Do you want to hear the Writer/Desiger’s voice?

That’s the question I’m wrestling with now. Well, wrestling is too strong a word… but I’ve noticed a couple of specific trends and I wonder if they mean anything, if they reflect the game in any way, or if it is just a product of the way these books are created…

I mean, read an old DMG written by Gygax and it is filled with his voice. The voice of the writer — “this is how the game is meant to be played, this is what you should do” — is everywhere. And I don’t mean to demean this, I really enjoy this writing style.

Reading Amber Diceless RPG and Houses of the Blooded you get the same perception. Wujcik and Wick are talking right to their audience, writing about how they game feels, what they were hoping to accomplish, why it “works” the way it does.

It’s a very different experience from reading the Pathfinder Core book or any of the 4E materials. Honestly, it’s even different from the way 2nd Ed. was written. It’s a different approach that puts the game in front of the developers. I realize that Wizards has outlets for letting the designers write about the game — the website, etc. — but that isn’t really the same. I won’t have that website twenty years from now when I go back and flip through a 4E book the way I flip through my 1E DMG, you know?

I’ve seen books in between these points. Some books now have little “look inside” style sidebars that explain something or give the designer a voice but it is limited in scope to a specific instance.

I think I’m fighting myself on the way I want to write. I sit down to write and I try to write like a “Manual” or Instruction set when I’d prefer to write a more personal gaming book. They’re the ones I love most.

What’s the thought? Do you want a set of instructions or a game that invites you into the designers mind and offers their insights along with handing the game over to you?

Thanks for reading.

GM = Quarterback?

Blame the championship games last night. Blame this post. But I’m thinking about the relationship between GMs and players and the challenges gaming groups face on this front. I’ll be getting back to what I wrote about yesterday with “unique characters” but this came up…

I’m very pro-GM. Ask anyone who knows me, heck, just read my blog and you’ll know I’m pro-GM. And by that I mean that I’m in favor of the GM as rules arbiter, involved participant, and equal member in shaping the story that unfolds as part of the game. The story is about the PCs but it really doesn’t work without a GM to help shape events, to play the cast of thousands surrounding the PCs and occasionally, to challenge the players and characters to the edge of their ability. I don’t believe in rail-roading or GMNPCs but neither can I stand perfectly balanced encounters and the “always say Yes” philosophy that has invaded gaming.

Unique Characters?

Recently, I finished reading Mastiff: The Legend of Beka Cooper #3, by Tamora Pierce. She writes for the YA genre and I have been a fan of her books since I was ten years old and discovered the world of Tortall in the stories of Alanna. I could go on and on about how Alanna was the first fantasy crush I ever had, or how many times I made stats for the characters from the book in various games — but I won’t…

Actually, wait, that’s exactly what I want to talk about… the experience of imposing stats on book characters. I’ve been thinking about this for a while — and I’m certainly not the first to bring it up — but I realized the other day that: 1) it works on my mind more than I’d like to admit, and 2) I have only partial answers to how I feel about it.

What finally inspired this post though? Farmer Cape inspired this post. Master Cape is a mage in the Mastiff story who has an interesting and somewhat unique ability for mages in his setting (and the next line contains some spoiler’ish type stuff so if you are reading or planning to read this book or you think you might ever read this book then I’d advise you to just quit here and I’m writing this overlong disclaimer for a very small spoiler just so you don’t see it by accident…)

ICv2 – WotC to Reprint ‘AD&D’

I will be posting again later today with something more complete — but I really wanted to bring this up. I’m sure everyone already knows, but just in case… Sharing is good.

ICv2 – WotC to Reprint ‘AD&D’.

Made me happy on a sad day.

Protest Song…

Well, it’s only a post really, but January 18 I will be skipping my normal Wednesday post for the SOPA blackout.

Back tomorrow!

Marscon Follow Up

Spent the weekend at Marscon (Williamsburg, VA) and had a wonderful time (as always). Still recovering a little bit today. I know you can just follow the link but I want to mention that Marscon is by far one of my favorite events of the year. This was my fourth year attending and already there is a wonderful sense of continuity to it. People I see only once a year but still know. It’s a special weekend getting to see them again. And there are always new things to discover.

