"Storygamers"

Oh, boy. A loooong one for a Friday.

"Storygamer" is a term that gets bandied about the internet a lot these days, generally in a pejorative fashion. I seem to see it a lot amongst those folks identifying themselves as "CAG (classic adventure gaming) gamers," generally setting themselves up in opposition to this particular type, or style, of player.

First allow me to reiterate (or explain) that this label of "adventure gaming" is simply meant to distinguish what I do from what is usually considered "role-playing" these days (i.e. in the 2020s). Up until the 2010s, I certainly would have called myself a "role-player," and these games I play "role-playing games" or RPGs. When it comes to running AD&D, I take the same approach I have (pretty much) always taken...generally speaking, the same approach I've taken towards ALL role-playing games I've run over the years.

That being said:

1) it is remarkably difficult to run most RPGs in the style of AD&D (and as evidence, I will point to the consistent LACK of my ability run other RPGs over the long-term; most non-D&D games...with some exceptions...have been extremely short-lived affairs).

2) the AD&D I run these days is a much more mature, calculated, and conscientious than the AD&D of my youth. Credit this with having grown as Dungeon Master, and the years of work I've done on self-analysis and self-development.

But just because I distinguish myself as an "adventure gamer" does not mean I consider myself part of a particular tribe. I'm less interested in being a part of any particular community, and more interested in the game itself...what it can do for me, what I can do for it.

[it is similar to my feelings of the "OSR" back in the day; as I've written before, I never saw myself as part of a "movement," so much as an old geezer that wanted to play old games]

So, while I'm happy to die on this hill of championing 1E play, I'm far less interested in digging a trench around said hill, and spiking it pickets to keep out the "storygamers." ESPECIALLY because I feel that, these days, we may be using too broad a definition of just what a "storygamer" IS.

Here's a good blog post defining story games from Ben Robbins (of Ars Ludi). It's from October 2012, but holds up today, echoing many of my own thoughts (from 2013 and now). Here's a solid quote:

"A story game is a role-playing game where the participants focus on making a story together instead of just playing “their guy.” The alternative–which I played 100% of the time for more than two decades–would be adventure games like D&D, where your character is your turf.

"Yep, I said adventure games. I’ve used the term “traditional games” a lot but in hindsight it’s a terrible term for the games we’ve loved for decades. Back in the 70s and 80s these same “traditional” games were frickin’ radical. I think “adventure game” is a better term. In an adventure game it’s the job of the players to beat the adventure the GM presents. Again, not my invention: “adventure game” was a common term for D&D etc. back in the day."

Yep. I'm not the first one to call my kind of gaming (i.e. Dungeons & Dragons gaming), "adventure gaming." And neither was Ben, as he readily admits. But I digress; we were talking about "story gaming;" and here ya' go:

"In adventure games your job is to play your character and make good decisions for them. If you mess up (or roll badly) your character can die and be removed from the game. In a story game any character you play is a facet of the shared story. You may even sabotage your own character or spin them into tragedy because it makes the story more interesting. It’s a shift from “what would my character try to do” to “what do I want to have happen to my character” and in the story at large."

Or, to put it another way:

"In an adventure role-playing game you can only accomplish something because your character can do it. In a story role-playing game you can make something happen because as a player you want it, not just because your character can make it happen. In an adventure game like D&D you decide what your character does, but your ability to succeed is a reflection of your character’s traits...

"In a story game...the character isn’t the limit of your power in the game. The rules give the players authority over things that are outside their characters’ control..."

Got that? A story gamer is playing a different kind of game (a "story game") with mechanical differences that support that type of play. Lots of examples abound, many of which came out of the Indie RPG (Forge) think tank. But what about all those folks who play D&D with funny voices? Check this out:

"Take D&D, old school D&D even. The players control their characters and the GM controls everything else. The characters’ chance of success is based on their character’s fictional abilities (good fighters win fights, poor fighters lose fights, etc.). But the GM could say to a player “Hey, tell me about the monastery your character came from.” Suddenly the player has some story game-style input into the fiction: their character didn’t create the monastery they were trained in, that’s the player making up things they want in the game. Or the GM could ask the group whether they want the next adventure to be more wilderness or dungeon crawling or political intrigue. Again, now the players are making contributions outside their characters. 

