The One True Way of Gaming

Imperial Fleet Circling Ilysium

2010-08-03T18:42:00.000-07:00

Image Copyright 2010 by me. More about this later.
I used Clouds from Above by Skybase.

See also Lady Blackbird.

Chained Souls: Submitted

2009-11-25T00:49:00.000-08:00

I finished Chained Souls: Work out your own salvation. Deadlines are amazing things. I had everything ready, but it didn't really come together until the day it was due. I think it looks good at least, I like the cover and the play sheet. I don't think I'll ever play it. I'm not sure if and how I'll release it. I'm going to wait for feedback from the Two Game One Name RPG Challenge at least first. I know it could probably use more guidance for play.

One thing that was interesting when writing and developing it is the purpose for why I was doing it. Which is funny as Nathan who set up Two Game One Name recently wrote something sort of about this. What I was thinking doesn't quite map to his spheres, most closely to experimental I guess. I wanted to do a couple of things. I wanted to create a game. It kind of reduces the burden if I want to do anything more serious in the future, having handed in something that I feel is finished in some sense to someone else. Also, it's nice just making done pretty things. I'm curious what he or anyone else will make of it. In a way, it's also just a statement, almost not meant to be played. A counterpart to Kill Puppies for Satan. (According to an interview I heard with Vincent Baker, he didn't play the game before he released it.)

It's odd in a way to think about this as my first game. I've spent a bit of time working on two other games, ignoring a high school project where I made a game. One is called HUMDR: HUMDR Understands Manically Depressed Robots, a game that tries to recreate the magic of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I've actually playtested that three times, to varying degrees of success. I think it's near refined, I should run it again sometime, but it's an awkwardly short game for my schedule right now. Another is currently called Ph/F or something ridiculous. It's an attempt at a quickly learnable system but an abstract minigame that requires no setup or prep to use. It's borne directly out of my love for Burning Wheel but annoyance at the fact that we have to spend at least one session burning the world and characters. I haven't had a need for that yet, so it sits unplayed. Games with a higher commitment factor are better for achieving more gaming. Also, I got the Battlestar Galactica board game.

Chained Souls: Cover

2009-11-15T00:52:00.000-08:00

Chained Souls: Bible Translations

2009-10-19T22:13:00.001-07:00

Looking at Bible translations for some verses that may be important. Most people think of people having bodies and souls, not bodies, souls and spirits.

1 Thessalonians 5:23:

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." - KJV

"And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." - ASV

"May the God of peace himself sanctify you completely. May your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." - WEB

Hebrews 4:12:

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. " - KJV

"For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart." - ASV

"For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and is able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart." - WEB

Philippians 2:12:

"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. " - KJV

"So then, my beloved, even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;" - ASV

"So then, my beloved, even as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. " - WEB

I find the KVJ subtly more poetic, especially in 1 Thessalonians 5:23. However, the lack of the word 'living' in Hebrews 4:12 is definitely a disadvantage. So far ASV may work. Although 'asunder' is an awesome word. Philippians 2:12 is really what the game is about: working out your own salvation. Salvation here being salvation from your present condition, not from eternal perdition.

Chained Souls: Design Goals

2009-10-19T21:08:00.000-07:00

I'm participating in the Two Games One Name RPG Contest. I'm excited as I was able to get the title Chained Souls, which I was really hoping for. My constraint is "requires input from family members", but I'm not sure what to make of that yet. I may just ignore it for now, but I'll keep it in mind as I go through the design. I have until November 22nd to complete the game. We'll see how it goes.

Chained Souls will be about Christians who struggle with their attachment to the world. These attachments are character attributes and are called Chains to go with the game name. Stats will be based on the parts of humans: body, soul, and spirit. At least the soul I'll probably break up into it's parts: mind, emotion, and will. If there's any evolution of the character it will be the process of transforming the soul.

I want the game to be a sort of statement through play, so I'll need mechanics that reinforce that. I'm not trying to model any kind of reality. I'd like that to be clear to the readers/players in some way too. I'll want a good mix of success and failure just to provide a contrast. Too much of one or the other is boring or disconcerting. A slow path of success and transformation is probably best. I don't think I want a GM, as then he would essentially be playing the Enemy, which seems against the goal and focus of the game. I'm not sure yet how I'm going to deal with scene framing and stuff without one. In a sense it'll be good, as I'd like every scene to be directly related to the Chains, or possibly also divine experiences. Probably to represent how much divinity is worked into the characters each stat will have a worldly and divine portion, with the dice split between them. Divine dice may be better in some way to help achieve positive feedback loops. Probably just use d6 for dice, as lots of other games use piles of d6, and they're 'normal' dice, so it shouldn't be an issue to have them. Multiple colors may be good for divine and worldly dice.

I think the mechanics should pretty much completely determine how the characters choose to act with respect to the Chains, the conflict between choosing the world and choosing God. Will there be any game element to it? Very possibly not.

There will definitely be a lot of Bible verses in the final text, both to support and explain the stuff that I'm talking about as being the content and focus of the game. I'll need to choose a translation that's in the public domain. I know the King James is available, but it's a tad dated at this point and may not be the best translation for some of the stuff I'm talking about. King James Version, American Standard Version, and World English Bible all look like options right now.

