February 24, 2012 · 12:00 pm

Using the Kano Model for GMs

In a way, an RPG is something like an Xbox (or Playstation or Wii if you prefer). It allows games to be played but is not the game itself. The game itself is created by the GM (or purchased as a module). In this way the GM is something like a game company themselves, they pitch and try to sell games to their players. The players ‘buy’ the game when they decide to participate. So if you, the GM, are a game company, who’s doing your market analysis for you?

Whoa whoa, you say, I’m not going to need market analysis. These are my buddies, I just ask them if they want to play a game and we do it.

Ok I understand, that’s fine if you’re satisfied with what you’re doing now as a GM. I was asking the guys that are really serious about being GMs. That’s okay, you can go now if you want.

Serious GMs Only!

One of the most important things a GM needs to worry about is player satisfaction. We ask our players if they like the game and try to rate it according to how strongly they respond “yeah” but we don’t really get a sense of why they say yeah. It’s just something in that game satisfied them and so we try to stick to that.

So how can we do this better? When you look at a GM as a game company, applying marketing science to planning their products (game sessions) starts to make sense. So lets look at how to apply one market analysis model to your games.

The Kano Model plots things that make a product (game) interesting to customers (players). It looks at what happens as you increase or decrease a feature to the player’s excitement. The important point of the model is, that not all features affect players the same way.

Mandatory Features

Mandatory features for a game are things that are required for the game to be enjoyed. These are things like a ruleset or consistency in applying rules. They’re things that, if left out will make the players totally dissatisfied with the game.

The interesting thing is, with a mandatory feature once the need is satisfied, no more satisfaction results. If you pile on rules that players don’t need to play, they aren’t going to be any more satisfied with the game. If important rules are missing or poorly made, the player’s satisfaction will be reduced.

Other examples of mandatory features might be a description of the game world. Once the players get the idea they don’t really gain more satisfaction by listening to hours of exposition by the GM on the minutia of the world.

Linear Features

Linear features are things that increase satisfaction for the players the more it is done. This may be in game rewards like money or experience (dependent on the game) or time for their character in the spotlight. The more you give them the more satisfaction they will derive from the game.

Linear features are the most intuitive features because their relationship is direct. More is better less is worse.

Exciter Features

Exciter features are ones that the players like when they see it but didn’t know they wanted. This is a little harder to give an example of. Well chosen music at the gaming table can be an exciter (poorly chosen music can really backfire though) the players may see their play experience significantly enhanced by it and never known they would have wanted it. In some ways art can be an exciter, the player may not have been interested in a specific aspect of a game until they see some dramatic artwork that intrigues them.

The nice thing about exciters is that since the players don’t know they need them, leaving them out does not negatively impact the game but adding them in enhances their enjoyment.

Which one is it?

So how can you know which feature is which? You can try to guess. Combat may seem like a linear feature to one GM or an exciter to another but the players may see it as a mandatory feature. How will you know? The real way is to survey the players using two types of questions. One asks how they feel if they will receive a feature in your games, another asks how they feel if it is absent. Both types of question are important. Together they tell if a feature is mandatory, linear or an exciter.

The form of question that asks how the players feel if they get a feature is called the Functional Form.

The form of question that asks how they feel if they don’t get it is called the Dysfunctional Form.

Each question goes like this.

If you can expect combat in a game session,
1. I like it that way.
2. I expect it to be that way.
3. I am neutral.
4. I can live with it that way.
5. I dislike it that way.

Later on in the survey the question is re-worded.

If there will be no combat in a game session,
1. I like it that way.
2. I expect it to be that way.
3. I am neutral.
4. I can live with it that way.
5. I dislike it that way.

Each pair of responses is then charted on a graph.

Dysfunctional Question
Like Expect Neutral Live With Dislike
Functional 

Question

 Like Vague Exciter Exciter Exciter Linear
Expect Reverse Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Mandatory
Neutral Reverse Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Mandatory
Live With Reverse Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Mandatory
Dislike Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Vague

So what are these other results Indifferent, Reverse and Vague?

The reverse result means the player would like the opposite of the feature in the survey. Indifferent means the player is not interested in the feature either way. Vague means they have given contradictory responses and further more detailed questions on this subject may be required to resolve the contradiction.

You will probably get different results from different players and that’s fine because people are interested in different things.

Putting it to use

You should plan to include all the features your players have identified as mandatory but spend only the required time needed to accomplish them.

Linear features are important to work as much in as possible. These should be the core of your focus.

