I was there with you, didn't see the point, hating the idea of a digital leash, a bunch of online stalkers stalking each other... I thought, "Nah! I like blogging, I enjoy conversing with people online but Twitter... that's too much, that shit's for crazy folks."
Here's the thing, contrary to first impressions, Twitter isn't a peep hole into everyone's private lives. No one I follow Tweets "Eating now" or "Bored at work", if they did I wouldn't follow them. They tweet interesting things, or if they're not interesting, they make them interesting by adding personal insight or humorous quip, or something else that makes the post dynamic and interesting enough to waste the 2 seconds it takes to read it. If the tweet strikes a chord with someone, they might @reply you and a conversation is started.
Pretty creepy huh. Fuckin stalkers.
A couple of my old Vox peeps amuse me with their adamant avoidance of Twitter, it's amusing because they're exactly the sorts of people that enjoy Twitter the most. They carry on huge threads of conversations in the comment space below their blogs, engaging nearly everyone and making them feel like they're interesting and contributing something too. These are the great social butterflies of the internet that I will strive to be like, making people feel good to be in their presence, happy to call them friend. These people always seem to be able to make time for even the geekiest introvert, and for that they deserve the praise they inevitably receive.
Twitter embraces these sorts of people, they're the best contributers to the network and take the most from it, it's not a one-way relationship, if it were no one would use it.
I don't criticize people who don't use twitter, not everyone is meant to, just like not everyone is meant to blog, or write, or draw, or be a public speaker. Some people would get a lot out of it but simply don't have the time, or can't afford yet another distraction, I can't fault anyone for that either. But for those who see it as a senseless waste of time they'll get bored with, when they write the best blogs and interact heavily in comments; they I can only educate, and after being shown what they're missing they're only missing out on a way to reach and interact with more people. If you want to keep things small and intimate, then yeah, don't use Twitter, but if you want to reach a wider audience, meet more people, get more information about the stuff you're interested in and have a better network of contacts and friends... then you owe it to yourself to give it a try for at least a few months.
...and if and when you do, follow me.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Making Things More General
Hi folks. I'm writing this directly onto the internet text field, hence the ugly font.
I'm starting to get frustrated that I'm not writing as much as I once was so I'm going to eliminate the self-imposed restriction of "just RPG" content here so that I write more stuff that just comes to mind. My Vox blog was originally for this purpose but Vox is sliding into the same pit that Geocities was lost into and I have no desire to ride it down.
So hopefully this marks a new surge in content here.
Now something really cool from G, who is a fucking fantastic dude and also a Martian, and if you don't have his blog on your RSS reader right now then fix that shit.
I'm starting to get frustrated that I'm not writing as much as I once was so I'm going to eliminate the self-imposed restriction of "just RPG" content here so that I write more stuff that just comes to mind. My Vox blog was originally for this purpose but Vox is sliding into the same pit that Geocities was lost into and I have no desire to ride it down.
So hopefully this marks a new surge in content here.
Now something really cool from G, who is a fucking fantastic dude and also a Martian, and if you don't have his blog on your RSS reader right now then fix that shit.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Helmsman's RPG Preferences
In response to a neat little rundown by Stuart at Robinson Games about preferences in playstyle. His focus was on the various versions of D&D but I believe they're relevant in most any RPG, so like many others I've decided to post my preferences.
Comprehensive Rules(1) vs. Minimal Rules(10)
5.
I want solid fundamentals that make sense. That means comprehensive, but a good game system maintains simplicity through good fundaments. An example of this would be having a good system for weapons rules with a bit of mechanical leeway included. A system like this a player can pick up a fence-post and swing it around and the GM simply rules that it's roughly the same stats as a quarterstaff only with less accuracy and slightly more damage. The rules didn't have to include "fence post" in the weapons listing which would have just been pointless bloat but allowed for that scenario simply by way of solid fundamentals.
High Power Fantasy vs. Low Power Fantasy
Depends on the game.