Savage Worlds: Session 2

2009-10-14T00:24:00.000-07:00

I've played my second session of Savage Worlds now. I'm less 'omg this is awesome', but I'm still definitely a fan. I think part of my issue is just the type of game that it is. The game is run as a sandbox for Vikings in raiding season. My character is a more competent version of Antonio Banderas' character in The 13th Warrior. It's run more like D&D games of yore: improvisation alternating with combat. Given that I'm a zealous Burning Wheel convert, the lack of character driven drama and use of social mechanics (okay, there was an intimidate roll of some kind which was awesome) is taking me a second to adjust to. The nature of the game is somewhat light, which is nice, but I think I just need a little time to invest in it. Also, although I have had chance to read through the main rules, I still haven't internalized all the rules yet. My character is a bowman now which I think will provide a fun challenge of keeping a clean line of sight without hitting any of my companions (well, besides the lieutenant who doesn't like me). Once I get used to it, I think I'll be really happy with how fast it runs and that it does give you some choices. There aren't a ton of choices, but enough to be meaningful. How easily you can kill mooks helps, it keeps the battle landscape more dynamic.

I did really enjoy killing a troll with one shot though. I gotta give props for a system allowing for that level of satisfaction with good dice rolling.

My narrow views of Creative Agendas

2009-09-16T22:50:00.000-07:00

Reading some threads recently on The Forge made me realize that I was, well, wrong about what the Creative Agendas — Narrativist and such — meant. I think most of my statements hold true for some possibly wonky definitions. I used terms like "pure Narrativist" play to describe play without any game element. But being Narrativist has not so much to do with the exclusivity of what you care about, but the goal of your play. Narrativist play can include having game elements that further the Narrativist Agenda of creating Story Now. This is very important to game choice or design, for all those System Matters reasons.

First Impressions: 4E and Savage Worlds

2009-09-11T15:56:00.001-07:00

A month ago or more I got a chance to finally play the 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons. I was really excited about it. Everything I had read about it made it seem like they had really done a good thing. Sure the skill challenges are wonky and probably need help, but that is a side issue. In some sense, that is not what Dungeons & Dragons is about. I was excited because they had made it much closer to a board game, made the tactics much more interesting. No longer were melee fighters rewarded for running up and then standing still for the rest of combat (so they can get multiple attacks). Movement is always an option, and there's lots of stuff about extra movement for you or others. The powers system seems great. You always have at least two kinds of attacks to make, you always have an option. Powers also mean that everyone gets a chance to do extra cool stuff sometime, not just spell casters. On paper it looks great.

In practice though, it didn't work out that way. There was more movement than 3.5, but it didn't feel that dynamic. I was playing a Kobold Rogue for the movement powers. It wasn't until after the first encounter that I really noticed that all the Rogue movement powers are Encounter or Daily powers, meaning I don't actually get to use them that much. Most of the time I used the same attack because it was better. Calculating all the numbers for my character seemed like a burden too, even though I was only modifying a character created by the GM. That may get better with experience with the rules, but it really felt like a hindrance to having fun now. I'm not really even entirely sure what didn't make it work like I wanted it to. I think it was the weight of the system, there's so much stuff I have to worry about, but when it comes down to it, I still don't have that many choices but it doesn't move as fast as I'd like. It brought me back to just wanting to play Doom (the board game). One thing that was a pleasant surprise was that the game was hard. In our first encounter there was a real possibility of us losing, though we manage to pull through.

Last week I played Savage Worlds for the first time. My perspectives are going to be skewed until I actually have a chance to read the rules and get a handle on them. When we got into combat, I pretty much let the other players help me know what my mechanical options were. My character is not a fighter, so this helped. After the first major combat I felt like this game has a lot of what I've been looking for in D&D. Character creation was simple, the hardest part was buying equipment. The system runs fast and seems to have a reasonable number of options depending on your character, and there was a fair amount of movement in combat. The movement was mostly the party regrouping to keep from getting smashed. I need to rebuild my character now that I kinda know how the game runs and actually have time to read the rules, but my first impressions are very good. I'm excited about playing this more. Combat was fast and fun, even for someone who didn't contribute too much. I'll write more after I've played more.

Realizing Sim: The Right to Dream

2009-05-31T22:42:00.000-07:00

So I just realized that I think I was very wrong when I wrote that I didn't see how pure Simulationist play could exist in GNS and the lack of pure Simulationist play. I think that I was taking on a narrow view of what Sim can be. I think, if I'm interpreting the other title, the Right to Dream, correctly, then there is pure Sim play and I've experienced it, more or less. I see this as basically the 'I want to pretend to be' type of play. Before I think that this would require you to be either playing a game or caring about the story, but I don't think that is really necessary. You could just want to do cool stuff. There could be a lot of Star Wars role playing that falls into this, as a lot of people just really like Star Wars and want to pretend to be Jedi or Han Solo, but they don't want to deal with a bunch of rules or have to figure out how to win, and they don't care about story because they don't want to alter the canon. We do this sort of thing naturally as kids, pretending to be characters we know or superheroes. The stuff Calvin comes up with are great examples. It's about nothing more than a good imagination and doing cool stuff. Indiana Jones converted to role playing would be like this. It's all an adventure, just enough plot for buy in, and only enough good ideas to move things along.

