Two Characterful Decks

This one's about two decks of cards that I have been using to help me generate ideas for interesting characters. Primarily, as GM, I've been using them to inspire GMCs (GameMaster Characters), but you could easily use them to inspire Player Characters too.

Story Forge Cards

I'd not heard of these until recently but, having received a deck a couple of weeks ago, I've been using them to generate major and minor GMC backstories.

Story Forge Cards are a deck of 88 cards, organised into five suits, which represent "dramatic elements" from which stories can be built. Designed originally as a tool for writers, these also come with encouragement for roleplayers to use them to build characters.

You use them by laying cards into Tarot-like "spreads", designed to generate ideas within a story-structure. There are spreads for classical story structures (mostly useful for writers), and also spreads for character generation: an extensive character backstory spread, and a useful "quick pick" spread for lesser characters.

I've been working on a Major GMC Nemesis for my Tikhon fantasy campaign and, using the cards to generate a backstory, came away with a far more interesting character than I anticipated. The cards also suggested an accomplice minor GMC and so, using the "character quick pick" spread, I also conceived a rather nifty "Lieutenant" for the bad guy.

Very quick and easy... maybe 30 mins for both. Also relatively inexpensive for any GM to add to their arsenal of tools. Recommended!

Archetype Cards

Although I consider the writings of Caroline Myss to be somewhat questionable and "hokie", she has published a rather natty deck of Archetype Cards.

The deck contains 80 large and very attractive cards, each depicting a key Jungian archetype. The cards are cool, however, because they contain notes on both the "Light" and "Shadow" aspects of each archetype - in short, how each can have a positive and a negative aspect within our persona.

Designed for self-examination, the cards come with a useful booklet of notes on the archetypes - useful if you're new to Jungian ideas - but I've been experimenting with using them to generate ideas for characters.

As a GM, I can draw (say) three cards and then choose one to inspire a minor GMC. I could combine two or three cards to make a more complex major GMC.

As a player, you might draw a bunch of cards (six might work best) and select 2-4 to build the elements of your character. Because the cards represent Archetypes, you can be sure that your hero will combine both positive and negative aspects of the various classical heroic... erm, archetypes. That makes for cool story-telling that taps into the "collective unconscious" sitting around your gaming table.

Developing Ideas

All in all, these two decks are fast becoming useful tools to inspire and deepen the generation of GMC ideas for my game. They are quick and easy to use, don't require me to reference clunky "idea tables", and tap into my latent but active imagination.

In time, with some practice, I'll try to develop some ideas for using them in a more structured manner... but, to be honest, I don't think there's much more to add other than to shuffle the deck, draw some cards, and see what sparks in your creative firepit.

Hope that's of use to someone.

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!

It Lives! Almost...

The week has been a pretty intense ride of writing, editing and discussion.

Having made the promise that we would write up the rules stuff we've been working on, I was pretty keen not to let down the guys who come to Friday Roleplay Night.

As of this afternoon, I'm about six miracles and a chunk of editing away from a finished draft. That's a really cool thing to have achieved together!

Publishing Tikhon

"Tikhon" started as a collection of rulings made to facilitate play within our own fantasy world but, at nearly 200 pages, has grown up to become a set of game rules in its own right. 

While our game has roots in the Old School Renaissance (OSR), and was developed through mashing up several sub-systems from existing games along with our own take on roleplaying, it has really become something... different. After all the work, it would be a shame not to publish it while we continue to play with it. If nothing else, it gives everyone involved a "standard" rules reference to work from.

Team Effort

The best thing, though, is that both the game and the setting has been developed openly through player contribution. Week by week, session by session, the players have been making suggestions and adding on details which have brought the world to life. As I write, I'm still waiting for the latest submissions for me to edit prior to publication. 

The big upside of this team approach has been that we are experiencing player (and GM) engagement at a very high level. Each player has spoken to me alone to feed back a similar message: this is one of the coolest gaming things we've ever done. That is the real reward for all of the effort.

As we come to the end of this initial writing phase, ready to continue our campaign in earnest from September, it looks like there will be a steady stream of new submissions ready for the future. It's really pretty exciting to bring the efforts of the whole group into sharp focus.

Reflecting...

Looking back, I think the big learning so far has been two-fold:

1. Don't be afraid to mash-up your own game.
2. Don't be afraid to say "yes" to player contributions.

While I love that there's an "industry" of roleplaying game designers, none of them plays or thinks quite like we do. By mashing up our own rules (and fitting it to our setting), we've unleashed a whole bucket of fun. On top of that, saying "yes" to players suggestions has poured fuel on the creative fire... and we have something exciting as a consequence.

