"You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! "
Today is another in our series of really obvious concepts that I've seen plague games. I'm getting into minutiae a lot lately, but I promise more big, universal concepts are coming. The problem with writing about those is that they're way harder and require more thought. It's strange, but I can boil something down pretty easily if it's just a minor point to some, but huge universal concepts have way more pressure to them. BUT ANYWAY, enough of me complaining, today we're talking about "Cleverness" and why I hate it.
That's what we call an inflammatory lead-in to hook your interest. I don't mean being intelligent. I'm not suddenly saying I crave the company of the blind and stupid. Cleverness is defined a little more closely here and it's thanks to a book I enjoyed called the Tao of Pooh that made me think of it in a different light. Cleverness is defined(for our purposes) as a desire to prove yourself smarter or more clever than others.
Yeah, suddenly you see why this is a Pen and Paper game concept, right? I'm sure we've all met a few of "that guy" who constantly comes to game with real world tips and tricks, science knowledge, home chemistry recipes or worse, social psychology tricks to use in a pen and paper game. Or, maybe you know someone who immediately looks for a loophole in every encounter, tries to find things the GM hasn't thought of, or worse, constantly tries to trick others in an OOC sense. In my experience, most of these people don't really know what they're doing wrong, but this is a fairly bad habit to get into. First off, a lot of people feel things like bringing real world knowledge to a game is some sort of method to "logically" eliminate a skill check. We've talked about challenge a lot on the blog, and there's a big, big difference between solving a challenge fairly and thinking you can "outsmart" the GM or "skip" a skill check. The difference is very, very obvious, and you should know which is which. Thinking PNP games are a 'fight' between the GM and the Players is probably the beginning of this mode of thought, and I'd like everyone to try and squash that immediately. There are plenty of ways to have a competitive PNP experience, but the model of GM and Players is not one of them. a competitive experience can't have a GM competing in it. Simply put. This doesn't mean that a game can't support competition, but in my experience this slides a PNP game a little closer to being a board game.
Applying real world knowledge is admittedly a hairy concept, because sometimes it's good. Sometimes it can even be what the GM intends for you to do. What I'm arguing against here is less an action and more a mentality. It can feel really cool to apply real science or know-how to a challenge, OR it can leave everyone groaning as you excitedly try to manipulate a loophole in design. Introspection can be hard, but try to think about your motives: If you're more excited that you know something that can solve a challenge easily than you are about actually solving the challenge, that might be a red flag. If you're excited that you found something that you're sure the GM didn't think of and obviously didn't intend, that's a REAL BIG red flag.
I'm going to put aside, for NOW, the idea of bringing knowledge to the table that your character wouldn't necessarily possess. No, a post on The Information Game is coming very soon because it's one of my blog's big elephants in the room. Past that, whether you know you're doing it or not, trying to outsmart other people is arrogant and creates negative feelings that might fester and become a problem later. You might not even know you caused it. So what do I want you to do? In general, try not to think of gaming as inherently antagonistic, because it's not. Be nice, and understand when a GM says something isn't going to work or when he asks you to roll a skill check even though your action shouldn't "logically" need one. I promise I'll explain more about the whys of my advice in a moment, after we talk a bit to the GMs.
Yeah, get back here. This concerns you too. There's two ways to go about creating a challenge, and one of them is wrong. When you create a challenge in a PNP game, most of the time it's something you are intending the PCs to solve. Regardless of the difficulty. This is, understandably, one of the biggest leaps in logic a GM has to make, so I want you to go back and read that until you understand what I'm saying. If you "stump" the PCs to prove you're a smarter person than they are, your game doesn't go anywhere. It's as simple as that. I mean, I didn't think I had to explain this but I've met many, many people who could really use that advice. I've heard dozens more horror stories as well. To constantly try to "trick" or "outsmart" your players also makes them way less likely to want to play your game. There is a very fine line between designing a challenge within the genre's rules(more on that in a moment) with reasonable solutions and designing a tricksy encounter that's intended to stump or halt the PCs. Building a challenge around real world knowledge is only acceptable when you're giving the PCs a real puzzle to solve(such as a word puzzle or cipher) and even then, you should be prepared to give out hints for things like wisdom checks or Enigmas skills. Any other "real world" checks should have some sort of component of a skill check to them. Imagine a situation where a player must build a car engine: Obviously, this is a situation where someone would make one or several skill checks and the GM would state some sort of time frame. Now imagine I forced the players to describe how to build an engine, step by step, without using real world reference. I am confident that I know nobody who would be able. I know many gamers who know car maintenance and construction, but none who would be able to describe the action while sitting at a gaming table and with absolutely no reference.
Obviously that's an extreme example and something that's shockingly mean to do. However, it's also what you're doing, on a smaller scale. Real world knowledge has its place in PNP games, but as we discussed in "Well Logically", it's not even in the top ten most important things about a pen and paper game. You're wholly dismissing the character's build when doing this, which we discussed before when social skills came up. Seeing as how we've transitioned partially to discussing application of real-world knowledge in games, I'd like to bullet-point some of my tips and reasons.
Your clever little real-world trivia could be wrong. You remember how we were all taught things like Christopher Columbus wanted to prove the world was round, how to properly eat with the food pyramid, how Billy the Kid was ugly, and people in the Wild West thought tomatoes were toxic? Maybe you're thinking of torture devices like the Iron Maiden being built in the middle ages? Yeah, none of those are actually true. People get away with applying junk trivia and pseudoscience because we all have something similar to "fight or flight" in our minds: When we encounter someone saying something in a bold or insistent manner, we choose "Argue" or "Drop it". Often, disruptive cleverness starts by someone hearing something on the internet and ends with their bold assertion not being argued, because we don't have all god damn day.
You're only right because you're running counter to the genre. Yeah, this one happens sometimes too. Sometimes, a desire to prove yourself as smarter or better than the GM leads you to completely forget that he's working within genre conventions to create a special feel to the game. He's hoping you play along, because(presumably) he described the game's feel to you fairly well. Doing things like calling the police in a superhero or vigilante game, like using siege tactics on a band of orcs in a high fantasy hack-and-slash game, or even building your character contrary to obvious expectations can be disruptive and breed negativity. It's not even very clever, exactly: The GM probably thought of that sort of thing, and dismissed it because he expected the group to immerse themselves in the world he created. Building a mage who technically has melee attacks when he asked everyone to build melee characters isn't "clever", it's "acting against the spirit of what he asked you to do".
You're not promoting healthy challenge, you're squashing it. In my high school chemistry class, my teacher openly and repeatedly called my row of seats stupid. We were "the dumb kids". I was struggling with the class already after the first time she did that. What do you think happened? Yeah, I stopped trying. I regret not skipping that class, honestly. I failed it, told nobody about the severe verbal abuse(because this was the 90s, nobody cared) and took the class again next year. Constantly trying to "one-up" everyone in a game or prove you're the most clever will absolutely cause everyone around you to just stop trying. Most people naturally shy away from conflict, so everyone's just going to check out and the game will fizzle if it piles up too high.
Rules and conventions exist for a reason. Sometimes some fact, trick or method is omitted for a reason. In addition to presenting a reasonable world, PNP game rule sets have to worry about a multitude of other things. They have to be reasonably fair, offer the players plenty of choices, and be easy to use. Sometimes a system simply doesn't think to include something, but often when things are omitted, it's for a good reason. Telling the GM you're buying a bunch of unrelated chemicals then informing him that they make C4 when mixed is outside what a lot of systems intend: What they want you to do is to buy C4 like a normal person and deal with the availability rules for it. Exceptions can be made, of course, but this is something you need to work with the GM for and not "spring" on him like you're trying to trick him. After all, nobody would argue if trying to make C4 in your bathtub got you blown the fuck up.
Another week, another long ramble. I sincerely apologize for this post not being as coherent as my others, but there's no editing it. This is a habit everyone's seen but one I have a hard time describing. This is also a really, really fine line: a lot of the time, applying knowledge can feel really cool and accomplishing. At the end of the day, I'm cautioning you against a mentality, and it can be very confusing to discuss. Constantly looking for loopholes instead of sincere solutions to challenges is antagonistic and arrogant. Trying to "pull one over" on a GM is ridiculous(he's presumably putting work in for everyone's enjoyment) and trying to "stump" your players ensures that you're the only one having fun. Players buy skills for a reason, and throwing them out to make a challenge harder is the same thing as making them fist fight you in real life to win combat. Bringing up little "real world" science or psychology tricks can get really tiring. Consider it a bad habit: Use skill checks alongside real knowledge, and try to immerse yourself in the genre and tone the GM is setting. Try not to act solely in self interest, and ask yourself if you're doing something because you want everyone to think you're really smart. You're one of several people trying to enjoy the same activity, and you should take care not to step on someone else's enjoyment.