I experienced this in a d20 Modern game I played where we were all high school students transformed into our costumes during a mishap at the Halloween dance where one of the teachers was trying to steal everyone's soul. The costume thing was an explicit steal from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode where the same thing happens, we didn't have the memory issues though. I played a dumb jock transformed into an incorporeal ghost, because I thought that it would be hilarious for someone so used to using physical force to be utterly incapable of doing so. While there may have been some in character preparations or planning, there was very little. Most of it came from the fact that one player's character was transformed into Bruce Banner/The Hulk, so he was super smart when not mad and build various contraptions (mostly I think he basically turned my ghost into a golem by building a mech). There were a few encounters before the boss fight, the location of which were basically told to us by a friendly NPC at the beginning of the session. For this game I think that was very good, we didn't have to fumble about. We went around, we kicked but, we did cool stuff, we dealt with lots of weird stuff going on at the school. Possibly because none of us are too familiar with d20 Modern and the GM built all the characters beforehand (with some player input where there were options), but there wasn't a lot of tactical options coming from the system, but it worked for a one shot because we were just trying out our cool powers. This is how I see pure Sim working: the players pretend to be something that's interesting to them, while the GM presents cool stuff and situations.

Rock-paper-scissors

2009-05-22T13:13:00.000-07:00

First, let me say that I know probably just enough mathematical game theory to be dangerous, having watched the first 9 lectures or so from a Yale course on the subject. Lecture 8 actually discusses rock-paper-scissors. The Nash equilibrium is to play every move with equal probability. But the Wikipedia article on the game says "unlike truly random selections, it can be played with skill if the game extends over many sessions, as a player can often recognize and exploit the non-random behavior of an opponent." This is true because the Nash equilibrium is not the best strategy, it is the situation where both players are using, and know that they are, the best strategy against the strategy of their opponent. Neither has anything to gain by changing his strategy. Larps like to assume that all players are playing the Nash equilibrium, so the result will be random.

I contend, as I have here, that people aren't good at generating random numbers. Most simply, this means that players cannot play the Nash equilibrium, as they can't choose from rock, paper, and scissors randomly, with no correlation to previous plays. They may produce an even distribution of the three moves, but that is not random. Once one player is not playing randomly and his opponent has some information about this, it is strategically better for his opponent to not select randomly with equal probability. So even if you could pick randomly well, your opponent isn't going to be, so you are best off not doing it.

Now, rock-paper-scissors is a game so this is all fine and good. Except that larps think that it's not a game, as my understanding goes, they think it is a random number generator, a way to replace dice. Because of this, peoples in larps who are good at rock-paper-scissors will get what they want more. Or maybe cause moves the other way, so players in larps are better than normal people at rock-paper-scissors.

Challenging the player vs the character

2009-05-18T00:35:00.000-07:00

In most role playing there's going to be some conflict, some challenge (for other thoughts see here). But who is challenged, who overcomes the obstacle? There are four ways I see to deal with challenges in role playing.

First, we can challenge the character but not the player. The character's abilities are used to overcome the challenge. In a sense, the characters aren't real, so they cannot be challenged. However, similar thinking shows us that challenges in the fiction aren't real either! We pretend that it exists in the same way we pretend when we watch a movie or read a book. If the challenges aren't real and are directed at imaginary people then what is there to do for the players? When challenge is aimed at the characters, players make choices. This speaks a lot to what I was talking about last week in player ability vs character ability; when the ruleset takes care of how the character deals with all kinds of challenges, then the game is not about figuring out how to overcome the challenge. In this mode, role playing is possibly not a game. The game could be very dramatic (humor is another notable direction the game could take), in which hard decisions are made for the characters who are in situations with no good solution (I should say that I see a challenge as something that can be solved in some way). This will be boring if the challenges are roadblocks, if there are other ways or complications exist, this may still be rewarding play, but situations where there is a solution are boring because then you just roll some dice to either get out of the situation or not. That is the crux of the issue from last week; if we want to challenge the player we don't want stats for things like intelligence because we'll put all the challenges on the character. We need to recognize what we want.

Second, we can challenge the player with the same challenge that is presented in the fiction. This is "role playing it out", this is challenge-based adventuring, this is actually whipping out a chess board in the middle of role playing, this is solving puzzles in dungeons, this is coming up with strategies to solve your problems. I perhaps deride this method, even though I have some fond memories of it from playing AD&D. This thread on Story Games touches on some of the social contract issues of this style of play, the biggest for me is that it's very important for the GM to do a good job acting as the players' eyes and ears and make sure everyone has the same idea of odds of success for various strategies. That's all well and good but now it's story time!

I didn't really think about it at the time but when I played AD&D a big part of the game was puzzle solving. Not actual puzzles, but figuring out nifty solutions to problems. Probably my favorite was borne out of us going through the equipment list and penny counting to get us the little things that would help us later on. Once, all the characters were in various places in a market square and one character was getting arrested or taken in by some thugs. He begs pardon for a moment and attaches a bell to his tunic. I ask the DM "can I hear that?" and he says "yes!". Another time I was stopped by a guard (man, the establishment was out to get us! I may have been somewhere I wasn't supposed to be...) who asked me for my papers. I promptly reached into my bag and pulled out some random piece of paper with a seal on it and thrust it in his face. This being D&D and the guard obviously not being able to read, he sent me on my way. Another AD&D game we were all playing like 10th level wizards with bad-ass magic items. We were fighting golems of some sort (I think there were kind of a theme in that game) and I don't know what happened exactly but the players figured out how to defeat them easily and the DM said "yes!" happy that we had found his solution. I think that was characteristic of a lot of my play back then, finding the solution the DM had come up with.

