To Live, or not to Live

Babbling at the Counter #83 – Video Games

To Live, or not to Live

Playing Meowgical Tower, I found myself in a strange position. It happened on Full Moon Rising, too. Sometimes, I wanted to kill my character. Not metaphorically, no. It's just that, after dying, you just pop back in the same screen and with full health. So, tactically speaking, why would I try to kill enemies without taking damage?

It was far easier to just let them hit me, as there were never enough of them to kill me before I killed them all. And that took away all the challenge from the experience.

Quick aside: The final boss is fun and challenging, so play the game at least to fight him.

And talking about the boss, why was he so good? Well, because he could kill you in a single screen, thus stalling your progress.

So, in conclusion, what I wanted to say to everyone working on their own games: Make sure dying is something we DON'T want to do. Make us restart a few screens behind (so we have to be careful as we replay), use checkpoints, make every screen potentially deadly, or just punish us in some way.

I know the rationale is “players are going to keep replaying until they get it right anyway”. Yes, but make sure “getting it right” is a challenge. If not, your “game” is more or less a sight seeing tour of the levels. And that's pretty boring.

- The Storeman

Shifting perspective

Babbling at the Counter #79 – Video Games

Shifting perspective

I've recently played the Test Subject saga. To recap, it's about a little blue slime created by a scientist, and the subject of a series of tests to analyze it. We play as the slime.

Now, this game does something I found awesome. Something more game designers should keep in mind when working on their games. So I wanted to bring that feature into the spotlight.

Warning: SPOILERS

For the first two and one fifths of the games, your character is confined within a small metal box. That's where the experiments take place, all under the gaze of the scientist(s). But, after the mooks mess things up, our blue friend is free to wander around the lab. And here is the thing.

The gameplay doesn't change. It's still a puzzle platformer, using teleportation and what-not. So what's so different outside the box? Well, the levels are bigger. Yeah, it may seem inconsequential, until you think about it.

Inside the box, you had a full view of the level. You could figure it out, plan ahead how you were going to move. Now, outside the box, you lose that. Now, you have to move as far as you can, and then reevaluate the level to continue. This is exacerbated when they add the laser security system. Against it, you have to locate cover, move, locate again, move, etc.

There, you feel the environment in a different light than before. Yeah, it subtle. And yeah, it's effective.

I can't begin to tell you how many other, different games and situation might apply this idea. All I can say is: look out for opportunities like these. Opportunities to show the world changing without being obvious about it. Players might not consciously notice it, but your game will stick in their minds a lot more.

- The Storeman

David vs. Goliath

Babbling at the Counter #51 – Pen and Paper

David vs. Goliath

I guess most roleplayers can say they’ve had this moment: Your party and you get into a fight (as parties are wont to do) and after the first round you realize the though brute in front of you can shrug your attacks like they are nothing. So… what to do now?

I’ve already covered unstoppable juggernauts before, but inspired by a recent experience and Aaron's latest Tiny d10 post, I wanted to revisit and add to the idea.

My invincible monsters had a simple but effective rule, to know: They should deal average damage. There were reasons for that (see link), but let’s break that rule and think outside the box. How can one handle a creature that’s really powerful and really dangerous?

A few weeks ago, my group and I (I wasn’t the GM) found ourselves fighting inside a prison. We didn’t had access to our weapons or armor, the mage couldn't perform magic and our rival was a giant crocodile man (so bite and tail club were natural weapons, oh, and he had natural armor).

We were done, we knew that. But given the GM, he clearly expected a fight, and we didn’t disappoint. I don’t like fights, so our most tactical player took the lead. We scoured through our character sheets, looking up any kind of skill trick or combat advantage we could use.

I must say, we feared for our characters. The GM is new to GMing, and the encounter was completely unfair. Still, we survived, and it was awesome!

The thing is, some GMs don’t like killing characters. I know I don’t. When I read the Horror of the Lake for Tiny d10, I kept thinking “Instant Death? That’s not cool”. Then I remembered Power Points could help with save rolls. I started thinking that, yeah, T10 Toughness is a problem, but it’s not impossible to beat. Now I actually want to fight against that.

Yes, this is a delicate art, and can easily be the end of inexperienced or lazy players. That’s the main reason I said no “overpowered” monsters in my previous post. So, while not restricting yourself, thread carefully. And if you have any advice on how to run monsters out of the character’s league, drop by the comments and let us know!

- The Storeman

Seeking the Truth

Babbling at the Counter #37 – Pen and Paper

Seeking the Truth

This is an idea for Mystery Investigation that I have been toying with for a while now. It’s incomplete, and it may not work, but maybe getting it out there will help develop it.