"Those examples are not that uncommon in adventure games. So hey, that makes them story games, right? 

"Not really. The important difference is that those contributions are arbitrary and non-binding. The GM is deciding when to ask the players for world input (if ever) and if the GM doesn’t like what they propose she can decide not to use it. The GM holds the veto. In an adventure games rules system, story game-style participation is an ad hoc privilege, not a right, and it can be rescinded at any time or never extended at all. It’s not a system.

"On the other hand, if you’re a player in an adventure game and you can always decide to make “bad but interesting” decisions for your character but the penalties can be pretty brutal. Yep, it was awesome and dramatically moving to have your paladin take off his armor before the big battle to show his unshakeable faith in his god’s prophecy, but in game terms it meant you had a terrible AC and got cut down in a few rounds. Oops. Now sit and wait while everyone else finishes the fight. The adventure game doesn’t have a method to reward your decision because that’s not what it’s built to do. It doesn’t expect you to play that way."

I am quoting heavily from Robbins's blog post because he echoes my understanding and feeling on the matter. What he is calling "story games" I (as a Forum alum) would probably call "story now" games...games designed to tell a story and unconcerned with aspects of exploration of challenge. They're nice parlor games, but not anything designed for long-term play (i.e. play of more than a handful of sessions). And they're not bad! At least they have an objective of play (tell a nice story) and mechanics to support that.

But Ben was writing in 2013. In 2014 we see the advent of 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons...and shit starts to hit the fan. Because the publishers of 5E (i.e. Hasbro/WotC) had absolutely zero concern whether or not their game is coherent, instructional, functional, etc. nor even if consumers have any idea/consistent standard of how the game is meant to be played. Instead, their sole concern, was reestablishing market dominance, i.e. reclaiming the market share they'd lost to Paizo/Pathfinder after the debacle that was 4th edition. They did not Give A Shit how or why people played D&D, just so long as people were playing D&D...and they were going to do their damnedest to make sure THAT would be the game RPG folks were playing. Everything to Everybody.

SO...the  "brutal" consequence of trying to do "story" while playing an adventure game? All that had to go out the window. Characters have to be EXTREMELY hard to kill (if not impossible). Players have to "give consent" for negative consequences to affect their character. Creating character backgrounds and establishing stories for PCs became part of the actual chargen process. "Balanced" character archetypes ensure that no matter what a player's particular preference of "flavor," the characters will be on equal footing. Screw asymmetry. Thus the ascendance of My Guy/Gal syndrome and let's-tell-our-precious-little-stories-about-ourselves.

*sigh*

After my last post about the Euro OSR, I had a private conversation with an individual who discussed some of the issues they've had with their players, despite running a 1E game:

"...my players do not want to be motivated by gold, they find the notion of upkeep and training costs silly from an in-game perspective. 

"We ran indeed into a conflict...I wrote in a short reflection on the state of the campaign and their player skill that "saving the NPC is essentially a pretense for adventurous play - as adventurers, you want to loot treasure as much as possible while on the mission" and they were offended. ...They do not play to level up (and perhaps to a small extent even are used that the GM just awards level up after 'successfully' finishing an adventure without the tracking of XP)...

And:

"To a large extent my players are able to formulate their own objectives of play, especially during a long term campaign (i.e. unfinished business, taking revenge etc.), although in practice I seed the world with adventure locales...

"They pick perhaps also to some extent in line with their character motivations, or - at the same time - what they as players find interesting and then retroactively, if at all needed, formulate a motivation for their character. Especially this 'thinking meta as a player and bending my PCs' motivation to what I want' is very foreign to players invested in their characters..."

This, in my estimation, is NOT "storygaming." There is a disconnect between the players and the DM, but it isn't a bridge too far to span. In fact, it would seem to require only a step sideways by the DM to make things work: these players are still interested in "adventure" gaming, they just need some facilitation.

Among many (most?) D&D players who look down on old style play, there is a perception that killing and looting is too simplistic, too coarse, too dumb an activity to engage in. "Kill monster, loot treasure, repeat, how boring!" Most of these players...at least the ones that haven't jumped on the YouTube train of playing D&D like Improv Night at TheaterSports...still want adventure, but they want meaningful adventure, if not grandiose. Just like a fantasy story they've enjoyed reading (or watching on a screen). Collecting gold, doesn't seem "meaningful"...it seems mundane. And they want to be transported...the "fantasy" of fantasy adventure gaming is, essentially, an escape from the mundane hum-drum of the normal world.