Not all of my stories are off success though. Sometimes when the player gets challenged he fails. I had an AD&D spell-thief (I have fond memories of that kit) and I was sneaking into a mage's room in the inn from the roof through the window. Somehow I had managed to lose a boot. In the process of getting in I put my un-booted foot on the sill and got myself electrocuted by the magical trap. I was so mad. Spell-thieves are awesome at detecting magical traps and I had forgotten to check! If I had remembered I totally would have been able to get around it and I think I argued that I might have noticed the trap (this is why I understand why Burning Wheel's Instincts exist). It was my job as a player to suss out there was a trap or at least check, and I failed. In a D&D 3.5 Dark Sun game I was a smooth talking Psion who was trying to get a barkeep to show me the entrance to the undercity. We discuss him giving me access (we know it's somewhere in his establishment). Eventually I leave without what I want (my character's skills don't come into play), but ready to plan a way to sneak in. The DM comments to me that he just wanted me to bribe him, I may just have shrugged back but I knew that he wanted me to bribe him (he wasn't being very subtle), but I didn't know how much was appropriate and didn't want to guess. Here we had a disconnect. There was a part of a challenge, how much to try to bribe the barkeep, that the DM directed at me that I wanted directed at my character so I could make use of his formidable social skills.

Third, we can challenge the player with a different challenge than that which is presented to the character, but that represents the challenge to the character. Look at miniatures based combat; the challenge to the character is the actual fighting, while the challenge to the player is moving well and making use of the character's abilities. In Dread no matter what the challenge to the characters, the challenge to the players is to play Jenga. Larps often use rock-paper-scissors. Giving the player a different challenge affords us two things. First, we can include challenges that we could not otherwise (assuming the constraints of non-contact tabletop play), we can replace fighting with a tactical miniatures game. This allows us to include types of challenges that player can't actually overcome in the fiction while still challenging the player. Mouse Guard's conflict system is awesome for stuff like this, as it can turn a rough journey through the wilderness into a tactical game to challenge the players. Second, we can include challenges that the players do not want to overcome themselves. This is exemplified by social interaction of characters. Sure, the players can argue with each other or the GM, but maybe some players aren't as good at arguing and want to give their characters a fair shake. So we replace the challenge of convincing someone with Mouse Guard's conflict system again, or with playing a hand of poker, or whatever. But we must be aware of how the challenge we now present to the players will affect play. Is this new challenge something we want? If some players are not good at tactical miniatures games then maybe that isn't a good fit, or maybe they just don't enjoy them. Larps use rock-paper-scissors as a die replacement, ignoring the fact that you can play it as a game (yes, I'll back this up sometime). But as long as we are conscious, this can be very powerful. I'm a big fan of Dread even though I haven't gotten to play it yet.

Fourth, we can challenge the player with a challenge not connected with a challenge in the fiction. This is perhaps best paired with the first method, as then both the players and the characters are challenged but the challenges are unrelated. This is how Narrative or Story Now games exist as games. In Shadows the challenge is how to spend your tokens and negotiate with other players about their tokens in order to get what you want. One of the challenges in Burning Wheel is to engineer situations for your character so you can get the kind of test you need for advancement. This method also includes character creation in a lot of systems. In the fiction the character simply exists, but to bring that about is a challenge to the player to get the best build for the character he wants to play.

Player ability vs character ability

2009-05-14T17:13:00.000-07:00

Player INT vs Character INT

I feel like this is a topic that comes up a lot in discussion about role playing. Perhaps the perennial vocalization is how to play a character of a different intelligence than your own. There's a recent thread on RPGnet linked above. A lot of the discussion there got sidetracked, in my opinion, on the matter of puzzles. I just realized I need to write about what Eero Tuovinen calls challenge-based adventuring in order to really discuss that.

Problems are most evident when player ability and character ability are not equal. For instance, when my character is smarter than I am then I am incapable of figuring things out as easily or as quickly as my character. My ability to role play the character is limited by my ability as a player to do things that have nothing to do with the game, assuming we are playing the One True Way that I haven't even really talked about yet. But I can also be smarter than my character. Here we end up in a weird situation, because I want to take advantage of my intelligence to achieve my goals, this is a game after all. However, my character is not supposed to necessarily act that way.

A common response to the problem is to say that the player ability can substitute for character ability in many places and so it should. The only place where player ability is not used is for combat because players can't actually do that. First, if this is true then the ruleset should not cover in any way character abilities that will be substituted for player abilities. In D&D there should be no intelligence, wisdom or charisma if these are not going to be used to somehow determine the character's ability. Yes, some of this is factored into other parts of the game, but part of it is to represent the inherent nature of the character. This is probably even more true in systems where you can buy disadvantages to character abilities, allowing the purchase of powerful advantages to be used in the part of the ruleset actually being used. Note a lot of this falls under Cheating.

Second, the players can actually do everything. There are these things called boffer larps where people run around and hit people with sticks and throw spell balls at each other. I'll admit to not being personally experienced in such matters, but I'm pretty sure that there everything is determined by player skill, at least to some degree.