I spent most of my time this weekend listening to music actually. Jonah Knight performed several times and hosted the Saturday night “Mocktail” party. He’s always a great performer but probably the high point of the mocktail party was getting served peach flavored booze from a nozzle attached to (what appeared to be) a rocket pack. A big thanks to Jonah Knight though for being a part of Marscon (and he’ll be at Madicon this year too). I also was introduced to the comedy and music of Mikey Mason and he was awesome. If you don’t know him, check out his site now. Nice guy, gracious guest, great performer.

Got a chance to play in some Pathfinder Society games — and big thanks to the GM for the session I started in. He wasn’t planning on running the adventure and had to run it cold because they had so many players… and he did a great job of soldiering through, keeping the game going, and making sure everyone had fun. It was an interesting mix at the table, 4E players, 2E players, and some guys who had played 3.5 but never Pathfinder. Everyone hammed it up and had a great day though. I was assaulted with a “toy” by an Imp and propositioned by a Chelaxian noble then all but killed by a barbarian in the mist. Quality day all around. I don’t play with new groups, or with strangers, all that often so this was a nice change of pace. I kinda wish we had Pathfinder Society events in my area… but to make that happened I’d probably have to run them instead of play.

I didn’t have a chance to play any Battletech this year. I’m a little sad about that because the group that runs it at Marscon are great guys and always run a great event. But there’s always next year…

Which brings up the fact that this was a big (and in some ways sad) year for Marscon. Every year at Marscon for the last nine years they’ve capped off Saturday night with a wonderful performance by Coyote Run. Sadly, Coyote Run is calling it quits and won’t be performing anymore. Their last Marscon performance was heartfelt and huge, with the performance hall completely packed. I don’t know what else will close out Saturday at Marscon as well as they did, but I will miss them. Also, the staff announced that Marscon is changing hotels next year. I’m going to reserve any judgement until next year because a change of venue is always hard. I have complete faith that Marscon will be the same wonderful event is always is… but I will miss the old hotel — the staff has always been wonderful and very supportive of the con.

It was a great weekend and I’m already looking forward to next year. Marscon is definitely an event worth checking out.

I Don’t Wanna Suck!

This is not what I intended to write about today. This is what happens when you read other blogs before you start writing your own for the day… In particular, I read a post at Gothridge Manor, Just Above Suck.

Now, I don’t know the poster — and I know this was meant in good spirits — but if a DM said that to me, like that when I was a new player — I’d have been a little crushed. That’s not really true, but I would probably have been deflated. But this is a default setting in some games that presents a particular set of challenges and expectations.

Over the years I have realized that I don’t like to start out at “Suck.” Don’t get me wrong, I think that (for example) D&D 4e went way too far towards making me a superhero for my taste. But this has been on my mind because I’ve been struggling a little with this as I’ve been designing my own romantic fantasy game. There are two connected thoughts here and they are also connected to what I meant to write about today so I will not feel as guilty about skipping out on myself…

1. In many stories, the hero/heroes don’t start at suck… they start at “I’ve had a life before what I do now.” And while this could easily be expressed in many of the D&D-style games, it is difficult to completely reconcile in level-based advancement because of the way the curve needs to develop. But the hero, who may not be able to fight well, or cast spells, or whatever they want to do, may still be a smooth talker, a great tracker, or an accomplished archer, or well, whatever — and it is not easily replicable in typical RPG advancement schemes.

My feeling on the “why” of this is that — because most resolution mechanics are effectively just math problems — RPGs reward specialization too much. I might start the game with my “build” tuned towards being a great archer, but the game creates little reason why I’d then choose to broaden my skill set. In fact, since monster defenses/armor values, etc. tend to rise, being a skilled combatant in a variety of weapons pales when compared to being a hyper-specialist in one.

This is also the problem with all the “fiddly-bits” choices in games like Pathfinder. It’s great that I have a base class, feats, skills, traits, and possibly multi-class and even prestige classes (along with my adventuring Gear)… but since I know I have to remain mathematically competitive to be useful to my party, then it’s better for me to follow the path of specialization over general competence. I always want to put my best foot forward and my “best foot” can always be the same foot. There is no reward for generalizing and a lot of rewards for specializing. This is a thought I want to expand on so I’ll come back to it again (and how it interacts with character growth/advancement) but I want to mention another point as well.