There are some games that I've absolutely loved the idea of finding a dungeon and literally approaching it like some medieval archeologist/grave-robber hybrid.
"Shiny runes on the walls you say? Well let's get out the ol' chisel and remove this section of the wall. I know lots of rich folks who'll pay big money for this kind-of wall treatment." This requires an exceptionally low-power design but can still be fun if the game allows for tricky solutions like creating cave-ins on monster's heads and that sort-of thing.
The other side of the road is Exalted, which is one of my favorite games, and you don't get any more high-powered than Exalted. However, there's a caveat to that. Exalted incorporates setting assumptions and responses to that power level which most fantasy games don't. The setting doesn't disassociate that power-level, so the lowly NPC's that are obviously less powerful than the PC's are OBVIOUSLY less powerful. This means social structures assume this rather than some elderly inkeep treating level 25 adventurers like he would treat any other armed mercenary that walked in. No. If you're a guy that can beat-up gods literally then you are treated as such, and that makes for interesting gameplay and moral relativism. I like that too.
Narrative Mechanics(1) vs. Simulation Mechanics(10)
7.
I almost always prefer simulation mechanics because simulation mechanics arbitrate conflicts more effectively. However Narrative mechanics have a place as well, mechanics like character backgrounds which grant the character a monetary source even though he might not role-play gathering that money every game. Or saying the character has a friend who can help, even though there might not have been any prior in-game interaction with that friend. These are narrative mechanics that have meaning and value in any game.
Strategic Chargen(1) vs. Simple Chargen(10)
2.
I'm generally a fan of more options and toys to play with to tweak and fiddle with a concept.
Tactical Encounter(1) vs. Strategic Adventure(10)
7.
This is just personal preference on the way I run things rather than a statement on the validity of either approach which I consider both quite valid. I run games with story and dramatic feeling first and the actual cut-and-thrust of combat second and I find too much reliance on tactics in combat bogs down the game. Plus I don't prescribe to some arbitrary notion that all the critters in the world are automatically an appropriate challenge for the PC's. Some of the best games I've ever run and played in are games where the PC's took on a vastly more powerful adversary and won the day through cunning, be that by enlisting allies, cleverly evading or luring the adversary elsewhere to achieve the objective. My players have indicated that they enjoy this as well.
Combat Balance(1) vs. Adventure Balance(10)
Neither.
I advocate simulationist sandboxes which I use story and various lures to manipulate my PC's into doing fun stuff, but for the most part I let them choose what to wade into. If a PC get's fixated in the princess at the top of a tower around which a known psychotic baron utilizes an infamous and deadly army, I'm not going to suddenly decrease the army's capabilities to match the PC group's. The player knows what he's going up against and should plan accordingly or do something else. The same goes for fighting a powerful dragon, I don't just inexplicably put a dragon somewhere to stumble across, I leave clues in the narrative that THERE'S A DRAGON here. If the land for 30 miles around the dragon's lair is charred and uninhabited then the Players know what they're getting into, if they choose to continue fine, but I'm not balancing the encounter to counter their expectations.
On the flip side, I believe it is the responsibility of the GM to be trustworthy. Throwing a vastly overpowered ambush at a party with no chance of escape better have narrative justification that promises greater reward in the future as the PC's are captured and taken before some evil dickhead. Otherwise the GM is simply being an asshole and deserves to have his game abandoned.
Balanced Encounter vs. Balanced Adventure
Neither. See above-two reasons.
Wargame Combat(1) vs. Abstract Combat(10)
2.
Combat is fun and abstractions often create inconsistencies which to me are unfun. I want my players to feel they have the opportunity to attempt most anything and the system should be able to tell them if they pull it off rather than some arbitrary ruling of the GM who might not know anything about guns or swords, or armor or anything to do with the game setting. Abstractions of course have to exist to a certain degree in all RPG's, but having to justify why or why-not something works because of my personal beliefs to my players is something I generally try to avoid.