I remember a blogger (I'm now pretty sure it was Robin Laws, author of the GUMSHOE system, thanks to Aaron on the comments section. If I eventually find the original post I’ll link to it.) saying that the problem with using skills and dice rolls to run a mystery was that a single failed roll would stop everything on it’s tracks. He made this comparison (I’m paraphrasing): Imagine this. You enter a room, there is a monster there. If you miss your attack, then you can never go into the next room. You are trapped.

That was meant as a parallel with missing a clue in a way that made it impossible to go to another scene. But it got me thinking about something else.

When you fight a monster, you make a few rolls to attack it, until it’s dead or defeated, thus solving the situation. Now, you could do exactly the same thing with any other obstacle, including a mystery.

Instead of making each and every clue a challenge by itself, you could treat the whole mystery as a single “entity”. Every roll, you are “damaging” it, only you don’t stack damage until it’s dead, you take away some of the mystery until it’s solved.

As I said, it’s a pretty unfinished idea. I still don’t know how you can run a whole session with a single “entity” to defeat. But I think this can be used in smaller doses for a lot of other things.

A single scene, like a dance contest, for example, could be treated as a fight. Each move damages your opponents “image”, until one of you is humiliated and defeated.

So weird idea today. Hope at least it gets you thinking about alternatives to single roll resolutions. See you soon.

- The Storeman

Competition

Babbling at the Counter #34 – Game Theory

Competition

Join us next week for a special review. All thanks to Dazzling March!

Short thought today. As you may know, I’m a big fan of Pen and Paper RPGs. And when I play a video game with multiplayer options, it’s usually co-op.

Why? Well, I just don’t like to play against other people. Mostly because I suck. Big time.

Still, I realize that competition is a healthy part of games. I may not enjoy having to spend hours to master a game in order to stay competitive, but simple ones that are easily learned can be a blast.

I offered both Uberleben and 0Space, which are competitive video games, but even in pen ands paper you can have that.

While playing BADASS, some characters started trying to up-stage each other. Soon, it devolved into a semi fight between them. Even though they all wanted the same thing (recover a MacGuffin for the party) two players started spending Badass Points to surpass their teammate’s roll and make the other look bad. Fun times were had.

Healthy competition is great. I find it hard to foster at a gaming table, and it can be hard to make a competitive and casual game, but it’s worth the try nonetheless. It’s been done before, you know?

- The Storeman

Random Power

Babbling at the Counter #33 – Video Games

Random Power

I remember the moment I had one of the insights that led to the Warehouse. I was playing an old NES game, Spy Vs. Spy, an thinking: “This is awesome!”. After playing through most of the difficulties, I went back to the lower ones, just because they made the games shorter, not actually easier. Sadly, the level design was exactly the same every time you choose that difficulty.

Obviously, I shouldn’t have been surprised. NES games didn’t have randomly generated content. But I was sitting there, thinking: “If only the item placement on this was random, even without changing the level’s layout, you could replay to your heart’s content”.

Then, it hit me. With today’s technology, an amateur designer could make exactly this same game on his home computer AND add this nifty “item hiding” feature. Somewhere along the line, the graphical aspects of games where prioritized, so whenever processing power increased, only graphics improved, not gameplay.


Nowadays, some stuff started showing up to correct that. First, it was online gaming. While nice, it never actually worked for me. But then, indie developers started making games with low quality graphics and great features, mostly “procedural” or “randomly” generated content.

I like where this is going, and even though I won’t talk about exclusively commercial games in this blog, it’s worth saying that there are a few great gems out there. I see myself included in the target market for video games for the first time in years.


So, you ask yourself, what about free games?

Free games can benefit a lot from procedural generated content, and a lot more than you may think. Low quality graphics and high replayability are the staples of a lot of free gaming.


Aspiring game designers, whatever your goals are commercial or non-commercial, just remember. It’s not about graphics anymore. With the help of our handy internet, spreading your work is easier. Thankfully, that means the game environment is more rich and varied, so both designers can defend their vision, and we players get a lot more to choose from. Good times indeed!

- The Storeman

Lessons from the arcade

Babbling at the Counter #32 – Video Games

Lessons from the arcade

Arcade games had three very important things that I feel got lost along the way. Modern games like Endless Forms Most Beautiful are bringing this stuff back:

They where easy to learn:

Simple controls that don't change through the game.

I see the appeal in mastering a complicated set of combinations to get the best results and perform awesome maneuvers, but sometimes I just want to sit down and play a game without having to look for information online or having to practice the aforementioned combos before I'm ready to actually enjoy my game.