Remember to spend some time implementing exciter features. Over time however, these are likely to develop into linear features.

If you use this to plan your games let us know!

1 Comment

Filed under GM Advice

February 17, 2012 · 11:57 am

Maps, Hexes and Grids

I’m often amazed that some RPG players can’t imagine playing without miniatures. I understand why you’d want to have miniatures in your games, they’re fun and add a great visual element to a game. The thing is, I can’t imagine the need for them.

I’d actually venture that I couldn’t have done a good number of the games I’ve GMed if we used them. In a way they anchor the player’s senses to their vision of what’s on the map. I’ve actually had problems identifying with my character when I have a miniature on the table. Again, I’m not opposed to them, they have their use but it’s mainly useful as a visual prop and a tactical reference. I also think that they can be a hinderance if players feel they have to use them even in a tactical situation.

One example of where they could be a detriment is if PCs lose sight of each other because of brush, fog, darkness, confusion etc. When this happens, I am far more comfortable as a GM explaining what the PC is seeing. This often leads the players to question their impressions and makes them act more cautiously. This can be very important for getting the players into the mood you want. If everything is out on a map, it nearly eliminates this atmosphere.

A second example can be seen in what happens in the Starfleet Battles game with cloaking devices. In that game (or at least the versions that I played) cloaking devices are nearly useless because a map is in use. I can’t easily fault the game makers, trying to get a cloaking device to do what it really could do on a map is not easy. If someone has a homebrew rule out there that makes this work, please let me know I’d love to hear it. On the other hand, I could easily narrate this situation.

Obviously this kind of approach isn’t always needed or even wanted. It can get old very quickly if it’s all the players ever do. Really to have the best effect the players should experience situations where they clearly know the elements that surround them. However this can also be done with good narration and proper communication. A map or grid isn’t needed in these situations if surroundings are described well enough.

Unfortunately we’re all human and that means we don’t always explain things well enough. That’s when a tactical map starts to really become a need, when the verbal description fails either from the GM’s fault or the player not correctly hearing what’s conveyed. In any situation where there are more than three spacial points of reference and a tactical situation is going to carry on over several turns, a map can be very useful for getting the game to run smoothly.

Maps Without Miniatures

Even when there is a need for a map, miniatures can be a problem in some settings. In situations where the field of combat is very large, miniatures can actually be a huge hinderance. In Sci-Fi or modern games the scale of a miniature can cause problems, not that these problems can’t be handled but we’ve resorted to a simple dot on the map with notations if needed. In some cases I’ve used a small white board and simply erased and redrew marks as they move. I don’t worry about the map being exactly to scale, just relative positions are enough so the players know about in what direction things are in and I keep distances in my head. I don’t know if that works for everyone though. I’ve heard some people recoil in horror at the idea of remembering distances between 5 or six different moving objects. In truth, unless it’s an active combatant, I will fudge distances to things like walls and terrain.

One interesting hack that we’ve played is to have a player that is responsible for the map and then I don’t have to keep things updated as the GM. In The Artifact this falls to the player who is playing a Scout (any kind) because Scouts are intended to do things like mapping and judging distances so it actually adds to the atmosphere of the game. This was the reason for releasing a booklet of maps that a player could draw on and keep each map of what happened (Scout Maps). The permanent books are also a nice way to recall adventures. In most games, a simple blank book would be enough but The Artifact needed pre-made maps because of the manufactured environment.

What About Grids?

To be honest, I always found grid moments far too limiting. They work best for closed in built environments where movement is constrained. Hexagon maps are slightly better and work well for open and natural areas but not very well for close spaces. I prefer working with distance measurements. If a map can be done to scale, then a ruler may be useful, but it’s not usually even needed unless exact movement accounting is needed.

That’s how I manage things. Most of my players are used to it because I introduced them to RPGs, I’ve had some that are confused by me just spouting off distances to different points and I more quickly draw up a map for them now. What do you do?

4 Comments

Filed under GM Advice

February 12, 2012 · 3:47 pm

Tortuga is Being Edited

I’ve been talking about the new setting for the Artifact, Tortuga for a while now but I was running short on time and energy to write it. That was the motivation for moving my posting schedule to Fridays only. The first two weeks made only a little progress but last week I got a good chunk of time to work and finished things up. Now the file is with the editor and she’s working through it and that’s a good thing too, because she’s already caught a lot of spelling and grammar errors.

