Inevitable Retrospective

It's the last day of 2013. It's been a busy year. But 2014 looks promising too.

UbiquitousRPG with Friday Night Roleplay

Probably the biggest investment of time made this year has been in working with the Friday Night Roleplay group to run a fantasy-genre game. This started towards the end of 2012 and is still going. Just about.

Through the year, however, we have developed our own iteration of OSR-inspired fantasy roleplaying rules, which I rather egotistically dubbed UbiquitousRPG. There have been four major revisions of the rules, along with alterations in the way the fantasy-specific bits work, and the system now seems to play quite well.

As with all ongoing campaigns, however, there are always periods of inertia (like Christmas, which kills play for over 6 weeks). The challenge this week is to get back to running the game for the first session of 2014 on Friday 3rd. What's promising, however, is that we look set to have a full house of players.

Gaming at School

Alongside the home group, there is also a small gaming club that runs at the school where I work. Here is where the ongoing campaign is being run (albeit falteringly) by a newbie GM using the Imagine RPG. 

Gaming here is totally different. It's much more like the gaming that used to happen 30 years ago back at my own school: fantasy-dominated, broadly hack-n-slash adventuring with a group of charmingly precocious teenagers. It's a lot of fun... when they get going.

This year, trying to be hands-off and let them learn to play independently, there has been less consistent play... but what the guys are doing is their own. I've only run one game outside of their campaign, and you can read about what I learned from The Funnel in that post. 

The biggest thing has been a reminder of just how little support a group of teenagers really needs to get playing. Once they are exposed to roleplaying, you can get out of their way. They will create, play, and enjoy without adult intervention.

Serene Dawn Minimalism

One of the side-effects of writing for the home fantasy campaign, and the design of UbiRPG, has been an increased focus on what makes a good game. Working with +Scott Templeman on the Serene Dawn SF setting has also opened up some fresh ideas on how to create a really simple system. Putting those sets of influences together has given birth to the Affinity System. You can read about Affinity System in the introductory post, so I'll not talk details here.

What's been really interesting has been exploring the idea of minimalist gaming. At the start of the design process, some three weeks ago, we were simply rolling 2d6 and seeking to beat one of five difficulty numbers (3, 5, 7, 9, or 11). To be honest, that works pretty well for a highly narrative game. 

We're now at the stage where, in the interests of defining character more clearly, we've added concepts which seek to be flexible - namely Affinities and Knacks. What intrigues me is to realise how much many RPGs "lock-down" the stats and abilities of characters. The process of design, in which everything is fluid, has opened up thinking about how much we can maintain that fluidity and flexibility in the final game. 

Looking to 2014...

Yes, I want to keep playing on Friday nights. Certainly I want to keep the school club going. And, yes, I plan to develop Affinity System further.

I also want to play some other games. I have shelves and stacks of RPG books, many of which are untouched. Here's a run-down of 5 things I'd like to try in 2014:

• Get into Glorantha. Every time I come across this fantasy world I feel drawn to play there. I (mostly) don't care which game system gets used, I'd like to get into Glorantha.
• Try out Traveller5. After years (literally) of being involved in the playtest forum, I'd like to have a game... preferably as a player, to be honest, but GMing it is doable.
• Figure out Hero System. I own Hero 6th Edition. I'd like to get my head around why this is a good game and worth the effort. I've played it a couple of times... do I need to play it more?
• Play online. I've got an account with Roll20. I'd like to find a way to use it. Is online play going to open up new opportunities?
• Become a "better" GM. Reading Graham Walmsley's excellent "Play Unsafe", I want to play more freely and with less prep... and thus, become a better GM in the sense of being more true to my own style of play. 

That's it. Retrospective complete.

Game on!

The Funnel

"I started out not really caring about any of these four peasants," said Jack, "but now I am really attached to this guy... he's becoming a hero!"

This statement, made at the end of our first ever attempt to play DCC RPG, really made my ears prick up. I was paying attention to that one. That was important.

"Yeah," added Will, "It's really cool that I started with one guy I was hoping would make it, but who died. My last guy is really precious now. I want him to make it out alive."

What was going on?

The Funnel

DCC RPG has a rule that I didn't want to try. 

Players roll up 3-5 characters, all of whom are basically expendable peasant spear-fodder. These are totally random characters: 3d6 across 6 stats, let the dice fall as they may. Each one gets a crude weapon, an item or two of equipment, and maybe one thing that they're lucky with. That's it. You take the band of peasants into a dungeon. Whoever survives gets to Level-Up and choose a Character Class.

On Thursday, needing a pick-up game for the four 12-13 year old boys I game with at school, I decided to try it. What the hell,eh?

Wow. We had a blast. 16 peasants went in. 7 are still alive, and we're around 60% of the way through the adventure. But we had a blast.

Heroes we care about?

Oddly, having chosen from 20 random characters (which I generated using the cool web-tool from Purple Sorceror), the guys threw their 16 "mooks" into the dungeon. We had some really fun, and slightly chaotic, roleplaying right from the start because they didn't really care what happened to these peasant scum. And yet...

As the first casualties mounted the guys began to realise the mortality of their surviving wannabes. When one player decided to quite casually have one character risk his very life to allow another to succeed, we had the makings of our first hero. Something changed. THAT guy became valuable. We wanted him to "win".

It was a lot of fun, with some tragically comic moments... even desperate acts. Yet, by the end of that first session two things happened: 1. the guys were treasuring the survivors; 2. they were desperate to see the story through to the end.

What happened?

Normally characters are heroes set apart and special. Yes, they are mortal... but the conceit is that we won't kill them without it meaning something. 

In DCC RPG characters are meat. Nothing. Until they become something more... through their actions, by their deeds. 

That feels good.

We care.

What happened there?

On Roleplaying, Part 1

As a gamer, I feel like I've come to a bit of a crossroads. Actually, it feels more like a nexus of crossroads. Choices between directions in different aspects of my roleplaying. I sense that once I work my way through the choices then I'll be able to more comfortably forge ahead in both GMing and Game Design.

The point of this post is to set out for the general RPG reader a question: "What choices do you make as you tread the road to gaming joy?"

In the ongoing quest for the perfect RPG experience (an ideal I realise is unattainable but nevertheless suspect is a worthy goal), these are choices that face us.

I'm curious as to what you might choose differently... and why.

One Choice Made

Astute readers will have noticed that I don't consider myself as an RPG "Player". Whilst I do (very occasionally) play RPGs, I usually have the role as "GameMaster". This was a choice I made a long time ago. Since that time, while I have sat as a player, I find myself far less skilled and far less interested than when I attempt to GM. I guess I feel that I only have time to learn so many skills... and Player is a skill-set that requires a lot of time.

Crossroad 1: The Crunch Continuum

In terms of examples for my continuum, I might place Fate at the lower end of this continuum whilst I would place Rolemaster at the higher end. One has relatively few rules and the other has a great many. Alongside rules, however, we often attribute detail with crunch... but I want to separate the two for now.

Crunch, for the purposes of my own journey, is about RULES. 

What do I mean by a rule? I think it's a permanent fixture within a game that allows players / GMs to repeat a way of doing things. If a ruling is an on-the-fly decision made to handle a specific situation, I think that a rule arises out of an actual or predicted desire to remember and repeat that ruling. Rules lead to consistency in rulings, if you will.

Coming, as I do, from a wargaming background, you can easily note that I enjoy tactical decision-making within the context of small-unit combat. Tactics require an understanding of the variables involved in combat... and a game that tries to handle more variables usually requires a heightened level consistency in how the rulings in similar situations play out. Desire for lots of consistent rulings leads to a desire for crunchier rules.

QUESTION: How much crunch do I want in my own gaming? 

