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

You Are Right, They're Not Wrong

Following our game session this past week, one of our groups got into a conversation that I found so interesting and frustrating that I have to share it. 

Now the conversation itself and the ideas therein are only part of the story. It's how I felt and what I thought about it afterwards. 

Basically, three of the five members in our group were discussing how a campaign should be put together. Really, how one goes about setting up a campaign in regards to the part the GM and players play.

Of the three main participants in the discussion, there were two dominant opinions. 

Gamer A thought that the Gamemaster defines the campaign based on a story they want to tell. Players create characters to fit the campaign and overarching plot/theme the GM has in mind and essentially sign on for the ride. 

This version is rather old school and focuses on the GM's story over Player input and agency. At the same time, if the GM is really excited to run a game of historically accurate, down and dirty piracy on the 17th century Spanish Main, we don't want players creating Wizards and than wondering why provisions weren't made to accommodate their character. 

Gamer B felt that Gamemasters should develop their campaign around the characters the players create. More specifically, if the players want to create a party who all serve a particular Goddess and religion and focus their adventures on spreading the word of their Lady, then that is the campaign the GM should build. 

This is an idea I like and follow (somewhat. See below) but if the GM isn't inspired by that idea, the game may not work so well. Sure, Player input and agency are very important but if you are running a game that employs a Gamemaster, said Gamemaster needs to put their stamp on the narrative somehow. 

I get it, we're all geeks with strong opinions and those engaged in any geeky endeavor will have their own views of what is and isn't 'right' for the things they love . My big issue with all of these ideas is that each Gamer in each case was rigidly adamant that their way was the best way to run a game. And as I said, aren't we all just so sure we know best. Well...

I personally found it humorous in an almost painful way how firmly each held to their particular viewpoint. Not only could they not see how the others ideas might actually be valid, I wasn't entirely sure they were even processing them.

Not only do I think the best way to generate a campaign for me personally is a merger of these approaches, the truly funny thing is, I have occasionally created a campaign in the manner Gamer A suggests, by starting with a story I wanted to tell, in a particular setting, and having the players create PCs that fit that world or particular story. Other times, I've gone with Gamer B's approach. Each campaign is different and requires a style that best handles what the group, players and Gamemaster together, are trying to achieve.

To some extent, my current campaign, 'FRONTIER', was developed with the Gamer A method, though I left the nature and specifics of the PCs open to a wide range of possibilities within the context of the milieu and meta-plot. 

With Traveller on the other hand, I tend to go the Gamer B route, seeing what the players roll up and creating a story that incorporates and integrates the backgrounds, goals, and other specific characteristics of the various PCs. I will ask them (the players) what type of adventures they want to go on and/or suggest something that interests me but links directly into their characters.

As I noted above, my true feelings on the subject are quite simple - combine your GM story idea with the character concepts the players are eager to play. Take the careers, backgrounds, and preferences that the PCs have created and/or generated for their PCs and build a narrative you enjoy around this information. Weave the players' ideas for their PCs into the setting and story you've created as the GM. 

All the suggested approaches are workable. All are 'right'.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, and very likely I'll never stop saying it - Keep yourself open to new ideas. Don't let yourself get locked into concepts that don't allow for new or alternative ways of thinking about things.It doesn't do us any good as gamers or as people.

You don't have to use them, you don't have to like them, but it behooves you, behooves us, to consider how others see things. 

AD
Barking Alien

A Dash of Salt

I was unable to complete this year's RPGaDay Challenge in the allotted time frame of the month of August. 

I am a little disappointed in myself but there was little I could do. Personal, professional, and active gaming concerns got in the way. I still intend to finish the RPGaDay 2019 event however, so if you are at all interested, please check back in with my August entries during the month of September. I expect to be done by the 28th of this month at the latest. 

Now on to new material...

I've been playing a lot recently as a player and the experience has been, by way of understatement, a mixed bag. 

I have come to realize that although the general endeavor of Gamemastering is not something to be considered lightly. It isn't easy. It takes time, effort, attention, love, and not a small amount of talent. One of the things I've noticed is that even without any sort of 'gift' or knack for the position, a GM with a strong sense of the other aspects I just mentioned can certainly run a good game. 

Unfortunately, if any of those elements are found wanting its going to be a slog for the Gamemaster and at best fall flat for the players. At worst it can be a dreadful, painfully boring or frustrating experience.  

To the end of figuring out a way to help new and inexperienced Gamemasters improve at the craft, I am going to start out with a question:

With the plethora of resources to aid a GM in running a good, solid, entertaining game, why is it that poor outings still occur? 