But when we look at the classic adventures that everyone still adores...Hommlet, Against the Giants, etc...we'll see that none of them are bereft of story. Good adventures are scenarios: they have a premise, an idea or concept that gives them meaning. There's a reason players are there. 

And the characters' "story?" They build that through actual play, the longer they survive. It is inevitable in campaign play: the PCs will build friends and enemies, allies and rivals. They will have ambitions and victories and setbacks and comedy and tragedy...the longer they play. 

DMs want our players to live in the world we're building. We want them to want to spend time there. And most players who want to play D&D (and, yes, I'd even include modern 5E players) want a fantasy world worth living in. It's the DMs job to create that world.

When we sit down to play D&D, we all need to agree with the core concept of the game: players are adventurers in a fantasy world. "Adventurers" are individuals with a certain skill set that use those skills (and their wit) to risk danger as their occupation. That's their job. They are not town guards, or bakers, or kings-in-waiting, or court jesters. They are adventurers.

And because they are adventurers, we "keep score" (in this game we've agreed to play) by measuring how successful they are at their job (i.e. how much money they make), with some bonuses (x.p.) earned for defeating opponents with violence...because violence is inherent to the adventuring profession. They risk danger with their skill sets, i.e. sword and spell. Again: this is the game we've all agreed to sit down and play.

That doesn't mean the players can't choose to buck the premise. One of the great joys of D&D is that players have agency to operate outside the strict parameters set by (for example) a video game or a Fighting Fantasy novel. They are here to live in this world...not follow a script (and if the players assume they're supposed to follow a script, it's the DM's responsibility to disabuse them of this notice up front ASAP! That's not the game!).  

And living in a world requires some means of supporting yourself. 

It is the DM's responsibility to run the world...and that means providing consequences both for action and for inaction.  Players...because they have agency...have their choice of how to deal with the dangers of the world and the costs of living there. The DM has to make sure that there ARE "dangers" and "costs" so that the players are properly motivated to engage with them. The players can choose not to seek out treasure...and they will eventually be out of cash to feed themselves or their horses, reduced to living like penniless vagabonds (and treated the same by the locals). They can choose not to stamp out the monstrous ogre tribe that's moved nearby...and they'll see the village where they're staying dwindle as people move away (or are eaten), shops close, beer barrels run dry, etc. 

It all comes down to the DM's world building.  The (1st Edition) game already has rules for handling most pertinent situations that arise during the game. But it's up to the DM to build the world in which those rules get used...and it's up to the DM to present the world in a way that engages the players.

The players have no interest in investigating the caravan raids that have been halting trade with the southern jungles? That will affect the local economy. The players aren't interested in the giants expanding their territory into civilized lands? Civilization will start to shrink. The players aren't enticed to break up a slaver ring that's preying on the innocent? More people will continue to disappear in the night. 

It is UNIMPORTANT that the players wish to create mannerisms for their character, or write up a backstory. That's FINE if they want to do that. Most 1st edition PCs already have a "backstory" of sorts: they have a race. They have a class. They have a name. You can already tell a lot about the character's pre-game "history" just from these things (and more if you want to use secondary skills). It doesn't make them a "storygamer" to want to do these things...nor even if they want to "self-sabotage" (like the paladin removing his armor before a fight). 

That doesn't make the player a "storygamer," because we are not playing a story game. We are playing an adventure game. If it means anything at all, it just means they're not a very good adventurer (certainly in the case of the dipshit paladin)...and that doesn't mean they can't get better!

As the Dungeon Master, YOU have all the power. You create the world; you run the campaign; you arbitrate the rules. Any issue or disconnect here really falls squarely upon the shoulders of the DM. At least it does for those of us running old edition D&D. Choosing to DM this older version of D&D means choosing to take up this mantle of responsibility.

