Friday, April 23, 2010
Example Of My Style
I'll soon be heading out of the city for the weekend, so I decided to be a little lazy this week. The contents of this link is a recording of a session I ran in d20 Modern. The campaign was a homebrew steampunk setting called the 4th City with a fairly episodic feel, though with a continuous cast. Kind of like Star Trek's structure (aside from DS9). The party in this session consists of Ann Baker (a martial artist and detective who grew up as a sewer pirate, but is in fact the bastard child of a governor), Johnny Hobbes (a rather dim witted but good hearted body guard who grew up in the slums of the 4th City), and Nathaniel Warmbrunn (the only professor of anthropology in the 4th City and a bit of a scatter brain). If there are any other questions about what's in the recording, let me know and I'll answer them.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Rewarding Experience Points
Like many people who are table top gamers I started my experience with D&D. Having been the only thing I had played for a long time I essentially saw no faults with it. If you wanted to play an RPG you played D&D, whatever edition was the newest. My only other exposure to RPGs had been JRPGs such as Final Fantasy on the SNES, which of course were also largely influenced by D&D, and the SNES Shadowrun game (but I had no idea there was anything beyond that for years).
My only complaint in the early days was that D&D was a fantasy game. While I enjoy fantasy I'm a much bigger fan of soft sci-fi, super hero stories, and genre mash ups. So I started making my own rules based on D&D3e (not d20, D&D) to better fit whatever genre I was currently in love with. I didn't realize it then but this was part of a subconscious dislike of D&D's origin as a war game.
Since D&D started as a table top fantasy war game with narrative elements thrown in, to explain why the battles happened, it is unsurprising that there is such a large emphasis on combat. However, that emphasis ends up weakening the games narrative side. I'm sure some people will read this and start thinking that either I'm saying it's "rollplayer vs roleplayer" or that I don't have good players or some other thing because this is the internet and there's always someone unhappy. In short, I don't care how other groups have fun, so I'll talk about how my group has fun.
Anyway, the emphasis on combat affects the game's reward system. There are 3 types of reinforcement: positive (telling someone they are doing well), neutral (not saying anything), and negative (punishing them for their actions). In rules as written D&D3e when you role play you get neutral reinforcement; no gold, no xp, no magic items. When you fight you get positive reinforcement. If you suck at combat you get negative reinforcement; getting killed, getting less XP than others, feeling helpless.
With these negative reinforcement of sucking at combat it makes the changes in D&D4e understandable, though there is another way. The first game I played other than d20 was the Serenity RPG. One of my favourite things about that game was the plot point system which worked as such: at character creation you pick Assets and Complications for your character. The former gives you bonuses, the latter penalties. All have a mechanical effect but more important is how they define the character. During play you get plot point by playing to your characters flaws, completing party or personal goals, and doing neat stuff if your GM is generous. Plot points can be spent in game for bonuses on roles and to activate abilities. They are also used to buy new Skills and Assets, or get rid of Complications.
Since game sessions can be all kinds of mixed up, one of the best ways of figuring out how to award plot points is to talk to the players at the end of the session. I ask them why they think they deserve plot points, specifically WHY they had their characters act the way they did. Then I'd give them plot points based on how well they related their characters to their characters' Complications. I liked this so much I ported it over to d20.
This was very important because my group doesn't particularly like combat. To them it CAN be exciting, but it is a means to an end, not the end in itself. So there's only 1 or 2 short combats per session. I also want to help balance out the negative reinforcement of not being good in combat by changing role playing to having positive reinforcement. I take a lesson from my experiences with Serenity and reward XP for RPing. I do this by talking at the end of the session after awarding XP for combat and skill challenges. I ask each player in turn why they deserve RPing XP. For each reason they give me that shows they were acting in character as opposed to out of character I record them as having 1 "plot point". If a player kicked in the door because he heard his friends' screams on the other side they'd get a plot point, but if they did it because the player knew, but the character didn't, there would be no reward. After everyone has explained their reasoning for their actions I give every player an amount of XP depending on how many "plot points" they got. Typically I reward between 15 and 30 (depending on the character level) XP per plot point. Admittedly the reward is a bit arbitrary and takes some practice to find the right amount of XP to hand out, but it certainly works in encouraging players to RP more.