Arcades were simple because they needed you to get hooked up easily. Watching someone else play or the helpful hints displayed during the “insert coin” screen had to be enough to get you started.

Just because we can make extremely more complex games today, it doesn't mean we should ignore how nice it is to just start a game and be able to play it. No online study, no long tutorials. Just a game.

They exploited every Detail:

This is more of a wake up call to prospective game designers than anything else.

Some games change your character as you progress. So, new obstacles are avoided with new powers. That doesn't make the game actually hard, mind you. It just means the player has to learn a few more tricks, and the designers can use new basic traps instead of improving the old ones.

And that's my point. Take EFMB. As the best way to move around is using the teleporting platforms, most of the traps are built around them. Putting spikes on them, having a floor completely devoid of them, giving enemies the ability to use them too, etc.

If halfway through the game you got, say, the ability to push blocks, then gameplay changes completely. From that point on, you start finding easy block puzzles so you can get used to them, instead of finding new (and tougher) platform puzzles.

This kind of stuff makes the game longer, but not in a way I find nice. You shouldn't be saying “I died because I forgot how gliding works”. The character is your avatar, controlling it should be intuitive after only a few rounds.

They had replay value in mind:

This is the aspect of replay value I want to talk about today: Coffebreak Games.

You can sit down, play something between fifteen minutes or half an hour and then get back to other things. Here's more information about the coffebreak concept. Arcades have that.

But to be a good coffebreak game, it has to have both simple controls and be short enough to be beaten in less than an hour.

Closing Up:

I know there are a few negative aspects to this old games that we don't want to see anymore. Inflated difficulty to keep you hooked, and having to play until you memorized the level in order to survive it are not features I remember fondly. Those are not what I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about pure nostalgia, either. It's not about making old games, it's making games the old way. Why make a fifty-hour long game if it's chock full of filler? Why not use fewer different abilities in the same game and use them to make other games?

I know the answer, money. Big companies won't get much from this ideas. Good luck we don't work there, then. I guess our projects can actually do some things those big names can't.

- The Storeman

I realize this post has a lot in common with Locomalito's philosophy.

“Lessons from the arcade” was already written when I found that on his site, so I decided to keep mine and just link to him.

Mysterious - Cont.

Babbling at the Counter #30 - Pen and Paper

Mysterious - Cont.

Last week's Babble wasn't what I wanted. I mean, I said what was wrong with Investigation Plots, but didn't offer a solution. So today, I'll talk about how to actually run a mystery.

The Layout of this post will be this: I'll use the same sub-titles as last week, but instead of whining about a problem, I'll offer an alternative. Then, a little example. As supernatural investigation is one of my favorite genres both on TV and to run as GM, I'll use it.

Too Many Moving Parts:

To make clues more fun, make getting them the challenge, not understanding them. Getting a peek from the crime scene, stealing the files from the police station, finding the witnesses, these are all nice challenges for a game. Players can come up with creative ways to overcome them and the character's stats will be used.

Now, once they have the clues, make them obvious. After all, the characters know what they are doing, they should figure them out easily. This way you make sure the players won't get stuck. The characters should know their city pretty well, and even if they don't, sitting around to read is something you shouldn't roll for. They will have actually accomplished something (getting the clues) and the game can keep moving.

Ex: There's been a mysterious death at the piers. To get a shot at the crime scene before normal police officers have a chance to mess the supernatural evidence up, two of the characters decide to dress as the CSI team to collect evidence.
They botch their rolls pretty badly, so a veteran sergeant recognizes them and tries to get them arrested. Even though they all get away, now the characters have to come up with another approach.
Meanwhile, another player decide to have her character talk to all the street vendors and hobos nearby, in case someone saw something. Luckily, they did! They describe the creature as a fish-like man, with razor sharp teeth. After mangling the poor soul that stumbled in his way, it jumped into the water and disappeared.
Now the characters have a clear path to the creature (it may live or at least travel through water), but a lot of ways to get to it. They could wait around for the next attack, or actually go after it with cameras, scuba gear or even a water breathing spell or submarine (if it's that kind of game). They even have witnesses, so they could take one back to HQ and show him pictures of sea monsters till he identifies it.

Less Talk More Rock:

Research is a vital part of investigations, and different series devote different amounts of time to these scenes. Here we are going for an action/investigation kind of story. So action comes first, priority-wise, and we'll set aside just enough time for research.

We are looking for something like Buffy, The Vampire Slayer. Even though there was investigation on the show, it was mostly one of two kinds (and there was at least a fight scene per episode, if not more):

What is it: Maybe the characters got a good look at the creature before it got away, or maybe it has a particular way of killing, but after this scene, the characters already know it's name, what it wants, and more often than not, how to kill it. This is usually a quick scene at the library, with a few jokes before someones finds the right book.