Yes, I am being a bit salty and a tad facetious but that doesn't mean I don't want an answer to the question. The query is no less valid just because I am being so blunt in its delivery. A simple Google search for 'Gamemaster Resources' nets pretty good results, from the general advice of RPGBot.net and the Game Master Resources Wiki to sites specific to particular games such as Continuing Missions resources for running Star Trek Adventures or various sites covering Dungeons and Dragons, Pathfinder, and more. 

Normally I would help out my fellow GMs by linking the titles above to their urls but I am not going to today because part of my question is, "Why haven't you already gone there? Why haven't you used a Google Search to obtain free resources? Why do I have to do the work for you?"

Don't misunderstand, I am more than happy to help my friends and allies in the vast gaming community improve their GMing skills. I use this very blog as a forum to do just that. At the same time, for this blog and all those resources to be useful, Gamemasters need to make the effort to go to them. Are they?

Going back to my original statement, the road to be a good GM (and eventually great if you are so inclined) is dedication, determination, organization, and really enjoying do it. In other words, if you really want to run a good game, a great campaign, or just become a better Game Runner, you need to stop playing that video game, look away from Facebook, disengage yourself from whatever is distracting you and actually try to learn and improve. 

Other GMs can assist you, websites can supply everything from advice to content, but no one can absorb any of it into your head but you. 

If you are going to GM, try to do the best you can. Put some effort into it. Think about what goes into a game and how to pull off a good one instead of just focusing on this cool story you want to tell. Cover all your bases and be flexible enough to handle things when you find out you didn't. 

Either that or let someone who can GM do it and you take notes. Better yet, just play. 

If you're not going to give it your all, give it here. 

OK, first I was Salty. Now I'll be Sweet...

AD
Barking Alien 

Just OK Is Not OK

Have you all seen those AT&T commercials in which someone employs a company or person who is, well, thoroughly mediocre at their job (at best)?

One of my failings as a Gamemaster, one truly bad habit my friends and players have told me I have, is that if the first few sessions of a campaign aren't quite right in my opinion, I'm likely to scrap the whole thing and start developing something else.

I acknowledge how annoying this can be for many gamers. You may have gotten behind the campaign premise, invested in your character, and after a few sessions (or even one session), the GM calls it quits saying it didn't really work for them. That can really turn one off to that particular GM, especially if it's happened more than once within say a few months or even a year. 

I do this. Guilty as charged. I completely understand if this pisses any of my players off. I am truly sorry. I wish this weren't the case.

However...While I will endeavor to be more aware of it, I am unlikely to change. 

If I am running a horror game, I expect it to feel frightening and suspenseful. If I am running an Anime/Manga style Giant Robot game, I am expecting it to feel like my favorite Mecha shows. If the feel or style is off, if the characters don't fit the setting, if the mechanics turn out to be more cumbersome than helpful, I would much rather cut my losses, the group's losses, and put my energy and efforts into something that will be more successful. 

I know I could run a game and if I felt it wasn't working, just make some changes and then run it a few more times to hammer out the problems. That makes some sense but it isn't how my head works. If a game doesn't feel right I don't want to wait until I'm a dozen episodes in to realize its not good. I would see that as a colossal waste of time if I could have nipped it in the bud early and dedicated my efforts towards a better experience. 

A common critique is that I am a perfectionist. If the game doesn't go exactly as I planned or foresaw it, I have to start over. This simply isn't true from my personal perspective. That's not how I look at it. I am not a perfectionist. I am not expecting it to be perfect. On the other head...remember the commercials I mentioned?

Other people might be happy if things turn out to be just OK. I like them to be the best they can be. Sure, I could be lazy and just chuck something out but for me it's both a pride thing and a dedication thing. I try very hard to make each game I run the best game I can produce. I don't like to do it cheap, cut corners, or say 'whatever, it's fine'.

Fine might be good enough for the things you make. It isn't good enough for me. Just OK, is not OK. 

I didn't get a reputation as a great GM by producing OK campaigns.

AD
Barking Alien

Do Onto Others

This is a rant brought on by recent feelings of gaming melancholy and ennui. 

You have been warned. 

Few things in our hobby frustrate and irk me more than the Old School mentality of Gamemaster vs. Player. 

The idea that participating in an RPG is like participating in a game of strategy in which the GM and Players are on opposing sides of a conflict between the two parties.

In this school of thought, the Gamemaster's purpose is to dispose of, or at the very least make miserable, the lives of the Player Characters involved in his or her campaign. 

Likewise, the Player's purpose in such a game is to 'beat the game', defeating the murderous enemy GM by thwarting his or her minions, be they monsters or kindly old beggars, if not the very plans the Gamemaster has for the campaign. 

