. Deep settings are like using binoculars, you trade field of vision for sharp clarity. Broad settings are the reverse. Unless you are writing the Encyclopedia Brittanica, you can't have both.
One thing I like to do is create Dynamic settings. This means that things are poised on the brink of change. Player characters love to apply the leverage to tip the balance. Players have a chance to make the difference, no matter which side they choose.
Another trick I like is Balkanizing a setting - instead of making a uniform monoculture, I prefer a patchwork quilt of bickering, multicultural allies. Lots of room for intrigue and double dealing, even within one side, let alone the enemy.
Also, Chiaroscuro - light and shadow. Unrelieved darkness gets as boring as unrelieved white, so the good guys are not all good, and the bad guys are not all bad. It brings things into relief. I don't mean an undifferentiated gray either - rather areas of actinic light blending smoothly into pools of stygian darkness. The depth just pops.
Another cool technique is Spotlighting. Throwing certain small areas into sharp focus, with lots of detail. This show the GM what you are aiming for in the setting without crowding him out. It also gives illusory depth without compromising much on breadth. It implies much without nailing things down.
And there's always Logical Coherence. Logical Coherence can do wonders for implying depth that isn't really there. When using Logical Coherence, nothing is ever there "just because it would be cool" There's a reason for everything, and you can trace that chain of reasoning. This makes it wicked easy for a GM to extend and amplify the information you present. If you are rigorous when you lay it down, it will be strong, interdependent, and a joy to adventure in.
I may be a systems guy, but I do settings too.
-clash
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Accoutrements
From Dictionary.com:
ac·cou·ter·ment or ac·cou·tre·ment
Accoutrements are a sadly neglected tool in RPG design. They are defining aspects of a setting, and the primary means by which a character interacts with the setting. Let's define a setting using three accoutrements; Grav-bikes, Mind-tricks, and Light-sabres. From these three accoutrements alone, one can see a pattern emerge - StarWars, of course. Let's try another: Boarding axes, Uniforms, Cannon - Master and Commander (or some other Age of Sail) this time. Most settings can be defined by just a few well-chosen iconic accoutrements.
As well as defining a setting, accoutrements are the tools of the player characters to interface with the setting. A Jedi uses his Mind-Trick to confuse the Stormtrooper - the same operationally as a Plumber uses his wrench to fix the sink. The player - through the character - uses the accoutrement to perform an operation on the environment of the setting. A naval captain can use his uniform to gain admittance to a party to which he was not invited. It's the use of the item as a tool which makes it an accoutrement.
Settings need accoutrements to work, but accoutrements are defined by the system - even if the definition of musket is the equivalent of "works like a musket" as in some very light systems.
Too often, accoutrements are lumped in with color. The only accoutrements which consistently tend to be well-defined in RPGs are weapons and armor, but with a range of well defined and operational accoutrements, one doesn't need an actual setting. The accoutrements do the work for you by implying the setting. Wearing clothes is color. Wearing the right clothes for the right situation is using an accoutrement.
Mike Crow once wrote an article about accoutrements in which he listed three degrees of accoutrement. I can't find it now - the blog has apparently died - but these levels were something like "usual" - the accoutrement is standard and easily found, like a uniform; "limited" - the accoutrement is not easy to find, and more powerful in it's effects, like a grav-bike; and "defining" where this item alone can define a setting - like a Sandworm. Sandworms are monsters, but since the Fremen use them for transportation in Dune, they are actually accoutrements. Neat idea!
-clash
ac·cou·ter·ment or ac·cou·tre·ment
n.
|
As well as defining a setting, accoutrements are the tools of the player characters to interface with the setting. A Jedi uses his Mind-Trick to confuse the Stormtrooper - the same operationally as a Plumber uses his wrench to fix the sink. The player - through the character - uses the accoutrement to perform an operation on the environment of the setting. A naval captain can use his uniform to gain admittance to a party to which he was not invited. It's the use of the item as a tool which makes it an accoutrement.
Settings need accoutrements to work, but accoutrements are defined by the system - even if the definition of musket is the equivalent of "works like a musket" as in some very light systems.
Too often, accoutrements are lumped in with color. The only accoutrements which consistently tend to be well-defined in RPGs are weapons and armor, but with a range of well defined and operational accoutrements, one doesn't need an actual setting. The accoutrements do the work for you by implying the setting. Wearing clothes is color. Wearing the right clothes for the right situation is using an accoutrement.
Mike Crow once wrote an article about accoutrements in which he listed three degrees of accoutrement. I can't find it now - the blog has apparently died - but these levels were something like "usual" - the accoutrement is standard and easily found, like a uniform; "limited" - the accoutrement is not easy to find, and more powerful in it's effects, like a grav-bike; and "defining" where this item alone can define a setting - like a Sandworm. Sandworms are monsters, but since the Fremen use them for transportation in Dune, they are actually accoutrements. Neat idea!
-clash
Monday, August 10, 2009
Tailoring Systems for Settings
Setting is probably the most important factor in whether or not I like a game. Let me put it this way: I don't play Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles & Other Strangeness for the system. The Palladium system is fine, it just doesn't light me on fire. The setting... Ooooo the setting! Distilled lightning in a jar! I think most folks are like me in that respect, that setting sells games.