As a final word, I did leave out one major piece of advice: How to deal with a problem player. There are a multitude of advice sections in GMing guides on this, but I'll be weighing in with my own dumb advice next week. It was going to be in this one, but I've tied a really long rambly tail on this post already.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Sunday, November 13, 2016
TPK: Railroading
"Do it? Dan, I'm not a republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting the outcome?"
"I did it thirty-five minutes ago."
CHOO CHOO. I wrestled with whether to make this an episode of TPK or not, but frankly? I've seen railroading kill a lot of games. It's something we all hate, but it's also one of those things that everyone has a slightly different definition of. It's one of the villains of pen and paper gaming and you can find millions of horror stories online of shitty GMs using railroad tactics for various ends, usually to make sure nobody messes up their precious story. I'm going to go over this concept like none of you have ever heard of it before, why people hate it so much, when you're going to need to use it, and how to do it when you need to. That's the unfortunate little truth behind railroading, after all: Sometimes, it's necessary.
As a loose definition, railroading is forcing the game to go the way you want it to, either on a large scale or a small scale. It can be as large as blatantly scripting entire parts of the game, providing only one plot hook, or squashing any attempt at self motivation, or as small as forcing the players to deal with the pointlessly weird, overly quirky NPCs you made. Yes, the guy who demands you speak only in rhyme is the only blacksmith within a hundred miles. Sorry.
Remember we discussed Agency, and how I said it's hyper important? Agency is why railroading destroys your game. When people say "I'm upset that you keep railroading us", they're really saying "I'm upset that you keep removing my agency." Agency is a person's control over their surroundings, their character, their choices, the plot, anything. Railroading is more precisely defined as the removal of player agency for some purpose, usually to make the game go in the direction you want it to. When you remove a player's agency, they are going to get upset on some level. It's as simple and as childlike as this: They had something they wanted to do, and now they can't do it. This level of disappointment is primal and easily turns to anger after they reason their own way that you could have presented the plot without railroading. They WILL do that. This is why removing agency is so bad: the response is deep within us and can not be trained or "beaten" out.
Nor should you try. Pen and Paper gaming is a collaborative experience. The GM is not more important than the player, and already has much, much more input over the story than them. Removing what little say over the plot that they have just to protect your lion's share is absurd and selfish. Like I've said over and over, you are not the King of the Castle magnanimously doling out the exact plot that you deem fit, and the players are not grubby Dickensian street urchins who should be glad to get whatever scraps they get. This is a collaborative effort, and frequent railroading is an act of greed.
If you really think that, stop now. You don't have what it takes to be a GM. Close the book, close my blog, and take a break, because no game you ever run will be satisfying. Even if they finish, even if everyone tells you it was amazing, inside, they're not happy. Thinking you're King A-Rab, controller of this game, and telling people who complain that "the door's right there" will lead to failed, unfinished games. period. One of the problems is in the social aspect of PNP games: Frequently, if your railroading killed a game, the players may not tell you the real reason they're not interested. They may not even know consciously. They just know that playing your game doesn't sound very fun.
So I hope I explained why railroading is so bad. This is a collaborative experience, and even past that, punishing or outright preventing people from doing what they want is arrogant and absurd. PNP games are not video games, and they can not be compared to them in any large way. You can't just present the exact linear plot that you want and simply pause every once in a while for reactions. Pen and Paper RPGs are a completely unique beast and can't be treated like a movie, or a game, or a book.
Only, here's the thing. You may need to remove the player's agency over specific things to keep your plot from derailing. There will eventually be a moment, an NPC, a villain or an act that the players can't muddle with or else the plot won't continue. Railroading is still not okay, so we have to minimize the amount of it we do as well as its impact. Here's some tips.
Write as few 'hinge' moments as possible. When outlining your campaign, look for these moments that can easily derail the game. Write them out if you can. Create a contingency if that's possible. Think of how the players might act and plan for it.
When a person must live, do not put them in harm's way. If I could bold this one twice, I would. Don't give the players a chance to kill someone if killing them destroys your plot. Villains can send lackeys to gloat or provide needed exposition, or employ spells to protect via spells like contingency, or show themselves via illusions. In most systems, inventing a spell isn't THAT hard and the villain often has more time for this sort of thing than the PCs do. More modern games can use phones and televisions to give the villain face time without being in the same room as the PCs. So can architectural design, depending on your PCs and their capabilities. Being too far away from the players for them to catch up or attack effectively, or being behind a fence they won't be able to hack through in time. PCs aren't always as bloodthirsty as the stereotype, but they WILL often try for the shortest solution they can think of: To stop the villain, murder him. Only give them a chance when you're okay with a villain dying and have planned for it. In a pinch, you can fudge a bit to give him more AC or more HP, but be very, very careful with doing that: The players can't know you did it.
Make the players feel like their agency was never removed. This is very tricky and a touch dishonest, but it's very important. in some situations you can control the outcome without making it feel like you did. Do this sparingly(or else they'll notice) and it can be effective. This also covers coming up with contingencies for the PC's actions: If the players are too genre-savvy to open the necronomicon and recite a spell from it, someone accidentally listens to a recording of the former owner doing the same. See what I did there?
Consider important events happening off-screen. The players don't have to be present for everything. The story can be conveyed in other ways, like the PCs showing up too late to stop something or seeing its aftermath. Telling them the story via finding the evidence of something happening can even be more compelling than just watching something happen. The feeling of "There's nothing we could have done, because we weren't there" is very different than "There's nothing we could have done, because you keep fucking with the dice.". In some situations you can even literally show them what happened, via security footage, television screens, tapes, or programmed illusion magic. I've even had one GM show us scripted "Meanwhile" scenes at the end of a session. Use this sparingly, and it can be very effective.
I'd actually like to, for the first time ever, reference the quote I used for today's post. The characters in Watchmen arriving too late to stop Ozymandias is an excellent example of this tactic...however, it's used in precisely the wrong moment. In a comic book story, it's perfectly acceptable to end on a "down note". The good guys lose, the 'bad guy' wins, and the fight that ensues is a pointless, purely emotional conflict. However...it's not okay to ever remove the agency a player has over the ending of a game. This is a big, big moment for everyone, and...I'm sorry, but the players losing in the end is going to make your game memorable in the bad way. It's a disappointment that will live with them for a long time, especially if you forced the 'bad' ending take place.
Information. This one is another tricky one. Something can happen right in front of the PC's eyes if they don't understand what's going on at first or don't think they need to stop it or kill someone. This is another variation on the PCs "showing up too late". There's a huge X-factor to this, and it's called "how bright your players are". In my experience, player's reactions can vary WILDLY, missing obvious clues but latching on to and solving extremely esoteric ones. Be careful, and always have a plan B.
In fact, I think that's my parting advice. Always have a Plan B. Never hinge your game's plot on something that MUST HAPPEN if the players are intended to be anywhere near it when it does. Plan multiple ways your plot can move forward so you don't have to force it to do so. You will have to railroad at some point, but imagine it like ninjitsu: To be noticed is to have failed.
"I did it thirty-five minutes ago."
CHOO CHOO. I wrestled with whether to make this an episode of TPK or not, but frankly? I've seen railroading kill a lot of games. It's something we all hate, but it's also one of those things that everyone has a slightly different definition of. It's one of the villains of pen and paper gaming and you can find millions of horror stories online of shitty GMs using railroad tactics for various ends, usually to make sure nobody messes up their precious story. I'm going to go over this concept like none of you have ever heard of it before, why people hate it so much, when you're going to need to use it, and how to do it when you need to. That's the unfortunate little truth behind railroading, after all: Sometimes, it's necessary.
As a loose definition, railroading is forcing the game to go the way you want it to, either on a large scale or a small scale. It can be as large as blatantly scripting entire parts of the game, providing only one plot hook, or squashing any attempt at self motivation, or as small as forcing the players to deal with the pointlessly weird, overly quirky NPCs you made. Yes, the guy who demands you speak only in rhyme is the only blacksmith within a hundred miles. Sorry.
