Much of Fear is Found in the Unexpected

I was considering the nature of 'Horror' gaming, my own success with it (I've had players refuse to continue campaigns because they were in their words too frightening), the games of other successful GMs that I've played in, and the common advice given about them.

I've always found that common advice... stale and far less than useful. Why? Because that common advice is... well common. It's a known value and thus expected. As a 'horror' campaign progresses, it only becomes even more common and more expected. Thus they become more boring. And at least for me, fear is wrapped up in the unknown and not the known.

Let me give a example from my gaming experience.

I'm on record in many Internet exchanges as being a fan of tactical RPG gaming that include detailed battles. Indeed I've described my RPG campaigns as a individual war games linked by setting, story and role-play to provide meaning to the battles, and a method to explore their outcomes afterward.

A rather rare style these days, and given how different it is from dungeon crawls and such- likely it was always a rare style. As a result of this style, I use board and minis. Few things are normally hidden from my players.Unless I've switched to a Horror style event.

Then the maps and minis may disappear, leaving the players only with their impressions of my words. Or they may remain, but with highly constrained views, expanding only foot by foot and perception check by perception check. My rule of dice rolls always be in the open is suspended, and many of them now become hidden. While I normally never require rolls for typical actions (jump the fence on run, sure- spend 3" of your move please), suddenly I'm calling for agility checks for the same action.

For the players the world as they have known it, has in actual fact changed. Things they could count on, are now fuzzy and unknown. And there is something out there hunting them in the darkness.

It's a small thing. And added to other small things (different way of describing things, perhaps playing by candle light, etc) the result can be as intense as watching the best horror movie. I've had the most gung ho power gamer crawling away from any chance of battle hoping to reach that patch of light under the street lamp. Praying that someone, anyone, would arrive to help him.

For my style of gaming, at the end things switch back. Information is learned, understanding of the threat dawns. A course of action decided. Like the movie Predator, what begins as Horror typically ends up as Action. The map returns, things are resolved and the Hero is left standing (or not as the case may be).

I think it's the unexpected in this that impacts the players. Both during the 'Horror' part of the game, and then when that becomes expected- the switch back to the tactical 'heroic' style. Both styles are enhanced because they are at such contrast. If I normally used a simple non-tactical, map-less and fuzzy rule set, all that impact would be lost.


I don't run these types of games often. Indeed doing so would undermine their effectiveness. It's best to have an adventure go off like a sky rocket, then play a series of snap caps. At least for me.

It's enough to make me cynical

I was on a reading binge, and finished five books in the last week or so. Of these four were fiction. For any interested those four are: Origin, Breach, Beneath the Dark Ice, and Defiance. All were bad. I would have bet money that they weren't good upfront, but was hoping to steal an idea or two for gaming. In the end, I had almost nothing except for one concept from Defiance. I've lost a few hours from my life that I won't get back. Sigh.

To be honest, the Potboiler has been with us forever. But things seem a bit worse now. Self-Publishing has come to normal fiction as much as RPGs, and you can get stuff on the Kindle that no publisher would touch. I've now learned to watch out for these, although to be honest they aren't that much worse than the published stuff. But they are worse.

Here's my hints to any writers out there. It applies to GM's too as they are often in the same business. Making something rather common interesting to those reading or playing in it.

1. Interesting characters that hook the reader, that are believable, and that we can root for are key to anything. They can make the most redundant and unimpressive plots sparkle. Their absence will sink anything no matter how creative or otherwise well done.
2. Have those characters actually matter to the outcome unless your work is the darkest of horror. And really, this days the darkest of horror is so freakin' common that it should be avoided as the pointless exercise it is.

In one way, GMs should have a much easier time than writers. The players should take care of most of the first requirement although it helps to have a good NPC here and there. And really the second point is up to the players as well.

However the very control given to players is why GMs can run into trouble. Because they have to allow the players to achieve both items. Note- allow and is not the same as give. That balance is the most difficult thing in gaming. Here's hoping you find it.

Central PCs in Campaigns

Came across a blog post that I mostly liked today. It presents the idea that a RPG campaign doesn't have to be peer focused thing- but can mirror classic source material. Things like Doc Savage perhaps, with one main character and the supporting casts.

I liked the blog article because it's really something of a match to how I always run my campaigns. Sort of a match, because I don't agree with everything there.

