Alternative Mainstream

Noisms is a brilliant and always interesting blogger with thought-provoking musings on the gaming hobby. I read his posts regularly, even though he primarily discusses games I don't run or play. I continue to visit his blog however because his ideas are well considered and his posts well executed. 

In spite of all of that,  there are times when our opinions and thoughts on a given subject don't jive. There is a disconnect; a difference of perception so wide it makes me feel the need to address the subject on his blog here on my blog. 

He recently posted an entry entitled, 'On High Concept Campaigns and Plot Immunity'.

Please go read it before continuing. My main issue isn't with the post itself so much as its initial paragraph and how it applies to RPG gaming in general.

He writes:

"Is there a Lagrange point between old school play, which emphasizes emergent narrative, sandboxes, and letting the dice lie where they fall, and the mainstream of the RPG hobby, which is all about pre-plotted story, pre-determined outcomes, character development, and fudging?"

Clearly his experiences in the gaming hobby have been very different from mine. His attitude towards what makes for a fun game likely differs as well. Given all of that I feel there a large gap between what he represents as Old School Play and what is Mainstream Modern Play. 

First, aren't Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder (or as I call it 'The Other Dungeons and Dragons') the most popular RPGs on the market in most of the Western world (Call of Cthulhu holds that position in Japan as I've noted in the past). Isn't that Mainstream? When most of the people doing a thing are doing the same thing it becomes the Mainstream, no? Are the people playing Pathfinder pre-determining the outcomes of their games? Are D&D 5E players Fudging a lot? Maybe. I don't play those games so I don't know. One reason I don't play them...too Mainstream. 

What games is he referring to that he believes are Mainstream? Monster Hearts? Blades in the Dark? Popular sure but I never thought of them as Mainstream. Maybe Blades might be considered that way now as it's become more widespread. Are sessions of these games Pre-Plotted? Do they have Pre-Determined Outcomes? I've played Blades in the Dark, MASKS, and Lancer in the last year or so and didn't find this to be the case with any of these. 

As for Old School Play...I guess I was never really old school, even as far back as 1977. My games, as both a player and a GM have always included Emergent Narrative and Character Development. We've had PC Death and Fudging (of a sort). The only times I've ever played in games where you had to do it the Gamemaster's way or else, where you were railroaded into a particular plot was Dungeons and Dragons. To me, that's what Old School means. 

Finally, this whole Plot Immunity/PCs Never Die thing...where do people get this? Oh I am sure it happens; I'm sure a lot of people play a completely non-lethal game but how common is it really. Also, what kind of game are we talking about? Is it a game where people aren't supposed to die or aren't able to like Toon or Teenagers from Outer Space? I've said before that very few people die in my games but that's partially because I run Star Trek, Star Wars, and Superheroes. It is built into these genres and often the games that emulate them that main characters dying is rare but yeah, they can die. 

Just because PCs aren't meaningless Chess pawns, as expendable as used tissue paper and nearly as interesting, doesn't mean they have Plot Immunity. I've had and seen more characters demoted in rank, imprisoned for life, lose an NPC friend, family member, or significant other, or have their starship destroyed (basically their home AND a member of the party) more often then I've witnessed PC deaths in my 44 years in the hobby and guess what? I remember them all.

I recall them because they had more emotional weight then Nameless Fighter #5 killed by a rat or kobold or whatever. Doesn't matter. Another random, pointless death. Next. 

When people say Old School Games they get this glint in their eyes that I can only imagine is largely nostalgia driven. I certainly don't remember most of the games I played in my earliest years being that great, which is why I largely stopped being a player and almost always GMed.

Nowadays my games have:

• A Theme and/or an Over-Arching Plot going on in the setting. 
• An Emergent Narrative that can change said Over-Arching Plot or be affected by it.
• Character Development
• Sandbox elements
• As well as clues about Campaign-oriented and PC-oriented subplots (my Storybox)  
• Rare but possible PC Death.
• Rare but possible Fudging for dramatic/cinematic effect. 

...and more. 

Hey, it's your game. You do you. I'm just saying, there's more than one way to cook a dragon. Or something like that. 