Would they be wrong to kill the poor, destitute sot down on his luck? After all, he could secretly be a diabolical assassin who will be their undoing. In their defense, that's what happened the last three times.

This all makes me want to vomit. 

Yes. Or get a new one you do trust. 

From a Youtube video by Nerdarchy

In two recent, unrelated games I was in I saw a single player exhibit both sides of this disgusting dynamic and it seriously took the wind out of my sails. Not just because it brought down an otherwise good time I was having in both cases but because I game with this guy pretty regularly and now I know I am dealing with someone who thinks this way. 

I am neither amused nor enthused for future sessions. 

In one instance, the GM had revealed a villain with a secret power that made things a lot more complicated and challenging. The player in question, whose PC was not under attack at that moment, whispered to me, "Any GM worth their salt would take advantage of that power to screw the players."

It isn't that I disagree that the power could have some serious consequences if used in a logical way by an enterprising opponent. It's the attitude and mindset of the statement itself that makes my skin crawl. It's that a GM isn't a good GM if he doesn't use a sneaky power that is difficult to stop in a way that most harms the PCs. 

Why not say, "Wow, that's going to be one difficult ability to counter. We'd better think of a plan!"

The second instance is related but in a sideways rather than linear fashion. In a separate session of a different game, the GM (a different fellow from the first) gave the players a choice...

Take damage but accomplish your goal or avoid injury but fail at what you are currently doing. 

For example, say you are trying to catch a falling McGuffin but if you do so an enemy will blast you. You can opt to dodge the blast, but you need to move away from the item and thus it will fall past you and you will lose it. 

I will point out that this is narrative rather than mechanical. In fact, the entire campaign, which we've been playing for over three years now, has been played this way. The narrative is more powerful than the rules. No one dies, though they can suffer injury, lose a beloved item, suffer personal consequences, etc. 

The same player as before, the one who thinks GMs should be tough on PCs, chooses the option of being hit. When the GM colorfully describes the injury, an injury that sounds kinda serious but isn't enough to stop the PC from doing what they are doing, the player went into an uproar saying that their PC would have to stop what they were doing to get medical attention. 

Again - at a dramatic moment, in a narrative focused game, the PC would have to stop the action to address an injury the GM made clear would not impede their current activity or goal. 

The reason for this, we would learn from the player, was that the description of the injury was, to them, something a Human Being could not or would not continue on with in the given situation. 

OK, I could see that. If only...if only...wait. 

No grinning and bearing it, biting down on misfortune while fighting on? Why would this be when it took place in a game well known to lack serious or fatal results to our PCs. Even though we have seen the very same injury in action movie after action movie, comic book after comic book, here it doesn't work? People in heroic fiction have lost eyes and limbs and kept going. No, for some reason in this one instance, absolute adherence to gritty realism was the order of the day.

Would you be concerned about blood loss in Teenagers from Outer Space and Toon?

Dungeon Master Disaster

Art by Mike Kaluta

Why? What would make one think like that? Simple - That's what someone who thought as they did in the first instance would do to you if they were GMing. 

Basically, if you are a GM who assumes most Players tend to cheat it's because as a player YOU tend to cheat. If you are a Player who throws a fit when you are hit by a surprise NPC attack or sudden terrain condition it's probably because you are a Killer GM who tries to do in your players' characters using similar tactics.

The funny thing is, the player in question is not that guy. Well...he hasn't been that guy for a while. When we first met and for some time after he would heavily railroad as a GM, rule and reality nitpick, and limit Player Agency in favor of his own narrative. 

He got better though. Much, much better! Then this...

It is discouraging and only adding to my recent dissatisfaction with my gaming.

While I am in a great game, and running two great games, I still feel like I am not hitting the peak performance level of my potential. I don't know why exactly and I am certain a good portion of it is me, moments like these here remind me how fortunate I was to play with my old group where this sort of thinking was foreign, even anathema to us. 

I am gripped by the saddening realization that my old groups were more than good, there were exceptions to the rules. Most RPG gamers of my age group and experience don't think the way I do. The grognards are real and they do not fade easily no matter how much they've worn out they're welcome at my table. 

Deep cleansing breath. Focus.

Onward,

AD

Barking Alien

Disenchantment

I'd like to discuss a character flaw of mine. It's one I've found quite beneficial over the years. 

I am often inspired to run games not because I have been exposed to some great example of the subject or genre, but a recent encounter with it that was thoroughly awful.

The Star Wars Prequels and The Last Jedi made me want to run Star Wars sooo badly. After seeing the first J. J. Abrams Star Trek film (and I use the term loosely) and Discovery (Blech!) I just knew I had to run 'Trek. 