How to stop it:  Sometimes, it's easy to know what it is. Is you find an empty sarcophagus and people from Egyptian descent are the target, it doesn't take a genius to think "mummy!".
The question then are what does it want and what does it fear. Any of those things could work to stop it. The characters can set a trap for it, or use it's weakness to design a weapon. In some cases, like the mummy, it's motive and weakness could be the same thing. The mummy might need the blood of the pharaoh's descendants to return to life before the minions of Anubis drag it back to the Underworld.

Ex: Not to be denied, the characters decide to steal the lab results on the crime scene  from the police station. They stage a big distraction outside, while the most agile character sneaks in to take a peek from the file.
They learn that the creature left behind some kind of oil, and that it deteriorated quickly when exposed to sunlight. Now they know the creature is nocturnal (to help predict it's movements) and that sun is a handy way to kill it (maybe a tanning bed could have the same effect).

The Clue Conundrum:

Don't be too strict when it comes to giving away the clues. The players can't read your mind, so they'll do what makes sense to them, not to your plot. Taking a sample from the crime scene to analyze, stealing the lab results, or even getting the lead investigator hammered at a bar to loosen his tongue, are all possibilities and should be equally useful. In the previous example, the characters stole the lab files because they couldn't get into the crime scene. It doesn't matter, they get exactly the same information either way.

I have said this before, but it bears repeating: don't expect the players to connect the dots. You may leave a few things for your players to figure out, as long as they are not vital parts of the plot. I'm not saying everyone is too dumb to figure out the clues, what I'm saying is...


It's not a job:

People at the gaming table want to have fun. Some of them have just gotten back from work, or have spent the whole day studying. Others may just be looking for awesome stuff to happen to their characters. Other just want to hang out with friends. More often than not, though, they are not looking the acquire the real abilities of a detective.


Bottom Line:

Playing an investigation can be a blast, but for most groups, it means laying the investigation down a bit and making the action central to the story. It's not only about fights. Chases, climbing dangerous places, sneaking past enemy lines, having a stressful negotiation, that's what players are looking for. Things that get the blood pumping and that make great stories.

- The Storeman

Mysterious

Babbling at the Counter #29 – Pen and Paper

Mysterious

A comment on a recent post got me thinking. I love mystery and investigation fiction. As a matter of fact, I’d say at least a half of the fiction (series, books, movies) I consume falls into this category. So, why did I recommend NOT running a murder mystery last week? Here’s why:

My main point is that seeing an investigation on TV and running one on your game a two completely different animals. Even though it can be fun to see a mystery, solving one can be a bummer.

And before I begin, I mean a “real” “Sherlock Holmes quality” mystery, a.k.a.: lots of talking and clue gathering before a big reveal.

Lastly, as this entry is rather large, you may prefer to skip to the conclusion/short version if you are pressed for time.

Too many moving parts:

Making a good mystery means striking a delicate balance. It must be hard enough to pose a challenge, but easy enough to be solved.

In TVland, that’s easy. The main characters are going to find the answer because the writer knows it. It doesn’t really matter if the audience can do that too, because the story will get resolved even if not a single person can guess who the killer is.

At your table, that’s not the case. The writer and the characters are not the same person, and if the players can’t find the answer, they'll get frustrated and it won’t be fun.

Unless everyone is fine with railroading, the mystery will have to be on the “easy” side of the spectrum, taking the challenge away.

Less Talk, More Rock, please:

Do you watch the series “Elementary”? Or “The Mentalist”? “Law and Order”? Even “Fringe” or “Psych” apply here, really. What those series have in common is that (as real investigation does) they include pretty few fist fights. And gunfights. And chases. They are, mostly, a bunch of people doing surveillance and waiting for some analysis to get back from the lab.

On TV, that’s fine. We see the really intelligent and insightful character find clues and figure them out. In the end, it was their minds what got them to the perp.

At the table, on the other hand, that means players ask for information, roll to get it, then hear it. If you don’t see the problem, let’s go for an example:

“What can I see on the crime scene?”

“A footprint. There’s a substance on the footprint, roll for the chemical analysis. (…) Great, it’s resin from a tropical tree, roll to know where you can find it in the city. (…) Great, roll to calculate a three mile radius around that place. (…) Great, roll to check the police database for people with the perp’s profile on that area (…)” Etc, and etc.

That’s how they do it on TV, and I love those shows. I sure as heck would hate the previous exchange at my game table, though.