For example, I think most who have dug into Middle Earth consider Sam and not Frodo the main character of Lord of the Rings. Or one could say that no single character is, instead claiming that it is a collection of individual stories that make up the history of the War of the Ring and that Frodo and Sam only got the most screen time because they were closest to the Ring. In much the same way, one could claim that Luke wasn't the main character in Story Wars- that taken as a whole it's Vader. But all that is nitpicking as certainly there are story arcs that feature a main character with a supporting cast.

The major point that I disagree with is that in order to recreate this the GM and players must actually work at it- i.e. put story concerns first. And that just isn't true.

IME it's very common for one player to for whatever reason stand out at a gaming table. And they become the focus for the story as much as say Sam (or Frodo depending upon your POV I guess) in Lord of the Rings did.

Sometimes it's because that player is the best at the table. More often IME it's because the other players are very interested in that one character themselves for some reason. I've seen players twice decide to have their characters die to save specific characters that they themselves decided were the most important in the campaign, not with respect to story- but purely as a element of their character.

GMs react to this, and storylines start to revolve around these characters. This doesn't mean that the spotlight is always on them, any more than it's always on a single character in Lord of Rings or Star Wars. In a large and long running campaign there is room for everyone to shine somewhere.

So I think these types of campaigns can grow naturally without effort in a gaming group that avoids trust issues. Indeed, I think a campaign of equals is actually difficult to enforce as a playing style, and if attempted likely the cause of any number of harms along the way.

Common RPG Questions

Since I've started this blog, I've written number of series that drove rather deeply into specific subjects and in a way I consider those to be the highlights of this blog.

There are however a number of common questions that I see raised again and again. The answers for these are typically rather short and I've been debating how to approach them as a body of work. So far I've just done one-off posts. This then is an attempt to take advance of the tools a blog offers.

This will be a parent post that I'll link to on the right together with  those to the more in-depth series. I'll update this entry with links to future posts that address common and basic questions about RPG design and usage I often see. Further I'll toss a label on it of  Common RPG Questions so that feature can be directly used.

It will at least be useful to me, and we'll see how it goes. I'll add in few links to pass articles to kick it off

Complexity

• Equilibrium of Complexity 
• Groups and Complexity
• Musings on Complexity

Using the Rules as Written

Living with Canon

Over on the RPG Blog II, Zachary is weary of canon fiends wrecking his fun with 're-imagined' settings. A problem that I've heard about online before, but never really encountered in my campaigns.

Given that I run Middle Earth, I suppose the odds should have been good that I'd encounter players like that. But no. The closest I've gotten is people online who attempt to claim (foolishly I may add) that humans were incapable of magic in Middle Earth.

But then again, I picked a time and place in Middle Earth long before the War of the Ring in a 'blank' spot of the timeline- the middle of the Third Age around a millenium and a half previous. So I suppose I've dodge the worst of it by that one single fact.

For my other 'based upon X' setttings, I'm always clear up front that they are 're-imagined' versions. Be it Year One in my Marvel based superhero campaign or Shadowrun.

I've been doing this for decades, but the new Battlestar Galactica helped make it an easily understood choice even if it was a horrid show. If Starbuck can suddenly become a woman, there's not much point in whining about the incorrect number of bathrooms on deck 15.

Still, none of that will help if you have players who insist on playing in the 'real' version of the setting however they define 'real'. IME no two people will be able to agree on just what is 'real', so the desire is stillborn no matter what. In such a case one can only make it clear that the setting is re-imagined, and that you're not willing to run a 'real' version. If they can't live with that, then they have a decision to make- accept it or find a different campaign.

A Mixed Reaction

Was browsing the blogs and came across this at Motor City Gamewerks. And had a somewhat strange reaction. I'm a gun nut. I should agree, but for some reason I really don't.

For one thing, I'm having a hard time recalling a game that mixed up semi-automatic, automatic and auto-cannon. The first two sure, but not with the third. And confusing machinegun with assault rifles? Sure, that's stuff the major news media does. But not gaming systems as far as I know.

Perhaps he's speaking about indie games, or supplements, or something I haven't seen. So I'll grant that such games may exist. I just never bought them. Perhaps there was a reason :)

However I just don't care that there are people who think that cops are carrying .38 revolvers. I'm more concerned with people thinking .38s do more damage than .45s. One is knowledge of current events, the other is misrepresenting physical law.

Actually, even that doesn't upset me- unless the author is claiming his game is well researched and a good simulation of reality (like say GURPS which made that very error in the last edition I looked at- which was some time back I'd have to say).

And clips and mags, I must shrug.

