Nick

Disbelief 2: The Disbeliefening

Dungeons & Dragons, Pathfinder, Role Playing Games, System Neutral, Table Top 1 Response »

May 162012

Thanks to flickr user DaveOnFlickr! CC BY-SA 2.0

A few weeks ago, a commenter lamented that I didn’t give specific examples when it comes to the suspension of disbelief, breaking it, and potentially getting it back. I aim to ~~misbehave~~ please, and thus I’ll try to expand upon that idea a bit more. Here are some sure-fire ways to break the suspension of disbelief and rip your players out of the story:

Clunky Mechanics

Ultimately, they are called role-playing games, and there have to be some rules otherwise it’s just shared storytelling (nothing wrong with that, either). When there are rules, especially rules which take a lot of time to play out, are difficult to understand, don’t really mesh with game very well, or are more tedious than actually fun, you run the risk of pulling back the curtain on the fantasy world you’ve delicately set up. There are many examples of crappy rules, but one that immediately springs to mind is the grappling system from D&D 3.5

Now, grappling is a big part of 3.5 D&D. Many monsters do it, and they do it very well. It’s difficult for a seasoned player to create a character that doesn’t have some way of escaping from a grapple. However, the rules are quite horrible:

1. Initiate the grapple by moving into your opponent’s square.

2. They make an attack of opportunity. If they hit and deal damage, you fail to grapple.

3. Make a touch attack to see if you can “grab” them.

4. Make opposed grapple checks to see if you can actually “grapple” them.

You could argue that the whole system of attacks of opportunity is clunky and breaks the SoD, and I wouldn’t fight you too much. I think they make sense (let your guard down, get attacked) but sometimes it seems like it would have just been better to give you a AC debuff instead. Whatever. The problem with grapple, for me, always came around step 3 and 4. You have to make two checks, one to see if you can even be in a position to grab your opponent, and then another to see, ostensibly, if you can hold on.

I don’t know why this couldn’t be handled with one check. The reason for the above rules makes sense (grab, then grapple), but ultimately it pulled my players out of the game because everyone always seemed to forget there was a touch attack involved, then a grapple check, and then you didn’t really even do anything that round, instead you had to wait until next round when you had to make another grapple check to maybe do something to your opponent (like stab him with a dagger or bite his face off). Suffice to say, grappling was extremely clunky, and what exactly you could do while you were in a grapple (cast spell? use a weapon? move the grapplers?) was constantly a question.

A good rule of thumb here is that if you have to constantly reference the rule from the rulebook, you’re breaking the suspension of disbelief; if you have to step out of character to look through the rulebook for what you’re able to do, that sucks and it has brought you out of the game. You stop visualizing what your character is doing to that orc and go elsewhere.

Pathfinder made it a bit better (took away the opposed rolls), but not much.

Popularity: 1%

The Kickstarter Problem

Board and Card Games, Comics, Role Playing Games, Technology 12 Responses »

May 092012

The lovely Kickstarter logo

Short post today. I want to talk about Kickstarter, the self-described “funding platform for creative projects.” Here’s a link to their guidelines, which constrain but don’t seem that strict.

The concept behind the site is very simple. Let’s say I want to create something. I can start a Kickstarter page, and fill it out with all the details about whatever it is I’m gonna make. Donors can come, see how much my fundraising goal is, and choose to contribute. I set up fundraising “tiers”, much like larger fundraising organizations do, except these tiers provide tangible benefits. The $10 tier might get you a personalized thank you card, the $50 tier might get you a signed copy of whatever I’m creating, and a $500 donation might get your name listed as a Gold Donor or whatever.

The main selling point of Kickstarter is that if the fundraising goal is not met, you don’t end up donating any money. So if my goal is $400, and I only raise $250, the money raised all goes back to the donors, no questions asked. So it’s kind of like risk-free financial supporting: toss some money if you like the idea, but if not enough people do, then there’s no risk.

There are definitely some cool projects that have popped up on Kickstarter in the past year or so. But I am a bit worried that it might get out of hand.

I’m not saying the Kickstarter model is a bad one. In fact, I’m absolutely positive that more projects will see the light of day because of the platform, when in the past they would have been merely the dreams of idle gamers, artists, and programmers. Kickstarter is a fabulous tool for the indie creator, to be able to subsidize the creation of whatever his or her dream project is – and if enough people can get behind it, then it’s worth creating.

Popularity: 2%

Review: Pathfinder Party-of-One BB3: Alosar Emanli

Role Playing Games 1 Response »

May 022012

Alosar Emanli: Druid Mediocre

Reviewing products, especially gaming materials, is not an easy task. There is literally an entire universe of material to consider when looking at a product and saying, definitively: “this is good” or “this is bad”. It’s very easy to slip down the rabbit hole; for example, I could easily talk about the history of D&D 3rd Edition, and how that led to Pathfinder, which eventually led us to this product. And while I don’t expect anyone to buy or not buy this product based on my recommendation (I hate to think that folks’ livelihood is on the line here), I do want to always leave a few breadcrumbs so that you might find the rabbit hole.