AD

Barking Alien

The Sinister Superman Sandbox Syndrome

I have a million things to get to but it's been a week from hell and I am just putting down the first thing that popped into my head. Future plans are for a Mekton/Mecha RPG post, some ruminations about The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, and of course, more Pokemon AD.

Wow. Whose table-top RPG blog reads like this? Seriously. I am pretty proud to have written that sentence. OK, enough of that. Back to near crippling self doubt...

For now, I wanted to talk about something that occurred to me while reading a recent post by none other than the ever intriguing Noisms. While his train of thought and mine do not always line up, I am always willing to jump on that train of his and take it a few stops just to see where it goes.

This time is goes into an idea about forests and fire-fighting Elves and such but that's not the part that really caught my attention. The part that got me was that he uses, as a point of reference, a post by Zak Smith wherein Zak details what Noism calls the Superman Sandbox Problem. 

Very much worth a read as are most all of Zak's posts. The crux of the matter I want to discuss is that Zak states that in a sandbox style game, the heroic characters are at something of a creative disadvantage.

Hmmm. Perhaps disadvantage isn't the right way to put it. The idea is that a roguish character is more proactive, while a heroic character is more reactive. Therefore, the rogue sets up his or her particular encounters, whereas the hero simply chooses one option or another or blindly bumps into an option that GM has chosen.

Let's say a group of players with roguish PCs decide to - let's use one of Zak's own examples - steal a car from the used car lot, use it in the getaway from a bank robbbery, amd then ditch the car by a church afterwards.

Zak says in his post that if the PCs try to enact this scheme during a game, they basically create that session's adventure. The 'Adventure writes itself' he notes. 

The idea is that this doesn't happen for Superman because...because...wait. Why doesn't it work this way for Superman?

In the same post, Zak gives various possible examples of how a heroic character, Superman in this case, could possibly interact with the sandbox world he's in: As we did for the roguish PCs, let's pick one possible option. For today's session, Superman wants to, umm, ah-ha! He could try to free Mon-El from the Phantom Zone (in the privacy of his own home, I suppose). [In the Fortress of Solitude - ed.]

Here's the difference (according to Zak's post):

"While any of these things may result in a conflict (and thus an adventure), the Superman PC--unlike the rouguish PC--has no idea of what the shape of that conflict will be."

He...um...what? Sorry, I'm not understanding.

How does the rogue in the previous example know, in advance, what kind of security the bank has? How does he know the condition of the car he and his gang have stolen? What if Clark Kent just happens to be in the bank depositing his latest check from the Daily Planet at the time of the robbery? What if the Flash is in town and hears about the car being stolen from the used car lot? What if the used car has a crappy transmission or something else is faulty that causes the car to stall?

Likewise, how does Superman not know he will probably have to face off against villains he and his father trapped in the Phantom Zone when he goes to free Mon-El? Doesn't going to free Mon-El go virtually hand-in-hand with saying, "I feel like getting into a tussle with Quex-Ul, Zaora, and General Zod today"?

Furthermore...

"Superman does not choose to sketch out a violent conflict. The rogue does. Superman chooses from a set of options whose consequences (conflict-wise) are mostly unknown." Zak writes.

I guess...but no more or less so than the rogues. It's a matter of perspective and approach. To further illustrate what I mean, let's look at Zak's scenario for Superman in a Metropolis sandbox and compare/contrast it to similar ones I've used (with some pointers taught to me by my Champions Guru friend Will Corpening)...

Zak posts:

"Ok, so picture this:

A GM somewhere writes out the city of Metropolis and the city of Gotham and the rest of the world of DC Comics in excruciating detail. The train lines, the shopfronts, which hot dog store owners are secretly shark-men, every inch of it. It's all ready to go.

Now here comes a PC playing Superman, into this sandbox.

"So what do you want to do today, Supes?"

"Uh, I guess I'll go on patrol."

Off he flies.

"Do I see any crime?"

"Umm, nope, not much, Metropolis is a fully-functioning independent world going about its business."

"Ok, I keep going. Now do I see any crime?"

