Lx is…

….an awesome dudexor forevar!!!11!!eleven!

And I’m gonna make Dev run me some Fastlane one of these Wednesdays.

Countdown Cast

After some bumps, my Countdown playtest is getting off the ground. Check out this awesome cast portrait, by Brendan Adkins, (one of the players). Unfortunately, Steven, the player of Patrick, can’t finish out the game. Sadness!

AP Logs to come.

RPG Design Handbook: Chapter 1 (part 3)

So Far:

• Table Of Contents
• Chapter 1, part 1
• Chapter 2, part 2

A Brief History Of Design Trends

[BIG NOTE: I'm going to need some help here. I'm too young to have experienced the early stuff, and I haven't played enough non-Indie stuff to know how accurate I'm being. This is very much a skeleton - comments to fill it out are totally permissible and appreciated. Or if someone wants to tackle a more complete reckoning on their own, just let me know! I'm using John Kim's RPG Encyclopedia for my date referances.]

Knowledge is power. Like every other creative endeavor, RPG design both builds upon and reacts against what has come before. Your personal gaming history and experiences inform your design, and not just in how they’ve shaped your preferances. I cannot imagine any circumstance under which having a broader experience of published games can be detrimental to one’s design efforts.

I am not saying that you must have logged many hours with every system out there. Nor am I saying that you should try to read every single game text ever published. But you should be aware of how much of the gaming world you know about, and know where to go for more exposure to a given genre, style or method of play.

Many first-time designers are nervous about “stealing” or “plaigarizing” from published games. To this, I can only say that your fear is unfounded. Obviously, lifting an entire system from a well-known published game is probably not the best idea, for a number of reasons. But I’m willing to bet that if you’re reading this book, that wasn’t your plan in the first place.

Non-Lawyer Approved Legal aside: Remember, only the expressions of an idea can be copyrighted, not the ideas themselves. This means that you can take clever mechanics or impressive skill lists that you admire from a published game and mold them to fit yours. They are ideas, and as long as you are not copying the original text (the expression of those ideas), you are legally fine. However, if you everhave a legal question, talk to a lawyer!

Anyway. As long as the peices of your game make sense in the context of the whole and work towards acheiving your goals, there is no problem with being inspired by or trying to imitate the work of a designer that you admire. It is good form to include the games that you looked to the most in your bibliography; many designers include two lists, one of genre or flavor inspiration, and one of mechanical or system inspiration. But your implementation of those ideas will be your own, and thus unique.

So. Now that your fears have been assuaged, here is a very breif rundown of the general design trends since the inception of the role-playing hobby, with some commentary and example games. This is not a definitive list by any means, and many details are probably arguable. But it should at least give you an idea of where to look for certain things.

Wargaming Roots (pre 1975 - 1980)

My understanding is that the games of this time are coming straight out of Chainmail and original D&D. The Dungeon Crawl is the basic adventure arc; the adventuring party is the basic unit of character organization. I think that maps and miniatures were de facto, but I don’t actually know. Design was heavy on dice randomization and in-character effectiveness manifested through skill at arms and fighting.

“Traditional” RPGs Take Shape (1980-1990)
All of the roots and hallmarks of what we now call “traditional” RPGs take shape, though many bits and pieces that are later re-imagined by indie games are present. Most of the big names are released (and re-released in various Editions) during this time, including the founders of almost every big genre of roleplaying, most of which went through many editions during this time. Dungeons and Dragons goes through various incarnations; Rolemaster is released, Tunnels & Trolls gets its 4th edition (among a number of games in the Alliteration & Alliteration model (Villians & Vigiliantes, Pirates & Plunder, etc); Call of Cthulhu is released, Champions is released; James Bond 007 is released; Palladium Roleplaying System is debuted; Elfquest (the first big license, yes?); RuneQuest; Ghostbusters; Traveller; GURPS; Ars Magica; Cyberpunk; the list goes on and on.

This was a big time for the hobby, and saw the development of the three-tier distribution system (manufacturer -> distributor -> retailer -> customer) that dominated the industry through the 1990s. Most of the well-known companies that are still with us were created during this time as well (Steve Jackson Games, Palladium, R. Talsorian).