Unfortunately, the same thing happens when I am exposed to a bad game. If someone runs a poor Sentai game, I become obsessed with running a Sentai game of my own. (No reason I picked that particular genre. Ahem. None at all). 

I can't help it. Seeing something done poorly that I feel I could do better just plants a seed in me that is warmed by the light of my burning hatred for it, watered by my tears of sorrow over what could have been, and nurtured to fruition by my undying disdain for poorly executed ideas. 

Wow. OK. Deep breaths. Sounding a little 'Mirror Adam' over here. 

The thing is...in the case of something like a bad Star Wars movie or a lame actual play podcast, no big whoop. I get inspired, I run a good session with my friends, I get it out of my system...no harm, no foul. No one gets hurt and my friends and I have a great time. 

On the other hand, if my buddy just ran a right rank game of Mekton and now I want to run Mekton, it's hard to avoid looking like a turd-waffle who's trying to outdo him.

The truth of the matter is...and even I know this sounds like bantha-poodoo...I am not trying to upstage the other GM. I'm not. I am trying to show the subject some love where I feel like it was recently shown a disservice.

At the very least I want to try to take a different approach, to find out if it was the other GM, the game (subject or system), or if maybe I can't do any better than they did.

Yet I am aware I am potentially making someone else feel bad by doing this and it kills me. To that end, to that truth, I often don't run my idea with the same group that ran and played the session I didn't like. I am not looking to show anyone up. Again, that is absolutely not the point. I just get frustrated when I think something that could easily be cool just isn't. 

Don't think less of me for...eh...go ahead and think what you want. I know it's a donkey's rear-end thing to do but not only do I try to make sure it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings, I can't help myself. I gotta be me.

That brings me to Medieval Fantasy...Nothing makes me want to run Medieval Fantasy like bad Medieval Fantasy. Actually, the only thing that makes me want to run Medieval Fantasy is bad Medieval Fantasy.

I definitely don't get jazzed by good Medieval Fantasy. As I have noted many times I am not a big fan of it. Not in the way it's usually presented anyway. I rarely want to run Dungeons and Dragons and it's nieces, nephews, third-cousins, and endless derivatives. My girlfriend has gotten me to finally watch Games of Thrones, which is very well done by the way, yet it doesn't make me want to DM a game of D&D at all.

But then...

I recently watched both Disenchantment and The Dragon Prince, two new animated series released on Netflix. 

I liked Disenchantment, though I was surprised it wasn't as funny as The Simpsons or Futurama considering its DNA. I also thought that the twist (no spoilers) was cool but wondered if those who follow Fantasy literature saw it coming more easily then I. It seemed at once clever and nothing ground-breaking. 

And speaking of nothing ground-breaking...

The Dragon Prince was tepidly excellent. Overwhelmingly OK. It sets the bar of mediocre quite high. I enjoyed it for the most part but also felt that it was a bunch of empty calories. It's own pedigree - Avatar, The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra - well, it isn't those. 

I also ended up watching and listening to some D&D actual play podcasts, some great animated youtube shows on gaming ( do yourself a favor and check out The Animated Spellbook. Thank me later), and finally, listened to a friend complain about his recent attempt to run D&D 5E. 

This mix of the good, the bad, the ugly, and the thoroughly meh, has me...no...must resist...can't...can't hold it in...Grrr! 

Crap. I want to run Fantasy. I want this non-Fantasy fan to show'em how it's done. 

It's my own fault. I know it. I did it to myself. 

AD
Barking Alien

Getting My Bearings

A little status update before I talk about something more substantial.

Campaigns I Have Known remains one of my more popular series of posts, and I couldn't be happier. It gets a large number of views each time, and while it doesn't get a ton of comments, the ones I receive are complimentary, and really make me feel good about the endeavor.

If anyone has a game they'd like me to cover I'm open to suggestions. For the rest of this month I'm going to try to cover games that are atypical to what I usually address (Sci-Fi and Supers), but in the months to come I will be returning to my faves.

I know what you're thinking (my species is telepathic), "How can we suggest games for Campaigns YOU Have Known? We don't know what you've played." This is true of course, but I've played a lot of games. No, no. A LOT of games. If you suggest a game, and I haven't run it I won't choose your suggestion. Easy peasy.

Thing is though, I've played so many games, over so much time, that sometimes it's hard to think of one in particular that others might find interesting. A suggestion might jar my memory, while simultaneously letting me know what my readership wants to read about.