Right here at the end is where my view point differs. If Superman's player says he goes on patrol over the city, he doesn't find nothing to do. That's not only boring but it takes away part of the player being proactive. 

If the GM begins by asking the player what he wants to do and then the player tells her, then the GM should, ya'know, do that. Have that happen. Having that result in nothing makes no sense.

What the player is saying here, if they're a proactive player, is that they want to have Superman find street crime in Metropolis. Maybe they're tired of Brainiac and Bizarro and just want to stop some bank robbers in a stolen car.

If the rogues went to steal a car to rob a bank, would you tell them there weren't any cars in the lot? That none of the cars had gas? That the city had no banks? Of course not. The adventure writes itself, right? So why would a superhero deciding to patrol for crime find none?

My buddy Will would often open a Champions session by asking me where my character Starguard was and what he was doing. Here are just a few of the actual answers I gave:

He's in space deflecting a comet from hitting the Earth.

He's near Jupiter rescuing an alien starship caught in the planet's gravity well.

He's at our headquarters helping test our 'Danger Room' style training facility.

He's assisting another hero, trying to save the passengers and crew of a damaged 747. 

If you were the GM, what would you take from this? Will noted that I like to play up Starguard's 'space hero' nature,and that flight is important to me.

Do you think he just said, "OK, you deflect the comet/rescue the ship/save the plane. Now what?"

NO! How boring is that? Also, I as the player am indeed setting up for conflict in a proactive way. Why not take me up on it? If a bunch of thugs can turn a stolen car and a bank robbery into an adventure, why can't I do that with a comet and a bunch of aliens that need rescuing?

In the case of the comet, Will took the opportunity to tie my action into another player's opening game answer. My pal AJ said that his speedster, Pulse, was at New York City's South Street Seaport dealing with his arch-nemesis, the cold war, cold weather cretin General Winter. Apparently GW was using a device to attract the icy, space-born object towards the Earth for villainous purposes.

Pulse and Starguard

On the tail of a comet, as the trail goes cold!

In the instance of the 747, it was my attempt to not only do something classic for a flying hero (always wanted to save a plane Superman style) but also a chance to meet another hero from our world setting who maybe I didn't know. As it turned out, the flight was from New York to Atlanta, Georgia and I got to meet a few of the heroes of the South Eastern United States including Sure Thing (a favorite NPC of mine), Swift, and the high flying, evangelical Messenger.

It's a Sure Thing baby.

I always see gaming as a friendly tug-of-war, a push and pull between two forces, the players and the GM. I throw challenges at them to make them think and act to overcome obstacles, but they - especially proactive players - challenge me to come up with things in response to their ideas.

I don't really plan adventures with proactive players in the mix. I layout the sandbox, plant story ideas and options in the setting (hence my term 'Storybox' for my preferred style of play), and then see what the players have their PCs do.

They may feel like waiting for me to give them something.

"We scan the area. Any anomalous readings?"

"We check the Trouble Alert Monitor. Any crimes going on?"

They may want to pursue something mentioned in the background of the setting.

"If there's nothing pressing, we'd like to check out that planet you mentioned two or three sessions back. The one with the unusual rings. We never got to really look at it and it sounds interesting."

"Is Black Monday still at large? It always bugged me that he escaped. I want to investigate where he may have gone."

They may want to do something unexpected of their own design.

"The other players and I were talking and I think we have a way to upgrade the shjp's Star Drive using a new scientific theory I read about. We're going to dock at a space station and do some upgrades. Let's dock somewhere where we can get high tech parts and maybe find some work should the cost of the upgrades get expensive."

"The team and I talked about it and we're tired of having such poor relations with the Atlanteans. We're going to go on a peace mission to Atlantis, talk to their leader, and hammer out a treaty. Maybe we can help them find and capture that villain Wavemistress while we're in their region. That would really help getting them to see us favorably."

In the end, I agree that the proactive hero is less common than the proactive ne'er-do-well. However, I think that it may be that it's so because we've been trained (and trained ourselves) to think that.