While there was a wide array of systems being created for all of these games, the general trends continued in the wargaming tradition. Being able to fight, shoot or take damage received more attention in rulebooks then being able to convince someone of an argument or change a belief system. Many elaborate rules systems were being conceived in order to simulate reality, or at least create a versimilitude of various physics in the real world. Randomizers were still primarily dice, though new innovations in character creation and character effectiveness (point-buy systems and life paths) became well known. “Generic” or “Universal” systems were being designed in order to be adapted to any kind of game that an individual group wanted to play. Finally, most if not all of these games set up the “players play their characters, while the GM plays everything else in the world” dynamic (aka “The GM is God” paradigm).

The Rise of “Storytelling” RPGs (1991-2000)

Two games were released in 1991 that symbolized the coming shift in design trends: Amber Diceless Roleplaying and Vampire: the Masquerade. Amber was a system designed entirely without randomizers, with an elaborate bidding/point-buy system for character creation that basically set the characters effectiveness for the rest of the game. Vampire broke with the wargame tradition of RPG design (and marketing), with a self-avowed focus on dramatic storytelling and flawed (anti)heroes, hearkening to the realms of theatre and dramatic performance rather than hex maps and fantasy literature.

While just as many, if not more, RPGs were written and released during this time, fewer of them are still with us today in the way that, for example, Traveller is. White Wolf Game Studios followed up on the success of Vampire with its entire series of related story-telling games, each focused on a different supernatural creature. Many existing games continued to get new editions. Some other notable games (in terms of breaking from earlier design trends) published: Over The Edge; Theatrix; The Whispering Vault; Everway; and FUDGE, among others. Other new games that are closer to “traditional” design include Earthdawn; CORPS; Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay; Fading Suns; Deadlands, and so on.

Some of these games were true breaks with “traditional” design, not only looking elsewhere for methods and techniques to resolve disputes in-game, but also arising from design paradigms and philosophies that were different from traditional roleplaying. Some games were created with mechanics that expressed those philosophies; many made great efforts, but continued to fall into similar patterns as “traditional” games. Combat as the main emphasis for problem-solving and the adventuring party were strong paradigms that dominated even Vampire and its successors. Also, most games continued the “GM is God” tradition.

Focused Design (2000-Present)

Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition was published in 2000, and it represents the beginning of the third “movement” in RPG Design - Focused Design. While closely identified with the “indie movement” (Ron Edward’s Sorcerer was available online since 1998, but it didn’t see a print edition until 2001), by this I mean design that takes into account its designers goals for the game and aims directely towards acheiving its goals. Since 2000, focused design has began to be expressed across the industry.

Focused design can be seen in D&D 3.5 and some of the Open Game Licensed derivatives, particularly Iron Heroes; the New World of Darkness revamp of White Wolf’d Storyteller system; and the vast majority of independently published games that have been developed by designers that have been involved with the Forge, a forum focused on independent design and publication. Some of the more well-known titles from Forge participants include the above-mentioned Sorcerer (and it’s supplements); Clinton R. Nixon’s The Shadow of Yesterday; Luke Crane’s Burning Wheel and Burning Empires; Vincent Baker’s Dogs in the Vineyard, and Fred Hicks Don’t Rest Your Head (among many others). Some other focused-design small-press games include Atomic Sock Monkey’s Truth & Justice and Atarashi Game’s Panty Explosion (again, among many others).

Conclusion

As you can see, the basic focus of this book is on preference and context. Identifing the set of preferences that you want to design for, and the context which your design will inhabit, is the crucial groundwork for your design efforts.

Vesna Thaw & Children of the Sun, Children of the Moon

So I participated in the Reversed Engineer challenge, wherein you first create a character sheet, and you then receive somebody else’s sheet and reverse engineer a game from it. I submitted this sheet, and I received Martin O’Leary’s. Russell Collins received my sheet.

When I made my sheet, I was thinking about a lot of stuff stemming from Gen Con conversations, especially about how the artifacts you use at the table are the interface between you and the game space. So I wanted something interactive, something that you had to participate in creating, which was the germ of the folding portion of the sheet (I was by no means unique with this - folding elements of character sheets showed up all over the contest). I also wanted something with poker chips, because I got an awesome poker chip set at Gen Con. I also wanted something with a mythic/epic tone, with a lot of room for metaphor and interpretation.

I think that Russell did some admirable work by running with those elements of intention, which either means I did a good job designing the sheet, or he did a good job reading my mind. I look forward to putting the game through some play, if I have half the chance. Russell, come Dreamation, we’ll play!