My only complaint in the early days was that D&D was a fantasy game. While I enjoy fantasy I'm a much bigger fan of soft sci-fi, super hero stories, and genre mash ups. So I started making my own rules based on D&D3e (not d20, D&D) to better fit whatever genre I was currently in love with. I didn't realize it then but this was part of a subconscious dislike of D&D's origin as a war game.
Since D&D started as a table top fantasy war game with narrative elements thrown in, to explain why the battles happened, it is unsurprising that there is such a large emphasis on combat. However, that emphasis ends up weakening the games narrative side. I'm sure some people will read this and start thinking that either I'm saying it's "rollplayer vs roleplayer" or that I don't have good players or some other thing because this is the internet and there's always someone unhappy. In short, I don't care how other groups have fun, so I'll talk about how my group has fun.
Anyway, the emphasis on combat affects the game's reward system. There are 3 types of reinforcement: positive (telling someone they are doing well), neutral (not saying anything), and negative (punishing them for their actions). In rules as written D&D3e when you role play you get neutral reinforcement; no gold, no xp, no magic items. When you fight you get positive reinforcement. If you suck at combat you get negative reinforcement; getting killed, getting less XP than others, feeling helpless.
With these negative reinforcement of sucking at combat it makes the changes in D&D4e understandable, though there is another way. The first game I played other than d20 was the Serenity RPG. One of my favourite things about that game was the plot point system which worked as such: at character creation you pick Assets and Complications for your character. The former gives you bonuses, the latter penalties. All have a mechanical effect but more important is how they define the character. During play you get plot point by playing to your characters flaws, completing party or personal goals, and doing neat stuff if your GM is generous. Plot points can be spent in game for bonuses on roles and to activate abilities. They are also used to buy new Skills and Assets, or get rid of Complications.
Since game sessions can be all kinds of mixed up, one of the best ways of figuring out how to award plot points is to talk to the players at the end of the session. I ask them why they think they deserve plot points, specifically WHY they had their characters act the way they did. Then I'd give them plot points based on how well they related their characters to their characters' Complications. I liked this so much I ported it over to d20.
This was very important because my group doesn't particularly like combat. To them it CAN be exciting, but it is a means to an end, not the end in itself. So there's only 1 or 2 short combats per session. I also want to help balance out the negative reinforcement of not being good in combat by changing role playing to having positive reinforcement. I take a lesson from my experiences with Serenity and reward XP for RPing. I do this by talking at the end of the session after awarding XP for combat and skill challenges. I ask each player in turn why they deserve RPing XP. For each reason they give me that shows they were acting in character as opposed to out of character I record them as having 1 "plot point". If a player kicked in the door because he heard his friends' screams on the other side they'd get a plot point, but if they did it because the player knew, but the character didn't, there would be no reward. After everyone has explained their reasoning for their actions I give every player an amount of XP depending on how many "plot points" they got. Typically I reward between 15 and 30 (depending on the character level) XP per plot point. Admittedly the reward is a bit arbitrary and takes some practice to find the right amount of XP to hand out, but it certainly works in encouraging players to RP more.
Friday, April 9, 2010
After the Session
The dragon's been slain, the princess returned to the kingdom, and the reward divided amongst the players. So now everyone goes home.
Not so fast.
Something that I do as a GM, that I think a lot of other GMs leave out, is asking for feedback. I'm not sure what it is about RPGs and their players that make communication so difficult. Perhaps it's that the stereotypical RPer is social inept and has difficulty expressing themselves in a proactive fashion. Perhaps the players don't want to upset the GM who put a lot of work into the session. Perhaps the players feel like their concerns will fall on deaf ears. Whatever the case may be, everyone is losing out when this step isn't taken.
I feel that there are 4 essential parts to this oft forgotten stage of a session. The first two are questions from the GM, and the second two are comments. Both sections are important.