The plan is to produce the booklet of rules through Lulu within the next week or so. It'll be a low-key thing, but it does allow us to hold the fruit of all our labour in our hands... and not lose as many loose-leaf pages as we might if we just ploughed it through a laser printer.

For me, it's simply great to be almost there with the rules and ready to focus back on the campaign.

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!

How's Your Faction?

One of the things that is missing from Brian Jamison's "Gamemastering" is a discussion of factions.

Although Jamison is very good at emphasising the need to focus on the player characters and their own personal Nemesis, it's important not to forget that there is a wider world or universe surrounding the actions of the heroes. 

Factions are a nice antidote to becoming over-focused on the heroes... a trait which can lead to the players believing that only what they do matters.

Factions

This piece of GMing advice landed on my bookshelf from within the excellent Imagine Master's Manual (which, at the time of writing, is a mere $14.95) back in 1999. I've written before (on another blog) about the very strong "Gamemastering" section in the book, and this particular technique.

"Conflict is at the heart of every story. Without it characters are going through the motions; living without a common purpose; or worse, arriving at their goal with little challenge. The party itself is the simplest faction in any game - a band of noble or ignoble few who stand against capricious fate...

...Fledgling Gamemasters often ask what it is that makes a setting interesting, but believable. While piles of statistics (the facts and figures) can be useful, they are shadows when compared against the factions in your setting. It is factions that create conflicts, story line and even history."

This quotation from the Master's Manual outlines very clearly what factions are about: groups of beings who band together to obtain or protect their interests. The heroes are one such band... but it's the other factions who will make your setting sing.

Mortenburg Chronicles

Our current fantasy game is set in and around the small town of Mortenburg. It began with a simple mission for the heroes: bring back the head of local brigand, Gerulf. Now, after several sessions, the heroes are about to return with the head of the bandit... and they are still wanting to play. Our one-off has begun to bloom into an ongoing campaign.

As GM the problem arises: I don't know what to do next. Certainly while Jamison's advice to look to the heroes' goals and the GMCs (Game Master Characters) is good, I remembered that the best next step I can take is to write down the settings' factions.

By way of a partial example, here's what I've done to dig myself out of the mire of uncertainty.

Faction List

Following the advice from the Imagine Master's Manual, I've decided on the largest area of influence in the campaign right now: the Barony of Faulstieff. Mortenburg sits on the edge of this territory, independent but closely allied to the Baron's family. 

The first faction is, therefore, House Stieff... the Baron's own family. They are led by the Baron himself and he seeks to maintain his power, perhaps extending it if opportunity arises.

Standing aside from House Stieff is the Mortenburg Council, led by Meister Eckhart. This coalition of landowners seeks to remain distinct and independent from the Barony... but they also need the trade of their neighbours. 

Threatening the Council are the raider groups surrounding them. To the north is Gerulf's Goblin tribe, now in decline (perhaps) following the death of their leader, Gerulf. In the south, in the Schwarzwald, lies the territory of Uter's warband. Both raider groups seek to plunder the trade caravans and farms of Mortenburg, hoping eventually to extract tribute... but Uter also seeks to conquer the town and use it as a base for more power.

Assisting Uter's bid for power is the Dark Elf Mage-Priest the heroes witnessed at the Moon Gate. Whilst I have determined her own goals, and those of her faction, I can't really reveal them here... but hopefully you get the idea.

Using Factions

All well and good, you might be thinking. How do we use these factions in prep? Simple.

The heroes may well choose to follow their own path. In my game they will perhaps seek to find out more about Uter and exact revenge for the death of Karl's brother, a stated personal goal that many in the group might be willing to help with. Or, instead, they may choose to travel to Faulstieff and report to the Bishop their discoveries in the caves. Or something else...

Yet none of their choices should occur in a vacuum. All around them the other factions are plotting, scheming and carrying forth their plans. What is Uter doing now? Having failed in his plan to ally with Gerulf's tribe, how will he respond to the change? Perhaps he himself will seek revenge on the heroes... or maybe he has bigger plans.

What of the Mortenburg Council? Will they be grateful to the heroes for killing Gerulf? How will they react to the news of Uter's involvement and threat? And what of the news of the Baron's head, picked up by the heroes at the cave? What will this development mean for their independence? 

How will House Stieff react to news of the death of their Baron? 

Hopefully you get the idea... each decision of the factions will create new circumstances and, potentially, drive new stories. What if the Council ask the heroes to take the Baron's head back home? If they accept, what will they encounter? If they refuse, how will their decision affect their standing locally? 