The solution is to separate, in a sense, the mechanics from the fiction. It goes back to what I said before in Playing to the system. The fiction should take cues from the mechanics, the mechanics should not be ignored because of the system. You come up with the course of action, which should be awesome. Then roll dice to see how well it works. Just like in combat where you swing your sword to chop the orc's head off and you roll dice to find out how it works, when you deliver a beautiful speech to convince the king to knight you you roll dice to decide how it works. For matters of intelligence I think it breaks down to essentially saying, "I try to best the merchant at chess" and then roll to see if you do. I think chess is a good and bad example. It's good because the players could sit down and play a game of chess, but we're here to play a role playing game not chess. And chess can take a while. It's somewhat bad because it depends on skill at the game and not just raw intelligence, but again, the player's chess skill probably doesn't line up with his character's.

Zombie Playground

2009-05-08T00:12:00.000-07:00

I want to play this.

Playing to the system

2009-05-07T22:02:00.000-07:00

Overly Processing Play With The Rules

I found (re-found?) Play Passionately recently and it was good to read through. I agree with a lot of what he has to say, but not some of the linked article above. He starts in the right place I think, saying that we should not be playing to what we think the rules want us to do. In practice, I think we are going to be playing how a system wants us to, because that's why we're using that system. It's designed for the kind of game we want to play. That's all well and good. However, when we go past this and start trying to suss out what kind of play we think the system wants and then play that way because the system wants it, we're thinking too much. This is where I agree with him.

He then goes on to suggest that we consider the fiction first. In a broad sense this is true; the game is all about the fiction and everything is in terms of the fiction. However, I read him to mean that we should determine, for instance, character actions at the fictional level and then apply the system. This is wrong and not playing the game (it also goes against everything I said about how players will power-game, but I can be hyperbolical). What we should do is to determine our goal in the fiction, the end result not the actions necessary to get there. Then, we look to the system to help inform us how to accomplish our goal. It won't necessarily be the only deciding factor, but it is definitely one. The system tells us what we can and cannot do, and what is more likely to work. It tells us how to achieve our goals. Through this, the system will shape the game to give the kind of play it was designed for. But I agree, if you do hollow things like 'oh, I'm playing cyberpunk, so I guess I'd better fight the evil corporations' then play will be flat.

For example, let's look at Dogs in the Vineyard. I had a character whose stats were such that if I start just talking and escalate to gun fighting then I have more dice than my opponent. Furthermore, if I escalate to physical or physical violence than I can at best break even, in terms of what dice I roll, with my opponent. Now, part of this is how I made my character and part is the system. But looking at this, I see that I'm best off to start talking and escalate straight to gun fighting. I could pick other things, but I think it will always come back to me only wanting to escalate to include two arenas. The system is telling me that characters really don't want to do all four, but to stick to where they are best. The system doesn't change what I want, just how I try to get it.

This allows the system to shape the game in a productive way. We naturally get the kind of game we came to play. Look at D&D, a game about killing monsters and taking their stuff. What if you want some NPC to leave your sister alone? You can try to convince him, maybe you get a Charisma check or a Diplomacy roll or something, but that's one roll. If it goes badly the system doesn't give you much recourse in the persuading route. Well, you could attack him. If you miss you can always try again, and you're an adventurer have a number of hit points so you probably won't die soon. Beating him up or even killing him isn't too hard. D&D games are about violence and the system reinforces it. If you play only to the fiction, then you try to convince him, which the system doesn't really support, fail and then have no real recourse.

To not acknowledge the system in decisions is to not play the game, at which point I ask why use the system? You could say that you like the outcomes that it gives, but you aren't gaming the system to get what you want, indicating an ambivalence about the outcome, maybe you aren't invested in the game. Not acknowledging the system means you don't care about playing a game. So don't. Don't play a game. I'm serious. Gamist parts of a system are only useful if you actually want to use them, otherwise they'll only get in the way. Use a purely Narrativist system with no Gamist elements at all. Play Otherkind Dice. This is all just system matters stuff really.

Not playing the game

2009-05-06T14:25:00.000-07:00

This is more often a problem with board games, but it relates to RPGs. Also, I'll tend to call out people for not playing the game in the same way that I call people out for cheating. In a lot of cases they are the same thing, but I should work up from the beginning.

In Game Theory, the type used by economists and such, part of a game's definition is the set of payoffs. Payoffs are a measure of the utility (or benefit, or happiness, or awesomeness) to each player. A player wants to have his payoff be as high as possible and will play to achieve that. I say that he will play because that is in his best interest, from the definition of the payoff. For example, if you have a bunch of friends playing poker for money the payoff is not necessarily the winnings for each player. A player could feel bad about winning money from his friends, which reduces his payoff for high winnings. The definition of payoff takes this into consideration and the game is defined in part by the payoffs of all the players.

This is important because in board games at least, the game tells you what your payoffs are. In chess, for example, you could assign the payoffs as 1 for winning, -1 for losing, and 0 for a draw. Many games have some kind of way of tracking how you are doing, like victory points. The game is implicitly saying that your payoff is the number of victory points at the end of the game, possibly altered by who actually wins. The game is telling you through the existence of the victory points, that even if you're not going to win, you are better to try to still get as many victory points as possible. They are not simply a means to an end, at least in my view (more later). This is different than in chess, because there there are only three results: win, lose, and draw. You can kind of track how you are doing by how many pieces you have taken relative to the other player, but checkmate is the only thing that matters. Taking pieces is only a means to an end, which confuses a lot of beginner players.