ANSWER: Quite a bit but not too much. 

Reflecting on combat, as an example, I want the ability of the hero to count but I also want the type and quality of his tools to be a factor. That means I want weapons and armour to have some consistent rules. I also like to model injury in more detail. And, yes, I want the training of characters to differentiate them.

But that leads me to...

Crossroad 2: The Action Continuum

Do you want to play games in which the story is contained purely within dialogue and interaction, at one extreme, or entirely focused on a string of tactical combats at the other? 

I've played D&D 4e at the "string of fights end" and realised that I was simply playing a tactical skirmish game. The characterisation was irrelevant. I got bored.

I've played World of Darkness games run by a GM who wanted to avoid any fighting and entirely engage us in dialogues and intrigue. I realised that there ceased to be a tactical challenge because all that was required were my own (inadequate) social skills. As I didn't want to verbally spar with the GM - I do this all day for a living - I withdrew and felt bored.

Reflecting on it, I want a game with a fair amount of tactical challenge - but that doesn't mean simply tactical combat. What I want is a game in which there is a need to think tactically and use the various resources available to each character within the scenario. As GM, I am managing the interests of the opposition to some fairly capable heroes; the players are trying to achieve their goals using their own resources.

Action, for me, is the interaction between conflicting goals that requires the clever deployment of available resources. Thus, in combat, it's about using one set of skills and the available combat equipment well; in negotiation, it's about using another set of skills and the available leverage. 

Which connects me too...

Crossroad 3: The Resource Continuum

Earlier I asked you to take detail out of the Crunch. Resources are, for me, where the detail comes back in.

Detail in a game is about how much different factors and variables matter. This can range from the level of detail in the weapon choices through to how much it matters what species or ethnic grouping your character is from.

Straight away I'm going to point out that different aspects of detail in a setting will have varying effects: if I am wanting to play a Military SF game then my players will probably expect detail in the military details... down to the model of gun and choices of helmet design. Detail in a classical Fantasy setting might be very different, including lots of Races and detail in the magic system. 

I like detail. But I hate detail that slows down the action. Essentially, the "dials" you tweak with detail will have dramatic effects on how things play out at the table.

Why not call it the Detail Continuum? Well... reflecting on it, I realised that details matter when they give you something you can use in a challenge. Something you can use is a Resource. 

Those resources, however detailed, are what actually matters in the game. The level of detail determines what resources might be available.

Setting Out...

Those are the first three choices. More arise from these but, in the interests of brevity, we'll pause and reflect. Each decision, however, affects the shape of both how you GM and which RPG systems you'll prefer. 

As I asked at the start, now I ask again: "What choices do you make as you tread the road to gaming joy?"

Game on!

Traveller5

On the one hand, I am sick and tired of learning to play someone else's game. On the other hand, there are some cool games that I have long wanted to learn to play. Traveller5 is one of those games.

Reasons to Play

For one thing, I was involved in the playtest of the system. Bits of this game got tested... but never quite the whole thing.

When I was testing, the biggest missing piece was the combat section of the rules. This came very late and, frankly, I didn't get time to give it as much attention as was needed. 

That's probably one reason why, on first reading of the final book, I couldn't understand how to run a melee.

But that's not answering the question: why play T5?

On dipping my toe back into the waters of T5 over the past 24 hours, here's why I want to play:

1. I like the d6-based Task Resolution system and use of d6 only for damage - it's simple.
2. I really like building characters using the Career system and the 4-year Term process.
3. The system is comprehensive - everything I can imagine needing is in there.
4. There's a process to allow me to make my own stuff up; you name it, you can probably make it.
5. It's simple to play - the basic rules are very easy to grasp.

Reasons to Be Put Off

I'm not blind to the flaws of this product. For one, it is a book that initially just made me wince due to layout and the super-dense amount of text. My top five reasons to be put off include:

1. It's really badly organised - 50 pages in and I'm reading what should be an appendix.
2. It's really badly written - not just the typos and omissions, but also the style is really poor.
3. There's too much system and not enough setting - where's the "easy to grasp" equipment list, for example?
4. It needs a lot of house-rulings to clarify stuff... like, how to run a melee with a weapon in hand.
5. It's not at all aimed at the beginner. Defo not an RPG beginner. Probably not a Traveller beginner.

In short, it needs a very dedicated Referee (GM) to run a game. You will want to hide the book from the players, ignore just about everything inside the book until you actually need it, and you'll need to dedicate time to prepping the stuff you need. 

Thankfully, there are other Traveller5 Referees out there producing handy resources. Phew! But please share yours too.

So... Why Do You Want To Play?

Because it's Traveller, I have a deep-seated affection for the game and consequent desire to play. I have a deep love of the setting too. 

It's actually a rather simple game at heart. There's just lots of stuff piled on top to hide the fact from the casual reader. Actually, it's so completely piled on you can't really be a casual reader with T5. But it's worth the time to dig in.

Players will pick it up in no time. Referees will be dedicating much time to making games happen... but I get the impression that the effort will be worth it.

I wonder if I'll get to play.

Of Icke's World and Traveller-U

Icke's forthcoming book... a sourcebook?

Earlier this week I was in a really bad place with the hobby. It's amazing what a difference a few days, lots of effort, and a really successful playtest session can make to my mood.

Today, as I ponder what I want to focus on, I realise that there are two distractions in the way of my return to writing for the Tikhon fantasy game ready for Friday's game: Icke's World and Traveller-U.

Icke's World

Icke's World is a concept that I have for that conspiracy-horror-weirdshit setting I keep mentioning.

David Icke is one of my favourite "conspiracy theorists", to use the commonly bandied around phrase. As far as I am concerned he's either completely right or a very mistaken, if sincere, fool.

The premise of Icke's World is simple: what if David Icke is right? That makes for a fabulous conspiracy game. It also allows you to explore his writings as source material, testing out the practical upshot of his claims. For me, at least, that sounds like a lot of fun.

Think about this: Icke claims that the real world is an illusion (think: The Matrix) and that we have all, in fact, forgotten who we really are. We are Consciousness taking a trip through one viewpoint in our mind-body constructs. There is a conspiracy of power to delude us into believing that "we", as individuals, exist in a limited time-space holographic world.

Imagine the characters: you can take an Average-Joe type hero and allow them to have a series of Realisations. Each of those Realisations opens up new abilities to first "see through the illusion" and then, later, to learn to do cool things with "reality". Sort of Psi-powers mixed with Hindu-mysticism.

As for the stories, WOW! Icke has blended every conspiracy into one uber-Conspiracy. There is a whole world of possibility for investigations and counter-conspiracy action. For me, it's the characters as counter-insurgency "freedom fighters" that really appeals as a schtick.

Let me know what you think.

Traveller-U

Traveller is my favourite SF setting for gaming. It's rich and very expansive. Having recently obtained (after years playtesting) Traveller5, I have been dismayed to feel like that game is too clunky for me. Going back to Mongoose Traveller is an option... but another option is to run My Traveller Universe using UbiRPG.

It occurs to me that only a few things are needed to make a game conversion to UbiquitousRPG:

• Create some Role templates
• Create some Race/Species templates
• Create the equipment, such as weapons and armour

Other than that, most of the system is generic and you can easily make tweaks to support the specifics of your setting. 

That last point is an important realisation: you can tweak the rules to fit the setting. UbiRPG isn't a "generic" system, and it's not designed to be. What it is instead can be described as a homebrew baseline rules set; from this baseline all manner of specific tweaks can be implemented to emulate your chosen setting.

I can just imagine finally getting that adventure on the Solomani Rim because my regular players are already becoming familiar with the rules. It's just a step in setting. 

There... now I've said it, maybe I can get back to the Tikhon prep.