(To attempt to be a little more clear on this point: The problem is that players don’t want to have their choices marginalized either. So if I choose to specialize and be a “Super Archer” then the game should not take that away from me. If I occasionally run into a specific encounter where being a Super Archer doesn’t help, well, that’s okay — but most of the time I should be rewarded for my build — not penalized — because I did it “right.” It’s a self-fulfilling trap though because this means that encounters then reward player builds, which further encourages specialized builds. I have an elaborate Shadowrun-based example running through my head right now, but I think I have have beaten this point enough.)

2. In many stories, the “PCs” don’t all start out at the Same Level or built on the same points. This is always a problem. Balance between players is important. You don’t want to feel marginalized by someone else’s PC at the table. That makes sense. I don’t go to my games for it to be, “that other guy’s show.” It’s also a problem based on the “math problem” nature of games… If I have PCs in my game that are level 2, 4, 7, and 9 it is very difficult to challenge them well without simply destroying the poor level 2 guy or making the level 9 god feel like a god. It can be done and I’ve played in and run mixed level D&D groups with varying amounts of success but it is not really the expected mode of play.

But again, those characters in the stories are not all the same level. Look back at the Fellowship. The hobbits might be 0-level at the start. Boromir is a long-accomplished battle captain. Aragorn a slightly mystical ranger. Legolas and Gimli are experienced warriors of their respective races. Heck, at one point Frodo gets handed a couple of pretty awesome pieces of gear (Sting and the mithrail mail) while the other three hobbits still have somebody’s old daggers. In a point-buy system, that’s suddenly problematic because one PC just received a large influx of points that no one else did.

And yes, you could always say that the Hobbits are the PCs and everyone else is an NPC — but — that’s a pretty heavy hand by the DM then. Ultimately, the problem is still that the PC group (in stories) is not usually so homogenous a group of “we suck” newbs.

Ultimately, these are challenges that I don’t see getting much traction on. Resolution mechanics use math. Players like to have balance between them in the party (just look at god-wizard and striker envy). But I don’t want to suck. I want to be awesome. And even if I’m not the best right out of the gate (that would be boring I think) I still want to feel like a person with a past, with skills, who can do Stuff well — even if it’s not the focus of the game.

Thanks for reading… next, a (hopefully) more polished post about what I MEANT to write about today.

Hooks, Sorta hooks, “Use No Hooks,” or Something Else Entirely

Of course, the hot topic today is the announcement by WotC about a new edition of D&D. I thought about writing about this, but really, why? I play Pathfinder now and I really enjoy it. So I wanted to mention a couple of insights I’ve had about running Pathfinder that have made me extra happy as a GM and ask a question of my readers about introducing adventures.

First, I suppose that what I’m about to say isn’t so much an insight as it is a realization of something lost. When I was running the Kingmaker AP, I got really caught up in being sure that I had all the stats and monster notes and spell notes and NPC abilities PERFECT. I hated this. I realized that for the majority of encounters I needed a much more bare-bones set of stats to actually run the encounter. I knew this and it’s how I ran 3.5 but I struggled with letting myself off the hook for it not being perfect. Pathfinder has built a lot of character/combat options into the feats available now (even more than 3.5) and spellcasters are, of course, complex. But really, all I actually need to know is the basics and all those feats can get distilled down into a simple entry on the NPC sheet, “bad guy can do this — like this.”

I was driving myself nuts creating every single enemy like they were a fully fleshed out PC. I never did this in 3.5 and it worked fine, so why did I get all caught up in it in Pathfinder? Don’t know. But as I sat down over the weekend to stat out the villains for some encounters I had planned for my game, I went back to simpler stat blocks and more carefully thought out abilities and it was simple and refreshing and I was done in a fraction of the time this previously took. Gave me a new lease on life as the DM of that game. Whew.

I’ve also been thinking about the way I run “adventures” and “campaigns” with my players. I’ve been thinking about hooks. Thing is, my normal tendency is to throw out a few hooks, some subtle, some not so subtle, and let the players bite on one they decide they like and then spin the game from there. I usually have at least four planned adventures I can go to anytime the PCs need to make a decision. I’m also the type who won’t care if the PCs simply decide to wander off in a different direction if something catches their interest I hadn’t planned on. Why not? Let them live their lives, right? I do get annoyed when PCs decide to start something and then just abandon it midway or if they decide to wander completely aimlessly… I’ve never figured that one out. I like a little structure in my game even if it’s only a bare scaffold.