Factions will drive the action even when the heroes are dithering over what to do next.

Prepping With Factions

How do you prep for all of these eventualities? Simple. 

Make some decisions about how each major victory or defeat might affect one or more of the factions. I'd start with two questions:

1. Who gains from this change?
2. Who loses from the change?

The former faction(s) are likely to respond favourably to the heroes (should they encounter them) and the latter are surely destined to respond negatively. 

Choose the faction who gained the most and decide what action they take in response. Then do the same for the faction who lost the most. In our case, Mortenburg's Council gained the most from Gerulf's death... and Uter's warband lost the most. The choices of these factions will drive towards new actions and plans... and some of those might involve the heroes.

What if Uter decides to wreak revenge? No matter what the heroes choose to do next (and they must be allowed to choose), Uter is coming for them. Devise a plan and set up the things you need to know. When the time is right, and that might not be for some time, you can then drop the obstacle into the story. Does he send assassins? Create the combat encounter and, when the timing feels right, drop it on the party's head. 

Fun, fun, fun!

In Conclusion...

Factions are easy to add to your game. They add spice and detail to an otherwise 2D world that revolves around the heroes. Certainly the story should move around the choices the player's make... but not the whole world. Factions add the spice that will make the heroes' encounters seem all the more believable.

Game on!

Going Beta

As mentioned back in January, the time has come for me to (finally) pull together my own RPG. This has, in fact, been a live project since January... but has faced its own challenges and delays. 

Today I can finally reveal that development of "Beta" has truly begun in earnest. Oh, and I'd better mention that Beta is a working title. 

Beta?

Beta is named for the fact that it arises out of the charred ashes of Alpha.

Alpha was developed a few years ago as the evolution of several previous attempts to design an RPG system that fits my own style of play. One of the key features of Alpha was that it operated a two-tier system of characterisation: a roleplaying level and a skirmish level. 

The former level was the familiar RPG approach... but the skirmish level allowed players to run quick engagements or short scenarios utilising miniatures and terrain on the tabletop. This suited the Dark Reich setting, an fantastic WWII alternative world, because it opened up the same game to be played in a quick wargaming style too.

I'm not sure why Alpha stalled and failed. In the end, I think, it was just too much pressure to develop a game system plus a unique setting on my own.

Beta is already a superior development because I'm not alone: working with some very old friends, I'm able to get the benefits that arise from collaboration and feedback. Things are in the opening stages of a first draft... but the mutual support of three other gamers is a very great aid indeed.

What's the Point?

I've been pingling around with a lot of ideas which link back to Beta. I really want to evolve a game system that is quintessentially about how I'd like to roleplay.

Right now the Beta project has some serious parameters:

• it has to be relatively rules light, even a bit 'old school' in simplicity
• it has to be able to support my meta-setting, which is a genre blend
• character development is going to be fluid and a constant flow
• it needs to be beginner friendly, easy to grasp
• it needs to be GM friendly, with low prep complications

I need to swallow the pill: this is a new product; it needs to bring something new to roleplaying. 

Finally, Beta has to be something which the players around me can buy in to: no players, no point.

What's Next?

First step is to finish writing the draft and then share that with the core team. From this I hope to publish a complete "beginner's game" version set in one of the many worlds of my dreaming. 

Initially I am tempted to present the first part of my meta-setting through the medium of the fantasy-apocalyptic. More on that another time.

In the end, this is a project that is going to take time. It'll also need to discover some friends. To facilitate feedback we'll open a wiki space and invite interested parties to read, play and comment. If you're interested in trying this system out then I'd like to hear from you: pop a comment on below.

Until next time... well, I'd better go and write another section of the rules, eh?

Game on!

Dungeoneering Revisited

This week off work has been a real blessing, despite having developed the inevitable common cold and weekend lurgy. One of the reasons for feeling so positive, apart from having my wife off work for a couple of days too, was that I've had time to really dig into my hobby.

Regular readers (yes, you hallowed few!) will know that I've been really wrestling with what it means to Gamemaster roleplaying sessions lately.

You'll also realise that I have felt considerable pull in two entirely different directions:

• On the one hand I'm seeking to develop a really engaging and engrossing SF roleplaying game for my regular group; 
• On the other hand I am wanting to immerse myself into the OSR trend towards looser games in the fantasy genre. 

This week has opened my eyes to the possibility of doing both.

Dungeons

What is it about dungeon adventures that so attracts me to want to run one again? Is it just nostalgia for a mythical style of play? Well... no, not for me.

Lately I've run a dungeon adventure for a bunch of teens and, despite two TPKs in recent weeks, they keep coming back for more. One of the reasons for their enthusiasm, however, is definitely my own enthusiasm; in short, I've really enjoyed it.