Old edition D&D is not "collaborative" in the same way a story game is. Players looking for a collaborative game...one where they provide input that impacts the game in spite of the rules and the results of the dice...would be best served to look elsewhere. Because old edition D&D doesn't support that kind of game play. It never has. Yes, you can glom on rule additions (hand out "narrative change" points to players or whatever), but the more adaptations you make, the more bits you're likely to muck up (requiring more changes), the farther you get away from what works WELL about the D&D game, and the more you'd (probably) be better served by finding a game that already has the objective of "creating a story."

Or, you know, such players could simply write their own fiction...either solo or in collaboration with others. Just saying.

Those players who stick around are signing up to play an adventure game, regardless of whether or not they are giving their characters fictional "motivations." That's FINE if they want to do that. A motivation rooted in fiction ("The six-fingered man killed my father; one day I'll have revenge!") is nearly as good as a motivation rooted in game play ("I want to find a fireball spell...and get to a level where I can cast it!"). Motivations are good, because they incentivize action. Doesn't mean they're ever going to be fulfilled or come up in play (that magic-user might die before 5th level...). Them's the breaks.

As DMs we are not true "storytellers," because all stories have an ending to them, and our responsibility as a neutral arbiter to the game prevents us from having an attachment to ANY possible ending. We create adventures (scenarios) with which the players interact. These scenarios make sense in terms of the fantasy world we've created. Our world is run to the best of our ability with the help of the rules. It is a world of adventure: a world with monsters and treasure, dungeons and dragons. The better we build it, the more players will want to adventure within it, and the more adventures they will have. Until their characters die or retire. And it's only then, when a PC has ended, will we be able to say "Okay, hear's the story of Stoutheart the Grim..." Or whatever.

DMs are world builders; D&D players are adventurers. The interaction of these roles (builder and explorer) is the game. Not a "story game." An adventure game. And, if YOU (DM) are running an old version of D&D...like 1st edition AD&D...you have nothing to worry about when it comes to "storygamers." Storygamers will find story games to play in, and that will be a 'win' for everyone involved.

Build your world, run your world, love your world. Do that and all the other "noise" will cease to matter.

: )

Hillfolk (Robin D. Laws)

With the second season of Vikings starting, my mind turns to axe-wielding maniacs in longships pillaging the English coastline. Briefly, I considered the idea of creating a B/X setting based in large part on the show (adding fantasy elements, of course), but however interesting exploration/exploitation is, that's not really the focus of the show. Rather, what's important is the relationship between the characters and how those relationships intersect (and often conflict) with the characters' desires and ambitions. B/X is not a great vehicle for that type of role-playing.

But Hillfolk by Robin D. Laws is perfect.

I picked up Hillfolk in January (I think)...shortly before things started getting really hectic around the home front. I own several games written (or co-written) by Laws, including Over The Edge, Pantheon, Feng Shui, Hero Wars, Ashen Stars, Mutant City Blues, and the Dying Earth RPG. Most fall into the category of "games-owned-but-never-played;" the only ones I have played are Over The Edge and Pantheon, and only OTE more than once...mainly because no one I know is interested in them. Sure, I may not do a great job selling 'em to people...but whatever. Point is, I like Laws's games, I have a lot of respect for his work and his designs, and I have put more money into his pockets than I have with any other designer, save Gygax, Siembieda, and Mark Rein-Hagen.

[ooo...that's kind o sad when you think about it!]

Spear-chucking with purpose!

Hillfolk uses a new system (the DramaSystem) to cut right to the chase of where long-term RPGs eventually end up: a soap opera of clashing personalities. That may sound less-than-complimentary, but I don't know a more succinct (and yet positive) way to describe it. The point of the system is to play the emotional exchanges that occur between people in tightly-knit (clan) relationships. The default setting is a small group of Iron Age villagers (hunter-warrior types) just on the borders of the "civilized" clashing empires. Consider perhaps a pre-Conan look at Cimmerian life, and how the people of the village get along in the face of internal politics, familial ties, and external threats.

Like Fiasco, PCs are created together and are defined (in part) by their relationships with each other: specifically what they want emotionally (and what they're unlikely to get) from each other. Unlike Fiasco, the characters also have some practical stats (for doing things like fighting and whatnot) and inner drives that color the ways they go about seeking their emotional "payoffs;" also, Hillfolk uses a GM, unlike Fiasco...though with a little thought, I don't think it would have been too tough to push it into the realm of collaborative role-playing.