But of course, this doesn’t work for some gamers. Some players want a clear story and a fairly linear progression, some want a lot of structure but little in the way of linear progression (that is, a strong world/metastory but the ability to a variety of adventures inside it — I’m thinking mission-based games like Shadowrun or a military style game here). Some players are deeply offended if the GM tries to offer any structure at all. And I’ve been told by players on both ends of the spectrum that having a wide-open world, some possible backdrops to a “Campaign”, and a variety of hooks they can take or leave, can be overwhelming — because they don’t know what choice to make.

So what about you? I’d love to hear how you tend to DM, how you introduce hooks, offer up adventures, or take a hand in the adventures of PCs at your table? What works, what do you hate as players? I’m curious and I’d love to have some other insights outside of my normal play-style.

Thanks for reading.

I’m that guy… (Skyrim related)

I love Skyrim. I just need to clear that up so I can proceed and everyone will understand that I love Skyrim. I loved Oblivion and I’ll probably love whatever comes next so, just sayin’. But I realized something while I was playing today…

I’m that guy.

Let me explain. I don’t think of myself as a power-gamer. When I say power-gamer that way, what I mean is someone who combines min-maxer with I-can-do-it-all-better-than-you syndrome. I’ve played with a few too many of these players and since they don’t really fit my play style I do try to avoid them. Not be rude or anything — I just know what I like.

But then I had this exchange with my girlfriend when she was playing…

Me: You should have bought those two silver ores from that merchant.

Her: ?

Me: Since you have that Transmute spell you could turn them into gold, make gold rings and sell them back to him for a huge profit…

Her: Yeah, I could have.

Now, don’t get me wrong — that’s just one little thing, right? But the fact that it was so easy for me to slip into thinking that way surprised me. As I thought about it more, I realized that when I’m playing Skyrim, I love the fact that I can do everything myself. I can smith and improve my own weapons and armor. I can enchant those same weapons and armor. I can heal myself with magic or use alchemy to make my own potions. If I don’t want to use magic at all, I can cook and use food to recover health and never need spells or potions. I can swim, use any type of armor, any type of weapon, and if I really want, I can even have a companion but I don’t really need one. I love the fact that I’m completely independent because my character can do everything.

Understand that I’m joking myself a little here. I understand the difference between my playing at an RPG table and a computer game. And as much as I like Skyrim (and I love Skyrim) I don’t want the same experience at the game table. I don’t need to be good at everything and I don’t want to be “better” than the other PCs. That’s not a victory for me. In the end, I know what I like in each experience and I’m happy with the two experiences remaining separate.

Thanks for reading.

The Future of D&D?

Yesterday, a post at the Escapist was pointed out to me — The State of D&D: Future. They also have posts about the past and present that make for interesting reading but I want to focus on the future — at least, their article about the future. I found it a fascinating read, agreed with some of it, didn’t agree with some of it, and found some of it nearly ludicrous. I hate saying that because my opinion of what they have to say is exactly that — just an opinion — but let me say then that some of the post just felt, off, to me.

Let’s start with this bit:

The nerd rage has dulled a bit in the three years since 4th edition, was released, but the tabletop RPG industry is still reeling.

Am I the only one who doesn’t think that 4th edition’s mixed reception and mixed results has caused the RPG industry to reel? I’ll admit, the industry certainly isn’t what it was between, say, 1990 and 2005 either. The strangeness of White Wolf and the shrinking of the 3rd party publishing efforts that surrounded 3e/3.5 are certainly noticeable, but reeling? Maybe to an outsider it would seem that way — and that is part of the problem — but I remember when TSR went away, there was doom and gloom predicted then and we’re still here. I think — and I respectfully submit my highly subjective opinion here — that the nature of the gaming market is changing but that it doesn’t mean reeling…

Even stranger was this section:

“I have a theory about RPGs,” Mearls said. “When 2nd edition really got focused on story [in 1989], we had what I call the first era of RPG decadence and it was based on story. The idea that the DM is going to tell you a story, and you go from point A to point B to point C. The narrative is linear and [the DM is a] storyteller going to tell you a static story, and you would just get to roll dice occasionally. 3rd edition came out and said ‘To Hell with that,’ it’s all about players, we’re going to give you some really cool options, it’s all flexibility in the DM and for the players, there’s this meaningful choice.