Scale Problems

One of the things that was holding me up was that some of the equipment in the book breaks the scales that are established for humans in the main book and things stop working as well. I discussed a few ideas about how to handle that problem on the blog here but couldn’t come up with anything I liked. Then one day on a road trip I finally cracked it and so was able to give amended rules for this book. The nice thing is that they don’t conflict with anything in the main book but only extend the concepts.

Artwork

This book needed artwork and I had a hard time getting myself back to the drawing table. I have to focus on a drawing to do an acceptable job and I’ve been pulled in more than a few directions for a bit here. Oddly I’ve made a few breakthroughs that I’ve wanted to make for a long time in my artwork but I’m not very energized about them for some reason.

So I can’t proclaim that this book is packed with art but it’s enough to get the ideas across. I think the cover art is one of the better pieces I’ve done.

Publishing

I think I’ll be ready for putting the file out in two weeks if everything moves ahead as planned.

Leave a Comment

Filed under News

February 10, 2012 · 1:00 pm

Player Skill or Character Skill?

The conversation over at Stargazer’s about social conflict posted yesterday is mainly coming down to a question of player skill vs character skill. A lot of the answers seems to be to use both but is that right?

For those unfamiliar with the question of player skill vs. character skill, the conflict arises because RPGs often have mental and social attributes. If a player is smart and figures out strategies and puzzles but their character is a dimwitted fool, who is making the strategy? Is it the player? They don’t exist in the game world. Is it the character? How is the fool coming up with these brilliant ideas? In that case it’s obvious that the solution is coming from the player’s skill.

On the reverse, if a character has a superhuman intellect and the player is just your average Joe,  do you rely on player skill to form plans and come up with solutions to problems? Really, the character’s skill is important to take into account. The player should (according to game logic) be able to roll for that attribute and come up with a solution. Unfortunately that’s not very interesting, especially for the GM who probably worked hard to make a challenging puzzle only to have it solved by a dice roll.

Some have suggested doing away with intelligence or social attributes. The problem with that is they exist for a reason. In a game where a character has to speak a different language, the question is how well do they speak? Are they fluent enough to bluff they are a native speaker or are they stuttering out single words? Another example is in Sci-Fi games, how can a player use their skill (intelligence) to fix the stardrive since it doesn’t exist? How would a player know what to look for? Clearly the engineer character should know but also is intended to be challenged by the task so clearly character skill is needed. One more example, in the reverse, as a player I know how to blacksmith but in some games the art of blacksmithing is a jealously guarded secret that my character should not know.

Where I start to defend player skill but actually defend character skill

Does that mean I’m completely on the side of character skills determining a challenge? No, not entirely. Like I wrote before, relying on character skill alone is mechanical and can be boring as there is no depth to it. There’s nothing for the players to do but roll dice where they could be filling the shoes of their characters and trying to figure out the puzzle.

Of course that argument could be applied to combat, which is almost mainly determined by dice rolls. There is one exception to that, when it comes to strategy, it is generally the skill of the player that is important (again intelligence). Strategy works for combat because there are different weapons with different bonuses, there’s terrain to take into account at times, there is usually a choice in how to attack based on direction, surprise, brute force or speed. These are relatively easily understood but could a similar string of options be given to a social or intellectual challenge? No one that I know of has ever explored the subject in the kind of depth that combat has been developed to.

So for a social challenge, is there a way to surprise attack? Can a player sneak around and strike from behind (metaphorically)? What kind of weapons are there? Maybe the weapon “skeleton in the closet” or “dirty secret” would give bonuses. More simply, understanding a character’s motives should give a mechanical advantage (most people like money). There’s also the possibility of not limiting social conflict to the charisma and beauty stats, social challenges should include intelligence and prestige.

For intelligence challenges the opposite thought process needs to be used. People rarely think just to think (philosophers might, transcendental meditators do). They think to solve a problem which usually has a real world application, so intelligence is used in connection with Dexterity for repair jobs, it’s connected to social conflicts, it’s connected to intuition for puzzles, it really should also apply in combat. Weapons could be reference works or memory aids.

So it is possible to have a player line up a strategy for mental and social challenges that are resolved by dice rolls and still have a challenge associated with it. I think having this kind of robust system would make RPGs more varied and mental challenges more accessible to more players. I’m working on just such a system for Steampunkfitters, mainly because the system relies on out maneuvering instead of dice.

Let’s try defending player skill again

Does that mean a player’s skill should not be used? We humans are often reasonably good at parsing speech. Even if we don’t know exactly why, we usually do a good job of knowing if a story is believable, persuasive or not. This is probably the number one reason using player skill is so attractive. In a social or intellectual challenges it’s faster and simpler to act out the part of the character.