It is also a trope of certain genres that the heroes lives are relatively calm and peaceful until such time as trouble strikes. Makes sense from both an emulation and simulation stand point. At the same time, lots of things happen to Peter Parker; Aunt May falls ill, Pete gets an assignment from or gets in trouble with J. Jonah Jameson, or realizes he's forgotten he had a date with Mary Jane tonight.  

That said, it's your game. There is no reason it has to be that way if you can fit the idea of a proactive benevolent character into the scheme of things without throwing the whole setting out of wack. My assertion is that generally speaking you can. Maybe not all the time, maybe not in every situation, but if the GM makes time for the proactive heroic PC, and the player uses that time in a sensible and entertaining way, well...why not?

AD
Barking Alien

In With The New

Recently, the ever thought provoking Noisms of Monsters and Manuals, put up a post which I can not help but be inspired by.

Mainly because I am of the opposite opinion.

Sure, it's possible I'm just being a jerk, but then again, I really do have a strong opinion on this. I guess that could still mean I'm being a jerk, but at least it makes me feel like I'm one with conviction and purpose.

***

Noisms makes a point that as he gets older, it not only gets harder to invest himself in new systems, but he seems (and I could be reading into this, so please correct me if I'm wrong my friend) less motivated to do so.

Now it could be the RPG he uses by way of example, Ryuutama - 'Dragon's Egg', a heartwarming, Japanese Tabletop, Medieval Fantasy game. He sites elements of the game that both appeal to him and don't, and he seems to be less than moved to grasp its positives at least in part due to those bits he sees as negatives. This is completely in line with the basics of Human nature. We actively pursue things of interest to us and are less motivated to learn about the things that don't.

In addition, other interests and priorities vie for our time, attention and mental processing power. We each have things that occupy our minds, be they family, work, school, others hobbies, etc., but we are fans of this hobby, otherwise we wouldn't even be discussing this.

In the case of some of us, like Noisms and I, we are interesting in the hobby enough to bother posting our thoughts about it to our own little internet corkboards.

It is my opinion that the prospect of learning a new game should be something we savor. Perhaps not if the genre, theme or overall style doesn't grab us, but if it does (enough), we should be eager to learn more about it, including how to play. I know that as I get older, it does indeed take more energy, and effort, to sludge through a new rulebook to learn a new game. Unless it's a game that sounds awesome. Then, simply put, I can't absorb it fast enough.

Another Japanese RPG was translated into English recently...

This, ladies and gents, is Double Cross, a Japanese Superhero RPG with several clever and intriguing features, brought to the U.S. and translated by Ver. Blue Amusement.

And I for one, can't wait to try it.

It is new? To the US, yes it is.

Does it use an established rule set we know like FATE or D20? No.

Will you take the time to learn it? Yes. Absolutely.

Why? Why indeed...

What is it we do for a hobby? I mean sure, we play games, but...wait...no but...however, I'd like you to hold that thought. I'll get back to this in a moment.

Sure we play games, but this isn't Checkers, or Chutes and Ladders. This is a creative endeavor that involves writing, reading, storytelling, acting and even visual arts for some.

Do we stop making art because we already have Michelangelo's David, and Starry Night by Van Gogh? Are we done with music since we've already listened to, and recorded Bach, Beethoven, the Beatles and Queen? Are we no longer writing, and reading works of fiction, or poetry, since we already have ones we like?

Hells no. That way lies stagnation and the loss of the motivation to imagine. This is the disbelief that dooms Tinkerbell of Neverland, the banality that undoes the protagonists of Changeling: The Dreaming.

If I should stop wanting to learn new games, try new mechanics, and new approaches to doing what I love, I might as well stop gaming. Why bother? There must be no more for me to learn, see, experience, or enjoy.

Now back to what we do for a moment...we play games. While (I hope) the vast majority of my audience viewing this knows these games are not the same as those we played as small children, I think we kid ourselves it we think ourselves better because of it.

No, my friends, we are merely the lucky ones. We managed to find a way to retain and expand our sense of child-like wonder and fun that all too few Human Beings lose as they grow up. We, the RPGers of the world, took that piece of ourselves, and advanced it. We evolved it. The result is, well, the result is what you make of it.