Dungeons are low-intensity and low-pressure games for me. Once I have a dungeon to use I feel very comfortable in running the players through it. The relatively constrained environs in some way open up my ability to roleplay in a more relaxed manner. It's odd but, for me at least, giving a game clear boundaries helps me to feel more free in my choices.

Writing My Own

Here's a confession: I don't think that I have written and run a dungeon adventure since I was a teenager. 

I've run other people's dungeons. I played in other people's dungeons. But I've not written one myself for more than 25 years. 

I've been asking myself why. The answer is that I am both scared and lazy.

Scared? Yes. What if I write a crappy dungeon?

Lazy? Indeed. Designing an adventure with a dedicated dungeon map is actually a lot more work than most gaming sessions.

So... why bother? Answer: It's about time to scratch that itch.

Easter Crusade

As with all projects, it's important to set a target deadline and set your goals out clearly. I've decided to invite some friends to a session during the impending Easter holidays, giving me around 5 weeks to write an adventure. 

The title comes from the combination of timescale (Easter) and my initial intention to try out the Castles & Crusades system for the game (Crusade). Of course, right now, I am really being tempted by OSRIC (essentially 1e D&D) because of the added complexity... and several other OSR titles too because of their faithful followings online.

All that aside, the main focus has been to come up with an adventure idea and turn it into a cool one-day 8-hour roleplaying session for my friends. 

Challenges so far...

What I wanted to share, however, were the challenges that I seem to face in getting this dungeon written.

Firstly, I have only the vaguest of adventure ideas running around my head: I want to feature a Paladin and a Cleric; I want to do a dungeon raid of some kind, with really clear goals; I want to run it with 3rd level characters, probably pre-gens convention-style. 

Secondly, I haven't designed a dungeon map for more than 25 years. It actually is a bit of an art to do well, so this seems daunting.

Thirdly, I don't want to set it in any pre-generated setting, either of my own or anyone else. In one sense, the adventure will be the beginning of a new setting... but also, very likely, a stand-alone event. That almost gives me too many choices.

Solutions are, however, at hand. 

A copy of The Tome of Adventure Design has proven a really positive tool to get my creative juices flowing. I'm going to review it in more detail at the end of the project, but so far it has proven a valuable mine of cool ideas and systems for dungeon-building.

I've also bought in some squared-paper, tracing paper, pencils, a pencil-sharpener and an eraser. Actually handling these items has really brought my enthusiasm to boiling point. 

It's weird but, in some way, the only thing that seems missing is the idea to get me started.

What's Next?

I guess I am just going to begin and see where this project takes me. Perhaps by sharing the process and thinking out loud with you guys I'll feel spurred to complete it. 

What do I need from you? Maybe some encouragement, advice or ideas. Oh, and if you're local to Nottingham (UK) and you fancy a game, maybe you'd like to come take a seat at the table.

Here's to my first dungeon in more than 25 years. Game on!

Three Gaming Revelations

Yesterday I read an interesting statement over at The Iron Tavern:

I have been having some thoughts on just how many rules I need in an RPG as well. That thought is a subject for another blog post, but these thoughts have led me to lightly kick the tires of a few other systems. (Castles & Crusades, Oct 10th 2012) 

This rang true for me. Regular readers will know that over the past few weeks I've been tackling similar issues. How much "rules crunch" do I need? Why am I "butterflying" and what can I do to control it?

What has been happening this week to really kick this up a notch?

Three Revelations

That article was the second revelation in what has been a hectic week. The first was from a wargaming experience. The last came from fiddling with Google.

Wargaming

I was a wargamer long before I was a roleplayer. This explains a great deal.

My Dad was the one who got me into wargaming (not the first time I've mentioned it, sorry Mr Regular Reader). We used to idle away weekend afternoons fighting World War II battles with paper hexed maps, counters, d6 and generally complex rules.

Complexity was something that appealed to my Dad. I guess it rubbed off on me too because for most of my life I have been attracted to detail in my games. For him it was about simulation: making the game as "real" an experience as it can be... without, obviously, the actual fear and scent of death.

Oddly, however, Dad was never really much into miniature wargaming. As he punished me, the day I bought my first ever miniature SF models, Dad was ranting on about how expensive and what a waste toy soldiers would be. Wargaming, for him, was best simulated initially on hexed maps with chits and, eventually, on computers. It's ironic that, to my knowledge, Dad still hasn't found his ideal system. Nor have I.