My planned Player Profiles series has been delayed, but I do intend to follow through with it as it's something I've been wanting to do for some time. Celebrating the players who've made my time in the hobby so awesome is the least I can do for all the hours of fun they've given me.

I've only been able to post a one Thorough Thursday this month, which as the posts themselves are noted for saying, "That's just wrong". I hope to get to at least the next two before month's end. If not, there is always next month, and onward.

What Other GMs Do Wrong went over well this month, but again, I really only posted one entry on it. I've been GMing for the most part, and haven't really encountered a situation where another GMs approach triggered my need to critique a particular gaming pet peeve. This is a good thing. It means I'm playing with really good GMs (or that I'm getting soft in my old age. Frell that noise! I'll find something to get agitated about if it kills me. Heheh).

That's about the size of it right now.

In the upcoming Summer months of July and August, I intend to get back to some older projects, expand on the series above, and discuss some of the new projects I've started. Plus August 25th, 2016 is 39 years that I've been gaming!

Holy Hortas in Hard Vacuum! Do you realize what that means? Next year will be...40 years.


Good grief.

AD
Barking Alien

Underseasoned and Overstuffed

The first of my Player Profile Posts is not quite ready at the time of this entry, so I'll go right into the return of one of my favorite reoccurring features - What Other GMs Do Wrong!

Now before I go ahead and accidentally offend any of my fellow Gamemasters with my snarky wit, and no-holds-barred criticism of the way they might do things, I'd just like to say 'Tough Noogies'.

Perhaps you weren't paying attention to previous entries in this series. That's kind of what it's about.

I all seriousness though, this isn't directed at any particular GM, nor is it a critique of any one particular campaign. If you feel it is - that is to say, if I know you personally and you think I am talking about you - please know I am not directing it at you. Also, you may want to listen to You're So Vain by Carly Simon [one of my all time favorite songs].

Of course, as I've noted before, if you think the comments and criticisms in this post relate to your game...maybe they do.

***

"I have this awesome setting! It's so different, and weird - it will blow away all your preconceived notions, and standards expectations of what fantasy is!

To start off though, we'll begin our campaign, and spend the next dozen session, or so here..."

This is Underseasoned.

"I have so many ideas for our campaign I'm practically bursting. I think I have it all organized though. I'll start simple..."

This is Overstuffed.

What's going on here? It's pretty simple.

Most GMs don't ^#@*ing know how to dole out content.

 

***

What Other GMs DO Wrong: Doling Out Content

I've seen this issue a lot over the past 10 years, and it manifests in two different ways. Either a GM tells you about all this amazing stuff that exists in their campaign setting, but they drip it out so slowly that even a camel would die of thirst waiting for the exciting parts to appear (Underseasoned), or the GM has the patience of hyperactive, twitch gamer and tries to shove thirty pages of world-building notes down your throat in a single 4-6 hour session (Overstuffing).

The former happens mainly with older GMs so far as I've noticed. Perhaps they've experienced one too many campaigns that got to the main plot, big bad, or climax point too quickly. To compensate, they stagger their best material out over a great length of time, hoping it will facilitate the campaign's longevity.

This is a reasonable assumption, and not even a bad plan at first glance. Look a little closer though - this is the 21st century. It's the age of twitter, snapchat, and attention spans shorter than a hair is thin. Even if that were only the case for younger gamers, we older gamers are getting old. We ain't got time to wait for you to make your game cool. Make it cool now! We have responsibilities, medication we have to take, and other such things. Our free time is limited! Make it count! Entertain us!

Do not make me sit through four, or five sessions of fighting brigands, and kobolds when before the game [to convince me to play] you talked about the roving bands of deformed, and twisted Humans with peculiar supernatural powers who'd been changed by Unseelie Fae. Where are they? Show me them!

What are you waiting for? Really? Do you think that once I see the cool stuff I'm going to expect you to top it every following session? No! Not unless you start doing that yourself. Some writers do try that. Each episode has to out awesome the last until they get into one-ups-manship arms race with themselves that there's no way to win. (See Star Trek Voyager).

As for Overstuffing...

This is much more common with novice GMs, and younger ones sometimes. I separate novice and young because they are definitely not the same. It's all about experience, and the habits you've formed, or hopefully haven't. It's much easier to adapt, and be flexible to new ideas and approaches if you aren't already set in your ways.

OK, enough life coaching...

What happens when you Overstuff your sessions is that you put in more material than the players can effectively process. Often this causes them to become confused, NPC names are forgotten, and at its worst, the process can make the climax of a story arc seem rushed. Why? Well in the GMs desperate attempt to fit every last thing into the story that they wanted to (and we're talking A LOT of material in this case) he, or she blows past the smaller details players may be interested in experiencing as their characters.