Remember we discussed Agency, and how I said it's hyper important? Agency is why railroading destroys your game. When people say "I'm upset that you keep railroading us", they're really saying "I'm upset that you keep removing my agency." Agency is a person's control over their surroundings, their character, their choices, the plot, anything. Railroading is more precisely defined as the removal of player agency for some purpose, usually to make the game go in the direction you want it to. When you remove a player's agency, they are going to get upset on some level. It's as simple and as childlike as this: They had something they wanted to do, and now they can't do it. This level of disappointment is primal and easily turns to anger after they reason their own way that you could have presented the plot without railroading. They WILL do that. This is why removing agency is so bad: the response is deep within us and can not be trained or "beaten" out.
Nor should you try. Pen and Paper gaming is a collaborative experience. The GM is not more important than the player, and already has much, much more input over the story than them. Removing what little say over the plot that they have just to protect your lion's share is absurd and selfish. Like I've said over and over, you are not the King of the Castle magnanimously doling out the exact plot that you deem fit, and the players are not grubby Dickensian street urchins who should be glad to get whatever scraps they get. This is a collaborative effort, and frequent railroading is an act of greed.
If you really think that, stop now. You don't have what it takes to be a GM. Close the book, close my blog, and take a break, because no game you ever run will be satisfying. Even if they finish, even if everyone tells you it was amazing, inside, they're not happy. Thinking you're King A-Rab, controller of this game, and telling people who complain that "the door's right there" will lead to failed, unfinished games. period. One of the problems is in the social aspect of PNP games: Frequently, if your railroading killed a game, the players may not tell you the real reason they're not interested. They may not even know consciously. They just know that playing your game doesn't sound very fun.
So I hope I explained why railroading is so bad. This is a collaborative experience, and even past that, punishing or outright preventing people from doing what they want is arrogant and absurd. PNP games are not video games, and they can not be compared to them in any large way. You can't just present the exact linear plot that you want and simply pause every once in a while for reactions. Pen and Paper RPGs are a completely unique beast and can't be treated like a movie, or a game, or a book.
Only, here's the thing. You may need to remove the player's agency over specific things to keep your plot from derailing. There will eventually be a moment, an NPC, a villain or an act that the players can't muddle with or else the plot won't continue. Railroading is still not okay, so we have to minimize the amount of it we do as well as its impact. Here's some tips.
Write as few 'hinge' moments as possible. When outlining your campaign, look for these moments that can easily derail the game. Write them out if you can. Create a contingency if that's possible. Think of how the players might act and plan for it.
When a person must live, do not put them in harm's way. If I could bold this one twice, I would. Don't give the players a chance to kill someone if killing them destroys your plot. Villains can send lackeys to gloat or provide needed exposition, or employ spells to protect via spells like contingency, or show themselves via illusions. In most systems, inventing a spell isn't THAT hard and the villain often has more time for this sort of thing than the PCs do. More modern games can use phones and televisions to give the villain face time without being in the same room as the PCs. So can architectural design, depending on your PCs and their capabilities. Being too far away from the players for them to catch up or attack effectively, or being behind a fence they won't be able to hack through in time. PCs aren't always as bloodthirsty as the stereotype, but they WILL often try for the shortest solution they can think of: To stop the villain, murder him. Only give them a chance when you're okay with a villain dying and have planned for it. In a pinch, you can fudge a bit to give him more AC or more HP, but be very, very careful with doing that: The players can't know you did it.
Make the players feel like their agency was never removed. This is very tricky and a touch dishonest, but it's very important. in some situations you can control the outcome without making it feel like you did. Do this sparingly(or else they'll notice) and it can be effective. This also covers coming up with contingencies for the PC's actions: If the players are too genre-savvy to open the necronomicon and recite a spell from it, someone accidentally listens to a recording of the former owner doing the same. See what I did there?
Consider important events happening off-screen. The players don't have to be present for everything. The story can be conveyed in other ways, like the PCs showing up too late to stop something or seeing its aftermath. Telling them the story via finding the evidence of something happening can even be more compelling than just watching something happen. The feeling of "There's nothing we could have done, because we weren't there" is very different than "There's nothing we could have done, because you keep fucking with the dice.". In some situations you can even literally show them what happened, via security footage, television screens, tapes, or programmed illusion magic. I've even had one GM show us scripted "Meanwhile" scenes at the end of a session. Use this sparingly, and it can be very effective.
I'd actually like to, for the first time ever, reference the quote I used for today's post. The characters in Watchmen arriving too late to stop Ozymandias is an excellent example of this tactic...however, it's used in precisely the wrong moment. In a comic book story, it's perfectly acceptable to end on a "down note". The good guys lose, the 'bad guy' wins, and the fight that ensues is a pointless, purely emotional conflict. However...it's not okay to ever remove the agency a player has over the ending of a game. This is a big, big moment for everyone, and...I'm sorry, but the players losing in the end is going to make your game memorable in the bad way. It's a disappointment that will live with them for a long time, especially if you forced the 'bad' ending take place.
Information. This one is another tricky one. Something can happen right in front of the PC's eyes if they don't understand what's going on at first or don't think they need to stop it or kill someone. This is another variation on the PCs "showing up too late". There's a huge X-factor to this, and it's called "how bright your players are". In my experience, player's reactions can vary WILDLY, missing obvious clues but latching on to and solving extremely esoteric ones. Be careful, and always have a plan B.
In fact, I think that's my parting advice. Always have a Plan B. Never hinge your game's plot on something that MUST HAPPEN if the players are intended to be anywhere near it when it does. Plan multiple ways your plot can move forward so you don't have to force it to do so. You will have to railroad at some point, but imagine it like ninjitsu: To be noticed is to have failed.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Hard Vs. Soft Crowd Control
As a companion piece to last time, I thought I'd go over the two different type of crowd control. As an MMO player these terms are second nature to me, but I was discussing last week's article with someone and thought maybe this ISN'T a common concept. This week might be a bit of a shortie, but it's about hard vs. soft crowd control. Now, I know what you're thinking and I just want to caution you we're going to be saying "hard" and "soft" a lot. Try to get all the erection jokes and giggles out before the end of the article, please.
Neither type of crowd control is bad, but Hard Crowd Control is the one you have to be more careful with. This type is anything that completely(or virtually completely) denies any action a character can take. Stuns, Paralyzes, Sleeps, anything that makes a PC think it's a good time to get up and get a soda. In fact, while these can be a very powerful threat, THAT is the reason you want to be careful with this style of crowd control: whoever falls victim to it is 'out'. His interest in the game is gone, and it may not necessarily come back once he can act again. Being hit by hard CC is a disappointment to most, and when CC is a problem, it's usually hard CC you're talking about, just like how nearly every time you talk about violent or exploitative video games, it ends up being Rockstar you're discussing.
However, it's not all bad. Neither type is. The good thing about hard CC is its threat factor, they're powerful, scary abilities because they reduce the party's action economy in a single saving throw. Action Economy is the number of actions an individual or party has, and is incredibly important to any type of pen and paper game. This is why Haste was broken in 3.0, why initiative bonus is so important in Shadowrun, and why an army of minions can be so devastating in Mutants and Masterminds. So, knowing all that, we know that Hard CC can be deadly effective and always makes the party sit up and take notice. Use it sparingly, and try to make sure the party knows about it before being hit. That way, the very threat of it will likely make them change their tactics. Reacting to a situation to try and defeat it is what feels good about combat.
Soft crowd control is anything that restricts your actions but does not prevent them entirely. Slows, trips, knockbacks, pushes, herding, grappling and swallowing whole are all in this category. In fact, MOST crowd control lies in this category. Hard CC is a pretty small list in most games. These are effects that cause the players to think, to stare at the board carefully and plan out their action instead of their decisions being basically independent of what's going on in the game board. These you can use more judiciously since Agency has been restricted but not removed, and thus the player remains engaged. The player(depending on how they game) may even be more engaged than he was before. Basically, soft CC is your friend and can be used way more often than its hard counterpart. I do still have two cautions for you, though.
The first is that you really can't spam any of these effects, regardless of the circumstance. Making a decent "really challenging" encounter is a collection of different things and tactics, and overusing any one thing will easily knock your encounter down to "really annoying". As a general rule, don't try to make something more difficult by overusing soft CC or setting up "team tactics" such as pairs of two who repeatedly bull rush you into each other to easily knock you down. Even the guy who came up with THAT one apologized for it later. Remember that the players have a much harder time coordinating tactics than you do, and a solution that sounds simple to you may be anything but for them. In addition to that, the GM often has the luxury of using minions whose actions aren't as important as a player's and thus has more tactics available to him. More on that concept in a future blog post.