This week I was taking a look at Hawk Wargames' Dropzone Commander. The models are stunning and the rulebook is very pretty. The terrain is lush too. Yet, reading the rules, I was under-whelmed. Don't get me wrong... the rules are fine; there are a lot of cool and innovative ideas... but it's still doing the same old "d6-roll-high" mechanic that most games do. Like Rick Priestley said recently, there is only so much you can do with a d6.

So... what was the revelation? Well, that came from Rick Priestley. Mentioned in the draft Gates of Antares rules comes the decision Rick has made to escape the humble restrictions of the d6... and opt for a d10. This isn't stunning... but it did remind me of something I wrote a few years ago: two sets of rules, one using a d8 and the other using a d12.

That's when it struck me: I'm truly fed up with playing other people's games.

Simpler Rules

Enter Jeremy's comment from The Iron Tavern: "I have been having some thoughts on just how many rules I need in an RPG".

Recently I've been poring over Fate Core and getting excited about running a new setting in this new-for-me system. Fine and dandy. But that's not all.

For months and months I have been reading system after system with one core theme running through most of them: a move towards stripping away complexity while retaining flavour. 

Castles & Crusades, Swords & Wizardry, D&D 5th, Fate Core, Classic Traveller, Stars Without Number... the list goes on and on. Each of these has a single central connecting idea: less is more.

And yet... don't I love complexity?

What I actually love is detail and freedom in design. That's not the same as complexity. 

I don't really crave after complex rules because they are complex. I am attracted to games like GURPS and Hero because they offer me the choices to build the game the way that I want it to be. The side-effect is that those rules tend towards the complex (at least in terms of time needed to prep with them) because they offer a massive range of choices.

What I love in terms of day-to-day play, however, is simple and slick systems. I discovered that I happen to agree with the author of Castles & Crusades:

The core of any game’s philosophy has to have the goal of creating and capturing a mood charged with excitement. Anything that detracts from that objective detracts from the game. How does one capture that mood? Foremost, the rules guiding game play must be easily understood. Ideally, the basic rules of the game should be easily grasped within about fifteen minutes. A player should be able to sit down with another player, create a character, and have the basics of the game explained to them in just that time. As a foundation, the rules must be kept simple and logical, easy to comprehend and easy to enact. Expanding the game comes later, much like adding stories to a building. Start with a firm, square foundation and everything else follows. (Castles & Crusades Player's Guide, page 3).

And here was the second revelation: I don't want complexity, but I do want detail. When I play my SF game I do want to know the make, model and relative effectiveness of this laser rifle over that laser carbine. Detail. But not complexity.

That's why Traveller5 has me rolling my eyes. Lots of details (yes!) but 650+ pages of rules... and no standard equipment list (ouch!).

My Rules
That brings us up to this morning. This was the morning I (finally) got around to activating and setting up my Google Drive. It's also when I discovered what old Google Docs were stored in my Google Drive. Here comes revelation three.

Hidden in a folder on my Google Drive are a set of draft rules from 2010. They are the first draft of my "Alpha RPG" rules which, at the time, were being developed for the Dark Reich setting.

Finding these rules was the revelation. It led me to think about my other four attempts at writing my own system.

First, in 2004, was the d12-driven Engine12... which got bashed into a cowardly sub-version called Engine 6. I chickened because I didn't think that anyone wanted to play with d12s. I also got fed up with writing a very long skill list.

Then came Mission Team. This was a kind of RPG skirmish game. Very slick idea... but frustrating because I bound myself to the d6 and couldn't get a big enough range of modifiers to make long-term development of heroes taste right. Version two tried a d8... but I dropped the project because I felt people wouldn't play with a d8. Gutless, right?

Another d6-based system actually got playtested with the Friday Night Group just prior to our playtest with Warhammer FRPG 2nd Edition. It got pushed onto the back burner because we moved on as a group... despite having some very promising ideas.

Then, in 2010, I bit the bullet again and started to work on Alpha. We actually enjoyed a session of playtest with that too... only I lost the most recent files when the wiki it was stored on crashed. I assumed it was all gone and didn't have the heart to try and recreate it. Until today.

It turns out that all my old work has not been rendered photons.

What Conclusions?

Maybe it's time to (finally) write my system. Maybe not.

It's certainly time to figure out where I want to take my hobby.

It has been over 7 weeks since we last played on a Friday. I'm desperate for a game... and very much losing focus. 

On the one hand, I have a Rolemaster game to pick up and play; nothing wrong with that. On the other hand I have an SF setting we're building (currently using Fate); nowt wrong with that either.

Yet my heart wants to write. Create. Build. Mould. Produce. Play.

What do you think? Is it time to write Beta?