Game on!

A Little Pot of Randomness

Over the past fortnight, I've been pingling around with a number of different RPGs. While musing and mulling over thoughts relating to our own home-brew system, UbiquitousRPG, I've been delving into a few designs by other people.

What I found has revealed a few things that might be worth mentioning...

Logic Fail

So, I've been reading "Rifts" by Palladium Books. What an awesome setting... and a nightmare book to navigate. It's so badly organised that I've posted to their forums to ask another person to teach me how to play. 

But it's so lush a setting!

The temptation, of course, is to hack the game to a system we know how to play. Along the way, a hack lets me fiddle with and personalise the setting too. And yet...

The problem with the Rifts book is this: it's not written in a logical (at least to my mind) order. Character Creation starts on page 297 of a 375 page book. The O.C.C. (think character class) templates start on page 42. Somewhere between are the core rules. It's all over the place!

Solution 1: Re-write the book and put it in order.

Solution 2: Get someone to help de-code it all. 

Solution 3: Give up and play something else.

I bet most people would choose Option 3.

Learning Point: Figure out the best order to introduce a new player or reader (even and experienced GM) to your setting and system. Genius setting won't be enough if your game is impenetrable. 

And it's not like I'm a newbie to roleplaying games.

Which got me thinking...

...about why I persevere with reading so many games, even when I probably won't play them.

I'm absorbing them. Like some kind of Gelatinous Cube of the gaming 'verse, I am simply sidling up to each game world and system, enveloping it with my mind, and absorbing the goodness... excreting the crud.

Learning Point: Some gamers (like me) are collecting and sifting to fuel their own creations. 

Yes, I want to play in a fantasy apocalyptic world. No, I don't want to play Rifts... not exactly. I want to understand the system so I can appreciate the setting. Then I am going to run my own version of Rifts like a kind of Burger King-esque fanatic "doing it my own way".

90% of games I buy are food. 5% are tempting. 5% get played.

...and led to some thoughts for my own design...

Keven Siembieda, the author of Rifts, is a self-declared expert in writing games. To be honest, he's got a lot of successes to crow about, so I'm willing to agree that he's a bit of a gaming wizard. 

One of the things he talks about in the early pages of the book, however, is the reason why he wrote his own games. In short, he wanted one system for all the settings. This is a goal I can relate to.

Learning Point: I am sick and tired of learning new systems for each setting I play.

That's why games like GURPS, Fate, Cortex Plus, and Rifts appeal to me. That's why I am engaged in developing my own adaptable system for many settings.

I wonder how many long-term roleplayers have that same thought. It seems to contradict with the Gelatinous Cube of game reading... but explains the relatively few systems that actually get played. 

What might that suggest? What does it mean? 

One thing Brian Jamison mentions in his seminal book, Gamemastering, is that he only ever uses his own system. It's a home-brew engine that he just adjusts to fit whatever setting the players throw at him. That was largely what inspired (again) the shift to designing UbiquitousRPG. 

Is that something that, as a GM, we should aspire to? I'm not sure... mostly because "one size fits all" is a pile of Bantha doodo. But I wonder.

Ramble on, fellow gamer, ramble on...

Dark Trek Returns

Ever since J.J. Abrams took the Star Trek franchise and revitalised it through the most recent movies, I have been itching to run some games in the setting.

When a couple of friends also started to engage me with requests to run a one-off Star Trek game, I found myself thinking about how I might do it.

Your Trek May Differ

If there's one thing that Abrams has reminded us it's that our Trek can differ from the franchise.

It's a lot of fun to take the setting, key characters, tech, ships and species of Trek. It's even more fun when you're not bound by the official canon of events.

My idea is to set my Dark Trek campaign sometime around the birth of the Federation, as the "Enterprise" series ends and the movies begin. Running one-off, high-stakes and very high-octane stories which move forward through the early era of the Federation would be very cool. What would be even cooler is if the players were aware that "Your Trek May Differ".

Do the player's provoke a war with the Klingons? So be it. Let's play it out.

Or do they damage the fledgling alliance of worlds that is the new Federation? Let's work out the consequences in play.

What I want is for the players to feel that every decision they make can have potentially big consequences. This is, after all, what Trek is all about: heroic characters who make decisions that affect the galaxy.

Booting a System

My only barrier right now (other than finding time and a group to play it) is in deciding which narrative-style game I want to run with. I've narrowed it down to two: HeroQuest2 and Cortex Plus. The latter is probably going to win.

Narrative, you say? Yes.

At heart, I'm a gamer-simulationist. I've played Trek with FASA, GURPS and d20. The truth, however, is that TV and movie properties feel better within the framework of a narrative engine. Things have to "feel" right... and that means that the "reality" of the setting is actually beholden to the "believability" of cinematics, not hard science.

I'm taken with using the Cortex System Hacker's Guide... a good dose of Cortex Action blended with some of the new Firefly RPG stuff... and a few tweaks of my own. Unless I get lazy and just bust out the much simpler to run HeroQuest2.

Anyone for Dark Trek? I might just have to see about having that one-off game after all.

Game on!

Having Your Cake and Eating It

I'm not really a fan of roleplaying game theory. Generally, I like to play roleplaying games and tend not to think too deeply about why. 

That being said, there is a general tension in the gaming that I enjoy which, this week, has reared its head again: are we playing a game, telling a story or simulating a fantasy? 

I'm coming to the conclusion that it's all three.

Games

I like games and the fact that they have winners. The old RPG standard that "roleplaying games don't have winners" is really an illusory claim - do the heroes succeed or not? The game doesn't necessarily end when they fail, but the fact is that they either succeed or fail (to one degree or another). 

What I really like about RPGs is that the players (generally) set the goals. Even if, as GM, you give them a mission, they can still choose to reject or modify the goals. Only in the most prescriptive adventure would the GM completely set the agenda... and, in my experience, that is less satisfying for all.

Games have goals and successes and failures. They also have resources by which the participants tackle those goals. And, as a general rule in RPGs, there needs to be a sense of fairness about the resources that the heroes have in contrast to those of the opposition. Parity and balance are not as important as fairness... at least not at my table.

Stories

Stories have plots and a sense of dramatic tension, the rise and fall of action towards a satisfying conclusion. RPGs sometimes try to emulate this narrative style, to greater or lesser success. 

Heroes should probably overcome the obstacles and defeat the villains in a good story (unless your hero is really an anti-hero). Heroes shouldn't die without good reason and they should do things that are consistent with their values and the moral position that they represent. 

It's probably less important to a story that the details of things are factually accurate or possible. It's more important that they feel right and maintain an internal consistency that gives a dramatic sense of possibility. In other words, actions and consequences should fit the story and not jar with the audience's expectations too much.

Simulations

Simulations are all about "what if..." and "how..." questions. What if there was magick? How would that work? What if there were giant mecha? How would they operate? The point is to try and accurately model the fantastic within the context of a game. That doesn't just apply to stuff and effects, however.

If you're playing a roleplaying game then the first thing you might want to accurately simulate is the hero that you are playing. What if I am a Warrior... how do I play that Warrior properly? What if I am a Mage? There is a difference, right? How do I play it?

Simulations are often concerned with the way in which the details play out in a game. Things have to be not only internally consistent but also modelled with some degree of accuracy. The term "accuracy" is the bit that can cause some tension because, for a lot of players, what is scientifically considered "possible" is often not the subject of fantasy... and it's easy to forget that not everyone really cares about the details that you might care about.

All Three Please

At my table I want all three of those elements: we are playing a game with clear goals and useful resources; we are also telling cool stories which need to fulfil heroic concerns; we are playing in a fantastic setting which needs to satisfy a desire to feel alive and "real". And that doesn't sound like it should be such a hard thing.