In the end, characters in those shows can be pretty passive creatures. Players, by nature, are not.

The Clue Conundrum:

Another must on mystery RPG discussion is the old: And what if they miss a clue? Some GMs have had a game grind to a halt because the players missed an important clue. And some had the same when the players couldn’t connect them.

Again, on TV, the author makes both the clues and the connections. In an RPG, the GM makes the clues, the players the connections. That sometimes doesn’t go so well.

Playing a strong character is the same being a weakling or a bodybuilder. It's all on your Strength (or similar) score and a roll of the dice. Coming up with theories on an investigation is not so easy for everyone.

I mean, you could roll to ask the GM for the connections, but that makes the game too mechanic for my taste.

And this brings us to my last point.

It's not a job:

Detectives are not a TV invention, they do actually exist. So, if real people can solve real mysteries, why can't the players? Easy, because they are players, playing a game. As you don't have to know actual cartography to find a dragon's hidden island, you shouldn't need actual forensic knowledge to identify a stalker. Getting information should be a simple and fast task at the table, so the players can go on, and make choices and do stuff.

After all, it's a game. How do I know who the guy is won't be as satisfactory as knowing my plan to get him worked. If all I do is follow clue after clue until I confront the guy, then it's over (as most cop shows do), I'm a passive observer. I want to fight him, to run after him, to design a trap, etc. My pleasure doesn't come from seeing him behind bars, but from actually putting him there.

Conclusion/Short Version:

Running a mystery at the tabletop can be hard.

Take an average episode of a mystery show and count the times they “roll” (or would roll if it was an RPG game) to get information from a lab or from memory, or from any kind of source that would have to be given by the GM; and compare them to the number of times they “roll” to catch up with a perp, or jump a fence, or wrestle someone down, or seduce someone, or anything that wouldn't be a “question/answer” with the GM.

Oh, and let me know if you could have made the leaps on logic that are required to figure out the mystery before the characters tell the answer. Remember, if you can't, the game won't advance. If it's too easy, you'll get bored and the game will end really fast.

I'm not saying it's impossible to run a mystery at a tabletop. Just that you must remember it won't be like TV.

- The Storeman

Blog Carnival – February 2014 – The Icy Embrace of Winter

Babbling at the Counter #28 – Pen and Paper

Blog Carnival – February 2014 – The Icy Embrace of Winter

New month, new Carnival. This one is hosted by Nils at Enderra, and is winter related. So thank you Nils! Hope this post makes a good addition to the Carnival!

What can you do with winter? Well, let me offer you a multi-purpose, multi-genre idea: “Snowed In”. You had seen it before? Yeah, it's an oldie but a goodie, so let's disassemble it.

For those at the back of the class, the idea here is to use the inclement winter weather to trap the party at a location. This gives a few advantages; the most important one is a closed and controlled environment. Of course, this only works if the characters can't deal with the snow easily. No teleportation or such non-sense is allowed.

You may be tempted to run a murder mystery or something like that here. I'd rather you didn't. You see, that kind of things can go off the rails in a snap. My recommendation is taking advantage of the character's inability to leave the place to create tension and drama.

I'd go with either a creature on the shadows or have the building itself turn hostile. In more realistic games, an unusually tough madman can do the trick. Make it about whether or not the characters will survive the storm. Take advantage of the unknown. Where will the next attack be? What is the enemy working on?

Clever players may build fortresses or safe rooms, given enough ingenuity and resources. Just remember that whatever is stalking them can do the same. Taking out the power is a simple but effective first step, and even better with creatures of the night. This, though, is far from the only thing to do.

Water is interesting because you both need it to live, and because it can kill you. Poisoning the water supply can make the characters leave their safe place, and hallucinogen drugs can make that panic room a mortal trap. On the other hand, we have the option to flood them out of there. Combine the two if you are really nasty.

Talking of death by oxygen deprivation, smoke can work, too. Fire adds another layer of dangers, and as always, an enemy that's immune to it has home advantage. You may find this “Unstoppable Monster” idea useful to plot, so I'll just leave the link.

Now, if your group likes “Horror” more than “Adventure”, trapped + time = horrible, horrible stuff. To the usual lack of food and water you can add a bit of dementia, and some pests only make things worse. Not an expert on this kind of stuff, but I'm sure there are enough books and movies to get you started. What makes this different is the time the characters will be trapped. A good monster adventure can take only a night, or even a few hours. For more “horror” inclined games, the character may spend days if not weeks trapped.

Well, hope something here sparks your imagination. Till next time, have fun in the snow!

- The Storeman

New and… Better?