There is one problem with this premise. What if one player (who may be the GM) is not particularly good at evaluating another player’s ideas or social interactions because it isn’t their way of solving the problem. What if a GM does not want the players to solve a problem using social combat? Then anything the players do in this situation is likely going to fail. No GM wants to be this way but our mental biases can get the best of us.

I’m supposed to be defending player skill here so here goes. Some GMs that commented on the Stargazer post suggested that when a player acts out their character’s actions you want to reward them for it. I’d suggest doing this whether they did a particularly good job or not. If they do a great job, the GM might want to give them an even larger reward, possibly simply allowing the action to succeed without a skill check. Is that fair? If it were two PCs going at it and one had a knack for persuading and the other didn’t, I’d have to think twice about it. Still some have suggested giving in game rewards for doing things like drawing a picture of their character, bringing in props and even bringing food to the game. Things like that don’t normally occur to me, but I like the idea of encouraging players to make things more enjoyable. I think acting out the character’s social interactions falls along the same lines.

Some in the old school movement have argued that anything that can be done by the players at the table should be. If there is a clue the players should automatically get it because the game requires it. If there’s a secret door and a player says they want to look for one they should find it. I can see the logic of this concept. No one wants a game to grind to a halt because the dice weren’t co-operating.

There are some really brilliant solutions to this kind of problem that have been proposed (not by me). Things like allowing the PCs to go ahead but with a disadvantage. This requires a good deal of creativity on the part of the GM. This often takes the form of not looking at a skill test as a pass/fail test but can the player pass without a sacrifice.

The last two paragraphs, highlight how these story flow problems have solutions regardless of where you fall on the player vs character skill debate. It really is a matter of preference. Unfortunately a lot of games give little or no guidance on functional ways of handling these situations so GMs kludge together their own solutions.

The Verdict

I tend to rely on mechanics in games, they’re safe and predictable. Most GMs will defer to the book if the players are asking to follow a rule as written. I also understand that a GM may skip mechanics because they take time and mental effort to keep in mind.

I think that character skill should be the determining factor in a mental or social challenge but I think that player effort should also be rewarded predictably. Let’s face it, a player is controlling their character so the player’s desire and effort becomes the character’s. It’s often the case that a person succeeds because they want to with skill coming in to make the job easier. To that end, acting out a role should be rewarded mechanically with bonuses to the rolls. I think that NPCs should also get this bonus when the GM acts out a role too. This really encourages more acting at the table all around, especially if the GM is doing it because the players will see the GM as being at an advantage if they don’t act out their parts. If the GM doesn’t want to act out a part then the players that do should get the advantage. If everyone just wants this part of the game over with, then roll the dice and live with the result.

Feel free to disagree with me, even if it’s just because you think I’m ugly but let us know what you think in the comments.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Experimental Mechanics, GM Advice

February 3, 2012 · 10:36 am

What Does an RPG Need?

To get the right mindset, first I’d like to explain why you’d want an answer to this question. With the 21st century being here and with all our amazing technology (flying cars, robot maids and iPads) most games have taken on these technologies. Not RPGs though, not really. When I bring this up people invariably bring up PDFs and POD, but that’s a delivery method and doesn’t bring technology to the game itself.

People have made thousands of computer RPGs in the past but in truth only an MMO really starts to be an RPG. Why?Because most computer RPGs have nothing to do with taking on a “role”. They’re called “RPG” because they use the rules structure of a table top RPG but not its function.

There we have the first criteria for what makes an RPG, the players taking on a role. They have to have an avatar that they control and use to represent themselves to other players. To put your mind at ease, I’m not going to finish this off explaining play and what it means to be a game.

There is the famous quote about the child’s game Cops and Robbers being in essence an RPG and it almost is. I’d call it role play but it has no structure to it and that’s why it doesn’t work as an RPG. The structure of an arbiter between players (rules) is what makes the game playable. The question could be asked, how small a rule set can an RPG have and still be functional? There only needs to be one rule but it has a price. The rule is that one player is a Game Master and they are the final arbiter of any conflict. Many games still carry this rule as a back up to cover any holes in the system. The power of this rule cannot be overstated and that is why it is so hard to get rid of it. I used to play an RPG that used only this rule, it was simple and it was fun if the GM wanted to make the game fun.

Does that mean an RPG has to have a GM? No, there are plenty of games out there that don’t use one and they work just fine. Their structure is significantly different because they don’t use the final arbiter rule but they do have an arbitration process.