So, my game. The sheet I got was awesome, to me, in two ways - the big box for drawing your robot, and the soviet theme. So, obviously I would be writing a game about giant fighting soviet robots. Now, the sheet has a strong humorous element, but it also has some interesting labels (the box’s in the top right), and I decided that I wanted to write a game that would have giant fighting soviet robots, but would also have some seriousness to it. I’m not big on pure “humor” games, I need some meat underneath for me to enjoy it.

So, somewhere in my brainstorming, I decided that there were robots because there was no other way to get about, because of radiation. And so, my basic idea was born - post-soviet post-nuclear robots. It’s after the cold war turned hot, all of the survivors have been living in isolated underground bunkers for 10 years, and only now, and only in kitbashed robots made from left-over parts and powered by faulty radioactive powerplants, can people take to the surface and try to rebuild.

Fear not, there is still giant robot fighting! But, the game at it’s heart is about seeking and finding, and trying to rebuild a larger community while preserving your local one. I did a lot of design things that I’m not used to, which I think was good. There’s elements of a lot of games and conversations in this design. Burning Empires and Grey Ranks for scenes-as-currency, Grey Ranks for Scenes-as-Pacing, a lot of Jonathon Walton’s work about reward not needed to be mechanical, some post-”stakes conversation” thoughts about how conflicts work, Meatbot Massacre and Mechaton for robot fighting, Polaris for GMful and protagonist-centered play. And more, I’m sure.

In the end, it’s a progressive game (stuff starts out difficult to acheive, and becomes easier as the game progresses, until you’re probably succeeding at everything just as you go out in your radiation-induced Blaze of Glory). Resolution is kind of conflict resolution, but not necessarily. I’m not sure what lingo to use to describe it. Rewards are encoded more for opposition than for success. There’s no GM, and each scene is explicity centered on your character. Oh, and you all get to help draw each other’s robots, which is cool!

So it’s a funky, wierd game that I think I like, and I have no idea if it works or not. Time will tell.

I have two games to review, Christian Griffin’s Celestial Soap and Adam Dray’s Architects of Aztlan, which are very different from each other, which is cool. I’m looking forward to it, and to seeing what Roger Carbol and Dave Cleaver have to say about Vesna Thaw.

Mad props to Kevin Allen Jr for running this whole shebang. It = teh rock.

GamingReport.com Review of Timestream

Read it here. It got 2 out of 5 stars.

In conclusion, overall I was not impressed with Timestream. There was nothing in it that drove me to want to play it. It had some interesting ideas and mechanics, but nothing in it really made me want to find players and try it out. It comes across as an singular idea that he built a role playing game around. It is lacking in some areas and seems to me to be a incomplete job. This is not unique, however. Many independent games are written this way. I suppose I need to lower my expectations for independent games.

It’s interesting to me that all of the reviews of the game have said basically the same thing, but that the particular reviewers taste leads to a somewhat broad variety of scores.

Responsibility

Last night I saw The Pillowman, a haunting and very, very thoughtful play about the nature of art and where the responsibility of the artist lies, among other themes. There’s also this thread where Ben talks about tradition over at Anyway, and this thread about why there aren’t any games about 9-11 at Story Games. Let’s not forget Jason’s thread about the ethics of game design, and I’ll humbly link to my own concerns on the subject.

All of which is striking directly at something that I feel very strongly about: the responsibility of the artist. As in, if an artist creates art, and that art causes someone else to do a horrible thing, is the artist responsible?

I think not. I think, that once you blame the artist for the consequences of someone else’s action, you are in effect telling them to stop making art. And that, my friends, is not acceptable to me.

I don’t think that you can blame the creators of a videogame for some kid taking a gun to school; you cannot blame a television show for the obsessive fans; you can’t blame a role-playing game for some nutjob doing a crime while “in character.”

But. Artists do still have responsibility and accountability, and that’s for fulfilling their goals as artists and seeing clearly what effects that fulfillment may or may not have on their audience.

In The Pillowman, the protagonist writes a story about a little boy who gets his toes chopped off by a traveling stranger. He tells this story to his mentally deficient older brother, the only family he has in the world. The older brother goes out and acts out the story, killing the child in the process.

Is the protagonist responsible for the death of the child? I think not. Is he responsible for forseeing that his brother, who has the mind of a child and who looks up to him for everything, might take his stories as something that he is asking the brother to do, and change (or not change) his stories as he sees fit? I think so.

I’d be really interested to hear others opinions on this. Where do you see the line?

StoryGames Boston, Ho!