I guess I'm all for people running their games the way the wish, as long as that's all they're claiming to be doing.

So do I agree with the suggestion that gamers should read more books on firearms and head out to the range? I have to say it depends.

It interests a person, sure. It's a lot of fun.

But it won't make them an expert. One has to learn enough and verify enough to be able to split the lies from the truth. And there are a lot of lies in the firearm world. All in all, it would take a great deal of work to understand even the basics. Not a book or two and a trip to the range.

So in the end, be as unrealistic as you want as long as you admit it. Go as deep as you like as well if you wish, but don't make claims unless you go very very deep indeed.

But mostly, have fun.

Dealing with Refusal

One of my players actually reads this blog. He considers it somewhat entertaining- mostly some of the comments I get. Being a theology major plus a professional (if part time) improv guy he often has insightful takes on various things.

Last Friday I did a post on the Hero's Journey and offered that perhaps players attempt to emulate elements of that unconsciously, including 'refusing the call to adventure'. There I make the statement that I haven't dealt with the problem myself or if I did I didn't notice.

So at this weekend's game he took great pleasure in do exactly what I describe, refusing the adventure and then stopping the game and pointing out that I was dealing with it as it happened. Rather embarrassing in it's own way. I'm told that it's actually quite common in my campaigns. So much for being aware of everything- at least consciously.

Reviewing my actions it seems that I attempted to engage the actual character's mindset. For example if the issue is character skeptism, I have in-game events undermine it (as in the game last weekend). These are often entertaining in and of themselves and are great for further exploring personnalities of both the PCs and NPCs involved.

One thing I would try to avoid is just burning down part of the character's background (like killing his family) unless I know I have player agreement for that. Some blockages are more tricky than others, and more care would be needed. Communication OOC between the player and GM are important in such cases.

In general however I think that a good player will work to meet the GM halfway. If it is a genre emulation issue- they are likely looking for its resolution as much as you are (even if they don't know it). Thus tossing something out there will generally receive as quick bite.

You have a completely different issue with those people playing the character 'because that's what the character is'. The only real way of dealing with that is to make sure at character creation that the players make characters certain not to refuse the call.

I've seen worse cases of this online, where the player states that can't pre-create a character- it has to happen in play. And the result in play can end up completely counter to goals and style of the campaign. In this worse case, you may need to get rid of the player. The ones I've seen online have never been able to resolved their problems.

More Good and Evil Confusion

And people wonder why I have such a low opinion of many online bloggers/message forum members.

Here's one reason.

Alex seems to want to ditch worrying about the concept of Good and Evil completely, and just get on with the game.

Ok, Alex. Whatever floats your boat.

Except...

You go on to list Hecate as a Goddess of Evil Magic. In your own list. Which you than claim is muddled and meaningless. Maybe she shouldn't be on the list then?

And to say "I’m keeping the definition of good and evil muddied on purpose. All the powerful people in my worlds have strong Machiavellian tendencies. It’s all about power, and keeping it."

Italics mine.

Hey Alex, here's a clue. The pursuit of power for power's sake is one of the definitions of Evil. You've just in effect said that rather than worrying about Good and Evil, you've just decided to make everyone Evil.

That is a solution I guess, but it wasn't the one you were claiming.

In fact I'll go one step further, anyone saying they are ignoring questions of Good and Evil is lying (perhaps even to themselves). They've sided with Evil with such a statement out of the gate.

The Hero's Journey and RPGs

A couple of posts back I referenced the Hero's Journey with respect some movie comparisonsand as a marker that most often the traditional approach is the best approach. It wasn't really used in terms of rpgs themselves.

It did however start me off thinking about it in those terms. It doesn't really matter if one agrees with the concept itself (and there's a lot of baggage there to agree with if one goes down that path), the simple truth is that the concept has influenced story-telling and many of the movies that have impacted what people expect in adventure settings.

I wonder if some of the common issues found in rpg campaigns are an outgrowth of this.

For example, it is very common in such arcs for the Hero to at first refuse the call to adventure (which means something in most fiction and movies than it does in that wkki article).

To use the previous movie examples: Star Wars' Luke refuses to go with Obi Wan until the death of his uncle and aunt, the new Star Trek movie sees Kirk starting out rejecting Star Fleet until convinced by Pike, and The Matrix's Neo is dragged kicking and screaming into his adventure before really accepting it.