First the GM should ask the players what they didn't like about the session and why. This can be anything; whether the players felt railroaded, a really boring fight, too much politics, etc. These are things that the GM should really try to remember to make the game more fun for everyone. Not to mention that a GM's job can often be thankless and hearing what went well can be a real ego boost (just don't let it go to your head).
Secondly, the GM should find out what the players DID like about the game. Were they impressed by the size of a battle, the magnificent bastard who tricked them, or the fact that they felt they really affected the story. Again, this is to make the game more fun for everyone.
However, a common pitfall with this part is just copying a situation in its entirety. For example, if the players really enjoyed a combat where they fought goblins while a hole in the floor slowly filled with water as part of a ritual to sacrifice the poor elven children in the hole who are screaming for help during the battle, the GM shouldn't just say "well, I'll just swap the kids for some farmers, and the goblins for some lizardmen next time."
No, the thing to do is to break it down. Was it the danger of falling into the hole, the timed nature of the battle, the swarm tactics of the goblins, the need to save the children, the moral dilemma of saving the children first or killing the goblins first, or a combination of any of the above. Chances are that the players liked specific aspects of the scene, as opposed to the scene as a whole. These ingredients that make up the scene are what the GM should try to simulate by taking the effect that the ingredient had and using it in another scene. If they liked the swarm tactics was it actually facing lots of easy to kill foes, or was it that the battle was more challenging because there were reduced movement options?
The third stage is when the GM gets to return the favour. The GM should start by telling each player something that s/he liked that the player did. Doesn't matter what it was, but preferably the comment should be something that relates to the player getting involved. For example "It was awesome when your berserker saved the little girl even though he could've attacked the goblin shaman." is better than "Nice job grabbing the objective and avoiding the decoy." Make the players feel a kinship with their characters. They should be proud for their characters achievements in addition to their own.
Lastly, the GM gets a little cathartic release by telling the players what they could improve. Don't just say what you didn't like, give them specific examples from the session, and what you think they could do to improve. For example "I think that it would have made more sense if your elf hating ranger had fought the goblin shaman instead of trying to save the children, even though you as a player knew that was the 'goal' of the scene." is better than "Stop metagaming, and roleplay already!"
This is done because everyone can use critiquing sometimes and most groups have a "problem" player who disrupts the fun of the game, whatever that fun may be. For one reason or another you may not want to get rid of the player or can't so you need to talk to them. What if they don't take criticism well? That's why you a) start with something you liked about what they did, b) give some criticism to everyone else as well, and c) accept criticism yourself.
With these four together, the game should improve for everyone involved, even "that guy."
Not so fast.
Something that I do as a GM, that I think a lot of other GMs leave out, is asking for feedback. I'm not sure what it is about RPGs and their players that make communication so difficult. Perhaps it's that the stereotypical RPer is social inept and has difficulty expressing themselves in a proactive fashion. Perhaps the players don't want to upset the GM who put a lot of work into the session. Perhaps the players feel like their concerns will fall on deaf ears. Whatever the case may be, everyone is losing out when this step isn't taken.
I feel that there are 4 essential parts to this oft forgotten stage of a session. The first two are questions from the GM, and the second two are comments. Both sections are important.
First the GM should ask the players what they didn't like about the session and why. This can be anything; whether the players felt railroaded, a really boring fight, too much politics, etc. These are things that the GM should really try to remember to make the game more fun for everyone. Not to mention that a GM's job can often be thankless and hearing what went well can be a real ego boost (just don't let it go to your head).
Secondly, the GM should find out what the players DID like about the game. Were they impressed by the size of a battle, the magnificent bastard who tricked them, or the fact that they felt they really affected the story. Again, this is to make the game more fun for everyone.
However, a common pitfall with this part is just copying a situation in its entirety. For example, if the players really enjoyed a combat where they fought goblins while a hole in the floor slowly filled with water as part of a ritual to sacrifice the poor elven children in the hole who are screaming for help during the battle, the GM shouldn't just say "well, I'll just swap the kids for some farmers, and the goblins for some lizardmen next time."