In a sense, this is all a lie. The game can't tell you what your real payoffs are. Your real payoffs are determined in part by how you do by the game's measure, but also in part by how you feel about it, what you wanted to accomplish. The problem with that is that your real payoffs define a different game (in the Game Theory sense) than the one that came in the box. The real problem is that the game is defined by all the players' payoffs. Since the players probably don't know what each other's payoffs are (or even possibly their own) then they are necessarily playing different games, none of which is the game that they are actually playing. This can lead to frustration as players are often unable to form effective strategies because the game they strategize for is not the game being played.

Let's look at chess again. The victory condition is checkmate, everything should work towards that goal. If one player instead (wrongly) thinks that he should capture as many pieces as possible no matter what, he is playing a different game. This usually gives benefit to the player playing chess as opposed to the variant described (capture pieces), so I think it is of less concern. That is, unless the variant player thinks that he is winning when the chess player takes advantage of this. This will probably devolve to some simple set of moves where the variant player captures several pieces while losing none until he finds himself in checkmate. This will be boring for both players, as they both think they are winning and may continue to play the exact same moves game after game. Maybe this is just as much of a concern. As long as the variant player acknowledges that he lost when he is mated, I suppose he really is playing chess, just with bad strategy.

Let's look at Twilight Imperium. The game involves different races vying for galactic dominance. Throughout the game you colonize planets, build space fleets, wage war, trade, research technology, lots of stuff. To win, you have to reach a certain number of victory points, which are gained by achieving objectives. The objectives are mostly public and all on cards (so you know the possibilities). Victory points are what make you win, so I say they have value in themselves (again, more later). Throughout the game, the objective is to obtain victory points and to deny them to the other players. The situation often arises that at least some players fall far enough behind in the number of victory points, that it becomes seemingly impossible for them to win. However, the game says they still chase victory points the same way, perhaps with more emphasize on denying the other players to put off the end of the end of the game. In practice, players in this situation often start ignoring victory points. They 'stop playing' as many people would say. I wouldn't be that harsh. If they stopped playing, they would leave the table and go do something else. I say they stop playing Twilight Imperium and start playing something else. This can easily become a big problem as the game, not just the players, assumes that everyone is doing his job. Because an aspect of the game is territorial control, not every player can directly effect every other player. If a player stops playing TI in lieu of something else this can act as a king making move. Perhaps he turtles to build up tech, allowing his neighbors free reign. Or perhaps he decides to wage all out war no matter what the cost against a player who has slighted him in the past. Both of these actions drastically change the game being played causing frustration for the other players because their strategies are invalidated by it. Yes, this has happened to me. Yes, I hated it, even if had made me win (I don't remember how it went, just that it happened and the player was even vocal about it). This is really kind of rude, as one player is denying the rest fun. I understand that the inevitable loss may make the game less fun somehow for that player, but everyone agreed to play the game for a few hours ago and agreed to play it out to the end. This kind of behavior is violating that agreement, as the player is not playing the game.

The reason I see victory points as valuable in and of themselves is that they determine who wins. In chess the checkmate determines who wins. However, that doesn't mean you don't want to make moves that bring you closer to checkmate but don't get give you checkmate. You need to make the intermediate moves or you'll never get to checkmate. Similarly, victory points may not win the game now, but in the end that's what's going to do it. In the chess case, taking pieces isn't measured because it only may help you achieve checkmate. Okay, I'll be fair, there are cases when you don't want victory points, you want to keep the highest number of victory points that another player has, or could have in the future, low. But still, victory points are worthwhile, they are always good to have. I extend this to unwinnable situations because it makes some sense, it's simple, and it allows everyone to play the same game. What I'm saying here is an assumption of any game with some kind of victory point, if only because it gives something for 'losing' players to do. More broadly, I think any 'losing' player should still be trying to win. Just because it's not possible, doesn't mean it's not still desirable. Moreover, the victory points give explicit non-binary payoffs. There is no longer just win and lose. There is the number of victory points at the end of the game. What's interesting is the fact that a losing player plays for something else proves that he can still enjoy his predicament. He merely misunderstands what his goal should be.

Here I've only talked about not playing the game as a matter of perspective. I'm just talking about players thinking differently about what the game is that they are playing, while they are all following the same rules. It's also possible for people to think that different rules will be followed, which creates it's own set of problems that I might discuss more later. That, though, falls under cheating most likely. It will tend to be the GM who is also the organizer and rules authority, who will say that one game will be played when he really means that game modified in some way. Even the perspective issues I bring up here though, can cause problems for the players, as it puts strategies designed for one game into another.

If there's a game, players will try to win

2009-05-06T02:07:00.001-07:00

I have a friend who has often said, "you can power-game and still RP".

I think there's a lot behind the surface of her statement. It comes from a background of mostly D&D and Vampire, being a response to people who claim that you can run campaigns where you power-game or campaigns where you role play. The false dichotomy comes from the fact that either the rules cover combat well and other stuff not so much (D&D) or the rules are separate and different (Vampire - I'm assuming, I'm not really familiar). They're equating combat heavy games* with power-gaming, and social interaction heavy games with role playing. They 'just' want to have fun and role play and think they don't have to or shouldn't power-game. Well, power-gaming doesn't preclude role playing and it definitely doesn't preclude fun. Even assuming you can only power-game combat, the fact that your game isn't very much about combat doesn't preclude power-gaming. You're thinking of them as separate anyway, so why not have characters who happen to rock in combat?