To say you are growing too old to learn new systems...perhaps that sits well with some of you, but it honestly bothers me down to my very core. It scares the bejeebers out of me is what it does.

If I said it, if I believed that, the child-like wonder part of me would die a little. It would be then, and only then, that I would feel old.

AD
Barking Alien

Other Peoples Thoughts On My Mind

Points of Interest:

A Night At The Improv
Noisms does it again with a great post about Improvisation. I not only like what he has to say here and how straight forward he says it, but it also gives me an excuse to refer to this post of my own on the subject.

Hive Mind
When not going on about Ponies or Pistols, Erin Palette of Lurking Rhythmically actually writes some seriously well thought out Traveller material. Read her take on the Hivers here. While not identical to the way I see them and use them in my current campaign, this has definitely given me food for thought and is an excellent possible insight into this little understood major race of Charted Space.

Don't Switch Off Your Targeting Computer
Do you listen to RPG podcasts? I started to about a year or so ago. For the most part, many of them are pretty good but aren't talking to me, if you know what I mean. One that constantly impresses me is Play on Target, hosted by Sam Dillon, Lowell Francis (of Age of Ravens), Brian Cooksey and Andrew Goerner. I learned about it through the Age of Ravens blog and I have to say I really like it. It doesn't have fancy effects, amazing music or any special features - it just talks about games, game theory, experience running different types of games and analyzes various genres and styles. I like it for the fact that the group discusses so many different games (including D&D) and makes references to things that work and don't across a wide range of systems. Highly recommended.

AD
Barking Alien

Getting Better All The Time

Noisms strikes again!

It's not enough for him that he constantly comes up with interesting and thought provoking posts. Oh no, that would be sufficient for most game bloggers. For Noisms, there must be the added elements of inspiration and a thinly veiled challenge.

Well played Monsters and Manuals. Well played.

In one of his most recent posts, Noisms makes note of what he perceives to be an area of oversight in the blog community and it is this...

"It's interesting, don't you think, that learning from other people's DMing style is something that is almost never remarked upon in the RPG blogosphere? It's often noted that people who blog are very good at creating content (monsters, spells, maps, etc.) but very poor at discussing more fundamental issues like how to be a good DM. I'm reminded once again of Zeb Cook's advice in the 2nd edition AD&D DMG: "Take the time and effort to become not just a good DM, but a brilliant one". That must start off with learning from others, but in general it is something we tend not to talk about."

I commented on this post that for the most part I don't believe that the majority of well followed game blogs actually create much content of the nature he describes. Certainly Jeff Rients, James of GROGNARDIA and Zak at PD&DwPS keep such posts to a minimum.

Noisms agreed but stated...

"But you still don't see many people talking about how to be a better GM. For what it's worth, I'm not very interested in lecture style, "How to be a better GM" posts. I'm more interested in "How I am trying to be a better GM" posts, or perhaps "This is what I have learned about my GMing" posts. If you see what I mean."

I like to think that many of my posts have, largely indirectly mind you, spoken about this in one way or another. Certainly some of my Star Trek ones have, although they may have been more lecture-like (I apologize) and specific to that setting/style.

I think one of the reoccurring features I'll introduce this year is going to revolve around this concept. I want to pass on what I've learned and hopefully help younger, less experienced GMs improve their craft. Honestly it would work better and be much more effective if I wasn't the only one doing it, as I don't believe myself to be the end all, be all of GMing. Rather, I hope some of what I do and have learned will rub off on others while they look for other ideas from other GMs and eventually mix, match and make up their own way of handling things.

With that, my first piece of GMing advice is born...

If you want to improve your craft as a Gamemaster, you have to want to improve your craft as a Gamemaster.

Don't just read and do. Think about it. Ask why a GM does a thing a certain way. Seek out other opinions. Look for more information. Constantly want to do it better. Never assume you can just sit back and let it happen. Work for it. 

More to Come...

AD
Barking Alien

The Paradise Syndrome

There is a good deal more I'd like to say regarding player characters in a Star Trek RPG but for the time being I am going to plot a different course and discuss the heart and soul of Star Trek...