Babbling at the Counter #27 – Video Games

New and… Better?

Here’s a thought: When you build a new version of something, you should keep in mind what it was. Why do I bring it up? Momodora is why.

Momodora is a pretty good game. I really enjoyed it, and when I sat down to play Momodora 2, I expected it to be at least as good as the former. But it wasn’t. Don’t get me wrong, both are great games, but the second one lost track of what the first had done right.

Let’s go to some examples (spoilers ahead): Momodora was pretty straightforward. You had a selection of guns, and even if you didn’t keep using all of them, you kept switching to at least three (unlike Cave Story, that managed to make all the guns almost equally useful). You could play the game as fast as you could, or you could go around trying to get all the secrets. I’m still playing it to get everything!

On the other hand, Momodora 2 had better graphics, actual NPCs and a plot. It added bosses, which is great, and some nifty and flavorful things with those statues. But it forgot everything Momodora had done right! It doesn’t have crazy weapons or secrets. It’s even shorter than Momodora 1.

End of Spoilers.

As a standalone game, it would have been alright. Regrettably, as a sequel, one can’t help but compare it, and find it lacking.

The lesson here is a simple one: Don’t forget what your previous work has done right. Improve upon it, not in spite of it.

(In Momodora 2’s case, more weapons would have helped the Metroidvania mechanics. And don’t get me started on hiding secrets through a map that forces you to go back and forth. The game is practically begging for these features).

- The Storeman

Party Games

Babbling at the Counter #25 – Video Games

Party Games

This overlooked category has a lot of room for development. What do I call a “party game”? Well, and example would be Uberleben, from last week. A simple short game, that can accommodate multiple players and with great replay value.

Let’s see each one of this points and why they are important:

Multiplayer: This one is obvious. In a party, there will be more than 2 players, so a game that can be played by more people at the same time is good.

Replay value: This ties to the “short” part of the definition. You won’t play this game once, but multiple times with multiple people. And it should be fun to play even after you have seen someone else do it.

Short: If the game can’t handle more than two people, you will want turns to rotate fast. And even if it does have room for three or more people, it’s best if each game round is short. So everyone gets a turn, mainly.

Simple: Up to this point, lots of games would qualify for a party game. What sets them apart is this very idea. Fighting games, for example, are multiplayer (two people), with short rounds and with replay value. But they are so complex that an experienced player can go around undefeated and that’s not fun. When designing a party game, keep an eye on this one.

This may be one of the most rambling babbles I have ever written. Some time I could try and organize it better. We will see.

- The Storeman

The GM as a Ringleader

Babbling at the Counter #24 – Pen and Paper

The GM as a Ringleader

You see, for me, GMing is really about confidence. And like a good con artist, it’s about working on other’s confidence.

I’m not the smartest one at my table. I mean, one of my players is not only ahead of every move I make, but also knows the rules better (both game rules and world rules, like physics). That means, that the game can (and has) easily fallen into his hands.

It didn’t take me long to realize that shouldn’t happen. How did he manage to do it? Simple, I was playing his game, not mine. As GM, you are the referee. Not a “rules” referee, rather a “fun” referee. My main job at the table is not the story, not really. As I said, my players and their theories usually shape the plot as much if not more than I do. No, no, my real job is that of a ringmaster: I make the players shine and balance the spotlight between them.

Being a GM means that, at least to me. I’m not a Mastermind behind nefarious schemes. I’m not the devious Architect of mortal traps. I’m not a Writer weaving a fantastic story. I just make sure the real performers (the players) can do their stuff. And that’s really goddamn satisfying by itself.

- The Storeman

The Power of Words

Babbling at the Counter #23 – Pen and Paper

Consistency in Game Design #1 - The Power of Words

The ideas here may seem pretty basic for experienced designers, but my goal is to actually talk about those things so “simple” that most of the time go without saying. If this post is not for you, it’s not for you.

Think of a great RPG you like. Now think of the “abilities”, or whatever they are called, that you can buy for your character. They may be simple descriptors, like “Strong Build”, “Nimble”, or “Charismatic”. They may be classic one liners, like “So crazy it might work”, “Takes one to know one”, or “Wouldn’t hit a guy with glasses, would you?”. They may be anything really, based on anything.

Right now I’m asking you to find the common denominator between all those names in the game you picked. Got it? Then you have just found the game’s “tone”.

Why? Well, players not only will be mentally assembling their characters while reading those names; they’ll also have them written right in front on them, on the character sheet, the whole game. Funny names will get you a more relaxed atmosphere than serious ones.

You may be saying “This is so obvious”. And you are right, naming your abilities has a pretty direct effect. But what about the game actions?