So there is our next component. An arbitration process whether it falls to one player or rules or the next player in the turn order.

There is one more element that gives the players the experience of an RPG, especially a TTRPG an that is social interaction being it’s main mode of play. The world is created by the players and they negotiate with each other (via the arbiter) how the game will progress.

21st Century Stuff

Now back to why you might be interested in this question and it’s answer. So far computer technology has tried to replace the final arbiter with a video game while following the rule structure of an RPG and the results have entertained but they miss the great power that an RPG holds. Because a TTRPG is created by the players and negotiated by the players, it is what they want it to be. The interactions of people playing the game makes anything possible. Introduce a computer to control the world and it can only follow the program it has been given and as many possibilities as their may be, they are still limited.

With that in mind, how can technology help instead of limit the scope of an RPG? Instead of having the computer define the world, the players need to keep that power but the computer becomes the arbiter of the world. In other words the players manage the story using their characters while the computer resolves conflict (based on the rules it’s given). Computers are great at being the rulebook, not so great at making up stories. The problem is that this has, for the most part been tried. Virtual table top programs have tried to use the rules to replicate existing RPGs and the results may be functional but they haven’t taken the community by storm. They’re not clearly better.

I think the mistake that these virtual table tops make is that they try to be generic, to replicate existing games. These are games designed for human minds to handle, where the computer could handle a far more complicated rule set effortlessly with great results.

One way to bring technology to RPGs might be to use a system like an iPad to run the game rules or they could be connected to each other if more than one person has one. But instead of a generic rule set, give the program the metastory, delivered by cut scene videos and make the app an actual game. The Players fill in their part of the story using the material provided. I’d even say, keep the character generation and rules hidden. Don’t show the players a single number. Just give them classes of actions they’d like to perform, track statuses (HP, energy, mental health, etc.) give NPCs (stat blocks hidden) and make the game open to whatever the players wanted to make with the materials in the game. For a traditional feel, having a GM guide things might be easier but it’s not the only model that could be followed.

Excuse Me While I Rant

This is the kind of thing a big RPG company could do. Really, why haven’t they? A one man operation with $200 in software and website dues can offer a product roughly comparable to what they produce. Why are they standing still while we advance? There’s a lot of talk about RPGs growing or dying and many seem to fear the established names going out of business. My question is, what are they doing to stay in business? Sure glossy pages and amazing artwork is great but is it enough? Functionally everyone and their brother can replicate what they’re doing. If everyone can do it, why does anyone need an industry?

There are two models they could follow to stay on top, produce more for cheaper, produce a product that home hobbyist cannot. So far the two advantages they have is name recognition and quality and those advantages are being eroded.

What do you think? How would you like to see RPGs move into the 21st century?

Leave a Comment

Filed under Experimental Mechanics

January 27, 2012 · 6:26 pm

The Scariest Enemy

Players can be frustrating. At times, they are paranoid to the point of inaction. Other times they laugh at your best villain. So what’s a surefire villain that will get them unnerved and unsure about their ability to defeat the enemy?

Any enemy that you cannot tell where they are is going to be a difficult one to defeat. Maybe they’re invisible and can move around the players waiting for the best time to strike. A good number of games deal with something along these lines and there are usually countermeasures for invisibility if the setting allows for it. But even this is just a warm up for the scariest enemy.

Even more frightening than an undetectable enemy is one that is supposed to be an ally and there is no way of telling if they are on your side or not, a converted friend. They may have worked along side you for weeks or months, maybe even years but something turns them against you. Especially where anyone can be suddenly converted into an enemy or anyone you’re relying on can be waiting for the right moment to carry out a dastardly plan.

So how can this kind of an enemy be used in a game? How can you make a game that makes even the most experienced PCs shudder in their boots?

The first thing to do is to surround the PCs with people that really are on their side or at least neutral. Any town, city, military base, barracks or well populated space station will do. Something needs to make this place necessary. Maybe the players are there for the safety in numbers, maybe they need to stay there for another reason but that should be well understood and explained in the game. If at any point the players decide to leave make it obvious that leaving is unlikely to be a viable option.

The next thing to do is determine a number of enemies the players will have to deal with that will be hidden in their allies. It could be a single enemy or it could be dozens depending on the player character’s ability. Figure out how the enemy is able to hide in among their allies. This can range from pod people scenarios to sleeper agents planted long ago.