Also, like Fiasco, the default setting is only a jumping off point...the game mechanics easily translate into other close-knit, tribal (or tribe-like) structures. Only one-third of Hillfolk's 230 pages is devoted to the system and its basic, Iron Age setting. The rest of the book is additional settings in which to use the DramaSystem, including a rural moonshining family, the Aztec empire during the coming of the Spanish, a support group for recovering "mad scientists," Spanish patriots fighting the Franco's fascists, a colony of humans on Mars, and the henchmen of a low-powered super villain. In all, there are thirty additional settings with players taking the form of everything from robots to pirates to irks to faeries at war with Victorian England. It's easy enough to come up with new settings: the key ingredients are simply small group facing external odds/adversity, while dealing with the normal group dynamic of clan. Hillfolk does the kind of thing OrkWorld wanted to do, but doesn't pussyfoot around with it, cutting right to the heart of the matter with its system.

I assume, anyway...I haven't actually played Hillfolk.

Back when I was a kid/pre-teen, I played in a looooong-running AD&D campaign, one that lasted several years. It eventually got to the point that "actual adventures" weren't as interesting to our high level characters as our own agendas, schemings, intrigues, and romances; if we killed some trolls in a session, it was usually a very minor part of whatever else was going on (internally) with our "characters." I've written before that I've never managed to reproduce this kind of D&D experience (a very fun one), because such an experience only developed organically after years of play, bushing the boundaries of the system, exploring the end game of high level play, and developing trust and intimacy within our gaming group. Hillfolk produces this kind of play without the need to sit around the gaming table for years. If this is the kind of gaming experience you long for, you might want to check it out.

One more interesting thing about Hillfolk: back before I started experiencing the burnout that led me to look at GM-less RPGs, I was working on an even simpler fantasy adventure game, that more emulated a literary/folktale type genre over the D&D mold of "treasure-seeking delvers" and one of the things I was looking at was mechanics regarding character motivation/desire, internal obstacles to that desire, and player created statements of who the PC is...like a ritualized, "this is the story of (blank) who seeks to do X, Y, and Z." Hillfolk does all this, mimicking in many ways the very structures I was implementing. The difference is Laws does this to get to the emotional exchange between players in a system devoted to emotional exchange...while I was still trying to figure out how to mechanically impact an "adventure game." The end result: his works and mine was struggling mightily (to the point where I mostly ignored the systems in actual play-testing, instead simply allowing such signs to stand as guidelines for "how to play your character;" lame!). Seeing the system in print (and the way it works) really took the wind out of my sails!

Anyhoo, Hillfolk...like most of Laws's games...is quite innovative and interesting, and may be the best offering I've yet seen from Pelgrane Press (I like GUMSHOE and Dying Earth, but they are still a little too clunky for my taste...damn skill systems!). It's not something I'd want to play all the time, but it's certainly something I'd like to play.

Probably with a Vikings setting, though.
; )

Fiasco

A quick side note: I received a new laptop from my wife for Christmas, due to my old one being fairly out-o-date (I think I got it back in 2007 or 2008), the expected emphasis on my “writing career” (ha!) while unemployed, and the difficulty with finding quality hardware (for reasonable price…even American-brand toys manufactured in China are two or three times as expensive as they are in the USA, and I don’t even shop at WalMart!).

On my old Mac, I had copies of MSOffice for Mac so that I could use programs like Word and Excel. The reason for this was two-fold:

MS programs like Word and Excel are the ones I’m familiar and proficient in, due to using them for years on my (prior) job’s PC computer.

As a person who sometimes found time (or made time) to work on personal projects ar my (prior) job, I needed the ability to work in the same software both at home and office.

Mac’s equivalent programs (Pages and Numbers) can “translate” Word and Excel documents, but the process is only really one-way, and I learned early on during the book writing thang what a pain in the ass it was to try working in two different systems…plus my lack of familiarity with the Mac software made me uncomfortable (that’s putting it mildly). Sure, “Mac Word” isn’t an exact duplicate of MS Word (there were issues with missing fonts and margin limitations), but the differences were small enough that I could work with them with only minor frustration.