The other caution is that, to paraphrase Cool Hand Luke, "Some men, you just can't reach.". Soft CC can easily be used more often in your game, but you still have to use caution. Some people are going to be irritated any time they have to change their tactics due to outside forces. Thankfully, I don't personally know any of these people, but they ARE out there. They're not bad, though, and this isn't something you should try to 'break' them of unless it's very disruptive. Just know that, as always, all of your decisions as GM will be tailored to your specific group. With some, that might mean a grid, miniatures, and heavy tactical combat peppered with crowd control and combat options. With OTHERS, this might mean the joy of jumping into a sea of orcs and destroying them with whirlwind strike over and over, and not worrying about 'dumb stuff' like being pushed around. Neither is the "right" way to play a PNP game, this just comes down to what people want out of their hobby. This is an escape for all of us, and we're equally split between people who crave intellectual challenge when we game(because we don't get it in real life) and people who want to 'turn off' and let loose emotionally(because our real life or job is tense and frustrating). Frequency of Crowd Control is a button for both of these kinds of people.
I'm rambling. Anyway, don't refuse to use crowd control just to pander to the latter crowd. Just tailor your game to their expectations and throw them roadblocks and 'intelligent' encounters every once in a while. With luck, actually, they'll see a powerful sorcerer with the ability to CC them as a major villain and hate them all the more for it.
And in conclusion, penis penis penis.
Neither type of crowd control is bad, but Hard Crowd Control is the one you have to be more careful with. This type is anything that completely(or virtually completely) denies any action a character can take. Stuns, Paralyzes, Sleeps, anything that makes a PC think it's a good time to get up and get a soda. In fact, while these can be a very powerful threat, THAT is the reason you want to be careful with this style of crowd control: whoever falls victim to it is 'out'. His interest in the game is gone, and it may not necessarily come back once he can act again. Being hit by hard CC is a disappointment to most, and when CC is a problem, it's usually hard CC you're talking about, just like how nearly every time you talk about violent or exploitative video games, it ends up being Rockstar you're discussing.
However, it's not all bad. Neither type is. The good thing about hard CC is its threat factor, they're powerful, scary abilities because they reduce the party's action economy in a single saving throw. Action Economy is the number of actions an individual or party has, and is incredibly important to any type of pen and paper game. This is why Haste was broken in 3.0, why initiative bonus is so important in Shadowrun, and why an army of minions can be so devastating in Mutants and Masterminds. So, knowing all that, we know that Hard CC can be deadly effective and always makes the party sit up and take notice. Use it sparingly, and try to make sure the party knows about it before being hit. That way, the very threat of it will likely make them change their tactics. Reacting to a situation to try and defeat it is what feels good about combat.
Soft crowd control is anything that restricts your actions but does not prevent them entirely. Slows, trips, knockbacks, pushes, herding, grappling and swallowing whole are all in this category. In fact, MOST crowd control lies in this category. Hard CC is a pretty small list in most games. These are effects that cause the players to think, to stare at the board carefully and plan out their action instead of their decisions being basically independent of what's going on in the game board. These you can use more judiciously since Agency has been restricted but not removed, and thus the player remains engaged. The player(depending on how they game) may even be more engaged than he was before. Basically, soft CC is your friend and can be used way more often than its hard counterpart. I do still have two cautions for you, though.
The first is that you really can't spam any of these effects, regardless of the circumstance. Making a decent "really challenging" encounter is a collection of different things and tactics, and overusing any one thing will easily knock your encounter down to "really annoying". As a general rule, don't try to make something more difficult by overusing soft CC or setting up "team tactics" such as pairs of two who repeatedly bull rush you into each other to easily knock you down. Even the guy who came up with THAT one apologized for it later. Remember that the players have a much harder time coordinating tactics than you do, and a solution that sounds simple to you may be anything but for them. In addition to that, the GM often has the luxury of using minions whose actions aren't as important as a player's and thus has more tactics available to him. More on that concept in a future blog post.
The other caution is that, to paraphrase Cool Hand Luke, "Some men, you just can't reach.". Soft CC can easily be used more often in your game, but you still have to use caution. Some people are going to be irritated any time they have to change their tactics due to outside forces. Thankfully, I don't personally know any of these people, but they ARE out there. They're not bad, though, and this isn't something you should try to 'break' them of unless it's very disruptive. Just know that, as always, all of your decisions as GM will be tailored to your specific group. With some, that might mean a grid, miniatures, and heavy tactical combat peppered with crowd control and combat options. With OTHERS, this might mean the joy of jumping into a sea of orcs and destroying them with whirlwind strike over and over, and not worrying about 'dumb stuff' like being pushed around. Neither is the "right" way to play a PNP game, this just comes down to what people want out of their hobby. This is an escape for all of us, and we're equally split between people who crave intellectual challenge when we game(because we don't get it in real life) and people who want to 'turn off' and let loose emotionally(because our real life or job is tense and frustrating). Frequency of Crowd Control is a button for both of these kinds of people.
I'm rambling. Anyway, don't refuse to use crowd control just to pander to the latter crowd. Just tailor your game to their expectations and throw them roadblocks and 'intelligent' encounters every once in a while. With luck, actually, they'll see a powerful sorcerer with the ability to CC them as a major villain and hate them all the more for it.
And in conclusion, penis penis penis.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Dumb Little Bumps and Pops: Crowd Control and Agency
"Very good! Off to Zarkhenar, then. Off to see my friends and family and loved ones. "
"...To kill them, of course, for harming your dragon."
So let me tell you about a thing. Sit down on the story carpet and grab yourself a juice box because we're starting with a little story. In fact, it's a story of the thing that caused me to write this article.
These are the Ley-Ruins of Zarkhenar. The red arrow is pointing to where our boy Prince Ael'yith hangs out.
Ael'yith and his boys are Nightfallen elves who were booted out of their city and thus are starving for the mana they need to survive. Problem is, they're sucking the mana out of Blue Dragon whelplings. This is actually more than just a dick move: Blue Dragons can no longer have children. These whelps are it. So, enter our hero.
This is Malarky.
She's a ""good-natured"" asshole tagging along with the Horde mostly because sitting around in Orgrimmar doesn't afford her many opportunities to maliciously make fun of people. She meets a nightfallen nearly as sarcastic as she is, so helping the blue dragons out to give him a little redemption sounds awesome. The idea? Go here, find Ael'yith and his lieutenants, and feed them their fucking teeth.
So the quest line has been really interesting before you get to this part of it, you meet some awesome, memorable NPCs and you feel like you really gotta help these dragons. You come up on the ruins and Ael'yith stars yelling at you, sounding like he lost it a long time ago. He gets angry and starts firing arcane bolts down on you from his tower, which was kind of a tense moment. SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT DODGE ROLL kind of stuff.
Only...I noticed that they didn't really do any damage. They just bumped you around. I still enjoyed the storyline, but Ael'yith's insane ranting really lost its edge. The few other times he launched his arcane barrage at me, I just got annoyed. I stood there and let him bump me around. The tension is gone, Ael'yith feels like less of a threat, and I'm capital-A Annoyed.
In a scenario, players have to feel challenged. In a fight, we're talking appropriate numbers and abilities. Crowd Control(for the two of you who don't know) is a category of abilities, spell effects, and such that either restrict your character or prevent actions entirely. Grappling, webs, entangling roots, stunning fists, hamstring attacks, sapping strikes, tasers and the classic Hold Person are all examples of crowd control. Bull Rush, Amazing Blow, herding, and Overrun can be considered Crowd Control as well because they can push you out of position and force you to change your action. They are dangerous because it lowers the party's action economy, which is(in super general terms) the total amount of actions they get. Action Economy, without a doubt, is the most important thing in terms of effectiveness in most pen and paper games.
So Crowd Control is threatening. A monster that can paralyze or swallow whole can feel(and even BE) more dangerous than another monster that simply has bigger numbers. In addition to that, it mixes up what the player is challenged with and concerned about. If they're able to prepare it can even lend importance to a "support" character type who can memorize cures or dispels. So, they're a pretty good tool for you to use.
...but here's the thing. They take away player agency and can easily become more irritating or infuriating than challenging. I'm going to tackle those two concepts individually.
