All the tools for the job, or: building a social sandbox

Picture unrelated. Why? Will Wheaton in a d20-fez, that's why.

I originally started this blog to have a way to preserve and share game-relevant information with my players. When the original chronicle ended it was perhaps also inevitable that the blog went into (a somewhat fitful) hibernation. Now that we've started up again the blog has also been resurrected. This time however, it is but one of the tools in the box.

Just a thought

Old Stuff Day

NPC, the Game Master's Mouthpiece

Hindering game-flow or providing depth?

March 2 is Old Stuff Day, and this is my contribution. Here you can find the comments to the original post.


This is one of those post I just have to write. Tenkar posted a question a few days ago about whether NPCs should be used as a a GM's mouthpiece or not [edit: for future reference, Tenkar's second post on the matter]. In the comments a few people were rather unequivocal about how using such NPC's was sloppy game-mastering. I have to admit that that riled me a little. Since I have a soapbox available, I'll now climb up on it.

Dungeons & Dragons 3.X: Ajax Configuration

While becoming aware of the shortcomings of Labyrinth Lord, I was also thinking about what to exchange it with. There are things I don't like about 3.5/PF, but the truth of the matter is that those systems also have things I do like. And then there's the not inconsequential aspect of us owning all but a few of the 3.5 books, as well as several d20 games, including Pathfinder. I just can't justify purchasing a new system just to play-test it.

Here the result of my ruminations. If we end up pulling the plug on LL, I think I'll use something like this:

This D&D 3^rd Edition hack intends to provide a system that balances the various aspects I want from of fantasy roleplaying. The chassis of this system is 3.5, with certain mechanics from Star Wars d20 Revised Edition welded on. Magic has also been been changed somewhat so as to give it certain Vancianesque qualities. Some house rules have also been included in this post.

Good, Evil, and shades of grey

As an old AD&D 2nd Ed player, in my mind alignments have always meant a combination of the Good/Evil, and the Law/Chaos axis. When I picked up LL, I automatically referenced the alignment-system I was used to during the character generation process. Now, having had some time to think it through, I'm having second thoughts.

Building a sandbox

As a part of my renaissance, I realised that I needed more than just a new system. After all, the crunch is only a small part of the game. For years, my style has been that of an emulated linear narrative game structure (not to be confused with railroading), so I decided I'd follow the OSR trail all the way. 

Renaissance - (n) a rebirth or revival

Around the tubes I've seen OSR explained as both Old Shool Renaissance and -Revival. I've always liked the former better, but I never had any need to actually develop a relationship with the term. 


Not so any more. Those of you who've been reading this blog for a while will know that I've counted myself as firmly lodged in the New School, and that I've been a member of the White Wolf pack for years. You will also know that last summer I ended one hell of a campaign. Since then I've left my old group in favour of a new continent, and bought a house with my, as of a few weeks ago, wife. You may say that my life as a gamer has changed somewhat since I started this blog in '09.

I need me some OSR

Last weekend I ran a one shot dungeon crawl, and I realised that my tool-box is insufficiently stacked. So, on the off chance that I still have some readers, I'll try my hand at a little crowdsourcing.

I went with Pathfinder, and while it worked, the system is far too labour intensive for something like that. To save time at the table, my wife, a friend of mine and myself did (most of) the char-gen before the dinner, but since two of the four players had never played any D&D derivation there was too much crap on their sheets for a one-nighter. The other two weren't too familiar with 3.5/Pathfinder either, and while we all had fun, it left me thinking there has to be an easier way.

While I've been lurking on the fringes of the OSR for a few years, I do not know the difference between Labyrinth Lord and OD&D. Hell, I've never even played 1st Ed. What I would like is to get a system that allow my players to create their characters in no more than 20-30 minutes, and that will support more than just hack'n slash. I have no interest in minis, but I do have a love for skills and roleplaying. So my question to you is: Which system should I go for?

WoD: Marinating on a game

Friday will see a game of more or less vanilla Mage with the lady friend and a friend of her's. They've expressed a wish for some modern day spell-slingin' action, and I've not hosted a contemporary game in, oh, about three or four years now. I've also yet to run Mage-as-written. My lady's friend is a n00b as far as Pn'P RPG's are concerned, though she's done a bit of MMO-roleplaying. All in all, I expect this'll be a very refreshing change of pace. Hopefully for the lot of us.


In this post I'll put down some of my ideas, mostly so that I can see how it fits together, and so that the girls can look it over. And who knows, some blog-sourcing may come out of it as well.