GM as player(1) vs. GM as referee(10)
2.
I prefer the GM to be the guy telling the story and the system it's self to be the referee. Doing things in this way I believe empowers the players to use the system to find their own solutions to the obstacles the GM places in their way using the system.
Fantastic Characters vs. Common Characters
Again depends on the game. I like fun. Sometimes a common game with a compelling story is fun, and sometimes riding on the bow of an airship while juggling vorpal swords is also fun.
Established Setting(1) vs. DIY Setting(10)
1.
I do write my own settings... but I don't really prefer to run them which is messed up.
Resource Optimization(1) vs. Creative Problem Solving(10)
9.
I really don't find resource tracking fun at all, but find creative problem solving to be hugely rewarding as both a player and a GM. However you do need resources to solve things creatively, and those resources have to be effective, but I like enough versatility that the resources I have access too can fit a concept long before I examine it's overall effectiveness within the game.
So those are my current preferences which for the most part are subject to change at my whim. Maybe someday they will be something official and be taught in RPG schools as would be befitting of my future greatness. As it is now, I hope they're legible and not too terribly boring a read.
Comprehensive Rules(1) vs. Minimal Rules(10)
5.
I want solid fundamentals that make sense. That means comprehensive, but a good game system maintains simplicity through good fundaments. An example of this would be having a good system for weapons rules with a bit of mechanical leeway included. A system like this a player can pick up a fence-post and swing it around and the GM simply rules that it's roughly the same stats as a quarterstaff only with less accuracy and slightly more damage. The rules didn't have to include "fence post" in the weapons listing which would have just been pointless bloat but allowed for that scenario simply by way of solid fundamentals.
High Power Fantasy vs. Low Power Fantasy
Depends on the game.
There are some games that I've absolutely loved the idea of finding a dungeon and literally approaching it like some medieval archeologist/grave-robber hybrid.
"Shiny runes on the walls you say? Well let's get out the ol' chisel and remove this section of the wall. I know lots of rich folks who'll pay big money for this kind-of wall treatment." This requires an exceptionally low-power design but can still be fun if the game allows for tricky solutions like creating cave-ins on monster's heads and that sort-of thing.
The other side of the road is Exalted, which is one of my favorite games, and you don't get any more high-powered than Exalted. However, there's a caveat to that. Exalted incorporates setting assumptions and responses to that power level which most fantasy games don't. The setting doesn't disassociate that power-level, so the lowly NPC's that are obviously less powerful than the PC's are OBVIOUSLY less powerful. This means social structures assume this rather than some elderly inkeep treating level 25 adventurers like he would treat any other armed mercenary that walked in. No. If you're a guy that can beat-up gods literally then you are treated as such, and that makes for interesting gameplay and moral relativism. I like that too.
Narrative Mechanics(1) vs. Simulation Mechanics(10)
7.
I almost always prefer simulation mechanics because simulation mechanics arbitrate conflicts more effectively. However Narrative mechanics have a place as well, mechanics like character backgrounds which grant the character a monetary source even though he might not role-play gathering that money every game. Or saying the character has a friend who can help, even though there might not have been any prior in-game interaction with that friend. These are narrative mechanics that have meaning and value in any game.
Strategic Chargen(1) vs. Simple Chargen(10)
2.
I'm generally a fan of more options and toys to play with to tweak and fiddle with a concept.
Tactical Encounter(1) vs. Strategic Adventure(10)
7.
This is just personal preference on the way I run things rather than a statement on the validity of either approach which I consider both quite valid. I run games with story and dramatic feeling first and the actual cut-and-thrust of combat second and I find too much reliance on tactics in combat bogs down the game. Plus I don't prescribe to some arbitrary notion that all the critters in the world are automatically an appropriate challenge for the PC's. Some of the best games I've ever run and played in are games where the PC's took on a vastly more powerful adversary and won the day through cunning, be that by enlisting allies, cleverly evading or luring the adversary elsewhere to achieve the objective. My players have indicated that they enjoy this as well.