Agency is a person's control over a situation. It is hyper-important in pen and paper games since this is a collaborative effort and the GM must be very careful about when and where he takes it away. Even when he DOES so, he should try to make the players feel as though they had it the entire time. When you see someone complain about Plot Railroading, what they're really saying is that they're angry that their agency over the plot has been taken away. Nobody's ever going to be happy when it's gone, and Crowd Control can be a dangerous tool because of this. While it's tactically sound to try and keep a particular person in a fight unable to act, as a game with players this is an awful idea. Remember when I said there's things the players are allowed to do but you are not? This is another one. The GM controls the entire enemy force, and the player(usually) only controls one person. I shouldn't have to say that sitting out of an entire fight isn't fun, but in my experience I've had to spell out a LOT of things that I thought were obvious, so I'm not taking any chances.
Basically, you want the player to feel challenged. It's another common mistake to think that irritated, annoyed or infuriated is an acceptable substitute. It's not. In terms of crowd control, this means that more frequent but less effective and/or easily overcome control effects are much, much less fun than less frequent but more dangerous effects. You also have to be aware of the difference between "There's something you can do" and "There's something you could have done." Basically, if your answer to an effect being unfair or unfun contains the phrase "should have" as in "You should have raised your will save" it might not be a very good answer. Obviously, sometimes a player won't take a hint about a glaring weakness in his character or the players will prepare very poorly. You can't really do anything about that except maybe to softball them a little bit. Don't kill them. Punish the poor choice, then figure something else out. However, a "should have" response often implies the players acted in a way contrary to you think they should have. Try to remember that you don't actually control their character. In addition, it's very easy to forget or overlook that they simply don't have the information you do: It seems like a stupid idea to ignore your will save when you know the next ten encounters are going to feature will-save abilities, but the player has no idea.
This is a side note, but as GM, you have the luxury of NEVER having to kill the party. If everyone dies, runs, gets controlled or what have you, you can simply pull a plot twist and put them in a worse situation...but one they can get out of. A pack of seemingly feral ghouls is actually controlled by a necromancer hiding deep under the swamp...a pack of ogres were fighting to subdue because they need slaves for their mines...the list goes on. Of course...you don't have to TELL them there's no danger. If they win the fight, none of that was true. Obviously. Try not to make getting another PC "back" a huge, long adventure though: Simply put, no matter how 'logical' it is and no matter how 'fun' you think it sounds, the bottom line is that one or more of the players is not playing. There are a lot of situations where their death or subdual wasn't necessarily their fault either, so don't pull that excuse.
Back to annoyance. Annoyed people will usually have one of two impulses. They will either want to stop playing to avoid the irritation, or they will want to retaliate. Neither is good for your game. A sole exception is if an NPC intended as an antagonist is, in fact, antagonizing them. Even then, I'd do that sparingly because it can easily "leak" to the real world, especially if fight tactics are part of their plan. Frequent abilities that make you change your tactics in some way can be extremely annoying, and some classic Pen and Paper villains are even set up for this style of irritation, making them a sort of "trap" to GMs. Prime examples are any monster or antagonist that has an omnipresent crowd control ability, regardless of how easy it is to overcome. Antagonists like ghouls, ghasts, SWAT teams, mind flayers, and troglodytes. Add in the natural inclination for a GM to use a "pack" of these monsters and you get a 'machine gun' stream of low DC saves, which is by far the worst(and most irritating) way you can use crowd control.
Obviously the target numbers and save bonuses can't change based on the individual being targeted, but I would try to put targets around a 50% chance for the 'mid bonus' PC, give or take. Too low and you risk the ability being an annoyance and too high risks being unfair. Low save DCs also often need to be used frequently in the irritating 'machine gun style' to be balanced. Do not balance numbers around the person with the highest save, nor the lowest: either one removes something important(the high person's benefit, or the low person's punishment). The same number can make the person with the high defense feel good, and the person with the low one feel vulnerable. Try to balance frequency in the low-to-mid range. This lends an air of importance to the CC ability and helps to lower people being taken out of the fight. If you have to raise the DC a bit to achieve this, that's better than the opposite.
While taking a break from writing this, I played Payday and was reminded of the OTHER side of the coin that Ael'yith's dumb face is printed on. Payday has an enemy called the Tazer. They're unhinged private security dickheads hired by Washington's police out of desperation. They can taze you from very, very far away, and when you're being tazed you're shooting automatically(to drain out your clip, of course) shaking wildly(to fuck up your aim) and rooted in place. Eventually, the tazer will 'down' you, forcing another person to come help you up. Obviously, this is a co-operative game where someone is intended to help you and DOES have the ability to do so. But many, many things pile on top of each other to make the tazer an infuriating experience: His abundant HP, his ability to keep himself safe while controlling you, draining so much of your ammo, and.,..the worst part? If there's not other cops shooting you, you're stuck there for a very long time. He can't kill you quickly at all. Ael'yith's blasts being undertuned is bad, but so is the Tazer being severely, severely overtuned. His inability to hurt you by himself is not a balancing factor: In fact, it makes it feel worse.
Crowd Control can feel like an awesome challenge, and don't think by this article that it's hard to balance: It's just something you'll learn by doing. Especially now that you know what to look for, it'll be easy to find well balanced antagonists who happen to have crowd control abilities.
Oh, and don't worry. Ael'yith was pummeled to death. It wasn't pretty.
"...To kill them, of course, for harming your dragon."
So let me tell you about a thing. Sit down on the story carpet and grab yourself a juice box because we're starting with a little story. In fact, it's a story of the thing that caused me to write this article.
These are the Ley-Ruins of Zarkhenar. The red arrow is pointing to where our boy Prince Ael'yith hangs out.
Ael'yith and his boys are Nightfallen elves who were booted out of their city and thus are starving for the mana they need to survive. Problem is, they're sucking the mana out of Blue Dragon whelplings. This is actually more than just a dick move: Blue Dragons can no longer have children. These whelps are it. So, enter our hero.
This is Malarky.
She's a ""good-natured"" asshole tagging along with the Horde mostly because sitting around in Orgrimmar doesn't afford her many opportunities to maliciously make fun of people. She meets a nightfallen nearly as sarcastic as she is, so helping the blue dragons out to give him a little redemption sounds awesome. The idea? Go here, find Ael'yith and his lieutenants, and feed them their fucking teeth.
So the quest line has been really interesting before you get to this part of it, you meet some awesome, memorable NPCs and you feel like you really gotta help these dragons. You come up on the ruins and Ael'yith stars yelling at you, sounding like he lost it a long time ago. He gets angry and starts firing arcane bolts down on you from his tower, which was kind of a tense moment. SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT DODGE ROLL kind of stuff.
Only...I noticed that they didn't really do any damage. They just bumped you around. I still enjoyed the storyline, but Ael'yith's insane ranting really lost its edge. The few other times he launched his arcane barrage at me, I just got annoyed. I stood there and let him bump me around. The tension is gone, Ael'yith feels like less of a threat, and I'm capital-A Annoyed.
In a scenario, players have to feel challenged. In a fight, we're talking appropriate numbers and abilities. Crowd Control(for the two of you who don't know) is a category of abilities, spell effects, and such that either restrict your character or prevent actions entirely. Grappling, webs, entangling roots, stunning fists, hamstring attacks, sapping strikes, tasers and the classic Hold Person are all examples of crowd control. Bull Rush, Amazing Blow, herding, and Overrun can be considered Crowd Control as well because they can push you out of position and force you to change your action. They are dangerous because it lowers the party's action economy, which is(in super general terms) the total amount of actions they get. Action Economy, without a doubt, is the most important thing in terms of effectiveness in most pen and paper games.
So Crowd Control is threatening. A monster that can paralyze or swallow whole can feel(and even BE) more dangerous than another monster that simply has bigger numbers. In addition to that, it mixes up what the player is challenged with and concerned about. If they're able to prepare it can even lend importance to a "support" character type who can memorize cures or dispels. So, they're a pretty good tool for you to use.
...but here's the thing. They take away player agency and can easily become more irritating or infuriating than challenging. I'm going to tackle those two concepts individually.