My old notebooks, part II

When I posted the first part of this series, I was about to leave Bergen, now I've arrived in Ajax. There will most likely be some changes made as to how much I blog, and about what. The specifics are yet unclear though. I have begun writing what may become a novel, and that will take up most of my writing-time. Still, I will be playing, and posts on that will most definitely be forthcoming. The world of Argos will still turn, but for now, mostly in my head. This coming Friday will see a session of WoD, and some thoughts on that should be on the interwebs over the next few days.


For now, here's a few pages from another of my old notebooks. The chronology is a little messed up, as I used a few books in this period.

My old notebooks, part I

I'm almost done packing, and tomorrow I'm leaving Bergen. While I was going through my stuff, deciding what to keep, what to put in storage, and what to get rid of, I started leafing through some of my old note-books. I've been using them to plan my games for about a dozen years -- that is, until I started blogging, as now most of my writing ends up here. This time I've decided that I wont bring these tomes with me, but rather store them safely at my mum's.

However, there are a few pages in these books I'd like to preserve for posterity and easy reference. And I know a couple of my players will appreciate seeing some of these things again. Hence this post, the first of at least two, if not three. And since chronology is as good a system as any, I'll start with the oldest two. They measure 14 x 9 cm, and are the smallest of my books. They were in use between 1999 and 2002.

Story-boarding as a roleplaying-technique

"Understanding is a three-edged sword."

-Vorlon saying

I've found that what I've been focussing on the most now that the epic Pius Chronicles are coming to an end, is how to achieve a narrative flow that ensures that all those who tell the story has, a) a feeling of involvement in, and ownership with, the tale told, and b) a sense of continuity in plot, setting, and action. The roleplaying trope is that the GM has the final say on the plot and the setting, and the players influence this through their characters. Whether the form of play is sand-boxing or rail-roading, or falls somewhere in between those two axes, this balance is deeply rooted in the culture of the hobby; most core-books have some version of, "the GM has final call over what is accepted in the game," clearly stated at least once.

Catharsis?

Reflections on Group Dynamics and the Problem of Epic

Last session ended with a rather frank discourse. While I heard things I found hard to hear, I also heard things I found profoundly wise. As I've said before, it is not often a GM gets direct, honest and constructive feedback. Let alone from the majority of the group. This was one such occasion. The pretext to this discussion was as follows. Item 1 – We now have two scheduled sessions left before the Pius Chronicle is officially ended. Item 2 – Some of the players thought that the evening's scenario felt futile. Bear with me while I try to reflect on what was said.

Juggling Geese, or GM-ing a Large Group

Image unrelated

Last weekend was spent in a cabin with all of the players (seven all told), playing heavily. According to my calculations, we managed about 22 hours of gaming in two days. My brain was severely over-heated by the time I got home on Sunday afternoon, and I've been watching the recharge bar climb slowly back to green since then. I have to tackle the chapter-post(s) at some point over the next week, but I still need some time to marinate before I get started. I do have a few other posts to write as well, as we've gotten a brand new faction on the board since last week -- I'm looking forward to seeing how that plays out. I'll give you a hint: Spirit Courts.


So how did it go? It was bloody brilliant, is how it went. I over-planned, but I usually do -- with my group, I never know where they'll end up taking a given scenario, so I tend to lay down a massive ground-work. I also knew GM-ing for seven players would be hard, and it was. The really difficult part is to get as many of them involved as much as possible. Here I think I could have done a lot better. With three dominant players, I think I tend to rely on them leading the game a little too much.


At one point I came down pretty hard on one of the players who were following up a solo-scene while the rest were waiting for the wrap-up. I could have handled this better, but hindsight is, as they say, 20/20. Another thing I regret is not providing a hook for one of the guys so that he could've gotten into the action in a more exciting manner. As it was, he ended up playing technical support for the group for most of day two.


Still, I think everyone had fun, and while I'm not sure I'm ready for another weekend just yet, I'd definitely do it again.


My question for you guys is whether you have any advice for running large groups.




[Picture source: Oscar Perez]

NPC, the Game Master's Mouthpiece

Hindering game-flow or providing depth?

This is one of those post I just have to write. Tenkar posted a question a few days ago about whether NPCs should be used as a a GM's mouthpiece or not [edit: for future reference, Tenkar's second post on the matter]. In the comments a few people were rather unequivocal about how using such NPC's was sloppy game-mastering. I have to admit that that riled me a little. Since I have a soapbox available, I'll now climb up on it.


In my opinion, NPCs are the bread and butter of game-mastering. They are what makes the setting into more than a pimped up Monopoly-board, with the character sheets filling the role of little cars and fancy top-hats. They are everybody else. And all these people are played by the person sitting at the end of the table - the GM.