I should say what power-gaming is. Power-gaming is using the rules well to get the maximal effect out of them. Power-gaming is not cheating. Power-gaming is playing the game well, it is playing the game. Power-gaming may take different forms depending on the system. In D&D it's going to be mostly how well you build your character, pretty typical to the use of the word power-gaming. But in total GM-fiat, it might involve sucking up to the GM - or at least proposing things that he is partial to.

Players will power-game. Why? Because it helps them get what they want. The gamey parts of the system are the parts that allow you to make choices affecting the chances of possible outcomes. Power-gaming is just making those choices well. Power-gaming is just using the rules of the game to try to align the fiction in the game with the player's desire. Expecting a player not to power-game is to expect him not to try to get what he wants in the game. Expecting a player not to power-game is to even expect a player not to care about what happens in the game. At that point, why play?

* I was going to try to be good about using the word 'campaign' for fictionally connected instances of role playing, but I find myself going into my usual speak and using the word 'game', by which I mean campaign. I think this terminology is widespread enough not to cause a problem, but I feel bad because it seems like suboptimal terminology.

Pure Narrativist Game: Otherkind Dice

2009-05-01T12:16:00.000-07:00

Otherkind Dice

I recently ran into a link to this, which I was very happy about. First, it explained things like GHOST/ECHO, which while very pretty I just did not understand. Once the basis for the rules were explained it all made sense.

Second, I finally found a story style or purely Narrativist game. Even Shadows, the simplest RPG I had seen isn't pure Narrativist. It still has a Gamist element, which is about how to spend the tokens (when and to whom to get the maximum benefit back to yourself). Otherkind Dice is different. I'm not sure if it's meant to be, but it's a complete RPG (assuming you know how to play RPGs in general). First, I love it because it's stakes but with non-binary outcome that doesn't depend on weird degree of success baloney. Second, there's meaningful choice to be made after you roll. You're almost bound to have something you don't want to happen. What are you going to live with? But, the choice can't be gamed in any real sense of the world. You have no mechanical resources, no avenues to gain an advantage. When you want to do something with a question as to the outcome, you roll dice and use them to help decide what happens. I kind of want to play this to see how it goes, but I'm not sure where it lies on my play priority list. Ooo, I should actually make an ordered list.

But I'm really excited for this blog that I found this, because it's a role playing system without being a game. There's really no game part of it. It helps me formulate the spectrum I'm talking about. The opposite end, pure game, is D&D. There's really no mechanical support to attention paid to story. It's basically a board game that you can role play on top of. I've actually been involved in instances of play of the Heroquest board game with more role playing than a lot of D&D.

Awesome Dungeon

2009-04-30T23:12:00.000-07:00

The Dungeons of Castle Dragonscar Levels 1 & 2

I found this recently and unlike some dungeons I've found online, it actually looks really awesome. I'm too lazy to draw my own. I think I'll actually plan out some obstacles to put in the dungeon and give the players the map somehow for my current Burning Wheel game.

Cheating

2009-04-27T17:08:00.000-07:00

I've begun to call out people for cheating online, mostly as part of my writing provocatively endeavors. I do it because they are cheating and if I call them on it then maybe they'll realize it, stop, and have more fun.

Cheating is when you don't follow the expectations of the other players. I think this goes along with the Lumpley Principle that everything that you do at the table is system. The other players expect that you will use the system. If you don't use it, if you break the rules, in a broadened more encompassing sense of the word, then you are cheating. If you roll dice behind a DM screen and lie about the result to get the outcome you want, then you are cheating. If your game has detailed social interaction rules and decide to instead 'roleplay it out', then you are cheating. If you say you are playing purely game style and aren't trying to win, then you are cheating. If you are playing Star Trek and magically transport everyone to the Star Wars universe, then you are cheating.

This doesn't mean you can't do the things I described, but you have to be upfront about it. If you want to change the rules, do so, but don't pretend that you are still playing the same game, you are not. As for fudging, ask why you are doing this. Let's assume you are playing both well and correctly, if you fudge then your system is failing you and isn't worth playing. I say it isn't worth playing because you aren't anymore, you're fudging, you're changing the system, you're already playing a different game. You should be honest about this and be open about what game you are actually playing. Maybe everyone is down for the GM occasionally fiating some rolls to suit what everyone wants. More likely, I would say, is that another ruleset would be of better use to the group.

GNS and the lack of pure Simulationist play

2009-04-27T12:11:00.000-07:00

Golly, those two ways of playing sound a whole lot like Gamist and Narrativist from GNS game theory. Well, possibly because it's talking about role playing too, and possibly because I am somewhat familiar with it and was influenced by it. It's something I didn't think about until after I wrote the previous posts. Where these thoughts really came out of was a thread about fudging dice on rpg.net. There's a fighting between D&D style and story style roleplaying, as they directly conflict with each other. I'll get to that in another post. Also, I'll continue to use 'D&D style' and 'story style' at least somewhat, to essentially mean pure Gamist play and pure Narrativist play respectively. Actually, I'll switch from 'D&D style' to 'game style', as there is too much baggage that comes with D&D.