Agency is a person's control over a situation. It is hyper-important in pen and paper games since this is a collaborative effort and the GM must be very careful about when and where he takes it away. Even when he DOES so, he should try to make the players feel as though they had it the entire time. When you see someone complain about Plot Railroading, what they're really saying is that they're angry that their agency over the plot has been taken away. Nobody's ever going to be happy when it's gone, and Crowd Control can be a dangerous tool because of this. While it's tactically sound to try and keep a particular person in a fight unable to act, as a game with players this is an awful idea. Remember when I said there's things the players are allowed to do but you are not? This is another one. The GM controls the entire enemy force, and the player(usually) only controls one person. I shouldn't have to say that sitting out of an entire fight isn't fun, but in my experience I've had to spell out a LOT of things that I thought were obvious, so I'm not taking any chances.
Basically, you want the player to feel challenged. It's another common mistake to think that irritated, annoyed or infuriated is an acceptable substitute. It's not. In terms of crowd control, this means that more frequent but less effective and/or easily overcome control effects are much, much less fun than less frequent but more dangerous effects. You also have to be aware of the difference between "There's something you can do" and "There's something you could have done." Basically, if your answer to an effect being unfair or unfun contains the phrase "should have" as in "You should have raised your will save" it might not be a very good answer. Obviously, sometimes a player won't take a hint about a glaring weakness in his character or the players will prepare very poorly. You can't really do anything about that except maybe to softball them a little bit. Don't kill them. Punish the poor choice, then figure something else out. However, a "should have" response often implies the players acted in a way contrary to you think they should have. Try to remember that you don't actually control their character. In addition, it's very easy to forget or overlook that they simply don't have the information you do: It seems like a stupid idea to ignore your will save when you know the next ten encounters are going to feature will-save abilities, but the player has no idea.
This is a side note, but as GM, you have the luxury of NEVER having to kill the party. If everyone dies, runs, gets controlled or what have you, you can simply pull a plot twist and put them in a worse situation...but one they can get out of. A pack of seemingly feral ghouls is actually controlled by a necromancer hiding deep under the swamp...a pack of ogres were fighting to subdue because they need slaves for their mines...the list goes on. Of course...you don't have to TELL them there's no danger. If they win the fight, none of that was true. Obviously. Try not to make getting another PC "back" a huge, long adventure though: Simply put, no matter how 'logical' it is and no matter how 'fun' you think it sounds, the bottom line is that one or more of the players is not playing. There are a lot of situations where their death or subdual wasn't necessarily their fault either, so don't pull that excuse.
Back to annoyance. Annoyed people will usually have one of two impulses. They will either want to stop playing to avoid the irritation, or they will want to retaliate. Neither is good for your game. A sole exception is if an NPC intended as an antagonist is, in fact, antagonizing them. Even then, I'd do that sparingly because it can easily "leak" to the real world, especially if fight tactics are part of their plan. Frequent abilities that make you change your tactics in some way can be extremely annoying, and some classic Pen and Paper villains are even set up for this style of irritation, making them a sort of "trap" to GMs. Prime examples are any monster or antagonist that has an omnipresent crowd control ability, regardless of how easy it is to overcome. Antagonists like ghouls, ghasts, SWAT teams, mind flayers, and troglodytes. Add in the natural inclination for a GM to use a "pack" of these monsters and you get a 'machine gun' stream of low DC saves, which is by far the worst(and most irritating) way you can use crowd control.
Obviously the target numbers and save bonuses can't change based on the individual being targeted, but I would try to put targets around a 50% chance for the 'mid bonus' PC, give or take. Too low and you risk the ability being an annoyance and too high risks being unfair. Low save DCs also often need to be used frequently in the irritating 'machine gun style' to be balanced. Do not balance numbers around the person with the highest save, nor the lowest: either one removes something important(the high person's benefit, or the low person's punishment). The same number can make the person with the high defense feel good, and the person with the low one feel vulnerable. Try to balance frequency in the low-to-mid range. This lends an air of importance to the CC ability and helps to lower people being taken out of the fight. If you have to raise the DC a bit to achieve this, that's better than the opposite.
While taking a break from writing this, I played Payday and was reminded of the OTHER side of the coin that Ael'yith's dumb face is printed on. Payday has an enemy called the Tazer. They're unhinged private security dickheads hired by Washington's police out of desperation. They can taze you from very, very far away, and when you're being tazed you're shooting automatically(to drain out your clip, of course) shaking wildly(to fuck up your aim) and rooted in place. Eventually, the tazer will 'down' you, forcing another person to come help you up. Obviously, this is a co-operative game where someone is intended to help you and DOES have the ability to do so. But many, many things pile on top of each other to make the tazer an infuriating experience: His abundant HP, his ability to keep himself safe while controlling you, draining so much of your ammo, and.,..the worst part? If there's not other cops shooting you, you're stuck there for a very long time. He can't kill you quickly at all. Ael'yith's blasts being undertuned is bad, but so is the Tazer being severely, severely overtuned. His inability to hurt you by himself is not a balancing factor: In fact, it makes it feel worse.
Crowd Control can feel like an awesome challenge, and don't think by this article that it's hard to balance: It's just something you'll learn by doing. Especially now that you know what to look for, it'll be easy to find well balanced antagonists who happen to have crowd control abilities.
Oh, and don't worry. Ael'yith was pummeled to death. It wasn't pretty.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Conveyance
"Don't kill him! If you kill him...he won't learn nothin'."
A huge amount of my blog posts can be boiled down to a single sentence, if I thought that would do them justice. Don't withhold rewards, Don't be afraid of high stat values, the villain is the most important part of your game's plot, et cetera. I kind of don't mind that, since you wouldn't understand what I mean if I just flopped it out there like a tiny little dead fish. Knowing what I mean is actually our next topic, Conveyance.
Conveyance is a fairly important thing in movies, a very important thing in video games, and an EXTREMELY important thing in pen and paper. Basically, it's telling the viewer(slash player) how they're intended to think and what they're intended to do. Giving them the information they needs to move forward or to understand what's going on. Basically, a lot of the time when you're confused about a movie, it's because it's got poor conveyance. Maybe you don't know where or when a scene is supposed to be taking place because the filmmaker didn't include an establishing shot. Perhaps you weren't sure if a character is present at a scene or not, or where they got an important tool or other item. Video games have a lot of the same thing there but also have to teach you about rules, patterns, controls and other things. A bad game throws conveyance out of the window and simply lets you learn via repeatedly dying. A good game? Well, I have a bit of multimedia homework for you guys since someone else explained it way better than I ever could. This isn't required to understand how conveyance fits into Pen and Paper gaming, but I'd like you guys to watch the Sequelitis on Mega Man X.
Here it is, narrated by the beautiful Egoraptor.
What's this have to do with tabletop gaming? Basically, good conveyance is the art of conveying information without just saying it out loud. Remember when I said it's impossible for you to be objective? Conveyance is something you have to do because of that. Basically, on top of doing it for decent quest and world design(more on that later) you have to convey what you think of the player's plans and actions.
People obviously like their own ideas. They think they're sound. Duh. In the real world when you disagree with them, well. We all find out who's right eventually after the action is taken. In a pen and paper game, the GM is going to control some or all aspects of whether something was a "good idea" or not. So in the spirit of good faith, you as the GM need to try to convey, subtly or unsubtly, what you think of what they're about to do. Luckily, our conveyance in a pen and paper game doesn't have to be GOOD, just okay. It's most of your job to just directly tell the PCs things anyway. You can easily get away with reminding them some aspect you feel is important or that they've forgotten, telling them "that might not be wise" or having them roll a knowledge skill.
You need to do this. It's not optional. You can be sparse with it, or withhold info if they fail checks, but on some level this is very important. It's your job to challenge the PCs, and it's very important that you give them the right kind of challenge. Just because something was difficult doesn't mean it's going to feel rewarding: It's very, very possible to give the party the wrong kind of challenge. Never mistake poor conveyance for a proper challenge. In fact, especially never poorly explain yourself on purpose if you're discussing objective information. I had a GM once who thought it was best to promote any idea the PCs have, right up until it spectacularly failed. He thought that a shitty idea would be obvious and that the GM shouldn't hold someone's hand. Well, he's right about one thing: I'm NOT telling you to hold their hand. However, what's a good idea and what's a shitty one maybe isn't so obvious.