Except that, over time, roleplaying games have become beholden to trying to satisfy one or (at best) two of those elements at the expense of the others. And there now exist evangelists for one or other of the camps that have grown up around each. 

I want to have my cake, eat it and come back for more. We are playing games. We are telling stories. We are simulating fantasies. This is meant to be fun.

Do I have a solution? Maybe it's simply not to concern myself over much with what, exactly, we are doing when we play. It probably means not placing self-limiting beliefs about "how games should be" above the fun of a session. 

The rules we have been writing for our own gaming are born out of the game-simulation-story tradition of classic roleplaying. We are probably going to be damned either way you look at us: the story-tellers will hate that our mechanics simulate effects in our world; the gamers will hate that we're not concerned with balance; the simulationists will dislike our concern for telling cool stories about heroes. 

The mistake, I believe, is in two attitudes: believing that there is only one "true way" to play roleplaying games; looking for what's missing instead of seeing what's there. 

The way we play games is simply that: it's the way we play games. If you like something from one game system then why not use it? If it doesn't quite work the way you want it to, why not mash it up with something else that you do like? If you and your players are having fun, who is going to be complaining?

Have your cake, eat it and come back for more.

Game on!

Leverage, anyone?

We started watching "Leverage" yesterday. This US TV show was a roleplaying game long before I even heard of it as a series - which just goes to show how in touch with TV we can be at times. 

As one of the Cortex Plus games, I picked up the rules around the time of backing the Cortex Hacker's Guide... but never really understood why it'd be fun to play. Now I think I get it.

Enter the Heist

As genre's go, the Heist is a time-honoured one. You know, the "caper"... the "hustle"... the "con". What it's all about is smart plans, cool gizmos and high action. We were hooked.

In roleplaying terms, this is the realm of action heroes with sassy lines and cool schticks. One of my groups' longest and most successful campaigns used a lot of the elements of the Heist, so although I'd never played in or run a specifically Leverage-style game, I felt at home with a lot of the tropes.

What's this got to do with anything?

Gamers Like Things Cool

As gamers, we like our games cool. We like slick heroes with cool gadgets and sassy attitudes. 

When talking to my co-developer, Scott, in video chat yesterday - all on the topic of our SF campaign setting - it was important to remember that gamers likes things cool. Later that day, watching Leverage, was a neat example of how to do so. Whilst TV and RPGs are very different mediums, it was good to take a few notes.

Three Things Leveraged

Firstly, I liked how the Leverage team features five operatives who don't like to play nice with others. Each is very talented at one thing - whether the Hacker or the Grifter - but, as the boss says, while each of them knows what they can do, only one person knows what all of them can do. How like roleplaying is it to conceptualise characters with very clearly defined expertise and seek to bring them together as a team?

Secondly, I was struck by how cool tech and tools were used but were not the focus of the action. Tools were just that - tools. The focus is on how the characters use those tools in the process of delivering their plan. While cool toys and effects are... well, cool... let's not get over-focused on them. The real joy in the game (as in the story) will be in what the characters do with them.

Lastly, I was pleased with how planning and backstory was accessed by use of  flashbacks. This kept the focus on the action part of the story, and dripped in the stuff you needed to know to understand the plan. This is harder to do with RPGs, but one idea that came to mind (especially for a demo or first mission) was creating a plan and having the players execute it... and then forcing them to solve the problems that arise when the plan doesn't work as expected. The focus would be on the action and the decisions players make to compensate for the unforeseen. It'd be a nice change from the usual long set-up necessary with many caper-orientated missions.

If nothing else, at least I now know why Margaret Weis Productions got into that license. Game on!

Musings From Pembrokeshire

The past week has seen my wife and I visiting Pembrokeshire, viewing awesome landscapes and visiting inspiring ruins and such.

I've also been absorbing Arduin II (aka "Compleat Arduin") and mulling over many additions and changes to the UbiquitousRPG fantasy rules.

All in all, it's been a busy week.

Deepening Tikhon

One of the main features of the week has been my focus upon "deepening" the world of Tikhon, the campaign world we're currently engaged in exploring. 

If there is one thing that reading David Hargrave's work will do, it's getting you to think a little more about the nature of things in your own world. This is a pleasant effect... and it has got me to make small changes, such as making the core currency a bit different. 

As I was writing new sections for the Tikhon rulebook, which is the next evolution of the game system blended with world details from our campaign, I found myself itching to speak a little more about Goblins, Orcs and Hobbytts. 

It's a curious thing, but the more we play and the more I muse upon writing up the campaign world's description, the more I feel that the whole thing comes to life with increasing vibrancy. I guess that, until now, I've just not had the time nor the desire to really record what was floating around in my head.

That's about all for now... but I'm sure I'll get around to updating you some more later in the week.

Game on!

More UbiquitousFantasy

+10% XP for wearing costume...

About a month ago I wrote about the decision I took to draft my own house rules modifications, which I entitled "UbiquitousFantasy". These were a mash-up of ideas derived largely from taking the existing Castles & Crusades rules we were playing and colliding them with some ideas in Monsters & Magic. The result had me feeling nervous... you can read why in the original article.

Friday night's game arrived with me feeling nervous. Although I had "published" my ideas to the group, and received some generally upbeat feedback, the group's attendance had stalled due to good British weather and holidays. With a month having elapsed since we last played, I was worried that the proposal of change would scare off my players.

I was, of course, wrong to worry.

What happened next?

The guys arrived, spent some time chatting and, eventually, settled down to convert their characters from C&C to UbiFantasy. The process involved altering Attribute bonuses, choosing some Traits from their new Role (aka Class), rolling up some Fatigue, and slotting into the new card-based Initiative. Within 30 minutes we were ready to play.

There was some annoyance from one player who, looking at things on paper, felt he wasn't as good as he was... and that my vision of his Role was contrary to his own. Things improved when I allowed a simple switch of two Attribute values. Giving clear reasons for the setting decisions he was uncertain of also seemed to help. Once we were playing, however, it was clear that his misgivings were unfounded: the heroes are all slightly more capable than before.

What surprised me was that many potentially far-reaching changes were just happily accepted - such as the need for the Cleric to roll when summoning Miracles (aka casting Clerical spells)... and things went fine when, first time out, he failed his roll. I was amazed that they didn't end up unhappy.

At the end of the session the feedback was generally positive. We had generated a raft of ideas and suggestions too... which I decided to accept on one condition: each suggestion needs to be typed up and sent in to me for consideration; this is to free me from the need to interrupt play with writing down random suggestions - I want those suggestions but I want them when they really matter to the players.

What did I learn?

Well... I learned a lot about the way UbiquitousFantasy will play and what I need to tweak from the GM's point of view. I need to adjust creature and GMC* Armour Class values (adding their Level) in the same way the heroes have been altered, for example. 

I also learned that there is real, powerful and genuine value in the stuff I wrote about last week. The level of player involvement generated on Friday was higher than anything I have ever experienced. Period.

My players suggested and talked about some ten to fifteen new Traits for their characters. How many of these ideas will make it to the game is not important: the point is that, playing in a game that suddenly places no outer limits to their imagination, the guys were inspired to make suggestions. 

Examples include the anti-magickal Witchhunter who wants to explore the idea of "sucking powers out of Mages" and "using their power against them"; we also talked about a kind of "Improved Initiative type Trait which opens up stepped-upgrades at higher Levels". Marvellous!

Right there, in game, when the Priest of the Lightbringer asked, "What is my Holy Weapon then?" and I answered, "Erm... you're the Priest of the Lightbringer... you tell me"... THAT was marvellous! When he said, "Right. It's a Lucerne Hammer then" we created a new detail for the setting. 