No, the thing to do is to break it down. Was it the danger of falling into the hole, the timed nature of the battle, the swarm tactics of the goblins, the need to save the children, the moral dilemma of saving the children first or killing the goblins first, or a combination of any of the above. Chances are that the players liked specific aspects of the scene, as opposed to the scene as a whole. These ingredients that make up the scene are what the GM should try to simulate by taking the effect that the ingredient had and using it in another scene. If they liked the swarm tactics was it actually facing lots of easy to kill foes, or was it that the battle was more challenging because there were reduced movement options?
The third stage is when the GM gets to return the favour. The GM should start by telling each player something that s/he liked that the player did. Doesn't matter what it was, but preferably the comment should be something that relates to the player getting involved. For example "It was awesome when your berserker saved the little girl even though he could've attacked the goblin shaman." is better than "Nice job grabbing the objective and avoiding the decoy." Make the players feel a kinship with their characters. They should be proud for their characters achievements in addition to their own.
Lastly, the GM gets a little cathartic release by telling the players what they could improve. Don't just say what you didn't like, give them specific examples from the session, and what you think they could do to improve. For example "I think that it would have made more sense if your elf hating ranger had fought the goblin shaman instead of trying to save the children, even though you as a player knew that was the 'goal' of the scene." is better than "Stop metagaming, and roleplay already!"
This is done because everyone can use critiquing sometimes and most groups have a "problem" player who disrupts the fun of the game, whatever that fun may be. For one reason or another you may not want to get rid of the player or can't so you need to talk to them. What if they don't take criticism well? That's why you a) start with something you liked about what they did, b) give some criticism to everyone else as well, and c) accept criticism yourself.
With these four together, the game should improve for everyone involved, even "that guy."
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Random Everything Tables and Narration
The Age of Heroes is still on the back burner for now due to school, so I'll be talking about something else today.
For a very long time I never understood the use of random encounters. Or more specifically all the little tables for everything that existed in D&D books.
Why should I roll on the "Random Dungeon Room Contents" chart when I can instead simply decide for myself?
If I roll a chest, why then roll on the "Random Dungeon Chest Contents" chart when I can instead use it for inspiration?
If I roll a magic item in the chest, why then roll on the "Random Magic Item" chart instead of purposefully picking something that could be helpful, but not game breaking?
And so on and so forth.
However, what I'm coming to realize is that my group and our play style is not the standard in the world of tabletop RPGs. We prefer games with a very strong narrative. For the story to be engaging we had to care about the characters. This meant that the characters had to have at least a little back story and that they had to survive long enough for the players to get into the skins of the characters.
On the other side of the game, the GM had to have an idea about where the players were going. This required knowing who, what, where, when, why, and how the PCs were going to be involved with encounters whether they be combat, social, or whatever. There would be a planned narrative arc with the assumption that while there would be deviations (because that's what PCs do best) the GM would be able to guide the players back to the story.
A quick aside, while some might consider this railroading, the choice of the word guide was purposeful. No one in my group ever resented being brought back "on track" so long as it wasn't ham-handedly done.
With my most recent game, I decided to try something out of the norm for myself. I was going to run a game that wasn't episodic. Prior to this my sessions have been largely self contained with a defined beginning middle and end, or the quest (as we called them) would be a couple sessions long. Between quests wasn't really enacted, players were asked what their characters had been up to in the days/weeks/months between quests and then stuff might have been rolled for, but usually it was largely characterful stuff that had little impact on the game directly.
I decided to break that tradition and run a campaign where every session started where the last one ended. So far there have been 4 sessions run in this style. The first two were planned to about my usual extent (about a page of notes, not including stats), but the form the game began to take in that second session was unlike anything I had seen myself.
One of my best players, Anthony, began to create his own goals beyond those that I presented as GM. While this isn't out of character for him, the other players following his lead and becoming proactive was a surprise. Quickly their situation became an incredibly complex one with various forms of intraparty conflict. The third and fourth sessions I didn't really write notes. I created some stats for things that they would likely encounter in the session, and I had 4-5 events that could happen with a sentence of description each. The players drove those sessions themselves. All I had to do was improvise everything that they might encounter.