To give a really simple example, the PCs have a quest to get a little girl a pet. In the real world most of the PCs have cats, so they feel a kitten is objectively the best possible option. However, the GM is a dog person. Their efforts are wasted. More importantly, this isn't information the players were necessarily privy to. Of course, if they know the GM well they would've gotten a dog simply because they know the GM and noticed he owns like ten of them in real life. However, this sort of double-think is tiring and really shouldn't be promoted. It's not fun to have to psychoanalyze the GM when you're gaming. Most PCs will just want to try their own ideas. In fact, if they're super excited about an idea they've got and you feel like you can challenge them with it, consider swallowing what you think would be 'better' in favor of moving on from the 'planning' phase of gaming and getting the PCs to the action. Planning can be a lot of fun, but you lose some of that fun every time the PCs have to scrap their idea and start back on square one.
Conveyance is used for more traditional things in gaming too, like what the creators of Mega Man X did. We'll go into this more in another topic, I think, but in general terms you're using it any time you want the PCs to be prepared for a challenge. This should be most of the time. It can be as simple as an old tracker in a bar warning them about ghouls appearing in the swampland near the town, or as subtle as the PCs passing half-drowned graveyards, headstones barely sticking out of the water, or half-eaten bodies long dead. Mix up your tactics and find what works best for your group. Some groups will respond well to subtlety, and some(most) will be fairly bone-headed about clues. It's a very crappy thing in a movie to see someone just announcing a huge load of info all at once, but in a PNP game it's a bit more acceptable. It's a common, mostly beloved cliche to see the old wizened sage delivering an ominous warning or piece of vital information, or the terrified, raving villager who only just escaped a monster withtheir life. In a pinch, they can deliver the info you need to get across.
So yeah, at some point when I talk about quest design this is going to come up again. This is one of the keystones of running a game. If you want this boiled down to a single piece of advice, though, just look up to the bolded sentence above. Poor conveyance is not a challenge, it's an irritation. A good challenge is something that the PCs have all of the parts to, so they can put their strategy together. Poor(or no) conveyance is like taking several puzzle pieces out of the box.
A huge amount of my blog posts can be boiled down to a single sentence, if I thought that would do them justice. Don't withhold rewards, Don't be afraid of high stat values, the villain is the most important part of your game's plot, et cetera. I kind of don't mind that, since you wouldn't understand what I mean if I just flopped it out there like a tiny little dead fish. Knowing what I mean is actually our next topic, Conveyance.
Conveyance is a fairly important thing in movies, a very important thing in video games, and an EXTREMELY important thing in pen and paper. Basically, it's telling the viewer(slash player) how they're intended to think and what they're intended to do. Giving them the information they needs to move forward or to understand what's going on. Basically, a lot of the time when you're confused about a movie, it's because it's got poor conveyance. Maybe you don't know where or when a scene is supposed to be taking place because the filmmaker didn't include an establishing shot. Perhaps you weren't sure if a character is present at a scene or not, or where they got an important tool or other item. Video games have a lot of the same thing there but also have to teach you about rules, patterns, controls and other things. A bad game throws conveyance out of the window and simply lets you learn via repeatedly dying. A good game? Well, I have a bit of multimedia homework for you guys since someone else explained it way better than I ever could. This isn't required to understand how conveyance fits into Pen and Paper gaming, but I'd like you guys to watch the Sequelitis on Mega Man X.
Here it is, narrated by the beautiful Egoraptor.
What's this have to do with tabletop gaming? Basically, good conveyance is the art of conveying information without just saying it out loud. Remember when I said it's impossible for you to be objective? Conveyance is something you have to do because of that. Basically, on top of doing it for decent quest and world design(more on that later) you have to convey what you think of the player's plans and actions.
People obviously like their own ideas. They think they're sound. Duh. In the real world when you disagree with them, well. We all find out who's right eventually after the action is taken. In a pen and paper game, the GM is going to control some or all aspects of whether something was a "good idea" or not. So in the spirit of good faith, you as the GM need to try to convey, subtly or unsubtly, what you think of what they're about to do. Luckily, our conveyance in a pen and paper game doesn't have to be GOOD, just okay. It's most of your job to just directly tell the PCs things anyway. You can easily get away with reminding them some aspect you feel is important or that they've forgotten, telling them "that might not be wise" or having them roll a knowledge skill.
You need to do this. It's not optional. You can be sparse with it, or withhold info if they fail checks, but on some level this is very important. It's your job to challenge the PCs, and it's very important that you give them the right kind of challenge. Just because something was difficult doesn't mean it's going to feel rewarding: It's very, very possible to give the party the wrong kind of challenge. Never mistake poor conveyance for a proper challenge. In fact, especially never poorly explain yourself on purpose if you're discussing objective information. I had a GM once who thought it was best to promote any idea the PCs have, right up until it spectacularly failed. He thought that a shitty idea would be obvious and that the GM shouldn't hold someone's hand. Well, he's right about one thing: I'm NOT telling you to hold their hand. However, what's a good idea and what's a shitty one maybe isn't so obvious.
To give a really simple example, the PCs have a quest to get a little girl a pet. In the real world most of the PCs have cats, so they feel a kitten is objectively the best possible option. However, the GM is a dog person. Their efforts are wasted. More importantly, this isn't information the players were necessarily privy to. Of course, if they know the GM well they would've gotten a dog simply because they know the GM and noticed he owns like ten of them in real life. However, this sort of double-think is tiring and really shouldn't be promoted. It's not fun to have to psychoanalyze the GM when you're gaming. Most PCs will just want to try their own ideas. In fact, if they're super excited about an idea they've got and you feel like you can challenge them with it, consider swallowing what you think would be 'better' in favor of moving on from the 'planning' phase of gaming and getting the PCs to the action. Planning can be a lot of fun, but you lose some of that fun every time the PCs have to scrap their idea and start back on square one.
Conveyance is used for more traditional things in gaming too, like what the creators of Mega Man X did. We'll go into this more in another topic, I think, but in general terms you're using it any time you want the PCs to be prepared for a challenge. This should be most of the time. It can be as simple as an old tracker in a bar warning them about ghouls appearing in the swampland near the town, or as subtle as the PCs passing half-drowned graveyards, headstones barely sticking out of the water, or half-eaten bodies long dead. Mix up your tactics and find what works best for your group. Some groups will respond well to subtlety, and some(most) will be fairly bone-headed about clues. It's a very crappy thing in a movie to see someone just announcing a huge load of info all at once, but in a PNP game it's a bit more acceptable. It's a common, mostly beloved cliche to see the old wizened sage delivering an ominous warning or piece of vital information, or the terrified, raving villager who only just escaped a monster withtheir life. In a pinch, they can deliver the info you need to get across.
So yeah, at some point when I talk about quest design this is going to come up again. This is one of the keystones of running a game. If you want this boiled down to a single piece of advice, though, just look up to the bolded sentence above. Poor conveyance is not a challenge, it's an irritation. A good challenge is something that the PCs have all of the parts to, so they can put their strategy together. Poor(or no) conveyance is like taking several puzzle pieces out of the box.
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Example Danger
So I thought maybe I should explain something. No, it's not why I've been gone. When I write this blog I try to stay as far away from using examples or analogies as possible. So, today I'm going to explain why. This isn't exactly advice for arguing with someone, instead it's advice on how to be better understood at the gaming table, because every time you're misunderstood is a tiny, tiny weight hung onto your game. Too many, and it might sink. This is also advice on how to properly understand a rule book, because most of them have some small element of poor design in them, and the overuse of examples is a very common one.
An example is a powerful tool, though. That's why so many rulebooks use them. There are times(particularly with complex systems) that an example of real play can hit home how a system is supposed to work. That's the idea, anyway. You can tell I don't agree. Anecdotal evidence SUCKS, but most of the time when I encounter someone who's confused over the rules, it's because of the following reasons:
1. The book's wording is complex, obtuse or misleading.
2. The rules were explained poorly by another individual.
3. They read the example first, or ONLY read the example, or the example made them second guess their understanding of the rules.
So yeah, that third one's a pretty specific event, huh? I see it all the time. In fact, number two can be a culprit of 'examples' too, more on that later. Honestly, the only one we can't really do anything about is the first. So how SHOULD you read a rule book? I want to tell you to utterly ignore any play examples unless you're extremely confused AND tried to reread the rule AND there's nobody handy who knows the system better than you. Actually? I'm gonna suggest that. No 'but' this time. The example isn't the rule, it's meant to illustrate the rule, and if it's wrong? You can't in good conscience use the example as ANYTHING. It's NOT the rule, it's NOT a clarification, and it's certainly not a reason on its own to argue interpretation of an otherwise clear rule. It's just there to try and explain the rule and if you already understand it...you don't need it.