Both the GM and the players comes to the table to play a game, and I believe that regardless of the style of play, the above premise holds true.


I acknowledge that the role of the NPCs may vary according to gaming philosophies, but I still think there are certain mechanics inherent in the game. To argue this, I'll start by looking at three major philosophies in modern roleplaying. 


The first I'll address is the Sandbox. In this game, the world is created, be it by the GM or by a third party. NPCs, monster-lairs, dungeons, adventure-locations and cities are placed on the map, and the encounter-tables are stocked. The players then create their characters, and start exploring the world. They hex-crawl, they dungeon-crawl, and they kill monsters, solve puzzles, loot and gain experience. Most hard-line sandboxers I am aware of view any direct leading by the GM as a faux pas, and I am assuming that it is in this camp that most of the most vocal opponents to having NPCs act as GM mouthpieces belong. 


In the other end of the spectrum there is the Railroad. This may not be a philosophy in the strictest sense of the word, but more of a style. It is also commonly viewed as sloppy game-mastering, all across the board. Urban Dictionary defines railroading as, "to coerce, trick, or seduce others into a course of action they would not otherwise choose.[*]" Most roleplayers resent being railroaded, and justly so.


Lastly I'll look at Storytelling. This style of play was made famous with the various White Wolf lines, and builds on a level of trust between the game master and the players. The rules are placed in the back seat, and the focus is placed on the narrative, rather than the game. The game master, or as the technical term is, the Storyteller, is not only advised to, but is expected to overlook any rule that will impede the flow of the story. There are no encounter-tables in Storytelling games.


Before I continue, I should point out that I count myself among the last group, although I started my game-mastering playing AD&D 2nd Ed.


Now to the NPC as the GM's mouthpiece. In Tenkar's post he was referring to characters such as Gandalf being the game master's mouthpiece, had LotR been an RPG campaign, akin to characters such as Elminster of Forgotten Realms. I also surmise that those who spoke against employing such characters were using the same definition. And this is where I don't agree.


As a storyteller, I believe that every single NPC is the game master's mouthpiece, if for no other reason than that the game master speaks through every single NPC. Whenever a PC addresses someone not represented by a given person at the table, the game master will play out that role. If the NPC conveys a rumour about marauding goblins in the Northern Woods, it is in fact the game master speaking. The same goes for any information, or lack thereof, any NPC gives to any player.


I see that in a Sandbox-purist's game, an ancient, powerful, and wise NPC giving advice may be seen as instructing the PCs as to how to proceed, and that this may impede the open nature of the sandbox. In my view, however, removing any such influence say more about the setting than anything Gandalf might come up with. Are there no older, wiser characters in the world? Why so? If they exist, why aren't they taking an interest in what's going on in it? Is it beneath them? Or is it that they are working against whatever side the PCs are on?


As I've said, I view every NPC as a game master's mouthpiece, by virtue of the fact that as a game master, they speak with my mouth. Therefore I try to make sure my NPCs all have their own goals and agendas, and that I know what they know, and from where they learnt it. That way I the players will be able to get different information and advice from different NPCs.


I also believe that without any wiser, older, more powerful, and/or more informed characters inhabiting the world, the world becomes less believable. Even epic PCs will not know everything about the world by virtue of the fact that it is the game master who ultimately decides what lies around the next bend. Asking even the lowliest peasant may reveal information vital to bringing the story to its next stage, and even the lowliest peasant is the game master's mouthpiece. This is not railroading, this is game mastering and storytelling.


Even if the players have access to the source-material, the game master is still the one calling the shots when it comes to which adventure is open for play. My question is, how can the PCs gain any information about the setting, regardless of whether the game is a sandbox, a railroad, or a story, without interacting with the world as presented by the game master?




[Picture source: GameAxis Forums]

The way I play

This post on Gnome Stew made me think about how I prepare for my games. What I came up with can be summed up in eight questions. It also got me thinking about how I can up my game. In this post I'll try to reflect over the method I use, and if I'm really lucky, someone might have some constructive, or critical, feedback.


Now, misunderstand me correctly here, but GM-ing is a bit of a lonely craft. Getting constructive feedback on the way you do things is a rare thing. Sure, you can tell when you're delivering a shit game, and players are good at telling you when they enjoy themselves. But actually getting advice on how to get better happens rarely. Since I'm one of those people who think better when I'm writing or speaking, I decided to devote a post to look into my game.

Here we go.