That's when I learned what player engagement means. Big grins all round!

What's next?

More details need writing up. I need to get my teeth into how Mages work, for example. We don't have one in the party but they are set-up to hunt and kill magickal GMCs*, so I need to sort that out for next session.

There are new rules to propose introducing. One example is Hargrave's take on Hit Points designed to stop the heroes having more HP than a Dragon. I like these rules... but then I need to tweak a few other things to make levelling up even more interesting.

Finally, there are tweaks to make to what I've already written. Little stuff, like a limit on how many Traits they can invoke in one test. Minor tweaks but important.

Oh... and I need to ride the wave of enthusiasm that their play and encouragement gave to me. Getting a full draft of UbiquitousFantasy written over the summer would feel really cool. 

Let me know if you want to join the party and take a look at what we're doing. It's all house rule stuff... but if peering under the hood will help your game, please feel free to ask.

Game on!

*GMC = Game Master Character

Inspired by Hargrave

Don't judge a book by the cover... gems within!

"Well you can't please everyone, nor do I try to do so any longer." - David A. Hargrave, Arduin Trilogy (p12), on the topic of his new Hit Point system.

I really like this quotation. I discovered it just the other day while perusing the Arduin Trilogy from Emperor's Choice Games. It's one of many little gems that sit within the chaotic collection of suggestions that David A. Hargrave offered back in the 70's and 80's. 

The thing that I really like about that quotation is that it sums up the general attitude of this legendary GM towards the attitudes of others. He happily ran a very successful series of campaign set within his own created multiverse (note: not a single world, but a whole multiverse) which is now known as Arduin. His fans loved him... and he published his ideas in the spirit of sharing and recommendation. I am sure that, if he lived today, he'd have a cult following for any blog he wrote. Yet... he had detractors.

Hargrave doesn't seem to have allowed negative comments to phase him. He was running his own game, derived from D&D but very much customised to his own tastes... and those of his gaming group. He was supremely confident (at least in print) that his ideas were good. And, looking at them 30 years later, I am inclined to agree with him.

"Take a Troll To Lunch"

"As far as my multiverse is concerned..." - David A. Hargrave, Arduin Trilogy (p13), on the topic of languages.

I've long been aware that, as a GM, you are encouraged to customise your game. This is a given in roleplaying circles. Except that it's actually rather rare.

"In my Traveller universe..." has long been something that I have understood and dreamed of implementing fully. Hargrave's approach to fantasy gaming goes further - he utterly customised the game to suit his own style, evolving a new game to fit his own new setting.

A couple of weeks ago I also took the first step in this direction. When I drafted up UbiquitousFantasy, a derived but modified blend of OSR rules, I was initially trying to widen the scope of my own homebrew game. Yesterday, however, I read this:

"Don't be lonely, take a Troll to lunch. The world is a smaller place, but it is smaller still in relationship to the myriad worlds of the entire Alternity (alternative eternities). Do not be a small player from a small world. Embrace the whole Almanity, and give the different types [of character options] a chance. I think you will find that the world your game is in will become a lot more fun if you do." - David A. Hargrave, Arduin Trilogy (p10), on the topic of his new player character types (or classes).

Having spent time customising our campaign world in include, among other things, a Witchfinder based on the specific setting details that my players had suggested in-game... well, you can imagine how liberating that encouragement to try new things would feel.

It's your game. It's your rules. Even if it's not your world, it's still your version of that world.
Go play.
Take a Troll to lunch.

Heading Out Deeper

Have you ever considered how much your players would enjoy finding themselves playing in a truly unique and personalised game? Certainly we tend to like to use a recognisable set of rules when we first play... but, once a group forms, isn't there an argument that whatever happens at your table is really your business?

Think about it: once a group forms, you are under house rules from the get-go. Once a game is running, we tend to make small tweaks to even the slickest system. Why not be brave and go further, incrementally moulding not only the setting but also your rules to fit your own, unique group? I wonder if that might not be a more rewarding outcome for everyone.

Here's a thought:

"Please try some of the rules that you have doubts about in game situations and game play. Only through actual play testing can a rule or situation be fully explored. We have been doing that for years now. Anyone can pontificate on rules and worlds that they have never tried, and can never be proved wrong because the proof is only in the play." - David A. Hargrave, Arduin Trilogy (p35), on the topic of rules questions.

Can we be brave? Who's up for taking that Troll to lunch?

Game on!

Of Monsters & Magic

Because of the way the game felt on Friday night, I was feeling rather despondent about our fantasy campaign. I wasn't feeling at all happy with the game I'd run. 

Weirdly, however, some thoughts and reflection have opened up some fresh ideas that I wanted to share with you... and it's mostly inspired by a woman I've never met...

Meet Sarah Newton

I'd never heard of +Sarah Newton until about a week or so ago. She's an author and gamer, the founder of Mindjammer Press. What grabbed my attention was a G+ post about her game, Monsters & Magic. 

Having read a preview article or two on the website, I was tempted enough to download the .PDF of the game. I am hugely glad that I did... not least because it has inspired a whole raft of thoughts that I hope will be inspiring improvements in my fantasy and SF roleplaying experience.

Monsters & Magic

Sarah's game takes the OSR material from classic D&D and makes it possible to adapt any addition (whether past or present) to a more modern style of play. She describes it as, "combining the atmosphere of classic fantasy games with modern RPG mechanics."

Last weekend, having begun to read Monsters & Magic, I was inspired! What struck me so keenly has been the encouragement to take Sarah's game engine and customise it to suit my own fantasy worlds... nay, even my SF ones! 

What's so inspiring?

In truth, everything and nothing.

There are three things that I like about Monsters & Magic:

• Replacement of the d20 with 3d6... but retaining the same old familiar stat values.
• Addition of her innovative new "Effect Engine", in which new RPG mechanics meet old.
• Encouragement to customise and personalise your fantasy experience without breaking the game.

On top of those, I really like the fact that she wrote the game with only about four experience levels of play in mind. Right there, on page 4, lay the things that really set my mind to wondering:

"While Monsters & Magic is a standalone game, we anticipate you’ll use it with your favourite classic fantasy RPG books — bestiaries, spell books, equipment, magic items, and adventures. So, we’ve provided enough spells, monsters, equipment, and magic to take you to roughly the 4th level of play — but assume you’ll also incorporate material from your favourite classic fantasy resources to support your game."

And also:

"Monsters & Magic is a modular ruleset. You don’t have to use all the rules: if you have a favourite old school rule you want to use instead (say, different experience levels, or rules for treasure), then go ahead and use it — you won’t break the game."

The game actively encourages that which most RPG publishers avoid: take stuff from wherever you like, fit it into this game system, and make it your own.

That's the thing that set me to thinking...

Generic Doom

Most D&D derivatives (including Monsters & Magic) are generic: they present a framework for playing exciting fantasy roleplaying games in a broadly medieval style setting. The assumption is that the GM will make the game their own and colour the world in their own shades. In my experience, however, this is usually done in the most cursory manner.

When we began playing Castles & Crusades, the system we decided to use for our current fantasy game, the appeal was simplicity and ease. Having just run a playtest of the new Rolemaster, my guys were hankering for an easy-play Friday night escape game. Realising that you have to run the game the players want to play, I opted to keep it simple.

Things had been going well: four or five sessions under the belt, the birth of a new homebrew fantasy setting, and highly engaged players. The combination of the advice from Brian Jamison's "Gamemastering" and the simple rules from C&C were a great starting point.

What has gone wrong, however, is that I've been labouring to run another D&D derivative generic setting. Having limited time, I've not really begun to really tailor our game to my own tastes as well as those of the players. Gloomy and bored, I approached Friday feeling that something was missing... and it was noticable.