The last thing to do is create a plot that puts everyone in danger. The players will not be able to ferret out the enemy by any means, they must find out how the enemy has planned to put their plot in motion. Only by guessing the plot and heading it off will they be able to prevail and survive.

Any input?

Leave a Comment

Filed under GM Advice

January 20, 2012 · 7:05 am

Running

I’m a fan of Doctor Who and if you’ve ever watched the show, you’ll quickly discover that the main characters run away a lot. In the context of the show it’s exciting because it shows that the threat to the main characters are real and there is no simple way to defeat it. Beyond that, just the scenes of them running are thrilling because you know that any false move means doom.

That is really, really hard to do in an RPG. What’s worse is that if I were able to replicate that in my games, they’d be much better. My players often want to run away but doing so is not well supported in games as to how to resolve it (easily anyway) and it seems like they’re just giving up. What’s more, where are they running to? It’s usually just out of the reach of the danger. In the series it’s usually to some shelter, even if it’s a temporary one.

RPGs were spawned from wargames and have had a hard time shaking off their parentage. In a wargame, running is dishonorable. In a story, escaping can be thrilling and is often the most reasonable course of action. In war, a fleeing enemy is at a massive disadvantage and is easily defeated. Most RPGs focus on replicating this because the fact remains that someone with their back turned to you is not easily able to defend themselves.

So how can a chase scene be made thrilling for the players? The new Doctor Who RPG has a solution but it’s not my favorite kind of mechanic. That doesn’t mean it’s not effective though. The game splits actions into phases, movement is the first phase and combat is the last phase. This gives running away a mechanical advantage, it is a safer bet than fighting. The only problem is that I dislike phased turns. In every game I’ve played I’ve ignored phasing out the action. I know that it’s there to encourage certain actions just like it’s being used here to encourage running away but phased turns make each round into multiple rounds making game play much slower. Players can forget which round they’re in and loose focus.

Enough about what I don’t like, let’s look at some options. First off let’s look at what works with running and what doesn’t. If a danger is based on close combat, running makes sense. All you have to do is out distance the danger. This is often only an issue of a meter or two which can be covered in a few seconds. Of course, then the danger might then give chase but then it’s simply an issue of who’s faster. However the PC that decides to run could be given a one turn advantage in distance because their attacker wasn’t planning on them running. I’ll discuss how to do that in a moment though.

If as a GM you want to encourage escape as a viable option, long chases are not your friend. The players have to have some place to run to, someplace within one to three rounds of running. It can be a flimsy shelter but it should give them at least a few turns of protection while they try and think of a plan. This is important to remember because providing a shelter like a door that they can slam behind them or a tree they can get behind is more of a story choice than a mechanical system.

In modern games there is one significant problem with running away. Guns are faster than the players are (unless you’re a speedster in a supers game). This is where we have to get into mechanics because running has to be given a mechanical advantage (a logical one) if it is to be viewed as a viable option by the players. It is a fact though that a moving target is harder to hit than a stationary target. With this in mind, running away but not directly away, can be given a mechanical advantage. If the player’s opponent gives chase, they should be at a further disadvantage to hit because they are no longer a stable gun platform. (Even old tanks couldn’t drive and fire at the same time because they would never hit their target.) This allows the players to gain a significant advantage by running, they are harder to hit and are likely to gain a good amount of ground before their attackers stop firing and give chase.

In an opposed roll system, the PC’s running roll could be used as a difficulty number for the attacker. The faster they run, the harder it is to hit them. In a system that allows a player to dodge attacks, this ability should not be taken away from a running character. This would give two chances for a character to avoid harm, a significant tactical advantage.

How To Encourage Running

Another significant problem that a GM could run into is the fact that most players are now conditioned that they must defeat every opponent they meet. This is a huge problem because with this mindset, running away equals failure.

In order for the players to understand they are allowed to run away, it has to be clearly communicated. Massing more enemies against them will not work. They are used to the idea that they are supposed to take on armies of enemies and will get the wrong signal. One way for them to understand they are not supposed to fight is to give the enemy an off switch. This doesn’t (have to) mean a literal off switch, it is a win condition where the enemies are no longer willing, compelled to or able to fight.

As an example, if the players get a message through to the opposing general, the war will end. In this situation any fighting they do is counterproductive to ending the war. The enemy is effectively turned off as soon as the general gets the message.

In a smaller scope, if the PCs run past the guards and drop the portcullis they’ll be unable to stop them. Giving the players the ability to render their enemies ineffective is the one clear way to encourage them to avoid an enemy and not engage them.