Using that for a template, I wonder if many players don't unconsciously set their character up for the same dynamic. But since it's unconscious, the player can't state his intent or even what he's looking for. The result leaves the GM feeling as if the player is rejecting his campaign and adventure.

Thus we get all the online exchanges about this problem, and what to do with it. And I wonder if people are missing the point. Perhaps the player is only trying to emulate favored heroes, but neither he nor the GM has thought through what that means or needs.

I haven't dealt with this problem myself (or if I have, I managed it without notice), so I don't know if this is a possible condition let alone a common one.

But it was a possibility that occurred to me.

More battles are lost than are won

One of the mindsets I often encounter online is a belief by GMs that they must run their NPCs involved in a combat against the players as tactical masters, wise and skilled who never make foolish mistakes. They feel anything else is unrealistic.

How odd, and how unknowing of history.

To take but one example, General Robert E. Lee is considered to rank with the best (if not the best) US generals in history. Yet there was error after error committed by him at the Battle of Gettysburg. GMs of the mindset I noted above wouldn't have allowed such a thing to happen, and by so doing fail in any attempt at realism.

But that example is of one of the greats, a true standout. Most don't rise to the skill of a Lee, but rather more commonly reflect a McClellan. The simple truth is that most leaders of men aren't very good, and they commonly make serious mistakes.

Some shine under some conditions, but fail when the conditions of the test change. Bull Halsey is a good example of this- excelling at times, but failing come the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Such is what it means to be human.

Nor are machines much better, for a AI committed to following the most reasonable course would have failed where C. Wade McClusky succeeded- with a much darker course of the war as a result.

Such things roll all the way down to troops. US Marines are famous for skilled actions, but the same can't be said of WWII troops from Italy.

I tend to run most of the foes in my campaigns rather poorly, reflecting any number of weaknesses both in the 'troops' and in their leadership (Orcs are a wonderful example- powerful and often found in great numbers, but cowards and bullys with little teamwork). My goal is not to have them perform at their best according to the game system- but as they would. And it's rare indeed that I field a elite NPC foe that I pull out all stops on (thus depending only upon my own tactical failings instead of modeling specific ones).

One result is that I tend to field larger numbers, and wait for the players to take advantage of the limits I've placed on the tactical judgement of those numbers. This I feel gives the players both something to test themselves against, and a feeling of earned success when they overcome such an advantage of numbers and resources. Thinking they're backs are up against the wall to start with, it's rare indeed for my players not to find and take advantage of the gaps in their opponents.

As an added advantage, this approach prevents group wipes in what others would consider rather dangerous game systems. Playing the NPCs instead of trying to the kill the players with the near limitless perception of a GM alters such games significantly- and they become far more dangerous to the villians then they are to the heroes.

Moral Relativism in RPGs

Fridays seem to be dull days in the Blogging world. So with that in mind I've decided to use that day to comment on things I've seen on other blogs.

So this week, what caught my eye was found at StupidRanger including another post referenced within that article from the same source. The articles drip with Moral Relativism with statements like this:

"I submit that no character (or action) is ever truly Good(tm) or Evil(tm), and it is best simply to figure out how your character would react given the circumstances, his personality and ethics, and his past experiences. "- Vanir

I could speak to the weaknesses and self-destructive ends of the whole concept of Moral Relativism, but this isn't a political blog so I'll pass on that.

Instead, I'd like to examine for a second the disconnect this mindset has with itself and how it relates to rpgs. Why would a Moral Relativist even worry for a second if his character was doing Good or Evil in an adventure. He already knows that it's just a matter of personal opinion. The thought shouldn't have occurred in the first place and dropping alignments from D&D should have been his first house rule.

Indeed, at the end that's exactly where Vanir ends up. So I have to wonder why he even made the trip. Perhaps just to post a blog entry? Maybe to champion the cause of Moral Relativism itself and how it can be used to justify any desired action in an RPG?

Beyond Vanir's own specific case, I often see a related disconnect online: Role-players insisting on inflicting their own Moral Relativism upon characters and settings where it doesn't fit. They worry about the Paladin killing orcs, which at its core is a complete failure to role-play a Paladin who certainly neither believes in nor exists in a world of Moral Relativism.

Besides, if it's up to the individual to decide Good and Evil- how could you condemn the Paladin in any case. It's not as if it's objectively wrong for him to be killing orcs. That's just your opinion you're forcing upon him.

Interesting enough, I've never enountered people so willing to jump to moral judgments as Moral Relativists. And the lines they draw are never so clear as they are in RPGs...