So what about Simulationist play? Where does that fit in with what I'm talking about. I see it as a separate axis, as I can't envision what pure Simulationist play would look like. What drives play? It's an added concern that you can bolt onto game or story style play. When you tack it onto game style it will tend to produce something like D&D. You're playing a game, but a big part of that game is that it's supposed to follow some constraints about how things work in the setting. The game will be about movement and tactics and types of weapons and attacks and powers. I feel a lot of traditional gaming will fall into this category and that i don't need to talk about it. Also, task resolution will be a necessity of Simulationist game style play. Here you are still playing a game, but all the options in the game are detailed to be 'realistic' in some sense of the word.

You can also bolt Simulationist play onto story style play. Here you constrain either what happens in the story, similar to what we did in game style play by detailing the actions to be realistic, or what type of the story is being told. The first case probably also leads to using a task resolution system. However, you aren't building a game around it. You change the deciding factor about what happens during play from 'does this make a good story?' to 'is this possible?'. The first factor remains as a requirement, nothing will be attempted that doesn't make good story, but once attempted it must also be possible realistically. This is perhaps as close a thing I can see to pure Simulationist play. You aren't playing a game, in any usual sense of the word, and you prefer realism over story. However, you are still playing towards story. The story is still guiding the actions of the players. Perhaps I use the word story too broadly. Thoughts for another day. I think a lot of frustrated roleplayers are frustrated because they are playing this way but don't really want to.

The second case is to constrain what type of story can be told. This is not so much about the actions in the game, but about the shape of the story. Popular among these is that the characters are heroes and will eventually triumph over evil. There are lots of stories to be told outside of that, but the players aren't interested. Being beholden to tropes will be a big part of this style of play. Primetime Adventures (PTA) seems like it fits into this. Character effectiveness is controlled a lot by screen presence. When it's 'your episode' you can do more, pushing the other characters out of the spotlight, constraining the story to follow television tropes. In a way, though, this is the same as story style play by itself. Now we're just being more upfront about the kind of story we want to have and are agreeing to it.

Why isn't there a fourth method here, where Simulationist is bolted onto game style play but controls the type of story? Because in game style play we don't care about what the story is.

Story Style Gaming

2009-04-27T00:53:00.000-07:00

The second proper way I see to play RPGs is what I call 'story style'.

Here you're focused on creating a story. You have a cast of characters with problems and goals, and you're playing to find out what's going to happen. It's not about what the best way to solve the problem is, it's about what the characters will do, how they will change, and how they affect the world around them. What happens in the game will be governed by the goal of creating a story. If you're telling the story of how a young farmboy grows to be a hero, it doesn't make much sense for him to die very early in the game. So you remove the possibility of such things happening. In a sense, you've removed the game aspect of an RPG. You're not trying to win in any sense of the word except to create a good story. What you want to happen isn't necessarily what your character wants to happen. There is at least an element of out of character perspective.

Why play a game at all then, why not just make up a story with other people? Because you're going to disagree. One person will want one thing to happen, another will want something else. The job of the RPG is to step in between these two players and give each a fair shake at getting what he wants. It's perhaps not so much a game as a set of rules to settle disputes about the creation of the story.

D&D Style Gaming

2009-04-26T21:45:00.000-07:00

But it's supposed to be the One True Way! I lied to humor myself, get over it.

I see two proper ways to play role playing games (RPGs). The first is what I will call 'D&D style'.

Playing D&D style is basically playing a boardgame with context. Modern D&D itself is based around having encounters, which are these big scenes generally involving combat that take a long time and lots of dice rolling to finish. During this time, you're probably putting a bunch of miniatures on a map, taking clearly defined turns, clearly defined actions on those turns, basically you're playing a board game. It's very tactical, and BOTH sides are trying to win. I think this is very important to D&D style gaming. If the GM is not trying for a TPK every single encounter, then he's playing wrong. I'm not saying that he designs every encounter to kill the PCs, obviously the GM can do this with overwhelming force. D&D especially I think is very good about telling you how much you should throw at the PCs. However, once the pieces are on the board, the GM better be doing his best to win. The tactical game is the point of playing D&D style.

Why not just play a boardgame then? Well, there are some, I would say, superficial differences. RPGs will tend to be more complex than boardgames, at least in terms of options for characters to play (Battletech is a glaring counter-example though, although this could fit into the D&D style gaming I'm describing here). RPGs allow a lot of customization in what you are playing, what the opposition is, what kind of abilities, items and weapons are available, et cetera. RPGs also provide advancement for the characters, the chance to get something tangible for winning. More importantly, though, RPGs provide context. Inside an RPG the battle is more than just two sides fighting, there are greater machinations going on. Everything fits inside of a narrative, reminding us why we are fighting. The context adds drama, when you die it's a big deal, not just a loss of a piece on the board.

I also think there's a lot going on in game terms when you play an RPG. There's an added aspect of play when you connect all the scenes together. Resource management becomes very different. You don't just have to last the battle, you have to survive the next one too. Do I use this potion now, or do I keep it for later when I might need it even more?

The Blog

2009-04-26T21:33:00.000-07:00

Pretty pretentious title, eh? I've become a fan of writing provocatively online. I'm experimenting to see if it helps get the point across. The downside is, I may look like a dick. There is an obvious difference I can see in others' writing between when they are being strong/obstinate/provocative and when they are personally offended. The key is keeping the first from leading to the second.

I'm starting this just as a place to put some ideas down, instead of spamming various gaming forums with my dribble.