However, when we got the new laptop, I decided NOT to get the corresponding MS programs loaded on my computer. My thought was that I needed to learn how to use Pages, etc. and I would never do that with the MS programs…plus, since I’m not actually working anywhere besides my personal computer, there’s no reason or requirement for me to have PC compatibility. I figured by the time I got back to the USA, I’d be fully proficient (or at least competent) in my Mac programs and all my writing/publishing/whatever would be handled in the Mac programs.

Of course, I completely forgot that ALL my documents (including all my books, published and non-) are still in MS Word format. Trying to edit them for typos, or get them ready for upload (I was planning on making The Complete B/X Adventurer available for sale as a PDF), has turned into a giant clusterf**k. Crap on a stick.

But that’s not the “fiasco” to which the title of this post refers. That refers to Jason Morningstar’s excellent and award winning game, of which I’d never heard…up until December.

Bully Pulpit Games first released Fiasco back in January 2010…back around the time I was trying to figure out how to make a cardboard box for my B/X Companion book. Gosh, only four years ago? Comparing Mr. Morningstar’s work to my over over the last few years is an exercise in envy (on my part)…not only has he won multiple awards and sold thousands and thousands of books, the guy seems to design nothing but GM-less RPGs, of the kind I’m only now starting to really explore.  It’s really enough to make you feel like an antiquated schlub.

PVP Action? Yes!

*sigh*

I was introduced to Fiasco through a friend of one of my semi-infrequent, drop-in gamers. I mentioned (back in November or early December) of my interest in checking out a collaborative RPG or two (I’d previous had some experience, as mentioned with games like Capes and Pantheon) and Jon (Redbeard) suggested Fiasco. His buddy and his buddy’s wife (really don’t remember their names at the moment…sorry!) showed up to the Baranof one Thursday night, and we ran Fiasco with my brother, AB.

[my brother has recently returned to Seattle in October and has since been attempting to reenter “normal society” after a couple years of homeless wanderings and mental illness in the Hawaiian Islands. He’s not what one would call an “indie gamer” by any stretch of the imagination. In a conversation about game design, he once espoused that a game could not be a “real” role-playing game without a combat system and some method of character advancement. He is (or rather was) also a big fan of World of Warcraft…]

Fiasco is a great game. Very fun, very interesting and a real collaborative challenge to craft a good story. We all enjoyed ourselves…even my brother, who was extremely hesitant to try such a game. Usually, AB is the type of gamer who will poke fun at/derail games that he doesn’t understand or doesn’t appreciate or that I am taking “too seriously.” He doesn’t do this to be malicious…it’s just how he is, that “little brother” annoying prerogative. However, he actually had a good time and was able to get into the spirit of the game quite nicely, making for a satisfying, Story Now gaming experience.

For people who aren’t familiar with Fiasco, the idea is for 3-5 players (though I’ve been assured four is the optimal number) create characters from a number of random narrative elements (rolled on tables) that define what they have in common with each other. It’s quite simple in practice, and negotiating how the distributed elements interact (i.e. what they signify) both creates the characters at the table and creates an idea of the story at hand. Game play consists of players taking turns to create scenes with negotiation and dice rolls helping determine how those scenes play out. The game session is divided into acts with twists (or “tilts”) that help the story slide in unforeseen ways until you have some climactic resolution (that’s “climax” in the narrative sense…it’s not necessarily a big, blow ‘em up kind of event).

The original game setting is built on the “crime caper gone horribly wrong” premise…the film Fargo is the often cited sample inspiration (not to mention all those British films by Madonna’s ex-husband). However, what makes Fiasco so playable (and commercially viable) is the ability to change and customize the setting to all sorts of different “plans-gone-wrong” ideas; Bully Pulpit Games was issuing a “playset” of the month (with new random element tables and “tilts” specific to each new setting) and many fans of the game have contributed their own playsets. For our game, we used a “high fantasy” setting…D&D-esque…based on my brother’s request, though we could have done Renaissance or Elizabethan England or Old West or whatever. The folks who ran the game (why am I blanking on his name? Kevin? Phil?) has a whole folder full of  possible playlets he’d printed.