Myself, Dev Purkawhateverthehell, and Jonathon Walton have pooled our…considerable…resources and this is the result. To wit:

StoryGames Boston is coming to Pandemonium!

Where: Sofas of Mortal peril
When: Every Wednesday night at 7pm
Logo: Best Logo Evar!!eleven1!

Every Wednesday evening, come to Pandemonium Books and meet others interested in roleplaying games and storygames. Find new gamers, talk about the hobby, and then join us for a pickup game - or bring your own. And if you’re new to “storygames”, then we’ll gladly show you what its all about.

Story, people, dice and the comfiest couches ever. What else do you need?

Some of the games we hope to play soon…

* Baron von Munchausen: Portray an adventurous noble, telling fantastical (but entirely true!) tall tales in the style of “Baron Munchausen”.

* Agon: Odysseus. Atalanta. Perseus. You are Greek heroes of legend hoping to best each other with feats of cunning and might, winning great glory for your name. But your dark fate waits just around the corner. What songs will they sing of you?

* Once Upon a Time: The popular story-telling card game about fairy tales. Use your cards to tell your own story, and be the first one to play their Happy Ever After card!

* InSpectres: Things go bump in the night. It’s a good thing the InSpectres are in town! Play out the trials and tribulations of your local franchise of supernatural exterminators.

* 1001 Nights: A game of enticing stories. The Sultan’s courtiers are held captive in his court. Only through the stories they share can they find freedom and achieve what they want.

Next Wednesday the 13th is our official launch, tho the three of us + others have played 1001 Nights, Dust Devils and The Shadow of Yesterday thus far. And it’s awesome.

So, if you’re in the Boston area, come down and say hi! And play some games!

Much Gnashing Of Teeth

or When Politics Attack: The Return of Darth Vader

or When a Fairly Reasoned Post Turns Rantastic

So, there’s a lot of misunderstanding of GNS out on the internet.

This should come as a surprise to no one.

It’s really starting to get to me, though. Now, I’m not a big GNS-head. I don’t talk about it much, and I don’t use the terms in my games, but I accept it on it’s merits and agree with many of its underlying principles and it’s framework for conceptualizing the elements of game play. But, when I see comments that demonstrate either a misunderstanding or a perversion of the theory, I feel like I’m being misrepresented. Like, GNS is heavily identified with the Forge, and I identify with the Forge, and just want to correct the errors when I see them.

But, I DON’T want to be a GNS evangelist, especially outside of the bailiwick of the Forge. Once you start spouting GNS talk, it’s easy for those who don’t buy in to it or who have some axe to grind with the Forge to dismiss you out of hand. This, I don’t want.

So I feel frustrated. I’ve written many a post, only to delete it and move on, as I don’t want to waste my time with the flames that I always see in my minds eye.

I dunno if anyone else feels the same way. How can we gently, but firmly, try to correct people when they say things that are just wrong without offending them or going down in flames? Is it possible? Is it worth the effort?

Addendum

Here’s the two things I see most often (I’m sure someone reading this wants to see some examples, I know I would):

- GNS is crap because it doesn’t like D&D/GNS doesn’t account for the popularity of D&D:

The first is obviously dumb, but it’s the dumb way of saying the second. GNS has fuckall to do with how many people buy and play a game. The RPG market has been subject to a number of bizarre forces in its short history. The popularity of a given system has had almost nothing to do with its design focus until recently. Look to things like the distribution system and, like, media focus and the surrounded pop culture and crap to see why games that are popular (re: sell a lot of copies) are that way.

- Bob is a gamist/GNS divides people into only three categories of gamer:

The first is just blatent ignorance of the essays. People are not gamist, simulationist or narrativist. People can have those as Creative Agendas, but they are not identities. The second is a misreading of the theory as being far more restrictive than it actually is. GNS is all about preferance - you, or your group, can have a gamist agenda for an instance of play, and the game you’re playing can support that or not, but that doesn’t mean that you, as a person, play with only that agenda ever and never break out of it OMG.

So there’s my big two. Unless you’re Ron or Vincent or Mike, I’m not interested in debating these or defending these, FYI.

I think that satisfies my annual GNS-related post quota. I hope to get back to the RPG Design Handbook stuff soon, actually. And, like, write some games.

Mind The Gap

The gap between my happiness when I’m actually playing games and my sadness when I’m reading game-related stuff on the internet is very large right now.

Very very large.