The product I’m reviewing today is Paizo’s Pathfinder-branded Party of One BB3: Alosar Emanli and the Creatures from the Fallen Star. It’s a short adventure for, you guessed it, one player which follows the tale of Alosar, a druid’s apprentice, as he interacts with, well, the creatures from the fallen star. I can’t say the title isn’t spot on.

There have been two previous Party Of One supplements, so I imagine that the series has been received reasonably well. The previous adventures go for 2.99 on Paizo’s website, so I would assume that this product will be priced similarly. BB3 comes in at 15 pages, with about 12 or so being the actual content and the remainder being stat tables for your character.

I am going to be reviewing a number of products in the coming weeks, months, and years, so I imagine that some kind of standardized format would be in order. Since I am a massive nerd, I thought a lot about the best system to use: a larger scale allows for a more granular rating system, while a smaller scale is easier to understand. I also considered a buy/don’t buy recommendation system, but that recommendation relies on too much information I don’t have (your budget, your preferences).

I am going to break the review of products like these into three sections: Content, Mechanics, and Format. Content will include the meat-and-potatoes of many RPG products, the story. The Mechanics section will include my review of the mechanics of the product (and I will try to stay away from talking too much about Pathfinder’s mechanics in general, in this case). Finally, Format will include all the information about the physical/digital product, including layout, artwork, editing, etc. Yes, everyone’s favorite section, when I critique other peoples’ writing. Because mine is so awesome, of course.

Popularity: 1%

Inside: Part 2, Design Elements

Role Playing Games No Responses »

Apr 182012

Thanks to flickr user planetschwa; (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

This is the second part in a series of design journals about constructing my own small RPG. It’s all open-source, licensed under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license; I will compile everything into a finished product at the end and make it available to those who want to try it out.

My local group is starting a new Dungeons and Dragons campaign (3.5), and thus, the past week or so I have been tossing ideas around for my new character. We’re going to be evil, rapacious pirates, so I’ve known that I wanted to take this chance to delve into the dark arts of necromancy, or perhaps dish out some fear-based effects.

So I designed a character who could do some of both of those things. Then I worked on a backstory, incorporating elements of a previously-conceptualized character I never got to play, and individualizing it for the group. After submitting the character backstory (a few thousand words) to my gaming group, I got a bit of cold feet on my build. I wanted to streamline my levels and feats, and instead of have a more gamey character (3 different classes in my 4 levels), I just wanted a smooth, simple character. Unfortunately, I had already written my backstory and had it approved (and worked into the plot).

I realized that my experience designing this character is a microcosm of the way that game-makers design games. I’m not breaking any new ground here; what I’m talking about is top-down vs. bottom-up design.

In building my character, I started with a bottom-up design. I built my character, piece-by-piece, and then described it at the end based on the finished product. Then, looking at the story, I decided that I wanted a different approach to building the character, so I let the story decisions inform the design aspects. Thus I switched, in the middle, from one approach to another. Neither of these was better than the other, and I found that using them in concert was actually very helpful in crafting a character that is flavorful and interesting.

Popularity: 1%

The Rule of Yes, But

Role Playing Games 3 Responses »

Apr 112012

Thanks for flickr user Joe Shlabotnik. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Quick post today, and it’s more oriented toward the GM-types, so you player-types can safely nod off. Or, if this piques your interest, direct your GMs here with some love. :) I’ve been ill the past few days, with not much time to devote to gaming (though I did soldier through a session in which we wrapped up our D&D campaign).

I just wanted to talk about a little game that was fun. I created and ran a really silly game once – based off soap operas – and other than a ridiculous set of skills and “dark secrets” for each of the characters, the primary conceit of the game was a rule I called “Yes, but”.

The game took place at the Nexus of Time and Space, and everyone played a character from a different dimension who had gotten lost at some point or other and ended up at this Nexus, kind of a trans-dimensional diner/hospital. They were recruited into the ranks of an organization of which I cannot for the life of me recall the name, but they basically went around fixing screw-ups in various dimensions and timelines.

Anyhow, the plot is barely relevant other than to set the stage for a game which I hoped would be the ultimate sandbox. Anything, literally anything goes. One character was Robot Richard Nixon. One player was an endless loop of replaceable redshirts. They key to all this was the “yes, but” rule.

Simply stated the rule is this: when a player asks if they can do something, or if something exists, the answer should always be Yes, but…

Can I have robot arms which can turn into any tool I need? Yes, but sometimes they have a life of their own.

Can I have a jetpack? Yes, but it runs on the blood of innocent babies.