The fantasy setting was a concession to my brother, but the story was nothing like a dungeon crawl. “Phil” played a the daughter of the local thieves guild master, who masqueraded as a man, my character was an elven princess who was his betrothed (the guild master’s plot being to move up into “high (elven) society” or possibly blackmail the elven nobility by the scandal), my brother was the princess’s bodyguard/master-of-arms/champion (who also happened to be female AND a werewolf), and “Sarah” (“Phil’s” wife) was the wolf that AB’s character sometimes turned into…she was kind of like the Dark Side of the PC’s consciousness (or her “kill ‘em all” id) while AB was the honorable, duty-bound warrior-woman.

[why did all the guys end up with female characters? It just worked out that way based on the elements that came up and what would make for a good and coherent story…I don’t remember anything requiring that any of us had to be specifically female and (at least between my brother and I) we aren’t ones to play “gender-bended” characters in RPGs. We all remarked it was a little weird, but as said, it made for a better story/adventure/session and we all did our best to play our characters in serious fashion]

Anyhoo, it made for a good night’s play, though I can’t recall exactly what happened (this was back in early December and, as usual, there was a lot of drinking involved). At one point, my princess led a big battle charge against an orc village, and there was a lot of discussion about the “wolf fighting style” that she needed to learn to be a true leader of her people. I think the characters did actually end up getting married and being “unhappy ever after,” but I don’t really remember. Like I said, it was an enjoyable and satisfying, story creating experience, and another good foray (for me) into the world of collaborative role-playing.

That being said, Fiasco felt much more like a parlor game to me (albeit a very fun parlor game that did involve role-playing and characterization). It’s not really designed for long-term or serial play, and thus lacks the development over time (and subsequent character identification and attachment) that I enjoy. There were also some difficulties with the “choose to set the scene or choose to resolve the scene” mechanic that is inherent in the game. Either Phil and Sarah didn’t explain this succinctly enough, or I was too drunk to understand, or it’s as murky in the rules as it was at our gaming table (having never read the rules, I can’t say). Whatever it was, at some points it felt like we were just negotiating what happened and kind of “winging it” depending on A) the needs of the story, and B) the dice rolls. And in that regard, Fiasco was was a little loosey-goosey for my taste.

I tried to get hold of a (print) copy of the game before I came down to Paraguay to study up on it, but was unable to do so. Fiasco’s a good one to have on-hand if you’ve got enough players and nothing else planned for the evening.

Giving Up Power

No, not another superhero post.

This post has been a long time coming. Last Autumn, probably round about October I started to feel something akin to burnout. At the table. Frustration with gaming…with gaming itself. Feelings that I’d rather not be doing what I was doing on Thursday nights.

This is somewhat reflected in my lack of blog posts stemming from this period, though mainly my lack of output the last few months have been caused by my busy schedule and the overall stress of my daily life. My writing suffered from a lack of focus, not a lack of desire (and now that I finally have some time to write, I find I’m a little rusty/out-o-practice). But my gaming itself…yeah, it was getting harder to drag myself to the table, even when I had the evening free to do so.

Kayce down at Gary’s Games actually helped me figure out what was going on in my brain…I was tired of running games. I was tired of play-testing. I was tired of being in the puppet-master position…I wanted to game, I wanted to participate, but I needed to stop approaching the thing like a 2nd job…especially when I already had a 2nd or 3rd job (depending on how you count the work nannying my own child and trying to get the writing biz off the ground). 

Kayce suggested I let someone else run a game…unfortunately she wasn’t available to do so, and the games that were available to me (I’m on a couple regular mailing lists of Thursday meet-ups) were not playing anything that piqued my interest.

Fact is, I was still interested in many aspects of the GM chair, enjoyed them even…but I wanted to be a player participant in the game as well. I wanted a chance to play the hero for a change…whatever the genre. But who was going to run 5AK (or Cry Dark Future or Boot Hill or Star Wars or DMI) for me? I was writing and creating games that I wanted to play…as a player!…and I was the only one not getting a chance to play.

It was about that time I started thinking seriously about GM-less games. Giving up the power of the game "master" for an (equal) place at the table.

Collaborative role-playing games (I believe this is the P.C. term) have been around for a while, but they are certainly a small, small part of the RPG market. Many of them feel more like storyteller type system (the card game, Once Upon A Time comes to mind), lacking a true feeling of characterization, character identification, or (God forbid!) role-playing at all…at least in the “traditional” manner of speaking.