And that's when I realized the use of all those tables. The players are currently on a 200m long starship crewed by the remains of the ship's reptilian crew following a fierce boarding action by human mercenaries. However, there are still a handful of humans on board (who are only semi-prisoners [long story]), and insectoid refugee/prisoners from a pirate ship that attacked are also on board.
While the players have not used a fine toothed comb on the ship (yet) they have gone into some rooms and talked with some NPCs that I had no details for. Anthony is trying to gain the trust of the humans and has been asking them about their histories to try and get to know them. I don't have a name for every NPC on board, and I certainly don't have a personality or history for all of them. If I have these random tables then I can figure out something on the spot if I can't improvise anything reasonable. I know I'll need these tables even more once they are no longer confined to the ship and can chase after whatever wild idea they come up with.
For a very long time I never understood the use of random encounters. Or more specifically all the little tables for everything that existed in D&D books.
Why should I roll on the "Random Dungeon Room Contents" chart when I can instead simply decide for myself?
If I roll a chest, why then roll on the "Random Dungeon Chest Contents" chart when I can instead use it for inspiration?
If I roll a magic item in the chest, why then roll on the "Random Magic Item" chart instead of purposefully picking something that could be helpful, but not game breaking?
And so on and so forth.
However, what I'm coming to realize is that my group and our play style is not the standard in the world of tabletop RPGs. We prefer games with a very strong narrative. For the story to be engaging we had to care about the characters. This meant that the characters had to have at least a little back story and that they had to survive long enough for the players to get into the skins of the characters.
On the other side of the game, the GM had to have an idea about where the players were going. This required knowing who, what, where, when, why, and how the PCs were going to be involved with encounters whether they be combat, social, or whatever. There would be a planned narrative arc with the assumption that while there would be deviations (because that's what PCs do best) the GM would be able to guide the players back to the story.
A quick aside, while some might consider this railroading, the choice of the word guide was purposeful. No one in my group ever resented being brought back "on track" so long as it wasn't ham-handedly done.
With my most recent game, I decided to try something out of the norm for myself. I was going to run a game that wasn't episodic. Prior to this my sessions have been largely self contained with a defined beginning middle and end, or the quest (as we called them) would be a couple sessions long. Between quests wasn't really enacted, players were asked what their characters had been up to in the days/weeks/months between quests and then stuff might have been rolled for, but usually it was largely characterful stuff that had little impact on the game directly.
I decided to break that tradition and run a campaign where every session started where the last one ended. So far there have been 4 sessions run in this style. The first two were planned to about my usual extent (about a page of notes, not including stats), but the form the game began to take in that second session was unlike anything I had seen myself.
One of my best players, Anthony, began to create his own goals beyond those that I presented as GM. While this isn't out of character for him, the other players following his lead and becoming proactive was a surprise. Quickly their situation became an incredibly complex one with various forms of intraparty conflict. The third and fourth sessions I didn't really write notes. I created some stats for things that they would likely encounter in the session, and I had 4-5 events that could happen with a sentence of description each. The players drove those sessions themselves. All I had to do was improvise everything that they might encounter.
And that's when I realized the use of all those tables. The players are currently on a 200m long starship crewed by the remains of the ship's reptilian crew following a fierce boarding action by human mercenaries. However, there are still a handful of humans on board (who are only semi-prisoners [long story]), and insectoid refugee/prisoners from a pirate ship that attacked are also on board.
While the players have not used a fine toothed comb on the ship (yet) they have gone into some rooms and talked with some NPCs that I had no details for. Anthony is trying to gain the trust of the humans and has been asking them about their histories to try and get to know them. I don't have a name for every NPC on board, and I certainly don't have a personality or history for all of them. If I have these random tables then I can figure out something on the spot if I can't improvise anything reasonable. I know I'll need these tables even more once they are no longer confined to the ship and can chase after whatever wild idea they come up with.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