Combat Balance(1) vs. Adventure Balance(10)
Neither.
I advocate simulationist sandboxes which I use story and various lures to manipulate my PC's into doing fun stuff, but for the most part I let them choose what to wade into. If a PC get's fixated in the princess at the top of a tower around which a known psychotic baron utilizes an infamous and deadly army, I'm not going to suddenly decrease the army's capabilities to match the PC group's. The player knows what he's going up against and should plan accordingly or do something else. The same goes for fighting a powerful dragon, I don't just inexplicably put a dragon somewhere to stumble across, I leave clues in the narrative that THERE'S A DRAGON here. If the land for 30 miles around the dragon's lair is charred and uninhabited then the Players know what they're getting into, if they choose to continue fine, but I'm not balancing the encounter to counter their expectations.
On the flip side, I believe it is the responsibility of the GM to be trustworthy. Throwing a vastly overpowered ambush at a party with no chance of escape better have narrative justification that promises greater reward in the future as the PC's are captured and taken before some evil dickhead. Otherwise the GM is simply being an asshole and deserves to have his game abandoned.
Balanced Encounter vs. Balanced Adventure
Neither. See above-two reasons.
Wargame Combat(1) vs. Abstract Combat(10)
2.
Combat is fun and abstractions often create inconsistencies which to me are unfun. I want my players to feel they have the opportunity to attempt most anything and the system should be able to tell them if they pull it off rather than some arbitrary ruling of the GM who might not know anything about guns or swords, or armor or anything to do with the game setting. Abstractions of course have to exist to a certain degree in all RPG's, but having to justify why or why-not something works because of my personal beliefs to my players is something I generally try to avoid.
GM as player(1) vs. GM as referee(10)
2.
I prefer the GM to be the guy telling the story and the system it's self to be the referee. Doing things in this way I believe empowers the players to use the system to find their own solutions to the obstacles the GM places in their way using the system.
Fantastic Characters vs. Common Characters
Again depends on the game. I like fun. Sometimes a common game with a compelling story is fun, and sometimes riding on the bow of an airship while juggling vorpal swords is also fun.
Established Setting(1) vs. DIY Setting(10)
1.
I do write my own settings... but I don't really prefer to run them which is messed up.
Resource Optimization(1) vs. Creative Problem Solving(10)
9.
I really don't find resource tracking fun at all, but find creative problem solving to be hugely rewarding as both a player and a GM. However you do need resources to solve things creatively, and those resources have to be effective, but I like enough versatility that the resources I have access too can fit a concept long before I examine it's overall effectiveness within the game.
So those are my current preferences which for the most part are subject to change at my whim. Maybe someday they will be something official and be taught in RPG schools as would be befitting of my future greatness. As it is now, I hope they're legible and not too terribly boring a read.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
On Projects and Hobbies
From Project Waldo
"Jiyoung told me that one of the things she's noticed in talking to Americans is that we all have "personal projects." I hadn't realized this tendency defined us until she pointed it out. Everybody is writing a screenplay, working on an album, putting together a portfolio. I don't know what this says about us.In Korea, people don't have personal projects, they have hobbies. I was really confused about this at first. Right after they ask you how old you are, they ask, "what's your hobby?" What does it mean, that they have hobbies and we have projects? I feel like there must be some revelation there. I should mention that when Koreans pursue a hobby, they go all-in. If they say "Salsa dancing," assume they are better than anyone you know. If they say "yoga," they mean they can touch their nose to their tailbone. And if they say "Starcraft," well..."
I really think this is really interesting on a cultural level. In Canada and America we're taught that to be successful we have to be "doing what we love" for money to a degree. I don't know if that's healthy.