But I knew it was at least possible to bridge the gap…previously, I’d had the chance to play Capes, an indie superhero game that works without a GM and yet still has strong character construction/identification (one of the coolest takes on chargen I’ve ever seen in an RPG, actually). The game itself shares the narration and normal GM duties between players (like challenging PCs), by setting them up in a competitive environment with a system of bids and points for control of narration. The competition level is certainly on the “light” scale…little is risked/lost when chargen is as throwaway-easy as Capes (still cool, though). Part of the reason Capes doesn’t work for me is that “little risk” factor, but mainly the system (how the game plays) is a little clunky and slow for a genre I think should be slam-bam fast. Competitive, nuanced bidding structure for narrative rights? This isn’t a bull session in the Marvel editor’s office!

*ahem*

Anyhoo, back in October when I was in the throes of this “burnout” thing, I stumbled across Western City, another GM-less game with a much less complicated bidding system of narrative control and stronger “character attachment” (players each have a main character/protagonist and then get to bid for control of minor characters and antagonists) then what is found in Capes. Western City’s method of bidding and splitting chips is an easy way for a group to determine narration rights and ensures that this control will be shared between all participants  by the nature of the spend. It still holds a few problems for me (a slow setup time, an overly complex skill system, a weird way of scheduling the day’s conflicts) that make me hesitant to actually try the thing…but just reading it got me thinking (back in November), and thinking started getting me out of my funk.

Unfortunately, my life conspired to prevent me from really sitting down and hammering out my own thoughts and concepts in the way I wanted…or writing about my blossoming ideas as they started growing in my brain. Knowing that I would be moving to Paraguay, the holidays, and tying up the loose ends at the job I was leaving (not to mention my wife’s continued travels to South America)…left me struggling for air, let alone writing time. I started and abandoned more than half a dozen blog posts during the time.

But I kept reading and researching…stuffing info into my brain in hopes it would become a digested, useable thing. I borrowed a copy of Polaris off of Tim, a game I’d been meaning to look at for a long time anyway due to my interest in the subject matter (it has a real “Fall of Ancient Atlantis” type feel…doomed tragedy is a favorite fantasy concept of mine. Well, so long as there’s some rebirth/hope that arises from the destruction). Polaris is also a GM-less…um, “collaborative” RPG that incorporates ritual beautifully, in a way that is highly reminiscent of The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, another game that straddles the border of RPG and collaborative storytelling.

[as a side note, any book that incorporates the purchase and consumption of alcohol into its gameplay is a must have for this gamer’s library!]

Polaris is the basic model for a game I tentatively started designing ‘round about Thanksgiving. Unfortunately, that design has had a stunted growth, being mainly composed of half a page of notes and a headful of prosaic “color” text. Part of the problem is I haven’t actually had a chance to figure out the tone…part of me wants it very, very dark (though it is not a doom & gloom game) and the other part of me wants something much more light-hearted (albeit snarky). And, no, that one has nothing to do with superheroes, either. More on this later (probably).

To continue my story: at the same time I was really starting to groove on the idea of creating a GM-less game, one of the gaming newsletters to which I subscribe sent me a list of articles on “collaborative role-playing.” These are old articles, and the list was unsolicited…it was simply that serendipitous kind o thang that sometimes happens when you’re mind is aligned in a particular direction.

Ian Millington is the one responsible for most of these articles, which were penned more than decade ago. I’ll post the links below for folks who are interested…as I write more on the subject, I will be referencing back to some of thoughts, concepts, and ideas Mr. Millington was developing:

Shifting the Paradigm of gaming (with pictures).

Ten Principles for Mr. Millington’s concept of collaborative role-playing (not sure I’m on board with all these, but they aid in understanding his work).

An essay on “Avatarism” and a new way of looking at “why we should play role-playing games.” This one is sure to raise some hackles, though I found it quite mind-blowing.

An interview with Mr. Millington (interesting...and mentions some of the limits to collaborative role-playing he sees).

Four actual games by Mr. Millington incorporating his principles of collaborative role-playing.

Okay, that’s enough to chew on for now...more on the subject later. I hope to write individual posts about two very specific collaborative games as a follow-up to this post: Fiasco and Blood Red Sands, perhaps later this week.