Stuff like that. Dice rolls were used, but they were less for success or failure and more for how badly does this go for you.

All in all, it was a wacky system that was used for a few one-shots.

But, to this day, the idea of “yes, but” sticks with me. As the GM, you are the supreme arbiter of your world. You control what goes on inside it. But remember, you’re not a tyrannical dictator with your creations; living, breathing characters live inside and modify that world. Roleplaying is, ultimately, a shared exercise. It’s no fun when your players want to do cool stuff and you just flat out deny them. Thus I recall the concept of yes, but. As long as it doesn’t completely derail the game (and that’s not to say that derailing the game is necessarily a bad thing), be inclined to say yes. However, modify the request. Everyone is a little happier with compromise, and you can really flesh out your world by giving your players a bigger role in adding to it.

Popularity: 6%

Digitally Enhanced and Remote Gaming

Dungeons & Dragons, Pathfinder, Role Playing Games, System Neutral, Table Top, Technology 3 Responses »

Apr 042012

Some old computers! Taken by Flickr user eurleif. Thanks! CC BY-SA 2.0

Undoubtedly, the advancement of technology in the past decade has done wonders for the gaming community. D&D Insider and its suite of tools have likely changed the way that millions of players create characters, design encounters and dungeons, and develop worlds.

But I’m not here to talk about the wonders of technology, though I probably would be nowhere near as experienced or seasoned if not for the ubiquity of PDF formats of the books that I use (for the record, I’ve been a good boy and bought hardcopy versions of the material I may or may not have pirated at one point…) What I do want to talk about is the accessibility of games, in particular the accessibility of gaming groups.

I don’t need to go into a length diatribe about how roleplaying is, essentially, a social game. Since pretty much every aspect of the game is created by the GM or one of the players, there is an imperative to find more players in order to add depth and breadth to the game. This is not to say that a game cannot be successful with only two players (or maybe even one, though I would call that less of a “game” and more of an “imagination”), but I will say that there’s a reason that games tend to be played in groups – it’s more fun that way.

Unfortunately, not all of us have access to groups. I’ve been very fortunate in my gaming life that, since high school, I have been surrounded by people who either are hardcore gamers or at least have an honest desire to become hardcore gamers. Not all of us are that lucky, and there have been times when I’ve craved more gaming than I’ve been able to get locally.

I’m by no means an expert, but I have run and played in a number of games that have unfolded completely in the online environment. Below I’ll share some resources for finding, running, and playing in a game even if you don’t have access to a local group.

Popularity: 2%

The Suspension of Disbelief

Literature, Movies and TV, Role Playing Games, System Neutral, Table Top 3 Responses »

Mar 282012

Thanks to flickr user the justified sinner! CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The idea of the “suspension of disbelief”, of which you’ve surely heard, is quite simple: in order for any form of art to be effective, it’s viewer (or listener, or whatever) needs to, in some way, suspend his disbelief.

The idea was first articulated by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, in his Biographia Literaria, which can be found here:

it was agreed, that my endeavours should be directed to persons and characters supernatural, or at least romantic; yet so as to transfer from our inward nature a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith.

While Coleridge was writing particularly about the inclusion of elements macabre and supernatural in his writing, the idea holds firm today: for example, when you watch a movie, you willingly suspend your disbelief (in fact, you are simply watching rapidly-changing images projected on a large screen) and buy into the idea that Neo and Agent Smith really are fighting.

Coleridge’s idea of poetic faith is important. I think he means that there’s an implicit bargain between the poet and the reader; the poet is going to be limited by his medium or his topic, yet the reader is going to give him the benefit of the doubt anyway.

This neatly parallels the relationship between the game-master and the player. The GM sets up the world (his poetry, let’s say) and the player experiences it. Obviously, you are (most likely) not a barbarian, so there is some willing suspension of disbelief there when the game calls for you to play one. You’re not in a fantasy tavern, you’re not slamming back ale, and you’re not actually seducing wenches. (And if your gaming experience does involve all these things, do you have an extra seat at the table?)

Of course, the player needs to be suspending way more disbelief, as most of the games we play are fantastical in some way or another, whether they involve swords and sorcery, eldritch horrors, or simple standoffs and desperation. However, this comes easier than it sounds. Most of us who play role-playing games naturally want to suspend our disbelief. We take the word of the game-master or the sourcebook as the gospel. We want our games to be fun, so we’re willing to accept whatever ridiculous, convoluted worlds in which we end up playing.

After the jump I’ll discuss a couple of ways that the Suspension of Disbelief might affect your games, whether you know it or not.