So why do I fill this blog up with system toys and tools? Because a given setting either works for you or it doesn't. There are only two basic parameters in Setting - Breadth and Depth - and beyond that, there is nothing much you can use as a tool to help you create. It's either there or it isn't. I come up with settings all the time - very few of them ever see print. I know I have a winner when a setting refuses to let me go, when it takes me by the scruff of the neck and hauls me in. If it doesn't do that... meh! It's all subjective. Taste-driven. No *tools*.
On the other hand, I believe strongly that systems should be tailored to their settings. Sub-systems should reflect the genre and special flavor of the setting. Slapping a good generic system into a good setting does *not* make a good game. When the designer is done, ideally the intended setting could be taken out yet still be strongly implied by the mechanics.
-clash
So why do I fill this blog up with system toys and tools? Because a given setting either works for you or it doesn't. There are only two basic parameters in Setting - Breadth and Depth - and beyond that, there is nothing much you can use as a tool to help you create. It's either there or it isn't. I come up with settings all the time - very few of them ever see print. I know I have a winner when a setting refuses to let me go, when it takes me by the scruff of the neck and hauls me in. If it doesn't do that... meh! It's all subjective. Taste-driven. No *tools*.
On the other hand, I believe strongly that systems should be tailored to their settings. Sub-systems should reflect the genre and special flavor of the setting. Slapping a good generic system into a good setting does *not* make a good game. When the designer is done, ideally the intended setting could be taken out yet still be strongly implied by the mechanics.
-clash
Sunday, August 9, 2009
The levels of design
There are three levels of engagement with any ruleset. Designer level, Group level, and Individual level. Where certain rules are located makes a big difference in the feel of that ruleset.
Designer level states the rules unequivocally. This is so. That is different. This subsystem is used in these circumstances. The feel is "take it or leave it." Changing rules on the Designer level requires a commitment of anyone wishing to change those rules. Will doing this change affect play in unexpected ways? Will play become unwieldy? Will one thing become too important to the detriment of the game? One must be bold and cautious at the same time. Weigh the expected consequences and institute the change. In the early development of RPGs, GMs were expected to meddle in this area, and the systems were designed with loose tolerances to facilitate these changes - like an AK-47, it would still work even full of mud. This is one of the charms of Old School design. As RPG design developed, developer level design tightened up considerably. Streamlining mechanics forced greater interdependence of components, and tinkering on this level became hazardous to games.
Group level gives groups options. Here are modifiers you can use. Award these points as you see fit. Interpret this broadly. Use common sense. The feel is free and open. Rules on the Group level are designed to be changed, modified, messed with. Group- level rules recognize and deal with the fact that what fits one group may not fit another. As noted above, almost all Designer level rules were also Group level in the beginning. As RPG design developed, Group level rules became a separate distinguishable level. The designer is saying "Here - you can mess with this all you like, and it won't screw anything vital up."
Individual level rules have always been there. You have X points to allocate to Y attributes. Roll XdY and choose the attribute. Choose your profession. Roll or choose from table A. The feel is complete freedom within parameters. The more freedom given on this level, the more wide open the game feels to a player. Constriction of choice at this level is a consequence of the focus of the game. Games more focused on a genre, theme, or story generally restrict player choices more than more general games.
Another tool to play with. Enjoy!
-clash
Designer level states the rules unequivocally. This is so. That is different. This subsystem is used in these circumstances. The feel is "take it or leave it." Changing rules on the Designer level requires a commitment of anyone wishing to change those rules. Will doing this change affect play in unexpected ways? Will play become unwieldy? Will one thing become too important to the detriment of the game? One must be bold and cautious at the same time. Weigh the expected consequences and institute the change. In the early development of RPGs, GMs were expected to meddle in this area, and the systems were designed with loose tolerances to facilitate these changes - like an AK-47, it would still work even full of mud. This is one of the charms of Old School design. As RPG design developed, developer level design tightened up considerably. Streamlining mechanics forced greater interdependence of components, and tinkering on this level became hazardous to games.
Group level gives groups options. Here are modifiers you can use. Award these points as you see fit. Interpret this broadly. Use common sense. The feel is free and open. Rules on the Group level are designed to be changed, modified, messed with. Group- level rules recognize and deal with the fact that what fits one group may not fit another. As noted above, almost all Designer level rules were also Group level in the beginning. As RPG design developed, Group level rules became a separate distinguishable level. The designer is saying "Here - you can mess with this all you like, and it won't screw anything vital up."
Individual level rules have always been there. You have X points to allocate to Y attributes. Roll XdY and choose the attribute. Choose your profession. Roll or choose from table A. The feel is complete freedom within parameters. The more freedom given on this level, the more wide open the game feels to a player. Constriction of choice at this level is a consequence of the focus of the game. Games more focused on a genre, theme, or story generally restrict player choices more than more general games.
Another tool to play with. Enjoy!
-clash
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)