Let’s take a throw of the dice, for example. Some games call them “dice rolls”, some “tests”. One I had once called them “rolling the bones” every time. Is it the same calling it an “opposed roll” or a “challenge”? No, it’s not.

And it’s not just being gimmicky and funny, it’s about making a statement. In Wacky Love (my game), other players could use your personal Foil against you. Even though the Foil entering play was in their hands, those scenes where called “Facing your Foil”. They made you Face YOUR Foil.
These scenes where about you and your character. You had the spotlight. It didn’t matter who made you Face your Foil, that was irrelevant. The moment was for YOUR personal growth. See what I’m talking about?

During your project, give a little extra thought to the names. After all, it’s better to SHOW how your setting works, rather than TELLING people “do this, do that”. Show, don’t tell.

- The Storeman

Weren’t you a pro? Or, can characters really screw this up?

Babbling at the Counter #22 – Pen and Paper

Weren’t you a pro? Or, can characters really screw this up?

I was reading an article up at Goblin Labs and it got me thinking. When a character fails a roll, are they really messing everything up? I mean, they should be good at what they do, right? Can a thief forget how to pick a lock? Can a scientist add sugar instead of cyanide to the poison?

Let’s take combat, for example. If you roll and fail, it’s not that the character forgot how to stab; it’s that the enemy deflected or avoided his attack. The character did everything he could. He had the fighting stance right and he attacked as soon as he saw an opening. But the enemy got away faster than expected and that’s why he missed.

By the same token, if a rousing speech fails to mobilize the masses, it might be because it was bland and boring, sure. Now, that’s not likely to happen to a career politician. So why did he fail? Maybe a nearby ruckus caused by a fleeing dog frightens the people (thinking it was the royal guards coming to get the traitors). Maybe someone in the crowd spokes up against the characters and he is just more respected than them (or the townspeople are more scared of him that of the party). It could even be that it starts raining and the people just decide to leave (a great speech does nothing if no one hears it).

It may fell wrong to take the failure out of the character’s hands, but that’s what happens in combat and no one bats an eye. Just think, what’s more probable: that a seasoned veteran chef forgets how long to leave the food on the oven, or that the door gets stuck and that’s why he burned the chicken?

- The Storeman

Situations, a new best friend for GMs

Review #22 – Free RPG Material

Situations, a new best friend for GMs

Instead of a game, today I offer you a nice guide for GMs. It's setting-free and easily adapted to your favorite system, so I'm pretty sure anyone can find it useful. If you don't plan on GMing soon, send this link to your GM! Let's help some Masters out there.

“Situations” offers six broad structures to build an adventure around. They are just bare

skeletons, but they make it easier to put your ideas down on paper. Written in a simple and complete way, you'll find yourself creating adventures while you read the guide even for the first time.

The cases are (taken from the index): “Long Knives is used to create situations for intrigue that the characters are tied to. Broken Places builds situations where a villain of some

sort has taken over an organization. The Quest is used to generate adventures that will take the characters out on significant journeys. Transgression is a generator for social movements and the resistance to those movements. Predator Souls is a means for making monster-hunting scenarios for your games. Nine Rooms is a method for setting up dungeons, the classical limited-space perilous situations.”

If you ever GM, you should definitely check it out. Even if you don't use the specific structure proposed, you'll find your ideas more organized in no time.

- The Storeman

Disclaimer: I didn’t upload any of the content in the following link. I have downloaded and checked it as I always do. I have even executed it in my own computer and did not experience any kind of problems. But I can’t ensure that it is free of virus and/or malware that my anti-virus programs couldn’t find. That’s the author’s responsibility.

External Link: http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/102507/Situations-For-Tabletop-Roleplaying?src=s_pi

For the Author’s site: https://sites.google.com/site/amagigames/home

Blog Carnival – December 2013 – Taking Charge!

Babbling at the Counter #21 – Pen and Paper

Blog Carnival – December 2013 – Taking Charge!

This month's Carnival is being hosted at Casting Shadows. So first of all I'd like to thank Runeslinger and leave a link to his blog.

Well, isn’t this carnival's theme just great? As I’ve said before, more than once, whenever players take charge of the course of events during a game, awesomeness can happen.

The thing is, as a GM, not everything I make is gold. I know that. And the people I play with don’t sit in front of me like some kind of TV, just wanting to see the plot and then going home. You play an RPG to actually have control over the stuff happening in the story.