The other problem is using examples to explain something. It's a neat little shorthand, but shorthand can be deadly to someone who doesn't already understand something. You're most likely to use these tactics in a new player situation where you don't really know where their understanding lies, and that's(ironically) the least helpful time. What I see happen often is that you either oversimplify the rule with the example and the other person misses some of the subtlety and trips up later, or that you find a great example only because YOU'RE wrong about the rules. Obviously that's a little bad, but it's compelling when you think of a great example. It's like coming up with a great joke: You REALLY want to tell it, even if it's not exactly right.
Try to resist. I should also parrot some awesome advice I heard from Spoony here too: When someone's confused, don't just answer their question, try to find out why they're confused and solve it. "What do I roll?" shouldn't necessarily be met with "D8.". Saying "You hit, so you're rolling damage, it's right here. Longswords are D8 damage plus your strength." is a hell of a lot better.
A special shoutout goes to using examples or analogies in discussions or arguments. I think most people know I can't stand this. If you want to convey your opinion, it's not exactly in your best interests to simplify it unless you think the other person is stupid. ALSO, you shouldn't talk as though you think other people are stupid. I learned that from the classic game Go, which I have no idea how to play. Overuse of examples or analogies proves you don't really have much to say; it's very easy to fill talking time with them because all you're doing is rewording your argument. If you're having a rules discussion, this habit can lead to a lot more confusion than clarity, because people bring 'baggage' along with an example due to associations. If you tell me a system is exactly like grappling in Dungeons and Dragons, I may start to believe you mean to say it's poorly balanced and confusing, when all you meant was you have to roll hit to touch and then initiate a contested check.
So, yeah. What did we learn? Examples are shorthand, and shorthand is terrible for learning, and pretty bad for trying to explain yourself.
Really, I'm just upset that I couldn't get through the examples post without using one. I guess there's a time and place, right?
...Right?
An example is a powerful tool, though. That's why so many rulebooks use them. There are times(particularly with complex systems) that an example of real play can hit home how a system is supposed to work. That's the idea, anyway. You can tell I don't agree. Anecdotal evidence SUCKS, but most of the time when I encounter someone who's confused over the rules, it's because of the following reasons:
1. The book's wording is complex, obtuse or misleading.
2. The rules were explained poorly by another individual.
3. They read the example first, or ONLY read the example, or the example made them second guess their understanding of the rules.
So yeah, that third one's a pretty specific event, huh? I see it all the time. In fact, number two can be a culprit of 'examples' too, more on that later. Honestly, the only one we can't really do anything about is the first. So how SHOULD you read a rule book? I want to tell you to utterly ignore any play examples unless you're extremely confused AND tried to reread the rule AND there's nobody handy who knows the system better than you. Actually? I'm gonna suggest that. No 'but' this time. The example isn't the rule, it's meant to illustrate the rule, and if it's wrong? You can't in good conscience use the example as ANYTHING. It's NOT the rule, it's NOT a clarification, and it's certainly not a reason on its own to argue interpretation of an otherwise clear rule. It's just there to try and explain the rule and if you already understand it...you don't need it.
The other problem is using examples to explain something. It's a neat little shorthand, but shorthand can be deadly to someone who doesn't already understand something. You're most likely to use these tactics in a new player situation where you don't really know where their understanding lies, and that's(ironically) the least helpful time. What I see happen often is that you either oversimplify the rule with the example and the other person misses some of the subtlety and trips up later, or that you find a great example only because YOU'RE wrong about the rules. Obviously that's a little bad, but it's compelling when you think of a great example. It's like coming up with a great joke: You REALLY want to tell it, even if it's not exactly right.
Try to resist. I should also parrot some awesome advice I heard from Spoony here too: When someone's confused, don't just answer their question, try to find out why they're confused and solve it. "What do I roll?" shouldn't necessarily be met with "D8.". Saying "You hit, so you're rolling damage, it's right here. Longswords are D8 damage plus your strength." is a hell of a lot better.
A special shoutout goes to using examples or analogies in discussions or arguments. I think most people know I can't stand this. If you want to convey your opinion, it's not exactly in your best interests to simplify it unless you think the other person is stupid. ALSO, you shouldn't talk as though you think other people are stupid. I learned that from the classic game Go, which I have no idea how to play. Overuse of examples or analogies proves you don't really have much to say; it's very easy to fill talking time with them because all you're doing is rewording your argument. If you're having a rules discussion, this habit can lead to a lot more confusion than clarity, because people bring 'baggage' along with an example due to associations. If you tell me a system is exactly like grappling in Dungeons and Dragons, I may start to believe you mean to say it's poorly balanced and confusing, when all you meant was you have to roll hit to touch and then initiate a contested check.
So, yeah. What did we learn? Examples are shorthand, and shorthand is terrible for learning, and pretty bad for trying to explain yourself.
Really, I'm just upset that I couldn't get through the examples post without using one. I guess there's a time and place, right?
...Right?
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Star Wars Names: Tips
So I've been tossing this around in my head and I may have found a good method for coming up with futuristic sounding names. I mentioned syllables are like building blocks, and I linked that cool Drow Name Generator thing because sometimes all you need is a beginning, some blocks to play with. While sleep deprived I might have come up with a decent method of obtaining those syllabic building blocks.
So, the idea is that you take a name and reverse it. Don't just do that, though. Because it's really obvious. Instead, say it out loud and use those sounds to "rewrite" a name out of it. Do it several times, and pick from what you've got. Chances are the first name will sound spacey enough for Star Wars. The last name can sometimes be weird, but thankfully Star Wars has a world quirk of people slamming two descriptives together for a last name like we're all Native Americans in a lameass space western, so you can just replace the last name with some thematic adjectives if it ends up sounding bad.
So let's do an example. Say we're playing a Noble who's going to be taking the famous artist prestige class. Say he's kind of a shlub who's not that talented and wants to get into music for the money and not for the art. So we'll start with the name Chad Kroeger for no reason.
Chad Kroeger = Dahc Regeork
Dahc could be Dac, Dace, Datch, Dach or Doc just by playing with the sound a little bit.
Regeork could turn into Regork, Reejork, Rejak. We're manipulating the sound a lot here because Kroeger isn't giving us a lot of room, but that's okay. If we don't come up with anything, we can also replace this with an adjective smash like Soundkiller, or in Chad's case Buttrocker.
So basically from Chad Kroeger we got a really decent Star Wars name like Datch Rejak. It sounds like plenty of other Star Wars names like Dash Rendar, Anakin Skywalker, or Leia Organa. If I didn't tell you where I got that name, you probably wouldn't track it back to Chad Kroeger anyway.
Maybe this doesn't always fit. Maybe I'm just struck with how well it works with Chad's name. I think this is a great starting point though, especially if you're stumped. A piece of paper, a few names and a few minutes and you're bound to come up with SOMETHING.
So, the idea is that you take a name and reverse it. Don't just do that, though. Because it's really obvious. Instead, say it out loud and use those sounds to "rewrite" a name out of it. Do it several times, and pick from what you've got. Chances are the first name will sound spacey enough for Star Wars. The last name can sometimes be weird, but thankfully Star Wars has a world quirk of people slamming two descriptives together for a last name like we're all Native Americans in a lameass space western, so you can just replace the last name with some thematic adjectives if it ends up sounding bad.
So let's do an example. Say we're playing a Noble who's going to be taking the famous artist prestige class. Say he's kind of a shlub who's not that talented and wants to get into music for the money and not for the art. So we'll start with the name Chad Kroeger for no reason.
Chad Kroeger = Dahc Regeork
Dahc could be Dac, Dace, Datch, Dach or Doc just by playing with the sound a little bit.
Regeork could turn into Regork, Reejork, Rejak. We're manipulating the sound a lot here because Kroeger isn't giving us a lot of room, but that's okay. If we don't come up with anything, we can also replace this with an adjective smash like Soundkiller, or in Chad's case Buttrocker.
So basically from Chad Kroeger we got a really decent Star Wars name like Datch Rejak. It sounds like plenty of other Star Wars names like Dash Rendar, Anakin Skywalker, or Leia Organa. If I didn't tell you where I got that name, you probably wouldn't track it back to Chad Kroeger anyway.
Maybe this doesn't always fit. Maybe I'm just struck with how well it works with Chad's name. I think this is a great starting point though, especially if you're stumped. A piece of paper, a few names and a few minutes and you're bound to come up with SOMETHING.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)