I mean, yes we did have a kind of “meta-story games are awesome” moment for a while there with games like World of Darkness and Legend of the Five Rings and stuff like that — and yes those games are still around and going strong (though the whole super-tight meta-story thing like Aberrant and Trinity maybe went a little too far) but then again, for me, that wasn’t much different from playing a Star Wars campaign (or any other major license game) just in this case, it was a universe with a powerful metastory that didn’t come from an already established license. Which I found to be amazing. But I’m getting sidetracked… I’m not sure, but did you see D&D2e as “story-focused” in any major way? Okay, question withdrawn. I did just mention a bunch of very story-focused games… but to say that any particular era of gaming involved being “GM-centric” only seems to confirm (again, just my opinion) my feeling that the designers behind 4E have this odd disdain for the role of the GM.

And then this is pretty telling:

Mearls admits 4th edition might have gone too far in creating a perfectly balanced game. “We’ve lost faith of what makes an RPG an RPG,” he said, admitting that in trying to please gamers with a limited imagination, 4th edition might have punished those with an active one. “There’s this fear of the bad gaming group, where the game is so good that even playing with a bad gaming group, you’ll still have fun.”

Not only did he basically admit that they were trying to make a game that the “bad group” couldn’t screw up, he pretty much insults the audience of 4E in a strangely off-hand way. I don’t think it was an intentional insult — just can be read that way too easily. Of course, that part about the “limited imagination” is not actually a quote so who knows what was really said.

I do tend to agree that 4E tries to hard to be a math problem and fails to be a great RPG. I played the heck out of 4E for the first two years it was out and gave Essentials a try too — and 4E just feels like a math problem to me. And it ultimately led me to quit playing 4E. But I still read the books, because 4E has a lot of cool stuff being written for it, even if you don’t play the game…

Then we get to page two where they discuss how WotC is now producing “a range of games” called D&D. I found that section to be awkward reading — an attempt to justify a strategy that has alienated as many gamers as it attracts. But I suppose that was the point: that no two gamers are alike (but they should all be playing D&D)… Joking aside, I actually enjoy the Castle Ravenloft board game, but I don’t consider part of the RPG… it’s a board game. Maybe I’m crazy?

But this last part, this is what confused me:

Not all gamers are so optimistic. “I think the tabletop RPG market is enduring a kind of death. I think it is transforming into something that isn’t a viable commercial business for more than a handful of people,” said Ryan Dancey, former VP of RPGs at Wizards and marketing guru at White Wolf/CCP. Dancey was instrumental in developing the OGL before the 3rd edition era of D&D, but he foresees the RPG industry becoming a dead hobby like model trains. “Kids stopped playing with trains, and the businesses that remained dedicated to hobbyists who got more disposable income as they grew up, until the price of the hobby was out of reach of anyone except those older hobbyists. Eventually, it became a high-end hobby with very expensive products, sold to an ever-decreasing number of hobbyists. As those folks die, the hobby shrinks. That is what is happening to the tabletop RPG business.

This may not be such a strange attitude considering Dancy’s last two jobs but considering how many free or inexpensive games I’ve picked up in 2011 — and games that are really excellent, not throwaways — I don’t think we’re in any danger of becoming a hobby that is just in the hands of a few folks with disposable income. It may actually fare too far the other way, that with all the available outlets for self-publishing and self-promotion that there may be way too many products (and some of dubious quality) that the games lose value for that reason. I will freely admit that until I read Barbarians of Lemuria and Old School Hack I was dubious of the self-published games out there. And at the same time I shell out a ton of money for just about everything Catalyst puts out. I love Battletech and Shadowrun and these are two games that were nearly dead just a few years ago. So Dancy’s opinion is odd to me — but then I’m already a gamer… Maybe the point is that those on the outside are not going to join the hobby? On that note, I can only say that in the case of our hobby, it’s not so much that kids will stop “playing with the trains” it’s that we need to do a better job of letting the kids know that are games even exist in the first place.

And that’s one thing that WotC still does really well. Maybe better than anyone else. And it’s one thing that all of us can do as gamers. Keep introducing people to the hobby. Heck, I have a little nephew who’s almost two. I can’t wait until he gets to be about 8 and I can start to introduce him to RPGs. Until then, it’s important to keep reaching out, keep bringing people in and getting them to try. Fantasy is experiencing something of a rebirth these days — how can we parlay that into bringing in new people? I don’t have that answer but someone out there does and I hope they can make it happen.

Okay — that got a little long, but it was a perplexing read. Thanks for reading.