Now, this is a two way street. Players should be committed to the game and their characters, adding some roleplaying and flair to the narrative. One can even try to introduce simple but flavorful scenes. Characters can (some may say should) have hobbies and other interests besides adventuring. Go to the local theater or go buy a gift for someone special. If your GM is cool enough he could have an adventure come out of it.

On the other hand, GMs have to be careful with how they handle information. To have an impact on the overall story and make sense, players will have to reveal their intentions and plans clearly and often. A GM that abuses this information will get players that shut up for their characters sake. A gaming group should foster trust between players (GM included), not a crazy “survival of the fittest” subgame. Unless that was what you where going for.


Ok, closing up. As you can see, this topic is pretty important to me. I’ve thought about this for some time and I hope you can scavenge some useful information from all this mess. See ya!

- The Storeman

More than you bargained for

Babbling at the Counter #20 – Pen and Paper

More than you bargained for

What are you willing to give for power? Or at least, what's your character willing to give? For, you see, power comes at a price. And characters usually work to get very powerful devices or spells. It's such a staple on most fantasy or supernatural stories that you have to find a way to use it in your games. Here are mine:

Less Human: The more power you have, the less human you feel. I use this in games where there is a “charisma” stat, and unless it was pretty good to begin with, it's going to become negative really fast. The idea here is that, as you get further away from humanity, humanity wants less and less to do with you. NPCs get hostile and uncooperative, and only threats or supernatural abilities can make them help the PCs. This makes even the players start to see NPCs more as obstacles than characters, and will play accordingly.

Out of Control: Can you keep it cool? The most common way to deal with this is making every failure on the dice a catastrophic failure. It's not just that the spell didn't work, it misfired and hit something else. But why don't we go the other way? If the target number was 5 and you rolled a 25 (extreme, I know, bear with me for a second) what does it mean? Was it really good, or too good? Rolls that exceed the target for too much could also result in bad consequences. Maybe, instead of charming that cute barista, the whole coffee shop is now in love with you. Do something before the strongest amongst them takes out the rest and comes knocking at your door.

Unintended Consequences: I may be taking this one from a TV series (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) but that's because it's a good one. Each and every spell or superscience device has secondary effects. Using them not only means looking for components and whatever, it's also about cleaning up afterwards. Just don't make them affect the characters directly. If the secondary effect of the phasing spell is disintegrating until death, player should find a way to prevent it so they don't lose the character. Now, if that spell brings and interdimensional menace that attacks friends and family, then you may kill someone. That's a more permanent price to play, but it doesn't stop the game.

Do you have some interesting way to handle great power in your games? Tell us all about it!.

- The Storeman

Is death cheap?

Babbling at the Counter #19 – Video Games

Is death cheap?

This is something roguelikes got me thinking about: How important is the character’s death on a game?

You see, in most games, death is an inconvenience. You die, so you play the stage again. Nothing bad really happens. You’ve just lost some time, and maybe now you know where that hidden enemy is.

But, on the other hand, roguelikes and old video games take you back to the beginning when you die, erasing all of your progress. And even though it’s not nice, I rather like it.

Having played my fair share of games, I’m familiar with the first kind of deaths, and I understand when it’s the best choice. In an RPG, for example, having your party killed shouldn’t erase thirty, forty, or even fifty hours of play.

The thing is, we are used to games treating death like this. We are used to playing the same screen until we get it right. And sometimes, I can’t help but feel that’s not the best gameplay choice.

- The Storeman

We Do, We Learn

Babbling at the Counter #18 - Game Design

We Do, We Learn

I'm far from an expert, but after what could be called (at least by me) a success last week, I'm still riding high on the fumes from my work on Wacky Love (my RPG). So why not share my insight while it's still fresh on my head?



Here's what I've learned: Follow your design, don't make it go your way.

When I started working, I was expecting a traditional RPG (as in, everyone on the party works together to attain a shared goal). Even when you experiment with narrative games, the group as a whole wants to create a story together. It's by far the most common way an RPG works. My idea, though, was nowhere near that.

As soon as I settled on "potential protagonists for a movie fight to make the love interest fall for them", it was pretty obvious that the game wasn't going to be seeing a lot of teamwork. Still, I tried to push the idea. I spent a lot of time trying to "fix" this. The thing is, there was nothing to fix. If the game required people to compete, then they would.

The end result wasn't what I expected, but there wasn't much I could do. It was either dropping the project and starting again or working in the direction it pushed me. By keeping the work up, I ended up with a game I could have never planned. And I am proud of it.

Sometimes, you see something and it gets your mind going. Embrace it. Even if it doesn't work in today's project, it might be great tomorrow. Just don't push things to much. If it doesn't "click" in place easy, then you might be placing it in the wrong place.

-The Storeman