For example, if during the arc there was a subplot involving a PC, and their estranged brother, the player of that character may find that subplot pushed aside, or rectified rather quickly to accommodate the big final of an Overstuffed adventure.

An Overstuffed game is tough for the GM as well.

For one thing, the more you add, the more elements you have in play, the harder it is to juggle them all. You can easily get lost in your own attempt at awesomeness if you're not used to handling a large number of moving parts at the same time.

Obviously the idea of rushing a sequence [mentioned above] falls upon the Gamemaster first, and foremost. It is often difficult to avoid, as you work toward closing up loose threads,  making sure everyone has a moment in the spotlight (PCs and NPCs alike), and getting to the climax of the session, or the end of the arc.

Another issue is, well, a creative one. You have All These Great Ideas! What if...what if schedules conflict and the campaign is cut short. What if the players waste valuable game time investigating the broom closet instead of going to any one of the awesome locations you've so carefully designed. What happens if you create all this AMAZING content, and your group never gets to see any of it? What a waste! Better to shove it all in right now, right?

NO! WRONG! NOT GOOD! Don't worry about not getting to everything. As you'll see below, there are ways to get to the good stuff without your players, and your campaign choking on it.

What can you do about it?

Glad you asked...

#1. Build Slow from a Cool Foundation

A long ago I adopted the approach of noted Japanese Manga Writer, and Artist [and at one time big personal crush]  Rumiko Takahashi.

Takahashi, one of Anime, and Manga's most successful and influential creators, had a very particular style of introducing new characters, and concepts into her stories. Nearly every modern Anime/Manga artist/writer uses a similar approach to varying degrees of effectiveness.

As seen in her series Urusei Yatsura, Ranma 1/2, and Inu Yasha, Takahashi begins with a distinct premise and a cast of characters that either facilitate the working of that premise, or have the potential to flesh it out down the line (later in the story). She than introduces a single new character, or idea [or perhaps two related characters like a brother, and sister pair] for each new story/episode. We then follow that new element through to the end of an arc. When the next arc begins that new element is still there, now a fixture of the main plot, or the background, as we go on to meet the next, new element.

This approach means:

• There is always something new.
• However, there is only one, or two really new things at a time.
• PCs experience, and become familiar with the new thing before the next new thing.
• The new elements become regular elements, increasing the scope of your setting.
• New elements that become regular elements can be moved back to center stage when needed.

Don't forget about the Cool Foundation. Paying attention to this part alleviates the issue of Underseasoned games. You need to start, right out of the gate, with at least one element to your NPC cast, and your world setting that has real pizzazz. Something that jumps out at the players, and makes them say, "Huh, I don't think I've seen that before."

If you can't quite do that, a least give them someone, or something that lets them know that they aren't in Kansas anymore (or Gondor, or wherever is the most normal for the genre your running).

#2. Notes for Now, Notes for Later

It can be difficult, but think long term.

Keep two separate sets of notes. It could be two separate notebooks, or just two sections of the same multi-section book.

In one section, the first of the two preferably, write notes, character ideas, locations, adventure hooks, or whatever, that you are going to need and use in the short term. This doesn't necessarily mean immediately, but the notes should relate to the story arc, or adventure you are currently running, or running next.

In the second section, write the notes on long term plans. Jot down things you want to introduce at some point. They can be fully formed ideas, half-solid concepts, or perfect world pipe dreams. It doesn't matter what they are, except that the all share the same basic quality...they are not ready to be implemented into your game.

The purpose of this approach is two fold. On a very simple, practical level, it helps organize your thoughts, and it makes editing the incomplete ideas easier. The bigger benefit, and one not so obvious perhaps, is that it psychologically fools you into waiting before you just throw everything you have into the pot.

By placing plans not yet ready to roll in a separate section from those that are, it automatically makes you give those longer term ideas more consideration. You may find they don't need much work, or that they need quite a bit. You may decide not to include them in your game at all.

***

They are a number of other ideas I have for remedying these specific issues, but for now I'll leave it at this since I have a lot of other subjects I want to post about. (Look for a Thorough Thursdays entry later tonight!).

As always, I'd like to know what you think. Please leave a comment if you have experienced underseasoning, overstuffing, think I'm way off base, or anything related to the post.

Talk to you soon,

AD
Barking Alien

Theme A Little Theme Of Me

Theme Addict

I like the idea of themed months on my blog.

Giving myself a set of parameters, much like I would in a genre-heavy RPG campaign, helps me to focus my creativity. It inspires me, but also keeps me in check, so to speak. I can easily bounce all over the place subject wise. A theme, should all go as planned, helps wrangle the various thoughts into something that can be useful not just to me, but to my readers.