Customised Encouragement

Sarah's game reminded me that, no matter what I play, I need to be able to customise it. Monsters & Magic is the game that, although built to support whichever generic fantasy you want to play, actively encourages (nay, requires) you to customise. Thanks, Sarah - because otherwise, it's fair to say, I think our campaign would wither and die.

Here are three things that Sarah has inspired:

1. Customised Sub-classes: Ian plays an "Assassin". I want to give him a buzz and offer him rules for the "Witchfinder" that he is actually playing, designed just for our game.
2. Customised Traits: Mark plays a Cleric. I want to give him some specific abilities that reflect his role as a "Priest of Helles, the Lightbringer". 
3. Customised Setting: We're playing in our world. I want to import ideas from several other OSR games, blending in materials that will make this our own.

All of this is possible with Monsters & Magic. Heck, all of it is possible with Castles & Crusades... but I don't really know how much that'll affect the balance of things. 

With Sarah's game, well... "you won't break the game." 

If you've not yet had a look at it, I recommend it... right now, it's a $10 download.

Game on!

Three RPG Setting Tips

Reading through Shadowrun (20th Anniversary Edition) this week, I was struck by two things: firstly, at the well-described and well-presented details of the setting and, secondly, at how the setting has evolved over time.

There is a level of verisimilitude is the stories and setting details described. The Shadowrun book opens with 59 pages of background, stopping only briefly at the opening to tell us what roleplaying games are about. You are immersed in details and stories, should you choose to read them. It's a delight!

Additionally, Shadowrun has rolled with the punches that technological development gives to an old Cyberpunk setting. In an increasingly wireless world you read about a wireless future - one written some 4 years ago just as the wireless world was getting into first gear.

These developments seem to both respond to technological development as we know it but also to the needs of players of the game: this iteration of the game fixed many problems with the older version... and the next iteration, the imminent Shadowrun 5, purports to do the same.

For me, it's a cool setting made so by attention to setting details. That's what got me thinking this week...

What makes a setting feel immersive?

Let's get the elephant in the room out of the way: Shadowrun has had 20-odd years of play and development behind it. Any setting that we create might be brand new. We can't ignore the fact that time spent in a setting allows time for the setting to develop and take form. And this wasn't always a cool game... it had a dark night too.

Yet... the question is a useful one.

Reading Shadowrun what struck me most was the attention to small details. Little out boxes with lists of brand names for night clubs are a nice example... and inside those clubs, lists of the top drinks and their nuyen prices. I didn't spend much time on those boxes but I was struck by how immensely useful such little details might be when you're trying to bring the setting to life.

Second on my list would be the use of one viewpoint to present the over-arching setting history. The style was engaging, written as a primer for wannabe Shadowrunners, but also implied that what you were hearing might not be the whole truth. There were multiple plot lines and event sequences described, giving the impression of the third thing that I'll talk about in a moment. What I liked about the style, however, was that by combining this narrative with three longish pieces of fiction the authors presented a world from at least four different viewpoints... and made you want to go and explore it for yourself.

Thirdly I would mention the idea of ongoing plots... metaplots, if you like. These are overarching campaign-scale plotlines that, I am assuming, have been part of the Shadowrun experience provided by the ongoing release of supplements. That is to say, there is a story being told through each release. This is pretty much confirmed by the publication of Storm Front recently:

...Storm Front summarizes and updates the major ongoing plots in the Sixth World, while introducing a new thread that will shake the world in the near future.

Meta-plots are something which I always had mixed feelings about. When I worked for GW (many moons ago) I was involved in running two of the annual Warhammer 40,000 global campaigns, developing and presenting a new meta-plot within the setting. At the time it was both exciting to be creating new stories through our gaming... but it was also something which annoyed a lot of fans. While some folks love the ongoing development of the setting through story, many are happier with the status quo.

Nowadays I feel that, although I've missed out on all the stories told in the Shadowrun line past, the sense of life that these tales give to a setting is powerful. Thinking back across the years of gaming, Traveller did this too... and, love or hate the Virus, it was a big and powerful part of what made that setting cool too. The fact that games like D&D have cottoned onto this in later years is testament to how effective it can be in involving fans. Narrative breeds narrative, after all.

What about our games?

First of all, I realise that I need to focus on my stories at these three levels of detail: 

1. Micro details that add a sense of reality to the game.
2. Viewpoint sketches of historic and present conflicts.
3. Having at least one meta-plot bubbling away.

Making a list of possible brews that fit our fantasy taverns, or making sure that the SF setting has a selection of cool Corporation names seems like basic GMing. Yet, and this is a hard truth, I don't make the time to do this... I wait until I need a detail and then throw it out there. Designing some useful micro details and using them consistently will help to bring the game alive. I think I'll listen to the questions that players ask to guide my writing, though - no point creating something you don't need.

Writing up sections of background from a single viewpoint, or of a few different viewpoints over time, is another nice technique. I tend to opt for third-person top-down descriptions of history. It is far more effective to create a viewpoint character and write things from their more limited but much more interesting standpoint.

Finally, and this is easier for me that I realise, I need to have one or more active meta-plot lines bubbling away. Whether in fantasy or SF, things larger than the heroes will make the worlds seem more alive and real... and threatening. It also allows the heroes moments in which they can step up and take an action within that plot, affecting it for good or ill. That's the stuff that legends are made of... and that good roleplaying cries out for.

What about you? Do you think I'm onto something? Is there something I missed? 

Let me know by throwing a comment when you've time...

Game on!

Of Traveller and Shadowrun

People who know me, or at least who read this blog, will realise that I consider myself to be first and foremost an SF roleplayer. Truth is, however, that the last time I played in or ran an SF session was several years ago. But I digress already...

As an SF roleplayer (at least in theory) I have been wondering why it is that I have always focused on hard-SF or serious-SF games, such as Traveller, and never played Shadowrun.

With a new edition of Shadowrun in production (see Catalyst Games' website: http://www.shadowruntabletop.com) and due in the Summer, I've been delving into the system a little more than I have previously.

Shadowrun 5

Yes, there's a new edition of the game coming out. There's also a tabletop skirmish game, a card game and a computer game coming - the Year of Shadowrun. With some curiousity, having bought the 4th Edition back in 2004/5, I have been reading the Preview Files - there are 3 out at present, and they are free to download.

Shadowrun 4 didn't resonate with me. At the time I wasn't interested in a fantasy-meets-cyberpunk setting. The art was too cartoon-like and seemed to not treat the idea of urban fantasy seriously enough for my taste. Nine years on my attitudes have obviously changed.

Shadowrun 5 seems to resonate. Why?

Fantasy versus Science-Fiction?

For me the two genres have been separate in my mind. I have used terms like "Star Fantasy" or "Urban Fantasy" to talk about the kinds of games that I want to play... and ignored Shadowrun's blend of SF. 

That seems odd, when I think about it.

Yet, when I read Traveller5 I felt disappointed by two things: 1) the dodgy nature of melee combat; 2) the lack of a decent Psi / Magic system. I never expected Marc Miller to include a magic system... but I was deeply offended by his dismissive and offhand treatment of Psi. Offended? YES! 

You see, in recent years I have come to regard the position of scientific supremacy as questionable. I have at the same time been having a lot of fun with fantasy elements in my gaming. When you bring together my doubt in the Scientific Priesthood with my love of a good fantastic yarn, you get something that isn't Traveller. It's something that looks more like Shadowrun.

A review, attributed (spuriously) to "Joe Chummer" on amazon.com, begins:

Shadowrun can be distilled into three important words: "Magic cyberpunk noir."

I like this description. It appeals to me... and it makes me want to grab a character sheet, a handgun and a spell book. Magic cyberpunk noir.