So now we have a goal of turning off the enemy, how do the players accomplish it? To make the game interesting, there should still be a set of obstacles that they must overcome but the solution to those obstacles will often involve running away from danger instead of into it. If the players can see that there are solutions that they can puzzle their way through, they’ll more readily understand where the challenge of the game is coming from. If they start thinking about fighting, remind them of their goal and give them hints about where they can run to.

You’re within a few feet of a solid looking door, and you realize fighting this guy could hurt a lot more down the line. You wonder if you can make it there safely.

2 Comments

Filed under Experimental Mechanics, GM Advice

January 13, 2012 · 7:03 am

What Has 7 Months Taught Me

It’s been seven months and change since the site redesign and the blog came front and center. I made a goal to post on every weekday unless I wasn’t around and that went pretty well. In that time I’ve made 165 posts or a little over 23 per month which is good considering I took a good number of days off.

Ideas

One of the things I’d suggest to anyone working on a blog is write down your ideas for posts as soon as you have them. I cannot tell you the number of times where I was busy, had an idea for a posts and thought “Yeah, that’ll be great! I won’t forget this one, it’s so cool!” aaand then I can’t remember it when I sit down to write.

Another thing that comes up is ideas that want to pop up while you’re writing a post. You start on one thought and by the middle, you recognize you’re drifting into another. In my opinion, the best thing to do with that is split them and make two posts out of them. If the new subject is burning through your brain, re-write the post on that subject.

Writing

One of the nice things about having an audience (no matter how small) is it’s a good motivator to keep writing. I know that not a lot of people read my posts that are specifically about The Artifact but when I want to write about it I’m going to without apologies, that’s what this blog is here for. It’s the regularity of the writing that builds up skill in writing and I think that has benefited me.

One of the most useful things I’ve learned is how to write in a stream of consciousness. A lot of times all I have is a vague idea for a post. I’ve learned to let that vague thought guide my writing until I have defined it with words. It’s like a block of wood that you can kind of see a face in, then you whittle it down and bring that impression more to the forefront.

Time

There is one downside to this blog. I have more time than I used to for writing, I even used that time to go and write a new RPG Steampunkfitters. Unfortunately that means I’m trying to write for two games and this blog. The Artifact has both benefited from it and suffered for it. On the one hand, the blog has attracted new readers and I get about ninety plus downloads a month where I used to get forty. On the other hand I’m not done with Tortuga and I have two more sourcebooks to finish before The Artifact’s story arc is done (well the first one anyway). I’m not complaining, I’ve got to work on a lot of ideas I’ve had and that’s really cool but now I need to get back to work.

Moving Forward

At the start, I wanted to post every day. I usually would try to post an article of at least 400 words but often ended up 600-1200. Now I’m going to set a new goal. I’m still going to spend the time that I have been on writing but a bulk of it is going to be on getting Sourcebooks done. I’m going to try and use what I’ve learned blogging and use it in writing for sourcebooks. I also need to get back into drawing because I’ve been slacking majorly.

So from here on in I’m going to set the goal for a general interest post on Friday. The rest of the time I’m going back to the word processor or GIMP to get things done around here. I might throw an update out once in a while that’s not on Friday, but it should be about the game and probably will end up being artwork (I hope). If on the off chance anyone wants to guest post or even join the team over here and claim a day that’s fine too.

 

4 Comments

Filed under News

January 12, 2012 · 7:13 am

How To Make The Game Simpler

In the last six posts I’ve been exploring the concept that maybe dropping all the cool things you’ve learned to do with RPGs on a new player might not work because it overwhelms them.

Simplicity
Choices
Limit Your Player’s Options but Not Your Players
Clear Player Paths
Take Care of Your Pet
Player Goals To Help Them Grow

There are a lot of suggestions and a lot of questions that I still can’t answer. The one that really bothers me is, does having  a new player mixed in with experienced players automatically break this principal because they need to be handled differently? Alternatively is there a way of GMing a game where simple choices are presented that won’t make experienced players think they’re being held back?

In any event, using this idea will require a drastic change in how I GM. I can envision guiding a player through these stages, but as an “experienced” GM I’ll want to make things fun the way that I’ve come to see it and that won’t work for some of my players. It comes down to more handholding and walking newer players through the game even with things that the other players feel are obvious and simple.

The new players go through stages of development. Some may hit a certain point and never advance past it. Here, to the best of my ability are those stages.

New – this would normally apply to children who don’t know how to play a game at all

Simple Choices – board or video game experience, the player understands making basic strategy

Imagining – learning to imagine simple tactical choices and what an imaginary world looks like, miniatures and maps are helpful at this stage

Connection – the player starts to “reward” his character with better tools.