Exploration

I have some strong feelings and opinions on this subject and how it is often portrayed in gaming (to my experience that is) and I apologize if at any point my attitude on the matter becomes a rant or if negative vibes are directed at any particular other game or genre. I will try to keep my ire, should it arise, to an absolute minimum. I don't think you will notice it much.

So to continue...

A few weeks ago, Noisms posted an entry on his blog wondering if Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, as well as those that followed so closely in their footsteps, had picked the right 'pseudo-era' for the implied setting of Dungeons & Dragons and it's many like minded embellishes and imitators.

Essentially, Noisms proposed that the pseudo-medieval period of an Anglo-Saxon feudal Europe was not, in truth, the best time to be an adventurer and explorer.

I concur whole-heartedly. The more I learned about world history and especially the history and culture of 'medieval times', the less logical the Dungeons & Dragons default set-up seemed to be. It is a fantasy game though after all and certainly some elements are more fantastic than others. In reality it would seem, at least to me, that D&D is not intended to resemble the medieval period of Western Europe so much as the fantasy worlds of Lieber, Tolkien and their ilk.

Now Star Trek is a different story...

Using Noism's criteria for the type of society that would produce the kind of adventuring soul that would join Starfleet to participate in its mission to go where no one has gone before, we encounter some interesting variables.

"Historically, adventurers have mostly been fostered by a mix of variables - relatively high poverty (the motivation to escape), relative lack of opportunity for advancement (another motivation to escape), relatively high chance of glory (discoveries of new areas of the globe to explore), breakthroughs in travel technology (e.g. ocean going vessels that could make it all the way to China from Portugal) and relatively large numbers of young men with nothing to do (big pool to draw from)."

Starting from the last element and going backward, the United Federation of Planets definitely has large numbers of young men and women with nothing to do or, more accurately, nothing pressing. Life is grand in Star Trek's future, with little to no disease, no poor or homeless and endless opportunities for education and the chance to follow your dream...assuming you have one. My idea for the near-utopia of the Federation is that, day to day life in the close-to-perfect 23rd* and 24th centuries can pretty boring and even unfulfilling if you don't have an innate talent, chosen goal or you are not inheriting a business from a previous generation. Those who want to do amazing things but don't know what amazing things they want to do make up the bulk of Starfleet's Enlisted personnel. They believe Starfleet will give them discipline, direction and purpose, not unlike those who joined the navies of the past and present.

Breakthroughs in travel technology abound. Be they the NX-01 from Enterprise, the newest, fastest vessel and first to break the Warp 5 barrier or the Starship Voyager with its Bioneural Gel Packs and Emergency Medical Holograms, each advancement in technology brings with it the excuse to test said advancements out in the final frontier.

In Star Trek, a relatively high chance of glory is not so much about the glory itself but it is definitely about what Noism suggests the glory is for. New alien species, strange stellar phenomena and the remains of long lost civilizations are out there just waiting to be found.

Now, if Star Trek's setting differs from the traditional motivators that Noism notes, it is in the first two elements he mentions, "relatively high poverty (the motivation to escape), relative lack of opportunity for advancement (another motivation to escape)".

These elements do not really exist in the standard canon of Star Trek as principle conditions of the Federation. No one is poor, even if not everyone is rich. Lack of advancement depends very much on personal talent, skill and determination. Assuming these two factors start everyone from a Vulcan Monk to a Human Orphan to an Andorian Farmer on the same footing, what better way to prove to yourself and those who know you that you are something special then to show them you are Starfleet material?

In a way, this post, meant to discover exploration as an important part of a Star Trek Role Playing Game campaign really turned out to be about PCs anyway. Well, at least in regard to their possible motivations. Huh, whaddaya know?



Lots more to come, ahead Warp Factor 5!

AD
Barking Alien

*The 23rd Century of The Original Series and the movies set in that era was not nearly as utopian as the universe that is depicted in 24th Century (The Next Generation onward). This is one of the many reasons I prefer to set my campaigns in the TOS and TMP periods.