What do I want in my SF?

It's weird. I started writing Serene Dawn recently and I included magic, angels, demons and conspiracy in my top five elements... the fifth was an "alternate future".

I'm not so sure about Elves and Orcs with guns and cybertech... but, so Joe Chummer assures me, Shadowrun will suit my tastes:

If you're looking for a sci-fi RPG you can really sink your teeth into, this is the one. Shadowrun is quite possibly the richest, most detailed, and most beloved sci-fi RPG setting I have ever played. The way the rules and fiction are presented in this rulebook quickly dispels the "cyberpunk with namby-pamby elves" stigma (which usually originates from people who write off the game without really knowing anything about it). On the contrary, this book makes Shadowrun's world of magic and technology come alive.

What's odd to me is that this change has taken me around 30 years to notice. In fact, looking back, it's not really a change of taste... just of attitude.

When I was playing Star Frontiers back in the 1980s I was indulging in pulp SF. It's not too big a leap to my position today, really. It's just that my attitude to mixing fantasy with science-fiction has finally let me accept the concept without sneering.

This lends me to think about my intellectual snobbery once again: why have I, for so long, seen fantasy gaming as a secondary and less serious indulgence than playing SF games? They are both made up, imaginary... dare I say it, fantastic?!

Is the scientific illusion so ingrained? Not any longer, it seems.

Thank you, Shadowrun 5! You've opened up my eyes to something fun!

Can you Imagine?

Two hobby projects have been gestating this week. The first, Serene Dawn (the SF setting), hit two road blocks which, although largely temporary, put a dampener on my spirits. The second, my ongoing quest for getting fantasy right, opened up new vistas when I re-discovered Imagine.

Legends of the Unknown

This week the fifth book in the Imagine RPG series arrived at my home: Legends of the Unknown. That in itself was an exciting event, given that the subject matter includes adding watery adventures to the game - think pirates and stuff to do with travelling across the oceans, and you've captured my mindset.

The book itself, however, was only the spark for me. The main attraction was to crack open the main rules of Imagine and once again remember both why I love the game... and why I've never been able to get a game with it.

Time to Imagine

Back at the turn of the century, when the world was falling under the spell of D&D 3rd edition and the d20 system was new and magic... there was Imagine.

Looking back I see in the creation of this game a proto-movement for what was to become the Old School Renaissance... with a difference.

It began with the very cool merchandising decision to publish a poster:

Seeing this, I tracked down the website and bought the game. Reading the rules, I smiled at the irony that the combat roll used a d20... just in a very different way.

At the core, Imagine is a d100 game which uses d20 during a fight. The heart of the game, however, really appealed to me... and still does: the game includes a LOT of detail running over a very simple set of core rules. The GM is encouraged to be imaginative and creative, being given all the tools they need (via the GM Guide) to alter or design any element in the game - spells, creatures, classes, items... whatever. The players are also challenged to be creative, but in the way they describe and interact with the world they are playing in.

What I discovered was a game which harped back to the feeling I had experienced in the early days of gaming with more crunchy systems but with infinitely more freedom as a GM.

Imagine was the first game system I came across which genuinely encouraged me to create a unique world, not just another generic fantasy location.

Anti-D&D?

To label Imagine as a reaction to D&D is, however, a mistake. It's also a mistake to lump it in with the Old School Renaissance which (for the most part) has taken things back to an earlier form of D&D. For me, Imagine offers Old School Evolved... or, at least, Evolving.

Imagine suggests that, while it's helpful to have classes and levels to map out character power and progress, these things should not be limits to what you can do with the hero. It blends the best aspects of skill-based gaming with the best aspects of level-based gaming... and adds something to the mix. It's not really anti-D&D... it's actually suggesting that you take the game a step further by using your imagination.

Imagine

Imagine makes me pause. It makes me want to try it out. The only problem is that it makes me worry that my players won't like it. 

It's a game that will take you ages to create a character for but, once complete, will leave you to get on with playing. For my action-orientated group this means it really benefits from a speeding-up tool, like the rough-and-ready character generator on the game's website. What it really needs is a Hero Lab build.

It's a game that utilises one of the most innovative combat systems I've ever read. You actually describe what you want to do with that weapon and translate it into an attack roll designed to see if you achieve it. Slashing over arm to hit the Goblins head? Imagine it striking the head if you hit... but striking the shoulder if you narrowly miss! You are not only encouraged to describe (or even act out) your attack but you are rewarded for being clever: how about striking at the throat with your spear, or knocking a sideways swinging blow with your club to sweep the foe's legs out from under him?

Imagine is a game which offers real customisation as you grow your hero in whichever of the myriad of class choices you decide to follow. Class is a choice of pathway in adventure... but never a straight-jacket. 

The only downside is, given all of the choices, the game appears to be pretty complicated. 

Is Imagine complex?

That depends on what you mean.

Under the hood the game is actually simple: 

• Skills and Saving Throws are rolled on d100, roll-low, with a few optional modifiers.
• Attack rolls are d20, with modifiers.
• You gain XP to go achieve Goals (sub-levels) and Titles (levels).
• Mages cast spells using Aura (read: spell points).
• Priests cast spells freely but with limits on casts between prayers.

Imagine draws on the traditions of fantasy roleplaying. It feels a lot like D&D's spirit infused into a d100 system. Looking at it post-Arduin, I can see an awful lot of David Hargrave in the game... not in mechanics but in spirit. Imaginative ideas, encouragement to create and customise, and alternative ways of doing things are all core to Imagine. 

On the other hand, on a first reading at least, the game looks like it has some clunky aspects: the second-by-second combat system, for example, seems alien to most roleplayers... unless they've played the new Hackmaster or GURPS 4e.

Do I want a game where I need to track the second-by-second moves of the characters? That depends on my desired level of detail: I am sure that some GMs might be tempted to run the game with rounds based on the now-standard idea of a 6- or 10-second round with one action and one move. But if you bother to try out the more detailed system you discover that you don't need to add much more effort to gain a lot more tactical enjoyment... assuming you're into tactical play.

Here are two excellent quotes from Imagine creator and CEO, Michael (posted on the forum) in response to me asking, "How do I demo this to newbies?"

"For the ease of combat I break [the 10-second round] down into the first three seconds, the second three seconds and the last four seconds...So when the guy who got a -6 [for initiative] goes I ask him what would you like to do? He tells me I'd like to engage this opponent. So I check his movement and see that he has to go from walk, jog to run to get to his opponent in the third second. Lets say he has a 4-second weapon (long sword adjusted). I saw normally it would take you four seconds to swing but you are engaging the guy and you get to him on the 3rd second so that's when your first attack happens."

"Tell me how you want to hit the guy. I ask him to either describe or pantomime how he wants to hit. I show him the back of the sheet where we have already pre-calcuated his bonuses to hit and tell him to roll a d20, then add the bonus I have just shown him. Then we see how he hit. Let's say he hit right and said he was going to over head swing at the head. I tell him okay you didn't hit the head but you hit to the right tapping either his shoulder or mine to show and then he and everyone else can really visualize it. We roll damage by the weapon and I ask him what he wants to do next..."

For me, the added appeal is in the detailed description: I can imagine the movement and strike clearly for the trade-off of using a second-by-second, real-time counting system. It's not really complicated... just more detailed. 

Which is better? "I hit him!" [roll], or "I swing my sword down in a slashing move aiming for his neck!" [roll]. The second description is better, right? But what if that description also matters in the game? Cutting into the guy's neck should be very much more worrying for the guy being hit than just taking another generic dose of hit point damage. 

Which is more desirable? That is the real question: it is worth the effort to gain that detail? I feel that it might be... but I worry that my players won't agree.