I improvise most of what happens at the table, and I'm one of those Storytelling-people. I started with AD&D 2Ed, but moved on to Vampire within a few years. Even when running d20-games, I like free flowing stories, not adherence to planned adventures. I'll get back to this further down.


For now, a word on sandbox vs. rail-road. I think both techniques have value, but as tools, not as ruling principles. I know I've laid my share of rails, but I more often let my players run freely. The latter more than the former, I believe.

Here are the questions, not neccesarily in this order, that I try to answer before the session:


1: Where are we?
Here I'm looking at both the geography and chronology of the setting, and how they affect the scenario. The current location has a great impact on what can and will happen, and figuring this out in advance is important in being prepared. Likewise, the world's history, be it our own or an imaginary one, needs to be thought through. Examples are: border-towns may have smugglers and armed forces present, and a war might be about to break out or end.


2: Who are the NPCs?
This refers to who are involved/affected by the plot, covering both allies and antagonists. Their motivations, and how far they are willing to go to acchieve them are things to consider. The crime-lord may be under scrutiny from local law, but may be willing to go to great lengths to secure the Ming vase for his collection. But how far? Likewise, the characters's patron may be busy on other fronts, and thus he may be unavailable at present.


3: What has happened before?
Related to q. 1, but more focused on the direct actions of the PCs. Is there anything here that needs to be factored in? Have they made enemies that may seek to hurt or hinder them, or are they on a roll with people viewing them as heroes? Have they previously neglected to deal with the problem at hand? Are there other things in the past that should be considered?


4: What is the power-level involved in the plot?
Again related to a previous question (q. 2) but now with an emphasis on the factions with an interest in the plot, as well as the outcome of success or failure. Global conspiracies can bring more to bear than a marauding goblin tribe, but may well chose, or need, to aproach things in a more covert fashion.


5: What is at stake?
Here I'm looking at what will happen to the setting/cosmic plot if the heroes fail or succeed. If the objective is to stop the mad scientist from getting the ounce of Evilium he needs to get his Doomsday Machine operational, this likely has more direct ramifications than not finding the artifact in the dungeon.


6: Which other plot-lines are currently active?
I enjoy multiple, complex plot-lines, and so I try to review these before the game. If the heroes prevented the assassination of the king at some point in the past, the people behind that plot may well attempt another scheme to reach their goal. How far have they come?


7: How many red-herrings have I thrown on the table recently?
One of my pet peeves are tossing out plot-hooks and false leads during my games. Here I look at which of these that still has relevance. I love herrings! Often they provide an unexpected route to the completion of a plot, or they may blossom into an interesting story of their own.


8: How can I sell the plot to the players?
If I want them to bite a particular hook, it needs to be baited properly. Do they owe someone a favour, or do they have a superior they're taking orders from? Are they motivated by treasure, or will they react to the suffering of innocents?

Between the sessions, I marinate on these questions. I also try to plan one key encounter, preferably early in play. Apart from this, I make a few (often mental) notes just to remind me of important details. Once the dice are let out of the bag, I improvise. That, and my plot-work and world-building, are my greatest assets, I believe.

A word on rules. The rules support the game, not the other way around. I'm also not one of those GMs who knows the system better than everybody else. I want to tell a story, not argue law. Sometimes I'll consult the books, but if it'll slow play, I'd rather make a ruling on the spot.

This blog has greatly influenced the way I run my games. I use it to expand on the setting, to plant, or expand on plot-lines, and to distribute my precious red herrings.




On NPCs, the only time I actually sit down and forge an NPC is if I'm running a d20-game, and only if that character is intended to be used as an opponent. Here I take great pleasure in building a lethal foe for the characters. The rest of my NPCs are names and some, again often mental, notes on their agendas and abilities. Sometimes I note down the important stats, but that's it.


Another thing I do is that I enjoy letting PCs get themselves in trouble. I'll gleefully provide the rope they need to hang themselves. Hell, I'll even provide lessons in tying the best knot. This might actually be classified as one of my weaknesses, as more than one plot-line has been derailed in this fashion.


Further on my weaknesses, I think the greatest is that I have a tendency to stack the deck in favour of the antagonists. Dead-end has been used to describe more than a couple of my scenarios. I think it's wrong to say I expect too much of my players, but I believe I often make things too complicated.


Descriptions are also something I think I could get a lot better at. I sometimes find myself using cliches, or even stumbling, when I'm describing scenarios or NPCs. I also tend to take things for granted, i.e. forgetting that the players can't see the images inside my mind.


Now that I've gone and put this in text, I'd like to see how I can refine my technique. I'm not there yet, but it's a step.