Popularity: 2%

Evil: A Do-It-Yourself Guide

Dungeons & Dragons, Pathfinder, Role Playing Games, Table Top 8 Responses »

Mar 212012

Thanks to flickr user elycefeliz! CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

A few days ago a friend mentioned that, in the campaign he’s planning on running this upcoming summer, he was thinking of encouraging the players to take the reins of evil characters (D&D 3.5). Wheeee! Having played a few campaigns with evil parties, I was immediately called back to those old days of 2nd editi0n sword and sorcery, where my high-school friends and I barely made it through a few sessions without devolving into a free-for-all murder-fest. Our evil campaigns never lasted long.

As we grew up, and the group evolved, the idea of an evil campaign soon came calling again, this time in college. We were more mature, valued the fun of working together to solve common goals, so we did not ruthlessly murder each-other, but instead work together to murder hundreds of others.

One of the other players in this upcoming game expressed her reservations about playing an evil character. Primarily, she said that she might have a difficult time doing the things required of an evil character: the oppression and killing of innocents and children, heinous acts of savagery, taking advantage of the weak, the poor, the indigent, and the helpless.

In light of my recent post on alignment, I thought I would revisit the concept of evil: how to define it, how to understand and manipulate it, and ultimately, how to be it, or how to confront it. I’ll try not to get too philosophical; after all, I don’t think you came here to discover the answer to the questions of the universe, nor am I really able to answer them.

I will say that having a campaign that features evil PCs, evil deeds, and evil plots is certainly possible. Playing an evil character doesn’t mean that you are personally evil, though I do admit that often our characters are reflections of ourselves. I feel like I’m dancing on some Chickian line here, but I feel confident saying playing an evil character doesn’t make you evil no more than playing a good character makes you good. It’s the opportunity to explore something different, which is what role-playing games are all about.

Popularity: 4%

Inside: Part 1

Role Playing Games 3 Responses »

Mar 142012

Thanks to flickr user freefotouk; CC BY-NC 2.0

This is the first part in a series of design journals about constructing my own small RPG. It’s all open-source, licensed under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license; I will compile everything into a finished product at the end and make it available to those who want to try it out.

Part 1: Background

Before I even start talking about my idea for a game (and don’t worry, I’ll get to that by the end of the post), I wanted to start out by talking a bit about my preconceptions I have coming into the process of designing a game, my design philosophy, and some goals I have for this process.

All of these things, I think, are necessarily related. I wouldn’t venture into designing a system without knowing things like target audience, level of familiarity with role-playing needed, similar systems available, and so forth. I can’t honestly design a game without looking to the past, both what has come before and what inspires me, and toward the future, by trying to map out exactly where I’m going.

Goals (Wherein I list a set of ambitions I may or may not attain)

0. Create a game that is fun to play.

1. Story and rules are equally important, but the tie goes to the story.

2. The world and mechanics must be internally consistent.

3. The world background should be rich, but concise.

4. Neither player nor GM should have to slog through pages of rules to find a ruling.

5. Allow as many options as possible without bloating the rules.

6. Confine the entire game to less than 10 pages.

7. Explore a setting that is under represented in role-playing games.

8. Support both campaigns and single-session games.

Popularity: 1%

Do Like the Romans Do

Literature, Role Playing Games, System Neutral 1 Response »

Mar 072012

Taken by H. Silenus of flickr. Thanks! (CC BY-NC 2.0)

This week is actually going to be a short post. I want to talk about a few things that I’m planning to do for the future (kind of a sneak preview), and then give a short talk about the Romans.

I’m planning on doing a few different things over the next few weeks/months. As you may know, I have tried to lean toward the more philosophical side of gaming rather than the practical side; I really appreciate the writers out there who share their world ideas with you, give you awesome tables to use, and stat blocks for monsters, but that just ain’t my bag.

However, I’m going to try and use this space to design a game from scratch over the next few months. It won’t be particularly complex, but I hope that it’s novel and most of all fun. I’ll be accepting design suggestions, and I’ve considered just putting it totally out there to the community to collectively design something. I think I’ll probably start with something more controlled, and then open it up wider after that.

I’m also going to continue with the philosophical musings, covering such diverse topics as LARPing, Alternate Reality Games, Video Games, and Samuel Coleridge. It’s like that freshman English seminar you had to take.

Anyway, onto the Romans…

Popularity: 1%

Older Entries

Nick

Disbelief 2: The Disbeliefening

The Kickstarter Problem

Review: Pathfinder Party-of-One BB3: Alosar Emanli

Inside: Part 2, Design Elements

The Rule of Yes, But

Digitally Enhanced and Remote Gaming

The Suspension of Disbelief

Evil: A Do-It-Yourself Guide

Inside: Part 1

Do Like the Romans Do

TitC Publications at DriveThruRPG!

Subscribe to Troll in the Corner

Argyle & Crew on Amazon.com

Self Made Scoundrel

Enter the Shadowside

School Daze

Wargaming Recon

The Wayne Foundation

Drive Thru RPG

Please buy us beer

Deniath

Meta

A member of the RPG Bloggers Network

Member: RPG Blog Alliance