Newbies

Which brings me to the question of newbies. The default assumption is that newbies need simple, for which we often substitute simplified (or, regrettably, simplistic). I have run games of Pathfinder, for example, which use the simplified "Beginner's Box" to intro the game.

Thinking back to my own gaming journey, however, I began with RuneQuest and Traveller plus Star Frontiers and D&D. I quickly graduated to Rolemaster. These were not simple games... especially given the appalling quality of explanatory writing in evidence in those early days. 

Roleplaying games are not simple to learn to play. They require a certain desire to tell stories and a preparedness to learn some reasonably challenging rules. Most young kids are actually playing much more complex games on their consoles... they just don't have to do the maths because the computer does it for them. But the tactical challenges of the games are quite large... and the more complex the game, generally, the more kids (especially boys) enjoy it.

The barrier is their confidence with what they are learning. As with all learning, you need to have the process staged and built in small steps. There's no point introducing all of the rules at once (which I tend to do, even with experienced roleplayers) because you just confuse people and turn them off. Instead, even with roleplayers who have played a lot of games, you need to step-up the learning through play. Enter the demo.

Demo

Here's where I share a newly developing idea for how to intro a new game: you run a demo.

Option 1, probably best for total newbies to a game, is to pre-generate the characters and allow them to pick-up-and-play. 

Option 2, open to more experienced gamers trying a new game, is to use a quick character generation system to speed them into playing.

Either way, you set up some basic situations which allow the players to learn how to use the game to emulate their decisions. The key point here is this: you ask them what they want to do... then you (as GM) model it into the game rules. That's what Michael's post (excerpts above) basically encourages and, from experience, I realise that this is the key.

Don't run a huge combat with 20 combatants. Run a quick fight with a couple of easy-to-defeat opponents aimed at teaching the guys how to play. They will learn the basics and get the flush of victory... making them hungry for more. Remember: they're going to win the fight... because the fight is designed to allow them to learn, not to try and challenge the heroes.

Run a series of situations which require them to use some skills. The aim, again, is just about helping players to learn how to roll the dice to emulate their actions. Throw in some Saving Throws, sure... this adds spice and danger... and teaches them how to make Saving Throws.

Give them choices to make as the story unfolds. Don't write a linear scenario... set up an open situation and allow the players to feel their way through to a conclusion. I'm imagining a house break-in, or a simple cave exploration, or a short street-based investigation with thugs getting in the way.

Make it a short session - 2 hours perhaps - and then take them through "levelling up". Allow them to customise their heroes ready for next time. And then invite them to come again... and again... and again... each time, increasing their understanding of the game with a few new details.

Even the most complex system, broken down into bite-sized learning experiences, will become accessible over time. The question is whether you're patient enough to create those experiences.

In conclusion...

I'm going to try an run some folk through games using Imagine. 

I'm going to design a beginner's scenario set in the world my main group is currently playing in too, just to make the setting stuff easy on me whilst adding to my other GMing commitments. Adding details to the world we're playing in means that, no matter how successful or not my efforts are, they are always useful to my main efforts.

I might invite my regular group to test the demo: it's a side-adventure in the setting they are already invested in, so it adds to the background of the stories we're telling... and it allows me to tweak my teaching efforts. Come the big day with the newbies, I'll be all-the-more prepared for how players might react.

I'm going to be brave and try to bridge the gap between the detail I desire in my gaming and the apparent complexity it implies. I just hope I can make it work.

Game on!

Experiences on Experience

XP: the means by which most RPGs confer improvements upon the characters, earned through their achievements in play. Experience Points (XP) are given at regular intervals to reward the players for taking part in the game. We're all, I think, familiar with the idea.

The question has always been, "What's the best way to go about awarding XP?"

The answer lies in what you want to achieve. If you want to encourage any given behaviour then that is what you reward. Thus, if you give XP for killing monsters and finding treasure you'll focus the players on those two activities.

There is no right or wrong way to reward players in your game. There are simply more or less effective ways to encourage the behaviours that you want to see. For example, seeking to encourage more "roleplay", i.e. acting in role, instead of the more common descriptive style of play, I've introduced suggestions for XP multipliers. Taken straight from "Gamemastery", these bonuses have had a dramatic effect on the behaviours of the players and the quality of the game.

Experience from Fantasy

My current Fantasy-genre game is being currently played using the default rules of Castles & Crusades. The guys are enjoying themselves, although there have been rumblings for one or two tweaks, such as with the combat rules. 

From my perspective, however, the real challenge has been calibrating the XP system. C&C uses a very slow progression rate and encourages the GM to add in delays between levelling up processes too: one week of training (expensive) per level gained, e.g. going to Level 3... well that's 3 weeks training, dude.

With staggered level-up points for each different class, low-value awards for combat, and low-encouragement to give other awards... well, I found myself unwittingly starving my players of XP. Following the default rules was making them jittery because they wanted to get to Level 2 and 3 quickly. Remembering Wick's Law that you should "run the game the player's want to play", I knew that they needed a boost.

Step One was to add in the following XP multipliers to encourage role-playing over roll-playing:

Step Two has been to adjust the amount of XP per creature overcome. My players want an action-game where monster kills are valuable, in the Old School tradition, so I will give it to them. I've decided to make the monster-kill XP a per-hero total instead of being divided between them. Thus, when my 5 heroes kill 10 Goblins, worth around 100XP they get 100 each, not 20 each. 

Step Three has been to add in larger bonuses for completing non-fighting goals. These are largely improvised but a rough scale exists in my head: 

• 50-100XP for a small personal goal or small achievement, such as thinking to record something important or prepare something useful. In the last session, one player got 50XP for thinking of making 2 torches from some wood and rotten rags off a looted creature; another got 100XP for recording the details of runes on a doorway.
• 100-250XP for completing a short-term personal goal, such as found on the player's Roleplaying Sheet, or a story goal in the current adventure.
• 250XP+ for longer-term personal goal or a major story goal, such as something that would have taken multiple adventures to achieve.

I also took the expedience of giving everyone a 300XP boost at the end of the first adventure to allow them, after four sessions, to level-up. Oh, and I have dumped the training for this event.

Musings for Beta

Beta RPG is the system I'm developing for my own gaming pleasure. Right now it's very embryonic but it does have the basics in place.

One thing Beta does lack, however, is an XP system. I've not finalised anything yet but I am leaning towards a couple of things based on the experiences of giving XP to my group.

Firstly, they like big numbers. Increments of "1000XP = a reward" sounds nice and feel good. Perhaps each 1000XP total will unlock an upgrade, allowing for some chunky XP awards depending on the genre of play.

That's a good second point too: different genres and styles of play will warrant different XP awards. Fantasy gaming will probably reward creature kills where modern gaming may not... unless it's a monster-hunt game. Thus XP calibration advice to GMs needs to outline how different awards will affect play.

Thirdly, the roleplaying multipliers will probably become a default element of the XP system, encouraging good quality play.

Lastly, the system should draw fair-sized rewards from the Roleplaying (RP) Sheet, which needs to be a part of the character creation process... perhaps similar to the bonuses I mentioned above.

And finally...

The process of XP awards needs to be flexible. It needs to reward the behaviours you want in your game.

I still want to go back and check out the Rolemaster XP system again. Years ago I used the system outlined in the GM book from RMFRP and found it to be really useful. There are all-manner of useful ideas for XP bonuses in there, despite my memory failing me right now. I need to be able to drop in some new rewards ideas if they prove useful.

Do you want them to investigate? Then give XP for each clue found and a big reward for solving the mystery. Do you want them to stop killing like psychos? Then don't reward monster kills with XP.

That said... remember: "You have to run the game the players want to play".

Game on!