As a guy who has "a project" in gaming, I'm very much part of the American side of things in the project/hobby spectrum. Personally I don't care if I don't make any money with this project, but there are other people that have a stake in this project that I can't disregard, which is why i can't just release it to the world without some due diligence... it's too bad, because I'd really rather be treating it like a hobby.
Friday, August 7, 2009
On Tone
A friend of mine mentioned the game Heavy Gear a while back. He wasn't too complementary about it actually. His words were somewhat to the effect of: Gorgeous Book - Terrible System.
He went on to wonder out-loud how a game could create such an "embarrassment" of a set of mechanics and still do well? Which is a pointless question really because we all know that production values sell a game first and foremost. Compelling system and setting just keeps people coming back. So I ended up picking up a used copy of the 2nd Edition mostly because I wanted to see what he considered to be a really good layout. Since I've been reading I've found the book is nice looking and the layout is sharp, and though I haven't playtested the system I don't think it's as bad as my friend describes it, but those things aren't what I want to talk about.
I want to talk about the tone of Heavy Gear because I find it to be a good lesson to RPG writers out there.
Heavy Gear keeps their text reasonably tight and minimal which I think is nice, however the game constantly makes references to how GM's should be "dealing" with problem players that play wrong. Which is about as insulting as it is pointless. The whole book is written like it's talking to the GM saying: "We know, your players are idiots. But don't fret, we'll fix them for you."
The "Hooks and Tips" sections of each chapter are just plain insulting and always start with the assumption that up til reading this book everything has been done all wrong and then offer patronizing advice on how to get it right. I believe this is probably the textbook example of what RPG Pundit describes as Swine.
As RPG designers we have to have some conceit. I know that I wouldn't keep working on Hardkore if I didn't honestly believe that it's the bees knees and that the world will be better off having it. But I won't portray a 'better than thou' attitude in my writing because I'm not making a bible with which I'm preaching from on-high. I'm writing a game book for people that want to play a fun game just like I do. That means even though I'm some hotshot game designer that got my book published I can't carry through in my writing because the people that will make or break my game are ultimately the fans.
I'm not sure if I ever noticed this undertone of conceit in any previous games, but if any of you know any others please give a shout out.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Nevermet Press Banner! Put Your Mouse-Cursor Over it and Make-It Go *click*
I have been writing for Nevermet Press for over a month and have been a lazy douche about not plugging some of the pro-stellar work that gets done over there. Well no longer I say! I command my ENTIRE readership (yes both of you) to click on the banner in the sidebar and go there right away.
There. I expect that Karmic reward to come any second now.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The Easiest and Toughest on Making Contemporary Work
There are many game designers out there who have said that the modern world makes the best setting because there are no shortage of splatbooks for it. This is true, but it's both a blessing and a curse. When a player is more savvy than a GM on certain things (inevitable in usually one or two things) the GM can feel like his game isn't authentic when the player challenges him with questions like: "Why are these cops following [X] procedure?" or "I just go to [website X], they have all that information as a matter of public record."
If you're a GM that doesn't know the details of how a particular aspect of the modern world operates (say you've never been to prison, so the procedures of prison guards aren't familiar to you), you have a few options available to you.
1. The first one should always be EDUCATE YOURSELF. There are a lot of TV shows with pertinent subject matter out there, especially on the internet. Discovery channel is every gamer's friend, shows like THE SHIELD can show you plausible loopholes in the police system and Burn Notice is a veritable instruction manual on doing sneaky things.
2. The second one is going abstract when you don't know the specifics. You may not know exactly how a police officer interrogates a PC, but you can always gloss over some of it and get right to the pertinent part of the interrogation to see what the cop learns.
I know the hardest thing for me in running a contemporary RPG is how to keep the world sane. Players want to do crazy stuff, but society functions by not tolerating the disruptions created by doing crazy stuff. Whenever you make a scene there needs to be repercussions, but sometimes you as the GM need to let that scene be made to make the game fun, finding that balance has been a trial for me as both a player and a GM, and I'd be interested in knowing how any of your game groups manage it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)