Thematic Stress Disorder

The problem is...

I invest a bit too much of myself in these silly projects. As a result, when things conspire to prevent me from completely a month's theme, I get really down. I get bummed and disappointed when I am unable to share all the ideas I might have rolling around in my skull. I also get disappointed in myself. I always feel like a failure. I know I shouldn't, but I do.

I get myself worked up. I put too much importance on the endeavor. I see this awesome, perfect product, and very often (especially lately) I either don't have the time to see it through, or I lose interest at some point. The end result is I feel like poo for promising, and not delivering.


All I Have To Do Is Theme

This month, I want to get myself back into the habit of posting again regularly. It's important to me. It's therapeutic. It helps me to post here so that I have no excuse for not posting for my business.

Unfortunately, I know myself too well. I need an additional motivator.

I need to fool myself into doing it.

I need to light a fire.

I need a theme...crap.

Wait.

I've got an idea...

Actually, it's not one idea, not two, or even three...but FOUR!

That's right Barkers, it's four - four - four - four-ideas-in-one!

For a while now I've wanting to bring back some of my favorite reoccurring post ideas. Why not do that now? For the month of June, in addition to whatever else comes to mind, I'm going to revisit...

Campaigns I Have Known

Thorough Thursdays (Starting Next Week)

What Other GMs Do Wrong

and my newest entry,

Player Profiles, in which I pay tribute to some of the greatest gamers I've ever had the please to GM for.

Join me won't you? Oh, and wish me luck.

Remember, it's me.

(Fingers Crossed)


AD
Barking Alien

Fall Back, I've Got You

The always amazing Play On Target Podcast did an episode about 'Building Trust'.

It's premise focused mainly on creating a feeling of trust between the players and each other,  and between the players, and the GM in a role-playing game situation. They discuss the development of the social contract we all need to have in this hobby to make it work. They address communal, collaborative development of the setting, the characters, the elements, and style of play everyone wants to focus on.

It is an excellent analysis of the subject, and as with all of the Play On Target episodes, well worth your time to listen to.

   

***

My initial gut reaction to this podcast was to write a frustration venting, snarky post full of shouting with capital letters, bold faced type, and to generally come off as a complete , and total a-hole.

 

Why you may ask?

 

 Because without thinking about it more deeply, I felt a lot of what they were saying wasn't about trust, it was about coddling. It was about concessions, and the negative aspects of compromise.

 

Keep that word compromise in the forefront of your thoughts. It'll come up later in the post.

I have decided instead to try and convey my feelings on the subject in a way that won't hurt the feelings of any particular players out there reading this, especially if said players should be, ya'know, mine.

 

That said, I intend to be completely honest about my feelings on the subject, and to make clear my disappointment in the way it is generally perceived by most gamers these days.

 

My players need to hear (OK, read) this, but moreover that need to understand it.

 

Here goes nothing...

 

***

What made my best games great was very often my getting some kind of crazy idea, telling my group I wanted to run that idea, everyone saying, "AWESOME!", and then we would have a great game.

What some of my worst games have in common is catering far too much to too many voices.

There are those who said they wanted one thing when they really wanted (or where thinking of) another thing. There are those who were interested in the game idea in their head, and not the one the group was participating in as a group. Sometimes there is a great deal of meta-thinking going on, trying to rationalize how the player can best help the GM make a good game, without knowing exactly what the GM is going for, or planning on.

In the end, all this boils down to a group that simply does not trust that the GM (in this case me) is going to run a great game.

The Play On Target podcast does an excellent job, as I noted in the introduction, of setting up ways in which to build player trust. They detail what aspects and approaches help, and hinder, player trust in a GM.

However...Why do you simply not go in trusting the GM? How does innate player paranoia assist the endeavor of running a good game in any way, shape, or form? Why do I have to build your trust as a GM? Have I burned you in the past? Have I run a ton of rotten games? No.

Are GM's assumed to be guilty? Do we need to prove ourselves innocent first?

As an example...

When the podcast begins, the guys mention the dynamic of starting a game one way, and then revealing it is in truth something very different, and how that can ruin  trust, and really break up a game.

This is one way to view trust.

Another way, the way my old groups all worked for many years, was that the players were my friends who trusted that I was going somewhere with the twist. The trust, the pretty much automatic, deep buy-in, was so strong, I could've pulled off turning a D&D game into a Star Frontiers game, and have everyone freaking thank me at the end.