Pet – the character becomes a virtual entity in the players minds, logically they may have needs.

Goals – the player starts thinking of what the character would want and gives them direction without GM involvement.

There are likely substeps in there. I don’t really know if a player can be sped along moving through these steps, but they do seem to be distinct and they have to be crossed like bridges into the next step.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Experimental Mechanics, GM Advice

January 11, 2012 · 12:26 pm

Player Goals To Help Them Grow

Now, on to the goals. Once players have connected with their characters it’s possible for them to make in game goals that they care about. At first their goals are likely to be entirely mechanical, maybe a new vehicle so they can go faster or for more protection. These will get you started in a game but after a while, the players will run out of items that they’re interested in acquiring. What do you do then?

Most often a GM will introduce a new sourcebook with new goodies. Other times the players goals may take on a new aspect and they start to explore different locations in the game. This can last for a little while as it’s likely to span several games.

People As Motivators

What can be done in addition to that to keep a player interested in the game? Something that I’ve seen few GMs do well, give the PCs allies. I’m not talking fellow adventurers, that would only limit the PC’s effectiveness (more characters trying to do the same job). The allies that the PCs will want are ones that make them more effective. For example, a town that needs protection actively feeds and houses the PCs when they’re in the area so that they will stay longer and protect them if bandits come through. This is usually presented in the wrong direction in games. The town leader approaches the adventurers crying ‘Oh please protect us from the bandits, we’ll pay you X’.

If you want to make protecting the town the player’s goal (as opposed to just getting paid), you approach the situation more subtly. They can take the same approach gas stations and doughnut shops take. By giving police officers free food, the police are more likely to spend their breaks there. If the police are known to hang out at a scene, they are far less likely to be targeted by criminals.

No one says anything to the players overtly. When they come into town, people are friendly if not a little shy. The shop keepers give the players a discount. Some of the young boys ask if they can carry heavy items for the PCs. The innkeeper pulls them to the side and tells them that if they stay out of trouble, they can stay here for free.

The first thing that’s going to do for the players is freak them out completely. They’ll be looking for a downside, some plot to trap them. Don’t give them one. If the players ask the townspeople why they’re being nice to them they’ll come clean. They know that by having adventurers that aren’t causing trouble in the town they’re less likely to be targeted by bandits. You allow this to go on for a while, let the PCs get to know the townsfolk by name. Little touches can be huge here. Have a boy that comes up and tells them stupid jokes for no reason. A widow that comes out and gives them a small amount of food. Eventually, when the players decide they want to help the townspeople, now you have a great motivator. Slowly something is moving in on the town. It’s not the townspeople’s fault, it’s just something that’s happening in the area. Now the players identify the town as their town and nobody better mess with it.

People are one of those motivators that never get old if managed properly. If someone is more trouble than they’re worth, players may move on so it still shouldn’t be abused. The point is to motivate the players with something other than mechanical money rewards. To keep the players from getting frustrated with a villages inability to protect itself, the villagers should be trying to defend themselves periodically with varying degrees of success especially if the players weren’t around.

Thinking Bigger

Another motivator is for the players to think beyond new toys to play with in game. Things like building their own home base, maybe a fortified bunker or even their own fortress. Let them enjoy building it, when you sense that they’re done with their building process, make it the scene of several games where the action takes place within it. Then set a threat to it that would have come anyway so the players can be glad they built up their base.

In some cases I’ve had the players find an abandoned fortress that they adopted as their own. It allowed for interesting games as the players tried to remake the base more to their needs. The more eccentric the original builder the better because this leaves for plenty of exploration.

Mine

When a player lays claim to a certain part of the game world, they become more invested in it. They set it as their goal to keep that part of the game world. There is a balancing act between making their claimed territory enjoyable and making it challenging. A GM should be cautious to allow the players to enjoy their claimed territory more often than it causes them trouble, otherwise they may abandon it and the goal of keeping it. Let the players build something. It could be a physical structure or social ties, it only matters what it is as long as the players are interested in it. You may need to try a few different things and maybe only part of the party will be interested in any one thing so try a variety and let each player pick what interests them.

Not every set of characters has to go down these paths but every player should. My feeling is that the sooner they do, the sooner they’ll learn to set their own goals. Do you agree? Have you used these situations in your games? Did your players grow from the experience?

Leave a Comment

Filed under Experimental Mechanics, GM Advice