Other examples of why I felt the podcast's approach to the subject painted a somewhat inaccurate picture of the way trust in gaming should work:

I think it's Andrew who mentions you should make characters together, as a group. A decent idea, but one I rarely find necessary. It can certainly help create a more balanced, and compatible team, but his reasoning is...

"So some guy doesn't show up with three 18s."

WTF?! Why are you even playing with that guy?! If that's a concern, you have bigger issues. That guy isn't playing the game you want to be playing. Dump him.

Lowell complains that sometimes he'll work out a great background for his character, but the GM didn't bring in his back story.

Maybe he wants to, but it's tricky. You're not the only player at the table. I desperately want to add elements of the PCs back stories into the campaign, as that is honestly how I develop a good portion of the game.

However, I'm used to having 6-8 players on average. Each back story can't be too complex, or involved initially, or it becomes very difficult to fit into the game, and harder to merge with other characters' stories. It's also really tedious to read through.

Be concise people. Keep it concise. Movie pitch here.

Now I'm not saying Lowell does this, but maybe if you want the GM to use your back story, don't write a character background whose page count rivals ROOTS! Your GM is running a game, not applying for a job as a library archivist.

Do you know how long it took me to read the first three books in the Dune series, by Frank Herbert? I was 14. I had ample free time, and I was an avid reader. It still took forever. Now, I run a business, I teach on the weekends, I'm trying to date, and I have at times two games to put together. I don't have that kind of time anymore.

DON'T MAKE YOUR BACKSTORY A DUNE BOOK, because with an average group size of 5 players, you're asking your GM to read FIVE DUNE BOOKS before he runs the first adventure! That's not including him/her reading the rules, making any modifications, creating the adventure, designing NPCs, getting artwork, or maps, etc.. DON'T DO THAT!

Lowell makes a point of backing up another player's action, in the hopes that the same player will back up your actions later.

If you don't know that player, and his/her character isn't a close friend of your character...dude...don't do that. Don't back someone up expecting them to return the favor. Do it because it's what you want to do. Do it because that's your character.

Sure, be a team player. Don't be a dick. It would be super awesome if everyone was that person, and in some groups everyone is. Just don't expect everyone at the table is seeing the same dynamic you're seeing for the same reasons. It's unrealistic.

Sam talks about secrets...and I've heard opinions of the subject of PC secrets before, recently from a good friend of mine. I couldn't disagree more.

If a player's PC has a secret, and you don't know about, that's because it's not your character. Sorry. If you notice them acting strangely, maybe have your character go ask the other player's character what's up. Organic baby. It's really inorganic to know everyone's deal when you shouldn't, or wouldn't. That doesn't work. Very few people, IN THE ENTIRE HOBBY, do a decent job of separating player knowledge, and character knowledge.

Add to this the amount of meta-thinking the millennial gamers do. It's all Google the info, read the sourcebook, get the video game strategy guide, read the spoilers for the movie. No one knows how to handle not knowing things any more.

Why? Because not knowing means you have to find something out. Finding things out is just too much effort I guess.

It's a freaking mystery! FIGURE IT THE *BLEEP* OUT! Investigate, ask questions, watch, learn, and do in IN GAME. Have your characters interact with each other. Stop playing table-top RPGs like single player video games, or MMOs where you level solo on Player vs. Environment servers. STOP! By Highfather's Beard I'm so sick of that.

Counting to ten...happy place...OK. Where was I? Ah yes, next...

On Player Versus Player

One of the other things the guys mention is the idea that some campaigns are run 'Playing to see what happens'.

Yes. THIS! All my campaigns are played 'Playing to see what happens'. They may be trying to emulate a comic book, or an episode of Star Trek, or the feel of an Anime/Manga romantic comedy, but they are all being played to see where things go. I have no idea how it'll end. I've made no plans to do anything in particular to anyone. The outcome of the game is as big a mystery to me, the GM, as it is to you the player.

So if trust is an issue, who exactly do you lack trust in? Me to make the game satisfying, or yourself to have the curiosity to see where it goes, and the patience to wait for the pay off?

In conclusion, I think everything the Play On Target guys said in their podcast was right on the money. It's a collection of great ideas, and logical approaches to the situation of trust between gamers on both sides of the table.

It is also all wholly unnecessary if you trust in one another going in, until there is a reason to feel other wise.

Each GM is different, each players is different, each game is different. If you go into any game, with anyone, without belief in the idea that everyone there is trying to make sure everyone else is having fun, then go home. You are likely the cause of the issue. You are likely the person who doesn't understand what I just wrote.

Have a little faith.

AD
Barking Alien

I almost forgot - for another interesting take on the subject, check out this entry from the blog Improved Initiative.

Interesting stuff.